Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Item 1]

[00:00:06]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

THIS IS THE OCTOBER 9, 2019 MEETING OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

IS SAM HERE TODAY?

>> WOULD YOU TAKE THE ROLL, PLEASE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> HERE.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> HERE.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> HERE.

>> MEMBER ROBAS?

>> HERE.

>> MEMBER ROLAND IS ABSENT.

MEMBER SCHAFFER IS ABSENT.

>> WE HAVE A QUORUM.

WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH SOME PRELIMINARY MATTERS THAT NEEDED APPROVAL AND SO FORTH BUT LET ME SAY AT THE OUTSET, WE'VE GOT A FAIRLY ROBUST CROWD TONIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT WE ALWAYS LIKE TO SEE.

THIS IS A DEMOCRACY AND WE'RE ALWAYS PLEASED ALTHOUGH WE SOMETIMES NOT ALWAYS SHOW IT THAT WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC INPUT IN MATTERS OF IMPORTANCE.

AND WE'RE DEALING WITH MATTERS OF CONSIDERABLE IMPORTANCE TONIGHT.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT TO GET THROUGH THIS ENTIRE AGENDA.

THERE'S BEEN SOME EFFORT MADE, AND I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU ABOUT IT, TO TRY TO PUT SOME ITEMS THAT WE THINK MAY BE LESS CONTROVERSIAL UP FRONT TO GET SOME VOLUME OF WORK DONE SO NO MATTER WHAT WE FACE AND TO THE EXTENT THAT CAUSES SOME OF YOU TO WAIT FOR YOUR ITEM OF INTEREST, I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE.

WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A BETTER WAY TO APPROACH THIS SO WE COULD ASSURE GETTING SOME VOLUME OF THESE CORRECTED MEASURES TAKEN CARE OF TONIGHT.

WE AREN'T DOING SIGN-IN SHEETS FOR PARTICIPATION.

THE PLAN IS THAT WHEN WE BEGIN GETTING INTO THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES ON THE AGENDAS, WHERE CHANGE, ZONING MATTER CHANGE OR BOTH ARE COMTEMPLATED AND THAT IS THE MATTER THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON, I WILL SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT RELATING TO THAT ITEM.

SO IF YOU WILL RESERVE YOUR COMMENTS UNTIL THEN, IT WILL HELP US MOVE FORWARD IN AN ORGANIZED A FASHION AS IS POSSIBLE WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS VOLUME OF CHANGE.

AND I HOPE YOU WILL FIND THAT APPROPRIATE.

I'M NOT GOING TO LIMIT PEOPLE, AT LEAST AT THE OUTSET, TO THREE MINUTE PRESENTATIONS.

I WOULD SAY, I'LL HAVE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT SO WE KEEP THE MEETING MOVING TONIGHT, BUT I'M GOING TO FIRST SEE IF WE CAN GET EVERYBODY TAKEN CARE OF WITHOUT THAT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT DOES BECOME NECESSARY, AS WE GO THROUGH, I APOLOGIZE THAT IT MAY -- WE MAY GET SOME PEOPLE THAT MAKE A LITTLE LONGER COMMENT AND THEN BY THE TIME YOUR TIME COMES UP YOU MAY GET HELD TO THREE MINUTES.

WE WANT TO DO THIS IN THE INTEREST OF COMPLETENESS, BUT TIME MANAGEMENT HAS TO BE A COMPONENT OF IT.

SO THOSE ARE OUR PLANS.

WITH THAT, THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA ARE THE APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.

FIRST ITEM IS THE MAY 22 --

>> I'M SORRY.

I THINK WE NEED TO SIT MISS ROBAS.

>> MISS ROBAS IS SEATED AS A PRELIMINARY MEMBER, AT LEAST

[Item 2]

UNTIL MR. ROLAND APPEARS.

MAY 22, 2019 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES.

ARE THERE ANY PROPOSED ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES TO THOSE MINUTES? HEARING NONE, THOSE STAND APPROVED.

NEXT ITEM FROM THE JUNE 12, 2019 REGULAR MEETING.

ARE THERE ANY CHANGES, ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS TO THOSE MINUTES?

[Item 4]

HEARING NONE, THEY STAND APPROVED.

BEFORE WE BEGIN WITH SPECIFIC CASES AND THESE WILL BE A QASI LEGISLATIVE PROCEEDINGS AND SO, WITNESSES WON'T NEED TO BE SWORN.

WE ARE GOING TO OPERATE THESE WITHIN OPENING AND CLOSING OF THE RECORD TO MEET OUR DUE PROCESS STANDARDS.

I'M GOING TO FIRST ASK OUR STAFF DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE WORK THAT THE STAFF HAS DONE TO DATE AND WHAT WE CONTEMPLATE WORKING FROM TONIGHT.

MISS GIBSON.

>> THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

FOR THOSE WHO I HAVE NOT MET IN THE PAST, MY NAME IS KELLY GIBSON.

I'M THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

THIS EVENING THE PRESENTATION I HAVE BEFORE YOU WILL COVER ALL OF THE ITEMS. HOWEVER, I DO ANTICIPATE, AS THE CHAIR INKATED THAT WE'LL GO BACK TO THEM IN GREATER DETAIL.

[00:05:02]

THIS PRESENTATION IS A PROVIDED OVERVIEW OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE AND SOME OF THIS HAS BEEN COVERED AS PART OF THE ACTION.

TO GET US STARTED THE INITIAL FOCUS OF THE PRESENTATION WILL LOOK AT PROPERTIES THAT DO NOT INCLUDE THOSE ALONG CITRONA AVENUE.

WE'LL LOOK AT THOSE LAST.

>> CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER, PLEASE?

>> I CAN TRY, YES.

TO GET US STARTED I HAVE PUT TOGETHER ALL OF THE CASES BUT LEFT THE CITRONA DRIVE CASES FOR TEND OF THE PRESENTATION, SO YOU'LL SEE THOSE AT THE VERY END.

THIS IS COVERING TWO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD APPLICATIONS, 2019-14, 15.

ONE DEALS WITH LAND USE CHANGE, THE OTHER DEALS WITH ZONING CHANGES.

IN SOME CASES YOU HAVE A CHANGE THAT WILL OCCUR THAT FALL WITHIN THE APPLICATION ASSOCIATED WITH 14 AND 15, AND OTHERS YOU WILL HAVE ONE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH ONE OF THOSE APPLICATIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

THESE ARE NOT PRIVATELY INITIATED APPLICATIONS AT ALL.

THEIR LOCATION IS CITY WIDE.

MEANING THEY ARE DIFFERENT CHANGES THAT OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THEY'RE NOT ISOLATED INTO ONE SINGLE AREA.

AND THE REASON BEHIND THIS CHANGE IS COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THROUGH ORDINANCE 20 19D-05 WHICH SET FORTH A GOAL TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAPS HAVE CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE TWO DOCUMENTS.

PROVIDE ANALYSIS AND THEN GIVE DIRECTION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ON TO THE COMMISSION ABOUT WAYS TO CHANGE THOSE MAPS TO LINE OR OTHERWISE ACKNOWLEDGE THEM.

IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT PRINCIPLES FOR THE REVIEW, WE HAVE OUR CITIES ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ASSOCIATED FLORIDA STATUTES.

I HAVE REFERENCED TWO OF THEM AS THEY RELATE TO LAND USE CHANGES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THOSE ITEMS, WE'VE ALSO LOOKED AT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT, WHAT IS ON THE GROUND TODAY? OR NOT ON THE GROUND TODAY IN THE CASE OF VACANT PROPERTIES.

WHAT ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? WHAT IS THE SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING? WHAT ARE THE SURROUNDING AREAS BUILT AND CHARACTER? WHAT ARE THE FEATURES CONTAINED ON THE SITE? ARE THE PATTERN OF CHANGE, ARE THERE OTHER LAND USE OR ZONING CHANGES WITHIN THAT AREA THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE CHANGE FOR A SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY? HOW DOES THE REQUESTED ACTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY SERVE TO MEET AND FURTHER THE GOALS THAT ARE ALREADY PROVIDED THROUGH THE GENERAL DIRECTION AND INTENT OF THIS CITY'S POLICIES AS A WHOLE? WE'VE ALSO LABELED TWO PRESUMPTIONS OF THIS.

FIRST THING, 2011 FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS PART OF THE AMENDMENT AND IS PRESUMED TO BE THE PRINCIPLE DOCUMENT FOR CONSIDERATION OF OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE TODAY.

THE SECOND IS THE ZONING MAP THAT WE SEE, HAS BEEN REVISED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME BUT DOES SET BACK A DATE TO 2006 WHEN THE LAST WHOLESALE REVISION OF THE ZONING MAP HAD OCCURRED.

AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE HAD A SERIES OF CHANGES BOTH IN LAND USE AND THE ZONING MAP OVER A PERIOD OF TIME SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE DOCUMENTS.

IN TERMS OF DATA ANALYSIS INCLUDED IN THE BACKUP MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TWO CASES AND INDIVIDUALLY FOR EACH PROPERTY, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE BEST AVAILABLE DATA TO EXAMINE CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTIES INCLUDING THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, ARE THEY ALIGNED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP? STREET CENTER LINES, WETTELANDS, TOPOGRAPHY, FLOOD ZONE, SOILS, OUR 2017 AND 2019 AERIAL IMAGERY.

WE CAN GO BACK FURTHER AND LOOK AT OTHER ADDITIONAL AERIALS FOR INFORMATION.

AND WE USED THAT INFORMATION TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION.

AND HAVE BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT YOU'LL HEAR TONIGHT AS WELL AS THE BACKUP MATERIALS PROVIDED WITH THE STAFF REPORT.

ALL OF THIS DATA CAN BE OBTAINED USING THE MAPS OUR COUNTRY PROP APRAISERS MAPPING SYSTEM.

I'M SURE THIS EVENING YOU'LL SEE HOW WE ACCESS THAT MAP AND OBTAINED THOSE DATA LAYER FILES TO LOOK AT IF YOU'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THEM AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

THERE'S A PRETTY LARGE VOLUME OF THEM.

IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME.

I'M TRYING TO FOCUS IN ON WHAT'S BEEN ADVERTISED AND LABELED AS

[00:10:03]

ZONING.

THERE ARE SMALL AREAS WHERE ADDITIONAL LAND USE CHANGES HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE SAME PROPERTY.

WHERE THAT OCCURS I PUT THEM TOGETHER AND LABELED THEM ACCORDINGLY.

THE FIRST TWO PROPERTIES I AM GOING TO QUICKLY GO THROUGH BECAUSE THEY'RE CHANGES THAT HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE AND SIMPLY NEED TO BE RECTIFIED ON THE MAP SYSTEM ITSELF BECAUSE ACTION THROUGH SEPARATE ORDINANCE HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN.

SO THE FIRST ONE IS ALONG ASKINS AVENUE.

THIS WAS NOTED AS A CONFLICT AND BROUGHT UP FOR ANALYSIS AND ADVERTISED FOR CHANGE BECAUSE IT CONTAINED A LAND USE CATEGORY OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE MAP WITH A ZONING CATEGORY OF R-3.

THAT'S A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

AFTER FURTHER REVIEW, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS AND FOUND THAT ACTION HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT ORDINANCES.

ONE THAT OCCURRED IN 1996, WHICH MADE THE ZONING R-3, AS YOU SEE IT TODAY, BUT A SECOND ACTION HAD BEEN TAKEN IN 2006 MAKING THIS PROPERTY MATCH THE ZONING DISTRICT TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO PULL THIS CASE FROM CONSIDERATION AT ALL AND SIMPLY UPDATE THE MAPS SO THAT THEY'RE ACCURATELY REFLECTING THE ACTION THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN.

>> SO WHAT'S THE CURRENT FLUM ON THIS?

>> UNDER 2006-23 IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR CHANGING IT.

NOW, EACH OF THESE PROPERTIES --

>> MEDIUM DENSITY.

>> HAD SOME DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IN GREATER DETAIL.

BUT THE RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW IS TO ALIGN THE CHANGE THAT NEVER OCCURRED SIMPLY TO A DIGITAL MAPPING SYSTEM IN 2006.

AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THAT DIDN'T OCCUR.

ONLY THAT THAT'S THE MAP WE HAVE.

>> WE HAVE CLEAR DOCUMENTATION THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY AN R-3 FLUM AND R-3 ZONING?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE.

>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANT TO SAY MEMBER ROLAND IS NOW PRESENT.

>> THE NEXT CHANGE, I'M GOING IN ORDER JUST IN CASE YOU'RE LOOKING TO KEEP RECORD OF WHICH ORDER I'M GOING IN, ON THE CITY'S AGENDA, YOU WOULD SEE STAFF REPORTED AND ALL THE BACKUP REPORTS FOR EACH ITEM.

I HAVE LISTED THEM IN THIS ORDER SO THE PRESENTATION FOLLOWS THAT ORDER IF YOU'RE LOOKING TO GO BACK AND MATCH THE REPORT WITH THE PRESENTATION FILE.

THE SECOND CHANGE IS LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE TO FIFTH STREET, SOUTH FIFTH STREET AND 1ST STREET WITH PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY HOLDING COMBINATION OF LAND USES WITH INDUSTRIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO CORRECT THE LAND USE MAP FOR 457 SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL TO MAKE IT MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS WOULD KEEP IT THE SAME AS THE REST OF THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, THAT PARCEL.

AND A SECOND ACTION IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT ASSOCIATED WITH THE THREE PROPERTIES HIGHLIGHTED TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MATCH THE LAND USE THAT EXISTS THERE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THAT 457 SQUARE FEET.

I PROVIDED SOME MORE INFORMATION TO SEE HOW THIS LOOKS TODAY ON THE GROUND.

THE TOP PICTURE IS THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

I'M SORRY.

THAT'S RIGHT HERE.

NEXT FIVE IS THE NEXT PARCEL.

SO THE NEXT SLIDE IS 715 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

THIS IS REQUESTED ACTION TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL I-1 TO R-2.

TO ALIGN WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THIS IS FOR PROPERTY 2.3 ACRES OF LAND.

IT CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONTAINED ON IT.

>> CAN I INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND? PERHAPS I MISUNDERSTOOD THE INTENTION OF WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO DO.

IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE AS THEY'RE GROUPED AND MAKE A SUMMARY PRESENTATION NOW? I THINK I'M GOING TO ASK THAT WE NOT DO THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO END UP COVERING TWICE SOME MATERIAL THAT I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY BEST DO UNIFORMLY BY BRINGING THEM UP ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

SO IF YOU'LL WAIT WHATEVER

[00:15:02]

PRESENTATION IT'S APPROPRIATE TO YOUR STAFF AND REPORT IT THAT WAY, I THINK WE MAY BE ABLE TO MVE THROUGH THIS WITH LESS DUPLICATION.

>> I'M COMFORTABLE WITH HOWEVER THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED.

>> OKAY.

LET'S THEN MOVE BACK TO ASKINS AVENUE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THE STAFF REPRESENTATION TO BE THAT A RECONCILED CHANGE BETWEEN THE FLUM AND THE ZONING MAPS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED THROUGH PROPER ADOPTIONS BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> SO WE CAN PULL THIS FROM THIS PA PACKET?

>> YES, SIR.

>> ASKINS IS DONE.

NO CHANGE TO BE MADE.

SIR?

>> I UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY OUTLINED IN THE PRIOR ACTION, BUT THIS PROPERTY, AND I LOOKED AT IT AS BEST I COULD NOT FIELD WITHOUT TROMPING THROUGH IT.

IT'S CONSERVATION PROPERTY.

IT'S NOT REALLY DEVELOPABLE, AS I LOOK AT IT.

IT FLOODS.

>> IT DOES HAVE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS WITH IT.

ONE IS BEING THE FLOOD ZONE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

IF AND WHEN THIS FLOOD ZONE DEVELOPS, IT WILL HAVE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS THAT MAYBE YOU WOULD SEE IN OTHER HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORIES.

>> I MEAN, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT ABOUT WHAT WE VIEW CONSERVATION LAND, SEEMS WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT THIS AS BEING CONSERVATION.

I'M INCLINED TO POSTPONE THIS CONSIDERATION UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION TO IT ON THIS BASIS.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF OUTRIGHT EUR RECONCILED FLUM AND ZONING MAPS.

I'M INCLINED TO AGREE WITH YOU THAT I'M NOT SURE THAT THE RECONCILIATION THAT APPEARS TO BE DOCUMENTABLE IS THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO GO ON THIS PIECE OF LAND.

AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS PROMPTLY BROUGHT UP TO THIS GROUP FOR REVIEW, BUT I DON'T THINK IT OUGHT TO BE PART OF THIS PACKET AND THIS MEETING.

>> OKAY.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS WE PULL THIS ONE OUT AND NOT KICK IT FORWARD UNTIL WE'VE HAD CHANCE TO STUDY IT?

>> I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTATION FOR OUR REVIEW OF HOW THE CURRENT STATUS WAS ADOPTED AND WHEN.

SO, KELLY, IF YOU WILL MAKE A NOTE TO YOURSELF ON THIS POPERTY THAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE THIS MAP BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

AND WE'D LIKE TO HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF HOW AND WHY THE LAST ZONING AMENDMENTS WERE UNDERTAKEN AND PARTICULARLY SINCE THIS IS UNDEVELOPED LAND, THIS STRIKES ME AS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED A LOT MORE PAINLESSLY THAN SOME OF THESE DEVELOPED PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AT THIS STAGE.

SO UNLESS THERE'S OBJECTION, WE'LL STAND WITH THAT APPROACH.

ALL RIGHT.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS SOUTH 5TH STREET.

THIS IS THE NEWER PROPERTY.

>> I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.

>> I'M SORRY.

DID I MISS ONE?

>> 1ST STREET AND 5TH STREET.

>> OKAY.

1ST STREET AND 5TH STREET.

WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THAT ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS ITEM? COME ON UP.

IF YOU WOULD USE THE PODIUM.

WE'RE GOING TO ASK EVERYONE WHO MAKES PUBLIC COMMENT TO DO THAT SO WE HAVE A CLEAR RECORDING OF YOUR INPUT IN OUR MEETING.

>> MATTHEW MILLER 416 1ST STREET.

I DO OWN THAT PROPERTY, THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS.

I'LL BE VERY BRIEF ON THAT.

DURING OUR LAST MEETING, MISS BACH SAID SHE WOULD REACH OUT TO ME.

TRUE TO HER WORD, SHE DID EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID SHE WOULD DO WHAEPB SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO DO IT.

SHE WAS VERY GENEROUS WITH HER TIME.

WE HAD A MEETING WITH HER AND ALSO WITH MR. JACOB PLATT.

OF COURSE, SHE COULD COMMENT ON THAT.

I WOULD SAY THAT WAS A PRODUCTIVE MEETING.

I APPRECIATED HER CANDOR.

THAT WAS OUR FIRST MEETING ON THAT.

FROM WHAT SHE TOLD ME, I WAS ABLE TO COME UP WITH A PICTURE OF WHERE THE CITY IS TRYING TO GO, HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.

UP UNTIL THAT POINT, I KNEW ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THAT.

SO I DO THANK HER FOR THAT.

WHEN I STARTED BUYING THAT PROPERTY DOWN THERE, I HAD

[00:20:02]

EVENTUALLY SIX LOTS, FIVE DIFFERENT REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS ON THAT.

ALL FIVE TIMES I CAME TO THE CITY OFFICES NEXT DOOR, SOUG THEIR GUIDANCE ABOUT WHAT MY PROJECT WOULD BE.

NO ISSUES WITH WHAT I WAS DOING.

SUBSEQUENTLY, I APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED FIVE BUILDING PERMITS UNDER INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

ALL THOSE PERMITS WERE FINISHED, INSPECTIONS DONE, ZONING, FINALS, NOT A WORD WAS SAID.

COURSE, MY FAMILY GETS A FORM LETTER IN THE MAIL THAT THE SAME PEOPLE WHO I SOUGHT GUIDANCE FROM HAD STARTED THIS LEGAL PROCEEDING AGAINST ME WITHOUT STARTING A DIALOGUE.

SO YOU CAN IMAGINE, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF HEARTBURN ON THAT.

BUT, IF YOU GO BY MY HOUSE THAT I HAVE A FEW PERKS THAT I WAS ABLE TO PICK UP BECAUSE OF THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

MY HOUSE DOES NOT LOOK LIKE -- IT LOOKS LIKE IN MY VIEW IT MATCHES THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THAT.

SO AFTER MISS BACH TOLD ME WHERE WE WERE TRYING TO GO COLLECTIVELY AS A CITY, I'M AGREEABLE TO THE END STATE.

BUT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO SIT MY PROPERTY ASIDE, TEMPORARILY.

WE'RE ALL GOING TO THE SAME PLACE.

AND SEE IF WE CAN CON OUR CONVERSATION AND BE SURE THAT WE ARRIVE AT WHERE WE'RE GOING IN A HARMONIOUS MANNER.

>> CAN YOU INDICATE FOR ME, MR. MILLER, HOW IT IS THAT PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE ZONING TO ENTIRELY MATCH THE FLUM THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION IS A DIFFICULTY FOR YOU?

>> YES, SIR, I CAN DO THAT.

SO, I ORIGINALLY WHEN I BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY, THERE WAS A SIGN THERE THAT TOWNHOMES WERE COMING.

WHEN I STARTED THAT, MY WIFE DECIDED NO TREES WOULD BE CUT.

SO CONSEQUENTLY, NO TREES WERE CUT.

AND WE DECIDED WE WOULD BUILD OUR FAMILY HOME THERE, A HOME TO LEAVE TO OUR CHILDREN INSTEAD OF A TRUST.

AND THERE WAS SOME ISSUES THAT I WANTED TO HAVE.

I WANTED TO HAVE A NICE SHELTER TO KEEP MY BOATS IN.

AND BECAUSE IT WAS ZONED INDUSTRIAL WHEN I SOUGHT APPROVAL AND STARTED THIS, I DIDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

AND NOW, IF WE FORCEFULLY TAKE THIS FROM ME, I HAVE GOT MY PROJECT 90% COMPLETE AND THEN HAVE THE RUG SNATCHED OUT FROM ME BY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO TOLD ME I COULD DO THAT.

SO WHAT I'M SEEKING, UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING, AND I DID SEEK APPROVAL A FEW MONTHS AGO FROM T.R.C.

T.R.C., I WON'T SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF, BUT THEY TOLD ME ONLY THING THEY WANTED ME TO DO WAS PUT IN A HANDICAPPED BATHROOM, WHICH I DON'T REALLY NEED A HANDICAPPED BATHROOM.

I'M WITHIN 15 FEET OF A BATHROOM IN THE HOUSE.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE CAME BACK TO TRYING TO, AND KELLY'S BEEN GENEROUS WITH HER TIME AS WELL, OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT WE CAN GET THIS IN THERE IN A WELL LANDSCAPED WAY THAT WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KEEP THE BOATS IN.

>> FUNMENTALLY, MR. MILLER, I THINK THE PROBLEM HERE, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IS GOING TO BE THAT, AND I MEAN NO DISRESPECT TO ANYBODY, BUT IT LOOKS AS THOUGH MUCH, IF NOT ALL, OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN PERMITTED TO DO OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS, AND WHICH YOU DID IN GOOD FAITH, I HAVE NO QUARREL WITH IT, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO DO.

IT WAS WRONG UNDER OUR THEN EXISTING FLUM DESIGNATION.

ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TORQUE BE PERFECTLY CANDID, IS THERE'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT RECORD IN THESE PAGES OF THAT HAPPENING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

AND ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S HAPPENED, THOUGH PERHAPS NOT IN YOUR CASE, IS BECAUSE VARIOUS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY, WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, DID SO WITHOUT REFERENCE TO THE FLUM MAP.

THAT'S CREATED A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN THIS COMMUNITY AND IT'S ONE THAT, AS YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS EVERYBODY ELSE, BLEW UP PRETTY BADLY LAST YEAR.

AND ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES REPRESENT A RISK OF THAT HAPPENING AGAIN.

SO I DON'T THINK WHAT'S COMTEMPLATED HERE ACTUALLY MODIFIES THE ACTUAL LEGAL STATUS QUO FOR YOU.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT LEAVES YOU, AND I WOULDN'T PRESUME TO ADVISE YOU ANYWAY.

THAT'S NOT MY JOB.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT I DO THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE ZONING PROVISIONS AND THE FLUM MAP.

THAT'S THE VERY REASON WE'RE HERE.

THAT'S THE CHARGE WE WERE GIVEN

[00:25:03]

BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO UNDERTAKE.

SO, I'M NOT TELLING YOU FUTURE MEETINGS WOULDN'T BE PRODUCTIVE.

I'D LIKE INPUT FROM CITY STAFF ON THEIR VIEW OF THAT.

I'D BE WILLING TO ENTERTAIN TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THIS FROM THE CONSIDERATION FOR SOME MORE DISCUSSIONS TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY BE DEEMED FRUITFUL.

BUT I KIND OF DON'T SEE WHERE THIS GOES, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I OWE YOU A DUTY OF CANDOR.

WHAT'S THE STATUS HERE?

>> MY RECOLLECTION OF OUR MEETINGS, SAME AS MR. MILLER'S, AND YOU SUMMARIZED IT PERFECTLY.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO HIM WAS THAT YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN THOSE PERMITS.

BASED UPON FUTURE LAND USE.

>> AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, SIR.

I CAN SEE THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR CHARGE OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.

>> YEP.

>> I'M TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND TO DEVELOP A DIALOGUE INSTEAD OF THIS BECOMING A CONTENTIOUS SITUATION WITH A SENSE OF URGENCY.

THAT LAND WAS PLANTED IN 1856.

THERE'S NOTHING BUT RACCOONS ON IT.

THERE'S NO SENSE OF URGENCY ON THAT.

I WOULD LEGALLY, YOU MAY BE RIGHT.

THIS MAY HAVE TO GO TO A HIGHER LEVEL.

BUT I PURCHASED THOSE THREE LOTS BASED ON WHAT I RECEIVED AS AUTHORITY FROM NEXT DOOR.

TEN INSPECTIONS AND TEN APPROVAL, SO THERE'S NO MISUNDERSTANDING.

AND I'M RIGHT HERE ATTEND AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE NOT GONNA HONOR OUR COMMITMENT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT'S DISCONCERTING.

BELIEVE ME, NONE OF US ARE ANY HAPPIER ABOUT THAT THAN YOU ARE.

>> SURE.

>> WE'VE GOT -- THIS IS THE PACKET OF STUFF FOR TONIGHT.

FRANKLY, A GOOD 40% OR 50% OR MORE OF THEM REPRESENT EXACTLY THE SAME SITUATION AS YOURS.

>> YES, SIR.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN?

>> YES, MR. CLARK.

>> WHEN YOU WERE HERE BEFORE, YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR LONG-TERM VISION FOR THIS PROPERTY GENERALLY WAS VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL USE, BUT YOU WANTED TO BUILD A BOAT HOUSE.

>> THAT IS EXACTLY CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

SO WHAT I WANT TO KNOW, I'M GOING TO ASK KELLY OR TAMMY TO COMMENT ON THIS.

IS THERE A WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT BUT PROCEED FORWARD WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE US?

>> THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THE BOAT HOUSE WOULD BE UNDER THE PARAMETERS OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS ON A GIVEN PIECE OF PROPERTY.

SO THERE MAY BE CONSTRAINT TO MR. MILLER AS TO WHERE HE PLACES THAT STRUCTURE OR HOW LARGE THE STRUCTURE CAN BE.

WITHOUT IT BEING CONSIDERED A PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE.

THE OTHER LIMITATION IS THAT WITH THIS DOCUMENTED CONFLICT IN PLACE, I DON'T FEEL CONFIDENT AT ALL WITH ISSUING ANY FURTHER PERMITS ON THE PROPERTY UNTIL IT'S RECONCILED.

SO THERE WOULD BE A LEVEL OF, YOU KNOW, URGENCY AT THAT POINT, AT THE TIME THAT HE'S READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT IF IT'S SOMETHING HE WANTS TO HOLD ON AND THEN TAKE THAT APPLICATION ON INDEPENDENTLY IN THE FUTURE, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY TO PROCEED AT THIS POINT.

KEEP THE CONFLICT IN PLACE, UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE NOT GETTING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE PARCELS OF LAND WHERE THEY ARE IN CONFLICT, AND IN THE FUTURE, YOU'RE TAKING ON THE APPLICATION AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL.

>> MISS MINSHEW, YOUR LIGHT IS ON.

>> MR. MILLER, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

YOU SAID YOU'VE GOTTEN TEN PERMITS ALREADY?

>> I HAVE BEEN ISSUED FIVE.

>> WHAT ARE THE PERMITS FOR? WHAT EXACTLY HAS BEEN DONE TO DATE ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> I PICKED UP A FEW SMALL PERK HERE'S OR THERE.

WE HAD A DETATCHED GARAGE AND I WAS ABLE TO PUT UP A PRIVACY FENCE AROUND THOSE LOTS.

>> EIGHT FOOT PRIVACY FENCE, RIGHT BASED ON INDUSTRIAL? I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID LAST TIME?

>> EXACTLY RIGHT.

SO IF YOU GO BY THE HOUSE, IT LOOKS RESIDENTIAL.

THERE'S NOTHING GLARING AT IT, BUT I DID PICK UP A FEW WHEN WED OUT THE HOUSE AND MY SWIMMING POOL AND EVERYTHING BASED ON THE FACT THAT I COULD PUT MY BOAT HOUSE NEXT DOOR ON THAT.

>> SO YOU'VE TALKED ABILITY BOAT

[00:30:03]

HOUSE AND BOAT STORAGE.

IS IT COMPLETELY ENCLOSED BOAT HOUSE THAT YOU WANT OR -- ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A REALLY BIG GARAGE? I'M TRYING TO JUST UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS THAT'S STILL OUTSTANDING ON YOUR LIST OF THINGS YOU WANT TO DO.

>> THERE'S ONLY ONE ITEM.

>> THAT IS?

>> I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF STRUCTURE TO KEEP MY BOAT UNDER.

>> HAVE YOU DESIGNED THAT STRUCTURE YET?

>> YES.

>> AND HOW BIG IS IT?

>> THAT STRUCTURE WILL PROBABLY BE 25 FEET WIDE AND 40 FEET LONG.

JUST WHAT YOU WOULD THINK.

>> AND THAT'S A STANDARD GARAGE?

>> YES, IT IS.

>> YOU'RE LIMITED TO 625 SQUARE FOOT.

>> FOR A GARAGE.

SO THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY BIGGER THAN THAT.

>> YES.

>> AN IT WOULD BE TWO STORY?

>> NO, MA'AM.

>> OKAY.

>> AND IT WOULD BE BEHIND MY PRIVACY FENCE SO IF YOU RODE DOWN THE STREET, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW IT WAS THERE.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH INVESTMENT MR. MILLER'S MADE IN THE PROPERTY AND WHERE HE IS KIND OF TO DATE WITH WHAT'S LEFT TO DO.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU WERE TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE, IT'S TOO BIG FOR A GARAGE, SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED TO BE --

>> A HARDSHIP AND A VARIANCE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOUGHT IN ORDER TO PUT THAT STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.

>> BASED ON -- OKAY.

SO I THINK AT THIS POINT, I THINK WHAT WE'RE ALSO SAYING IS, IF YOU APPLY FOR THAT TODAY, YOU WOULDN'T GET IT, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> EVEN UNDER INDUSTRIAL.

EVEN IF HE HAD A HANDICAPPED BATHROOM OR WHATEVER.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> KELLY, CORRECT ME ON THAT.

IF THE FLUM AND THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING MATCHED, I COULD BUILD IT TOMORROW.

>> IF THEY'RE BOTH INDUSTRIAL, YES, SIR.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

>> WHEN WE CAME BEFORE THE T.R.C., IT DIDN'T COME UP.

THE ON THING THEY WANTED ME TO DO WAS PUT IN THE HANDICAPPED BATHROOM ON THERE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE THE RECORD VERY CLEAR IN THAT THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION BEFORE T.R.C.

THERE WAS NO APPLICATION ASSOCIATED WITH SITE PLANS OR APPROVALS GRANTED ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TYPE OF PROJECT.

IT WAS A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ITEM AT THAT TIME.

A FORMAL REVIEW HAD NOT OCCURRED.

BUT THE SECOND, JUST FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION OF THE RECORD, WHEN MR. MILLER PROCEEDED WITH HIS PROJECT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 5TH, YOU'LL SEE THE R-2 ZONING APPLIED THERE AND KEEPING WITH THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN ORDER FOR HIM TO CONTINUE TO PROCEED AND OBTAIN PERMITS FOR HIS PROJECT, HE WAS REQUIRED TO GET THE LAND USE AND ZONING ALIGNED IN THAT CASE.

THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY A CONFLICT ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

SO THE PERMITS ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, WITH EXCEPTION AS I UNDERSTAND IT OF THE STORAGE SHED INITIALLY PLACED THERE THAT'S NOW BECOME PART OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND THE FENCE ITSELF, THOSE ARE THE ON THINGS THAT I BELIEVE WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE ACTION TAKING PLACE.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT.

THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE TIME FROM THESE GOOD PEOPLE.

I'M IN AGREEMENT.

I'M NOT DISPUTING THAT THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I'M ALIGNED WITH THAT, ON THAT.

SO IN MY VIEW, WE'RE 50% OF THE WAY THERE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MILLER.

ANYONE ELSE CARE TO COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

COMMENTS, MISS MINSHEW? YOUR LIGHT'S STILL ON.

MR. BENNETT?

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

DO YOU HAVE TO BUILD A 25X40 FOOT STRUCTURE, WHY CAN'T HE DO THAT?

>> AS A STRUCTURE, HE COULD PERMIT IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, ONCE THESE TWO ARE ALIGNED.

IT WOULD BE OF THAT SIZE.

THE DOWNSIDE TO DOING THAT, YOU PAY IMPACT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND IT'S WELL BEYOND WHAT HE'S LOOKING TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, WHICH IS SIMPLY A COVERED AREA FOR BOAT STORAGE.

OTHERWISE, ONCE YOU CHANGE THE ZONING, HE WOULD BE LIMITED TO A 625 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT AS A DETATCHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO HAVE ANYTHING OVER THAT SIZE.

>> AND THAT WOULD BE FOR ANY OF THE LOTS? LOOKS LIKE THERE'S THREE LOTS.

>> THE OTHER PARAMETER WITH THAT IS THAT IN CREATING THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A SEPARATE PARCEL OF LAND, IT NOW UNITES THOSE PARCELS FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES INTO A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT SITE SO THAT THAT CAN SERVE AS AN ACCESSORY

[00:35:01]

STRUCTURE TO THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, WHICH IS ALREADY THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND THEY COULDN'T BE DEVELOPED INDEPENDENTLY AT THAT POINT SO HE COULDN'T LATER SEVER THEM.

>> COMBINED LOTS.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY'RE A SINGLE DEVELOPMENT SITE UNDER OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF THAT ACTION OCCURS.

AT THIS POINT YOU HAVE THREE SEPARATE PARCELS.

>> RIGHT.

LOOKS LIKE 410 AND 615 ARE VACANT.

THOSE ARE THE ADDRESSES.

>> YES.

>> OKAY.

SO 615 LOOKS TO BE A MUCH LARGER LOT.

>> THERE'S TWO LOTS THERE.

>> WHAT LOT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THIS STRUCTURE ON?

>> I'M AFRAID --

>> YOU CAN COME BACK.

>> I REMAIN MATTHEW MILLER, 4161ST STREET.

WE'RE GONNA PUT IT ON THE LOT THAT FRONTS 1ST STREET AND I WOULD TELL YOU THAT I'M AGREEABLE TO COMBINE THE LOTS.

WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT THAT BEFORE.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO COMBINE THOSE TWO SO THAT IT WOULD NOT GET SEPARATED.

THAT ALSO, THE LAND NEXT TO IT IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL, CORRECT, KELLY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

THE LAND USE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 457 FEET IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> SO BY PUTTING THE BOAT STORAGE THERE, IT GIVES ME A LITTLE BIT OF A BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL.

>> WE ARE COMBINING LOTS.

BY COMBINING LOTS, YOU THEN CREATE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, CORRECT?

>> RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT.

SO MY QUESTION ON 410, WHICH IS A SEPARATE LOT, WHY CAN'T HE BUILD A 25X40 FOOT STRUCTURE TO GO WITH THE HOUSE AND YOU HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEE.

THERE'S NO RULE YOU HAVE TO PUT WINDOWS IN THE SIDE OF IT, IS THERE?

>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO BUILD IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE THINGS THAT WOULD NEED TO HAVE IT PERMITTED BY A HOME.

>> YOU COULDN'T JUST CALL IT A GREAT ROOM?

>> AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A LEGAL DWELLING UNIT THERE, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THAT HAS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT A BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE IN ORDER TO QUALIFY AS THAT, YOU CAN LEAVE THE INSIDE HOWEVER YOU WANT.

WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT IS EFFECTIVELY A VERY LARGE GARAGE, WITH ALL THE COMPONENTS OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, JUST NOT VERY LARGE.

AND WE'VE HAD EXAMPLES OF THE KIND OF WORK AROUND IN THE PAST.

IF YOU DROVE BY IT TODAY, YOU WOULD HAVE NO IDEA THIS WAS JUST ONE BIG GARAGE.

>> YES, SIR?

>> YOU'D HAVE TO PAY THE IMPACT FEE WHICH WOULD BE MORE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BUILT AS A HOUSE.

BUT YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY CREATE THE GARAGE THERE.

>> I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT, TRYING TO HELP ME WORK MY PROBLEM OUT.

BUT I'M PAYING THE IMPACT FEES TO THE SAME PEOPLE WHO TEN TIMES TOLD ME THAT I COULD DO IT AND THEN WE JUST PAVED THE STREET, SO LET'S DIG THAT UP AND PUT IN WATER AND SEWER SO I CAN TEAR THAT OUT AND PUT MY BOAT IN THERE.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY SOLUTION I CAN THINK OF.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS?

>> MARK, COULD YOU CARRY YOUR IDEA AND TELL US WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE.

>> I'M SUGGESTING YOU DO EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO, CHANGE THE ZONING AND LAND USE AND HE CAN STILL BUILD IT.

UNFORTUNATELY, HE WOULD HAVE TO BUILD IT AS A HOUSE, PAY THOSE IMPACT FEES, WHICH THAT'S THE LARGER ISSUE.

BUT HE WOULD ESSENTIALLY WHAT LOOKS LIKE A HOUSE, PUT THE BOAT IN THERE, CLOSE THE DOOR AND NOBODY WOULD KNOW WHAT IT WAS.

RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.

I DON'T GENERALLY FAVOR KEEPING UNNECESSARY SPLIT FLUM RESIGNATIONS.

IN AS MUCH AS THE SOUTHERN TWO LOTS, THE NORTHERN OF THE SOUTHERN TWO LOTS IS FLUMED FOR R-2, THE BOTTOM ONE IS ALL BUT SOME 400 ODD SQUARE FEET.

IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE THIS CHANGE, DOES IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO DO SO WITHOUT CHANGING THE FLUM DESIGNATION ON THAT CORNER TO R-2 AS WELL?

>> OH, THE FLUM NEEDS TO CHANGE AS WELL.

>> TO INCORPORATE THAT CORNER INTO RESIDENTIAL.

>> CORRECT.

IT WILL TO DO BOTH.

[00:40:05]

>> OKAY.

SO THE PROPOSAL THAT IS BEFORE US NOW IS TO RECONCILE ALL FOUR OF THESE LOTS TO AN FLUM --

>> THREE.

>> THREE LOTS.

I THINK THE SOUTHERN TWO ARE ACTUALLY SPLIT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

615 AND WHATEVER THE ONE BELOW THAT IS.

SO I THINK IT IS A TOTAL OF FOUR LOTS OF RECORD.

>> THERE ARE ONLY THREE PARCEL I.D.'S.

>> OKAY.

WELL, IN ANY EVENT, WE HAVE THE ENTIRETY OF THAT, THE FLUM DESIGNATION R-2 AND ZONING DESIGNATION R-2.

THAT'S THE PROPOSAL, AM I CORRECTLY INTERPRETING THAT?

>> YES.

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, MY MOTION TO DO THAT, MR. MILLER, WAS WITH THE IDEA THAT THE SOLUTION MR. BENNETT OUTLINED IS AT LEAST A PATH FORWARD TO GET YOU WHERE YOU WANT TO GO.

>> AS IS ANY OTHER OPTION UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I THINK THERE IS POTENTIALLY A VARIANCE OPTION.

I THINK THERE ARE A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU, ALTHOUGH I SAY THAT WITHOUT IRON CLAD KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

I KNOW THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT ARE VARIABLE AND SOME THINGS THAT ARE NOT.

BUT I THINK YOU DO HAVE SOME RECOURSE TO GET AT LEAST CLOSER TO WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, BUT I DO NOT SEE A BASIS FOR US TO LEAVE THESE DESIGNATIONS UNRECONCILED.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER? I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT MOTION FOR OFFICIAL APPROVAL TO THE -- RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> OKAY.

>> I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND, WE REMOVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THESE PARCEL AS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION.

>> SECOND.

>> WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE SMALL PARCEL IN THE CORNER?

>> YES, SIR.

YES, IT DOES.

>> AND THAT'S BASED ON FINDINGS OF COMPATIBILITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> YES.

>> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?

>> SECOND.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR --

>> AYE.

>> ROLL CALL THIS.

NEVER MIND.

>> OKAY.

MR. ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> YOU COULD PROBABLY DO A VOICE VOTE.

THERE'S SO MANY OF THESE.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> AND CHAIR SANTRY.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE MOVING TO STAFF REPORT ON 715 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO CHANGE INDUSTRIAL TO AN R-2F FLUM.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

IT SHOWS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

I-1.

THE QUESTION IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP TO MATCH THE LAND USE MAP AND ASSIGN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> ANYONE INTERESTED IN PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MATTER? AND THE PUBLIC MEETING IS OPEN AND CLOSED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE MOVE TO AMEND ZONING MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-2 BASED ON BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

>> I DON'T KNOW ALL THE LANGUAGE THERE.

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> LET'S TAKE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> CAN WE DO A VOICE ROLL?

>> ON MOTIONS WE NEED TO DO ROLL CALL.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

CHAIR SANTRY?

>> YES.

>> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS WAYNE AND BETTY YORK.

PROPERTY 731 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

[00:45:06]

>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO EXPLAIN?

>> YES.

>> SO, 731 SOUTH 6TH STREET HAS AN EXISTING FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON IT, AS WELL AS SEVERAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME.

I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR BACK THEY DATE.

ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FOR THE BACK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WHICH CURRENTLY HAS INDUSTRIAL INCLUDED ON IT TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP FOR THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY CONTAINING THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ITSELF TO R-2 ZONING DISTRICT SO THAT THE ENTIRETY OF PROPERTY WOULD HAVE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ASSIGNED TO IT AND R-2 ZONING ASSIGNED TO IT.

>> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL? HEARING NONE, THAT PORTION OF THE MEETING IS CLOSED.

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

IS THERE A CAR REPAIR BUSINESS PERMITTED UNDER THAT FLUM DESIGNATION AND ZONING DESIGNATION?

>> NOT UNLESS IT WAS OPERATING AS A HOME BASED BUSINESS, BUT THERE ARE PARAMETERS UNDER OPERATION OF A HOME BASED BUSINESS FOR -- WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WOULD PREVENT IT FROM OPERATING IN ANY ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

>> OKAY.

>> SO OFFICE TYPE WORK COULD OCCUR FROM THAT PROPERTY, BUT I DON'T THINK THE ENGINE WORK WOULD REALLY BE ABLE TO TAKE PLACE BECAUSE IT CAN'T OCCUR WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, THE HOME ITSELF.

>> WOULD IT BE PERMISSIBLE IN AN INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATION?

>> YES.

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE ARE GENERALLY TRYING TO DO WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROCESS IS TO, WE'RE SENSIBLE IN APPROPRIATE RECONCILE EXISTING USE TO THE LAND USE STATUS.

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT RESIDENTS IN FRONT OF THIS LAND IS UNOCCUPIED, ALTHOUGH I CAN'T SAY THAT WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

AND IT APPEARS AS THOUGH ALL THE ACCESSORY DWELLINGS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH SMALL ENGINE OR BOAT ENGINE REPAIR.

I'M NOT TROUBLED BY THE NOTION OF THIS ALL GOING TO RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THIS BACKS UP TO THE MALE BUFFER AREA FOR RANNIER ADVANCED MATERIALS.

BUT IT'S IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF TOWN WHICH IS LARGELY BEEN RESIDENTIAL FOR A LONG, LONG TIME AND TO THE EXTENT THERE LOOKS TO ME TO BE A DEVELOPMENT DIRECTION CONTINUES TO BE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY R-2 RESIDENTIAL WORK.

BUT I'M -- I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A NONCONFORMING USE.

IF THAT'S OF CONCERN TO ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD, I THINK YOU BASE YOUR JUDGMENT ACCORDINGLY.

THE OTHER OPTION WITH THIS IS TO PULL THIS ONE FOR SUBSEQUENT CONSIDERATION BY WHICH I WOULD NEED TO THE NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE THIS IS A RECONCILIATION ISSUE.

BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS THAT SEEM THAT WE'RE FACED WITH WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

ANY FURTHER COMMENT OR CONSIDERATION FROM ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD?

>> SO, ARE YOU SAYING THERE'S ACTIVE BUSINESS ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

>> CERTAINLY LOOKS ACTIVE TO ME.

I DROVE BY IT YESTERDAY.

>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

WHAT I HAVE INDICATED IN HERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED IN 1941 THAT IS NOT HOME STUDDED.

IT APPEARS IT MAY BE RENTED.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ACTIVE BUSINESS, MAYBE NOT LICENSED THROUGH THE CITY OCCURRING THERE.

>> THERE IS NO BUSINESS LICENSE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROPERTY?

>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ONE.

>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ISN'T ONE?

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS ONE.

>> YOU DIDN'T CHECK?

>> NO.

I HAD NO REASON TO ASSUME THERE WAS A BY LOCATED AT THIS ADDRESS.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN?

>> MR. CLARK?

>> I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

BUT IF IT'S AS KELLY DESCRIBED, I THINK WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT'S BEFORE US TO MAKE IT RESIDENTIAL.

[00:50:03]

OR I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE DO THAT, I'D APPRECIATE IT IF KELLY COULD JUST DOUBLE-CHECK THAT.

IF IT'S DIFFERENT, BRING IT BACK.

IF NOT, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE REMEMBERINGATION THAT'S BEEN MADE.

>> IF WE TAKE A VOTE TO RECOMMEND CHANGES TO THE CITY COMMISSION, THE ONLY SUBSEQUENT RECOURSE ON THIS WILL BE AT THE CITY COMMISSION.

IT WON'T BE BROUGHT BACK TO US.

WE WILL GET A SECOND LOOK BRACED ON WHAT THE STAFF FINDS.

UNLESS I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING, WE CAN'T GET TO THAT PLACE.

>> OKAY.

>> HE'S GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2019-14 AND 2019-15, FUTURE USE FOR APPROXIMATELY .23 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON WESTERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND TO AMEND ZONING FOR 1.46 ACRES OF LAND FOR 24 ACRES OF LAND FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO BE SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME.

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER?

>> THANK YOU.

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> MEMBER KHRARBGT?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER ACCOUNT MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN SANTRY?

>> YES.

>> THE NEXT ITEM IN THE PACKET HAS TO DO WITH PROPERTIES ON THE SOUTH 3RD AND 2ND STREETS.

THIS MATERIAL WAS INCLUDED IN THE SUPPORT DOCUMENT PACKET WITH A GROUP OF DOCUMENTS GENERALLY ARISING FROM 2004.

THIS ONE DIDN'T HAVE A STAFF ANALYSIS OR A RECOMMENDATION.

I BELIEVE THE STAFF CAN PROVIDE US SOME EXPLANATION ON THIS ONE.

>> YES, SIR.

THIS CASE CAME UP AND HAS BEEN NOTED BECAUSE IT HAD A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO IT UNDER AN ORDINANCE DATING BACK TO 2004.

UNDER ORDINANCE 2004-35, IT REFLECTED A CHANGE THAT LOOKED DIFFERENT FROM OUR INITIAL ANALYSIS FOR THE LAND USE AND ZONING CONFLICTS.

AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE HAVE DIRECTION UNDER ORDINANCE 2004-35, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE SIMPLY PULL THE CASE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT SAYS THE MAP JUST DOESN'T LOOK HOW IT SHOULD HAVE LOOKED IN THAT ZONING MATTER.

SO I HAVE THE ZONING MAP ITSELF AS IT SHOULD HAVE REFLECTED FOR THESE CASES.

AND WHAT THE CHANGE IS HERE IS THAT THESE -- THIS PROPERTY, THE EASTERN EDGE OF THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE R-2.

AND ODDLY ENOUGH, THAT HAS BEEN CORRECTED ALREADY, LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL TODAY.

I'LL NOT SURE THE ACTION UNDER WHICH THAT WAS TAKEN, BUT IT IS CORRECTED AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

I KNOW IT HIT IN PRIOR STAFF REPORTS, THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS PREVIOUSLY FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE SOUTHERN PARCELS.

AND REFLECTED IN THERE AS BEING DIFFERENT AND NEEDING TO BE ADDRESSED.

BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE THAT ORDINANCE IN PLACE FOR THE ZONING ITSELF AND IT IS ALREADY CORRECTED, I WOULD SUGGEST WE MOVE FORWARD.

>> OKAY.

I'M UNCLEAR.

IS THE PRESENT DOCUMENTABLY, LAWFULLY ADOPTED ZONING DESIGNATION ON THESE PROPERTIES AND THE LAWFULLY ADOPTED FLUM DESIGNATION ON THESE PROPERTIES RECONCILED?

>> YES.

>> AND YOU HAVE REVIEWED THE DOCUMENT RECONCILE?

>> YES.

>> THEY WERE APPROPRIATELY ADOPTED BY CITY COMMISSION ORDINANCE AND SO FORTH?

>> YES.

AND HAD THIS DOCUMENT -- OR THIS HAD NOT ALREADY BEEN CHANGED, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD STILL BE THE SAME TO HOLD THIS AND SIMPLY CHANGE THE MAP TO REFLECT WHAT THAT ZONING AMENDMENT DOES.

>> NOW I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE MAP, THE CURRENT MAP, IF YOU PULLED IT UP TODAY WAS CORRECT.

>> IT IS CORRECT.

IT IS CORRECT TODAY.

>> AND IT'S CORRECT IN A WAY THAT YOU WOULD HAVE RECOMMENDED

[00:55:01]

IF IT HAD NOT BEEN CORRECTED? THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE COMMUNICATING?

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M COMMUNICATING.

>> ALL RIGHT.

WELL, WITHOUT OBJECTION, I'M GONNA PULL THIS FROM THE AGENDA.

ANY PROBLEM? NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS S -- A PROPERTY AT 1900 AMELIA TRACE COURT.

WHICH PRESENTLY HOLDS AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.

AND THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO C-1 TO BE FULLY RECONCILED.

TO A GENERAL PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION.

AM I CORRECT?

>> THE EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

ONE OF THE TWO AVAILABLE ZONING CATEGORIES FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS C-1, NOT MIXED USE.

SO THE ACTION IS TO CHANGE THE MIXED USE TO C-1.

>> SO THEY WERE ALREADY, IF YOU WILL, RECONCILED BECAUSE THAT IS ALL AN APPROPRIATE DESIGNATION.

>> IT IS NOT.

>> OKAY.

AND IS -- THIS MAY SOUND LIKE AN ODD QUESTION, BUT I PRETTY THOROUGHLY REVIEWED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING CLEARLY DESIGNATING WHAT LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OR ZONING CLASSIFICATION WAS APPROPRIATE FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, WHICH APPEARS TO BE CLASSIFIED AS A MEDICAL USE.

>> WE HAVE A USE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED EARLIER THIS YEAR THAT LISTS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY INDEPENDENTLY SO THAT IT'S NO LONGER COMBINED REVIEW OF THE ASSIST THAT WOULD ALLOW.

>> IT'S PERMITTED IN WHAT?

>> IT'S PERMITTED IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

>> OKAY.

>> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PROVISION? HEARING NONE THE PUBLIC MEETING IS CLOSED.

I'LL ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION.

I SEE MR. BENNETT'S LIGHT.

I SEE MR. CLARK'S LIGHT.

>> I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NUMBER 2019-15 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND ZONING MAP BE APPROVED FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1900 AMELIA TRACE COURT TO A C-1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW.

>> YES.

>> MR. ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN SANTRY?

>> YES.

>> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS OFF SHORE COURT AND OFF SHORE DRIVE.

MULTIPLE PARCELS AND A VARIETY OF PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP FROM R-2 TO ALIGN WITH THE PLAT MAP AND CONSERVATION FLUM BOUNDARY WITH BOTH R-2 AND CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICTS APPLIED AS DEPICKED BY THE RESIDENT AMELIA LANDING UNIT 5 PLAT, PAGE 60.

ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROVISION? I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO COME UP ONE AT A TIME.

MA'AM, WHY DON'T YOU GO FIRST.

>> WE'RE HUSBAND AND WIFE.

>> I CAN ONLY HEAR FROM ONE AT A TIME.

NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

>> CRAIG HUSTLE.

2309 OFF SHORE COURT.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US THE CHANCE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.

I THINK PART OF OUR, THE REASON FOR US BEING HERE IS WE REACHED OUT TO MISS GIBSON MONDAY AND UNFORTUNATELY WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING BACK FROM HER.

SO WE ARE NOT HERE IN AN OBJECTIONABLE MODE TO WHAT WE BELIEVE IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE.

[01:00:01]

WE'RE HERE, OR PERHAPS COULD SET SOMETHING UP IN THE NEAR FUTURE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF AN EDUCATION AS TO HOW THIS PROPOSED ACTION AFFECTS US, AS PROPERTY OWNERS.

OUR NEIGHBORS ARE ALSO PROPERTY OWNERS AND BACK UP TO EGAN'S CREEK.

PERSONALLY, I FEEL THAT THIS AREA THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS TOTALLY UNDEVELOPABLE, IF THAT'S A WORD, BECAUSE IT IS PROBABLY SWAMP LAND RIGHT NOW BASED ON ALL THE RAIN WE'VE HAD.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY ADVERSE ACTION.

WHAT HAS CONCERNED US AS HOMEOWNERS AND OUR NEIGHBORS WHO COULDN'T BE HERE, IS HOW THIS AFFECTS OUR REAL ESTATE VALUE, SHOULD WE DECIDE TO SELL, AND HOW THIS AFFECTS US TAX WISE.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THOSE QUESTIONS ARE SOMETHING THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED OR COULD BE ADDRESSED HERE, OR WHETHER THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS WOULD HAVE A MEETING SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD TO KIND OF FLUSH THAT OUT.

>> ALL RIGHT, SIR.

THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KELLY ON THIS.

BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME.

>> I DO HAVE A LIT OF A PRESENTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING GOTTEN BACK TO YOU.

I TRIED TO GET TO EVERYBODY I POSSIBLY COULD.

I'M SURE THERE ARE SOME MISSED PHONE CALL ORS E-MAILS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

THERE WERE QUITE A FEW OF THEM THAT I WAS WORKING THROUGH MONDAY THROUGH TODAY, SO MY APOLOGIES TO YOU.

THIS CHANGE IS TO ALIGN THE ZONING DISTRICT, AGAIN, TO ASSOCIATE 100% WITH WHAT THE CONSERVATION LAND USE ALREADY REFLECTS ON IT.

AND IT IS IN KEEPING WITH WHAT IS IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAT BOOK ITSELF FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT YOU OWN ASSOCIATED -- THAT INDICATES ON THERE A NO TRAVERSE LINE.

I BELIEVE THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE CONSERVATION LAND USE CATEGORY THAT YOU SEE HERE TODAY.

I DO HAVE SOME VISUALS THAT SORT OF HELP TO POINT THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT CLEARER.

THE PLAT MAP ITSELF INDICATED THIS LINE.

YOU'LL SEE A DARK LINE HERE THAT MAKES A BIT OF A POINT AND THEN IT COMES BACK DOWN.

NO TRAVERSE LINE.

IT'S ALSO GOT A HASH LINE SURROUNDING IT OF AN APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL WETTELANDS.

THIS MAY CHANGE AS WETLANDS DO CHANGE OVER TIME AND THIS PLAT MAP DATES BACK QUITE A BIT.

IT ALSO INDICATES AN AREA OF ABOUT 25 FOOT BUFFER WHICH WE STILL HAVE IN PLACE TODAY FROM THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE WETLAND.

THAT, I BELIEVE, IS THE BASIS BEHIND WHY YOU CURRENTLY SEE CONSERVATION LAND USE IN PLACE ON THE PROPERTIES TODAY.

>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO ME AS THOUGH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH IS PAGE 5 OF 10 IN THE ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS, MATCHES THAT LINE.

SO AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED HERE IS NOT A RECONCILIATION TO THE EXISTING CONSERVATION MAP BOUNDARY LINE?

>> IT'S TO ALIGN WITH THE MAP BOUNDARY, NOT WITH THE PLAT ITSELF.

SO THAT THE CONSERVATION LAND USE AND ZONING MAP MATCH UP.

>> OKAY.

IN SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, MAYBE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER TONIGHT.

WHAT I'M ASKING I GUESS DIRECTLY IS, DOES THE CONSERVATION ZONING DISTRICT -- DOES THE CONSERVATION NOTATION ON PLAT PAGE 60, IS IT PRESENTLY UTTERLY RECONCILED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION BETWEEN CONSERVATION AND RESIDENTIAL?

>> I HAVE NOT EVALUATED THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS OR ISN'T.

>> IT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE.

>> IT DOES APPEAR TO HAVE GREATER CONTOURS WITH RESPECT TO THAT TRAVERSE LINE.

THERE ARE ALL CONTOURS WITH THAT AND THE WETLANDS.

WITHOUT SURVEY LEVEL WORK, I'M NOT SURE THAT I WOULD BE ABLE TO GET TO THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL ON THESE PROPERTIES.

BUT WHAT I CAN SAY THAT YOU DO HAVE THESE TWO DOCUMENTS IN PLACE TODAY.

ONE BEING THE PLAT MAP, WHICH WILL REGULATE ACTIVITY ON THE REAR PORTION OF THOUGH PROPERTIES.

>> WITH RESPECT TO ZONING.

[01:05:01]

>> AND PREVENT DEVELOPMENT FROM ENCROACHING INTO THAT AREA TODAY.

BUT THEN THE CHANGE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS TO MATCH THE LAND USE AS YOU SEE IT REFLECTED ON YOUR CURRENT LAND USE MAP.

>> MY PROBLEM MAY BE TECHNICAL, BUT I THINK IT'S REAL.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE US RIGHT NOW TO DEVELOP IT, WHICH WE ARE CAPABLE OF LOOKING AT AND SEEING WHERE THIS LINE IS GOING TO BE DRAWN, ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSAL THAT'S IN FRONT OF US.

THERE IS A DESIGNATION ON PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE 60.

THERE ARE LINES ON IT BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF THEM ARE IDENTIFIED IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE KNOW THAT IT IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO PUT THE FLUM DESIGNATION.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT SHOULD BE THE BUFFER LINE OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE THE LINE IN MOST PLACES THAT MEANDERS BACK AND FORTH OR WHETHER IT'S THE UNBROKEN LINE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS.

>> THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO MAKE THE ZONING MATCH THE LAND USE.

IT HAS NOT GONE INTO ANY LEVEL CHANGING THE LAND USE AS IT EXISTS AT ALL.

>> CHANGING THE ZONING TO WHAT?

>> TO CONSERVATION FOR THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

>> BASED ON WHICH OF THOSE LINES?

>> NONE OF THE PLAT, BASED ON THE LAND USE MAP ITSELF.

I'M GIVING YOU THE PLAT OF INFORMATION TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE ALREADY DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THESE PROPERTIES, AND THOSE RESTRICTIONS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT TIMEFRAME OF THIS SUBDIVISION.

I'M REQUESTING THAT YOU TAKE ACTION TO ALIGN THE LAND USE AND ZONING MAPS, AND THOSE WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER, SO THAT THE NEW ZONING MAP WILL HAVE R-2 THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE WHAT YOU SEE ON THE LAND USE MAP.

AND THE SAME MANNER AND FORM.

I'M SORRY.

HERE'S YOUR CURRENT ZONING MAP AND HOW IT LOOKS.

YOUR CURRENT FLUM MAP.

THEY WOULD LOOK JUST LIKE THAT, BUT FOR ZONING.

>> ONE MORE ON THAT.

>> I'M LOOKING AT THE FLUM MAP.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION?

>> CONSERVATION IS NOT CHANGING.

ZONING LINE IS CHANGING.

>> YES, SIR.

>> ZONING LINE WILL NOW ALIGN WITH THAT.

>> YES.

>> THAT MAP RIGHT THERE.

THAT IS THE REQUESTED ACTION.

>> RIGHT.

>> I GOT CONFUSED.

>> THAT IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP.

>> RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY.

FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION, IF WE -- SO WE ARE NOT DOING THIS AS DEPICTED BY THE RESIDENT AMELIA LANDING UNIT BY PLAT BOOK PAGE 60.

>> THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO.

>> WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO INSTEAD IS TO TAKE THE FLUM MAP BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND CONSERVATION AS THE STATUS QUO AND CHANGE THE ZONING TO MATCH THAT PERFECTLY.

>> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY.

JUST FOR CLARITY, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE SAYS.

I GUESS THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO WANT IS TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT SAYS THAT.

>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION FIRST.

RIGHT HERE.

>> YES.

>> OKAY.

THERE'S DEFINITELY A BUFFER LINE THAT'S BEEN DESIGNATED.

THE 25 FOOT BUFFER.

>> ON THE PLAT ITSELF, YES.

>> THAT'S BY REGULATION WHEN THIS WAS CREATED BECAUSE HAD TO HAVE A 25 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE WETLANDS AND THE AREA.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IF YOU JUST GO WITH THAT PIECE OF IT, ON THE PLAT, IT'S ALREADY RECOGNIZED DELINEATION BETWEEN WETLANDS AND A BUFFER HAS BEEN CREATED.

>> THAT DOESN'T RECONCILE TO THE FLUM MAP.

I MEAN --

>> LOOKS LIKE THE FLUM MAP IS GOING ALONG WITH THIS.

>> MARK, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I ALSO UNDERSTAND WE'RE ESTABLISHING LEGAL BOUNDARIES FOR LAND USE.

[01:10:02]

THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND ZONING THAT SUGGESTS THAT THAT WILL BE DETERMINED BY REFERENCE TO THIS PLAT BOOK PAGE 60.

AND I'M UNDERSTANDING NOW THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

WE ARE SIMPLY CHANGING THE FLUM DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND CONSERVATION TO CONFORM WITH WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT MY DILEMMA IS HERE?

>> NOPE.

>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF WE'RE DOING THAT.

IF WE'RE DOING THIS, WHAT THIS SAYS, WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT LINE'S BEEN DRAWN RIGHT.

THE FLUM MAP, CONSERVATION OR THE FLUM MAP RESIDENTIAL.

I DON'T WANT TO FIX ONE MISTAKE AND CREATE A NEW ONE.

I'M HEARING THE STAFF, WHAT THE STAFF INTENDED BY THIS SUGGESTION IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAP TO ABSOLUTELY RECONCILE WITH THE FLUM MAP.

I'M PREPARED TO VOTE ON THAT.

BUT IF WE'RE REFERRING TO PLAT BOOK 6 PAGE 60 OR ANY PART OF THAT BOUNDARY, I'M NOT PREPARED TO VOTE ON THAT.

>> IT'S THERE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.

>> OKAY.

BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY IF IT'S DESIGNATED IN THE PLAT AND SHOWN HERE AND IT'S A REPRESENTATION OF PLAT, IT'S DESIGNATED.

>> IT'S BEEN DESIGNATED ON A DEED.

IT HASN'T BEEN DESIGNATED FOR THE CITY'S LAND USES.

THAT'S ALL WE'RE HERE TO DO.

>> IT APPEARS IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.

>> WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING ON THE PLACE WHERE THERE'S AN APPARENT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN --

>> THE INDIVIDUAL PLAT HERE IS SAYING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AND --

>> THREE DIFFERENT LINES.

>> SOUTH END HERE 327 FEET, FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY WALL TO --

>> THAT'S MY POINT.

>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT IS.

I CAN'T READ IT.

IT SETS UP THE AREA FOR THE BUFFER ZONE.

>> I'LL ASK ONE MORE TIME.

I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT YOU ALSO CAN'T BUILD WHERE CONSERVATION IS ON YOUR FLUM MAP.

THAT'S THE LINE WE'RE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW, NOT HOW YOU DETERMINE A BUFFER ZONE FOR WETLANDS, MR. CLARK.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK YOU'RE CORRECT.

I THINK WHEN YOU READ WHAT'S IN THE STAT REPORT, IT READS LIKE YOU SAY IT DOES.

THIS BASICALLY SAYS THAT WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW THE PLAT MAP.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS MAKING THE CONSERVATION LINE FOLLOW --

>> YEAH.

I INTENDED FOR THE PLAT TO BE THERE AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, A POINT OF INFORMATION, SO THAT YOU COULD SEE WHY I BELIEVE THE LAND USE HAD BEEN ASSIGNED TO IT IN THIS WAY INITIALLY AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MIRROR THE ZONING AN KEEPING WITH THAT LAND USE CATEGORY ITSELF.

IT WAS SIMPLY A POINT OF INFORMATION THAT YOU HAD THE FULL PICTURE.

>> SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT COMPORTS -- BEFORE I DO THAT, I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT MAP THAT'S UP THERE, THERE IS, IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, IN THE FLUM, THERE IS LAND ADJACENT TO AND SOUTH OF WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS EVENING FOR CONSERVATION.

I WOULD GUESS IS ESSENTIALLY HAS THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS AS THIS PROPERTY.

BUT WE'RE LEAVING IT IN THE FLUM AS RESIDENTIAL.

>> THIS ENTIRE EFFORT WAS ALL ABOUT CONFLICTS.

WHERE YOU HAVE LAND USES, CHANGES ZONE CONFLICTS.

THERE IS A SUBSEQUENT E EFFORT TO EVALUATE CONSERVATION CHANGES ITSELF.

SO THOSE PROPERTIES MAY HAVE ALIGNED ZONING AND LAND USE TODAY BUT WE WANT TO CONSIDER THEM FOR CONNER IS VAGUE IN THE FUTURE.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

I ACCEPT THAT POINT.

BUT TO MY WAY OF THINKING AS WE SEE THESE, THEY'RE IN FRONT OF US.

I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE SOMEONE COMES BACK WITH US AT SOME FUTURE DATE.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES.

>> OKAY.

DO YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING?

>> I DO.

>> I'M HAPPY TO VOTE ON THIS, THAT'S BEFORE US, BUT I THINK

[01:15:01]

THERE'S OTHER PROPERTY HERE THAT LOGICALLY OUGHT TO BE LOOKED AT IN THE SAME WAY.

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN YOUR MOTION NOW.

>> OKAY.

YES, MS. ROBAS.

>> THE GENTLEMAN ASKED THE QUESTION WHAT IMPACT THIS CHANGE WOULD HAVE ON THE VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY AND ANY KIND OF TAX.

I KNOW WE ARE NOT AN AUTHORITY IN THAT MATTER, BUT PERHAPS YOU COULD REFER HIM TO THE PROPER AUTHORITY TO HELP HIM ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> MR. CHAIR, MY LIGHT'S ON, ALSO.

>> YES, GO AHEAD.

>> I'M NOT ADVISING YOU AS YOUR LAWYER, BUT THAT IS WHY THE PLAT, I THINK, WAS INCLUDED AND IT'S CAUSED SOME CONFUSION.

IT GOES TO THEIR QUESTION, HOW THIS AFFECTS THEIR PROPERTY AND THEIR PROPERTY VALUE.

YOU CAN'T SAY EXACTLY ALL OF OUR VALUES HAVE BEEN CHANGING AND MOSTLY GOING UP.

IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE PLAT, THAT THIS CONSERVATION LINE GENERALLY FOLLOWS WHAT YOUR PLAT SAYS ANYWAY IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOUR PROPERTY.

SO I WOULD JUST SAY GENERALLY, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAVE MUCH OF AN EFFECT AT ALL.

YOU ALREADY CANNOT DO ANYTHING BASED UPON YOUR PLAT IN THAT AREA.

YOU WOULDN'T GET A PERMIT FROM THE CITY TO DO IT.

WHAT I INITIALLY TURNED MY LIGHT ON TO SAY, AGAIN, I'M NOT ADVISING YOU, ANYBODY WHOSE PROPERTY HAS ANY TYPE OF CONSERVATION ZONING OR LAND USE ON IT, FOR TAX PURPOSES, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT, ZONING AND LAND USE DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY TAXES.

YOU DON'T GET AN EXEMPTION LIKE YOU SHOULD.

BUT, IF YOU HAVE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT RECORDED OVER THAT AREA AND, AGAIN, YOU DO THIS THROUGH AN ATTORNEY.

YOU HAVE TO GET A SURVEY TO DRAW THOSE LINES.

THEN YOU GET ANOTHER TAX EXEMPTION ON THAT PARCEL.

THAT'S HOW THEY CALCULATE YOUR TAXES.

RIGHT NOW YOU'RE PAYING TAXES AS IF YOU COULD USE THE LAND.

>> IF I COULD JUST ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS BRIEFLY.

YOUR PROPERTY -- IF WE DID NOTHING, YOUR PROPERTY WOULD STILL BE GOVERNED BY THE SUPERIORITY OF THE FLUM MAP TO THE ZONING MAP.

SO YOU COULDN'T -- THE VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY WOULD BE LIMITED BY THAT ALREADY.

IF YOU CAME IN AND ASKED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT INSIDE THAT CONSERVATION AREA, YOU WOULDN'T GET IT, IDEALLY.

WE ARE RECONCILING THE ZONING MAP TO THAT AS WELL, WHICH WILL CLARIFY EVEN MORE SO THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE.

IT'S PROBABLY WORTH NOTING TO YOU THAT, PROPERTY DESIGNATIONS THAT WERE PLACED IN HERE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES MAY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE FLUM MAP DESIGNATION IS.

IF IT IS AND IT LIMITS YOUR ABILITY TO BUILD ON THAT PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY, LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT CAN CERTAINLY BE MADE, AND THIS ISN'T LEGAL ADVICE EITHER.

A LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE THAT THAT CREATES A DIMUNITION IN YOUR PROPERTY.

WHAT WE'RE DOING DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THAT.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, IT SHOULDN'T MATTER AT ALL.

BUT THOSE TWO THINGS DO MATTER TO PROPERTY VALUE, BUT THEY ALREADY EXIST.

>> ALL RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE ON THIS ONE? MISS GIBSON, YOUR LIGHT IS ON.

OKAY.

ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD MEMBERS? LET'S TAKE ROLL.

WE HAVE A MOTION? WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CASE NUMBER 20 19D-15 CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES ON OFF SHORE COURT BE MADE.

2309, 2329, 2347, 2119, 2225, 2255 AND 2315 BE APPROVED SUCH THAT THE CURRENT CONSERVATION BOUNDARY AND THE ZONING BE MADE CONSISTENT WHICH BASICALLY MEANS THE ZONING HAS TO BE CHANGED FROM R-2 TO CONSERVATION, AGAIN, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED FLUM.

>> JUST CHANGE TO THE ZONZONING.

[01:20:05]

>> SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> CHAIR SANTRY?

>> YES.

>> NEXT IS NORTH POINT 925 TARPON AVENUE.

ZONING MAP CHANGES.

MISS GIBSON, YOUR PRESENTATION, PLEASE?

>> YES, SIR.

THANK YOU.

THIS IS CONSIDERATION OF A ZONING CHANGE ONLY.

IT'S A ZONING CHANGE FROM R-2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO R-3 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MATCH THE EXISTING HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.

BEFORE PROCEEDING I WANTED TO NOTE A COUPLE POINTS WHICH I HAVE PUT IN THE REPORT AND CARRY OVER FROM PRIOR STAFF REPORTS I WAS WRITING TO.OUT THESE ARE TOWNHOMES NOT CONDOS.

TO POINT OUT THE CURRENT HRAPB USE IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY AND AMEND THE ZONING DISTRICT TO ARE-3.

EXISTING USES ARE 30 TOWNHOME UNITS.

THEY ARE ON 3.19 ACRES OF LAND.

I'LL MAKE SURE FUTURE PROCEEDINGS THAT THAT REPORT HAS BEEN AMENDED ACCORDINGLY.

>> COUPLE OTHER THINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT, KELLY.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE DEALING WITH A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED IN 1920 AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE DEALING WITH .10 OF AN ACRE OF LAND.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

>> CAN I FINISH?

>> I'M SORRY.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE.

>> I HAVE GOT CURRENT HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AS PROVIDED ON THE LAND USE MAP.

YOU SEE ZONING, WHICH CURRENTLY REFLECTS R-2 AND IF NOT IN KEEPING WITH THAT HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.

THE PLAT ASSOCIATED WITH IT WHICH WOULD HAVE INDICATED A TOTAL OF 40 DWELLING UNITS THAT WOULD HAVE EXISTED ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT IN TIME ONLY 30 TOWNHOME UNITS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED.

THE HOA HAS, WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, TAKEN ACTION TO ABSORB THE REMAINING LAND ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE UNITS AND MAKE THEM COMMON AREA TRACTS THROUGH A REPLAT THAT OCCURRED LAST YEAR.

SO WHAT THAT DOES, THE ENTIRETY OF THE 3.9 ACRES OF LAND NOW MEET YOURS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE UP TO TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO ASSIGN A MEDIUM DENSITY LAND USE CATEGORIZATION THERE BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY ALLOW UP TO EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND RIGHT NOW THEY'RE BUILT OUT AT 9.4.

IT WOULD VIOLATE THAT.

THE TIME FRAME UNDER WHICH THIS COMMUNITY HAD BEEN CON SEPL PLATED AN CERTAINLY THE DENSITY OF WHICH IT WAS PROVIDED FOR IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANY OF THE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT THE CITY HAS ON THE BOOKS TODAY.

WE SIMPLY, I BELIEVE THE CITY'S ACTION TO ASSIGN HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE TO IT AT THE POINT THAT IT DID WAS TO GIVE IT THE HIGHEST LEVEL RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY THAT IT POSSIBLY COULD.

SUBSEQUENT ACTION WAS TO PROVIDE AN R-2 ZONING DISTRICT.

MANY CONCERNS HAVE BEEN VOICED AND RAISED.

I SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TALKING WITH PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN NORTH POINTE OVER THE PAST WEEK OR SO.

THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN IS TO MAINTAIN A NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER THAT WOULD DISALLOW RESORT RENTALS AT THIS POINT IN TIME IT IS NOT ALLOWED FOR RESORT RENTALS.

INTRODUCING R-3 ZONING OPENS UP THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING RESORT RENTALS, OR WEEKLY RENTALS OCCUR THERE.

WHERE RETAINING R-2 WOULD CONTINUE TO PROHIBIT IT UNDER THE ZONING REGULATION.

TECHNICALLY THE TWO WOULD NOT ALIGN BY KEEPING IT AS A MISMATCH BUT YOU DO HAVE THE MIXED DENSE TOY KEEP THAT AS LEGAL CONFORMING TPP ZONING PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH THEY OPERATE WOULD HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED AS R-2 THOUGH.

SO DESIGN CONSIDERATION AS PART OF ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS THERE WOULD ALL BE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT YOU SEE IN R-2 ZONING.

AND THAT WOULD CARRY WITH IT A RESTRICTION ON RESORT RENTAL.

I HAVE GOT SOME OPTION HERE'S FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER BEYOND WHAT HAD BEEN PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE FIRST WAS TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO MATCH THE LAND USE.

THE OTHER OPTION IS TO LEAVE IT AS IS.

[01:25:02]

KEEP THE R-2 IN PLACE.

EFFECTIVELY YOU'RE TREATING THIS AS A PUD.

IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERMITTED ANYWAY UNDER OUR CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS.

IT SIMPLY DOESN'T FIT ANY OF THEM BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF HOW IT WAS DEVELOPED PREVIOUSLY.

YOU HAVE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY AND INTENSITY THAT IS GRANTED BY HAVING HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ASSOCIATED, BUT THAT ZONING DISTRICT WOULD GIVE YOU DIFFERENT STANDARDS.

I HAVE PRESENTED THIS YEAR.

IT IS AN ISOLATED NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT IS BOARDED BY A PARK.

HISTORICALLY DID NOT HAVE RESORT RENTALS WITHIN THIS AREA AND ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF.

SURROUNDING COMMUNITY IS R-2 ZONING AND TYPICALLY DOES NOT HAVE RESORT RENTALS ON THERE, EXCEPT FOR A FEW GRANDFATHERED INSTANCES.

MAINTAINING THE BOARD CHOOSES TO LOOK AT MAINTAINING AN R-2 ZONING DESIGNATION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY COULD BE ACTUALLY REVIEWED AS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND MAINTAINING GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND AND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ALIGN.

I DO NOTE THAT MEMBERS WHO LIVE WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY AND REALLY THE COMMUNITY NEED TO PAY CAREFUL ATTENTION TO STATE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES AS TO WEEKLY RENTAL, RESORT RENTALS.

THIS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN RECENTLY DISCUSSED AT THE STATE LEVEL AND AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WE COULD ALL BE OPEN TO NEIGHBORHOODS.RENTALS WITHIN OU- JUST SOMETHING TO BE MINDFUL OF.

IF THE BOARD WISHES TO CONSIDER ACTION TO LEAVE IT AS IS.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION?

>> YES, MR. BENNETT.

>> ACCORDING TO THIS, IT SAYS CURRENTLY ZONING, GENERAL COMMERCIAL PLUM AND R-2 ZONING.

PROPOSED LAND USE AND ZONING, AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY.

I HEARD MORE THAN ONCE R-3, HIGH DENSITY, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

>> YES, SIR.

I POINTED THAT OUT AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF MY PRESENTATION IT CHANGED TO MAKE SURE THAT HAD BEEN NOTED.

>> SO THE CHANGE IS DUE TO THE CURRENT DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> THE CURRENT LAND USE IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUT THE ZONING IS R-2.

AGAIN, WE ARE LOOKING FOR CONFLICTS.

THIS ONE CAME UP.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

I'M GOING TO HAVE MY 70TH BIRTHDAY EARLY NEXT YEAR AND IT'S BEGINNING TO SHOW.

DIDN'T WE APPROVE A MODIFICATION TO THIS CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LAST YEAR SOMETIME THAT PLACED A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE PROPERTY IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT?

>> NO, SIR.

IT CHANGED IT FROM BEING DEVELOPABLE LAND TO COMMON TRACTS FOR THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY DID NOT CHANGE THE LAND USE OR ZONING.

>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LAND USE OR ZONING.

LET ME GET THIS OUT AND YOU CAN SHAKE YOUR HEAD IF I'M WRONG.

DIDN'T THEY COME IN AND REQUEST OUR APPROVAL OF SOME MODIFICATION TO DOCUMENTATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING A TAX BASE CONTROVERSY WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THIS PROPERTY AND THEY IN TURN PLACED IT IN A CONSERVATION RESIGNATION SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY 10 OR 12 YEARS OF PAST TAXES?

>> THEY MODIFIED THE PLAT TO BE COMMON AREA.

I KNOW THEIR REPRESENTATIVE AT THAT POINT IN TIME SAID THEY WOULD BRING TO THE BOARD CONSIDERATION OF A CONSERVATION EASEMENT BUT THAT ACTION HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN AT THIS TIME.

IT'S COMMON LAND AND NOT DEVELOPABLE PLOTS ANYMORE.

>> SO THAT WAS NEVER CHANGED.

>> IT'S COMMON AREA TO THE HOA.

IT IS NOT -- UNLESS THEY COME BACK IN AND PRODUCE ANOTHER PLAT MAP WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

>> THEY COULD COME BACK AND REDEVELOP IT, ALL THE PROPERTY AT A HIGHER DENSITY?

>> ONLY AT HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNDER A CURRENT LAND USE WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

>> IT SAYS CURRENT LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL.

ITS CURRENT ZONING IS R-2.

[01:30:02]

>> GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

>> THAT WAS AN ERROR.

>> OH, OKAY.

THAT'S WHY I'M SO CONFUSED.

>> THE PROPOSED LAND USE AND ZONING ACTION SHOULD READ, AMEND FUTURE LAND USE -- PARDON ME.

AMEND ZONING MAP FROM R-2 TO R-3 TO CONFORM WITH THE FLUID DESIGNATION OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> FLUM IS R-3.

>> HIGH DENSITY.

>> WHICH IS THE EQUIVALENT OF R-3.

>> OKAY.

>> I HAVE TO ASK THIS SO THAT IT'S CLEAR.

WHEN WE WERE BROUGHT THE PLAT AMENDMENT TO DECLARE THE UNDEVELOPED LAND COMMON PROPERTY LAST YEAR, IS THAT WHAT CREATED THE DENSITY NONCONFORMING WITH R-2?

>> NO.

>> SO AS ORIGINALLY BUILT, THIS WAS --

>> I CAN TALK TO THAT.

THIS WAS PRIOR TO 1985.

WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A FUNCTIONAL FUTURE LAND USE MAP IN THE SAME FORM THAT YOU HAVE IT TODAY.

I CAN SAY THAT THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE DENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL T GREATEST CATEGORY YOU COULD HAVE ASSIGNED TO IT WHEN CREATING DISTRICTS THAT OUR FUTURE LAND MAP USE HAD WOULD HAVE BEEN THIS ONE.

BUT EVEN THAT WAS NOT CONFORMING.

>> HOW MANY MORE UNITS DID THEY GET HIGH DENSITY AS OPPOSED TO MEDIUM DENSITY? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENT TPREPB -- DIFF DIFFERENT?

>> IF YOU WERE SEEING A BRAND NEW REQUEST FOR A PERMIT, WHAT'S THE DENSITY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R-2 AND R-3?

>> EACH DWELLING UNIT, TWO UNITS PER ACRE.

>> R-2 IS TWO UNITS PER ACRE.

>> THE DIFFERENCE.

IT'S IN BETWEEN.

>> EIGHT IS ALLOWABLE UNDER R-2, TEN IS ALLOWABLE UNDER R-3.

>> HOW MANY DOES THIS HAVE?

>> 9.4.

>> RIGHT ON THE CUSP.

I'M GONNA SEE IF I CAN SHORT CUT A LITTLE PUBLIC INPUT HERE, IF YOU FOLKS DON'T MIND.

HOW MANY OF YOU ARE OUT THERE BECAUSE YOU PREFER TO SEE THIS TAKEN CARE OF WITHOUT HAVING A USABLE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL STANDARD APPLY TO THE PROPERTY? HOW MANY OF YOU WANT TO STAY R-2 INSTEAD OF GOING TO R-3? HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO TO R-3 INSTEAD OF BEING R-2? OKAY.

OF THOSE THAT JUST RAISED THEIR HAND FOR THE FIRST OF MY TWO QUESTION, WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN IF YOU ARE IN ONE OF THESE CONDOS NOW, IF YOU OWN IT OR OCCUPY IT.

OKAY.

I'M GONNA ASK YOU TO APPRECIATE THAT IF YOU JUST TOLD US THAT WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE US TO HEAR CONSIDER YOURSELF HEARD.

IF THERE'S MORE THAN THAT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING ON THIS ISSUE.

WOULD ANY OF YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING FURTHER? I'M GONNA START WITH THIS LADY, IF YOU'LL IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> I'M DEBBIE HILL, 925 TARPON AVENUE.

I'M PRESIDNT OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

I MAY BE ABLE TO CLEAR A LITTLE SOMETHING UP.

I HAVE COPIES OF PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING FROM AUGUST 21, 1981 WHEN THEY WERE DISCUSSING, THEY WERE CREATING THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR NORTH POINTE.

IT SAYS THAT MOST OF THE DISCUSSION WITH THE BUILDER AND ARCHITECT DEALT WITH THE DENSITY OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING BECAUSE THEY WANTED 45 UNITS.

AN AREA DESIGNATED IN

[01:35:03]

COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN TO HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TEN UNITS PER ACRE.

AREA IS CURRENTLY ZONED R-3 BUT THE BOARD IS PROPOSING A NEW ZONING OF R-2.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROBABLY -- THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE AIMING FOR.

TURNED OUT WE DEVELOPED, THEY DEVELOPED 30 UNITS AND OUR DENSITY RIGHT NOW IS 9.4, BUT WE PICKED UP LOT 276 RIGHT NEXT TO THE ENTRANCE UNIT ONE AT .07 ACRES.

SO THAT BRINGS OUR DENSITY DOWN TO 9.2.

WE'RE LOCKED IN ON EVERY SIDE.

6TH STREET, THE FORT, HOUSING.

IF WE AGREE TO MAKE THIS CONSERVATION AREA, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANTED ANYWAY, WE TURNED DOWN HALF A MILLION DOLLARS TO DEVELOP IT BY 80% VOTE OF THE OWNERS.

WE SPENT, WE PAID TAXES FOR TWO YEARS WHILE DETERMINING WHAT WE WANTED TO DO.

THERE WERE REPLANNING FEES AND LEGAL FEES AND ALL THAT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

UNLIKE MOST PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE, WE'RE NOT WEALTHY.

IT WAS ALL OUR PLAN TO MAKE IT CONSERVATION AREA, WHETHER THROUGH DOING SOMETHING OFFICIAL OR JUST PROMISING THE TURTLES WE WOULDN'T TOUCH IT.

WHATEVER YOU CAN DO TO HELP US, WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

WE WOULD LIKE TO STAY R-2.

I KNOW IT'S JUST ONE ALLIGATOR IN THE MOAT AND THE DARK FORCE IS STRONG IN TALLAHASSEE, SO I KNOW, AND I HAVE TALKED TO MS. GIBSON ABOUT IT.

IT'S COMING.

WE'RE WORKING ON OUR COVENANTS ARE FOUR YEARS OLD.

THEY NEED A REWRITE.

WE KNOW HOW THINGS RUN IN AN HOA.

WE'RE WORKING ON AN AMENDMET NOW TO NOT ALLOW SHORT TERM RENTALS AND TO NOT ALLOW RESORT RENTALS.

AND YOU KEEPING US R-2 OR RECOMMENDING WE STAY R-2 WOULD JUST BE ANOTHER STEP IN THE PROCESS FOR US.

SO WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.

>> MR. CLARK.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> YES, MA'AM, THIS LADY.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, WHEN YOU GET TO THE PODIUM.

>> MY NAME IS BETSY HEAVEN.

I'M HERE THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF MY CUSTOMERS.

THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO E-MAIL YOU A LETTER ON THEIR BEHALF.

THEY'RE NOT SURE THAT IT GOT TO YOU.

THEY WANTED ME TO LET YOU KNOW THAT, NUMBER ONE, WE SPENT A YEAR LOOKING FOR A PROPERTY THAT WAS AN R-2, NOT AN R-3.

THEY DID NOT WISH TO PURCHASE IN AN R-3 COMMUNITY.

THE OTHER THING IS, THE TERM CONDO GETS USED.

THAT'S REALLY NOT WHAT THIS IS.

THESE ARE TOWNHOMES, FEE SIMPLE DEED, AND FOR THAT REASON, THEY DO FEEL THIS IS A BIT OF A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.

THEY WANT, AFTER ALL THEY WENT THROUGH TO FIND A PLACE THEY COULD AFFORD BACKING UP ON CONSERVATION LAND, OR RECREATION LAND FOR THE CITY, THEY DON'T WANT THE CHARACTER OF WHAT THEY PURCHASED A YEAR AGO TO CHANGE.

JUST CLARIFYING, IT'S NOT A CONDO.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ANYONE ELSE?

>> I LOOK AT THESE PEOPLE EVERY DAY.

THEY'RE WONNERFUL PEOPLE.

ONE OF THE THINGS I REALLY ENJOYED ABOUT HEARING ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY AND WHAT THEY GET INVOLVED WITH WAS WHEN THEY DID COME TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ASK FOR THE CHANGE THAT ALLOWED THEM TO CREATE A COMMON AREA.

IF YOU'VE DRIVEN THERE, YOU HAVE THE FORT RIGHT BEHIND THEM.

YOU HAVE ALL THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM AND ALL AROUND THEM.

LOT OF PEOPLE REFER TO IT AS WHAT OLD FLORIDA WAS LIKE UP THERE.

SOME OF US CALL IT BOHEMIA.

NO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, BUT A VERY POWERFUL ONE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK MORE SO THAN WHETHER IT'S SHORT TERM RENTALS OR NOT 'CAUSE I HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT BATTLE WHEN I SAT UP THERE AND I ALSO KNOW WHAT THE STATE CAN DO.

THIS ALSO BRINGS WITH IT OTHER THINGS.

IF EVER THIS DEVELOPMENT CHANGED OR PART OF IT CHANGED, WHAT

[01:40:03]

COULD BE BUILT THERE WOULD NOT BE IN CHARACTER WITH THE AREA THAT SURROUNDS IT, I BELIEVE.

SO I WOULD ALSO LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.

I THINK THAT THIS WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A CHARACTER.

I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO MESS WITH THAT 'CAUSE IT'S VERY MUCH A PART OF THE ENVIRONMENT IT SITS IN.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE?

>> MY NAME IS JEFF FOSTER.

I LIVE AT 846 MERIT, THE STREET RIGHT NEXT TO YOU, THE WHITE OUTDOOR PATIO.

WE'VE ONLY LIVED THERE SIX MONTHS, BUT WE BOUGHT IT BECAUSE OF THE CHARACTER THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.

THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD ASK MS. GIBSON OR ANY OF THE PANEL MEMBERS IS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R-3 AND R-3 FROM A HIGH PERSPECTIVE? ARE THEY GOING TO BUILD HIGHER? RIGHT NOW THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A REASONABLE CHARACTER, IF YOU WILL, BECAUSE THAT'S A GOOD WORD FOR IT.

WE'RE ALL AROUND THE SAME.

TWO STORIES, ABOUT TWO STORIES.

MAYBE THE GARAGE COUNTS, WHATEVER THAT IS.

I'M IN A DUPLEX AND LIVE IN HALF OF IT RIGHT AT THAT CORNER.

BUT THE CHARACTER AND THE VIEW IS IDEAL.

WHAT DOES R-3 DO TO THAT, AS FAR AS HEIGHT AND BLOCKING THIS WHOLE ENTIRE STREET?

>> UNDER A REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO, IF R-3 WERE APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY, YOU WOULD HAVE TEN FOOT HEIGHT INCREASE, UP TO 45 FEET.

>> UP TO 45 FEET.

>> SO EVERYBODY ON OUR SIDE OF THE STREET LOSES THEIR VIEW?

>> I WOULD NEED TO EVALUATE IT AGAINST OTHER CRITERIA PROVIDED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT I HAVE NOT DONE THAT AT THIS POINT.

I KNOW R-3 DIRECTLY WOULD GIVE YOU 45 FEET, BUT THERE ARE OTHER PARAMETERS THAT MAY RESTRICT IT BACK DOWN TO 35 FEET BECAUSE OF THEIR PROXIMITY TO HIGH WATER MARK, OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN.

THERE'S A 1,000 FOOT RESTRICTION THERE THAT LIMITS HEIGHT TO 35 FEET WITHIN THAT AREA.

THOSE ARE CHARACTERISTICS AND DESIGN STANDARDS THAT I HAVE NOT EVALUATED BECAUSE I'M NOT LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY UNDER A REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO.

SO IT WAS SIMPLY TO ALIGN THE ZONING AND LAND USE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

>> ONE LAST QUESTION.

NO DISRESPECT, BUT ONCE IT'S REZONED, EVERYBODY LOOKS AT IT DIFFERENTLY.

THINGS CHANGE.

THE LAST QUESTION IS, WHERE DOES THAT MAP FOR NORTH POINTE R-3 DRAW? I'M ACROSS THE STREET, RIGHT? DIRT ROAD RIGHT THERE.

DO WE GET R-3? DO I GET TO MOVE UP TEN FEET TO SEE OVER THESE GUYS AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORS? WHERE DOES IT DRAW?

>> MR. CLARK?

>> KELLY, COULD YOU PUT UP THE RECOMMENDATION.

YOU GAVE US A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

THE SECOND ONE, LEAVE IT AS IS.

LEAVE IT AS R-2 IS WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT.

UNDER THAT, KELLY, A QUESTION FOR YOU.

WOULD WE CHANGE THE FLUM, WHICH IS NOW HIGH DENSITY, TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL?

>> I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND YOU TAKE ACTION TOWARD THAT BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE KRE KCREATING A NONCONFORMITY DENSITY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THIS BOARD I DON'T THINK IS INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO, WHICH IS CREATING NONCONFORMITIES HERE.

>> SO ON THAT POINT, I THINK WE PUD HERE. THE IDEA THAT IT WAS - WOULD THE PUD OR SOME WAY WE COULD REFLECT THAT HERE GIVE US A LITTLE MORE LATITUDE TO MAKE THE FLUM MEDIUM DENSITY?

>> IN REVIEWING THIS, A PUD WAS NEVER ACTUALLY PLACED ON TOP OF IT THE WAY THAT WE WOULD SEE IT COME THROUGH THE BOARD TODAY.

WHAT I DID FIND IS THAT YOU HAD R-2 THAT WAS BASICALLY JUST ACCEPTED FOR DESIGN PURPOSES, BUT RETAINING THE BASE DENSITY ASSOCIATED WITH -- OR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS 15 AN ACRE WHICH I HEARD IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE TOTAL UNITS THAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED TO HAVE.

ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE OF THE TREATMENT IN THAT MANNER, TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR, IT'S ACTING LIKE A PUD RIGHT NOW WITHOUT HAVING THAT DESIGNATION FORMALLY APPLIED TO IT.

>> MY THOUGHT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THAT WE RETAIN THE R-2 ZONING.

[01:45:03]

I'D REALLY LIKE TO CHANGE THE FLUM TO MEDIUM DENSITY, BUT SEEMS TO ME HAVING CONSISTENCY IS GOOD.

I UNDERSTAND THE DENSITIES THERE ARE NOW.

BUT THERE'S A CLEAR EXPRESSION HERE FROM THESE FOLKS THAT THEY WANT TO RETAIN THE R-2.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU.

>> I DO, TOO.

>> WE'RE CHOOSING, IN MANY WAYS, WE'RE CHOOSING OUR PROBLEM BY MAKING A CHANGE TO THIS, EITHER THE FLUM OR THE ZONING MAP.

AND SITTING HERE TONIGHT AT PRESENT, SUBJECT TO HEARING MORE THAT MIGHT CHANGE MY MIND, I WOULD RATHER HAVE CONFORMING LAND USE AND FLUM WITH A GRANDFATHERED EXCESS DENSITY THAN TO HAVE A CONFLICT BETWEEN ZONING AND FLUM.

I WOULD EVEN GO SO FAR AS TO SAY IF THAT REQUIRED A -- THE CITY RECEIVING A SIMPLIFIED PUD DOCUMENT THAT AUTHORIZED HIGHER DENSITY OR THIS GROUP APPROACH A VARIANCE FOR DENSITY TO CONFORM WITH THE AS BUILT.

NO? IF WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION, I PICK 3 WHICH IS CHANGE THE ZONING TO R-2.

>> I HAVE MY LIGHT ON JUST TO EXPLAIN WHY I WAS SHAKING MY HEAD.

JUST BRIEFLY.

YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE THINGS.

ONE WAS THE PUD TO WHERE WE THOUGHT OF THAT.

CANNOT DO IT BECAUSE PUDS UNDER OUR CODE RIGHT NOW, THEY REQUIRE SOME COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT MIXED.

THE VARIANCE, THE CODE, HAS A LIST OF ITEMS THAT HAVE NOT CHANGED.

DENSITY IS ONE THAT CANNOT BE CHA CHANGED.

>> WE CAN CHANGE THE ZONING TO R-2.

>> THE ZONING IS AT R-2.

>> HANG ON A SECOND.

>> PRACTICAL EFFECT OF CHANGING THE FUTURE OF LAND USE TO R-2 IS THAT RIGHT NOW, IT IS OVERDEVELOPED AND THEY COULD NOT -- THEY'D HAVE PROBLEMS PUTTING BACK THE SAME DEVELOPMENT.

>> THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

>> I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID IN THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED TO US.

MAYBE SOMEBODY MADE THAT HAPPEN.

>> WE'RE LOOKING AT 30 UNITS ROUGHLY.

THE WAY THIS AREA IS DEVELOPING, THAT WHOLE PROPERTY WOULD BE IDEAL TO REDEVELOP, OKAY? AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE R-3 OR HIGH DENSITY ZONING AT THAT PART OF THE ISLAND.

THAT WOULD BE A TRAVESTY.

SO FOR NO OTHER REASON TO LIMIT DENSENY THAT AREA, I WOULD CHANGE IT TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND R-2 AND BE DONE WITH IT.

>> I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE HERE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN.

IT WOULD MEAN -- I MEAN ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT THEY MAY NOT HAVE THOUGHT OF THIS.

IF THE FLUM GOES TO MEDIUM DENSITY TO MATCH THE R-2 ZONING

[01:50:03]

AND A 1,000 YEAR STORM CAME THROUGH YEAR AND TOOK TWO UNITS OUT, MORE THAN 50% DAMAGE YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE DENSITIES OF THIS.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THIS.

YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REBUILD THOSE TWO UNITS.

IF WE HEAR YOU SAY YOU WANT TO GO IN THE DIRECTION OF KEEPING THIS R-2 FOR ALL PURPOSES, THAT NONCONFORMING USE, THAT WILL CREATE, THAT COULD MEAN THAT DOWN TO A DENSITY OF EIGHT UNITS COULD BE WIPED AWAY BY FIRE OR BY STORM OR ANY ACT OF GOD AND THIS COULD ONLY BE REPAIRED, I BELIEVE, TO EIGHT PER ACRE DENSITIES.

AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT?

>> NO.

>> TELL ME WHAT'S WRONG ABOUT THAT.

>> BOTH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CORRESPONDING POLICY STATEMENTS WOULD SPEAK DIRECTLY TO NONCONFORMING USES, LOTS AND STRUCTURES.

YOU REBUILD THAT TO NO GREATER NONCONFORMITY THAN PREVIOUSLY EXISTED.

SO WHETHER IT'S THIS OR ANOTHER PARCEL, IT COULD BE REBUILT.

AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT EXTENDING BEYOND WHAT YOU PREVIOUS HAD, WHETHER THAT'S FOR SIZE OR TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS OR ANY OTHER STANDARD WHICH MAY NOT BE IN COMPL COMPLIANCE.

>> IF SOME OF THE UNITS WERE DESTROYED, THEY COULD REDEVELOP THE ENTIRE SITE TO WHATEVER THE LAND USE IS SAYING IT IS.

THAT'S THE DOWNSIDE.

>> YOUR LIGHT IS ON.

CORRECT?

>> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I WANT TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE TO THE FULL TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND R-2 ZONE WITH CASE 2019-14, 2019-15 TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND RECOMMEND THAT AS PRESENTED IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT.

>> IT'S ALREADY R-2.

>> WOULD BE CHANGING THE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT.

>> SECOND.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> THANK YOU.

>> IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE, I HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS.

THE SOONER YOU GET YOUR HOA RULES, REGULATIONS NAILED DOWN TO PROHIBIT, AND SOON AS YOU CAN DETERMINE WHAT LEVEL IT WOULD TAKE TO OVERTURN THAT, SIMPLE MAJORITY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, BETTER OFF YOU'LL BE.

BECAUSE THE STATE'S COMING BACK AT IT AGAIN.

SOONER Y'ALL GET THAT ENACTED, THE BETTER YOU'LL BE.

SOON AS WE SAY IT'S R-2, THE FLUM SAYS THE SAME, THE BETTER WE ARE GONNA BE.

IF WE HAVE A CONFLICT, THE STATE SAYS, YOUR FLUM IS HIGH DENSITY AND SOMEBODY CHALLENGES IT --

>> YEP.

>> THEY MAY WIN.

>> DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE STATE ANY WEDGE OR ANYTHING THEY CAN USE TO MAKE IT SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS.

I SUPPORT MR. BENNETT'S MOTION.

I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY PART OF MY THINKING ABOUT THIS IS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING HAVING TALKED TO THE FOLKS THAT VACANT LAND WITHIN THAT HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE HOA AND THEY INTEND NEW DEVELOPMENT THERE.

FOR ME, IT WAS A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT.

I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT.

>> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> CALL THE ROLE.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MR. BENNETT.

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK.

>> YES.

>> MEMBER ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN SANTRY.

>> YES.

[01:55:04]

WHILE THEY'RE DOING THAT, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS.

>> THE PAB HAS RETURNED FROM RECESS.

WE ARE ON 212 SOUTH 14TH STREET, DAVID PAGE PROPERTY.

MS. GIBSON?

>> SHE JUST NEEDED A FEW MORE MINUTES.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

WE'LL WAIT

>> WE'RE DEALING WITH 212 14TH STREET, DAVID PAGE PROPERTY.

MS. GIBSON?

>> JUST ONE MOMENT.

>> THIS IS A FUTURE HRAPB USE MAP CHANGE WHERE SOME OF THE OTHER ONES WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY WERE ZONING CHANGE PARAMETERS.

THIS ONE IS A HRAPB USE MAP CHANGE TO CHANGE THE EXISTING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4.21 ACRES OF LAND TO MATCH THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT OF MIXED USE OR MU-1 THAT'S APPLIED TO IT.

WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA, YOU DO HAVE MIXED USE, AS WELL AS C-1 AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, BUT OPERATING AS A CHURCH NEXT DOOR TO IT.

IT'S NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME RIGHT THERE.

THE CURRENT DENSITY PROVIDED MIXED USE WHICH EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IS A NET INCREASE OF TWO UNITS PER ACRE WITHIN THE CHANGE THAT'S BEING COMTEMPLATED FOR THE LAND USE MAP.

EVEN AT THAT INCREASED DENSITY, IT STILL CONTINUES TO SERVE AS A LEGAL NONCONFORMITY BECAUSE OF THE ACREAGE ASIDE EVEN AT THAT HIGHER DENSITY UNDER MIXED USE LAND USE, IT DOESN'T HAVE ADEQUATE LAND AREA TO SUPPORT TWO DWELLING UNITS.

THE CURRENT USE ON THAT PROPERTY IS A DUPLEX.

BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY MAKE THE MAPS MATCH.

>> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS PART OF THE AGENDA? ALL RIGHT.

LET ME OPEN IT UP TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS OR QUESTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPOSAL?

>> I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE CHANGE.

>> ME AS WELL.

>> LET ME JUST NOTE.

I WISH WE HAD PULLED BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THE -- ONE OF THE CURRENT FLUM MAP ON PAGE 4 OF 6.

WHAT SOME OF THESE NARROWER PICTURES DON'T SHOW, WITH RESPECT TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE'VE HAD A LOT OF SPOT CONSIDERATIONS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, IS THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE FACING THE HIGHER VOLUME STREETS, PARTICULARLY 14TH STREET ARE ALMOST UNIFORMLY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

AT THE CORNER OF ATLANTIC AT 14TH STREET AND NOW THIS IS WITH RESPECT TO BEECH AND 14TH STREET.

WE'RE MOVING INTO USES BOTH MORE INTENSE AND MORE VARIED THAN BELOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH OVERWHELMINGLY DOMINATES THIS PART OF THE CITY.

I'M TROUBLED BY THAT.

I WANT TO SAY IT OUT LOUD.

WE'VE KIND OF PIECE MEALED THIS TO MIXED USE AND WE USED THE FIRE HOUSE AS A BASIS TO DO THAT.

WE'VE USED SOME EXISTING BUSINESSES AS A BASIS TO DO THAT.

BUT THE REALITY IS, ONE OF OUR CHIEF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS IS TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THAT'S WHAT FUNDAMENTALLY THIS IS.

I WOULD MUCH FAVOR CHANGING THE ZONING TO MATCH THE FLUM THAN CHANGING THE FLUM TO MATCH THE ZONING.

I THINK THERE HAS BEEN A LEGITIMATE REASON FOR THESE TO BE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FLUM

[02:00:03]

DESIGNATIONS.

ALMOST ALL OF THESE, EVEN THE ONES LABELED MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL WERE FOR A LONG TIME.

I THINK WE'RE NICKEL AND DIMING THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO REAL DAMAGE, IN TERMS OF ITS INTEGRITY AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS RECOMMENDATION.

I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER REFLECTED IN THE ZONING.

MR. BENNETT?

>> KELLY, THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE FIRE HOUSE, THIS ISN'T AN EXCUSE, BUT DIDN'T WE CHANGE THAT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT IS IT NOW?

>> IT'S MIXED USE, SIR.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE RESIDENTIAL.

>> I BELIEVE IT WILL DEVELOP OUT RESIDENTIAL.

A PORTION OF IT MAY BE CARVED OUT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES.

>> I SEE.

>> MR. BENNETT BROUGHT UP THAT PREVIOUS PARCEL, I WAS AN ADVOCATE FOR IT TO STAY RESIDENTIAL.

I AGREE WITH MR. SANTRY.

SAME RATIONALE.

THAT AREA IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S NOT ROLLED UP INTO BUSINESS OTHER THAN THE TWO CORNER PARCELS ON BEECH STREET.

I THINK I'M INCLINED TO GO WITH MR. SANTRY'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE MAKE IT LOW DENSITY AS OPPOSED TO GOING THE OTHER WAY.

I THINK THAT --

>> MR. CLARK?

>> WHAT'S IN THE MIXED USE, JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY? WHAT'S ON THAT PROPERTY NOW?

>> THAT'S A DOCTOR'S OFFICE.

>> WHAT ABOUT EVEN FURTHER SOUTH OF THAT?

>> A RELIGIOUS FACILITY.

>> I APPRECIATE WHAT THE CHAIRMAN HAS SAID HERE, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, WE SHOULD LOOK AT MORE THAN JUST THIS ONE PROPERTY.

I GUESS IF WE LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE IN MIXED USE THE WAY IT IS N NOW, I DON'T KNOW WE'RE DOING THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL ANY FAVORS.

I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I COULD EVEN SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE TONIGHT IF WE GET AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE CORRIDOR UP AND DOWN THROUGH THERE.

I GUESS MOST OF IT'S ALREADY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> AS WELL AS LOW DENSITY.

>> THE OTHER TWO.

>> A COMMERCIAL AND A CHURCH IN THERE.

WE HAVE THE PICTURES RIGHT HERE.

>> YEAH.

I UNDERSTAND.

THE PROPERTY NORTH OF IT BETWEEN THIS ONE AND THAT IS MIXED USE.

I MEAN, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE.

I UNDERSTAND THE OBJECTIVE.

BUT IF WE JUST DO THIS ONE PROPERTY, ARE WE REALLY GOING TO DEAL WITH WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EFFECTIVELY?

>> THE PROBLEM I THINK IS SPINNING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

THESE MIXED USES WERE MOSTLY IN RESIDENTIAL USE WHEN THE PROPOSAL CAME UP TO CHANGE THEM OR REMAIN THEM.

AND THEY GOT CHANGED TO MIXED USE WHEN IN MY VIEW THEY SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED TO BE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

I GUESS --

>> I THINK YOU MISUNDERSTAND.

IF THAT'S WHERE WE WANT TO GO, LET'S GO BACK AND LOOK AT THOSE.

>> I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO SUGGEST THAT, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT GOING TO BE SURPRISED IF THERE'S SOME PROJECTS IN THE WORKS ON SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES PREDICATED ON THE CHANGE.

HAVING SAID THAT, THIS IS A SMALL SUBSTANDARD LOT.

IF WE GO TO MIXED USE, YOU CAN BUILD TO THE LOT LINE.

THERE'S NO VALUE TO THAT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, IN TERMS OF MAINTAINING THE CHARACTER OF ANYTHING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE A RECONCILIATION ISSUE HERE THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE.

I JUST THINK THE PROPOSAL RESOLVES IT IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

I'M KIND OF THE OTHER WAY WITH IT.

SOME TIME AGO, THIS GROUP AND THE CITY COMMISSION MADE A DECISION FOR THIS TO BE LOW DENSITY CITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE FLUM.

I THINK THAT'S THE STATUS QUO DECISION THAT OUGHT TO BE HONORED.

BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER

[02:05:01]

BEEN CHANGED TO MIXED USE ONLY AND WASN'T EVER.

>> WOULD YOU CONSIDER REZONING THE MIXED USE BACK TO WHAT THIS IS?

>> I WOULD CONSIDER IT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE AREN'T ALREADY DEVELOPMENT ORDERS IN PLACE ON THEM.

I MEAN, FOR THOSE OTHER ONES, SOMEBODY TYPICALLY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING.

THEY BROUGHT A PROPOSAL TO THE CITY.

THEY PAID THE FEES TO CONSIDER THE ZONING CHANGE OR MODIFICATION TO FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR BOTH.

THIS IS THE CITY DOING THIS TO ITS OWN FLUM MAP, IF YOU WILL, FOR NO APPARENT REASON BEYOND THERE'S A BUFFER CONSIDERATION IN MIXED USE.

THAT'S ADDRESSED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT.

IN THIS INSTANCE, BUFFER TO WHAT? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN MIXED USE CATEGORY ON THIS PROPERTY, AS SMALL AS IT IS.

GOING TO REPRESENT A BUFFER BETWEEN A HIGHER INTENSITY USE AND LOWER INTENSITY USE? IT'S A BETTER BUFFER AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO RECONCILE THIS CONFLICT, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO RESOLVE IT IN FAVOR OF THE FLUM MAP WHICH IS THE LEGAL STATUS QUO.

>> BUT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO --

>> TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THESE CAME UP WHEN I WAS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD, I VOTED AGAINST ALL OF THEM FOR THE SAME REASON.

MS. MINSHEW.

>> I WISH WE COULD DO THAT ENTIRE CORRIDOR.

HER MIKE WAS ON.

>> THANK YOU.

WELL, I GUESS MY CONCERN, MY ISSUE IS, THIS -- AT LEAST THIS PORTION OF 14TH STREET FROM ATLANTIC DOWN JUST PAST THIS REALLY IS IN THE PROCESS OF GOING COMMERCIAL.

ALL FOUR OF THOSE PROPERTIES ON THE COMMERCIAL OF 14TH STREET AND ATLANTIC ARE NOW COMMERCIAL.

THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER THAT'S FOR SALE HAS GOT A BIG COMMERCIAL SIGN IN FRONT OF IT.

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S ZONED OR FLUMED FROM THAT.

>> FROM A MAIN STREET PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THIS AREA AS ANOTHER AREA THAT IS ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF BECOMING MORE COMMERCIAL.

FROM THIS POINT DOWN ON 14TH STREET, IT MAKES SENSE THAT THAT STAYS RESIDENTIAL, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CHANGING THAT TO MIXED USE.

>> ANYONE ELSE?

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK THE CORNER OF BEECH AND 14TH, YOU SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES IN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL AREA.

IS IT JUST ONE PROPERTY WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT OR SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT THIS ENTIRE CORRIDOR HERE BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S NOT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

>> THAT'S WHAT MR. CLARK IS SAYING.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> 132 SOUTH 15TH STREET.

I LIVE ON THE CORNER OF 15TH AND BEECH.

THAT PROPERTY, THAT HAS A HOUSE ON IT.

SO I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL RATHER THAN JUST GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

RATHER THAN GOING MORE -- I AGREE WITH MR. SANTRY, IT SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL RATHER THAN MIXED USE.

>> THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW.

>> MS. GIBSON?

>> YES.

I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE AGAIN WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THE CHANGES AND THE CHANGES WE'RE DISCUSSING AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

THEY WERE CONCENTRATED AROUND LOOKING FOR CONFLICT.

AS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND I KNOW THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY WERE A FORMER EXTENSIVE LIST OF CHANGES THAT INVOLVED BOTH LAND USE AND ZONING CONFLICT CHANGES BUT OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THE BOARD MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT SUCH AS USE AND ZONING OR LAND USE, EXISTING USE CONFLICTS WITH THE ZONING OR LAND USE UNDER WHICH IT'S OPERATING.

CERTAINLY SOME OF THESE WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY.

BUT THERE'S A REASON THEY ARE NOT BROUGHT FORWARD AT THIS POINT IN TIME IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE TWO MAPPING DOCUMENTS.

>> YEP.

>> BOARD MEMBERS, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS?

>> I GUESS THE SENSE OF IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S CONSENSUS AROUND THIS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE LEAVING THE PROPERTY IN ITS CURRENT FLUM CATEGORY OF LOW RESIDENTIAL THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE CORRIDOR.

[02:10:02]

I APPRECIATE THE POINT THAT THIS WOMAN BROUGHT FORWARD THAT THERE'S JUST A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THE CORNER.

I THINK WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT THAT BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION ON THIS.

>> MR. CLARK, I GENERALLY WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, AND I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE OUGHT TO TAKE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK INDEPENDENTLY OF THE PROCESS OF RECONCILING THESE CONFLICTS.

BUT THIS IS IN THE CONFLICTS LIST AND WE HAVE TWO CLEAR OPTIONS.

WE CAN HAVE THE FLUM MATCH THE ZONING OR WE CAN HAVE THE ZONING MATCH THE FLUM.

I DON'T SEE A BASIS FOR DOING THIS IN THE DIRECTION OF THE FLUM MATCHING THE ZONING.

I THINK THE MORE APPROPRIATE OF THE TWO IS THE FLUM.

WE HAVE, FRANKLY, ALSO, A GREAT DEAL OF LEGAL LATITUDE CONFORMING ZONING TO THE FLUM THAN WE DO THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE LEGAL STATUS QUO IF WE CONFORM THE ZONING TO THE FLUM.

YOU COULDEN DO A ZONING PERMIT DEVELOPMENT WITH THIS FLUM CHARACTERIZATION IF WE DID NOTHING.

WE CAN IF WE CHANGE IT.

>> I'M FINE CHANGING THE ZONING.

>> OKAY.

>> BUT ONLY IF WE'RE WILLING TO LOOK AT THE BROADER THING.

I THINK JUST LEAVING IT LIKE THAT, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU.

>> WHEN YOU LOOK THE BIGGER PICTURE.

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> OKAY.

>> I MOVE TO RECOMMEND PAB CASE NUMBER 2019-14 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT THE CURRENT ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY AT 212 SOUTH 14TH STREET BE REZONED TO IS IT R-1 OR R-2?

>> LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> R-1.

>> YEAH, R-1.

>> AND THAT THE ACTION IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REDEVELOPMENT CODE.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WITH THE CONDITION THAT WE LOOK AT A BROADER AREA TO LOOK AT SOME OTHER HRAPB USE CHANGES AND ZONING CHANGES THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ACTION TONIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN SAY EXACTLY WHAT THE GEOGRAPHY OF THAT LARGER AREA IS, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY WOULD ENCOMPASS ALL OF THE PROPERTIES WE SEE UP THERE AS WELL, MAYBE A BLOCK OR TWO NORTH AND SOUTH AS WELL.

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> MR. BENNETT?

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD, LOOKING HERE, HERE'S THE PROPERTY, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

SURROUNDED BY MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL IN THE STREET.

SO I KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, BUT IT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE TO MAKE IT MU-1 BECAUSE THEN THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE THERE WOULD BE, I THINK, CONSISTENT WITH ZONING BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT EVERYTHING FROM DUPLEXES TO A TRIPLEX AS YOU MOVE NORTH.

FOR ME, THAT SEEMS TO MAKE MORE SENSE THAN TRYING TO KEEP A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY MIXED USES IN THE AREA, SO I WOULD VOTE AGAINST THAT.

>> COULD I JUST RESPOND TO THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN? I APPRECIATE THE POINT.

IF THAT WERE THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO THIS, I WOULD AGREE WITH MR. BENNETT.

BUT IN MY MIND, IT'S NOT.

I THINK THE CHAIR HAS SAID THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL APPROACH TO THIS CORRIDOR.

THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

AND IF WE WOULD REZONE THIS TO MU-1, I THINK IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR SOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT MAYBE ARE NOT IN KEEPING WITH HOW WE ENVISION THIS CORRIDOR.

SO I DON'T THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT IS MAKING A STATEMENT.

IT DOES ACCOMPLISH CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLUM AND THE ZONING WHICH IS I THINK WHAT OUR DIRECTION WAS.

[02:15:01]

>> MR. ROLAND?

>> I'LL SECOND IT.

AFTER WE PASS THIS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL USE.

IT'S ALL RESIDENTIAL.

IT HAS BEEN SINCE I CAN REMEMBER.

THAT PARCEL BE TAKEN UP UNDER DISCUSSION, SHOULD IT BE CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL? AND IF IT WILL BE PART OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE NOT TO STOP HERE.

THIS IS NOT THE END POINT.

IN MY MIND THAT WHOLE CORNER SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL.

WHILE WE HAVE A DOCTOR'S OFFICE RIGHT THERE THAT DOES STAY MIXED USE.

THE CHARACTER ON THAT PARTICULAR SIDE OF THE STREET IS NOT GENERAL BUSINESS.

IT IS RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL, DOCTOR'S OFFICE, CHURCH, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS PERMITTED IN OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

I THINK THAT'S -- WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANYTHING.

THAT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT FROM LAST TIME NEXT TO THE FIRE STATION.

THERE'S NO PROLIFERATION OF BUSINESSES IN THAT CORRIDOR.

HASN'T BEEN FOR YEARS.

>> I WILL WITHDRAW IT UNTIL WE LOOK AT THE ENTIRE CORRIDOR RATHER THAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS NOW AS WELL AS OTHER INCONSISTENCIES IN THE AREA.

DR. PAGE'S OFFICE WAS ORIGINALLY A CHURCH WHICH WAS THEN CHANGED INTO OTHER USES AND MORE COMMERCIAL USES.

>> CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL.

>> HOW ABOUT DOCTOR'S OFFICES?

>> NO.

>> SO AGAIN, IT WENT FROM ONE USE, WHICH WAS PERMITTED, TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT PERMITTED.

I WOULD RATHER SEE THIS WITHDRAWN UNTIL WE LOOK AT THAT ENTIRE CORRIDOR.

IT'S GONNA COME BACK TO US SOMETIME.

LET'S BE CONSISTENT IN THE WHOLE AREA RATHER THAN JUST DOING THIS PIECE MEAL NOW.

>> IF I CAN TAKE THE LIBERTY OF RESPONDING.

THAT'S IN ESSENCE MORE WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.

THE STATUS QUO FROM THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS CONTROLLED BY THE FLUM.

I DON'T -- I JUST DON'T -- TO PRESERVE THAT AND RECONCILE THE CONFLICTS GIVES US ALL THE AVAILABILITY IN THE WORLD TO COME BACK TO THIS AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN.

THAT'S THE BASIS UPON WHICH I MAKE MY ARGUMENT.

I BELIEVE WE'VE COVERED THIS.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> IS THE DUPLEX ON THE PROPERTY NOW, IS THAT A PERMITTED USE IN AN R-1?

>> NO, IT DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT DENSITY OF R-1 IN ANY WAY.

I DON'T HAVE A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY TO DETERMINE DIMENSIONAL DESIGNS WITH IT, BUT THE BASE DENSITY WITH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WOULD NOT.

IT WOULD NOT BE MET UNDER MICKED USE EITHER.

THE USE ITSELF WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE, BUT THE TOTAL UNIT WOULD NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.

NOT THE LOT SIZE TRB MINIMUM LAND AREA TO SUPPORT TWO DWELLING UNITS ISN'T SUFFICIENT.

YOU COULD STILL ONLY HAVE ONE DWELLING AOUPB.

IT YOU COULD PRESUMABLY HAVE A BUSINESS WITH THE DWELLING UNIT THERE.

>> SO BY KEEPING IT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WE COULD BE CREATING AN INCONSISTENCY WITH THE CURRENT IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROP PROPERTY?

>> THEY'RE INCONSISTENT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

>> IT WOULD BE EITHER WAY.

>> FOLKS, WE NEED TO MOVE THIS.

I THINK WE'VE ALL HAD A FAIR OPPORTUNITY.

THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CAN WE CALL THE VOTE?

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> NO.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> NO.

>> MR. ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN SANTRY?

>> YES.

THE ITEM CARRY.

THE NEXT IS 1316 BEECH STREET.

KE

[02:20:01]

KELLY?

>> THIS IS REQUESTING THE FUTURE LAND MAP BE AMENDED TO MIXED USE.

THIS IS WRONG ENTIRELY.

TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

I APOLOGIZE.

THIS TOP PART DOESN'T WORK.

THE ACTION REQUESTED --

>> KELLY, I'M SORRY.

WHAT'S THE PROPOSAL?

>> THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> OKAY.

>> AND THAT IS TO MATCH THE EXISTING ZONING MAP OF R-2.

THIS IS FOR A HOMESTEAD SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTED IN 1920.

I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS AT THIS ADDRESS.

HOWEVER, I UNDERSTAND IT IS HOMESTEADED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

AGAIN, THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO MAKE IT R-2.

>> WHY WOULD WE GO TO MEDIUM DENSITY WHEN WE JUST HAD THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT LOW DENSITY, R-1?

>> THE SURROUNDING LAND AREA IS ALL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> AS OPPOSED TO R-1.

>> WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AGAIN FROM A LARGER LEVEL HERE IS THE PROPERTY.

>> MEDIUM DENSITY TO THE NORTH.

I SEE IT.

IS THAT REALLY MEDIUM DENSITY TO THE NORTH?

>> TO THE NORTH, IT IS MEDIUM DENSITY.

>> THAT'S WHAT THE FLUM IS, BUT IS IT IN REALITY?

>> YES, SIR.

IT'S CONSTRUCTED AT A RATE CONSISTENT WITH MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT ARE COMBINED BUT ON WHOLE IT'S MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> IF IT'S A HOUSE, KEEP IT A HOUSE.

I WOULD THINK MAYBE THE R-1 WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE, LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> IF YOU APPLIED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THIS LOT, IT WOULD BE NONCONFORMING FOR NET DENSITY, AS IT JUST MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPORT ONE UNIT.

YOU NEED MEDIUM DENSITY TO SUPPORT THAT.

>> ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT.

BORE MEMBERS?

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> I'LL SECOND.

>> MOTION SECONDED.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'M GONNA MAKE ONE COMMENT.

FUNDAMENTALLY I DON'T HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF ISSUES ABOUT THIS ONE THAT I DID THE PRIOR ONE, EXCEPT TO SAY I'M TROUBLED BY THE NOTION OF CHANGING THE FLUM MAP WITHOUT HIGHER LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION THAN THIS IS BEING GIVEN.

WHERE WE HAVE THESE CONFLICTS WHERE THERE'S NOT A STRONG REASON TO CHANGE THE FLUM, I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO BE CONSIDERING FLUM CHANGES FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONCILING THE DIFFERENCES.

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT STATUS QUO.

STATUS QUO IS THE FLUM DESIGNATION.

AND I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS QUESTION THE SAME WAY IF WE HAD A CITIZEN DRIVEN REQUEST TO CHANGE THE FLUM MAP ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

FIRST THEY WOULD HAVE PAID THE APPROPRIATE FEES TO DO IT.

INSTEAD OF THE CITY LOSING THAT REVENUE.

I THINK WE'D BE VIEWING IT WITH A LITTLE MORE CRITICAL EYE THAN IS REPRESENTED BY THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS -- WITH WHAT'S BEFORE US.

I WOULD PREFER IN THIS ONE AS WELL TO LEAVE THE FLUM STATUS QUO AND CHANGE THE ZONING EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME MERIT ON A STAND ALONE BASIS TO CONSIDER CHANGING THIS TO

[02:25:02]

RESIDENTIAL.

I THINK WE'RE KIND OF JUST LOOKING AT THIS THE WRONG WAY.

KELLY?

>> YES.

I KIND OF WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS FROM A DAY TO DAY PRACTICAL STANDPOINT AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND OTHERS THAT MAY FALL INTO IT.

I HAVE HAD EXAMPLES ALONG 8TH STREET PREVIOUS TO OUR CHANGES ALONG 8TH STREET THAT FELL INTO THIS EXACT SCENARIO.

A HOMESTEADED PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN MAINTAINED AND OCCUPIED FROM GENERATIONS OF FAMILY AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMPLETELY UNAWARE OF LAND USE AND ZONING RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY FALLING INTO A STATE WHERE IT MAY NOT BE OCCUPIED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND FUTURE HEIRS OF THE PROPERTY NOT BEING AWARE OF THE ZONING AND LAND USE RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH IT ARE FORCED INTO A SCENARIO WHERE THEY HAVE NO CHOICE IF LEFT UNOCCUPIED FOR A PERIOD GREATER THAN 180 DAYS UNDER OUR CODE ARE FORCED TO OCCUPY IT COMMERCIALLY AT THAT POINT IN TIME, GIVEN THE AGE OF THE STRUCTURE AND IT IS BEING MAINTAINED AND OCCUPIED.

I BELIEVE IT WAS 1940 CONSTRUCTION.

I THINK THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE WOULD WANT TO MAINTAIN IN THE CITY AS A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE MOVING FORWARD.

AGAIN, I HAVE ENCOUNTERED MANY EXAMPLES LIKE THIS PRIOR TO THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE ALONG 8TH STREET WHERE THOSE PROPERTIES WERE REALLY AT RISK, SO WE HAD TO CONTINUOUSLY SORT OF MONITOR THEM AND LOOK FOR WAYS, SO TO SPEAK, OF PROVING THEY HAD BEEN CONTINUOUSLY OCCUPIED IN A RESIDENTIAL MANNER WITHOUT FORCING THEM TO GO THAT ROUTE OF COMMERCIAL.

ONCE YOU GO INTO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND START TO OCCUPY THE SPACE IN THAT WAY, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THINGS LIKE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS, STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER THINGS FOR THAT SITE THAT MAY BE WELL ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THAT STRUCTURE'S CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING OR THAT LOT WITHOUT OTHER ACTIONS TAKING PLACE.

SO THERE'S A PRACTICAL REASON AS TO WHY I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THIS PROPERTY.

I ALSO WOULD HATE TO SEE A STRUCTURE SUCH AS THIS LOST FOR PURPOSES OF REDEVELOPMENT WHEN I DO THINK IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE FABRIC OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.

>> MR. CLARK?

>> I THINK KELLY MAKES GOOD POINTS HERE.

IT IS AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND POINTS THAT WERE MADE, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON TH THIS.

>> WHY DON'T WE MAKE A MOTION?

>> I DON'T THINK WE DO HAVE A MOTION ON THIS.

>> OKAY.

>> YOU CAN SECOND IT.

>> WHAT WAS THE MOTION AGAIN?

>> TO ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

>> OKAY.

>> MADAM CLERK, IS THAT CORRECT? DID WE GET A MOTION ON THIS?

>> YES.

>> I'M SORRY.

IT'S GETTING LATE.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? CALL ROLL, PLEASE.

>> ALL RIGHT.

MEMBER ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

CHAIR SANTRY?

>> WE ARE ON THE BEECH MOTEL GROUP LLC.

THIS IS HERE.

MS. GIBSON?

>> THIS IS TO CHANGE THE -- 5.5 ACRES OF LAND WHERE A HOTEL IS CURRENTLY LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.

IT IS TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 2.07 ACRES OF LAND.

IT IS LOCATED TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY OR THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY OF IT.

AND CURRENTLY CONTAIN A PORTION OF THE HOTEL SITE, ASSOCIATED PARKING, TENNIS COURTS, ASORTED STRUCTURES AS WELL AS STORM WATER FACILITY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> AND GUEST SERVICES.

>> THE HOTEL EXISTS WITHIN THAT PORTION OF THE CONSERVATION LAND AREA AS WELL.

SO I HAVE DONE SOME DIGGING TO DETERMINE THE HISTORY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FOLLOWING OUR MEETING

[02:30:03]

IN SEPTEMBER.

I FOUND THAT THERE WAS A PLAT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY FROM 1945 THAT ESTABLISHED IT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG SADLER ROAD.

LOOKING BACK AT SOME OF THE PRIOR FUTURE LAND MAPS AND ZONING MAPS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS LAND, IT HAD IT LISTED AS COMMERCIAL.

HAD IT LISTED R-1A STATUS.

ALSO LISTED UNDER PUD AT ONE POINT.

LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF IT, MY BEST GUESS IS THAT WHEN THIS PROPERTY ACTUALLY DEVELOPED, IT HAD A COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION AND DESIGNATION OF R-1A.

THAT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE PLAT BOOK THAT IT HAD ON RECORD FOR RESIDENTIAL.

AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT THE 1985 FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT.

LOT OF THESE THINGS DIDN'T START TO ALIGN UNTIL AFTER THAT.IN TIME WHEN THE CITY THEN TOOK ON A BIGGER PROCESS OF MAKING THE TWO MAPS START TO MATCH UP.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAKE THE TWO MATCH.

FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE IF IT WERE TO OCCUR, WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM TO ALL OF TODAY'S STANDARD.

THAT RELATES TO PARKING INCLUDING MAXIMUM PARKING AS WE HAVE A CAP WITHIN THE CITY.

PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH PARKING LOTS WOULD BE IN PLACE, LANDSCAPING ASSOCIATED WITH IT AT A MUCH HIGHER DEGREE THAN I BELIEVE WAS IN PLACE IN 1986 WHEN THE HOTEL WAS CONSTRUCTED.

YOU WOULD HAVE REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH RATIOS THAT ARE AT AN ELEVATED RATE AT THIS POINT IN TIME THAN ARE ALLOWED ON THE SITE BY ITS CURRENT DEVELOPMENT.

YOUR CURRENT SURFACE AREAS CAPPED AT 60% WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DOWNTOWN FOR YOUR LAND USE CATEGORIES.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS UNDER REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO WOULD CHANGE IF THIS WERE TO DEVELOP.

A QUICK EVALUATION OF HEIGHT, I KNOW THAT IS ALWAYS A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE BUILT WITHIN THIS AREA IF I WERE RECONSTRUCTED.

THIS DOES FALL WITHIN THE 1,000 FEET OF THE HIGH WATER MARK.

STILL LIMITED TO 35 FEET IN BUILDING HEIGHT.

SO THE 45 FOOT THAT'S OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE UNDER COMMERCIAL IN C-2 REGULATIONS WOULD NOT BE APPLIED UNDER REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIO HERE.

I DID A BIT MORE DIGGING ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

LOT OF QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE PUBLIC AS IT RELATES TO REDEVELOPMENT.

CONCERNS ABOUT VIEWS.

CONCERNS ABOUT IMPACTS TO ADJOINING CONSERVATION LANDS AND FUTURE RUNOFF OF THE PROPERTY.

LOOKING AT BUFFER REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARKING THAT MIGHT GO BACK THERE IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S WHY I HAVE A BIT MORE DETAIL ON THIS ONE BECAUSE WE REALLY DUG INTO IT FURTHER THAN EVEN WHAT THE BOARD HAD REQUESTED PREVIOUSLY.

THAT IS IT.

>> THANK YOU.

KELLY, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

YOU MAY HAVE COVERED JUST NOW, BUT I DIDN'T GET IT IF YOU DID.

YOUR MASTER REVIEW OF THE PROJECT INKATES THAT FLUM DETERMINATIONS WERE ADOPTED FROM THE CITY AS EARLY AS 1961.

WE HAVE THAT THE HOTEL WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1986.

DO WE KNOW WHAT THE FLUM DESIGNATION WAS ON THIS PROPERTY IN 1986?

>> AGAIN, THIS IS A GUESS.

I HAVE AVAILABLE ALL OF THE LAND USE MAPS THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COMPILE FOR THE CITY UP TO THIS POINT.

SOME OF THEM ARE VERY DIFFICULT TO EVEN DECIPHER.

THE EXAMPLE OF THIS ONE SITE IN PARTICULAR IS THAT IT SHOWS IN THAT TIME FRAME R-1A AS A ZONING DISTRICT AND COMMERCIAL LAND DISTRICT.

>> I'M SORRY.

AS -- SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME?

>> R-1A WHICH WAS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT THE TIME.

>> OKAY.

I'M TALKING ABOUT FLUM DESIGNATION.

>> COMMERCIAL FLUM.

IN 19 --

>> '86.

WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME.

I DON'T HAVE A 1986 MAP BUT I HAVE SOMETHING WITHIN THAT GENERAL TIME FRAME.

>> SOMETHING EARLIER THAN 1986?

>> AND LATER.

>> OKAY.

[02:35:03]

ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTED, I THINK ONE OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US IS TO DEAL WITH THIS AS MAINTAINING THE FLUM DESIGNATION AND THIS BEING A NONCONFORMING USE.

BUT IF WE DECIDE TO RECONCILE AS CLOSELY AND REASONABLY AS WE COULD, THE FLUM DESIGNATION TO THE STATUS QUO, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT WHILE WE HAVE A CONSERVATION PART CARVED OUT OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THIS ENCROACHMENT BY REASON OF WHAT'S BEING SUGGESTED HERE, I THINK THAT'S JUST FOLLOWING THE PARCEL LINES AS THE REASON THAT WAS PROBABLY DONE.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF WHAT IS EITHER A HOLDING POND OR NATURALLY OCCURRING POND IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER, SOME AREAS ON THAT SIDE THAT ARE WAY INTO THE SERIOUS FLOOD ZONE AREA.

AND THAT ARE DESIGNATED ON THE SOILS MAP AS MUCK FREQUENTLY FLOODED.

LOOKS AS THOUGH MAYBE EVEN IF THAT WAS DESIGNATED ORIGINALLY AS A HOLDING POND, IT MAY BE EFFECTIVELY DRAINING DIRECTLY AND UNOBSTRUCTEDLY INTO THOSE AREAS.

I'M WONDERING ABOUT CARVING AN AREA OUT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY THAT RECOGNIZES THE SENSITIVITY OF THOSE AREAS AND PRECLUDES FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE? I DON'T THINK THAT CREATES A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR THIS AS AN EXISTING USE AS YOU SAID THIS PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED UNDER PERPLABILITY STANDARDS IF A RECONSTRUCTION WAS CONSIDERED IN ANY EVENT.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THIS CONSERVATION AREA AWAY, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO DO, I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL TO APPROPRIATELY DEAL WITH THE NORTHWEST CORNER AS WE HAVE.

WE'VE GOT FOUR, FIVE FOOT ELEVATIONS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER THAT'S CARVED OUT AND CONTINUES TO BE IN CONSERVATION.

WE'VE GOT FOUR, THREE AND TWO FOOT ELEVATIONS ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE THAT SEEM TO BE TO BE AS NEEDFUL OF PROTECTION AS THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR AN EVALUATION OF PROVIDING SOME PROTECTIONS DOWN THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THIS AND INTO THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PARKING LOT WHERE ELEVATIONS GO DOWN TO ONE AND TWO FEET.

AND THAT THIS BE BROUGHT BACK TO US AFTER THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS.

MR. BENNETT?

>> RETENTION AREA WAS PROBABLY PERMITTED BY ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SINCE 1986 THEY WOULD HAVE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THAT.

WHEN I SAW IT, I THINK IT'S PART OF THE PROPERTY AND PART OF THE ENTIRE DESIGN BECAUSE EVERYTHING FLOWS INTO THAT AREA SO THAT IT WON'T GO INTO AREAS IN THE NORTH.

TO ME, IT'S PART OF THE PROPERTY.

>> MR. CLARK?

>> JUST A FACT QUESTION FOR KELLY.

SO, JUST A COUPLE THINGS.

THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT'S CONSERVATION ON FLUM BUT HAS THE TENNIS COURT AND WHATEVER USE IS THERE.

WAS THAT AREA DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL HOTEL CONSTRUCTION OR WAS IT ADDED SUBSEQUENT TO?

>> AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL.

>> SO IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1986 JUST IN THAT CONFIGURATION.

I THINK YOU COVERED THIS PERHAPS, BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND, SO EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WAS LEGALLY PERMITTED.

>> YES.

>> OKAY.

>> THE ENTIRE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS CONSERVATION.

[02:40:03]

>> YEAH.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS AT ALL TAKING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND MOVING FORWARD.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.

>> LET'S HAVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THIS BEFORE WE DISCUSS FURTHER.

>> WE HAVE A COUPLE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SPEAK.

>> SIR.

>> SCOTT POWELL.

I'M 6459 OWEN.

THESE TWO LOTS HERE 1900 AND 1904 WHICH ARE ZONED R-3, WHEN I SAW THIS, I WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED.

THE REZONING IS JUST TO -- CONSERVATION AREA, ALL THAT IS IN IT.

YOU'RE JUST TAKING THE COMMERCIAL BACK TO IT WHERE IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT? IS IT GOING TO AFFECT FUTURE, BRINGING THIS ROAD ALL THE WAY THROUGH SOON OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S PLANNED IN THE FUTURE?

>> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ROAD.

>> ANY OF THIS REZONING?

>> THIS ISN'T A REZONING.

THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION.

>> SO IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT MY ZONING?

>> NO.

>> ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR.

>> I'M SORRY, SIR.

>>

>> IT SEEMS TO BE IN MY OPINION THAT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IN THE '80S WHEN THIS HOTEL WAS BUILT, IT WASN'T EXACTLY LEGAL BECAUSE IT WASN'T TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FLUM.

>> WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

>> WE DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE THAT.

I RELY ON THE WISDOM OF THE BOARD TO SERIOUSLY LOOK AT THE PRECEDENCE THAT'S BEING CREATED BY TAKING CONSERVATION LAND AND REVERTING IT LEGALLY NOW TO THE BUILDING SITE.

THIS IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE, YOU KNOW WITH OUR BUDGET AND OUR TAXES INCREASING, FOUR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING CONSERVATION LAND, THE CONSIDERATION FROM THE TAXPAYER'S POINT OF VIEW IS THAT CONSERVATION WILL ARBITRARILY BE TURNED INTO DEVELOPMENT.

I'M IN FAVOR AND I WOULD RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD THAT THIS IS LEFT AS IS, AS CONSERVATION LAND.

AND IF YOU CAN DEVELOP OR ALLOW MORE CONSERVATION, THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE OVER JUST GIVING IN TO THIS ERROR ON THE PART OF THE BUILDER ORIGINALLY.

THANK YOU.

>> IN FAIRNESS, I DO WANT TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS APPARENTLY SOME DIFFICULTY WITH BEING CERTAIN ABOUT OUR RECORDS WHEN THE DATE IT WAS REQUIRED FOR BUILDING.

LET ME JUST GET THIS OUT.

THE BEST RECONSTRUCTED JUDGMENT OF THE STAFF IS THAT THIS LAND WAS NOT IN CONSERVATION WHEN THIS WAS BUILT.

>> BUT ORIGINALLY IT WAS DESIGNATED FROM A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS CONSERVATION.

IT JUST WASN'T BROUGHT UP THEN.

WHEN WAS IT CONSERVATION LAND?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE DATE THAT WE CAN ESTABLISH THAT.

IT APPEARS BASED ON INFORMATION THAT THE STAFF WAS ABLE TO GENERATE THAT IT WAS AFTER THE BUILDING DATE OF THIS HOTEL.

>> BACK IN 2000 WE PURCHASED A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES.

SO COULD HAVE BEEN DURING THAT PURPOSE.

>> I CAN APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACERTAIN IN, YOU KNOW, PUT OUT FLYERS NOW.

BUT THE MORE PERTINENT THING IS IF IT'S IN DESIGNATION AS CONSERVATION NOW, THEN TO RELEASE ITS CONSERVATION DESIGNATION IS MORE DANGEROUS GOING FORWARD, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? SO TO LEAVE IT AS CONSERVATION, IN OTHER WORDS TO DO NOTHING, AT THIS POINT WOULD BE STARTING TO SET A PRECEDENCE THAT IF SOMETHING WAS DESIGNATED CONSERVATION LAND, IT STAYS THAT.

THAT MEANS IF SOMETHING WERE TO

[02:45:01]

HAPPEN TO THE HOTEL, THEY'D HAVE TO RECONFIGURE, PULL BACK THEIR FOOTPRINT TO CONFORM TO THAT.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

>> YES, SIR.

>> APPRECIATE YOUR WISDOM ON TH THAT.

>> I APOLOGIZE.

I SHOULD HAVE CALLED ON YOU FI FIRST.

>> I'M IN MY 14TH HOUR TODAY.

I AM THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE HOTEL.

DO YOU WANT MY ADDRESS? 12600 ECONIC COURT JAX.

WE DISAGREE WITH THE PRIOR PERSON.

I RESPECT HIS OPINION, BUT THE HOTEL LITERALLY IF YOU TOOK THAT LAND AWAY, YOU'D GO RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE, THAT LONG ROW OF HOTEL ROOM, WHICH IS ALL THIS RIGHT HERE.

NOT JUST UP HERE, THE ROOMS. TWO-THIRDS OF THE ROOMS OF THE HOTEL.

THE NORTHWEST CORNER THAT YOU MENTIONED, RETENTION POND, WOULD NEVER WANT TO BUILD ANYTHING BACK THERE.

WE HAVE PLENTY OF OTHER LAND IF WE EVER WANTED TO BUILD UP FRONT.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN BUILDING ANY MORE BUILDINGS.

WE HAVE 135 ROOMS. THERE'S 400 NEW ROOMS COMING ON THE ISLAND.

IT'S BEEN A BAD YEAR AS IT IS.

SO THE THOUGHT OF BUILDING MORE ROOMS FOR US ISN'T THERE.

WE'RE UPGRADING HOTELS, PUTTING SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS IN IT TO MAKE IT A GOOD PROPERTY.

BUT THAT WOULD BE THE LAST CORNER OF THE LAND THAT ANYONE WOULD EVER THINK OF, WHY WOULD YOU DEVELOP THAT BACK CORNER WHERE THAT POND IS WHEN YOU'VE GOT FIVE ACRES OF LAND AND 335 PARKING SPACES FOR 135 ROOMS. THAT'S IT.

WE JUST ASK THAT IT BECOME GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

IN REALITY, THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, SIR.

>> MY NAME IS DAVID SAM SON.

I LIVE AT 1866 FIRST AVENUE.

RIGHT UP THERE.

I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PRINCIPLES THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SENT OUT.

FIRST ONE, I'M GONNA QUOTE IT, IS BUILD ENVIRONMENT.

WHAT'S ON THE GROUND OR NOT TODAY? I WANT TO EMPHASIZE TODAY.

NOT HISTORICALLY.

TODAY.

TODAY WHAT WE HAVE IS A PARCEL THAT'S ALMOST COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY CONSERVATION.

FACT, THAT'S THE GREEN WAY RIGHT THERE.

THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, THAT'S RIGHT THERE.

IF YOU MAKE THAT PARCEL RIGHT THERE COMMERCIAL, THEY CAN BUILD ON ALL THIS BUILDING.

THEY CAN BUILD A DRIVE WAY THAT GOES TO FIRST AVENUE.

IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE TRAFFIC AND, WORSE, TAKE UP BEACH PARKING, WORSE THAN IT IS NOW.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PARCEL TODAY, IT'S ALL TREES.

THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY IS.

FIRST AVENUE IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

IT'S GOT A DEAD END THAT'S SURROUNDED BY TREES.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT TODAY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN HISTORY, BUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS WHAT SHOULD WE DO TODAY? SURROUNDED BY CONSERVATION SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE CONSERVATION.

IF YOU CAN'T AGREE WITH THAT, I HAVE ANOTHER SUGGESTION.

WHY DON'T YOU RECOMMEND THE NORTHWEST CORNER BE CONSIDERED CONSERVATION.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD ON IT ANYWAY.

MAKE THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR, WHICH ABUTS FIRST AVENUE CONSERVATION, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD ON THAT ANYWAY AND IT'S JUST TREES NOW.

>> THAT'S NOT THEIR PROPERTY.

>> RIGHT HERE.

>> THAT'S NOT THEIR PROPERTY.

>> THE PROPOSED CHANGE, CHANGE THAT AREA TO COMMERCIAL.

[02:50:06]

>> THIS PART.

THAT'S PARKING.

>> THERE'S NO STRUCTURE THERE.

>> NO.

>> AND THERE'S TREES HERE.

ANYWAY, MY RECOMMENDATION, IF YOU CAN'T ACCEPT THAT THE WHOLE AREA WILL BE IN CONSERVATION WHICH IS WHAT THE PLUM SAYS IT IS.

WHICH THE SURROUNDING AREA SAYS IT IS.

RECOMMEND TWO PARTS BE CONSIDERED CONSERVATION AND LEAVE ALL THE BUILDINGS COMMERCIAL.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? BOARD MEMBERS? MR. BENNETT?

>> I SAY WE SHOULD KEEP IT DESIGNATED AS COMMERCIAL FOR THE CITY.

QUITE FRANKLY, I WOULD THINK THE CHANGE IS A REASONABLE CHANGE BECAUSE WE ALL RECOGNIZE WHAT'S THERE.

A HOTEL IS ALREADY THERE.

ALL OF THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS.

SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, THOSE WERE ALL APPROVED.

I DON'T THINK THEY WERE APPROVED INCORRECTLY.

I WOULD VOTE FOR THE CHANGE MYSELF.

>> ANYONE ELSE? MR. CLARK?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU MADE SOME COMMENTS INITIALLY ABOUT WANTING TO LOOK FURTHER AT THE NORTHEAST AD NORTHWEST PORTIONS.

>> YES, SIR.

>> CAN YOU SORT OF REITERATE WHAT YOU SAID?

>> YES, SIR.

MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE SEND THIS BACK TO STAFF FOR CONSIDERATION, MODIFICATION TO BE CHANGED SO THAT IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE THE CONSERVATION STATUS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.

I THINK IT'S THE NORTHWEST CORNER THAT I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND.

>> LET ME REFER TO A DOCUMENT.

>> I WOULD PROPOSE IT.

THERE'S APPARENTLY SOME SORT OF --

>> RETENTION AREA.

>> SHORT WALL.

>> IT'S THE AREA TO THE WEST OF THE RECTANGLE WHERE THE TENNIS COURT OCCUPIES THE EASTERN SECTION OF IT.

OVER TO THE PROPERTY LINE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PARKING LOT.

EVEN CONSIDER MEANDERING DOWN THAT LINE NEXT TO THE PARKING LOT FOR THOSE TO CONTINUE TO BE CONSIDERED CONSERVATION BECAUSE THE OWNER HAS REPRESENTED HE CANNOT CONTEMPLATE ANY FUTURE RENOVATION OR RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THAT WOULD BE BUILT ON IN THE FACE OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE EXISTING SPACE.

I DO THINK TO THE EXTENT WE CAN LIMIT THE ELIMINATION OF THE CONSERVATION PROPERTY AND STILL ACCOMMODATE REASONABLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THIS WAS A CONFORMING USE WHEN IT WAS BUILT, THAT WE HAVE TO UNDERTAKE IT.

I THINK THAT'S AN EXAMINABLE PROPOSITION TO CONSIDER.

>> SO YOU'RE SUGGESTING THE BOUNDARY FOR THIS AMENDMENT WOULD BE REVISED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER.

>> CORRECT.

>> BUT THE NORTHEAST CORNER --

>> THE NORTHEAST CORNER IT ALREADY STOPS JUST OUTSIDE.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT.

ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER YOU WANT TO HAVE IT GO BACK TO STAFF AND SEE IF SOMETHING COULD BE CARVED OUT.

>> I THINK YOU'RE CAUSING A PROBLEM.

IF THIS WAS CREATED BY ST.

JOHN'S RIVER, WHICH I THINK IT PROBABLY WAS, IT'S A REQUIRED PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

I'M GUESSING THAT RETENTION PONDS ARE NOT LEGAL USES IN CONSERVATION AREAS OR ARE THEY?

>> NO, THEY'RE NOT.

>> BY DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING, YOU'RE CREATING A BIGGER PROBLEM.

>> I DON'T THINK I'M CREATING A BIGGER PROBLEM.

I'M CREATING A SMALLER -- I'M ACKNOWLEDGING A CONSIDERATION OF HAVING A SMALLER AREA OF NONCONFORMING USE THAN THE EXISTING BOUNDARY OF THE AREA.

>> YES, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THAT RETENTION AREA

[02:55:03]

WITH CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS.

>> AND THAT PART'S GRANTED.

>> BUT NOW YOU CREATED ANOTHER ISSUE BY MAKING IT INTO CONSERVATION WHICH IS AN ILLEGAL USE.

>> I'M JUST GONNA SAY THIS FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH.

IT'S FINE IF YOU DECIDE TO SEND IT BACK TO STAFF TO LOOK AT WHATEVER YOU DIRECT THEM TO LOOK AT.

FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN, YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS, MR. CHAIR.

IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN CONSERVATION ON ANY PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY, I THINK YOU LEAVE IT ALONE.

BECAUSE IF YOU PARTIALLY -- I HAVE CONCERNS BECAUSE OF WHAT MR. BENNETT'S BROUGHT UP.

I HAVE CONCERNS RESTARTING THIS STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE ONE YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

I'M JUST SAYING I HAVE THAT CONCERN.

THAT'S MY ADVICE TO YOU.

IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT.

IT'S NOT MY OPINION VERSUS YOURS.

IT'S MY OPINION.

YOU CAN HAVE A DIFFERENT ONE.

BUT I AM NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING ANY CHANGES EXCEPT TO DO WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDS OR DO NOTHING.

>> RESPECTFULLY, I DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD CREATE ANY ELIMINATION THAT REALLY EXISTED STATUTE OF LIMITATION PERIOD THAT'S ALREADY RUN.

STATUS QUO ON THE PIECE OF PROPERTY I'M TALKING ABOUT CARVING OUT IS CONSERVATION.

THERE'S NO ADVERSE ACTION BEING TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO THAT PORTION OF THE PARCEL.

WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THAT.

I AM TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO MAXIMIZE CONSERVATION PROTECTIONS AND NOT DO HARM TO WHAT I BELIEVE WAS PROBABLY A PERMITTED USE WHEN IT WAS BUILT.

I'M ALSO PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE, AS YOU SUGGESTED, MS. BACH, TO NOT CHANGE THE CONSERVATION AT ALL.

I'M PREPARED TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION TO MATCH THE FLUM DESIGNATION AND THE WHOLE PART OF THE PARCEL IS A NONCONFORMING USE.

ALTHOUGH I'M RELUCTANT TO DO THAT IN THIS CASE AS OPPOSED TO SEVERAL OF THE OTHERS BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHETHER THE CONSERVATION STATUS PREDATES THE AS-BUILT STATS.

AN THIS IS THE ONLY PROPERTY WHERE I THINK THAT GETS.

PERSONALLY, MY VIEW, THAT'S ENTITLED TO SOME CONSIDERATION THAT SOME OF THE OTHER NONCONFORMING USES AREN'T.

BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M PROPOSING HERE.

IF I DON'T HEAR SOME SUPPORT FOR IT, I WON'T EVEN MOVE IT, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE GIVEN SOME CONSIDERATION.

MR. CLARK?

>> OKAY.

SO NORTHWEST PARCEL, IF I UNDERSTAND, IS THE DETENTION BASIN.

THAT DETENTION BASIN HOLDS WATER FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.

>> RIGHT.

>> YOU SEE KIND OF LIKE A FENCE LINE THERE JUST TO THE RIGHT, A RETENTION POND.

>> I CAN SEE IT.

>> THAT CORNER.

>> TO THE RIGHT OF THAT FENCE.

>> YOU CAN ELIMINATE THAT DETENTION POND WITHOUT HAVING ADVERSE EFFECTS ON THE PROPERTY.

>> IT'S REQUIRED BY THE STATE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A PRIVATE DETENTION POND IN A CONSERVATION ZONE.

>> YOU CAN'T HAVE A HOTEL IN A CONSERVATION ZONE EITHER.

BUT WE DO.

AND IT'S BEEN THERE AT LEAST --

>> WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE THE CONFLICTS.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT'S GOING TO GET US TO TRY TO REJUGGER THE BOUNDARY THERE.

I'M TRYING TO KEEP AS MUCH CONSERVATION LAND AS WE CAN.

I'M NOT SURE THIS IS THE PLACE TO DO THAT.

>> YOUR LIGHT IS ON.

DID YOU --

>> NO.

I JUST WANTED TO ARGUE ONCE.

>> MR. BENNETT?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF -- -- FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN ZONING COMMERCIAL LAND USE ENTIRETY 5.5 ACRES CHANGED TO 2.7 FROM CONSERVATION TO GENERAL

[03:00:02]

COMMERCIAL AND THAT'S PRESENTED SUFFICIENTLY --

>> SECOND.

>> MOTION SECONDED.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. BENNETT, YOUR LIGHT'S ON.

OKAY.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MEMBER ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> CHAIR SANTRY?

>> NO.

MOTION CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> BEAR WITH ME A MOMENT.

WE'VE GOT TWO ROBERT OLIVER HICKORY STREET PARK.

I DON'T EXPECT A LOT OF DISCUSSION.

I ALSO SEE WE'VE BEEN HERE, BY THE TIME WE GET THROUGH THOSE, WE WILL HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 3 1/2 HOURS.

WHILE I'M RELUCTANT TO SEPB PEOPLE HOME WHO CAME TO DISCUSS THE CITRONA PROPERTY, I'M ALSO LOATHE TO CONSIDER THAT WHEN OUR ATTENTION IS PROBABLY BEGINNING TO WANE.

I CERTAINLY BELIEVE MINE IS.

I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE THOSE TWO UP NOW BUT CONTINUE THE BALANCE OF THE ITEMS UNTIL OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING.

AND ALLOW THESE PEOPLE TO GO HOME RATHER THAN SIT HERE FOR ANOTHER 15 TO 30 MINUTES.

IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE GROUP?

>> I'D LIKE TO GET THROUGH THEM.

I MEAN, I THINK WE SHOULD BE NONE BY 9:00.

>> I AGREE.

>> I THINK THAT'S UNLIKELY.

IF THAT'S THE PREFERENCE, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.

NEXT ITEM IS ROBERT OLIVER DRIVE.

PROPERTY OWNED BYST CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

>> THERE'S REQUESTED ACTION HERE FOR TWO CHANGES BOTH APPLYING AGAIN TO CITY OWNED PROPERTIES.

ONE IS FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT TO CONSERVATION FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARCEL.

THE SECOND IS FOR ZONING CHANGES.

AND AGAIN THIS WILL LOOK BETTER EXAMPLE OF THE CHANGE.

THERE'S A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY CONTAINED ZONING DESIGNATION OF CONSERVATION, BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO MATCH FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THERE'S BEEN PRIOR ACTION IN 2010 AS PART OF SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PURCHASES ACQUIRED THROUGH THE PWOPB REFERENDUM.

AT THAT POINT IN TIME, FOR SOME REASON, THIS SLIVER OF LAND ALONGSIDE THE EASTERN AREA AN NORTHERN PORTION HAS BEEN LEFT OUT FOR SOME REASON.

THIS IS WHAT'S LIKE TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CHANGES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARCEL.

>> THIS PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE IT ABUTS THAT.

I WOULD TELL YOU --

>> IT'S NOT ABUTTING IT.

>> IT DOESN'T ABUT IT.

>> IT'S NEARBY BUT NOT ABUTTING.

>> IF I UNDERSTAND THE PROPOSAL.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DO.

IS THE ENTIRE PARCEL, FOR LAND USE AND PRESUMABLY WILL BE CHANGED TO CONSERVATION.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN HAVE MUCH CONTROVERSY TO THAT ALTHOUGH I SUPPOSE IT'S POSSIBLE.

>> NO.

>> OKAY.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE? ALL RIGHT.

I MADE SOMEBODY HAPPY.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I RECOMMEND TO APPROVE THE DESIGNATION TO CONSERVATION, THE FLUM FOR THE ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE PROPERTY.

>> SECOND.

>> ISN'T THERE A ZONING CHANGE HERE, TOO?

>> ZONING AND FUTURE LAND MAP.

>> OF .26 ACRES OF LAND TO CONSERVATION IN ADDITION TO AMEND FUTURE LAND USE TO .29 ACRES OF LAND FROM MEDIUM DENSITY TO CONSERVATION.

[03:05:02]

>> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM?

>> YES.

>> SAME COMMENT I MADE BEFORE ABOUT I GUESS IT WAS THE ASKINS PERMIT.

THE PROPERTY NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS LOOKS LIKE IT COULD BE SIMILARLY DESIGNATED.

THAT'S NOT ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THIS.

>> I AGREE.

>> KELLY, I THINK THAT'S THE FOURTH TIME TONIGHT THAT HAS BEEN AN ISSUE RAISED WITH RESPECT TO SOMETHING WE'RE DOING HERE DELIBERATELY LIMITING OUR CONSIDERATION TO RECONCILING CONFLICTS.

I TRUST YOU'RE MAKING THOSE NOTES AND WE CAN BRING THOSE UP? I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

HAVE THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL ON THE BOOK PLEASE.

>> MEMBER ROLAND.

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT.

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> CHAIR SANTRY?

>> YES.

NEXT ITEM FOR CONSIDERATION IS 420 CITRONA DRIVE.

OOPS.

PARDON ME.

IS A -- PARCEL OWNED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD NASSAU COUNTY, HICKORY STREET AT SOUTH 15TH.

MS. GIBSON.

>> THIS IS OWNED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD, HOWEVER MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AS HICKORY PARK.

IT CONTAINS BALL FIELDS ON IT AT THIS TIME.

THE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO CHANGE IT FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL.

THIS IS A HRAPB USE CHANGE.

THE CURRENT ZONING DESIGNATION APPLIED TO THE PROPERTY IS PI-1 AND SO THIS WOULD BE MOVING THE LAND USE TO IN LINE WITH THIS ZONE DISTRICT.

>> THAT'S FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL?

>> FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL 9.76 ACRES OF LAND.

>> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PROVISION?

>> YES, SIR.

>> I PROMISE YOU WE'D GET TO YOU.

>> YES, YOU DID.

>> I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

ATLANTIC AVENUE IS THEIR ADDRESS.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE.

WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE PARK DESIGNATION FROM THE CITY.

WE REQUEST THAT YOU IRE LEAVE IT AS IT IS OR REZONE IT FROM PI-1 TO R-1.

CURRENTLY IT IS ON THE FLUM MAP AS R-1, CORRECT? THAT IS A ZONING COMPATIBLE WITH THE LOW DENSITY FLUM WE HAVE.

THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD.

IT IS CONTINUOUS TO THE SCHOOL, VIA HICKORY STREET RIGHT OF WAY.

PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO ARBONNE ON ALL THREE SIDES OF IT, EVEN THE CHURCH TO THE WEST IS R-1.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY TO ALLOW THE CITY TO DEVELOP PARCEL AS A PARK WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WOULD NOT DIMINISH THE VALUE OR THE SCHOOL'S ABILITY TO SELL THE LAND.

THIS CHANGE WOULD DO JUST THAT.

SO WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU EITHER REZONE IT TO R-1 OR LEAVE IT AS IS.

>> WAS THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD REDUCED TO WRITING? ON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY?

>> I DO NOT KNOW THAT.

>> DOES STAFF HAVE ANY INPUT ON THE CONTENT OF THAT?

>> I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT.

>> I WOULD HOPE SO.

>> I THINK I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE PASS THIS ON TO NEXT MONTH'S MEETING SO THAT BOTH PARTIES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOCATE THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT THAT YOU INDICATE WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY AND WE CAN COME BACK MORE WHEN WE KNOW WHAT OUR OPTIONS MAY BE.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? NO OBJECTION, THIS WILL BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE NOVEMBER REGULAR MEETING.

THANK YOU.

NOVEMBER WHAT?

>> 15TH.

>> NOVEMBER 13TH.

>> SECOND WEDNESDAY.

>> MR. CHAIR?

[03:10:01]

CALL FOR A SUGGESTION.

SCHOOL BOARD WORRIED ABOUT THE VALUE OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY? THE CITY WANTS IT TO BE RECREATION.

MAYBE OFFER TO BUY THAT PROPERTY.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

>> OR THEY GIVE IT BACK TO US.

IF WE ORIGINALLY GAVE YOU THAT PROPERTY.

>> 1929.

>> WE'LL GIVE YOU $25,000 FOR IT.

ALL SERIOUS ASIDE, IF THE CITY REACHES A DECISION WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD.

THEY DON'T WANT THE DESIGNATION CHANGED.

THEY WANT IT R-1 BECAUSE IF THEY EVER DECIDE TO SELL IT, IT'S MORE VALUABLE AS A POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

IT'S WORTH OPENING THE DIALOGUE.

>> ALL RIGHT.

THAT IS MOVED TO NEXT MONTH'S AGENDA.

I THINK I AM NOW ON THE PROPERTY AT 420CITRONA DRIVE.

MS. GIBSON.

>> I DO HAVE A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF ALL OF THE CITRONA AVENUE PROPERTIES FROM THE REST OF THE GROUP.

THERE ARE LAND USE AND CHANGE USE CHANGES COMTEMPLATED WITH SEVERAL OF THE PROPERTIES.

SOME ARE ONLY ZONING CHANGES.

AND SO THIS IS A MAP OF JUST THE GENERAL AREA OF ALL OF THE CHANGES ALONG CITRONA DRIVE EXTENDING FROM DADE STREET TO JASMINE.

I HAVE DONE A MAP -- EXCUSE ME, A TABLE FOR YOU THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE PACKET THAT GAVE YOU A BIT OF THE BREAKDOWN ON EACH OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE RESULTING ACTION FROM THE CHANGES WHICH HAVE BEEN REQUESTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD LOOKING AT THE ADDITIONAL LAND USE AREA THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO CONSERVATION, THE REDUCED LAND USE AREA THAT WOULD BE REMOVED FROM CONSERVATION, THE ADDED ZONING FOR CONSERVATION AND THE REDUCED ZONING FOR CONSERVATION.

YOU'LL NOTE THAT THROUGH THE REQUESTED ACTION THAT YOU WOULD BE ADDING A TOTAL OF 14.36 ACRES OF LAND UNDER THE ZONING AREA FOR CONSERVATION.

THAT'S THE ZONING CATEGORY.

YOU WOULD BE REDUCING THE CONSERVATION LAND USE DESIGNATION BY .6 ACRES OF LAND WHILE ADDING A TOTAL OF 3.16 ACRES OF LAND UNDER THE REQUESTED ACTIONS THE STAFF HAS PREPARED.

SO WE'LL GET STARTED WITH THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS INCLUDED.

THAT IS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 420 CITRONA DRIVE.

REQUESTED ACTION IS TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TOTALLING APPROXIMATELY 467 SQUARE FEET.

THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST LITTLE TRIANGLE PART OF THE PROPERTY.

JUST TO BE CHANGING IT FROM THE CURRENT DESIGNATION OF CONSERVATION TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL BACKUP DETAIL AND DATA HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU.

I WON'T GO BACK THROUGH SOME OF THE PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH THIS IS REVIEWED AND THE DATA AND ANALYSIS THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF IT.

IT'S CONTAINED AS PART OF THE BACKUP MATERIAL ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

THERE ARE NO NOTE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THIS 467 SQUARE FEET OF LAND.

IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE REMAINDER OF SITE WITH RESPECT TO SOIL AND TOPOGRAPHY, AS WELL AS ITS FLOOD ZONE.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS MATTER? COME UP, PLEASE.

>> MARGRET 1337 PLANTATION DRIVE.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION AND THAT IS, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PURPOSE OR RATIONALE FOR THIS IS.

I DIDN'T FIND THAT IN THE EXPLANATION.

>> TO SIMPLY MATCH THE ZONING AND LAND USE DISTRICT TO BE 100% THE SAME.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE A ZONING CATEGORY WHICH EXTENDS THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THAT PROPERTY.

YOU HAVE THIS 467 SQUARE FEET OR

[03:15:01]

SOLO KATED THERE LAND USE THAT DOES NOT MATCH UP.

>> ANY OTHERS? YES, SIR.

>> RICHARD TIM.

THANK YOU FOR INVITING US TO COMMENT.

KELLY, THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON SATURDAY.

SORRY YOU HAD TO DO THAT.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE THE NOSE OF THE CAMEL SNEAKING INTO THE TENT.

IT'S 467 SQUARE FEET.

JUST LEAVE IT CONSERVATION.

CHANGE THE ZONING.

IT'S SMALL.

ALL WOODED.

NOT LIKE THERE'S A HOUSE ALREADY SITTING THERE.

JUST LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS.

THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> SIR? RYAN CONNERS 2793 PARK SQUARE PLACE.

MY QUESTION, I GUESS, IS MORE A GENERAL AREA.

IT APPEARS THERE'S A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT GOING ON IN THIS AREA.

ALL THE TREES HAVE BEEN SURVEYED ON THE DATE STREET RIGHT OF WAY.

JUST CURIOUS AS TO THAT ACTIVITY IS IMPACTING SOME CONSERVATION CHANGES.

>> I CAN ANSWER THAT.

AT THIS POINT, THE REQUESTED ACTIONS ARE ALL CITY INITIATED.

THEY ARE UNDER THE DIRECTION TO THE LAND USE ZONING MAP TO LOOK FOR CONFLICTS AND BRING THEM FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF ANY ACTIONS.

SO, THIS PARTICULAR ACTION IS BEING DIRECTED BY THE CITY IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE THE MAPS MATCH.

>> CITY WOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE EASEMENT SINCE YOU CONTROL IT DATE STREET.

>> SURVEY WORK HAS BEEN DONE WITHIN DADE STREET THEN THEY WOULD BE WORKING WITH THE CITY.

>> I GUESS THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

ALL THOSE TREES ALONG DADE STREET, GRAVEL ROAD, VERY NARROW ROAD AND A LARGE EASEMENT.

ALL THOSE TREES HAVE BEEN FLAGGED, BEEN OBVIOUSLY TREE SURVEY HAS BEEN DONE ON THAT SITE.

I GOT NO REPLY BECAUSE WE OWN THE PROPERTY JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF DADE STREET.

JUST CURIOUS IF THIS ACTION WAS RELATED TO A LARGER DEVELOPMENT GOING IN AN IMPROVEMENT TO DADE STREET.

I HAVE NO OBJECTION.

I'M TRYING TO GAIN INFORMATION AS TO WHAT'S GOING ON.

>> FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PARCEL ISN'T ANTICIPATED.

THIS ACTION IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

>> WOULDN'T FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT THE DECISION OF THIS ACTION? IT SEEMED TO BE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER SOMETHING SHOULD BE OR SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED DESIGNATION.

>> I DON'T SEE ANY CONNECTION.

>> OF CONSERVATION WITH DEVELOPMENT.

>> NO.

COURSE THERE'S A CONNECTION BETWEEN CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PARTICULAR STREET AND --

>> THIS PARCEL HERE, STREET HAS BEEN SURVEYED WITH TREE SURVEYS.

THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY LOOKING TO DO SOMETHING THAT INCORPORATES DADE STREET AND THAT PROPERTY.

I GUESS THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

>> WHY DADE STREET THOUGH? THAT'S A PUBLIC EASEMENT.

>> FOR PURPOSE OF ACCESS IF IMPROVEMENTS WERE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE SUBDIVISION OF LAND OR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE A SURVEY OF ANYTHING.

>> IS THERE SOMETHING UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE, KELLY?

>> THERE IS.

THERE'S BEEN PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION BEFORE TRC IN ASSOCIATION WITH THIS PARCEL.

>> OKAY.

IS THAT CORNER OF THE PARCEL IMPLICATED IN THAT AT ALL?

>> THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARCEL IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> OKAY.

>> TO THAT EXTENT THERE COULD BE.

>> SO IT IS CONNECTED IN A WAY.

>> NOT IN MY MIND, BUT PERHAPS IN THE MINDS OF SOME.

>> YES, SIR.

>> ROBERT WELLS, 2884 ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE.

I'M COMING UP WITH REGARD TO THIS PARCEL, BUT MY QUESTION REALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE OTHER ONES, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A

[03:20:02]

SMALLER PIECE, THE SAME QUESTION CAME UP.

BEFORE YOU TOOK A VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I WANTED TO GET THIS AIRED.

THE QUESTION, OVER AN OVER AGAIN WE SAID WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS RECONCILE THE LAND USE MAP WITH THE ZONING MAP.

WE'VE GIVEN PREFERENCE, UNLESS THERE WAS AN EXCEPTIONAL REASON TO THE LAND MAP, THAT IS THE OVERRIDING THING, AND IN ALMOST ALL THE OTHER CASES THAT I HAVE SEEN, IT'S BEEN ALL OR NONE.

I THINK IN THE OFF SHORE COURT, WE LOOKED AT THAT LINE, SPENT SOME TIME TALKING ABOUT THAT.

THE LINE THAT DROVE THAT DECISION WAS THE LINE ON THE LAND USE MAP.

BUT IN SOME OF THESE CITRONA PROPERTIES, IT'S KIND OF A -- WE'RE HALF USING THE LAND USE MAP AND HALF USING THE ZONING MAP.

I'M NOT SURE WHY.

I SEE A LINE WITH WETLANDS.

I DON'T SEE THAT AS A FORMAL CRITERIA.

I'M PUZZLED AS TO WHY WE AREN'T ALL OR NONE? IN OTHER WORDS, WE'RE NOT GOING WITH THE LAND USE MAP IN ITS ENTIRETY WITH ITS BOUNDARIES.

AGAIN, I'M JUST BRINGING UP HERE.

IT'S A SMALL PIECE.

IT RELATES HERE.

IT WILL GO THROUGH THE OTHER PROPERTIES AS WELL.

THAT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO HAVE YOU FOLKS ADDRESS FOR ME.

>> MR. WELLS, I'LL COMMENT A LITTLE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HELPS YOU WITH YOUR QUESTION.

I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THIS PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO CONSERVATIONAL LAND IS EITHER HONORING THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATIONS IN THEIR CURRENT FORM, IN THEIR ENTI ENTIRETY OR FOR ANY REASON THERE'S AN UNWILLINGNESS TO DO TH THAT.

LY TELL YOU THOSE ARE YOUR GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

I STATED DURING THE HOTEL DISCUSSION THAT, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT WAS THE ONLY USE ENCROACHMENT ISSUE THAT WE HAD WHERE THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE BASIS TO CONCLUDE THAT THE NONCONFORMING LAND DEVELOPMENT PREDATED THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT NONE OF THE NONCONFORMITIES AS BEST I CAN TELL TO THE PROPERTIES AT CITRONA PREDATE THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION.

ON THAT BASIS, I WOULD PROPOSE TO HONOR THE EXISTING CONSERVATION DESIGNATION IN THE LAND USE DESIGNATION TO CHANGE THE ZONING CODE TO CONFORM TO THEM.

I DON'T KNOW THAT MY COLLEAGUES ARE GOING TO AGREE WITH THAT.

I DON'T SAY THAT MAJORITILY AT ALL.

I AM CONCERNED THAT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE BY THE STAFF IN FORMULATING THEIR PROPOSALS FOR MODIFYING A COMBINATION OF THE FLUM MAP AND THE ZONING MAPS WERE ENTIRELY DRIVEN BY CONSIDERATIONS OF THE WETLAND BOUNDARIES.

I FIND THAT NOTION LUDICROUS.

EGAN'S CREEK AREA WASN'T DESIGNATED IN THE PROPERTIES WEREN'T PURCHASED BY BOND ISSUES AS BEST I CAN TELL FROM REASONABLY THOROUGH EFFORT TO DETERMINE THAT BASED ON WETLANDS BOUNDARIES.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THEY WEREN'T TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

GREAT MANY PROPERTIES WERE DESIGNATED CONSERVATION ON A BASIS AND BOUNDARY OTHER THAN WETLANDS JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS LINES.

THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A CASUAL REVIEW

[03:25:03]

OF WHERE THESE LINES ARE DRAWN.

WHEN I APPROACH THESE MAP CHANGE, I APPROACHED THEM WITH THE NOTION THAT THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THOSE DECISIONS BEFORE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING AT THE TIME.

I WOULD HOPE SOMEONE WOULD MAKE THAT PRESUMPTION OF THE DECISION I MADE AND MY COLLEAGUES MAKE SITTING HERE TODAY.

I DON'T THINK THOSE OUGHT TO BE OVERTURNED UNLESS THERE'S EVIDENCE OF REAL CHANGE IN THE BASIS FOR THE UNDERLYING FLUM DECISION.

I DON'T SEE THAT HERE.

WHAT I SEE IS A SERIES OF MISTAKES THAT WERE PERPETUATED OVER THE COURSE OF AT LEAST 17 YEARS THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE.

AND THOSE LANDOWNERS, HAVE THEY UNDER TAKEN EFFORTS IN RELIANCE ON THOSE MISTAKES? YES.

IS THAT WORTHY OF SOME CONSIDERATION? I HAVE TO SAY YES.

BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S WORTHY OF RETRENCHMENT OF THESE BOUNDARY LINES TO JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS.

I'M NOT GONNA SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT DOES THAT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE BASIS FOR EVALUATION, I SPEAK ONLY FOR MYSELF IN THAT RESPECT.

BUT I DON'T SEE A BASIS FOR THESE PROPOSALS EITHER.

THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THIS CORNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT GENERATE ANY SENSE OF RELIANCE OR ANY SENSE OF PRIOR APPROVAL.

THERE ARE NO DEVELOPMENTS ON THAT CORNER.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY WE'RE CONSIDERING TAKING THAT OUT OF CONSERVATION AND PLACING IT IN MIXED USE.

I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY THAT THAT BENEFITS OTHER THAN A TINY REMOVAL OF CONSERVATION LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMERCIALLY EXPLOITING THE CORNER OF THAT PROPERTY.

I'M NOT WILLING TO DO THAT.

THAT'S THE PRINCIPLE I'M GOING TO APPLY TO ALL THESE CONSIDERATIONS.

MY COLLEAGUES CAN SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

I SEE MR. BENNETT AND MR. CLARK HAVE THEIR LIGHTS ON, SO I TRUST THEY WILL.

>> I BELIEVE IT'S 400 AND WHATEVER SQUARE FEET, IT HAS ANOTHER LAYER OF BUFFER.

I WOULD PROPOSE NOT MAKING THE CHANGE AND KEEP THE TDESIGNATED USE AS CONSERVATION DESIGNATION.

>> MR. CLARK?

>> I AGREE WITH MR. BENNETT.

FIRST, I DON'T THINK THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS LUDICROUS.

THEY HAVE REASON FORCE WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED.

THEY'RE WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION.

I THINK ONE OF OUR DUTIES AS A PAB IS TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR ON SOME CONSERVATION LAND IN THIS AREA.

I'M PERFECTLY OKAY WITH TRYING TO KEEP THE CONSERVATION AS MUCH INTACT AS WE CAN.

THAT'S MY PHILOSOPHY ON THIS.

IT WILL APPLY TO SOME OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES HERE IN CITRONA.

BUT IN THIS CASE I THINK WE SHOULD REVISE THE ZONING AND LEAVE THE CONSERVATION LINE AS IT IS.

>> YOUR LIGHT IS ON.

>> LOT OF TIMES WE SIT UP HERE AND HAMMER CITY STAFF.

I THINK THEY DO A GREAT JOB PROVIDING US THE INFORMATION WE NEED TO MAKE A REASONABLE AND PROFESSIONAL OPINION UP HERE.

WHILE I MAY NOT AGREE ON THE RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS MY RIGHT, I TAKE WHATEVER THEY SAY AN PARSE IT OUT IN HOW I SEE THE CITY GROW ON HOW I WANT TO SEE THE CITY GROW.

TO SAY IT'S LUDICROUS.

NO, IT'S NOT.

IT'S VERY PROFESSIONAL.

TOOK ALL THAT TOGETHER AND PUT IT INFO A POLICY.

WE EFFECT POLICY.

IF WE DON'T HAPPEN TO LIKE THAT POLICY, DOESN'T MEAN THEY DID IT INCORRECTLY.

I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE FLOW OF INFORMATION I GET.

WE'RE ALL INTELLIGENT UP HERE.

WE READ IT.

WE DIGEST IT.

WE MAKE A CONSCIOUS DECISION BASED ON WHAT WE THINK THE CITY

[03:30:02]

WANTS.

I HAPPEN TO AGREE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE THAT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE ANYTHING ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

I DO THINK THE STAFF SHOULD GIVE IT CONSIDERATION.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY HOURS THEY PROBABLY SPENT ON THIS PROJECT? LOTS OF TIME TO GIVE US THIS PACKET SO WE CAN MAKE A DECISION.

WE TAKE EACH DECISION ON ITS ZONE AND NOT COLOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S OPINION THAT THEY DID SOMETHING WRONG.

THEY DID NOT.

THIS IS A WELL DONE DOCUMENT.

WE JUST HAPPEN TO DISAGREE WITH THEIR CONCLUSION.

THAT'S OKAY.

>> MS. MINSHEW.

>> I'D ALL LIKE TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THE STAFF HAS PUT UNTOLD HOURS INTO THIS PROJECT AND HAVE WORKED VERY VERY HARD TO TRY TO PROVIDE US AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THEY CAN PULL TOGETHER AND TO PRESENT IT IN A WAY THAT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND TO HELP US MAKE DECISIONS AND TO MAKE THINGS CLEAR.

IF, IN FACT, ALL WE NEED TO SAY IS THAT THE FLUM MAP ALWAYS TRUMPS EVERYTHING, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS.

WHAT DOES THE AS BUILT LOOK LIKE.

WHAT IS THERE TODAY? MAYBE WHY IT WAS THERE.

REALITY OF IT'S THERE TODAY OR IT ISN'T.

MAKE A DECISION ON ANY PARTICULAR ONE OF THESE PIECES OF PROPERTY.

THAT'S OUR CHARGE.

THE STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB TO GIVE US THE INFORMATION TO DO THAT IN A VERY PROFESSIONAL MANNER.

I ALSO THINK THAT LINES ON PAPER AND LINES ON MAPS AND LINES THAT ARE GENERALLY AREN'T ALWAYS PERFECT.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT THESE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT WE THIS THIS WAS THE INTENT AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO GOING FORWARD BASED ON WHAT IS THERE TODAY AND WHAT IS THE CURRENT SITUATION.

I'LL LOOK AT EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY.

I'LL MAKE DECISION ON EACH ONE OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

IT JUST CONCERNS ME GREATLY TO HEAR US TALK ABOUT THE STAFF IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN THE PROFESSIONAL COMPORTMENT THAT I THINK THEY DESERVE.

THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

I DID NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL, BUT RATHER MY CONCERN THAT THE STAFF ANALYSIS WAS UNDER TAKEN ALONG JURISDICTIONAL LEVEL WHEN I THINK EGAN'S CREEK CONSERVATION, IT INVOLVES A GREAT DEAL MORE THAN THAT.

TO THE EXTENT THAT I HAVE OFFENDED, I APOLOGIZE.

I TAKE IT THAT I DID.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE SEEK A MOTION?

>> I MAKE A MOTION.

>> MR. CLARK, WAS THAT YOU?

>> YEAH.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I MOVE THAT, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 420CITRONA AVENUE, THAT WE LEAVE THE CONSERVATION LINE AS IS AND REZONE THE 466.97 SQUARE FEET TO REFLECT THE CONSERVATION LINE.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? CAN YOU TAKE A ROLL?

>> WHO DID SECOND? OH, MR. ROLAND.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> REMEMBER ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

CHAIR SANTRY?

>> YES.

NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS JAMES CALISTA AT 520 CITRONA DRIVE.

KELLY?

[03:35:11]

>> THIS IS TWO CHANGES.

AN FLUM CHANGE FROM CONSERVATION TO -- AND ZONING CHANGE TO CONSERVATION ZONING FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R-1.

THE CURRENT PROPERTY CONTAINS A STRUCTURE WHICH WAS BUILT IN 1995, A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2013 ON A TOTAL OF 1.77 ACRES OF LAND.

IF WE LOOK DEEPER AT THE REQUESTED ACTION, THE AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY REQUESTED IS FOR 25,880 MOVING FROM CONSERVATION LAND USE DESIGNATION TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION.

AND THE REQUESTED ACTION IS ALSO TO AMEND THIS ZONING MAP TO CHANGE FOR JUST OVER 23,000 SQUARE FEET OF LAND FROM R-1 TO CONSERVATION.

SO THAT PARCEL IN TOTAL CURRENTLY CONTAINS R-1 AND SO THERE'S REQUESTED ACTION TO BE MODIFIED WITH THE ZONING.

SORRY, WITH THE NOTED WETLANDS BOUNDARY.

IN LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORTS, YOU'LL NOTE WHERE THERE IS TOPOGRAPHY LEVEL DATA, AS WELL AS FLOOD ZONE LEVEL DATA.

IN ATTEMPTING TO TRY TO ALIGN THESE IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE.

BOTH THE TOPOGRAPHY DATA AND ZONING, I'M SORRY, WETLANDS DATA GIVE YOU A GOOD DEAL OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT EXISTS OUT THERE.

IF YOU PREFER TO ALIGN IT WITH THE TOP OF A TOPOGRAPHY LINE, YOU COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT INSTEAD.

BUT JUST AS A GENERAL AREA TO BE ABLE TO CREATE THE CONTOURS HERE, I DID ALIGN THE LAND USE WITH THAT WET THE LANDS BOUNDARY.

WHEN WE LOOK AT A PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE IN ADDITION TO LAND USE AND ZONE, WE HAVE REGULATIONS WHICH IMPLEMENT THE COMP PLAN THROUGH OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

WHEN YOU HAVE WETLANDS, WE DO REQUIRE YOU HAVE SURVEYS, JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND AND WE LOOK FOR THE BUFFER TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE CURRENT BUFFER REQUIREMENT IS SET AT 25 FEET.

AND SO THAT WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF THE REQUESTED CHANGE FOR THE SWIMMING POOL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

MY UNDERSTANDING AND IT MOVING FORWARD, THE 2013 IMPROVEMENT, WAS IN THIS LAND AREA, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSERVATION LAND USE IS THAT IT IS A USE WHICH IS IN KEEPING WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY USE WHICH IS PERMITTED ON THE WETLANDS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S CUSTOMARILY AVAILABLE USE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

IT WAS OUTSIDE OF THE WETLAND BUFFER AN PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT.

I KNOW THERE HAD BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PREVIOUSLY, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HAD BEEN ADDRESSED.

THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAP, WHICH I'M HAPPY TO PULL UP.

YOU CAN REVIEW IT AS PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION.

WE CAN LOOK AT, YOU HAVE THE FLOOD ZONE LAYER, WITH TOPOGRAPHY TURNED ON.

WETLAND LINE ITSELF IS A LITTLE FARTHER BACK.

HARD TO SEE WITH ALL THE LAYERS ON.

YOU DO SEE THE TOPOGRAPHY DIPS DOWN AS WHERE THAT POTENTIAL WETLAND LINE EXISTS.

YOU GET DOWN TO A ONE AND THEN, OF COURSE, ZERO AS YOU GET CLOSE TO THE CREEK LINE.

THIS APPEARS TO BE A REASONABLE LAYER BETWEEN LOOKING AT TOPOGRAPHY AS WELL AS FLOOD ZONE AND THE WETLANDS LAYER TOGETHER FOR MAPPING PURPOSES.

>> THANK YOU, KELLY.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL? YES, SIR?

>> GOOD EVENING.

510 CITRONA.

PROPERTY OWNER.

I WOULD REALLY LIKE IT IF YOU

[03:40:02]

ACCEPT YOUR OWN PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT IS THE CORRECT THING TO DO IN THIS CASE.

LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH MY PROPERTY REAL QUICK.

DARK LINE, THIS IS WATER, LITERALLY, A STREAM, IF YOU WILL, WHICH GOES FROM THE HOUSE THROUGH THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY, DOWN TO THE OTHER PROPERTY WHICH YOU'LL TALK ABOUT LATER.

THE ENTIRE AREA WHERE I LIVE IS 25 FEET ABOVE THE WATER LEVEL AND SLOPES DOWN INTO NOT EVEN A RAVINE BUT ANOTHER AREA.

THE BUFFER IS 25 FEET FROM THE ACTUAL WATER THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY.

IT'S UNBUILDABLE.

IT'S WET.

YOU'D HAVE TO BRING IN TRUCKLOADS OF DIRT TO GET ANYTHING LEVEL.

SO IN THAT RESPECT, I'D LIKE YOU TO ACCEPT THE PROPOSAL FROM THE STAFF BECAUSE THAT IS THE CORRECT WAY TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE.

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK IN TIME.

I DON'T KNOW WHO DREW THAT LINE, BUT THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING.

THIS LINE, THE ORIGINAL LINE GOES DIRECTLY THROUGH MY BEDROOM.

SO THE ENTIRE BACK SIDE OF MY HOUSE IS CONSERVATION.

I WONDER HOW THAT HAPPENED.

IN 1995, THAT LINE DIDN'T EXIST.

THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR.

>> ROBERT WELLS, 284 ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE.

AGAIN I WANT TO DISCUSS THE FACT THAT WE'RE USING THE WETLANDS AS THE BOUNDARY.

AS WE'VE DISCUSSED OVER THE PAST TWO MONTHS, CONSERVATION AND THE PROTECTION OF THE GREENWAY IS MORE THAN JUST WETLANDS.

EVEN THOUGH THERE'S UPLANDS THERE.

THERE WERE UPLANDS AT AMELIA BLUFF.

WE HEARD MANY EXPERTS TELL US THAT THE BUFFER IN THOSE UPLANDS ARE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE WETLANDS THEMSELVES.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW -- WE DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY.

WHAT WE DO KNOW IS WHERE THE FLUM IS WRITTEN TODAY.

WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT IT WAS WRITTEN AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE.

SO WHETHER THERE'S A HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LAND USE THAT'S CONSERVATION, STILL THAT WAS THE INTENTION UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN PROVE OTHERWISE.

WE HAVE TO ASSUME THAT IS WHAT IS INTENDED.

I THINK THE ENTIRE THING, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU THAT THE ENTIRE THING THAT IS CONNER IS VISION AND WE DON'T ALTER THAT LINE AT ALL.

THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR.

>> RICHARD TIM.

I'M BASICALLY REPEATING WHAT WAS JUST SAID.

IN THE CONTEXT OF DISCUSSING AMELIA BLUFF, WE ALL REMEMBER KELLY'S HISTORY CHART.

STARTED BY SAYING IT WAS WETLAND, WETLAND, WETLAND, THEN CONSERVATION, CONSERVATION, CONSERVATION.

WE LEARNED THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOMETHING BEING DESIGNATED WETLANDS AND CONSERVATION.

CONSERVATION BEING DESIGNATED A HIGHER DESIGNATION.

THE GENTLEMAN JUST SAID, WE SHOULD NOT BE USING THE WETTELANDS AS THE DEMARKATION OF THE LINE.

CONSERVATION WAS PUT THERE FOR A REASON.

TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS, I ASSUME.

I ASSUME THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BY SO MANY PEOPLE IN THIS DISCUSSION.

ONCE AGAIN, I RECOMMEND SAVING THIS CONSERVATION AS IT IS RIGHT TO YOUR BEDROOM, WHICH IS VERY STRANGE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

YES, MA'AM.

>> MARGRET KIRKLAND 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE.

SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AMELIA TREE CONNER IS VANSY.

[03:45:01]

I WAS GOING TO PUT THIS OFF UNTIL ANOTHER MEETING BUT I GUESS WE'LL DO PART OF IT NOW.

I AM HAPPY TO CONSERVE ALL WETLANDS.

WE KNOW WE NEED OUR WETLANDS MOVING FORWARD WITH TEMPERATURE INCREASES, WITH MORE VIOLENT WEATHER AND SO ON.

BASED ON FLORIDA LAW AND BASED ON OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WETLANDS ARE NOT THE ONLY THING THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE CONSERVED AND VALUED AND PROTECTED.

I'M JUST GOING TO READ ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING, SECOND SENTENCE IT SAYS THE CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES ADDRESS PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES SUCH AS WETLANDS, WILD LIFE, TREES, AIR AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND.

ALL INCLUDING IN THE FUTURE LAND USE SECTION WHICH OBVIOUSLY IS THE PART THAT'S MOST CONCERNED ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OR ONE OF THE PARTS MOST CONCERNED ABOUT DEVELOPMENT.

IT IS ALL ABOUT CONSERVING ALL KINDS OF SENSITIVE LANDS.

THE FORESTS THAT WE HAVE THAT PROTECT US, THE WETLANDS THAT WE HAVE, THE DUNES THAT WE HAVE THAT WE'RE RIPPING DOWN AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.

ALL THESE THINGS NEED TO BE PROTECTED.

WE HAVE A VERY AWKWARD SIT SITUATION.

THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE HOTEL.

VERY SIMILAR SITUATION.

THINGS WERE PERMITTED THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PERMITTED OR SOMETHING HAPPENED SOMEWHERE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BUILT THINGS THAT WERE NOT IN LINE WITH OUR FLUM.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HAPPENED EXACTLY, BUT THIS IS WHAT IT IS.

WE DON'T WANT TO PUNISH PEOPLE WHO ARE NEIGHBORS WHO DID THINGS WELL INTENTIONED.

WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS.

WE CAN LEAVE THIS AS CONSERVATION AND HAVE SOME KIND OF GRANDFATHERING ARRANGEMENT THAT GOES WITH IT OR WE CAN FOLLOW THE STRATEGY THAT KILLY HAS USED.

FRANKLY, MANY PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PRECEDENT BECAUSE I HAVE ONLY BEEN HERE SINCE LIVING HERE FULL TIME SINCE 2011.

I HAVE SEEN MULTIPLE CASES WHERE THINGS WERE DEVELOPED THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED 14TH IN LINE, BUT ONE EXAMPLE, BUT IT'S A BIG ONE.

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE BASED IT ON PRECEDENT, STUPID LITTLE PRECEDENT LIKE, WE COULDN'T DENY 14TH IN LINE BECAUSE OF THE FILLING OF A LITTLE SMALL WETLAND BEHIND THE THEATER.

OKAY? SO, YOU KNOW, PRECEDENT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS -- YES, IT IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN REPEATEDLY.

HOWEVER, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.

I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT IS THE BEST WAY OF AVOIDING NEGATIVE OUTCOMES IN THE FUTURE, OKAY? WHETHER IT IS GRANDFATHERING, WHETHER IT IS FOLLOWING THE STRATEGY THAT KELLY HAS USED.

BUT, YOU KNOW, SOMEHOW WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THIS SO IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO BITE US IN THE FUTURE AS SO MANY OTHER CASES HAVE.

THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR.

>> AGAIN, RYAN CONNERS.

I CAME HERE FOR PURELY INFORMATION BUT I'M MOTIVATED TO STAND UP HERE AND SAY SOMETHING AND ADDRESS WHAT'S BEEN SPOKEN ALREADY.

TO ME, A BUFFER IS JUST THAT.

YOU'RE BUFFERING SOMETHING.

SEEMS THE METHODOLOGY KELLY PUT FORWARD WAS TO BUFFER THE WETLANDS.

TO ME THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE.

[03:50:02]

TO SAY AN ARBITRARY, THAT'S WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE, ARBITRARY LINE THAT WAS MADE AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF THAT LINE, BUT IT IS VERY ARBITRARY IN ITS DESIGNATION THAT GOES THROUGH SOMEONE'S HOUSE, THAT THAT SHOULD STAND JUST BECAUSE AN ARBITRARY LINE WAS DRAWN MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

JUST A NORMAL PUBLIC CITIZEN, WHO HAD NO INTEREST IN THIS PROPERTY OR THE NEXT.

JUST A TAXPAYER, I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT TO SAY, YOU HAVE TO LEAVE IT.

A LINE IS DRAWN THROUGH HIS BEDROOM SO TOUGH LUCK.

HE PROBABLY HAS NO WAY OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE TAKING OR PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT THOUGHT THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME THAT MAP, THAT LINE WAS DRAWN.

HE PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

PROBABLY NEVER THOUGHT THIS WOULD COME UP.

YOU REALIZED THE LAND, THE PROPERTY HE BOUGHT, BUILT A HOME ON, BUILT A POOL ON WOULD BE IMPACTED BY A LINE DRAWN ON A MAP AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

>> JUST BY WAY OF CLARIFICATION, I THINK IN ALL THESE CASES, IT IS THAT A DEVELOPMENT WAS PLACED OVER A LINE, NOT THAT A LINE WAS PLACED OVER A DEVELOPMENT.

BY WHICH I MEAN THE TOTAL DESIGNATION OF THESE PROPERTIES PREDATES HIS BUILDING OF A HOUSE AND A POOL.

A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN ERROR.

>> THAT ERROR WASN'T HIS.

YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE.

>> I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THERE IS AN EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE THAT HAS TO DO WITH WHICH ONE CAME FIRST.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.

I THINK YOUR CHARACTER SAYING WAS INCORRECT IN THAT RESPECT.

>> WHICH CHARACTERIZATION?

>> THAT THEY DREW A LINE THROUGH HIS HOUSE AND CHANGED HIS RIGHTS.

RATHER --

>> I'M JUST LISTENING.

I WAS JUST LITERALLY HERE LISTENING.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? MS. BACH?

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE FOR THE BOARD, BECAUSE I'M ADVISING THE BOARD MEMBERS.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL PRESECEDENCE AND POLITICA WILL --

>> I'M SORRY.

>> THAT'S OKAY.

FINE.

AND POLITICAL WILL AND WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THIS TOWN.

I THINK THAT JUST TO BE CLEAR, NOT TO GET INTO DETAILS.

14TH IN LINE THE CITY COMMISSIONERS THAT VOTED TO APPROVE THAT DEVELOPMENT KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.

THEY HAD ALL THE FACTS IN FRONT OF THEM.

THEY ALLOWED THE FILLING OF WETLANDS FOR THE REASONS WE'RE HERE.

SO IT WASN'T BECAUSE I NEVER GAVE THEM THAT ADVICE THAT THERE WAS STILL WETLANDS ELSEWHERE.

SO LEGAL PRECEDENCE IN CASES WHERE WE HAVE ZONING CHANGE, I'LL TAKE THOSE FIRST.

THOSE ARE CASE BY CASE.

THEY'RE APPROVED BY QASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGES THAT CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES, BUT THEY ARE ALSO TO AN EXTENT BASED UPON THAT CASE.

ANOTHER CASE OR ANOTHER FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE WOULD NOT EVEN NEXT DOOR, WOULD NOT HAVE ANY WEIGHT OR WOULD NOT -- SHOULD NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT FOR YOU ALL RELATED TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

I THINK THAT IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT IT HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME WHY CONSERVATION LAND HAS BEEN LOST OR NOT ENOUGH REZONINGS TO CONSERVATION WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE.

I MEAN, SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE, I HAVE NEVER HAD TO ADVISE THE COMMISSION THEY HAVE TO APPROVE SOMETHING, OR PLANNING BOARD, BECAUSE A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY HAD IT DONE.

>> CAN WE JUST GET BACK TO THIS?

>> I UNDERSTAND EVERYONE IS CONSIDERING BUT LET'S MOVE FORWARD.

I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION, MS. BACH.

>> KELLY, WHAT IS THE DENSITY?

>> FOUR UNITS PER ACRE.

>> THIS PROPERTY 1.77 ACRES.

THAT'S FOUR PLUS UNITS.

I'M OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE

[03:55:01]

CONSERVATION.

I KNOW THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE HOUSE BEING IN THE CONSERVATION AREA.

I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO MOVING THAT LINE OUTSIDE OF THAT HOUSE FOOTPRINT PROVIDING SOME BACK YARD.

BUT I'M NOT FOR TAKING OVER HALF AN ACRE OF CONSERVATION LAND AND TURNING IT INTO RESIDENTIAL WITH THE POTENTIAL OF ONE DAY SELLING THIS PROPERTY AND HAVING FOUR OR FIVE PLUS UNITS ON IT.

I'D MAKE THE ACCOMMODATION TO DO IT FOR THE HOUSE BUT NOT GIVE UP HALF ACRE OF CONSERVATION TO DO THAT.

>> AND NOT THE POOL?

>> THE POOL IS IN THE GROUND.

IT WON'T BE DESTROYED UNTIL SOMEBODY FILLS IT WITH DIRT.

>> SO IT STAYS IN CONSERVATION.

>> STAYS IN CONSERVATION.

JUST BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE PAST DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH THAT ERROR.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THING FOR, WHAT, AN HOUR AND A HALF AT THE LAST MEETING.

>> YES, WE DID.

>> MR. CLARK?

>> I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH MR. BENNETT.

I HAVE A HARD TIME RECLASSIFYING ALL THAT TO -- OR TAKING IT OUT OF CONSERVATION, CLASSIFICATION.

IT'S IN FLUM NOW.

I'M TROUBLED BY THE LINE GOING FLU THE HOUSE.

SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST IS THAT WE ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT REVISING THAT CONSERVATION LAND SUFFICIENT TO TAKE THE HOUSE OUT OF THE CONSERVATION WHICH LEAVES THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT PROPERTY IN CONSERVATION.

>> KELLY, IS THAT AN OLD LIGHT OR NEW ONE?

>> A NEW LIGHT, SIR.

FOR PURPOSES OF CLARIFICATION, I KNOW MR. BENNETT SPOKE TO POTENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF THAT LAND.

THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS UNDER LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOT BEING ONE OF THEM THAT COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND BUILD ADDITIONAL DRAWING UNITS ON IT.

THE OTHER COULD NOT CREATE THE FLAGGED LOT ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE, SAY THE STRUCTURE AND POOL WERE TO DISAPPEAR, SUBDIVISION OF THAT LAND INTO MULTIPLE PARCELS WOULD NOT BE TOO COOL.

>> I MADE MY COMMENT.

>> SURE.

>> MY COMMENTS ARE THE SAME BUT I WANTED TO JUST MAKE THIS POINT ABOUT SWIMMING POOL.

IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR COMMENT, IN 2013 PERMIT WAS ISSUED TO ALLOW THE SWIMMING POOL TO OCCUR.

IT WAS KNOWN AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS CONSERVATION PROPERTY.

AND THAT I GUESS THE DETERMINATION WAS THAT IT WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE CODE, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT EXISTS TODAY.

>> LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH RESPECT TO R-1 ZONING AND THE ALLOWABLE USES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF IT.

THEY DID HAVE ZONING IN PLACE THERE.

YOU ALSO HAVE CUSTOMARY USES WITH THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WAS THERE.

AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, IT WAS THE DIRECTION TO PROCEED BUT MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO ENCROACHMENT INTO THE WETLAND.

>> I WOULD JUST SAY, TO ME, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM OF HAVING A STRUCTURE, WHETHER A POOL OR SHED IN THE CONSERVATION AREA.

SO I THINK WE'RE NOT GONNA FIX IT TONIGHT BUT LOOKING TO THE FUTURE THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT, FINE WORDING AS TO WHAT CAN AND CAN'T BE DONE IN THE CONSERVATION ZONING.

BASICALLY, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BUILD ANYTHING IN THERE, WHETHER IT'S A SWIMMING POOL OR TENNIS COURT OR WHATEVER.

>> THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN DO IN THE CONSERVATION AREA.

ALSO VERY LIMITED LIST OF THINGS YOU CAN DO I CAN ASSURE YOU A SWIMMING POOL IS NOT ON THE LIST.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

I'M TOLD THIS WAS LEGALLY PERMITTED.

>> NOT LEGALLY PERMITTED.

>> IN TERMS OF THE POOL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE GOING FORWARD, AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK WE CAN FIX IT TONIGHT BUT FOR SOME FUTURE DISCUSSION WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT LANGUAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

>> I WILL TELL YOU THAT I ENTERED THE CONSIDERATION OF

[04:00:01]

THESE QUESTIONS BASED ON THE NOTION THAT MAYBE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WAS TO LEAVE THE FLUM DESIGNATIONS ALONE AND TREAT THESE AS GRANDFATHERED PROPERTIES, AS THEY ARE.

AND THEN MATCH THE -- LEAVE THE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE TWO, IN PART BASED UPON A CONCERN SIMILAR TO WHAT TAMMY ADDRESSED A FEW MINUTES AGO.

I HAVE SINCE DONE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF RESOURCE.

I DON'T THINK IT WOULD -- HAVING SAID THAT, I CHANGED MY MIND IN THE COURSE OF REVIEWING THIS STUFF BECAUSE IT APPEARED TO ME THAT WE HAD A LONG AND UNPLEASANT HISTORY OF THE FLUM DESIGNATIONS BEING IGNORED BY THE PERMITTING STAFF.

THEY LOOKED AT THE ZONING CODE AND NOT THE FLUM DESIGNATION, DESPITE THE FACT THE LAW CLEARLY FISHES THAT.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DEBATE ABOUT THAT LEGALLY ANYWHERE ANYMORE.

I THINK WE'RE WAY PAST THAT.

MY CONCERN BECAME IF WE'RE GOING TO PERSIST IN HAVING RECONCILIATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE LIKELIHOOD THAT TEN YEARS OR 15 YEAR ORS 20 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN ALL OF THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENTS ALONG EGAN CREEK DIED DOWN AND MEMORIES FAILED, THAT WE WOULD RETURN TO APPROACH TO PERMITTING THAT DIDN'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO THE FLUM MAP.

OUR BEST DEFENSE AGAINST THAT IS TO ALWAYS ASSURE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ZONING DESIGNATIONS ARE COMPLETELY ALIGNED WITH THE FLUM MAP.

EVEN IF THAT INVOLVES TAKING RISK ABOUT A NEW POINT OF ENTRY FOR LEGAL ACTIONS AND I DON'T THINK IT DOES.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE US TO DO?

>> I WOULD LIKE -- IF I HAD INDIVIDUAL CHOICES, I WOULD AMEND ON ALL OF THESE, I WOULD AMEND THE ZONING CODE TO MATCH THE FLUM MAP.

IF IT CREATED AN INCOMPATIBLE USE GOING FORWARD, IT'S GRANDFATHERED BUT COULDN'T BE REPEATED AGAIN IN THE FUTURE.

I KNOW THERE ARE ISSUES ABOUT THAT FOR MANY PEOPLE.

THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO CREATE NONCONFORMING USES.

I THINK WE HAVE ONE GUIDING PRINCIPLE HERE THAT WE COULD USE IF WE DO, IN FACT, WANT TO CARVE OUT THE GRANDFATHER USES AS A STATUS QUO MATTER THAT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, WHICH KELLY SUGG JESTED A MOMENT AGO.

WE HAVE OTHER DESIGNATIONS WE CAN USE.

ONE IS PRETTY CRITICAL TO THE CONSERVATION OF EGAN'S CREEK.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS REPEATEDLY REFERRED TO IN THE DISCUSSIONS AND IN LITIGATION AROUND THE RIDGE PROPERTY WAS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DUNES THAT ARE ON THE WESTERN SHORE OF EGAN'S CREEK.

I LISTENED TO AN ADDRESS BY A GEOLOGIST SEVERAL YEARS AGO IN TOWN WHO I THINK WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SELECTED TO DO SOME DUNE RECOMMEND EIGHTS FOR THE CITY.

HE ACKNOWLEDGED THE WESTERN SHORE OF EGAN'S CREEK ARE DUNES THAT NATURALLY OCCURRED WHEN EGAN'S CREEK WAS THE ATLANTIC OCEAN IN GEOLOGICAL TIME.

IF YOU LOOK ON THESE ELEVATION MAP, AND YOU CAN TAKE THE ONE IN FRONT OF YOU NOW, THERE'S SOME PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY SLOPES HERE.

WE'VE GOT A PEAK RUNNING THROUGH THIS PROPERTY OF 18 FEET OF ELEVATION.

IT DROPS OFF VERY DRAMATICALLY TO THE SOUTHEAST.

IN A VERY NARROW SPACE IT'S DOWN TO FOUR OR FIVE FEET.

THAT'S WAY TOO STEEP TO DEVEGITATE.

AND STILL PRESERVE THAT DUNE LINE AS PART OF THE PROTECTION FOR THE CREEK.

I THINK THAT NOTION WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT'S ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THE CITY.

IF WE'RE GOING TO DRAW A LINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CODIFYING THE STATUS QUO AN NOT CREATING INCOMPATIBLE GRANDFATHERED USES, I THINK WE OUGHT TO USE THE

[04:05:03]

UPLAND SIDE OF THAT ELEVATION PEAK.

SOME PERIOD DISTANT FROM THE PEAK OF THAT DUNE LINE SO THAT WE KEEP IN CONSERVATION THE PEAK OF THAT DUNE AND AT LEAST SOME ELEMENTS OF IT WEST OF THE DUNE.

THAT WOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS MAP, PROBABLY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 16 AND 14 FOOT ELEVATION TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE 18 FOOT PEAK.

IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WOULD CARVE OUT THE HOUSE AND IT WOULD EVEN CARVE OUT THE POOL.

AND IT WOULD SERVE AS A REASONABLE BOUNDARY TO THEN CONSIDER DOWN THE PROPERTY LINES TO THE SOUTH, WHICH WE'RE BEING ASKED TO EVALUATE AND GO TO THE JURISDICTIONAL WETHRAPB BUFFER LINE.

IT WOULD PROTECT THE STATUS QUO OF THOSE HOMES PERMANENTLY.

IT WOULD DRAMATICALLY INCREASE CONSERVATION ACREAGE ALONG THIS LINE AND THEN MATCH THE ZONING CODE AND THE FLUM MAP TO THAT LINE.

THIS IS SUBJECT TO NOT SEEING HOW IT PLAYS OUT ON THE GROUND, OTHER THAN LOOKING AT THESE ELEVATION MAPS.

LOOKS LIKE IT KEEPS A LOT MORE LAND IN CONSERVATION THAN THE STAFF PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW.

IF WE'RE GOING TO COMPROMISE ANY OF THE CONSERVATION LAND, THAT STRIKES ME AS A REASONABLE WAY TO DO IT.

>> RATHER THAN TRYING TO DRAW A LINE HERE TONIGHT --

>> MY SUGGESTION SEND IT BACK TO STAFF, LET THEM LOOK AT THIS AN APPLY SOME LOGICAL ON THE LINE OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED AB HERE AND BRING IT BACK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE.

I THINK THAT CONSIDERS THE COMMENTS THE PUBLIC HAVE MADE IN THE PUBLIC PART OF THE MEETING TONIGHT.

I'M CERTAINLY FINE IF THEY GET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL IF IT COMES BACK.

BUT I THINK THAT PUTS US IN A POSITION THAT WE MAXIMIZE THE CONSERVATION AND MINIMIZE THE ENCROACHMENT.

>> OKAY.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HEAR KELLY'S THOUGHT ON THAT.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> IT ABSOLUTELY MAKES SENSE.

YOU CAN CERTAINLY TAKE A RIDGE LINE OUT TO A CERTAIN AREA.

THE ADJACENT PARCEL, WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS LATER, MAY HAVE A BIT OF AN INCH IF WE TRY TO TAKE ONE GEOGRAPHIC LINE AND DO THAT.

WE NEED TO MAKE BE SENSE TOEUFRB WHAT IS CURRENTLY BUILT AND LOOK AT A DIFFERENT LINE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHERE TO PUT CONSERVATION DESIGNATION.

BUT THAT MAKES GREAT SENSE.

>> JUST EYEBALLING IT, KELLY, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WORKED ON THE CONTINUOUS PROPERTIES.

>> ON SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING TO COMPLETELY MAKE THEM CONSERVATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY.

>> RIGHT.

>> SO I WOULD WANT TO SEE THOSE.

>> WE HAVE SEVERAL HERE WHERE THE CITY IS PURCHASING A PROPERTY WITH THAT PURPOSE IN MIND.

ALL OF THAT OUGHT TO BE A CONSIDERATION.

>> WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT ONCE WE GET TO IT.

>> WE'RE BRINGING THIS BACK NEXT MONTH?

>> I WOULD PROPOSE TO REQUEST THE STAFF TO REVIEW THAT AS A POSSIBILITY AND COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

>> HOW MANY OF THESE DOES THAT IMPACT THEN?

>> IT IMPACTS CALISTA.

IT IMPACTS AUSTIN.

IT IMPACTS

>> 510 CITRONA.

>> IT IMPACTS -- 522 CITRONA.

>> 522 WOULD TURN INTO COMPLETE CONSERVATION.

>> 522 AND 526.

>> WE CAN DO THOUGH TONIGHT.

>> I AGREE.

>> OKAY.

YES.

522 AN 526 CITRONA.

>> 522, IF WE GET TO THAT ONE, YOU MAY WANT TO MODIFY IT AGAIN WITH THE RIDGE LINE AND YOU WOULD PICK UP ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION AREA.

[04:10:01]

AS WELL AS WITH 526.

>> THAT MODIFIES BOTH THE --

>> 522, MORE DENSITY TO CONSERVATION.

>> THAT PROPERTY IS GOING ENTIRELY INTO CONSERVATION WITH THESE RECOMMENDED CHANGES?

>> 522 IS NOT, NO, SIR.

>> LET ME GET TO THIS.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> YOU WOULD PICK UP ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION AREA BY FOLLOWING THE TOPOGRAPHICIC LINE.

RIDGE LINE.

>> IT'S CALISTA, AUSTIN.

>> DODD.

>> DODD IS GOING ENTIRELY INTO CONSERVATION, IS IT?

>> ACTION RIGHT NOW IS NOT.

WE WOULD NEED TO CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY FIRST.

>> DON'T WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE CONTRAST? IS THERE A CONTINGENCY ON THE CONTRAST OF ANY KIND?

>> I HAVE NOT READ THE CONTRACT.

I AM NOT AWARE.

>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO DETERMINE, IS THERE ANY REASON IT WON'T OCCUR?

>> THERE'S ALWAYS THAT RISK.

THERE'S NO REAL RISK.

>> WHY WOULDN'T WE DO IT?

>> IF IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT WE WILL CLOSE BEFORE WE ENACT ACTION ON THIS, I WOULD FEEL CONFIDENT IN MAKING THE ENTIRETY OF THE PARCEL CONSERVATION.

BUT IF THERE'S A CHANCE THAT WE BEGIN IT, IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER TO PLACE THAT ON THEM.

>> WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE -- IF THIS BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO DO THAT AND JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THAT NOW, WE WILL BE CLOSED BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> PERFECT.

THEN THE ENTIRETY OF THAT PARCEL --

>> IF WE'RE ADDING CONSERVATION TO THESE PROPERTIES, WHY WOULD WE DELAY THAT UNLESS YOU'RE PROPOSING THE INCREASE THE AREA OF CONSERVATION.

>> THAT'S THE REASON.

>> 510, 522.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> FOR 510 AND 522.

>> CALISTA AND AUSTIN AND CHANGE DODD TO ALL CONSERVATION.

CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH PROPERTY IS ALREADY ALL GOING INTO CONSERVATION?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND --

>> THE SHELL COVE PIECE, I CAN SPEAK TO THEM BRIEFLY, THE RIGHT MOVE WITH THIS IS TO MAKE IT ALL CONSERVATION.

YOU HAVE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE TWO TRACTS OF LAND KNOWN AS TRACT C AND D ON THE SHELL COVE MAP INDICATED THERE, THE LAND USE NEEDS TO CHANGE FOR TRACT C.

THEN THE ZONING NEEDS TO CHANGE FOR BOTH TRACT C AND D TO ALIGN WITH CONSERVATION FOR THOSE PARCELS WHICH TOGETHER TOTAL 1.1 ACRES OF LAND.

YOU CAN SEE VERY CLEARLY IN THE MAP WHERE THIS IS DESIGNATED AND SET ASIDE JUST FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES.

THEY WILL FALL IN THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH HAVE BEEN DESIGNATED FOR THE LAND USE.

>> SO WE CAN VOTE ON SHELL COVE?

>> WHY DON'T WE -- IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF EFFORT ON AUSTIN AND CALISTA? 510 AND 522.

>> THAT'S THE PARCEL YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT.

>> SO THIS WILL BE CONTINUED.

>> CONTINUED UNTIL NOVEMBER.

>> OKAY.

>> AND THEN --

>> WHAT ABOUT 526?

>> 526.

>> THE WHOLE THING WILL GO INTO CONSERVATION.

WE WILL HAVE CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY.

>> WE CAN TAKE A MOTION ON I'LL AUDIENCE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THESE.

>> OKAY.

LET'S GO TO DODD 526 CITRONA.

DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE? OKAY.

THIS WOULD BE TO DESIGNATE BOTH ZONING AND FLUM ON THIS ENTIRE

[04:15:02]

PARCEL TO CONSERVATION, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I NEED A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT.

>> IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO REDEFINE THE BOUNDARY ALONG THE RIDGE LINE, WOULD IT AFFECT THIS PROPERTY?

>> NO.

THE CITY IS BUYING IT FOR CONSERVATION.

>> OKAY.

>> SOMEBODY GIVE ME A MOTION.

>> MAKE THE WHOLE PROPERTY CONSERVATION FOR FLUM AND ZONING.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> 526 CITRONA DRIVE.

>> 526 CITRONA DRIVE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IS THAT AN OLD LIGHT?

>> THAT'S AN OLD LIGHT.

>> CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL ON THAT VOTE?

>> WHO INITIATED THE MOTION?

>> MR. ROLAND.

>> OKAY.

MEMBER ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> CHAIR SANTRY.

NEXT PROPERTY BEECH.

>> YOU HAVE SEVERAL TOWARD THE END THAT NEED TO BE CHANGED.

THESE ARE ALL PROPERTIES THAT WERE SET ASIDE AS PART OF AMELIA BLUFF THAT NEED TO PUT THEM ALL IN CONSERVATION, THE LARGER TRACT 4.36 ACRES OF LAND, THE LAND USE NEEDS TO CHANGE TO BE A CONNER IS VISION OF THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY.

AND THE -- THOSE OF YOU NEED TO BE IN CONNER IS VISION.

ZONING DISTRICT.

>> OKAY.

SO EVERYTHING THAT IS COVERED BY THIS PROPOSAL CHANGES ZONING AND FLUM TO CONSERVATION.

>> YES, SIR.

>> ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT ONE? YES, SIR?

>> I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT 526 CITRONA THAT YOU JUST VOTED ON.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.

>> IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE.

>> ROBERT WELLS 2884 ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE.

IN THE LEGAL NOTICE, IT INDICATES THE LINE WOULD BE THE WETLANDS.

SO IS THAT NO LONGER THE CASE? WHAT YOU JUST ADOPTED NOW SUPERCEDES THAT.

>> YES.

>> SORRY.

>> YOU WILL KNOW THE LEGAL NOTICE DOES INDICATE THAT WE CAN CHANGE IN MANY RESPECTS CHANGE THE FLUM OR ZONING OR BOTH.

WE'RE NOT LIMITED BY THE PROPOSAL.

>> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> MOTION ON FERNANDINA BEACH PROPERTY OWNER CITRONA DRIVE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT.

I'M JUST GOING TO USE THE PARCEL I.D. THAT'S HERE.

ZONING FOR 3.65 ACRES OF CONSERVATION.

THIS IS PAD CASE 211-1415 AND AS PRESENTED WE FIND -- -- TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME.

>> SECOND.

>> MISS MINSHEW SECONDS.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION TON ITEM? MR. BENNETT YOUR LIGHT'S ON.

IS THAT OLD? LET'S TAKE A VOTE.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER ROLAND?

>> YES.

>> CHAIR SANTRY.

>> NEXT ITEM CITRONA DRIVE HOA VACANT LANDS.

MAP CHANGES.

>> THESE ARE ZONING AND LAND USE MAP CHANGES FOR CONSIDERATION.

AS INDICATED IN THE SHELL COVE PLOT AND IDENTIFIED ADDS A SEPARATE PARCEL THAT TOTALS .22 ACRES OF LAND FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CONSERVATION.

THEN TOGETHER WITH TRACT D, CHANGING FROM R-2 WITH PUD TO CONSERVATION TOTALLING 1.18 ACRES OF LAND.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAT MAP

[04:20:03]

ASSOCIATED WITH SHELL COVE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THIS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS TRACT C AND D AND INDICATED AS WETLAND AREA AS WELL AS THE BUFFER NATURAL WETLAND BUFFER TRACT.

TRACT C.

>> THEY'RE ALL MOVING TO CONSERVATION?

>> YES, SIR.

>> MR. BENNETT?

>> DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> YES.

>> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS?

>> YES, SIR.

>> JUST ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.

DOES THAT IMPACT ANY OF THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WE SEE, WHICH IS NOT ME, BY THE WAY, BUT SINCE I'M THE ONLY ONE LEFT HERE.

DOES THAT IMPACT ANY OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS?

>> NO.

EVERYTHING THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE AND REQUIRED AS PART OF YOUR PLOT IS MAINTAINED.

IT IS MAKING THE DESIGNATION MATCH.

THEY'VE BEEN SET ASIDE AS TRACTS OF LAND FOR PURPOSES OF CONSERVATION.

IT'S MAKING THAT FUNCTION THAT WAY ON A MAP.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MR. BENNETT.

>> MAKE A MOTION?

>> YES.

>> IDENTIFIES CITRONA DRIVE SHELL COVE HOA VACANT HRAPB ZONING MAP CHANGES.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND R-1 TO CONSERVATION FOR PAB CASE 2019-14 OR 15, ONE OF THOSE --

>> BOTH.

>> BOTH.

OKAY.

AND THAT IS SUFFICIENT AND CLIENT WITH THE REST OF THE LAND AND BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME.

>> SECOND.

>> SECONDED BY MR. CLARK.

FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MATTER? ROLL CALL PLEASE.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN SANTRY?

>> YES.

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE -- I DIDN'T HAVE A STAFF REPORT OR RECOMMENDATION --

>> I HAVE A SUMMARY OF THE CHANGE HERE PROPOSED THAT WILL GIVE A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR YOU.

REQUESTED ACTION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING IS A LAND USE CHANGE TO CONSERVATION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONING CHANGE TO CONNER IS VISION FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THIS IS A TRACT OF LAND THAT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT.

IT WAS EXPECTED TO BE SET ASIDE LAND UNDER THE PUD RESOLUTION.

WHAT I HAVE PROVIDED FOR YOU IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL IS THAT RESOLUTION AS WELL AS A DUE DILIGENCE LETTER ASSOCIATED WITH THE COMPARTMENT WHICH WAS COMPLETED BY PLANNING STAFF.

IN THE PUD CONDITION, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY SHALL REMAIN AS A UNIFIED TRACK OF LAND WITHOUT ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY IN THE GREEN BELT OR LANDFILL AREA.

I DON'T HAVE PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS OUT THERE EXCEPT I KNOW THERE WAS LANDFILL GENERALLY WITHIN THIS AREA.

THE EXISTING LAND USE MAP, AS YOU SEE IT TODAY, REFLECTS CONSERVATION ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, THAT EASTERN SECTION OF LAND, REQUESTED ACTION IS THE ENTIRETY OF THAT PROPERTY, CONSERVATION, SO INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL 1.6 ACRES OF LAND.

THE SECOND ACTION REQUESTED IS TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE PARCEL, 4.37 ACRES OF LAND TO CONNER IS VISION CURRENTLY NOTED AS R-1 ZONING.

OF COURSE, YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL BACKUP MATERIALS PROVIDED THAT GIVE YOU ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE.

YOU CAN SIMPLY MOVE IT INTO CONNER IS VISION SO THERE'S NO CONSIDERATION OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THIS PARCEL.

OR CONFUSION ABOUT IT.

>> THIS IS TO CHANGE THAT INTO CONSERVATION AREA.

>> NO.

>> PARCEL PRINCE WAS HERE TALKING ABOUT IT AT OUR WORK SHOP.

I TAKE IT BY THE LACK OF HER PRESENCE THAT THIS WORKS FOR HER BASED ON HER REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTATION.

>> I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING OTHERWISE.

>> OKAY.

>> IS THAT PROPERTY STILL IN OWNERSHIP WITH THE --

>> IT IS NOT.

IT IS A SEPARATE OWNER.

[04:25:10]

>> I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.

BUT IN THIS MATERIAL THAT WAS PROVIDED WITH THIS CASE, I WAS UNABLE TO FINE SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY DESIGNATED THESE AS RESERVED PROPERTIES.

>> THE ONLY DOCUMENT I HAVE IS THROUGH THAT PUD CONDITION THAT THIS WAS SET ASIDE AND NOT TO BE DEVELOPED.

>> I THINK I SAW THE PUT TOGETHER.

TELL ME WHAT DOCUMENT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.

>> THE PUD ORDINANCE.

>> THAT IS BASED ON RESOLUTION 967.

HERE IT IS RIGHT HERE.

>> I HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

THE PROPERTY BEING REFERRED TO MATCHES THAT DESIGNATION?

>> COLLECTIVELY, YEAH.

>> ALL RIGHT.

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MAKE A MOTION THAT PROPERTY BE -- I'M READING IT OFF THE PROPERTY MAP.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH IS CORRECT.

>> THIS IS THE ORIGINAL DESIGNATION BEFORE THAT PARCEL WAS CARVED OUT.

>> IT SAYS 4.437 ACRES.

>> THE ENTIRE WOULD HAVE BEEN 8.22 ACRES WHEN IT WAS CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT.

IT WAS SAYING THE GREEN BELT PORTION OF IT BECAUSE THEY WANT IT TO REMAIN UNIFIED.

THAT WAS THE MESSAGE.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR WITHIN THE AREA.

>> WHERE'S THE OTHER FOUR ACRES.

>> 996 CITRONA.

>> SAID THE ACRES WOULD BE DEVE DEVELOPED.

>> THE ORIGINAL WHOLE TRACT.

>> I GOT IT.

OKAY.

DESIGNATED AS CONSERVATION 2019-14-15.

THAT INFORMATION WILL BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME.

>> SECOND.

>> SECOND MR. ROLAND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM?

>> DO YOU WANT TO CALL ROLL?

>> MEMBER CLARK?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER MINSHEW?

>> YES.

>> MEMBER BENNETT?

>> YES.

>> CHAIR SANTRY?

>> YES.

[Item 5 & 8]

>> I'M GONNA SUGGEST THIS.

I WOULD LIKE TO -- I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA.

APPARENTLY HASN'T BEEN DONE IN A LONG TIME TO REVIEW OUR BY-LAWS AND CONSIDER WHETHER SHE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

I'D LIKE TO DEVELOP A SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THIS AND TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT IT AND REPORT BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AS A WHOLE, THE BOARD AS A WHOLE.

MINSHEW AND MR. CLARK AND --

>> I'LL DO THAT.

>> THE CHAIR WILL APPOINT THE THREE VOLUNTEERS TO, AS A SUBCOMMITTEE ON THIS MATTER FOR REVIEW AND WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE PAB ARE ALWAYS WELCOME AT ANY WORK SHOPS YOU CONDUCT.

>> GLAD YOU SAID THAT.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I HIGHLIGHTED HERE.

>> I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE REDID OUR BY-LAWS IN 2016.

[04:30:05]

>> 2015.

THOSE ARE FINAL.

>> OKAY.

>> AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS WILDLY TIME CRITICAL, BUT I'D LOVE TO SEE A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING CERTAINLY BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR.

I COULD HAVE THIS REVIEW BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> THAT CAN BE DONE.

>> I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE DO THAT IN NOVEMBER.

I'LL BE GONE IN TWO WEEKS.

>> YOU VOLUNTEERED THAT YOU AREN'T GOING TO BE HERE.

>> YES, SIR.

>> BEFORE WE ADJOURN, CAN WE JUST TOUCH BASE EXACTLY ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING?

>> THANK YOU.

I JUST NOTED, WE ARE BRINGING BACK 510 CITRONA AND 522 CITRONA.

I HAVE NOTED WE'RE BRINGING BACK THE HICKORY STREET PARK AND I HAVE NOTED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE ABOUT A BUSINESS OPERATING FROM 731 SOUTH 6TH STREET.

AND --

>> ASKINS.

>> I WILL PROVIDE THE INFORMATION TO ASKINS AND 3RD STREET TO YOU, THE ORDINANCES.

>> OKAY.

>> WE STILL NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THESE.

>> YOU NEED TO TAKE ACTION, THE LAST TWO ITEMS YOU DON'T.

THE HICKORY STREET ONE, 522, 510 CITRONA NEED ACTION.

>> I'LL BRING THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SCHOOL BOARD AND THE CITY, IF ONE EXISTS.

>> YES.

>> DON'T WE NEED TO ACT ON ASKINS AS WELL?

>> YOU DO NOT NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON ASKINS.

>> WHY?

>> YOU HAVE ORDINANCES THAT ALREADY REFLECT IT'S HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> THE FLU AND THE ZONING MATCH.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT DESIGNATION.

>> THAT MAY BE TRUE.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN TALK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT UNDER THIS ROUND OF REVIEWS.

>> I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL WHEREIN WE CONCLUD THAT WE OUGHT TO TAKE UNDER ALIGNMENT NOW BUT THAT A BROADER REVIEW OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE DIRECTIONS THEY WERE MOVING IN NEEDED TO BE BROUGHT UP.

I DON'T THINK WE EXPECT THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING.

BUT WE DIDN'T ACT ON THIS ITEM AT ALL.

>> THE REASON WE DIDN'T ACT IS THE RECONCILIATION OF THE FLUM AND ZONING CODE HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED.

>> YOU HAD ORDINANCES IN 2006 AND 1996 TO MAKE THEM R-3 AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR AT THIS LATE HOUR.

THIS T CASHISTICS OF THIS PROPERTY ARE CRITICAL AS WHAT WE SPENT TWO HOURS TALKING ABOUT.

>> THEY NEED TO COME BACK.

>> WE CAN'T LET THIS FALL BETWEEN THE CRACKS.

I KNOW THERE'S BEEN ACTION TAKEN BUT WE NEED TO REVIEW.

>> I AGREE.

>> IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WE CAN'T HAVE THAT BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION IN DECEMBER?

>> AT THAT POINT YOU SHOULD ALSO HAVE ALL THE CON SERVAIS CHANGES FOR YOU TO CONSIDER, TOO.

THAT ONE I THINK IS GOING TO GIVE US A BIT OF A CHALLENGE IF WE ATTEMPT TO MOVE IT ENTIRELY INTO CONSERVATION.

>> WHATEVER THE ANSWER IS, WE NEED TO.

>> CONSERVATION AND CHANGES FOR PURPOSES OF MAKING CONNER IS VISION LAND WILL BE BACK ON YOUR PLATE BY DECEMBER.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

MR. CLARK OBVIOUSLY IS INTERESTED IN HAVING THIS SCHEDULED IN SOME FASHION TO EVALUATE THIS PROPERLY, INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE RECONCILIATION.

I JUST WANT TO GET SOME SORT OF COMMITMENT ABOUT WHEN WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT.

MAYBE IT'S JANUARY.

I DON'T WANT TO PUT TOO MUCH ON OUR PLATE.

WE'VE ALREADY CARRIED SOME STUFF OVER TO NOVEMBER.

DECEMBER IS ALWAYS A TOUGH MEETING ANYWAY BECAUSE OF THE HOLIDAYS.

JANUARY PALLETABLE?

>> IT'S FINE, SO LONG AS IT'S IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

>> LET'S TARGET THAT FOR JANUARY.

>> WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS MORE TOGETHER.

>> FINE.

YEAH.

>> KELLY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU FEEL IN DESPERATE NEED?

>> NO.

I WILL PUT EVERYTHING INTO AN E-MAIL FOR YOU.

[04:35:02]

>> ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION FROM THE MEMBERS?

>> W

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.