>> THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. 
          [1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
          [00:00:04]
IT'S JUNE 11, 2025, THE CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS, AND MIA, YOU'LL CALL THE ROLL. 
          >> MEMBER BENNETT. 
          >> HERE. 
          >> MEMBER GILLETTE. 
          >> HERE. 
          >> MEMBER ROBIS. 
          >> HERE. 
          >> MEMBER GINGER. 
          >> HERE. 
          >> MEMBER STEVENSON. 
          >> HERE. 
          >> CHAIR DOSTER. 
          >> HERE. 
          >> VICE-CHAIR FOREHAND IS ABSENT. 
          >> WOULD YOU LEAD US ON THE PLEDGE. 
          [3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
THREE SETS OF MINUTES TO APPROVE. 
          FIRST BEING FOR THE WORKSHOP OF MAY 7TH. 
          ANYONE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THOSE MINUTES? 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THEM AS WRITTEN. 
          I WASN'T THERE FOR SOME OF THEM, BUT I'VE REVIEWED THE MINUTES, AND THEY LOOK GOOD TO ME, SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ALL THREE SETS AS WRITTEN. 
          >> I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          >> ALL IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? MINUTES ARE APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. 
          MOVING INTO THE AGENDA, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD FOR PERMISSION TO MOVE, IF WE MIGHT, OUR DISCUSSION OF PUDS TO THE END OF OUR MEETING. 
          I THINK MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO GO QUICKLY. 
          TO ALLOW US SOME TIME TO DISCUSS THAT, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MOVING OUR DISCUSSION OF PUDS TO THE END? 
          >> NO. AS LONG AS WE GO DOWN THE AGENDA, THAT'S [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> IT'S ON THE AGENDA, AND I THINK THESE OTHER THINGS WILL MOVE ALONG MORE QUICKLY, AND THEN FOLKS WHO WANT TO LISTEN IN ON OTHER THINGS WON'T HAVE TO STAY HERE SO LONG. 
          MARGARET, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE PAST 4.1 TODAY, CORRECT? 
          >> CORRECT. WHICH TAKES US TO 4.2, WHICH IS DEFINITION FOR UNDERSTORY. 
          DO WE WANT TO PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE WE MOVE INTO THIS? [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> ARE WE SKIPPING 4.1? 
          >> YEAH, BECAUSE THEY TOOK IT OFF THE AGENDA. 
          >> DON'T WE NEED A MOTION ON THAT, THOUGH? 
          >> NO. 
          >> IT WAS WITHDRAWN. 
          >> YEAH. BUT HE'S COMING BACK WITH SOMETHING JUST TO PROTECT HIM. 
          >> IT WILL COME UNDER ANOTHER CASE NUMBER ENTIRELY WITH A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ACTION. 
          >> I JUST ASK HIM BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHARGE HIM AGAIN. 
          WE'RE JUST GOING TO REAPPLY THE MONIES TO AN ALTERNATE. 
          >> I THINK THAT'S THE UNDERSTANDING, YES. 
          >> I DIDN'T KNOW FROM THAT STANDPOINT IF WE NEEDED A MOTION TO DO THAT OR NOT. 
          I MADE ONE UP, A MOTION, SO GOOD IF WE DON'T NEED IT. THAT'S GOOD. 
          >> KEEP MOVING. 
          >> 4.2. MARGARET, YOU WANT TO TAKE US THROUGH THAT? 
          [4.2 PAB CASE 2024-0006: CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH]
          >> YES, SIR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MARGARET PEARSON, SENIOR PLANNER, WITH THE CITY. 
          THE SECOND CASE IS PAB CASE 20240006. 
          IT IS A REQUEST TO ADD SOME DEFINITIONS AND ALSO SOME TWEAKING TO OUR LANDSCAPING SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE. 
          YOU HAVE REVIEWED THIS SECTION SEVERAL TIMES LAST YEAR, AND ALSO THIS YEAR, AND TWEAKED IT. 
          IT WAS SENT BACK FROM THE CITY COMMISSION FOR YOUR REVIEW AGAIN, AND WE HAVE ADDED SOME THINGS. 
          AT YOUR LAST MEETING, THERE WERE A FEW LITTLE ITEMS THAT YOU WANTED US TO TWEAK, AND ONE OF THEM WAS TO COME UP WITH A UNDERSTORY TREE DEFINITION. 
          AS YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKET, YOU HAVE THE EDITS THERE, AND WE HAVE DEFINED WHAT A UNDERSTORY TREE IS NOW. 
          BUT IN DOING SO, WE REALIZED WE NEEDED TO TWEAK THE DEFINITION OF TREE, SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IN THE GREEN IS WHAT IS NEW TO THIS MEETING. 
          WE'VE TWEAKED THAT AS WELL TO DESCRIBE WHAT THE MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A TREE IS. 
          WE'VE ADDED THAT DEFINITION. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHANGES YOU HAD, AND THERE WAS ONLY MINOR ONES. 
          CHAIRMAN STEVEN BROUGHT UP ONE LITTLE AREA THAT HE WANTED US TO ADD SOME INCHES TO, AND SO WE WENT AHEAD AND TWEAKED THAT AFTER OUR CONVERSATION THIS WEEK. 
          THEN, I BELIEVE, OTHER THAN A FEW LITTLE STRIKING OUT MATERIAL TO PROVIDE FOR EASIER READING, THAT'S ALL THE CORRECTIONS THAT YOU HAD ON THIS ONE. 
          THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          >> THE MAIN NEW THING IS THE DEFINITION OF UNDERSTORY. 
          MARGARET, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT? WHY DON'T WE HEAR YOUR COMMENT, AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS. 
          >> MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE. 
          I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE [INAUDIBLE] I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY. 
          I'M ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF DEFINING SOMETHING. 
          [00:05:03]
YOU CAN'T TEACH ENGLISH ALL THESE YEARS AND NOT WANT TO DEFINE THINGS. 
          HOWEVER, I'M RATHER CONCERNED ABOUT REDUCING BUFFERS, AND CONCERNED ABOUT USING UNDERSTORY TREES INSTEAD OF CANOPY TREES. 
          I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE BASICALLY IT IS OUR CANOPY TREES IN THIS CITY THAT PROTECT US FROM STORM WINDS, THAT PROTECT US FROM STORM WATER AND ABSORB THAT, AND PROTECT US FROM FLOODING. 
          ALSO PROTECT US FROM HEAT AND THE SUN, AND SO WE DEFINITELY NEED THOSE. 
          I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE MANY THINGS WE'RE DOING HERE THAT REALLY INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND MINIMIZE THE CANOPY COVERAGE. THANK YOU. 
          >> MARGARET, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, YOU'RE VOICING CONCERN ABOUT TREES: CANOPY TREES, AND UNDERSTORY TREES, YOU AREN'T CRITICIZING THE DEFINITION HERE OF. 
          >> NO. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE THING, AND THAT IS THAT UNDERSTORY, AND I'VE BEEN USING THE TERM FOR THE LAST DECADE AROUND HERE, INCLUDES TREES, SHRUBS, AND GROUND COVER. 
          THIS DEFINITION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S SPECIFYING THAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE UNDERSTORY TREES. 
          BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF UNDERSTORY SHRUBS THAT ARE WONDERFUL THAT EVERYBODY'S FORGOTTEN ABOUT BECAUSE NOBODY USES THEM ANYMORE. 
          >> MARGARET, LET ME JUST MAKE ONE COMMENT. 
          ONE OF THE REASONS THIS EVEN CAME UP WAS PARTIALLY BECAUSE NICK MADE A COMMENT THAT GOT US ALL THINKING. 
          IN FACT, IF WE REDO CENTER STREET, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO GO WITH UNDERSTORY TREES GOING DOWN CENTER STREET. 
          THERE JUST IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM. 
          I DO NOT WANT TO SEE LIVE OAKS ON CENTER STREET. 
          THEY WILL NOT SURVIVE. WE HAD THE PROBLEM UP AT 8TH STREET. 
          WE STILL HAVE THE PROBLEM IN TERMS OF WHERE WE'RE GOING TO KEEP. 
          THE IDEA IS THAT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE. 
          IF A FULL SIZE SHADE TREE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPACE INVOLVED, THERE'S A DEFINED ALTERNATIVE, OR DEFINED DEFINITION. 
          THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN OUR HEADS. 
          >> THEY MAY OR MAY NOT MAKE IT BECAUSE OF THE HEAT, AND SUN, AND SO ON. 
          WE'LL FIND OUT. 
          >> THE IDEA IS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING SOME KIND OF A TREE. 
          AT LEAST THAT WAS MY MENTALITY. 
          [LAUGHTER] I'D RATHER HAVE A TREE RATHER THAN NOT HAVING ANYTHING AT ALL. 
          >> JUST SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN THE FUTURE. 
          >> YES. THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE DEFINITION PROVIDED BY STAFF OF UNDERSTORY TREE? IS THERE A MOTION? 
          >> I HAVE A COMMENT, AND THIS GOES TO STAFF. 
          AT THE MAY 6, 2025, CITY COMMISSION MEETING, THERE WAS A COMMENT BY COMMISSIONER ASKEW CONCERNING HOW OUR LANDSCAPING MEETS STATE REQUIREMENTS, PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO REMOVING A TREE. 
          HIS QUESTION REALLY WAS, IT'S NOT JUST THE HERITAGE TREES. 
          THEY WANTED TO ADDRESS IT AND THEN DIVE INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND CODIFY WHAT WILL WORK WITH THE STATE. 
          THAT WAS SOMETHING I PICKED UP AS I WAS DOING SOME RESEARCH FOR OUR MEETING TONIGHT. 
          THEY BASICALLY WERE CONCERNED THAT IF SOMEBODY CUTS DOWN A TREE AND THEN CHARGES THE CITY FOR IT. 
          I WAS WONDERING IF WE'VE HAD ANY THOUGHT ABOUT THAT FROM THAT COMMENT HE MADE ON THE MAY 6TH CITY COMMISSION MEETING. 
          >> KELLY CAN ADDRESS THIS, BUT AS FAR AS THIS SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND THE CHANGES THAT HAVE CAME FORWARD, WE FELT LIKE MOST, AS FAR AS THE REMOVALS, MET THE STANDARDS. 
          >> THE SECTIONS OF CODE THAT YOU'RE TOUCHING RIGHT HERE DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH LANDSCAPING AND IS AN AREA OF CODE THAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITHIN FOR A VERY LONG TIME. 
          TREE PROTECTION IS A SEPARATE SECTION OF CODE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ADVERTISED FOR ANY CHANGES AT THIS TIME. 
          [00:10:03]
THOSE CHANGES, AND ANY REVIEW OF THAT WILL HAVE TO OCCUR UNDER A SEPARATE PROCESS. 
          >> STAFF HAS NOT HEARD ANYTHING FROM COMMISSIONER ASKEW CONCERNING HIS CONCERNS. 
          >> ONLY AS PROVIDED FROM THAT MEETING. 
          >> THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. 
          >> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE ONE ON OUR LIST TO LOOK AT. 
          >> GOT IT. 
          >> OTHER COMMENTS RELATED TO THIS? MARGARET AND KELLY, WE'RE NOW GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO. 
          >> RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2024-006, WHICH IS A DEFINITION OF UNDERSTORY TREE AND MODIFICATIONS TO SECTION 1.07 AND APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF 4.05 AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> ALL IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? MOVED. THAT BRINGS US TO, MARGARET YOU TELL THEM. 
          WE'RE GOING TO MOVE PUDS LATE, SO YOU WILL TAKE US TO THE PLAT REVIEW [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> I'M NOT ABLE TO FREEZE THE SCREEN ANYMORE, SO WE HAVE TO SCROLL THROUGH IT HERE. [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WHILE MARGARET'S DOING THAT, I WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM VOTING AND PARTICIPATING ON THIS [INAUDIBLE] DUE TO A CONFLICT. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION OF MR. GILLETTE. 
          NICK, THIS PIECE OF LAND, IT'S SIMILAR TO THAT OTHER ONE THAT WE HAD, IT WAS LATE LAST YEAR, THAT WAS FURTHER DOWN ON 13TH STREET. 
          IT WAS BASICALLY VIRGIN LAND. 
          WE REVIEWED IT IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. 
          >> BEFORE YOU ANSWER, IF HE'S RECUSED HIMSELF, CAN HE ANSWER THAT QUESTION? 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. 
          >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT IT'S A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY. 
          BUT SINCE I'M ABSTAINING AND NOT PARTICIPATING, I'M JUST GOING TO STEP, NOT VISUALLY OUT. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW MUCH TREE COVER WE'RE GOING TO LOSE. 
          >> HERE WE GO. 
          >> MAYBE STAFF COULD HELP YOU WITH THAT. 
          >> PAB CASE 20250004 FINAL PLAT. 
          [5.1 PAB 2025-0004 - FINAL REPLAT REQUEST - KINGDOM MINISTRY - LOT 8 BLOCK 233, S. 13TH STREET]
THIS IS A REQUEST FROM [INAUDIBLE] MINISTRY INC. 
          THE AGENT IS GILLETTE AND ASSOCIATES, IS FOR A FINAL REPLAT OF LOT 8 BLOCK 233 BLOCK OF 13TH STREET. 
          THE CURRENT LAND USE IS MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL. 
          THE MEDIUM DENSITY IS R2 ZONING. 
          THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT, AND IT'S APPROXIMATELY 1.7 ACRES. 
          THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE SINGLE FAMILY R2, TO THE SOUTH SINGLE FAMILY R2, AND THEN TO THE EAST IS SOME VACANT LAND OFFICE AND SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING MU1, AND TO THE WEST IS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING R2. 
          THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO SIX A FINAL PLAT TO CREATE A SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF SEVEN LOTS. 
          THE SUBDIVISION IS BASED ON THE PREVIOUSLY PLATTED LOT AND WILL CONSIST OF SIX TOWN HOME UNITS AND ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, AND THERE WILL BE ANOTHER LOT THAT WILL BE RETAINED BY KINGDOM MINISTRY. 
          TOWN HOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE ALLOWED AND PERMISSIBLE IN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT. 
          THE TOTAL AREA OF THE LAND IS 7.79 ACRES, AND IS LOCATED BETWEEN VERNON STREET AND 13TH, SO IT HAS FRONTAGE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, AND THE PROJECT WILL HAVE DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO BOTH STREETS. 
          THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IN MAY OF 2025 AND WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY THE TRC COMMITTEE AT OFFICIAL MEETING. 
          THE ISSUANCE OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IS PENDING THIS FINAL PLAT OF APPROVAL. 
          IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AT LDC, A FINAL PLAT IS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS BOARD AND THEN WOULD BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. 
          BUT BECAUSE IT'S BEING ACCESSED TO EXISTING ROADS, USING EXISTING UTILITIES, NOT CREATING ANYTHING NEW INFRASTRUCTURE-WISE, THEY CAN GO TO THE FINAL PLAT PROCESS. 
          [00:15:01]
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. 
          THERE'S LOTS OF DETAIL IN THE STAFF REPORT AS FAR AS THE ABILITY TO SERVE THE UTILITIES FROM THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, BEING ABLE TO SERVE THE WATER AND THE UTILITIES. 
          WITH THAT, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. 
          >> BEFORE WE GET TO THE BOARD, MR. AND MRS. CASSIA PONTI HAVE A COMMENT. 
          >> RIGHT HERE. 
          >> I GOT CLOSE. IF YOU'LL STEP TO THE MIC AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          >> ARE YOU OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING? 
          >> NO. THEY JUST HAVE COMMENTS. 
          THESE ARE PUBLIC COMMENTS. 
          >> I HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS ONE TOO. 
          >> YOU NEED TO FILL THAT UP. 
          >> THERE'S NO MORE FORMS. 
          >> YOU NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT. 
          >> BANG THE GAVEL AND SAY WE'RE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          >> [NOISE] WE'RE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          >> DO YOU HAVE ANY [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> YES. WE ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> YOU NEED TO SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. 
          >> I'M LINDA AND FRANK CASSIA PONTI 907 VERNON STREET. 
          WE ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS EMPTY LOT, WHICH IS BEAUTIFULLY TREED, ETC. 
          WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, THERE ARE GOING TO BE DUPLEX HOMES, I UNDERSTAND, AND THEY WOULD BE FACING VERNON STREET, OR WOULD THEY BE FACING 13TH STREET AND THE REAR OF THE HOMES WOULD BE FACING ME WITH DRIVEWAY ACCESS. 
          THAT WOULD BE ONE QUESTION. 
          I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S FACING VERNON STREET. 
          WHAT TYPE OF DUPLEX IS GOING TO BE BUILT? IS IT GOING TO BE A TALL ONE, OR IS IT GOING TO BE SINGLE FAMILIES? 
          >> LET ME ASK [INAUDIBLE]. 
          ALSO, IS THERE GOING TO BE A ROAD BETWEEN THOSE TWO SETS OF HOMES? THERE'S SOME KIND OF A DRAWING ON THAT. 
          I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT. 
          WILL IT BE A ROAD IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO HOMES? ANYONE KNOW? [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I'M GOING TO CALL UP THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED IF YOU LET THE APPLICANT MAKE THE PRESENTATION. 
          THE APPLICANTS HERE, AND IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS PROJECT FOR ONCE. 
          >> WILL YOU FINISH, AND THEN WE HAVE, WE'LL TALK ALL THE ISSUES. 
          >> THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'M INTERESTED IN. 
          >> TREES. ARE THEY GOING TO BE REPLACING SOME OF THE TREES WITH SMALLER TREES, OR HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH THE TREES WITH A LOT THERE. 
          >> WE'RE GOING TO ASK THAT WELL. 
          SO WE'LL GET TO THAT WHEN THE APPLICANT STICKS TO THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> YOU GOT. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I'M GOING TO SIT RIGHT HERE. 
          >> HI, I'M SHANA MCENERN. 
          I'M AT 817 VERNON STREET. 
          MY CONCERN IS THAT THE FLOODING ON THAT STREET, YOU ALL HAVE NEVER PUT ANY DRAINAGE IN THOSE STREETS. 
          SO ALL OF THE NEW HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT, THE NEW SUBDIVISIONS, THEY HAVE CITY DRAINAGE. WE HAVE NO DRAINAGE. 
          I JUST SPENT A COUPLE OF THOUSAND DOLLARS TO DIG A DITCH AND TAKE OUT MULTIPLE TREES IN MY YARD BECAUSE IT WAS FLOODING INTO MY GARAGE CONVERSION. 
          EVERY SINGLE HOUSE ON THAT STREET HAS BUILT THEIR DRIVEWAY UP BECAUSE THE STREET IS HIGHER THAN OUR DRIVEWAYS, AND IT COMPLETELY FLOODS EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR DRIVEWAYS EVERY SINGLE TIME IT RAINS. 
          SO NOW, THE FACT THAT I'VE JUST SPENT $2,000 TO CORRECT MY ISSUE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN HERE AND BUILD THIS THING AND NOT BUILD ANY DRAINAGE. 
          ALL OF THOSE TREES THAT THEY TOOK OUT THAT ARE ABSORBING WATER ARE GOING TO COME RIGHT TO MY DITCH. 
          AND ALL THAT WHOLE ROAD IS JUST GOING TO DRAIN AND COMPLETELY RUIN THE TWO GRAND THAT I JUST SPENT FIXING MY ISSUE. 
          AND SO MY ISSUE IS, I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. 
          WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE THE 70S. 
          WHY DON'T WE HAVE DRAINAGE ON THAT STREET? LIKE, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO DRAINAGE. 
          ALL THESE NEW SUBDIVISIONS HAVE DRAINAGE, BUT WE DON'T, AND THEN THEY WANT TO BUILD SIX TOWNHOUSES AND A SINGLE HOUSE IN THIS TINY LITTLE SPACE WHERE THERE'S MASSIVE OAK TREES THAT ARE ABSORBING A LOT OF THE WATER. 
          I DON'T LIKE IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S OKAY. 
          I THINK IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD THOSE, AND THEY NEED TO PUT AN EXTENSIVE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THANK YOU. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] I'VE GOT THE PLANS CALLED UP, AND IT HAS GONE THROUGH, AND THERE ARE STORM WATER PLANS AS YOU CAN SEE, AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED, BUT I WANT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE HIS PRESENTATION, AND THEN WE CAN FILL IN. [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> I DIDN'T KNOW. 
          >> YES, SIR [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> TOM WILSON, 816 VERNE STREET. 
          MY PROPERTY IS TWO LOTS DOWN FROM THIS SPACE RIGHT NOW. 
          MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE GOING TO BRING SIX TOWNHOUSES. 
          ONE CONCERN IS PARKING. 
          THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE NOW ALREADY HAVE PARKING PROBLEMS. EVERYONE PARKS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. 
          YOU KNOW, YOUR PROPERTY LINE SITS BACK, AND EVERYBODY PARKS ON THE GRASS THAT BELONGS TO THE COUNTY AND NOT MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY. 
          THESE PEOPLE MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, AND THEY PARK ON THE PROPERTY. 
          WE DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS ON THE STREET. 
          NOW YOU'RE GOING TO BRING IN TOWNHOUSES WITH I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY FAMILIES, 
          [00:20:05]
AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE VEHICLES. 
          WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PARK THEM? ARE THEY COMING IN FROM OUR STREET OR COMING OFF THE OTHER STREET? THEN YOU STILL DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS. 
          AND JUST LIKE SHE SPOKE ABOUT THE PLUMBING, I JUST SPENT $2,400 ON PLUMBING THAT'S ANTIQUATED BACK THERE, AND IT HAS NO PATTERN, AND NOBODY IN THE COUNTY EVEN HAS A PLAN. 
          YOU HAVE TO HIRE SOMEONE TO EVEN GET A PLATE PLAN. 
          THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. 
          THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I'M AFTER YOU. 
          >> I HAVE ONE MORE, AND THAT IS. 
          >> BUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE? 
          >> I'M NETHERLAND WILSON, 816 VERNON WITH HIM. 
          I HAVE BEEN PAYING PROPERTY TAXES AT THIS PLACE FOR OVER 20 YEARS. 
          MY FATHER OWNED THAT HOME, AND HE PAID PROPERTY TAXES THERE AS WELL. 
          I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE HISTORY OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OR THAT SERIES OF NEIGHBORHOODS RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT LIKE HE SAID, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS. 
          I'M ASSUMING THAT WHEN I PAY TAXES, I'M PAYING FOR THAT TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          IF I'M NOT, SOMEONE SHOULD LET ME KNOW, BECAUSE I PAY MY TAXES EVERY YEAR ON TIME, AND STILL THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP. 
          IN MY RECOLLECTION WITH MY FAMILY LIVING HERE, ALL THESE YEARS, AT LEAST SIX DIFFERENT TIMES THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP, AND NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT. 
          I WILL TELL YOU THIS WITHOUT GOING INTO THE HISTORY, LIKE I SAID, I WOULDN'T. 
          BUT THESE ARE HISTORICALLY AFRICAN AMERICAN NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S MY SAKE. 
          >> THANK YOU. THE APPLICANTS. 
          >> HE NEEDS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, AND THEY'RE GONE? 
          >> HELLO. MY NAME IS JAY MOTT, 1934 SUNRISE DRIVE. 
          WE ALSO HAVE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HERE, PASTOR AVENT. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM, I'M THE APPLICANT ABROAD. 
          >> ALEX BOLTON, AGENT FOR GEORGE ASSOCIATES. 
          >> QUESTION. 
          >> I THINK WE'RE JUST RELYING ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. 
          IF WE HAVE I MEAN, I CAN ADDRESS SIX DUPLEXES, SO I'LL BE ANY MORE THAN SIX FAMILIES. 
          IF YOU KNOW IF ON ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO, A SUBDIVISION CALLED HICKORY RIDGE WAS DEVELOPED, AND IF YOU COME OFF OF 14TH STREET OFF OF HICKORY, THERE'S THREE DUPLEXES BUILT THERE. 
          THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IT'LL LOOK LIKE ON THIS PROPERTY. 
          >> ONE-STOREY DUPLEXES. 
          >> ONE STORY, POSSIBLY TWO STORY. 
          WE WILL CONFORM WITH CODE. 
          I HAVEN'T GOT THAT FAR YET. 
          >> AND ROADS? 
          >> NO ROADS. NO DRIVEWAYS. 
          YOU HAVE TWO OF THEM OFF OF VERNON AND ONE OF THEM OFF OF 13. 
          >> DO WE HAVE A RENDERING OF? [OVERLAPPING] I MEAN, FROM MY ELEVATION LEVEL. 
          >> NO, I DON'T HAVE THAT DESIGN YET. 
          THIS IS JUST A SITE PLAN. 
          >> THE LOCKS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED FOR BUILDING LANDSCAPE GOING TO LIKE. 
          >> ALL THE TREES THAT ARE MARKED WITH THE TREES THEY ALL TAKEN OUT? 
          >> THEY'RE GOING TO BE OUT. THEY'RE GONE. 
          >> THE ONES THAT ARE CROSSING OUT THE WATER? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> WE'LL STILL HAVE TO DRAIN THE WATER, WE HAVE. [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          >> WE CAN'T HAVE HUMAN SPEAKING FROM [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> THANK YOU. SO THESE MEN HAVE THE FLOOR. 
          >> YOU GOT SPEAKING TO DRAG THE ISSUE. 
          >> THE SITE HERE HAS A, THERE'S DRAINAGE IS A DRY POND SWELL. 
          IT'S ONLY A FOOT, FOOT AND A HALF DEEP. 
          IT IS ABLE TO CONTAIN THE ENTIRE SITE PROPERTY, THE IMPERVIOUS AREA OF THESE HOES, AND THE ENTIRE SITE FOR IT. 
          THERE'S AN EASEMENT FOR THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY THERE THAT HAS DRAINAGE ON IT. 
          THE DRY POND SWELL WILL CONTAIN ALL OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA AND THE RUNOFF THAT WAS ALREADY PROPOSED ON THIS VACANT LOT PRIOR. 
          AND THERE IS AN OUTFALL TO THE 13TH STREET SIDE. 
          IF FOR SOME REASON, NO ONE NEEDS TO OVERFILL THERE. 
          >> IS THAT WETLANDS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM ON 13TH STREET? 
          >> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE'S NO. 
          >> IS IT JUST AN I MEAN, IT'S JUST A TREE AREA? 
          [00:25:03]
          >> YES. 
          >> THIS LOT IS JUST NORTH OF BARNABAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET. 
          IT'S LITERALLY TO THE END OF BARNABAS' PROPERTY, AND IT'S THE SOUTHERN END OF THIS LOT. 
          >> PETE, YOU WANT TO ASK ABOUT TREES? 
          >> I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE TOTAL TREE COUNT IS ON THE PROPERTY AS IT SITS TODAY AND HOW MANY OF THOSE TREES ARE GOING TO BE REMOVED. 
          >> THE PLANS DO HAVE A CHART ON THERE. 
          I THINK THE APPLICANTS CAN GO THROUGH IT AND HOW IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. 
          >> THE TREE MITIGATION FOR THESE ONES, AND SINCE EACH OF THE LOTS ARE SPLIT, IT IS REQUIRED THAT THEY'RE DONE PER LOT INSTEAD OF AS A TOTAL FOR THE WHOLE THING. 
          THE CHART HERE SHOWS EACH LOT'S MITIGATION FOR THEM AND HOW MANY IS BEING REMOVED AND WHAT WILL BE RETAINED FOR THEM. 
          >> CAN YOU DO LIKE A PERCENTAGE ARE YOU TAKING OUT 80% OF THE TREES OR 60%, OR I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW BIG THE REDUCTION IS IN TERMS OF THE TREE CANOPY. 
          DON'T HAVE TO BE ABSOLUTELY PERFECT. 
          [OVERLAPPING] ALL OF THE TREES IDENTIFIED ON HERE. 
          EVERYTHING IN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS WOULD BE COMING OUT. 
          THE OTHER TREES WOULD STAY. 
          THAT'LL HELP YOU? 
          >> BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET THAT IN OUR PACKAGE. 
          THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN IT. 
          SHE SAYS WE'RE ONLY DOING THE PLAN. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          WE'RE ONLY DOING THE PLATE. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND. WE'RE ALSO ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT TREES. 
          JUST IN THE ESSENCE OF TRYING TO GET THINGS DONE. ANSWER IT NOW. 
          >> FOR THESE EACH OF THEM, THERE'S NO MORE THAN 50% REMOVED ON EACH LOT. 
          THEN ALSO ON TOP OF THAT, THERE WILL BE MORE THAN RETAINED. 
          YOU KNOW, IT'S EACH LOT ISN'T GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN 50% REMOVED. 
          >> STAFF, THIS IS A CRUCIAL AGENDA. 
          THIS IS THE FINAL SUBDIVISION RE-PLAT REVIEW FOR THE CREATION OF SEVEN LOTS. IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> CORRECT. THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT HAS GONE THROUGH TRC. 
          IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE STORMWATER FOR THE STORMWATER REVIEW WITH THE DRAINAGE REPORT. 
          THE LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY PLANNING STAFF AS WELL AS OUR ARBORISTS, AND THEY DO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE LDC SETS OUT FOR REACH, CANOPY RETENTION VERSUS MITIGATION. 
          THAT'S WHY THAT'S REQUIRED IN THE CHART, WHERE EVERYBODY CAN SEE EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT MAINTAINS THAT STANDARD THAT'S IN THE LDC. 
          AS FAR AS THE PARKING, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES. 
          EACH UNIT HAS TWO PARKING SPACES, ONE IS IN THE GARAGE AND ONE IS IN THE FRONT. 
          THEY HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM IN THEIR DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE. 
          THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED. 
          THE ACCESS, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S FOUR ACCESS POINTS OFF OF VERN, AND THEN THE TWO OFF OF 13TH. 
          THEY ARE REQUIRED TO INSTALL SIDEWALK. 
          THAT'S ALSO SHOWN ON THE PLAN. 
          THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THAT. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> DEVELOPERS REQUIRED TO PUT IN SIDEWALKS? 
          >> FOR HERE'S DEVELOPMENT. 
          THAT'S SHOWN ON THIS PLAN RIGHT HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE. 
          >> WAS THERE ANY MENTION FROM THE STAFF REVIEW OF THE FLOODING ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY MISS [BACKGROUND]? WAS THERE ANY MENTION OF THAT ABOUT BEING AN ISSUE ABOUT FLOODING? 
          >> AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE FOR THIS PROPERTY THEY WOULD HAVE TO RETAIN SOME ON-SITE. 
          IF THERE'S DRAINAGE ISSUES OFF-SITE, THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          JUST WHAT'S ON THEIR SITE [NOISE] AND HOW THEY RELEASE THE STORMWATER FROM THEIR SITE. 
          ANDRE IN THAT GROUP, THE UTILITIES REVIEWS THAT. 
          >> WOULD, IN ORDER TO ASSIST THIS PROBLEM THAT SEEMS TO BE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, ASIDE FROM THIS PROJECT, WOULD STAFF RECOMMEND THAT ANY IMPACTED OR CONCERNED CITIZENS SEE THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT, OR WHO WOULD THAT BE IN THE CITY'S DEPARTMENT TO TALK ABOUT THAT? WOULD THAT BE ANDRE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> CAN YOU HELP THEM AS FAR AS GIVING THEM SOME CONTACT INFORMATION FOR ANDRE? 
          >> ABSOLUTELY. 
          >> THAT MIGHT BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE? ANY QUESTIONS FOR THESE MEN? 
          >> DO I NEED TO GO? 
          >> YEAH, YOU DO. 
          >> WAS SHE FINISHED? 
          >> I THINK, [OVERLAPPING]. 
          [00:30:01]
          >> THE TREES. ALL OF THE TREES ARE ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          THERE ARE A COUPLE ON THE HOUSE, THE NEXT IT. 
          BUT ALL OF THE TREES, IF 50% IS GOING TO BE TAKEN DOWN ON TWO LOTS OR THREE LOTS, THAT'S A LOT OF TREES. 
          THEY'RE ALL ON ONE SIDE. 
          >> I'M GOING TO LET THIS GENTLEMAN SPEAK, AND THEN I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          >> AS FAR AS THOSE TREES GO, THERE'S AT LEAST 75 TREES ON THAT LINE. 
          IF THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE 50%, THAT'S 35 RIGHT AWAY. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE 50%, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD SIX TOWNHOUSES AND HAVE PARKING SPACES AND GARAGES. 
          THAT SEEMS THAT QUESTION IS THIS, THAT BOTHERS ME IS THIS. 
          WHAT TYPE OF PRICE ARE WE ASKING FOR THOSE TOWNHOUSES AND THE LEASE RATE? BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF PEOPLE OR WHAT RATE OF PEOPLE ARE WE RAISING OUR LEVEL FROM HERE TO HERE, AND THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE A BIG INFLUX ON OUR TAX STRUCTURE. 
          THAT'S ELSE I'D LIKE TO KNOW. 
          >> THAT'S OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THIS CONVERSATION. 
          [OVERLAPPING] 
          >>IF YOU GOT TOWNHOUSES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SELL FOR $1,000,000, THAT'S GOING TO THROW OUR STRUCTURE OUR TAX STRUCTURE UP HERE. 
          BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT. SINCE IT'S BLANK, WE'RE JUST WORKING ON BLANK PAPER. 
          WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. WE DON'T HAVE A RENDERING OF TELEVISION. 
          WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. WE'RE JUST THROWING STUFF IN THE WIND. 
          >> WELL, WE DO KNOW SOME THINGS THAT ARE IN THIS REPORT, TINY WARNING. 
          >> IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK, IF NOT, SHE WILL BE THE LAST SPEAKER AND WE'LL CLOSE THIS PART OF THE MEETING? 
          >> HI, TINA KIRSCHNER, 406 BEACH STREET. 
          I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THIS APPLICATION. 
          I SAW IT'S LIKE 0.78 ACRES, AND IT'S R2 ALLOWS EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. 
          I DON'T SEE HOW SEVEN UNITS CALCULATES, BUT I'M SURE THE TRC LOOKED AT THAT. 
          IS IT BECAUSE THEY CAN USE THE EASEMENTS AND THE CALCULATIONS? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> FIFTY PERCENT. 
          >> FIFTY PERCENT OF IT. 
          IT JUST SEEMS VERY DENSE FOR THAT. 
          THE OTHER COMMENT I HAVE IS SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WERE ASKING WHAT THE STRUCTURES ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE ONE STORY. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HERE UNDERSTANDS THAT IN A REPLAT IT DOESN'T MATTER. 
          ANYBODY CAN TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO BE ONE STORY, BUT ONCE THEY GET THE REPLAT, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT THAT'S ALLOWED. 
          THERE'S NO APPROVAL FOR THE STRUCTURES RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S JUST ALLOWING THE REPLACE. 
          THEN IT'S ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WITH TREES THAT YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THE WIDTH OF THE TREES, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? I'M JUST MAKING UP NUMBERS. 
          IF THERE'S 1,000 FEET OF CIRCUMFERENCE OF TREES ON THE PROPERTY, THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE REPLACED ON THE OUTER EDGES AND IN THERE TOO, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? 
          >> I CAN ADDRESS THAT VERY QUICKLY. 
          WHEN IT COMES TO TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, I'M GOING TO SPEAK JUST VERY GENERALLY, AS IT RELATES TO OUR TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE AND THEN THE MITIGATION TIED TO IT. 
          IT'S EVALUATED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BY LOT BASIS. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, WE LOOK AT LOT 1 AND ALL OF THE TREES THAT ARE EXISTING ON LOT 1, AS IT'S PROPOSED TO BE CONFIGURED FOLLOWING THE REPLAT, HOW MANY OF TREES WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED WITHIN THE PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOR THAT SITE TO ACTUALLY EXIST AS A TOWN HOME? THAT TREE REMOVAL THEN GETS CALCULATED, LET'S SAY IT'S 100". 
          THE CITY'S CODE REQUIRES THAT AT LEAST 50% OF THOSE INCHES BE MITIGATED THROUGH EITHER ON SITE RETENTION OF THE REMAINING TREES OR THROUGH NEW PLANTINGS. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, IT MUST ALSO MEET MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE LAND AREA CREATED AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREE. 
          I SEE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES FOR THAT LOT. 
          IN THAT SAME EXAMPLE, WE HAVE 116 BEING REMOVED, 50% OF THEM, 50" MUST BE MITIGATED ON SITE. 
          LET'S SAY THAT THERE IS 225 INCH OAK TREES THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO RETAIN ON THAT PROPERTY. 
          THEY WILL HAVE FULFILLED THEIR MINIMUM MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS WITH THOSE 50" THAT HAVE BEEN RETAINED. 
          HOWEVER, THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT. 
          IN THAT SCENARIO, THEY MUST ALSO PLANT TWO ADDITIONAL TREES, 
          [00:35:02]
SHADE TREES PER OUR CODE, SO THAT THE RESULTING PROPERTY DOES HAVE FOUR TOTAL TREES ON IT, OF WHICH SOME OF THEM ARE MATURE TREES. 
          >> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          >> THANK YOU. THE PUBLIC HEARING LET'S CLOSE. COMMENTS? 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] ADDRESS RETENTION BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE A QUESTION. 
          >> CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT TRC HAS APPROVED THE TECHNICAL PLAN. 
          THE FOOTPRINT, THE ACCESS POINTS, THEY ARE APPROVED FOR THAT. 
          IF THEY CHANGED THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH THE TRC AND GET APPROVAL. 
          OTHER THAN THE ELEVATIONS OF IT, WHICH ARE NOT REQUIRED AT THIS TIME, THE FOOTPRINT IS WHAT THE FOOTPRINT IS. 
          >> THANKS, MARGARET. THE FOOT COMMENTS, BARBARA. ANYBODY ELSE? 
          >> I'M STILL NOT HAPPY WITH THE TREE THING. 
          >> I THINK AS MARGARET SAID, THE APPROVAL PART OF THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED, BUT I HOPE YOU'LL GO SEE ANDRE AND THE PEOPLE WHO CAN HELP YOU SOLVE YOUR PROBLEMS. IT'S NOT RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, BUT WE WANT YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE RIGHT. 
          >> DID SOMEBODY SAY THESE WERE THE CONDOS OR THE TOWN HOMES ON 13TH STREET OR HICKORY STREET WHEN HICKORY RUNS INTO 13TH? 
          >> YES. IS IT FROM HICKORY. 
          IT IS SMALL THAN THAT. 
          IT IS TO THE NORTHEAST OF THIS PROPERTY. 
          THE ADJOINING BLOCK. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> OR CATEGORY BLOCK. 
          >> IS THERE A MOTION? 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR SOMEBODY. 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. 
          >> LET ME FIND IT. 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR SECOND. 
          >> HANG ON. 
          >> I HAVE IT. 
          >> GO AHEAD, I'LL SEE. 
          >> PAGE 102. 
          >> I MOVED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE 2025-0004, THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE REPLAT OF LOT EIGHT BLOCK 233 SUBDIVISION B APPROVED IN THE PAB CASE 2025-004 AS PRESENTED IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          >> ALL IN FAVOR? 
          >> AYE. 
          > ANY OPPOSED? 
          >> NO, I'M OPPOSED. 
          >> DO AN HAND COUNT. 
          >> DO AN INDIVIDUAL COUNT. 
          >> ALL IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND? 
          >> YOU HAVE HER CALL THE ROLE, TOO. 
          >> THEY NEED TO CALL THE ROLE. 
          >> YOU'LL CALL THE ROLE. 
          >> I'M HAPPY TO. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> MEMBER GINGER. 
          >> SAY YES OR NO. 
          >> YES. 
          >> MEMBER ROBIS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MEMBER BENNETT? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MEMBER STEVENSON? 
          >> NO. 
          >> CHAIR RICHARD DOSTERS. 
          >> YES. 
          >> THEN THAT WOULD BE APPROVED 06:1 YOU SHOULD SAY THAT [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> CHAIRMAN I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE AUDIENCE, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME BY THE OFFICE AND LOOK AT THE PLANS. 
          FEEL FREE IF THEY WANT YOU DON'T WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT. 
          I'LL BE GLAD TO MEET WITH THEM AND SHOW THEM THE PLANS. 
          THEY CAN REALLY SEE THE TREES [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> DID YOU HEAR MARGARET EVERYONE? IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU CAN VISIT WITH HER, OR OFFICES IS RIGHT OVER HERE AND SHE WILL SHOW YOU THE PLANS. 
          >> IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS WHY DO WE HAVE THIS HERE? I KNOW I'M SPEAKING OUT OF LINE, BUT WHY DO WE HAVE THIS HERE? EVERYBODY'S GOT CONCERNS, BUT NOBODY HAS ANSWERS. 
          YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE A RENDERING OF THE SITUATION, YOU'RE APPROVING SOMETHING BASED ON THE DRAWING. 
          >> IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, YOU HAVE TO COME [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> I WILL ANSWER THAT FOR YOU. 
          THIS IS ONLY FOR PLAT APPROVAL. 
          THAT IS UNDER PLAT APPROVAL, LET ME SPEAK NOW. 
          UNDER PLAT APPROVAL, IS ONLY THE LOTS THAT ARE ON THIS PROPERTY. 
          WE HAVE ORDINANCES WITHIN THE CITY TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT TREES, FLOODING, AND SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. 
          >> BUT YOU ARE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALREADY DONE. 
          WE HAVING A BEATING AGAINST SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. 
          >> NO. WE APPROVED THE PLAT APPROVAL TONIGHT. 
          >> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON. 
          THANK YOU. MARGARET, MOVE ON NOW TO 5.3. 
          [00:40:03]
          >> YES, SIR. THIS IS PAB CASE 2025-0006. 
          [5.2 PAB CASE 2025-0006: CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH]
THESE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS TO THE PARKING STANDARDS AND PARKING LOT DESIGNS TO CONFIRM THE MAXIMUM PARKING TO ENABLE A FEE IN LIEU OF ALONG H STREET. 
          YOU HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AT SOME OF YOUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS, AND ALSO ADDING CLARIFYING LANGUAGE STANDARDS FOR BARBERSHOPS, BEAUTY SHOPS, NAIL SALONS, SKINCARE, OR TATTOO PARLORS, AND MODIFY THE STANDARDS FOR MEDICAL OFFICE AND CLIENT AND CLINICS. 
          I BELIEVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEEN AND HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS WHAT YOU'VE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY. 
          WE'RE BRINGING THIS FORWARD NOW TO OFFICIALLY MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          YOU DID LOOK AT THIS AGAIN. 
          WHEN YOU WERE SETTING YOUR PRIORITIES FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS, BEING LANDSCAPING, WHICH YOU WANTED TO GO THROUGH SOME MORE, THIS WAS ONE OF THEM THAT YOU SAID, YOU HAD A CONSENSUS THAT EVERYBODY AGREED WITH THIS ONE. 
          THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY REVISIONS TO IT SINCE YOUR DECEMBER MEETING. 
          IF THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIFIC, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING. 
          >> ANY FURTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION? 
          >> WHERE IS THE STAFF REPORT ON THAT? 
          >> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION ON IT [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> IT STARTS ON PAGE 110, IF YOU'RE LOOKING ONLINE. 
          >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE IT UP. 
          >> WELL, IT'S ALREADY SET UP FOR US. 
          WE JUST GOT TO FIND IT. IT'S VERY COMPREHENSIVE. 
          >> IT'S ON PAGE 110 LINE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] 321. 
          >> NINETY-FIVE PAGE NUMBERS. 
          I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE IS A MOTION. 
          THERE'S ONLY THE RECOMMENDED TEXT AMENDMENTS. 
          >> WHAT'S OUR ACTION? 
          >> THIS IS CASE 2025-007, IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> IT'S 2025-0006. 
          >> SIX? YOU NEED TO ATTEMPT THIS? 
          >> YES. GO AHEAD. 
          >> I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE 2025-0006, CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE LDC SECTION 7.01, 0.04, PARKING BOARD AND PARKING LOT DESIGN, AND AFFIRM PARKING MAXIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO ENABLE A FEE IN LIEU OF PARKING WITHIN THE EIGHTH STREET MIXED USE OVERLAY, MU-8 ZONING, ADDING CLARIFYING LANGUAGE, SKIN CARE AND TATTOO PARLORS, AND MODIFYING THE STANDARD FOR MEDICAL OFFICES AND CLINICS. AMEN. 
          >> SECOND. THERE'S A SECOND. THAT'S SECOND. 
          >> THAT'S OKAY. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, DON'T WE HAVE TO SAY IT COMPLIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF? 
          >> IT DOES. 
          >> [LAUGHTER] NO WORRY, YOU SAY SIR. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> NEXT SECOND. 
          >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? PASSES. 
          >> THE PASS 7.06. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> HOW MANY OF US ARE THERE? 
          >> THERE ARE SIX OF US. 
          >> ONE IS OUT. THAT'S RIGHT. 
          > THAT'S RIGHT. 
          >> SIX YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          >> I GOT CHASTISED FOR THAT WELL. 
          >> THANK YOU THAT FOR. MARGARET ON ACRONYMS? > KELLY, ARE YOU GOING TO TALK ON THIS ONE FOR THE MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS? 
          >> HAPPY TO COVER THIS. KEY CASE 
          [5.3 PAB CASE 2025-0007: CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH]
2025-0007 IS MINOR TAX AMENDMENTS FOR THE BOARDS JUNE MEETING. 
          EACH YEAR, WE WILL TYPICALLY TAKE ON TAX AMENDMENTS. 
          THAT'S WHY THERE'S A TAX AMENDMENT HEAVY MEETING TODAY IN JUNE AND IN DECEMBER. 
          IN ORDER TO ADDRESS SOME ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP FOR STAFF, SINCE THE LAST ROUND OF REVISIONS, WE'VE PREPARED SOME AMENDMENTS. 
          INCLUDED WITHIN THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE SOME ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS. THE FIRST OF WHICH RELATES TO BED AND BREAKFAST INS. 
          THERE'S TWO DEFINITIONS THERE TO ADD CLARIFICATION AND MORE ACCURATELY DEFINE WHAT IT MEANS TO HAVE RESIDE OR OWNER OCCUPIED. 
          THIS BECAME AN ISSUE FOR THE CITY. 
          FOLLOWING A PRIOR CODE CASE, IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE THIS DEFINITION INCLUDED WITHIN OUR DOCUMENTS HERE. 
          THAT IS THE BASIS FOR THAT PARTICULAR DEFINITION. 
          [00:45:03]
WE'VE ALSO ADDED IN DEFINITIONS FOR ROOFTOP GARDEN AND LANDSCAPED ROOF SPACE. 
          THE RATIONALE BEHIND ADDING IN THIS DEFINITION IS MORE AND AS OUR LAND BECOMES MORE SCARCE AND PEOPLE WHO NEED TO UTILIZE THAT SCARCE LAND AREA FOR OTHER SITE AMENITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS. 
          THE ROOFTOP BECOMES A NATURAL SPACE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE FOR THE LANDSCAPING. 
          OUR CODE ALREADY ALLOWS FOR THAT AS PART OF THE LANDSCAPE PROVISIONS. 
          BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD A CLEAR DEFINITION OR LIMITATION OF HOW THAT SHOULD OPERATE AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FOR US. 
          STAFF HAS PROPOSED THE DEFINITION INCLUDED WITHIN THE TAX AMENDMENTS HERE TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          ADDITIONALLY, WE'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS AS IT RELATES TO HEALTH CLUBS AND GYMS. MORE SPECIFICALLY BEING ABLE TO DISTINGUISH, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS MORE OF A TRADITIONAL TYPE OF GYM. 
          WHAT WE THINK OF IS MAYBE YOU HAVE A KEYED ENTRY. 
          YOU CAN COME AND GO. IT'S OPEN SOMETIMES 24 HOURS A DAY. 
          IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE STAFF FULL-TIME, BUT THERE'S EQUIPMENT THERE AND AVAILABLE, A BIT MORE INTENSIVE OF USE VERSUS WHAT WE ARE SEEING MORE FREQUENTLY NOW, AND THAT'S ONE-ON-ONE TRAINING, TYPICALLY EITHER ONE-ON-ONE OR IN VERY SMALL GROUPS. 
          THAT MIGHT TAKE PLACE WITHIN MORE OF AN OFFICE TYPE SETTING WHERE THERE'S LIMITED EXERCISE EQUIPMENT. 
          THERE'S MORE INSTRUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AND VERY SIMILAR TO A REHAB TYPE OF INSTRUCTION THAT YOU MAY HAVE THERE. 
          THE STATE DOES PROVIDE FOR DEFINITIONS, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY MIRRORED THOSE DEFINITIONS WITHIN WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED HERE TO GIVE US THAT LEVEL OF CLARIFICATION THAT IS MISSING WITHIN OUR CODE. 
          ADDED DEFINITIONS ARE FOR CLARIFYING HEALTH CLUBS AND GYMS, ADDING A DEFINITION FOR HEALTH STUDIO, HEALTH STUDIO SERVICES, AND PERSONAL TRAINER. 
          THOSE THREE DEFINITIONS THAT I JUST SPOKE TO ARE DIRECTLY FROM A FLORIDA STATUTE. 
          I REALIZE THEY READ A LITTLE FUNNY. 
          I THINK THAT IT MAY BE SUITABLE TO ADD IN THE APPLICABLE FLORIDA STATUTE AS A REFERENCE TO THIS DEFINITION SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY THAT THERE'S NOT A CONFLICT WITH WHAT WE'RE ADOPTING LOCALLY AND WHAT IS PROVIDED FOR IN STATUTE. 
          >> THOSE ARE SEVERAL DEFINITIONS IN AN EFFORT TO FURTHER ADDRESS THAT AND MAKE CLEAR WHERE THAT PARTICULAR USE WOULD BE MADE PERMISSIBLE, ADDING IN THAT USE INTO OUR TABLE OF LAND USES UNDER TABLE 2.302, HEALTH STUDIO AND THEN ALLOWING FOR THAT USE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE OT2, MU1, MU8, C1, C2, C3, I1, I2, IW, W1, AND RECREATIONAL AREAS, SO THAT IT'S WELL COVERED AND WHERE THAT MIGHT BE MOST SUITABLE TO HAVE IT. 
          IT DOES ALIGN WELL WITH WHAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY FIND IN AN OFFICE TYPE SETTING. 
          IT'S NOT AS INTENSE AS WHAT WE'RE NOW REALLY ABLE TO MORE CLEARLY DEFINE AS A HEALTH CLUB OR GYM. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] ALL RIGHT. MY QUESTION GOES TO A WHO DOES NOT HAVE AN ESTABLISHED PLACE OF BUSINESS. 
          WHY NOT WHO HAS OR MAY NOT HAVE? I MEAN, DO ALL PERSONAL TRAINERS DON'T HAVE A PLACE OF BUSINESS? 
          >> THEY MAY OR THEY MAY NOT, AGAIN, WE TOOK THIS DIRECTLY FROM FLORIDA. 
          >> WOULD IT BE, I WOULD ADD WHO MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE. 
          AS THE READS YOU, IT'S ONLY TRAINERS WHO DON'T HAVE A PLACE OF BUSINESS. 
          YOU ON THE SAME PAGE AS I AM? IT SAYS, PERSONAL TRAINER MEANS INDIVIDUAL WHO DOES NOT HAVE AN ESTABLISHED PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR THE PRIMARY PURPOSE. 
          WELL, THEY MAY HAVE POINT, MY OWN POINT. 
          YOU'RE REALLY TAKING OUT ANYONE WHO HAS A PLACE OF BUSINESS? I WOULD JUST ADD WHO HAS A PLACE OF BUSINESS OR WHO MAY NOT HAVE. THAT'S ALL. 
          >> JUST SOME CLARIFICATION. 
          THIS IS, I ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH AND REWROTE THIS WHOLE THING AND BEFORE KELLY TOLD ME THIS IS THE ACTUAL STATUTE. 
          BUT I THEN THAT'S WRONG [LAUGHTER]. 
          >> BUT SO I WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR [OVERLAPPING] CHANGE TO IT. 
          >> YEAH. BECAUSE IF I'M A PERSONAL TRAINER WITH MY OWN PLACE OF BUSINESS, I'M NOT RECOGNIZED WITH THIS. THAT'S ALL. 
          [00:50:06]
          >> NOW VICTORIA. 
          >> NO, I AM GOOD. 
          >> THERE'S PERSONAL TRAINERS ALL OVER THIS ISLAND. 
          THEY USE, FOR INSTANCE, THE YOGA STUDIO CLOSE TO HERE. 
          THERE'S A STUDIO THERE WITH ADVANCE WHERE YOU HAVE FOR PERSONAL TRAINING. 
          THERE'S ONE ATTACK. I DON'T KNOW OF ANYBODY THAT DOES IT IN THEIR OWN HOME. 
          NOW, THEY MIGHT TRAVEL TO SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME AND I DON'T THINK THEY'RE NOT RECOGNIZED HERE. 
          BUT MOST OF THEM HAVE A PLACE OF BUSINESS. 
          >> YOU'RE AGREEING WITH? 
          >> THE HEALTH STUDIO IS DIFFERENTIATED FROM, SAY, 24-HOUR FITNESS, CORRECT? 
          >> CORRECT. THAT PERSONAL TRAINER MAY OPERATE WITHIN A BUSINESS THAT IS QUALIFIED AS A HEALTH STUDIO. 
          BUT THE TRAINER THEMSELVES, THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO BE PART OF ANY SPECIFIC BUSINESS, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY OPERATE ON A REGULAR BASIS. 
          >> THE CHIROPRACTOR NEXT TO SORENSON. 
          THERE'S A PERSONAL TRAINER WHO RENTS FROM THEM AND THEY DO TRAINING THERE IN THAT BUILDING. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> I'M ON THE ROOFTOP GARDEN DEFINITION. 
          IT GOES DOWN AND SAYS IT SHOULD COVER AT LEAST 50% OF THE ROOF AREA. 
          TYPICALLY, THE ROOFTOP GARDENS THAT I'VE SEEN, THAT WANT TO BE VISIBLE FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, WHETHER IT'S A STREET OR A PROPERTY AND 50% SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD OCCUPY A LOT OF THE ROOF THAT MAYBE WOULD GO UNSEEN. 
          IF YOU WOULD LANDSCAPE IT FROM A VIEW CORRIDOR, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS FOR A ROOF TO SUPPORT THOSE GARDENS ARE PRETTY EXTREME SOMETIMES. 
          I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE THE 50% CAME FROM. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE YOU WOULD WANT THEM TO BE CONSTRUCTED FROM VIEW CORRIDORS VERSUS JUST RANDOMLY PLACED ON THE ROOF. 
          >> THE 50% CAME FROM SOME PUBLICATIONS THAT TALK ABOUT WHAT MAKES A VIABLE ROOFTOP GARDENING, AND THAT SEEMED TO BE THE PROFESSIONAL STANDARD THAT YOU WANT TO, IF YOU'RE TRULY GOING TO USE IT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPING, IT NEEDS TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL ROOF GARDEN. 
          THAT'S LIKE A PROFESSIONAL STANDARD IN THE PLANNING WORLD IF YOU'RE GOING TO UTILIZE THAT. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S AN ACTIVE RECREATIONAL AREA THAT OR MAYBE AT LEAST SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE A PARK. 
          VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S BREAKING UP THE VIEW CORRIDORS OF JUST BUILDINGS. 
          >> IT COULD BE EITHER. 
          IT'S NOT PRECLUDING IT FROM BEING WITHIN VIEW CORRIDORS. 
          IT'S CREATING A MINIMUM STANDARD OF AT LEAST 50% OF THAT ROOFTOP SHOULD BE COVERED IN ORDER FOR THAT SPACE TO QUALIFY UNDER THE ROOFTOP GARDEN. 
          >> IT JUST SEEMS MARK AND MADE UP NUMBERS AND I'M NOT REALLY SURE IT MEANS A WHOLE LOT. 
          >> IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S PUNITIVE TO PEOPLE AND MAYBE NOT ENOUGH FOR OTHERS, BUT I DON'T KNOW. 
          >> HOW WOULD YOU ADDRESS THAT? LET'S SAY YOU HAD A CLIENT COME IN FOR A DESIGN OF A STRUCTURE. 
          IF IT WAS 50%, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD NOT DESIGN THE WHOLE ROOF BECAUSE NOW THE QUESTION IS GOING TO BE, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE LOAD BEARING IS, SO I GOT TO ASSUME THAT IT'S ANYWHERE ON THERE. 
          >> I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NO SMALL TASK TO DO THAT, BUT YOU'VE GOT DRAINAGE, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO INTO IT, AND THE EDGES ARE A LOT EASIER TO REINFORCE THAN THE MIDDLE. 
          USUALLY THAT'S, IT'S A PERIMETER TYPE THING VERSUS A CENTRAL TYPE THING. I GET WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT. 
          I MEAN, YOU WANT TO BE AN ACTIVE ELEMENT, BUT IF IT'S MADE TO MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY BE A GARDEN, MAYBE I'M THINKING OF A DIFFERENT DEFINITION THAN A GARDEN. 
          BUT THE ONES THAT I'VE SEEN HAVE BEEN FROM VIEW CORRIDORS THAT YOU SEE FROM THE STREET OR FROM AN ADJACENT PROPERTY. 
          IT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ACTIVE GARDEN WHERE YOU'RE ON TOP OF A ROOF DOING SOMETHING. 
          MAYBE WE NEED TWO DEFINITIONS. I DON'T KNOW. 
          >> THIS IS BOTH, TRULY. 
          IT COULD BE EITHER. I THINK LEAVING IT OPEN ENDED. 
          >> IF IT WAS MADE FOR BUFFERING? I THINK 50% IS TOO MUCH. 
          >> IT'S NOT INTENDED FOR BUFFERING. 
          IT'S INTENDED TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION SO THAT THERE IS A PARAMETER FOR WHICH WE WOULD QUALIFY THAT SPECIFIC AREA TO MEET OUR MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. 
          >> IF WE HAVE, WHY WOULDN'T IT BE 10% OF THE SIDE AREA OR 20% OF THE SITE AREA? 
          >> YOU WOULD THEN BE LIMITING THAT AREA THAT COULD THEN BE DEDICATED THROUGH ROOFTOP GARDEN AS MEETING LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS. 
          >> BUT THAT'S ALL YOU WOULD DO ON THE GROUND OR 60% IMPERVIOUS, YOU MIGHT BE 40% THAT YOU WOULD HAVE, IF YOU WERE 60% IMPERVIOUS ON THE GROUND LEVEL AREA, YOU WOULD HAVE 40% OF THE SPACE. 
          >> YOU MAY NOT NEED THIS. 
          [00:55:01]
          >> BUT I'M GUESSING YOU'RE TRANSFERRING IT. 
          >> WHEN YOU'RE QUALIFYING IT TO MEET MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. 
          WE WANT IT TO HAVE THESE. 
          >> YOU'RE OFFSETTING THE MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. 
          >> EXACTLY. 
          >> WHY WOULD YOU MAKE THEM? 
          >> WE WANT TO JUST HAVE THEM FOR FUNZIES BY ALL MEANS, DESIGN IT HOW YOU'D LIKE. 
          >> WHY WOULD YOU MAKE THEM DO 50% IF THE MAXIMUM IN THE CITY IS 40% FOR GROUND LEVEL? 
          >> IT'S 50% OF THE ROOFTOP SPACE. 
          >> IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE FULLY OCCUPIED BY BUILDING ON THE WHOLE SITE. 
          THAT'S LIKE A DOWNTOWN ELEMENT. 
          >> BUT IT COULDN'T BE UNLESS IT IS A DOWNTOWN. 
          IN THAT CASE, YOU HAVE FAR LESS STANDARD FOR THAT TYPE OF LANDSCAPE [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> I WON'T BEAT IT, BUT IF THE HOTEL OVER THERE WANTED TO DO THEY HAD LANDSCAPING THAT THEY NEEDED TO PUT IN THEY WERE BRAND NEW. 
          THAT PERCENTAGE DOWNTOWN WOULD BE HOW MUCH IF THEY'D HAVE TO DO IT? 
          >> 10%. 
          >> 10%. THEY COULD DO A ROOFTOP GARDEN, BUT IF THEY DID, THEY'D HAVE TO DO 50%. 
          >> MINIMUM OF THAT ROOFED AREA WOULD HAVE TO BE 50%. 
          >> WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT FIVE TIMES MORE THAN WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED? 
          >> THAT IT REALLY DOES BECOME AN AMENITY. 
          IT'S A TRUE LANDSCAPE FEATURE. 
          >> BUT IT'S PRIVATE. IT'S A PRIVATE AMENITY FOR THEM. 
          IT DIDN'T LIKE THE PUBLIC. IT'S BEEN. 
          >> THEY'RE UTILIZING IT TO MEET OUR MINIMAL LANDSCAPING STANDARDS, AND THIS IS THE EXPECTATION. 
          >> I DON'T AGREE WITH IT. 
          >> LET ME JUST ASK A QUESTION, GENERALLY, IF WE TAKE LIKE THE STANDARD MARINE BUILDING, IF AND WHEN WE EVER DO SOMETHING. 
          THERE WAS ONE ITERATION THAT INDICATED THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF A OPEN I'LL CALL IT GARDEN AREA. 
          IT WAS AN EARLY CONCEPTUAL ONE. 
          IF THEY WERE TO DO SOMETHING ON, I GUESS IT WOULD CALL IT THE THIRD STORY OF THAT BUILDING, WHATEVER POWER IT COMES OUT TO BE, THEN WOULD THEY HAVE TO HAVE 50% OF THE BUILDING UP TO THAT 15,000 SQUARE FEET AS A GARDEN? 
          >> ONLY IF THEY ARE RELYING ON IT TO MEET THEIR MINIMUM LANDSCAPE STANDARDS, AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER OPEN SPACE TO MEET MINIMUM. 
          >> OKAY. THAT MAY BE A BAD EXAMPLE BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT OTHER SPACE. 
          >> MOST DO. IT'S PRETTY INFREQUENT THAT WE ACTUALLY SEE ROOFTOP GARDENS FOR THE REASONS THAT NEVER THE LESS DESCRIBE, IT'S DIFFICULT TO DESIGN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN AND MANAGE AND TO KEEP REALLY IN PLACE AND HAVE IT BE FUNCTIONAL. 
          FOR THAT REASON, HAVING SUBSTANTIAL SIZE IN REALLY BEING INTENTIONAL ABOUT HOW YOU GO ABOUT DESIGNING IT IS SO IMPORTANT SO THAT IT CAN BE SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY CREATES THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S DESIRED BY THE COMMUNITY THROUGH THOSE STANDARDS. 
          >> I GOT TO COMMENT ON THAT THERE BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DOESN'T SEE A LOT OF IT. 
          I MEAN, THEY SEE THE GROUND FLOOR LANDSCAPING IN A PARKING LOT. 
          IF YOU'RE COVERING 50% OF THE ROOF, ONLY THE PEOPLE THAT ACCESS THE ROOF ARE GOING TO SEE IT. 
          TAKE THE LOT NEXT TO THE COFFEE SHOP ON CENTER STREET. 
          EVERY OTHER BUILDING DOWN THERE IS 100% IMPERVIOUS. 
          I MEAN, THEY PRETTY MUCH OCCUPY ALL THEIR LAND. 
          THEY'VE GOT TO DO A 10% IMPERVIOUS OFFSET BASED ON THE CODE. 
          THEY WANT TO DO A ROOFTOP GARDEN NOW THEY'RE UP TO 50%. 
          >> THERE'S NO INCENTIVE THERE? 
          >> THERE'S NO INCENTIVE THERE AT ALL. 
          I DON'T [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> 250 SQUARE FEET, THEY'D BE DOING 500 SQUARE FEET OF ROOFTOP GARDEN THAT THEY'D HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THEY'RE ABLE TO COMPLETE. 
          >> IT SAYS 50% OF THE ROOF. 
          >> AREA. 
          >> IN FACT, IT'S OVER THAT. 
          IT'S COVERING THE ENTIRE SPACE OF A 2,500 FOOT LIT. 
          >> ISN'T THAT ASSUMING THAT THE ROOF IS FLAT? 
          >> RIGHT. IT SAYS FLAT. 
          >> THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN DO IT. 
          >> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SOMEBODY CHANGE THEIR ARCHITECTURE. 
          >> YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT ON HISTORICAL BUILDING [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> IT'S A CHOICE YOU'RE MAKING [OVERLAPPING] ROOFTOP GARDENS. 
          [OVERLAPPING] IF PROVIDING THAT MINIMUM LANDSCAPE FEATURE, WHICH ALREADY HAS A VARIETY OF METHODS THAT YOU COULD ACHIEVE THAT. 
          ESPECIALLY DOWNTOWN, WE QUALIFY PLANTERS. 
          WE QUALIFY EVEN LIVING WALLS WILL QUALIFY. 
          BUT WHEN YOU CHOOSE TO DO A ROOFTOP GARDEN, WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THIS BE THE STANDARD. 
          >> YEAH. WITH THE LANDSCAPING, THAT'S WHAT WE PREFER. 
          YOU CAN HAVE YOUR AMENITY, WHATEVER AMENITY YOU WANT. 
          BUT IF YOU CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE THAT LANDSCAPING, LIKE YOU SAID, THAT HELPS WITH THE IMPERVIOUS AND ALL THAT, AND YOU CHOOSE TO DO IT ON THE ROOF, YOU NEED TO BRING SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE TABLE THAN WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE HAD ON THE GROUND TO JUSTIFY THE SWAP OFF. 
          I DON'T KNOW, 50% IS JUST WHAT THE STANDARD IS. 
          I MEAN, IT CAN BE 40. IT'S UP TO THIS BOARD TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION. 
          BUT IT'S ALSO LIKE THERE'S A MAXIMUM BECAUSE A ROOFTOP DECK THAT BECOMES TOO LARGE IS NOT MAINTAINED EITHER AND SUBSTAINED. 
          THAT'S THE REASON WHY THEY PUT A MAXIMUM AND 
          [01:00:02]
A MINIMUM ON THEM TO ACTUALLY MAKE THEM FUNCTIONAL. 
          I DON'T THINK WE HAVE. DO WE HAVE ANY KELLY THAT WE REALLY GOT, FOR EXAMPLE? 
          >> NONE CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED. 
          >> WE HAVE ONE THAT IN THE. 
          >> THERE'S SOME CONVERSATION GOING ON, SOME THINKING GOING ON. 
          I WONDER IF WE WANT TO TAKE SOME TIME TO THINK THAT AND GET THROUGH THERE. 
          DO WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS ALL OR NOTHING? WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT TAKE ONE THING AT A TIME AND VOTE FOR IT AND THINK ABOUT? MARK. 
          >> I'M SAYING THIS WILL BE SO INFREQUENT. 
          >> IT WILL. 
          >> THEY'RE OVERTHINKING. 
          >> FOR THE NOBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO PUT UP A ROOFTOP GARDEN. 
          IT'S TOO MUCH MAINTENANCE, TOO MUCH OTHER ISSUES PROPER. 
          IN THE CASE THEY WANT TO, THE CITY NOW HAVE SOME LANGUAGE TO GIVE TO THESE PEOPLE. 
          >> IT'S ALSO TO OFFSET THEIR LANDSCAPING REQUIRES. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> IT SAYS SHOULD. IT DOESN'T SAY SHALL. 
          THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY THERE. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> OFFSET THEIR CURRENT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. JUST TO MAKE ME SAYING COULD WE CHANGE HEALTH STUDIO MEANS ANY PERSON TO HEALTH STUDIO MEANS ANY BUSINESS THAT INSTEAD OF PERSON WHO JUST MAKE ME HAPPY. 
          >> IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS OR WE? 
          >> THERE ARE SOME MORE. 
          >> YES. 
          >> WE'RE ALSO MAKING THAT OTHER CHANGE. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> THE CHANGE THAT MARKED? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> I WILL DO ON SORT ON THIS, BUT I DON'T SEE WHY YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE PERCENTAGE MATCH WHAT THE ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES YOU TO HAVE FOR OPEN SPACE. 
          >> TO SAY FOR 40%. 
          >> YOU MAY HAVE ALREADY ACHIEVED 30%. 
          >> RIGHT. BUT I'M SAYING IF YOU CHOOSE THIS. 
          I'M THINKING OF THE DOWNTOWN GUY WHO DOESN'T WANT TO GIVE UP 10% OF HIS LAND AREA FOR LANDSCAPING. 
          HE WANTS TO FULLY MAX OUT HIS BUILDING. 
          LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS DONE. 
          NOW THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY IS ROOFTOP OR PLANTERS, BUT TRY TO GET 10% OF YOUR LANDSCAPE. 
          >> OR WALL [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> OR WALL, BUT WE'RE PUTTING THIS IN THERE FOR A REASON SO SOMEONE CAN USE IT. 
          I THINK THE ONLY PERSON THAT MIGHT USE IT WOULD BE A PERSON DOWNTOWN. 
          >> BUT YOU COULDN'T DO IT ON A HISTORIC BUILDING. 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO. 
          >> BUT IT WOULD BE A BRAND NEW. 
          >> OR IT COULD BE ONE OF A HOTEL THAT'S COMING IN TO PUT IN SOME TYPE OF A ROOFTOP. 
          >> YOU SEE THAT A LOT OF HOTELS? 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> WE HAVE ONE. WE HAVE A REQUEST NOW, AND THIS WOULD APPLY TO THAT, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A REQUEST AND WE HAVE NO DEFINITION. 
          IT'S HARD TO REVIEW AND SEE IF SOMETHING'S OKAY IF THERE'S NO CRITERIA. 
          >> I GET IT. 
          >> YOU COULD GET A LITTLE TINY SPACE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE MAINTAINED, YET THEY SWAPPED IT OFF FOR THEIR LANDSCAPING, SO IT'S JUST TO PROTECT THAT. 
          BUT I MEAN, THE NUMBERS CAN CHANGE. 
          IT'S JUST THAT INDUSTRY STANDARDS IS 50% AND NO MORE THAN 15,000, BUT THOSE CAN CHANGE. 
          >> YOU GUYS HAVE SAID YOU'VE HAD NINE INQUIRIES, I GUESS, OR CASES WHERE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING A ROOFTOP GARDEN? 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO? 
          >> THERE'S ONE ACTIVELY. 
          >> ONE. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THERE'S VERY FEW THAT HAVE EVER ACTUALLY DEVELOPED WHERE THEY REQUESTED. 
          >> IF THEY REQUIRED BUT THEN, OKAY. 
          FOR PURPOSES OF MOVING THIS ALONG GIVEN THE TWO SMALL CHANGES THAT [NOISE] MR. BENNETT AND MR. DOSTER HAVE INDICATED. 
          DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT IF EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOOD, THAT WE MAKE THOSE SMALL CHANGES AND MOVE ON? 
          >> APPROVAL WITH THOSE CHANGES MADE, UNLESS NICK WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO CHANGE. 
          >> THERE'S STILL MORE. 
          >> WE DO HAVE MORE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> KEEP GOING. 
          >> WHAT CHANGES WERE YOU FOR THE ROOFTOP? ARE YOU SUGGESTING A 40% OR? 
          >> NO, WE'RE NOT MAKING CHANGES, THEY'RE JUST GRAMMATICAL CHANGES. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> IN ADDITION. I JUST HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION, KELLY, IT'S PURELY JUST A QUESTION. 
          ON OT 2, IT IS FLEXIBLE ENOUGH THAT YOU COULD HAVE A STUDIO UP THERE? 
          >> YES, IT ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIALS [NOISE] [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> YEAH, I WASN'T SURE HOW FAR IT WENT UP IN THAT ONE BUT, [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. 
          >> WELL IT'S LIMITED COMMERCIAL, AND THIS IS IN THE LEVEL OF INTENSITY IS NOT SO SUBSTANTIAL THAT IT WOULDN'T FIT WELL IF SOMEONE SHOULD DECIDE THEY WANTED TO OPERATE A HOME STUDIO THERE. 
          >> GOT YOU. GOOD POINT. 
          >> MARGARET, YOU'VE GOT THE CHANGE 
          [01:05:03]
THAT MR. DOSTER WANTED TO PUT IN AND WHAT MARK WANTED TO PUT IN? 
          >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. OKAY. WHAT ELSE WAS THERE? WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS? 
          >> YEAH. WITHIN THAT SAME CASE, 2025-0007, IS ANOTHER AREA OF CODE THAT'S BEING REVISED, AND THAT IS SECTION 3.03.03 INVOLVING DEVELOPMENT WITHIN WETLANDS, AND THERE IS A BUFFERING REQUIREMENT FOR ALL PROPERTIES THAT YOU HAVE AT LEAST 25 FEET AROUND WETLANDS AND 50 FEET FROM NATURAL WATER BODIES, IT PROVIDES ALL THE REASONS WHY. 
          IN THE PAST, THE CITY HAS PROVIDED AN EXEMPTION FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE I-W ZONING DISTRICT, AND IN THE CRA ON THE WATER SO THAT THEY COULD DEVELOP RIGHT UP TO THE WATER LINE AND NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL BUFFER. 
          IT DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP THE WETLANDS, IT DOESN'T ALLOW THEM TO AFFECT THE NATURAL WATER BODY, IT'S JUST THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE A REQUIRED BUFFER. 
          IN THE PAST, THERE WAS AN ALLOWANCE FOR SEEKING A VARIANCE WHEN A PROPERTY THAT MIGHT BE W-1 ZONED, THERE WAS A PROCESS THAT WAS IN PLACE. 
          THAT PROCESS WAS ELIMINATED SEVERAL YEARS BACK WHEN WE PUT A PROHIBITION ON BEING ABLE TO SEEK VARIANCES FROM THE WETLAND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. 
          NOW THAT WE FAST FORWARD, WE'RE RECOGNIZING THAT THOSE PROPERTIES OF WHICH THERE ARE THREE TOTAL W-1 PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY, ALONG THE WATERFRONT, AND WITHIN THE CRA, ARE NOW NEGATIVELY AFFECTED AND CANNOT DEVELOP TO THEIR EXTENT THAT WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE CRA WITH THIS IN PLACE. 
          THEY CANNOT SEEK A VARIANCE AT ALL FROM THAT SECTION OF CODE. 
          WE NEED TO [NOISE] CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE THAT WOULD ALLOW THOSE PROPERTIES TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE EXEMPTION FROM BUFFERING FOR WETLANDS. 
          THE REQUEST THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TO ADD IN THE W-1 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THOSE REASONS. 
          THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REQUESTED THROUGH THE FORMER CRA ADVISORY BOARD, THE STAFF TAKE A LOOK AT AND MAKING AMENDMENTS TO. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT FORWARD TO YOU. 
          >> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN W-1 ZONING AND I-W ZONING. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A TYPO, BUT IT'S NOT. 
          >> W-1 ACTUALLY WAS CREATED BACK IN 2006 TIME FRAME IN AN EFFORT TO ALLOW FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE WATERFRONT, AND PROVIDE A MECHANISM THAT MIGHT GIVE SOME LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL OPPORTUNITY. 
          BUT ONLY IN A MIXED USE FASHION, IT IS VERY SPECIFIC WHEN YOU CAN HAVE RESIDENTIAL ALONG THE WATERFRONT. 
          THREE PROPERTIES TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE NEWLY CREATED LAND USE CATEGORY OF WATERFRONT MIXED USE, AND W-1 ZONING DISTRICT WHICH CORRESPONDS WITH IT. 
          I-W ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT. 
          INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT HAS ITS OWN RANGE OF USES PROVIDED, IT ALSO DOES HAVE AN ALLOWANCE FOR A CARETAKER UNIT TO BE PROVIDED WITHIN IT TOO. 
          THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LEVEL OF MIXED USE THERE, BUT ONLY WHEN IT'S PROVIDED AS PART OF A CARETAKER UNIT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION. BUT THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO W-1? 
          >> IT WOULD CONTINUE TO APPLY TO I-W, AND IT'S ADDING IN W-1. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> MARK. 
          >> I COMPLETELY GET THE 25 FOOT BUFFER AROUND WETLANDS. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE 50 FEET FROM A NATURAL WATER BODY, WHEN THE ONLY TIME YOU DON'T HAVE WETLANDS AROUND A WATER BODY, FOR THE MOST PART HERE, IS WHERE YOU HAVE A WORKING WATERFRONT. 
          BECAUSE EGANS CREEK, YOU HAVE WETLANDS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE WATER BODY, AND I THINK OF A PROPERTY LIKE LET'S SAY THE POGY PLANT WHERE TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY, AND OVER COMMERCIAL, OR WHATEVER. 
          YOU PUT A 50 FOOT BUFFER FROM THE WATER LINE ON THAT PROPERTY, IT'S WORTHLESS. 
          BECAUSE NOW YOU'VE DOUBLED WITH A WETLAND, IT'S LIKE YOU WANT A WETLAND NOW OVER A WATER BODY BECAUSE YOUR BUFFER IS ONLY 25 FEET. 
          I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE GO TO 50 FEET. 
          WELL, REALLY WHY WE HAVE ANY BUFFER ON A RIVER WATER BODY. 
          I GET THE WETLAND PART BECAUSE THERE'S THINGS IN THERE, BUT WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE ONE ON AN ACTUAL WATER BODY ITSELF? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT BUFFER WOULD DO. 
          >> REALLY AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S PREVENTING EROSION AND PROVIDING TRADITIONAL AREAS OF NATURAL HABITAT. 
          [01:10:03]
THERE'S A DEMAND FOR A BUFFER [OVERLAPPING] LAYS WET FOR A LONG TIME. 
          >> THAT'S A WETLAND AND IT'S BEEN THERE A VERY LONG TIME, YOU'RE 100% CORRECT. 
          BUT I JUST SIT THERE AND THINK OF A GOOD JOB IN PUTTING THESE IN THERE BECAUSE THE PORT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OPERATE IF YOU THROW A 50 FOOT BUFFER ON THE EDGE OF THE WATER THERE IN OUR MARINA, NOTHING WOULD. 
          BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT FUTURE PROPERTIES THAT MIGHT GET ANNEXED THAT YOU THROW A 50 FOOT BUFFER ON SOME OF THEM AND THEY'RE DONE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          >> I THINK THE ZONING DISTRICT IS A PRETTY FLEXIBLE ZONING DISTRICT THAT DOES PROVIDE FOR A WIDE RANGE OF USES. 
          SHOULD THERE COME A TIME THAT A PROPERTY LIKE THE POGY PLANT WERE TO DESIRE TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY, I WOULD THINK THAT GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THAT PROPERTY AND ITS LOCATION, THAT I-W IS GOING TO BE THE MOST LIKELY THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEY WOULD QUALIFY IN THERE, AND IT DOES HAVE SUCH A RANGE OF USES ALREADY ALLOWED TO IT THAT HOPEFULLY PROVIDES SUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY FOR THEM TO DEVELOP. 
          >> I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T HAVE 25 ON BOTH, OR I DON'T GET THE LOGIC ON WHY ONE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER. 
          I KNOW WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THAT NOW, BUT WE ARE OPENING THIS UP, SO I THINK IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING. 
          >> I'VE NOT ANALYZED THAT TO SEE WHERE THAT COULD HAVE AN IMPACT ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT WOULD BE AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF MAKING ANY ADJUSTMENT FROM THIS POINT. 
          >> THAT COULD BE DISCUSSION FOR A LATER TODAY, I JUST WANT [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I'M GOING TO SAY COULD WE GO AHEAD AND ADD THAT ON OUR LIST OF ITEMS TO DO IT. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> WE WOULD APPROVE THIS AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND REVISIT IT IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> YEAH, I MEAN, I WOULD CUT THAT OUT AS A SEPARATE ISSUE. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> NOW ONE THING THAT KELLY BROUGHT UP THAT DOES CONCERN, I WANT THE WATERFRONT FIXED. 
          ANY TOOL THAT WE CAN DO THAT WOULD HELP ALLEVIATE NEGATIVE DECISION-MAKING ON THE WATERFRONT, I'D LIKE TO GET RID OF. 
          IF THIS GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY AND A HIGHER AVENUE OF PROBABILITY, THEN I HAVE TO BE FOR IT. 
          I MAY NOT LIKE ALL OF IT, BUT I LIKE IT A LOT BETTER IN THE ALTERNATIVE. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> MY VIEW IS THIS IS PROBABLY A RIGHT THING TO DO AT THIS POINT. 
          >> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PAB CASE 2025-007 WITH THE TWO CHANGES THAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED, IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON THAT. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PAB CASE 2025-0007. 
          CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, REQUESTING MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ADD TERMS IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 1.07.00 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS TO DEFINE HEALTH STUDIOS, PERSONAL TRAINER, RESIDE OWNER OCCUPIED, ROOFTOP GARDEN, AND AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.03.03 DEVELOPMENT WITHIN WETLANDS TO EXEMPT W-1, "WATERFRONT MIXED USE" PROPERTIES FROM WETLAND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. 
          >> IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> THERE'S A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> OPPOSED? 
          >> NO. 
          >> FIVE TO ONE. 
          >> FIVE TO ONE. MARGARET, WE'RE GOING TO GO THEN TO THE BOARDS. 
          >> YES. 
          >> WE GOT ONE WHO'S LEAVING US FOR THE HEAD. 
          >> I THINK HE WILL BE BACK [LAUGHTER] 
          >> DO WE NEED A FIVE MINUTE BREAK? 
          >> HE'LL BE BACK. 
          >> I'VE BEEN ON THE MARITIME BUSINESS TOO LONG. 
          >> ALL I HEARD WAS SPLISH SPLASH [LAUGHTER]. 
          >> FIVE MINUTE BREAK. 
          >> FIFTEEN. 
          >> LET'S JUST GET UP AND GO. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> DID WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD? I BELIEVE WE'RE WORKING WITH PAB CASE 2025-0008, 
          [5.4 PAB 2025-0008 - CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH]
TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS BOARDS. 
          THERE ARE TWO REVISIONS REQUESTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. 
          THE FIRST INVOLVES SECTION 9.03.01 WITH A HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL. 
          THE HISTORIC, DISTRICT COUNCIL HAS MADE A REQUEST TO MODIFY THE MAKEUP OF THEIR BOARD, TO MOVE FROM A FIVE MEMBER BOARD TO A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD, 
          [01:15:01]
OF WHICH THERE WOULD BE NO ALTERNATE MEMBERS. 
          I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE AGENDA AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A STRIKE THROUGH AND AN UNDERLINE ON SEVEN, THAT WAS INTENDED TO ONLY BE UNDERLINED, SO THAT THE REQUEST REALLY A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD, NO ALTERNATES, AND THEN RE-NUMBERING AS FOLLOWS FOR THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS, AND THAT BOARD HAS ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION AND A REQUEST THAT THIS BOARD CONSIDER THAT AMENDMENT [NOISE] 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AT THE DIRECTION OF [NOISE] ACTION IN EVALUATING EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY FOR ITS BOARDS, STATED A RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH MERGING TOGETHER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD IN AN EFFORT TO MOVE THAT FORWARD. 
          SECTIONS 9.02.00, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, AND 9.04.00, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ARE THEN COMBINED. 
          THE ROLES, AND DUTIES, THE MEMBERSHIP MAKEUP, ALL OF THEIR ASSOCIATED RESPONSIBILITIES, HOW THEY WOULD FUNCTION, ARE THEN MERGED TOGETHER INTO A COMBINED BOARD PROPOSED AS [NOISE] PLANNING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD, AND THEN RESTATING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BOARD, THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD, PRESENTLY PROPOSED AT FIVE VOTING MEMBERS AND TWO ALTERNATES. 
          I UNDERSTAND THERE'S SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS WHO WOULD WISH TO HAVE SEVEN FULL VOTING MEMBERS. 
          STUFF HAS NO ISSUE WITH THAT CHANGE, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD. 
          THEN RESTATING THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT BEING VERY DELIBERATE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE CLEARLY ARTICULATE THE ROLES AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ESTABLISHED BY STATUTE, GOING INTO THE REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AS PART OF THAT FUNCTION, AND THEN REALLY ARTICULATING THE QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS, THOSE FUNCTIONS PRIMARILY THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SO THAT THAT IS UNDERSTOOD WHAT DUTIES ARE ASSIGNED AS PART OF THAT ROLE. 
          THEN LOOKING AT ITS OPERATIONAL AND INVESTIGATIVE POWERS, THOSE THINGS WHERE YOU'RE JUST ANALYZING QUESTIONS, GATHERING FACTS AND DATA TO ANSWER ISSUES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND UNDERSTANDING TRENDS THAT MAY AFFECT GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OR AS PART OF THOSE STUDIES THAT ARE PREVIOUSLY ASSIGNED. 
          SO WE WOULD OPEN THIS UP TO YOU. 
          >> I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO GIVEN THAT THE HISTORY DISTRICT IS FIRST AND THE PLANNING BOARD SECOND AND SEEING WHO WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS, THAT SINCE HISTORY IS FIRST, WE'LL HAVE MARGARET DAVIS, AND I'LL OPEN THIS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT [NOISE] 
          >> DO YOU HAVE REQUESTS? 
          >> I HAVE TWO. 
          >> YOU HAVE MINE TOO. 
          >> LYNNE, I'M SORRY. 
          >> YOU DO HAVE ONE FROM ME. 
          >> I HAVE ONE FROM YOU. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> THANK YOU. MARGARET DAVIS, 2162 FIRST AVENUE, FERNANDINA BEACH. 
          THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. 
          I CURRENTLY SERVE AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          I OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL TO MERGE OUR TWO BOARDS AS I BELIEVE THAT HAVING TWO SEPARATE BOARDS, ONE FOR PLANNING, AND ONE FOR VARIANCE AND APPEALS BEST SERVES THE CITIZENS OF OUR CITIES. 
          WHILE THE ACTIONS OF BOTH BOARDS GENERALLY INVOLVE THE LDC AND THE COP PLAN, THE PAB AND THE BOA HAVE VERY DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT FUNCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF FERNANDINA BEACH. 
          THE PAB, YOU ALL EXAMINED THE BIG PICTURE, LOOKING FORWARD AND ENVISIONING HOW THE CITY SHOULD EVOLVE AS A WHOLE. 
          WHILE THE BOA, WE EVALUATE AN INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIC SITUATION AND PROVIDE RELIEF FROM CODE PROVISIONS UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES TO PRESERVE AN INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS PROPERTY RIGHTS. 
          TO ACCOMPLISH YOUR PART OF THESE TWO DISTINCT GOALS, YOU AS THE PAB ARE TASKED WITH ESSENTIALLY LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY POWERS TO GUIDE HOW THIS CITY WILL LOOK AS IT DEVELOPED. 
          MEANWHILE, THE BOA, WITH QUASI JUDICIAL DUTIES, IT FUNCTIONS AS PART OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF THE CITY'S GOVERNMENT. 
          WELL, WE ALL KNOW FROM OUR HIGH SCHOOL CIVICS CLASSES, THAT CITIZENS BENEFIT FROM HAVING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS TO PROVIDE CHECKS AND BALANCES ON POWER. 
          WITH TWO BOARDS, CITIZENS HAVE ONE ENTITY, THE BOA, THAT THEY CAN APPEAL TO THAT IS SEPARATE FROM AN ENTITY, THE PAB, THAT'S INVOLVED IN CREATING AND EXECUTING THE LAW. 
          [01:20:04]
INCREASED EFFICIENCY IS THE REASON GIVEN FOR THIS PROPOSED MERGER. 
          HOWEVER, I DO NOT SEE ANY SIGNIFICANT GAINS RESULTING FROM SUCH A MERGER. 
          FOCUSING ON THE BOA, AS I MENTIONED, A VERY DIFFERENT TYPE OF BOARD THAN THE PAB IN ITS PROCEEDINGS DUE TO ITS QUASI JUDICIAL ROLE. 
          AS A RESULT, THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO OVERLAP IN DUTIES THAT WOULD BE ELIMINATED BY COMBINING THE TWO BOARDS. 
          UNLIKE THE PAB, BOA MEETINGS AND ACTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER. 
          THUS, THERE ARE NO COST SAVINGS ACHIEVED THERE. 
          MEETING AGENDAS MUST BE PREPARED AND POSTED TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE, BUT THAT IS A RELATIVELY MINIMAL TIME AND COST EXPENDITURE. 
          OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, BOA MEETINGS HAVE LASTED FROM A LOW OF 38 MINUTES TO ONE GOING OVER FIVE HOURS. 
          WE HAD TWO LAST YEAR THAT WENT FOR NEARLY THREE AND A HALF HOURS. 
          IMAGINE THAT TACKED ON TO THE END OF YOUR MEETING SUCH AS TONIGHT. 
          MEETING LENGTH IS PRIMARILY DEPENDENT ON THE AMOUNT OF WITNESS TESTIMONY THAT'S PRESENTED. 
          THE FEW REDUNDANT BOA MEETING ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD BE ELIMINATED BY COMBINING THE BOARDS. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ROLL CALL, AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 
          THEY GENERALLY TAKE LESS THAN TWO MINUTES. 
          IF THE TWO BOARDS ARE COMBINED, IT WILL STILL BE NECESSARY FOR EACH VARIANCE OR APPEALS CASE TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY DESCRIBE THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED FOR MEMBERS TO DISCLOSE ANY EX PARTE, COMMUNICATIONS, FOR ANYONE TESTIFYING TO BE SWORN IN, FOR STAFF AND APPLICANTS TO PRESENT THEIR EVIDENCE, AND FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS, DISCUSS THE CASE, TO BUILD THE RECORD, AND TO MAKE AND ADOPT A DETAILED MOTION THAT SPECIFIES THE RELEVANT LAWS AND THE FINDINGS OF FACT IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE BOARD'S DECISION. 
          THIS LAST STEP, GENERATING A DETAILED AND SPECIFIC MOTION IS CRITICAL IN PART BECAUSE IT IS WHAT THE CIRCUIT COURT WILL EXAMINE IF THE BOARD'S DECISION IS APPEALED AND IT DOES HAPPEN. 
          BOTTOM LINE, THERE WILL BE MINIMAL SAVINGS IN THE COST OF RECORDING BOARD MEETINGS IF THESE TWO BOARDS ARE COMBINED. 
          THERE WOULD ALSO BE LITTLE REDUCTION IN STAFF TIME, BECAUSE THE DETAILED STAFF ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION THAT IS PART OF THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS MUST STILL BE DONE WHETHER THERE IS JUST ONE BOARD OR THERE ARE TWO. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, FOR A VARIANCE, THE STAFF MUST ANALYZE AND PRESENT WHETHER THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST SATISFIES EACH OF THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE. 
          OTHER THAN NOT HAVING TO TYPE UP THE SEPARATE ROLL CALL, THE MINUTES PREPARED BY STAFF AFTER THE MEETING WILL STILL NEED TO DESCRIBE ALL THE WITNESS TESTIMONY, MOTION, AND ACTIONS TAKEN. 
          THERE JUST IS NOT MUCH OVERLAP BETWEEN THESE TWO BOARDS AND THUS NOT MUCH EFFICIENCY GAINS FROM COMBINING THEM. 
          GIVEN THE DIFFERENT LEGAL STANDARDS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE TWO BOARDS, BY COMBINING THEM, THE CITIZENS ALSO LOSE THE SPECIALIZED FOCUS THAT YOU ALL AND US AS CURRENT MEMBERS ON EACH BOARD HAVE DEVELOPED. 
          IN SUMMARY, DESPITE THE STATED REASON FOR THE PROPOSED MERGER BEING EFFICIENCY. 
          I FAIL TO SEE HOW THE SMALL SAVINGS AND RECORDING AND STAFF TIME WARRANT SUCH A PROCESS DISRUPTION FOR OUR CITIZENS GIVEN THE CURRENT GOOD AND FUNCTIONING OF BOTH OF OUR BOARDS. 
          SEPARATELY, I ALSO WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT THE BOA ITSELF IS AN ISSUE IN THE PENDING LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY FILED BY RYM. 
          GIVEN THAT, I DO NOT THINK IT IS PRUDENT TO TAKE ANY ACTION ELIMINATING OR MERGING THE BOA UNTIL THIS LITIGATION IS RESOLVED. 
          I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATE BUT ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU DO DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AMENDMENT TO THE LDC, I NOTE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL CONFORMING CHANGES THAT MUST BE MADE TO THE LDC AND THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES AS THERE ARE NUMEROUS REFERENCES THROUGHOUT BOTH TO PLANNING AND ADVISORY BOARD, BOA, AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, CODE SECTION 54-53, SPECIFIES THAT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY'S BAIR HOUSING BOARD. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE BOA AND ITS FUNCTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS. YES. 
          >> BASED ON YOUR EXPERIENCE, THAT YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD. 
          >> YES, AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TWO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT AS WELL. 
          ALTHOUGH I'VE SERVED LONGER THAN THE OTHERS. 
          >> I'LL ASK YOU IN A NON LEGAL WAY, 
          [01:25:03]
DO YOU ENVISION MAKING THIS COMBINATION OR THIS MERGER OF THE TWO GROUPS? DOES THAT PUT ADDITIONAL LEGAL ISSUE ON THE TABLE THAT COULD RESULT IN A GREATER NUMBER OF COURT ACTIONS AS A RESULT OF DECISIONS MADE BY THE COMBINED BOARD? 
          >> DO I THINK THAT IT WOULD LEAD TO THAT? WHAT GETS APPEALS IS WHAT GOES TO THE COURTS IS BASED REALLY ON HOW THE PARTY THAT RULED AGAINST THEM AND THE BOARD OF APPEALS COMES OUT. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT JUST STATED THAT YOU ALL TOOK ON YOUR EXISTING ONES. 
          IF YOU'RE NOT ALL THAT FAMILIAR WITH GOING THROUGH ALL THE SPECIFICS OF SPECIFYING THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND YOUR ANALYSIS, IT DOES OPEN UP IF THE COURT DOESN'T SEE YOUR REASONING. 
          IF YOU'VE LOOKED AT ANY OF THE LAST SEVERAL BOARD MEETINGS ACTUALLY, I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ONE THAT'S MADE THE MOTIONS. 
          YOU'LL SEE THEY'RE QUITE LENGTHY AND EVEN IN THE DISCUSSIONS, I OFTEN ASK QUESTIONS LIKE, WHAT IS THIS LDC PROVISION DOES? IS IT RELEVANT? IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE LDC, IT'S BECAUSE I WANT TO BUILD THAT RECORD. 
          IF IT DOES GET APPEALED, THE CIRCUIT COURT, BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT GO NECESSARILY AND LOOK TO OUR CODE AND ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF JUST THE IMMEDIATE RECORD. 
          THERE COULD BE SOME RISKS. 
          MEMBERS LIKE YOU ON THE PAB WHO KNOW THE CODE SO WELL, JUST DON'T EVEN THINK TO ASK THAT QUESTION BECAUSE YOU'RE INTERNALIZING IT. 
          BUT AGAIN, I JUST THINK AND ALSO THERE ARE LEGAL STANDARDS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT I WENT TO A TRAINING SESSION LAST OCTOBER AND THE SECOND HALF WAS ALL ABOUT THE LEGAL STANDARDS FOR WHEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GRANT A VARIANCE. 
          YOU HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. 
          AGAIN, WHY A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS NOT SUFFICIENT. 
          IT DOES HELP TO KNOW THOSE THINGS. 
          AS YOU'RE ON THE BOARD, JUST FOCUSING ON THOSE ASPECTS YOU OBVIOUSLY GET MORE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE LEGALS ANSWERS AND BEING ABLE TO APPLY THEM. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANSWER. I MEAN, WE KNOW THE COMMISSION, IT SOMETIMES ACTS IN QUASI JUDICIAL HAS TO GO BACK AND FORTH, BUT THAT'S MINIMAL, BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF GAINS WHEN YOU HAVE ONE ENTITY THAT JUST REALLY FOCUSES AND GETS VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT PROCESS. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU AGAIN. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> COMMISSIONER MINSHEW. 
          >> DAMN, SHE'S VERY WELL SPOKEN. 
          >> THANK YOU, JENISE MINSHEW, 2428 LOST RODS DRIVE. 
          IT'S A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW A GOOD ATTORNEY LIKE MS. DAVIS [LAUGHTER]. 
          I WANT TO GIVE YOU ALL SOME CONTEXT ABOUT WHY THIS IS IN FRONT OF YOU AND WHAT HAS TRANSPIRED TO DATE TO GET YOU THERE. 
          FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD SAY THAT I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE CHANGE TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WOULD URGE YOU TO PASS THAT COMPONENT OF THIS REQUEST TONIGHT. 
          THAT'S LONG OVERDUE AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE HDC HAS WANTED FOR A WHILE. 
          I WOULD ASK YOU TO THINK OF THESE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS AND TO PASS THAT ONE. 
          REGARDING THE CHANGES TO THE OTHER BOARDS. 
          IN FEBRUARY, I PUT TOGETHER WITH THE HELP OF STAFF SOME ANALYSIS THAT WAS LOOKING AT EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS ACROSS THE MULTIPLE BOARDS. 
          PART OF THAT WAS WHEN WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD CRA AND MARINA BOARD, WERE STEPPING ALL OVER EACH OTHER, AND THEN WHO DOES THE HDC FIT IN AND ALL THIS AS IT RELATES TO A LOT OF THE WATERFRONT STUFF. 
          I'VE ALSO BEEN CONCERNED THAT SOME BOARDS ARE JUST NOT PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE IN WHAT THEY WERE DOING. 
          WITH THE HELP OF STAFF, WE PUT TOGETHER A PROPOSAL THAT LOOKED AT STAFF NUMBERS AND TIME AND SALARY RATES. 
          WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE COST OF RECORDING LIKE $412 A MEETING PLUS LIKE A DOLLAR 25 A MINUTE OR SOMETHING. 
          WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THAT AND DETERMINED THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY SAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY ENOUGH TO FUND A LIFEGUARD FOR THE SUMMER. 
          REAL MONEY THAT WE COULD SAVE AND THEN ALSO GIVE THE STAFF BACK SOME TIME. 
          IN THAT MEETING AND IN THAT PRESENTATION THAT I MADE, 
          [01:30:02]
I DID NOT INCLUDE THE PAB AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. 
          I HELD THEM SEPARATE AND DID NOT INCLUDE THEM IN MY RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          FOR THE VERY REASONS THAT MEMBER DAVIS HAS PRESENTED TO YOU TONIGHT. 
          I USED TO SIT ON A VARIANCE BOARD IN ANOTHER CITY. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE QUASI JUDICIAL. 
          I NEVER REALLY THOUGHT THAT THOSE NEED TO BE INCLUDED. 
          DURING THE BOARD CONVERSATION, COMMISSIONER ASKEW MADE THE COMMENT THAT THE COUNTY HAD ALREADY COMBINED THE TWO BOARDS AND LEFT IT AT THAT. 
          WE DID NOT AS A BOARD SAY YES, LET'S WHOLE LIST, AND LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO. 
          THE STAFF HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY WORKING THROUGH. 
          WE DID THE WATERFRONT THE PAB AND THE WATERFRONT AND THE MARINA BOARD, WE TOOK THE GOLF ADVISORY BOARD AND TOOK TWO MEMBERS ONTO THE PARKS AND REC. 
          THEN WE'VE ALSO SUNSET AT THE AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD. 
          WHAT I WOULD SAY AT THIS POINT IS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY A DIRECTIVE FROM THE COMMISSION TO DO THIS. 
          I WOULD THINK THAT THIS NEEDS AND I HAD A MEETING TODAY WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE STAFF AS WE WENT THROUGH AGENDAS. 
          I DID BRING THIS UP AND TALK ABOUT IT. 
          I THINK IT NEEDS MORE ANALYSIS. 
          I THINK IT NEEDS MORE CONVERSATION. 
          I THINK THERE ARE VERY IMPORTANT REASONS TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE THAT, AGAIN, MEMBER DAVIS HAS BROUGHT UP. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME WE CAN'T DO IT. 
          I THINK THE ISSUE WITH CURRENT LITIGATION IS VERY CONCERNING AND A REASON TO NOT DO ANYTHING. 
          I WOULD ALSO TELL YOU THAT WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS THAT THE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD MEETS TWICE A MONTH, AND THEY HAD QUOTE, CAPACITY WITHIN THEIR MEETING SCHEDULE TO PICK UP THIS WORK FROM THEIR FORMER VARIANCE BOARD. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY. 
          YOU ALL ARE NOT MEETING A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH, YOU'RE MEETING ONCE A MONTH. 
          AGAIN, I'D BE VERY CONCERNED THAT TWO AND THREE HOUR MEETINGS BECOME FOUR, FIVE, SIX HOUR MEETINGS, WHICH IS NOT HEALTHY, AND PEOPLE CAN'T PAY ATTENTION AND THEY CAN'T CONCENTRATE. 
          WHAT I WOULD ASK FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS SEPARATING THESE TWO ISSUES. 
          APPROVING THE HDC CHANGE AND LET THAT GO THROUGH TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEN TAKE THE ISSUE WITH THE PAB AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SET IT ASIDE AND CONTINUE IT FOR A COUPLE OF MEETINGS SO THAT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WITH STAFF TO HAVE MORE CONVERSATION. 
          WE CAN HAVE MORE CONVERSATION WITH MR. POOL ABOUT WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS WITH DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE MIDDLE OF A BIG LITIGATION? I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. 
          I THINK WE'VE DONE AS MUCH AS WE CAN DO IN TERMS OF IMPROVING SOME EFFICIENCY EFFECTIVENESS ACROSS BOARDS. 
          THE ONES WE'VE CAUGHT ALL THE LOW HANGING FRUIT, SO TO SPEAK. 
          THIS IS NOT LOW HANGING FRUIT, THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE AND I WOULD ASK YOU TO JUST CONTINUE IT AND LET'S FIGURE OUT MORE DETAILS ABOUT WHAT MAKES SENSE. 
          >> COMMISSIONER MINSHEW, WOULD YOU SUGGEST THAT WE MAY HAVE A BOARD MEETING WITH THE BOTH BOARDS LIKE A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THIS OR DO IT SEPARATELY? 
          >> NO, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU LET THE STAFFS AND THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY DEPUTY MANAGER TALK WITH REALLY TO, I THINK, BRING THAT FORWARD AND MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          BECAUSE THERE ARE BIGGER IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY AS A WHOLE AND SO TO ME, IT IS NOT SOMETHING I THINK THAT YOU ALL COULD WORK OUT INTERNALLY. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU. 
          I THINK YOU'VE GIVEN US A LOT MORE INSIGHT THAN WE'VE HAD ALL THE WAY THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION. IT'S A BIG THANK YOU. 
          MY CONCERN WOULD BE, ONE, I THINK FROM A STANDPOINT, IT'S TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE TO DO IT COMBINED. 
          IT'S NOT AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION. 
          MY CONCERN IS, I DON'T SEE THE SAVINGS BECAUSE OUR MEETING, LET'S SAY IT RUNS TWO HOURS, WELL, IF I HAD A BOA TRANSACTIONAL PROCESS, NOW I HAVE A FOUR-HOUR MEETING. 
          I HAVEN'T SAVED IN HOURS WITH THE VIDEOING OR ANYTHING ELSE. 
          >> WHICH IS WHY I DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL; BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE ANY REAL SAVINGS EITHER AND I THINK 
          [01:35:01]
QUASI JUDICIAL BOARDS AND SITTING AS A FORMAL PLANNING AUTHORITY FOR THE CITY ARE VERY SEPARATE AND SPECIFIC ISSUES WITH CERTAIN SKILL SETS, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN SITTING ON A MARINE ADVISORY BOARD OR A GOLF COURSE ADVISORY BOARD. 
          >> THE OTHER THING IS, I LOOK AT THE BOA AS AN ESCAPE VALVE AND AS A PROTECTOR OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY. 
          IT GIVES THEM THEIR COURT OF LAST RESORT OR FIRST RESORT, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT. 
          MY OTHER CONCERN IS, LET'S SUPPOSE WE WERE TO COMBINE IT AND THE BOA GOT CHALLENGED WHEN IT WAS A COMBINED BOARD. 
          ONE LAWSUIT WOULD OFFSET 10 YEARS WORTH OF SAVINGS. 
          THAT ONE LAWSUIT COULD BE $50,000 OR $75,000 AND I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTH TAKING THAT RISK. 
          >> ALL I'M ASKING Y'ALL DO IS TAKE A PAUSE ON THIS ONE. 
          YOU COULD SEND IT ON THROUGH TO US AND THEN I'D HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATION AT A CITY COMMISSION MEETING WITH MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND ASK THEM NOT TO DO IT. 
          I THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO ASK YOU TO TAKE THE PAUSE, SEND IT BACK TO STAFF, LET THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE CITY MANAGER GET MORE INVOLVED IN THIS CONVERSATION AND FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO WITH THESE TWO PARTICULAR BOARDS. 
          >> I GUESS ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAD IS THAT THE TWO BOARDS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING THIS THROUGH RUMOR. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT WE REALLY HAD GOING FOR US WAS THAT MARCH 18TH, WHERE YOU MADE YOUR PRESENTATION AND HAD THAT DISCUSSION. 
          WE BROUGHT IT UP AND SAID, WHAT DO YOU THINK? STAFF DIDN'T REALLY GIVE US ANY FEEDBACK. 
          THE BOA HAD THE SAME ISSUE. 
          IT WAS BROUGHT UP BY BOARD MEMBER KRIEGER, AND THERE WAS NO FEEDBACK WHATSOEVER. 
          BOTH BOARDS, SINCE THE PRESENTATION, MARCH, APRIL, MAY, HERE WE HAVE IS JUNE; FOUR MONTHS, HAS BEEN CHURNING AROUND IN THIS COMMUNITY AS TO, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE PAB? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? HOW ARE WE GOING TO MANAGE THIS? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? THE CONCERN I HAVE IS NOW THE PROPOSAL IS, YES, WE PAUSE, BUT THAT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY INPUT INTO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE BOARD. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS THAT ALL OF US HAD. 
          IT IS, THERE'S NOBODY LISTENING TO US. 
          THERE'S NOBODY SAYING, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WHAT ARE THE COMPONENTS THAT BOTH BOARDS LOOK AT? DOES THIS PROJECT MAKE SENSE TO COMBINE THE BOARDS? WHY SHOULDN'T WE? WHY SHOULD WE? THAT IT BECOMES MORE UNDERSTANDABLE THAT THE COMMUNITY IS INVOLVED IN A PUBLIC PROCESS TO UNDERSTAND. 
          THIS ISN'T A VERY BIG CROWD TODAY, BUT WE HAVE HAD A PACKED CROWD ON OTHER ISSUES. 
          BY CREATING ONE BOARD, ALL OF A SUDDEN SEEMS TO REALLY TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR AN ISSUE MAYBE ONCE, MAYBE TWICE BEFORE IT ACTUALLY GOES INTO EFFECT. 
          >> WELL, I WOULD APOLOGIZE TO YOU FOR THAT. 
          IT IS THE STAFF'S JOB TO WORK WITH THESE BOARDS. 
          I KNOW CITY CLERK BEST AND DEPUTY CITY MANAGER GLISSON DID MEET WITH SOME OF THE OTHER BOARDS. 
          I CAN CERTAINLY TAKE THAT MESSAGE BACK TO THE CITY MANAGER, WHICH IS WHY I THINK THEY NEED TO GET MORE ENGAGED IN THIS, AND PARTICULARLY THE CITY MANAGER, AND MEET WITH Y'ALL AND FIGURE OUT, WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO? BUT AGAIN, I WOULD ASK YOU TO JUST TAKE A PAUSE ON THIS SECOND PART OF THIS REQUEST. 
          >> PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT DIRECTION TO THE PAB. 
          I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD PROBABLY AGREE WITH THAT, THAT WE HAVE MORE OF A THOUGHTFUL PROCESS OF LOOKING AT THE PROS AND CONS AND WHAT EXACTLY DOES THIS MEAN TO THE CITY TO HAVE BOTH BOARDS. 
          >> WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T PUT IT ON THE LIST TO BEGIN WITH. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> I THINK THAT WAS VERY WISE AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. 
          BUT IT HAS BEEN A VERY FRUSTRATING PROCESS TO HEAR THIS THROUGH THE RUMOR MILL AND THROUGH INNUENDO. 
          [01:40:01]
IT'S LIKE, "ARE WE GOING TO BE HERE NEXT MONTH?" 
          >> AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. 
          I WILL SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THAT WORK A LITTLE BETTER. 
          >> THAT WOULD BE REALLY MOST APPRECIATED. 
          >> THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ARE PRETTY HIGH UP ON THE LIST. 
          >> YEAH, I KNOW. I GET IT. 
          >> BUT I WOULD ADD TO YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE COUNTY. 
          I KNOW THAT THERE IS SOMETIMES A PUSH TO SAY, WHAT DOES THE COUNTY DO AND WHY DON'T WE EMULATE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE COME UP WITH? MENTIONING THAT THEY HAVE TWO MEETINGS PER MONTH AND THAT THERE WAS EXTRA CAPACITY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMBINE THOSE BOARDS MADE SENSE TO THEM IN A LOT OF WAYS. 
          BUT I WOULD ADD THAT, AND MAYBE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THIS, IS THAT AT THE TIME BEFORE THE COMBINING OF THE BOARDS, EVEN AS FAR BACK AS 2020, THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR THE COUNTY WAS RECEIVING A $75 STIPEND. 
          >> NOW IT'S 150. 
          >> NOW IT'S 150. 
          THAT WAS JUST DONE IN MAY OF THIS YEAR; SO JUST RECENTLY. 
          THAT'S WITH MILEAGE TOO. 
          >> THAT'S PER PERSON? 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] YES, PER PERSON. THAT IS INCLUDING REGULAR AND SPECIAL MEETINGS. 
          I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT ALL OF THESE BOARDS IN THE CITY ARE VOLUNTEERS. 
          WE ESSENTIALLY DONATE OUR TIME TO HOPEFULLY MAKING THE CITY WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE. 
          >> WELL, YOU DO. YOU MAKE THE CITY BETTER EVERY MONTH SO I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR HARD WORK. 
          >> BUT THAT WAS EYE-OPENING TO ME WHEN I HEARD THAT. 
          BUT I THINK ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE CITY MANAGEMENT AND DISCUSS IT AND SEE WHERE WE GO. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TO SPEAK TO US. 
          >> JUST ONE LAST QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE PAUSE IT AS OPPOSED TO SPLITTING IT, VOTING YES ON ONE AND NO ON THE OTHER? 
          >> NO. I'M STRONGLY RECOMMENDING THAT YOU VOTE THE HRC REQUEST THROUGH TONIGHT. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> SO THAT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 
          BUT THAT YOU CONTINUE THE SECOND ONE. 
          >> INSTEAD OF JUST VOTING NO. 
          >> YOU CAN DO EITHER ONE. YOU CAN JUST VOTE IT DOWN, BUT THEN THAT CLOSES THE DOOR ON ANY CONVERSATION, AND IT'LL COME TO THE COMMISSION AS A NO. 
          AS OPPOSED TO IF YOU CONTINUE IT, IT GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND STAFF TO FIGURE OUT IF IN FACT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> YES. I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM MR. KRIEGER. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> I WOULD CAUTION THIS BOARD THAT BEFORE YOU GO OUT AND GIVE YOUR WHOLE OPINION ON SOMETHING, THAT YOU LISTEN TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY. 
          THAT'S ONLY FAIRNESS TO THE PUBLIC. 
          THESE LONG CONVERSATIONS WITH ONE PERSON I THINK IS OUT OF BOUNDS. 
          WELL, YOU CAN ASK THAT PERSON, BUT I'M HEARING, ALL OF THIS BACK AND FORTH AND READY TO MAKE A MOTION, AND THERE'S TWO PEOPLE SITTING OUT THERE WAITING TO SPEAK. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR POSITION IS, BUT YOU SHOULD HEAR EVERYONE BEFORE YOU START DECIDING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. 
          >> I APOLOGIZE FOR JUMPING. 
          >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          >> LEN KRIEGER, 1313, HICKORY. 
          I WAS GOING TO SAY WHAT MARGARET SAID. 
          [LAUGHTER] I AGREE WITH YOU 100%, BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER INTERESTING POINTS. 
          I WAS ON THE PAB SIX YEARS, I WAS ON THE COMMISSION SEVEN YEARS. 
          I THINK IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA, NUMBER 1, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE PAB HAS TIME FOR IT. 
          WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY BY STATE LAW, AND ONE PARTICULARLY WHERE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT'S A MASSIVE THING THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS HAPPEN. 
          I'LL GIVE A BRIEF EXAMPLE I JUST THOUGHT OF. 
          THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRES A 20-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WHICH HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER. 
          WHY DON'T WE REVIEW IT AND LET THE PAB DO THEIR JOB AND LET THE BOA DO ITS JOB? 
          [01:45:02]
I'VE ONLY BEEN ON THE BOA A COUPLE OF MEETINGS, BUT I'M REALLY IMPRESSED BY THE QUALITY OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING. 
          WHETHER YOU PUT IT FOR LOCAL DISCUSSION, FUTURE DISCUSSION, I THINK THAT I WOULD RATHER YOU JUST REJECT IT AND DISAPPROVE IT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE TESTIMONY OF THE PEOPLE DISAPPROVING, AND LET THE COMMISSION DO WHAT THEY WANT. 
          THE COMMISSION CAN THEN SAY, "YEAH, WE WANT TO LOOK AT THIS FURTHER," AFTER THE RAIN'S OVER OR WHATEVER. 
          BUT THERE'S NO EFFICIENCY INVOLVED HERE. 
          IT'S TAKING TIME, PREVENTING YOU FROM DOING WHAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES. 
          THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL SAY, AND I SAID IT AT THE BOA MEETING, THAT THIS EVEN CAME UP AND WAS NOT DISCUSSED WITH THE BOA IN ANY FORMAL WAY, WAS JUST DISRESPECTFUL. 
          I SENT THAT TO THE COMMISSION. 
          I MEAN, THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. 
          AT LEAST PEOPLE WEREN'T QUERIED TO WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          I WOULD JUST REJECT IT. I THINK THAT'S A BETTER MOVE. 
          I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU JANICE, ON THAT ISSUE, I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER. 
          LET THEM COME UP AND SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. 
          BUT IT WOULD BE A FOOLISH MOVE. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO SACRIFICE EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS, AND PROBABLY SOME LEGAL PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377, PLANTATION POINT DRIVE. 
          I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF [INAUDIBLE] I AGREE WITH JANICE'S SUGGESTION THAT THE HISTORIC BOARD BE CHANGED, MODIFIED IN TERMS OF MEMBERSHIP, THAT'S FINE. 
          IN TERMS OF COMBINING THIS BODY WITH THE BOA, I THINK THAT IS A HUGE MISTAKE. 
          I WILL SAY THAT JUST BECAUSE THE COUNTY DOES SOMETHING, DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS RIGHT FOR THE CITY. 
          THE CITY IS A VERY DIFFERENT STRUCTURE THAN THE COUNTY. 
          BUT I THINK THIS BOARD IS REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          WELL, BEFORE I SAY THAT, ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH APPEALS. 
          THAT APPEALS PROCESS IS VERY AWKWARD IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE TWO SEPARATE OBJECTIVE BOARDS. 
          ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THE PAB IS A TREASURE, MAYBE THE TREASURE OF FERNANDINA BEACH, WHICH IS WHY I COME HERE ALL THE TIME, [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE IT ALLOWS ISSUES TO BE WORKED THROUGH, DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY AND OPENLY WITH THE PUBLIC AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND STAFF, AND EVERYBODY GETS TO WORK THROUGH IT. 
          THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE. 
          THAT IS A FIRM FOUNDATION FOR PLANNING. 
          IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, WE WILL BE LOSING A LOT. 
          WE WILL BE MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE NOT VERY WISE DOWN THE ROAD. 
          I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT BOTH MARGARET AND JANICE DID. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, MARGARET. 
          >> YES, SIR. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE CLOSED. 
          >> I HAVE CONCERN WITH MAKING THE CHANGE FOR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. 
          IS THAT, IT IMPLIES THAT A SENSE OF FAIRNESS BECAUSE WE MAKE THE RULES. 
          WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE SAME PEOPLE THAT MADE THE RULES AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY NO. 
          THIS DOES GIVE ANOTHER BOARD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THAT. 
          QUITE FRANKLY, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY DO. 
          I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND IT'S LENGTHY, IT'S COMPLICATED. 
          WE DO ENOUGH COMPLICATED THINGS HERE. 
          WHAT THE COUNTY DOES, I DON'T CARE. 
          WE'VE HAD THIS HATE-LOVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTIES SINCE I CAME HERE IN 1997 AND I THINK WE DO IT BETTER THAN THEY DO QUITE FRANKLY. 
          I'M NOT INCLINED TO PAUSE THIS. 
          MY VOTE IS NO ON THE COMBINING OF THE PAB AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          I THINK IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA. 
          IT GOT TO THIS POINT SO HERE IT IS. 
          I SAY NO, SEND IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. SAY NO. 
          [01:50:01]
ON THE HDC, THEY'VE LOOKED AT THAT. 
          THEY THINK THAT'S OKAY AND THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR THESE CHANGES FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. 
          I WOULD AGREE THAT WE SHOULD OKAY THAT. 
          I WOULD SPLIT IT, AND YOU KNOW WHERE I STAND. 
          I'M NOT LOOKING TO PAUSE IT AND GO THROUGH THIS AGONIZING PROCESS LONGER. 
          LET'S DO AWAY WITH IT. 
          IT'S A BAD IDEA. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO CONTINUE A BAD IDEA? 
          >> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH JANICE'S RECOMMENDATION IN THE SENSE THAT, MY CONCERN THOUGH IS A LITTLE BIT WITH, I WOULD PREFER TO PAUSE IT NOT LET IT GO BECAUSE I WOULD ALMOST LIKE TO GET MORE FACTUAL DATA, WHICH WE COULD DO AT A SOMEWHAT SLOWER PACE JUST TO MAKE SURE WE FULLY UNDERSTAND THE DECISION PROCESS WE'RE GOING THROUGH. 
          WE'RE ALL DEALING WITH IT WITH A SET OF EMOTIONS AND SO FORTH. 
          I WOULD SAY CARRIED ON. 
          WE'VE GOTTEN A VIEW FROM ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS WHO SAYS, "WHY CAN'T WE?" MAYBE WE OWE THEM THAT TECHNICAL ANSWER. 
          BUT I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER TECHNICALLY, NOT JUST WITH THE EMOTIONAL SIDE OF IT. 
          BUT AS FAR AS SPLITTING THEM TONIGHT, ABSOLUTELY GREAT IDEA. 
          >> SORRY NICK [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> AND I AGREE WITH JANIE. 
          I THINK IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA TO DISCUSS THIS NOW WITH LITIGATION GOING ON WITH RYM, I MEAN, REGARDLESS. 
          I THINK IT'S THE WRONG TIME TO TALK ABOUT. 
          I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE GENESIS OF THE IDEA BECAUSE I'M LOOKING BACK AT AGENDAS. 
          LOT OF THEIR BOARD MEETINGS ARE CANCELED. 
          A LOT OF OURS ARE NOT CANCELED WE'RE MAKING UP STUFF FOR OURSELVES TO DO. 
          I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT REALLY ITEMS OUT THERE THAT THE PUBLIC'S ASKING FOR. 
          STAFF, REGARDLESS OF THE TIME, THEY STILL HAVE ONE EXTRA NIGHT THEY'RE AWAY FROM THE FAMILY. 
          THAT SHOULDN'T BE ACKNOWLEDGED, AT LEAST. 
          BUT I THINK IT'S THE WRONG TIME TO TALK ABOUT THE SEPARATION. 
          I THINK IT'S ODD AND I WAS TALKING TO HARRISON ABOUT THIS BEFORE. 
          YOU'RE ASKING THE VERY BOARD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ASK US IF WE WANT ANOTHER BOARD. 
          YOU KNOW, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S [OVERLAPPING] THE PROCESS. 
          >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID THEY SHOULD DISCUSS [OVERLAPPING] GO AHEAD. 
          >> I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO PAUSE THIS. 
          I WANT TO HAVE A DEFINITE VOTE BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND IF IT'S NO, IT BE NO, AND THOSE THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON ACCORDINGLY. 
          BUT I DON'T WANT TO DIE BY 1,000 CUTS HERE WITH THIS. 
          >> WELL, I THINK COMMISSIONER MINSHEW, SAID THAT SHE WANTS THE STAFF TO BE INVOLVED, TOO, AND MAYBE THE CITY MANAGER. 
          MAYBE NOT RIGHT FROM US TO THE COMMISSION, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME DISCUSSION, NOT WITH US. SO DISCUSSION. 
          >> WELL, LET ME GO BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER [OVERLAPPING] STAFF INVOLVEMENT AT THAT TIME. 
          >> BUT IF IT DOES, AND IF WE SAY THAT WE JUST SAY NO ON OUR PART, THEN I GUESS STAFF REPORTS BACK TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE PAV VOTED NO [OVERLAPPING] NO ON THAT PART OF IT. 
          >> I WOULD JUST SAY ALL CAN DO WHATEVER IS YOUR PLEASURE. 
          YOU CAN VOTE TO CONTINUE IT OR YOU CAN VOTE IT DOWN. 
          EITHER WAY, IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND IT'LL COME BACK TO STAFF. 
          I THINK YOU ALL SHOULD DO WHAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH DOING. 
          [OVERLAPPING] I MEAN, IT'S SIX TO ONE HALF DOZEN OF THE OTHER. 
          YOU'LL JUST NEED TO DO SOMETHING AND MOVE IT ON. 
          >> HARRISON, I'M HEARING ON THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO WANT TO SAY WHO WANT TO REJECT IT AND WHO WANT TO CONTINUE IT. 
          IS THAT DO WE DO TWO MOTIONS TO DECIDE WHICH WAY WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT? 
          >> WELL, I MEAN, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CARRIED BY A MOTION, AND SO YOUR MOTION ON THE ONE HAND, COULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SECTION RELATING TO THE HDC AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE OTHER PORTION OF THE CASE OF THE APPLICATION. 
          AS FAR AS HITTING THE PAUSE BUTTON, I KNOW THERE'S A DESIRE TO MOVE THE HDC PORTION FORWARD, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S REALLY ANY DISAGREEMENT. 
          SEEMS TO BE A PRETTY STRONG CONSENSUS WITH THAT. 
          I JUST DON'T KNOW PROCEDURALLY HOW WE CAN REALLY SPLIT AND PAUSE PART OF AN APPLICATION. 
          KELLY, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEAS ON HOW TO SPLIT THAT OUT BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE WHOLE APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN NOTICED, 
          [01:55:01]
AND SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH US SPLITTING HALF TO ONE. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> CAN I TAKE AN INFORMAL, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WANT TO PAUSE, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WANT TO REJECT. 
          >> YOU CAN FIND THE WORDING THOUGH. 
          >> I THINK HE'S SAYING WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO WITH OF THOSE. 
          >> I MEAN, HITTING THE PAUSE BUTTON IS PROCEDURALLY DIFFICULT [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE THAT YOU HAVE ONE APPLICATION PENDING BEFORE YOU THAT INCORPORATES BOTH AND SO I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW WE WOULD GO ABOUT EVEN SPLITTING THAT OUT [OVERLAPPING] THE SAME CASE NUMBER. 
          >> HOWEVER, WE DECIDE, THEY WILL REPORT BACK TO THE COMMISSION OUR DECISION, THAT GOES INTO THE MINUTES. 
          I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT. I'LL TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          I SAY NO. ON THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. 
          THE HDC MOVE IT FORWARD. 
          YES. THAT'S TO ME SEEMS SIMPLE, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANY REASON FOR THIS TO COME BACK ON THAT PART OF IT, BECAUSE I [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> BUT OTHERS DO. 
          >> WELL I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY, OH, YEAH, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HEAR IT LATER OR PAUSE OR [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I DID. 
          >> YOU SEE SOME BENEFIT TO THAT? 
          >> FROM WHAT? 
          >> TELL ME THE BENEFIT OF PAUSING THIS. 
          >> THE BENEFIT IS [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> YOU GOT TWO BOARDS HERE NOW. 
          WHAT'S THE BENEFIT? 
          >> TO JUST GET A FURTHER UNDERSTANDING. 
          IF WE MAKE THE FINAL DECISION, I'D LIKE TO MAKE FROM A TECHNICAL DATABASE OF KNOWLEDGE, NOT JUST BASED ON ONE CONVERSATION IN A ROOM WHERE WE REALLY HAVE NOT HAD ANY LEVEL OF DETAIL ANALYSIS, PARTICULARLY FROM THE STAFF. 
          >> YOU'VE HEARD THIS. YOU'VE GOT THE PUBLIC COMMENT HERE. 
          I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY OUT HERE, NOBODY SHOWED UP TO SAY, THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. 
          >> I SHOULD MENTION [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I THINK I'VE CAUSED THIS PROBLEM. 
          AND FOR THAT, I APOLOGIZE. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> YOUR FAULT. 
          >> SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD THING FOR YOU TO DO IS TO VOTE UP THE HDC RECOMMENDATION, VOTE DOWN THE COMBINE OF THOSE TWO BOARDS. 
          AND THEN WHEN THAT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION, THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT AS A COMMISSION AND INSTRUCT THE STAFF ACCORDINGLY. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE MOST STRAIGHTFORWARD AND EASIEST THING TO GET THIS OFF THE TABLE AND DOWN THE ROAD. 
          >> I THINK WE ALL AGREE. 
          >> LET'S FIGURE OUT, I DON'T THINK PAUSE OR KILL OR EVEN PART OF IT. 
          I THINK IT'S JUST YEA OR NAY. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> SO WE VOTE AYE ON ONE AND NAY [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> ONE MORE QUESTION. 
          >> YES. 
          >> IF WE WERE TO TAKE A SITUATION WHERE THE BOARD, LET ME USE THIS. 
          LET ME USE THE TERGOI PROPERTY. 
          WE ELECTED NOT TO APPROVE IT, BUT WE MADE A DECISION TO FORWARD IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          CAN WE SAY NO TO IT, BUT THEN REFER IT BACK TO THE STAFF? 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO. YOU'RE ADVISORY, AND SO YOU'RE GIVING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> YEAH. IT GOES THAT WAY. 
          >> BUT WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE THERE VERSUS WE DID REFER THE [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS THE NEXT. 
          >> IT'S [OVERLAPPING] TO THE COMMISSION. 
          >> NO, NO. THAT WAS IN THAT'S PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          IT SAYS, WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO DO IS DO THAT. 
          >> BUT CAN I ANSWER THAT QUESTION JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION. 
          YES, IN MOTION AND IN INTENT BEHIND WHAT YOUR DECISION MAKING FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS. 
          YOU SAID, WE FEEL THAT THIS IS MORE APT TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          THAT WAS NOT REFERRING IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. 
          THIS BODY DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY NOR DOES IT HAVE THE ABILITY TO FORCE AN APPLICATION ON AN APPLICANT EITHER. 
          SO OUR ONLY RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION ON THE APPLICATION AT HAND. 
          BUT WITHIN THE MEETING MINUTES, IT DID REFLECT THAT AS A BOARD, YOU FELT THAT IT WAS MORE SUITABLE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FIRST. 
          >> BUT THAT'S STILL JUST A RECOMMENDATION GOING FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> YES. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I WAS WRONG THERE. 
          >> SO HARRISON, THIS CAME TO US AS A SINGLE ENTITY. 
          DO WE HAVE TO DO ANYTHING FORMAL TO BREAK IT APART? 
          >> SO WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND IN THAT CASE, AND HEARING THE DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD WOULD BE THAT IF IT IS THE WILL OF THE BOARD, A MOTION MADE TO APPROVE THAT PORTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE HDC CODE. 
          THAT'S A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT APPROVAL TO THE COMMISSION AND RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THAT PORTION THAT RELATES TO ABOLISHING OR COMBINING THE TWO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT? 
          >> VERY CLEAR. 
          >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? 
          >> I MOTION WHATEVER HARRISON JUST SAID. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> AND MIA, YOU GOT DOWN WHAT HARRISON SAID SO AND WE'LL MAKE THAT A MOTION? 
          >> YES. 
          >> VICTORIA MADE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> AND DID ANYBODY SECOND? [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I SECOND. 
          >> SO VICTORIA MADE THE MOTION. 
          [02:00:01]
          >> I MADE A MOTION. 
          >> HENCE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE? 
          >> YOU NEED TO VOTE ON EACH ONE OF THEM SEPARATELY, SO I THINK. 
          >> IT'S A SINGULAR MOTION. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> YES. 
          >> I GOT YOU. 
          >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS, HARRISON. 
          [BACKGROUND] THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR HELP. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> WE WANT TO MOVE ON TO PUDS? YOU WANT TO POSTPONE? 
          >> NO. I THINK WE MODEL THROUGH IT. THAT'S WHAT I THINK. 
          >> IF WE GOING INTO PUTS [LAUGHTER] I THINK THERE'S WORK THAT 
          [4.3 PAB CASE 2024-0010: CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH]
HAS TO BE DONE ON PUDS BECAUSE WHEN THIS FIRST WAS PASSED, WE HEARD BACK FROM MEMBERS OF THE CITY THAT SAID THAT WE MISSED A BUNCH OF STUFF. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY SAID WE MISSED, WELL, WHAT HAPPENS TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE A PUT THAT MIGHT BE 30 FEET IN HIGHER DENSITY, HIGHER INTENSITY NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS I HEARD. 
          >> SO DO WE NEED YOU TO TAKE US THROUGH THIS OR DO WE JUST WATCH? [OVERLAPPING] GO AHEAD. 
          >> WE'RE MUDDLING THROUGH IT. 
          >> SO I HAVE PROVIDED A RECAP. 
          IT'S ABOUT A PAGE LONG, DETAILING THE HISTORY AND THE BOARD'S VERY THOUGHTFUL EXAMINATION OF PUDS OVER THE PAST YEAR PLUS IN TIME. 
          I THINK WE ACTUALLY STARTED IN FEBRUARY OF 2023 WHEN THE BOARD WAS LOOKING AT, HEY, WE NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO PUDS. 
          AND SO FROM THAT, WE HAD AN INTERN WHO WORKED WITH US, PROVIDED EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON PUDS THROUGHOUT THE STATE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU AS A BOARD. 
          I BELIEVE LAST JUNE OR JULY BEFORE SHE LEFT, AND DETAILED ALL OF HER RESEARCH AND HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT WE HAD LEARNED AT THAT POINT IN TIME. 
          FOLLOWING THAT, THE BOARD CONTINUED TO HAVE VERY ENGAGED DISCUSSION ABOUT PUDS, ABOUT WHAT IT WANTED TO ACCOMPLISH WITH PUDS. 
          ALL ALONG, I WILL SAY THAT STAFF HAS HAD ON ITS RADAR THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE AMENDMENTS TO PUDS. 
          SPECIFICALLY, WHEN THEY APPLY, WHEN YOU COULD QUALIFY TO APPLY A PROPERTY FOR A PUD. 
          ANOTHER AREA THAT WE KNEW WE NEEDED TO REALLY EXAMINE CLOSER WAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING SITUATIONS AND WHAT THRESHOLD THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE EXAMINED. 
          THEN WHICH SECTIONS OF CODE COULD YOU SEEK CHANGES TO WHEN APPLYING THE PUD? THOSE WERE TWO AREAS THAT WE HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED SINCE ROUGHLY 2016 NEEDED TO BE AMENDED SO THAT IT BETTER ARTICULATED WHEN YOU COULD APPLY A PUD. 
          IN 2023 AND 2024, THE BOARD REALLY WAS FOCUSED ON MINIMUM ACREAGE. 
          I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHERE A LOT OF TIME WAS SPENT LAST YEAR IS REALLY THINKING THROUGH MINIMUM ACREAGE. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS REALLY A LOT OF NOT THE RIGHT WORD CONCERN, BUT THERE WASN'T. 
          IN DECISION ABOUT MAKING THOSE OTHER CHANGES AS IT RELATED TO THIS SO THAT WE COULD BE MORE SPECIFIC ABOUT WHEN IT APPLIES AND HOW TO GO ABOUT APPLYING IT. 
          BUT THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF BOARD DISCUSSION ON MINIMUM ACREAGE AT THAT TIME. 
          AFTER THE BOARD HAD UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THAT TEXT AMENDMENT, IT DID GO TO THE COMMISSION AND MY IMPRESSION IS BOTH TIMING OF THAT BEING PROPOSED TO THE COMMISSION GIVEN THE ELECTION YEAR, AS WELL AS THE RANGE OF I THINK THERE WAS A FEELING OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT THIS COULD CHANGE AND HOW IT WOULD APPLY, LEFT THE COMMISSION THEN UNCOMFORTABLE WITH TAKING ANY ACTION AND THEN REFERRED IT BACK TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. 
          EARLIER THIS YEAR, THE BOARD DID PICK IT BACK UP, AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR ON THE BOARD THAT THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS AMONG EACH OF YOU AND HOW TO APPLY IT AND WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO AGREE TO AND HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          IT WAS SPLIT. THERE REALLY WASN'T EVEN ANY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU WERE POINTING AT IN MAKING BIG AMENDMENTS, TOO, AND MAKING CHANGES, THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO MOVE FORWARD AS A BOARD. 
          THE COMMISSION THEN HEARD IT AND DIRECTED THAT THIS BE PUT BACK ON THE TABLE. 
          [02:05:04]
THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE IT BACK IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING, AS IT WAS EXPRESSLY REQUESTED THAT THIS COME BACK TO THE BOARD. 
          WITH THAT DIRECTION, WE HAVE ADVERTISED IT FOR RECONSIDERATION. 
          IT IS LARGELY THE EXACT SAME AMENDMENTS THAT YOU SAW IN DECEMBER THAT THE BOARD HAD AGREED TO AFTER MANY MONTHS OF THOUGHTFUL AND DELIBERATE CONVERSATIONS AND RESEARCH AND REALLY THINKING THROUGH THIS. 
          I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF AREAS THAT WE HAVE MADE CHANGES TO SO THAT THE BOARD CAN THINK ABOUT THEM AS PART OF YOUR DELIBERATION THIS EVENING. 
          ONE OF THEM, AND THIS FOLLOWS A CONVERSATION THAT I BELIEVE REMEMBER STEVENSON, YOU HAD ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP AT ONE POINT LATE LAST YEAR IN CONSIDERATION OF PUD AMENDMENTS, WAS HAVING ADDITIONAL PUBLIC NOTICE AND PUBLIC OUTREACH THAT IS APPLICANT DRIVEN, SO THAT BEFORE AN APPLICATION COMES TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION, THERE HAS BEEN SOME LEVEL OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT'S TAKEN PLACE AND HOPEFULLY, THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED IN THE PLANS AND DETAILS BEING PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WHEN IT COMES FORWARD. 
          I'VE TAKEN THAT AND INCORPORATED THAT INTO A SUBSECTION, A NEW SUBSECTION F THAT REQUIRES WHAT I'M CALLING AN APPLICANT-FUNDED-NON-GOVERNMENTAL MEANING, IT'S ON THEM. 
          THEY WILL PREPARE THE NOTICE, DO WHATEVER TYPE OF OUTREACH THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS FULLY ENGAGED, COMES TO THE MEETING, TALKS ABOUT IT, HOWEVER THEY WANT TO PRESENT MATERIALS. 
          THE LENGTH OF THAT MEETING, HOW THEY GO ABOUT CONDUCTING THAT MEETING IS COMPLETELY UP TO THE APPLICANT AND HOW THAT TAKES SHAPE. 
          AND AS PART OF A REQUIREMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DOCUMENT THAT THAT'S TAKEN PLACE. 
          AND ANY FEEDBACK THAT'S RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THAT MEETING, WHETHER IT'S WRITTEN, OR IT IS VERBAL FROM THE MEETING, THAT THAT BE DOCUMENTED AND THEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND HOW THEY MAY HAVE INCORPORATED THAT FEEDBACK. 
          AND IF THEY HAVEN'T INCORPORATED THAT FEEDBACK, WHY? WHAT WAS, MAYBE IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT, OR IT WAS JUST A REQUEST THAT WAS UNREASONABLE GIVEN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. 
          BUT THAT TYPE OF PROCESS NOW BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PREPARATION. 
          THE OTHER AREA THAT WE HAVE AMENDED IS TO MODIFY THE FAR, WHERE THE YEAR IS NON RESIDENTIAL USES PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS THAT YOU'RE ALLOWING AS PART OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. 
          RIGHT NOW, IT'S REALLY SUPPRESSED AT 0.21 RATIO, AND I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHY THAT WAS, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF A LOT OF OUR COMPLAIN POLICIES THAT SAY, WE REALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE MIXED USE AND DISCOURAGE ONLY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          IF WE REALLY ARE WANTING TO ENCOURAGE THAT, WE SHOULD PROBABLY ALIGN THE FAR STANDARD WITH THE ESTABLISHED UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT SO THAT THAT CAN APPLY. 
          IT JUST WOULD APPLY IN DIFFERENT AREAS AT THAT SAME RATE, [NOISE] BUT WHERE IT MAKES SENSE GIVEN THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          >> THEN THE OTHER AREA, ACTUALLY, MARGARET HAD POINTED OUT TO ME IS WITHIN A SECTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE COASTAL HIGH-HAZARD AREA, WHERE WE GO BACK TO RELY ON THE COMP PLAN DEFINITION OF THAT INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THE EVACUATION ZONE 1 OR A. 
          THERE, THAT WAS A RELIC OF PAST CONSIDERATION OF HOW COASTAL HIGH-HAZARD AREA ZONES WERE APPLIED PRIOR TO 2011. 
          THAT IS AN AMENDMENT THAT'S BEEN CHANGED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT AS WELL. 
          I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST, STAFF, ESPECIALLY IN SPEAKING ABOUT MINIMUM ACREAGE AND WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE AND HAVING REALLY EVALUATED THE FULL RANGE OF WHAT WE COULD PROPOSE HERE. 
          WE'VE INDICATED, ZERO MAY NOT BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU COULD TRY IT. 
          WE COULD FIND OUT IF WE HAVE AN ONSLAUGHT OF APPLICATIONS. 
          AT THIS POINT, THE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD NEED TO COME IN AND HOW THEY GO ABOUT FULFILLING THOSE MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE MEETING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE AND PUBLIC BENEFIT FOR MAKING THAT APPLICATION, AS WELL AS ACHIEVING THE STANDARDS THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS A PRETTY HIGH THRESHOLD. 
          I DON'T SEE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGE VOLUME INCREASE IN PUD APPLICATIONS. 
          FROM THE CONCERN PERSPECTIVE, I DO FEEL A LITTLE BIT MORE OF COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. 
          [02:10:07]
LET'S TRY IT. IF THERE ARE ISSUES, YOU'LL SEE IT. WE'LL SEE IT AS A BOARD. 
          WE'LL NEED TO MAKE AMENDMENTS TO THESE CRITERIA TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT MOVING FORWARD. 
          BUT I DO FEEL THAT THIS, AS IT'S WRITTEN, IS A REALLY GOOD ATTEMPT TO MOVE US FORWARD WITH PUDS AND OPEN UP SOME CREATIVE THINKING THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY, REALLY ENGAGE THE PUBLIC AS PART OF THE DECISION MAKING THAT COMES IN, WHERE YOU'RE GETTING TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU MAY NOT LIKE, THIS PROVIDES AN AVENUE FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          IT PROVIDES AN AVENUE TO GAIN MORE INFORMATION EARLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING PHASES SO THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO SET STANDARDS AND CRITERIA THAT YOU BECOME CERTAINTIES AS PART OF IT MOVING FORWARD. 
          WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND THINK THAT IT WILL SERVE TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE AND HAVE CURRENTLY TALKED ABOUT AS A BOARD OVERALL FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS NOW. 
          >> I BEAT YOU. [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. 
          WHILE I AGREE THAT I WAS THE ZERO ACRE FAN, THAT WAS THE NO MINIMUM ACREAGE. 
          I THINK THAT THE PERCEPTION IS THE BOOGIE MAN IS OUT THERE SOMEWHERE AND THEY'RE HIDING IN A SUBDIVISION AND THEY CAN'T WAIT TO DO A DUPLEX NEXT TO MY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. 
          GIVEN THIS A LOT OF THOUGHT AND LOOKING AT WHAT ACREAGE IS OUT THERE, IF WE WERE TO CONSIDER USING 0.75 ACRES AS A MINIMUM, WHICH HAS BEEN IN OTHER ORDINANCES THAT HAVE DONE THAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, IT GETS RID OF THE NOTION THAT ANYBODY IN R1, R2, R3, ANY EXISTING SUBDIVISION WOULD DO IT BECAUSE WE DON'T PLAT THREE QUARTER ACRE LOTS AROUND HERE. 
          WE PLAT SMALLER LOTS. 
          THE SIDE OF THE PROJECT THAT CAME BEFORE US TONIGHT WAS 0.79 ACRES, AND THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN SOMETHING MORE. 
          YOU KNOW, MAYBE RENDERINGS, MAYBE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. 
          ALTHOUGH I WILL SAY THE STAFF REPORT, WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO PUT THE ENGINEERING PLANS IN WITH THE PLAT ON THAT SO THAT SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS WOULD GET ANSWERED WITHOUT BEING PUBLIC. 
          BUT IF WE DID 0.75 ACRES AND NO ONE APPLIES, AND WE KNOW NUMBER 1, IT WASN'T WORTH DOING, AND NUMBER 2, OUR ACREAGE IS TOO BIG. 
          INSTEAD OF HAVING THIS FEAR OF AN ONSLAUGHT OF EXISTING PLATTED LOTS COMING IN AND TRYING IT, AND THEN WE GET EGG ON OUR FACE BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE SHOW UP AGAINST IT, MAYBE WE START FROM THE TOP AND WORK DOWN. 
          I'M RECOMMENDING 0.75. 
          I THINK IT WOULD CAPTURE ALL THOSE 0.91 ACRE LOTS THAT ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO TRY SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND NEW. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THE FEAR OF WHAT'S LURKING IN THE BUSHES THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN YET. 
          >> WHAT'S WRONG WITH ONE ACRE? 
          >> BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MANY ONE ACRE LOTS. 
          WE HAVE A LOT OF 0.75 AND A LOT OF OR 0.91 IS VERY COMMON. 
          >> A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COMBINE LOT. 
          >> NO THEY WON'T. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. 
          >> WHEN I LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION PROVIDED FROM VARIOUS CITIES, THEY ALL HAVE, FOR THE MOST PART, A SIZE ATTACHED TO A PUD. 
          MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE MAKE AN ACRE. 
          SIMPLE, EASY LEVEL. 
          >> BUT I'M GOING TO SAY MARK, YOU'RE JUST PICKING A NUMBER BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING AROUND HERE. 
          WE HAVE A LOT OF 0.91 AND A LOT OF 0.79 THAT'S STILL HERE THAT COULD BE USED. 
          >> WELL, SEE, I DISAGREE BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE PROPERTIES AROUND BE COMBINED OR THERE ARE AT LEAST ONE ACRE PARCELS THAT WE SEE A COUPLE OF THEM EARLIER. 
          THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT QUARTER OF AN ACRE, I DON'T KNOW IS GOING TO HURT ANYBODY. 
          ONE ACRE TO ME IS SIMPLE, AND SO THAT'S MY PART. 
          THE OTHER THING THAT MY CONCERN THAT I HEARD WAS, HAVING PUDS NEXT TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS FOR SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT COULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THOSE NEIGHBORS TO THAT PROPERTY. 
          I HAVEN'T FIGURED IT OUT TOTALLY IN MY MIND, BUT MY THOUGHT WAS ANY PUD THAT WOULD BE CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SETBACKS, 
          [02:15:02]
OF THAT ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD OR THAT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? 
          >> NO. 
          >> OR IS THAT DOABLE? YOU'RE SAYING NO. 
          >> YOU GO STRAIGHT ZONING. 
          >> BUT THE BIG CONCERN IS A ZERO OR NOT ALLOW ZERO LOT WHEN THERE HOMES OR PROJECTS NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD? 
          >> WELL, IF THEY GO IN AND THEY PROVIDE A BUFFER, WHICH THEY WOULD. 
          >> I'M SAYING ZERO. THERE IS NO BUFFER ON ZERO, IS THERE? 
          >> NO. BUT THEY WOULD BUFFER AND LET'S SAY THEY HAVE ZERO SETBACKS, BUT THEY WOULD PROVIDE A BUFFER AND THEN THEY HAVE A ZERO SETBACK OFF OF THAT BUFFER OR FIVE FEET OR THREE FEET OR WHATEVER THEY NEGOTIATE. 
          THEY STILL WOULD PROVIDE A BUFFER. 
          BUT LOOK AT THE CASE TONIGHT. 
          ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IN THESE 14 ITEMS THAT STAFFS OUTLINED IS, YOU IMPROVE THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AROUND THE AREA. 
          THAT COULD BE A WHAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED TONIGHT? COULD HAVE IMPROVED THE STORM WATER SYSTEM FOR AN AREA THAT'S FAILING RIGHT NOW. 
          THAT'S A CHECK RIGHT THERE THAT STRAIGHT ZONING DOESN'T GIVE YOU, BUT A PUD DOES, AND WE COULD HAVE SAT THERE AND LISTENED TO THAT GENTLEMAN TONIGHT, SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? MAYBE THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER. 
          THAT'S WHY THIS IS, I THINK A VERTICAL PROCESS. 
          >> DO YOU SEE THE POSSIBILITY OF A ZERO LOT LINE? 
          >> I DID. 
          >> DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL? 
          >> BUT IF YOU BUFFER IT, WHAT DOES IT MATTER? IF YOU GIVE A 10. 
          >> YOU KEEP SAYING BUFFER, BUT ZERO LOT LINE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR A BUFFER. 
          >> MARK, WHAT I'M SAYING IS, AND THEN APPROACH YOU TO DRAW MAPS. 
          BUT IF I'VE GOT THIS AND ALL THIS SQUARE AROUND HERE IS TREES, WHY DO YOU CARE WHAT I DO IN THERE? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IT. 
          >> I'M ONLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT CONTIGUOUS ADJACENT HOUSE. 
          IF MY BACK DOOR IS 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND YOU COME UP AND PUT A HOUSE RIGHT OR SOMETHING RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          >> BUT YOU WOULDN'T. BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T APPROVE. 
          >> WHEN YOU SAY THAT, BUT IF THEY WOULDN'T DO IT, YOU WOULDN'T PUT IT IN THE LANGUAGE, SO THEY COULD DO IT. 
          >> YOU WOULDN'T APPROVE IT, MARK, SO IT WOULD NEVER GET PAST THIS BOARD. 
          >> WELL, I'M NOT SO SURE OF THAT. 
          I THINK THERE HAS TO BE SOME PROTECTIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AGAINST NEXT TO A PUD. 
          BECAUSE THERE'S ANY NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THAT PUD COULD HAVE IN IT THAT MAY BE OBJECTIONABLE, AND ONE OF THOSE IS, HEIGHT, INTENSITY, AND RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINES. 
          >> BUT DON'T YOU THINK THAT, GOING BACK TO THE CASE TONIGHT, WE APPROVED IT BECAUSE THE RULES WERE SET BECAUSE MARGARET SAID, THIS WAS DONE, THIS WAS DONE, THIS WAS DONE, AND WE HAD NO CHOICE. 
          >> THE PROPERTY SET AXES ALREADY IN THE CODE. 
          >> BUT HERE, WE HAVE CHOICE IF IT COMES IN, AND IT'S NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE, THIS BOARD SAYS, NO. 
          YOU CAN'T DO IT. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE COULD NOT DO FOR THAT MAN TONIGHT. 
          >> I'M LITERALLY THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX. 
          YOU CAN THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX NOW. 
          INSTEAD OF SAYING, HERE ARE THE PARAMETERS FOR WHICH YOU COULD DO THIS PROJECT, NOW YOU'RE ABLE TO THINK MORE CREATIVELY AND THINK ABOUT SOLUTIONS THAT NOT JUST ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THAT PROPERTY OWNER AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO OBTAIN, BUT ALSO HOW DO WE ALSO ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE? THINGS THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO SEE. 
          REALLY IN TERMS OF A PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR WHAT GETS DEVELOPED, AND WITH A GREAT DEAL OF CERTAINTY TIED TO IT. 
          BECAUSE YOU ARE STIPULATING LINE BY LINE, EXACTLY WHAT THOSE EXPECTATIONS ARE FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT, SO THAT WHEN IT COMES BACK TO YOU, WHETHER THAT'S IN THE FORM OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, INITIALLY, THOSE EXPECTATIONS MUST BE MET BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT TO AFFORD. 
          >> ALSO, TO TALK ABOUT THE SETBACK NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL, THIS PUBLIC PROCESS GIVES THE APPLICANT ALONG WITH THE NEIGHBORS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR THEM? WHAT DO THEY WANT? THEY MAY NOT WANT, IF WE DICTATE WHAT EXACTLY THEY WANT, THEY MAY WANT TO AGREE ON SOMETHING, THEY WANT TO FENCE, AND SOME LANDSCAPING. 
          THEY COULD DECIDE HOW THEY WANT IT TO BE TOGETHER. 
          >> BUT IN MOST CASES, I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYBODY SAY I WANT TO WRITE UP AGAINST MY PROPERTY. 
          >> MARK THAT ONE DOESN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE NUMBER 1, THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T LIVE THERE. 
          HE DOESN'T WANT TO LOOK AT THE EXISTING HOUSE FROM 1975 RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM. 
          THE HOUSE HAS A BUFFER TOO SO THERE'S COMMON GROUND. 
          >> I BOUGHT A TWO STORY TOWNHOUSE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          >> YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU LIKE IT, YOU APPROVE IT, IF YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T APPROVE IT. 
          >> THOSE LITTLE TOWNHOUSES THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO ARE ON? 
          >> THIRTEEN. 
          >> THIRTEENTH STREET. 
          THERE'S HARDLY ANY SPACE. 
          THEY'RE NOT ATTACHED, BUT YOU CAN HARDLY EVEN SEE BETWEEN THEM. 
          >> WELL, THE GARAGE IS OKAY. 
          BUT THERE IS SPACE BETWEEN THEM. 
          [02:20:03]
          >> WHAT? THERE IS SPACE BETWEEN THEM. 
          I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T HEAR A WHOLE LOT OF OBJECTION. 
          BUT ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS WAS, I DON'T WANT BUILDING RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE AND NOT KNOWING WHAT THAT IS. 
          YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, I THINK IT COULD HAPPEN. 
          >> BUT I PUT THAT INTO THE PUD LANGUAGE WHERE YOU SAY, I WANT A 10 FOOT BUFFER. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> IT'S IN THERE. THEN THEY CAN'T BUILD IN THAT BUFFER AREA, AND THEY GOT A PLAN BASED ON WHAT YOU TELL THEM. 
          >> BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY. 
          >> MARK YOU'D LIKE TO KNOW ZONING. 
          MAYBE IT WOULD HELP TO SHOW SOME OTHER PUD LANGUAGE THAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE THAT WOULD SAY, HERE'S OUR NARRATIVE. 
          >>GIVE ME A MINUTE. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE DID HICKORY RIDGE. 
          IT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE, HICKORY RIDGE. 
          IT'S ONE OF THE MORE RECENT PUDS THAT I RECALL. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY SMALL IN SCALE. 
          IT HAS TWO TYPES OF HOUSING. 
          BUT ONE OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT CURRENTLY IS NOT ARTICULATED THERE WAS THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR INCREASED OPEN SPACE, AND ADDRESS OUTSIDE AREA STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS. 
          THAT WAS A BIG REASON WHY THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED IT IS WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR NOT ONLY THE ON SITE DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS, BUT EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WERE HAPPENING IN THE SURROUNDING AREA THROUGH THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT THEY WERE PUTTING IN PLACE. 
          YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT A PROBLEM BUILDING UP TO A PROPERTY LINE OR? 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO, HE SAID IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          >> WHAT WOULD STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING? 
          >> YOUR WRITTEN NARRATIVE FOR THAT PUD WOULD SAY, I WANT TO BUFFER NEXT TO THAT RESIDENTIAL. 
          >> THAT'S ALREADY IN? 
          >> YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO STIPULATE THAT PRECISELY. 
          >> WELL, I WOULD STIPULATE THAT IN THE SET. 
          THAT'S WHY I JUST SAID THERE OUGHT TO BE A SETBACK OR A BUFF THAT IS SIMILAR TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S CONTIGUOUS TO THE PUD. 
          IF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD HAS 10 FOOT SETBACKS, THEN YOUR PUD OUGHT TO HAVE SOMETHING SIMILAR. 
          FIVE FOOT OR WHATEVER IT IS, IT MAKES THE COMMUNITY MORE NEIGHBORLY, MORE SIMILAR. 
          >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT THE POINT IS FIVE FEET MAY NOT BE ENOUGH FOR SOME OF THEM, BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE UNCOMPLIMENTARY USES WHERE YOU WANT A 15 FOOT BUFFER. 
          >> I WOULD SAY A MINIMUM. 
          I'M NOT LOOKING FOR PUTTING IN A SPECIFIC NUMBER, BUT I THINK THAT IN SOME CASES, ESPECIALLY WITH RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME PROTECTION TOWARD THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          >> ITEM NUMBER 11 SAYS INCREASES LANDSCAPE BUFFERS BEYOND THE MINIMUM. 
          >> HOLD ON THERE. YOU'RE GETTING TOO FAST. WHICH SECTION IS THAT? 
          >> SEE OUR DEVELOPER DID THAT. 
          >> GIVE ME A PAGE. 
          >> THERE'S A BIG BUFFER BETWEEN. 
          >> IT'S ON PAGE 54. 
          >> AGREE TO IT. 
          >> IF YOU CAN GET, I'M ON PAGE 54, DON'T WORRY. 
          >> NUMBER 11. 
          >> NO, THAT'S A DIFFERENT 54. 
          >> EXHIBIT A. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> ANYBODY PULL UP THE WHOLE PACKAGE? [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> IT'S HERE AND IT'S ALSO PROVIDED RIGHT HERE. 
          >> INCREASE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS BEYOND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED OR. 
          THAT'S NUMBER 11, MARK. 
          >> THAT'S FOUR. 
          >> IT'S THERE. 
          >> REMEMBER, I'M BLIND. [LAUGHTER] COULD YOU BLOW IT UP. 
          I HAVE OLD MANS DISEASE. 
          [LAUGHTER] YOU'LL BE THERE SOON ENOUGH. 
          I CAN BLOW THIS ONE UP HERE. 
          >> IT IS ONE RECOMMENDATION. 
          IF IT IS THE INTENT TO REQUIRE A PUBLIC TOWN HALL OR INPUT, I'D CONSIDER ADDING SOME REQUIREMENTS ON HOW THAT HAS TO BE NOTICED OR SET OUT. 
          BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SIMPLY JUST TO CHECK THE BOX AND THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS, WELL, WE POSTED THIS ON FACEBOOK AND NO ONE SHOWED UP. 
          MAYBE IF YOU WANT TO CONSIDER HAVING JUST SOME NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, WHETHER YOU WANT THEM TO BE AS ONEROUS AND TRACK IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF APPLICATION WHERE YOU NEED TO PHYSICALLY POST AT THE SITE, NOTIFY CONTIGUOUS OWNERS, AND THEN PUBLISH IN THE NEWSPAPER, OR IF YOU JUST SAY, IT NEEDS TO BE PUBLISHED IN A NEWSPAPER AT LEAST ONCE, ADD A SPACE SUFFICIENT TO HOLD. 
          I THINK PUT SOME REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS NOTICING THAT MEETING WOULD BE BETTER THAN JUST SAYING, YOU NEED TO HAVE A MEETING AND THEN THEY COME IN AND SAY, WELL, WE DID A ZOOM MEETING. 
          >> I HAVE A SUGGESTION ON THAT BECAUSE I'VE DONE THAT IN THE COUNTY. 
          [02:25:01]
AND WE JUST DO WHATEVER THE PUD REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR MAILINGS. 
          SO IF IT'S A 1,000 FEET, 500 FEET, THREE AND WHATEVER THAT DISTANCE IS, YOU GIVE THEM A SPECIAL NOTICE AND WE ACTUALLY DID IT CERTIFIED, TO WHERE YOU GO AND THEY SIGNED IT AND THEY GOT IT. 
          BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL SHOW UP AT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND SAY, WE NEVER GOT IT, AND WE GO, WELL, HERE IT IS, YOU SIGNED FOR IT. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE, IS WHATEVER THE PUD ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS ARE, THAT'S WHAT THE WORKSHOP FOR THE PUBLIC IS. 
          >> YOU COULD RELY ON THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 11. 
          >> YES. 
          >> BUT THAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION IS TO AVOID IT SIMPLY BEING A PERFUNCTORY CHECK THE BOX, AND IT REALLY IS TO SOLICIT INPUT. 
          >> THAT OBJECTION IS TAKEN CARE OF WITH JASON. 
          >> YES. 
          >> WHAT ABOUT THE ONE ACRE? I INSIST ON ONE ACRE. 
          >> I WOULD SUPPORT THAT AS WELL. 
          MY CONCERN IS 0.75. 
          THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY, AT LEAST ONE ACRE. 
          WE WENT FROM FIVE DOWN TO ONE. 
          I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE AT LEAST SOME NUMBER, AND I THINK THE ONE IS A MUCH BETTER NUMBER. 
          >> AN EVEN NUMBER. 
          >> I THINK THE ONE OF PALM BEACH ACRE. 
          I THINK THE ONE IS PROBABLY A BETTER NUMBER. 
          SO IF ONE IS A BETTER NUMBER, WHAT DOES 0.92 HURT? 
          >> YOU SAYING 0.75. 
          >> WELL, 0.75. 
          >> THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE. 
          I'D GIVE YOU THE SQUARE FOOT IF I HAD A CALCULATOR. 
          >> BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS I THINK THIS FILTERS ITSELF AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S PRACTICAL AND DOABLE AND SENSIBLE. 
          I THINK IT PROBABLY IS GOING TO BE SENSIBLE FOR AN ACRE AND LESS SENSIBLE FOR 0.75. 
          BUT MAYBE WE JUST TRY, AND IF WE GET TOO MANY OR TOO FEW. 
          I'D RATHER ERR LOWER THAN HIGHER. 
          >> I'D RATHER ERR HIGHER THAN LOWER. 
          >> WELL, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT YOU TO SAY, WELL, LET'S WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED. 
          THAT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA. 
          I'M TELLING [LAUGHTER]. 
          IT'S A TERRIBLE IDEA. 
          THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DO. 
          LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. 
          >> WE DO IT EVERYDAY. 
          >> PULL THE PIN AND THROW IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. 
          >> THAT'S ALL WE DO. 
          >> WE'RE AT FIVE ACRES NOW. 
          ONE ACRE ALLOWS FOR SOME DEVELOPMENT, SOME CHANGE. 
          YOU GET DOWN TO THESE SMALL LITTLE PROPERTIES, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE PROBLEMS IN ADJACENT PROPERTIES, NEIGHBORHOODS AND OTHER THINGS. 
          AN ACRE IS NOT SO BAD. 
          >> MY QUESTION OR CONCERN, I GUESS, IT IS, NICK BROUGHT UP A SET OF ANALYTICS BASED ON HIS EXPERIENCE. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T HAVE THE STAFF FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RIGHT NUMBER IS BASED ON STATISTICALLY, WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE. 
          I'D RATHER GET A MORE PRECISE NUMBER, AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE COMMISSION AND SAY, LOOK, HERE'S THE HOMEWORK WE DID. HERE'S THE ANSWER. 
          IT'S 0.75, IT'S 0.91, WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE. 
          WE'RE SITTING THERE SAYING, OKAY, IT'S ONE ACRE. 
          WELL, I THINK IT OUGHT TO BE 2.26 ACRES. 
          YOU'RE PICKING A NUMBER OUT OF IT. 
          >> NO WE'RE NOT. 
          >> I WILL SAY, I THINK THAT THIS VERY DISCUSSION AND ITS CIRCULAR NATURE RIGHT NOW IS PRECISELY WHY YOU ENDED UP GOING TO ZERO. 
          >> NO. 
          >> I DO. I'M SURE EXACTLY WHAT THAT NUMBER REALLY DOES LOOK LIKE. 
          IT WAS THEN DETERMINED, WELL, LOOK AT EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE ADDING INTO THIS NOW. 
          IT WILL SELF FILTER TO A LARGE DEGREE, WHICH IS WHEN I DID FINALLY BECOME MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE POTENTIAL OF ZERO. 
          UP TO THAT POINT, I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. 
          I KNOW THAT YOU COULD SENSE THAT WITH HAVING A ZERO ACREAGE. 
          BUT AS WE ADDED MORE INTO IT, I SEE WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LEVELING EFFECT THERE. 
          AND GUESS WHAT? AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE PRECISELY WHAT IS INCLUDED AND WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AND WHAT IS NOT. 
          YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC DIRECTLY ABOUT WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE, WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE EARLY IN THE PLANNING PHASE, UNLIKE EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAW TONIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHAT THIS SERVES TO OVERCOME. 
          >> I WANT TO ANSWER PETE'S QUESTION 
          [02:30:01]
BECAUSE THE DATA THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE WHOLE CASE, MOST OF THEM HAD A MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AND SEVERAL OF THEM HAD A ONE ACRE SIZE. 
          MOST OF THEM WERE LARGER SIZES, WHICH IS WHERE WE GOT STARTED AT. 
          BUT TO ME, ONE ACRE MAKES SENSE FOR THIS TYPE OF A PROJECT FOR A PUD. 
          THE THINGS YOU WANT TO SEE CAN HAPPEN IN A AN ACRE. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN A HALF AN ACRE OR THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE. 
          >> IT'S TOO SMALL. 
          >> BUT NOBODY IS PROHIBITING AN ACRE. YOU CAN DO AN ACRE. 
          >> NO. IF YOU HAVE A MINIMUM PUD, ONE ACRE, PERIOD. 
          THAT'S THE MINIMUM THE CITY WANTS TO SEE ON A PUD. 
          >> WHERE IS THAT WRITTEN THAT THAT'S WHAT THE CITY WANTS TO SEE? 
          >> WE'RE DECIDING WHAT THE CITY WANTS TO SEE. 
          >> WE'RE DECIDING. 
          >> SO YOU. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> WHEN THIS PROCESS STARTED, I STOOD UP AND SAID, WE OUGHT TO HAVE A PUD WITH NO MINIMUM. 
          LET THEM GO AHEAD AND RUN THEM UP. 
          I HAVE SINCE CHANGED MY MIND AND HAVE GIVEN MORE THOUGHT TO IT, LOOKED AROUND, CONSIDERED SOME OF THE PROJECTS I'VE LOOKED AT IN NEWER VIEW, AND I HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM OF AT LEAST ONE ACRE IN THAT PROCESS. 
          OTHERWISE, YOU LOSE MORE THAN YOU GAIN. 
          >> WE KNOW WHERE YOU STAND. 
          >> ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I SEE WITH HAVING THESE SMALLER AND SMALLER PIECES IS THAT WHAT IT DOES DO IS GIVES YOU THIS FLEXIBILITY. 
          WE TALKED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PUT A HOUSE IN A DIFFERENT AREA AND HAVE LESS SETBACKS AND ALL OTHER THINGS THAT CAN MAKE IT A MORE CREATIVE PROJECT. 
          BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT NOT HAVING AN ACREAGE SPECIFIED. 
          I TOO VOTED FOR THE ZERO ACREAGE. 
          AND AFTER I THOUGHT ABOUT IT A LOT, AND I'VE TALKED TO PLENTY PEOPLE. 
          I'VE TALKED TO A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT. 
          I THINK AS A MINIMUM, A ONE ACRE. 
          I JUST THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOME ACREAGE ON THERE. 
          >> DID YOU DO. 
          >> I JUST TURNED IT BACK. 
          >> IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN GET SOME ADDITIONAL NUMBERS? IS THE PROBABILITY OF HAVING FIVE ACRES THAT COULD BE USED FOR A PUD INSIDE THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS IS PROBABLY CLOSE TO 1%. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW. THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO. 
          >> WE'VE ALREADY HEARD THAT PART. 
          WE KNOW THAT THE CURRENT STANDARD IS NOT REASONABLE, THAT WE NEED TO REDUCE THAT. 
          >> NOW THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WOULD IT BE IF SAY TWO ACRES VERSUS ONE ACRE VERSUS A MORE PRECISE NUMBER BASED ON THE LAST 27 ACTIONS THAT HAVE GONE. 
          >>I DON'T KNOW THAT STAFF CAN GET THAT TO US. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW EITHER. 
          >> WE'VE ASKED THEM FOR THAT IN THE PAST, AND THERE'S ALL KINDS OF NUMBERS AND STATISTICS. 
          >> GO ON CHATBOT AND ASK IT. IT'LL GIVE YOU THE ANSWER. 
          >> REALLY. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT'S RIGHT. 
          >> I THINK THE REALITY OF IT, HAVING LOOKED AT SEEMINGLY, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY PARCEL AROUND HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO GET 10 TIMES AS MANY PARCELS UNDER AN ACRE AS YOU'RE GOING TO GET AT ONE ACRE. 
          THERE'S JUST A TON OF 0.75, 0.77, 0.91 AND THERE AREN'T MANY ONE ACRE PARCELS. 
          THEY'RE ACRE AND A HALF A FEW, BUT NOT MANY. 
          SO I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO WIND UP HAPPENING IF YOU GO IN WITH ONE ACRE, IT'S GOING TO BE THE PEOPLE THAT ANNEX. 
          THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE FILING THE PUDS, AND THAT ADDS ANOTHER LEVEL, I WOULDN'T SAY COMPLICATION, BUT IT'S ANOTHER LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY ON THEM. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO HELP REDEVELOP IN THE CITY, NOT NECESSARILY CATER TO THE ANNEXATION PEOPLE. 
          >> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LARGER PARCELS. 
          >> THERE ARE NOT. THERE REALLY AREN'T. 
          MOST OF THEM ARE GOVERNMENT OWNED. 
          >> WELL, I MEANT THEY'RE CURRENTLY OWNED, BUT YOU'VE GOT A [INAUDIBLE] PARCEL OUT THERE. 
          >> THEY'RE PRIVATELY OWNED OR GOVERNMENT. 
          >> I AGREE. 
          >> THEY'RE LARGE. 
          >> BUT THERE'S 300 ACRES OUT THERE THAT ONE DAY COULD DO SOMETHING. 
          AVAILABILITY IS SOMEONE PUTTING IT ON THE MARKET FOR SALE AND REDEVELOPING. 
          >> I'M JUST TELLING YOU IF YOU GO UP AND DOWN THESE STREETS, THERE ARE VERY FEW NON-GOVERNMENT OWNED PARCELS THAT ARE ONE ACRE OR LARGER. 
          >> IS THAT ALL ZONED? 
          >> THEY'RE ALL ZONED FOR GOVERNMENT BECAUSE GOVERNMENT OWNS HALF THE CITY. 
          [02:35:02]
THE REALITY IS 0.75 IS NOT A FICTIONAL NUMBER. 
          IT'S NOT DRAWN OUT OF THE AIR. 
          IT'S DRAWN OUT OF WHAT WE'VE SEEN COME BEFORE. 
          WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN 0.75 OR JUST SLIGHTLY LARGER. 
          >> IS THERE A PARTICULAR PARCEL THAT WOULD MEET THE 0.75 THAT WOULDN'T MEET THE ONE ACRE? 
          >> ABSOLUTELY. GO DRIVE UP AND DOWN 14TH STREET. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF 0.91 ACRE PARCELS. 
          >> I'M TALKING ABOUT 14. I'M TALKING ABOUT DOWNTOWN FERNANDINA. 
          >> DOWNTOWN? PROBABLY NOT. 
          >> 14TH STREET, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF 85 OR 100 LOTS OUT THERE. 
          MY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COMBINE LOTS TO DO WHATEVER THE MINIMUM IS GOING TO BE. 
          IF I WANT TO DO A PUD AND I'VE SET ON THAT, I'LL FIND MY ACRES AND GET IT TOGETHER. 
          >> IT'S NOT THAT EASY. 
          >> IT REALLY ISN'T. 
          >> THERE'S NOTHING DOWNTOWN. 
          >> THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T HAPPEN VERY OFTEN. 
          >> WELL, THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT EASY IS NOT A BAD THING FOR ME RIGHT NOW. 
          >> I WILL SAY TONIGHT THIS 0.79, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR ONE BECAUSE THEY MIGHT ARRANGE THE STRUCTURES A LITTLE DIFFERENT TO AVOID SOME OF THE TREES. 
          >> IT'S A TINY HOUSE. IT'S A PERFECT TINY HOUSE. 
          >> IT COULD HAVE BEEN A GOOD PUD. 
          >> WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG WITH THE PUD TONIGHT ON THAT PARCEL? WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DOWNSIDE OF THAT? 
          >> WHAT WAS IT AGAIN? 
          >> 0.79. >> 0.79. 
          >> THAT WAS SIX TOWN HOUSES. 
          >> WHERE'S THE DOWNSIDE OF DOING SIX TINY HOUSES OR SOMETHING ELSE AND FIXING THE NEIGHBORS STORMWATER ISSUE. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] AND TREES. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] MORE TREES. WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE HARM OF THAT IN CANADA FOR A PUD? 
          >> WHAT WAS THAT, 0.79? 
          >> I DON'T WANT AN ANSWER FOR YOU. 
          >> 0.79. >> I WAS JUST THINKING INDIRECTLY. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] 0.77. 
          >> I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A MINIMUM TOO. I AGREE. 
          >> MY SOLUTION IS 0.75. 
          >> WE'RE TALKING 5-6000 SQUARE FEET. 
          >> WE'RE 10,890 SQUARE FEET. 
          >> TO ME, THE ACRE IS THE NUMBER. 
          >> JUST TAKE ME THROUGH. IF WE HAVE A PUD AND IT'S ONE ACRE, IT HAPPENS TO BE R1, I CAN ONLY PUT FOUR HOUSES ON IT. 
          >> THAT WOULD BE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. 
          YOU GET FOUR UNITS PER ACRE. 
          >> IF I GO WITH THE PUD, I CAN STILL ONLY PUT FOUR RESIDENCES PER ACRE. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> IF I GO WITH POINT SAY 75, NOW I'M DOWN TO. 
          >> THREE UNITS. 
          >> I THINK I GOT ENOUGH PERIPHERAL TO GET THREE HOUSES PER ACRE. 
          THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. 
          >> YOUR FUTURE LAND MAP THAT GUIDES THE WHOLE THING. 
          >> TECHNICALLY, AS WRITTEN, THIS DOES NOT INCREASE THE DENSITY. 
          STILL IT'S THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          IT'S JUST HOW YOU POSITION THAT. 
          >> HOW DO YOU POSITION THEM AROUND THE SITE. 
          >> I THINK THAT THIS APPLICATION EARLIER WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF ONE OF THOSE THAT COULD HAVE BENEFITED WITH THE FLEXIBILITY OF PUD WOULD HAVE ALLOWED. 
          THERE'S MORE GIVE AND TAKE RATHER THAN THEY COME IN AND SAY, THIS IS THEIR APPLICATION. 
          IT'S MORE OF A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. 
          BUT THE DENSITY IS NOT INCREASED WITH THIS CHAIN. 
          >> THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS, HAD A MEETING, TALKED ABOUT THE CONCERNS, SEE HOW THEY COULD HAVE ADDRESSED THEM PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 
          >> MR. CHAIR, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          >> WELL, I'M NOT READY TO FINISH THIS YET. 
          >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> LET'S STEP BACK A SECOND. 
          BECAUSE I'M THINKING OF PROBABLY ONE OF OUR TOUGHEST TIMES WAS LOOKING AT THE TRINGALI PROPERTY. 
          IN MY LITTLE CALCULATIONS, WHICH ARE PROBABLY NOT ACCURATE. 
          I FIGURED OUT WHAT THAT BLOCK WOULD BE FROM A SQUARE FOOTAGE BASIS. 
          THEN I DID THE CALCULATION FOR WHAT IS 0.75. 
          BASICALLY, THAT IS THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THE TRINGALI PROPERTY THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT CAME BEFORE US IS. 
          AND SO WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINGALI PROPERTY AS A PUD. 
          >> I GET TRINGALI WOULD BE AN ACRE. 
          >> HOW MUCH DID YOU GET AN ACRE WHEN YOU ADD UP ALL THE PARCELS THAT ARE THERE? THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT PARCELS THERE. 
          >> THAT'S ONE. 
          >> THAT'S 1.23. IT'S OVER AN ACRE. 
          >> I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, I'D LOOK AT AN AREAL AND OWNERSHIPS IN THE CITY, 
          [02:40:04]
YOU'LL SEE THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF VACANT UNIMPROVED PROPERTIES IN LAND. 
          >> KELLY YOU GOT SOMETHING? 
          >> IT'S EXACTLY ONE. 
          >> EXACTLY ONE WHAT? 
          >> ACRE. EXACTLY ONE. 
          >> BUT THINK ABOUT THE PUBLIC PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THAT FROM THE BEGINNING, AND THE LEVEL OF NEGOTIATION AND AWARENESS THAT COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE TO BUILD CONSENSUS AS A COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. 
          >> BECAUSE IT WAS VERY ADVERSARIAL. 
          >> IT SERVES TO MAKE A PROCESS THAT CAN BE VERY ADVERSARIAL, ONE THAT BECOMES MUCH MORE COLLABORATIVE. 
          >> WELL, I THINK WE'RE ON AGREEMENT THAT WE'D LIKE TO PUT, WE ARE JUST ON [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> LET'S JUST TAKE A VOTE, AND IF IT GOES 0.75, I DON'T KNOW,0.75, OR ONE GOES ONE [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> EVERYBODY. NICK, TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. 
          >> VOTE ON HIS MOTION, YES OR NO? 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, AS SOON AS I FIND AGENDA PACK IT. 
          THAT WE ADOPT THE EXISTING LANGUAGE GENERATED BY STAFF FOR. 
          >> PAV CASE 2024-0010, MODIFYING THE STANDARDS FOR PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD OVERLAY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 4.0301 STANDARDS. 
          I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT STAFF CHANGES, AND I MOVE THAT WE SET A MINIMUM ACREAGE TO 0.75 ACRES. 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> WHOEVER SIT DOWN THERE. 
          >> COULD WE ALSO INCORPORATE ATTORNEY FOOL'S RECOMMENDATION TO ADD PUBLIC NOTICE? 
          >> YES. I WILL MODIFY MY MOTION TO INCLUDE THE WORKSHOP PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OR THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP NOTIFICATION FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD MIRROR THE PUD ADVERTISEMENT STANDARDS. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> MAY HAVE YOU CALL THE ROLL ON THIS VOTE? YOU SECONDED IT? 
          >> I DID. 
          >> I THINK HE DID. 
          >> MEMBER GILLETTE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MEMBER STEVENSON? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MEMBER BENNETT? 
          >> NO. I'M ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ACREAGE. 
          >> MEMBER ROBIS? 
          >> NO. I'M ONLY BECAUSE OF THE ACREAGE. 
          >> MEMBER GINGER? 
          >> YES. 
          >> CHAIR DOSTER? 
          >> YES. 
          >> FOUR HUNDRED AND TWO, I'LL PASS IT. 
          >> FOUR HUNDRED AND TWO PASSES. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> WE'VE MADE OUR POINT, SO MISS COOK GO TO THE POINT. 
          >> THAT'S GOOD DISCUSSION. 
          >> IS THAT SETTLED THIS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> HE SETTLED IT FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION IN THE FORM OF AN ORDINANCE. 
          I DO NOT EXPECT THIS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMISSION UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY. 
          >> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS COASTAL HAZARD. 
          [6.1 Board Discussion - Coastal High-Hazard Areas]
          >> I BELIEVE THAT QUESTION NOW HAS BEEN ADDRESSED THE LAST WEEK. 
          THIS WAS PICKED UP FROM THE MEETING FROM THE LAST PAB. 
          AT THE END OF THE MEETING, WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA WAS, AND WE LOOKED AT THE DEFINITION ON THE MAP. 
          THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION, BUT WE MADE SURE WE IN THE PART THAT IS CONSIDERED WHAT THE DEFINITION OF IS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NOT THE CATEGORY ONE EVACUATION. 
          >> COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA IS DEFINED IN THE COMP PLAN, AND IT'S ALSO DEFINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT BOTH. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> BUT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT MAKING CHANGES TO THAT, CORRECT? 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO, IT COMPLIES WITH STATE STATUTE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          >> MY ONE OBJECTION TO THE WAY IT IS NOW, IS THE HOTEL THAT WE LOOKED AT ON THE BEACH, WATER PROBABLY COMES ALMOST UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE, AND IT'S NOT IN THE SPECIAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. 
          >> IT'S NOT WITHIN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA AS STATUTORILY DEFINED AND ADOPTED BY OUR CONFINAL LINE DEVELOPMENT. 
          TO BE CLEAR, THERE ARE STORM SURGE ZONES ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT IS THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, AND IT IS OUTSIDE OF THAT SURGE ONE ZONE. 
          >> WHICH HOTEL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, MARK? 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] CONSIST OF STATUTE. 
          >> THEY DIDN'T COME BACK TO ME. 
          >> MR. FRICK PROPERTY. 
          >> I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN CATEGORY. I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN THERE. 
          >> THE ONE ON THE OUTSIDE SIDE IS? 
          >> I WAS TOLD TO LOOK AT THE CATEGORY ONE OR SOMETHING CATEGORY. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, THAT PROPERTY IS NOT IN COASTAL HIGH AS IT WOULD. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          [02:45:01]
          >> I'VE SEEN WATER COME OVER FLETCHER ON A BAD STORM. 
          THAT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING ADDED TO THAT IF WE REALLY WANT TO PROTECT THE PROPERTIES IN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR WHATEVER. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE BETTER DEFINED, BECAUSE IT'S NOT DOING ANYTHING NOW ADDING A COLLAPSED SEA WALL ONE DAY TO THE BEACH. 
          >> HERE'S WHAT THE COMP PLAN SAYS. 
          IT SAYS, WHAT IS A COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. 
          THE AREA BELOW THE ELEVATION OF A CATEGORY ONE STORM SURGE LINE AS ESTABLISHED BY THE SEA LAKE OLA SURGES FROM HURRICANE IT'S CALLED THE SLOTS REPORT, COMPUTERIZED STORM SURGE MOD. 
          THAT'S HOW IT'S DEFINED. 
          >> WHEN I WAS TO LAST TIME WHEN I ASKED ABOUT IT SOMEBODY IT UP. 
          PULL IT UP UP THERE AND SHOW IT. 
          >> I CAN SHOW YOU HOW TO DO THAT, AGAIN. IT'S NOT WITHIN IT. 
          >> IT IS NOT WITHIN IT. 
          >> IT'S NOT WITHIN ALL. 
          >> IT IS NOT. 
          >> NO, IT'S NOT. 
          >> THAT DEFINITION ADOPTED IN OUR CORE PLAN IS FROM STATE STATUTE. 
          >> BUT SHOULD IT BE CHANGED? THE STATE STATUTES, ISN'T IT? 
          >> YES. 
          >> NECESSARILY BEST. 
          >> AT A LOCAL LEVEL, YOU COULD ADOPT A HIGHER STANDARD, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. 
          >> WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT FLOODING. 
          I HAVE TO USE THAT TERM CLIMATE CHANGE BECAUSE THE GOVERNOR MAY STRIKE ME DEAD. 
          BUT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THESE THINGS, AND WE'VE SEEN WATER GO OVER SOME OF THESE AREAS. 
          SHOULD WE BE RETHINKING THAT? 
          >> NO. 
          >> YOU'RE SAYING, NO. 
          >> WOULD YOU CHANGE IT TO THE HOTELS? 
          >> WELL, IN THAT PROPERTY, I WOULD THINK WOULD BE IN THE COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. 
          NOT AS CURRENTLY DEFINED. 
          >> IT'S GOT A BIG SAND IN FRONT OF IT. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY PART OF ITS IN CATEGORY 3 HURRICANE. 
          THIS IS BASED ON MATH AND SCIENCE AND MODELS, WE'RE NOT JUST SAYING I'VE SEEN WATER THERE SO WE SHOULD CHANGE IT. 
          IT'S REAL. USED TO HAVE ME REAL, BUT THIS HAS GOTTEN A LOT. 
          >> IT DOESN'T. 
          >> NO, THIS IS A STATE MODEL. 
          >> I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THIS IN GREAT DEPTH. 
          I LOOKED AT SOMETHING. 
          IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ACCEPTING. 
          WHEN WE'RE IN THE PLANNING AND WORRYING AND STAGE OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN OUR BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY. 
          >> SOME OF THAT PROPERTY IS, ACTUALLY, IN A CATEGORY 4 SURGE ZONE. 
          >> BUT NOW IT'S NOT IN ANY HIGH HAZARD. 
          >> THE ONLY PORTION OF THE COASTLINE, IN THAT AREA WITHIN THE DEFINED COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA, IS ON THE SEAWARD SIDE OF THE FRONTAL DUNE. 
          >> OBVIOUSLY I WOULD PUT IT ON THE WEST SIDE OF FLETCHER. 
          >> NOW, IT'S STATUTORILY DEFINED. 
          TO PUT IT ON THE WEST SIDE OF FLETCHER, IF YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT THAT, YOU MAY INCORPORATE POTENTIALLY SOME CATEGORY 5 STORM SURGE. 
          >> BUT WHAT'S ALL THAT RED AREA? 
          >> THAT IS A CATEGORY 1. 
          >> CATEGORY 1. 
          >> LOOK, BASED ON THE MODELS ON SOME PROPERTIES, IT DOES EXTEND FURTHER INLAND AND IT IS AFFECTED. 
          BUT ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, IT DOES NOT. 
          >> I SHOULDN'T BE THINKING ABOUT THIS. 
          >> THE NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS TO PRIMARILY BRING YOU AND YOU UP TO DATE ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THE SADLER ROAD. 
          I'VE REALLY ASKED MARGARET TO DO THIS FOR US, PUT UP THE MAP, PUT UP THE PART OF THE LDC, THAT OR THE COMP PLAN. 
          TO GO QUICKLY THROUGH THAT, STAFF IS WORKING ON A PARAGRAPH 4 OR SO TO HAVE THE COMMISSION REVIEW AND THE ENTIRE BOARD WILL REVIEW THAT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL GOOD WITH THAT. 
          BY THE WAY, I THINK WE'VE ALL READ THE MINUTES, THE MINUTES ARE PRETTY THOROUGH ONE. 
          ON THIS AS WELL. I FELT LIKE WE COULD GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERVIEW. 
          >> THE STAFF JUST DID A BRIEF PRESENTATION HERE OF LITTLE POWERPOINT, JUST TO TALK ABOUT YOUR UPDATE, AND THAT RECAP WHAT YOU'VE GOTTEN ACCOMPLISH. 
          YOU FORMALIZE THE INTENT TO FORM A SADLER ROAD OVERLAY. 
          YOU BASED IT ON THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES. 
          [02:50:06]
YOU DEVELOPED A PURPOSE AND VISION STATEMENT FOR THE OVERLAY DISTRICT USING THE OBJECTIVES. 
          I JUST POINTED OUT JUST SOME OF THE AREAS OF THE COMP PLAN THAT ACTUALLY, AND THEY SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED SADLER ROAD. 
          YOU WENT THROUGH THAT TO COME UP WITH YOUR OBJECTIVES IN YOUR STATEMENT. 
          YOU CREATED A MAP, YOU DECIDED ON THE MAP FOR THE OVERLAY TO INCLUDE THE AREAS, AND YOU DECIDED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO INCLUDE ALL THE PARCELS ALONG SADLER ROAD, REGARDLESS OF THE ZONING AND REGARDLESS OF IF THEY WERE IN THE CITY OR NOT. 
          >> WE KNOW WHICH ONES ARE COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL ALL OF THAT. 
          >> CORRECT. WE'LL GET TO THAT JUST ONE SECOND. 
          THAT PUTS YOU AS STEP 2. 
          YOU ACCOMPLISH STEP 1 BY HAVING YOUR GOALS AND YOUR OBJECTIVES AND COMING UP WITH A BOUNDARY. 
          THEN YOUR NEXT STEP IS YOU'VE DIRECTED STAFF TO HONE IN ON THAT MAP, WHICH IS WHAT I JUST SHOWED YOU, AND ALSO TO DO START DOING SOME RESEARCH ON PARCELS. 
          WE DID GIVE YOU SOME RESEARCH ON THE PARCEL NUMBERS AND THE NUMBER OF ACREAGE IN THE AREA. 
          BUT AT YOUR LAST WORK SESSION, YOU ASKED FOR SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, LIKE BUILDABLE AREA, AND I CAN'T SAY THAT WE'VE BUILT OUT THE COLUMNS, AND WE'RE WORKING ON PROVIDING YOU THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR YOUR RESEARCH TO THINK ABOUT AT YOUR DECK FEED. 
          QUICKLY, AFTER WE GET ALL THAT DONE, AND YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, WE'LL BE MOVING TO STEP 3, WHICH IS THE INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS AND OUTPUT. 
          THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WAS USED FOR THE EIGHTH STREET SMALL AREA PLAN. 
          IT JUST HAS DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, IMPROVEMENT GROUPS, ADVISORY BOARDS, PROPERTY OWNERS. 
          WE CAN START THINKING ABOUT WHAT THAT WORKING GROUP LOOKS LIKE AND WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET INPUT. 
          >> THIS WAS THE GROUP THAT WE SAID AT SOME POINT IN THIS, PERHAPS MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR OF INTERESTED GROUPS WOULD, ACTUALLY, JOIN THE THE TEAM OR THE COMMITTEE. 
          >> THERE'S TWO PARTS OF IT. ONE WOULD BE THE GROUP AND WHAT THOSE MEMBERS WILL LOOK LIKE, BUT THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE OVERALL CITIZENS AS A WHOLE THAT WOULD COME TO THE INPUT. 
          IN THAT PART OF STEP 3, THAT WOULD BE WHERE WE WRITE THE MEMO THAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT TO COMMISSION AND JUST GIVE THAT TO THEM, AND THEN YOU WOULD START CREATING THIS WORK GROUP. 
          THEN THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THAT WE REALLY START THE PUBLIC MEETINGS. 
          WE VISUALIZE THAT THAT PART WOULD BE WHERE STAFF STARTS COORDINATING THAT. 
          ONCE YOU DECIDE ON YOUR WORKING GROUP, AND THEY'VE MET SOME, AND YOU WORK, THEN WE WOULD START GOING TO THE STEP 4, WHICH WOULD BE PLANNING OUT HOW THAT PROGRAM IS GOING TO LOOK BACK. 
          OF COURSE, WE'D BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD TO TALK ABOUT, BUT COORDINATING A PUBLIC INPUT PROGRAM. 
          HOW ARE WE GOING TO START RECEIVING INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC? WE JUST PUT SOME EXAMPLES UP THERE, WE COULD DO IT THROUGH SURVEYS OR CHARETTE OR PUBLICATIONS, POP UP TABLES AT EVENTS, SOCIAL MEDIA, JUST TRYING TO MAYBE HAVE PEOPLE COME TO SOME OF YOUR MEETINGS AND GIVE YOU SOME FEEDBACK. 
          JUST BRAINSTORMING, AND HOW THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, GETTING THE PLACES, GETTING THE ADVERTISEMENT. 
          WE FEEL LIKE AT THAT POINT, ONCE YOU DECIDE ON YOUR WORKING GROUP AND ALL THEN MAYBE STAFF WOULD START DOING THAT PART TO ORGANIZE FOR YOU, FOR THE WORKING GROUP TO COME TO THESE MEETINGS, AND HELP FACILITATE THE MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC. 
          >> WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS TOO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF, AND IF YOU GO TO THE [INAUDIBLE] N AND 104, IT'LL THAT'LL GIVE YOU A GOOD OUTLINE OF WHAT WE HAVE IN MIND, BUT THERE ARE THINGS BEING DISCUSSED, ALL THE PARKING ISSUES, THE CONNECTIVITY ISSUES, THE SIGNAGE ISSUES, THE IMPERVIOUS IT'S ALL BEING DISCUSSED. 
          THEN AS WE GET INTO THE INPUT WITH FOLKS, WE'LL BEGIN FINE TUNING, ADDING, DELETING, AND PUSHING THIS THING ALL TOGETHER. 
          >> WELL, JUST A QUESTION, IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT WHAT THE COUNTY'S DOING ON ON THE T2T DO? IS THERE ANYTHING WE COULD GET OUT OF THAT IN TERMS OF THAT'S THEIR THING FOR 200 A1A, BASICALLY. 
          IT'S A SAME CONCEPT, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT'S THE SAME TURF. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY. 
          >> I THINK I GOT THE ANSWER. 
          >> GLAD WE DON'T ALLOW WEAPONS IN HERE. 
          >> WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ON THIS AND HAVING THEM BE KNOWLEDGEABLE OF AND PARTICIPATING IN THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'RE CREATING HERE IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          [02:55:04]
THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED. 
          >> BECAUSE IT IS A COUNTY ROLE. 
          >> AS MARGARET SHOWED THE MAP, WE INCLUDED THE COUNTY IN OUR MAP HOPING THAT THEY'LL ADAPT WHAT WE DO. 
          I THINK SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE'VE GOTTEN, FROM COUNTY PLANNING FOLKS, HAS BEEN POSITIVE THERE. 
          >> THEY'RE REAL EXCITED. THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US CONSISTENT CORRIDOR, AND I THINK YOU WOULD GET THEM TO BUY INTO MAYBE TRYING TO HELP CREATE THAT. BUT THEY WANT TO PLAN. 
          THEN THEY HAVE A CHASE BANK THAT THEY HAVE, YOU CAN TELL A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE WHAT THEIR STREET GATE LOOKS LIKE, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LITTLE HIGHER STANDARDS ON WHAT LIKE, SINCE IT WASN'T IT WAS A NEW DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT STILL WAS WITHIN THE EXISTING LOOP. 
          THEY HAVE A REALLY NICE STREET SKATE THERE. 
          THEY'RE EXCITED, AND THEY WANT TO BE A PART OF IT. 
          >> CAN I JUST ADDRESS THE WORKING GROUP FOR A MINUTE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> JUST BY THE MERE FACT THAT WE START HOLDING MEETINGS, THERE WILL BE PEOPLE THAT WILL COME TO THOSE MEETINGS AND WILL CONTINUOUSLY COME TO THOSE MEETINGS OVER TIME, AND WILL BECOME PART OF THAT WORKING GROUP. 
          WHICH THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE DID THE H3 STUFF. 
          >> SOMETIME TWO MEETINGS, SOMETIMES THREE. 
          >> YEAH, IT DOES. 
          RIGHT. THAT'S A QUICK UPDATE. 
          I THINK OUR NEXT WORKSHOP IS ON THE 25TH. 
          >> THE COMMISSION FIRST. 
          >> OH, OKAY. WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME ON THE PARAGRAPH? 
          >> YOU CAN GO TO THE COMMISSION SO WE GET A FEEDBACK FROM THEM SO WE CAN TALK TO OUR NEXT MEETING AFTER THAT. 
          >> THAT'S RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A TIME FRAME FOR STANDARD DEVELOPING? 
          >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR. 
          YOU WANT TO SEE DRAFT VERSION OF A MEMO BEFORE WE SEND IT OUT? 
          >> YES. 
          >> IT COVERS ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE JUST COVERED HERE. 
          >> MOST DEFINITELY. 
          >> WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IS A DRAFT MEMO BRINGING THE COMMISSION UP TO DATE ON WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          >> THE LEVEL OF DETAIL I'M RELYING ON YOU. 
          >> THE 25TH? 
          >> NO. 
          >> WE CAN GET THAT PREPARED REALLY QUICKLY. 
          BUT IS IT THE EXPECTATION OF THE BOARD THAT YOU WILL THEN TALK ABOUT THAT MEMO BEFORE IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION, OR IS IT OKAY TO GO OUT ONCE WE'VE SENT YOU THE DRAFT AND INCORPORATED ANY EDITS OR REVISIONS THAT YOU INDIVIDUALLY MAY HAVE? 
          >> I SAY SEND TO THE CHAIRMAN IF HE LIKES IT TO SEND IT. 
          >> WE PROBABLY SHOULD. 
          >> HAVE SOME OF THAT DETAIL. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> ABSOLUTELY. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> IS IN CONTEXT. 
          >> ARE THE REST OF YOU OKAY WITH ME LOOKING AT THAT? 
          >> ONLY IF YOU SHARE. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> WE'LL DO THAT. 
          >> I THINK IT CAN HAPPEN VERY QUICKLY WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK MOVING FORWARD. 
          >> I STILL WANT A COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOU [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> GOT YOU. 
          >> IF YOU FEEL A NEED FOR THE SMALL GROUP TO GET TOGETHER ONE MORE TIME TO REVIEW THAT, WE CAN SCHEDULE THAT. 
          >> ARE YOU GOING TO DO IT AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING ON THE 17TH? 
          >> IT'S GOING TO BE IN MEMO. 
          >> JUST A MEMO. 
          >> I'M NOT INTENDING FOR THERE TO BE A PRESENTATION OR A REQUEST OR PRESENTATION. 
          IT WILL BE A MEMO TO COMMISSION. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT WE DECIDED. 
          >> THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          >> GOOD. I THINK THE LAST THING ON OUR AGENDA IS MARK'S MEMO. 
          [6.2 Summary of Subcommittee Findings to Date - Sadler Road Overlay]
          >> THE [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> I WANT TO BRING YOU UP TO DATE ON A SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE FOR 10304. 
          >> FINE. 
          >> KEN AND I HAVE MET ALONG WITH MARGARET, AND THAT WAS IT, WASN'T IT? 
          >> THAT'S THE SUBCOMMITTEE OF ONE. 
          >> BUT I'VE PREPARED THIS, WHICH IS JUST MY THOUGHTS HERE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. 
          LET ME JUST BACK UP FOR A MINUTE. 
          THE [INAUDIBLE] PLATTE HAS A NUMBER UNKNOWN, WILL NEVER BE FOUND, [LAUGHTER] OF 25-FOOT LOTS IN THERE. 
          WHICH ARE PART OF THE PLATTE OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. 
          WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW IS AS A PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PLANNING PEOPLE, WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT MEANS FOR INCREASED DENSITY IN THE CITY, WHAT INCREASED INTENSITY THERE IS IN THE CITY. 
          BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AN OWNER DECIDES TO CHANGE THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY, OR HOWEVER THEY'RE USING IT. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE AND YOU ZERO IN ON ANY OWNERSHIP PARCEL, IN SOME CASES, AND I ALWAYS USE LOST PALMS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WORST CASE SCENARIO FOR THE CITY, 
          [03:00:06]
IT HAS APPROXIMATELY 32, AND I THINK THAT'S CLOSE OF THESE 25-FOOT LOCKS. 
          IN YOUR MIND, JUST IMAGINE THAT THEY CAN TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE, AND NOBODY'S GOING TO OBJECT. 
          HERE IS A NICE ONE OLD BLOCK OF OPEN LAND, ONE HOUSE, NOW HAS 32 HOUSES ON IT. 
          IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT'S NOT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, WHAT WAS THE WORD? 
          >> CHARACTER. 
          >> CHARACTER. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. 
          THAT'S A BIG THING HERE. 
          FOR PLANNING PURPOSES, RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW. 
          ONE WAY TO FIX THAT IS MY SUGGESTION HERE, IS THAT WE SET UP SOME TIME FRAME. 
          I'VE SUGGESTED THE END OF THIS YEAR. 
          BECAUSE IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE HAD MEETINGS, USUALLY THE OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN, WELL, I PLANNED TO SAVE THAT PROPERTY FOR MY RETIREMENT AND I WAS GOING TO SELL IT OFF FOR DEVELOPMENT. 
          OR I HAVE FOUR KIDS AND I WANT TO BUILD FOUR HOUSES ON MY PROPERTY AND I CAN THEN SUBDIVIDE IT. 
          I KNOW WHO USE THAT TERM, SUBDIVIDE, I ASSURE YOU. 
          BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY PLANTED FOR FOUR LOTS, WE CAN BUILD FOUR HOUSES BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE 25. 
          WELL, THAT'S GREAT, BUT WE'RE SITTING HERE AS A CITY. 
          IMAGINE WHAT THAT DOES TO YOU IF YOU'RE THE NEIGHBOR LIKE THESE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE GOING TO BE FOUR HOUSES THERE OR THREE. 
          THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS TO APPROACH IT. 
          ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT, WELL, FROM TODAY WE'LL JUST SAY YOU CAN'T DO IT. 
          I'VE BEEN TOLD TOO MANY LEGAL ISSUES COME UP. 
          MY IDEA IS, BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, 2020, AND I JUST PICKED A DATE, SIX MONTHS, THAT OWNERS HAVE THAT TIME PERIOD TO PLAT, WHAT'S THE WORD I WANT TO USE, KELLY? 
          >> TO FILE. TO JUST CREATE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. 
          >> INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SO THAT THEY HAVE INDIVIDUAL PARCEL IDEAS FOR EACH OF THEM. 
          >> SEPARATE THE PARCELS. 
          >> SEPARATE. 
          >> SUBDIVIDE. SEPARATE THE PARCEL ID NUMBER INTO INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. 
          >> SEE, THE CITY'S GETTING CHEATED RIGHT NOW. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, USUALLY THERE'S ONE PROPERTY. 
          IT MIGHT HAVE THREE LOTS ON IT. 
          THERE BEING TAXES, ONE HOUSE, WHATEVER THAT TAX IS. 
          I'M LOSING MY BRAIN HERE. 
          MAYBE I'VE ALREADY LOST IT. 
          BUT IF YOU HAVE A, HELP ME OUT HERE. 
          >> [LAUGHTER] I'M LAUGHING BECAUSE I LIKE SEEING IT HAPPEN TO SOMEBODY ELSE. 
          >> IF YOU FILED YOUR. 
          >> A HOMESTEAD. 
          >>HOMESTEAD ON THE PROPERTY, THEN YOU'RE GETTING THAT ADDITIONAL BENEFIT THERE. 
          THAT PERSON THEN TURNS AROUND AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'VE GOT TO HAVE THREE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES ON THERE. 
          WE'RE NOT GETTING THE BIT. 
          IF THIS WAS A DEVELOPER THAT WENT IN AND BOUGHT A PARCEL AND SET IT UP INTO THREE SEPARATE LOTS, THEY'D BE TAXED AS ONE. 
          IT ALSO GIVES THE CITY PLANNING THE ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IT GIVES THE NEIGHBOR WHO WANTS TO BUY THE HOUSE OVER HERE KNOWING THAT NEXT DOOR, IT'S GOING TO BE THREE HOUSES GOING IN THERE, OR FOUR, OR MAYBE JUST ONE. 
          THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THE CITY IS, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? I DIDN'T KNOW THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. YOU HEARD IT TONIGHT. 
          BY DOING THIS, THIS FORCES THE OWNERSHIP TO GO AHEAD AND PUT SEPARATE PARCELS ON THEM. 
          IT ALLOWS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER TO TAX THEM SEPARATELY SO THE CITY CAN START RECEIVING INCOME FROM THAT, AND IT ALLOWS PLANNING STAFF TO KNOW, HEY, IN THAT AREA, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW NOW, HOW MANY HOUSES WILL BE DEVELOPED INTO THE FUTURE? 
          >> MARK, ON THAT APPROACH, TAKE VILLE LAS PALMAS. 
          THAT'S A GREAT EXAMPLE. 
          IF THEY WENT IN AND CREATED ALL THESE, I'M LOOKING AT IT, I THINK IT'S 16 LOTS, WHATEVER IT IS, WOULD THEY LOSE THEIR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION? [OVERLAPPING] ON EVERY LOT THAT DIDN'T HAVE A HOUSE OR ON EVERY LOT? 
          >> I THINK AS I UNDERSTAND, MEMBER BENNETT, LOOKING AT LAS PALMAS, I THINK THERE ARE ABOUT 1,025 FOOT WIDTH LOTS THAT ARE NOT 
          [03:05:04]
COVERED UNDER THE FOOTPRINT OF THE RESIDENTS. 
          THEY ARE ALL COMBINED FOR TAX PURPOSES AND COVERED BY THE HOMESTEAD. 
          FOR 2024, THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAD THE MARKET VALUE OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL AT ALMOST $2.6 MILLION BUT ITS ASSESSED VALUE IS 525,000. 
          BECAUSE THE HOMESTEAD CAT, THAT 3% CAT, HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR SO LONG AND HAS PREVENTED THEM FROM RAISING THAT ASSESSED VALUE. 
          I THINK WHAT I UNDERSTAND MEMBER BENNETT'S POINT BEING IS, WELL, IF THAT OWNER IN THE FUTURE EVER WANTS TO DEVELOP THOSE SUBSTANDARD LOTS, THEY SHOULD BE FORCED AT SOME POINT TO SEPARATE THEM OUT, AND THEN THEY WOULD NO LONGER APPLY UNDER THAT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. 
          >> I'M LOOKING AT THE AREAL RIGHT NOW, IT LOOKS LIKE LOTS 27-31 COVER THE HOUSE. 
          IF THEY WERE TO CARVE THOSE LOTS OUT, THEY WOULD LOSE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR THE HOUSE AND THE OTHER PROPERTY AROUND? 
          >> NO, THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WOULD REMAIN FOR THE HOUSE. 
          >> BUT JUST THE VACANT LOTS. 
          >> FOR THE VACANT LOTS, THAT'D BE FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. I THINK IT'S [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> BECAUSE YOU'RE CREATING A SEPARATE PARCEL, THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, I WOULDN'T THINK WOULD BE IMPACTED IF YOU WANTED TO STAY IN THE HOUSE AND HOMESTEAD. 
          THE HOUSE AND CUT OFF A LOT ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE. 
          >> GOT IT. 
          >> EXCEPT NOW YOU'RE GOING TO PAY TAXES ON THOSE SEPARATE LOTS. 
          THE PARTS ARE GREATER THAN THE WHOLE WHEN IT COMES TO TAXATION AND VALUE. PLEASE. 
          >> YOU'VE EXPLAINED THIS. 
          HAVE WE HERE REWRITTEN THAT PART OF THE CODE? 
          >> NO. WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING. 
          >> ALL WE'VE DONE IS WE MET. 
          WE WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW. 
          >> WE GOT YOU. 
          >> I WAS SLEEPING LAST WEEK, BUT KELLY WOKE ME UP UNTIL WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING. 
          NOW WE'RE HERE. NOW YOU HAVE THIS. 
          I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME HEADS UP SO YOU CAN LOOK INTO IT. START THINKING OF IT. 
          WE'LL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, TALK ABOUT IT, AND GO FROM THERE. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> THEN MOVE FORWARD. 
          BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WE TOOK CARE OF THIS PROBLEM IN 2014, '15, '16. 
          BUT WE DIDN'T. 
          THIS, I HOPE TAKES CARE OF THAT ISSUE. 
          >> GOOD. 
          >> KELLY, ANYTHING TO ADD? 
          >> I WILL DEFER TO THE BOARD AND WHAT IT WOULD LIKE TO DO. 
          >> WHAT DID SHE SAY? 
          >> SHE SWITCHED TO [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> THAT WAS WELL WRITTEN. 
          >> AT THE ESSAY AT THE END OF THE YEAR, SOME PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO SAY, GOSH, NOW I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PAY ALL THIS TAX ON ALL THESE LOTS THAT I HAVE. 
          >> THAT I WANT. 
          >> I WANT TO KEEP THEM SO I HAVE TO PAY ALL THAT TAX, OR I HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND SELL THEM. 
          >> OR DECIDE WHAT I WANT TO DO. 
          WE'RE FORCING THEM TO MAKE A DECISION FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY. 
          >> IS THAT A VIOLATION OF YOUR PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS? 
          >> NO. THAT THE CITY'S BASICALLY PUTTING THIS? 
          >> WHAT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DIVIDE IT INTO LOTS? 
          >> WELL, ALL I'M SAYING TO YOU, IN THE PAST, WHEN THIS HAS COME UP, AGAIN, THE FIRST TWO ARGUMENTS WAS, I'M SAVING THIS FOR MY FUTURE RETIREMENT AND I WANT TO LET MY KIDS BUILD HOUSES THERE. 
          THEY COULD STILL DO THAT UNDER THIS PLAN. 
          IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS, CITIES DON'T HAVE TO WONDER, WELL, HOW MANY HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE OUT THERE? THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY POTENTIAL HOMES. 
          >> BUT ARE YOU ASKING SOMEBODY THAT BUYS THAT TO COMMIT TO SOMETHING THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO? 
          >> I'M NOT. 
          >> I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE [OVERLAPPING] LOTS OF RECORDS. 
          >> YOU GO BUY A HOUSE WHICH'S GOT IT. 
          >> I DON'T BUY WHERE I COULD POSSIBLY PUT FOUR HOUSES. 
          I HAVE NO INTENTION OF PUTTING FOUR HOUSES, BUT YOU'RE ASKING ME TO MAKE A DECISION. 
          >> I'M ASKING YOU TO MAKE THAT DECISION NOW. 
          >> HERE'S SOME. 
          >> MEMBER BENNETT, WHEN I READ THE MEMO HE GAVE TO ME EARLIER THIS EVENING, I THINK THE MECHANISM WOULD BE THAT YOU AMEND THE PORTION OF THE CODE THAT RECOGNIZES THE UNDERLYING PLATTED SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD, THE 25-FOOT LOT OF RECORD, AS A BUILDABLE LOT. 
          BUT IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THAT STATUS, IF THAT LOT HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED A SEPARATE TAX PARCEL ID NUMBER, 
          [03:10:01]
BY A CERTAIN DATE. 
          IF YOU SAY BY DECEMBER 31, 2025, THAT ANY SUBSTANDARD LAW THAT HAS A SEPARATE PARCEL ID NUMBER ASSIGNED TO IT IS BUILDABLE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD OR HOW I WOULD ENVISION THAT BEING DONE IN PRACTICE, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY THE UNDER. 
          >> NON-CONFORMING. 
          >> NON-CONFORMING LOTS, THE UNDERSIZED PLATTED LOTS THAT ARE BUILDABLE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. 
          IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IF YOU'RE TAKING THAT APPROACH, THEN DOES VILLE LAS PALMAS HAVE THE RIGHT TO, RATHER THAN WHAT WE SAY, 10 LOTS, THEY COULD STILL SEPARATE IT INTO FIVE LOTS IN THE FUTURE. 
          THEY JUST WOULDN'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THAT NON-CONFORMING SUBSTANDARD LOT. 
          >> DUE TO THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONE. 
          >> THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD BE FORCING THEM TO, IS TO NOT BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SUBSTANDARD LOT RECORD. 
          >> I DO TOO. 
          >> THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, SO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. 
          I JUST THINK THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE NUMBERS THAT ARE OUT THERE, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, WE ARE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY STAFF NEEDS TO PLAN. 
          AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT NEEDS WILL BE [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE JUST HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT. 
          >> FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS. 
          THAT SHOULDN'T BE SO IT FOLLOWS THAT CODE. MAYBE. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> CREATE EACH OTHER. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYONE? 
          >> NO, I'M OUT OF BATTERY. 
          >> BY THE WAY, MARK, CITY HALL IS LOWER IN ELEVATION THAN THAT HOTEL. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> CITY HALL IS LOWER IN ELEVATION THAN THAT HOTEL SITE IS. THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE? 
          >> NO. 
          >> THANKS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.