>> WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:08]
TODAY IS JUNE THE 12TH, 2024.IT IS FIVE O'CLOCK, AND WE ARE MEETING IN THE CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.
I CALL THE BOARD MEETING TO ORDER, AND MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU WOULD CALL THE ROLL.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A QUORUM.
ALSO NOTE THAT OUR NORMAL ATTORNEY, TAMMY BACH IS OUT, AND WE HAVE MR. HARRISON POOL AS OUR ATTORNEY TODAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HARRISON.
WOULD YOU LEAD US TO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE?
>> ITEM 3, THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES 3.1
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
IS THE MINUTES OF OUR REGULAR MEETING ON APRIL THE 10TH, 2024.ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE?
>> THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MINUTES FROM APRIL 10TH.
>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING ONLINE, IT'LL BE THE PAGE 6 OF OUR DATABASE.
I'M NOT SURE THE PAGE IS GOING TO BE ON THE ACTUAL FILE.
THAT WAS JUST THE END OF AN ITEM THERE.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, IT STARTS OUT MISS GIBSON.
GO DOWN TO THE THIRD PARAGRAPH DOWN, BOARD MEMBERS.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THAT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE. SHE DID IT.
BOARD MEMBERS ASKED FOR A COPY OF THE SITE PLAN AND KELLY SHOWED THAT SITE PLAN AT THE MEETING, DID YOU? REMEMBER THE DETAIL ONE THAT SHOWED THE GRID FOR THE SADDLER? I THINK THAT JUST NEEDS TO SAY MISS GIBSON PROVIDED THE DOCUMENTS FOR REVIEW BY THE BOARD BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.
>> EVERYBODY THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON THAT.
MISS GIBSON PROVIDED THE BOARD WITH THE DOCUMENT TO THE BOARD.
>> IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT'S WHERE WE LOOKED AT DOING THE HAMMERHEAD DRIVEWAY UP THERE AT THE ONE DRIVEWAY THAT WENT OUT DIRECTLY ONTO SADDLER SO WE SAID THAT WAS A GOOD SOLUTION.
THAT'S NOTED AND THE ACTION TAKEN, SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE YOU NEED THERE.
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE ONE MODIFICATION CONCERNING THE DATA PROVIDED TO THE BOARD.
>> THANK YOU, MR. STEVENSON. DO I HEAR A SECOND?
>> OPPOSED LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE, THE MINUTES OF APRIL 10, 2024, HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
THE NEXT ITEM FOR REVIEW IS THE WORKSHOP HELD APRIL 24TH, 2024.
ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS SOMETHING, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THEM AS WRITTEN.
>> AS WRITTEN, DO I HEAR A SECOND?
>> SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> HEARING NONE, THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 24TH, 2024 WORKSHOP HAVE BEEN APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
THE THIRD ONE THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE ARE THE MINUTES FOR THE WORKSHOP OF MAY THE 8TH.
ARE THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR COMMENTS?
ACTUALLY, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH DOWN, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION THAT MARK BENNETT HAD STARTED, AND CONSIDERING AS LONG AS THERE IS NO PREVIOUSLY COMBINED,
[00:05:04]
DID WE EVER TAKE ANY ACTION? I THOUGHT WE JUST TABLED THAT ONE.MARK, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAYBE ANSWER THAT.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> RIGHT HERE. THIS SENTENCE RIGHT THERE.
>> WELL, THAT WAS A SUGGESTION I MADE.
>> WE NEVER TOOK A FORMAL VOTE ON IT.
>> THAT'S FINE THEN. NOW, GO DOWN TO ITEM NUMBER 4, MORE BUSINESS.
THIS ONE I GUESS MARRIES IN WITH THAT LIST OF ITEMS THAT I HAD ORIGINALLY PRESENTED SOME TIME AGO WHERE IN THE SECOND SENTENCE, BOARD MEMBERS ASK IF STAFF COULD PRIORITIZE THE LIST TO PRESENT AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON JUNE THE 12.
KELLY, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT, DID YOU GIVE AND GET ANY MORE INPUTS FROM EVERYBODY ON THAT LIST.
>> THERE'S BEEN NOTHING ADDED TO IT?
>> NO, I CIRCULATED IT FOLLOWING THE MEETING AND I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL TERMS. WHAT WAS ADVERTISED IS WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
IT'S ALREADY ITEM 5 OR 6 ON THE AGENDA.
>> IT'S GOING TO END UP JUST BEING THAT ORIGINAL LIST THAT YOU HAD ALREADY PUBLISHED IN THE MAY MEETING, I THINK IT WAS MAY 8TH MEETING.
>> FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, THERE'S BEEN ABSOLUTELY NO CHANGE ON ANY OF THAT MATTER.
>> THEN THAT REQUEST WAS MADE, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REALLY ADD TO IT SO IT'S GOOD AS IT IS.
THAT WAS THE ONLY COMMENT I HAD OR A QUESTION.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE MINUTES FOR MAY 8TH, 2024.
>> WE HAD A MOTION FROM MR. GILLETTE.
WE HAD A SECOND FROM MR. STEVENSON.
>> OPPOSE LIKE SIGN. THE MINUTES OF THE WORKSHOP ON MAY 8TH, 2024 HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE BOARD.
THAT'S EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UNDER OLD BUSINESS, I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THAT ACCORDING TO STAFF,
[4. OLD BUSINESS]
STARTING WITH THIS MEETING BECAUSE APPARENTLY WE HAVE THEM, WE HAVE THE FORMS. WHEN SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK TO US, THEN WE NEED TO FILL OUT A REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM.SOMETIMES, IT GETS VERY DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO GET THE PERSON'S NAME AND THEIR ADDRESS AND THIS JUST HELPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR.
ARE THE FORMS OUT THERE ALREADY? WE ALREADY HAVE ONE PERSON WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON ONE OF OUR SUBJECTS. [LAUGHTER]
>> IN ADDITION TELL THEM TO GIVE US THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS, TELL THEM TO FILL OUT A FORM.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS WILL BE FOR ALL BOARDS, NOT JUST US.
>> ALL BOARDS IN PLANNING AND CONSERVATION.
>> IT WOULD BE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
>> VERY GOOD. IS ANYBODY HAVING ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?
>> NO, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> ITEM NUMBER 5, UNDER NEW BUSINESS,
[5.1 PAB 2024-0007 - FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES Request to amend the Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map from Medium Density Residential (MDR) and R-2 Zoning District with PUD for Amelia Landings to Conservation (CON) Land Use and CON Zoning District for property located on Block 2 portions of Lots 14 and 15 at Sadler Road, totaling approximately 0.57 acres.]
PAB CASE 2024-0007, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES.KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THAT ONE?
>> THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS WITH THE SAME RESULT EFFECT ON TWO SEPARATE PARCELS OF LAND.
WE'LL GET STARTED WITH THE CASE THAT'S LABELED PAB CASE 2024-0007, THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH REQUESTING A LAND USE CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND ZONING DISTRICT OF R2 THAT HAS A PUD OVERLAY ASSOCIATED WITH IT FOR THE AMELIA LANDINGS AREA THAT FUNCTIONALLY WAS A C1 ZONING UNDER THAT PUD.
MOVING THAT TO CONSERVATION, RECENTLY, THE PROPERTY WAS DEEDED TO THE CITY FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH PUTTING THAT IN CONSERVATION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> GREAT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> KELLY, WE'VE GOT DIRECT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY RIGHT OFF OF SADDLER, RIGHT?
>> NO IMPEDIMENTS IN TERMS OF RIGHT-OF-AWAY RESTRICTIONS OR ANYTHING INCLUDING THAT PARK IN THE STREET.
>> THAT'S JUST ON THE WEST SIDE OF EGAN'S CREEK, THAT PROPERTY?
[00:10:06]
>> IT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WHERE THERE IS PROPERTY THAT IS ALREADY CONSERVATION LAND THAT IS PART OF THE GREENWAY MANAGEMENT PLAN.
IT'S A SOUTHERN EXTENSION OF CONSERVATION LAND.
>> WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON DOING ANYTHING WITH THIS JUST CONSERVATION LAND OR WE JUST DO MINIMUM MAINTENANCE.
>> YES, AND WE WILL DEVELOP A MANAGEMENT PLAN TIED TO PROPERTIES.
>> FOR THAT ONE RIGHT THERE, MY QUESTION WAS, IS THERE A SURVEY OR SOMETHING DENOTED WHERE THOSE STEPS PARCEL IS? BUT I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE IS BECAUSE IT JUST SAYS LANDS IN LAWS 14 AND 15, SO IT'S NOT REALLY DENOTED.
>> YEAH, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ADDRESS, EITHER.
I COULDN'T FIND ANY ADDRESS ON THAT PROPERTY.
>> ANYWAY, I'VE BEEN TOLD THERE IS A SURVEY SHOWING WHAT PROPERTY IS SOLD OFF.
>> TWO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THERE'S A PROPERTY BEHIND IT, ERIC KOHLER OWNS.
WILL HE STILL HAVE ACCESS TO HIS PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH WE ARE GOING TO BE CONSERVATION?
>> IN THE SAME WAY THAT HE CURRENTLY HAS ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.
THE OWNERSHIP HASN'T CHANGED HIS ABILITY TO ACCESS THE LAND.
>> HE COULD BUILD A ROAD IF THERE'S AN EASEMENT THERE?
>> IF THERE'S AN EASEMENT THROUGH AN ALTERNATIVE PROPERTY.
>> WHICH ONE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THERE'S A PERSON BEHIND IT.
THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO LOTS IN THERE, AREN'T THERE? THERE'S A 50 FOOTER AND 108 FOOTER.
>> HE HAS TWO. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S TWO EASEMENTS THAT'S ON LOT 14 AND LOT 15, OR MAYBE ON 14.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF STIPULATIONS WITH CONSERVATION ZONING THAT MAY PRECLUDE HIM FROM BUILDING AN ACCESS POINT TO HIS PROPERTY.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE CITY'S PROPERTY.
>> CAN YOU PULL THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS WEBSITE, PLEASE.
WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, I WANTED TO, ON BOTH PARCELS, HAS THE CITY CLOSED ON THESE? DOES THE CITY OWN?
>> THE CITY HAS NOT OWNED THE ONES ON GUM STREET, BUT YES ON SOUTHERN ONES.
>> THEY DO ON SOUTHERN ONES. DO WE HAVE AN AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM? BECAUSE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, I WAS WORKING WITH THE GUM STREET PROPERTIES AND THEY WERE CERTAINLY DEDICATED, OR SHOWN TO BE DEDICATED AS PART OF THE VARIANCE.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT BECAUSE WE'VE HELD UP OTHER APPLICANTS FOR NOT HAVING AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORMS.
>> FOR THAT REASON WE'RE WAITING UNTIL WE CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY TO PUT THIS INTO ORDINANCE FORM.
>> SO WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS HEARING WITHOUT OWNING THE PROPERTY?
>> I'VE PUSHED IT FORWARD THIS FAR.
>> TO ME IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT.
>> IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT EITHER.
>> THAT WE COULD REZONE THE PROPERTY THAT WE DON'T OWN, AND WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORIZATION.
>> BUT WE ARE NOT REZONING THE PROPERTY.
THE BOARD IS ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION, WHICH WILL THEN GO TO THE COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF AN ORDINANCE FOLLOWING THE CLOSING OF THE PROPERTY.
>> I SAY THAT BECAUSE WITH THE TRINGALI PROPERTY, THE AGENT AUTHORIZATION ISSUE CAME UP AND HAD TO GO BACK THROUGH ALL THE PROCESSES, WHICH I WASN'T PART OF, I WASN'T ON THE BOARD THEN.
BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A PRIVATE PERSON DO IT, THEN WHY WOULDN'T THE CITY HAVE ALL THE FORMS THAT THEY WOULD NEED?
>> BECAUSE IT IS. WE ARE REZONING THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION BECAUSE WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TAKING THE PROPERTY WITHOUT OWNING IT.
>> LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE THE CLOSING DOESN'T HAPPEN.
>> CAN WE FIRST DISCUSS THE PROPERTY CONSIDERED UNDER CASE 20240007, AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THAT NEXT ONE, JUST TO KEEP THE RECORD CLEAR. IF THAT'S OKAY.
>> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO ONE THING THAT NICK SAID.
THERE'S THAT LOT BEHIND IT, I'M FIGURING OUT, UNLESS HE GOES THROUGH THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO THE LEFT, HOW DOES HE GET TO HIS PIECE OF PROPERTY?
>> BUT HE SAID THERE WERE EASEMENTS IN PLACE.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND YOU ZOOM IN WITH THE AERIAL OFF, IT SHOWS TWO EASEMENTS ON LOT 14.
I JUST WONDERED I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE PARCEL LINE IS, THE NEW PARCEL LINE FOR 14.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS, IF THAT SECOND EASEMENT GIVES HIM ACCESS OR NOT.
BUT IF THAT'S HIS ONLY INGRESS AND EGRESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD, THEN I'M CONCERNED THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS ANYMORE.
>> MR. POOL WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US.
[00:15:02]
>> IF I MAY, AND MAYBE SPEAKING A LITTLE BIT OUT OF TURN.
I'M INTIMATELY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE I REPRESENTED THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE DONATION TO THE CITY.
I DID, BEFORE THE HEARING, EMAIL A COPY OF THE SURVEY, WHICH HAD BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY TO MS. GIBSON TO CONFIRM THAT.
THERE IS A JUDICIALLY IMPOSED EASEMENT, MEANING MR. KOHLER HAD BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A TAX DEED AUCTION, OR SOMEHOW ACQUIRED IT, AND IT WAS LANDLOCKED, AND BY DEFAULT NOBODY DEFENDED AGAINST IT, AND SO THE JUDGE IMPOSED A MUCH WIDER THAN NECESSARY EASEMENT.
BUT IT DOES SPAN OVER A PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST.
THERE IS ALSO A PART OF THAT EASEMENT, THIS IS ABOUT, I THINK, 125 FEET WIDE, TOTAL, AND THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 40 FEET OF THE EASEMENT IS ALSO BURDENING WHAT WOULD BE TO THE EAST.
THE CHANGING OF THE TITLE DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT ENFORCEABILITY OF THOSE LEGAL EASEMENTS AS THEY ARE IN PLACE.
NOW, BEING DESIGNATED CONSERVATION MAY PRESENT SOME CHALLENGES.
AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, WITH THIS PROPERTY, THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS GOING TO HAVE ITS OWN CHALLENGES AS BEING WETLANDS.
JUST TO HELP PROVIDE SOME OF THAT FACTUAL GUIDANCE, AND THIS IS ALL REFLECTED ON THE SURVEY, WHICH WOULD BE IN THE CITY RECORDS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT THERE ARE EASEMENTS, BUT THERE IS STILL ACCESS.
THEY STILL HAVE 40 FEET OF ACCESS TO THE EAST OF THE PARCEL THAT WAS DONATED.
>> THAT WOULD BE EAST OF PARCEL 14, THEN?
>> THEY HAVE INGRESS AND EGRESS RIGHT BESIDE LOT 2, JUST TO THE EAST OF LOT 2, THEY WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH THAT.
>> IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY THIS 40 FEET RIGHT HERE.
>> IF YOU LOOK ON HERE, THERE'S AN AREA THAT'S NOT HASHED IN.
[INAUDIBLE] THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING THERE.
BUT WHAT I WORRY ABOUT, EVEN IF IT'S WETLANDS OR WHATEVER, THEY MAY NEED ACCESS AFTER A STORM, THERE'S OTHER REASONS THEY HAVE TO GO IN THERE.
SOMEONE COULD GET HURT BACK IN THERE AND YOU NEED TO GET FIRE OR POLICE BACK THERE TO RECOVER SOMEBODY, OR A CHILD, OR WHATEVER.
>> THIRTY FEET IS USUALLY SUFFICIENT FOR SOMEONE FROM AN ACCESS EASEMENT STANDPOINT.
IF THEY'VE GOT 40 FEET, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] SURVEY, 39.8 FEET.
>> FROM THIS IT WOULD INDICATE THAT IT'S AT EAST PART OF LOT 14.
>> EAST. YES. THE 39.8 FEET IMMEDIATELY EAST AND RUNNING PARALLEL TO LOT 14 ARE STILL BURDENED BY THE SAME EASEMENT.
>> ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS CASE 0007?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE CITY ON THE GUM STREET PROPERTY.
WE HAVE AN AGENT AUTHORIZATION.
>> LET'S MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ONE.
>> IF WE'RE SATISFIED WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH 0007, I WILL HEAR A MOTION.
>> KELLY, WE HAVEN'T GOT THE MOTION WORD VERBIAGE ON HERE, HAVE WE?
>> [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] GOT IT.
>> I'LL TRY IT. MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE TO APPROVE PAV 2024-0007, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR AMELIA LANDINGS PROPERTY, AND THERE'S COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT.
>> FUTURE LAND USE OF MAP AMENDMENT AND OF ZONING.
>> AND OF ZONING CHANGE TO CONSERVATION. YES.
>> OKAY. MR. BENNETT, SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> OPPOSED [INAUDIBLE] HEARING NONE, THE AMENDMENT AND ZONING CHANGE FOR PAV CASE 2024-0007 HAS BEEN APPROVED.
MOVING ON TO ITEM 5.2, PAV CASE 2024-0008.
[5.2 PAB 2024-0008 - FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS AND ZONING CHANGES Request to amend the Future Land Use Map and Zoning Maps from Medium Density Residential (MDR)/Industrial (IND) and R-2/I-1 Zoning Districts to Conservation (CON) Land Use and CON Zoning District for property located in Block 288 Lots 2 and 3, totaling approximately 0.46 acres.]
>> THIS IS A CASE THE CITY IS REQUESTING LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE FROM A MIXED PARCEL OF PROPERTY, TWO PARCELS THAT INCLUDE BOTH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, R2 ZONING, AND INDUSTRIAL R1 ZONING, TO CONVERT THIS TO CONSERVATION LAND USE AND CON ZONING FOR PROPERTY TOTALING 0.46 ACRES.
THIS IS OF BLOCK 288, LOTS 2 AND 3 IN TOTAL.
THESE PROPERTIES WERE ORIGINALLY REQUESTED TO BECOME CONSERVATION AS PART OF A PRIOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE, ALTHOUGH NOT FINDING THEM TO BECOME CONSERVATION AS PART OF THE APPROVAL FOR THAT CASE, WHEN THE LOT SPLITS WERE PERMITTED ON A SEPARATE PORTION OF THE THEN PROPERTY.
[00:20:04]
TODAY, THE CITY IS ACTIVELY WORKING TO ACQUIRE THOSE LANDS.IT WILL APPEAR ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION.
THIS CASE WOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD UNTIL THE CITY HAS CLOSED ON THOSE PROPERTIES.
AT THIS POINT, IF THE BOARD WISHES TO POSTPONE DECISION MAKING TO A DATE IN THE FUTURE, UNTIL THE CITY HAS OFFICIALLY ACQUIRED THEM, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
I WAS HOPING TO PUSH THEM ALL TOGETHER JUST TO KEEP THINGS SIMPLE AND REDUCE OUR OVERHEAD COSTS IN PUBLISHED ADS.
IT IS AT THE BOARD'S PLEASURE IF WE'D LIKE TO TAKE ACTION NOW OR WAIT UNTIL A FUTURE DATE.
IF YOU DO WAIT UNTIL A FUTURE DATE, PLEASE MAKE THAT TIME CERTAIN SO THAT WE CAN AVOID THE RE-ADVERTISING COSTS.
>> HAVE THEY FINALIZED THE CONTRACT ON THE PROPERTY?
>> EVERYTHING'S FINALIZED SO WE JUST TURN IT OVER.
>> ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE SOMEONE THINKING WE'RE IMPLYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ZONING IF THEY DON'T SELL IT TO HIM.
>> THEY HAVE ACCESS ON THE ROAD.
>> THERE'S UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY ALONG WHAT WOULD BE THE EXTENSION OF SOUTH FIFTH STREET.
THERE IS RIGHT OF WAY TO THOSE PROPERTIES.
I CAN PULL UP AN AREA FOR YOU.
>> A HUNDRED PERCENT UNIMPROVED.
>> OKAY. THAT'S JUST AN EXTENSION OF FIVE STREET.
>> NOW, AGAIN, EMERGENCY, SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
>> YOU WOULD HAVE ACCESS THROUGH 5TH STREET.
>> DO WE HAVE TO DO ANYTHING THOUGH TO ENSURE THAT SAY FIRE OR RESCUE HAS AN ACCESS TO GET DOWN THERE WITHOUT HAVING TO CUT DOWN TREES OR GO THROUGH HEAVY BRUSH OR SOMETHING TO DO IT?
>> THEY HAVE ACCESS. IT DOESN'T MATTER.
THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT WE WOULD DEAL WITH.
THEY'RE GOING TO GO OUT THERE WITH THEIR TRUCK AND IF THEY HAVE TO GET TO THE 200 FEET DOWN, THEY'RE GOING TO GET THERE FROM HELL OR HIGH WATER BY BOAT OR WHATEVER.
>> WHATEVER IT TAKES. [LAUGHTER]
>> I HOPE WE'RE A LITTLE MORE PREPARED THAN THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. STEVENSON?
>> MR. GILLETTE, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> I APOLOGIZE, I WAS LOOKING AT THE WAY THAT IS LUMPED.
I THOUGHT THOSE WERE LUMPED TOGETHER, AND MY APOLOGIES FOR SHARING STUFF THE WRONG WAY.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, I KNOW THIS APPLICANT IS WILLING AND WANTS TO GIVE THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY, AND I KNOW THAT CONSERVATION THEY'RE HAPPY WITH, I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH THEM TODAY.
I JUST WORRY ABOUT PROCEDURE, AND WE'VE MADE PRIVATE PEOPLE GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS WITHOUT HAVING ALL THE FORMS AND WITHOUT OWNING PROPERTY.
I THINK WE SHOULD POSTPONE IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT FOR US TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WE'VE MADE OTHER PEOPLE DO.
>> WELL, YOU HAVE A POINT. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? A STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED IS IF WE DO POSTPONE THIS, WE NEED TO POSTPONE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN?
>> WHAT WOULD THAT BE YOU THINKING?
>> OUR JULY MEETING. IS THAT [INAUDIBLE] OR WILL IT TAKE MORE TIME THAN THAT?
>> WELL, MADAM CHAIR, HONESTLY, ALL THEY NEED IS AN AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM SO IT'S ONE FORM AND THEY CAN GET THAT IN A TIMELY FASHION.
>> COULD BE APPROVED PENDING THAT FORM BEING SUBMITTED AS PART OF THAT.
>> RATHER THAN WAITING TO VOTE, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN.
>> AS LONG AS WE MAKE IT PART OF THE MOTION, I THINK YOU COULD DO THAT.
>> WELL, IF IT DOESN'T MATERIALIZE, I WOULD SAY THE MOTION [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WITHDRAW IT.
>> WE HAVE THAT. DO I HEAR A MOTION?
>> I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO MAKE IT. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK YOU WILL. GO AHEAD.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PAB CASE 2024-0008 AND THAT SUBSTANTIAL INCOMPETENT INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD TO APPROVE THIS AND PENDING THAT ALL REQUIRED FORMS ARE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BEFORE COMPLETE APPROVAL.
>> YEAH. I'LL SAY THAT THE ONLY AMENDMENT WOULD BE THAT THE CITY ACQUIRE AN AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM FROM
[00:25:01]
THE PROPERTY OWNER ALLOWING THIS CHANGE TO HAPPEN.>> YOU ACCEPT THAT. WE'VE HAD THAT ACCEPTANCE.
>> IS THERE ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT WE PUT IT, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY LIKE MARCH.
>> THEY'LL TAKE CARE OF IT AND ONCE IT'S ALL DONE THEY'LL MOVE.
>> WE'VE HAD A MOTION. WE'VE HAD A SECOND.
WE'VE AGREED ON THE TERMS OF THE AMENDMENT.
>> OPPOSE LIKE, SIGN. HEARING NONE, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALWAYS GOOD TO GET SOME GOOD CONSERVATION PROPERTY.
>> WHAT ARE WE PAYING FOR THE PROPERTY ANYWAY? I NEVER ASKED THAT.
>> IT'S THE SAME, WE CAN PAY. [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT'S WHY THEY'RE DOING IT FOR A TAX DEDUCTION?
>> WHAT'S THEIR MOTIVATION TO GIVE?
>> IT'S WETLAND PROPERTY IN BOTH CASES.
>> THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IS VERY MINIMAL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE GUN PROPERTY, BUT FOR THE SADDLER PROPERTY, IT IS TO GET THE CHARITABLE DONATION.
THEY DON'T NEED IT FOR ANYTHING.
IT'S WET. JUST AS SOON AS YOU SEE IT IN CONSERVATION AND GET A LITTLE BIT OF TAX WRITE-OFF.
>> HARRISON RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE PAYING TAXES ON THAT PIECE OF RAW LAND.
>> THEY'LL SAVE MONEY ON THAT ONE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THEY'LL GIVE THEM APPRAISAL OUT THERE THAT SOMEBODY WILL TELL THEM IT'S WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND THEN THE CHANGE IN ZONING WILL OCCUR AFTER THEY GET RID OF IT AND THEY'LL PAY THE TAX DEDUCTION MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY.
>> I WOULD NOTE THOUGH THAT MR. KOHLER IS PAYING VERY LITTLE IN TAXES [INAUDIBLE]. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT WILL BE BECAUSE THEY CAME TO ME FOR THE APPRAISAL.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO SECTION
[5.3 PAB 2024-0005 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENT Request to add amendments to LDC Section 4.04.02 (E) Standards for Subdivisions General Requirements to adjust vehicular access requirements.]
5.3 PAB CASE 2024-005 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, KELLY?THIS IS A REQUEST TO MODIFY A SECTION OF CODE RELATED TO SUBDIVISION STANDARDS GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS A STICKY SECTION OF OUR CODE THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR ANY NEW SUBDIVISION.
A NEW SUBDIVISION WITHIN THE CITY IS LOTS THAT ARE BEING CREATED BEYOND TWO.
ONCE YOU GET TO TWO, YOU'RE CONSIDERED A SUBDIVISION.
IN THIS CASE, EVEN A THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
IN MANY CASES, WE HAVE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE LESS THAN 25 LOTS IN THE MAJORITY OF THE CASES THAT I'VE SEEN IN MY TENURE WITH THE CITY, THEY'VE BEEN UNDER THAT THRESHOLD.
MORE RECENTLY, WE'VE BEEN SEEING REQUESTS FOR VARIANCES ON THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF CODE, AT SECTION 402(E), WHERE THE PROPERTIES CANNOT MAKE TWO POINTS OF INGRESS-EGRESS WORK, WHETHER THAT IS BECAUSE OF THE FRONTAGE ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT, OR BECAUSE THERE IS A SECOND CONSTRAINT WHERE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH FRONTAGE TO HAVE THAT SECOND ACCESS UNDER NASSAU COUNTY STANDARDS.
THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL TENSION POINTS IN TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE THIS.
BUT YET, THE CODE HASN'T CREATED ANY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD OR MINIMUM FOR HAVING SUBDIVISIONS, IT JUST ALWAYS REQUIRES TWO POINTS.
THE REQUEST THIS EVENING IS TO PICK UP THE LANGUAGE THAT'S PROVIDED IN NASSAU COUNTY STANDARDS ENTIRELY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE REFERENCE TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHICH IS OUR REVIEW ENTITY IN THE CITY FOR SITE PLAN, AND ADOPT THAT AS OUR STANDARD.
THAT STANDARD WOULD INDICATE THAT WHERE YOU HAVE 25 OR MORE LOTS, IT'S AT THAT POINT THAT YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR APPROVAL.
ONE ACCESS COULD BE CLOSED TO PUBLIC IF IT WAS APPROVED THROUGH TRC THAT ALLOWS FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY IN SITE DESIGN TO HAVE A LESS-THAN-STANDARD ACCESS POINT, IF IT MAKES SENSE, WHETHER THAT'S FOR NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION OR TO JUST MINIMIZE THROUGH TRAFFIC IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUESTS WITHIN THE PAST FIVE YEARS OR SO, FROM THE SECTION OF CODE SOME HAVE BEEN APPROVED, SOME HAVE NOT.
[00:30:04]
WE HAVE SEEN WHERE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS DO MOVE FORWARD.THEY WILL PROVIDE FOR THAT SECONDARY ACCESS, BUT IT'S AT A LESSER STANDARD, OR IT'S NOT OPENED AT ALL.
IT SAYS IT'S ON PAPER, THAT THERE IS A SECONDARY POINT, BUT THERE'S NO IMPROVEMENTS THAT INDICATE THAT THAT IS THERE, OR IT'S REALLY JUST ON THE PLAT ITSELF, THAT SHOWS THAT THERE'S THAT STANDARD.
THAT HAS HAPPENED IN MANY ITERATIONS OF SUBDIVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY SINCE THIS CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 2006.
GOING BACK TO 2006, IT WAS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD THAT RECOGNIZED THE NEED TO PROVIDE SOME THRESHOLD OR STANDARD FOR WHEN SUBDIVISIONS WOULD REQUIRE THAT TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
THAT TOO IS BACKUP MATERIAL JUST TO HAVE A POINT OF REFERENCE.
I RECOMMEND APPROVAL AT THIS POINT AND BRINGING IT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COUNTY STANDARDS.
I THINK IT MAKES GOOD SENSE, AND IT PROVIDES A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FOR PROPERTIES IN BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.
>> MR. BENNETT, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> YEAH, I DO. BECAUSE THAT SAYS APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND I SAID, WHO ARE THEY? MY QUESTION IS, SHOULD THAT BE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CAPITALIZED, AND PUT THAT IN THERE? IT'S OUR CITY.
RIGHT HERE IT SAYS REVIEW COMMITTEE.
>> APPROVAL OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE.
>> IS THERE MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT? I UNDERSTAND THAT A SECOND ACCESS POINT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE FOR, SAY, AN EMERGENCY WHERE YOU'RE TRYING TO EVACUATE A SUBDIVISION QUICKLY.
DOES THIS CAUSE ANY HEARTBURN TO ANYBODY ON THE BOARD?
>> [OVERLAPPING] GO AHEAD, MR. BENNETT.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION WAS, WHY DO WE SAY CONSISTING OF 25-FOOT LOTS OR MORE, WOULD IT BE ALL SUBDIVISION, AND WHY NOT?
>> NO. LOTS CONSISTING OF 25 LOTS OR MORE, NOT 25-FOOT LOTS.
>> PROVISION CONSISTING OF 25 LOTS.
>> WHY DON'T WE CARE IF IT'S 25 LOTS?
>> WHY DON'T WE PUT ALL SUBDIVISIONS HAVE TWO EXCESS POINTS TO THE LOT?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE MODIFYING NOW.
>> THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE MODIFYING NOW.
>> THIS MAKES IT COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE WORD PLUS JURISDICTION AND THE ONE WORD IS KELLY PUT THE MUST INSTEAD OF SHALL.
YOU READ THE COUNTY AND IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME.
>> IT ONLY MEANS YOU WERE ATTENTIVE.
>> KELLY, COULD YOU EXPLAIN AGAIN HOW MANY LOTS TRIGGER A SUBDIVISION CURRENTLY AND WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR?
>> A SUBDIVISION IS REQUIRED WHEN YOU CREATE THREE OR MORE LOTS FROM A SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEN ALL OF THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS IN 404 TO ARE TRIGGERED FOR COMPLIANCE.
ONE OF THOSE STANDARDS IS THE NUMBER OF ACCESS POINTS REQUIRED.
>> DO YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A LOT THAT WE COULD SEE JUST VISUALLY SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE? BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES IT'S SMALLER LOTS, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS IN THOSE SMALLER LOTS.
>> I'LL ADD IF I CAN, YOU MAY PLAT THREE LOTS OFF OF AN EXISTING ROAD OR DO A MINOR SUBDIVISION THAT YOUR ONLY ACCESS POINT IS EACH LOT HAS THE SAME ROAD AS AN ACCESS POINT.
I REMEMBER FROM THE COUNTY A LONG TIME AGO, THEY PUT THE 25 LOTS IN THERE AND THAT WAS A FIRE MARSHAL THING BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID THAT IF A CAR BROKE DOWN, THE FIRE TRUCK COULDN'T GET IN AND THEY NEEDED A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS, AND 25 LOTS WAS SOME STANDARD THEY HAD PULLED.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM BUT IT'S BEEN IN THERE FOR A LONG TIME AND IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.
>> KELLY, HIGHLAND DUNES ORIGINALLY HAD THAT ON THE 18TH VERSUS A 17TH STREET ACCESS.
WE ENDED UP MAKING THE HIGHLAND DUNES DEVELOPMENT, THE 17TH STREET BECAME AN AUXILIARY LESS THAN STANDARD.
>> RIGHT. THAT SECOND POINT IN HIGHLAND DUNES SPECIFICALLY.
>> IT'S JUST LANDSCAPED WITH BALLARDS THERE.
MY UNDERSTANDING BEHIND THE REASON WITH THAT IS THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THROUGH TRAFFIC FROM HIGHLAND DUNES INTO THE ORIGINAL GRID OF THE CITY.
>> BUT THEY DID LEAVE A FIRE ISLAND WHICH SITS IN WHAT WOULD BE THE ROAD.
>> BUT STILL IT STILL GAVE THEM LIKE 12 FEET OF CLEARANCE, SO IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
THAT'S AN EXAMPLE FROM WHAT 10, 12 YEARS AGO
[00:35:03]
THE REMOVAL OF IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY.
IS THERE A REASON WHY WE'RE TAKING THAT OUT? [NOISE] I KNOW THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO ALLOW FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY BUT NOW IT'S NOT STATED ANYWHERE THAT IT HAS TO BE AN IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY.
THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN. LANGUAGE AS IT IS NOW.
>> THAT'S A GREAT POINT. ALL SUBDIVISIONS CONSISTING OF 25 LOTS OR MORE AND MUST PROVIDE AT LEAST TWO POINTS OF ACCESS TO AN IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY.
>> IMPROVE RIGHT AWAY. [OVERLAPPING] WELL, I THINK I WAS GOING TO BUILD ON THAT AND HE SAID, COULD SOMEBODY AS THEIR SECOND POINT OF ACCESS GIVE AN EASEMENT VERSUS A RIGHT OF WAY.
BECAUSE THE COUNTY THEY CAN DO THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN IMPROVE THE 30 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT JUST FOR A FIRE TRUCK AND IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
>> I THINK THAT'D BE A GOOD OPTION.
>> IT'S THERE AS A MEANS WHEN YOU GET MORE THAN 25 LOTS OR MORE.
I THINK THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS GOOD.
>> I'M GLAD TO SEE WE'RE GETTING CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY BECAUSE AS WE START TO BRING MORE COUNTY PROPERTIES IN, WE COULD BE FACED WITH MORE AND MORE OF THESE ISSUES AND SO ON.
IT'S RIGHT. THE EXPOSURE MAY INCREASE.
>> BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE 25 WATTS OR MORE.
MY QUESTION IS, I MEAN, MY CONCERN WOULD GO TO, WE WOULD HAVE MOSTLY SMALLER SUBDIVISIONS OF ANYWHERE 5-10.
WHY WOULDN'T THEY NOT REQUIRE TWO ACCESS POINTS FROM THEM? I MEAN, 25, I'M GUESSING WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE MANY SUBDIVISIONS OF 25 LOTS OR MORE.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT AND IT'S UNLIKELY THAT WE'RE GOING TO.
WHERE WE DO SEE THEM AT 25 OR MORE, THE ABILITY TO HAVE THOSE TWO POINTS IS THERE, THE FLEXIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR THAT IS TYPICALLY THERE BECAUSE IT'S A LARGER LOT, AND IT MAY CONNECT TO ANOTHER NATURAL POINT FOR INGRESS-EGRESS.
WHAT WE OFTEN SEE ARE FIVE OR 10-LOT SUBDIVISIONS, AND THERE'S NO WAY TO PROVIDE FOR THAT AND MEET ALL OF THE OTHER LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS.
IT MAY FORCE, AND I PUT UP AN EXAMPLE HERE OF A PROPERTY RECENTLY ACQUIRED OR ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OFF OF AMELIA ROAD, WHERE THEY ONLY HAVE 150 FOOT OF FRONTAGE.
IN THAT SCENARIO, ONCE YOU START BRINGING IN A ROADWAY, AND HAVING A SECOND POINT OF INGRESS-EGRESS WITHIN THAT SAME AREA DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE SENSE.
>> YOU HAVE FOR WHAT? SIXTY FEET?
>> I'M SORRY. [OVERLAPPING] I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS PULLED UP, AND I'M LOOKING AT IT ON MY SCREEN AND YOU CAN'T SEE IT.
>> WELL, THE BAILEY ROAD PLAT THAT WAS JUST DONE, IT'S A SINGLE ROAD WITH A CUL-DE-SAC.
WHO PHYSICALLY COULD NOT DO A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS BECAUSE YOU ONLY HAVE LIKE KELLY SAID, 150 FOOT OF FRONTAGE OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE ON BAILEY ROAD.
IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO DO A LOOP ROAD AROUND.
>> BECAUSE IT EATS UP THE LAND.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE THE LAND TO DO IT.
>> WE HAVE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD.
>> YEAH, WE HAVE STANDARD RIGHT WAY.
>> I KEEP THINKING OF ONE RIDE OVER BY THE ZOOM, YOU KNOW, OF CITRON, ONE WAY IN ONE WAY OUT.
>> YOU ON THERE ON A WEEKEND AND YOU CAN BARELY GET AROUND A CIRCLE.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SHEL CO? IT'S A PUD.
THE ROAD WELL THEY HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS THERE, BUT IF YOU'RE ONLY HAVING ONE ACCESS POINT, A REALLY NARROW ROAD THERE.
DOES THAT CREATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT WE DO HAVE MINIMUM WIDTH REQUIREMENT?
>> THAT'S 48 LOTS, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TWO ACCESS POINT REQUIREMENT ANYWAY.
>> DOES THIS ONLY INCLUDE SUBDIVISIONS? WHAT ABOUT IF YOU HAVE A CONDO ASSOCIATION WITH AN ACCESS POINT AND ABOUT 100 CONDOS?
>> DOING THIS, THERE'S NO SAFETY ISSUES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED OR LOWERING SAFETY ISSUE? [OVERLAPPING].
>> BEING ABLE TO GET IN OR THEY HAVE TO ACCESS POINT FOR A REASON AND I'M GUESSING THAT SAFETY FIRE AND AMBULANCE AND POLICE IT WILL GO TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR REVIEW BY THE APPROPRIATE FIRE PERSONNEL.
ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE WILL REVIEW IT BEFORE TO ENSURE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE AND SAFE.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAD THIS IN HERE, NOW WE'RE CHANGING IT AND THE REASON DOES THAT CREATE A SAFETY ISSUE? I GUESS WHERE I'M FROM.
TIME YOU WOULD KNOW BETTER THAN ANY OF US.
I DON'T THINK IT DONE. OKAY. C IT DOES, AND EVERYBODY'S OKAY?
[00:40:02]
>> THE LANGUAGE THOUGH I MEAN, WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION A MINUTE AGO ABOUT THIS IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY.
DOES THAT LANGUAGE NEED TO BE IN THIS OR NOT?
>> LET ME SEE HERE, RECORD CONSISTENT.
TO AND IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL.
IS THERE THERE ANY THESE ARE ALL VERY GOOD CHANGES? I MUST PROVIDE AT LEAST TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
>> CHAIR. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO APPROVE PAB 2024-005 LDC CHANGE TO GENERAL SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO I HEAR A SECOND.
>> ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
HEARING NONE, THE MOTION IS APPROVED FOR PAD CASE 20204-0005.
UNDER ITEM NUMBER 5.4 PAB CASE 2024-0006,
[5.4 PAB 2024-0006 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENT Request to add amendments to LDC Section 4.05.00 Landscaping, Buffers, and Tree Protection, specifically amending references, correcting invasive plant list, and incorporating updated Florida friendly landscaping practices in Sections 4.05.01 Generally, 4.05.02 Applicability, 4.05.03 Landscape Materials Standards, renumbering sections which follow, and incorporating plain language in Section 4.05.04, and clarifying Section 4.05.13 in applicability to only Landscape Standards.]
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TEXT AMENDMENT. KELLY?>> THIS ONE REQUIRES A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLANATION.
TONIGHT, YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER SOME CHANGES TO OUR LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING STANDARDS.
PREDOMINANTLY WITHIN THE LANDSCAPING SECTION TO ACCOMPLISH SEVERAL THINGS.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DIRECTION ALREADY INCORPORATED IN LANDSCAPING FOR USE OF NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS IN FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING.
BUT SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE UNDER BOTH FLORIDA STATUTE, AND AS IT'S EVOLVED OVER TIME HAS CHANGED.
THE REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS TO UPDATE THOSE REFERENCES TO BE CURRENT WITH FLORIDA LAW, AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT ANY CONFLICT WITHIN THEM AND HOW IT FUNCTIONALLY OPERATES.
IF IT'S OKAY, I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE SUBSECTIONS THAT ARE MORE SUBSTANTIVE AND CHANGE AND PROVIDE SOME EXPLANATION.
FIRST, IN GENERALLY, WHAT WE WANT TO DO INSTEAD OF ENCOURAGING FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING, ACTUALLY REQUIRING IT FOR DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES.
WE'VE BEEN ENCOURAGING IT FOR A LONG TIME, AND I DO THINK THAT WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF SUCCESS WITH ENCOURAGING IT, BUT MOVING IT INTO THAT NEXT PHASE BY REQUIRING FLORIDA FRIENDLY.
LANDSCAPING ALLOWS US TO REALLY THINK ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY AND REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT'S REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH NEW PLANTS, MAKING SURE THAT THEY ARE MORE DROUGHT TOLERANT, AND THAT THEY ARE IN FACT NEEDED TO THE LANDSCAPE THAT'S HERE.
>> I ASK THE QUESTION ON THAT POINT, IS THERE AN ISSUE OR A CONCERN RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER OF NOW WITH THIS CHANGE, PROPOSED CHANGE FROM BEING RECOMMENDED TO NOW BEING REQUIRED BECAUSE I WAS READING THE STATUTES, THE SECTION 185 UNDER LOCAL FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING ORDINANCES, WOULD THAT BE? ANYWAY, BASICALLY, THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS, ARE WE PUTTING A REQUIREMENT WHERE A PROPERTY OWNER CAN SAY, THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANT TO DO?
>> THEY AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER COULD.
IF WE GET THROUGH SOME OF THIS, I THINK YOU'LL GET TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THESE SECTIONS WORK TOGETHER WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT'S COMING INTO THE CITY AND HOW THAT WOULD WORK VERSUS A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY OWNER WHO MAYBE JUST REALLY LIKES A NON NATIVE PLANT MATERIAL AND WANTS THAT THERE?
>> I THINK IF WE PUT UNDER GENERALLY 4.05, 01, BASICALLY THE PREAMBLE TO THIS WHOLE SECTION HERE, AND IT SAYS THAT IT IS REQUIRED THAT THE FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING PRINCIPLES ARE INCORPORATED BASICALLY INTO THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN.
THEN HOW HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT?
>> WELL, SUPPOSEDLY FOR JUST NEW DEVELOPMENT, CORRECTLY AND REDEVELOPED.
IN OUR CODE, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO PUT SO MANY TREES ON THE LOT.
AT ONE TIME IT WAS THREE PALM TREES IN THE FRONT AND ONE ON EACH CORNER OR SOMETHING.
THIS IS GOING BACK TO THIS IS NO EXOTIC PLANTS BEING PLANTED.
>> I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST A SLIGHT WORDING CHANGE TO ITEM NUMBER 9.
I'M SAYING REQUIRING THAT, FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPE PRINCIPLES WILL BE UTILIZED SLASH APPLIED AND WE CAN PICK UP, WHICH IS THE RIGHT WORD IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN.
[00:45:04]
I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN OVERLY BURDENSOME REQUIREMENT.>> WELL, I MEAN, THERE IS A SECTION TALKING ABOUT HARDSHIP RELIEF, AND I APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION THAT STAFF GAVE US, WHICH IS THAT THEY'RE MORE LIKE TWEAKS AS OPPOSED TO A WHOLESALE BEING EXEMPT FROM THE WHOLE THING.
AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH US, MAKE SURE THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING OURSELVES INTO.
>> TELL IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO FIGHT THAT, WHAT WOULD THEY TAKE TO TRV? I MEAN, NOT NOT TRV, BUT THE BOA.
>> WHY WOULD YOU FIGHT IT? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EXISTING PROPERTY OR YOU TALKING ABOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DIFFERENCE?
>> NO. THIS IS THIS WOULD BE NEW.
>> WELL, A NEW PROPERTY, WE ALREADY HAVE PLENTY OF CODES OF WHAT YOU CAN DO AND THAT DO, SO THIS WOULD BE DON'T PLAN ANY BASIC PLANTS OR EXOTICS.
I DON'T SEE WHAT THAT THAT'S WHAT I SEE.
>> BUT THE FURTHER FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING IS IT DOESN'T JUST DEAL WITH EXOTIC PLANTS.
IT DEALS WITH THE TYPES OF PLANT.
THEY HAVE A THEY HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF THINGS.
THESE WORK WELL, THEY SURVIVE HERE AND SO FORTH.
>> WELL, THE NEXT SECTION SAYS REMOVING.
>> TREES WITHIN THE CITY, WHICH I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY I DON'T KNOW.
>> GO AHEAD, BOB. YOU HAVE TO BE READY TO REALLY DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY FLORIDA FRIENDLY? IT'S NOT JUST TO.
>> I KNOW, BUT YOU HAVE TO BE READY TO EXPLAIN IT TO SOMEBODY THAT ALREADY HAS HAS THEIR LANDSCAPING DONE.
>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING BACK AND MAKING SOME MATER.
>> NO, NO, BUT I'M SAYING ABOUT SOMEBODY THAT COMES IN AND STARTS TO PLANT.
>> WELL, THERE'S A WHOLE LIST OF DON'T WE HAVE A SUGGESTED BOOK TO GO TO WITH ALL WE DO SEE WHERE ALL THE PLAYS YOU CALL TAYLOR CLAM UP AND HE SEND YOU A BOOK.
>> THOSE LISTS ARE ALL BEING MODIFIED AND THE UPDATES PROVIDED TO HAVE THOSE CORRECT REFERENCES IN THIS SECTION.
>> YOU GOT THAT LANGUAGE ALREADY IN THERE IN THE MODIFICATIONS, RIGHT?
>> TELL THEM THE EXACT LANDSCAPING THAT THEY CAN USE AS FORD.
>> I DON'T SEE THIS AS A NEGATIVE AT ALL.
I THINK THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE DEVELOPING IN THE CITY DO FLORIDA FRIENDLY, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT.
WE DON'T WANT MORE INVASIVE SPECIES, AND PEOPLE NEED TO FOLLOW THAT JUST LIKE THEY NEED TO FOLLOW THE AMOUNT OF TREES THAT THEY NEED TO REPLACE WHEN THEY REMOVE THEM.
>> LIKE NOW FOR KELLY TO KEEP GOING.
THAT HAS KEEP GOING, BUT AS WE DO.
>> I WANT TO ADD SOMETHING UP HERE THOUGH.
UNDER KEN, WHERE IT SAYS, REMOVING EVASIVE PLANTS AND TREES WITHIN THE CITY.
WE NEED TO NOTE IN THERE ADD, FLORIDA VENTURES.
WE NEED TO ADD THAT, THEY NEED TO BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY.
BECAUSE PART OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT PEOPLE IN SOUTH FLORIDA, THEY TAKE OUT BRAZILIAN BERRIES OR MARACA, GO DOWN THE STREET AND THE SEEDS ARE FLYING EVERYWHERE, AND IT JUST CREATES ANOTHER PROBLEM.
DISPOSAL NEEDS TO BE ADDED HERE SOMEWHERE PROPERLY.
BECAUSE AROUND HERE, THEY'LL THROW IT IN THE LOT NEXT CAR ON MINE.
THEN CALL UP THE CITY REMOVE THE PLANT.
>> THINGS HAVE TO BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY, SO THEY'RE NOT A PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO PLANTS AND SEEDS AND ALL THAT.
>> I WOULD CHANGE THE "AND" WITH REMOVING WITH PROPERTY DISPOSAL, MAYBE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S THEIR NAME THAT ISSUES TO THE LIST IS ALL ING.
>> WHERE IT SAYS FLORIDA-FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING PRINCIPLES AND LANDSCAPE, I WOULD ADD ADD FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES, HAS TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THERE SO THAT THEY KNOW WHERE THE PLANTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.
>> IT REFERENCES YOU TO A DOCUMENT THAT TELLS YOU WHAT THOSE ARE.
>> INVASIVE PLANTS AND TREES AS NOTED ON THE FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL WEBSITE BOOK PAMPHLET.
>> WAIT. BEFORE WE GET THERE, ARE WE ARE GOOD WITH NUMBER 10?
>> ARE WE GOOD WITH 10? EVERYBODY'S OKAY? WHAT ABOUT NINE? ARE WE ALSO GOOD WITH NINE?
>> I THINK THE WORDING NEEDS TO CHANGE.
>> WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THEN?
>> REQUIRING THAT FLORIDA-FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING PRINCIPLES WILL BE UTILIZED/APPLIED TO THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN.
[00:50:06]
BECAUSE WHAT IT READS RIGHT NOW IT SAYS LANDSCAPING PRINCIPLES INTO LANDSCAPE DESIGN.>> YOU CAN PICK EITHER UTILIZED OR APPLIED.
BECAUSE BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU'RE TAKING GUIDANCE, THE ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEER OR DESIGNER WILL HAVE AND THEN HE OR SHE WILL APPLY THOSE PRINCIPLES INTO THE DESIGN.
AND THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE.
>> AND YOU DIDN'T LIKE THE NUMBER 10?
>> FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL?
>> NUMBER 10, IT JUST SAYS REMOVING AND DISPOSING OF INVASIVE PLANTS.
WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT ARE THEY? WELL, WE HAVE A LIST FROM THE FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL.
PUT THAT IN THERE BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHERE THE LIST OF INVASIVE SPECIES ARE LOCATED.
>> WELL, WHEREVER IT IS, JUST TELL ME WHERE IT IS.
>> RIGHT HERE. GO DOWN TO SECTION 0503.
IT SAYS, PLANTS IDENTIFIED AND IS INVASIVE SPECIES; CLASS 1 OR CLASS 2 IN NORTH AMERICA DATA, AND IT'S IN PROHIBITED INVASIVE SPECIES, NO USES, HIGH RISK NORTH FLORIDA FROM THE UF/IFAS ASSESSMENT OF NON-NATIVE PLANTS IN THE FLORIDA NATURAL AREA MUST BE REMOVED.
>> CAN WE REFERENCE BACK TO THAT WITH THE CHAPTER NUMBER AND JUST SAY, REFERENCE 40503?
>> BE CLEAR. THIS IS A REALLY INTENSE TYPE SECTION.
IT'S TELLING YOU AND THIS IS THE STANDARD.
THIS SECTION THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING PREVIOUSLY IS SIMPLY TELLING YOU WHY DO WE HAVE THE STANDARDS IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHAT IS IT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE FROM THE STANDARDS THAT WE ARE NOW LAYING OUT FOLLOWING IT?
>> HERE'S A THING, WHAT KELLY HAS IN HERE, IT SAYS THE MOST RECENT, DOESN'T GIVE A DATE SPECIFIC, MOST RECENT FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL PLAN LIST.
YOU'D ALWAYS BE WORKING WITH THE MOST RECENTLY RELEASED LIST.
YOU CAN'T PUBLISH IT SPECIFIC THING.
>> NOW, DOES THE BOARD WANT TO TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
[8. PUBLIC COMMENT]
AT THIS TIME WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS SECTION OR DO WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WE FINISH OUR DISCUSSION?>> WE'RE MOVING RIGHT THROUGH THIS WHOLE AGENDA.
>> SOMEBODY RAISE THEIR HAND AND LET THEM SPEAK AND LET'S MOVE ON AFTER THEY SPOKE.
>> ARE WE OKAY WITH HAVING [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS THAT WIGHT WITH EVERYBODY?
>> WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE WHEN WE ALL FORGOT, WHY ARE YOU HERE?
>> WE DO HAVE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM MISS BEV LAWRENCE, AND MISS LAWRENCE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK?
>> BEV LAWRENCE, 1205 DATE STREET, FERNANDINA.
FIRST, I WANT TO THANK KELLY, HER STAFF, KATHY RUSSELL, DAVE NEVILLE.
AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO THANK DR. TAYLOR CLEM WHO HAS ALSO PROVIDED KELLY WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT LANGUAGE FOR THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE.
I TALKED TO HIM THE OTHER DAY.
HE'S ALSO TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING WITH THE COUNTY SO WE COULD HAVE THE SAME ORDINANCE BOTH IN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.
HE'S LOOKED AT THE LISTS VERY CAREFULLY.
AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR, I THINK HE DOUBLE CHECKED EVERYTHING TO MAKE SURE WE HAD THE RIGHT LISTS IN THERE.
I'M A RETIRED BIOLOGIST FROM THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
AND AS A REGULATOR, I SAW FIRSTHAND HOW INVASIVE SPECIES WOULD COME IN AND OUT COMPETE IN YOUR NATIVE VEGETATION.
UPON RETIREMENT, I DID A REWEED WRANGLE WITH KATHY RUSSELL, AND THIS WAS BACK IN 2016.
AND BACK THEN, I WAS SURPRISED.
WE HAD A WHOLE AREA IN THE GREENWAY, IN WHICH KATHY'S BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, MONITORING IT.
WE'RE WORKING WITH HOMEOWNERS ONCE WE SEE BRAZILIAN PEPPER AND DOING OUR BEST TO TRY TO ERADICATE THAT SPECIFIC ONE.
IT'S DEFINITELY A NUISANCE IN SOUTH FLORIDA.
SINCE I'VE BEEN RETIRED, WORKING WITH KATHY, WE'VE FORMED A GROUP, THE INVADERATORS, AND WE GO OUT A COUPLE TIMES A MONTH, AND WE REMOVE AS MANY INVASIVE PLANTS AS WE CAN ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.
[00:55:07]
WE NEED MORE PEOPLE. INVASIVES ARE JUST EVERYWHERE.JUST LOOKING AT ASPARAGUS FERN, IF YOU LOOK AT SEASIDE PARK, WHICH WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR SEVERAL YEARS, WE'VE REMOVED AS MUCH ASPARAGUS FERN AS WE CAN POSSIBLY CAN.
IF YOU GO RIGHT DOWN THE STREET TO MIZELL, YOU'LL SEE THAT YOU'VE GOT ASPARAGUS FERNS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BEACH ACCESS WAY, AND IT'S CREEPING ALL THE WAY INTO THE DUNE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T WANT.
I THINK IF YOU APPROVE THESE CHANGES, IT'LL PROVIDE MORE AWARENESS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
THE OTHER THING IS THIS IS A LOT OF YOUR NURSERIES DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.
PEOPLE THERE ARE JUST TRYING TO SELL PLANTS.
IF WE CAN HAVE MORE AWARENESS ON INVASIVES AND PROMOTE THE PLANNING OF FLORIDA-FRIENDLY OR NATIVE PLANTS, I THINK THIS WILL BENEFIT THE REMAINING ECOSYSTEMS LEFT ON THE ISLAND.
THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO PASS ON A COMMENT ABOUT ON TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK, TAYLOR CLEM WAS AT THE HIGHLAND DUNES HOA AND PRESENTED THE FIRST GOLD LEVEL FLORIDA-FRIENDLY LANDSCAPE DESIGN IN THEIR LITTLE PARK, WHICH IS 50 BY 200 FEET.
THE FLAG HAS BEEN IMPLANTED IN THE GROUND.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO SHOW UP EITHER IN THE NEWS LEADER IN TWO WEEKS OR IT MAY IN PROBABLY IN THE OBSERVER.
THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THE INFORMATION FOR IT.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN THE NEW CHANGES, AND THE WHOLE THING IT'S DOING IT IN THE FLORIDA-FRIENDLY WAY.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE INVESTMENT THAT THE HOA MADE, IT WAS MINIMAL.
WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME PRESS OUT OF IT.
BUT TAYLOR WAS THERE FOR THE PRESENTATION.
>> ANOTHER THING THAT TAYLOR WAS MENTIONING THE OTHER DAY WHEN I WAS TALKING TO HIM, THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT'S GOING TO START GETTING INVOLVED A LITTLE BIT MORE AND SAYING, HEY, YOU CAN'T WATER AS MUCH AS YOU USED TO WATER.
THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD, BUT YOU'RE DOING NEW DEVELOPERS A FAVOR BY PUTTING THIS IN NOW.. YOU GET PLANTS OUT THERE AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SURVIVE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGULATIONS ON WATER TOLERANT PLANTS? ZERO SAFETY.
>> THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE TERMINOLOGY THAT IS WATER TOLERANT, DROUGHT TOLERANT TYPE OF PLANT MATERIAL.
IT'S FLORIDA-FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING.
>> ZERO SAFETY NOW [LAUGHTER].
>> AROUND THE DAY WE HAVE TO BE AWARE NOW OF MITTEN CRABS NOW INVADING.
>> WE'RE MOVING INTO THE NEXT SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY AND HOW WE WOULD CREATE FOR LANDSCAPING COMPLIANCE.
UNDER THIS, THERE IS AN EXEMPTION SECTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE OVERALL SECTION TIED TO LANDSCAPING 40500, AND MAKING AN AMENDMENT THAT PROPERLY REFERENCES THE FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL PLANT LIST AS AMENDED.
THE CURRENT REFERENCE IS OUTDATED.
THE OTHER CHANGES WITHIN THIS SECTION ARE MOVING IT TO PLAIN LANGUAGE, REMOVING THE SHELLS, MAKING THE MUSTS.
>> IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS THERE, WE MOVE ON.
THEN WE GET INTO THE LANDSCAPE MATERIALS STANDARDS.
IN ADDITION TO PLAIN LANGUAGE, THIS IS ANOTHER AREA WHERE WE REALLY GET INTO DETAIL ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AS INVASIVE SPECIES, SPECIFYING THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THESE CLASS 1 AND CLASS 2 SPECIES ON THE NORTH FLORIDA MOST RECENT FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL PLANT LIST.
I THINK I'M MISSING A T THERE OR MAYBE IT'S THE SCREEN.
THEN ALSO, INDICATING THAT ANY PLANT THAT'S LISTED AS PROHIBITIVE, INVASIVE, INVASIVE NO USES, OR HIGH INVASION RISK IN NORTH FLORIDA FROM THE UF/IFAS ASSESSMENT OF NON NATIVE PLANTS IN FLORIDA'S NATURAL AREAS.
IT DID COME FROM DR. CLEM AS PART OF HIS REVIEW, SO THAT IT WOULD COVER BOTH OF THOSE LISTS OF MATERIALS WHEN IDENTIFYING WHETHER A PLANT IS CONSIDERED INVASIVE FOR THE CITY.
>> YOU ALSO SAY HERE, AND I WOULD ADD AGAIN IN THIS SECTION, AND DISPOSED OF PROPERLY.
[01:00:01]
BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT MUST BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU ALSO DISPOSE OF THEM PROPERLY.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT RULES IS AROUND THAT.
YOU COULD PROBABLY TELL ME, BUT I KNOW THAT YOU JUST CAN'T THROW THEM OUT IN A VACANT LOT SOMEWHERE.
>> THE EXISTING RIGHT NOW, THE PROCESS TODAY IS, AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, [INAUDIBLE] ATTENDING LAWYER IS KEEPING US OUT OF TROUBLE TODAY.
THERE ARE TWO LOCATIONS WHERE EVERYBODY TAKES THEIR TRIMMINGS AND WHATEVER FROM THE TREES, AND THE CITY PICKS IT UP ONCE A WEEK, BUT THAT IS OPEN, EXPOSED PILES IN A SPECIAL AREA WHERE THEY CAN COME DOWN AND PICK IT UP WITH THEIR SCOOP TRUCKS.
>> WHERE DO THEY TAKE ALL THAT?
>> IT TAKES IT TO A CITY DUMP OUT HERE BY THE AIRPORT.
>> SOMEONE THAT'S GOING TO PULL ONE OF THESE EVASIVE PLANTS OFF THEIR SITES, NOW THEY PULLED IT OUT OF THE GROUND. NOW WHAT DO THEY DO WITH IT?
>> WAIT FOR THE CITY TO PICK IT UP.
>> PICK IT UP AND TAKE IT DOWN TO YOUR HOUSE.
>> NO. I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> YOU GOT TO TAKE THIS STUFF AND MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T GROW SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME SPEAK AGAIN?
>> NO, THAT'S A GOOD POINT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY ADDRESSED IT.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> BEV LAWRENCE, 1205, DATE STREET. THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR EVERYTHING BECAUSE WITH THE BRAZILIAN PEPPER, IT'S SUCH A BIG TREE.
WE'VE JUST LET YOUR REGULAR PEOPLE PICK IT UP WITH YOUR DEBRIS, AND IT'S TOUGH, SO I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.
FOR ASPARAGUS FERN BECAUSE IT HAS THE BERRIES, WE DO BAG THEM AND THEN MAKE SURE WE PUT THEM IN THE TRASH, BUT IT COULD POTENTIALLY, YOUR POINT, BE A PROBLEM WHEN IT COMES TO BRAZILIAN PEPPER.
THIS IS YEARS AGO, I KNOW MELALEUCA WAS ALWAYS A PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU HAD PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO BURN IT, BUT YOU CAN'T BURN IT HERE IN THE CITY.
YOU'VE GOT A GOOD POINT, AND I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER.
>> WELL, SOME CACTUS IF YOU JUST BLOP OFF A PIECE OF IT, THROW IN THE DIRT, IT'LL GROW.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE TRUCKING THIS STUFF EVERYWHERE OFFSITE TO CREATING A BIGGER PROBLEM.
>> LIKE I SAID, YOU'VE GOT A GOOD POINT.
FOR THE BRAZILIAN PEPPER, WE'RE JUST HAULING IT OFF, BUT WE ARE DOING SOMETHING FOR THE ASPARAGUS FERN BECAUSE IT'S SMALLER, YOU CAN SEE THE BERRIES, AND IT'S EASY TO BAG UP.
>> THAT JUST GETS PICKED UP IN THE REGULAR WASTE PICK UP?
>> YEAH, REGULAR TRASH AS OPPOSED TO THE DEBRIS.
>> YOUR JOB SINCE YOU'VE COME UP HERE IS TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> FOR MELALEUCA, THERE WAS PODS THAT COME OFF OF THE YARD.
ANYWHERE THEY DROP, THEY GROW A TREE.
>> THEY DON'T REALLY GROW [INAUDIBLE].
>> KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO KEEP GOING? KELLY, KEEP GOING ON THIS? LET'S MOVE THROUGH IT.
>> JUST MAKING SURE THAT I HAVEN'T MISSPOKEN OR REPRESENTING ANY MEANINGFUL CHANGE HERE.
WITHIN THIS SAME SUBSECTION, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC MATERIALS FOR DROUGHT TOLERANCE, THAT HAS BEEN STRUCK, AND FLORIDA FRIENDLY.
THE CURRENT CODE HAS SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
IT TALK ABOUT XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING.
IT PROVIDES A TABLE ABOUT IRRIGATION AND GRASSES AND SHRUBS AND TREES, AND HOW YOU ARE TO ALLOCATE THAT WITHIN YOUR DEVELOPMENT SITE, AND IT REQUIRES THAT YOU MEET A MINIMUM STANDARD OF THOSE POINTS.
WE ARE REPLACING THAT ENTIRELY.
IT'S BEING REPLACED WITH A SUBSECTION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDANCE OF DR. CLEM.
IT'S ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE PORTIONS OF CODE THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING WITHIN THE CITY OF GAINESVILLE NOW SINCE, I BELIEVE, 2021.
IT IS NOW REMOVING THAT TABLE AND REPLACING WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU SEE HERE THAT TALKS ABOUT USE OF NATIVE VEGETATION.
MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE MAINTAINING AS MUCH AS PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE OF THE NATIVE VEGETATION AS PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PRACTICES.
WHEN WE ARE REPLACING THAT LANDSCAPING, GROUPING MATERIAL INTO WATER USE ZONES BASED ON THE NEED
[01:05:01]
OF THAT MATERIAL AND HAVING THOSE ZONES SPECIFIED.MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE PLANTING MATERIALS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE SOILS THAT ARE ON THAT PROPERTY, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT THINGS THAT REQUIRE LOTS OF WATER IN HIGH AND DRY AREAS, THAT TYPE OF PRINCIPLE.
THE SAME GOES WITH LOW WATER USE PLANTS.
IT'S EFFECTIVELY GETTING AT THOSE SAME POINTS THAT THE TABLE WAS TRYING TO ACHIEVE PREVIOUSLY WITHOUT HAVING A POINT BASED SYSTEM.
THEN TAKING IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE APPROACH.
BECAUSE EVEN WITH THESE IN PLACE, THAT DOESN'T SAY THAT 100% OF YOUR MATERIALS THAT YOU'RE PLANTING ON THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT SITE ARE GOING TO BE FLORIDA FRIENDLY.
YOU MAY HAVE A MIXTURE OF THEM BASED ON AVAILABILITY OF PLANT MATERIALS, BASED ON WHAT THE DESIGN STATIC MIGHT BE FOR A PARTICULAR SITE.
THEY MIGHT WANT TO INCORPORATE SOME NON-NATIVE MATERIALS, BUT WHERE A DEVELOPMENT SITE CAN INCORPORATE 100% FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING, WE'D LIKE TO OFFER AN INCENTIVE TO DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED SITE AND PERIMETER BUFFERING LANDSCAPING BY 5%.
THEN THIS WOULD BE ANNUALLY REVIEWED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE MAINTAINING COMPLIANCE WITH THAT STANDARD.
THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE INTRODUCTION THERE FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION OF THAT INCENTIVE STRATEGY SO THAT WE ARE ABLE TO GET 100% FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING WHERE IT'S DESIRED, BUT NOT MANDATED.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT, MADAM CHAIR.
I LIKE INCENTIVES AS OPPOSED TO BEING PUNITIVE.
IT SEEMS LIKE GOVERNMENT'S ALWAYS PUNITIVE INSTEAD OF INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE.
THE 5%, WOULD THAT BE MADE UP IN ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA OR WHERE DOES THE INCENTIVE HELP THE PERSON? IT MAY DECREASE THEIR AREA BY 5%.
DOES THAT MEAN THEY GO FROM 60%-65% IMPERVIOUS?
>> WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH THAT 5% THAT THEY'RE NOT LANDSCAPING? IS IT JUST GOING TO BE LAND?
IT COULD BE OTHER SITE IMPROVEMENTS THAT MAYBE ARE NOT GOING TO THEN EAT INTO THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO AND BLOCK COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.
BECAUSE CAN'T WE CAN'T OFFSET IT THERE.
>> IT'S NOT INTRODUCED FOR THIS PARTICULAR [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN THERE REALLY ISN'T AN INCENTIVE THEN BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE 5%, WHICH COULD MEAN SOMETHING ON AN IMPERVIOUS AREA.
YOU'RE AT 60% ON COMMERCIAL RIGHT NOW OR INDUSTRIAL OR WHATEVER, WHICH IS WOEFULLY LOW.
YOU COULD TAKE THE 40% THAT YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A OPEN SPACE AND REDUCE IT TO 35, YOU CAN GIVE THEM 5%, AND THEN THEY WOULD DO THIS ALL DAY LONG AND YOU WOULD MEET YOUR INCENTIVE, BUT IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO SAY, I'VE TAKEN AWAY ONE LANDSCAPE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT, THAT'S NOT GOING TO INCENTIVIZE ANYBODY, I DON'T THINK.
>> IN EFFECT, YOU'VE GOT A 5% LARGER FOOTPRINT?
OUR IMPERVIOUS AREA IS JUST SO LOW TO BEGIN WITH.
IF YOU GAVE SOMEBODY AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING OR INDUSTRIAL LAND USE, I'VE GOT IT OPEN RIGHT HERE, EVERYTHING IS 60% EXCEPT FOR C3, SO WHERE'S THE HARM IN BUMPING THAT TO 65 IF THEY HAVE ALL FLORIDA FRIENDLY?
>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER.
WHAT WE COULD DO IS WE COULD TABLE THAT SECTION FROM MOVING IT FORWARD AND THEN HAVE A DISCUSSION WHICH BRINGS THIS ALONG WITH THAT CHANGE AT THE SAME TIME, IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DO.
>> IT MIGHT MAKE SOME SENSE. I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF IT, BUT THERE'S PROS AND CONS ON IT, BUT I CERTAINLY THINK IT'D BE WORTHY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.
>> HOW DO WE WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION?
>> NOW, OR AT SOME TIME IN THE FUTURE, OR WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD? I DON'T WANT TO JUST LEAVE IT THAT IT WAS JUST AN IDEA THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND NOW WE DON'T HAVE IT RESOLVED.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE CONNECTING THE DOTS BACK TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, IF THERE IS A REAL CONNECTION THERE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT OFFSET FROM THAT OTHER SECTION THAT'S BEING REFERENCED.
YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO WORK WITH THE EXISTING LANGUAGE PROPOSED AND YOU WOULD NEED TO SEE IT ALONGSIDE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE PIECE OF IT.
>> WOULD YOU APPROVE, BUT THEN WITH A MOTION TO MAYBE MODIFY SECTION D AS REQUIRED IN FUTURE?
[01:10:03]
>> BUT IF THIS IS GOING TO GO FORWARD TO THIS COMMISSION, THEN IT'S NOT REALLY READY FOR THE COMMISSION.
>> WE HAVE TO BE MORE DEFINITIVE.
>> WHY NOT JUST WAIT TILL THE NEXT REGULAR PAB MEETING, THEN YOU TAKE A VOTE ON IT, AND EVERYBODY CAN THINK ABOUT WHAT IT IS, AND THEY JUST BRING IT UP YOU? WOULD THAT WORK?
>> NO. WHAT MEMBER GILLETTE IS SAYING, IS THE INTRODUCING A DIFFERENT SECTION OF CODE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MODIFIED ALONGSIDE THIS SO THAT IT WOULD BECOME MORE MEANINGFUL OF AN INCENTIVE, SO THAT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE SOME VALUE TIED TO INCORPORATING FLORIDA RUN AND LANDSCAPING AT 100%.
WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO IS JUST ELIMINATE THIS SUBSECTION D FROM MOVING FORWARD RIGHT NOW, AND BRING IT BACK AT A LATER POINT, ALONG WITH THE OTHER SECTION THAT NEEDS TO GO WITH IT.
>> BY DELETING THIS SECTION D, IS THAT WORSE?
>> NO. IT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY.
IT'S INTRODUCED, SO WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO PUT THIS PIECE IN.
WE BRING IT BACK LATER BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING IS PERVIOUS VERSUS IMPERVIOUS.
>> YEAH. BUT I THINK IF YOU INTRODUCE D ON ITS OWN, IT'S GOING TO LOSE THE VALUE OF WHAT THE WHOLE THING IS ABOUT.
IF YOU ADOPT ALL THIS, AND THEN YOU COME IN WITH THE INCENTIVE AFTERWARDS, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY WE ALREADY HAVE ADOPTED, SO WHY WOULD WE INCENTIVIZE IT?
>> YEAH. THAT WOULD BE MY WORRY AS WELL.
>> YEAH. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
>> PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA TO INCENTIVIZE IT.
I DIDN'T THINK OF IT. BUT I THINK IT ALL WOULD BE HEARD TOGETHER.
>> BUFFERING DOESN'T COVER IT FOR YOU.
TELL ME THE INCENTIVE THAT WOULD WORK HERE.
>> THE INCENTIVE WOULD BE YOU'RE LOSING 5% OF YOUR REQUIRED BUFFER AREA OR LANDSCAPING AREA, SO WHERE IS THAT 5% GOING TO GO? THERE'S 5% OF YOUR LOT THAT'S SOMEWHERE.
YOU MIGHT AS WELL GIVE THE PERSON THE INCENTIVE TO THROW IT INTO THEIR IMPERVIOUS AREA AND GAIN 300 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.
THEN THEY HAVE THE INCENTIVE AND THE MOTIVATION TO ACTUALLY DO THIS, AND THEY GET A GAIN OUT OF IT. YEAH.
>> KELLY, I THINK YOU WOULD JUST PUSH YOUR TABLE THAT WOULD MODIFY CHAPTER 4.
>> YEAH, 40201 J OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD OFFER IT.
BUT I CAN'T CRAFT THAT LANGUAGE ON THE FLY.
>> I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT AND HAVING ANY LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE IN IT.
IF ANYTHING, YOU COULD BRING THIS BACK AT A LATER POINT THAT WOULD THEN HAVE THAT PROPER REFERENCE AND THE LANGUAGE THAT MAKES SENSE IN READING IT TOGETHER, SO THAT IT COULD BECOME MORE MEANINGFUL.
>> ALL RIGHT. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, I'M GOING TO GET BACK TO YOU, IS THAT WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF THIS.
LET'S GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF.
WE'LL TAKE OUR COMMENTS, AND THEN PERHAPS WE TABLE IT WHILE WE GET THIS LANGUAGE FOR THIS PROPOSED SECTION D, AND BRING IT BACK AT OUR JULY MEETING FOR APPROVAL.
>> ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE ALL COLLECTIVELY FEEL LIKE WE WANT TO HOLD TO THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT MORE, AND I THINK IT'S A VERY VALID THING TO THINK ABOUT.
>> I WILL ASK THOUGH, IS THERE BOARD LEVEL CONSENSUS TO INCORPORATE A REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACES? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH?
>> IS THAT OUR ONLY ALTERNATIVE? ARE THERE OTHER AREAS?
>> OTHER THAN EXPANDING THE BUILDING? I MEAN [OVERLAPPING].
>> I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE LAND THAT YOU'VE GOT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE LANDSCAPE. YOU MIGHT AS WELL [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU'D STILL BE LIMITED IN FLOOR AREA RATIO.
>> FOR COMMERCIAL AND DENSITY, FOR SUBDIVISIONS.
FIVE PERCENT CAN MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE THOUGH. HUGE DIFFERENCE.
>> I MEAN, I COULD SEE IT EVEN MAKING A DIFFERENCE IF YOU'RE ALREADY DOING A COMMERCIAL BUILDING JUST IN TERMS OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT, COULD MEET OUR 5% PERCENT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] DRIVE-THROUGH ANDERSON, I MEAN, YOU MIGHT DO SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO OTHERWISE.
>> YEAH. FIVE PERCENT IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
>> THE OBJECTIVE IS, LET'S GET FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING WORK.
>> IF YOU GET THE COMMUNITY TO BUY IN ON IT, YOU GIVE THEM SOME FORM OF INCENTIVE, THEN THAT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE PUSHBACK.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ON THAT TABLE, WAS THAT JUST FOR INDUSTRIAL?
>> NO. IT'S FOR ALL COMMERCIAL, ANYBODY WHO IS SUBJECT TO THESE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.
WE CAN EXEMPT WHATEVER ONES WE WANT.
I JUST WAS THROWING IT OUT THERE, BECAUSE FROM A COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT,
[01:15:01]
IT REALLY BECOMES MOTIVATIONAL.RESIDENTIAL MAYBE NOT AS MUCH.
>> THE CONCERN I WOULD HAVE IS ON THE RESIDENTIAL.
BECAUSE FOR ME, A COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL, THERE IS MORE OF AN INCENTIVE TO LOOK AT WAYS TO SAVE OR TO COME UP WITH SOME NEGOTIATION OF THESE THINGS.
I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL SIDE OF IT.
MY CONCERN IS WE'VE DEBATED THE ISSUES OF SETBACKS, AND SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND ALL THAT FOR RESIDENTIAL.
THAT GETS TO BE SUCH A SENSITIVE SUBJECT.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN DOING SOMETHING WITH COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL.
>> YOU WOULD FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH UTILIZING IT FOR SUBDIVISIONS?
>> OKAY. THEN IN THAT CASE, THIS LAST PIECE OF IT WOULD THEN BE REMOVED.
>> YEAH. I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT YOUR [INAUDIBLE] FRIENDLY ANYWAY ON THESE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT TEND TO CHEAP IT OUT AT THE END.
THAT'S WHERE YOU INCENTIVIZE THEM.
>> I NEED MORE INFORMATION BECAUSE I KNOW IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE SOMETHING AWAY FROM ONE PLACE OR ADD SOMETHING SOMEWHERE, WHAT IS THE IMPACT TO THOSE OTHER AREAS? BECAUSE, PERVIOUS SURFACE, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, ALL GO THROUGH OUR WATER TABLES AND MOVING WATER, AND ALL OF THAT, WHICH IS IMPORTANT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD [INAUDIBLE].
>> KELLY, LET'S ADD, AS A SIDE NOTE FOR SOMETHING FOR US TO DISCUSS WOULD BE THE IMPACTS OF THIS IMPERVIOUS VERSUS PERVIOUS.
>> WELL, OTHER AREAS WHERE WE COULD INCENTIVIZE, WE JUST PICKED ONE ITEM.
I GOT TO BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPERS, THERE'S GOT TO BE OTHER THINGS OUT THERE THAT COULD BE HELD OUT AS THE WAY TO DO THINGS.
>> YEAH. OKAY. LET'S LET STAFF GO THROUGH THIS.
WAS THIS THE SECTION, MARGARET, THAT YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS?
>> OKAY. MARGARET, WE'LL NEED YOU TO FILL OUT THE FORM, BUT COME ON AHEAD.
>> MARGARET KIRKLAND 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE.
I THINK IF YOU'RE TRYING TO ADVANCE THE USE OF FLORIDA FRIENDLY, I WOULD SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE FOR NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL, BUT ALSO FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THESE THINGS SPREAD, WHEREVER THEY ARE, THEY ARE SPREADING LIKE CRAZY.
THE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS LAST ELEMENT THAT WAS UP HERE, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, KELLY, THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IN OFFERING TO INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON A PARCEL.
>> I THINK THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA.
IF WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING, IT'S TO DECREASE OUR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MIDDLE OF MID-ISLAND, ALL OF THE FLOODING THAT IS THERE.
YOU HAVE TOO MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, YOU HAVE TOO MUCH LOSS OF TREE CANOPY.
THE OTHER THING THAT WE ARE BEGINNING TO SEE IS BUFFERS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THIS MIXTURE OF COUNTY AND CITY PROPERTIES.
THE CITY IS PRETTY STRICT ON BUFFERS.
THESE BUFFERS ARE IMPORTANT IN HAVING PROPER DRAINAGE.
YOU'VE GOT THE VEGETATION IN YOUR BUFFERS, AND THAT CREATE HELPS YOU TO MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE.
WHEN THOSE THINGS ARE LOST, EITHER THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED INITIALLY.
THE BUFFERS ARE NOT REQUIRED INITIALLY OR THE PROPERTIES CHANGE HANDS, AND THE NEW OWNERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS WERE, THEN YOU START TO GET FLOODING, AND WE'VE SEEN THIS, AND I CAN CITE MAYBE NOT OFF TO WELL, MAYBE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I CAN CITE A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES OF THIS.
THOSE ARE JUST SOME CONCERNS THAT I'VE SEEN A LOT OF RECENTLY AND THAT WE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED WITH AND CONSERVE NASA. THANK YOU.
[01:20:05]
>> YEAH, MARGRET, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, AND I THINK THAT WE'RE PROMOTING INCREASING BUFFERING.
I THINK YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT ON RESIDENTIAL AND THIS SPEAKS TO THE HAIR'S POINT OF IF A RESIDENTIAL GUY COMES IN, HE COMES IN BUYS THE LOT THREE YEARS LATER TO CLEAR THE BUFFER BECAUSE HE WANTS PALM TREES OR WHATEVER.
SOMETHING ELSE. THE BUFFER IS GONE, AND I'VE DEFINITELY SEEN THAT.
MAYBE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU ON THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SIDE, THEY WOULD RATHER WIPE EVERYTHING OUT AND REPLANT BECAUSE THEY CAN GRADE EVERYTHING PERFECTLY.
IF THIS CODE ACTUALLY INCENTIVIZES KEEPING BUFFERS AND KEEPING NATIVE VEGETATION, WHICH WE NEED TO INCENTIVIZE THAT, AND I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A WAY, I THINK THAT WILL GIVE THE TRADE-OFF THAT PEOPLE WOULD DO THAT.
>> I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE CODE IN RECENT YEARS WITH BUFFERS IS REALLY A GOOD THING.
IF WE CAN INCENTIVIZE THAT, THAT'S WONDERFUL.
I AM NOT ONE FOR I DON'T TALK ABOUT INCENTIVES A LOT BECAUSE OF WHAT I SEE HAPPENING WITH HOW THEY'RE USED, BUT THAT'S NOT RESTRICTED TO THE CITY.
BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY ARE IMPORTANT, AND I APPRECIATE THE RECOGNITION OF THAT IN THE CITY AND IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S THE QUESTION. I WOULD JUST I DON'T KNOW, BETWEEN THE TWO CONVERSATIONS THAT CAUSED ME TO GO THROUGH A THOUGHT PROCESS.
WHAT IS IF YOU TAKE ALL THE LAND WITH JUST SAY WITHIN THE CITY, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT IS COMMERCIAL? WE HAVE EXISTING COMMERCIAL, BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NEW COMMERCIAL AND HOW MUCH IS THAT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE? IS THAT GOING TO BE A HUGE NUMBER OR IS IT A SMALLER NUMBER? I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN COMMERCIAL.
>> WE'RE LIKE, 10% COMMERCIAL, RIGHT? IT'S VERY SMALL. IT'S VERY SMALL.
MOST OF THE INDUSTRIAL IS SO WE HAVE SO MUCH INDUSTRIAL TO PUT GOLF COURSES OVER SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE MUCH INDUSTRIAL TO REALLY BE DEVELOPED.
>> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE'RE DOING THE REVISED PUBLIX SHOPPING CENTER? NOW, IF THIS GOES INTO EFFECT, ARE THEY ALREADY LOCKED IN BECAUSE IT'S.
>> THEY'RE LOCKED IN. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY EFFECT UPON THEM IN THE FUTURE.
>> IT IS A MORE VACANT INDUSTRIAL THAN ANYTHING.
I MEAN ON THE MAXIPERVIOUS, WHICH IS YEAH.
>> WELL, I'M JUST SAYING HOW BIG AN IMPACT WOULD THERE BE ON THE ADDITION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACES? ON THE ALE.
>> THERE'S SOME I THINK TO MARS POINT, IF YOU KEEP THE BUFFERS, YOU ALMOST MITIGATE THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE TREATING STORMWATER THE WAY IT SHOULD BE TREATED THROUGH THE NATIVE VEGETATION.
YOU GAIN AND MAYBE YOU LOSE A LITTLE BIT, AT THE END, YOU GET.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO BECAUSE THIS WILL BECOME A MORE COMPLEX, I THINK CONVERSATION THAT MAY BE MORE SUITABLE TO HAVE AS PART OF A DIRECTED CHANGE, IT JUST FOCUSES ON THIS.
AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, MOVE THROUGH THESE, MAYBE THE BOARD WILL FEEL DIFFERENTLY, BUT PERHAPS THIS GET SEPARATED FROM THE OTHER CHANGES SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS ITEM.
JUST AS A THOUGHT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> DID WE TALK ABOUT HOW IF WE TAKE IT OUT, IT LOSES THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE SECTION?
>> I WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT IT LOSES ITS POTENTIAL VALUE.
>> WE WOULD JUST NOT PROCESS WITH SUBSECTION D. THE REST OF THAT SECTION STANDS AS IT'S WRITTEN BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NO INCENTIVE FOR 100% LANDSCAPING.
THE REST OF THE SECTION IS FINE.
>> BUT ARE YOU SAYING THAT IN ORDER FOR THIS NOT TO BE DELAYED, YOU WANT TO KEEP PUSHING IT AHEAD TO THE COMMISSION?
BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARY CHANGE IN ORDER FOR THE REST TO FOLLOW.
>> BASICALLY WE GOT ABOUT 85% OF THIS CHANGE IS ADMINISTRATIVE.
IT'S REALLY JUST CLARIFYING OR WHATEVER.
YOU'RE REALLY SAYING TAKE SECTION FIVE, THAT BECOMES A STANDALONE ADD ON AT A FUTURE.
>> IT WOULD BE THE NEWLY CREATED SUBSECTION D, WHICH CREATES AN INCENTIVE APPROACH.
THE REST OF IT IS WHAT IT IS WITHOUT IT.
[01:25:04]
THE LANGUAGE STANDS ON ITS OWN.>> WHAT'S THE FEELING OF THE BOARD?
>> ONE MORE TIME. YOU'RE SAYING LEAVE THE ENTIRE SECTION P IN.
>> FOR THE TIME BEING. ALL RIGHT. ADDRESS IT AT A FUTURE BOARD MEETING.
>> BECAUSE THAT COULD COME BACK.
ANYTHING CAN COME BACK TO THIS BOARD FROM THEM OR FROM YOU OR ANY THE BOARD CAN JUST SAY, LET'S BRING THAT BACK AND TALK ABOUT IT NEXT MEETING.
>> BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT BY THAT TIME, THE SECTION HAS ALREADY BEEN PROCESSED TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
>> THAT'S OKAY. THEY DO THAT ALL TIME.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SECTION AND I'M NOT WILLING TO DO PREVIOUS PER BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF ANY OF THAT IS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THIS 5%.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> BUT THE REMAINDER OF THAT SAME SECTION CAN STAND INDEPENDENT.
>> TAYLOR IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE REST OF IT.
>> I MEAN, BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THE SENSE OF OKAY.
HE'S LOOK HE UNDERSTANDS THAT PROGRAM HE'S GROWING UP IN IN TERMS OF DOING IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS LET'S MOVE IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ON 90% OF IT, LET'S DO IT.
>> IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT, JUST PART OF YOUR MOTION, BRING THIS BACK.
THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT THEN AND WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF TIME TO RESEARCH IT AND DO WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO DO.
>> SO YOU SAYING DON'T LET IT PROCEED ONTO THE CITY COMMISSION, BUT THAT WE.
>> NO. I DIDN'T SAY THAT. I DIDN'T SAY.
I'M JUST SAYING RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN ALWAYS ADD DM NEXT MONTH NEXT YEAR, OR NEVER.
IT DOESN'T, YOU WANT TO HOLD UP EVERYTHING FOR THIS ONE SECTION, I DON'T THINK THAT'S THAT'S REASONABLE. I'D SAY MOVE ON.
DATE CERTAIN WHENEVER A GOOD MEETING TIME WOULD BE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER INCENTIVES THERE WOULD BE.
I DON'T KNOW THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE LET'S HAVE A LIST OF THEM AND HAVE A WAY TO STUDY THAT.
>> WELL, YEAH, BUT I THINK YOU SAY INCENTIVES, BUT THEN YOU COULD SAY, OR YOU COULD SAY, YOU CAN USE PERVIOUS SURFACES.
>> NO. I DON'T WANT TO USE ANYTHING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU TAKE 5% OUT OF THE SITE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATION OF THAT IS.
>> PERVIOUS WHATEVER YOU'RE DOING THERE, YOU COULD CREATE A LARGER PROBLEM.
RIGHT NOW, PERVIOUS SURFACES ARE NOT BEING ADDRESSED AS MUCH AS IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MEAN NO WATER IS GETTING INTO THE GROUND IT'S GOING ALL OVER THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A DISCUSSION AND SOME RESEARCH ON THAT RATHER THAN AND WE COULD TAKE THAT OUT AND MOVE ON.
>> THAT'S THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT REMOVE.
KELLY, JUST GO WAY OFF OF ONE END.
WHAT IF YOU HAD AN INCENTIVE FOR IT REDUCED THEIR PERMIT FEE?
>> WE WOULD TOUCH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FOR YEARS.
>> WHAT ABOUT THIS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'RE IN THE FEES. COME ON.
THEY'RE GOING TO PAY THE FEE ANYWAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> IS THERE SOME HUGE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW THAT ONE MONTH, ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE GOING TO BLOW OUT A 20 ACRE PARCEL?
>> I THINK MORE OF IT IS AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT HAS A LOT MORE CONVERSATION TO BE HEARD TIED TO IT WHERE THE REMAINDER OF THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT.
LET'S MOVE THOSE FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT INTEGRATED INTO THE CODE AND THEN HAVE THAT LARGER CONVERSATION.
>> TO ME, THIS IS NOT A VERY LARGE CONVERSATION.
EITHER YOU LIKE IT OR YOU DON'T. IT'S UP.
>> I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TURN IT INTO A SCIENCE PROJECT.
WE'RE LOOKING TO RUN OFF AND ALL.
YOU EITHER LIKE IT OR YOU DON'T LIKE IT AND THAT'S FINE IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT.
I JUST INTRODUCED IT TO REALLY MAKE THE INCENTIVE PORTION WORK.
I DON'T WANT TO HOLD IT UP. I'M NOT TRYING TO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NOT THAT I CAN'T DRAFT THE CHANGE WITHIN ONE MONTH.
IT'S JUST THAT I'M NOT GETTING THE SENSE AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THERE IS EVERYBODY ON BOARD WITH THAT.
>> THAT'S COOL, THAT'S FINE. I DON'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE WE'RE TURNING THIS INTO ONE OF THE 305. [LAUGHTER]
>> I SHOULDN'T BE. IT FEELS LIKE IT MIGHT BE.
[01:30:01]
>> I DON'T MIND IF THERE'S AN INCENTIVE IN THERE.
TONIGHT IS NOT THE TIME TO DECIDE WHAT THAT IS, AND THIS IS OKAY THE WAY IT IS.
>> WELL, LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE REST OF THE CHANGES, AND THEN WE CAN REVISIT THAT BEFORE ANY MOTIONS ARE MADE. HOW DOES THAT SOUND?
>> LET'S FINISH THIS UP, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION.
>> THEN THE FOLLOWING IS A RENUMBERING SECTION.
AGAIN, MODIFYING THE PLAIN LANGUAGE, SHALLS TO MUST.
SINCE WE WERE IN THIS [OVERLAPPING] THE SAME SECTION, IT'S THE SAME FOR 504.
AGAIN, CHANGING FROM SHALLS TO MUST.
ALSO, THE REASON I WENT AHEAD AND INCORPORATED THESE INTO THE NOTICE CHANGES IS BECAUSE IN READING THIS IS A TOTAL DOCUMENT.
IT WAS IMPORTANT TO SEE HOW THESE SECTIONS WORK TOGETHER AND NOT JUST THAT ONE SUBPARAGRAPH, AND THEN ANOTHER [INAUDIBLE] OPERATING.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT CHANGE, 40513 HARDSHIP RELIEF.
THIS COMES AT THE TAIL END OF THE LANDSCAPING SECTION OF OUR CODE, AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF CODE THAT FOLLOW IT, BUT THE WAY THAT IT CURRENTLY READS IN REFERENCE IS A LAND OWNER UNDULY BURDENED BY THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THIS CHAPTER.
WELL, THE CHAPTER IS CHAPTER 4 IN ITS ENTIRETY, THEN YOU CAN APPLY FOR HARDSHIP RELIEF.
THIS DOES FOLLOW AT THE END OF THE LANDSCAPE SECTION.
I BELIEVE THE INTENT WAS ALWAYS TO PROVIDE FOR A LIMITED RELIEF OFFERED BY THE CITY MANAGER, BUT ONLY AS IT RELATES TO LANDSCAPE STANDARDS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN LAYING THERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
I'D LIKE TO GET THAT CLEANED UP SO THAT IT IS CLEARLY REFERENCED THAT THIS IS INTENDED TO ONLY BE CONNECTED TO LANDSCAPE AND NOT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS, WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN THAT SAME CHAPTER, OR BUILDING HEIGHTS CONTAINED IN THAT SAME CHAPTER.
[LAUGHTER] THIS IS A CLEANUP ITEM.
>> BECAUSE YOUR CONCERN WOULD BE THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO APPLY TO ALL OF FOUR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> ALL OF CHAPTER 4, BECAUSE IT READS THAT YOU COULD INTERPRET IT AS ALL OF CHAPTER 4.
>> WE JUST HAVE A CITY MANAGER APPROVAL ON IT, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A BORDER AND THESE ARE GOING TO GO TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THAT'S THE CHECK AND BALANCE.
>> IF THEY WANT TO PUT AN INVASIVE PLANT, IF THEY CAN PERSUADE THE CITY MANAGER THAT FOR WHATEVER HARDSHIP REASON THAT THEY HAVE. [OVERLAPPING]
THEN THE CITY MANAGER IS THE ONE THAT CAN MAKE THAT DECISION?
>> DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS IN HERE, THIS HARDSHIP RELIEF?
>> IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN EXERCISED NUMEROUS TIMES, PARTICULARLY ON CONSTRAINED SITES DOWNTOWN, THAT IT PROVIDES A LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY WHERE MAYBE THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THEIR PLANTING REQUIREMENT ON SITE, BUT CAN PROVIDE FOR THAT ON SIDE STREETS WITHIN THAT SAME AREA, OR THE LANDSCAPE PIECE DOWNTOWN OR ON THE ADJOINING DOWNTOWN SITES THAT THEY'RE NOT RIGHT AT THE 20%.
THEY MIGHT BE AT 18%. IT PROVIDES FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE.
>> I GOT A QUESTION. CHIEF KELLY, LET ME JUST FLIP BACK TO SOMETHING THAT'S IN THAT SAME SECTION WE'RE COVERING.
FOR INSTANCE, THERE IS A SPECIFICATION OF THE DISTANCE FROM A TREE TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
WE VIOLATED ALL OVER THE PLACE DOWNTOWN.
>> IT'S EXISTING. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY RETROFITTING.
IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A RETROFITTING.
>> NO, BUT WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE THOSE TREES AT SOME POINT.
>> IT WILL NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY COME INTO COMPLIANCE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
WE'LL SELECT PROPER PLANT MATERIALS AND INSTALL BARRIERS TO SUPPORT UTILITIES THAT ARE UNDERNEATH THEM.
>> HOW IS THE RELIEF THAT THE CITY MANAGER, HOW IS THAT RECORDED?
>> IT'S NOT. THERE'S A LETTER.
>> IT IS ISSUED AND IT IS TIED TO THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AND SO YOU SEE IT AT THE TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
>> AS LONG AS THERE'S DOCUMENTATION.
>> TYPICALLY, THAT PERSON WOULD WRITE A LETTER TO THE CITY MANAGER REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM [OVERLAPPING] HARDSHIP.
>> HARDSHIP RELIEFS FROM THE LANDSCAPE.
WE'VE ONLY EVER UTILIZED IT FOR LANDSCAPE PURPOSES.
WE HAVEN'T UTILIZED IT FOR ANY OTHER, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THAT IS WHAT IT IS INTENDED FOR.
>> BUT IF YOU TURN AROUND AND HAVE SOME INCENTIVE THAT PEOPLE BUY IN ON, THEN THAT FURTHER HELPS THE CAUSE.
>> WE HAVE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ON THIS.
[01:35:03]
>> CHAPTER 405, AND THIS CHANGES TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I THINK THE STICKING POINT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS WHAT TO DO WITH THE SECTION D, WHICH IS SOME NEW LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
I HEAR THE PROS AND CONS FROM DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBERS, BUT WE NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO EITHER LEAVE THIS IN AS IS OR DO WE TAKE IT OUT AND HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION IN ORDER FOR US TO GO FORWARD WITH ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON THIS PAB CASE 2024-0006. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?
>> I WOULD SAY, LEAVE IT IN AS IT IS.
IN THE FUTURE AT SOME DATE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT INCENTIVES ADDING TO THE PLAN.
>> OR NEW INCENTIVES TO THE PLAN, BUT RIGHT NOW WE WORK THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING.
>> WELL, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE 5% OF THE LAND?
>> JUST GO AND LET IT SIT THERE? YOU CAN'T USE IT.
[OVERLAPPING] IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
>> YEAH, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN TELL THEM HOW TO USE IT.
>> WELL, THEY CAN. IT'S THEIR LAND.
THEY OUGHT TO GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
>> IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THEY DO WITH IT, AND SO WE'LL LEAVE IT IN RAW LAND, DO THEY SIGN?
>> EITHER YOU TAKE IT OUT AND REDO IT OR WE TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I AGREE. I THINK WHAT, NICK, YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THIS IS NOT REALLY AN INCENTIVE IN ANY WAY.
THAT'S JUST UNUSED LAND, AND NO ONE WILL LIKELY USE IT.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD JUST TAKE IT OUT.
>> I THINK IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING.
IF YOU DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON TONIGHT, THAT'S FINE, THEN LET'S JUST TAKE IT OUT.
>> WE DON'T NEED THE INCENTIVE.
>> THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T THINK IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
>> I THINK IT WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
>> YEAH, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT.
>> IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING IN A LATER DATE, I GUESS, IN THE NEXT MEETING.
>> BUT IF WE DISCUSS IT AT A LATER DATE, IS THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN AND BEEN PROCESSED?
>> OR IS IT THAT IT WAS TAKEN OUT AND THE REST OF THIS SECTION HAS ALREADY GONE TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEN BEEN INTEGRATED INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE?
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE AND WHAT THE INCENTIVE IS, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH 5%.
>> WELL, JUST READ THE SENTENCE.
THE AMOUNT OF ANY REQUIRED SITE OR PERIMETER BUFFERING, LANDSCAPING, MAY BE REDUCED BY 5% OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA IF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA IS COMPLETELY 100% LANDSCAPE USING FLORIDA FRIENDLY PRACTICES, ETC.
BUT SO IT LEADS YOU, OKAY, I GOT A PILE OF SAND OVER HERE.
WHAT DO I DO WITH IT? IT'S VARIATE, IT SAYS, YOU GET AN ATTABOY, BUT WHAT IS THE ATTABOY?
>> ARE WE GOING TO DEFINE WHAT THEY DO WITH IT? THEN THAT'S NOT AN INCENTIVE ANYMORE.
>> BECAUSE THIS WILL COME UP AGAIN WHEN EITHER IN THE COMMERCIAL OR THE INDUSTRIAL CLIENT IS COMING THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THEN TO US TO SAY THEY WOULD WANT TO USE THIS, AND WE'VE HAD SOME OF THESE INCENTIVES COME BEFORE US BEFORE, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY ELIMINATED THEM FROM SOME OF OUR CODE.
EITHER WE NEED IT TO BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY APPROVE AND MAKE SENSE, OR WE DON'T HAVE AN INCENTIVE.
>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM AT LEAST A COUPLE OF CHOICES TO.
YOU CAN'T SAY, HEY, HERE'S YOUR INCENTIVE, LIVE WITH THAT.
WE HAVE TO SAY THIS, THIS OR THIS.
>> IT MAKES SENSE THAT THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO USE PART OF FRIENDLY ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S THE WATER ISSUE PLANNING AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF.
>> NOT NECESSARILY. BUT I'LL JUST TELL YOU THE WAY IT STARTS.
THEY ONLY GET 60% OF THEIR LAND IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ANYWAY.
THEY'RE GOING TO MAXIMIZE THAT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE AND THEY GOT RETENTION,
[01:40:04]
AND THEY GOT THIS EXTRA LAND, THEY GOT A LANDSCAPE.IF YOU TAKE AWAY 5% OF WHAT THEY GOT A LANDSCAPE, THEY'RE GOING TO GO, WELL, WHAT DO I DO WITH IT? GIVE IT TO MARK. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH IT? DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I'M NOT GOING TO DIE AND STORE IT ON IT.
>> WHAT IF WE JUST TAKE IT OUT?
>> I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE IT OUT.
>> MUCH AS I LIKE INCENTIVES, THIS ONE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
>> I WILL SAY, SORT THINKING THROUGH THIS TO OFFER AN INCENTIVE OF REDUCED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WILL ALSO REQUIRE COMPLAIN AMENDMENT.
>> THAT'S GOT TO GO TO STATE FROM BRULE?
>> BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN SPECIFIES OVERALL AND PROBABLY SURFACE RATIOS IN ADDITION TO FAR.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS FOR ZONING.
THERE'S STATEMENTS TIED TO IT.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE.
LET ME GET TO MY AGENDA HERE, 2024-0006.
>> YES. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE 2024-0006 PLAN DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS WITH THE REMOVAL OF SECTION D IN, AND I LOST MY CODE.
>> PLUS THE ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF [INAUDIBLE]?
>> YES. PLUS THE ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS OF THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> ALL RIGHT. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM MR. BENNETT.
ALL RIGHT. DO THAT SATISFY THE MOTION? DID THAT SATISFY-
>> YES, FOR PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, THE SUBSECTIONS THAT WOULD FOLLOW D WILL BE RENUMBERED BACK WHAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY SO THAT THERE WILL STILL BE A D SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO IRRIGATION OR INSTALLATION, ONE OF THEM.
>> [OVERLAPPING]. BUT THE REMAINDER IS GOOD.
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
ALL RIGHT. WE'VE HAD A MOTION.
WE'VE HAD A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> OPPOSED SIGN? HEARING NONE.
THAT WAS VERY GOOD DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT.
MOVING ON TO SECTION 5.5 PAV CASE 2024-0004.
[5.5 PAB 2024-0004 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENT Request to add terms to LDC Section 1.07.00 Acronyms and Definitions to include Building Site, Substandard Lot of Record, Parcel, Parcel Identification Number (PIN), and Plat.]
TEXT AMENDMENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STAFF.>> YEAH. THIS IS THE BOARD'S CODE AMENDMENTS TO INCORPORATE SOME ADDITIONAL ACRONYM DEFINITIONS AS WE'VE DISCUSSED IN APRIL AND MAY.
THOSE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS HAVE BEEN ADVERTISED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND I KNOW THAT BOARD MEMBER GILLETTE HAS A COUPLE OF EDITS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE FOR ONE OF THOSE DEFINITIONS.
>> OKAY. BOARD MEMBER GILLETTE.
>> I CAN PULL THAT OUT FOR YOU IF YOU JUST GIVE ME QUICK.
>> E MAILS. ONE OF THEM WAS IN THE SPIRIT OF BOARD MEMBER STEVENSON, UNDER PLATT, WE SHOULD ADD A COMMA AFTER TRACKS.
>> OKAY. OH, ALSO, TAKE [NOISE] UNDER PLATT MEANS.
>> ALL RIGHT. UNDER THE DEFINITION FOR PLATT, SAYS PLATT MEANS IS THE PLATT MEANS FINAL DESIGN DRAWING.
>> THEN I HAD, I FOUND A KELLY.
FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PLAT THE LAST SENTENCE.
I WAS SAYING TO ADD THE LANGUAGE FOLLOWING ALONG THAT SAYS, THE FINAL PLAT IS INTENDED, AND THEN I WAS ADDING TO BE A LEGAL INSTRUMENT THAT PROVIDES A PERPETUAL RECORD OF THE SUBDIVISION.
WE HAD A LOT OF TALK ABOUT WHAT'S LEGALLY RECORDED AND WHAT'S LEGAL AND THE PLAT IS A LEGAL RECORDED DOCUMENT.
>> THAT WOULD READ THE FINAL PLY IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGAL INSTRUMENT THAT PROVIDES A PERPETUAL RECORD OF THE SUBDIVISION.
HARRISON CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
>> [NOISE] RECORDED AS A COURSE OF ACTION.
IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE SOMETHING THAT IS INTENDED TO BE OF RECORD OR RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OR OF THAT NATURE SO THAT YOU HAVE EVERYONE ON CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE AS WELL.
>> WHAT WOULD WHAT WOULD THE WORDING BE THEN? THE FINAL PLAT IS INTENDED TO BE RECORDED?
[01:45:05]
>> IF YOU INCLUDE MAYBE KELLY THE FINAL PLAT IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGAL INSTRUMENT, WHICH WILL BE RECORDED OR IS TO BE RECORDED WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT OR THE COUNTY RECORDER.
>> THE FINAL PLAT IS INTENDED TO BE A LEGAL INSTRUMENT THAT IS RECORDED WITH THE [OVERLAPPING] I THINK THAT COVERS IT.
>> WE HAVE QUITE A FEW UNRECORDED SUBDIVISIONS THROUGHOUT NASSAU COUNTY.
THERE'S NOT A REQUIREMENT THAT LAW [NOISE] BE RECORDED.
>> NOW WE HAVE WHAT A PLAT MEANS.
UNRECORDED PLAT MEANS DEFINED OR DOES IT MATTER?
>> BECAUSE THIS IS [OVERLAPPING].
>> DOES THE FINAL STATEMENT THERE THAT PROVIDES PERPETUAL RECORD OF THE SUBDIVISION, IS THAT NECESSARY OR CAN WE ELIMINATE THAT? IF IT'S RECORDED WITH THE CERT, IT IS A PERPETUAL RECORD, SO IT IS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE ELIMINATE. THANK YOU.
>> THERE'S ONE OTHER CLARIFICATION I'D LIKE TO MAKE JUST BECAUSE IT'S MAY BE IN THE MINUTES LITTLE NOTICES LOT [NOISE] DEFINITION TO INCLUDE THAT JUST INCLUDES THE ONE IMMEDIATELY BELOW IT.
YOU COULD INTERPRET THAT MEAN IT'S EVERYTHING.
IT'S ONLY SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD IS THE ONLY ONE THAT WENT UNDER LOT.
>> IT'S [NOISE] THAT LITTLE THAT RIGHT THERE.
I WOULD ALMOST TAKE THAT AND PUT IT AS A SUBSET OF AFTER AT THE END OF SUBSTANTIAL LOCK OR RECORD, THEN PUT A FOOTNOTE THAT THAT'S UNDER THE MAJOR HEAD OR LOCK.
>> I ONLY HAD IT THIS WAY FOR PURPOSES OF KEEPING AN ALPHABETICAL.
[OVERLAPPING] WE HAVE A HEADER IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CALLED, AND THEN THERE'S A BUNCH OF SUBSETS.
THE SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD WAS ADDED AS ONE OF THOSE SUBSETS.
>> THE REST OF THOSE ITEMS ARE STANDALONE PARCELS UNDER P DATA DATA GOING DOWN.
>> OKAY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE THEN THE WAY SHE'S GOT IT SET UP?
>> OKAY. I LIKE THE FURTHER DEFINITION OF PLAT.
I THINK THAT THAT DOES HELP TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THESE UNRECORDED PLAS.
ARE THEY IN DISCARDED BEER CASES OF 12 PACKS IN SOMEBODY'S BACK CLOSET OR I MEAN, IF IT WAS UNRECORDED A NAPKIN OR?
>> WELL, IN MY EXPERIENCE IN PRACTICING HERE OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS, THEY'RE ALL IN THE COUNTY.
THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
JUST TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE, PIRATES WOOD DOWN AT THE END OF BLACK ROCK, IS AN UNRECORDED SUBDIVISION.
I'VE GOT COPIES. IT'S FIVE PAGES, BIG PAGES OF IT.
AT LAW, THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF REAL PROPERTY MEANS IF A LICENSED SURVEYOR CAN GO OUT THERE AND LOCATE IT.
THAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUED THROUGH THE CASE LAW TO INCLUDE THESE UNRECORDED PLATS IF THEY HAVE THEM IN THEIR POSSESSION, IF THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOCATE THOSE LOTS OF RECORD.
IT CAN BE PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE WE'VE GOT RAINBOW ACRES DOWN NASSAU HILL ROAD.
THOSE ARE JUST TWO THAT IMMEDIATELY COME OFF [OVERLAPPING].
>> CORNWALL AND SWALLOW WORKS.
>> YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. THERE ARE QUITE A FEW UNRECORDED FLATS, AND IT CAN BE THEY CAN PRESENT SOME SPECIAL CHALLENGES TO THE LAND USE ATTORNEYS AND-.
>> THE WHOLE THING WAS PROPOSED TO BE NOW A PLATIN CITY.
THEY WOULD JUST GO THROUGH SOME PROCESS OF LEGALIZING IT AND FINALIZING IT TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
>> YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT FOR IT TO BE-
>> YOU JUST YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO-
>> THEY'D HAVE TO MEET CURRENT STANDARDS.
>> WHICH IS WHY THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT [LAUGHTER].
>> THAT'S WHY THEY NEVER DO IT [LAUGHTER].
WAS THAT A PRETTY EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION?
>> OH, SOME OF IT IN THE COUNTY IS HUGE; THOUSANDS OF ACRES OR HUNDREDS OF ACRES.
[01:50:01]
>> IS EVERYTHING IN MEETS AND BOUNDS ON THOSE WHEN YOU DO DEEDS? BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A RECORDED PLAT.
>> MEETS AND BOUNDS AND THE LOT.
OR AS EXAMPLE, LOT 16 FURTHER DESCRIBED AS, WITH THE MEETS AND BOUNDS. I MIGHT BE THREE PAGES LONG.
>> IN IS THE UNRECORDED PLATS.
AT JOE'S HOUSE ON FRIDAY NIGHT [LAUGHTER].
>> TITLE COMPANIES HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH IT FOR DECADES, I'M SURE.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE STILL WORKING.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ANY OF THESE? I THINK THESE ARE VERY GOOD SUGGESTIONS.
>> WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THIS? THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE UNDER PAB 20240004?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PAB 2024-0004 AS MODIFIED.
>> AND AFTER HEARING SUBSTANTIAL?
>> OKAY, SO PETE. IT'S JUST AS AMENDED.
>> OKAY. I'VE HEARD A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> OPPOSED? LIKE SIGN? HEARING NONE, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
ITEM NUMBER 6. BOARD, THIS IS 6.1, CONTINUE DISCUSSION OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD STANDARDS AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD.KELLY, DID YOU WANT TO? [OVERLAPPING] KELLY, I'M GOING TO LET MR. BENNETT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. THIS IS BOARD'S DISCUSSION.
>> BECAUSE MY QUESTION IS, AND NICK BROUGHT UP A GREAT QUESTION.
WE NOW HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE, CORRECT, ACREAGE?
>> AND WHY? BECAUSE AS PART OF ME GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS, I LOOK IN MANY AREAS IN THE STATE, THEY HAVE UNIT DEVELOPMENT, NO MINIMUMS. DON'T EVEN TALK ABOUT. DOESN'T MATTER.
THINKING ABOUT AND I WAS ON THE BOARD WHEN WE APPROVED THIS, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY MEMBRANES OR MIND AS TO WHY WE PUT A SIZE IN THERE.
BECAUSE CONSIDERING FERNANDINA BEACH, WE DON'T HAVE FIVE ACRE SITE OR EVEN SOME THREE OR FOUR ACRE SITE THAT WOULD BE TURNED TO A PUD, IS THAT RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH SMALL PARCELS FOR THE MOST PART.
SINCE IT SEEMS LIKE THE WORLD IS GOING TOWARD MORE, I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD INVENTIVE, BUT MORE FLEXIBLE PLANNING AND BUILDING AND DOING, IT SEEMS THAT MIGHT BE AN IDEAL THING AS TO HAVE A MINIMUM PUD.
>> I WOULD AGREE. I WAS FINDING TO BUILD ON THAT.
THERE'S SO MANY SMALLER PARCELS LIKE 0.91 ACRES SEEMS TO BE THE MOST COMMON LARGE ENOUGH LAND TRACK THAT YOU COULD DO SOMETHING WITH THAT ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CITY.
THAT SEEMS LIKE AN ODD BALL NUMBER TO JUST TO BE PICKING THAT, SO I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO EXHAUST THEIR EFFORTS AND DO IT, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY ON THE APPLICANT, THEY GOT TO PAY A BIG FEE FOR THE CITY TO REVIEW IT, AND THEY'VE GOT TO DO A LOT OF LEGAL WORK.
IF THEY WANT TO DO IT, THEN WHY SHOULDN'T THEY BE ALLOWED TO DO IT?
>> A LOT OF LEGAL WORK. A LOT OF RULES.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING.
IS THERE A REASON WHY THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM? I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTION.
>> WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR YOU? WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE.
BUT IN THIS CASE, IF WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ACREAGE, DOES THAT MEAN THAT LET'S JUST SAY THERE'S ALL KINDS OF TREES THAT WE DON'T WANT TO CUT DOWN.
AND BY USING A PUD, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT THE HOUSES, SAY IN A RESIDENTIAL IN A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION THAN NORMAL, THAT WOULD HELP PRESERVE SOME OF THESE TREES?
>> THERE'S MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, A LOT OF RULES FOR ANYBODY WHO LIVES THERE, AND THE RULES ARE QUITE SPECIFIC.
[01:55:03]
YOU CAN ONLY BUILD HOUSES THAT LOOK LIKE CASTLES AND HAVE TO BE PURPLE.THEY CAN DO THAT, AND EVERY HOUSE IN THERE HAS TO LOOK LIKE CASTLE AND BE PAINTED PURPLE.
THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE UNLESS THEY CAN CHANGE THE UNDERLYING PUD.
TO ME, IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH TECHNICAL REVIEW, CORRECT?
>> TO BE CLEAR, YOU CAN'T HAVE CASTLES PAINTED PURPLE ANYMORE.
>> SAY WHAT NOW? CAN'T DO CASTLE WHOLE?
>> NO. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT DESIGN STANDARDS ON SINGLE FAMILY HOME. EVEN IN PUD
>> YEAH, THAT'S A NEW RULE RIGHT THIS LAST YEAR WITH GOVERNOR.
>> BUT THEY COULD BE CASTLES PAINTED PURPLE.
JUST CAN'T BE MANDATED CASTLES PAINTED PURPLE.
>> MY POINT IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF RULES THAT GO INTO DEVELOPMENT OF A PUD, AND IT DOES OFFER MORE FLEXIBILITY.
WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS NOW OF TRYING TO BE WALKABLE COMMUNITIES.
WE'RE TRYING TO DO A BUTCH OF THING, AND IT SEEMS TO ME, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG THAT THAT KIND OF FITS IN WITH WHERE WE'RE GOING IN OUR FORESEEABLE FUTURE THAT I CAN'T SEE.
>> IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THERE ARE FEWER AND FEWER LARGE PARCELS THAT CAN BE QUALIFIED AS A PUD UNDER OUR CURRENT RULES.
>> BUT I THINK THERE ARE SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. I JUST LOOKED UP.
THERE'S A PLACE CALLED ROACLEAF, FLORIDA, WHICH IS DOWN BELOW CAPE KENNEDY A LITTLE BIT JUST DOWN THE ROAD.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT PUD SIZE REQUIREMENTS INTO ACREAGE FOR WHAT I WOULD CALL A COMMERCIAL.
THEY IDENTIFY IT AS HOTELS, MOTELS, RESTAURANTS, ETC.
THEY HAVE ONE MINIMUM FOR THEM, AND THEN THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ONE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
I HAD A LITTLE TROUBLE FINDING PART, BUT I THINK IT WAS FIVE ACRES WAS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL.
NOW, HERE WOULD BE A COUPLE OF THINGS JUST TO CONSIDER.
WHEN YOU HAVE A PUD, YOU MUST HAVE AN HOA.
AN HOA MUST HAVE A BOARD STRUCTURE OF AT LEAST THREE PEOPLE.
I THINK IT HAS TO BE THREE, IT MIGHT BE FOUR.
I THINK THREE. THAT'S THREE PEOPLE.
NOW, IF I GET DOWN TO LESS THAN AN ACRE, UNDER THE BEST OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WHAT AM I GOING TO HAVE NICK? FIVE HOUSES?
>> NO, CONDOMINIUM WITH 50 PEOPLE.
>> WELL, I MEAN, IN SOME DIVISIONS, THREE LOTS OR MORE.
>> I DON'T KNOW PRACTICALITY WISE.
NO ONE'S GOING TO COME IN FOR A PUD INTO A DUPLEX.
THERE'S SOME LOGIC THAT GOES INTO IT.
THEY GOT TO HIRE HARRISON, THEY GOT TO HIRE ENGINEER, SURVEYORS AND ALL SORT OF THING.
>> THE ECONOMICS THEN OF JUST DOING, I CALL IT THE ROI JUST PROBABLY ISN'T GOING TO BE THERE TO WHAT THEY GOT TO INVEST UP FRONT.
DOES THAT GIVE US AN ADEQUATE CONTROL FACTOR NOT TO HAVE? I WOULD HATE TO SEE US WITH A BUNCH OF SIX RESIDENTS PUDS AROUND THE CITY BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AND SO FORTH, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A PROPERTY MEASURE, MAYBE BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME COMMON AREA.
>> BUT WHY WOULD THAT BE SO BAD?
>> BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE IS IS THAT THEY BUILD IT AND THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, SO THIS WAY YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ON SITE TAKING CARE OF EVERYTHING, WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.
>> I MEAN, PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE WHO CARE ABOUT THE MOST ARE THE ONES TAKEN CARE OF.
>> I MEAN, THE BIGGEST ADVANTAGE IS THAT ALL THE LANDSCAPING IS TAKEN CARE OF, FOR EXAMPLE, SO PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT INDIVIDUALLY.
>> THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE CASE.
WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS AN HOA THAT SMALL.
HOW IS IT GOING TO BE TO EFFECTIVELY FUNCTION AND MAKING SUURE THAT THE COMMUNITY IS OKAY? I JUST WORRY ABOUT THE LOGISTICS WHEN YOU GET INTO THE OPERATIONAL SIDE, NOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S NOT MANY HOA THAT ACTUALLY TAKE CARE OF THE LANDSCAPE.
>> YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO DO A PUD ONCE YOU GET INTO HALF ACRE.
WOULD YOU SAY, NICK, WOULD BE MINIMUM SIZE EVEN TO EVEN DO THIS?
>> AN ACRE WOULD BE TOUGH, BUT YEAH I LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE LETTING IT UP TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SADDLER ROAD TOWNHOUSES.
NICK, YOU BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION.
THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SO DIFFERENT WITH THE DRIVEWAYS, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE HAVE WHAT SIX DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE COMING OUT ON THAT RYAN ROAD.
[02:00:01]
HOW COULD THAT HAVE BEEN MADE DIFFERENT?>> OH, IT'S EASY. YOU COULD HAVE HAD A REAR ALLEY IMPLEMENTED INTO IT AND ACCESSED IT AS LONG AS YOU GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO DECREASE THEIR SETBACKS. GO AHEAD, KELLY.
>> KELLY WANTS TO TELL US ON THAT.
>> SPECIFIC PROPERTY, THERE WAS A HOME DESIGNED FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROPERTY BEFORE IT WENT INTO CIVIL AND HE WAS TRYING TO ACHIEVE A SINGLE END PRODUCT, WHEREBY A REAR ALLEY ACCESS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE.
WE TRIED. [OVERLAPPING] IT DIDN'T MATTER BECAUSE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY DESIGNED A SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTURE.
>> MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT EXAMPLE.
>> WE COULD HAVE WORKED WITH HIM ON SOME OF THAT, SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO TREE PRESERVATION.
ALREADY, WE HAVE THAT EMBEDDED IN THE CODE.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GREAT PROJECT TO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THAT.
BUT IN THAT SCENARIO, THERE WAS A SPECIFIC LAYOFF FOR THAT PROPERTY ALREADY IN MIND BEFORE IT GOT TO THAT POINT.
>> WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT LIKE WHAT'S ON 14TH STREET ON THOSE.
THE SIX TOWN HOUSES AROUND 14TH ON THE WEST SIDE.
>> THEY'VE GOT THE DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK, THEY HAVE ONE EGRESS.
ACTUALLY, THEIR STREET SIDE IS ACTUALLY THE BACK OF THE RESIDENCE ITSELF AND THEY JUST GOT A FENCE GUARDED IN.
THERE ARE NO CURB CUTS AT ALL EXCEPT THE ONE ON THE SIDE.
>> HOW BIG A SITE WAS THAT DO YOU THINK?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT FAMILIAR.
I WONDER. IT WAS LESS THAN AN ACRE.
>> THE QUESTION IS, DO WE CONSIDER [NOISE] TO REMOVE THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR A PUD?
>> MY ONLY CONCERN WITH IT REMOVING THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR THE PUD IS THAT YOU STILL HAVE OTHER DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED WITHIN A PUD, LIKE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS, PARKS, OPEN SPACE.
AT WHAT POINT IS A PUD ACTUALLY A PUD IF YOU CAN'T PROVIDE FOR THOSE PUBLIC BENEFITS?
>> WELL, THEY'D HAVE TO PROVIDE FOR THEM AS A PUD.
>> BUT IF YOU HAVE NO MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH, THEN THAT COULD BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT DOWN THE ROAD.
IF THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LAND AREA TO INCLUDE THOSE AMENITIES WITHIN THE PUD, THEN IT COULD CREATE ISSUES IN THE FUTURE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] TO THAT POINT, THEY WOULDN'T DO ONE.
>> TO THAT POINT, THEY WOULDN'T DO ONE.
>> THEY WOULDN'T DO ONE. EXACTLY.
>> THE OTHER PIECE OF THAT IS IT'S NOT EVEN LAID OUT AS TO HOW MUCH OF A PERCENTAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE.
SOMEONE COULD SAY, WELL, I'M DEDICATING 1% OF MY PUD TO OPEN SPACE.
IT'S NOT CLEARLY SPECIFYING THAT CODE.
MAYBE WE NEED TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATIONS ON THAT.
I'M JUST THROWING OUT IDEAS AND SOME CONCERNS.
>> WELL, RIGHT NOW, IF I GO TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IF I GO TO OUR WHEREVER THE SECTION IS, WHERE YOU HAVE A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THE DWELLINGS IN A RESIDENTIAL PLOT THAT ARE SET ASIDE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, YOU CAN DO IT IN TWO ACRES.
THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING IN THE LDC.
I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO SAY JUST CONVERT THAT AS A STANDARD FOR THE CITY.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ANYMORE.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A [OVERLAPPING] REVOLVING DEFINITION OF WHAT IT IS.
>> NO. THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS AT HAND WHICH AGENCY YOU WORK WITH. WOULD THAT BE TRUE, NICK?
>> IT DOESN'T DEFINE WHO IS THE ONE THAT QUALIFIES WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OR ISN'T [OVERLAPPING] AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> WHEN YOU GO TO THE BANK. [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, TO BUILD HOME WORKS, WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE OF TRYING? WE MIGHT ACTUALLY GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES OUT.
RIGHT NOW WE DON'T GET ANYTHING.
WE GET 25-FOOT LOTS OR [OVERLAPPING] EXISTING ZONING, WE GET DRIVEWAYS, WE GET THE SAME THING WE ALL COMPLAIN ABOUT.
WHERE'S THE DOWNSIDE OF TRYING SOMETHING NEW?
>> DOES THIS COME TO US AS OPPOSED TO PUD WOULD COME TO US? WE WOULD SEE IT.
>> IT HAS TO BE APPROVED THROUGH THE COMMISSION OF HOME WORKS.
THAT APPROVES THE ENTIRE PACKAGE.
>> NOW, IN OUR CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, A RESIDENTIAL PUD AS OPPOSED TO A COMMERCIAL OR WHAT DO YOU CALL A GREAT, BIG, BUILDING, GIANT PUD HAS TO INCLUDE TWO OR MORE HOUSING TYPES, WHICH ADDS A LITTLE PERSONALITY TO THE COMMUNITY AND SO ON,
[02:05:01]
BUT IT JUST MEANS IT'S GOT TO HAVE SOME PERSONNEL OR THE FABRIC OF IT'S GOING TO BE THE [OVERLAPPING].>> IS THAT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND DUPLEXES?
>> TOWNHOUSE, TRIPLEX, IT COULD BE [OVERLAPPING] ANY NUMBER.
>> IT TELLS YOU, RIGHT HERE, PERMISSIBLE HOUSING TYPES INCLUDE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY, DETACHED, TOWNHOUSE, DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, OR A MULTIFAMILY.
>> THE HOAS REALLY DECIDE WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE.
>> NO. THE DEVELOPER DOES WHEN HE PUTS IN THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S THERE IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.
>> TIME OUT. IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE PUD WHEN IT'S CREATED.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THERE WILL BE IN THAT PUD, CORRECT?
>> WELL, I KNOW, BUT THE HOA HAS RULES ABOUT WHAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, THE HOA HAS TO FOLLOW THE PUD RULES.
>> THE PUD ITSELF WILL HAVE THE DEFINITION OF WHAT THE RULES OF THE ROAD ARE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PUD AND THAT SET OF STRUCTURES, WHETHER IT BE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED.
>> WHERE DO WE WANT TO TAKE THIS, FOLKS?
>> SAY NO MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED FOR A PUD.
>> WHAT ISSUE DOES THAT BRING TO STAFF FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? BECAUSE WE DID DISCUSS PREVIOUSLY TAKING IT FROM 5-2.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE'S EVEN TWO ACRES SITES AVAILABLE ANYMORE.
BUT WHAT WOULD THAT DO FROM A PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S STANDPOINT THAT IF YOU SAID WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE ACREAGE IS, WHAT IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE ON YOU GUYS? WHAT FEEDBACK?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT OR TONIGHT?
>> WELL, IT WOULD BE NICE [OVERLAPPING].
>> SHE MIGHT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT.
>> YOU MIGHT HAVE MORE PEOPLE COMING PROPOSING PUDS IN THE CITY.
>> BUT THEY PAY A BIG FEE FOR IT.
>> IT COULD POSSIBLY TAKE MORE STAFF TIME TO ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THAT.
>> THAT'S NOT OF CONCERN, NECESSARILY.
YES, YOU WOULD SEE AN INCREASE IN APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD. THAT'S GREAT.
THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH PROCESSING APPLICATIONS OR INCREASED WORKLOAD ON THAT SIDE OF THINGS.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CONCERNS ME.
WHAT CONCERNS ME IS MEANINGFUL AND PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS EMBEDDED IN THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT IN FLORIDA LAW THAT WE SHOULD PROVIDE FOR MEANINGFUL AND PREDICTABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
NOW, ARGUABLY, YOU HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT ARE GOING TO COME ALONGSIDE ANY PUD THAT'S REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF THE ACREAGE.
IT'S A NEGOTIATION FOR CERTAIN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT.
IT CAN GET BETTER DEVELOPMENT, MORE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS MORE SENSITIVE TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ADDRESSES SPECIFIC NEEDS LIKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR INCREASED OPEN SPACE OR RESOURCE PROTECTION.
BUT AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER WHO IS NEXT DOOR TO A SITE THAT IS NOW SUDDENLY GOING TO CHANGE FROM LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHERE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE LARGE LOTS TO SMALL LOTS.
ALTHOUGH LOTS OF OPEN SPACE HAS NOW BEEN PROTECTED AS PART OF IT, THAT ONE INDIVIDUAL IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED IN A VERY SPECIFIC WAY AND IN A WAY THAT THEY WEREN'T PREPARED FOR NECESSARILY.
AGAIN, THERE ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS TIED TO IT, AND IT DOES GO TO A CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL DECISION-MAKING.
THERE'S PROS AND CONS TO THIS.
HAVING THAT MINIMUM THRESHOLD DOES AT LEAST CLUE YOU INTO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THAT VERSUS THE SMALLER LOT THAT IS AT HALF AN ACRE NEXT DOOR TO ME.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS BASICALLY IF YOU PUT A MINIMUM LIKE LET'S JUST PICK TWO ACRES THAT HELPS MAINTAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE FABRIC OF THE COMMUNITY AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
>> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL.
>> BECAUSE IF IT'S TWO ACRES, I GOT TO HAVE THAT MUCH LAND TO EVEN DO THE PUD.
>> BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTING [OVERLAPPING].
IF I HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND THEN NEXT TO IT, THERE'S 0.9 ACRES, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A PUD IN AND THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE WHAT I'M LIVING NEXT TO.
>> WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LIMITED BY THEIR DENSITY AND THEIR FLOW.
WITH SLOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THEY'RE GOING TO GET THREE UNITS, MAYBE FOUR WITH THERE RIGHT AWAY.
YOU CAN ONLY PUT SOME [OVERLAPPING].
>> I CAN CHANGE THE DENSITY IF I'M IN A PUD.
[02:10:01]
>> YOU CANNOT. THE LAND USE AND ZONING STAYS THE SAME AS THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE ABLE TO BE MODIFIED.
>> SO YOU ACTUALLY GET TO USE THE FLUME IN THE WAY IT'S INTENDED.
>> WOULD I BE WRONG IN SAYING ALL THE RULES APPLIED OUT THERE THEY'RE JUST PUT INTO JUST DIFFERENT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY OF ALL THOSE RULES AND THINGS? [NOISE] THE DEVELOPMENT TO DO THINGS THAT YOU WANT TO DO A HOUSE, YOU GOT TO HAVE A SETBACK OR YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY FOR ROADS AND SIDEWALKS AND JUST EVERYTHING IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> WELL, I'M JUST READING THIS ONE DEFINITION THAT CAME OUT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
THE UNIQUENESS OF A PUD IS THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO ADHERE TO CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS, SO DEVELOPERS CAN MOVE CREATIVE AND FLEXIBLE OR BE CREATIVE AND FLEXIBLE IN HOW THE LAND IS USED.
>> WELL, I THINK THEY'RE TALKING IN TERMS OF A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSE VERSUS A RESIDENTIAL.
>> IT'S SPECIFIC TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS TIED TO SITE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT FOR THE USE OF THAT LAND AND HOW IT'S TO BE TREATED.
SO YOUR DENSITY AND INTENSITY STANDARDS ARE STILL THERE AND HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED.
YOUR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS ARE STILL THERE AND HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED.
YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PART OF A PUD.
SO IT'S THE DESIGNS TIED TO IT.
IT MIGHT BE THE DESIGN OF THE ROADWAY THAT GOES THROUGH IT.
PERHAPS IT'S A REDUCED REQUIREMENT OR A LESSER STANDARD INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ASPHALT ROADWAY WITH CURB AND GUTTER, THEY MAYBE DO GRASS ROADWAY BECAUSE IT'S INTENDED TO BE DESIGNED AS A MORE RURAL TYPE OF SUBDIVISION, WHERE IT'S NOT FULLY IMPROVED.
IT PROVIDES FOR THAT LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY.
>> BUT TO BE CLEAR, THE LAND USE IN THE ZONING DOES STAY THE SAME.
IT THEN DOES CONNECT BACK TO FLORIDA LAW FOR MEANINGFUL PREDICTABLE STANDARDS IN PERFORMANCE, I THINK, ARGUABLY, IT'S JUST HOW IT'S BEING APPLIED AS AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER CAN GET UNCOMFORTABLE WHEN YOU'RE NEXT TO A PARTICULAR LOT, THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN CAN LOOK WILDLY DIFFERENT THAN HOW MY PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED.
>> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS AT OUR NEXT MEETING OR MORE DISCUSSION TONIGHT, OR WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD?
>> WELL, ANYONE FOUND I MEAN, USING THE GOOGLE CLOUD SYSTEM.
IS THERE ANY NEGATIVE ASPECTS TO MINIMUM OR THINGS LIKE THAT.
THERE'S NOTHING I COULD SIZE DOESN'T MATTER.
SIZE DOESN'T MATTER, KNOW IT. I KNOW YOU'RE.
>> WHATEVER'S GOING THROUGH YOUR HEAD.
>> THE LETTER SHE HOLDS IN AT THE NEXT MEETING IF SHE COMES UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WE'RE NOT THINKING ABOUT, THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT IT OR NOT, THEN MAYBE WE MOVE FORWARD NEXT MEETING.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DRAFT LANGUAGE BY THE NEXT MEETING?
>> WHAT DO WE JUST REMOVE THE FIVE-ACRE MARKS OF?
>> MY FEAR IN JUST STRIKING IT WITHOUT THINKING THROUGH THOSE OTHER ASPECTS OF PERFORMANCE FOR A PUD IS.
YOU'RE GOING TO END UP BINDING SOMEBODY FROM BEING ABLE TO ACT ON IT ANYWAY.
THINGS LIKE THE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPE STANDARDS.
>> THINK ABOUT. LET'S MAKE SOME CALLS AND RESEARCH AND SAY, WHAT ARE THERE NEGATIVE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN WITH MINIMUM SIZE.
>> A GOOD POINT. THERE MAY BE OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE THAT WE HAD THOUGHT ABOUT.
>> I JUST I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ON TO.
I MENTIONED EARLIER, IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACES REQUIRED.
IT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT IT DOESN'T GIVE THAT SPECIFIC NUMBER.
IT DOES SPECIFY THAT THE LAND AREA FOR CIVIC AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES HAS TO BE 5%.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ANALYZE TOO AND MAKE SURE THAT 5% WOULD BE APPLICABLE OR NOT.
JUST LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS TO SEE HOW THAT WOULD WORK.
>> SO EVERYBODY WANTS TO OFFER THEIR YARD FOR PUBLIC.
>> BUT THE REQUIREMENT IS STILL NOT A BAD REQUIREMENT.
>> WE COULD CHANGE IT. I MEAN,
[02:15:01]
WE COULD REQUIREMENT FOR GREEN SPACE.WE COULD EDIT THE ONE THAT'S SPECIFICATION THRESHOLDS.
>> LIKE IF YOUR PD IS GOING TO HAVE THIS PARTICULAR SIZE, THEN THESE STANDARDS APPLY.
IF IT'S THIS NEXT TIER, THEN THESE STANDARDS APPLY.
>> FOR EXAMPLE, KELLY, IF YOU DON'T IF YOU HAVE LESS THAN 25 LOTS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK,25 LOTS OR MORE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK.
>> LET'S KEEP THIS ON OUR BOARD BUSINESS AGENDA FOR JULY WITH THE PLAN, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING COMES UP OR ANOTHER QUESTION, WE CAN STILL DISCUSS IT.
BUT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEN IN AUGUST, SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE, WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME TEARS.
I THINK TEARS, WE'D LIKE TO SEE IF THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.
SEE WHAT LANGUAGE STAFF CAN BRING TO US IN AUGUST.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO ADVERTISE THIS FOR AUGUST.
I'M BRING IT TO YOU FOR DISCUSSION.
>> IS THERE A LIST OF PUDS IN THE STATE?
>> I HAVE A LIST OF PUDS IN THE CITY.
IT'S NOT COMPLETE. IT'S EXHAUSTIVE, THOUGH.
>> YEAH. I MEAN, IT COULD BE A MASSIVE LIST.
>> IT IS A PRETTY MASSIVE LIST. DO YOU LIKE TO SEE IT?
>> WELL, I'VE SEEN SOME OF THEM READ AND IT WAS JUST TAKEN AROUND.
>> THIS IS JUST THE ONES THAT WE HAVE CAPTURED IN OUR FILE OLDER.
>> THIS IS NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT THIS IS MOST OF THEM.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A FORMAL LIST SOMEWHERE IN THE STATE.
>> MEAN THEY WOULD THINK TO DO THAT.
>> THERE'S NO AND YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE IT BECAUSE AT A STATE LEVEL, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD ANY OF THAT REPORTED UPWARD TO CAPTURE IT.
>> HAVE IT AT ACCOUNTING LEVEL WOULDN'T.
>> DO WE NEED THAT LIST FOR ANY REASON TO BE SENT TO THE BOARD? NO.
>> I'D RATHER FIND OUT IF ANYBODY'S EVEN PUT TOGETHER A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS, WHAT'S THE PLUS SMALL SIZE.
>> AS A MINIMUM. IT'S VERY COMMON TO FIND THAT THERE IS ZERO MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT.
>> WAIT. SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS.
NOW, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO 6.2 PRIORITIZATION OF ACTION ITEMS AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD.
DOES ANYONE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A BURNING DESIRE TO GO THROUGH THIS? I DON'T THINK STAFF HAS DONE ANY PRIORITIZATION, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> NO. I MEAN, I HAVE A COUPLE OF TOPIC AREAS THAT I'M ACTIVELY WORKING ON.
>> THIS WAS FROM APRIL 1, AND THEN THIS ONE IS.
SOME OF THEM WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED.
>> THE FIRST ONE RIGHT HERE, THAT WAS OUR WORKSHOP.
WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. THAT'S ALL THE DEFINITIONS.
WE ALREADY THAT ONE'S COMPLETE.
WITH WHAT WE DID ON, KELLY, THAT FIRST LIST, EVERYTHING IN THERE WE HAVE NOW APPROVED THROUGH FOR WE APPROVED TONIGHT.
THIS ONE IS JUST JUST CAME OFF OF A WHOLE SERIES OF DIFFERENT NOTES THAT I TOOK FROM CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS AND THINGS TO TALK ABOUT.
WE HAVE FINISHED WITH THAT LIST.
THE FIRST ONE WE DID. NOT THAT ONE WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LIST OF PROJECTS THAT EITHER THE CITY COMMISSION HAS ASKED FOR OR THAT WE'VE BROUGHT UP OR THAT HAVE JUST BEEN ITEMS THAT STAFF HAS ACCUMULATED OVER TIME.
STAFF HAS NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO ANY KIND OF PRIORITIZATION.
WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY PRIORITIZATION.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THE FEELING OF THE BOARD AS FAR AS GOING FORWARD WITH A LIST OR THIS LIST.
KELLY, CAN YOU DO ANY PRIORITIZATION ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU THINK THAT THE COMMISSION VIEWS AS NUMBER 1, NUMBER 2?
>> BASED ON WHOSE LIST? YES. THE QUESTION. BASED ON WHAT?
>> DO YOU HAVE YOU HAVE THIS LIST LIST ON APRIL 10, UPDATED PAB ITEMS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION OR ACTION? I DO. YOU HAVE THIS ONE?
>> IT'S THE ONE THAT WAS IN THE MAY 8 DATA PACK. SAME ONE.
[02:20:04]
NOW, NICK MENTIONED SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THE VARIOUS MEETINGS WE'VE HAD WITH THE CITY COMMISSIONERS IN TERMS OF TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME I DID FIND ONE, AS YOU SAID, AREN'T THERE A LIST? WELL, I DID FIND ONE, BUT IT ONLY DEALT WITH PARKING, BUT IT'S 11 ITEMS JUST ON PARKING.BUT IT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT I FOUND THAT WAS ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED ON ONE PLACE. I HAVE A COPY OF.
BUT THERE'S ALREADY AN ITEM CALLED PARKING ON THAT MASTER LIST.
NOW WE'VE GOT TO THINK HOW FAR WE'RE GOING TO PEEL THAT ONION BACK.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH PARKING? IT MAY BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ALL DAY.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE IT. IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
IT IS WHAT IT IS. THERE ISN'T ANOTHER SQUARE INCH OF LAND THAT'S GOING TO BE GROWING INTO THIS ISLAND.
>> IT'S BEEN TALKED I'VE BEEN HERE 25 YEARS.
IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
WERE THERE OTHER THINGS NICK THAT YOU HAD ON YEA? NO. THAT'S IT.
THEN DO WE JUST KEEP THIS LIST AND THEN PERIODICALLY, WE GO THROUGH IT AND WE UPDATED OR WHAT DO WE DO WITH THIS LIST?
>> I WOULD SAY MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE IS MAYBE JUST LET KELLY JUST SEND IT BACK OUT AS A SEPARATE STAIN FYI. HERE IS THE LIST.
THIS IS WE HAVE MADE CHANGES, IT'S STILL A GOOD BASELINE.
I WOULD TRY AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO BE IS LETTER WE LOOK AT AND SAY, OKAY TOP 3 OR 4, 5, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SIDEWALL 19 OR 20 ITEMS ON.
PICK THE ONES THAT IN YOUR OPINION ARE MOST SIGNIFICANT.
IT HAPPENS TO BE ON HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTS, THAT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS ON HERE.
WE GOT PARKING, LONG RANGE PLANS, RESTRUCTURING EXISTING LDC CONTENT.
WELL, SOME OF THAT'S ALREADY GOING ON.
YOU MAY SAY, WELL, WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT ANYMORE.
I WOULD PROBABLY SAY, DO THE TOP 3, TOP 5 HIT PARADE BECAUSE YOU CAN'T YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIGHT THEM ALL.
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE PARKING.
>> EXACTLY. IN TRANSPORTATION, WE DON'T KNOW YET.
>> KELLY, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN THINK OF THAT WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO UNDERTAKE?
>> THERE YOU GO. S F. WHAT IS THAT?
>> I THINK THAT IN ADDITION TO PD, I THINK YOU NEED TO REALLY BE THINKING ABOUT PARKING.
>> PARKING. SPECIFICALLY PARKING STANDARDS.
>> YES. DECREASING PARKING STANDARDS OR ELIMINATING THEM ENTIRELY.
JUST A COMPLETE SHIFT, BUT WE MAY NOT BE READY FOR THAT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT PARKING STANDARDS OVERALL AND WHETHER OR NOT OUR EXISTING STANDARDS ARE IN KEEPING WITH CURRENT PRACTICE AND WHAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR A SIMILARLY POSITIONED COMMUNITY LIKE OURS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE PERFORMING THE WAY THAT WE WANT THEM TO.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE THINKING NOT ONLY ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES PER WHATEVER USE THAT IS, BUT HOW WE CONFIGURE PARKING AND HAVE DESIGN STANDARDS TIED TO IT, ARE THEY ACHIEVING WHAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO DO THEN IDEALLY, I'D REALLY LIKE FOR US TO THINK ABOUT SOME FLEXIBILITY IF MAYBE WE'RE NOT READY TO TALK ABOUT REDUCED PARKING MINIMUMS OR ELIMINATE PARKING MINIMUMS AND SOME FLEXIBILITY WITHIN OUR EIGHTH STREET AREA.
>> TO BUILD ON THAT. MAYBE WE JUST ESTABLISH MAXIMUM PARKING STANDARDS, AND THEN, LET EVERYBODY ELSE DO WHAT THEY WANT.
THEY WANT FOUR PARKING STALLS AND THEY GET FOUR PARKING STALLS.
YES. BUT YOU DON'T WANT SOMEONE COMING IN DOING THE SHOPPING CENTER THAT SAYS I NEED 400 PARKING SPOTS.
THERE ARE DEVELOPERS OUT THERE THAT WILL PUT AS MANY PARKING SPACES AS YOU ALL.
THE TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR AT THE COUNCIL OF AG.
I COULD GET WITH HIM AND FIND OUT LOGISTICALLY WHEN THERE'S A HAND OUT OFF AND WHAT IF HE KNOWS ALL THE DETAIL.
THEN I'LL JUST I CAN BRING IT BACK.
I CAN COVER THAT. I'M AWARE OF WHAT THOSE DETAILS ARE.
>> SHE'S AWARE OF IT. SHE GIVE US [INAUDIBLE].
>> JUST DO THAT ONE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
>> UNDER THE STAFF REPORT? MAYBE THAT WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO START THAT WHOLE CONVERSATION ON THE PARKING.
[02:25:01]
THAT WOULD BE UNDER STAFF REPORT FOR NEXT TIME FOR JULY.>> OH, SURE. I CAN TELL YOU NOW THAT IT'S EXPECTED FOR SEPTEMBER.
>> FOR THE INTERESTING TIME, I THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IN JULY.
FOR OUR JULY MEETING. DOES THAT WORK FOR THE [OVERLAPPING] FOR THE BOARD.
>> IN TERMS OF DISCUSSION, IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING I SHOULD PROBABLY EMAIL YOU.
>> YOU COULD. THEN, AGAIN, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO START THAT CONVERSATION, GETTING FEEDBACK FROM US ON WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEND OUT TO US.
DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYTHING EXTRA.
>> IT'S NOT REALLY A CONVERSATION.
LIKE THERE'S NOT, YES. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
>> THE REASON I DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF TRANSPORTATION IS JUST THE FACT THAT I'LL BRING IT UP AGAIN, BOCA RATON FLORIDA IS PUTTING IN A NEW IN CITY TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM.
SO CATIA, TWO BUCKS, SOME CASA FOUR DEPENDS ON THE PERIMETER.
THEY'RE USING ALL ELECTRIC VEHICLES, AND THERE'S.
I'M SURE YOU CAN'T SEE IT, BUT ANYWAY, THEY'VE GOT A SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED VEHICLE FOR IT, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY WOULD PROBABLY HOLD MAYBE NINE PEOPLE.
NOW, I DON'T EVEN FIRST OF ALL, KNOW IF SOMETHING BULK HAS PROBABLY GOT TO BE WHAT 70,000 PEOPLE AT THIS POINT, 75,000.
>> IT COULD BE 100. BUT ANYWAY, CAN GET INTO THE ECONOMICS.
I'M NOT SURE THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO IT.
WHAT THEY DID IS, THEY BENDED OUT THE WHOLE SERVICE ONE YEAR.
BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT HOW WE CHANGE TRAFFIC FLOWS AND SO FORTH.
THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT START POKING AT, AND THEN WE CAN CRANK THAT IN AS JUST PART OF OUR TRANSPORTATION DISCUSSION.
>> TO JUST PROVIDE A QUICK COMMENT ON THAT.
LAST YEAR, AND AGAIN, THIS YEAR, I'VE REQUESTED BUDGETED FUNDS IN AN AMOUNT OF $175,000.
PART OF THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE TO SUPPORT THE NEW TRANSIT SYSTEM AND THE PAYMENT TOWARDS TRANSIT SYSTEM THAT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR NASSAU COUNTY, TO CONNECT SERVICES INTO THE CITY LIMITS AND BE A TRUE PARTNER IN THAT.
ANOTHER PORTION OF THAT FUND WOULD BE TO SUPPORT MICROTRANSIT.
VEHICLES, SUCH AS WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING AND OTHERS, SO THAT WE COULD OFFER REDUCED FEES OR FREE FEES FOR THAT LAST MILE CONNECTIVITY.
IN AS PART OF A LARGER TRANSIT SYSTEM.
THEN WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE WOULD ULTIMATELY BE UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION.
IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO AN RFP, AND THEN WE'D HAVE A PARTICULAR VENDOR THAT'S CHOSEN.
USUALLY, THOSE SERVICES ARE A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS.
BUT TYPICALLY, YOU'LL SEE CONTRACTS OUT FOR FIVE YEARS BECAUSE PROCURING THE VEHICLES AND GETTING A SYSTEM LIKE THAT RUNNING DOES HAVE A LOT OF UPFRONT COST.
YOU WANT TO HAVE A VENDOR IN PLACE THAT CAN SUPPORT THAT.
>> BOOKER GOT THERE FOR ONE YEAR.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT MAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER PARAMETERS WENT INTO THE CONTRACT, BUT SUPPOSEDLY IT'S A ONE YEAR CONTRACT TRY IT OUT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU CAN GIVE US [OVERLAPPING] BREAKING THE MODEL.
>> HAVE YOU BEEN GETTING THE UPDATES THAT I'VE ALREADY BEEN SENDING FORWARD.
>> RECOMMENDATION, SHORT TERM MEDIUM, LONG TERM.
>> WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THE DIRECTION THINGS ARE HEADING WISE. GO AHEAD.
[7. STAFF REPORT]
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO BRING TO US YOUR STAFF REPORT?>> YES. IN ADDITION TO THE UPDATES WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED GENERALLY, WE STILL HAVE ACTIVE PROJECTS GOING FORWARD, INCLUDING OUR IMPACT FEE STUDY, OUR SMALL AREA MODEL.
THESE SHOULD BE COMING TO CULMINATION WITHIN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS, AS WELL AS THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND CERA DESIGN GUIDELINES.
WE'RE WORKING TO INTEGRATE MUNI CODE.
WE JUST NEED TO HAND THAT OFF TO MUNI CODE IN ORDER TO GET THAT FINALIZED.
THEN YOU'VE SEEN SOME OF THE LAND DEDICATIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING.
KATHY IS WORKING ON CONSERVATION WEBSITE UPDATES AS WELL AS OUR GREENWAY WEBSITE UPDATES.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON GETTING TRAFFIC COUNTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA FOR A LARGER STUDY IN TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND PARKING.
WE'VE REQUESTED FUNDS FOR MICROTRANSIT, AS WELL AS THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITHIN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
THEN AN UPCOMING EVENT OF INTEREST WILL BE OUR PLANNING 101 TRAINING.
ACTUALLY, NASSAU COUNTY IS LOOKING TO HOST THIS RATHER THAN CLAY COUNTY.
THAT WILL BE IN MID OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE CANNOT PAY FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND.
[02:30:01]
BUT WE WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND.IT'S WELL WORTH THE TIME AND MONEY TO GO.
THERE WILL BE PROFESSIONALS FROM APA HERE TO ASSIST WITH THAT TRAINING.
IT INCLUDES JUST ALL THINGS PLANNING 101.
I WILL SEND OUT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT AS SOON AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE FROM THE COUNTY WHO IS ORGANIZING THIS AND INVITING AND ENCOURAGING ALL OF US TO ATTEND.
THIS WILL GO OUT TO ALL OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS FOR THEM TO ATTEND.
THEN WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED THOSE OTHER TOPICS OF INTEREST.
>> OCTOBER, MID OCTOBER MIDDLE OF OCTOBER.
>> NOW I OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
ITEM NUMBER 8, PUBLIC COMMENT.
IS ANY PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT? ALL TWO OF YOU? NO.
>> YOU'RE GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THEN HEARING THAT WE HAVE NO COMMENTS.
WE'RE ADJOURNED. [NOISE] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ONE LAST COMMENT [INAUDIBLE]. FORM ONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.