[00:00:04]
          MEETING OF THE CITY OF STUART ZONING AND
PROGRESS WORKSHOP, IF YOU PLEASE. MARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL
THE ROLL? 
          [ROLL CALL]
MAYOR MCDONALD HERE. VICE MAYOR BRUNER HERE,
COMMISSIONER CLARK HERE, COMMISSIONER COLLINS HERE,
COMMISSIONER RICH HERE, IF YOU PLEASE, JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE
REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. 
          ONE NATION UNDER GOD,
INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. OKAY, LET'S GET RIGHT INTO IT. 
          [1. FUTURE LAND USES]
WE'RE GOING TO DO START OFF WITH OUR FIRST
ITEM, WHICH IS FUTURE LAND USES. 
          JOLIE, YOU'RE THE ACTING MANAGER TODAY. 
          I GUESS MR. DIAS IS. MR. DIAS IS JOINING US ON ZOOM. 
          HE'LL BE DOING THE PRESENTATION. 
          I'M JUST. OKAY. AND IS HE DOING THE FUTURE
LAND USE PRESENTATION? YES, SIR. OKAY. MR. DIAS,
DAVE, HOW ARE YOU? I HOPE YOU'RE FEELING BETTER. YEAH,
I'M FEELING BETTER. 
          WHAT? I APOLOGIZE, I APOLOGIZE,
I CAN'T BE THERE. 
          MR., IF YOU COULD BRING THAT PRESENTATION UP. 
          IT IS, SIR. THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. YOU GO AHEAD AND PROCEED,
DAVE. THANK YOU. 
          SO AT THE PREVIOUS WORKSHOP,
THERE WERE A FEW ITEMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BRINGING BACK TO YOU FOR THIS WORKSHOP. 
          ONE OF THEM WAS AN EVALUATION OF OUR FUTURE
LAND USES. 
          AND WE'RE CURRENTLY AT WITH THOSE. 
          THE OTHER IS GOING TO BE ITEM NUMBER TWO ON
YOUR AGENDA, WHICH WE'LL GET TO HERE IN A LITTLE BIT. 
          SO WHEN WE SAT DOWN OR I SAT DOWN TO DO THIS
FUTURE LAND USE EVALUATION CAN YOU STILL HEAR ME? YES, SIR. OKAY. SO WHEN WE SAT DOWN TO DO
THIS FUTURE LAND USE EVALUATION I USED OUR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS TO DO IT WITH
AND USING THE LAND USE LAYER ALONG WITH OUR PARCEL LAYER. AND SO AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE
SLIDE UP THERE, AND IT'S ALSO IN YOUR AGENDA PACKETS. 
          THOSE ARE ALL OF OUR FUTURE LAND USES THAT WE
CURRENTLY HAVE IN, IN OUR CODE. GO TO NEXT SLIDE. 
          AND SO WHEN I STARTED DOING THE EVALUATION,
I WAS A BIT CONFUSED AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE THERE WERE OVER 12,000 PARCELS AND I KNEW
THAT WASN'T CORRECT. 
          BUT AFTER ELIMINATING OUR RIGHT OF WAYS,
OUR ROADS AND OUR PONDS, AND THEN ALSO DISCOVERING THAT THOSE PARCELS
INCLUDED OUR WATER UTILITY SERVICES THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND FILTERING THOSE
OUT. 
          I GOT DOWN TO THAT 9000 PARCELS THAT MR. BOGLIOLI ALWAYS TALKS ABOUT FOR OUR TAXABLE
PARCELS. 
          BUT OUR LAND PARCELS WERE STILL AT 3994. 
          AND SO THIS SLIDE KIND OF SHOWS YOU THE
EXAMPLE OF WHY THAT IS. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT,
THAT IS A IT'S A SINGLE MASTER PARCEL, WHICH IS A SINGULAR LAND USE. 
          BUT ON THE LEFT, ALL OF THOSE TOWNHOMES IN
THERE ARE ALL INDIVIDUAL PCNS AND THEREFORE INDIVIDUAL TAXABLE UNITS. 
          AND SO THAT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF PARCELS. 
          WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT OUR TAXABLE PARCELS OVER
WHAT OUR MASTER LAND PARCELS ARE AVAILABLE. 
          AND AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THE EVALUATION,
ANY PARCEL THAT I CAME ACROSS THAT WAS VACANT, IF I KNEW THAT IT HAD APPROVED
PROJECT ON IT AND THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS UNDERWAY, I ELIMINATED IT FROM THE VACANT
CATEGORY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING WAS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT ON IT. 
          IT DOESN'T LEAVE THE VACANT STATUS UNTIL IT
RECEIVES A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS A GRAPH OF ALL OF THE
LAND PARCELS. 
          TOTAL BY NUMBER. THAT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE
THERE. 
          YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE IT BETTER IN YOUR AGENDA
PACKET. I WON'T BELABOR THIS BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO EACH ONE OF THEM ONE BY ONE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. SO AS WE JUST GO THROUGH THIS,
I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH THIS PRETTY QUICKLY UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          SO WE BROKE DOWN EACH LAND USE THE FIRST
BEING COMMERCIAL. 
          AND I ALSO WANT TO JUST REITERATE REAL QUICK,
IF YOU SAW I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. 
          THE STATE STATUTE THAT WAS IN THE AGENDA
PACKET, THE STATE STATUTE TALKS ABOUT DOING THIS
EVALUATION AND BALANCING OF LAND USES. 
          AND IT MOST MORE RECENTLY,
IT'S KIND OF BECOME TABOO WHEN YOU DO A FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE. 
          PEOPLE KIND OF GO AGAINST THAT. 
          BUT IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS CONTEMPLATED
IN LAW. 
          IT'S WHY THERE'S A MECHANISM FOR DOING FUTURE
LAND USE CHANGES. 
          AND IT COMES WITH LOOKING AT YOUR TOTALITY OF
YOUR FUTURE LAND USES AND BALANCING THOSE LAND USES. SO FOR OUR COMMERCIAL LAND USE,
WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 378 PARCELS OR 925 ACRES. 
          37 OF THOSE PARCELS AND 138 ACRES ARE
CURRENTLY VACANT. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC THAT'S
ATTACHED TO EACH ONE OF THESE. 
          IT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS ALL OF THAT PARTICULAR
LAND USE, BECAUSE THE PICTURE JUST ISN'T BIG ENOUGH TO
DO THE ENTIRE CITY AND KIND OF SHOW YOU WHAT 
          [00:05:02]
IT'S REVEALING. BUT THE,
THE RED THAT'S LIT UP IN THAT PICTURE SHOWS WHAT PARCELS ARE COMMERCIAL AND THE BLUE
OUTLINE PARCELS KIND OF SHOW YOU WHICH ONES ARE ARE VACANT. AND SO IT,
LIKE I SAID, IT DOESN'T, IT'S JUST A GRAPHIC SLIDE. IT'S NOT THE
ACTUAL LIVE DATA. 
          SO YOU CAN'T MOVE IT AROUND OR ANYTHING. BUT
IT KIND OF GIVES YOU A GENERAL OVERLOOK OF WHERE THE PRIMARY PORTION OF THOSE THAT
PARTICULAR LAND USE IS AT. 
          NEXT SLIDE. CONSERVATION. 
          THERE'S 61 PARCELS, 423 ACRES,
AND THEY ALL BETTER BE VACANT. 
          NEXT SLIDE. THE DOWNTOWN HAS 432 PARCELS,
223 ACRES. 
          32 OF THOSE ARE VACANT AT 22 ACRES OF VACANT
PROPERTY IN DOWNTOWN. 
          NEXT SLIDE. THE EAST STEWART LAND USE. 
          THERE'S 264 PARCELS OR 56 ACRES. 
          82 OF THOSE ARE VACANT AT 16.86 ACRES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. THE INDUSTRIAL THERE'S 44
PARCELS, 103 ACRES. TWO PARCELS ARE VACANT AT 2.6
ACRES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. INSTITUTIONAL IS 40 PARCELS AT
198 ACRES. 
          THREE OF THOSE ARE VACANT AT 5.52 ACRES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. 
          THERE'S 2383 OR 755 ACRES. 
          48 OF THOSE ARE VACANT AT 15.69 ACRES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. MARINE, INDUSTRIAL. 
          THERE'S 12 PARCELS AT 18.5 ACRES,
AND THERE'S NO VACANCIES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT. 
          THERE ARE 13 PARCELS AT 96 ACRES. 
          THREE OF THOSE PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY VACANT
WITH FOUR ACRES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. FUTURE LAND USE OF OFFICE
RESIDENTIAL. 
          THERE'S 200 PARCELS, 140 ACRES. 
          FIVE OF THOSE PARCELS ARE VACANT AT 6.52
ACRES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. PUBLIC USE. 
          THERE'S 50 PARCELS AT 208 ACRES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. RECREATIONAL. 
          THERE'S 18 PARCELS AT 39. 
          AND WHILE THIS HAS A IT'S A PARTIAL DEVELOPED
UNDEVELOPED BECAUSE THEY ARE RECREATIONAL. 
          SO THEY'LL HAVE RESTROOM FACILITIES OR
PLAYGROUND FACILITIES ON THEM. NEXT SLIDE. 
          MULTIFAMILY. THERE'S 91 PARCELS TOTAL,
579 ACRES. 
          AND THERE'S ZERO PARCELS AND ACRES AVAILABLE. 
          NEXT SLIDE. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE FUTURE
LAND USE PRESENTATION OF IT. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BASICALLY WE
SHOULD BE DOING ON A REGULAR BASIS TO EVALUATE WHERE WE ARE IN OUR LAND USES AND
DETERMINE IF WHEN ANOTHER LAND USE CHANGE COMES BEFORE YOU, IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS
LEGITIMATE TO CHANGE, TO BALANCE OUR LAND USES. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. DIAS? OKAY. NO QUESTIONS. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. 
          [APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
CAN WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE
AGENDA? MOTION. SECOND. 
          OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER
COLLINS, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR BRUNNER. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA,
SAY AYE. AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. 
          [COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS]
ANY COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS? I HAD ONE COMMISSIONER. 
          SO LAST MEETING DURING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, I HAD BROUGHT UP ASKING TO AGENDA
DELIBERATION AND DISCUSSION ON A POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT,
BRINGING IN A LAWYER AS A THIRD CHARTER POSITION. I WANTED TO,
I REALIZED AFTER THAT MEETING WAS OVER LAST TIME I FORGOT TO ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY MOTION
IT. 
          SO I WANTED TO DO THAT,
BUT UNDER A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK, NOT AS A CHARTER POSITION. 
          AFTER REALIZING A LITTLE MORE UNDERSTANDING
THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY A BALLOT POSITION, BUT AS A FULL TIME HIRE. 
          I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS AND DELIBERATE WITH ALL
OF YOU POTENTIALLY DOING THAT IF THERE'S SOME OTHER SUPPORT EACH OF YOU. 
          SO I'D LIKE THE MOTION THERE. 
          OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. 
          IN THE AUDIENCE. OKAY. 
          MAKE SURE EVERYBODY SPEAKS AS MUCH AS THEY
CAN IN YOUR MIND. 
          SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS
TO HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND DISCUSSION ON HIRING A,
A ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY, FULL TIME ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY. YES. OKAY. 
          I JUST I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE TIME FOR
THAT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WITHOUT THE CITY MANAGER
HERE. 
          AND WE'RE HERE FOR A VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE
AND WE SHOULD STICK TO THAT AGENDA. 
          OKAY. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 
          ANY OTHER COMMISSION COMMENTS? ANYBODY ELSE? YES. HAPPY NEW YEAR. WELL,
I HAVE ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP. 
          FOUR YEARS AGO THERE WAS A NEWS STORY THAT
CAME OUT REGARDING THAT INVOLVED THE CITY OF 
          [00:10:07]
STUART INVOLVING A SERIES OF DEAD TORTOISES
THAT IT WAS ALLEGED THAT THE CITY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO PROTECT THESE TORTOISES THAT WERE
ALLEGEDLY KILLED ALONG THE HIGHWAY. 
          AND IT WAS THERE WAS ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST
THE CITY OF STUART, ACCUSATIONS MADE AGAINST A CANDIDATE FOR
STATE REP, WHICH IS NOW OUR STATE REP,
TOBY OVERDORF. 
          AND NOW, FOUR YEARS LATER,
WE COME TO FIND OUT THROUGH A SERIES OF ARTICLES, ONE IN VERY IN DEPTH,
ONE WRITTEN BY NPR. 
          THAT THAT THIS WAS PART OF A PATTERN BY A
POLITICAL OPERATIVE FIRM, I GUESS, OUT OF ALABAMA,
THAT WORKED AGAINST ENVIRONMENTAL CANDIDATES TO CREATE POLITICAL HIT JOBS. 
          AND IT WAS A THE NEWS REPORTER WAS FAKE,
WAS WAS ACTING AS A JUST A PAID HIT PIECE. 
          AND AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW,
WE, WE TOOK A LOT OF HEAT OVER THIS BECAUSE YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF OUTRAGE
BECAUSE OF THIS PROTECTED SPECIES BEING KILLED. THERE WAS NO TORTOISES KILLED,
NO EVIDENCE OF TORTOISES BEING KILLED. 
          THE STORY WAS FAKE. THE NEWS REPORTER WAS
FAKE. 
          SHE ACTUALLY WAS AFRAID ACCORDING TO THE
STORY AND NPR, SHE WAS SHE WAS A FREELANCE PRODUCER WITH
ABC, BUT SHE SHOWED UP WITH AN NBC. 
          HER HER MICROPHONE HAD NBC ON IT. 
          SO I THINK THAT THERE'S,
IT JUST GOES TO SHOW HOW MUCH, SADLY, HOW MUCH MISINFORMATION IS OUT THERE
THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT IT COMES ALONG. 
          BUT I KNOW OUR STAFF TOOK A LOT OF HEAT AT
THE TIME ABOUT IT, THAT THEY WEREN'T DOING THEIR JOBS AND THEY
HAD IN FACT, THEY WENT OUT AND THEY INVESTIGATED. 
          AND AND OF COURSE, THERE WAS PEOPLE THAT
DIDN'T BELIEVE. 
          AND THOSE ARTICLES WERE RECENTLY DREDGED UP. 
          AND AGAIN, THEY WERE FAKE. 
          AND THE CITY HAD DONE,
NOT ONLY DID THE CITY DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT FOR OUR END AS FAR AS THE APPROVAL OF THE
PROCESS, BUT ALSO IN THE INVESTIGATION. 
          AND I THINK THAT I WAS VERY PLEASED TO SEE
THIS ARTICLE COME OUT BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO IN THE NEW YORK POST AND THERE WAS A FEW OTHER
ARTICLES AROUND THE COUNTRY REGARDING IT. SO SO ANYWAYS, THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY AND JUST
BRING THAT UP. 
          SO ANY OTHER COMMISSION COMMENTS? I'LL MOVE ON TO COMMISSION COMMENTS BY THE
CITY MANAGER. 
          DAVE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I DO NOT, SIR. AS ACTING MANAGER,
YOU GOT ANYTHING? YOU'RE KEEPING YOUR MOUTH? YES,
SIR. 
          [2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDY AND INCLUSIONARY HOUSING]
OKAY, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE DISCUSSION AND
DELIBERATION PORTION OF THE MEETING. 
          OH, THERE'S ONE OTHER THING WE HAD DISCUSSED
AT THE LAST ABOUT THESE WORKSHOPS THAT WE'D HAVE A HARD CUT OFF TIME OF THREE HOURS. 
          IS THAT WHAT EVERYBODY STILL WANTS? YES, YES, YES. THANK YOU. 
          I'M SORRY. CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? SURE. OKAY. SO FIRST I WANT TO JUST THANK
ALMOST AT COMMISSIONER DAIS. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHY. FOR THE FOR THE
PRESENTATION WITH REGARD TO THE LAND USE. 
          I'VE BEEN ASKING ABOUT THAT FOR QUITE SOME
TIME WITH OUR PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION AS, AND I KNOW THAT MISS COOGLER IS HERE,
AND MR. DIAS, I KNOW THAT HE'S GOOD WITH THE WHAT DO
YOU CALL THAT? THE TECHNOLOGY, I GUESS THAT WE'VE PUT
TOGETHER THIS. 
          AND I THINK THAT INFORMATION IS GOING TO
DOVETAIL INTO WHAT WE DISCUSS, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSING. 
          BUT KNOWING THAT WE HAVE OUR LAND USE
INFORMATION AT HAND AND READY TO ACCESS AND READY TO ADD, SUBTRACT AND DIVIDE WHEN WE
HAVE LAND USE AMENDMENTS, KNOWING THAT WE CAN USE THIS UPDATED
INFORMATION TO ACCURATELY MEET OUR STATE STATUTES WHEN WE HAVE APPLICATIONS FOR LAND
USE AMENDMENTS. 
          I JUST WANT TO COMMEND MR. DIAS FOR LEADING THE EFFORT ON THAT AND
PUTTING IT TOGETHER. 
          AND I KNOW THAT HE WENT THROUGH THE
PRESENTATION REALLY QUICKLY, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE WE
HAD, AND I THINK YOU CAN REMEMBER THIS,
MR. MCDONALD, WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO GET ALL OF
THE PARCELS TOGETHER WITHIN THE CRA WITH REGARD TO TAXING, AND WE HAD SOME ISSUES,
AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, WE ALL FOUND OUR MISTAKES AND THEY WORKED AND
THEY SORTED SOME THINGS OUT AND THAT GOT US TO WHERE WE WERE IN TERMS OF WHAT FEES WOULD
BE ALLOCATED, WHERE AND HOW MUCH WAS FOR THE COUNTY,
HOW MUCH WAS FOR THE CITY. 
          SO IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THIS DONE AND WELL DONE
SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND MAKE ANY CHANGES THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH LAND USE OR
ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT'S HAPPENING. 
          AND I WAS ESPECIALLY I DON'T KNOW,
ENCOURAGED, 
          [00:15:01]
BUT I KNEW THE ANSWER. 
          BUT JUST SEEING THE NUMBER OF CONSERVATION
ACREAGE THAT WE HAVE AND WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH IT AND HOW WELL WE'VE KEPT UP WITH OUR
CONSERVATION AREAS AND KEEPING OUR CITY GREEN AND HOW WE STILL NEED TO CONTINUE TO KEEP OUR
CITY GREEN, EVEN WITH DEVELOPMENT COMING IN AND WITH
REDEVELOPMENT HAPPENING. 
          I THINK THAT PEOPLE NEED TO LOOK AGAIN AND
LOOK AT HOW MUCH CONSERVATION WE HAVE. 
          AND OF COURSE, IF THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
CONSERVATION IN THE FUTURE, THOSE WILL COME FORWARD WHETHER WE PURCHASE
OR THERE'S ANYTHING WITH EMINENT DOMAIN. 
          BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEE WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR
CITY. 
          AND I THANK YOU, MR. DIAS AND HIS TEAM FOR
DOING THAT. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STUDY, INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ITEM. 
          AND WHO'S MAKING THAT PRESENTATION? IT'S MORE OF A OF A, JUST A DISCUSSION IF YOU
WANT TO TO HAVE ONE. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT WE NOT PROCEED WITH
THIS. 
          SO THIS ITEM AGAIN WAS A RESULT FROM THE
PREVIOUS WORKSHOP, PARTICULARLY FROM PUBLIC COMMENT ON
AFFORDABILITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          AND THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THAT. 
          EXCUSE ME. THERE WAS A SUGGESTION THERE ABOUT
USING THE FLORIDA HOUSING COALITION, I BELIEVE IS THEIR NAME TO DO A STUDY FOR US. 
          AND THERE WAS A POSSIBLY IT COULD HAVE BEEN
FREE. 
          BUT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RESULTS THAT WE
GOT BACK, IT'S ABOUT A $50,000 STUDY. 
          STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE NOT DO THAT,
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF LAND THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE HOUSING
PROJECTS. 
          THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING LAW ABOUT THAT WAS
SOMETHING THAT I SAID I WOULD BRING BACK BECAUSE WE HAD, I HAD DISCUSSED AMONGST THE
COMMISSION AT THE LAST WORKSHOP ABOUT THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THE COMMISSION,
DIFFERENT ACTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN SINCE 2018 TO TRY TO BRING MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO THE CITY, BOTH WITH REQUESTING DEVELOPERS ADD THOSE
UNITS TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND BEING SHUT DOWN BY THE STATE, AND CHANGING OUR COMP PLAN
AND BEING SHUT DOWN BY THE STATE. 
          ALL THOSE EFFECTS THAT YOU ALL KNOW COME FROM
HOME RULE OVERREACH. 
          SO THAT INCLUSIONARY HOUSING WAS A STATE LAW
THAT WAS ENACTED AFTER WE HAD STARTED REQUESTING DEVELOPERS TO ADD THOSE AFFORDABLE
UNITS TO THEIR DEVELOPMENTS. 
          IT WAS, IT WAS DIFFICULT AT THE TIME WHEN THE
STATE LAW CAME OUT, AND IT'S STILL DIFFICULT TODAY. THERE ARE NOT
A LOT OF GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE ONE IN PLACE. 
          SO MUCH SO THAT YOU CAN SEE IN THE AGENDA
PACKET THAT THAT FLORIDA HOUSING COALITION GROUP ACTUALLY HELPS YOU TO WRITE ONE OF
THOSE ORDINANCES AS A PART OF THEIR PROCESS. 
          IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD AS TO,
IF YOU WANT TO PURSUE ANY OF THAT ANY FURTHER THAN WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE,
BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRING THOSE BACK AS OPTIONS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. DAVE. 
          BECKY. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO NOT MOVE FORWARD
WITH THE, THE REASONS WHY IS, YOU KNOW,
JUST THE PRICE OF LAND RIGHT NOW. 
          AND THAT'S NOT EVEN COUNTING SUPPLIES AND
BEING ON BACKORDER. 
          I THINK MAYBE THE THINGS THAT ARE SETTLED
DOWN, I HOPE THEY DO WITH OUR ECONOMY AND,
AND THE PRICES OF EVERYTHING AND WE CAN COME BACK AND BUILD SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REALLY
LIKE AND, AND PROBABLY A WHOLE LOT CHEAPER. 
          AND THAT'S WHY I CAN ASK A QUESTION. 
          I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU WOULD EXPAND ON
THAT WHEN YOU SAY WE BUILD. 
          WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TWO ACRE
PARCEL NORTH OF TOWN THAT WE WERE TRYING TO, OR YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT JUST PEOPLE IN
GENERAL BUILD IT? YEAH. AFFORDABLE? YEAH. 
          YES, MA'AM. THE I KNOW THAT THERE'S A COUPLE
PIECES OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY, AND I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE COULD BUY THEM OR
IF IT COULD BE A ANYWAY, I DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULARLY,
BUT I THINK IT CAN BE DONE, BUT I THINK THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT TIME AND I,
I, I'D PROBABLY BE THE LAST PERSON TO AGREE WITH
THAT SINCE I, I WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          I WANT TO MAKE SURE. BUT AGAIN,
IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH PROPERTY PRICES, PRIVATE PROPERTY. WHAT'S GOING ON? I THINK THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE NOW DO. 
          GIVE WAY TO SOME OF THAT. 
          AND I THINK MAYBE OUR SECOND DISCUSSION MIGHT
DO BRING COME INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT I KNOW THAT I HAD SOME INFORMATION FROM
SOMEONE IN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, AND I DON'T THINK I SHARED IT WITH THE CITY
MANAGER, BUT I WILL TRY TO SHARE THAT. 
          I THINK IT WAS MR. WILCOX UP IN SAINT LUCIE
COUNTY. 
          I SHARED SOME INFORMATION WITH ME AND THEY
HAVE THESE DEVELOPMENTS IN SAINT LUCIE 
          [00:20:04]
COUNTY, I THINK THE BLUE SKY AND SOME OTHER
THINGS. 
          SO I THINK THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS
SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE ONGOING. 
          BUT EVEN IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING
ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO INCLUSIONARY ZONING OR EVEN DOING A STUDY,
MAYBE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IS EITHER REVIVE. IF WE HAD DONE SOMETHING IN
THE PAST, OR AT LEAST CALL OUT SOME TYPE OF A. 
          THE CITY'S OWN LITTLE TASK FORCE. 
          I KNOW THE COUNTY HAS A TASK FORCE,
BUT EVEN TO DO THAT, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME PEOPLE WORKING AND
MEETING AND PLANNING, AND MAYBE THEY CAN FIND SOME DEVELOPERS AND
SOME THINGS. 
          I KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE PRIVATE COALITION
THAT MR. BLUNT AND OTHERS HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH,
BUT IF THE CITY I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY NEEDS ONE MORE TASK FORCE OR IF WE NEED TO
LEAVE IT UP TO PRIVATE HANDS TO DO THIS. 
          THIS WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WAS ASKED
DURING ELECTION TIME. 
          WHAT WOULD YOU DO ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS? AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE ANSWERED THAT THEY
WOULD WANT TO SEE THE MARKET WORK IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT IF WE IF IT NEEDS TO
BE THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO HAVE SOME IDEAS FLUSH THROUGH AND HAVE PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS
ANSWERED, THEN MAYBE A TASK FORCE WOULD BE A GOOD THING
AND NOT JUST SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO
THAT EFFECT OR IF WE NEED TO HAVE STAFF LOOK AT IT AGAIN AND COME BACK TO US. 
          BUT I KNOW THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT THE
INCLUSIONARY ZONING. 
          THEY DON'T WANT THE $50,000 STUDY. 
          BUT MAYBE HAVING GOOD AMBASSADORS WORKING IN
THE COMMUNITY AND COMING TO US WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS MIGHT BE A GOOD THING TO GET,
GET IT OFF THE GROUND. 
          SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION. 
          IF IT LIVES, IT LIVES. 
          IF IT DIES, IT DIES. THAT WE AT LEAST GET A
SMALL GROUP OF UP TO SEVEN PERSONS. 
          AND I KNOW WE HAVE THE LPA,
WE HAVE THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AND THEY CAN DO SOME THINGS, BUT I THINK AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IS SO SPECIAL THAT YOU NEED TO GIVE IT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT. 
          AND IF THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO THAT,
WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO HELP THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS IN THE COMMUNITY,
TO FIND A PLACE TO LIVE, OR IF THEY'RE A DEVELOPER COMING INTO THE
COMMUNITY. 
          AGAIN, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS MOSTLY SOMETIMES
MULTIFAMILY CAN BE SINGLE FAMILY. 
          BUT BECKY, THE ECONOMY IS A BIG ISSUE,
I UNDERSTAND. 
          AND WILL THEY BE MEETING FOR NAUGHT? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD
BE ABLE TO MEET AND WORK TOGETHER. 
          AND IT MAY NOT BE OFFICIAL,
BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT IF WE CAN SET UP AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE TO
CONTINUALLY ADVISE THE CITY ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING MATTERS AND MAYBE HAVE MR. MR. MORTAL. WELL, NO,
WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT FIRST. 
          OTHERWISE I WOULD GIVE YOU A ARE,
I'D ASK YOUR ADVICE ON EVEN SUGGESTING IT'S LEGAL. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE ANOTHER ADVISORY
BOARD. 
          YEAH. IT'D BE ANOTHER ADVISORY BOARD. 
          YOU'D HAVE TO DECIDE IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT
ANY FUNDS TO THEM. 
          IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO ASK THEM IF THEY WANT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR I MEAN, YOU NEED TO GIVE THEM A MISSION OR A
PARAMETER BECAUSE I THINK THAT EVERYBODY WOULD WOULD AGREE THAT IN A UTOPIA,
EVERYBODY HAS HOUSING. 
          SO FUNDAMENTALLY, THE BOARD,
I CAN IMAGINE, WOULD COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PROVIDING HOUSING FOR EVERYONE IS A GOOD
THING. 
          THE QUESTION WOULD BE THE PARAMETERS TO WHICH
THEY'RE FACING PROVIDING IT. 
          YOU KNOW AS I SAID HERE IN OUR TOWN,
THIS, THIS SMALL TOWN CITY THAT HAS WHAT, SIX? HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE? 6.6MI², SQUARE MILES. AND EVERYONE THINKS
WE'RE BIG MARTIN COUNTY HERE. 
          MARTIN COUNTY HAS 600 AND SOMETHING. 
          AND IF WE IF WE DID SOMETHING. 
          STUART. I WANTED TO BE IN OUR CITY. 
          SO FOR OUR CITY PEOPLE. 
          SO THAT MAKES A BIG PROBLEM. 
          I, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SECOND THAT FOR NOW,
I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK AND, AND GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT. 
          ALRIGHT, SO BECKY HAS CONTEMPLATED MY MOTION. 
          SHE'S NOT SECOND IN IT. 
          I SECOND THE MOTION. OKAY. 
          OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. DO WE
HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YEAH. I MEAN, I'M NOT FOR THE STUDY AT THIS
TIME. 
          CLEARLY THE COMMISSION IS NOT IN THE MOOD FOR
SERIOUSLY CONSIDERING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALTERNATIVES. AND THERE'S NO JUDGMENT THERE.
THAT'S JUST THE MOOD OF THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME. MR. RICH. YOU KNOW,
THAT'S JUST THE MOOD OF THE COMMISSION AT 
          [00:25:02]
THIS TIME. WE'VE SEEN THAT DEMONSTRATED
EARLIER AT THE END OF LAST YEAR. 
          BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE WE ALWAYS HAVE TO MAKE
EVERY EFFORT WE CAN TO PROVIDE TO SEEK OUT OPPORTUNITIES IF THEY EXIST. 
          I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY
DAUNTING TASK BECAUSE AS. 
          AS MR. DICE POINTED OUT,
WE HAVE ZERO ACREAGE MULTIFAMILY AVAILABLE. 
          WE HAVE THE PARCEL NORTH OF THE BRIDGE,
WHICH WE JUST PRETTY MUCH IS GONE. 
          THE PARCEL, THE SANITATION GARAGE. 
          THERE'S NOT THAT MANY OPTIONS,
BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE SHOULDN'T MAKE THE EFFORT TO LOOK SERIOUSLY AT WHAT CAN HAPPEN
OR WHAT SITUATION, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER BRUNNER,
YOU KNOW, IF THE IF THE ECONOMY CHANGES SUCH THAT YOU'RE MORE COMFORTABLE,
THAT WE CAN THEN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE US. 
          YEAH, TASK FORCE IS A GREAT IDEA. 
          TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE RESOURCES OF THE LPA
IS A VERY GOOD IDEA. 
          SO YEAH, I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO FLESH THIS
OUT AND GIVE THEM A SPECIFIC MANDATE. 
          JUMP IN. AND FIRST OF ALL,
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY SAID THOUGH. 
          AND THOUGH I AGREE WITH MR. DIAS AND THE. AND EVERYBODY REGARDING. 
          MAYBE NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO DO THE STUDY,
I KIND OF THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD. 
          AND THE REASON WHY IS TO GET AHEAD OF THINGS. 
          IF, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO NEED AN
INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE, AN ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE THAT'S REQUIRED
BY THE STATE INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE, THEN LET'S DO IT NOW. BECAUSE AS THE AS THE
WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY COMES, IF THEN WE GOT TO COME BACK AND DO A STUDY
AND THEN DO THE ORDINANCE AND YES, WE HAVE TO FIND $50,000. 
          WE HAVE TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT. 
          AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO. 
          THAT BEING SAID, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE VIRTUALLY NO NO LAND FOR MULTIFAMILY. WE HAVE VERY LITTLE EVEN
SINGLE FAMILY LAND. 
          WE GOT WE HAVE EVEN, I'LL CALL IT AN
ABUNDANCE OF COMMERCIAL LAND. 
          IT'S STILL ONLY 138 ACRES. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T WANT TO WILLY NILLY
TAKE THAT OUT OF COMMERCIAL AND PUT IT INTO. 
          BUT YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD. 
          WHAT WILL WE HAVE. HOW WOULD WE HAVE SUCCEED? WOULD WE HAVE FAILED IF WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR A TRUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AND WE COULDN'T DO IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE
ORDINANCE IN EFFECT. 
          AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO A STUDY. 
          SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF. 
          AND THEN SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE 6 OR 8 MONTHS
TO DO A STUDY AND THEN ANOTHER TWO MONTHS TO PASS THE ORDINANCE. AND SO EFFECTIVELY,
WE POTENTIALLY LOSE A YEAR. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY MY CONCERN NOW,
THAT BEING SAID, FROM AN AFFORDABILITY STANDPOINT,
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR TAXABLE VALUES OF OUR PROPERTIES, 50 APPROXIMATELY 50% OF OUR
PROPERTY OF OUR PROPERTIES ARE OUR ARE VALUED TO HAVE A TAXABLE VALUE OF LESS THAN
$200,000. 
          AND MORE THAN THAT. YEAH. 
          IT'S YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A HIGHER NUMBER. 
          IT'S PROBABLY IT'S A HIGHER NUMBER THAN THAT
MIGHT BE UNDER 100,000 OR 50%. 
          IS WHAT. AND SO, AND SO IT IS. 
          SO WE ARE, WE DO FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF THE
LOOKING AT THE CITY OVERALL, WE DO HAVE FROM BASED ON TAXABLE VALUES,
WHICH ARE A LITTLE BIT DECEIVING BECAUSE OF HOMESTEAD OF THE HOMESTEAD LAWS. 
          IN FACT, MY HOUSE PROBABLY BECAUSE I'VE HAD
IT SO LONG. 
          PROBABLY AFTER YOU LOOK AT THE TAXABLE VALUE
FALLS IN UNDER THAT. 
          BUT BUT THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THE ONE OF THE
METRICS THAT WE HAVE FOR EVALUATING IT. 
          BUT WE CERTAINLY ARE. WE CERTAINLY NEED TO
LOOK AT LOOK AT, AT EVERYTHING AS A WHOLE. 
          AND MAYBE THE STUDY WILL HELP US FLUSH OUT
SOME OF THAT INFORMATION. 
          MAY FIND OUT WE DON'T NEED TO DO AS MUCH AS
WE THINK WE DO. 
          OR WE, MAYBE WE NEED TO FLUSH OUT. 
          WE FIND OUT, BOY, WE HAVE A BIGGER NEED THAN
WE THOUGHT. 
          I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW WE'RE,
BUT CERTAINLY WE WOULD WANT TO BE LOOKING AT THIS AND BEING PREPARED FOR THE FUTURE. 
          AND I THINK KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD IS
NOT PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE. 
          COMMISSIONER COLLINS. SO FOR ME,
I'VE ECHOED THIS A FEW TIMES. 
          [00:30:02]
I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S THE CITY'S
RESPONSIBILITY TO BE IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SOME SMALLER SUBSET OF THE POPULATION. 
          YOU REALLY HAVE EITHER PRIVATE PARTY THAT
WANTS TO ENTER INTO ONE OF THESE HUD TYPE SUBSIDIZED THINGS, WHICH WE SHOULD
FACILITATE. 
          I TOTALLY AGREE IF AND I HAVE THIS IN MY
PRESENTATION AS WELL, BUT LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE,
MCGARRY OR TAYLOR PROPERTIES WHERE IT WOULD SERVE THE RESIDENTS DIRECTLY,
THOSE OWNERS WANT TO ENTER INTO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING WITHIN OUR
POWER AND RESOURCES TO HELP MAKE THAT EASIER FOR THEM. BUT MY CONCERN WHEN WE START
TALKING ABOUT TASKS FOR TASK FORCE AND THE CITY ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOMEHOW
PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT'S GOING TO COME WITH IT,
YOU KNOW, EITHER COSTING TAXPAYERS IN THE FORM OF LAND THAT'S PUBLIC LAND THAT SHOULD
BE USED FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT OR SOME OTHER MECHANISM WHERE FUNDING SHOULD BE USED FOR
ALL TAXPAYERS. 
          AND NOT JUST SO A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE CAN
HAVE CHEAPER RENT. 
          SO TO ME, SPENDING $50,000 ON THIS IS IS
WASTED MONEY BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE DOING THAT WHEN
OPPORTUNITIES DO COME UP, BECAUSE LAND OWNERS WANT TO ENTER INTO SOME
ARRANGEMENT LIKE THIS, LET'S GO ALL IN AS MUCH AS WE CAN FROM THE
STAFF STANDPOINT, HELP THEM ASSIST THEM,
WHICH I KNOW DAVE IS HAPPY TO DO, BUT I THINK WE'RE STARTING TO TAKE ON MORE
AND MORE OF THE ONUS AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS BEING THE CITY'S JOB TO DO THIS,
WHERE I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. 
          THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. AND I HEAR YOU. 
          I'M GLAD THAT I'M GLAD THAT YOU SAID THE WORD
OPPORTUNITY. 
          BECAUSE IF A TASK FORCE WERE TO BE FORMED,
IF WE WERE TO VOTE ON THAT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY'D BE
CHARGED WITH. 
          AND I DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE EXACT THINGS OF
WHAT THE TASK FORCE HOUSING TASK FORCE WOULD DO, BUT THAT WOULD BE SOME OF THE THINGS. 
          BUT I'LL JUST BRING UP ONE EXAMPLE. 
          LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE,
IF THERE WERE FUNDS AVAILABLE IN SECTION 202, WHICH BUILT VILLA ASSUMPTA IN THE COUNTY IN
JENSEN BEACH. 
          AND YES, COUNTY STAFF WENT AND GOT ALL THE
GRANTS AND SO ON. 
          AND WE HAVE STAFF AND MAYBE OUR STAFF CAN
WORK AND GET ALL THE GRANTS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS, WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING FOR SENIORS OR
SOMETHING THAT'S A TURNKEY PROGRAM WITH A DEVELOPER WHO'S WORKING ON SOMETHING AND
GETTING FUNDING SOURCES FROM OTHER PLACES. 
          THIS IS SIMPLY JUST A TASK FORCE. 
          AND MAYBE IF THE TASK FORCE GOES INTO PLACE,
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY'LL COME BACK TO US WITH IN A LITTLE WHILE IS YOU DO NEED TO
DO A FULL HOUSING STUDY. 
          YOU DO NEED TO GET THIS DONE. 
          YES, WE MAY NOT SHOW THE LAND,
BUT MAYBE SOME COMMERCIAL COULD BE CHANGED TO RESIDENTIAL. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE OUR ISSUES
ON WHAT WE CHANGE AND HOW WE CHANGE LAND USES, BUT THAT'S ALL IN THE PROCESS OF
WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE EVEN WANTING TO HAVE MORE PEOPLE LIVE IN STUART,
OR HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN STUART WHO ARE NOT ABLE TO OR ARE CURRENTLY HERE,
BUT THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO FIND HOUSING TO MOVE UP INTO DIFFERENT STRATA THAT WE HAVE A GOOD, REASONABLE STRATA WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME IN
AND MAYBE START AT A LOWER LEVEL RENTAL AND MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE. WHATEVER IT IS,
WE WOULD KNOW FROM THAT TEAM HOW THEY'RE HELPING TO SHOW AND ADVISE AND SPEAK TO THE
LOCALS WHO REALLY NEED HELP AND WHO NEED TO UNDERSTAND. THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE I KNOW
THAT MADELINE AND MR.. 
          OR FORMER COMMISSIONER MR. BLUNT. THEY HAVE MET AND KNOWN A LOT OF
INFORMATION, WHICH WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT OUR PLANNING
DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE. 
          BUT DO WE HAVE THAT IN A LITTLE CACHE WHERE
WE CAN SAY, WE HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION? NO, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THAT. 
          AND I THINK THE CITY. I KNOW THAT YOU'RE
SAYING, MR. COLLINS SAID. I DON'T THINK THE CITY IS
GOING TO GO OUT TOMORROW MORNING AND BUILD A WHOLE BUNCH OF HOUSING. 
          OR EVEN IN FIVE YEARS OR TEN YEARS. 
          BUT IT'S THE IDEA THAT WE ARE THERE AND WE
CAN DO SOMETHING TO MOVE THINGS FORWARD. 
          PUBLIC HOUSING. WE HAVE TWO CONES OF PUBLIC
HOUSING IN THE WOODLAWN AREA, WHICH IS SOME PEOPLE CALL IT THE CREEK
DISTRICT AREA IN THERE ARE TWO PUBLIC HOUSES. 
          WELL, THERE'S LIKE FIVE PUBLIC HOUSING
BUILDINGS IN THAT AREA. 
          WHEN WE HAVE A TASK FORCE THAT COULD POSSIBLY
WORK WITH THE PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY AND SAY, WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR THE FUTURE FOR
THESE BUILDINGS? WHAT HAPPENS IF WHAT HAPPENS? SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, AND WE NEED TO HAVE THAT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE. 
          AND I THINK THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE ASSIGNED TO
DO THAT AND TO AND HELP US WILL HELP US WORK 
          [00:35:02]
WITH IT. AND IT MAKES US BE BETTER DECISION
MAKERS. 
          SO ANYHOW, THEIR MOTION IS THERE FOR MR. MAYOR COMMISSIONER CLARK. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU, MR. MAYOR. 
          YES. YES. SORRY. AS IT RELATES TO THE TASK
FORCE, I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY WHAT COMMISSIONER
CLARK IS SAYING. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE HOUSING COALITION THAT MEETS AT
OUR FACILITY HAS ONE OF OUR STAFF MEMBERS ON THEIR BOARD IS MADE UP OF MANY PROFESSIONALS. 
          YOU KNOW, TOM LUCIDO,
CRAIG BUCHANAN, THERE ARE A BUNCH OF PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT
ARENA THAT SIT ON THAT, AND THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK ALREADY IN
THIS AND HAVE PUT FORWARD MANY DIFFERENT WAYS OR AVENUES TO GO WITH THIS,
AND ARE HAVING AS MUCH DIFFICULTY AS WE ARE WITH COMING UP WITH AN OUTCOME. 
          I KNOW THEY'RE WORKING ON SOMETHING NEW RIGHT
NOW AND HOPEFULLY THAT'LL WORK OUT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT US PUTTING TOGETHER
ANOTHER FIVE PERSON TASK FORCE IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE STARTING FROM
SCRATCH. WE SHOULD BE MORE ENGAGING WITH THEM. WELL, CAN WE USE THEM AND OFFICIALLY
NAME THEM SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THEIR INFORMATION OFFICIALLY? I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN,
THERE ARE THEY ARE THEY ARE OFFICIALLY NAMED THEIR 501. THEY, YOU KNOW,
THEY'RE THEY'RE AN ACTIVE ORGANIZATION. 
          ALL RIGHT. THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR THAT. 
          THEY'RE TRYING EVERYTHING THEY CAN. I HOPE
THAT WE DO OUR BEST TO TAKE THEIR INFORMATION. I HAVE A SUGGESTION. 
          OKAY. MAYBE WE COULD REACH OUT TO THE TASK
FORCE. 
          AND I KNOW THAT MR. BLUNT IS HERE AND SEE IF
THEY WOULD WANT TO PUT TOGETHER A A REPORT OF WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND MAKE A PRESENTATION TO
THE CITY IN LIEU OF US DOING A TASK FORCE. 
          AND THEN IF IF WE DECIDE THAT THAT'S NOT
ENOUGH INFORMATION, THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND REVISIT THIS. 
          RIGHT. HOW'S THAT SOUND TO YOU? I'M FINE. AND I'LL PROBABLY WITHDRAW AND ASK. 
          MR.. MR.. MR.. MR.. RICH,
I USE BOTH OF YOUR NAMES. 
          BUT IN THE MEANTIME, LIKE I SAID,
WE HAVE PUBLIC HOUSING, WHICH IS A HUGE PART OF EAST STEWART. 
          IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THAT AREA AND IT'S
NOT GOING WHERE WE SEE PROGRESS HAPPENING, WE NEED TO LOOK AT FUTURE AREAS. 
          WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE. 
          WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING. 
          I THINK THAT'S HOW WE KEEP OUR CITY ALIVE AND
VIBRANT. 
          AND I AM GLAD THAT THERE ARE FOLKS WHO'VE
TAKEN THIS ON, ON A PRIVATE LEVEL, AND MAYBE WE CAN HEAR
FROM THEM. 
          MAYBE THEY'LL TELL US THAT WE WISH WE HAD
MORE HELP OR SUPPORT, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A STAFF MEMBER THERE,
BUT MAYBE THAT COULD BE THAT ADDITIONAL 50,000. IF WE COULD WORK WITH A GRANT OR
STUDY TO HELP THEM MOVE THINGS FORWARD. 
          BUT THE MAIN THING IS WHAT'S IN OUR LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE RIGHT NOW. 
          HOW WE CAN HELP DEVELOPERS,
HOW WE CAN HELP HOMEOWNERS TO KEEP AND MAINTAIN WHAT THEY HAVE AND TO PROVIDE AND
KEEP PROPER STABLE HOUSING WITHIN OUR CITY. 
          OF STUART COMMISSIONER,
I HAVE I HAVE TWO COMMENTS. 
          FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD NOT WANT TO SPEND MONEY
ON A STUDY PRIOR TO THE END OF THIS UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE SESSION. THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF
CITIES JUST HAS TO BE TERRIFIED ABOUT WHAT THEY THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN AS REGARDS OUR
ABILITY TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD REALLY PROBABLY
BE A CONSIDERATION. 
          I THINK COMMISSIONER COLLINS COMMENTS BRING
UP A POINT, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET A LITTLE TOO IN THE
WEEDS. 
          MAYBE WHAT WE CAN DO IS SAY WHAT WE WOULD,
YOU KNOW, WHAT IS OUR POLICY TOWARDS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. 
          HE DOESN'T WANT ANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
THAT'S NOT OKAY. 
          HE DOESN'T THINK WE SHOULD CARRY A PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROVIDING. 
          SO MAYBE WE CAN SAY TO THIS GROUP THAT
EXISTS, HERE'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE. 
          YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION WHAT OUR
POLICY WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS. 
          AND MAYBE THAT'S THE MOST WE CAN BE MOST
HELPFUL IN THAT WAY AT THIS POINT. 
          OKAY. I'LL ALLOW THE CHAIRMAN TO DO HIS JOB. 
          I'M GOING TO BASED ON THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENT, I'M GOING TO WITHDRAW FOR RIGHT NOW. 
          WILL YOU WITHDRAW? YES,
I WILL, AND THEN WE'LL YOU'LL ASK FOR THE FOR THIS PRIVATE GROUP TO BRING A PRESENTATION. 
          AND I'LL REACH OUT TO MR. BLUNT MYSELF. OKAY. HE'S NOT HEARING US RIGHT
NOW. 
          I HEAR YOU. BUT ANYBODY ELSE HEAR ON THAT? AND I, AND I WAS THINKING THAT THE OTHER
THING I WAS THINKING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS IS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT THE GOAL
IS FOR THE CITY OF STUART TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT I DO KNOW FROM FROM
DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND TRYING TO 
          [00:40:02]
ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES. 
          WE DO HAVE TO SET THE TABLE TO MAKE FOR IT TO
HAPPEN. 
          AND BY THAT I MEAN WE HAVE TO CREATE THE
RIGHT ENVIRONMENT. 
          AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN
AND SHOULD DO ON A CASE BY CASE, WHETHER IT'S SOME INFRASTRUCTURE OR WHETHER
IT'S MAYBE SOME WATER SEWER LINES, FOR EXAMPLE. MAYBE WORKING SOMETHING WITH
IMPACT FEES. 
          THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN DO THAT,
ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE CRA. 
          WITH THE CRA, WE HAVE,
WE HAVE EVEN MORE LATITUDE BECAUSE WE HAVE CRA FUNDS THAT CAN BE USED FOR DIFFERENT
THINGS. 
          SO, SO I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT I THINK THAT
WHAT HAPPENS IS IT SOUNDS LIKE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, IT'S TALKING ABOUT THAT
WE'RE LOOKING AT BECOMING THE HOUSING PROVIDER AND THAT IS NOT THE OBJECTIVE. 
          OUR OBJECTIVE IS TO CREATE THE ENVIRONMENT
THAT SOMEONE WHO IS A THAT IS WORKING ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND I'M NOT TALKING
NECESSARILY TALKING ABOUT LIKE LOW INCOME OR SUBSIDIZED. I'M TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING BECAUSE THERE ARE PROJECTS LIKE HUD PROJECTS LIKE THE CROSSINGS,
WHICH ARE, WHICH ARE YOUR LOWER INCOME, WHICH ARE, WHICH ARE NEEDED AS WELL. 
          BUT THERE'S ALSO THE AFFORDABLE AS FOR THE
AVERAGE PERSON, JUST THAT'S WORKING, THE PERSON THAT'S
WORKING AT THE COFFEE SHOP OR THE, OR THE RESTAURANT OR ALL OF THE SERVICE
WORKERS THAT WE HAVE OF I'VE BEEN TALKING TO SOME RESTAURANT OWNERS AND THEY'RE SAYING
THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE STARTING TO DRIVE IN FROM OKEECHOBEE BECAUSE THEY'RE MOVING TO
OKEECHOBEE AND THINK IF YOU'RE A RESTAURANT WORKER AND YOU'RE LIVING AND YOU'RE WORKING
AT WHATEVER WAGE, EVEN IF IT'S YOU'RE MAKING $35,000 A YEAR AS
A SERVER AT A RESTAURANT, AND YOU'RE DRIVING IN FROM FORT PIERCE. 
          WHAT'S THAT? OKEECHOBEE PEOPLE ARE DRIVING IN
FROM OKEECHOBEE. 
          PEOPLE ARE MOVING OUT TO OKEECHOBEE BECAUSE
IT'S CHEAPER. PEOPLE ARE MOVING TO FORT PIERCE. YOU'RE DRIVING IN 30 MINUTES,
30, 45 MINUTES TO WORK FOR A JOB THAT'S MAKING 30 OR $35,000 A YEAR. 
          WHAT YOU'RE SPENDING IS ACTUALLY ON GAS IS
ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN YOUR RENT. 
          SO SO IT IS, AND, AND IT IS A CHALLENGE TO,
FOR US. 
          AND I THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO HAVE OUR DUCKS
IN A ROW FOR WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY COMES. 
          BECAUSE, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY,
I HAVEN'T SEEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP IN A TRUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT,
BUT SOMEDAY 1ST MAY COME. 
          COMMISSIONER. COUNCIL. SO MY QUESTION WOULD
BE, AND I ACTUALLY HAVE THIS IN MY PRESENTATION, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE PARCELS
OF THE HOUSING STOCK WITHIN THE CITY SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THAT'S A GOOD POLICY DECISION. 
          AMORPHIC THING THAT'S,
YOU KNOW, IT'S A MOVING TARGET. IT'S HARD TO DEFINE. AND IT'S THIS NEVER ENDING WELL OF
TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO SOLVE THIS. 
          AND WE END UP CHANGING OUR LAND USE,
CHANGING OUR ZONING, AND FRUSTRATING A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE
HERE BECAUSE THEY DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GETTING APPROVED. AND ME SITTING IN THE SEAT IS
EVIDENCE OF THAT. 
          SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A REAL
CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING TO AIM AT OR
SAY WE HAVE ENOUGH, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST SORT OF A NEVER
ENDING GOALPOST THAT NEEDS TO BE A MATURE PART OF THE CONVERSATION OR THERE'S NO
OPPORTUNITY. 
          WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT IT? THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO WHEN WE START
GETTING INTO USING. 
          THAT'S THE, THE AND THE CHALLENGE WHAT I
MENTIONED ABOUT THE TAXABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, I CAN I KNOW THAT WHAT MY
HOME IS ASSESSED AT BECAUSE I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 24 YEARS AND BECAUSE THE HOMESTEAD. 
          IT IS. AND THEN YOU TAKE OFF THE $50,000
HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND I THINK MINE ASSESSED IS LIKE 140 OR 150, AND I KNOW IT WOULD SELL
FOR CONSIDERABLY MORE THAN THAT. 
          AND SO WHAT? AND I'M PROBABLY COMPLETELY
WRONG ABOUT THOSE NUMBERS, AND I'M GOING TO TELL MY WIFE THAT TONIGHT,
AND SHE'S GOING TO TELL ME HOW WRONG I WAS. 
          BUT SO WHAT'S THAT PROPERTY APPRAISER AND
UPDATE IT. 
          YEAH. BUT THE BUT NO,
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE THING. 
          SO THERE ARE, FOR EXAMPLE,
OVER AT CEDAR POINT, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS A SLEW OF CONDOS THAT
WERE, THAT WERE OWNED EITHER PRIOR TO THE CRASH OR
BOUGHT RIGHT AFTER THE CRASH. 
          THERE WAS THAT WE, WHEN IN 2014,
WHEN WE DID THE FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE, I WENT THROUGH AND I LOOKED AT THE TAX
RECORDS FOR EVERY CONDO IN VILLAGE EIGHT AT CEDAR POINT BECAUSE THAT'S THE VILLAGE THAT'S
IN THE CITY OF STUART. AND THERE WAS, 
          [00:45:05]
I THINK, ONE ASSESSED AT LESS THAN 25000. 
          SO WITH THEIR WITH THEIR HOMESTEAD,
THEY PAID ZERO AD VALOREM. 
          THERE WAS THERE WAS ONE THAT ASSESSMENT WAS
SO CLOSE TO 25000 THAT THEY PAID IN THEIR CITY TAX WAS $3. AND SO I,
I, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING. WELL, I'M GETTING THERE. I'M GETTING
THERE IS BUT NOW THOSE HOMES ARE SELLING FOR 150 TO 200 AND SO AND SO NOW SO WE CAN'T
REALLY USE THAT US THAT ASSESSED VALUE AS WHAT THE ARE BECAUSE
BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S SAYING THEY'RE NOT REALLY AFFORDABLE EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE ON OUR ROLLS,
RIGHT? YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. RIGHT. AND
SO WE NEED AN INVENTORY OF WHAT IS TRULY AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE
ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE IDEA OF WHAT, LET'S ASSUME WE HAD AN INVENTORY OF THE EXACT
VALUE AND THE EXACT PRICE EVERYONE WAS GOING TO PAY. WOULD THE GOAL OF THE COMMISSION BE
THAT WE WANT 10% OF OUR MARKET TO BE A STRUCTURED MARKET THAT CAN'T GO UP IN VALUE,
BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP THAT AS AN AFFORDABLE NUMBER. DO WE WANT IT TO BE 25% OF THE CITY
OF STUART? DO WE WANT IT TO BE 25% OF MARTIN COUNTY? AND THEREFORE, STUART MAKES UP,
YOU KNOW, 10% OF THAT. 
          SO WE NEED TWO STUART'S OR I MEAN,
BECAUSE REALLY THE ISSUE IS WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TREASURE COAST NEEDS TO BE AFFORDABLE
STUART GOING TO SOLVE MARTIN COUNTY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROBLEM. BECAUSE IF IT'S
100% OF STUART THAT NEEDS TO BE AFFORDABLE, THEN IF YOU DON'T DO THAT. 
          DID YOU DO ANYTHING? IT'S IT'S PROBLEMATIC. 
          OR IS IT? IF IT'S 10% OF STUART THAT NEEDS TO
BE AFFORDABLE, AND THEN YOU TASK SOMEBODY WITH THE JOB OF
IDENTIFYING THE TRUE VALUES, AND IT COMES OUT THAT 10% OF STUART FALLS IN
THE CATEGORY. 
          DOES THAT MEAN YOU'VE PROVIDED AFFORDABLE. DO
YOU WANT 10% MORE? I MEAN, IT'S IT IS A MOVING TARGET. YOU'RE RIGHT. IT IS A MOVING
TARGET. 
          AND THAT'S I THINK THAT'S THE THE PURPOSE OF
THIS DISCUSSION. 
          BUT WE HAVE NO TARGET NOW. 
          RIGHT. AND WE SHOULD AT LEAST WE NEED A
BASELINE. 
          WE NEED A BASELINE. WE NEED A NEED. 
          AND THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I GUESS WHAT I'M
GETTING AT IS WE NEED A BASELINE. 
          AND I TOOK A LITTLE WHILE TO GET THERE. BUT,
YOU KNOW, SO BUT YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK,
HEY, WHY DOES THE CITY NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
GOLDEN GATE IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE CITY. 
          WHY DOESN'T, YOU KNOW,
IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A, A BOUTTE A TOLL BOOTH AT THAT USED TO USED TO
BE CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          RIGHT. AND THAT'S NOT ANY MORE EXPENSIVE
RESOURCE. THEY'RE MORE EXPENSIVE. YEAH. 
          SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, SO WE'LL MOVE ON. 
          [3. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS ARISING FROM RESOLUTION No. 93-2022 ADDRESSING SECTION 2.07.00(I), DENSITY AND PARKING CALCULATION WITHIN AN URBAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND POLICY 1.A7.2 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.]
SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION NUMBER THREE. 
          HE'S CONTACTING MR. BLOUNT. 
          OKAY. YEAH. I'LL GET WITH MR. BLUNT. HOPEFULLY HE'LL STICK AROUND. 
          I'LL BRING IT UP AGAIN IF WE NEED TO. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO OKAY, SO HOLD ON FOR ONE
SECOND. 
          SO. OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO START OFF ONE
SECOND. 
          CHRIS, THIS IS JODY'S ITEM. 
          THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS PRESENTED BY PREPARED BY
JODY. 
          ARE YOU JUST OR IS THIS JUST KRISTA? ARE YOU DOING YOU'RE DOING THE WHOLE THIS IS
ME. AND THEN IT'S IT'S. JODY. 
          HOLD ON, MR. MAYOR. YES. 
          JUST AS AN INTRODUCTION. 
          SO THIS ITEM IS A RESULT OF WHAT THE STAFF
FEELS WAS A CONSENSUS FROM THE LAST ZIP MEETING. AS IT RELATES TO THE HALF DENSITY
UNITS, WE DID NOT HEAR ANY FEEDBACK ON THE OVERALL
PUD AND CITYWIDE DENSITY AT THE LAST MEETING. 
          SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS ITEM AS IT RELATES
TO THAT. 
          MR. COLLINS? I'M SORRY. 
          COMMISSIONER COLLINS HAS SOME POINTS THAT HE
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE WITH SOME VISUAL AIDS. 
          IT WAS IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET,
BUT I UNDERSTAND HE HASN'T UPDATED PRESENTATION, THAT HE HAD SOME TWEAKS OR
SOMETHING TO THE ORIGINAL THAT HE'S NOW UPLOADED INTO THE SYSTEM FOR Y'ALL,
FOR YOUR, FOR YOUR VIEWING VIEWING. AND THEN AFTER THAT
MISS KUGLER WILL GO INTO THE CHANGES AND THE CODE AND THE COMP PLAN AS IT RELATED TO WHAT
WE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE HALF DENSITY UNITS. 
          OKAY, GREAT. SO YOU'LL SEE SOME MORE VISUALS. 
          I WAS A LITTLE HEAVY ON THE PRESENTATION YOU
HAVE WITH COMP PLAN POINTS. 
          SO THIS WILL BE A LITTLE MORE VISUAL HEAVY. 
          AND I'VE ALSO INCLUDED SOME COMMENTS FROM
RESIDENTS AS WELL, BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR LETTING ME DO
THIS PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. I PUT A LOT OF
ENERGY INTO IT OVER THE HOLIDAYS TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME SOLUTIONS GOING FORWARD
THAT WE CAN ALL FEEL GOOD ABOUT. 
          I'M CALLING THESE THREE SUGGESTIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESPONSIBLE GROWTH PLAN. 
          SO. MY GOAL IS TO, IN THIS ZONING AND
PROGRESS, 
          [00:50:04]
NOT JUST HAVE SIX MONTHS OFF,
BUT ACTUALLY GET SOMETHING ACCOMPLISHED THAT'S MEANINGFUL, SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ALL
HAVE A PIECE OF THAT WE CAN ALL DISCUSS AT THE END OF THIS, NOT JUST ME SORT OF IMPOSING
MY MY VISION ON ALL OF YOU, BUT I'VE REALLY TRIED TO COME UP WITH WELL
THOUGHT OUT SOLUTIONS THAT, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE MAKE SENSE. 
          AND I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL SUPPORT AS WELL. 
          PART OF THIS ZONING AND PROGRESS AND THIS
PRESENTATION IS TO SIGNAL TO DEVELOPERS A NEW DIRECTION FOR A NEW COMMISSION. 
          BIG PART OF WHAT COMES IN IS WHAT THEY
BELIEVE WE WANT. 
          SO, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY,
BECAUSE WE'RE ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, WE REPRESENT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE. 
          WE ARE THEIR PROXY WHILE THEY'RE WORKING AND
BUSY TRYING TO SUPPORT THEIR FAMILIES. 
          SO I WANT THEM TO KNOW THAT WE'RE ALL
LISTENING. 
          SO I ASKED THEM IN A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE. 
          RIGHT. OPEN ENDEDLY ASKED THE QUESTION WITH A
FEW COMMENTS, WORDS, PHRASES, EVEN PHOTOS. 
          WHAT DO YOU THINK BEST DESCRIBES STUART? WHAT MAKES IT SPECIAL AND WHAT KIND OF
DEVELOPMENT, WHAT LOOK? WHAT FEEL DO YOU THINK BEST CHARACTERIZES IT? I HAVE OMITTED PEOPLE'S NAMES JUST FOR
PRIVACY, BUT I'VE INCLUDED THE LIKE SO YOU CAN GET A
SENSE. 
          AND I WANT TO SAY BEFORE I GO INTO THESE,
MY. 
          MY GOAL IS NOT TO BEAT US UP. 
          OKAY, MY GOAL IS NOT TO BE NEGATIVE,
BUT LAST MEETING, THE INTENSITY OF WHAT I WAS HEARING FROM
PUBLIC COMMENT DID NOT REFLECT WHAT I HEARD GOING DOOR TO DOOR. SO I WANTED TO BRING IN
SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS INTO THIS MEETING THAT REFLECTED THOSE CONVERSATIONS AS WELL. 
          LAST TIME WAS VERY HEAVY ON AFFORDABLE
HOUSING. 
          THAT WAS VERY LOUD. BUT THIS IS ALSO A BIG
PIECE OF WHAT I HEARD OVERWHELMINGLY. 
          SO I WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU GUYS
BECAUSE I KNOW YOU CARE BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS. SO WAY TOO MUCH BUILDING
AND THERE'S NOT A TON OF THESE. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO HAMMER YOU. BUT AGAIN,
I INCLUDED LIKE SO YOU GET A SENSE OF THE SENTIMENT. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE NICE. 
          KEEPING IT FROM BECOMING NORTH FORT
LAUDERDALE SHOULD BE TOP PRIORITY. 
          SMALL TOWN, I FEAR THAT'S GONE FAR LESS
DEVELOPMENT. 
          OVERDOING IT BIG TIME. 
          USED TO BE ALMOST NO CRIME AND MURDERS. 
          BUT WHY HAVE WE GONE THE WRONG DIRECTION WITH
THIS LATELY. I LOVE THE WATER VIEWS, UNIQUE SMALL BUSINESS,
LACK OF POLLUTION. 
          I DON'T LIKE THE NEGATIVE ELEMENTS. 
          TOO MUCH TRAFFIC AND BESIDES LOSING THE SMALL
TOWN FEEL, I HEARD THIS REPEATEDLY AND IT WAS SHARED IN
MOST OF THESE 150 COMMENTS THAT CAME IN FROM ME ASKING THIS OPEN ENDED QUESTION. 
          SURE, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          VICE MAYOR, DO YOU WANT TO ASK A QUESTION? I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THIS. 
          IS THIS FACEBOOK? YES. 
          AND IS THIS ALL OF MARTIN COUNTY? IS THE COMMENTS. I THINK IT'S FRIENDS AND
IT'S RESIDENTS FROM STEWART. 
          PROBABLY SOME MARTIN COUNTY AS WELL. 
          OKAY. I'M SURE YOU CAN IMAGINE I DON'T HAVE A
LOT OF FRIENDS. 
          SO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FOLLOWING ME ARE FROM
THE CITY. 
          WELL, THE FOLLOWING OKAY,
EXCEPT FOR JOE. 
          JOE'S MY FRIEND, BUT AND I WANT TO,
I WANT TO MENTION NOW THAT I'M INTO THESE A LITTLE BIT, THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED HAD
NOTHING AIMED AT THIS. 
          I WAS NOT ASKING FOR YOUR NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
ABOUT ABOUT DEVELOPMENT. I WAS ASKING FOR PHRASES THAT BEST CHARACTERIZED WHAT MAKES
STUART SPECIAL. 
          BUT WHAT PEOPLE ARE FEELING FROM WHAT THEY'RE
SEEING GETTING BUILT IS SO OVERWHELMING THAT IT DUMPS. ON TO THESE COMMENTS. 
          AND FOR ALL OF THE LIABILITY OF FACEBOOK AND
TRUST ME, I'VE LEARNED RECENTLY,
RIGHT? IT'S SUPERPOWER IS PEOPLE WILL TELL YOU HOW
THEY REALLY FEEL. 
          THEY'LL NEVER SAY IT TO YOUR FACE AND THEY'LL
TYPE IT IN THAT COMMENT. SO AND THAT'S HOW THEY VOTE. IT'S HOW THEY REALLY FEEL. 
          RIGHT? AND WE ALL FEEL THIS AND AGREE. 
          AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET SOMETHING
ACCOMPLISHED HERE, BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE REST OF
THE COUNTY. 
          AND THEY DON'T GET THEIR STUFF. 
          I AGREE 100%. ABSOLUTELY. 
          BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP TELLING US
RIGHT HERE THAT WE ARE THE BAD GUYS. 
          AND YOU'LL SEE I GIVE FULL CREDIT WHERE IT'S
DUE THAT WE'VE DONE OUR PART. 
          SO IN TERMS OF PROVIDING SUPPLY SO NO
BUILDINGS OVER FOUR STORIES. 
          STEWART IS WHAT MAKES STEWART MY HOME. 
          IT'S JAMMING UP. IT'S LIKE FORT LAUDERDALE
ALREADY. 
          12 LIKES. YES, IT TOOK ME 30 MINUTES TO GET
FROM DIXIE AND BAKER TO PALM CITY ROAD THIS MORNING. I DID NOT COPY AND PASTE TO MAKE
THIS STREAM OF COMMENTS. 
          THIS IS JUST HOW PEOPLE FEEL. 
          SO SLOW THE GROWTH. HOPING THEY ARE READING
THESE RESPONSES. 
          WE ARE. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT. 
          14 LIKES, NO MORE CONSTRUCTION. 
          LOSING OUR CHARM. USED TO BE SMALL TOWN FEEL.
YOU GUYS GET THE IDEA. 
          LESS MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS. 
          [00:55:03]
DEVELOPMENT APARTMENTS LIKE TO SEE ALL
DEVELOPMENTS HALTED. 
          AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP
DEVELOPMENT RIGHT. BUT KEEP THIS IN MIND, RIGHT WHEN WE'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS,
BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE AREN'T NECESSARILY HERE. 
          THEY'RE WORKING, THEY'RE BUSY. THE DEVELOPERS
ARE HERE. PEOPLE WHO HAVE A FINANCIAL STAKE IN THE DECISIONS WE'RE MAKING ARE HERE. 
          BUT OFTEN THESE VOICES DON'T GET REALIZED
UNTIL ELECTION TIME. 
          AND IT WENT ON AND ON. 
          AND I READ ALL 150 OF THESE COMMENTS,
AND THEY SOUND BASICALLY THE SAME. 
          THIS IS WHY I'M DOING IT. 
          I GOT THREE KIDS, AND FOR THOSE WHO DON'T
KNOW, I HAVE ONE ON THE WAY. 
          BUT I WANT STUART TO STILL HAVE ITS
CHARACTER. 
          I KNOW IT'S GOING TO DEVELOP AND IT'S GOING
TO GROW, BUT I WANT IT TO STILL HAVE ITS CHARACTER FOR THEIR KIDS. 
          I DON'T WANT IT TO TURN INTO A CITY FULL OF
THREE AND FOUR STORY APARTMENT RENTALS, WITH SMALLER AND SMALLER UNITS TO TRY TO
ACHIEVE AFFORDABILITY. 
          SO I WANT STUART TO STILL BE SPECIAL FOR THEM
AND THEIR KIDS. 
          SO HERE'S WHAT I WHAT I'VE REALLY TRIED TO
PUT EARS OUT AND LISTEN TO ALL THE DIFFERENT SIDES, THE OBJECTIONS I GET. 
          ANY TIME YOU TALK ABOUT DOING ANYTHING TO TRY
TO SLOW OR MODULATE GROWTH IS, OH, YOU'RE ANTI-DEVELOPMENT RIGHT,
NO GROWTH. 
          AND I WANT TO SAY VERY PLAINLY TO ANY
DEVELOPERS IN THE ROOM OR LAND USE ATTORNEYS. 
          WHEREVER BOB WENT. THERE HE IS. 
          THERE YOU ARE. I'M NOT NO GROWTH,
AND I DON'T THINK THIS COMMISSION IS NO GROWTH OR SHOULD BE. WE'RE ACTUALLY READY TO
REDEVELOP IN. 
          STUART. AS WE SAW ALREADY,
THERE ARE VERY FEW PARCELS. 
          WE'RE ALMOST BUILT OUT. 
          AND SO THE QUESTION REALLY IS HOW DOES STUART
REDEVELOP GOING FORWARD. 
          DO WE KEEP OUR CHARACTER. 
          DO WE KEEP WHAT MAKES THIS PLACE UNIQUE OR DO
WE GO, YOU KNOW, FULL WEST PALM OR FORT LAUDERDALE
OR JACKSONVILLE? MISSING OUT ON GOOD OPPORTUNITIES AND DOING
AWAY WITH THE PUD PROCESS. 
          I'VE HEARD THAT A LOT. NOTHING IN WHAT I'M
GOING TO RECOMMEND TAKES A CRACK AT BY RIGHT ZONING. YOU KNOW, 10 OR 15 AN ACRE DOESN'T
EVEN TOUCH CONDITIONAL USE, YOU KNOW, NOT TRYING TO MESS WITH 30 UNITS AN
ACRE. 
          NOTHING THAT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND DAMAGES
THE PUD PROCESS TODAY OR TRIES TO GET RID OF IT PROTECTING TRUE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER,
I'M NOT AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO BE
GETTING INVOLVED IN TERMS OF USING OUR LAND. 
          AND WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING WHERE IT'S
APPROPRIATE. LIKE I THINK OF GARY AND TAYLOR AS WHAT'S FRESH IN MY MIND,
THOSE PROPERTIES WHERE IT WOULD SERVE OUR RESIDENTS AND NOT JUST MAKE MORE UNITS FOR
PEOPLE TO MOVE HERE AND END UP HAVING CHEAPER RENT AND INCREASE OUR DENSITY OVERALL. 
          THE BIRD HARRIS IS ALWAYS A CONCERN,
RIGHT? AND FLORIDA STATUTE 163.3177,
WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT. 
          WHAT IS THAT STATUTE. WE'LL GO INTO IT. 
          SO THESE ARE MY THREE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          NUMBER ONE I'M CALLING IT FAIR SHARE PARKING
TO REMOVE THE HALF UNIT AMENDMENT, WHICH I KNOW IS CONTENTIOUS BECAUSE WE'RE
ACTUALLY GOING TO TALK ABOUT DOUBLING DOWN ON THAT NEXT. AND THREE DEVELOPING. 
          I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT
RECOMMENDATION IN THIS PRESENTATION. 
          DEVELOPING A MAXIMUM BUILD OUT POPULATION. 
          HOW MANY HUMAN BEINGS. 
          AND THIS IS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF WHY CAN THE
CITY OF STUART SAFELY EVACUATE, GOD FORBID A HURRICANE LIKE WHAT HAPPENED ON
THE WEST COAST, RIGHT? WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM THRESHOLD OF HUMAN BEINGS
THAT CAN DWELL ON THIS PENINSULA, WITH OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES AND WATER AND THE
WAY WE'RE LAID OUT? WHAT CAN WE HANDLE? AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY
THAT'S IMPORTANT. 
          SO WHEN I SAY FAIR SHARE PARKING,
WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT? SO THE IDEA IS IN A NUTSHELL,
WE'RE ENFORCING OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. 
          BUT WE'RE NOT WE DON'T DO THIS RIGHT NOW. 
          RIGHT. WE WAIVE PARKING FOR FOR PROJECTS THAT
COME IN. 
          BUT THE GOAL IS NOT JUST TO NOW ENFORCE THAT
AND PUT THAT IN THE COMP PLAN, BUT GIVE A WAY TO WAIVE IT. 
          THAT'S REASONABLE, WHICH LOOKS LIKE HAVING
DEVELOPERS PAY PER SPACE TOWARD A PARKING GARAGE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT ALL OF US REALLY
WANT. WE WANT TO SEE THAT. BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE WAIVING PARKING WHEN WE HAVE THESE
PROJECTS COME FORWARD AND IT ENDS UP PUTTING TAXPAYERS ON THE HOOK FOR IT. 
          SO THE IDEA IS HAVING DEVELOPERS PAY THEIR
FAIR SHARE FOR THE PARKING THAT GETS WAIVED. 
          PARKING MITIGATION BASICALLY. 
          YES. SO LIKE I SAID, IT PROTECTS TAXPAYERS
FROM HAVING TO PAY FOR THAT PARKING GARAGE AT SOME POINT, AND IT PROVIDES THE PARKING THAT
IS NECESSARY FOR DOWNTOWN. 
          MY RECOMMENDATION IS SOMETHING LIKE,
AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, YOU KNOW, I WILL DEFER TO MR. MARTEL, BUT UPDATING OUR COMP PLAN WITH SOME
KIND OF CLAUSE THAT SAYS ANY REDUCTION IN PARKING IS SET FORTH BY THOSE MINIMUMS,
AND THE ELDERS MUST BE CONCURRENT WITH OUR 
          [01:00:01]
INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT. 
          BY PAYING INTO A TRUST FUND,
THE CITY SHALL UPDATE THE COST EVERY WHATEVER YEAR, TWO YEARS OR WHATEVER THAT IS. 
          AND WHAT THAT DOES IS IT MAKES SURE THAT WE
HAVE PARKING DOWNTOWN BECAUSE, RIGHT, SELFISHLY, I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. 
          IF YOU MAKE IT SO HARD TO NAVIGATE DOWNTOWN. 
          THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF THAT IS WHAT. 
          PEOPLE GO TO SEWELL'S POINT FOR DINNER.
PEOPLE DON'T COME TO MY OFFICE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARK, BECAUSE THEY DROVE AROUND AND
LOOK FOR A SPOT FOR LONG ENOUGH AND THEY JUST GAVE UP. THEY DON'T GO TO MATILDA'S,
THEY DON'T GO GET COFFEE. 
          THEY DON'T DO WHAT IS REALLY THE SPECIAL
FUNCTION OF OUR DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          SO TO LEAN ON THE COMP PLAN A LITTLE BIT IN
THE HOUSING SECTION, RIGHT. AND MANAGE GROWTH,
WE ARE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE CONCURRENT WITH PLANNED
GROWTH. 
          RIGHT? I SPECIFIED SO IF WE'RE GOING TO
APPROVE IT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE CAN PARK IT RIGHT. AND YOU KNOW,
NOT TO RUB THIS IN ANYBODY'S FACE, BUT RIGHT. WHEN'S THE LAST TIME WE'VE
APPROVED THESE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WE'VE APPROVED? RIGHT. AND AGAIN, LEANING ON THE COMP PLAN,
RIGHT. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING,
PROMOTING A DESIRABLE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING A DEGREE OF CERTAINTY. 
          AND WHEN EVERY ONE OF THESE PROJECTS HAS
DIFFERENT WAIVED PARKING AMOUNTS, WHERE IS THAT CERTAINTY? WHERE IS THAT
DESIRABLE PATTERN? AND I LOVE THIS QUOTE FROM ELEMENT EIGHT. 
          MAINTAIN AND ENHANCE STEWART'S QUALITY OF
LIFE. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING,
RIGHT? IT'S NATURAL BEAUTY AND SMALL TOWN WATERFRONT CHARACTER. IT'S STABLE RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOODS AND ITS STATUS AS THE COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL HUB FOR GREATER
MARTIN COUNTY. 
          I LOVE THAT, I THINK THAT REALLY
CHARACTERIZES OUR CITY WELL. 
          AND SO I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT A
LITTLE BIT THIS A LITTLE BIT EARLIER WITH, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL AND WHAT WE CAN DO FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE'RE NOT INCREASING DENSITY AND
WE'RE NOT DOING THAT IN A WAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE PARKING FOR, THAT WE'RE NOT DAMAGING
THAT SMALL BUSINESS, THAT WE'RE NOT CONVERTING COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL LAND TO YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL. I THINK THAT THAT'S DANGEROUS. 
          WITH REGARD TO WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE
DOING HERE. 
          SO THIS IS MY NUMBER TWO,
REMOVE THE HALF UNIT AMENDMENT. 
          AND I'LL GIVE YOU SOME REASONS FOR WHY. 
          I KNOW THIS IS CONTENTIOUS AGAIN,
BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT KIND OF DOUBLING DOWN ON THIS AFTER ME,
BUT I'VE REALLY THOUGHT OF HOW TO CHARACTERIZE THIS BECAUSE IT'S IT'S TRICKY,
RIGHT? I DON'T WANT TO KNOCK AT PREVIOUS STAFF WHO
WAS HERE INFLUENCES THAT EVEN ENDED UP BRINGING IT IN. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A PART OF
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAYBOOK TO MOVE INTO THIS HALF UNIT THING IN JACKSONVILLE AND FORT
LAUDERDALE AND SOME OF THESE DIFFERENT PLACES. BUT I WANT TO,
I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT WAS NOT WELL ARTICULATED OR AT LEAST UNDERSTOOD BY THE
TIME IT MADE IT INTO THE 2020 COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS. BECAUSE WHAT IT'S ESSENTIALLY
DOING IS REDEFINING WHAT A UNIT IS SO THAT WE CAN DOUBLE OUR CONDITIONAL USE DENSITY. 
          RIGHT NOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 30. 
          BUT ONCE WE DO THIS, WE'RE ABLE TO APPROVE 60
DOORS AN ACRE. 
          IT'S TRULY 60 UNITS AN ACRE BECAUSE THEY HAVE
PEOPLE IN THEM AND THEY HAVE CARS AND THEY NEED SOMEWHERE TO PARK. AND WITH THIS SAME
HALF UNIT, IT COMES CHANGES AND DECREASES IN PARKING
REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO ALL OF THIS IS ADDING MORE PRESSURE TO,
I WOULD ARGUE, A CONSTRAINED INFRASTRUCTURE AND GEOGRAPHIC
AREA. 
          AND IT'S DENSITY THAT WOULD NEVER GET
APPROVED. 
          RIGHT. IT'S KIND OF A BACK DOOR WAY TO GET 60
AN ACRE, BECAUSE IF ANYBODY BROUGHT THAT UP,
IT'S INCONGRUENT WITH OUR COMP PLAN AND LAND USE. YOU CAN'T GET THAT. 
          SO WE HAD TO REDEFINE WHAT THAT UNIT MEANS IN
ORDER TO DO THAT. 
          AND WE'RE IN AN INTERESTING MOMENT RIGHT NOW. 
          ONLY ONE PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED WITH THIS. 
          OKAY. AND I'LL QUOTE JFK. 
          RIGHT. AN ERROR ONLY BECOMES A MISTAKE WHEN
YOU REFUSE TO ACCEPT IT. 
          WE'RE AT A MOMENT RIGHT NOW WHERE WE COULD
SAY THAT PANDORA'S BOX IS OPEN. 
          THIS IS WHAT IT IS. LET'S DOUBLE DOWN. LET'S
GO ALL IN. AND I WOULD ARGUE, SLOW PUMP THE BRAKES. LET'S NOT LET'S LET
THAT ONE BE THE ONE THAT SLIPPED THROUGH. 
          LET'S PULL THIS OUT OF OUR COMP PLAN. 
          IT DOESN'T BELONG. THIS IS NOT THE FUTURE FOR
STEWART BECAUSE. 
          AND THIS IS TO TO POINT AT WHAT I WAS SAYING
EARLIER. 
          RIGHT. I WANT TO GO INTO THIS. 
          WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE CITY SHOULD BE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I WOULD ARGUE THAT BY APPROVING 3000 UNITS IN
A CITY THAT HAS A POPULATION ON THE CENSUS OF 17000 PEOPLE, THE CITY HAS DONE ITS PART TO
TRY TO PROVIDE SUPPLY. 
          AND THERE'S A LOT OF PUSHBACK FROM THE
RESIDENTS AS WELL. 
          I FEEL LIKE WE THIS COMMISSION WENT ABOVE AND
BEYOND TO TRY TO PROVIDE SUPPLY. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ARE WANTING MORE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 
          [01:05:04]
YOU HAVE TO COMMEND THIS COMMISSION BECAUSE
THEY REALLY WORKED HARD TO DO THAT. 
          AND I WOULD SAY WE NEED TO LOOK OUTSIDE OF
THE CITY NOW FOR MORE SUPPLY. 
          BUT AND THIS IS NOT JUST A RHETORICAL
QUESTION. 
          IF ANYBODY MINDS, YOU KNOW,
ACTUALLY OFFERING UP A NUMBER, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE CITY SHOULD BE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WE CAN USE OUR COMP PLAN DEFINITION, RIGHT? 120 TO 140% OF AMI AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME IS
GOING TO BE WORKFORCE, OR 80 TO 120% OF AMI IS AFFORDABLE. 
          WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? WHAT ARE
COMMISSIONERS, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTS? WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK?
WHAT PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY FOR TAX PURPOSES FOR,
YOU KNOW, A STABLE CITY? 3540 I TRUST YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE AN
ACCOUNTANT. 
          I JUST THINK THAT YOU JUST IT'S THERE. 
          YOU KNOW ANYBODY ELSE,
03,540% IS WHAT I GOT GOING ONCE. 
          ANYBODY ELSE? 50. ALL RIGHT. 
          JIMMY SAYS 50. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT,
ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. 
          FINE. FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY,
SO WE'LL SAY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 35 AND 50. 
          SO HERE IS YOUR ACTIVE AS OF NOW FROM AMANDA
PROPERTY APPRAISAL DATA. 
          OKAY, I'LL TAKE YOU OVER HERE TO THE RIGHT
SIDE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. WE HAVE BY THIS MATH,
9516 PARCELS, 17% OF THOSE PARCELS ARE NONRESIDENTIAL. SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT IS
THAT 1600 BASICALLY THAT THAT 17% OF NONRESIDENTIAL. SO RIGHT COMMERCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, THEY PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF
TAXES AS THE 82% THAT IS RESIDENTIAL. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO JUST I THINK THAT'S AN
IMPORTANT POINT WHEN WE COME OVER HERE, RIGHT. LET'S SAY AND I'LL SHOW YOU NEXT
SLIDE. 
          THE AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME OR AVERAGE MEDIAN
HOUSE PRICE IN THE CITY OF STUART AS OF 2122, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 224 AS AN AVERAGE MEDIAN
HOUSING PRICE, RIGHT? THIS IS NOT EXACT MATH,
BUT I'M TRYING TO PROVE A POINT IS LET'S SAY YOU WANT TO SAY WORKFORCE HOUSING,
RIGHT. 
          1.2 TO 1.4 TIMES 224. YOU'RE SOMEWHERE JUST
BELOW 290. 
          I'LL ROUND UP BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO MAKE A
POINT FOR MYSELF HERE. 300 000 JUST TO MAKE IT EASY, WE'LL SAY WORKFORCE HOUSING IS
$300,000. 
          AND BELOW, IF YOU DO THE MATH ON THAT,
THE NUMBER OF PARCELS OUT OF THAT 9516, IT'S 85% OF THE PARCELS THAT ARE IN THE CITY
OF STUART ARE VALUED AT 300 000 AND BELOW. 
          AND IF YOU WANT TO SAY,
OKAY LIKE THE POINT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER, WELL, HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND,
YOU KNOW, FAIR ENOUGH. 
          COOL. 4500 OF THE 9500 ARE VALUED AT BELOW
100,000. 
          AND TO DOUBLE DOWN ON THIS POINT,
THE 2014 FIRE ASSESSMENT THAT WE DID, WE NEEDED MONEY FOR FIRE,
RIGHT. 
          WE HAD TO FIGURE OUT A WAY HOW TO GENERATE
THAT MONEY BECAUSE WE HAD SO MANY PROPERTIES THAT WERE VALUED BELOW EVEN $100,000,
THAT TO TRY TO INCREASE MILLAGE AND INCREASE TAX RATE TO GET THAT FEAT,
WE COULDN'T GET IT. 
          SO WE HAD TO JUST DO A BLANKET FEE BECAUSE
THE VALUE WAS SO LOW FOR OUR PROPERTIES. 
          THIS IS US CENSUS DATA LIKE I REFERENCED. 
          I HAVE UP HERE STEWART,
PALM CITY, PORT SAINT LUCIE, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA AT LARGE. 
          THE SECTIONS I HAVE REFERENCED ARE HOUSING
AND INCOME AND POVERTY. 
          OKAY, SO LIKE I MENTIONED,
THE MEDIAN VALUE OF A HOME IN THE CITY IS 224. CHECK OUT PALM CITY. 
          YES, I JUST CHECKED THE MEDIAN SALES PRICE
FOR HOME IN DECEMBER IN STEWART, 620 OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME,
627,500. 
          SO THERE'S GOING TO BE THERE'S GOING TO BE A
DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE IN THE CURRENT SALES PRICE TODAY VERSUS THE VALUE. 
          THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE AND
THE SALES PRICE. 
          WE CAN'T SAY THAT ALL OF THE ALL OF THE
PARCELS IN THE CITY CAN BE VALUED AT WHAT THEY WOULD SELL AT TODAY. 
          THAT'S A MOVING NUMBER,
RIGHT? SO YOUR PROPERTY APPRAISAL AND YOUR AND YOUR CENSUS DATA IS YOUR METRIC THAT YOU
CAN DEPEND ON. 
          EVERYBODY KNOWS THE YEAR TO DATE,
WHICH WAS 354 PROPERTIES WAS 580,000. 
          YEAH, THAT MAKES MORE SENSE. AND,
AND LET'S, LET'S ACCEPT THAT. BUT IT'S NOT THE POINT
THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE. 
          WHAT THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THE
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STEWART AND SOME OF OUR SURROUNDING AREAS. BECAUSE THE CONVERSATION
THAT HAPPENS A LOT IS STEWART IS NOT AFFORDABLE. STEWART IS TOO EXPENSIVE. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK WHETHER THIS NUMBER IS
ACTUALLY 20% HIGHER OR 30% HIGHER, THAT'S GOING TO BE REFLECTED IN PALM CITY,
IN PORT SAINT LUCIE AS WELL. THAT'S WHY I SAID PORT SAINT LUCIE IS ACTUALLY MORE
EXPENSIVE FOR THE MEDIAN HOUSING PRICE. 
          AND MARTIN COUNTY AT LARGE IS 300,
RIGHT? 
          [01:10:02]
WHEN WE COME DOWN AND WE LOOK AT GROSS RENTS. 
          OKAY. AND HERE IF WE GO A LITTLE BIT LOWER,
THIS IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE. 
          AND THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE POPULAR BECAUSE
MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SAY THIS, BUT COURAGE IS KING. MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME
55,000 IN THE CITY AND PALM CITY. 
          IT'S BASICALLY DOUBLE EVEN IN PORT SAINT
LUCIE. 
          YOU'RE AT 68. MARTIN COUNTY OVERALL IS ALMOST
70. 
          WE'RE EVEN BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE ON INCOME
IN THE CITY. 
          WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR PERSONS IN POVERTY LEVEL, 14.4%, WHICH IS ALSO BELOW THE STATE AVERAGE, PALM CITY IS 5.8. PORT SAINT LUCIE IS 8.3. 
          MARTIN COUNTY AT LARGE IS 11. 
          I THINK WHEN YOU SEE THE NUMBERS,
YOU CAN ANCHOR TO REALITY WHERE OTHERWISE IT CAN FEEL LIKE THE BLEEDING HEART. 
          WE HAVE TO DO MORE. BUT I WOULD ASK AT WHAT
COST? AT WHAT COST? WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO GIVE
UP? SO MY CONTENTION IS WE'RE ALMOST BUILT OUT AS
EVIDENCED EARLIER, AND WE'RE LOW END HEAVY. 
          THIS IS NOT A POPULAR OPINION. MOST PEOPLE
DON'T WANT TO SAY THIS. THEY DON'T WANT ANY MORE ENEMIES. BUT I HAVE PLENTY. SO LET'S
HAVE A FEW MORE. 
          MY DESIRE WOULD BE TO SEE STEWART UPDATE
WHILE PRESERVING ITS CHARACTER, ITS QUALITY OF LIFE, ITS HEIGHT,
RELATIVE DENSITY, AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. I BELIEVE WE NEED A
MORE BALANCED SUPPLY AS WE GO INTO REDEVELOPMENT. LIKE I SAID,
I BELIEVE WE'RE LOW END HEAVY RIGHT NOW. 
          WE NEED HOUSING AND THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO
GET ME GET ME IN TROUBLE. 
          HOUSING THAT APPEALS TO INDIVIDUALS WITH A
HIGHER MEDIAN INCOME. 
          ALL RIGHT. SOCIAL ENGINEERING. 
          CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN REAL LOUD? ABSOLUTELY. I'M SURE IT'LL BE IN TCPALM,
BUT IT'S THE TRUTH. 
          LISTEN, WE'RE ALL ADULTS IN THIS ROOM. WE'RE
THE WE'RE THE ONES WHO ARE SETTING POLICY. 
          AND I'M GOING TO USE THE EXAMPLE OF COST OF
SERVICE AND TAX BASE AS AN EXAMPLE, RIGHT? OVERALL, IF YOU HAVE $1 MILLION AD
VALOREM, IF YOU HAVE ONE UNIT AT A MILLION VERSUS TEN
AT 100,000, YOU GET THE SAME AD VALOREM. 
          WE'RE POTENTIALLY ENTERING INTO A TIME OF
ECONOMIC UNCERTAINTY AND INFLATION, RIGHT? THE COST OF SERVICE IS POTENTIALLY
INFLATING. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE TO
CONTINUE TO TRY TO INCREASE DENSITY TO ACHIEVE THE SAME AD VALOREM. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD BE SWINGING THE PENDULUM IN
THE OTHER DIRECTION. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD IS GOING
IN THIS DIRECTION. 
          SO THIS IS DRAMATIC, BUT CHINA IS PROBABLY
THE KING OF THIS MENTALITY OF BUILDING INCREASINGLY SMALLER DWELLING UNITS,
PULLING PEOPLE OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR THE COUNTIES OR THE AND PACKING AND STACKING THEM
IN RENTAL APARTMENTS. 
          I'M A PROPONENT OF HOME OWNERSHIP AND NOT
NECESSARILY, YOU KNOW, HAVING OUR CITY GO IN THE SAME
DIRECTION AS A LOT OF OTHER PLACES. 
          AND I KNOW THERE'S STATE PRESSURE. I KNOW
THERE'S TRULY GLOBAL PRESSURE. 
          THE UN IS PUSHING FORWARD AS WELL,
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD PUSH BACK AND KEEP OUR CHARACTER AND NOT GO IN THIS DIRECTION. 
          SO ONE OF THE MAIN POINTS THAT I'VE HEARD IS
IT'S ALL PORT SAINT LUCIE WORKFORCE TRAFFIC, RIGHT? IT'S THIS MANTRA THAT IF WE JUST BUILD
MORE UNITS, IN FACT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING,
WE HAD A CONSULTANT COME INTO THE CITY AND THEY SAID, IF YOU JUST PRODUCE MORE SUPPLY IN
THE CITY, THEN IT WILL SOLVE ALL THESE TRAFFIC
PROBLEMS. WELL, I RAN ON A COMPLETELY OPPOSITE PARADIGM. IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME
THAT INCREASING THE POPULATION DENSITY ON THE PENINSULA BY 30% OR 40% WOULD DECREASE
TRAFFIC. 
          THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE,
RIGHT? AND SO I WENT TO THIS.ONLINE. 
          INITIALLY I WENT HERE FOR A DIFFERENT
PURPOSE. I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LEVEL OF SERVICE VOLUME VERSUS CAPACITY ON OUR ROADS. 
          AND I ACTUALLY REALIZED,
WHOA, THIS TELLS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT STORY. 
          SO THIS IS THE STREET MY OFFICE IS ON. 
          THIS IS OSCEOLA AND ON.ONLINE. 
          YOU CAN PULL UP THE VOLUME OVER THE LAST 4 OR
5 YEARS. 
          YOU CAN SEE HOW MANY HUMAN BEINGS ARE DRIVING
ON THIS ROAD. 
          THIS TELLS THAT STORY,
RIGHT? THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE HERE. 
          HOLY MOLY. WE WENT FROM 8000 TO 13,300. 
          VOLUME TRIPS OR WHATEVER. 
          I'M NOT A TRAFFIC GURU. 
          I'M A NOVICE. BUT YOU KNOW,
FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, COLORADO SAYS THE SAME KIND OF THING. 
          THERE ARE MORE HUMAN BEINGS IN THE CITY
NAVIGATING. 
          SO WHERE ARE THEY COMING FROM? LET'S CHECK
THE ARTERIES NORTH OF THE BRIDGE. 
          NOPE. THAT NUMBER STABLE,
DECREASING, KIND OF BOUNCING AROUND THERE. 
          [01:15:03]
THEY'RE PROBABLY TAKING THE OTHER BRIDGE.
WE'LL CHECK. NOPE, NOPE. NOT THAT ONE EITHER. 
          SO WHAT ABOUT WHERE ARE ALL THESE PORT SAINT
LUCIE PEOPLE COMING FROM HERE? THEY'RE PROBABLY COMING FROM BECKER,
RIGHT. 
          SO WE GOT BECKER HERE. NO,
THAT'S NOT REALLY TELLING THAT STORY EITHER. 
          RIGHT? THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT. SAME
CURVE. OKAY. 
          THEY'RE COMING SOUTH SOMEHOW. 
          THEY'RE COMING FROM THE SOUTH UP. 
          THAT'S. NO, THAT NUMBER'S THAT. 
          WHAT'S GOING ON? YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS? THEY'RE PROBABLY TAKING A ONE A FROM THE
SOUTH. 
          NOPE. IT DID INCREASE,
BUT IT'S ALSO DROPPING DOWN. 
          THAT'S RELATIVELY STABLE. 
          YEAH. THEY'RE NOT COMING FROM THE BEACH SIDE
EITHER. OKAY. SO THIS IS WHAT IT IS. 
          IT'S 95, RIGHT. AND SURE. 
          LOOK AT THAT. HOLY COW. 
          I WENT FROM 36,000 TRIPS TO 63. 
          THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE MOVING. TURNPIKE SAYS
THE SAME KIND OF THING FROM 10,000 TO 51. 
          EVEN MORE DRAMATIC, RIGHT? BUT HERE'S THE KICKER. THAT'S KANTER. 
          THEY'RE NOT GETTING OFF THE EXIT. THEY'RE
TRAVELING FROM PORT SAINT LUCIE TO WORK DOWN SOUTH. 6000 A YEAR. THAT NUMBER IS RELATIVELY
STABLE. 
          SO I AM GOING TO ASSERT THAT WHEN WE HEAR ALL
OF THIS TRAFFIC IS PORT SAINT LUCIE WORKFORCE. WE JUST NEED MORE UNITS THAT IT'S
MYTHOLOGY. 
          AND I KNOW THAT'S A COMPLETELY COUNTER
NARRATIVE AND I'M NEW, SO IT'S GOING TO BE EASY TO JUST GASLIGHT AND DISMISS WHAT I'M
SAYING. 
          BUT I THINK IT'S A MYTH. 
          SO THIRD POINT, MAXIMUM BUILD OUT. 
          YES. FLORIDA STATUTE 1633177. 
          A GIFT FROM RICK SCOTT. 
          GOT ENDED THE 90S ERA GROWTH MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES. 
          AND IF YOU'RE. YOU KNOW,
GROWTH FAN, YOU PROBABLY LOVE RICK FOR IT. 
          BUT WE USED TO USE TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY LIKE
DONNA MELZER IS WHAT COMES TO MIND, RIGHT? TO SAY, HEY, WE CAN'T. 
          UNTIL WE CAN WIDEN THESE ROADS,
WE CAN'T HANDLE ANY MORE PEOPLE. WE GOT TO SLOW THE BUILDING. WELL,
RICK SCOTT ENDED THAT. 
          AND IN THAT STATUTE, YOU HAVE A VERY CLEAR. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. 
          AND IN SUMMARY, IT'S. HEY,
FLORIDA'S ABOUT TO RECEIVE A TON OF PEOPLE. 
          YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE NO
MATTER WHAT, UNLESS, UNLESS YOU'RE OTHERWISE LIMITED OR
ABSENT PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS. 
          AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THAT RIGHT ROUTE,
YOU NEED TO BE DEVELOPING A PLAN, RIGHT? LOCAL GOVERNMENT BASED ON
PROFESSIONALLY ACCEPTABLE METHODOLOGY. 
          WELL, I WOULD ARGUE OUR PENINSULA IS UNIQUE
AND IT DOES VERY MUCH HAVE CONSTRAINTS GEOGRAPHICALLY AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINT ON
POPULATION TO BE ABLE TO RECEIVE MORE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER OUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE
ASSUMING IS FOR THE STATE AT LARGE. 
          SO MY, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THE
CITY, WE DEVELOP A PLAN USING PROFESSIONALLY
ACCEPTED METHODOLOGY THAT DEMONSTRATES OUR PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS FOR POPULATION. 
          BUT TRULY, WHAT OUR MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF HUMAN
BEINGS ON THIS PENINSULA IS BASED ON OUR LIMITATIONS FROM OUR ROADWAYS AND BRIDGES AND
GEOGRAPHY. 
          AND THIS IS NOT JUST TO TRY TO NIMBY AND SAY, NO MORE PEOPLE. YOU CAN'T LIVE HERE TO. 
          NOW THAT I'M HERE, IT'S TRULY. 
          HOW MANY RESIDENTS CAN THIS PENINSULA HANDLE? RIGHT. LIKE I REFERENCED,
IF WE HAD A HURRICANE, GOD FORBID, HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN YOU SAFELY
EVACUATE WITH? HOW OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES ARE SET UP IS ONE
POINT. 
          AND THE IDEA WITH A MAXIMUM BUILD OUT
POPULATION AS WELL, EVEN BEYOND TRYING TO JUST,
YOU KNOW, LIMIT AND SLOW GROWTH IS NOW YOU HAVE AN OVERARCHING PLAN,
A NUMBER, LET'S SAY, WITH WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED. 
          OUR CURRENT POPULATION ON CENSUS IS LIKE 17. 
          WITH WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED,
YOU MIGHT BE SOMEWHERE AROUND 25, LET'S SAY TRULY, AFTER HAVING SOMEBODY LOOK AT THIS,
IT'S 30,000 PEOPLE OR 35. 
          THE NUMBER DOESN'T REALLY MATTER,
WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, THAT IS THE CAP OF HUMAN POPULATION THAT YOU
CAN TRULY HANDLE WITH YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          NOW, WHEN PROJECT COMES FORWARD,
IT SHOULDN'T BE A DEBATE BECAUSE WE CAN EITHER SAY IN THAT PART OF THE CITY,
WE DO TRULY HAVE CONCURRENCY AND ROOM FOR THAT. WE CAN GIVE SOME MORE DENSITY OR YOU
KNOW WHAT? I'M. WE CAN'T GO THAT FAR INTO CONDITIONAL
USE BECAUSE WE TRULY DON'T HAVE THE ROOM WITH OUR OVERARCHING POPULATION IN TOTAL,
OUR BUILD OUT TOTAL, WHICH WOULD ADD, AGAIN,
CONSISTENCY AND A PATTERN FOR DEVELOPMENT. 
          [01:20:03]
ALSO ALONG THOSE LINES AND THIS IS LEANING ON
JUPITER ISLAND A LITTLE BIT. 
          WHAT NUMBER OF RESIDENTS AS PART OF THIS CAN
WE ABSORB WHILE MAINTAINING OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR LIKE OUR POLICE,
OUR FIRE, OUR SCHOOLS YOU KNOW, ALONG WITH ROAD CONCURRENCY AND PARKING,
HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE CAN YOU HANDLE? BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE SORT OF IN THIS
NEVER ENDING, YOU INCREASE LEVEL OF SERVICE SO YOU CAN TAKE
ON MORE PEOPLE. 
          MEANWHILE, THE PARKING DOESN'T MATCH AND THE
TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS ARE JUST SORT OF PUT OFF ON DOT. AND WE'RE HOPING FOR FIVE YEAR
AND TEN YEAR PROJECTS OUT IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND I WOULD ARGUE, IF THE STATE WANTS TO
FORCE DENSITY THROUGH THAT STATUTE, THEN LET THEM PAY FOR THAT INCREASED LEVEL OF
SERVICE. OTHERWISE, I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD HAVE TO COWER TO
THAT. 
          SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT HEAVY,
RIGHT? I'M NOT TRYING TO BE TOO DRAMATIC HERE,
BUT THIS IS A BIG CONSIDERATION AS WE INCREASE THE NUMBER OF HUMAN BEINGS WHO DWELL
HERE ON NARROW ROADS. 
          RIGHT? A BIG PART OF THIS AREA IS THAT WE
DON'T WIDEN OUR ROADS. 
          WE LIKE OUR WIDE SIDEWALKS AND OUR BEAUTIFUL, CHARMING STREETS. THE MORE HUMAN BEINGS AND
THE MORE TRAFFIC. 
          I WOULD ARGUE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE
CRASHES. AND I WOULD SAY THE DATA SUPPORTS ME. THIS IS OUR MOST CURRENT DATA I COULD
FIND FROM CHIEF. 
          BUT YOU WILL NOTICE THAT TREND OF INCREASING
CRASHES. 
          AND IF YOU TRACK THAT AND MOVE FORWARD ON
THAT CURVE, I WOULD ARGUE UNLESS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE
TRULY CHANGES AND IT CAN'T BECAUSE OF WHERE WE ARE. YOU CAN'T WIDEN THE ROADS THAT MUCH.
LIKE EVEN IN OUR COMP PLAN. I'LL SHOW YOU. WE HAVE WE'RE ONLY GOING TO GO SIX LANES. 
          LIKE THAT'S PART OF OUR,
WHO WE ARE IN OUR STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE INCREASINGLY MORE ISSUES AND
ACCIDENTS GOING FORWARD IF YOU DON'T TRY TO MODULATE THAT AND HAVE THAT OVERALL CAP OF
WHAT OUR POPULATION DENSITY CAN BE. 
          AND THE POINT WOULD BE,
HEY, WHEN WE HIT THAT NUMBER, THAT'S WHAT IT IS. MAYBE THERE'S NO THIS IS
NOT MAYBE A FRIENDLY THING TO SAY. 
          I SHOULD KEEP THIS FOR LATER,
BUT HEY, WHEN WE HIT THAT NUMBER, THAT'S WHAT OUR CONCURRENCY TRULY IS BASED ON
THAT PLAN THAT WE CREATED. 
          SO NO MORE, YOU KNOW,
POTENTIALLY LAND USE CHANGE OR CONDITIONAL USE. MAYBE WE KEEP IT BY RIGHT IN THAT PART
OR WITH THAT PARCEL. 
          SO WITHIN OUR COMP PLAN AGAIN,
RIGHT? WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE MAINTAINING OUR CITY
SMALL TOWN CHARACTER. 
          WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT OUR ROADS TO SIX LANES.
WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE SAFE AND CONVENIENT AND EFFICIENT ROADWAYS WITH ADOPTED LEVELS OF
SERVICE ON ALL ROADWAYS. 
          AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN
LEARNING, AND THIS WHOLE PRESENTATION HAS BEEN A LEARNING PROCESS FOR ME BECAUSE I'M
NEW. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS
BECAUSE IT'S TAUGHT ME A LOT ABOUT HOW OUR CITY WORKS. BUT LEVELS OF SERVICE,
MOST, YOU KNOW, NORMAL PEOPLE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS
DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. 
          I DIDN'T, BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LEVELS OF
SERVICE RIGHT WITHIN OUR COMP PLAN, I THINK THIS IS A HUGE POINT WE ADOPT. 
          THE ASSUMPTION THAT OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE IS
AN E, BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? RIGHT WITHIN THE
VOLUME ON OUR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS, RIGHT. THAT OPERATIONS WITH SIGNIFICANT
INTERSECTION APPROACH DELAYS AND LOW AVERAGE SPEEDS. BUT AT OUR INTERSECTIONS,
I THINK THIS IS EVEN MORE DRAMATIC. 
          SEVERE CONGESTION WITH SOME LONG STANDING
QUEUES ON CRITICAL APPROACHES. 
          BLOCKAGE OF INTERSECTION MAY OCCUR IN TRAFFIC
SIGNAL DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR PROTECTED TURNING MOVEMENTS. TRAFFIC CUE MAY BLOCK NEARBY
INTERSECTIONS UPSTREAM OF CRITICAL APPROACHES. WELL YOUR NEXT LETTER DOWN IS
WHAT. 
          SO I THINK FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY STANDPOINT,
WE REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER NOT JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO SLOW GROWTH, BUT TRULY LOOKING AT
WHAT OUR MAXIMUM BUILD OUT POPULATION IS AND USING THAT, YOU KNOW,
AS A TOOL FOR MULTIPLE DIFFERENT ARENAS. 
          BUT ONE OF WHICH BEING BEING ABLE TO EVACUATE
PEOPLE SAFELY. 
          SO THAT'S IT. I WOULD,
I KNOW I HIT PRETTY HARD PRETTY FAST THERE, BUT THESE ARE MY THREE RECOMMENDATIONS I
WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS YOUR FEEDBACK. 
          LIKE I SAID, I REALLY TRIED TO PUT A LOT OF
TIME INTO, YOU KNOW, INITIALLY WHEN I WAS APPROACHING
THIS, IT WAS, YOU KNOW WHAT,
WE JUST NEED TO DECREASE DENSITY. 
          WE NEED A DOWN ZONE LIKE BROOKLYN DID. 
          AND SOME OF THESE OTHER PLACES. NO,
NO, THAT'S NOT REASONABLE. 
          THAT'S NOT FAIR TOWARDS DEVELOPERS EITHER. 
          BUT I THINK WITH THESE THREE SOLUTIONS,
WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT IS A DECENT BALANCE. AND I'VE SPENT TIME TALKING TO SOME
DEVELOPERS AS WELL THAT COULD HELP HARMONIZE HOW THE RESIDENTS FEEL,
RIGHT? 
          [01:25:02]
INSTEAD OF IGNORING HOW THEY'RE FEELING,
IT CAN HELP HARMONIZE AND GUIDE THE DEVELOPERS FOR WHAT THEY'RE BRINGING TO THE
CITY AS WELL. 
          AND IT CAN HELP GUIDE US,
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MAXIMUM BUILD OUT. IT CAN HELP GUIDE US WITH TAKING
THE BURDEN OFF OF OUR SHOULDERS FOR WHAT SHOULD BE APPROVED AND FOR HOW MUCH,
BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT OVERARCHING PLAN THAT WE CAN LEAN ON AND SAY, YOU KNOW,
WE'RE THERE, OR WE HAVE SOME MORE ROOM IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD OR,
YOU KNOW, SO ON. 
          AND FINALLY I DO BELIEVE THAT DEVELOPERS
SHOULD BE PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE FOR PARKING SO THAT THAT DOESN'T GO ON TO RESIDENTS. 
          WE ALL WANT TO SEE THAT PARKING GARAGE AND
UNLESS AND UNTIL WE HAVE DEVELOPERS PAYING PER SPACE FOR THAT CONCURRENCY IN THAT
PARKING GARAGE, IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE TAXPAYER. 
          AND I WOULD ARGUE THEY NEED TO BE PAYING
THEIR FAIR SHARE TOWARDS THAT. 
          SO I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY DISCUSSION. 
          WHAT YOU ALL THINK. THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. ANY ANY DISCUSSION? OKAY. JODY. GOOD EVENING. 
          MY NAME IS GERALDINE. I'M THE DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF STUART. 
          I JUST WANT TO RECAP FROM THE ZONING AND
PROGRESS MEETING THAT WE HELD BACK IN NOVEMBER. AT THAT MEETING DIRECTION WAS GIVEN
TO STAFF TO EVALUATE CERTAIN THINGS. 
          ONE OF THOSE BEING THAT WE LOOKED AT THE HALF
UNIT DENSITY AND TO PROBABLY ESSENTIALLY BRING THOSE NUMBERS DOWN AS OPPOSED TO THE
912 HUNDRED UNITS. 
          AND LOOK AT THE PARKING CALCULATION. 
          SQUARE FEET, SQUARE FEET. 
          YES. SO WE DID SHOW YOU WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK
LIKE AS A DRAFT ORDINANCE. 
          AS WE WOULD AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
TAKE THAT LANGUAGE OF THE SPECIFIC SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR APARTMENTS AND JUST BASICALLY
APPLY WHAT THE LG LDCS ARE. 
          JUST FOR THE AUDIENCE. 
          WHENEVER YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HALF UNITS,
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN ACHIEVE THE HALF UNITS IS THROUGH A URBAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
WHICH IS APPROVAL THROUGH THE CITY. 
          COMMISSIONERS. THEY DO HAVE TO PERFORM ALL
THE DIFFERENT LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT'S ALREADY ADOPTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
AND ALSO LOOK AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS WELL. SOME OF THOSE
REGULATIONS CAN BE DO A WAIVER TABLE WHERE THEY CAN ASK FOR WAIVERS. 
          HOWEVER THEY HAVE TO. IN DOING SO,
THEY SHOULD BRING BACK SOME TYPE OF PUBLIC BENEFIT THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE PROJECT AND
BENEFIT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. 
          SOME OF THOSE COULD BE LIKE STORMWATER
MITIGATION. 
          SO WE DID AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
JUST SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO AMENDED THE GAVE YOU A DRAFT
OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT WAS RECOMMENDED AT THAT
MEETING THAT WE LOOK AT FOR, AND THIS IS ON PAGE 60 OF YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE
AND ALSO ON PAGE 54 THAT THE MAXIMUM THE TABLE 2.07.8, WHICH IS UNDER THE URBAN PUD
AMENDMENT, URBAN PLAN DEVELOPMENT,
THE DENSITY AND PARKING SPACE CALCULATIONS THAT INSTEAD OF ALLOWING 900 UNITS WHERE WE
WOULD DO A 500 SQUARE FOOT FOR ONE BEDROOM AND THEN CONSIDER ONLY ONE PARKING SPACE,
AND THAT WOULD BE A HALF UNIT AND HALF. 
          AND THEN WE LOOKED AT ALSO THE 1100FT² TO BE
REDUCED DOWN TO 700FT², WITH A TWO BEDROOM FOR TWO BEDROOMS AT A 0.75
FOR DENSITY, AND THEN ONE SPACE FOR PARKING. 
          JUST TO KIND OF GIVE SOME BACKGROUND OF WHERE
THIS INFORMATION CAME FROM. 
          IN 2017, THE COUNCIL,
THE CITY COMMISSIONER REQUESTED THAT WE DO AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY,
WHICH WAS DONE. 
          AND THEN YOU WERE ALSO PROVIDED THAT
INFORMATION. 
          ALSO, THEY WANTED A. IN 2018,
THE CITY OF STEWART DID A REQUEST FOR A CITY OF STUART HOUSING REPORT,
AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT REPORT TO DEVELOP THE
HALF UNIT DENSITY. 
          SORRY. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR JODY? SO SO THE THE ONE UNIT PER PARKING SPACE IS
SO THAT'S PER HALF IF IT WAS HALF UNITS PER HALF UNIT. COMMISSIONER MCDOWELL. 
          YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. 
          SO SO IF THERE WERE SO THEORETICALLY A FULL
UNIT IS TWO UNITS, 
          [01:30:01]
TWO HALF UNITS. AND SO THAT WOULD BE TWO
PARKING SPACES. 
          WE STILL RECOMMENDED JUST ONE PARKING SPACE
FOR TWO FOR TWO UNITS. 
          YES. OKAY. SO STILL ONLY TALKING ABOUT IF
LIKE, IF WITH THE 500 SQUARE FOOT,
IT'S STILL HALF UNIT. 
          OKAY. AND A HALF UNIT. 
          IT'S ONE PARKING SPACE PER HALF UNIT. 
          YES. OKAY. SO IF THERE WAS TWO HALF UNITS,
IT'D BE TWO PARKING SPACES. 
          CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I
HAD. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HAD A PROBLEM WITH
CONCERN WITH THIS ORDINANCE AND BECAUSE I, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE,
I LIKE THE, I, I GET THE THEORY AND THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND IT, BUT AND I AGREE. 
          COMMISSIONER RICH AND COMMISSIONER CLARK
BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TAKING THE OPPORTUNITIES IF WE GET
RID OF THIS. 
          SO I'VE BEEN BEEN RACKING MY BRAIN ON HOW WE
CAN DO THIS TO MAKE IT OR IT FALLS INTO MINE. 
          AND I CAME UP WITH, I SAT THERE AND CAME UP
WITH ALL KINDS OF STRATEGIES AND PLANS AND MATH AND, AND EVERYTHING I CAME UP WITH WAS
KIND OF COMPLICATED. 
          AND ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE IS
THE, IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS,
MAXIMUM UNITS. 
          IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN LIMIT THE USE OF
THIS. 
          SO TO MAYBE LIKE 25 OR 50%. 
          SO THAT THE MOST. SO EFFECTIVELY,
IF YOU DID ALL ONE, ALL ALL 500 SQUARE FOOT,
ONE BEDROOM UNITS, YOU COULD EFFECTIVELY GO FROM 30 TO 60. IF WE HAD A PERCENTAGE WHERE
YOU COULD ONLY DO LIKE A 25 OR A 50%, SO INSTEAD OF 60 WOULD BE 45 OR 37,
I GUESS 37.5 DOESN'T, I GUESS 37.5 BECAUSE WE HAVE HALF UNITS. 
          BUT 37 I GUESS WOULD BE THE NUMBER 38. 
          IS THERE SOME, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD
DO THAT HAVE A PERCENTAGE LIMITING THE ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT YOU COULD GET THE
NUMBER OF UNITS YOU COULD HAVE? MAYOR. MACDONALD YES,
YOU COULD PUT A RANGE WHAT, YOU KNOW, BY ACRES THAT IF YOU,
INSTEAD OF SAYING YOU HAVE 38 UNITS, AND IF YOU ADD IT, IF YOU EQUATE IT ON TO THE
HALF UNITS THAT YOU CAN HAVE 30, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE 60 UNITS,
YOU CAN DO THE RANGE VERSUS THE NUMBER OF ACRES THAT ALLOWS THE NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          SO YOU CAN DO A RANGE. 
          SO CAPTAIN NUMBER, CAPTAIN NUMBER,
NUMBER PER THE NUMBER OF ACRES. 
          OR YOU CAN, YOU CAN DO IT MANY DIFFERENT
WAYS. 
          BUT YES, YOU COULD ADD A RANGE ON THERE. 
          AND ALSO YOU DO HAVE THE DISCRETION THE CITY
COMMISSION TO IF, IF IF THAT'S, YOU KNOW,
WHEN IT COMES FOR THE APPROVAL SOME OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW,
WHEN YOU'RE DOING A PLANNING DEVELOPMENT, YOU DO HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA. 
          SO IT'S ALREADY BUILT INTO THE CODE ABOUT
PLANNING PLAN DEVELOPMENTS. 
          SO THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER FACTORS THAT GO
INTO JUST NOT THE DENSITY. 
          THERE'S OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT A PLAN
DEVELOPMENT HAS TO MEET. 
          FIRST YOU CONCERN ABOUT THE HALF OR 37.5. 
          WHEN YOU'RE DEALING IN DENSITY YOU DON'T
ROUND UP LIKE NORMAL MATH. 
          OKAY, 15.1 DOESN'T ROUND DOWN TO 15 BECAUSE
IT'S BELOW 15.1 ROUNDS UP TO 16. 
          SO IF YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE IF YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE 12 UNITS PER ACRE, IF IF YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN 12 UNITS PER
ACRE, 12.3 UNITS PER ACRE IS MORE THAN 12 ROUND
DOWN, IT STOPS AT THE 12. SO WHAT I WHAT I WOULD
PROPOSE IS THAT, WAIT A SECOND, IS THAT WE HAVE A A CAP ON THE
TOTAL NUMBER. 
          YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE DOESN'T COME IN AND DOES
A PROJECT, ALL HALF UNITS THEN HALF OR THREE QUARTER UNITS, WE HAVE A CAP ON THE TOTAL
NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          AND PART OF THAT IS TO CREATE A LITTLE BIT OF
VARIETY. 
          SO THEY DON'T JUST COME IN AND BUILD 500
SQUARE FOOT UNITS. 
          BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. WELL,
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING. YEAH. SO,
SO THAT THERE IS A, A COMBINATION OF, OF SO IF THERE'S A TOTAL
CAP, THEN YOU KNOW THAT BASED ON THE,
WHETHER IT'S HALF OR THREE QUARTER UNITS, WHAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS IS. 
          SO BECAUSE IF IT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS, JUST MAKE UP A NUMBER AND SAY IT WAS 45 AS A
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          THEN IF SOMEONE'S DOING THREE QUARTERS,
A COMBINATION OF THREE QUARTER UNITS AND HALF UNITS IT'S HARDER TO BE THE MORE THREE
QUARTER UNITS THERE ARE, THE LESS NUMBER OF PHYSICAL NUMBER UNITS ARE. 
          SO THAT WAY IT CREATES A MIXTURE. 
          SO BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT THIS UP ON THE
SCREEN SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THE DETAILS LIKE SPECIFICALLY PAGE 60 WHERE IT SHOWS WHAT
WE'RE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING CHANGING IN TERMS 
          [01:35:04]
OF 507 HUNDRED, DECREASING THE PARKING SPACE
REQUIREMENTS. 
          I WOULDN'T SHUT IT DOWN IF YOU TOLD ME. I
THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE WE DO SOMETHING. SO
BUT ANYWAY, SO THAT'S WHERE I AM LOOKING AT IS,
IS I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CAP ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PHYSICAL UNITS. 
          CAN I JUST I WAS GOING TO GO WAY BACK TO YOUR
PRESENTATION, BUT THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL JUST STAY WITH WHAT'S
HERE. BUT WE HAVE THE LAND USE. 
          SO THE LAND USE ALREADY HAS A GUIDELINE AS TO
THE NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          AND OF COURSE WE HAVE THE ZONING,
BUT IF WE'RE IN A PUD THERE'S ALWAYS SOME GIVE AND TAKE THERE. SO IT WILL NEVER BE
WHERE SOMEBODY'S GOING TO QUOTE UNQUOTE GAME THE SYSTEM WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GET,
YOU KNOW, DOUBLE OR TRIPLE OR WHATEVER BY DOING THESE
UNITS. 
          WELL, YEAH. AND SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO
HAPPEN, BUT YOU HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING. SO WHETHER
YOU HAVE A 200 SQUARE FOOT UNIT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING. SO YOU'RE GOING
TO HAVE A PARKING SPACE. IF YOU'RE AT A 600 SQUARE FOOT UNIT, YOU'D HAVE THREE PARKING
SPACES. 
          IF YOU'RE DOING THEM 200,
LET'S SAY JUST FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE DOING THAT, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S NOT
GOING TO WORK BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. YOU'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO MEET OTHER THINGS. SO ALL THOSE THINGS WILL FACTOR INTO NOT HAVING THIS
BALLOON IN, YOU KNOW, LARGE NUMBER OF QUOTE UNQUOTE HIGH
DENSITY, SO TO SPEAK. I DON'T KNOW. 
          I MEAN, I HEAR YOU, TROY,
AND I KNOW WHAT WE DID WITH THE ELIZABETH. 
          AND I THINK THAT THERE'S ONE MORE MAYBE OVER
THE BRIDGE. 
          NO, THE ONE THAT'S JUST,
IT'S JUST. 
          ELIZABETH. JUST. ELIZABETH. 
          IT'S NOT JUST ELIZABETH,
BUT. 
          OH, WE HAVE ONE BEHIND THE BACK. 
          YEAH, YEAH. THAT'S TRUE. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. BUT THAT ONE ONLY THAT HAD JUST
A SMALL NUMBER OF UNITS. 
          BUT WE CAN THOSE THINGS. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS THAT JODI
MENTIONED THAT IN THE. 
          WHEN YOU'RE DOING THOSE TYPE OF NEGOTIATIONS
IN A PUD, IT'S NOT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IT'S BIG ENOUGH
TO MAKE THAT CHANGE. 
          BUT IF WE WANT TO MAKE. 
          I THINK I THINK THE LAND USE COVERS THE CAP,
BUT, MIKE, IS THAT YOU? YOU'RE THINKING THAT
THERE'S STILL ROOM. 
          I'M LOOKING. I'M ACTUALLY NOT SURE. 
          I THINK THAT THE THE THE THE LAND USE THAT
THEY WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO GO OVER. 
          WELL, I THINK FIRST OF ALL,
IGNORING THE HALF UNIT MATH AT 30 UNITS AN ACRE RIGHT NOW, IF YOU ACTUALLY TOOK A TWO
ACRE PARCEL AND YOU REQUIRED THEM TO MEET EVERY SINGLE SETBACK,
AND THEY COULD NOT BUILD MORE THAN FOUR STORIES, AND THEY HAD TO PROVIDE THE FULL
PARKING THAT'S PROVIDED IN OUR CURRENT PARKING REQUIREMENT OF TWO SPACES PER UNIT,
WHICH WE EVER DO. 
          WE ALWAYS WAIT. BUT IF YOU DID THAT,
YOU WOULD IN FACT COME VERY CLOSE TO BEING AT 30 UNITS ACRE, AND YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T
BUILD MORE THAN THAT. 
          THE PROPOSED HALF UNIT THING,
THOUGH, CUTS THAT PARKING IN HALF. 
          SO INSTEAD OF TWO UNITS BEING REQUIRED FOR
THAT UNIT, IT'S ONLY ONE UNIT REQUIRED FOR THAT UNIT. 
          NOW SPACES. NO, NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT JUST JODY
JUST SAID. 
          JODY HAS SAID. IF IT WERE,
IF YOU HAD TWO HALF UNITS, TWO PHYSICAL UNITS, YOU'D GET ONE PARKING
SPACE EACH. 
          SO IT'D BE TWO UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE. 
          IF YOU HAD TWO UNITS,
IT WOULD BE TWO SPACES EACH. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE FOUR SPACES. 
          OKAY. SO OKAY, SO UNDER THE CURRENT CODE IT
WOULD BE DOUBLE THE PARKING REQUIREMENT ACTUALLY. AND HERE WE'RE DECREASING THAT EVEN
FURTHER IN THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          IT WAS A DECREASE WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS IN
WITH THE HALF UNIT CHANGE TO 1.25 AND 1.4. 
          AND WE'RE SCRATCHING THAT OUT AND SAYING ONE
AND ONE. 
          SO YOU CAN HAVE TWO BEDROOMS IN THAT 700
SQUARE FOOT UNIT AND HAVE ONE PARKING SPACE. 
          AND WE CAN POTENTIALLY EVEN WAIVE THAT. 
          THAT'S THE DRAFT, RIGHT? THAT'S THE DRAFT FORMAT. THAT'S THE THAT'S
THE IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE TOWARD. 
          CAN I MAKE A COUPLE? YEAH. 
          JUST. ARE YOU DONE? GO ON. 
          GO AHEAD. I KNOW I GET A LITTLE. 
          DID YOU WANT TO PUT THAT PAGE UP? PAGE 60. JOLIE. YEAH. SO DO WE. 
          DO WE ALL FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN HONEST
APPROACH TO DENSITY IN THE CITY? SO IF YOU CAN POTENTIALLY HAVE 60 DOORS PER
ACRE WHERE OUR LAND USE AND COMP PLAN, SAY 30 IS OUR MAXIMUM. 
          IS THIS TRULY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND HONEST? AND WHY NOT JUST MAKE IT 60 UNITS PER ACRE? WHY EVEN HAVE THIS SORT OF I DON'T WANT TO
USE TWO DRAMATIC LANGUAGE, BUT YOU KNOW, BACK DOOR,
WE'LL SAY SLIGHTLY DISPARAGING, BUT WHY NOT JUST MAKE IT 60 AN ACRE IF THAT'S
WHAT OUR GOAL IS UNDER CONDITIONAL USE? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE IF I MAY JUST
MAKE A COMMENT, 
          [01:40:01]
COMMISSIONER COLLINS. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW,
THIS ONLY APPLIES IN THE URBAN PLANNING ENVIRONMENT AND IN THE URBAN AREAS. 
          THERE'S VERY LITTLE LAND IN THE URBAN AREA. 
          THIS IS JUST REALLY WHERE YOU WANT MORE OF
THE COMPACT CORE, WHERE YOU HAVE THE SYNERGY WITH THE WALKABLE
WALKABILITY TO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. 
          THAT'S YOUR COMMERCIAL SPACE. IF YOU MAKE IT
HARDER TO PARK THERE, YOU'RE DAMAGING SMALL BUSINESSES. YOU SHOULD
WANT JUST AS MUCH PARKING IN THAT. 
          THE IDEA OF MAKING IT MORE DENSE WITH LESS
PARKING IS GOING TO HURT THE SMALL BUSINESS. 
          YOU NEED PEOPLE IN THERE TO SERVE,
TO GO TO THE BUSINESSES. 
          THAT IS THE THAT IS THE CONUNDRUM THAT WE
HAVE IN URBAN PLANNING THAT WE HAVE IN CITY DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS THE WHOLE THING OF THE
PURPOSE OF CITIES. 
          SO I WANT TO GO BACK TO,
IF YOU DON'T MIND, MR. COMMISSIONER, CAN I. MAYOR MAYOR CAN I GO
BACK TO YOUR THING? IF I WERE SOMEBODY ELSE ON ANOTHER PLANET
VISITING FOR CHRISTMAS AND LISTENING TO THE PRESENTATION, I WOULD SAY IF NOT STUART,
MAYBE WE SHOULD NAME IT SOMETHING ELSE, UTOPIA OR SOME OTHER PLACE IN ORDER TO HAVE,
YOU KNOW, THIS PERFECT ALIGNMENT OF EVERYTHING AND HAVE
IT ALL SET OUT AND NEVER CHANGE IT AGAIN. 
          THAT'S A THAT'S A TOUGH THING AND I
APPRECIATE YOUR WORK AND GOING INTO IT. 
          THAT'S A TOUGH THING. THEN MY OTHER THING,
VISITING FROM ANOTHER PLANET WOULD BE WHAT MATERIAL SHOULD WE MAKE THE GATES OUT OF THAT
STOP PEOPLE FROM COMING IN OR OUT OF THE CITY OF STUART BECAUSE IT'S NOT I THINK
COMMISSIONER BRUNO BROUGHT IT UP. 
          IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY. 
          WE HAVE MARTIN COUNTY,
WE HAVE EVERYBODY. 
          AND THEN THE IDEA THAT WE WE SHOULD HAVE,
YOU KNOW, PARK EVERYBODY HAS THEIR PLACE,
HAVE THEIR PARKING, HAVE THEIR PLACE, HAVE THEIR PARKING. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ALSO,
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SMALL, WE CAN DO WITH SOME TRANSIT AND HAVE SOME
DENSITY IN THAT URBAN AREA AND THAT AND TRY TO GET THAT CORE AREA FOR MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE
THERE, BUT THEY WALK TO WORK. 
          ASK THE PEOPLE AROUND HERE HOW HARD IT IS TO
PARK, TO GO WORK AT THE BOATHOUSE AND TO COME IN
FROM THOSE OKEECHOBEE LOCATIONS AND ADDRESSES AND WHEREVER. BUT IF WE ADD MORE CARS WITH
LESS PARKING, IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN HARDER. WELL,
MAYBE THOSE PEOPLE WON'T NECESSARILY HAVE CARS OR THEY WILL USE OTHER,
OTHER MEANS. 
          BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY PROMOTING CARS IN A WAY. 
          THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE,
NOBODY'S GIVING UP THEIR CARS. THIS IDEA, THIS IDEA IS, I THINK,
VERY UTOPIAN, IS THAT PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO DRIVE. THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF WHO LIVES IN THIS
CITY THEY DRIVE. 
          AND EVERY UNIT THAT WE BRING INTO EXISTENCE,
EVEN WITH HIGHER DENSITY, THEY CAN POTENTIALLY BE MOVING HERE FROM UP
NORTH OR DOWN SOUTH. 
          THEY ARE BRINGING CARS TOO. 
          I THINK IT'S A PIPE DREAM TO ASSUME THAT
PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO DRIVE CARS AND JUST WALK AROUND. THEY'RE BRINGING CARS. 
          THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME CARS,
BUT THEY MAY NOT BE OUT THERE AS OFTEN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MAKING THOSE TRIPS AS
OFTEN TO GO EVERYWHERE. 
          THEIR WORK TRIPS ARE GOING TO BE REDUCED
BECAUSE THEY MAY ONLY USE, YOU KNOW, IF MOST OF US ARE FROM SOMEWHERE
ELSE. 
          AND IN NEW YORK, IN BALTIMORE AND OTHER
PLACES, PEOPLE MAY HAVE CARS,
THEY MAY NOT, BUT THEN THEY HAVE A BIG THEN TRAFFIC IS TERRIBLE. THEY HAVE A BIG TRANSIT
SYSTEM. 
          SOME OF THESE PLACES HAVE OTHER THINGS,
BUT WE CAN CREATE SOMETHING HERE WHERE IF THAT HAPPENS, WE HAVE PARKING. 
          I THINK I KNOW THAT I WAS MAYBE PEOPLE DON'T
AGREE WITH IT, BUT I WAS A PART OF AN APPROVAL ON CENTRAL
PARKWAY. 
          AND WE HAVE SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE
COME IN ON CENTRAL PARKWAY IN THE PAST TEN, 15 YEARS. I'VE ONLY BEEN DOING THIS SINCE
2011, BUT THOSE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE COME IN AND ONE
OF THEM STRICTLY CAME WITH THE IDEA THAT THAT COULD PRODUCE THE BUS COULD PASS THROUGH
THERE, AND THAT COULD BE A WAY TO START HAVING SOME
KIND OF A COMMUTER RUN WHERE YOU CAN GO FROM THAT AREA DOWN ALONG KANNER HIGHWAY DOWN TO
TO DOWNTOWN. 
          IF WE HAVE 3 OR 4 MORE PEOPLE OR 100 OR
WHOEVER THE NUMBERS IS THAT'S COMING IN WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE ALONG KANNER HIGHWAY
TO GET DOWNTOWN. 
          BUT MAYBE TAKE A BUS IF WE CAN EVER GET TO
THAT LEVEL WHERE PEOPLE CAN TRUST. 
          AND WE HAVE THE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WHERE
THERE'S A TIME FACTOR THAT THEY CAN KNOW THAT IF I'M GOING TO GO TO THE COURTHOUSE OR
SOMEWHERE, I CAN PICK UP SOMETHING AT 9 OR 10 AND I CAN
BE BACK HOME AT 11 OR 1:00 OR WHATEVER. 
          BUT THOSE KIND OF THINGS ARE TO COME. 
          BUT IT'S A PART OF THAT PLANNING THING. 
          I HEAR YOU ON THE HALF UNIT. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT WHEN WE SIT HERE AND WE
TALK ABOUT A PUD AND WE MAKE THOSE DECISIONS, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW
ANYBODY TO GIN THE SYSTEM AND JUST GO WILD WITH WITH HAVING A SMALLER UNIT,
BUT IT'S A WAY TO HAVE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF SOMETHING SMALLER FOR SOMEBODY WHO CAN'T
AFFORD TO GO TO THAT TWO BEDROOM PLACE, 
          [01:45:04]
BUT THEY COULD HAVE A SMALL ONE BEDROOM AND
STILL LIVE IN A NICE AREA. 
          HOW DO WE GUARANTEE AFFORDABILITY IN THAT
UNIT? JUST BECAUSE IT'S SMALLER DOESN'T MEAN IT'S
GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE. IT'S AFFORDABLE TO THEM. WELL, I OBVIOUSLY YOU WON'T BE PAYING
THE SAME. 
          IT WILL BE MORE ONE UNIT. 
          THERE WILL BE A SMALLER UNIT VERSUS A TWO
BEDROOM. 
          WE DON'T KNOW. BE CAREFUL NOT GETTING INTO AN
ARGUMENT BACK AND FORTH. WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION. THANK YOU AND THANK YOU. 
          I'M HAVING FUN TALKING. 
          I KNOW, BUT IF I COULD JUST SPEAK. 
          AND THEN AFTERWARDS WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE
RULES. 
          SO THAT'S THE OTHER THING. 
          LET ME SEE. SHUT THE GATES TO THE COUNTY. 
          BUT I'M JUST LOOKING AT MY NOTES HERE BECAUSE
I HAD TO LEAVE RIGHT AFTER YOU SPOKE. 
          I'M SORRY. AND THEN THE OTHER THING,
WHICH WHICH WAS AN IDEAL THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THAT WE SHOULD, THE CITY'S GOAL SHOULD BE TO
CREATE HOUSING OR TO FOSTER HOUSING WITH DEVELOPERS AND OTHERS THAT HOUSING THAT
APPEALS TO INDIVIDUALS WITH HIGHER MEDIAN INCOME. WHAT IS THAT SAYING TO PEOPLE WHO'VE
LIVED HERE, WHO'VE CREATED THE FABRIC AND THE CHARACTER
OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WHO STARTED OUT WITH A HOME AT 44,000 OR
60,000 OR 119,000, AND WHO HAVE MAY HAVE CHILDREN OR OTHERS WHO
MAY WANT TO COME AND RENT AN APARTMENT OR RENT A HOUSE. AND WE,
OF COURSE, KNOW THAT THE HOUSING MARKET THERE ARE THINGS THAT CONTROL THE MARKET IN
GENERAL, BUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY SAY AS A CITY THAT WE
WANT OUR HOUSING GOAL TO BE HOUSING, THAT APPEALS TO THE INDIVIDUALS WITH HIGHER
MEDIAN INCOME, BUT WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME AND TAKE CARE OF
OUR SICK. 
          WE WANT PEOPLE TO COME AND TAKE CARE OF OUR
HOMES OR GARDENS OR BUSINESSES DRAW BLOOD FOR PEOPLE, DO WHATEVER PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY HAVE
TO WORK AND HAVE A FAIR LIVING WAGE. 
          I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN,
ARE WE SAYING THAT WE WANT TO JUST BE A RESORT TOWN AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS
A HOUSE THAT'S OVER 600, 000? AND THAT'S FINE,
BECAUSE THAT'S A MEDIUM INCOME. 
          NOT AT ALL. I'LL EXPLAIN THAT TO ME,
PLEASE, SIR. THANK YOU. SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
IS NEW DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY THAT ANYBODY LIVES
HERE. 
          THAT IS BELOW 300,000 IS SOMEHOW LESS WORTHY. 
          THE IDEA IS WHEN YOU'RE VERY LOW END HEAVY
FROM A TAX STANDPOINT, YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE MORE BALANCED
HOUSING SUPPLY. 
          THE CONVERSATION THAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING IN
THE LAST FOUR YEARS IS THAT A MORE BALANCED HOUSING SUPPLY LOOKS LIKE MORE OF THAT LOW
END. 
          BUT WHEN WE COMPARE STUART TO OTHER LOCAL
BOROUGHS OR CITIES, IT ACTUALLY BECOMES APPARENT THAT WE ARE VERY
LOW END HEAVY. 
          SO I'M NOT SAYING DISPLACE ANYBODY LOCALLY,
BUT I'M SAYING IF YOU DON'T WANT TO END UP INCREASING TAXES ON THOSE WHO LIVE HERE,
YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME OF THAT HIGHER END TO HELP OFFSET THAT DISPARITY. 
          SO THERE'S MORE BALANCE. 
          NOTHING AGAINST WHO LIVES HERE. NOW,
I DON'T LIVE IN A BIG FANCY HOUSE EITHER, BUT CAN I MAKE A FEW OTHER POINTS AS WELL TO
WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? YES. THE IDEA OF PUBLIC TRANSIT AS SOLVING
ALL OF THE THAT WE'RE GOING TO CREATE SO MUCH DENSITY WITHOUT PARKING,
IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FORCE PUBLIC TRANSIT. BUT SITTING ON THE MPO WITH
YOU. 
          MAYOR, IT HAS. AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I'VE
ASKED ABOUT LIKE THE. 
          MARTY, VERY FEW PEOPLE RIDE THAT BUS. 
          VERY FEW PEOPLE. I BELIEVE THE NUMBER FROM
WHAT I RECALL WAS TWO PEOPLE AT PEAK HOUR ON PEAK ROUTES ARE IN THAT. 
          WELL, YOU CAN'T. THE IDEA SHOULDN'T BE
PUSHING AND FORCING PEOPLE TO RIDE PUBLIC TRANSIT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER WAY
TO NAVIGATE, BECAUSE WE'VE MADE IT SO OVERLY DENSE AND THEY CAN'T PARK THAT THEY HAVE TO. 
          PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BE ABLE TO
DRIVE THEIR CARS AND IN PARK, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T MADE IT OVERLY DENSE AND
IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO. 
          IT MAY BE THE DESIRE OF SOME PHILOSOPHICALLY
THAT CARS ARE EVIL AND GAS IS BAD, AND FOSSIL FUELS AND CLIMATE CHANGE. 
          I LOVE FREEDOM, I LOVE THE ABILITY TO DRIVE
IN DOWNTOWN, GO TO DINNER AND HAVE A PARKING SPACE. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT IS ADEQUATE LEVEL OF
SERVICE AND MAKING IT TO WHERE WHAT WE APPROVE IS SO DENSE AND OUTSIDE OF OUR COMP
PLAN THAT WE CAN'T EVEN PARK DOWNTOWN BECAUSE ALL OF THAT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO JOCKEY FOR A
SPACE. 
          IT'S GOING TO HURT SMALL BUSINESS WHERE
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE FIGHTING FOR SPACES THAT THE ELIZABETH IS A GOOD EXAMPLE NOT TO
STEP ON TOES FOR WHO'S APPROVED IT, BUT THE DISPARITY BETWEEN WHAT PARKING WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE THERE AND IS THERE IS GOING TO CREATE SPILLOVER THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT
BRIDGE FINANCIAL, THAT ACCOUNT. IT'S GOING TO AFFECT OTHER
BUSINESSES ON THAT STREET. 
          AND TO JUST SAY, IT DOESN'T MATTER AND PEOPLE
NEED TO BE TAKING PUBLIC TRANSIT ANYWAY. 
          I DON'T THINK HONORS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE
HERE, THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE,
IT'S AN OLDER DEMOGRAPHIC. 
          [01:50:05]
WHAT WE ARE APPROVING IS WHAT ADDS MORE
PEOPLE. 
          THAT WAS A POINT THAT WE ARE NOT AT THE MERCY
OF PEOPLE JUST MOVING HERE. 
          AND WE'RE, WE'RE OVERRUNNING. 
          THEY'RE JUST WE CREATE THE DWELLING UNIT FOR
THEM TO LIVE INSIDE OF BY APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S BEYOND OUR, OUR COMP PLAN. 
          WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS HALF UNIT,
SPECIFICALLY, WHEN WE SAY THAT THAT THAT PROPERTY BASED ON OUR COMP PLAN AND LAND USE
WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE MAXIMUM 30 DOORS, AND WE APPROVE A PROJECT WITH NO PARKING THAT
HAS CLOSER TO 60. 
          I BELIEVE WE HAVE TRANSGRESSED OUR COMP PLAN
AND LAND USE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN AROUND NOW FOR THREE YEARS,
2020 WAS WHEN THAT AMENDMENT HAPPENED. 
          THAT IS VERY NOVEL. THIS IS BRAND NEW STUFF
THAT'S NEVER EXISTED IN OUR IN THE WAY THAT WE WORK AS A MUNICIPALITY. 
          AND THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE,
MAYBE TWO PROJECTS THAT HAVE INCORPORATED IT. 
          WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE REPERCUSSIONS OF
THAT ARE GOING TO BE IF, AS WE REDEVELOP GOING FORWARD. 
          AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE SAYING IT'S IN THAT MORE
URBAN PART, BUT THAT IS IS ONE POLICY CHANGE AWAY FROM
EXPANDING OUT TO LARGER ASPECT OF THE CITY AS WE REDEVELOP, IF WE'RE DOING SO AT QUADRUPLE
OUR PREVIOUS DENSITY, QUADRUPLE, BASICALLY AT LEAST DOUBLE. 
          I THINK VERY FEW PROJECTS HAVE EVER BEEN
APPROVED BEFORE THE LAST FEW YEARS, ANYWHERE NEAR 30. MOST WAS BY RIGHT AT 10 TO
15. 
          SO IF WE'RE GOING TO BE APPROVING THINGS AT
50 AND 60 UNITS PER ACRE THAT DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING, I THINK IT'S A RECIPE FOR
DISASTER IN IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT WE'VE APPROVED OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS AT 3000
UNITS, WE SHOULD GET AS FAR AWAY AS WE AS WE CAN
FROM THIS AMENDMENT. 
          THIS SHOULD BE REMOVED AND PUT ON HOLD FOR AS
LONG AS IT TAKES. 
          FOR EVERYTHING WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED TO BE
BUILT AND INHABITED, AND SEE WHAT THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THAT ARE BEFORE WE THINK
ABOUT BUILDING ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAS HALF UNITS AS THE MARKER. 
          SO AGAIN, I WOULD, I WOULD ARGUE THE POINT
THAT IF, IF WE WANT TO BE AT 60 UNITS PER ACRE,
WE SHOULD JUST DO THAT. 
          IF THAT'S TRULY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO,
LET'S AVOID THIS BACK DOOR, HALF UNIT CONFUSING THING. IT IS VERY CONFUSING WHAT A
UNIT IS. 
          THAT'S WHY IT'S HELPFUL. HELPFUL FOR ME TO
SAY DOORS, RIGHT? IF WE WANT TO MAKE IT 60 DOORS AN ACRE
DO THAT WOULD BE MY LAST POINT. 
          I'LL STOP THERE UNLESS SOMETHING ELSE COMES
UP. OKAY, SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. DO YOU HAVE
ANYTHING ELSE? NO, I'M JUST SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT LIKE FIVE YEARS AGO WHEN I GOT
HERE, THEY WERE JUST STARTING TO DO AZUL AND
EVERYBODY WAS SO EXCITED AND HAPPY. 
          THIS ALL THE STAFF, THE COMMISSIONERS,
BECAUSE WE HADN'T HAD ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND BOY, DID WE GET. OH MY GOD. 
          ALL THE PEOPLE, THE NAYSAYERS. 
          AND THE SAME THING WITH COLORADO. 
          AND WE STARTED BUILDING MORE AND MORE THAT
BEING ON THIS PART OF THE CRA, THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AREA. 
          WHEN I GOT HERE, I WAS ON THE CRB BOARD AND I
LOVED LOVE GOING TO THE CONVENTIONS THEY COULD SEND ME TO. AND I LEARNED A LOT. 
          AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE TRYING TO MAKE THIS
CITY SOMETHING. 
          25, 30 YEARS AGO, IT STARTED HAPPENING. 
          IT IS SLOWLY DOING IT. 
          BUT WE NEVER HAD THE THE BUILDING LIKE WE
LIKE WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. 
          BUT WE REALLY THOUGHT WE COMMISSIONERS AND I
WON'T APOLOGIZE FOR IT. 
          ALL THE WORK WE'VE DONE AND,
AND PUTTING THAT MONEY IN OTHER PLACES AS SOME OF THE FUNDS WE REALLY THOUGHT THAT THE, THAT WE WOULD HELP WITH THE,
WITH THE HOUSING AND THE RENT. 
          NO ONE WAS EXPECTING COVID AND WHEN COVID GOT
HERE AND WHAT IT'S DONE TO CITIES ALL OVER, ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES THERE'S PEOPLE
GOING CRAZY AND MOVING HERE AND BUYING. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL EVER COME DOWN. 
          IT'S IT'S A DIFFERENT THING. 
          BUT WHEN YOU LIVE IN A TOWN DOWNTOWN,
THE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS IS TO GET PEOPLE TO BE A PART OF IT. NOW,
THERE'S SOME PEOPLE THAT JUST DON'T WANT TO 
          [01:55:03]
BE A PART OF IT. AND THAT'S THAT'S GREAT. I
LIKE THAT THEY CAN LIVE IN THE HOUSE LIKE ME. 
          BUT I WOULD LIKE TO LIVE DOWNTOWN. 
          ONE OF THE APARTMENTS. BUT NO,
WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY THERE IS A CERTAIN TYPE OF PEOPLE FOR, FOR OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          THEY'RE OUT AND ABOUT. 
          AND I LIKE THAT YOU SEE PEOPLE OUT AND ABOUT. 
          SOME PEOPLE NEVER COME DOWNTOWN. 
          THEY NEVER DRIVE AROUND AND SEE WHAT WE'VE
ACCOMPLISHED. 
          I WISH THAT THEY WOULD. 
          EVERY STREET THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY OF
STUART ARE THE NEIGHBORHOODS WE WANT TO SPEND MONEY ON FIXING UP THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          IF IT'S IF IT'S TREES,
SIDEWALKS. 
          SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT SIDEWALKS,
BUT THIS IS A GREAT CITY AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO I DON'T THINK IT'S BROKEN. 
          CAN WE FIX IT? CAN WE CUT BACK? YEAH, WE CAN CUT BACK. 
          THERE'S NO PROPERTY LEFT ANYWAY,
SO WE'VE DONE THE HARD PART. 
          IT'S HERE. MR. COLLINS,
IT'S YOU. 
          YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE A PART OF THIS. THESE
ARE GOING TO SEE THESE LAST FIVE YEARS WE JUST HAD. IT'S NOT THE LAND IS NOT THERE. 
          I DON'T KNOW. I'M, I'M OKAY WITH CUTTING SOME
OF IT BACK AND, AND THERE WAS ONE MORE THING TOO. 
          BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MAKE IT EASY
FOR DEVELOPERS TO COME IN HERE AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF US. BUT WHAT I WANT TO SAY ONE
MORE THING AND AND ASK WHAT YOU THOUGHT. 
          AND IT'S THE. I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT IT. 
          MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN THE READER AGREEMENT. 
          CAN WE TAKE THAT AWAY? NO. 
          I THINK THE READER. THE READER IS. 
          IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY,
IT IS THE GRANT. 
          THE INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT. 
          RITA IS THE REAL ESTATE ACCELERATION GRANT
THROUGH THE CRA. 
          WE THE CRA MODIFIED IT SIGNIFICANTLY LAST
YEAR, CHANGED THE PARCELS, CHANGED THE QUALIFIERS
AND THE THINGS OF THAT. 
          THE TRUTH OF IT IS, IS IT GOES BACK TO THE
BEGINNING OF THIS WORKSHOP. 
          WE ACTUALLY HAD A VERY CLEAR AND DISTINCT
PRESENTATION DONE BY THE CITY MANAGER. 
          THAT WAS A VERY THOROUGH INVENTORY OF ALL THE
LAND USES. 
          AND WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT THOSE VERY
MUCH. 
          BUT THE THE DISCUSSION OF THAT INVENTORY KIND
OF DRIVES EVERYTHING YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE REASON THE RITA HASN'T COME BEFORE
YOU FOR SOME TIME IS BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAND FOR THEM TO GET APPROVALS OR DEVELOP ON
BECAUSE IT'S DONE. 
          HE POINTED OUT THAT MULTIFAMILY IS AT ZERO
SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, DISTRICT IS AT ZERO. AND THEN HE POINTED OUT
THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE EAST STEWART AREA,
THERE WAS 24 ACRES, BUT THERE'S NOT 241 ACRE DEVELOPABLE LOTS
THAT ARE THESE PERFECT SQUARES WITH DRIVEWAYS IN THEM. THERE'S 24 ACRES MADE UP OF 36 FOOT
WIDE LOTS AND 45 FOOT WIDE, LOTS AND CHUNKS HERE AND CHUNKS THERE,
AND LITTLE PIECES. 
          THE SAME GOES TO THE SINGLE FAMILY. 
          IF YOU PULLED BACK THAT INVENTORY BACK UP,
YOU'D LEARN THAT THERE'S 120 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL, MOST OF IT ON US ONE,
AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE WHOLE CITY, INCLUDING CONSERVATION,
INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, SINGLE FAMILY, EVERYTHING MAKES UP ABOUT 80
ACRES. 
          SO YOU HAVE ABOUT 212 ACRES OR WHATEVER. 
          THE TOTAL NUMBER IS OVER,
THAT'S IT. 
          AND THE NEXT 50 YEARS. AND THEN IF YOU TOOK
UP A MAP OR GOOGLE EARTH, ANY MAP YOU WANT. 
          AND YOU LOOKED AT THE BORDERS OF STEWART AND
SAID, OKAY, WELL, WHERE'S THAT GIANT ORANGE GROVE THAT'S A THOUSAND ACRES NEXT TO STEWART
THAT STEWART'S GOING TO ANNEX IN TO DO ALL THIS BROWARD IZATION. IT DOESN'T EXIST. 
          THERE IS NO ORANGE GROVE. 
          ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE KIND OF REACH A
DEAD END ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DISCUSSION ISN'T BECAUSE YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO DO IT. 
          IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T,
BECAUSE THERE'S NO LAND. 
          AND THE IRONY IS THAT WE HAVE THIS
CONVERSATION THAT YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO LAND. AND THEN WE FLIP THE COIN
AND START TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND THEN WE PRETEND IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT
THERE'S THESE THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF LAND AND EVERYONE'S COMING, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE
LIKE ALL THESE HUNDREDS OF BUILDINGS AND APPLICATIONS AND ALL THIS STUFF,
BUT THE SAME NO LAND IS STILL THERE. 
          THERE ISN'T ANY. THAT'S AN ODD SENTENCE,
RIGHT? I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER. 
          YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS WHEN
THERE'S NOT ANY LAND IN THE FIRST HALF. 
          THERE'S NOT ANY IN THE SECOND HALF. AND SO I
THINK THAT THE READER THING IS YOU GUYS CAN DENY ANY READ IF YOU WANT,
BUT THEY QUALIFY BASED UPON WHAT THEY'RE GIVING BACK AND WHAT THE VALUATION IS AND HOW
MUCH THEY INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND CERTAIN THINGS LIKE THAT. AND NO MATTER
WHAT IN THE READER, NO DEVELOPMENT, NO TAXES ARE ACTUALLY PAID
OUT BY THE CITY. 
          THEY ONLY THE DEVELOPER ONLY GETS LIKE 30% OF
THE NEW TAXES GENERATED FOR THE NEXT FIVE 
          [02:00:04]
YEARS, WHICH MEANS THE CITY WOULD GET 70% OF
THE NEW TAX. 
          SO IT'S ALWAYS A NET GAIN TO THE CITY ON THE
READER. 
          BUT THE REAL QUESTION YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS
THAT IS RIGHT THERE. 
          IT'S UP ON THAT ONE FOR ONE SECOND. 
          LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. 
          YOU CAN SEE THERE'S KIND OF LIKE LIGHT BLUISH
GREEN. 
          THOSE ARE THE VACANT ONES. 
          SO I MEAN, THERE'S, WHAT ARE THEY. 
          123456789 1011. I MEAN YOU CAN,
YOU CAN COUNT THEM. 
          YEAH. IN FACT, MY DID WE LIKE 2017 GO BACK? AND ACTUALLY, BECAUSE SOME OF THESE LOTS WERE
UNBUILDABLE BECAUSE OF THE SIZE, WE ACTUALLY MODIFIED THE COMP PLAN TO MAKE
THESE A LITTLE BIT MORE TO CREATE THE COTTAGE LOTS. RIGHT? THE COTTAGE LOTS BECAUSE,
BECAUSE SOME OF THESE LOTS WE COULDN'T EVEN BUILD ON. SO DID YOU,
DID YOU TURN THAT ON? I DID. CAN YOU SCROLL LIKE JUST TO ANOTHER
ONE RANDOMLY TO. 
          BECAUSE I THINK LIKE WHEN YOU START LOOKING
AT THE THE, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT,
FOR EXAMPLE, IT SAYS VACANT PARCELS ARE THREE AND VACANT
ACRES ARE FOUR, BUT THE FOUR VACANT ACRES ARE IN THE AVONLEA. 
          AND THAT'S IT. IT'S FOUR ACRES. 
          YOU KNOW, THAT'S. YOU KNOW,
THAT'S IT. 
          SO GO TO THE NEXT ONE. 
          LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS OFFICE. 
          RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S SIX ACRES. 
          TOTAL. I'M NOT SURE IF IT SAYS VACANT
PARCELS, FIVE VACANT ACRES, SIX. 
          SO ONE PARCEL MIGHT BE AN ACRE AND A HALF. 
          BUT THE REALITY IS THAT'S IT. 
          SO EVEN IF YOU BUILT ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES
OUT AT MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 30 UNITS AN ACRE. 
          60, WELL, MOST OF THESE ARE OUTSIDE OF THE
URBAN CRA AREA. 
          YOU YOU WOULD YOU WOULD END UP WITH
REALISTICALLY, MAYBE YOU'VE GOT 1000 UNITS LEFT IN THE CITY
FOR THE NEXT 50 YEARS. 
          MAYBE. WHAT ABOUT ANNEXATION? WHAT ABOUT PULL UP THE SCREEN AND FIND THE
VACANT LAND? IT USED TO BE THAT NORTH,
SOUTH, EAST AND WEST OF THE CITY WAS VACANT LAND. AND LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE,
WHEN THE COSTCO PROPERTY ANNEXED TO THE CITY, IT WAS VACANT. WHEN THE THE THE DOWN IN
SOUTH, THE FOUNTAINS, WHATEVER IT WAS THAT WAS
VACANT WHEN THE PLACE ACROSS THE STREET CAME IN, IT WAS VACANT WHEN ALL THE STUFF ON US
ONE CAME IN WHERE WALMART IS, ALL THAT STUFF THAT CAME IN WAS ALL VACANT
WHEN IT CAME INTO THE CITY. 
          WINDERMERE. WINDERMERE WAS VACANT,
THE PINES WAS VACANT. 
          AND MIKE, EXPLAIN WHY THE CITY,
HOW WHY THE FOLKS ACTUALLY ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. HE. ESPECIALLY DOWN SOUTH BECAUSE THE
COUNTY DENIED ONE BUILDING PERMIT ESSENTIALLY. AND WE DON'T HAVE THE MAP,
BUT ON THE CORNER OF INDIAN STREET AND US ONE. THERE WAS A GAS STATION. 
          IT USED TO BE R.J. GATOR'S BEFORE IT WAS A
GAS STATION. 
          FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE A LONG TIME,
BUT IT, IT WANTED TO DO ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN FOUR PUMPS. 
          THEY WANTED TO DO THIS,
YOU KNOW, BIGGER GAS STATION THING. 
          AND THE COUNTY SAID NO. AND THERE WAS SOME
CONCURRENCY ISSUES. 
          SO THEY APPLIED TO THE CITY BECAUSE OUR
ZONING WAS DIFFERENT AND THE CITY ALLOWED THOSE PUMPS. AND THEN THE BALANCE OF THAT
PROPERTY ON US, ONE WAS NOW CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CITY. 
          IF THEY HAD SAID YES,
THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANNEXED. BUT THE POINT OF IT BEING TOO IS, I THINK,
ANNEXATION. 
          IT'S TREATED AS A BAD WORD,
LIKE IF THOSE. 
          IF THE LAND ON U.S. ONE HADN'T BEEN ANNEXED
INTO THE CITY, IT'D STILL BE VACANT. BUT THAT'S SIMPLY NOT
TRUE. 
          WHEN YOU GET TO THE CORNER OF I-95 AND KANNER
HIGHWAY, AND YOU LOOK AROUND AT ALL THE DUNKIN DONUTS
AND MCDONALD'S AND HOTELS AND ALL THE STUFF THAT'S OUT THERE THAT DIDN'T GET ANNEXED INTO
THE CITY, AND THE 21 DEVELOPMENT SIGNS ON KANNER
HIGHWAY AS YOU'RE DRIVING OUT TO 95 RIGHT NOW, DIDN'T GET ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. 
          SO IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF ANNEXED GOOD VERSUS
BAD. 
          THE TRUTH IS, AS AN OWNER OF LAND,
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY INCENTIVE TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY IF YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS
ALREADY BUILT. 
          THERE'S NO REASON FOR ANY PURPOSE TO JUST
SAY, I'D LIKE TO PAY A LITTLE MORE IN TAXES IF
YOU'RE GOING TO REDEVELOP THAT PROPERTY, IF YOU BUY IT AND YOU WANT TO REDEVELOP IT AND
DO IT AT FOUR TIMES THE DENSITY. 
          AND POTENTIALLY THAT COULD BE TRUE IF IN FACT
IT WAS THREE TIMES THE DENSITY. 
          BUT LET'S USE COSTCO AGAIN. 
          IT WASN'T THREE TIMES THE DENSITY. 
          IT CAME IN AT EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. 
          SO THAT WASN'T THE EVEN THE ARGUMENT THAT
THEY WERE MAKING FOR THE DENSITY WAS AN EXPIRED LAND USE. THAT WAS FIVE UNITS PER
ACRE. 
          SO IT WAS ALMOST COMPARABLE DENSITY. 
          THE FACT OF IT IS, IS THAT IT'S A IT'S A
MISNOMER. 
          THE QUESTION REALLY IS MORE ALONG THE PLANS
THAT COMMISSIONER COLLINS OF YOUR PRESENTATION. YOU GUYS AS A BOARD REALLY NEED
TO DECIDE. 
          LOOK, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS
25,000 30,000. 
          BUT IT'S A NUMBER AND IT IS FINITE. 
          IT'S SOMEWHERE. LET'S FIGURE THAT OUT AND
SAY, 
          [02:05:03]
OKAY, LOOK, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT BECAUSE IF
YOU GUYS CAN COME TO THAT CONCLUSION AND SAY, LOOK, WE PROMISE YOU PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO BE BROWARD AND WE'RE NEVER GOING TO LET IT GET OVER 30,000 OR 31,000 PEOPLE. 
          SO WHEN THIS PROJECT COMES FORWARD AND
THERE'S 176 UNITS IN IT, THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE IT'S PART OF OUR
FORMULA. 
          IF WE VOTE YES ON THIS,
IT'S OKAY. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
MATTER. 
          BECAUSE HERE'S THE MASTER PLAN AND WE'RE NOT
GOING TO GO OVER THIS NUMBER. 
          SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY IN 20 YEARS FROM
NOW, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THIS ONSLAUGHT OF
DEVELOPMENT AND SET THE COMP PLAN IN THAT DIRECTION AND SET IT SO THAT THE RESIDENTS
DON'T HAVE TO SEND TEXT MESSAGES THAT SAY, WE'RE AFRAID OF BROWARD IZING. 
          AND COMMISSIONER CLARK WAS DEMONSTRATING THAT
OUR COMP PLAN AND OUR CODE DOES DEMONSTRATE THAT WITH THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE,
IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD MORE THAN 30 UNITS PER ACRE WITHOUT DEVIATING FROM SOME OF
THE PARKING OR SOME OF THE STUFF. 
          BUT THE TRUTH IS, THE CODE WAS WRITTEN THAT
WAY. 
          IT WAS WRITTEN WITH THE INTENTION THAT THE
COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO PARTICIPATE AND HAVE TO DEVIATE ON CERTAIN THINGS TO ALLOW THESE
DEVELOPMENTS, BECAUSE THE DRAFTERS WANTED EVERY PROJECT TO
HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION. 
          SO AS A RESULT, THEY INCREASED THESE LITTLE
REQUIREMENTS TO MAKE IT JUST OUTSIDE OF BEING ABLE TO BEING DONE WITHOUT A HEARING SO THAT
YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN IT. OVER TIME,
IT'S TURNED INTO THIS CONCEPT THAT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE GIVING EVERYTHING AWAY. 
          WELL, THE TRUTH IS, IF THEY HAD LEFT IT THE
WAY IT WAS, THE FOUR BUILDINGS ON US,
ONE, THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE UP THERE ACROSS FROM PUBLIX,
IT'S NOT A PUD THAT WAS STRAIGHT ZONING, STRAIGHT ZONING. JUST BUILD AWAY BECAUSE THE
ZONING DIDN'T HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS IN IT. 
          THEY COULD JUST BUILD THEM. 
          AND AND SO WHAT THEY DID IS THEY TIGHTENED
ALL THE RULES, MADE IT HARDER, AND MADE IT MORE COMPLICATED
FOR A DEVELOPER TO COME IN AND GET SOMETHING DONE SO THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO
GRANT AN EXCEPTION. 
          AND THEN THE COMMON DENOMINATOR WAS,
OH MY GOD, THEY'RE CONSTANTLY GIVING EXCEPTIONS. 
          SO THEY CHANGED IT TO CONDITIONAL USE. 
          TAKE THE EXCEPTION OUT. 
          SO THE PERCEPTION IS. BUT THE TRUTH WAS THAT
ALL ALONG. 
          IN 2008, THE CITY ADOPTED AN INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT AND HAD APPROVED A CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT WITH THE DEP FOR THE WATER FOR THE 20
YEAR CONSUMPTIVE USE PLAN, WHICH WAS GOING TO BE UNTIL 2028. 
          AND IT DIDN'T MATTER THAT IT WAS TILL 2028. 
          IN 2005, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT,
AS THEY WERE PUTTING THAT PERMIT TOGETHER, IT WAS ALWAYS BASED UPON THE LAND AND THE
INVENTORY AND WHAT WAS AVAILABLE IN. 
          STEWART PROJECTED THAT AT BUILD OUT,
STEWART WOULD BE ABOUT 28 TO 30,000 PEOPLE. 
          SO WHEN THE CITY SIGNED THAT AGREEMENT WITH
THE COUNTY FOR ALL FUTURE WATER USE FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS, THEY PROJECTED THAT THEY
WOULD BE PROVIDING WATER FOR ABOUT 28,000 PEOPLE, AND THAT INCLUDED A COUPLE THOUSAND
PEOPLE THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTY LIMITS, GETTING WATER OR CITY LIMITS,
GETTING WATER FROM THE CITY, AND A COUPLE THOUSAND PEOPLE INSIDE THE LIMITS,
GETTING WATER FROM THE COUNTY. 
          AND IS THAT BASED ON OUR LAND USE AND ZONING
CONDITIONAL USE MAXIMUMS, THAT NUMBER. HONESTLY,
IT WAS JUST BASED UPON LOOKING AT A MAP AND SAYING, HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU THINK ARE
GOING TO END UP HERE AT THE END OF THE DAY AND SHUFFLING THE CARDS AND JUST KIND OF
LIKE, WHAT'S THE USE GOING TO BE? AND IT WAS JUST
KIND OF A COMMON APPROACH WAS LOOKED AT IT AND IT'S IT BECAUSE IF YOU DOUBLE THAT NUMBER
AND MAKE IT 60, THAT WOULD AFFECT THAT AS EACH BUILDING COMES
DOWN AND GETS REDONE. 
          BUT THERE'S A, THERE'S A SCALE TO,
THERE'S NOBODY GOING TO BUY. 
          NO ONE'S GOING TO BUY A ZOO AT THREE,
AT THREE STORIES AND KNOCK IT DOWN AND BUILD A FOURTH STORY. NO, BUT NOT THIS RULE. 
          THAT'S BRAND NEW. RIGHT. 
          AND, AND ALL OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WERE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE IS NOT EITHER. IT'S THE IT'S THE US ONE. 
          BUT IF YOU IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL SPACE AND
YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT AND YOU COULD BUILD COMMERCIAL OR YOU COULD BUILD FOR THE DENSITY
OF RESIDENTIAL AND YOU CAN GET A LAND USE CHANGE. THAT'S THE WHOLE GAME. BUT SO IF YOU.
BUT IF YOU CAME TO A CONSENSUS RIGHT NOW, AND I'M NOT, IT ALSO DRIVES UP THE LAND COST. BUT
IF IT WAS IF THE CONSENSUS WAS A POPULATION OF 30,000, LET'S JUST DRIVE UP THE COSTS. 
          WOULD IT MATTER? MILLION DOLLAR. 
          NOTHING'S GOING TO DRIVE UP LAND COSTS MORE
THAN THAT. 
          IF YOU IF YOU ALLOW WHAT GETS BUILT ON THAT
LAND TO BE CHANGED TO A HIGHER USE, THAT GENERATES MORE INCOME. 
          NOW, EVERY PIECE OF LIKE AG LAND OUT WEST,
FOR INSTANCE, NOW THAT AG LAND IS NO LONGER AG LAND VALUE. 
          IT'S A VALUE AS AN EXAMPLE. 
          BUT WE DON'T NEED THAT EXAMPLE. 
          BUT MAYBE IT'S COMMERCIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL. 
          MAYBE IT WOULD BE A CHURCH AND NOW IT CAN BE
TURNED INTO A HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT RENTALS. 
          YOU DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S ACCURATE. IT
WOULD DRIVE UP THE LAND PRICE. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. OKAY. 
          I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO POP IN FOR A
SECOND. 
          [02:10:01]
JUST I JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, I'M LOSING MY TRAIN. 
          I'M GETTING OLD. THE,
YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE COST OF DRIVING, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, AG LAND OUT WEST,
THE NUMBER ONE THING DRIVING THE EGG WENT INTO INTO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS THE FACT
THAT CITRUS DIED. 
          IF, IF THEY WERE MAKING STILL MAKING FOR 3 TO
$4000 AN ACRE ON CITRUS, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THEY WOULD NOT BE SELLING
THEIR LAND. 
          BUT UNFORTUNATELY, CITRUS CANKER AND CITRUS
GREENING KILLED THE CITRUS INDUSTRY. 
          THAT'S JUST AN UNFORTUNATE REALITY THAT WE
LIVE IN. 
          AND SO PROPERTY OWNERS ARE LOOKING TO DEVELOP
THEIR PROPERTIES. 
          AND IF THEY CAN GET IT CHANGED FROM AG TO ONE
OF THESE VERY EXPENSIVE WELL, THAT'S THAT'S GOING TO DRIVE UP THE PRICE OF
THAT PARCEL. 
          WELL, THERE WILL NEVER BE A RIGHT. 
          I MEAN, THAT'S COMMON SENSE. WHAT I'M SAYING
IS PRICES ARE GOING TO. 
          BUT THE SAME THING ON A MICRO LEVEL HAPPENS
IN THE CITY. IF IT COULD BE INSTITUTIONAL OR COMMERCIAL, OR IT COULD BE HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL, THAT PRICE OF THAT LAND,
WE CAN ALWAYS IT DRIVES UP COMMERCIAL LAND AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE,
A COMMISSION CAN CHANGE. I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT AFFORDABILITY. I THINK IT'S VERY MUCH
IN THE SAME VEIN. HOLD UP. 
          I GET THIS. EVERYBODY,
I'VE SAID QUIETLY. 
          EVERYBODY SPEAK MY TURN. 
          SO I HAVEN'T. SO WE WE HAVE THE YOU KNOW,
AT ANY POINT IN TIME A FUTURE COMMISSION CAN CHANGE. THE COMP PLAN CAN CHANGE THE LAND USE
CAN CHANGE THE ZONING CAN CHANGE THE HALF UNIT CAN CHANGE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          THAT CAN HAPPEN. AND WE WE CAN'T SIT HERE AND
SPEND OUR TIME. 
          FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S WRONG FOR US TO
SPEND TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CONSTRAIN A FUTURE COMMISSION,
JUST AS I FIND IT. 
          I FIND IT DISTURBING WHEN PREVIOUS
COMMISSIONS TRIED TO CONSTRAIN US IN DIFFERENT WAYS. I JUST AS THE LEGISLATURE OR
THE LEGISLATURE HAS CONSTRAINED US IN EVERY YEAR, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO HEAR. 
          WE'RE GOING TO SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO.
MAYBE AT THE NEXT REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING, WE'LL HEAR FROM CAMPBELL ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE
GOING TO DO TO US THIS YEAR. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE RUNNING INTO IT. 
          AND THE OTHER THING IS I REALLY,
I REALLY GET UPSET WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE SAY HOW WE'RE, HOW THE COMMUNITY IS GETTING
DESTROYED. 
          I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 28 YEARS. 
          MY WIFE HAS BEEN HERE. 
          I'LL JUST SAY MORE THAN THAT. 
          I WAS BORN HERE. SO WE DON'T WANT TO TALK
ABOUT THAT. 
          AND WHEN MY WIFE WAS A LITTLE GIRL ALL OF
WHERE CEDAR POINT IS, ALL OF WALGREENS AND AND ALL OF THAT WAS
FLOWER FARMS AND THINGS, THINGS IT WAS SO IT WAS AG LAND. 
          AND WHEN SHE WAS IN HIGH SCHOOL,
WELL, WHEN SHE WAS GRADUATING FROM HIGH SCHOOL DOWNTOWN WAS DEAD. 
          THERE WAS NOTHING YOU COULD YOU COULD FIRE A
SHOTGUN DOWN ON OSCEOLA STREET AND NOT HIT A CAR OR A PERSON. AND THE LYRIC THEATER,
WHICH WAS THE ONLY MOVIE THEATER WHEN SHE WAS A CHILD. BY THE 70S, THE ROOF WAS CAVING IN. 
          ALL OF THESE THINGS. SO WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE
SAY THAT THE DAMAGE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS DONE AND WITH THE OVERDEVELOPMENT,
MOST OF THOSE PEOPLE MOVED HERE FROM BROWARD AND THEY SAY THEY MOVED. 
          THEY SAY THEY MOVED HERE TO GET AWAY FROM THE
TRAFFIC, AND THEY BROUGHT THE TRAFFIC WITH THEM. YEAH. 
          AND THE SECOND THING IS I WAS IN KISSIMMEE
YESTERDAY, AND I OFTEN KIND OF LOOK AROUND AT WHAT I
SEE. 
          AND I WAS ON THE TURNPIKE AND I SAW THERE'S
THIS BRAND NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. 
          IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST FINISHED. 
          AND ALL IT WAS WAS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. 
          THEY WERE ALL THEY ALL LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE
25FT WIDE, 40FT DEEP WITH MINIMAL SETBACKS. 
          BUT WHAT REALLY CAUGHT MY ATTENTION,
THERE WAS HARDLY A TREE TO BE SEEN. 
          AND EVERY DEVELOPMENT THAT WE DO. 
          AND I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE APARTMENTS. 
          I THINK IT'S HARBOR GROVE. 
          BUT LOOK AT GO DOWN AND LOOK AT THE
LANDSCAPING AND LOOK AT THE NUMBER. 
          I WASN'T ON THE COMMISSION WHEN THAT WAS
APPROVED, BUT AS THAT LANDSCAPING IS FILLING IN WHEN OSPREY PRESERVE WHEN THEY WENT AND
THEY ILLEGALLY CUT DOWN THE PRESERVE, WHAT WE MADE THEM PUT BACK IN AT,
I THINK 175% OF WHAT WAS THERE. 
          THE, THE LANDSCAPE AND DEFINE. 
          WELL, IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL. 
          FINE. RIGHT. WELL IT WAS,
WE COULDN'T FIND THEM. 
          IT WAS A WE BUT THEY HAD TO PAY MONEY INTO
THE TREE MITIGATION FUND. 
          SO. BUT, BUT WHAT HAPPENED THERE OR THE. 
          BUT EVEN BEFORE THAT. BUT PUTTING THAT ASIDE, THE LANDSCAPING THAT WAS REQUIRED OR THERE. 
          THE, THE, THE WAY WE DO OUR THE WAY WE DO OUR
WATER RETENTION, 
          [02:15:07]
THE WAY WE DO OUR PARKING LOT. 
          THE THE EFFORT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION GOES
TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A REALLY QUALITY, NOT A BROWARD IZATION OF OUR. 
          WITH THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE. THE THE
CANTOR LLC COSTCO PROJECT REQUIRING THEM TO PUT A ROAD IN BACK, YOU KNOW,
BACK BEFORE I WAS ON THE COMMISSION. 
          AND I REALLY DON'T LIKE BOX STORES NEVER
HAVE. 
          AND I INTERVENED AGAINST THE WALMART IN 2001, 2002. MIKE WAS JUST ON THE COMMISSION WHEN HE
WAS A COMMISSIONER. 
          AND I DIDN'T LIKE WALMART BECAUSE I FEEL THEY
HURT SMALL BUSINESS. 
          BUT I WASN'T AGAINST,
I'M NOT AGAINST, WASN'T AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE MARTIN COUNTY
AND CITY OF STEWART, THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS PERCEIVED. 
          AND THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF MY INTERVENTION,
WALMART PAID FOR A ROAD. 
          WALMART PAID FOR A BUFFERING THAT YOU CAN'T
SEE THE STORE. 
          AND THOSE WERE THINGS THAT HAPPENED BECAUSE
THOSE ARE THE WAY THINGS HAPPEN IN STUART. 
          AND I, SO I LOOK AROUND,
I LOOK AT THE BUFFERING THAT WE'VE DONE ON DIFFERENT PROJECTS OVER THE YEARS,
WHETHER IT'S A, WHETHER IT'S ONE OF THOSE STORAGE FACILITIES, THE, THE, THE STRAIGHT ZONING CUBESMART THAT
THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY,
A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY DID LIKE IT
BECAUSE IT WAS A MUCH LESS INTENSE USE THAN. 
          AND I WASN'T ON THE COMMISSION FOR THIS ONE,
BUT MUCH LESS INTENSE USE THAN IF IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MCDONALD'S OR A GAS STATION OR A
TACO BELL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND LOOK WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION,
WHEN THEY CAME IN FOR THEIR SITE PLAN APPROVAL, CAME IN. THEY MADE SURE THE
BUILDING LOOKED LIKE MORE LIKE AN OFFICE, MADE SURE THERE WAS LUSH LANDSCAPING,
MADE SURE THERE WAS A A FENCE AROUND THE BACK SIDE OF IT THAT THE NEIGHBORS WANT IT. 
          AND IF THINGS WERE DONE BY STRAIGHT ZONING
AND NOT BY HAVING IT NOT REQUIRING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. AND THAT ONE,
I BELIEVE WAS SOLELY BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, BECAUSE IT WAS A. 
          AND SO THEY COULD HAVE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT
APPROVAL PROCESS, THEY COULD HAVE CAME IN AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE
GOTTEN THOSE EXTRAS. 
          THE CITY COMMISSIONERS RECOMMENDING GETTING
RID OF THE PROCESS. NO, NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW,
HOW, WHAT WE GET FROM OUR FROM OUR SPECIFIC TO
WHAT I DISCUSSED TONIGHT. 
          DO YOU SEE ANY VALIDITY IN HAVING DEVELOPERS
PAY FOR THE PARKING GARAGE FOR WHAT THEY ASKED TO BE WAIVED? I,
I ACTUALLY, I DON'T FOR ONE REASON, AND I WANT A PARKING GARAGE AND I,
I'VE TALKED TO I'M BLUE IN THE FACE IN THE PARKING GARAGE. WE COULDN'T SELL ENOUGH
SPACES TO PAY FOR A GARAGE. 
          WELL, YOU WOULD BASE THAT PRICE ON WHAT IT
COSTS. 
          WELL, WE WOULD, THAT WOULD,
BUT THAT WOULD THAT WOULD KILL EVERY SMALL BUSINESS BECAUSE IT WOULD END UP BEING AROUND
IF ASSUMING BASED ON THE NEED IT'S ALREADY TO BUILD A GARAGE IS ABOUT PROBABLY 4000 SQUARE
4000 SPACE. 
          BUT IT'S EITHER THE DEVELOPER PAY TO PARK
THEIR PROJECT OR THE TAXPAYERS HAVE NO MATTER. A CONCRETE PARKING SPOT IS AROUND AT
A PARKING GARAGE IS AROUND $17,000. 
          PARKING SPACE IN A PARKING GARAGE. 
          SO IF YOU'VE GOT, LET'S SAY YOU JUST DID A
SMALL ONE AND YOU DID 50 SPACES, FOUR FLOORS, AND 17,000 COMES TO $3.5
MILLION. 
          YEAH. BUT I BET IT'D BE MORE THAN THAT. I
THINK THAT, BUT BUT EITHER THE DEVELOPER IS PAYING FOR THEIR PARKING OR IT'S BEING PUT ON
THE TAXPAYER BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO PARK. 
          RIGHT? WELL, DO YOU THINK THAT'S REASONABLE? I THINK THAT THERE'S I THINK THERE'S JUST
DON'T WANT THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE TO PAY THAT. 
          NO, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. 
          I THINK THAT THERE'S I DON'T I THINK THAT THE
BURDEN ENDS UP BEING ON BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE BURDEN ON,
ESPECIALLY IN A BUILT ENVIRONMENT, THE BURDEN ON WHO THE BURDEN IS ON THE SMALL
BUSINESS OWNER. 
          WHAT DO YOU THINK WHEN YOU SAY SMALL BUSINESS
OWNER? BECAUSE WE'RE IN A WE HAVE A BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND WE WHEN WE LOOK AT THE VACANT
PROPERTY AND THE AVAILABLE PROPERTY TO BUILD. 
          AND SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PARKING GARAGE
BUILT, I THINK THAT I THINK THAT IS IT BECAUSE IT'S
NOT SPECIFIC TO LIKE MULTIFAMILY. 
          WOULD THAT MAKE IT. NO,
I DIDN'T SAY THAT. 
          NO, NO. WELL, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT A
PARKING. 
          I THINK IT'S A MUCH MORE COMPLICATED PROCESS
THAN THAT. 
          AND I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN CHARGE $50,000
A SPACE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH AVAILABLE. 
          I THINK FOR CLARITY, COMMISSIONER COLLINS
PROPOSAL WASN'T THAT WE ASSESS ANYBODY. 
          HIS PROPOSAL WAS THAT IF YOU CAME IN WITH A
PROJECT AND YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BUILD 100 
          [02:20:03]
SPACES IN YOUR PROJECT,
BUT YOU WERE ONLY GOING TO BUILD 80 ON YOUR SPACES. SPACES. SPACES. 
          AND YOU WANTED THE CITY COMMISSION TO ALLOW
YOU TO DEVIATE FROM YOUR PROJECT BY 20 SPACES. HE WAS SAYING THE COMMISSION WOULD
HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE DEVIATION IN EXCHANGE FOR A PAYMENT EQUAL TO THE VALUE OF
THOSE SPACES. 
          NOW, WITH PAYMENT IN LIEU OF A PARKING SPACE. 
          THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. YEAH. AND WE HAVE
THAT AND I'M FINE WITH WE HAVE THAT NOW. WE HAVE A PILOT. YEAH. HAVE IT BE A PART OF THE
COMP PLAN TO WHERE IT'S STANDARD. 
          IT'S A STANDARD PROCEDURE. WELL,
IT'S ONLY UP TO THREE SPACES IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW. YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW WE SAY YOU HAVE
TO PROVIDE OFF SITE OR YOU CAN PAY IN LIEU UP TO THREE. RIGHT. YEAH. 
          SO I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT IT MORE DEEPLY. 
          BUT IF WE DO YOU THINK IT'S SINCE IT'S
ALREADY IN THERE, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE A DECENT IDEA TO
DISCUSS IN MORE DETAIL? I THINK THAT WE CAN WE CAN LOOK AT TWEAKING
IT. 
          BUT I THINK THAT THE WAY YOU'RE I'M HEARING
IT IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PAY A PRO RATA SHARE IF A DEVELOPER IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY
A PRO RATA SHARE OF A PARKING GARAGE, WHAT THEY WANT WAVE AND. 
          BUT THEN. BUT ARE THEY IS IT GOING TO BE
EXCLUSIVE TO THEM THERE. 
          THAT COULD BE A POSSIBLE THING THAT I MEAN,
BECAUSE THE PARKING GARAGE MAY BE OVER HERE AND THEY MAY BE OVER HERE. 
          SO WE AND THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO PAY FOR
PARKING. 
          AND I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S A, IT'S A LONG DISCUSSION. 
          I'M ASKING BECAUSE DO YOU I WOULDN'T WANT TO
LEAVE THIS MEETING AND NOT, YOU KNOW, ACHIEVE SOMETHING. SO IS THAT
SOMETHING THAT WHAT'S A WORKSHOP YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO YOU KNOW, WE CAN MOTION TO DISCUSS
POTENTIALLY DOING SOMETHING THAT AND GETTING THAT I THINK WE CAN DO IT BY CONSENSUS,
BUT WE CAN HAVE, I THINK THAT WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT
PARKING IN THE FUTURE, ABOUT PARKING. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A
DISCUSSION REGARDING A PARKING GARAGE, NOT ABOUT THE ZONING IN PROGRESS. 
          NO DIRECT COMMITMENT. NO WHAT THAT THE
DISCUSSION THAT WE WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY OUTSIDE OF A ZIP ASSUMING THIS,
YOU KNOW, THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE THE LAST ZIP WE HAVE, RIGHT? IF WE DON'T APPROVE
EXTENDING IT NEXT MEETING GETTING AGENDA TO DISCUSS THESE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          WELL, I I'M GOING TO DISCUSS IS THE PARKING
RIGHT NOW. 
          AND BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE. 
          I AGREE WITH YOUR UNIT. 
          WELL I HAVE I'VE SAID WHAT I SAID ABOUT HALF
UNITS. 
          SO LET'S JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT NOW. 
          PARKING. YES. I WOULD BE WILLING TO AT SOME
POINT TALK ABOUT BUILDING A PARKING GARAGE AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT. 
          AND IF IT RELATES TO DEVELOPMENT,
THAT IT HAS A DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT. 
          BUT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING
TO FIND A PARKING GARAGE, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO. 
          I THINK THE OTHER IMPROPER THING IS IF WE'RE
GOING TO CHARGE PEOPLE FOR A PARKING GARAGE TO PAY INTO A PARKING GARAGE,
THEN WE NEED TO BUILD ONE. 
          WE WHY WOULD YOU BUILD IT BEFORE YOU CAN PAY
FOR IT? WELL, I GO INTO A TRUST FUND AND THEN AS YOU
HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT. 
          BECAUSE OF THE EQUITY OF THE BECAUSE JUST
LIKE IT'D BE LIKE AN IMPACT FEE, AN IMPACT FEE HAS TO HAVE A NEXUS OF WHAT
IT'S GOING TO DO. 
          AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO,
IF YOU'RE TELLING SOMEBODY THEY'RE GOING TO PAY 100, 200, WHATEVER IT IS INTO A FUND FOR
A PARKING GARAGE. 
          BUT WHAT IF YOU NEVER BUILD THE PARKING
GARAGE? YOU BUILD A PARKING GARAGE? WELL, THAT'S WHAT I SAY. SO WE HAVE A PLAN TO
BUILD A PARKING GARAGE. 
          YEAH. DO WE NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF PLAN OR
CONCURRENCY RIGHT NOW? NO, WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR A PARKING GARAGE. WE
HAVE A HOPE WITH THE WELLS FARGO. 
          THAT WAS PART OF IT. WELL,
THERE'S NO THERE IS THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT A DEVELOPMENT THERE,
BUT THERE IS NO PARKING GARAGE. 
          THERE IS A PARKING GARAGE THERE. BUT HOW MUCH
OF IT IS OURS? HOW MUCH OF IT AND WHETHER IT ACTUALLY. 
          AND WE HAVEN'T APPROVED A LEASE ON THAT YET
EITHER. 
          SO WE HAVE NO APPROVAL. 
          WE HAVE NO LEASE. WE HAVE NO. 
          OKAY. SO BEYOND. AND THEN THE LAST WOULD BE,
DO YOU SEE ANY VALIDITY IN THE IDEA OF A MAXIMUM BUILD OUT NUMBER,
POPULATION. 
          MAXIMUM. TO COMBAT THAT STATUTE,
TO COMBAT WHAT'S NOT NECESSARILY COMBAT THAT STATUTE, BUT TO HAVE AN OVERARCHING PLAN FOR
HOW MANY PEOPLE WE CAN SAFELY EVACUATE, WHAT OUR OVERALL POPULATION BUILD OUT DENSITY
SHOULD BE. 
          I'D HAVE TO I HAVE TO YOU KNOW,
I SAW THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY, AND I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THIS. AND WHAT I'M
ASKING IS TO DISCUSS. MR. MAYOR, I'M I'M TELLING YOU, I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT. COULD
DISCUSS IT. YEAH. MR. MAYOR. OH, MR. DYESS. HEY. 
          I'M STILL HERE. JUST JUST SOME INFORMATION AS
FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE EVACUATION PLAN, THERE IS A VERY IN-DEPTH 20 PLUS PAGE
EVACUATION PLAN THAT'S DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH EVERYONE IN THE COUNTY,
INCLUDING SAINT LUCIE COUNTY. 
          IT HAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT FORMULAS IN IT THAT
RELATES TO POPULATION AND THE QUICKNESS. AND WHEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE NOTIFICATION FOR
EVACUATION, THERE'S ALSO A REENTRY PLAN FOR HOW TO GET PEOPLE BACK IN AFTER A DISASTER. 
          THOSE PLANS ARE UPDATED YEARLY. 
          I THINK THIS ONE WAS JUST UPDATED. 
          I DO HAVE THAT AVAILABLE. 
          I CAN SEND THAT TO ALL OF YOU TO READ IF
YOU'D LIKE. 
          [02:25:01]
AS IT RELATES TO MAXIMUM BUILD OUT THE COUNTY
DURING THE KIPLINGER PROJECT. 
          OBTAINED A PRODUCT THAT THEY STILL PAY A
SERVICE FEE FOR. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD CHARGE US TO USE
IT. 
          THAT DOES SCENARIOS BASED ON AND OUR DATA IS
ALREADY IN IT BECAUSE THEY USED OUR DATA FOR DETERMINING THE COUNTY'S MAXIMUM BUILD OUT. I
THINK THERE'S CAME TO LIKE 190,000, AND IT'LL GIVE YOU WHAT THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT
WOULD BE DETERMINED ON WHAT YOUR CURRENT ZONING. NOW, IF YOU GO AND YOU CHANGE IT OR
YOU CHANGE LAND USE, IT CHANGES THE GAME. BUT WHAT YOUR CURRENT
LAND USE AND YOUR CURRENT ZONING STATES AND GIVES YOU AND THEN YOU PLUG IN SOME OTHER
NUMBERS BECAUSE THINGS LIKE WHETHER IT'S A 55 AND OVER COMMUNITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT MAKE
A DIFFERENCE. AND IT GIVES YOU THE CALCULATIONS ON THINGS LIKE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT
AND STUFF. 
          AND I, I CAN REACH OUT TO THE COUNTY AND SEE
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ENGAGE THE USE OF. IF YOU ALSO DESIRE. 
          YES. AND JUST JUST JUST TO. 
          SORRY I INTERRUPTED YOU. 
          GO AHEAD. YEAH. JUST SO THAT WE'RE. 
          SINCE WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT IT,
I THINK THERE IS ROOM TO EXTEND THE ZIP. 
          I DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY LIES ON THAT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING NEXT MEETING, BUT MAYBE THAT GIVES YOU SOME TIME
TO GO BACK AND KIND OF DIG INTO SOME OF THE THINGS I OFFERED UP, AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS
THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE BEFORE TRYING TO FORMALLY DAD SOMETHING OR AGENDA SOMETHING. 
          OKAY. I JUST HAD A QUESTION. 
          I KNOW THAT IT'S A WORKSHOP AND WE SAID WE'RE
GOING TO TRY TO DO IT TILL SEVEN. 
          AND I NOTICED THAT ON THE AGENDA,
IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE PUBLIC. 
          AND I KNOW THAT WE WANTED TO ALWAYS BE
TRANSPARENT WITH THE PUBLIC. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IF WE NEED TO
EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT THE NATURE OF THIS WORKSHOP WAS AMONG THE COMMISSIONERS SO THAT
PEOPLE DON'T SAY THAT WE CAME DOWN HERE. 
          WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO GIVE OUR SPIEL,
BECAUSE THAT COULD TAKE HOURS AND HOURS TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU
WANT TO SAY SOMETHING TO THAT. 
          IS THAT OKAY? WELL, YOU ARE GOING TO GET
COMMISSIONER OR I MEAN, YOU DID TOO. WE HAD WE HAD EXTENSIVE PUBLIC
COMMENT DURING THE FIRST WORKSHOP, AND IT TOOK UP A MAJORITY OF THE TIME. 
          SO WE DID NOT ADD PUBLIC COMMENT TO THIS
PARTICULAR MEETING. 
          IT'S NOT REQUIRED AT WORKSHOPS BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE VOTING ITEMS ON THE WORKSHOP. 
          THE PUBLIC WILL ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MAKE THOSE COMMENTS WHEN THE ITEM ACTUALLY COMES BACK ON THE REGULAR COMMISSION AGENDA
FOR, FOR VOTE AS WELL. I JUST WANTED PEOPLE TO
KNOW THAT. 
          YEAH. YES, MA'AM. VICE MAYOR BRUNER JUST
POINTED OUT TO ME. 
          IS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WERE WE DID
NOT, IS WE CAN'T DISCUSS ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE
MEETING. 
          SO THIS IS A WORKSHOP ENVIRONMENT FOR US TO
HAVE A DISCUSSION. 
          AND I THINK WE'VE HAD A GOOD SPIRITED
DISCUSSION TODAY. 
          I THINK THAT WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO
HEAR WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT. 
          JODY, DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED TO MOVE
FORWARD WITH THE ANY PREPARING A TEXT AMENDMENT YOU THINK OR YOU NEED? CAN I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE JODY ANSWERS
THAT? WE'RE NOT ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT CHANGING THAT
AMENDMENT? WELL, MR. MAYOR. YES. CAN I ASK A QUESTION
BEFORE JODY RESPONDS TO THAT? AND I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER COLLINS SAYING
WE'RE NOT ALL IN FAVOR OF IT, BUT IT'S IT'S A CONSENSUS. AND THEN THE VOTE AT A REGULAR
COMMISSION MEETING MAKES THE DECISION. 
          BUT I CAN ONLY SEE THREE OF YOU. 
          SO I DON'T KNOW IF IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS ON
LEAVING THE AMENDMENT THE WAY THAT JODY HAS PRESENTED IT, OR IF YOU HAVE ANY CHANGES TO
THE PARKING OR I KNOW THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LOCATIONS OF THIS HALF
DENSITY DEAL. 
          I PERSONALLY DON'T KNOW THAT IT NEEDS TO BE
THE ENTIRE CRA, WHICH IS HOW IT'S WRITTEN NOW. IT COULD BE,
YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE URBAN CORE OR
FROM THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. 
          BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT'S NEEDED UP IN LIKE AVONLEA AREA. 
          AND ONE OF THE OTHER PURPOSES BESIDES THE,
I KNOW EVERYBODY'S TALKED ABOUT THE AFFORDABILITY AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS
FOR THE HALF DENSITY. 
          BUT IF YOU RECALL, IN ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS
WORKSHOP HOUSING WORKSHOPS, ONE OF THE PRIMARY REASONS FOR THIS WAS TO
ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT IN OUR DOWNTOWN CORE TO BRING RESIDENTIAL TO SUPPORT THE DOWNTOWN
BUSINESSES. 
          I WOULD BE I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF HAVING IT
JUST IN THE URBAN CORE, IN A RADIUS OUTSIDE THE URBAN CORE. 
          AND ALSO I'D LIKE JODY TO LOOK AT A CAP ON
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS OTHER THAN 60. 
          SO, SO I WANT TO MAKE A POINT HERE JUST FOR
CLARITY. 
          I DISCUSSED REMOVING THE HALF UNIT AMENDMENT. 
          WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT MAINTAINING IT. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOUBLING DOWN AND MAKING
UNITS EVEN SMALLER. 
          CUTTING THEM IN HALF,
BASICALLY. 
          THAT'S THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE'VE IT'S
ACTUALLY THAT'S OUR CONSENSUS IS THAT WE GO DEEPER INTO. THIS IS THE PROPOSAL IS INSTEAD
OF GIVING A CREDIT FOR A HALF UNIT TO A 900 SQUARE FOOT UNIT, THE PERSON COULD ONLY GET
CREDIT FOR A HALF UNIT AT A 500 SQUARE FOOT 
          [02:30:04]
UNIT. SO IN THEORY, 12 900 SQUARE FOOT HALF
UNITS EQUALING A TOTAL OF SIX UNITS WOULD BE 10,800FT². NOW, 500 SQUARE FOOT HALF UNITS
WOULD BE 6000FT², SO IT WOULD REDUCE IT FROM 10,800FT² TO
6000FT² OF MASS. 
          AS FAR AS THE THE SIZE. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S THE INTENT THAT JODY HAD.
IT WASN'T TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT,
YOU COULDN'T GO ABOVE 60. IF THERE TRULY IS CONSENSUS ON THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT
WE NOT MAKE THE PARKING MINIMUMS LOWER, THAT WE KEEP IT AT 1.25 AND 1.4,
INSTEAD OF KNOCKING THEM BOTH DOWN TO ONE, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD REQUEST,
BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF HUMANS POTENTIALLY DWELLING IN A
ONE AND TWO BEDROOM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S SMALLER. SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE THAT WE DO
THAT. 
          JODY. OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS
WE WANT TO GO INTO SMALLER UNITS BEFORE YOU GET THAT HALF UNIT CREDIT. 
          SO INSTEAD OF 900 AND 1100 SQUARE FOOT,
YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO GET THEM WHEN YOU'RE AT FIVE AND 700. BUT I'M ASKING THAT INSTEAD OF
ALSO TAKING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS DOWN, BECAUSE THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE COULD
POTENTIALLY DWELL IN THOSE ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS. THERE'S STILL ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS.
THEY'RE JUST SMALLER THAT WE DON'T CHANGE THE PARKING AND CUT BACK ON PARKING. 
          WE LEAVE IT AT 1.25 LIKE IT IS NOW,
AND THE HALF UNIT AMENDMENT AND 1.4. 
          THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IS TO KNOCK BOTH
OF THOSE DOWN TO ONE, WHICH WOULD MAKE A DRAMATIC DIFFERENCE IN THE
REQUIRED AMOUNT OF PARKING. 
          AND LIKE WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE,
WE CAN ALWAYS WAIVE PARKING, BUT WE CAN'T ADD MORE. 
          RIGHT. SO I WOULD SAY,
PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THAT PARKING MINIMUM. WHAT'S THE CONSENSUS ON THE
COMMISSION ON THAT? I'M OKAY WITH THAT. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? I LIKE THAT. COMMISSIONER RICH. 
          EVEN A PUD. WE COULDN'T. 
          YOU CAN WE CAN ALWAYS YOU CAN ALWAYS DEVIATE. 
          THIS IS THE MINIMUM. THIS IS THE. 
          WE CAN'T REQUIRE MORE. 
          WE CAN ALWAYS DEVIATE LESS. 
          SO EVEN IF A PUD COMES IN WITH WITH THE HALF
UNIT OR WHATEVER, WE CAN ONLY WE CAN ONLY 0.75 IF THE
COMMISSION VOTED ON IT. 
          I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WE NEED TO MAKE A
CHANGE. REALLY. WE HAVE ENOUGH GUIDELINE. 
          I AGREE WITH THAT. REALLY. 
          OKAY, SO WE GOT CONSENSUS. 
          OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          THERE'S THERE'S A THERE IS ONE INCONSISTENCY
AS FAR AS THE CODE IN THE PARKING IS CONCERNED. IN THE CODE,
IT SAYS MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. 
          STUDIOS IN ONE BEDROOMS ARE 1.5 PER UNIT,
AND TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS ARE TWO PER UNIT. 
          AND THEN WHEN YOU GET INTO THE HALF UNIT,
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MAKING THEM 1.25 AND 1.45, 1.4, 1.25, AND 1.4 IS OKAY FOR THE THE
FRACTIONAL UNITS. 
          OKAY. I KNOW I, I'VE ACTUALLY HEARD THEORIES
THAT WE DON'T THAT WE ACTUALLY JUST PARKING ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WHATEVER'S INSIDE. 
          WE DO THAT IN COMMERCIAL,
RIGHT? BECAUSE WHAT IS THE GOAL OF HAVING LESS
PARKING WHEN THERE'S GOING TO BE THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE? WHAT IS THE IDEA? WHAT'S THE GOAL FOR THAT? WELL, A LOT OF THE REALITY IS,
IS THAT PEOPLE AREN'T NECESSARILY JUST GOING TO WORK ACROSS THE STREET. WHAT WE'VE
LEARNED, AND I'LL TELL YOU, WE LEARNED FROM A
SURPRISING WAY WAS THAT WHEN TARA OPENED UP, THEY OPENED UP AS A BEER GARDEN WITH 21
SEATS. 
          AND AT THE TIME, WE DID NOT ANTICIPATE THAT
THE OWNER WOULD HAVE CONCERTS WITH SELLING 300 SEATS, 300 TICKETS TO. 
          AND AMAZINGLY, THE ONLY I GOT VIRTUALLY,
I THINK 1 OR 2 OVER SEVERAL YEARS COMPLAINTS ABOUT PARKING BECAUSE IT'S AT THE END OF THE
DAY WHEN EVERYBODY LEAVES COLORADO. 
          BUT. AND WE GOT NOISE COMPLAINTS. 
          BUT IT'S THE. THAT'S IN TERMS OF PARKING. 
          YEAH. BUT THAT'S. AND THAT'S WHAT THE. AND
EVEN WITH. 
          AND I THOUGHT WE WOULD GET PARKING COMPLAINTS
ABOUT AZUL BECAUSE THEY HAVE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. 
          BUT MOST OF IT'S PUBLIC PARKING AS WELL. 
          BUT ALL THE STUFF THEY HAVE 40. 
          THEY HAVE ONE SPACE FOR EACH UNIT INSIDE
THEIR FENCE. 
          EVERYTHING ELSE IS OUTSIDE. 
          AND THAT'S ALL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. 
          SO IF IF THERE'S LIKE A FESTIVAL DAY OR
SOMETHING AND SOMEONE COMES HOME AND THEY AND THEY ALREADY AND IT'S TWO PEOPLE LIVING THERE
AND THEY. 
          THE ONE CAR IS ALREADY INSIDE THEIR PARKING A
QUARTER OR A HALF MILE AWAY. 
          YOU SEE HOW THAT'S DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT
FROM LIKE THE ELIZABETH, WHERE THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE AND THEY HAVE FULL SIZE UNITS. 
          BUT IF YOU HAVE A DRAMATIC CHANGE IN THE
AMOUNT OF REQUIRED. 
          WELL, I ELIZABETH, WAS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. 
          YOU DON'T SEE THAT AS A TRAJECTORY FORWARD
FOR REDEVELOPMENT. NO, THAT WAS A THAT WAS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. THAT WAS NOT ONLY FOR THAT
DEVELOPMENT, 
          [02:35:03]
BUT CORRECTING AN ISSUE FROM THE DEFUNCT
DEVELOPER THAT DIDN'T FINISH THE PROJECT. 
          RIGHT. YEAH. AND THAT WAS AND THAT EVEN ON
ITS OWN RIGHT FOR WHAT IT REQUIRES, IT'S DEFICIENT PRETTY DRAMATICALLY. 
          RIGHT. THERE'S, I DON'T,
I DON'T THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T BELIEVE SO. 
          AND, AND, YOU KNOW, ONE THING I KNOW ABOUT
THE DEVELOPMENT, THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPER,
I THINK HE DOES A GOOD JOB, BUT ALSO DEVELOPERS, IF THEY CAN'T PARK THEIR PLACES,
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE. 
          THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO RENT THEM OR
SELL THEM. DO YOU DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY SPACES WE APPROVED THEM FOR. I DON'T RECALL,
I THINK IT WAS 86, BUT. BUT I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT NUMBER. 
          AND THEN, CIVITAS, YOU NEED TO HAVE WHAT. 
          WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT WAS CIVITAS? I DON'T REMEMBER, I DON'T. 
          IT'S BEEN A WHILE. DID THEY CHANGE THEIR
NAME? NO. NO. SO, OKAY, SO IF WE HAVE CONSENSUS. 
          JODY HAS EVERYTHING. YOU HAVE EVERYTHING,
DAVID. 
          AND THEN WE'LL BRING UP IN THE FUTURE SOME OF
THE OTHER THINGS I DISCUSSED. OKAY. SO FAIR SHARE PARKING WITH THE GARAGE IN THE FUTURE. 
          WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN THE FORUM AND I'LL TALK
ABOUT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT IN THE CONTEXT
OF BUILDING MAYOR, ESPECIALLY WITH ANOTHER MCDONALD. I JUST
WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE EXTENSION OF THE URBAN PLAN
DEVELOPMENT ZONING AND PROGRESS WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND. I'M SORRY,
I COULDN'T HEAR WHAT THE. 
          WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ZONING
AND PROGRESS FOR THE URBAN. 
          YES, YES. THE OTHER ZONING IN PROGRESS FOR
THE PD. 
          WE ARE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION. 
          WE'RE GOING TO LET THAT EXPIRATION EXPIRE,
AND THEN WE CAN START ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO YES, THAT'S AN ITEM ON MONDAY NIGHT'S
MEETING THAT THEY'LL VOTE ON. 
          WE'RE ONLY APPLYING TO THE URBAN CORE TO THE
HALF UNIT, RIGHT TO THE FRACTIONAL DENSITY. 
          WE HAVE THE CONSENSUS IS NOT TO MAKE ANY
OTHER CHANGES. 
          SO THAT'S THE CONSENSUS OF THE VOTE
REGARDLESS OF THE VOTE. 
          NO VOTING IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. 
          IT'S JUST TO PROVIDE JODY DIRECTION AS TO
WHAT THE DRAFT SHOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. CORRECT. YOU GUYS ARE NOT BOUND
TO ANYTHING. 
          YOU CAN VOTE YES. NO. UP,
DOWN. 
          AMEND IT. DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. 
          IT JUST GIVES HER DIRECTION AS TO WHAT TO
ATTACH TO THE AGENDA AND BRING BACK NEXT TIME. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE SOME MORE TIME WITH THE ZIP TO TO CONTINUE THE ZIP SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE
FAIR SHARE PARKING. 
          THERE IS ALREADY AN AGENDA ITEM IN THE AGENDA
SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY, BUT IN TERMS OF CONSENT TO CONTINUE IT FOR
ANOTHER THREE MONTHS. SO THE ZIP IS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE EXTENSION. 
          SO WE'LL HAVE THAT. SO LIKE BEFORE WE'LL HAVE
TWO. 
          TWO I WOULD LIKE TO TALK MORE ABOUT ABOUT IT
WITH YOU IN DETAIL. 
          BUT WE'RE ONLY WE'RE ONLY MOVING FORWARD WITH
ONE ZIP IN PROGRESS. 
          NOT PUT THEM BOTH ON AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON
THEM BOTH. 
          OKAY. OKAY. YOU CAN VOTE NO ON. 
          RIGHT. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
WERE TALKING EITHER. 
          RIGHT. 1 OR 2 OR BOTH. 
          OKAY. RIGHT. AND I MISSPOKE WHEN I SAID
FIRST. 
          SO. AND JUST. I KNOW WE'VE BEEN HERE A WHILE, BUT IT'LL ONLY TAKE TWO MINUTES TO DISCUSS
THE THE ZONING AND PROGRESS. 
          CLEARLY, THE HALF UNIT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING
TO HAVE A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT MATTERS TO AN APPLICANT. SO IT'S WORTH EXTENDING THAT
BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE EXTENDED UNTIL THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED. RIGHT. 
          BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE PUD ZONING IN
PROGRESS, IT DOESN'T. THE ZONING AND PROGRESS COMING TO
AN END DOESN'T PREVENT THE COMMISSION FROM ADOPTING MODIFICATIONS TO THE CODE. 
          IT JUST ALLOWS APPLICANTS AND ALLOWS STAFF TO
START MOVING FORWARD ON APPLICATIONS THAT THEY'VE RECEIVED, RATHER THAN KEEPING ANY
HOUSING APPLICATIONS AT BAY. 
          UNTIL NOW WOULD BE JANUARY,
FEBRUARY, MARCH. 
          SO UNTIL APRIL. BUT HAVING SOME TIME TO
FURTHER DISCUSS FAIR SHARE PARKING AND POTENTIALLY A MAXIMUM BUILDOUT,
I WOULD APPRECIATE EXTENDING THAT. 
          I KNOW WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS ON HALF UNIT,
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK. 
          WE'LL DISCUSS THAT ON MONDAY. OKAY. 
          YEAH. OKAY. BECAUSE I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE
IT. I'M JUST LOOKING FOR SOME CONSENSUS IF THAT'S IF EVERYBODY HAS EVERYBODY HAS
EVERYTHING. DAVE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? NO,
SIR. 
          HOW WAS YOUR DINNER? DINNER? SOUP. STEAK. MICHAEL. THANK YOU. 
          I.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.