6.1 Presentation of Research Prepared by Emily Flint, Planning & Conservation Intern and Continued Discussion of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards as previously requested by the Board.

[6.1 Presentation of Research Prepared by Emily Flint, Planning & Conservation Intern and Continued Discussion of Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards as previously requested by the Board.]

[00:05:10]

THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AS PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED BY THE BOARD.

KELLY, I WILL LEAVE IT TO YOU.

YES. SO TODAY I HAVE OUR PLANNING CONSERVATION INTERN WHO'S WORKED PREDOMINANTLY IN OUR GREENWAY WITH KATHY RUSSELL ALL SUMMER LONG.

BUT SHE'S ALSO TAKEN ON A PLANNING PROJECT FOR US TO DO SOME RESEARCH FOLLOWING THE BOARD'S DIRECTION TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

AND YOU SAW THE CULMINATION OF THAT THROUGH THE SUMMARY THAT SHE'S PROVIDED, AS WELL AS THE EXTENSIVE, BACKGROUND IN LOOKING AT VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND SO SHE HAS A PRESENTATION ON THAT FOR YOU.

AND EMILY IS A RECENT GRADUATE WITH A DEGREE IN MARINE BIOLOGY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

AND IS LEAVING US ACTUALLY, TODAY IS HER LAST DAY WITH US.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER, NOW'S THE TIME SHE IS LEAVING FOR SALT LAKE CITY TO ATTEND THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH AND IS GOING TO LAW SCHOOL WITH A CONCENTRATION IN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW.

FANTASTIC. YES. CONGRATULATIONS.

CONGRATULATIONS. AND I WILL TURN THIS OVER TO HER.

I'M SURE THE COMPUTER WILL TAKE JUST A MINUTE TO FLIP.

ALL RIGHT, SO AS KELLY HAD STATED, I AM EMILY FLINT.

I'M GOING TO BE TALKING TO YOU GUYS TODAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS FLORIDA.

I DECIDED TO LOOK AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT ARE COASTAL BECAUSE THEY'RE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO FERNANDINA BEACH.

AND I COMPILED A LOT OF RESEARCH, AS I BELIEVE YOU GUYS SAW IN YOUR PACKETS.

AND SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE WORK THAT I'VE DONE.

SO FOR A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS HAVE BECOME REALLY COMMON.

AND THEY HAVE SPECIFIC SETS OF REQUIREMENTS THAT MAY DIFFER FROM TRADITIONAL ZONING REGULATIONS.

THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT DO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS OF MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE BOARD, AND THE STANDARDS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACCESS ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED.

SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS HIGHLY REGULATED, EVEN THOUGH IT IS IN ITS OWN CATEGORY OF DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO THE MAIN REASONS TO HAVE PUDS ARE TO ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, BOTH FOR THE DEVELOPERS AND FOR CITY STAFF IN THE APPROVAL OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS, AND THESE ENCOURAGE EFFICIENT USE OF SPACE THROUGH MIXED USE PATTERNS, AS WELL AS JUST DIFFERENT SETBACK AND BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS, AND KIND OF A DIFFERENT LAYOUT THAN YOU MIGHT SEE IN A STANDARD SUBDIVISION OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT PATTERN.

SO THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO TOUCH ON IS THE MINIMUM AREA.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I SAW PRETTY MUCH ACROSS THE BOARD WITH DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES IS THEY HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS REGARDING HOW LARGE A PARCEL OF LAND HAS TO BE IN ORDER TO BE PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND SO THE MINIMUM SIZES RANGE FROM 1 TO 20 ACRES, DEPENDING ON THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA THAT WAS ENFORCING THEM.

SOME CITIES DON'T HAVE MINIMUMS, AND SO THIS IDEA OF HAVING A MINIMUM AREA IS MEANT TO ENSURE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND ESPECIALLY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT'S MEANT TO PROTECT FROM THINGS LIKE TRAFFIC AND DIFFERENT INFRASTRUCTURAL ISSUES THAT MIGHT ARISE.

IF YOU HAVE A VERY SMALL OR VERY LARGE, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS AREA CAN BE STAGGERED DEPENDING ON THE ALLOWABLE USES.

SO SOMETHING THAT WAS EXISTING IN FERNANDINA CODE WAS HAVING A THREE ACRE REQUIREMENT AND DECREASING THAT TO TWO ACRES WITH THE INTEGRATION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND YOU CAN ALSO DO THE OPPOSITE WITH COMMERCIAL, WHERE YOU CAN SAY, OKAY, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMMERCIAL AREA, WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE MINIMUM ACREAGE SO THAT WE CAN ENSURE COMPATIBILITY AND HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE AREA TO WORK WITH IN THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO ANOTHER CHARACTERISTIC WAS OPEN SPACE.

AND MOST MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRE 20 TO 25% OF THE AREA TO BE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED SETBACKS, RIGHTS OF WAY AND SOME WATER AREAS DON'T ALWAYS COUNT AS PART OF THIS REQUIREMENT, SO THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS ON EXACTLY WHAT QUALIFIES AS OPEN SPACE, AND THAT'S MEANT TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INTENTIONAL THOUGHT BEING PUT INTO WHERE THESE OPEN SPACES ARE.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO BE COMMUNITY AREAS AND THINGS THAT REALLY BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS OF THE PUD.

SO THE NEXT THING THAT A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES TOUCHED ON IS PRESERVED SPACE.

VOLUSIA REQUIRES 10% OF ITS OPEN SPACE TO BE PRESERVED IN ITS NATURAL STATE, AND THIS PRESERVATION COULD POTENTIALLY BE INCENTIVIZED IN FERNANDINA BEACH THROUGH FLEXIBILITY AND

[00:10:02]

REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS THE MINIMUM AREA.

SO ONE THING THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT IS TO BE ABLE TO SAY, YES, WE HAVE A MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENT, BUT IF YOU PRESERVE EXTRA SPACE AND REALLY ENSURE THAT YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS MATCHING THE CHARACTER OF THE ISLAND, THEN POTENTIALLY THOSE STANDARDS COULD BE REDUCED.

AND THIS CAN ALSO HELP WITH THE RETENTION OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND ENSURING THAT THERE ARE WILDLIFE CORRIDORS, ESPECIALLY ALONG THE GREENWAY AND OTHER CONSERVATION LANDS THAT ARE REALLY COMMON IN FERNANDINA BEACH.

SO THE NEXT THING IS RECREATIONAL SPACE.

A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRE RECREATIONAL SPACES THAT ARE DIVIDED INTO ACTIVE AND PASSIVE USE.

SO THE ACTIVE USES ARE THINGS THAT YOU THINK OF WITH SPORTS AND, YOU KNOW, COURTS, PLAYGROUNDS, SWIMMING AREAS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND THE PASSIVE AREAS ARE MORE LIKE BENCHES AND PICNIC AREAS.

FERNANDINA BEACH ALREADY HAS A LOT OF USABLE RECREATION AREA, SO WE MIGHT LOOK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THE STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD IMPLEMENT FOR THAT.

GOLF COURSES AND WATER AREAS ALSO CAN EARN A LIMITED AMOUNT OF CREDIT TOWARDS MEETING THESE REQUIREMENTS.

SO I SAW A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, CITIES THAT SAID, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RECREATIONAL SPACE AND YOU CAN HAVE THINGS LIKE GOLF AND SWIMMING AREAS AND THOSE SORTS OF PASSIVE VIEWPOINTS, BUT THAT THEY COULDN'T EXCEED A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE CREDIT.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I BELIEVE IT WAS INDIAN HARBOR BEACH THAT STATED THAT A GOLF COURSE OR SWIMMING AREA COULD BE USED FOR UP TO 50% OF THE REQUIRED RECREATIONAL SPACE.

SO ANOTHER STANDARD THAT CAN BE DIFFERENT IS BUFFERING.

SO THROUGHOUT THESE COMMUNITIES THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS CAN DIFFER AND ARE USED BETWEEN THE USES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS WITHIN AND AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING AT SOME DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, COMPATIBILITY CHALLENGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, ESPECIALLY IN MIXED USE AREAS.

AND BUFFERS CAN BE USED TO MITIGATE THOSE.

AND THEY HELP TO MAINTAIN THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS AS WELL.

SO IT'S A USEFUL TOOL, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THESE DEVELOPMENTS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE A GOOD FIT FOR THE COMMUNITY.

SO JUST AS A BRIEF LITTLE OVERVIEW, THE ADVANTAGES OF PUDS ARE THEY PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SITE DESIGN AND APPROVAL PROCESS.

AND THEY ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED DESIGNS THAT REALLY BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS WHERE THEY OCCUR.

THERE ARE SOME DISADVANTAGES WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR LONG TERM INCONSISTENCY REGARDING APPROVAL.

THIS IS A PARTICULAR ISSUE IF YOU DON'T EXPLICITLY LAY OUT WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE YOUR INTENT AND THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND FOR THESE PUDS THAT MATCH THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA IN WHICH THEY WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.

SO SOME RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE TO ENSURE THE COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING AREAS, TO USE A BIG PICTURE APPROACH AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, PUTTING THEM IN AN AREA WHERE THEY'LL BE ABLE TO FULFILL THEIR OBJECTIVES AND ALSO TO STATE THE REGULATIONS EXPLICITLY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ESPECIALLY FOR CHARACTERISTICS LIKE I WENT OVER HERE WITH MINIMUM SIZE, OPEN AND RECREATIONAL SPACE BUFFERING AND PRESERVATION STANDARDS, AND I THINK THAT'S IT.

DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? I HAVE A COMMENT, MADAM CHAIR.

THANKS. GO AHEAD. I JUST WANT TO THANK EMILY FOR DOING THIS BECAUSE I TRIED TO DO SOME OF THIS AND I DIDN'T GET CALLS BACK.

AND YOU MUST HAVE REALLY BEEN DILIGENT IN YOUR WORK TO BE ABLE TO CONTACT US, BECAUSE YOU WENT THROUGH A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT I CALL THAT I NEVER GOT A CALL BACK FROM, SO I PULLED MOST OF THIS INFORMATION STRAIGHT FROM THEIR CODE, SO I HAD TROUBLE FINDING IT.

YEAH, I IMAGINE IT WAS.

WELL, GOOD JOB THOUGH. THANK YOU.

YEAH, YOU CAN TELL SHE'S JUST MEANER THAN YOU ARE.

WELL, YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

THE MAYBE NOT A QUESTION NECESSARILY FOR YOU, EMILY, BUT MAYBE FOR KELLY TOO.

WE HAVE WE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS, I THINK, HAVEN'T WE? AND DETERMINED THERE REALLY ISN'T MUCH AREA LEFT IN THE CITY LIMITS FOR PUDS, IS THAT CORRECT? AS IT'S CURRENTLY ESTABLISHED, THE MINIMUM ACREAGE IS FIVE ACRES TO QUALIFY FOR A PUD, UNLESS IT IS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PURPOSES, AND THEN IT IS A LOWER THRESHOLD AT TWO ACRES.

AND SO, WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. THERE'S NOT VERY MUCH LAND AVAILABLE THAT IS GOING TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

AND SO DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVE PUD STANDARDS SO THAT YOU CAN GAIN FROM IT ADDITIONAL BENEFITS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S OCCURRING THERE? IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT REDUCED STANDARD.

AND SO THAT'S I THINK REALLY WHERE WE'RE AT AS A BOARD, WE'VE TOSSED AROUND A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

ANYTHING GOING FROM JUST UNDER AN ACRE TO NO MINIMUM.

WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES THAT THE BOARD, I THINK HAS DISCUSSED IN PRETTY GOOD DETAIL AT THIS POINT.

[00:15:04]

SO THIS RESEARCH, I THINK, SERVES TO PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH A OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS HAPPENING THROUGHOUT THE STATE RIGHT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF WHERE THE BOARD IS CONSIDERING MAKING CHANGES IS CONSISTENT WITH, YOU KNOW WHAT THE STATE, WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE DOING, AND THE RESEARCH SHOWS THAT IT'S WIDESPREAD.

IT REALLY IS GOING TO BE UNIQUE TO THAT INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY AND THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY.

SO I THINK ALL THAT TO SAY, IT REALLY PUTS THE BALL BACK IN YOUR COURT TO THINK THROUGH, YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT STANDARD LOOK LIKE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AT THIS POINT IN TIME? AND I THINK I YOU GO AHEAD.

NO. GO AHEAD. I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO DEVELOP PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY AND THEY KNOW THEY, THEY WANT IT ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, I'M SURE THEY KNOW THAT AHEAD OF TIME.

IS THERE ANY WAY WE COULD.

REQUIRE THEM TO IF THE PROPERTY IS BIG ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT A POD AND USE WHATEVER.

YEAH, WHATEVER LEVERAGE WE HAVE IF THEY WANT TO COME IN TO INFLUENCE THEIR DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THIS, TO THIS WORK, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IF A PROPERTY IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY AND IS RELYING ON CITY SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING THERE, THE COUNTY WILL DIRECT THAT THEY GO AHEAD AND ANNEX AND DEVELOP THAT PROJECT IN THE CITY.

SO AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO OFFER TO THEM THE RANGE OF OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE WITHIN THE CITY'S REGULATORY FRAMEWORK.

OKAY, BUT IF IT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY, IF IT'S NOT, IF IT'S RIGHT, CONTIGUOUS AND THEY'RE RELYING ON A WATER AND WASTEWATER AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES, WE CANNOT ANNEX THEM. WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO BIND THEM TO ANY OF OUR REGULATIONS.

AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH AS A BOARD, AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN AT A TIME WHEN YOU WERE NOT ON BOARD.

BUT THE REASON BEHIND NOT THERE ARE SEVERAL MECHANISMS. AND I KNOW OUR CITY ATTORNEY CAN GO INTO THEM AS WELL, BUT WE COULD ENTER INTO A JOINT PLANNING AREA WITH THE COUNTY THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR LIMITED DEVELOPMENT, REVIEW AND COORDINATION TO OCCUR.

AND THAT'S A MECHANISM WHERE WE'D HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

IT WOULD STIPULATE EXACTLY HOW WE WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING.

IF WE WERE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE CITY ENDS UP FORGOING THE SURCHARGE ON OUR UTILITY BILLS THAT WE CURRENTLY COLLECT ON THOSE USERS WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS.

AND SO THERE'S A FINANCIAL DISADVANTAGE TO GOING THAT DIRECTION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO YOU MENTIONED INCONSISTENCIES IN APPROVAL.

IS THAT BECAUSE OF.

BECAUSE THESE SEEM PRETTY CLEAR.

THE INTERPRETATION AT THE TIME.

BECAUSE THAT'S A LOT OF TIMES THAT HAPPENS HERE.

IT'S SOMEBODY INTERPRETING STANDARD AND IT'S NOT THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD.

YEAH. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE HAVING THINGS REALLY EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE CODE IS VERY USEFUL, BECAUSE THAT'LL HOLD UP FOR LONGER TERM THROUGH TURNOVER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

CHANGES IN WHO ARE, YOU KNOW, APPROVING AND REVIEWING THESE PROJECTS.

I NOTICED WHEN I WAS REVIEWING OUR CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE HAD MENTIONS OF, YOU KNOW, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL SPACE AND BUFFERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT IT WASN'T VERY SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF BOTH THE DEFINITIONS AND THE APPLICATIONS TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.

SO THOSE ARE SPOTS WHERE I THINK THAT MINOR CHANGES COULD BE MADE THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THE APPROVAL IS CONSISTENT IN THE LONG TERM, AND IT'S REALLY JUST ABOUT SETTING THAT FOUNDATION WHERE THERE ARE CLEAR EXPECTATIONS AND A CLEAR PROCESS THROUGH THE APPROVAL OF THESE PROJECTS.

I HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION.

NICK OR KELLY? IS THERE A WAY OF ASSESSING WHAT THE AVERAGE COST OF, SAY, A SMALL PUD WOULD BE IN TERMS OF TWO THE PERSON OR PERSONS DOING GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING IT ALL, BECAUSE IN EFFECT, THE POD WHEN IT COMES TO THE TRC IS ALREADY GOT TO BE BASICALLY DESIGNED.

THE ENGINEERING HAS GOT TO BE PRETTY MUCH DONE.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT? FOR THE MOST PART, YEAH. IF IT'S IF IT'S THOUGHT OUT.

WELL, YEAH, IT'S THERE'S SOME TIME AND FINANCIAL BURDEN TO THE APPLICANT BEFORE THEY EVER COME IN AND WALK IN TO SEE KELLY.

SO THEY'VE GOT TO BE COMMITTED TO THE PROCESS.

[00:20:04]

OKAY. WELL AND IF I CAN COMMENT TO THAT OFTEN WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH A PUD IS THAT YOU'LL HAVE A CONCEPT IN MIND. AND WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE DETAILED ENGINEERING SIDE OF IT WOULD BE COMING TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THOSE STIPULATIONS AND A GENERAL IDEA OF HOW IT WOULD LOOK, HOW IT WOULD WORK FROM AN ENGINEERING SENSE, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE FULLY ENGINEERED AT THE POINT THAT YOU WOULD SEE IT. AT THAT POINT, YOU MIGHT AS WELL BRING IN A SUBDIVISION ALONGSIDE YOUR PUTT, AND YOU COULD DO THAT.

IT'S RISKY BECAUSE OF THE TIME INVOLVED WITH IT, SO YOU WOULD SEE IT AT AN EARLIER PHASE BEFORE IT'S BEEN FULLY ENGINEERED, TYPICALLY. AND I'LL BUILD ON THAT.

PETER, SHE'S RIGHT ABOUT THAT.

USUALLY, WE'LL DO MORE WORK THAN WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED JUST TO MAKE SURE THE IDEAS AND CONCEPTS WORK FROM DRAINAGE, WATER, SEWER ACCESS, ALL THOSE ITEMS. BUT IT WOULDN'T BE AS DETAILED AS THE FINAL PLAT THAT WOULD COME.

WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE YOU WANT TO.

IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE AN ACCESS POINT OR YOU WANT TO CHANGE OPEN SPACE OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, YOU DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR ALONG IN THE PROCESS.

BUT YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A LOT OF YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHT PUT INTO IT BEFORE YOU COME HERE.

THE REASON I'M ASKING YOU THAT QUESTION UP FRONT IS, WOULD IT BE PLAUSIBLE TO SAY WE'LL HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT THE MINIMUM SIZE IS? WE WILL LET THE COST OF ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTING A PUD TO BE THE CONTROL POINT OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S THE AFFORDABILITY OR BREAK EVEN POINT, OR THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT.

IS IT THERE? SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU JUST SAID I'LL LET IT BE, IT CAN BE ZERO OR GREATER, BUT I'LL LET THE REST OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REMAIN INTACT AS YOU REVIEW, BECAUSE THE TASK IS GOING TO SEE EVERYTHING.

WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE REVIEW BASED ON.

SO THERE'S NOT A LOSS OF, I DON'T THINK, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CONTROL.

I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU JUST YOU DON'T HAVE A RESTRICTION AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOT YOU.

MAYBE I'M WRONG.

I DON'T KNOW THAT. WE'VE GOT FIVE ACRES OF CONTIGUOUS SPACE INSIDE THE CITY THAT'S CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

NO. NOT SO.

NO, NOT AT ALL.

YES, BUT WE CAN'T.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE HOW WE ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GET IN THE AVAILABILITY OF THE POD THAT DEALS WITH ANY ANNEXATIONS THAT MAY BE COMING TO THE CITY.

OKAY. SO YOU MAKE IT AVAILABLE.

THAT'S ALL. ALL RIGHT. NOW, I THOUGHT AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE KIND OF CONCLUDED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T NEED A MINIMUM SIZE.

WELL, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I.

OKAY. YEAH, YEAH. JUST GOING BACK, STARTING AT SQUARE ONE AGAIN.

NOW, IF WE HAD AN APPLICATION FOR A PUD AND IT HAPPENED TO BE R-1, I'M JUST.

I'M PICKING THAT ONE FOR A REASON.

SO THAT'S STILL GOING TO RESTRICT.

IT'S FOR RESIDENCES PER ACRE.

RIGHT. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS RIGHT.

NOW. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS IT SAYS IN OUR CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE C-1 AND C-2 CAN BE UTILIZED, BUT C ONE AND C TWO.

BASICALLY, IF I GET THE RIGHT DOCUMENT HERE IT DOESN'T ALLOW THERE'S NO DENSITY IDENTIFIED.

CORRECT. SO ON THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT.

YOU COULD HAVE A RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES ALREADY OCCUPYING THE SAME COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, BUT IT COULD NOT BE.

IT COULD NOT BE RESIDENTIAL.

ALL RIGHT OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I, WHAT I DID THAT WAS THE LINK I WAS MISSING IN TERMS OF OKAY, SO C-1 AND C-2, I WAS TRYING TO THINK THE PROPERTY IN 14TH STREET, PART OF THAT'S C-1 AND C-2, AND IT FOUND THERE WHERE THE OLD CHURCH.

YES. OKAY.

SO THAT COULD NOT THAT IF THAT WERE TO BECOME A PART IT COULD NOT BE RESIDENTIAL.

NO. OKAY.

I'LL TELL YOU THE SHORT TERM AFTER LISTENING, I'M ABOUT READY TO SAY JUST GET RID OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR A MINIMUM ACREAGE.

BUT I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO REALLY DEFINE SOME OF THE LIKE AN UNDER J UNDER THE LDC STANDARDS, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE DESIGN STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU GOT, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS, MINIMUM, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

ALL OF THESE I THINK THEN WOULD NEED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.

BUT IF YOU KEEP IT AS TAKE AWAY THE MINIMUM ACREAGE, BUT YOUR REVIEW PROCESS WOULD BE UNCHANGED.

TRC AND PLANNING AND YOUR OTHER LDC REQUIREMENTS AS THEY EXIST WOULD BE UNCHANGED.

CORRECT? NO, THAT THAT CAN'T BE TRUE.

THEY CAN'T GO TOGETHER IN THAT POINT BECAUSE NOW THERE'S NO REASON FOR IT.

BUT IF YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO NAVIGATE SETBACKS OR PLACEMENT, WHAT HE'S SAYING IS WE'LL JUST GET RID OF THE MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT, GET RID,

[00:25:03]

DON'T CHANGE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OR ANYTHING.

YOU'LL FOLLOW ALL THE NORMAL PUD RULES WHERE YOU'LL WRITE YOUR OWN ZONING, YOUR OWN SETBACKS, AND ALL THAT.

CORRECT? BUT YOU JUST THE ONLY THING YOU WOULD STRIKE WOULD BE THE MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES, YES.

YEAH, YEAH, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY CHANGE.

THE REST OF YOUR BUSINESS PROCESS AND BUSINESS CONTROLS AND TECHNICAL CONTROLS WILL REMAIN THE SAME.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

AND IT SAYS SOMETHING THAT, THROUGH EMILY'S RESEARCH AND OUR DISCUSSIONS TOGETHER, AS SHE WAS PREPARING FOR THE PRESENTATION, THAT REALLY KIND OF CAME TO MIND.

AND THAT IS INSTEAD OF THINKING ABOUT THIS IN TERMS OF MINIMUM ACREAGE, BUT INSTEAD BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS CREATED AS A RESULT OF THE PUD AND SETTING A MINIMUM THRESHOLD THERE.

THE REASON I THINK ABOUT THAT IS BECAUSE DO YOU WANT TO SEE A PUD THAT'S THREE BUILDING SITES OR ONE BUILDING SITE, AND BY ELIMINATING AN ACREAGE, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT YOU COULD HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL HOME SITE COME IN AND REQUEST A PUD. SO WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IF THERE IS A MINIMUM IN LIKE WHY WOULD YOU ENGAGE IN THIS PROCESS? I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD GO THROUGH THAT AT ONE, TWO OR EVEN THREE HOME SITES.

BUT IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME REASON THAT WOULD BE COMPELLING ENOUGH THAT THEY WOULD.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD IS WANTING TO SEE? WAS THERE A DOWNSIDE TO THAT? I THINK THE PREDICTABILITY, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WOULD DO IT WOULD STILL BE RUNNING IT THROUGH A PUBLIC PROCESS.

BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO THINK ABOUT.

IF THERE'S MAYBE A MINIMUM TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE CREATED INSTEAD OF ACREAGE.

YEAH. WELL, THE REASON I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT, I WAS LOOKING AT FROM A STANDPOINT OF HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU WANT TO INVEST IN HAVING THAT POD? I THOUGHT MAYBE THAT WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE BALANCE FROM A FINANCIAL STANDPOINT AND A TIME STANDPOINT.

YEAH, THAT'S I MEAN, THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO THROW THE ADAGE OF THE MARK IS, LET'S IF WE GET FLOODED WITH A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO DO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS A PD, THEN WE REGROUP.

SURE, ABSOLUTELY.

IF WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, AND WE GET WHAT WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET, THEN IT'S A SUCCESS.

SO THE ADVANTAGE, THOUGH, OF AN INDIVIDUAL PUTTING ONE HOUSE ON A LOT UNDER A PUD, IS THAT WHAT IT COULD BE? YOU CAN MOVE THE HOUSE AROUND OR, YOU KNOW, AROUND TREES.

YOU COULD. BUT WOULD IT BE A, I MEAN, IS IT GOING TO BE CLOSER TO YOUR NEIGHBOR OR IS IT GOING TO I MEAN, THAT COULD BE THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS NOW YOU'RE INSTEAD OF A LOT LINE, YOU KNOW, DISTANCE YOUR SETBACKS.

NOW YOU'RE JUST RIGHT UP NEXT TO HIM.

BUT THE PD IS GOING TO COME IN FOR SOME OVERSIGHT AND BE APPROVED OR DISAPPROVED BY THIS BOARD.

AND THE NEIGHBOR COULD BE THE NEIGHBOR CAN COME TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK WHERE THEY MIGHT NOT DURING STRAIGHT ZONING.

SO THERE'S CONTROLS IN PLACE.

NO SURPRISE TO ME.

I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT THAT.

I WORRY ABOUT THE TRC'S ROLE.

NOW. WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK AT? ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK AT LOOK AT THE SAME THING ON EVERY PROJECT? I MEAN, SO.

THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THEIR THING.

WELL, I THINK SO.

NOT THAT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET THIS, BUT IF IT WERE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, ONE PROPERTY YOU WOULD NOT GO THROUGH TO SEE, IT WOULD BE A PUD AND APPROVAL, BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING CHANGE THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION.

AND THEN THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR THAT PUD THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH WHEN THEY COME IN FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.

THERE WILL BE TWO. I THINK THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES PUDS TO COME TO TRC.

MAYBE I THINK THEY DO.

I CAN DOUBLE CHECK THAT.

SO THAT WOULD BE ONE MORE BURDEN THAT I THINK THAT A HOMEOWNER WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

BUT DID YOU SAY THAT IT WOULDN'T COME TO US? NO IT WOULD. IT WOULD HAVE TO.

OKAY, ABSOLUTELY.

I CAN'T THINK OF ANY REASON WHY ANYONE WOULD DEVELOP ONE HOUSE ON A PUD.

THAT'S LIKE DOING AN EXTRA STEP YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO.

AND INCURRING ALL THAT GRIEF AND AGGRAVATION AND MONEY.

YOU WOULDN'T DO IT. THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS IF THERE'S A 60 INCH HERITAGE OAK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT, AND THEY WANT TO COME IN AND MOVE THEIR HOUSE UP FRONT AND THEY CAN'T GET A VARIANCE APPROVED FOR SETBACKS, AND THEN MAYBE THEY.

WELL, AND KEEP IN MIND, WE'VE DONE A LOT TO SUPPORT SINGLE TREES AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

WITH THAT KIND OF MEASURE WHERE YOU CAN GO UP TO FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE OR REAR OR FRONT UNDER CERTAIN STANDARDS.

SO FOR THAT REASON, WE'RE KIND OF ALREADY COVERED, BUT GROUPS OF TREES OR CORRIDORS OR A LUSH AREA OF NATIVE VEGETATION WOULDN'T BE AFFORDED THAT SAME

[00:30:02]

FLEXIBILITY.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE THAT ANYBODY WOULD GO THROUGH THAT FOR THAT SAKE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING POTENTIALLY THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO DO IF YOU HAD A SINGLE RESIDENCE RIGHT UNDER.

LET'S SEE, 403 C WHAT IS IT? C SECTION C THE MINIMUM OF TWO BENEFITS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE A THRESHOLD THAT WOULD BE MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE THAT KIND OF GETS IN LINE BECAUSE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO I MEAN, ONE OF THE BENEFITS WOULD BE IF I MOVE THE HOUSE TEN FEET OVER THIS SIDE, I SAY THREE TREES, BUT THAT'S THE BURDEN OF THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THAT.

OKAY. SO IT'S ONE MORE THING THEY GOT TO DO.

OKAY. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR EMILY, THOUGH.

WHENEVER WE'RE DID YOU SEE A LOT OF HOW DID THE OTHER CITIES OR COUNTIES HANDLE THE SUN SETTING OF A PUD? IF IT WASN'T ACTED ON IN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME, DID IT REVERT BACK TO ITS NORMAL ZONING IF IT WAS DORMANT FOR A WHILE? YEAH. SO I THINK UNTIL IT GOES THROUGH THE FULL APPROVAL PROCESS AND IS DETERMINED TO BE A PUD AND ALL OF THE ENGINEERING AND EVERYTHING IS SET, IT WOULDN'T STAY IN THAT KIND OF LIKE HALF PUD GRADE AREA IF THE PROJECT WAS CANCELED.

I BELIEVE THAT THAT PUD OVERLAY WOULD JUST BE REMOVED.

I'M NOT 100% CERTAIN ON THAT.

SO ONCE IT'S APPROVED COMPLETELY, IT'S VESTED.

BUT IF IT'S IN LIMBO AND THEN THEY GO AWAY, IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE OLD ZONING.

IS THAT I SAYING THAT? RIGHT, TAMMY OR KAREN? TO BE SURE, I DON'T THINK IT'S AN ACT OF LAW THAT WOULD BE A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION FOR LAWYERS.

AND YOU DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT.

BUT WHAT WE COULD DO IS IF YOU HAVE, THAT IS YOU PUT A CONDITION IN THE APPROVAL DOCUMENTS THAT SAY THAT CONSTRUCTION MUST SORT OF LIKE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

RIGHT. KELLY, THIS PROJECT HAS TO BE FINISHED BY THIS DATE.

IT CAN ALWAYS GO BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO MODIFY THAT DATE AND PUT IT OUT IN SOME TIME.

BUT THAT'S HOW YOU WOULD MAKE SURE THAT YOU ACTUALLY GET BECAUSE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE PUD DOESN'T GO AWAY.

AND THOSE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THAT WERE APPROVED THROUGH QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS ARE GOING TO BE VESTED RIGHTS THAT IF TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO THAT WITHOUT OTHER CONDITIONS, UNLESS OUR CODE SAYS OTHERWISE.

IF IT DOESN'T, IT'S A PUD.

I THINK THAT IS IS THERE UNLESS YOU PUT A CONDITION ON IT THAT IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

TAMMY, I WAS THINKING BACK LIKE CRANE ISLAND WAS PUD, WHAT, 10 OR 12 YEARS AGO, I THINK.

AND IT JUST SAT THERE. RIGHT.

BUT THE PUD DIDN'T GO AWAY.

NO, KELLY WILL NO MORE.

IN FACT. SO THERE WAS THERE'S A WHOLE LEGAL HISTORY TIED TO GRAND ISLAND AND ITS ESTABLISHMENT.

THE PUD WAS NOT FINALIZED WITH THE COUNTY AS STIPULATED BY OUR AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT, I BELIEVE, UNTIL 2015.

TIME FRAME AND THEN ANNEXATION OCCURRED AFTER DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS WERE GRANTED THROUGH THE COUNTY, WHICH I THINK HAPPENED BETWEEN 2014 AND 2015.

WE DID ANNEXATION, I THINK 2016 OR 2017 TIMEFRAME AND THEN PLATTING OCCURRED THROUGH THE CITY.

WE APPROVED ALL THE PLANNING, WE APPROVED THE PLATTING, BUT IT WAS ALL AND IT WAS ALL UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE LEGAL MEDIATED AGREEMENT. THAT'S RIGHT.

EVERYTHING HAPPENED. JUST WHY ARE YOU THINKING OF IT, PETE? WELL, I WAS JUST THINKING IT SEEMED TO BE A LONG PERIOD OF NO ACTIVITY.

RIGHT, RIGHT.

WELL, WE HAD 2008 TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

THAT WAS A BAD YEAR. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO, I JUST WONDER THAT COULD HAVE BEEN I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHY THERE WERE NO CALLS FOR SPECIFIC PERIODS OF TIME IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR LAWSUIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SOME OF IT WAS A FUNCTION OF THE MARKET AND MONEY AND THE OTHERS AS FAR AS GETTING IT INTO WHERE WE HAVE IT TODAY, WITH THE CITY THAT MARCHED ALONG IN THE STEPS THAT WERE REQUIRED.

BUT YOU COULD, GOING FORWARD, PUT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INSTRUCTIONS RELATED TO A PUD TO HAVE A COMPLETION BY DATE, OR I WOULDN'T PUT IT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

I WOULD PUT IT IN THE INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENT PUD ZONING DOCUMENTS.

WHEN THOSE COME FOR APPROVAL, THAT'S WHERE YOU PUT YOUR.

IF YOU PUT IT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THEN WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE CODE.

IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WAS EXTRAORDINARY ABOUT THE PROPERTY.

SO I WOULD DO IT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE PUD ZONING.

SO WOULD THAT BE AT THE POINT WHERE IT WENT THROUGH PLANNING? OKAY. YOU WOULD DO THAT AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE OVERLAY ITSELF AND WITHIN THE DOCUMENTATION TIED TO THE

[00:35:09]

PUD. BUT DO YOU SEE THE OVERVIEW BEFORE IT GOES TO TRC? I SEE THE OVERVIEW AS EARLY AS YOU COULD POSSIBLY LOOK AT THE IDEA OF SOMEBODY LIKE, HEY, I HAVE AN IDEA.

OKAY. BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING THE STAFFING UP FRONT IN ORDER TO KIND OF MAKE SURE THE T'S ARE CROSSED AND I'S ARE DOTTED, AND THAT IT MAKES SENSE FOR THE CUSTOMER AND FOR THE CITY.

YEAH. OKAY. REMEMBER, THEY HAVE TO COME IN AND SIGN UP FOR, YOU KNOW, PLATS AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF AND GET THE YEAH, THE WHOLE TO DO LIST ARE THERE. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET BACK AT IF YOU'RE IF YOU'RE A NEUTRAL POINT, IS THERE SOME ADDED BENEFIT BY MAKING THAT CHANGE? DOES IT? DOES IT? DO WE GET CONCERNED ABOUT INCREASING DENSITY? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING ANY MASSIVE DENSITY INCREASES ON THIS ONE.

BUT DOES IT MAKE OTHER THINGS JUST BETTER FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT, OR JUST FROM A STANDPOINT OF DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GOING TO STOP.

SO HOW DO WE DO IT AND DO IT IN A WAY THAT WE HAVE THE BEST POSSIBLE CONTROL OF IT? IT JUST I LIKE TO USE THE AMELIA CONCOURSE ANALOGY.

IF YOU LOOK AT AMELIA CONCOURSE, EVERY SINGLE LOT LOOKS IDENTICAL.

EVERYTHING GOT TAKEN DOWN.

EVERY HOUSE IS IDENTICAL.

ALL THE DRIVEWAYS ARE IN A ROW.

THAT'S WHAT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODES PROMOTE, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THING THAT'S PREDICTABLE.

IF YOU DO A PUD AND PUT FORTH ALL THE EFFORT, THEN YOU HAVE OTHER AREAS THAT OTHER WAYS TO DEVELOP PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S THE INCENTIVE IS YOU CAN DO SMALLER FOOTPRINTS, YOU CAN MOVE HOUSES AROUND, YOU CAN BUILD DIFFERENT MODELS, GET MULTIPLE BUILDERS IN THERE, AND YOU MAY SELL IT FASTER. SO, IT'S JUST A WIN-WIN TO ME.

I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S AN APPROVAL PROCESS.

THERE'S NO INCENTIVE TO STALL BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT MORTGAGE LOANS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT THEY GOT TO PAY OFF.

THEY NEED TO START SELLING AND DEVELOPING AND MOVING.

NOBODY WANTS TO SIT, PETER.

I THINK FROM THE CITY'S POINT, AND EITHER KELLY OR TAMMY IS ABOUT TO GET UP IS WE THEN HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

I MEAN, LIKE NICK WAS SAYING, YES, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOT A NEIGHBORHOOD IN NASSAU COUNTY THAT LOOKS NICE.

I DON'T KNOW WHO SAID THAT EXACTLY.

WE'RE IN NASSAU COUNTY.

WHY? I WAS EXPECTING A LITTLE WHILE.

BUT. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT HE SAID.

AND. AND THIS GIVES US A MILLION TO PARK INSTEAD OF THE CONCOURSE.

I MEAN, WE HAVE SOME SAY OVER WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, SO I'M INTERPRETING WHAT DURING THE APPROVAL PROCESS, DURING THE PLANNING PROCESS, DURING ALL THE DIFFERENT PROCESSES, BEFORE THEY CAN STICK A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND AND START POURING CONCRETE OR BUILDING WOOD, THAT'S ALL HAPPENED.

IT'S ALL ON PAPER. THEY CAN SEE IT.

YEAH. SO THAT'S YOUR CONTROLS UP FRONT, RIGHT? SO YOU CAN'T COME BACK TEN YEARS LATER LIKE SOME PEOPLE ARE NOW COMPLAINING ABOUT WILDLIFE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE, THAT HAPPENED 15 YEARS AGO, RIGHT? THAT WAS WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE STOOD IN LINE.

YEAH. NOT TODAY.

GOING, NO, WE CAN'T HAVE THIS.

YEAH. SO I MEAN, THAT'S ALL ON PAPER.

YEAH. ON ALMOST EVERY DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEEN APPROVED, YOU CAN ALWAYS SEE THAT.

SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY BASED ON WHAT EVERYBODY IS SAYING, THAT IF WE WERE TO MAKE THIS CHANGE OF PURELY GETTING RID OF THE MINIMUM ACREAGE REQUIREMENT, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING, THAT SHOULD DRAMATICALLY JEOPARDIZE WHAT I'LL CALL THE FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY, AS WE HOPE WE CAN MANAGE IT TO MAINTAIN THAT.

MY MOTIVATION WOULD BE NOT ONLY DO WE NOT THAT WE THAT WE SALVAGE IT, NOT JEOPARDIZE IT, THAT WE IMPROVE IT? OKAY. DAPHNE.

I HAD A QUESTION FOR EMILY IN HER RESEARCH.

DID YOU FIND ANY CONNECTION WHEN YOU WERE RESEARCHING ON MINIMUM ACREAGE AND MAINTAINING A CERTAIN LEVEL OF, LIKE, PARKS, GREEN SPACE? WAS THERE A CONNECTION THERE AND ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT YOU SAW? SO I.

WOULD. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THERE WASN'T NECESSARILY A SPECIFIC TREND ABOUT, LIKE, THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT REQUIRE MORE ACREAGE TO HAVE A HIGHER PROPORTION THAT WOULD BE DEDICATED AS A CERTAIN TYPE OF SPACE.

IT WAS MORE SO THE PERCENTAGE AROUND LIKE 20 TO 25% OF THE TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AREA HAVING TO BE OPEN.

SO THERE WAS A LOT MORE VARIATION IN THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THAN IN HOW IT WAS DIVIDED IN TERMS OF THE TYPES OF SPACES THAT WERE AVAILABLE AND THE OPEN AND PRESERVATION AND RECREATIONAL SPACES.

[00:40:07]

THANK YOU. THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE WE HAVE IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT.

AND SO IF WE'RE THINKING OF REMOVING THE ACREAGE ALTOGETHER, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE'RE STILL MEETING THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THAT ARE REQUIRED THROUGH THE PUD ITSELF? WELL, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 5% IS REQUIRED.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A ONE ACRE LOT OR SMALLER, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A POSTAGE STAMP.

WE CAN PUT A BICYCLE RACK ON IT, YOU KNOW.

BUT IS THAT REALLY A PUBLIC BENEFIT? NO, NO. COULD BE.

AND ON THE SUGGESTION.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, TOO.

THE OTHER PIECES TO THE PUZZLE IN THE LDC THAT RELATE TO THE OVERALL PUD ITSELF AND NOT JUST THE MINIMUM ACREAGE, I THINK WE'RE JUST HYPER FOCUSED ON ONE THING AND WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT IT THE BIGGER PICTURE.

DAPHNE, IS THAT A CONSIDERATION MADE AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION? IT'S A REQUIREMENT IN IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER SECTION CURRENT STANDARD.

HERE IS THAT UNDER C RIGHT HERE.

YEAH IT'S UNDER I.

BUT HOW SO I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING YOU THEN IS, IS HOW IS THAT DETERMINED THAT 5%.

WELL, WE DON'T HAVE A LIST AS I GUESS, WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH IT.

THERE IS A LIST OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A PUBLIC BENEFIT.

YEAH. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.

SO DO YOU LOOK AT IT AND SAY, YES, I DON'T KNOW.

THAT IS FOR THE PUBLIC'S GOOD OR HOW IS AND WOULD WE EVEN WANT TO HAVE IT OR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.

RIGHT. PLAYGROUNDS, PARKS, COMMUNITY CENTERS, THAT KIND OF THING.

BUT GO BACK GOING BACK TO SECTION I, IF YOU GO TO THREE, SAYS SHALL INCLUDE TWO HOUSING TYPES.

HOW DO YOU DO THAT IF THERE'S ONLY ONE HOUSE.

CORRECT. SO THERE WHAT I BELIEVE MEMBER FOREHAND IS GETTING TO IS THAT WE CANNOT JUST LOOK AT THAT MINIMUM ACREAGE WITHOUT LOOKING AT THESE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AT THE SAME TIME AND DETERMINE WHERE WE'RE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE ON THOSE STANDARDS, BECAUSE IT WON'T WORK.

IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO JUST CHANGE THAT ONE SECTION WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT THIS HOLISTICALLY.

WELL, I'LL ADD TO THAT IF I CAN, MADAM CHAIR, THAT, YOU KNOW, 5% OF A FIVE ACRE SITE IS ONLY 10,000FT².

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO GO OUT THERE AND BUILD A PUBLIC RECREATIONAL REC CENTER OR SOMETHING.

THERE'S NOT SOME BIG ELEMENT THAT WOULD HAPPEN ANYWAY.

SO I THINK THE TWO OR MORE HOUSING TYPES WOULD PROBABLY DRIVE YOU TO A LARGER SITE, MAYBE AN ACRE, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT THAT WOULD OBVIOUSLY PRECLUDE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FROM WALKING THROUGH THE DOOR.

I JUST THINK WE OUGHT TO WALK BEFORE WE RUN.

AND LET'S, LET'S TRY TO AT LEAST REDUCE THE ACREAGE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

YEAH. NO ONE'S GOING TO DO A PUD WITH ONE HOUSE.

THEY'RE JUST STUPID.

OKAY. I MEAN, THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL YOU.

REMEMBER, YOU CAN'T CURE STUPID.

THAT'S TRUE. AND THEY CAN SPEND THE MONEY AND GO AHEAD AND DO IT.

AND THEN YOU GET TO SIT HERE AND LOOK AT ALL THEIR STUFF.

WELL, SO. SO THE ONLY THING THAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS TO JUST ELIMINATE THE ACREAGE REQUIREMENT.

EVERYTHING ELSE THOUGH STAYS THE SAME.

SAME. YES. AND ARE WE ARE WE COMFORTABLE.

ARE WE SATISFIED WITH THE ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT THE, THE, THE, THE CODE REQUIRES.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN LOOKING UNDER I IT'S IT WOULD BE ONE THE ITEM ONE, THE MINIMUM LAND AREA FOR A PUD IS FIVE ACRES. IF WE DELETED THAT ONE, THEN WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF 25% OF THE DAY SET ASIDE TO MEET AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THAT TWO WOULD ACTUALLY GO WAY TO TWO WOULD GO AWAY AS WELL.

OKAY. THREE A RESIDENTIAL PUD.

THE QUESTION IS, IS SHALL THE RIGHT WORD IN THERE INCLUDE TWO OR MORE HOUSING TYPES? IS THAT DOES THAT NEED TO BE DEFINED WHAT THOSE HOUSING TYPES NEED TO BE.

IT IS. AND THAT GOES ON WITH BLAH BLAH BLAH.

SO THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY ONE THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T REQUIRE MUCH FURTHER DISCUSSION RIGHT WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL POD.

5% IS 5% ENOUGH.

IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE A CERTAIN ACREAGE, LIKE YOU JUST SAID, IF IT'S FIVE ACRES, IT'S 10,000FT², RIGHT? WELL, I MEAN, I THINK WE DECIDED THAT AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION.

I MEAN, THEY MAY I THINK IF WE NITPICK THIS TO DEATH, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET TO THE YOU'LL NEVER GET OUT OF THIS.

YOU JUST WANT TO. I HAVE A QUESTION THOUGH ON THAT AND I DON'T THINK IT'S OTHERWISE COVERED.

WOULD THE BOARD BE AMENABLE TO CONSIDERING OPEN SPACE? RATHER, IN ADDITION TO CIVIC OR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES, SIMPLY HAVING OPEN SPACE WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE MORE NATIVE

[00:45:08]

VEGETATION. AND EMILY AND I HAD DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE, OPPORTUNITIES AGAINST THE GREENWAY, WHERE YOU CAN MAYBE BRING THE DEVELOPMENT FURTHER FORWARD AND PROTECT THE VULNERABLE LAND AREA ADJACENT TO THE WETLANDS.

BUT BEYOND WHAT THE TYPICAL BUFFERING WOULD REQUIRE, AND KEEP ALL THAT NATIVE VEGETATION IN PLACE.

AND THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER REASON FOR ALLOWING A BEAUTY.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, JUST OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THAT SEEMS TO MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO ME.

I MEAN, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT WE'RE A PRETTY PARK HEAVY AND SMALL CITY.

THAT THAT MIGHT EVEN BE A BETTER USE FOR THAT LAND.

IT WAS OPEN SPACE.

NO NOTHING CAN BE ON THERE AS AN IMPROVEMENT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED AS WELL.

YOU KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO DO A TRANSPORTATION THING.

MAYBE YOU WANT TO PUT A BUS BENCH THERE.

IS THAT GOING TO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE RIGHT LOCATION, THAT MIGHT BE THE IDEAL PLACE TO PUT A LITTLE COVERED THING, YOU KNOW, SMALL.

SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO ELIMINATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO ELIMINATE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO LET THAT IF SOMEBODY PUT A BENCH IN THERE.

MARK, I'VE JUST LOOKED THE OTHER WAY IN THAT PRESERVE.

BUT YOU CAN'T. YOU HAVE A CITY THAT'S GOT A RULE.

YEAH. AGAIN, I MEAN, LIKE NICK WAS SAYING, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO ANTICIPATE EVERY POSSIBLE VARIABLE HERE.

WELL, THAT'S THE OBJECT OF THE PUD, THE FLEXIBILITY OF THAT DEVELOPMENT.

YEAH. NOT US TO SIT HERE AND TRY TO PUT EVERY CONCEIVABLE ITEM, ALL THE BLANKS IN THERE.

WE'RE GOING TO GO CRAZY. BUT SOME OPEN SPACE AND PUBLIC USE, I MEAN, THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT IT IS.

BUT I LIKE WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OPEN SPACE MEANS.

SO I VISUALIZE IT WOULD BE CONSERVATION LAND.

IT COULD [INAUDIBLE] PROTECTED OPEN AREA.

IT COULD BE PUT A BUS STOP THERE.

WELL THAT WOULD QUALIFY UNDER CIVIC OR THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS A CIVIC PURPOSE.

AND THAT MAY BE PART OF THAT OVERALL CALCULATION AT 5%, BUT CERTAINLY NOT MEET 5%.

YEAH, I THINK HAVING THE REGULATION THERE CREATES THE SPACE THAT MAY BE UTILIZED IN SOME MANNER THAT WE CAN'T THINK OF TODAY, BUT IT WOULD BE USEFUL IN THE FUTURE. SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO CUT ANY OF THOSE OUT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THEM TODAY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE.

SO IF I'M HEARING THAT THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN ELIMINATING UNDER I, THIS IS THE EXISTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN ELIMINATING.

ITEM ONE AND TWO UNDER I.

IS THAT WHAT WE'RE.

THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING? YES. YEAH.

AM I HEARING ANYTHING OTHER THAN OUR ESTEEMED COLLEAGUE ON THE END HERE? NO. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING.

SOMETHING SIMPLE LIKE THAT.

YEAH. KEEP IT SIMPLE.

THAT WAS WHAT WE CAME TO DO.

LET'S NOT CREATE A MONSTER.

SO BE CREATIVE. SO, STEPH, CAN YOU HELP US IN THAT DIRECTION? ABSOLUTELY. AND THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S ALSO CONSENSUS IN EXISTING NUMBER FOUR TO ADD IN OPEN SPACE AS QUALIFIED TOWARDS THAT MINIMUM OF 5%.

SO CIVIC COMMA OPEN SPACE OR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES.

RIGHT. OKAY.

AND THOSE ARE ORS, NOT ANDS.

CORRECT. OPTIONAL.

YEAH. YEAH, YEAH.

AND YOU BOUGHT AND/OR BECAUSE YOU WENT WITH THAT.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD COMBINE THOUGH.

IT COULD BE, OR THEY'RE ALL OR STATEMENTS.

ALL OR NO. WOULD THIS BE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THAT PROPERTY ALONG CETRONIA ON THE GREENBELT SIDE.

SOME OF THAT. SOME OF THOSE HOUSES ALREADY HAVE SOME.

I GUESS THERE'S ALREADY SOME CONSERVATION EASEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED OR INCORPORATED INTO THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING OF? BOTH SHELL COVE AND AMELIA BLUFF? AND THEN WE'VE ALSO CHANGED THE LAND USE AND ZONING AGAINST SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES BORDERING CETRONIA, TOO ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE GREENWAY.

YEAH, THAT'S WHERE EAST SIDE OF THE GREENWAY, PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA.

BUT MANY OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD SET ASIDE LAND OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY DOWN THERE.

IT COULD BECOME A FEW YEARS.

OKAY. SO. SO. WELL, I'M JUST WONDERING.

YOU JUST CAN'T TALK ABOUT.

I CAN'T IMAGINE JUST BEING ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY OR ONE HOUSE WHEN IT'S DONE, BUT WE KNOW HOW BIG IT IS.

[00:50:01]

BUT IN OUR CASE NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A I DON'T KNOW.

AND IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHICH SPECIFIC LAND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE HAVE FOR THE CITY.

BUT KELLY IN IN LOOKING AT CHANGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE UNDER AI, ELIMINATING ONE, ELIMINATING TWO, ADDING SET ASIDE FOR CIVIC OR RECREATIONAL OR OPEN SPACE PURPOSES.

AGAIN, THE THESE CHANGES WOULD NOT INCREASE THE DENSITY UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING.

AND THEY CANNOT.

IT DOES NOT MODIFY THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY OR INTENSITIES IF THE WORD COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE PERMISSIBLE THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THOSE ARE YOUR DESIGNATED FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES.

SO IF IT'S R-1, THE MINIMUM IS FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

MAXWELL. LOOK AT NUMBER FIVE.

THE MAXIMUM. THANK YOU.

YES. OKAY.

YEAH. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE VERBALIZING THAT FOR OUR FRIENDS AT HOME THAT IT WOULD NOT INCREASE NOW.

IT COULD ALLOW YOU TO CALCULATE THAT OVERALL LAND AREA AND THEN PLACE THE DEVELOPMENT IN SMALLER PARCEL SIZES FURTHER FORWARD AT DIFFERENT WIDTHS THAN WOULD TRADITIONALLY BE ALLOWED BY THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A PUD DOES, BUT THAT THE OVERALL WILL NOT BE LESS THAN THAT MINIMUM.

THAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

SO IF ANYTHING THAT'S IN ANY OF THE OUR CATEGORIES AS FAR AS THE DISTRICT, THE MAXIMUM WILL BE TEN PER UNIT.

AND THAT WOULD BE AN IN R3.

THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM THAT COULD BE PUT PER ACRE.

RIGHT. DO WE NEED A MOTION, MADAM CHAIR? ARE WE WELL ON THIS ONE I'M ASKING I'M LOOKING FOR IS A STEP FORWARD.

WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ASK STAFF TO DRAFT A REWRITE OF THE PUD ORDINANCE IN REFERENCE TO ELIMINATING 4.0301. I'M SORRY OH TWO.

I'VE LOST MY LOCATION HERE, SO IF YOU NEED IT, I IT'S I ONE TO.

WHAT IS THAT SECTION II.

SECTION I, SECTION I ONE AND TWO AND FOUR.

AND THEN ADD OR AND WITHIN THE CIVIC OR RECREATION OR OPEN SPACE PURPOSES IF YOU'RE NOT WITHIN NUMBER FOUR.

FOUR. YOU'RE ADDING AND OR TO FOUR.

WE'RE ELIMINATING THE OTHER TWO RIGHT NOW.

YES. WE'RE ELIMINATING ONE AND TWO.

WE'RE MODIFYING FOUR.

RIGHT. RIGHT.

THANK YOU. SO THAT'S MY MOTION.

OKAY. SECOND. DO I HEAR A SECOND? YES, I'LL SECOND THAT.

WE'VE ALREADY GOT A SECOND.

ALL THOSE. YOU CAN THROW ALL THOSE IN.

WAIT, WAIT.

SORRY. THERE'S LITTLE BITS OF THIS TOO, THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IN THE EVENT THAT I HAVE TO MODIFY OTHER SECTIONS TO WORK COHESIVELY WITH THIS, IS THAT OKAY? FOR EXAMPLE, SUBSECTION SEVEN, DEALING WITH MIXED USES ALSO HAS MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM AREAS.

I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO SAY THAT STAFF WOULD MODIFY ANY COMPATIBLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT WOULD CHANGE BASED ON THIS CHANGE, BECAUSE THIS WILL COME BACK TO US.

YES. SO WE WILL HAVE ONE MORE SHOT AT THIS.

YES. YOU'LL SEE ANY CHANGES.

YEAH. OKAY.

SO WE'VE HAD SO WE'VE HAD A FIRST.

WE'VE HAD A SECOND. YOU ACCEPT HIS CHANGES I DO.

OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN HEARING NONE.

THE MOTION IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU. EXCELLENT.

THERE YOU GO. FANTASTIC. THANK YOU.

YEAH. I'D LIKE TO ADD IF IF EMILY DECIDES TO CHANGE HER COURSE OF WORK.

DON'T FORGET OUR ADDRESS.

EMILY. JOB WELL DONE.

YES, THAT'S VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

I DIDN'T COME HERE AND LITIGATE HUD.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM 6.2.

CAN I JUST BEFORE WE WRAP UP THAT OVERALL CONVERSATION VERY QUICKLY.

AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE LISTENING AT HOME IF WE LEARN OVER TIME AND AS WE DO WITH ALL OF THE SECTIONS OF OUR CODE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LEARNING CONSTANTLY WHAT'S WORKING, WHAT'S NOT.

IF WE WERE TO FIND THAT THIS IS NOT WORKING WELL, WE HAVE AN ONSLAUGHT OF PUDS, AND MAYBE THEY ARE NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE COMPATIBILITY STANDARDS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WITH THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY.

WE'RE NOT RECEIVING THE BENEFITS FROM THEM THAT WE EXPECT THAT WE SHOULD BE GETTING.

WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND MODIFY THIS AGAIN, AND I THINK THAT'S THE INTENTION OF THE BOARD AS WELL, THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY THIS AND SEE HOW IT GOES.

AND I WOULD SAY IF WE'RE DENYING ALL OF THEM THAT WE OUGHT TO RETHINK WHAT WE'RE DOING.

YES. YEAH.

[00:55:01]

YEAH. AND I MEAN, I WOULD BE FINE WITH JUST BUILDING INTO YOUR PLAN OF OUR MEETINGS IS TO REVIEW IT.

I MEAN, LET'S BE LET'S BE QUICK TO PULL TRIGGERS LIKE THAT.

NOT TAKE TOO LONG, RIGHT? VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM 6.2 BOARD DISCUSSION TO AMEND PARKING STANDARDS AND PARKING MINIMUMS WITH STAFF PRESENTATION.

[6.2 Board Discussion to amend or Parking Standards and Parking Minimums with Staff Presentation of preliminary research outcomes and suggested areas for consideration of future code changes.]

YES, KELLY, THIS IS A BRIEF PRESENTATION BECAUSE I'M GOING TO THROW IT TO YOU AFTER.

I JUST KIND OF POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS WHAT'S WORKING, WHAT'S NOT.

WE'VE DISCUSSED FOR A LITTLE WHILE NOW THAT THERE ARE CRITERIA IN OUR CODE THAT ARE NOT WORKING AS IT RELATES TO PARKING.

PARKING IN THE CITY OVERALL IS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER SEVEN OF OUR CODE.

AND THEN THERE ARE STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARKING LOTS PROVIDED IN CHAPTER FOUR.

THOSE PRIMARILY SPEAK TO THE LANDSCAPE STANDARDS.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT C3 PROPERTIES WHERE THERE IS NO MINIMUM PARKING REQUIRED.

AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MANY ARTICLES, NOT MANY.

AT LEAST ONE ARTICLE, HAS CELEBRATED THE CITY FOR BEING SO THOUGHTFUL IN NOT PLACING MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS ON ITS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

THE EFFECT OF THAT IN THE 60S AND 70S WOULD HAVE MEANT THE LOSS OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC RESOURCES DOWNTOWN IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE PARKING, AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE THE CITY THAT WE SEE TODAY IF THE COMMUNITY HAD DECIDED THAT MINIMUM PARKING WAS NECESSARY FOR ITS DOWNTOWN.

SO WE'RE VERY LUCKY IN THAT WE HAVE CONTINUED TO PROVIDE FOR PARKING AS A COMMUNITY IN OUR DOWNTOWN SETTING.

WE HAVE BOTH ON STREET PARKING AS WELL AS LOTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR PARKING.