[00:00:02] >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE AUGUST 14TH, 2024, [1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM] REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. THIS IS OUR REGULAR MEETING. IT'S FIVE O'CLOCK. WE ARE MEETING IN CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FERNANDINA BEACH. >> FLORIDA. >> MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? >> MEMBER FOREHAND. >> HERE. >> MEMBER DURHAM. >> HERE. >> MEMBER DOSTER. >> HERE. >> MEMBER GILLETTE. >> HERE. >> VICE CHAIR STEVENSON. >> HERE. >> CHAIR ROBAS. >> HERE AND WE HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. EVERYONE WHO WILL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE. >> [3.1 Approval of the Minutes for the Special Meeting of July 10, 2024.] >> ITEM 3, APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES 3.1. THIS IS THE SPECIAL MEETING WE HAD AT THREE O'CLOCK ON JULY THE 10TH. DO I HEAR SOME CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? >> OH, YES, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN WITH TWO MINOR MODIFICATIONS UNDER SIX DECIMAL. GO DOWN TO THE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5TH PARAGRAPH. VICE CHAIR STEVENSON ASKED FOR MORE SPECIFICS, RATHER THAN SPECIFICATIONS. THEN DOWN ON ONE PARAGRAPH DOWN. MISS FLINT PROVIDED INSTEAD OF PROVIDE. SECOND SENTENCE. >> SO PROVIDED. >> THAT WAS IT. WHOEVER DID THE MINISTER DID A VERY GOOD JOB INTERPRETING [LAUGHTER] ALL THE INFORMATION. >> WHAT IS IT I'M SORRY? >> I LOOKED AT THE LAST PARAGRAPH ON THAT SECTION 61 BECAUSE WE DID MAKE A FEW OTHER CHANGES ON THE PUT, BUT THAT REALLY WAS ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS OR ACTIONS THAT WE ALREADY ADDRESSED IN THERE. I COULDN'T SEE ANY REASON THAT THOSE WEREN'T CORRECT AS WRITTEN. BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME. [OVERLAPPING] >> SO 61. IF I COULD A 61, THE PARAGRAPH BEGINS MEMBER DOSTER ASKS. IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE LAST LINE, BOARD MEMBERS DISCUSS THIS POSSIBILITY, SHOULD PROBABLY BE DISCUSSED. >> ANY OTHER CRUCIAL CHANGE. >> WHERE ARE WE HERE? DID I MISS? [OVERLAPPING] MISS TOM. DISCUSSED. YES. I SEE THAT. >> I HAVE BAD HABITS. I CAN'T BREAK. >> GOOD. >> ON PAGE 1, ITEM 3, LAST PARAGRAPH. CHAIR ROBAS ASKED MISS GIBSON, MISS GIBSON IS MISS GIBSON THROUGHOUT THE REST OF THE DOCUMENT, IF WE WANT TO. >> WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT? YES. MISS IS OKAY. >> ONE OF THE OTHER SHE'S HERE SHE CAN CHOOSE WHAT SHE WANTS. >> DOES THAT SUITS YOU KELLY, WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE? >> I'M GOOD WITH CONSISTENCY. [LAUGHTER] >> CONSISTENCY. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. ANYTHING ELSE? NO. >> A SECOND. >> SECOND? >> WITH THOSE ADDITIONS. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'VE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE. THE MINUTES OF JULY 10TH, 2024 ARE APPROVED. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. [4.1 PAB CASE 2024-0009 REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT OF EIGHT (8) TOWNHOMES AND ONE (1) SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 1110 S. 13TH STREET TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 1.29 ACRE APPLICANT: GILLETTE & ASSOCIATES, AGENT FOR DALE COLE, OWNER OF SEA LA VIE AMELIA LLC] MOVING ON TO ITEM OF NEW BUSINESS UNDER 4.1 PAB CASE 2024-0009 STAFF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THIS CASE TO US? >> YES. GOOD EVENING. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. >> EXCUSE ME. BEFORE WE START THIS, DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD. [OVERLAPPING] >> SURE. YEAH, I'M ABSTAINING FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS AND NOT VOTING ON IT DUE TO A CONFLICT WITH MY BROTHER BEING PART OF THE APPLICATION? >> GOOD AND ALL THE PAPERWORK HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. >> ALL THE PAPERWORK HAS BEEN FILED. >> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [LAUGHTER] PROCEED. >> THANK YOU. THE PAV 2024-0009 IS A PRELIMINARY FLAT REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION TO BE KNOWN AS SALA VILMA AMELIA. THE APPLICANT, WHO AGENT FOR THE OWNER IS GILLETTE AND ASSOCIATES. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS 1110 SOUTH 13TH STREET. THE CURRENT LAND USE IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THE ZONING IS R3. IN MAY OF 2005, THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM R2-R3, AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE THAT ORDINANCE IN YOUR PACKET. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LAND USES ARE TO THE NORTH, [00:05:03] VACANT PROPERTY AND THE AMELIA MASONIC LODGE, NUMBER 47, AND THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS VACANT LAND AND SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS VACANT LAND AND SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS COUNTRYSIDE APARTMENT, MULTI FAMILY HOUSING. THE ZONING IS CORRESPONDING TO THAT TO THE NORTH R2 TO THE SOUTH R2 TO THE EAST MU1 AND TO THE WEST R2. THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WILL OF CONSIST OF NINE. LEARNING THE TECHNOLOGY HERE. [LAUGHTER] THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WILL CONSIST OF NINE LOTS WITH ONE TRACT THAT'S RESIDUAL THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE OPEN SPACE AND THE RETENTION THE STORMWATER POND. THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO BUILD EIGHT TOWN HOMES AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY COULD ACCOMMODATE UP TO 14 DWELLING UNITS WITH A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF UP TO 10 UNITS PER DWELLING UNDER THE CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION. SPEND. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ACCESS THE PRIMARY ACCESS IS OFF THE 13TH STREET, WHICH IS A CITY MAINTAINED ROAD. THERE IS NO SECONDARY VEHICLE ACCESS. THE PROPERTY WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE IN MARCH 2024, AND I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT VARIANCE IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL. >> WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT THERE. >> WE ONLY HAVE THAT ONE CHART ON THE PLAT. BUT YOU'VE GOT THE OTHERS THERE, RIGHT, KELLY. YEAH. WE'LL LOOK THEM HERE. THAT'S THE ONE THAT THEY SAW IN THE BOA, RIGHT? >> EXPERIENCE WITH THE ACCESS? >> YEAH. >> THAT'S IN THE EXPLANATION. >> NO, NO, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT. I WASN'T NEAR. [OVERLAPPING] >> OH, I GOT YOU. I'M SORRY. >> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY HELPFUL FOR THEM. IT WOULD'VE BEEN YEAH. >> AND FOR US. I HAVE A QUICK. >> WE SEE THIS IN OUR PACKET. >> NO, I WAS NOT THAT'S WHY YOU ARE SHOWING US HERE. >> BECAUSE I CAN'T QUITE FIGURE OUT WHERE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS GOING TO BE. IS THOSE STUPID QUESTIONS? >> IT'S THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER, ISN'T IT? >> SIR, TOP RIGHT. >> TOP RIGHT? >> LET'S CONTINUE TO REPORT AND WE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS AFTERWARDS. >> [OVERLAPPING] CAN YOU BLOW THAT UP TOO? MAKE IT BIGGER, REALLY BIG. [LAUGHTER] >> THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY'S TRC TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IN NOVEMBER OF 2023, AND IS PENDING THE ISSUANCE OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD FOR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THE CITY COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AT THE PROBABLY THEIR SEPTEMBER MEETING, AND THE DEVELOPER UNDERSTANDS THAT NO WORK IS TO START PRIOR TO THAT ISSUANCE. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND LOCAL ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN DIRECTION FOR COMPACT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND SERVES TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF THE EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES IN THE AREA OF EXISTING URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT RELIES ON THE OPEN ROADWAY OF SOUTH 13TH STREET TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY. WATER AND SEWER ARE AVAILABLE TO THE PROPERTY AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AND DEVELOPMENT IS ACCESS FROM A CITY IMPROVED MAINTAIN ROAD, WHICH I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. USES ALONG 13TH STREET ARE CONSISTENT AS WELL WITH THE CITY'S SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PATTERN FOR THE AREA. THE REQUESTED PRELIMINARY PLAT PATTERN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUPPLIED ANY REPORTS CONCERNING SOLES, BUT THOSE MAPS ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. AS YOU'RE AWARE, THE CITY HAS FIVE PUBLIC FACILITY ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICES, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE, AND SOLID WASTE. [00:10:02] THE CITY'S ABILITY TO MAINTAIN ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THESE UTILITIES WAS CONFIRMED THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE SITE AND LAND PROCESS. GIVEN THE ESTABLISHED HIGH DENSITY OF HDR, THE LAND USE AND THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R3 ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS FOR UP TO 10 UNITS PER ACRE ON THE PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPMENT IS ABLE TO BE SERVED AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE. THE CITY AT ADOPT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DENSITY. THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL CONSUME APPROXIMATELY 3,150 GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY AND THE SEWER CAPACITY AT 7,245 GALLONS A DAY. THE CITY'S UTILITY DIRECTOR HAS INDICATED THAT THE PLANT CAPACITY IN BOTH INSTANCE IS AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING PIPE OR PIPES ON SITE WOULD NEED TO BE AT THE COST OF DEVELOPER TO IMPROVE ANY OF THOSE TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE REQUIREMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROPOSED PLAN AGAIN, HAS BEEN REVIEWED. KELLY CAN ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ON THE DIFFERENT AS FAR AS THE TECHNICAL REVIEW AND THE DIFFERENT MODIFICATIONS THAT THEY HAVE WORKED THROUGH DURING THAT PROCESS TO MAXIMIZE TREES ON THE SITE AND TO MAKE IT THE BEST DEVELOPMENT AS POSSIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT REGULATIONS. THE REQUEST PRELIMINARY PLAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE PLANNING STAFF REVIEW OF APPLICATION STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY CLASS. FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS BOARD, THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION ON SEPTEMBER THE 17TH. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> MR. BENNETT? >> YEAH, I'VE GOT A QUESTION. NOWHERE IN OUR PACKET, DID I SEE ANY DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH TRACK 1. I SEE IT'S THERE. IF WE HAD THAT, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING? WHAT IS TRACK 1 GOING TO BE? >> TRACK 1 IS WHERE THE STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITY. >> WHAT NO? >> THE DETENTION FACILITY FOR THE STORM WATER. >> CAN YOU PUT YOUR MICROPHONE CLOSER TO YOU? SORRY. YEAH. THANK YOU. >> IS FOR THE STORMWATER DETENTION POND. THAT WILL SERVICE THE POND. [OVERLAPPING] >> PUT THAT CHART THERE AND FLOW THAT UP. I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT'S ON THERE. >> THERE WILL BE NO STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY? >> BUT IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS SOMETHING ON THAT CHART YOU HAD. THROWING THE LAYOUT, SOMETHING. >> IT'S JUST THE STORM WATER DETENTION POND AND THEN THE REMAINING AREA, WHERE YOU SEE THE TREES TOGETHER IS WHERE THE PRESERVATION OF THE TREES WILL BE, BUT IT WILL JUST BE OPEN SPACE, JUST PASSIVE OPEN SPACE. >> RETENTION ON TOP AND THAT JUST IDENTIFIES TREES UNDER THAT? >> RIGHT. BUT IT WILL BE SOME OPEN COMMON SPACE. >> OPEN SPACE. GOOD. >> I SEE WITH THIS MAP, IF YOU GO UP TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE THERE, AND THAT'S WHERE I SEE THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED. THANK YOU. >> I HAVE ONE CITIZEN REQUEST. IT HOW MANY TREES WILL BE LOST AS A RESULT OF THIS APPROVAL? WE DIDN'T GET THAT. IT WAS ALL PART OF THE APPROVAL. THAT WOULD'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL. SO IN THE FUTURE, IF Y'ALL COULD INCLUDE THOSE. >> I CAN ANSWER IF THAT'S OKAY. KELLY GIBSON, AND I CAN HELP TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WHAT IS ON THE SCREEN THERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, AS WELL AS THOSE WATCHING FROM NOT HERE. ONLINE, IS OUR TABLE THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW PROCESS, AND IT INCLUDES IN THERE THE LANDSCAPE AND TREE MITIGATION TABLE. IT ALSO INCLUDES IDENTIFYING WHERE THOSE TREES ARE LOCATED BOTH INDIVIDUALLY ON EACH OF THE INTENDED LOTS, AS WELL AS THE COMMON AREA. THE DRIVE AISLE, THE COMMON TRACT, [00:15:02] AND THE NUMBER OF INCHES THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED. WITHIN THIS TABLE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE EXISTING NUMBER OF SHADE TREES AS WELL AS INCHES. THEN WHAT IS TO BE MITIGATED FOR ON THE INDIVIDUAL SITE. >> THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY PLANTING REQUIREMENTS AND THEN MITIGATION INCHES, BUT IT'S NOT TELLING ME THE NUMBER OF INCHES REMOVED. >> IF YOU GO SHEETS, LS2 AND LS3. THOSE GET TREE MITIGATION FOR EACH LOT. THERE'S NOT A TOTAL THAT I FOUND. I'LL PULL SITE BECAUSE ALL OF OUR MITIGATION IS DONE PER LOT. IT'S NOT DONE FOR WHOLE SITE. IT GETS BROKEN DOWN PER LOT, SO WE HAVE TO ADD IT ALL UP. >> CAN WE GET A COPY OF THAT, THAT I COULD SHOW THE INDIVIDUAL? >> YOU WANT A COPY? >> I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR COPY. NO. [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS GOT TO BE DONE NEXT. I APPRECIATE THE OFFER, THOUGH. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, KELLY, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE REQUEST HERE TO GET A COPY OF THAT. AND WOULD YOU JUST SEND IT TO ALL OF US, PLEASE? >> YEAH. >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> PART OF WHAT PERCOLATED THIS QUESTION WAS TODAY'S NEWS LEADER. I'M SORRY, FERNANDINA OBSERVER. THEY SAW A PICTURE OF ALL GREEN. THAT'S PARTIALLY WHAT ALL OF A SUDDEN SO I SAID, WHOA. SO GET THE QUESTION OUT. THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD ANYBODY BRING FORTH TO ME. THERE WAS I'VE HAD A I DON'T KNOW. LET'S SEE. TAMMY. DO I NEED TO DISCLOSE MY CONVERSATION WITH TERESA OR NOT? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> WELL, YEAH, SHE REPRESENTS THE COURT. YES, PLEASE DO. >> THERE WAS A POTENTIAL QUESTION ABOUT SOME LEGAL ISSUE. IT WAS NOT DISCLOSED. I DID CALL TERESA PRINCE, WHO WAS THE LEGAL COUNSEL INVOLVED WITH IT, AND WE HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DETERMINE ANY ISSUES. AND I KNOW SHE HAS ALSO SPOKEN WITH TAMMY AND I THINK ALSO WITH KELLY. SO AS FAR AS ANYTHING YOU WERE AWARE THERE IS NO ISSUE AT ALL. ALL OF THE TS WERE CROSSED AND THE EYES WERE DOTTED AND EVERYTHING IS CURRENT, AND EVEN IN THE REZONING AND SO FORTH. >> WHICH REZONING HAPPENED IN 2005? IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS RECENT, SO THERE WAS NO QUESTION. >> IT'S BEEN 19 YEARS. YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT? >> WELL, WILL THIS BE THE RIGHT TIME? I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. JUDSON QUESTION. DO I DO THAT NOW OR AFTER? >> NO, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME. >> [OVERLAPPING] WELL I'M GOING TO REST ON STATE. >> WELL, MAYBE YOUR QUESTION MIGHT BE ANSWERED. >> THERE YOU GO. >> SO LET'S HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY AND THEN WE'LL FOLLOW IT UP WITH QUESTIONS. >> NO, JUST BASICALLY, I WAS GOING TO REST ON STAFF'S PRESENTATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. >> WHO ARE YOU? >> I'M SORRY. GOOD POINT. ASA GILLETTE, GILLETTE ASSOCIATES 2031 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, FERNANDINA. I'M THE APPLICANT AND AGENT FOR THE OWNER. AS STAFF SAID, THIS IS A NINE LOT SUBDIVISION. OUR LAND USE ALLOWS US TO GO UP TO 14, BUT WE DID NINE IN ORDER FOR US TO MEET TREE PRESERVATION AND SATISFY DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE OTHER PARTS OF THE LDC. BUT I'LL HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. >> OKAY. MR. GILLETTE, THESE QUESTIONS ARE FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND YOUR PROCESS. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHECKING THE BOXES ON THIS APPLICATION. BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT SOME THINGS FROM A PROCESS STANDPOINT. AS AN ORDINARY CITIZEN WHO IS DOING THIS. SO WHEN YOU GET TOGETHER AND YOU BEGIN TO PLAN A PROJECT LIKE THIS, DO YOU TALK ABOUT, DO YOU AS A TEAM THINK ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT THE LOOK AT THE WHOLE CITY? DO YOU SIT AND DISCUSS, IS THIS GOING TO MAKE THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH MORE BEAUTIFUL, MORE DELIGHTFUL, MORE CHARMING, QUITTER? IS THAT PART OF THE EQUATION? >> SOMETIMES THAT'S PART OF THE EQUATION. A LOT OF TIMES THAT'S LEFT UP TO THE OWNER AND/OR THE DEVELOPER. WE AS ENGINEERS HAVE A SET OF RULES THAT WE GO BY. THE SET OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE HAVE WHETHER IN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THOSE RULES. AESTHETICS, IN SOME CASES ARE PART OF THOSE RULES, PLANNING FOR NEIGHBORHOOD THINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THOSE THINGS ARE PART OF THOSE RULES, AND WE DO CONSIDER THOSE. BUT AS ENGINEERS, IT'S HARD, WE CAN GET CAUGHT IN THE WEEDS IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL ON THAT, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, [00:20:01] WE'RE NOT THE ONE DOING THE DEVELOPMENT THEY ARE. >> AND SO IS THERE A POINT, AND I GUESS THIS IS I'M ASKING KELLY OR MARGARET THIS, IS THERE A POINT SO THE ENGINEER, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER, DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE RIGHT NOW. AND REALLY, AS ENGINEERS, THAT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS. >> WELL, DO I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE? YES. TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, I DO. IS IT PART OF MY BUSINESS? I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SEND OUT A PRODUCT THAT IS POOR. [OVERLAPPING] BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DO SOMETIMES HAVE TO GUIDE CLIENTS WITHIN CERTAIN PARAMETERS TO TRY TO GET THEM TO CONSIDER CERTAIN THINGS. BUT IF SOME THINGS AREN'T AGAINST THE RULES OR THE REGULATIONS, I CAN'T TELL THEM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHAT TO DO. >> I UNDERSTAND. BUT WE AS A BOARD, AND AS IT GOES THROUGH THIS, DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK THAT QUESTION OF THE PERSON WHO DOES MAKE THAT FINAL DECISION, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES. CORRECT. >> NO. IT'S NOT A REQUEST. >> THAT'S RIGHT. BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW. AND SO I WAS GOING TO ASK TO, AND I THINK YOUR ANSWER IS GOING TO BE THE SAME, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE CONSIDER 13,000 PEOPLE LIVE HERE, THEY'RE GOING TO LIVE WITH THIS BUILDING. AND IS THAT, YOU KNOW, HOW WILL 13,000 CITIZENS REACT TO THIS? WILL THEY BE JUST DELIGHTED TO SEE THIS BUILDING GO UP IN THE CITY. >> MAY I ASK WHAT CONCERNS YOU HAVE FOR THE AESTHETIC LOOK OF IT? [OVERLAPPING]. >> MY CONCERN IS ONLY FOR THE CHARACTER PERSONALITY OF OUR CITY. AND IT IS MY OBSERVATION AND I COULD BE WRONG. I'M JUST ONE GUY AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT IS THAT MORE AND MORE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE BUILDING HERE LOOK LIKE THEY COULD JUST GO ANYWHERE AND FIT IN ANYWHERE AND REALLY AREN'T IMPROVING OUR PERSONALITY OR OUR CHARACTER. AND BY THE WAY, PLEASE UNDERSTAND. >> I TAKE NO OFFENSE WHATSOEVER TO IT. >> SO THAT'S PART OF WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET. >> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED ABOVE MY LEVEL AT THE END OF THE DAY. YOU'RE GETTING NOW INTO WHAT I CALLED THE WEEDS, SO TO SPEAK, AS FAR AS AESTHETICS GO. LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE CERTAIN ORDINANCES AND THINGS OUT THERE THAT DO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AESTHETICS, CITY AND THE COUNTY BOTH. BUT THAT'S USUALLY GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT SET OF RULES. >> I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU. AND MARK'S RIGHT, IT'S NOT REQUIRED. BUT MY CONCERN IN ASKING IS I WANT US TO LOVE OUR CITY. >> UNDERSTANDABLE, I DO TOO. I LIVE HERE AS WELL. SO I MEAN, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH HERE, IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR DENSITY ISN'T ABOVE R2, WHICH IS A SURROUNDING AREA. IT'S NOT ABOVE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. I THINK MY CLIENT'S GOING TO PUT UP A NICE PRODUCT. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY. I THINK WE'RE WITHIN CHARACTER OF THAT. >> GOOD. THANK YOU. >> ESIR. >> YES, SIR. >> PROBABLY IF I INTERPRET WHAT RICHARD IS GETTING TO. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE FRONTAL ELEVATIONS AND JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE THREE DIMENSIONAL LOOK TO IT. AND THAT'S BEYOND, I THINK THAT'S NOT WITHIN THE PERUSE OF WHAT WE CAN APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE, RIGHT? OKAY. THAT'S PROBABLY THE FRUSTRATION WE HAD THAT WE WOULD LOVE FOR THAT KIND OF BLENDS IN WITH THOSE. >> AND THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DISCUSS WITH STAFF AND LEGALLY AS FAR AS HOW THAT HAPPENS WITHIN YOUR CODE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY, NOW THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. >> DOES THE TRV EVEN LOOK AT A THREE DIMENSIONAL LOOK AT THING OR DO THEY BASICALLY LOOK AT WHAT WE KIND OF STREAM BEHIND, RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. THEY'RE FOCUSED ON MEETING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN SOME AREAS, YES. >> SO THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT WATER AND SEWAGE AND STORM WATER AND STREET ACCESS. >> AND SETBACKS, HEIGHTS, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. YES, SIR. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOUR HONOR VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD DISCUSSION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS DO YOU GO BEFORE THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE? >> NO, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR TERRY. >> YES. >> OKAY. BACK IN 2005, WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED, THE REZONING AND ALL OF THAT, IT WAS PROPOSED THEN FOR SENIOR HOUSING. AND IT WAS EVEN AN OUTLINE OF WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED AT THAT TIME. AND THERE WAS INTEREST ON THE BOARD THEN ABOUT PEOPLE BUYING PROPERTY, GETTING THEM REZONED, FLIPPING THEM, AND DOING THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. NOW, I'M FOR THIS PROJECT, THE WAY IT CAME OUT. BUT BACK THEN, THAT WAS OUR CONCERN. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU AS THE ATTORNEY IS, WHEN WE APPROVED THESE REZONING AND APPROVED SOMETHING FOR SENIOR HOUSING, BECAUSE SENIOR HOUSING WAS SOMETHING THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN NEEDED HERE, [00:25:01] AND THAT WAS A BIG REASON FOR APPROVING THIS PROJECT, APPROVING THOSE ZONING CHANGES AND ALL OF THOSE ITEMS. WELL, HERE WE ARE 15 PLUS YEARS LATER, AND NOW WE HAVE A NEW PROJECT. SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, WHEN WE DO THOSE APPROVALS, CAN WE PUT A CONTINGENT OR A CONDITION ON THEM THAT IF IT CHANGES, THEN IT HAS TO DO SOMETHING ELSE? >> NO. >> WE CAN'T? >> IT'S CALLED CONTRACT ZONING. >> OKAY. >> IF YOU REQUIRE ANYTHING FROM A PROPERTY OWNER IN ORDER TO REZONE A PROPERTY. ANYTHING, ANY CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY, DEVELOPMENT, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S CALLED CONTRACT ZONING, AND IT'S ILLEGAL IN FLORIDA AND MANY OTHER STATES. >> SO IN THE FUTURE, IGNORE ANYTHING FOR, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO DO A SENIOR HOUSING OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR ANY OF THAT. IT IS WHAT IT IS WHEN IT COMES OUT OF THE GROUND. >> THAT'S RIGHT. WELL, WITH THE EXCEPTION NOWADAYS BECAUSE OF THE LIVE LOCAL ACT WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THE ANSWER IS IT DEPENDS. EVERY OTHER CONDITION, THAT'S RIGHT. THEY CAN SAY WHATEVER, BUT THEY ULTIMATELY HAVE THE RIGHT. AND IN THIS CASE, THE 2005 ORDINANCE, BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THESE, SOMETIMES I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S MAP. IT'S NICE THEY PUT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER. I WENT TO THE ORDINANCE. I LOOKED AT IT, AND IT'S JUST A SIMPLE REZONING ORDINANCE TO R3. SO THERE WERE NOT THAT THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE LEGAL ANYWAY, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE. >> WELL, I FOUND OUT IN SOME OTHER JURISDICTIONS THAT I THINK I HAVE SEEN CONDITION PUT ON SOME DEVELOPMENT. >> YOU COULD HAVE. I JUST KNOW IT'S NOT JUST FLORIDA. CONTRACT ZONING IS DEFINITELY NOT ALLOWED IN FLORIDA. THERE ARE OTHER STATES THAT I KNOW OF PROBABLY IN THE SOUTHEAST. [OVERLAPPING] CONTRACT ZONING. SO YOU'RE MAKING CONTRACT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AS A BOARD, IN OUR CASE NOW, THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVES IT. THEY'D ULTIMATELY BE THE CONTRACTING PARTY WITH THE OWNER TO SAY, IF WE GIVE YOU THIS APPROVAL, YOU HAVE TO DO X OR X, Y AND Z, AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED. >> THANK YOU. >> LET ME TAKE YOUR COMMENT. BUT YOU LOOKED AT THIS AND IT WOULD STILL MEET THE UMBRELLA REQUIREMENTS OF DENSITY FOR AN R2? >> YES, SIR. >> THE ZONING HAD NEVER OCCURRED [OVERLAPPING] >> THIS WOULD STILL R2 BASED ON THE I THINK I RAN THE NUMBER AND WE HAD WE WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER R2 TO HAVE 11 UNITS. >> OKAY. UNDER MEDIUM DENSITY. >> SO THE SAME THAT ONE POINT SOME ACRES ON THE STREET PIECE. >> THEY GET THE STREET 30 FOOT OF RIGHT OF WAY AND THEN YES, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO 11 UNITS. >> SO WE WOULD STILL BE UNDER THAT UMBRELLA. >> WE WOULD STILL BE UNDER THAT UMBRELLA. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, MA'AM. >> WILL THESE BE USED AS RESORT RENTAL DWELLING UNIT? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. NO, MA'AM. >> OKAY. >> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. MARGARET. KIRKLAND. COME FORWARD, PLEASE, MA'AM. CLUB. [BACKGROUND] >> I'M TELLING IT IS MUCH BETTER THAN THAT. [BACKGROUND] >> THANK YOU. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I JUST HAVE A FEW COMMENTS HERE. MARGARET KIRKLAND. >> I KNOW I'VE INTRODUCED YOU, BUT WOULD YOU MIND GIVING US YOUR NAME. >> YEAH. MARGARET KIRKLAND 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONCERN NASSAU. AND I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE DENSITY ON THIS LOT IS UNDER R2, BELOW WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR OR WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED FOR AN R3, AND THAT THERE'S BEEN AN EFFORT TO SAVE TREES. BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE SLIDE THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT POP OUT AT US, RIGHT? [00:30:02] ONE IS THE LEVEL OF DENSITY AND RESIDENCES AROUND THIS AREA. I THINK THE MOST OVERWHELMING THING IS THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THIS AREA. >> I FOCUSED ONLY ON THE PARCEL BUT THIS ENTIRE AREA. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE TREE CANOPY? WE HAVE A NICE LITTLE BIT OF TREE CANOPY HERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO LOSE ALMOST ALL OF IT. NEW TREES DOESN'T MATTER. I'LL TAKE 60 YEARS FOR THOSE TO MATURE AND FUNCTION PROPERLY. MAYBE IT'LL BE UNDERWATER BY THAT, WHO KNOWS? BUT WE ARE LOSING A LOT OF TREE CANOPY. OUR CONCERNS ARE ANY INCREASE IN DENSITY OR DECREASE IN LOT SIZE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE PROBLEMS. HIGH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LEVELS, LACK OF SUFFICIENT CANOPY TO MODERATE THE HEAT. WE ARE ALREADY HOT AS HELL IN THE CITY, AND IT'S GOING TO BE WORSE. WHY? BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING IT WORSE. LACK OF SUFFICIENT CANOPY TO PROCESS STORM WATER. NO, WE'RE NOT IN THE SAME SITUATION WE ARE MID ISLAND WHERE WE HAVE FLOODING THERE, BUT NONETHELESS, WE NEED THESE TREES TO PROCESS OUR STORM WATER. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH IN THE WAY OF STORM WATER PROCESSING EQUIPMENT. LACK OF SUFFICIENT CANOPY TO DISSIPATE STORM GET STORMS THAT ARE MORE INTENSE THAN WHAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, WE NEED THEM. LACK OF SUFFICIENT CANOPY REMAINING TO MANAGE NOISE. THE CITY HAS BECOME SO NOISY THAT IT IS AN UNPLEASANT PLACE TO BE. IN LINE WITH THE THINGS THAT RICHARD WAS MENTIONING, THE AESTHETICS DO MATTER. OUR SENSE OF PLACE AND THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY ARE WHY WE HAVE THE VOLUME OF TOURISM WE HAVE NOW. THEY ARE WHY WE HAVE THE RESIDENTS WE HAVE. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT OH, IT DOESN'T MATTER IF PEOPLE LEAVE BECAUSE NEW PEOPLE COME IN. NEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE A LOWER SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS COME IN. WE'VE SEEN ALL OVER THE COUNTRY WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE TOWNS THAT LOSE THEIR SENSE OF PLACE. WE DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN, PLUS WE HAVE TO LIVE HERE. I PULLED UP A SLIDE I DIDN'T LABEL IT VERY WELL, BUT I PULLED UP A SLIDE FROM GOOGLE EARTH 10 YEARS AGO TO SHOW WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE. I REALIZED THAT THERE IS SOME COLOR DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THESE SLIDES. THIS IS A BROADER AREA NOW. IT ALL MAKES A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF OUR FUTURE, WHAT OUR FUTURE WILL BE THE FUTURE OF THE CITY, WHETHER WE CAN STAND LIVING HERE, WHETHER THERE IS ANY PLACE TO LIVE HERE, AND SO ON. I JUST WANTED TO THINK ABOUT THIS AND KEEP THIS IN MIND NOT ONLY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALL DEVELOPMENTS. WE NEED TO BE LOOKING BEYOND THE FOUR PROPERTY LINES. WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THE GENERAL AREA. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MARGARET. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF MARGARET WHILE SHE'S HERE FROM THE BOARD? NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT TO SPEAK TO US WILL BE MR. DANNY FERRERO. >> NOT ON THIS SUBJECT. >> NOT ON THIS SUBJECT. EXCUSE ME. SORRY, 4.1, JOHN HOLBROOK. >> I'M GOING TO WORK HALF ON MY OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK POINTS BE COVERED. >> GOOD. THANK YOU. GETTING BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> EXCUSE ME. [OVERLAPPING] >> JOYCE. YES. PLEASE COME AHEAD, JOYCE. >> YES. HI, JOYCE TOUTON 2120 BEACH STREET. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TREES, THE TABLE THAT WAS PUT UP. BY MY QUICK COUNT WITH THAT QUICK TABLE, I COUNTED 47 SHADE TREES ARE BEING REMOVED, IS THAT RIGHT? [00:35:01] >> IT'S MORE THAN THAT. IN TERMS OF TOTAL NUMBER. [OVERLAPPING] >> YEAH. >> BUT WE LOOK AT OVERALL INCHES TYPICALLY. I DON'T HAVE A TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED VERSUS THOSE RETAINED. I DO [INAUDIBLE] APPROXIMATELY 43% OF THE CANOPY IS BEING RETAINED. THEN THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL TREE PLANTING TO MAKE UP FOR THE INCHES TO GET 50% OF THE INCHES. WHEN WE LOOK AT IT OVERALL. THEY'RE ALSO INDIVIDUALLY REVIEWED ON SITE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE UP FOR THEIR INCHES. SOME PROPERTIES WILL END UP HAVE MORE TREES, SOME WILL HAVE LESS BECAUSE THEY'RE ABLE TO KEEP MORE TREE. THEN OVERALL IMPACTS OF THE ROADWAY, AS WELL AS THE COMMON AREA, THAT'S VIEWED IN TOTAL SO THAT IT BALANCES OUT OF 50%. >> WHO COUNTS THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED? DOES THE CITY [OVERLAPPING]. >> THEY HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ARBORIST. THEY HAVE A SURVEYOR THAT GOES OUT THERE AND THEY SELL THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE AN ARBORIST GO OUT AND EVALUATE THE HEALTH OF THOSE TREES. ONLY THOSE HEALTHY PROTECTED TREES FOR THE CITY THAT NEED OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE QUALIFIED FOR MITIGATION PURPOSES. >> THAT ARBORIST REPORT IS NOT REVIEWED OR BOOTS ON THE GROUND. OR ARBORIST DOESN'T GO CHECK THAT? >> NO. INDIVIDUAL TREE BY INDIVIDUAL TREE. NO. >> I ONLY ASK BECAUSE MY LOT THAT I LIVE ON IS ALMOST IDENTICAL IN SIZE, AND WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO COUNT ALL OUR TREES AND HAVE LOST TRACK IN THE HUNDREDS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THESE NUMBERS. I JUST DROVE BY THE LOT AND IT'S A FOREST WITH A LOT OF REALLY GIANT TREES. I WONDER, WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PLATE THAT'S SO PERFECTLY UNIFORM, A FOREST IS NOT PERFECTLY UNIFORM, LAID OUT LIKE LEGOS. IS ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO MOVING STRUCTURES? EVEN JUST FIVE FEET ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, IF THAT WOULD MEAN SAVING AN ENORMOUS TREE. I KNOW WE JIM POZZETTA, THE HISTORIC BOARD ARCHITECT. HE HELPED US WITH A RENOVATION. WE BOUGHT AN OLDER HOME HERE, AND OUR CONTRACTOR THOUGHT WE WERE CRAZY THAT WE WERE ONLY BUMPING THE SIDE OUT TWO FEET BECAUSE WE NEEDED TO GET ANOTHER BATHROOM IN A ONE BATHROOM HOUSE. I SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING OUT FARTHER BECAUSE THERE'S A BIG NATIVE TREE THERE. I UNDERSTAND FOR THE DEVELOPER, IT'S EASIER TO BUILD LIKE LEGOS. IT'S CHEAPER, AND EVERY FOOT IS ANOTHER DOLLAR. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IN TERMS OF THE LOOKS AND WHO HAS ACTUALLY WALKED THAT LOT FOR THE PEOPLE. NOT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO CONFIRM THAT THE BEST TREES COULD HAVE BEEN SAVED. MAYBE AN ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. MAYBE AN ACTUAL CITY LAW NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. FORESTS DON'T LOOK LIKE LEGOS. >> JOYCE, JUST HANG ON JUST A SECOND. YOU BRING UP A SUBJECT. THERE'S ONE OTHER THING WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR AREA IS WHAT I'LL CALL A RELATIVELY HIGH DENSITY TREE. MY CONCERN IS IF I REMOVE 50% OF THAT COVERAGE, I'VE ALSO MODIFIED THE WHOLE STRUCTURE IN THAT COMMUNITY BECAUSE TREES LIVE NEXT TO EACH OTHER. THEY BECOME CODEPENDENT. THAT MAY BE THE BIGGER ISSUE. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SAY, YEAH, WE CAN TAKE OUT 50%, BUT IT'S THE EVOLUTION THAT BECOMES A REVOLUTION. BECAUSE OF TAKING THAT LARGE PERCENTAGE OF [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S ONE OF THE FRUSTRATIONS THAT I GOT FROM PEOPLE COMMENTING TO ME AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS A SHAME. I DON'T KNOW KELLY, HOW WE CONTROL THAT WITHIN THE CONFINES. >> NO, YOU'RE NOT WRONG. IT IS AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY YOU ALSO SAVE SOME TINY TREES BECAUSE THEIR ROOTS DO WORK TOGETHER. DIFFERENT SPECIES HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROOTS THAT TAP ROOT BIG WIDE ROOTS AND THEY INTERACT AND HELP EACH OTHER. >> HOW HE PUTS, HE'S MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I THINK HE SAID HE WAS LOOKING AT HOW HE BEST POSITIONS IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS. >> SURE. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A MECHANISM RIGHT NOW THAT WE CAN DO THE THINGS WAY WE PROBABLY SAY REALLY OUGHT TO BE DONE AT ALL. >> IT PROBABLY WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THE CITY TO PUT SOMEBODY ACTUALLY ON THE GROUND AND HELP WITH THE SITING. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] GIVES YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN. [00:40:05] >> AS OF GILLETTE ASSOCIATES 31 SOUTH FOURTH STREET. WHEN WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT ARBORIST GO OUT AND EXAMINE THESE, HE TEST TAKE INTO ACCOUNT BASED ON THE TREES THAT WE'RE REMOVING WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S GOING TO DAMAGE OR AFFECT ANY ADJACENT TREES. IF WE DECIDE TO TAKE A TREE OUT, THE ARBORIST TO LOOK AT THAT AND DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT ONE OR TWO OR THREE OR FOUR MORE TREES ARE GOING TO BE KILLED BY THAT. IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN WE HAVE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT SOMEWHERE OR WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO EITHER REPLACE THE TREES OR MITIGATE VERSUS THAT. THERE'S SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IS IT A PERFECT SYSTEM? NO. IT'S NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM, BUT NONE OF IT IS. THE ARBORIST DOES THE BEST HE CAN AND HE'S A LICENSED PERSON. HE HAS TO SIGN IT. HE PUTS HIS LICENSE ON THE LINE SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. TREES ARE NOT A PERFECT JIGSAW PUZZLE, AND I GET THAT, BUT YOU HAVE TO REALIZE WE STARTED OFF WITH 13 LOT, 13 PARCELS ON HERE, 13 UNITS AND GOT IT DOWN TO THE FACT THAT WE COULD ONLY MAKE NINE WORK. IT WAS JUST THE REALITY OF IT TO MAKE IT SIMPLE. IT'S NOT A PERFECT SYSTEM, BUT IT IS ACCOUNTED FOR TO SOME DEGREE. >> THE PROCESS TRIES TO OPTIMIZE. >> WE TRY TO, YES. BUT AGAIN, I HAVE A SET OF RULES TO GO BY. I OPERATE WITHIN THOSE RULES. THAT NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO AGREE WITH THOSE. >> GOOD QUESTIONS. DON'T HEAR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY REVIEWED THIS, AND HAVE THEY PASSED ON THIS? TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. >> IT MEETS ALL THE TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE STANDARDS FOR IT TO GET IN THE PROCESS. THE ACTUAL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WOULD NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTS A PRELIMINARY PLAN BY RESOLUTION. >> GOOD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO STAFF, AMONGST OURSELVES, TO OUR CITIZENS, ANYTHING ELSE? DO I HEAR A MOTION? [OVERLAPPING] >> I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE 2024-0009 TO THE CITY COMMISSION, REQUESTING THAT A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SEA LA VIE AMELIA SUBDIVISION BE APPROVED AND THAT PAB CASE 2024-0009 AS PRESENTED, IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> SECOND FROM MR. BENNETT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED LIGHTS ON? HEARING NONE. THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> WE HAVE ONE ABSENT. >> ABSENT BARB. I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK THING BEFORE WE FINISH THIS. THIS GOES TO ASIF. ASIF YOU COULD. I WAS JUST GOING OVER THIS WITH KELLY. IN OUR PACKET WAS THE APPLICATION. THIS IS JUST FYI. TWO THINGS. ONE, STAFF HAS IS GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO HELP US WITH THIS. BUT UNDER PAGE 2, WHERE IT'S GOT THE ZONING DISTRICT? WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE ONLY CHOICE YOU HAD BECAUSE IT IS R3 IS TO SELECT R3 WITH PUD. >> YEAH, THAT'S THE ONLY THING. >> THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. KELLY IS GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE I GUESS IT'S THE IT DEPARTMENT. >> WE'LL CORRECT IT. >> IT'LL BE CORRECTED SO THERE'S AN OPTION. YOU'RE NOT FORCED TO SAY R3 WITH PUD THAT'S ON OUR SIDE. NOW, THE OTHER THING THAT I WOULD JUST BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO IS ON PAGE 3, WHERE IT'S THE UPLOAD SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. THAT LINK, AT LEAST ON MY COMPUTER, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE FOUND THIS, WAS THAT IT TAKES ME TO THE THIRD AND BEACH ENGINEERING DRAWINGS. >> I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT. WE MAY HAVE UPLOADED THE WRONG SHEET. >> I JUST PASSED THAT OVER TO YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS A NEW FORM. I DON'T KNOW HOW IT ANYWAY HAPPENS. >> IT COULD HAVE BEEN AN ERROR ON IT. WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT. I APOLOGIZE. >> BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING. >> WELL I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD BE. [LAUGHTER] YES. >> THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS. THE ONLY COMMENTS THAT I HAD. >> THANKS. >> HOW HAVE YOU DOWNLOAD IT. I JUST DOWNLOAD THE PACKET. WHERE DID YOU GO? [OVERLAPPING] [00:45:02] >> I JUST CLICKED IT. >> IT'S JUST A LINK ON A PAGE. >> IT'S JUST THE LINK. IT'S ONE OF THE LINKS. >> I CAN'T GET THE LINK TO WORK. ONCE I'VE DOWNLOADED IT, I'VE GOT TO DO IT OFF THE CITY WEBSITE. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING RIGHT OFF THE CITY WEBSITE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> LET'S MOVE ON TO 4.2 PAB CASE 2024-0010. MARGARET. [4.2 PAB CASE 2024- 0010 LDC AMENDMENTS TO AMEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) STANDARDS] >> ACTUALLY, THIS ONE'S GOING TO BE COVERED BY ME, KELLY. SINCE I STARTED THIS JOURNEY WITH YOU ON LOOKING AT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. ACTUALLY, I DIDN'T START THE JOURNEY TO THAT NEEDED. [LAUGHTER] IT GOES BACK THAT FAR. FALL OVER A YEAR DISCUSSION, BUT MORE PROACTIVELY SINCE DECEMBER OF THIS PAST YEAR. WE'VE BEEN REALLY TALKING THROUGH DIFFERENT WAYS TO MAXIMIZE FLEXIBILITY WITH DEVELOPMENTS, SEE MORE CREATIVE DEVELOPMENTS, PROVIDE THE PLANNING BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE INPUT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. AND ONE WAY THAT WE MIGHT DO THAT WOULD BE THROUGH EXTENDING AND ALLOWING FOR MORE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS TO MOVE FORWARD AND BE REVIEWED. FOLLOWING SEVERAL MONTHS OF DISCUSSION AND MOST RECENTLY IN JULY, THE BOARD HAD GIVEN DIRECTION TO MAKE CERTAIN MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE REALLY TOWARDS THAT END. THERE ARE THREE PRIMARY AREAS THAT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE CHANGES. THAT IS IN THE ELIMINATION OF ANY MINIMUM ACREAGE TO APPLY FOR PUD, EXPANDING THE QUALIFYING CRITERIA FOR WHICH YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO QUALIFY THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT FOR A PUD, AND ALLOWING FOR MORE DEVIATIONS FROM THE MINIMUM SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. THOSE ARE THE THREE AREAS THAT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE REALLY TOUCHES ON. THE SAC REPORT ITSELF DOES GO THROUGH AND PROVIDES A DETAILED EXPLANATION AS WELL AS THE BACKUP FROM EMILY FLYNT, THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD LAST MONTH IN HER RESEARCH FOR LOOKING AT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STATE. WITH THAT, I THINK WE CAN REALLY DIVE INTO THE LANGUAGE ITSELF AND GET SOME INITIAL REACTION. THIS HAS BEEN ADVERTISED AS A FORMAL CASE. THIS IS PAB CASE 2024-0010. THE BOARD CAN TAKE ACTION ON THIS CASE TONIGHT TO FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION OR MAKE ANY MODIFICATIONS TO IT. THIS IS YOUR DOCUMENT TO WORK WITHIN, AND IT'S AT YOUR TIME FRAME. BUT THERE IS A GOOD DEAL OF CHANGE THAT IS PROPOSED THAT REALLY SPEAKS TO A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION THAT WE'VE HAD OVER THIS TIME FRAME IN ADDRESSING THE DESIRE FOR HAVING FLEXIBILITY. >> WHO WANTS TO START OFF? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FIRST OF ALL. I'VE GOT FIVE CITIZEN REQUESTS, JUST BULLETS. DO YOU WANT ME JUST TO COVER THEM BECAUSE IT MAY GET COVERED AS WE GO THROUGH THE DISCUSSION? DO YOU WANT ME JUST TO GO THROUGH THEM? >> THESE ARE INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS WHO CONTACTED YOU AND HAVE QUESTIONS? >> YEAH. >> BECAUSE WE DO HAVE ONE CITIZEN WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON SUBJECTS. >> THESE ARE JUST ONES COMING IN VIA A PHONE CALL. >> WELL, IS A BOARD OKAY WITH THAT? ANY OBJECTIONS? >> I'M SUMMARIZING THEM DOWN VERY MUCH. THE FIRST ONE WAS, WHY DO WE NEED THE CHANGE? SECOND ONE WAS, WILL THE CHANGE JUST CREATE MORE MANY SHELL COVE? WE UNDERSTAND THAT? ISN'T THIS CHANGE JUST GOING TO INCREASE DENSITY? WHO BENEFITS BESIDES THE DEVELOPERS? WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL EXPOSURE, I THINK EXPOSURE BEING THE IMPACT, WITHIN THE CITY? I'M NETTING THEM DOWN FROM DISSERTATION. AS WE GO THROUGH IT, WE MAYBE JUST ANSWER THOSE WHERE WE CAN. >> THOSE ARE VERY GOOD QUESTIONS. >> START WITH SQUARE ONE. WHO'S GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE DOING IT. >> KELLY HAS ASKED FOR OUR INPUT OR REACTION TO IT. DO DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? I DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER ALL THOSE QUESTIONS. >> I'LL TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF THEM. I DON'T THINK IT INCREASES THAT AT ALL. >> IT DOESN'T. >> BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE A ZONING IN PLACE. [00:50:02] >> IF I WAS TO FUTURE, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? I SEE IT OR YOU HAD QUESTIONS SLIDE ABOUT TREES. AS PART OF A PUD, I WOULD IMAGINE PEOPLE COULD MOVE BUILDINGS AROUND AND DO THINGS TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THOSE TREES WE WANT TO KEEP. YOU HAVE A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY WITH THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT ITSELF IN THERE. >> I'LL ADD ON TO THAT. TAN, YOU TALKED ABOUT CONTRACT ZONING. THIS IS A WAY TO CONTRACT ZONING. >> I WAS JUST THINKING THAT. >> IF THE SENIOR HOUSING HAD BEEN DONE UNDER A PUD, YOU'D BE BOUND TO HAVE SENIOR HOUSING? >> CAN I NOTE IT DOWN AND SAY THAT BASICALLY FROM WHAT WE KNOW TODAY, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A DRIVER FOR INCREASING DENSITY WITHIN THE CITY? >> NO. WE I DO IT THAT WAY. >> I'LL GO TO THE SHELL COVE ISSUE. [LAUGHTER] THAT'S A QUICK POINT TO COMMENT ON THAT ONE. WELL, THAT WAS A PUT. >> IT HAD ALMOST TWO ACRES OF OPEN SPACE IN THE BACK. SO IT JUST CONGREGATED ALL OF THE LIVING UP FRONT, AND ONLY THE RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE WHO USE THE GREENWAY GET THE BENEFIT OF THE TWO ACRES IN THE BACK. YOU HAVE THAT OPTION ANYTIME YOU REVIEW. THIS BOARD APPROVED THAT PUD AND THE COMMISSION APPROVED THAT PUD SO EVERYBODY HAS TO SAY WHAT GOES ON. >> A LOT OF THE NEW DESIGN STANDARDS, HAVE YOU CLUSTERING ALL YOUR BUILDINGS IN THE AREA, TRYING TO SAVE THE TREES, THE ENVIRONMENT, THE OTHER AREAS. THAT'S ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES AGAIN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT WITH A PUD BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN MOVE THESE THINGS AROUND, AND YOU'RE NOT STUCK IN THOSE OTHER THINGS. >> IF THE PROJECT THAT WE JUST HEARD WAS COMING IN UNDER A PUD. WOULD INSTEAD OF THAT BEING JUST A STRAIGHT ROAD IN, YOU COULD HAVE ACTUALLY MAYBE MOVED IT AROUND TO ACCOMMODATE MAYBE A HERITAGE TREE OR A SPECIAL TREE? >> YOU CAN AND YOU CAN CHANGE RIGHT AWAY WIDTHS. YOU CAN AT HICKORY RIDGE, BUT YOU REDUCE THE CUL DE SAC BULBS TO SAVE TREES AT THE END, HAVE PUT POCKET PARKS. YEAH, YOU CAN VARY ANY OF THAT. TO THE DISCUSSIONS POINT EARLIER, YOU'RE NOT SO LINEAR, YOU'RE NOT SO GOSH, THAT'S THE WORD. >> TO FLIP IT AROUND THE PUD MAY, IN EFFECT, CREATE A MORE FRUITFUL PRODUCT IN TERMS OF GIVING THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM MORE FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THEY SOLVE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS. LET'S SAY TREES ARE ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE GOT ALL WITHIN THE CITY AND WITHIN THE COUNTY, IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY. >> BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SAY THE NEIGHBORS MIGHT SEE IS WHEN YOU BRING IN A DEVELOPMENT LIKE WE JUST SAW, WE ARE USED TO A LINEAR FOCUS. WE UNDERSTAND WHERE THE PROPERTY LINES ARE. IF YOU'RE A NEIGHBOR OUTSIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN UNDER A PUD AND SAY IN ORDER TO SAVE SOME TREES, YOU MOVE THE TOWNHOUSE OR THE INDIVIDUAL HOUSE OVER. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO COUNT ON THIS LINEAR SETBACK OF A BUILDING. WE KNOW HOW MANY FEET IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IN ORDER TO SAVE A TREE, WE'RE GOING TO PUSH THAT HOUSE INSTEAD OF SAY 15 FEET, I'M GUESSING, TO FIVE FEET, THEN THAT COULD BE AN ISSUE FOR THE OTHER IMPACTED NEIGHBORS. THAT'S THE DOWNSIDE, I THINK, OF A PUD IS THAT YOU DO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE MORE CREATIVITY, MORE OPPORTUNITIES, BUT THE DOWNSIDE IS SOMETIMES THAT CREATIVITY COULD CREATE SOME OTHER ISSUES. >> NOW, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEVELOPER IS NOT GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE AN ISSUE WHERE THEY CAN'T SELL THAT PRODUCT. ULTIMATELY, THEY WANT TO SELL THE PRODUCT, SO IT HAS TO MEET SOME A STANDARD THAT'S GOING TO SELL IT. IF YOU MOVE IT TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY, I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER ISSUES THERE. >> THE PUD ALSO GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE OF AN ECLECTIC COMMUNITY BECAUSE NOW I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE VARIATION, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIKE THAT. IT'S NOW THAT'S A TRADE-OFF. I WANT IT VERY STRUCTURED, I WANT TO KNOW DOWNTOWN NEW YORK CITY TYPE OF FERAL VIEW, OR DO I WANT ONE THAT'S ALTERNATES BETWEEN STRAIGHT STREETS AND CURVE STREETS. [00:55:01] >> TRUE. DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION THEN. >> THERE YOU GO. >> THAT ALWAYS TUNE IN TO THE WEBSITE AND LISTEN TO THIS [LAUGHTER] IF THEY'RE CONFUSED. >> WELL, A LOT OF PEOPLE LEARNED FROM, I THINK FROM THE SHELL COVE. NOTHING WAS DONE WRONG. >> NO. >> IT'S INDIVIDUALS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY SEE. THEY DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE WHAT THEY SEE IN THAT PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. BUT IT'S NOT LIKE SOMEBODY WENT OUT AND SAID, I'M GOING TO DO IT THE WRONG WAY. >> WELL, IT'S A MARCH POINT, 48 PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND BOUGHT HOUSES. THEY LIKED IT ENOUGH TO BUY A HOUSE AND IF PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE IT, THEY WOULDN'T BUY IT. >> I WOULD HAVE ON SHELL COVE, THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES THEY HAD TO FACE WAS THE TWO EGRESS AND EGRESS. THAT'S WHY THEY DID THE HORSESHOE AND THE WAY THEY DID. UNDER MAYBE NEW RULES OR NEW THEY WOULD GO TO THE SINGLE ACCESS AND MAYBE HAVE A LARGER DIRECTOR OR SO MORE FLEXIBILITY. >> MORE FLEXIBILITY. >> WELL, WE'VE DISCUSSED IT, PARTICULARLY ON THE LOWER RESIDENTIAL HEAD COUNTS OR STRUCTURE COUNT. THE SINGLE ACCESS, PRECEDENT HAS BEEN SET NOW. WE'RE NOW SAYING, ONE APPROPRIATE ACCESS EGRESS, EGRESS WHATEVER. >> THAT STAYS IN THE COVE. >> YEAH. >> YOU HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE. >> THE VOA HAS ALREADY SAID, OKAY, WE WILL CONSIDER IT. IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT AND LET'S JUST SAY WE DID A PUD WITH, I DON'T KNOW, FIVE RESIDENCES. I COULD DO FIVE RESIDENCES ON AN ACRE, I JUST WANT ONE ENTRANCE EXIT. YOU MIGHT HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GET THAT VARIANCE. BUT IT APPEARS THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO LISTEN TO THAT PARTICULAR ALTERNATIVE REQUEST AND SO, YEAH, THAT THAT MAKES SENSE IN THIS CASE. >> A LOT OF THAT IS PROJECT SPECIFIC, I WOULD GUESS. BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, THIS ONE WE JUST SAW, THEY CERTAINLY CAN GET A FIRE TRUCK ON 13TH STREET AND REACH EVERY STRUCTURE THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT IN THERE VERSUS SOMETHING LIKE SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE THEY CAN'T GET TO OR DISTANCE BECOMES A PROBLEM. >> WELL, AND ALSO, YOU'RE ABLE IN THE PUD TO WRITE YOUR CODE OF EXCEPTIONS THAT YOU WANT THAT ARE REVIEWED INDIVIDUALLY. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR SETBACK OR YOUR EGRESS POINTS OR BUFFERS, THOSE ARE ALL THINGS YOU BUILD INTO THE PUD LANGUAGE, AND THEY'RE LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A WHOLE. >> LET ME SEE WHAT ELSE IS IN HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO COMMENT ON WHO'S GOING TO REALLY BENEFIT FROM THE CHANGE. >> I THINK THE CITIZENS DO. >> WHO BENEFITS WE ALL BENEFIT FROM IT. I MEAN, THE CITY BENEFITS FROM IT. BECAUSE A LOT OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE HERE THAT WE CAN'T SOLVE BECAUSE OF THOSE STRICT IN PLACE RULES, WE NOW HAVE A WAY TO SOME FLEXIBILITY TO INCORPORATE SOME OF THESE ITEMS LIKE THE TREE THINGS EXAMPLE OR ARE YOU GOING TO SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES. I WANT TO INCREASE RESTRICTIVENESS IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL PROPERTY. YOU CAN ALWAYS DO THAT BY CHANGING THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT SOMEWHERE. I MEAN, WE ALREADY HAVE A LEAD DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SETS OUT WHAT THE DENSITY IS IN THE CITY. YOU ALWAYS CHANGE THAT. IT'S A BIG DEAL, BUT IT CAN BE CHANGED. >> I MAY JUST THROW SOMETHING OUT TO JUST KNOW. AT SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL LAND FROM THAT'S NOW ZONED OR THE COUNTY. ARE THERE BIG CHUNKS OF LAND IN THE COUNTY THAT MIGHT BE VERY APPROPRIATE FOR A PUD, OR ARE WE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THE SAME THING OR I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT TWO FIVE-ACRE PLOTS WITHIN THE CITY THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR A PUD. >> YOU HAVE A LOT OF LAND IN THE CITY. YOU JUST GET ON AERIAL AND LOOK AT WHAT ARE THEY FIVE ACRES? >> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT FIVE, BUT THEY'RE LARGE. [01:00:03] >> THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FAR. >> NO. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING. THIS IS BEING CRAFTED BASICALLY TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENT WE HAVE WITHIN THE CITY, WHICH IS PROBABLY A TWO TO THREE ACRE PIECE OF LAND IS ABOUT AS BIG AS YOU'RE GOING TO FIND. NOW, JACKSONVILLE HAS NO REQUIREMENTS FOR ACREAGE. MAYBE IT'S JACK'S BEACH. >> JACK'S BEACH. >> JACK'S BEACH. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE HAD ANY ISSUES THAT COME UP THERE OR NOT. BUT IT'S SCATTERED AROUND. THE QUESTION JUST IS THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT THIS IS A DEAL TO HELP DEVELOPERS AND TO INCREASE DENSITY PERCEPTION. >> I WILL TELL YOU THAT PERCEPTION IS WRONG. I MEAN, THROUGHOUT THE STATE, OR I'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF PUDS, IT ENSURES THE CITY HAS CONTROL OVER I WANT TO SAY A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOW IT'S PUT TOGETHER STILL WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE OVERALL RULES AND THING. HERE AGAIN, WE'RE NOW FACING ISSUES BECAUSE OF HOW OLD THIS CITY IS AND HOW A LOT OF THE UNDERLYING PLANS AND THINGS WORK. IN MY MIND, THIS WOULD BE CERTAINLY A WAY TO OVERCOME A LOT OF THOSE PROBLEMS AND MAKE FOR A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT COME BEFORE THIS BOARD LIKE, WELL, IS IT GOING TO LOOK GOOD? WHAT'S IT GOING TO BE LIKE, THOSE THINGS BECAUSE A DEVELOPER WANTS TO BUILD THE PROPERTY AND SELL IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. THAT'S ALL THEY CARE ABOUT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT UGLY, THEY DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT HARD TO GET IN AND OUT OF IT ALL OF THOSE OTHER ISSUES. ALTHOUGH IT HAPPENED AND SOME OF THEM NEVER FINISHED THEIR DREAM. BUT IN OUR CASE, WE WANT TO LOOK AT IT, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL THE ISSUES THAT THE CITY CONTROL AND THIS IS A WAY OF US TO ADDRESS THOSE. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT, KELLY? >> I AGREE WITH THAT. YES, SIR. I WOULD AGREE THAT BY PROVIDING FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY AND ALLOWING FOR MORE PUDS, IT'S REALLY ANOTHER TOOL THAT YOU'RE OFFERING A DEVELOPER, PROPERTY OWNER TO LOOK AT THEIR PROPERTY AND THINK ABOUT THOSE FEATURES THAT ARE AVAILABLE THAT ARE ON THEIR PROPERTY. HOW DID THEY WANT TO PROTECT THEM? HOW DO THEY WANT TO MAYBE THINK ABOUT A CREATIVE DESIGN THAT OTHERWISE WOULDN'T COMPLY WITH OUR CODE, BUT WOULD BE VALUABLE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO HAVE HERE, THERE COULD BE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY IT'S JUST ANOTHER TOOL AVAILABLE FOR SOMEBODY TO CONSIDER HOW TO PLAN THEIR PROPERTY OUT. >> ANOTHER WAY I THINK OF LOOKING AT IT IS, IT'S ANOTHER AT LEAST ON THE CITIZEN SIDE OF THINGS. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE A VOICE IN THE PROCESS RATHER THAN LOOKING AT THE STANDARD. WE SAW A GREAT EXAMPLE TONIGHT OF THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GETTING ON A STANDARD SUBDIVISION IN AN R3 ZONE PROPERTY. THERE ARE CERTAIN PARAMETERS THAT IF WE WERE ABLE TO OPEN UP THE PUD PROCESS TO THAT SITUATION MAY HAVE BEEN BENEFITED, THINGS LIKE MAXIMIZING TREE PROTECTION TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN THEY WERE ABLE TO DO, THINGS LIKE DIFFERENT PARTIAL SIZES THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED THEM FLEXIBILITY IN PUTTING DIFFERENT UNIT TYPES, BUT ON DIFFERENT PARCELS. BUT STILL IN KEEPING WITH THE OVERALL DENSITY AND ASSIGNED TO THAT LAND USE. IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY AND THEN ALL OF THAT IS PUBLICLY VETTED THROUGH A BIG PROCESS THAT GOES BOTH THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TO THE COMMISSION IN TWO READINGS THERE. THEN IT COMES BACK. IF THERE'S ANY PLOTTING TIED TO, IT COMES BACK AGAIN THROUGH A PLOT REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION, OPENING UP AGAIN TO TWO MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS AS PART OF THAT PROCESS AND THEN A THIRD TIME WHEN IT COMES BACK FOR FINAL PLOTTING. THROUGH TWO MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS. IT OPENS UP THE PUBLIC PROCESS TO A MUCH GREATER EXTENT AND WHEN SOMEBODY'S WILLING TO GO THROUGH THAT, BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES BENEFIT THE OVERALL PROJECT AND PROPERTY AND IS A BENEFIT TO THE CITY. THEY'RE ABLE TO CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THERE'S A BENEFIT. IT'S JUST ANOTHER TOOL TO ALLOW THEM TO THINK ABOUT THAT POSSIBILITY. >> TAMMY. >> THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ADD TO THAT WAS THAT IN A PLAT THAT IS JUST FOLLOWING THE CODE, AND THERE'S NOT A PUD. YOU'RE JUST RELYING ON THE UNDERLYING ZONING. THE CITY ALMOST CANNOT SAY NO BECAUSE OF REASONS OUTSIDE, WHETHER YOU DO SEE THE AESTHETICS OR YOU DON'T LIKE THAT IT'S JUST, [01:05:03] HOUSES OR THAT ALL THE TREES HAVE TO COME DOWN FOR THAT. YOU CAN'T SAY NO BECAUSE OUR CODE ALLOWS FOR IT. WITH A PUD, THERE'S MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO SAY NO ON A MORE SUBJECTIVE BASIS. AS YOU KNOW THE FIRST STEP FOR APPLICATIONS IS TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING STAFF, AND, SOMETIMES THERE'S LOTS OF MEETINGS. CERTAINLY WITH A PUD, THERE'S A LOT MORE MEETINGS THAN THERE IS JUST WITH A REGULAR PLOT. AS PART OF THOSE MEETINGS THAT WE DON'T SEE, THAT YOU DON'T SEE IS THE STAFF SAYING, NO, THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. NO. THAT'S RIGHT, MR. GILLETT? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> THE DEVELOPER ALMOST ALWAYS SAYS IF THEY CAN WORK AROUND THEY SAY. OKAY. YEAH. WE GET IT, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T GET STAFF'S ENDORSEMENT, IT MAKES IT A LOT HARDER. FOR FOLKS OUT THERE THAT ARE THINKING THAT THIS CHANGE IS DRIVEN BY DEVELOPERS, IT'S FOR DEVELOPMENT, IT IS SO MUCH NOT THAT. I LIKE THAT KELLY MADE THAT POINT VERY CLEAR TOO ABOUT THE PUBLIC'S PARTICIPATION. SOME OF THE STUFF THEY JUST DON'T GET TO PARTICIPATE IN, BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF. >> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> I FURTHER SAY WHAT TAMMY WAS TALKING ABOUT. IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE CITIZEN TO EXPRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND THE DEVELOPER TO TRY TO HAVE A CREATIVE WAY TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS, WHICH IS THE POINT YOU WERE MAKING EARLIER OR SOMETHING. >> THE ADDED AVENUES IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY AND THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY STAFF. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. WHY DID WE STRIKE I SIX? >> WHAT? >> I SIX. >> LET ME INCREASE THIS. SORRY. >> [OVERLAPPING] THE FOUR AREA RATIO? >> YES. >> TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY. THIS IS UNDER A SECTION WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. THAT'S SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE THEM NOT EXCEED THAT CERTAIN LEVEL. I GUESS IT'S A CONVERSATION POINT? >> I WANT TO RESTRICT NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A PUD SCENARIO? ARE YOU COMFORTABLE RELYING ON THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT TO JUST BE THE GUIDE. >> MY POINT IN BRINGING THAT UP IS WE HAVE THAT AREA THAT WE STRIKE THAT OUT. THEN WE HAVE OTHER AREAS WHERE WE STILL HAVE NUMBERS, LIKE RIGHT UNDERNEATH THAT UNDER NUMBER 7A, WHERE WE HAVE 5% OF LAND AREA. WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE MINIMUM ACREAGE, THAT'S ALREADY ALLOWING FOR A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY AS IT IS. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF EXTRA THINGS IN HERE THAT ARE TRYING TO SERVE A POINT OF ALLOWING FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY THAT DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE ADDED IN THERE WHEN THE MINIMUM ACREAGE YOU ALREADY TOOK THAT OUT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YES, I THINK THIS WAS AN AREA AND IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING FOR DISCUSSION AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULD RESTRICT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHERE SOMEBODY IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE MIXED USE ON A GIVEN PIECE OF PROPERTY, SO RARE THAT WE GET THAT ANYWAY TO DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN WHAT'S PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ZONING DISTRICT. I'M JUST NOT SURE. >> DO YOU THINK THAT WAS AN ATTEMPT FOR LIKE YOU SAID, A MIXED USE NOT A COMMERCIAL PUD, BUT A MIXED USE AND MAYBE THEY ONLY WANTED THE COMMERCIAL TO OCCUPY 21% OF IT. >> OVER YOUR OVERALL PROJECT. >> OVER YOUR OVERALL PROJECT. I WASN'T SURE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. >> BUT THAT JUST BRINGS A QUESTION. DO WE NEED TO LOOK AT EACH OF THESE NUMBERS AND ELIMINATE EACH OF THE NUMBERS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN HERE? BECAUSE TO ME, WE'RE REMOVING THAT REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS FINE, BUT IF WE'RE REMOVING THAT, THEN WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS 5%. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS 50%. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS 80% AND ANY OTHER NUMBERS THAT ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THIS LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT. >> THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD. IF I LEFT IT THERE PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT I FELT LIKE NEEDED TO BE MODIFIED, AND IT CAN BE USED AS A PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR WHETHER OR NOT A PARTICULAR PROJECT IS GOING TO QUALIFY TO MEET A PUD AND THAT WE'RE GETTING THAT OVERALL PUBLIC BENEFIT FROM IT. [01:10:04] >> WE MAYBE DEFINITELY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEN, I IMPLY THAT TO BE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, MEANING YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. >> THEN IT NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIED. >> THEN YOU KEEP THE 0.21. IT WAS THERE FOR A REASON. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS THERE FOR, BUT FOR A REASON, OBVIOUSLY. >> BECAUSE RIGHT AFTERWARDS, YOU HAVE SEVEN WITHIN A MIXED USE PUD, THERE ACTUALLY IS NO LIMIT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL IN THAT SCENARIO. BUT WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE A RESIDENTIAL PUD THAT HAS SOME NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TIED TO IT, IT DOES HAVE THAT LIMITATION. IT WAS GIVING SPECIFICITY WHERE IT'S IN, LIKE, SAY AN R2 ZONE AREA, THOUGH R2 DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL ALLOWANCES. >> THAT WOULD BE A MIXED START? >> BE A MIXED USE? >> EXCEPT THAT IT LOOKED AT CHANGING THAT AS BEING ALLOWED OVERALL. [OVERLAPPING] DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A LIMIT THEN? WHERE IT DOES BECOME AN ALLOWABLE TERM FOR WHICH YOU COULD SEEK A DEVIATION ON YOUR STANDARDS. WHERE YOU ALLOW THE INTRODUCTION OF THOSE USES. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK WE'VE GOT SOME MIXED USE UP ON WHAT'S ON SECOND THE FIRST FLOOR IS COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL UPSTAIRS. THAT'S NON PUT. THAT'S MILA PARK HOUSE. >> BUT THE FAR ONLY COUNTS ON THE COMMERCIAL. >> CORRECT. >> YOU ONLY GET ONE FLOOR OF AREA THAT COUNTS TOWARDS YOUR FAR? I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT BEHIND SIX WAS MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T BLOW THE WHOLE THING UP THE COMMERCIAL. >> I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP IT. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM KEEPING IT, REALLY. [OVERLAPPING] >> I HAVE A QUESTION. WE HAVE SEVERAL INSTANCES IN HERE WHERE WE TALK ABOUT OPEN RECREATIONAL SPACE, OPEN SPACE. WHAT IS OPEN SPACE? >> IT IS DEFINED BOTH IN THE [INAUDIBLE] ARTICLE. >> IT IS DEFINED. THAT TERM IS OPEN SPACE. I THINK I'VE GOT IT WITH GIVE ME A MINUTE. >> I WILL. [LAUGHTER] >> I GOT IT RIGHT HERE. >> I'VE BEEN ON HOLD ALL DAY. [LAUGHTER] >> LET ME SEE IF IT IS. IS IT IN LAND DEVELOPMENT OR? >> BOTH TERMS DEFINED OPEN SPACE AND OPEN RECREATION. >> OPEN SPACE. >> I WAS ASKING KELLY. >> YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IT FOR ME. >> IT'S NOT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT. AT LEAST NOT AS OF LAST YEAR. WELL, THEN YOU SAID IT WAS. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL SPEECH THAT YOU CAN GIVE AND TO FACT [LAUGHTER]. >> OPEN SPACE, IT'S IN THE COMPREHENSIVE WAY. >> A PARCEL OF LAND IN A PRIMARILY, OPEN AND/OR UNDEVELOPED CONDITION THAT MAYBE SUITABLE FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING NATURAL AREAS, WILDLIFE, NATIVE PLANT HABITATS, IMPORTANT LANDS, AND WATERSHED.. >> HOW ABOUT OPEN RECREATIONAL SPACE. >> LET ME SEE IF THAT IS WITHIN THE UMBRELLA OF THAT ONE. NO. >> DO WE NEED A DEFINITION FOR OPEN RECREATIONAL SPACE? >> WHERE ARE YOU SEEING THE TERM OPEN RECREATION? >> I'M LOOKING ON OUT OF THE PACKET. THAT WOULD BE PAGE 54. IT SAYS ON ITEM B3, OPEN RECREATIONAL SPACE. >> IT'S TYPO. >> SPACES OR OPEN RECREATIONAL SPACE IN RESIDENTIAL. >> I THINK IT WAS INTENDED TO BE OPEN SPACE RECREATION OR OPEN SPACE. [OVERLAPPING] >> IF WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR OPEN SPACE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> THAT'S HERE. THAT IS. >> IF WE DON'T HAVE ONE FOR OPEN RECREATIONAL SPACE, WE WILL PROBABLY NEED ONE OR DO SOMETHING ELSE. >> CIVIC SPACES, RECREATION, OR OPEN SPACE, IN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> YES. THAT MAKES SENSE, YEAH. GOOD JOB. >> IT'S UNDER THIS OVERALL DEFINITION. >> WE HAD SOME I THINK A DISCUSSION LAST TIME ON RECREATION. [01:15:01] WHETHER THAT IS THAT JUST LIKE BASIC OF LAND OR IS THAT JUST A LOT OUT THERE THAT GOT TREES ON IT AND NOTHING ELSE OR SO THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING THAT UP. >> WELL, WE TRIED TO FINE TUNE OUR DEFINITIONS A COUPLE OF MEETINGS BACK. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE STICK WITH DEFINITIONS THAT WE'VE ALL AGREED ON. [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT I DON'T WANT TO CREATE ANOTHER PROBLEM BY OKAYING SOMETHING LIKE THIS TONIGHT, AND NOW WE HAVE IT DEFINED. >> I AGREE? >> IT WAS THE TYPO TO BE CLEAR. >> IT SHOULD BE OPEN SPACE. >> I WAS NOT IN THE RIGHT SPACE. IT WAS IN BETWEEN OPEN AND SPACE AND SO THAT WAS THE TYPO. >> IT'S JUST GOING TO BE OPEN SPACE? >> RECREATION OR OPEN SPACE. CIVIC SPACES, RECREATION OR OPEN SPACE. >> WE KNOW WHAT RECREATION IS [LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW. [OVERLAPPING] WE'VE GOT TO RUN TREES AND SALISBURY ON IT. PEOPLE GOT TO RUN AROUND ON IT PLAY FOOTBALL. >> I'VE GOT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES. I DON'T HAVE RECREATIONAL SPACE. >> I DON'T WANT TO BE ON THIS THING, BUT THESE ARE UNDERLYING TO BE ADDED ITEMS. >> WE HAVE PASSIVE RECREATION, WHICH IS DEFINED AS WELL AS ACTIVE RECREATION, WHICH IS DEFINED. THIS ALLOWS FOR BOTH. IT'S JUST RECREATIONS. >> I'M OKAY WITH THAT I TOO. >> YOU TELL ME WE'RE OKAY. BOBBLE-HEAD. >> YOU'RE OKAY. [LAUGHTER] >> CAN WE GO BACK TO MY OTHER POINT THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, IS IT NECESSARY TO HAVE UNDER SECTION C, THE ADDITION OF 7-14 ADDITIONAL QUALIFYING FACTORS IN THERE WHEN WE'RE ALREADY CHANGING IT AND OPENING IT UP SIGNIFICANTLY? I THINK THAT THIS IS TOO MUCH. >> WELL, LET'S LOOK AT IT. >> THIS IS ADDING IN ADDITIONAL TERMS FOR WHICH YOU WOULD DEFINE WHAT IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT TO ALLOW FOR A PROJECT TO QUALIFY COMING IN FOR PUD. IT DOES ALLOW FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR A DIFFERENT WAY OF VIEWING WHAT IS THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT, DEFINING WHAT IS THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT. THESE ARE ALL TOPICS THAT WE'VE CONSIDERED IN THE PAST AS A GROUP. I DID THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO INCORPORATE THEM INTO THIS BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY DOES COVER UNDER THAT UMBRELLA THOUGHT OF WHAT IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT AND IS IN KEEPING WITH WHERE THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING TOWARDS FOR A LONG TIME. >> WELL, AND I'LL ADD TO THAT. WHEN I READ IT, IF YOU WERE A VACANT PIECE OF LAND THAT WAS INFILL AND NOT ADJACENT TO A GREEN-WAY OR DIDN'T HAVE REDEVELOPMENT, IT WOULD BE HARD TO MEET 1-6 ALONE HAVE TWO OF THEM. YOU CAN DO BICYCLE PADS, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A BLIGHTED AREA, YOU DON'T HAVE CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE. YOU'RE NOT ON THE GREEN-WAY, YOU'RE NOT ON THE OCEAN FRONT. IT REALLY RESTRICTED YOU AS TO WHAT YOU COULD DO OR TO EVEN FILE. >> GOES TO 14, IT GOES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PAGE. >> NO, 1-6 WERE EXISTING [OVERLAPPING]. >> HE WAS SAYING, WHY DO 7-14, WHICH IS A GOOD POINT. BUT I THINK 1-6 WAS SO INCLUSIVE THAT UNLESS YOU'RE REDEVELOPING OR YOU'RE ON GREEN-WAY OR THE OCEAN, YOU COULDN'T FILE ONE. >> IT WAS TOO EXCLUSIVE. >> EXCLUSIVE. SORRY. >> NOT INCLUSIVE. >> BECAUSE THAT WAS A SAME QUESTION I HAD [NOISE] IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IN A LOT OF CASES, IF YOU HAD TWO ACRES, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH ONE THROUGH SIX. >> RIGHT. >> OR THAT IT WOULD NARROW DOWN THE POSSIBILITIES TO MAYBE THREE OR FOUR LOTS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. OH, BY THE WAY, I HAVE JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. WE TALK ABOUT EGAN'S CREEK, GREENWAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK TECHNICALLY, THERE'S A QUESTION ON IT'S IDENTIFIED AS THE RON SAP EGANS CREEK. >> I CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE. >> [LAUGHTER] I JUST I CAME UP AT CITY COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT THE FACT IT IS THE RON SET AND IT DOES SHOW UP ON THE CITY DOCUMENTATION THAT WAY. >> I WILL MAKE SURE THAT'S THERE. >> OKAY. >> SO GOING BACK TO SEVEN THROUGH 14. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THAT THE WAY THEY'RE WRITTEN. >> WELL, WE HAVEN'T DECIDED THAT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU TRY TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT THOUGH. >> I JUST BROUGHT THIS UP JUST TO CLARIFY BECAUSE I SAW [LAUGHTER] I APOLOGIZE. >> I MEAN, I THINK HAVING THE MORE ITEMS LOOK AT, I'M NOT QUITE SURE OF THAT. [01:20:01] >> BUT IT IS ITEM 7 THOUGH, THAT CREATES NEW. WE'RE SAYING THAT IT'S THE PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ISN'T THAT ALREADY ADDRESSED IN LIVE LOCAL? >> NOT ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. >> OKAY. THAT'S TRUE. >> THAT'S COMMERCIAL, RIGHT? >> YES. >> I WILL SAY THAT JUST TO SPEAK TO THAT POINT, YOU DO HAVE A NUMBER OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY THAT ARE AND THE ONLY THING I CAN TELL YOU FROM WHAT I CAN SEE HERE IS THAT THEY'VE BEEN INTENTIONALLY DOWN ZONED, MEANING THAT YOU'VE APPLIED A LAND USE AND ZONING CATEGORY TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES NOT ALIGN THE DEVELOPMENT STATE THAT IS THERE. AND SO WHEN THOSE PROPERTIES COME UP FOR RENEWAL, AND IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO RETAIN THEIR PUBLIC VOUCHER PROGRAM, BUT THEY WANT TO DEVELOP, AGAIN, THEY ACTUALLY COULD NOT VOLUNTARILY DEMOLISH THOSE STRUCTURES AND REBUILD THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE NON CONFORMING. BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN ASSIGNED A LAND USE AND ZONING CATEGORY THAT DO NOT MATCH WITH WHAT'S DEVELOPED ON THAT PROPERTY. >> OKAY. >> THIS WOULD CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE PROPERTIES TO COME IN AND REDEVELOP IN A MEANINGFUL WAY AND STILL KEEP THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IS THERE. >> BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO CREATE A [INAUDIBLE]. >> TO DO THAT. YES. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO DO THAT. YES. BUT THEY MAY ALSO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE, TOO. >> THINK ABOUT THAT. >> KELLY, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS IF DAPHNE, ARE YOU FINISHED? >> YES. >> AND MY FAVORITE PARAGRAPH HERE IS THE FIRST ONE. AND I LIKE THEM ALL. BUT I AM SO WE'RE GOING TO WITH THIS PART ENHANCE THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF FERNANDINA BEACH, ITS UNIQUE IDENTITY AND ITS CHARM. WHO DECIDES WHAT THAT IS? >> WHAT YOU DO? >> YES. [LAUGHTER] IT DOES AND I'M DELIGHTED TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT. I'VE BEEN WANTING THAT. [LAUGHTER] THAT IT COULD BE UP FOR DISCUSSION, AND MAYBE IF THAT WERE JUST A LITTLE MORE FINELY DEFINE. YOU KNOW, PETER WAS JUST TALKING. I DON'T HE DIDN'T WASN'T SUGGEST ANYTHING, BUT WITH THIS, WE COULD PUT SOMETHING UP ON THE STREET LIKE NEW YORK CITY. AND I'M GOING, WELL, THAT'S NOT IN THE CHARACTER OF FERNANDINA BEACH TO DO SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE NEW YORK CITY. NO. SO WHAT THAT CHARACTER IS MIGHT WANT TO BE DEFINED A LITTLE MORE NARROWLY. >> IT'S TOUGH TO DO. >> I WOULDN'T. >> I WOULD TELL YOU THAT WE TRIED DOING AN ARCHITECTURAL REHAB ONE TIME. >> YEAH. AND I WOULDN'T DO THAT. >> BUT IT WAS [OVERLAPPING]. >> SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING AND YOU'RE SUGGESTING LEAVE IT OPEN, WE KNOW IT WHEN WE SEE IT. AND WE KNOW WHAT IT'S NOT WHEN WE SEE. >> YES. >> AND I CAN SAY THAT'S NOT IN THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY AND MARK AND I CAN ARGUE ABOUT IT. >> GO LIVE IN BOKER [INAUDIBLE] FOR A YEAR, FIND OUT WHAT ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW. >> I'M NOT SUGGESTING [OVERLAPPING]. >> EVERYTHING LOOKS ALIKE. >> AGAIN, AND YOU DON'T ALLOW [OVERLAPPING]. >> RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW HAS BEEN PREEMPTED BY THE STATE. THEY SAY CAN'T DO IT. >> OKAY [OVERLAPPING]. >> EVEN FOR [OVERLAPPING]. >> WHAT? >> EVEN FOR PUDS. YOU COULD NOT REGULATE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, DESIGN, AESTHETIC FOR PUD [OVERLAPPING] UNDER STATE LAW. THAT BEING SAID. >> WE SPEND HOURS. >> THE GENERAL LAYOUT, THE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT, THE PLACEMENT OF IT, WHAT IS COMPRISED OF THAT PUD AND HOW IT WILL FUNCTION OVERALL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY IS SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF CHARM, YOU CAN ASSESS. EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT GETTING TO DESIGN IT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE, OH, WILL THIS HAVE A FRONT PORCH? WILL IT HAVE A RAISED AN ELEVATED FOUNDATION THAT HAS SOME ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING AS PART OF IT. WILL IT HAVE A COASTAL VIBE? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY OF THAT LATITUDE. BUT THOSE OTHER PLACES, THE PLACE MAKING COMPONENTS OF THIS, YOU DO HAVE A SAY IN. AND THAT DOES VERY MUCH SPEAK TO THE CHARM AND THE QUAINTNESS, AND THE OVERALL FEEL OF A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. [01:25:03] >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] >> AND MY APPLICANT CAN PROVIDE THAT IF THE WANT TO. >> GOOD. >> YEAH. YOU CAN ALWAYS PROVIDE IT. YOU JUST CAN'T SAY YES OR NO, BASED ON I DON'T LIKE THAT PICTURE. >> RIGHT. >> RIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK WE'VE SEEN SOME CASES. I CAN'T THINK OF VERY MANY WHERE WE ACTUALLY DID GET A WHAT I CALL, LIKE THE FRONT ELEVATION VIEW. HEY, THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT THE CONCEPT IS GOING TO BE. I MIGHT HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT, BUT OKAY, IT'S TWO STOREYS, AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH OR IT'S GOING TO HAVE COLUMNS OR WHATEVER. SO BUT PART OF THAT WAS WITHIN THE MARKETING SCHEME THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS USING. >> MY SECOND, MAYBE IS NOT A QUESTION, BUT A COMMENT IS, WE WANT TO PRESERVE HISTORICALLY OR CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURES AND REHABILITATE OBSOLETE, BLIGHTED AND UNDER UTILIZED BUILDINGS. SHOULD WE LIST THOSE? THESE ARE THOSE BUILDINGS AND SOMEHOW PROVIDE AN INCENTIVE OR SOME ENCOURAGEMENT TO FIX THEM? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> AND THAT LIST MAY CHANGE YEARLY SO THAT'S WHY WE WOULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO CALL ATTENTION TO, HEY, EVERYBODY, LOOK AT THESE BUILDINGS OVER HERE, WE WANT YOU TO FIX THEM. I'M NOT POINTING AT ANYTHING [OVERLAPPING] WE WANT TO DO THAT. >> AND I THINK THAT IF YOU HAD A PIECE OF PROPERTY [OVERLAPPING]. >> THAT'S RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] >> I THINK IT WOULD BE. >> BUT I'M JUST WANTING TO GET THEM CLEANED UP AND MAYBE PRETTY IF WE CAN. BUT THAT MAKES SENSE. >> BUT YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP AN INTERESTING POINT. YOU ARE A WRITER, A VERY PROFICIENT WRITER. YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT WHAT YOUR VISION IS OF WHAT IS FERNANDINA? YOU KNOW, IT'S A SEASIDE COMMUNITY. IT WOULDN'T HURT TO PUT THAT STATEMENT OUT THERE. NOW PICTURES YOU KNOW, WORTH A LOT OF WORDS, BUT STILL WE CAN REINFORCE THAT CONCEPT. IT WOULD JUST CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HURT. >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU. THANKS FOR DOING THIS. [NOISE] >> ALL RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC WHILE WE WERE PAUSING FOR A MOMENT, MR. FERRERA, WOULD YOU COLLECT COMSKI? >> YEAH. I CAN IDENTIFY MYSELF OVER THERE IF YOU [OVERLAPPING]. >> YES, SIR. JUST COME TO THE MICROPHONE HERE AND THE PODIUM AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR. >> I MAY BE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE. I THINK WHAT I TOOK FOR THE AGENDA THAT I PULLED WAS BASED ON THE ISSUE THAT I'M INTERESTED IN ABOUT LIVE LOCAL. I LIVE LOCAL. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT THIRD BEACH 15TH STREET, SOUTH 15TH STREET. THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE MANDATED BY THE STATE RELATIVE TO Y'ALL'S POSITION AS A CITY BODY OF OFFICIALS TO MAKE DECISIONS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE STATE TAKES A LOT OF THOSE PRIVILEGES AT THEIR LEVEL THAT YOU'RE NOT TO INTERFERE. AND I WAS LOOKING FOR WHAT I THOUGHT WAS BEING DONE WAS WE WERE TRYING TO DEVELOP RESTRICTIONS AND MANDATES ON APARTMENT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING APARTMENTS, LIVE LOCAL, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE JURISDICTION LENIENCY. BUT I'M CONCERNED WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THEY AFFECT OR THE AREA IN WHICH THESE APARTMENTS AS THEY COME INTO OUR CITY, AFFECT THE CONDITIONS OF THOSE TWO LOCATIONS, THIRD AND BEACH AND SOUTH 15TH STREET. I LIVE IN AMELIA PARK, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH SOUTH 15TH STREET, WHEN YOU COME INTO OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH WAS INITIATED AND STARTED IN 1998, AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH BUILT OUT. AND IT'S NOT A THROUGH TRAFFIC COMMUNITY AND I WAS HERE TONIGHT TO TRY TO SEE IF IN FACT, THERE HAD BEEN ANY PROGRESS MADE TO DETERMINE THE FACT THAT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION WITH THE RECENT ANNEXING INTO THE CITY LIMITS TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OF ABOUT THREE ACRES THERE ON SOUTH 15TH STREET TO BUILD IN THE NEAR FUTURE, PRESUMABLY, AND THEN THERE'S OTHER ACREAGE THAT COULD DO THAT AS WELL. WE CANNOT ACCOMMODATE THAT TRAFFIC TO INGRESS AND EGRESS ONTO SOUTH 15TH STREET. [01:30:04] THERE'S NO THROUGH TRAFFIC THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY AS POSED WITH THE CITY SIGN. AND SO BASICALLY, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT THE ANSWERS OF WHERE I AM TO GO TO TRY TO SEE IF THIS CAN BE RESTRICTED TO NO CURB CUTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THE 15TH STREET, AND FOR THE CITY TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF SOUTH 14TH STREET AS BEING WHERE THE COMMERCIAL INGRESS AND EGRESS OF TRAFFIC COULD GO ON THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF SOUTH 15TH STREET. IT'S HARD TO VISION IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN THERE, BUT IT'S JUST NO WAY THAT WE CAN TAKE ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ONTO THAT ROAD. MY PARTICULAR GOAL IS TO SEE THAT A GREEN BUFFER IS RESTRICTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SO ALL THE TRAFFIC WOULD GO OUT 14TH STREET. AND THAT GREEN BUFFER WOULD ELIMINATE ANY DEPLETION OF OUR PROPERTY VALUES BECAUSE IT WOULD INUNDATE US WITH TRAFFIC IF IT DIDN'T BUFFER AND RESTRICT THAT TRAFFIC OUT TO 14TH STREET, ANY DEVELOPER THAT GOES THERE. SO I'M HOPING PLANNING STAY AHEAD OF THIS. >> CAN YOU ASSIST AS FAR AS IS THAT A PLANNING DEPARTMENT FUNCTION? HOW CAN WE HELP POINT THIS GENTLEMAN IN THE DIRECTION TO HELP HIM ANSWER SOME OF HIS QUESTIONS? >> IN TERMS OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THERE NEEDS TO BE ACROSS CONNECTION TO 15TH STREET FROM 14TH STREET ACTIVITY OF THE ENTIRE SITE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT IT CONNECT. IT SHOULD CONNECT BECAUSE WE DO NEED THAT OFF PUT SITE AREA TO FLOW TRAFFIC THROUGH BACK TO NECTARINE STREET. BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD SAY THAT WE COULD NOT ALLOW IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THERE'S NOTHING THAT RESTRICTS THEM FROM MAKING THAT ACCESS POINT ON TO 15TH STREET. >> THAT'S WHAT WE UNDERSTAND. I'VE BEEN ASKED BY THE PRESIDENT OF OUR ASSOCIATION TO TRY TO FIND OUT WHAT WE NEED TO DO. AND I GUESS IT COMES DOWN TO LOBBY AND THE COMMISSIONERS TO RESTRICT ANY INGRESS AND EGRESS ONTO 15TH STREET FROM ANY OF THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THERE GOING TO THE LIVE LOCAL. >> SO IN THAT CASE, YOU WOULD BE LOBBYING THE COUNTY COMMISSION, WHO WOULD GRANT THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS PERMIT ONTO 15TH STREET. BECAUSE THAT IS ENTIRELY MAINTAINED PORTION OF 15TH STREET. >> I'M NOT MISTAKEN. IF YOU'RE GOING SOUTH ON 15TH STREET. WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO AND ENTER INTO AMELIA PARK, I THINK THE STREET ACTUALLY BECOMES MORE NARROW. AM I CORRECT? BECAUSE THERE'S PARKING. I'M NOT SURE THE CURB WIDTH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS 15TH STREET ABOVE YOUR PROPERTY. >> WE'RE POSTED WITH AN ISLAND ENTRANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO GET AROUND. >> OKAY. >> AND IT'S JUST NOT A THROUGH TRAFFIC COMMUNITY. IT WAS NEVER DEVELOPED THAT WAY. AND IF IN FACT, ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IS AFFORDED TO 15TH STREET FROM DEVELOPMENT OF APARTMENTS >> NOW, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES WOULD BE NICE FRONTING 15TH STREET, LIKE COASTAL OAKS ACROSS. BUT BASICALLY, IT'S JUST AN IMPOSSIBLE IMAGINATION FOR ALL OUR RESIDENTS TO SEE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC COMING WITH DELIVERY TRUCKS OR ANYTHING ELSE IN ON 15TH STREET. IT'S JUST A BOTTLENECK. IT'S JUST THE END OF THE ROAD SITUATION THAT POSTED NO THROUGH TRAFFIC. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT TRAFFIC WOULD GO IF IT COMES OFF OF 15TH STREET. >> EXCUSE ME. KELLY, CAN YOU PULL UP A MAP? I'M WORKING ON IT RIGHT NOW. >> I PICTURED YOU WERE. EXCUSE ME, GO AHEAD. >> IT WAS RECENTLY ANNEX IN TO THE CITY, THESE THREE PARTIALS. IT'S ABOUT THREE-AND-A-HALF ACRES, I THINK SOMETHING. >> THIS IS WHERE THE OLD CHURCH WAS. >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF IT INCLUDES THAT OR NOT, BUT BASICALLY, IT WAS OBVIOUSLY THE INTENT BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL STATUS THAT LIVE LOCAL, [01:35:05] WHICH WE'VE FOUND OUT ABOUT WAS A STATE JURISDICTION OVER MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES. I BELIEVE I HEARD NASSAU COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO WANT TO BE PART OF IT, BUT THE CITY OF FERNANDINA HAS ACCEPTED AS A WAY OF AFFORDING LIVE LOCAL RESIDENTS FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN THAT CATEGORY OF LOW INTEREST, BUT NOT LOW INTEREST. I BELIEVE THE TAX INCENTIVE GOES OFF THE PROPERTY TAX TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THEY HAVE TO HAVE PRICED APARTMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WHICH I'M NOT AGAINST. THIS IS A TRAFFIC ISSUE, AND I SHOULD STAY FOCUSED ON THAT WITH YOU ALL. BASICALLY, I WAS THINKING THAT, WELL, MAYBE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS ADDRESSING THE REVIEW OF THAT TONIGHT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE AGENDA READ, MULTI UNITS, PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IS A GOOD IDEA WELL, FOR JACKSONVILLE. >> KELLY SHOW US, FIRST OF ALL, IS THAT THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW? >> YES. >> THAT INCLUDES THE OLD CHURCH. >> YEAH, THAT WAS RECENTLY ANNEX CASE. >> TWO PARCELS TO THE NORTH. >> YEAH. >> THOSE TWO PARCELS. ALL THAT GRAY GOES UP THERE, DOES IT? I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT GOING ACROSS THE STREET THERE. >> THEN SHOW US ON THIS MAP THEN WHERE IT GOES INTO THE PARK. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT'S WHERE IT GOES INTO MAIN PARK. THERE'S NORTH PARK, THAT'S THE ENTRANCE RIGHT THERE. IT'S AN ISLAND SETTING THERE WITH NO THROUGH TRAFFIC AND SPEED LIMIT. >> MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT WAS NOT ALWAYS AN OPEN STREET AT ONE POINT, CORRECT? >> IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MAYBE TO THIS. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS HELPS OR NOT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS THAT WILL COME OUT OF THAT 14TH IS GOING TO BE, I WOULD ASSUME THE PRIMARY ACCESS POINT TO THE COMMUNITY. THEY'RE GOING TO ACCESS ALL THEIR SERVICES THROUGH 14TH. THAT'S THE ONE THAT WOULD BE THEIR MAIN POINT. THE SECOND POINT, I WOULD THINK IF SOMEBODY EXITS, THEY WOULD FLOAT NORTH. >> WELL, COASTAL FLOAT HERE. I'M AIMING AT THE CURB UP TO THE 1,500 BLOCK OF SOUTH 15TH STREET WHICH WOULD BE AROUND 15, 60 NO LIMIT. BASICALLY, ALL OF THAT FROM THE ANNEX PROPERTY. DOWN HERE. VERY FEW OF ALL THESE CARS COME THROUGH OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE PART OF AMELIA PARK, BUT IT WENT SEPARATE WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN DIFFERENT PATTERN, NO OUTING WAYS LIKE WE HAVE. >> WELL, MADAM SHAY, JUST SO KELLY IS RIGHT. THE COUNTY CONTROLS THIS PORTION OF SOUTH 15TH STREET, THEY OBVIOUSLY CONTROL SOUTH 14TH STREET. ANY DRIVEWAYS THAT WOULD BE ISSUED WOULD BE UP TO THEM. THEY'RE GOING TO ISSUE A DRIVEWAY CONNECTION PERMIT FOR BOTH OF THESE POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS. >> YEAH. IT'LL BASICALLY DESTROY AMELIA PARK. >> IS THERE A SPECIFIC COMMISSIONER THAT HE SHOULD TALK TO? >> HUFFMAN IS HIS REPRESENTATIVE. >> JOHN MARTIN ON. >> NO. I'M SORRY, JOHN MARTIN INSIDE THE CITY. >> CAN WE FINISH OUR PUD. [OVERLAPPING] >> OUR RECOMMENDATION THEN IS THAT YOU NEED TO SPEAK TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE ON THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER. >> MY QUESTION, PLEASE. LET ME ANSWER THAT. HAVE AN ANSWER TO THIS. THERE'S NO REVIEW TO PUT MORE RESTRICTIONS ON LIVE LOCAL BY THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ISSUE THAT SAID IN THE NEWSPAPER THAT THERE WOULD BE REVIEWS OF AMENDMENTS THAT COULD RESTRICT BUFFERS, LANDSCAPING, AND ALL THE ETC THAT WOULD FALL IN THOSE CATEGORIES. THAT'S NOT BEING DONE BY THE CITY. >> TAMMY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? TAMMY IS ATTORNEY. >> CITY ATTORNEY. I DIDN'T READ THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE, SO I HAVE NO IDEA WHICH NEWSPAPER OR WHO WROTE IT. [01:40:04] GOING BACK TO, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TIED TO YOU ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION BASED ON SOMETHING YOU READ THAT THE COUNTY HAS SOMEHOW OPTED OUT OR SAID THAT LIVE LOCAL DOESN'T APPLY TO US OR THAT THERE'S THINGS THAT DON'T APPLY TO THE COUNTY, IS THAT RIGHT, MR. FERRERA? >> PLEASE GO AHEAD. [OVERLAPPING] >> WELL, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IT IS. THE ONLY THING THAT THE COUNTY HAS DONE TO SAY THAT THIS SHOULDN'T APPLY TO US IS THERE IS A PROVISION FOR ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS IN THE LIVE LOCAL ACT. IT INCENTIVIZES DEVELOPERS TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IS WHAT IT'S FOR. I'LL SAY LARGE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT RENTAL COMPLEXES THAT HAVE MORE THAN 70 UNITS ONLY, A COUNTY OR A CITY CAN PASS A RESOLUTION, WHICH IS WHAT THE COUNTY DID TO SAY, NOT IN OUR COUNTY. THEY DECIDED TO OPT OUT OF THE TAX EXEMPTION PROVISION FOR AND IT ONLY APPLIES TO THE MODERATE INCOME, 120% OF THE AMI. THE AMI IS $96,000 IN NASSAU COUNTY. SO 120% OF THAT CAN BE YOUR ANNUAL INCOME, AND THAT'S CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE. THOSE HIGHER END AFFORDABLE CLIENTS, THOSE UNITS, THOSE ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT WILL NOT GET THE TAX EXEMPTION IN BIG COMPLEXES WITH MORE THAN 70 UNITS. IF IT'S LESS THAN 70 UNITS, THERE'S STILL TAX EXEMPTIONS AVAILABLE. OR IN BIG UNITS OR DEVELOPMENTS AND SMALL DEVELOPMENTS FOR VERY LOW INCOME AND EXTREMELY LOW INCOME, WHICH IS 30% TO 80% OF AMI, WHICH IS MEDIATE INCOME. THOSE CANNOT OPT OUT. THE COUNTY HAS TO GIVE THEM THE TAX EXEMPTION. THAT IS A VERY OVER SIMPLIFIED EXPLANATION OF WHAT THE COUNTY OPTED OUT OF. WITH REGARD TO BUFFERS, PARKING, ALL OF THE OTHER SITE THINGS, THAT ALL STILL APPLIES. THE CITY HAS EVERY INTENTION ON A LIVE LOCAL PROJECT OF APPLYING BUFFERS, PARKING STANDARDS, NONE OF THOSE HAVE BEEN TOUCHED BY THE STATE. THOSE ALL STILL APPLY. [BACKGROUND] YES, SIR. THE ONLY THING THAT WE CANNOT CONTROL AT THE CITY OR COUNTY LEVEL IS THAT THE HEIGHT CAN BE HIGHER THAN THAT PARTICULAR ZONING CATEGORY, AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS OR THE DENSITY. WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE DENSITY THAT'S IN THE CITY, AND RIGHT NOW THAT'S 18 UNITS AN ACRE. [NOISE] THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE CAN'T CONTROL. ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS WE CAN CONTROL AND WE WILL. >> THIS IS WHAT I READ. THE CITY IS ACTIVELY WORKING TO UPDATE ITS STANDARDS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. DRAFTED AMENDMENTS WILL SOON BE AVAILABLE TO REVIEW FUTURE DATE IN 2024. >> DO WE HAVE ANY THAT MIGHT AFFECT THESE RIGHT NOW THAT ARE IN IN THE WORKS, NOT YET? YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE THAT. >> I WAS HOPING THAT I FIND THIS RESTRICTION MIGHT BE ADVANTAGE TO THE PARK. >> I UNDERSTAND. IT SOUNDS LIKE TRAFFIC IS YOUR PRIMARY CONCERN. THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF AMELIA PARK THAT IS COMING, AND WHAT WE'RE TELLING YOU TONIGHT, AGAIN, VERY SIMPLY STATED, THE CITY HAS NO CONTROL OVER 15TH STREET. ZERO. WE CAN'T DECIDE, WE CAN'T PUT RESTRICTIONS. >> IS THAT ACROSS THE COUNTY? >> YES, SIR. >> I THOUGHT ALL THAT WAS IN IT. >> THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY, THE ROADS DON'T GET ANNEXED FOR LACK OF BETTER WORD. THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY DOESN'T TRANSFER. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WE HAVE PARTS OF LIME STREET AND JASMINE STREET THAT ARE MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY. >> CITRONA ROAD. >> CITRONA IS A COUNTY ROAD. BUT ANYWAY, I KNOW THAT THAT'S WAY OFF, AND YES, WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET BACK TO YOUR VOTE. [BACKGROUND] IT IS JUST THAT. >> BUT THANK YOU, MR. FERRERA. LET'S GO BACK TO SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT WE HAD ON THE EDITS OF THIS SECTION. >> WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THOSE IN THE WAY THEY ARE PUBLISHED. >> SEVEN THROUGH 14? >> YEAH. >> THAT'S FINE. [01:45:02] >> YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE WORDING OF THE EGANS CREEK ON ITEM 7. THAT ONE. >> THAT'S ON THE LIST. I JUST WANT TO COVER WHAT I THOUGHT OF IT. >> WE'RE GOING TO ADD BACK NUMBER SIX THAT WAS STRICKEN. >> YES. >> YEAH. >> ARE WE COMFORTABLE THEN WITH THE 5%, THE 50%, 80% WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH SEVEN? >> NO. IS CURRENTLY IN PLACE. >> YEAH. WHAT ABOUT J? THE FOLLOWING SITE DESIGN STANDARDS MAY DEVIATE FROM THE STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT? ANY ISSUE THERE? >> NO, I THINK IT'S GOOD BECAUSE IT ALLOWS AN APPLICANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY CAN VARY AND ALLOWS THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE CAN REVIEW. >> LET ME ASK YOU BROUGHT UP TWO ADDITIONAL POINTS THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED HERE TONIGHT. THOSE WERE ROADWAY STANDARDS AND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. IS THAT SOMETHING THE BOARD WANTS TO CONSIDER ADDING IN? >> TALK ABOUT ROADWAY STANDARDS. WHAT MIGHT THAT BE? >> THAT MIGHT BE THE MINIMUM WIDTH FOR A DRIVE AISLE OR FOR ACCESS INTO IT. RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAD TWO WAY DRIVE AISLE INTO IT, IT'S 24 FEET IN WIDTH FOR TWO WAYS, 12 FEET MINIMUM FOR ONE WAY. BUT IF YOU'RE DEDICATING ROADWAYS AS PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, THERE ARE ROADWAY STANDARDS IN PLACE A LOT WE HAVE A 30 FOOT MINIMUM ALLEY SEGMENT THAT YOU COULD DEVELOP. MOST PEOPLE ARE VERY OKAY WITH THAT, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PIECES OF THE ROADWAY STANDARDS THAT COME INTO PLACE LIKE THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS TIED TO THEM THAT IT BE A STANDARD PAVEMENT MATERIAL, LIKE ASPHALT OR CONCRETE, THAT YOU MAY NOT WANT TO HAVE ASPHALT OR CONCRETE THE PAVING MATERIAL FOR PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. YOU MIGHT WANT PAVERS. >> WHAT ABOUT BIKE PAVES? >> THERE'S NOT A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR BIKE PATHS RIGHT NOW. YOU MAY PROVIDE FOR IT AS A PUBLIC BENEFIT UNDER THIS PROJECT, THERE'S NOT A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR A BIKE PATH. >> I'LL SPEAK TO THE ROADWAY THOUGH. THAT'S SOMETHING I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT. WE WIND UP GETTING THESE ROADS THAT ARE ENORMOUS, AND BY THE TIME YOU DONE IT, YOU'VE HAD A 40 FOOT SWATH OF PAVEMENT AND SIDEWALKS AND YOU BLOW EVERYTHING OUT BEFORE YOU CAN EVER GET THERE. BEING ABLE TO RELAX AN AISLE WIDTH OR A RIGHT AWAY WIDTH, SO YOU CAN GO AROUND TREES AND KEEP THEM OUT OF THE RIGHT AWAY SO THAT 18T DOESN'T COME INTO THE RIGHT AWAY AND BLOW OUT THE TREE WHENEVER THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR LINES IN. SOME CUL DE SAC BECOME ENORMOUS, AND THEY DON'T NEED THEM IF THEY'RE REALLY CLOSE TO AN ADJACENT STREET. YOU CAN SAVE A LOT MORE TREES, YOU CAN BE A LOT LESS INVASIVE AND DECREASE YOUR FOOTPRINTS. >> IT STRIKES ME THAT ROADWAYS COULD BE AN IMPORTANT PART OF CHARACTER. >> I THINK WE SHOULD ADD THAT. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> WHAT ABOUT THOUGH I MEAN, YOU DON'T WANT TO GET IT SO SMALL THE ROADWAY OR SAY THE CUL DE SAC, IN THE CASE WHERE THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT WHERE A FIRE TRUCK CAN'T GET IN. >> WELL, YOU'LL GO TO TRC AND THE FIRE MARSHAL WILL LOOK AT IT. IF HE SAYS, NO, YOU DON'T MEET THE STANDARD, THEN YOU'RE DONE. YOU GOT TO GO BACK AND REDESIGN. >> YEAH, I THINK ROADWAY IS A GOOD. [BACKGROUND] I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THAT. >> YOU DID THINK OF IT. >> I DID. >> YOU SAID IT TONIGHT THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT UP. [LAUGHTER] >> GIVE CREDIT. >> WE JUST DID ROADWAYS TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, DID WE NOT SO LONG AGO? LOOKED AT WIDTHS OF ROADS. >> I WANT TO SAY 2022 TIME FRAME. IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. YEAH. >> YOU'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE THEN ABOUT THE FLEXIBILITY AND THE MINIMUM WIDTH, THE MATERIAL TYPE. >> I PUT JUST ROADWAY STANDARDS GENERALLY. >> OKAY. >> YOU'RE JUST GOING TO ADD THAT UNDER SECTION J, THEN. >> YES. NOW, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT BUFFERS OR SIDEWALKS? THOSE WERE MENTIONED ALSO. >> DO WE WANT TO ADD LANGUAGE FOR MINIMUM ROADWAYS, OR WOULD THAT BE PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE PUD WHERE IT COULD BE ADDRESSED THERE? >> I THINK IT'D BE THE APPROVAL PROCESS. >> I WOULD THINK SO, TOO. PUTTING IT HERE, I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD WANT TO DO THAT. >> IT WOULD BE A LOT OF STUFF IF YOU DID TO PUT IN. >> CORRECT. EVERY PROJECT [OVERLAPPING] ASPECTS AND IMPACTS, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO IT WHEN BRUSH FITS OFF. [01:50:02] I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO WORK FOR IT. >> ARE WE AGREEING THEN THAT JUST ROADWAY? NOT GETTING SPECIFIC, BUT JUST ROADWAY? >> PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WAIVER BUFFERS. YOU SHOULD ONLY ADD TO THEM. >> I AGREE. THE SAME WITH SIDEWALKS. >> YEAH AND SIDEWALKS. >> IF YOU WANT TO ADD TO IT, YOU CAN, BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY FROM? >> SIDEWALKS ARE IMPORTANT. >> WHAT ABOUT DIFFERENT SIDEWALK MATERIAL? WOULD YOU ALLOW FOR A SHELL OR GRAVEL SIDEWALK? >> THAT'S IN THE ROADWAY DESIGN. >> IT'S ACTUALLY NOT. THE ROADWAY DESIGN DOESN'T COVER SIDEWALKS. IT'S SEPARATELY COVERED IN A DIFFERENT SECTION OF CODE. I THINK IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DON'T THINK ABOUT ALTERNATE SIDEWALK MATERIALS. >> BUT DO YOU RUN INTO AN ADA ISSUE? >> YOU'LL SORT THAT OUT TRC. >> OKAY. >> WE WOULD NEED TO MEET THAT AS WELL. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> I THINK COOKING A SHELL, REDUCTION OF PAVEMENT IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING IF THEY WANT. >> WELL, I AGREE WITH THAT. I'M JUST THINKING IF YOU'RE IN A WHEELCHAIR, THAT MIGHT GET DIFFICULT. >> I AGREE. >> [OVERLAPPING] THAT COULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. >> YEAH. >> DO YOU NOT WANT TO DO THE ALTERNATIVE MATERIAL FOR SIDEWALK? >> I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD. >> UNEVEN SIDEWALKS ARE PROM. >> WE SEE THAT ALL THE TIME WITH THE PERMEABLE PAVERS, THAT THEY'RE HARD TO NAVIGATE IN A WHEELCHAIR. REALLY HARD TO NAVIGATE. [OVERLAPPING] >> SIDEWALKS HAVE TO BE COMPLETE. >> GOT IT. >> I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE AT MOKAMA, THEY'VE GOT THE HECK AND PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO TRIP BECAUSE THE GRAVEL IS ACTUALLY [OVERLAPPING]. >> I TRIP EVERY TIME. >> [LAUGHTER] I LEAVE THAT OUT. >> IS THE FEELING OF THE BOARD THAT WE'VE GIVEN SOME FEEDBACK TO STAFF. WE'VE TOSSED THIS AROUND. WOULD STAFF LIKE TO COME BACK TO US AT OUR NEXT MEETING CLEANING THIS UP AND [OVERLAPPING] >> IT'S INCORPORATED RIGHT NOW. >> I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE IT. >> JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S ALL IN THERE. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> BUT YOU DO NEED TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> BUT YOU CAN MAKE MOTIONS THAT JUST CAN'T VOTE BEFORE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> WELL, LET'S HEAR OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL MAKE IT CLEANER. WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, SO OUR PUBLIC. [LAUGHTER] OUR THREE MEMBERS OF PUBLIC RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVE TO COME BEFORE US AND GIVE US HERE. >> DOES THIS NEED A FORM AS WELL, OR IS THIS UNDER PUBLIC COMMENT? HOW DOES THIS WORK? >> IT'S PUBLIC COMMENT TIED TO THIS CASE. THIS IS A FORMAL CASE. >> OKAY, SO I'LL STILL ADD ANOTHER FORM. >> YEAH. >> JOYCE TUTON, 2120 BEACH STREET. SEMANTICS, I KNOW THE STATE WANTS YOU TO CHANGE SHA MUS, BUT DOES B AND C FOR CHANGING THAT TO MUS, DOES THAT MAKE B AND C CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER? SHOULD THOSE WORDS BE CAN? >> I THINK B IS CORRECT IN WHAT WAS INTENDED. >> JOYCE, I DID THAT MATH ABOUT SIX TIMES TOO, AND I THINK THE NUMBERS CAN JUST FLUCTUATE. THEY CAN'T GO PAST THAT. >> BUT EVEN WITH THAT WORD MUST AND NOT CAN. I'M GOOD. YOU GUYS ARE BETTER AT A AT WORD SMITING THESE THINGS IN ME. MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT IS I LOVE THIS NOTION OF FLEXIBILITY AND SAVING CHARACTER, SAVING TREES. IF A DEVELOPER ALSO LOVES THE CREATIVITY AND THE FLEXIBILITY, AND ESPECIALLY TO HAVE A MIXED USE ON ALL THESE ZONING LOCATIONS, THEN IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE CITIZENS TO GET MORE OUT OF THE DEVELOPER AND ACTUALLY MAKE SOME OF THESE NUMBERS BIGGER, MAKE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE NUMBERS BIGGER, MAKE OPEN SPACE, NOT FIVE PERCENT, 10 PERCENT, AM I BEING GREEDY? [01:55:01] [LAUGHTER] THAT'S IT. >> YOU ANSWER THAT JUST VERY GENERALLY. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE REMAINING PROPERTIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AND WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS. YES, I THINK THAT'S THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, THE EXCHANGE OF WHY YOU WOULD ALLOW FOR THE DEVIATIONS AMONG ALL OF THESE THINGS TO OUR CODE. WHAT AM I GETTING FROM IT? IS IT INCREASED OPEN SPACE? IS IT INCREASED ACCESS? IS IT INCREASED AMENITY OF SOME KIND THAT GOES BEYOND WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE TRADITIONALLY GOTTEN UNDER STANDARD ZONING? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE GETTING MORE FROM THAT DEVELOPMENT. BUT THAT MAY LOOK DIFFERENT FROM DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOPMENT. SOMETHING LIKE ALONG THE PARKWAY. THE EFFECT OF WHAT WE GET THERE, AND WHAT WE WANT TO SEE THERE IS GOING TO LOOK VERY DIFFERENT THAN IT DOES ON AN INFILL PIECE OF PROPERTY ALONG 14TH STREET, AND HOW THAT SERVES THE COMMUNITY WILL LOOK AND FEEL VERY DIFFERENT, I THINK. YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY SO THAT YOU'RE GETTING THOSE AMENITIES THAT ARE THE RIGHT FIT FOR THAT AREA. >> BUT NOT GOING TOO UP. >> IT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. >> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION BE READY FOR IT. >> HANG ON. WAS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? >> NO. [LAUGHTER] >> OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN I'LL HEAR A MOTION FROM THE BOARD. >> I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE 2024-0010, LDC AMENDMENTS TO AMEND PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCORPORATING THE CHANGES WE MADE TONIGHT AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. >> MAY I HEAR A SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND. >> I HEAR A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED LIFE SIGN. HEARING NONE. THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE US THROUGH 5.51? [5.1 Continue 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.] >> WELL, AND THIS WILL BE REALLY BRIEF AND MS. ANGIE MAY HAVE THE MOST TO SAY ON THIS TOPIC. ALL SHORT THIS MONTH IN GETTING ENOUGH PREPARED FOR YOUR REVIEW. I'D LIKE TO DEFER THIS TO OUR NEXT MEETING. >> WE'RE FINE. PUSH THAT [OVERLAPPING] >> DOES WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? >> YES, SHE DOES. SHE SAID SO. >> COME UP. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING TOO. WHILE YOU'RE PUTTING GO AHEAD, WHILE YOU'RE PUTTING PARKING STANDARDS TOGETHER, HAVE WE EVER CONSIDERED ANY PARKING STANDARD FOR GOLF CARTS? >> THAT'S INTERESTING. >> I WAS TALKING TO SOMEONE THAT'S IN THE VILLAGE AND THEY HAVE THIS, WE START TALKING ABOUT PARKING AND HOW THEY CAN ACTUALLY PUT FOUR GOLF CARTS IN ONE PARKING SPACE, SO THAT'S [OVERLAPPING] >> A GOOD POINT. >> A STANDARD PARKING SPACE AND PARK YOUR GOLF CARTS. DO TWO AND YOU CAN EASILY ACCESS, BUT IF YOU'RE WITH FRIENDS AND THERE ARE FOUR TOTAL GOLF CARTS, YOU CAN USE ONE PARKING SPACE AND PARK ALL FOUR. [OVERLAPPING] >> DEPENDING ON HOW THE PARKING IS DESIGNED. IT WAS DESIGNED FOR STRAIGHT IN AND GETTING OUT ON BOTH SIDES. >> BY THE WAY, THEY'RE NOT GOLF CARTS IN FERNANDINA THAT YOU SEE ON THE STREETS. THEY'RE LOW SPEED VEHICLES. >> LOW SPEED VEHICLE. >> THERE ARE GOLF CARTS IN THE VILLAGES THOUGH. >> RIGHT. LOW SPEED VEHICLE. KELLY, ONE OTHER THING CONCERNING PARKING. WOULD YOU ENVISION US GETTING OVER TO A SOURCE SUBJECT, THE ONE THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP BY AT LEAST ONE OF THE COMMISSIONS PAID PARKING? >> NO, IT'S PART OF THE CONVERSATION. THAT IS OUTSIDE THE DECISION MAKING OF THIS BOARD IN TERMS OF PROGRAMMATIC CHANGE IN HOW PARKING FUNCTIONS FOR THE CITY. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT ARE CODE BASED REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SET AND REQUIRED FOR INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPER TO ACHIEVE. HOW THE CITY DECIDES TO UTILIZE ITS AVAILABLE PUBLIC PARKING IS NOT A DECISION OF THIS BOARD. >> ALL RIGHT. WE DON'T WANT TO CONSIDER THAT A PART OF ANY OF OUR [OVERLAPPING] >> NOT AS PART OF THIS DISCUSSION. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU WOULD PUT IN YOUR CODE. >> IF YOU DO THAT, WE HAVE TO START AT EIGHT O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING. [LAUGHTER] PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING OUT FRONT FOR. >> MY ONLY REASON FOR BRING IT UP IS SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO LOOK WAY OVER THE HORIZON. WHEN WE MAY EVOLVE INTO THAT CHANGE. YOU THINK ABOUT BOTH. >> EVEN THAT IT WOULD NOT BE LAND AT ALL ON THIS THING [OVERLAPPING] >> WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO'D LIKE TO GIVE US SOME COMMENTS. LET'S HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. >> LAURIE HAVEGEY, 751 BARRINGTON DRIVE. [02:00:01] I'M GOING TO DO THIS FIRST, KELLY, I DID NOT TAKE THE BUS RIDE. >> WHAT? YOU DIDN'T CHANGE THE BUS RIDE? >> BUT I KNEW I HAD A HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT. BUT I DIDN'T DO IT. BUT I WILL. BECAUSE IT'S GETTING GOOD PRESS. I WILL DO IT. WE HAD A HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT. >> YES, I KNOW. >> WE DID. I JUST WANTED TO DO A TRUE CONFESSION PUBLICLY. [LAUGHTER] YOU KNOW THAT I DO. I'M NOT A MEMBER OF THE BOARD. I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M DOING THAT. BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ONE OF THE LATEST DOCUMENTS THAT YOU PUT UP WAS FROM MAYBE SEEMS A LITTLE OLD, BUT IT'S FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. AM I RIGHT? >> SURE, YOU ARE RIGHT. >> ACTUALLY, IT'S EXCELLENT READING. IT REALLY IS. IT PICKS UP A LOT OF THINGS, A LOT OF ELEMENTS THAT I ALMOST STOOD UP AND SAID, WHEN WE'RE WORKING ON THE PUD, I THINK WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT CONNECTIVITY, BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE HERE IS CONNECTIVITY. SIDEWALKS DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE THE ANSWER BECAUSE THAT'S ADDING MORE CONCRETE. THERE ARE LOTS OF CITIES THAT ARE USING MORE UPGRADED IMPERVIOUS SERVICES TO DO THAT. THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT, AND WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. BUT I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT THE OTHER THING WAS THE SIDEWALKS, THE CONNECTIVITY. ALSO, WE'RE DOING A LOT WITH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY ABOUT BICYCLES. THINKING ABOUT BICYCLE SAFETY AND THINKING ABOUT BICYCLE RACKS. WHEN A DEVELOPER IS PLANNING, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO NUDGE IN THERE. THAT'S BECOMING, I THINK, ONE OF THE CHARMS OF THE CITY IS BICYCLES. I WOULD HAVE SAID NO TO THE CARTS, WHATEVER THEY'RE CALLED. THAT'S MY PERSONAL THING BECAUSE I THINK WHAT I'M SEEING SO FAR IS SOME DANGEROUS THINGS, AND I THINK I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE. BUT I WOULD REALLY HIGHLIGHT YOUR ATTENTION TO PARTICULARLY THAT ONE DOCUMENT. ANYTHING IN THE GROUP CALLED STRONG TOWNS. THEY HAVE A LOT THAT'S COMING OUT RIGHT NOW ABOUT TRAFFIC. YOU ALL THINK I HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO. I DO. I SPENT ONE MORNING READING THE INCREASE IN TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING RIGHT NOW. THE AVERAGE DAILY TRUCK TRAFFIC IS IT DIDN'T GO. IT WENT HERE. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO START LOOKING AT AND LOOKING AT WHERE THE TRUCKS CAN PARK AND WHERE THE BUSES CAN PARK. AS WELL, CAN WE PROVIDE SOMETHING OFF ISLAND AND USE TECHNOLOGY TO HELP? THOSE WERE JUST SOME OF THE THOUGHTS THAT I HAD. THANK YOU. >> VERY GOOD. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KELLY, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS SECTION? >> NO. >> ALL RIGHT. IF WE HAVEN'T HAVE A CHANCE IS THAT WHAT WAS THE HOMEWORK, IT WAS THE [OVERLAPPING] >> MY HEAD IS STUCK ON PARK AND RIDE, AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT, BUT IT'S THE NASA TRANSIT. WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO >> I HAVE A NOTE ON MY REFRIGERATOR TO DO THAT. ANYWAY, I THINK THAT'S IT TO DO. >> I YELLED FOR PUD TO [INAUDIBLE] >> [LAUGHTER] THAT'S OKAY. >> IT IS OKAY. BUT THEN I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT BEING ON PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. >> THAT'S OKAY. >> I DID DO MY HOMEWORK. >> THINKING ABOUT IT. >> WELL, THINKING ABOUT THAT'S WHAT PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS NATIONWIDE. NOT USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. STAFF REPORT. ANYTHING FROM STAFF? [6. STAFF REPORT] >> JUST MARGARET HERE. MARGARET PEARSON, AND SHE'S GOING TO BE YOUR NEW PLANNING BOARD LIAISON. SHE'S HERE WORKING WITH US. SHE PROVIDES A TREMENDOUS BACKGROUND IN PLANNING AND IS A WONDERFUL RESOURCE. I AM EXCITED FOR YOU ALL TO GET TO KNOW. MS. PEARSON. >> GREAT. WELCOME. IT'S NICE TO HAVE YOU ON BOARD. >> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER PUBLIC CONVERSATION OR COMMENT BEFORE WE CLOSE OUR MEETING? [02:05:02] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.