>> THIS IS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WORKSHOP, [1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM] [00:00:05] MAY 7TH, 2025, CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS. MARK YOU'RE STANDING, WOULD YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE? >> AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> MORGAN, WE NEED A ROLL CALL, AM I RIGHT? >> SURE. MEMBER BENNETT. >> HERE. >>MEMBER ROBAS. >> HERE. >> MEMBER GILLETTE. >> HERE. >> VICE-CHAIR DAPHNE. >> HERE. >> CHAIR DOSTER. >> HERE. THE GOAL FOR THE DAY KELLY AND MARGARET SENIS STEPS IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. OUR ONLY GOAL FOR THE DAY IS TO GET THROUGH STEP 1. [3.1 COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT] THE FIRST STEP IN THE PLANNING PROCESS IS TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OVERLAY PLAN. FORM THE PROJECT TEAM. THE PROJECT TEAM WILL BE STAFF PLUS THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WE'VE ALREADY ASSIGNED. THEN WE WILL IDENTIFY INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND KEY PROPERTY OWNERS AND ESTABLISH THE OVERALL GOALS. MARGARET AND/OR MORGAN, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE US THROUGH THE MAP? I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BY THE BOUNDARIES OF THE OVERLAY? >> RIGHT. WE GAVE YOU SEVERAL VERSIONS. [OVERLAPPING] WE DO HAVE THE BIG ONES. >> I DIDN'T MEAN THAT. >> I DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY'RE JUST REALLY DIFFERENT SCENARIOS ON WHAT YOU WANT TO INCLUDE. YOU'LL SEE THE FIRST ONE IT JUST HAS YOUR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THEN IT JUST SHOWS THE PROPOSED OVERLAY JUST COVERS THE WHOLE AREA, COUNTY PROPERTY, EVERYTHING. THEN YOU GO TO THE SECOND VERSION. IT LEAVES OUT SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE CONSERVATION. IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE THIRD VERSION, IT INCLUDES ALL OF THE BOUNDARIES, AND IT FOLLOWS THE PROPERTY LINES, AND IT INCLUDES ALL OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS. THEN I THINK THE LAST ONE IS VERY SIMILAR IN THE SENSE THAT IT LEAVES OUT A FEW OF THE AREAS OF THE GREENWAY. IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT PERIMETERS THAT YOU WANT. DO YOU WANT THE OVERLAY ON EVERY ZONING DISTRICT THAT'S ALONG SADDLER, OR DO YOU WANT TO LIMIT IT TO JUST COMMERCIAL, AND DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE COUNTY PROPERTY OR NOT, AND CONSERVATION PROPERTY OR NOT? BASICALLY, THAT'S THE DIFFERENT SCENARIO. >> IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROS OF INCLUDING NON-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY? >> WELL, INCLUDING LIKE THE CONSERVATION PROPERTY, FOR INSTANCE, WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT YOU'RE MEETING THE ELEMENT OF THE OPEN SPACE THAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH ON THE OVERLAY TO KEEP IT AND TO SEE IF YOU NEED MORE AREAS OF OPEN SPACE. IT IS AN ELEMENT. BY INCLUDING IT, IT WOULD MEET ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT CONNECTIVITY AND YOU'D BE LOOKING AT HOW THOSE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES COULD CONNECT TO THAT CONSERVATION PROPERTY. THAT'S ONE REASON TO INCLUDE IT. INCLUDING THE COUNTY WOULD BE IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THE SAME RULES THAT WE HAVE, WHICH THEY SEEM TO BE, WE'D BE PARTNERING. WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN AND COMES INTO THE CITY OR DOES IT COME INTO THE CITY, WE DO A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT OR A SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO DEVELOP THE SAME WAY WE WOULD WANT THEM TO. WE WOULD REVIEW IT TOGETHER BASICALLY EXACTLY. THEN THE RESIDENTIAL IS IF IT'S FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPTION TO KNOW IF THEY WANTED TO REDEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL AND WANTED TO REZONE IT. WE WOULDN'T BE CHANGING ANY ZONING, BUT THEY WANTED TO REZONE IT, THEN THEY COULD COME IN AND THEY KNOW WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS FOR THAT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT WOULD BE. >> ANY THOUGHTS, PREFERENCES? >> MY PREFERENCE WOULD INCLUDE ALL OF THE ZONING, ALL THE OWNERSHIP PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S AN OVERLAY. SO SOME THINGS WE MAY WANT TO CONNECT WITHIN THE OVERLAY TO THE COMMERCIAL. [00:05:01] I LOOK AT THE WHOLE AREA PROPERTY TO SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> I AGREE WITH MARK ON THAT AND I ALSO LIKE THE FACT THAT OUR MAP SEEMS TO FOLLOW THE PROPERTY LINES AS OPPOSED TO JUST BEING ALIGN THROUGH POTENTIALLY SOME PROPERTIES, MAYBE HALFWAY THROUGH. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. FOLLOWING THE PROPERTY LINE MAKES SENSE. >> YOU MEAN RULE WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE COMMERCIAL. HAVE YOU HAVE MORE OPTIONS TO INCLUDE ALL. >> I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS MAYBE WE OUGHT TO SAVE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY DIFFERENTLY SO THAT WE ADD AN ANNEX PROVISION TO IT. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO OVERLAY PROPERTY WE DON'T CONTROL RIGHT NOW. >> GOOD POINT. >> IN THAT WAY, WE JUST SAY, HEY, IF YOU COME IN, YOU GET THIS, BUT UNTIL YOU COME IN YOU STAY THE WAY YOU ARE. THAT WAY IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FORCE SOMEONE TO ANNEX OR IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO OVERDO THEIR ZONING THAT THEY HAVE IN THE COUNTY. >> NOW, CAN YOU COME IN IF THE OVERLAY AND YOU'RE IN THE COUNTY AND YOU ARE RESIDENTIAL, LET'S SAY YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO TAP INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM, AND YOU AGREE TO COME INTO THE CITY. YOU CAN COME INTO THE CITY UNDER THE OVERLAY AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, IT'S NOT FORCING YOU TO BECOME COMMERCIAL. >> IN MOST OF THE COUNTY ZONING COME INTO THE CITY, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE COUNTY ZONING? >> EXACTLY. YEAH. [BACKGROUND] >> YOU HAVE THOUGHTS? NO. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY EXACTLY WHAT MARK SAID ABOUT THE OVERLAYS. I AGREE, I LIKE THE PROPERTY FOLLOWING THE PROPERTY LINES. I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO SHADE OUT THE COUNTY ONES AS WELL. >> WHICH VERSION IS THAT? IS THAT 2.2? >> THAT'S YEAH. >> YES. >> THAT'S 2.2? >> THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THEM. >> 2.2 IN MY OPINION, TAKING THE COUNTY PROPERTY. >> IT DISTINGUISH IT DIFFERENT. BUT WE WOULD WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO TRY TO ESTABLISH THE SAME TYPE STANDARDS WHERE IF A DEVELOPER WAS ALONGSIDE OR REGARDLESS IF THEY WERE IN THE COUNTY IN THE CITY, THEY'D BE DEVELOPING THE SAME. >> THAT WOULD BE IDEAL. >> THE COUNTY PROPERTIES WILL BE DISTINGUISHED AND THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE DISTINGUISHED. >> YEAH, ALL THE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE. BUT IT WOULD JUST BE AN OVERLAY AND THEN IT WOULD BE A SLIGHTLY SHADED OR SOMETHING TO COUNTY PROPERTIES. WE'LL COME BACK WITH YOUR FINAL MAP, MAYBE BY THE 14TH. IF THAT'S WHAT THE CONCLUSION IS, WE'LL TRY TO BRING A MAP BACK. >> OVERLAY, YOU COULD HAVE SOME IN THERE FOR THE COUNTY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO. >> I WENT TO THE COUNTY'S PAB MEETING YESTERDAY, AND THAT WAS JUST A PRESENTATION OF THEIR PLAN FOR 25 YEARS OUT OR WHATEVER IT IS. THEY LOOKED ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, THEY JUST SHOWED THEIR DIFFERENT MAPS. THEY ARE PLANNING NOTHING TO HAPPEN ON THE ISLAND. >> NOTHING TO HAPPEN WHERE? >> ON THE ISLAND. I TALKED TO THE LADY YESTERDAY AND SHE SAID, SHE GOES, WE TALKED TO PEOPLE AND PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND ARE PRETTY CLEAR. SHE WAS VERY POLITE, A VERY NICE LADY. >> GO TO STAY OUT THE ISLAND. >> [INAUDIBLE]. MARK, LET ME ASK YOU ONE OTHER QUESTION TOO. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH DOING THIS, WE'RE TAKING 2.2 WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE DON'T KNOW? IS THERE IS THERE A DOWNSIDE TO THIS? >> NO, BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST ALLOWING EVEN WITH THE RESIDENTIAL, YOU'RE JUST SETTING UP THE PERIMETERS IF SOMEONE WANTED TO REDEVELOP IT TO COMMERCIAL THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO LOOK LIKE THIS. >> BUT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT. THAT'S A WHOLE POINT OF THE CHANGES. IT'S NOT TO CHANGE CONSERVATION LANDS AND DEVELOPMENT ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT'S SOLELY FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. PERIOD. >> I HAVE QUESTIONS ON OVERLAY. DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE OVERLAY AREA? [00:10:03] >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN? >> I DON'T HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL SPECIFIC RIGHT NOW, BUT WE HAVE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS IN THIS AREA. AT SOME POINT, WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT HOW SOME OF THOSE INTERACT WITH THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS OR SOME INCENTIVES OF THOSE PROPERTIES FOR WHATEVER THAT IS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO LIMIT IT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO AN OVERLAY IN A LARGER AREA, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO DO THIS PIECE OF COMMERCIAL. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO SERVE OUR PURPOSE. > I THINK THERE'S TWO THINGS GOING ON. THERE IS THE OVERLAY BOUNDARY, WHICH IS GOING TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE PROPERTIES IN THAT AND THEN THERE'S THE OVERLAY STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO SPECIFIC THINGS. LIKE THIS, FOR EXAMPLE, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE IT IN THE BOUNDARY DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE ARE GOING TO APPLY THOSE OVERLAY STANDARDS TO EVERYTHING IN THAT BOUNDARY. THAT'S HOW I'M TRYING TO KEEP IT FOCUSED. THE STANDARDS ARE ONE THING, THE BOUNDARIES ANOTHER THING. AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT AND KEEPING THAT IN FOCUS. >> I DON'T KNOW. I'M GOING TO BUILD ON WHAT MARK SAID. BECAUSE I THINK IF WE INCLUDE IT IN THE BOUNDARY, THEN WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE SOME UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WANT TO INCLUDE IT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT ASPECT. I LIKE WHERE MARKS GOING. FOR EXAMPLE, THE R2 THAT'S IN THE OVERLAY, YOU CAN INCENTIVIZE THEM TO COMBINE WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL THAT MAY BE REDEVELOPED SO THEY CAN EXPAND THEIR FOOTPRINT AND MAKE A MORE MEANINGFUL DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOW THAT R2 TO BE COMMERCIALLY DEVELOPED WITH AN ADJACENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THAT COULD REALLY HELP INCENTIVIZE COMMERCIAL THAT MAYBE TOO SMALL TO STAND ON ITS OWN, BUT COMBINED, IT COULD ACTUALLY BE MEANINGFUL. >> YOU MAY ALLOW PARKING IN OTHER AREAS, I THINK IS WHAT YOU'RE AS PART OF SOME OF THE OTHER PORTION OF DEVELOPMENTS THERE. ONE SITE MAY WANT TO DO SOMETHING BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE PARK NECESSARILY. BUT SINCE YOU'RE IN AN OVERLAY, YOU COULD CREATE SOME INCENTIVE THAT THEY COULD USE OTHER PARCELS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN THE OVERLAY AS PART OF THEIR OVERALL PARK. PART OF I WANT TO SAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEAL IN COMMERCIAL CONNECTIVITY, THEN WE MAY WANT TO INCENTIVIZE ALL PARCELS TO BUILD I DON'T KNOW, SAY 10 FOOT PATHS BECAUSE WE WANT TO CONNECT THE WHOLE AREA. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I DON'T WANT IT'S NOT JUST COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT. ONCE YOU'VE GONE TO THE OVERLAY, I THINK THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE THE ENTIRE DISTRICT OR AREA THAT WE CAN THEN USE AS A FOOTPRINT FOR OTHER AREAS THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT. >> WELL, WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME EXTENDING THIS TO UP TO EITHER 14TH STREET. I THINK THAT OUR CONVERSATION WAS THAT THAT SADDLER BEING THAT ROADWAY TO THE BEACH, IT HAD A BEACH SENSE ABOUT IT, BEACHINESS THAT WE THOUGHT 14TH STREET HAD A DIFFERENT CULTURE ABOUT IT, A DIFFERENT FEEL ABOUT IT. I THINK THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE SAID, NOW LET'S JUST DO SADDLER FIRST AND SADDLER WITHOUT EXPANDING INTO OTHER AREAS. THAT'S WHAT I RECOLLECT. WAS THIS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? >> I'M THINKING THEY HAD A PARKING PLAN FOR THE EAST SIDE OF SADDLER CLOSE OFF [INAUDIBLE]. >> I THINK MARK SAYING IS THERE MAY BE NON-COMMERCIAL ZONED PROPERTIES THAT WE INCLUDE IN THIS THAT WE WANT TO REDEVELOP A DIFFERENT WAY. I THINK THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE. >> I THINK YOU DEFINITELY CAN DO THAT. YOU DO IT TO LIKE DAPHNE SAID, I THINK YOU COULD COME UP WITH A SEPARATE STANDARD. YOU'D HAVE COMMERCIAL, AND THEN YOU COULD SAY FOR RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THIS DISTRICT, FOR REDEVELOPMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THESE ELEMENTS, OR ANOTHER THING THAT IT DOES IS IF SOMEONE WANTED TO COME IN AND REZONE THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO COMMERCIAL, THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD SAY, WELL, THEIR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MEETS THE OVERLAY STANDARDS, [00:15:01] SO THEREFORE, YOU REALLY SHOULD APPROVE IT. IT SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT OF A GAIN. >> I HEAR YOU SAYING WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE AT ONE PLOT TODAY THAT THIS IS RIGHT, WE CAN DO THAT ON A ROLLING AS BASIS. >> YOU COULD COME UP WITH A COMMERCIAL FIRST. >> FOR NOW, WE'RE DESCRIBING THE BOUNDARY. >> YES, RIGHT NOW. >> WHAT IS THIS VERSION? 1.2? >> YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE BIGGER VERSIONS TOO, SO YOU'RE RIGHT. EXACTLY THAT ONE. [BACKGROUND] >> IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF INPUT AND IMPROVING AREA. THIS IS A MAJOR COMMERCIAL AREA, AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS. >> WE'RE MOVING RIGHT ALONG. >> GOOD. >> WE KNOW THE TEAM, WE KNOW THE BOUNDARIES. MARGARET, YOU'RE GOING TO HELP ME. DAPHNE, YOU CAN HELP ME WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS. WHO ARE THE INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS THAT NEED TO BE INFORMED? >> DAPHNE, SHE HAS A LOT OF INSTITUTIONAL HISTORY TOO, BUT I WOULD SAY JUST STORM WATER USE PUBLIC UTILITIES, OF COURSE, PERHAPS PARKS AND REC. >> PARKS AND REC, I'M GOING TO NOT AGAINST. >> [OVERLAPPING] JUST TO SEE ABOUT CONNECTIVITY TO THE GREENWAY OR MAYBE OUR CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT. THEY DO HAVE THE MAIN BEACH DOWNTOWN, AT THE BEACH, SO WE WOULD THINK ABOUT THAT PART. NOT MAIN BEACH, BUT THE OTHER PARKS. I THINK THEY WOULD BE AN ELEMENT. >> THAT'S NEXT THAT'S COME SEPARATELY. I'M SORRY? >> LIKE I SAID, PUBLIC UTILITIES. >> YEAH, THAT'S GOOD. >> PARKS AND REC. >> MORGAN, YOU'RE GETTING ALL THIS DOWN. >> WITH DOT, THAT'S A STATE ROAD? THE SADDLER ROAD STATE? >> COUNTY. >> [OVERLAPPING] WE WOULD INVITE COUNTY FOLKS. OF COURSE, WE WOULD DEFINITELY INVITE THE COUNTY FOLKS. >> SURE. >> PUBLIC SAFETY. >> PROBABLY. >> [OVERLAPPING] CITY COMMISSIONERS. >> LATER. >> I HATE TO OVERLOAD IT WITH TOO MUCH INPUT. >> [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE THEN EVERYONE IS GOING TO QUIT SHOWING UP >> FROM THE INTERNAL, WE COULD ASK THE MANAGER IF SHE WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONSENT SENDING ONE REPRESENTATIVE. >> THERE YOU GO. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. >> JUST ONE. >> JUST FYI FOR EVERYBODY, I MET WITH JANICE. >> BUT IF WE'RE GOING GET A REPORT, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO [INAUDIBLE] THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING AND HOW IS THE COMMITTEE MOVING UP TO IT? >> THE COMMISSIONER MENCHU [PHONETIC] KNOWS. I'VE TALKED WITH HER. >> WHAT WAS HER THOUGHTS ON THIS? >> SHE'S ALL FOR US DOING IT. SHE IS ENCOURAGED BY US TAKING THIS ON. >> WHO? >> MENCHU JANICE. SHE FEELS VERY GOOD ABOUT THAT. I THINK RIGHT NOW, SHE'S SEEING IT IN SMALLER INCREMENTS THAN WE ARE, BUT WE CAN HANDLE THAT. SOME OF HER SUGGESTIONS, AND WE'LL GET TO THEM IN JUST A MINUTE WHEN WE GET TO EXTERNAL AUDIENCES, AND MARK'S ALREADY BROUGHT IT UP, IS TO TALK WITH THE OWNERS OF SOME OF THE TARGETED MOST LIKELY AREAS. >> WE'RE GOING TO HASH IT OVER FIRST AND SOME COMMENTS BEFORE IT GOES ANYWHERE. >> WE CERTAINLY NEED TO HASH IT. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT OBJECTIVES IN A MINUTE. >> WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC. >> BUT ANYWAY, HER THOUGHTS WERE TO TALK TO THE OWNERS, SEE WHY THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THOSE PROPERTIES AND WHAT THEY NEED AND GET INFORMATION FROM THEM THAT MIGHT HELP US BUILD IN INCENTIVES AND BONUSES AND THINGS WE NEED TO DO. >> DID YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AT THIS TIME? >> NO. BECAUSE THANKS TO DAPHNE, I FOUND OUT I'M NOT ALLOWED TO. >> WHAT? >> TALK TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS. I CAN TALK TO ONE COMMISSIONER. >> AT A TIME. >> AT A TIME. >> NO. THAT'S CALLED POLLING. >> NO. YOU CAN'T TALK TO ONE. YOU CAN TALK TO THE OTHER ONE. YOU JUST CAN'T INDICATE WHAT YOU ALREADY HEARD FROM THE OTHER ONE. >> [OVERLAPPING] I WAS TOLD BY KELLY GIBSON THAT I CAN'T TALK TO ALL OF THEM. THAT I CAN TALK TO ONE AND HAVE HER HELP, OR HIM, THEN I TALK TO G, HAVE HER HELP US TO GET A SENSE FOR THE COMMISSION, BUT I CANNOT GO TO ALL OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND ASK WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THIS. THAT IS POLLING AND A VIOLATION OF SUNSHINE. >> IT DOES MAKE SENSE, ACTUALLY. >> I THINK HEARING FROM COMMISSIONER MENCHU GIVES US SOME GOOD FEEDBACK. [00:20:03] I THINK THAT WHERE WE ARE IN THIS INITIAL SETTING GIVES US SOME GOOD FEEDBACK TO GO FORWARD. >> THE OTHER THING ABOUT SPEAKING WITH HER TOO ABOUT THIS AND A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES TOO IS, TO MOVE FORWARD, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DOCUMENT PRECISELY WHY WE'RE DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING. THIS IS WHAT WE GET FROM THIS. THIS IS WHY WE'RE MOVING THIS WAY. MORGAN TAKE VERY CAREFUL NOTES ON WHY WE'RE DOING THIS AND WHY WE'RE NOT DOING CERTAIN THINGS. >> OR IS IT PERHAPS ALSO THE BENEFIT OF DOING THIS FOR THE CITY, FOR THE TAXPAYERS, FOR THE RESIDENTS. THESE ARE THE BENEFITS THAT WILL COME OUT OF THIS OVERLAY. >> IT'S DATA POINTS IN THE COMP PLAN, SO THAT CHECKS ALL BOXES. >> WE'RE THE PLANNING AGENCY. >> WE'RE JUST FOLLOWING OUR COMP PLAN. >> YOU'RE BEING RECORDED TOO, SO EVERY WORD IS BEING ACKNOWLEDGED SOMEWHERE, BUT WE'RE ALWAYS DOING THE GOOD OF THE CITY AND PLANNING FOR FUTURE IMPACTS. >> WE'VE LISTED INTERNAL. JUST I KNOW, WHAT DID WE SETTLE ON? >> I GUESS INTERNAL, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC WORKS, WHICH WILL INCLUDE STREETS AND THE COUNTY, PUBLIC SAFETY, PARKS AND REC. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST ONE REPRESENTATIVE. THEN PERHAPS ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE COMMISSION. REALLY, ABOUT SIX, MAYBE. >> WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR LIST FROM? >> WE'RE JUST WRITING IT DOWN RIGHT NOW. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS ONCE WE AGREE TO THAT, THEN WHAT STAFF WILL DO IS WE'LL START LOOKING AT DATES AND TIMES, AND IT MAY MEAN WE EAT MEAT AT THE AIRPORT. >> STAKEHOLDER ARE GOING TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON THE SUBJECT WE'RE DISCUSSING OR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. JUST AS LONG AS WE NOTIFY THEM PRIOR SO THAT THEY CAN SHOW UP FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE THE WAY TO PROCEED. >> OR JUST GIVE THEM FEED BACK FROM THE PUBLIC. >> I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO, IT MAY HAVE TO GAVE EVERY ONE OF THEM RIGHT NOW. \. >> YOU'RE RIGHT, MARCUS. >> I THINK WE CAN AT LEAST HAVE A BASE LIST JUST TO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> THE WORLD IS OURS OYSTER. >> THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO BROAD. >> FERNANDINA BEACH IS OUR WORLD, BUT ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED AND PEOPLE YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WILL BECOME INVOLVED. >> WHAT WOULD MAYBE HAPPEN IS WE HAVE THE MEETING WITH THE INTERNAL, TELL THEM WHAT WE'RE DOING, SHOW THEM THE MAP, SHOW THEM WHAT THE GOAL IS, AND THEN START JUST BRAINSTORMING, BUT ALSO, THEY STILL COULD PROVIDE INFORMATION AFTER THE MEETING, COULD YOU PLEASE FILL OUT THIS, LET US KNOW ABOUT THIS, OR WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS? THEN THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE MEETING. THEY MAY JUST COME THAT ONE TIME AND SAY, YES, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT, AND THEY'RE DONE. >> YEAH, I CAN SEE THAT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. >> YEAH. WE WOULD SCHEDULE THOSE MEETINGS AND LINE IT UP TO WHEREVER THE PLACE IS CONVENIENT. IT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE RIGHT HERE, BUT WE WOULD HAVE IT. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD NAME EVERY ONE OF THEM AT THIS POINT. WE'LL SPEND MORE TIME DOING THAT AND THAT SHOULD DO IT. IT WOULD WORK.. >> BUT I THINK WE HAVE THE GROUP. >> I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO ATTACH THAT WAS NAMED. I THINK ONE OF THE PERVIOUS-IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. >> BEFORE WE GET TO THE SPECIFICS, LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT THE OVERALL GOALS. CAN WE IDENTIFY. THAT'S, I SUPPOSE, IN THE COMP PLAN, THE GOALS, BUT WE AGREED TO THE GOALS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. I WENT THROUGH THE COMP PLAN. THE COMP PLAN WOULD SAY WE WANT TO DEVELOP UNDER UTILIZED AREAS AND INEFFICIENT LAND USE PATTERNS. WE WANT TO ESTABLISH DESTINATION ACTIVITY CENTERS. BY THE WAY, WE DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD BLIGHT. I DON'T LIKE ANYTHING THAT'S TECHNICALLY BLIGHT. >> THAT WAS A SPECIFIC MEANING. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WE WANT TO PROMOTE COMPACT ENERGY, EFFICIENT, MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL ACTIVITY THROUGH SETBACKS, REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ENHANCE LANDSCAPING. THOSE ARE THE GOALS. I WOULD ADD, I FORGET WHO, SOMEBODY SAID IT, BUT EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE DOING IS FOR RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. WE AREN'T DOING IT FOR DEVELOPERS. WE'RE MAKING A CITY THAT PEOPLE WILL LOVE. WHEN I CAME ON THE BOARD, KELLY GAVE ME A BOOK FROM THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION THAT SAID, THE PLAN IS A PICTURE OF WHAT RESIDENTS WANT [00:25:02] THE COMMUNITY TO LOOK LIKE AND FEEL LIKE IN 20 YEARS. THAT VISION, THEIR VISION IS THE PLAN'S ONLY GOAL. WHATEVER WE DO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ENHANCING THE COMMUNITY'S CHARACTER AND ITS IDENTITY AND THAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE ARE GOING TO LOVE US FOR WHAT WE'RE DOING AND I GO, OH, MY GOODNESS, THE BULLDOZERS ARE OUT AGAIN. >> I THINK YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO GET THAT, BUT THE GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE THIS AREA THAT WE IDENTIFIED AS EFFICIENT AS A COMMERCIAL AREA AND SOMETHING THAT MEETS OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO READ THE VISION RIGHT HERE. WE'LL BE HERE ALL DAY JUST IN MINUTIA OR SOMETHING. >> I DON'T WANT TO BE IN MINUTIA. I WANT THE THREE OF YOU TO DO THE MINUTIA, AS A MATTER OF FACT, BUT I DO WANT TO KNOW IF SOMEBODY ASKED ME, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? I WANT A TWO-SENTENCE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION. >> I'LL ANSWER THEM RIGHT NOW. >> GO. >> I WANT TO HAVE AN EFFICIENT WAY TO GET TO THESE PLACES, IN AND OUT OF THEM, FIND A PLACE TO PARK WHEN YOU'RE THERE, HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PLEASING TO GO TO, THAT WORKS EFFICIENTLY FOR THE OWNERS AND THE PEOPLE THAT COME AND SHOP AND MEETS OUR VISION OF A NICE LIVABLE COMMUNITY. IN THAT, YOU CAN HAVE ALL KINDS OF THINGS, PARKING, INTER-CONNECTIVITY. ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT THAT DON'T EVER GET DOWN. THEY GET TO THREE-FOOT SIDEWALKS INSTEAD OF 10-FOOT. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO, WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, IF PEOPLE ARE FREAKING HAPPY, WHERE AM I GOING TO GET MY GROCERIES NEXT? YOU CLOSED TWO STORES ON THE ISLAND AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE IN ST. MARY'S TELL US TO STAY ON THE ISLAND. YOU'VE EVER SEEN THESE PEOPLE WHO ARE FAITHFUL TO COME HERE? STAY ON THE ISLAND, DON'T COME TO ST. MARY, BUT I WANT TO SEE EFFICIENCIES IN PLACE, AND IF WE HAVE TO SOME INCENTIVES FOR THE OWNERSHIPS TO MAKE IT MORE A LIKABLE COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT. THEY DON'T WANT A LOT OF DENSITY. THEY DON'T WANT A LOT OF CONGESTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN SOLVE ALL OF THOSE ISSUES, BUT I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY MITIGATE SOME OF THEM. THAT'S OUR GOAL, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO THAT NOW WITH THE BIG DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT SOME OF THE ITEMS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> SEE, I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT. I'M FOR ALL THAT. THAT'S CORRECT, BUT IF IT'S UGLY, I'M AGAINST IT. >> KEEP IN MIND THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY POWER OF AESTHETICS. >> I THINK WE DO HERE, THOUGH. >> YEAH, WE DO IN THIS. >> WE DO? ARCHITECTURAL-WISE? >> IN COMMERCIAL, YOU CAN. RESIDENTIAL, YOU CAN'T. COMMERCIAL IS FLEXIBLE. >> EVEN IN THE MU8, WHEN WE READ IT, TAYLOR RENO, WE HAD TO MEET CERTAIN ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS. >> THEY WERE LIMITED, I ACTUALLY REMEMBER. >> YEAH, BUT THERE'S GUIDELINES. >> DOES ANYBODY REMEMBER WILLIE'S PROGRAM? IT WAS LITTLE STOREFRONT THAT HAD A [INAUDIBLE] BOARD SIGNS [INAUDIBLE] >> I THINK WE CAN TWEAK THIS. YOU ALREADY HAVE THIS OBJECTIVE TO SAY THAT THE GOAL IS TO FOCUS ON REDEVELOPMENT IN-FIELD TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT IN AN ALREADY URBANIZED AREA THAT PROVIDES HOUSING, YOUR SHOPPING, PRESERVES OPEN SPACE, CAPITALIZES ON EXISTING COMMUNITY ASSETS. YOU CAN TWEAK THIS ALE BIT. SOME OF THE STUFF MAY NOT APPLY, BUT TO ALSO SAY WHAT COMMISSIONER BENTON SAID ABOUT CONNECTIVITY. WE CAN TWEAK THAT LAST SENTENCE AND SEND IT BACK OUT. >> I WOULD JUST ADD, ENRICH THE COMMUNITY'S CHARACTER AND IDENTITY. SOME OF THE STUFF IS DOWN LOWER IN THE DOCUMENT AND IN THE PLANNING PROCESS. I WOULD TALK ABOUT THAT AND I WOULD TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE SENSE OF PLACE [INAUDIBLE] THAT STUFF IS IN THE TOP PLAN ALREADY. >> WE COULD DRAFT IT AND THEN SEND IT TO THE SMALLER COMMITTEE TO TWEAK AT THEIR NEXT MEETING OR AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, HOWEVER I WANT TO DO IT. >> WHAT I HOPE THAT MAYBE CREATING THESE OVERLAYS DOES, FROM AN INCENTIVIZING PERSPECTIVE, [00:30:02] IS THAT IF A NEW BUSINESS WANTS TO COME TO FERNANDINA, AND THERE'S A OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A STAND ALONE IN A PLACE THAT, SAY, WE HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT IS A COMMERCIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT STICKS OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, VERSUS COMING INTO AN OVERLAY THAT SAYS, HERE'S THE GUIDELINES, AND IF THIS MEETS YOUR REQUIREMENTS, HOW EASY IT IS FOR YOU TO GO INTO THIS OVERLAY, VERSUS THOUGHT OF HAVING A COMMERCIAL PIECE HERE AND A COMMERCIAL PIECE HERE AND A COMMERCIAL PIECE HERE THAT MAYBE DRAWS MORE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES TO AN OVERLAY AND STARTS THAT INFILL PIECE OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BECAUSE THAT, I THINK, IS AN OPPORTUNITY. I WOULD THINK IF YOU CAN PRESENT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, SOMEONE COMES IN AS A BUSINESS SAYING, I WANT TO START A BUSINESS, AND I'VE GOT A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I'M LOOKING AT OVER HERE, THAT THE CITY SAYS, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THIS OVERLAY ON SADDLER ROAD OR 14TH STREET, OR WHEREVER IT IS THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED THESE OVERLAYS. THAT'S WHERE THEY TEND TO DEVELOP. THEN THE REST OF THE PROPERTY, THE REST OF THE LAND IS FOR RESIDENTIAL OR FOR CONSERVATION OR FOR THE OTHER USES THAT THE CITY HAS GONE INTO. >> THIS AREA IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE IN DEMAND. IT'S JUST CENTRAL TO EVERYTHING, WHERE THE TOURISTS ARE AND WHERE THE PEOPLE SHOP. >> AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE IS GO INTO AN OVERLAY THAT ENCOURAGES COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO BE THE ONE. >> WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ESTABLISH HERE, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT? ARE WE TRYING TO DO A MISSION STATEMENT? >> I THINK WE JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE GOALS ARE FOR RIGHT NOW. >> THE GOALS ARE DRIVEN BY THE TOP PLAN. THEY TELL US TO LOOK AT THIS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS CORRIDOR. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> WE WERE DRIVEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO LOOK AT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT. >> I JUST PULLED THAT OUT OF THE PLAN, AND THEN I ADDED SOME THOUGHTS OF MY OWN TOO. TO HELP LOCAL BUSINESS OWNERS THRIVE INSTEAD OF GOING OUT OF BUSINESS, OR LET THEM BE SUCCESSFUL. [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE HAVE A LOT OF BUSINESS CLOSED DOWN NOW. THEY'RE STARTING TO PILE UP ON EACH OTHER. AROUND HERE, THERE'S LITTLE SHOPS, ESPECIALLY RESTAURANTS THAT ARE GOING SLOWLY OUT. I THINK WE NEED CORRIDORS LIKE THIS, ESPECIALLY SADDLER ROAD BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH RESIDENTIAL AROUND IT. I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO HELP THE LOCAL BUSINESS OWNER BECOME SUCCESSFUL AND MAINTAIN THAT. >> TRANSPORTATION IS GOING TO BE A BIG PART OF THAT. TROLLEY SYSTEMS THAT THEY DO AT [INAUDIBLE] COUNTY, THOSE STREET VEHICLES, SOME SHOPPING CENTERS DO THAT. >> I WILL SAY YOU DO HAVE SOME C-1 ALONG. >> ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S DREDGED UP. BUT IT'S SOMETHING I THINK THAT WE CAN THINK ABOUT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE DRIVING FROM THAT WALK TO THAT WALK. THEY GOT TO BE ABLE TO WALK AND DO THAT SAFELY. >> I THINK OUR NUMBER 1 IS WE WANT BUSINESSES TO NOT GO OUT OF BUSINESS. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN SURVIVE AND THAT WE CAN TACKLE THE OTHER. WE'RE ALL SET UP RIGHT NOW FOR ALL OF THIS INTER-CONNECTIVITY AND ALL THE BUZZWORDS THAT GO WITH IT, THAT'S PRETTY EASY BECAUSE A LOT OF IT'S THERE. WE JUST GOT TO FIND A WAY TO HELP PEOPLE REDEVELOP. >> YOU DO HAVE SOME C-1 PROPERTY ALONG THE CORRIDOR THAT IS PROBABLY GETTING CLOSE TO THE LIFE OF THE BUILDING AND IT'S GOING TO REDEVELOP. INSTEAD OF ENCOURAGING THEM TO STAY IN THE DILAPIDATED BUILDINGS, WHERE IT'S CHEAPER FOR THEM TO GO TO RENT THERE, THEN TRY TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO GO AHEAD AND REDEVELOP IT AND MAKE IT NICER AND ENCOURAGE. >> [OVERLAPPING] THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR IT DOWN, BUILD A NEW ONE. IT'S LAYING WITHIN 1,000 SQUARE FOOT BIGGER. >> IT JUST SHOWS YOU THAT IT TAKES THAT BIG OF A BUILDING TO MAKE SOMEONE DO THAT. IT TAKES LARGE PARCELS PUT TOGETHER, WHICH IS ONLY WHAT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. >> THAT IS AN INTERESTING POINT. I THINK I'M DONE WITH MY PART OF THE AGENDA, SO WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER. >> WE WANT EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS? >> WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE INTERNAL. >> CAN WE IDENTIFY? [00:35:03] >> I THINK YOU CAN START. I THINK ONCE YOU MEET WITH YOUR INTERNAL, YOU MAY HAVE MORE IDEAS, BUT I THINK AS FAR AS YOUR EXTERNAL, YOU CAN ALREADY TELL US, YES, WE WANT YOU TO SEND OUT A NOTICE TO ALL THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND INVITE THEM IN FOR A WORKSHOP OR CONVERSATION OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT. YOU CAN TELL US THAT NOW IF THAT'S ONE OF THE STAKEHOLDERS YOU WANT. >> DON'T WANT TO DO THAT NOW. BUT I THINK WE DO WANT TO SAY PROPERTY OWNERS THERE. >> BUT YOU CAN DO THAT WITH OUR AGENDAS. WHEN WE HAVE A MEETING, WE CAN EMAIL THAT AGENDA TO SOME SPECIFIC. >> [OVERLAPPING] AFTER WE GET THE BLESSING FROM THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THIS IS WORTHWHILE WHEN WE DO A PRESENTATION TO THEM, AND THEN THEY COME IN. BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE BIG MISTAKES THE COUNTY'S MAKING ON THEIR TIMBERED TIDES IS THEY NEVER INVITED IN ALL THE LITTLE STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE THERE, AND NOW PEOPLE ARE GETTING NOTICED ON IT AND THEY'RE FURIOUS. BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR TWO OR THREE YEARS, AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT IT. >> WE DON'T WANT THAT. >> WE DON'T WANT THAT, ESPECIALLY HERE, BECAUSE IT'S PRETTY EASY TO NOTIFY THE 25 OR WHATEVER MANY OWNERS THERE ARE. I THINK GETTING OUT AHEAD OF THAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY. >> YOU WANT THAT BUY IN WHEN IT COMES TO THE FINAL STEPS. YOU WANT PEOPLE TO COME IN SUPPORT OF IT AND NOT IN OPPOSITION. >> I THINK IN THE CASE OF THE LARGE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE FOLKS WHO OWN THE LOTS, SHOPPING CENTER THAT'S IT'S WORTH A PERSONAL VISIT, A ONE ON ONE VISIT FROM SOMEBODY. >> YOU GOT TO BE [INAUDIBLE] >> YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT PLAYING FAVORITES WITH THE GUYS. I AGREE WITH THAT. >> THAT'S WHY HAVING THEM COME HERE TO A MEETING IS USUALLY THE BEST WAY TO DO IT. IT TAKES ALL THAT OUT OF THERE. I'M COMING BACK TO STEP 1. WE'VE ESTABLISHED THE BOUNDARIES. WE HAVE GOT THE PROJECT TEAM. WE'VE IDENTIFIED INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS, AND WE'RE SAYING THE EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND THE KEY PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE PHASE 2. OTHER THAN MAYBE IDENTIFYING GENERAL NAMES OF THIS EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS. BUT THOSE, WE DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS UNTIL WE'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH OUR PLAN. >> WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T FORGET. I DON'T THINK WE WILL, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO GET OUT AHEAD OF INTERESTED PARTIES. WE NEED TO KNOW. >> I AGREE. >> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GET THEM TOO FAR OUT FRONT OF US BEFORE WE EVEN KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. >> WE HAVE MEETING, BUT WE NEVER GET ANYTHING. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT IN THE NEXT WORKSHOP, I GUESS, OR MAYBE TO THE PAB TO SHOW THE PROGRESS THAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS MAKING IS BASICALLY, THE BOUNDARIES, THE PROJECT TEAM, THE INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS, AND THAT THERE WILL BE EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND THERE WILL BE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT MORE IMPORTANT TO ESTABLISH THE OVERALL GOALS OF THE OVERLAY PLAN. I THINK IF YOU COULD DO THAT, ONCE YOU OPEN IT UP TO THE EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN START TO LOSE CONTROL OF IT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PLAN ALREADY ESTABLISHED. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. >> THAT'S WHAT I THINK IS A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION OF MAYBE THREE OR FOUR SLIDES. >> WE'RE NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THAT. >> NO, WE'RE NOT. >> FRANKLY, I THINK WE'RE WASTING A LOT OF TIME GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS STUFF THAT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A PLAN, KNOW WE'RE GOING BEFORE WE INVITE ANYONE HERE. >> WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT WHAT ARE THE GOALS. >> LET'S GET INTO THE WEEDS OF IT. I AGREE. IF YOU'RE READY, DAPHNE. >> I'M READY. I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD STEP BY STEP PROCESS OF THINGS TO LOOK AT IN ORDER. >> [OVERLAPPING] WHAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT. >> WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT SOME OF THE EIGHTH STREET OVERLAY, HOW THEY DID IT. [00:40:05] MAYBE THAT COULD BE LIKE A BLUEPRINT FOR US AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT CHANGES WE WANT TO SEE, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS TO THE RESIDENTIAL AND CONSERVATION PARTS. >> DAPHNE, DO YOU WANT TO DRAFT UP SOMETHING? >> DO YOU MIND BRINGING UP THE MU-8? >> THE STANDARDS? >> YEAH. >> THE OVERLAY STANDARDS, YEAH. >> THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO THAT. >> IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME PROCESS PRETTY MUCH AS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE. >> IN THAT PROCESS, WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF THE ARCHITECTS AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY DOING PROJECTS AND BRINGING IN OTHERS. >> [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHERE THEY'RE AT. IF THEY'RE IN THE SLIDES OR STANDARDS. >> [INAUDIBLE] BUT THAT TOOK WEEKS TO FINALLY GET INTO SOMETHING THAT'S APPEARED REASONABLE AND WE GOT THAT TO PASS. >> DO WE WANT TO START WITH TACKLING JUST THE COMMERCIAL ELEMENT OF THIS AND THEN MOVE TO RESIDENTIAL, HOW DO YOU GUYS WANT TO DO, OR DO YOU WANT IT TO ALL COME TOGETHER. >> YOU BROUGHT UP, YOU SAID, THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC THINGS WE MENTIONED, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, PARKING, AND THOSE ARE BIG SUBJECTS ON BOTH OF THOSE. I WOULD LIKE TO START WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT, ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT IS, BUT I WANT TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF CHANGES. IF WE DO IT, WHAT HAPPENS, HOW MUCH WATER IS COMING OFF TO THE STREET, HOW MUCH OIL IS GOING INTO EGAN STREET NOW AND PETROCHEMICALS OR WHATEVER. >> YOU WANT TO LOOK AT DESIGN STANDARD PARTS? >> I WANT TO SEE THAT WHAT THAT CHANGE DOES AND WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO SOMEONE BRINGING A PROJECT, [OVERLAPPING] I WANT TO DO THIS, AND HOW IT COMES DOWN TO HOW MANY SQUARE FEET I WANT TO PUT UP. >> I THINK A GOOD WAY WE COULD APPROACH THIS IS IF WE LOOK AT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE'S AN ORDER OF REVIEW BASICALLY FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND WE CAN TACKLE IT BY THAT. WE CAN LOOK AT SECTION 2 ZONING DISTRICTS, WHAT'S ALLOWED WITHIN PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICTS, AND WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE WITHIN THAT AND THEN GO BY ORDER. SECTION 2, SECTION 4, WHERE WE GET TO THE REAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GO FROM THERE. THAT WAY WE DON'T MISS ANYTHING IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IT. YOU GUYS ARE DOING IT ALL THE TIME. >> I'M NOT ANYMORE. >> I THINK SHE'S RIGHT BECAUSE, FIRST, YOU ESTABLISH YOUR USES, AND THEN YOU ESTABLISH YOUR DESIGN BECAUSE YOU'RE DESIGN MAYBE BASED ON YOUR USES. IF YOU'RE INDUSTRIAL, WHICH WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE, YOU MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT IMPERVIOUS AREA OR DESIGN STANDARD FOR THAT. THAT'S A GOOD ARGUMENT. >> I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM A PERSPECTIVE AS A FORMER PLANNER WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN TO DEVELOP A PROPERTY, EVERY SINGLE APPLICABLE SECTION THAT WOULD POSSIBLY APPLY TO THAT. START FROM THE BEGINNING ALL THE WAY TO THE END SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT MISSING ANY CRITICAL PARTS OF IT. >> CAN YOU GO TO SECTION 2 OF THE CODE, MARGARET, JUST TO SHOW THE PERMITTED USES AND DESIGN CLASSIFICATION. SORRY, I KNOW I'M BUMPING YOU AROUND. SORRY. >> MARGARET, AS WE GET INTO IT TOO, WE GET A PACKET WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING, WE GET ALL THE MAPS FROM THE VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES. THE STAFF WILL PROVIDE ALL OF THAT, THAT SHOWS. >> I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT. >> I'M SAYING I THINK AS WE GET INTO THIS, THE STAFF IS GOING TO PROVIDE THOSE MAPS FOR US. I FORGET WHAT THEY ALL COVER, BUT THEY HAVE TO DO WITH WATER. >> [OVERLAPPING] WE'LL GET TO THAT. >> I WANT TO KNOW IF I HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE OVER THE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER AND THEY'RE TAKING OUT PUBLIC AND YOU WANT TO HAVE A HIGHER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. >> [OVERLAPPING] WE GET IN ALL THAT SECTION THROUGH SECTION. >> ALL OF THOSE CATEGORIES THAT HAS AN IMPACT, AND THAT'S JUST ONE ITEM, BUT I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ONE. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> IT SURE IS. >> THE NEXT HAS GOT TO BE PARKING. >> ALL THAT'S IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS. LET'S TACKLE IT STEP BY STEP SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS ANYTHING. I THINK THE FIRST STEP IS LOOKING AT THESE USES. WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE IN THERE, WHAT'S EXISTING, ETC? >> IS THIS AN MU-8 CORRIDOR OR A C-1 CORRIDOR? WHAT DO WE THINK? >> YOU MEAN IN TERMS OF WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE? >> YEAH. WHAT USES? >> WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ALLOWING FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN COMMERCIAL. [00:45:04] >> LET'S GO TO THE C-1, C-2S. >> AND THE MU-8. >> THESE ARE ALL COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES INITIALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT. >> EXACTLY. BUT WHAT DO WE WANT? DO WE WANT TO ALLOW. >> [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T KNOW. LET'S SEE IF THAT IS SOMETHING WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT. THAT'S A BIG STEP, ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL. >> IT IS A PART OF THE WHOLE PROCESS OF HOW DO WE INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO REDEVELOP. THAT'S LIKE BINGO NUMBER 1 INCENTIVIZE. >> ONCE YOU GO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL [INAUDIBLE]. >> [OVERLAPPING] WE SET OUR STANDARDS. WE'RE SETTING THE STANDARD NOW WHAT WE WANT TO SEE. WHAT DOES THE COMMUNITY WANT TO SEE? >> THE COMP PLAN CALLS FOR MIXED USE. >> IT DOES, YES. >> IT DOES. >> THAT'S GOOD POINT. >> I'M WITH YOU. BUT THE COMP PLAN SAYS. >> BUT WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION FOR MIXED USE, DO WE? >> IT SAYS RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL. >> DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION THAT SPECIFICALLY LAYS OUT WHAT IS MIXED USE? >> WE COULD SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WITHIN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE COULD ALLOW FOR VERTICAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AS AN INCENTIVE, FOR EXAMPLE. RIGHT NOW THAT'S NOT IN THERE. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIST, YOU HAVE NO RESIDENTIAL SO. >> BUT THE COMP PLAN SAYS MIXED USE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. >> WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? IS THAT ONLY A SECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL? >> CAN I SEND YOU SOMETHING? I'VE GOT A THING THAT I WROTE IT UP. >> YEAH. >> I JUST DID IT TODAY. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T SEND IT TO YOU BEFORE. >> IF YOU SEND IT TO ME, I CAN CALL IT UP. >> I THINK TYPICALLY WHEN YOU DO REDEVELOPMENT ALONG A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, YOU TYPICALLY HAVE GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL WITH THE MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT ON TOP OF IT. YOU DON'T LOSE YOUR COMMERCIAL ELEMENT ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, BUT YOU INCENTIVIZE THEM TO REDEVELOPMENT BY GIVING THEM RESIDENTIAL ON TOP. THAT MAYBE IS WHERE MU-8 LACKED ITS TEETH TO PRESERVE COMMERCIAL. ALTHOUGH, I STILL DON'T SUBMIT THAT EIGHTH STREET IS A GREAT COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEEP ENOUGH. BUT SADDLER CERTAINLY IS. >> YEAH, EXACTLY. >> IF YOU MAYBE REDEFINE MIXED USE AS GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL, I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT THERE, WITH THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT ON TOP OF IT AT A CERTAIN DENSITY. >> THAT'S A GREAT START. >> WOULD YOU WANT TO SPECIFY IT BE A RENTAL APARTMENT? >> WHATEVER YOU WANT TO. >> OR IT DOESN'T MATTER? >> DOESN'T MATTER. >> IT DOESN'T MATTER. >> IT'LL HAVE TO BE SOME FORM OF A CONDO BECAUSE IT'S STACKED ON TOP OF COMMERCIAL. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FEE SIMPLE. IT WON'T BE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, IT WON'T BE DUPLEXES, TOWN HOUSES. THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY MEET THAT DESIGNATION, BUT MAYBE THIS IS MIXED USE SADDLER. >> I JUST SENT IT TO YOU, MARGARET. >> OKAY. I'LL JUST SEE IF I CAN. >> MUS. >> THERE WE GO. >> THAT GET A LOT OF POTENTIAL, ACTUALLY. A LOT OF POTENTIAL. >> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPERS LOVE TO HEAR. I CAN ADD SOME DENSITY INTO THIS. THEY LOVE IT. >> BUT KEEP IN MIND, ONCE YOU'VE DONE THAT, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE IMPACTS OF ALL THESE. >> EXACTLY. WHICH IS WHY WE'RE GOING STEP BY STEP BECAUSE WE GOT TO ADDRESS IT OFF. >> WE DID SAY THAT THIS IS AN OVERLAY AND NOT A ZONE CLASS. >> EXACTLY. >> OUR OVERLAY WOULD BE CALLED MIXED USE SADDLER. >> EXACTLY. >> WITHIN THE OVERLAY, THEN WE CAN MAKE ANY SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OR ANY PROPERTY ZONING OR WHATEVER. >> AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE RESIDENTIAL, WHETHER TO INCLUDE IT OR NOT AND HOW TO DO THAT, I WAS THINKING WE COULD ESTABLISH TRANSITIONAL AREAS WITHIN THE OVERLAY THAT ARE THAT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AND REALLY CRAFT IT TO WHAT WE WANT TO SEE AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE. WE CAN JUST CALL IT LIKE A TRANSITIONAL AREA OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW WE WANT TO PUT IT. >> I KNOW WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EXACTLY, BUT WE CAN DO SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO SEE, THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE, AND DEVELOPERS, IT'S WORTHWHILE TO THEM ECONOMICALLY TO DO. I'M WITH YOU TOO, I THINK TRANSPORTATION NEEDS A LOT OF ATTENTION HERE. I LIKE PEOPLE. I REALLY DON'T LIKE CARS. >> THE PARKING IMPACT TO THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO REALLY THINK ABOUT. >> THAT'S A HUGE ONE. >> WELL, THE MIXED USE COMPONENT HAS EVERYBODY SHARING PARKING, WHICH CUTS DOWN ON A LOT OF THE INTERNAL CAPTURE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. WELL SOME DAYS THERE MAY JUST BE TRAFFIC ON THE ROAD. IT BEATS THE ALTERNATIVE OF EVERYBODY GOING OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT I'D RATHER HAVE PEOPLE THERE THAT ARE ACTUALLY THRIVING. >> IF YOU HAVE AN AREA LIKE THIS OR EVEN EXPANDED, AND YOU PROVIDE TRANSPORTATION. [OVERLAPPING] >> SCROLL DOWN, MARGARETTE. >> TO THE AREA THAT'S REGULARLY SCALABLE. >> TO NUMBER 5, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS. [00:50:01] THERE WE GO. THESE ARE JUST SOME IDEAS. WE TALKED ABOUT THE VERTICAL MIXED USE WITHIN THE OVERLAY FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT ABOUT INCLUDING THAT AS A CHANGE? [NOISE] >> I KNOW WHAT VERTICAL MEANS. >> VERTICAL MEANS UP AND DOWN. >> YOU'RE NOT INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, [OVERLAPPING] IT'S JUST VERTICAL. EXACTLY. >> WHEREVER YOU DO THAT. >> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S 45 FEET. >> THAT'S THE BUILDING HEIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] >> WE GET 45 FEET. >> FORTY-FIVE FEET? >> WITHIN COMMERCIAL. YEAH. THAT'S ALREADY WHAT'S ALLOWED, SO IT'S NOT INCREASED. >> IS THAT THREE STORIES? >> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY. [OVERLAPPING] >> THREE OR FOUR, DEPENDS ON WHAT THE ARCHITECT DESIGNS. [BACKGROUND] >> I'M JUST THINKING THAT TOO BECAUSE IT'S ALLOWING FOR, AGAIN, THAT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY TEAR ANYTHING DOWN JUST TO BUILD A RESIDENTIAL PORTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, USING EXISTING FOOTPRINTS AND THEN ADDING ON TOP OF THOSE FOOTPRINTS, REALLY. >> IT TAKES IT LIKE THIS TO WHERE NOW WE GOT ONE STORY COMPONENTS, [NOISE] AND WE JUST TURN IT VERTICALLY. NOW WE'VE STACKED THEM UP AND WE'VE GOT MORE CHANCE FOR PARKING AND OPEN SPACE AND THINGS DOWN BELOW. >> EXACTLY. >> IT COULD HAVE PARKING UNDERNEATH AS WELL, COULDN'T YOU HAVE? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> I LIKE THAT CONCEPT. >> WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON PARKING UNDERGROUND. >> A SADLER WOULD BE TOUGH BECAUSE THE WATER TABLE IS PRETTY HIGH. >> THE WATER TABLE IS HIGH. >> NEAR THE BEACH, LIKE THE DUAL-BRANDED HOTEL, THAT ONE WAS EASY TO DO. >> [OVERLAPPING] I LIKE ARTICLE 2. >> GREAT. >> ARTICLE 4, DESIGN STANDARDS ADJUST SECTION. >> THAT'S ONE PIECE. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS WITHIN LDC SECTION 4 THAT WE COULD LOOK AT. >> NOW IS ARTICLE 4 ALSO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE? IS THAT WHERE THAT IS? >> YES. >> BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG SUBJECT. >> WE CAN ADD THAT TO THAT. THESE ARE JUST ONES THAT I THOUGHT OF IMMEDIATELY. >> IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO THAT, IF YOU CAN. >> IT'S HER DOCUMENTS. I MUST GO TO HER. >> IT'S FINE. YOU CAN AND MARK IT UP. THAT'S FINE WITH ME. >> I'M MAKING NOTES HERE. >> DESIGN STANDARD. AGAIN, WITH COMMERCIAL, IS THAT WHERE YOU TALK ABOUT THE BEACH VIBE THAT WE THINK IS ON SADLER ROAD? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> HOW DID YOU LOOK OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE'RE GOING FOR? >> ARE YOU THINKING ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS OR ARE YOU THINKING LANDSCAPE STANDARDS? I THINK LANDSCAPE STANDARDS WHEN I THINK ABOUT [OVERLAPPING] THE BEACH VIBE, A LOT MORE INCREASED VEGETATIVE BUFFERS WITH MORE ORNAMENTAL TREES, AND THAT'S REAL ENTRANCE INTO THE BEACH. >> [OVERLAPPING] MARGARETTE, IF YOU HIT "CONTROL" AND ZOOM. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS DOING AND IT'S NOT WORKING FOR SOME REASON. >> BUT ALSO SOME ELEMENTS THAT I KEEP COMING BACK TO AND [OVERLAPPING] INTERESTED IN. >> YOU HIT "CONTROL". >> I HAVE TO SAVE IT TO THE DESKTOP. >> THAT COASTAL VIBE. >> SURE. >> I CAN DO IT. >> MIGHT BE BUILDING MATERIAL. >> BUILDING MATERIAL. >> WE JUST HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO PRICE SOMEBODY OUT, BUT YES, I AGREE. >> SOMETHING THAT GIVES YOU THAT, "YOU'RE COMING TO THE BEACH? COOL." >> AGAIN, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE 8TH STREET OVERLAY THAT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO BEACH, BUT IT GUIDES WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD LOOK LIKE. SO WITHOUT SAYING SPECIFIC MATERIALS THAT YOU NEED TO DO, WE COULD SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT YOU TO SEE. >> THESE ARE THE CONCEPTS. >> EXACTLY. THIS IS HOW WE WOULD LIKE IT TO LOOK. >> THAT'S GOOD. >> WE WANT THAT. >> SORRY? >> WE WANT THAT. >> YES. >> WELL, IF WE'RE TRYING TO REALLY ESTABLISH, LIKE YOU SAID, THAT BEACHY VIBE, THE QUARTER STRAIGHT INTO THE OCEAN, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS, THEN I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. IT ALSO ENCOURAGES MORE WALKABILITY, THE SENSE OF PLACE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. IT'S DEFINITELY IMPORTANT. >> THAT MAKES ME HAPPY. >> NO, THAT'S A GOOD START. >> IN SECTION 402, WHERE WE TALK ABOUT HEIGHT, FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE'VE ALREADY GOT OUR SET 45 FEET HEIGHT. WHAT ARE THE THOUGHTS ON EITHER INCREASING THAT, KEEPING IT AS IS? WHAT DO WE THINK? >> I DON'T WANT TO GO ANY HIGHER THAN 45. >> I DON'T THINK THAT WE'LL GET STORMED. >> WELL, WE TRY TO GO TO 65 ON 8TH STREET, WE GOT TO RUN OUT OF THE BUILDING. >> LET'S SCRATCH GREATER HEIGHT. WE KEEP THE HEIGHT FOR COMMERCIAL EXACTLY AS IS. >> KEEP IN MIND, WHEN YOU GO HIGHER, [00:55:03] YOU'RE ALSO INCREASING IMPACT. >> WIND LOAD AND ALL THAT. >> BUT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO [INAUDIBLE] IMPERVIOUS AREA TOO, BUT I GET YOUR POINT ON THAT. >> INCREASED LOT COVERAGE AND IMPERVIOUS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING HERE. WE HAVE 60% CURRENTLY WITHIN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHAT DO WE WANT THIS TO LOOK LIKE? SIXTY PERCENT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CURRENTLY IS ALLOWED. DO WE WANT TO KEEP THAT? DO WE WANT TO ALLOW? NO, IT'S 60. >> IT'S 60 NOW. WELL, I WANT TO KNOW ANY INCREASE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> WELL, THINK OF THIS WAY. THIS IS ONE THING I WANT TO JUST PUT OUT THERE IS WE'RE LOOKING AT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY PROBABLY 98%. I CAN TELL YOU THE LOTS, PROBABLY 98% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ALREADY. THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. HOW DO WE ADDRESS WHAT'S EXISTING THERE WHILE INCENTIVIZING THEM TO REDEVELOPMENT IN A WAY THAT WE WANT IT TO LOOK? >> FOR EXAMPLE, THE PUBLIC BUILDING, YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU THOUGHT THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS 98%. >> THE LOTS. >> THE LOTS, BUT THE RULE IS 60%, SO IT'S A NONCONFORMING PROPERTY. >> SURE. THEY HAD TO GET A VARIANCE ACTUALLY WHEN THEY REDEVELOP TO ALLOW FOR THAT INCREASE IN THEIR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. BUT THINKING ABOUT IT, IN A REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVIZATION MINDSET, HOW DO WE ADDRESS IT? WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO? >> AS PART OF THEIR VARIANCE, WERE THEY REQUIRED TO DO SOMETHING? >> HOW ARE THEY HANDLING STORMWATER? >> WELL, THEY'RE STILL HANDLING STORMWATER. IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT HANDLING IT, I THINK THEY WERE SLIGHTLY OVER. YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE OR NOT, BUT THEY HAD TO ALLOW FOR A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THEIR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. WHAT THEY DID IS ADD MORE LANDSCAPING, KEPT WHAT WAS ALREADY THERE, ETC. BUT THE THING ABOUT IT IS THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH THAT EXTRA STEP TO GET A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO REDEVELOP IN THE WAY THAT THEY WANTED TO REDEVELOP. IT'S A BARRIER. >> BUT WHEN THEY BUILT IT, THERE WEREN'T PROBABLY THE RULES IN PLACE THERE. >> SURE. EXACTLY. >> ALL THAT WATER NOW JUST GOES. >> THEY HAVE VERY LIMITED PONDS. PUBLIX HAS A POND OUT FRONT AND SWELLS ALONG 14TH. >> WHAT'S THE POND IN THE BACK? >> THERE'S A POND BACK THERE TOO. THAT PARK IS PART OF THEIRS. >> DOES THAT COLLECT STORMWATER? >> EVERY POND THAT YOU SEE THERE GETS STORMWATER. >> THEY DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS PART ONLY. >> NO. >> [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE IS WHERE YOU HAVE 98% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND YOU'VE GOT STORMWATER OR RAINWATER, JUST FLOODING OFF OF YOUR PROPERTY ONTO OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY OR TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. >> SURE, WHICH EITHER WAY, IN A REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ENSURE THAT THEIR STORMWATER IS KEPT ON SITE. THE CITY'S NOT JUST GOING TO SAY, WELL, THAT'S FINE. WE'LL LET YOUR PROPERTY OWNERS DEAL WITH THE AFTER EFFECTS. [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU HAVE A RETENTION POND, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT A POP-OFF. THE POP-OFF THEN USUALLY GOES INTO THE CITY'S STORMWATER. THEN IT BECOMES THE CITY'S PROBLEM ON HANDLING THE STORMWATER FOR NOT ONLY JUST THAT FACILITY, BUT ALL THE OTHER FACILITIES. DOES THE CITY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO HANDLE THAT STORMWATER, WHICH IS A BIG QUESTION? >> WELL, HERE'S THE POINT THAT I'M LOOKING AT. IF IT'S 98% TODAY AND THEN WE REDUCE IT TO 85%, YOU'RE LOSING 13% OF IMPERVIOUS AND YOU KEEP THE SAME POND, SO IT'S GOT TO HELP OUT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'RE REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS AREA. WE CAN WRITE THIS IN THE RULES. IF YOU KEEP THE SAME STORMWATER CAPACITY YOU HAVE TODAY, YOU DON'T SHRINK THE STORMWATER AND YOU SHRINK THE IMPERVIOUS, KEEP THAT THE SAME WAY IT IS. IF YOU REDUCE THE DRAINAGE AREA THAT GOES INTO IT, YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE OUTFALL. >> BY REDUCING IT, YOU'RE INCREASING YOUR LANDSCAPING? >> YES. >> MORGAN, I GUESS I'M REALLY ASKING YOU, YOU MIGHT KNOW AS WELL. [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU'RE ON THE CLOCK, MORGAN. [LAUGHTER] >> DID I SAY MORGAN? I MEANT MARGARETTE. I'M SORRY. >> YOU GOT SOME MORE? >> YOU BEEP. OF BEST PRACTICES, OF CREATIVE THINGS THAT PEOPLE HAVE DONE. ARE THERE WAYS OF SOLVING THIS PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT PEOPLE ARE WRITING ABOUT SOMEWHERE THAT SOME CITY HAS COME UP WITH? YES. >> LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT. I. [01:00:01] >> YOU COULD GO AHEAD. SORRY. >> BUT LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT. >> [BACKGROUND] I UNDERSTAND. >> THE OTHER BIG THING I RECALL, THIS CAME UP A LOT, WE ALREADY HAVE IT IN OUR CODE IS THEY'LL ALLOW PERMEABLE SURFACES TO OFFSET WHATEVER THEIR IMPERVIOUS IS CURRENTLY. THE PROBLEM THAT CAME UP A LOT WITH THAT IN THE MATERIALS FOR THAT IS THE MAINTENANCE. IT SOUNDS GOOD. IT SOUNDS AMAZING. ALLOWING FOR IMPERVIABLE SURFACES, IT'S GREAT. BUT IN PRACTICE, WHAT WE KEPT RUNNING INTO IS THAT IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE MAINTAINED AND ENDED UP BEING IMPERVIOUS BECAUSE IT WASN'T MAINTAINED THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN. IT'S GREAT, BUT IS IT REALLY PRACTICAL? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME MORE RESEARCH DONE TO IT. >> WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT IF YOU USED PAVING BRICK IS IT LOOKS GREAT MAYBE THE FIRST YEAR, MAYBE. BUT OVER TIME, THEY START TO BECOME UNLEVEL, BECOMES TRIPPING HAZARDS. THEY DON'T REALLY ALLOW THE WATER TO DRAIN THROUGH LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO, AND THEN YOU HAVE A MAINTENANCE ISSUE WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO COME BACK IN AND RESET ALL THOSE. >> EXACTLY. >> THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM. >> I BRING THAT UP TOO BECAUSE I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S STILL IN OUR CODE UNDER COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT THEY MUST INCORPORATE SOME ORNAMENTAL, I DON'T KNOW. I'M TRYING TO FIND THE EXACT WORDING. >> LIKE A FEATURE? >> YEAH. YOU SHOULD USE BRICK IN CERTAIN AREAS, AND I THINK IT'S GREAT. IT'S JUST WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT IMPERVIOUS AND HOW TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE, IT'S NOT REALLY RELEVANT, I GUESS. IT'S NOT PRACTICAL. I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUMPING AROUND A LOT, BUT I LET'S GET BACK TO IMPERVIOUS. WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE? DO WE WANT TO SEE A DECREASE FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, OR DO WE WANT TO KEEP IT THE SAME? >> I DON'T MIND A DECREASE, BUT CERTAINLY MANAGING FLOODWATER OR STORMWATER AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S NO IMPACT TO NEIGHBORS, AND I GUESS IT'S BEING KEPT ON THE SITE, AND THEN THE ISSUE OF HOW DOES THE CITY DEAL WITH ADDITIONAL STORMWATER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WOULD PROBABLY HAPPEN. >> THERE WON'T BE ADDITIONAL. >> UNLESS IT PERCOLATES. >> LET ME THROW IT OUT THIS WAY. LET'S SAY THAT YOU HAVE A SITE. THE REASON WE'RE REDEVELOPING IS THEY'RE MOSTLY PAVED OR BUILDING ON THESE SITES, THERE'S NO GREEN SPACE. IF WE SAY THAT SOMEBODY CAN COME BACK WITH A FRACTION OF WHAT THEY'VE GOT UP TO A CERTAIN MAXIMUM, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY'RE AT 98% AND THEY GET TO KEEP 85% OF THAT 90%, PUTS THEM AT 75, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER WOULD BE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER OR THE CURRENT STANDARD OR THAT, AND IF THEY MAP OUT WHAT THEY HAVE FROM A STORMWATER STANDPOINT AND THEN RETAIN THAT VOLUME, IT CAN ONLY GO DOWN FROM A RUNOFF STANDPOINT. THEN THEY HAVE TO OFFSET THAT CHANGE WITH LANDSCAPING. >> MOST OF THE VARIANCES ARE BEING [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE] >> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? THAT'S WHAT I'M THROWING OUT. >> IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. [NOISE] WITHIN THE WITHIN THE BORDER, [NOISE] IT WOULD BE NICE. WE'RE DOING THIS, LIKE YOU SAID, TO KEEP BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS TO KEEP THE AREA VITAL. AS TOURISM, I GUESS IT'S STILL GOING UP. >> MAYBE NOT TODAY, BUT A COUPLE OF YEARS. >> BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS ALL THAT'S GOOD. WE NEED TO BE PRACTICAL. I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE ISLAND TO HAVE A REPUTATION TO BE KNOWN FOR BEING ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE. I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH WHAT YOU GUYS SAID, BUT WE WANT TO BE KNOWN AS WE'RE ON BARRIER ISLAND AND WE CARE, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE IRRESPONSIBLE IN WHAT WE DO. >> I GUESS THE BASIC QUESTION IS, AS DAPHNE SAID, WHERE IS THAT LINE? >> THAT'S THE QUESTION. >> YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT THAT IS TODAY, [OVERLAPPING] LIKE 75%. THE OUTSIDE STAKEHOLDERS MAY HAVE SOME THOUGHTS ON HOW MUCH THEY THINK IT NEEDS TO BE REDUCED. BUT ARE YOU WILLING TO LET THEM KEEP WHAT THEY HAVE AS A REDEVELOPMENT GOAL OR SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 60, WHICH IS CURRENT? ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT LOWERING, OR DO YOU WANT TO KEEP IT AT 60, OR ARE YOU GOING TO LET THEM OUT? >> I'LL MAKE TO COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING A COUPLE OF THINGS, [01:05:03] BECAUSE IF I HEARD NICK CORRECTLY, HE'S SAYING THAT RIGHT NOW THEY'VE DEVELOPED AROUND 90%. >> IT JUST LOOKS THAT WAY. >> THEY'RE GOING FOR A VARIANCE, AND THEY'RE GETTING THAT, I'M ASSUMING. >> [OVERLAPPING] PUBLIX DID GET THEIR VARIANCE ON THAT. YES, THEY DID. >> THEY DID? >> YEAH, BECAUSE THEY PROVED AN OVERALL BENEFIT. >> THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING. THEY FOUND THERE WAS A BENEFIT THERE. I'M AGREEING THAT IF SOMEONE ALREADY HAS ALL THAT PAVING OUT THERE, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INCENTIVE TO KEEPING THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO TEAR IT UP AND REDUCE IT, SO I'M ALONG WITH THAT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WITHIN THE VARIANCE PROCESS, ARE THEY BEING REQUIRED TO RETAIN MORE WATER OR KEEP IT THE SAME, NOT DO ANYTHING, GO AHEAD AND BUILD WHAT YOU WANT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING FROM THERE, BECAUSE I WOULD AGREE THAT IF SOMEONE'S GOT THAT MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE NOW, IT'S A BIG CENTER, IT'S ALREADY CAPTURING THE PARKING NECESSARY, AND A LOT OF THE POTENTIAL THINGS THAT WE WANT TO DO, SO I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THAT REDUCED BECAUSE WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO GO? WE'RE ONLY GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM. >> WELL, IT'S ALREADY LIKE THAT, THOUGH, IS MY POINT. >> EXACTLY, IT'S ALREADY WORKING, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE SOLVED ALL THOSE. TO ME, STORMWATER IS A BIG ISSUE, LANDSCAPING IS A BIG ISSUE. >> WE PUT THAT AT THE FOREFRONT. IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN OR WHATEVER NUMBER WE DECIDE ON FOR THIS, THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOUR STORMWATER IS COMPLIANT, THAT YOU HAVE IMPROVED LANDSCAPING OR WHATEVER WE WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE, BUT WE CAN PUT THAT AT THE FOREFRONT OF DEMONSTRATE HOW YOU ARE MEETING OR EXCEEDING OUR EXISTING STORMWATER STANDARDS. >> WITHIN THE OVERLAY FOR EXISTING PROJECTS THAT ARE IN PLACE AS OF TODAY, WHERE WE WOULD ACCEPT THEM WITHOUT A VARIANCE BECAUSE VARIANCE COSTS MONEY TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. AS LONG AS 1, 2, 3 MET OUR CURRENT STANDARDS, OR MAYBE DID SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE WANTED, DEPENDING ON THE PROPERTY. >> I AGREE. AGAIN, HERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE KNOW THE GOAL IS TO CONTROL FLOODING, SO I'M WILLING TO BARGAIN TO MEET THAT GOAL WITH THIS. >> WELL, I DON'T WANT TO CREATE A PROBLEM ON AN EXISTING PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS. THEY'RE FUNCTIONING, AND IT'S THE MAIN SHOPPING CENTER ON THE ISLAND ROUTE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED REDEVELOPING THAT SITE, WITH A COUPLE OF BUILDINGS SINCE WE'VE BEEN THERE. >> WHAT IF WE JUST FRAME IT AS A MITIGATION? YOU KNOW HOW WE HAVE TREE MITIGATION? YOU'RE ALLOWED TO TAKE OUT A CERTAIN AMOUNT, YOU CAN MITIGATE FOR TREE REMOVAL, SO WE MITIGATE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. WE ALLOW YOU TO KEEP THIS CERTAIN AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IF YOU AGREE [OVERLAPPING] THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO INCREASE THE STORMWATER RUNOFF, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO USE SOME GREEN DEVELOPMENT, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE. BUT THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THEY CAN DO TO OFFSET, GREEN ROOF, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> BUT IT'S STILL GOT TO GET TO THE GOAL, BUT I'M WITH YOU. [OVERLAPPING] >> IF WE HAVE A LOT OF LATITUDE HERE, AS LONG AS IT'S PRESENTED AND EVERYBODY LIKES IT AND LOOKS FOR IT, THEN WE'RE GOOD TO GO. >> A QUESTION I HAVE IS ON A COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE A BUILDING THAT IS X SIZE, AND THEY HAVE A 98% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. WHAT IF THEY WANT TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THEIR BUILDING, LIKE WHAT PUBLIX DID, IT SHOULD AFFECT THEN THE BALANCE THAT'S LEFT. >> ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO INCREASE IT ANY MORE THAN WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE. [OVERLAPPING] WE CAN MAKE IT WHATEVER. >> THAT IS IMPORTANT, I THINK, TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. [OVERLAPPING] >> ABSOLUTELY. THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY FREEBIES. [LAUGHTER] >> YOU'RE NOT INCREASING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THAT BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY COVERED, BUT YOU'RE INCREASING THE INTENSITY OF THE SITE WHICH IS BRINGING THOSE OTHER ISSUES. >> YES. >> WELL, THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM TO DEMONSTRATE HOW THEY'RE MEETING OTHER STANDARDS OR EXCEEDING OTHER STANDARDS. >> WELL, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT THEY NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO. >> BACK TO DAPHNE'S QUESTION, WHAT ARE WE WILLING? [01:10:02] WELL, I'VE GOT SOME IDEAS IN MY HEAD. I THINK PEOPLE, IN ORDER TO INCENTIVIZE THEM TO REDEVELOP, THEY OUGHT TO KEEP A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THEY HAVE TODAY, ASSUMING THEY MITIGATE THAT BACK IN LANDSCAPING FORM. IF WE GIVE 90% OF THE 98 THEY'VE GOT TODAY, THAT'S WHAT 80-SOMETHING PERCENT, AS LONG AS THEY MITIGATE BACK 15% IN LANDSCAPING. >> OR OPEN SPACE. >> OR OPEN SPACE. [OVERLAPPING] WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, YOU'RE GOING TO REDUCE YOUR STORMWATER. BY THE WAY, YOU HAVE TO KEEP THE SAME AMOUNT OF STORMWATER MORE THAN YOU HAD BEFORE. YOU CAN MOVE IT AROUND TO HELP, BUT [INAUDIBLE]. THEY CAN SCALE IT IN OFF THE AERIALS NOW. THEY'RE GOING TO SUBMIT A SURVEY ANYWAY. >> [OVERLAPPING] THE LANDSCAPING. >> [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE THROWING OUT NUMBERS, AND I'M JUST CURIOUS. >> WELL, THEN IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF WE GIVE THEM A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THEY'VE GOT. >> WELL, I'M GUESSING THAT IF YOU WENT TO THE PUBLIC CENTER AND ALL THE WAY DOWN, THAT PROBABLY IS CLOSER TO 90-SOMETHING. >> WHAT IF HE JUST SAID, INSTEAD OF A SPECIFIC NUMBER, THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO KEEP WHAT THEY HAVE WITHOUT INCREASING STORMWATER LOAD? I'M JUST THROWING IDEAS. YOU CAN KEEP WHAT YOU HAVE, BUT YOU CAN'T INCREASE IT IN ANY WAY, AND YOU HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH STORMWATER AND WITH BUFFERS, OR WHATEVER ELSE WE WANT TO ADD. >> WELL, IF YOU INCREASE IT, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER ISSUES WITH PARKING AND ALL THAT. >> SORRY? >> IF YOU INCREASE THE INTENSITY OF IT. [OVERLAPPING] >> WELL, NO, I'M NOT SAYING INCREASE IT. BECAUSE I'M WORRIED ABOUT PUTTING SPECIFIC NUMBERS ON IT. I'M JUST SAYING IF WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE, THAT COULD BE AN OPTION. HERE'S WHAT YOU HAVE EXISTING, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE IT. YOU CAN DECREASE IT AS MUCH AS YOU WANT TO MEET WHATEVER STANDARDS WE HAVE IN PLACE, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE, PERIOD. >> BUT YOU CAN KEEP IT WITHOUT [INAUDIBLE]. >> RIGHT, YOU COULD [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT WOULD BE THE INCENTIVE. >> THAT'S THE INCENTIVE. >> EXACTLY. THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I HEARD A LOT. IT WAS, IT'S SO COSTLY. I DIDN'T KNOW HOW COSTLY IT WAS TO REPAVE AN ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER. I HAD NO IDEA. I THOUGHT IT WASN'T GOING TO BE THAT MUCH, BUT THAT'S A HUGE FINANCIAL BARRIER FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. IT JUST IS. IF WE ALLOW THEM TO KEEP WHAT THEY HAVE, THAT COULD BE THE INCENTIVE, WITHOUT INCREASING, AND WITH COMPLIANCE WITH STORMWATER. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> WELL, LOOK AT PUBLIX. PUBLIX, THEY'RE STILL HAVING TO INCREASE IT, AND THEY'RE DOING THE WHOLE THING. >> WELL, TO HER POINT, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT REDEVELOPING, TOO, BECAUSE IT'S SO EXPENSIVE TO COME BACK AND REPAVE A PARKING LOT, SO THEY'VE GOT TO GET AN EXTRA BENEFIT. [OVERLAPPING] >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A VERTICAL EXPANSION, THEY'RE GOING TO GET A TON OF IT. AT THIS POINT, THEY'LL HAVE THE IMPERVIOUS AREA, LET'S CALL IT EIGHT ACRES ON A 10-ACRE SITE. THEY'LL HAVE EIGHT ACRES TO PUT WHATEVER THEY WANT. THEY CAN PUT ALL BUILDING AND NO PARKING, OR THEY CAN PUT BUILDING AND PARKING THAT THEY NEED TO SATISFY THIS, AND THEY STILL HAVE THEIR 20% THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AS BUILDING TODAY FOR THEIR RETENTION AND BUFFERS. >> ARE THEY'RE PLENTY IN [INAUDIBLE] FLORIDA? THEY ARE. >> BUT WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT PUBLIX. >> WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT PUBLIX. >> THEY'RE ONLY DOING ONE BUILDING. THEY'RE NOT DOING THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER. >> I UNDERSTAND. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING BUT I'M ALWAYS CURIOUS WHAT THEY ARE DOING. >> CAN WE DO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT I'M GETTING AT, I LOOK AT THE LOT'S SHOPPING CENTER. >> THAT'S THE ONE I THINK OF, TOO. IT'S MASSIVE. >> THE PARKING LOT IS MASSIVE, IT'S UGLY, IT'S GROSS. TO SAY THAT YOU CAN KEEP THAT, I THINK PART OF WHAT WE WANT IS TO GET RID OF THE BLACK ASPHALT. WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, SAYING, WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TOUCH THAT. >> WELL, WHAT I MEAN IS THIS, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'RE THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY AND YOU COME IN AND YOU WANT TO REDEVELOP. WELL, NOW I'M TELLING YOU YOU HAVE TO MEET THE 60%. THAT'S CUTTING A LOT OF THAT ASPHALT OUT. MOST OF THE TIME, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, I CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S TOO MUCH MONEY. THAT'S A BARRIER. WE CAN APPROACH IT FROM, WELL, WE'LL ALLOW YOU TO KEEP WHAT YOU ALREADY HAVE, THAT PERCENTAGE THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE, BUT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO EXPAND IT. HOWEVER, YOU HAVE TO MEET THIS EXTRA BUFFER, THIS EXTRA LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, YOU HAVE TO MEET THIS ARCHITECTURAL STANDARD. WE CAN ADD IN WHATEVER WE WANT TO MAKE IT LOOK BETTER AND TO BEAUTIFY THAT AREA, SO THAT IT ISN'T ALL JUST LANDSCAPE. WE'RE JUST NOT HOLDING THEM TO THAT 60% WE'RE GIVING THEM THE FLEXIBILITY. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S GOING TO STAY IN UGLY ASPHALT, IT'S JUST SAYING YOU HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY NOW TO DEVELOP IT IN A WAY THAT'S JUST MORE FLEXIBLE. THEN WE APPLY ALL OF THOSE EXTRA BEAUTY STANDARDS TO IT. >> WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO, RICHARD, IS WE'RE TELLING THEM WE WANT YOU TO DEMOLISH [01:15:02] YOUR 5% OF IT AND WE WANT YOU TO REBUILD IT. THAT'S A BIG UNDERTAKING. THEY'RE GOING TO BE OUT THEY GET NO RENT, NO NOTHING FOR PROBABLY 18 MONTHS. THEY'VE GOT TO DEMOLISH EVERYTHING, GO BACK TO THE CITY PROCESS, REPAVE EVERYTHING, IT'S GOING TO BE A COMPLETELY BLANK SLATE, AND THEN THEY'VE GOT TO REBUILD ALL OF IT. THAT'S A BIG UNDERTAKING. THAT'S MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT THEY'VE GOT TO DO. TO DAPHNE'S POINT, IF YOU DON'T INCENTIVIZE THEM, YOU'RE GOING TO BE EXACTLY WHERE YOU ARE TODAY. >> BUT WE GET THEM IN OUR COURT, WE SAY, WE'RE ALLOWING YOU TO DO THAT, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO MEET ALL OF OUR STANDARDS NOW AND PROVE TO US HOW YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS BETTER, SO IT'S NOT AN UGLY ASPHALT PARKING LOT. >> THE WAY WE'RE WRITING THIS UP IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU'VE GOT TO PUT SOME PRETTY LANDSCAPE TREES ALONG THE PORTAL. >> EXACTLY. >> [OVERLAPPING] THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR EVERYTHING UP, WE'RE GOING TO SAY, HEY, YOU'VE GOT TO PUSH YOUR BUILDINGS UP TO THE ROAD TO HIDE YOUR PARKING. >> THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THAT'S WHAT I REALLY WANT TO SEE, IS MORE OF THE PARKING IN THE BACK AND MORE OF A COVER. [OVERLAPPING] >> I AGREE WITH THAT. >> ALL OF THESE THOUGHTS ARE ASSUMED IN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> YEAH. >> THEY ARE IN MIND. >> I DON'T SEE HOW YOU COULD REDEVELOP EXISTING BUILDINGS AND KEEP THEM AND MEET THESE STANDARDS. >> THAT'S REALLY HARD. >> STRUCTURALLY, THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN PUT BUILDINGS ON TOP OF OTHER BUILDINGS ANYWAY, SO YOU'D WANT TO ADD A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. YOU'RE TEARING IT ALL DOWN, YOU'RE PUTTING THESE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND MOVING UP THEM UP THE STREET, YOU'RE PUTTING BUFFERS. >> WELL, I AGREE, I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE BLACK ASPHALT CITIES. I WANT THAT TO GO AWAY, TOO. THAT WILL BE WHERE WE GET INTO THE MORE SPECIFIC LANDSCAPING STANDARDS AND DESIGN STANDARDS, AND THAT SORT OF THING, TO REALLY MAKE IT BETTER. >> GOT YOU. >> DOESN'T THAT ALSO ENHANCE THE WALKABILITY? YOU'VE GOT THE SIDEWALKS AND YOU'VE GOT THE BUILDINGS RIGHT THERE, YOU WALK IN. >> IT MIGHT HELP THE PARKING, TOO. >> YOU MIGHT HAVE A 15% [INAUDIBLE] ADD FIVE FEET TO THE COUNTY SIDEWALK, AND THEN YOU DO A LANDSCAPE STRIP AND THEN YOU START YOUR VERTICAL OUTLINE. >> SOUNDS GREAT. [BACKGROUND] >> MARK IS GOING TO RUN A TRIALING PRETTY SOON, I THINK. >> WHAT? >> YOU'RE GOING TO RUN A TRIALING SOON. [LAUGHTER] >> NO, I WAS LOOKING AT SOMETHING THE OTHER DAY ON A PROJECT I DID YEARS AGO AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY'RE DOING IS TROLLEYS IN BEACH AREAS INSTEAD OF WATER AREAS. PEOPLE DRIVE CARS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO COME AND GO AS THEY PLEASE. IF THEY CAN SOLVE THAT PROBLEM SO THAT THEY CAN COME AND GO WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, THEN WE'D GET THE CARS OFF THE HIGHWAY. THEY'RE GOING TO ALWAYS BE THERE IF YOU DON'T SOLVE THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. >> BACK TO IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. THEN, I THINK WHAT WE'VE REACHED, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS ALLOWING FOR EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PROPERTIES TO KEEP WITH THE DEMONSTRATION OF NO INCREASE IN STORMWATER. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO KEEP IT. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INCREASE THEIR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AT ALL, PERIOD. >> THEY'VE GOT TO KEEP THEIR STORMWATER CAPACITY. >> THEY HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT. >> NO EXTRA RUN-OFF ON ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. >> FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS ATTRACTIVE? >> BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR EVERYTHING DOWN. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> WELL, WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO EXPAND ON THEIR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, THAT WOULD BE THE LINE. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO KEEP WHAT YOU HAVE BUT YOU CAN'T INCREASE IT IN ANY WAY. >> BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEMO THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER AND START OVER, WOULDN'T THAT CHANGE THE WHOLE COMPLEXITY OF MEASURING STORMWATER? >> WELL, SURE. THAT'S A GOOD POINT, INFILL VERSUS COMPLETELY. >> AGAIN, IN MY MIND, IT'S LIKE THE LOT'S SHOPPING CENTER. IF YOU JUST DEMO THE ENTIRE THING AND THEN CAME BACK WITH WHAT WE'VE JUST TALKED ABOUT, BUILDINGS ON THE FRONT, PARKING IN THE BACK, YOU'LL HAVE TO RECALCULATE ALL YOUR STORMWATER. >> THAT'S EASY. >> IT'S EASY. >> BUT AT THAT POINT, DO WE WANT TO LET THEM CONTINUE TO KEEP THAT GRADE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IF THEY'RE REDOING THE WHOLE THING? >> WELL, YEAH, BECAUSE THEY ARE REDOING THE WHOLE THING. >> THAT'S THE INCENTIVE. >> THAT'S THE INCENTIVE. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> OTHERWISE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HANDLE RETAIL CENTERS WITH PARKING IN THE BACK BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE THE PARKING ON THE STREET. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MOVE, GOING FORWARD, ALL THE PARKING IN THE BACK. >> WELL, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET. >> LET'S LET THE STAKEHOLDERS TELL US THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE OUR VISION HERE, AND THEN THEY CAN SAY, HEY, YOU'RE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS. >> BUT JUST TO EVEN THINK ABOUT BUILDING AN OUTPARCEL, [OVERLAPPING] MAYBE THEY WANT TO BUILD A BUILDING IN THE FRONT OF THEIR EXISTING BUILDING. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> BUT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU HIDE THE UGLINESS, IS TO LET THE ARCHITECTURE COVER IT. >> WELL, I AGREE WITH THAT. >> BUT LIKE MARGARET SAID, THEY COULD DO AN OUTPARCEL, [01:20:02] A BUILDING IN FRONT, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY AS WELL. >> WITHOUT HAVING TO MEET THE SIX CODE? [OVERLAPPING] >> JUST GOT TO MEET OUR BUILDING CODES AND OUR MATERIALS. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THOSE OUTPARCELS ARE HARD WORK. >> OR YOU CAN PUT A PARKING STRUCTURE. >> WELL, LET'S KEEP GOING BECAUSE I THINK YOU GUYS ARE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. >> I AGREE. I THINK THIS IS A HUGE INCENTIVE. >> IT IS, IT'S A HUGE INCENTIVE. >> SOUTH FLORIDA AND THE BEACH AREAS THAT ARE BUILD UP. [OVERLAPPING] >> WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO A LOT TOO. >> WE ARE. WE'RE NOT JUST GIVING THEM FREEBIES HERE. THAT'S AMAZING. CHECK THAT OFF THE LIST, HUGE INCENTIVE. THAT'S JUST ONE PIECE. THERE ARE PROBABLY LOTS OF OTHER THINGS WITHIN CHAPTER 4 THAT WE COULD REALLY DIVE INTO IN TERMS OF WHAT CHANGES WE'D LIKE TO SEE FOR INCENTIVIZATION BUT I THINK THESE COVER THE MAIN PICTURE ONES. DO WE WANT TO LOOK IN CHAPTER 4 AND DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER IN THAT OR DO WE JUST WANT TO MOVE TO THE BIG PICTURE, WHICH IS PARKING? >> I THINK THE BIG PICTURE. I THINK WE'VE GOT TO PRESENT A BIG PICTURE IN ORDER TO GET FEEDBACK. YOU MENTIONED PARKING. >> YEAH. >> DO WE WANT TO INCENTIVIZE THESE LARGER PARKS OR COMMERCIAL PARKS TO POTENTIALLY BUILT A PARKING GARAGE, WHICH IS VERY EXPENSIVE, BUT TO HOLD PARKING FOR MORE CARS FOR THAT AREA. >> I DON'T LIKE THE GARAGES. >> SORRY, I MOVED ON TO [INAUDIBLE]. PARKING GARAGES MOST PEOPLE DON'T LIKE. THEY DON'T LIKE PARKING [INAUDIBLE] FOR THOSE WHO DO THAT FOR FUN. IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE LOWE'S OR THE PUBLIX, THOSE ARE THE BIGGER SITES. THEY'RE ALSO CENTRAL SITES. I'M JUST TALKING LIKE WE WERE AT A BAR, SOMEWHERE I HAD TOO MANY BEARS. [LAUGHTER] YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PUBLIX OR WINN-DIXIE OR LOWE'S, ANY OF THOSE CENTERS. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THEY COULD BUILD A 45 FOOT PARKING GARAGE OR SOMETHING THAT COULD SERVICE THE ENTIRE A LARGER AREA FOR CARS SO THE CARS COME IN THAT SPOT OF PARK, AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME SYSTEM FOR MOVING PEOPLE AROUND THE REST OF THE AREA. SOMEONE LIVING THERE COULD PUT THEIR CAR IN THE GARAGE AND LEAVE IT THERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE. SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS I'M JUST THROWING OUT THERE BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A SHOPPING CENTER AND THEY SEE A COMMERCIAL ELEMENT TO THAT, THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO PUT ALL THE CARS, GETTING PEOPLE AROUND, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SELL THIS THING. FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORK, I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAYBE YOU CAN SAY, OKAY FOR NOW [OVERLAPPING] >> I AGREE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT USES, LIKE IS A PARKING LOT OR A PARKING GARAGE EVEN HAS A PERMIT TO USE FOR THEM? >> I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING LOTS IN THE CITIES, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE PARKING LOT IS LISTED IN THE TABLE. >> IT IS? >> IT IS. >> ZONING CLASSIFICATION. >> IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD INTENSITY TO A SITE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT PARKING [OVERLAPPING] GETTING PEOPLE AROUND. >> I THINK YOU CAPTURED THAT. >> SORRY. >> I THINK DAPHNE CAPTURED THAT WHEN SHE SAID, SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENTS. THAT CAN BE PARKING DAIS, THAT CAN BE OFFSITE PARKING. THAT COULD BE ALL THINGS. >> RELATED TO THIS, TO LOWE'S, DO WE NEED TO SPECIFY? CAN WE LEAVE THAT TO THE DEVELOPER? >> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU HAVE TO [INAUDIBLE]. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE A HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, YOU CAN'T BUILD A PARKING GARAGE THAT'S GOING TO BE PROFITABLE, UNLESS THEY GET SOME MORE HEIGHT OUT OF IT AND THEY HAVE MORE CARS INTO IT. >> WHAT ARE YOU ASKING? >> YOU ASKED A QUESTION. >> NO, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> NO, I'M JUST SAYING THAT ARE THESE THINGS WE WANT TO AT LEAST DISCUSS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REDEVELOPMENT. WE DON'T HAVE A BUNCH OF LARGE SHOPPING AREAS OR PARKING AREAS. WE HAVE PUBLIX, WE'VE GOT LOWE'S, [01:25:03] WE'VE GOT WINN-DIXIE AND WHATEVER'S ON THAT END, AND STUFF LIKE THAT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE SITES, WHY NOT THINK IN LARGER TERMS AS COMMERCIAL NODES FOR SOMETHING, OR CAR COLLECTIONS OR OTHER THINGS SO THAT YOU CAN INCENTIVIZE THEM PROFIT WISE WITH MAKING MONEY, HAVING A PARKING GARAGE, HAVING A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE COULD PARK CARS AND LEAVE THEM. IS THAT EVEN SOMETHING WE WANT TO GO WITH AND THEN YOU HAVE THE MOBILITY SYSTEM AROUND BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AREA BUT CONNECTING OTHER AREAS. ONCE YOU COME OVER THAT BRIDGE IN THE CAR AFTER YOU WAITED 40 MINUTES TO GET ON THE ISLAND, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE DRIVING ALL OVER THE PLACE SO IF WE HAVE SOME PLACES, AND WE DON'T HAVE MANY OF THOSE, MOST OF THEM ARE SMALLER LOTS, BUT WE HAVE SEVERAL LARGE COMMERCIAL AREAS, AND MAYBE SOME DEVELOPERS WILL COME IN AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE A 30 STORY PARKING GARAGE SOMEWHERE. >> MR. BENNETT, I JUST I THINK IT'S GREAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING. BUT I THINK IF WE COULD FOCUS ON MORE OF THE BIG PICTURE STUFF INSTEAD OF GETTING INTO THE VERY SPECIFICS OF THINGS, THAT WOULD HELP US. WE'LL GET TO THAT POINT, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT PARKING FIRST LIKE GENERALLY SPEAKING. THE EXISTING STANDARDS, I'M THINKING OF IT AGAIN, AS SOMEONE WALKS IN, THEY WANT TO DEVELOP, WHAT ARE THE STEPS THAT THEY NEED TO TAKE? WHAT ARE THE AREAS THAT THEY NEED TO MEET? PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. DEPENDING ON THE USE, IT COULD BE YOU HAVE TO PARK IN THE SIDE, YOU'VE GOT TO PARK IN THE FRONT, YOU GOT TO PARK IN THE REAR. HOW DO WE WANT THAT TO LOOK TO AGAIN, GET BACK ON FOCUS AND INCENTIVIZE REDEVELOPMENT. >> WHAT DO I WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE, I WANT THE DEVELOPER TO DECIDE IT. >> WELL, WE HAVE STANDARDS CURRENTLY IN PLACE IS WHAT I'M SAYING. HOW DO WE APPROACH IT? WHERE DO WE WANT TO START? >> WELL, THE PARKING IS GOING TO BE DICTATED ON HOW BIG THE BUILDING IS. BUT IF THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO SHRINK THE BUILDING TO WHERE THEY CAN GET THE TWO TO BALANCE OUT. THAT'S UP TO THE DEVELOPER TO FIGURE OUT. WE CAN'T TELL THEM WHAT TO DO ON THAT. I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT A PARKING GARAGE. IS THAT A PERMITTED USE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE IN THERE? >> I THINK IT IS. THAT IS ALREADY A PERMITTED USE, SO IT'S ALREADY ALLOWED. >> DO WE WANT TO IDENTIFY THE MINIMUM PARKING STANDARD? >> WELL, IT'S DEPENDENT ON THE USE. >> THEY HAVE THAT. THERE WERE PARKING STANDARDS [INAUDIBLE]. >> THAT'S WHAT DAPHNE HAS. WE HAVE PARKING STANDARDS. THEY'RE BY USES. >> IT IS BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. >> HOW THEY USE. >> HOW THEY USE, YEAH. >> THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE X NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> WELL, I'M THINKING OF LOTS. BACK THEN, WHENEVER ALL THAT WAS DEVELOPED, THEY OBVIOUSLY HAD A HIGHER STANDARD FOR THE NUMBER OF SLOTS YOU HAD TO HAVE BECAUSE IT'S RARELY FULL. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A FUNCTION OF WHAT'S IN THERE. >> TEN PERCENT. >> BUT WE'RE LOOKING TO REDUCE THAT. >> WELL, NOT NECESSARILY. I JUST BRING IT AS A TALK LIKE, WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO? WE DON'T HAVE TO REDUCE IT. >> WELL, I THINK IT JUST NEEDS TO BE MORE REASONABLE. >> FUNCTION OF RETAIL USE OF THAT. >> SIZE. >> CAN WE JUST LET THE DEVELOPER DECIDE? CAN WE JUST NOT? >> DO WE HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM OR A MAXIMUM? >> WE ALREADY DO. >> WE ALREADY DO. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE. WE CAN TAKE IT AWAY. >> [INAUDIBLE] OVERLAY. >> WE COULD. THAT'S WHAT I BRING IT UP FOR BECAUSE AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE USE, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE IS GOING TO DICTATE WHAT YOUR PARKING, WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND HOW MUCH YOU HAVE TO HAVE. >> I WOULD SAY IT'S AN INCENTIVE OR JUST AS A MATTER OF PRACTICALITY THAT IN THE OVERLAY, WE'LL GET RID OF THE MINIMUM. THE DEVELOPER IS NOT GOING TO JEOPARDIZE HIS DEVELOPMENT. >> I LIKE WHERE IT HEADS AT. >> AS LONG AS HE HAS A BUILDING OR WHATEVER IT IS. [OVERLAPPING]. >> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. >> I AGREE WITH THAT. >> ME TOO. >> HE MAY JUST BUILD HIS BUILDING 50 FEET, 30 FEET NARROW, WE'D HAVE MORE PARKING. WE DON'T SEE IT ANYWAYS, [INAUDIBLE] DOING THAT. >> EXACTLY. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. >> I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. >> ME TOO. >> ME TOO. >> GOOD POINT. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. >> HE'S SAYING IF YOU WANT TO BUILD AN ENTIRE PARKING LOT AS LONG AS WE DON'T SEE IT FROM THE ROAD WITH THE BUILDING, WE DON'T CARE. [OVERLAPPING] NO. IF THEY WANT TO BUILD A 100,000 SQUARE FEET WITH NO PARKING, I ASSURE YOU THEY WON'T GET FINANCED. I ASSURE YOU THERE'S NO BANK TO GIVE THAT. [01:30:02] >> I WILL SAY, I THINK I FULLY SUPPORT THIS IDEA. I DO FORESEE SOME PUBLIC PUSHBACK ON THIS. IF SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE, WE REALLY NEED TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE BENEFIT OF IT BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE THING. >> THEY DON'T VISUALLY SEE IT. >> VISUALLY, I THINK THAT'S AN INCENTIVE. >> YOU DON'T SEE IT. >> YOU'RE GOING TO FILL THE ENTIRE STREET WITH BUILDING OR LANDSCAPING. >> BUT I DON'T SEE THIS BIG CENTER MOVING THE BUILDING FORWARD, AND PARKING IN THE BACK, [INAUDIBLE] WAS THAT? >> I THINK IT USED TO BE, MARK, BUT I'VE CHANGED ON THAT. >> I THINK PUBLIX WOULD ACTUALLY MOVED THERE. IF THEY HAD NOT HAD SO MUCH RED TAPE TO GO THROUGH AND STANDARDS, THEY WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY MOVED THEIR BUILDING CLOSER TO THE FRONT AND PAVEMENT IN THE BACK. >> I USED TO THINK THE SAME THING, BUT I'VE CHANGED ON THAT FIGURE NOW. >> WELL, THAT SOLVES THAT. THAT'S GREAT. THAT'S AMAZING. >> YOU WOULD ALLOW FLEXIBLE PARKING STANDARDS AND ALSO CREATIVE TYPE. LOOKING AT THE USES LIKE YOU TALKED ABOUT, IF THEY HAD A THEATER THERE THAT ONLY OPERATED AT NIGHT, THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE PARKING FOR EVERY USE. THEY WOULD HAVE PARKING FOR WHAT THEY NEEDED TODAY AND PARKING FOR WHAT THEY NEEDED AT NIGHT, AND THE TWO COULD BE THE SAME. RIGHT? >> RIGHT. I LIKE THAT. >> WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO DO RIGHT NOW IN [INAUDIBLE]. >> CAN I THROW THIS OUT THOUGH. THE PARKING GARAGE SCARES ME A LITTLE BIT. IF THEY DO A STRUCTURED PARKING, CAN WE SAY IT CAN'T BE TALLER THAN THE BUILDING? >> I AGREE. >> IN OTHER WORDS, NOT A TWO STORY BUILDING WITH A FOUR STORY PARKING GARAGE. >> I DON'T WANT THAT. >> GOOD POINT. >> THAT WAY YOU'RE HIDDEN. >> IT'S GOT TO BE THE SAME HEIGHT. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT EXCEPT IF YOU WANT THEM TO CREATE SOME COMMERCIAL NODES OR THINGS LIKE, CENTRALIZED PARKING THINGS LIKE THAT. >> I THINK THAT IS AS A MOVING TARGET. BECAUSE I THINK THAT WHERE PEOPLE PARK IS GOING TO DEPEND ON WHERE THEY WANT TO GO AND NOT NECESSARILY, THIS IS THE PLACE TO PARK. >> SURE. >> I'VE SEEN A LOT OF EMPTY MULTI STORY PARKING GARAGES THAT NOBODY USES. IN BIG SHOPPING CENTERS, AND YOU DRIVE AROUND, AND THEY ARE EMPTY MULTI PURPOSE PARKING GARAGES AND I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT. >> ANOTHER POINT IS, AREN'T WE TRYING TO PRIORITIZE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED TRANSPORTATION? WHY ARE WE FOCUSING ON CARS? >> BECAUSE EVERYBODY DRIVES TO THE ISLAND. >> YEAH, BUT LET'S THINK AHEAD TO THE FUTURE. WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IS PEDESTRIANS. >> [OVERLAPPING] STAYING OVER ALL THE BEACH. [LAUGHTER] >> LET'S PLAN FOR THE PEOPLE AND NOT THE CARS. >> I'M TELLING YOU, YOU'LL SEE 10 CARS. >> BUT WE CAN CHANGE THAT. WE CAN PUT THINGS INTO PLACE TO PRIORITIZE DIFFERENTLY. >> SAYING THAT AS LONG AS WE'RE HERE, THEY'RE GOING TO DRIVE HERE. >> WELL, SURE. >> BECAUSE NO OTHER TRANSPORTATION TO GET TO THE ISLAND. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY HERE'S A PARKING GARAGE FOR YOU. >> BUT WE DON'T PROVIDE. >> WELL, I'LL TELL YOU AN EXAMPLE. >> MY NEIGHBOR WHO CALLED A CAB, LIKE A SEVEN PASSENGER CAB. HE HAD FRIENDS IN AND THEIR CARS WERE PARKED RIGHT NEXT TO HIS HOUSE. THERE WERE FOUR CARS AND A GOLF CART. HE HIRED A LOCAL TAXI TO TAKE HIM AND HIS GUEST DOWN HERE TO THE SHRIMP FEST. THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THAT IF YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO BE DEALING WITH ALL THAT TRAFFIC. THERE ARE CREATIVE WAYS TO DO THIS. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT IT. >> WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT THAT. >> I AGREE. >> I JUST THINK IN TERMS OF MOST PEOPLE ARE RENTING, WE HAVE A LOT OF [INAUDIBLE] A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND A YEAR. >> A MILLION. >> 1.5 MILLION. >> WELL, THAT'S A MILLION CARS OR HALF A MILLION THAT COME IN, THE ONLY WAY TO GET AROUND CURRENTLY IS DRIVING THEIR CAR. >> WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT. >> THAT'S WHERE WE PUT SOME PRESSURE ON THE COUNTY AND ON OTHER PEOPLE TO HELP US TO DO SOME TRANSPORTATION STUFF. >> THAT'S A GOOD WAY THOUGH TO DO IT. >> FOR THE SHRIMP FEST, IF YOU HAD A PLACE, A COMMERCIAL DROP OFF, WHERE IT WAS A DESIGNATED AREA FOR TAXIS AND VEHICLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU DROP OFF, AND YOU KNOW THAT YOU PICK UP YOUR CAB LIKE THREE HOURS LATER AT A CERTAIN TIME, AND IT'S GOING TO BE IN THAT SPOT. THAT STARTS THAT PROCESS OF PEOPLE KNOWING. [01:35:03] I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY CAR DOWN THERE. [OVERLAPPING] I KNOW BUT I THINK THAT THAT'S THE WORST CASE SCENARIO TO ME. >> I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER. WHATEVER WE'RE DOING IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF CARS, AND WE HAVE TO THINK IN TERMS OF WHAT DO WE DO WITH THAT? >> HIGH SPEED RAIL. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST. [LAUGHTER] HIGH SPEED RAIL. >> THERE YOU GO. >> I THINK YOU'RE BRINGING UP. >> I KNOW PEOPLE IN MIAMI THAT DON'T EVEN HAVE CARS. THEY LIVE IN SOUTH MIAMI AND IT'S HIGH SPEED RAIL. EVERYTHING IS THERE FOR GETTING AROUND. WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. IN OUR PLANNING, SHOULD WE TRY TO THINK ABOUT THAT. >> WELL, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT THE ONES DEVELOPING IT. THAT'S ALREADY ALLOWED TO USE. THE DEVELOPER COMES IN IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO USE, THEN THEY CAN DO IT. THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY ANYTHING ADDITIONAL THAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE ADDING TO THAT. >> I WOULD SAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INTENSITY ALSO. >> RIGHT. BUT AGAIN, IT'S UP TO THE DEVELOPER TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WOULD WANT TO PUT IN THAT LOCATION ANYWAY. WE CAN'T TELL THEM, WE NEED YOU TO PUT THIS HERE, ET CETERA. >> I THINK WE'VE MADE A MAJOR MOVEMENT TOWARDS PARKING BY SAYING NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE OVERLAY. >> I AGREE. >> THAT'S A BIG STEP. >> NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE OVERLAY. >> THE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS. >> YES. >> THEN WITH THAT SAID, LANDSCAPING AND STREETSCAPE. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT INCREASING SIDEWALK SIZES, INCREASING LANDSCAPING BUFFERS. ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT IS, DO WE WANT TO INCREASE THEM? WHAT SIZE DO WE WANT TO INCREASE THEM? DO WE WANT TO INCREASE THEM DEPENDENT ON THE DIFFERENT USES? LIKE, BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, WE WANT TO HAVE THIS SIZE. ALL THAT STUFF IS ALREADY IN THERE, BUT I JUST BRING IT UP AS A DISCUSSION POINT. >> IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF INTENSITY WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITHIN OUR DESIGNATED AREA. THOSE CENTERS LIKE THE PUBLICS, THE WALKS, WHAT ARE THE IMPERVIOUS AREAS? >> WHAT'S THE GOAL OF THAT? ARE YOU THINKING THEY'RE CLOSE TO WHAT [OVERLAPPING] >> I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. >> MARGARET, CAN YOU PULL UP THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, AND WE CAN LOOK AT AN AERIAL AND DO AN AREA OF THE PUBLICS. >> OR EVEN LOTS. >> YEAH, OR LOTS. >> LOTS WOULD BE BETTER BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE NOBODY OVER THERE SHOPPING. ALTHOUGH THEY DO SHOP. [OVERLAPPING] YOU JUST CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. >> INSTEAD OF 40 CARS, YOU GOT ONE BUS. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> ALL OF THOSE 40 CARS JUST PARKED SOMEWHERE ELSE. >> OR THEY'RE AT A HOTEL WHERE THEY CAME IN, AND THEY ALL PARKED AT THE HOTEL. >> I GET ALL THAT. THEY HAVE TRANSPORTATION. >> WHAT DO YOU WANT? >> JUST RIGHT AT THE SHOPPING CENTER WHERE LOTS IS [INAUDIBLE], THAT ONE. IF YOU'LL TURN THE AREA WHERE SADDLER SQUARE IS? >> THERE'S NOTHING ONLINE THAT INDICATES. >> NO. >> THAT TELLS US HOW BIG THE SITE IS. >> SHE CAN DO A AREA. >> THIS ONE RIGHT HERE? >> YES. >> THIS IS THIS ONE. >> IF YOU DO AN AREA TOOL UP THERE UNDER TOOLS >> WHEN YOU SAID 98%, I THINK YOU UNDERESTIMATED THAT. >> I SAID 98. I WAS THE ONE WHO QUOTED THAT. >> I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW MUCH PAVEMENT AND BUILDING THERE ARE. FORGET ABOUT POND. >> YOU'RE WORKING AROUND THAT 2,108 LOT SIZE LOT THERE. >> YEAH. >> ADDING THAT IN THERE. >> DOING THIS. >> SOMETIMES I DON'T LIKE THE ZOOM. >> THERE YOU GO. >> WE GOING TO TRY TO DO AREA. >> IT'S ALL PAVED. >> THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE ALL THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UP. >> REALLY, THERE'S NO EVEN POINT OF, IT'S ALL PAVED. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPERVIOUS. >> IT'S LIKE THE ONLY AREA THAT'S NOT IS THE POND. >> THAT POND THAT'S THERE, THAT WAS PART OF THE DESIGN OF [INAUDIBLE] FOR WATER MANAGEMENT REQUIRED. >> YEAH. >> NOT DOING TOO GREAT. >> WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO DO HERE? >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, DO WE KNOW NOW? [01:40:01] >> I WAS GOING TO DO AN AREA, BUT I DON'T THINK I NEED IT. IT'S 100%. >> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S ALWAYS 100%. >> IT IS. >> JUST LOOKING AT IT. >> I DIDN'T REALIZE. >> LOOKING AT THIS NOW, IF WE THINK ABOUT MU8, WHAT THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR BUFFERING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT COULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT, LIKE, ALONG THE ROAD. I THINK MU8 IS A SIX-FOOT LANDSCAPING BUFFER. WE COULD EVEN DO A 10-FOOT LANDSCAPING, WHATEVER WE WANT. WE COULD INCREASE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY ALONG THE PERIMETER. >> TWO ACRES. >> WE CAN HAVE LANDSCAPING UPFRONT. >> YEAH, BUT WE JUST DO A 10 FOOT BUFFER AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, UNLESS YOU'RE CONNECTED TO OTHER COMMERCIAL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO REDEVELOP WITH. THIS ONE YOU BUFFER ALL ALONG. >> WE'RE DICTATING SIZE. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE LANDSCAPING IS, WHAT THE PLANTS ARE. >> YEAH, WE CAN GET THAT SPECIFIC. >> IT IS AT LEAST 85% IMPERVIOUS. >> YEAH. DEFINITELY, WE CAN SAY, WE'RE [INAUDIBLE] TREES. INSTEAD OF SAYING, YOU HAVE TO PLANT LANDSCAPING, PEOPLE MIGHT GO IN THERE AND JUST PLANT MUHLY GRASS OR SOMETHING, SO SHADE TREE REQUIREMENT, OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN MAKE THAT. ESPECIALLY CLOSER TO THE ROAD THAT INCREASES WALKABILITY THAT HELPS WITH YOUR IMPERVIOUS. >> WE'RE MAKING OUR OWN STANDARDS. >> YEAH, WE'RE MAKING OUR OWN STANDARDS. I'M JUST SAYING, IS 10 FEET ENOUGH, IS 10 FEET TO TOO MUCH, TOO LITTLE? WHAT DO WE THINK? >> I THINK THAT I WANT 10-FOOT WALKWAY IN THERE SOME. IF I HAD MY DRUTHERS, I WOULD WANT THAT 10-FOOT WALKWAY. I'D LIKE TO HAVE A SHADE TREE OUT THERE WITH A BENCH UNDER IT, A TABLE MAYBE THAT SOMEBODY'S WALKING CAN STOP. >> THE EAR POINT MARK, WE HAVE A FIVE-FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK HERE ALONG SADDLER. THEY ADD FIVE FEET TO THAT SO YOU HAVE 10 FEET. THEN WE ADD IN A SIX FOOT BUFFER, SO THEY TAKE 11 FEET OF THEIR PROPERTY. FIVE FOR WHICH ARE A SIDEWALK, SIX FEET FOR A BUFFER, WHICH IS THE SAME AS EIGHTH STREET. THEN IF YOU'RE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, I THINK WE HAD TO ADD 10 FEET ON THAT. IT'S BEEN RESERVED? >> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND. >> I THINK IT IS 10 FEET, YEAH. >> WELL, ISN'T THERE TWO? THERE'S A BUFFER THAT'S REQUIRED ALREADY ALONG THE PERIMETER, WHICH IS WHAT? >> IT IS 10, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING IT, REMEMBER ALONG EIGHTH TO FIVE. >> NOT LONG EIGHTH. ALONG FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING LOTS. ISN'T THERE A STANDARD FOR THAT? >> YES, THERE IS PERMANENT OR BUFFER. >> WHAT IS THAT ONE? DO WE KNOW? >> TEN, 15. >> I THINK IT'S 10. I DON'T THINK IT'S 15. WHICH I KNOW ALONG THE MAIN CORRIDOR. >> IT'S THE SAME WALK IN RIGHT OF WAY? >> IT'S 15 WHEN YOU'RE BUFFERING. >> RIGHT ON THE EDGE OF IT. >> BETWEEN INCOMPATIBLE USES 10 FEET. >> FOUR FEET IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AT 3, 04, 5 FEET IN THE PROPERTY. >> FIVE FEET ALONG STREET FRONTAGE FOR NON RESIDENTIAL. >> TEN FEET IS ALMOST REQUIREMENT FOR IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE WALKING AND BICYCLING AND RIDING. >> TEN FEET IS YOUR USUAL MULTI USE PATH. >> BUT THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLE WHERE THEY MAY WANT TO BUY THIS BUILDING RIGHT HERE, AND THEN THEY COULD DO ANOTHER BUILDING IN HERE. THEN THEY'D BE WILLING TO GIVE THAT FRONT. >> YES. >> SOMEBODY WILL TEAR ALL THAT DOWN. >> THEY MAY BUY THE BUILDING TO THE EAST AND REDO THE WHOLE SHOPPING TO MAKE IT MAKE IT EVEN BIGGER. >> THEY PUT A HOTEL IN THERE AND ABOUT 15 OR 20 RESIDENCES. >> YES. >> YOU HAVE DENSITY THROUGH THE ROAD. >> A GOLF COURSE. >> WE'RE GOING TO SPECIFY TYPES OF PLANTS? >> YEAH. >> [INAUDIBLE] TALK ABOUT PARKING. I'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH PEOPLE IN MY BUSINESS ABOUT PARKING WHO SHOULD DECIDE THAT. I THINK THE MAJORITY CONCLUDED THAT IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PARKING, THE PROJECT WILL FAIL AND THE DEVELOPER KNOWS THAT. IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO HAVE IT AT MINIMUM. >> THAT'S WHAT I SAID. >> THE MARKET WILL DECIDE THAT AND THEY WILL CORRECT FOR IT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING. >> THAT'S WHAT WE SAID. >> I KNOW YOU DID, BUT I WANTED TO JUST PUT MY STAMP ON IT. >> HE WAS ACCENTUATING WHAT YOU SAID. THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT IN THE OVERLAY. THAT'S AN INCENTIVE FOR THEM, BUT IF YOU REALLY START SEEING IT REALLY WORKS, THEN YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER YOU COULD USE THAT LATER. [01:45:03] >> THEY CAN'T RENT THE SPACE. THAT MIGHT REALLY WORK. >> MAYBE WE JUST SAY PERIMETER BUFFERS RIGHT NOW AND PEDESTRIAN ELEMENT UP FRONT, ALONG WITH AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER, THEN WE CAN QUANTIFY THOSE AMOUNTS. >> BIG PICTURE. >> NOT ALL DEVELOPER ARE SMART. >> BUT THAT'S WHY THEY GET GOOD ENGINEERS. >> I THINK WE CAN GO TO EVERY PROFESSION AND SAY NOT ALL OF THEM ARE SMART. >> THEY PAY THE ENGINEER ENOUGH MONEY TO DESIGN WHAT THEY WANT AND THEY'RE CONVINCED THAT IT WILL WORK. >> SOMETIMES THEY DON'T [INAUDIBLE] >> NOW, NICK AND DAPHNE, IN THIS SCENARIO, ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT A DEVELOPER OF, SAY, THAT LOT AREA, WOULD THEY SAY, THIS HAS GOT SO MANY POSITIVES FOR ME? THIS INCENTIVIZES ME TO TEAR DOWN WHAT'S THERE AND REBUILD IT AS THIS NEW PLAN. IS THERE ENOUGH IN THIS? >> I THINK THERE IS. >> HE SAYS YES. >> I THINK THERE IS. >> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE. >> I THINK WE'D ALL LIKE TO SEE THAT. >> I THINK THERE IS. >> THERE IS A BIGGER PARCEL STARTING DOWN THE SMALLER PARCEL FOR A CHANGE. >> YEAH. I AGREE. >> IT'LL TAKE ONE OF THE BIG ONES TO GET IT STARTED. >> THEY SEE THE BENEFITS OF IT. THEY SEE IT'S A GOOD IDEA. >> I THINK WE ACCOMPLISHED MORE. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S 10 TALE. IS THIS A GOOD PLACE? >> I THINK SO. I THINK WE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT. >> I THINK SO TOO. >> DO WE HAVE SOME THINGS THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT NEXT TIME THAT MAYBE WE CAN COME OVER AND DO THIS ON OUR OR THINK ABOUT IT? >> I THINK IT'S GOOD TO GO THROUGH, LIKE I SAID, SECTION BY SECTION FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> EXACTLY, AND THEN TACKLE IT FROM THERE. ONE THING THAT WE MAY WANT TO REALLY LOOK AT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY DIVE DEEP INTO IT TODAY, AND THIS IS AN EASY START, IS USES. WE WANT TO EXPAND UPON THE USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED. >> THAT'S WHERE WE'LL TART. >> IS THAT USES UNDERNEATH THERE. >> THE CHART WILL BE USES, [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU'RE SAYING EXPANDED USES, BUT WE COULD ALSO RESTRICT USES. >> SURE. YEAH. THE ONLY REASON I SAY EXPAND IS BECAUSE MARGARET BROUGHT UP A POINT ABOUT A PROPERTY OWNER WANTING TO DO WHAT? IS IT ROASTERY? >> COPY A ROASTERY. >> COPY OF ROASTERY. THINGS LIKE THAT WITHIN AN AREA. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BECAUSE WE CLASSIFY IT AS AN INDUSTRIAL USE OR SOMETHING. >> WAREHOUSE. >> THINKING ABOUT THOSE. >> WE CANNOT ALWAYS FIGURE OUT WHAT USES BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY CHANGES. >> YEAH, ALL THE TIME. >> SURE. >> I'VE ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST THAT. WHEN WE DO THIS, OR PUT A P THERE OR PUT AN S THERE. >> MARGARET, MAYBE YOU CAN BRING US BACK SOME THINGS. THAT WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE, THE COFFEE SHOP. WHAT OTHER AREAS OR WHAT OTHER IDEAS DO PEOPLE BRING ABOUT? >> THAT WE'RE SEEING? >> HAVE A BARRIER. >> YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. >> [OVERLAPPING] USES WITHOUT GETTING SPECIFICS. >> WE HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC. >> UNFORTUNATELY, OUR CODE BUILT THAT WAY. [OVERLAPPING] BUT A PART OF THAT TOO IS YOU CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT MAKES MONEY AND WHAT DOESN'T, BUT JUST IN TERMS OF DETERMINING THE PERSONALITY OF THE CORRIDOR ITSELF TOO. I'VE SAID TOO, I'D LOVE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DO SOME THINGS WITH IT TO TAKE PRESSURE OFF OF DOWNTOWN, THAT THERE WOULD BE RESTAURANTS AND ENTERTAINMENT OR THINGS LIKE WHERE IT WOULD SIPHON OFF AND DISTRIBUTE. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> WOULDN'T THE WALK OVER BE GREAT OVER? >> I'LL TELL YOU, I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE, BUT DOING SOME THINGS WITH THAT STREET WOULD BE GREAT. >> THAT'S WHERE THE COUNTY COMES IN. >> NARROWING THAT STREET IN PLACES, PUTTING IT WOULD BE [INAUDIBLE] JUST IN SOME PLACES. >> A BIG WALK OVER [INAUDIBLE] BE GREAT. >> THAT'D BE COOL. >> YOU ONLY NEED ABOUT SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS. >> BUT YOU COULD NARROW IT AND ADD ADDITIONAL PARKING ON THE STREET, WHICH IS WHAT THE PLAN WAS AT ONE TIME ON THAT EAST. WHAT DID YOU CALL IT? >> THE ROADWAY DIET. [01:50:01] >> I THINK SIGNAGE TOO. >> [OVERLAPPING] SIGNAGE, YEAH >> I THINK THAT'S HUGE. >> BECAUSE WE ARE LIMITED AND PEOPLE MAY WANT TO BRAND THEIR SHOPPING CENTER REALLY NICE. >> YEAH, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT. >> YEAH, I THINK SIGNAGE SHOULD BE IMPORTANT PART OF THIS. >> FORGET WHAT ARTICLE THAT IS. >> SIX, I THINK. >> ARTICLE SIX. THEY ALL RUN TOGETHER. >> I KNOW. I CAN'T REMEMBER. I THINK IT'S SIX. >> WHEN DO YOU GUYS WANT TO HAVE YOUR NEXT MEETING? >> IN TWO WEEKS. >> IS THAT WHAT WE SAID, EVERY TWO WEEKS? >> CAN YOU DO THAT, MARGARET, EVERY TWO WEEKS? >> ACTUALLY, WE HAVE OUR PAB MEETING. >> WE WON'T BE IN THAT ONE. >> IT WILL BE A WEEK AFTER THAT. >> 21ST, I'M GOOD. >> I'M GOOD TO YOU. >> DO YOU WANT TO HAVE ONE MORE MEETING BEFORE YOU HAVE YOUR INTERNAL MEETING? >> WE HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK, PAB. >> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT WITH THE INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS. >> I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT STILL TO COVER. >> A LITTLE BIT MORE TO GO. >> I'VE ALWAYS FOUND THAT IF WE GET OUR DUCKS IN A ROW AND PRESENT THAT, IS THE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. >> I AGREE WITH YOU. >> YEAH. I'D AGREE. >> SHOULD WE JUST OPEN IT UP, YOU'LL BE HERE FOR THE NEXT YEAR. >> WE DON'T WANT THAT. >> NO. >> NEXT MEETING IS ONE O'CLOCK ON THE 21ST. >> LET ME JUST ASK THIS BECAUSE WE'RE HERE AT ONE. I DON'T KNOW, ARE WE CUTTING ANY PEOPLE OUT THAT WOULD ATTEND? >> THEY'RE GOING TO BE REALLY BORED. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> MARGARET WILL BE HERE NEXT TIME. >> YOU WILL KEEP IT AT ONE O'CLOCK? >> YEAH. >> WHAT DATE IS THAT? >> 21ST, WEDNESDAY. >> MARGARET, THE AGENDA FOR OUR REGULAR PAB MEETING IS POSTED? >> IT'LL BE POSTED THIS AFTERNOON. >> THIS AFTERNOON. >> WE HAVE SOME BUSINESS ON THERE? >> YOUR CASE FOR THE REZONING IS GOING TO BE TABLED AGAIN. WE'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT SOMETHING. THEN YOU'LL HAVE YOUR LANDSCAPING. THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN. >> YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE? >> WHICH TAKES SOME CHANGES TO THE COMP PLAN, BUT VERY FEW. >> THANK YOU. >> ADJOURNED. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.