[Item 1]
          [00:00:07]
          >> WELCOME TO THE MARCH 11 PLANNING AND ADVISORY BOARD. WILL YOU TAKE THE ROLL, PLEASE. 
          >> CHAIR CLARK. >> HERE. >> VICE CHAIRMAN MINSHEW. 
          >> HERE. >> MEMBER BENNETT. >> HERE. 
          >> MEMBER ROLAND. >> HERE. >> MEMBER STEVENSON. 
          >> HERE. >> MEMBER SCHAFFER. >> HERE. 
          [Item 2]
          >> MEMBER ROBAS. >> HERE. >> IN ADDITION TO OUR AGENDA, WE HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE REQUESTED BY THE CITY MANAGER. IF YOU WOULD ALL RISE. 
          WE HAVE A REASONABLE AGENDA TONIGHT WITH SOME VERY IMPORTANT ITEMS. SO THAT WE HAVE TIME TO MAKE SURE WE COVER ALL THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, I ASK THAT FOLKS WHO WISH TO SPEAK WOULD TRY TO KEEP THEIR COMMENTS CONCISE, TO THE POINT. 
          IF YOU CAN KEEP IT WITHIN FIVE MINUTE THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC. SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE ITEM THREE 
          [Item 3]
          APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. ANY COMMENTS OR MOTION? >> I WOULD MOVE THE APPROVAL OF 
          THE FEBRUARY 12 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. >> IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. 
          [Item 4]
MOTION PASSES. BRINGS US TO OLD BUSINESS. THIS IS THE HEIGHT REGULATION AND I WOULD JUST ADD AN EDITORIAL COMMENT. I SPENT SOME TIME REVIEWING THE RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME FROM OUR SUBCOMMITTEE. I THINK THEY DID A GREAT JOB. 
          IF WE HAVE WHAT IS AN ACTIONABLE ITEM ON THE AGENDA. KELLY, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A FEW 
          OPENING COMMENTS ABOUT WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE? >> CERTAINLY. 
          I HAVE THE MATERIAL THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT AND DOCUMENTS TO THE AGENDA ITEM. AT THE FEBRUARY REGULAR BOARD MEETING, THE PLANNING BOARD ESTABLISHED A SUBCOMMITTEE TO EXAMINE FURTHER AND TO FINALIZE SOME OF THE NUANCES RELATING TO HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT FOR BUILDINGS. AT THAT MEETING WHICH OCCURRED ON FEBRUARY 26, THE BOARD LOOKED AT EFFECTIVELY FIVE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES, FIVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF REVIEWING THAT LANGUAGE. REALLY WANTED TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHETHER WE WERE SOLVING THE INTENDED PROBLEM THAT WAS INITIALLY BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD AND DIRECTED TO THIS BODY TO TAKE ACTION ON. AT THAT MEETING, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WE WERE SOLVING FOR ENCROACHMENT BUILDING HEIGHT ALONG THE BEACH, ALONG OUR COAST LINE AND THAT THE PRIMARY AREA OF CONCERN WAS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. THERE WAS NOT AN INTENDED DIRECTION PROVIDED TO THIS BOARD TO LOOK AT COMMERCIAL, NONRESIDENTIAL OR THOSE WHICH ARE NOT WITHIN OUR COASTAL AREAS. SO WE LOOKED WITHIN THE LANGUAGE THAT EXISTS IN THE CODE AT THE PRESENT TIME AND FOUND THAT -- GUIDANCE THROUGH OUR COASTAL AQUA PROTECTION ZONE IS A REASONABLE WAY TO ESTABLISH CRITERIA FOR REGULATING BUILDIG HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT. THAT'S AN AREA WHICH IS CURRENTLY DEFINED AS 1,000 FEET INWARD FROM THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. THE INTENT IS TO REGULATE LANDWARD AND SEAWARD. SOME OF THE DIRECTION PROVIDED THROUGH THAT TERM, WE LOOKED TO CREATE REGULATION THAT WOULD APPLY TO BOTH THE COASTAL SIDE AND THE LANDWARD SIDE. 
          AND THEN MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS CONSISTENCY WITHIN THE CODE FOR AREAS WHERE THAT MIGHT BE REFERENCED. THE LANGUAGE NOW REFLECTS THAT YOU CAN HAVE BUILDING HIGH ENCROACHMENTS, INCLUDING THOSE DEFINED AS ARCHITECTURE FEATURE, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ELEVATOR SHAFTS, VENTING SYSTEMS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING CODE FOR STRUCTURES THAT ARE NOT WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE BOTH LANDWARD AND SEAWARD. 
          AND THEN CARRYING THAT FORWARD INTO BASICALLY AN EXCEPTION CLAUSE IN A SUBA AS IT'S PROVIDED IN YOUR BACKUP MATERIAL, MAKING SURE THERE'S CONSISTENCY WITH OUR SET BACKS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND STANDARDS PROVIDED IN TABLE 4.02,.03. 
          [00:05:02]
THE OTHER AREA WHERE WE KIND OF REFERENCED TO THE LANGUAGE PREVIOUSLY WAS IN A NEWLY CREATED LIMITATION FOR THE GRANT OF VARIANCES AND CARRYING FORWARD THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD READ THE SAME IN LIMITATION. THAT LIMITATION IS REALLY SPEAKING TO SIDE YARD SET BACK BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS CONSISTENCY IN HOW THAT LIMITATION READ. SO THOSE ARE THE AREAS WHERE YOU ARE SEEING AMENDMENTS. 
          THERE'S ALSO THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED DEFINITIONAL CHANGES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE 
          DOCUMENT FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU. 
          BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENT, MISS ROBAS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FOR THE 
          SUBCOMMITTEE AND THE WORK YOU DID? >> YES. 
          SOMETIMES WHEN YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO SORT OF SLEEP ON THINGS, SOMETIMES THE WORDING TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TRYING TO SAY SORT OF COMES TO YOU AS A LIGHT BULB. 
          THAT'S WHY I THINK SOMETIMES IT'S GOOD TO SORT OF CHEW ON THINGS A LITTLE BIT. 
          I'D LIKE TO JUST PROPOSE, LOOKING AT, LET'S SEE, THE BUILDING HEIGHT ENCROACHMENTS. 
          THAT WOULD BE TO REPLACE WITH NUMBER TWO BUILDING HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT LANGUAGE THAT WE WORKED ON. CALCULATIONAL MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT INCLUDE ARCHITECTURAL ROOF TOP FEATURES, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. 
          I'D LIKE TO ADD JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD, TO ADD SOMETHING THAT SAYS EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY SUBSECTION A WHICH FOLLOWS. BUT I THINK THAT BY INSERTING THAT, IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS SOMETHING COMING AFTER THAT. 
          THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE. >> CAN I JUST STOP YOU AN SEE, 
          DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND -- >> WHERE WE ARE. >> AND WHAT YOU JUST SAID. 
          >> I CAN PROJECT IT. 
          EVEN THOUGH A FOLLOWS, I THINK THAT -- I THINK JUST TO DOUBLE MAKE SURE THAT THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS -- THERE IS AN EXCEPTION TO WHAT WE'VE JUST SAID HERE, PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, THE ARCHITECTURAL ROOF TOP, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. 
          I THINK BY SAYING EXCEPT AS PROVIDE BY SUBSECTION A THEN REFERS PEOPLE TO THAT NEXT PARAGRAPH TO SAY, FOR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. 
          THEN WITHIN THAT, IF I COULD SUGGEST, JUST MAYBE A LITTLE REWORDING THAT JUST SAYS THAT LAST SENTENCE, OR -- YEAH, THE LAST SENTENCE, WHERE IT SAYS CHIMNNEYS OR OTHER VENTING SYSTEMS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT IT READ, THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS WOULD BE CHIMNNEYS OR OTHER VENTING SYSTEMS AS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, PERIOD. I THINK THE SENTENCE JUST SORT 
          OF GOT A LITTLE TWISTED THERE. I THINK THAT MIGHT CLARIFY THAT. >> OKAY. 
          DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? BEFORE WE GO FORWARD, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SIT AS A REGULAR BOARD MEMBER UNTIL OR IF MR. ROLAND SHOWS UP? THANK YOU. 
          MISS MINSHEW DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> YES. 
          KELLY, IN OUR CONVERSATIONS EARLIER, WE TALKED ABOUT THE ONLY BUILDING HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT WAS CHIMNNEYS? SO WHAT DOES OTHER VENTING SYSTEMS MEAN? 
          >> THOSE ARE THE OTHER -- >> BUT NOT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT? >> NOT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. 
          >> COULD BE SEWER DRAIN VENTS. >> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WERE 
          CLEAR. >> DO WE NEED TO SAY THAT? >> WHAT WE TRIED TO DO, WHEN KELLY AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, WE TRIED TO LIST EVERYTHING OUT HERE. 
          [00:10:03]
WE REFERRED TO THE BUILDING CODE. IF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE CHANGES, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE DOZENS OF THINGS. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT WE MEANT BY VENTING SYSTEMS. >> KELLY, IS IT SUFFICIENTLY 
          DEFINEED? >> IT IS. >> I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN A SECOND BUT ARE THERE OTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO WHAT MISS ROBAS IS 
          QUESTIONING? >> I HAD EXACTLY THE SAME CONCERN. 
          JUST IN CASE, AN EXTRA BUCKET TO CATCH THE WATER. >> I PROVIDED THAT IN HERE. 
          I HAVE SAVED THIS AS THIS MEETING'S VERSION SO THAT IT'S DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHER 
          VERSIONS THAT EXIST. >> I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAD SEVERAL ARCHITECTS AND OTHERS THAT SHOWED UP. 
          >> WE DID. >> YOU HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION. >> I CALLED IT A COLLEGIATE MEETING. THERE WAS A LOT OF BRAINSTORMING AND WORDSMITHING TO COME TO WHAT 
          WE ALL UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO SAY AND HOW TO SAY IT. >> OKAY. 
          I'LL ASK FOR MORE BOARD COMMENT AND DIRECTION IN A MOMENT, BUT I WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS? 
          YES, MA'AM. >> LONNIE DICKENS 132 SOUTH 15TH STREET. 
          I WAS ACTUALLY AT THAT SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING AND IT WAS ON THE 26TH, NOT THE 29TH, AS KELLY HAD IN HER NOTES. BUT I FEEL LIKE IT'S REALLY -- THE SUBCOMMITTEE WENT IN THIS DIRECTION TO LIMIT IT TO THE COASTAL AREA AFTER IT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. 
          PERHAPS THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AT THIS MOMENT, BUT I THINK WE'RE REALLY MAKING A MISTAKE TO LIMIT IT JUST TO THE COASTAL AREA. I SEE THE POTENTIAL FOR BUILDINGS MUCH TALLER THAN WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ALONG THE RIVER FRONT, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          I JUST REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS JUST BE A COASTAL ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S CITY WIDE. 
          THE IDEA WAS WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE DRIVING DOWN A CAVERN ON FLETCHER AVENUE. 
          WE DON'T WANT TO BE DRIVING DOWN A CAVERN ON 8TH STREET OR FRONT STREET OR ANY OF THOSE EITHER. 
          I ALWAYS HEAR THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SQUASH DEVELOPMENT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T LIMIT OURSELVES. I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO. I THINK WE'VE BEEN DISCOVERED. 
          I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME HERE. IF WE SEE THAT IT IS HAVING AN IMPACT ON THE ECONOMY AND PEOPLE AREN'T COMING OR THEY'RE NOT BUILDING, WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE IT. WE CAN INCREASE IT AT ANY TIME. BUT WE CAN'T TAKE IT BACK ONCE IT PASSES. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE THINKING WITH THE FORESIGHT THAT, WHAT DO WE REALLY WANT? WHAT I HEARD AT YOUR MEETINGS, WHAT I HEARD FROM THE COMMUNITY IS WE WANT TO MANAGE THE GROWTH. WE WANT TO MANAGE THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO IT -- WE CAN'T BLOCK THE BRIDGES. WE CAN'T TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY. BUT THROUGH THESE REGULATIONS THAT WE MAKE IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE THE GROWTH. I JUST THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE BE THINKING CITY WIDE NOT JUST COASTAL AREAS. IF WE SEE THAT IT'S HAVING A NEGATIVE IMPACT, WE CAN CHANGE IT BUT I SUGGEST KEEPING IT THIS WAY NOW. 
          PLEASE THINK ABOUT THAT WE CAN'T UNDO THINGS THAT GET DONE, BUT WE COULD INCREASE IT IF WE 
          NEEDED TO AT LATER DATE. THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? MR. BENNETT HAS HIS LIGHT ON. THEN MISS ROBAS, I'LL ASK YOU TO 
          ADDRESS THE CONCERNS. >> UNDER ITEM C, MEASURE. UNDER A IT SAYS HIGHER THE BASE ELEVATION OR APPROVED FINISHED GRADE. TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD 
          [00:15:08]
          BUILDING HIGH CALCULATIONS FOR THOSE AREAS. >> THE APPROVED FINISHED GRADE WOULD ONLY COME INTO PLAY FOR THOSE PROPERTIES IN A FLOOD AREA? 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, SOME AREAS ON NORTH FLETCHER THERE ARE TEN FEET IS THE FLOOD PLAIN. BASELINE ELEVATION, IS THAT CORRECT. 
          >> YES. >> DO YOU NEED TO LINK THOSE OR DO SOMETHING THAT APPROVED FINISH GRADE IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTIES IN THE FLOOD PLANE? 
          >> THAT'S ALREADY COVERED FOR US. RIGHT. 
          WEIR NOT LOOKING TO TOUCH THAT SECTION RIGHT NOW. WE'RE ONLY SPEAKING TO THE HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT. THE WAY WE CALCULATED BUILDING HEIGHT. 
          >> ONE LAST THING. THE CHANGES IN THE HEIGHT IS ONLY FOR 1,000 FEET WITHIN THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE? WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE REST OF 
          THE CITY. >> WE'RE NOT TOUCHING THE REST OF CITY. 
          THAT'S FOR HEIGHT ENCROACHMENTS ONLY. SEAWARD AND LANDWARD. 
          >> OKAY. >> THAT WAS TO BE SPECIFIC, WE REALLY TRIED TO ZERO IN ON WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP WAS AND HOW TO NARROWLY DEFINE WHAT WE WERE, THE LANGUAGE WE WERE SEEKING. WE HAD CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT WAS THE WORKSHOP TO SOLVE FOR? WHERE WAS THIS GOING TO BE? WAS IT GOING TO BE LIMIT TO A DISTRICT, ZONING AREA? WE IDENTIFIED IT WAS STRICTLY ON THE BEACH, SOUTH FLETCHER, NORTH FLETCHER. 
          THEN BY FURTHER CONVERSATION WE AGREED THAT THE CCCL WAS THE BEST MARK TO USE FOR THAT APPLICATION AND THEN FURTHER DISCUSSING IT WOULD BE JUST FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. 
          WE TRIED TO NARROW IT DOWN VERY SPECIFICALLY IN ORDER TO GET VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. 
          WE DID NOT GO ANY FURTHER THAN WHAT WE WERE TASKED TO DO. >> I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT WITH REGARD TO YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE REST OF THE CITY. WE ACTUALLY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AS PART OF THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE AND LDC CODE UPDATE TO LOOK AT A VARIETY OF ISSUES FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. IT SEEMS TO ME THIS PARTICULAR SET OF REGULATIONS ON HEIGHT HAVE A SENSE OF URGENCY. I THINK WE OUGHT TO PROCEED WITH THESE IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S INFORMATION. I THINK YOUR COMMENT'S WELL TAKEN, AND I THINK THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO LOOK AT THAT CITY WIDE AS YOU SUGGESTED, 
          BUT MAYBE AT A LATER DATE. BOARD MEMBERS, WHAT'S YOUR -- >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. 
          JUST SOMETHING THAT I NOTICED, KELLY. UNDER WHERE IT SAYS AMENDING BUILDING HEIGHT AND SAYS UNLESS LOCATED WITHIN A FLOOD HAZARD AREA. 
          I MEAN, I THINK WE GENERALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT IS THAT THE SAME THING AS SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA THAT'S DEFINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CO 
          CODE? >> IT DOES PROVIDE FOR THE STANDARD THAT REFERENCE THE 
          SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. >> I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT SHOULD SAY SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD OR SHOULD IT JUST SAY FLOOD HAZARD? I'M NOT SUGGESTING EITHER ONE. 
          I CHECKED THE COMP PLAN. >> IN THIS CASE, I THINK IT READS FINE BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SUBSECTIONS FOR THE DEFINED AREAS WHERE YOU HAVE THAT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA AND 2% CHANCE OF FLOOD HAZARD AND THEN AGAIN REDEFINING FOR THE COASTAL AREA IN THE COASTAL A ZONE. 
          >> OKAY. >> THAT FIRST POINT OF DISCUSSION IS INTENDED TO CAPTURE IT BROADLY AND THEN YOU'RE NARROWLY FOCUSED ON THOSE AREAS SPECIFICALLY IN A AND B. 
          >> OKAY. >> MISS MINSHEW? >> I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT. 
          PART OF THE REASON WE DID THIS WORK, DID THIS AT A WORK SHOP OR SUBCOMMITTEE WAS THAT WE BEGAN TO FEEL LIKE THERE WERE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. I FELT A LITTLE LIKE I WAS PLAYING WHACK-A-MOLE. WE'D FIX THIS AND THEN GO, WHAT ABOUT THIS OVER HERE? 
          [00:20:05]
IN MEETING WITH KELLY IN PREPARATION FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, WE TRIED TO FOCUS AND WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION VIDEOS AND THE MINUTES TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE POINT WAS. I DO WANT TO SAY THAT THIS WHOLE ISSUE SHOULD REQUIRE A FAIR AMOUNT OF CONVERSATION IN THE FUTURE ABOUT HOW IT AFFECTS THE ENTIRE CITY AND THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO DO THAT NEXT YEAR WHEN WE SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT HOW TO MANAGE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAKE THE EAR ADJUSTMENTS. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. 
          I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WITHIN THE TIME FRAMES WE WERE WORKING, I THINK THERE WERE TOO MANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO OPEN THIS UP TO A BROADER DISCUSSION THAT WOULD THEN GO ON 
          FOR SEVERAL MORE MONTHS. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          >> OKAY. LONNIE DICKENS 132 SOUTH 15TH STREET. 
          I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THE URGENCY BECAUSE THE PARK TOWN NEXT DOOR JUST APPROVED THE HDC ABOUT PUTTING ELEVATR SHAFTS ON THE TOWNHOUSES NEXT DOOR. 
          SO I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT SURE THIS IS A MATTER THAT CAN BE PUSHED OFF TOO FAR BECAUSE THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU CAN GET TO I 
          IT. >> UNLESS THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION, I'LL ASK FOR A 
          MOTION. >> KELLY, CLARIFY. THIS AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE MAKING RIGHT NOW IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM AFFECTS THE APPROVED BUILDING HEIGHTS UNDER TABLE 402. AM I NOT CORRECT? THE ONLY THING WE'RE DOING THE MODIFYING THE VERBAGE ON THE ENCROACHMENTS TO THE HEIGHTS WHICH FROM R A THROUGH R2 WERE 
          35 FEET. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN ALTERED. >> THE CHANGE IS PROPOSED IN FOOT NOTE ONE EXPAND THE AREA WHICH IS RESTRICTED TO 35 FEET AND PREVENTS A LOT FROM EXCEEDING THAT IN A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED AREA. SO THAT ANY BUILDING WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE SHALL NOT EXCEED 35 FEET IN BUILDING HEIGHT. STRUCTURES OR PROPERTIES WILL BE MEASURED FROM THAT COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE, NOT FROM THE MEAN HIGH WATER MARK OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN AND EXTENDING 1,000 FEET NOT 800 FEET. SO IT WILL CAPTURE MORE PROPERTIES THAT ARE RESTRICTED 
          TO 35 FEET IN BUILDING HEIGHT. >> OKAY. CAPTURE FOR THE EXTRA 200 FEET. 
          >> YES. >> TO THE CCCL. >> YES. 
          >> MR. BENNETT? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION IF EVERYONE'S FINISHED. 
          >> IS EVERYBODY READY? DO YOU HAVE MORE DISCUSSION? >> ONE QUESTION. 
          DID WE GET THE LANGUAGE, IS THAT TO INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT I SUGGESTED ON A, WHICH IS TO CHANGE THE WAY THE SENTENCE READS, WHICH IS THE ONLY PERMISSIBLE ENCROACHMENTS ARE CHIMNNEYS AND OTHER VENTING SYSTEMS AS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE? 
          IS IT UP THERE? >> YES. >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION 
          THAT'S ON THE FLOOR. >> I DIDN'T MAKE ONE YET. >> LET HIM MAKE HIS MOTION. 
          >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE LAND DEVELOPMENT TODAY TEXT AMENDMENT 1.07 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS 4.02-03 STAN DARES FOR BUILDING AND BUILDING PLACEMENT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND CALCULCALCULATIONS, VARIANC YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED, AS NOTED. 
          >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR SUGGESTIONS? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. 
          MOTION PASSES. CONGRATULATIONS. BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. 
          OBSERVATION. IT'S NOT A CONDITION OF APPROVAL IN MY SENSE. 
          IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS WITH UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE. 
          YOU JUST DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO SORT OUT. 
          IT WOULDN'T BE A BAD PRACTICE IF WE WOULD SAY THAT WITHIN 12 MONTHS WE OUGHT TO PUT IT BACK 
          [00:25:01]
ON OUR AGENDA AND CHECK WITH KELLY AND STAFF AND SEE HOW IT'S GOING AND IF IT'S WORKED OUT THE WAY WE ANTICIPATED OR IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT OCCURRED THAT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE OR THAT NEED TO BE CORRECTED. THE PROBLEM SOMETIMES IS YOU PUT THESE THINGS IN MOTION AND THEY'RE ON THE BOOKS AND NOBODY EVER LOOKS BACK AT THEM AND SAYS WE DID THE RIGHT THING OR IT NEEDS TO BE RATIFIED. IT'S JUST A STANDARD PROCEDURE ON THESE KINDS OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE REALLY PRETTY COMPL COMPLICATED. 
          IT WOULD MAKE SENSE IN MY VIEW THAT WE LOOK AT THIS A YEAR FROM N 
          NOW. >> I WILL PUT IT ON THE CALENDAR AND CONSIDER IT NEXT FEBRUARY. 
          >> BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS ITEM ENTIRELY, I DID WANT TO TALK JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS. THIS WAS THE SUBCOMMITTEE. I THINK YOU DID GREAT WORK, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT EXACTLY HOW OUR SUBCOMMITTEES WORK. 
          WE APPOINTED A SUBCOMMITTEE. IT HAD THREE MEMBERS. I THINK GENERALLY OUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN TO SAY THAT OTHER BOARD MEMBERS CAN ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE. 
          BUT THERE IS A SUBCOMMITTEE. IT'S MY IMPRESSION THAT WHEN YOU DO THAT, THAT SUBCOMMITTEE IS THE ONE THAT VOTES AND FORWARDS A FORMAL RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE FLOOR. 
          I TALKED TO TAMMY BUFF ABOUT THIS. I WONDER IF YOU COULD EXPAND A 
          LITTLE BIT ON THIS FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. >> I DON'T HAVE OUR BY-LAWS IN FRONT OF US BUT I'M PRETTY SURE IT DOESN'T SAY HOW MANY SUBCOMMITTEES IT TAKES FOR A QUORUM. MAYBE WE CAN WRITE THIS INTO THE BY-LAWS, WHEN A SUBCOMMITTEE IS FORMED AND WE'RE UP HERE AND TWO OR THREE OR FOUR, FIVE SAY I WANT TO BE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, THEN THOSE THAT ARE APPOINTED THAT EVENING, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE BY A FORMAL VOTE, ALTHOUGH THAT WOULD FORMALIZE IT IF YOU TAKE A VOTE FOR THE RECORD IS THAT VICTORIA, PETER AND JANISE ARE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE. WHEN THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HAPPENS, WE HAVE HAD -- THIS IS NOT FROM COMPLAINT. THIS IS JUST FROM AN OBSERVATION THAT CAME TO MY ATTENTION. 
          SOMETIMES ONE OR TWO OTHER PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS WILL COME TO THAT MEETING BECAUSE THEY HAPPEN TO BE AVAILABLE AND THEY GET INVOLVED IN THE CONVERSATION, WHICH IS FINE. 
          BUT THEN EITHER A VOTE IS NOT TAKEN OR THAT ADDITIONAL MEMBER VOTES. 
          WE SHOULD HAVE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE MORE FORMAL THAN THAT. >> BUT WE DIDN'T TAKE A VOTE. 
          >> OKAY. >> BY LAWS ALLOW THE CHAIR TO APPOINT SUBCOMMITTEES, WHICH I 
          DID. IT DIDN'T REQUIRE A VOTE. >> I GOTCHA. 
          I DON'T HAVE THE BY LAWS IN FRONT OF ME. IF YOU APPOINT AND IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A VOTE TO HAVE THE SUBCOMMITTEE CONSTITUTED. BUT THEN ONCE THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETS, OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ARE AALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE BUT THEY SHOULDN'T PROVIDE IN A VOTE. 
          >> SHOULD A FORMAL WRITTEN RECORD OF THAT GO FORWARD TO THE CHAIRMAN? 
          >> YES. >> TO THE WHOLE BOARD. >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. >> BECAUSE MINUTES ARE TAKEN, RIGHT? THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS ARE HANDLED JUST THE WAY THESE ARE. THERE'S NO REASON WE CAN'T HAVE 
          SOMETHING FORMAL. >> IF THE BOARD'S IN AGREEMENT, I'D LIKE TO ASK TAMMY TO DRAFT SOMETHING UP JUST TO CLARIFY THAT. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? 
          >> MOST OF OUR WORK SHOPS WE VOTE ON THOSE SO I WOULD THINK ANY RECOMMENDATION COMING BEFORE THE BOARD WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE ENTIRE BOARD FROM WHAT CAME OUT OF THE MEETING AN MOVE 
          FORWARD ACCORDINGLY. >> SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION IS A RECOMMENDATION TO THE FOUL 
          BOARD AND, THEREFORE, SUBJECT TO THE FULL BOARD'S APPROVAL. >> NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING 
          FOR THEN. >> I THINK MARK IS SAYING THAT IN HIS EXPERIENCE, THERE ARE NO 
          VOTES TAKEN THERE. >> TYPICALLY, WE DON'T HAVE VOTE AT WORK SHOPS, CORRECT. 
          >> WELL, SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS -- >> I GUESS WE COULD. 
          >> THERE'S NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T VOTE AT A WORK SHOP. 
          >> IN THIS CASE I THINK THE SUBCOMMITTEE DID EXACTLY WHAT I HAD HOPED FOR, WHICH I WAS 
          [00:30:07]
AGAINST THE REGULATION OVER THE ENTIRE CITY AND IN THIS CASE THEY FOCUSED ON A SPECIFIC AREA WHERE THE PROBLEM WAS, LEFT THE REST OF THE CITY ALONE AND CAME BACK WITH APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATION FOR US TO LOOK AT. OTHERWISE, I WOULDN'T HAVE VOTED 
          FOR IT, AS I DID. >> MR. BENNETT, I THINK THEY DID A GREAT JOB. 
          THEY DID EXACTLY WHAT WE HAD HOPED FOR, WAS TO SPEND SOME MORE TIME WITH SOME OF THE FOLKS 
          THAT WERE AT THE LAST MEETING. THE PROCESS WORKED WELL. >> I THINK THAT IF OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ARE TAKING THE TIME TO COME THERE AS WELL, I WOULD LIKE THEIR VOTE TO BE TAKEN, EVEN IF I STILL THINK, IF THEY TOOK THE TIME TO COME AND EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS, TOO, I WOULD LIKE TO 
          HEAR THEIR VOTE, IF THEY'RE TAKING A VOTE. >> OTHER COMMENTS? 
          >> YES. HAVING FACED THAT ISSUE IN THE PAST, WHERE WE'VE HAD PEOPLE I GUESS PUT ON A SUBCOMMITTEE AND THEN ATTENDING THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND BEING EXCLUDED FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICH I HAD NEVER SEEN BEFORE ON THIS BOARD. TYPICALLY ALL MEMBERS WERE WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE IN ANY OF THE WORK SHOPS. I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND WE CONTINUE WITH THAT PROCESS EVEN THOUGH WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE APPOINTED FOR THOSE COMMITTEES. 
          I THINK SOMEBODY ALREADY MENTIONED THAT. >> IF I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THERE SEEMS TO BE CONSENSUS AROUND THE NOTION THAT WHEN THERE'S A SUBCOMMITTEE CALLED, ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD CAN ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THE CONVERSATION. 
          THERE IS STILL A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT'S BEEN DESIGNATED THAT CAN TAKE ACTION AND CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE FULL BOARD. I'M SIMPLY SAYING, I THINK WEU OUGHT TO CODIFY THAT IN THE BY-LAWS AND SPELL OUT EXACTLY HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. 
          IT'S NOT ESSENTIAL. WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST. 
          IT JUST MAKES IT CLEARER IN TERMS OF THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE 
          SUBCOMMITTEE ARE. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? >> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. 
          I HAVE MY LIGHT ON. >> YES, MISS MINSHEW, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION? 
          >> THE FIRST QUESTION IS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUBCOMMITTEE AND A WORK SHOP. 
          WE SEEM TO USE THOSE TERMS INTERCHANGEABLY. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? 
          SHOULD WE USE ONE TERM OVER THE OTHER? >> YES, OR YOU SHOULD USE THEM 
          PROPERLY. >> MY OPINION IS A SUBCOMMITTEE IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. WHERE YOU FORMALLY CONSTITUTE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE BOARD, USUALLY TO LOOK AT A VERY SPECIFIC ISSUE. WE GET BOGGED DOWN IN SOMETHING. 
          WE SAY, LET'S SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE SO THEY CAN REALLY DIG INTO THAT QUESTION AND COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A WORK SHOP, IT'S A MORE GENERAL CONVERSATION. IT'S NOT MAYBE AS RIGOROUS AS THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD BE AND IT'S REALLY MEANT TO EXPLORE A PARTICULAR SUBJECT. IN MY MIND THEY'RE DIFFERENT. 
          I'M MORE USED TO THE IDEA OF HAVING SUBCOMMITTEES THAT HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC CHARGE THAT 
          RESULTS IN A RECOMMENDATION FACTOR. >> ARE WE SAYING A WORK SHOP WOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE BOARD? IT'S MORE FOR GENERAL INFORMATION AND INFORMATION GATHERING? 
          >> I THINK SO. >> AND THAT A SUBCOMMITTEE IS EXPECTED TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION? AND DOES THAT RECOMMENDATION 
          HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE OR CAN IT BE DONE BY CONSENSUS? >> OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, IN MY OPINION, YOU CAN -- IT REQUIRES A VOTE. IF THERE'S A CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. IF THE CHAIR OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE DETECTS THAT THERE'S COMPLETE 
          SUPPORT FOR SOMETHING, I SUPPOSE IT CAN BE DONE THAT WAY. >> SO THEN ARE YOU SAYING THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN VOTE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE APPOINTED? SO THREE COMMISSIONERS, THREE COMMITTEE MEMBERS WERE APPOINTED BUT A FOURTH ONE SHOWS UP, THEY CAN PARTICIPATE BUT WE'RE NOT 
          GONNA TAKE THEM INTO THE FINAL VOTE? >> I THINK IT COULD BE DONE 
          EITHER WAY. >> OKAY. >> WHAT I HAVE USUALLY SEEN, IT'S THE FORMALLY CONSTITUTED SUBCOMMITTEE THAT ACTUALLY VOTES ON IT. 
          MUCH LIKE THE ALTERNATES COME TO THIS MEETING. PARTICIPATE IN THE CONVERSATION 
          [00:35:01]
          BUT DON'T VOTE. >> I JUST THINK WE NEED CLARITY. >> WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF COMING? 
          >> RIGHT. >> I MEAN, REALLY. >> WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF COMING? 
          >> WE PREPARE FOR THESE. WE READ THE MATERIALS. WE HAVE EXCHANGE WITH PEOPLE WHO ATTEND WHO WANT TO HAVE THEIR COMMENTS. WE DID WHAT WAS ASKED FOR THE WORKSHOP AS IT WAS DEFINED. AND SO IF WE SHOW UP AND WE CAN HAVE CONVERSATION, BUT THEN WE DON'T VOTE, WE'RE IN THE SAME -- WE'RE DOING THE SAME THING. JUST SITTING HERE NODDING OUR HEAD. I'M A LITTLE FRUSTRATED WITH THAT CONCEPT. 
          >> I THINK MAYBE WE'RE NOT COMMUNICATING. >> THIS IS NOT BORN OF A PROBLEM THAT WE'RE BRINGING THIS UP. THIS IS SOMETHING MR. CLARK CALLED ME ABOUT. 
          I HAD NEVER BEEN TO A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, MAYBE A COUPLE WORK SHOPS IN ALL THESE YEARS. SO I HAVE NO IDEA. I WANT TO WRITE HOWEVER YOU ALL THINK IT WOULD WORK WELL. MR. CLARK WAS TALKING ABOUT OTHER PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SHOWING UP IN THIS PARTICULAR SUBCOMMITTEE, YOU WERE ALREADY APPOINTED AS A MEMBER AND 
          VOTING. THAT WAS THE WHOLE INTENTION. >> BUT I WAS NOT APPOINTED. 
          >> OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE. 
          >> I THOUGHT IT WAS MINSHEW AND PETER AND JENNY. >> OKAY. 
          >> I JUST SHOWED UP. >> GOTCHA. AS IT TURNED OUT, I WAS FIRST IN 
          THE DOOR. >> JANISE -- I THINK I ASKED YOU. 
          >> YOU DID. I CONTACTED KELLY AND I SAID, I CAN'T GO AND SUGGESTED SHE ASK MISS ROBAS TO CHAIR THE MEETIN BECAUSE SHE HAS SUCH GREAT SKILLS. 
          >> I REMEMBER WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE, BESIDES THE GOOD WORK AND DISCUSSION THAT NEEDED TO HAPPEN OVER THE HEIGHT STUFF, THAT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY FORMED AND ASKED THE ALTERNATES REALLY FIRST. THAT WAS MY MEMORY OF THE MEETING. 
          TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE INVOLVED. BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO VOTE MOST OF THE TIME. I DON'T CARE HOW YOU ALL DO IT. WHAT I HAVE RECOGNIZED FROM BEGINNING WITH THE CONVERSATION THIS AFTERNOON WITH MR. CLARK IS THAT IF YOU DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THIS SCENARIO, THREE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD ARE APPOINTED BY THE CHAIR TO A SUBCOMMITTEE. A FOURTH MEMBER SHOWS UP. IT HAPPENS TO BE A VERY DIVISIVE ISSUE AND YOU END UP OUT OF YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING HAVING 2-2, ESSENTIALLY YOU THEN DON'T HAVE A RECOMMENDATION AT ALL. THAT'S THE ONLY TIME I CAN SEE THIS REALLY MATTERS. 
          OTHERWISE I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS AND WE SHOULD MOVE ON. >> I WOULD HAVE PARTICIPATED IF I WAS GONNA BE HERE. I SAID I CAN'T BE HERE. THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHERE SOMEONE MAY NOT THINK THEY CAN MAKE IT AND THERE'S A CHANGE OF PLAN AND WOULD WANT TO COME TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE AFTER THAT. IN THAT CASE THEY SHOULD BE WELCOME TO DO WHATEVER THEY HAVE 
          TO DO. >> I AGREE. >> I THINK YOU'RE OUTVOTED. 
          >> SUBCOMMITTEES ARE OKAY BUT THE WAY IT'S GONNA WORK IS WHO EVER SHOWS UP GETS TO 
          PARTICIPATE AND VOTE AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION. >> YOU DID TOUCH ON A POINT. 
          THERE'S NO REASON WE CAN'T DEFINE SUBCOMMITTEE. IN MY VIEW A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING IS THE RESULT OF AN ACTION OR DISCUSSION THAT THE BOARD HAS ALREADY HAD IN FRONT OF THEM AND DID NOT ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSION OR FINAL VOTE. THE WORKSHOP WOULD BE SOMETHING PURELY TO TALK ABOUT MAYBE WHERE WE WANT TO LOOK DOWN THE ROAD A YEAR FROM NOW OR YEAR AND A HALF 
          FROM NOW. >> SUBCOMMITTEE IS A SUBSET OF THE ENTIRE PLANNING BOARD WHERE AS A WORK SHOP IS WHERE WE INVITE YOU ALL AND YOU ALL PARTICIPATE. 
          >> AT LEAST THEN WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF -- >> I THINK IT WORKS FINE TO HAVE WHOEVER SHOWS UP. AS LONG AS THERE'S -- AS LONG AS WE CAN IDENTIFY SOMEBODY TO 
          CHAIR THE MEETING TO MAKE SURE THINGS HAPPEN. >> OKAY. 
          >> AS LONG AS THERE'S A NOTION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FORWARD SOME SORT OF RECOMMENDATION BACK 
          TO THE BOARD. >> EVEN IF WE WERE, IN MR. BENNETT'S CASE, TO HAVE A 
          [00:40:05]
SPLIT DECISION, THAT'S A DECISION THAT YOU COULD GO BACK AND SAY SUBCOMMITTEE WAS NOT ABLE TO COME TO CONSENSUS AND HERE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WERE ■PRESENTED THATWERE FINALIZED IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE SO THEN IT COMES BACK TO THE FULL BOARD TO LOOK AT THOSE TWO 
          OPTIONS. >> YOU DID HAVE AN EXPANDED BOARD, TOO, THAT WOULD ALSO FIX THE PROBLEM. IF YOU HAD A 2-2, YOU GET THE FULL BOARD, NOW YOU HAVE A 
          CHANCE AT ARRIVING AT LEAST CONSENSUS OR MAJORITY. >> OKAY. 
          LET'S MOVE ON. TAMMY, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANKS FOR THAT. 
          [Item 5.1]
ACTUALLY THE NEXT ITEM SORT OF DOVE TAILS NICELY WITH THIS CONVERSATION. 
          ITEM 5.1. JUST A SHORT HISTORY ON THIS. AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WAS DISCUSSION HERE AT THE BOARD ABOUT EXPANDING OUR BOARD MEMBERSHIP FROM FIVE TO SEVEN. 
          AND TO ASK THE COMMISSION TO CHANGE THE METHOD BY WHICH PEOPLE ARE APPOINTED TO THE BOARD AND HOW THEIR TERMS ARE FILLED RATHER THAN MAKING THEM CONCURRENT WITH THE APPOINTING COMMISSION MEMBER, WE WANTED THEM TO RUN FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS ON STANDARD TERMS. SO WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA I'LL ASK KELLY TO TALK ABOUT AND MAYBE TAMMY CAN HELP OUT, TOO, SO YOU'RE CLEAR. I ALSO WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT CHIP ROSS HAD FORWARDED A SET OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM HIMSELF THAT HAD BEEN E-MAILED TO ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS SO YOU HAVE THAT AS WELL. I NOTICE MR. ROSS IS HERE. MAYBE HE'D CARE TO SAY SOMETHING. WITH THAT, KELLY, DO YOU WANT TO JUST OUTLINE WHAT IT IS WE HAVE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD THIS EVENING THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          >> FOLLOWING THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION IN JANUARY AND THEN SUBSEQUENT FEED BACK TO PROCEED WITH MAKING CHANGES TO THE BOARD MEMBERSHIP, I THOUGHT IN KEEPING WITH WHAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE INTENT BEHIND THE REQUEST, WHICH WAS TO OPEN UP THE BOARD TO HAVE SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS AND THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TWO ALTERNATE MEMBERS. THAT'S THE POINT I WANT TO GET BACK TO BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF THE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN HOW THE ROLE OF AN ALTERNATE MEMBER IS TREATED. 
          STRIKING THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT IS WITHIN THE CODE RELATIVE TO APPOINTMENT BY A COMMISSIONER FOR THE REGULAR VOTING MEMBERS WITHIN ALL SECTIONS WHERE THAT EXISTS, AND THEN JUST RELYING ON THE FULL SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS, TWO ALTERNATES. I HAVE INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT RELATED TO ALTERNATE MEMBERS THAT WE NEED TO DEFINE HOW WE WANT THEIR PARTICIPATION TO BE. UP TO THIS POINT, IT HAS BEEN THAT ALTERNATE MEMBERS ATTEND ALL BOARD MEETINGS, ARE ENGAGED IN BOARD DISCUSSION, BUT THEN DO NOT VOTE. 
          THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT IS DEFINED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BUT WITHIN YOUR BY-LAWS. YOU MAY WANT TO SEE HOW YOU TREAT THAT BOARD MEMBER AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER. FOR PURPOSES OF BEING ABLE TO SIT AT THE TABLE, HAVING NINE MEMBERS WILL BECOME A CHALLENGE. IF WE WERE TO CONTINUE UNDER THE SAME WAY WE HAVE HISTORICALLY. 
          I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER CONTACTING YOUR ALTERNATE MEMBERS WHEN YOU KNOW THERE WILL BE AN ABSENCE AT A REGULAR BOARD MEETING AND MAYBE CALLING ON YOUR ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBERS WHEN YOU HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING OR PERHAPS THEY HAVE A FIELD OF EXPERTISE AND YOU WANT TO RELY ON THEIR EXPERTISE FOR DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE WORK THROUGH TOGETHER TO HAVE THEM APPOINTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE. JUST LIKE WE'VE RUN INTO WITH THIS SITUATION. OUR ALTERNATES FEEL EXCLUDED AT THE END. 
          THAT'S A DIFFICULT POSITION TO ASK ANYONE TO SERVE IN. >> QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS. 
          >> YES. IS THAT ME OR SOMEBODY ELSE? >> MARK? 
          >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, THERE SHALL BE SEVEN MEMBERS AND TWO ALTERNATES? 
          [00:45:02]
          WE'RE TALK ABOUT NINE? >> SEVEN REGULAR VOTING MEMBERS WITH TWO ALTERNATES. 
          >> THAT WAS THE OLD SYSTEM. >> CORRECT. >> I THOUGHT ONE OF THE THINGS 
          WE TALKED ABOUT WAS HAVING SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS. >> WHEN YOU GO TO A SEVEN BOARD MEMBERSHIP YOUR QUORUM RATIO IS UP. I THINK HAVING AN ALTERNATE MEMBER AVAILABLE TO THE BOARD TO SERVE IN THEIR PLACE IS IMPORTANT. 
          IT HASN'T BEEN OFTEN, BUT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS TOGETHER, MR. BENNETT, WHERE THIS BOARD HAS HAD TROUBLE GETTING QUORUMS HERE. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE THE 
          SEVEN MEMBER BOARD. I THINK HAVING -- >> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. 
          >> IT WAS NOT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. I WANT TO SAY BETWEEN 2009-2011, WE DID HAVE SOME TROUBLE. THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER BRIEF PERIOD OF TIME IN 2013. 
          >> YOU'RE SUGGESTING NINE PEOPLE, BUT ONLY SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS. 
          >> SEVEN VOTING MEMBERS. TO BE CLEAR ABOUT HOW WE ENGAGE WITH THE ALTERNATE MEMBERS AND WHEN THEY'RE ASKED TO BE NEEDED, THAT THERE'S NOT AN EXPECTATION OF REGULAR ATTENDANCE OF THOSE 
          TWO ALTERNATE MEMBERS AT THE MEETING. >> I THINK THE EXPECTATION IS ALL THE ALTERNATES CAN PARTICIPATE EVEN THOUGH THEY WOULD NOT VOTE. 
          >> THAT'S WHY I'M BRINGING IT UP FOR CONVERSATION PURPOSES. >> MISS MINSHEW? 
          >> I THOUGHT THE WHOLE PART OF OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WAS THAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM ALTERNATES. SO IF WE HAD A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD YOU'D NEED FOUR MEMBERS TO HAVE A QUORUM, RIGHT? I STILL THINK WE GET THIS WHOLE UNFAIRNESS ISSUE OF ASKING -- AND THEN IF YOU HAVE AN ALTERNATE, YOU SAY YOU DON'T NEED TO COME UNLESS SOMEBODY CALLS YOU, THEN YOU'RE NOT UP TO DATE ON THE INFORMATION. YOU'VE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CONVERSATIONS AND YOU'RE AT A REAL DISADVANTAGE. PART OF ME THINKS WE DON'T NEED THE ALTERNATE. THAT WOULD BE -- THAT'S REALLY MY ONLY CONCERN AT THIS POINT. 
          I DO AGREE WE NEED TO WOULD LIKE TO SEE EVERYBODY IS APPOINTED TO THREE YEAR TERMS. 
          >> WE WILL STILL HAVE ONE NONVOTING MEMBER WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD. 
          >> YES. >> THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. >> IF WE HAVE THE QUORUM RATIO 
          DOWN, WHAT DICTATES THE QUORUM RATIO DOWN. >> OF THE REGULAR MEMBERS. 
          WE HIT THAT EVERY TIME. >> MR. STEVENSON'S LIGHT IS ON. >> MR. STEVENSON? 
          >> I SEE A COUPLE. IT WAS MY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING WE WERE GETTING RID OF ALTERNATIVES. THERE WAS GOING TO BE A SEVEN PERSON BOARD AND THAT SEVEN PERSON BOARD WOULD FUNCTION ALL THE WAY AROUND. WE HAVE TWO PROPOSALS. 
          WE HAVE ONE THAT CAME THROUGH KELLY'S SHOP IN TERMS OF THE TIME OF CONSENSUS. 
          [00:50:05]
WE HAVE SOME ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME THROUGH WITH MISS ROSS. 
          I GUESS I SEE GOOD THINGS IN BOTH OF THEM BUT I THINK IT BEST THAT WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE A MERGING OF THE TWO VIEW. ONE THING I DO THINK WE HAVE TO GET CLARIFICATION ON, WHAT IS THE CITY COUNCIL GOING TO ACCEPT IF IT MUST BE A CASE WHERE THE COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO PICK 
          OF THE SEVEN, FIVE AND THAT'S AN ABSOLUTE, THEN WE GO WITH THAT. >> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION OVER. THAT'S SOMETHING I WANTED TO GIVE YOU FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          >> IT CAUSES ME TO REFLECT BACK ON MY EXPERIENCE WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE HEALTH COMMISSIONERS WHICH IS A STATE BOARD APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR. IT WAS UNIQUE IN THAT IF THERE WERE TEN MEMBERS AND IT WAS MADE UP OF FIRST LICENSED HARBOR PILOTS THROUGHOUT THE STATE. 
          THEY WERE APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR. AND THEN THERE WERE, SEE IF I GOT MY MATH RIGHT HERE. THERE WERE TWO MARITIME CONSUMER MEMBERS. 
          THAT'S WHAT THEY CALL THEM. MARITIME CONSUMER MEMBERS. PEOPLE WHO USE THE SERVICE OF HARBOR PILOTS. AND THEN THEY HAD WHAT THEY CALL JUST CONSUMER MEMBERS, PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE MARITIME INDUSTRY, WHAT HARBOR PILOTS DID. 
          SOME OF THEM SAID, YOU MEAN YOU FLY? NO, NO. 
          THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO BRING BOATS INTO THE SHIPS INTO THE HARBOR. SO THEY REALLY HAD NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER. THE BLEND OF HAVING THOSE PERSPECTIVES WAS SO VALUABLE TO THAT BOARD TO BE ABLE TO BRING TOGETHER A VARIETY OF PERSPECTIVES TO SAY WAIT A MINUTE, DOES THIS REALLY SOUND RIGHT? DOES THIS SOUND LIKE IT MAKES SENSE. HAVING THAT DIVERSITY ON A BOARD I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT. 
          SO WHETHER YOU CALL THEM AT LARGE OR CONSUMER MEMBERS OR WHATEVER, I KNOW THIS BOARD LOOKS FOR PARTICULARLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH ZONING AND REAL ESTATE AND PLANNING AND THE EXPERTISE THAT YOU ALL HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE. I THINK, TOO, IN THIS BOARD, HAVING PEOPLE THAT ARE FROM AT LARGE OR ARE CONSUMER MEMBERS THAT DON'T COME FROM THAT 
          BACKGROUND ALSO BRING SOME VALUE TO THE BOARD. >> SO ARE YOU -- DO YOU HAVE A 
          RECOMMENDATION IN THAT REGARD? >> I THINK HAVING SEVEN MEMBERS. I'M JUST SAYING I LIKE THE IDEA OF SEVEN MEMBERS AND NO ALTERNATES. I THINK SEARCH IS A MANAGEABLE 
          NUMBER. >> YOU'VE ALL SPOKEN. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS SPOKEN IN FAVOR OF SEVEN MEMBERS NO ALTERNATES, STAGGERED TERMS AND NOT TO APPOINTMENTS THAT ARE CONCURRENT WITH THE TERM OF A COMMISSION MEMBER. RIGHT? 
          >> RIGHT. >> MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION? >> ONE MORE THING. 
          BUT THERE WAS ONE POINT IN MR. ROSS' RECOMMENDATION WHERE HE TALKS ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOMINATED. I THINK WHAT HE SAYS IS THAT THE PERSON, A COMMISSION MEMBER COULD NOMINATE SOMEBODY FOR THE BOARD BUT THEN IT WOULD BE 
          [00:55:04]
SUBJECT TO THE VOTE OF THE FULL BOARD. AND UNDER WHAT WE'RE SAYING THEY WOULD STILL SERVE A STAGGERED TERM. ARE THERE SPECIFIC THOUGHTS ABOUT THATS ASPECT OF WHAT HE RECOMMENDED OR DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THE PROCESS BY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOMINATED, APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, NOT ATTACHED TO A PARTICULAR 
          COMMISSION MEMBER? >> CHIP'S RECOMMENDATIONS, HE'S SAYING EACH COMMISSIONER WOULD PICK A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PAB. THAT'S FIVE. 
          THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TWO AT LARGE MEMBERS APPOINTED FOR A TWO YEAR TERM. 
          THEY GET VOTED ON BY THE CITY COMMISSION BUT THE APPLICATION WOULD GO TO THE CITY CLERK FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION. YOU WOULD HAVE FIVE APPLICANTS COME IN AND THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD PICK TWO OF THOSE FIVE AT LARGE. 
          CHIP, DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? >> SURE, MR. ROSS. >> WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO COMMISSIONER ROSS' RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          IT SEEMS ALL OF YOU AGREE THAT WE DON'T NEED ALTERNATES. YOU COULD, TO MAKE IT CLEAR, GET A MOTION FROM THE BOARD THAT SAYS WE DON'T WANT ALTERNATES SO KELLY HAS CLEAR DIRECTION. 
          >> WE WILL DO THAT. MR. ROSS? >> IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST I WAS ON THE PAB. MY CAREER ENDED ABRUPTLY WHEN THE BOARD WAS DISSOLVED BY A VOTE OF THAT NUMBER, THREE. AND THAT'S WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE SO ON SO FORTH. 
          MY CONCERN I THINK SEVEN MEMBERS IS FINE. WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS CAN PACK A BOARD WITH WHATEVER THEY WANT. 
          WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS AN ALTERNATIVE SO AT LEAST THERE COULD BE DIVERSITY OF OPINION ON THERE THAT EACH CITY COMMISSIONER CAN PUT FORWARD SOMEBODY WHO HAS VIEWS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THEM OR WHAT THEY HAVE SO THAT THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS CAN NOT PACK A BOARD FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THE COMPROMISE OF EACH CITY COMMISSIONER APPOINTING SOMEBODY FOR THEIR TERM AND THEN HAVING TWO OPEN SEATS, CAN RUN FOUR YEARS TWO YEARS. THERE WOULD BE SOME DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON THAT BOARD AS REPRESENTED BY EACH CITY COMMISSIONER. IS IT A PERFECT SYSTEM? PROBABLY NOT. IS ANY SYSTEM PERFECT? PROBABLY NOT. 
          BUT THE INTENT WAS THAT SO THREE, AS OCCURRED WHEN THE BOARD WAS DISSOLVED. 
          IT TOOK A VOTE OF THREE. THEY CAN PUT WHATEVER THEY WANT UP THERE. 
          IT WAS TO TRY TO DIVERSIFY THE BOARD, MAKE SURE THERE WAS A DIE VERGENCE OF OPINION. 
          THAT WAS THE REASON. ANY QUESTIONS? >> WAIT TWO YEARS SAY THREE YEARS. THAT'S JUST A NUMBER. WHEN I WAS THERE, THERE WAS TWO 
          BUCKETS. ONE WAS THE AT LARGE BUCKET. >> SO FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THE 
          SEVEN MEMBER BOARD IS OKAY? >> SURE. PARTICULARLY WHAT HAS BECOME THREE IS THE MAGIC NUMBER. THREE PEOPLE, THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS CAN TOTALLY 
          MARGINALIZE THE OTHER TWO. >> THANK YOU. >> MISS MINSHEW. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ROSS. WHATEVER CONCERNS HAS BEEN THE CONTINUITY OF INFORMATION. SO WITH SOMEONE WHO IS APPOINTED BY COMMISSIONER TO A FOUR YEAR TERM, THAT COMMISSIONER DOES NOT RUN FOR REELECTION, THAT PERSON'S GOT FOUR YEAR OF 
          EXPERIENCE UNDER THEIR BELT AND THEN POOF THEY'RE GONE. >> IF THEY'RE THERE AND THE BOARD DECIDES NOT TO RENEW, POOF THEY'RE GONE. THE CITY COMMISSIONERS AT LEAST 
          [01:00:08]
WHAT I HAVE SEEN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS HAVE ALL PICKED -- MARK BENNETT WAS STILL HERE. 
          THE PEOPLE THAT HAD THE LONG INSTITUTIONAL EXPERIENCE ALL SELF-WEEDED THEMSELVES OUT. 
          DAVID BEAL LEFT. IT WAS ALL OF THEIR OWN VALITION. 
          THAT FIXED THE PROBLEM. BUT I DON'T THINK AT THE END OF FOUR YEARS THE CITY COMMISSION, THE WAY OUR SYSTEM IS SET UP, THEY DON'T HAVE TO REAPPOINT THEM. 
          JUST BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN ON THERE TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, WHATEVER YOU PICK YOUR TERM. 
          >> BUT WITH ALTERNATING WITH THREE YEAR TERMS, THEN THEY'RE NOT TIED TO A CITY COMMISSIONER. 
          I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN THAT THREE COMMISSIONERS CAN DISBAND A BOARD OR WHATEVER. 
          ME. I'M A JOHNNY MILLER APPOINTMENT. I'LL BE ON THE BOARD FOR 18 MONTHS THEN POOF I'M GONE. I'M GONE BECAUSE I'LL NO LONGER BE HIS APPOINTMENT. 
          HE'S TERM LIMITED. SO NOW I HAVE 18 MONTHS WORTH OF EXPERIENCE UNDER MY BELT THAT I 
          COULD CONTINUE ON THIS BOARD TO DO, BUT -- >> THE TERM, THE TERMS ARE JUST LIMITED BY EITHER THE TERM ELIMINATED BY THE CITY COMMISSIONER'S TERM OR YOU'RE 
          LIMITING BY THREE YEARS. >> BUT AFTER THREE YEARS YOU CAN BE REAPPOINTED. 
          MY POINT IS AFTER THE FOUR YEAR TERM IF THE CITY COMMISSIONER IS GONE YOU DON'T HAVE THE 
          OPPORTUNITY TO BE REAPPOINTED. >> YOU'D HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO FOR THOSE TWO SLOTS. 
          >> RIGHT. THEN YOU'VE GOT TO GET IN LINE. >> IT'S NOT A PERFECT FIX. 
          >> NO, IT'S NOT. >> I AGREE WITH YOU. >> MY VIEW IS A LITTLE BIT AFFECTED BECAUSE I'M THE NEWBY ON THE BOARD. THE WORD ON THE STREET WAS THERE HAD BEEN SOME ISSUES. I LOOK AT WHAT I CALL INSTITUTIONAL CONSISTENCY. 
          THAT'S, I THINK, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. YOU GET A TEAM OF PEOPLE TOGETHER THAT CAN WORK -- IT WORKED FOR YOU. CITY COMMISSION IS OUR BOSS. 
          WE WANT TO DO IT MOST EFFECTIVELY AND THE WAY WE THINK IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE JUST SAID. MAYBE WE CAN BE MORE EFFECTIVE, FASTER, WHATEVER. SAME WAY WITH KELLY. KELLY HAS SOMETHING THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. THERE'S A HECK OF A LEARNING CURVE. 
          THE MORE YOU CAN STRETCH THAT LEARN CURVE OUT AND SPREAD IT SO THERE'S NOT FOUR AT THE SAME 
          TIME. >> IF YOU HAVE STAGGERED TERMS, IT'S THE SAME THING COULD 
          HAPPEN. >> THREE APPOINTMENT ISSUE THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE FOUR 
          YEAR COMMISSIONER APPOINTED TERM. >> THERE ISN'T A PERFECT FIT. 
          IF YOU HAVE THREE YEAR TERMS AT LEAST YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT DEGREE OF CONTINUITY AS OPPOSED 
          TO THE SITUATION YOU'RE FACING WHEN YOU HAVE A VERY SHORT TERM. >> I HAVE BEEN HERE A COUPLE DAYS LONGER THAN MR. BENNETT. CHIP AND I HAVE ALL BEEN ON THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD BEFORE WE WENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION. SOME OF US CAME BACK. THE IDEA OF SEVEN BORE MEMBERS WITHOUT ALTERNATES IS VERY APPEALING TO ME. IT ESTABLISHES A BOARD THAT CAN HAVE LONGER TENURES, TWO GENERAL PEOPLE ELECTED AT LARGE OR SUBMITTED AT LARGE. 
          THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE FIVE COMMISSIONERS FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE OR SOMEBODY HAS TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. THERE STILL HAS TO BE AN APPOINTMENT PROCESS NO MATTER WHAT. WHETHER IT'S BY A COMMISSION APPOINTMENT OR WHETHER IT'S BY MY TERM'S UP, DO I WANT TO GET BACK ON IT, SO I HAVE TO RESUBMIT MY APPLICATION. 
          COMMISSION COULD STILL SAY YES OR NO ON THAT PROCESS. WE'RE IN DANGER THERE. 
          WHAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE TO HAPPEN, DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN IS WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMISSIONER WALLACE AND MARK AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND ONE DAY THE COMMISSION DOESN'T LIKE THEM AND OUT THEY GO BECAUSE OF CONTROVERSIAL DECISIONS. 
          MR. ROSS MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE HARDEST JOBS IN THE CITY. 
          THEY DON'T GET PAID FOR IT. AT LEAST WHEN WE'RE ON A COMMISSION, WE GET SOME MONEY. 
          [01:05:02]
NOT A LOT BUT WE GOT SOME. IT'S PROBABLY MINIMUM WAGE AT BEST WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF HOURS. HOW DO WE PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN? IF I'M JOHNNY MILLER'S REPLACEMENT AND I HAVE WATCHED JOHNNY WORK AND I'M LOOKING AT WHO'S QUALIFIED, I'LL SAY, THAT'S NOT A BAD PERSON, WHY DON'T I ASK HER? TO ME, IF I'M A NEW COMMISSIONER, THAT'S WHAT I'D DO. 
          WHO'S OUTGOING? WHO'S GOT A CHANCE TO CONTRIBUTE AGAIN? MAKES IT EASIER ON ME. I'D COME TO WHO EVER'S TERM WAS UP AND SAY, DO YOU WANT TO STAY ON IT? THAT'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY. IF I'M A NEWLY ELECTED COMMISSIONER, THAT'S WHAT I DO. THAT'S HOW MUCH IMPORTANCE I THINK THIS PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD DOES FOR THE CITY. I THINK WITHOUT THE INSTITUTIONAL MEMBER WE'LL BE IN TROUBLE. THAT'S THE KEY. WE GOT SEVEN. 
          HOW DO WE GET THE SEVEN ON THERE? WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          CHIP'S RIGHT, THERE'S NO PERFECT METHODS. ONE OF US IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE UPSET AT THE WAY IT'S DONE. AS LONG AS WE'VE GOT SEVEN BOARD MEMBERS FOR A CERTAIN LENGTH OF TIME, I THINK WE CAN GIVE KELLY AND THE CITY A GOOD WORKOUT. I THINK SEVEN'S THE KEY. 
          VOTING MEMBERS, NO ALTERNATES. HOW WE GET THERE BOTTOM LINE UP TO THE COMMISSION. 
          THEY'RE THE ONES THAT SET THE POLICY TO GO FORWARD. WHETHER WE AGREE WITH IT OR NOT. 
          IF CHIP LIKES THIS PROPOSAL, HE'S GOT TO SELL IT TO HIS COMMISSIONERS IN AN OPEN 
          MEETING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> WE WANT SEVEN. 
          >> I AGREE WITH THE SEVEN. >> MISS MINSHEW. >> THANK YOU, CHIP. 
          >> I'M SORRY. >> SO I THINK IT SEEMS WE'VE GOT CONSENSUS AROUND SEVEN MEMBERS, NO ALTERNATES, STAGGERED THREE YEAR TERMS THAT ARE NOT CONCURRENT WITH A COMMISSION MEMBER. THEY'RE JUST BASICALLY THREE YEAR TERMS. THE ONE THING I HAVEN'T HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT SPECIFICALLY IS THE IDEA THAT COMMISSION MEMBERS WOULD EACH HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO NOMINATE SOMEBODY TO THE PAB AND THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT. IT CAN BE DONE OTHER WAYS, BUT 
          WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE ABOUT THAT SPECIFIC ASPECT? >> IF WE HAVE EACH COMMISSIONER SELECT A CANDIDATE AND THAT CANDIDATE GETS VOTED IN BY FIVE COMMISSIONERS AT THE TIME, THAT'S BASICALLY BUSINESS AS IT IS TODAY. THE DIFFERENCE IS WE'RE GOING TO 
          ADD TWO ADDITIONAL. >> NO IT'S NOT. WHAT'S DIFFERENT, TODAY THE COMMISSION MEMBER NOMINATES SOMEBODY AND THEN THE COMMISSION VOTES ON IT. 
          THEN THAT PERSON FULFILLS A TERM ON THE PAB THAT IS CONCURRENT WITH THE TERM OF THAT APPOINTEE WHO NOMINATED THEM. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. SHE WAS APPOINTED BY MAYOR MILLER. HE ONLY HAD 18 MONTHS LEFT IN HER TERM. 
          SHE DOESN'T HAVE A THREE YEAR TERM. SHE HAS AN 18 MONTH TERM. 
          I THINK IT'S CLEAR -- THIS BOARD DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TERMS LESS THAN THREE YEARS. 
          EVERYBODY HAS A THREE YEAR TERM. QUESTION IS HOW DO YOU GET TO THE NOMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL? YOU COULD STILL HAVE A COMMISSION MEMBER NOMINATE SOMEBODY THAT THE COMMISSIONER WOULD THEN VOTE ON AS A WAY JUST TO ADD DIVERSITY OF THE APPOINTMENTS OR NOT. I'M ASKING. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. 
          >> I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS IF ONE COMMISSIONER APPOINTING SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION WHICH IS THE SAME PROCESS THAT ALL OF THE BOARDS HAVE NOW. SOMEBODY WANTS TO FREE UP FOR THE POSITION, IT GOES BEFORE THE COMMISSION, HTC OR WHO EVER SAYS WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THIS PERSON FOR THREE YEARS. 
          SAME PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE HERE. THE FACT THAT ONE COMMISSIONER IS APPOINTING SOMEONE I THINK THE SAME PROCESS IS GONNA HAPPEN. 
          A NEW COMMISSIONER COMING IN TRYING TO FIND SOMEONE TO SIT ON THIS BOARD IS GONNA PROBABLY LOOK TO THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE WHO ARE UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT, I WOULD THINK. TYPICALLY OVER THE YEARS THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT'S HAPPENED. 
          >> EXCEPT FOR THE LAST THREE APPOINTMENTS. FOR THE LAST THREE APPOINTMENTS IN THE LAST YEAR. SO YOU HAVE TWO ALTERNATES SITTING HERE WHO COULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN ONE OF THOUGH PERMANENT SEATS AND WE'RE NOT. IF YOU ARE SAYING A NEW 
          [01:10:12]
COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER WOULD LOOK FOR EXPERIENCE, LONGEVITY, THERE ARE TWO PERFECTLY WONDERFUL ALTERNATES SITTING AT THIS BOARD WHO WERE NOT CONSIDERED OR WERE NOT APPOINTED TO ONE OF THOSE THREE VACANCIES THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE THAT PROCESS REALLY PLAYS OUT THE WAY WE THINK IT SHOULD PLAY OUT. 
          >> WOULD YOU WANT ONE OF THE ALTERNATES TO MOVE INTO THE POSITION OF THE APPOINTED BOARD 
          MEMBER? THAT WOULD WORK. >> IF WE DON'T HAVE ALTERNATES 
          THAT BECOMES A MOOT POINT. >> THAT'S RIGHT, WE WON'T HAVE ALTERNATES. 
          >> ONE OF THE POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS YOU COULD COME UP WITH TO HANDLE YOUR PARTICULAR ISSUE IS ALL TERMS ARE THREE YEARS WHETHER THEY ARE COMMISSION APPOINTED OR WERE APPOINTED EN MASSE. 
          MAYOR MILLER'S CANDIDATE MAYBE RESIGNED OR LEFT, APPOINTED YOU. THAT'S A THREE YEAR TERM FROM THAT POINT FORWARD. WHO EVER TAKES MAYOR MILLER'S SPOT AND YOUR YEAR THREE IS UP, HE OR SHE MAY DECIDE, OKAY, I LIKE YOU OR I DON'T LIKE YOU. THERE'S A WAY TO KEEP THREE YEAR 
          CONTINUITY IN. >> MR. ROLAND ALL THE TERMS SHOULD BE THREE YEARS REGARDLESS 
          OF THE METHOD. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. A HE OR SHE CAN STILL SELECT OR 
          PROPOSE THAT TO THE BOARD. >> EXACTLY. >> SO MAYOR MILLER, WHEN MISS ROBAS GOT APPOINTED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THREE YEARS. WHEN THAT THREE YEAR PERIOD EXPIRED, THE APPOINTING MEMBER WOULD SAY OKAY, WHO EVER REPLACED THAT COMMISSION MEMBER IN THAT SEAT COULD SAY YES, STAY ON OR NO, I HAVE GOT SOMEBODY ELSE IN MIND. 
          THEN THAT PERSON WOULD STEP IN FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD. THAT'S WHERE WE COULD START FROM. IS THAT ALL APPOINTEES MINIMUM TIME SERVED IS THREE YEARS. 
          >> TIME SERVED. >> FEELS LIKE IT SOMETIMES. >> TAMMY. 
          >> OKAY. I REALIZE THAT -- LET'S START WITH 2020. 
          OKAY? THE ELECTION 2020 HAPPENED AND WE PUT IN PLACE THIS BLENDED VERSION WHICH INCLUDES SEVEN REGULAR VOTING MEMBERS, NO ALTERNATE AND COMMISSIONERS APPOINT. WE'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS. WHEN IS THIS EFFECTIVE? IF WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER IN OFFICE FOUR YEARS, WHICH ALL OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE FOUR YEARS AND YOU ALL SERVE THREE YEAR TERMS. SO YOU HAVE COMMISSIONER X APPOINT SOMEBODY FOR THREE YEARS. BEFORE THEIR TERM IS UP THEY'RE APPOINTING SOMEBODY ELSE IF THEY DON'T WANT THAT PERSON BACK. AND THEN WHEN THEY LEAVE OFFICE THE PERSON THEY APPOINTED IS STILL SERVING SO WE THINK BECAUSE WE'RE USED TO THE SYSTEM OF COMMISSIONER SEAT NUMBERS AND THAT MAY GO AWAY IN NOVEMBER. THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE COMMISSION WILL PROPOSE IT, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO PROPOSE, I BELIEVE, THAT WE DO AWAY WITH THIS COMPLICATED GROUPING SYSTEM WHICH IS MORE LIKE A DISTRICT SYSTEM AND JUST HAVE WHO EVER RUNS, IF YOU HAVE THREE CANDIDATES UP FOR ELECTION -- I'M SAYING THIS COULD HAPPEN. 
          IF YOU HAVE THREE CANDIDATE UP FOR ELECTION, THREE COMMISSION SEATS, THREE HIGHEST VOTE GETTERS GET ELECTED. NO RUN OFFS, NO NOTHING. THAT COULD HAPPEN. 
          IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN THERE'S NO WAY TO TRACE THAT COMMISSIONER APPOINTEE AND YOU JUST HAVE OPEN SEATS AND WE'RE BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE. IT CAN GET REALLY COMPLICATED. 
          WHEN WE ORIGINALLY DID THIS, THAT'S WHY I PROPOSED, IF YOU WANT TO NOMINATE PEOPLE AND THEN VOTE, THEIR TERMS OUGHT TO RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH YOURS. I ALSO UNDERSTAND WHY THAT DOESN'T WORK SO WELL SOMETIMES. BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. 
          THAT CHARTER COULD CHANGE. MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST WORRY ABOUT THAT IF THAT HAPPENS. 
          >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE. >> MISS MINSHEW -- KELLY, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING BEFORE THAT? IF IT WAS A BIG CONCERN ALL THE BOARDS WOULD BE THAT WAY. 
          [01:15:01]
WE'RE THE ONLY ONE. IT DOESN'T SEEM -- TO ME, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE AN ARTIFICIAL ISSUE. IF WE'RE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE BOARDS AND THEIR INTERNAL WHATEVER, THEN WHY AREN'T THE OTHER IMPORTANT BOARDS LIKE HDC AND CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT ALSO TIED TO COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENTS AND THEY'RE NOT. 
          WE'RE THE ONLY ONES. IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE RIGHT WAY TO RUN THINGS. 
          >> KELLY? IF THE BOARD CONTINUES WITH THE NOMINATING COMMISSIONER, I THINK HAVING THAT TERM RUN CONCURRENTLY IS THE WAY TO APPROACH IT. 
          MY CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT MR. ROLAND HAS ADDRESSED IS THAT WE COULD HAVE A COMMISSION NOMINATED APPOINTEE THIS YEAR. NOW THEY WILL BE IN PLACE FOR A THREE YEAR TERM UNDER THAT ALTERNATE PROPOSAL AND A NEW COMMISSIONER STARTS THAT WOULD HAVE HAD THAT SEAT AVAILABLE TO THEM TO FILL IN DECEMBER AND ARE UNABLE TO FILL WITH SOMEBODY THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THAT POSITION UNTIL THE LAST YEAR OF THEIR TERM. I THINK IT MAKES IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE TERMS WILL ALIGN IF YOU RUN THEM CONCURRENTLY WITH EACH NOMINATING COMMISSIONER. I THINK GIVEN THE TIME WE'VE HAD THIS EXISTINGSY TESTIMONY IN PLACE, WE'VE HAD MORE TURNOVER OF BOARD MEMBERS THAN I HAVE EVER SEEN BEFORE AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE CONTINUITY OF THIS BODY IN BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDING LANGUAGE THAT SERVES IN A LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY FOR THE CITY GOVERNMENT. 
          SO I'M CAUTIOUS ABOUT CONTINUING TO RELY ON THAT GIVEN WHAT WE'VE BEEN EXPERIENCING. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US GET BACK TO WHERE WE HAVE THE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE THAT IS MAINTAINED WITHIN THE BOARD, PARTICULARLY FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE. THIS MIGHT BE -- I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO I'M WORKING WITH LONG TERM. AND THAT WE'RE STARTING LARGE PROJECTS TOGETHER, THAT THOSE VOICES ARE NOT CONTINUOUSLY SHIFTING SO THAT I'M CHASING DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS AT ANY GIVEN POINT. IT'S A LITTLE SELFISH OF ME BUT THAT CONSISTENCY OF A VOICE I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD ON SOME OF THESE REALLY BIG REVISIONS THAT WE'RE ABOUT TO UNDERTAKE. 
          >> I THINK THERE'S GENERAL AGREEMENT. WE HAVE A SPEAKER. 
          >> THANK YOU. I'M GONNA BRING BACK FORMER HAT THAT I HAVE WORN BOTH AS A MEMBER OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS SITTING ON THE COMMISSION. 
          I BELIEVE HAVING STUDIED THE CHARTER UNTIL I REALLY THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD IT AND NOW DON'T. 
          I BELIEVE THAT THESE COMMITTEES, ESPECIALLY PAB AND THE HDC ARE COMMITTEES THAT SHOULD REMAIN TOTALLY APOLITICAL. I THINK THE RISK YOU RUN WHEN YOU HAVE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTING PEOPLE, NOT ONLY DO YOU LOSE INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE WHEN THE COMMISSIONS CHANGE PEOPLE, BUT I THINK YOU ALSO MIRROR THE CITY COMMISSION'S POLITICS ON THIS COMMITTEE. 
          SO WHEN THE PAB WAS ORIGINALLY FORMED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE COMMISSION WANTED AN OBJECTIVE SET OF PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTOOD THE TECHNICAL ISSUES THAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH TO GO OFF AN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AFTER YOU HAD STUDIED IT AND THEN LET THEM MAKE THE CALL. 
          YOU'VE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO THEM THAT'S BEEN STUDIED AND RESEARCHED AND DONE SO IN AN OBJECTIVE WAY WITHOUT A PARTICULAR AGENDA IN MIND. I THINK THAT WHEN WE HAVE, AT THE RISK OF AGGRAVATING TWO OF THEM HERE IN THE ROOM FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE, I JUST THINK WHEN YOU HAVE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED, IT'S NOT JUST A LOGISTICAL ISSUE THAT YOU'RE 
          [01:20:01]
DEALING WITH. I PUT YOU HERE BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO SPEAK FOR ME AND BELIEVE THE SAME WAY I BELIEVE. THEY STILL HAVE THEIR CHANCE TO VOTE AND THEY HAVE THE LAST VOTE ON IT. THIS IS WHERE THE RESEARCH OUGHT TO BE DONE IN AN OBJECTIVE WAY IN MY MIND SO I'M GOING TO MIRROR MISS MINSHEW'S COMMENTS. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE ENTIRE COMMISSION STILL WANTS TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL APPOINTEES. I KNOW SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THIS BOARD BEFORE WHO HAVE LEFT, LEFT FOR THAT VERY REASON. 
          THE SENSE WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ASKED TO MIRROR THEIR COMMISSIONER'S POLICIES. 
          SO FYI. >> OKAY. >> DO AWAY WITH THE 
          COMMISSIONER'S APPOINTMENTS. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT, TOO. ME BEING HERE, I HAVE ALWAYS FELT LIKE WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS BOARD AT ALL IF IT'S JUST APPOINTEES SPEAKING THEIR VIEW. 
          WHY ARE WE WASTING KIND OF ALL OF OUR TIME? IF THE COMMISSIONER IS SPEAKING WITH THEIR APPOINTEE AND GIVE THEM A LIST OF THINGS TO SAY. IT'S KIND OF POINTLESS FOR US TO BE HERE. I THINK IT SHOULD BE SEVEN MEMBERS AT LARGE, KEEP IT SIMPLE. I THINK THAT IF WE DID WHAT SHE SUGGESTED IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE COMING ON LATER FOR A STAGGERED TIME. KEEP IT SIMPLE, THREE YEARS AND IF A COMMISSIONER DOES HAVE SOMEBODY THEY WANT TO SUGGEST, THEY ENCOURAGE THEM TO PUT THEIR APPLICATION IN WHEN SOMEBODY'S TERM IS COMING UP AND GET THEM ON THERE. 
          >> JUST TO MAKE SURE, YOU ARE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF STAGGERED TERMS ALL THREE YEARS. 
          >> YES. >> OKAY. ALL AT LARGE. 
          >> ALL AT LARGE. >> WE HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS, NO ALTERNATES, STAGGERED TERMS, ALL TERM OF THREE YEARS AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST OUGHT TO LEAVE THE METHOD BY WHICH THOSE FOLKS ARE 
          NOMINATED BY UP TO THE COMMISSION. >> JUST TREAT US LIKE THE REST 
          OF THE BOARD THAT'S ALL. >> THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID, I THINK. 
          THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO THROW INTO THE HOPPER IS THAT I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST TO THE COMMISSION, IF EVERYBODY HERE AGREES, THAT OUR TWO ALTERNATES BE APPOINTED AS REGULAR MEMBERS. 
          IMMEDIATELY. I SAY THAT BECAUSE THEY'VE ATTENDED MEETINGS FOR A LONG TIME. THEY'RE VERY WELL VERSED IN IT. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CONTINUITY AND INSTITUTIONAL MEMORY, WE SHOULD START WITH IT. I THINK WE OUGHT TO JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE IN TERM OF OUR RECOMMENDATION. SO WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR 
          A MOTION THAT WE CAN VOTE ON. >> SHE'S WRITING SOMETHING. >> THAT'S FINE. 
          >> I'M UPDATING THE LANGUAGE TO REFLECT -- 
          >> CAN WE JUST VERBALLY GO THROUGH IT. SEVEN MEMBERS NO ALTERNATES, 
          THREE-YEAR TERM, GENERAL SELECTION PROCESS -- >> AT LARGE. 
          JUST AT LARGE. >> ALL AT LARGE. >> WILL THE TERMS BE STAGGERED? 
          >> FIRST -- ONCE YOU START, SO YOUR FIRST ELECTION YOU MIGHT HAVE TO DRAW STRAWS TO SEE WHO 
          GETS THREE VERSUS TWO. >> YEAH. >> YOU MIGHT HAVE TO MAKE 
          LANGUAGE THE FIRST YEAR TO START -- >> UNDERSTAND. 
          >> YOU NEED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THEY'RE THREE YEAR TERMS. >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE UNDER PAB CASE NUMBER 2020-03, THAT WE WOULD -- ADVISORY BOARD SO THAT THERE ARE SEVEN REGULAR AT LARGE MEMBERS, THE TERMS WILL BE STAGGERED, THERE WILL BE THREE YEAR TERMS THAT WILL BE STAGGERED WITH NO MORE THAN THREE TERMS EXPIRING SIMULTANEOUSLY. 
          ALL MEMBERS WILL BE AT LARGE AND WILL BE CONFIRMED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          [01:25:06]
AND THAT WE WOULD ASK THAT THE TWO EXISTING ALTERNATES, UPON APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE, BE IMMEDIATELY SEATED AS OUR TWO ADDITIONAL AT LARGE BOARD MEMBERS. 
          >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> WAIT. DOES THAT COVER EVERYTHING? 
          >> YES. EXCEPT WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AN ORDINANCE PASSES FOR THIS 
          LANGUAGE TO GET VOTED ON. >> DOES IT, UPON APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT THE TWO EXISTING 
          AT LARGE MEMBERS WILL TAKE OVER THE TWO NEW TERMS. >> OKAY. 
          >> I WILL SECOND MISS MINSHEW'S MOTION. >> ANY DISCUSSION? THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. 
          ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU. 
          [Item 5.2]
GOOD DISCUSSION. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 5.2 WHICH IS WHOLE SERIES OF AMENDMENTS. 
          KELLY, DO YOU WANT TO KICK THIS OFF? >> YEAH. 
          I WILL LARGELY TURN THIS OVER TO OUR PRESERVATION PLANNER, WHO HAS WORKED IN GREAT DETAIL WITH OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL TO LOOK AT SOME OF THESE REGULATION CHANGES AND HE'S AVAILABLE TO HELP ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD HAS, BUT ALSO TO WALK THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY IF 
          THERE'S ANYTHING WE NEED TO CLARIFY FOR YOU. >> OKAY. 
          >> GOOD EVENING. I'M HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER. 
          SO THESE ARE A NUMBER OF CHANGES. MAINLY CHAPTER 8 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH DEALS WITH OUR HISTORIC DISTRICTS. OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS, HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL HAS BEEN DISCUSSING THESE AND HAVE RECOMMENDED THESE CHANGES. IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN GO THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY OR IF THERE'S 
          A SPECIFIC QUESTION, WE CAN GO THROUGH INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS. >> CAN YOU JUST KIND OF WALK 
          THROUGH AN GIVE US AN OVERVIEW. >> SURE. LET ME FOLLOW ALONG CHAPTER 8. 
          FIRST CHANGES ARE AN INCLUSION OF REQUIREMENTS TO ROOF TOP MECHANICAL IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. ONE OF THE -- THIS IS 8.01.01F, CREATING A SECTION F. 
          IT'S CREATING LANGUAGE TO REQUIRE ROOF TOP MECHANICAL SCREEN. 
          ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS WE'VE GOTTEN FOR A LONG WHILE IS THAT MECHANICALS, ESPECIALLY ON RESTAURANTS, IS HIGHLY VISIBLE AND HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          THIS ACTUALLY -- YES. ACROSS THE STREET. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE -- 
          THE MECHANICAL -- >> THE STACK. >> YES. 
          YOU'LL SEE WE'VE REQUIRED THEM TO PUT THE SCREENING IN. THAT ACTUALLY THREE OR FOUR FEET TALLER THAN THE BUILDING THE WAY IT WAS TO HIDE THAT MECHANICAL BECAUSE THERE WILL BE A LOT OF MECHANICALS ON THAT BUILDING. IT'S SCREENED NOW ON MULTIPLE SIDES. 
          THAT'S WHAT THIS CHANGE IS ADDRESSING, REQUIRING THAT SCREENING AND THAT IT BE 
          ARCHITECTURALLY APPROPRIATE TO THE SPECIFIC BUILDING. >> YOU HAD ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCING THAT REQUIREMENT IN PREVIOUS DECISIONS, RIGHT? IT'S NOT NEW NEWS IN TERMS OF 
          THE DEVELOPMENT? >> IT WASN'T IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIFICALLY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT IT HAD TO BE SCREENED IN ON ALL SIDES AND BE APPROPRIATE TO THE ARCHITECTURE. THIS PUTS IT IN THERE. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ONE? THEN MOVING ON TO 8.01.01.02. DELETING SECTION H. THAT IS DEALING WITH TOWERS IN OLD TOWN. WE BELIEVE A HOLDOVER OF THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES WHICH HAD REQUIREMENTS FOR TOWERS. AS IT'S IN THERE NOW, IT DOESN'T RELATE TO ANYTHING. 
          DOESN'T GIVE ANYBODY ANY PRIVILEGES OR REQUIREMENTS. DOESN'T DO ANYTHING. 
          JUST THE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WE'RE STRIKING. THE NEXT SECTION WHICH WAS 
          [01:30:01]
SECTION H ALLOWS FOR KITCHENETTES IN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN OLD TOWN. 
          CURRENTLY OLD TOWN IS DIFFERENT THAN DOWNTOWN AND THE REST OF THE CITY IN THAT ITS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS COULD NOT HAVE KITCHENS OR KITCHENETTES. IT'S A DIFFERENT SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT. ALL THAT IS CHANGING IS IT WOULD ALLOW KITCHENETTES TO BE PUT IN THE DWELLING UNIT. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THEY CAN'T BE RENTED OUT BECAUSE OUR GUIDELINES SAY THEY CAN'T BE RENTED. BUT THIS DOES ALLOW FOR KITCHENETTES, LOT OF PEOPLE USE THESE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AS SPACES FOR OFFICES, FOR HOME GYMS, THINGS LIKE THAT, GUEST QUARTERS. KITCHENETTE IS SOMETHING THEY REALLY WANT IN THERE. NOT A FULL KITCHEN. THERE ARE SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF 
          THE REFRIGERATOR, THINGS LIKE THAT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. 
          >> SURE. >> I THOUGHT THAT I READ SOMEWHERE KITCHENETTES WERE NOT 
          ALLOWED. >> CURRENTLY THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED. 
          KITCHENS OR TTES ARE NOT ALLOWED. SCRATCHING KITCHENETTE -- 
          >> I LOST IT ON MY PAGE HERE. I'M GETTING HELP. >> PAGE 25. 
          >> OKAY. SO YOU'RE MAINTAINING IT STILL WILL NOT CONTAIN KITCHEN. 
          >> CANNOT CONTAIN A KITCHEN. IT WILL NOT CONTAIN A FULL KITCHEN BUT CAN NOW CONTAIN A KITCHENETTE. AND THIS ALLOWS FOR A SMALLER SIZE FRIDGE. 
          STILL NO RANGE, SINK. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS. SHALL NOT CONTAIN A KITCHEN OR 
          KITCHENETTE IS STRIKED OUT. >> THAT MEANS IT'S ALLOWED TO HAVE A KITCHENETTE. 
          >> IT'S SILENT. >> IS THERE A STIPULATION AS TO THE SIZE OF THE KITCHENETTE? 
          >> NO. S THERE A STIPULATION TO THE SIZE OF THE WHOLE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, SQUARE FOOTAGE IN OLD TOWN BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY, WE DON'T GET INTO INTERIORS. 
          WE DON'T REVIEW INTERIOR. >> DO WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF A KITCHENETTE? 
          >> YES. OUR DEFINITION IN CHAPTER ONE AN AREA WITHIN A BUILDING CON CONTAINING LIMITED KITCHEN FACILITIES, SUCH AS MICROWAVE OVEN REFRIGERATOR FREEZER NOT EXCEEDING 10 CUBIC FEET, STOVES RANGES OR OTHER COOK TOPS ARE PROHIBITED. 
          >> WHY ARE YOU KEEPING THAT WHEN THE REST OF THE CITY DID AWAY WITH IT? ORIGINALLY THERE WERE NO KITCHENS ALLOWED IN ANY ACCESSORY DWELLINGS. 
          THEN THAT WAS CHANGED. MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE YOU KEEPING THAT ONLY IN OLD TOWN. 
          >> OLD TOWN IS ALSO DIFFERENT IN THAT YOU CAN'T RENT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS STILL. 
          THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT IN THE ORDINANCE THAT CHANGED LAST YEAR -- 
          >> WHY ARE YOU KEEPING THE TWO OF THEM? WHY ARE THOSE TWO ITEMS BEING 
          KEPT ONLY FOR OLD TOWN? >> OLD TOWN IS KIND OF UNIQUE IN ITS LAYOUT AND LOT SIZES. 
          WE'VE HAD WORK SHOPS ON THIS WITH THE RESIDENTS OF OLD TOWN. THERE HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS THAT HAVE EXPRESSED THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE THE ACCESSORY DWELLING RENTED AND THEY DON'T WANT BIG KITCHENS BUT WOULD LIKE TO SEE KITCHENETTES ALLOWED FOR WHAT THEY'RE USING THEM FOR. 
          >> LIKE A WET BAR COULD BE AN ITEM THAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER ACCEPTABLE. 
          >> I WAS JUST CURIOUS. AND HTC APPROVED THIS. >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. >> AFTER MUCH DISCUSSION AN PUBLIC WORK SHOPS, YES. 
          >> AND YOU ARE ALSO DIFFERENT FROM THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, TOO, RIGHT? 
          >> RIGHT. >> REST OF THE CITY 6 AND A QUARTER. 
          >> 525. >> 525 FEET. >> THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF THE 
          SMALLER LOTS IS WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING, I'M GUESSING. >> CORRECT. 
          >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> THE NEXT SECTION WOULD BE 8.01.02, MEASURE OF WATER FRONT WHEN YOU REBUILD AN AREA. THAT'S JUST ADDING THE WORDS AS AMENDED BECAUSE IT DOES REFERENCE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES DATED FEBRUARY 1999. 
          WE WILL HAVE AN UPDATE HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT YEAR. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO CHANGE IT EVERY TIME WE UPDATE GUIDE GUIDELINES. 
          >> SAL, THE TERM OF ART THAT WE LAWYERS USE, BECAUSE IF I READ THIS, I DON'T KNOW FIT'S BEEN AMENDED. I WOULD CHECK JUST ONCE OR TEN TIMES. 
          USE THE TERM, I WOULD SUGGEST, AND IT'S UP TO THIS BOARD, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. 
          WHEN YOU USE THAT, A MENTOR OF MINE TAUGHT ME THAT YEARS AGO, THAT LETS PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE 
          COULD BE MANY AMENDMENTS, NOT JUST ONE. >> OKAY. 
          [01:35:01]
IF YOU THINK HTC WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT. GOING TO SECTION 8.01.02 SECTION B3C. THAT'S CORRECTING AN INCORRECT REFERENCE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE 
          TO REFLECT WHERE IT SHOULD BE. >> GOT A QUESTION ON THAT IN TERMS OF JUST THE ETIQUETTE. 
          IS THERE ANY REASON THAT YOU NEED TO REFERENCE BACK TO THE TABLE IN THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTSES BACK IN SECTION FOUR OR IS THAT INTUITIVELY UNDERSTOOD? THAT'S A DIFFERENT DOCUMENT. ALL PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          IS THAT OVERKILL OR NOT? TO GO BACK AND SAY THAT LDCC SITE IS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. 
          >> I'LL LET MISS GIBSON ANSWER THAT. >> I THINK EITHER ONE WOULD BE FINE. WITHIN THIS AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC DESIGN REQUIREMENT FOR A VERY SPECIFIC AREA OF THE CRA AND WHERE YOU'RE GOING BACK TO IS THAT SECTION THAT'S REFERENCED THAT UPPER SEA TYPE. THAT'S THE AREA WHERE YOU FIND WHAT DOES A BUFFER MEAN? I THINK YOU COVERED IT BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT THESE PROJECTS TO HAVE A SPECIFIC BUFFER TYPE. THAT BUFFER TYPE IS PROVIDED IN 
          THE SUBSECTION. >> I JUST WANT SOMEONE READING IT FOR THE FIRST TIME, I WANT IT 
          TO BE AVAILABLE. >> SO YOU CAN LOOK AT NUMBER 7. IT SPEAKS TO THE SECTION OF THIS LDCC. SOME OF THE WAYS THAT ARE VOTED BECOMING PROBLEMATIC, THIS IS ONE OF THEM HIGHLIGHTED PERFECTLY FOR YOU. THIS IS SENDING YOU TO THE RIGHT 
          MATTER. >> I'M RIGHT THERE. >> MOVING DOWN THE LIST TO SECTION E NUMBER 10. STRIKING THE LANGUAGE FOR DENSITY BONUS INCENTIVE. 
          WHEN THE DENSITY WAS INCREASED THE BONUS INCENTIVE WAS DONE AWAY WITH. 
          THIS IS AN OUTDATED REFERENCE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND DOWN FURTHER TO 8.1.0.3C MULTITENANT SIGNS. THESE WERE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS FOR THE GREEN SIGNS THAT USED TO HANG ON THE SIDE STREETS IN DOWNTOWN. WE SUNK THAT PROGRAM. 
          IT'S BEEN REPLACED WITH THE WAYFINDING PROGRAM. THERE'S CURRENTLY A DOCUMENT BEING CREATED WHICH WILL HAVE THOSE STANDARDS. SO WE'VE JUST STRUCK SECTION E AND CREATED A NEW SECTION CALLED DOWNTOWN WAYFINDING SIGNAGE. ONCE THAT DOCUMENT IS CREATED, WE WILL ADOPT THAT DOCUMENT. MOVING DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION 8.03.03. 
          >> KELLY? >> REAL QUICK. AS A WAY TO AVOID HAVING A RESERVED SUBSECTION, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO CALL OUT THE NAME OF WHAT THAT DOCUMENT WOULD BE AND 
          MAKE IT A REFERENCE DOCUMENT TO THIS CODE AND LEAVE IT AT THAT? >> CURRENTLY THE DOCUMENT ISN'T 
          NAMED SO WE WEREN'T ABLE TO PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE. >> OKAY. 
          >> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ACCURATE. >> COULD WE NAME IT? IT'S NOT NAMED. THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR APPROVAL. 
          STRIKING SECTION ONE AND PUTTING NEW LANGUAGE IN SECTION ONE. IT WOULD ADOPT AN OFFICIAL EMERGENCY DEMOLITION. CONTRIBUTING STATUS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS TIED TO THE 
          [01:40:02]
MOST CURRENT HISTORIC RESOURCE SURVEY THAT WE HAVE. WE DO THOSE EVERY 15 TO 20 YEARS. SO IF SOMETHING SHOULD HAPPEN TO A BUILDING, ITS STATUS DOESN'T CHANGE UNTIL THAT NEW RESURVEY IS DONE EVERY 15 TO 20 YEARS. THIS NEW LANGUAGE TIES IT TO AN OFFICIALLY ADOPTED LIST THAT THE HDC WILL KEEP. IT CAN AMENDED IF NEEDED BY A 
          VOTE OF THE HDC. THAT'S A BETTER WAY OF DOING IT. >> SO THIS MEANS YOU ARE GOING 
          TO MAINTAIN YOUR OWN LIST. >> CORRECT. IT'S BASED ON THE LAST SURVEY, 
          BUT GOING FORWARD, IT WILL BE ON ITS OWN LIST. >> YOU COULD EASILY HAVE BUILDINGS ON YOUR LIST THAT ARE NOT ON THE BIGGER LIST? WE WORKED ON THIS WHEN WE WERE DOING IT. THIS WOULD GIVE THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE BUILDINGS PUT ON THE HISTORIC LIST THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ON ONE OF THE BIG SURVEY LISTS? 
          >> CORRECT. NOW WHEN THE PROPERTY APRAISER YEARLY SENDS OVER THEIR EXEMPTION LIST, IT WILL BE THAT OFFICIAL LIST THAT WE'LL BE CHECKING IT AGAINST RATHER THAN THE SURVEYS. WE FOUND SURVEYS ARE INCONSISTENT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 
          THEY WAR LITTLE SUBJECTIVE WITH WHAT THEY CALLED THING. AND THINGS CHANGED. 
          A BUILDING COULD BE CALLED NONINTERVENING NOW BECAUSE IT HAS THE WRONG COLOR SIDING COVERING UP THE ORIGINAL SIDING. WHEN THAT SIDING IS REMOVED THEY CAN APPLY AGAIN. 
          >> DO YOU HAVE THE LIST NOW? >> THE BOARD ADOPTED THE LIST AND REVIEWED IT THE WAY IT IS. 
          ONCE THIS GOES INTO EFFECT THAT LIST IS READY. >> OKAY. 
          >> BEFORE YOU GO ON. >> WE'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM USING THE WORD SHALL. 
          MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THE CITY MAINTAINS AN OFFICIAL INVENTORY OF RESOURCES NOT SHALL 
          MAIN MAINTAIN. >> MOVING ON. 
          NEXT SECTION -- >> LIST SHALL. >> YES. 
          >> IN THAT SAME SECTION, LIST WILL BE OR MUST BE BASED ON. MUST IS PROBABLY BETTER THERE. 
          >> AGREED. >> 8.03.03 SECTION C. THIS SECTION, AS IT IS REQUIRES A DOUBLE FEE FOR AFTER THE FACT WORK DONE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          WE'VE CHANGED IT TO REFLECT THE PHAFLTER FEE SCHEDULE THAT THE COMMISSION ADOPTS YEARLY. 
          THIS WAY THAT FEE CAN BE CHANGED. THE BOARD FELT THE DOUBLE FEE WASN'T ENOUGH FOR AN AFTER THE FACT SITUATION AND WANTS TO HAVE IT MATCH WHAT THE BUILDING TKEP DOES, WHICH IS A FOUR TIME FEE FOR AFTER THE FACT WORK. THIS IS TIED TO THAT MASTER FEE 
          SCHEDULE ADOPTED. >> HOW ABOUT SOMEONE WHO IS BUYING A PROPERTY IN HISTORIC DISTRICT BECOMES AWARE OF THAT NOW IT'S NOT DOUBLE, BUT IT'S FOUR TIMES IF THEY JUST DO STUFF WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE HDC? YOU GET A LITTLE FAMILIAR TPHRET WHEN YOU CLOSE THAT SAYS YOU 
          HAVE TO READ THIS? >> IT IS IN THE APPLICATION. THEY ALSO SEE IT THERE. 
          WE MAKE SURE TO VERBALLY TELL EVERYBODY WHEN THEY DO WORK TO MAKE SURE THE FEE IS RECORDED. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT. WE HAVE A LOT OF GOOD REAL ESTATE AGENTS WHO EXPLAIN IT TO PEOPLE. WE HAVE OTHERS WHO GLOSS OVER IT AND DON'T REALLY TELL PEOPLE. SOME BUYERS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING THEMSELVES INTO, WHAT'S REQUIRED. EDUCATION IS A BIG PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IN OUR DEPARTMENT RIGHT NOW. I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHEN SOMETHING SELLS. 
          WE WOULD LIKE TO DO SOME MAILINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WORK MORE WITH REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND CLOSING AGENTS TO BE ABLE TO HAND OUT BROCHURES THAT 
          HAVE A SMALL BLURB ABOUT WHAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS. >> YOU COULD BE THE WELCOME 
          WAGON. >> WE DON'T KNOW WHEN A TRANSACTION OCCURS. 
          [01:45:01]
          THE NEXT SECTION -- >> I'M SURE A NEIGHBOR WILL TELL YOU. 
          >> 8.03.03.03.01 SECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS. 
          SECTION CREATING SECTION F. SECTION F. THIS WAS CREATED AS A RESPONSE TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 11.01 IN WHICH THE CITY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS AND ENCOURAGES MATERIALS -- AS ILLUSTRATED OF THE COMMUNITY'S HERITAGE. WHAT THIS DOES IS CREATE THE DEMOLITION DELAY WAITING PERIOD FOR STRUCTURES THAT ARE 50 YEARS OR OLDER. THIS IS NOT TO SAY IT CAN'T STOP A DEMOLITION, BUT WHAT IT DOES, IT CREATES A CATCHING THERE WHERE WE IMPLEMENT THAT DELAY SO WE CAN RESEARCH A BUILDING THAT'S NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT IS 50 YEARS OR OLDER, GET A DOCUMENT AND THEN BE ABLE TO ISSUE THAT DEMOLITION DELAY. 
          THERE IS LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT LIFTS THAT DEMOLITION DELAY IF WE TAKE AN EVALUATION OF IT AND IT'S ON MERIT GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF EVALUATING IT FULLY, KEEPING IT FOR 90 DAYS. 
          WE CAN MOVE THAT PROCESS ALONG. >> EXACTLY. AT THAT POINT YOU CAN SAY, WE CAN DO THAT IN A DAY AND ISSUE THE DEMOLITION PERMIT. THIS IS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOCUMENTING THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. THEY JUST MAY NOT BE IN THE 
          HISTORIC DISTRICT AND RECOGNIZED AS A HISTORIC PROPERTY. >> SHALL ADHERE TO -- 
          >> YEAH. >> I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO YOU, SAL. YOU CAN PUT MUST WHERE IT'S 
          SUPPOSED TO BE STRONG OR JUST SEEMS IS OR WILL. >> OKAY. 
          DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PROCESS? >> I DO. 
          >> MR. ROLAND? >> WHAT WOULD THE CITY DO IF THAT BUILDING SUDDENLY GOT DESTROYED OR WHATEVER? DOES THIS HELP STOP SOME OF THAT? 
          >> THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COME IN, IN THAT CASE THEY DON'T HAVE IS A DEMOLITION PERMIT. 
          IF THEY DID COME IN FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT WOULD -- THAT'S A STRUCTURE THAT IS RECOGNIZED AS A HISTORIC STRUCTURE. IT'S PART OF A HISTORIC DISTRICT. IT'S NOT INDIVIDUALLY RECORDED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER. 
          IN THAT CASE, IF AN APPLICANT CAME AND WANTED TO DEMOLISH IT, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO STOP THE DEMOLITION. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT A 90 DAY DEMOLITION DELAY ON IT, WHICH WOULD GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECORD IT, POSSIBLY MOVE THE STRUCTURE AND FIND SOMEBODY THAT COULD RELOCATE THE STRUCTURE. IT GIVES US TIME TO FIND A SOLUTION TO THAT. 
          OR HAVE MEETINGS WITH THE OWNER. MAYBE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF IT AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT. THAT GIVES US EXTRA TIME IN THERE TO DO THAT. 
          >> WASN'T THAT A REMODELING? THAT WASN'T A DEMO. IT WAS A REMODELING THAT WENT 
          REALLY BAD. >> IN THAT SPECIFIC CASE, I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS SO I CAN'T SPEAK FOR IT. IT WAS A NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. 
          IN THAT CASE, IT WAS A NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE TO THE AMERICAN BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT HAD BEEN SO SEVERELY ALTERED IN THE PAST. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE HISTORIC DISTRICTS. SO THAT SMALL INCREMENTAL CHANGES OVER TIME CAN ADD UP OVER 100 YEARS. THAT'S REALLY WHAT HAPPENED OUT THERE. 
          AT THE POINT THAT IT WAS MADE HISTORIC DISTRICT, THERE WASN'T ENOUGH LEFT OF THE HOUSE TO SAY IT WAS A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. STILL HAS SIGNIFICANCE HISTORICALLY BECAUSE OF IT BEING THE FIRST HOUSE THERE BUT I THINK -- I TELL MY BOARD THAT'S A GOOD CASE TO START DISCUSSION ABOUT AND START TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT AND WHY WE HAVE 
          HISTORIC DISTRICTS. >> CAN YOU SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT CITY HALL, TOO? 
          >> SO CITY HALL, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. YES, CITY HALL IS A NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. I TEACH THINGS ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION. 
          I USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE A LOT. IN THE 1950S WHEN IT WAS STARTING OUT, THE ACT WASN'T SIGNED UNTIL 1966. WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS, AND THIS WAS COMMON THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, WAS THAT STYLES CHANGED. PEOPLE WANTED TO GO MORE MODERN. 
          [01:50:01]
IT WAS AFTER THE WAR AND ALL THAT. SO THIS WHOLE MID CENTURY MODERN AESTHETIC TOOK OFF. HERE FROM WHAT I HAVE READ, THE IDEA WAS, WE WANT TO BRING IN INDUSTRY. WE WANT TO BRING IN TOURISTS. WE WANT TO BE MORE MIAMI. 
          WE'RE GONNA TAKE THIS HISTORIC BUILDING. NOBODY WANTS GRANDMA'S BUILDING. 
          WE WANT TO MODERNIZE IT AND STREAM LINE IT. WE TOOK OFF THE TOWER AND ALL THE BRICK DETAILS AND ALL THAT. NOW LOOKING AT IT, THEY'VE LOST A LOT OF ITS ORIGINAL PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FEATURE. IT'S AN INTERESTING CASE STUDY BECAUSE IT IS SIGNIFICANT IN ITS REMODEL FOR BEING MID CENTURY MODERN. IT'S NOT A TRUE MID CENTURY MODERN. YOU COULD DEBATE SAY MID CENTURY MODERN OF IT. 
          IT IS AN INTERESTING CASE STUDY. THAT DEMOLITION. MOVING TO SECTION, OLDER SECTION I. SECTION G WHICH GETS RELETTERED SECTION I. 
          THIS IS REALLY CLARIFYING THE PROCESS TO -- FOR EMERGENCY REPAIR OR DEMOLITION. 
          THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THERE. PROCEDURES FOR EXPEDITED APPROVAL ARE OUTLINED IN SECTION 8.03.08. SO REALLY, WE'VE HAD ISSUES IN THE PAST YEAR WITH EMERGENCY REPAIR AND EMERGENCY DEMOLITION APPLICATION. THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY IT A LITTLE BIT. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD A SECTION IN THE LDC. 
          THIS IS JUST POINTING YOU TOWARDS IT IF YOU'RE IN THAT OTHER SECTION. 
          SECTION J IS JUST CHANGING THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          DOWN IN SECTION 8.03.08 EMERGENCY ACTION. SECTION B1. 
          THAT'S AGAIN JUST CHANGING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND CONSERVATION. SAME THING IN -- LITTLE FURTHER DOWN. 
          IN SECTION 2, CHANGE BEING MADE HERE, THAT EMERGENCY CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL CAN BE ISSUED BY STAFF AND THE HDC CHAIR. SO WE USE THIS WITH SOME OF OUR EXAMPLES THAT HAPPENED THIS YEAR. WORKS OUT WELL. FOR AN EMERGENCY, WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE HDC MYSELF AS STAFF AND THE CHAIR CAN SIGN OFF ON THAT. 
          THIS WAY IT'S BEEN REVIEWED, BUT ISN'T HOLDING ANYTHING UP IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. 
          MOVING ON TO -- THAT'S ALL OF CHAPTER 8. THERE WAS A CHANGE ALSO IN 
          CHAPTER 5 THAT CAME OUT OF SOME OF THE DISCUSSION FROM THE HDC. >> HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO 
          APPROVAL? >> WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THEM ALL AT ONE TIME. 
          >> THIS IS THE LAST ONE. >> SECTION ABOUT FENCES AND WALLS. 
          ADDING SECTION D IN HERE WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP CITY WIDE BECAUSE IN SECTION FIVE, THAT HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SUPPORTS SHALL BE PLACED INSIDE A FENCED IN AREA SUCH THAT IT ALL SIDES 
          ARE FINISHED ALTERNATING FENCE. >> IT APPLIES CITY WIDE. >> YAY. 
          >> MOST CITIES ALREADY HAVE THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVEN'T HAD IT BEFORE. FENCES SHOULD BE FINISHED TO THE OUTSIDE. 
          IF YOU HAVE A POST, IT SHOULD BE ON YOUR PROPERTY. >> AMEN. 
          >> WE HAD A COUPLE CASES WHERE PEOPLE DO IT THE OPPOSITE WAY. >> COUPLE? 
          >> SOUNDS LIKE A PERSONAL ISSUE. >> IT IS VERY PERSONAL. >> WE'VE HEARD THAT CITIZENS 
          RESPONSE ON THAT. THEY WANT THAT THERE. >> OKAY. 
          >> THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. 
          I'M GOING TO SEE IF THERE'S PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR BOARD DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION. IS THERE ANY COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC? OKAY. SEEING NONE, BOARD MEMBERS WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE HERE? 
          >> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT PAC CASE NUMBERS 20, 
          24 AS PRESENTED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT. 
          >> ANY DISCUSSION, COMMENTS? >> DISCUSSION. >> MISS ROBAS? 
          [01:55:01]
          >> DO THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE JUST HEARD ABOUT TODAY, DOES THAT HELP TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE NEIGHBOR ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THIS BOARD ABOUT THE HDC? THERE'S A REAL ISSUE, APPARENTLY, I DON'T KNOW, BUT FROM WHAT I'M HEARING WHEN 
          PEOPLE COME TO SPEAK TO US. >> THAT'S THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. 
          >> IS IT? >> YES. DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH APPEAL 
          OF DECISIONS OF THE HDC. >> OKAY. I'LL HOLD MY QUESTION. 
          >> I'M CURIOUS IF THIS IS GOING TO HELP RESOLVE SOME OF THESE ISSUES. 
          >> THERE'S TWO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES. MAINLY THE ISSUE IS WITH OUR OLD TOWN GUIDE LINES AND HOW THEY'RE APPLIED. THERE ARE TWO SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT LEAD TO A LOT OF CONFUSION AT ISSUE IN OLD TOWN. THEY LOOK AT US AS PART OF THE CHANGE. THE HDC DECIDED NOT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES RIGHT NOW. 
          WE DO HAVE A GRANT FROM THE STATE TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE OLD TOWN GUIDELINES. 
          THAT WILL BE COMPLETED BY NEXT JULY. IT WILL RESULT IN A NEW SET OF GUIDELINES AND AN UPDATED DOCUMENT THAT IS EASIER AND TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING NOW WITH SOME OF THE NUANCES WITH THE GUIDELINE. 
          HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL BE A SOLUTION. >> THIS GENERALLY THOUGH CLEANS UP A LOT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES THAT YOU'VE BEEN DEALING WITH. 
          >> CORRECT. >> JUST QUICKLY I JUST WANTED TO SEE, IS THERE ANYTHING IN HERE 
          THAT SAYS IT MAY CONTAIN A KITCHENETTE? >> YES. 
          BY STRIKING THE PROHIBITION OF THE KITCHENETTE, IT'S NOW ALLOWING THE KITCHENETTE TO BE 
          IN OLD TOWN. >> IF WE EVER HAD TURNOVER, IF EVERYONE WOULD ALWAYS SEE IT THAT WAY, TOO, AND WOULD ALLOW A KITCHENETTE. BUT WHATEVER YOU GUYS THINK. 
          JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE KITCHENETTE. >> I THINK AS A WAY TO RESOLVE THAT, YOU COULD SAY IT EXCLUDES A KITCHEN BUT MAY CONTAIN A KITCHENETTE. 
          JUST SO THAT IT READS THAT IT'S IN THERE AND IT'S NOT LEFT TO INTERPRETATION THAT, OH, YOU HAVE THIS OTHER DEFINITION, YOU COULD DO THIS, TOO. THAT IT POINTS YOU IN THAT 
          DIRECTION. >> I AGREE, TOO. IT WOULD HELP CLAIRE FIGHT. 
          >> I WOULD ACCEPT THAT CHANGE. >> WE'LL CHANGE THE MOTION. IT'S OKAY WITH THE SECOND. 
          MOTION AND SECOND. DID YOU SECOND IT? >> I WILL SECOND IT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. 
          ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. LET'S MOVE ON. 
          >> THANK YOU. GOOD PRESENTATION. >> THAT BRINGS US TO 5.3. 
          [Item 5.3]
          KELLY OUGHT TO WALK US THROUGH THIS ONE. >> YEAH. 
          >> OR WOULD YOU RATHER ME DO IT? >> THAT WOULD BE FINE. >> I WROTE IT. 
          I WAS THE ONE DIRECTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE. 
          I WILL FIRST SAY THAT THIS IS RELATED TO APPEALS FROM HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL ONLY AND IN THE FUTURE WE'RE GOING TO SEE, NEAR FUTURE, SOME OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES. 
          NOT MUCH, JUST DEFINING WHAT AN AGRIEVED PERSON IS, AFFECTED PARTIES, AGRIEVED PARTIES, ALL OF THESE TERMS THAT ARE USED IN THE CODE. THERE'S CONFUSION. 
          BUT FOR TONIGHT, CURRENTLY, THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL THERE ARE APPEALS THAT CAN BE TAKEN TO THE CITY COMMISSION NOT TO CIRCUIT COURT LIKE OTHER BOARDS. THEY CONDUCT THEIR MEETING AND HEAR THOSE CASES IN A QASI JUDICIAL HEARING. AND SO IT'S DIFFERENT THAN, FOR EXAMPLE HERE, YOU'RE TAKING LEGISLATIVE ACTION. THE CODE SAYS AN APPLICANT. 
          SOMEBODY WHO APPLIES TO HDC FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL AND ONLY CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL. 
          VARIANCES ARE DIFFERENT. THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH THEIR HISTORIC PROPERTY. 
          THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE HDC. AND THAT IS, I THINK, TO SOME RESIDENTS IN OLD TOWN, THEY HAVE COME OUT AND HAD DIFFERENT VIEWS. 
          THEY WERE VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT THEY, AS NEIGHBORS OF AN APPLICANT, COULD NOT FILE AN APPEAL OF THE HDC'S DECISION. NOW ANYBODY CAN TAKE SOMETHING AND FILE IN COURT. 
          I MEAN, REALLY. ANY OF OUR ADVISORY BOARDS, CERTAINLY THE QASI JUDICIAL 
          [02:00:07]
BOARDS. THEY CAN GO, WITHIN 30 DAYS, TO CIRCUIT COURT. 
          THERE ARE ARGUMENTS THEY CAN MAKE THERE. BUT THEY CAN'T GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION CURRENTLY. SO THE PROPOSAL HERE AND I DON'T KNOW, STAFF WILL HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON IT BECAUSE I THINK THEY'RE RECOMMENDING AGAINST JUST ANYBODY BEING ABLE TO APPEAL AN APPLICANT'S CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL BECAUSE WHATEVER THEIR REASONS ARE. 
          THEY DON'T LIKE IT, THEY DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR, BUT THE PROPOSAL IS AND I WROTE IT, ANY PERSON AGRIEVED BY ANY DECISION BY THE HDC MAY APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION PIP EEL QUALIFY THAT STATEMENT WITH THE CHANGES THAT ARE COMING SEASON ARE GOING TO DEFINE WHAT AN AGRIEVED PERSON IS. IT IS NOT JUST ANYBODY IN THE CITY. 
          I LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN NEAR SADLER. IN THE DEFINIION COMING TO YOU, IF YOU AGREE TO DO THIS AND THE COMMISSION ALLOWED ANY PERSON AGRIEVED TO APPEAL, I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPEAL BECAUSE WHAT THE HECK DO I HAVE TO DO WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          BUT SOMEBODY ON THE NEXT STREET OVER OR SOMEBODY LIKE THAT WOULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT THEY HAVE INTEREST OTHER THAN JUST ALL OF THE REDENTS DO. I THOUGHT I HAD TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE OF THAT. THE CHANGE IS SIMPLE. A PERSON AGRIEVED BY THE DECISION AND IT MAY ONLY BE APPEALED TO A COURT OF RECORD OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF 
          APPROVAL. ANY AGRIEVED PERSON MAY DO IT. >> YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE AGRIEVED. I COULD HAVE A PERCEPTION THAT I'M AGRIEVED BY SOMETHING GOING 
          ON IN OLD TOWN. >> THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THE OTHER DEFINITIONS THAT WILL COME TO YOU ARE GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT AGRIEVED IS A STEP UP FROM JUST ANY RESIDENT. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO BE AGRIEVED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS IN OLD TOWN WHEN I LIVE NEAR SADLER 
          ROAD. >> I WANT TO HAVE KELLY TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE 
          RECOMMENDATION SO WE UNDERSTAND IT. >> CERTAINLY. 
          I HAVE PROVIDED IN HERE PRETTY CLEAR STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS WELL AS MORE ILL  STRAEUGS. 
          I SEE A PRETTY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCE IF WE CHOOSE TO GO IN THIS DIRECTION ALLOWING WHETHER DEFINED AGRIEVED PERSON OR A PERSON WHO IS AGRIEVED IN THIS CASE TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE HDC. BY EXTENSION THAT WOULD APPLY TO BOARD REVIEWED APPLICATIONS AS WELL AS STAFF REVIEWED APPLICATION. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THE REASON BEHIND HAVING PRESERVATION OF YOUR HISTORIC STRUCTURE, HISTORIC RESOURCES, YOU WANT VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE IS THE STANDARD. YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE PROCESSES THAT ARE VERY DIFFICULT AND CUMBERSOME TO GET THROUGH. 
          AND PUT YOU IN A POSITION OF POTENTIALLY ARGUING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AND IN THIS CASE THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN THAT NEIGHBOR TAKING YOU BEFORE A PUBLIC BODY AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL TO WAGE THAT DISPUTE. EFFECTIVELY, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD SEE HAPPEN FOR ALL BOARD AND STAFF INITIATED CASES, POTENTIALLY, IF THIS WERE TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          I BELIEVE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS WRITTEN CLEARLY TO ALLOW FOR AN AGRIEVED APPLICANT TO MOVE TO THE COMMISSION IN THE EVENT THAT THE HDC HAS PLACED UPON THEM BURDEN OR UNDUE HARDSHIP THAT THEY FEEL IS AGAINST WHAT THEIR DESIRES ARE TO DEAL WITH THEIR PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S WORK THAT THEY ARE CHOOSING TO UNDER TAKE. IT'S NOT PLACING THEM IN A POSITION TO DEFEND THAT WORK AND THAT ACTIVITY AMONG WHAT IS THEIR NEIGHBOR'S CONCERN. 
          SO I THINK WE NEED TO TREAD VERY CAREFULLY WITH THIS REQUEST FOR THE REASONS THAT I CLEARLY 
          IDENTIFIED AND STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE CHANGE. >> THANK YOU. 
          MISS ROBAS AND MISS MINSHEW. >> IF THERE'S MORE COMING, I'D RATHER WAIT AND SEE THE ENTIRE PACKAGE AS OPPOSED TO DOING THIS PIECE MEAL. I HAVE CONCERNS AS WELL AS TO HOW THIS GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION. I THINK IT NEEDS A LITTLE BIT 
          [02:05:06]
          MORE STUDY. >> MISS MINSHEW. >> SO THIS IS A REQUEST FROM THE 
          CITY COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY? >> YES. >> I WAS AT THAT CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH MISINFORMATION. 
          >> RIGHT. I SAID ANYBODY CAN APPEAL THIS. I MISSPOKE. 
          >> PART OF THIS IS A RESULT OF THAT. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. 
          WHEN IS -- SO HOW WILL THE DEFINITIONS THAT YOU'RE WORK ON IMPACT THIS AMENDMENT? WILL IT REDUCE THEN THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL APPEALS? SO TO MISS ROBAS POINT, WHY ARE WE SEEING THESE IN SEQUENCE AND NOT TOGETHER WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE, I THINK. 
          KELLY, THE RATIONALE STATEMENT DOWN HERE, IS THAT JUST MORE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS? THIS REACTIONARY REQUEST BASED ON RECENT BOARD -- THOSE ARE THE STAFF'S WORDS? 
          >> YES. >> OKAY. >> SO WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES IF WE EITHER DID NOT PASS THIS TONIGHT OR WE SAID WE WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL WE SAW THE ENTIRE THING? WHATEVER OTHER DEFINITIONS YOU'RE GOING TO ADD. 
          >> IT WOULD STILL REMAIN THAT ONLY AN APPLICANT COULD APPEAL A DECISION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          >> WHEN DO WE THINK YOU'LL GET THE OTHER DEFINITIONS IN? >> KELLY? 
          >> THE DEFINITIONS WERE PROVIDED AS PART OF THIS. WE DECIDED NOT TO MOVE IT FORWARD ON THIS AGENDA AFTER TALKING ABOUT HOW THE DEFINITIONS READ. 
          I THINK EVEN WITHOUT THE DEFINITIONS -- SAY YOU HAVE THE DEFINITIONS HERE, THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE GOING TO PLACE REQUIREMENTS ON A PERSON WHO IS AGRIEVED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE STANDING WITH WHAT HAS BEEN DEFINED AS AN AGRIEVED PERSON. 
          THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF AN AFFECTED PERSON WHICH IS ALREADY DEFINED FOR PURPOSES OF QASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. THE PROPOSED DEFINITION TO ME WOULD STILL BE VERY SWITCHY AND THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO MEET THAT AND WAGE AN ARGUMENT BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO, LET'S SAY, DISAGREE WITH SOMEBODY'S PAINT COLOR OF THEIR HOUSE. 
          >> SO DO YOU THINK THAT YOU CAN GET THE DEFINITIONS SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO THEN MAKE THIS A MORE MANAGEABLE CHANGE? ARE THE DEFINITIONS GOING TO RESOLVE THE CONCERN WE HAVE 
          ABOUT THIS BECOMES A BIGGER ISSUE? >> IN MY MIND, NO. 
          WHETHER YOU HAVE DEFINITION OF AGRIEVED PERSON OR NOT, THE RIFT IS THIS CONSEQUENCE OF NEIGHBOR 
          DISPUTE. >> OKAY. >> MR. ROLAND HAS HAD HIS LIGHT 
          ON. >> THAT'S OKAY. I DON'T MIND. 
          I HAVE HAD MY FAIR SHARE OF HDC DISCUSSIONS WITH MY HOUSES AND DIFFERENT PROJECTS. 
          I CAN APPRECIATE THE QUANDARY HDC FINDS THEMSELVES IN MANAGING A SUCCESSFUL HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          THERE'S NO WAY I CAN SUPPORT THIS KIND OF THING. EVEN IF YOU HAVE DEFINITIONS THAT SAYS WHO AN AGRIEVED PERSON IS. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN OPENING THAT TAMMY LIVES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWN BUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS SO LARGE WHO WOULDN'T HAVE STANDING? WHO WOULD NOT HAVE STANDING IN SOMETHING THAT GOES ON THAT'S SUCH A CORE PART OF OUR CITY? THAT ARGUMENT, I DON'T CARE HOW TIGHT YOU WRITE THE DEFINITIONS, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE WIGGLE RIGHTS. I THINK FOR THOSE THAT ARE DISCUSSING A FUTURE HISTORIC DISTRICT PROJECT, WHETHER IT'S OLD TOWN OR DOWNTOWN FERNANDINA, THE TIME TO MAKE YOUR ARGUMENT IS BEFORE THE HDC. THE TIME TO MAKE YOUR OTHER ARGUMENT IS BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION WHO ULTIMATELY DECIDE WHETHERS TO UPHOLD THE DECISION OR NOT. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY ON THE HOMEOWNER. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD KILL IT NOW AND SAY WE DON'T WANT IT, WE DON'T NEED IT, WE GOT OTHER 
          THINGS TO DO. >> COULD YOU MAKE THAT MOTION? >> THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING YOU MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT. IF THERE'S NOT I'LL BE GLAD TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          >> ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? >> YEAH. 
          [02:10:17]
I BELIEVE STRONGLY BELIEVE IN EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. AN AGRIEVED PERSON IS CLEARLY DEFINED IN THE LAWS. IT'S CLEARLY CORRECT. SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN CANNOT DO THIS. AN AGRIEVED PERSON CAN GO BACK TO THE LEGAL CASE, BASICALLY 
          SOMEBODY WHO HAS AN EXTRA -- >> I'M GOING TO READ THAT IN A MINUTE. 
          >> AN EXTRA BURDEN UPON YOU SO THAT WHEN I APPEALED THE DECISION OF THIS -- 
          >> IT WAS -- YOU WERE APPEALING A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> IT WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE. I WAS AN AGRIEVED PERSON BECAUSE I LIVED ACROSS THE STREET. 
          OKAY. AND IF YOU GO THROUGH FLORIDA LAW WHAT AN AGRIEVED PERSON IS, IT'S YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, SOMEBODY AROUND THE CORNER. THERE SHOULD BE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. WHAT THIS BASICALLY SAYS, IF THE HDC SAYS YOU CAN HAVE A PURPLE WHATEVER, SOMETHING THAT REALLY OFFENDS THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR, THERE'S NO APPEAL PROCESS. 
          I BELIEVE IN APPEALS. I BELIEVE IN EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. 
          SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE RIGHT TO APPEAL, YOU SHOULD GIVE AGRIEVED PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL. THAT'S AMERICA. 
          THAT'S EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. IF YOU WANT TO SAY THERE'S NO APPEAL WHATSOEVER, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER. I DON'T TELL MY PERSON ON THE BOARD HOW TO VOTE, BY THE WAY. 
          I NEVER HAVE. AND HE WILL TELL YOU. >> WE HAVE DISCUSSIONS. 
          WE HAVE LIVELY DISCUSSION. >> I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. 
          WHEN YOU DENY THE RIGHT OF THE REST OF AN AGRIEVED PERSON WHO IS WITHIN THAT AREA, I THINK THAT'S WRONG. I WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THIS UP. 
          CITY COMMISSION AGREED WITH ME AND WE DID THAT. THAT'S MY THINKING. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. IT'S NOT TRIVIAL. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING -- WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO THE APPEAL OR NOBODY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT. BUT WHAT'S GOOD FOR ONE PERSON IS GOOD FOR ANOTHER. 
          I HAVE SAID THAT THREE TIMES. >> OKAY. >> ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE -- 
          >> I'LL TALK LAST WHEN I'M READY TO -- >> I'D LIKE TO HEAR YOUR 
          DEFINITION OF AGRIEVED. >> IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WE HAVE AGRIEVED PARTY, IN DIFFERENT SECTION. WE HAVE THE TERM AGRIEVED PARTY, ADVERSELY AFFECTED PARTY, AFFECTED PARTY AND THOSE THREE TOGETHER, THE ONLY ONE THAT'S DEFINED IS AFFECTED PARTY. 
          IT JUST SAYS ANY RESIDENT IN THE CITY. AT A QASI JUDICIAL HEARING YOU'RE ALLOWED TO SPEAK AND PRESENT TESTIMONY. COMMUNITIES DON'T ALL ALLOW THAT. JUST BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN TOWN YOU CAN'T GET UP AND TALK AS LONG AS YOU WANT. WHAT WE HAVE LEFT TO DO IS DEFINE AGRIEVED AND ADVERSELY AFFECTED PARTY. I WENT RIGHT TO THE ACT AND IT MEANS ANY PERSON OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT WILL SUFFER AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO AN INTEREST PROTECTED OR FURTHERED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING INTEREST RELATED TO HEALTH AND SAFETY, POLICE AND FIRE, DENSITIES OR INTENSITIES OF DEVELOPMENT, TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES, HEALTHCARE EQUIPMENT. I DON'T THINK I ADDED THIS LIST. IT SAYS THE ALLEGED ADVERSE INTEREST MAY BE SHARED IN COMMON WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE BUT MUST EXCEED IN DEGREE THE GENERAL INTEREST IN COMMUNITY GOOD SHARED BY ALL PERSONS. 
          THE TERM INCLUDES OWNER, DEVELOPER OR APPLICANT. IF THIS IS EVENTUALLY COMES -- IT WILL COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD, IF IT'S ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, WE WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY WRITE IN IN AN APPLICATION FOR APPEAL WHAT IS THEIR STANDING? AND THE DECISION THAT WILL BE MADE BY THE BOARD MEMBERS WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF 
          [02:15:05]
WHETHER THEY HAVE STANDING OR NOT. 
          >> YES. FOR EXAMPLE THIS IS AN APPLICANT AGRIEVED. 
          THAT'S DIFFERENT. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'D DEFINE THAT OTHER THAN THEY DON'T LIKE THE DECISION MADE ON THEIR OWN APPLICATION. THE APPLICANT CAN DEFINITELY SHOW INTEREST. IF PASSED IN THIS. THERE WILL BE A RECOMMENDATION IF A STAFF SAYS THEY'RE AGRIEVED BUT ARE NOT. CERTAINLY NEIGHBOR. 
          TO STAFF'S POINT, THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH SOMEBODY ACROSS TOWN. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT 
          NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTES. >> MISS MINSHEW. >> TAMMY, MY CONCERN WITH IT, DO I HAVE ANOTHER ELEVATOR SHAFT ISSUE AND CONSEQUENCES? THE LANGUAGE TO ME, IF I LOOK AT 
          THE GENERAL LEGAL DEFINITION, LEAVES SOME OPENINGS. >> THERE'S ALWAYS OPENINGS. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT CHIP IS SAYING. I HEARD PART OF THAT CONVERSATION. SAYING LEGITIMACY THAT THERE WERE CITIZENS IN THE CITY WHO FELT VERY FRUSTRATED BY THE PROCESS. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE 
          SHIFTED TOO FAR. >> I UNDERSTAND. THERE'S ALWAYS WIGGLE ROOM. 
          IF A PERSON AGREES AND ARGUES STANDING WITH THEIR LAWYER OR JUST ON THEIR OWN AND THEY ARE SOMEHOW ABLE TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT AND THE CITY COMMISSION DECIDES TO HEAR THEIR CASE, THEY'RE GONNA HEAR THEIR CASE. THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE IT TRULY OBJECTIVE, I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A LOOPHOLE, YOU SAY ANYBODY WITHIN THREE SQUARE MILES OR TWO SQUARE MILES OR ONE SQUARE MILES OR ON THE SAME STREET OR IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. 
          SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S HOW YOU MAKE IT OBJECTIVE. 
          >> DOES IT SAY WITHIN THE DISTRICT OLD TOWN. >> YOU COULD. 
          YOU COULD. THIS ISN'T JUST OLD TOWN. YOU NEED TO DECIDE WHAT YOU'RE 
          GOING TO DO WITH YOUR SPEAKER. >> STANDING'S A HUGE ISSUE. STANDING, THIS VERY ISSUE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THERE'S MULTIPLE COURT CASES OVER THIS. IT'S NOT A SIMPLE THING. 
          BASICALLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE -- TO HAVE STANDING, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF SKIN IN THE GAME THAT'S MORE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE. BUT I DO BELIEVE THERE SHOULD BE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU. MISS MINSHEW. 
          >> FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT THIS AS AN ENTIRE PACKAGE. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY FIRST THOUGHT. THAT THIS SHOULD BE PULLED BACK UNTIL WE CAN SEE THE DEFINITIONS SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT AS A COMPLETE PACKAGE. MY SECOND QUESTION, IS THIS JUST GOING TO APPLY TO HDC DECISIONS OR IS THIS -- DOES THIS APPLY TO EVERYTHING THAT'S QASI JUDICIAL? 
          >> THIS SECTION IS DIRECT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. HISTORIC SECTION OF OUR CODE. 
          IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL HDC DECISIONS, WHETHER THAT'S STAFF OR BOARD INITIATED. 
          SO EVEN STAFF APPROVAL, CHANGING OF WINDOWS, WILL NOW BE SUBJECT TO THE 30 DAY APPEAL PERIOD AND RISK THE POTENTIAL OF HAVING TO TAKE OUT WORK THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED. 
          >> COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS. BUT ANY PERSON COULD APPEAL THIS AND TAKE IT RIGHT TO CIRCUIT 
          COURT. >> YES. IT 
          >>'S NOT LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE AN APPEALS PROCESS. >> THEY COULDN'T TAKE THE STAFF DECISION TO CIRCUIT COURT. THEY COULD TAKE ANY DECISION FROM THE HDC. 
          >> BECAUSE IT'S A QASI JUDICIAL. THOSE COULD GO TO -- >> CIRCUIT COURT. 
          >> CIRCUIT COURT IMMEDIATELY. SO THERE'S AN ARGUMENT THAT ANY PERSON HAS AN APPEAL PROCESS. 
          THEY DO. IT'S JUST MORE EXPENSIVE FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY'D HAVE TO GO TO COURT AS OPPOSED TO THROUGH 30 TO 60 TO 90 DAY LOOP WITH THE CITY COMMISSION. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER. PEOPLE DO HAVE DUE PROCESS. 
          IT MAY NOT BE CHEAP OR FREE DUE PROCESS. >> PRESUMABLY THEY ALL HAVE THE 
          [02:20:01]
OPTION TO APPEAR BEFORE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION WHEN THE ITEM IS BEING 
          PRESENTED. MISS SCHAFFER AND MR. BENNETT. >> I'M TRYING TO PUT THIS, LIKE GIVE AN EXAMPLE IN MY MIND. I SAVED A HOME. I DID A VERY EXPENSIVE RENOVATION ON FIFTH STREET OF ONE OF THE WORST HOMES I HAVE SEEN DOWNTOWN. 
          IF I WERE TO GO AND WE HAD TO WAIT ON WINDOWS ALREADY 30 DAYS AND THEY APPROVED IT AND SOMEBODY JUST DIDN'T LIKE MY WINDOWS, THAT'S COMPLETELY NOT RIGHT AND NOT FAIR AND IT WOULD HINDER PEOPLE WHO ARE WANTING TO CHANGE AND SAVE FOR THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. AS LONG AS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PURPLE HOUSES, AS LONG AS THAT PURPLE PAINT WAS ALLOWABLE, THERE ARE SOME HOUSES THAT ARE PURPLE. 
          VERY CUTE. IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING THE RULES, IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO DO THAT. I THINK IT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THE APPLICANT VERSUS THE PERSON. 
          IF THEY ARE GOING THROUGH HDC, THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOICE THEIR OPINION ABOUT THAT PURPLE HOUSE AT THAT TIME. IF YOU ARE LEAVING IT OPEN, I WOULD BE VERY NERVOUS ABOUT SPENDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF DOLLARS AND GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE HORRIBLE PROCESS -- NOT HORRIBLE. DOABLE. VERY LOVINGLY DOABLE. 
          >> CHALLENGING. >> CHALLENGING, LOTS OF OBSTACLES, WHEN THIS IS ALLOWABLE, JUST BY SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T LIKE CHANGE OR LIKED HOW DELAP TATED THAT HOUSE WAS. 
          >> OR DOESN'T LIKE YOU. >> OR DOESN'T LIKE YOU OR YOUR BUDDY. 
          THAT'S ALL. >> OKAY. >> I AGREE WE HAVE TO HAVE THESE ANSWERS ON THE TABLE BEFORE WE CAN APPROVE THIS. WE NEED TO SEE THE WHOLE PACKAGE. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT AN AGRIEVED PERSON IS. 
          I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PUT THIS OFF UNTIL OUR NEXT MEETING WHERE WE HAVE ALL OF THIS HERE. I GUESS YOU HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS. 
          >> POSTPONE. >> POSTPONE TO A TIME DEFINITE. >> WILL IT BE READY? 
          >> WE WOULD NEED A SECOND TO DO THAT. >> WE DON'T NEED ANY MORE TIME 
          THAN THAT, RIGHT, KELLY? >> RIGHT. IT IS DRAFTED. 
          I REQUESTED IT NOT BE ON THIS AGENDA BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU CHOOSE TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS REQUEST. BECAUSE DEFINED OR NOT DEFINED, THE EFFECT IS THE SAME. YOU'RE JUST MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS A HURDLE FOR STAND THAT HAS BEEN CLEARLY DEFINED IN YOUR CODE AND NOT RELYING ON THE BOARD. 
          >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. >> OKAY. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR COMMENTS ON THE MOTION AND SECOND BUT A QUESTION, KELLY. HAVE WE DONE RESEARCH ON OTHER COMMUNITIES, OTHER HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION IN TERMS OF HOW THIS IS HANDLED? 
          >> I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY LOOKED TO SEE WHERE THIS IS AND HOW IT IS WRITTEN WITHIN OTHER 
          JURISDICTIONS, NO. >> HAVE YOU? >> SO THIS LANGUAGE IS SIMILAR TO OTHER CITIES WHERE WE HAVE PERMITTING. I CAN REACH OUT AND GET YOU STATEMENTS FROM OTHER COMMUNITIES. IN HISTORIC DISTRICT, THIS LANGUAGE IS IN THERE. IT IS DIFFERENT THAN OTHER BOARDS, BUT IT IS ALWAYS RESTRICTED TO THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL FOR EXACTLY THE REASON THAT WAS STATED. 
          ANYBODY WHO HAS AN ISSUE WITH A PROPOSAL HAS THAT OPPORTUNITY AND HDC DOESN'T LIMIT PEOPLE TO THEIR THREE MINUTES LIKE THE COMMISSION DOES. YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO AT THAT QASI JUDICIAL HEARING TO GIVE EVIDENCE AND PUT IT INTO YOUR TESTIMONY. 
          WE GET A LOT OF -- I TELL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME, I'M NOT THE ARBITOR OF GOOD TASTE. 
          I CAN TELL YOU IF YOUR PAINT COLOR IS APPROVABLE. I MAY NOT LIKE IT. 
          I MAY HAVE LIKED WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE. BUT FIT'S APPROVABLE, I'M GOING TO APPROVE IT. I GET A LOT OF PEOPLE COMPLAINING, I DON'T LIKE THE COLOR ON THAT HOUSE. THE FEAR IS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THOSE THINGS GO TO THE 
          COMMI COMMISSION. >> NO DISCUSSION ON A MOTION TO 
          TABLE. >> IF YOU'RE TABLING IT, WE'RE PUTTING IT ON THE TABLE AND NOT BRINGING IT BACK. IF YOU'RE POSTPONING IT, THERE IS DEBATE ALLOWED. 
          >> QUESTION THAT I WANT TO KNOW. BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THIS COMES BACK, WHETHER IT'S NEXT MONTH OR SOME OTHER TIME, CAN WE DO SOME RESEARCH IN HOW OTHER COMMUNITIES HANDLE THIS? 
          [02:25:02]
YOU DON'T NEED TO RESEARCH EVERY COMMUNITY IN FLORIDA, BUT I'D LIKE SOMETHING REPRESENTED. 
          OKAY. SO THERE'S BEEN A MOTION AND A SECOND. 
          >> JUST TO BE CLEAR SO THAT SAL IS CLEAR. IS IT A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO 
          NEXT MONTH? >> POSTPONE TO APRIL 8TH. >> OKAY. 
          >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION. OKAY. EVERYBODY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE DOING? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED. 
          [Item 6]
MOTION APPROVED. THAT BRINGS US TO BOARD BUSINESS. 
          SEMINAR REQUIRE TRAINING FOR BOARD MEMBERS HELD WEDNESDAY APRIL 1 FROM 12:30 TO 4:30 AND APRIL 2ND FROM 8 A.M. TO NOON. I THINK WE'RE BEING ASKED TO SELECT ONE OF THESE TIMES AND 
          MAKE SURE WE ATTEND. >> APRIL 1ST. >> I HAVE TO SEND ANOTHER REMINDER TO MAKE THAT SELECTION AND MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND COME. 
          >> THIS IS A FOUR HOUR MEETING? >> CORRECT. >> CAN WE DO IT ONLINE? 
          >> YES. >> IT' NOT REQUIRED FOR -- IT'S ONLY REQUIRED IN FLORIDA, AT LEAST TODAY. I THINK THE LEGISLATURE ARE GOING TO HAVE CRA MEMBER DOSS IT. IT'S ONLY REQUIRED FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS. 
          IT'S ONLY REQUIRED FOR OUR CITY COMMISSIONER. YOU CAN DO IT ONLINE THROUGH THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHIC. THIS IS JUST AN IN PERSON. WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND. 
          IT'S NOT JUST ON ETHICS. >> DO WE NEED TO NOTIFY, AT LEAST IN MY CASE I WAS ASKED TO 
          NOTIFY WHICH ONE I WAS GOING TO. DO YOU NEED TO KNOW? >> I HAVE ALREADY SIGNED UP. 
          >> IT'S HELPFUL IF KELLY KNOWS HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS ARE GOING. 
          >> IF YOU HAVEN'T LET KELLY KNOW, PLEASE DO IT. >>  YOU'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT. 
          >> YES. >> I SIGNED UP FOR THE FIRST. >> OKAY. 
          YES, SIR. >> IF YOU CAN, SEND ME AN E-MAIL INDICATING WHICH ONES. 
          I'LL JUST POST OUT THE NOTICE. >> YEAH. IT'S NOT THAT WE HAVE STANDING 
          ROOM ONLY. WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM. >> OKAY. 
          [Item 7 & 9]
          >> I WANTED TO GET YOU AN UPDATE. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED AT THIS TIME. I HOPE TO HAVE THEM FOR YOU BY TEND OF THE WEEK. 
          I DO HAVE POINTS OF CLARIFICATION ON USE OF THESE AS TOOLS FOR THE BOARD. 
          SO PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO THE ACTION PLAN, I RECEIVED SOME GREAT FEED BACK FROM THE BOARD THAT I WANT TO INCORPORATE INTO THAT ACTION PLAN. THE PRIORITIZATION OF THE ASPECT OF THAT DOCUMENT, I AM WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO GET MORE INPUT ON THAT TO DETERMINE HOW TO ELEVATE PARTICULAR ACTIVITIES. ONE OF THE THINGS, AND YOU HAVE ALL SORT OF REALIZED THIS IN JUST LOOKING AT THAT FOUR PAGE ACTION PLAN. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVITY ON IT. A LOT. THERE'S VERY LIMITED STAFFING. 
          REALLY THAT MESSAGE SAYS THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE OR REALISTIC TO HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT ALL OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE MET. I AM LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE FROM THE BOARD IN HOW WE MIGHT PROCEED WITH THE PRIORITIZATION. I CERTAINLY HAVE SOME IDEAS ON THAT. 
          I HAVE BEEN GIVEN GREAT FEED BACK ALREADY THAT I WILL GO AHEAD AND INCORPORATE. 
          BUT IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON IT, I WELCOME THEM. I THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE ASKING EACH OF YOU TO INDIVIDUALLY LOOK AT THEM AND PROVIDE ME YOUR FEED BACK AND I COULD AGGREGATE THAT TOGETHER. I THOUGHT ABOUT TALKING TO THE COMMISSION, ASKING THEM INDIVIDUALLY TO EVALUATE THAT, AGGREGATING IT AND COMING UP WITH A METRIC FROM THOSE TWO 
          BODIES TO HELP US. >> I'M GOING TO SECOND WHAT KELLY IS SAYING. 
          THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PIECE OF WORK THAT I THINK WE OFTEN OVERLOOK. 
          [02:30:04]
I'M HAPPY TO SPEND SOME TIME. I WILL. I'LL LOOK AT IT. 
          WE CAN SIT DOWN AND VISIT. I'D ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO DO THAT. 
          YOU ALL HAVE GREAT IDEAS ABOUT HOW THIS SHOULD APPEAR, THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO HAVE. 
          IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT THING. IF WE DO IT WELL, IT WILL BENEFIT NOT ONLY THE BOARD BUT THE COMMUNITY IN THE LONG HAUL. THANKS FOR BRINGING IT UP, KELLY. 
          SO YOU'LL HAVE THE REPORT BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING. >> OR IN BETWEEN. 
          I'LL AT LEAST GET YOU A FIRST UPDATE TO THE PRIOR VERSION. IF YOU HAVE STRATEGIES FOR ME TO 
          INCORPORATE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. >> IT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA. 
          >> WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS AS A STANDING ITEM. THE ONLY OTHER STAFF REPORT ITEM, OUR PLANNING TECHNICIAN HAS RESIGNED. HER LAST DAY WILL BE THE 13TH. 
          WE WANT TO WISH HER THE BEST. HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOME GREAT APPLICANTS COME IN TO FILL HER 
          VERY BIG SHOE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR KELLY? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.