[00:00:02]
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
THE TIME IS 5:00 PM AND WE ARE MEETING IN CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS ON ASH STREET IN FERNANDINA BEACH.
MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
[INAUDIBLE] MEMBER GINGHER, WOULD YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ITEM 3, APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.
[3.1 Approval of Minutes for the Regular Meeting of September 17, 2024]
THIS WOULD BE FROM THE SEPTEMBER 17TH, 2024 MEETING.ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD? DO I HEAR ANY CHANGES? ANY CORRECTIONS? IF NOT, DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL?
>> SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> POSE LIGHT SIGN. HEARING NONE.
THE MOTION TO APPROVE HAS BEEN APPROVED.
IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD? I DON'T SEE ANY ON OUR AGENDA.
DID I HEAR OF COMMENT? NO. NEW BUSINESS.
IS THERE ANY NEW BUSINESS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD? NOT SEEING ANY.
[6.1 Board Discussion and Next Steps following City Commission Direction on 9/17/24 Reference Item 6.1 https://fernandinabeachfl.new.swagit.com/videos/315336 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY - ORDINANCE 2024-19 AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.03.01 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Amends the Land Development Code criteria and standards for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). ]
WHICH IS BOARD BUSINESS. ITEM 6.1.BOARD DISCUSSION AND NEXT STEPS FOLLOWING CITY COMMISSION DIRECTION ON 917, 2024, REFERENCING HUD.
THIS WAS ACTUALLY 6.1, 6.2, AND 6.3 ARE BASICALLY THOSE ITEMS THAT WE FORWARDED OVER TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEY HAVE SENT IT BACK TO US FOR FURTHER REVIEW.
WHO WOULD LIKE TO START THE CONVERSATION?
>> I'LL START ON A GENERAL COMMENT.
IF WE GO DOWN TO THIS IS UNDER 4.03.01, THE DOWN UNDER SECTION B, ITEM NUMBER 3.
WE GOT ANOTHER CASE WHERE WE'VE GOT DEFINITIONS OR LACK THEREOF CIVIC SPACES, RECREATION, CAN'T FIND THEM ANYWHERE.
OPEN SPACES ARE DEFINED IN THE COMP PLAN.
NOW THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD WE BE PUTTING MORE EMPHASIS ON MAKING SURE WE'VE GOT DEFINITIONS COVERED OR IF WE NEED THEM.
WE MAY SAY NO, THAT'S A COMMON INDUSTRY OR WHATEVER, WE MAY NOT NEED THEM.
I JUST BRING IT UP BECAUSE A LITTLE BIT CIVIC SPACES.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS.
I THINK I DO, BUT I HAVE AN INTERPRETATION, IT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT SOMEBODY ELSE.
>> PETER, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ON OUR AGENDA ITEM 6.1 OR 6.3?
YOU CAN'T SEE IT THE SAME. I'M LOOKING BY PAGE NUMBER AND I CAN TELL YOU IT'S ON PAGE 12, BUT THAT'S OF THE DATA FILE.
IT MAY NOT BE THE SAME ON YOUR SCREEN.
IF YOU JUST GO DOWN TO 4.03.01, WHICH IS THE FIRST SECTION, AND THEN GO DOWN TO SECTION B SUB 3.
>> CIVIC SPACES, RECREATION, OR OPEN SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESIDENTIAL SOCIAL INTERACTION.
MAYBE CONSIDERING ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS, MAYBE THAT'S ONE THAT WE PUT INTO THAT AREA WHEN WE COME TO 6.3.
>> THAT WOULD BE PERFECT TO FILE. WE DON'T HAVE A SOLID HERE.
I JUST WANT TO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING IT COVERED.
WHAT WE MAY DO WE MAY WANT TO DO 6.3, DO SOMETHING ELSE I HAVE ANOTHER ONE TOO THAT'S COME UP ON A DIFFERENT SUBJECT.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAYBE SINCE WE'VE SENT THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION ONCE, AND NOW WE NEED TO HAVE SOME FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT, WHICH I APPRECIATE FROM THE COMMISSION ALLOWING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER REFINE THIS.
IT'S NEVER DONE. THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT TO MAKE SURE
[00:05:04]
THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ADDRESSING WHAT THE NEEDS AND THE ISSUES ARE.I THINK THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY.
I THINK BECAUSE THIS HAD SOME PRETTY MAJOR CHANGES TO IT.
I THINK IT DOES GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY THINK ABOUT, IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE HAVE IN MIND FOR A PUD? I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS AMONGST OURSELVES ASKING BECAUSE THIS ORIGINALLY SAID FIVE ACRES.
DO YOU REMEMBER ORIGINALLY A PUD HAD TO BE FIVE ACRES. WE TOSSED AROUND.
WE SAID WE HAVE STAFF AND STAFF IS TRIED TO PUT SOME OF THIS INFORMATION TOGETHER FOR US, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S MAYBE A LITTLE HARD TO DO.
HOW MANY FIVE ACRE PARCELS ARE THERE LEFT IN THE CITY? THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT AS WE WE ASKED.
>> THEN WE SAID, WELL, IS THERE THREE ACRES OR WHAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE NUMBER AND [OVERLAPPING]
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE SHOULD LOWER THE NUMBER.
>> I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING YET.
THIS IS JUST ENCOURAGE OUR BOARD DISCUSSION THAT WHEN I THINK ABOUT AND LOOK AT WHAT IS AVAILABLE? IS IT ONE ACRE? IS IT A HALF ACRE? NOW, WE SAID ZERO. WE SAID ZERO.
WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS.
ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD DURING THIS AND PREPARING THIS WAS WE SAID, WELL, WE WANT TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY THAT IF SAY YOU HAD A BEAUTIFUL TREE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR YARD, THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO ADJUST THE LOT LINE AND WHERE YOU SIT YOUR HOUSE AND SAVE THE TREE, AND THAT THING.
I'M NOT SURE THAT'S THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THAT DISCUSSION.
ARE WE TRYING TO HAVE THIS HUGE OVERLAY FOR MAYBE JUST A FEW PROBLEMS? HAVE WE REACHED THE POINT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY REALLY WHERE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS IS INFILLING.
IT'S WHERE AN OLD HOUSE IS THERE? SOMEBODY COMES IN AND BUYS THAT LOT, AND THEY TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN AND THEY REBUILD A BRAND NEW HOUSE? ARE WE LOOKING AT INFILLING REALLY HERE AS OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT, AND I'M JUST QUESTIONING SOME OF THE FLEXIBILITY OR THE LATITUDE THAT MAYBE WE'VE PUT IN HERE? I WAS CONCERNED EVEN BACK THEN LAST MEETING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS THAT WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPENED THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION IS THAT WE CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BASICALLY GETTING AROUND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES.
WE'VE GIVEN IT SO MANY OPPORTUNITIES, PARTICULARLY I'M LOOKING AT ITEM WHAT IS IT? J, WHERE WE'VE SAID PERMISSION ON THE PRINCIPAL USES, PERMISSION ON ACCESSORY USES.
WE ADDED FLOOR AREA RATIO, ROADWAY STANDARDS, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, ON THE HEIGHT, THE WIDTH.
WHAT I WOULD HATE TO SEE IS THAT BY BASICALLY BEING SO FLEXIBLE.
THAT WE HAVE CREATED A MECHANISM WHERE PEOPLE CAN DO ANYTHING.
I'M TRYING TO THINK OF MYSELF, IF SOMEBODY BOUGHT MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE AND THEY TORE IT DOWN, AND THEY SAID, I'M GOING TO PUT A PUD THERE, WHICH IS ONLY A 5,500 FOOT LOT.
I GO. WOW. THAT MEANS YOU WANT TO PUT YOUR HOUSE RIGHT ON THE LOT LINE.
IT'S A LITTLE THING, BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN,
[00:10:02]
WE'RE RIGHT UP NEXT TO EACH OTHER.THAT IS A CONCERN. I'M THROWING THOSE THOUGHTS OUT TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
>> WELL IN MY MIND, WE CAN'T CONTINUALLY CHANGE THE STANDARDS.
>> THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS?
>>THE STANDARDS BY WHICH SOMEBODY COMES IN AND TEARS DOWN A HOUSE AND BUILDS AND THEY WANT TO DO IT THIS WAY.
>> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS DOES?
>> CAN I ADD JUST A CLARIFYING POINT, THE PUD PROCESS IS A VERY PUBLIC PROCESS.
IT GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR APPROVAL.
THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD SEE IT APPROVE.
IT'S NOT A WAY OF BYPASSING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN ANY WAY. I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK THAT GET MORE OF A LEVEL OF REVIEW WITH A PUD THAN WITH JUST A REGULAR HOUSE BEING BUILT.
>> NICK TURNED ON HIS LIGHT FIRST.
>> WELL, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THAT DAFFY SAID IT PERFECTLY THAT YOU OBJECT.
YOU'RE JUST GIVING SOMEBODY ELSE ONE MORE TOOL OR TOOLBOX.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT AND SOMEBODY ON FILL LOT IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO DO IT.
BUT A COMMERCIAL PARCEL THAT MIGHT WANT TO REDEVELOP OR MIXED USE PROJECT THAT MIGHT NOT WANT TO BE EXACTLY ONE TYPE OF PRODUCT, BUT MAY WANT TO INTRODUCE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES.
IT COMES BEFORE YOU IN A QUASI JUDICIAL MANNER, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN A PLAT? IT'S COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM THE STAFF.
IT'S COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FROM US.
I WATCHED A VIDEO, THE WHOLE THING OF THREE VOTES IS GOBLIN, BECAUSE IT'S COMPETENT EVIDENCE IF THE PUBLIC DOESN'T LIKE IT, THEY HAVE STANDING BECAUSE IT'S A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING.
THEY'RE PROTECTED MORE ON THAT.
THAT AN NORMAL PLATE. WE ARE TOO, THE CITY IS, TOO.
IT'S A WIN WIN IN THAT REGARD.
>> I'VE RE-WATCHED IT AS WELL.
WHAT MR. ROSS WAS SAYING IS THAT DESPITE WHAT WE SAY AND WHAT THE PROCESS IS, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE COMMISSION MAKES THE FINAL DECISION.
>> BUT THERE'S THREE LEGS TO IT. THEY'RE THE THIRD LEG.
WE HAVE STAFF, WHICH IS EVIDENCE.
IT'S ACTUALLY A BOOK THAT GOES IN IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.
WE ARE TWO. IF FOR SOME REASON, THREE PRO DEVELOPER COMMISSIONERS VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED AGAINST, WE RECOMMENDED AGAINST.
THEY CAN SUE AND THEY HAVE STANDING.
THAT MAKES IT A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS.
IT MAKES IT MORE LEGAL, AND EVERYBODY HAS MORE STANDING.
WE ALL GET TO LOOK AT IT. I THINK WE'RE MISSING THE BIG PICTURE OF HOW MUCH WE'RE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.
>> I'M LOOKING AT THAT AND HEARING SOME OF THOSE OBJECTIONS.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO THINK OF EVERYTHING THAT COULD GO WRONG AND WRITING SOMETHING THAT SAYS, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
BUT I THINK NICK AND DAFFY HAVE DESCRIBED IT CORRECTLY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED TO ME IS, WHAT IF WE LEAVE THIS AS IT IS? WE SAY FIVE ACRES.
THEN WE SAY THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.
THERE COULD BE AN EXCEPTION IF, AND THEN WE GO OVER TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GO OVER TO SECTION 6 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SAY, YOU CAN DO THIS ON LESS THAN FIVE ACRES, IF IT HELPS ESTABLISH URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROTECT AND PROMOTE QUALITY OF LIFE.
SHOW US YOU CAN DO THAT, WHICH IS PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WE'LL CONSIDER A SMALLER AREA.
IF YOU CAN STABILIZE AND ENHANCE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, IF A SMALLER PIECE OF PROPERTY WILL HELP DO THAT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN THAT.
>> WE'LL SEE THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN WE CAN JUST GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT ARE PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE WANT TO DO.
THEN WE'RE NOT UNRAVELING THE LDC.
WE'RE ACTUALLY PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM TAKING UNFAIR ADVANTAGE OF THE LDC TO GET A CITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE KEEPING WITH THE CITY'S AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER BY GOING BACK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SAY, YOU CAN DO THIS, IF IT HELPS TO MAKE A PUT ON A SMALLER PIECE IN AND YOU CAN DO THIS, THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.
LET'S HEAR ABOUT IT. SHOW US THE PLAN.
BECAUSE THEN WE GET TO SEE IT.
THEY SHOW US WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THE PUBLIC BOARD, WE GET TO SEE IT.
[00:15:05]
I THOUGHT THE ZERO WAS THE RIGHT ANSWER.
TODAY, I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR IT.
I WOULD RECOMMEND FROM MY STANDPOINT, THE COUNTY STILL HAS 10 ACRES AS A PUT MINIMUM.
BUT THEY'RE DEALING WITH A MUCH BIGGER VARIETY OF LOT SIZE AND SO ON.
MY RECOMMENDATION IF WE GO 2.5 ACRES.
PERIOD. DON'T TAKE AWAY THE PUD, BUT I DON'T THINK AND I GOT MOST OF THIS FROM MY OWN ANALYSIS, BUT FROM GETTING INPUTS FROM THE CITIZENS IS SAYING WE DON'T WANT SOME LITTLE TINY THREE OR FOUR HOUSE PUD SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF IT'S 2.5 ACRES, IT'S GOING TO MINIMIZE IN EFFECT WHERE IT CAN BE DONE.
I THINK I HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS HERE THAT IS.
RECOGNIZE A PUD IS A VERY EFFECTIVE TOOL.
I THINK I LIVE IN ONE, DON'T I? KELLY. I DON'T.
I DON'T LIVE [LAUGHTER]. ANYWAY.
>> MY RECOMMENDATION IS NOT ZERO, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR FIVE ACRES IS PROBABLY NOT PRACTICAL, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND LEAVING IT IN A NEW RATE OF 2.5 ACRES, WHICH IS ONE-QUARTER OF WHAT THE COUNTY LOOKS AS A MINIMUM SIZE.
WE'RE PART OF THE COUNTY, BUT WE ARE DEALING WITH A MUCH SMALLER AREA.
>> AFTER TALKING TO SEVERAL PEOPLE, I FEEL LIKE DR. FRANKENSTEIN.
WE HAD A PROJECT THAT WAS GOING TO BE GREAT, AND APPARENTLY IT'S TURNED INTO A MONSTER.
AFTER HEARING SOME CONVERSATIONS AND DIFFERENT OPINIONS, I THINK THAT WE DID NOT PUT ENOUGH GUIDELINES IN, LIMITATIONS IN, DID NOT POTENTIALLY MAKE SOME DIFFERENTIATIONS BETWEEN A COMMERCIAL PUD AND A RESIDENTIAL PUD, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME PROTECTIONS OUT THERE, WHICH SEEMS LIKE THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS THERE'S NO PROTECTIONS FOR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
ANYONE CAN COME INTO AN AREA AND DO THIS, NO SETBACKS, NO REGULATION, AND THAT IS NOT WHAT MY INTENT WAS.
I THINK AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO SET DOWN SOME KIND OF A PLAN FOR LOOKING AT VARIOUS PARTS OF THIS AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHAT PARTS MIGHT WE WANT TO HAVE, MIGHT WANT TO WORK ON.
THE SETBACKS, APPARENTLY IS A BIG ONE.
AGAIN, DO YOU WANT A HOUSE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE? MAYBE FOR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ROAD, BUT FOR A RESIDENTIAL IT MIGHT BE 25 FOOT FROM A RESIDENTIAL ROAD.
I THINK THERE'S SOME ITEMS IN HERE THAT WE MISS.
THAT IT CREATES A LAISSEZ-FAIRE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S UP TO THREE COMMISSIONERS, WHICH WAS APPARENTLY ONE OF THE ISSUES, THAT THE COMMISSION CAN OVERRIDE SOME OF THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE.
>> I THINK WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS TOO, BECAUSE THEY ALL HAVE A CHARACTER.
WE HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS FOR SURE.
>> WELL, I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE OUR "DEVELOPER MENTALITY" AS PART OF OUR PROCESS.
I THINK WE CONSIDER OTHER THINGS AT TIMES AS MORE IMPORTANT, WHETHER IT BE SEPTIC TANKS OR WHETHER THAT BE TREES AS WELL.
WE'VE GOT TO START THINKING LIKE A DEVELOPER WOULD THINK.
THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE ALL MY OPTIONS? WE NEED TO LOOK AT WORST CASE.
WE NEED TO SAY WHAT IS THE WORST POSSIBLE THING THAT CAN HAPPEN AND THEN WORK BACKWARDS.
JUST LIKE AN EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTOR WOULD SIT THERE, OKAY, WHAT'S THE WORST THING CAN BE WRONG WITH THIS PATIENT? THEN HE IMMEDIATELY WORK DOWN AND SAY, OKAY, WHAT IS RIGHT IN THIS CASE.
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO JUST GO THROUGH THAT.
IT MIGHT NOT CHANGE ANY OF OUR VOTES, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO STEP THROUGH AND SAY, OKAY, I'M COMFORTABLE.
>> NO, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT. I THINK MARK BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT ON COMMERCIAL PUDS.
I'M NOT SURE WE ACTUALLY DIFFERENTIATED THOSE MAYBE LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE.
BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS WILLY-NILLY WHERE YOU JUST WALK IN AND DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CHANGE SETBACKS.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS GOING TO DICTATE EXACTLY WHAT YOU CAN DO.
[00:20:04]
YOU'RE GOING TO BE BOUND BY STAFF AND THIS BOARD, AND THE PUBLIC.THE PUBLIC DOESN'T EVEN GET NOTICED ON A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS. THIS, THEY WOULD.
IF YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT SOMEONE BUILDING NEXT TO YOU, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FRONT ROW SEAT TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT IT AS OPPOSED TO A REGULAR DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU DON'T.
IT'S GOOD FOR THE APPLICANT BECAUSE THEY CAN GET SHOT DOWN EARLY.
IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING SOUTH, THEY CAN PULL THEIR APPLICATION AND NOT GO THROUGH ALL THE ARDUOUS TASKS OF GOING TO PLATS AND THEN FINALLY REALIZING IT'S DEAD.
THE CERTAINTY, PETER, YOU TALKED ABOUT ACT LIKE A DEVELOPER.
ALL DEVELOPERS WANT IS CERTAINTY. YES OR NO? ITS UNCERTAIN PART OF COMING IN AND NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU CAN DO IN THE CITY AND YOU TALK TO FOUR DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS AND YOU GET FOUR DIFFERENT ANSWERS.
NOTHING THAT HAPPENS HERE, BUT IT DOES A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS OR PUDS [INAUDIBLE].
>> THEY GOT A BETTER TOOLBOX [LAUGHTER] IN TERMS OF [INAUDIBLE] EXPERIENCE.
>> WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE THINGS YOU'RE ASKING FOR ARE ACTUALLY IN THERE.
I THINK WE HAVEN'T WENT INTO IT ENOUGH DETAIL, EXCEPT MARK'S RIGHT, I THINK ON THE COMMERCIAL PUD PART.
I THINK THERE'S SOME ELEMENTS THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
WITH THE COMMISSION CHANGE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SET UP A JOINT MEETING ANYWAY WITH THEM.
WHY DON'T WE FIND OUT IF THEY WANT US TO EVEN DO THIS?
>> [OVERLAPPING] WHY WASTE OUR TIME.
>> CAN WE START WITH A MOTION WHILE WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSION?
>> WE'RE STILL ONLY OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.
>> BUT I THINK THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT NEED TO BE ADDED TO THE PUD.
FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MIGHT WANT TO SAY THAT UNDER ANY PUD YOU COULDN'T HAVE A HIGHER DENSITY THAN THE UNDERLYING LAND AREA.
I SAW THAT IN SOME OF THE OTHER SUGGESTED PUDS.
THERE'S QUITE A FEW ITEMS. IF YOU GO BACK, THERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES IN THERE, AND LOOK AT SOME OF THE PROTECTIONS THEY'VE OFFERED, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ADDED TO WHATEVER WE DO AND GO BACK AND THINK ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS.
>> WITH RESPECT TO YOUR DEVELOPER HUT, I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN, I THINK.
BUT I THINK WE WANT A DECIDEDLY DIFFERENT HUT IN THAT THEY DEVELOP, THEY MAKE MONEY DEVELOPING.
THEY HAVE A PROFIT MOTIVE. I'M ALL FOR PROFIT.
BUT OUR HUT IS WE WANT A BEAUTIFUL CITY WHERE PEOPLE THRIVE, WHERE THEIR WELL-BEING IS MAXIMIZED, WHERE THEY LIVE IN NICE NEIGHBORHOODS, WHERE NOBODY'S MESSING THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD UP, WHERE THE CITY LOOKS GOOD, AND ITS CHARACTER IS ENHANCED.
IF I VOTED FOR THIS, BECAUSE IT GAVE US SOMEWHAT MORE SAY IN SEEING THROUGH IT THAT THE CITY AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS CAN BE BETTER WHERE PEOPLE CAN THRIVE MORE AND WHERE THEY WILL LIVE THE BEST LIFE POSSIBLE.
I THINK DEVELOPERS CAN DO THAT AND MAKE MONEY.
>> I WOULD TELL YOU AFTER WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS FOR 30 YEARS, PROFIT IS THE MOTIVE.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY MOTIVE, AND HOW BIG, HOW MUCH AND WHAT'S THE RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT.
OUR GOAL IS TO PROTECT THE CITY, THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WHATEVER. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.
BUT AGAIN, PROTECT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THOSE INFLUENCES AND PART OF THAT IS CONTROL PLANNING, CONTROL BUILDING, CONTROL SET UP, CONTROL ALL THESE ITEMS AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN'T.
IF THERE'S A LOOPHOLE, THEY'RE GOING TO FIND IT.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THEM GOING AROUND NOW.
THAT DEVELOPER MADE A LOT OF MONEY.
>> [LAUGHTER] IT HAS CHARACTER.
>> [INAUDIBLE], WAS HE MAKING MONEY ON THAT? WELL, I THOUGHT HE DID.
>> I'M GOING TO TAKE MARK'S COMMENT, AND IF YOU GO UNDER SECTION J1 AND 2, WHY DO WE NEED TO CHANGE THE PERMISSIBLE PRINCIPAL USES?
>> BECAUSE YOU MAY WANT SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEXES ATTACHED, AND IT MAY BE A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT ONLY.
YOU MAY WANT DUPLEXES AND SINGLE FAMILY TO BE OCCUPIED BOTH.
>> THAT GETS BACK TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUE.
[00:25:03]
ONE LOT THAT'S NOW AN R2 LIKE WITH A DUPLEX IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD?>> OUR CURRENT PUD SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES.
THAT IS MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES.
IF OUR CURRENT ONE DOES IT, THEN WHY ARE WE DOING IT NOW?
>> WELL, WE HAVE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS, AND SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 100 YEARS.
SOME OF THOSE THINGS WOULD DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BY GOING FROM A SINGLE FAMILY TO A MULTI-FAMILY.
>> WELL, IN THIS CASE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE PUD.
MAYBE THE UNDERLYING ZONING SHOULD TAKE PRESENCE OVER EVERYTHING, THAT ANY DEVELOPER BUYING THE PROPERTY KNOWS WHAT HE'S BUYING.
>> THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS YOUR GUIDE.
>> THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS YOUR GUIDE.
THAT'S YOUR COMPLAINT ELEMENT.
EVERYTHING ELSE JUST LIVES UP TO WHAT THAT IS, AND ZONING IS JUST AN INSTRUMENT WITH THAT.
PUD IS THE SAME THING AS IT IS A ZONING LAYER.
IT'S JUST YOU WANT TO BE A LITTLE CREATIVE AND INTRODUCE MULTIPLE TYPES.
YOU CAN PUT A MYRIAD OF DIFFERENT THINGS IN THE LARGER PARCEL.
>> WE SAY NO TO A PLAN THAT BRINGS IN A DUPLEX INTO AN OLD ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE SAY NO, STAFF SAYS NO.
THEN IT GOES TO CITY COMMISSION AND THEY SAY, YES.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE NOW THEY'VE GOT A DUPLEX WHERE THEY NEVER HAD A DUPLEX BEFORE.
>> THE SAME THING CAN HAPPEN ON A PLAT.
THE THING IS, IS NOW THEY HAVE STANDING THAT THE RESIDENTS DO BECAUSE IT WAS QUASI-JUDICIAL.
EVERYONE SWORN IN, AND WE HAVE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT BACKS UP THE APPLICATION.
THIS IS A TOOL THAT HELPS BOTH SIDES.
>> I DO WANT TO POINT OUT JUST SO THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE.
CURRENTLY, THE LANGUAGE AS IT READS RIGHT NOW UNDER SECTION I(5), THE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE PERMISSIBLE IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE DENSITY STANDARD SET FORTH IN TABLE 401.
SO YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING FOR MORE DENSITY BY HAVING A PUD.
YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW WHAT THE UNDERLYING DENSITY IS.
THE HOUSING TYPE IS ONE THING, BUT THE DENSITIES STAYS THE SAME.
>> THEN WHY DO I NEED 1 AND 2?
>> THAT'S WHAT YOUR LANGUAGE SAYS CURRENTLY, MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES.
THAT'S HOW IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. WE DIDN'T CHANGE THAT.
>> NO, BUT PERMISSIBLE PRINCIPAL USES CAN BE CHANGED.
>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE NEW LANGUAGE?
>> SECTION J1. RIGHT HERE. YOU GOT IT.
WHAT WHAT WAS CHANGED WAS UNDER I(3), IT SAID THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE TWO OR MORE HOUSING TYPES. THAT WAS STRUCK.
PERMISSIBLE HOUSING TYPES NOW WOULD INCLUDE MIXED USE, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, TOWNHOUSE DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, AND MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS.
THE WAY THAT WE APPROVED IT WAS ANY LOT.
THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION ON HOW BIG A LOT.
WAS IT A 2.5 ACRE LOT, WAS IT FIVE ACRE LOT, THREE ACRE, THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION ON THAT THAT BASICALLY SAID, YOU CAN PUT ANYTHING ANYWHERE AS LONG AS YOU GO THROUGH THE PUD.
>> THAT IS NOT RIGHT. WHAT IT MEANS IS THEY'RE DEFINING ALL OF THE POSSIBLE PERMISSIBLE HOUSING TYPES.
>> BUT THEY CAN BE CONSTRUED THAT WAY.
>> NO. YOU'RE GOING TO PICK WHICH ONES ARE APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROJECT.
SURE, IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND SAYS I WANT DO APARTMENTS NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY, THEY SHOULD GET DENIED, AND THEY WOULD.
BUT THE POINT IS THERE'S A LIST OF ALL THE POSSIBLE OPTIONS YOU CAN ADD.
YOU PICK THE ONES THAT YOU WANT OR YOU THINK ARE APPLICABLE THAT YOU CAN GET APPLIED OR GET APPROVED.
THEY'RE JUST LISTING ALL THE OPTIONS.
>> THEN THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STANDARDS ON 401.
>> THEY GOT TO FOLLOW DESIGN [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW. THEY CAN'T EXCEED THOSE STANDARDS.
>> I STILL DON'T LIKE 1 AND 2.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT FOR MR. BENNETT, MAYBE ADDING IN A SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT COMMERCIAL PUDS, I THINK IT'S REALLY A GOOD IDEA.
>> AND RESIDENTIAL PUDS BECAUSE IF YOU ADD SECTIONAL OR RESIDENTIAL PUDS YOU CAN DEFINE SOME OF THESE THINGS SO THAT THEY DON'T GO OUTSIDE.
[00:30:06]
>> COULD WE ENTERTAIN [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK WE'LL CONTINUE AND COME BACK.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SET UP SOME KIND OF A [OVERLAPPING].
THEN YOU HAVE A NEW COMMISSION COMING IN AND IT WOULD BE NICE TO HEAR FROM THEM WHAT THEIR IDEA IS FOR ALL OF THIS.
>> WHY DON'T WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE WITH THE NEW COMMISSION AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT SPINNING OUR WHEELS, AND IF DON'T WANT TO DO THIS, SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD DO IT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HAVE A MEETING.
>> WE DO HAVE ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT, I THINK THERE WAS A SUGGESTION FROM, LET'S SEE, UNDER 6.6, COORDINATION OF A JOINT WORKSHOP WITH THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO PRIORITIZE DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR.
I THINK THIS WAS THE PERFECT SUBJECT TO ADD TO THAT LIST.
>> OH, YES. THAT WOULD BE ALL THREE OF THEM.
>> COULD I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION? WE STILL HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION RIGHT NOW.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN'T DO UNLESS WE'RE IN A SESSION.
I JUST WONDER IF WE OUGHT TO TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT THE OTHER TWO JUST TO SEE WHERE THE PAB STANDS RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF IF THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE.
WE KNOW IN CASE OF DEFINITIONS WE MAY FIND MORE OF THEM COMING OUT.
THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD ONE JUST TO TABLE UNTIL WE GET INTO THIS BECAUSE THE ONES WE HAVE, THE THREE OF THEM, I THINK WE DON'T WANT THEM CHANGED.
I'VE GOT TWO MORE I BROUGHT UP, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN ANOTHER DOCUMENT.
>> IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE BOARD, LET'S GO ON TO 6.2,
[6.2 Board Discussion and Next Steps following City Commission Direction on 9/17/24 Reference Item 6.2 https://fernandinabeachfl.new.swagit.com/videos/315336 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENT - LANDSCAPING, BUFFERS, AND TREE PROTECTION - ORDINANCE 2024-20 AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.05.00 LANDSCAPING, BUFFERS, AND TREE PROTECTION, SECTIONS 4.05.01 GENERALLY, 4.05.02 APPLICABILITY, 4.05.03 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS STANDARDS, 4.05.04 REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE PLANS AND 4.05.13 HARDSHIP RELIEF; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.]
AND WE CAN ADD WHATEVER COMMENTS WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO DISCUSSION ON 6.2.>> WE HEARD ONE ON FLORIDA-FRIENDLY PLATS, WITH NATIVE.
>> THAT WAS A SUGGESTION THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE DEFINITELY ADDED.
>> BUT BEFORE WE MEET, WE HAVE TO GET, BUT TO PETE'S POINT WITH THE DEFINITIONS.
>> WE'VE GOT TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE WITH A FEW CITY.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF DEFINITIONS BECAUSE.
>> WELL, I MEAN, WITH THE CITY COMMISSION BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE.
>> DEFINITELY. ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, THERE WAS THAT SUGGESTION THERE WAS AN ISSUE ABOUT BEING FLORIDA-FRIENDLY VERSUS NATIVE AND TO BE THAT CHANGE.
THAT MAY BE UNDER THE FLORIDA STATUTE.
I CAME UP BETWEEN THE COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT LANDS COULD BE UNDER SECTION 385 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE.
THAT'S WELL FLORIDA FLORIDA FRIENDLY.
THEY WOULDN'T CHANGE THAT TO MADE IT.
WHICH PROBABLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
>> YEAH. WELL, MR. STEVENS I BET YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT.
>> WELL, ACTUALLY, THERE WAS A THERE'S ONE CALLED.
HERE'S ANOTHER DEFINITION THAT WE NEED TO IDENTIFY, RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
>> WE LOOKED AT ONE OH 305100 I THINK.
>> APPARENTLY, WHEN WE LOOK AT A TREE, WE CAN'T TELL IT REAL TREE ANY LONGER.
IT HAVING A DEFINITION OF IT, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
DEFINITIONS ARE THE KEY HERE, AND THAT CAME UP IN THE BERT HARRIS THING ABOUT? YEAH. DEFINITIONS. WE AS A CITY IN THE PAST, HAVE NOT ADDED THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE AS IN ONE 305.
THOSE DEFINITIONS. SO NOW WE SUFFER.
>> WE HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE.
>> THE OTHER THING CAME OUT OF BERT YOU KNOW, TODAY WAS THE FACT THAT IF THIS EVER GETS PAST, WE'RE DONE FOR IT.
ONCE YOU MADE THE CHANGE, LIVE WITH IT.
>> SO IT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE THE TIME TO FULLY FLESH THIS OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. YES.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE GOT JUST LOOK TO SEE HERE.
LET ME JUST GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID, MARK.
IF YOU GO BACK TO FLORIDA FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING PRINCIPLES, I THINK ALL THAT IS IN FLORIDA STATUTE 375 DOT 185.
IF YOU LOOK AT THAT? KELLY, DIDN'T YOU ATTACH THAT TO THE PACKAGE?
[00:35:04]
I THINK IT'S IN THE PACKAGE, SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THAT ONE FIRST.I'M NOT SURE BUT ANYWAY, THERE IS THE STATUTE PRETTY MUCH IN THERE'S NO SENSE OF US PUTTING ANOTHER DEFINITION.
IF YOU'VE GOT IT SOMEWHERE, JUST SAY FLORIDA STATUTE. YOU'D BE DONE.
BUT YOU'VE GONE THE STEP OF GIVING SOMEBODY WHO'S A NOVICE A RABBIT TRAIL OR A PATH TO GO FIND WHERE THE DEFINITION IS.
>> I'M JUST SAYING LISTENING TO THE TAPE, WE CAN ASK YOU WANT TO WAS THE POINT MADE THAT FLORIDA FRIENDLY WAS NOT AS FRIENDLY AS IT SOUNDS, THAT NATIVE PLANTS SHOULD BE PUT THAT TERM NATIVE PLANTS, NOT FLORIDA FRIENDLY, NOT SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS TO MAKE THEM NATIVE PLANTS. I THINK.
>> LAST TIME, THIS CAME UP JOYCE.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHERE IT CAME OUT.
I LISTENED TO THE TAPE. THAT'S MY PROG.
>> YEAH. SHE'S SITTING RIGHT HERE, WE COULD ASK HER.
>> OKAY. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT FLORIDA FREDY VERSUS NEW?
>> WE HAVE AN OPEN MEDIA COUNTY?
>> HI, JOYCE TUTON, 21 20 BEACH STREET.
I THINK I THINK WHEN FLORIDA FRIENDLY WAS PUT INTO PLACE, IT WAS VERY SMART BECAUSE IT WAS DEALING, ESPECIALLY WITH DROUGHT TOLERANT ISSUES AND RIGHT PLANT, RIGHT PLACE.
BUT IT MISSED THE KEY MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT A PLANT, WHICH IS THE BASE OF THE ECOSYSTEM FOR EVERY CREATURE THAT LIVES IN THE ECOSYSTEM.
IF THE ECOSYSTEM IS TO THRIVE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE NATIVE PLANTS.
A NATIVE PLANT IS THE RIGHT PLANT IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND IS DROUGHT TOLERANT.
I WOULDN'T HAVE EVOLVED IN THAT SPOT IF IT DIDN'T FIT THE CLIMATE OF THAT SPOT.
I THINK AS MORE PEOPLE MOVED INTO FLORIDA DECADES AGO AND UF IFS CREATED THE WHOLE NOTION OF FLORIDA FRIENDLY, THEY WERE TRYING TO HELP NEW PEOPLE, DON'T BUY THIS BUY THAT PLANT FOR YOUR YARD AND CONSERVE WATER AND WHATNOT.
IT'S CHANGING, THOUGH. IT IS CHANGING.
IF YOU TALK TO UIFS, WE HAVE A GREAT COOPERATIVE EXTENSION HERE, AND THEY ARE PUSHING NATIVES VERY STRONGLY.
>> DOES THAT MEAN THERE ARE NO NEUTRAL PLANTS? THERE ARE NO NON-NATURAL PLANT THAT TREE IS BAD.
>> NO, I WOULD SAY THE ONLY POTENTIALLY BAD PLANT IS ONE THAT'S INVASIVE.
THAT ACTUALLY ESCAPES YOUR YARD? THANKS TO THE WIND OR THE WATER OR THE ANIMAL THAT ATE IT AND POOPED THE SEED SOMEWHERE, AND IT'S NOW IN WILD SPACES OR OTHER PEOPLE'S YARDS.
SO THAT IS AN INVASIVE IS AN ESPECIALLY BAD PLANT, BUT A NON-NATIVE PLANT TO A NATIVE ANIMAL, A NON-NATIVE PLANT MIGHT AS WELL BE PLASTIC FOR MANY NATIVE ANIMALS.
IT WOULD BE LIKE, IF I INVITED YOU TO DINNER AND SERVED GUINEA PIG FOOD AND CAT FOOD, YOU WOULD SIT THERE LOOKING AT WHAT IS CLASSIFIED AS FOOD, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING FOR YOU.
I COULD LOCK YOU IN A PET STORE FOR FIVE YEARS, AND YOU WOULD PROBABLY NOT DIE, BUT THE BEDDING AND THE FOOD AND, THE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO THRIVE ARE NOT THERE.
BECAUSE THE WAY AN ECOSYSTEM WORKS IS THE PLANTS ARE AT THE BOTTOM, AND THEN THE THINGS THAT EAT THE PLANTS ARE NEXT, MOSTLY INSECTS, BUT LOTS OF OTHER, AND MOST INSECTS ARE VERY SPECIFIC EATERS.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY ONLY LAY THEIR EGGS ON VERY SPECIFIC PLANTS.
ESSENTIALLY ALL BUTTERFLIES LAY THEIR EGGS ON ONLY ONE SPECIFIC PLANT.
SO EVERYBODY KNOWS THE MONARCH.
HOPEFULLY, EVERYBODY KNOWS THE MONARCH ONLY LAYS ITS EGGS ON MILKWEED.
THE GOLF FRITILLARY ONLY LAYS ITS EGGS ON, THE PASSION VINE.
[00:40:01]
YOU PICK EVERY SINGLE BUTTERFLY, AND THEY NEED ONE SPECIFIC PLANT.IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT PLANT, THE BUTTERFLY IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE.
IT GOES UP THE CHAIN THAT WAY.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE A BALD EAGLE FLY OVER, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS AT THE BOTTOM THAT IT NEEDS.
>> KELLY, IF I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICABILITY PORTION OF THIS, I CAN GO TO LIBERTY BY ANYTHING I WANT PLANTED IN MY YARD.
THIS IS EVERY RESIDENT CAN GO TO LIBERTY AND BUY ANYTHING THEY WANT.
>> FLORIDA HAS A LIST OF NOXIOUS.
WELL, EIGHT GROUPS IN FLORIDA HAVE LISTS OF NOXIOUS INVASIVE PLANTS, BUT FLORIDA DOES NOT HAVE ANY LAWS AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND THAT PREVENT THE SALE OF INVASIVE PLANTS.
>> LANTANA WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE.
>> LANTANA IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE.
THE NATIVE LANTANA DOES NOT EXIST ANYMORE, REALLY.
>> YOU CAN BUY IT AT ANY GARDEN SHOPPING.
>> THE NATIVE LANTANA IS A YELLOW-ONLY FLOWER.
AND IT DOESN'T REALLY EXIST IN THIS AREA ANYMORE BECAUSE THE NON-NATIVE INVASIVE ONE THAT'S SOLD EVERYWHERE IS THAT HAS THE TRICOLOR FLOWER THAT'S SO PRETTY.
BUT IT HAS A VERY ATTRACTIVE SEED FOR BIRDS, AND IT'S POOPED ALL OVER THE ISLAND.
I PULL IT OUT OF THE GREENWAY.
RIGHT NOW IT'S FLOWERING AND GOING TO FRUIT.
SO I COME HOME FROM WALK IN THE DOOR WITH MY DOG WITH MY POCKETS FULL OF FLOWERS AND SEED HEADS BECAUSE IT'S JUST GOING TO SPREAD WORSE.
ONE DAY, THE ISLAND WILL BE NOT RECOGNIZABLE.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU DRIVE INTO THE STATE PARKS, AND IT SAYS THE REAL FLORIDA.
>> SO CERTAINLY ADDING MAYBE THE TERM AND DEFINING WHAT NATIVE PLANTS ARE.
WOULD BE TO ADD THAT TO OUR LIST OF DEFINITIONS.
THAT WOULD BE UNDER THAT SECTION 6.3 IN OUR AGENDA.
THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO PROBABLY LOOK AT THAT LIST AGAIN.
>> YEAH, WE DID THAT. WE CAN LOOK AT IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE GOT NATIVE PLANTS.. WE GOT WHAT WAS YOUR SPACE?
THAT'S THAT'S ONE WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT, BUT OPEN.
>> KELLY, IS THERE A LIST OF YOU MAY HAVE TO ANSWER THAT, BUT IS THERE A LIST OF NATIVE PLANTS THAT PERTAIN TO JUST THIS ZONE THAT SOMEONE COULD FIND.
>> RESOURCES THAT WOULD GET YOU TO THAT TWO LISTS.
THERE ARE LISTS THAT WE WOULD USE TO SUPPORT SOMEBODY WHO'S LOOKING FOR NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS.
>> WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE UNDER TREAT PROTECTION? BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE ALSO UNDER THE WHOLE SECTION ON TREAT PROTECTION.
>> WE HAVE A PUBLISHED STATE OF FLORIDA INVASIVE SPECIES DOCUMENT AVAILABLE, RIGHT?
>> OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT ONE THAT WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT.
>> DO WE NEED TO INCORPORATE IT BY REFERENCE, THOUGH?
>> IT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE CODE CHANGES.
>> CAN YOU SEE IF WE ONLY DOWN WE JUST AT THIS POINT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE AGENDA WITH OUR MEETING?
>> WE'RE JUST GOING THROUGH THE FIRST THREE.
YEAH, JUST TO SEE JUST GET A SENSE OF WHERE WE ARE ON THEM ANYWAY.
>> BECAUSE THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WE WILL DISCUSS WHEN WE MEET WITH THE CITY COMMISSION.
>> TAKING DOWN THROUGH HERE, LET'S SEE.
I HAVE ONE THIS IS GOING TO THE NEXT SECTION ON THAT.
SECTION 3 UNDER THE TAKEN OUT.
WE LEFT ZERO ESCAPE AND WE LEFT. LET'S SEE.
DROUGHT TOLERANT SPECIES THAT WAS TAKEN OUT.
[00:45:01]
UNDER ZERO SCAPE, WHICH IS NEW REPLACEMENT SUBSECTION C. THERE IS A LIST OF SEVEN ITEMS. I'M JUST GOING TO GO TO ONE, AND THIS IS ANOTHER CASE WHERE I'M JUST TRYING TO POINT OUT MAYBE UNDER ITEM NUMBER 1 SAYS PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN NATIVE VEGETATION.>> ALL RIGHT. SO WHERE ARE YOU AGAIN?
>> THIS IS PAGE 57 IS WHERE IT STARTS IF YOU LOOK AT.
>> BUT IT'S UNDER DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE PUB?
>> NO. WE WENT TO THE NEXT SECTION.
I'M GOING BACK TO TELL YOU WHERE THE HEADER IS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL STANDARDS, 405,403.
NOW, SO IF WE GET DOWN TO THAT SECTION, AND THEN GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WE TOOK OUT EVERYTHING ON DESIGN OPTIONS FOR ZERO SCAPE LANDSCAPING BECAUSE KELLY IS COMPLETELY THAT WHOLE THING IS UPDATED.
KELLY WITH A NEW LIST. WE TAKE OUT EVERYTHING ON THE OLD.
WE JUST START WITH A CLEAN SECTION C STANDARDS, AND THEN SHE GOES RIGHT INTO.
LET'S JUST GO TO THE I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE THIS FIRST ONE.
ALL RIGHT. PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN NATIVE VEGETATION.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY, VERY IMPORTANT ON ZERO SCAPE, SCREAMING IMPORTANT.
EXISTING AND NATIVE VEGETATION MUST BE MAINTAINED AND PRESERVED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL.
I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL.
HOW DO I DEFINE IT? HOW DO I MEASURE? WHO CALIBRATES IT? WHO MAKES THE DECISION?
>> WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT ONCE THE BUILDING IS BUILT, AND THAT WOULD BE A CODE VIOLATION, WOULDN'T IT?
>> I'LL ANSWER THAT I'LL TRY TO.
USUALLY WHEN YOUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE ARBORIST ARE LOOKING AT ALL OF YOUR TREE IN NATIVE VEGETATION THAT'S BEING SAVED, THEY'LL LOOK AT THE FILL THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN THERE TO MAKE THE DRAINAGE WORK.
THEY'LL LOOK AT HOW CLOSE STRUCTURES ARE PARKING OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS OR PIPES, AND THEY'LL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN SAVE THOSE ELEMENTS.
I MAY TELL YOU MOVE THE PIPES SO THAT YOU CAN SAVE THE TREE OR THE UNDERGROWTH.
THAT'S WHERE THAT MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE AS A STAFF WORKS WITH.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IT SOUNDS LOGICAL TO ME IS THAT YOU EACH ELEMENT OR EACH SITE IS GOING TO BE A CUSTOM LOOK BASED ON THE CHARACTERISTICS AND PRE-COVER, ET CETERA.
I JUST HAVE A CONCERN AND SOMEBODY MAY, TRYING TO ARGUE WITH IT.
HOW HOW DO YOU DEFEND IT? I UNDERSTAND WHAT NICK IS SAYING FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE TECHNICAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.
SO DO WE LEAVE THAT TO THE TRB OR TRC? WHAT JUST WHERE IS IT CLOSE IF THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT COMES UP?
>> THE TWO EXPERTS TALK ABOUT IT.
ONE WITH THE CITY AND ALONG WITH AND SO THOSE TWO.
>> WORK TOGETHER THE TREES ON THE MIDDLE OF THE WHERE THE HOUSE WANTS TO GO.
THEY KNOW I HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S GOING TO BE.
THEY'RE GOING TO TRY AND PUT THAT BUILDING IN THERE ANYWAY THEY CAN, AND IN THIS CASE, AS POSSIBLE, SAVE AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.
IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SAVE EVERYTHING UNLESS YOU WANT TO BUY THE PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THE OTHER ONES ARE PRETTY SPECIFIC.
I MEAN, THEY TELL YOU OKAY, IF YOU'VE GOT A HIGH WATER USE ZONE.
THAT ZONE IS HERE AND THAT'S WHERE YOU TAKE THE HIGH WATER USE PLANTS GO.
BUT THAT AGAIN, IS DESIGNED BASED ON THE LAYOUT OF THE PARTICULAR HOUSE OR STRUCTURE, OFFICE, WHATEVER.
I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THESE OPEN-ENDED JUDGMENTAL THINGS.
>> THAT LANGUAGE IS THROUGHOUT ALL OF IT.
YOU HAVE TO JUST GO WITH THE NATURAL GENERAL DEFINITION.
>> WE'RE AT THE POINT NOW WHERE WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW A WAY TO BE MORE PRECISE, MORE SURGICALLY, CAPABLE IN TERMS OF PUTTING BOUNDS ON THINGS THAT DON'T REQUIRE 6 MONTHS OF COURT LITIGATION OR SOMETHING.
>> WELL BY PUTTING PERCENTAGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT'S GOING TO CREATE THAT.
BUILDING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
THEY'LL DO WHATEVER THEY CAN ON THAT SITE TO PUT THAT BUILDING ON THE SITE.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE OTHER IN THE CITY AND ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IT AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO TAKE A PICTURE OF THAT PROPERTY BEFORE IT EVER GETS DEVELOPED AND WHAT'S PROPOSED AFTERWARD.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ALL OF IT STAY THE WAY IT IS.
>> BUT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, NICK, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IT REALLY HAS TO BE,
[00:50:03]
IT'S A TECHNICAL IT'S A DESIGN.>> IT'S A SITE-SPECIFIC THING THAT YOU CANNOT QUANTIFY FOR EVERY SITE TO BE THE SAME.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS ABOUT EITHER 6.1, 6.2, OR 6.3? THINKING THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS IN GREATER DETAIL AND WITH MORE VIGOR AT OUR MEETING.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR KELLER ON 6.3.
[6.3 Board Discussion and Next Steps following City Commission Direction on 9/17/24 Reference Item 6.3 https://fernandinabeachfl.new.swagit.com/videos/315336 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENT - ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS - ORDINANCE 2024-21 AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 1.07.00 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS TO ADD TERMS FOR BUILDING SITE, SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD, PARCEL, PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, AND PLAT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.]
LOOKING OVER WHAT WAS IN THE PACKET.MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE WERE GOING TO COME TONIGHT AND TALK ABOUT PARKING MINIMUMS FOR TWO SPECIFIC USES.
AM I CLOSE? AS I LOOKED THROUGH THIS, WE TALKED EARLIER GENERALLY ABOUT PARKING REFORM ABOUT GETTING RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? WHERE DO WE STAND ON GETTING RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS GENERALLY, NOT JUST FOR THE TWO CASES WE WERE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TONIGHT?
>> CAN I INTERRUPT JUST FOR A SECOND? IN ORDER TO KEEP THE ORDER GOING, I'D LIKE FOR US TO AGREE THAT WE'RE DONE WITH SIX POINTS.
>> I'M STILL LOOKING TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT LOOKS LIKE 6.1, 2, AND 3.
>> ARE WE READY TO MOVE FORWARD? DO YOU WANT TO JUST A MOMENT MORE?
>> MR. DOSTER IS THAT ALL RIGHT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> LET ME ASK YOU I MENTIONED THESE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
THERE'S ANOTHER ONE UNDER 10305 TO PUT IN THE DEFINITION.
WE'VE GOT FOUR NATIVE PLANTS, CIVIC SPACE, RECREATION, AND RECREATIONAL AREAS. THOSE ARE JUST OKAY.
I'M JUST GOING TO CHECK DOWN HERE AND SEE IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT LOOKS LIKE [NOISE] BEAR WITH ME JUST A MINUTE.
>> WE'RE GOOD HERE. HERE'S JUST AN ITEM.
I'M FLIPPING OVER TO PARKING STANDARDS. I'M BASICALLY [OVERLAPPING]
>> ARE YOU READY TO GO TO THE NEXT SECTION?
>> I THINK WE GO TO PARKING, I'M JUST LOOKING TO SEE BECAUSE MY NEXT QUESTION WAS OVER AND UNDER THE PARKING STANDARDS AREA.
>> LET'S MOVE ON TO THE AGENDA TO SECTION 6.4.
>> [OVERLAPPING] RAISING HER HAND.
>> JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR THE PROCESS ON ITEMS 6.1 THROUGH 6.3.
IS IT THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD TO MOVE THESE TO THE DISCUSSION REQUESTED WITH THE JOINT CITY COMMISSION AND PAB THAT WILL BE SCHEDULED AT A LATER POINT?
>> THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION.
>> OKAY. CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT [OVERLAPPING] JUST TO KEEP THAT CLEAR FOR EVERYONE?
>> HANG ON. I'M SORRY, C SAY THAT AGAIN?
>> CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT?
>> CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT?
>> TO MOVE IT FROM OR TO TABLE IT FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>> TO REQUEST THAT THERE BE SOME CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING.
>> OF THESE ITEMS AT THE MEETING.
>> LET ME SEE IF I CAN DO THIS RIGHT.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE ITEMS 6.1,6.2 AND 6.3 UNTIL A LATER DATE, AND WE ALSO DEFER THESE TO OUR JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.
>> OKAY. SO WE'VE HAD A MOTION.
WE'VE HAD A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN THAT MEETING WOULD BE?
>> THAT'S GOT TO GO ON. CITY CLERK'S GOT TO WORK UP THE CALENDAR ON THERE.
>> OKAY. SO IT IS TO POSTPONE UNTIL THAT DATE IS ESTABLISHED.
>> [BACKGROUND] DATE IN THE FUTURE.
HEARING NONE, THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
THANK YOU, KELLY, FOR KEEPING US ON TRACK.
>> I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT EVERYONE READ OVER ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THERE FROM OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES FOR PUS TO SEE WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND MAKE A LIST OF SOME OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS.
AS WE COME BACK, THAT IS SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE TO TALK ABOUT.
[00:55:01]
>> I THOUGHT THAT THE INTERN DID A VERY GOOD JOB, KELLY, AS I KNOW YOU ARE PLEASED WITH HER REPORT AS WELL.
>> THAT SUMMARY THAT'S IN THE PACKAGE. [OVERLAPPING].
>> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE TO MOVE ON TO 6.4,
[6.4 Continue Board Discussion and Consideration of Next Steps to amend Parking Standards and Parking Minimums from the Board Meeting on September 11, 2024.]
CONTINUE BOARD DISCUSSION, AND CONSIDER THE NEXT STEPS TO AMEND PARKING STANDARDS AND PARKING MINIMUMS. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF OUR SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 MEETING.THESE ARE SOME OF THE OBJECTIVES THAT WERE PUT UP BY STAFF.
BOILED IT DOWN TO HELP US IDENTIFY AREAS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT.
MR. DOSTER, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
THESE ARE SOME OF THE SPECIFICS, BUT I THOUGHT WHEN WE BEGAN THIS CONVERSATION, WE BEGAN TALKING ABOUT PARKING MINIMUMS GENERALLY AND DOING AWAY WITH THEM. AM I WRONG?
>> THE BOARD DID CONSIDER THAT, AND I THINK FROM THE SEPTEMBER MEETING THAT WE HELD, IT WAS AT THAT TIME THAT THESE FIVE OBJECTIVES SURFACED.
IT ALSO REVEALED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE A CLEAR CONSENSUS AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR REMOVING PARKING MINIMUMS. THAT WAS MY IMPRESSION.
>> FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I TOO HAVE DRIVEN BY SOME OF THE SHOPPING CENTERS AND SEEN THE GREAT EXPANSE OF ASPHALT AND WONDER, IS THAT THE RIGHT APPROACH, ON THE OTHER HAND? IF YOU LIVE DOWNTOWN IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND YOU'RE NEAR A BUSINESS, AND, ONE OF YOUR AREAS OF PARKING IS ON THE STREET, YOU MAY NOT ALWAYS HAVE YOUR PARKING SPOT WHEN YOU COME IN.
YOU MAY HAVE TO WALK TWO BLOCKS DOWN TO GET TO YOUR HOUSE.
>> I THINK MOST OF THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE AWAY FROM DOWNTOWN.
THE DOCTOR'S OFFICES, AND THE HOSPITAL, SO THEY'RE NOT INVOLVED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT THERE MIGHT BE BUSINESSES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> WELL, THE OTHER THING THAT'S HAPPENING IS SOMETHING YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, AND THAT IS BASICALLY, WE'RE DOING, I'LL CALL IT REPURPOSING OF PARTICULARLY LARGER COMMERCIAL.
WE'VE GOT WHAT THREE, NICK, WHAT ARE WE GOT REALLY THREE BIG COMMERCIAL LOCATIONS, RIGHT? PUBLIX, MISS CAROLYN'S AREA, AND WALMART.
>> WALMART AND THEN THE 02 LINE [OVERLAPPING] AND THE FOUR.
>> OKAY. SEVERAL BECAUSE WE KNOW PUBLIX IS GOING TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF REPURPOSING.
I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL.
I WORRY ALSO ABOUT, THE MUA AREAS BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE BUILDINGS AS ONE, THEY'RE STRIP STORE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS, AND A MINOR CHANGE CAN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE OR INCREASE THE DENSITY OF TRAFFIC IN THAT PARKING LOT.
THOSE PARKING LOTS, THERE'S NO EXPANSION, SO WE HAVE TO THINK, SOME MID-GROUND, OF HOW WE WOULD CONSIDER OR WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER.
THE CONCERN I HAVE IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GAUGE.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MINIMUM.
>> FOR PARKING, YES. REGARDLESS OF THE AREA, ANY COMMERCIAL BUILDING CAN BE REPURPOSED.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM PER BUSINESS?
>> ONLY BECAUSE I AGREE THERE'S SO MUCH ASPHALT AND SO MUCH PARKING ALREADY, SOME OF THOSE MALLS ARE ALMOST COMPLETELY DEAD.
>> I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT EIGHTH STREET, JUST EIGHTH STREET.
>> YOU GOT TO GET UP. IF YOU LOOK AT ONE WHERE THERE ARE FEW TENANTS TODAY, THEN THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A PARKING SPACE STILL.
BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS REDEVELOPMENT OR ALL OF A SUDDEN EVOLVED, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SITUATION IS WITH THEIR TENANTS, HOW MANY THEY ACTUALLY HAVE.
MANY OF THE TENANTS MAY STILL BE PAYING RENT, SO THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY 100% OCCUPIED WHEN THERE'S NOBODY IN THE BUILDING, SO YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF THAT.
THE USES ARE GOING TO COME IN THERE THIS [OVERLAPPING].
[01:00:01]
>> THE TWO BIG BUSINESSES, AND THAT ONE IS MILLENNIAL AND 24-HOUR FITNESS.
BUT I DID GO OUT ON A LIMB AND I ASKED THE OFFICE MANAGER OF MILLENNIAL, SO DO YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH PARKING? SHE SAID, NO, WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF PARKING.
>> SURE, BECAUSE THEY STRETCH OUT OVER THE ENTIRE.
BUT THERE'S A TON IN THE END STORES.
>> I DISAGREE. WHEN I GO DOWN TO THE HUMANE SOCIETY FOR DONATION? THEY'RE FULL.
>> I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE TIME.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO CONSIDER WHEN YOU SEE A SPOT LIKE SHE SAID, IF YOU LOOKED AT MILLENNIUM TWO YEARS AGO, IT WAS EMPTY.
THERE WAS NOBODY THERE BECAUSE THE STORES WEREN'T OPEN.
NOW YOU GO THERE AT 9:00 IN THE MORNING, YOU'RE PARKING DOWN THE STREET.
>> YEAH. BUT THEY SAID THEY HAD ENOUGH.
>> HAD ENOUGH PARKING FOR THEIR PATIENTS.
>> OKAY. BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LARGE PARKING LOT.
>> THINK ABOUT THIS. THINK ABOUT THERE'S A RESTAURANT DOWN AT MAINE BEACH, AND IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PARKING.
WHAT IT USES IS ALL CITY PARKING.
>> CITY PARKING. [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS IT THE SAND BAR? [OVERLAPPING] IT'S ALSO SALT LIFE, I THINK.
>> BUT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY HAVE A SHARED USE AGREEMENT FOR SALT LIFE.
>> THE ARGUMENT WAS WHEN THEY'RE BUSY AT NIGHT, THERE ARE NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE AT MAINE BEACH ON AVERAGE.
I'M NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THAT.
AND MY CONCERN IS IT'S DETRACTING FROM THE ABILITY OF THE INCREASING NUMBER OF PEOPLE GOING TO MAINE B TO FIND A PARKING SPACE.
BUT SALT LIFE THEY GOT WHAT 50 PARKING SPACES, I THINK ON THEIR PROPERTY.
BUT AT NIGHT THEY'RE GOING TO GO OVER THAT.
BUT THAT WAS A SHARED AGREEMENT BACK WHEN THEY BUILT.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE 50 ON THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> MOST OF THAT CITY PROPERTY.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES.
I'M SORRY. THE SOUTH AND THE WEST SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
>> THEY HAVE SOME, BUT IT'S NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO 50.
>> OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS ABOUT 50.
>> EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST IS A CITY.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE SAND BAR I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE ANY PARKING.
>> NO. THERE MIGHT BE ONE SPACE WHERE A SERVICE TRUCK COMES IN OR GROCERIES.
>> DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THESE?
>> IT IS OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS.
AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET A FEEL FROM THE NEW CITY COMMISSION ON SOME OF THESE TOPICS.
WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEM TO LOOK AT THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
WE'RE NOT ASKING THEM TO MAKE OUR DECISIONS FOR US, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW, WHERE THEIR HEAD IS.
>> WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE DETRIMENTAL.
WE DON'T WANT TO THINK THAT WE HAVE THE BEST INTERESTS IN MIND FOR THE BUSINESS PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS AT THE RIGHT TIME. SO HOW DO WE KNOW?
>> LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME CONTINGENCY FOR BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO WANT PLENTY OF SPACE.
THEY WANT TO FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, I GOT TO GO TO X Y, AND Z STORE, THEY CAN FIND A PARKING PLACE.
THEY LIKE THAT COMFORT LEVEL BECAUSE THAT, TO THEM MAKES THEM FEEL MORE SECURE.
>> THEN HOW DO YOU DEAL THOUGH WITH THAT, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT THERE'S A GREAT NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, THAT BUSINESSES EMPLOYEES PARK IN THOSE RIGHT OUT FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
THAT THEN COULD BE FREED UP FOR CUSTOMERS, AND THEY WANT TO HAVE THE EMPLOYEES SO THEY CAN GO RIGHT TO WORK.
>> OKAY. BUT YOUR PROBLEM PARKING IS RIGHT ON CENTER STREET.
>> OKAY. LET ME JUST GIVE YOU FOOD FOR THOUGHT FOR THE FUTURE.
I BELIEVE IN THE COMING MONTHS, WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING PAID PARKING FOR DOWNTOWN.
[BACKGROUND] IT'S JUST OBSERVATION.
>> I'M TELLING YOU, NOW THAT'S ONLY GOING TO BE PROBABLY BETWEEN ASH AND LATUA.
[01:05:03]
[BACKGROUND].AS A CENTER THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> BETWEEN THE LATUA AND CENTER AND ASH STREET.
>> TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, SO I JUST [LAUGHTER].
IT'S AN ISSUE THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT, IF I GO BACK TO THE NOTES, THE LAST TIME WE HAD A CITY COMMISSION JOINT GET-TOGETHER, THAT WAS THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS BROADCAST.
>> PAID PARKING. THAT WAS A 2022 OR 3.
I THINK I STILL GOT MY NOTES FROM IT.
>> OF COURSE, IT'S EITHER PAID PARKING OR DRIVING ON THE BEACH.
>> MADAM CHAIR, STAFF PUT A LOT OF TIME INTO THIS.
CAN WE AT LEAST DO ONE AND TWO, WHERE MEDICAL OFFICES AND CLINICS AND BEAUTY SALONS? SHE'S GIVEN US A LOT OF DIRECTION ON THAT.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR, NO PARKING FOR THAT.
SHE'S TRYING TO RAISE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT THAT'S FREE.
[BACKGROUND] AT LEAST ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING ON IT.
>> SO KELLY ON ONE AND TWO, YOU'VE LOOKED INTO IT.
YOU'VE RESEARCHED IT YOU LOOKED AT WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING.
I AM PERFECTLY WILLING TO DEFER TO YOUR JUDGMENT ON THIS.
PERSONALLY, I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT A BEAUTY SALON NEEDS IN THE WAY OF PARKING AND YOU DO.
THAT'S THE ISSUE IS THAT IT'S NOT IN OUR CODE.
THAT'S WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD A NEW SCAN.
>> MEDICAL OFFICE, WE KNOW DEMANDS A LOT OF PARKING, WE'RE WAY UNDERPARKED FOR THAT NOW.
WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THAT ON THE ISLAND.
>> SO I THINK I THINK SHE'S DONE A GOOD JOB.
THERE'S A LOT OF BACKUP IN HERE THAT TELLS YOU THAT WE'VE HAD FOR MONTHS.
I AT LEAST WANT TO GET ONE AND TWO DONE.
>> WELL, BUT I'M NOT WHERE IS RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WERE TO COME IN AS A BEAUTY SALON, IT'S UNDER BUSINESS THAT'S NOT OTHERWISE DEFINED.
SO IT'S ONE PARKING SPACE PER 300 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.
BUT IT'S ALSO PROVIDED AS BACKUP MATERIAL HERE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
RATHER THAN CONTINUE TO RELY ON THAT OPEN STANDARD, WE WANTED TO SET SOME MORE PARAMETERS THAT MADE SENSE FOR THAT INDUSTRY.
>> KELLY, COULD I MAKE ONE JUST ADMINISTRATIVE COMMENT UNDER THE 70104 A TABLES UNDER BEAUTY SHOP? BARBER SHOP? ALL RIGHT.
PER OPERATOR WORKSTATION OR SERVICE STATION.
I JUST THINK OPERATOR COVERS MORE THINGS BECAUSE THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU MAY HAVE AN OPERATOR WORKSTATION, THAT'S NOT A CUSTOMER WORKSTATION.
SERVICE CUSTOMER SERVICE THAT'S THAT IN A DEFINITION, THEY DO USE THAT.
THAT IS ONE OF THE TRENDS THAT USES FOR SHOPS.
IT'S IN SOME OF THE OTHER INFORMATION.
I JUST THOUGHT THAT THE OPERATOR WORKSTATION BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU COULD HAVE STATIONS THAT ARE ONLY FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
WHAT MAKES SENSE? A BARBER SHOP? WELL, THIS IS BARBER SHOPS, BEAUTY SALONS, NAIL SALONS, SKINCARE, AND TATTOOS.
>> YEAH, BUT THEIR WHOLE BUSINESS IS BASED ON CUSTOMER, NOT EACH OTHER.
THERE ISN'T A WORK STATION, THEN THAT'S WHEN SOMEBODY SITS DOWN, IS THAT A SERVICE STATION? I'M CONFUSED WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT.
OKAY. I MEAN, THEIR LANGUAGE THE WORD OPERATOR STATION.
>> YOU JUST WANTED TO SUBSTITUTE THE WORD CUSTOMER SERVICE STATION AND HAVE THE WORD OPERATOR STATION.
>> I THINK THAT'S MORE GLOBAL.
>> PERHAPS YOU HAVE A ROBOT THERE ONE DAY.
>> THAT'S FREE. HE'S STILL AN OPERATOR.
>> YES, HE IS. HE IS AN OPERATOR, BY DEFINITION.
>> WHAT SECTION ARE YOU LOOKING AT?
IT'S ON PAGE 97, IF YOU LOOK AT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT TOO.
I SEE HERE WHERE IT DOES SAY MEDICAL OFFICES AND CLINICS.
NOW, THAT WOULD BE MILLENNIUM.
IT SAYS ONE SPACE PER 250 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. YEAH.
>> WE ARE SAYING THAT'S NOT ENOUGH?
>> BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARKING THEY USE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THEIR BUILDING, THEY'RE USING OTHER PEOPLE'S PARKING.
[01:10:02]
>> IT'S A SHOPPING CENTER, SO THERE'S A LOT OF ACCESS PARK, WHICH IS GOOD. I MEAN THEY SHOULD.
>> BUT IF YOU LOOK AT LIKE THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE HOSPITAL, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PARKING.
>> I DON'T THINK THOSE TECH TO THE HOSPITAL.
>> NO, WE'RE NOT. BUT I'LL JUST SAY I THINK KELLY'S DONE A RESEARCH ON IT.
I KNOW THAT WHEN WE DESIGNED MEDICAL OFFICE, WE HAD MORE PARKING THAN WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES BECAUSE THEY NEED.
>> CHANGE VARIANCES FROM THAT SECTION OF CODE TO BE ABLE TO OVER-PARK.
>> WELL, ALL WE HAVE TO DO IN THAT PARTICULAR MALL IS SHIFT EVERYTHING TO THE RIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE EMPTY SPACES ARE.
>> WELL, THIS IS GOING TO BE MAJORITY.
THIS IS GOING TO PERTAIN TO FREESTANDING MEDICAL OFFICES FROM.
>> NICK ARE YOU SAYING THAT 200 THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH GOING FROM 250 SQUARE FEET PER SORRY, GROSS FLOOR AREA TO 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS?
>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? PUT SIGNS UP, NO PARKING EXCEPT FOR.
>> THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE YOUR PARKING TOTAL.
>> BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS BEEN COMING IN ASKING FOR VARIANCES FOR MEDICAL OFFICE.
WE HAVE A STANDARD THAT YOU CAN ONLY ADD 10% MORE THAN YOUR ALLOWED MAXIMUM PARKING.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A REASON BECAUSE THEY NEED IT.
>> YOU'RE BASICALLY JUST INCREASING PARKING 20%.
>> WELL, THAT'S IT SOUNDS REVERSE, BUT IT'S ONE PARKING SPACE FOR 200 SQUARE FEET NOW RATHER THAN 250.
>> FOR EVERY THOUSAND, IT'S FIVE PARKING SPACES, SET OF FOUR.
>> NO, THAT'S EXPERIENCE, AND YOU'RE SEEING THAT, THEN.
>> THAT IS JUST SO CONTRARY TO WHAT WE SEE EVERY PLACE ELSE IN THE CITY.
HOW DO YOU INTEND ON ENFORCING IT? WHY WOULD YOU DO IT? WHY WOULD YOU I MEAN, I CAN'T IMAGINE I MEAN, WE'VE GONE I MEAN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I GUESS I LOOKED AT WAS AT THIS LATEST TRC MEETING WHERE THEY TALKED ABOUT I GUESS THIS CONCEPT THAT ON A PROJECT WHERE PEOPLE WHO GOING TO WORK, AND THEREFORE, YOU DON'T HAVE HAVE AS MUCH PARKING.
THAT'S HOW THAT WAS UNDERSTOOD.
WELL, WE DON'T NEED THAT MUCH PARKING BECAUSE HALF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE GONE TO WORK.
THEREFORE, WE'LL USE THOSE PLACES TO PARK.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO LOOK AT THIS.
>> NO. BUT FOR THE MEDICAL, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WOULD INTEND.
YOU CAN'T PUT THE ENFORCEMENT.
YOU CAN'T SAY TO THE PEOPLE THAT WORK IN THE OFFICE, BY THE WAY, WE GAVE YOU FIVE MORE, BUT YOU HAVE TO ENFORCE THEM.
>> NO, SOMETHING TO TAKE BEACHES DERM.
>> THIS IS BUILDING OUT ON THE PARKWAY IN THE CORNER OF MAR ROAD.
THEY HAVE X AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET THERE.
THERE'S GOING TO BE BACH BEACHES TERMINOLOGY.
THEY NEED FIVE PARKING SPACES FOR EVERY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
>>> THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
THIS IS FOR A FREE STANDARD MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING.
I MEAN, IF THE BUILDING IS EXISTING, PARKINGS ALREADY THERE.
>> DOESN'T APPLIES TO REDEVELOPMENT.
>> BUT I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION.
IN THE CASES OF BEACHES, THEY BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
THEY DESIGNED A BUILDING, AND THEY KNEW WHAT THE REQUIREMENT WAS FOR THAT KIND OF BUILDING AND THE PARKING THAT WAS REQUIRED IN THE LAND OF ELEMENT CODE.
NOW, IF THEY FIND THAT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.
>> THEY'D HAVE TO BUILD MORE BUILDING TO GET MORE PARKING WHICH DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
>> LET'S SEE. SO IF WE GOT RID OF PARKING MINIMUMS, THEY COULD BUILD THE NUMBER OF SPOTS THEY NEED.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD ACCORDING TO A STANDARD THAT DOESN'T SUIT THEM.
>> WHAT ABOUT UF? ARE THEY IN THE CITY? ARE THEY IN THE COUNTY?
>> I THINK THAT'S A SHOPPING CENTER.
>> IF IT'S A MALL, THIS DOESN'T.
[01:15:01]
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT IT. IT'S A CLINIC THUG.
>> DO YOU WANT TO JUST TALK THIS TO THE COMMISSION FLO? I FEEL LIKE SAS DONE A TON OF WORK ON THAT WHAT MADE A LOT OF SENSE.
>> WELL, WE DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS FROM FOLKS WHO ARE HERE.
WHY DON'T WE TAKE A MOMENT TO HEAR WHAT OUR CITIZENS HAVE TO SAY.
>> TINA KRISHNER, 406 BEACH STREET.
THANK YOU FOR PLANNING FOR DOING SUCH GREAT WORK ON THE PARKING ANALYSIS.
I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
I THINK THAT CHAIR ROBS BROUGHT THIS UP TO THAT RECENTLY CASE 2024 004 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE TRC, AND IT'S A LIVE LOCAL PROJECT THAT HAS 80 CONDOS, AS WELL AS MEDICAL OFFICES.
RIGHT NOW, AND IF I READ THE APPLICATION RIGHT, HOPEFULLY, I'M RIGHT, THERE IS 192 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE IN THE PLAN, BUT THEY ARE DEFICIENT BY 34 PARKING SPACES.
IT'S MY IMPRESSION THAT IF YOU CHANGE THIS, THAT IT WILL MAKE THEM ADD MORE PARKING SPACES.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT THE CURRENT APPLICATION.
ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO APPLY UNDER THE LESS STRINGENT PARKING STANDARDS BEFORE THIS GETS CHANGED, OR WILL THEY HAVE TO RESUBMIT THE APPLICATION? THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT IS IT GOING TO BE, IF YOU HAVE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, IS YOUR PROPOSAL SAYING IT GOES FROM NEEDING FOUR SPACES TO NOW IT WOULD NEED FIVE SPACES? THE LAST THING I'LL BRING UP IS BOARD MEMBER DOSTER, DID I PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME RIGHT? I LOVE THE IDEA OF GOING TO ZERO PARKING BECAUSE I THINK THE NEW WAVE IS COMING OF DRIVERLESS CARS.
BUT I THINK RIGHT NOW WITH LIVE LOCAL, IT WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE BECAUSE THE ONE THING THAT IS KEEPING US FROM GETTING HUGE, HUGE BUILDINGS, IN MY OPINION, ANYBODY, CORRECT ME, IS THE PARKING STANDARD.
THEY CANNOT BYPASS LOCAL PARKING STANDARDS.
WOULD GIVE IT A COUPLE OF YEARS TILL THE LIVE LOCAL DUST SETTLES IN FLORIDA, IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
NOTICES THE ERRORS IN THAT BEFORE YOU MAKE ANY CHANGES LIKE THAT.
I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I JUST THINK IT'S BAD TIMING.
>> BECAUSE THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL? THE NO MINIMUM.
SO RESIDENTIAL IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE NO MINIMUM.
RESIDENTIAL STILL HAS TO APPLY THE CURRENT CODE.
>> BUT LIVE LOCAL IS ON COMMERCIAL.
>> CONSIDERED A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
SO IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT, RIGHT? I GUESS I'M ASKING.
?? I MEAN, THE BOARD COULD CHOOSE TO MAKE CHANGES TO ANY OF THESE PARKING STANDARDS.
HOWEVER, WE WERE ONLY CONSIDERING CHANGES FOR COMMERCIAL.
>> I THINK LIVE LOCAL IS CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL AS A BUILDING.
SO IF I TAKE 2024 004 SUBMITTED BY YOUR BROTHER, IT'S A COMBINATION OF A CONDO BUILDING WITH 80 UNITS AND MEDICAL OFFICES.
THE PARKING, THE ARGUMENT THE DEVELOPER IS MAKING THAT THE PARKING SHOULD BE SHARED.
PEOPLE WHEN THEY GO TO WORK DURING THE DAY, THE MEDICAL OFFICES CAN DO THAT.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE CONSIDERING THAT TO BE BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL MIXED UP WITH COMMERCIAL.
>> THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE A COMMERCIAL ELEMENT THAT THIS MAY APPLY TO, BUT I DON'T THINK THE RESIDENTIAL IS GOING TO GO AWAY.
SO SOMEONE DID A FULL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, LIKE TRINAL OR WHATEVER, THEY'RE GOING TO BE TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT.
>> BUT IF I DON'T MEAN TO JUST A CONSIDERATION IF YOU WENT TO ZERO PARKING REQUIREMENTS, EVERY DEVELOPER WILL ALL OF A SUDDEN SAY IT'S ALL MIXED USE FOR ANY LIVE LOCAL PROPERTY. THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT.
>> YEAH. I THINK THIS IS COMMERCIAL ONLY.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING.
>> WHY YOU'RE THERE. JUST MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE STILL WE DON'T HAVE A GOOD DEFINITION OF WHEN YOU SAY IT'S RESIDENTIAL.
LET'S JUST PICK A CONDO OR EVEN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WORK FROM HOME.
ARE GOING TO WORK DURING THE DAY.
THEIR WORK IS IN ONE OF THE ROOMS IN THEIR RESIDENCE.
SO I THINK WE HAVE TO RETHINK ABOUT STARTING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SPACES FOR RESIDENCES, WHO MAY ACTUALLY, THERE MAY BE MORE OF THEM STAYING HOME THAN THEY WERE, SAY, SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO.
>> YOU MAY BE SEEING CLIENTS THAT COME TO THEIR HOUSE.
>> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE BIG CHANGES IN THE USE OF CARS IN THE COMING 10 YEARS, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW IF NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO CHANGE IT.
>> I JUST SAW AN ARTICLE WORK.
[01:20:01]
I THINK IT'S WAYMO AND LOS ANGELES AS NOW FREE CARS GOING AROUND, PICKING UP, DROPPING OFF PEOPLE. FREE.I THINK WHAT THEY WERE SAYING.
>> WE STARTED WAYMO BUSINESS SLOWLY.
>> ALL RIGHT. MR. HAFF SIR, COME FORWARD.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR.
>> GEORGE HEFE, 16 40 NORTH PARK DRIVE, WHICH IS IN THE CITY LOCATED IN COMMEDIA PARK.
ACTUALLY, THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER TOUCHED ON THE SUBJECT THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AND MOST OF THE QUESTIONS GOT TO ANSWER, BUT I WANT TO CLARIFY IF QUESTIONS ARE PERMITTED HERE, WOULD THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW BE RETROACTIVE SPECIFICALLY TO THAT PROJECT ON 15TH STREET, THE MEDICAL RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX?
>> I CAN ANSWER THAT. SO RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT A PENDING APPLICATION.
CURRENTLY, THERE'S NOT A PENDING APPLICATION FOR THE BOARD.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM ONLY, SO THERE'S NO FORMAL APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN PUT FORWARD OR ADVERTISED FOR DECISION-MAKING AT THIS POINT.
ANY FUTURE APPLICATION WOULD APPLY MOVING FORWARD.
SO THE CURRENT PROJECTS THAT ARE IN FOR REVIEW WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT THEY APPLIED.
>> WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THESE WAIVERS, DO THEY GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS?
>> WHAT WAIVER ARE WE SPEAKING OF?
>> I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THAT PROJECT RIGHT NOW, THE MULTI-FAMILY MEDICAL ONE, WHERE THEY ARE LOOKING TO CHANGE THE MATH ON IT BY SAYING THAT SOME OF THESE CARS CAN PARK THERE DURING THE DAY WHEN PEOPLE ARE AT WORK, ETC.
>> WE'VE REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT HOW THAT DYNAMIC WOULD WORK, AND EVEN IF IT'S FEASIBLE, QUESTIONING WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS A REASONABLE DYNAMIC TO ARTICULATE WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
WE'RE WAITING FOR MORE INFORMATION.
BUT RIGHT NOW, MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I'VE SHARED THIS WITH THE APPLICANT IS THAT LEVEL OF DEFICIT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COULD AGREE TO.
IT'S NOT A WAIVER, IT WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT SO THAT AT THE SAME SITE YOU COULD HAVE SHARED PARKING ON THAT SITE.
BUT AGAIN, WE'D WANT TO SEE DATA AND ANALYSIS THAT SUPPORTS THAT YOU COULD HAVE THAT LEVEL OF SHARED PARKING AMONG THOSE TWO USES.
GIVEN THAT WE KNOW THE DYNAMIC FOR MEDICAL AND OFFICE FACILITIES, IS THAT THEY GENERATE A HIGHER TRIP RATE, BUT THEY ALSO GENERATE HIGHER PARKING DEMAND ON A REGULAR BASIS, SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR BUSINESS MODEL.
IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE THE DYNAMIC THAT WAS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR IN THAT CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
>> I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THIS OUT OF THE SCOPE OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE HANDLED BY THE TRC AGAIN?
>> ANY COMMENTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED BY THE TRC TO THE APPLICANT HAVE TO BE REVISED AND BROUGHT BACK FOR REVIEW BY THE FULL BOARD.
>> IT'S HANDLED THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT, MS. ANNETTE CORONEY?
>> I'M NOT [BACKGROUND] ALL OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, COMMENTS?
>> WE NEVER FINISHED OUR ONE SPACE OF 200 SQUARE FEET IN THE MEDICAL OFFICE.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A PROBLEM.
TO ME, IT DOESN'T. I CAN SAY MOVE ON THERE.
WE STILL HAVE TWO SPACES FOR A CUSTOMER SERVICE STATION PLUS ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 300 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA FOR BARBARA BEAUTY, NAIL, SKINCARE, AND TATTOO PARLORS, WHICH SEEMS OKAY TO ME ALSO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S ALL WE'RE TALKING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, RIGHT?
>> I WANT TO GO DOWN. THERE'S JUST BELOW THAT, GO TO PARKING FLEXIBILITY, SECTION P. WHERE YOU ARE.
>> I'M OKAY. ANY CHANGES HERE?
>> GO TO SECTION B 1 LITTLE B.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SO BIG B TO 1 TO LITTLE B.
AND THERE IT STARTS THE AGREEMENT IS VALID.
ONLY THIS DEALS WITH SHARED PARKING.
>> THIS ISN'T NEW, RIGHT? WHAT YOU'RE ADDRESSING?
>> I WANT TO CORRECT AN ERROR.
>> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE.
>> ALL RIGHT. JUST GO DOWN TO 1B. ANYWAY [OVERLAPPING].
[01:25:04]
>> OKAY. GO TO THE LAST LINE ON 1B.
IT SAYS RECORDED WITH NASSAU COUNTY CLERK.
>> AND IT HAS TO READ MUST BE IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND RECORDED.
WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY CLERK OF THE COURTS.
THAT'S IF YOU HAVE A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, THAT HAS TO BE WHAT I CALL IT TAMMY.
BASICALLY, IT'S A LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT.
>> IT'S RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
SO WE JUST NEED THE WORD AND THAT'S ALL.
>> THAT'S NOT A CHANGE IN TERMS OF OUR CURRENT PROCESS, IS IT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO. THAT'S THAT'S EXISTING.
>> IT'S NOT A CHANGE, BUT IT'S [OVERLAPPING].
>>I'M JUST FIXING IT. IT'S JUST [OVERLAPPING].
>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW, THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT I WILL ASK ABOUT JUST BELOW THAT UNDER SECTION 3.
BASICALLY, IT SAYS, IF THE PARKING DEFICIT ON THERE'S A DOUBLE ON, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO TAKE ONE OF THE ON'S OUT.
I'M SORRY, ON AN EXISTING SITE IS WITHIN 20% OF [NOISE], AND ANYWAY, IT COMES DOWN TO UNIMPROVED PARKING AREAS.
NO DEFINITION. WHAT IS AN UNIMPROVED PARKING AREA?
>> THERE WOULD BE AN AREA LIKE [OVERLAPPING].
>> RAN BY THE TENNIS COURTS IN THE PICKLEBALL COURTS WHERE THERE ARE NO LINES, IT'S NOT PAVED.
IT'S EVERYTHING FOR HIMSELF, IT'S THERE TO BE PARKED ON.
>> AREA WHERE PEOPLE [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SAFETY ISSUE.
THERE ARE UNIMPROVED AREAS THAT ARE NOT SAFE TO PARK IN OR ON.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BUT UNIMPROVED THAT FEELS [BACKGROUND]
>>THAT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> BUT IT'S IN THIS SAME SECTION WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT?
THEN YOU PUT A NO PARKING SIGN THERE.
>> IF IT'S NOT SAFE. OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S JUST UNPAID TO ME.
>> THEY'RE IN VIOLATION IF IT'S UNAPPROVED ANYWAY.
>> NO. YOU CAN HAVE UNPAID PARKING.
>> YEAH. BUT YOU SAID [OVERLAPPING].
IS THAT GOOD OR NOT, WE KICK 3 4, AND 5 TO THE COMMISSION IN THAT ORDER.
>> WE DON'T NEED TO DEFINE WHAT UNIMPROVED PARKING IS.
>> UNIMPROVED. I THINK IT'S A DEFINITION.
>> UNIMPROVED IS IT'S NOT IMPROVED.
IT'S NOT AN OBVIOUS PLACE TO PARK.
>> MAYBE WE WANT TO STOP THERE.
>> IS THERE A RUSH FOR US TO MAKE THIS DECISION?
>> ABOUT MEDICAL OFFICES AND CLINICS OR BEAUTY SALON.
IS THERE A PERMIT PENDING? LET'S PONDER THIS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S AN URGENCY TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO MOVE ON? WE'VE PRETTY MUCH HEAD OVER THE WHOLE THING DOWN TO ADDING AN AND.
>> YES WE HAVE. WE'RE VERY GOOD AT THAT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
ADD STANDARD FOR MEDICAL OFFICES AND CLINICS.
WE DIDN'T ADD A STANDARD, WE REVISED A STANDARD, I THINK. THEN WE [OVERLAPPING]
>> OKAY. ON HERE, IT WAS JUST ADD.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE DID THAT AND THAT WAS BASICALLY ADD A SPECIFICATION THAT INCREASES THE PARKING DENSITY BY 20%.
ADD A STANDARD FOR THE BEAUTY SALONS. WE'VE GOT THAT ONE.
THAT WAS ONE THAT KELLY CREATED FROM BASICALLY LOOKING AT A LOT OF OTHER DOCUMENTS AND THAT ONE BOOK THAT I GUESS IS THE BENCHMARK, THE ONE THAT'S AT THE END OF THIS DATA FILE.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF DATA THERE.
FOR EIGHTH STREET MIXED-USE, ADDRESS CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS.
>> CONSIDER PARKING IMPACTS FOR BEACH COMMERCIAL NODES. WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> AND THE QUESTION ON THE TABLE IS,
[01:30:01]
DID WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT ONE TO TWO AND WAIT ON THE OTHERS OR DO WE WANT TO KEEP GOING AND TALK?>> OR DO WE WAIT AND TALK ABOUT ALL FIVE OF THESE WITH THE COMMISSION?
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOU BROUGHT UP A GOOD QUESTION, DO WE HAVE SOMETHING SITTING IN A QUEUE? BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ANY DISAGREEMENT FROM ANYBODY ON THOSE FIRST TWO TERMS, THAT WAS REASONABLE.
KELLY'S DONE THE STAFF WORK ON IT? I'M NOT SURE WE COULDN'T GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND PROCESS THOSE TWO.
[NOISE] SO HOW DO WE WANT TO WRITE [OVERLAPPING] THE MOTION WOULD BE BASICALLY TO ACCEPT THE CHANGES TO TABLE 701.
>> 7.01.04 A PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENT REGARDING A BARBER SHOP, BEAUTY SALONS, AND MEDICAL CLINICS FOR ONE SPACE FOR 200 SQUARE FEET OF FOUR. THAT'S WHY YOU WHEN CHANGED [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF WE MADE A MOTION THAT SAID [OVERLAPPING].
>> AND ADDED AND. [LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW IF THE AND GOT TO BE IN.
ALL RIGHT, SO IF WE MADE A MOTION, WHICH BASICALLY SAID UNDER TABLE SEVEN DECIMAL ZERO ONE DECIMAL ZERO FOUR A, PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO SAID TABLE.
ADD A BARBERSHOP, BEAUTY SHOP, NAIL SALON, SKINCARE, OR TATTOO PARLOR, THE NEW SPECIFICATION WOULD BE TWO SPACES PER CUSTOMER, I'M SORRY, PER OPERATOR.
TRY IT AGAIN, TWO SPACES PER OPERATOR WORKSTATION, PLUS ONE SPACE FOR EACH 300 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.
SECOND, MODIFY MEDICAL OFFICE, AND CLINIC SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING TO ONE SPACE PER 200 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA.
>> WAIT A MINUTE. [LAUGHTER] HANG ON. ARE YOU FINISHED?
>> OKAY. NOW, WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? [BACKGROUND] HEARING NONE I'LL CALL THE QUESTION.
>> OPPOSED LIKE SIGN. THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
>> THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THE OTHER THREE AND HAVE THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
>> ARE WE DISCUSSING THAT WITH THE CITY COMMISSION?
>> OG ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO TALK TO WITH THEM, SO ADD TO THAT LIST?
>> YES. DO YOU NEED A MOTION FROM US TO PUSH THOSE OVER?
>> A MOTION ON REFERRING ITEMS NUMBER THREE, FOUR, AND FIVE, UNDER DISCUSSION OBJECTIVES?
>> UNDER 5.4. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT STEP. TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A SECOND. THAT WAS, [OVERLAPPING].
>> MR. BENNETT MADE THE MOTION.
>> NICK WITH THE SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR JUST SAY, AYE.
HEARING NONE, THE MOTION IS APPROVED TO BE PASSED ON TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
[6.5 Perspective on Board processes - Self Evaluation]
PERSPECTIVE ON BOARD PROCESSES SELF-EVALUATION, MR. STEVENSON.>> I WILL ATTEMPT TO BE BRIEF.
OBSERVING SOME RECENT ACTIONS ON THE PART OF THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH DID NOT, IN MY OPINION, GO WELL FOR THE VAB, AS WELL AS ANOTHER LENGTHY COURT-RELATED ISSUE THAT'S GOING ON.
I JUST HAD SOME GENERAL THOUGHTS OR OBSERVATIONS.
THESE ARE MINE, SO I'M NOT SAYING ANYBODY ELSE EVEN OWNS HIMSELF.
NUMBER ONE, I DON'T THINK WE'RE PUTTING ON OUR DEVELOPER'S HAT WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS.
>> OKAY. THAT'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M GOING TO DO ONE AT A TIME. THEN I WILL FORGET.
>> [LAUGHTER] OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE.
WELL, THIS IS MY OBSERVATION FROM [OVERLAPPING].
>> OKAY. BECAUSE I'M SURE NICK DOES.
>> WE'RE FOCUSING MORE ON OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, I.E.
SEPTIC VERSUS SEWER, TREE LOSS, AND SO FORTH.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY THINKING ABOUT WHAT THE WORST CASE COULD BE THAT A DEVELOPER COULD INSTITUTE BASED ON.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE SAID BEFORE. THERE'S A WORD AT.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO DO MORE OF WHAT I'LL CALL RISK ANALYSIS.
I'LL GO FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT.
IF YOU'RE GOING ON A MISSION, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO SIGN UP TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE WORST CASE CAN BE. SAME THING IN THE MEDICAL EMERGENCY ROOM.
YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE WORST CASE FIRST AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO WHAT REALITY IS.
[01:35:01]
>> [LAUGHTER] WHAT DOCTOR DOES THAT AGAIN?
>> [LAUGHTER] THEY ALL DO. I'M NOT SURE WE UNDERSTAND OR ANALYZE AND THIS CAME FROM THE CLASS THAT SOME OF US ATTENDED, THE LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS OF OUR CURRENT DECISIONS.
LOOKING DOWN. I'M TALKING A LITTLE BIT OVER THE HORIZON.
I'M NOT SURE WE'RE REALLY FOCUSING ENOUGH ON THAT.
I DO THINK AND I WILL SAY I THOUGHT THE DATA PACKAGE TONIGHT WAS VERY GOOD.
THE FACT THAT THE MINUTES AND STUFF THAT WE HAD ON THAT SUBJECT WERE INCORPORATED IN THERE.
I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT'S A BIG IMPROVEMENT, JUST IN TERMS OF IT CAN REFRESH YOUR MEMORY, FROM NOTES AND SO ON.
BUT I THINK IN SOME CASES, WE NEED A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I'M SORRY, STAFF REPORT, LOOKING AT A BROADER VIEW.
>> CAN I INTERRUPT? WHAT WOULD BE YOUR EXPECTATION OF THAT DIFFERENCE? THAT WHAT STAFF WOULD PROVIDE TO US? DO YOU HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> I'D LOVE A WORST-BASED ANALYSIS.
>> THAT WOULD BE PICKING ONE, AND THEN YOU BOIL THAT WAY.
I JUST DON'T SEE BEING DONE I ROLL OVERTLY.
>> I'LL SCHOLAR INTERJECT ON THAT.
STEP DOES, WHEN YOU LOOK IN YOUR ANNEX SOMETHING, THEY LOOK AT THE MAXIMUM UNITS YOU CAN PUT BASED ON THE DENSITY THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
FOR EXAMPLE, FOR ANNEXING A PIECE, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR MDR EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE, AND IT'S THREE ACRES, THEY WOULD SAY THE MAXIMUM UNITS ARE 24 UNITS.
THAT IS THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO.
>> YOU'LL NEVER GET 24 ANYWAY BECAUSE BY THE TIME YOU DEVELOP THE OTHER THINGS YOU [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION.
WHAT DOES THE BALANCE SAY? THIS IS WHAT IT COULD BE.
BUT NOW LET'S GO BACK TO WHAT THE REAL CASE IS.
WHAT'S THE PATIENT'S REAL PROBLEM?
>> SOMETIMES THEY DON'T KNOW THAT.
>> YOU HAVE TO UTILIZE WHAT I WOULD SAY BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH AT LEAST ONE OF THESE CASES THAT WENT TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I DON'T THINK I COMPLETELY AGREED WITH THE DOCUMENT THAT WENT FORWARD TO THEM.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS GOING TO BE IN THAT DOCUMENT.
WE DIDN'T GO BACK AND I WANT TO SAY REASSESS IT.
WE WENT TO THE ZERO NO IN TERMS OF LIKE THE PUD SITUATION.
BUT I WAS LOOKING MAYBE TUNNEL VISION AND SAID, THE ONLY THING WE'RE CHANGING IS WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ZERO REQUIREMENT IS FROM A SPACE STANDPOINT.
BUT THERE WERE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WERE IN THERE.
WE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE COVERED THAT AND THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
I'M JUST SAYING IT WAS WRONG WHAT WENT FORWARD TO SAYING WE DID NOT OVERTLY MAKE THAT FINAL REVIEW.
KELLY IS ALREADY WORKING ON THIS ONE, SO AGAIN, ANOTHER ONE, INCREASED HEADS-UP AWARENESS OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE TRC AND OTHER BOARD AREAS.
SOME OF THAT IS JUST FOR OUR EDIFICATION, SO ON, BUT PEOPLE, CITIZENS DO COME AND ASK US.
YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT. I THINK SHE'S WORKING ON HOW WE CAN SOLVE THAT ONE.
>> PETER, IT'S ON THE WEBSITE.
EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THERE AND THERE'S A PACKET THAT YOU LIKED TO, THAT YOU CAN SEE ALL THE MATERIAL.
>> I'M ASKING FOR SOMEBODY TO BOIL THE OCEAN DOWN TO MAYBE A GALLON JOB.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT GOES INTO THEIR PACKETS THAT THEY HAVE TO PROCESS.
THAT'S OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE LOOK AT.
WE CAN'T UNLESS YOU WANT TO CHANGE THOSE RULES, THEN YOU CAN DO THAT.
>> I TRY BRINGING THESE UP FOR THESE ARE JUST THINGS THAT I SEE RIGHT NOW NOT WORKING THE WAY I VIEW THEM TO BE BEST. I UNDERSTAND.
>> IN SOME CASES WE'RE LOOKING AT A GET AN OFFICIAL MAP.
I REALLY, AS INDIVIDUALS, DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PHYSICAL LOCATION LOOKS LIKE, UNLESS WE DRIVE THERE AND LOOK AT IT AND SAY, WOW, I WONDER IF.
>> I BELIEVE OR NOT, TECHNICALLY, WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT.
>> NO, YOU CAN'T, BUT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO.
YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO IT BASED ON THEM.
>> I'M NOT BASING IT ON ANYTHING.
I'M BASING IT ON THE FACT THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETIMES.
>> WELL, I MEAN, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT ON THE PHONE, BUT WE GOT THAT EDUCATION.
NO, WE SHOULD NOT BE GOING DOWN AND LOOK AT THAT BY OURSELVES.
>> YES, MA'AM. JUST TO JUMP IN WHERE YOU'RE HEADED WITH THAT.
YOU'RE SPEAKING TO THOSE DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL SETTING.
[01:40:03]
NONE OF THIS BOARD'S DECISIONS ARE MADE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL SETTING.YOU CAN TALK WITH THE APPLICANT, YOU CAN TALK WITH STAFF. THAT'S ALL FINE.
YOU'RE ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
WE'RE NOT DOING ANY FINAL DECISION MAKING, AND NONE OF THAT IS DONE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL SETTING.
>> FOR IS NOT AWARE OF THAT RULE THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
THE LAST ITEM I HAD WAS WE'RE NOT ALWAYS CHECKING FOR DEFINITIONS ON DOCUMENTATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND GOING BACK AND QUESTIONING IT.
FIGURING OUT WHEN WE NEED IT OR DON'T NEED IT.
THE REASON I BROUGHT THESE UP ARE TWO THINGS.
ONE, THE UPDATE OF THE PUD SECTION OF THE LDC, THAT WASN'T THE BEST OF SITUATIONS.
THE ANNEXATION ON THE 14TH, 15TH STREET LAND THAT 3.5 ACRES OR SO ON 14TH STREET.
BUT IT ALSO AFTER HAVING SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN AMEDIA PARK.
I JUST DON'T SEE THAT HAVING BEEN LOOKED AT.
LET'S SEE. 15TH STREET IS A COUNTY ROAD?
>> OKAY. SO TECHNICALLY, WE DON'T CONTROL IT.
BUT NOW YOU GET INTO CURB CUTS. THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS.
THE OTHER THING IS, IF YOU DRIVE SOUTH ON 15TH, YOU SUDDENLY ENTER INTO AMILA PARK.
IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT DOWN THERE.
IT'S THE STREETS AREN'T EVEN AS WIDE.
>> SO SHOULD STAFF THEN HAVE A SECTION ON ANY AERATION OF WHAT IT COULD BE DEVELOPED CURRENTLY WITHOUT BEING ANNEXED SO THAT WE HAVE BOTH SIDES OF THAT AS PART OF OUR DECISION? THAT SHOULD IT BE ANNEXED.
>> EXCELLENT QUESTION. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I DID.
I DID TALK TO A PROFESSOR WHO WAS ONE OF THE INSTRUCTORS AT THE CLASS THAT WE WENT TO FOR PLANNING PURPOSES.
HE SAID, WELL, THAT IS ONE CASE WHERE NO MATTER WHAT DECISION YOU MAKE CAN BE THE WRONG.
I'LL TELL YOU WHY VERY QUICKLY.
IF YOU GO AHEAD, HE SAID, WHAT WAS SOME OF THE REASONS.
I SAID, WELL, SEPTIC TANKS OR ONE.
THE FACT WE FELT WE HAD MORE CONTROL OVER WHAT WAS GOING TO THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE IF IT WAS UNDER CITY ANNEXATION.
BUT IT TURNED AROUND MID BECAUSE OF ZONING.
NOW IF IT HAD BEEN ZONE R1, IT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM.
NOW, CONVERSELY, LET'S JUST SAY WE SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT IT INTO THE CITY.
NOW THE QUESTION IS, THEY COULD PUT IN SEPTIC TANKS AND SO FORTH. STILL MOVE FORWARD? SO YOU COULD SAY NO, WE WON'T TAKE IT IN THE CITY.
THEY STILL COULD COME UP WITH A DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER. SO YOU CAN LOSE AGAIN.
>> BUT HOWEVER, THERE'S ANOTHER OPTION, WHICH I'LL HAVE FOR THE ATTORNEY.
CAN WE ACCEPT AN ANNEXATION UNDER WHATEVER LAND USE AND ZONING WE WANT? NOT NECESSARILY. NO.
>> DOES THAT GET INTO THAT CONDITIONAL.
>> SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF KINDS OF ANNEXATIONS, RIGHT? WHEN THIS BOARD SEES AN ANNEXATION, IT'S ALREADY CONTIGUOUS, AND IT IS COMING INTO THE CITY, MEANING IT'LL BE UNDER THE CITY'S RULES FOR DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE OTHER ANNEXATIONS FARTHER OUT AWAY FROM OUR CITY CENTER, IF YOU WILL, THE PARKWAY AND, AMELIA ROAD, AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
WE ARE NOT CONTIGUOUS, SO WE ARE NOT LIKELY CLINCH DRIVE.
WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO ANNEX THOSE FOR YEARS TO COME.
ON THOSE WHERE WE ENTER INTO AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS SO THAT THEY CAN GET SEWER AND WATER SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY, WE CANNOT, I HAVE RESEARCHED THIS.
WE CANNOT CONDITION THE ANNEXATION ON DEVELOPING UNDER THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT RULES IF THEY'RE NOT ALREADY IN THE CITY LIMITS. WE'VE TRIED THAT.
NOW, THERE IS ANOTHER ANGLE TO THAT, AND THAT WAS IF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY TOGETHER AGREE ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO APPLY.
WE ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
THE LAST TIME WE SPOKE WITH THE COUNTY NASSAU COUNTY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED.
ENFORCING PEOPLE THAT SIGN AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT TO DEVELOP UNDER THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO THERE IS NO LIKELY INTER LOCAL AGREEMENT.
BUT ONCE THE LET'S CHANGE THAT.
WELL, TWIST THE ARMS OF THE COUNTY FOLKS.
THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO DO THAT.
[01:45:01]
SO THE COUNTY WOULD NEED TO AGREE AND WE CAN ENTER INTO AN INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT.THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY, THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE SEEN, 14TH AND 15TH, OTHER ANNEXATIONS, FOR THE MOST PART ARE ALREADY COMING INTO THE CITY.
SO THEY ARE DEVELOPING UNDER OUR RULES.
WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE GENTLEMAN AT THE PLANNING SEMINAR, I THINK THAT HIS ADVICE WAS RIGHT.
I'VE SAID THAT BEFORE TO THIS BOARD AND TO THE CITY COMMISSION IS I CANNOT THINK OF, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY DON'T EXIST, AND THAT'S WHY WE TALK HERE.
I CAN'T THINK OF A NEGATIVE REASON TO BRING A PROPERTY INTO THE CITY.
OTHER THAN AND THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT THEIR MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT IS USUALLY POSSIBLE WHEN YOU HAVE SEWER VERSUS SEPTIC.
MORE DENSITY FOR RESIDENTIAL. MORE INTENSIVE FORMERCAL.
SO THAT'S A KEY REASON TO SAY NO, BUT WHAT YOU SAID WAS THE FLIP SIDE OF IT.
WHAT YOU PROBABLY WANT TO LOOK AT, AND YOU CAN WE CAN PROVIDE IT TO YOU.
I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK STAFF TO ANALYZE IT.
BUT YOU ARE LOOKING AT AN ANNEXATION POTENTIAL.
YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT UNDER LET'S SAY, IF IT'S C1 IN THE COUNTY HERE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN GO AND LOOK AT ALL OF THE AVAILABLE USES AND SAY, WELL, AT 14:15, THEY COULD HAVE A USED CAR LOT.
YOU CAN THINK OF SOME THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT BE SOMETHING THAT AMELIA PARK RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE EITHER.
NOW, THEY WON'T NECESSARILY HAVE 100 RESIDENTS GOING IN AND OUT OF 15TH STREET, MAYBE, BUT SO THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT WE DISCUSS HERE.
WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT THE USES ALLOWED IN THE COUNTY ARE.
BUT AGAIN, I CAUTION YOU DON'T ASK STAFF TO DO THAT BEFOREHAND.
WE CAN BRING THOSE CODES HERE.
BUT THAT'S HOW YOU WEIGH THAT.
>> NOW, TAMMY, IF WE WERE TO REDO THAT PARTICULAR VOTE ON IT.
WE COULD HAVE SAID WE WILL ACCEPT IT AS AN ANNEXATION ACTIVITY, BUT NOT AS C1 OR C2.
>> WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IN THE INSTANCE WHEN WE ANNEX PROPERTY IN, WE ASSIGN A CITY LAND USE AND ZONING CATEGORY.
THAT COMES ALONG WITH THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE AND SEPARATE ORDINANCES ON THE CITY COMMISSION'S AGENDA, AND THEY'RE ALSO RECOMMENDED HERE.
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO RECOMMEND ANOTHER ZONING OR, FUTURE LAND USE, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE PLANNING STAFF IS GOING TO GIVE YOU THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS.
SO PLUNKING DOWN LIKE RESIDENTIAL JUST SO YOU AVOID A LIVE LOCAL PROJECT IN THE MIDDLE OF COMMERCIAL, STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND AGAINST THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT WHEN YOU LOOK AND THERE'S REASONS FOR IT.
PROFESSIONAL REASONS AND PRACTICAL REASONS.
THOSE THINGS YOU WANT TO CONSIDER.
>> BUT, TAMMY, I THINK THE THING FOR US AS A BOARD, WE NEED TO BE MORE COGNIZANT OF IS THE POTENTIAL OF THIS HAPPENING MORE OFTEN, WHICH IS YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT IS NOT IN THE CITY.
THEY WANT TO COME INTO THE CITY.
WHILE, THEY MAY NOT SPECIFICALLY SAY THEY WANT TO COME UNDER LOCAL.
THEY JUST SAY, OH, WE WANT TO BE COMMERCIAL, AND WE WANT TO COME IN AS COMMERCIAL.
AND THEN BOOM ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE FIND OUT THAT IT'S GOING TO BE LOCAL.
THEN THAT IMPACT THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS, AS LIB LOCAL IS NOT WHAT WE HAD ON OUR RADAR STREAM.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE MORE AWARE THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN MORE.
>> WELL, I WOULD SAY THIS, AND OBVIOUSLY, I SAY THIS RESPECTFULLY.
2023 WAS THE VERY FIRST ITERATION OF LIF LOCAL.
THAT WAS A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.
YOU ALL HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG OR IMPROPER OR MISSED ANYTHING.
THE DEVELOPMENT AT 14TH AND 15TH, THE ANNEXATION.
WE KNEW, THE CITY COMMISSION KNEW, THE CITIZENS KNEW THAT LIVE LOCAL.
IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT ALL THE PUBLIC MEETINGS.
WE ALL KNEW IT WAS A POSSIBILITY.
THE CITY COMMISSION DECIDED TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY.
THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
NOW, WE HAVE A NEW CITY COMMISSION.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THOSE THINGS.
YOU ALL HAVE DONE, AND I CAN'T THINK OF AN APPLICATION THAT HAS COME THROUGH HERE.
LIVE LOCAL SURPRISED ALL OF US, AND WE'RE ALL JUST SUPPOSED TO DEAL WITH IT.
AND IMAGINE THE LAWYERS, WE JUST HAD A WEBINAR TODAY ABOUT IT, WAS FOR ONE HOUR.
I'M LIKE, WE NEED SIX HOURS OF THIS, YOU KNOW? THERE'S A LOT TO IT.
NOW NOT ONLY STAFF, BUT THIS BOARD IS GOING TO KNOW FULL WELL WHEN YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES AND THEY'RE LIKE,
[01:50:01]
WE WANT TO ANNEX WELL.YOU CAN JUST ASSUME IT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO AND MAKE THE DECISION.
>> TAMMY, I THINK ONE THING YOU MADE TO 14 15TH STREET, AWFUL LOT OF WE DON'T HAVE TWO DIFFERENT STREETS.
SO IF THAT PROPERTY HAD ONLY BEEN ON THE 14TH STREET SIDE, I'M NOT EVEN SURE THE ISSUE WOULD HAVE COME UP.
SURE. BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NO EXIT OR EGRESS INGRESS ON THE 15TH STREET SIDE.
>> THIS IS NOT TO BE AT ALL SNARKY, I PROMISE, OR OBNOXIOUS.
SERIOUSLY. A LONG TIME, THIS STUFF, DEVELOPMENT AROUND EMILIA PARK THAT IS SCARING THE RESIDENTS AND WORRYING THEM. I GET IT.
EMILIA PARKS ROADS ARE PUBLIC ROADS.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE, AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO STAY PUBLIC.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A REAL OPTION BECAUSE BUT YOU COULD GATE OFF EMILIA PARK RIGHT THERE, SO NOBODY CAN CUT THROUGH 15.
IT'S A PD APPROVED BY THE CITY.
THOSE ROADS WERE CONSTRUCTED TO CITY STANDARDS, AND THEY'RE GREAT ROADS, AND IF EMILIA PARK WANTS TO PRIVATIZE ONE OR SOME OF THEIR ROADS IF IT MAKES SENSE, THEY CAN DO THAT.
THEY CAN STOP ALL OF THIS MADNESS.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO CONTROL CURB CUTS INTO 15TH STREET, DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
THE COUNTY'S GOING TO WANT IT TO BE THE SAFEST.
WE KNOW THAT. WE ALL GET IN THE SUICIDE LANE AT MIDDLE OF THE DAY AND PRAY.
THIS ISN'T MUCH FURTHER NORTH.
SO 14TH STREET IS A PROBLEM, 15TH STREET IS GOING TO BE NEEDED TO BE USED.
NO MATTER WHAT DEVELOPMENTS THERE, WHETHER IT'S A CAR DEALERSHIP OR WHATEVER OR A MIXED USE.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT'S ALL GREAT.
LET'S JUST BE HAPPY FOR 84 UNITS.
THE FACT IS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TRC COMMENTS THAT ARE BACK, THE DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED, IT'S JUST IN THE VERY BEGINNING.
IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO. WITH THAT MANY UNITS.
IT DOESN'T MEAN NOTHING, BUT JUST WE HAVE TO BE PATIENT AND WATCH OUR CODES, WHICH ARE VERY GOOD, WORK, AND THEY DO WORK, AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOME OF THESE SCARY PROJECTS THAT COME TO TRC.
THAT'S WHAT THE VERY FIRST STEPS ARE THEM SNIFFING AROUND WITH A LITTLE PLAN, AND A LOT OF OUR CODES ARE GOING TO STOP THEM, SETBACKS AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO, EVEN WHERE THEY ARE NOW.
SO 14TH AND 15TH IS THE ONLY PROJECT THAT I CAN THINK.
I MEAN, GIVE YOURSELVES A BREAK BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT MISSED, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING.
>> BUT IF THEY IN THAT SCENARIO, THOUGH, IF THEY COME IN AS A COMMERCIAL PUD.
WE'VE JUST HAD CONVERSATION ABOUT PUDS, THAT YOU CAN CHANGE EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SETBACKS AND THE LANDSCAPING AND ALL THAT.
>> YEAH, BUT THE FUN THING AND ABOUT THAT FOR US AS CITIZENS, THEY HAVE TO DO IT ALL THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. IT'S A PUD.
BOY, EVERY SINGLE BLADE OF GRASS ON YOUR PROJECT IS BEING ANALYZED.
SO THAT'S A GOOD THING. I SEE.
BECAUSE THAT'S A PROBLEM WITH LIFT LOCAL.
WE DON'T GET TO HAVE A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING.
IT'S JUST DO IT AND YOU HAVE TO ALLOW IT AT HIGHEST DENSITY, HIGHEST HEIGHT.
BUT OUR OTHER STANDARDS ARE GOING TO WORK.
>> TECHNICALLY, ARE THEY STILL UNDER THE OLD DENSITY PER ACRE, THE 30?
>> YES. IF THEIR PROJECT DOESN'T WORK AND THEY HAVE TO PUT AN APPLICATION IN WITH SOMETHING ELSE, IT'LL BE UNDER 18.
THEY'LL BE UNDER THE 18 DENSITY. THEY'RE NOT LOCKED IN.
THEY HAVE NO VESTED RIGHTS AT THIS TIME FOR 34 UNITS.
THEY'RE GOING THROUGH A PROCESS THAT, LIKE I SAID, IS REALLY JUST THE BEGINNINGS.
I THINK THE PROCESS IS GOING TO WORK JUST FINE, AND I THINK.
>> WE REALLY CAN'T INFLUENCE 15TH STREET FROM A STANDPOINT OF THE HIGHWAY.
>> THE COUNTY DOES THAT BASED ON THEIR STANDARDS.
>> BUT SOME OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT COULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF OUR CHANGES.
>> EXACTLY. THAT'S THE BEAUTIFUL THING ABOUT IT.
AND THAT PROPERTY, 14TH AND 15TH RIGHT NOW UNDER CODE DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR THE PUD.
>> CAN I INTERJECT SOMETHING JUST ANOTHER WAY LIKE ADDING TO THIS CONVERSATION TO EXTEND IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.
THERE ARE SOME COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THE POTENTIAL OF LIVE LOCAL.
PARTICULARLY THOSE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSS OF COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL OR MIXED-USE AREAS WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITY, THEY REALLY WANT TO HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.
WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY'VE PROVIDED INCENTIVES TO DEVELOP SOMETIMES AT HIGHER INTENSITIES IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, SO THAT YOU'RE GUIDING THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'RE NOT SAYING NO, BECAUSE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES MAY CONTINUE TO EXIST IN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS.
[01:55:04]
BUT THEY'RE SAYING BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR YOU TO DO IT IN THESE AREAS INSTEAD AND TRY TO AVOID THE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS.IF WE THINK ALBEIT FROM AN INCENTIVIZING STANDPOINT, MAYBE WE START TO FLIP THIS AND LOOK AT AREAS WHERE YOU'D WANT TO ENCOURAGE IT THAT WHEN WE START TO GO BACK TO THE PUD DISCUSSION HERE, MAYBE THAT'S HOW WE REFRAME IT A LITTLE BIT.
NOW, THE DENSITY WITHIN THOSE EXISTING AREAS REMAIN THE SAME.
BUT MAYBE YOU LOOK AT R3 AS AN OPTION TO PROVIDE FOR SOME OF THAT AND HAVE EXPEDITED REVIEW PROCESSES THAT THING.
>> ALL OF THAT WAS EITHER C1 OR C2 RIGHT ON THAT WHOLE.
>> FOURTEEN AND 15, THE C1 AND C2.
>> I LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IS OF THAT AREA TOO.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO BRING IN SOME M1 THERE TO HAVE SOME BUFFERING AGAINST THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE PUDS THAT ARE THERE WITH BOTH, I THINK CRYSTAL OAKS AS WELL AS AMELIA PARK.
THOSE ARE BOTH TWO DIFFERENT PUDS.
THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER IS IT AN ASSISTED LIVING LOCATED RIGHT THERE ON NECTARINE AND 14TH.
IT'S A RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, BUT IT'S ALSO A COMMERCIAL OPERATION.
IT'S RIGHT THERE. MIXED USE COULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE, ESPECIALLY ON THE 15TH STREET SIDE.
BUT C1 IS A NICE STEP DOWN DISTRICT BETWEEN THE TWO AS WELL.
>> WELL, THAT'S ALL GOOD THOUGHTS.
THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT.
>> AGAIN, I JUST LOOKING AT HOW DO WE MAKE THE PROCESS BETTER.
>> I THINK THAT THIS IS A SELF EVALUATION IS A VERY GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
IT'S LETTING US ALL LOOK AT OUR WHAT IS THE BOARD DOES AND AREAS THAT WE CAN APPROVE IT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PUTTING THOSE THOUGHTS TOGETHER, MR. STEVENSON.
ITEM 6.6, COORDINATION OF A JOINT WORKSHOP FOR
[6.6 Coordination of a Joint Workshop with Planning Advisory Board and City Commissioners Prioritization of discussion topics for the year 2025.]
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COMMISSIONERS PRIORITIZATION OF DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR THE YEAR 2025.I THINK THAT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING THE STAFF AND OUR SCHEDULES AND THAT THING.
>> COULD I ADD A SUGGESTION FOR THE AGENDA?
>> SORRY. I WONDER IF WE COULD AT THAT MEETING, SEVEN OF US FIVE OF THEM AND KELLY AND TAMMY, AGREE ON WHAT THE TWO SECTIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSTANTLY COME UP FOR INTERPRETATION.
I'M GOING TO GET THE NUMBERS WRONG, 103, THE TRONGALI, LDC.
CAN WE AGREE ON WHAT THOSE SECTIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? ALL 14 OF US AGREE ON WHAT THOSE MEAN.
>> KELLY AND I HAVE ALREADY STARTED WORKING ON THIS AND THINKING ABOUT IT.
WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO IS INSTEAD OF, THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE DIFFICULTY.
WE'RE TAKING LANGUAGE THAT WAS DRAFTED IN THE EARLY 2000S, AND WE ARE TRYING TO STRIKE THROUGH AND ADD LANGUAGE TO GET WHERE WE WANT.
I THINK IN APPROACHES, LET'S JUST DECIDE WHERE WE WANT TO BE.
WE KNOW HOW IT'S NOT JUST BEEN INTERPRETED TWO WAYS.
IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED LIKE SIX WAYS.
SERIOUSLY. I'VE HEARD, REMEMBER, GIVEN THE EXAMPLE HERE.
IF WE READ IT, YOU COULD READ IT, AND SOME HAVE READ IT THIS WAY, THAT YOU HAVE ONE HOUSE ON 10 ACRES.
THAT'S IT. YOU TAKE THAT HOUSE DOWN.
BUT THAT'S ALL YOU GET IS ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
WE COULD HAVE WHERE, IF WHAT WE WANT IS IF YOU'RE COMBINING LOTS, YOU'RE TAKING ONES DOWN IS YOU'RE NEVER ALLOWED TO ASSEMBLE LOTS AND RECONSTRUCT THE PLATTED LOTS.
BUT THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE IF WE TAKE THE LANGUAGE AND WE START FROM SCRATCH.
WE TELL THE WORLD WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
NO TRYING TO USE THIS OLD LANGUAGE, WHERE THEY HAD AN IDEA THEN, AND WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY IT 25 YEARS LATER.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO SCRAP IT.
WE'VE BEEN THERE, AND IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO REWRITE LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY THERE.
IT'S BETTER TO SAY WHAT WE WANT AS A COMMUNITY AND THEN PUT IT THERE AND MAKE IT AS CLEAR AS WE CAN.
>> YOU AND KELLY ARE WORKING ON THAT.
>> WE ALREADY ARE WORKING ON TALKING ABOUT THAT IDEA.
WE HAVE TO AMEND THOSE SECTIONS OF THE CODE.
WE HAVE TO, OR WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO AROUND AND AROUND.
STAFF DOESN'T EVEN AT THIS POINT, KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH APPLICATIONS LIKE THAT.
IT'S EASY WHEN THEY WANT TO RESTORE ALL OF THEIR PLATTED LOTS WITH WHATEVER THEIR PROPERTY IS.
WE KNOW THAT THAT GOES FOR A VARIANCE.
[02:00:02]
WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING ELSE THAN RESTORE THE ORIGINAL LOTS, WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO TEAR DOWN A HOUSE AND THEN ASSEMBLE A 50 FOOT BY 100 LOT.THE KELLY HAS TAKEN THOSE TWO SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN MAKING THE NEW LOTS IN A SUBDIVISION INSTEAD OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A VARIANCE, AND WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS THAT DON'T WANT THAT.
THEY WANT THEM GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING TO JUST GET A VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE NEED TO DRAFT IT WITH HOW WE WANT IT.
AT THE JOINT MEETING, I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT WE HAVE THAT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
THE SOONER WE DO IT, THE BETTER.
>> WE AND THE COMMISSION SEE THAT LANGUAGE PRIOR TO THAT MEETING?
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHEN YOUR JOINT MEETING IS GOING TO BE SCHEDULED.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT WE DIDN'T SEE THAT LANGUAGE AT ALL. WE NEED TO HAVE IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE HIGHER LEVEL [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT TO SEE, WHAT IS THAT OUTCOME BEFORE WE DRAFT ANYTHING.
>> IT IS COMPLETELY PLAUSIBLE THAT WE COULD END UP WITH A CODE THAT SAYS, IF YOU'VE COMBINED LOTS, YOU CAN NEVER UNCOMBINE THEM.
THAT'S EASY TO WRITE. THAT'S TWO SENTENCES.
>> ARE WE PAYING FOR THE PEOPLE. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT CAN COMBINE LOTS JUST FOR TAX PURPOSES.
>> I UNDERSTAND. I HAVE TO PROVIDE ALL THE OPTIONS, AND I WILL SAY TOO THAT THERE WILL BE PEOPLE THAT FEEL THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BECAUSE THEY'RE READY TO DO SOMETHING, OR WE DON'T EVEN KNOW.
THEY HAVEN'T COME FORWARD, BUT THEY'VE SPENT MONEY WITH SURVEYS AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, AND THEN THEY'RE LIKE, WHAT DO WE DO WITH THIS? GOODNESS. THERE ARE RISKS, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE THIS CLEAR BECAUSE WE ARE JUST STAFF DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO TREAT THESE APPLICATIONS.
>> THAT'S A CASE OF NOT DEFINING THE TERM.
I WOULD TELL YOU RIGHT OFF THE BAT.
[OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE THAT WAS THE WHOLE ISSUE.
THOSE ARE ALL THOSE LOTS OUT THERE IN 2015/16.
>> IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO JUST, LOTS THAT ARE COMBINED FOR TAX PURPOSES, IT WOULD APPLY, I THINK, IS THAT WHAT WE'VE HEARD IS THAT IF YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE AND YOU HAVE STRUCTURES THAT HAVE COVERED, MORE THAN ONE PLATTED LOT.
>> BUT THAT GOES TO THE PARCEL ID.
>> THAT WAS HOW WE ALL LOOKED AT IT BACK THEN.
>> BUT IF SOMEBODY CONSTRUCTS WHAT, I THINK THAT WE'VE HEARD HERE MOSTLY.
EVERYBODY IN TOWN DOESN'T FEEL THIS WAY, BUT WE'VE HEARD IT MOSTLY, AND WE THINK MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING ATTENTION FEEL THIS WAY.
WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS IF YOU BUILD STRUCTURES AND YOU'RE COVERING UP PLATTED LOTS WITH THESE STRUCTURES ON ONE SITE THAT YOU'VE BUILT THESE THINGS ON, YOU TAKE THOSE DOWN, YOU GET WHAT YOU BUILT ON.
THAT'S IT. YOU DON'T GET TO TEAR IT DOWN TO PLATTED LOTS.
>> OR UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORDS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I MEAN, PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD FROM THE ORIGINAL HISTORICAL PLAT.
>> IT WAS ALL PUT TOGETHER FOR WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET.
NOT TO GO AHEAD AND BUY SOMETHING AND CHANGE IT AND CREATE MORE DIFFICULT.
>> BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO BE MINDFUL.
THIS IS FOOD FOR THOUGHT, SO WE CAN AT THE FUTURE MEETINGS TALK ABOUT IT, IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING AND WHAT IS OFFENSIVE HAS BEEN REALLY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WHERE WE HAVE THE 25 FOOT LOTS, FOR THE MOST PART, BECAUSE 10305 APPLIES TO OTHERS, TOO.
REMEMBER, WE HAD SOMETHING ON FLETCHER.
THEY WERE DENIED A VARIANCE TO TAKE THEM DOWN TO THREE LOTS FROM ONE.
SOME OF THOSE ARE AFFECTED TOO, AND THEY DON'T END UP BEING TINY LOTS.
THEY'RE JUST BROKEN DOWN BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE PLATTED AGAIN.
>> JUST AS THINKING ABOUT LOCK.
SHOULD ANYBODY FROM MAIN STREET BE PART OF THIS MEETING? IS THERE ANYTHING.
>> JUST BECAUSE THEY DO REPRESENT DOWNTOWN.
>> NOT AS A, I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP IT JUST WITH US AND THE CITY COMMISSION.
I WAS THINKING A LITTLE MORE FORMAL.
>> ON 6.6, THEN STAFF WILL PROCEED WITH SETTING UP WORKING WITH US AND THE CITY COMMISSION TO COME UP WITH A MEETING DATE THAT'S CONVENIENT FOR ALL.
>> BEFORE WE GET INTO STAFF REPORT, I HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO MAYBE GET SOME ANSWERS TO FROM STAFF.
[02:05:05]
AGAIN, THIS IS RELATED TO THAT TRC 2024-0004.THAT WAS THE REDUCTION OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
YOU SAID THAT THERE'S MORE RESEARCH BEING DONE.
CAN YOU CATCH US UP ON WHAT'S BEING DONE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S BEEN ISSUED IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A VIABLE SOLUTION FOR THAT PROPERTY AND THAT WE NEED MORE INFORMATION.
>> HOW IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO PROVIDE?
>> BECAUSE THAT WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT, DOES TRC HAVE THE ABILITY TO GRANT A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING?
>> BUT THERE'S MORE INFORMATION THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING OUT TO THE TRC TO ANSWER THE QUESTION OF THE PARKING.
>> IF THEY'RE STILL WANTING TO PURSUE A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT, THEN WE WOULD NEED MORE INFORMATION.
>> LET'S SEE. MISS KELLY, I KNOW THAT YOU AT THE LAST MEETING, TALKING ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE CREATING OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION AND YOU GAVE A VERY LONG IN DEPTH RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER ROSS'S QUESTION.
I REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU CAN BOIL THAT BACK DOWN TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS SAID BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND IT TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH.
I NEED YOUR HELP ON THAT. CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS.
>> CAN I E-MAIL YOU THE STATEMENT?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT WE ALL SHOULD ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IT ALL MEANT, BECAUSE YOU WERE TRYING TO ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND SO IN DETAIL, BUT I THINK IT GOT LOST IN THE INTERPRETATION OF OUR CLARITY OF WHAT IT IS THAT, THIS WAS REALLY ABOUT.
THEN THIS HAS TO DO WITH IS THE SECTION 10305 AND APPLYING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE THIRD AND EIGHTH STREET PROJECT.
THAT WAS REALLY THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, AND I'M STILL CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE ANSWER IS.
>> I'M NOT SURE THE QUESTION IS.
>> WELL, THE QUESTION WAS, WHY DOESN'T SECTION 10305 APPLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT THIRD AND EIGHTH STREET.
>> IN THE RESPONSE, I LOOKED AT BOTH OF THE PARCELS AND PROVIDED AN ANSWER FOR THE MIXED USE SIDE, AND THEN FOR THE FOURTH STREET SIDE.
I CAN SEND THAT STATEMENT TO THE BOARD BECAUSE IT DOES BREAK IT DOWN PRETTY SPECIFICALLY.
>> WELL, I GUESS IF YOU COULD HELP US WITH THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
>> I THINK SO. THEN IF YOU WANT TO GIVE ME A CALL, WE CAN TALK THROUGH ANY QUESTION.
>> IT GETS BACK TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE HAD ABOUT 10305 AND 405.
I JUST KNOW HOW IT'S BEEN CHANGED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL.
>> THOSE WERE IN BASED ON INTERPRETATION AFTER THOSE MEETINGS.
>> BUT THAT'S A CONCERN THAT, WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS APPARENTLY GOING FORWARD, AND WE STILL HAVE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE FOLLOWING OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THAT'S MY CONCERN.
>> THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT.
>> THAT'S MY CONCERN. I DON'T REALLY QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW THAT CAN HAPPEN.
[02:10:01]
THE OTHER PIECE OF THIS, WHICH IS STILL OUT THERE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT IS EXACTLY BECAUSE I'M NOT DRIVING IT.BUT, THERE WAS A LEGAL OPINION ON THE CASE.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT HERE.
IT WAS THE ORDER ON PETITION OF WRIT OF CONCILIATORY.
>> APPARENTLY THEY'RE WAITING FOR DISCUSSION ON THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS, BUT DOESN'T THAT ALL NEED TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE YOU CAN TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL?
>> A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS AN EXTRAORDINARY WRIT UNDER THE LAW.
IS NOT A COURT ORDER THAT COMES FROM A REVIEW OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS SPECIFIC TO THE RECORD THAT WAS CREATED IN THAT HEARING AND TO THAT APPLICATION.
THAT COURT ORDER DOES NOT APPLY TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE OR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS AT ALL.
IT APPLIES TO THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE COURT.
IT DOESN'T CREATE PRECEDENT, AND THAT ORDER IS ON APPEAL.
THAT'S WHY THE COURT ORDER AND WHAT YOU'RE THINKING IS, WHY ARE THEY ABLE TO DO ANYTHING WITH SOMETHING THAT'S PENDING ON THE APPEAL.
A STAY OF DEVELOPMENT OF ANYTHING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN DO ON THE PROPERTY IS SOMETHING THAT THE AFFECTED PARTIES THAT FILED THE CHALLENGE OR THE WRIT, THEY NEED TO FILE FOR AN INJUNCTION.
I'M GUESSING THE REASON THAT HASN'T HAPPENED IS BECAUSE AN INJUNCTION IS SOMETHING THAT THE COURTS DO NOT ISSUE LIGHTLY.
TO STOP SOMEBODY FROM CHANGING THEIR PLANS, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED, AND THEN SUBMITTING A NEW APPLICATION, THE COURT IS NOT LIKELY TO AGREE TO.
THAT'S JUST MY GUESS, BUT AN INJUNCTION REQUEST HAS NOT BEEN FILED, AND THE CITY IS RESPONDING TO APPLICATIONS THAT IT RECEIVES.
IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS DRIVING, PUTTING IN A NEW APPLICATION, CONTINUING TO AND WE HAVE TO PROCESS THE APPLICATIONS UNLESS THERE IS A STAY, AND THERE IS NO STAY THAT'S BEEN ORDERED.
>> I GUESS IT'S STILL OUT THERE.
>> IT'S OUT THERE ON APPEAL FOR THE APPELLATE COURT, THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, TO ISSUE THEIR OWN DECISION BASED UPON THE TRIAL JUDGE'S ORDER.
THAT ORDER THOUGH IS ONLY GOING TO AFFECT THAT APPLICATION WHICH WE KNOW THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT APPLICATION WON'T BE SUBMITTED AGAIN, BUT THAT PRELIMINARY PLOT THAT'S ALL SITTING IN LIMBO, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS FILED MORE APPLICATIONS, WHICH THE CITY HAS TO PROCESS WITHOUT A COURT ORDER SAYING EVERYTHING STOPPED UNTIL THIS IS DECIDED.
>> IN EFFECT, WHAT THE COURT THROUGH THE APPEALS PROCESS NOW IS ONLY THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THAT ONE PARTICULAR PAB REQUEST.
>> IT'S EVEN MORE NARROW THAN THAT.
THIS IS CONSIDERED A SECOND TIER APPEAL.
THIS IS WHAT IT'S CALLED THE DCA, AND THAT APPELLATE COURT, IT'S A PANEL OF THREE JUDGES, AND THEY ARE VERY LIMITED IN WHAT THEY CAN LOOK AT, AND BASICALLY, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ANY DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION MADE.
THEY'RE NOT GOING BACK TO THE APPLICATION, THEY'RE NOT REWEIGHING THE EVIDENCE.
AS WE SAY, THEY'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE JUDGE DID AND WHAT THE JUDGE'S ORDER SAYS ABOUT THE APPLICATION AND WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ERROR IS THE BASIS FOR OVERTURNING THE JUDGE'S ORDER.
>> IT'S NOT LOOK ON THE HISTORICAL.
>> NOTHING. THEY DON'T WEIGH ANY EVIDENCE.
VERY LIMITED. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT CAN'T GO EITHER WAY.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PANEL OF JUDGES WILL ISSUE THEIR ORDER.
HOPEFULLY IT'S COMING SOON AND WE'LL HAVE A DECISION.
>> THE OTHER THING AND TAMMY, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP ME WITH THIS.
WERE YOU ON THE ZOOM PRESENTATION ABOUT THE BERT HARRIS?
>> YOU SAW IT? I SAW IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION.
[02:15:04]
>> WERE YOU ON THAT? I THINK THE CITY SENT LETTERS TO SEVERAL PROPERTY OWNERS, AND BECAUSE YOU HAD TO GIVE THEM A YEAR, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THIS.
>> WE DID. WE SENT TO THIS [INAUDIBLE]
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU'VE HAD ANY RESPONSE FROM.
>> THOSE WERE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WERE COMING BACK TO SAY, YES, I WANT TO RESERVE MY RIGHT.
>> THEY SAID THAT YOU'VE NEGATIVELY AFFECTED OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS BY REDUCING YOUR DENSITY.
IT'S NOTHING ELSE FORMAL HAS BEEN FILED.
WE'VE GOTTEN A LITTLE FARTHER IN THE CONVERSATION WITH ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER ABOUT WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO, AND THEY CAN'T DO IT UNLESS THEY'RE AT 34 UNITS AN ACRE.
>> IS THAT BY JUST COMING BACK TO YOU OR TO THE CITY TO SAY, I'D LIKE TO?
>> WHAT THEY DO, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PROCESS IS, LIKE WHAT HAPPENS.
WE'RE NOT AT THE YEAR YET CLEARLY, BUT THEY HAVE A YEAR.
THOSE THAT COME IN, THE FIRST STEP HAS BEEN WE'VE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS, AND THE LETTERS JUST SAY, YOU'RE HARMING OUR RIGHTS.
IT'S NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING SPECIFIC, IT'S JUST THEY'RE PUTTING IT OUT THERE, SO THEY THINK THEY'RE PRESERVING THEIR RIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE.
BERT HARRIS IS A VERY LIMITED TIME PERIOD, AND IT'S MEANT TO BE VERY LIMITED.
THEY CAN'T COME BACK FIVE YEARS AND SAY, WE WANTED TO BUILD A CONDO COMPLEX.
NO. THOSE THAT HAVE COME IN ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMEWHERE ALONG IN THEIR PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT, IDEAS, MONEY SPENT ON PROFESSIONALS, AND WHEN THEY DO, AND WE'VE ALREADY ADVISED SOMEBODY OF THIS.
IF YOU WANT THE CITY TO DO SOMETHING, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S IT GOING TO COST SO THAT THE CITY HAS OPTIONS.
THE CITY'S OPTIONS IN BERT HARRIS, IF YOU HAVE A TRUE BERT HARRIS, YOU CAN PAY THE DEVELOPER COMPENSATION FOR WHAT THEY'VE LOST, OR YOU CAN LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT, AND YOU ENTER INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
WHEN I SAY WANT IS IF THEY WANT 34 UNITS, AND IT'S OKAY, WELL, MAYBE THEY GET 34 UNITS IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, BUT THAT'S AFTER A PROCESS.
THEY HAVE TO GO AND GET AN APPRAISAL.
IF THEY HAVE A DEVELOPER AND SAID, WE WERE COUNTING ON 34 UNITS AN ACRE, THEY HAVE TO GO AND I SAID, YOU HAVE TO GO GET AN APPRAISAL, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET AN APPRAISAL THAT PUTS A VALUE ON WHAT YOU THINK YOU'VE LOST.
THEN THEY HAVE TO ADD UP BECAUSE THE CITY IS LIABLE FOR THESE TWO, ALL OF THEIR COSTS, ATTORNEYS, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, EVERYTHING THEY'VE PAID UP TO NOW, TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE PROPERTY, TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT ALL GETS ADDED UP TOGETHER, AND THEN THAT NUMBER IS PRESENTED TO THE CITY IF BY THEM, EITHER YOU PAY OR WE GET 34 UNITS AN ACRE.
THERE'S AT LEAST ONE THAT'S WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TAMMY WHILE WE ARE HERE?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT SEMINAR JUST BROUGHT THAT TO MY HEAD.
>> YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE PROCESSING.
>> WE SENT A LETTER OUT THE WEEK AFTER THE ORDINANCE WAS SURPASSED.
WE CAN GET THAT STARTED, AND IN 2025, IT'LL EXPIRE, AND THAT'LL BE IT.
THOSE WILL BE THE CLAIMS WE CAN COUNT ON OR THE CLAIMS THAT MIGHT GO SOMEWHERE, AND I HOPE IT STAYS ONLY AT THREE.
IS THERE ANYTHING BEFORE WE GO INTO STAFF REPORT? NO. KELLY.
[7. STAFF REPORT]
>> YES. JUST WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
OUR DECEMBER MEETING, TYPICALLY, WE WOULD HAVE OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS, THE SECOND ROUND OF AMENDMENTS.
USUALLY WE PROCESS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS TWICE A YEAR IN JUNE AND DECEMBER IS WHEN THE BOARD WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE THEM.
GIVEN WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS EVENING, I THINK WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE TWO CHANGES ON MINIMUM PARKING STANDARDS, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO WAIT FOR ANY ADDITIONAL ACTION.
DOES THE BOARD WANT TO SEE THEM IN DECEMBER, OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT AND BUNDLE THESE WITH THE JUNE AMENDMENTS?
>> I'D RATHER DO IT IN JUNE, BUT THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.
>> WE'VE GOT A LOT ON OUR AGENDA.
THE SECOND IS IN RESPONSE TO MEMBER STEVENSON'S REQUEST, WE USED TO HAVE UP UNTIL LATE 2020 BOARD TRACKERS FOR EACH OF THE BOARDS.
WE PUBLISHED THEM MONTHLY ON THE AGENDAS FOR ALL OF OUR BOARDS SO THAT YOU COULD JUST SAY A PRIZE OF WHAT THE OTHER BOARD BUSINESS WAS GOING ON.
IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN BRING BACK.
[02:20:01]
IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE OPEN DISCUSSION OR TO JUST HAVE A GREATER LEVEL OF AWARENESS OF WHAT OTHER BOARD ACTIVITIES ARE TAKING PLACE, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT TIME PIECE.IF IT IS VALUABLE TO THE BOARD, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT DOING.
MAYBE WE CAN MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF DETAIL THAT WAS IN THERE PREVIOUSLY TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO PUT TOGETHER, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SOMETHING THE BOARD REALLY DOES WANT TO HAVE.
>> WELL, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MAYBE WE COULD DO.
DO WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE HDC? MAYBE IT'S JUST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT [OVERLAPPING] TRC.
>> YOU GO TO KNOW OF EVERY MEETING [OVERLAPPING]
>> OR YOU GO ONLINE AND THEY WILL SEND YOU A NOTICE THAT EVERY MEETING THAT THE AGENDA IS PUBLISHED, AND IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GOING AND LOOK AT IT.
>> BUT IF YOU GO TO LET'S SAY THE HDC AND THE TRC, THEY BOTH ARE ON A REGULAR CALENDAR MONTH BASIS RIGHT THERE.
>> IF YOU JUST SET IT UP WITH A NOTICE THAT OKAY, THIS IS THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND THAT AGENDA WILL BE UP DROPPED SEVEN DAYS BEFORE [OVERLAPPING]
>> OBVIOUSLY, YOU CAN SELECT TO SUBSCRIBE TO THOSE SPECIFIC AGENDAS SO THAT YOU DO GET AN ALERT AS SOON AS THEY ARE PUBLISHED.
>> THAT MIGHT BE AN ALTERNATIVE.
>> I'D RATHER WAIT FOR THEM TO DO WHAT THEY USUALLY DO. LET'S GIVE THAT A SHOT.
>> I CAN SHOW YOU HOW TO SET THAT UP JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU'VE GOT IT.
>> IF I GOT A QUESTION ON SOMETHING, I CAN ALWAYS CALL YOU.
>> OTHERWISE, WE DO HAVE A NEW STAFF MEMBER.
I'M VERY EXCITED TO REPORT SHE WILL NOT BE JOINING US UNTIL FEBRUARY, BUT WE WILL HAVE A NEW STAFF MEMBER JOINING US IN FEBRUARY.
>> THAT IS GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[8. PUBLIC COMMENT]
WE DO HAVE A REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM MRS. KIRKLAND.>> I'LL MAKE THIS BRIEF, BUT ANYWAY, MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE NASA.
YES, I ALSO ATTENDED THE 1001 FRIENDS WEBINAR TODAY, AND THAT WAS REALLY EXCELLENT.
AS SOON AS THEY GET THAT POSTER, I'M GOING TO SEND OUT THE LINK TO EVERYBODY TO REMIND PEOPLE BECAUSE I THINK ALL KEY STAFF AND COMMITTEES LIKE THIS SHOULD WATCH IT AND REALLY SEE WHAT DIFFERENT OPINIONS ARE ON THIS, AND IT IS EXCELLENT.
WHAT I REALLY INTENDED TO SAY IS I THINK EVERYBODY'S AWARE OF THE VISION PLANNING THAT'S GOING ON IN THE COUNTY, AND I HOPE EVERYBODY HAS PARTICIPATED IN THAT.
THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE VISION PLAN HAS BEEN RELEASED AS A DRAFT, AND THEY HAVE SOME DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS THEY'D LIKE US TO THINK ABOUT, AND THERE'S A MEETING ON THE 19TH AND SO ON.
CONSERVE NASA HAS JUST SUBMITTED THEIR FIRST RESPONSE TO THAT, AND I AM ALSO GOING TO SEND THAT OUT TO YOU GUYS JUST IN CASE YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH STUFF TO READ, BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL THINK ABOUT IT.
WE'RE ON THE SAME PLANET, AND OF COURSE, ONE OF THE ASSUMPTIONS IS WHAT YOU HEAR ME SAY ALL THE TIME ABOUT THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE ECONOMY AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE SOCIAL FABRIC OF THE COUNTY, BUT ALSO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M PRODDING THEM ON IS THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERING WHEN WE ARE PLANNING, BECAUSE ALL THESE THINGS INTERRELATE, WHATEVER WE ARE PLANNING, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE COUNTY.
WE TALK ABOUT THAT HERE IN THIS MEETING ALL THE TIME.
WE LIVE ON A BARRIER ISLAND AND THE SEA LEVEL RISES A SET ON THE OTHER.
WELL, THE WHOLE COUNTY HAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WETLANDS AND EXPOSURE TO STORM SURGE AND SO ON.
[02:25:05]
THEY NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT THIS AT GREATER DEPTH.THEY ALSO NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THE PROJECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE, AND I THINK I'VE MENTIONED THAT HERE BEFORE, THINGS LIKE MORE INTENSIVE RAINFALL.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE INTEGRATED, BUT AS SOON AS I GET DAPHNE'S EMAIL ADDRESS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY ONE I DON'T HAVE, I'M GOING TO SEND THAT OUT FORWARD THAT TO YOU GUYS, WHAT I SENT TO THE COUNTY PEOPLE. THANK YOU.
>> NEXT MONTH, THEY'RE GOING TO DO A SEMINAR ON LIVE LOCAL, DECEMBER ON 12TH.
THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE THERE WILL BE.
>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE HAVE HERE [LAUGHTER] AT THE END OF OUR MEETING.
THANK YOU ALL FOR STICKING WITH US TO THE VERY END.
IF THERE IS NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
>> ONE COMMENT. THE BERT HARRIS CONVERSATION REMIND ME OF IT QUICKLY.
A MEETING OR TWO AGO, I SAID SOMETHING AND LATER, THE CITY ATTORNEY CAME UP TO ME AND VERY COLLEGIALLY AND KINDLY AND PLEASANTLY CHIDED ME FOR SAYING THAT WHAT I SAID WAS REALLY GOOD, BUT I NEEDED TO DO IT AT TALLAHASSEE NOT HERE.
SHE WAS SHE WAS RIGHT, SO AFTERWARDS, I WENT TO [INAUDIBLE] AND I LOOKED AT THE, WELL, KELLY, HELP ME THE SOUTHERN OF FLORIDA CITIES.
>> THEY HAVE A DESIGNATION THAT THEY BESTOW ON PEOPLE WHO SIT IN SMALL TOWNS, OTHER TOWNS WHO ARE ACTIVE IN PROMOTING AND RESTORING HOME RULE.
I AM GOING TO LOOK INTO THAT MORE, BUT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE ALL OF US CARE ABOUT HOME RULE, [INAUDIBLE] KILL US.
I WILL GET SOME MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, IF I MAY AND BRING IT TO YOU.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT MONTH. [NOISE]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.