Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:08]

>>> THIS IS THE FEBRUARY MEETING OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

>> LET'S TAKE THE ROLL CALL. >> SO, COULD YOU SERVE AS A

VOTING MEMBER? >> EXCELLENT.

WE HAVE A QUORUM. >> WELCOME EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS RICK CLARK. THIS IS MY FIRST MEETING AS A CHAIR. BEAR WITH ME AS I STUMBLED THROUGH THIS. I'M SURE MY COLLEAGUES WILL MAKE SURE I DO THINGS PROPERLY. ONE THING I WANTED TO MENTION WAS THE SEATING ARRANGEMENT. THIS WAS NOT KELLY'S IDEA.

THIS WAS MY IDEA. IT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THERE WAS A CONCERN EXPRESSED THAT THE DISCUSSION AT THE TABLE TENDED TO BE ON ONE SIDE OF THE AISLE AND I THOUGHT MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T MIX IT UP. SO WHAT YOU SEE IS A RESULT OF THAT THOUGHT PROCESS. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T BLAME HER. IT WAS MY DOING.

I WANTED TO MAKE SOME MORE COMMENTS ABOUT THE MEETINGS THAT WE HAVE AND HOW THEY WORK. ONE THING I HAVE NOTICED SINCE THE TIME I HAVE BEEN ON THE PAB SOME SEEM TO GO ALONG.

I THINK I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR FOUR HOURS MEETINGS OR LONGER.

MY OWN FEELING IS THAT MEETINGS THAT LAST THAT LONG TEN TO BE LESS PRODUCTIVE THE LONGER THEY GO.

DECISION MAKING TENDS TO GENERATE.

PARTICULARLY FOR THE PUBLIC THAT IS HERE AND WAITING FOR AN ITEM TO SHOW UP HERE IT IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO HAVE THE PUBLIC COME AND PARTICIPATE AND EXPRESS THEIR OPINION WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT. I HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT HOW CAN WE DO OUR BUSINESS, AFFORD THE PUBLIC THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS, AND ALSO KEEP OUR MEETINGS MOVING ALONG IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER. I THOUGHT ABOUT TRYING TO SHOOT FOR MEETINGS THAT LAST TWO HOURS.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S A HARD STOP.

THERE WILL BE TIMES IT MAY BE LONGER.

BUT AS A GENERAL GOAL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US CRAFT MEETINGS THAT LAST TWO HOURS IF WE CAN. I HAVE HAD SOME IDEAS.

ONE IS AN AGENDA PREPARATION. THAT IS FOR KELLY TO THINK ABOUT. HOW DO YOU PUT AGENDAS TOGETHER THAT DON'T TAKE THREE OR FOUR HOURS IF WE CAN LIMIT IT TO SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED IN TWO HOURS.

>> THE OTHER THING IS THAT AS PEOPLE EITHER PAB OR THE PUBLIC COMES OUT, I WOULD ASK THAT PEOPLE KEEP THEIR COMMENTS CONCISE. AND RELEVANT TO THE TOPIC AT HAND. GENERALLY I THINK THAT IS HANDLED PRETTY WELL. AS YOU COME FORWARD TO SPEAK EVEN PAB MEMBERS, TRY TO GET TO THE POINT.

RESPECT THE TIME FRAMES THAT EVERYONE HAS.

MAKE YOUR POINTS. TAKE YOUR TIME TO DO THAT BUT

TRY TO BE AS BRIEF AS YOU CAN. >> THE LAST THING I WANTED TO MENTION WAS TWO ADDITIONAL THINGS.

ONE IS THAT AS MOST OF YOU KNOW THE STAFF PREPARES EXTENSIVE MATERIAL FOR EACH MEETING. I KNOW PAB MEMBERS REVIEW THE MATERIAL. I SPEND, PROBABLY A GOOD 20 HOURS REVIEWING THE AGENDA OF MATERIAL.

ALL OF THE INFORMATION I SEE IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

IF YOU ARE A PUBLIC PERSON YOU ARE ATTENDING THE MEETING AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA, TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT THE STUFF. IT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE.

IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT OR HAVE DIFFICULTY NAVIGATING IT CALL KELLY GIBSON OR STAFF AND THEY WILL BE HAPPY TO HELP YOU.

>> THE LAST THING ABOUT MEETING TIMES IS THE USE OF GETTING BOGGED DOWN IN ISSUE AND SPENDING TIME WITH WHEEL TURNING AND IT SEEMS LIKE MORE THAN WE CAN ACCOMPLISH.

I THINK IN THOSE SITUATIONS, CONVENING OR SETTING UP A SUBCOMMITTEE WITH MEMBERS OF THE PAB THAT CAN SET ASIDE A SPECIAL TIME THAT IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WHERE YOU CAN DISCUSS IDEAS. THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO MANAGE OUR TIME FRAME SPIRIT MARK BENNETT REFER TO THESE AS WORKSHOPS.

I THINK THE SAME THING IN MY MIND.

JUST A SEPARATE MEETING TIME TO REALLY GET INTO THE DETAILS OF

THE ITEM SPIRIT. >>> TO OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE AGENDA. TWO THINGS THAT I MENTIONED.

ONE IS AT ANY GIVEN POINT AND TIME, WITH BUILDING PERMITS

[00:05:05]

BEING REVIEWED, PROJECTS BEING PROPOSED, AS A BOARD MEMBER I AM NOT PRIVY TO THAT. I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING AND I SUSPECT OTHERS MAY BE IN THE SAME BOAT.

I HAVE ASKED KELLY TO PUT TOGETHER AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT PROJECTS ARE GOING ON. NOT FOR US TO HAVE LONG DEBATES ABOUT IT BUT JUST AS A CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION TO EVERYONE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON. THOSE WILL CERTAINLY BE ADDED LATER. SO THE IDEA OF HAVING THE PROJECTS LISTED ON THE AGENDA, AND THE OTHER THING IMPORTANT THAT I WANT TO ADD IS A LIST OF STAFF ASSIGNMENTS.

HERE IS THE DILEMMA. WE WILL COME UP WITH A SUBJECT AND WE WILL SAY LET'S REFERRED THAT TO THE STAFF.

THEY HAVE A LONG PRIORITY LIST THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THEM WE DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF THE TIMING.

I HAVE ASKED KELLY TO MAINTAIN A LIST OF THINGS SHE IS WORKING ON BUT BASICALLY THIS AND TO REVIEWED THIS AND SHE WILL DO THIS TODAY. BOTH OF THE SUBJECTS HAD DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED OR PENDING.

>> THAT IS ALL I REALLY WANTED TO SAY.

WE WILL GET ON WITH THE AGENDA. I WANT TO AS BOARD MEMBERS, AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO DO IT IN ORDER THAT WAY AND WITH THAT AND

[Item 2]

NOW WE WILL GO TO THE MINUTES IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS

OR A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE

MINUTES. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THE MOTION PASSES. >> ITEM NUMBER THREE, OLD

[Item 3]

BUSINESS. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THIS GROUP I THINK FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

IT IS TIME FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS AND MOVE IT ONTO THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE WHAT APPEARS TO BE A STRONG RECOMMENDATION TO DO THAT THIS EVENING.

I WILL TURN IT OVER TO KELLY TO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA. THEN WE WILL ASK THE BOARD FOR ANY CLARIFICATION OF CALYX REPORT.

WITH THAT, LET'S DO THIS. >> THANK YOU AND I'LL APOLOGIZE.

WE WILL HAVE THE PROJECTOR UP AND FUNCTIONAL IN A FEW MINUTES.

THAT WILL HELP WITH SOME OF THE CONVERSATION.

>> THIS EVENING, AS HE INDICATED WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING ENCROACHMENT THAT ARE ABOVE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SPIRIT THIS DISCUSSION CAME APART AS A GENERAL DIRECTION PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD IN THE SUMMER OF 2018.

WE DISCUSSED IT SEVERAL TIMES AT THAT.

OCTOBER AND APRIL OF LAST YEAR CAUGHT DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR END THIS PAST JANUARY. WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHAT WE ARE AFTER IS TO AVOID AND ELIMINATE ELEVATED SHOPS EXTENDING BEYOND THE BUILDING'S HEIGHT WE ARE NOTICING ALONG THE BEACH THIS IS EVIDENT.

BUT THE LANGUAGE ITSELF WOULD APPLY CITYWIDE.

IT IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT.

OR OTHER ENCROACHMENTS IF YOU WILL THAT EXTEND BEYOND THAT.

THE INTENT BEHIND THE REGULATION U SEE TONIGHT, ARE TO ELIMINATE THAT FROM ALL RESIDENTIAL USES. THERE ARE SOME USES FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES A MULTI FAMILY THAT HAS A MIXED-USE COMPONENT. BUT WHERE IT IS STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL YOU WON'T HAVE IT CONTINUE AT ANY POINT.

SO BOOK 35 FEET DOES MEAN 35 FEET.

THERE IS A PROVISION IN HERE THAT ALLOWS FOR 42 INCHES WHERE YOU MAY HAVE A FLAT ROOF. THIS IS ONLY ONE AREA.

[00:10:06]

THIS IS KEEPING WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND WHAT IS REQUIRED AS FAR AS RAILINGS. OTHERWISE THE ACCEPTATION IS THAT YOUR LIMITATION IS THAT 35 FEET.

FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL USES OR MAKES USE THAT DON'T INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL, THERE IS AN AREA PROVIDED TO THE PROPERTIES FOR SCREENING ABOVE THE ROOF LINE AT 42 INCHES.

SO YOU ARE STILL SET AT 42 INCHES THE EXPECTATIONS AS YOU FOR 35 FEET. BUT THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IS THERE SO THE LARGER UNITS COULD BE

SCREENED APPROPRIATELY. >> AND WE HAVE SEEN SEVERAL DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF THIS LANGUAGE OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. SO I THINK WHERE WE ARE TODAY IS KEEPING WITH WHAT WE HAVE HEARD. I THINK WE WILL SEE WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. I HOPE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH

THESE CHANGES. >> BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR CLARIFICATION SHOULD WE RECOGNIZE WHO IS HERE.

>> HE HAS. >> AM HERE.

>> I WAS WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO SAY SOMETHING.

CANCEL BOARD MEMBERS ANY QUESTIONS OF KELLY ABOUT WHAT SHE JUST PRESENTED BEFORE WE OPEN UP COMMENTS?

>> ONE QUESTION. THE QUESTION CAME TO ME CAN A DECK BE PUT ON TOP OF THE FLAT ROOF UNDER THIS CRITERIA?

>> IT GOOD AS LONG AS IT IS MEETING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.

>> OKAY. SO IF THEY ARE ALREADY AT 35 FEET AND A 42-INCH SKIRT, YOU MAY NOT MAKE IT BY THE TIME YOU

GET TO THE DECK. >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> THE DECK SHOULD BE IN THE 35-FOOT -- TO HAND IT COULD PREVENT SOMEONE WHO HASN'T CONTEMPLATED THAT FROM THE BEGINNING. THE ABILITY TO EXTEND BEYOND IT.

>> THE SECOND QUESTION IS UNDER FOUR DECIMAL FIVE.

WHAT ABOUT COMMERCIAL BUILDING SPIRIT IS THERE A SEPARATE SECTION, THE REASON I AM ASKING IS, WHAT IF ONE OF THE NEW ONES CAME ALONG AND THEY HAD A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS WHERE THEY HAVE TO HAVE A TALL BUILDING. IS THAT GOING TO BE AN EXCEPTION OR WOULD THAT FALL UNDER THE EXCEPTIONS WE HAVE.

>> THIS IS TALKING ABOUT STANDARDS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT WHERE YOU HAVE DEFINED BUILDING HEIGHT IN A LIMITATION WITH EACH ZONING DISTRICT WITH SEVERAL -- SEPARATE -- SEPARATE SECTIOS.

THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS MADE FOR INDUSTRIAL AND FOR HOSPITALS TO

EXTEND BEYOND HEIGHT. >> I THOUGHT SO.

>> BUT IT IS WITHIN SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS.

SO THEY HAVE A GREATER ALLOWANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPILATION

OF BUILDING HEIGHT SPIRIT. >>> THAT IS IT.

>> MR. BENNETT. >> I WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE 42 INCHES BECAUSE THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US AT THE LAST MEETING. I SAW KELLY EARLIER AND I WENT TO MY BACKYARD AND I LOOKED AT THE CONDENSING UNIT AND I HAVE THE UNIT OUT THERE FOR ABOUT 82600 SQUARE-FOOT HOUSE.

IT IS 48 INCHES OFF OF THE GROUND.

MY CONCERN IS THAT KAVA HOUSES ON THE BEACH THAT WANT TO PUT AC UNITS ON THE ROOF OR THE CONDENSING UNITS ON THE ROOF, ARE WE GOING TO CREATE ANOTHER PROBLEM TRYING TO LIMIT THEM TO A SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST, OR IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY CAN'T PUT IT ON THE SIDE. I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD HAVE

SOME LANGUAGE JUST FOR IT. >> LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE A BUILDER AND AN ARCHITECTURE BOAT MAYBE THEY CAN TELL US IF THE UNITS GET HIGHER THAN 42 INCHES. BUT SHOULD THERE BE A PROVISION FOR THAT, JUST FOR THAT MECHANICAL UNIT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK AIR-CONDITIONING UNITS HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST 35 FEET. IT'S USUALLY THE ELEVATOR SHAFT AND OTHER ITEMS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE PUT A 42-INCH HEIGHT LIMITATION ON MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ALL OF A SUDDEN THE BUILDERS CAN'T MEET THAT DIMENSION.

[00:15:03]

>> DO YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON IT KELLY?

>> WELL JUST GENERALLY THIS HAS BEEN CRAFTED TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. AND WHAT WE HAVE HEARD UP TO THIS POINT WHICH WAS A KEY FACTOR AT 35 FEET.

I THINK IT DOES BECOME A DESIGN CONSIDERATION IN SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED EARLY IN THE PLANNING PHASE.

AND IT COULD PUSH THIS ON THE REAR.

>> DEPENDING ON THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE.

THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS SOMETIMES I LIVE ON THE BEACH.

AND THE UNITS GO BAD AND YOU CAN HEAR THEM A HALF BLOCK AWAY LIKE THEY ARE RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR BEDROOM AND THEN YOU HAVE ISSUES. THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT LIMITS THIS TO 42 INCHES HAS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES GOING FORWARD AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WHO COULD ADDRESS THAT TO KNOW IF THAT IS A PROBLEM.

THEY WILL PROBABLY DO THAT WHEN WE OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE TH THAT.THERE.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE EQUIPMENT HAD TO BE WITHIN THE 35-FOOT ENVELOPE AND THE 42 INCHES WAS NOT FOR THE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT BUT FOR ARCHITECTURAL AND SAFETY. THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN NOW, IT HAS TO BE WITHIN THE 35 FEET NOT WITHIN THE 42 ADDITIONAL INCHES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

IT'S ONLY FOR NONRESIDENTIAL. >> WHAT IS ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE THE FEATURES WHICH ARE DEFINED IN THE CHANGES TO EXTEND UP TO 42 INCHES.

>> I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT.

FOR MOST OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE CLOSE TO THE OCEAN THEY WILL GET AS HIGH AS THEY CAN. THEY HAVE TO GO UP ON DIFFERENT THING SO THE ROOF WILL BE 35 FEET BUT IF YOU HAVE A UNIT THAT YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE ROOF IN ORDER TO HEAT AND COOL THE HOUSE, IT HAS TO FALL WITHIN THE 42 INCHES.

I'M SUGGESTING NOT EVERY HOUSE WILL HAVE AN AC UNIT THAT WILL BE WITHIN THE 42 INCHES AND WE MAY BE CREATING A DIFFERENT PROBLEM AND MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE AN EXCEPTION BECAUSE THAT HAS NOT BEEN THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM HAS BEEN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT AND OTHERS THAT WAS CREATED ON THE ROOFLINES.

>> WE WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMPLEMENT.

>> >> MY NAME IS RON.

IT APPEARS THE RESIDENTIAL AND NON- RESIDENTIAL ARE SEPARATED BY THE CALCULATION OF THE SHAFT. SO THEREFORE THE WAY I TREATED IT WILL HELP GET CLARITY ON THAT.

IT APPEARS THE ACTUAL AC UNIT HAS TO BE AT THE 35 FEET.

THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE TO THAT IS AN ELEVATOR SHAFT IN A HOME, I HAVE DONE THEM WHERE THEY HAVE TO HAVE A HOIST ON TOP. THEREFORE IT WILL PENETRATE THAT 35-FOOT ENVELOPE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO RECOVER THE HOIST THAT IS NOT IN ALL HOMES. BUT IF IT IS A LIVE TYPE, IT HAS TO HAVE ATTRACTION ELEVATOR AND I HAVE NOT PUT ONE IN THE HOME.

IT WILL PENETRATE YOUR ROOF WITH'S 12 TO 24 INCHES.

[00:20:08]

I'M HERE TO SPEAK FOR THE NONRESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRIAL HEIGHTS. THIS APPLIES TO THAT.

THE LANGUAGE WHERE REFERS TO ROOF MECHANICAL UNITS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS SUCH A COMMERCIAL MARKET.

A SYSTEM THAT IS ONLY 42 INCHES HIGH ANYWHERE.

CAP NEVER SEEN THAT IN MY LIFE IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

TYPICALLY YOU HAVE EXCHANGES AND YOU DO STUFF FOR ENERGY REQUIREMENTS. AND THOSE ARE 6-8 FEET TALL SOMETIMES. SO MECHANICAL SCREENING, TO HIDE THEM WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE, BUT 42 INCHES MAY BE LESS THAN PRACTICAL IF YOU WANT TO ARCHITECTURALLY GENERATE SOMETHING OF VALUE OR BEAUTY IN YOUR JURISDICTION.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MOUNT AND WHEN YOU AMOUNT -- BACK WHEN YOU MOUNT IT HAS TO BE DESIGNED IN A WAY SO IT CAN COLLECT WATER.

COLD WATER AND DISCHARGE WATER. YOU HAVE CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE YOU TO WRAP THIS STUFF UP.

BECAUSE INSULATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I HAVE IRAQ SITTING DOWN THERE AS CLOSE AS I CAN GET IT.

I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU I HAVE NEVER SEEN I DON'T KNOW VERSION AIR-CONDITIONING SYSTEM THAT I HAVE SEEN ON A COMMERCIAL BUILDING THAT WOULD BE 48 INCHES.

>> THEY ALLOW YOU TO REUSE AIR. AND REDUCE YOUR ENERGY.

THAT IS A COLD REQUIREMENT. THEY ARE LIKE THIS TALL.

THEY ARE 6 FEET OR 7 FEET TALL SOMETIMES.

I GET THE INTENT AND THE RULE OF TRYING TO CONTROL BUILDING HEIGHT SPIRIT I THINK YOU WILL SEE I HAVE BEEN A GOOD STEWARD TO THAT. I THINK THIS IS OVERLY BURDENSOME. THE SCREENING NOT BEING ABLE TO GO OVER 42 INCHES, IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT, WHEN WE TRY TO DESIGN A BUILDING WE DO IT SO IT HAS SOME ELEMENT OF BEAUTY.

IT HAS A LOT OF -- MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON TOP AND TO PROTECT GREEN SPACE ON THE GROUND. ALL OF THOSE THINGS DRIVE YOU TO PUT MORE THINGS ON TOP. I HOPE YOU WOULD RECONSIDER THAT BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL I DON'T THINK IT IS READILY AVAILABLE.

I THINK IT WOULD BE IRREGULAR AND OUTSIDE OF THE INDUSTRY.

>> 42 INCHES IS NOT RIGHT WITH YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE WAX.

>> TYPICALLY FOR SCREENING WALLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, YOU SCREENING AS LOW AS 2 FEET BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE AN OBLIQUE VIEW OF ANY SYSTEM BUT WHERE YOU HAVE SYSTEMS THAT IS WHERE WE TRY TO CREATE THE ARCHITECTURE FEATURES.

YOU DON'T LIKE BIG BOXES YOU LIKE TO BREAK IT UP.

TYPICALLY WE HAVE SEEN IT. MOST HAVE A LIMIT OF 10 FEET.

BUT YOU TRIED TO PROGRAM IT LESS THAN 6 FEET.

THE AVERAGE IS 42-48. IT HAS TO BE MORE THAN 42 INCHES BECAUSE TYPICALLY YOU BOUND AND YOU WANT BETTER ELEVATION.

WE TYPICALLY SEE IT AS NINE OR 10 INCHES OF INSULATION.

>> COMMERCIALLY AND THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES NEED TO BE -- ARE THEY TRULY ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.

[00:25:07]

>> 42 INCHES IS ABOUT THREE NAP FEET SO YOU'RE SAYING 6 FEET.

>> SIR. >> YOU DON'T DO THAT ALL OF THE TIME. THE BUILDING I AM DOING NOW IT IS UP AND DOWN IN SEVERAL PLACES AND I BRING IT ALL THE WAY DOWN AND IS ONLY 1 FOOT IN PLACES. BUT WE TRY TO DO THAT TO REDUCE IT SO IT CREATES A LITTLE BIT OF ELEVATION AND GENERATE SOME ARCHITECTURAL ARCHITECTURE IN THE BUILDING.

>> CASH TO. >> CASUAL COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

AND JUST VAMPIRIC CANCEL ABOUT RESIDENTIAL THEY SAID THEY USE A HOIST ELEVATOR YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO UP TO 35 FEET.

>> HYDRAULIC ELEVATORS YOU DON'T DO THAT IN MOST RESIDENTIAL ELEVATORS. BUT IF YOU USE A TRACTION

ELEVATOR THAT WILL BE DIFFERENT. >> BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT

IN RESIDENTIAL. >> I DON'T THINK SO.

I'VE NEVER PUT ONE BUT WE'VE ONLY BUILT VERY FEW.

FINANCIALLY MAINTAIN THIS ISSUE ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE AT 35 FEET. AND THEY WILL DESIGN A -- ELEVATOR THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT.

>> I DEFERRED THAT TO THE ARCHITECTURE IN THE BACK BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE REQUIREMENT SO YOU HAVE TO GET ABOVE THE ROOF LINE.

SO AS A MINIMUM IT HAS TO POP UP SON.

YOU DON'T ONE THAT IS EXPOSED TO THE SAME LEVEL DOESN'T WORK THAT

WELL. >> IT HAS TO BE UP ABOUT 12 INCHES. IF YOU ARE COLLECTING WATER, YOU

HAVE THE ABILITY. >> TO ME -- ARE YOU SAYING THAT AT 35 FEET, THAT YOU CAN'T PUT ELEVATORS AND EFFECTIVELY?

>> NO. >> THAT.

>> NO. >> YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO FRAME IT AND BLOCK IT. THE PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A VENTING SYSTEM SO YOU CAN VENTILATE A SHAFT.

THAT IS ALWAYS A BIG REQUIREMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL WORLD.

I CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT RESIDENTIALLY.

>> >> I THINK YOU WILL FIND A LOT OF COMMERCIAL STUFF GOES ON THE ROOF.

HARDLY ANYONE IS PUTTING TRACTION ELEVATORS IN ANY.

HOUR. YOU HAVE THREE DIFFERENT THREE DIFFERENT TYPES FORGIVE THE HYDRAULIC COGNITIVE TRACTION AVENUE ONE SO YOU DO NOT HAVE THE NEED.

ONE THING YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER IS IF YOU PUT STUFF ON THE ROOF, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY WANT SOMEONE GOING ON THE ROOF

DOING REPAIRS. >> SOME WILL TRY TO PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. GOING ON THE ROOF IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF ACCESS TO THE ROOF GOD IN THE PAST THEY WERE USING THE ELEVATOR SHAFT AS ACCESS.

SO YOU MAY WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

YOU WANT DIFFERENT THINGS COMING UP.

WHEN YOU ARE SAYING THAT THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE SO YOU CAN GET MORE MESSAGE. AN EXEMPTION FOR PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY WORK ON THE ROOF. THEY ASSUME THE WORKMEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING. IF YOU HAVE A FLAT ROOF THAT ME

[00:30:11]

AND YOU CAN HAVE ELEVATION STUDIES THAT MAY HELP.

I WILL DEFER TO JOSé. >> DEANGELO HALL I AM WAS A.

I JUST HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT GOD I KNOW YOU ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS RESIDENTIASIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. AS IT APPLIES TO THIS BECAUSE PRIMARILY THE TREND NOW IF YOU DO HAVE A MIXED USE BUSINESS, IS THAT HOW IS THAT APPLICABLE OR IS IT CONSIDERED A COMMERCIAL BUILDING. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT BECAUSE THEY DO EXTEND ABOVE THE ROOF LINE AT LEAST 4 FEET ABOVE THE LINE. FOR RESIDENTIAL YOU DON'T I HAVE TO SAY IT. ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE TRYING TO GET PAID FOR YOUR BUCK YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE THE ELEVATOR SHAFT EXTENDS BEYOND THAT AND THE TREND NOW IS TO DO ROOF DECKS AND MORE THINGS AND NOW ALL OF THAT GOES AWAY.

NOW YOU ARE LIMITED TO TWO-STORY BUILDINGS.

IF YOU WANT TO ROOF DECK. I NEED SOME DEFINITION BECAUSE WE ARE AT THE TIP OF THE SPEAR ON THIS.

BEFORE YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A PLANNING POINT OF VIEW YOU HAVE TO SEE HOW THE CODE APPLIES. QUITE FRANKLY THERE'S A LOT OF CODES. WE HAVE TO NEGOTIATE.

WE MAY NOT KNOW WHAT APPLY UNTIL WE GET FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY.

SOMETIMES THAT IS A BUILDING PERMIT.

I NEED SOME GUIDANCE ON HOW YOU DESCRIBE MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL.

THEY HAVE THINGS THAT COULD BE MISINTERPRETED AND THEN WE HAVE

NOTHING ABOVE THAT HEIGHT. >> IF THAT INCORPORATES RESIDENTIAL IN IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THIS AREA.

BASED ON THIS SPIRIT IF IT IS STRICTLY A NON- RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND HAS DIFFERENT USES, IT WOULD NOT BE.

>> AS AN EXAMPLE, THE BAPTIST CHURCH.

THEIR PLAN IS TO DO A ROOF DECK. THAT COULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A VARIANCE. LET'S GET CLARIFICATION.

ADDING SOME LIMITATIONS THAT KNOWS HOW THIS IS.

I WANT TO ADVISE MY CLIENTS ACCORDINGLY.

>> IF YOU APPROVE THIS LANGUAGE TONIGHT.

WHAT DATE DO YOU ANTICIPATE? >> APRIL.

>> AND -- ALL RIGHT, THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING THEY SHOULD CHANGE. CHANGE THE BIGGEST ISSUE ARRIVED IS IS MIXED-USE. THAT IS A PROJECT KILLER.

UNLESS YOU ARE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE EXTRA STEP BECAUSE THE CODE HAS CHANGED.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS OUTSIDE OF THIS.

NOW WE GO TO THE BOARD TO GET A VARIANCE.

FOR EVERY COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT WANTS TO PUT ONE IN THE BUILDING? THAT IS THE ISSUE I HAVE.

WE TREAT THESE BUILDINGS, WE HAVE SOMETHING TO COMPLY WITH AND NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER BARRICADE.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE? >> I THINK THE MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL IF IT WILL BE RESIDENTIAL MAKE IT RESIDENTIAL.

[00:35:02]

IT IS FOR ALL CATEGORIES. IF YOU WANT TO PUT A HOUSE IN THIS AREA, -- DO YOU HAVE A ZONES PUT THEIR QUICKSAND WOULD

DO YOU FIND RESIDENTIAL CRACKS. >> CONDO CAUGHT TOWNHOMES?

>> IF YOU DON'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY WITHIN THE AREA, THERE IS NO ALLOWANCE FOR YOU TO HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING OF ANY

KIND. >> I'M THINKING OF THE CORRIDOR.

>> IT IS A MIXED USE. SOMEONE WANTS TO BUILD TOWNHOMES

AND CONDOS IT IS RESIDENTIAL. >> SO BASICALLY AND SEE WHAT YOU

ARE LEFT WITH. >> AND THEN YOU GET MORE ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND NOW YOU HAVE FLOOD ZONE AREAS THAT DEAL WITH THE BLOODLINES.

IT IS DIFFICULT. WE ARE HAVING TROUBLE EVEN ON RESIDENTIAL 50 WIDE PUT LOTS TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT IS 2400 SQUARE FEET BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS.

WE WILL GET INTO THE ORDINANCE ON THAT ONE.

>> I THINK THE ISSUE I HAVE IS THE MIXED USE.

YOU PRETTY MUCH REDLINE ANYTHING THAT IS EVEN REMOTELY RESIDENTIAL THAT IS IMPACTED BY THAT AND YOU CAN'T GO ABOVE THE HEIGHT LIMIT WITH ANYTHING. WHETHER IT IS 42 INCHES OR NOT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

THANK YOU. >> OTHER COMMENTS?

>> YES, SIR. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

I AM AN ARCHITECT. 1365 MINUTES HE WROTE WITH OUR 40. I HAVE A COMBINATION CAR QUESTION AND SUGGESTION. IN YOUR 42 INCHES, WOULD THAT BE A SITUATION WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE A COMBINATION AND IN REAL.

MAYBE ONE COMING UP 24 INCHES AND THE RAILING ON TOP IS A COMBINATION. SO THIS IS NOT ADDRESSED.

BUT I CAN CALL THAT. SO MY SUGGESTION IS THAT YOU INSERT BOTH INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SAY, A HANDRAIL.

YOU NEED TO GET THE DRAINAGE OFF OF THE ROOF ANYWAY.

I COULD CONSTRUCT CAUGHT EVERY TIME I WANT 42 INCHES FROM MY HANDRAIL I CAN PUT THIS AND CONTROL MY DRAINAGE SO I CAN BRING MY COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE UP TO THAT GIVEN HEIGHT.

THEN I CAN GO ABOVE THAT AND PUT A HANDRAIL FOR SAFETY.

CYBER SUGGESTS, YOU WILL SEE THAT ANYWAY.

WHY NOT SAY, HANDRAILS AND PITTSBURGH.

>> INTEGRATE THE TWO OF THEM. >> YES, SIR.

>> I CAN SEE THAT HAPPENING. ANOTHER SITUATION MAY BE IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING THE ORDINANCE YOU HAVE A CONTROLLED VISION OF WHAT IS ON THE REPORT IS NOT ON THE ROOF.

YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER FROM WHAT DISTANCE BACK FROM THE BUILDING YOU ARE CONSIDERING. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 100 FEET OR 200 FEET OR 500 FEET. AND AS AN ARCHITECT WE CAN GO IN AND SAY, THE ANGLE TO STAY BE BELOW, WITH THAT ROOFLINE OR WITH THE EDGE CAUGHT WE CAN SAY I CAN HOLD ANY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SO FAR FROM THE EDGE TO CONSTRUCT MY ANKLE, THEN I AM SAFE WITHIN THE ZONE OF NON- VISIBILITY OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OR IN ELEVATOR SHAFT OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

ARCHITECTURALLY WE CAN CONSTRUCT THAT IN OUR THREE DIMENSIONAL MODEL AND STAY WITHIN THE DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH IS TO NOT SEE WHAT IS ON THE ROOF FROM A CERTAIN DISTANCE.

YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE WE WILL ENCOUNTER THAT.

>>> GIVE THEM A SUGGESTION AS FAR AS THE ANGLE BECAUSE IT IS HELD A LOT OF IT IS SET UP. AT A CERTAIN SPOT AT A CERTAIN

[00:40:04]

ANGLE YOU CAN SEE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VISION IS. THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT OR ANYTHING WHETHER IT IS FROM ACROSS THE STREET OR WHETHER IT

IS FROM A BLOCK AWAY OR WHAT. >> BUT IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT ACROSS THE STREET OR HALFWAY UP THE BLOCK, YOU CAN PUT A

MEASUREMENT TO IT. >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AIR

CONDITIONING UNITS CRACKS. >> ANYTHING.

THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS CONSTRUCTED, WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING ON THE ROOF. AS AN ARCHITECT WE CAN SAY THIS IS OUR HEIGHT LIMIT THAT WE HAVE TO STAY UNDER.

WE CAN WE CAN DO IT WITH MANY THINGS.

WE CAN DO IT A LOT OF WAYS. BUT IF YOU GIVE US FLEXIBILITY TO WORK IT WE WILL WORK WITHIN THAT VIEW ENVELOPE YOU WANT TO

MAINTAIN. >> BUT THAT WOULD MEAN YOUR EQUIPMENT COULD BE MORE THAN 42 INCHES.

>> YES, SIR. I'M SUGGESTING AS LONG AS YOU STAY BELOW THE ANGLE. I'VE WORKED IN PLACES WHERE WE HAD FEW QUARTERS. BOTH HORIZONTAL AS WELL AS VERTICAL. AND BELOW A CERTAIN ANGLE.

THAT IS WHERE THE IDEA CAME FROM.

IF YOU SET UP YOUR GOAL WE AS ARCHITECTS CAN WORK WITH THAT.

>> SO WE SPECIFIED SOMETHING FROM THE GROUND LEVEL.

AND IT IS AT A 20-DEGREE ANGLE. WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IT FROM 20.

ANYTHING ABOVE 45 FEET. WE CAN CONSTRUCT IT ALL AWAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND STAY WITHIN THE ENVELOPE.

SO IF WE HAVE AN ELEVATOR SHAFT OR AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT OR WHATEVER. WE CAN SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> JAMES SCOTT AND ARCHITECT I ALSO SIT ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL. I JUST WANTED TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS INVOLVED FOR ME DESIGNING THE RESIDENCE. TONIGHT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT LIMITS BUT ALSO IN THE EQUATION ARE A LOT OF NEW RULES REGARDING HOW FLOOD ZONES IMPACT THE POINT OF MEASURE WHERE WE START FROM. WE DO HAVE LIMITS THAT ARE DRIVING UP THE POINT OF MEASURE. NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LIMITING THE HEIGHT AND WE ADOPTED NEW RULES ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. WE HAVE REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF FOOTPRINT THAT YOU CAN PUT ON A GIVEN SITE.

USED TO BE 70% NOW IT IS 60. WE HAVE THESE THREE FACTORS THAT ARE SQUEEZING THE BUILDABLE AREA.

IT IS ON THE BOTTOM, THE TOP AND THE SIZE.

THOSE ARE THINGS YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND AS YOU SET THE STANDARDS FOR MEASURING. AS AN ARCHITECT WE DEAL WITH THAT STUFF ALL OF THE TIME. AND WE ARE USED TO IT.

BUT THESE RULES WILL START DRIVING THE ARCHITECTURE THAT YOU SEE YOU CAN SEE HOW THESE POP UP ALONG THE BEACH.

SOME OF THAT IS BECAUSE IN ORDER TO PUT THAT MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE ON A SITE YOU CAN'T DO A PITCH ROOF ANYMORE.

AND THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE GOES UP.

BUT THIS WILL DRIVE THE ARCHITECTURE.

I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT SO YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> OTHER COMMENTS.

[00:45:04]

>> WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THE TIME BEING.

BOARD MEMBERS WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION.

>> ARM THAT'S RIGHT MY HONOR OF. >> MASK A QUESTION QUICKSAND THE GENTLEMAN THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT THE ANGLE AND BEING ABLE TO SEE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SPIRIT WAS THAT IN REFERENCE TO COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE BUILDINGS VERSUS WHAT IS RESIDENTIAL OR WAS THE

CONCEPT TO APPLY TO ALL. >> IT WAS TO APPLY TO ALL.

BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT IS THE DIRECTION WE WANTED TO GO IN.

>> DON'T HAVE THE DIFFERENT THINGS YOU WILL HAVE.

QUESTIONING CAN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM SO WE CAN MAKE IT PART OF

THE RECORD. >> I'M SORRY.

I THINK IT IS MORE THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT.

THEY ARE BOTH ON THE SIDELINES. THE OBJECT IS TO KEEP THE VOLUME DOWN PUT YOU WANT FLEXIBILITY IN DOING THAT.

IT HAS MORE NEED FOR LARGER PIECES OF EQUIPMENT AND DIFFERENT PIECES OF EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOF THAN THE RESIDENTIAL.

THE BOARD CAN MAKE UP THEIR MIND HOW THEY WANT TO HANDLE IT.

MY ONLY POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS YOU DON'T WANT TO BE UP ON THE ROOF IN A RESIDENTIAL ANYMORE THAN YOU NEED TO DO IT.

YOU CAN SIT THERE AND SAY I DON'T WANT TO SEE IT FROM 50 FEET AWAY OR FROM 100 FEET AWAY OR I CAN HAVE AN ANGLE OFF OF THE 42 INCHES. YOU CAN SET IT UP HOWEVER YOU

WANT. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD SUGGEST FOR EITHER ONE, RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL.

I SUGGEST YOU STRUCTURE IT IN A WEIGHT YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING ABOVE 42 INCHES FROM 200 FEET AWAY.

YOU PICK THE DISTANCE. 200 FEET WOULD BE A FULL LOT HERE TO LOTS. YOU CAN PUT IT WON HUNDRED FEET OR 200 FEET. WHEN YOU STRUCTURE IT THAT WAY YOU DON'T PUT AN ANGLE ON IT. YOU JUST SAY I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING ABOVE 42 INCHES FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

>> OKAY. THAT YOU CAN HAVE SOME SPECIFICITY TO IT. YOU HAVE TO CHANGE A 42 INCHES BECAUSE THE ARCHITECT CAN SAY IN ORDER TO GET INTO 6 FEET I HAVE TO GO 15 FEET BACK FROM THE ROOF EDGE.

BUT IF YOU SAY YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE ANYTHING ABOVE 42 INCHES FROM 200 FEET AWAY, THEN YOU ARE ESTABLISHING SOMETHING THAT YOU

CAN DO GEOMETRICALLY. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WAS GOING TO COMMENT ABOUT HOW HE SAID THAT ABOUT MIXED USE FEAR USING THE LOT RIGHT HERE IS AN EXAMPLE.

COULD YOU NOT DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH THIS SINCE IT IS RESIDENTIAL IN OVER OR IS A GRANDFATHERED IN.

>> IN THIS CASE IT WOULD BECOME NONCONFORMING.

>> BECAUSE I LOVE ROOF DECKS I THINK THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL AND WONDERFUL. EVERYONE LOVES BEING UP THERE.

I REALLY HATE THAT WE WOULD HAMPER THAT AND YOU DEFINITELY, ALL OF THESE PROJECTS AND IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE WANT TO DO FOR H STREET, NO ONE IS GOING TO INVEST IN ANY OF THESE PROJECTS WITH ONLY TWO LEVEL PROPERTIES. SO I DON'T KNOW.

I REALLY KNOW I'M NERVOUS ABOUT THIS.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE OTHER STUFF. I LIKE MIAMI SOUTH ARCHITECTURE.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE THAT ALL AWAY DOWN THE WHOLE OVERAGE #OCEANFRONT. THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT MOST OF THEM ARE NONCONFORMING AND NOT UP TO CODE. WE CAN'T REPLICATE THAT ANYMORE.

SO I DON'T KNOW. I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE A BUNCH OF BOXES.

I'D LOVE FOR EVERYONE TO CONSIDER THESE ARCHITECTURAL

FEATURES AND ROOFTOP DECKS. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE DOING A FINE JOB. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[00:50:03]

>> KELLY YOU WILL HAVE TO HELP ME ON THIS ONE.

HISTORICALLY, IT HAS BEEN 35 FEET HASN'T CHANGED UP OR DOWN. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT 35 FEET IS GOOD AND THEY CAN DESIGN. WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS, PROBABLY WHEN WE HAD THE OTHER ISSUE IS GOOD ARCHITECTS HAVE FOUND LOOPHOLES AND USE THEIR TALENTS TO MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT OUT TO MEET THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.

THEY ARE GOOD AT IT. I'M JUST SAYING WE NEED TO SAY 35 MEANS 35. IT DOESN'T MEAN TEN MORE FEET FOR AN ANGLE. ANYTIME WE ADD SOMETHING THAT IS A MEASUREMENT LIKE WHERE IS THIS AWARE IS THAT, WE HAVE ARGUED A LONG TIME ABOUT THIS ISSUE. WE MUTUALLY DISAGREE AND THAT IS OKAY. 35 FEET MEANS 35 FEET TO ME.

AND ARCHITECT SNOW THAT. AND THEY WILL DESIGN WITHIN THAT ENVELOPE WHETHER IT IS THE BEACH GOT DOWNTOWN OR ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ANY COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT THEY WILL DESIGN WITH THOSE GUIDELINES.

WE ARE JUST TIDYING UP THE LOOPHOLES THAT WERE THERE AND

USED TO THE CLIENTS ADVANTAGE. >> I THINK WE NEED TO TIGHTEN THIS UP. I'M VOTING TO APPROVE I DON'T SUPPORT ANGLES, I DON'T SUPPORT ADDITIONAL 8-10 FEET OF AIR CONDITIONING. BACK IN THE MID- 70S OR EARLY 70S WHEN THE CITY SAID WE DON'T WANT SEVEN-STORY CONDOMINIUMS, THIS WAS THE RESULT.

35 FEET HAS BEEN 35 FEET. WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK SINCE THAT TIME. THE RIGHT HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS HAVE NOT CHANGED. IT IS THE NUANCES WHERE WE FORGOT THAT THEY MADE AN IMPACT. PEOPLE AND DESIGNERS GOT BETTER LIKE THE PEOPLE HERE TO LOOK AT THE CONE AND SAID WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS NOT THERE. I SUPPORT WHAT THE STAFF HAS AND I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THIS FORWARD TO CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. I JUST WANT TO SAY 35 MEANS 35.

THEY KNOW IT AND WE KNOW IT SO THE SIGN AROUND IT.

>> MY QUESTION IS HOW DID WE GET ABOVE THE 35 FEET.

CLEARLY THERE ARE EXAMPLES. >> THERE'S MORE THAN ONE.

IT WAS WHETHER WE'VE MEASURED FROM THE GROUND OR THE FIELD.

OVER THE YEARS THERE HASN'T BEEN A DEBATE AS TO WHERE WE MEASURE FROM. SO THAT IS HOW SOME OF THE INCONSISTENCIES CAME ALONG. AND SOME MAY REMEMBER OUR DISCUSSIONS. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THIS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

>> I TEND TO AGREE WITH MY CONFIDANT.

I SEE SOMETHING HERE AS FOOD FOR THOUGHT.

THERE IS THE 35-FOOT FACTOR AND NOW WE ARE COMPRESSING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING, AND A LOT OF THINGS ARE FORCING PEOPLE TO PUSH THIS AS FAR AS IT CAN GO.

MY CONCERN IS ARE WE FORCING THE ARCHITECTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY TO BE SOMETHING WE REALLY DON'T WANT.

ONCE IN A WHILE THIS IS FINE BUT THERE'S A LOT OF STYLE IN EVERY HOUSE TWO-STEP CHARACTER. IT MAY BE BIG OR SMALL BUT THAT CHARACTER. I'M AFRAID WE WILL DEMOLISH THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITIES AS WELL.

I UNDERSTAND THAT 35 FEET AND I AM IN FAVOR OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. BUT THERE ARE WIGGLE FACTORS COMING INTO THIS AND PEOPLE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN OR SOMETHING TO BE FORCED INTO SOMETHING THAT IS LESS

ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASING. >> WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND YOU WANT MORE RESEARCH ON IT?

>> WELL, I SUPPORT THE 35-FOOT. I THINK WE HAVE DONE A GOOD THING FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE CAN MAKE A BLUEPRINT THAT

[00:55:06]

WILL PUT MORE RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE.

>> OKAY. MR. BENNETT,.

>> WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT IN 2,004.TWO TERMS ARE FIVE AND MADE CHANGES BACK THEN WHICH WAS ALL RIGHT UNTIL SOMEONE ON SOUTH FLETCHER PUT AN ELEVATOR SHAFT UP AND PUT AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.

THAT CREATED THIS WHOLE PROBLEM. IT WASN'T A PROBLEM BEFORE THAT.

IT WAS ALWAYS HOW THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT STARTED.

NOW I AM SEEING THE FLOOD ZONES, WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON H STREET INCREASING THE DENSITY AND THE MIXED USE AND THAT WILL ALL BE DESTROYED WITH THIS. I DON'T SEE HOW ANYONE WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD. WE HAVE REDUCED SITE COVERAGE SO WE ARE FORCING HOUSES TO GO BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE ARE SAYING YOU CAN'T GO UP THAT HIGH. OR YOU CAN'T ALLOW FOR OTHER ITEMS THAT WILL COME INTO PLAY. I UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE AIR-CONDITIONING. YES IT'S ABOUT THREE AND 35 PEOPLE KNOW YOU ARE BUILDING A 25-FOOT HOUSE TO GET THE OTHER THINGS UP THERE AND NO ONE WILL BE SPENDING THAT MONEY ON THE WATERFRONT LOT TO BUILD THIS HOUSE WHERE IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. OVERALL THINGS LIKE THIS WILL DESTROY THROUGH REAL ESTATE MARKET IN THIS TOWN BECAUSE ARCHITECTS CANNOT MEET THESE REGULATIONS.

AND I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN SQUARE BOXES ALONG THE BEACH WHERE SOMEONE WANTS TO HAVE A ROOFTOP AREA AND THEY CAN'T GET THERE NOW. CERTAINLY THEY CAN PUT A STAIRWAY ON THE SIDE BUT IT IS A 50-FOOT LOT AND YOU MAY BE TRIPPING TO A SETBACK. WE HAVE A LOT OF CONSEQUENCES THAT MAY OCCUR AND I WILL TELL YOU THE OLD REGULATIONS WERE FINE. AND MAYBE THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE TWEAKED. SO YOU DON'T ALLOW, IF YOU WILL ALLOW AN ELEVATOR SHAFT THEN YOU CAN HAVE A ROOF EXTENDING FROM THE ELEVATOR SHAFT TO CREATE ANOTHER LIVING AREA APPEAR.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK FROM WHAT I CAN SEE.

JUST A GENERAL REAL ESTATE MARKET AND NOW I SEE DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING. JUST TOO MANY ISSUES AND WE ARE NOT THINKING OF. 432351 ROOFTOP AREA TO WATCH THE BEACH, THE RAILING, I WILL FOLLOW THROUGH.

I CAN EVEN GET THE REALLY HIGH ENOUGH FOR SAFETY REASONS.

SO I WOULD SAY THERE ARE SO MANY ITEMS THAT I AM OPPOSED TO AND I WOULD NOT GO THROUGH THIS WAY IT IS.

>> THANK YOU. >> I THINK THE COMMENT ABOUT MAKING SURE THE HANDRAILS ARE INCLUDED WITHIN THE 42 INCHES WITH A GOOD POINT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS LANGUAGE WE NEED TO INSERT INTO OUR PROPOSAL.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IT IS GOOD TO MAKE SURE IT IS INCLUDED. THEN PUT THIS ON TOP OF IT.

THE OTHER COMMENT I OTHER COMMENT I WOULD LIKE TO MEET IF I LIVE ON SOUTH FLETCHER. I SEE SOME PRETTY CREATIVE AND IMAGINATIVE HOMES BEING BUILT ON BOTH SIDES.

IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT IT HAS ON 50-FOOT LOT GOD HUNDRED FOOT LOG SCOTT EVERYTHING IS OUT THERE AND IT IS CREATIVE.

YES THERE ARE A VIEW THAT LOOK MODERN BUT FOREIGN LARGE CAR RULES WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS THE 35 FEET.

I DON'T SEE THAT MANY HOUSES THAT ARE ODD LOOKING.

>> I BELIEVE ARCHITECTURES CAN FIND A HOME WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT WITHIN WHAT IS REQUIRED. BECAUSE THIS CONVERSATION HAS COME ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY

[01:00:01]

THOUGHT WERE HAPPENING. HERE WE ARE TWO YEARS LATER AND WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH HOW WE DO THIS.

IF WE DON'T TAKE A STEP TOWARDS THAT, THEN WE WILL CONTINUE TO TWIRL AND TRY TO GET OUR ARMS AROUND IT.

I THINK THE DESIGN, WHAT PEOPLE WANT IS CHANGING ALL OF THE TIME. I THINK THIS IS SUCH A DESIRABLE COMMUNITY THAT THEY WILL WANT TO LIVE HERE.

THEY WILL WANT TO LIVE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAVE RULES. I DON'T THINK THAT WILL AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO BUILD HOUSES AND THE WAY THE CITY HAS TAKEN THE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY WHICH WE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR THAT A LOT OF BOTH ATTENDED THAT THESE ARE BIG ISSUES.

IN THE ENFORCEMENT WAS SOMETHING TANGIBLE WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERN ABOUT THE GRADUAL INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT.

>> MAY BE IN ON WEIGHT THAT HAS NOT PROPOSED TONIGHT.

>> I'M COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE HAVE TONIGHT.

I THINK THE HANDRAILS IN THE LANGUAGE WAS A GOOD RECOMMENDATION. IF WE DON'T START WITH SOMETHING, LET IT GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

LET WHATEVER FEEDBACK THEY GENERATE, THEY CAN ALWAYS KICK IT BACK TO US. BUT I THINK WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK ON THIS AND LONG BEFORE I GOT HERE.

AND I THINK THIS IS A GOOD START.

I THINK WE CAN ALWAYS MODIFY IT IF WE FIND THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT CANNOT BE OVERCOME BY GOOD ARCHITECTURE.

I THINK IT IS WORTH LOOKING AT IT INDIVIDUALLY AS WE HAVE OUTLINED HERE IN CERTAIN PARAGRAPHS.

I WOULD LIKE TO GO FORWARD WITH IT.

I CAN'T VOTE BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GO FORWARD WITH IT.

>> THANK YOU. >>> SO MY BIGGEST CONCERN AT THIS POINT IS THE UNINTENDED IMPACT ON THE MIXED USE QUARTER.

IN THE REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE THERE.

AND IF WE ARE NOT CAREFUL WE WILL SQUASH THAT.

SO THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN. AND THINGS LIKE THE REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY WITH THE LOSS BEHIND THE BAPTIST CHURCH. SO AT THIS POINT THE MIXED-USE STRUCTURES IN THE NONRESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT I AM MOST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY UNATTENDED CONSEQUENCES. I THINK THE INTENT IS TO GET SOME SANITY BACK IN ALL OF THESE HEIGHT CREEKS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON. AND THAT I SUPPORT COMPLETELY.

IT IS THE NON- RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE THAT I AM NOT SURE WE ARE READY THAT I WOULD BE READY TO VOTE THIS LANGUAGE AGAINST.

SO IT IS SECTION C4 IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

I DON'T WANT TO DRAG THIS OUT FOREVER BUT MAYBE WE COULD SEPARATE THIS AND MAKE A DECISION ABOUT RESIDENTIAL TONIGHT AND FOR NONRESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE GOLF MAYBE THAT IS A %-@T MORE INPUT FROM ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS.

PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING REAL DEVELOPMENT.

>> LET'S HOLD THAT THOUGHT ABOUT THE WORKSHOP.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT TO AND I FEEL LIKE PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPROVING -- APPROVING THIS ARE IGNORING THE FEEDBACK.

I FEEL LIKE ALL WE CAN DO THIS ILLUMINATE ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND EVERYONE WOULD BE HAPPY AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO ALL OF THIS.

IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THINGS WE REMOVED, I DON'T THINK WE CAN

[01:05:06]

SPOT ARCHITECTURALLY ALONG FLETCHER AND I THINK IT IS THE ONLY THING PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.

NO ONE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE POST OFFICE.

NO ONE IS OFFENDED BY THE LOSS ON FAITH.

THEY SEEM TO FIND THESE PROJECTS BEAUTIFUL AND ENJOYABLE.

SO I AGREE I THINK THEY SHOULD BE SPLIT UP.

>> MR. ROLAND. >>

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT H STREET. IT'S NOT ONLY H STREET BUT NINTH STREET. IN THE ANCILLARY ROADS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. DO WE WANT TO PLACE THIS ON MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ABOUT THE DISPLACED RESIDENTS.

DO WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE THIS A COMMERCIAL RELATED AREA.

WE WANT PEOPLE TO STILL LIVE THERE.

WHAT WE SEE ON EIGHTH STREET, IS PEOPLE ARE TAKING BUILDINGS AND REHABBING THEM. NO ONE IS TEARING ANYTHING DOWN AND GOING VERTICAL THAT WE HAVE SEEN.

THE PROPANE GAS, THE OTHER GASP COUGH THAT WILL BE REDEVELOPED INTO A BUSINESS. WERE NOT SEEN A LOT OF VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS HAPPENING ON A STREET.

WE ARE SEEING REDEVELOPMENT FROM OTHER ANGLES.

>> THAT IS A GREAT PLAN. SO THE IDEA THAT WE WILL HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS WILL NOT BE THERE.

THE FOOTPRINT IS THERE BECAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAYS THERE.

WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT STARTING OVER, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS NONE OF THE ARCHITECTS HERE WILL LIMIT THEIR COMMERCIAL PROCESS.

IT'S ALREADY THERE. THEY WILL TAKE WHAT THEY HAVE AND WORK FROM THERE. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT H STREET YET. AS A MATTER FACT I THINK THEY ARE DOING WELL WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT.

IF YOU GO FROM ATLANTIC TO YOUNG STREET YOU WILL SEE THAT.

THEY ARE WORKING ON THE BUILDINGS CURRENTLY.

ALL OF THOSE PLACES LIKE THAT HAVE BEEN REDEVELOPED.

THERE TALKING ABOUT REDOING THE ROAD AND MAKING A CONSOLATORY OUT OF IT. THAT IS A PRIME EXAMPLE.

I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT ON H STREET. I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED WITH WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON NINTH STREET.

SPECIFICALLY THAT AND THE INFIELD OF THOSE AREAS.

THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS THERE.

I THINK DEVELOPMENTS WILL COME TO THAT AREA.

THERE'S ONLY ONE OR TWO VACANT LOTS (SO WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. I WILL PARAPHRASE WHAT JOSé SAID. I HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR HIS WORK. IF HE SAYS GIVE ME A RULE AND I WILL MAKE IT WORK, THAT IS ALL HE IS ASKING FOR.

IF HE SAYS 35 THEN HE WILL TAKE 35.

IF WE SAY 42 INCHES, WE KNOW WHAT HE WILL DO AND HE WILL GO WITH IT. FOR US TO DEBATE THIS BACK-AND-FORTH, AND GO AT IT AGAIN, WE NEED TO PUSH THIS TO THE POLICYMAKERS AND THEY DECIDE YAY OR NAY.

WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONSENSUS LATELY AND THE MAJORITY SEEM TO PUSH THIS FORWARD. SOME BELIEVE WE SHOULD NOT PUSH IT FORWARD. WE HAVE BATTED THIS AROUND.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF EXTREMES HERE, I AM CONFIDENT

[01:10:02]

AND THEY NEED TO MAKE A DEC DECISION.

>> WE CAN SEND IT AND THEY SAY YES OR NO.

>> ONE COMMENT ABOUT THAT. YOU MIGHT DISAGREE IF WE DON'T THINK IT IS WHAT WE RECOMMEND. I'M IN FAVOR OF US THINKING THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE RATHER THAN WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY CAN FINISH IT. THEY CONSENT SOMETHING WORKABLE

AND GOOD. >> I WOULD SAY THERE WILL BE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S IN THE PIPELINE, IT IS COMING. WE DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO

SLOW THAT DOWN. >> ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

IF THE 42 INCHES, WAS CHANGED TO 72 INCHES, WOULD YOU BE

COMFORTABLE? >> THERE'S OTHER THINGS THEY HAVE MENTIONED. THEY MENTIONED WORKING WITH SOME OF THE GUIDELINES. I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF ISSUES HERE THAT COULD BE SOLVED BY TAKING AWAY THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS OR THE WALLS AND LEAVING THINGS THE WAY THEY ARE AS FAR AS THE RESIDENTIAL IS CONCERNED. THE PROBLEM IS ONLY COME UP FROM ONE OR TWO PEOPLE AND THAT WENT THROUGH CITY.

I DON'T WANT TO BLAME STAFF BUT THAT WAS APPROVED AND WENT THROUGH. THEN WHEN IT WENT UP, WENT CRAZY AND NOW WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

IF THAT IS THE ONLY PROBLEM THEN WHY DON'T WE SAW THAT PIECE OF IT. IT STARTED WITH THE HOUSE JUST NORTH OF SATTLER THEN THEY PILED UP THE DIRT AND IT WENT UP FROM THERE. THAT IS WHERE THIS STARTED IN 2001. WE THOUGHT AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO MAKE ALLOWANCES. AS I KEEP SAYING, WE KEEP REDUCING ITEMS. WE KEEP PULLING EVERYTHING OUT, BUT WE KEEP STILL PUTTING THIS LIMIT ON IT AND IT WILL HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ON THE REAL ESTATE MARKET.

ADDRESS THE ISSUE. YOU HAVE HEARD THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO GO ON ROOFS JUST TO HAVE MIXED USE VIABLE PROPERTIES. IF WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING NOW, YOU HAVE JUST ELIMINATED THOSE THINGS AND THE WHOLE CORRIDOR WAS BROUGHT UP FOR REDEVELOPMENT TO HAVE MIXED USE.

THEY WANTED MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING I THINK THIS WILL HURT

ALL OF THAT. >> WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS

NEITHER RESIDENTIAL PLACE -- >> AGAIN IF YOU GO UP AND DOWN FLETCHER THERE HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM.

NOW YOU HAVE ONE HOUSE THAT HAS AN OUTDOOR KITCHEN.

THEY PUT THE ROOF IN THE ELEVATOR SHAFT.

THAT CREATED THE ISSUE I'M SOME OF THE OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ELIMINATE THAT. THE WHOLE THING IS THAT YOU BUILD A HOUSE IN EUROPE TO PUT THE AIR CONDITIONER WITHIN 35 FEET. THEY HAVE TO GO IN DIFFERENT AREAS. THEY WANT TO SIT ON THE SIDE.

MAYBE ONE ON THE ROOF FOR SOME FUNCTIONAL REASON THEN YOU HAVE TO GET TO IT AND THAT CREATES OTHER THINGS.

>> CAN WE SEE THIS SPIRIT. >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION. I JUST WANT TO SHARE MY OWN THOUGHTS. I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING YOU SAID IT, I THINK THIS MOTION OF A HEIGHT LIMIT IS EMBEDDED IN OUR JOB IS TO MAINTAIN THAT. I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT WE HEARD TONIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO SEND SOMETHING TO THE COMMISSION WHERE THE CONCERNS WE HAVE HEARD TONIGHT AND THEY WERE REJECTED. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ENACTING

[01:15:01]

THIS TONIGHT. I THINK WE ALSO LOOK AT SETTING UP A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT CAN LOOK AT THE ISSUES AND HOPEFULLY THOSE OF YOU HAVE -- WHO HAVE APPEARED THIS EVENING WILL COME TO THE MEETING AND HELP US CRAFT THAT.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING YOU WILL GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT BUT THIS INPUT I WISH WE HAD IT A YEAR AGO PERIOD WE HAVE SPENT A YEAR

TRYING TO GET IT DONE. >> WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING.

IT IS ALWAYS BEEN 35 FEET. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO ELIMINATE WOULD HE WANT TO COLLECT CHRIST AND THE OTHER THINGS WHICH WE

DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. >> NO ONE WANTS TO MANY CONSEQUENCES. I JUST DON'T THINK WE SHOULD PASS SOMETHING UNLESS WE ARE AS COMFORTABLE AS WE CAN BE.

I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF SENDING IT TO THE COMMISSION.

>> I WILL TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING.

>> WOULD YOU CONSIDER MAKING A MOTION ABOUT CREATING A

SUBCOMMITTEE. >> I WOULD.

>> LET ME OFFER A MOTION THAT WE TAKE UP THE SUBJECT UNDER TWO COP THREE AND FOUR SECTIONS TO GET A BETTER DEFINITION AND RESOLVE SOME OF THE DIFFERENCES WE HAVE WITHIN THE BOARD ITSELF.

AND IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION?

>> I SECOND PERIOD. >> ANY DISCUSSIONS? ALL IN FAVOR. AYE.

>> THE MOTION IS TO HAVE A WORKSHOP AND IF IT IS WHAT THE BOARD WANTS TO DO AN APPROVAL COUGH WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.

I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A VOTE ON THE MOTION.

>> CAN WE HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE PLEASE.

>> LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE MOTION.

>> CALL THE ROLL. >> KELLY HAS INFORMED ME THE DATE OF FEBRUARY 26 THAT IS AVAILABLE.

I WOULD ASK FOR THREE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO VOLUNTEER FOR THAT SUBCOMMITTEE. IF YOU DON'T VOLUNTEER.

>> APRIL 26? >> I APOLOGIZE CAP FEBRUARY 26.

>> I CAN BE PART OF THAT MEETING.

>> WHO ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO ELECT?

>> YOU CAN SORT OUT THE TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO ANNOUNCE THE TIME AND DATE THIS EVENING SO THOSE OF YOU HERE CAN PUT IT ON

YOUR CALENDAR. >> DID YOU SAY YOU WANT TO BE ON

THAT. >> IF I COULD I JUST CAN'T BE

HERE UNTIL 5:30 A.M. >> YOU PICK WHATEVER TIME.

>> >> 5:30 P.M. IF THAT IS OKAY.

DANCE CAN YOU FIND OUT IF ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANTS TO ATTEND.

WRITE THEM DOWN. >> SO TIME IS THE 26TH OF FEBRUARY. THAT IS A WEDNESDAY AT 5:30 P.M.

YOU WILL BE HERE IN THIS ROOM. 5:30 P.M. ON THE 26.

AND FRANKLY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF AN INTEREST YOU ARE MORE THAN

WELCOME TO ATTEND. >> THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FOR

[Item 4]

NEW BUSINESS. THIS IS AN EASY ONE FOR THE SPIRIT IS THE TREE ORDINANCE. IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED A LITTLE BIT. I WILL ASK KELLY TO MAKE SOME

[01:20:03]

COMMENT AND THEN INVITE THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AS WELL.

KELLY GIVE US AN OVERVIEW. >> A COUPLE OF REALLY QUICK COMMENTS. THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE CHANGES ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE WHOLESALE.

THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS THAT THEY WANT TO CONTEMPLATE MORE FULLY WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A LARGER PROVISION.

THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT SIMPLY CLARIFIES THIS.

AND WITH RESPECT TO PENALTIES FOR WHERE WE HAVE THE REMOVAL TAKING PLACE. AND THE FIRST CHANGE IS DRIVEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION WHICH IS TO INCREASE OUR TREE CANOPY BY

5% BY THE YEAR 2024. >> WITH THOSE TWO THINGS IN MIND, A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH IN THE PAST YEAR END LOOKING AT ENFORCEMENT AND HOW WE ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS AND WHAT WILL ALLOW FOR OVERSIGHT ACTIVITY SO THOSE ARE REALLY THE THREE DRIVING REASONS ON WHY WE ARE LOOKING AT PROTECTION -- TREE PROTECTION.

ATHLETE LOOK AT THIS ON A FULL-SCALE PERSPECTIVE WE MAY WANT TO RE- CRAB THE WAY OVER TREE PROTECTION LANGUAGE READS IN THE FUTURE. THESE THINGS ARE NOT INTENDED TO IMPROVE ON THAT. I THINK THAT A LOT OF EFFORT WAS PROVIDED THROUGH THE COMMITTEES TO HELP THE CHANGES TONIGHT.

SO I CAN WALK THROUGH THE DIFFERENT SECTIONS WE CAN OPEN

IT TO THE BOARD. >> THE BIGGEST ONE IN TERMS OF TREE REMOVAL, IN AN EFFORT TO ADDRESS OUR CANOPY IS MAKING CHANGES WHERE WE HAVE THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE REVIEWED.

WE HAVE IT SEPARATED OUT INTO DIFFERENT WAYS.

ONE IS FOR ONE AND TWO FAMILY PROPERTIES AND THE OTHER IS FOR NONRESIDENTIAL OR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THE RATIO FOR THE PROPERTIES IS HERE AND THE BOARD AS INDICATED THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE A 5050 SPLIT.

AND THIS WOULD APPLY TO THE PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THE NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IS A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT IN TERMS OF THE ABILITY TO HAVE ON-SITE RETENTION. AND BECAUSE YOU ARE LIMITED WHAT WE ESTIMATE WILL OCCUR IS YOU WILL SEE INCREASED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILDING PERMITS PARTICULARLY WHERE PEOPLE NEED TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT.

THAT WOULD BE A FEAT THAT THE CITY PAYS TO DO A REPLACEMENT

PLANT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT THE NEED TO HAVE AN ACCURATE REFLECTION OF WHAT THE FEE MAY LOOK LIKE. IT IS $255.

WE DON'T TYPICALLY SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE NEEDING TO DO 8 FEET IN LIEU BECAUSE THEY ARE ABLE TO MEET EVERYTHING.

WHAT WE FEEL IS A REALISTIC VALUE FOR THE ACTIVITY IS $400.

TREE WHERE IT BECOMES NECESSARY. >> THROUGH RESEARCH I UNDERSTAND THE TYPE OF TREES WE ARE AFTER IS SHADE TREES, AND QUALITY AND A REPLACEMENT FOR THE TREES. THERE ARE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH

[01:25:04]

WATERING, ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, INSTALLATION, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. $400 IS REALLY THE UPPER THRESHOLD OF WHERE WE THOUGHT IT WAS A REASONABLE FIGURE.

>> AS WE MOVE INTO ADDITIONAL CHANGES, WE DISCUSSED AS A GROUP REMOVING THE PRESERVATION CREDITS AND THE REASON IS WE FOUND THERE'S INEFFECTIVENESS AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE VALUE OF PROVIDING THOSE CREDITS THROUGH THE LAST YEARS WHERE THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE. AND SO REMOVING IT DOESN'T SEEMED LIKE IT WILL CREATE A HARDSHIP ANYMORE THEN CONTEMPLATING IT AT THE SAME TIME.

>> THE PIECE THEN I THINK IS CRITICAL, IN TERMS OF INSPECTION, IS THE EXISTING PRACTICE THAT WE DO HAVE IN PLACE. IT IS FOR AN IMPROVED INSPECTION TO BE FOR ALL CLEARING ACTIVITY. THIS WILL APPLY TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SITES SO ONCE YOU PICK UP A BUILDING PERMIT, YOUR NEXT PHONE CALL SHOULD BE TO SAY I WOULD LIKE TO SCHEDULE A WALK-THROUGH AND MAKE SURE I HAVE ALL OF MY TREE BARRICADES INSTALLED PROPERLY BEFORE ANY SITE CLEARING ACTIVITIES TAKE PLACE.

>> CAN I JUST SUGGEST, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT EARLIER MEETING SCOTT I KNOW THEY POINTED OUT, WE TALKED ABOUT CONTRACTED TO AND SELECTED AND MANAGED BY THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

I THINK THAT MAKES IT CLEAR, WHO MANAGES AND CONTROLS --

>> IS NOT SOMETHING THE REST OF THE BOARD AGREES WITH?

>> YES. >> THE NEXT PIECE THEY DISCUSSES SUBDIVISION PROJECTS WHERE THERE IS A REQUIREMENT AND WE WILL HAVE IT READ IN THE SAME WAY. TO BE PRESENT FOR THE CLEARING ACTIVITIES AND PROVIDE AN AFFIDAVIT THAT ATTESTS TO THE PERMIT AND THE INSTALLATION OF FENCING OR THE REMAINDER OF THE SITE ONCE THEY HAVE THE CLEARING PROJECTS COMPLETED.

THAT WAY THROUGH SITE CONSTRUCTION WE KNOW THE TREES

ARE PROTECTED. >> MOVING INTO THE AREA WHERE THERE IS DISCUSSION TO BE HAD. WE TALK ABOUT FINES AND PENALTIES. TO TAKE A STEP BACK AT THE PRESENT TIME THERE IS NOT A FINAL AMOUNT DESIGNATED SPECIFIC TO A VIOLATION OR TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENT.

RIGHT NOW WE SIMPLY HAVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A RESTORATION PLAN. WITHIN THAT PLAN WHERE YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO MEET ALL OF THE ENTRY REQUIREMENTS THERE IS A FEE IN BLUE. INDEPENDENT OF WHAT YOU MAY HAVE FOUND FOR THE ACTIVITIES. THIS SECTION ADDS IN A PENALTY AND MAKES THE PENALTY AND ADDITION TO WHAT IS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE RESTORATION. AND TO THOSE I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL WANT TO DISCUSS.

THE LANGUAGES PROVIDED HERE AND DOESN'T MAKE AN INDEPENDENT DISTINGUISH OPPONENT. IF A TREE VIOLATION OCCURRED, THERE IS A DISTINCTION IN THE BASE PENALTY AMOUNT.

SO ON THE FAMILY HOME SITE THE PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE A BASE PENALTY OF $1,000 FOR ONE TREE HAVING BEEN REMOVED AND HAVING BEEN UNPERMITTED. FOR EACH ADDITIONAL TREE REMOVED GOT DEPENDING ON THE SIDES OF THE TREE, THERE WOULD BE A FINE AMOUNT FOR EACH TREE. THESE WOULD BE CUMULATIVE IN NATURE. THE BASE FEE FOR NONPRESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE OR MULTIFAMILY SUBDIVISIONS, WOULD BE A 5,000-DOLLAR AMOUNT. THAT AMOUNT IS WHERE WE FOUND IT WOULD BE A BASE FEE. SO STARTING THEIR WE COULD FEEL

[01:30:08]

COMFORTABLE APPLYING IT. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT THEY WOULD BE'S SUBJECT TO EACH ADDITIONAL TREE.

>> I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF NUMBERS.

I WILL SAY GOD GOING THROUGH AND ATTEMPTING TO DOESEARCH, HOW THEY ARE LEVIED IN THE PENALTY AMOUNT IS ALL OVER THE PLACE.

AND IN TERMS OF HOW THEY CRAB PARENT LANGUAGE, THERE IS NOT A TRUE WAY TO MAKE COMPARISONS. I DON'T HAVE A FORMULA.

SE FOR HOW THIS HAS COME ABOUT. THEY HAVE VALUES BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION. AND THE DIRECTION IN APPLYING

THE PENALTY AMOUNT. >> WILL MAKE A COMMENT.

IN AFTER YOU TRY TO COME UP WITH NUMBERS, THE NUMBERS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE. I THINK IT SAYS THE SAME THING.

IT IS SQUISHY. >> LET'S ASK IF WE HAVE ANY

PARTICULAR QUESTIONS OF KELLY. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF KELLY BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH TAMMY, THIS IS VERY MINOR.

HOW DOES THE CITY CHOOSE. DO WE HAVE TO MAKE A BID, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I KNOW WHEN THE CONVENTION COMES IN AND SAYS WE ARE BEING UNFAIR I'M JUST THINK OF THE WORST CASE

SCENARIO. >> I THINK WE DO HAVE A CONTRACT THAT IS LOOKED AT ONCE. YEAR.

WE COULD APPLY IT THAT WAY. THE OTHER MECHANISM IS TO HAVE PREQUALIFIED THINGS THAT ARE SELECTED.

MR. BENNETT RAN IT PREVIOUSLY. IT GETS TO BE MORE AS YOU GO ARE FURTHER. SO THERE IS NOT A SMALL NUMBER AT THIS POINT IN TIME WHERE WE HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO WHO IS SELECTED. THE KEY PIECE BEING HAVING ARBORISTS WHO HAVE KNOWLEDGE AND BACKGROUND ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT THAT EXIST HERE AND THE INTERACTION OF OUR REGULATIONS.

HOW WE APPLY THIS ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE OF THINGS WILL BE THROUGH TRAINING AND ACTIVITIES WHERE WE MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS BEING DONE AND COMPLIES.

>> I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYTHING IN HERE, HOW DO WE FILTER IT. THE SECOND THING IS SCOTT THIS

IS DIAMETER OR CIRCUMFERENCE? >> DIAMETER.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF KELLY.

>> PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ONE THING DOES BOTHER ME.

WE HAVE A FREE STRUCTURE FOR -- >> MR. STEVENS COULD YOU HOLD THAT UNTIL WE GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> COME ON UP. >> JOE I AM AN ARCHITECT.

WITH REGARD TO THIS SUBJECT I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS REALLY. QUESTIONS ARE THE TREES SPECIFIED HERE I HAVE SOME HISTORY IN THIS.

I WAS IN CHARGE OF THE CITY DEPARTMENT CAUGHT 200 PEOPLE, DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA. EIGHT OPERATING DIVISIONS UNDER ME. ONE WAS URBAN FORESTRY PARAGRAPH STEP OF 20 PEOPLE IN URBAN FORCE TREE TO MAINTAIN THE URBAN FOREST. THE CANOPY IN THE FOREST.

THE DUKE FAMILY OWNED A LOT OF THE TOBACCO PLANTS IN DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA. THEY STARTED DUKE UNIVERSITY.

DUKE HOSPITAL. THE CITY OF DURHAM, IT IS A CITY EIGHT TIMES THE SIZE OF OURS. THEY REALLY WANTED TO CHECK THE

[01:35:01]

URBAN FOREST. THE PROBLEM IS WHEN THEY PLANTED THE TREES, THE STREET TREES THROUGHOUT THE CITY GOT IN THEIR PLANT THEY PLANTED 50% LIVE HOOK AND 50% RURAL OLD.

ONE OF THE PROMS WE HAVE WORKED THE CALL FOR SERVICE.

WE HAVE BETWEEN 15 AND 20 CALLS FOR SERVICE EVERY DAY IN THE DEPARTMENT. TRUCKS WERE SENT OUT TO CUT TREES THAT HAD FALLEN ON CARS, HOUSES AND ACROSS THE STREET DUE TO WINDSTORM SCOTT RAIN, SNOW, SLEET, ICE.

YOU KNOW HURRICANES OR WHATNOT. SO SPECIES IS VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF WE DON'T SELECT SPECIES, WE WANT TO MAINTAIN AND PROTECT, HOW WILL WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN.

THESE LARGE TREES CAUGHT THE WINDS COME THROUGH SOMETIMES 20-50 PLUS MILES PER HOUR. THE ROOT BALL ON A RURAL OAK IS SHALLOW. IT WILL TURN RIGHT OVER IT CREATE DAMAGE. SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE WANT TO PROTECT WE SHOULD DEFINE. IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT MYRTLES, IF THAT IS A TREE, I THINK WE SHOULD GET SOME SCIENCE INVOLVED IN IT AND I WOULD SUGGEST GETTING ARBORIST INVOLVED. MAYBE YOU HAVE ALREADY DONE

THAT. >> SO THE ORDINANCE DOES TALK ABOUT HEALTHY TREES. IT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BY SPECIES. THAT IS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN.

>> WHAT IS THE RANGE OF SPECIES YOU WANT TO PROTECT UP TO A CERTAIN SIZE LIMIT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE VERY MANY MESQUITE TREES OR WHATNOT, BUT THESE ARE NOT THERE -- NECESSARILY A PLEASING -- AESTHETICALLY APPEALING TO EVERYONE. I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT PUT SOME SCIENCE INTO IT AND BE SOMEWHAT SELECTIVE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE SIDES OF THE TREES WE WANT TO MAINTAIN.

IF IT IS JUST A CATCHALL, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES THAT ARE NOT AS AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. THEY ARE TRASH AND THEY DON'T GROW CONSISTENTLY. BUT THERE ARE A SET OF SPECIES WE COULD TO FIND THAT WE WANT TO PROTECT AND WE LIKE AND WE ARE NOT UP CLOSE TO THE PROTECTION OF TREES.

I LOVE TREES AND I WANT TO PROTECT THEM ALL.

BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT WE TALKING ABOUT PALM TREES?

>> WERE TALKING ABOUT EVERYTHING.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT IT CAN'T YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.

THE IDEA IS WE CAN SEE A LOT OF VARIETIES.

WE WANT TO KEEP A MIXED SPIRIT IT'S NOT ALL GREEN OR YELLOW.

>> WE DON'T WANT TO NECESSARILY LEAD OUT A TREE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A FAVORITE. CEDAR TREES ARE MADE IN THE AREA. BUT THINKING IS A TREE IS A TREE, IT IS HERE COTTON IS A NATIVE TREE, I'M SURE WE HAVE HAD SOME TREES THAT WE DON'T WANT AROUND.

WE CAN PROBABLY GET RID OF THOSE.

THE IDEA IS WE WANT TO KEEP THE SAME MIXED SPIRIT.

>> WITH THIS APPLY TO TREES THAT ARE BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE.

HOW IS THAT INCLUDED. >> THIS SECTION DEALS WITH UNAUTHORIZED REMOVAL. WE HAVE BEEN ARBORIST ON-SITE.

SO IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE A TREE YOU TALK TO THE ARBORISTS AND MANY OF THE ISSUES YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE ARBORIST CAN ANSWER THAT AND TAKE CARE OF IT. SO FOR TREAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED AND THERE'S A GOOD REASON, THEY WILL GIVE YOU A PERMIT.

>> I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THIS.

>> WE HAVE THAT LIST BY THE WAY. >> WE ARE WORKING ON ONE

SEGMENT. >> I'M SPEAKING FROM MY OWN IGNORANCE BECAUSE I HAVEN'T READ IT.

I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE SPECIES LIST THAT ARE AUTHORIZED OR

[01:40:05]

UNAUTHORIZED. I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.

>> THIS IS A LISTING OF ALL OF THE TREES.

>> THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A LIST.

>> I THINK IF YOU HAVE A 30-INCH ROYAL OAK TREE IS GOING TO BE MORE OF A PROBLEM. THEY WILL BLOW OVER.

>> I THINK IT IS A POINT WELL TAKEN.

>> WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT THIS EVENING.

>> OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

>> HELLO I'M MARGARET ON BEHALF OF AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY.

BASICALLY WE ARE CONCERNED WITH NATIVE TREES.

I THINK THAT IS PRIMARILY WHERE THE CITY HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST YEARS. OF COURSE THERE IS A LIST ON THE PART OF THE COUNTY FOR NATIVE TREES IN THE AREA.

WE DO NEED A MIX OF TREES. YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE JUST ONE'S BEE GEES AND THE RESULT IS A DISEASE COMES ALONG.

>> I DISTRIBUTED SOMETHING TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE EARLIER. WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE PENALTIES THAT KELLY HAS PROPOSED HERE. I THINK THIS IS A PLACE TO START. THE IMPACT OF REMOVING A TREE GOES FAR BEYOND JUST THE TREE ITSELF.

I THINK THE WAY PEOPLE EVALUATE AND APPRAISE THE VALUE OF TREES HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS AND CONTINUES TO CHANGE.

WE SHOULD SPECIFY IT. I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE TOWARDS A FORMAL APPRAISAL PROCESS. A PROCESS THAT IS BASED ON ALL OF THE IMPACTS OF REMOVING A TREE.

NOT JUST WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE ISN'T A TREE IN A SPECIFIC PLACE. HOW DOES THAT IMPACT STORMWATER.

IT IMPACTS OTHER TREES IN THE AREA.

WHAT ARE THE COSTS THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO INCUR.

WHAT ARE THE COSTS THE CITY HAS TO INCUR.

WE NEED A BROADER DEFINITION. WE NEED TO CONSIDER OUR SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT AS A BARRIER. WE NEED TO MOVE TOWARDS THAT BUT I WON'T TALK ABOUT THAT ANY FURTHER.

I THINK THE RATES THAT WE HAVE NOW, PROPOSED ARE WHERE WE SHOULD START. I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE SHOULD START. WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE WE DESPERATELY NEED TO CONSERVE THE CANOPY THAT WE HAVE.

I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR KELLY.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHETHER THIS APPLIES BECAUSE MOST OF THE BUILDING THAT WILL BE DONE IN THE FUTURE, WILL BE DONE AS PHIL AND. WE ARE NOT TALKING LARGE DEVELOPMENTS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CASES WHERE YOU HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUAL PARCELS OR TWO OR THREE PARCELS TOGETHER. WILL THE ELEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE APPLIED TO THOSE DEVELOPERS.

NOT TO A SUBDIVISION BUT JUST INDIVIDUAL PARCELS.

THE OTHER SITUATION IS INDIVIDUALS.

INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS WHO BY A PARCEL, HIRE AN ARCHITECT HIRING ENGINEER, HIGHER IN -- A BUILDER WILL THAT APPLY TO THEM.

IF ALL OF THAT APPLIES THEN WE ARE BEHIND IT.

[01:45:03]

>> I'M NOT GOING TO COMMENT ON ALL OF THE ELEMENTS.

I HAVE SAID IN THESE WORKSHOPS I HAVE DID THIS FOR YEARS.

I HOPE YOU REWRITE YOUR DEVELOPMENT CODES SOME TIME AGO.

IT SAYS YOUR INTENT IS THERE SHOULD BE NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY

WITHIN THE CITY. >> I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU THINK THAT IS POSSIBLE. I KNOW IT HAS BEEN THERE.

I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT. I JUST THINK IT IS AN UNREALISTIC EXPECTATION. I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAINTAIN. WE WILL COMPLY WITH THOSE.

TALKING ABOUT SPECIES I WOULD AGREE THERE SHOULD BE A SPECIES STUDY. I THINK IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN.

I DEVELOP THE PROPERTY HERE. >> 290 TREES WHICH WERE FIRM TREES. I'M NOT SURE IF WE CALLED THEM NATIVE NOW. I KNOW MANY TYPES OF TREES, AND IT COSTS A TON OF MONEY. I REPLACE THEM WHEN I DID IT.

489 INCHES OF TREES. >> IT WAS BASICALLY 200 CYPRESS TREES. TRYING TO BE A GOOD STEWARD.

>> I BUILT BUILDINGS AROUND TREES.

>> I THINK ANOTHER ISSUE IS THE PRESERVATION CREDITS.

MAYBE IN THE RESIDENTIAL WORLD THAT'S NOT A BIG DEAL BUT IT IS A BIG DEAL. WHEN YOU DO MULTIFAMILY LARGER SCALE PROJECTS AND EVEN SMALL ONES.

YOU MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO SAVE ALL OF THE INCHES OF LIBEL OR WHATEVER YOU CAN SAY. WE ALL LIKE MATURE COMMUNITIES.

I DID THAT AT GATEWAY AND SAVED QUITE A FEW TREES THERE.

I HAVE BUILT BUILDINGS AROUND TREES.

AS SOON AS YOU DO THAT AND YOU BUILD A BUILDING AND YOU CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE TREES AND THE TREES YOU TRY TO PRESERVE THEY BECOME MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO WIN.

WITH DILUTED SCOUT 186 INCHES LATER AFTER STORM CAME THROUGH AND I LOST THE BUILDINGS AND HIGHWAYS, WE HAD TO TAKE THEM OUT BECAUSE THEY WERE LAYING ON THE GROUND.

SO THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID ABOUT GETTING THE RIGHT SPECIES AND HOW WE PRESERVE THEM. AND HOW WE REQUIRE OURSELVES TO PLANT TREES. WHAT DRIVES YOUR BILLS AND MY BILLS IS $73 MILLION WORTH OF REPAIR COSTS.

THAT IS BECAUSE TREE DAMAGE ON POWER LINES.

WHILE I'D LIKE TO PRESERVE AT THE WORST THING I HATE IS FOR YOU TO TRIM MY TREES FOR ME. I GO BALLISTIC.

HOWEVER, THE CREDIT IS A MOTIVATOR.

AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE EFFORTS TO PRESERVE TREES BECAUSE TREES PRESERVE DUNES. FOR INSTANCE IF I DIDN'T TRY TO PRESERVE THE THREE INDUSTRIES YOU WILL DESTROY THE DUNES SYSTEM. SO IF THERE IS A WAY THOSE ARE THE THINGS YOU DO. OUR PONDS PRESERVE THE TREES.

I MEAN,, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO GO THROUGH EXTRAORDINARY STEPS AND

[01:50:08]

YOU DO EVERYTHING. FOR EVERYTHING TO GROW YOU HAVE DRIVEN IT UP. IT CAN BE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE.

WE GIVE PEOPLE A BIGGER FINES FOR TAKING A TREE THEN IF THEY ROB SOMEONE. BUT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE FINE SHOULD BE BASED ON WHAT DOES IT COST YOU TO REPLANT THE 36 INCHES. SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

HE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING REASONABLE.

AND WHAT HAPPENS IF A TREE DIES DURING THE PROCESS.

NOT ALL THINGS ARE DONE WITH INTENT.

WE ALL MAKE EXTRAORDINARY EFFORTS TO PRESERVE TREES AND SOMETIMES YOU LOSE ONE. WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT EVENT.

FOR US, WE TYPICALLY HAVE A BANK.

WE BUILD THE BANK OF EXTRA TREE INCHES WHEN WE DO A PROJECT BECAUSE NONE OF US CAN AFFORD THE LOSS OF TIME AND CONSTRUCTION. I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT TO MAKE THINGS GREEN. I JUST SAY THERE IS A BALANCE AND SOMETIMES WE MAY STEP OVER. I DO THINK THE SPECIES LIST SHOULD BE ON THE LIST. I THINK IT SHOULD BE THERE AND WE PAID TO PULL EVERYTHING DOWN. REMEMBER HISTORICALLY THAT IS WHAT IT WAS. IT WAS A DAIRY FARM ON THE SOUTH END. THEY HAD TO BE REMOVED AROUND THE AIRPORT. THERE WAS A BUNCH OF THEM.

MOST PEOPLE MOST BUSINESSES WHO COME HERE AND AND THEY HELP CREATE JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY AND WHATNOT WOULD BE LOST TO THE

AVERAGE BUSINESS OWNER. >> OTHER THAN THAT, I WOULD HOPE THAT TRACK I KNOW YOU HAVE DONE A LOT OF STUDYING OVER DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS. AND EVERYONE LOOKS FOR PRACTICAL REASONS. I THINK SOME OF THIS -- I DON'T THINK IT IS PRACTICAL. I THINK IN OWNERS BEING PENALIZED. YOU BUILD A HIGHWAY AND YOU IMPROVE THE ROADWAY AND YOU PUT THE SIDEWALK IN YOUR GOING TO OUT TREES. WHO PAYS FOR THAT.

TAXPAYERS) SO, I DON'T THINK -- I AGREE THERE ARE SOME GREAT GOALS YEAR. SOME OF THEM ARE NOT PRACTICAL FOR THE COMMONER WHO MOVES TO THE AREA.

>> ORGANIZE YOU TO WRAP UP. YOU MADE YOUR POINT IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD CLICK STANCH ARE THERE OTHER SPEAKERS?

>> OKAY. THE POINT I'M GOING TO MAKE I SHARED WITH SOME OF YOU. WITH ALL OF YOU.

CERTAINLY I APPLAUD ANY EFFORTS TO LIMIT TREE REMOVAL COURSE.

BUT I RECOMMEND AMENDING THROUGH ORDINANCE OR THE IMPLEMENT MENTATION TO REQUIRE THE REMAINING TREES ACTUALLY SURVIVE. THERE ARE THREE WAYS THAT I RECOMMEND DOING THIS. FIRST THE ROOTS OF THE TREES THAT ARE REMAINING HAVE TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED.

SO WE ALL GO TO COLD AND I CAN POINT OUT HOW IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CODE THAT THEY ARE RIPPED THROUGH AN HOW YOU CAN DO THIS.

>> PEOPLE ARE BUSTING UP THE ROOTS.

DAVE CAME OVER AND WE HAD THREE LOOKS.

15 INCHES IN DIAMETER. QUITE LARGE.

TO US, THEY ARE GREEN. TO DAVE, HE WOULD ALREADY

[01:55:02]

APPROVED TAKING IT OUT. THAT TREE IS A HAZARD.

THAT TREE WILL NOT LIVE. IT IS RIGHT NEAR MY HOUSE.

I WATER IT AND HOPEFULLY I CAN SUSTAIN.

BUT SOMEONE MENTIONED, IT'S SUCH A SHALLOW WALCOTT ANY DAMAGE TO IT CAN'T THAT TREE COULD BLOW OVER.

>> SO I WOULD RECOMMEND ENFORCING THE ROOTS MUST REMAIN UNDISTURBED. THE TREES THAT REMAIN MUST BE MORE THAN A STUMP. I CAN SHOW YOU PICTURES, WE CAN GO BACK NOW AND SEE TREES THAT WERE BROKEN OFF AT 15-20-FOOT.

THERE IT IS. NOW THEY ARE LIKE LARGE LOLLIPOPS. THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE JUST AN EMBARRASSMENT. I BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

I KNOW THEY WANTED US TO CUT SOME OF THOSE DOWNS AND DO SOME REPLACEMENTS. SOME SUCCESS THERE BUT REALLY, 815-FOOT TALL STUMP THE DEVELOPERS THINK THAT IS ACCEPTABLE. THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED.

AND THE REMAINING TREES, YOU TALKED ABOUT IT THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY HEALTHY TREES. THEY MUST BE HEALTHY, UNDAMAGED OR THE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HOMEOWNER.

I AM SEEING THAT THREE TIMES. DAVE COMES IN AND SAYS I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS TREE WAS LEFT BUT THE HOMEOWNER CAN TAKE IT DOWN.

BUT IF YOU DON'T KNOW CODE, THE HOMES ARE CLOSE TOGETHER, SO NOW YOU HAVE SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT COMING IN.

CANCEL AGAIN IN SUMMARY, I CERTAINLY APPLAUD ANY EFFORTS TO LIMIT TREE REMOVAL BUT THE REAL OBJECTIVE IS TO BE THE REMAINING TREES ARE HEALTHY, STRONG AND LIVE TREES THAT SURVIVE.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS.

I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN.

IT IS ONE THING TO PLANT A TREE IT IS ANOTHER THING TO MAKE SURE IT SURVIVS. I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

IT MAY ADDRESS THAT. ONE AND KELLY CAN TALK ABOUT IT MORE EXPENSIVELY THAN I CAN. THE CITY HAS STEPPED UP THEIR ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES. MORE SO THAN THEY HAVE DONE SO IN THE PAST. I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF WHAT WAS IN PLACE BUT WE WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.

ENFORCEMENT IS A KEY ISSUE. THE OTHER THING IS WITH RESPECT TO NEW TREES PLANTED CAP WE ARE LOOKING TO ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD ENSURE THE TREE SURVIVES.

WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IF SOMEONE PLANTS A TREE AND THEY WALK AWAY AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OR THE BURDEN BECOMES ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS. BUT YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN AND I THINK YOU WILL FIND MOST OF US IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU

ARE SAYING. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> MINE IS MORE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE FINES.

AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO PAY TO PLAY.

THE QUESTION I HAVE IS REALLY ABOUT PROCESS.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF CLIENTS THAT ARE WORKING ON VERY SMALL LOTS.

ONE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND WHATNOT.

IT IS A CORNER LOT. IT IS A FOOTPRINT.

THIS IS ABOUT 1600 SQUARE FEET. WITHIN MY FOOTPRINT I HAVE TO

TAKE OUT THIS SPIRIT. >> THE CURRENT ORDINANCES I HAVE TO REPLACE 20%. WE CAN PROBABLY ACCOMMODATE THAT. BUT WITH THIS CHANGE NOW I HAVE TO GO TO 74 INCHES OF REPLACEMENT ON A LOT THAT IS ALREADY HEAVILY WOODED. WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS AS A HOMEOWNER, CAN'T I CAN DO 50% IN LIEU BUT THAT LEAVES ME 37 INCHES THAT I HAVE TO DO AND I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

IS THERE AN ADMINISTRATIVE WAY TO DO IT.

DO THEY USE A VARIANCE. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO GET

ANSWERS. >> I WILL LET KELLY RESPOND TO

THAT. >> IN THAT SCENARIO, THE REMAINING INCHES WOULD BE DIVIDED BY A NEW REQUIREMENT.

AND THE TREES WOULD BE AT $400. TREE.

>> IF WE COULD NOT PUT THIS ON WHAT IS LEFT OF THE SITE, HOW DO

[02:00:05]

WE GET RELIEF FROM THAT. IS THERE A PROCESS FOR THAT.

>> IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

>> TO GET THAT NUMBER REDUCED IF PHYSICALLY WE COULDN'T.

>> OR YOU WOULD PAY THE FEE IN LIEU OF IT.

>> THE FEE IN LIEU IS UP TO 50%. SO IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET 37

AS THE MINIMUM, THEN YES GOD. >> AND THE LACK OF CREDIT FOR TREES. NOT ALL TREES ARE THE SAME.

THERE IS A 42-INCH LIVE OAK ON THE SIDE.

WE COULD REMOVE IT IF WE DESIGNED THE BUILDING.

WE CHOSE TO KEEP IT. NOW WE WON'T GET ANY CREDIT FOR

HAVING IT. >> SO THAT IS MY CONCERN.

IT AFFECTS THE CREDIT AND IT IS REALLY CRITICAL FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS FOR LOTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT OF BEEN DEVELOPED AND THE OWNERS TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING BUT IT DOESN'T WORK.

>> YOU WOULDN'T GET EXTRA CREDIT.

YOU WOULD STILL GET BENEFIT OF THE REMAINING INCHES.

AND IT IS PART OF THE THRESHOLD THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET.

YOU JUST WOULDN'T HAVE ANY BONUS AMOUNT.

>> THANK YOU THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAD.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS FROM CONVERSATIONS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE DOING AWAY WITH THE PRESERVATION ISSUE DIDN'T FEEL THEY WERE EFFECTIVE. AND THEY WERE DRIVING THE CHANGE

THAT WAS WORTH THE EFFORT. >> YEAH AND APPARENTLY, THERE WAS AN EXPERIMENT -- AN INCENTIVE WHEN YOU DO A PROJECT THAT CARRIES THIS. THERE WASN'T ONE WHERE YOU HAVE A LIMITED FOOTPRINT AND THE TREES.

>> THIS IS WHY WE ARE DOING THIS NOW.

THIS IS NOT WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> YOU HAVE A CHANCE. >> IF A PERSON REMOVES THE BILL UNDER 1159 OR FLORIDA STATUTE 163 HOW IS THAT MITIGATED IN

THIS SPIRIT. >> IT IS NOT.

>> IF YOU HAVE A RISK YOU ARE COVERED AS A HAZARDOUS TREE.

YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT. IT IS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE THE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE REMOVAL PROTECTED BY THE ORDINANCE.

ALSO NOT COVERED IF YOU ARE NONRESIDENTIAL.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO REFER TO THAT STATUE IN YOUR ORDINANCE?

>> YES, SIR. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> OKAY THAT IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION BOARD MEMBERS.

>> ONE QUICK QUESTION. I KNOW WE CAN'T MANDATE HOW MANY TREES GO BACK AND I HAVE WORKED WITH LOTS OF PROPERTIES WHERE I'VE TRIED TO PUT IT INTO CONTRACT.

THE BUILDER WILL WARN THE TREES FOR A YEAR END THEY REJECT THAT.

IS THERE ANY WAY LEGALLY WE CAN MAKE THEM WARRANTY THE TREE EXTENSION WE HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.

CANCEL WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS THE BUILDER OF A BRAND-NEW HOUSE PUTS A TREE AND THEY HAVE TO COME BACK.

SO WHETHER IT IS THROUGH ACTIONS OF THE NEIGHBORS OR SOMEONE NOTICING THE TREE THEY PLANTED, AT LEAST MINIMUM LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ARE PART OF THE LITIGATION.

WE CAN REQUIRE THE TREE BE REPLACED IF IT DIES WITHIN THE TWO YEARS. IT BECOMES THE BURDEN OF THE NEW HOMEOWNER TO FULFILL THAT IF ACTION IS NOT TAKEN TO MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. IT CAN BECOME A CODE ENFORCEMENT

ISSUE. >> WE WON'T REQUIRE THE BUILDER

WE WILL REQUIRE THE HOMEOWNER. >> YES THE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> IT DEPENDS WHO IS THE OWNER AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

>> OKAY MR. STEVENSON. >> CALLICOTT UNDER THIS, WE TALKED ABOUT THE $1,000.5000, AFTER MY RESEARCH I'M NOT SURE

[02:05:05]

THAT IS AS GOOD A NUMBER YOU WILL GET.

MY PROBLEM IS ARTICLE TWO A SMALLER TREE AND FOR THE HOMEOWNER IT IS $1,000 AND FOR THE DEVELOPER IT IS $1,000.

MY THINKING IS IT SHOULD NEVER BE LEFT FOR THE DEVELOPER.

THERE NEEDS TO BE TWO COLUMNS. ONE FOR THE RESIDENT AND A SECOND TREE ON THE DEVELOPER. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT MAYBE SOME KIND OF A TEAR WHERE SOMEONE TAKES OUT A TREE.

IF THEY TAKE OUT 22 TREES THIS SHOULD BE X POTENTIALLY GREATER IN TERMS OF THE COST FOR DOING SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE GENERAL FEEL IS BUT MY CONCERN IS GOT A DEVELOPER COMES ALONG AND TAKE OUT A TOTAL OF NINE TREES, LET'S SEE, FIVE TREES IT WILL COST

THEM $6,000. >> THAT IS NOT RIGHT.

>> $9,000. >> IT WOULD BE $20,000.

>> NO. >> IT WOULD BE $5,000 FOR THE

FIRST TREE. >> PLUS $1,000 FOR EACH TREE WITHIN THAT RANGE SO YOU WOULD HAVE A $9,000 FEE AND A

RESTORATION. >> A 17 INCH TREE IS A GOOD

SIZE, AND HE ONLY $1,000. >>.

TREE. >> THE WAY THAT IS WRITTEN.

>> 46-17 INCHES PLUS THE REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE IT.

THAT CHANCE WITH ALL OF THESE. YOU DO HAVE A REPLACEMENT

REQUIREMENT. >> MY POINT BEING, IF YOU PENALIZE HIM FOR ANY TREE, IN MY VIEW THE TREE HAS A HIGHER PROBABILITY OF BEING TAKEN OUT THAN THE LARGER TREES BECAUSE PEOPLE DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY WILL SAVE THE BIGGER ONES.

SO HE WALKS AWAY. >> THIS IS ONLY WHERE YOU HAVE

AND UNAUTHORIZED. >> WE HAVE HAD THAT HAPPEN A FEW

TIMES. >> WE HAVE.

>> MR. BENNETT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE POINT. WHICH I'VE MADE SEVERAL TIMES.

I'M FOR THIS. I HOPE IT PASSES.

BUT, A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING BECAUSE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS THEY WANT SEWER AND WATER.

I KEEP PUSHING FOR ANY TIME SOMEONE GETS AND WATER FROM THE CITY OF FERNANDINA THEY NEED TO DEVELOP AND IN THIS CASE HERE OUR TREE ORDINANCE IF THEY WANT TO GET CITY AND WATER FROM US.

IF WERE GOING TO HAPPEN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS, WHICH IS CERTAINLY A LOT MORE RESTRICTIVE AND PUNITIVE THAN THE COUNTY, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND A LOT OF DEVELOPERS, AND THERE'S A LOT OF TREE CANOPY THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS.

SO, I THINK WE WILL PASS THIS BUT WE WILL HAVE TO PUSH THAT IN THE CITY ATTORNEY IS NOT HERE. BUT THAT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ACCOMPLISH AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

ANYONE GETTING SEWER AND WATER FROM THE CITY WILL HAVE TO GO

UNDER OUR TREE ORDINANCES. >> THAT'S IT.

>> >> CAN KELLY EXPLAIN WHAT STRIKING OUT IS AND WHY WE WOULD HAVE A.

AND THEN MAYBE EXPAND A LITTLE ON THE AUTHORITY OF A WAIVER.

>> >> EVERYBODY LOOKED AT THEIR

PHONE WHEN THEY HEARD THE SOUND. >> DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE

[02:10:41]

DELETED? >> IT IS SORT OF HANGING OUT

THERE AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND. >> I HAD THE SAME THOUGHT.

>> IT COULD BE IF YOU WOULD ELIMINATE THE ENTIRETY OF IT.

>> CAN WE GIVE KELLY THE FLEXIBILITY.

IF IT IS A FREESTANDING COMMENT THAT SHE CAN DELETE THAT.

>> BUZZED DOES THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE SAVE THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE ABILITY TO GRANT A WAIVER?

>> I WOULD NO LONGER BE WITHIN THOSE CONDITIONS.

IT WOULD BE FOR THE OTHER CONDITIONS LIKE PARKING.

WE ALSO NEED TO MODIFY SOME SECTIONS TO ELIMINATE THE

REFERENCE TO THE OTHER SECTION. >> SO THIS WOULD JUST BE

DELETED? >> YES.

CLEAN IT UP. AND CHANGE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> IT ALMOST --

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I'M GOING TO ASK SOMEBODY TO MAKE A MOTION BUT I WANT TO OFFER SOME OBSERVATIONS.

NUMBER ONE, ON THIS ISSUE OF THE MAINTENANCE BOND CAN'T KELLY AND I SPOKE EARLIER. THE LANGUAGE IN HERE SAYS THE CITY MANAGER MAY IMPOSE A MAINTENANCE BOND OR ANOTHER FORM OF THE SURETY. I BELIEVE THAT SHOULD NOT BE MADE IT SHOULD BE WILL. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A DISCRETIONARY FACTOR. IF A TREE, A REQUIRED TREE IS PLANTED I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A GUARANTEE THAT IT SURVIVES

FOR TWO YEARS. >> THAT IS UNDER SECTION B?

>> YES. I BELIEVE THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.

>> SO YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT ONE. >> ITEM TWO.

IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION EARLIER TODAY THAT THERE IS A PAB DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED AND THE HOUSES ARE BEING BUILT, AND THAT INDIVIDUAL AND DIFFICULTY MEETING THE 50% REQUIREMENT BUT IT IS ALREADY IN AN APPROVED DEVELOPMENT.

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THAT INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT SOMEPLACE ELSE WITHIN THAT PAB AS OPPOSED TO THE INDIVIDUAL LOT.

ARE YOU FOLLOWING WHAT I AM SAYING? SO I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS A BAD IDEA.

BUT IT IS NOT IN THE WRITING WE ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.

I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE ACTION ON THIS TONIGHT.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DELAY IT.

I THINK THERE IS A SENSE OF URGENCY GOING FORWARD.

I WANTED TO MENTION THE ISSUE AND IF THE BOARD AGREES WITH THAT COP I WOULD SUGGEST WE ASK KELLY TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW THAT MAY BE ADDRESSED OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE.

JUST KEEP IT ON THE TABLE. I THINK IN THAT CASE IN THAT INSTANCE THERE IS A REASONABLE --

>> WITH THAT GO INTO THIS SECTION OR IS THAT ANOTHER SECTION. WE HAVE BEEN VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT

THE SECTIONS WE ARE WORKING ON. >> CAN YOU HELP ON THAT KELLY?

>> APPOINTED EXPAND ON THIS BECAUSE I DISAGREE.

BUT IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED ALL. THE I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IS WHERE YOU HAVE A PAB THAT MAY HAVE BEEN APPROVED WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, HOW DO I HOLD THAT TO EIGHT DISTINCT STANDARD THAN I WOULD ONE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 1970 OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY OF OUR RECORDS. CONDITIONS CHANGE, REGULATIONS CHANGE OVER TIME. AND WHAT IS IN PLACE TODAY WON'T BE IN PLACE TEN YEARS FROM NOW AS THE COMMUNITY EVOLVES AS WILL THE REGULATIONS. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT CALLING OUT A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT OR A DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN A PERIOD OF TIME IS APPROPRIATE IF THE STRIKE IF THE

[02:15:02]

GOAL IS TO INCREASE CANOPY. >> OKAY.

>>) >> THE LAST THING I WANTED TO MAKE A SUGGESTION AND PARAGRAPH B, UNDER FOUR-POINT OLD POINT FOR IT SAYS AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS.

THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER A WAIVER IN THE PROCEDURES. I DON'T PARTICULARLY AGREE WITH THE NOTION THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW A WAIVER FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO I WOULD HOPE SOMEONE WOULD INCLUDE THAT IN THE MOTION.

>> I'M SORRY. I AM LOST.

SO WHERE WE? >> 3-B.

>> AND YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS OUT EXTENT I WANT TO TAKE OUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. IN MY MIND I DON'T THINK WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A WAIVER OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS AFFORDABLE

HOUSING. >> IT INCREASES THE COST.

>> I UNDERSTAND BUT IT ALSO RESULTS IN A LESSER DEVELOPED --

>> WE CAN ARGUE ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD DO FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD DO.

>> I BRING IT UP HERE AND I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, IT IS UP TO YOU GUYS TO PUT IT INTO MOTION OR NOT.

>> I GUESS I DISAGREE. THERE WAS SOME CREATIVE STUFF DONE AND THE WORK THEY WERE DOING ON ELM STREET WITH THE HABITAT AND A LOT OF THE CITY STAFF DID A GREAT JOB.

THIS MAY BE ANOTHER CASE WHERE IT MAY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING A PROJECT.

MAKE THE BUSINESS MORE PROMISING.

THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN. >> I GUESS THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS WE SPENT HOURS ON THIS IN A MEETING.

WE SPENT TWO AND A HALF HOURS ON THIS AT A WORKSHOP.

I DON'T WANT TO OPEN UP NEW THINGS AT THIS POINT.

IF WE FOUND AN ISSUE WE CAN'T LOOK AT IT LATER.

BUT I LIKE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD WITH MINOR CHANGES THAT WE

TALKED ABOUT TONIGHT. >> FAIR ENOUGH.

LET'S RECOGNIZE HER AND MOVE FOR EMOTION.

>> I GUESS WE ARE READY FOR EMOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TREE PROTECTION AS PRESENTED WITH THE CHANGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENT AND THE WRITTEN CERTIFICATION UNDER EXEMPTIONS FOR THE -- FOR

THESE. >> IS THERE A SECOND PERIOD.

>> ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE.

ALL OPPOSE? CONGRATULATIONS.

>> I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THE ENERGY THEY PUT INTO THIS.

THANK YOU. >> WE DID GET SOME COMMUNITY INPUT TOO. I DIDN'T AGREE WITH THEM BUT AT

[Item 5]

LEAST PEOPLE WILL THINK ABOUT IT.

>> THAT BRINGS US TO ALBUM FIVE, BOARD BUSINESS.

THE REVIEW OF CITY COMMISSION GOALS.

>> I WILL JUST BRIEFLY GO OVER IN SUMMARY.

WHAT I PROVIDED TO THE BOARD ON FRIDAY WAS A COUPLE OF GENERAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS. ONE DOES GO THROUGH, ATTEMPTS TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I THINK ARE THE COMMISSION GOALS AT THEIR MOST RECENT SESSION. AND HE KEEPS WITH THE PREVIOUS GOALS FOR 2019. I PLACED THAT AS THE PEAK WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT THIS AND SEE HOW THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT EFFORTS OVER THE NEXT YEAR, CREATE AN ALIGNMENT.

OR IT GIVES A SENSE OF WHERE WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF.

THIS IS WHEN WE UNDERTAKE ALL THESE THINGS.

SO I KNOW SHE ASKED THAT WE HAVE A CONVERSATION AS A PLANNING BOARD ABOUT THE GOALS. MY REASON FOR BRINGING THIS UP

[02:20:01]

IS SO IF YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEM, AND SEE WHERE MY MIND IS THAT AND WHAT I HEARD.

>> I REALLY LIKE THE WAY THAT YOU LAID OUT AS A DASHBOARD, CERTAINLY WITH THE GOALS THAT WERE EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION WERE IN THE LONG-RANGE AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT YOUR GROUP IS WORKING ON. WHAT I THINK YOUR DEPARTMENT SHOULD DO FOR THE NEXT ENVISIONING IS UTILIZE THIS TYPE OF THE SLIDE IN YOUR PRESENTATION.

YOU SHOULD MAKE THE PRESENTATION.

YOU COULD BE VERY EFFECTIVE IN EXPLAINING TO THE COMMISSION WHERE WE ARE. BECAUSE WE ARE IN THIS PROCESS WITH YOU. CERTAINLY WE SUPPORT THE ACTIVITIES. THOSE THINGS THAT YOU NEED PARTICULARLY CAUGHT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRING TO THE CHAIR AND ASK US TO DO WORKSHOPS OR TO DO THE THINGS THAT HELP KEEP US ON TRACK TOWARDS ACCOMPLISHING THESE GOALS.

I WAS REALLY -- I AM PROUD TO BE ON THIS COMMITTEE AND THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE. WE JUST APPROVED A TREE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON.

THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF. I WOULD LOVE FOR NEXT YEAR, WHEN WE ARE ALL AT THE VISIONING MEETING FOR YOU AND YOUR DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT SOMETHING LIKE THIS BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO SAY HERE IS WHAT YOU SAID GOALS NEEDED TO BE. HERE IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS. WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE NEXT YEAR'S GOALS. I AM REALLY PLEASED WITH THE WAY

THAT HAS BEEN SET UP. >> OTHER COMMENTS?

>> I LIKE IT TOO. IT IS LIKE A DASHBOARD AND I APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST WANT TO SAY DON'T USE BLACK ANYMORE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH INK THAT

SUCKS UP WHEN YOU PRINT IT OUT. >> SAVE A TREE DON'T PRINT IT

OUT. >> GEORGIA BULLDOG COLD.

THAT IS WHAT WE HAD IN MIND. >> MY PRINTER JUST WENT KAPUT.

I THINK IT IS GOOD TO LOOK AT A GLANCE AT THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO AND GET INFORMATION TO THE BOARD.

THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON THAT I DON'T THINK THE BOARD HAS BEEN UPDATED ON. ALSO THE ACTION PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART.

>> NICE JOB KELLY. THANK YOU.

>> UNDER BOARD BUSINESS. ONE THING I WANTED TO MENTION AT THE LAST MEETING, AND I DON'T MEAN TO REHASH THIS.

THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING THE METHOD OF APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD. AND EXPANDING THE BOARD FROM 5-7. I THINK IT WAS A GREAT IDEA.

BUT THE DETAILED QUESTION IS EXACTLY HOW DOES THAT IDEA GET TRANSMISSION TO THE COMMISSION. KELLY AND I SPENT TIME TALKING ABOUT IT AND WE JUST WANTED TO THROW OUT AN IDEA THAT MAYBE WILL WE HAVE THOSE IDEAS WHERE WE WANT TO CONVEY SOMETHING TO THE COMMISSION, IT SHOULD BE A LETTER FROM KELLY OR THE CHAIR DEPENDING ON THE SUBJECT. IT WOULD GO TO THE COMMISSION AND HIGHLIGHT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE ISSUE AND THAT WOULD BE THE METHOD OF COMMUNICATION.

I GUESS WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN THE PASSAGE HAS BEEN MORE INFORMAL. WHEN IT IS INFORMAL THINGS FALL BETWEEN THE CROOKS AND THEY DON'T GET BROUGHT UP.

>> THAT IS THE AGENDA WHILE -- RE- CONSENTED TO THE CITY

COMMISSIONER. >> I'M JUST SAYING WE NEED TO BE MORE AFFIRMATIVE IN TERMS OF HOW WE WANT TO BE PROACTIVE AND HOW THESE IDEAS ARE TRANSMITTED. FOR MY MONEY THE LETTERS OF

[02:25:03]

BESTWAY. MAYBE THAT'S THE BEST THING.

I THINK THAT WAY IT GETS -- IF WE FEEL THAT STRONG,.

>> SINCE HE IS OUR LIAISON, PERHAPS HE WOULD LIKE TO TELL US

HOW HE FEELS ABOUT THIS ISSUE. >> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

IT'S NICE TO BE HERE FOR MY THIRD NIGHT.

FIRST OF ALL LET ME THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I KNOW THE TIME AND COMMITMENT THAT YOU PUT IN NOT ONLY IN THIS ROOM, BUT AS CHAIRMAN CLARK SAID READING THE MATERIAL.

SO AS A CITY COMMISSIONER I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

SO THE QUESTION OF A SCENIC COMMISSION LIAISON AND I AM THE LIAISON TO TWO COMMITTEES. THIS ONE AND PARKS AND REC ADVISORY. AND THESE COMMITTEES HAVE CHANGED. THE CITY BUSINESS HAS CHANGED.

WE ARE TACKLING AS YOU HAVE TONIGHT, VERY COMPLICATED IMPACTFUL ISSUES. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE YOU HERE TO GET THE BEST RODS IN THE BEST THINKING.

SO WE CAN MAKE THE BEST DECISIONS.

HERE IS HOW I VIEWED THE LIAISON.

I VIEW MY ROLE AS LIAISON TO YOU AS A BRIDGE.

I'M HERE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ON WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS DOING. I AM HERE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH FAX. YOU'RE PRETTY WELL INFORMED, KELLY KEEPS YOU VERY WELL-INFORMED, SOME OTHER COMMITTEES ARE NOT AS WELL INFORMED.

WHERE I SEE THE BREAKDOWN, BECAUSE I GO TO ALL OF THEM MEETING MEETINGS WHERE I SEE THE BREAKDOWN IS THE COMMISSION KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE DOING. BECAUSE REMEMBER IN OUR PACKETS WE GET YOUR MINUTE SCOTT AND WE SEE YOUR MINUTES GENERALLY TWO MONTHS BEHIND. SO MY INTENT WAS NEXT TUESDAY NIGHT TO TELL MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, THIS IS WHAT THEY DID.

THEY FORMED A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WILL MEET ON FEBRUARY 25 TO TALK ABOUT -- FEBRUARY 26 TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSOR EQUIPMENT ON ROOFTOPS AS IT RELATES TO HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

WE PASSED THE ORDINANCE. SO I WILL TELL THEM THAT.

I WILL TELL THEM THAT YOU PASSED REVISIONS TO THE TREE ORDINANCE.

THEY ARE X, Y, AND Z. SO I THINK THAT IS THE WAY I SEE A LIAISON WORKING WITH THE COMMISSION.

I AM WIDE OPEN BECAUSE I SERVE YOU.

I SERVE YOUR NEEDS. YOU TELL ME.

>> I THINK WHAT YOU OUTLINED IS EXCELLENT.

IT WAS INFORMATIVE FOR ME TOO HEAR YOU SAY THAT IN THAT FASHION BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS GREAT THAT YOU PROVIDE BACK COMMUNICATION. MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WE HAVE THESE ISSUES, AND I THINK THERE WAS A LOT IN THAT DISCUSSION.

>> I THINK HE LEFT BEFORE WE HAD THE DISCUSSION.

>> WE HAVE STRONG SUPPORT FOR THAT.

>> TELL HIM. >> WANT TO GO FROM 5-7 VOTING MEMBERS. WE HAVE TWO ALTERNATES WHO DON'T

VOTE WHO DON'T VOTE. >> GO BACK TO THE OLD WAY OF

SELECTING. >> THERE WERE TWO THINGS.

>> WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE POLITICAL APPOINTMENT WHERE THEY APPOINT THEIR PERSON. SO WE WILL DO IT THIS WAY.

>> MY BRAIN WORKS IN A PECULIAR WAY.

I WAS THINKING OF HAROLD WHO SAID ALL THINGS ARE POLITICAL.

[02:30:04]

SO EVEN WHEN WHEN WE APPROVED COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

WE GET THERE APPLICATION SPIRIT THAT IS POLITICAL.

>> I'M HERE FOR ONE YEAR. I AM JOHNNY MILLER'S APPOINTMENT. AT THE END OF THIS YEAR I AM OFF OF THIS BOARD. NO MATTER HOW HARD I HAVE WORKED. OR WHAT I MAY HAVE BROUGHT OR HOW I WOULD LIKE TO STAY ON IT. UNLESS I GET SOME OTHER COMMISSIONER TO APPOINT ME. THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS THAT THEYCES PROBLEM.

IT HAS CREATED ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT WE THINK IS WORSE THAN THE

FIRST PROBLEM. >> I THINK MR. BENNETT IS FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORY. SATURDAY NIGHT MASSACRES FOR

LACK OF A BETTER WORD. >> WAS THE BEST WAY TO CONVEY THESE IDEAS LIKE THAT TO THE COMMISSION?

>> I BELIEVE IN THAT EXAMPLE OF CHANGING HOW APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE, AND THE TEN YEAR AS FAR AS THE LENGTH OF TERM THAT YOU SERVE, TO OUTLINE SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT IS YOU WANT DONE, AND

WHY. >> SO I WANT TO KNOW AS THE CITY COMMISSIONER, WHAT IS IT THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE.

WHY DO THEY WANT THE CHANGE AND HOW DOES IT MAKE THIS BOARD

BETTER? >> SHOULD WE DO A LETTER?

>> SHOULD WE JUST ASK YOU AS I WOULD LIAISON TO CONVEY THE

THOUGHT? >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOARD RIGHT NOW, 50% WERE NOT HERE WHEN YEAR AGO PERIOD.

>> CORRECT. >> THAT IS NOT THE WAY TO HAVE CONSISTENCY AND KEEP THE HISTORY AND KNOWLEDGE MOVING FORWARD.

WE HAVE ALTERNATES WHO ARE HERE FOR EVERY MEETING AND THEY NEVER GET TO MOVE UP BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE GETS APPOINTED IN THE

PLACE. >> I UNDERSTAND.

SO CHAIRMAN CLARK TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I BELIEVE A LETTER TO THE CITY MANAGER STATING THE THREE CONSIDERATIONS I JUST SAID, PLACED ON THE AGENDA. THEN I CAN EITHER ADDRESS IT AS YOUR LIAISON, IF NO ONE IS AVAILABLE OR YOU CAN ATTEND THE MEETING AND WALK US THROUGH IT. SO IT IS YOUR OPTION.

>> UNDERSTANDING THAT IT ENDS UP BEING A NEW ORDINANCE.

IT IS ONE OF THE THINGS YOU WANT TO GET DONE THIS YEAR BEFORE THE

NEW ELECTIONS COME IN JANUARY. >> YOU SAID THE BOARD WOULD HAVE

TO CHANGE? >> NO I SAID WE WOULD HAVE TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE -- ROCKY NEEDS TO GET DONE THIS YEAR.

SO -- I THINK WE NEED TO DO IT RIGHT AWAY?

>> PROBABLY OTHER THAN MARK, I PROBABLY HAD THE FORTUNE TO BE ON THE PAB. AFTER MY TERM I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE PLACED BACK ON THERE. ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL THINGS YOU CAN HAVE AN INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY OF WHILE WHY WE DID THIS WAY. LET ME TELL YOU THIS.

SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HAVE SO MUCH YOU WANT TO DO, IT IS SUCH A CRITICAL PART OF THE CITY. I THINK THE MEMORY AND CONSISTENCY IN THE BOARD ACTIONS MAKE FOR VERY GOOD CODES.

WITH THE CITY STAFF ENABLING THAT WITH MEMBERS, I THINK IT TAKES A GOOD YEAR TO GET THINGS DOWN.

IF THEY DON'T LIKE HER SHE'S OUT.

>> NOW WE HAVE VICTORIA WHO HAS BEEN HERE ARE ALIVE, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU VOTE TONIGHT VICTORIA?

>> 0. SO I THINK IT IS CRITICAL THAT WE GO BACK TO SOLICITING APPLICATIONS FOR PEOPLE WANT TO BE ON THE BOARD. THE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE, AND

[02:35:05]

REPLACE PEOPLE WHO RETIRE OR RESIGN OR DON'T WANT TO DO ANYMORE. THAT GIVES THE CITY A CONSISTENCY. SOME BOARDS ARE MORE IMPORTANT.

>> I THINK KELLY HAS TRAVELED BOARD WHEN SHE HAS A TASK.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONVEY TO YOUR FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THE ABILITY TO SELECT WHEN AN OPENING OCCURS, WE HAVE AN OPENING ON PAB EVERYONE PUT YOUR APPLICATION IN.

THEY ARE THEREFORE E3-4 YEAR TERM.

THEN WE KEEP GOING AS WE HAVE. I THINK THAT IS CRITICAL TO THE CITIES INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY AND WHAT WE DID.

WHEN I THOUGHT ABOUT HOW LONG WE'VE BEEN HERE.

>> SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS HELPFUL.

>> BELIEVE ME, I DIDN'T ALWAYS AGREE WITH PREVIOUS PAB NOT IN THE LEASE. I KNOW WE HAD TO HAVE DIVERSITY AND DIFFERENT IDEAS ON BOARD. NOT JUST BECAUSE I MADE AN APPOINTMENT. THAT IS THE PERCEPTION AND THE PUBLIC. I'D RATHER GET AWAY FROM THAT AND I THINK YOU WOULD TOO. YOU DON'T WANT GROUP THINKING.

YOU WANT THE BEST IDEAS. ON THE BROADER TOPIC OF LIAISON, I WOULD JUST SAY THIS. I THINK EVERY MEETING, YOU COMMUNICATE TO ME WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TOO SAY TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY OR COMMUNICATE.

>> YOU TAKE THAT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE. >> SO I'M HERE ANYTIME YOU NEED

TO DO THAT. >> I JUST HAVE TO OBSERVE.

YOU COME TO EVERY MEETING AND USE IT THERE'S NO THING.

THAT WAS A HUGE TIME COMMITMENT ON YOUR PARTNER AND WE

APPRECIATE THAT. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE.

>> THANK YOU. >> I THINK WE HAVE A GAME PLAN.

WOULD YOU LIKE A MOTION ON THAT. >> YES.

>> I WOULD LIKE MAY MAKE -- I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THEY WRITE A CITY LETTER OUR REQUEST TO EXPAND THE MEMBERSHIP FROM FIVE TO SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS AND THE PREVIOUS SELECTION CRITERIA WILL BE RETURNED.

>> IS THEIR SECOND? >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> >> THANK YOU.

[Items 6 & 8]

>> THAT BRINGS US TO STOP REPORT.

I SHOULD'VE MENTIONED THERE IS ITEM SIX-POINT TO THAT SAYS PROVIDE CONSERVATION LANDS STRATEGY FOR BOARD INPUT.

THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT READY TO GO.

IT SHOULDN'T BE ON THE AGENDA AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

BUT WE HAVE 6.1 WHICH IS IMPORTANT MATERIAL AND I WILL

ASK KELLY TO SUMMARIZE. >> I DISCUSSED THIS EARLIER.

I SENT YOU SEVERAL ITEMS OF INTEREST FOR YOU TO REVIEW AND EXAMINE. ONE BEING IN THE REPORT SUMMARIZING THE ACTIVITIES WHICH WE TOOK ON ON A DAILY PERSPECTIVE. AS A MEANS TO COMMUNICATE OUR RULES AND FUNCTIONS WITHIN THE CITY.

AND GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE SENSE OF THE WORKLOAD THAT OCCURS ON A DAILY BASIS AS WELL AS THE OBSTACLES AND CHALLENGES.

OUR SUCCESSES THAT HAVE OCCURRED.

AND WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS AS WE MOVE INTO ACCOMPLISHING THESE ACTIVITIES. SO IT WAS MORE OF A SUMMARY.

IT WAS A REPORT FROM 2019. ALONG WITH IT WAS A DOCUMENT DISPLAYED ON THE BOARD. AND AS A COMPANION PIECE TO THAT WAS AN ACTION PLAN AS I CALL IT. WHICH IDENTIFIES WHO IS TAKING THE LEAD ON PARTICULAR TASK OR PROJECT.

[02:40:04]

AND WHAT IS THE PROCESS UP TO THIS POINT.

WHAT IS OUR ESTIMATED DEADLINE IF ONE CAN BE SAID.

AND THE PRIORITY LEVEL AS BENT ESTABLISHED AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE. ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK THAT IS CRITICAL IS YOU HAVE A SENSE OF AN ESTIMATED TIME IT WILL TAKE TO COMPLETE AN EFFORT. I DID NOT GO TO THE LINK OF ESTIMATING TIME ASSOCIATED WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE WORKING ON IT.

A LOT OF THESE THINGS DO REQUIRE INTERACTION.

THAT'S NOT CAPTURED HERE. >> THE OTHER PIECE IS WHAT ARE THE RISK TO SUCCESSFULLY ACCOMPLISH THE TASK.

AND MY GOAL IS WE CAN UPDATE THIS ON A MONTHLY BASIS AND YOU GET A SENSE OF WHERE WE HAVE TROUBLE MOVING FORWARD.

THAT IS REALLY THE BASIS FOR HAVING THAT DOCUMENT.

>> KELLY I THINK THIS IS FABULOUS AND WE SEE ALL OF THE WORK GOING ON. AND WE CAN REFER TO THE SAFFRON WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHERE IT'S AT.

IT BOILS DOWN TO, IF WE THINK AND THIS IS ALREADY IN QUEUE.

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING.

I AM VERY APPRECIATIVE THAT KELLY PUT THIS TOGETHER.

IT WILL ALL BE IN FRONT OF YOU SO YOU CAN REFER TO IT.

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS. I WOULD SAY BECAUSE I HAVE DONE A LOT OF THESE IN THE PAST. YOU SHOULD PROBABLY JUST 21-541-4. ANYTHING ABOVE YOU WANT TO MUCH ON IT ANYWAY. SO I WOULD TRY TO REDUCE YOUR NUMBER OF PRIORITIES TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU.

AND RATHER, IT IS YOUR NAME IS ON HERE TOO MUCH.

>> IT IS ALSO INTO ME PERSONALLY IT WAS ALSO EFFECTIVE IF YOU HAVE A PROJECT AND YOU LEFT IT BANK IT COULD SHOW THIS IS

SOMETHING NOT GETTING DONE. >>

>> THE PLAN OF WORK THAT YOU LAID OUT SO WELL AND THEY IDENTIFIED THE OTHER RESOURCES NEEDED AND SO I THINK THAT AS RECEIPT YOUR NAME IS ON A LOT OF THESE AND YOU CAN ONLY DELEGATE TO SO MANY PEOPLE. WE ARE VERY ACTION ORIENTED AND WE LIKE TO SEE THINGS MOVE PRETTY QUICKLY.

IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY TO SAY, OF THE VOLUME OF WORK, ARE THERE THINGS THAT CAN BE CARVED OUT FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE SOMEONE -- AND MAYBE USE IT AS A

DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY. >> ANYWAY THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP US ATTAIN IS TIME TO

[02:45:07]

IDENTIFY A CONSULTANT. >> I AGREE.

>> I WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING THAT IS MISLEADING IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THIS ACTION PLAN IN ISOLATION.

THAT IS THE DAILY WORKLOAD COMPONENT IS MISSING COMPLETELY FROM THIS. THESE ARE IN ADDITION TO

FOLLOW-UPS TO OTHER DUTIES. >> I THINK IT IS FEBRUARY AND IF YOU'RE GOING PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS IS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO CARVE OUT A CONSULTANT FOR SOMEONE TO DO A PROJECT BEGINNING AT AN OUT YOU CAN GET

THAT GOING. >> DO YOU THINK IN LINE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WE SPOKE ABOUT SENDING LETTERS TO THE COMMISSION IN BRINGING THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEIR ATTENTION THIS MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. AND IN THEY CAN SUPPORT THAT.

AND NOT JUST EXPECTING KELLY TO DO IT.

>> JUST TO ADD, I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THE CITY WE DON'T WANT TO

LEAVE HER OUT THERE. >> THAT IS THE WAY IT NEEDS TO GO SO HE CAN FORWARD THE CALLS TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> AND IN TERMS OF BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTIVITIES WE HAVE GOING ON. AND THE ACTIVITY REPORT.

BEYOND WHAT YOU WOULD FIND SEARCHING THROUGH THE WEBSITE.

SO IT IS BROKEN DOWN AND WHAT IS BEING ASKED AND THE NEXT STEPS.

THE ADVISORY BOARD, AND I THINK THAT IS THE REASON I PUT IT AT THE END SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THE OTHERS.

THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW APPLICATIONS WE HAVE AND THAT

SHOWS WHAT IS GOING ON. >> THIS IS JUST TERRIFIC.

WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF BOARD TIME ON IT.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IT WILL GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT IS GOING ON AND WE CAN SPOT ISSUES AND AT SOME FUTURE DATE BRING IT BACK FOR BROADER DISCUSSION. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PIECE OF WORK AND I APPRECIATE HAVING YOU HERE.

>> THIS COULD BE THE TRACKING DOCUMENT AND THE ACTION PLAN.

ARE YOU GOING TO E-MAIL IT TO US?

>> I SENT IT BY E-MAIL ALREADY. >> IT WILL BE PART OF THE

AGENDA. >> OKAY.

THAT BRINGS US TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS CRACKS. >> ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TALK

ABOUT. >>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.