[00:00:02]
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE CALLING TO ORDER THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
IT'S MARCH 12TH, 2025 AT FIVE O'CLOCK.
WE'RE IN THE CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS AND MORGAN, HE'LL CALL THE ROLL.
>> HERE. DAPHNE, YOU'LL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE?
[3.1 Approval of Minutes from the Regular Meeting of February 12, 2025.]
>> APPROVAL OF THE LAST MINUTES.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES TO MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE FEBRUARY 12TH, 2025 PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING AS WRITTEN.
>> ANY OBJECTIONS? ORDER. WE'RE ON TO OLD BUSINESS, AND WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PBS.
>> BUT JUST AS A POINT, DON'T WE NEED TO HAVE THE VOTE BY THE BOARD ON THAT ONE?
>> I THINK YOU ALL COULD JUST SAY THAT YOU APPROVED IT.
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS ANYTHING BECAUSE THEN WE HAVE TO GO BACK.
>> WE CAN VOTE IF YOU WANTED THOUGH.
>> DIDN'T I ASK IF THERE WERE ANY OBJECTIONS?
>> BUT SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO SAY ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> WHO'S THE PARLIAMENTARIAN HERE? HOPE HE IS.
>> IF YOU WANT TO JUST TAKE AN INFORMAL VOTE, ANNOUNCE ALL AYES AND MOVE ON WITH THE AGENDA.
[4.1 PAB DISCUSSION OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED PUD RECOMMENDATIONS]
THIS IS OUR PAB DISCUSSION OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED RECOMMENDATIONS.
MORGAN, YOU WANT TO JUST GIVE US THE CONTEXT FOR THIS AND SET UP OUR DISCUSSION OF THIS.
>> SURE, CHAIRMAN. MARGARET PEARSON, THE SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE CITY.
THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD INITIATED A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THEIR PUD REGULATIONS IN DECEMBER 2023.
JUST TO SUMMARIZE, PLANNING UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ARE ZONING OVERLAYS THAT ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY AND CREATIVE DEVELOPMENT WHILE ENSURING PUBLIC BENEFIT ARE RECEIVED TO THE COMMUNITY BEYOND THE MINIMUM REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE LDC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
YOU WORKED DILIGENTLY OVER THE NEXT SIX MONTHS IN 2024 TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OF THE PUD, AND THAT DRAFT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
IN SEPTEMBER, YOU SENT A RECOMMENDATION UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND AT THE SEPTEMBER 17TH MEETING, 2024, THEY RECEIVED IT AND THEY RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE SENT BACK TO THE PAB FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.
THERE WASN'T ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTION, BUT JUST TO RECONSIDER IT AND JUST REREVIEW IT AGAIN.
AT YOUR LAST MEETING, YOU'D ASK STAFF TO PREPARE THAT AND PUT IT ON YOUR AGENDA FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE RIGHT NOW.
>> WATCH THE LIGHTS TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMEBODY WHO PRESSES LIGHTS WHO WANTS TO SPEAK.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT BEFORE HE STARTED.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE DISCUSSION NEEDS TO BE OPEN.
HOWEVER, I WANT TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE LAST TIME WE WERE GOING TO SAY WE WERE GOING TO START WITH THIS, AND THEN WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS.
BUT LET'S AT THE END OF THE EVENING, SAY THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT CLOSED, OR THIS DISCUSSION HAS NOT COME TO CONCLUSION OR THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE CONCLUDED AND IT'S THIS SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SUBJECT.
RATHER THAN EVERY TIME WE SEE SOMETHING, IT'S THE SAME SUBJECT OVER AND OVER.
NOW, I DON'T WANT TO SQUELCH GOOD DISCUSSION, BUT LET'S NOT CARRY IT ON FOR THE NEXT 15 YEARS SO THAT WE KEEP SEEING PARKING.
>> IN THE LIGHT OF THAT, LET'S GET ON WITH THIS.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT LIGHT I'M LOOKING AT.
[00:05:02]
>> WELL, SHE DIDN'T TURN HERS ON.
>> LET'S STICK WITH THE AGENDA.
>> WE'LL GET THERE IN JUST A MINUTE.
>> PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD.
>> WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS. HANG ON JUST A SECOND.
>> THAT'S OUR AGENDA, IS IT NOT?
>> I WENT BACK AND LISTENED TO THE TAPES FOR THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING WHERE THIS CAME UP.
SEVERAL PEOPLE GOT UP AND THEY DIDN'T GET TO SPEAK BECAUSE THEY STARTED AND THEN COMMISSIONER ROSS STARTED, AND THERE WAS A WHOLE LITANY OF THINGS THAT WERE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED.
THEN SOMEBODY GOT TO, AND SOME THEY DIDN'T.
THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT WENT AWAY AND THEY CAME BACK TO US.
AFTER TALKING TO OTHERS, NOT ON THIS BOARD, BUT OTHER PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, IT SEEMS THAT THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS IS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THE PUD.
THE SIZE OF IT AND ITS POTENTIAL DETRIMENTAL IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORHOODS AND A LITANY OF OTHER THINGS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE NO GUARDRAILS AROUND THIS.
I THINK A DEVELOPER'S DREAM SEEMED TO BE THE MANTRA OF THE EVENING.
I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT WHAT WAS OUR PACKET.
IF YOU LOOK IN OUR PACKET, YOU'LL SEE ALMOST ALL THE CITIES AND COUNTIES, THEY ALWAYS HAVE SOME GUIDELINES INITIALLY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS DONE BY STAFF, SET UP THAT WAY OR THAT'S ACTUALLY THE WAY IT COMES OUT IN THE VARIOUS PLACES.
BUT ALSO I'VE STARTED TO RETHINK THE SIZE AND I THINK WE NEED A MINIMUM SIZE OF AT LEAST ONE ACRE.
IN THAT CASE, THAT WOULD PROTECT A LOT OF THE ADJOINING HOMEOWNERS BECAUSE WE HAVE MOSTLY UNDER ONE ACRE LOTS IN THE CITY.
IF DURING THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING, THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT, WELL, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT SOMEBODY ON A SMALL LOT COULD DO A PUD AND DO ZERO LOT LINES, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU HAVE ZERO LOT LINES ADJACENT TO REGULAR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THAT WOULD BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
I WOULD ASK THAT WE ALL GO BACK AND LOOK AT SOME OF THESE THINGS.
I THINK WE DO NEED A MINIMUM SIZE, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND A MINIMUM SIZE OF AN ACRE BECAUSE WE STARTED OUT WITH FIVE ACRES, I THINK WAS WHAT WE WERE.
THAT'S TOO BIG. WE DON'T HAVE ANY FIVE ACRE SITE.
ON THE OTHER HAND, A ONE ACRE SITE WOULD TAKE IN CONSIDERATION ALL THOSE SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE SURROUNDING ANY DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
WE SHOULD CONSIDER SETBACKS BECAUSE, AGAIN, DO YOU WANT TO SEE A WALL RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE WHEN YOU HAD A NICE VIEW OF SOMETHING? I THINK THAT COMING BACK AND REVISITING THIS, WE NEED TO SET MAYBE AN AGENDA FOR THE VARIOUS ITEMS, BUT THAT'S MY INITIAL REACTION BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT I NOTICED THAT WERE IN THERE HAD TO DO WITH INFRASTRUCTURE, HAD TO DO WITH ROADS, HAD TO DO WITH LANDSCAPING, HAD TO DO WITH A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE'VE JUST SAID, WELL, IT'S REALLY UP TO THE DEVELOPER AND THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO MOVE AHEAD.
THAT COULD BE A DEVASTATING IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY WITH NO GUIDELINES.
>> WE'RE NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING TONIGHT, BUT MORGAN, YOU'VE GOT HIS ONE ACRES IN QUESTION THERE.
>> I THINK PETE WAS NEXT AND THEN VICTORIA AND THEN [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WOULD USE MY LIGHT BOOK THERE.
>> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE FUNDAMENTAL CORE ISSUE.
ITS ORIGINAL DEFINED OBJECTIVE WAS TO LOOK AT CHANGING ONE SPECIFICATION IN AN LCB OVERLAY, AND THAT WAS THE NUMBER OF ACREAGE.
IT HAS DRIFTED OVER THE YEARS TO NOW A MONUMENTAL RED INK CHANGE.
I WANT TO HAVE THE PURPOSE RESTATED BY WHOEVER WANTS TO DO IT.
WHY DO WE NEED TO MAKE ANY CHANGE? WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR MAKING THAT CHANGE OR ARE THERE MULTIPLES? BUT I WANT IT RESTATED ON THE RECORD SO WE CAN GO FORWARD BECAUSE I'M NOT CONVINCED YOU GOT TO CHANGE THE PUD.
THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS OF DOING IT.
[00:10:02]
THE FACT THAT THIS SOUNDS LIKE A WILLY-NILLY DEVELOPER DRIVEN THING IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE BECAUSE IT BECOMES A PUBLIC HEARING.
IT BECOMES TO THIS BOARD, INSTEAD OF STRAIGHT ZONING, WHICH DOESN'T COME TO THE BOARD, AND THE PUBLIC DOESN'T HAVE A SAY, THIS WOULD.
THE WHOLE FACT OF THREE COMMISSIONER VOTES IS AN OUTLANDISH BECAUSE IT'S A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, WHICH MEANS YOU HAVE ACTUAL TESTIMONY AND ACTUAL COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT'S PUT INTO THE RECORD.
COMMISSIONERS, IF THEY VOTE AGAINST STAFF OR AGAINST THE BOARD OR AGAINST THE PUBLIC, THERE'S RECOURSE THAT CAN BE CHALLENGED.
AS OPPOSED TO STRAIGHT ZONING, IT IS WHAT IT IS.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF SAFEGUARDS BY DOING THIS.
I WILL AGREE WITH MARK, THE ONLY REASON THAT I WAS LESS THAN AN ACRE IS THERE'S A LOT OF 0.92 ACRE PLOTS THROUGHOUT.
NOT A LOT, BUT THERE'S A GOOD NUMBER OF THEM THAT ARE PRIME FOR THIS.
THAT WAS WHY I WAS FOR LESS THAN AN ACRE.
I AGREE COMPLETELY, IT SHOULD BE GREATER THAN ALL OF OUR MINIMUM LOT ACREAGES FOR OUR ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS.
IT SHOULD BE GREATER THAN R1 OR R2 OR R3.
WE SHOULDN'T TAKE A SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND TRY TO MAKE A PUT OUT. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
BUT THE REASON I WAS FOR LESS THAN AN ACRE WAS A LOT OF THESE 0.92 ACRE PARCELS SO THAT WAS THE GENESIS OF THAT.
IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THE WAY THEY ARE.
KALAN TALK TO THEM. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
BUT I HAD IN MY MIND, MAYBE YOU DO THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE BECAUSE MOST OF THE LOT SIZES IN A PLAT ARE SMALLER THAN THAT.
INTO PETER'S POINT, WE'VE STARTED HERE WITH JUST ACREAGE, AND WE MODIFIED A FEW OTHER THINGS.
PART OF IT WAS THERE'S MULTIPLE HOUSING TYPES YOU HAVE TO PUT IN.
IF IT'S A SMALL PARCEL, MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING FOR A SMALL PARCEL AND THAT'S WHERE WE DRIFTED A LITTLE BIT.
BUT WE STARTED WITH ACREAGE AND I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU WHERE IT STARTED, BUT THE FACT OF IT'S BEING PUSHED DOWN SOMEBODY'S THROAT BY A DEVELOPER, IT COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH BECAUSE IT COMES BEFORE A PUBLIC HEARING AND IT'S JUDICIAL.
THAT'S EVEN A GREATER BURDEN THAN A NORMAL PLAT WOULD BE.
>> I AGREE WITH THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH MARK AND WITH NICK.
MY CONCERN ABOUT THE WHOLE CONVERSATION WITH PUD.
I AGREE THE ACREAGE IS WHERE WE STARTED, AND I WAS OF MIND TO REDUCE THAT ACREAGE. IS IT TWO ACRES? IS IT ONE ACRES? I CAN PLAY WITH THAT.
BUT THAT WAS REALLY THE FOCUS THAT I HAD WAS JUST ON THE ACREAGE.
IT WASN'T TO ADD ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT SEEMED TO COME INTO IT OR DRIFT INTO IT, AS NICK SAID.
BUT THE THING THAT HAS REALLY CONCERNED ME NOW, AND I WANT TO BRING IT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION FOR JUST A BRIEF DISCUSSION.
THE REST OF THESE TO YOU GUYS.
>> THIS IS FROM THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION THE MARCH 7TH LEGISLATIVE REPORT.
THIS IS THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT CONVENED ON MARCH THE 4TH AND IS SCHEDULED TO END ON MAY THE 2ND.
THESE ARE JUST ALL THE BILLS OF INTEREST THAT HAVE TO DO WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING AND ISSUES THAT WE ON THIS BOARD ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN.
THERE'S NO TELLING IF ANY OF THESE WILL ACTUALLY BECOME LAW.
JUST TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE BEING DISCUSSED, I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
WHAT I'VE PASSED OVER TO YOU GUYS BASICALLY IT'S PAGE 2.
A PARTICULAR INTEREST THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION IS THIS SENATE BILL 1730.
IT DOES NOTE AT THE VERY BOTTOM, IT SAYS, THIS BILL IS SIMILAR TO HOUSE BILL 943.
APPARENTLY, THERE IS A COMPANION BILL IN THE HOUSE SO IT'S GOT A LITTLE BIT OF LEGS, SO IT'S MAYBE CRAWLING.
IT MAY NOT ACTUALLY BECOME LAW, BUT AT LEAST IT'S CRAWLING.
BUT THE THING THAT I THINK REALLY CONCERNED ME AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WHICH THEN GETS IN TO LIVE LOCAL.
[00:15:03]
THERE'S SOME AREAS HERE THAT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT.JUST IN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH WHERE ON THE SECOND LINE, I SAID BUT ALSO THIS IS EXPAND CURRENT LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY TO AUTHORIZE MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AS ALLOWABLE USES IN, NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED AREA ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OR MIXED USE.
HERE'S THE THING. BUT ALSO IN PORTIONS OF ANY FLEXIBLY ZONED AREA, WHICH I HAVE TO INTERPRET AS BEING A PUD.
IT SAYS, SUCH AS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR MIXED USE, IF AT LEAST 40% OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES ARE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR RENTAL UNITS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
NOW THEY'VE INSERTED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
NOW, THIS DOES IN THIS CASE, IT'S SAYING ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR MIXED USE.
ONE OF OUR CASES THAT WE'VE HEARD IS A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL JUST LIKE A BLOCK AWAY FROM US.
THE NEXT ONE THAT CAUGHT MY EYE AS IT RELATED TO THE PUD WAS, LET'S SEE HERE, 01, 2, 3, 4, 05, 6, THE SEVENTH BULLET, PROVIDE DEFINITIONS FOR COMMERCIAL USE, INDUSTRIAL USE, MIXED USE, AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT CONCERNS ME WITH THIS IS THAT THE STATE IS LOOKING AT WAYS TO BRING IN MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WHERE WE THOUGHT AS A PLANNING BOARD, THAT THIS WAS PARTICULARLY LIMITED TO THE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OR MIXED USE CATEGORIES.
>> WELL, IT'S DRIFTING. TALK ABOUT DRIFT.
WE'RE DRIFTING NOW INTO THE AREA OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT IT'S ALSO SAYING IS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY SAYING.
BECAUSE THIS WILL GO DIRECTLY TO STAFF AND THEN IT WILL BE APPROVED.
I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CHANGING ANYTHING IN OUR EXISTING LANGUAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ACREAGE UNTIL WE HAVE A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
I THINK TO START TO ANTICIPATE.
I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAVE IS A GOOD DEFINITION OF THE PUD AND IT WORKS GENERALLY PRETTY WELL EXCEPT FOR THE ACREAGE.
QUITE FRANKLY, THIS WAS 15 PAGES OF LEGISLATION THAT THE APA WAS REPORTING ON.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INTEREST AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE A PUD.
EVEN A ONE-ACRE, TWO-ACRE PUD.
NOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN, HAVING TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PUT INTO IT THAT HAS NO RESTRICTIONS.
BASICALLY, IT CAN BE AS HIGH AS THEY WANT, IT CAN BE AS MANY UNITS.
I THINK THE UNKNOWNS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF AND CAUTIOUS ABOUT.
>> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WHEN I SAW IT COME UP.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK. I THINK I'M HEARING AND I SEE LOTS OF THAT.
BUT AM I HEARING A CONSENSUS THAT THIS IS THAT IF WE CHANGE THE ACREAGE OR WE CAN STOP.
IS THERE A CONSENSUS HERE THAT THAT'S?
>> WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT WANT TO WE WON'T EVEN WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AT ALL AND JUST DROP IT FOR NOW.
AT SOME FUTURE DATE IF IT BECOMES SOMETHING WE WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN BECAUSE I'M SUGGESTING WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE WAY TO PROCEED IS TO DO IT PEAL BECAUSE SO I WOULD SAY DROP IT WOULD BE.
THEN TO A FUTURE DATE, AND LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE STATE.
LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE CITY.
>> IN A MEETING WHERE WE AREN'T VOTING ON THINGS, CAN WE ASK FOR A SHOW OF HANDS IS CONSENSUS? IS MARK EXPRESSING A CONSENSUS OF THE GROUP?
[00:20:01]
>> I THINK I DO WANT TO JUST GO WITH THE ACREAGE CHANGE, BUT I THINK WE'VE DONE TOO MUCH LEG WORK TO JUST SAY, LET'S WAIT MORE, I MEAN.
THE ACREAGE THING, I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
>> BUT I ASKED HIM A QUESTION FOR ME.
WHEN YOU SAY IF YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO CHANGE THE ACREAGE, ARE YOU LEAVING ALL THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE? SURE. ONLY CHANGING THE ACREAGE?
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THE CONSENSUS I GOT.
>> I DO THINK I AGREE WITH VICTORIA.
THIS IS GOING TO EXPLODE BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE LOOKING AT IS ALL THE BARRIER ISLANDS ON FLORIDA BECAUSE THEY THINK THEY'VE BEEN TOO RESTRICTIVE WITH THEIR BUILDING CODES.
I THINK THAT WE SHOULD DO THE ACREAGE, BUT I THINK WE GOT TO SLOW DOWN ON THE OTHER THING BECAUSE THIS COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING.
>> KELLY, SOMETIMES WHEN THESE THINGS OCCUR, LIVE LOCAL AND ALVIS DOES STAFF COMMISSION US STRATEGIZE ON HOW TO PLAY DEFENSE.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WE'RE BACK TO TIME.
>> YOU CERTAINLY CAN. SO YES, YOU CAN TRY TO BE DEFENSIVE ABOUT IT.
ONE OF THE WAYS THAT MANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE TRYING TO COMBAT LIVE LOCAL IS BY OFFERING INCENTIVES IN OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO MAKE THEM MORE ATTRACTIVE AND LESS LIKELY THAT YOU WOULD DEVELOP IN AN INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL CATEGORY.
SOME COMMUNITIES ARE UP ZONING.
I KNOW THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS COMMUNITY IS DESIROUS OF, AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT ANYONE HERE WOULD AGREE TO.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SOME COMMUNITIES ARE PLAYING DEFENSIVE ABOUT BECAUSE THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOSS OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES THAT BRING IN THAT DIVERSIFIED ECONOMY.
>> IF AGAIN, WE'RE NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING, WE WOULD MAYBE HOW WOULD WE PURSUE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT ABOUT PLAINT DEFENSE, ABOUT WHAT DO WE DO IN LIGHT OF LIVE LOCAL AND THESE THINGS TO PRESERVE.
THERE'S VERY LITTLE YOU CAN DO AT THIS POINT.
>> HONESTLY, THE STATE HAS PUT A LOT OUT OF YOUR CONTROL GIVEN? WHAT IT HAS DONE ALREADY.
IF THERE ARE CONCERNS, DO WE? YOU CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS IT, BUT IT'S JUST YOU'RE LIMITED IN WHAT YOU CAN DO AT THIS POINT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUES ARE SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT SUPPORTS THE ACREAGE CHANGE.
CAN ANYONE POINT TO ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY?
>> I'M HEARING A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT ONLY CHANGING ONE THING IN THE CODE, WHICH IS LP PA BRIDGE, CORRECT? NOT WANTING TO TOUCH ANYTHING ELSE.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN STRICKEN OR ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN ADDED THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY ARE TAKING ISSUE WITH?
>> I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AS IT IS RIGHT NOW WITHOUT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT WAS SENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER IS A CHANGE IN THE ACREAGE BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WHAT NICK IS SAYING IS THERE.
THERE'S VERY FEW FIVE-ACRE PARCELS LEFT.
BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT RELATES TO A CODE.
>> MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION OR I GUESS MY FOLLOW UP STATEMENT TO THAT IS IN CHANGING THE REST OF THESE THINGS, THESE ARE ALL THINGS TO SUPPORT THE CHANGE OF ACREAGE.
THAT'S WHY WE NEEDED TO ADD ADDITIONAL THINGS.
I DO NOT SEE HOW WE CAN ONLY CHANGE ONE PIECE OF THE CODE WITHOUT TOUCHING ALL OF THE REST OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SUPPORTED BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES LIKE THAT IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHERE IT'S PIECEMEALED, AND DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME TO CHANGE THE ACREAGE AND NOT ADD ANYTHING ELSE TO CONSIDER WHEN ALL OF THESE WERE DESIGNED FOR FIVE-ACRE PUDS.
>> MY POSITION WOULD BE TO NOT EVEN CHANGE THE ACREAGE.
I WOULD ABSOLUTELY LEAVE IT TOTALLY THE SAME.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER AS OPPOSED TO JUST CHANGING.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. NO CHANGE.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL ADD ONE COMMENT THAT THE LANGUAGE THE SEND THE BILL 1730 THAT WAS HANDED OUT.
ALL THE PUD REFERENCES BECAUSE I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THESE IN THE COUNTY.
THOSE ARE FOR COMMERCIAL OUT PARCELS THAT ARE THAT ARE PART OF AN EXISTING PUD.
[00:25:01]
THERE'S A LOT OF LICAL THAT'S BEING TRIED TO BE DONE IN 1020-ACRE COMMERCIAL OUT PARCELS FOR LARGE DEVELOPMENTS.THIS DOES NOT SAY THAT IF YOU APPROVE A RESIDENTIAL PUD, THAT IT CAN SOMEHOW BE TRANSFERRED INTO LIVE LOCAL.
IT'S IT'S FOR THOSE COMMERCIAL OUT PARCELS BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO TAKE THOSE LARGER OUT PARCELS AND MAKE THEM LOCAL.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I GUESS WHAT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD IS THAT IF THE STATE IS INDICATING OR ADDING PUD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING THIS YEAR, AND WHO KNOWS IF THIS IS EVEN GOING TO PASS? BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY ON THEIR MINDS.
IT'S ONLY ONE MORE YEAR, ONE MORE STEP BEFORE THEN IT GETS INTO THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION.
THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN. I JUST DON'T KNOW.
>> BUT THEN IT WOULD HIT YOUR HOUSE.
I MEAN, THEY'VE NEVER INTRODUCED RESIDENTIAL INTO ANY LIVE LOCAL.
THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN MIXED-USE INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL.
SO JUST TO MAKE THAT LEAP, THAT SOMEHOW THEY'RE GOING TO JUMP INTO RESIDENTIAL AND ALLOW YOU TO LIVE LOCAL, I THINK IT'S NOT LOGICAL, BUT THEY CAN DO THAT NOW.
>> BE THE SAME AS IT IS, RIGHT.
>> BECAUSE THIS SAYS SPECIFICALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL OR I'M SORRY, FOR MIXED-USE AND COMMERCIAL WITH THE ADDED PUD, BUT IT HAS TO BE A MIXED-USE OR COMMERCIAL PUD FOR IT OR INDUSTRIAL TO GROUP.
IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME THING, THE WAY THAT I SEE IT.
I WOULD JUST SAY WITH THAT SAID, KNOWING WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THAT, WOULD THE BOARD BE INTERESTED IN CHANGING THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO JUST RESIDENTIAL PONDS? WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT.
>> I'M NOT WILLING TO GROUP FORWARD AT ALL.
AFTER HEARING SOME OF THE COMMENTS AND THE OTHER THING.
>> YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF STATUS QUO?
>> HAVE NOTHING. LEAVE IT THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT IN THE FUTURE, WHOEVER THAT IS BRING IT UP AND DO IT.
>> HOW MANY PEOPLE JUST GENERALLY WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF STATUS QUO, CHANGING NOTHING.
>> ONE, TWO, THREE, HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN CHANGING ACREAGE AND NOTHING ELSE ONE?
>> I THOUGHT I WOULD RATHER CHANGE AT ALL LIKE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WE SHOULD CHANGE.
>> NO JUST ACREAGE, HOW MANY CHANGE AT ALL GOING BACK TO THIS? SO THAT'S INTERESTING.
>> I THINK WE'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF TALKING AND DISCUSSION, AND WE ALWAYS GET BACK TO THIS POINT OF I HATE TO SAY IT, BUT KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
SOME OF THESE CHANGES NEED TO TAKE PLACE, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE CONCERNED WITH THINGS LIKE LIVE LOCAL.
I THINK THIS IS A WAY OF US BEING PROACTIVE AND THINKING CREATIVELY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY.
I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF THROWING AWAY ALL OF THE RESEARCH AND DISCUSSIONS.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS SO MANY TIMES.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WE DON'T HAVE NOT DONE THE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH WE SHOULD HAVE DONE AND INCLUDED GUIDELINES AND SOME LIMITATIONS AS WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE DONE.
THERE'S TOO MANY, AS I KEEP SAYING, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT CAN HAPPEN AFTER WHAT WE'VE DONE.
SO IT'S NOT AN EASY FIX, WE GET INTO IT TOTALLY, WHICH CAN PROBABLY TAKE US A COUPLE OF MONTHS, MAYBE I DON'T KNOW.
OR AT THIS POINT, THERE SEEMS TO BE NOT EVEN A DESIRE FOR A MAJORITY TO EVEN ANYTHING ON THIS NOW, LET'S WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
THIS YEAR WITH THE CITY COMMISSION.
THAT IS THE FIRST YEAR FOR THIS NEW CITY COMMISSION NOW, SO WE HAVE OTHER THINGS THAT CAN COME UP ON OUR AGENDA.
>> KELLY AND HARRISON IS A PARLIAMENTARIAN.
IT SEEMS TO ME SINCE WE HAD THIS DIVIDED OPINION OF THE BOARD, THAT THE WAY TO SOLVE THAT WOULD BE TO PROPOSE THE CHANGE AND THEN VOTE ON THE CHANGE.
PROPOSED WHAT WE HAVE, HAVE SOMEBODY BRING FOR MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THIS NEW LANGUAGE, DISCUSS THE NEW LANGUAGE AND THEN VOTE ON IT AND THEN IS THAT THE WAY TO SOLVE THIS?
>> WELL, I MEAN, AS AN ADVISORY BOARD, THEN IT GOES BEFORE THE COMMISSION BACK TO THE COMMISSION WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
YOU APPROVE IT OR EVEN IF YOU DON'T.
IT'S YOU'RE GIVING YOUR ADVICE ON WHAT THE COMMISSION DO ON THIS APPLICATION FOR THIS CHANGE.
>> I DON'T THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD VOTES NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT.
IT'S DEAD HERE, CORRECT? MOVE ON.
[00:30:03]
>> MOVES ON WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION TO DENY IT.
YEAH. I AM UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT COMPLETELY DONE AND THAT IT CAN BE AMENDED TO PROVIDE THE FEEDBACK OF THE BOARDS.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE IS CONSIDERING THIS LANGUAGE PERFECT AND READY TO GO TO THE BOARD, RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY.
I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE A LOT OF WORK THAT COULD BE DONE BEFORE IT GETS SENT OFF.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WASN'T WHAT EVERYONE ELSE WAS THINKING.
I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYONE SIT HERE AND COVER ANYTHING THAT WOULD CAUSE ME TO MARKET IT AND WANT TO MARKET IT AND WOULD BE WILLING TO WALK IN FRONT OF FIVE COMMISSIONERS AND SAY, THIS IS GOOD BECAUSE.
I HAVE NOT HEARD THAT. I WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT.
I THINK WE NEED IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO HAVE BACKUP.
THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED US FOR TO PROVIDE AT THE MEETINGS THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND.
>> I WOULD COUNTER THE FACT THAT SAYING WE HAVEN'T DONE OUR HOMEWORK AND SO ON.
MAYBE BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE OUR HOMEWORK, OUR WORRY BEDS ARE COMING OUT AND NOW WE'RE SAYING WE DO HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OR POTENTIAL EXPOSURE.
THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO FOR MAYBE SEVERAL MONTHS.
IF YOU LEAVE IT ALONE RIGHT NOW, OR IF THERE'S ONE ELEMENT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT'S REALLY THE WHAT I'LL CALL THE CLUTCH FOR THIS THING, FIX THAT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, LEAVE THE PUD ALONE.
I WOULD NOTE THAT THE COMMISSION, WHEN THEY HEARD THAT, SAID, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS, THIS IS SOMETHING THE BOARD BROUGHT TO US.
THAT'S NOW WE HAVE THREE NEW COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD ADD.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR POSITION WOULD BE.
BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY I DON'T THINK YOU TELLING US THAT THIS HAS TO GO FORWARD WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION NOT TO DO ANYTHING.
>> NOT TODAY. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE IN HEARING THE DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD IS WE COULD LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.
CAN WE POSTPONE TO DATE, SIR SOME WELL, NO, TO SOME FUTURE DATE, NOT DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
THEN I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION.
WE CAN'T VOTE ON ELECTIONS, CAN WE? WE CAN ALWAYS VOTE ON SOMETHING.
IT'S JUST NOT THERE'S NO REASON WE CAN'T AS A BOARD, VOTE.
H SENS. ESPECIALLY IF IT'S GOING TO BE POSTPONED.
>> WELL, I'LL HAVE CLARITY TO IT IF I CAN BECAUSE I THINK MARK IS RIGHT.
I THINK THE COMMISSION GOT A LITTLE OFFENDED THAT WE INITIATED THINGS THEY DIDN'T ASK US TO INITIATE.
THAT'S WHY WE HAD OUR JOINT WORKSHOP AND THEY SAID, IF YOU WANT TO BRING THINGS LIKE THIS, THEN BRING THEM TO US FORMALLY AND WITH LANGUAGE THAT'S MOSTLY READY TO GO IF NOT COMPLETELY READY.
I MEAN, I'M KIND OF UNDERMINING MY OWN INTENT OR MY GOAL, BUT I THINK MARK'S RIGHT THAT IF WE WERE THE ONE THAT INITIATED THIS.
IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO INITIATE IT, THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT WE GO ANYWHERE.
>> MISS GIBSON MAKES A GOOD POINT ON WHAT HAS BEEN NOTICED FOR TODAY.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION OF IT THAT IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERATION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS, THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE RE-ADVERTISED FOR A NEW HEARING.
REALLY, IT'S DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD IS, DO WE WANT TO BRING THAT BACK FORWARD WITH AMENDMENTS AT ESSENTIALLY STARTING THE WHOLE PROCESS OVER, A NEW CASE NUMBER, PUBLICLY NOTICED FOR THAT DISCUSSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION? REALLY THIS IS A BOARD DISCUSSION TO SAY, HOW DO WE WANT TO GO ABOUT THAT AND WHEN?
>> HAVING HEARD THE DISCUSSION, BARBARY WE HAVE SOME MORE, AND WE'LL DO THAT.
HAVING HEARD THE DISCUSSION, THEN WOULD WE AT OUR NEXT MEETING, PUT ON THE AGENDA TO VOTE ON POSTPONING THIS TO RESOLVED DATE?
>> IS IT POSTPONEMENT OR A TABLEING?
>> I MEAN, IT'S NOT REALLY EVEN A CASE RIGHT NOW.
SO IT'S JUST AN AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION.
SO UNTIL YOU GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CONCRETE.
>> WE'RE NOT COMING TO ANY CONCLUSION TODAY.
>> NO WE GET STOP TALKING ABOUT IT IF YOU WANT TO.
>> BUT SHOULD WE POSTPONE IT TO SUM.
>> WE NEED TO HAVE IT SOMEWHERE DOWN AS I HAVE A NEXT.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR SOMEONE IF WE COULD FIND OUT WHERE THE STATE THOUGHT, WHERE IS THIS? IS THIS FAR DOWN THE LINE? WHERE IS IT? BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ENDPOINT IS,
[00:35:01]
AND I AGREE WITH VICTORIA, THIS COULD ALL BLOW UP AND WE'LL BE CHANGING EVERYTHING.>> DO YOU MEAN CHANGES IN TALLAHASSEE, [OVERLAPPING] THE STATE?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US HERE.
>> WELL, AND THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT HOW DO YOU DEFINE YOURSELF AGAINST IT?
>> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD EVEN CHANGE THE ACREAGE.
>> YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEGISLATION IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO LOOK LIKE UNTIL IT'S VOTED AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR.
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN WITH LIVE LOCAL AND OTHER LEGISLATION THAT IT REALLY CUTS YOUR LEGS OUT FROM UNDERNEATH YOU THROUGH PREEMPTION, SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T ADOPT ANY LAWS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO IT.
IT'S REALLY HARD TO BE DEFENSIVE.
YOU CAN BE CREATIVE AND CONSIDER SOME THINGS FROM THE STAFF LEVEL OR FROM A POLICY LEVEL OF, HOW CAN YOU RESPOND OR HOW CAN YOU INCENTIVIZE INTO A MORE ATTRACTIVE FOR YOUR COMMUNITY AREA.
BUT WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO IN TALLAHASSEE? WE DON'T REALLY KNOW.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD STOP BUSINESS FROM OPERATING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
>> WE REALLY CAN'T CONTINUE TO ANTICIPATE WHAT THEY DO.
>> AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT CHANGING SOMETHING, AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE STOPPED, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD STOP BUSINESS.
>> BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. I HAVE A WIFE.
>> SINCE THIS IS POSTED ON AN AGENDA FOR CITY DISCUSSION, AND WE ARE PRETTY MUCH TO HAVE DECIDED WE DON'T WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, JUST TO FORMALIZE THAT, I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS TO AN UNCERTAIN FUTURE DATE TO BE DETERMINED BY EITHER THE COMMISSION OR THIS BOARD DOWN THE ROAD.
>> I THINK MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE TABLING IT.
>> YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO TABLE IT.
>> I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED IT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] ONCE YOU TABLE SOMETHING, THAT'S THE END OF THE DISCUSSION.
[OVERLAPPING] GOES TO A VOTE IMMEDIATELY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I JUST WANT UP FOR DISCUSSION ONE QUICK THING.
I'LL PROBABLY OFFEND EVERYBODY INCLUDING MYSELF.
BUT I THINK WE SOUND LIKE TYPICAL GOVERNMENT.
WE'RE SO AFRAID OF MAKING THE WRONG DECISION WE MAKE NO DECISION.
WE'RE AFRAID TO DO ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE PRODUCTIVE BECAUSE OF WHAT ONE LITTLE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.
I THINK THAT'S WHY GOVERNMENT GETS BAD NAME.
>> IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, WE HAVE TO TABLE IT.
ONCE THERE'S A MOTION TO TABLE AND IT HAS BEEN SECONDED, THEN THAT'S WHERE YOU TAKE THE VOTE TO TABLE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] PARLIAMENTARY RULES.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> WE HAVE THREE NOS AND FOUR YESES. YOU GOT THE NOTES? [OVERLAPPING] I THINK THAT MEANS,
[5.1 Update on City Commission Visioning held on Thursday, February 27, 2025 at City Golf Course Clubhouse.]
KELLY, WE'RE AT THE STAFF REPORT.>> [OVERLAPPING] WELL, THERE'S THE UPDATE ON THE 5.1.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE MOVING TO.
>> AS WE DISCUSSED BEFORE THE MEETING, I DON'T THINK THAT MY PRESENCE WILL ADD MUCH VALUE BEYOND THIS.
[OVERLAPPING] EVERYONE HAVE A NICE EVENING.
>> YES. 5.1 IS AN UPDATE ON THE CITY'S COMMISSION VISIONING MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY THE 27TH AT THE GOLF COURSE.
STAFF PROVIDED YOU THE PRESENTATIONS THAT WERE LAID OUT BY ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
OF COURSE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAVE THEIR ITEMS AS WELL.
KELLY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC ITEM THAT OUR GOALS FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR OR IF THE BOARD HAD ANY PARTICULAR ITEM THAT THEY WANTED TO DISCUSS.
>> OR DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE SOME ITEMS THEY WANT US TO ATTACK? NONE? YOU'RE HAPPY WITH EVERYBODY? I'M UNHAPPY WITH EVERYBODY.
>> WELL, I WOULD JUST THROW A BOARD BUSINESS.
WE HAVE HAVE DEFINITIONS OUT THERE WE'VE NEVER MOVED FORWARD WITH.
[00:40:01]
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THEM.THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BRING SOME OF THEM BACK AND LET'S TALK ABOUT DEFINITION.
WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION FOR MIXED USE.
WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION FOR A NUMBER OF ITEMS. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT AND USING THOSE WORDS, BUT IF WE DON'T DEFINE THEM, IT'S GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM.
NICK IS SHAKING HIS HEAD AT ME.
YOU HAVE YOUR BOOK WITH DEFINITIONS, NICK?
>> NO. I JUST THINK WE SOUND LIKE GOVERNMENT.
>> WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN DO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE [OVERLAPPING] AND WE'RE GOING TO SIT HERE AND WASTE OUR TIME OVER DEFINITIONS THAT PROBABLY STAFF COULD DO IN TWO MINUTES.
>> I NEED TO PUT THEM TOGETHER AND HAVE A PHOTO ON AND ADD THEM TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> YES, SIR. I HAVE TWO THINGS.
ONE IS, I NEED STAND FOR HELP IN UNDERSTANDING.
THIS IS THE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WAS IN THE PAPER.
THE ONLY REASON I'M BRINGING IT UP IS THAT THERE WAS JUST A BUNCH OF SOCIAL MEDIA CHATTER ABOUT THIS.
I'M NOT SURE ANY OF US REALLY UNDERSTAND IT.
BUT BASICALLY, IT'S ABOUT LIVE LOCAL, AND IT'S SAYING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION, CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.1978, PARENTH 3,0 FLORIDA STATUTES, ELECTING TO NOT EXEMPT, I THINK THAT'S THE PART THAT'S CONFUSING PEOPLE, TO NOT EXEMPT PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 196.1783D1A, FLORIDA STATUTES, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE LIVE LOCAL ACT PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU CAN COME IN TO THE MEETING.
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? DO YOU NEED THIS TO REFRESH?
>> THE RESOLUTION THAT'S BEEN PREPARED, THIS WILL BE ON THE MARCH 18TH COMMISSION AGENDA, AND IT IS A RESOLUTION THAT SAYS THAT THOSE PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY FOR LIVE LOCAL WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE ON THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS IN FISCAL YEAR 2026, THAT MAY BE ENTITLED TO THEM OTHERWISE.
THIS IS FORMALLY PUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ON NOTICE THAT IF YOU'RE INTENDING TO DO A LIVE LOCAL PROJECT UNDER THE PARAMETERS THAT YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO RECEIVE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, YOU WILL NOT BE WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION.
>> BECAUSE THE REPEATING COMMENT IN SOCIAL MEDIA WAS THIS IS RAISING OUR TAXES.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT'S RIGHT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S RAISING YOUR TAXES AT ALL.
>> IS IT EXEMPTING ALL OF THESE?
>> IT'S NOT ALLOWING FOR AN EXEMPTION.
IT'S MAKING THEM PAY WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE PAID AS THOUGH IT WERE MARKET RATE VERSUS HAVING A LOWER VALUE BECAUSE THEY'RE LIVE LOCAL THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO UNDER THAT FLORIDA STATUTE.
>> THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT ANY OF THESE PROJECTS WILL BE PAYING THE MARKET TAXABLE RATE FOR THEIR PROJECTS?
>> IT'S UNDER CERTAIN PARAMETERS.
IF YOU ACTUALLY READ THROUGH THE RESOLUTION, IT GETS MORE SPECIFIC AND DETAILED.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT AGENDA PACKET PUBLISHED ONLINE YESTERDAY.
YOU CAN REALLY READ THROUGH THE DIFFERENT STIPULATIONS TIED TO THAT.
THIS WAS AN EFFORT TO MIRROR THE PROCESS THAT THE COUNTY HAS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED.
I KNOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE HEARD OF WIRE.
THE COUNTY DOESN'T DO LIVE LOCAL.
IT'S NOT THAT THEY DON'T DO LIVE LOCAL.
WE ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH LIVE LOCAL WHEN IT'S ON COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND MIXED USE LANDS.
HOWEVER, IT'S THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS THAT THEY HAVE OPTED OUT OF.
THIS IS A RESOLUTION TO DO THE SAME.
>> THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR BOARD?
>> IT'S LIKE A DOUBLE NEGATIVE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, ESPECIALLY IN HOW YOU'RE READING IT, IT DOES SOUND LIKE A DOUBLE NEGATIVE, BUT IT IS AN OPT OUT OF THE EXACT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED TO THESE PROJECTS.
>> THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TAXES LIKE ANY OF THE REST OF US?
THIS THE REGULAR RECURRING PROPERTY TAX BASIS OF SOME?
>> YES, I HAVE SOME. I'M NOT FINISHED.
WE HAVE REALLY GOOD CONVERSATION AT OUR LAST MEETING TALKING ABOUT,
[00:45:05]
I THINK I THREW UP A PICTURE.I DIDN'T LITERALLY THREW IT UP, BUT I POSTED.
THE KEY THEMES THAT I HEARD FROM THE CITY COMMISSION AND PAB WORKSHOP.
THEN WE ADDED SOME THINGS THAT THE BOARD FELT WERE ALSO THINGS THAT PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS.
I THINK THAT THAT'S HELPFUL IN KEEPING US FOCUSED ON THE YEAR THAT, HERE WE ARE WE'RE IN MARCH ALREADY.
PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD AND THERE REALLY WEREN'T THAT MANY PROJECTS THAT THE COMMISSION WANTED US TO LOOK AT.
WE BASICALLY BOILED IT DOWN TO ABOUT THREE PROJECTS OF WHICH THE PUD WAS ONE.
>> I THINK, MARGARET, YOU SAID LANDSCAPING IS NEXT?
>> WE WERE GOING TO BRING A VERY SIMILAR ITEM NEXT MONTH CONCERNING YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE THAT WAS SENT BACK AS WELL.
>> BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO HAVE MAYBE A, I'LL SAY A SUMMARY.
BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE WERE JUST ADDING THEM UP AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THEM.
IN OUR MINUTES, I THINK WE ALSO REFLECTED ON THAT WHERE, LET ME SEE WHERE IT IS.
WE WANTED TO HAVE LANDSCAPING, PARKING STANDARDS AND COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
HAVING IT IN THE MINUTES IS GREAT, BUT I THINK ALSO CONCEPTUALIZING IT AS MAYBE OUR GOALS, THE BOARD'S GOALS WILL BE TO ADDRESS OR LOOK AT THESE ITEMS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
WE'VE ALREADY CHECKED OFF ONE.
IF WE CAN DO THAT, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO KEEP US FOCUSED.
I KNOW YOU GUYS ALSO HAVE THINGS THAT COME IN THAT Y'ALL ARE WORKING ON.
THAT INCORPORATION, I THINK WOULD HELP US KEEP FOCUSED. THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
>> I WOULD GLADLY PREPARE A TIME FRAME.
>> WELL, I DON'T EVEN THINK IT HAS TO HAVE A TIME FRAME UNLESS THE BOARD WANTS TO ACTUALLY FRAME IT OUT LIKE THAT.
BUT I THINK IF WE JUST IDENTIFY THEM AS THE 2025 PROJECT GOALS OR THINGS THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR EACH OF US TO KEEP THAT IN FRONT OF US AS WE START TO GO THROUGH THE YEAR.
>> WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT THEY HAVE DEADLINES THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM ACCOMPLISHED BY THEN.
>> THOSE THAT DO, JUST INDICATE A DEADLINE.
>> BUT I DO THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE WHAT WE CALL PROGRESS TOWARD GOAL.
AFTER EVERY MEET, SAY WE PICK IT LIKE WE DID LAST TIME.
WE'RE GOING TO PICK A SUBJECT, WE'RE GOING TO PICK A FOCUS FOR THIS MEETING, AND AT THE END OF THE MEETING, WHAT PROGRESS DID WE MAKE? WHAT DID WE DO?
>> WE'RE GOING TO PUT A LITTLE BIT LIST OF THAT TOGETHER.
WE'RE GOING TO LANDSCAPING NEXT MONTH.
>> NEXT MONTH, YOU'LL DO LANDSCAPING AND THEN WE'LL RECAP.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEN WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND PRIORITIZE.
[OVERLAPPING] PETE, YOU HAD SOMETHING?
>> WELL, WE ALSO, KELLY HAD STARTED US GOING DOWN THE AVENUE OF DOING SOME PARKING IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT MET REQUIREMENTS AND WHAT WE DID, WE DID NAIL SHOPS AND SOME OF THE SMALL.
THEY'RE JUST ADMINISTRATIVE, BUT THEY DO TO CLEAN UP THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN TERMS OF JUST THESE WERE ITEMS THAT WEREN'T IN IT.
WHAT SHE'S ALREADY STARTED, WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND PICK THAT UP AND THAT'S ANOTHER ONE.
IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT LET'S JUST GET IT DONE AND AS BARBARA IS SAYING, LISTEN, WE'LL CLOSE THE BOOK AND SAY, IT'S CLEANED UP NOW.
I DON'T KNOW. FROM YOUR STANDPOINT, WHEN DOES PARKING BECOME AN ISSUE WHEN YOU'RE DOING IT?
>> WE HAVE TO CLEAN UP ALL THE WAY SINCE WHERE WE GOT IT OUT THERE.
>> GET THE WHOLE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LITTLE BETTER SENSE OF WHERE WHERE YOU SEE IT.
I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE US LOSE SIGHT OF REDEVELOPMENT.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT BECOMES A LARGER ELEMENT WITH OUR OUR COMMUNITY HERE.
>> I AGREE. LIKE KELLY HAD MENTIONED IN THE LAST MEETING, SHE'S GOING TO BRING THOSE ONES THAT WERE FOR THE BARBER SHOP AND I'LL BACK TO YOU IN JUNE TO TAKE THEM TO COUNCIL, THE COMMISSION IN JULY.
WE WEREN'T PLANNING TO PUT THOSE BACK ON FOR DISCUSSION, JUST THE BIGGER PARKING DISCUSSION.
>> BUT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT [OVERLAPPING] INCORPORATES LANDSCAPING, PARKING.
>> I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE AFTER THE LANDSCAPING WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO.
[00:50:06]
>> I DON'T WANT US TO BE GOING DOWN A PATH OF LANDSCAPING AND THEN HAVE TO COME BACK AND READDRESS IT WHEN WE GET INTO THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
>> FROM THE COMMISSION, THAT WAS THE ONE THAT THEY SENT BACK.
IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK, JUST LIKE YOU DID TONIGHT, YOU CAN SAY, I WANT TO WAIT TO HAVE THAT INCORPORATED INTO THE NEXT DISCUSSION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WAS PART OF A FRIENDLY PLAY.
>> MY OPINION IS THAT IF WE GO ONE DIRECTION BEFORE WE ADDRESS THIS BIGGER ISSUE OF COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, THERE'S LANDSCAPING AS PART OF IT.
PARKING IS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION.
I WOULD HATE TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON JUST THAT SUBJECT OF LANDSCAPING AS IT RELATES TO THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.
>> I'M FINE TO DEAL WITH THAT, AND I DON'T THINK THE CITY COMMISSION IS WAITING TO DATE AND HEAR ABOUT WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT FLORIDA FRIENDLY VERSUS NATIVE.
>> IT'S JUST THAT THAT'S THE NEXT PROGRESSION.
[OVERLAPPING] WHEN WE PUT ON IN THERE, YOU CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE THING.
THE DISCUSSION OF COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT AND WITH REGARDS TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ENCAPSULATES LANDSCAPING, PARKING, ALL THESE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, SPECIFICALLY TO COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
WE JUST MIXED IT. WE'RE GIVING CONFLICTING MESSAGES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU SAID WE MIXED IT.
>> THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOP, THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO START IS WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S WHERE WE GET THE CONTROL, THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE MORE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU JUST DISCUSSED, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM.
TO ME, IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE GOING BACKWARDS IN A SENSE.
>> THAT'S A BIGGER TOPIC THAT WILL TAKE STAFF SOME TIME TO PREPARE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THAT DISCUSSION TO GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION AND THE BACKGROUND AND MAYBE SOME SUGGESTIONS ON HOW WE APPROACH THAT WITH MEETINGS OR SUBCOMMITTEES.
I BELIEVE THE CHAIRMAN MAY HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK NEXT MONTH AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW TO APPROACH IT.
>> WELL, BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT THAT NICK, ALSO BROUGHT.
IF I GO OVER TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 4.0300, THAT GETS INTO THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR PUD.
WE DO NOT HAVE, BEST I CAN TELL, A DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PUDS, AM I CORRECT?
>> A PUD IS A PUD RIGHT NOW IN OUR DOCUMENTATION.
>> WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL, WE HAVE COMMERCIAL, AND THE OTHER.
>> BUT THERE'S NOT ANY DIFFERENCES IN TERMS OF SPECIFICATIONS, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES.
>> I BELIEVE. ESPECIALLY COMMERCIAL.
>> WELL, IF WE STARTED GETTING INTO REDEVELOPMENT, I LOOK AT REDEVELOPMENT AS BEING PRIMARILY COMMERCIAL, BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL LOTS SO WE GET A NEW HOUSE OR SOMETHING ON IT.
THAT'S A FORMER REDEVELOPMENT.
BUT WOULD YOU LOOK AT THE PUD AS A SUBSET OF REDEVELOPMENT IN THE ENTITY AND THEN LOOK AT DO YOU SET UP A SEPARATE STRUCTURE FOR A COMMERCIAL PUD VERSUS A RESIDENTIAL PLUG? INTEGRATED AT ALL INTO ONE THOUGHT PROCESS?
>> WHICH IS WHAT WAS IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL THAT WAS PROVIDED? THAT WAS A SUGGESTION.
>> I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING NOW IS WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, LANDSCAPING OR PARKING, OR PARTS OF THAT.
NOW WE ARE CONFUSED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PUT SHOULD BE A PART OF THAT OR NOT.
>> WELL, WE CAN ATTACK LANDSCAPING AND PARKING SEPARATELY.
>> IT RELATES TO BUT IS THIS NOT.
>> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE REDEVELOPMENT INCLUDES A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS OTHER THAN PARKING AND LANDSCAPING.
WE HAD A PERFECT VEHICLE BEFORE US TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT WE JUST MIXED IT, WHICH IS FINE.
BUT IT SOUNDS GREAT WHEN YOU SAY COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, BUT THEN YOU UNDERMINE THE VERY TOOL THAT WE JUST HAD TO DO IT.
SO TO SAY THAT I'M NOT FRUSTRATED BUT I AM.
>> WHY DON'T WE DO THIS? WHY DON'T WE MOVE UP COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT FOR NEXT TIME.
AND THEN AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, WE CAN BRING BACK THINGS.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT MAKES THAT WORK AS A PART OF THAT DISCUSSION.
>> SO WHAT ELEMENTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT ARE YOU WANTING I GUESS TO BE OUTLINED?
[00:55:05]
I MEAN, WHAT ARE YOU JUST GOING TO HAVE JUST AN OPEN DISCUSSION?>> NO. I WANT FIRST OF ALL, A LIST FROM STAFF OF WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE CAUSING PROBLEMS ON REDEVELOPMENT TODAY.
>> THOSE ARE UNIQUE TO EVERY PARCEL.
I MEAN, YOU CAN'T SIT THERE AND PRETEND THAT EVERY PARCEL IS IDENTICAL.
>> ANYTHING IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS UNIQUE TO WHERE IT'S DEALING WITH, BUT YOU STILL CAN BOIL IT DOWN TO SAY, THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE CAUSING GENERALLY AN ISSUE.
>> I BELIEVE ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS WAS TO TRY TO SCHEDULE SOME MEETINGS WITH SOME OF THE REDEVELOPMENT TENANT OWNERS AND THAT WAY WE CAN GATHER THAT INFORMATION.
WE WOULD ONLY KNOW WHAT WE THINK ARE SOME OF THE ISSUES, BUT MAYBE NOT THE TRUE ISSUES.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE APPROACHES.
THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING THAT TAKE A LITTLE LONGER TO COME BACK THAN SOMETHING LIKE THE LANDSCAPING.
>> WELL, I'LL GIVE YOU WANT TO JUST HAVE A GENERAL DISCUSSION YOU PUT THAT ON.
>> THIS BOARD WILL NEVER APPROVE, BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE LOT COVERAGE, IMPERVIOUS AREA COVERAGE, PARKING STANDARDS THAT WE PAVE TOO MUCH.
WE'RE STUCK WITH 60% OR 70% MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS BASED ON OUR ZONING.
WELL, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO REDEVELOP AND HAVE 40% OPEN SPACE COMMERCIALLY.
THEY WANT TO USE THE LAND TO BE ABLE TO SELL THEIR PRODUCT OR STORE THE PRODUCT.
UNLESS WE'RE WILLING TO GO BACK AND SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO UP TO 80%, WHICH I DON'T THINK THIS THE COMMISSION WOULD DO, THEN THAT ONE'S NOT ONE THAT CAN BE TACKLED.
>> THAT WAS WHY THE PUD WAS THE ANIMAL TO DO IT BECAUSE YOU COULD WRITE YOUR OWN.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S MORE SO ABOUT THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE HAVING.
I THINK THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT WAS REALLY JUST INCENTIVIZING IT SINCE WE HAVE LOCAL PENDING, WHICH COULD REMOVE A LOT OF OUR COMMERCIAL SPACES.
WE WANTED TO MAKE IT TO WHERE IT'S REALLY INCENTIVIZE FOR PEOPLE TO DO COMMERCIAL VERSUS DOING RESIDENTIAL IN THOSE AREAS AND MAKING IT JUST AN EASIER PATHWAY.
>> SAY, IS THAT THROUGH A FEE STRUCTURE?
>> IT COULD BE THROUGH A VARIETY OF THINGS.
>> THE EIGHTH STREET OVERLAY WAS PERFECT.
I MEAN, BECAUSE IT ALLOWED MIXED-USE, IT INTRODUCED THE RESIDENTIAL ELEMENTS SO PEOPLE COULD GET BETTER FINANCING, AND ALLOW THEM TO COME IN AND I THINK WE TOOK A LOT OF BLIGHTED PROPERTIES AND ENHANCED THEM.
WE NEED TO PROBABLY TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT AND MAYBE INCENTIVIZE SOME DIFFERENT THINGS.
BUT I THINK IT TOOK A VERY GOOD STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
OVERLAYS ARE THAT ANIMAL, YOU CAN DO IT.
BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE PICKING LITTLE LDC ITEMS, AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
>> WELL, IF WE GET INTO THE INCENTIVE, NOW, IS THE COMMISSION GOING TO GO FOR THAT, THE COMMISSION EVERY TIME I TALK TO THEM, THEY'RE WORRIED ABOUT REVENUES.
IF YOU START INCENTIVIZING, YOU'RE REDUCING REVENUES, ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT YOU CAN DO THAT WILL NOT REDUCE REVENUE BUT STILL WILL GIVE AN INCENTIVE TO A DEVELOPER?
>> IF YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE FEES, YOU'RE NOT GETTING THE REVENUE.
>> WELL, YOU HAVE TO A DENSITY OR INTENSITY TO.
>> ALL RIGHT. FINE. THAT'S MAYBE A TRADE-OFF.
>> WELL, BUT YOU HAVE A POPULATION OUT THERE THAT OPPOSED TO DENSITY INCREASES AND INTENSITY INCREASES.
>> BUT YOU PROPOSE IT. THE WORST THEY CAN DO IS SAY ABSOLUTELY NOT NEVER ON MY WATCH.
>> ONE THING THAT WE HAVE TO DO, WE'RE GOING TO TACKLE THAT AND THERE'S MULTIPLE PARTS TO IT.
SO WE HAVE TO BREAK IT DOWN INTO THE PARTS.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? IS IT GOING TO BE PARKING AND LANDSCAPING, WHAT'S IT GOING TO BE SO THAT WE'RE WE'RE AT LEAST TAKING A PIECE BY PIECE BECAUSE IT'S A BIG ISSUE.
>> TELL ME WHY YOU CAN'T DO LANDSCAPING ON ITS OWN.
>> WE'VE DONE LANDSCAPING ON ITS OWN.
WE'VE WE'VE TACKLED PARKING ON ITS OWN.
SO THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T.
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN SOMETHING ELSE.
WE DEAL WITH THESE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS ALL THE TIME AND HAVE. VICTORIA.
>> BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THE OWNERS OF SOME OF THESE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN ONE OF OUR WORKSHOPS, IF THEY WOULD SHARE WITH US SOME OF THOSE ISSUES THAT THEY'RE DEALING WITH.
WE HEAR CERTAIN THINGS, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT'S EVERYTHING.
THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THAT WILL HELP THEM.
SO I THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ONE ASPECT OF THIS CONVERSATION. I AGREE.
>> I HAVE ONE MORE ITEM FOR READY TO MOVE ON.
I SAW THE TRC AGENDA TOMORROW THAT THERE'S THE WATER SUPPLY MAP DISCUSSION.
[01:00:03]
I THINK I MADE THE COMMENT LAST TIME THAT THE CITY HAS ITS OWN SERVICE REGION AREA THAT WE'RE IN MY MIND, BOUND TO PROVIDE UTILITIES BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE CAN.I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE THAT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE TO KNOW WHAT THAT MAP LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY THAT FALL UNDER THAT MAP.
THAT WAY, WE KNOW THAT WHEN ANNEXATIONS COME OR WATER AND SEWER AGREEMENTS OR WHATEVER, THAT MIGHT INCLUDE THOSE PROPERTIES.
US BEING THE SOLE UTILITY PROVIDER WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE FAIRLY OBLIGATED TO GIVE IT TO THEM.
>> IS THAT A PLANNING BOARD ISSUE? WOULD WE BE INVOLVED IN THAT?
>> SO WHAT IS NEXT WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE NEXT STEP THEN FOR THAT?
>> STEP IF THEY CAN PULL OUT THE MAPS THAT WE HAVE THAT SHOW OUR SERVICE REGION.
WE CAN DO THAT AT OUR NEXT MEETING, LOOK AT THAT MAP.
>> ALONG WITH THAT, I WOULD ADD THAT ALL THESE PROPERTIES THAT, WE GET WATER AND SEWER, THEN YOU HAVE TO ANNEX THEM TO THE CITY.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT HAS CONTINUOUSLY COME UP IS, WHEN YOU ANNEX THESE PROPERTIES, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BRING THEM IN? UNDER WHAT LAND USE AND WHAT ZONING, AND SOMETIMES THAT CAN BE VERY CONTENTIOUS.
THE CITY CAN SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU WATER AND SEWER, AND THAT WOULD STOP IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE TO WE CAN'T DO THAT, BUT I'M NOT CAN WE DO THAT? C THE CITY SAY WE'RE NOT GIVING YOU SERVICE? YES. OKAY. SO HAVING THAT AREA WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THINGS THAT I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE CITY IS THAT LOOKING AT THOSE PROPERTIES, BECAUSE WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS IN THE PAST WITH WHAT ZONING AND LAND USE THEY CURRENTLY ARE IN THE COUNTY IS NOT NECESSARILY SOMETHING WE WANT IN THE CITY.
>> SO THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME PLANNING OR SOMETHING PUT DOWN SO THAT THERE'S SOME EXPECTATION OF WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY WANT TO COME TO THE CITY OR YOU GIVE WATER SEWER IN THE STAY IN THE COUNTY?
>> OR YOU GIVE THEM WATER AND SEWER AND THEY STAY IN THE COUNTY WITH THEIR EXISTING ZONE.
UNDER SUB T AND WELLS OR SOMETHING.
THAT'S BETTER THAN THE ALTERNATIVE.
>> I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE KIND OF ENLIGHTENING FOR YOU TO SEE THE MAP BECAUSE IT COVERS A LOT OF AREA.
>> THAT MEETING IS THE 27TH AT 10:00 A.M. WHAT IS? TRC?
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO WE'RE TALKING WITH THE DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS JUST TO FIND OUT WHERE THEY ARE ON THEIR UPDATES.
IT'S NOT REALLY ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, JUST TO FIGURE OUT WHERE I'VE GOT.
>> I'VE GOT A TRC MEETING IN THE 27TH. THAT WAS IT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE DONE? I GOT A QUESTION HERE.
THIS IS JUST A JOURNAL. THIS BUSINESS IMPACT ESTIMATE THAT WE HAD OUR PACKAGES TIME.
IS THIS A NEW REQUIREMENT OR A NEW OKAY? SO IS THIS TALK ABOUT TRYING TO FOCUS IN ON SPECIFICALLY, THIS IS THE MARKETING DOCUMENT FOR ORDINANCE CHANGE OR WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO GO TO THIS COMMISSIONERS? NOW, THIS THING LOOKS IT LOOKS VERY STRUCTURED.
IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S JUST OUR OWN OR WAS THIS OKAY?
>> THAT'S ONLY THOUGHT ON IT, IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT TOO INTENSE.
I'M LOOKING AT A ONE PAGE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SAYS THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO MAKE THE DECISION.
>> THAT'S A STATE PAYING. STATE MAKES HER DO.
>> THAT FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT THAT'S IMPOSED ON ANY NEW ORDINANCE THAT WE EVALUATE THE IMPACT THAT ORDINANCE HAS ON VARIOUS INTERESTS THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF GUIDANCE PROVIDED ON HOW TO DO THAT, SO WE'VE UTILIZED A TEMPLATE FORM THAT THEN ALLOWS US TO REALLY FILL IN WHAT MAKES SENSE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE.
SO MAYBE ONE PAGE, AND MAYBE TWO, MAYBE THREE, DEPENDING ON THE EXTENSIVENESS OF THAT PARTICULAR ORDINANCE.
SO TO MAKE IT A SINGLE PAGE MAY NOT ALWAYS BE APPROPRIATE.
>> BUT THE STATE IN EFFECT THEN IS DICTATING THE STRUCTURE.
>> IT IS SAYING THAT WE MUST DO THIS.
IT IS NOT SAYING EXACTLY HOW TO DO THAT.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GIVE OUR BEST EFFORT AT COMPLIANCE.
[01:05:06]
>> WELL, BUT I DO THINK IT GETS CLOSER TO WHAT SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD MENTIONED ABOUT MORE OF ANY EXECUTE SUMMARY OF A RELATIVE I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE A PUD REQUEST THAT CAME IN, IT COULD BE 40, 50 PAGES LONG.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS KIND OF BOILS IT DOWN TO THAT TWO OR THREE PAGES AND PRETTY MUCH TELL YOU EVERYTHING.
>> BUT THAT'S ONLY RELATED TO FISCAL IMPACT.
>> BUT WE WILL SEE THAT IN ALL THE PACKAGES, AND IT'S JUST PART OF.
>> YOU'RE SEEING IT NOW BECAUSE YOU SAW THE RETURN OF AN ORDINANCE THAT HAD BEEN PREPARED.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? PUBLIC COMMENT,
[7. PUBLIC COMMENT]
ANYONE? PLEASE COME FORWARD.>> I'M GOING TO READ FROM THIS IF THAT'S OKAY.
I LIVE AT 16:40 NORTH PARK DRIVE, WHICH IS IN AMEDIA PARK.
SO THE WHEELS GOING TO SQUEAK AGAIN, I GUESS.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO HERE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I KNOW THERE'S NOTHING ON THE AGENDA THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES OR IMPACTS, I GUESS AMEDIA PARK TONIGHT, EXCEPT FOR THESE PUD AND LDC DISCUSSIONS.
HOWEVER, IN LIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREET, THE DARIUS PROJECT THAT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH NEAR NARINE, YOU ARE TRULY CONCERNED WITH THE CONTINUED GROWTH IN OUR CITY AND ON THE ISLAND.
RIGHT NOW, IN FACT, THERE'S MORE LAND FOR SALE IN THAT VERY VICINITY.
I HADN'T TAKEN TIME TO CHECK TO SEE WHAT THE ZONING IS ON THAT, BUT IT'S FOR SALE.
I'D LIKE TO BRING THIS CLOSER SO I CAN READ IT.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO RE-EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT ONE OF YOUR BOARD MEMBERS BROUGHT UP IN YOUR JANUARY MEETING AND REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR DOING THAT.
I'M CITING THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN THE FERNANDINA BEACH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IT'S UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS.
IN FACT, IT'S RIGHT UP FRONT IN CHAPTER 1.
IN FACT, IN CHAPTER 1, IT'S THE FIRST SECTION THERE, AND IT STATES, AND I QUOTE PURPOSE AND INTENT.
THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE LDC, IS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTING IN PART THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS INTENDED TO, AND I'M DROPPING DOWN TO ITEM D BELOW THAT, AND JUST PICKING UP PERTINENT PHRASES THERE IN ITEM D. PROTECT THE CHARACTER AND MAINTAIN THE STABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND ENHANCE PROPERTY VALUES, STABILIZE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS.
WITH THE DARIUS PROJECT IN MIND, WE'RE CURRENTLY FACING INTERMEDIATE PARK, WHAT WE BELIEVE WILL AFFECT AND MAYBE DIMINISH THE CHARACTER AND STABILITY AND PROPERTY VALUES THERE.
AND I MIGHT ADD EVEN THE SAFETY WITHIN MEDIA PARK.
ALTHOUGH THAT PROJECT IS BEYOND THE PAV PROCESS AT THIS TIME, WE RECOGNIZE THAT.
I WOULD ASK THAT SHOULD FUTURE MATTERS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT SOMEHOW FIND THEIR WAY BACK HERE OR WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS COME BEFORE YOU AS A BOARD, THAT YOU APPLY THE INTENTIONS OUTLINED ABOVE IN THE LDC.
PLEASE IN YOUR ROLE HERE, I LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU WOULD DEMAND THE DEVELOPERS RESPECT AND SATISFACTORY ADDRESS THOSE GUIDELINES FROM THE OUTSET IN THE PROPOSALS.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION ON THIS AND WHOEVER BROUGHT THAT UP.
I JUST HOPE THAT YOU'LL MAINTAIN THAT PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, THAT OUTLINING THOSE GUIDELINES WHEN YOU ADDRESS THESE PROJECTS.
LET ME ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
>> YOU'RE JUST SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THE ISSUE ON 15TH STREET.
>> NOT SPECIFICALLY TONIGHT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S BEYOND THIS PHASE HERE.
IT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE PAV PROCESS.
MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S NOT COMING BACK HERE.
>> WELL, THERE HAS BEEN ANOTHER INSTANCE WHERE THEY DID CLOSE OFF THE STREET.
IF YOU GO UP TO 17TH STREET GOING NORTH, IT USED TO FLOW INTO ISLAND DUNE SUBDIVISION.
IT NO LONGER DOES. IT'S CLOSED.
>> YES. THERE ARE PEOPLE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE LOOKING THAT RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE WORKING WITH OTHER STAFF CITY PERSONNEL ON THOSE ISSUES ABOUT WHAT'S POSSIBLE AND WHAT'S NOT POSSIBLE AND DISCUSSING THAT.
I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP THOUGH.
WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL POSSIBILITIES.
>> THE QUESTION WOULD BE WHERE THE DECISION WAS MADE ON 17TH STREET.
THERE WAS A THE STREET 17TH CURVE AROUND, I THINK ON THE DATE.
SO LIKE A FIRE TRUCK COULD TURN, THERE WASN'T A CASE WHERE THEY HAD TO HAVE A U-TURN OR TURNING CIRCLE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THE TRAFFIC COULD FLOW BACK ON OUT ANOTHER WAY, BUT IT COULD NOT ENTER INTO THE HIGHLAND DUNE SUBDIVISION.
>> WITH THAT THEY LEFT IT OPEN FOR A BIKE, OPENING, STUFF LIKE THAT. THAT'S IT.
>> IT'D BE NICE. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S POSSIBLE, THOUGH, UNFORTUNATELY.
>> TAKE A PICTURE OF IT AND ASK SOMEBODY TO SEE WHY CAN'T WHY CAN'T YOU.
[01:10:05]
>> WE'LL GIVE IT ANYTHING A TRY.
>> BECAUSE THAT IS A THAT'S A DIFFICULT TRANSITION GOING FROM 15TH DOWN ON INTO A MOR PARK.
>> THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS INVOLVED TOO AS FAR AS TRAFFIC LIGHTS, AS FAR AS WHAT'S COUNTY, WHAT CITY, AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
>> WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT ALL.
>> WELL, THAT'S TRUE TOO, THAT'S MAY BE COY DOWN.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR LETTING US KNOW.
>> ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.