Nov 07, 2024 Special City Commission

[00:00:05]

OKAY, OKAY. I'M CALLING TO ORDER THE SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING OF THE STUART CITY COMMISSION.

ZONING AND PROGRESS ZIP WORKSHOP NUMBER TWO ON 7TH NOVEMBER. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. OH, YES. ROLL

[ROLL CALL]

[COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS]

PROBLEM IS THE DECEMBER MEETING IS NORMALLY A REORG MEETING THAT'S GENERALLY SHORT. AND TO HAVE A FULL AGENDA ITEM LIKE THAT, WE CAN DO IT. BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET IT BACK BY THE SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER BECAUSE THE NEW POLICY, THE AGENDA FOR THE SECOND MEETING IN NOVEMBER, CLOSES TUESDAY. BUT IF WE IF YOU WANT IT, WE COULD DO IT ON THE DECEMBER I THINK IT'S 12TH OR WHATEVER THE SECOND MONDAY OF IT MIGHT BE, DECEMBER 9TH. COULD WE AUTHORIZE YOU TO GET IT ON THAT NOVEMBER 2ND NOVEMBER MEETING THEN? I MEAN, I CAN'T IT WON'T BE DONE. IT WON'T BE THERE BECAUSE THE, THE AGENDA CLOSES TUESDAY. THERE'S I MEAN, THERE'S GOT IT. SO WE CAN DO IT ON THAT REORG MEETING. BUT IT'LL BE A LONG MEETING. AND WHAT WE PLAN TO DO IS WE'LL COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION WITH ALL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT THE COMMISSION WANTS AND YOU'LL LITERALLY VOTE ON THEM, ALMOST LIKE A MENU OR A LIST. WE'LL COME BACK WITH THOSE AS A RESOLUTION. THEN WE WOULD BRING THE DECEMBER FOLLOWING. IS IT POSSIBLE TO PACKAGE THEM TOGETHER? WELL, YES. BUT THEN IF WE PACKAGE THEM TOGETHER, YOU GUYS VOTE YES OR NO. AND IF THERE'S ONE THING IN THERE YOU DON'T WANT, YOU START UNPACKAGING IT, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S LOTS OF THE WAY IT WORKS. ANYTIME IN THE PAST WE'VE DONE IT IS WHEN THAT HAPPENS. THE RECORD STARTS GETTING LOST BECAUSE THE RESOLUTION ENDS UP GETTING REWRITTEN THE NEXT DAY BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT WAS PACKAGED TOGETHER GETS UNDONE. BUT WE'LL TRY TO DO IT ORGANIZED ENOUGH TO WHERE STUFF IS, AND IT'S NOT A IT'S DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS LIKE. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH PARKING, IF THE ONLY CHANGE YOU GUYS MAKE IS THAT YOU'RE CHANGING IT FROM 301 CAR PER 300FT■!S TO ONE CAR PER 250. WELL, THE CHANGING THE NUMBER 300 TO 250 IS EASY. SO THAT'S EASY TO DO. BUT LET ME

[00:05:04]

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, IF WE CHANGE THE PERVIOUS FROM 65 TO 50, THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO REMOVE CEMENT AND ANOTHER EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE WINN-DIXIE. UNLESS WE WAIVE IT IN A PUD.

RIGHT. WELL, YOU GUYS RIGHT. IT'S THEN YOU'D BE GRANTING EXCEPTIONS. BUT YES. AND THEN FOR EXAMPLE, THE WINN-DIXIE WINN-DIXIE IS CURRENTLY 50 500 ZERO SQUARE FEET. IT'S THERE'S A FLOORING FLOORS DIRECT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WANTING TO GO INTO THE WINN-DIXIE SPACE.

BUT GROCERY AND FLOORS DIRECT HAVE DIFFERENT PARKING CALCULATIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT USES AS A RESULT, THEY'RE AT BAY BECAUSE OF THE ZONING IN PROGRESS. ONCE THE ZONING AND PROGRESS IS ADOPTED, IF THEY OH, RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE NOT THEY DON'T HAVE A PD. IT'S STRAIGHT ZONING. THEY WILL HAVE TO COME IN AND DO A PUD BECAUSE AGAIN, THE NONCONFORMING USE OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL WILL BE THAT FOR WINN-DIXIE TO PUT SPACE TO SPACE, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BECAUSE THEY'LL HAVE TO REMOVE PARKING LOT AND SHADE TREES AND BUILD ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES.

AND THE AND THE SAME THING GOES FOR YOU KNOW, A TWO ROOM OFFICE ON EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. IF IT'S CURRENTLY A DOCTOR AND IT CHANGES TO AN ACCOUNTANT, THE MEDICAL USE VERSUS THE OFFICE USE IS A DIFFERENT CALCULATION. IT TRIGGERS THE THING OR AND AS A RESULT, THEY TOO WOULD HAVE TO BUILD THE NEW PARKING OR GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS TO GET THE WAIVER FROM THE

[00:10:03]

IT JUST BECOMES COMPLICATED. ANYWAY, I MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO START TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING AND WHEN WE HAVE THE MEETING AND WE COME BACK IN THIS WITH THIS RESOLUTION, WE STAFF IS GOING TO BE SEEKING FROM THE BOARD. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER NOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARY. DO YOU WANT IT TO BE EVERYBODY IN THE CITY HAS TO MEET THESE NEW STANDARDS IF THEY WANT ANY CHANGE IN USE OR INCREASE IN INTENSITY. OTHERWISE THEY'RE FINE THE WAY THEY ARE. OR DO YOU WANT IT TO BE JUST NEW CONSTRUCTION? AND AS A RESULT, ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY BUILT ALREADY MEETS AND DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARD, WHICH FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE THE WINN-DIXIE, WOULD ALLOW THE FLOORING DIRECT, BUT IT BY DOING IT THAT WAY, IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLICATED BECAUSE STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE TO WRITE A LOT MORE CODE TO MAKE IT EXPLAINED IN THE CODE AS WHO COMPLIES AND WHO DOESN'T. SO IT WOULD REQUIRE MORE TIME TO BRING IT BACK. THAT'S THE UNFORTUNATE REALITY OF IF YOU HAVE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS TO KEEP, YOU KNOW, DECREASING PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND GIVING MORE DENSITY AND TO BE ABLE TO PEEL BACK AT ALL, IT'S GOING TO CREATE AN ISSUE LIKE THAT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO REFORMAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE CITY AND THE DENSITY, IT'S GOING TO CREATE THAT, AND IT HAS TO APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD. OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO BE A MESS. I AGREE WITH YOU. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, AND COMMISSIONER CLARK, I JUST COMMENTED ON THIS SCHEDULE THAT MR. COMMISSIONER COLLINS WAS TALKING ABOUT AND TAKING OUT THE PEAK DISTRICT AND EAST STEWART AND ESPECIALLY TWO AREAS THAT ARE IN THE CRA. AND I KNOW THAT PEOPLE JUST USED TO THAT NEW CODE AND THEY'RE TRYING TO PREPARE SOMETHING TO BRING IN WITH REGARD TO THOSE CODES. AND I THINK IF WE SET THEM BACK AND CHANGE SOMETHING ELSE AND THEN WE WAIT ANOTHER TIME TO CONSIDER THEM, I JUST THINK WE JUST NEED TO CONTINUE AND SPEND THE TIME AND DO EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. AND IF WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING

[00:15:06]

[00:20:05]

THERE'S NO WAY IT'S GOING TO BE ANYWHERE, ANYWHERE LESS THAN THAT. SO THE DECEMBER NINTH MEETING AS IT IS, IS GOING TO BE VERY LONG. NOW WE THE CALENDAR IS ONLY ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER.

EVEN IF THE COMMISSIONER COMMISSION WANTED TO HAVE A SECOND MEETING IN DECEMBER, IT WOULDN'T MATTER, BECAUSE AFTER THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING, THERE'S GOING TO BE A COMPREHENSIVE REWRITING OF ALL THESE CODES THAT AREN'T GOING TO BE FINISHED DECEMBER 10TH. IT'S GOING TO BE A COUPLE OF WEEKS BEFORE THOSE ARE FINISHED, WHICH PUTS US INTO JANUARY AND THEN WE HAVE TO GO TO THE CRB AND THE LPA. SO NO MATTER WHAT THOSE MEETINGS HAVE TO TAKE PLACE. AND THEN WE COME TO THE CITY COMMISSION, WHICH WOULD BE THE LAST MEETING IN JANUARY AND THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY, AND WOULD BE COMPLETELY RECONSTITUTED. AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BOARD HEARINGS, SOME OF THE MOST COMPLICATED ISSUES WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHO MAY HAVE NO EXPERIENCE WITH CERTAIN. I MEAN, THAT'S TRUE POTENTIAL FOR WELL, EXCEPT FOR THAT I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE THEY DON'T THE ADVISORY BOARDS DON'T ADOPT THE CODE, RIGHT. THEY RECOMMEND. SO I MEAN, NO, WE SEEK THEIR ADVICE. CERTAINLY WE DO. WE DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW IT.

BUT WE DO KNOW AGAIN MY QUESTIO, MIKE, IS IT POSSIBLE I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS. I MEAN, IT IS POSSIBLE. IS IT IS THERE A STATE STATUTE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE COMMISSION MEETINGS ONLY TWO TIMES A MONTH OR WHATEVER? OKAY. SO BASICALLY WE COULD ADD AN ADDITIONAL LPA AND A CRB MEETING, WHICH WOULD THEN LOOK AND ADDRESS THOSE ITEMS. WE COULD ADD IN THE HOLIDAY SEASON.

YOU'RE GOING TO ADD THESE VOLUNTEER BOARDS TO MEET MORE OFTEN. I MEAN THAT'S THAT THAT'S WHERE WE COULD YOU CAN ASK THEY CAN SAY NO, BUT WE ALMOST DIDN'T. YOU WE ALMOST DIDN'T HAVE FORUM AT THE CRA MEETING OR CRB MEETING THIS WEEK. WE ACTUALLY HAD TO CALL PEOPLE ON THE PHONE TO GET THEM TO COME. SO AND THAT'S A SEVEN MEMBER BOARD AND BOTH THE LPA AND SIERRA. RIGHT. WE DIDN'T HAVE FOR A STANDARD MEETING. SO IF YOU HAVE IT DURING A HOLIDAY IT MAY OR MAY NOT. BUT AGAIN, I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THESE WORKSHOPS ARE GOOD AND WE CAN WORK ON THE URBAN CODE AND DO STUFF LIKE THAT. THE REALITY OF IT IS THAT WHAT IS COMPLICATED IS THE ACTUAL DRAFTING OF THE LANGUAGE. SO ONCE YOU GUYS GIVE US THE DIRECTION, IF IT'S WE DON'T CARE, EVERYBODY GETS AFFECTED AND WE'RE CHANGING 300 TO 200, AND ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS CHANGE ONE NUMBER. THAT'S EASY, BUT IT'S NOT. IT'S HOW DO THESE THINGS INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER? AND HOW DOES IT PLAY WITH HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE PUD AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT A CURRENTLY EXISTING OFFICE, AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT PERMITS? AND IF YOU HAVE A CURRENTLY EXISTING OFFICE, YOU NEED A NEW ROOF. DOES THAT MEAN YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE PARKING, OR DOES IT MEAN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD THE PARKING? AND IF YOU DON'T, IF IT MEANS THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION

[00:25:01]

AND SO WHAT IS IT? I SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER. ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR. NO, I WASN'T OKAY, BUT THAT'S OKAY. NO, NO. GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. OKAY. SO AGAIN HOLIDAYS ARE NOW OVER. NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT JANUARY. IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO THOSE EXTRA MEETINGS IN JANUARY? NO PA CRB SO THAT WE COULD BE FURTHER PREPARED IN FEBRUARY. COULD NOT GO OVER THE MARCH DEADLINE. THAT'S ALL I'M LOOKING FOR. AND AS WE COULD HAVE TO DO A WORKSHOP RIGHT AFTER THE HOLIDAYS, DO THIS ALL DAY AND GET THROUGH IT. WE COULD MEET NEXT WEEK. WE CAN WE. YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. RIGHT. AND THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING IS THAT DOABLE? AND ADDING THOSE DATES AND REACHING OUT TO THE VOLUNTEERS ALL DAY TODAY. BECAUSE I HAVE MEETINGS BECAUSE THE FED FOR ONE. SO NO. WELL, WELL, THAT'S JUST UNFAIR TO SAY WE'RE EXTENDING THIS MEETING AT THE END OF THIS MEETING. WE CAN SCHEDULE THE NEXT ONE. RIGHT. SO NO YOU CAN'T. THAT'S WHY WE SCHEDULE WE PUBLISH THE SCHEDULE. UNDERSTAND AGAIN I I'VE CONSTITUENTS HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME ASKING THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO GET HERE. THEY'RE WORKING TIMES DURING THE WEEK. IS IT POSSIBLE IF WE'RE ADDING CAN WE DO A SATURDAY WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME AND HEAR INPUT AND WHATNOT FROM THE COMMUNITY? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF THE COMMISSIONERS FEEL. I'M JUST TRYING TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS WHERE THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE. I THINK THE MORE WE'RE BOGGED INTO PUBLIC COMMENT AND EVEN THIS KIND OF CONVERSATION, OKAY, HALF HOUR, WE'RE LOSING TIME WHERE WE COULD BE GOING THROUGH THE CODE. ALL RIGHT. THERE'S NOTHING MORE VALUABLE IN THIS PROCESS THAN PUBLIC COMMEN.

I MEAN, I WOULD SAY THAT ALL OF US HAVE A MANDATE FROM VOTERS. WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO. THIS PROCESS IS NOT CONFUSING WHY WE'VE GOTTEN INTO THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ARE NOT CONFUSING.

THERE'S GOING TO BE, OBVIOUSLY, FROM PEOPLE WHO YOU KNOW, BUSINESS OWNERS OR PEOPLE TRYING TO DEVELOP. THERE'S GOING TO BE FRUSTRATIONS THERE. BUT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE THAT VOTED FOR US DID IT FOR SPECIFIC REASONS. AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE DOORS WE KNOCKED ON HAD VERY SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS. AND THAT'S NOT CONFUSING. WHAT CAUSED THAT? THAT'S TRUE. I HAD THE SAME ISSUE. YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE MONTHS OF WORKSHOPS WITH THE PUBLIC TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS DENSITY. IT'S VERY OBVIOUS WHAT CHANGED IN OUR COD. SO IF WE CAN AGREE ON A SCHEDULE TO DO AN ADDITIONAL WORKSHOP MEETING, EVERYONE'S SCHEDULE, AND THAT MIGHT WORK, THAT MIGHT GET US CLOSER TO THE MARCH DEADLINE, THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR. RATHER THAN IN FEBRUARY.

WE'RE FORCED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO THE EXTRA WORKSHOPS. WE DIDN'T HAVE AN EXTRA MEETING ON THE AGENDA. AMENDMENTS ARE DONE ALL THE TIME. TWO MEETINGS AGO, THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT ON A FRIDAY ADDING SOMETHING TO THE AGENDA. ON MONDAY. SO IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE, RIGHT? WE CAN ALWAYS AMEND STUFF TO THE AGENDA. IT'S NOT THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE. IT'S THAT WHAT WAS ADDED FOR MONDAY, TWO WEEKS AGO WAS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE COUNTY WAS HEARING IT THE FOLLOWING DAY, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DRAFT ANY CODE. IT WAS JUST A ONE LINE ITEM. HEY BOARD, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT'S EASY. HAVING YOUR WORKSHOPS. THAT'S EASY TOO, BECAUSE IT'S JUST SHOWING UP AND HEARING FROM YOU GUYS. THE HARD PART IS TAKING WHAT YOU SAID BACK AND WRITING THAT CODE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE NEED WHAT YOU SAID TO BE FINISHED, BECAUSE IF WE HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP, THEN THE COMMISSION SAYS SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE. NOW IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO WAIT TO START WRITING THAT CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION IS DOING. AND SO IT'S LIKE YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, WE GET HERE TODAY AND WE'RE ALREADY TALKING ABOUT NOT DOING CHAPTER THREE, BUT DOING CHAPTER SIX. AND SO AND THAT'S GREAT. AND IT'S THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD. BUT WE REALLY CAN'T WRITE THE CODE. YOU WANT US TO WRITE UNTIL YOU GUYS VOTE AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE DONE TALKING ABOUT THIS SUBJECT. WE WANT YOU TO DRAFT THE CODE BASED UPON WHAT WE'VE SAID. SO IF WE FINISH PARKING THIS MORNING, MOVE RELATIVELY, YOU CAN MOVE ON AND WRITE THAT. AND THEN MAYBE WE DO THAT BY I'M HAPPY TO DO THIS EVERY THURSDAY TILL MARCH.

[00:30:04]

WELL, OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL HOLIDAY FOR SURE, UNLESS WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED EATING YOUR TURKEY, YOU'D LIKE TO SHOW UP HERE. I'LL HAVE THE DESSERTS READY. OKAY, OKAY. SO I QUICKLY JUST WANT TO SAY I SPOKE TO WALMART YESTERDAY AND THEY'RE BASING THIS EXPANSION ON THE FACT THAT NATIONWIDE, THEY'VE HAD AN INCREASE IN ONLINE ORDERS AND A DECREASE IN FOOT TRAFFIC.

SO THEY'RE FEELING THAT THEY DON'T NEED ANY EXTRA PARKING. I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT THE STEWARD WALMART IS A DIFFERENT SITUATION. THEY MAY HAVE INDIVIDUAL ORDERS ONLINE, BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE A CROWDED PARKING LOT. AND SO IF THE PARKING CHANGES, MAYBE THEY JUST HAVE TO RECONFIGURE THEIR EXPANSION SPACE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. WHO HAS A QUESTION? WHAT DOES IT NOT ON THE WEST SIDE? WHAT? DO WE GET INTO IT? YEP. LET'S GO. SO DO YOU GUYS WANT TO JUMP TO RATHER THAN CHAPTER THREE? ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'D LIKE TO MAK.

AND THEN I BELIEVE CITY MANAGER, YOU ARE THERE. YEAH. YEAH. THE REASON WE'RE HAVING THESE PROBLEMS IS BECAUSE THE SUN. I'VE SAID THIS FROM THE BEGINNING, THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS BACKWARDS, THAT WE WENT TO THE ZIP WITHOUT DURING THE WORKSHOPS, WITHOUT TALKING TO THE COMMUNITY, WITHOUT DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE. AND SO WE FIND OURSELVES IN THIS VERY COMPRESSED TIME FRAME, WHICH WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO LISTEN TO WHO WE SHOULD BE LISTENING TO AND UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS ISSUE AND THE IMPACT AS MR. MARTEL POINTED OUT, IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL, YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE PROBLEMS FOR BUSINESSES. IF THEY WANT TO SELL THEIR PROPERTY AND IT'S A DIFFERENT USE. THE ONEROUS ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE JUST GOING TO FREEZE BUSINESSES IN PLACE. AND REALLY GREAT BURDEN. HOW COME YOU KNOW, JUST PARKING WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING AND NOT THE OVERALL ISSUE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AS A CITY WITH SO WHAT YOU SHOULD BE CONSIDERING IS AND WE TALK ABOUT DECREASING PARKING, IT'S ACTUALLY INCREASING PARKING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PAVING THE CITY, PUTTING DOWN A LOT MORE CONCRETE, CREATING A LOT MORE HEAT ISLAND, A LOT MORE ASPHALT, A LOT LESS PERMEABLE SURFACE.

THERE'S NO CONSTITUENT I TALKED TO WHO FELT THAT WE NEED. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO GO. BUT YOU HAVE YOU HAVE HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENTS, YOU HAVE HIGHER DEVELOPMENT COSTS. I HEARD TODAY THAT OCEAN POINT, THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. COMMISSIONER GOBI.

YES. THAT'S I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S BEEN 30 YEARS, BUT THOSE RENTS ARE GOING TO DOUBLE. SO YOU WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING? I HEAR ABOUT THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALL THE TIME. THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO IS TO HIRE, REQUIRE MORE PARKING. YOU'RE GOING TO END UP SMALL LOT. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK WITH SINGLE LOTS. YOU'RE GOING TO GET BIG DEVELOPERS COME IN HERE WHO CAN BUY 3 OR 4 LOTS IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT AND MAKE VERY EXPENSIVE APARTMENTS, LIKE RIGHT OVER HERE BY RIVERWALK. OBVIOUSLY, IT'S ENCOURAGEMENT OF CAR DEPENDENCY. I KNOW ONLY ONE OF THE PRIMARY COMPLAINTS I HEAR IS TRAFFIC. YOU WANT TO INCREASE TRAFFIC AND MAKE SURE OUR ONLY ALTERNATIVE IS CREATE MORE PARKING. LOTS OF USABLE LAND, LOSS OF GREEN SPACE LOSS OF PARKS, LOSS OF PLAZA, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. THEY'RE VERY SUBSTANTIAL, VERY SUBSTANTIAL. WHEN YOU INCREASE THE PARKING, REDUCE PUBLIC TRANSPORT, TRANSIT OPTIONS, INCREASE TRAFFIC AND CONGESTION, ECONOMIC INEQUALITY, INEQUITY. AGAIN, IF YOU START MANDATING ADDITIONAL PARKING, IT'S ONLY THE WEALTHIEST, MOST EXPENSIVE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME IN HERE ESTHETIC AND COMMUNITY IMPACT. ABSOLUTEL. I JUST I DON'T KNOW IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOWE'S PARKING LOT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE WALMART PARKING LOT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PUBLIX PARKING LOT, THESE ARE OVER PARKED. THEY ARE NOT FULL AT ANY TIME DURING THE DAY. THEY JUST

[00:35:02]

WHAT OF WHAT VALUE IS THAT TO OUR COMMUNITY? IT WAS WHAT VALUE IS THAT TO OUR CITY, TO OUR CHILDREN. SO I'M SAYING THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE ELEMENTS WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PARKING. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT THESE ARE COMPLICATED ISSUES THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DISCUSSED IN DEPTH PRIOR TO IMPOSING THIS BURDEN ON THE CITY AND ITS BUSINESSES. AND LET'S HOPE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD EFFECTIVELY IN THIS VERY COMPRESSED TIME FRAME.

COMMISSIONER COLLINS. YEAH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT IS COMPLETE NONSENSE. AND YOU KNOW THAT. YOU KNOW THAT, OKAY. WHEN WE ALLOW THESE DEVELOPMENTS TO GO IN WITHOUT UPHOLDING PARKING, WITH HAVING THESE LOOSE OR WEAK PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE DENSITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PARK YOUR PROJECT. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME WITH CARS AND WHETHER THEY CAN PARK THEM ON THAT PARTICULAR LOT WILL BE THE ISSUE. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING THAT OVERFLOWS. IF THERE'S MORE DENSITY, IF THERE ARE MORE DOORS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE MORE PEOPLE AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE CARS, AND IT PUTS MORE PRESSURE ON EVERYWHERE ELSE. SO MAKING SURE THAT IF YOU KNOW BY RIGHT OR EVEN WITHIN A PUD, THERE IS MORE EXPECTATION TO BE ABLE TO PARK A DEVELOPMENT, IT'S GOING TO NATURALLY, NATURALLY LEAD TO IT BEING LESS DENSE. WHICH IS WHY KEVIN FREEMAN AND MIKE MEYER AND MERRITT MATHESON WERE ALL PUSHING FOR LESS PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND MORE DENSITY, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE WANT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, MR. MARTEL? I DON'T KNOW. SO IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. OBVIOUSLY, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WAS ANTICIPATING STARTING AT CHAPTER THREE, BUT I KNOW CHRIS KNOWS HOW TO USE A COMPUTER AND CAN JUST AS EASILY SCROLL TO CHAPTER SIX RIGHT NOW, AND WE CAN. AND I'M TALKING WITH CHRIS CRANE AND WE THERE IT IS. MAGIC. AND WE CAN ADDRESS AND GO THROUGH. AND WHEN YOU READ IT HERE, IT SAYS ON SITE AND OFF SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THERE ARE THINGS OTHER THAN PARKING IN CHAPTER SIX. BUT TO GIVE THE STAFF DIRECTION TO REALLY GET STARTED ON SOMETHING, IT PROBABLY IS CONSISTENT WITH DOING CHAPTER TWO AND CHAPTER SIX BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH INTERCONNECTED AND THEN COMING BACK AND DOING CHAPTER THREE BECAUSE IT HAS ITS OWN RULES AND EVERYTHING. ANYWAY. SO IT THIS PROBABLY IS THE DIRECTION, BUT I AGAIN, IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD AND ALSO CONCURRENCY. SO LIKE CHAPTER FOUR WE WOULD NEED TO AT LEAST. WELL RIGHT. EXCEPT FOR CHAPTER FOUR WAS WRITTEN IN CONCURRENCY AFTERWARDS HAS TO BE MET. BUT THE STATE CHANGED THE CONCURRENCY REGULATIONS ANYWAY. SO CHAPTER FOUR ISN'T AS SIGNIFICANT AS IT WAS. AND THE CITY ACTUALLY HAS CONCURRENCY AS IT RELATES TO ROAD CAPACITY, WATER CAPACITY, SEWER CAPACITY, POLICE AND FIRE CAPACITY, AND THEREFORE, BY DEFAULT, WE'RE MEETING THOSE REGARDLESS IF YOU GUYS MAKE CHANGES OR NOT. OKAY, SO YOUR INCREASES AREN'T GOING TO INCREASE THE, THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE THEY'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY DECREASE DEVELOPMENT. SO IN THEORY IT WOULD MEAN THAT THERE'S EVEN MORE CAPACITY OR MORE CONCURRENCY ANYWAY. SO I'M NOT AS WORRIED ABOUT CHAPTER FOUR RIGHT. BEING IN CLIENTS. BUT WE WILL WHEN WE BRING IT BACK TO YOU, BE ADDRESSING HOW THEY RELATE WITH EACH OTHER. ONCE WE GET YOUR GUYS'S COMMENT. SO IF WE START WITH CHAPTER SIX, WE CAN JUST. I'M SORRY. NO, DON'T WRITE. YEAH. I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON. WELL I'M SORRY. LET'S GET APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. WE

[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

[COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC]

[00:40:14]

I'M A SECOND GENERATION CONTRACTOR IN MARTIN COUNTY. MY OFFICE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF STUART. WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS IN MARTIN COUNTY SINCE 1971. I AM A COMMERCIAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR. I AM NOT A DEVELOPER. I DO NOT BUILD STORAGE UNITS. I DO NOT BUILD HIGH DENSITY MULTIFAMILY TYPE PROJECTS. HOWEVER, WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW IS AFFECTING MY BUSINESS SUBSTANTIALLY. I'M LOSING PROBABLY CLOSE TO $4 MILLION IN VOLUME AS WE GO ON RIGHT NOW. I HAVE PROJECTS RIGHT NOW I AM BUILDING A PROJECT ON OCEAN BOULEVARD, WHICH I HAVE A PERMIT. WE'RE GOING ON. IT WAS THE OLD BURGER KING PROJECT. THAT PROJECT IS NOW GOING TO BE SOMETHING FOR PEOPLE TO DRIVE BY AND LOOK AT AND BE PROUD OF IN THE CITY OF STUART, BUT IT WAS BEFORE WAS A DISGRACE, AN UGLY LOOKING BURGER KING BUILDING BUILT BACK IN 1980 OR SO. I'M STANDING BEFORE YOU GUYS TO URGE YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT BUSINESSES WITHIN THE CITY OF STUART, TO LOOK AT US AND, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE JUST BE HONEST WITH YOU, YOU CAN MAKE YOUR CHANGES. BUT TO PUT A COMPLETE STOP ON CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITY OF STUART IS NONSENSE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DEB, FOR. IT'S FRAZIER, DEB FRAZIER, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME ADDRESS YOU. I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS THIS MORNING. I AM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE TREASURE COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION. I ALSO HAVE WITH ME THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE GOLD COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, BECAUSE IT ALSO AFFECTS PEOPLE IN THE PALM BEACH, JUPITER AREA AS WELL.

WHAT'S GOING ON IN STUART AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST OR OFFER IS IF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE WILLING TO SIT DOWN WITH THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION. IN FACT, I HAVE A BUILDERS COUNCIL MEETING AT 1130 TODAY AND FIND OUT WHAT'S HAPPENING TO OUR BUILDERS AND WHAT THE EFFECTS OF THE MORATORIUM HAVE HAD. AND I THINK THERE PROBABLY EFFECTS THAT WEREN'T EVEN REALIZED WHEN YOU WENT INTO EFFECT. I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT I THINK THE MORATORIUM HAS HAD EFFECTS THAT MAYBE YOU AREN'T AWARE OF OR WEREN'T EVEN THINKING OF WHEN YOU WHEN YOU DID THAT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT THE COMMISSION SIT DOWN WITH MYSELF AND SOME OF MY BUILDERS THAT ARE DOING PROJECTS ON VACANT PROPERTIES AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS THAT YOU COULD UNDERSTAND THE REVERBERATING EFFECT THAT'S HAVING SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT OF THE COMMISSION, AND THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

WHAT IN ESSENCE, WE'RE ALL LISTENING TO YOU, BUT I WOULD I HAVE DONE THAT WITH MANY BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THAT THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE TO CALL A MEETING, BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE SUNSHINE FOR THE BOARD TO KNOW. I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU CALL EACH INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONER AND ASK TO MEET WITH THEM, AND HOPEFULLY THEY WILL TAKE THE TIME TO LISTEN TO YOUR CONCERNS. IF SAM YATES. YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SI.

YES. GOOD MORNING. SAM YATES, 1400 SOUTHWEST BELGRAVE TERRACE. STUART, FLORIDA. I AM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR THE GOLD COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, AND I WANT TO ECHO EVERYTHING THAT DEB JUST SAID, I'D RATHER UNIQUE BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO BEING THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR A MULTI COUNTY BUILDERS ORGANIZATION, I AM NATIVE TO THE AREA SIXTH GENERATION. I HAVE SEEN STUART WHEN IT WAS IN BLIGHT. I HAVE SEEN STUART WHEN DEVELOPMENT OR ANY WORD OF BUILDING ANYTHING WAS A BAD WORD. WHETHER YOU CALL IT MORATORIUM OR CALL IT ZIP, THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IS REALL, REALLY GETTING ANGRY OVER WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON HERE. I ALSO WEAR ANOTHER HAT FORMER JOURNALIST AND LISTENING TO SOME OF THE CONVERSATIONS THIS MORNING, A HEADLINE COMES TO MIND ZIP ZAP PLANS. I THINK EVERYBODY IS SORT OF IN A LIMBO BY THIS MORATORIUM, AND ZIP HAS ZAP PLANS FOR EVERYONE GOING FORWARD. SO WE URGE YOU TO GET TO A CONCLUSION ON IT AS SOON AS

[00:45:04]

I THINK YOU NEED TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF STOPGAP FOR THE NEXT MONTH OR SO. MIKE, I'VE ACTUALLY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS WHERE IT'S FOOTPRINT VERSUS USE CHANGE. IS THERE A WAY WE COULD IS THAT THAT WAS THE MAIN THING WAS EXPANDING RAIMI ROAD WAS JUST TO DO A GARAGE DOOR AND A PATH AND A DRIVEWAY. SO IT WASN'T IT WAS JUST THERE WAS IT WAS ACTUALLY NO WHERE. THERE'S NO FOOTPRINT CHANGE AND YOU'RE JUST WINN-DIXIE IS NO FOOTPRINT CHANGE. YEAH. SO I MEAN, IT'S TOTALLY I PROPOSED LAST NIGHT AND YOU GUYS SAID NO, IT WAS WHAT WE PROPOSE LAST TIME WAS IF IT WAS A PUD TO ALLOW IT TO MOVE FORWARD SO IT COULD START BEING REVIEWED AND IT WOULD COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION ANYWAY. SO YOU GUYS HAD THE DISCRETION TO DENY IT. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS, THOUGH, ONCE THEY MAKE THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICATION IS BASED ON THE CODE THAT EXISTS ON THE DAY THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED. SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. RIGHT. SO LIKE AS IT RELATED TO THE RAIMI RUG, THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS ABOUT OKAY, WELL WHY DON'T WE LET HIM GO FORWARD AS LONG AS THE NEW BUYER AGREES TO BE SUBJECT TO THE NEW CODE. RIGHT. WELL, BUT THE BUYER WOULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET TITLE INSURANCE TO BUY SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE USE IS GOING TO BE IN THE FUTURE. AND YOU ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VALUE IS OR WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR WHAT YOUR INTENDED PURPOSES. SO YOU CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY. IT'S GOT TO BE IF YOU LIFT AN EXCEPTION, WHATEVER GETS APPLIED FOR FALLS UNDER THE CURRENT CODE. SO WHAT DO I GUY? I'M SORRY, WHAT DO I TELL THE PIZZA GUY WHO'S GOT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF EQUIPMENT SITTING THERE WAITING TO GO INTO A BUILDING WHERE YOU WANT THIS KIND OF STUFF AND IT HAS NO IMPACT ON ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR HIM. HOW COULD WE PARCEL THAT OUT, MIKE, TO WHERE IT WOULD BE? WELL, YOU COULD, YOU COULD. I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PIZZA GUY, AND I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT NOT SPECIFIC FOR HIS PROJECT. I'M SAYING WHERE WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT, WHERE WHERE WHAT'S HAPPENING IS BUILDING A NEW BUILDING. NO, NO, BUT I MEAN, THERE'S 117 SOUTH. WHATEVER. MLK, IT'S EXIST. IT'S AN EXISTING 700 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING RIGHT NOW. IT'S AN EMPTY OFFICE SPACE. SO OFFICE VERSUS RESTAURANT, IT'S NOT A REC. THERE'S NO DINING IN THIS PLACE. THAT WOULD BE. THE PROBLEM IS THE PARKING. IT'S TAKEOUT ONLY. THERE'S NO DINING. IT'S STILL PARKING CALCULATION.

IT'S NOT A IT'S A TRAFFIC. I MEAN, IT MEETS THE PARKING CALCULATION. AND I TOLD YOU, I AGREE WITH YOU. I'M NOT TRYING TO GET INTO A SPECIFIC PROJECT. OKAY, LET'S LET'S LET'S LET THE GENTLEMAN FINISH. ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR REMARKS, SIR? I GUESS. OKAY. SO LET US TALK. THANK YOU.

FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, MR. BRADEN'S CORRECT. IT'S NOT A THIS INDIVIDUAL PROJECT IS REALLY NOT A BIG DEAL. AND ON A NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WOULD GO THROUGH, HOWEVER, THE ZONING AND PROGRESS TELLS STAFF THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE PROCESSED. AND AS A RESULT, WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE IF 700FT■!SS SMALL ENOUGH VERSUS 7000FT■!S IS

[00:50:05]

CERTAINLY. YEAH, THAT'S BUT I MEAN, YOU COULD THAT'S THE POINT OF THAT WAS THE POINT OF SUGGESTING THE EXCEPTION TO JUST COMMERCIAL AND JUST COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WITH NO RESIDENTIAL IN IT. BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING NO CONSTRUCTION, WE'RE NOT AND WE'RE NOT EXPANDING THE PHYSICAL FOOTPRINT AT ALL. I MEAN, YOU GUYS CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. SO I MEAN, WE COULD PARCEL THAT.

[00:55:06]

THEY'D HAVE TO COME FROM PUD UNLESS THEY WANTED TO WAIT. RIGHT, RIGHT. I'M SENSING AN OPPORTUNITY HERE. CAN WE CAN WE CONSTRUCT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO COMMISSIONER COLLINS TO ALLOW THESE FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD, SIMPLE PROJECTS TO MOVE FORWARD? I'M HEARING AN EXCEPTION FOR ANY PUD THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL AND DOESN'T INCREASE THE INTENSITY OR SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING INTENSITY, AND IN THE FORM OF STRUCTURAL STRUCTURE.

RIGHT? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY CHANGING IT FROM A LAWYER'S OFFICE TO A DOCTOR'S OFFICE MIGHT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS, BUT IT'S NOT CHANGING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM 1400FT■S TO 1500 SQUARE FEET. RIGHT NOW, THE DISTINCTION BEING, IF IT'S A RESTAURANT RIGHT NOW THAT HAS 30 SEATS AND IT WANTS TO BE A RESTAURANT WITH 30 SEATS, AND ALSO ADD A PATIO WITH 70 SEATS, I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S INCREASING THE INTENSITY, AND THAT'S NOT WE'RE NOT GOING THERE, BUT WE WOULD WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT. WELL, THE STAFF WOULDN'T ACCEPT THAT PUD APPLICATION BECAUSE THAT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL AFTERWARDS TO PURSUE. BUT IF IT'S NOT ADDING THAT PATIO, THEN WE WOULD PROCESS THE PUD AND IT WOULD COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION. RIGHT. WE MAKE A MOTION IN THIS WORKSHOP. MIKE, JODY HAS A QUESTION. JUST JUST SO YOU'RE CLEAR, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS NOT A PUD TODAY. WELL, IT WILL BE. IT WOULD NEED TO BE COME IN AS A PUD RIGHT. AND WE CAN ACCEPT THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE EXCEPTION.

BUT BUT REALISTICALLY, IF IT COMES IN AS A PUD TODAY, IT'S LIKELY NOT GOING TO GET BEFORE THE COMMISSION BEFORE FEBRUARY. RIGHT? BUT AT LEAST THERE'S THE. WELL THAT'S SOONER THAN MARCH.

RIGHT. BUT IT'S ALSO VERY EXPENSIVE. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE COMPARED TO STRAIGHT ZONING.

IT'S PROBABLY $20,000 MORE. YEA. OKAY. SO. SORRY. SO THEN NOT HAVING THE PUD THEN STRAIGHT ZONING. SO LIFTING THAT LIFTING, LIFTING THAT WHERE THE USE IS CHANGING. BUT SO NOT MAKING AN EXCEPTION TO THE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT. SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT. AND THEN WE DO STRAIGHT. BUT LIKE RAIMI RUG COULD GO FORWARD WINN-DIXIE COULD GO FORWARD.

RAIMI WAS ADDING A DRIVEWAY AND THEY WERE EXPANDING THE USE. WELL, THAT'S TRUE, THEY WEREN'T INCREASING THE USE. THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL IMPACT. THERE WAS NO INCREASE AT ALL. IT WASN'T CHANGING THE BUILDING AT ALL. SO I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YES. AND WHEN DIXIE ZONING. NO, NO, IT WASN'T CHANGING THE IT WASN'T CHANGING THE INTENSITY IS WHAT I'M SAYING. RIGHT. IT'S IT FALLS INTO IT. I'M SORRY. BABY RUG IS A PUD. OKAY, BUT I WAS I DIDN'T CARE IF IT WAS RAMAN RUG.

THEY'RE NOT COMING FORWARD ANYWAY. I THINK IT'S OVER WITH. BUT I WAS JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. I'VE LOST THE PLOT. YEAH, THE FIRE WENT AWAY. SO WE COULD DO SO IF THE BOARD DOES A MOTION TO DO. YOU SEE ANY UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WITH THAT? MIKE. WELL, THE IF IT'S JUST CHANGING THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT THEY, THEY FOLLOW THE OLD CODE. BUT I DON'T THINK IT OVERALL, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO MAKE A MEASURABLE DIFFERENCE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WILL WILL NOTICE IT. AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT. OUR CODE IS OUR IT'S JUST USE ALREADY DESIGNED TO MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO GO STRAIGHT. ZONIN. NOW THIS PIZZA EXAMPLE HAPPENS TO BE IN THE CREEK DISTRICT WHICH IS NEW. SO IT HAS A PATH TO GO STRAIGHT ZONING. BUT IF YOU'RE ON US ONE OR YOU'RE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, MOST OF THE CODE IS WRITTEN WHERE THEY END UP HAVING TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO WAIVE SOMETHING ANYWAY, BUT I AS A RESULT, I THINK STRAIGHT ZONING, IF WITHOUT INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS GOING TO BE SO NOMINAL, YOU GUYS DON'T EVEN IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. AND ALSO LIKE YOU SAID RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. BOTH OF THOSE THINGS

[01:00:02]

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC. WELL, FIRST, LET'S LET JODY. JODY, WOULD YOU LIKE I JUST HAVE CLARIFICATION WITH THAT. THEN THEY CAN WE CAN ACCEPT A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT MEETS THESE GUIDELINES. YES, YES. JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? I AM IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MOTION? I DO HAVE TO READ YOUR LIPS. MR. BRADEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS? COME BACK AND COMMENT. I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL. ANY COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSIONERS? NO. EXCUSE ME, MAYOR, I DO HAVE A FEW ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS SPECIFIC MOTION. NO. OKAY. WELL WE'RE TALKING WE'RE DEALING WITH THIS MOTION SO WE CAN VOTE AND THEN GO BACK. YEAH, WE CAN. I THANK THE COMMISSION FOR REALIZING THE PROBLEMS WE CREATED AND TRYING TO HELP THESE PEOPLE OUT AND MOVE FORWARD. AND SO ROLL CALL, PLEASE, PLEASE.

COMMISSIONER REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. GOBI. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. THANK YOU. YES. DID YOU LOCK UP? NO. ALL YOU DID WAS SECOND. ARE YOU VOTING COMMISSIONER CLARK? YES. YES, MAYOR. RICH. YES. OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY, SO I GUESS. RIGHT. LET'S CONTINUE WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS. MADAM CLERK, MARCELLA CAMPBELL. IS IT? GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONERS. FORGIVE ME, BUT MY FIRST WORDS ARE GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF ANGER AS A PROFESSIONAL IN THE MATTER, WE SPEND, WHAT, 30 MINUTES TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE CITY OF STUART WILL BE ABLE TO DO A COMPLETE CODE OVERHAUL. I DON'T KNOW BY WHO STAFF IN TWO WEEKS, 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE DOING THIS. I DON'T KNOW OF ANYONE THAT HAS DONE THIS IN TWO WEEKS. IF SO, IF YOU'RE CAPABLE OF DOING IT IN TWO WEEKS, WHY DID THE EAST STUART CODE TAKE TWO YEARS? WHY DID THE DISTRICT TAKE AS LONG AS IT AS IT TOOK? WHAT IF WHAT IF YOU KNOW WHAT IF SOME OF THESE CHANGES AND I KNOWAN SOME OF THE THINGS YOU'RE MENTIONING REQUIRE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. WE HAVEN'T EVEN FACTORED THAT IN. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO, ADOPT A CODE THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN. AND I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, PLEASE. FOR THE RECORD, GIVEN THAT SOMEONE IS SERIOUS ENOUGH TO HAVE A COURT REPORTER HERE, YOU KNOW, SO AGAIN, CONTINUING A FIRST WITH MY ANGER BEFORE ANY OF MY PROFESSIONAL INPUT MATTERS. GOSH, MENTIONING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP PROPERTIES HOSTAGE. I OWN 14 PROPERTIES IN THE CITY. I WAS SAYING WE WOULD NOT WANT TO KEEP. NO, YOU SAID WE CAN CHECK WITH A COURT REPORTER. I WAS TRYING TO GIVE THAT. WE CONTINUE TO KEEP THEM HOSTAGE. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT WAS ALSO SAID THAT WE IF WE ARE NOT CONTINUOUSLY BOGGED BY PUBLIC COMMENT, FLORIDA STATUTES 286 0114 PROTECTS PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE'S A DOUBLE STANDARD WHEN

[01:05:05]

STUART. WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, MARCELLA JUST TOOK HALF OF MY TALKING POINTS. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THE GENTLEMAN SAID HE'S A REPORTER. AND IF YOU HAD TO TAKE A TITLE, I'LL TELL YOU MY TITLE FOR THE FRONT PAGE WOULD BE COMMISSIONERS SAY WE WILL HOLD THE CITY HOSTAGE. NO, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS SAID. WE WILL HOLD THE CITY HOSTAGE UNTIL WE GET THIS DONE. SO UNTIL THAT PERSON GETS WHAT THEY WANT, I GUESS WE ARE HELD HOSTAGE. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO MAKE SURE AS WE'RE LOOKING AT CODE, RIGHT, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT MAKING EVERYTHING NON-CONFORMING, YOU

[01:10:03]

KIND OF MIMIC KIRKMAN HERE. KIRKMAN CREEK. I HAVE A PROJECT HERE IN THE CITY OF STUART.

SUPER PROUD OF IT. SMALL CREW OF GUYS. WE EMPLOY 15 PEOPLE AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, THOUGH, IT'S DIFFERENT. WE EMPLOY OUR PEOPLE. I HAVE A BOAT RAMP. WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD A LOCAL WORKING BOATYARD, NOT A MARINA. SIMPLE FOR THE BOATYARD TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR TRAILERS, THEIR TRUCKS TO GET BOATS IN AND OUT TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY BETTER. THAT'S BEEN HELD UP IN VARIANTS FOR MONTHS. AND IT'S GETTING EXTREMELY FRUSTRATING. I'M KIND OF GETTING THE FEELING SINCE I ATTENDED THIS MEETING, PIZZA GUY KAI HERE, FRIEND OF MINE SAID, HEY, YOU OUGHT TO COME CHECK THIS OUT AND SEE SEE WHAT'S GOING ON. I HAVE A FEELING THE PARKING AND SO ON THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED AND I SOUND IGNORANT SAYING THIS, BUT IS HINDERING UP MY PROJECT, WHICH IS STARTING TO FRUSTRATE ME MORE SO BECAUSE IT HINDERS UP MY CREW, HINDERS UP MY PEOPLE FROM WORKING THAT WE EMPLOY. WE DON'T USE A LOT OF SUBCONTRACTORS. WE USE ONE SUBCONTRACTOR. I'M NOT ELECTRICIAN. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN WITH MY PROJECT SPECIFICALLY, BUT I'M ALSO MIMICKING MR. KIRKMAN HERE, WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY AFFECTING MORE THAN JUST MY BUSINESS AND MY BOTTOM LINE. MY GUYS THAT ACTUALLY NEED THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEY'RE GOING TO NEED EVEN WORSE BECAUSE THEY CANNOT WORK. THEY'VE GOT NO JOB FOR THEM BECAUSE MY OTHER CREWS ARE DOING OTHER STUFF. I'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A PAIN WITH TRYING TO GET A BOAT RAMP FOR BOATYARD USE, NOT FOR PUBLIC USE, APPROVED AS JUST FOR LITERALLY PUTTING BOATS IN AND OUT OF THE WATER AS NEEDED SO THEY CAN BE SERVICED BY OTHER, YOU KNOW, PROFESSIONS. MOTOR SERVICE, FIBERGLASS SERVICE, STUFF LIKE THAT. SMALL LITTLE SPIEL. AGAIN, FORGIVE ME MY IGNORANCE, BUT I WANTED TO KIND OF BRING THAT TO THE ATTENTION. IT AFFECTS EVERYTHING DOWNHILL. EVERYBODY'S ALWAYS TRYING TO FIX AS WELL. THAT'S ALL. SIR, WHAT'S THE ADDRESS OF THE BOATYARD IN THE MARINA? RIGHT ON THE ENTRANCE TO HANEY CREEK? OH, OKAY. I KNOW WHERE IT IS. YEAH. CENTRAL MARINE. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO MORE MAYOR. WE HAVE NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. WELL,

[1. CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON THE CITY OF STUART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) CHAPTERS 3-12]

[01:15:14]

THANK YOU. SO THE I SUPPOSE THE EASIEST WAY IS JUST IF YOU, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE INITIAL PART OF EVERY CHAPTER IS KIND OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE INTENT AND THE PRINCIPLES FOR OF DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN. OBVIOUSLY ARE LAID OUT, AS YOU SEE, IN THAT 60003, IT WILL BE UP A LITTLE BIT WHERE YOU GO ON, YOU SEE THAT IT IT MENTIONS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVER, PROVIDE ADEQUATE ACCESS LOTS AND SITES AND TO AVOID ADVERSE EFFECTS OF SHADOW, GLARE, NOISE, ODOR, TRAFFIC, DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THE REASON I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU IS THAT AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS CHAPTER, OBVIOUSLY THE INTENTION OF THE REGULATION AT ALL, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT, LIKE, MARTIN COUNTY, HOBE SOUND, STEWART AND VINCENT BEACH WERE BUILT WITHOUT ANY ZONING AT ALL. THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE THAT WERE BUILDING THEM BUILT THEM OUT OF NECESSITY, AND THEY BUILT THEM TO USE AND CONSUME FOR THEMSELVES. THERE WASN'T A YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE FOR.

BUT OVER TIME, YOU FOUND LIKE THE HILTON OR THE FONTAINEBLEAU IN MIAMI BEACH WAS A BIG CASE BECAUSE THEY GOT THEY BUILT THAT HOTEL AND IT'S A SHADOW FROM THAT HOTEL BLOCKED OUT THE POOLS OF THE PEOPLE NEXT DOOR AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO YOU START GETTING THESE REGULATIONS TO TRY AND NOT IMPACT YOUR NEIGHBOR. ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT WE RUN INTO IN THE CITY, OBVIOUSLY, IS WE HAVE SOME WE'VE ADDED SOME SIGNIFICANT DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO THE CURB CUTS THAT WE EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT WANTS TO DO PROJECTS IN THE CITY WANTS TO DO MORE CURB CUTS THAN WE ALLOW NOW, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING THE PARKING, CONSIDER WHEN YOU HAVE INCREASED PARKING. ARE WE GOING TO ALSO INCREASE CURB CUTS TO ALLOW THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN THAT? AND I DON'T THINK MOST OF OUR PROJECTS ARE GOING TO HAVE HUGE PARKING LOTS, SO IT SHOULDN'T BE A VERY BIG DEAL. BUT THOSE CURB CUTS ON THE STREETS BECOME SIGNIFICANT AS WE SCROLL DOWN. IF WE CAN, A LITTLE BIT. CHRIS, OBVIOUSLY, THE INTENTION IS TO MAINTAIN NATURAL CONDITION, PROVIDE SCREENING AND BUFFERING, KEEP GOING AND THESE ARE ALL THE INTENTIONS OF THE PAST.

OBVIOUSLY, PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION IS ALWAYS A VERY SIGNIFICANT TO US AND THESE ARE ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS STAFF LOOKS AT AS IT RELATES TO EVERY PROJECT. AND THEN TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS GETS IN. WE START TALKING ABOUT STREETS AND BOULEVARDS AND WIDTHS OF THE STREETS AND PRIVATE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, AND SETBACKS AND RIGHT OF WAYS AND ARTERIALS AND HIGHWAYS AND THEN GOING DOWN TO THE RIGHTS OF WAY. WE HAVE RIGHT OF WAYS THAT ARE CURRENTLY USED, RIGHT OF WAYS THAT AREN'T USED, AND THEN RIGHT OF WAYS THAT ARE USED FOR UTILITIES AND SIDEWALKS AND BIKEWAYS. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THOSE. NO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT SEEMS TO BE IN ORDER AS WELL. IT'S. AND THEN HERE'S WHERE WE REQUIRE THIS IS JUST THIS CHART IS REQUIREMENT OF BENCHES. AND OTHER PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES. BASICALLY THAT IN THE LARGER SCALE DEVELOPMENTS ARE ALL PUD ANYWAY. RIGHT. SO YOU CAN KEEP SCROLLING DOWN. I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO THEN ACCESS BACK WHEN THE ORIGINAL RATE OF THE CODE CAME IN THE EARLY 2000, IT WAS A DIRECTION OF STAFF TO PART OF THE CITY, TO REQUIRE LIKE ON THE US, ONE ON CANNER AND ON MAJOR THOROUGHFARES THAT THE LOTS HAVE A INTERCONNECTION. SO THAT CARS DIDN'T HAVE TO GO OUT ONTO US, ONE TO GET NEXT DOOR TO THE THING. AND IF YOU GO UP LIKE BY THE MALL, YOU CAN SEE YOU CAN GO TO PANERA BREAD AND THEN YOU CAN GO OVER TO THE MEN'S WAREHOUSE AND THE NEXT PLAZA DOWN WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING ONTO US ONE, BECAUSE THE INTENTION WAS TO LET CARS HAVE THAT INTERCONNECTED ACCESS TO AVOID THE TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS. I MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE AS WE GET INTO THIS, YOU MAY BE ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES. SO SCROLL DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE STANDARDS FOR DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES.

OBVIOUSLY THE CITY HAS TAKEN A APPROACH ON DRIVEWAYS JUST 0.01.06. AND IT SAYS THE IT SAYS

[01:20:04]

IT'S THAT IT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WHO WROTE IT AND PUT THAT IN THERE, BUT IT'S THAT THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. LIKE THEY WERE RESERVING THE SPACE TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS IT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE LANGUAGE AT LEFT. INTENTIONALLY. RIGHT. IS THAT WHAT IT MEANS EXACTLY. YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO RESIDENTIAL LOTS RESERVED. SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO IS IT GOING TO BE MORE TO THAT OR LESS TO THAT? AND WE HAVEN'T FOUND A NEED FOR IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THANK YOU. AND THEN DRIVE THROUGH FACILITIES. THE CITY HAS AREAS THAT IT DOESN'T ALLOW THE DRIVE THRUS.

AND THEN AREAS WHERE IT DOES, BUT THEY'RE LIMITED. AND THEN HERE'S THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU THE PIZZA PLACE, IF IT'S GOING TO BE A DRIVE THROUGH PIZZA, THEN IT'S GOING TO HAVE SIX MINIMUM SPACES REQUIRED ON THE SITE. I DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE ON THE SITE LIKE THE OLD WENDY'S. THAT SITE IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT CAN'T STACK, RIGHT? WELL, IT HAS A TERRIBLE DRIVE THROUGH SPACE, RIGHT? AND DRIVE THRUS GENERALLY DON'T DON'T WORK THAT WELL WITH PEDESTRIANS. BUT OVERALL THEY OBVIOUSLY IT'S THERE'S ESSENTIAL NEEDS AND PEOPLE USE THEM REGULARLY IN THE CITY OF STUART HAS A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW TO PAY YOUR WATER BILL. SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT THEY'RE REAL. BUT THIS SHOWS THE REQUIREMENT OF SIX PARKING SPACES FOR DRIVE THRUS. AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE HAS THREE. BANK TELLER LANE HAS THREE. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING AS IT RELATES TO DRIVE THRUS. AND THEN ALSO THE QUEUE SPACE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET WIDE BY 20FT LONG AND OBVIOUSLY DEFINED, DEFINED AND PAINTED. AND THEN IT ALSO HAS TO HAVE A BYPASS LANE WITH 12FT WIDE TO GET AROUND THOSE PEOPLE IN LINE. THINKING ABOUT THE WENDY'S, IF PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO GET THROUGH HEARING NO COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ON ANY DRIVE THROUGH STUFF, WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT THING NONRESIDENTIAL VEHICLE, VEHICULAR ACCESS. WE HAVE TO HAVE FIRE AND GARBAGE TRUCKS AT A MINIMUM FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, THAT HAVE TO GET THROUGH. AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE LIKE THE DELIVERY MAIL AND AMAZON AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. NOW WE HAVE THOSE ADDRESSED. IF I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S AN ISSUE FOR YOU GUYS, AND THEN WE GET TO PROBABLY WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR AND THIS IS 60109, WHICH IS THE PARKING COD. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S BROKEN INTO TWO THINGS. A IS WHEN IT APPLIES TO BUT IT'S ONE IS CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ON UNIMPROVED REAL PROPERTY OR TWO, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE ON IMPROVED REAL PROPERTY. THREE IS CHANGES IN USE, INCLUDING CHANGES IN THE INTENSITY OF AN EXISTING USE.

AND THIS IS THE DEBATE WE WERE JUST HAVING A LITTLE WHILE AGO, IS IF YOU HAVE THE SAME FOOTPRINT BUT YOU CHANGE THE US, YOU CAN SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE A TRAFFIC FLOW OR THE NEED FOR PARKING. OBVIOUSLY, WE HAD THIS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SUMMER. I THINK IT WAS WHEN THE RESTAURANT AT 101 COLORADO, NOT RESTAURANT, THE PROPERTY AT 101 COLORADO CAME IN AND WANTED THE COMMISSION TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW IT TO BE A RESTAURANT ON THE WATER THERE, ON COLORADO AND SEMINOLE AND THE SEMINOLE NEIGHBORHOOD CAME IN AND WAS VERY VOCAL ABOUT IT AND DIDN'T DIDN'T WANT IT, BECAUSE THAT CHANGE IN USE, ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING WAS, IN THEORY, GOING TO STAY THE SAME, WAS GOING TO REALLY INCREASE THE INTENSITY. SO IF YOU READ B, NO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SHALL BE ISSUED FOR ANY PORTION OR PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH THE PARKING CODE APPLIES UNTIL ALL REQUIRED PARKING AND LOADING SPACES, ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPING HAVE BEEN INSTALLED PURSUANT TO THIS PLAYS A ROLE IN THE DECISION THE BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE, NOT TODAY, BUT HOW WE APPLY THESE CHANGES. ARE THEY GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY NON-CONFORMING AND THEN ANY CHANGES HAVE TO BE BROUGHT IN TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE FOR EXAMPLE, THE PIZZA GUY, IF HE GOES FORWARD, MAKES APPLICATION, OPENS UP AND IS BUILDING, IS OPEN AND THEN YOU GUYS ADOPT THIS CODE AND THEN HE COMES BACK AND WANTS TO PUT A PICNIC TABLE OUTSIDE TO LET PEOPLE EAT THERE. AND THE CODE REQUIRES DOUBLE THE PARKIN. THEY'LL HAVE TO THEN BUILD DOUBLE THE PARKING IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT PICNIC TABLE GO THERE AGAIN. THAT'S THAT'S A VERY COMMON WAY THE CODE WORKS. AND WE'LL ADDRESS IT. OR YOU CAN CODE CAN BE MORE COMPLICATED AND WE CAN SAY ONLY THEY DON'T THEY DON'T NEED TO BECAUSE WHEN I SAY YOU HAVE TO BRING MORE PARKING

[01:25:06]

[01:30:04]

LESS RIGHT. BUT WHEN WE COME BACK WITH THE RESOLUTION AND LIKE PRESENT IT TO YOU GUYS, WE'LL HAVE IT AS PART OF THE PACKET SO YOU GUYS CAN EVALUATE IT. SEE, THIS HAPPENS VERY OFTEN FOR PROPERTY CLARIFY. IS THAT DONE ON A REGIONAL BASIS OR NATIONWIDE OR NATIONWIDE? IT'S NATIONWIDE. YES. WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD NOT BE MARRIED TO IT. WE SHOULD BE SPECIFIC TO OUR MUNICIPALITY. SO IN THE IT JUST SO YOU KNOW, IT'S BASED OFF LAND USE BASED OFF THE TRAFFIC REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVE OR YOUR CONSULTANT PREPARES. THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF, OF USES WITHIN IT. SO IF YOU HAVE A CODE 210. NO, NO I UNDERSTAND THAT. YEAH. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE URBAN YOU KNOW THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARKING STANDARDS FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES. IT'S NOT JUST STRAIGHT, YOU KNOW, ONE LIKE IF YOU'RE IN A RURAL AREA OR IF YOU'RE IN A URBAN AREA OR IF YOU'RE IN A INDUSTRIAL AREA. SO THERE IS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT LAND USE UNDER 210, AND IT WILL SHOW YOU THE DATA FOR THAT'S BEEN PREPARED EVERY TWO YEARS AND ADOPTED. THIS IS FLORIDA LAW OR OUR COMP PLAN REQUIRE US TO ADHERE TO. SPECIFICALLY, STATES OKAY. WELL THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS AS DIRECTOR SHALL THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING FOR USE NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN OUR CODE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WITH REFERENCE TO THE LISTED USE MOST SIMILAR IN PARKING AND LOADING NEEDS TO BE UNLISTED. THE LISTED USE GENERALLY, WHAT THEY DO IF IT'S NOT LISTED IS GO TO THE IT. MAKE THE DETERMINATION, BUT IT'S ALSO VERY RARE BECAUSE IN A SECOND WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE LIST. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A FAIRLY QUICK. THE NEXT ONE IS FOR PROPERTIES CONTAINING MORE THAN ONE. USE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES IS THE CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF SPACES FOR ALL THE USES. SO IF I HAVE A LAW OFFICE AND A TITLE COMPANY AND THEY'RE BOTH IN THE SAME BUILDING, THE CALCULATION WOULD BE TO OUR OFFICE. AND THEN THE CALCULATION WOULD BE FOR THE TITLE COMPANY. AND THAT'S THE PARKING THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER OUR CODE. IF PEOPLE HAD BUSINESSES OR USES THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER CALCULATION THAT PARKING CREATES. THE MEASUREMENT OF SEATS. BECAUSE RESTAURANT PARKING IS ONE PARKING SPACE PER FOR CHAIRS. IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD PEOPLE SAY A TEN FOOT WIDE BENCH IS ONE CHAIR. AND SO NOW IT SAYS EACH 20 LINEAR INCHES OF BENCHES OR PEWS SHALL BE CONSIDERED ONE SEAT. SO YOUR TEN FOOT THING GETS CHOPPED UP BY 20 INCH SPACES TO DETERMINE HOW MANY SEATS IT ACTUALLY IS. GROSS FLOOR SHALL BE USED FOR COMPUTATION OF SPACES. IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. GREATEST NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING OWNERS, MANAGERS PRESENT ON PREMISES AT ANY ONE TIME, SHALL BE USED FOR COMPUTATION OF PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE STAFF, AND SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A BANK BANK DOESN'T GET TO SAY THAT STAFF PARKING IS WHAT STAFF IS ON SATURDAY. IT'S WHAT'S THE PARKING ON FRIDAY OR HOW MANY STAFF ARE THERE ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON AT 430, WHEN THE BANK IS THE BUSIEST SO THAT THE PARKING CAN ABSORB THEIR INTENSITY OF USE FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DRIVEWAY THINGS ARE. YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT MY OLD OFFICE, THE WELLS FARGO BUILDING ON US, ONE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS SO FEW PEOPLE GOING

[01:35:01]

YOU YOU WANT TO BUILD 45. THAT'S MORE THAN 10%. AND AS A RESULT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR THAT. NOW, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MORE THAN ONE WAY TO SKIN A CAT AS THEY SAY. ALL I WOULD DO IS ADD ANOTHER USE. I MEAN, IF I WERE THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD MAKE THE PARKING BE WHATEVER YOU WANT. BUT ANYWAY, WE'LL KEEP GOING. ELECTRIC CHARGING SPACES. IF ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS ARE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO PARKING SPACES, THOSE SPACES MAY STILL BE COUNTED TOWARDS REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.

THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY THING WE HAVE ON ELECTRIC CHARGING. THE STATE PASSED A LAW LAST YEAR SAYING THAT CITIES AND COUNTIES CANNOT REQUIRE A DEVELOPER TO INCLUDE ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS IN THEIR PROJECTS, AND AS A RESULT, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT REQUIRED IT ANYWAY, THERE WAS SOME REFERENCE IN PUDS WHERE SOME COMMISSIONERS HAD BEEN ASKING FOR IT. THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE IT. IT SIMPLY SAYS IF YOU HAVE IT, IT COUNTS AS A PARKING SPACE TOWARD YOUR PARKING COUNT. SO IT DOESN'T. IT'S NEUTRAL ON THE STATE LAW. SO GO DOWN A LITTLE MORE. IF YOU COULD. THIS IS PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE OLD DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. AND IT DESCRIBES THAT IF THE SITE OF THE PRINCIPAL USE AND THE LOCATION OF THE REQUIRED PARKING TO SERVE THE PRINCIPAL USE ARE NOT CONTIGUOUS, THE NEAREST PORTION OF THE PARKING SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN 500FT OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE TO THE PRINCIPAL. USE. YOU REMEMBER THE RESTAURANT AT 101 COLORADO WANTED TO USE WHAT USED TO BE THE SUNTRUST BANK BUILDING'S PARKING LOT FOR ITS PARKING COUNT, AND IT WAS MORE THAN 500FT AWAY. AND AS A RESULT, THAT HAD TO GO IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION. IF IT'S LESS THAN 500FT AWAY. CURRENTLY, IT CAN BE ADMINISTERED ADMINISTRATIVELY. HOWEVER, WHEN WE DO THE EVALUATION, WE EVALUATE IT AS A SHARED PARKING FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE 101 RESTAURANT WANTED TO USE PARKING FOR THAT AT THE BANK BUILDING DOWN THE STREET, IT'S NO LONGER A BANK BUILDING. IT'S A DOCTOR'S OFFICE. NOW, BECAUSE THE RESTAURANT'S PRIMARY TIMES FOR PARKING NEEDS WOULD BE REALLY FOUR IN THE AFTERNOON UNTIL 11 P.M. AND ON WEEKENDS AND THE BUSINESS OR THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE PRIMARY NEEDS FOR PARKING WERE FROM, YOU KNOW, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 8 TO 5 OR WHATEVER. THE NUMBERS ARE THE STANDARD BUSINESS HOURS. STAFF IS ABLE TO DO AN EVALUATION AND SAY, WELL, THESE TWO THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO CONFLICT SIGNIFICANTLY. AND THEREFORE WE CAN ACCEPT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF IT. WE DON'T LET PEOPLE DOUBLE AND TRIPLE DIP. IT'S NOT LIKE THAT DOCTOR COULD SELL THE PARKING TO THE 101 AND THEN SELL IT TO ANOTHER BUSINESS, AND THEN ANOTHER BUSINESS AND ANOTHER BUSINESS.

IT'S EVALUATED BY STAFF. HOWEVER, I KNOW AT THE LAST MEETING, ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE COMING FORWARD IS TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL, BASED UPON THE BOARD, AND THAT WILL BE IN THE RESOLUTION FIRST. BUT THE COMMENT WAS MADE AS RELATED TO SHARED BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND

[01:40:07]

THERE ARE SOME SITUATIONS WHERE THE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOTEL ON COLORADO AVENUE, IT WASN'T A SHARED PARKING, IT WAS ACTUALLY PARKING IN THEIR PARKING GARAGE THAT HAD BEEN DEDICATED FOR THAT SITE WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY. ONE PROJECT DONE BY THE HAYESFIELD FAMILY. WHEN THE RFP OR WHATEVER RESOLUTION TRUST CORP RTC TOOK OVER, ALL THE BANKS AND STUFF BACK IN THE 90S, THEY CHOPPED IT UP AND SOLD THAT LOT SEPARATELY FROM THE PARCELS, BUT THE LOT WAS SOLD WITH SPECIFIC PARKING RIGHTS TO THE GARAGE, AND AS A RESULT, THEY HAD DEDICATED OFF SITE PARKING THAT WAS NOT SHARE, COMMISSIONER, JUST A QUESTION REGARDING THAT HOTEL QUICKLY IS IF THAT'S CORRECT, THEN WHY WOULD THE HOTEL HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION TO HAVE OFF SITE PARKING APPROVED? I THINK IT WAS MORE THAN 500FT AWAY, RIGHT? YEAH, FROM THE FRONT DOOR. BUT THAT PARKING WAS IRREVOCABLY ASSIGNED, RIGHT? IT WAS. IT HAD BEEN COUNTED AND DONE AS PART OF IT. RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. AND IT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE BECAUSE IT'S OFFICE DURING THE DAY. AND THEN WELL, IN THAT SITUATION HOTELS, THEY PARKED MOST OF THEIR PARKING IS DONE AT NIGHT. BUT IN THAT SITUATION IT WASN'T SHARED. IT WAS LITERALLY RIGHT. RIGHT. BUT DESIGNATED. AND IF THAT HOTEL WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE ANY DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THAT SITE HAD A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPACES DEDICATED UNDER THE ORIGINAL PLAN, BECAUSE IT WAS PLANNED. I SUPPOSE WHEN THEY DID, THE WHOLE PROJECT COULD BE ANOTHER BUILDING AT SOME POINT, AND THAT'S WHY THEY BUILT THE PARKING GARAGE IN THE FIRST PLACE. GOING ON REQUIRED PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON THE SITE OF THE PRINCIPAL USE SHALL NOT BE RELOCATED ELSEWHERE, EXCEPT BY MAJOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, WHICH MEANS GO BEFORE THE COMMISSION REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, WHICH ARE LOCATED ON CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN 500FT OF THE SITE SHALL NOT BE RELOCATED TO A MORE DISTANT LOCATION FROM THE SITE OF THE PRINCIPAL USE AS MEASURED BY A SAFE AND CONVENIENT PEDESTRIAN ROUTE, EXCEPT BY MAJOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL AND NEXT PARAGRAPH. IN JANUARY OF 1988, THE NEW USE OF PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE EXPANSION AND INTENSIFICATION OF AND THIS IS LANGUAGE AGAIN, THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT WITH THIS CODE CHANGE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A PARAGRAPH THAT TALKS ABOUT THE 1998 CODE. ADOPTION HAS EFFECTS ON CERTAIN BUSINESSES THAT WERE IN PLACE IN 1997. AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE A 2024 PARAGRAPH SIMILAR TO THIS THAT SAYS IN JANUARY 1ST OR FEBRUARY 1ST, 2024, A NEW USE OF PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE EXPANSION OR INTENSIFICATION OF AN EXISTING USE, MAY RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES GENERATED BY USES OF THE PROPERTY, AS DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS CODE. SUCH ADDITIONAL SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED EITHER ON THE SIDE SITE PRINCIPAL USE OR ON A PROPERTY CONTIGUOUS TO THE SITE OF THE PRINCIPAL USE, OR ON PROPERTY WITHIN 500FT. THE FRONT ENTRANCE AND USE GOING FORWARD. THE ROOD SHALL INCLUDE APPROPRIATE SIGNAGE. DELINEATE WHERE THE PARKING IS IN THE EVENT SIX OR MORE OF THE ADDITIONAL REQUIRED SPACES WILL BE LOCATED ON PROPERTY WITHIN 500FT, BUT NOT CONTIGUOUS TO THE SITE LOCATION OF THE SIX OR MORE SPACES THEY'LL BE APPROVED BY MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. SO WOW, THAT'S WHY YOU ALWAYS GET IT IN FRONT OF YOU, BECAUSE THE THEORY BEHIND IT IS THAT IF YOUR PARKING IS ON SITE, THEN YOU'RE NOT IMPACTING YOUR NEIGHBORS SIGNIFICANTLY. WHERE IS IT? YOUR PARKING IS SIX DOORS DOWN, AND PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY PARKING AND PULLING IN AND OUT OF THEIR YOUR PROPERTY IS IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORS. AND THAT'S WHY THE COMMISSION HAS TO PROVE IT. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY IN PLACE ALREADY. IT'LL PROBABLY THE ONLY CHANGE WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE TO THAT IS JANUARY 12TH, 1998, AND THE CHANGES MADE IN. FEBRUARY 2025. AND WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S SOME DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. BUT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE CODE AND FIND ALL THESE PARAGRAPHS THAT ARE REFERENCING. THE UNITY OF TITLE, THE ISSUE OF TITLE IS AN INTERESTING SUBJECT BECAUSE WHERE CIVITA IS LOCATED AND CIVITA WAS APPROVED, IT GOT APPROVED AND STARTED CONSTRUCTION, AND WHERE THE LOT NEXT DOOR TO IT IS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE 23 PARKING SPACES. AND WHEN THE RECESSION HIT, A PERSON BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FROM PNC BANK AND WENT TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND CARVED THE PROPERTY OUT RIGHT UP TO THE BUILDING LINE OF THE CIVITA

[01:45:03]

WELL, I'M SAYING JUST COMMERCIAL MIXED USE BY ITS VERY NATURE IS COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE RESTAURANT AND THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE THAT'S COMMERCIAL.

COMMERCIAL SHARING SPARK. SO THAT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL. AND DO YOU WANT US TO INCLUDE THAT OR JUST THE RESIDENTIAL OR MULTIFAMILY? OKAY. AND THEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS COMBINED WITH.

SO A, A WOULD NOT CHANGE THEN. RIGHT, RIGHT. 601 12 WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE. WE WON'T HAVE TO EDIT IT BECAUSE IT'S 601 12 IS RELATED TO THE REQUIRING ALLOWING SHARED SPACES FOR ANOTHER USE KIND OF FINDING THAT THE SHARED PARKING SPACES ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY, READILY ACCESSIBLE AND FOR THE USES WON'T. THE PARKING DOESN'T OVERLAP EACH OTHER. THE ONLY DISTINCTION IS YOU'RE THE BOARD IS GOING TO BE ADDING LANGUAGE HERE THAT WOULD SAY OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL LIKE ON THE DELINEATION WITH THAT AA CAPITAL AA IS THAT THAT SOME RIGHT THAT MUNICIPAL DISTRICTS I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR TWO A'S. OH OKAY. YEAH THAT'LL BE CURED. RIGHT. YOU SE.

I'M SURE THAT THAT CAN BE PICKED AND RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE. RIGHT. ARE YOU JUST SAYING ANYTHING WITH RESIDENTIAL? WELL, THE IN IN MOST SITUATIONS YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TWO RESIDENTIAL SHARING PARKING BECAUSE THE STAFF HAS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THEIR PARKING ARE DIFFERENT PEAKS. SO IF THEY'RE BOTH RESIDENTIAL, THEY HAVE THE SAME PEAK PARKING. SO IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN ANYWAY. SO THE ONLY TIME RESIDENTIAL HAS SHARED PARKING IS IF IT'S MIXED USE. WHICH. THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT IN A SECOND. WE'LL BE GETTING TO THE ACTUAL PARKING

[01:50:09]

AND IT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO DO THE CALCULATIONS FOR WHATEVER THE NEW PARKING ARE. BUT WE'LL BRING THOSE TO THE RESOLUTION AND KIND OF DESCRIBE THEM. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO USE ON STREET PARKING AS WELL. EVERYBODY HAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF ON STREET PARKING ALLOWED BASED UPON THE SPACES RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY. THE WHAT'S USED FOR THE CALCULATION IS ONE THING.

REALITY IS THEY'VE ALREADY USED THOSE ON STREET SPACES IN THEIR CALCULATION. SO IF THEY WANTED TO DO OUTDOOR DINING, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIND NEW SPACE TO BUILD NEW PARKING SPACES BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE GOING UP BECAUSE THE I THINK IT'S FOUR UNITS ON THE TOP FLOOR DIDN'T HAVE PARKING REQUIRED BECAUSE THE CODE ALLOWED IT TO BE WAIVED. SO IT WOULD BE AT LEAST EIGHT SPACES BASED UPON THAT. AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES IN THE CODE, IT WOULD ALSO BE WHATEVER THE CHANGE IS REQUIRED. YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS, BUT I CAN'T. THERE'S NO WAY THE RECORD CAN PICK IT UP AT THE MICROPHONES. AND SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO DO THAT. SO IN ANY EVENT, IF YOU GUYS WANT US TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THESE

[01:55:06]

AND THEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS COMBINED WITH NONRESIDENTIAL THAT BASED UPON YOUR CURRENT DIRECTION, SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD JUST BE THE SAME LANGUAGE WE USED UP ABOVE IN CHAPTER SIX THAT SAYS WHEN YOU ADD AN ADDITIONAL USE TO A RESTAURANT OR TO A THING THAT YOU HAVE TO DO, THE TOTAL OF BOTH USES. BUT IN THIS CASE IT'S ALSO SAYING THE NON RESIDENTIAL USE GARAGES COUNT TOWARDS REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING. I'M NOT SURE HOW WOULD THIS HOW WOULD THIS WORK WITH WHAT WE WERE DESCRIBING LAST TIME IN TYING THE FA TO THE UNITS COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL UNITS? WELL, WE HAVE IT'S NOT GOING TO MATTER BECAUSE THAT'S JUST AN ADDITIONAL USE. SO RIGHT NOW IF YOU HAVE A FOUR UNIT APARTMENT AND YOU ALSO WANT TO HAVE A 4000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE, THAT WOULD JUST BE AN 8000 SQUARE FOOT, YOU KNOW, BUILDING, AND WE COULD ADDRESS THE FA. AND IF THE FA SAID, WELL, NO, YOUR FOUR UNITS COUNT TOWARD FA, THAT MIGHT MAKE THE 4000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING DROP DOWN TO OR THE BUSINESS PART OF IT DROP DOWN TO 2000FT■!S. WELL, IF YOU DROP THE BUSINESS DOWN TO 2000FT■!S, YOUE NOT GOING TO NEED PARKING. BASED ON THE BUSINESS BEING 4000, YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO NEED THE PARKING BASED ON BUSINESS BEING 2000. SO THAT FAR EFFECT IS GOING TO REDUCE EITHER THE BUSINESS SIDE OR THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE. I SUSPECT THAT ON OUR CURRENT MARKET, IT'S GOING TO REDUCE THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS SIDE BECAUSE THE MARKET IS PROVIDING MORE RETURN FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAN IT IS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT IT PROBABLY WILL DO IS DIRECT THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE MORE THAN THE COMMERCIAL, BUT IN THE POSITION OF THE CAR DEALERSHIP, PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE THAT PERSON IS IN CAR DEALERSHIPS MORE THAN RESIDENTIAL. BUT AS IT RELATES TO IF YOU WERE JUST LIKE WE HAVE IN THE URBAN AREA, WE LIMIT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF WHAT. WELL, LIKE UNDER THE URBAN CODE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE UP TO 70% OR OFFICE RESIDENTIAL CODE SAYS UP TO 70%, OFFICE AND UP TO 30% RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT'S UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USES OR UNDER THE COMP PLAN. THAT WON'T MATTER. YOU'LL STILL HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT YOU'LL JUST BE PROVIDING. BEFORE, WHEN YOU HAD LIKE IT WAS IN THE CITY, IT WAS 25% RESIDENTIAL AND 75% I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOUR STORIES OR THREE STORIES. I THINK IT'S THREE STORIES. RIGHT? IS IT FOUR? SO NO, IT'S I THINK IT'S THREE. IT'S THREE STORIES. FIRST IS RETAIL, SECOND IS COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE, AND THIRD IS THE RESIDENTIAL. SO IT'S 33% RESIDENTIAL. SO 33% OF THE BUILDING DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE REQUIRED PARKING. NOW THOSE TWO BEDROOM UNITS, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED FOR FIVE, BUT IT ENDED UP BEING FOUR, WOULD GENERATE THE NEED FOR EIGHT PARKING SPACES. SO IT WOULDN'T REALLY AFFECT BAR THERE BECAUSE THE FA HASN'T BEEN EXCEEDED, BUT IT WOULD AFFECT PARKING TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WOULD INCREASE IT TO EIGHT. NOW IF IT AFFECTED THE FA, ONE OF THOSE FLOORS WOULDN'T BE THERE. SO IT MIGHT TAKE THE OFFICE FLOOR OUT. AND SO THEN IT'S ONLY A TWO STORY BUILDING AND YOU HAVE RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL. IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT WHATEVER, HOW MANY YOU KNOW HOW MANY SQUARE FEET THAT SECOND FLOOR IS. ASSUMING FOUR UNITS IS PROBABLY ABOUT A 4000 SQUARE FOOT SECOND FLOOR WITH 4000FT■!S OUT OF THE PARKING CALCULATION, YOU WOULD REMOVE HOWEVER MANY PARKING SPACES. THAT WAS SO THAT PART WOULDN'T IT WOULDN'T REALLY PLAY A ROLE WITH THE FA BECAUSE EVERYTHING GETS TAKEN OUT. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO PARKING AND ANYTHING THAT GETS ADDED IN DOES APPLY TO PARKING. SO THE PARKING IS JUST THE CALCULATION BASED UPON THE MATH ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES IS ONE PER FOUR LIVING UNITS PLUS ONE SPACE PER EMPLOYEE. ADULT DAYCARE. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THOSE, BUT WE ARE GOING INTO WHAT THEY'RE

[02:00:02]

THEY JUST SAW HIM AND SAID YES, SIR. VERY INTIMIDATING. YEAH. THE INTIMIDATOR. DID YOU TAKE HIS RIGHTS AWAY? YEAH. INVOLVED TAKING THE. IT'S BASICALLY A RESTRAINING ORDER PREVENTING SOMEONE THAT DIDN'T HAVE A GUN NOT TO POSSESS A GUN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. SO, YES, BECAUS.

WE'RE WAITING. YEAH, I SAW HIM AS I WAS COMING THROUGH. MUST BE EASIER LIST. WHAT'S INDICATE WHAT'S NOT ON THAT LIST. WELL, THAT'S THAT'S EARLIER WHEN I SAID THE THINGS THAT ARE NOT ON THE LIST, I'M LIKE, THERE'S NOT MANY THINGS NOT ON THAT LIST. THEY. NO, NO, NO. IF WE GO, THERE'S MORE TO IT TOO. AND IT HAS CHANGED. I DON'T SEE ANY SPECIFIC. BUT WE, WE WE'VE ADDED WE'VE, WE'VE ADDED MICROBREWERIES TO IT OVER TIME. RIGHT, RIGHT. WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS THAT THAT MAY CHANGE BECAUSE. YEAH, BUT IT SAYS IT DOES, BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS CATCH IT. RIGHT. THAT'S MEANINGFUL. YEAH. YOU HAVE TO TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE. BUT I'M SORRY. SORRY. CAN I SPEAK TO THE CITY MANAGER? SURE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THAT CODE HASN'T CHANGED IN A WHILE. NURSING HOMES. MANY OF THE NURSING HOMES NOW ARE GRADUATED SYSTEMS WHERE THEY'RE INDEPENDENT LIVING AND THEN NURSING HOME AND THEN ALZHEIMER'S CARE. SO WE ADDRESS THOSE DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE THAT'S AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, PART OF THAT HAS A MUCH HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IN THE LIKE YOU SAID IN ASSISTED LIVING, I MEAN THOSE PEOPLE ARE COMING AND GOING EVERY DAY. YES. SO THEY THEY NEED MUCH MORE PARKING THAN A NURSING HOME. WHEREAS IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE NURSING HOMES IS NOWADAYS THE PEOPLE IN NURSING HOMES, THE PARKING IS FOR VISITORS, YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE IN THE NURSING HOME AREN'T GOING ANYWHERE, RIGHT? RIGHT. YEAH, YEAH. MR. COLLINS SAID MR. MARTEL PAUSED. OH, FORGIVE ME. OKAY. SO SCROLLING THROUGH, GOING DOWN THE LIST, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, IT'S BEEN PRETTY STANDARD. DON'T GET A LOT OF CEMETERY ISSUES, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THE CEMETERY, FOR FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME IS COMING BACK TO MAKE SOME CHANGES. SO I'M SURE THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT CALCULATION.

CLUBS AND LODGES LOOKING. WE DON'T HAVE ANY GOLF COURSES IN THE CITY OF STUART. I HATE TO INTERRUPT YOU FOR ME. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S CONCERNS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, BUT MY FOCUS WOULD JUST BE MULTI-FAMILY AND THAT MIXED OKAY. SO GO TO THE TOP INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL USES. MULTI-FAMILY COMMERCIAL IS NOT REALLY THE FOCUS MULTIFAMILY RIGHT THERE. THE FOURTH ONE THOSE THOSE THREE. SO WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE US ALL SORT OF DISCUSSING WHAT IF ANY, WE THINK, YOU KNOW, INCREASES. AND

[02:05:04]

UNINCORPORATED. OKAY. CAN WE ASK STAFF TO LOOK AT THE CODE AND SEE IF ONE OF THOSE OR I THINK THAT OURS IS CLOSE TO WHAT I PERFORMANCE. SO ARE YOU. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT I'M SAYING INCREASE INCREASE THOSE REQUIREMENTS. YEAH. I'M LOOKING AT IT. OKAY. SO THERE'S TWO TWO SEPARATE ITEMS THERE. SO YOU WISH TO MAKE A CHANGE WITH REGARD TO APARTMENTS. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH YOU. WITH YOU GUYS. COMMISSIONER CLARK'S NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT. BUT IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU WANT TO STICK WITH IT AND NOT NOT INCREASE 1.5. YEAH, NOT INCREASE REQUIREMENTS TO IT. THE OTHER THING IS, IF WE HAVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE LIKE HE WAS SAYING THE STUDIO OR THE ONE BEDROOM OR SOMETHING ELSE IS TWO OR MORE. THE OTHER THING, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT OTHER URBAN AREAS THAT HAVE OTHER STANDARDS, SOME OF THOSE URBAN AREAS ARE LOOKING AT MORE DENSITY OR HIGHER BUILDINGS.

THEIR THEIR, YOU KNOW, THEIR LEVELS ARE MORE THAN THE FOUR STORIES THAT WE HAVE. AND MOST OF OUR MULTI WE DO HAVE MULTIFAMILY HERE. THAT'S FOUR STORIES. BUT THEN A LOT OF THEM ARE JUST PROBABLY TWO STORY. AND SO YOU KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY WHY WHEN YOU HAVE YOU HAVE MORE MORE UNITS THEY'RE GOING TO BE THERE. THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE MORE PARKING WHEN THEY HAVE THE ONE POINT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE IN WHATEVER JURISDICTION. I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE, RIGHT? THE MORE DENSE THEY TYPICALLY HAVE LOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING. THIS WOULD BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE UNITS THAT THEY CALCULATED THAT THEY WOULD MAKE IT MORE STRICT.

SO IF EVEN JUST FOR RATIONALE OF GUESTS, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULDN'T BE THINKING ABOUT INCREASING THIS MULTIFAMILY PARKING REQUIREMENT UP, YOU KNOW, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY INCREASE IT BY 0.25, YOU KNOW, BUT EVEN ANOTHER 0.5 PER UNIT ACROSS THOSE 3RD MAY WOULD SEEM MORE REASONABLE. SO INSTEAD OF WITH UNDER, YOU KNOW, THE GUEST UNDER THE BANNER OF A GUEST. BUT SORT OF THIS LANGUAGE HERE WHERE IT SAYS PLUS ONE GUEST PARKING SPACE PER X UNITS WITH COMMON. SO YOU WOULD HAVE LIKE. YOU KNOW, 1.5 IF YOU WANTED TO KEEP IT THAT PLUS, YOU KNOW, ONE GUEST SPACE PER TWO UNITS AS AN EXAMPLE. AND IF OR IF WE JUST WANTED TO KEEP IT SIMPLE AND JUST HAVE IT BE WITHIN MULTI-FAMILY STUDIOS OR ONE BEDROOM, TWO PER UNIT MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS, THREE PER UNIT, YOU KNOW, AND THEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS COMBINED WITH NON RESIDENTIAL THREE PER UNIT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT THOSE ARE KIND OF MY THOUGHTS KIND OF GO IN ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHE. IF THERE WERE SOME THOUGHTS FROM OTHER COMMISSIONERS. MR. READ ALL RIGHT I HAVE TWO. I JUST GOTTA FIND IT. GIVE ME ONE

[02:10:03]

IT DOESN'T MATTER. THAT'S THE PURPOSE FOR I WOULD JUST LIKE US TO BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH THIS.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO TAKE FOREVER. I KNOW HOW MARCELLA FEELS. I UNDERSTAND, SO WHY DON'T WE? WHY DON'T WE GET A SENSE OF THE COMMISSION AND THEN WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? OKA.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I WAS GOING TO CLARIFY THE WHOLE PARKING IN PALM BEACH. I PULLED IT UP, AND IF IT WAS STRICTLY RESIDENTIAL, THEN YOU'RE TALKING THE 1.8, 1.75 SPACES PER UNIT WHEN IT WAS MIXED USE. THAT'S WHEN THEY DROPPED IT TO ONE PER UNIT OR FOR ONE BEDROOM. WHEN IT WAS TWO BEDROOM, IT WAS 1.5 PER UNIT. WHEN IT WAS OVER THREE. THEN IT WAS TWO SPACES PER. AND THAT WAS ONLY WHEN IT WAS MIXED USE. WHEN IT WAS STRICTLY MULTI-FAMILY, IT WAS 1.75 PER ONE BEDROOM UNIT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY IT. IT JUST SAYS PLUS ONE GUEST PARKING SPACE PER FOUR UNITS WITH COMMON PARKING AREAS. OKAY, SO TWO SPACES PER. LET'S SEE. I'M NOT SURE IT REALLY MATTERS.

YEAH, I WAS JUST I WAS JUST CLARIFYING IT. CODY. YEAH. FORT LAUDERDALE. MIKE DO YOU SEE AN ISSUE WITH INCREASING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS HERE? I MEAN, I MEAN, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING LEGALLY. NO, YOU GUYS CAN. YOU GUYS CAN. BUT AGAIN, WHEN WE COME BACK, CAN YOU WITH THE RESOLUTION IF WE BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A BIRD HARRIS EFFECT. RIGHT. WE WILL DESCRIBE THAT TO YOU. DOES THE CITY COMMISSION HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ZONE PARKING. AND THAT QUESTION IS YES, THEY DO. I MEAN THAT BY THE BY THE MERE FACT THAT THERE'S NUMBERS ON THAT CHART RIGHT THERE, A COMMISSION HAD TO PUT THEM THERE. AND SO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE.

NOW, IF YOU INORDINATELY BURDEN THE PROPERTY BASED UPON YOUR CHANGE, YOU COULD BE EXPOSED TO A BIRD. HARRIS CLAIM. CORRECT. BUT THE QUESTION BECOMES WHAT IS INORDINATELY BURDENING THE PROPERTY MEAN? OKAY, SO COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN FOR. SO IT YEAH. SO IT USED TO BE THAT GOVERNMENT WOULD DO A TAKING AND THEY WOULD LITERALLY GO TO SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY AND SAY WE NEED TO BUILD A HIGHWAY THROUGH HERE. AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY AND WE'RE

[02:15:01]

AND IF YOU WANT TO WALK. BUT THE OTHER SIDE TO IT IS THE PERCEPTION OF THE RESIDENTS, IS THAT IT'S AN INORDINATE PARKING PROBLEM. THAT'S MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE TO GO DOWNTOWN. AND PEOPLE COMPLAIN ABOUT IT. PROBABLY THE PROBABLY THE BIGGEST, MOST POPULAR COMPLAINT WE GET. SO WHETHER IT'S PERCEIVED OR NOT, DOWNTOWN IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE A PARKING ISSUE. IRONICALLY, NONE OF THIS CODE APPLIES BECAUSE THE AREA IS EXEMPT FROM THE CODE. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT. WE COULD CHANGE THAT TO 80 PER UNIT RIGHT IN DOWNTOWN WOULDN'T BE CHANGED.

SO THE QUESTION IS REALLY THE CORRIDORS AND THE AND THE STREETS AND, AND HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. AND AS YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER COLLINS SOUNDS LIKE HE'S NOT CONCERNED WITH ALL OF THESE OTHER NUANCED ONES. HE'S MORE JUST ABOUT THE MULTIFAMILY. AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF THE COMMISSION, BUT I WOULD MY OPINION THAT THE OTHERS DON'T REALLY NEED SIGNIFICANT CHANGING. I COULD HAVE STAFF LOOK AT IT BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME ONE OFFS IN THERE THAT WE JUST DIDN'T REALIZE, BUT OVERALL I DON'T I CAN'T THINK OF ANY PARTICULAR AREA THAT THAT THERE'S A PARKING ISSUE. MR. MAYOR, JUST ADD ON TO THAT. SORRY, SORRY. I DON'T KNOW IF MR. MARTEL REALIZED, BUT WHEN I WAS AT THE COUNTY PRIOR TO COMING HERE, THE COUNTY WAS SUED FOR. I KNEW THAT THE PET STORE HYPOTHETICAL. THAT WAS THE POINT. ALL RIGHT. AND THERE WERE TWO FOR US THAT WASN'T LOST ON ME. THEY WERE. THEY WERE SUED BY TWO DIFFERENT PET STORE OWNERS AND IT WAS COSTLY. AND IT WAS

[02:20:04]

MARCELLA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE? THANK YOU. MARCELLA CAMPBELL 447 WEST OSCEOLA STREET AND STUART, THANK YOU. AND I HAVE TO GO BACK TO WORK AGAIN. I'M GOING TO REITERATE, IF WE APPLY OUR CODE WITHOUT VARIANCES, YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED AT HOW MUCH WE CAN DIMINISH INTENSITY AND DENSITY IN ALL OF THESE PROJECTS. I APPRECIATE COUNSEL'S COMMENTS AS YOUR COLLEAGUES, FINDING CREATIVE WAYS TO CLAIM TAKINGS, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY THE OTHER SIDE IS TRUE TO CREATIVE WAYS OF TAMPERING WITH THE CODE TO REALLY EFFECT A USE COULD ALSO BE A TAKINGS. BUT IN THIS I. I'M SURPRISED THAT AS MUCH DISCUSSION AS IT WENT INTO WITH THE PIZZA PLACE AND THE PICNIC TABLE, WE ARE NOT HAVING THE SAME LEVEL OF DISCUSSION. WHAT WOULD THIS DO TO TIERRA VERDE, WHERE I HAVE A COUPLE OF UNITS, OR TO THE YACHT AND COUNTRY CLUB, OR TO CEDAR POINT, OR TO KINGSWOOD, OR TO ALL OF THESE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS THAT WILL NOT MEET THIS NEW PARKING. AND THERE WILL BE UNITS COMING IN NEEDING TO PULL A CODE, A PERMIT, MANY OF THEM POSSIBLY DOING MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR ASSESSED VALUE IN IMPROVEMENTS.

MANY OF THOSE UNITS ARE ASSESSED AT 35 $40,000. SO ARE WE SAYING ALL OF OUR MULTIFAMILY IS GOING TO BE NON-CONFORMING? CAN WE CAN WE PLEASE KNOW BECAUSE I HAVE PROPERTY AND I NEED TO KNOW IF

[02:25:05]

SO WE HAVE NOT BEEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW LAWS. THAT PULTE, I THINK IS OFTEN CALLED FOR NOW. RIGHT? YEAH. FROM WHEN THEY WERE BUILT. WELL, I THINK WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANY MORE CONDOS WITHIN KINGSWOOD. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US. YEAH. PULTE WAS NOT PART OF KINGSWOOD.

IT WAS A SEPARATE PARCEL. I USED TO OWN THAT PARCEL, SO IT DIDN'T HAVE THE PARKING ISSUES THAT KINGSWOOD WILL HAVE. IF ALL. IF NOW IT IS DECLARED A NON-CONFORMING BASED ON THE NEW PARKING. THAT'S IF YOU WANT TO DO IT. IT'S FINE. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO TOUCH THE CODE. WHAT NEEDS TO BE CAREFULLY DONE IS RIGHT NOW I CAN TELL YOU WITH WHAT IS BEING SAID. AGAIN, OUT OF PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WILL BE NON-CONFORMING BASED ON PARKING IF IT HAS RESIDENTIAL. AND YES, THE ATTORNEY AND LAND PLANNER IN THE BOARD IS SHAKING HER HEAD. IT'S HARD TO SIT HERE AND GO AND YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PROFESSIONALS SITTING HERE AND NO ONE SAYING, HEY GUYS, THAT'S AN ISSUE TODAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT BOGGING THE MEETINGS WITH COMMENT IS ANNOYING, BUT WHY ARE WE WASTING TIME IN SENDING STAFF TO ANALYZE SOMETHING THAT THE PROFESSIONALS IN THE ROOM KNOW IS AN ISSUE FOR STARTERS, CAN WE JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, UNLESS YOU COME UP WITH LANGUAGE THAT CLEARLY EXCLUDES AND ALLOWS ALL THOSE USES TO BE FOREVER EXCLUDED? ANYWAYS, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WELL, THIS IS THE THIS IS THE MANNER IN WHICH THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE CHOSEN TO PROCEED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO THANK GOD WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK STAFF TO PROVIDE US SOME OF THIS INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT THE ONES WHO CAN CREATE THE CODE EFFECTIVELY AND RESPONSIBLY. SO WE DO RELY ON THEM. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? ALRIGHT, SO AND THIS IS SOMEONE SPEAKING THAT I DEVELOP IN BROWARD COUNTY, MARTIN COUNTY, I MEAN BROWARD COUNTY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, ACROSS THE STATE OUTSIDE OF STATE. I'VE DONE GSA, I'VE DONE AFFORDABLE, I'VE DONE HIGH LUXURY, AND I'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO DEAL WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS RIGHT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS, LIKE, YOU MENTIONED, WHAT IS IT? WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS KIND OF LIKE THAT BACK DOOR INTO, OH, I'M GOING TO CREATE PARKING TO DECREASE DENSITY. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT, I'M A DEVELOPER. IT'S NOT GOING TO DECREASE MY DENSITY. I'LL JUST GET MORE CREATIVE AND JUST CHARGE MORE. OKAY. HOWEVER, WHAT IT DOES IMPACT IS WHEN I'M SITTING ON THE I SIT ON THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY FOR BROWARD COUNTY, AND WE ARE GOING OUT THERE TRYING TO FIND PROPERTIES SO WE CAN BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT PEOPLE CAN BUY AND OWN. RIGHT. AND TO MAKE THEM AFFORDABLE. YOU KNOW WHAT, BROWARD COUNTY, I WAS AT A MEETING LAST NIGHT. WHAT THEY'RE DOING, THEY'RE LOOKING AT HOW THEY GIVE DENSITY BONUSES TO FOLKS. IF YOU'RE COMING IN AND CREATING THESE PROPERTIES, THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THAT. AND THIS IS NOT SOMEONE WHO'S LIVING IN A HOUSE THAT'S 200 GRAND OR THIS IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF MY PARENTS WANT TO LIVE IN KINGSWOOD, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE PLACE THEY WOULD GO BECAUSE IT'S CHEAP ENOUGH FOR ME TO BUY SOMETHING.

I CAN'T DO THAT. IF I'M NOW GOING TO HAVE TO MEET A REQUIREMENT WHERE, FOR EXAMPLE, R2, R3, YOU'RE GOING FROM 5000 TO 6000, THAT MAKES EVERYTHING NON-CONFORMING IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS, RIGHT? EVERYTHING ON COMFORT, LIKE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOODS, NON-CONFORMING.

WHAT HAPPENS THERE? SO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING AFFORDABLY, GOD HELP THEM. IF ANOTHER TORNADO COMES THROUGH, KNOCK DOWN THEIR HOUSE, THEY BETTER GO BY THEIR PARENTS, THEIR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY UP SO THEY CAN BUILD SOMETHING BIGGER. NOW IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE. THAT IS THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT FOUR YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, SIX YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WHEN YOU

[02:30:04]

IT'S DIRECTION TO STAFF TO BRING BACK THE RESOLUTION WITH THE CHANGES THAT ARE INTENDED AND WILL AND I DO I GET IT. SO YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP SCROLLING DOWN JUST BRIEFLY. SO FOR THE CONSENSUS TO GO THROUGH ALL THE SPECIFIC NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NO, I WAS JUST CONTINUE TO SCROLL DOWN THROUGH IT. CHRIS. AND FOR CONSENSUS PURPOSES, I DON'T BELIEVE WE DO NEED TO MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES GO ALL THE WAY TO THE END, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING INTERNALLY THAT YOU FIND. AND IF WE COME UP WITH, YEAH, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT IT, I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS HAD A BILL AS WE CALL IT, RUNNING FOR A WHILE. THAT MAY INCLUDE SOME MINOR CHANGES HERE AND THERE THAT WE'LL INCLUDE TO IF WE TIME. WE MIGHT COME BACK SEPARATELY FOR THAT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LIST GOES ON AND ON AND ON. SO WE'LL GO BACK UP I'M SORRY THE SO THERE SO THERE IS NO INTENTION FOR CHANGING ANY OF THE COMMERCIALS FROM 300 TO 200 50 OR 200. OKAY. SO GREAT. THAT'LL MAKE IT A LOT FASTER AND EASIER. KEEP GOING AND. BUT GETTING THESE ARE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR OFF STREET PARKING. OBVIOUSLY IN DOWNTOWN STUART WE GET COMPLAINTS ALL THE TIME BECAUSE ONE SIDE OF THE STREET DOESN'T ALLOW TRUCKS. WELL THE REALITY OF IT IS, IS THAT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES WE COULD PROVIDE. AND WE CAN'T. THE STREET'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO HAVE TWO FULL SPACES ON BOTH SIDES.

THESE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE ARE THE REQUIREMENT. AND THERE'S YOU KNOW, OUR ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE TO REMOVE ALL THE PARKING SPACES FROM THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, WHICH WAS A LUDICROUS RESULT. I JUST MENTIONED IT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN PLACE. WE'LL KEEP GOING IF YOU CAN, CHRIS.

AND THEN DEPUTIES, IT GOES TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS. AND THEN THIS IS THE PAVING OF SURFACES.

SO THE. OBVIOUSLY PARKING LOTS DON'T JUST HAVE PARKING. THEY HAVE ACCESS AISLES. THEY HAVE DRIVING AISLES AND THEY HAVE CURB CUTS. I DON'T SEE ANY NEED FOR ANY CHANGES TO THOSE, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ONLY PARKING IS GOING TO BE IN THE MULTIFAMILY ARENA. YOU CAN KEEP GOING ON THE THESE ARE THIS IS DESCRIPTION OF PERVIOUS AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PERVIOUS PARKING AND OFF STREET PARKING DESIGN IN FRONT OF AND BEHIND BUILDINGS. BUT THEN THE INTENT OF THE CITY TO PUT THE PARKING IN THE BACK AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, KEEP GOING. THIS IS PARKING GARAGES, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. AND WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO JUST BUILD A GIANT CEMENT BLOCK WE LIKE THEM TO. IF SOMEBODY WERE TO PUT A PARKING GARAGE TO HAVE TO TRY AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, A FACADE ON THE FRONT OF IT, SO IT DOESN'T JUST LOOK LIKE A PARKING GARAGE. I KNOW THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF

[02:35:01]

AND THAT'S FOR THE IS THAT A THAT'S FOR INDUSTRIAL. YEAH. THAT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.

RIGHT. THIS IS PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING. SO WE GO BACK TO 6.01.17. ITEM TWO WHAT IS THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. I'M NOT AS CHARGED AS. FOUR YEARS. SO WHAT HAPPENS IS SOMEBODY COMES IN, THEY HAVE THE NEED BASED UPON OUR CODE. THEY HAVE THE NEED FOR X PARKING SPACES. AND THEN THEY COME IN WITH A CONSULTANT OR A THEY SHOW THROUGH A TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THAT, NO, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THE NEED FOR THE PARKING THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND A BAD EXAMPLE OF THAT MIGHT BE THAT, LIKE WHERE THIS CONDO OVER HERE, I WAS TALKING ABOUT THEM PUTTING A DOCK IN. WELL, OUR CODE REQUIRES YOU TO PUT IN ONE PARKING SPACE FOR, FOR FIVE DOCK SLIPS THAT YOU BUILD IN A MARINA. WELL, IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC MARINA. IT'S THE PERSON THAT LIVES THERE. ALREADY HAS A PARKING SPACE DEDICATED FOR THEIR CAR TO LIVE THERE, AND THEIR DOCK SPACE ISN'T GETTING RENTED OUT TO ANOTHER PARTY. SO THEY MIGHT COME IN AND SAY, NO, WE DON'T NEED TO ADD PARKING FOR THIS MARINA BECAUSE THESE THESE DOCK SPACES ARE JUST LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES THAT HAVE DOCKS OUT BACK. THEY'RE NOT NEW. USES THE CAR, THE PERSON THAT OWNS THE CONDO OWNS THE DOCK SPACE. SO HERE'S WHY. YOU DON'T NEED TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, AND HERE'S AND HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHY YOUR PARKING CODE DOESN'T APPLY FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCE. NOW THERE'S YOU KNOW THAT MANY YEARS AGO, I FORGET WHAT WHICH DRIVE THROUGH IT WAS, BUT THERE WAS A DRIVE THROUGH THAT WE WERE APPLYING THE DRIVE THROUGH CODE TO, AND THEY WERE DEMONSTRATING THAT, THAT THEY REALLY WEREN'T LIKE MCDONALD'S AND LIKE THE DRIVE THROUGH. AND THEY WERE MORE LIKE OUR WATER PAYMENT THING, OUR WATER DRIVE THROUGH DOESN'T DO 50 CARS A DAY LIKE SOME OF THE DRIVE THRUS DO. SO YOU WOULD DO A YOU WOULD DEMONSTRATE TO THE CITY HOW YOU DON'T FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY AND THAT THAT DOES HAVE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. RIGHT. ESSENTIALLY. BUT IT'S PARKING. THANK YOU. RIGHT. AND WE DO COME INTO IT NOW. THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING HAS A LIMITATION I THINK THREE SPACES. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH THREE SPACES FOR ANY USE. AND WE ALLOW YOU TO PAY IN RATHER THAN BUILDING THOSE SPACES. I KNOW THAT IT'S COME INTO PLAY A COUPLE OF TIME, THE DISTINCTION BEING THAT IN A PUD YOU COULD COME IN AND GET A REDUCTION IN THE PARKING COMMISSION FROM THE COMMISSION WITHOUT PAYING IN. SO THEY GO THROUGH THE PUD PROCESS RATHER THAN STRAIGHT STAFF AND PAYMENT OF LIEU, BECAUSE THE PARKING SPACES, YOU KNOW, $25,000 AND YOU'RE GOING TO BUY THREE SPACES, IT'S $75,000. IT'D BE CHEAPER TO SPEND $5,000 AND SEEK A PD TO SAY TO THE COMMISSION, LOOK, I REALLY DON'T NEED THOSE SPACES. OR CAN YOU GUYS REDUCE MY PARKING BY THREE SPACES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE PEOPLE JUST SAY, I'M ONE PARKING SPACE SHORT. HERE'S 25 GRAND. AND BY THE WAY, WHEN IT STARTED OUT, IT WAS $9,000. BUT I MENTIONED IT JUST BECAUSE IT EXISTS AND IT IS USED. CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN? I THINK IT SHOWS HOW TO DO THE MATH ON THE COST. AN EXAMPLE. YEAH. AND SO IT'S DETERMINED ON HOW MUCH HOW TO CALCULATE IT. AND THEN FEE PER PARKING SPACE $9,465. WITH THAT CALCULATION DETERMINED. BUT THAT NUMBER IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER. I KNOW MR. MEYER, LAST WEEK. OKAY, OKAY.

BEFORE YOU DO THAT, CAN I ASK. SO WE'RE GOING UNTIL 1:00? YES. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE LUNCH ON OUR OWN AFTER AFTER YOU GUYS, IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS LUNCH OR DURING THE BREAK. I DON'T KNOW, I DIDN'T ORDER WELL TAKEN. I DID ANTICIPATE THAT QUESTION. SO I HAVE MENUS FROM ELLIE'S DELI. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO ORDER LUNCH, I TELL YOU, IF WE STOP FOR LUNCH, IT'S. YEAH. NO, NO, WE'RE JUST

[02:40:03]

[02:51:03]

[02:51:16]

YEAH. I. DO I, I SEE OH, I SEE. I GOT IT. YES OKAY. SO IN THOSE DAYS SORRY ABOUT THAT. IT SMELLS REALLY GOOD. NO. OH YOU DO. OH I DON'T THINK SO. I KNOW IT DOES SMELL GOOD. YOU WORK FOR US WITH HAVING A SINUS THING. I STILL SMELL IT. SO IT MUST BE REALLY GOOD, I GUESS. I MEAN, NOT REALLY. YEAH, I STILL SEE THEM. THEY DON'T LIKE US. I THINK THEY FOR A REPLACEMENT. WELL, SOME POINT THERE, BUT SOME VOICES CAME. UP.

WHAT? THANK YOU FOR SHOWING ME THAT. ARE WE? OKAY. WE'RE RECONVENED. MR. MARTEL. CHRIS.

GOOD. MARY. YES. OKAY. THANK YO. CHRIS. YES. SORRY.

OKAY. MOVING ON. I JUST WE TALKED ABOUT THE PAYMENT IN LIEU. THERE'S NO AGAIN, THIS IS A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT COMES UP VERY RARELY. IF YOU DELETED IT, CHANGED IT, OR ADDED TO IT, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN ANYBODY WOULD EVEN NOTICE ANYTHING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I WILL CHECK WITH STAFF THOUGH, AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO TWEAK IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. MOVING TO THE NEXT ONE, I ACTUALLY DID NOT KNOW UNTIL RIGHT NOW THAT WE HAD A FULL SECTION OF CODE ON BICYCLE PARK. OKAY, WE DO. EVERY TIME I PARK MY BIKE, I LEAN IT UP AGAINST A TREE RIGHT? LIKE I'M CLEARLY IN VIOLATION. IS THAT A VIOLATION? I DON'T KNOW, I'VE NEVER READ IT. SO HERE WE GO. SO OBVIOUSLY THERE'S WE HAVE BIKE RACKS. AND I KNOW THAT A COUPLE YEARS AGO THE CRA STARTED DOING SOME CREATIVE BIKE RACKS THROUGHOUT THE THING, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS A COMPLIANCE AND I SO I GUESS WE PUT THE BIKE RACKS AT DEVELOP.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS FOR USES THAT ARE EXEMPT ARE SINGLE

[02:55:04]

GOT TO PROVIDE YOUR WATER AND SEWER AND LIFT STATIONS. AND THEN THE NEXT THING IS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THIS HAS BEEN UPDATED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. THE CITY ADOPTED A REQUIREMENT THAT EVEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES PROVIDE ENGINEERED DESIGN, DEMONSTRATING THAT THEY RETAIN ALL OF THEIR WATER ON SITE RATHER THAN OFF SITE. WE STILL RUN INTO SITUATIONS WHERE PEOPLE USE PATIOS AND STUFF WITHOUT GETTING PERMITS, AND LATER CREATES FLOODING, BUT OVERALL, WE'RE IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE AND ALONG THESE LINES I WILL BE COMING BACK TO YOU IN THE SPRING. AS YOU KNOW, THE SALES TAX THING PASSED. SO WE'LL PROBABLY BE PUTTING SOME STORMWATER STUFF TOGETHER TO USE THAT REVENUE. IT'S GOING TO BE 15 MONTHS BEFORE WE GET ANY OF THE REVENUE, BUT STILL, COMMISSIONER REED. YEAH. WAS THERE ANYTHING SPECIFIC IN THE CODE FOR MOTORCYCLE PARKING OR GOLF CART PARKING? I KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO REGULAR PARKING STALLS, THERE WAS SOMETHING FOR GOLF CARTS BEING ABLE TO PARK THERE, AND THEY WANTED TWO TO BE ABLE TO FIT. SO WE YEAH, WE ADOPTED A SEVERAL YEARS AGO LIKE 2009 OR 10, THE CITY ADOPTED A PARKING OR A GOLF CART ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO THAT OF JUPITER ISLANDS THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BE ALLOWED ON CITY STREETS SO LONG AS THEY'VE GOT A PERMIT TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT MEETS CERTAIN CRITERIA. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE DID IS SAID, YOU CAN'T JUST PARK YOUR GOLF CART ON THE GRASS, THAT YOU'VE GOT TO PARK IN PARKING SPACES. BUT IN THE GOLF CART ORDINANCE, WE SAID, YOU CAN PARK TWO GOLF CARTS IN ONE CAR SPACE SO THAT IF YOU DID DO THAT, YOU WOULDN'T BE TICKETED FOR DOUBLE PARKING. BUT IT'S GOLF CARTS AND MOTORCYCLES. CURRENTLY, MOTORCYCLES IN PARTICULAR IN A REGULAR CAR SPACE. BUT THEN RANDOMLY WHEN THE MATH DOESN'T WORK AND THERE'S THESE EXTRA FOUR FOOT WIDE SECTIONS, A LOT OF TIMES THEY WILL ADD A MOTORCYCLE PARKING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT JUST TO ALLOW THAT SPACE TO BE USED. BUT OVERALL, WE DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO BUILD, SO I KNOW WE HAVE THAT ON FLAGLER AND OSCEOLA FOR MOTORCYCLE, BUT A LOT OF TIMES THOSE SPACES ARE UNOCCUPIED. MAYBE A GOLF CART COULD PARK IN A MOTORCYCLE PARKING AND VICE VERSA JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDERUTILIZED AT THE GREEN MARKET. I SEE IT ALL THE TIME. THERE'S A MOTORCYCLE SPOT THERE THAT'S USUALLY HARDLY EVER PARKED AT OR EVEN ON OSCEOLA. I'M FINE WITH ADDING WE CAN WE CAN MAKE SURE. JUST SO YOU GUYS UTILIZE BOTH TO ME, BECAUSE I'VE, I'VE SEEN PEOPLE GET TICKETED. AS LONG AS THE SPACES ARE WIDE ENOUGH, I, WE CAN LOOK INTO IT AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ALLOW THAT. YEAH. LIKE A SHARED PARKING USE INSTEAD OF BEING LIMITED JUST TO MOTORCYCLE WOULD BE MOTORCYCLE OR GOLF CART.

OKAY. YEAH. RIGHT. OKAY. SO WE CAN KEEP GOING. WELL, I THINK WE JUMP TO A DIFFERENT CHAPTER ALTOGETHER. MULTI-MODAL. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GET INTO THE WEEDS ON THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. NOT UNLESS YOU SEE THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE THERE. I MEAN, QUITE FRANKLY, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WE'VE RUN INTO IS THAT THE SOUTH OR THE FLORIDA DEP REQUIRES THAT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION BE 18IN ABOVE THE CROWN OF THE ROAD. AND AS A RESULT, EVERYBODY HAS TO BRING IN FILL TO MAKE THE PROPERTY 18IN ABOVE THE CROWN OF THE ROAD. AND THEN IF THERE'S A HOME THAT'S OLDER, LIKE OVER, WE HAVE ON EASTMAN AND FIFTH AND SIXTH, THERE'S A BUNCH OF NEW HOUSES, AND THEN THERE'S A 1920S HOUSE, AND EVERY TIME IT RAINS, ALL THOSE NEW HOUSES, WATER, THEY'RE ALL UP ON ISLANDS, AND ALL THE WATER RUNS DOWN TO THE 1920S HOUSE. AND IT'S LITERALLY ABOVE THE PERSON'S SHINS IN THEIR FRONT YARD ALMOST EVERY TIME IT RAINS. AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH POLLUTION. WELL, TWO SOLUTIONS. NUMBER ONE, ULTIMATELY THAT HOUSE ENDS UP BECOMING NEW CONSTRUCTION AND GETS BUILT AT A MORE APPROPRIATE LEVEL AND IS BUILT TO RESIST

[03:00:06]

BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS LIKE THE HOUSE IS ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, THEY SHOW THAT THEY'RE RETAINING THEIR WATER ON SITE. THE PROBLEM IS THEY DON'T SHARE IN THE ABSORPTION OF ANY OFF SITE WATER BECAUSE THEY'RE ELEVATED AND THEY HAVE THAT WALL AROUND THEM. SO ALL OF THE OFF SITE WATER GOES TO THE LOWEST POINT, WHICH NOW WHICH USED TO BE THE ENTIRE STREET, BUT NOW IT'S ONE HOUSE ON THE STREET THAT HASN'T BEEN REPLACED. AND AS A RESULT, IT FLOODS DOWN THE STREET RIGHT INTO THAT YARD. AND THERE'S I MEAN, IT'S JUST THEY HAVE THOSE UNDERGROUND GARAGES AND THEY'RE WELL, AND THAT IS A MEDICAL THE MEDICAL OFFICE THERE. BUT THEY ALSO DID THAT UNDERGROUND GARAGE TO OVERBUILD THAT PARCEL. SO AS A RESULT, THAT UNDERGROUND GARAGE, WHICH IS LITERALLY FIVE FEET BELOW THE STREET, I MEAN, IT FLOODS EVERY TIME IT RAINS. BUT PART OF THAT IS I WOULD NEVER PARK MY CAR BECAUSE YOU'RE AFRAID THAT I'D COME OUT OF THE WINDOW. BUT THE UPDATED STORMWATER REGS, WHICH THE LEGISLATURE PASSED LAST YEAR, WE WERE WE WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT ALREADY. OKAY. WE WERE ACTUALLY AHEAD OF IT. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON US. AND THEN LIKE WHAT WE DID LIKE WITH COSTCO AND COSTCO BECAUSE NOT ONLY DO WE MAKE THEM RETAIN ALL THE WATER ON SITE, BUT THEY ACTUALLY OFFERED TO GIVE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE WATER AND DELIVER WATER TO THE COSTCO SITE SO THEY CAN BALANCE THEIR STORMWATER. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY BEFORE THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTION, THEY TOOK A WATER SAMPLE AND THEY THEY SO THAT WE COULD THEY'LL BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AFTER IT'S BUILT, THE WATER THAT'S LEAVING THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE CLEANER THAN THE WATER THAT WAS LEAVING THE PROPERTY BEFORE ANYTHING WAS ON IT, BECAUSE THEIR WATER, THEIR STORMWATER SYSTEM IS ALMOST LIKE A FISH TANK. IT ACTUALLY HAS FILTRATION SYSTEMS THAT HAVE TO BE REPLACED AND MAINTAINED. AND AFTER THE WATER GOES THROUGH THE STORMWATER LAKES AND GOES BEFORE IT GOES OFF SITE TO GO TO TIDE, AS THEY CALL IT, IT WILL ACTUALLY GO THROUGH A MEDIA THAT FILTERS IT THROUGH GRANULAR ACTIVATED CARBON AND FILTRATION SYSTEM SO THAT THE WATER COMING OUT THE OTHER SIDE HAS ALMOST NO NUTRIENTS, SUCH AS PHOSPHORUS AND FERTILIZERS. NOW THAT WAS WAY BEYOND WHAT OUR CODE REQUIRES, BUT IT'S STILL. YOU KNOW, THIS BRINGS UP A POINT, ESPECIALLY WITH PERMEABLE PAVEMENT. NORMALLY, I LEARNED THIS FROM ATTENDING THE MARINE RESOURCE COUNCIL, BUT THIS IS A CHALLENGE. ANY MUNICIPALITY FACES IN SO MANY AREAS IS MONITORING THESE SYSTEMS. RETENTION PONDS HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED. PERMEABLE, PERMEABLE PAVERS HAVE TO BE CLEANED AND MAINTAINED OR THEY LOSE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS. AND WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT, BUT NO WAY OF MONITORING THAT, RIGHT? WELL, I KNOW THAT THE PUBLIX ON BAKER ROAD WAS DONE WITH PERMEABLE PAVEMENT OR PERMEABLE ASPHALT RIGHT. AND WHEN IT WAS APPROVED, THEY DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT IT I GUESS IT HAS TO BE LIKE A VACUUM TRUCK OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE EVER HAD THEM VERIFY IT OR NOT. BUT HERE'S THE THING. IN A CAPITALIST MARKET, MARKET REGULATES THINGS FOR YOU. PUBLIX IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A FLOODING PARKING LOT OR ELSE THEY WON'T HAVE CUSTOMERS. SO THEY MAKE SURE THAT IT'S DONE SO THAT THEIR CUSTOMERS CAN CONTINUE TO COME. AND I'VE NEVER HEARD A SINGLE COMPLAINT ABOUT THE PLACE. AND I TELL YOU WHAT, YOU CAN GO THERE RIGHT NOW AND TAKE A BUCKET OF WATER AND POUR IT, AND IT JUST GOES RIGHT THROUGH. IT'S KIND OF AMAZING. AND WHEN IT'S RAINING, YOU GET THERE AND

[03:05:04]

YOU'RE DOING GREAT. IT'S HARD TO SAY IT. YEAH. GRAMMARLY DOES NOT LIKE THE WORD PERVIOUS. OKAY. IT SEEMS LIKE THE STORMWATER SECTIONS, THERE'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE MUCH FOR US TO TWEAK. SO I WOULD. YEAH OKAY. SO WE SHOULD PROBABLY MOVE PAST THAT. KEEP ROLLING. MAYBE A LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPING IS PROBABLY YOUR NEXT. YEP. TWEAKABLE. SO WHERE ARE WE 604.

YEAH 603 IS STORMWATER 604 IS LANDSCAPING. GENERAL PROVISIONS, LANDSCAPE DESIGN, MAINTENANCE XERISCAPE LANDSCAPING. THAT PROBABLY CHRIS, THE LANDSCAPE TRANSITIONS THAT WE START SO. A COUPLE OF THINGS I BELIEVE THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE CHAPTER THAT TALKS ABOUT RIGHT OF WAY.

OUR CODE REQUIRES THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO MAINTAIN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE, TOO. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT LIKE MOST STREETS ARE ONLY ABOUT HALF OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO ON BOTH SIDES, THERE'S ANOTHER 10 TO 15FT OF CITY LAND THAT'S CURRENTLY GRASS OR WHATEVER.

BUSHES THAT THAT THE HOUSE IS MAINTAINING, EVEN THOUGH THE ROAD IS ONLY PAVED PORTION OF IT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT THE OTHER DAY AT A MEETING WHERE A LOT OF PEOPLE PLANT TREES IN THOSE RIGHT OF WAYS. THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO. THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO LEAVE IT AS GRASS. AND THERE'S ALSO IN THE SAME RIGHT OF WAYS AND PROPERTIES IS THE FDOT HAS A VIEW TRIANGLE, THEY CALL IT, AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ANYTHING IN YOUR RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN THREE FEET AND SIX FEET.

IF YOU LIVE ON A CORNER, YOU'RE THE LAST. I THINK IT'S 15FT OF THE YARD ON BOTH SIDES AND EVERYWHERE I GO, THERE'S PEOPLE THAT DON'T MEET THAT CRITERIA, BUT IT EXISTS. AND THE CITY KIND OF HISTORICALLY HAS TAKEN THE APPROACH TO THAT AS IT'S OKAY, WE ALL WANT TO GET ALONG, AND AS LONG AS IT'S IN A SLOW SPEED AREA THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY REAL ISSUES, WE HAVEN'T DONE IT. WHEN IT'S A HIGH TRAFFIC AREA AND LOTS OF CARS, WE HAVE TO INTERVENE AND, AND MAKE THEM

[03:10:03]

I THOUGHT THEY YEAH, I THOUGHT THEY HAD ISSUES WITH IT. I KNOW I THOUGHT THEY DID THE DRIVE LANES BECAUSE THE TRUCKS AT THE TIME, PERVIOUS PAVERS AND PERVIOUS ASPHALT WASN'T AS STRONG AS REGULAR. RIGHT. AND SO AT THE TIME, THEY COULDN'T HAVE TRUCKS DRIVE THROUGH IT. SO THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE THE DRIVING LANES BE REGULAR CEMENT, AND THEN THE PARKING SPACES BE THE IMPERVIOUS BECAUSE THE BIG DELIVERY TRUCKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT DON'T PARK IN THE PARKING SPACES ANYWAY. SO THEY MET THEIR RATIO OF PERVIOUS, IMPERVIOUS BY HAVING ALL THE PARKING SPACES BE IMPERVIOUS AND HAVING THE TRAVEL LANES BE IMPERVIOUS SO THAT THE TRUCKS COULD DRIVE THROUGH THEM AND I'VE SEEN IT FAIL TOO. FOR EXAMPLE, BY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, THAT ALLEYWAY THAT PROJECT WAS DONE FROM THE CITY 2 TO 4 YEARS AGO. THAT ACTUALLY RETAINS WATER IN CERTAIN AREAS.

AND I THINK LIKE MIKE WAS SAYING, ONCE IT FILLS UP, IT CAN'T DRAIN. HOW DO YOU ACHIEVE THAT WHERE IT'LL STILL DRAIN? THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY. YES. THE PEDESTRIAN THING OR WHATEVER. NOT THE PEDESTRIAN, THE NEW ONE. IT'D BE THE ONE DIRECTLY WEST OF FIRST BAPTIST. THAT ALLEYWAY OFF OCEAN. YEAH, THAT THAT DOES RETAIN WATER, THOUGH. IN THAT ALLEYWAY. IT'S THE WITH THE. CORRECT. BUT DID WE USE PERVIOUS PAVERS? WE DID. SO IS IT DO WE VACUUM IT OR MAINTAIN IT OR ANYTHING. YEAH I'LL HAVE TO CHECK WITH MILTON ON IT. I WASN'T AWARE THAT IT WAS HOLDING WATER. WHEN WE DID IT, BY THE WAY, IT WASN'T TO MEET ANY STORMWATER STANDARD. IT WAS JUST TO DEMONSTRATE PERVIOUS, IMPERVIOUS USES. SO IT WAS MORE EXPENSIVE. AND THE CITY DID IT JUST BECAUSE IT WANTED TO BE A, YOU KNOW, WELL, LEAD BY EXAMPLE CAN BECOME CLOGGED. BUT IT'S NOT JUST WELL, YEAH, RIGHT. WE COULD HAVE DONE IT STRAIGHT ASPHALT.

RIGHT. BUT WE DIDN'T. SO I'M SURE WHATEVER IS DRAINING IS BETTER THAN WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF WE HAD JUST DONE A STRAIGHT ASPHALT BEFORE. BUT I'LL STILL LOOK INTO IT. HAVE IT CLEARED IF I CAN. OKAY, SO KEEP GOING WITHIN GENERAL PROVISIONS OF LANDSCAPING. SO. 6402. 60402.

NUMBER TWO, MIKE, TALKING TO YOU WITH REGARD TO THE PERCENTAGE OF SHADE TREES, PERCENTAGE OF LANDSCAPING THAT CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS BEING A SLIGHTLY HIGHER FROM 50 TO 60% OF SHADE TREES. I IN THE WRONG PERSON TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN HAVE ENOUGH SHADE TREES. YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD IS. BUT I YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHEN I GO INTO ANY PARKING LOT, THE FIRST THING I DO IS LOOK FOR FREE, PARK UNDER A SHADE TREE LIKE THAT. AND SO DO YOU SEE ANY ISSUE WITH US KICKING THAT UP FROM 50 TO 60%? I DON'T AND I ALSO I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT MAKING A SITUATION WHERE YOU MADE IT SO THAT SOMEONE HAS TO OVER LANDSCAPE THE PROPERTY. IT'S JUST CHANGING THE TYPE OF TREES BEING PUT ON IT. RIGHT? YEAH, RIGHT. AND TO ME, I, I HONESTLY THINK WITH THE AMOUNT OF HEAT THAT'S GENERATED FROM CEMENT AND PARKING LOTS, HAVING SHADE TREES IS HUGE. HUGE. SHOULD IT BE HIGHER THAN 60% AT SOME POINT IT AND I KNOW THAT EVEN HERE WE HAVE THE BIG TREE OUT IN THIS PARKING LOT. SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE IT MAKES YOUR CAR DIRTY. OKAY, I LIKE A DIRTY CAR RATHER THAN A HOT CAR TO BE. BUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I THINK GOING TO 60% IS PERFECT AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS.

IT'S TREMENDOUS PROBLEMS. WE CAN BRING IT BACK TO YOU, BUT IF IT DOESN'T AND WE SAY, WELL, THERE'S ROOM FOR EVEN MORE, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO DOWN THE ROAD WITH IT. I KNOW MISS SEYMORE HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN OUR. DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT REGARDING THAT PERCENTAGE? VERSUS VERSUS 50%.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO LOOK AT SOME PARKING LOTS THAT WE LIKE AND THEN COLLECT SOME DATA ON THOSE PARKING LOTS TO SEE WHAT IS THE COVERAGE. THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT PART IS NOT JUST HOW WHAT'S THE COVERAGE, BUT HOW BIG ARE THE MEDIANS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PREVENT SHADE TREES

[03:15:02]

I REMEMBER YOU SHOWING US THOSE PICTURES AND IT WAS DRAMATIC. IF THE REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT WE INCLUDE THAT AS WELL. YEAH. SO I DON'T SO YOU'RE SAYING WE, WE INCORPORATED THAT LANGUAGE IN THE CREEK DISTRICT. YES. THE, THE LANGUAGE REGARDING THE SIZE OF THE MEDIANS. THEY HAVE TO BE A, YOU KNOW, A MINIMUM OF EIGHT FEET WIDE IN MANY CASES. AND AGAIN, WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN MORE DETAIL. YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN YOU KNOW WELL AND AGAIN IT REQUIRES TO THE POINTS THAT THAT HAVE BEEN MADE PREVIOUSLY A LOT OF THESE STANDARDS, THEY REQUIRE A LOT OF DATA AND BACKGROUND TO REALLY MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE EFFECTIVE. AND IN GETTING THE RESULTS WE WANT AS A CITY. RIGHT. AND THEY'RE NOT EXCESSIVELY BURDENSOME. THANK YOU. MR. OTHER COMMENTS REGARDING THIS? NO, JODY, YOU GOT WHAT YOU NEED THERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. MATERIALS. AND I YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON TH. ABSOLUTELY I'M A TREE GUY. YOU KNOW. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN KEEP SCROLLING DOWN. IT'S THE PARKING AREAS. 60407. SO I DON'T KNOW IF, YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF FALLS INTO THE SAME PERSPECTIVE. IT'S. YOU KNOW, IT'S OBVIOUSLY AS JESSICA POINTS OUT, WE MAY LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN IT THAT REQUIRE NEW CONSTRUCTION AT LEAST TO HAVE AT LEAST THOSE MINIMUM STANDARDS THAT JESSICA DESCRIBED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS TYPE OF LANDSCAPING IN THE FUTURE. AGREED. IF THIS. RIGHT. SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO ADDRESS THAT TO MAKE IT MEET THAT. AND AGAIN, AS YOU LEARN MORE. I THINK WE DID. SO WE'LL MAKE NOTE OF THAT AND TRY TO MAKE IT AS GOING FORWARD AS JUST. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT I'M NOT I'M GOING TO HAVE IT DESCRIBED AS NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WHEN CONDO LIKE KINGSWOOD WANTS TO PUT IN A NEW POOL THAT THEY HAVE TO NOW PUT IN ALL NEW BERMS AND BUFFERS. I'M TALKING ABOUT TRULY VACANT LAND BEING BUILT ON THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO DO A REAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, NOT JUST EXPANDING IT BECAUSE WE KEEP TAKING THEM. WHAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE? IT'S BEEN HERE THE LONGEST. IT'S BEEN HERE A LONG TIME. 1976. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? THERE? I DON'T THINK SO.

IF FRANK MCCRYSTAL WAS HERE, HE'D BE SURE TO TELL US THAT WE SHOULD GET RID OF FLORATAM AND ALL SORTS OF SOD BECAUSE HE HATES GRASS AND SPRINKLER. HE'S MORNING AMENDMENT THREE. YEAH, THAT'S WHY HE'S HOME. I HAVE SOMETHING, MIKE ON, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S. I WOULD ASSUME IT'S IN THE LANDSCAPING. SO WE'RE IN ORDER TO GET A C CO ON A LIKE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. AND I KNOW MY NEIGHBOR RAN INTO THIS. THEY ACTUALLY HAD TO PUT GRASS DOWN THAT BUTTS UP TO THE ROAD IN ORDER TO GET A CO RIGHT. BUT THEN YOU SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL GO AND REMOVE IT AND PUT IN SHRUBS. SO THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT FOR THEIR HARDSCAPE. I GUESS THEY WOULD CALL IT SO THEY DON'T HAVE GRASS TO MAINTAIN. AND I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME PROPERTIES, I THINK, OFF PALM CITY CUT OFF ROAD THAT MIGHT HAVE HAD ROCK OR SOMETHING, MAYBE FOR PARKING SPACE AS WELL. I KNOW THAT WAS AN ISSUE, MAYBE OFF EAST. I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT OF WAY WHERE YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN YOUR RIGHT OF WAY, AND PEOPLE PLANT BUSHES AND TREES IN THEIR RIGHT OF WAY. WE ALSO THE BOARD DIRECTED US TO ALLOW THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAD BUILT TEMPORARY PARKING SPACES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THEM MOVING FORWARD. ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE ONE, IF THEY ADD THEM IN THE FUTURE, THEY CANNOT BE GRAVEL. THEY HAVE

[03:20:06]

BUT THE AGREEMENT DEMONSTRATES THAT, FOR ONE, IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE. THAT MEANS EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE, A NEIGHBOR CAN PARK THEIR CAR IN IT. IF THEY'RE HAVING A DINNER PARTY OR WHATEVER IT IS. AND NUMBER TWO, THEY CAN'T STORE TRAILERS AND THINGS IN IT. IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO BE A TRAILER IN YOUR FRONT YARD, BASICALLY A STORAGE UNIT. AND IT'S ALSO NOT TO YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE USE BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE BUILDING IT IN. RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T WAIT TILL THOSE FIGHTS START. YEAH. THEY START PARKING IN EACH OTHER'S PARKING SPACE. BUT YEAH, THAT DOES EXIST. AND IT HONESTLY, IT'S IT ISN'T. IT'S FAIRLY COMMON, BUT IT'S NOT RARE. RIGHT. IT'S IF YOU LOOK IT'S EVERYWHERE. BUT THE THING IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE OF THOSE PARKING SPACES, PEOPLE JUST PARK ON THE GRASS AND THEY BREAK SPRINKLERS AND THEY DO OTHER STUFF. AND SO IT'S KIND OF A NECESSARY EVIL. AND WE, WE KIND OF LIKE TO LET PEOPLE BE UNLESS WE GET A COMPLAINT. AND THEN IF WE GET A COMPLAINT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW WHATEVER THE CODE SAYS. AND THAT'S WHAT DISTURBED THAT PARTICULAR ROAD, BECAUSE WE HAD GOTTEN A COMPLAINT AND WE CODE ENFORCED IT. AND THEN THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD CAME IN AND WANTED TO BEAT UP OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. AND THAT BY THE WAY, I WAS DEALING WITH AS RECENTLY AS LAST WEEK, I GOT A LETTER FROM A LAWYER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, FOR THE PERSON THAT COMPLAINED, BECAUSE, AGAIN, THEY FEEL LIKE THE PEOPLE ARE USING MORE SPACE THAN THEY SHOULD. BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE PEOPLE BUILT SURFACE WITHIN THEIR YARD, NOT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THAT IT, YOU KNOW, IT'S THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT'S JUST YOU CAN PUT GRAVEL IN YOUR IN YOUR YARD IF YOU WANT TO. IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW. SO IT DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, BUT WE STILL ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT. AND WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S NO STORAGE OR NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY TAKING PLACE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO IT'S RIVER, WHATEVER ROAD. OH, RIGHT. RIGHT, RIGHT OFF OF PALM CITY ROAD. ANYWAY, YEAH. BEYOND BEYOND THAT WITH LANDSCAPING. MY NEXT QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE GREEN DEVELOPMENT. SO 606 UNLESS THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE YOU GUYS WANTED TO TALK ABOUT. IT SEEMS LIKE NOTHING'S CHANGED IN THERE SINCE 0506606 GREEN DEVELOPMENT WAS A LEED CERTIFICATION THING THAT WAS VERY POPULAR BACK THEN. I DON'T SEE A LOT OF IT. I KNOW THAT. DOES THIS NEED TO BE UPDATED? I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THE LEED POINTS MATTER TO ANYBODY ANYMORE. I KNOW REMOVED THE ON THE FISH ACROSS THE RIVER AND RIO HAD THE BIGGEST LARGEST INDIVIDUAL GREEN LEED CERTIFIED HOME IN THE STATE OR SOMETHING.

AND IT'S A I THINK IT'S A TAX CREDIT THING AND IT'S YOU GET OTHER STUFF AND IT'S ALL BASED UPON THE LEED CERTIFICATION POINTS AND THE LEED POINT TO GET. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES TO THE CITY'S CODE AT THIS POINT. RIGHT NOW, I HONESTLY HAVE TO TELL YO, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE ACTUALLY SEEN A DEVELOPMENT OR ANYTHING THAT EVEN IS STRIVING FOR IT. A COUPLE OF REASONS. BACK WHEN WE ADOPTED THIS IN OUR DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, WE ACTUALLY HAD REBATES AND CREDITS FOR CERTAIN AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS THAT MET CERTAIN LEAD LEVELS.

BUT NOW 100% OF THEM MEET THOSE LEVELS ANYWAY. SO WE GOT RID OF THE CREDITS BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T BUY ONE THAT YOU CAN'T BUY ONE THAT DOESN'T DO IT. SO A LOT OF TECHNOLOGY HAS KIND OF CAUGHT UP TO IT WAS REALLY STRENGTHEN THE INCENTIVES. BUT EITHER IF IT NEEDED TO BE UPDATED OR NOT, IF IT DOESN'T, IF IT'S NOT UTILIZED OR IT SHOULDN'T BE UPDATED, THEN ERASED, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH, WE'LL LOOK AT IT AND GET AND BRING IT BACK WHEN WE COME BACK. RESOLUTION. BECAUSE I THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE SEEMS TO HAVE CHANGED SINCE 2007 AND IT HASN'. BEEN LOOKING AT IT AND THAT THE LEED CREDITS WAS LIKE A WAY TO GET PEOPLE TO TRANSITION INTO HURRICANE SHUTTERS AND IMPACT WINDOWS AND BETTER AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS AND BETTER INSULATION SYSTEMS OF THE WATERS AND ALL THAT STUFF. AND THEN WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THE INDUSTRY HAS ALL STANDARDIZED ALL THAT.

RIGHT? OKAY, LET'S GO DOWN THE DUMPSTER AND RECYCLING. WE, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, WE ARE GOING TO

[03:25:01]

OKAY, SO ZERO NINE. AND THOSE BLOCKS ARE THERE'S NO CONCERNS ABOUT THEM. WELL, FROM A STANDPOINT OF RECYCLING, THERE'S I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS. I WAS JUST I KNOW THAT IT'S MUCH MORE COMPLICATED TO DO RECYCLING IN COMMERCIAL PLAZAS. SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF PROGRAMING. WE HAVE IT LIMITED, BUT IT'S NOT. IT'S JUST VERY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN AND DO AND IT TAKES A LOT OF SIZE. BUT OUR OUR REGULAR DUMPSTER PROGRAMS ARE SEEM TO BE WORKING FINE. I KNOW WE GET A LOT OF RESISTANCE FROM DEVELOPERS BECAUSE OUR DEPARTMENT HOLDS THEM TO A HIGHER STANDARD AND MAKES THEM BUILD DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES WITH ROOFS AND ALL SORTS OF STUFF ON THEM. THAT IS EXPENSIVE, BUT AT THE END IT DOES LOOK A LOT BETTER AND IT STAYS A LOT CLEANER. STEVE MENTIONED ABOUT 80 USED, AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH THE E-STEWARDS CODE NOW, BUT I KNOW THAT MR. SEYMOUR HAS INCLUDED ALL OF THAT IN THERE. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THESE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE WE TALKING ON THE 6.09? YES. OH NINE NOT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT STUART. JUST. OH NINE RIGHT NOW. MY CONCERN ABOUT THEM. YEAH. MY CONCERN WAS THE SEPARATE SEPARATE METERS FOR WATER AND ELECTRICITY. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT EXACTLY LIVES BUT SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS AS WELL. BUT I KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW YOU CAN BUILD AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND YOU CAN HAVE ITS OWN ELECTRIC AND WATER METER, WHICH WHEN YOU DO THAT, SOMETIMES IT'S BECAUSE THE OLDER HOUSE SIMPLY TO ADD THE CONNECTION, MAKES IT JUST MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE LINES RUN. SO THEY JUST THE EASIER METHOD IS TO JUST DROP A NEW BOX AND A NEW METER AND JUST DO IT. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT WHEN YOU DO IT, IT DOES ENCOURAGE THE RENTAL VERSUS THE NON, BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE SHARING UTILITIES, YOU KNOW IT'S A BIG IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION. SO IF YOU HAVE A MOTHER IN LAW SUITE OR YOU HAVE A TRUE ADU WHERE A RELATIVE LIVING IN IT, RIGHT. YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT SHARING THE ELECTRIC BILL. SO CAN WE CONSIDER LANGUAGE RIGHT? OR CONSIDER LANGUAGE AS IT NOT HAVING A SEPARATE HOOKUP AND METER. YEAH. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I SEE JODY WRITING RIGHT NOW. SO ABSOLUTELY. AND YOU WANT THAT WATER AND SEWER IF IT'S NOT HAVING SEPARATE I JUST WANTED TO MAKE IS IT POSSIBLE FOR IT TO MAINTAIN THE FAMILY ORIENTED THOSE REVIEWS? COULD THEY HAVE A SEPARATE METER. WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE MAIN AND THEY'LL BE DOING THE SAME THING DROPPING THAT LINE BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T REALLY ADD THAT LINE IN THIS AGE. WELL, THEY'RE RESTRICTED. WHAT DOES IT SAY? IT SAYS FAMILY MEMBERS, RIGHT? YEAH. YOU CAN'T REALLY HAVE. WELL, YOU CAN RENT YOU CAN RENT TO A FAMILY MEMBER. WELL YOU COULD TRY I HAVE AND IT DOESN'T WORK. THEY DON'T PAY. YEAH I WAS GOING TO SAY NO, NO, BUT IT DOESN'T THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN HAS TO BE A FAMILY. WELL, THERE'S NO WAY OF VERIFYING THAT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. THE BEST SHOT YOU HAVE IS ON THE FRONT END SAYING YOU CAN'T HAVE A SEPARATE HOOKUP OR A SEPARATE METER AND THEN DEFINING FAMILY. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YEAH. YEAH. WELL IT SAYS YEAH, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A TASK FORCE TO GO AROUND TO DO THAT. WELL, AND, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY IS WHAT GOT EVERYBODY SUED AS DEFINED, OCCUPIED BY MEMBERS OF.

SOBER LIVING HOUSE. RIGHT. AND THAT TERM IS DEFINED AS FIVE OR MORE OR LESS THAN SIX UNRELATED PEOPLE. SO I CAN HAVE FIVE UNRELATED PEOPLE LIVING IN A HOUSE. AND IT'S CONSIDERED A FAMILY. I MEAN, IT DEPENDS WHAT KIND OF HOUSE IT IS. BUT BOYFRIENDS AND GIRLFRIENDS LIVE TOGETHER NOW WITHOUT BEING MARRIED, AND SO WHEN YOU START ENFORCING THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY, YOU START IN UNINTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CLASSES OF PEOPLE,

[03:30:03]

RIGHT. SO I MEAN, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, SOME PEOPLE CAN USE THE RENTAL INCOME. I THINK I DON'T I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY THAT COULDN'T USE THE RENTAL INCOME. THE QUESTION IS THE INTENT OF THE OF THE BOARD. RIGHT. DO YOU GUYS WANT IT TO BE. USED BY. SO YOU HAVE A ONE METER. YOU COULD WANT TO RENT IT AND COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON A FIXED. I MEAN, THERE'S LOTS OF BY THE WAY, HAVING ONE METER DOESN'T PROHIBIT SOMEBODY RENTING IT OUT, BUT IT DOES MAKE IT NOT AS EASY, RIGHT, FOR SOMEONE IN MIAMI TO BUY A FIVE HOUSES UP HERE. RIGHT. BUT ADUS ON THE BACK OF THEM AND HAVE TEN RENTAL PROPERTIES AND HAVE RENT OUT THE FRONT AND RENT OUT THE BACK TO SOMEONE ELSE AND BE NOT A NOT A RESIDENT. EXACTLY. YOU'RE THINKING OF IT PURELY AS YOUR OWN, WHERE YOU LIVE THERE AND YOU'RE EIGHT YEARS YOUR SON LIVING IN IT, AND THAT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT A CONCERN. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. BUT THERE'S ALSO PEOPLE THAT SEE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TURN SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES INTO INVESTMENT PROPERTIES THAT THEY CAN ADD A SECOND UNIT TO AND RENT THE FRONT TO ONE GUY IN THE BACK TO THE TO THE OTHER, AND THIS DISCOURAGES THAT BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE TWO COMPLETE STRANGERS FIGHTING OVER THE ELECTRIC BILL. COMMISSIONER.

YES. WELL THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THIS HAPPENS AND THEN ADUS, WOULDN'T THE PARKING BE COMING INTO PLAY BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BUILT IN THE PARKING ALREADY. OKAY. RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE REAL THE REAL THING ABOUT IT IS WE CAN'T POLICE IT. IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO POLICE. RIGHT. SO BEING REALISTIC, THERE'S GOING TO BE PEOPLE THAT DO IT NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. BUT BY HAVING, BY, BY HAVING ONE METER, YOU ARE MAKING IT LESS LIKELY, RIGHT? YES. AND IT'S ALSO LIKE LESS LIKELY TO BE A COMMERCIAL VENTURE LIVING IN THE MAIN HOUSE. AND THEY'RE RENTING OUT THEIR ADU TO SOME 25 YEAR OLD AND THEY LIVE THERE. I DON'T THINK WE REALLY CARE. RIGHT. BUT IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T EVEN LIVE HERE AT ALL, AND THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY TO RENT THE FRONT OUT TO ONE PERSON AND THE BACK OUT TO ANOTHER, IT'S A DIFFERENT INTENTION. SO I THINK WE CAN WE'LL BE BACK TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE OF THE METER. AND OBVIOUSLY THE CITY'S ALREADY GOT THE WATE.

BEYOND THAT, SIGNS WAS MY NEXT, YOU KNOW, WAY TO TALK ABOUT THIS. YEAH I KNOW I'M TALKING TO YOU. THERE WERE ISSUES WITH HEIGHT SO WANTED YOU TO LEAN ON. THERE'S ENOUGH IN SIGN TO FILL THE ROOM. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES CURRENTLY I EVEN KNOW, LIKE PAT FLANAGAN IS OPENING UP PIRANHA PAT'S WHERE FRANKENSTEIN'S USED TO BE, AND THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THAT SIGN. AND THEN THERE'S SOME OTHER ISSUES ON EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. WE REQUIRE A MONUMENT SIGNS AND THE HEIGHT OF THEM IS, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE WHAT THE EXACT LOW. IT'S VERY IT'S MUCH LOWER THAN ANYBODY WANTS. AND SO I WOULD SAY ONCE A WEEK WE HAVE A SIGN PERSON IN THE CITY SAYING THIS ISN'T WORKING. WHAT CAN WE DO HERE OR THERE OR WHATEVER, BUT PALM BEACH ISLAND, THEIR REAL ESTATE SIGNS ARE THE SIZE OF LICENSE PLATE. REALITY OF IT IS, IS IF EVERYBODY HAS A FOR SALE SIGN THAT'S ONLY THE SIZE OF A LICENSE PLATE, THEN YOU DON'T NEED A FOUR FOOT FOR SALE SIGN BECAUSE THE PEOPLE SEE THE SIGN. PROBABLY THESE. OCEAN BOULEVARD IS THERE'S PEOPLE WITH POLE SIGNS. THERE'S PEOPLE WITH BIG PLASTIC SIGNS. AND THEN THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE NEWER MONUMENT SIGNS FEEL LIKE THEY'RE KIND OF GETTING PUSHED OUT BECAUSE THE GUY, THE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE A BETTER MARKETING AND EXPOSURE. SO HOW WOULD YOU REMEDY OVER TIME? IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU WANT. I MEAN, HONESTLY, OVER TIME, IF YOU REDUCED IT AND HAD EVERYBODY HAVE A VERY SMALL

[03:35:04]

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF IS WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GO OUT FOR RFP TO HAVE SOMEONE LOOK AT OUR SIGN CODE AND MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, OKAY? BECAUSE WE GO DOWN THAT PATH AND WE DON'T NEED THAT. YES, YES, YES. BECAUSE LET'S JUST PUT AN AGENDA ITEM TOGETHER AND HAVE SOMEBODY DO IT. YEAH. SORT OF BE LIKE IF YOU. UPDATE YOUR EXISTING. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT SOME INCENTIVE THERE TO GET YOU TO RIGHT. THE PROBLEM WITH OUR SIGN CODE IS IT'S ONE SIZE FITS ALL.

AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THE CITY HAS DIFFERENT AREAS. US ONE IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT SIGN CRITERIA THAN THE URBAN CODE. AND THEN IF YOU GET INTO THE MORE RURAL AREAS OR THE MORE INDUSTRIAL AREAS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS. RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR OUR PUD REQUIREMENTS. SO THERE'S ALL DIFFERENT DISCREPANCIES THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT. AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPREHENSIVE. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO GO OUT AS RFP AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. GOOD IDEA. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANOTHER SIGNS WE SAW THERE YOU GO. BY THE WAY, LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING THAT IT'S A REALLY GOOD IDEA BECAUSE IT IS SO COMPLICATED. AND THERE'S SO IT'S SO EASY TO GET IN VIOLATION OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH. YEP. THAT IT IS TREMENDOUS. THE SUPREME COURT FROM GILBERT, ARIZONA SAID THAT IF YOU HAVE TO READ THE SIGN TO DETERMINE WHAT KIND OF SIGN IT IS, THEREFORE IT VIOLATES YOUR FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

SO THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS OF A SIGN CAN PUT YOU IN. NO, NOT THE PHYSICAL DIMENSIONS, BUT THE WHAT'S A REAL ESTATE SIGN. YEAH. OH, HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S A REAL ESTATE SIGN. WE ALSO HAVE A WHOLE SECTION ON OFF SITE SIGNS. WELL, WHAT'S AN OFF SITE SIGN? IS AN OFF. IT WOULD BE. I OWN A LAW OFFICE AND IT'S GOT A BIG RON JON SURF SHOP 100 MILES NORTH. YOU SEE THOSE SIGNS ALL THE TIME? THEY'RE NOT ON THE PROPERTY. BUT HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S NOT ON THE PROPERTY? YOU READ IT, RIGHT, BECAUSE IF IT. SAYS RON JOHN'S. YEAH. SO IT'S JUST CRAZY. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF TRAPS IN THE SIGN CODES. SO YOU CAN ONLY YOU CAN ONLY DESIGN IT BY THE SIZE, YOU KNOW, THE MATERIALS. AND THE OTHER THING IS WHEN WE TRIED TO DO THIS BEFORE TO HOW MANY SIGNS CAN YOU HAVE IN A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY? WELL, EVERYONE WOULD SAY NONE OR ONE. AND IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WELL WHAT ABOUT THE HAPPY BIRTHDAY SIGN THEY PUT UP? AND WHAT ABOUT THE FOR SALE SIGN THEY HAVE UP? AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE THE ALARM SIGN IN THE BUSHES THAT SAYS THEY'RE MONITORED BY SO AND SO. AND THEN THEY HAVE THE POLITICAL SIGN UP THAT SAYS THEY WANT TO ELECT SO AND SO. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THESE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES HAVE FIVE SIGNS ON THEM, BUT NO ONE EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT. AND SO THERE'S ALL THESE CRAFTS COMPLEX, YOU KNOW. WELL, EXCEPT FOR THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP HAS A LOT MORE DISCRETION TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION THAN THE GOVERNMEN.

HENCE THE NEED FOR AN RFP. I SEE. SO, MIKE, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEXT LOGICAL SECTION THEN? WELL, THERE'S IF I'M PULLING IT UP ON MY COMPUTER FROM A STANDPOINT OF THE NEXT SECTION, WE DON'T

[03:40:09]

IT'S THEY DIDN'T IT WASN'T PART OF THE CLUSTERING, BUT IT EFFECTIVELY WAS BECAUSE THEIR INITIAL PLAN. WAS THAT RIGHT, MR. MAYOR? YEAH. COMMISSIONER. JUST ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE WETLANDS. YOU'RE RIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE MANY. BUT COSTCO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE DONE NOTHING TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS. THERE WERE NO WETLANDS IN TOWN. WELL, THEY WERE WETLANDS THAT WERE DETERMINED TO BE ALREADY DAMAGED. SO, NO, THEY WERE MAN MADE LAKES THAT WERE NEVER WETLANDS. SO WE HAVE WE FOLLOW THE DEP OKAY. AND SO THE DEP HAD DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE LAKES THAT WERE BUILT WITHOUT OKAY, THEY WEREN'T NATURAL. THEY WERE NEVER, NEVER NATURAL. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. BUT AS YOU SAY, WHAT WE DON'T DETERMINE IF IT'S A WETLAND. THE DEP DOES. AND IF DEP SAYS IT'S A WETLAND, IT'S A WETLAND. WE DON'T DEBATE IT.

IT'S WE, YOU KNOW, WE TREAT IT ACCORDINGLY. AND RIGHT NOW I'M THINKING OF THE THERE'S A 20 ACRE PARCEL NEAR LOWE'S. THERE'S A 21 ACRE PARCEL AT THE VERY SOUTHERN END OF THE OF THE CITY.

AND THOSE ARE THE TWO BIG VACANT PARCELS THAT ARE LEFT UNDEVELOPED. AND THERE'S NEITHER OF THEM HAVE ANY WETLANDS ON THEM. AND THE ONE AT THE SOUTH END OF THE CITY HAS ACTUALLY USED TO BE THE PLAZA. SO IT ACTUALLY HAD BEEN DEVELOPED BEFORE. NOW. SO I, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S TONS OF WETLANDS IN AND AROUND HANEY CREEK, BUT NONE OF THAT WILL EVER BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY, ALREADY DEDICATED AND DONE. AND WHEN YOU THINK OF GREEN RIVER PARKWAY, THERE'S NO AVAILABLE LAND ON GREEN RIVER PARKWAY FOR DEVELOPMENT. IT'S

[03:45:04]

YEAH. IT'S NOT CONFORMING. THIS IS WELL THIS IS THE NONCONFORMING LOT RIGHT.

ADMINISTRATION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO CHANGE CHAPTER EIGHT. CHAPTER EIGHT. THAT WOULD BE PART OF YOU COMING BACK TO US WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. WELL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WRITE WELL. SO WE'RE GOING TO END UP HAVING YOU DECIDE RIGHT HOW YOU WANT US TO TREAT. BECAUSE TO ME, THIS ISSUE OF NONCONFORMING AND GRANDFATHERING, WELL, LIKE WHEN WE DID COTTAGE LOTS, IT SAID ANY LOT IN EXISTENCE IN DECEMBER OF 2007 SHALL BE DEEMED A BUILDABLE LOT AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE SETBACK. AND IT SHOULD HAVE SAID ANY PARCEL. BUT THE INTENT WAS IF YOU ALREADY HAD A PARCEL ID AND YOU'RE ALREADY PAYING TAXES ON THE PROPERTY, AND IT WAS IN EXISTENCE IN DECEMBER OF 2007, THEN WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU BUILD YOUR AS LONG AS IT'S, YOU KNOW, 5000FT■!S, WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU BUILD ON AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE SETBACK, MEANING THAT AFTER TODAY, IF YOU GO CHOP UP LOTS AND MAKE THEM THIS WAY, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WORK AND THEY'RE NOT, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE THAT WE HAD AT THE TIME. THE NONCONFORMING STANDARDS ARE GOING TO APPLY THE SAME WAY. WHEN WE COME BACK TO YOU, YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE PARKING, MIGHT BE THAT YOU ONLY APPLY IT TO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND PERVIOUS SURFACE MIGHT ONLY APPLY TO NEW CONSTRUCTION. BUT SOMETHING ELSE MIGHT APPLY ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE BOARD. AND SO IT'LL BE A SUBJECTIVE OR CASE BY CASE AS WE BRING IT FORWARD TO YOU ON THAT. IN THAT RESOLUTION, AS FAR AS THE DIRECTION FROM THE STAFF OR FROM COMMISSION TO STAFF AS TO WHAT YOU WANT TO HOW YOU WANT US TO HANDLE THOSE ISSUES. AND WE'LL DO THAT WHEN WE BRING IT BACK. AND WE CAN GIVE YOU EXAMPLES OF WHY, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WAY IS APPLICABLE, BUT WE WON'T KNOW IT UNTIL WE SIT DOWN AND START REALLY LOOKING AT THE CODES. IN LOOKING AT THE AND LOOKING AT JUST EASILY SPEAKING RIGHT NOW, THE MULTIFAMILY, AS SOON AS YOU GUYS ADOPT THAT MULTIFAMILY, EVERY SINGLE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY IS GOING TO BE A NON-CONFORMING USE. RIGHT. AND SO IF FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THESE IF A SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET WANTED TO PUT COVERED PARKING OVER THE PARKING LOT, YOU KNOW, THOSE LITTLE LIKE, TIN ROOFED PARKING SPACES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S IF IT'S 0.5 IS THE INCREASE, WE'RE ASSUMING THAT IT'S GOING UP BY 20%. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD 20% MORE PARKING. SO IF THEY HAD 100 PARKING SPACES BEFORE, THEY'D HAVE TO BUILD 20 NEW ONES IN ORDER TO PUT THE COVERED PARKING IN, BECAUSE THEY'D BE EXPANDING THE USE OR WHATEVER. AND SO THEY'D HAVE TO DO IT, OR THE COMMISSION COULD ADOPT PHILOSOPHICALLY AND SAY ANYBODY THAT IS EXISTING AS OF MARCH FIRST, 2025 GETS TO KEEP THE PARKING THEY HAVE AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ADD ANY MORE UNITS. BUT NEW UNITS HAVE TO BE DONE AT THE NEXT RATE, YOU KNOW, AT THE NEW RATIO, RIGHT? SO IF THEY WANTED TO PUT A POOL IN OR A CLUBHOUSE IN OR A COVERED PARKING IN, OR ANY OF THOSE EXPANDED USES, THEY WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO BUILD THE NEW PARKING, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BE A LEGAL COMPLIED USE AND NOT MAKE ALL OF THEM TRIGGER, NOT TRIGGER IT. RIGHT? CORRECT. AND SO THE AND WE'LL COME BACK WITH THAT LANGUAGE AND MAKE IT BECAUSE OUR INTENT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT TO SCREW WITH EVERYBODY.

IT'S TO TRY AND MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T SCREW WITH EVERYBODY. AND THAT ADDRESSES CONCERNS AND MAKES IT SO THAT MOVING FORWARD, THERE'S A DIRECT PATH AND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND IT. I DON'T KNOW, BEING COMPLIANT, CERTAINLY. AND OBVIOUSLY IN RESPONSE TO PART OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT, IT THE COMP PLAN IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE HAS HALF UNITS IN IT. SO WHEN WE COME BACK AND YOU GUYS WANT TO REMOVE HALF UNITS, YOU CAN REMOVE HALF UNITS BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN DOESN'T GUARANTEE ANYBODY A HALF UNIT ANYWAY. IT'S IT SAYS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS

[03:50:05]

BUT WE WOULD BE CLEANING UP OUR COMP PLAN SO THAT IT'S CONSISTENT. THAT WOULD BE THE IT'D BE A LOGICAL STEP AMENDING THE COMP PLAN. RIGHT. WHICH IS NOT A BIG DEAL. WELL, SO IT'S YOU HAVE TO COMPLY. SO WHEN WE THE SECOND READING ON THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, YOU DO THE FIRST READING, YOU SEND IT TO TALLAHASSEE AND THEY REVIEW IT, MAKE SURE IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1874, WHATEVER THE, YOU KNOW, THE CRITERIA OF ALL THE STUFF. AND THEY THEN SEND IT BACK. AND WE DON'T GET TO SET THE SECOND HEARING RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT TAKES THREE WEEKS, SOMETIMES IT TAKES EIGHT WEEKS TO GET A RESPONSE BACK. AND IF IT'S LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, PRIOR COMMISSION WANTED TO DEFINE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS 80% OF THE MEDIAN INCOME, AND THE STATE REJECTED IT AND SAID, NO, YOU HAVE TO DO YOUR DEFINITION HAS TO BE THE SAME AS THE STATE'S DEFINITION. AND SO THEY COULDN'T DEFINE IT THAT WAY. OR WHATEVER IT WAS. AND SO IF THAT HAPPENS, YOU SIMPLY CROSS A BRIDGE AND GET BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THIS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE COMP PLAN WAS CHANGED TO ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE EVEN DISCUSSING.

UNITS WERE ADDED TO THE COMPLEX. SO I WOULD LIKE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO DO OUTSIDE OF THE ZIP. IT'S NOT REQUIRED WITH THE ZIP, BUT IT'S FOR US TO REVISIT THAT AND CLEAN THAT UP WELL. AND OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO THAT'LL BE EVEN AS WE GO FORWARD WITH YOU GUYS ON THAT WITH THE RESOLUTION, WE'RE GOING TO TELL YOU THAT THERE'S COMP PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, AND YOU KNOW, NO MATTER WHAT. AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED SO FAR WITH THE COMP PLAN DOESN'T DISCUSS PARKING. AND YOU GUYS AREN'T GOING ABOVE 30 UNITS AN ACRE. SO YOU'RE NOT VIOLATING THE COMP PLAN. YOU'RE NOT GOING ABOVE FOUR STORIES, SO YOU'RE NOT VIOLATING IT THERE. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THAT WILL VIOLATE THE COMP PLAN. AND IF YOU IF YOU LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAD SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANY MORE MULTIFAMILY THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE COMP PLAN AND THE STATE STATUTE BECAUSE THE STATE MANDATES THAT WE HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING AVAILABLE. BUT WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN THAT WAY. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER. SO WE'LL CROSS THE BRIDGE WHEN WE GET TO IT. SO THEN DO YOU MAYBE IF THERE'S STILL CONSENSUS THAT YOU WOULD BRING BACK THOSE CHANGES FOR US TO REVIEW. AND SO AND THE BOARD'S RIGHT. SO IN THE MEANTIME WE COULD ALSO BE WORKING ON CHAPTER THREE SO WE CAN SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP FOR CHAPTER THREE. WE CAN STAFF CAN START DRAFTING THE RESOLUTION, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS THE MINUTES OF THESE WORKSHOPS. AND WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION SAYING THE CITY COMMISSION HEREBY DIRECTS STAFF TO REWRITE CODE ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES. PERMEABLE, PERVIOUS, THE DENSITY, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS DESCRIBED, THE SHADE TREES, AND EACH ONE OF THE THINGS. AND AS WE PRESENT THAT TO YOU AT THAT MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO SAY TO YOU, BY THE WAY, THIS COINCIDES WITH THIS COMP PLAN ISSUE OR WHATEVER HALF UNITS HAVE TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN LATER. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL BE COMING BACK WITH THAT. SO WHEN WE COME

[03:55:01]

AND IN FACT, MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN STUART, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY 95% OR 97% IS LESS THAN THE MAXIMUM DENSITY THAT WAS ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY. SO THE COMMISSION ON EVERY SINGLE PUD APPROVED WAS BELOW THE AND IN FACT, THE ONLY THE ONE PUD THAT WAS APPROVED IN 22 WAS 12 UNITS AN ACRE. SO YOU KNOW, IT WAS WELL BELOW. SO THAT WON'T PROHIBIT IT. IT JUST MEANS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. YEAH. OKAY. ANOTHER QUESTION. WE WANT TO SET ANOTHER MEETING. MR. CLARK, DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR A DAT? DAY OR 14TH? THE 19TH OR THE 21ST? AS THE NEXT WEEK WILL BE GETTING INTO THANKSGIVING. THAT'S WHAT. ACTUALLY, THE 14TH THAT MEETING WAS CANCELED WAS IT NOT THAT NIGHT. YEAH, THERE'S A SPECIAL MEETING, BUT THE ISSUES WITH THE REZONING OF THE PROJECT LEFT TO. SEAN, WITH THURSDAY WORK. YEAH. WHAT ABOUT YOU GUYS? WHAT? THAT DAY, YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO DO A SATURDAY AND MAKE THAT. YEAH, I'D RATHER NOT. BUT I'D RATHER NOT. YEAH, SURE. THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY, THE 19TH, 19TH OF THE 21ST WOULD BE COMMISSIONER. THIRD. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE EVERY DAY. OKAY. 19TH COMMISSIONER JOB. FIRST, LISTEN, I, I SHOWED IT. THE CHAMBERS ARE RESERVED FOR AN MPO OR MPO. WHAT TIME THOUGH ISN'T THAT LATE AFTERNOON AT 5:00? YEAH. WE LIKE GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. GOOD. TUESDAY. ONE.

YEAH. YEP. I THINK FOUR HOURS. NO, NO. 25. SO WE'RE GOING TO DO TUESDAY 19TH 9 A.M. OKAY. GIVE YOU PLENTY OF TIME TO NOTICE RIGHT. YEAH. IT'LL BE PLENTY OF TIME TO MOVE THE APPOINTMENTS THAT ARE ON MY CALENDAR. JUST JUST FOR VERIFICATION. THIS IS JUST FOR CHAPTER THREE. WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT JUST I DON'T THINK ARE WE. SURE. BECAUSE I HEARD TODAY WAS CHAPTER THREE. AND IT WAS OKAY. BUT YOU GUYS WANT TO GIVE US DIRECTION TO DO IT. THERE'S NOTHING LEFT WITH THAT DECREE. RIGHT? OKAY OKAY. I MEAN, UNLESS YOU GUYS CHANGE YOUR MINDS.

COMMISSIONER REED, DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU? JESSICA, I KNOW YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH CHAPTER THREE. WHICH IS THE FINAL DATE THAT WAS DETERMINED TUESDAY. THE 19TH. I CAN BE AVAILABLE. PERFECT. THANK YOU. LOOK AT THAT. WITH ONE MINUTE TO GO. HOW PROMPT ARE WE? RIGHT

[04:00:01]

NO, NO, NO, I MEAN, I WAS GOING TO SAY I'M NOT INTERESTED IN THAT. I'M NOT INTERESTED. YOU GUYS COULD OFFER TO JUST SIGN THE GRANT OR JUST WHATEVER YOU LIKE, PARTICIPATE TO THAT EXTENT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. AGAIN, I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT. AND. WELL, I MEAN, WHEN YOU SAY WAIT, THERE IS THE NEW COMMISSION. THERE'S NOTHING TO BRING BACK. SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU HAD DURING THE MEETING. OH, NO. HE DIDN'T. WHEN YOU SAY WHEN, YOU SAY WHEN YOU SAY THEY ADJOURNED. OH, YEAH. I'M SORRY I WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION. WHEN YOU SAY WAIT, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THERE'S THERE IS NOT. THERE'S NO THING TO WAIT FOR, BECAUSE AFTER THE 12TH, IT'S OVER. NO, IT'S GOING TO BE COMING BACK IN FRONT OF THEM. IF THEY'RE NOT, EVERYTHING IS NOT BEING DECIDED ON THE 12TH. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW COMMISSION SITTING THERE AFTER THAT. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO RUSH. YEAH. THIS IS THIS IS ALL KIND OF YOU'RE YOU'RE MIXING METAPHORS. I GUESS THAT WASN'T THE COUNTY THAT WAS INVOLVED THAT NIGHT. RIGHT? AND THAT REALLY WASN'T AN AGREEMENT. IT WAS JUST US DISCUSSING OUR OWN PROPOSAL. RIGHT. BUT SO LIKE I SAID, YOU GUYS COULD DO ANYTHING YOU WANT. IT'S FINE WITH ME IF WE SAY NOTHING AND IT'S OVER. I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I'M BRINGING IT BACK. BECAUSE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A TIME FOR ME TO BRING IT BACK. I WOULD LIKE TO WAIT TILL THERE'S A NEW COMMISSION AND THEN DISCUSS IT WITH THEM. BE MY INPUT. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE IT ON AN AGENDA. YEAH, I AGREE ABOUT THE TIME TO BRING IT BACK. WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU'RE THAT THEY'RE VOTING ON, NOVEMBER 12TH DESERVES TO HEAR FROM US. RIGHT. THEY WANT TO KNOW ON NOVEMBER 12TH AGAIN. THEN WE SHOULD SAY IT ON THE RECORD. THIS IS THE THING THE SAYING NO THING. THEY KEEP PITCHING US WHAT WE DID NOT AUTHORIZE AND THEN WE HAVE TO SAY NO, THIS IS THE COUNTY EITHER WAY. THIS HAS BEEN THE COUNTY TWO TIME. THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND TIME THEY'RE PITCHING US ON SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO SAY NO TO. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. WELL, FOR US TO KEEP SAYING NO WHEN WE'VE AUTHORIZED A CERTAIN KIND OF A THING AND WE HAVE TO KEEP SAYING NO TO DEALS THAT ARE NOT, THAT THIS DEAL IS NOT WHAT WE EVEN AUTHORIZED. SO INSTEAD OF US SAYING, NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE AUTHORIZED ANYTHING. YEAH. WE DID, WE AUTHORIZED YOU TO PUT TOGETHER A DEAL WHERE BRIGHTLINE PAID HALF THE COUNTY, PAID HALF. RIGHT. SO BUT ANYTIME AN OFFER COMES, I DON'T HAVE THE DISCRETION TO SAY NO. BUT I DON'T THINK IT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD LOOK FOR US TO CONTINUE TO SAY NO TO THESE. NO, PLEASE DO NOT BRING IT BACK TO US. NO, IT IS NOT IT. IT THAT THERE'S. IF YOU'RE TELLING ME TO BRING SOMETHING BACK TO YOU. OUR MEETING IS ON THE 12TH AT 5:30 P.M. THEIR MEETING IS ON THE 12TH AT 9 A.M. SO UNLESS THE COMMISSION RIGHT NOW HAS THE CONSENSUS OR THE INTEREST IN DOING THE MAKING SOME KIND OF PROPOSAL BACK TO THEM OR

[04:05:07]