REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 5.03.02.C.1 AND 4, FOR A REDUCED MINIMUM UPLAND BUFFER DISTANCE FROM OUTSTANDING WETLAND RESOURCES, REDUCED AVERAGE UPLAND BUFFER AND REDUCED CONSTRUCTION SETBACK FROM WETLANDS, FOR LOT 4 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SW INDIAN GROVES DRIVE, LOCATED AT 228 SW INDIAN GROVES DRIVE.

]

ITEM ITEM NUMBER, 10. I'M A VARIANCE TO REDUCE UP AND BUFFER DISTANCE TO SIGNIFICANT WETLAND RESOURCES. UM, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND STAFF AND MR MARTEL. THANK YOU. YOU LIKE ME TO READ THE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION.

5.3 POINT TWO C ONE AND FOUR FOR REDUCED MINIMUM UPLAND BUMPER DISTANCE FROM OUTSTANDING WETLAND RESOURCE IS REDUCED TO AVERAGE UPLOAD BUFFER AND REDUCED INSTRUCTION SET BACK FROM WETLANDS. FOR LIFE FOR ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SOUTHWEST INDIAN GROVES DRIVE LOCATED AT 2 TO 8, SOUTHWEST INDIAN GROUPS DRY. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. ERIN WILLETT, CA UH, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SO. THIS VARIANCE HAVE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN HEARD IN FRONT OF YOU ON APRIL 12TH. THAT WAS NOT APPROVED OR DENIED BECAUSE NO MOTION WAS VOTED ON. SO IT COMES BACK BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WITH A FEW MODIFICATIONS. PIRI INCE'S ARE GENERALLY GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. HOWEVER IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, UH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM WOULD BE THE CITY COMMISSION THAT HAS AUTHORITY TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM. THE LIMITATIONS ON GRANTING VARIANCES AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT USUALLY HAS THE POWER. UM BUT AGAIN IN THIS CASE, UH, DUE TO THE FACT THAT, UM THIS PROPERTY IS EXEMPT FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT IS SPECIFICALLY IN REGARDS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND NOT WITH THESE CONDITIONS. YOU GUYS. THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO VOTE ON THIS. THESE ARE THE LIMITATIONS ON GRANTING VARIANCES. I KNOW THAT WE HAD GONE THROUGH THESE. PREVIOUSLY ON APRIL, 12, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THESE TO THE COMMISSION AGAIN? OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO MOVE FORWARD? YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD IF IT'S OKAY BEFORE. POLICY 5.85 POINT FIVE REQUIRES, UH, UPLAND BUFFERS TO BE AN INTEGRAL COMPONENT OF A FUNCTIONING WETLAND. AND IT REQUIRES THAT AN AVERAGE WIDTH BE MAINTAINED OF 50 FT. IN A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 25 FT FOR UPLAND BUFFERS BEYOND THE PERIMETER OF A WETLAND. WHEN THE EAR WAS CREATED MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES. UH. WERE EXEMPT FROM THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

THESE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXEMPT FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY. THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TONIGHT. ELAINE DEVELOPMENT QUOTE. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES, UH, SECTION FIVE POINT OH 3.2 C ONE AND C FOUR REQUIRES THAT THE AVERAGE WIDTH OF AN UPLOAD BUFFER BE 50 FT. AND AT NO POINT SHALL IT BE LESS THAN 25 FT. HOWEVER THIS PROPERTY SPECIFICALLY IS ON PUBLIC CREEK, WHICH IS IN OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WETLAND, SO THE MINIMUM AVERAGE WIDTH OF AN UPLAND BUFFER AROUND AND OUTSET OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WETLAND IS 75 FT. AND AT NO POINT SHALL IT BE LESS THAN 50 FT. AS SUCH, THERE IS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO REDUCE. UH, THIS REQUIREMENT. HERE'S AN AERIAL LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. LOCATED AT 2 TO 8 IN SOUTHWEST

[01:55:08]

INDIAN GROUP DRIVE. THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IS R THREE. HERE'S A SURVEY OF THE LOT. AND PER THE R THREE SETBACKS. UH THE ORANGE OUTLINE, UH, WOULD BE THE ALLOWED BUILDING ENVELOPE WITHOUT ANY WETLAND BUFFER SETBACKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT WOULD JUST BE. 15 FT REAR 25 FT FRONT AND FIVE FT SIDE STEP BACKS. SO THIS IS THE EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY. UM, PER FDP. AND THIS IS THE 25 FT MINIMUM WETLAND BUFFER. THE 50 FT REQUIRED AVERAGE. AND THE 75 FT. MAX. NOW DUE TO THIS BEING OUT AND OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WETLAND, UM THE BUILDABLE AREA WOULD BE IN GREEN. AND THEN ONCE YOU ADD THE 10 FT REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION SETBACK. THE AREA IN GREEN GETS A LITTLE BIT SMALLER, SO THIS AREA IN GREEN WOULD BE THE BUILDABLE AREA CODE. THIS IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT FOR THE APPLICANT, AS YOU CAN SEE THE APPLICANT IS MAINTAINING THE MINIMUM 25 FT WETLAND BUFFER. AND ACTUALLY EXCEEDING IT BY PROVIDING A 30 FT. MAINTAINED WETLAND BUFFER. HOWEVER THEY ARE REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE AVERAGE 50 FT. WETLAND BUFFER. THE 10 FT CONSTRUCTION SET BACK IN THE 70 FT. MAXWELL AND BUFFER. HERE ARE THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS. THE LAST, UH, ARCHITECTURE THAT YOU THAT THE BOARD HAS SEEN WAS A DUPLEX WITH A LARGER FOOTPRINT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS A SMALLER, SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED. THE APPLICANT HAS, UM PROVIDED PUBLIC NOTICE. AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING TO REVIEW THE CRITERIA FOR REVIEWING A VARIANCE. TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT AND RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SARAH. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, UM. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OR WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT FOR BUT A COUPLE QUESTIONS DISCUSS IT. REMEMBER. WHEN IT WAS AT THE OKAY. I'M SORRY. MARRIED WAS JUST WE JUST HAD STUFF, SO LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. SORRY. MS ABORNING. THANK YOU AGAIN. UH, BEEN BEFORE YOU BEFORE WITH FOR THE BIGGER FOOTPRINT. YOU'VE ASKED ME TO GO BACK AND REDUCE MY FOOTPRINT. I'VE DONE THAT. I'VE GOT A 1600 SQUARE FOOT. LITTLE HIGHER. YEAH, PAUL. A LITTLE SMALLER FOOTPRINT. HAVE ARRANGED THIS HOUSE AS TROPICAL AS I CAN, UM. IT'S FITS WELL INTO STEWART. AND IT'LL LOOK WELL, IT'LL BE THE BEST HOUSE POPPLETON CREEK. I'M GOING TO BUILD A NICE HOME SMALL AS I CAN GET IT 1600 SQUARES AND I'M GONNA I'M NOT GONNA DISTURB ANY MANGROVES. SO I'M. SHE DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING MY CASE. SO UH, APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR WARNEKE. I I'LL ASK FOR COMMENTS FROM OUR COMMISSIONERS BEFORE I GO TO THE PUBLIC. WITH REGARD TO THIS VARIANCE WITH. NOT WITH A SINGLE FAMILY AND NOT THE TWO UNITS, UM. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? UM, COMMISSIONERS? THIS PROPOSAL, MR MASTERS, I THINK LIKE I HAVE A QUESTION. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT. UM WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US. WE HAVE A SURVEY. UM. IT'S OUTLINED IN THE BUILDABLE AREA. IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE, I GUESS YES, THAT ONE. THAT'S THE LOT BOUNDARY IN BLACK. AND THEN ON THIS SLIDE THAT BUILDABLE AREA PER REGULAR CODE. IF THERE WAS NOT A WETLAND ON POPPLETON CREEK, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD BE IF IT WAS AN R THREE ANYWHERE ELSE. SO WHAT IS THE. IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, WHAT WOULD BE THAT THE PREVIOUS SIDE YOU JUST HAD UP THE OUTLINE IN BLUE OF THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT. WHAT'S THE FOOT WHAT'S IS THAT 1600 SQUARE FEET OR IS THAT 1600 WITHOUT THE GARAGE? THAT OUTLINED IN BLUE THAT FOOTPRINT OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT'S

[02:00:06]

SEEM JUST ROUGH NUMBERS. LARGER THAN 1600. UM. 62 FT WIDE. YOU KNOW, ROUGHLY. 39 1 OF THE SQUARES, ALMOST 40 AND THEN 36 THE OTHER SQUARE. I THINK I'D LIKE THE APPLICANT TO CONFIRM THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS REQUESTING. MR BORN IQ STAFF IS ASKING YOU TO COME AND TELL US ABOUT THE SCRIPT FOOTAGE AND EXACTLY WHAT YOUR REQUEST AND IN THIS PLAN, AND IT IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS WOULD THAT BE? THE MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT. PREP ARE YOU? WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR FROM HIM NOW? MR. YES, OKAY. CERTAINLY WHAT WELL. THAT SO WHAT'S IN BLUE? THERE IS THAT 1600 SQUARE FEET. YOU KNOW THE GARAGE IS 571 SQUARE FEET OF THE LIVING AREA IS 1600 SQUARE FEET. OKAY? PLACE NEAR MATHESON. WHAT YOU WOULD BE APPROVING HERE WOULD BE THE SPECIFIC VARIANCES, WHICH IS THE SETBACK. REDUCTIONS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. UM. THERE IS THERE IS A BILL THAT WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ABOUT, UH, ARCHITECT. BASICALLY, UH.

COMMENTING ON ARCHITECTURE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND STRAIGHT ZONING NEIGHBORHOODS, SO IT. THE APPROVAL WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE FOR THE ARCHITECTURE SPECIFICALLY OF THIS HOUSE, BUT FOR THE STEP BACKS TO THE WETLAND BUFFER IN ORDER TO ALLOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE TO BE BUILT, AND SPECIFICALLY, WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR HERE IS SO THAT THIS FOOTPRINT YES CAN BE ALLOWED, BUT REALLY. ANY FOOTPRINT THAT MAINTAINS THIS 30 FT. ON MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM THE WETLAND COULD BE PERMITTED. OKAY, UM. SO WE'D BE LOOKING AT.

2200 SQUARE FEET, FOOTPRINT OR SO CORRECT. DO YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT OF A FOOTPRINT ON A COTTAGE LOT. UP THE CHOP YOUR HEAD COVER, ERIN. THAT. AGAIN THAT'S WHAT TO BE DETERMINED BY THE SETBACKS OF THAT LOTS OF A FOOTPRINT COULD BE ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN THOSE BOUNDARIES. THE SETBACKS WITHIN THAT LOT. IN OUR CODE, THOUGH IT THERE'S A BULLET POINT. IT CAN'T BE OVER 30% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LAW. AND THEN THAT WOULD THAT'S DETERMINED BY THE SIZE OF THE LOT, SO YEAH, YOU KNOW THE SMALLER LOT, OBVIOUSLY, THE SMALLER THE FOOTPRINT. UM THERE WOULD BE A SLIDING SCALE OF SQUARE FOOT JUST PERCENTAGE WISE BASED ON THE LOT AND I KIND OF AGAIN. I'M NO MATHEMATICIAN, BUT. I DID SOME ROUGH CALCULATIONS AND GOT ABOUT THE SAME THAT THE PROPOSALS. A LITTLE OVER 20. 200 SQUARE FEET AND ROUGH CALCULATIONS. YOU KNOW, JUST FACTORING THE DEPTH OF A LOT OF 110 FT. ON ONE SIDE, 80 FT ON THE OTHER. UM. YOU KNOW, I CAME UP WITH 30% OF THAT WOULD BE LIKE. 1800 SQUARE FEET OF BILLABLE AREA IF WE WENT BY THE STANDARDS IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF WHAT A COTTAGE LOT WOULD BE UM. AND MY HESITANCY ON THIS AS IT STANDS IS THAT. I KNOW NUMEROUS TIMES.

IT WAS MENTIONED WHEN IT CAME UP BEFORE THAT THE IDEA WAS THIS WOULD BE A COTTAGE LOT. UM AND I GUESS. PART OF MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS CONSIDERING THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE HOUSES. THAT ARE ON THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN. THE AMOUNT OF BUFFER THAT WERE THIS PROPOSED TO BE, UM. PRODUCED BY OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT. CODE HASN'T CHANGED. SINCE THIS LOT WAS PURCHASED. CORRECT WE DID THEM. YEAH THAT'S THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE IN FRONT OF YOU. NOW WITH THIS REQUEST IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ALLOCATES OR DEFINES THIS, UM OUTSTANDING WETLAND RESOURCE BUFFER AT 75 FT. MAXIMUM MINIMUM WITH AN AVERAGE BUT. WE WE KNOW THAT IF THAT WAS APPLIED TO THIS LAW, IT MAKES IT AND BUILDABLE. BUT WOULD IT BE THAT WAS RECOGNIZED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? IF THE COMP

[02:05:07]

PLAN THE ADJUSTMENTS ARE COMP PLAN? BUT IN THEORY, THE LOT COULD STILL BE BUILDABLE. IF INSTEAD OF THE VARIANCE OF 30 FT, IT COULD BE 40 FT. I THINK IT'S ESSENTIALLY THAT COULD HAPPEN BECAUSE IN THE ARTERY DISTRICT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO REDUCE THE FRONT SET BACK TO 15. IF YOU HAVE APPROACH A PORCH DESIGNED ONTO THE FRONT OF THE. UM PROPERTY WHILE THE ISSUE THAT WE HAVE IN SETTING OUT ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS, AND I THINK IT WAS HOUSE BILL 51. UM, RESTRICTED. MUNICIPALITIES IN THEIR ARCHITECTURAL. TIMES DESIGN OF SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE SIERRA SO. I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR COMMISSION ARE ABLE TO GO. NO, NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT. REALLY GETTING INTO. I GUESS THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN WHAT THIS BEFORE US IS HOW MUCH OF A VARIANCE FROM OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DO WE WANT TO GIVE ON A BUFFER? AND THE QUESTION IS. WHAT IS REASONABLE AND. I GUESS FOR ME.

MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I SEE. PROPOSED HOUSE AND WE SHOULD SHIFT THE ENTIRE CODE FOR WHAT CAN BE BUILT THERE. AND PERHAPS THERE'S A MORE OF A MIDDLE GROUND OF LOOKING AT. THE ENTIRE PROJECT WITH TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF VARIANCE COULD YOU BUILD YOU KNOW? WITH 10 FT MORE OF A BUFFER. ON THE WETLANDS. YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK? WHAT'S THE BUILDABLE AREA AND DOES THE HOUSE. COULD HAVE COTTAGE. LOT BE BUILT THERE WITHOUT WAIT RIGHT TO CODE. YOU KNOW, IT'S THE PROPOSALS 62 FT WIDE WHAT WOULD A AS A BEEN EXAMINED TO BUILD.

YOU KNOW? 25 FT DEEP PALS OR 20 FT. DEEP HOUSE AT 60 FT WIDE. TOM. IS THAT A LIVABLE? OR SHOULD WE, YOU KNOW. IMPACT THE WETLAND BUFFER MORE SO THAT THE HOUSE CAN BE LARGER, AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S BEFORE THE COMMISSION'S THAT THAT'S RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT. I THINK THE MEASUREMENTS YOU POINT OUT. OF COURSE, SOMETHING COULD BE BUILT THERE. WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE. LIVER BOWL. AS YOU KNOW, QUESTION FOR WHO HE WAS GOING TO BE LIVING INSIDE IT, BUT THERE WOULD BE AN AREA THERE. THAT COULD ACCOMMODATE A RESIDENTIAL. DWELLING AND, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW. THAT WE'VE SEEN MOVEMENTS TO REALLY. SMALL OR TINY BUILDING FOOTPRINTS AND THAT YES, UH LOWER WETLAND BUFFER, HIGHER WETLAND BUFFER WOULD STILL. TO SOME EXTENT, ALLOW A BUILDABLE AREA. WHETHER THAT'S PRACTICAL OR NOT, I THINK THAT IS WITH. THE DESIGNER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO I'LL. JUST REAL QUICK. I IN SOME MIGHT CONSIDERATIONS TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. IF I LOOK AT THE 16. TWO FT WIDE AND SAY IT'S A IT'S 25 FT. DEEP THE HOUSE WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN. YOU KNOW OF AN IMPACT.

IT'S STILL WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 1500 SQUARE FOOT 1550 SQUARE FOOT. HOUSE. AND WHAT IF YOU. HAD A VARIANCE TO SHIFT THE HOUSE FORWARD A LITTLE MORE TOWARDS THE ROAD. IT'S LESS. UH, OF AN IMPACT ON THAT WETLAND BUFFER. OR WHAT IF YOU CONSIDERED IF YOU WANTED THAT 2000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, WHAT HAVE YOU CONSIDERED A SECOND STORY, BUT STILL NO HOUSE AND THAT. 20 TO 25 FT DEPTH RANGE, KNOWING THAT YOU HAVE YOU KNOW? QUITE A DECENT AMOUNT OF WIDTH ON THE PROPERTY. SO. I WON'T LEAVE IT OUT THERE. BUT THOSE WERE WHEN I LOOK AT THIS. SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS OF. CAN SOMETHING BUILT THAT IS CLEARLY LIVABLE AT THOSE NUMBERS. UM, GOING AT IT? TRYING TO MINIMIZE.

THE VARIANCE REQUIRED ON THE WETLAND BUFFER. WHAT YOU WRITE BALLS? YEAH JUST JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON ONE OF COMMISSIONER MASTERS QUESTION. IS THIS CONSIDERED A COTTAGE POT? WHAT NO. OKAY VARIANCE, SO OKAY, SO, UM FIRST OF ALL, UM. I ALWAYS PROMISED PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME.

BUT BUT. COULD HAVE FIRED JUG. YEAH OKAY, SO AND I APOLOGIZE FOR SOME REASON. I HAVE A VERY

[02:10:06]

HARD TIME WITH YOUR LAST DAY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO DESTROY IT. SO THANK YOU, DOG. UM ANYWAYS, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR I THINK YOU HEARD WHAT WE SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT, UM. YOU CAME BACK WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND. OH, AND I LIKE WHAT YOU'VE DONE. AND SO I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM COMMISSIONER JUST AGAIN. COMMISSIONER. I'M KIND OF DUPLICATING SOME OF THE QUESTIONS COMMISSIONER MIGHT HAVE TO SAY IT'S 1600 SQUARE FEET ROUGHLY UNDER AIR, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE GARAGE, WHICH TAKES IT UP TO 2300 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING. YES. OKAY. HE, UH. I ALSO SEE IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I LIKE ABOUT. YOUR PLAN IS THAT YOU DIDN'T GO TO THE MAXIMUM SETBACKS ON THE SIDES. UM I THINK THAT UH OH. YOU KNOW, FIVE FT. SETBACKS ARE PRETTY TIGHT. AND UH AND I'M YOU KNOW I'M LEANING TOWARDS THIS. I JUST WANT TO HEAR I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING, COMMISSIONER MATHESON SAID. UM I DON'T THINK IT'S TOO BIG FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I'M ALSO KIND OF WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT. OH YOU LISTEN TO US, AND YOU CAME BACK AND YOU COME UP WITH A TONED DOWN A CERTAIN PLAN, SO LIKE TO AT. IT'S IN YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT MOVING FURTHER TOWARDS THE ROAD. THERE'S SOME LARGE FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT GUIDE WIRES THAT ARE THERE. VERY LARGE. THERE'S PEOPLE BENT DOWN EATING GIRL RODE THOSE OF YOU BENT OUT AND KNOW THAT THE FED EXISTS. UM. THEY HAVE A SETBACK SO WE COULDN'T REMOVED AS FAR AS WE COULD. I WENT ON THE GOON COUNCIL. I DON'T WANT TO IMPACT THE LAGOON. AT ALL AND SO. I'VE MOVED IT AS CLOSE TO THOSE GUIDE WIRES AS THEY ALLOW US WITHOUT. HAVING THEM PHYSICALLY GO IN AND THEY'RE VERY LARGE. IT'S A BIG PART OF THEIR OPERATION THERE. SO WE'VE MOVED IT AS FAR AWAY FROM MANGROVES. PLUS AND HOPE FOR AFTER BOTH HURRICANES WENT THROUGH. I MADE A POINT OF COMING DOWN HERE AND LOOK ANYWHERE. THE HIGH HIGH WATERLINE WAS AND IT JUST CAME UP TO THE EDGE OF THE MANGROVES. THE TOP OF THE MANGROVES. IT DIDN'T EVEN COME ON THE LOT.

THAT'S WHY I THIS IS ANOTHER POINT. VERY AWARE THAT THIS JUST. TRYING TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT AND MY HOUSE AND BUREAU. I LOST MY ROOF AND BARREL AFTER FRANCES AND JEANNE. THE HIGH WATER MARK WAS NOT EVEN UP TO THE EDGE PAST THE END OF THE MANGROVES, SO.

AND I'M SETTING BACK 25 FT. PAST THAT. SO I KNOW WHERE I'M AT AS FAR AS THE HYDROLOGY OF THAT LIFE. AND I'M BEYOND ANY HOT WATER THAT OCCURRED EVEN IN HURRICANE THIS IS PROFESSOR AS A POINT. THANK YOU, SIR. UM. THE FOR MR MEYER SPEAKS. I WASN'T HERE FOR THE VERY BEGINNING. BUT, UM DID STAFF SAY THAT THEY RECEIVED ANY, UM. MALE OR RESPONSE FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND THAT ALL THE NOTICES HAVE GONE OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS. YES WE DID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE WATERWAY TO THE NORTH. UM BUT THEY JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT WAS ABOUT. THERE WEREN'T ANY SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS OR ANYTHING SO STAFF. UM RELAYED WHAT THE WHAT THE PROJECT WAS ABOUT, AND THEY WERE FINE. I SENT OUT 132 LETTERS. OKAY AND THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN PUBLIC AND CREEK. OKAY, OKAY.

MR MEYER. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. UM SO, YEAH. WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE SURVEY, THE BOUNDARY SURVEY. UM. I KNOW FIRST CRACK AT THIS. I HAD ASKED IF WE COULD MOVE IT FORWARD, AND THAT WAS SORT OF. BOTH WITH THE ISSUES OF THE POWER LINE AND THEN THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ACTUALLY FROM THE NEIGHBORS THAT IT WOULD DISRUPT THE SIGHTLINE DOWN THE ROADWAY, WHICH WAS A GOOD POINT. UM. YOU KNOW IT WAS DECIDED THEN THAT THAT PROBABLY WASN'T A GOOD MOVE FORWARD, BUT I THOUGHT THAT WAS OUR EASIEST WAY TO AVOID. THE BUFFER SITUATION. UM.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE LDCS FOR COTTAGE LOTS. I THINK THAT'S REALLY CLEVER IDEA. VICE MAYOR, UM. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TYPICALLY COTTAGE LOTS ARE. UH APPLIED FOR IS THAT SOMETHING? THAT AN APPLICANT WOULD NORMALLY COME TO THE CITY WITH YES. WHAT WE FOUND WITH THAT PART OF THE CODE. IT'S. FAIRLY UNENFORCEABLE OR FUN. UH RIGHT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THERE IS A CONFLICT NG, UM. PIECE OF THE CODE, WHICH NEGATES A LOT OF THE BENEFITS OF A COTTAGE LOT, RIGHT. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE. THE SPIRIT. IT'S A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE PURPOSE SECTION A SAYS THAT IT'S MEANT TO SUPPORT THE. USE OF EFFICIENT URBAN RESIDENTIAL

[02:15:03]

LAND BY ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT FOR SUBSTANDARD LOTS AND I THINK YOU KNOW IT'S AN EXCELLENT OUTSTANDING EXCELLENT IDEA. BUT THERE ARE THERE ARE CONFLICTS IN THE CODE, WHICH MAKES A DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ACTUALLY WON COTTAGE LOT COME THROUGH. UM I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE AT VICE MAYOR. I AGREE WITH YOU TOO. I MEAN, I YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT MY PROPERTY, AND CERTAINLY I LIVE IN A SMALL DWELLING AND I TEND TOWARDS SMALL DWELLINGS AND. I THINK THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A SMALLER DWELLING, BUT I DO RESPECT AND APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS COME IN AND READ ON THE PLAN. I GUESS WHERE I AM. MY MAIN CONCERN WAS YOURS AS THAT. OUTSIDE OF JUST GRANTING THE VARIANCES. WITH THE SETBACKS. I DON'T I'M NOT. I DON'T KNOW IS. IS THIS THIS FOOTPRINT? I KNOW WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS. BUT IS THIS FOOTPRINT OR LIMITATION OF THIS FOOTPRINT INCLUDED IN THIS OR IS IT JUST SIMPLY THE WAVING OF THE AND THEN WE COULD SEE A. A BIGGER MAYBE THAT SECTION IN THE FRONT COULD COME FORWARD. WE WOULD BE ABLE THAT WOULD HAPPEN. POTENTIALLY POTENTIALLY, I THINK WHAT YOU COULD DO IS LOOK AT THE SIDE SETBACKS AND PUSH THOSE IN WITH THE VARIANCE. UM CREATE LARGER SIDE SETBACKS. YOU COULD, AS VICE MINISTER SAID, UM. NOT GO FOR THE FAULT, YOU KNOW, 25 FT MINIMUM WETLAND BUFFER, SET BACK AND PULL THAT FORWARD. I'M CONFUSED OF ABOUT WHAT? ESSENTIALLY, WE CAN. I AM CONDITION IN TERMS OF ARCHITECTURE, RIGHT? UM THANKS. I'M JUST WORKING TO SETBACKS. YEAH WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN INFLUENCE MORE THAN THAT. I'M NOT CERTAIN SO IT COULD BE. IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT ITSELF COULD BE. ARCHITECTURAL AND THEREFORE YES. AND I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS SURVEY AS WELL. THE APPLICANT HAS JOGGED IT BACK HER WHERE. THE FDP WETLAND LINE IS AND REALLY JUST JOGGED AT 30 FT. BASED ON THE LOCATION OF THE WETLAND LINES, SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE PINCH POINTS THAT HE'S HITTING WHERE THE 30 FT ARE, SO HE'S KIND OF GONE WITH THE WETLAND LINE, SO IT IS KIND OF THE MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT, RIGHT? THAT YOU CAN HAVE WITH HIS REQUESTED 35 30. FT CAN WE GO BACK? A COUPLE SLIDES JUST TO YOUR SECTIONS OF THE CODE WHERE I ALWAYS TRY TO LOOK AT THE SHELLS, OKAY? UM WHICH ONE? UH LET'S GO BACK TO SOMETHING ABOUT BACK TO THE VARIANCES, THE VARIANCES AND SORT OF OUR OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE RELIEF. SUCH VARIANTS MAY BE GRANTED IN CASE OF UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP FOLLOWING THE. FIGHTING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH WERE ACTING IN THAT CAPACITY RIGHT NOW. UM OKAY. I UH YEAH. I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ARE PUBLIC COMMENT. I HAVE TO STAY. THANK YOU. WE'VE HAD OUR DISCUSSION WITH STAFF. LET'S MOVE TO THE PUBLIC. I MEAN WITH OUR BOARD. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER 10? THEIR ANSWER. REDUCE UPLAND BUFFER DISTANCE TO SIGNIFICANT WETLAND RESOURCE IS ALSO WITH THE PUBLIC. PERSONS WHO ASKED TO SPEAK AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND FILL OUT A GREEN CORD. MR BARNEY, CURE THE APPLICANT AND YOU'VE SPOKEN ALREADY. MR JOE FLANAGAN. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE RECORD. JOE FLANIGAN 315 INDIAN GROWTH DRY FOR 33 YEARS. UM I SIT ON THE COUNTY L P A. SO I FEEL YOUR PAIN. THERE'S A THIN LINE BETWEEN PROPERTY RIGHTS OF WHAT THE BUILDER AND THE OWNER HAS THE ABILITY TO DO ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SETBACKS ARE SPECIFICALLY IN PLACE TO PROTECT POPPLETON CREEK. UM BEYOND NOT SURE WHICH HURRICANE YOU CAME FROM? CAME TO VISIT. BUT I KNOW IN THE OH, FOUR THERE WAS WATER STANDING ON INDIAN GROVE SO IT CAN BE PUSHED UP THERE, BUT THAT'S EASILY SOLVED BY JUST RAISING THE ELEVATION OF THE SITE, BUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. THROUGHOUT THESE DOCUMENTS, IT SAYS SIGNIFICANT WETLANDS. IT SAYS OUTSTANDING WETLANDS, SO THE WETLAND PROTECTION IF YOU LOOK BACK TO WHAT YOU HAD SHOWN WHERE SOME OF THOSE ARE ALL ALONG POPPLETON CREEK. THAT ARE NOT IN THE COMP PLAN. SO THEY DO COME FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S TWO THINGS ON HERE OF NOTE. ONE IS IT SAYS THAT HE'S REQUESTING NAMED MINIMAL VARIANTS. 40 BUILDABLE LOT. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HOUSE SIZE. I'VE RAISED A FAMILY OF FOUR AND A 1300 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. MY MOM AND DAD LIVED NEXT DOOR TO ME. THEY HAVE A 1450 FT SQUARE FOOT

[02:20:02]

HOUSE. THEY GOT MORE MONEY THAN I HAVE, BUT IT'S IT CAN BE DONE. THE CONCERN I HAVE IS WHAT I'M LOOKING. I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOSPITAL. BEAUTIFUL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, AND IT IS SIMILAR TO THE HOUSE THAT IS TO THE WEST. THAT IS ALREADY THERE. GREG HAS THAT HOUSE. BUT HIS HOUSE IS JUST UNDER 1500 SQUARE FEET. THIS IS 1600 PLUS A GARAGE. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD INTEGRITY. NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT. INDIAN GROVE GROVES IS FROM 1973. A LOT OF THOSE HOUSES WERE THERE, AND THEY ALTERNATE TWO BEDROOM, THREE BEDROOM, TWO BEDROOM, THREE. ACROSS THERE, BUT I'M LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE VARIANTS FROM 75, WHICH IS WHAT IS, UH, DESIGNED DOWN TO 30. I GET IT IN THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THE SAME ONE YOU POINTED OUT. THIS MEETING IS ABOUT A VARIANCE.

YOU CAN PUT WHATEVER DRAWING HE WANTS UP THERE, ARCHITECTURALLY, BUT IF YOU GIVE THE VARIANCE, IT'S NOT A FINAL SITE PLAN. SO HE WOULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND I WOULD ECHO ABSOLUTELY WOULD, UH, COMMISSIONER MATHESON WAS SAYING. IT'LL FIT. YOU CAN MAKE IT FIT SOMETHING AROUND THE 1500. IT'S ALL IN LINE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M JUST CONCERNED. LARGE AND HE'S ABSOLUTELY 100% RIGHT. YOU CANNOT MOVE IT ANY FURTHER FORWARD BECAUSE THAT, YOU KNOW, PUT THIS BIG THING THERE. I KNOW ONE OF THE PREVIOUS OWNERS AND I HOPE YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT FROM HIM. BECAUSE HE WAS TELLING EVERYBODY BY THE LAND. GIVE ME $100,000 FOR YOUR FINE ASS FORBEARANCE IS DON'T GIVE IT TO YOU, AND IT JUST HASN'T HAPPENED. IT'S KIND OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. SO I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE FOOTPRINT EGE THERE. I THINK THE COMMISSION DID A PHENOMENAL THING. AND A GREAT GIFT TO DOUG WAS NOT TO VOTE ON IT LAST TIME. BECAUSE IF YOU DID DENIED IT, HE WOULD HAVE GONE ALL THE WAY BACK. YOU'D HAVE TO PAY AND WAIT A WHOLE YEAR. YOU GAVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND HE'S COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT'S VERY GOOD. I STILL THINK IT'S TOO BIG AGAIN. THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO REDUCE THOSE AND MAKE THEM HAPPEN FROM THERE, BUT THANK YOU, MR FLANAGAN. UM STAFF AND MR BARNEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER? UM. COMMENTS OR ANYTHING BEFORE OUR BOARD. SOMEBODY FROM THE BOARD MAKES ANY TYPE OF WHILE. MOTION OR ADDITIONAL COMMENT, OKAY. WE HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENT FROM MR COMMISSIONER MEYER. I JUST WANTED TO APPRECIATE THE PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I ALSO WANT TO BE CLEAR. WE CAN'T WE CANNOT. MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURE BECAUSE OF THE STATE LAW. AND IF THE ARCHITECTURE IS ALSO THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING. THAT'S. NOT. WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TOUCH THEM. UNFORTUNATELY UM I THINK THE IDEA THOUGH, THAT. COULD A LOT AGAIN. OUR MAIN OUR MAIN. ABILITY HERE WITH THIS.

GRANTING THIS VARIANCE IS UM. IS RELIEF REQUIRED SO THAT THERE'S UNDUE, SO THERE'S NO UNDUE HARDSHIP. AND I THINK I AGREE WITH YOU COMMISSIONER MATTHEW. SO WHEN YOU FIRST, SAID VICE MAYOR THAT YOU KNOW? THERE THERE IS A WAY THERE IS A WAY TO BUILD ON THIS PARCEL.

WITHOUT THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST IF WE CAN LOOK AGAIN AT THE WONDERFUL COLOR CODED MAP WITH LINES. IS THERE A DIFFERENT IS THERE A DIFFERENT WAY WE CAN APPROACH THIS. UM I THINK THERE IS I. I AGREE, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT THE REASON I BROUGHT UP AND COMPARED THIS TO A COTTAGE STYLE LOT WAS THAT WAS SOME OF MY ORIGINAL DISCUSSIONS WITH MR BORN IQ. UM. AND I KNOW HE TOOK THE TIME TO MEET WITH MYSELF, AND I BELIEVE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS BEFORE THE FIRST PROPOSAL WAS DESCRIBING YOU KNOW, A COTTAGE BUILT HERE. AND SO WHEN I THINK OF COTTAGE. IT IS TO ME THIS THIS ISN'T DOESN'T. FIT MY DEFINITION IN MY MIND OF A COTTAGE, AND THAT'S WHY I SEARCHED. OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO SEE IF I COULD COME UP WITH ANYTHING.

AND I DO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF COMPARE IT, BUT THE PROPOSAL. WITH. THE REQUEST FOR THOSE VARIANCES. THE PROPOSAL TAKES UP WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IT. THE FOOTPRINT AS IT STANDS TAKES UP MORE THAN 30. OF THE LOT AND THE ROUGH CALCULATIONS. I DID I CAN TELL YOU THAT.

COUNT. ONE I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP ON SOMEWHAT, UM. YOU KNOW I COULD SUPPORT GOING DOWN TO 40. FEET IN MY MIND. OUT. YOU KNOW? AND KEEPING WITH THE PROPOSED

[02:25:01]

SETBACKS. UM. YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO. THAT SAYS HE MAY OR MAY NOT BUILD A TWO STORY HOUSE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM STAFF. I WOULD ALSO WANT IT TO BE CODIFIED IF POSSIBLE, LEGALLY. THAT ITS DAYS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. UM BUT. TO ME. WHAT SITS BEFORE US IS THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ON THAT WETLAND BUFFERS THE REQUEST. AND I THINK. A BUILDABLE LOT COULD BE BUILT, MAINTAINING A 40 FT WEAPON BUFFER, WHICH IS STILL A VARIANT. YEAH CAN I JUMP IN? YES MR MEYER OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S I GUESS THAT'S GREAT. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US? DO WE HAVE TO JUST WAVE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT OR CAN WE CAN WE SAY WE'LL ACCEPT IT UP TO YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID A NUMBER. FOR THE FOR THE VARIANTS. CAN WE GO UP ONE SIDE AGAIN? WHERE YOU GOT THE CURRENTLY BUILDABLE AREA BY CODE. OKAY? SO. I WISH WE HAD THAT MAYBE TO SCALE. UM SO WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH. SORRY. IT'S MY POWER POINT. I WANTED TO WANTED TO THANK YOU, FOR IT IS VERY THIS IS SO USEFUL. I THINK.

HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HERE TO THIS IS. SHOWING US HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE, AND IT'S VERY EASY TO UNDERSTAND. UM. SO THE FIRST QUESTION FOR US IS, IS THERE A HARDSHIP WITH THE EXISTING CODE? I THINK THAT'S UNEQUIVOCAL. YES, RIGHT. I MEAN, DO YOU AGREE? IF WE GO BACK TO I GUESS THIS IS IT. I MEAN, YEAH. SO I'M I'M HOPING TO, UH, VARIANTS OF SOME KIND.

EXACTLY I'M OPEN TO A VERY INCENTIVES THAT LENGTH AND, YOU KNOW. THE EXISTING CODE WITH THE 75 FT. WETLAND. BUFFER. IS BASICALLY ON BUILDABLE BUT PRODUCING THAT DOWN TO 30 FT.

IS THE OPPOSITE END OF THE SPECTRUM. IS THAT A HARDSHIP HAVE TO BUILD A. 1500 SQUARE FOOT. OUCH! WELL WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE. NO BUT WE'RE DISCUSSING THE VARIANTS. RIGHT ALRIGHT, PROCEDURALLY. WHAT YOU COULD DO IS YOU COULD SET A NUMBER AND YOU COULD SAY THAT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME COULD GO STRAIGHT TO PERMIT. HOWEVER IF YOU WANTED TO REVIEW ARCHITECTURE FOR A DUPLEX OR MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT IT COULD COME BACK. ALRIGHT SO THANK YOU, MR MS VILLAGER. UM, MR MORTAL. COULD YOU PLEASE PUT YOUR ATTENTION TO ITEMS NUMBER NINE AND 10? IN THE PROPOSED ORDER IF WE REMOVED TODAY IN THIS BY THE SPORT TO APPROVE IT. AND JUST KIND OF EXPLAIN TO US AND TO THE PUBLIC. BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A CONSTERNATION HERE IS TO THE. THE FOOTPRINT AND IF SOMETHING COMES BACK. AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE VARIANCE AND IT CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND MEET ALL THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE CAN DO IT. HOWEVER WE ARE SAYING IN THIS ORDINANCE, UM YOU KNOW THIS ORDER. THAT WE WOULD. IT WOULD BE SOMETHING IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH EXHIBIT B. AND ALSO IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WERE PRETTY COULD JUST READ THOSE TWO AND EXPLAIN THE REASON BEHIND THAT, MR MARTEL. WELL FIRST, YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS NOT A P U D RIGHT. THIS IS NOT A. HOUSING PERMIT. THIS IS A.

VARIANCE AND WHAT HAPPENS HISTORICALLY IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS IS THAT. PEOPLE WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE INSIDE OF ONE OF THE SETBACKS, MHM AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HISTORICALLY HAS. MADE EXCEPTIONS FOR HARDSHIPS BASED ON LOT SIZE OR SHAPE AND UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. HOWEVER, WHEN THEY MAKE THOSE EXCEPTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS ONE IF THE IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO APPROVE THIS IS AVAILABLE LIGHT AND THE SETBACKS ONLY HAD TO BE FIVE FT. AND THEN THREE YEARS FROM NOW THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY CAME IN AND WANTED TO BUILD A 35 FT. TALL HOUSE. IT WOULD HAVE NOT REALLY BEEN THE BASIS OF THE COMMISSION'S POSITION. WHEN IT MADE THE DECISION AND THE INTRUSION. FOR THE SETBACK WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HONORED. ESSENTIALLY SO HISTORICALLY WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS DONE IS SAID. OR I SHOULD TAKE THAT BACK. WHAT APPLICANTS HAVE DONE IS COMING AND SAID TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO BUILD. THIS IS WHY I NEED THE SETBACK EXCEPTION OR WHATEVER. IT'S CALLED THIS PARTICULAR CASE AS WELL AND SET BACK AND IF YOU GRANT ME THAT.

[02:30:03]

THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO BUILD, SO I'LL STIPULATE RIGHT HERE AND NOW TO ADOPTING OF THE SITE PLAN ESSENTIALLY OF ME BUILDING THIS, AND WE SAW THAT WITH SOME OF THOSE LOT SPLITS HISTORICALLY. FED ALSO WAS BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE. REGARDING THE DESIGN STANDARDS, HOWEVER, THIS IS NOT A DESIGN STANDARD. TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'RE NOT MANDATING A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE OR WE'RE NOT MANDATING TIN ROOF OR WE'RE NOT MANDATING A FRONT PORCH OR WE'RE NOT MANDATING THE USE OF HARDY BOARD OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE.

THIS IS A ADOPTION PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A SITE PLAN OF HEY. GRANT THE GRANT THE SETBACK TO THESE PARAMETERS AND I'LL BUILD WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. SO THAT YOU KNOW THAT THE SETBACK THAT I'M REQUESTING WON'T BE MORE INTRUSIVE OR WON'T HAVE ANY MORE INVASIVE THAN WHATEVER IT IS THAT THERE TRYING TO DEVIATE FROM NOW. THE OTHER. THE FLIP OF IT IS, IS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CODE. ARE NOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE VARIANCE COATS AS THE MINIMUM SETBACK TO ALLEVIATE THE HARDSHIP. OKAY ARE THE MEDIUM MINIMUM WAIVER OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE SET BACK. SOMETIMES IT'S SETBACKS. SOMETIMES IT'S SOMETHING ELSE. OKAY, UM. WELL, EXCEPT THAT THIS TIME WHERE I THINK THAT PUBLIC AND WE HAVE EVER WON MISS CARTWRIGHT YOUR ONLINE THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 10 VARIANTS TO REDUCE UPLAND BUFFER. AWFUL PROJECT PRESENTED BY MR BORN INC. HI GOOD. GOOD EVENING ROBYN CARTWRIGHT 703 SOUTHEAST HIBISCUS. UM PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED EARLIER DURING THE GENERAL COMMENTS FROM ZOOM, SO I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE DISCUSSION THAT WILL BE HAVE LATER. SO HOPEFULLY YOU WILL OPEN THAT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. HOWEVER REGARDING THIS APPLICATION, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH IT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I WISH THE COMMISSION. TOOK SUCH DUE DILIGENCE WHEN IT CAME TO HAVING THIS SAME CONVERSATION ABOUT WETLANDS. WHEN IT COME COMES TO BUSINESSES. THE ACCOUNTABILITY THAT YOU'RE HOLDING THIS GENTLEMAN TO IS SO VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'VE HELD ANY OF THE APPLICANTS TO WHO HAVE COME IN. FOR BUILDING MULTI UNIT PROPERTIES, AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WHILE I THINK THIS APPLICANTS SHOULD BE GRANTED THIS VARIANCE. I THINK IT'S VERY HYPOCRITICAL FOR THE COMMISSION TO TAKE SUCH CONCERN ABOUT WETLAND SETBACKS WHEN YOU JUST APPROVED TO BASICALLY ELIMINATE 10 OF THEM FOR THE COSTCO, CANADA. C P U D THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS CARTWRIGHT. OUR MR MARTEL. IS IT APPROPRIATE AT THIS TIME AND ALSO, MR PAUL, I LIKE TO ADDRESS. UM IF THAT WAS IF THAT HAD COME IN AS A. PUBLIC COMMENT DURING OUR PUBLIC COMMENT TIME, AND IF YOU HAVE SEEN ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE ZOOM. I THINK I THINK MISS CARTWRIGHT WAS WAS REFERRING TO WHEN MR BRUNER ASKED FOR THE POTENTIAL FOR A DISCUSSION DISCUSSION AT THE END OF THE MEETING. FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE AGENDA AS IT RELATED TO THE HOUSING ETCETERA DISCUSSION, BUT THE AGENDA WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT ADDING THAT SO THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A PUBLIC COMING ANYWAY. THANK YOU. THE MOTION DIDN'T INCLUDE ANYTHING OTHER THAN ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.

THANK YOU SO AND I'D LIKE TO JUST ADD THAT REGARD TO POPPLETON CREEK AND THE HISTORIC NATURE OF PROPERTY IN CREEK IN THE ACTUAL NATURE OF. PUPPET IN CREEK IN OUR CITY AND WHAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED ALONG THERE, UM. ID THAT IS. THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE HAVE THESE VERY IN DEPTH DISCUSSIONS WHEN NEW DEVELOPMENT IS COMING IN ALONG THAT AREA WE ONLY HAVE LIKE MAYBE TWO OR THREE EMPTY LOTS IN THAT AREA. AND THEY'RE PROBABLY ALL CLOSER TOWARDS SCANNER HIGHWAY. UM THE ISSUE IS FROM THE BACK OF THE LOT, MOSTLY TO POP IT IN CREEK. THE SIDE SETBACKS. I THINK WE'RE HAPPY WITH THOSE, UM. AND OF COURSE, THERE THE PROBLEMS OF THE FRONT YARD, WHICH WOULD PROBABLY GIVE HIM ON HARDSHIP BECAUSE OF THE FBL. IN THERE, WHICH CREATES SOMETHING SO. ARE WE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER? IS THERE GOING TO BE EMOTION? I WILL. MAKE A MOTION AND A AGAIN I'M. THIS IS SPECIFIC BECAUSE IT'S OUTSTANDING QUALITY WETLANDS, BUT I'LL MOTION TWO. APPROVE ALTERING, UH, THE MINIMUM AVERAGE WITH OF THE UPLAND BUFFER TO 40 FT. AND. UPLAND BUFFER AT NO POINT LESS THAN 40. FT. FOR THE SECOND REQUESTED VARIANTS. AND IN DOING SO. ALTERING THE THIRD

[02:35:03]

REQUESTED VARIANTS. FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SETBACK TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE 40 FT.

BUFFER. AND WITH THE CONDITION. OF APPROVAL FOR THOSE VARIANCES FOR THE REAR. WETLAND BUFFERS FOR THE SIDE SETBACKS. TO BE AS PROPOSED IN THE PLANS. I BELIEVE IT'S 10 FT. IS THAT CORRECT? YOU ASKING STAFF? IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT HALF OF THEIR IN. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SEVEN FT. IF YOU. THAT'S WHY IT'S THE MOTION WAS AS PROPOSED IN THE PLANS PROPOSED IS FINE.

WE CAN LOOK AT THE FULL SIZE AND YEAH. AND WHAT THAT LINE. YES, IT IS. 10 FT. AS PROPOSED WITH 10 FT, UM, WITH THE OPTION, AND I. APOLOGIZE IF WE GET YOUR LANGUAGE TO FAST TRACK AT IF IT'S. PROPOSED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE. GO STRAIGHT TO PERMIT STRAIGHT TO PERMITTING, I'LL SECOND THAT. THERE'S A MOTION THAT SECOND BY, UM BUT VICE MAYOR AND THEN SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER. DOES THE CLERK NEED ANY HELP? AND MR MARTEL. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED IN THE MOTION? I BELIEVE I HAVEN'T. YES, THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THE MOTION TO HEAR FROM DOUG. MR MR COMMISSIONER MCDONALD WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MR BARNEY. BARNEY. DOUG OR NICK. I THINK I GOT IT RIGHT THAT TIME. UM 15 FT. I KNOW. THERE'S THE POWER LINES THAT I CAN'T MOVE IT FURTHER TOWARDS THE ROAD. UH, THE HOUSE IS 1600 SQUARES, AND IT. WE'RE NOT EVEN BUILDING THE DECK. WE LIKED OUT THERE BECAUSE IT WOULD GET TOO CLOSE TO THE MANGROVES RIGHT NOW. I'VE WORKED IN THERE CAN TAKE TO GET THE DESIGN HERE BACK AND DROP OFF THE GARAGE, I GUESS ON THE SIDE, BUT. THERE'S THE POWER LINES WERE THERE WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. I'D MOVE IT RIGHT AGAINST THE ROAD IF I COULD. IT'S JUST THAT WAS AT THE NFL IS ISSUE FOR ME. TO HOUSE. MY HOUSE ABOUT HOUSE HERE IN STUART. THAT'S 1212 1202 SQUARE FEET. BUILT IN 1951 TO CONQUER. WE HAVE AND. THE ROOMS ARE JUST LITTLE. NO, THEY'RE THEY'RE SMALL, BUT WAS TRYING TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT. A SMALL BUT STILL HAD BIG ENOUGH ROOMS. BIG ENOUGH BEDROOMS, THAT'S ALL. BEDROOMS AREN'T OVER OVER THE BIG AND ADDS A STEWART STYLE TO IT. I'VE DONE THAT. I'VE REDUCED MY FOOTPRINT AS YOU ALL ASKED ME TO DO. AND I WAS ORIGINALLY WHEN I BOUGHT THIS LOT. I WAS TOLD BY THE STAFF HERE IT WAS TOTALLY BUILDABLE AND OF. WAS A 10 FT SETBACK. I BELIEVE BACK THEN.

GOING TO 25. NOW I'M ASKING FOR 25. PUT IT IN RIGHT WHERE YOU TOLD ME TO PUT IT IN. SO. JUST ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT. IT'S SOMETHING I WAS DIRECTED TO DO. THANKS. THANK YOU, MR MORNING.

WE'VE HEARD THE THANK MOTION ON THE MATTER OF THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND THE PROCEDURES THAT ANYTHING ELSE WOULD. COME BACK AND GO TO PERMITTING AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. IF THIS THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED TONIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS MATTER FROM THE BOARD OR FROM THE PUBLIC COMMISSIONER MCDONALD? I'LL LET HELEN GO FIRST. YEAH. MISS HELEN, JUST PLEASE PROTECT HER WETLANDS. 40 FT, YOU KNOW. THAT'S HIS BLOOD WERE ALL THAT WERE STARTING TO SAY WE'RE LOSING TOO MUCH PROTECTOR WETLANDS AT 40 FT.

YOU CAN BUILD A NICE HOUSE, LIKE THE GENTLEMAN SAID I HAD MY ASS. IT IS NOT TIRED. I THINK MINE'S 15 AND I'VE GOT THREE BUT ME THE LARGE BEDROOMS. THANK MY LORD. IT'S.

LIVE IN FLORIDA. YOU DON'T LIVE IN THE HOUSE WERE OUTSIDE SOMETHING, BUT MY MAIN THING IS

[02:40:01]

PROTECT OUR WEAPONS. THANK THANK YOU. UM, MR MCDONALD. YEAH, I HAVE. SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE MOTION. UM ONE IS ALICE. WE'RE IF THE MOTION IS TO MOVE THE UH, MAKE THE SETBACK FOR THE WETLAND. LARGER THAT'S FINE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE ALSO AND I PREFER THE LARGER SETBACK OF THE SIDES, BUT WE'RE LIMITING THE WHAT HE COULD DO AND I DON'T KNOW. HAD I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, UM, HIS APPROPRIATE ONE. THAT SEEMS TO ME IT'S ALMOST UH, IT'S ALMOST REGENT. IT'S A BACKDOOR WAY OF RESTRICTING THE, UH, ARCHITECTURE WHICH WERE NOT ABOUT TO DO WHICH I. I WISH THAT ALL WAS NEVER PASSED, BUT IT WAS, UM. SECOND THING IS, WE'RE KIND OF CAUSING HIM TO PORTION PUSH THE HOUSE FORWARD INTO THE UP TOWARDS CLOSER TO THE POWER EVIDENCE. CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, UM. I REALLY LOOKED AT THIS AND I SAW WHEN I FIRST OPENED UP AND LOOKED AT. IT WAS VERY HAPPY WHEN I SAW BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE TO ME THAT HE DID WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO. AND SO I THINK THAT. UM I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO TOM. AS SOMEONE DOES WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO. COMES BACK AND THEN WE SAY, OH, NO, WE WANT MORE. I DON'T I THINK THAT I DO HAVE A I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS. UM. THE FIRST SIZE OF THE HOUSE. UH ACTUALLY, THIS IS I JUST HAVE A COUPLE STREETS OVER AND THIS HOUSE IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN MY HOUSE.

SO IT'S I THINK IT'S WITHIN WHAT IS BEING WHAT IS GENERALLY BEING BUILT, UM. AND WHAT IS AROUND. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF SMALLER HOUSES. UM, BUT THIS IS ALSO SOME OF THAT TYPE OF HOUSING STOCK THAT I THINK. OUR CITY NEEDS, UH AS WELL. MAN. SO I'M I'M JUST I'M NOT I'M NOT A FAN OF THE MOTION AS. JUST AS IT IS, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MS MCDONALD. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF REASONING WHEN I JUST LOOK AT THIS AND BEFORE US. REDUCING THE YOU KNOW, 39 FT TO 29 FT AT 62 FT WIDE. IF YOU JUST SQUARED IT OUT AND WORKED WITH AN ARCHITECT THAT BUILDING FOOTPRINT COULD BE 1800 SQUARE FEET. AND WE ARE NOT LIMITING THE ARCHITECT AT ALL. ALL WE'RE DOING IS MAKING IT. THE BUFFER. WE'RE STILL GIVING A VARIANCE. TO BUILD A FOOTPRINT OF BUILDABLE AREA WITH A 40 FT WETLAND BUFFER ON THE SINGLE STORY. OF 1800 SQUARE FEET.

WE'RE NOT LIMITING HIS OPTION TO GO TO TWO STORIES. WE ARE PRIMARILY. LOOKING AT THAT WETLAND BUFFER OF AN OUTSTANDING QUALITY WELL, SO MY MOTION DOES STAND. THANK YOU, AND THE SECOND WAS BY, BUT VICE MAYOR AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY TO. THERE'S A REASON WHY IN THE CODE WE I UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, PAUL WETLANDS ARE IMPORTANT. THERE'S A REASON WHY WE DELINEATE BETWEEN AN OUTSTANDING WETLAND AND A REGULAR WETLAND. AND SO, UM, I AGREE. IT'S THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS. AS OUR OTHER ARE THE REVIEWS AND THIS IS NOT ONLY JUST, UH, OUTSTANDING WETLAND. THIS IS PUBLISHED IN CREEK. I MEAN, SO THERE'S A REASON WHY, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND IT DOESN'T MIGHT NOT SEEM FAIR. AND IT MIGHT SEEM ARBITRARY, BUT IT'S NOT. THERE'S A WE HAVE THIS IN THE CODE AND OUTSTANDING WHILE AND RESOURCE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT SO I'M TORN WITH THIS ALSO. YET I WILL. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MATHESON. OKAY, CLARK. ALL WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR PAUL.

MAY I ASK WHAT IS SIR, WILL YOU JUST ASK THEM TO SPEAK TO US? LET'S MARKER, WOULD YOU CAN YOU HEAR US? YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, MA'AM. HEY GOOD EVENING, GUYS. AS YOU KNOW, I LIVE IN FOR A CLUB. UM HONESTLY, I AM. ENRAGED HEARING YOUR SANCTIMONIOUS HYPOCRISY OVER WETLANDS. AND IT'S ASTOUNDING AND. YOU GUYS KIND OF DID THIS WITH THE GOLDSTEIN IN THE LANDFILL THING? AND IT IS ARBITRARY, MIKE AND. I MEAN, YOU APPROVE THE PROJECT THAT

[02:45:05]

HAD 1000 OVER 1000 SPOTS PARKING SPOTS. HALF OF THEM WERE FAIRYTALE, THE OTHER FOR THE APARTMENTS. BUT THOSE DEPARTMENTS HAVE NO VISITORS SPOTS. SO YOU HAVE RETAIL THAT'S OPEN 1927. AT MOST. AND NOTHING FOR QUALITY OF LIFE AND PEOPLE LIVING A NORMAL LIFE.

LIKE ABOUT 400 APARTMENTS. YOU ALMOST BROKE. SO IT'S REALLY AMAZING TO HEAR YOU SUDDENLY CARE ABOUT CONSERVATION. WHEN REPEATEDLY YOU VOTED FOR EVERY HIGH DENSITY PROJECT THAT COMES BEFORE YOU. YOU MAKE IT TOUGH FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY HERE. YOU TRY TO DISQUALIFY PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO ARE YOUNG AND CAN'T AFFORD EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE APPROVING. BUT YOU SAY THAT YOU SPEAK FOR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO NEED HOUSING. WELL. THE TRUTH IS GOING TO COME TO LIGHT. REGARDLESS SO. SMALLER WITNESSING HERE IS JUST OF SHELL. AND IT'S JUST EXHAUSTING. BUT. I JUST LOOK FORWARD TO WHAT COMES IN THE FUTURE AND AS CAMPBELL RICH SAID IN THE. LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MEETING. THERE SHOULD BE A MORATORIUM. YOU GUYS APPROVED OVER 3000 NEW CONSTRUCTION UNITS. UNBELIEVABLE. MS MARKER BEFORE YOU CLOSE UP. CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE? I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE MY EXACT ADDRESS BECAUSE I HAVE PRIVACY CONCERNS, BUT I LIVE IN FLORIDA CLUB. I LIVE ON WETLANDS. I SEE HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE. I SEE EVERY DAY ALL THE VARIETY OF BIRDS THAT YOU DISREGARDED PHOTOS AND EVIDENCE OF FOR 10 WETLANDS. SO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? THANK YOU. UM, CLERK, MADAM CLERK. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION IN THE SECOND AND THERE HAS BEEN NO ADDITION TO THE MOTION. THE MOTION STANDS. COMMISSIONER BRUNER YES. COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. NO. COMMISSIONER MEYER. YES. NICE MAYOR MATHESON.

YES. AND MAYOR CLARK. YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOUR ITEM IS OVER MR BARNEY. THANK YOU VERY

[11.

MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT - MONTEREY MEDICAL PARKING EXPANSION (QUASI-JUDICIAL)(RC):

RESOLUTION No. 86-2021; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN AT 'MONTEREY MEDICAL CENTER' LOCATED AT 1050 SE MONTEREY ROAD, STUART TO EXPAND THE PARKING LOT FOR 51 ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

]

MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 11 MAJOR SIDE PLAN AMENDMENT, MONTEREY MEDICAL, PORK AND EXPANSION.

THIS IS A QUIZ, I JUDICIAL MATTER. I'LL CALL IT, MADAM MAYOR BEFORE YOU MET HIM BEFORE YOU BEGAN, UH. WHAT WE NEED TO DO. DEVELOPMENT WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. OH YES. UH MADAM MAYOR WERE REQUESTING THAT THIS APPLICATION. THE UH CONTINUED UNTIL THE DECEMBER THE 13TH MEETING. THE PRIMARY REASON FOR THAT IS TO DEAL WITH THE STORM WATER AND SOME INTERESTING.

ISSUES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE HEARD DURING THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT THAT WE DO HAVE. VERY INTERESTING CONFLICT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WHEN IT COMES TO UNDERGROUND STORAGE OF STORMWATER RUNOFF. UM I AM PART OF THE. MY INTERACTION WITH BOTH THE CITY CONSULTANT AND THE APPLICANT WAS OVER THE CITY'S CODE SECTION SIX POINT OH 31 B.

WHICH LIMITS. THE AMOUNT OF UNDERGROUND STORMWATER RUNOFF THAT CAN BE STORED ON A SITE TO 40% IF THAT'S OUTSIDE, IF THE SIDE IS OUTSIDE THE C R A. SO THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS GOING TO HAVE, UM REGARDING THIS APPLICATION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD. IN AN INTERVIEW FROM THE THREE COMMISSIONERS WHO ATTENDED THE CONFERENCE WITH ME FROM THE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT. UM THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THAT IS TO GET AS MUCH. UNDERGROUND AS POSSIBLE. UM WE AND TO LIMIT DRY DETENTION AREAS BECAUSE OF THE. THE WASHOUT OF POLLUTANTS FROM THOSE AREAS SO I THINK THERE'S A LARGER ISSUE WITH UM. WHERE THE CITY CODE SITS ON THESE UNDERGROUND STORAGE SUPPRESSION, PARTICULARLY. WHEN WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF ON SITE STORAGE. THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR ON DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. SO I'M WORKING WITH CAP TECH, OUR CITY CONSULTANTS AND THE APPLICANT ON THIS ISSUE. BUT THAT IS ONE GOING TO BE ONE OF THE POTENTIAL DISCUSSION POINTS WHERE THANK YOU, MR MORTAL AS THE RESOLUTION NUMBER 86 2021 ITEM NUMBER 11 MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. HOW CAN WE PHRASE THAT TABLING? HIS STAFF ASKING US TO TABLE THIS MATTER, SO THEY CONTINUE TO DATE CERTAIN OF DECEMBER. 13TH OH, YES, MA'AM. ARE WE DOING? UH ALL MOTION TO, UH OKAY. WE'RE WAITING FOR MOTION. THAT'S IT. THAT'S WHAT MADAM MAYOR I MOTION TO CONTINUE RESOLUTION 86-21 TO DECEMBER 13TH. OKAY, UM, BUT MR FREEMAN. TO BE

[02:50:09]

CLEAR. ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO REVIEW. OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT. I THINK THE DISCUSSION. IF IT COMES DOWN TO IT, I STAFF WILL BE. WE'RE NOT CERTAIN YET OF THE FINAL PERCENTAGE THAT WILL BE STORED UNDERGROUND. THAT'S STILL BEING.

TRYING TO BE GETTING BELOW THE 40% THAT WOULD TAKE TRIGGER. UH, VARIANCE FROM THE CITY CODE. SO THE ITEM MAY INCLUDE A REQUEST OF VERY. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO STORE MORE WATER UNDERGROUND. WHICH STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND IN THE FUTURE. CODE AMENDMENT THAT WE LOOK AT ALL. THE CONCEPTS THAT WE HEARD ABOUT WITH LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT AND INCORPORATE THAT WITHIN THOSE CONCEPTS. JUST TO CONSOLIDATE THAT COMMENT. WITHIN THE SIERRA UNDERGROUND. RUNOFF IS PERMITTED UP TO 100. I MEAN, I JUST LIKE TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION ON THE TAKEAWAYS FROM THE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE AND ONE OF THE TOP ONES TO ME. WAS THAT ALL OF THESE ADJUSTMENTS? ARE CAUSED BY. BASICALLY THAT DESTRUCTION OF GREEN SPACE, UM NATIONWIDE OR WORLDWIDE. SOME STORY. MORE WATER ON SITE WAS A TOP PRIORITY, BUT. PRESERVATION OF GREEN SPACE SEEMED TO BE ONE OF MY BIGGEST TAKEAWAYS FROM THE CONFERENCE. UM BUT I MAKE THE MOTION TO CONTINUE AND SECOND. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE TO A DATE CERTAIN DECEMBER 13TH IS WHAT I SAID THE MOST. I WAS TRYING TO GET IT EARLIER REQUEST RIGHT? THE MOTION WAS TODAY. THE MOTION AND 2ND 2ND. YES. ANY COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC ON THE MOTION. UM. MADAM CLERK. DO YOU WANT A VOICE MAIL FROM US AROUND ALL IN FAVOUR AN OLYMPIC ALL IN FAVOUR HIGH. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 12. SORRY IF LOAN APPLICATION OUT FOR THE

[12.

SRF LOAN APPLICATION - ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY (RC):

RESOLUTION No. 114-2021; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, RELATED TO THE STATE REVOLVING FUND LOAN PROGRAM; MAKING FINDINGS; AUTHORIZING THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR TO SUBMIT THE LOAN APPLICATION AGREEMENT FOR THE $17,319,799.00 ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY PROJECT; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE LOAN AGREEMENT; DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES; ESTABLISHING PLEDGED REVENUES; PROVIDING ASSURANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

]

WARDEN IT ALTERNATIVE WATER. SUPPLY THIS IS RESOLUTION NUMBER 114-2 TO 1 OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITIES TO FLORIDA RELATED TO THE STATE REVOLVING FUNDS LOAN PROGRAM MAKING FINDINGS AUTHORIZING THE FINANCIAL SERVICES DIRECTORS SUBMIT THE LOAN APPLICATION AGREEMENT FOR THE. 17,319,000. ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY PROJECT AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE LOAN AGREEMENT, DESIGNATING AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES ESTABLISHING PLEDGED REVENUES, PROVIDING ASSURANCES PROVIDED FOR CONFLICTS, EVER ABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MADAM MAYOR. YOU HAD A PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM I BELIEVE TO MILLIONS AGO. MR VOLCKER IS HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. WE BASICALLY PUT IT ON COMMISSION ACTION DUE TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. IN FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. THERE'S BEEN A MOTION IN THE SECOND. IF THIS EVER GETS APPROVED, THAT WOULD BE THE BIGGEST THING I'VE EVER SIGNED. SO YEAH. UM. DID YOU? DID YOU READ? THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE ARE JUST THE TITLE.

MR MORTAL, HE READ THE TITLE IS JUST TOO MUCH. THE TITLE IS FINE. UM ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS MATTER? THERE'S BEEN A MOTION IN THE SECOND. AND THE CITY MANAGER HAS TOLD US THAT THIS MATTER HAS COME BEFORE US BEFORE, BUT BECAUSE IT'S GETTING TO THE FINAL POINT AND IN $17 MILLION IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BACK. TO US, UM, REGARDING THIS, UM, LOAN APPLICATION. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. NO COMMENTS ON THE BOARD. MADAM CLERK. COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? VICE MAYOR MATHESON. YES MAYOR CLARKE. YES COMMISSIONER BRUNER. YES COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. YES, COMMISSIONER MYERS? YES. SILVER INK, PLEASE.

MADAM CLERK. WHEN I SIGNED THE SEVEN BLUE INK IS FINE. UM ITEM NUMBER 13 RIGHT AWAY

[13.

R.O.W. ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEY BETWEEN SE 5TH STREET AND SE STYPMANN BLVD (RC):

RESOLUTION No. 115-2021; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA DECLARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO ABANDON AND TO SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NOVEMBER 22, 2021 AT 5:30 PM, AND DECEMBER 13, 2021, AT 4:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS TO CONSIDER THE ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY, BEING THAT PORTION OF LAND, WHICH LIES BETWEEN S.E. 5^TH STREET AND S.E. STYPMANN BLVD, WHICH IS MORE FULLY DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED HERETO; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

]

ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF AN ALLEYWAY BETWEEN SOUTH EAST FIFTH STREET SOUTHEAST STATEMENT. BOULEVARD RESOLUTION NUMBER 115 2021, MR MARTEL. THIS IS RESOLUTION NUMBER ONE ONE 5-2021 RESOLUTION. THE CITY COMMISSION THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, DECLARING PURSUIT CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA. THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO ABANDON AND SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NOVEMBER 22ND 2021 AT 5:30, P.M. AND DECEMBER 13TH 2021 AT FOUR P.M. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS TO CONSIDER THE ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY WITHIN THE CITY BEING THAT PORTION OF LAND, WHICH LIES BETWEEN SELF EAST FIFTH STREET. IN SOUTHEAST STATEMENT BOULEVARD, WHICH IS MORE FULLY DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERE, TOO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, RECOGNIZING

[02:55:03]

THIS RESOLUTION IS JUST EXPRESSING THE COMMISSION'S INTENT, AND IT'S NOT AN ORDINANCE ACTUALLY. ADOPTING. THE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT AND WILL TRIGGER US TO NOTIFY THE NEIGHBORS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. UM, SO WE HAVEN'T NOTIFIED ANYBODY YET. SO. HIS STAFF. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? ACTUALLY ACTUALLY, WE DID NOTIFY NEIGHBORS OF THIS HEARING. UM SO THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD A NOTICE ON THAT BASIS THIS ON THE SCREEN YOU SHOW THE WE SHOW THE LADY IN QUESTION. WHICH IS BETWEEN WITTMANN BOULEVARD AND. UH SOUTHEAST, FIFTH THREE. YOU CAN SEE IT'S ANOTHER COMPLETE ALI. UM IT RUNS THROUGH HALF OF THAT BLOCK. AND UTILITIES AND. CITY DEVELOPMENT HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THAT METAL BARREL MOVE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSION, MCDONALD'S SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEYER. OUT THERE IN THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON ITEM NUMBER 13 RIGHT AWAY ABANDONMENT FOR FIFTH STREET AND STATEMENT. ADAM AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS A CITY INITIATED ABANDONMENT. THEREFORE, THERE'S NO PRIVILEGE. HE'S ASSOCIATED THANK YOU, MR. UM. FREEMAN DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING FROM THE NEIGHBORS ON THE NOTICE, SPORT TODAY? I'VE HAD NO RESPONSE FROM ANYBODY IN THAT. DO WE PUT UP A SIGN FOR RIGHT AWAY? ABANDONMENT THIS IS PUBLIC HERE NOTICING COME IN LATER ON, BUT WHEN WE DO IT, DO WE PUT UP WITH TIME? IT'S THE ORDINANCES. THEY'LL GET THEY GET. IT'S IN THE NEWSPAPER AND IT'S ADVERTISED AS AN ORDINANCE. WE HAVE DIRECT NOTICE TO EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ON THE ALLEYWAY. SO. PEOPLE THAT ARE IMPACTED BY IT, OR ALL NOTICED LITTLE SIGN IN THE ALLEYWAY.

JUST STILL LETTERS. OKAY NO DEVELOPMENT, SO IT HASN'T CHANGED ANYTHING. WE UNDERSTAND THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR ON THE RECORD. UM, WE HAD ASKED FOR STUFF.

COMMENT DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 13. RIGHT AWAY ABANDONMENT, MR VICE MAYOR, UM, DON'T COMMENT. KIT THANK YOU. AND I HEAR NOTHING FROM THE PUBLIC. COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL CLERK? COMMISSIONER MEYER? YES COMMISSIONER MACDONALD VICE MAYOR MATHESON. YES, COMMISSIONER BRUNER. YES, MAYOR CLARK? YES? THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING ON TODAY. NOVEMBER THE EIGHTH, BUT WE HAVE SOME

[14.

AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - SIGN CODE (RC):

ORDINANCE No. 2469-2021; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE EXISTING SECTION 6.11.03 ENTITLED “NON-CONFORMING SIGNS; AMORTIZATION OF CERTAIN SIGNS” IN CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY OF STUART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE DEADLINE FOR THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING POLE SIGNS AND PROVIDE PROVISIONS TO ACCELERATE POLE SIGN REMOVAL; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

]

ORDINANCES FOR FIRST READING ITEM NUMBER 14 AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CALLED.

SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED CODE ORDINANCE NUMBER 24 69 2021, MR MARTEL IN ORDER TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE EXISTING SECTION 6.11 POINT OH, THREE ENTITLED QUOTE, NONCONFORMING SIGNS. IMMUNIZATION OF CERTAIN SIGNS AND QUOTE IN CHAPTER SIX OF THE CITY OF STEWART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE DEADLINE FOR THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR EXISTING NON CONFORMING POLE SIGNS. AND PROVIDE PROVISIONS TO ACCELERATE POLL SIGNED REMOVAL, PROVIDING THE REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THANK YOU, MR MARTEL. IS THERE ARE YOU READY? MR FREEMAN? UM, IT'S PANEL PIN THE WHOLE SORRY.

ELEGANTLY SOLVED A SCIARRA ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE RECORD. THIS ITEM CAME BEFORE YOU BACK IN JUNE OR JULY, WHERE STAFF WAS REQUESTING DIRECTION ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE DEADLINE THAT WAS SOON APPROACHING. THE DEADLINE TO REMOVE ALL THE POLLS. SIGNS IN THE CITY IS JANUARY 1ST 2022, THIS COMMISSION DID DIRECT STAFF TO REMOVE THE DEADLINE FROM THE CODE AND PROVIDE SOME REGULATIONS TO HELP EXPEDITE THE REMOVAL OF POLE SIGNS.

CURRENTLY NO POLE SIGNS ARE ALLOWED, BUT THE EXISTING POLE SIGNS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A LANGUAGE FOR, UM EXISTING SIGNS IF THEY'RE DAMAGED OR IF THEY'RE ABANDONED. SO THE NEW LANGUAGE WOULD BE ALL DAMAGED POLE SIGNS THAT REQUIRE PERMIT TO BE REPAIRED SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF NOTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNER AND. ANY ABANDONED POLE SIGNS ASSOCIATED WITH BUSINESS THAT IS NO LONGER ACTIVE FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS OR LONGER SHALL BE REMOVED WITH WITHIN THE 90 DAYS OF NOTIFYING THE PROPERTY OWNER. UM THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WERE PRESENTED TO CRB, NLP A BOTH BOARDS APPROVED AMENDMENTS, AND TODAY'S STAFF IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER. 24 69-2021. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I MOVE APPROVAL. MADAM MAYOR OF SECOND. APPROVAL MOVE BY COMMISSIONER MYERS SECONDED BY COMING TO MCDONALD COMMISSIONERS. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE. ACTIONS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED BY MS CANDIES. THAT LANGUAGE WAS. SIMPLE AND EASY. JUST WHAT WE DIRECTED. AND GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY. UM, IN THE FUTURE. UM. PUBLIC. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT? UM. CHARACTER. MAYOR

[03:00:11]

CLARKE. YES VICE MAYOR MATHESON. YES COMMISSIONER MEYER. YES COMMISSIONER BRUNER? YES, COMMISSIONER MCDONALD? YES. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 15, WHICH IS SILVERTHORNE, A

[15.

REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE ITEM TO DATE CERTAIN OF DECEMBER 13, 2021: SILVERTHORN RPUD: (QUASI-JUDICIAL):

ORDINANCE No. 2472-2021; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THEREBY CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM “COMMERCIAL” TO “MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL” FOR A 9.43 ACRE PARCEL ANNEXED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1527-97, OWNED BY TED GLASRUD ASSOCIATES FL LLC, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF SE INDIAN STREET AND SE COMMERCE AVENUE, SAID LAND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED; AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT SAID LANDS SHALL CONCURRENTLY BE REZONED FROM COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT “CPUD” TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT “RPUD” ON THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; ESTABLISHING THE SILVERTHORN RPUD CONSISTING OF EIGHTY SIX (86) ATTACHED HOMES; APPROVING A MASTER SITE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AND A TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, DECLARING THE PLAN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CITY CLERK; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

]

QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER, WHICH HAS BEEN ASKED TO BE CONTINUED TO A TIME CERTAIN OF DECEMBER.

13TH 2021, THIS IS ORDINANCE SUMMER 24 7 2-2021, MADAM, MERYL, UH, MOTION TO CONTINUE TO DECEMBER 13 SECONDS. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VICE MAYOR MADISON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? ANY COMMENTS BY OUR BOARD. IT'S GOING TO BE MY BIRTHDAY. WHICH ONE DECEMBER 13TH YEAH. OH LET'S HAVE A REALLY GOOD LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. IF YOU KNOW YOU KNOW WHAT I LIKE. YEAH SO, UM, SHIRK THE DO WE NEED TO DO ALL IN FAVOUR OF YOU WANT TO CALL US ALL IN FAVOR? HI HI. THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM. IS

[16.

REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO DATE CERTAIN OF NOVEMBER 22, 2021: ABANDONMENT OF A PORTION RIGHT-OF-WAY AS REQUIRED BY THE PALMETTO COVE RPUD:

ORDINANCE NO. 2475-2021; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA TO PROVIDE FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY BEING THAT PORTION OF PLATTED 11-FOOT-WIDE ALLEY AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF HALPATIOKEE PARK, MORE CLEARLY DESCRIBED AND DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT ‘A’ ATTACHED; FOR PAYMENT OF A PRIVILEGE FEE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

]

THAT A NUMBER 16 I REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO DATE CERTAIN OF NOVEMBER 22ND 2021 IF ABANDONMENT OF PROPORTION OF RATHER WAS REQUESTED BY PAUL MEDICAL. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER AND SECONDED BY COMMITTEE COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. ALL IN FAVOUR, ALRIGHT? ARE WE CLEAR ON THE DISCUSSION DELIBERATION? WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA. DEAL WITH THE ONE ISSUE THAT MR RUDIN WANTED TO BRING UP. I CAN MOVE THAT THIS MOLD. THIS MAY DIDN'T BE ADJOURNED. IS THAT OKAY? ADJOURN

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PROCLAMATIONS

PRESENTATIONS

COMMISSION ACTION

ORDINANCE FIRST READING

Nov 08, 2021 Regular City Commission Meeting

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PROCLAMATIONS

PRESENTATIONS

COMMISSION ACTION

ORDINANCE FIRST READING

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item