Nov 19, 2024 Special City Commission

[00:00:04]

OKAY, I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE SPECIAL COMMISSION. SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING OF THE STUART CITY COMMISSION ZONING AND PROGRESS WORKSHOP NUMBER THREE. THIS MEETING DOESN'T SAY HERE, BUT IT'S ADVERTISED TO GO FROM 9 A.M. TO 1 P.M. TODAY. ROLL CALL PLEASE. MADAM CLERK ERIC HERE.

[ROLL CALL]

COMMISSIONER. READ HERE. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONER.

[COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS]

THE BOAT RAMP WOULD REQUIRE A MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, AND THAT IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME EXCEPTION THAT YOU GUYS GRANTED, WE BROUGHT IT UP BEFORE IN THE COMMISSION, SAID NO TO THE EXCEPTION, SO IT SIMPLY HAS TO WAIT UNTIL THE SITE. SO IF, IF, IF A MOTION WAS MADE, THEN TO ALLOW A BOAT RAMP FOR MY MINOR SITE AMENDMENT, IT'D BE OKAY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT. IT WAS TYPEKIT. WHAT WAS THAT, JODY? GOOD MORNING. JODY. JODY KEGLER FOR THE RECORD. SO THIS PROPERTY ACTUALLY STILL HAS TO GO FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE USE AND ALSO A MAJOR CODE. EITHER WAY, WHAT'S HAPPENED RIGHT NOW IS WE CAN'T DO THE APPLICATION BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING IN PROGRESS. OKAY. SO IS THERE A WAY TO WORD THAT MOTION THEN TO WHERE THAT APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THEN IF A MOTION WAS MADE OR IS IT SO? THE PROBLEM WITH IT IS, IS UNTIL WE PROCESS THE APPLICATION, WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THE SHADE TREE. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PERVIOUS. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PARKING. SO WHEN YOU GUYS SAID NOTHING CAN GO FORWARD IF IT HAS AN IMPACT OF ANY OF THOSE THINGS, WE HAVE TO STOP IT UNTIL IT'S OVER. NO, THE, THE IF WE ALLOWED IT TO GO FORWARD, THEY WOULD BE ONLY REQUIRED TO MEET WHATEVER STANDARDS ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE. NOW, THE TRUTH OF IT IS I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING. I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY LANDSCAPING TO DO. THE BOAT RAMP THERE. IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE THERE USED TO BE A BOAT RAMP THERE YEARS AGO OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE LIKE A DIFFERENT CEMENT SLAB. BUT IT'S NOT THE DISCRETION OF STAFF. THE CITY COMMISSION HAD MADE THE MANDATE THAT IT THE ONLY EXCEPTION WAS SINGLE FAMILY. SO I DON'T THINK IT WILL TRIGGER ANY OF THOSE USES. BUT IF WE ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AND IT DOES, THEN WE'RE UNDER THE OLD USE. GOTCHA. SO WE'LL SEE HOW THE OTHER FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS FEEL ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BECAUSE SOMETHING LIKE THAT SHOULDN'T BE WRAPPED UP INTO A ZONING IN PROGRESS. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, IT'S A BOAT RAMP, BUT HOW THE BOARD FEELS ANOTHER STORY. IT'S HARD TO SAY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER SCOPE. WE KNOW A BOAT RAMP IS A PART OF IT, RIGHT? IT'S A MARINA. IT'S AN OPERATING MARINA THAT WANTS TO ADD A BOAT RAMP TO BE ABLE TO PULL BOATS

[00:05:03]

BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE JODY TO BRING IT ALL BACK AND THEN DO IT AGAIN. AND IT'S THE IT'S THE IT'S THE ECONOMIC TIMELINE WITH THE END OF THE YEAR AND PEOPLE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH LAND THAT THEY PURCHASED, WHICH PROBABLY WON'T AFFECT A LOT OF THESE THINGS. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE PARKING, AND I WAS JUST THINKING THAT IF WE AT LEAST HALT UNTIL JANUARY 15TH AND SEE IF PEOPLE CAN GET SOME THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO GET TOGETHER, ANYTIME WE APPROVE THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE IF YOU COME IN WITH A PLAN AND WHEN YOU COME IN WITH A PLAN, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO MEET THE NEW GUIDELINES AND THEY'LL KNOW THAT. BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC CLIMATE AND MAYBE WE WHEN WE GET TO THE END TO THE MEETING, WE'LL PROBABLY HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. BUT I KNOW YOU'RE BRINGING IN ONE THING, BUT THEY'RE LIKE SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE SIMILAR SITUATIONS WHO MAY WANT TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHAT THEY MIGHT HAVE TO REPLANT THE LOT BECAUSE IT'S WHATEVER THEY THEY BOUGHT WITH THE LOT.

AND ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS JUST DO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BECAUSE IT'S CONSIDERED DEVELOPMENT STAFF CAN'T MOVE AHEAD WITH IT. AND I'M SURE THAT JODY COULD PROBABLY GIVE US SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE COME IN WITH SOMETHING THAT WON'T BE AFFECTED BY POSSIBLY. I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER COLLINS IS INTERESTED IN THE IN THE REALLY IN THE PARKING GUIDELINES AND ALSO IN MULTIFAMILY, BUT I JUST THINK THAT IF WE CAN GIVE A CLEAR HALT SO PEOPLE CAN GET THEIR BUSINESS TOGETHER, WE ARE IN A ECONOMIC CLIMATE WHERE THE OPPORTUNITY MIGHT BE GONE FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE COME, COME AFTER, ESPECIALLY AFTER JANUARY 20TH. SO I'M THINKING THAT I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY AND WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO KEEP OUR COMMUNITY VIBRANT AND WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW SOME THINGS, ESPECIALLY THIS. JODY EXPLAINED THIS TO ME WITH REGARD TO AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE STILL IN COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS, AND I'M JUST SPEAKING TO MR. REED'S COMMENT LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY, SOMEBODY WHO MAY HAVE BOUGHT THOSE. I THINK WE HAD MENTIONED THOSE SMALL LOTS, LIKE ON EAST OCEAN, LIKE BEHIND FLAMINGO. THEY'RE LIKE SMALL LOTS THAT HAVE DUPLEX ON THEM. BUT EITHER EITHER SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT HAS TWO SMALL LOTS THAT MAY HAVE TO NOW BE REPLANTED AS A WITH A ONE UNIT OF TIDAL WITH A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, AND JUST PUT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THERE, BUT IS CONSIDERED DEVELOPMENT. AND SO WE'RE HAVING THIS ISSUE WHERE PEOPLE, EVEN THOUGH WE SAY THEY CAN DO SINGLE FAMILY, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE SINGLE FAMILY. GOOD MORNING, COMMISSIONER CLARK. SO IF THEY CAME IN AND DID A UNIT TITLE ON ONE ON COMBINED TWO PROPERTIES, THAT'S NOT INCREASING THE DENSITY. THEY'RE STILL ONLY PUTTING IN ONE UNIT. STILL, THEY CAN SEE THAT IT'S WHEN THEY OWN A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND NOW THEY WANT TO SPLIT IT BACK UP. THAT'S WHERE THE INDIAN DENSITY DENSITY IS INCREASED.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE HALT. PER THE ZONING IN PROGRES. AND EVEN IF THEY WANT TO BREAK THOSE THREE INTO MAKING IT THREE SINGLE FAMILY. SO TO SPEAK OR NOT. YEAH. IS THE MARINA A PUD OR IS IT A WATERFRONT. IT'S JUST STRAIGHT WATERFRONT. YES. YEAH. IT HAS TO GO TO CONDITIONAL USE.

YEAH. AT THE LAST TWO WORKSHOPS WE ASKED THE STAFF TO GRANT AN EXCEPTION TO THE ZONING IN PROGRESS FOR ANY CONDITIONAL USE OR PUDS THAT DID NOT HAVE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT IN IT. AND THE COMMISSION VOTED NO. YEAH, WE REALLY NEED TO. AND I DIDN'T. THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT WE COULD INCLUDE IN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE. YOU SAID MR. MARTEL, AND I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. IF WE CAN FIND THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE THOSE EXCEPTIONS. YEAH. I FEEL LIKE WE DO THIS EVERY SINGLE MEETING. IT'S BEEN THE FIRST HALF AN HOUR TO 45 MINUTES TRYING TO GET OUT

[00:10:01]

SO THERE ARE GOING, IF WE JUST HALT THE ZONING IN PROGRESS WHILE ALL OF THAT LANGUAGE THAT WE WENT INTO A ZONING IN PROGRESS TO CRAFT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS, IF WE JUST STOP THE ZIP, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A TON OF POTENTIALLY PENT UP. I THINK MIKE HAD SAID THERE WAS LIKE 15 DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT COULD NOT JUST BE SOMEBODY WITH THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IT COULD BE LARGE SCALE PROJECTS, COMMERCIAL MULTIFAMILY THINGS THAT WILL RUSH IN AND WILL BE USING THE OLD RULES. SO I THINK WE SHOULD JUST STAY THE COURSE. WE ARE ALMOST DONE WITH THIS.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE BACKGROUND. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO MAKING AN EXCEPTION FOR A BOAT RAMP. I DON'T THINK THAT'S ANYBODY'S INTENTION. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO DO THAT. BUT, WELL, IT'S UNLESS IT'S A BIGGER CAN OF WORMS AND THERE'S STILL. YEAH, OKAY. THEN I WOULD SAY LET'S JUST STAY THE COURSE, GET THROUGH THIS AND GET BUTTONED U.

THANK YOU. DON? YEAH. MR. REED, ARE YOU DONE? THANK YOU, MR. DOBIE. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT, MR. CLARK? YES. WITH REGARD TO THIS MEETING GOING ON TILL 1:00 ESPECIALLY, I KNOW THAT IT'S A DISCUSSION AMONG US, BUT WE'VE BEEN ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION. BUT JUST SO THAT PEOPLE DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE DOING SOMETHING THAT. WE'RE ESPECIALLY WE'RE STOPPING AT A TIME WHEN THEY SOMETHING EXCITING OR IMPORTANT IS HAPPENING. I'D LIKE FOR US TO SET A PARTICULAR BREAK TIME SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BREAK AND WE KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BREAK, AND WHEN WE HAVE DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENTS DURING THAT TIME THAT WE KNOW THAT THAT'S ABOUT THE BREAK TIME. SO THAT I WAS I WAS THINKING THAT IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE PICKING ON THEM TO I WAS THINKING 1115 1115 OKAY. 15 MINUTES. THANK YOU SIR. OKAY.

AND THEN THE SINGLE FAMILY THING IS HE BROUGHT THAT UP. PLUS WITH THE WITH THE WITH THE MARINA.

AND THEN OF COURSE I HAVE MY ISSUE HERE IS LIKE PUTTING A PAUSE DUE TO THE ECONOMIC CLIMATE AND ALSO TO CONSIDER SOME EXCEPTIONS THAT EVEN IF WE CAN COME BACK IN IN A FEW DAYS OR AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING AND SAY SPECIFICALLY, THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT WE CAN ALLOW FOR EXCEPTIONS UNTIL STAFF FINISH DOING THE PAPERWORK, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE'RE NOT I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR NEXT MEETING. THIS IS OUR THIRD ONE.

AND WE ENVISIONED THREE, MR. MARTEL. SO THE INTENTION AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THE LAST MEETING IS THAT WE WOULD FINISH CHAPTER THREE TODAY AND THAT THE CITY STAFF WOULD BRING ON DECEMBER 9TH A RESOLUTION LISTING ALL OF THE POTENTIAL CHANGES AND GET VALIDATION FROM THE BOARD AS TO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO ON THOSE CHANGES, AND THEN GO TO THE LPA AND CRB BOARDS AND RETURN TO THE COMMISSION. PROBABLY THE LAST MEETING OF JANUARY OR FIRST MEETING OF FEBRUARY, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE SECOND MEETING OF FEBRUARY FOR THE SECOND READING, SO THAT WE MAKE IT BEFORE MARCH 4TH. TO PUT IN SOME TIME THERE FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS, BECAUSE IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS AND THEN NO, DEFINITELY NEED A PUBLIC MEETING. AND THE OTHER THING IS WE ARE RIGHT THERE. WE HAVE TO IT'S LIKE, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO BE SUED. MR. WE NEED TO MAKE IT THAT TO DRAG IT OUT. JUST. AS MR. MR. MR. COMMISSIONER THANK YOU SO I SEE I THIS IS A TEACHING FOR ESPECIALLY FOR PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION I'D SAY LESS THAN FIVE YEARS OR ANYTIME AT ALL COMING ON THE COMMISSION. IT'S A GOOD THING TO DO. I LIKE I'VE SAID BEFORE, I'VE, I'VE GONE ALONG WITH THIS, BUT I DIDN'T THINK THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE ABSOLUTE PAUSE IN, IN, IN, IN DEVELOPMENT UNTIL WE HAD THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AT WORKED AS AN INTRODUCTORY THING TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS ON BOARD AND THEN AND ALSO GET THE PUBLIC INVOLVED. BUT WE HAVE A VISION HERE FOR US AT LEAST WHAT I KNOW, BEING ON THE MEMBER OF BOARD OF THE CITY OF STUART IS THAT IF WE'RE DECIDING TO CHANGE A VISION OR TO MOVE CERTAIN THINGS, ESPECIALLY IN THE ZONING, I ABSOLUTELY DON'T SEE HOW, ESPECIALLY TODAY, WE'RE LOOKING AT NEIGHBORHOODS, WE'RE LOOKING AT STREETS, WE'RE LOOKING AT AREAS WHERE HAVE THERE'S CERTAIN SPECIFIC CHARACTERISTICS IN THOSE AREAS. AND IF WE ARE GOING TO BE MAKING CHANGES, THE PUBLIC ABSOLUTELY

[00:15:02]

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JOB. I'M NOT SURE IT'S CONSIDERED WASTING TIME LISTENING TO COMMISSIONER REED'S CONCERNS OR COMMISSIONER CLARK CONCERNS OR YOURS. THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW OPPORTUNITIES THE PUBLIC HAS TO HEAR FROM US AND HEAR US. COLLOQUY REGARDING. THERE'S NO MORE IMPORTANT DECISIONS WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING GOING FORWARD THAN THE ZONING AND POTENTIALLY WITH THE OVERLAY ZONE IN EAST STUART RENDERING. SO MANY LOTS UNBUILDABLE AND I CAN'T BELIEVE TWO MEETINGS ARE OVER. I'VE HEARD THE COMMENT, WE DON'T NEED TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. WHEN THE BRIGHT LINE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP, ALL WE HEARD AN ISSUE THAT WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT FOR A YEAR THAT WE HAD NOT LISTENED TO THE PUBLIC, NOT LISTENED TO THE PUBLIC, NOT LISTENED TO AND NOW IT'S STATED OVERTLY, NO, WE DON'T NEED IT TO GO INTO EAST STUART AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHAT DRAMATIC CHANGES WILL YOU ALLOW ME TO FINISH MY COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER? OKAY,

[00:20:02]

I, I KNOCKED ON AS MANY DOORS AS YOU DID. COMMISSIONER COLLINS, AND NO ONE TOLD ME TO ACT IN THIS MANNER TOWARDS OUR COMMUNITY. SO DO YOU HAVE AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT? COMMISSIONER CLARK, ARE YOU GOING TO PASS THE GAVEL AND MAKE A MOTION, OR DO YOU? YOU I WAS NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT IF YOU I THINK COMMISSIONER COLLINS SAID COMMISSIONER COLLINS, I HATE TO FIGHT TOO MUCH WITH YOU. FIRST THING IN THE MORNING, BUT IF YOU'RE FRUSTRATED WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, THE TWO OF YOU WERE ON THE COMMISSION TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE WENT INTO A ZONING IN PROGRESS AND GOT ZERO DONE. SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE COULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING IN THE LAST ZONING IN PROGRESS AND NOT HAD EVERYBODY IN THIS POSITION WHERE THERE'S THESE ISSUES THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING. WE WENT UP, I WENT UP AND DID A PRESENTATION. WE TALKED ABOUT THE PARKING ISSUES, THE DENSITY ISSUES. AND WHEN I SAT DOWN FROM THAT PRESENTATION, THE TWO OF YOU AND THE OTHER TWO WHO WERE ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME AND WENT UP FOR REELECTION AND GOT SMOKED BECAUSE OF IT, ZERO GOT DONE. SO WE CAN VIRTUE SIGNAL TO WHO'S IN THIS ROOM THIS MORNING, OR WE CAN GET TO WORK AND GET THIS DONE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER COLLINS. I HEAR YOU. I JUST LET ME RESPOND TO THAT FIRST ZERO DONE. WE'VE HAD ZERO MULTIFAMILY APPLICATIONS IN THOSE TWO YEARS. ZERO. WE'VE HAD ZERO NEW DEVELOPMENT IN MULTIFAMILY. HOW WAS THAT? NOTHING. ZERO IS AS LOW AS YOU CAN GET. CENTRAL PARKWAY WAS ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE. OKAY, OKAY. THANKS. WE'VE HAD NO NEW APPLICATIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY SINCE THEN. I'VE BEEN HERE THE WHOLE TIME AND I'VE I'VE BEEN A PART OF THOSE APPROVALS. BUT WHEN WE DID THE ZIP WHEN YOU FIRST CAME ON, I THINK YOU ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'RE MAKING NOW BECAUSE YOU ASKED FOR THE ZIP. I'M, I'M AN URBAN PLANNER, AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A ZIP OR MORATORIUM, THAT IS WHEN YOU HAVE A CRITICAL, DIRE NEED TO MAKE SPECIFIC CHANGES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND AT THE TIME WHEN WE WENT THROUGH IT IN TERMS OF PARKING AND OTHER THINGS FOR THE DIFFERENT AREAS, ESPECIALLY THE NEW AREAS, URBAN WATERFRONT AND OTHER THINGS THAT WERE PEOPLE WERE ASKING FOR SOME DEVELOPMENTS. WE HAD DEVELOPMENT NORTH OF THE BRIDGE. WE I DIDN'T SEE ANY A MAJOR DIRE NEED AT THE TIME, AND WE ALL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY. WE WENT THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS. SO SAYING THAT NOTHING WAS DONE, YOU ASKED FOR THE PROCESS TO YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING UP THE SAME THINGS THAT YOU'RE THAT YOU'RE

[Additional Item]

[00:25:02]

THE ECONOMIC FALLOUT OF A SIX MONTH SHUTDOWN WILL BE YOUR LEGACY. CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY. I'D LIKE TO SEE A REALISTIC DISCUSSION ON THE LEGAL REALITIES AND CITY MANAGER AND PLANNING DIRECTOR SHOULD BE PUT FORWARD. SHOULD BE PUTTING FORTH THE REALITY OF THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF WHAT THIS REALLY IS. IF YOU SAY THERE IS NONE, THEN WILL THE LEGACY YOU'RE LEFT WITH WILL BE THE LEGACY YOU DESERVE. AND CHRIS COLLINS, 12 TO 15% OF THE VOTING REGISTERED VOTERS IS NOT A MAJORITY. BOTTOM LINE, ALL THREE OF YOU GOT ELECTED BY 12 TO 15% OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS. AND FACEBOOK IS FAKE NEWS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK ON THIS MOTION. MY NAME IS DEB FRAZIER. I AM THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE TREASURE COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, AND I DID FILE A GREEN CARD. YES, WHEN I CAME IN THIS MORNING. THANK YOU FOR ASKING. SO I WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS MOTION. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMISSIONERS THAT ARE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'RE FORGETTING AND, COMMISSIONER CLARKE, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS SO MUCH BECAUSE I THINK WHAT WE'RE FORGETTING IS THESE PEOPLE HAVE FACES. I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT ME, YOU THINK I'M A CERTAIN DEMOGRAPHIC, AND I AM ACTUALLY, I HAVE A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESS PEOPLE, A LOT OF SMALL BUILDERS THAT WORK FOR ME. AND THESE PEOPLE ARE REALLY HURTING. SO WE'RE FORGETTING ABOUT THESE. THIS YOUNG MAN KAI, THAT CAME AT THE LAST MEETING. WHAT A GREAT YOUNG MAN AND ENTREPRENEUR. BUT YOU DON'T SEE THE OTHER FACES OF THE THAT ARE LOSING STAFF. THEY LIVE LOCAL, THEY HIRE LOCAL, THEY COME AND EAT LOCAL. I HAD A LOVELY BREAKFAST AT ONE OF YOUR CAFES THIS MORNING. WE ARE PUTTING MONEY INTO THIS CITY.

AND YET MY PEOPLE, MY BUILDERS, MY ASSOCIATES, MY FLOORING PEOPLE, MY CARPET PEOPLE ARE CONTINUING. AND THESE ARE SMALL BUSINESSES. I'M NOT HERE REPRESENTING THE TRACK BUILDERS.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE SMALL GUY THAT IS BEING HURT BY THIS AND THE OTHER QUESTION I GUESS I HAVE THAT GOES ALONG WITH THIS IS HOW MUCH REVENUE IS THE CITY LOSING? HAS THERE BEEN A STUDY DONE BEFORE THIS HAPPENED TO FIND OUT? HOW MUCH REVENUE ARE YOU LOSING TO THE CITY COFFERS BY DOING THIS? AND SO WHEN THIS ZIP IS OVER, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO START CUTTING FROM YOUR BUDGET BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT, BECAUSE YOU'RE LOSING ALL THIS REVENUE. SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I REALLY, REALLY SUPPORT THIS AND REALLY SUPPORT THE CITY OF STUART AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS CONTINUES TO BE A GOOD PLACE TO WORK AND TO EAT AND TO

[00:30:01]

BUT THESE PEOPLE HAVE MORTGAGES AND RENT AND CHILDREN TO FEED, AND CHILDREN THAT GO TO SCHOOL AND CHILDREN THAT THEY PAY DAYCARE FOR. SO THANK YOU FOR THE MOTION. I APPRECIATE IT AND WE ARE VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT? I HAVE OTHER COMMENTS, BUT FOR THIS MOTION COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER REE.

I'LL ADDRESS NICK'S COMMENTS. SO YES, I DID SIT WITH NICK FOR SEVERAL HOURS, PROBABLY 2 OR 3 TIMES IN HIS OFFICE. HE MENTIONED HIS PROJECT AVONLEA, WHICH I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S ALREADY IN PERMITTING OR NOT. I BELIEVE IT WAS. I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN PERMITTING. HE'S ALREADY DEALING WITH HIS OWN ZONING IN PROGRESS WITHOUT BEING IN A ZONING IN PROGRESS, AND HE ONLY MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT AN AWNING THAT HE LOST AS A CONTRACTOR IN DOWNTOWN STUART, WHICH I BELIEVE THAT APPLICANT WAS STILL GOING TO USE HIM, WHICH AN AWNING SHOULDN'T HAVE FALLEN INTO HIS ZONING IN PROGRESS. BUT I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THE TWO BIG THINGS THAT NICK HAD MENTIONED WHEN HIM AND I SPOKE. IF THE AWNING WAS GOING TO BE COVERING DINING TABLES, IT WOULD BE AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING USE AND THEREFORE WOULD CALCULATE THE PARKING AS WELL AS THE EMPLOYEE RATIO AND PURVIEW. SO ANY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION COMMISSIONER RICH, MAYOR RICH. MIKE. IF WE MR. MARTEL, IF WE ONESIES AND TWOSIES THESE EXCEPTIONS, DOES THAT CREATE PERHAPS MR. BACK IF YOU COULD ANSWER GREATER POTENTIAL LEGAL PERIL BECAUSE OF THE NOTION THAT IT'S UNFAIR TREATMENT THEN UNEQUAL TREATMENT. WELL I THINK YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT ENTERING A BENEFIT TO ONE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT OR WHAT YOU'RE FEELING. YOU KNOW, ZONING IN PROGRESS IS TEMPORARY AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A PERMANENT CHANGE. YOU'VE GOT PERMANENT CHANGES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE MAKING HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO LOOK AT MORE CLOSELY THAN THIS ZONING AND PROGRESS, WHICH IS TEMPORARY. WE'RE STILL ONLY WITHIN THE FIRST 90 DAYS. SO THAT'S THE APPEAL TO ME OF THIS HALTING IS TEMPORARY ABEYANCE OF IT BECAUSE AT LEAST IT'S EQUAL TREATMENT OF RIGHT. IT'S MORE BROAD RAMP OR THE PIZZA PLACE OR THE WE COULD DO THIS FOREVER AND I THINK GET OURSELVES INTO MORE TROUBLE. OKAY, THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER? COMMISSIONER, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, YOU MENTIONED PIZZA. YOU DID INDIVIDUALS. BUT BASICALLY YOU CHANGED IF THERE WAS NO I MEAN, WHAT YOU CHANGE WAS IF THERE WERE NO EXPANSION TO THE FOOTPRINT, YOU WEREN'T SINGLING OUT AN INDIVIDUAL PATRON. WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WAS IF YOU FALL WITHIN THIS GUIDELINE, THEN YOU'RE NOT COVERED UNDER YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT STOPPED BY ZIP. I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK AROUND THE TABLE, A LOT OF TALK FROM THE PUBLIC, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO HURT ANYONE. BUT THE REALITY IS, AND THE BAKER BROUGHT IT UP, THERE HAVE BEEN NO APPLICATIONS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS. THAT'S BECAUSE WE'RE SO BUSY BUILDING ALL OF THE THINGS, CLEARING LAND FROM THE APPLICATIONS AND THE APPROVALS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS. AND SO THIS IS WHY ZIP EXISTS. IT IS WHY SHAWN AND I PROBABLY WERE ELECTED IS BECAUSE PEOPLE WANTED A STOP TO IT. THERE WAS A LOT OF DEFERENCE MADE TOWARD DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING AND NO DEFERENCE TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED HERE. AND THEY WERE AFFECTED. THEY HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS ALSO. SO WHEN SOMEONE'S BUILDING IN YOUR BACKYARD AND THEY'RE BUILDING A FOUR STORY ENTITY WHILE IT IS LEGAL, IT'S OVERLOOKING YOU. YOU'VE LOST SOME PRIVACY TO YOUR PROPERTY. AND COMMISSIONER CLARK, TO YOUR REFERENCE, YES, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE IN STUART AND YOU'RE GIVING REFERENCE OR PREFERENCE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING FOR MORE PEOPLE TO COME HERE. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE PEOPLE WHO ALREADY LIVE HERE, AND THAT IS REALLY WHO WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. ALSO. THANK YO. BUT NO. JUST ONE COMMENT. THE, YOU KNOW, ALONG THE LINES OF THE MOTION YOU'VE MADE, WHAT WOULD THE IMPLICATIONS BE OF HALTING THE ZIP AND NOT SEEING THIS THROUGH AS YOU, AGAIN, WOULD HAVE A RUSH OF APPLICATIONS THAT ALL OF THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE

[00:35:01]

BUT I, I STILL THINK THAT WE NEED TO GIVE PEOPLE, PEOPLE WEREN'T GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS, THIS REVIEW PROCESS AND THE ZIP PROCESS, AND NOT THAT IF THEY WERE GIVEN SPECIFIC NOTICE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE ALL COME IN.

IT'S BEEN TWO YEARS. AND DURING THAT TIME PEOPLE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, BUT THEY WERE WAITING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE LITERALLY DONE WITH WHAT WE NEED TO DO. AND STILL PEOPLE WERE SHY OF COMING IN WITH WITH PROJECTS. AFTER WE HAD THE LAST ZIP. AND HERE WE ARE AGAIN. BUT LIKE I SAID, I'VE MADE THE MOTION AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME SUPPORT FROM OUR COMMISSION AS WE GO FORWARD WITH THE MOTION. SO, MARY, JUST TO CLARIFY, IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS, THE MOTION IS TO HALT THE ZIP. CORRECT. OKAY. JUST FOR CLARITY, I HAVE HELPED THE ZONING AND PROGRESS AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THAT AFFECTS DEVELOPMENT IN OUR CITY UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY. DOES THAT MEAN AT WHICH TIME THE ZIP. I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION, BUT IT WOULD BE WHATEVER THE INTENT OF THE MOTION OR I MEAN, IF IT IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR A LIFTING OF THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A ZONING IN PROGRESS UNTIL A SPECIFIC DATE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DATE IS, BUT RIGHT NOW IS NOVEMBER 19TH. SO IF IT'S YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU A 30 DAY. YES. SO IF IT'S 30 DAYS, IT'S DECEMBER 19TH OR IS IT JANUARY 1ST? IT'S MORE I SAID JANUARY THE 30TH. SO SIX OR CLOSER TO 60 DAYS. AND THEN IN 60 DAYS, IT'S THE INTENTION FOR US TO TURN THE ZONING AND PROGRESS BACK ON AND RETURN TO THE BOARD. TURN IT BACK ON. HOW MANY DAYS ARE WE. THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. SO THERE'S A THERE'S AN AGENDA ITEM ON MONDAY NIGHT'S MEETING TO EXTEND IT FOR ANOTHER 90 DAYS BECAUSE IT WOULD EXPIRE ON DECEMBER 4TH. IF IT'S NOT EXTENDED. SO MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T EXTEND IT AFTER DECEMBER 4TH.

THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD MAKE YOUR CASE FOR THAT. USE IT AS A. SO DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION OR DO YOU WANT TO GO TO A VOTE? 18TH 19. NINE. THE NINTH. ARE YOU GUYS READY TO VOTE OR DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW IT? I KNOW WE'RE JUST 40 MINUTES INTO THIS AGAIN. SO THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT WE STARTED SEPTEMBER FOURTH, RIGHT? YES. SEPTEMBER 4TH. AND THAT'S 90 DAYS IS DECEMBER THE 4TH. AND IF WE DON'T EXTEND IT. SO YOU ARE INTENDING TO TAKE DECEMBER 4TH DEADLINE TO THE DECEMBER 9TH MEETING? YES. NO. NOVEMBER 25TH MEETING. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY, OKAY.

BEFORE DECEMBER FOURTH. OKAY. S. ON MONDAY, THERE'LL BE ANOTHER MOTION RIGHT. BUT WE DON'T. I'M

[00:40:09]

[00:45:05]

LET'S SAY, COULDN'T THIS ZIP PROCESS GET ACCUSED BECAUSE YOU COULD. WELL, YOU CAN GO. YOU RENEW IT TWICE AND THEN YOU GO AWAY FOR A WEEK AND YOU COME BACK AND THEN YOU TURN THE WHOLE THING BACK ON OR. RIGHT. SO IF WE GO TO, IF WE DO NOT RENEW IT AT THE NOVEMBER MEETING, IT EXPIRES IN DECEMBER FOR WHATEVE. BUT THEN CAN WE PUT IT BACK ON, SAY, OH, WE'RE GOING TO RENEW IT AT THE END OF JANUARY? OR IS THAT I MEAN, I, I IMAGINE THAT THERE'S PROBABLY A LEVEL THAT WOULD BECOME AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU CAN TURN IT BACK ON OR TURN IT OFF. THE CODE SAYS YOU CAN EXTEND IT ONE TIME SO YOU CAN ADOPT IT AND THEN EXTEND IT ONCE BY ANOTHER 90 DAYS. AND THAT'S CONSIDERED TEMPORARY. I THINK THAT IF YOU DID THE IDEA OF WHERE YOU TURNED IT OFF AND THEN TURN IT BACK ON AND TURN IT OFF, THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY BE TREATED AS, LIKE YOU SAID, ABUSING IT AND GET A LAWSUIT SEEKING A DECLARATORY ACTION THAT YOU'RE CAUSING, TAKING MR. OKAY. MR. I WAS HOPING TO HOPING TO CLARIFY, BUT GO ON, GO ON. CONTINUE. MR. NO, NO, I, I DON'T KNOW, I WAS JUST TRYING TO SEE IF IT WOULD BE BETTER TO CHANGE MY MOTION TO, TO JUST STOP IT AFTER DECEMBER. THE FOURTH OR WAIT UNTIL WE COME ON THE 25TH AND HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE ME TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. BUT I, I'M JUST LISTENING TO DISCUSSION FROM EVERYBODY. I WAS THINKING THAT IF WE'RE CONTINUING THE PROCESS NOW AND HOPING TO GO ON TO THE OTHER 90 DAYS, THAT WE AT LEAST TAKE A BREAK ON IT. BUT IF IT'S NOT. MR. BAGGETT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OPINION AS TO THIS? BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SECOND 90. WELL, POTENTIAL IF WE IF WE THAT MEANS WE WOULD HAVE SAID THAT WE'RE CONTINUING INTO JANUARY. I, I GUESS I'M NOT TECHNICALLY CLEAR ON YOUR MOTION. YOUR MOTION WAS A MOTION TO HALT UNTIL THE END OF JANUARY. I. MR. MARTEL USED THE TERM LIFT. DID YOU MEAN SAME SYNONYMOUS AS TO LIFT THE ZONING IN PROGRESS UNTIL. AND DO YOU HAVE AN INTENT ON CONTINUING WITH WORKSHOPS AND CONTINUING THROUGH MAKING CHANGES OR OR YOU YOU WANT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. YOU JUST WANTED THAT. AND TO GET THE PUBLIC INVOLVED. I THINK IT WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY SLOW DOWN THE PROCESS A LITTLE BIT. BUT WITHIN THAT SECOND 90 DAY PERIOD, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THAT 90 DAY PERIOD, WELL, I, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR CURRENTLY TO LIFT OR HALT. TECHNICALLY, THAT WOULD BE NOW, FROM NOW UNTIL JANUARY, WE HAVE A WE HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM NEXT WEEK, I HEAR YOU WHERE WE WOULD NOT RENEW IT AFTER DECEMBER FOURTH AND OR EXTEND IT UNDER THE CODE WE HAVE, LIKE MR. MARTEL SAYS, YOU CAN DO IT FOR THREE MONTHS. WE KEEP USING 90 DAYS. I THOUGHT IT WAS AS WELL. BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, IS THIS THREE MONTHS? AND THEN YOU COULD EXTEND IT FOR ANOTHER THREE MONTHS? SO THE WHOLE THE WHOLE REASON TO HAVE IT ONLY SIX MONTHS IS IT'S TEMPORARY. IF YOU STOP IT AT SIX MONTHS AND THEN STARTED A WEEK LATER, IT'S, IT'S ARGUABLE FROM SOMEBODY THAT'S NO LONGER TEMPORARY. I HEAR YOU, BUT YOU'RE KIND OF IMMUNE FROM ANY ISSUES AS LONG AS IT'S TEMPORARY. UNDER THE SIX MONTH.

AND WE HAVE BEEN WORKING. THIS IS OUR THIRD WORKSHOP, SO I JUST WANT TO TRY TO GET THIS EITHER OVER COMPLETELY OR UNLESS YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO MAKE IT LEGALLY, MAKE IT WITH THE PUBLIC INVOLVED. AGAIN. GOVERNMENT AT ITS WORST WAS MENTIONED. WE'VE WASTED AN HOUR, I HEAR YOU, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE HAVE THIS ON OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM LIKE CAN WE JUST GET TO WORK LEGALLY? YOU CAN DO IT NOW OR YOU CAN DO IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. IT'S YOU'RE SEEKING TWO DIFFERENT RELIEFS. NEXT MEETING. IT JUST WON'T. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER YOU'RE NOT EXTENDED OR IT DOESN'T EXTEND FOR THE 90 DAYS. AND IT'S YOU'RE SEEKING TWO DIFFERENT RELIEF. BUT THE

[00:50:05]

COMMISSIONER COLLINS. SO, CAN I GET A MOTION FOR COMMENTS BY THE CITY MANAGER? CAN I GET A MOTION

[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

SOME LIVE IN THE CITY OF STEWART. THEY WORK FOR ME. MY JOB IS TO GO AND FEED THEM TO FEED THEIR SO THEY CAN FEED THEIR FAMILIES. THIS IS GREATLY AFFECTING MY BUSINESS AS A LOCAL GENERAL CONTRACTOR, WITH THE BUSINESS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF STEWART. I AM NOT A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF STEWART. HAVE I LIVED IN CITY OF STEWART? YES SIR, I HAVE. YES MA'AM. I HAVE.

I GREW UP IN MARTIN COUNTY. THIS IS SAD. IT'S NOT JUST ME AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR WITH MY EMPLOYEES I JUST MENTIONED. IT'S ALSO THE PLUMBERS, THE ELECTRICIANS, THE HVAC CONTRACTORS, THE FLOORING, THE ACOUSTICAL CEILING GUY. I COULD GO ON WITH THE GAMUT OF LIST I EMPLOY ON ONE JOB, COMMERCIAL JOB OVER 20 TO 25 DIFFERENT SUBCONTRACTORS, AND THEY'RE ALL LOCAL MARTIN COUNTY AND CITY OF STEWART SUBCONTRACTORS. I AM NOT A DEVELOPER. I DON'T COME IN HERE AND SAY, I'M GOING TO DEVELOP THIS PROJECT. I'M GOING TO HIRE LOCAL, HIRE LOCAL. THESE BIG BOYS THAT COME IN HERE, THEY TELL YOU THAT TO THE TO THE BLUE IN THE FACE. DO THEY HIRE LOCAL? NO. THEY CONSIDER PALM BEACH COUNTY LOCAL. ABSOLUTELY. THEY CAN SEND YOU CONSIDER SAINT LUCIE COUNTY LOCAL. ABSOLUTELY. MARTIN COUNTY IS LOCAL IN MY OPINION. I ASK YOU GUYS TO STRONGLY AT THE NEXT THIS MEETING COMING UP TO PULL THIS WHOLE THING, CONTINUE TO HAVE YOUR MEETINGS. I SPOKE TO ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS IN HERE THIS MORNING. WE HAD A GOOD CONVERSATION. I'M GOING TO BE CALLING EACH ONE OF YOU THIS WEEK AND HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH YOU, AND I'D LIKE TO SIT DOWN WITH EACH ONE OF YOU. MY DAUGHTER ALSO HAS A GC LICENSE.

MY. I'M HOPING TO RETIRE IN FIVE YEARS, WHICH I KIND OF DOUBT IT'D PROBABLY BE TEN YEARS. I WANT HER TO TAKE OVER THE LEGACY THAT MY DAD STARTED HERE IN MARTIN COUNTY. THANK YOU. THANK ROD. THIS IS JUST ON THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. SO IF THEY HAVE COMMENTS, WHY DON'T WE TAKE THEM DURING. LET'S JUST GET THE AGENDA APPROVED, MADAM CLERK. AND THEN THE TIME THAT'S SET FOR COMMENTS. WELL, THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. YEAH. I THOUGHT WE DID THE APPROVAL.

NO, WE HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE AGENDA. NO. OKAY. SO ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. THANK YOU. OKAY.

[COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Non-Agenda Related) (3 Minutes Max.)]

SO IF YOU COULD JUST CALL THE INDIVIDUALS ROD PETERSON. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. BOARD COMMISSIONERS. I HAVE A SMALL, SMALL ISSUE WHERE I CAN START AND START FROM 803 SOUTHEAST CENTRAL AVENUE THAT I SPOKE ON ABOUT A VACANT LOT THAT BEEN IN MY FAMILY, OLDER THAN ME, OLDER THAN 70 YEARS, AND I GOT ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS STATING THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE BUILT ON IN WRITING REASON, REASON THAT I WAS TOLD THAT I COULDN'T BUILD ON IT. I COULDN'T DO NOTHING WITH IT, PRETTY MUCH JUST STARE AT IT, CUT THE GRASS AND WHATEVER. BUT NEWLY PLATTED, NEWLY PLATTED, VACANT LOTS GOT TO BE UP ON A 4300FT SQUARE FEET MINE IS UP UNDER THAT, BUT THAT'S IN FROM FEBRUARY 13TH TO 2023, WHEN IT WAS NEWLY ADOPTED. BUT MY LOT WAS ALREADY THERE. SO

[00:55:02]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I AM MY NAME IS MARK REINER. I'M AN ATTORNEY HERE LOCALLY. I'M BASED OUT OF WEST PALM BEACH, BUT I HAVE A NUMBER OF CLIENTS HERE IN STUART. I'M FOLLOWING UP DIRECTLY FROM MISS SHEPHERD. ONE OF MY CLIENTS IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 433 LAKE. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT THERE ARE REGARDING THE ZIP, THAT THERE'S NOT MANY PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING HELD UP. UNFORTUNATELY, RIGHT NOW, WE DO HAVE A VACANT BUILDING WHERE THE BUILDING PERMITS WERE APPROVED. THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETIO. ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENED WAS A LAW REGARDING THE DISTANCE BETWEEN RETAINING WALLS AND THE STRUCTURES CHANGED AFTER THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED. RIGHT NOW, THE OWNER IS NOT ABLE TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. CLEARLY, THERE'S A LOT OF FINANCIAL DAMAGES OCCURRING BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS

[01:00:02]

UNFORTUNATELY, SINCE WE BOUGHT IT ON A USUALLY WEEKLY BASIS, THE LYRIC THEATER BLOCKS OFF 7 TO 12 PARKING SPOTS, SPECIFICALLY JUST IN FRONT OF OUR OFFICE AND THEIR BUSINESS.

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY VERY HARMFUL TO NOT JUST OUR BUSINESS, BUT ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES IN DOWNTOWN STUART. THERE'S THE COFFEE SHOP, THERE'S LUNA'S PIZZA, THERE IS SPRITZ RIGHT THERE. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A RIGHT ON THE CORNER. I BROUGHT A PICTURE. SO THOSE ARE THE CONES THAT THE LYRIC JUST PUTS UP. THEY'RE NOT LABELED. AND THEN THEY HAVE POLES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PUT IN THE STREETS. SO THEY PUT THOSE UP YESTERDAY AT 7:30 A.M. AND THEY HAVE THEIR POLES SAYING LYRIC THEATER. THOSE ARE 12 SPOTS IN DOWNTOWN THAT NOBODY CAN USE. SO AT 7:30 A.M, THEY PUT THOSE CONES AND SPOTS UP, AND THOSE WERE LEFT UP UNTIL AFTER 530 WHEN WE LEFT. SO THAT'S MORE THAN 12 HOURS. I SPOKE WITH THE LYRIC, WE'VE SPOKEN WITH THEM THREE TIMES.

WE'VE SAID, HEY, CAN WE PLEASE GO AHEAD AND MOVE THESE CONES FOR OUR CLIENTS? WE REPRESENT MANY ACCIDENT CLIENTS, PEOPLE WHO ARE IN CAR ACCIDENTS. THEY'RE ON WALKERS, CANES. THEY CAN'T PARK ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE STREET. THEY REFUSE TO DO SO. THIS IS ON A WEEKLY BASIS.

THEIR SHOWS ARE AT 7:00 AT NIGHT USUALLY, SO THERE'S NO REASON WHY DURING BUSINESS HOURS, 12 SPOT SHOULD BE TAKEN. SO I'M NOT TRYING TO HARM THE LYRIC. MY DAUGHTER, SHE'S SIX, SHE DANCES THERE WHEN THERE'S CHRISTMAS SHOWS. IT'S, YOU KNOW, I GREW UP IN THIS TOWN, BORN AND RAISED.

I'M JUST LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION. I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR ANY BUSINESS DOWNTOWN TO JUST HAVE 12 SPOTS BLOCKED. AND I'M LOOKING FOR WHAT AUTHORITY THEY HAVE. AND IF WE CAN PLEASE CHANGE THAT, HAVE IT NARROWLY TAILORED. IF THEY NEED A COUPLE SPOTS FOR LOADING AND LOADING, FINE, BUT IT SHOULD BE DURING OR RIGHT BEFORE THE TIMES OF THEIR SHOWS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I'M SURE WE CAN ASK THE CITY MANAGER TO LOOK INTO THIS. I CAN BRIEFLY TELL YOU THAT MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, THE STUART MAIN STREET IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION CAME TO THE CITY WITH LYRIC THEATER AND ASKED THAT THE LYRIC BE ALLOWED TO PARK TO MARK THOSE SPACES OFF SO THAT THEIR THE TALENT, WHOEVER'S PERFORMING THAT NIGHT COULD PULL THEIR BUSSES IN AND RESERVE THEM IN ADVANCE FOR WHEN THE BUS GETS THERE. MISS KIBBY EMAILED ME YESTERDAY AND I RESPONDED TO HER, I'VE ALREADY SENT A REQUEST TO THE CLERK. I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID A FORMAL RESOLUTION BACK WHEN IT HAPPENED. I KNOW THAT IT'S INFORMALLY BEEN BEING DONE FOR AT LEAST A DECADE, OR PROBABLY CLOSER TO 20 YEARS, AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, WE'RE HEARING THE 12 SPACES. IT DOES SEEM A BIT EXCESSIVE AND ALSO, I DON'T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YESTERDAY, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN THAT THE BUS WAS SUPPOSED TO COME AND DOESN'T COME. STILL, I MY RECOLLECTION OF IT WHEN IT WAS FIRST ADOPTED WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WILLIE NELSON SHOWS UP IN THE BUS, THE BUS WOULD BE ABLE TO PARK IN FRONT OF THE LYRIC. I THINK IT'S KIND OF EXPANDED TO BE THE BUS AND ANOTHER BUS AND THE WHOLE BLOCK OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. SO WE PROBABLY DO NEED TO ADDRESS IT AND BRING IT IN AT MINIMUM TO DEFINE IT. AND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS BEFORE, RATHER THAN OBVIOUSLY LOSING IT FOR THE ENTIRE DAY, AND THEN NOT EVEN HAVE THE BUS SHOW UP. CORRECT NUMBER AND TIME. SO BUT WE'RE PULLING WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH THE ARCHIVES TO FIND WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. AND THE MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE. AND YOU'LL BRING THAT BACK TO US. YEAH. PERFECT. YEAH. NEXT. DO I HAVE PRICE? OH, TAKING HIS SHIRT OFF. SO. HERE TODAY. THE WHAT PRICE? CITY OF STUART. I'M HERE AS A LANDOWNER. DEVELOPER. I'M

[01:05:11]

HOW IS R2 SINGLE FAMILY? AN ARTERY, SINGLE FAMILY FITTING INTO THAT, RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU CAN GO TO TWO OR TO 35FT, BUT IT'S ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK ALSO. RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE GENTLEMAN HERE WHOSE PROPERTY FELL UNDERNEATH THAT 4 OR 5 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET. NOW HIS PROPERTY IS GONE. SO HE BETTER FIGURE OUT HOW TO BUY THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. AND VICE VERSA AND KEEP DOING SO. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? YOU'RE GOING TO GENTRIFY EVERYONE THAT'S IN THERE TO TRY TO PUT SOMETHING IN BIGGER. THAT DOESN'T WORK IN A COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN LONG STANDING AND BEEN THERE FOREVER. THE PROPERTY I HAVE, 1952, EVERYTHING ELSE BUILT UP AROUND IT. IT WAS THE FIRST ONES THERE. EVERYTHING WAS BUILT UP AROUND IT TO BE APARTMENTS. I COME IN AND SAY, I'M GOING TO DO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, YO, GUESS WHAT? RIGHT NOW THAT'S ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK BECAUSE ALL OF A SUDDEN OUR TWO SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH I DON'T SEE TOO MANY PEOPLE DOING AROUND HERE OR OUR TREE IS IN JEOPARDY OF LOSING THEIR SIZE, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, EVERYTHING THAT I BASICALLY WORKED HARD OVER THE LAST TEN, 15 YEARS TO TRY TO DO FOR OUR COMMUNITY IS GONE. AND WHAT DO WE HEAR HERE? WE JUST VOTED NO TO EVEN THINK ABOUT TAKING YOUR TIME TO HAVE THE PUBLIC COME OUT AND SPEAK. SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING? SAME THING YOU SAID TWO YEARS AGO. ZIP. YOU CLOSING OFF THE HOUSE OF THE PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE ME TO BASICALLY BE HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK OUT ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS. SO IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU GUYS WANT TO KEEP IT GOING, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS KNOWN AS A HOW THIS MAJORITY COMMISSION IS RUNNING.

AND HOW THEY REALLY WANT TO WORK. AND I DO HAVE THAT PATH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALBERT BRINKLEY. LET'S SEE. GOOD MORNING TO YOU ALL. I'D LIKE TO SAY THIS HERE IT IS TIME FOR YOU ALL AS COMMISSIONERS. WHEN YOU COME INTO THIS BUILDING TO HAVE THE RIGHT MINDSET TO CONDUCT YOURSELF IN A MANNER THAT THE PUBLIC IS SEEING, THE WAY YOU ALL CONDUCT YOURSELVES, GOD GAVE YOU ALL A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT THE LAW OF THE LAND. YOU KEEP HEARING ME SAY THIS.

I'M SAYING THIS BECAUSE DO NOT IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM THAT YOU ALL ARE GETTING THE PICTURE.

THAT'S WHY I TELL YOU TO LOOK AT ROMANS CHAPTER 13, VERSES ONE THROUGH SEVEN. YOU HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CARRY OUT THE LAW OF THE LAND. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OBEY THE LAW THE WAY Y'ALL CONDUCT YOURSELF. IT'S EMBARRASSING TO THE TO THE CITY. NOW, MR. CAMERON, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. YOU ALL NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK HERE BECAUSE WHAT YOU ALL ARE DOING IS AFFECTING THE EASTERN COMMUNITY, AND YOU ALL IS NOT LOOKING AT US OR WHAT YOU ALL IS DOING, BECAUSE WHAT YOU ALL IS DOING IS BASICALLY GENTRIFICATION OF THE EAST COMMUNITY. YOU ALL NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK. WE ARE PART OF STEWART, BUT WE ARE NOT BEING HEARD. WE ARE BEING OVERLOOKED.

SO MR. KIMMEL, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BE HEARD. MEETINGS LIKE THIS HERE, THE AVERAGE PERSON IN THAT COMMUNITY IS WELL ON THEIR JOB. ON THEIR JOB, WE NEED TO BE

[01:10:10]

YOU ALL CONCERNED MORE ABOUT DOWNTOWN THAN THE ENTIRE STEWART. IT'S MORE THAN DOWNTOWN. YOU GOT WHOLE STEWART. WE'RE PART OF STEWART, BUT WE'RE BEING OVERLOOKED AND WE ARE TIRED OF THAT. WE NEED TO BE HEARD, COMMISSIONERS. WE NEED TO BE HEARD. YOU ALL HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY. THIS SHOULDN'T BE NO DICTATORSHIP. THIS STUFF IS GOING ON IN WASHINGTON. GO ON IN WASHINGTON. IT'S GONE ON IN TALLAHASSEE. THERE SHOULDN'T BE NO DICTATORSHIP, BUT IT'S WORKING THAT WAY. WE NEED TO BE HEARD IN THIS COMMUNITY, NOT OVERLOOKED. AND AGAIN, MR. CAMPBELL, YOU ARE RIGHT. THIS NEEDS TO BE COMMENDED, NEED TO BE HEARD CONCERNING THIS AREA.

THIS ZONING THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO IS GO RIGHT BACK. WHEN YOU LOOK UNDER GENTRIFICATION, YOU SEE EAST STEWART, YOU ALL NEED TO THINK ABOUT US IN THIS COMMUNITY. THINK ABOUT US. THANK YOU, MR. BRINKLEY. MARCELLA CAMPBELL. GOOD MORNING, MR. MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF.

I WASN'T GOING TO COME. I WAS WORKING IN MY OFFICE, BUT IT'S VERY AGGRAVATING TO HEAR THIS SCHEDULE, TO HEAR THIS COMMISSION. SOME COMMISSIONERS STATE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BLOCK THE BUSSES DOWN WITH PUBLIC INPUT, NOT THAT OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS, RESIDENTS OR EXPERTS IN THE AREA. LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THE STATE STATUTES MANDATE THAT ANY CHANGES TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH MANY OF THE THINGS YOU'RE PROPOSING WILL RESULT IN CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, MUST BE BASED UPON RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE DATA AND ANALYZES MUST BE INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO SURVEYS, STUDIES, AND THE COMMUNITIES GOAL AND VISION. I WASN'T GOING TO COME, BUT I KEEP HEARING THAT THIS IS BASED ON A MANDATE. AND PLEASE MAKE THIS MY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR THE LIST OF PEOPLE IN THAT MANDATE, BECAUSE ALL OF OUR NAMES, AGAIN, ARE HERE. AND AS LONG AS YOU ALL KEEP SAYING THAT THIS IS BEING DONE BASED ON A MANDATE, WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHO IS PART OF THAT MANDATE. YOU'RE THE ONES BRINGING IT UP. SECONDLY, I WANT TO SAY THIS ZIP HAS FROZEN ALL OF OUR WORK. DOESN'T MATTER. I WORK IN OTHER COMMUNITIES. I DID HAVE A PROJECT FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING IN EAST STEWART, 27 TOWNHOMES. THAT'S FROZEN. DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. AFTER YOU'RE DONE MAKING THE PROPOSED CHANGES, YOU WANT TO MAKE TO EAST STEWART ON THE CODE. WE JUST SPENT TWO YEARS ADOPTING, BY THE WAY, I HAVE A PERSONAL PROJECT. MY FIRST HOUSE GOT APPROVED VERY QUICKLY. MY SECOND HOUSE HAS BEEN IN REVIEW SINCE SEPTEMBER 3RD. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BECAUSE STAFF IS VERY BUSY TRYING TO MAKE SURE NONE OF US CAN DO ANYTHING. YOU KNOW, SAME TYPE OF PERMIT LOT.

NEXT DOOR. NO COMMENTS. BUT MY PROJECT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS NOT MOVING FORWARD. MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE NOW THERE IS A PROPOSAL TO MAKE MY HOMES NON-CONFORMING WITH YOUR R-3. I THOUGHT WE WERE OKAY WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, ESPECIALLY WITH PROJECTS THAT ADHERE TO DOING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS OPPOSED TO THEIR ABILITY TO DO 30 UNITS TO THE ACRE. FINALLY, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I WISH I HAD MORE TIME. I WISH THIS WERE TRUE PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PLAYING BINGO WITH DENSITIES INSTEAD OF 30 AND 20 AND WHATEVER. LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THOSE NEED TO BE BASED ON SEASONAL POPULATION ESTIMATE PROJECTIONS. BIEBER.

WHATEVER IT IS YOU WANT TO PICK, NOT JUST OPINION. AND AGAIN, IF IT IS THE MANDATE WE NEED THAT LIST PLEASE. BECAUSE WE'RE BASING VERY IMPORTANT DECISIONS IN THIS CITY ABOUT THAT. I HAD ONE MORE THING, BUT MAYBE I WILL HAVE TO WAIT TWO WEEKS TO SAY THAT. THANK YOU. BETTY BRINKLEY.

GOOD MORNING, DAVID BRINKLEY. 945 SOUTHEAST NASSAU AVENUE. I THANK GOD FOR JESUS BECAUSE HE'S KEEPING US. WHERE WE AT DOWN TODAY? FOR ONE, TO GOD, WE WOULDN'T BE OVER IN EAST STUART.

BY THE GRACE OF GOD, I'M 75 YEARS OLD AND 40 YEARS I'VE BEEN FIGHTING, TRYING TO KEEP EAST STUART, OUR RESIDENTS THROUGH A NEIGHBORHOOD. WHY? BECAUSE I'M A CROW OR WHATEVER. YOU CONSIDER

[01:15:10]

WE GET DISRESPECTED OVER THERE SIMPLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT YOUR COLOR, MONEY AND STUFF. THAT'S HOW I SEE IT. BE CONSIDERED. NOBODY. ALL THIS STUFF YOU'RE DOING TO US. BECAUSE PLEASE TELL ME. AND THEN WE GET THIS ADVISORY BOARD ABOUT THE PARK. YOU TOLD ME I'M THIS GROUP RIGHT HERE. YOU DISRESPECT US, DISREGARD US AS BEING SOMEBODY. YOU GO AND WE TELL YOU WHAT WE DON'T WANT. BUT YOU GO AND PUT WHAT YOU WANT THERE ANYWAY. WHAT YOU WANT. IT'S NOT FOR US.

AFRICAN AMERICAN. YOU WANT THIS PARK FOR NOTHING. BUT YOU. GOOD WHITE PEOPLE. THAT'S IT. AGAINST I'M SERIOUS. YOU WANT IT TO BE FOR SOMEBODY OTHER THAN THE BLACK? IT'S IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY. BUT YOU FIXING IT UP FOR SOMEBODY ELSE? NOT FOR US. WHAT? WE WANT YOU TOLD US DISRESPECT THE ADVISORY BOARD. WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO D. BUT YOU GOT THERE. THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT LEFT MAYBE HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OR GOING ALONG WITH US. BUT YOU DISREGARD US AS BEING HUMAN, DISRESPECTFUL, USE US. THAT'S ALL YOU DID USE US. THANK YOU, MISS BRINKLEY. I HAVE NO MORE PUBLIC COMMENT. NO OTHER COMMENTS. OKAY, SO DISCUSSION

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

SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, MISS SEYMOUR, I. YOU'RE GOING TO LET JODY DO THAT FIRST, OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH CHAPTER? NO, NO, JODY, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? NO, SIR. I DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION. WE WERE JUST GOING TO START WITH CHAPTER THREE. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER COLLINS, UNLESS UNLESS THERE WAS A LOT OF DESIRE TO GO THROUGH URBAN AND CREEK DISTRICT, I DON'T REALLY FEEL LIKE THOSE CHANGES WERE THE MAJOR CONCERN THAT I HAD. I FEEL LIKE THE PARKING CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE AND THE DENSITY CHANGES THAT WOULD MAKE ITS WAY THROUGH MIKE, THE URBAN AND CREEK DISTRICT FROM A COMMERCIAL STANDPOINT, RIGHT? YEAH, WE CAN WHEN WE BRING IT FORWARD WITH THE RESOLUTION, THE BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT CITYWIDE. RIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GO INTO URBAN OR CREEK. BUT MY MAJOR CONCERNS WERE WITH THE EAST STEWART FORM BASED CODE. SO I WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE COULD GO SPECIFICALLY TO THAT SECTION VERSUS SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME IN URBAN OR CREEK. I JUST THANK YOU. MAY I SAY SOMETHING, MR. MAYOR, WITH REGARD TO THE CREEK DISTRICT, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN THE CREEK DISTRICT, AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANY PARKING CHANGES WITH MULTIFAMILY. THOSE ARE ALREADY EXISTING, BUT THEY THEY YOU THE BOARD HAS ALREADY DISCUSSED PARKING CHANGES RELATED TO MULTIFAMILY. WHEN WE BRING THAT BACK. BUT IF THE BOARD TELLS US IT'S ALL MULTIFAMILY AND IT'S ALL MULTIFAMILY, YOU MAKE DIFFERENT AREAS EXEMPT. BE EXEMPT. LIKE WHERE WE'RE SITTING RIGHT NOW IS EXEMPT FROM PARKING

[01:20:02]

OBVIOUSLY IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY BUILT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO GO OUT AND ADD THE PARKING. CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. BUT IF YOU SPELL THAT, WELL, I MEAN, AGAIN, YOU GUYS HAVEN'T ADOPTED ANYTHING YET. SO I'M ANSWERING HYPOTHETICAL. HISTORICALLY IT WOULD BE A NON-CONFORMING USE. THAT'S GRANDFATHERED AS A AS A LEGAL TRANSFERABLE USE. HOWEVER, IF YOU EXPAND THE USE YOU THEN NEED TO COME IN COMPLIANT. SO IF YOU HAD A TWO STORY BUILDING THAT HAD ITS PARKING LOT OR WHATEVER, AND THEN YOU DECIDED TO ADD A THIRD FLOOR, YOU WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED TO ADD WHATEVER PARKING WAS NECESSARY ON THE FIRST TWO FLOORS, AS WELL AS THE THIRD FLOOR IN ORDER TO ADD THE FLOOR. I MEAN, THAT'S ASSUMING THAT'S WHAT YOU COULD THAT BE VIEWED AS A TAKING IT? AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU SAY OR DO. IT HASN'T BEEN IN THE PAST.

THESE ARE ALL HYPOTHETICALS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT LANGUAGE IS BEING ADOPTED OR NOT ADOPTED. IF YOU WENT OUT RIGHT NOW AND SAID ANYBODY THAT HAS ANY TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND YOU HAVE TO BUILD TWICE AS MUCH PARKING OR 25% MORE PARKING, YOU HAVE TO DO IT RIGHT NOW OR YOU DON'T HAVE CLEAR TITLE, THEN YOU WOULD PROBABLY HAVE A CLAIM THAT IS DIMINISHED VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTY. IF YOU DID IT TO ONLY EXPANDED USES, AS LONG AS IT DIDN'T TAKE A VEST, IT DIDN'T REMOVE A VESTED PROPERTY. RIGHT? AND REDUCE THE SUBSTANTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.

IT MIGHT NOT MEET THE STANDARD. SO IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT EXACTLY YOU DID FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S NOT OUR CODE OR ZONING ISN'T PROHIBITED BY LAW. YOU CAN DO ZONING. YOU CAN. WE'VE ALWAYS ADDRESSED PARKING AND DENSITY AND HEIGHT AND SETBACKS. SO JUST ADDING A SETBACK OR TAKING AWAY A SETBACK HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED TO BE A BERT HARRIS CLAIM. IT'S THE EXTENT TO WHICH IT REDUCES THE VALUE OR USE OF THE LAND, AND IT'S A SUBJECTIVE OR CASE BY CASE. AFTER THE LAST WORKSHOP I SENT EVERYBODY A SUMMARY OF THE BERT HARRIS THAT HAD LIKE A BULLET POINT OF THE DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT NEED TO BE USED TO EVALUATE EACH CASE BY CASE BASIS. BUT IF I HAD A TWO STORY BUILDING, SAY I HAD SIX UNITS, TWO STORIES AND I COULD AND I'VE OWNED IT FOR A FEW YEARS, AND RIGHT NOW I COULD GO TO FOUR, AND THEN WE CHANGE THE PARKING BRAKE. AREN'T YOU DENYING ME? IF YOU CAN STILL GO TO FOUR, I'M NOT DENYING YOU ANYTHING. BUT IF THE NO, NO. BUT WITH THE NEW PARKING RESTRICTIONS, I CAN'T. WELL, IF YOU CAN'T, THEN YES, YOU'D BE BEING DENIED. BUT WHY CAN'T YOU? I MEAN, THAT'S IT'S A CASE BY CASE THAT YOU'D HAVE TO ADDRESS. FOR EXAMPLE, ONE OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS EARLIER TODAY WAS TALKING ABOUT A PARCEL IN EAST STUART. SO I QUICKLY LOOKED UP THE EAST STUART CODE, WHICH WE'RE GETTING READY TO TALK ABOUT. AND IF YOU LOOK AT TABLE, I THINK IT'S THE YOU KNOW, IT'S FURTHER DOWN, BUT IT TALKS ABOUT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES. AND IT SAYS THAT IT'S ISSN OH NINE. IT SAYS THERE'S NO MINIMUM LOT AREA AND NO MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. AND IT HAS A FOOTNOTE NUMBER ONE NEXT TO BOTH OF THOSE. AND THEN IF YOU SCROLL DOWN TO THE FOOTNOTE NUMBER ONE, RIGHT, IT SAYS 4365FT■!S ARE NECESSARY. THE PARCEL ON CENTRAL IS 3005FT. SO THE QUESTION IS, FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, I'M SURE THAT SOMEONE IN REVIEWING THAT WITH THE GENTLEMAN PROBABLY SAID THIS PARCEL DOESN'T MEET THE 4365FT■S MENTIONED IN THE FOOTNOTE, WHICH DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S PROHIBITED. IT MEANS THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE IT BE A PARCEL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AS A CONDITIONAL USE. THE CITY COMMISSION COULD THEN GRANT THE ABILITY TO BUILD WHATEVER IT IS THAT HE WAS PURSUING TO BUILD, BUT THE PROCESS WOULD BE CONDITIONAL US. OKAY, BEFORE WE GET TOO, IN THE WEEDS, WHICH IS EASY TO DO HERE FOR THOSE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE LOOKING TO MAKE CHANGES HERE, COULD I JUST ASK YOU WHAT IS

[01:25:04]

BUT IT SAYS FOR NEWLY PLATTED LOTS. THIS LOT ISN'T REALLY NEWLY PLATTED, THOUGH, BECAUSE IT DID HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SO THE EXISTING PARCELS WITH ASSIGNED PARCEL ID NUMBERS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CODE, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECTIVE DATE TO ME THAT THOSE PARCELS WOULD HAVE NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AS DOES THE NEW THE NEWLY PLATTED LOT HAVE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 4365. I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS AND THEN IT SAYS THE NEWLY PLATTED LOT FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CODE WOULD HAVE BEEN 2023. THAT'S HOW I INTERPRETED IT. AND AGAIN, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT HE SUBMITTED A PERMIT. I DON'T KNOW THAT HE SUBMITTED ANYTHING TO BE REQUESTED TO BE BUILT. IT ALSO HAS SETBACKS. AND IF HE SUBMITTED A HOUSE THAT ONLY HAD A FOOT SETBACK AND IT GOT REJECTED. SO I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WAS SUBMITTED OR IF ANYTHING AT ALL. MISS SEYMOUR, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO JESSICA SEYMOUR FROM TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL. I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO PAUL'S COMMENTS, CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS, THAT THAT HE'S CORRECT WITH THE NEWLY PLATTED LOTS. WE WOULD, OF COURSE, HAVE TO KNOW THE FULL SCOPE OF WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO SEE WHAT WOULD BE. MAYBE ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP. BUT THE INTENT BEHIND THIS WAS, OF COURSE, TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PLATTED LOTS IN EAST STEWART, MANY OF WHICH ARE UNUSUAL SIZES AND SCALES, THAT THEY SHOULD STILL BE BUILDABLE LOTS, BUT THAT THEN THE FUTURE THAT PEOPLE WOULDN'T ABUSE THAT SYSTEM BY SUBDIVIDING THEM EVEN FURTHER INTO VERY, VERY SMALL LOTS SO THAT WAS THE INTENTION ALL ALONG. SO JUST FOR CONTEXT ON WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON THAT CODE, THAT WAS THE INTENDED LANGUAGE. IT WAS THE INTENT BEHIND THE LANGUAGE. AND THAT'S THAT'S HOW I INTERPRETED IT AS WELL. WHEN I LOOKED OVER FOR ROD, WHEN HE HAD CALLED ME AND REACHED OUT THROUGH EMAIL, EXISTING PARCEL IDS HAVE NO MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM LOT SIZE. NEWLY PLATTED LOTS AFTER THIS CODE WAS DEVELOPED WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM LAST MEETING. THE BOARD VOTED TO TELL US TO MAKE MINIMUM. THE FIRST WORKSHOP. THE. MY NOTES ARE GOING TO BE THAT YOU GUYS SAID TO BRING MINIMUM LOT SIZE. YOU SAID 6500. RIGHT. AND COMMISSIONER COLLINS SAID 6000.

CORRECT. BUT THERE'S 6000. YES. BUT IN THE EAST STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD CODE, IT WAS RIGHT.

THAT CORRECT. THERE'S MINIMUM LOT SIZES WAS CITY WIDE AT THE FIRST WORKSHOP. IF YOU GUYS WANT US TO NOT DO THAT, WE NEED DIRECTION TO THAT EFFECT. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE OF THE 17 EVERYWHERE, BECAUSE OF THE 17 PER ACRE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A SMALLER MINIMUM LOT SIZE HERE. THAT THAT NUMBER WOULD REFLECT THE STEWART MORE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE OF 17 UNITS PER ACRE VERSUS 15. RIGHT. THAT'S REALLY FROM 5000 TO 10 UNITS PER ACRE IS 4365. AND WHAT WAS THE RATIONALE FOR 4056? BECAUSE IT WAS ONE ACRE DIVIDED BY TEN, IT CAME TO TEN SINGLE FAMILY. CORRECT, DIVIDED BY TEN. THAT'S A THAT'S ACTUALLY B2 ZONING. AND THEN AS YOU SAID, THOUGH, THE EFFECTS OF THE LOOKING AT MINIMUM LOT SIZE ACROSS THE BOARD AND THE PARKING STANDARDS ARE DIFFERENT IN THE EAST STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD, IF THOSE ARE THOSE EFFECTS COULD BE SOMETHING THAT EVEN IS AFFECTING POTENTIALLY. I THINK JODY MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS BETTER, BUT THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING IN THOSE DISTRICTS AND I BELIEVE IN IN EAST STEWART, WHEN I'VE LOOKED THEY EAST STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD CODE MIGHT HAVE HAD THE ONLY ONE IN THE CITY WHERE IT WAS NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE. NO, THERE'S SIERRA NORTH OF THE BRIDGE, SIERRA NORTH OF THE BRIDGE, BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE FRASER CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE'S A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITH A LOT SIZE OF 20 SOME HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT, WHERE IT WAS PLATTED OUT. BUT THAT WOULD THAT WAS NON-CONFORMING. AND I BELIEVE WHEN I READ IT, UNLESS THERE WAS A HURRICANE OR NATURAL ACT OF GOD, THEN THEY COULD REPLACE WHAT THEY HAD. I BELIEVE. COMMISSIONER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YES. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE SMALL LOT SIZES THAT ARE BUILDABLE, LOT SIZES IN EAST STEWART STAY THE SAME AND THAT THE, THE CITYWIDE PROPOSAL THAT THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE CURRENT LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE EAST STEWART. THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHY WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING BACK THE RESOLUTION ON DECEMBER NINTH SO THAT WE GET THE CLARIFICATION

[01:30:01]

[01:35:07]

IT'S GOING TO LOAD THE IT'LL LOAD THE PREVIOUS AS WELL. SO IT GOES BOTH. SO AS I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS AND THIS IS MY OPINION PREVIOUSLY THE WAY THAT WE HAD THIS CONFIGURED WAS AS A PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, SINGLE FAMILY HOME, NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE HERE ALLOW BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL TO BE INTERMIXED WITHIN THIS AND DENSITY IN THE FORM OF DUPLEXES, WHERE THERE ARE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. HANG TIGHT. OKAY, SO THE TYPES OF ZONING THAT WE HAVE IN HERE THAT WE'LL GET INTO ARE BUSINESS MIXED USE, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN PURPLE. GENERAL RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE IN GREEN AND SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX WHICH IS IN YELLO. WITHIN THOSE THREE AVAILABLE ZONING ARE YEAH, GROW BMU AND SFD. ARE ANY OF THOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOME EXCLUSIVE. SO IF YOU INCLUDE DUPLEX THE YELLOW IS NOW I WANT TO MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, BUT TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, CORRECT ANY OF THOSE THREE ZONINGS EXCLUDE EXCLUSIVELY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY HOME? NO. EXACTLY.

OKAY, SO EVEN WITHIN SINGLE FAMILY, THAT COULD BE A DUPLEX. CORRECT. IF THE DENSITY OF THE LOT SIZE PERMITTED IT, BUT IT CAN BE A DUPLEX POTENTIALLY BY RIGHT IF IT'S ALLOWED, IF THE LOT SIZE ALLOWS FOR THAT. YES. OKAY. GROW. BESIDES SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHAT COULD GROW BE OFFICES AND SOME OF THE LOW IMPACT COMMERCIAL. WE CAN LOOK THROUGH THAT. SO IT COULD BE COMMERCIAL, CORRECT? YES. A HANDFUL OF MIXED USE COMMERCIAL TYPE THING. AND THEN BMU WHAT COULD BMU BE?

[01:51:24]

[01:51:32]

[01:51:37]

[01:55:03]

[02:00:01]

WHEN 2004 I I'M SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR THAT 2004 UPDATE THAT CREATED A PROHIBITION.

PROHIBITION. AND IT MAY NOT BE FORM BASED CODE. IT MAY BE 2004 THAT WE NEED TO GO BACK. THAT THAT MADE A BIG DRAMATIC THAT MAY HAVE HAD AN IMPACT IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS WHY WE TOOK A LOOK AT UPDATING THE CODE. THE CITY REQUESTED A LOOK AT THAT CODE, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK, TAKE A SNAPSHOT THE NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR EVEN SMALL BUSINESSES HAD DIMINISHED OVER THE YEARS. AND PART OF IT IS, OF COURSE, WHAT WHAT COMMISSIONER CLARKE WAS MENTIONING. BUT IT ALSO HAD TO DO TO PROTECT WITH OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOODS WITH EVERYTHING GOING MIXED USE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DESIGNATE IT AS A SPECIAL AREA. I MEAN, WE DID FOR THE EAST STUART AREA, WE HAVE IT AS A SPECIAL. SO TRULY PROTECT YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THIS AREA. YOU WOULD REMOVE LIKE I'LL GIVE YOU ONE. INSTEAD OF JUST COMPLAINING, I'LL GIVE YOU ONE ACTIONABLE THING IN SFD. YOU SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO A DUPLEX WITHOUT COMMISSION APPROVAL. THAT WOULD BE ONE EXAMPLE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO MERGE LOTS AND DO ALL THAT, THE DUPLEX PART OF SF THAT D SHOULD NOT BE BY RIGHT. YOU SHOULD HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT BE A DUPLEX. THAT'S ONE ACTIONABLE THING. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN ASPECT OF THE FORM BASED CODE. SO I DON'T I DON'T WANT THE FORM PART. IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO FORM BASED CODE. I'M JUST SAYING TO BE SOMETHING THAT THIS CODE IN EAST STUART THOUGH THE DENSITY THAT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION AND THAT HAS A LOT MORE TO DO WITH, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE EXISTING PROPERTY RIGHTS AND WHAT'S THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A DOWN ZONING AND I CAN'T I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE MINDSET OF THE COMMISSION IN 2004 AND WHY THEY WOULD HAVE GONE IN THAT DIRECTION. BUT JUST LOGICALLY, IF I WANTED TO TAKE THIS SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE IT BE DEVELOPED INTO MIXED USE, THIS WOULD BE EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD DO TO IT. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT WAS

[02:05:03]

WE CAN TALK TO THE CURRENT OWNERS OF THESE PROPERTIES, WE CAN TALK TO THIS COMMUNITY.

THERE'S NO INHERENT VALUE IN THE VISION. IN 2002, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE TOWN WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEN THE CITY WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THEN. AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES WE FACE NOW AND THE NEEDS THAT ARE PRESENT NOW, AND TALK TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WANT AND NEED NOW, NOT IN 2002, COMMISSIONER REED YEAH, I REMEMBER I, I DID ATTEND A COUPLE OF THE FORM BASED CODE MEETINGS FOR EAST STEWART, AND A LOT OF THOSE RESIDENTS WEREN'T HAPPY WITH THE CHANGES. EXACTLY. THEY VOICED IT TREMENDOUSLY.

AND, YOU KNOW, AND WE TALK ABOUT THE CITY BEING DIFFERENT IN 2002, IT WAS WE HAD DOWNTOWN, STUART WAS COMMERCIAL AND IT'S EXPANDED THROUGHOUT AREAS THROUGHOUT COLORADO TREMENDOUSLY, AND THEY WANT TO POTENTIALLY EXTEND IT DOWN. KANNER DOWN MLK. SO YES, IT HAS CHANGED QUITE A BIT. AND I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER COLLINS IS TRYING TO SAY IS HE'S TRYING TO LOOK OUT FOR THE RESIDENTS IN EAST STUART SPECIFICALLY. SO THEY DON'T HAVE THAT BIG DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY DON'T WANT OF MIXED USE. THEY WANT IT TO STAY, YOU KNOW, SOME SORT OF SINGLE RESIDENTIAL FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH SOME COMMERCIAL. YES, THERE IS SOME COMMERCIAL, BUT THEY DON'T WANT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE LIKE FRAZIER CREEK, WHERE IT'S TOTALLY MIXED USE. I LIVE IN FRAZIER CREEK, AND IT'S VERY MIXED USE, AND EVEN MY NEIGHBORHOOD IN PARTICULAR, IT HAS BEEN PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL AT ONE TIME. AND THEN IT SWITCHED OVER TO RESIDENTIAL, AND NOW IT'S PROBABLY HALF AND HALF. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE'S TRYING TO EXPRESS. AND THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS FEEL AS WELL, ESPECIALLY WHEN I DOOR KNOCK THROUGH EAST STUART AND I HAVE SPOKE WITH A LOT OF RESIDENTS IN EAST STUART. I'VE EVEN DOOR KNOCKED SOME AFTER BEING AN ELECTED OFFICIAL AND TRIED TO SPEAK WITH THEM. IT'S JUST THERE'S SO MUCH GOING ON SINCE AUGUST, SO PLAYING CATCH UP.

COMMISSIONER YOU. YES. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS INTENTIONAL, BUT WE DO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THREE AND FOUR PLOTS ARE TOGETHER. SOMEONE BUYS THEM AND CAN MAKE THEM AND COMBINE THEM.

UNDER THE CURRENT RULING TO BE MULTIFAMILY. FOUR STORY APARTMENTS, WHATEVER. SO THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THAT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE PEOPLE IN EAST STUART WANT THAT EITHER.

THEY WANT A NEIGHBORHOOD, AN ABSOLUTE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THERE'S FAMILY. YOU CAN WALK TWO BLOCKS, GO TO A LOCAL STORE, GO GET YOUR HAIRCUT. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR MAKING ALL OF THESE APARTMENTS, WHICH WILL NOT BE AFFORDABLE, I'M SURE.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. AND THAT WOULD NOT BENEFIT THAT COMMUNITY AT ALL. SO WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TODAY IN THIS ZIP IN PROGRESS IS TO CORRECT SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT WERE UNINTENTIONAL, BUT THEY EXIST. THE REALITY IS, IF YOU OWN FOUR PIECES OF PROPERTY IN A ROW, YOU COULD THEN COMBINE THEM AND MAKE SOME SORT OF MULTIPLE MAJOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD MAKE ANYONE IN EAST STUART WHO OWNS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE.

THAT IS NOT THE VISION THAT THEY WANT. IT'S NOT THE VISION I WANT. THANK YOU. WELL, I KNOW I SAID 1115, BUT HOW ABOUT WE BREAK FIVE MINUTES EARLY AND TAKE A 15 MINUTE BREAK? MADAM CLERK, YOU HAVE THE TIME. THANK. QUESTIONS. SO I KNOW. LET ME MAKE A PHONE CALL. OKAY. CAN I MAKE ONE PHONE CALL? I'M CALLING BACK TO ORDER A SPECIAL COMMISSION MEETING OF THE STUART CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP NUMBER THREE. SO I THINK I INTERRUPTED YOU, BUT DO YOU WANT TO? I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD MORE TO, YOU KNOW, HOW TO FIX WHAT I THINK IS AN ISSUE WOULD BE TO

[02:10:03]

AND YOU COULD ALLOW LIKE TO NOT BE IN THE WAY OF SOMEBODY WHO OWNS LIKE A PROPERTY ON EAST, FOR EXAMPLE. YOU COULD HAVE THAT BE SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUT ALLOW SOMETHING MORE EXPANSIVE UNDER CONDITIONAL USE. RIGHT. SO. IT'S NOT TO HYPER FOCUS ON EAST. I'LL COME OFF OF TARPON BACK BACK TO EAST. YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THAT ZONED. THAT PURPLE IS MIXED USE. THAT IS THAT COULD BE VERY INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL THAT THAT COULD BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS. AND IT HAS BEEN ZONED COMMERCIAL AND BASICALLY BEEN VACANT THROUGH THERE SINCE. SOME OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN DOING THIS LONGER THAN ME PROBABLY HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THE 70S. I DON'T PROBABLY 60S, 60S SINCE WE DESEGREGATED. BASICALLY, IT'S BEEN VACANT. SO ALLOWING THAT TO BE SINGLE FAMILY OR IF YOU WANTED TO DO MIXED USE WITH CONDITIONAL USE, OBVIOUSLY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IS THAT IS WHAT IT IS. BUT ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY SINGLE FAMILY HOME SHOULD STAY SINGLE FAMILY HOME, YOU KNOW, BOTH HERE AND IF WE MOVE OVER TOWARDS LIKE TARPON. AND THEN IF IT'S UP AGAINST 10TH OR MLK WHERE THERE IS MORE OF THAT OFFICE RESIDENTIAL OR POTENTIALLY MORE INTENSIVE USE, THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE. BUT ANYTHING THAT'S IN THIS INTERIOR IN THE PURPLE. YEAH. ANY OF THOSE THAT, THAT, THAT VERY, VERY MUCH SHOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOME UNLESS YOU COME IN FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND WANT TO DO SOME SORT OF BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU COULD HAVE SOMEBODY BUYING UP ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR OF THOSE PARCELS. AGAIN, WHEN BRIGHT LINE COMES, THERE'S NOT BEEN THE DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE ON THIS AREA THAT THERE'S ABOUT TO BE EVER. AND IF YOU OWN ONE OF THOSE PARCELS, YOU MIGHT BE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SELL THEM. BUT IF YOU LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BENEFIT FROM THAT SALE DIRECTLY. THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT COULD BE BUILT THERE. WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT HOW TO PROTECT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT JUST MAKE THIS AS PROFITABLE FOR PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE TO DEVELOP. OKAY, SO. YOU CAN, WITH CONDITIONAL USE. WELL, SINCE THE 70S OR 60S THAT'S BEEN VACANT. I MEAN ON ON EAST. RIGHT. SO IF YOU MADE THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME, FOR INSTANCE, AND WITHIN CONDITIONAL USE, YOU COULD COME IN AND WE COULD BE REVIEWING THAT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A ONE SIZE FITS ALL. THEY HAVE TO COME. BUT YOU WOULD ZONE IT BY RIGHT AS SINGLE FAMILY. YOU WOULD PROTECT THAT NATURE OF IT. SO IF SOMEBODY COMES IN BY I MEAN TRADITIONAL SINCE ONE AGAIN, IT'S BEEN VACANT SINCE THE 60S. I DEFINITELY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOTIFIED. I'M SURE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WANT IT TO STAY MIXED USE, BECAUSE IT COULD BE SOMETHING VERY INTENSIVE THAT THEY COULD BUILD AND BE VERY. WHO IT'S IMPORTANT TO IS ALSO ALL OF THOSE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY US ALLOWING THAT ON THAT PARCEL. THANK YOU. SO AGAIN, MY RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE IF THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON IT, IT SHOULD BE YELLOW. IF WE GO TOWARDS.

TARPON LIKE THAT NORTH PART OF TARPON THERE. RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT ALL THAT GREEN, THAT OFFICE GROW. IF THAT'S GOT A SINGLE. DID YOU HAVE THE POINTER CHRIS. IS THAT THE SCHOOL. YES. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. RIGHT. SO IF I'M HERE LIKE HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT SHOULD WITH ONE SWIPE BE YELLOW. AND IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THAT WITH CONDITIONAL USE THAT YOU COULD GO GROW THAT YOU'RE NOT JUST DENYING ANYBODY ANYTHING. BUT WITH CONDITIONAL USE YOU CAN GO GROW. AND THEN IF YOU MOVE BACK TOWARDS THE LEFT, CHRIS. ON EAST RIGHT, ANY OF THESE WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOME BY RIGHT AND THEN UNDER CONDITIONAL USE, IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE THAT BMU AS WELL. NOW, IF WE'RE UP AGAINST MLK, IF WE'RE UP AGAINST 10TH STREET, I THINK YOU'VE GOT A GOOD CASE FOR THIS KIND OF STUFF. BUT IN THE IN THE CORE, RIGHT. THIS THIS SHOULD ALL BE

[02:15:07]

OKAY. OTHERWISE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VELOCITIES SO THAT THAT I WOULD HAVE A COMMENT JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE AGAIN STUART HAS FOR A LONG TIME HAD A DIFFERENT PARKING RATE BECAUSE OF IN LARGE PART THE SMALL SIZE OF THE LOTS. SO IF YOU REQUIRED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO MANY PARKING SPACES, IT WOULD ACTUALLY EAT UP A LARGE AMOUNT OF THEIR FRONTAGE. AND THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. SO YOU WOULD HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE YOU'D HAVE A PROLIFERATION OF EVEN MORE CARS IN THE FRONT. SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IN HOW THAT IMPACTS THE EXISTING SMALL HOME SINGLE FAMILY. DO CITYWIDE. IS THAT WHAT YOU. AND IT'S ONE MR. AND AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION IN EAST STUART AND IT IS A LARGE POPULATION WITH A ONE CAR FAMILY. I MEAN, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING PEOPLE PARKING IN THE FRONT YARDS.

THERE'S STILL PEOPLE PARKING. IT'S THE SAME THING. IT'S JUST YOU'RE MAKING IT CITY WIDE. I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT IT DOESN'T BLOCK OUT PEOPLE FROM LIVING OR PARKING THERE. IT'S JUST THERE'S NOT A DRIVEWAY. MAYBE FOR THAT ADDITIONAL CAR, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED THEN. JODY. RIGHT. IF THEY CAN'T PROVIDE THE 2.5, SOMEBODY COMES IN TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON EAST STUART. THEY HAVE TO HAVE ONE SPACE FOR A CAR. IF THEY CAME TO BUILD ANYWHERE ELSE. STUART, THEY HAVE TO HAVE TWO SPACES DEDICATED TO CARS. I DON'T. WELL THE FRONT, THE FRONTAGE LOT IS SHORTER. SOME OF THEM ARE 40 50FT. THEY'RE SMALLER LOTS AND THAT'S WHAT.

OTHERWISE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BUILD. THEY WON'T. GUARANTEED. WHAT WAS THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS HISTORICALLY I AND I THINK A LOT OF THESE CHRIS LIKE THEY ARE SMALLER LOTS RIGHT. SO I HAVE A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. SO I HAVE PLENTY OF SPACE TO PARK. BUT SOME OF THESE ARE 3000, 4000. THEY DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM. SO YOU'RE PAYING PROPERTY TAXES ON SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DEVELOP. AND THAT'S THAT'S TOUGH. WELL I DON'T KNOW WHO'S PAYING PROPERTY, BUT AS IT RELATES TO NOT BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP, THEY CAN DEVELOP A LOT. RIGHT NOW.

THE BUILDABLE LOT THEY ARE BUILDABLE. BUT IF WE INCREASE PARKING, I MEAN SOME OF THESE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S INTENSE PARKING IN THE EAST. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING HISTORICALLY. WHAT HAS WHAT HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN? I THINK LESS LESS. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ONE PER UNIT OR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I WOULD SAY YOU'RE TALKING. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN OKAY. SO THAT THAT THAT CLARIFIES IT THEN. YEAH I THINK MORE SO WITH MULTIFAMILY. IF YOU GUYS CAN LOOK AT THAT. AND HISTORICALLY IF, IF WE'RE TALKING IF SOMEONE'S COMING IN FOR A CONDITIONAL, USE THE ENTIRE CITY CODE THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF STUART IS WRITTEN TO WHERE MOST APPLICATIONS OUTSIDE OF SINGLE FAMILY COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD REGARDLESS. AND THAT'S WHERE THE PUBLIC GETS UPSET BECAUSE WE GRANT EXCEPTIONS. BUT IF YOU DON'T GRANT ANY EXCEPTIONS, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN DEVELOP THAT PARCEL ANYWAY. SO MOST PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF STUART COME BEFORE THE BOARD REGARDLESS. AND IF WE HAVE THOSE UPDATED PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY, WHAT YOUR YOUR STARTING POINT FOR HOW DENSE IT WOULD BE IN THIS SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. CORRECT. LESS BUT I CAN I CAN GIVE YOU ANOTHER GOOD SCENARIO. SO IF YOU LOOK A, SAY, A 300 APARTMENT COMPLEX VERSUS A 20 APARTMENT COMPLEX, THE 20 APARTMENT COMPLEX, THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BE FULL WITH PARKING. THAT ONE WITH 300 APARTMENTS TYPICALLY WOULD NOT BE, IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE THERE'S MORE. TYPICALLY, THE

[02:20:01]

SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE. SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE CAN PARK. DID YOU HAVE ANY PROBLEMS TO MAKE. YOU KNOW THE MORE PARKING YOU REQUIRE THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT IS. YEP. AND SO PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN IT'S GOING TO BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY TO.

PARTICIPATE. YEAH. BECAUSE CONCRETE COSTS MONEY. YEAH. IT JUST YOU CAN'T YOU HAVE TO BUILD A SMALLER HOME RELATIVE TO THE PARKING LOT. AND IT'S THE WEALTHIER PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME IN AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT. AND DOGWHISTLING GENTRIFICATION, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT TAKING SINGLE FAMILY HOME OUT OF THAT CONVERSATION, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTIFAMILY. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A WORKSHOP, RIGHT. SO WE CAN HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SPEAK AS I THINK I'M AN EXPERT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I DON'T CRACK BONES AND STUFF, SO I CAN'T TALK TO THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO TALK TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HERE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMISSION IS SAYING HERE IS LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT? I WANT TO MAKE EVERYTHING RESIDENTIAL IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT I'M GOING TO SIT HERE AND TELL YOU HOW TO DO IT. YOU HAVE FOLKS HERE SAY THEY WANT TO BE AT THE TABLE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. NOW I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, GO AHEAD, MAKE IT ALL SINGLE FAMILY. IT'S POINT 1048 ACRES, RIGHT? I DON'T EVEN THINK IT'S 3000 SQUARE FOOT. I'M GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE ON IT. ALL RIGHT. I THINK EVERYBODY IS SAYING THEY WANT TO GO TO 6000 SQUARE FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL HOMES. THAT'S ONE. AND THEN THE SECOND PART, YOU WANT TO HAVE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIG GARAGE AND A LITTLE DOOR ON THE SIDE. AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY CARS, BECAUSE I GUESS THEY'RE AFRAID IS THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE PARKING IT LIKE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AND HAVE LIKE TEN CARS THERE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT BEHIND THAT. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU NOW HAVE THESE LOTS THAT ARE UNDEVELOPABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO SMALL, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THEM ASSEMBLING THEM TO BUILD APARTMENTS OR DUPLEXES, RIGHT? THEY NOW HAVE TO GO OUT AND BUY THE OTHER PROPERTY JUST SO THEY COULD BUILD SOMETHING THERE. IF THE HOUSE GOT DAMAGED BY A HURRICANE. NOW GUESS WHAT? I GOT TO GO FIGURE OUT IF MY NEIGHBOR IS ALSO DAMAGED SO I CAN BUY HIS LOT SO I CAN NOW BUILD A HOUSE BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE BASICALLY PUTTING ON THEM. WITHOUT LOOKING AT THIS WITH INPUT FROM PROFESSIONALS AND THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ACTUALLY LIVING THERE, THAT HOUSE, YOU TRY TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE RIGHT NOW, 1800 SQUARE FOOT GROUND UP, OKAY, THAT CAN WITHSTAND HURRICANE. YOU ARE LOOKING AT $280,000 AND THAT'S JUST A HARD COST FOR THAT HOUSE. NOW LET'S GO. WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL OF THESE SINGLE FAMILIES. THAT'S GOING TO COST 280. DON'T INCLUDE LAND VALUE. DON'T INCLUDE ALL THE MONEY YOU HAVE TO GO FOR SPENDING. SO YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND ABOUT 350 ON THIS LOT. THAT'S IN EAST STUART GUYS. YES THAT'S AFFORDABLE BECAUSE WHEN I TURN AROUND AND I WANT TO SELL IT EVEN FOR LIKE A 1% PROFIT, I'M AT MINIMUM SELLING IT FOR 360. GOD BLESS THESE GUYS. AFFORDING THAT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR MAKING IT ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITHOUT TALKING TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE. SO YOU GUYS NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT THIS AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. IF YOU HAD A DISCUSSION AROUND THE TABLE WITH PROFESSIONALS AT THE TABLE DOING THAT, ALL OF THESE POINTS CAN BE BROUGHT UP. I'M NOT SAYING YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HIT WHAT YOU WANT TO TRY TO DO FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'RE SITTING HERE DICTATING WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITHOUT THAT INPUT. THAT'S IDIOTIC. AND I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN. THANK YOU SIR. I THINK IT'S EASY TO ADVOCATE FOR THIS AND NOT BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN YOU DON'T LIVE THERE, AND YOUR GOAL IS TO DEVELOP IT. YES. COMMISSIONER JIMMY, I DIDN'T KNOW. I, I THINK IF WE START INTERACTING WITH THE PUBLIC, THE MEETING CAN EASILY GET DERAILED AGAIN. ANY INDIVIDUAL YOU WANT TO SPEAK WITH, YOU'RE FREE TO CALL THEM AND ASK THEM TO CALL YOU. I

[02:25:04]

WHEN EAST STEWART WAS INITIALLY DEVELOPED OR OR SETTLED, IT WAS NO ZONING. AND SO THE LOTS WERE DIVVIED UP BY A PLAT. AT THE SMALLER SIZES, YOU LOOK OFF OF, LIKE ALLAMANDA AND FLAMINGO AND THOSE STREETS, THERE'S A LOT OF THE LOTS THAT WERE PLATTED AT 25FT. SO A LOT OF THOSE PARCELS OVER THERE ARE NOW THREE RECORDED LOT EQUAL ONE BUILDABLE PARCEL. AND SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT BACK IN THE 50S OR WHENEVER IT WAS PLATTED, THEY WERE PLATTED ALMOST AS A MOBILE HOME PARK AND 25 FOOT LOT EVEN FURTHER BACK. RIGHT? YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, HELEN. BUT WHEN YOU GO BACK TO IT, OVER TIME, ZONING HAS CREATED R-1 BEING A MINIMUM OF 75FT. AND THEN R-1 BEING 75FT AND 10,000FT■!S. AND THEN YOU ALSO T INTO NOT JUST THE LOT SIZE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT HISTORICALLY, THE CITY OF STEWART HAS REQUIRED A 50 FOOT LOT FRONTAGE IN ORDER TO BE A LEGAL OR MINIMUM LOT. AND IT WAS EVEN BIGGER THAN THAT, 75FT AND 60FT AND 90FT, 100FT. AND IT'S TAKEN WITH. SO IF YOU HAVE A 40 FOOT WIDE LOT, BUT IT'S 200FT DEEP, THAT WOULD BE AN 800 ZERO SQUARE FOOT LOT. BUT IF IT'S NOT 50FT OF STREET FRONTAGE IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS, IT CAN'T BE BUILT ON. BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S 8000FT■!S, IT'S NOT 50FT WIDE, O IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50FT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S 8000FT■!S. AND EAST STEWART, A T OF THESE LOTS THAT ARE 0.1, 0.12, 0.13 AND 0.14, THEY COME OUT TO BE AROUND 4000FT■!S OR 4500FT■!S, WHICH WOULD BE LESS THAN THE 5000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH THAT WE HAD PREDOMINANTLY AS THE COTTAGE LOTS. AND THEY ALSO DON'T HAVE THE 50 FOOT WIDTH BECAUSE THEY'RE 40FT WIDE, SO THEY DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH EITHER. GOTCHA. AND I DON'T I DON'T THINK THE CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD IS TO GO AFTER MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OR MINIMUM LOT SIZE. I MEAN, IT DOESN'T EXIST CURRENTLY. I'M LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RIGHT NOW.

IF WE WANT TO DO THE 6000, THERE SHOULD BE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BASED OFF OF WHAT'S EXISTING RIGHT.

GOTCHA. WE SHOULD GO OUT AND EITHER JESS HAS THIS DATA OR MEASURE. THERE SHOULD BE YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE JUST A SO YOU DON'T TAKE AN ACRE AND DO 2000 OR 1500 SQUARE FOOT LOT AGAIN.

WE GOT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE FOOTNOTE, THAT'S IN THE CHART, IT SAYS THERE'S NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE. AND THAT ALL OF THOSE PARCELS OF RECORD WERE DEEMED PARCEL, BUT NO MORE LOT SPLITS CAN HAPPEN. SO IF SOMEONE CREATES OR SUBDIVIDES ANY OF THESE LOTS INTO A LESSER PARCEL OF RECORD. SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF RIGHT NOW YOU OWN LOTS ONE AND TWO AND IT'S ONE PARCEL OF RECORD, ALTHOUGH THERE'S STILL LOTS ONE AND TWO, CAN YOU CUT THAT IN HALF AND HAVE LOT ONE HAVE NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND LOT TWO HAVE NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE? OR IS IT THAT IT WAS A PARCEL OF RECORD WHERE THE PARCEL ID NUMBER, ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE PLAT, OR ARE YOU LOOKING AT THE PARCEL ID NUMBER? AND THAT'S NOT

[02:30:05]

YOU CAN'T JUST BUY UP A BUNCH OF PARCELS THERE AND BUILD A FOUR STORY THING. NO. NO WAY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD WANT ANYWAY, IS YEAH, WE WANT TO KEEP THE SENSE OF PLACE FOR THAT AREA. THE COMMUNITY CAN COME IN AND WE CAN ALL TALK ABOUT IT. AND EITHER MAKE SENSE OR IT DOESN'T. AND SO JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THE BY RIGHT, IF I CAN INTERJECT IS ONLY IT'S NOT FOUR STORIES. THAT WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING WE UPDATED WITH THE 35. EXACTLY. YEAH. 30. WAS IT

[02:35:03]

IT'S THE MOST PART FOR MODERN BUILDING, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO EVEN GET THREE STORIES INTO 35FT. THERE WAS A PREVIOUSLY A PROVISION THAT ALLOWED FOR UP TO FOUR STORIES. AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT FOOTNOTE NUMBER TWO IS FOR. THAT'S SIGNIFICANT IS THAT THAT NOW HAS TO GO TO THE COMMISSION AND HAVE THAT COMMUNITY INPUT IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT FOUR STORIES, WHEREAS PREVIOUSLY IT WAS THREE STORIES AND 35FT. SURE. THAT THAT'S COMING IN FRONT OF US WHERE THAT'S ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO THREAD THE NEEDLE HERE BETWEEN PRESERVING THE FEEL AND CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT DENYING OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO GROW. I MEAN, YOU POINT OUT, YOU POINT OUT THAT THERE'S BEEN YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO 20 YEARS AGO. AND BUT THEN YOU CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, YOU SAID, WELL, THIS LAND HAS BEEN EMPTY FOR DECADES. SO WHAT WAS THE VALUE OF THAT ZONING IF IT DIDN'T ALLOW? OKAY. BUT MAYBE SO MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THE FORM BASED CODE, I THINK WAS LOOKING FOR A MEANS OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GROW AND DEVELOP BECAUSE THAT 20 YEAR OLD, THAT 20 YEAR OLD CODE WAS NOT WORKING. IT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR YEARS, JUST LIKE HAVING TO BUY, YOU KNOW, THE CITY DID NOT WANT TO BUY THE PROPERTY WHERE PROJECT LIFT IS, BUT IT SAT VACANT FOR 30 YEARS. AND SO WE SAW AN OPPORTUNITY AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT. I THINK LOOKING BACK TO THE PAST, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A VALUE.

WE CAN SEE THAT IT WAS NOT SUCCEEDING. BUT THESE ARE VERY DIFFICULT MATTERS. COMMISSIONER REED YEAH, THERE'S ALSO A SECTION 8.02.00. IT SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT HARDSHIP EXISTING NON-CONFORMING DEVELOPMENT AND LOTS AND HOW YOU CAN STILL ACHIEVE DEVELOPMENT IF YOU MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA, YOU CAN COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. SO MAYBE THAT'S A SECTION TO LOOK AT AS WELL. JUST TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED. IT'S A HARDSHIP CREATED THE RIGHT THING.

CORRECT. BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WAS ALSO MR. MORTEL CREATED THE THING. IF SOMEBODY IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND SUBDIVIDES A LOT, THAT IS CREATING THE HARDSHIP AND THEREFORE YOU CAN'T DO IT, THIS IS MAINLY FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES, RIGHT? THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS TO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A GUARANTEED RIGHT. WHEN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS WAS HEARING THOSE, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE NO. SO IF YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP AND YOU WANT THE CITY TO WAIVE THE SETBACK OR TO ALLOW YOU TO BUILD ON IT, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE APPLICATION. YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF THEY VOTE NO, YOU DON'T GET THE RIGHT. IT'S JUST A PROCESS TO REQUEST AN EXCEPTION ESSENTIALLY, WHICH IS NO DIFFERENT THAN A CONDITIONAL USE, JUST A LESSER INTENSIVE METHOD. OKAY. THAT'S IT. WE RAN INTO IT A LOT WHEN WE WENT FROM THE DIGITAL FROM SURVEYING USED TO BE DONE BY THE LITTLE SCOPES AND THEN WENT TO DIGITAL GIS SYSTEMS. AND WE FOUND THAT A LOT OF THE LOTS WERE 49FT WIDE OR 99FT WIDE. AND THERE WAS A WHOLE SERIES IN THE 90S OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BECAUSE THESE HOUSES, WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO SELL THE HOUSE, WAS ALREADY BUILT AND IT WAS BUILT NINE FEET FROM THE LOT LINE, NOT TEN FEET FROM THE LOT LINE. SO THEY COULDN'T GET TITLE INSURANCE. SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAD TO CONTINUALLY GRANT THESE EXCEPTIONS TO THE AS BUILT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE SURVEY WAS DONE IN THE PAST. BUT ALL THAT HAS KIND OF GONE AWAY NOW BECAUSE IT'S BEEN CAUGHT UP NOWADAYS. IT THE QUESTION IS, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT A HARDSHIP, IF YOU GUYS WERE TO GRANT A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6000FT■!S, F IN FACT HAVING LESS THAN 6000FTS IS CONSIDERED A HARDSHIP AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD ON IT, THEN THERE'S NO REASON TO GRANT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. THERE'S NO REASON TO DO IT. YEAH. SO YOU JUST HAVE TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT. WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION. WELL, I MEAN, AS IT RELATES TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, I'M GOING TO BRING BACK THE RESOLUTION ON DECEMBER NINTH AND WE'LL HAVE

[02:40:02]

YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING AT 10TH STREET. I MEAN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YES. RIGHT. SO, NO, BUT A WORKSHOP IS DIFFERENT. A PUBLIC WORKSHOP, A WORKSHOP IS, FIRST OF ALL, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE GENUINE, TOO. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE HAVING A WORKSHOP AND YOU'RE TELLING THE PEOPLE YOU'RE GOING TO DO A CHARRETTE AND YOU WANT THEM TO GIVE YOU THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THEN OR WHAT THEY WANT DEVELOPED, THEN YOU'RE PURSUING IT FROM THAT ANGLE. IF YOU'RE DOING IT AS THE CITY IS DOING A PUBLIC NOTICE OF A PROJECT THAT'S GOING FORWARD, IT'S NOT AS MUCH OF A WORKSHOP. SO LIKE WHEN WE DID THE PROJECT LIFT, THOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS WEREN'T A WORKSHOP, THOSE WERE A PUBLIC NOTICE. AND WE WENT AND WE SAID, THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THIS SITE. AND WE DID IT TO NOTIFY THE COMMUNITY AS TO WHAT WAS BEING PURSUED. SO IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT SHOULD BE A WORKSHOP THEN, SO WE CAN ENGAGE AND FIND OUT WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. AND THAT'S THAT'S MY OPINION. I'M ALL FOR IT. DO WE NEED A MOTION TO SET SOMETHING UP IN THE NEXT THREE WEEKS? MIKE, I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT TO HEAR BACK THE SPECIFIC THING. THEN WE'LL HAVE AN IDEA OF HOW MANY PROPERTIES ARE AFFECTED. AND THEN, LIKE YOU SAY, WE CAN GO DOOR TO DOOR OR, YOU KNOW, WELL, I MEAN, LIKE THE 10TH STREET REC CENTER IS NOT GOING TO APPLY TO THIS BECAUSE IN THIS DISCUSSION, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT DOING MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN A STEWARDESS TO 6000FT■!S, OR IT WOULD BE EVERY LOT. BUT IF YOU CAN'T BUILD A DUPLEX NOW, YOU CAN'T RIGHT. IF WE'RE DOWN ZONING. WELL. I MEAN, IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD IF YOU GUYS WANT TO HAVE THE HEARING NOW, WE CAN WE CAN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING AND DO IT. OR IF YOU WANT TO WAIT AFTER DECEMBER 9TH WHEN WE COME BACK, WHICH I'D PREFER TO WAIT TILL MONDAY SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING. I CAN TALK TO THE PEOPLE I KNOW. ANY STEWARD. YOU THINK AFTER YOU GET AN IDEA OF HOW THEY WANT TO PROCEED, OKAY, WHAT THEY FEEL WOULD BE THE MOST. AND WE CAN BRING IT UP, I GUESS, AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, THEN. YEAH. OKAY. THAT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE. THEN. AND IF I FEEL AS IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING, I FEEL IT SHOULD BE MORE IN THE AFTERNOON, MAYBE LIKE OR EVENING AFTER FIVE. AFTER FIVE. YEAH, I WOULD EVEN POTENTIALLY START IT AT FOUR. SO AT LEAST YOU CAN GET STARTED. YEAH. BECAUSE THERE'S TIMES WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE SPEND AN HOUR WITH COMMENTS BEFORE WE GET INTO TO THINGS. SO I THINK THAT'LL STILL ALLOW. AND ALSO WHAT I DID HERE IS ANY STEWARD A LOT OF TIMES THURSDAYS TYPICALLY WORK BETTER BY THE WAY PEOPLE HAVE CHOIR PRACTICE AND BIBLE STUDIES. YEAH, I'VE ALWAYS HEARD THURSDAY I THINK JUST BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY A NAACP MEETING ON THURSDAYS, SEYMOUR IS NODDING IN AGREEMENT. WE'VE USED IT. THEY'VE USED THAT COMMUNITY DAY ALSO AT THE CORRECT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE MAYBE MORE APPROPRIATE THAN JUST FOR WHEN IT DOES COME BACK UP AT THIS BOARD MEETING. YEAH, JUST JESSICA THARP KNOWS THE BEST TIME AT THE CHARRETTE. MIKE, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TIME. WE DON'T GET WELL IF WE'RE RUNNING IT LIKE THIS, WE GET SIDETRACKED AS A MODERATOR. AND IT WAS. YEAH, A PRESENTATION. RIGHT. AND THEN AFTER THE PRESENTATION, YOU BROKE INTO GROUPS, GROUPS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY TABLES, AND THEN AFTER THE TABLES FOR A COUPLE HOURS. THEN THEY GOT BACK UP AND EACH TABLE PRESENTED TO THE GROUP. WHAT THE TABLE HAD COME UP WITH. AND THEN THE GROUP KIND OF GAVE FEEDBACK TO THE TABLE. COMMENT, COMMISSIONER READ OR AND TO FURTHER ELABORATE, JUST A MEETING ON THE EAST, STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL. YOU HAVE TWO SIDES AT PLAY. YOU HAVE THE INVESTORS AND THE DEVELOPERS, AND YOU HAVE THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M SURE MOST OF FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS ARE PROBABLY AWARE. AND THAT'S WHERE THERE'S THIS FINE BALANCE OF WHAT THEY WANT. AND THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE BUYING UP PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES, FOR DENSITY TO GET A RETURN ON THEIR INVESTMENT, INSTEAD OF IT BEING SINGLE FAMILY, WHERE YOU LIVE THERE, INSTEAD OF IT BEING AN INVESTMENT. SO THAT'S THAT'S MAINLY WHAT HAPPENED. THERE'S

[02:45:04]

TAYLOR PROPERTY. MR. ODOM, THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO THE MCCARTY FAMILY. BUT ANYHOW, THIS IS A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. SO IF WE MAKE CERTAIN RULES, WE WANT TO KEEP THE CHARACTERISTICS. WE WANT TO DO SOME, SOME THINGS THAT WILL ALLOW FOR VITALITY AND FOR REDEVELOPMENT. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF WE DO CERTAIN THINGS THAT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY FIND IT TOO HARD TO DEVELOP, THEY'RE GOING TO END UP WITH, HEY, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THIS THING. I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO SELL IT TO THE BIGGER GUY, RIGHT? AND THEN YOU END UP WITH NOTHING. THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTY AND THEY'LL SAY, AND THE MAIN THING IS THAT IF WE HAD SOMETHING LIKE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WHERE THEY HAD A LOAN POOL OR A WAY TO DO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THOSE PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A REASONABLE LOAN. I DON'T KNOW THE MARKET THAT WE ARE IN ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE STOCK MARKET. WE DON'T KNOW, BUT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A REASONABLE LOAN IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY REDEVELOP SOME OF THAT PROPERTY. BUT IT'S NOT HAPPENING BECAUSE AND THESE FAMILIES HAVE OWNED THE PROPERTY A LONG TIME, THEY'VE BEEN HOLDING ON TO IT, AND SOME OF THEM ARE GETTING VERY OLD, AND IT MIGHT GO OFF AND BE SOLD TO SOMEBODY BECAUSE WE CAN'T TIE THEIR HANDS TOO MUCH, WHERE IF THEY DO WANT TO, WE HAVE LET'S JUST LET'S JUST MISS, MISS MISS HOWARD HAMILTON HAS HAS HER MISS ROSITA, THE MISTER BELL, THEY ALL HAVE MISTER THE GUY ON HE HE PASSED AWAY. NOW I CAN'T THINK OF HIS NAME RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY WERE ON MARTIN LUTHER KING. THEY ALL HAVE. THERE'S A LOT OF SMALL APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND THEY WORK WELL. THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT EVEN. WELL, SOME OF THEM ARE TWO STORIES. THEY WORK WELL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SOME PEOPLE MAY WANT TO STILL DO SOME OF THOSE, OR SOME PEOPLE MAY WANT TO DO EVEN SMALLER HOMES. AND SOME OF THESE SMALL LOTS OF COURSE, WE STILL HAVE THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT THAT'S ALLOWED ON THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT. IF THEY CAN MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. BUT WE REALLY HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T TIE PEOPLE'S HANDS SO THAT THEY'RE LIKE, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THIS PROPERTY. I'M JUST GOING TO SELL IT. AND OF COURSE, WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE COMES TO US AND SAYS, WELL, I NEED TO GET ALL THESE INTO ONE TITLE UNIT SO THAT I CAN GET SOMETHING DONE WITH IT. THEN WE HAVE THE ISSUE OF WHAT DO WE DO WITH THIS BEAUTY, OR DO WE ALLOW IT, OR DO WHATEVER? SO WE JUST REALLY, I THINK WE AT LEAST NEED TO GET A CHANCE TO HEAR FROM THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY, AND I WILL BE TALKING TO SOME OF THEM PERSONALLY. AND I THINK THAT WE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE CHANGING THE ZONING AND CHANGING THE, THE, THE FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS A LOT OF MIXED USE. AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SAID, DON'T GO BACK TO THE PAST, BUT THE REASON WHY EAST YEAR WAS LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THEY WERE OVER 80 BUSINESSES IN EAST STEWART BEFORE 1965, BEFORE 1975, AND AFTER INTEGRATION, WHICH ACTIVELY TOOK HOLD AFTER 1975. THOSE BUSINESSES WENT OUT OF BUSINESS. THE LITTLE MOM AND POP BUSINESS WENT OUT OF BUSINESS, AND NOW WE DON'T EVEN WE HARDLY HAVE ANYTHING ALONG MARTIN LUTHER KING. BUT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN STEWART HAD TWO MAIN STREET. THERE WAS AN EAST STEWART MAIN STREET, AND THERE WAS A DOWNTOWN MAIN STREET. WE DID THAT FOR ABOUT 4 OR 5 YEARS, MAYBE SIX YEARS, WITH THE EAST STEWART MAIN STREET. WHEN JOAN JEFFERSON WAS ON THE COMMISSION

[02:50:01]

NEXT. ARE WE DONE? THIS SECTION WAS MY MAIN CONCERN IN TERMS OF CHAPTER THREE. SO UNLESS THERE WERE MORE CONCERNS, I'M WRAPPED UP FOR WHAT? AND WE'RE GOING TO CLARIFY THE PARKING AND THE LOT SIZES OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CLARIFY A DATE. YEAH OKAY. YEAH. THANKS. THANKS. SO THE DENSITY YOU MENTIONED 17 UNITS PER ACRE. MIKE, AND EVERYTHING IS OKAY. NOTHING IS CHANGING WITH THAT.

YEAH. LOOK AT ME. I'M NOT MAKIN. NO. THAT'S FINE. THE 17 HAPPENED THIS MOMENT. WELL, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS WELL. SO WHEN DID 17 HAPPEN IN LIKE 2007 I THINK. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS YOU HAD THE THAT WAS AN ISSUE I HAD BEFORE WHEN WE WERE DOING THE, THE, THE, THE 2001 CHARRETTE AND THE URBAN OVERLAY ZONES WERE ADOPTED AND THEN CAUSED SOME CHANGES AROUND STEWART. BUT EAST STEWART WASN'T KEEPING UP WITH IT OR DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THE SAME INTEREST THAT THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY HAD. SO WITH THE EAST STEWART MAIN STREET AND THE CONCERNED CITIZENS OF EAST STEWART WAS A GROUP THAT HAD COME FORWARD. AND AS A WAY TO BECAUSE AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THESE SMALLER LOTS, SOME OF THE PEOPLE WERE SAYING, WELL, LOOK, WITHOUT THE 17 UNITS AN ACRE, WE CAN'T COME AND DO THIS BY. RIGHT? BECAUSE IF YOU START DOING A DUPLEX OR YOU START DOING THIS OTHER STUFF, YOU'RE BUMPING RIGHT UP AGAINST THE 15 UNITS AND IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR SOMEONE IN EAST STEWART TO COME FOR A TRADITIONAL PUD, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS ALL DONE BY CONDITIONAL USE, WITH A ONE HEARING TO SAVE MONEY ON THE HEARING AND THEN IT WAS 17 UNITS. WAS KIND OF LIKE A COMPROMISE TO SAY, LOOK, IT'LL GIVE A LITTLE MORE BUY RIGHT, THAN THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN GO FORWARD ON PROJECTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BUMP UP AGAINST THAT. 15 BUT IT DIDN'T RESULT IN ANY. I'M NOT AWARE OF A SINGLE PROJECT, BUT WITH FORM BASED WE HAVE 17 AND A 30. WELL, IT'S CONDITIONAL USE. 17 WAS BY RIGHT, RIGHT. SO INSTEAD THE REST OF THE CITY IS 15 OR 10 BY RIGHT. SO IT WAS 15 UNTIL THE CITY COMMISSION. SO WHY WOULD WE NOT RESTORE HAVE 15 AND WHATEVER WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE COMPROMISE THAT WE COME TO WITH YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED 15 FROM ANYWHERE. SO WE HAVEN'T CHANGED ANY. BY RIGHT. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT GOING FROM 30 TO PEELING THAT BACK. OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT THE 17 ISSUE. THAT'S THAT'S I UNDERSTAND STEWART. THAT'S 30 TO 17. THAT'S BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS GOING FROM AN EAST STEWART JUST LIKE WE'RE DOING IN THE SORT OF URBAN AREA AS WELL DOING 15 AND THEN WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS AS THE, AS THE DENSITY, WHY WOULD WE HAVE A DIFFERENT DENSITY THAT WAS ALLOWED A WINDOW FOR SOME AFFORDABLE HOUSING? BECAUSE AGAIN, IF WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME NEIGHBORHOOD, SAME KIND OF IDEA FOR MAKING THIS AREA OVERLY DENSE. WELL, SINGLE FAMILY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RUN INTO A DENSITY, I KNOW, BUT IF IN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS YOU CAN NOW

[02:55:01]

I'M JUST SAYING I HATE TO BEAT THIS TO DEATH, BUT FROM LIKE A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, IF I'M A DEVELOPER AND I'M LOOKING AT THE REST OF THE CITY, RIGHT, AND I GET 15 AND THEN LET'S SAY IT'S UP TO 25 OR 20, BUT IN A STEWART I CAN GET 17 OR 30. I JUST DOUBLED, TRIPLED. YOU KNOW, I'M GETTING WAY MORE OUT OF THIS AREA. SO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO REALLY PUT DEVELOP HIGHER DENSITY PROPERTY. THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH PROPERTY. IT'S JUST A TAYLOR PROPERTY THAT HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR LARGER. MR. COLLINS IS SAYING IS THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY THE UP TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE AND THE REST OF THE CITY, THEN IF YOU LEAVE IT UP TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE IN EAST STEWART, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING PEOPLE TOWARD EAST STEWART FOR DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT, FOR REDEVELOPMEN. SO IT SHOULD REFLECT WHATEVER WE DO EVERYWHERE. SO WE CALL THAT A DENSITY BONUS IN THE CODE. SO BY RIGHT, IF IT'S COMMERCIAL YOU CAN GO UP TO TEN UNITS AN ACRE.

BUT IF YOU COME BEFORE THE BOARD ON A PUD OR COMMERCIAL CONDITIONAL USE FOR UP TO 30 MULTIFAMILY BY RIGHT, YOU CAN GO TO 15 UNITS PER ACRE. BUT YOU CAN COME BEFORE THE BOARD FOR UP TO 30 UNITS. EAST STEWART OVERLAY ZONE IT'S BY RIGHT 17. BUT YOU CAN COME UP BEFORE THE BOARD TO GO UP TO 30 TO EXCEED THE 17 WITH CONDITION, APPROVAL OR COMMISSION APPROVAL. SO IN THE FIRST WORKSHOP THERE WAS SOME COMMENTS ABOUT REDUCING 30 UNITS AN ACRE TO A LOWER NUMBER.

THE BOARD DIDN'T PICK THE NUMBER. SO WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR THE BOARD TO GIVE US DIRECTION ON THAT. YOU CAN DO IT NOW OR WE COULD DO IT ON DECEMBER 9TH. SO THAT WOULD BE MY ASK, IS THAT WE DEPLOY THOSE SAME NUMBERS TOWARDS EAST STEWART 15 AND THEN WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, 20, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH. YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT YOU CAN DO THIS, BUT FOR THOSE PROPERTIES IN EAST STEWART THAT FALL BELOW THE MINIMUM IS THERE A WAY TO HAVE LIKE A DEDICATED MINIMUM SIZE? YEAH. FOR THAT PARTICULAR GROUP BECAUSE THEY FALL UNDER THE MINIMUM. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. WHAT GRANDFATHERED GRANDFATHERING IS THAT CONSIDERED GRANDFATHERING. YEAH THEY ARE. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LAND USE AND ZONING. YEAH.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. THE EAST STEWART OVERLAY ZONE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED THAT AND SAID THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. THEIR BUILDABLE. BUT WHAT WE'RE DESCRIBING NOW IS JUST WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW FOR PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE COMING FORWARD IS, IS 15 UNITS PER ACRE BY RIGHT THE DENSITY OR IS IT 17? 17 IS WHAT WE ALLOWED WITH THE BASE CODE. AND THEN FOR SORRY OH FOUR, WE DID THAT INITIALLY. 17 NO, NO, I THINK IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN OH SEVEN YEAH.

17 AND THEN WE CODIFIED IT IN FORM BASED AGAIN, BUT LIKE LOCKED IT IN AGAIN. SO. HAVING IT MATCH WHATEVER'S IN THE URBAN AREA. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SO 15 AND THEN WHATEVER NUMBER WE COME UP WITH UP TO AGAIN LIKE I SAID LET'S MEET WITH THE PEOPLE THERE. AND I KNOW I THIS THIS WAS DONE SPECIAL BECAUSE TRYING TO MAINTAIN SOME AFFORDABLE THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE TO BUILD AND BE ABLE TO BUILD AT A SCALE WHERE THEY, THEY CAN BUILD AFFORDABLE UNITS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN RENT FOR LOWER PRICE. THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT, I THINK, OF KEEPING OF MAKING EAST STEWART AT THE 17. COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE ONE EXAMPLE WHERE THE DENSITY BONUSES THAT WE'VE ALLOWED HAS RESULTED IN THAT OUTCOME? I DON'T KNOW, I JUST KNOW THAT THAT WAS WHAT WAS DONE FOR EAST. IT MAY BE THE GOAL, BUT ALL IT DOES IS CREATE MORE DENSITY THAT ULTIMATELY THESE APARTMENTS STILL COST 2503 GRAND A MONTH. IT DOES NOT CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO HAVE MORE

[03:00:02]

IT'S BEEN 17 2007. CORRECT. AND THEN IN IN THE FORM BASED IS WHEN I'M ASSUMING THEY WENT TO THE 1730. IT WAS SO YES, BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE RESOLUTION IN 2017 TO 30. IT WAS JUST 17. THE DENSITY BONUS DIDN'T COME IN UNTIL THE FORM BASE WAS ADOPTED. SO I'M LOOKING AT AN ORDINANCE FROM 2017. MAYBE THAT'S WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED. YEAH, IT WAS RIGHT. BUT IT DOESN'T NONE OF THAT.

CORRECT. AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THE FORM BASED I KNOW OR NOT. I MEAN IT WAS WE KNOW THAT IT'S 1730. JUST SO HISTORICALLY IT HELPS. YEAH. BECAUSE THE OTHER THING IS LIKE I KNOW LIKE THE TAYLOR PROPERTY ACTUALLY HAD, YOU KNOW, 35 OR 30 UNITS ON IT. AND THEN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WAS ABOVE 15 UNITS PER ACRE AS WELL. WHEN IT BUILT THAT PROJECT. AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY IS JUST TWO STORIES RIGHT. AND TAYLOR PROPERTY COULD COME IN AT THREE STORIES. THAT'S WHAT I THINK THEIR PROPOSAL WAS AT 1.3. CAN PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL FROM PAUL, MR. RICH, MR. SQUIRES OH. WORKSHOP. HI I'M PAUL I REPRESENT THE TAYLOR PROPERTY. MY STREET ADDRESS IS 950 SOUTH COUNTY HIGHWAY. THE TAYLOR PROPERTY IS ON 10TH STREET, EAST 10TH STREET. WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARENA WHERE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE SAYING THE REPLACEMENT VALUE FOR AN ABODE EQUATES TO ABOUT $153 A SQUARE FOOT. SO IF A STRUCTURE UNFORTUNATELY GETS HIT BY A HURRICANE, THE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL PAY ABOUT $153 TO REPLACE IT PER SQUARE FOOT. BUT THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THAT STRUCTURE IS 175 TO $200 A SQUARE FOOT. IF A NURSE WHO WORKS AT THE HOSPITAL WANTS TO RENT A SPACE IN A UNIT THAT SOMEHOW GETS BUILT AT THE $153 LEVEL, THAT NURSE IS PAYING SOMEWHERE FOR 1000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE RENTAL UNIT, THEY'RE PAYING SOMEWHERE AROUND 1100 TO $1400. MARKET RATE. IT PROBABLY HIGHER IF A KID GRADUATES FROM HIGH SCHOOL OR WANTS TO GET A, YOU KNOW, AN ENTRY LEVEL JOB, PARENTS WANT THEM OUT OF THE HOUSE. THAT KID IS PAYING $1,200 A SQUARE FOOT TO $1,500 A SQUARE FOOT, IF IN FACT, WE NEED THAT AFFORDABLE CLASS OF WORKERS IN OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT CONSUME THE MOST, THEY BUY TELEVISIONS, THEY BUY CARS, THEY THEY THEY BUY. IT'S NOT LIKE AN OLD AFFLUENT PERSON WHO'S WHO'S OVER HERE, WHO'S PURCHASED EVERYTHING THEY WANT IN THEIR LIVES ALREADY. AND NOW THEY'RE ON FIXED INCOME WHERE THEY DON'T THEY DON'T SPEND TO GENERATE THAT DISPOSABLE MULTIPLIER IN YOUR ECONOMY. IF WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE FIREMEN, POLICEMEN, EMERGENCY PEOPLE, PEOPLE WHO WHO TAKE THE BEDPANS OUT OF MOM'S UNIT OVER AT THE HOSPITAL CLEANS THE BEDPANS, X-RAY TECHNICIANS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL ABOUT THE WAY WE LOOK AT THE HOUSING CHALLENGE. WE CAN'T JUST BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND ASSUME SOMEHOW, THAT $200 SQUARE FOOT UNIT IS GOING TO GET BUILT FOR 100. SO COMPACTING THE DENSITY, YOU KNOW, PUSHING DOWN THE DENSITY DRIVES UP THE UNIT COST OF THOSE. YES IT DOES. I'M I'M IN THE INDUSTRY. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU END UP HAVING TO PASS THE COST ON TO THE CONSUMER. THE RENTER, THE PERSON WHO LIVES IN THAT SPACE. WHAT WHAT YOU WANT

[03:05:03]

MIXED USE IS 15. SO TEN AND 30. YOU WOULD HAVE MORE LIKE TEN AND 15. AND THEN WHERE YOU HAVE 15 AND 30 IT WOULD BE 15 AND 20. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING NOW IS JUST TO INCREASE IT BY FIVE ABOVE THE OKAY. WHEN WE WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT THOSE THOSE WERE MY THOUGHTS ON THAT COMMENT ON THAT POINT THAT YOU'RE BRINGING UP TAPPING WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW, WE CAN DO UP TO TEN UNITS PER ACRE, AND YOU CAN GO UP TO 30 WITH THE BOARD APPROVAL.

COMMISSIONER COLLINS IS RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 15 AND NOT PAST 15.

AND THEN WHEN IT'S MIXED USE, WHERE IT STARTS AT 15, RIGHT? IT'D BE ALLOWED THE DENSITY BONUS BE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 20. CORRECT. BUT NOT UP TO 30. SO THE DENSITY BONUS BEING CAPPED AT FIVE IS WHAT MY NOTE IS. I THINK THAT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE CONSENSUS ON ANY OF IT, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO BRING IT BACK FOR THE VOTE. NOT NEXT WEEK. IT'S DECEMBER 9TH WHEN IT'S COMING BACK. IF WE COULD. THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK IS ALREADY OUT, RIGHT? IF WE COULD GIVE YOU SOME CONSENSUS TONIGHT FOR TODAY, THAT. I THINK THIS IS A WORKSHOP. LET'S JUST GIVE IT THE STAFF AND I REALLY DON'T MATTER WHAT. I'M GOING TO CHANGE IT BACK AND I CAN KEEP GOING THROUGH IT. 2.03.06 INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT, LOT AREA AND FLOOR AREA RATIO. TABLE REFERENCE TO TABLE FOUR IS THE CODE PRIOR TO REFERENCE. THIS IS A COMMENT REGARDING ADJUSTING THE CODE. THERE'LL BE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FLOOR RATIO AND DENSITY. NO DENSITY BONUS FOR MIXED USE. TABLE FOUR ADDRESSES. FLOOR RATIO. NEED TO DEVELOP. NEED TO REVISE TO CLARIFY. ALSO 2.04.02 MINIMUM WIDTH AND LOT AREAS UNLESS VARIED, NEED TO REMOVE SOME LANGUAGE IN THAT AS WELL. ALSO ADDRESSING MINIMUM LOT SIZE. IT MENTIONS NO RESIDENTIAL LOT LESS THAN 50FT IN WIDTH, MEASURED AT THE AVERAGE LOT WIDTH. NO PLATTED LOT SHALL CONTAIN LESS THAN 4356FT■!S. COMMISSION'S GOG TO BE ADDRESSING THAT TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 6,002.04 .02. BE IF TWO OR MORE ADJOINING LOTS WITH CONTINUOUS FRONTAGE ARE IN A SINGLE OWNERSHIP AT ANY TIME.

SUCH LOTS INDIVIDUALLY SHALL REMAIN THEM, SO THEY'RE NOT INTENDED NOT TO BE SUBDIVIDED.

THAT NEEDS TO BE NOT LOTS, BUT PARCEL, BECAUSE THE DEFINITION OF LOT OR PLAT 2.04.03 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CURRENTLY ALLOWS UP TO 65%. BOARD COMMENT WAS 50%. SUPPLEMENTAL BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SUGGESTION BY BOARD WAS TO MAKE SETBACKS TEN FEET INSTEAD OF FIVE FEET.

NEXT, ONE IS LOTS OF RECORD. SHOULD BE PARCEL OF RECORD COTTAGE LOT LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE RECONCILED WITH MINIMUM LOT SIZE WHEN ADOPTING THOSE 5000FT. BUT THERE'S ALSO MINIMUM LOT NOW OF 4356. EITHER REMOVE IT OR UPDATE IT 2.06.03 ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AND DETOX FACILITIES.

SHOULD WE ADD THE COUNTY LANGUAGE AND HAVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER AND A SPECIFIC SIZE AND DEFINE IT AS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY? NEXT ONE IS 2.06.22. EV CHARGING NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT

[03:10:06]

DUPLEXES AND NONCONFORMING USE COMMISSION IS GOING TO PROVIDE REGARDING DIRECTION REGARDING THE 50% RULE, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHEN THOSE DUPLEXES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN PEOPLE COME IN TO GET PERMITS, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO GET A PERMIT FOR UP TO 50% OF THE VALUE. AND AS A RESULT, THEY KEEP GETTING PERMITS OF UP TO 50% OF THE VALUE OF WHAT IT IS. THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR. SO THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE THAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED THERE TO NOT EXPAND THE USE CANNOT DO MORE THAN 50% OF THE VALUE AT THE TIME IT BECAME NON NONCONFORMING. QUESTION MARK ON HOW YOU DETERMINE MULTIFAMILY FOR EVERY SQUARE FOOT OF MULTIFAMILY IS EQUAL TO A SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL FOR DETERMINING FLOOR AREA RATIO. SELF STORAGE SHOULD ONLY BE AN INDUSTRIAL MULTIFAMILY WILL NOT HAVE SHARED PARKING WITH COMMERCIAL HALF UNITS SHALL BE REMOVED. MIXED USE PUD DOES NOT GET DENSITY. BONUS BASED UPON THE MIXED USE SHARED. CHAPTER THREE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DUPLEX SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. BE REQUIRED TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND WIDTH. SECTION 30204. FIGURE NINE E STEWART. MINIMUM LOT SIZE ZONING AND LOT AREA NO MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, BUT NO ONE DESCRIBES 4365 FOR DRIVE AND WANTING A MINIMUM LEASE. LOT SIZE THREE STEWART WITH AN INVENTORY. WE HAVE TO BRING IT BACK AS WELL. PROPERTY. PROPERTY IS GROW ON. TARPON SHOULD BE SINGLE AND RIGHT AND BY RIGHT AND GROW REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE. BIO SHOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY AND NOT GROW OR GROW BY RIGHT. SHOULD BE CONDITIONAL. USE DUPLEX MUST BE ADOPTED BY CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE CITYWIDE. SHOULD ALSO APPLY TO EAST STEWART AS WELL. YOU YOU INCLUDE EAST THAT OKAY. YEAH GMP WOULD. FIGURE DSM 42 MINIMUM PROVIDED PARKING SCHEDULE. THAT'S YOU GUYS WANT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO BE THE SAME. BUT THE OTHER MULTIFAMILY TO MEET THE CITYWIDE REQUIREMENTS. CMU, SFD AND GROW SHOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY BY RIGHT BUT ALLOW THE OTHER USES BY CONDITIONAL USE. EAST STREET CMU. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A DRUGSTORE, IT IS GOING TO BE A LARGE BUILDING. BUT I THOSE DUPLEXES. TANNER GOES A LONG WA. NO, NO. RIGHT OFF OF EAST OCEAN, ALL DUPLEXES. RIGHT. IT'S THE FISHERMAN'S VILLAGE OR WHATEVER IT'S CALLED. CENTRAL PARK PARKWAY. IF YOU'RE HEADING TO THE OCEAN, IT'S ON YOUR RIGHT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY.

VINNY. VINNY AND ROBALO ARE THE PARKWAY ROBALO. YEAH. OKAY. WHAT WOULD BE. I CANNOT BELIEVE HOW RIGHT THOSE ARE, BUT IT'S A VERY POPULAR NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW A LOT OF FISHERMAN'S VILLAGE MY AGE. WELL, THOSE ARE BUILT. I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M SAYING, WHAT WOULD BE THE PARK PERMIT? SO THEY WOULD BE IF THEY GOT, THEY WOULD BE 2.5 AND 2.5. SO EACH EACH DUPLEX WOULD NEED FIVE PARKING, FIVE PARKING SPACES. RIGHT NOW IT'S RIDICULOUS. YEAH. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. THEY DON'T HAVE THE SPACE. I MEAN, WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE PUTTING UP CONCRETE JUNGLE SINGLE. I'M JUST READING. THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. YOU GUYS ARE YOU'RE NOT. AND THEN I MADE SOME NOTES ON CHAPTER FOUR THAT YOU GUYS HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT, BUT I DID IT FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION. I MEAN, JUST IT'S A HALF OF A SPACE MORE THAN CURRENTLY IS. YOU'RE ACTING LIKE IT'S COMPLETELY UNHEARD OF. YEAH, IT'S A HALF SPACE. IT IS. THAT'S WHAT WE CHANGED THE. IT'S NOT SOME REVOLUTIONARY THING. CHAPTER SIX. NEW CONSTRUCTION. NEW PARKING WILL ONLY APPLY TO EXPANDED USES AND NEW CONSTRUCTION. 603 603 MULTIFAMILY PARKING SHOULD BE INCREASED BY 0.5 FOR EACH CRITERIA. FOR EXAMPLE, TWO BEDROOMS, 2.5 SPACES PER UNIT, ONE BEDROOM IS TWO SPACES PER UNIT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE IT INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS. RESIDENTIAL COMBINED WITH NONRESIDENTIAL SHALL HAVE FULL CALCULATION FOR COMMERCIAL AND FULL CALCULATION FOR RESIDENTIAL. 6.04.02 60% SHOULD BE SHADE TREES INSTEAD OF 50%.

[03:15:03]

PLATTED LOTS HAVE BEEN LOTS OF THE 20S, BUT THEY'RE NOT LEGAL PARCELS UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING. THAT'S THE NOTES I HAVE. CAN I OKAY. OH. GO ON. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MENTION THE WHOLE GOLF CART, MOTORCYCLE PARKING AS WELL. AND WHEN ALL THIS STUFF COMES BACK AND WE HAVE, LIKE SHARED PARKING FOR THE GOLF CART MOTORCYCLE, SO IT'S NOT SEPARATED. THAT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT IN WE DON'T WE'RE NOT WRITING CODE FOR THAT. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE THE SIGNS.

OKAY. AND THEN I GUESS WHEN THIS DOES COME BACK TO THE BOARD, IF WE CAN HAVE LIKE HISTORICALLY WHAT IT WAS AND SEE WHERE THE PROVISIONS ARE, BECAUSE I WAS ON THE PUBLIC SIDE WHEN I WOULD RESEARCH ORDINANCES AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TRYING TO FOLLOW IT. I LOOK AT MARTIN COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE VERSUS THE CITY OF STUART. HISTORICALLY, THE COUNTY SHOWED ALL THE PROVISIONS AND THE LINKS WORKED, AND IT JUST IT MADE IT SO MUCH EASIER. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU LOOK THROUGH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM OF IT, IT'LL CORRECT. IT'S STILL THERE. OURS HAS IT CORRECT. BUT THEY ALL DON'T WORK. BY THE WAY. AND YOU, YOU WOULD JUST DO THE RESEARCH AND GO THROUGH OUR, OUR ORDINANCE. YES. BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING YOU WANT SO WHEN I BRING IT BACK, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY LINK BECAUSE I'M NOT. THAT'S WHEN IT GOES, WHEN IT GETS CODIFIED BY MUNICODE WHEN THEY PUT THOSE IN. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE BRINGING BACK THE CODE AS YOU GUYS ARE REQUESTING IT RIGHT NOW. YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THE CHANGE. SO THERE ISN'T IT DOESN'T MATTER TO STAFF WHAT IT WAS BEFORE. IT'S WHAT YOU WANTED. WELL, I THINK FOR THE PUBLIC TO SEE WHERE THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE WOULD HELP. GOTCHA. OKAY, OKAY. IT'LL BE SO WE'LL SHOW THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE AND THEN BELOW IT, LIKE IN THE DRAFT, WILL ACTUALLY HAVE IT STRICKEN THROUGH WITH RED LINE. AND THEN UNDERLINED WITH RED WILL BE THE NEW LANGUAGE. THE PROPOSED TO REPLACE THE OLD LANGUAGE, BUT NOT THE HISTORY OF WHAT IT WAS TEN YEARS AGO. IT WON'T HAVE THAT. I HAVE TO DO MY OWN DUE DILIGENCE, I GUESS, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT. WELL, WE CAN DO IT, BUT IT'LL TAKE US A YEAR JUST BECAUSE IT'S NICE TO SEE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FEEL, RICH, BUT I KNOW WHEN I LOOK AT SOME OF THESE PAST ORDINANCES, IT'S NICE TO SEE WHERE THINGS WERE LINE STRIKED THROUGH. WE CAN WE CAN GET THAT. BUT I CAN PROMISE YOU WE CAN'T DO IT BY JANUARY. CORRECT? I MEAN, THAT'S TRUST ME. I KNOW HOW IT WAS WHEN I WAS CAMPAIGNING, TRYING TO FIND THIS STUFF. IT WAS ALMOST NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND IT. AND NOW THAT I'M A BOARD MEMBER, IT SHOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THIS STUFF HISTORICALLY. WELL, I KNOW THAT THE URBAN OVERLAY ZONES WERE ADOPTED IN 1987, ORIGINALLY BY DUANY AND THEN THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL CAME IN AND DID THE CHARRETTES IN 2001, AND ULTIMATELY ADOPTED THE EXTENSIVE OVERLAY OF THE CODE IN 2002. SO 87 AND 2002 WERE SUBSTANTIAL CODE CHANGES RELATED TO ZONING AND LAND USE, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE TWO E STEWART AND THE CREEK DISTRICT THAT WERE ADOPTED IN 2003. AND THEN YOU JUST HAVE MINOR ZONING CHANGES ALONG THE WAY AS IT RELATES TO, YOU KNOW, THINGS HERE AND THERE, LIKE FENCES AND FRONT YARDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE RANDOM. BUT OVERALL, THE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE WAS REALLY IN 2001 AND IN 87. AND THEN THESE TWO FORM BASED CODES IN 23, IF THERE'S ANYTHING PARTICULAR, I'D BE HAPPY TO BRING THE RESEARCH BACK. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR OR WHAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY. IT'S JUST A NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND ADDITIONAL SPACES THAT COMMISSIONER COLLINS HAD MADE A LITTLE COMMENT THAT PEOPLE WILL PARK ON THE GRASS ANYWAY, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I LIVE OVER BY PHINNEY AND ROBALO AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DO OVER THERE. YEAH. AND SO WE HAD THE WE HAD THE NO PARKING ON THE GRASS ORDINANCE, BUT THAT DIDN'T GO ANYWHERE. RIGHT. MR. MORTON, WE STILL HAVE THAT. OKAY. BUT IT'S NOT IT'S LET'S PUT IT IT'S NOT A I MEAN, WE DON'T IT'S NOT ENFORCED FOR AN HOUR ON THE GRASS. IT'S NOT ENFORCED. NO ONE'S GOING TO COME CODE ENFORCE THEM FOR THAT. BUT WHEN PEOPLE ARE REGULARLY PARKING THEIR CAR IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YARD, IF IT'S NOT ON A HARDENED SURFACE, WE CODE ENFORCE IT REGULARLY. AND SAME THING WITH BOATS OR ANYTHING ALONG THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

THOSE ARE CODE ENFORCED. BUT IF WE HAVE ALL YEAH, IF WE HAVE IF PEOPLE I GUESS IF THEY'RE GOING

[03:20:07]

THAT'S THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THOSE PROPERTY WERE HERE THIS MORNING. SO YOU'LL HAVE YOU'LL HAVE THE LEFT SIDE OVER HERE WHERE IT IS. BUT OVER HERE THESE ARE GOING TO BE HOMES OVER HERE. ALBERT BRINKLEY'S HOUSE. THEY'RE ALREADY CENTRAL. CENTRAL. THEY'RE THEY'RE ALREADY SINGLE FAMILY I KNOW, BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE CURRENTLY ZONED AS BUSINESS MIXED USE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO THE SAME THING THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WHERE BY RIGHT, YOU WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT WITH CONDITIONAL USE, YOU COULD BE LOOKING AT DOING SOMETHING TRADITIONAL. THERE WAS A BAIT SHOP THERE AND SOME OTHER THINGS, BUT CURRENTLY IT'S ALL

[03:25:01]

AND IS THEIR APPLICATION IN? NO, THEY DIDN'T GET THEIR APPLICATION IN BEFORE THE ZONING IN PROGRESS. SO AGAIN, THIS IS THIS IS SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH WITH CONDITIONAL USE IS BEING USED RIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THE STRUCTURE BEHIND THE SECOND HOUSE THERE. THAT RIGHT THERE HAS THREE APARTMENTS SEVEN UNITS. YEAH. YEAH SEVEN I THOUGHT IT WAS NINE BUT SEVEN.

SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE WHAT A BMU. WELL THEIR CONDITIONAL USE. WELL IT DEPENDS. SO RIGHT NOW THEY DID NOT APPLY FOR ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE ZONING IN PROGRESS. IT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN BROUGHT TO THEIR ATTENTION PRIOR TO THAT. AND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY APPLICATION.

SO WHEN YOU GUYS WHEN THEY MET WITH THEM, THEY SAID YOU'RE GOING TO NEED X PARKING SPACES IF THE CODE GETS ADOPTED AS STATED, IT'LL BE SO. AND AGAIN, I THINK THE ONES IN THE BACK ARE ONE BEDROOM, SO THEY'LL BE 1.5 INSTEAD OF ONE SPACE PER UNIT. I THINK. OR I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT MY NOTES WERE. IF IT'S FOR THE ONE BEDROOM WAS 2 OR 1 SPACE FOR I THINK IT'S 1.5. THAT'D BE 1.5, 1.5, 1.5, WHICH BE 4.5, AND THEN THE TWO BEDROOMS WOULD BE FIVE MORE, SO IT'D BE 9.5. SO, MIKE, WHY WOULD THEY HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD THOUGH, IF THEY ALREADY HAVE EXISTING STUFF WITH PERMITS WITHOUT PERMITS LIKE THE. SO WAS IT AN INTERIOR PERMIT TO BUILD A PORCH? AND THEN THEY WENT AND CONVERTED. GOTCHA. SO IT'S THEY HAVE A WAY TO GET AN EFFECT PERMANENT. YES. YOU HAVE TO GET COMMISSION APPROVAL. RIGHT. SO IT WOULD BE COMING FORWARD. BUT NOW PRIOR TO IT COMING FORWARD, STAFF WILL BE SAYING TO THEM, YOU NEED THIS MUCH PARKING AND THEY'RE GOING TO NEED X NUMBER OF SHADE TREES. AS I'M LOOKING AT IT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO MEET THE 50% IMPERVIOUS REQUIREMENT. YEAH. SO THEY PROBABLY WON'T I DON'T IT LOOKS PRETTY CLOSE. THEY MIGHT MAKE IT. BUT THERE'S ALSO AS YOU CAN SEE THE SETBACK ON THE TOP RIGHT CORNER IS NOT GOING TO MEET THE TEN FOOT SETBACK RIGHT. YEAH A LOT OF THE LAND WAS TAKEN UP WITH THE WETLAND HERE WITH THE LAKE AREA. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY WETLAND OR LAKE THERE. I THINK IT'S THE LOT LINE. SOME WATER, I KNOW, BUT THERE'S A PARCEL.

HAPPY. SORRY, STUART. ALL I MEAN, THAT'S GOT TO COME IN FRONT OF US FOR A VARIANCE THAT WAS GOING TO COME IN. EITHER WAY. IT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT. NO. IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR? FAMILY. A WILD WEST, AN APARTMENT ABOVE IT. DO YOU NEED TO GET A PERMIT? YEAH, YEAH. SO. SO THOSE WOULD BE MY SORT OF POINTERS. MIKE. OKAY, JODY, I'VE ADDED. IS THERE ANY OTHER. AND I THINK THAT MOSTLY INCORPORATES THE HOMES. I'M HAPPY TO EMAIL YOU THESE NOTES. YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT THEY DON'T READ. I'M LIKE I'M I'M KIND OF AD LIBBING AS I READ MY NOTES TO YOU. IT'LL BE FORMALIZED IN OUR NINTH AGENDA. YEAH, IT'LL BE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WILL BE ITEMIZED AS A RESOLUTION. SO WE CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT IT'S GOING

[03:30:02]

RIGHT. OKAY. BECAUSE THEY DO. THOSE ARE THE. YEAH. THAT'S THE COMPLAINTS I'VE GOTTEN. IT'S LIKE YOU KNOW THEY HAVE AIRBNB. THEY DON'T PICK UP THE GARBAGE THE NEXT DAY. THEY LEAVE IT OUT FOR DAYS. THE NEIGHBOR, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS CALL, OKAY, I WILL CALL AND REPORT IT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. SOMEONE WILL GO OUT THE NEXT DAY. OKAY. OF COURSE THE OWNER IS NOT THERE. THAT'S THE ISSUE. BUT THE AIRBNB PEOPLE HAVE LEFT AND THE OWNER IS NOT THERE. WE'LL PUT THE DANCE BACK FOR THEM. OKAY. OH WELL OKAY. SO MY LAST IS REALLY JUST A COMMENT AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A THREE MINUTE RULE, BUT TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST, I WOULD LIKE PEOPLE WHEN THEY SPEAK TO BE ABLE TO FINISH THEIR SENTENCE. WE CUT THEM OFF IN MID-SENTENCE OR MID-THOUGHT AND THAT'S IT. YOU'RE DONE. SIT DOWN. I JUST THINK IT'S ALMOST RUDE. JUST LET THEM FINISH THEIR COMMENT. THANK YOU. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE USED TO HAVE A FIVE MINUTE RULE AND THE SAME THING HAPPENED. SO WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IS THAT IT'S TEN MINUTES THAT PEOPLE WANT TO SPEAK FOR. AND SO NO MATTER HOW YOU DO IT, IF YOU OBVIOUSLY WHEN IT'S ONLY 2 OR 3 PEOPLE AT A PUBLIC HEARING, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL TO GO ON. WHEN YOU HAVE 50 PEOPLE LINED UP AND IT'S 150 MINUTES, AT THREE MINUTES EACH, IT BECOMES EXPENSIVE TO LET IT GO TO FIVE MINUTES EACH, BECAUSE THAT JUMPS TO 250 MINUTES OF PUBLIC COMMENT AS OPPOSED TO 150. AND YOU ADD ANOTHER TWO HOURS TO THE MEETING. BUT I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCEPT THAT IF THERE'S ONLY A FEW PEOPLE THERE, WE'RE A SMALL LITTLE TOWN. WE ALL KNOW YOU JUST FINISHING A SENTENCE. USUALLY WE CAN ALL GUESS WHAT THAT SENTENCE IS COMING AND JUST LET THEM FINISH. I WOULD ASK YOU, COMMISSIONER, TO GO BACK. CLEARLY THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THAT PEOPLE ARE CUT OFF. GENERALLY, I ALLOW THEM TO SPEAK AND FINISH. BUT YES, YOU DO, BUT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TODAY, WHICH IS WHY ACTUALLY AND THIS WAS NOT DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT. I REALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE LET THEM COME UP AT ALL. AND IN THAT INSTANCE, I WAS ANXIOUS TO HAVE THEM COMPLETE THEIR COMMENTS. SO THE PROBLEM IS, WHEN YOU START DEVIATING, YOU KNOW, YOU GET INTO NO MAN'S LAND VERY QUICKLY. SO IT'S A BALANCE. WE TRY TO STRIKE AND IT'S NEVER PERFECT. AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS FOR OUR ABILITY TO HEAR THE PUBLIC. I'VE BEEN AT THE OTHER END OF THAT AND WANTING TO FINISH. I HAVE BEEN AT THE OTHER END OF THAT MYSELF. ANY OTHER COMMENT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.