[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:07]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. THIS IS THE PLANNING MEETING AT 5 P.M.
WHY ARE WE HAVING ALL THIS FEED BACK? >> THAT SHOULD BE BETTER.
>> OKAY. SO MADAM SECRETARY, IF YOU COULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> MEMBER BOYLIN? >> IS HE AROUND? YOU MAY WANT TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.
>> MEMBER BOYLIN? >> MEMBER STEVENSON. >> HERE.
>> MEMBER BENNETT? >> HERE. >> MEMBER SCHAFFER?
>> HERE. >> CHAIR MINSHEW. >> HERE.
>> MEMBER ROBAS IS ABSENT. >> LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET MR. BOYLIN, I GUESS.
>> HMM. >> I'M GOING TO MOVE ON SO WE CAN CATCH UP WITH HIM.
SO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 10 AND JULY 8TH.
[2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE]
I AM SO SORRY. I AM SO SORRY. LET'S DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.I SEE MR. BOYLIN. >> WE CAN'T HEAR HIM. >> HIS AUDIO IS ON.
>> CAN YOU HEAR US? >> WE KNOW HE'S PRESENT.
>> MISS SCHAFFER, CAN YOU HEAR US?
>> YES. >> MR. BOYLIN, CAN YOU HEAR US?
CAN YOU MAYBE TEXT HIM? >> I AM.
>> OKAY. >> I'LL TRY SENDING AN E-MAIL
WHILE WE'RE WAITING. >> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. OKAY.
[ 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
NOW ON TO THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES.JUNE 10 AND JULY 8TH. DO I HEAR A MOTION?
>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM JUNE
10TH, 2020 AS WRITTEN. >> OKAY.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
>> AYE. >> DO WE HAVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JULY 8TH? DO I HEAR A MOTION?
>> I NEED TO MAKE CHANGES. >> WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> MOTION IS MADE TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 12TH, 2020 MINUTES WITH
>> I'M SORRY, JULY 8TH. >> IS THERE A SECOND?
WHAT'S THIS ABOUT THESE MINUTES? >> I HAVE ONE ON PAGE 4.
LET ME GET TO IT. PAGE 4 UNDER ITEM 6, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN THE PAGE IT'S ON THE SCREEN. ABOUT HALFWAY DOWN THE PAGE, THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT SAYS MEMBERS SPOKE ABOUT A WATER TRUCK ABOUT TREATMENT WATER. WE CAME BACK AND HAD A FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT BUYING OR ACQUIRING SOME TYPE OF WATER TANK THAT COULD BE PUT ON AN EXISTING VEHICLE.
SO WE JUST NEED TO ADD SOMETHING.
KELLY WAS GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AS A MORE PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE,
[00:05:03]
SINCE I THINK THAT COULD BE -- THE EXPENSE, FIRST OF ALL.THE SECOND THING, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE TRYING TO PUT A CASE
TOGETHER FOR ANOTHER VEHICLE. >> ALL RIGHT.
SO WE CAN UPDATE THAT SECTION TO TALK ABOUT A WATER TRUCK AND/OR, I THINK THEY ARE REFERRED TO AS WATER HOGS FOR TREE WATERING.
ALL RIGHT. >> THAT WAS THE ONLY THING.
>> IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR CHANGES TO THESE MINUTES?
HEARING NONE, ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE?
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? >> ALL RIGHT.
CAN WE HEAR MR. BOYLIN YET? >> HE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE.
SHOWS HE'S NOT ON MUTE. >> SO WE SENT HIM AN E-MAIL OR
CAN WE TEXT HIM OR SOMETHING? >> PUT A SIGN UP THAT HE CAN SEE RIGHT HERE. WE'VE DONE THAT.
JOHN, WE'RE NOT PICKING UP YOUR AUDIO.
APPARENTLY HE'S NOT HEARING US EITHER.
>> SO WE GET A PICTURE OF A SIGN?
>> YEAH. >> WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
>> JUST HOLD IT UP TO THE CAMERA.
THAT'S GOOD. THAT GOT HIS ATTENTION.
>> NOW HE'S DISAPPEARED. UH-OH.
>> MAYBE HE FORGOT HIS MICROPHONE.
>> CAN YOU HEAR US YET? >> CAN YOU HEAR US? NO. HE STILL CAN HEAR US.
>> IT WILL PUT A YELLOW BORDER AROUND IT IF IT'S HITTING AUDIO.
>> PUT THE SIGN UP ONE MORE TIME.
>> DO WE HAVE HIS CELL PHONE NUMBER SO WE CAN JUST CALL HIM?
>> CAN'T READ IT. TRYING TO GET HIM.
WHERE IS IT? >> ARE YOU TRYING TO CALL HIM?
>> I'M TRYING TO SEND AN E-MAIL. >> DO YOU HAVE A CELL PHONE
>> LET'S JUST CALL HIM. >> I THINK KELLY HAS IT.
>> ARE YOU CALLING HIM? >> WE'RE TALKING BY MESSAGE.
>> I'M SORRY FOR THE AUDIENCE FOR A DELAY, BUT WE NEED TO GET
THIS SQUARED AWAY. >> WE HAVE A CATEGORY FOR PRESENT BUT CAN'T HEAR? OR SEE? ANY OTHER SUGGESTION? MAYBE LET HIM LOG OUT.
>> I KNOW. WE HAVE TO COMMUNICATE TO HIM TO DO THAT. I AGREE THAT'S WHAT SHOULD
HAPPEN. >> IS PROBLEM IS ON HIS END.
>> I NEED MY SIGN BACK BECAUSE THAT'S MY AGENDA.
>> WHAT'S HE SAYING? >> HE CAN'T HEAR.
>> TELL HIM TO SIGN OUT. >> HE'S GONE.
[00:10:13]
>> VICTORIA IS JOINING US. >> CAN SHE HEAR US?
>> THERE'S VICTORIA. >> VICTORIA, CAN YOU HEAR US?
CAN YOU UNMUTE? >> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?
>> YES, THANK YOU. WE'RE WAITING ON MR. BOYLIN.
>> I HAD A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
I COULDN'T GET IT TO TAKE. I WAS SCRAMBLING.
>> IT'S SHOWING HE'S IN, BUT NO VIDEO RIGHT NOW.
CAN YOU HEAR US AT LEAST? SAYS HIS AUDIO IS ON.
VIDEO SHOULD BE WORKING. >> MR. BOYLIN, CAN YOU HEAR US?
HIS MICROPHONE IS MUTED. >> I JUST UNMUTED HIM.
>> MR. BOYLIN, CAN YOU HEAR US NOW?
>> I'M GONNA START. I'M GONNA MOVE FORWARD.
THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK TO GET HIM ON.
WE'RE SORRY, WE SEEM TO BE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES THIS AFTERNOON. SO OUR FIRST NEW BUSINESS IS
[4. NEW BUSINESS (Part 1 of 2)]
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMEND>> I DON'T KNOW. >> LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MODIFY DOCUMENT SPECIFIC TO AIRPORT'S DESIGN STANDARDS.
KELLY, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THIS OR WOULD
YOU JUST LIKE -- >> SURE, WE CAN DO THAT.
I CAN BRIEFLY INTRODUCE IT. OUR CHAINS WHICH ARE NOT ADOPTED DIRECTLY TO ITSELF BUT RATHER UNDER REFERENCE DOCUMENTS THAT HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN OUR CODE AND THAT'S THE REASON THIS BOARD IS SEEING IT HERE TONIGHT. THIS HAS BEEN FULLY DOCUMENTED AS A REFERENCE DOCUMENT. AND THE CHANGES ARE BEING PRESENTED TO YOU HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COUNCIL HAVE RECEIVED RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. AND MR. NATHAN IS AVAILABLE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS. HE IS THE EXPERT IN ALL THINGS AVIATION AND AIRPORT, MUCH MORE SO THAN I AM.
>> WHAT IS THAT? >> IF YOU'RE NOT MUTED YOU'RE PROBABLY GETTING THE AUDIO. IF YOU MUTE THEM.
>> EVERYBODY IS MUTED. >> ALL RIGHT.
MR. QUILL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE US JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW AND THEN I THINK WE HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.
>> JUST A PROCESS REVIEW. LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, THE AIRPORT BROUGHT IN AVIATION CONSULT AEPBTS AND HELPED US COMPLETELY REWRITE OUR STANDARDS.
IT HAD BEEN QUITE SOMETIME SINCE IT HAD BEEN DONE.
THEY WERE PRECLUDING SOME TYPES OF ACTIVITY FROM DEVELOPING ON THE HANGARS. WE'VE HAD A FEW PROPOSALS COME THROUGH. WE'VE IDENTIFIED SOME MINOR REVISIONS THAT WE THINK WOULD BE SMART BASED ON SOME OF THE PROPOSALS WE'VE SEEN. WE DISCUSSED THAT AT THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION. WE FEEL IT'S PRUDENT TO PASS THESE THROUGH. I CAN CERTAINLY ANSWER QUESTIONS. THERE'S ONLY ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MINOR REVISIONS THAT WE FELT WERE STILL NEEDED TO CLEAN UP THE STANDARDS BASED ON SUBMISSIONS WE'VE SEEN.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU PROVIDED THEM.
[00:15:03]
I E-MAILED. DID THEY SEE THE ONES I GAVE?>> YES. >> WE HAVE YOUR E-MAIL WITH SIX ITEMS IDENTIFIED AND THEN WE HAVE THE ACTUAL DESIGN STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN RED LINED THROUGH.
IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS, I CAN ANSWER THEM.
>> I'LL DO THIS TWO WAYS. IS PAGE 1 OF THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT THAT'S BEING MODIFIED, IF YOU LOOK ON THE PDF MODEL, IT'S PAGE 19. IT'S ACTUALLY THE THIRD LINE -- IT'S RIGHT HERE THE FIRST SET OF RED LINES.
THERE'S JUST, WHEN YOU READ, IT SAYS FERNANDINA BEACH PROPERTY BOUNDARY SHOWN IN AND THEN WE STRUCK OUT TWO.
>> I THINK THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE MOST CURRENT MASTER PLAN.
OUR INTENT THERE WHEN WE WROTE THAT LAST TIME, WE PUT IN THE DATE OF THE 2015 MASTER PLAN AND WE HAVE WHAT'S CALLED AN AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN THAT GOES WITH THAT. WE'RE GOING TO UPDATE THAT OVER
TIME. >> IF YOU DO THE MOST CURRENT --
>> YES, SIR. >> THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
>> OKAY. SECOND ONE I HAVE IS ON PAGE 3 OF THE DOCUMENT, OR PAGE 20 IF YOU GO TO THE PDF.
LET ME GET DOWN OR OVER TO IT. YEAH, PAGE 20.
OKAY. ACTUALLY SHOULD BE PAGE 21.
MORE OF A QUESTION UNDER ITEM 5 ON THAT PAGE, WHICH IS THE THIRD ONE DOWN ON THAT PAGE. MY QUESTION REALLY IS, I KNOW AT A POINT IN TIME THE CITY WAS GIVEN A PROPOSAL BY A GENTLEMAN WHO SAID I'LL BUILD HANGARS IF HE LEASED THE LAND.
WOULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BE ENTERTAINED? THAT COULD BE FRAUGHT WITH ISSUES, TOO.
MY QUESTION IS, IF SOMEBODY SAID, LOOK, LET ME LEASE THE LAND FROM YOU. I'LL GIVE YOU AN INCOME STREAM
FROM THOSE TWO HANGARS. >> AIRPORTS ARE GRANTED CERTAIN PRIVILEGES FROM THE FAA FOR THINGS WE CAN DO TO MAKE SURE THE AIRPORT IS SELF-SUSTAINING. ONE IS THE AIRPORT GRANTS US THE ABILITY TO HAVE EXCLUSIVITY FOR ITSELF.
SO IF AN AIRPORT PROVIDES A SERVICE, WE CAN PREVENT ANY PRIVATE ENTITIES FROM COMING IN AND PROVIDING THAT SERVICE.
SOME AIRPORTS DECIDE, THIS IS HERE, WE HAVE A PRIVATE ENTITY RUNNING THE SALE OF FUEL. IF THE AIRPORT WAS RUNNING FBO, WE COULD CLAIM EXCLUSIVITY AND ALLOW NO ONE ELSE TO COME IN.
ONCE YOU GRANT A PRIVATE AGENCY THE ABILITY TO COME AND PROVIDE A SERVICE, YOU CANNOT THEN ALLOW THEM TO BE EXCLUSIVE.
SO ANY OTHER AGENCY OTHER THAN THE AIRPORT CAN'T HAVE EXCLUSIVITY. SO ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN THE HISTORY IS THE AIRPORT HAS BUILT T HANGARS AND EXCLUDED OTHERS FROM DOING THAT.
OVER TIME ONE OF THE CHALLENGES HAS BEEN, WE HAVE A WAITING LIST OF 70 INDIVIDUALS OR MORE FLOATING OUT THERE.
THE AIRPORT CAN'T MEET THAT DEMAND, SO WE WERE TRYING TO FIND A WAY IN WHICH WE COULD STILL CONTROL THAT ACTIVITY WITHOUT OPENING A DOOR AND LETTING EVERYBODY COME IN.
WE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE FAA AND THE PROPOSAL WAS ON OUR AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN, WHICH SHOWS ALL OF THE PROPERTY, IDENTIFYING A PLACE WHERE WE WOULD ALLOW PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.
THE ONLY PLACE WOULD ALLOW PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OF A T HANGAR AND DOING A COMPETITIVE PROCESS WHERE EITHER THEY PARTNER WITH THE AIRPORT OR THEY COME IN AND PROPOSE THAT DEVELOPMENT JUST IN THAT PLACE. WE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO LIMIT IT. WE JUST DON'T OPEN THE DOOR.
THEY SAID, YEAH, YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.
THAT'S WHAT LED TO THAT PROVISION.
IF WE PUT OUT AN RFP AND SAID JUST IN THIS BLOCK IN THE AIRPORT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OF T HANGARS AND SOMEBODY GIVES US A PROPOSAL AND BUILDS IT, WE WOULD STILL THEN CONTROL THAT, SO IT WOULD BE OFF OF OUR WAITING LIST, WHICH IS KIND OF A BUSINESS MODEL PLAN.
WE COULD MAKE DECISIONS ON HOW MANY HANGARS WE ARE BUILDING AND CONTROL HOW MANY PRIVATE HANGARS.
>> THE REASON I ASK IS, IF WE HAVE A PRIVATE DEVELOPER COME IN AND PUT A STRUCTURE IN WHERE THERE'S NO OUT OF POCKET TO THE CITY, YOU ELIMINATE THE CAPITAL ISSUE.
IF YOU BUILD THE HANGAR, YOU HAVE UP FRONT CAPITAL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO RECOVER OVER TIME.
KEEP IT SAFE WITH THE FAA. >> IT DOES.
IT'S SURPRISING WHAT YOU LEARN AT THE END OF THE DAY IS HANGARS
[00:20:01]
ARE EXPENSIVE AND FOOL PROOF IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR A PRIVATE ENTITY TO COME IN AND RENT THEM. WE BUILD OUR HANGARS, WE WAIT FOR GRANT DOLLARS FROM THE STATE AND MATCH THOSE GRANT DOLLARS.THIS FALL WE'RE BIDDING OUT A PRO PROJECT. THE STATE IS GIVING US 500,000 AND WE ARE PUTTING IN 500,000. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE.
EVEN WITH COMPETING AND PUTTING THIS OUT, IT'S CHALLENGING TO FIND A PRIVATE ENTITY THAT CAN BE COMPETITIVE.
>> MY QUESTION WAS JUST ONE. SO THIS KEEPS THAT PROCESS WHERE
THE CITY'S PROTECTED. >> IT IS.
>> YOU CAN STILL LET FREE ENTERPRISE ENTERTAIN --
>> WE DIDN'T WANT TO OPEN THE DOOR.
THIS IS AT OUR DISCRETION. IF WE PULL OUT AND SAY WE'D LIKE TO PARTNER WITH SOMEBODY, WE CONTROL THAT PROCESS AND NOBODY CAN COME IN AND DEVELOP T HANGARS WITHOUT OUR DISCRETION
>> ALL RIGHT? >> THE LAST ONE I HAD IS ON PAGE 6 OF THE DOCUMENT, PAGE 24 OF THE PDF FILE.
LET'S SEE HERE. I KNOW WHAT IT WAS.
GO UNDER PARKING SPACE BY FACILITY TYPE, ITEM NUMBER 4, ABOUT HALFWAY -- IT'S UNDER AUTOMOBILE PARKING.
>> OKAY. >> I JUST GOT A QUESTION.
IF YOU GO DOWN UNDER BOX HANGAR WITH OFFICE AND MAINTENANCE, DOWN SECOND LINE ITEM SAYS ONE SPACE PER -- IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE 3,000? IS THE STRIKEOUT JUST THE TWO
ZERO? >> IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 300 FOR
>> IT WAS 200 WHEN WE WROTE IT LAST TIME AND WE WANTED TO STANDARDIZE THE OTHER 300 SQUARE FEET FOR OFFICE SPACE IN THE OTHER SECTION AND 300 SQUARE FEET FOR OFFICE SPACE AS WRITTEN THERE MATCHES THE CITY STANDARD I BELIEVE AS WELL.
WE WANTED A STANDARD WITHIN THE AIRPORT AND WITH WHAT THE CITY
IS DOING. >> I WASN'T QUITE SURE HOW TO INTERPRET THE STRIKE THROUGH. SO IT IS 300 SQUARE FEET.
>> ONE SPACE PER 300. >> OKAY.
>> I THINK THAT WAS IN ERROR. THIS CAME OUT OF, THERE'S KIND OF A BEST PRACTICE DOCUMENT FOR AIRPORT PLANNING THAT GETS PUT OUT. WE USE THAT TO DEVELOP A PARKING SPACE PIECE. HAVE TRIED TO REFINE THAT FIT,
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. BENNETT? ANYONE ON THE TELEPHONE? VICTORIA, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? DO YOU WANT TO UNMUTE?
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT SECTION.
IT'S ITEM 10 IT SAYS ANY HANGAR OR BUILDING PART OF THE AIRPORT OPERATIONS AREA IS ALSO CONSIDERED PART OF THE SECURITY SYSTEM. IF YOU CAN HELP ME FIND THAT.
>> IT'S ON PAGE 5. IT'S NOT A RED LINE AREA.
MY ONLY COMMENT ABOUT THAT IS THAT IT DOESN'T INDICATE WHETHER THE THREE STRANDS OF BARB WIRE ARE GOING TO BE POINTING INSIDE, OUTSIDE OF THE SECURITY PARAMETER, WHICH I THINK IS A PRETTY IMPORTANT THING FROM A SECURITY PERSPECTIVE.
>> LET ME CATCH UP WITH YOU HERE.
OBVIOUSLY FROM THE BUILDING IS A GREAT EXAMPLE.
WHEN WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT ABUTS IT, THE BUILDING CAN BECOME PART OF THAT SECURITY FENCE SO YOU CAN HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS FROM THE OUTSIDE. THIS IS AN FDOT REQUIREMENT OR KIND OF A STANDARD PRACTICE FOR NO LESS THAN 6 FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE AND THREE STRAND OF BARB WIRE ON TOP OF THE FENCE.
THAT WOULD BE ALONG THE FENCE LINE THAT'S RUNNING ADJACENT TO
THE BUILDING. >> MR. STEVENSON, SHE HAS THE
FLOOR. >> DOES THAT MEAN THREE STRANDS OF BARB WIRE IS CURRENTLY MADE THREE SETS OF BARB WIRE STANDING STRAIGHT UP ON THE SIX FEET OF CHAIN LINK FENCE OR DOES IT GO AT A 45-DEGREE ANGLE INSIDE TOWARDS THE AIR SIDE OR 45
DEGREES TOWARDS THE LAND SIDE? >> WE ACTUALLY ON OUR EXISTING FENCE LINE HAVE BARB WIRE THAT FENCES STRAIGHT UP AND WE ALSO HAVE SOME THAT FENCES AS AN ANGLE.
[00:25:01]
THERE'S NOT STATE MANDATE OR RECOMMENDATION AS FAR AS WHAT THAT SHOULD BE. IT'S JUST THREE STRAND ON TOP.DOESN'T INDICATE THAT IT SHOULD POINT OUT OR IN.
WE HAVE BOTH TYPES. YOU COULD STANDARDIZE THAT.
WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT YET. >> SO THERE'S NO STANDARD ON
>> I THINK THAT WAS IT. THANK YOU.
>> OKAY. ANYONE ELSE ON THE ZOOM CALL THAT HAS A QUESTION? DO WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION?
>> I'M GOOD. >> NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I WOULD
LIKE SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> MAKE A MOTION FOR ALL OF THEM
AT ONE TIME OR INDIVIDUALLY? >> YEAH.
>> MISS ROBAS HAS HER HAND UP. >> I'M SORRY.
>> ALL I WANT TO DO IS PARTICIPATE EVEN TO MAKE A
MOTION OR TO SECOND A MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE REFERENCE DOCUMENT SPECIFIC TO AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS AS CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 4.03.02 AIRPORT ARCHITECTURE AND BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE AIRPORT.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND.
IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? EVERYONE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
>> AYE. >> ANYONE OPPOSED? OKAY. DONE.
>> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE VERY WELCOME.
THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM IS 4.2 WHICH IS LAND DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO MODIFY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT
DESIGN. >> I'LL INTRODUCE THIS ITEM.
THE REASON YOU ARE SEEING THIS ITEM TONIGHT IS FOR A COUPLE REASONS. ONE IS A LITTLE BIT OF CLEANUP WORK ON CLARIFYING SOME OF OUR POLICY LANGUAGE AS WE HAVE CURRENTLY BEEN PROVIDING THAT TO OUR APPLICANTS AT THE TIME OF PERMITTING OR SITE REVIEW. BUT ALL TO CLEAR UP REDUNDANCY WE HAVE IN OUR LANGUAGE TODAY. CONSOLIDATING WHERE WE HAVE A SECTION IN SECTION 7.03.03. TO PROVIDE HISTORY ON THIS, WHEN I FIRST STARTED WORKING FOR THE CITY, STORM WATER WAS NOTED SOMETHING WE WERE ABLE TO EASILY ADDRESS AND MORE RECENTLY WE'VE HAD A STORM WATER MANAGER COME AND WORK FOR THE CITY AND HAS PROVIDED TREMENDOUS VALUE TO US IN PROVIDING GUIDANCE AND OVERSIGHT OF OUR PERMIT ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS SITE PLAN REVIEW. AND IT HAS GREATLY IMPROVED A LOT OF OUR PROCESSES. SO IT IS THROUGH HIS EXPERTISE THAT WE ARE MAKING SOME OF THESE CHANGES JUST TO MAKE SOME OF THESE THINGS FIT BETTER AND ALSO CONFORM TO THE DIRECTION THAT OUR APPLICANTS ARE RECEIVING AT THIS TIME.
SO HE IS HERE TO PROVIDE ANY QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU. HIS EXPERTISE REALLY IS IN STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND ENGINEERING.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS KELLY INDICATED, I WOULD CATEGORIZE THESE MORE AS HOUSEKEEPING REVISIONS.
WE ARE DOWN THE ROAD LOOKING AT SOME MORE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES TO THE STORM WATER SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.
WE'RE TRYING TO COMPLETE SOME OTHER DOCUMENTS.
WE'RE WORKING ON A LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT GUIDE BOOK AND LOOKING AT CHANGES THAT MAY BE RECOMMENDED BY THAT DOCUMENT.
SO IN THE FUTURE WE WILL COME BACK WITH SOME MORE CHANGES BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS CLEANING UP SOME
INCONSISTENCIES, REDUNDANCIES. >> DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS?
>> THIS WOULD BE ON THE PDF FILE ON PAGE 34.
IT'S UNDER SECTION GD. MINE IS JUST A QUESTION.
IT CONCERNS THE TOPOGRAPHY OF ADJACENT PROPERTY.
MY QUESTION IS, I RAN INTO IT BUILDING A HOUSE WHERE THE BUILDER NEGOTIATED WITH US TO ACTUALLY DO SOME WORK ON OUR PROPERTY JUST TO MORE OR LESS STREAM LINE THE FLOW AND KIND OF MAKE IT MANAGEABLE. IN THAT CASE, DOES THE BUILDER HAVE TO COME AND GET ANY PERMITTING FROM US OUTSIDE OF
[00:30:02]
JUST OUR PERSONAL AGREEMENT THAT HE WOULD DO IT AND THEN RESTORE OUR PROPERTY I'LL CALL IT AS CLOSE TO THE ORIGINAL CONDITIONAS POSSIBLE? >> THAT KIND OF DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION. THIS PARTICULAR SECTION IS BASICALLY LOOKING AT INFORMATION GATHERING.
JUST THE SURVEY DATA, THE TOPOGRAPHICIC SURVEY.
LOT OF TIMES THE BUILDER WILL GO IN AND LOOK AT JUST THEIR LOT.
JUST THEIR ENVELOPE. THAT'S ALL THEY GATHER DATA ON.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE IS LOOKING AT THINGS FROM A LARGER PERSPECTIVE TO SEE IF THERE'S WATER COMING ON TO YOUR PROPERTY THAT YOU NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR.
TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE OTHER SIDE, HOW YOUR GRADE CHANGES AFFECT EVERYTHING AROUND YOU.
SO IF THERE IS WORK THAT IS NEGOTIATED OFF SITE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, THAT KIND OF, WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT CASE BY CASE.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT HAS TO BE CONSENTED TO BY BOTH PARTIES.
ALSO, IF THERE'S ANY PERMITTING NECESSARY WITH THAT, THEY CAN TIE THAT ALTOGETHER. THEN ANY RESTORATION OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT SITUATION KIND OF CAN BE SPECIFICALLY NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES AND THE CITY WOULD HELP
FACILITATE THAT PROCESS. >> OKAY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I'M GOOD.
>> ON THE 3.05.03, STANDARDS OF STORM WATER MANAGEMENT UNDER B, IT SAYS STRIKING THE AMELIA ISLAND DISTRICT.
CAN SOMEBODY EXPLAIN WHY THEY WERE IN THERE OR WHY THEY ARE
TAKING IT UP? >> QUITE HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS IN THERE ORIGINALLY. PRIOR TO MY EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY, I WORKED IN LAND DEVELOPMENT IN NASSAU COUNTY AND FERNANDINA BEACH AND I NEVER DEALT WITH THE DISTRICT WHEN IT CAME TO PERMITTING A STORM WATER DESIGN.
THEY DON'T ACTIVELY MAINTAIN ANY DITCHES THAT ARE EXISTING.
SO THAT HAS KIND OF BEEN -- IT'S NO LONGER NECESSARY.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THERE THAT WAS NEVER DONE, THAT IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE DONE, SO WE WANT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE
>> SO TO MAKE THAT SENTENCE CORRECT IT WOULD BE -- THERE WOULD BE A PERIOD AFTER THE CORPS OF ENGINEERING, PERIOD.
OR CORPS OF ENGINEERING COLUMN OR CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE CITY. WOULD YOU TAKE OUT IF APPLI APPLICABLE?
>> I'M NOT FINDING THE EXACT SECTION.
>> IT'S ON THE BOARD. >> I THINK THAT STATEMENT WOULD STILL REMAIN BECAUSE THIS IS SPEAKING TO COORDINATION WHERE IT APPLIES WITH THESE TWO ENTITIES.
>> CORRECT. NOT ALL PERMITS ARE REQUIRED TO BE PERMITTED THROUGH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SO EACH AGENCY WOULD BE AS APPLICABLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T
ALL HAVE JURISDICTION. >> OKAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOOD WITH THAT THEN.
OKAY. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS WHILE YOU HAVE THE FLOOR?
>> HANG ON. I THINK I DID HAVE SOMETHING ELSE. LET ME FIND IT.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PEOPLE ON ZOOM? OKAY.
SO HEARING NO MORE QUESTIONS, THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REVISIONS CONCERNING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AS
PRESENTLY PRESENTED TO THE PAB. >> IS THERE A SECOND?
>> I'LL SECOND IT. >> ALL RIGHT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE.
>> ALL THOSE OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MY PLEASURE.
>> OKAY. NEXT ITEM, KELLY, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT CHANGES TO THE TEXT AMENDMENT?
>> THE NEXT CHANGE THAT YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO REVIEW IS DIRECT REQUEST OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOLLOWING LAST YEAR'S CONSIDERATION OF A POSSIBLE AUTOMOBILE RACETRACK AND POTENTIALLY NOT HAVING IT, TO DEFINE THE USE AS WELL AS TO PROHIBIT IT EXPRESSLY WITHIN OUR CODE.
[00:35:01]
SO THIS IS PROVIDING A DEFINITION AND THE APPLICABLE SECTION CHAPTER 1.07.00. AND THEN ADDING INTO THE TABLE OF LAND USES, AS WELL AS THE TABLE OF ACCESSORIES THAT USE BUT LEAVING IT BLANK WHICH BY THE WAY THAT READS MAKES IT PROHIBITED USE SO THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE THAT AS A USE EITHER AS A PRINCIPLE USE OR ACCESSORY USE TO ANY OTHER TYPE OF USE.>> MR. BENNETT, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I AM OPPOSED TO THIS BECAUSE THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE IT BECAUSE IF SOMETHING IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE CHART, THEN IT'S PROHIBITED. I BELIEVE THAT BY HAVING THIS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT YOU'RE POTENTIALLY CLEARING THE WAY TO MAKE IT A PERMITTED USE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
I THINK WE SHOULD ADD NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS TO THIS, MAYBE SUBMARINE BASES. WHATEVER OTHER USE YOU CAN THINK OF THAT YOU WANT TO ADD TO THIS. THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE THIS.
>> OKAY. >> CAN I ASK THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AT THE OTHER END WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF THIS.
WHY WOULD WE ADD SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROHIBIT?
>> THE REASON THAT WE WOULD WANT TO ADD THIS, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, FOR FEAR CERTAIN THINGS MIGHT GET DEVELOPED. WHY WOULDN'T THEY JUST ADDRESS WHATEVER WE CAN THINK OF, RIGHT, THAT MIGHT BE A USE THAT WE DON'T WANT? THIS CASE, WHEN THE RACETRACK ISSUE CAME UP TWO YEARS AGO, WE LOOKED IN OUR CODE AND WE ALSO GOT A PROPOSED LEASE FROM THE PEOPLE THAT WERE GOING TO LEASE FROM THEIR ATTORNEYS. AND THEY DID IT IN A CRAFTY WAY.
IT WASN'T ILLEGAL OR OBNOXIOUS. THEY LOOKED AT OUR CODE AND THERE WERE CERTAIN THINGS IN THERE THAT THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD GET AROUND AND ADD A RACETRACK.
KELLY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER THAT.
THAT WAS THE REASON THAT THIS IS BEING ADDRESSED.
OBVIOUSLY DIRECTION FROM CITY COMMISSION TO HEAR AND THAT'S WHY KELLY HAS FOCUSED ON THIS. BUT, YOU'RE RIGHT.
I MEAN, YOU COULD HAVE -- YOU COULD THINK OF OTHER THINGIOUS MAY NOT EVER WANT HERE AND DO THE SAME THING, BUT THAT'S NOT
OUR CHARGE. >> BY ADDING THIS IN THERE, DOES THAT PAVE THE WAY TO MAKE IT EASIER TO PERMIT IT ONE DAY
BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ADDED? >> NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
WHY WOULD YOU THINK SO? >> RIGHT NOW WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF THE DEFINITION.
I AM GUESSING ONCE THE DEFINITION AND THE ITEM IS ON THE CHART, THEN IT'S A MATTER OF COMING FORWARD AND MAKING IT A PERMANENT USE IN ONE OF THE CATEGORIES.
>> I GUESS. >> SO TO ME IT MAKES IT AN EASIER PROCESS RATHER THAN NOT HAVING IT THERE AT ALL.
THEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE THE DEFINITION, OKAY THAT, THEN GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF WHERE WE ARE.
>> RIGHT. I CAN JUST TELL YOU, AND I DIDN'T BRING THAT PROPOSED LEASE FROM BACK THEN, BUT I CAN JUST TELL YOU I WAS CONCERNED, I THINK KELLY WAS, TOO.
AT LEAST SOME ATTORNEY COULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT IT IS AN ALLOWABLE USE AND THIS WOULD BE A BETTER WAY FOR TOWS GO.
>> IS THERE SOMETHING IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS IF IT IS NOT
LISTED, IT IS NOT PERMITTED? >> NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT STATEMENT IN OUR CODE. THAT'S JUST HOW THIS TYPE OF ZONING ALLOWS A TABLE OF USE. THAT'S HOW THEY ARE INTERPRETED.
THEY HAVE THESE IN OTHER PLACES. >> WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO ADD A PART TO THE CODE THAT IF A USE IS NOT SHOWN IN THE CHART, THAT THEN IT IS PROHIBITED, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE?
>> THE WAY THE CODE PRESENTLY READS, AND I AM HAVING TO PULL IT UP SO WE CAN HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN FOR ALL OF OUR VIEWS.
I BELIEVE IT IS CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 2.
WILL SPEAK TO WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SIMILAR USES IN TERMS OF DENSITY, INTENSITY, NATURE OF THAT USE IS SIMILAR TO A PARTICULAR USE THAT IS LISTED OR SEVERAL THAT COULD BE COMBINED TOGETHER OR DIRECTION WOULD BE AFFORDED TO THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THAT MIGHT FIT. WHERE THAT UNDEFINED USE MAY FIT WITHIN IT. WHERE IT'S LARGELY A USE THAT DOESN'T REALLY FIT WITHIN ANY OF THE DEFINING USES, THEN MY INTERPRETATION AT THIS POINT HAS BEEN IT'S NOT A PERMISSIBLE USE.
[00:40:04]
>> RIGHT. >> THAT WAS MY SPWERP STATION WHEN WE PUT THESE THINGS TOGETHER.
SOME ITEMS ARE VERY CLOSE TO WHAT THIS IS BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY DEFINED EXACTLY FOR THAT USE.
>> SO ONE VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. STATE LAW SAYS THEY HAVE TO BE TREATED LIKE PHARMACIES, SO SO FAR WE HAVE, I THINK WE'VE HAD ONE COMPANY INQUIRE BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S PUT IN AN APPLICATION OR ANYTHING. BUT THAT WOULD BE, WOULD FIT UNDER PHARMACIES. STATE SAYS THEY HAVE TO BE TREATED LIKE PHARMACIES, SO RATHER THAN ADD THAT SPECIFIC USE OR DEFINE IT, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT WHEN THE
AMENDMENT PASSED. >> THIS USE IS SPECIFIC THAT I DON'T SEE IT GETTING CONFUSED WITH THE POTENTIAL USE THAT'S IN
THERE. >> LET ME SEE IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WOULD GO TO ZOOM FIRST.
IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM THAT HAS A QUESTION?
>> HOW THEN DID WE GO SO FAR DOWN THE ROAD, HAVING CONVERSATIONS ALL THE WAY TO THE CITY COMMISSION ABOUT PUTTING IN THIS RACETRACK? IF WE DON'T SAY THAT ONCE IT IS DONE, OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A WAY FOR A DEVELOPER TO GET AROUND WHETHER WE DIDN'T SAY OR WE SAID, BUT IT APPEARS THEY COULD GET IT IN BY USING A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OR DIFFERENT METHOD.
I THINK WHAT THE COMMISSIONER IS ASKING FOR IS SOMETHING THAT SAYS ABSOLUTELY HERE'S THE DEFINITION AND WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT, IT IS PROHIBITED, PERIOD.
AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET AROUND IT.
BECAUSE EVERYBODY SPENT ALMOST A WHOLE YEAR VERY VEHEMENT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT RACETRACK.
I THINK IF SOMETHING WAS THERE TO BEGIN WITH, IT WOULD HAVE STOPPED IT RIGHT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE ON THE CALL HAVE A COMMENT? MR. STEVENSON?
>> ONE OF MY COMMENTS WAS EXACTLY WHAT MR. BENNETT HAD.
BUT I WOULD TEND -- MY VIEW IS I'M NOT SURE SILENCE IS GOLDEN IN THIS CASE SO MAYBE PUTTING IN PLACE.
BUT I DO HAVE ONE WORD THAT BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT.
IF YOU GO TO PAGE 40. GO DOWN TO PROPOSED REVISIONS.
SENTENCE, UNDER PROPOSED REVISION 7.07.00 FIRST LINE SAYS A FACILITY CONSISTING OF A PAVED.
I THINK YOU NEED UNPAVED. IN TODAY'S WORLD, THERE ARE DIRT TRACKS. I'M NOT SURE A DIRT TRACK IS DEFINED AS BEING PAVED. DAYTONA RACE WAY USED TO BE ON
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
MISS SCHAFFER? >> ANYTHING FURTHER ABOUT ELECTRIC OR GAS OR SOMETHING OTHER THAN AUTOMOBILE? OR DOES AUTOMOBILE COVER MOTORCYCLES AND FOUR WHEELERS
AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT? >> I THINK WE SHOULD JUST SAY RACING PERIOD. IF WE DON'T SAY THAT, SOMEBODY
MAY GET AROUND THAT. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THEY TALKED ABOUT IN THAT LEASE PROPOSAL WAS RACE CART TRACK AS WELL.
I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD ADDRESS THAT.
>> SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT ANY KIND OF RACING.
>> THAT WOULD INCLUDE HORSE RACING?
>> DOG RACING. >> I THINK IT GOT TO THIS POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, IS IT TOO GENERAL, TOO BROAD? ARE YOU GONNA LIST A BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS AS WELL?
>> AGAIN, THE CITY ATTORNEY, DO WE NEED THIS?
>> I AM GOING TO SAY IF IT IS YOUR INTENT JUST AS BOARD MEMBERS AND CITIZENS THAT YOU DON'T WANT RACING, THEN I SAY YES. LIKE I SAID, I LOOKED AT A LEASE WITH AN ARGUMENT IN THERE THAT THIS IS ALLOWED EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T HAVE IT LISTED. I WOULD SAY YES.
BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH A BIG ISSUE AND WE DO HAVE AN AIRPORT AND WE
[00:45:04]
DO HAVE AT LEAST ONE RUNWAY, RIGHT, THAT'S NOT FUNCTIONING FOR AIRCRAFT RIGHT NOW. WE, AS A CITY, KNOW WHAT OUR CITY COMMISSION DOES, OR WANTS. BUT LET'S SAY A FUTURE CITY COMMISSION, THEY HAVE TO TAKE SOME MORE STEPS IN ORDER TO ENTER INTO ANY TYPE OF LEASE LIKE THAT.>> THAT MAKES ME ASK THE QUESTION.
AT THE AIRPORT, THEY ARE DOING MOTOR CROSS.
THEY HAVE EVENTS OUT THERE REGULARLY.
SO WILL THIS PROHIBIT THAT? >> THE WAY THAT IT'S TALKING ABOUT RACING, I CAN TELL YOU. AS YOU KNOW, US LAWYERS, THAT'S OUR JOB. I WOULD SAY NO, BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE DOING THERE IS THEY'RE TEST DRIVING.
WE DO NOT ALLOW -- WHEN WE HAD SVRA BEFORE, THAT WAS RACING.
THAT WAS CAR RACING. THE TRACKS, OR THE RUNWAY IS LEASED OUT FOR A COUPLE DAYS AT A TIME FOR DRIVE TESTING,
MERCEDES-BENZ. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SORTS VEHICLE CLUB OF AMERICA DOES LIKE MOTOR CROSS.
I SEE PEOPLE OUT THERE. I COULD SIGN UP AT 6 A.M. AND DO ROAD RACING AT THE AIRPORT ALL DAY.
>> RIGHT. IT SAYS IT'S PROHIBITED.
THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED. >> SO THEN THAT BECOMES
>> THAT IS AN INCOME SOURCE TO THE AIRPORT.
>> RIGHT. >> THAT HAS BEEN ALLOWABLE FOR
MANY, MANY YEARS. >> ONE THING THAT I WILL TELL YOU THOUGH. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR NATHAN AND HIS BOTTOM LINE. SITTING THROUGH THE BUDGET AND STUFF LAST NIGHT, THE AIRPORT IS A HEALTHY ENTERPRISE FUND.
WHEN WE DO TWO OR THREE DAYS, THE AIRPORT GETS ABOUT -- THIS IS NOT JUST -- IT'S $800 OR $900 A DAY.
IT'S NOT THAT MUCH MONEY. AND I KNOW THE CITY COMMISSION, WHEN THEY SENT THIS TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND PLANNING TO REVIEW AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING, THEY CONSIDERED THAT IT'S POSSIBLE SOME EVENTS AT THE AIRPORT WOULD NOT HAPPEN.
>> I THINK THIS CLEARLY STATES THAT CLOSE RACES CONDUCTED AT THE AIRPORT WILL BE NOW PROHI
I WOULD PUT POWER OR ANIMAL RACES OR FOOT RACES.
BUT YOU CAN ALSO ADD SOMETHING RELATING TO A SPECIAL EVENT OR
LIMITED. >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AN EXCEPTION WOULD BE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITTED BY THE CITY.
>> RIGHT. SO DO WE NEED TO BRING THIS BACK AFTER WE HAMMER THIS WHOLE THING OUT?
>> MAYBE THIS NEEDS A LITTLE MORE WORK?
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NO RACES. AGAIN, WE WANT TO SAY ANIMAL RACES. OF COURSE, THE POWER RACES.
THEN YOU HAVE BICYCLE RACES. YOU HAVE FOOT RACES.
IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING IS GOING TO FIT INTO A RACE. TO ME, THIS IS OPENING UP AGAIN A PERMITTED USE SOMEWHERE BECAUSE NOW IT'S ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BEFORE YOU COULD SAY IT'S NOT THERE. IT DOESN'T RELATE TO ANYTHING THAT'S THERE. OR JUST ADD SOMETHING IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO SAY IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED AND IS PROHIBITED WHICH MAY BE BETTER WAY OF DOING IT.
>> YES? >> IF YOU WANTED TO REDEFINE AUTOMOTIVE, COULD YOU SAY ALL WHEELED AND NONWHEELED FORMS OF
RACING? >> WHAT ABOUT CHICKEN?
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RACING PERIOD, NOT AUTO SPECIFIC.
>> RIGHT. THE OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND HERE BROUGHT THIS TO MIND. THAT WAS ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT THEY WERE MAKING FOR THE RACE TRACK, TOO, IS THAT THE RACE TRACK WAS NOT THE PRIMARY USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHY IT WAS ALLOWED. IF IT SAYS PRIMARILY HERE, THEY MIGHT STILL BE ABLE TO GET AROUND THIS DEFINITION, KELLY.
>> SO I WOULD SAY THIS DEFINITION NEEDS WORK WE SHOULD DISCUSS AND GIVE KELLY THE DIRECTION WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO SEE. YOU WANT TO SEE VEHICLES? WE CAN COME UP WITH -- SOMETIMES I'LL USE THE TERM INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. WE CAN DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS ABOUT THE ACTIVITIES GOING ON
[00:50:03]
CURRENTLY AT THE AIRPORT. >> IT WOULD WORK TO COVER THOSE
REVENUE GENERATED EVENTS. >> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD CUT THAT STUFF OUT. THAT'S A DRAW.
>> I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
PEOPLE MENTIONED IT OCCASIONALLY.
YOUR QUESTION ABOUT TEST TRACK STUFF, THAT USED TO BE DONE AT THE AIRPORT. THEY STILL DO THAT.
THOSE WOULD BE ACCEPTED UNDER A PERMITTED EVENT.
>> THOSE WILL BE ACCEPTED BUT THEY'RE ALL NOT RACES.
>> WHAT ABOUT DURING THE CON CO
>> THERE MAY BE A PROBLEM WITH THE TERM RACE TRACK, TOO.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THEY BROUGHT UP WHEN THEY WANTED TO PUT THIS FACILITY OUT THERE, IT'S NOT A RACE TRACK.
IT'S A DRIVING TRACK OR SOMETHING.
SOME OF THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THIS ALSO. GOOD POINT.
>> THIS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST VACANT PARCELS IN THE CITY.
THESE THINGS COULD POTENTIALLY END UP THERE.
>> SO ARE WE SAYING THAT WE'D LIKE TO HOLD THIS BACK UNTIL THE NEXT MONTH AND LET'S WORK ON THIS WORDING A LITTLE MORE?
>> LET'S PICK OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO PROHIBIT.
>> DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH ON IT AND BRING IT BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING? DO I NEED A MOTION TO MOVE THIS
TO THE NEXT AGENDA? >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT THIS PROPOSED REVISION 1.07 DEFINITION AUTOMOBILE RACE TRACK AND ADDING THE 2.03.02 BE BROUGHT BACK TO US --
>> TO SEPTEMBER 9TH. >> TO SEPTEMBER 9TH.
>> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
CAN I JUST -- HAVE WE BEEN ABLE TO CONNECT WITH MR. BOYLIN?
>> HE CAN HEAR US. >> ALL RIGHT.
OFTEN WHEN IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE HE WAS THERE AN WE WERE HEARING
NOISE, WE WERE HEARING HIM. >> GOOD.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL HERE.
>> I AM KEEPING EVERYONE MUTED UNLESS THEY ARE READY TO TALK.
BOARD MEMBERS IF YOU ARE VIRTUALLY PRESENT, RAISE YOUR HAND, WAVE, LET ME KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO BE RECOGNIZED OR RAISE YOUR ZOOM HAND. YOU CAN HIT THE ZOOM ICON TO
ITEM 4.4. THIS IS OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS TO ADD DEFINITION FOR AGRIEVED OR ADVERSELY AFFECTED PARTIES ON APPEALS.
KELLY WOULD YOU LIKE TO OPEN THIS UP FOR CONVERSATION?
>> I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> WHY DON'T WE LET MISS GIBSON
THIS EVENING YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER TWO PIECES WHICH WERE DIRECTED IN FIXED MISSION AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD TAKE CONVERSATION OF. ALTHOUGH THEY COULD BE SEPARATED, I HAVE THEM TIED TOGETHER.
THE BOARD DID REVIEW THIS ITEM AT ITS REGULAR MEETING IN FEBRUARY. THIS WAS FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH ACTION IN BOTH DEFINITION FORM AS WELL AS THE CHANGES TO WHO CAN APPEAL CERTIFICATES OF
[00:55:04]
APPROVAL TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL OR STAFF APPROVAL FOR HISTORIC DISTRICT. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON YOU ARE SEEING IT REAPPEAR HERE TONIGHT IS THAT THE BOARD AT THE FEBRUARY MEETING HAD REQUESTED THAT YOU SEE THAT DEFINITION AT THE SAME TIME THAT YOU COMTEMPLATED THIS LANGUAGE FOR THE APPEAL. I KNOW THIS FOLLOWED, TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, A DECEMBER AND JANUARY OF THIS PAST YEAR THERE WERE CONCERNS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, SPECIFICALLY IN OLD TOWN, ABOUT THE SUBJECTIVITY THAT WAS NEEDED WITH BOARD REVIEW FOR CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL, AND THERE WERE OWNERS IN THE AREA THAT WERE SEEKING TO APPEAL DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL.THAT'S WHAT REALLY TRIGGERED THIS TO COME TO BE VIEWED THIS EVENING. THAT WAS DURING A SPECIAL MEETING BETWEEN HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL AND CITY COMMISSION I BELIEVE IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
IT WAS FOLLOWING THAT MEETING THAT THERE WAS DIRECTION THAT WE CONTEMPLATE ACTION. WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION OF AGRIEVED OR ADVERSELY AFFECTED PARTY, I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT DEFINITION AT ALL.
BUT WHERE I TAKE CONCERN IS WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEAL CONSIDERATION THAT'S BEEN DIRECTED IN SO MUCH THAT THIS TYPE OF CHANGE WOULD OPEN UP BOTH STAFF APPROVAL AS WELL AS BOARD APPROVAL TO A 30 DAY APPEAL PERIOD AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED. IF YOU THINK ABOUT THE NATURE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION IS INTENDING TO DO, PARTICULARLY AS AN ESTABLISHED DISTRICT, IT IS INTENDED TO HELP ENCOURAGE APPROPRIATE RESTORATION AND PRESERVATION OF THESE HISTORIC RESOURCES. WHEN THERE'S THE POTENTIAL OF A NEIGHBOR WHO MAY FEEL THAT YOUR PAINT COLOR, AS AN EXAMPLE, OR POTENTIAL WINDOW PATTERN, THAT THEY DISLIKE, YET YOU MIGHT HAVE MADE AN INVESTMENT AND ESSENTIALLY EVEN INSTALLED THIS TO YOUR STRUCTURE AND THERE'S A 30 DAY APPEAL PERIOD DIRECTLY TO THE COMMISSION, THAT REALLY PUTS A DAMPER ON OUR ABILITY AS A CITY TO MEANINGFULLY GET COMPLIANCE WITH OUR STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS. THE OTHER THING THAT IT DOES, AND I THINK IT WOULD PLAY MORE SO AT A COMMISSION LEVEL IS IT DIRECTS WHAT WOULD AFFECT ILY BECOME NEIGHBORHOOD DISPUTES IN A PUBLIC FORUM. I KNOW I POINT THIS OUT WITHIN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED THIS EVENING BUT I HAVE GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THAT WILL IMPACT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO GET PRESERVATION OF OUR RESOURCES AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED.
THAT PROCESS HAS BEEN WORKING VERY VERY WELL FOR US AS A CITY FOR OVER 30 YEARS AT THIS POINT. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE GROWN IN OUR REPUTATION BOTH LOCALLY, BUT ALL STATEWIDE IN OUR ABILITY TO HAVE HISTORIC DISTRICT STANDARDS WHICH ARE MEANINGFUL, PREDICTABLE AND EASY TO NAVIGATE THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
I WOULD HATE TO ERODE ANY OF THAT HARD WORK THAT THE CITY HAS GOTTEN TO THROUGH ANY CHANGE THAT THIS MIGHT CREATE.
>> BEFORE WE GET TO THIS, COULD YOU BRIEFLY EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMETHING GOES TO THE ACC AND WHAT IS THEIR CURRENT APPEAL PROCESS JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE HAVE
ALL BOARD APPLICATIONS ARE REVIEWED IN A QASI JUDICIAL SETTING. THERE IS NOTED THAT IT IS PROVIDED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS OF AN AFFECTED PROPERTY. THIS IS ONLY FOR BOARD APPLICATION. THERE'S POSTED NOTICE OF THAT PROPERTY AT LEAST TEN DAYS IN ADVANCE OF A HEARING DATE.
THERE'S AN AGENDA NOTED WHICH IS PUBLISHED SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE OF A MEETING DATE FOR THOSE PURPOSES.
PRESUMABLY EVERYONE WHO WOULD BE A PARTY THAT SHOULD COME AND BE PRESENT IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PARTICULAR APPLICATIONS TO ATTEND AND TO CREATE ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT CONCERN WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT THAT HEARING.
THEY'D ALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE CROSS-EXAMINED AT THAT HEARING AND PRESENT EVIDENCE AT THE HEARING.
FOLLOWING THAT, THE BOARD WILL ISSUE A DECISION AND FINDINGS OF FACTS AS PART OF THAT CASE. IF AN APPEAL IS SOUGHT THE WAY THAT IT IS CURRENTLY DRAFTED, ONLY THE APPLICANT CAN SEEK AN APPEAL. THE BOARD HAS DENIED THEIR APPLICATION AND THAT PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL.
[01:00:02]
THAT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THERE FOR THEM, I BELIEVE, IN THE SAME QUASI JUDICIAL SETTING TO TAKE TESTIMONY AND HEAR EVIDENCE AND HAVE CROSS EXAMINATION AND RENDER A DECISION.
I BELIEVE THAT DECISION IS CONSIDERED FINAL AND THERE IS NO
MORE APPEAL PERIOD AFTER THAT. >> BECAUSE IT IS QUASI JUDICIAL THE ONLY OTHER OPPORTUNITY IS TO GO TO COURT?
>> ONLY IN THE VENT OF A VARIANCE WOULD THAT BE THE CASE.
>> RIGHT. NOW AN APPEAL OF A VARIANCE IS TO COURT. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
>> THAT'S FINE. PLEASE JUMP IN.
>> SO EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT OF THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO AT LEAST FILE AN APPEAL WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT.
AND IT'S BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT REALLY OBJECTIVE THINGS.
WHETHER OR NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IT IS MORE OBJECTIVE NOW. WHAT'S COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL? SOMETIMES I'LL EXPLAIN IF YOU DON'T LIKE THAT A NEW DEVELOPMENT IS GOING IN AS A RESIDENT, JUST GETTING UP AND SAYING IT'S GOING TO CREATE MORE TRAFFIC IS NOT COMPETENT EVIDENCE. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT.
T SAY MY PROPERTY VALUES ARE GOING TO GO DOWN IF SUCH AND SUCH HAPPENS. IF YOU'RE NOT AN EXPERT IN THAT AREA, THAT'S NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
AN APPEAL HAS SOME OF THOSE SAME STANDARDS BUT AN APPEAL COURT, THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE ARGUING.
YOU'RE NOT ARGUING THAT THE BOARD, THEY JUST WEREN'T FAIR.
YOU KNOW? OR THE WAY THAT THEY MADE THEIR DECISION, WE JUST DIDN'T LIKE IT, WHICH IS WHAT WE WILL SEE AT
THE CITY COMMISSION. >> IN THE AUDIENCE WITH US NOW
IS THE CHAIR OF THE HCS. >> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
THANK YOU FOR THAT THOROUGH DESCRIPTION.
COUNSELOR, THANK YOU. THIS ITEM HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED YET. THIS IS COMING TO YOU AS A RESULT OF THE COMMISSION, THE CITY COMMISSION'S DIRECTIVE.
I'D LIKE TO ADD ON TO WHAT THE DIRECTOR SAID THAT THREE HISTORIC DISTRICTS WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.
OLD TOWN, CRA AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE HAVE CONSIDERED HUNDREDS OF CASES OVER TIME.
WE TAKE OUR PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING VERY SERIOUSLY. WE LISTEN TO WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. YOU'D BE SURPRISED TO FIND OUT VERY FEW PEOPLE SHOW UP TO COMPLAIN.
FOR THE MOST PART, FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CASES, THEY'RE VERY WELL RECEIVED. OCCASIONALLY, AS THE DIRECTOR POINTED OUT, WE DO HAVE FOLKS THAT HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES.
THAT'S WHERE I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL.
AS I AM SPEAKING FOR MYSELF BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT CONSIDERED IT YET BEFORE THE HDC. IF I DON'T LIKE DEVELOPMENT IN MY COMMUNITY, I COULD APPEAL EVERY SINLE DECISION TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND REALLY SLOW THINGS DOWN.
BASICALLY CREATE MISCHIEF. I THINK WE DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB.
WE'RE FAIR. WE LISTEN TO EVERYONE.
WE MAKE FAIR DECISIONS. I WOULD HATE TO THINK SOMEONE'S REHAB PROJECT, SOMEONE'S NEW PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET, SOMEONE'S HOME IN OLD TOWN MIGHT GET HELD UP BECAUSE A NEIGHBOR JUST WANTED TO HOLD IT UP, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY COULD DO.
I THINK I'LL LEAVE IT RIGHT THERE.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I AM PERSONALLY NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROVISION, THIS AGGRIEVED APPEAL.
I SUSPECT THE HDC WILL SAY THE SAME THING.
I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MR. BENNETT HAS A COMMENT
THEN WE'LL GO AROUND THE ROOM. >> SOUNDS LIKE YOUR CONCERN IS THAT EVERYTHING GO TO THE COMMISSION AND THAT JUST HOLDS
UP THE TOP. >> I WOULDN'T SAY THAT.
I WOULD SAY IN SPECIFIC CASES, YOU MIGHT SEE NEIGHBORS TAKING THEIR IRE OUT ON SPECIFIC APPLICANTS AND THAT CONCERNS ME.
>> COULD YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THE SUPREME COURT WHICH DECIDES IF THEY WANT TO HEAR A CASE? IS THAT SOMETHING THE CITY
[01:05:03]
COMMISSION COULD DO? THAT WOULD BE A LEGAL QUESTION, WOULD IT NOT, FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY? IN OTHER WORDS, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO APPEAL IT, COULD THERE BE SOMETHING IN HERE THAT THE COMMISSION DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT OR DOES THE COMMISSION WANT TO HEAR EVERYTHING THAT COMES THROUGH THE BOARD?>> YOU MEAN SHOULD WE PUT SOMETHING SORT OF IN BETWEEN WHERE THE COMMISSION --
>> IF THERE'S A NEIGHBOR OUT THERE WHO WANTS TO BRING EVERYTHING TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND HASH IT OUT.
YOU'RE SAYING NO. >> THAT WOULDN'T WORK.
THE REASON WHY IS I'M JUST THINKING OF THE PERSON THAT IS DENIED THAT APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION WILL ARGUE -- IF THEY REALLY WANT TO MAKE TROUBLE FOR US, THAT THERE WAS AN ARBITRARY DECISION AND THEY WERE DENIED DUE PROCESS.
IF WE PROVIDE THE PROCESS, AS LONG AS I'M CITY ATTORNEY, I BROADLY CONSTRUE THAT TO BE IN FAVOR OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKING AND BEING HEARD BECAUSE THAT KEEPS US OUT OF COURT.
SO I WOULD SAY -- >> YOU DON'T WANT TO CREATE A
PROBLEM. >> WE ALREADY HAVE IT IN HERE WITH AGGRIEVED PARTY. WE TALK ABOUT AN AFFECTED PARTY.
WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT WITH THE COMMISSION.
AGGRIEVED PARTY IS BY FLORIDA LAW AND HOW THE COURTS DEFINE IT IS THAT YOU CAN SHARE YOUR CONCERNS WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY BUT YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT THIS PARTICULAR APPROVAL, IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS THAT A NEIGHBOR IS APPEALING TO THE COMMISSION THAT FOR SOME REASON IT AFFECTS THEM MORE THAN OTHERS. SO THAT WOULD BE PERFECT FOR A NEIGHBOR. VERSUS SOMEBODY THAT LIVES ACROSS TOWN. YEAH.
>> OKAY. >> AND KELLY AND I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THIS, TOO, SAYING SOMETHING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WANTS TO LOOK TO DO. BUT AFTER THINKING ABOUT IT AND SEEING WHAT THE AFFECTS COULD BE, IT COULD BE A MESS.
>> SO LET ME JUST GO TO THE ZOOM MEETING.
ANYONE ON ZOOM THAT HAS QUESTIONS?
MISS ROBAS? >> I'D LIKE THE THOUGHT MR. BENNETT JUST PROPOSED IN OUR DISCUSSIONS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FRAME THIS. WE ALREADY HAVE SOME AREAS WHERE THERE'S, SAY, THREE OR FOUR CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET.
SAY THREE OUT OF FOUR, TWO OUT OF THREE, SOME CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE APPROVED TO GO FORWARD OR NOT. AND IF THE BOARD IS THINKING THAT THIS SHOULD GO FORWARD, PERHAPS ONE WAY WE LOOK AT THAT IS TO ESTABLISH SOME TYPE OF CRITERIA THAT HAS TO BE MET IN ORDER FOR IT TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
JUST A THOUGHT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> I JUST THINK IT'S A HUGE CAN OF WORMS. I APPRECIATE THE E-MAIL TO EVERYONE AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE HDC. I COMPLETELY RENOVATED A PROPERTY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE. IT WASN'T SUCH -- I WON'T SAY DIFFICULT PROCESS. IT WAS ALREADY INTENSE.
IF SOMEBODY JUST WAIVED A FLAG. FOR EXAMPLE, I NEEDED NEW WINDOWS AND IT WAS A 60 DAY PROCESS BECAUSE I MISSED IT BY A DAY. I HAD BROKEN WINDOWS AND HAD TO LIVE WITH HOLES IN MY WINDOWS WITH MY CHILDREN INSIDE JUST BECAUSE WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
IF ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, IF THEY DIDN'T LIKE HOW I PARKED ONE DAY AND DECIDED TO FOLLOW ME, THAT WAS A HUGE PROBLEM.
I REALLY LOVE DOWNTOWN. I HAVE INVESTED SO MUCH THAT I THINK IF WE DID THIS, IT'S JUST GOING TO SCARE MORE PEOPLE WHICH, HONESTLY, THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES TO GET THESE HOUSES AND KEEP THEM STRONG AND PUTTING MONEY INTO THEM.
SO I WANT TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE TO DO THAT.
I HAVE FULL FAITH IN OUR HDC. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE THERE.
>> ANYONE ELSE ON THE CALL? ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM?
>> MR. MORRISON IS ON THE CALL BUT HE HASN'T INDICATED
ANYTHING. >> MISS SCHAFFER, YOU HAD A
QUESTION? >> I AGREE WITH JENNY.
[01:10:02]
I HAVE BEEN HERE 20 YEARS AND I HAVE HEARD SOME REAL PAINFUL STORIES OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.I LIVED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN PHILADELPHIA.
IT IS PAINFUL. I AGREE WITH HER.
>> I'LL MAKE ONE COMMENT. THE VERBIAGE SAYS THAN APPLICANT. WE'RE CHANGING AN APPLICANT TO A PERSON. A PERSON WE ARE CALLING --
WHO DETERMINES WHEN A PERSON IS AGGRIEVED?
>> THERE WOULD BE A PROCESS IF -- AND EVEN AN APPLICANT AGGRIEVED, THERE'S STILL A PROCESS FOR THEM BUT IT'S A LOT EASIER. BUT IF WE HAD TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS A PERSON, THERE WOULD BE A STANDING TEST, IF YOU WOULD, SORT OF WHAT MR. BENNETT WAS SAYING ANYWAY, IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN EXERCISE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY HAD -- IF YOU READ THE DEFINITION, I INTERPRET IT, IF THEY HAVE MORE INTEREST THAN JUST EVERY OTHER CITIZEN IN TOWN. SO THAT MEANS NEIGHBOR.
YOU COULD INSERT FOR A PERSON AGGRIEVED A NEIGHBOR AGGRIEVED, YOU KNOW, AN APPLICANT AND NEIGHBOR AGGRIEVED BECAUSE IT'S
SPECIFICALLY FOR NEIGHBORS. >> SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE ABOUT THIS IS THAT THIS WOULD CAUSE EVERY SINGLE THING THAT GOES IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT
>> -- OR STAFF TO BE HELD FOR 30 DAYS.
YOU ARE AUTOMATICALLY TAKING SOMETHING -- SO IF I GOT AN APPROVAL TODAY TO PAINT MY HOUSE A CERTAIN COLOR TODAY, I GO DOWN TO THE PAINT STORE AND GET THAT PAINT AND I TELL MY CONTRACTOR, AWAY WE GO. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE CHANGED THIS, I WOULD HAVE TO WAIT 30 DAYS TO SEE IF THERE WAS AN
>> THEN I COULD GO BY MY PAINT AND ALERT MY CONTRACTOR AND HAVE MY WORK DONE WHICH SEEMS TO ME A VERY UNNECESSARY BURDEN ON ANY OWNER OR APPLICANT TO THE BOARD. HELP US UNDERSTAND OR MAYBE TAMMY, SO IF WE VOTE -- SAY WE VOTE THIS DOWN.
WE SAY, NO, WE DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA, THIS STILL GOES TO
>> SAYING THAT WE DENY IT. >> YES.
>> BUT IT WILL STILL GO. >> YES.
>> AND THEN THEY DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROCESS WILL BE?
>> WHERE DOES IT SAY 30 DAYS? >> UP HERE IN THE STAFF
RECOMMENDATIONS. >> THAT SAME SECTION.
>> RIGHT UNDER THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHT.
>> GIVING YOU THAT 30 DAY. >> SO THEN THAT WOULD CAUSE EVERYTHING TO BE HELD FOR 30 DAYS.
PERIOD. >> ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE? MADAM SECRETARY, I THINK WE SHOULD DO VOICE VOTES NOT A ROLL
CALL VOTE. >> WE NEED A MOTION FIRST.
>> FIRST WE NEED A MOTION THEN A ROLL CALL VOTE.
WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> MISS SCHAFFER HAS HER HAND RAISED.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY SECTION 8.03.09A AND RECOMMEND THE EXISTING LANGUAGE BE MAINTAINED AS SUCH.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT.
>> SECONDED BY -- >> JUST A MOMENT ON THIS.
THERE'S ALSO A PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE DEFINITION 1.07.00.
AND I WILL SAY THAT IF YOU, WITH THE MOTION AS IT STANDS NOW, THE UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE THAT JUST THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS REGARDING A PERSON AGGRIEVED WOULD NOT BE CHANGED BUT THEN THE OTHER VERBIAGE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT --
>> SHE CAN AMEND THE MOTION. >> SO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS WE WOULD DENY THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 1.07 AS WELL AS THE LDC
DENIAL OF THE ENTIRE APPLICATION.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
>> DO YOU THINK WE NEED -- WE DON'T NEED THE DEFINITION OF
AGGRIEVED PERSON. >> MY UNDERSTANDING IN WHY THAT DEFINITION IS BEING PRESENTED IS BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE TIMES WHERE THE TERM AGGRIEVED APPEARS IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THIS WAS AN EFFORT TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT MEANS.
[01:15:04]
>> BECAUSE WE DO DEFINE AFFECTED PARTY NOW SO, YES.
I'M SAYING FROM KELLY AND I, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU DENY IN PART AND APPROVE IN PART THE APPLICATION.
YOU APPROVE THE DEFINITION CHANGE IN CHAPTER 1 AND SOUNDS LIKE THE MOTION WAS TO DENY THE CHANGE TO 8.03.
>> OKAY. DO WE WANT TO AMEND YOUR MOTION? DO YOU ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT?
IT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING. >> YES.
>> OKAY. >> YOU'LL TAKE THAT CHANGE.
THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE DEFINITION IN SECTION 1.07.00 AND TO DENY THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8.03.09A.
>> DO YOU WANT ME TO CHANGE IT? >> IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?
>> YES. >> WE NEED A SECOND? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
ARE WE READY TO VOTE? >> WHO SECONDED?
>> WE HAVE TO CALL THE VOTE. HOLD ON.
>> MEMBER GEIGER. MEMBER ROBAS.
>> WAIT A MINUTE. I'M CONFUSED A LITTLE BIT.
>> JUST SAY YES THAT THERE'S A DENIAL OR TO SAY NO THAT THERE'S
A YES. >> MAY I, MADAM CHAIR? MEMBER ROBAS, IF YOU SAY YES TO THE MOTION, YOU ARE AGREEING THAT THE DEFINITION OF AGGRIEVED PARTY SHOULD BE CHANGED AS THE LANGUAGE SHOWS, BUT YOU ARE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL PEOPLE, THE NEIGHBORS GET TO APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
>> YES. >> VICE CHAIR SCHAFFER?
>> YES. >> MAY I JUST DO ONE FINAL --
WHAT THIS VOTE MEANS IS THAT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF AGGRIEVED PARTY AND THAT JUST MEANS IT DOESN'T ALLOW ANY OTHER PERSONS TO APPEAL HDC DECISIONS AND YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THE LANGUAGE FOR HDC APPEALS REMAINS THE SAME AND THAT IT SAYS AN APPLICANT MAY APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS. THE REASON I'LL DO THAT SOMETIMES JUST FOR THIS BOARD'S EDIFICATION IS IF YOU CHOOSE TO RECONSIDER A VOTE BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S ALWAYS BEST TO DO IT AT THE SAME MEETING.
SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS AFTER WE LEAVE BUT IT WORKS REALLY WELL
AT THE SAME MEETING, TOO. >> OKAY.
WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'VE JUST DONE.
ITEM 4.5 WHICH IS TEXT AMENDMENT FOR HDC REVIEW FROM USE OF STRUCTURES AND TO ADD SECTION 8.01.01 TO REVIEW EXTERIOR MOUNTED DEVICES. THIS IS AS A RESULT OFPRECEDENT THAT CAME OUT OF THE HDC AS WELL AS COMMENTS FROM THE CITY COMMISSION. SO, KELLY, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS? MR. SPEEDO IS HERE TONIGHT TO TALK TO US FROM AN HDC PERSPECTIVE AS WELL.
>> OKAY. JST BRIEFLY, I KNOW THIS BOARD IS FAMILIAR WITH THIS TOPIC. I'M GOING TO MUTE EVERYONE.
THERE IS A LEVEL OF FAMILIARITY AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE I NEED TO GO THROUGH THE HISTORY OF WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT THE PLANNING BOARD ABOUT AS WELL AS THE HISTORIC COUNTY COUNCIL IN CONSIDERING ANY CHANGES THAT AFFECT THIS AREA IS THAT IT'S NOT ONE AREA KIND OF FIX THAT WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS FULLY CAPTURED IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT AREAS AND THAT WE WERE MEANINGFULLY CONTEMPLATING THIS CHANGE AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE IMPLEMENTED. THE THOUGHT PROCESS IN GOING THROUGH WITH THIS EFFORT WAS, ONE, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE
[01:20:05]
HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL WOULD HAVE REVIEW AUTHORITY OF SOME OF THESE INCLUDING EXTERIOR MOUNTED DEVICES.THEN I DEFINED THEM FOR PURPOSES OF THAT SECTION PROVIDED.
AND THEN FURTHER PROVIDING A LEVEL OF STANDARD FOR WHERE THAT GUIDANCE MIGHT COME FROM. PARTICULARLY DIRECTING AND SHIELDING AWAY FROM RESIDENTIALLY ZONED OR RESIDENTIALLY USED STRUCTURES WHICH ARE SURROUNDING THAT.
TRYING TO AVOID ANY KIND OF LIGHT GLARE MOTION ISSUE THAT MIGHT COME AS A RESULT OF THESE TYPE OF DEVICES.
AND THEN MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS DIRECTED REVIEW AUTHORITY EXPRESSLY PROVIDED WITHIN THE HISTORIC CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL MATRIX OR WHERE THAT MIGHT BE REVIEWED BY OTHER STAFF OR THROUGH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL.
TONIGHT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS BECAUSE I KNOW IT INVOLVES A COUPLE DIFFERENT AREAS, IT MIGHT BE BEST TO REVIEW THEM TOGETHER. THE OTHER KEY POINT I WANTED TO ADVISE YOU OF IS, THERE WAS NOT CLEAR DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION IN TERMS OF WHETHER THIS WERE TO APPLY BOTH CITY WIDE AS WELL AS -- OR ONLY WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO A SECOND EFFORT AS PART OF THIS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION AT AN UPCOMING MEETING NEXT TUESDAY ON THE 18TH FOR CONSIDERATION. THAT IS A CHANGE WHICH AFFECTS CHAPTER 1 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, WHERE IT WOULD REQUIRE PERMITS BE ISSUED FOR EBBING -- EXTERIOR TV'S.
IT WOULD DIRECT PLANNING LEVEL REVIEW FOR WHERE THESE TYPES OF FIXTURES WOULD OCCUR. THEY WOULD APPLY TO COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. IT WON'T APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. TO COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES THAT HAVE AN EXTERIOR MOUNTED TV. IT WILL HAVE DIRECTIVE PLANNING REVIEW OVERSIGHT. WITHOUT HAVING CLEAR DIRECTION ON HOW TO REGULATE IT, IT'S PRIMARILY TO AVOID GLARE AND SHIELDING AWAY WHERE RESIDENTIAL USED PROPERTIES SO THEY ARE NOT DEEMED TO BE A NUISANCE. THAT'S THE SECOND COMPONENT TO IT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THERE'S TWO PATHS AT PLAY.
WHAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDERS IS THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL WHICH IS THE LEVEL OF GUIDANCE AND WHO WILL BE REVIEWING IT AND THE TIMING FOR IT.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING?
>> CHAIR MINSHEW, THANK YOU. THE HDC DID CONSIDER THIS ACTION AT ITS LAST MEETING AND APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY, SO YOU DO HAVE AN OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION IN FRONT OF YOU.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ONE THING I HAD DEALS WITH THE LAST SENTENCE.
IT SAYS EXTERIOR MOUNTED THING SUCH AS SATELLITE DISHES, TELEVISION MONITORS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED TO BE DIRECTED AND SHIELDED FROM ALL PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.
THAT'S OKAY. WHEN YOU GET TO AND ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES, IF YOU HAVE FOUR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES AND I WANT TO PUT A SATELLITE DISH UP IN THE BACK OF A HOUSE, IT WON'T WORK. DOES THAT ADJOINING PROPERTIES NEED TO BE THERE IF ALL I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE RIGHT OF W WAY?
>> GOOD POINT. >> THIS ALSO GOES TO ANTENNAS.
WE'RE IN A TECHNOLOGICAL AGE TODAY WHERE PEOPLE USE STUFF.
>> WHY WE'RE HERE, WE WERE SITTING WHERE YOU WERE IN THE HDC. THEY SAID, OH BY THE WAY, WE'RE GONNA PUT UP SOME BIG SCREEN TELEVISIONS.
WE SAID, SAY WHAT? WE CAN JUST SEE THIS SORT OF HUGE LIGHT SHOW GOING ON DIRECTED TOWARD DOWNTOWN.
I THINK WHEN IT COMES TO ELECTRONIC DEVICES, THERE WILL BE FLEXIBILITY BROADLY. IF YOU COME TO HDC AND IT POINTS SOUTHEAST, IT WILL BE BEHIND SOMETHING, HDC IS NOT GOING TO SAY NO. WE WOULD SUGGEST THE PLANNING
[01:25:02]
DEPARTMENT NOT SAY NO TO THAT. IF THEY SAY WE'RE PUTTING AN 8 FOOT PLASMA SCREEN FACING CITY HALL, WE'RE GOING TO SAY NO.THERE'S A PRETTY BIG DISTINCTION THERE IN HOW THE PLANS GET
REVIEWED AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT. >> EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT IT HAS TO BE ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONED OR ADJOINING PROPERTY.
THAT'S INCLUDING A SATELLITE DISH.
>> FOR EXAMPLE, THE WALL AT THE BOAT HOUSE IS INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED SO THEY CAN PUT THE MECHANICALS BEHIND THERE SO WHEN YOU'RE COMING DOWN SECOND STREET, YOU AREN'T GOING TO SEE
THOSE THINGS. >> I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU HAVE AN ANTENNA.
ANTENNA MEANS AIR, TECHNICALLY. AND SO DOES A SATELLITE DISH.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO SHIELD THOSE ITEMS BEHIND THE HOUSE JUST BECAUSE THERE'S THREE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES THERE, TO ME I'M SEEING A PROBLEM COME UP THAT REALLY ISN'T WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS. IS IT POSSIBLE TO TAKE OUT EVERYTHING BEHIND RIGHTS OF WAY AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES AND STILL HAVE THE INTENT. THE INTENT HERE IS FOR RIGHTS OF
WAY. >> I WOULD AGREE TO DROP THE TELEVISION ANTENNA BUT NOT THE RIGHTS OF WAY.
IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> I THINK EITHER DIRECTION MIGHT ACCOMPLISH THAT.
I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IN CRAFTING REGULATION WHERE WE'RE LOOKING TO REGULATE A SPECIFIC USE, IF THERE IS A SATELLITE DISH OR ANTENNA, LET'S ELIMINATE THAT, IF THE ISSUE IS SOLELY A SCREEN, LET'S KEEP IT FOCUSED ON THAT.
I GUESS I WOULD SAY TO FOCUS ON THE TELEVISION COMPONENT, THE SCREENING THAT MIGHT CREATE THAT GLARE ISSUE VERSUS THE ANTENNA AND SATELLITE DISHES. THERE'S A REASON BEHIND WHY YOU MIGHT WANT TO REGULATE THOSE THINGS BUT I FULLY AGREE WITH THE CONCERNS MR. BENNETT HAS RAISED.
WHERE THAT IS TOO MUCH REGULATION, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ACCOMPLISHABLE FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE REASONABLE USE AND HAVE TV
INSIDE THEIR HOME. >> I WOULD ADD, AS YOU'RE GOING THROUGH YOUR PROCESS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, TOO. YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A SUGGESTION. A SATELLITE DISH OUGHT TO BE IN
THE BACK OR SOMETHING. >> ACTUALLY, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO. IT'S NOT IN OUR GUIDANCE OR CODE. AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THE MEETING WE HAD ABOUT THE BOAT HOUSE. THEY SAID, YEAH, WE'RE GONNA PUT THESE BIG SCREEN TV'S UP. DIRECTOR GIBSON, WHAT AUTHORITY DO WE HAVE OVER THIS? SHE SAID, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR. BENNETT, IS THAT YOU TAKE THE SATELLITE DISHES OUT, HDC, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, NONE OF US WILL HAVE ANY AUTHORITY ABOUT THOSE ITEMS. YOU MIGHT WANT TO STOP THE LANGUAGE SOMEWHERE BUT I WOULD LEAVE IN SOME COMPONENT SO SOMEBODY IN THE CITY GETS TO SAY, DON'T PUT THAT 12 FOOT SATELLITE DISH, POTENTIAL SATELLITE DISH POINTING RIGHT AT CITY HALL. HERE'S HOW THESE CONVERSATIONS GO FREQUENTLY, ESPECIALLY COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THIS WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET RIGHT HERE, PROMINENT STREET.
YOU'RE RIGHT. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT.
WE CAN PUT THAT TOWARD THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT. HONESTLY, THESE CONVERSATIONS HAPPEN THE HDC. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LEAVE THOSE IN. IF YOU WANT TO STRIKE ANYTHING, I WOULD TAKE OUT SATELLITE DISHES AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS BECAUSE IT GETS TO THE DIRECTOR'S POINT.
DON'T LET THAT BE THE ENEMY. IT'S THE TV'S AND MONITORS THAT
WE ARE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT. >> MR. STEVENSON?
>> SOME RESEARCH I DID TODAY IS YOU CANNOT PREVENT A SATELLITE DISH FROM BEING INSTALLED IF IT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN RECEIVE A SIGNAL. FCC RULES SUPERCEDE ANY
[01:30:02]
>> SO WHY NOT JUST -- I WOULD DEFINITELY TAKE IT OUT.
I THINK YOU'RE ON -- >> AND ANTENNAS.
>> WE'D GET AN OVERRULING. >> I THINK THE REST OF IT WAS
WELL DONE. >> MR. STEVENSON, YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE LOOK ON COUNCIL'S FACE, OUR FACE.
KELLY IS RIPPING THROUGH THE CODE.
SHE SAYS, YOU HAVE NO AUTHORITY. WHAT WE DID WAS, JUST TO FINISH THAT STORY, SHOULD HAVE SCREENED THAT FOR US TO I DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THE GAME WHEN I'M IN A MEETING.
SAID, YEAH. YOU CAN SEE HOW A BIG VACANT SPACE NEXT TO STANDARD MARINE WHICH COULD BE DEVELOPED IN THE CRA. PHB SAID WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN OUTDOOR VENUE. GOING TO BE -- ACROSS THE STREET FROM A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE WILL BE OPEN UNTIL 3 A.M.
SO GIVE US SOME AUTHORITY HERE AND EVERYBODY WALKS AWAY HAPPY.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME SEE WHAT QUESTIONS WE
HAVE ON ZOOM. >> I KNOW YOU SAID -- JENNY IS
RAISING HER HAND. >> MISS SCHAFFER?
>> WE SLIGHTLY TOUCHED ON GROUND LEVEL TELEVISION, GROUND MOUNTED TELEVISIONS. REASON BEING, LET'S TALK THIS IS REALLY POPULAR NOW. I DON'T WANT THOSE INHIBITED, BUT I THINK IF WE WERE ABLE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT WHERE AT LEAST IT'S NOT ON THE MAIN LEVEL, IT'S NOT DESTROYING THE HISTORIC PLACE WAS MY NOTE ON THAT.
>> OKAY. SO YOU'RE PROPOSING WE WOULD
CHANGE IT TO SAY FIRST FLOOR? >> YES.
>> NO. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.
>> THEY COULD PUT IT ON THE THIRD FLOOR.
>> I DO HAVE BENJAMIN MORRISON AVAILABLE TO SPEAK WHEN YOU'RE
>> I JUST THINK ANY TELEVISION OR MONITOR IN PUBLIC VIEW, I THINK IT COULD POSSIBLY BE VERY DISTRACTING FOR DRIVERS.
WHETHER IT'S ON THE FIRST FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR, THIRD FLOOR, TOP FL FLOOR, I JUST THINK IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE, IN MY OPINION. ANYTHING THAT DISTRACTS A DRIVER WITH THE MOTION THAT A TELEVISION OR MONITOR OR PROJECTION SCREEN WITH THE MOTION THAT'S GOING ON ON THERE, WHETHER IT COULD BE A FOOTBALL GAME OR WHATEVER.
ANYTHING THAT OFFERS DISTRACTION TO A DRIVER OR EVEN A PEDESTRIAN. ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE LOOKING UP AND THEY MISS THE CURB AND NOW THEY FALL ON THE STREET AND MAYBE THEY GET HIT BY A CAR. ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN.
I JUST THINK ANYTHING THAT CREATES THAT DISTRACTION, WE
SHOULD BE VERY MINDFUL OF. >> OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
WHEN THIS FIRST STARTED, THERE WERE ALSO SOLAR PANELS ON THIS LIST. ARE THEY GONE?
>> I HAVE ELIMINATED SOLAR PANELS BECAUSE WE GET INTO AN ISSUE BEING ABLE TO REGULATE THEM.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> THE WAY THAT IT'S PRESENTY WRITTEN, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE SOLAR PANELS.
>> OKAY. >> IT'S BROKEN INTO SECTIONS WHEREBY, YOU ARE ALLOWING FOR REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT OF CERTAIN TYPE OF THINGS. THAT SECTION IS WHERE I PUT MECHANICAL, AS WELL AS GARBAGE COLLECTION FACILITIES SO THAT THE UNDER THE REVIEW PER VIEW OF THE HDC.
REUSE MAY OCCUR SUCH AS ACROSS THE STREET.
MODERN DEVICES SO THAT IT ACKNOWLEDGED A REVIEW COMPONENT
[01:35:02]
THAT THEY HAVE ALLOWED AN ISSUE TO PUT INPUT ON.FURTHER IN SUBSECTION G IS WHERE WE GET INTO THE EXTERIOR MOUNTED MODERN DEVICES. SOUNDS LIKE THE BOARD IS WANTING TO STRIKE, RIGHTFULLY SO, ANTENNAS, AS WELL AS SATELLITE TV'S, SATELLITE DISHES TO FOCUS IN ON TELEVISION MONITORS AND PROJECTION SCREENS. THEN A THIRD PIECE OF IT IS WHERE IT DIRECTS REVIEW EITHER TO STAFF OR THROUGH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL. AND THEY DEFINE THE TYPES OF THINGS IN IT. SOLAR PANELS, I BELIEVE, ARE ALREADY COVERED IN THAT SECTION FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
>> IT'S ON THAT LIST. JUST A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE LAST PAGE.
WE CANNOT PROHIBIT THEM. WE RECOGNIZE WE CANNOT PROHIBIT THEM BUT IT ALLOWS FOR DISCRETION IN HOW THEY'RE
PLACED. >> I WANT TO BRING UP ANOTHER ISSUE. IF WE'RE SO CONCERNED ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THIS RETROACTIVE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING DONE ABOUT THE TELEVISION SCREENS THAT ARE ALREADY FACING CENTER STREET AND THAT YOU CAN READ AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON FROM ACROSS THE OTHER SIDE OF CENTER AT PEPPER'S?
>> THEY ALREADY HAVE THE TV SCREENS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ALREADY. THEY ARE DOING EXACTLY WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT. SO DO YOU MAKE THIS GOING FORWARD OR ARE YOU CONCERNED ENOUGH ABOUT THE SAFETY TO WANT TO DEAL WITH RETROACTIVE? I MEAN, IF THE POINT OF THIS IS SAFETY, THEN YOU HAVE SAFETY PROBLEMS THERE TODAY AND WE
SHOULD ADDRESS THOSE. >> FAIR QUESTION, CHAIR MINSHEW.
FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, LET'S LOOK AT THIS PROSPECTIVELY.
LET'S GET IT DONE SO THAT WE NEXT TIME AT THE BOAT HOUSE POPS UP, THE NEXT BOAT HOUSE POPS UP, WE HAVE THE PROTOCOLS TO FOLLOW.
I'M VERY RELUCTANT TO GO BACK NOW AND TELL EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANY MORE.
I JUST THINK THAT'S GOING TO CREATE A LOT OF CONFLICT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. QUITE HONESTLY, CHAIR, WHAT PEPPERS IS DOING WHILE NOTICEABLE, IS NOT ANYTHING LIKE WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF SOMEBODY WENT CRAZY.
LAS VEGAS STYLE PROGRAMMING IS WHAT I THINK ABOUT.
WHILE WE HAVE SOME ISSUES THERE, I'M LESS WORRIED ABOUT PEPPERS AND OTHER EXISTING BUILDINGS THAN I AM AT WHAT WE MIGHT SEE
GOING FORWARD. >> BUT YOU CAN STAND ACROSS THE STREET OF CENTER STREET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CENTER STREET AT NIGHT AND LOOK ACROSS OVER AT PEPPER'S AND COMPLETELY SEE THOSE TV SCREENS AND EVERYTHING THAT'S ON.
I WENT DOWN THERE AND CHECKED IT.
>> I AGREE. I WOULD ASK COUNSEL IF SHE HAS
ANY COMMENT. >> I NEVER NOTICED IT.
>> OKAY. RAISE YOUR HAND TO SPEAK, PLEASE. LET'S SEE WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
>> AS LONG AS THERE IS PROPER NOTICE AND IT'S WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE THAT IT DOES WORK RETROACTIVELY, AS LONG AS WE DO THAT, WE DO THAT WITH THE COMMISSION LEVEL ORDINANCE, THEN IT IS ENFORCEABLE. THAT DOESN'T SPEAK TO THAT'S LEGAL. I SAY THIS MORE AND MORE NOW.
DOESN'T MEAN IT'S MORAL. >> I UNDERSTAND.
>> LEGALLY YOU CAN DO IT, BUT I WOULD TAKE NOTE OF WHAT
MR. STEVENSON SAID. >> IF WE DO THIS PROSPECTIVELY, WE ARE LIKELY TO GET THIS PASSED.
IF WE DO THIS RETROSPECTIVELY, WE ARE GOING TO HIT A WALL AND CREATE CONFLICT IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO ONE BATTLE AT A TIME. >> WHEN YOU HANG THE BATTLE ON SAFETY AND YOU CONTINUE TO LET THESE OTHER ITEMS GO ON, THEN I THINK YOU DON'T HAVE AS STRONG AN ARGUMENT AS YOU THINK YOU DO.
>> I DIDN'T SAY SAFETY. OTHERS HAVE.
I SUPPORT THAT. I'M THINKING ABOUT THE HISTORIC
DISTRICT AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. >> OKAY.
>> AND THE AREA. REALLY TRYING TO LIMIT THE
[01:40:03]
EXPOSURE TO THE CITY AND LIMIT THE PUBLIC POLICY CONVERSATION.>> IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT THIS FAR, IS NO ONE ALLOWED TO PUT A LITTLE SCREEN ON THEIR FRONT PORCH? WHAT IF IT'S A COMPUTER MODEL? HOW FAR ARE YOU GONNA TAKE IT? WHAT IF YOU CAN SEE A TV THROUGH THEIR WINDOW? IT'S NOT A FAIR THING IF WE'RE GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY OUT.
IF YOU WANT TO LIMIT MAYBE THE SIZE OF A TV BUT BACK TO THE ROOF TOP DECKS. EVERYONE IS NOT GOING TO GO OUT AND GET A ROOF TOP DECK. THERE MAY BE TWO OTHER LOCATIONS IN ALL OF DOWNTOWN THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES AND THAT'S WHY THEY ARE COMMERCIALLY FINISHED. I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS A PROBLEM. NOT TO TAKE IT LIGHTLY THE SAFETY THING, BUT IF THEY'RE THAT EASILY DISTRACTED THEY SHOULD NOT BE ON THE ROAD, IN MY OPI
OPINION. >> I JUST WANT TO HELP CLARIFY TO JENNY'S POINT IS THIS CHANGE IN THE CODE SAYS THAT SOMEBODY THAT HAS AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL, SO THEY'RE MAKING CHANGES OR THEY'RE BUILDING NEW OR REMODELING, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. ESPECIALLY IF IT'S A PROSPECTIVE LOOK FORWARD. ALL THAT THIS SAYS IS THAT THE HDC IS GOING TO GET A CHANCE TO INCLUDE THIS IN THEIR REVIEW.
SO THE HDC DOES NOT HAVE ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT TYPE OF POWERS.
SO IF IT'S NOT MADE RETROACTIVE, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM WITH SOMEBODY THAT HAS A PORCH, A TELEVISION, A COMPUTER OR WHATEVER. IT'S ONLY IF THEY COME TO THE HDC FOR APPROVAL OF THEIR DESIGN, IF IN THAT DESIGN INCLUDES AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE OR A TV MONITOR.
THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THAT IT'S EVEN GOING TO COME UP.
>> MISS SCHAFFER? >> THEY COULD ADD A TV AFTER?
>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. >> IN THAT SCENARIO WHERE IT'S COMMERCIAL, A COMMERCIAL TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT, THAT'S WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT WILL NOW BE REQUIRED.
THAT COULD TRIGGER THE PLANNING REVIEW AND OVERSIGHT UNDER THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED IN THE CODE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
>> MR. STEVENSON? >> QUESTION UNDER G.
IT SAYS EXTERIOR MOUNTED. I AM GOING TO MOUNT AN 8 FOOT DISPLAY INSIDE MY PLATE GLASS WINDOW FACING ON TO THE STREET.
>> IF THIS IS AN EXISTING PROPERTY, WE PROBABLY DON'T HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT. IF THIS IS A NEW CONSTRUCTION,
WE WOULD HAVE OVERSIGHT. >> YEAH.
FANTASTIC EXAMPLE. I KNOW IF WE LOOK AT SOME OF THE REAL ESTATE LISTINGS DOWNTOWN WHERE THEY HAVE COMMERCIAL SPACES, THERE ARE SMALL MONITORS THAT DEPICT DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. THEY ARE INTERNALLY MOUNTED TO THE WINDOW. SO THIS WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY TYPE OF PERMITTING OF THOSE TYPE OF MONITORS.
YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT VIEW. IT'S ONLY WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO BE AFFIXED TO AN EXTERIOR WALL FACING OUT AND ONTO A
STREET OR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. >> MY CONCERN IS THAT THOSE MONITORS DOWN THERE ARE MAYBE 16, 18 INCH MONITORS.
THAT COULD GROW TO AN 80 INCH SCREEN AND THEY WOULD STILL BE
PROTECTED. >> DO WE WANT OVERSIGHT OVER
SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >> I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP OUR FOCUS NARROW ON NEW CONSTRUCTION, RENOVATION, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND NOT GET INTO -- CODE ENFORCEMENT IS PRETTY BUSY.
JUST RELUCTANT TO CREATE A WHOLE LOT MORE PROBLEMS FOR US.
TO RESPOND TO MR. STEVENSON'S POINT, IT'S VALID, BUT THEY ARE UNLIKELY TO CREATE THAT KIND OF HAZARD BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN THE
[01:45:03]
COMMUNITY, TOO. SO WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF OBNOXIOUS BEHAVIOR AMONGST OUR RESIDENTS OR OUR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS OWNERS. I THINK I SAID THIS.WE'RE WEARING MASKS BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
REAL ESTATE AGENTS ON CENTER STREET DON'T PUT UP 8X8 PLASMA SCREENS IN THEIR WINDOWS BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
WHEN WE ESTABLISH THESE PARAMETERS GOING FORWARD, IT SETS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE EXPECT FROM OUR COMMUNITY.
>> LET ME JUST CLARIFY THAT. ALONG CENTER STREET, 300 OR SO BLOCK WHERE THERE'S A BUNCH OF REAL ESTATE, PROFESSIONALS ON A FIRST FLOOR. SAY A RESTAURANT COMES IN THERE OR BAR AND SAYS I'M GOING TO DO A REUSE.
I'M GOING TO TAKE -- >> THEY'RE GOING TO NEED A
PERMIT. >> I'M GOING TO PUT IN A RESTAURANT AND A BAR. SO YOU'VE GOT A USE PERMIT.
THEN THEY TAKE OUT THAT PLATE GLASS WINDOW IN THE FRONT.
BY THE WAY, I'M GOING TO PUT A BUNCH OF TV'S FACING OUT.
>> AGAIN, THEY WOULD NEED A PERMIT FOR THAT CHANGE OF USE.
THEY WOULD NEED A PERMIT. >> BUT WHAT ABOUT THIS WHOLE BUSINESS OF ELECTRONIC, YOU KNOW, DEVICES? DO YOU WANT TO HAVE OVERSIGHT OF THAT IN THAT SITUATION OR NOT?
>> I THINK WE SAID YES. I THINK WE DO.
>> I THOUGHT YOU SAID NO. >> IT'S THE SATELLITE DISHES AND THE ANTENNAS THAT WE TOOK OUT. WE PROBABLY CAN'T REGULATE THEM
ANYWAY. >> REGARDLESS WHETHER IT'S EXTERIOR MOUNTED OR NOT YOU WANT CONTROL OVER MONITORED DEVICES THAT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE STREET.
>> PROSPECTIVELY, YES. IF YOU NEED A PERMIT, YOU'RE DOING A CHANGE OF USE. CHANGING OVER TO A RESTAURANT, SPORTS BAR AND THEY WANT TO PUT THEIR TELEVISIONS OUTSIDE, IT WILL GO IN FRONT OF HDC. KELLY WILL ADVISE THEM ON THE FRONT END THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PASS.
>> SO TO MR. STEVENSON'S POINT, EXTERIOR MOUNTED IS AN ISSUE.
YOU WANT CONTROL OVER ALL MODERN DEVICES THAT ARE EITHER EXTERNAL OR INTERNAL THAT MAY FACE THE STREET.
IS REALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> I DON'T THINK SO.
>> IT'S COMMON SENSE HERE. SOMEONE'S NOT GOING TO HAVE A 50 INCH TV PUT INSIDE SO PEOPLE IN THE STREET CAN WATCH IT.
IT'S FOR THEIR CLIENTS INSIDE. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE.
THEY DON'T WANT IT ON THE OUTSIDE.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.
I THINK YOU ARE THINKING AHEAD. >> YOU HAVE TO THINK THROUGH IT.
>> WE HAD AN ISSUE HDC SEVERAL YEARS AGO WITH THE LAS VEGAS LIGHTING. HAVING THESE SIGNS THAT FLASH.
SOME PEOPLE PUT THEM TWO FEET INSIDE THE DOOR WAY SO THEY CAN SEE THEM OUTSIDE. DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. >> I REMEMBER IT.
>> IT WAS A BIG DEAL. IT'S NOT ON THE EXTERIOR, BUT THEY WERE PUTTING IT JUST INSIDE.
I DON'T RECALL WHAT THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THAT WAS, BUT IT
HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE. >> OKAY.
>> I'M NOT SEEING A REAL PROBLEM HERE OTHER THAN WHAT THEY'RE
TRYING TO SOLVE. >> SO WE'RE OKAY WITH MODERN
DEVICES. >> I THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT.
>> OKAY. >> WE'RE TAKING OUT SATELLITE DISHES AND ANTENNAS. CAN WE NOW TALK ABOUT GARBAGE
COLLECTION FACILITIES? >> I HAVE ONE COMMENT.
WHAT ABOUT EXTERIOR MOUNTED? YOU'RE LEAVING THAT?
>> YOU CAN'T ASK FOR A PERMIT FOR SOMETHING SOMEBODY IS GOING TO PLUG INSIDE THEIR HOUSE. IF THEY WERE SHIELDING IT OUTWARDLY, WE COULD BRING THAT UP AS AN ITEM AND ASK THEY NOT DO THAT BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT -- THIS WOULD NOT GIVE US THE OVERSIGHT TO SAY WE CANNOT DO THAT.
NOW CAN WE TALK ABOUT GARBAGE COLLECTION FACILITY.
HOW DID THAT GET IN HERE? >> I HAD INCLUDED THAT IN THERE
[01:50:01]
PREVIOUSLY JUST SO THAT THE BOARD COULD HAVE REVIEW OF THAT TYPE OF FACILITY, WHETHER IT IS DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES OR IT IS CONTAINERS FOR COLLECTION TO GO INTO.PRIMARILY IT IS A DISCUSSION POINT.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THOUGHT THROUGH AS WELL AS IT SHOULD BE WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH A SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS. WE DO LOOK THROUGH IT.
SAY THERE IS A CHANGE OF USE AND THE USE HAS AN IMPROVEMENT BUT THEN DO GO TO THE BOARD FOR REVIEW.
IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, HEY, WHAT ABOUT THE GARBAGE? WHERE ARE YOU PLACING YOUR GARBAGE? HOW ARE YOU PLANNING TO BRING IT OUT TO THE STREET AND WHAT WILL
IT LOOK LIKE ON A DAILY BASIS. >> IT'S NOT GOING TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE BIG ISSUES WITH TRASH RESEPTICLES.
>> WE'RE LOOKING PROSPECTIVELY. WE DON'T HAVE THIS AUTHORITY NOW. WHAT YOU SEE OVER HERE AS A RESULT OF THEM AGREEING TO WORK WITH US TO GET THEIR TRASH OUTSIDE FROM THE STREET. SAME WHEN PEPPERS CAME IN, WANTED TO DO MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR BUILDING.
IN THE PROCESS, THEY WERE CLEANING UP THEIR TRASH.
WE APPRECIATED THAT, BUT QUITE HONESTLY, WE HAVE NO OVERSIGHT.
>> OKAY. >> SO THIS WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT
REVIEW TO TAKE PLACE. >> OKAY.
THANK YOU. >> WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS DO PEOPLE HAVE? MISS ROBAS? COULD COUNCIL PUT THE LANGUAGE BACK UP? I KNOW WE DELETED THE SATELLITE DISHES.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE AGAIN, IF WE COULD, PLEASE.
>> JUST ONE MOMENT. IS THAT CLEAR?
>> CAN YOU GO UP TO NUMBER TEN? THERE YOU GO.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> EXTERIOR MOUNTED MODERN DEVICES SUCH AS TELEVISION, MONITORS, OR PROJECTION SCREENS OR SHALL BE --
>> TAKING OUT THE OR. >> SHALL BE DESIGNED, INSTALLED, DIRECTED TO --
>> KELLY, CAN YOU CHANGE THAT SHALL TO MUST BECAUSE WE'RE
TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM SHALL. >> OH, YEAH.
>> PLEASE. >> THESE DEVICES MUST BE B SHIELDED AWAY FROM PUBLICLY OR RESIDENTIAL OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES. SO IT MUST FACE INWARD.
THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTION, COMMENTS? ARE WE READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? WOULD SOMEONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. >> OKAY.
>> BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
IF YOU GO INTO THE TABLE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS CLEAR.
WE TOOK OUT TELEVISION ANTENNA. HOWEVER ON THIS PAGE 52, WE TALK
[01:55:03]
ABOUT EXTERIOR MODERN DEVICES SUCH AS SATELLITE PICTURES, TELEVISION, TELEVISIONS, MONITORS, PROJECTION SCREENS I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM HAVING THIS -- I THINK THE HDC SHOULD BE POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT THEM AS THEY ARE SAYING THAT.I GUESS MY QUESTION IS SHOULD THEY ALSO BE DELETED FROM THIS
AREA ALSO? >> I'D REFER TO THE DIRECTOR HERE. SHE'S THE EXPERT.
>> SHE JUST TOOK IT OUT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
>> OKAY. HDC LOOKS AT THINGS AT THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL. IT REALLY GETS PAST DIRECTOR GIBSON AND JACOB HERE IN THE CLOSING DEPARTMENT.
IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE BUILDING PERMIT.
>> WE PUT UPP PERMITS FOR A SATELLITE DISH.
ARE WE GOOD? >> I'M JUST THINKING SOMEBODY WOULD PUT A SATELLITE DISH IN THE YARD BECAUSE THEY HAVE TREES IN THE BACK YARD AND IS THAT GOING TO CREATE A PROBLEM?
>> I DON'T KNOW. >> RIGHT NOW YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ANY REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO REFUSE THAT.
WHETHER THEY PUT IT IN THE FRONT SIDE, REAR, WOULDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. YOU WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT. THAT HAS NOT BEEN A PROBLEM UP TO THIS POINT. NOR HAS BEEN A CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE BOARD THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S A RECURRING ISSUE. I'M NOT SURE WE NEED TO SOLVE
FOR THAT RIGHT NOW. >> I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS, SHOULD THE LANGUAGE STAY HERE BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT IT -- WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS, IF YOU ARE SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO SCREEN THESE THINGS AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WORK.
LEAVING THE LANGUAGE HERE ALLOWS THEM TO MAYBE LOOK AT IT, YOU
ARE SHAKING YOUR HEAD. >> I GET IT.
IT PUTS THEM IN A BAD POSITION. SATELLITES HAVE TO WORK --
>> SO SATELLITE DISHES AND TELEVISION.
>> ANY MORE QUESTION. >> DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHALLENGE THIS. SAY AT&T IS COMING IN AND THEY WANT TO PUT A DIRECT TV ANTENNA SOMEWHERE AND THEY SAY THIS IS THE ONLY PLAY THAT WE CAN PUT IT, CAN YOU CHALLENGE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER PLACES THAT YOU CAN GET A TECHNICAL --
>> BASED ON THE RESEARCH AND I HAVEN'T DONE IT TODAY, I WOULD THINK THE FCC WOULD COME IN. ALL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS, FROM CELL PHONE TOWERS TO SATELLITE DISHES, AND IT'S GONNA BE TV ANTENNAS BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW SOME OF US THAT HAVE CUT OUR CABLE. THE THE ANTENNAS THEY'RE MAKING ARE BIG. I GET FIVE CHANNELS.
>> SOME OF THEM ARE BIG. THEY HAVE ROOF MOUNTED ANTENNAS THAT YOU CAN MOUNT ON YOUR ROOF IF YOU DON'T HAVE DEED
RESTRICTIONS. >> BACK TO THE '50S.
I HAD A NEIGHBOR WHO WAS GOING TO A SATELLITE DISH, BUT THE SMALL ONE, LIKE THE 15 INCH. HE DIDN'T LIKE WHERE THEY WERE GONNA MOUNT IT. HE WANTED TO MOVE IT FURTHER BACK. THEY SAID NO.
SO HE TURNED DOWN THE CONTRACT. >> OH.
>> THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, IT CAN BE DONE.
>> I HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT MOUNTED IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR FRONT YARD. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT THAT'S THE
ONLY PLACE. >> I JUST WONDER ABOUT SOMEBODY BEING ABLE TO CHALLENGE. EASE OF INSTALLATION SOMETIME
[02:00:02]
OVERRIDES. >> WE'RE TALKING JUST ABOUT THE
HDC HERE. >> AND THE MONITORS.
WE'RE NOT ADDRESSING SATELLITE DISHES OR ANTENNAS.
>> MISS ROBAS, ARE YOU READY TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> YES, MA'AM. I'D LIKE TO GO BACK UP IN THE LANGUAGE SO THAT I HAVE THAT FOR MY REFERENCE, PLEASE.
KEEP GOING. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENT, THIS AMENDMENT MODIFYING SECTION 8.01.01 AND -- KEEP GOING DOWN. G.
KEEP GO LG. >> SHE WANTS YOU TO SCROLL DOWN,
THERE YOU GO. AND SECTION 8.01.01D 12.
DO I NEED TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT MODIFYING 10 OR ARE WE OKAY WITH
THAT? >> DOES SHE NEED TO DO THAT? I DON'T THINK SHE NEEDS TO BE THAT DETAILED IN YOUR MOTION.
I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO BE QUITE THAT DETAILED IN YOUR
AS PRESENTED AND MODIFIED THROUGH DISCUSSION AND THEN THE MODIFICATION OF THE TABLE THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS SECTION.
ARE WE READY TO VOTE? I THINK WE CAN JUST DO A VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE, RAISE YOUR HAND.
>> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT.
>> THANK YOU FOR COMING. >> OKAY.
WE'VE BEEN AT THIS TWO HOURS. WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE MORE THING. DO WE WANT TO POWER THROUGH OR DO PEOPLE NEED A FEW MINUTE BREAK? KEEP GOING? OKAY.
YES, JENNY? >> I HAVE TO GO PICK UP KIDS RIGHT NOW. I'M SORRY.
THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> LET'S JUST POWER THROUGH.
SECTION 4.6. KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK
ABOUT THIS DRIVE WAY? >> I'LL SHARE THE SCREEN.
THIS IS ANOTHER SORT OF AREA THAT I WOULD CONSIDER OFTEN WE ENCOUNTER PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN PROVIDING FOR CIRCULAR DRIVE WAYS ON THEIR PROPERTY.
AT PRESENT WE HAVE A MAXIMUM WIDTH OF WHAT A RESIDENTIAL DRIVE WAY COULD HAVE. THIS IS SPEAKING JUST TO RESIDENTIAL DRIVE WAYS UNDER THE SECTION OF CODE.
SO THE CHANGE IS TO ALLOW FOR A CIRCULAR DRIVE WAY WHERE RIGHT NOW OUR CODE IS SILENT ON THAT AND TO MAKE IT SO IT'S PERMISSIBLE NOT TO EXCEED TEN FEET IN WIDTH OR SECTIONS WHICH INTERFACE WITH THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN THAT AREA.
IT'S STILL IN KEEPING WITH THAT RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM OF 20 FEET THAT YOU CANNOT EXCEED BUT ALLOW YOU TO BE SPLIT IN TWO.
BY PRACTICE, WE HAVE BEEN GOING BY THIS RULE OF THUMB FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY A PROPERTY OWNER MAY WANT TO AND POSSIBLY SHOULD HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVE WAY. BACKING OUT OF A SINGLE DRIVE WAY IS NOT THE SAFEST. BUT THERE ARE OTHER RIGHTS OF WAY WHERE BEING ABLE TO NAVIGATE YOUR PROPERTY IN A CIRCULAR DRIVE WAY WOULD BE A LOT MORE SUITABLE.
WE HAVE PERMITTED CIRCULAR DRIVE WAYS IN SOME RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS. BUT AGAIN IN KEEPING WITH THE STANDARD THAT'S BEING DEPICTED THIS EVENING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THE SECOND REQUEST AS PART OF THAT TONIGHT IS TO ALLOW FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF MATERIAL IN
[02:05:01]
ADDITION TO CONCRETE WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS THE ONLY MATERIAL THAT COULD BE USED WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.STANDARD WHICH HAS BEEN DEVIATED FROM OVER TIME TO ACCOUNT FOR OTHER MATERIALS WHICH ARE PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA ESPECIALLY INCLUDING PAVERS.
WE SEE THAT MORE AND MORE FREQUENTLY.
PERVIOUS PAVERS ON A PARTICULAR LOT.
SO REALLY RECOGNIZING, ONE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE HAVING A GREATER REQUEST FOR, AND THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE ALTERNATIVE USE OF MATERIAL HAVE BEEN APPROVED THROUGHOUT THE CITY. BUT THE OTHER AREA MORE DIRECTLY IS TO PROVIDE FOR SOME LATITUDE FOR MATERIALS WITHIN OLD TOWN SO THEY ARE NOT HELD TO THAT STRICT STANDARD OF CONCRETE EITHER.
BY POLICY, WE'VE BEEN VERY LENIENT SO THE REQUEST IS JUST TO REALIZE THAT THESE TYPES OF CHANGES HAVE BEEN OCCURRING OVER TIME AND LET'S FORMALIZE IT IN A WAY THAT WE ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN
>> I HAD TO ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION OF THIS SO I'LL ADD IT TO THE DISCUSSION. WHILE CIRCULAR DRIVE WAYS MAY BE PERMISSIBLE NOT TO EXCEED TEN FEET IN TOTAL WIDTH FOR EACH SECTION. SO MY THOUGHT WAS, IF YOU THINK OF A HORSE SHOE, WHICH IS A CIRCULAR DRIVE WAY, WHEN YOU GET TO THE TOP OF THE ARCH, THAT'S USUALLY AROUND THE FRONT DOOR.
PEOPLE USUALLY LIKE TO HAVE TWO OR THREE PARKING SPACES OR PULL THE CAR OUT OF THE DRIVE WAY ITSELF.
WOULD THAT BE RESTRICTED FOR THAT TEN FEET? WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS NO. NOT TO EXCEED TEN FEET IN TOTAL WIDTH IS WHERE THOSE SECTIONS COME DOWN, MEET THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE ROAD. AT THAT POINT IS WHERE IT NOW GOES TO TEN FEET. SO IT REALLY DIDN'T IMPACT WHAT I THOUGHT IT COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> IS THERE A CONCERN ON THESE RESIDENTIAL DRIVE WAYS, I KNOW IT SAYS A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET. IT COULD BE BIGGER, BUT AT LEAST IT HAS TO BE TEN. DOES THAT MEAN THAT FIRE AND RESCUE UNITS CAN GET INTO A TEN FOOT DRIVE WAY?
>> I CAN ANSWER THIS. OFTEN, AND MR. BENNETT POINTED THIS OUT. TYPICALLY FIRE AND RESCUE WILL STAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND NOT ENTER THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. I BELIEVE TEN FOOT WOULD E SOMETHING THAT'S ACCOMPLISHABLE THERE.
>> EVEN HEDGES AND THINGS IF YOU HAVE TO.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS FIRE AND RESCUE WILL GET TO YOU NO MATTER WH WHAT.
>> I'LL MAKE ONE COMMENT. ONE EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE MEDICAL SIDE OF FIRE RESCUE. THEY MAY PULL UP TO THE RESIDENCE IN TERMS OF SOMEONE THAT'S INJURED AND WANT TO MINIMIZE THE TRANSPORT DISTANCE. BUT I THINK THE SPEC ON IT IS TEN FEET GIVES THEM ADEQUATE CLEARANCE FOR THE VEHICLE TO PASS. IT'S NOT A FIRE TRUCK.
IT'S THE AMBULANCE. >> ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MISS ROBAS?
>> ABOUT THIS CONCRETE. THAT'S NOT SAYING IT HAS TO BE CONCRETE. JUST SAYING IF IT IS CONCRETE, IT WILL BE 35 PSI WITH FIBER, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, CORRECT?
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
LET'S ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I WILL ENTERTAIN ONE.
>> OKAY. >> I WOULD APPROVE 7.01.01 DRIVE WAY SECTION A AND SECTION F AS PRESENTED.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.
>> ALL RIGHT. >> ANY MORE DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE OR RAISE YOUR HAND.
[02:10:02]
>> VERY IMPRESSIVE. >> THANK YOU, KELLY, FOR PUTTING
TOGETHER A GOOD PRESENTATION. >> THIS WAS A GOOD EXERCISE FOR WHEN WE LOOK AT LDC LAND USE IN THE FUTURE, WE CAN SEE WHAT
WE'RE IN FOR. >> ITEM NUMBER 5, WE HAVE SOME
[5. BOARD BUSINESS]
TIME ON THE MEETING TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT WAS LEFT OVER FROM YESTERDAY. I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS PARTICULARLY LEFT OVER. WE'LL GO ON UNLESS ANYBODY WANTSTO MAKE A COMMENT. >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, KELLY. BASED ON WHAT WE VOTED ON YESTERDAY, THAT WOULD JUST GO TO THE COMMISSION BASED ON OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, IN THE RANKINGS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT WE WOULD ALSO HAVE A PROJECT MANAGER OR DO IT INTERNALLY, ALSO. I DON'T THINK THAT OUR PURPOSE YESTERDAY WHEN WE ENDED WAS WE'D ALLOW OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS TO DO THE WORK. THE PROPOSAL IS THAT WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED.
>> YEAH. WE SAID THAT WE RANKED THESE FOR
CONSULTED GOVERNING PERIOD. >> RIGHT.
WE WILL GET TOGETHER ON THE 26TH AND BEGIN TO CRAFT OUT PROPOSAL FOR HOW WE REALLY WANT THIS TO WORK.
RIGHT? >> AS A NORMAL COURTESY, DO WE GET BACK TO THE PROPOSED TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE STATUS IS?
>> YES. I WAS GOING TO DO THAT AFTER TONIGHT'S MEETING. ALL TO LET THEM KNOW ABOUT THE NEXT STEP IN TIMING FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND WHEN THEY CAN EXPECT
NEGOTIATIONS TO BEGIN. >> RIGHT.
WE WILL NOT KNOW OUR FINAL BUDGET OPTIONS UNTIL SEPTEMBER, CLOSE TO THE END OF SEPTEMBER. AT THAT POINT WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO BEGIN TO HAVE THE WORK WE'VE DONE FOR THE WORK SHOP AND SEE WHAT OUR OVERALL BUDGET PLAN NEEDS TO LOOK LIKE.
MISS ROBAS? >> IF OUR RANKING GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION, IS IT JUST TO SAY, OKAY, HERE'S OUR RANKING,
>> OR ARE WE SENDING SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH NO REQUEST, WE'RE READY TO PROCEED TO NEGOTIATION, HERE'S -- I THINK THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD WANT US TO TELL THEM WHAT OUR NEXT STEP IS WITH THIS RANKING PROCESS THAT WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH. IF I WAS A COMMISSIONER LOOKING AT THIS SAYING, OKAY, WE'VE GOT A RANKING, SO NOW WHAT DO WE DO,
GUYS? >> THE RANKING IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS. THAT'S, I THINK, SEPARATE, FROM PUTTING TOGETHER HOW IS IT THAT WE WANT THIS BUDGET TO WORK GOING FORWARD. THE OTHER OPTION IS WE COULD JUST NOT -- WE CAN GET OFF THAT AGENDA AND WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING IN SEPTEMBER TO HAVE A MORE COMPLETE PACKAGE.
>> IN MY THINKING, MADAM CHAIR, THAT WOULD MAKE IT SEEM THAT WE HAVE GIVEN THIS A VERY THOROUGH VETTING AND REALLY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LEGAL REQUIREMENT FROM A PR PROCUREMENT SIDE TO DISCLOSE OUR WORK WITH THE VETTING. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME FORWARD RECOMMENDATION THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO THAT, OTHER THAN JUST SAYING WE FULFILL THAT PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT.
>> SO THEN, KELLY, IF WE COME OFF THE SEPTEMBER 1ST MEETING THEN TWO WEEKS LATER. WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME -- PROBLEM IS, ISSUE IS, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, SEPTEMBER 1ST MEETING, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ALL OF OUR PRESENTATION, WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO SAY TO THE CITY COURT FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK.
[02:15:05]
THE ONLY THING WE WOULD BE PREPARED TO SAY IS, THIS IS OURRANKING. >> I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
WE COULD SAY. THIS IS OUR RANKING.
HOWEVER THE PLANNING BOARD IS CONSIDERING HAVING OTHER OPTIONS THAN JUST HAVING A CONSULTANT DO THE WORK.
THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY.
WE DISCUSSED THE PROJECT MANAGER.
WE DISCUSSED SOME OTHER THINGS. WE'VE DONE WHAT THEY SUGGESTED.
I WOULD ALSO LET THEM KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT OUR FINAL DECISION AS
FAR AS MOVING FORWARD. >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
>> THAT'S SAYING WHAT WE DID AND WHAT WE ARE AT THIS POINT.
AFTER OUR MEETING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF THE PROBLEMS GOING FORWARD, ISSUES THAT'S THERE. ARE WE GOING TO WANT TO TAKE
THAT TASK ON. >> THEN WE ARE GOING TO ASK TO BE ON TWO AGENDAS IN A ROW. ONE TO SAY HERE WHAT WE DID AND, BY THE WAY, WE'RE WORKING ON A PLAN TO GIVE YOU MORE OPTIONS.
>> RIGHT. >> AND TWO WEEKS LATER WE'LL BE BACK TO THEM TO SAY THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
>> EXACTLY. I THINK AT THIS POINT IN TIME MAYBE WE SHOULD BE ON THE 26TH CONSIDERED ONE OF OUR OPTIONS AND HAVE A DISCUSSION. THEN WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION
THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. >> WE'RE GOING TO STAY ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS UPCOMING MEETING OR ARE WE GOING TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER OUR MEETING ON THE 26TH WHERE WE DO OUR HOMEWORK AND THEN COME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATION AND THEN WE GO TO
THE COMMISSION? >> I THINK WHAT MR. BENNETT SAYS IS WE SHOULD GO, TELL THEM WHAT OUR RANKINGS ARE AND TELL THEM THAT WE'RE WORKING ON A PROPOSAL FOR OPTIONS ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. THEN AT THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION MEETING, WE WOULD PRESENT THOSE OPTIONS.
>> THAT'S WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DO.
>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT. THE VIDEO IS DIFFICULT AND ESPECIALLY, YOU HAVE GOT MASKS ON.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO HEAR SOMETIMES WHAT IS BEING SAID.
>> THE PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE IS WE STAY ON THE AGENDA FOR SEPTEMBER 1ST. WE WILL PROVIDE THE RANKING AND WE WILL PROVIDE AT LEAST A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF OUR NEXT STEP.
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE OUR MEETING ON THE 26TH AND OPTIONS ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. THEN WE WOULD ASK TO BE ON A SUBSEQUENT MEETING. MAYBE NOT THE NEXT ONE, BUT WHENEVER, TO TALK ABOUT WHAT OUR PROPOSAL IS ON HOW WE'D LIKE TO
MOVE FORWARD. >> I DON'T WANT THE COMMISSION TO THINK THIS IS THE ON OPTION THEY HAVE, TO HIRE WHO WE RATED AS NUMBER ONE. WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO DO AT THAT SUBSEQUENT MEETING, HERE THEY ARE, HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED?
WE'RE WILLING TO DO THE WORK. >> OKAY.
THAT'S FINE WITH ME, IF THAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMITTEE.
>> CAN WE JUST TURN THAT INTO A MOT
MOTION? >> IS IT ALL RIGHT WITH THE
ENTIRE BOARD? >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.
>> WE HAVE A PATH FORWARD. LAST ITEM, AS YOU KNOW LAST YEAR THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK DONE ON THE ZONING MAP.
WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL MEETINGS OF VERY DETAILED ANALYSIS AND MOVING THINGS BACK AND FORTH. SO WHAT I ASKED KELLY TO DO TONIGHT IS TO TALK TO US ABOUT WHAT THE ORIGINAL OBJECTIVE OF THAT WORK WAS AND WHERE WE ARE ON IT AND WHETHER OR NOT WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S CLOSED AND WE CAN MARK IT DONE AND MOVE ON.
SO I WILL KIND OF BACKTRACK, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE NEWER TO SOME OF THIS. BACK IN MARCH, I BELIEVE, OF 2019, THE CITY PASSED AN ORDINANCE WHICH DISALLOWED ANY
[02:20:04]
CONSIDERATION OF LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGES UNTIL WE WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS WITHIN OUR PACKET.FOLLOWING THAT WE CONDUCTED ANALYSIS TO INVESTIGATE THE NUMBER OF CONFLICTS THAT WERE CONFLICTS BETWEEN LAND USE AND ZONING DETAILS THAT WERE INCONSISTENT IN THE MAPPING.
THAT EXTENDED INTO POTENTIAL LAND WHERE THE PROPERTIES WERE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED OR COMMERCIALLY ZONED AND SHOULD BE CONSERVATION IN NATURE. A THIRD COMPONENT WAS BOUNDARY CONCERNS WHERE A ZONING AND LAND USE MIGHT CONFLICT A PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THE FOURTH AREA WE ANALYZED WAS USE CONFLICTS, WHERE A ZONING OR LAND USE MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH HOW THAT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY OPERATING.
SO FOUR PRIMARY AREAS. THOSE WERE ALL PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION. I BELIEVE THAT WAS APRIL TIME FRAME, POSSIBLY MAY. AND THEN AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE COMMISSION DIRECTED TO TAKE ACTION FIRST ON THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ZONING AND LAND USE MAPS AND SECOND ON THOSE PROPERTIES WHICH SHOULD BE CONSERVATION.
ONLY THOSE TWO AREAS WERE DIRECTED ACTION.
SO STARTING LAST AUGUST, I BELIEVE, THIS BOARD STARTED REVIEWING THE LAND USE AND ZONING.
FOLLOWING IT IN DECEMBER, WE REVIEWED THE CONSERVATION COMPONENT. BOTH OF THEM WILL WRAP UP BY THE MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER, I BELIEVE, WITH THE CONFLICT ALREADY COMPLETED. AFTER THAT, WE STILL HAD THESE TWO SECONDARY AREAS THAT HAD BEEN ANALYZED, BUT NO ACTION HAD BEEN DIRECTED AT THIS POINT OF TIME TO MOVE FORWARD ON.
SO I THINK THE QUESTION TONIGHT IS, WE CAN RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE THESE ADDITIONAL AREAS WHERE WE MIGHT NEED TO CONSIDER CHANGES IN THE FUTURE. DOES THE BOARD WANT TO ASK THE COMMISSION WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE DOING ANY WORK WITH THEM OR WOULD IT BE PRUDENT, ESPECIALLY TIME WISE FOR STAFFING, TO ALLOW FOR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS TO COME IN AND REQUEST CHANGES AS THEY SEE THE NEED AND WE DO IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. I THINK TO CLOSE THAT DISCUSSION, WHICH I THINK IS THE INTENT HERE TONIGHT, IS DIRECTION FROM THIS BOARD WHETHER MAYBE I PROVIDE A MEMO THAT REITERATES SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT I JUST PROVIDED TO YOU OR IF THERE'S FURTHER ACTION WE WANT TO SEE.
>> DO WE HAVE A VIEW OF HOW BIG THIS BUCKET IS OF THESE LAST TWO
COMPONENTS? >> IT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL.
IT WOULD BE A SIMILAR EFFORT THAN PRIOR TO AND RATIO OF POTENTIAL CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
THEY'RE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THEY'RE NOT CONCENTRATED IN ONE PARTICULAR AREA.
>> I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS AND SOME MAY NOT KNOW THAT LAND IS ZONING. IF YOU HAVE A CONSERVATION AS LAND USE AND YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL AS ZONING, THERE'S THE CONFLICT BUT THE LAND OVERRIDES THE ZONING.
SO TO CLEAN THESE THINGS UP REALLY HELPS US CLEAN UP POTENTIAL PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD.
>> RIGHT. SO WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S A LOT, ARE WE TALKING DOZENS OR HUNDREDS?
>> DOZENS. >> CAN YOU JUST GIVE US A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OR MAYBE A REAL EXAMPLE SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> YES, I CAN. JUST GIVE ME ONE QUICK MINUTE.
>> SEEMS LIKE A COUPLE WERE SUBMERGED LANDS UP IN THE OLD
TOWN AREA. >> THAT THE RAIL ROAD WAS INVOLVED IN. WE DON'T WANT TO TOUCH THOSE.
>> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE. WE DID GET INTO IT.
THAT MAY BE SOME PART OF THAT. >> WITH BOUNDARY ERRORS, THERE'S
[02:25:06]
APPROXIMATELY TEN. WITH USE ERRORS THERE'S ANOTHER NINE. SO 19 IN TOTAL.>> FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT, THE SURF RESTAURANT ON FLETCHER. THAT IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT'S SITTING IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
>> YEP. >> SO IF YOU JUST LEAVE IT ALONE, IT'S NONCONFORMING USE AND THEY'RE LIMITED TO WHAT THEY CAN DO. IF YOU WERE TO SAY LET'S CHANGE THE ZONING ON THAT TO COMMERCIAL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEIR USE IS, THEN SOMEONE COULD PUT A 45-FOOT BUILDING THERE, RIGHT, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT'S THERE TODAY OR AS OPPOSED TO RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF I DON'T KNOW ANY REASON WE WOULD WANT TO TOUCH THAT. EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE WORKING JUST FINE THE WAY IT IS. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WANT TO
NECESSARILY CHANGE THE LAND USE >> THAT'S WITHIN THAT LAND NEGOTIATION THING WHERE WE HAVE RESTRICTIONS ALREADY.
>> BUT THEN IF YOU OPEN IT UP TO COMMERCIAL, YOU COULD OPEN IT UP TO DIFFERENT OTHER USES THAN WHAT'S THERE TODAY.
>> YOU COULD EXPAND THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING USE.
IT'S GOING TO BE ADDRESSED SOME DAY.
IS THAT SOMETHING CRITICAL? I THINK WE OUGHT TO FOCUS ON OUR NEXT PROJECT WHICH IS COMING UP IN TWO WEEKS.
LET'S GO ON THAT ONE. THESE CAN BE MAYBE DEFERRED.
>> YOU'RE TALKING 19 PROPERTIES. >> BUT YOU GET INTO SOME QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY -- THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF IT.
THE TRUE INTENTION OF THAT PROPERTY OWNER AND ARE WE MAKING AN ASSUMPTION OF A LONG TERM USE.
THEY REQUESTED HIGH RESIDENTIAL THERE IN THE PAST.
THAT WAS VERY DELIBERATE. IT WASN'T ALL THAT LONG AGO.
I BELIEVE IT WAS THE 2004 TIME FRAME.
BUT THERE WAS AN INTENT TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE. NOW THE, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS IS IF YOU WERE TO ALLOW IT TO BE COMMERCIAL, THE EXPANSION OF THAT FOOTPRINT IS OF CONCERN.
SO NOW IT'S KIND OF LIMITED IN THE SCOPE TO WHICH IT CAN GROW.
>> HOW CAN THEY EXPAND THE FOOTPRINT?
>> THEY HAVEN'T. IT WOULD JUST CONTINUE TO EXIST
NONCONFORMING. >> HOW COULD THEY? THE FOOTPRINT GOES INTO THE SAND, DOESN'T IT?
>> NO. >> I SEE THEM WITH TABLES OUT IN
THE BEACH. >> YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT A
DIFFERENT PROPERTY. >> OH, OKAY.
>> THAT'S ALL LEGIT. THAT'S THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WHERE THE SAND IS WHERE THEY PUT THE PICNIC TABLES OUTSIDE OF THE SAND BAR. BELIEVE ME THE MINUTE TABLES WENT OUT THERE, WE WERE CALLED. PEOPLE WERE CALLING THE CITY.
>> SO POTENTIALLY THESE THINGS ARE OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS. IS THAT THE BEST USE OF OUR TIME? OR DO WE JUST SAY THERE ARE 19 PROPERTIES THAT STILL HAVE CONFLICTS AND MAYBE WHAT WE COULD DO, KELLY, IS IF YOU HAVE A LIST, YOU COULD SEND IT TO US. THAT WOULD GIVE US A CHANCE TO DO RESEARCH. THEN AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE COULD COME BACK AND SAY WHETHER OR NOT WE, AS A BOARD, WANT TO TAKE THE STAFF'S TIME AND OUR TIME TO WORK THESE OR ARE WE
HAPPY TO LET SLEEPING DOGS LIE. >> YOU MIGHT PUT IN, LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THOSE SUBMERGED PROPERTIES.
>> MISS ROBAS? >> ADDRESSING THESE 19 PARCELS WAS NOT PART OF THE DIRECTION THAT WAS GIVEN TO STAFF BY THE CITY COMMISSION, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> RIGHT. AS PART OF THE FIRST EFFORT, IT WAS ONLY THOSE TWO COMPONENTS OF THE FOUR.
>> SO WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED AT THIS POINT TO DO ANYTHING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WITH THESE PARCELS.
THESE ARE JUST PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT YOU KNOW OF OVER TIME THAT ARE NONCONFORMING OR HAVE ISSUES THAT EVENTUALLY WILL
[02:30:04]
COME UP AT SOME POINT. >> YES, THEY WILL.
THEY'LL COME UP AS PART OF A LAND TRANSACTION AND CREATE A
QUESTION. >> THERE WAS A BIG LIST.
THE CITY COMMISSION PRIORITIZED THE LIST FOR US.
THESE WERE NOT PRIORITIZED. IF WE WANT TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT, THE OPTION IS TO GO BACK TO THE CITY AND SAY, OKAY, WE DID THE PRIORITIES. THESE ARE THE 19 PROPERTIES THAT ARE NONPRIORITIZED. WE BELIEVE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS TO LET THEM SIT LIKE THEY ARE AND DEAL WITH THEM ON
AN INDIVIDUALIZED CASE BASIS. >> OR WRAP IT UP.
>> THEN WRAP IT UP AND SAY WE'RE DONE.
TIE A RIBBON ON IT, CHECK IT OFF OUR LIST.
YES, MISS ROBAS. >> DO WE HAVE TO SEE IT THAT WAY? CAN WE SAY WE ACCOMPLISHED THE ONES THAT THE CITY COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY ASKED US TO ADDRESS AND WE HAVE DONE THOSE AND NOW CAN WE PUT A BOW ON IT AND MOVE FORWARD AND THEN NOT ADDRESS THESE 19 AND LET SLEEPING DOGS
SLEEP? >> YEAH, WE COULD ADDRESS IT ANY WAY WE WANT. I DO THINK I'D LIKE US TO GIVE A REPORT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT SAYS THIS IS
WHAT WE DID. >> IT WASN'T PART OF THEIR DIRECT, THEIR SPECIFIC DIRECTION.
MY FEELING IS THAT WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT ALL THE WORK AHEAD OF US AND THESE ARE BIG MAJOR ISSUES, I THINK OF ALL THE COMP PLAN THAT WE HAVE AHEAD OF US ON A HIGHER PRIORITY.
THAT'S JUST MY THINKING OUT LOUD.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. I'D LIKE TO TRY TO BRING SOME CLOSURE SO STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TO KEEP IT ON THEIR LIST, RIGHT?
>> I AGREE WITH THAT, TOO. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET THAT OFF THE RECORD, JUST A PEEK AT THE LIST, JUST TO LOOK AT IT.
>> THIS IS WHAT WE'LL DO. WE'LL SEND OUT THE LIST OF THE 19. YOU ALL CAN LOOK AT IT.
AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE'LL PUT THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA AND EITHER WE'LL COME UP WITH A DRAFT LETTER THAT SAY, WE CAME, WE SAW, WE CONQUERED OR WE CAME, WE SAW, WE GOT MORE WORK TO DO AND THEN DECIDE WHAT LETTER YOU'D LIKE US TO SEND.
OKAY? >> IT MAKES US -- IT GIVES THE COMMISSIONERS THE FEELING THAT, OKAY, WE AREN'T JUST LETTING THINGS LAY IN THE WEEDS. WE ARE LOOKING AT THEM.
I THINK BEING PRO-ACTIVE IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.
>> I TALKED TO KELLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE LIST MYSELF.
I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING LONGER TERM.
NOT JUST THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING THIS MONTH.
WHAT SIT WE WANT TO DO FOR THE NEXT TWO OR THREE MONTHS AND
WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. >> ONLY THING ON THAT IS JUST
MORE TIME. >> IT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
IT'S ON THE LIST. MAYBE IT'S AN ISSUE.
MAYBE IT'S NOT. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO WITH THAT.
[6. STAFF REPORT]
KELLY, DO YOU WANT TO TALK ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING?>> IT IS THERE AND AVAILABLE FOR YOUR REVIEW AND USE HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE TO REVIEW IT. YOU CAN SEE EVERY BID WE'RE WORKING ON AT THE BOARD LEVEL THIS MONTH.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER NEW BUSINESS?
[4. NEW BUSINESS (Part 2 of 2)]
ALL RIGHT. >> JUST ONE QUESTION.
>> SURE. >> LEGAL COUNSEL, THIS LETTER CONCERNING THE PORT AUTHORITY. IS THERE ANYTHING WE NEED TO EVEN DO CONCERNING THIS PARTICULAR RIGHT NOW OR IT WAS
>> IT'S IN YOUR E-MAIL. >> JULY 31.
DO YOU WANT A COPY? >> DID THAT COME WITH THE CASE
WITH FORT MEYERS BEACH? >> WE HAVE IT.
>> YOU CAN TAKE THIS COPY. >> OKAY.
>> THE LETTER IS PUTTING THE PORT ON NOTICE THAT WE BELIEVE
[02:35:07]
THAT THEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING THE LOCAL LAWS.>> ALL RIGHT. >> I CAN TELL YOU BECAUSE I TALKED WITH THEIR ATTORNEY. THEIR BOARD HAS SAID IN THEIR PUBLIC MEETINGS, THEIR CHARTER, THE PORT CHARTER THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2005 AND THEN AMENDED SLIGHTLY IN 2017 -- 2016, IT HAS A PROVISION IN THERE, SECTION 12 SPECIFICALLY, THAT STATES THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO GET LOCAL PERMITS, CERTIFICATES OF APPROPRIATENESS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT'S VERY DISTURBING TO OUR COMMUNITY, AS YOU WOULD GUESS.
THEY TALKED ABOUT NEW OPERATOR. WORLD WIDE TERMINALS IS PLANNING ON PUTTING A WAREHOUSE IN, BUT APPARENTLY IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE A PREFABRICATED WAREHOUSE. IT'S INDUSTRIAL.
WE DON'T EXPECT PRETTY, BUT WE WOULD LIKE SAFETY.
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, IT'S MY INTERPRETATION THAT THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE APPLIES TO THEM. SO BEING HURRICANE READY AND WIND PROOF AND ALL THAT. BUT THE ONLY PERMITTING A FOR THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE ARE YOUR LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
SO IF THEY'RE NOT COMING HERE TO GET BUILDING PERMITS, THERE'S NO PLACE ELSE TO GO. SO THEY'RE JUST NOT GETTING BUILDING PERMITS. I'M NOT SAYING THIS OCCURRED.
WE DON'T REALLY KNOW. WE'RE JUST SAYING, LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO BE -- THE LITIGATION WE'RE INVOLVED IN OR WILL BE INVOLVED IN AND THAT WE MEDIATED WAS ABOUT THE $50,000 PAYMENT.
THIS IS TOTALLY SEPARATE. IT IS REQUIRED BY STATUTE THAT ALL DEEP WATER PORTS HAVE TO COME BACK EVERY TEN YEARS UNDER THEIR PORT STATUTES. UNDER THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT THAT WE HAVE IN CHAPTER 163 OF FLORIDA STATUTES, IT SAYS THAT THAT MASTER PLAN HAS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. LAST TIME THEY APPROACHED THE CITY WITH A MASTER PLAN WAS 2014.
THE CITY PLANNING BOARD AT THAT TIME REJECTED THEIR PROPOSED MASTER PLAN. THE REASON FOR DOING THAT WAS BECAUSE THEIR MASTER PLAN WAS A TEN YEAR OUTLOOK.
THERE WERE A LOT OF PROJECTIONS THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THEY GREW.
ONE THING THAT SCARED PEOPLE WAS THEY PROJECTED LIKE FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TRUCK TRAFFIC OR MORE THAN WHAT IT WAS.
THINGS LIKE THAT WERE BROUGHT UP.
IT WAS REJECTED. THEY NEVER CAME BACK TO UPDATE IT. THEY HAVEN'T UPDATED IT.
THAT'S JUST CERTAINLY JUST A CITIZENS AND PUBLIC BOARD.
>> THEY OWN SEVERAL PARCELS OF VACANT LAND THAT IN THE PAST THEY TRIED TO CREATE A PARKING LOT THEY DEFERRED SEVERAL TIMES.
IT FAILED SEVERAL TIMES. >> THEY DID COME TO US FOR THAT.
REZONING REQUEST FROM RESIDENTIAL TO -- THEY TRIED PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL. THEY TRIED A COUPLE DIFFERENT THINGS. IT WAS REJECTED AT THE PLANNING LEVEL EACH TIME AND NEVER WENT PAST THAT.
ALL WE'RE SAYING, I THINK, AS A CITY IS, PLEASE WORK WITH US.
WE HAVE CODES AND THINGS IN PLACE AND THEY'RE NOT JUST SO WE CAN BE A PAIN IN THE NECK. IT'S SO WE CAN PROTECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PEOPLE. BUT ALSO, THERE WAS TALK, I GUESS, I WASN'T AT THE MEETING SO IT CAME THIRD HAND, BUT IT'S IN MY LETTER, WORLD WIDE TERMINAL, THE PORT DIRECTOR, THAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PORT AND MAYBE ACQUIRING SOME OTHER PROPERTIES BOTH ON THE WATERFRONT AND SOME RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THIS TOWN SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT.
THEY CAME TO THE CITY FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS JUST TO PUT THAT PORT THERE. THE TOWN SAID I GUESS, FINE, YOU CAN HAVE THE PORT THERE BUT YOU CAN'T GET ANY BIGGER.
>> MAY WANT TO TELL THEM INSTEAD OF DOUBLING THEIR SALARIES, THEY
CAN JUST PAY OUR BILL. >> HDC ALSO GETS INVOLVED ON ANYTHING THEY DO TECHNICALLY, RIGHT?
>> OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, WE'RE GONNA ADJOURN THIS MEETING. WE'LL SEE YOU ALL ON THE 26TH.
>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU A
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.