[14. ZONING IN PROGRESS (RC): RESOLUTION No. 93-2022; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SECTION 2.07.00(I), DENSITY AND PARKING CALCULATION WITHIN AN URBAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. RESOLUTION No. 95-2022; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SECTION 2.03.03 ADDRESSING THE DENSITY ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHOUT COMMISSION APPROVAL, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

IN PROGRESS, MIKE, ARE YOU HANDLING THIS OR THERE? UM I'M HAPPY TO SAY, AND WE'LL DO THE ZONING IN PRIOR YEARS AND THE FIRST ONE, I GUESS THE URBAN P U D AND THE HALF UNIT ONE FIRST, UM, ACTUALLY OKAY. THE FIRST ONE B. RESOLUTION 93-20 TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SECTION 2.7 POINT, 00. I. TITLED DENSITY AND PARKING CALCULATION WITHIN AN URBAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. UM AS YOU MENTIONED I, THIS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER. 14 ACTUALLY HAS TWO RESOLUTIONS AND IT BECAUSE I BROUGHT BACK TO POTENTIAL ZONING IN PROGRESS. THE FIRST AS I JUST READ AS RESOLUTION 93 ESSENTIALLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION 2.7 POINT 00 I. IT'S TITLED DENSITY AND PARKING CALCULATION WITHIN AN URBAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, AND IT PROVIDES A CHART. AND IT HAS TWO CRITERIA. ONE BEING, UH, THE, UH , WHAT WAS REFERRED TO AS HALF UNITS. AND THE OTHER IS WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS THREE QUARTER UNITS. THE PURPOSE FOR THIS IS FOLLOWING THE CONSENSUS OF THE

[01:15:03]

COMMISSION AND THE DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE COMMISSION WAS ASKING THAT WE TAKE A CHANCE TO HAVE A WORKSHOP, SIT BACK DOWN AND VET AND DISCUSS THESE REGULATIONS AND THE INTENTION OF THOSE REGULATIONS. AND FORMULATING NEW ORDINANCE TO MOVE FORWARD IS ONLY IN PROGRESS IS SIMPLY A LINE IN THE SAND. THIS THIS PARTICULAR RESOLUTION WAS ADVERTISED LAST WEDNESDAY. SO IN THE EVENT THE COMMISSION WERE TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION 93-20 TO 2.

IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY TELL EVERY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT ANYBODY IT SUBMITS AN APPLICATION. AFTER LAST WEDNESDAY. THAT. RELIES ON SECTION TWO POINT OH, SEVEN POINT. OH, I OR IN OTHER WORDS, INCLUDES SEEKING SOME CREDIT FOR PARKING AND OR DENSITY RELATED TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING AND GETTING THOSE CREDITS. THEIR APPLICATION WOULD STILL BE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. STAFF COULD STILL BEGIN. THE REVIEW PROCESS, HOWEVER, WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GO TO A, UM A BOARD APPROVAL BEING L D A L P A OR CRB MEETING. OR CITY COMMISSION FOR FIRST OR SECOND READING UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE ZONING AND PROGRESS. EXPIRES ZONING IN PROGRESS EXPIRES. EITHER BY THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FRAME, WHICH IS RIGHT NOW PROPOSED AT THREE MONTHS, AND OUR CODE ALLOWS IT TO BE EXTENDED FOR THE ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS REQUESTED THE COMMISSION OR BY THE COMMISSION, TAKING ACTION AND BY TAKING ACTION THAT IS THEY HAVE A VOTE ON THE SUBJECT MATTER. NEITHER VOTE TO DO NOTHING OR VOTE TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND WHATEVER CHANGES THEY MAKE. IN FACT, IN DECEMBER, THE COMMISSION WERE TO VOTE TO AMEND THAT SECTION TWO POINT OH 7.0. ANY APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM LAST WEDNESDAY FORWARD WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THOSE AMENDMENTS. WHATEVER THOSE AMENDMENTS MAY OR MAY NOT BE, AND IT WOULD BE BINDING. SO THAT IS THE FIRST ONE. I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THE SECOND ONE AS WELL. JUST TAKE IT ONE AT A TIME. SO DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS MOTIONS? AND THIS MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION . OKAY, MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ACCOUNTANTS APPROVED THE RESOLUTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OUT SECOND. OKAY SO WE HAVE A MOMENT SHOOTING IN A SECOND BY E, UH, COMMOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLLEGES SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RICH. DO WE HAVE ANY BOARD DISCUSSION? YES, MR MORTAL. DID YOU HAVE THE 90 DAYS IN HERE ALREADY? I DIDN'T SEE IT. UM I BELIEVE I DO. I'M PULLING IT UP RIGHT NOW. IT'S A RESOLUTION. SO IF YOU, UM LOOK AT OUR CODE, OUR CODE ITSELF HAS THE THREE MONTHS IN IT. UM I THINK WE SHOULD PUT IT IN HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SET FORTH SPECIFICALLY, LET ME JUST READ REAL FAST TO SEE. UM THIS RESOLUTION SHALL TAKE EFFECT AT THE EARLIEST TIME ALLOWED BY LAW, WHICH IS LAST WEEK WHEN IT WAS ADVERTISED. AND SEE WHERE IT SAYS, WHEREAS THE CITY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION ONE POINT OH FOUR POINT OH, FOUR THAT. LAYING BY THE ONE BEFORE THAT SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ZONING IN PROGRESS SHALL REMAIN IN EFFECT FOR THREE MONTHS, WITH THE OPTION OF POTENTIALLY EXTENDING THAT PERIOD. IN ADDITION, GOOD CAUSE THAT WOULD COVER IT AND IT'S FOUND IN THE CODE UNDER ONE POINT OH, FOUR POINT. OH, FOUR.

OKAY, THAT'S FINE. AND ESSENTIALLY, WHILE WE'RE HERE YOU HAVE EMOTION IS SECOND ON IT. MY THOUGHT ON IT WOULD BE UM, IF IT WERE TO PASS THE CITY MANAGER WOULD THEN HAVE STAFF REACH OUT TO THE TO THE BOARD. AND SCHEDULE A BASED ON YOUR DISCUSSIONS. LAST MEETING SOME TYPE OF WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS REALLY THIS ISSUE. HOPEFULLY IT WOULD BE IN A FAIRLY TIMELY MATTER BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET THE WORKSHOP, GET THE RESULTS, GETTING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND THEN GET THOSE ORDINANCES BACK BEFORE YOU, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS TO GET THE PUBLIC INPUT, ETCETERA. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD. YEAH I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT. I'M GLAD WE'RE TAKING THIS STEP BECAUSE IN THE FIVE MONTHS I WAS WALKING AROUND TALKING TO PEOPLE. THIS CAME UP SO OFTEN I WAS SO SURPRISED. THAT THIS FRACTIONAL DENSITY WAS BROUGHT UP BY PEOPLE ASSOCIATED IT. YEAH IT GAVE A TERRIBLE APPEARANCE TO THE. TO THE CITY, AND THEY FELT SOMETHING UNDERHANDED OR ILLICIT WAS GOING ON. I AGREE IT WAS. THEY JUST DIDN'T FEEL RIGHT TO PEOPLE, AND I THINK THIS IS A VERY SENSIBLE RESPONSE TO THAT TO THEIR CONCERNS, AND I'M GLAD WE'RE TAKING THAT STEP. OKAY AND DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? OR DID

[01:20:07]

YOU HAVE COMMISSIONER WANTED TO JUST GIVE SOME CONTEXT TO WHY. FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T YOU KNOW, DO THIS ALL THE TIME, AND THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IS OWNING A PROGRESSES. THE IDEA OF THIS ZONING IN PROGRESS JUST TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT MIKE? UH, THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID. WE ARE SAYING EFFECTIVELY. WE WANT A LINE IN THE SAND. WE WANT TO SHIELD FOR COMMISSIONERS FOR STAFF. FOR RESIDENTS TO TALK, UH AND DECIDE. AND THESE ARE THESE RESOLUTIONS ARE SPECIFIC TO AN ISSUE. SO IN THESE TWO RESOLUTIONS YOU HAVE IN THE FIRST ONE THIS ISSUE WITH HALF DENSITY AND THREE QUARTER DENSITY THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING. THE SECOND ONE IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT ALLOWING IN THESE, UH CONDITIONAL USES. TO GO FROM YOUR BY RIGHT ZONING, WHICH WITHIN THE C R. A. YOU CAN BUILD UP TO 15 UNITS PER ACRE OUTSIDE OF THAT WOULD BE 10. YOU CAN GO BEYOND THAT UP TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE. SO THAT'S A CONVERSATION AS WELL. SO WITH WITHIN ONE OF OUR POLICIES, THIS HALF UNIT AND THREE QUARTER UNIT JUST TO KIND OF TELL THE STORY OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE IS LET'S SAY IN THE COUNTY, YOU CAN GET EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. ON THIS PROPERTY, YOUR PROPERTY OWNER, RIGHT? AND YOU'RE TRYING TO THINK. HOW CAN I GET THE MOST ROO ON HIS PROPERTY? RIGHT WELL, IF YOU ARE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE CITY PROPERTY AND YOUR CONTIGUOUS BINGO RIGHT IF I CAN GET ANNEXED INTO THE CITY THEN I CAN GO FROM EIGHT UNITS TO 15 OR 10. BY RIGHT. AND IF I CAN GET IN ONE OF THESE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DEALS, I CAN GO UP TO 30. SO YOU JUST TOOK A PROPERTY. THAT HAD THE EARNING POTENTIAL OF EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. AND NOW YOU CAN HAVE UP TO 30 AND YOU NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT YOU'LL DO WITH THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, TO GET YOUR INCREASED DENSITY. BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS RESIDENTS. ARE CLEARLY NOT HAPPY WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE LAST FOUR YEARS IN THIS PROCESS WE'VE BEEN DOING SO THE IDEA BEHIND THE ZONING AND PROGRESS IS TO CREATE A SHIELD. AND THAT SHIELD SAYS IN THIS 90 DAYS, POTENTIALLY SIX MONTHS ANY PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE THIS HALF OR THREE CORNER, QUARTER DENSITY STUFF, OR ARE ASKING FOR ALLOWANCES BEYOND WHAT THEY HAVE BY RIGHT WE'RE GONNA WE'RE GONNA SHELF THOSE. WE'RE GOING TO HASH ALL THIS STUFF OUT AS A COMMISSION AS A STAFF AS A RESIDENT BASED AND BE ON ONE PAGE GOING FORWARD WITH THE VISION OF WHAT STEWART IS GOING TO BE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO GROW. SO THIS SPECIFIC FIRST ONE IS ABOUT HALF UNITS. AND, UE TRYING TO DO THIS ONE BY ONE. I WANT TO RUN IT ON A SLATE, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THAT WAS THAT SECOND ONE IS MY IDEA. BUT I WANT TO SEE BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BRING UP ASSUMING THIS FIRST HALF OF THIS ZONING AND PROGRESSES, FIRST RESOLUTION GETS APPROVED TO BRING UP THE DENSITY ISSUE AS WELL. AND I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE CITY TO HAVE THAT SHIELD WHILE WE'RE DISCUSSING POTENTIALLY CHANGING POLICY. AROUND THAT SO FOR 90 DAYS WERE SAYING LET'S FIGURE ALL THIS OUT, SO WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS THAT INCLUDE THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HASH OUT, SO IT'S THAT PROTECTION AND SHIELD FROM THEM. THAT'S MY COMMENT. OKAY? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT. FRANK MCCHRYSTAL. YES, UM. I'M PRETTY GOOD FROM 30,000 FT, BUT I'M HAVING A HARD TIME DECIPHERING EXACTLY. WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 93 95 TO TWO ISSUES BEFORE YOU AND I WOULD HOPE THAT SOMEONE COULD EXPLAIN TO ME AND FORREST GUMP SIXTH GRADE TERMS. WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OR NON BENEFIT OF PASSING ONE OR THE OTHER? VERSUS PASSING BOTH. AND WHICH OF THOSE SCENARIOS. PROTECTS THE RESIDENTS, THE MOST AND WHICH OF THOSE SCENARIOS THROWS THE DEVELOPERS OF BONE. THANK YOU. OKAY ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? VERY NONE MARRIED. YOU CALL THE ROLL. MAYOR MCDONALD YES, CLARK. YES COMMISSIONER BRUNER? YES, COMMISSIONER RICH. YES COMMISSIONER COLLINS? YES OKAY, MIKE, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT RESOLUTION. YOU READ THE RESOLUTION AND GIVE AN OVERVIEW.

THIS IS RESOLUTION NUMBER 95 TO 0 TO TWO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE TO ADOPT A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ADDRESSING SECTION TWO POINT OH THREE POINT. OH, SEVEN. DANCING

[01:25:03]

THE ADDRESSING THE DENSITY ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHOUT COMMISSION APPROVAL, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS RESOLUTION ADDRESSES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION FOUNDED TWO POINT OH THREE POINT. OH, THREE. WHICH IF YOU LOOK IT UP, YOU WILL SEE IT AS THE DENSITY THAT SHOWS THAT SINGLE FAMILY IS 8.7 THAT ARE THREE IS 10 UNITS PER ACRE THAT , AS COMMISSIONER COLLINS POINTED OUT, MULTI FAMILY IS 15 UNITS PER ACRE. AND THEN THEY HAVE DIFFERENT. UM POTENTIAL INCREASES OR DENSITY BONUSES BASED UPON WHETHER THEY CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OR WHETHER THEY'RE IN A IN A P U.

D. WHAT THIS RESOLUTION THAT WAS PROPOSED WOULD SAY THAT ANYBODY THAT AGAIN THAT OWNS LAND IN THE CITY THAT WANTS TO DEVELOP THEIR LAND OR EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS. WHERE THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER. IF THE APPLICATION WAS SEEKING A DENSITY LEVEL. THAT WAS HIGHER THAN THE. MAXIMUM DENSITY SET FORTH IN SECTION TWO POINT OH, THREE POINT. OH, THREE. THAT THAT LAND IS ENTITLED TO WITHOUT COMMISSION ACTION. THEN. IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, AND AS A RESULT, THAT APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE PROCESSED. UNTIL THE COMMISSION HAD THAT WORKSHOP AND ADDRESSED BY WAY OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE L. D R S OR SOME TYPE OF ORDINANCE OR BY WAY OF TAKING NO ACTION, BUT BUT ADDRESS THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO THE PROCESS AND ENTITLEMENT TO DENSITY ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT SET FORTH. IN THE STRAIGHT CODE. FOR EACH UM DENSITY MATTER. FOR EXAMPLE. COMMERCIAL. IN. AH THE SIERRA. I BELIEVE THE DENSITY OF THE COMMERCIAL IS 15 UNITS PER ACRE OUTSIDE OF THE SEA AREAS, 10 MULTI FAMILY IN THE SEA ARIAS 15 OUTSIDE THE SIERRA IS 10. UM THS ROUGHLY 8.7 FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO BUILD A UH UM. LIKE PEOPLE ARE KIND OF FAMILIAR WITH SNUG HARBOR WEST. IT'S A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR OVER HERE, RIGHT AT THE END OF FIFTH AND ACURA AND IT'S CALLED, YOU KNOW, I THINK OF THE NAME OF THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT. UM AND WHEN I SEE THANOS 33 STORIES, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE COMMON WALL SO THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT THE DENSITY IS ABOVE THAT 8.7 UNITS PER ACRE. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH IT IS. BUT IF SOMEBODY WERE TO COME IN AND WANT TO BUILD THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES UNLESS THE TOTAL DENSITY OF THEIR PROJECT IS 8.7 UNITS ARE BELOW. THE PROJECT WOULD BE ON HOLD UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE CITY COMMISSION ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE. OR THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90 OR 180 DAYS, DEPENDING ON WHERE WE FALL WITH IT. UM IT APPLIES ACROSS THE BOARD TO WHICHEVER LAND USE IT IS AND IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED. IT ONLY APPLIES TO THOSE APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD COME INTO THE CITY. FROM LAST WEDNESDAY FORWARD UNTIL THE CITY COMMISSION HEARS IT. AND UM, I KNOW THAT WE DON'T ANSWER. QUESTIONS DIRECTLY BUT TO COMPARE TO 93 TO 95. 93 OR RESOLUTION 93 ADDRESSED. SECTION TWO POINT OH, POINT OF TWO POINT. OH 7.0, WHICH IS HMM. THS IN AN URBAN EXCUSE ME URBAN P U D WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE CALCULATION TO BE WHAT WE CALL THE HALF UNITS OR THREE QUARTER UNITS. THIS RESOLUTION 95.

APPLIES TO ANY APPLICATIONS THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE LBR SECTION TWO POINT OH THREE POINT. OH, THREE. WHICH MIGHT NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO. WITH 900 SQUARE FEET OR LAST OR 1200 SQUARE FEET OR ELASTIC COULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES COULD BE CONDOS COULD BE APARTMENTS. BUT ANYBODY SEEKING AN INCREASE IN DENSITY THAT REQUIRES COMMISSION ACTION TO GRANT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THIS IS OVER TWO TO SUBMIT AND HAVE THEIR APPLICATION PROCESS. AND THEN WHATEVER. THE OUTCOME OF THE COMMISSION'S ACTION IS WOULD APPLY TO THOSE APPLICATIONS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER, BUT I THINK I HAVE ONE QUESTION . WOULD IT APPLY TO PREVIOUSLY PL AND IF IT WAS ALREADY PLANNED, AND IT WAS AT A HIGHER DENSITY? AGAIN. SINGLE FAMILY SO GOOD QUESTION. IN FACT, THERE'S A PLATT THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED BY THE CITY

[01:30:07]

COMMISSION. AND THAT PERSON COULD WALK INTO CITY HALL RIGHT NOW. AND PULL A PERMIT AND SOLD . LET'S SAY IT'S PLANTED AND IT'S 18 PLOTS PLANTED IN THAT PLAQUE, AND SOMEBODY BUYS LOT SEVEN. AND THEY WALK INTO CITY HALL AND SUBMIT AN APPLICATION AND STAFF CAN PROCESS IT BASED UPON THE CODE DIRECTLY, AND IT DOESN'T NEED COMMISSION ACTION, THEN IT WOULD NOT APPLY AT ALL, AND IT WOULD MOVE FORWARD. IF, IN FACT THEY CAME IN, AND STAFF SAID TO THEM WELL, BASED UPON X, Y OR Z AND I HYPOTHETICALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT MIGHT DO THAT. BUT YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO DEVIATE BECAUSE YOUR SINGLE FAMILY LOT. ISN'T A SINGLE FAMILY LOT BECAUSE YOU NEED A COMMISSION ACTION BECAUSE OF X Y OR Z, THEN THAT IF IT IN FACT APPLIED TO TWO POINT OH THREE POINT. OH, THREE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE STAYED. OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMISSION DISCUSSION OR EMOTIONS? SO NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE USING SINGLE FAMILY AS AN EXAMPLE. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THIS IS INTENDED TO TRY TO WRAP OUR HEADS AROUND MULTI FAMILY AND KIND OF WHERE WE GO FORWARD WITH MULTI FAMILY. AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A POINT THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS SOUNDS A LITTLE BIT DRAMATIC, ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE I'M ASKING FOR IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION. THE ABILITY TO DISCUSS WITHOUT HAVING TO BE HAMMERED BY APPLICATIONS FOR THE VERY THING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. SO DENSITY IS GOING TO COME UP.

THERE'S IN MY OPINION TO THESE. THESE ARE THE TWO MAJOR ISSUES THAT HAVE SORT OF LED TO THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS HAPPENED RECENTLY. SO BOTH OF THESE ISSUES DESERVE TO BE HANDLED. AND DISCUSSED NOT JUST WITH US, AND I'M SURE THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT THEY HAVE A LIST OF COMPLAIN AND LAND USE. YOU KNOW THINGS THEY WANT TO BRING UP AS WELL BUT ALSO THE PUBLIC. I REALLY FEEL LIKE GOING DOOR TO DOOR. AND YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER RICH ECHOED THIS.

IS THE FRUSTRATION AND THE FEELING OF. NOBODY'S NOBODY SEEMS TO CARE FOR WANT TO LISTEN , AND NOW THAT'S NOBODY'S INTENTION UP HERE. WE ALL KNOW WHO WE WORK FOR, AND IT'S THE RESIDENTS SO TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY ALSO TO COME IN AND WORKSHOP. AND FOR US TO ALL KIND OF WORK TOGETHER AND SHOW THAT WE'RE WILLING TO GIVE SOME INPUT ON WHAT THE VISION FOR STEWART IS GOING TO BE GOING FORWARD, I THINK WOULD BE GREAT. AND THESE TWO APPROVING BOTH OF THESE. SO NOW THE SECOND RESOLUTION AS WELL IS A GREAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THOSE DENSITY CONVERSATION. YOU KNOW THEM UP ON THE SHELF SO WE CAN HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AND PROVIDING CLARITY TO BOTH THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER COLLINS. COMMENTS I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS MULTI FAMILY AS THE EXAMPLE. THE RESOLUTION. SAYS THAT THE APPLICATION OF TWO POINT OH THREE POINT. OH, THREE. SECTION TWO POINT OH, THREE POINT OH, THREE, IS TITLED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, P U D DENSITY. THE DENSITY FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SHALL NOT EXCEED THOSE DENSITIES SET FORTH IN TABLE THREE B MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. SUCH DENSITY WILL ONLY BE GRANTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AS PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING AGREEMENT. THAT IS THE ZONING AND PROGRESS THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED ANYTHING. THAT WOULD NEED CITY COMMISSION TO GRANT DENSITY. AS PART OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. MY GOAL IS NOT TO, UM BECAUSE I GOT AN EMAIL ACTUALLY ABOUT THIS IS HEY, I DON'T WANT YOU TO FROM A DEVELOPER. I DON'T WANT YOU TO STOP PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION, BUT IT IS TEMPORARILY SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE GOING FORWARD. SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO APPROVE. IN TERMS OF A RESOLUTION IS THE DISCUSSION AROUND WHAT A P U. D LOOKS LIKE WITH INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC AND STAFF AS WELL. DO YOU HAVE ANY? JUST WANT TO SAY THAT? COMMISSIONER CHRIS YOU'VE HANDLED THIS VERY GRACEFUL TONIGHT AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND I LIKE THE THREE MONTHS AND THEN ADDING THREE MORE MONTHS SO WE CAN SEE IN SIX MONTHS WHAT WE HAVE OUT THERE IF IT'S GONNA CONTINUE TO BE BUILT AS IT COMES UP OUT OF THE GROUND, BECAUSE THERE'S SOME THAT'S NOT AND I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. MR. CLARK DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? EVERYBODY'S GOING. WOW WE'RE JUST GONNA GO STUDY IT AND COME BACK AND MEANS RICH. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? I MAKE MY COMMENTS AND WE HAVE WORKSHOPS. WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HERE. I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE. IF WE WERE TO ADOPT THIS, THE ITEM THAT WAS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA. HOUSING COALITION. DELETE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT WE'RE

[01:35:08]

LOOKING AT NORTH OF THE BRIDGE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. SO DISCUSS THAT. I THINK THE 19. WE'RE NOT THERE YET. BUT YOU KNOW THAT. THE CITY HAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT NOT A COMPREHENSIVE VISION. AND TO ADOPT THIS. HMM. IN MY MIND, IT'S INADEQUATE IN SCOPE. YOU KNOW? WE'RE HAVING A WORKSHOP TOMORROW NIGHT AS COMMISSIONER, CLARK POINTED OUT WHERE DEALING WITH FORM BASED PLANNING, WHICH ARE VERY BIG DECISIONS WE HAVE TO MAKE. AND SINCE WE'RE GOING OUT TO THE PUBLIC, WE KNOW THERE IS THIS CONCERN. I WISH WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NOT ONLY THIS DENSITY BUT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. THE DESIRE FOR TRANSITIONAL WORKFORCE HOUSING ZONING CHANGES. AND. I JUST WISH WE HAD COULD PULL BACK A LITTLE AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS IN A LARGER CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THIS CITY. THAT IS THE GREAT PART ABOUT ZONING AND PROGRESSES. YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO BRING ALL OF THAT UP AND WE CAN HASH IT OUT. SO WE DO HAVE AND I THINK IT'S MAY HAVE OCCURRED BEFORE YOU TWO WERE ELECTED THAT WE JUST DID A SUMMIT SUMMATION.

MR BERGER DID IT FOR OUR PREVIOUS STRATEGIC PLAN, AND WE ARE GETTING READY TO GO BACK INTO STRATEGIC PLANNING. ENVISIONING COMING UP. WE'VE GONE UP TO AN R P AND WE'RE WAITING TO SETTLE ON HOW WE'RE GONNA MAKE THAT PROCESS WORK. WHICH COULD GO TO LEND WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH, WHICH IS MORE OF A LONG TERM STRATEGIC PLANNING AND VISION. LOOK AT SELFISH, KAY. WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT SELF THEY WANNA THEY WANT TO GO FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. WELL, THE LAST TIME WE DENIED THAT WE BENEFITED ONE OF THE CITY'S BIGGEST EMPLOYERS.

SO. IS IT MAKE? DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO GIVE SELFISH K? I DON'T REALLY KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A DISCUSSION IN A BROADER CONTEXT. AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. ONLY THING I WOULD SAY COMMISSIONER RICH AND, UH, IS THAT FIRST I'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT A LACK OF VISION. I'VE BEEN HERE BEING COMMISSIONER CLARK HAVE BEEN HERE THE LONGEST AND WE'VE DONE VISIONING SESSIONS. WE'VE DONE STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSIONS. I THINK THAT ACTUALLY WE DO HAVE A VISION. UM AND. BELIEVE IT OR NOT, YOU KNOW , AND I WASN'T HERE. BUT I WATCHED SOME OF THE MEETINGS FROM AFAR TO THE VIDEO THERE. THERE WAS A TIME WHERE WE HAD WHERE THE COMMISSION OF WHEN I WAS NOT HERE HAD WORKSHOPS THAT WANTED HIGHER DENSITY AND MORE. AND MORE HOUSING UNITS, UM NO.

THE QUESTION. I THINK THE QUESTION IS, THAT IS THAT WE GET TOO MUCH TO GET TOUGH THAT WE THERE'S A LOT OF THAT GOES BACK AND FORTH. UM AND SO I THINK THAT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NOT HAVING A VISION. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT WE WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO. WE'VE DONE SWAT ANALYSIS. WE'VE DONE STRATEGIC PLANNING. WE'VE WE'VE ALL DONE. CHARETTE'S UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE I DON'T I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY MEETINGS WE'VE HAD JUST ANY STEWART. UM TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE FORM BASED CODE AND OTHER TYPES OF CODE TO HELP EAST STEWART OR TO REDEVELOP AND SO AND WE'VE WORKED ON DEVELOPING THESE VISIONS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THROUGH THE SIERRA AND THROUGH DANCE VERY PROGRAMS COMING UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD SIDES AND, UH AND THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE DID IN OUR VISIONING OF THE STEWART AND MEETING WITH AND TALKING WITH PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS. UM I PERSONALLY LIKE THE PD PROCESS OF BECAUSE THE PD PROCESS ENSURES THAT WHEN WE DO HAVE A, UM, A DEVELOPMENT , UM WE GET A MUCH BETTER AH, BUT WE CAN EXTRACT THINGS FROM THE APPLICANT. YOU KNOW, THEY CAN COME IN AND WE CAN ASK THEM, YOU KNOW A ROAD OR, UM, YOU KNOW, I LOOKED BACK AND I WANT YEARS BEFORE I WAS ON THE COMMISSION WHEN THE WHEN THE WALMART WAS DEVELOPED, THEY GOT WALMART TO PAY FOR THE ROAD BETWEEN WILLOUGHBY AND US ONE AND SO THERE'S THINGS THAT YOU CAN DUE TO THAT. AH, CREATE MAKE EVERYTHING MAKE THINGS BETTER SO UM. SHOULD WE LOOK AT THE DENSITY PROBABLY. UH, BUT WHAT I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL OF IS GETTING INTO, UM THAT WE DON'T STEP ON GOOD PLANNING, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD SOME GOOD PLANNING. UM AND. AND WHEN YOU WERE IN THE

[01:40:04]

URBAN ENVIRONMENT, WE GET DOWN TO SMALLER AND SMALLER LOT SIZES WHERE WE'RE COMING IN THE DIFFERENT CHALLENGES. SO, UM SO WE'LL SEE HOW IT KIND OF HOW THIS GOES, PLAYS OUT. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION OR DO WE WOULD LIKE TO GO HERE FROM PUBLIC? WHY DON'T WE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC FIRST BEFORE WE HAVE ANY EMOTIONS? WE DON'T HAVE NO WE CAN HEAR. WE DON'T HAVE. I DON'T THINK YOU DIDN'T MAKE A MOTION, DID YOU, CHRIS? THE RULES PENDING AS FAR AS THE RULES. THE BOARD IS AT LIBERTY TO DO IT EITHER WAY ON THE QUESTION JUDICIAL MATTERS YOU'VE ACTUALLY FORMALLY ADOPTED A PROCEDURE THAT YOU TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. BEFORE. UM THE MOTIONS.

WE WENT THROUGH THAT, UM, EITHER WAY, BUT IT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. UM PROBABLY REALITY IS YOU HAVE TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT IF YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE ON SOMETHING, BUT OTHERWISE THERE'S REALLY NO MANDATE AS TO WHEN AND WHERE. OKAY SO LET'S HEAR SOME PUBLIC COMMENT IF WE HAVE ANY. ROBYN CARTWRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I FEEL LIKE A CELEBRITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS EVENING TO SEE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROBABLY OPPOSING SOME OF THIS ON THIS SIDE OF THE ROOM. UM I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT ADOPTION OF THIS GIVES US A CHANCE TO KIND OF LOOK AT WHAT'S IN STOCK WITH REGARDS TO WHAT'S IN THE PIPELINE. WE'VE SAID REPEATEDLY OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. EVERYTHING IS IN A SILO, WHICH IT SHOULD BE. I GET IT.

DEVELOPERS WHO COME TO YOU WITH A PROPOSAL OR LOOKING AT THEIR PROPOSAL, BUT IT IS YOUR JOB AS THE COMMISSION AND THE STAFF TO LOOK AT EVERYTHING IN TOTALITY AS TO WHAT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE THAT'S THE OVERALL IMPACT. WHAT'S HAPPENING. SO LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE SCHOOL CONCURRENCY SCHOOLS LOOK AT IT LIKE FOR WHAT'S COMING UP LATER THIS EVENING, FOR EXAMPLE. THAT JD PARKER HAS AVAILABILITY. WELL IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU'VE APPROVED IN PROCESS, JD PARKER DOES NOT HAVE AVAILABILITY. IF YOU LOOK AT ANDERSON MIDDLE, IT DOES. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THINGS IN TOTALITY, THAT IS WHAT YOUR JOB AS THE COMMISSION IS, SO I IMPLORE YOU TO PUT THIS ZONING IN PROGRESS IN PLACE BECAUSE I THINK IT WILL GIVE US A CHANCE TO TAKE STOCK IS TO NOT WHAT'S JUST HAPPENING IN THE DEVELOPMENT ARENA. BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH OUR ROADWAYS WITH THE DOTTIE WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH OUR SCHOOLS? WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH OUR EMERGENCY SERVICES? WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH OUR FIRE AND RESCUE? THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN JUST THIS ZONING IN PROGRESS NAME THAT'S BEING ALLOCATED TO IT. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT INDIVIDUALLY WITH THESE DEVELOPMENTS IS VERY SUBJECTIVE. EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE SEEN COME FROM THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT STAFF HAS BEEN YOU SHOULD APPROVE IT BECAUSE OF THIS IN A SILO OR NOT , SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON A POINT BASED SYSTEM THAT WHEN YOU AS COMMISSIONERS AND WILL PRESENT THIS TO YOU, AS WELL AS THE COUNTY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOMETHING, IT IS OBJECTIVE. DOES IT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE CITY ? NOT JUST IN THIS ONE OBJECTIVE ITEM, NOT JUST IN THIS ONE LINE ITEM. BUT IN TOTALITY WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? THAT GIVES YOU A CHANCE TO MAKE A GOOD SOUND DECISION THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPER WITH THEIR PLEA ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING FOR THEIR SPECIFIC CLIENT OR THEIR PROJECT, BUT AGAIN, WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY? I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH A COUPLE OF YOU ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH REGARDS TO NOT JUST A PROJECT OR AN ITEM. BUT AGAIN, IT IS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COMMUNITY. NO DEVELOPER IS GOING TO COME TO YOU AND SAY I'M TRYING TO FILL A NEED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PROBABLY AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING. VERY FEW DEVELOPERS ARE COMING TO YOU TO SAY I AM GOING TO SATISFY THIS NEED FOR X. NOBODY NEEDS HIGH RISE CONDOS ON THE OCEAN. THAT IS A WANT THAT IS NOT IN NEED. SO I'M ASKING YOU TO TAKE THE ZONING IN PROGRESS WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT TONIGHT AND LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT. IT IS NOT JUST THE DENSITY. IT HAS ALL OF THE THINGS THAT COME WITH IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY, SAME DONE AFTER WE HAVE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION. SECOND EMOTION A SECOND, ANY DELIBERATION. WHICH ONE WHICH THAT'S 95 OR THE NINE DID 93 IS PAST 22. SHE JUST DIDN'T SAY THE NAME OF THE RECORD 9520 TO 2. OKAY? SO DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? SAYING THAT WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BRUNER. MARY. WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL? PLEASE I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY IT WAS JUST PROVIDED A SHEET, MA'AM. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS MOTION? OKAY. I'M SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. I CAN WAIT. MARY,

[01:45:03]

WOULD YOU CALL HER NAME FOR ME? DID YOU EVER TELL LAURA HELLO, EVERYONE. HOW ARE YOU? I'M GOING TO START OFF BY READING A DEFINITION OF PRESERVED. FROM THE MERRIAM WEBSTER DICTIONARY USED AS A NOUN. THIS IS AN AREA RESTRICTED FOR THE PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SUCH AS ANIMALS OR PLANTS USES A VERB. IT'S TO KEEP SAFE FROM INJURY, HARM OR DESTRUCTION TO PROTECT. TONE DEAF, THE INABILITY TO HEAR WHAT IS BEING SAID TO YOU IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. SO HERE WE ARE ONCE AGAIN CLEARING PROPERTY. UM ON A UPLAND PRESERVE TO BUILD A THREE STORY HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT COMPLEX. I AGAIN ASK THE QUESTION WHY UM, COMMISSIONERS, PLEASE. I ASK YOU TO PLEASE VOTE RESPONSIBLY VOTERS. YOUR CONSTITUENTS WOULD LIKE YOU TO VOTE. PLEASE VOTE AS IF YOUR LEGACY MEANS ANYTHING TO YOU. OR IS THERE A TONE DEAF ISSUE THAT HAS AFFLICTED THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS? THANK YOU, EVERYONE. THANK YOU ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER BRUNER YES, MAYOR. MCDONALD YES. COLLINS YES, COMMISSIONER CLARK? YES, COMMISSIONER RICH. YES. OKAY MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ITEM. UM HOUSING SOLUTIONS COUNSELOR.

[15. HOUSING SOLUTIONS COUNCIL LAND LEASE (RC): RESOLUTION No. 96-2022; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A LAND LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AND HOUSING SOLUTIONS COUNCIL; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSESS.]

LANDRY'S IF WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER 24TH MOTION TO CONTINUE TO OCTOBER, 24TH A COMMISSION OR CARD HAS MADE A MOTION TO HAVE A SECOND. THE SECOND. OKAY SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUDER. UM MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER BRUNER YES, COMMISSIONER CLARK COLLINS. YES COMMISSIONER RICH? YES. MCDONALD'S YES. OKAY? ITEMS 16

[16. ACCEPT DONATED PROPERTY FROM MARTIN COUNTY (RC): RESOLUTION No. 97-2022; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING AND ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF .25 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN EAST STUART BEING CONVEYED BY MARTIN COUNTY TO THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

TO ACCEPT DONATED PROPERTY FROM MARTIN COUNTY. MIKE, COULD YOU READ THE RESOLUTION? THIS IS RESOLUTION 97-202 TO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING AND ACCEPTING THE DONATION OF 0.25 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN EAST STEWART BEING CONVEYED BY MARTIN COUNTY. TO THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. I THINK JODI IS HANDLING THE MATTER. NO, I AM. SHE'S GETTING READY FOR THE NEXT ONE, MR MAYOR . BASICALLY, I WAS CONTACTED BY THE COUNTY. I THINK OVER A YEAR AGO, UM, AND SPOKE WITH COMMISSIONERS INDIVIDUALLY ABOUT THEIR DESIRE TO ACCEPT THIS PROPERTY. THE COUNTY WAS EVALUATING THEIR SURPLUS PROPERTY AND ABSOLUTE PROPERTY.

UM SOME OF IT WENT TO AUCTION THEY HAD CONTACTED ME BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN E. STEWART IT DOES HAVE SOME LAND LOCKING ISSUES. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD EVER BE DEVELOPED AT ALL.

UM, BUT THE COUNTY WANTED IT OFF THEIR BOOKS. THEY APPROVED IT AT THEIR COUNTY COMMISSION LEVEL WITH THE STIPULATION THAT IF IT EVER WAS TO BE DEVELOPED THAT IT HAD TO BE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

BASED ON THE SIDE THAT COULD MAYBE BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IF THAT THERE IS A LIKE AN ALLEY ACCESS TO IT, BUT I WOULD THERE'S NO DESIRE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME, BUT IT IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS ALREADY OFF THE TAX ROLL CURRENTLY, SO IT'S NO. IT'S NO HARM FOR ACCEPTING AND AS OWNERSHIP FROM THE CITY. MR. UM BEFORE WE HAVE THE STAFF, I JUST WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS ITEM. NUMBER ONE FULL DISCLOSURE . I ATTEND AND THE SENIOR WARDEN FOR ST MONICA'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH , WHICH ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IN WHICH I THINK HAS THAT HALLOWEEN ROAD IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHURCH OR IN THAT AREA. THAT'S NUMBER ONE NUMBER TWO WITH REGARD TO THIS ITEM, AS WELL AS THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WERE IN THE VERY BEGINNING. WHEN THE CITY UT FIND ITEM NUMBER THREE AND FOUR. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON WITH THE WAY THE ITEMS ARE BEING PRESENTED IN THE ELECTRONIC FORM BECAUSE THIS RESOLUTION IS NOT WRITTEN PROPERLY IN THE ELECTRONIC FORM , IT SAYS A U T H INSTEAD OF AUTHORIZING AND I JUST WANT TO BE SURE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING LEGAL OR WHAT WE NEED TO DO. BUT UM, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT'S NOT THE ELECTRONIC THING IS NOT COMING UP. UH I THINK IN THE 97 LIKE JUST THE TITLE 7 22. YEAH THE AGENDA DOES, IS IT IT ACTUALLY GRABS LANGUAGE? I BELIEVE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION AND PULLING IT UP RIGHT NOW, IT DOES SAY AUTHORIZING, RIGHT. IT'S JUST THAT THE AGENDA ITSELF IN THE AGENDA THE LINK, THEY SHORTEN THE LITTLE BOX THAT IS THE LINK FOR THE PUBLIC TO CLICK ON IT. SO IT JUST SHORTENS THE WORDS FOR ABBREVIATING IT SO THAT IT'S OKAY. I JUST WANT TO LET'S SEE THAT THANK YOU HAVE A MOTION.

NO. STEPH WAS GONNA SHE'S NOT OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO, UM MOTION TO APPROVE A LUCIAN

[01:50:06]

NUMBER 95. THAT'S 2022 97 97 SORRY. HAVE 95 MINUTES. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK HAS SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? NONE MARRIED. YOU CALL THE ROLL. MAYOR MCDONALD YES, COMMISSIONER BRUNER. YES, COMMISSIONER CLARK ? YES COLLINS. COMMISSIONER RICH YES. OKAY LET'S MOVE ON TO FIRST ORDINANCE AND THIS ONE. I BELIEVE THIS ONE IS QUASI JUDICIAL. MR MAYOR. YES BEFORE YOU START. I JUST WANTED TO ANNOUNCE THAT, UM AARON, OR PLANNER IS OUT SICK TODAY. SHE IS AT HOME, THOUGH, AND ON ZOOM AND WE'LL BE DOING MOST OF THE PRESENTATION VIA ZOOM IN OUR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WILL BE ASSISTING AS WELL. OKAY AND I GUESS IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW DIRECT DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. YES BUT I'M GONNA HAVE TO PRONOUNCE HER OWN LAST NAME. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JODY. NETFLIX SLASH KUGLER. PRETTY SOON I'LL BE DROPPING THE NETWORK. I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE. I CAME FROM ST LUCIE COUNTY AND ORIGINALLY FROM THE VILLAGE IN NORTH PALM BEACH IN PALM BEACH COUNTY. I HAVE ABOUT ALMOST 30 YEARS OF GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE WITH PLANNING BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CODE ENFORCEMENT, FINANCIAL AND FEMA BACKGROUND. THANK YOU, JODY. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF STEWARD WITH FORWARD TO HAVING A LONG, PROSPEROUS CAREER HERE.

THANK YOU. OKAY SO LET'S SEE. WE'VE GOT A WE'VE GOT A, UH. THIS IS QUITE VERY JUDICIAL.

CORRECT YES. OKAY SO WE'LL START OFF HERE. UM THERE'S NO INTERVENERS. SO, UM INTRODUCED

[17. 751 SE CENTRAL PARKWAY - SMALL-SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL (C) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MF-RES) (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2486-2022; 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 4.88-ACRE PARCEL, LOCATED AT 751 SE CENTRAL PARKWAY, SAID LAND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED; 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.]

THE ITEM AND THE NAME OF THE AGENDA HAVE DONE THAT ORDINANCE NUMBER 24 6 DISH 2022 IN ORDINANCE, THE CITY COMMISSION, 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 4.88 ACRE PARCEL. LOCATED AT 7 51 SOUTH EAST CENTRAL PARKWAY SUDDENLY AND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED DECLARING THE PLAN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING DIRECTIONS THE CITY CLERK PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND CONFLICT. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATA FOR OTHER PURPOSES. IF I COULD JUST INTERJECT TO THE TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS IF YOU LOOK IN THE DRAWER OF YOUR DESK, YOU SHOULD FIND A YELLOW SHEET THAT LOOKS SIMILAR TO THIS. HISTORICALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE IS IN THESE QUESTIONS JUDICIAL MATTERS. IT'S AN OUTLINE THAT WILL SIMPLY PROVIDE A REFLECTION OF SECTION 11 OF THE LBR THAT JUST WATCH THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR PROCEEDING IN A QUASI JUDICIAL MANNER. QUITE TRADITIONAL MEANS THAT THE BOARD IS SITTING AS A JUDGE, ESSENTIALLY THAT IT'S NOT A LEGISLATIVE TASK AS MUCH AS IT'S A BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT TO COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IN PRESENT EVIDENCE AS TO WHY THEY BELIEVE THEY'VE COMPLIED WITH THE CODE AND MEET THE FOR THE APPROVAL TO TAKE PLACE. OKAY SO DO YOU NEED THE COMMISSIONERS HAD EXPERT A COMMUNICATION OF SCHOOLS COMMISSIONER RICH. UH YES, I MET . PLEASE SPEAK IN YOUR MIC. IT MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO'S AT THE PODIUM RIGHT NOW FOR AN HOUR COUPLE WEEKS AGO. OKAY COMMISSIONER COLLEGE. I SPOKE WITH THE GENTLEMAN STANDING HERE, UM ABOUT A HALF MILE IN FROM MR BRUNER. TO HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE CANCER A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. OKAY COMMISSIONER CLARK SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT AND I THINK WITH MR RAINES AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. OKAY AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL, AND I SPOKE WITH THE ATTORNEY FOR THE H O A. MR CORNET THAT, UH, RIGHT NEXT DOOR, AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH STAFF AND A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS REGARDING THIS SO AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. AH LET'S SEE YOU DO MIKE, COULD YOU PLEASE PLACE? THE WITNESSES UNDER OATH IS I HAD A QUESTION. IF I COULD, MR MAYOR REGARDING THAT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. AND I KNOW MR MARTEL STEPPED OUT. I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE A LEGISLATIVE SINCE IT'S A LAND USE REMEMBERED ONLY SO THAT WOULD CLARIFY THAT WITH MR MARTEL AND WHERE DID MR MARTEL GO? SENATE SOON AS MR MARTEL AND MR DIAZ SUPPORT THEY'VE JUST RAN AWAY. THEY'RE SCARED. THEY JUST GOTTEN SCARED . I CAN SWEAR IN WELL, BUT IF IT'S LEGISLATIVE, I DON'T THINK WE SWEAR IN I WOULD NEVER AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT MR RAINES'S RIGHT BUT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. THIS ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE SINGLE READINGS FOR BLUES AND THEN WHAT WE DO? YES SO EDIBLE FIRST SHOULD BE. IT SHOULD BE A SINGLE READING FOR LEGISLATIVE FOR THE FLU. SINCE THIS IS UNDER UNDER THE LARGE SCALE DOES NOT GET

[01:55:04]

TRANSMITTED TO THE TO THE STATE. SO IT SHOULD BE ONE READING AND LEGISLATIVE SO. I SUGGEST MR MORTALITY TO CONFIRM THAT THEY'RE SO MR MARTEL WAS SUGGESTING THAT I BELIEVE THIS IS LEGISLATIVE. AND WE DON'T HAVE 100 CHEATING ON THIS. AND THIS IS NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL.

WELL I GUESS SO. YEAH, THE LAND USE ITSELF IS THE LAND USE CHANGES LEGISLATIVE. THE OTHER IS QUITE BUILD. ZONING IS QUASI . YES, SIR. PROCESS WE FOLLOW. ON THE YELLOW SHEET STILL STAYS THE SAME AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESENTATION OF IT FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE, AND THEN WE ONLY NEED THE ONE READING FOR TONIGHT FOR THE LAND USE. IF WE'RE FORTUNATE, WE NEED TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES FOR THE MENUS. YOU YOU DON'T. IT'S NOT. IT'S THERE IS NO TECHNICALLY, WITNESSES REPORT. YOU CAN ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE YOU WANT. IT'S A PROCESS OF IF YOU'RE TAKING EVIDENCE, AND YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY SWORN YOU CAN HAVE THEM SWORN, BUT IT IS NOT AND WON'T NEED THIS. WE'RE IN THE RIGHT. SO THE NEXT THING SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR RANGE, THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WILL PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE AGENDA ITEM, INCLUDING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. CURRENT ZONING. AND SO FORTH. AND SO JODY EUROPE STRAW. HEY CAN YOU HEAR ME? SAY IT'S ERIN. ERIN THANK YOU. ERIN I SORRY. I SOUND SO TERRIBLE. UM I'M GONNA BE GOING AHEAD IN PRESENTING THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF STAFF TODAY. FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS AARON LIPKA, UM, A SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. SO TONIGHT BEFORE YOU YOU HAVE A SMALL SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP CHANGE. UM AND THIS IS, UH, ORDINANCE TO SIX. WE DO THIS IS IT A FUTURE? LINDY'S NOT CHANGED FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEXT SIDE. THIS WAS THE TITLE THAT WAS ALREADY READ BY MR MARTEL X FIVE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SOUTH EAST CENTRAL PARKWAY. OUTLINE OUTLINED AND RED AS YOU CAN SEE, APPROXIMATELY 800 FT. SOUTHWEST AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTHEAST CENTRAL PARKWAY AND SOUTHEAST FEDERAL HIGHWAY. THE PARCEL OF LAND IS 4.88 ACRES, AND THE SITE ADDRESSES 7 51, SOUTH EAST CENTRAL PARKWAY. NEXT SLIDE. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF PROJECT HISTORY ON THIS, UH, THIS SPECIFIC SITE WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AS A PART OF THE TOWN PARK CONDOMINIUMS THAT ARE LOCATED AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL MAP TO THE NORTH. UM THEY ARE CONDOMINIUM BUILDINGS AND MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. UM THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN 1989 DESIGNATED THIS SITE IS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH AN ARTERY ZONING DISTRICT.

ORDINANCE 12 93 93 WAS A FUTURE LANDERS AMENDMENT FROM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL . THAT WAS A ADOPTED IN 1993 FOR THE ABUNDANT LIFE MINISTRIES CHURCH. UM SO EVEN THOUGH THE LANDIS WAS CHANGED FROM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TWO AND INSTITUTIONAL, THE ZONING DID REMAIN OURS FREE ON THIS SITE ORDINANCE, 21 OH, SIX DASH WAS SUDDEN. THERE'S ANOTHER FUTURE LAND USE AN AMENDMENT THAT CHANGED THE SITE FROM INSTITUTIONAL TO COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE, AND IT WAS ALSO CURRENTLY REZONED FROM OUR THREE TO A COMMERCIAL PEUT FOR PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER. AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE CHURCH WAS DEMOLISHED. UM AND THE SITE HAS REMAINED VACANT EVER SINCE THE PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL OFFICE CENTER WAS NEVER CONSTRUCTED. AND SO THIS SITE HAS REMAINED, UM, VACANT FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS OR SO NEXT SLIDE.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, IN OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, UM, THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USES COMMERCIAL, UM THE LAND USES AND ACTIVITIES PREDOMINANTLY CONNECTED WITH THE SALE, RENTAL AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS OR PERFORMANCE OF PROFESSIONAL AND NON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE FOR THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE. THIS INCLUDES ITEMS SUCH AS RETAIL SALES, SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER OFFICES, SHOPPING CENTERS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, RESTAURANT, ENTERTAINMENT, HOTELS, MOTELS ANOTHER TEMPORARY LODGING. MIXED USE PROJECTS ARE ALSO ALLOWED. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP. THE BLUE IS INSTITUTIONAL, THE REDDEST COMMERCIAL AND THAT OTHER. I BELIEVE IS. I CAN'T SEE WHAT DOES THAT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL I BELIEVE, UM TO THE SOUTH. NEXT SLIDE. OKAY POLICY A 7.1 POINT B OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES THAT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS WHAT THE APPLICANTS FOR POSING TO CHANGE THE SITE TO INCLUDES 123, OR MORE DWELLING UNITS PER BUILDING. IT INCLUDES SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DUPLEX TOWN, HOME'S PATIO HOMES, GARDEN HOMES, APARTMENTS, CONDOS. FOSTER HOMES, UM, CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES. THE LIMITED

[02:00:02]

AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL IS ALLOWED NEXT TIME. AGAINST SIDE NOTE. IF YOU HEAR BANGING, IT'S MY TODDLER IN HIS BEDROOM TRYING TO GET OUT, UM, BUT THE SMALL SCALE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE. WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT, UH, AT THE DATA , AND WE DID ANALYZE THE DATA SPECIFICALLY FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 1 63.31776 SUBSECTION A EIGHT FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS, ANALYSIS OF AVAILABILITY OF FACILITIES AND SERVICES AND ANALYSIS OF THE SUITABILITY OF THE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SOME PROPOSED TO YOU. IS CONSIDERING THE CHARACTER OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND, SOILS, TOPOGRAPHY, NATURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ON SITE. AN ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF LAND NEEDED TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THAT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN THIS PRESENTATION NEXT SIDE. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE GONE FORWARD AND WE HAVE ANALYZED THESE ITEMS RIGHT HERE. NEXT SIDE. SO UH, IN REGARDS TO THE TOPOGRAPHY, UH, THE AVERAGE ELEVATION IS AROUND 11 TO 12 FT , UM, CLOSER TO THE ROADWAY ON THE ELEVATION. UM IS 12.5 13, 12 AND 12.6 AND ALONG TOWN PARK. THE CURRENT ELEVATION IS 11.7 AND 11.8. NEXT SLIDE. WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY. THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO WETLANDS IDENTIFIED ON THE SUBJECT SIGHT LINE. LOOK AT STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA FROM THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION. DATA LAYER. NO STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA WAS IDENTIFIED ON THE SUBJECT SITE. NEXT SLIDE. UM THE MARTIN COUNTY HAS A WELL FIELD PROTECTION ORDINANCE. WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT MARTIN TONY DATA AND WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT A PORTION OF THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN WELL FIELD PROTECTION ZONE ZONE TO THIS ZONE PROHIBITS ANY NONRESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES THAT STORE HANDLE, PRODUCE OR USE ANY REGULATED SUBSTANCE. UM AS THIS PROPOSED FUTURE, LEE AND SHE'S AMENDMENT IS, UH, FROM COMMERCIALS AND MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS WOULD NOT APPLY. WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE SOIL TYPE. UM ACCORDING TO THE FLORIDA SOIL. SURVEY, GEOGRAPHIC. DATABASE THE SOIL TYPE ON THIS PROPERTY AND VERY COMMONLY FOUND WITHIN WITHIN THE CITY OF STEWART IS WAVELAND AND MOXLEY FINDS HANDS. UM IT'S MORE GENERALLY FOUND GEOGRAPHICALLY WITHIN FLAT WOODS ON MARINE TERRACES AND COASTAL PLAINS. NEXT SLIDE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN FLOW. FLOOD ZONE X AREA OF MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD, AND THAT'S DUE TO THE FEMA OR FROM THE FEMALES. NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD LAYER EXIDE UM, THE CITY'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT KIM LEE HORN AND ASSOCIATES HAVE COMPLETED THE REVIEW OF THE APPLICANTS LONG RANGE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS CONSISTENT WITH CITIES CONCURRENCY REQUIREMENTS BE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE. UM THEN THAT FROM COMMERCIAL IT'S A MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RESULTING IN MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL DECREASE OF 11,151 DAILY TRIPS, WHICH IS 269 AM PEAK HOUR TRIPS AND 1027 PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS. FURTHERMORE, ACCORDING OTHER CITIES, ROADWAY AND FUNCTIONAL CLASS AND EVACUATION MAP WITHIN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SOUTHEAST CENTRAL PARKWAY IS A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY NEXT SIDE. YOU CAN SEE THEM OUT THERE AND THEN. THERE YOU GO. OKAY, NEXT TIME. UM THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, REGULAR AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, DIFFERENT DIRECT DEVELOPMENT TO AREAS WHERE ADEQUATE UTILITY SERVICES AND SCHOOLS EXIST. OUR PLAN TO PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES. UM THE STOP DID REACH OUT TO THE CITIES WHERE FIRE DEPARTMENT MARTIN COUNTY SOLID WASTE. MARTIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT CITY OF STEWART, POLICE DEPARTMENT, ONE CITY OF STEWART UTILITIES AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ALL OF PROVIDED LETTERS THAT THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AS A RESULT OF THE A FUTURE LAND. SHE'S AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS ON A PROJECT BASIS, UM, ARE MET THROUGHOUT. ACQUIT UTILITIES. UM. AND SO WE DO HAVE ALL OF THAT DATA IN THE BACK UP IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET AS WELL. NEXT SLIDE. OKAY SO THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT ANALYSIS AND THE GROWTH SIDE AREA IS 48 ACRES. WE TOOK A LOOK AT THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT FOR THE SITE FOR THE CLOSE THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE AND THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT THE GROUPS WITH MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE IN REGARDS TO THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE CHART TO THE LEFT, UM, OUTSIDE THE C R A, UM, A MAXIMUM IS ALLOWED WITHIN GENERAL OF 10 DWELLING UNITS PER EAGER, UM, WITH A 1.5 THAT THEY ARE AND THE

[02:05:06]

MAXIMUM PERCENT OF RESIDENTIAL 0 TO 15% WHEREAS NONRESIDENTIAL 85 TO 100% WITH THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE 318,859 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE PERMITTED, UM AS MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT, BUILD OUT POTENTIAL FOR THE LAND USE AGAIN FOR THE LAND USE, NOT FOR THE ZONING THAT'S FOR 100. PERCENT NONRESIDENTIAL. UM IF THERE WAS A TOTAL OF 85% NONRESIDENTIAL AND 15% RESIDENTIAL IN THE SITE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THE LAND USE 271,030 SQUARE FEET AND SEVEN DWELLING UNITS. WE ARE COMPARED THAT TO THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT FOR THE PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND JEWS. FOR 100% RESIDENTIAL, UM, UNDER A RPG ZONING DESIGNATION THAT WOULD ALLOW 146.4 DWELLING UNITS FOR 100% RESIDENTIAL OR 102.48 12 IN UNITS IF IT WERE 70% RESIDENTIAL WITH 31,885 SQUARE FEET OF NON RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR 30% OF THE SITE BEING NONRESIDENTIAL EXIDE. WE TOOK A LOOK AT URBAN SPRAWL ANALYSIS. NEXT SLIDE. AND WE ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. I'VE OUTLINED SOME HISTORIC PLACES ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO THE LEFT . UM, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITH A STAR, AND THAT'S PROBABLY PRETTY DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THE FUTURE LAND USE ALLOCATION. UM THE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE TO MULTI FAMILY, UH, WOULD REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE FROM, UH 913 914 ACRES TO 909 ACRES BUT INCREASE THE MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND 587 ACRES. KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS SITE IS 4.8 ACRES OF LAND. UM, IT'S TOUGH POSITION THAT THIS CREATES A BETTER BALANCE BETWEEN MULTI FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. ANGIE'S BUSINESS CITIES TO IT. NEXT SIDE. WHEN I PROPOSED AND JESUS COMPATIBLE WITH AND COMPLEMENTARY TO ADJACENT USES ALONG THE LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY BASED ON STAFF ANALYSIS AND SUBJECT TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AND STAFF CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPOSAL IS PROPOSAL IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. UM STAFF IS REQUESTING A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE TWO FOUR 8 6-2022, THEN MR BOB RINES WILL PRESENT ON THE YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ERIN.

APPRECIATE IT, MR RAINES. ALL RIGHT. MR MAYOR CITED LITTLE SLIGHT CHANGE OF PLANS TONIGHT.

I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE PROJECT. UM, FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS RYAN JOHNSTON JOHNSTON DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AND APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS PROJECT AND ITS COMPANION ITEM FORWARD TO TONIGHT. I KNOW I'VE I'VE MET WITH EACH OF YOU WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MR COLLINS AND CONGRATULATIONS ON THE ELECTION, MR COLLINS. UM AND I THINK WE'RE LOADING OUR PRESENTATION. IF YOU COULD SPEAK CLOSER TO THE MIC SO WE CAN CARRY. MAYBE WE CAN TURN IT UP SOME HOW'S THAT? UH ERIN DID A FANTASTIC JOB YET AGAIN. SHE DID A GREAT PRESENTATION AT THE L P A HEARING BACK IN JUNE, AND SHE DID A GREAT JOB TONIGHT, LAYING OUT A LOT OF THE FACTS SURROUNDING THE PROPOSAL. AND AARON, IF YOU'RE STILL LISTENING. I'M SORRY THAT YOU'RE UNDER THE WEATHER, AND HOPEFULLY IT FEELS BETTER SOON. NEXT SLIDE. SO, ERIN POINTED OUT. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY IS 4.8 ACRES ON SOUTHEAST CENTRAL PARKWAY. NEXT SLIDE.

YEAH AND SURROUNDED BY THE EXISTING TOWN PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION TO EMBARK NORTH NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS WAS THIS WAS AS AARON POINTED OUT PART OF THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR TOWN PARK NORTH. YOU CAN SEE THE TOWN PARK. THIS IS AN AS BUILT DATED 1982 FOR THE TOWN PARK PROJECT. YOU CAN SEE THE TOWN PARK BUILDINGS THAT SURROUND THE BACKSIDE OF THE SITE, BOTH ON THE EAST AND THE NORTH SIDES. THERE ARE I BELIEVE SEVEN EXISTING BUILDINGS OR SIX EXISTING BUILDINGS RATHER FOR TOWN PARK. THESE THIS PROJECT WAS ACTUALLY SLATED TO BE PHASES, 78 AND NINE THAT NUMBER WAS DEVELOPED. THE DEVELOPER OF TOWN PARK EXERCISED AN OPTION TO NOT COMPLETE THE PROJECT AND THEN ULTIMATELY, AS AS ERIN SAID IT MOVED ON INTO DIFFERENT PHASES OF ITS OF ITS LIFE OF THIS VACANT PARCEL NEXT SLIDE. SO AS AARON POINTED OUT THE ORIGINAL 1989 FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY WAS MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AS IT WAS

[02:10:05]

ORIGINALLY SLATED TO BE PART OF TOWN PARK. AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS A CHURCH THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY, CIRCA 1985. THAT CHURCH WAS CALLED ABUNDANT LIFE LIFE MINISTRIES AND JUST TO KEEP IN MIND 1989. IT WAS THE VERY FIRST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE CITY OF STEWART. SO THE VERY ORIGINAL , UH, FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY WAS SLATED FOR MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THAT WAS CHANGED TO INSTITUTIONAL IN 1993 AS A RESULT OF A PROPOSED EXPANSION TO THE CHURCH, WHICH WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE CHURCH OUT OF COMPLIANCE SINCE IT WAS A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION AND SO TOO, IN ORDER TO GET THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED EXPANSION, THE PROPERTY WAS CHANGED FROM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO INSTITUTIONAL TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. UNFORTUNATELY ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS LATER. WELL, I GUESS WE ACTUALLY MAYBE NOT GO BACK, PLEASE. THANK YOU, UM WAS THE CHURCH NEVER EXPANDED, BASICALLY, AND ULTIMATELY THEY RAISED THE CHURCH AND THEY MOVED TO ANOTHER LOCATION AS PART OF THEIR FUTURE PLANS. UM IN 2007. IT'S ACTUALLY DEMOLISHED IN 2007 IN 2007, A DEVELOPER CAME FORWARD WITH A NEW PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY TO BUILD BASICALLY A COMMERCIAL PROJECT COMPRISED OF 42,000 SQUARE FEET, UM, IN A SERIES OF SINGLE STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS, AND SO AS A PART OF THAT APPLICATION, THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY WAS CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL. BUT THAT, OF COURSE IN 2007 THAT WAS ON THE EVE OF THE GREAT RECESSION AND THEN IN ABOUT 2008 IS WHEN WE REALLY SAW THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY STALL IN THAT PROJECT NEVER WENT FORWARD. SO, AS AARON STATED, THIS PROPERTY HAS SAT DORMANT BASICALLY FOR 15 YEARS, SO OUR REQUEST IS ACTUALLY TO RETURN THE PROPERTY BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. DESIGNATION OF MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NOT SO THAT WE CAN COMPLETE A PROJECT LIKE TOWN PARK BECAUSE THAT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROJECT THAN WHAT WE SEE TODAY.

AND SO YOU KNOW, THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT THAT IS MORE COMPLEMENTARY TO TOWN PARK THAN A COMMERCIAL PROJECT WOULD BE AT THIS LOCATION. NEXT SLIDE. SO ERIN WENT THROUGH A LOT OF DETAIL ON THIS, BUT YOU CAN SEE BASICALLY THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPERTY AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WOULD BE 106,000 SQUARE FEET WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL ALLOWED IS A MIXED USE THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S A MULTI FAMILY PROJECT WOULD BE 31,900 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE. OUT OF 30% COMMERCIAL F A R AND A TOTAL OF 146 DWELLING UNITS AT 30 ACRES ACRES PER UNIT . SORRY 30 UNITS PER ACRE ONLY WITH A P U D OVERLAY, UH, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED WITH COMMISSION APPROVAL. AS I SAID, THERE'S A COMPANION ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT FOR THIS, WHICH DOESN'T COME ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THAT PROPOSAL. UM SO AN AMENDMENT FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RESULTS IN A DECREASE OF 11,501 151 DAILY TRIPS. WHICH IS BASED ON THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT OF A COMMERCIAL COMPARED TO THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT OF RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY NEXT LINE. AND IN 1993 WHEN THE THAT WAS BACK WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS CHANGED FROM MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO INSTITUTIONAL, THE RESIDENTS OF TOWN PARK THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY, MS CORNET, WHOSE I BELIEVE IS HERE TONIGHT TO SPEAK TO YOU ON TOWN PARK BEHALF AGAIN, THEY VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED CHANGE, FEARING THAT IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR QUITE A FEW COMMERCIAL USES AND ACTUALLY PULLED THE MINUTES FROM THAT MEETING JUST SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY HERE, AND I'D LIKE TO READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. I'LL TRY TO TALK QUICK, NATURALLY. SO I'M GONNA TRY AND SLOW DOWN, AT LEAST MAKE IT QUICK, THOUGH. UM SO THIS WAS THIS CAME OUT OF THE MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON APRIL 15TH 1993, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY FROM THE LOCAL STARTING AT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. BUT THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND IT QUOTES JANE CORNETTE. I AM AN ATTORNEY IN STUART AND I REPRESENT TOWN PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. IN THE PACKAGE YOU WERE GIVEN STAFF IS INDICATED INCORRECTLY. THAT TOWN PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUM IS LOCATED TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THIS PROPERTY. I GUESS I INCORRECTLY SAID THAT TOO. IT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ON TWO SIDES. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS AT ONE TIME PART OF THE TOWN PARK NORTH PROJECT. THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT OF THE DEVELOPER OF TOWN PARK NORTH BACK IN THE EARLY 19 EIGHTIES WAS THAT THIS WHOLE PARCEL WOULD BE A CONDOMINIUM PARCEL. I BELIEVE THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY FACED 78. OR EIGHT AND NINE OF THE CONDOMINIUM. THE DEVELOPER HAD THE LEAGUE HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT TO OPT NOT TO DEVELOP THOSE SECTIONS, WHICH HE DID, AND IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD TO THE CHURCH. I MENTIONED THIS HISTORY SO THAT YOU WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, AND THAT IS WHY IT IS OWNED MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. PARK NORTH OBJECTS TO THIS CHANGE OF LAND USE. WE DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF AND ITS CONCLUSION STATED IN THE MEMO THAT IT WILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT. THE COMMUNITY IS STILL RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, EVERYTHING TO THE EAST AND NORTH OF RESIDENTIAL ECONOMY AND MANY UNITS. THE ITEM IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. OBJECTIVE B

[02:15:06]

THREE STATES THAT DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SHALL NOT BLATANTLY IMPACT EXISTING APPROVED ACTIVITIES. TOM PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUM WAS THERE WHEN THE CHURCH PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY, THE LAND USE CHANGE BEING SOUGHT, WHICH IS INSTITUTIONAL GOES WITH THE LAND, NOT WITH THE CHURCH. WHICH IS INSTANT. SORRY NOT WITH THE CHURCH, FOLKS. SO PLEASE DON'T TAKE OUR OBJECTIONS AND AS AN ATTACK ON THE CHURCH, IT IS NOT MEANT IN THAT FASHION. NO ONE IS ASKING OR SEEKING THAT THE CHURCH GO AWAY. YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE LAND. THE INSTITUTIONAL CATEGORY CAN INCLUDE SCHOOLS, HOSPITALS, CEMETERIES, UTILITIES , TRANSMISSION, TOWERS, CLUBS, DAYCARE CENTERS AND UTILITY AND CHURCHES. ALL THOSE OTHER POTENTIAL USES. WE FEEL DO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY STAFF HAS MENTIONED IN THIS MEMO THAN A DAYCARE CENTER ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND OTHER PUBLIC ANOTHER IN ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING. I TALKED ABOUT THE DAYCARE CENTER BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN PREVIOUSLY FILED BY THE APPLICANT INCLUDES PLANS FOR POTENTIAL SCHOOL DAYCARE CENTER. THESE FOLKS DON'T BELIEVE THAT A SCHOOL OR DAYCARE CENTER BELONGS IN THE MIDST OF RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. WHEN YOU CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION . ANYBODY WHO OWNS THAT PROPERTY NOW HAS THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF THESE ITEMS THAT WERE THAT WE HAVE OPENED IT UP TO A CARE CENTER HOSPITAL, ETCETERA THAT ARE NOW NOT PERMISSIBLE USES ON THE PROPERTY. I AM SURE THE CHURCH WILL SAY THEY ARE NOT PLANNING ON GOING ANYWHERE. THE CHURCH, LIKELY THE CHURCH, LIKE ANY GOOD CHURCH IS A GROWING DEVELOPING GROUP, AND THERE MAY COME A TIME WHEN THEY WISH TO MOVE ON TO ANOTHER SITE IN ORDER TO HAVE A LARGER FACILITY. THAT IS GOING TO LEAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THERE THAT HAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF POTENTIAL USES THAT ARE NEGATIVE. THERE ARE SOME OTHER USES IN THE AREA THAT ARE COMMERCIAL, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY AROUND THERE IS EITHER RESIDENTIAL OR RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL. THEY'RE NOT INSTITUTIONAL. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO RECOMMEND THAT THIS NOT BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO OUR HISTORY WITH THE PROPERTY DATES BACK NOW. ABOUT 15 OR 16 MONTHS. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A VERY LONG TIME. EVERY PROJECT. UM THAT SHOULDN'T SAY EVERY MOST OF THE PROJECTS THAT I'VE COMPLETED OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS. UM WE'VE BEEN VERY CAREFUL TO TAKE OUR TIME TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS. OPEN LINES OF COMMUNICATION SHOW OUR PLANS. BE VERY TRANSPARENT AND FORTHCOMING IS AS IT RELATES TO WHAT WE WANT TO DO LISTEN TO CONCERNS AND TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, AND WE MOVE OUR PROJECTS SLOWLY. FRANKLY I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE'VE ADVANCED THINGS PROBABLY QUICKER THAN THIS IN THE PAST. WE DEFINITELY HAVE. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE FELT IT WAS VERY SENSITIVE TO TOWN PARK. WHAT HAPPENS HERE AND WE SPENT A VERY LONG TIME GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THEM TO TRY AND GET TO A POINT WHERE EVERYBODY AGREED THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THE RIGHT THING FOR THE PROPERTY. AND THAT IS NOT ONLY RELATED JUST TO THE LAND USEE WHICH YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY WANT AS RESIDENTIAL. BUT IT ALSO RELATES TO THE PROJECT ITSELF, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IF WE WERE SO INCLINED TO GET TO THAT PLANE AS PART OF A PRESENTATION THAT I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU, UM AS AS RELEASED TO THE PROJECT ITSELF, WHERE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE BENEFITS, YOU KNOW. WE TALKED ABOUT DENSITY IN 146 UNITS YOU COULD DO UNDER MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS A P UT AT 30 YEARS TO THE ACRE. I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU THAT JUST BECAUSE WE CHANGED THE LAND USE HERE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE A PROJECT THAT'S 100 AND 46 UNITS ARE PROJECT WON'T EVEN COME CLOSE TO PUSHING THE DENSITY OF 30 UNITS TO THE ACRE.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT'S LESS THAN HALF AND I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU HOW YOU GET ALL THE BENEFITS THAT COME ALONG WITH BEING ABLE TO DO A PROJECT LIKE THAT. IF YOU COULD JUST BLOW THAT UP. SO THIS IS A LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED FROM LAURA LEWIS LUNG BLADDER IS THE PRESIDENT OF TOWN PARK AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF ALL OF OUR MEETINGS WITH THEM, AND SHE SAYS THE APPLICANTS PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR COMMUNITY AND THE SOUTHEAST CENTRAL PARKWAY NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE. PLEASE ACCEPT THIS LETTER AS OUR SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED REZONING, FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT. AND SITE PLANT PROPOSAL FOR THE SAILFISH CAKE, TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT, AND I BELIEVE SHE'S HERE BELIEVE ACTUALLY, MISS CORNET IS HERE TO REITERATE THAT SUPPORT FROM TOWN PARK. NEXT SLIDE. SO, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, WE WENT TO THE L P A. ON JUNE 9TH AND WE RECEIVED UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE L P A NEXT SLIDE. THE PROPOSED FUTURE. THIS IS STAFFED ANALYSIS, WHICH AARON DID A GREAT JOB. PROPOSED FUTURE LADIES AMENDMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY CITY STAFF AND HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING THE LETTERS THAT SHE SHOWED YOU WHICH SHOW THAT WE HAVE CONCURRENCY FROM ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, INCLUDING THE SCHOOL BOARD. STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED , UH LANEY'S AMENDMENT COMPLIES WITH THE OBJECTIVES POLICIES, POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT SUPPORTS COMPACT URBAN DEVELOPMENT. I HAD A NUMBER OF SLIDES THAT REALLY GOT INTO THAT, BUT I THINK ERIN'S PRESENTATION REALLY COVERED IT, SO WE DECIDED FOR BREVITY TO OMIT THOSE STAFFS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 24 86 2022 TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LANGUAGE, THE PROPERTY BACK TO THE

[02:20:04]

ORIGINAL MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION NEXT SLIDE. THAT'S IT, ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY, UM, AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. OKAY THANK YOU. DURING THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE KNOW WHAT THE DENSITY OF TOWN PARK WAS TO KEEP BRINGING UP DOWN PARK? I TRIED IT SOLD, SO I TRIED TO ITS OLDER I TRIED TO FIND THAT INFORMATION, MR COLLINS, BUT I WASN'T ABLE TO GET TO THAT JANE CORN. IT MAY HAVE SOME INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO THAT, BUT I WASN'T ABLE TO GET THAT THROUGH THE PUBLIC RECORDS PROCESS. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WE'RE ACTUALLY ADDRESSING THE LAND USE AND NOT THE ZONING AT ALL. SO SETBACKS PARKING HEIGHT. DENSITY IS RESERVED FOR THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM BECAUSE THE ONLY THING YOU WOULD LOOK AT IN THIS WOULD BE UNDER THE ELEMENT. ONE OF THE AH! CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE IF I LOOK AT POLICY, A POLICY 1.87 POINT TWO IT'S CALLED GROSS DENSITIES AND I LOOKED DOWN TO. I BELIEVE THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAY HAVE TO FUTURE MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE C R A. SO IT STATES UP TO 10. DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 11.62 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IT FURTHER STATES. THIS DESIGNATION IS INTENDED FOR PARCELS THAT ARE SUITED FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED DUPLEX AND MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RANGING IN DENSITY FROM 10 FOR SINGLE FAMILY UNITS TO 11.62 FOR MULTI FAMILY AND DUPLEX UNITS. I KNOW IT'S A SOUND STRANGE, BUT THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS NOT ZONING. IT'S NOT THE GRANTING IN EXCESS OF IT. THAT'S ACTUALLY THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. OKAY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? CHRISTIAN COLLEGE. YOU HAVE SOME MORE OKAY? SO THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WERE JUST GOING DOOR TO DOOR. THERE'S BEEN A SERIOUS PUSHBACK, BECAUSE IF WE'RE JUST GONNA TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE OF TAKING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND FLIPPING THAT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THAT'S PART OF THIS THING THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AND MY CONCERN IS SEEING. SEEING THE LOSS OF OUR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE IN THE CITY. A LOT OF CONVERSATION HAS GONE AROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND. AND I THINK IT'S YOU KNOW THINGS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT I THINK OUR GOAL SHOULD BE TO ENCOURAGE SMALL BUSINESS. IT SHOULD BE TO IN COURT ENCOURAGING LIKE AN AREA LIKE THAT WHERE YOU HAVE THAT COMMERCIAL PARK. NEXT DOOR, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WHERE SMALL BUSINESSES. YOU CAN'T AFFORD NECESSARILY REAL ESTATE ON US ONE COULD HAVE A LITTLE INCUBATOR BUSINESSES AND START OUR BUSINESSES IN, UM YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT'S OUTSIDE OF MY SCOPE. WHAT COULD BE BUILT THERE , BUT PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT REMAINED COMMERCIAL SO THAT LOCAL PEOPLE CAN HAVE MORE. OPPORTUNITY TO PULL THEMSELVES UP TO MEET THE MARKET RATE FOR WHAT THINGS COST BY OPENING SMALL BUSINESSES AND THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND, THE LESS COMMERCIAL SPACE THAT THERE IS AVAILABLE, THE MORE EXPENSIVE THAT COMMERCIAL SPACE IS GOING TO BE IN THE HARDER IT'S GOING TO BE FOR PEOPLE TO START SMALL BUSINESSES WITH THAT UPFRONT COST. SO FOR ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT REMAIN COMMERCIAL AND NOT MOVE INTO THE FUTURE LAND USE OF RESIDENTIAL EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THAT IS MORE PROFITABLE THAN THE CURRENT MARKET. FOR RESIDENTS AND THEIR INTERESTS. I WANT TO SEE IT TODAY. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF WAS GONNA ASK AARON A QUESTION. ERIN. STAFF. ERIN ARE YOU STILL ONLINE ? YEAH I'M HERE. OKAY GOOD. SO I JUST WANT TO ASK ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND COMPLEMENTARITY. I THOUGHT THAT MR JOHNSON WENT THROUGH. HE REFERRED TO YOUR PRESENTATION, AND THEN HE ALSO MADE HIS PRESENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE HISTORY OF WHEN THE LAND USE HAS BEEN CHANGED PREVIOUSLY. AND UM , UH, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TOWN PARK THERE. AND THEN WE HAVE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH I THINK SOME OF THEM WERE RECENTLY APPROVED. UM, THAT'S KIND. YES OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, SO, UM I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU PUT IN YOUR STAFF ANALYSIS WITH REGARD TO POLICY ONE POINT B THREE POINT TO THAT, UM THE COMPATIBILITY AND COMPLEMENTARITY IS, UM ESSENTIALLY FULLY MET. BY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. AND

[02:25:04]

WHAT, UM THIS WILL MEAN IF THIS WENT BACK FROM FROM COMMERCIAL TOO WELL, IT WAS RESIDENTIAL, THEN INSTITUTIONAL, THEN COMMERCIAL, I THINK. RIGHT YES. SO STAFFS ANALYSIS, UM, LOOKED AT COMPATIBILITY AND COMPLEMENTARY IN REGARDS TO THE ADJACENT USES ALONG THIS PROBLEM WAY THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE ROADWAY PER THE COP PLAN. UM AND THE, UM THE, UH. THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND AND THE UM, SERVICE AVAILABILITY WITH THIS LAND JEWS , SO IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER LAND USES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THIS COMPLEMENTARY TO THOSE OTHER LAND USES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THIS SITE AND. UH, IT'S STAFF'S POSITION THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROADWAY, WITH OTHER RESIDENTIAL LAND USES ALONG THE ROADWAY THAT THIS IS THE MOST COMPATIBLE AND COMPLEMENTARY USE FOR THIS SITE. BOTH HISTORICALLY AND TODAY. THANK YOU. AND THIS IS FOR MR MORE TILL AS WELL AS OUR NEW PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND FOR YOU ALSO MISS POLITIKA. UM I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH WITH LAND USES, AND WITH FACT WE HAVE A LAND USE CHANGE THAT'S IN , UM, CONTESTS RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S BEEN LISTENED TO BY OUR OR STATE LEGISLATURE AND OUR CABINET, BUT, UM I WANTED AND I KNOW THAT WITH THE ZONING IS AFTER THIS, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS SOMETIMES WHEN PEOPLE BRING UP, ESPECIALLY WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF TRAFFIC AND WE KNOW THAT COMMERCIAL HAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES, WHICH EVERYBODY HAS BROUGHT UP BOTH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT UP SOME OF THE POTENTIAL USES. AND I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT, UH SPECIFIC, UM, IN CONSIDERING THE LAND USE. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE SPECIFIC SPECIFICITY AS WE WOULD WITH THE WITH THE ZONING OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN ON THE PROPERTY, BUT MR MORTAL, AND I JUST ASKED ME SOME MORTAL AND STAFF IF WE WERE TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY, UM SINCE THE STAFF ANALYSIS DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PARTICULAR SECTION ON TRAFFIC. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE. THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING. UH, IN PROPER ORDER. SO THE QUESTION YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF AND YOU YOU'RE THINKING OF WHEN WE DO AN INITIAL ASSIGNMENT OF A FUTURE LAND USE TO A PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THE STAFF REPORT DIDN'T FACT ADDRESS TRAFFIC TO SOME EXTENT. BUT IF YOU HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE UH OF LET'S SAY THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY MULTI FAMILY, AND IT ALREADY DEMONSTRATED THAT IT COULD SUPPORT THE TRAFFIC AND THEN IT SWITCHED TO COMMERCIAL. WELL, THE QUESTION WOULD BE IS THE COMMERCIAL AND INCREASE IN THE TRAFFIC THAT COMES OR A DECREASE AND THE REALITY IS, IS THAT GOING FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ACTUALLY GOES DOWN, AND AS A RESULT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE LANE MILES EXIST TO ABSORB THE NEW INTENSITY BECAUSE IN REALITY, BASED UPON THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AND THINGS OF THOSE CALCULATIONS , THE MAXIMUM BUILD UP POTENTIAL OF THE MULTI FAMILY WITH A MAXIMUM OF 10 UNITS OR 11.16 UNITS PER ACRE. ACTUALLY HAS LESS. MAXIMUM TRAFFIC POTENTIAL THAN A COMMERCIAL PARCEL WITH A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF TWO OR THREE. THANK YOU. AND I KNOW THAT THE FORMAT THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING THANK YOU, MR MAYOR FOR INDULGING ME. I'M NOT SURE IF THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO ASK SOMEONE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY TOWN PARK TO BE A WITNESS WITH REGARD TO ANY WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY FOR OR AGAINST WITH REGARD TO THIS THING, BUT I DEFINITELY LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM. COMMISSIONER CLARK. I DO BELIEVE THAT JANE CORNET IS HERE ON BEHALF OF TOWN PARK, AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE SEVERAL RESIDENTS FROM TOWN PARK IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL, WHO WISH TO EXPRESS THEIR SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT HAPPEN DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS, ACTUALLY CALLING HER AS A WITNESS, NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL THINGS. YEAH. UM MIKE, I THINK THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC COMMENT. WOULDN'T IT? HAVE JANE TALK? SO YOU HAVE AN APPLICANT? THE APPLICANTS RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IN A SMALL SCALE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT IS TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE BOARD THAT THEIR APPLICATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH BE CALM PLAN AS IT STANDS AND STATE LAW. WE'VE BEEN HEARING THE WORDS COMPLIMENTARY. IT'S REALLY COMPATIBLE. IS THIS LAND USE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT LAND AND SO DEMONSTRATING THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE? IF THEY PRESENT 12 PRESENTATIONS AND 12

[02:30:07]

CONSULTANTS, THEY CAN ALL DEMONSTRATE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THAT COMPLIANCE. SO I'M NOT SURE. MISS CORN IT'S GOING TO BE TO IF SHE'S TELLING YOU AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT THEY FEEL THAT IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THEIR LAND USE NEXT DOOR. THEN IT WOULD BE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE COMPATIBILITY. MS CORNETTE, DO YOU WANT TO COME UP AND. I THINK THAT ANY RESIDENTS WOULD BE UNDER PUBLIC COMMENTS SINCE HE'S THE ATTORNEY CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF LEGAL MATTERS SO. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. I AM JANE CORNETTE. I AM AN ATTORNEY. I DO NOT REMEMBER 1993. BUT I WAS HERE. APPARENTLY AT THAT TIME I DO HAVE THE PLEASURE OF REPRESENTING TOM PARK NORTH FOR A VERY LONG TIME. WHICH IS THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR. WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANT.

WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS. WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION. WE HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS. THERE ARE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS BECAUSE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY A PORTION OF TOWN PARK NORTH. WE HAD. AN AREA THAT WE MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS IF THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO GRANT US AN EASEMENT BECAUSE OUR CLUBHOUSE AND POOL ARE CONSTRUCTED SO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. WE HAD INTERCONNECTED DRAINAGE. WE HAVE OUR LIFT STATION, WHICH IS MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. OUR SANITARY LIFT STATION IS LOCATED ON THIS PARCEL. SO IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO WORK OUT DETAILS WITH THEM FINDING ISSUES LIKE ONE SECOND. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STICK TO THE RENU IS NOT THE SITE PLAN BECAUSE, OKAY, YEAH, SO WELL, THOSE WERE THE THINGS THAT WERE IMPORTANT TO US IN MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT THIS WOULD BE COMPLEMENTARY TO OUR RESIDENTIAL. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURES, YOU CAN SEE OUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE QUITE CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO IT WAS THE DECISION OF THE BOARD. TO SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION AS BEING COMPATIBLE.

AND COMPLEMENTARY TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL UNITS TOWN PARK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I'M DONE FOR IT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REJECTED AT FIRST. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, IN THE LAST, UM HOW MANY YEARS THEY BUILT THEIR UM, WOULD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WAS VERY BIG AT ONE TIME. AND THEN IT SWITCHES TO RESIDENTIAL AND THERE AND COMMERCIAL GETS BIG AND WILL SWITCH BACK. BUT COMMERCIAL ISN'T ISN'T VERY GOOD RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU WANT COMES TO YOUR DOORSTEP. AND UNLESS YOU'RE SERVICING, AND I KNOW THAT FROM FROM THE PLAZA THAT MY FAMILY MY SON DENIAL AND IT'S WHEN THE ECONOMY DROPPED IN 2008. IT WAS REALLY, REALLY HARD TO, UH, TO RENT ANY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THEN WITH SOCIAL MEDIA AND EVERYTHING BEING DELIVERED TO YOUR TO YOUR DOOR FRONT YEAH. ONLY TIME YOU CAN RENT IS IF THERE'S SERVICING IF IT'S A ELECTRIC COMPANY OR A DOCTOR CHIROPRACTOR, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE WAY BACK THERE. I WOULDN'T THINK A DOCTOR'S YES , JUST WHAT'S THERE? UH, MIGHT WORK, BUT I DON'T THINK SO. RIGHT NOW, UNTIL THE THINGS TURN AROUND. BUT I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT THAT THE REASON WHY IT'S RESIDENTIAL. THEY WON'T RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S SELLING OUT. AND IF THAT WASN'T SELLING IT COMMERCIAL WAS IN. THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD BE SELLING. SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT'S VERY TOUGH RIGHT NOW ON TO RENT ANY AS A LANDLORD AROUND ANY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. OKAY UM, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY FOR ERIN. ERIN. WHAT ARE THE COMMERCIAL ALLOWED COMMERCIAL USES. PER THE LAND USE. JODI, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND THERE IS A SLIDE ON THERE. UH, ON THE PRESENTATION IF WE CAN GO BACK I'VE COPIED AND PASTED. KEEP GOING. HERE. THIS IS WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES, UM IS ALLOWED PER COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND DO SOME ACTIVITIES PREDOMINANTLY CONNECTED WITH THE SALE, RENTAL AND DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS OR PERFORMANCE OF PROFESSIONAL AND NON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES INCLUDES RETAIL SALES SERVICE

[02:35:05]

ESTABLISHMENTS, BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL AND OTHER OFFICES, SHOPPING CENTERS, FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, RESTAURANTS, ENTERTAINMENT, HOTELS, MOTELS. OTHER TEMPORARY LODGING, A LIMITED AMOUNT OF MULTI FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND INDOOR INDUSTRIAL ASSETS ARE USES ARE ALLOWED. MIXED USE PROJECTS ARE ALSO ALLOWED, AS WELL AS PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SUBSTITUTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AARON. SO AS I LOOK BACK AT THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY, UM IT WAS MULTIFAMILY AND JUST IN FULL DISCLOSURE. MY WIFE AND I OWN PROPERTY IN CENTRAL PARKWAY, SO I'VE DRIVEN PAST THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. THREE TIMES A DAY FOR 22 YEARS. SO UH, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT. AND WE SAW THE YOU KNOW WE PURCHASED OUR PROPERTY AT CENTRAL PARKWAY. THERE WAS THE CHURCH THERE THERE WAS, I REMEMBER CORRECTLY WAS AN OLD STEEL BUILDING, AND IT WAS KIND OF DILAPIDATED. THEN THEY SOLD IT AND BUILDING WAS RAISED.

AND THEN NOTHING HAPPENED THERE. UM. AND AFTER ALSO SPEAKING WITH MISS CORNETTE ABOUT IT ABOUT IT , UH, THE RESIDENTS, UH, DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT THESE POTENTIAL USES. UM AND I THINK THAT I AM MORE THAN ANYBODY DO NOT WANT TO CONVERT. COMMERCIAL AH, JUST BLINDLY TO, UM TO, UH, RESIDENTIAL. I THINK THAT I THINK THAT THE COMMISSION MADE A MISTAKE WHEN IT DID IT ON COMMERCE AND WE CERTAINLY STARTED DID NOT DO IT MOST RECENTLY ON ONE IN COMMERCE. I THINK EACH SITUATION IS DIFFERENT. I THINK THIS ONE DOES, UM. NEED TO BE RETURNED BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL LAND. USE OF, UH, OF MULTIFAMILY. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I GOT AND, UH MR COMMISSIONING ELSE WANNA SAY SOMETHING? CENTRAL PARKWAY LOFTS, RIGHT IS THAT THE NEW WAS THAT A CONVERSION FROM COMMERCIAL, TOO? THEY ARE P U D R P O D PRIOR TO I BELIEVE IT WAS AN R P O D PRIOR TO THIS RPG , BUT I THINK IT HAD ORIGINALLY WAS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS CONVERTED FOR WHAT THE ORIGINAL RPG BECAUSE THAT WAS THE FUTURE LAND USE FIRST CENTRAL PARKWAY LOSSES OFFICE RESIDENTIAL. IT'S NOT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HAS A DIFFERENT FUTURE LAND USE AND THIS PARTICULAR SITE. NO, BUT I THINK THE LOFT I BELIEVE WAS ORIGINALLY ORIGINALLY. YEAH, BUT WHAT WAS IT RIGHT BEFORE WE DID THE LOSS? IN 2004? NO NO. WHEN WE DID THE LOSS RIGHT NOW, IT WAS AN EXPIRED BEAUTY. SO IT WAS LOFTS WASN'T APPROVED THE U D FOR THE LOFTS IN LIKE 2004 AND TWO, RIGHT? THERE WERE 3000 SQUARE FOOT UNITS. IT WAS THEY WERE MUCH LARGER. LIKE TOWNHOUSE TYPE UNITS THAT WAS APPROVED DEVELOPMENT THAT HAD EXPIRED BACK AND THEY REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE UNITS FIRED BACK TO WHAT IT DID NOT NEVER REVERTED TO ANYTHING AS AN EXPIRATION. IT JUST WAS IN A STATUS OF EXPIRED, SO IT JUST WAS REINSTATED. IT DIDN'T HAVE A REVERSION IN IT.

GOT IT. RIGHT AND I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT WITH THAT EITHER.

I THINK IT WAS JUST AS A RESOUNDING JUST BRING IT UP FOR THE POTENTIAL CONTEXT OF LOSING MORE OF THAT COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL LAND, AND ALSO THAT WE'VE ADDED AND IF I'M RIGHT IF I'M LOOKING AT THE CHART THAT WAS 135 UNITS ON THAT SEVEN ACRES THAT WE PUT THERE. 196. ON THAT SPACE AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING MORE UNITS ON CENTRAL PARKWAY THERE. MR RANGE , MR. MAYOR YOU ACTUALLY TOUCHED ON A COUPLE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE AND LOOK, I COMPLETELY APPRECIATE THAT THE PENDULUM SWINGS AND THAT THERE'S OPINIONS AS TO WHAT AND HOW SHOULD THINGS SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN THE CITY AS A WHOLE GOING FORWARD, BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT LAND USE AMENDMENTS, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS SITE SPECIFICALLY AND WHAT'S THE MOST APPROPRIATE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY? THAT'S THE REAL QUESTION HERE. THIS EVENING IS NOT WHETHER WE THINK WE HAVE TOO MUCH MULTI FAMILY ALREADY OR WHETHER WE HAVE TOO MUCH COMMERCIAL OR WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COMMERCIAL. HOW COMMERCIALS DOING FIRST OF ALL, AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER BRODY WAS TALKING ABOUT. BUT THIS PIECE WAS HAS BEEN, UH, HAD AN INSIGHT PLAN APPROVED FOR COMMERCIAL FOR 15 YEARS. THIS ISN'T A RECENT PHENOMENA. BUT THIS PIECE HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED BECAUSE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH AMAZON AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S GOING ON . I THINK THE FACT THAT IT HAS HAD A LAND USE, UH, DESIGNATION AND AN APPROVED SITE PLAN FOR 15 YEARS AND HAS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED WHEN WE WENT THROUGH

[02:40:01]

SOME OF THE HIGHEST DEVELOPMENT TIMES WITH RESPECT TO COMMERCIAL. WHY BEING A RUSH? WHY NOT DO THE BEST THING FOR THE RESIDENTS WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY BE OFFERING THEM JOBS? WELL, AND SMALL BUSINESS BUSINESS WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE . QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE QUESTION WE WERE TALKING OVER? HE FINISHED OR IF YOU'RE GONNA MAKE POINTS, SO I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THEM RIGHT. BUT I WANT TO FINISH WITH MY POINT. SURE. SO BUT THE POINT IS, I THINK, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE MOST APPROPRIATE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS ONE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ASSIGNED TO WHICH WAS MULTI FAMILY. IT WENT TO INSTITUTIONAL FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON AT THAT TIME. AND THEN IT WENT TO COMMERCIAL AND THEN THAT DID NOT GO FORWARD , AND NOW IT'S A MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEXT TO IT THAT YOU HAVE RESIDENTS WHO ARE ADJACENT TO IT, WHO BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THERE. AND I DO THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK HERE AND YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED WITH RESPECT TO TRAFFIC, AND WITH RESPECT TO COMPATIBILITY, IT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE LAND USED TO PUT MULTI FAMILY THERE.

IF YOU FOLLOW THAT LOGIC, YOU WOULD NEVER CHANGE LAND USE EVER IF WHAT ITS ORIGINAL INTENTION WAS NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. BECAUSE LOGIC THERE, LET HIM SPEAK. LOOK, I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE. I THINK RIGHT. SO IF IT'S ORIGINAL LAND USE IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE CONTEXT FOR IT SHOULD NEVER CHANGE INCORRECT BECAUSE NO BECAUSE THINK THE FACTS PATTERNS CAN CHANGE. THINGS EVOLVE BASED , MIGHT BE BETTER OFF BEING COMMERCIAL THINGS DO EVOLVE. I AGREE WITH THAT, AND THAT CAN BE THE CASE. I'M SAYING IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT. THEY HAVE EVOLVED. NOW THAT'S UP FOR DEBATE, OBVIOUSLY, AND I RESPECT THAT. BUT I THINK YOU CAN STILL SAY THAT YOU'VE GOT MULTI FAMILY AROUND THIS PROJECT. THIS IS AS WAS POINTED OUT A LOCAL RESIDENTIAL ROAD AND IT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL AND THEREFORE IT YOU KNOW, IN THE COMMERCIAL, THE MULTI FAMILY ORIGINAL I THINK STILL IS AN APPROPRIATE IT CAN CHANGE DEPENDING UPON THINGS CHANGE AS TIME GOES ON, SO SEEING THAT ON STATE ROAD 76 PART OF THE CONVERSATION AROUND CENTRAL PARKWAY IN THE LOFTS WAS WALK ABILITY, RIGHT? SO WHEN WE LOSE WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE SMALL SHOPS? IT KIND OF IS COUNTERED THAT ARGUMENT OF HAVING THAT WALK ABILITY. RIGHT IF YOU IF THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE COMMERCIAL THERE AND SMALL BUSINESSES FOR PEOPLE TO WALK TO KIND OF KILLED THAT WHEN WE MAKE ALL OF IT, RESIDENTIAL, DON'T WE? WELL FIRST OF ALL, YOU NEED CONTEXT OF CHARACTERIZING IT AS SMALL BUSINESS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY WHAT'S GOING TO END UP THERE IS A COMMERCIAL PIECE. I MEAN, SOMETHING COMMERCIAL THAT PEOPLE WOULD WALK TO AND PATRON WELL IN SOME FORM OR ANOTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. NO, I UNDERSTAND. AND AGAIN. I'M NOT. THE QUESTION IS, IS THE MULTIFAMILY APPROPRIATE THERE? AND I BELIEVE THE CASES IT IT CERTAINLY IS. I MEAN, YOU HAVE IT. IT'S ADJACENT TO IT. SO WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD? AND DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE PRESENTATION? MR RAIDS? WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING . SO WHY DON'T WE GO TO GOING DOWN THE LIST HERE? WHY DON'T WE GO ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLICS? I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION. I WAS GOING TO ASK STAFF AND PROBABLY MR RAINES IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND USE UH COMMERCIAL, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER COLLINS IS BRINGING UP ABOUT COMMERCIAL BEING ON CENTRAL PARK. WE ARE NOT NEEDED MORE COMMERCIAL AND CENTRAL PARKWAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A QUARTER OR STUDY. DONE THAT SPECIFICALLY TALKED ABOUT THE AMOUNT MAYBE MISS BULLETS.

COOKING JUST SUMMARIZE THAT AS A RESPONSE, I HOPE WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF MAYBE VACANT COMMERCIAL THAT'S THERE NOW ON CENTRAL PARKWAY. UH UM. OR MAYBE EVEN THE HISTORY OF THAT. I THINK THAT WE HAVE THE COMMERCIAL THAT'S CLOSER TO US ONE ON CENTRAL PARKWAY. AND I THINK THAT THERE'S THINGS HAVE COME RIGHT UP TO TOWN PARK. AND SOMETHING MAYBE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, BUT UM, IS THERE A LOT OF VACANT OR IS THERE ALL ACTIVE COMMERCIAL ON CENTRAL PARKWAY AT THIS TIME? OKAY SO, JODI, WOULD YOU MIND PULLING UP THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WITH THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL ? AND IF YOU CLICK ON IT AGAIN, IT ZOOMS IN A BIT. THERE WE GO, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT ALONG. RAISED WAY. THERE IS COMMERCIAL . UM UH, THE PARCEL THAT'S LOCATED, UM, CLOSER TO CANTER HIGHWAYS, SO JUST WEST OF THIS SITE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROADWAY THAT IS THE CENTRAL PARK PUY DE PROPERTY, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT WAS MARSELLA CAMPBELL OR AND SHE WENT AHEAD AND SHE REOPENED THAT P U D WITH YOU ALL A FEW MONTHS AGO. IF YOU REMEMBER THAT UM THIS SITE TO THE SOUTH IS AN A L F, UM IN REGARDS TO VACANT COMMERCIAL, THE SITE THAT MARCELA KAMLER HAS, UM IT IS VERY SPECIFIC IN REGARDS TO THE USES THAT IT'S

[02:45:07]

ALLOWED, BUT THAT SIDE AS THEY CAN, AND THEN THIS SIDE IS VACANT. UM THIS CURRENT 4.88 ACRE PARCEL. UM THERE ARE NOT THAT MANY VACANT COMMERCIAL SITES AS FAR AS I'M AWARE ALONG CENTRAL PARKWAY. UM IT APPEARS THAT CENTRAL PARKWAY IS LARGELY BUILT OUT OR CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU. OKAY? OKAY SO, UM, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? IF YOU PLEASE GIVE YOUR GREEN CARDS TO THE CLERK, AND THEN I'LL CALL YOU ALL UP ONE BY ONE. PLEASE TURN IN YOUR GREEK CARDS IN ADVANCE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHIEF. OKAY NUMBER ONE. ROBYN CARTWRIGHT. THANK YOU, ROBIN. I'D LIKE TO SAY FIRST TIME CALLER, LONGTIME LISTENER, BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT'S NOT THE CASE. UM SO I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THE INTERESTING JUST A POSITION OF THE COMPATIBILITY AND COMPLEMENTARY USES OF THE LAND WHEN SOMEBODY IS NEXT DOOR AND FOR IT, IT SEEMS THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE DEVELOPERS AND STAFF ARE ALL FOR IT. BUT WHEN SOMEBODY IS AGAINST IT WERE UP FIGHTING AN UPHILL BATTLE, WHICH I THINK IS VERY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HEAR BOTH SIDES OF IT.

WHEN PEOPLE ARE FOR AND AGAINST THE PROPERTY. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT CENTRAL PARKWAY LOSSES 196 APARTMENTS. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR OR AGAINST THE LAND USE CHANGE AT THIS MOMENT. I WANT TO POINT OUT THE FLAWS IN THIS PROCESS AND WHY THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO TAKE A STEP BACK. ON THE MAP THAT WAS PROVIDED THE SLIDE BEFORE THIS CENTRAL PARKWAY LOSS IS STILL NOTED AS OFFICE RESIDENTIAL. IT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING BUILT OUT, IN ADDITION TO WHAT WAS APPROVED FOR MARCELLA GAMBLERS PROJECT, THERE WAS ALSO THE ROUNDABOUT NOT INDICATED ON THE MAP. THERE WAS ALSO A SIDEWALK THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INCLUDED, BECAUSE SUPPOSEDLY PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE COULD WALK TO THE LARGEST EMPLOYER IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD BE MARTIN COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT. WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN SO AGAIN. IT IS A PROCESS THAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING AGAIN IN TOTALITY. I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR OR AGAINST THE LAND USE CHANGE, BUT WHAT I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IS THAT IF CENTRAL PARKWAY LOFTS . IF THIS HAD EXISTED AS RESIDENTIAL, YOU WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT CENTRAL PARKWAY LOST VERY DIFFERENTLY. YOU HAVE 100 AND 96 APARTMENTS THAT ARE RENTAL UNITS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE COMING ONLINE SHORTLY. THEY'RE GOING TO GREATLY IMPACT WHAT IS GOING TO BE PROPOSED AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THAT THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO LOOK AT AGAIN. TOTAL COMPATIBILITY. TOTALLY WHAT IS COMPLEMENTARY TO WHAT IS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA , AND I DO THINK THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT MR RICH SAID. COMMISSIONER RICH SAID THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A VISION, NOT JUST WHAT IS PROFITABLE FOR A DEVELOPER. BUT WHAT IS PROFITABLE FOR A COMMUNITY IN THE SENSE OF WHAT GIVES THE COMMUNITY PURPOSE AND WHAT PROVIDES SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN BENEFIT FROM. NOT JUST WHAT LINES SOMEBODY'S WALLET. THANK YOU, MR CARTWRIGHT . UM LINDA, RUN ON. BOLD I'M SORRY THAT DIFFERENT, LINDA? YES TO LENDERS. I HOPE I PRONOUNCED YOUR NAME. CORRECT CLOSE. GREAT ACTUALLY, UM, LOIS IS MY SISTER , BUT I'M WHEN I'M GOING TO TELL YOU IS I'M AN OWNER AT TOM TOWN PARK AS WELL AS SHE AND WHAT I'M EXPRESSING IS MY PERSONAL OPINION IS AND OWNER I REALIZED THE BOARD HAS HAS AGREED WITH THIS. I KNOW THEY'VE MET VERY DILIGENTLY. WITH THE PROJECT AND I AGREE WITH ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE HASHED OUT. HOWEVER WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK IS ALL THESE TRAFFIC STUDIES AND STUFF WITH THIS ALL DONE. BEFORE THE MASSIVE BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY BEING DONE ON CENTRAL PARKWAY. I MEAN, IT'S CRAZY, BUSY AS IT IS , THAT'S A BIG, CURVY ROAD. AND THE TRAFFIC IS HORRIBLE. SO I JUST LIKE TO ASK WHEN THAT INFORMATION KIND OF CAME INTO PLAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. LINDA K. RICHARDS. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. IT'S MY FIRST TIME SPEAKING, SINCE COMMISSIONER COLLINS AND COMMISSIONER RICH HAD BEEN ELECTED, SO CONGRATULATIONS AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD, UM I WAS NOT PLANNING ON SPEAKING TONIGHT, BUT I AM BECAUSE HERE WE SIT AGAIN WHERE A PIECE OF PROPERTY UM, HAS CHANGED HANDS MULTIPLE TIMES OVER MANY YEARS, AND IT HAS MOVED FROM ONE LAND USED TO ANOTHER LAND USE, AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING TO PUT IT TO ANOTHER LAND USE. UM IT SEEMS TO ME NOW THAT WE KIND OF LOOK AT LAND USES IS KIND OF A FLIPPANT THING. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT THE BIG GRAND SCHEME OF

[02:50:05]

THINGS ARE. UM I KNOW WHEN I LOOKED AT THE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY, AND I WAS LIKE, OH, I ALREADY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO SAY OH, WELL, IT WAS OUR THREE. WE JUST NEED TO BRING IT BACK TO OUR THREE. BUT THEN WE FORGET THAT AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY CAME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION AND SAID THIS SHOULD NOT BE OUR THREE. THIS SHOULD BE COMMERCIAL . AND THE COMMISSION SAID HMM.

YOU'RE RIGHT. IT SHOULD BE COMMERCIAL, AND IT BECAME COMMERCIAL. OH BUT SEE THAT DEVELOPER MADE A BAD CHOICE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN 15 YEARS AND HE HASN'T DEVELOPED IT AND HE IS SITTING THERE GOING OR HE'S PROBABLY SOLD IT. BUT HE OR SHE HAS BEEN SITTING THERE GOING.

OH, MY GOODNESS. THAT WAS A BAD BUSINESS DECISION. BUSINESS DECISION THAT THEY MADE. SO THEN THEY COME. THEY SAY, ALL RIGHT NOW LOOK WHAT WE CAN DO. WE CAN BUILD 60 TOWN HOUSES AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE MUCH MORE MONEY THAN WE EVER COULD DOING WHAT WE THOUGHT WE COULD DO 15 YEARS AGO. AND SO WE'RE KIND OF IN THIS, AND THAT'S WHY THIS DEVELOPMENT IN PROGRESS PAUSE IS SO IMPORTANT STOP TAKE A LOOK. SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. I SAT HERE AND FOUGHT THE LOFTS THAT WENT FROM I THINK IT WAS 80 TOWN HOUSES. 296 APARTMENTS IS WHAT IT WENT THROUGH. IT WENT FROM 80 TOWNHOUSES 296 APARTMENTS, SAME SAME LAND. SO MUCH MORE AND THEN WE SIT HERE AND I DIDN'T DID THE TRAFFIC STUDY EVEN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT FOR THESE 196 APARTMENTS , WHICH DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING MIND YOU THEY'RE GOING TO BE PARKING ON CENTRAL PARKWAY . THEY ALREADY HAVE TALKED ALL ABOUT THAT. YOU CAN GO LOOK AT IT AT ALL OF THIS, AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WAS THIS 23 YEARS AGO. I REALLY HOPE YOU GUYS LOOK AT YOUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND SAY, LET'S JUST STOP. PLEASE, LET'S STOP AT OUR CITY. LET'S LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON AND LET'S MAKE WHAT ARE THE RIGHT DECISIONS TO MAKE US IT'S STAY OUR QUAINT SEASIDE TOWN. THAT I KNOW EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU, INCLUDING YOU. MAYOR MCDONALD WANTS TO BE HERE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SEAN REED. THANK YOU, SEAN. HELLO MY NAME IS SEAN REED AND LET'S SEE. ALRIGHT I THINK MOST CITIZENS HAVE HAD A LOT OF PUSHBACK. WE HAVE TWO NEW ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MOST OF US KNOW WHY THEY WON. AND WHAT THEY'RE RUNNING FOR. UM I DO RECALL BECKY. YOU KNOW, SHE MENTIONED SHE WOULD NEVER AGAIN VOTE. FOR A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO MULTI FAMILY. UM, HOPEFULLY. ALWAYS STICK TO IT. I THINK IT'S GONNA HAVE WAY TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. UM AND HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS VOTE RIGHT? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

OKAY? LET'S SEE. LET'S SEE. DOES THE STAFF ARE APPLICANT WANT TO MAKE ANY FINAL COMMENTS? I'M CURIOUS WHERE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU SAID WE'RE HERE TO SPEAK FOR DOWN PARKER. HOW MANY PEOPLE MISS LIME GLAD WE HAVE FROM TOWN PARK. FORD NUMBERS HERE AND CHANGE CORNETT. UM THEY THEY HAVE A PROCESS BY DAY BEING TOM PARK NORTH AS A PROCESS BY WHICH THEY GO THROUGH COMMISSIONER COLLINS, WHERE THEY HAVE AN ATTORNEY THAT REPRESENTS THEM, AND THAT ATTORNEY HAS BEEN APPOINTED TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. UM SO THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO. BECAUSE YOU HAD MENTIONED THERE WAS MULTIPLE. YEAH, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

SO UM, I DON'T. I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS PERSONALLY. SO THE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THE GENTLEMAN WHO JUST SPOKE ACTUALLY WHAT HE SAID ABOUT ADDING TRAFFIC TO THE CENTRAL PARKWAY IS COMPLETELY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC THAT IS GENERATED BY A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD HAPPEN ON THIS PROPERTY IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. SOME 11,500 TRIPS. PLUS HIGHER THAN WHAT THIS PROJECT WOULD GENERATE. IF IT WERE AT 146 UNITS. HOWEVER AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT IS A COMPANION ITEM TO THIS PETITION THAT SHOWS A DENSITY THAT IS WAY LESS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, IT'S NOT EVEN ANYWHERE CLOSE TO 30 MINUTES TO THE ACRE. IT'S MUCH CLOSER TO THE 11.62 UNITS TO THE ACRE. THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER STRAIGHT ZONING. WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING FOR 12.3. SO THAT'S A THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. LAND USE RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S UNDER LAND USE AND IN SUCH A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE THAN THAN WHAT COULD BE BUILT THERE TODAY, AND THAT'S ASIDE FROM THE USES THAT TOWN PARK DOESN'T WANT THEIR, UH IT COULD BE ALL SORTS OF DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL USES. UM THE FACT IS , IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A COMPATIBLE LAND USE. OTHER DEVELOPERS MAY HAVE COME BEFORE WITH REALLY ONE BECAUSE IT WAS THE CHURCH, BUT

[02:55:04]

THEN IT WAS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER CAME BEFORE WITH THE PROJECT THAT HE THOUGHT FOR WHATEVER REASON, I WASN'T A PART OF THAT WOULD WORK HERE. IT DIDN'T WORK. YOU KNOW, THE REALITY IS, IS THAT WHETHER IT'S MARKET DRIVEN OR NOT, UM, THIS PROPERTY IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR COMMERCIAL AND USE, AND IT'S NOT WHAT THE NEIGHBORS ONE AND YOU KNOW, WE THINK THAT WE HAVE A GREAT PROJECT. I'D LIKE TO GET TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT THAT PROJECT TO YOU BECAUSE I THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE BENEFITS OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, YOU MAY HAVE SOME INDICATION OF, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO BUILD TO THE MAXIMUM NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE, BUT WE CAN GET GREAT PROJECTS AS A RESULT OF IT. OKAY THANK YOU. SO MOVE ON. DO WE HAVE A DO WE HAVE ANY EMOTIONS? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT BASED ON ALL THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE'VE GIVEN THAT THIS. I AM NUMBER WERE BY FOLLOWING THE SPEECH. ITEM NUMBER 17 24 86 THAT'S 2022 WITH REGARD TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT. FROM COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY. FOR THE 4.88 ACRE PARCEL IN 7 51 CENTRAL PARKWAY. THAT UM, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS, AS PROVIDED BASED ON THE STAFF ANALYSIS. AND WHAT, UM WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH REGARD TO ENSURING THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING ALL OF OUR COMPLAINT. AMENDMENT GUIDELINES. UM AND TO SHOW THAT IT HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS, OKAY? WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION. CAN I COMMENT? I KNOW IT'S NOT OUR DO. WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE MOTION. SECOND WE DO NOT HAVE A SECOND. OKAY YOU'RE FIGHTING A SECOND. IT SO WE HAVE. WE DO NOT HAVE A SECOND, SO MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. UH A FAIR, SO THANK YOU. I'M VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN, I GUESS, UH, WE REALLY DON'T NEED

[18. 751 SE CENTRAL PARKWAY - REZONING FROM COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (RPUD) (QUASI-JUDICIAL)(RC): ORDINANCE No. 2487-2022; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE REAL PROPERTY FROM COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT “CPUD” TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT “RPUD” FOR A 4.88- ACRE PARCEL, LOCATED AT 751 SE CENTRAL PARKWAY; SAID LAND BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED; ESTABLISHING THE SAILFISH CAY RPUD CONSISTING OF SIXTY (60) TOWNHOUSE UNITS; 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.]

THE NEXT ITEM, DO WE? THE NEXT ISLAND IS TECHNICALLY ZONING AND LAND USE CONTINUED BECAUSE IT OR YOU COULD DO IT CONTINGENT TO POND IT RECEIVING THAT LAND USE IT WOULD BE UP TO THE APPLICANT.

I'M I'M HERE AND I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO PRESENT THE PROJECT TONIGHT SO THAT YOU COULD SEE THE BENEFITS THAT I WAS SPEAKING OF IN THE EVENT THAT WE WOULD BRING THE PETITION BACK IF YOU WERE SO INCLINED TO APPROVE IT AT THAT TIME, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE GETTING OUT OF IT. UNFORTUNATELY THE CITY'S PROCESS WORKS NOW, UH, POST THE COSTCO DEBACLE IS THAT THESE PETITIONS HAVE TO BE SEPARATED OUT. OTHERWISE WE WOULD HAVE PRESENTED EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT. I WOULD MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY DECIDED TO REVISIT IT AND BRING IT BACK. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, OKAY. WE HAVE EMOTION. A SECOND TO TABLE. UM, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION TO TABLE? HEARING NONE. UM ALL IN FAVOR. HI. ANY OPPOSED. WHO SECONDED I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER CLARK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I KNOW YOU ALL WORKED VERY HARD ON THIS PROJECT. ERIN THANK YOU. SO MUCH FOR YOUR CALLING IN WHILE YOU'RE ILL, AND I HOPE YOU FEEL MUCH BETTER. THANKS TROY.

[19. REQUEST TO CONTINUE TO DATE UNCERTAIN - DOGSWORLD URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE (QUASI-JUDICIAL): RESOLUTION No. 73-2022; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, CONSIDERING A MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO JUSTIN PHILLIPS, (CONTRACT PURCHASER) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 400 SW 7TH STREET, CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.62 ACRES; TO ALLOW THE USE OF KENNELS FOR DOGSWORLD; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR A TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. OKAY SO WE JUST HAVE ONE LAST THING, WHICH IS A MOTION TO CONTINUE TO DATE UNCERTAIN FOR DOG WORLD. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE? CONTINUE NUMBER 19 RESOLUTION.

73 2022. WE HAVE A SECOND TIME MOTION TO CONTINUE. THE DOG WORLD. SECOND DOG. OKAY SO MOTION TO CONTINUE DOG WORLD, UH, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING NONE ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE, ANY OPPOSED?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Oct 10, 2022 Regular City Commission Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item