[6. POLK STREET HOTELS, INC. (AKA FAIRFIELD INN HOTEL) AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (REZONE) (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2537-2025; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE A 0.33-ACRE PARCEL WHICH IS LOCATED AT 255 SW 6TH STREET FROM THE URBAN WATERFRONT ZONING DESIGNATION TO THE URBAN HIGHWAY ZONING DESIGNATION; PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CITY CLERK; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

AND WE'LL BE GOOD WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT. NOW WE'RE GOING INTO WE'VE REVERSED THE AGENDA, SO WE'VE GOT THE POLK STREET HOTEL. AND THAT'S QUASI JUDICIAL, WHICH IT'S INTERESTING. I DON'T I DON'T REMEMBER LAST YEAR HAVING A QUASI JUDICIAL AND I'VE NEVER DONE ONE, I THINK I DID AT ONE TIME, BUT I DON'T THINK I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER DONE THOSE. I'VE SEEN THEM DONE AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING. BUT BASICALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT WE HAVE THAT THE, THE APPLICANT AND THE AND THE STAFF ARE SWORN IN AND WE HAVE AN OATH THEY HAVE TO TAKE, AND THAT BECOMES, YOU KNOW, THE BASIS FOR THEIR COMMENTS AND THE DISCUSSION THAT TAKES PLACE. SO I GUESS I WOULD. LEE, DO YOU WANT TO READ THE AGENDA ITEM? SURE I CAN. AND THEN I IF I MAY BE HEARD AFTER THAT, JUST TO KIND OF BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE JUDICIAL. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS AN ORDINANCE NUMBER 2537 2025 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE A 0.33 ACRE PARCEL, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 255 SOUTHWEST SIXTH STREET, FROM THE URBAN WATERFRONT ZONING DESIGNATION TO URBAN HIGHWAY ZONING DESIGNATION, PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CITY CLERK, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES AND CONFLICT. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND CHAIR, IF I COULD BE HEARD AGAIN FOR THE RECORD, CITY ATTORNEY LEE BAGGETT, WHEN YOU GUYS YOU YOUR BOARD IS AN ADVISORY BOARD THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME, THERE IS ONE PARTICULAR AREA ON PUBLIC ART. YOU GUYS ARE THE FINAL AUTHORITY, SO YOU MAKE THE FINAL DECISION. IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE WILL BE BINDING ON THE APPLICANT. ALL OTHER ISSUES THAT COME BEFORE YOU ARE ADVISORY. SO YOU ACT AS A BOARD AND YOU VOTE AND YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND WHEN WE HAVE QUASI JUDICIAL, IT'S AN APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO DO SOME SORT OF DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT. AND YOU'RE STEPPING OUT OF YOUR POSITION LIKE NORMALLY WE'RE IN A LEGISLATIVE TYPE DECISION MAKING AND YOU'RE STEPPING OUT OF THAT ROLE AND AS LIKE A LIKE

[00:20:02]

A JUDGE JUDICIAL. SO THERE'S EVIDENTIARY HEARING. IT'S EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT TO YOU IN TESTIMONY. IT CAN BE DOCUMENTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS AND SO FORTH THAT YOU REVIEW AND YOU'RE STEPPING OUT AND YOU'RE ACTING AS A JUDGE. THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED QUASI JUDICIAL. YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO BE ASKED ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. THE POINT IS, IS WHEN THERE'S AN APPLICANT COMING FORWARD WITH AN APPLICATION, IF YOU'VE SPOKEN TO LIKE A GROUP IN THE CITY THAT WANTED TO INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION ON YOUR VOTE, YOU WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT IF PEOPLE EMAILED YOU, YOU'D NEED TO GIVE YOU THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT'S COMING BEFORE. YOU NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT IF YOU SPEAK TO ANYBODY BEFORE THE MEETING ABOUT A PARTICULAR QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING THAT'S COMING BEFORE YOU, YOU JUST NEED TO DISCLOSE IT. THE WHOLE PURPOSE IS IT GIVES THE APPLICANT NOTICE THAT THAT CONVERSATION TOOK PLACE, AND THEY COULD ASK YOU ABOUT IT AND ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS OUT OF THAT. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON IF IT WAS OR NOT, IT'S PROBABLY BEST JUST TO GO AHEAD AND DISCLOSE IT ANYWAY, OR EVEN ASK ME. AND I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT STAFF BEING AVAILABLE. I'M AVAILABLE AT ANY TIME AS THE CITY ATTORNEY. I'M YOUR ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD. SO I'M HERE IN CITY HALL SO YOU CAN CALL OR EMAIL AND COME DOWN. I KNOW COMMISSIONER REED'S HERE. BEFORE HE WAS A COMMISSIONER, HE WAS COMING IN MY OFFICE GETTING ADVICE BECAUSE HE WAS ON ONE OF OUR ADVISORY BOARDS, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SO ACTUALLY, THAT'S NOT AN ADVISORY BOARD THAT THEY MADE FINAL DECISIONS. SO AND SO FEEL FREE. I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE HESITANT AT ALL ABOUT CALLING ME. ESPECIALLY A LOT OF THE NEWBIES ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AT THE END OF THIS. THE CITY CLERK AND I ARE GOING TO GIVE SOME GUIDANCE AND SOME EDUCATION ON PUBLIC RECORDS, WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO LOVE, AND THAT'LL PROBABLY ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE THAT EMAIL FROM THE ARCHITECT THAT BONNIE MENTIONED? WE RECEIVED? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET ME INDIVIDUALLY GO. YOU KNOW, I GUESS WE INDIVIDUALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH. SO. FREDERICK, IT JUST STATE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. IF THAT'S AND YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. THAT'S WHAT THEY ALWAYS SAY HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. SO FREDERICK JAMES AM HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. GOOD. I'M SCOTT WHALEN HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. I'M BONNIE MOSER HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. I ALSO CLAY SHARE ALSO HERE THAT OPEN MIND. NO, NO COMMUNICATION TO SHARE HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. AND MARK I HAVE HAD NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATION AND MY MIND IS WIDE OPEN ALL THE TIME. SO WE'RE GOOD. SO LET'S GET ALL THOSE THAT ARE GOING TO BE GIVING TESTIMONY. IF YOU CAN PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN IN AND OKAY. DO YOU AFFIRM THAT THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO PRESENT WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? YES.

THANK YOU. BE SEATED. OKAY, SO. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT ABOUT THIS. IS IT IS IT IS IT OKAY FOR THE STAFF TO SUMMARIZE WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED? I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF DATA, SO I'M JUST ASKING CAN CAN THE STAFF SUMMARIZE WHAT THE REQUEST IS? YEAH. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM OUR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR JODI KUGLER OVER HERE. AND SHE'S GOT A PRESENTATION. AND SHE'S GOING TO SUMMARIZE THE APPLICATION. AND I ASSUME SHE'S GOING TO HAVE SOME CHARTS AND GRAPHS AND SOME LANGUAGE UP THERE. THAT WHAT WHAT'S COMING BEFORE YOU AND DESCRIBE THE PROJECT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH. BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF US HAVE SEEN THIS ALREADY AT OTHER AT ANOTHER MEETING. AND IF THERE HAPPEN TO BE AT THE COMMISSION MEETING, IT WAS IT WAS BEEN DISCUSSED. SO I WAS JUST KIND OF I THINK IT'S GOOD IF YOU KIND OF WE KNOW WHAT WHAT ACTUALLY WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO AND WHAT THE CHANGE IS. THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IS GOING TO GO FIRST AND THE APPLICANT CAN SUPPLEMENT THAT. IF, IF HE OR SHE WANTS TO. AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. OKAY. BUT YOU'VE GOT A SCRIPT YOU CAN FOLLOW AND IT'S PRETTY EASY.

YEAH YEAH THAT'S GOOD. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO IF YOU'D PLEASE PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NEW POSITIONS. VICE MAYOR. AND I MEAN VICE CHAIR AND CHAIR. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JODY KUGLER, THE DEVELOPMENT

[00:25:02]

DIRECTOR WITH THE CITY OF STUART. TONIGHT, I'M PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS. FROM URBAN WATERFRONT TO URBAN HIGHWAY ZONING DESIGNATION, LOCATED AT 255 SOUTHWEST SIXTH STREET. FOR CONTEXT, THIS 0.33 ACRE PARCEL AT 255 SOUTHWEST SIXTH STREET IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THE SITE IS WITHIN THE URBAN OVERLAY DISTRICT AND IS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT, WHICH GENERALLY GENERAL USES PERMITTED INCLUDE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE, COMMERCIAL RECREATION, LODGING, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND CONSERVATION AND MIXED PROJECTS. AND THIS JUST SHOWS A CURRENT MAP OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA IN BLUE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S PRETTY CONSISTENT ON THE EAST SIDE. TODAY. THE EXISTING ZONING IS URBAN WATERFRONT, WHICH REFERS TO SPECIAL WATERFRONT ORIENTED USES INCLUDING MARINAS, RESTAURANTS, ENTERTAINMENT, HOTELS, AND HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. EXISTING MARINE INDUSTRIAL USES ARE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED. AND THIS JUST SHOWS THE LOCATION. AS YOU CAN SEE, MOST OF THE AREA IS IN PURPLE. THE PROJECT THAT THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF IS CIRCLED IN RED AND IN BLUE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO PROPOSE ZONING TO URBAN HIGHWAY, AND IT OCCURS ALONG BOTH SIDES OF SOUTHEAST FEDERAL HIGHWAY AS IT TRAVERSES THROUGH THE URBAN CODE DISTRICT. THIS AREA ALLOWS FOR LARGE FRONT SETBACKS AND HIGH ORIENTED COMMERCIAL OR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES, WITH GENEROUS PARKING LOTS. THIS IS ALSO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPOSED USE WOULD MAKE IT CONSISTENT ALONG THE CORRIDOR ON THE EAST SIDE. THIS PROPERTY AT ONE POINT IN TIME, IF YOU JUST LOOK AND I'LL PUT MY CURSOR ON IT AND WE'RE STILL DOING SOME A LITTLE BIT MORE RESEARCH. BUT WHEN THE URBAN CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 2002, THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE WAS PART OF URBAN WATERFRONT. SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 2000 AND 2 TO CURRENTLY, THIS PROJECT WAS CHANGED TO URBAN HIGHWAY. SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS ALONG THE WATERFRONT. BUT THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO IS THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. THIS WOULD MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE PATTERN IN THE ZONING PATTERN AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THIS POSITION, THIS PETITION CONFORMS TO THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN SECTION 11.01 .09 OF THE LAND OF THE STUART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FLORIDA STATUTES AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE CITY OF STUART. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD, FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY OF STUART CITY COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE REZONING. SUBJECT PARCEL FROM URBAN WATERFRONT TO URBAN HIGHWAY. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME BACKGROUND, WE DID GO TO THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY LAST WEEK AND WE ARE ALSO AT THE CITY COMMISSION. THERE IS CONCERNS FROM SOME SURROUNDING RESIDENTS, AND EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T CONDITION A REZONING APPLICATION, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO MEET WITH THE OWNERS OF SURROUNDING CHANNEL AVENUE JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER THE PLANS. ONCE WE CAN GET SOME CONSISTENT GUIDELINES. AND THIS ENDS MY PRESENTATION. I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR NIMESH PATEL. TODAY, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE ANY? I HAVE A FEW FOR JODY. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THE LAND USE IS NEEDED? AND I ASKED THAT LIKE DOES THE LAND USE CHANGE ALLOW THE OWNER TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THE PROPERTY, OR ARE THEIR REQUIREMENTS DIFFERENT FOR THE PROPERTY? AND I MEAN LIKE PARKING OR LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OR, YOU KNOW, HARDSCAPE, SOFT SCAPE REQUIREMENTS? VICE CHAIR MOSHER, THIS IS NOT ASKING FOR A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT. THEY'RE ASKING FOR A REZONING. SO THE LAND USE IS CONSISTENT. THE HOWEVER, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR URBAN HIGHWAY AND URBAN WATERFRONT ARE NOT CONSISTENT. OKAY. SO THEY ARE LOOKING TO REDEVELOP THE PROJECT. THE PARCEL THEY'VE COMBINED ALL THREE PARCELS AS ONE UNIT OF TITLE. SO WITH THE URBAN HIGHWAY, EVERYTHING IS TO PUSH FORWARD TOWARD THE US ONE CORRIDOR. URBAN WATERFRONT HAS GUIDELINES THAT PARKING HAS TO BE IN THE FRONT, AND THE BUILDING GET PUSHED ALL THE WAY

[00:30:04]

TO THE REAR. SO THERE'S SOME INCONSISTENCIES. AND TO MAKE THE PATTERN, THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN CONSISTENT, STAFF HAD RECOMMENDED THE APPLICANT CONSIDER DOING AN AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE WE JUST PUT MY CURSOR ON THAT RIGHT HERE. THIS IS THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE SPEAKING OF. THE PATELS HAVE PURCHASED THIS WHOLE PROPERTY AND COMBINED IT. SO IF THEY WERE TO TRY TO COMBINE BOTH DESIGN GUIDELINES, IT'S VERY INCONSISTENT. SO TO MAKE IT THEY'RE PROPOSING A HOTEL WHICH IS GOING TO BE PUSHED TOWARD THE FRONT OF US. ONE. AND THAT IS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THAT CORRIDOR. OKAY. I GUESS I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE EXACT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ITS CURRENT ZONING AND APPLICATION. WHAT WHAT DENSITY WOULD BE ALLOWED IN EXCESS WITH THE FUTURE ZONING AND THE PROPOSED ZONING? WOULD THERE BE ADDITIONAL DENSITY INVOLVED, ADDITIONAL PARKING, ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN THAT SPOT? BOARD MEMBER THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE WITH THE DENSITY.

IT'S JUST REALLY JUST MAKING THE DESIGN LINES CONSISTENT. BOTH ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOW A HOTEL USE. BOTH ALLOW DENSITY. IT'S JUST INCONSISTENT WITH DESIGN GUIDELINES WITHIN BOTH DISTRICTS. ONE SAYS PUSH IT BACK, THE OTHER ONE SAYS PUSH IT FORWARD TO BE CONSISTENT, PUSHING THE BUILDING FORWARD AND HAVING PARKING IN THE REAR WITH SOME DESIGN ELEMENTS TO THE BUILDING WOULD BE CONSISTENT ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, BUT DOESN'T ALLOW ADDITIONAL DENSITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU. YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I THINK BASED ON ALL THE INFORMATION, JODY, YOU AND THE TEAM, I THINK MADE A VERY SENSIBLE RECOMMENDATION TO SIMPLY CHANGE THE ZONING TO MAKE IT MORE CONSISTENT. IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND IT'S PROBABLY JUST I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY, BUT IT'S KIND OF AN ODDITY THAT THAT PIECE WAS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF IT, BUT PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME. AND IT LOOKS GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I GUESS I DO. I HEARD THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD TALK WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE AROUND AFTER. IF YOU APPROVE THE ZONING, THE CHANGE, WILL THEY HAVE AN INPUT AFTER THAT? WILL THERE BE ANY PROTECTIONS FOR THEM AFTER THAT? IF THEY DECIDED, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT THIS IN MY COMMUNITY CHAIR, CHAIR, A BOARD MEMBER, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO THE WAY OUR CODE IS SET UP, THAT ANYTHING UNDER 50,000FT■!S IS APPROVED AT ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL, WHICH WOULD BE AT MY LEVEL. HOWEVER, THE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE CONSISTENT REGARDLESS IF IT'S APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION OR THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATION. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO MEET WITH THE OWNERS ALONG FRAZIER CREEK AND ALONG CHANNEL AVENUE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS. SO WE WILL BE WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE RESIDENTS, AND ONCE WE GET THE NEW PLAN SUBMITTED, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO MAKE SURE THAT SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS ARE ADDRESSED. THANK YOU. OKAY.

THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. JODY, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. SO REALLY THE STAFF KIND OF SUGGESTED THIS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THIS IS ONE PARCEL THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING AROUND IT. AND THEY'VE KIND OF SUGGESTED YOU SHOULD MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING.

RIGHT? ISN'T THAT REALLY KIND OF HOW IT CAME ABOUT A CHAIR? THAT IS CORRECT. JUST BECAUSE OF REDEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. RIGHT. AND IF YOU NOTICE IT, KIND OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT EVEN LOCATED ALONG THE WATERFRONT. YEAH. THERE'S ANOTHER PARCEL IN BETWEEN THAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED SO IT DOESN'T MEET THE INTENT, PROBABLY FROM THE 2002 GUIDELINES. LIKE I SAID RIGHT HERE, IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR, THIS RIGHT HERE, THIS SECTION IN 2002 WAS URBAN WATERFRONT.

SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED. SO THAT'S WHEN THIS MAKE THIS INCONSISTENT. AND THAT WHOLE SPOT THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THERE IN YELLOW. THAT'S ALL UNDER UNITY OF TITLE.

RIGHT. SO YOU'D HAVE ONE PARCEL THAT WOULD BE UNDER ONE. UNIFIED USE. AND THE OTHER ONE. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. SO THEN THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS THAT ASSUMING THIS WAS NOT APPROVED, ASSUMING THAT WE DON'T GO ALONG WITH IT, IT DOESN'T STOP THEM FROM DOING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. I MEAN, THEY CAN BUILD WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD UNDER UNDER THE EXISTING CODE. THEY MAY HAVE TO ADJUST WHERE THEY PUT THE PARKING, BUT OTHERWISE IT DOESN'T STOP. THE PROJECT, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M SAYING CORRECT. IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE THE ZONING IS GOING TO MAKE IT SO THAT NOW THEY CAN'T DO WHAT THEY THEY CAN'T PUT A HOTEL ON THERE WHERE THEY COULD BEFORE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. RIGHT? SO TYPICALLY WE DON'T TALK ABOUT THE SITE PLAN DURING REZONING. BUT YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. BOTH BOTH DISTRICTS ALLOW FOR A HOTEL USE. OKAY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE BIG QUESTION TOO, THAT I HAVE IS THAT. SO LET'S ASSUME THAT BECAUSE AT THE

[00:35:07]

COMMISSION MEETING AS WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO REALLY DISCUSS THE SPECIFIC USE.

BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S A PROPOSED USE FOR IT. SO EVEN IF THAT USE GOES AWAY, THIS DOESN'T REALLY GIVE ANOTHER PERSON SOME ADVANTAGE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW. RIGHT.

HIGHER DENSITY LEVELS OR ANY KIND OF THING LIKE THAT. CHAIR. THAT IS CORRECT. IF THE HOTEL I, EVERYTHING GOES THROUGH AS, AS PLANNED AND IT'S BUILT AS A HOTEL, AND THEN FOR SOME REASON THE OWNERS SELL THE PROPERTY AND THEY DON'T WANT A HOTEL ANYMORE AND THEY WANT TO KNOCK IT DOWN, OR THEY WANT TO REMODEL TO SOMETHING ELSE. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COME TO THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND DO A NEW SITE PLAN, AND SOME OF THAT COULD BE ELEVATED UP TO A TO A STAFF, I MEAN, TO A COMMISSION LEVEL BASED ON WHAT THE TYPE OF USE. BUT YOU JUST CAN'T ARBITRARILY GO IN THERE AND CHANGE THE USE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SOME TYPE OF PROCESS.

ALL RIGHT. SO IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR THEM TO DECIDE POTENTIALLY OR AT LEAST TO STAFF. YES. AND PARTICULARLY IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR DENSITY. OKAY, OKAY. ANY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS OKAY. SO. LET ME SEE. DO WE HAVE ANY DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. OKAY. IF I CAN IF I COULD GET A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND. SECOND OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP IN CASE THE PUBLIC HAS ANY KIND OF QUESTION. AND THE BOARD ALSO WILL DISCUSS ISSUES. BUT I'D LIKE TO GET IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, I'D LIKE TO GET THAT FIRST BEFORE THE BOARD DELIBERATES. NO, CHAIR. I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WHAT? I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND ON ON A MOTION TO APPROVE. SO WE NEED A ROLL CALL BECAUSE IT'S QUASI RIGHT. CORRECT. BOARD MEMBER JAMES. YES. BOARD MEMBER.

MANERO. YES. CHAIR. BRECHBILL. YES. VICE CHAIR. MOSER. YES. BOARD MEMBER. SHERER. YES. AND BOARD MEMBER. WHALEN. YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I THANK THE APPLICANT FOR BEING HERE AND THE STAFF FOR HELPING US GET THROUGH THAT. APPRECIATE IT. THE NEXT ITEM, BECAUSE WE MOVED

[5. ZONING IN PROGRESS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS IMPLEMENTATION (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2539-2025; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CITY’S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER II ZONING DISTRICTS USES ALLOWED, DENSITY, INTENSITY, CHAPTER III SPECIAL ZONING CODES, CHAPTER V RESOURCE PROTECTION RELATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND CHAPTER VI ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH WERE DETERMINED DURING THE "ZONING IN PROGRESS" UNDER SECTION 1.04.04, STUART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

THINGS AROUND A LITTLE BIT, HAS TO DO WITH ITEM FIVE, ZONING AND PROGRESS, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TEXT AMENDMENTS. LEAH I'LL READ IT. YEAH. GOOD. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, BOARD MEMBERS, YOU WERE IN THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING AND NOW WE'RE GOING BACK. YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR LEGISLATIVE HAT ON OKAY. SO NOW YOU'RE CREATING NEW YOU'RE THEY'RE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BASICALLY NOW. SO NOW YOU'RE A LEGISLATOR. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2539 DASH 2025, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER TWO, ZONING DISTRICTS USES ALLOWED DENSITY, INTENSITY. CHAPTER THREE SPECIAL ZONING CODES. CHAPTER FIVE RESOURCE PROTECTION RELATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND CHAPTER SIX ON SITE AND OFF SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WHICH WERE DETERMINED DURING THE ZONING IN PROGRESS UNDER SECTION 1.04.04 STUART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ALL RIGHT. YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF MATERIAL IN HERE. I THINK THAT. AND I DID I THINK IT IT'S GOOD FOR US AS A BOARD. THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I THINK ULTIMATELY WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO BE ABLE TO, TO GO THROUGH IN A WORKSHOP THE CITY'S GOTTEN I THINK THE COMMISSION HAS GOTTEN, YOU KNOW, THROUGH A LOT OF THIS STUFF. YOU KNOW, PRETTY SOON IT I THINK IT'S EXTENDED TILL MARCH, ISN'T IT. RIGHT NOW, MARCH 4TH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE ZONING IN PROGRESS. SO, SO RIGHT NOW. YEAH, WE HAVE TO GO TO A SECOND READING WITH THE COMMISSION. BUT WE'RE GOING BEFORE YOU TODAY. AND I THINK ON THURSDAY WE GO BEFORE THE LPA WITH THE SAME LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I THINK JODY WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION AND GO OVER. SHE'LL SUMMARIZE THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED DURING THE ZONING AND PROGRESS WORKSHOPS, AND LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION ON THOSE CHANGES TO TAKE TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE GOOD. I STARTED GOING THROUGH THEM MYSELF AND I SAID, BOY, I WISH JODY WAS HERE. THANK YOU AGAIN. MY NAME IS JODY. I'M THE DEVELOPMENT

[00:40:01]

DIRECTOR. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS TIME JUST TO I'M GOING TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THE CHAPTERS THAT WERE MOSTLY AFFECTED. AND IT'S KIND OF IT'S A WORKING IN PROGRESS BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THE ACTUAL STRIKE THROUGH UNDERLYING ZONING. BUT WE DID GO THROUGH THE CHAPTERS AND WE'LL EXPLAIN TO YOU SOME OF THE CHANGES. BUT I DID WANTED TO OFFER TO YOU THAT I FOUND SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS UNIQUE WHEN YOU CAN FIND HISTORY OF THE CITY OF STUART. THIS IS A ZONING MAP FROM 1978. YOU CAN SEE IT'S THE BOUNDARIES REALLY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH. SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF SHOW YOU THAT. AND THEN ALSO I FOUND, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET TO DO A LOT OF RESEARCH, IT'S VERY FUN. THIS IS YOUR FIRST LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 1940.

SO THIS WAS VERY INTERESTING BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE CHANGES OR OVER HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS, NOT MUCH HAS CHANGED OTHER THAN ADDING IN YOUR URBAN DISTRICTS AND SOME OF YOUR OVERLAYS, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE THE SAME INTENT BACK THEN AS AS WE HAVE TODAY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF SHOW YOU THIS, AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY LABELED THE DISTRICTS BACK THEN IN 1940. THIS WAS ADOPTED IN MAY, MARCH OF 1940. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I DEFINITELY WASN'T AROUND. SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME HISTORY. OKAY, SO NOW TO THE FUN STUFF. SO A LOT OF THE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED WAS IN CHAPTER TWO AND IN CHAPTER SIX. THAT'S WHERE A MAJORITY OF OUR CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WAS REQUESTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION DURING OUR VERY LENGTHY WORKSHOPS. SOME OF THEM WERE THAT THE COMMISSIONERS REQUESTED THAT WE CHANGE, INSTEAD OF A LOT TO CALL A PARCEL RECORD OR A PARCEL IN THE CITY OF STUART OR IN MARTIN COUNTY, ANYTHING THAT'S ASSIGNED TO ANY TYPE OF LAND THAT'S ASSIGNED TO THE MARTIN COUNTY HAS AN ASSIGNED PARCEL NUMBER, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT HAVE AN ADDRESS, BUT IT DOES HAVE A PARCEL NUMBER. SO THEY CALL IT A PARCEL RECORD. SO SINCE WE ARE PRETTY MUCH A BUILT OUT CITY, WE THOUGHT IT WAS CONSISTENT TO SAY INSTEAD OF LOT BECAUSE SOME LOTS THAT ARE PLATTED, SOME PEOPLE HAVE HAD THE COMBINED THEM AND HAD THREE LOTS TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, A VERY NICE BACKYARD OR HAVE THAT OPEN SPACE IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL HOMES. SO WE HAVE MODIFIED THE CODE TO SAY PARCEL, RECORD OR PARCEL. SO YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THAT CLEANUP LANGUAGE IN CHAPTER TWO. CHAPTER THREE. CHAPTER SIX. CHAPTER. FOUR, FIVE AND EIGHT. SO YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THAT STRIKE THROUGH SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE. SO THE WORD LOT DOESN'T EXIST THERE ANYMORE.

CORRECT. WE ARE NO LONGER. SO ANYTHING THAT'S AFTER SEPTEMBER 4TH, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN. MEANING THAT IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF RECORD OR A PARCEL RECORD, WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT NOW BEFORE YOU CALL A LOT OF RECORD, NOW WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT A PARCEL RECORD. THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE WORD I DON'T LIKE TO SAY GRANDFATHERED BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY BUT IN YOUR WORLD IS YOU HEAR A LOT OF IT'S GRANDFATHERED IN. SO YOU MAY HAVE ONLY ONE PARCEL RECORD PARCEL RECORD, BUT YOU MAY HAVE THREE LOTS THAT COMBINE THAT. SO AS OF SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2024, ALL LOTS ARE CONSIDERED GRANDFATHERED IN REGARDLESS IF THEY HAVE A STRUCTURE OR THEY DON'T HAVE A STRUCTURE OR THEY GET DAMAGED, THEY CAN REBUILD THE STRUCTURE THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE TODAY. SO I JUST THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION MADE. THE OTHER CHANGE THAT'S PROBABLY VERY, VERY SIGNIFICANT IS THAT THEY DID NO SHARED PARKING THROUGHOUT THE CITY, INCLUDING THE URBAN AREA. SO THEY WILL SO SOME OF THOSE, YOU'LL SEE THOSE CHANGES WHERE WE WILL NOT HAVE SHARED PARKING. ANYTHING THAT REFERRED TO SHARED PARKING HAS NOW BEEN STRIKE THROUGH. COULD YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF SHARED PARKING? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO IN THE URBAN AREA, THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES THAT DON'T MEET ALL THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THEIR NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR MAY HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES SO THEY CAN HAVE A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT AND THEY CAN UTILIZE THEIR PARKING. SO TYPICALLY IT WORKS REALLY WELL WITH A RESTAURANT NEXT DOOR OR A IN A DOCTOR'S OFFICE. SO A LOT OF TIMES DOCTOR'S OFFICES WE ALL KNOW IS BUSY DURING THE DAY, BUT A RESTAURANT DOESN'T START THERE THEIR CLIENTELE TO ABOUT 4:00.

SO THEY'LL DO THAT SHARED PARKING. SO THE BOARD WANTED TO AMEND THAT TO JUST SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO PARK ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT THE BOARD DID MAKE. ALSO, IN YOUR MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS, ANY TYPE OF SHARED PARKING OR

[00:45:06]

ANYTHING THAT'S AND I'LL JUST KIND OF SCROLL DOWN. SO IT KIND OF HELPS YOU OUT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF SCROLLING. BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, AS YOU'LL SEE. AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M GOING TOO FAST. IF YOU GET DIZZY, LET ME KNOW, BECAUSE I DO HAVE SEIZURES. SO. HOLD ON ONE SECOND AND I WILL EXPLAIN SOME OF THIS. THESE ARE YOUR TABLES THAT HAVE ONE OF THE OTHER CHANGES THEY DID MAKE TO. AND SINCE I CAME TO THIS, THIS THIS IS YOUR PERMITTED USE CHARTS THAT'S ALLOWED IN EACH DISTRICT. SO IF IT HAS A P IT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHTS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY FELT IS THAT ALL WAREHOUSES OR STORAGE FACILITIES OR WHOLESALE AND DISTRIBUTION CENTERS SHOULD BE LOCATED ONLY IN YOUR INDUSTRIAL AREAS. SO THAT WAS A CHANGE THAT THEY MADE. AND AS YOU CAN SEE THAT WE CROSSED THROUGH THE PERMITTED USES IN OTHER DISTRICTS AND ADDED IT INTO THE INDUSTRIAL AS A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHTS. ALSO, WE DID ADD SOME LANGUAGE BECAUSE SOME OF THESE WILL SAY A AND OR THEY'LL SAY CONDITIONAL USE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHENEVER THEY ASK WHAT IS ALLOWED THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? SO WE SAID BY RESOLUTION, JUST TO KIND OF GIVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION. SO IN YOUR MIXED USE OR YOUR FLOOR AREA, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT A MIXED USE PROJECT THAT HAS COMMERCIAL AND IT HAS RESIDENTIAL COMBINED TOGETHER, THERE SHOULD BE SOME TYPE OF MIX THAT IF YOU'RE ALLOWED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL AREA, THEN YOU SHOULD BE A REDUCTION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR EACH UNIT. SO IF YOU IN THIS SAYS 800, BUT I DO BELIEVE IT ENDED UP AT 1000FT■!S. SO EVERY 1000FT■!S OF COMMERCIAL YOU LOS. YOU LOSE A REDUCTION OF ONE DENSITY UNIT AS PART OF YOUR CALCULATION. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A LARGER SITE. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT THEY DID MAKE. SO, SO AND I'M I HATE TO USE COSTCO AS ONE OF MY, MY EXAMPLES, BUT IT IS ONE OF OUR LARGER PIECES. AND SO WE DO HAVE ONE MORE LARGE PIECE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE FOUNTAINS THAT'S EAST THAT'S JUST SOUTH ON US. ONE IS THAT LARGE 24 ACRE SITE ON THE EAST SIDE. WHICH ONE IS THAT? WHAT IT'S CALLED, THE FOUNTAINS, IS BY DOMENICA TERRACE. THERE'S A HUGE. THAT'S ONE OF OUR PROBABLY OUR LARGEST PROPERTY. THAT WAS A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. IT IS EXPIRED. SO WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INTEREST IN THERE. SO IF THEY COME IN AND THEY WANT TO DO MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WAS CONCERNED ABOUT WAS INSTEAD OF USING GROSS ACRES FOR YOUR COMMERCIAL PORTION OF IT AND USING GROSS ACRES FOR YOUR DENSITY SO YOU GET ALL YOUR DENSITY, YOU GET ALL YOUR COMMERCIAL, THEY WANTED TO ADD SOME FORMULA IN THERE THAT YOU WOULD REDUCE. IF YOU'RE ALLOWED 1000FT■!S OF COMMERCIAL, YOU LOE ONE UNIT PER 1000FT■!S OF COMMERCIAL THAT YOU ADD. SO EVEN THOUGH IF YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED 30 UNITS AND YOU HAVE TEN ACRES OF COMMERCIAL, IT WOULD BE ONE UNIT PER THOUSAND. SO THIS WOULD BE REALLY ON OUR LARGER SITES IN THE CITY. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF VACANT SITES, PROBABLY THE FOUNTAINS WE REFER TO AS THE FOUNTAINS, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE OLD NAME OF IT. THAT'S PROBABLY THE LARGEST SITE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW THAT'S VACANT, THAT WE GET A LOT OF INTEREST IN. SO ALSO THERE WAS SOME CHANGES MADE BACK IN, I DO BELIEVE, 2019 WHERE YOU COULD DO THESE POTENTIAL BONUS UNITS WHERE IT TYPICALLY WAS DOWN THE URBAN AREA WHERE YOU COULD DO WHAT'S CONSIDERED HALF UNITS, AND THEN YOU GET PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR REDUCTIONS BECAUSE YOU HAVE HALF UNITS AND YOU. SO IF YOU'RE ALLOWED 30 UNITS PER ACRE, YOU'RE ALLOWED 45 UNITS PER ACRE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE YOU COUNT THE UNIT AS A HALF UNIT. SO THE BOARD WAS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. SO THEY'RE ASKING TO STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE. SO WE DID DO THAT. LET'S SEE HERE. SOME OF THIS IS JUST CLEAN UP LANGUAGE. AGAIN THESE ARE DENSITY BONUSES WHERE MIXED USE ARE AVAILABLE. WE THEY FELT THAT DENSITY BONUSES ARE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR MIXED USE PUDS. SO THE SAME THING THEY COULD HAVE LARGE SMALLER UNITS ALMOST LIKE THOSE HALF UNITS. SO AND LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF LAND LEFT IN THE CITY OF CITY OF STEWART. SO IT REALLY WOULD ONLY APPLY TO LARGER SITES. AND LIKE I SAID, WE ONLY

[00:50:04]

HAVE LIKE 20 ACRE LARGE SITE THAT'S PRETTY MUCH VACANT AT THIS TIME FOR THAT TYPE OF USE.

SOME OF THESE. THIS AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE THE MULTIFAMILY THIS IS THE FORMULA RIGHT HERE. AND SOME OF THESE I DO HAVE HIGHLIGHTED BECAUSE ONCE I GO OVER THIS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AT THE FIRST READING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE CLARIFICATION THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HEARD, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT THEY DID. THEY HAD A LOT OF MEETINGS AND THEY HAD A LOT OF WORKSHOP, AND THEY WERE MANY HOURS THAT THEY PUT INTO THIS. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAPTURED EVERYTHING THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING. SO IF YOU SEE SOME HIGHLIGHTED, IT'S PROBABLY SOME QUESTIONS THAT STAFF STILL KIND OF HAS ON THE ON TO ASK THE CITY COMMISSION. AND AS THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGE WAS IN YOUR R3, WE CHANGED THE LOT SIZE TO 5000FT■!S. OR IT COULD BE 500 OR 6000. I WASN'T SURE WHERE EXACTLY WHERE THEY LANDED, BUT THERE'LL BE NO LONGER 4356FT■!S LOT, LOT OR PARCEL A PARCEL. I'M SORRY. I'M GETTING USED TO SAYING THAT MYSELF. SO AGAIN, WE DID. AND WE DO HAVE TO WORK ON SOME LANGUAGE ON THIS, BUT WE DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYBODY WHO HAS PARCELS OF RECORD, THEY WERE PROTECTED. SO IF YOU HAVE A PROPERTY THAT HAS 4500, 4356 SQUARE FOOT LOT, AND THEY HAD A PARCEL SIGNED BEFORE THE SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2024 DATE, THAT PARCEL IS A BUILDABLE PARCEL. SO WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS SAFEGUARDED.

AND THAT'S THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THE OTHER THING WAS IN YOUR COMMERCIAL, INSTEAD OF 65% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE, THEY CAN HAVE 50%, BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE TO USE LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS YOUR WHAT WE REFER TO AS LIDS. YOU DO YOUR PERMEABLE PAVERS, YOU DO YOUR FRENCH DRAINS. SO YOU GET CREDIT FOR THAT. AND THEN LATER ON IN THE CODE. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO GET CREDIT, AND THEN YOU'RE HAVING TO PUT 65% OF YOUR MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE FOR COMMERCIAL. AGAIN, SOME CLEANUP WITH THE LOT VERSUS PARCEL. SO THIS IS WHERE WE REALLY FOCUSED IN ON TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE PARCELS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS VERY CLEAR. AGAIN, THERE'S ANOTHER NOTE ABOUT THAT. NO PLATTED PARCEL RECORD SHALL CONTAIN LESS THAN 4000. ACTUALLY, THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED. LESS THAN SIX. IT SHOULD BE EITHER 5000 OR 6000FTS THAT EXISTED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2024, AND ANY NEWLY CREATED PARCEL RECORD SHALL CONTAIN NOT LESS THAN 6000FT■!S AFTER SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2024. AGAIN, THIS IS QUESTION TO THE COMMISSIONER WAS DID WE LAND ON 5000 OR 6000? SO THERE'S SOME CLARIFICATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FROM THE BOARD. SAME THING.

THIS IS JUST BASICALLY CLEAN UP LANGUAGE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, PLEASE STOP ME OR, YOU KNOW, ASK THE QUESTIONS, BECAUSE WE HAVE QUITE A FEW CHAPTERS THAT I'M GOING TO BE SCROLLING THROUGH AND JUST KIND OF IDENTIFY WHAT WE DID. AGAIN, SOME MORE CLEANUP LANGUAGE. LET'S SEE HERE. AND THE COTTAGE LOTS WERE CHANGED THEM TO COTTAGE PARCELS. SO AND WE DO HAVE TO UPDATE THE RENDERING SHOWING WHAT A COTTAGE LOT COTTAGE PARCEL WILL LOOK LIKE. SO THIS HAS TO BE CHANGED. BUT I HAD TO IMAGE IT OUT AND PUT IT BACK IN AND MARK IT UP.

SO I HAVE A NOTE TO DO THAT. LET'S SEE HERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WILL BE PRETTY MUCH CHAPTER TWO. JODY, WAS THERE SOMETHING I'M ON THE AGENDA PACKET THE SIDE SETBACKS. IT WAS CHAPTER 2.04.04. SIDE BACK SHALL BE A SIDE SETBACK. SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET. WHAT DOES THAT APPLY TO? SO I DO BELIEVE AND THIS IS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE TO RAISE BACK TO THE BOARD, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME INCONSISTENCY GOING BACK AND FORTH. AND SO THE, THE, THE SETBACKS WOULD BE FOR RESIDENTIAL FOR R1, R2. SO THEY RIGHT NOW SOME OF THEM ARE FIVE FEET, SOME OF THEM ARE SEVEN TEN FEET AND SOME OF THEM ARE 7.5. I THINK THEY WERE LOOKING FOR

[00:55:01]

CONSISTENCY. HOWEVER, ONE OF OUR CONCERNS, IF WE CHANGE THOSE SETBACKS AND YOU HAVE A BUILT OUT NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT INCONSISTENT PATTERN OF HOW THE HOUSES ARE PLACED. SO WE DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS THAT ARE RAISED BACK TO THE BOARD ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR. OR WERE THEY LOOKING TO CHANGE IT THROUGHOUT THE SINGLE FAMILY OR SO WE WEREN'T QUITE SURE. SO WE DO HAVE A QUESTION BACK TO THE BOARD THAT WE WILL BE RAISING ON ON MONDAY.

AFTER YOU SCROLL THROUGH EVERYTHING. YES, GO BACK THROUGH AND HIGHLIGHT ANY MAJOR THINGS THAT ARE STILL UNDER CONTENTION OR UNDER. SURE, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. BECAUSE THE THINGS THAT ARE MOST RELEVANT NOW, AS OPPOSED TO THE HISTORY IS FASCINATING. BUT YEAH, OKAY.

LIKE I SAID, THIS IS CHAPTER TWO. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THESE. SO THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT WE THAT ONE OF OUR CONSTITUENTS ASKED ABOUT HOME OCCUPATIONS, IF THEY COULD USE THEIR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AS A HOME OCCUPATION. SO LIKE IF YOU WANTED TO PUT A SALON OR IF YOU WANTED TO PUT YOUR LITTLE OFFICE IN YOUR ADU, THE BOARD WOULD BE IT WOULD BE ALLOWED THROUGH AND APPROVED THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO WE DID ADD LANGUAGE FOR THAT. LET'S SEE HERE AGAIN, JUST SOME CLEAN UP LANGUAGE. NOT TOO MUCH MORE CHANGE IN CHAPTER TWO. LET ME JUST CHECK MY NOTES REAL QUICK. I JUST WANT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO POSE BACK TO THE BOARD. SO THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DUPLEXES ON FLAMINGO. SO APPARENTLY WHEN THEY WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY THEY WERE ANNEXED AS R-1. SO THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT THEY REQUESTED US TO ADD IN THERE THAT THEY CAN NO LONGER EXPAND.

IT'S A NONCONFORMING USE. SO IF THE DUPLEX WAS DESTROYED OR 50% DAMAGE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REBUILD. AND WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE BOARD. AND THAT'S SPECIFICALLY TO FLAMINGO. OR IS THAT THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY TO FLAMINGO. OKAY. SO WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD TO RAISE IF THAT WAS THE INTENT. WE DO HAVE LANGUAGE IN OUR OUR CODE THAT DOES TALK ABOUT A NONCONFORMITY. AND ALSO IF IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED THERE IS A FORMULA. AND THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO EXPAND THE NONCONFORMING USE. THOSE THOSE DUPLEXES, AT LEAST IN FISHERMAN'S VILLAGE OR I THINK NEARBY WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THERE. IT'S WHERE I LIVE RIGHT NOW. BUT THOSE THOSE WERE SOLD ORIGINALLY AS SINGLE UNITS. I MEAN, YOU BOUGHT BOTH SIDES. AND THEN A LOT OF PEOPLE, THOUGH, THEY'VE BEEN SPLIT. AND SO THERE'S ONE OWNER THAT OWNS ONE SIDE AND ONE OWNER THAT OWNS THE OTHER. SO IS THAT GOING TO GO AWAY? ARE THOSE NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED A SINGLE FAMILY ANYMORE. AND YOU CAN'T I MEAN, WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEBODY I GUESS WHAT HAPPENS. SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS IF, IF THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE BOARD, THE, THE ZONING TODAY THERE IS, IS R-1, WHICH MEANS YOU ONLY HAVE ONE UNIT OR ONE PRIMARY. SO WHAT HAPPENS OVER TIME? YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO EXPAND THE DUPLEX. AND IF IT GETS 50% DAMAGED, THEN THERE IS A FORMULA THAT YOU CAN ONLY REPLACE A CERTAIN AMOUNT WITHIN THREE YEARS. IF NOT, IF IT HAS TO BE TORN DOWN FOR SOME REASON, YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. YOU HAVE TWO OWNERS TO SETTLE THEM. YEAH, RIGHT. THE COURTS, REAL ESTATE. YEAH. HOW? WHAT? HOW? I MEAN, WHY CAN'T WE JUST CHANGE THE ZONING OR CREATE A ZONING FOR DUPLEXES? I MEAN, THAT THAT'S CRAZY THAT YOU MIGHT LOSE YOUR HOUSE BECAUSE YOUR NEIGHBOR GOT TORN DOWN. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS THAT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING OVER THIS. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO. IF YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING TO THE BOARD, WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT THAT AS ONE OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT MAYBE YOU PUT A SPECIAL SOME TYPE OF SPECIAL DISTRICT OR IF YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS, WE CAN DEFINITELY EXPRESS THAT TO THE BOARD. ALL RIGHT. OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK I MENTIONED THE STREET NAME FLAMINGO. IS THAT IS THAT WHERE THESE ARE? I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IS IT CALLED A DIFFERENT. NO. FLAMINGO IS A STREET. SO THERE ARE DUPLEXES ON A FEW BLOCKS AWAY.

FLAMINGO IS A COUPLE BLOCKS AWAY. IT'S MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY, BUT THERE ARE SOME DUPLEXES ON THE STREET. I'M NOT SURE. MAYBE 5 OR 6. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY DUPLEXES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GET A TALLY OF THAT AS WELL. I JUST WALKED IT THIS MORNING.

[01:00:05]

IT'S GOT TO BE LESS THAN TEN. OKAY, I DO HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT BENEFIT FOR THOSE HOMEOWNERS OR THOSE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTIES FOR THE LANGUAGE TO BE CHANGED FROM LOT TO. PARCEL. SO IN AGAIN IN MARTIN COUNTY, EVERY PARCEL, EVERY EVERY LOT OR I SHOULD SAY PARCEL IS ASSIGNED A PROPERTY CONTROL NUMBER. REGARDLESS IF YOU HAVE A ADDRESS OR NOT ASSIGNED TO THAT PARCEL. SO THAT MAKES IT A PARCEL RECORD AND FOR, FOR TAX PURPOSES AND EVERYTHING. SO BEING THAT THE CITY IS BUILT OUT, IF YOU HAVE A PARCEL RECORD, MEANING YOU HAVE AN IDENTIFICATION NUMBER THAT MAKES YOUR LOT CONFORMING AS OF SEPTEMBER 4TH OF LAST YEAR. SO IF YOU HAVE A LOT SO THEY DON'T WANT TO CREATE MORE LOTS, YOU KNOW IN THE CITY. SO OR THE SMALLER LOTS. SO IF YOU HAVE A HOUSE THAT SITS ON THREE LOTS YOU TEAR IT DOWN. AND NOW YOU WANT TO SUBDIVIDE THREE DIFFERENT LOTS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLATTED LINES, NOW YOU'RE ADDING MORE DENSITY TO THAT AREA. SO IF YOU HAVE A PLATTED LOT OF RECORD OR A PARCEL RECORD, AND IT IS CONSIDERED GRANDFATHERED IN, THAT WAS THE INTENT OF WHY THEY WANTED TO GO WITH THE PARCEL RECORD AS OPPOSED TO AN ACTUAL LOT. IS THERE A REASON WE HAVE TO DO THAT AT THIS TIME, OR IS THERE I MEAN, WHAT IS THERE? WAS THERE A RUSH TO HAVE THIS DONE WITH THIS LANGUAGE PUT IN? SO THE CITY COMMISSION DEEMED A ZONING IN PROGRESS BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR. THEY HAD MULTIPLE WORKSHOPS, AND THIS IS SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT THEY THEY WERE DISCUSSING. ONE OF THEM IS DENSITY BECAUSE WE ARE A BUILT OUT COMMUNITY THERE. SO THAT WAS ONE WAY TO CONTROL SOME OF THE DENSITY OR SMALLER LOTS. SO THE CITY COMMISSION HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF THE MEETING THAT THEY ASKED STAFF TO LOOK AT. I ENJOYED THE FACT THAT YOU WERE SHARING THE HISTORY OF THE COMMUNITY WHERE I LIVE. IT'S A RICH HISTORY, AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MEMBERS OF MY CHURCH ON SOME OF THE SMALLER LOTS, AND SO I'M CONCERNED WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE TO THOSE PEOPLE WITHOUT THEM HAVING GREATER INPUT BEFORE WE MAKE THAT DECISION? SO, AND I'M GOING TO REFER TO I'M ASSUMING EAST STUART IS WHERE YOU'RE REFERRING TO WITH THE SMALLER LOTS. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE BOARD WAS VERY CONCERNED, MAKING SURE THAT EAST STUART OR THESE AREAS THAT HAVE SMALLER LOTS, IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER LOT AND YOU HAVE A PARCEL RECORD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PARCEL RECORD TO PAY YOUR TAXES. SO THAT WAS THE THAT'S THE BACKGROUND OF WHY THEY USE PARCEL RECORD AS OPPOSED TO A LOT, BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE LOTS WITHOUT AND ONLY HAVE ONE PARCEL RECORD. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EAST STUART OR THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES OR ANY LARGER LOTS, THEY'RE NOT SUBDIVIDED TO THE SMALLER LOTS. SO YOU'RE IN YOU'RE IN EAST STUART. THEY WILL BE GRANDFATHERED IN AS OF SEPTEMBER 4TH, THAT THEY HAVE A PARCEL RECORD WHICH IN EAST STUART EVERYBODY HAS A PARCEL RECORD BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR TAXES. THAT WILL GRANDFATHER THEIR SIZE LOT WITHIN THE CITY. YEAH. CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THAT. SOMETIME IN THE LAST YEAR, I THINK PINOL PRESENTED A PROGRAM TO US WHERE THERE WERE SOME PEOPLE IN EAST STUART WHO MAYBE BECAUSE THERE WERE SO MANY FAMILY MEMBERS, THERE WAS NOT A DEED OR A HOMEOWNER OR OR I DON'T KNOW, SORRY. I'M NOT REALLY GOOD AT PLANNING DEED, A CLEAR DEED. WHAT HAPPENS TO THEM IF AS OF SEPTEMBER, THEY DON'T HAVE THAT? DOES THAT MEAN, YOU KNOW, DOES THAT PUT THEIR LOT SIZE AT RISK IF THEY'RE NOT, IF THEY'RE NOT THAT 5000FT■!S? WELL, EITHER IF THEY DON'T HAVE A CLEAR DEED OR NOT, THEY STILL WILL HAVE A PARCEL RECORD. THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY THERE. IT STILL WILL HAVE AN ASSIGNED PARCEL ID NUMBER. OKAY. IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE A CLEAR DEED. AND I THINK THAT IS THE PROGRAM THAT THAT YES, THIS PROGRAM OKAY. SO IF THAT'S NOT FIGURED OUT IT IT THE PARCEL IS STILL THERE. SO YOU'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT ANY LOSS WITH THAT. YES. AND THERE IS SOME SMALLER LOTS IN EAST DEER. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THE BOARD DID HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE INVENTORY TODAY REMAINS THE INVENTORY. SO ANY NEWLY CREATED LOTS AS OF SEPTEMBER 4TH WILL HAVE TO BE EVALUATED AND HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME TYPE OF BOARD ACTION AT THAT TIME. SO IT TECHNICALLY WILL IT WILL STAY THAT IT WILL REMAIN THAT, YOU

[01:05:01]

KNOW. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU SOME ASSURANCE THAT THE BOARD DIDN'T WANT TO JUST DO A TAKING AND TAKE THE PROPERTY RIGHTS. THEY YOU STILL CAN BUILD ON THOSE SMALLER LOTS TODAY IF YOU HAVE A PARCEL RECORD. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF IT TURNS OUT YOU HAD A PARCEL OF RECORD, BUT THEN IT TURNS OUT THAT SOMEBODY ELSE OWNED A ONE OF THOSE LOTS THAT'S IN YOUR PARCEL. OR IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE'S NO CLEAR TITLE, THE TAX RECORDS MAY SHOW THAT YOU HAVE A PARCEL, BUT IT MAY TURN OUT AFTER THE FACT THAT ONE OF THOSE LOTS WAS LEFT TO ONE FAMILY MEMBER. ONE OF THOSE LOTS WAS LEFT TO ANOTHER FAMILY MEMBER, AND THEY HAD ACTUALLY SEPARATE LOTS IN THE SAME PARCEL, BUT SEPARATE LOTS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH NOT HAVING CLEAN TITLE. THE RISK YOU TAKE IS YOU GO IN THERE AND BUY IT, AND IT TURNS OUT A PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, I STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN ABOUT THAT. PERSONALLY.

I'M GOING TO IF LEE, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT ANSWER, PLEASE? I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU ON THAT, BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY ABNORMAL. THAT WOULD HAPPEN. ONE OF THE ISSUES ARE THE LOTS ARE VERY SMALL IN EAST STUART. AND LIKE JODIE SAID, IF THERE IS ALREADY A HOUSE ON IT, THERE IS A PARCEL OF RECORD THAT THE COUNTY, THE WHOLE POINT OF LOT VERSUS PARCEL IS TO BE CONSISTENT. YOU COULD HAVE 2 OR 3 LOTS IN ONE PARCEL OF RECORD.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE PARCEL THAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON, NOT NECESSARILY THE PLATTED LOT FROM YEARS AGO, BECAUSE YOUR HOUSE COULD BE TWO LOTS IF YOU HAVE TWO PLATTED LOTS, ONE PARCEL OF RECORD AND ONE HOUSE. AND IT'S KIND OF. BUT LATER ON, YOU COULDN'T SPLIT THAT INTO TWO LOTS IF THEY WERE UNDER 5000FT■S FOR SIX HOURS. IF WE'RE TALKING UNDER OUR CODE, WE'RE CALLING IT A LOT, BUT THERE'S TWO LOTS OF LOTS FROM YEARS AGO THAT ARE SMALL. LOTS. SOMEONE DID A UNITY OF TITLE AND BUILT A BIG HOUSE ON TWO LOTS THAT WERE LIKE 4000FT■!S EACH. NOW THEY HAVE AN 8000 SQUARE FOOT EACH. THAT'S ONE PARCEL OF RECORD. EVEN THOUGH THE IF YOU LOOK AT THE OLD PLATTED LOTS WOULD BE MULTIPLE LOTS. AND TO BE CONSISTENT, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO SOMETIMES OUR CODE WOULD REFER TO THE LOT, BUT THAT PARCEL RECORD HAD TWO LOTS AND ONE HOUSE ON IT. AND LET ME LET ME ASK YOU, ISN'T THAT WAS THAT WAS CREATING AN ISSUE? WEREN'T THE ORIGINAL CITY LOTS THE PLATTED CITY LOTS ARE ARE WHAT, 50 BY 100? AREN'T THEY? 5000FT■, I THINK. I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THEY ARE. SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF RIGHT AT THE BORDERLINE. I MEAN, I KNOW DOWNTOWN THE LOTS ARE GENERALLY 50 BY I THINK I CAN EVEN I REMEMBER EVEN LOOKING DOWN RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND LIKE HOUSES ARE ON THREE LOTS. YEAH. ANOTHER HOUSE IS ON HALF THAT LOT. IT'S REALLY. YEAH. YOU KNOW, BUT THE PARCEL OF RECORD IS WHAT THE COUNTY GOES BY AND ACTUALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING, IT JUST SEEMED LIKE OUR CODE HAD LOTS VERSUS PARCEL OF RECORD.

AND THAT WAS CAUSING SOME ISSUES IN INTERPRETATION. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON. I DON'T THINK SHE MENTIONED THIS TO WHY WE WERE CHANGING IT. PARCEL OF RECORD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I HOPE THAT CLARIFIES IT. YEAH, I THINK SO. THANK YOU, MR. BHAGAT. SORRY, JODY. THAT'S OKAY. I MEAN, AND PLEASE STOP ME IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BOARD CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION OR EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS OF SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. OR IF YOU'RE NOT CLEAR ON SOMETHING, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS IT AS STAFF. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT TONIGHT, BUT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HEAR YOUR CONCERNS. OKAY. DO YOU WANT DO YOU WANT QUESTIONS NOW THEN. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO, NO, I'M JUST SAYING AS WE MOVE ALONG, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D RATHER, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT IT. BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE, LIKE, A COUPLE OTHER CHAPTERS. OKAY. HAVE WE GOTTEN TO ADUS YET WITHIN THIS CHAPTER WE DID NOT GET TO 80 YEARS. OKAY. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE BOARD DID EXPRESS WITH ADUS, AND IF YOUR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IS HOW DO WE STOP PEOPLE FROM RENTING THEM OUT OR AIRBNB IN THEM, WE ARE PREEMPTED FROM THE STATE THAT WE CAN'T CONTROL AIRBNBS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE RULES PRIOR TO THAT. SO THEY DID PUT IN HERE SOME GUIDELINES THAT AN ADU WILL HAVE WILL THE OWNER WILL HAVE TO LIVE IN THE PRIMARY, AND THEN THE ADU HAS TO HAVE ONE METER AND ONE WATER METER. SORRY. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT AN ADU IS? OKAY. IT'S AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. SO IF YOU HAVE A HOUSE AND THEN YOU HAVE A DETACHED GARAGE AND YOU WANT TO CONVERT IT INTO LIKE A, A GRANNY FLAT OR SOMETHING, OR A MOTHER IN LAW. SO. SO, YOU KNOW, THIS WILL GIVE YOU THE PRIVILEGE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE YOUR MOTHER OR YOUR FATHER AGING IN PLACE, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF PUTTING

[01:10:01]

THEM IN THE NURSING HOME THAT I HOPE MY KIDS WILL NEVER DO TO ME. BUT. ANYWAYS, BUT ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS WE DIDN'T WANT MORE TRAFFIC DOWN THESE RESIDENTIAL STREETS OR TRANSIENT TRAFFIC. SO THE 80 THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WILL NOW BE ON ONE METER, ONE ELECTRICAL METER AND ONE WATER METER. SO IT HAS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY. AND THE PRIMARY. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO LIVE IN THE PRIMARY UNIT. AND IN OTHER PLACES I'VE WORKED. SO WHENEVER YOU GO GET THESE BUILDING PERMITS, BECAUSE ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS IS HOW DO YOU ENFORCE THAT? SO IN OTHER PLACES I WORKED AT AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT LEVEL, THEY MAKE THEM SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT, YES, THIS IS YOU KNOW, ADU, THIS IS REALLY, YOU KNOW, FOR MY MOTHER IN LAW OR WHEN I HAVE GUESTS COME IN, I DON'T WANT MY FAMILY STAYING WITH ME IN MY HOUSE. SO I WANT THEM TO STAY OUT THERE. SO THEY SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT. AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU LATER ON AND THEY KIND OF FIND OUT THAT THEY'RE RENTING THEM AND TURNING THEM INTO OTHER USES THAN WHAT THEY WERE INTENDED TO, YOU CAN COULD ENFORCE AGAINST THE PRIMARY, AGAINST THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. YEAH. I MEAN, DO WE KNOW EVEN IF YOU CAN GET SEPARATE METER, YOU KNOW, JUST ONE METER ON SOME OF THESE THINGS? BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES, LIKE, LET'S SAY I'M TAKING CARE OF A PARENT, THEY'RE BOTH DEAD NOW. BUT LET'S SAY I'M TAKING CARE OF A PARENT. YOU KNOW, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEIR COSTS ARE SOMETIMES BECAUSE I'M BEING REIMBURSED BY, YOU KNOW, SOME MEDICAL COVERAGE OR SOME TRUST AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING ELSE. AND IT'S JUST IT GETS REALLY MESSY WHEN YOU'VE ONLY GOT ONE METER FOR A FULL PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, AND I'M I MEAN, EVEN IF I HAD MY SON IN THERE, IF HE'S GOT THE AC AT 43 DEGREES OR SOMETHING, I WANT HIM TO PAY THAT. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST IT'S JUST I THINK THAT'S GETTING A LITTLE IT GETS A LITTLE TIGHT THERE. BUT ANYWAY, I AGREE WITH YOU. I WANT TO ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WHAT I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING, WHAT THE COMMISSION'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S THIS REALLY BIG PUSH TO, YOU KNOW, ONLY PROMOTE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY. I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT LIKE, LARGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AROUND HERE. BUT ADUS ARE WHAT WE CALL INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE THESE SMALL THINGS THAT CAN ALLOW, YOU KNOW, FOLKS TO MAYBE RENT OUT A STUDIO SPACE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CAUSE A HUGE INFLUX OF TRAFFIC. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT I'M GOING TO USE MY OWN LOT. FOR AN EXAMPLE MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE WHEN WE WERE LOOKING FOR HOMES IN STUART, WE WERE LOOKING FOR HOMES WITH AN ADU BECAUSE WE WERE LOOKING FOR A PLACE WHERE ONE OF OUR SETS OF PARENTS COULD POSSIBLY AGE IN PLACE. I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE MY AGE WHO ARE THINKING THE SAME THING. WE DON'T WANT OUR PARENTS TO GO LIVE IN A NURSING HOME THAT'S REALLY EXPENSIVE. I ENDED UP BUYING A SINGLE FAMILY LOT, AND I'VE GOT PLENTY OF SPACE TO PUT AN ADU. IT WOULD COST ME A LOT OF MONEY TO DO IT. ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT, WHAT IF WE RENT, YOU KNOW, THIS ADU OUT TO A TEACHER TO OFFSET THE COST FOR 5 TO 10 YEARS UNTIL OUR PARENTS NEED TO MOVE IN? YOU'RE TAKING THAT OPTION AWAY FROM PEOPLE. AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS TO BE SELF-SERVING. WE'LL PROBABLY NEVER DO THAT. IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF OVERREACH AND SAME THING. WHAT MARK IS SAYING, LIKE IF I DO HAVE A PARENT THERE AND I'M NEEDING TO KNOW THEIR COSTS, WHAT THAT COST IS, AND THEY'RE ON THE SAME, IS IT CALLED THEY'RE ON THE SAME METER AS ME.

I CAN'T DO THAT. YOU KNOW, IF I DID WANT TO RENT IT OUT TO A TEACHER, AND THAT TEACHER DOES LIKE TO KEEP THE AIR ON 60 AND IS, YOU KNOW, JUST USING A LOT OF ENERGY. I WOULD PREFER THEM THAT TO BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND NOT MINE. I THINK WE'VE REALLY GOT TO THINK HERE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUR ADUS AND DUPLEXES, THE BAD GUY, ARE THEY REALLY WHAT IS CAUSING, YOU KNOW, THE HEAPS OF TRAFFIC THAT WE'RE SEEING THROUGH STUART? OR IS IT CARS FROM PORT SAINT LUCIE AND FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY PASSING THROUGH OUR CITY? I THINK I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO ZOOM OUT HERE, AND I'M GOING TO GET A LITTLE BIT OFF TOPIC REALLY QUICKLY, JODI. BUT I, I JUST WANT TO SAY, BECAUSE I HAVE SAID THIS TO THE COMMISSION REPEATEDLY IN EMAILS, THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN REALLY BACKWARDS. IT HAS BEEN FROM THE TOP DOWN, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN FROM THE BOTTOM UP. THOSE WORKSHOPS WERE NOT WORKSHOPS. THEY WERE COMMISSIONERS SITTING IN THE FRONT OF THE ROOM WITH MICROPHONES, AND PEOPLE GOT TO MAKE A LITTLE BIT OF INPUT. BUT THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOESN'T UNDERSTAND PLANNING. I WORK PLANNING ADJACENT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND PLANNING. THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH PROFESSIONALS THAT WERE HIRED.

NO OFFENSE TO THE CITY, YOU ALL ARE WONDERFUL, BUT WHEN WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, WE'RE USUALLY HIRING PLANNERS AND ECONOMISTS AND PEOPLE FROM THE OUTSIDE TO COME IN AND SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS

[01:15:07]

IS THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. OR, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE HEARING THE PUBLIC SAY. THIS IS HOW WE FUNNEL IT INTO A CHANGE WITHIN OUR CODES. SO, I MEAN, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND ACTUALLY DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY. AND THEY SHOULD BE HOSTING MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. AND THEN THAT FEEDBACK IS BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE MISSING THE MARK HERE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY WANTING. AND I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE COMMISSION IS TRYING TO GIVE IT TO THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE PROFESSIONALS THAT NEED TO BE MAKING THE NUMBERS CHANGES HERE AND THE VERBIAGE CHANGES HERE. OKAY. I HAVE ONE BASIC QUESTION. THEN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF BASED ON WHAT BONNIE SAID. BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, AS THIS BOARD CRB, HOW MUCH OF THIS APPLIES TO US? I MEAN, AREN'T WE UNDER A DIFFERENT ZONING THAN ALL OF THIS? I MEAN, A DIFFERENT SETUP? WE'RE UNDER URBAN CODE, RIGHT? SO ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE GREAT. AND THIS IS KIND OF WHAT THE COMMENT I WAS MAKING AT THE BEGINNING, I THINK ALL THOSE THINGS ARE GREAT. AND IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE MORE FORUM FOR PEOPLE TO MAKE A COMMENT, I GUESS. BUT I'M JUST SAYING FOR THE CRB, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE INPUT INTO THIS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AFFECT US. I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS ALL OUTSIDE THE URBAN CODE. IT AFFECTS YOU, STUART. IT'S AFFECTING STUART.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE RESPONSIBILITY STUART. WELL BUT BUT THAT'S THAT IS A IS A PART OF THE CRA. BUT THAT HAS THEY HAVE THEIR OWN THEY HAVE THEIR OWN CODE OUT THERE TOO. THAT'S BEEN DONE. AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THOUGH THAT THESE CHANGES WOULD AFFECT THAT. IT'S GOING TO CHECK OVERLAY. IT AFFECTS THE ENTIRE CITY. SO YOUR SHARED PARKING WILL BE AFFECTED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY, NOT JUST YOUR URBANIZED AREA, NOT JUST YOUR CREEK DISTRICT, NOT JUST YOUR EAST STUART OR THE US ONE PROPERTIES ALONG, YOU KNOW, THE CORRIDORS THERE. SO WHAT. AND THAT'S THAT'S A PROBLEM I HAVE IS I GOT INVOLVED IN A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WITH A FRIEND OF MINE THAT I HELPED HER WITH, AND ALL SHE WANTED TO DO WAS PUT A PARKING JODY, YOU KNOW, SHE WANTED TO PUT A PARKING SPACE. NOW, SHE DIDN'T GO ABOUT IT THE RIGHT WAY, NECESSARILY, BUT SHE WANTED TO PUT A PARKING SPACE ON HER PROPERTY. RIGHT. AND WHAT I FOUND WHEN I GOT INTO THAT IS THAT THE URBAN, THE URBAN DESIGNATIONS ARE ALL ASSUMING GIGANTIC THINGS. THEY'RE ASSUMING DENSITY, PARKING LOTS AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF. AND SO THERE'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT I MEAN, THE LANGUAGE IN IN THE URBAN CODE RELATIVE TO EVEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEEDS TO BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE OTHER STUFF WON'T LET YOU DO THINGS THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY DO WITH YOUR HOME, BECAUSE YOU GOT TO HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE OR A, YOU KNOW, WITH, YOU KNOW, TRELLISES AND ALL KINDS OF GOOD THINGS. SO I JUST, I THINK WE'RE BEING THROWN IN. CRAS GOT IT. I, I DO THINK CRA HAS TO LOOK AT THIS DIFFERENTLY. WE'RE WE HAVE TO BE ZONED DIFFERENTLY. AND IF WE'RE NOT, I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE THE COMP PLAN ENCOMPASSES ALL OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT WITH MIXED USE AND WALKABILITY AND ALL THAT KIND OF THING. I REMEMBER THOSE MEETINGS BACK IN THE DAY WHEN WE DISCUSSED ALL THAT, WHEN WE DECIDED HOW WE WERE GOING TO BE AS A COMMUNITY. I THINK WE GOT TO GO BACK TO THAT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST THE THING THAT THEY DID RIGHT BACK THEN WAS THEY GOT EVERYBODY INVOLVED AND THEY SAID, OKAY, WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE? WHAT DON'T WE WANT TO SEE? AND THEY DIDN'T ALL AGREE. BUT BUT I TELL YOU, A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT'S BUILT INTO OUR COMP PLAN IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT BECAUSE THIS THING IS DIFFERENT. AND THAT WAS WHAT I WAS GOING TO BRING UP AS WELL. SO SOME OF THESE CHANGES WILL BE WILL REQUIRE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS. YEAH. SO AND IT WILL IT COULD TIP. IT COULD CHANGE DIVISIONARY FOR CERTAIN AREAS. WELL AND IT'S POTENTIALLY GOING TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLETELY RETHINK. THE CORE OF THE COMP PLAN IS, IS THE IDEA BEHIND THE COMP PLAN THAT WE PUT DENSITY IN THE CITY SO THAT IT DOESN'T GO OUT WEST INTO THE, YOU KNOW, INTO THE WESTERN ACREAGE. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN FOR STUART AS WELL AS MARTIN COUNTY. SO ARE WE GOING AWAY FROM THAT? ARE WE NOT GOING TO CREATE THAT DENSITY WITH WALKABILITY AND PLACES WHERE WE HAVE BUSINESSES AND PLACES YOU CAN LIVE IN THE SAME LOCATION SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE YOUR CAR SOMEPLACE. I MEAN, THAT WAS ALL PART OF THE COMP PLAN. I JUST I'M SURPRISED THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE THAT FAR AWAY FROM THAT. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RELOOK AT THAT IF WE'RE MAKING THESE CHANGES. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION ANYWAY. ALL RIGHT. SORRY. NO, THAT'S. THANK YOU. GO ANY FURTHER. SORRY. CAN WE BACK UP

[01:20:03]

TO THE PARKING PORTION THAT AT THE YOU BROUGHT IT UP IN THE VERY BEGINNING. WITH THE NO SHARED PARKING THROUGHOUT. I JUST WANT TO PUT A PIN IN THAT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HAPPENS THERE. THAT IS A STRATEGY THAT CITIES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY USE. I WORK IN THE SOUTHEAST A LOT. A LOT OF TIMES PARTNERSHIPS WILL BE FORMED WITH CHURCHES BECAUSE CHURCHES ONLY NEED THEIR PARKING LOTS DOWNTOWN ON SUNDAYS AND MAYBE WEDNESDAY NIGHTS. AND FOR THE REST OF THE WEEK, THEY'LL FORM A PARTNERSHIP WITH SOMEBODY SO THAT THE REST OF THE CITY CAN USE THAT WHEN THEY WANT TO GO TO BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN. IT WORKS REALLY WELL.

IT ALSO KEEPS YOUR DOWNTOWN FROM BECOMING A PARKING LOT. AND, YOU KNOW, FLY AROUND IN GOOGLE EARTH AND LOOK AT SUCCESSFUL CITIES, THE ONES THAT ARE FAILING RIGHT NOW ARE THE ONES THAT ARE FLOODED WITH PARKING. IT SHOULDN'T BE THE PRIORITY, AND I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE HEADED IN. IT ESSENTIALLY JUST MAKES DOWNTOWN A HOT PARKING LOT. BUT I ALSO I'M READING ABOUT THESE PARKING, NOT JUST HERE WITH THE NO SHARED PARKING, BUT I'M JUST READING ABOUT THIS INCREASE IN PARKING THAT WE WANT TO SEE. AND I'M WORRIED THAT ONE OF THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH REALLY BIG REDEVELOPMENTS. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A DEVELOPER AND THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF MONEY AND THEY DON'T BUY, YOU KNOW, THE PARCEL AND PUT A SMALLER APARTMENT COMPLEX ON IT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PARK IT. SO THEY BUY A BLOCK AND WE END UP WITH, YOU KNOW, CITY PLACE DEVELOPMENTS EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T WANT THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TELLING THEM THAT WE WANT. SO I, I WOULD LIKE THAT TO GO BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR THEM TO RECONSIDER. UNDERSTAND I THINK, BONNIE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A GOOD COMMENT BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT THE ECONOMICS. THEY WILL BUILD WHAT THEY CAN MAKE MONEY BUILDING.

AND SO IF, IF WE MAKE IT SO THAT THE SMALL BUILDER, THE LOCAL BUILDER, THE LOCAL HOMEOWNER CAN'T BUILD THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT TAKES TOO MUCH TO BUY, YOU KNOW, THE BASE, YOU'RE JUST YOU'RE RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GET DEVELOPERS THAT ARE GOING TO COME IN FROM OUT OF STATE, WALL STREET DEVELOPERS WHO ARE GOING TO BUY THAT SAME THING WE GOT NOW. AND, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS SO THEY CAN AFFORD TO DO IT. AND WE'RE GOING TO GET STUFF WE DON'T WANT. NOBODY WANTS ANY OF THAT. SO I, I, I AGREE, I THINK THAT'S YOU KNOW, THAT'S SOMETHING WE GOT TO LOOK AT. THE OTHER THING IS ON THE PARKING SITUATION, YOU KNOW JODY THE WE ALREADY HAVE STUFF THAT'S APPROVED. AND I CAN THINK OF VERY SPECIFIC SITES WHERE THEY ALREADY HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND THEY DON'T MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT AS IT IS NOW. I DROVE BY LAST NIGHT, A RESTAURANT THERE ON EAST OCEAN THAT HAS OUTDOOR SEATING. RIGHT.

THEY WENT FROM BEING ABLE TO SEAT 7 OR 8 PEOPLE. THERE WERE 900FT■!S. THEY WERE THERE FOR A RESTAURANT. THEY COULD ONLY HAVE ABOUT 9 OR 10 PEOPLE IN THAT THING. AND LAST NIGHT THERE WAS PROBABLY 35, 40 PEOPLE THERE, MAYBE MORE. AND SO NOW WHEN THE LOT GETS DEVELOPED NEXT TO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED UNDER A PUD, WHERE'S THE PARKING GOING TO GO? YOU CAN TALK ALL YOU WANT ABOUT PARKING. AND THERE'S TWO TYPES OF PARKING. THERE'S REQUIRED PARKING TO BUILD AND THERE'S PARKING TO BE ABLE TO GET BY. AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE SHARED PARKING CAN BE ABUSED. AND IT HAS BEEN. BUT THE PROBLEM IS NOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE GUY THAT'S LEFT? THE PERSON THAT'S LEFT. ARE THEY GOING TO GET ARE THEY GOING TO GET STUCK BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO BUILD YOUR PROJECT, BUT YOUR PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND ANY PARKING. SO I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE. THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. THIS THE SHARED PARKING SITUATION IS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY PENALIZE THE FUTURE USE, AND IT'S GOING TO FAVOR THE PUDS OVER THE LOCAL BUILDERS. SO I THINK THEY NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. IN THAT SITUATION, YOU GOT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT'S THERE.

THANK YOU. IF I COULD JUST COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR JODY AND WE'LL KEEP GOING. BUT ALL RIGHT I THINK I'M GOING TO MOVE TO CHAPTER THREE BECAUSE THAT IS IN THE CRA DISTRICT. AND THERE WAS SOME CHANGES IN THAT DISTRICT AS WELL. WHICH ONE? THE CRA, THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS, THE URBAN. THIS IS THIS IS WHERE THIS BOARD DOES HAVE A LOT OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY COULD BRING TO THE COMMISSION. I JUST WANTED TO SAY I AGREE WITH WHAT BONNIE WHERE THE DIRECTION SHE WAS GOING, WHERE IF WE STRUCTURE EVERYTHING, WHERE IT'S MORE APPEALING TO THE BIG DEVELOPERS

[01:25:02]

THAT THEY CAN JUST TAKE FROM THE OTHER PARKING THAT'S AROUND THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO END UP WITH AN INCREASED DENSITY WE DIDN'T REALLY EXPECT OR WANT. I MEAN, THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS. SO AGAIN, IN YOUR URBAN DISTRICTS, WHICH INCLUDES EAST STUART, YOUR CREEK DISTRICT, THE ALL THE URBAN ELEMENTS, AGAIN, THEY'RE THEY'RE REQUESTING SHARED NO SHARED PARKING. ALSO THEY'RE CHANGING THE PARKING SPACES FOR ANY DUPLEXES TO BE INSTEAD OF 1.5 TO ROUND IT UP TO TWO PARKING SPACES. AND ANY MULTI-FAMILY ROUND UP TO 2.5 FOR A PARKING SPACE. SO I THINK THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS IN YOUR EAST, STUART, WHERE YOU HAVE LET ME JUST AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS REALLY QUICKLY BECAUSE A LOT OF THE SAME COMMENTS ARE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE CODE. IT JUST WAS CLEANING IT UP. THIS IS RIGHT HERE IN YOUR URBAN CENTER. I DO BELIEVE THAT WAS THE LOCATION THAT YOU WERE AT PREVIOUSLY.

CHAIR ABOUT SHARED PARKING. AGAIN, THEY'RE ASKING NOT TO BE STRIKETHROUGH. SO THESE ARE ALL YOUR URBAN DISTRICTS. THIS IS THE CORE OF YOUR OF YOUR CRA. BUT THEY DID MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN OUR EAST STUART DISTRICT THAT IF YOU ARE A IF YOU ARE A ZONE, A BMU, WHICH IS A MIXED BUSINESS, MIXED USE OCCUPANCY, OR IF YOU'RE IN A GROW, WHICH IS A LIKE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL AND DUPLEXES THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME COULD BE. IT WILL HAVE TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE CITY COMMISSION ACTION. SO I'M GOING TO GET TO THAT AND I APOLOGIZE.

NOW THE EXEMPT THE EXEMPT PARKING AREA, THEY DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS THAT. THAT AREA WHICH YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE IS JUST THIS LITTLE MAP RIGHT HERE. THIS IS YOUR EXEMPT AREA. SO PARKING IS EXEMPT. AND THIS JUST THIS PARTICULAR AREA WITHIN YOUR CRA OR YOUR URBAN AREA. BUT IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M JUST GOING TO SCROLL DOWN TO MY EAST STUART.

AGAIN, THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT ARE ASKING FOR DUPLEXES. THEY WERE AT 1.5 TO 2 THEN MULTI-FAMILY IS TO TWO PER UNIT INSTEAD OF THE 1.5. AND I APOLOGIZE, I KEEP GOING FAST, BUT I JUST WANT TO TOUCH BASE OF WHERE THIS BOARD WOULD MAKE. YEAH. CAN WE MAKE A NOTE FOR THAT FOR THE COMMISSION AS WELL. I THINK MAYBE THEY'RE TRYING TO PROTECT EAST STUART FROM DEVELOPERS OR GENTRIFICATION. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A VALIANT EFFORT THAT WE'VE GOT TO PROTECT EAST STUART. BUT I'M GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT THIS. I WORRY THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THESE BIG INCREASES, YOU'RE YOU'RE ASKING FOR DEVELOPERS WITH MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKET TO MAKE THE CHANGES. SO YOU MIGHT GET THE EXACT THING THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO HAPPEN THERE BY MAKING IT MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD THERE. OKAY. AND I'M JUST NOTING THAT THESE ARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS. SO WHEN I LOOK AT MY NOTES TOMORROW, I WON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE TAPE. OKAY. LET ME WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PARKING GARAGE FINALLY GETS BUILT? HOW DOES THAT GET FACTORED INTO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS DOWNTOWN? WILL THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS CHANGE THEN AT THAT POINT, IF WE'VE GOT A PARKING GARAGE DOWNTOWN THAT'S GOT, SAY, 400 PARKING PLACES, YOU KNOW, HOW HOW WILL THAT DO? I STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN, YOU KNOW, AN ADDITIONAL 50 PARKING PLACES ON MY PROPERTY, BECAUSE EVEN IF I'M NEXT DOOR TO THE PARKING GARAGE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS OR IS OR OR CAN THAT BE CHANGED OR DO YOU HAVE TO GO? DO YOU HAVE TO DO PUD AT THAT POINT AND GO ASK FOR A VARIANCE? SO CURRENTLY, THE WAY THE CHANGES ARE DESIGNED TODAY, THAT WHATEVER IS ON YOUR PARCEL OF RECORD AND YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PARK, YOU'RE GOING TO BE YOU HAVE TO YOU CANNOT USE ANY TYPE OF SHARED PARKING TO OFFSET YOUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. SO IF YOU HAVE A SO THERE'S A 400, THERE'S A 400 PARKING SPOT PARKING GARAGE NEXT TO MY HOUSE DOWNTOWN. AND I STILL GOT TO HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING. CORRECT.

THAT IS HOW IT IS STRUCTURED. THE REQUESTED CHANGES. DO YOU KNOW, JODY, HOW MANY DOWNTOWNS ANYWHERE HAVE THAT KIND OF REQUIREMENT? I MEAN, SUCCESSFUL DOWNTOWN, SMALL ONES. I MEAN, CAN WE LOOK AROUND? I MEAN, ARE THEY ACTUALLY ARE THEY ACTUALLY DOING THAT WHERE THEY'RE, THEY'RE MAKING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE MAKING PEOPLE PARK ALL THIS STUFF. AND THEN HOW DO THEY

[01:30:02]

EXPAND? YOU JUST CAN'T. AND THEN IT GETS TO WHAT BONNIE SAID, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN DO THESE ARE THE RICH PEOPLE. THEY'LL COME IN, THE DEVELOPERS WILL COME IN, THEY'LL FINANCE IT FROM WALL STREET. THAT'S WHY NOTHING IS BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THERE'S NO MONEY ON WALL STREET. BUT AS SOON AS THERE'S MONEY, YOU KNOW, WE TALK HERE ABOUT. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE URBAN AREA. SO IS THAT AN AREA THAT'S COVERED UNDER 102? IT CAN I, CAN I GO INTO DOWNTOWN STUART AND BUY UP, YOU KNOW, THREE BLOCKS AND PUT A PARKING GARAGE IN, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THAT INCLUDED IN THAT? IS THAT CONSIDERED LIKE COMMERCIAL WHERE WHERE THE STATE LAW NOW SAYS, IF I PUT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I CAN I CAN BUILD THIS STUFF. I MEAN, OR ARE WE CREATING THAT WHERE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE ALTERNATIVE THAT THAT THE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE GOING TO COME IN ARE GOING TO WANT TO MAXIMIZE THEIR DENSITY, TO MAXIMIZE THEIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT? I JUST I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND I, I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE SUCCESSFUL CITIES ARE POSITIONING THEMSELVES THE WAY WE ARE, YOU KNOW, SO SENATE BILL 102 THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO TECHNICALLY, IF THEY'RE GOING TO COMBINE PARCELS OR PARCEL RECORDS, IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME TYPE OF ACTION BY THE CITY COMMISSION. AND ALSO THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO PARK IT BASED ON THE CODE THAT THERE ANY CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE. SO IF YOU ARE REQUIRED ONLY 1.5 AT ONE POINT IN TIME, OR YOU WERE ALLOWED TO SHARE PARKING WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR, OR YOU WERE ALLOWED TO DO THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN DOWNTOWN, THAT WILL NO LONGER BE THE. BASED ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES TODAY, YOU HAVE TO PARK IT ON SITE SO YOU POTENTIALLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME TYPE OF ACTION THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION TO COMBINE THOSE LOTS AND DEVELOP THOSE LOTS OR THOSE PARCELS. BUT IF THOSE LOTS ARE ALREADY IF THEY'RE ALREADY DEVELOPED INTO A PARCEL, RIGHT. SO JUST THE PROJECT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE HOTEL OR THAT PARCEL. SO, YOU KNOW, THREE YEARS FROM NOW. I TAKE THAT, TEAR THAT ALL DOWN AND I GO AHEAD AND PUT, YOU KNOW, 200 UNITS THERE, WHATEVER I CAN PUT ON THERE, 16 PER UNDER 102, 16 PER UNIT, THAT THAT'S GOING TO BECOME A REAL THING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT ON US ONE NORTH I FORGET AXIS ONE OR WHATEVER IT WAS THAT PROJECT, I THINK IT WAS BUILT FOR PROBABLY 40 OR 50 MILLION. THEY TURNED AROUND AND REFINANCED THAT THING FOR $110 MILLION ON WALL STREET AND PULLED THAT MONEY OUT. THAT'S THE KIND OF MONEY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THAT'S WHAT NOW WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A SITUATION WHERE THE COMPETITION FOR OUR LOCAL BUILDERS AND OUR LOCAL DEVELOPERS AND PEOPLE WANT ARE GOING TO BE WALL STREET. WELL, YOU CAN'T COMPETE WITH THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT'S COMPETING WITH THAT RIGHT NOW IS THAT MARKET IS DEAD, BECAUSE THOSE GUYS WANT 13% AFTER INFLATION. AND RIGHT NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU'D HAVE TO GET A 20% RETURN. AND SO AS SOON AS THAT GOES AWAY, THOUGH, IT MAKES SENSE FOR ME TO GO BUY WHATEVER PARCEL I WANT IN STUART AND TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD FOUR STORIES. MAXIMUM APARTMENTS, MAXIMUM DENSITY. BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE BIG MONEY. AND I CAN'T DO THAT.

I CAN'T AFFORD TO BUILD A SMALL STUFF. SO IF I WANT TO BUILD THREE UNITS, I'M GOING TO BE OUT OF THE MARKET. I CAN'T DO THAT. I'M GOING TO BE COMPETING AGAINST WALL STREET. I, I DON'T THINK WE WANT THAT. I THIS IS MY OPINION. I DON'T I MEAN, WHEN I WAS WALKING AROUND TALKING TO PEOPLE, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THEY SAID. YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT THAT STUFF. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MARK, WHEN I DO DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT OR MASTER PLANS, WE HAVE NEVER WE'VE NEVER RECOMMENDED GETTING RID OF THOSE PARKING PARTNERSHIPS. WE USUALLY RECOMMEND THEM. AND SMALL, MEDIUM, LARGE SIZED CITIES. SOME STATES ARE EVEN GETTING RID OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS DOWNTOWN BECAUSE THEY REALIZE HOW MUCH IT HAS HINDERED GROWTH OF THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. SO IT SEEMS A LITTLE BIT BACKWARDS TO WHAT YOU KNOW, OUR RESIDENTS WANT. HOW DO CONDOS, HOW DO CONDOS AFFECT THIS? SO IF I GO ON TO A LET'S SAY I BUILD A THREE STORY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION. WHAT ARE HOW DOES THAT IMPACT IT? I MEAN, EACH ONE OF THOSE UNITS IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO WHAT AM I GOING TO BE BOUND BY? THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME REQUIREMENT? AM I BOUND BY? IS IT IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE BASED ON THAT? IF IT'S A CONDOMINIUM, IF IT'S A CONDO FORM OF OWNERSHIP, THAT'S TYPICALLY ONE COMMON WALL. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE MULTI-FAMILY. SO YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PARK IT RIGHT NOW AT AT TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. SO WHAT HAS BEEN OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO EAST OCEAN AND YOU SEE ALL THOSE CONDOS THERE, THAT'S OUR THAT IS OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND IT'S ALL OF THE, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY OLDER PEOPLE THAT LIVE DOWN THERE AND HAVE OWNED THOSE UNITS FOREVER. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REPLACE THAT HOUSING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUILD THAT ANYMORE. RIGHT? NOT TO THAT DENSITY LEVEL. THE STUFF LIKE

[01:35:01]

VISTA PINES AND ALL THAT, THEY WON'T BE ALLOWED ANYMORE UNDER THE NEW CODE, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU WON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING. I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY WE ARE BUILT OUT. SO YES, YOUR ANSWER WOULD BE YES. OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. LET ME JUST GET DOWN TO THE EAST STUART PORTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE CHANGES DID TAKE THE REQUESTED CHANGES. THIS. I APOLOGIZE. I SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS DONE. OKAY. SO THIS IS OUR RECENTLY ADOPTED FORM BASED CODE FOR EAST. WE ADOPTED IT IN 2023. OUR BOARD OUR CRA WORKED ON IT FOR TWO YEARS. AND WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF HOUSES BEING BUILT THROUGH THE EAST STUART. BASED ON THE DESIGN GUIDELINES. WE ALSO HAVE A PROJECT COMING THROUGH THAT'S PROJECT LIFT. THAT'S GOING TO BE MEETING THE SAME GUIDELINES AS WELL. SO WE'VE ALREADY HAD SOME WE'VE SEEN SOME REDEVELOPMENT IN EAST STUART. ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHANGES IS THAT WELL WE KIND OF TOOK THIS INITIATIVE ON OURSELVES. THIS IS ALL THE DIFFERENT BOARDS THAT YOU HAVE TO ATTEND TO IF YOU WANT A VARIANCE OR AND SOME OF THEM WERE REDUNDANT, SOME OF THEM WENT TO THE CRB. THEN YOU WENT TO THE LPA, THEN YOU WENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION. SO THE CRB IS MORE IS YOUR LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY WITHIN THE CRA. SO WE FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE SOME OF THE LPA REQUIREMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE VARIANCE. SO THESE ARE JUST SOME MINOR CHANGES. I THINK THE LARGER CHANGES YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IN HERE IS LET ME JUST GET DOWN TO THE CHART. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, ALL THE PERMITTED USES ON OUR LEFT SIDE AND ALL THE A DISTRICTS ARE ACROSS OUR BMU GROW AND SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.

SO BEFORE DUPLEXES WERE A PERMITTED BY RIGHTS ACCORDING TO THIS SECTION, WHICH IS A THAT SECTION REFERS TO ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OR DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT IS NOW GOING TO BE APPROVED THROUGH A RESOLUTION, THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING, THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION. SO AND SAME THING WITH ALL THESE OTHER TYPES USES. SO YOUR HOTEL MOTEL. YOUR ROOMING YOUR BOARD. SO WE JUST ESSENTIALLY WENT DOWN. THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING TO BE PERMITTED BY RIGHTS WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH SOME TYPE OF BOARD ACTION, IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. I JUST WANT TO SAY I GOT A CALL FROM A RESIDENT OF EAST STUART TODAY WHO HAD MAJOR CONCERNS WITH THIS SECTION. THE HOOPS THAT RESIDENTS WOULD HAVE TO, OR FOLKS WHO OWN BUSINESSES THERE WOULD HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH, YOU KNOW, THE EXTRA WORK THAT THEY HAVE TO COMMIT. IT SEEMS UNFAIR AND IT SORT OF IS TAKING THEIR POWER AWAY. I ATTENDED SOME OF THESE WORKSHOPS WHEN THIS WAS BEING WRITTEN, AND IT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY COMMUNITY MEMBERS. AND I UNDERSTAND NOT EVERYONE'S HAPPY WITH THE RESULT OF IT, BUT THAT WAS A COMMUNITY LED PROCESS. AND THIS IS NOT THESE CHANGES ARE NOT. IF I COULD JUST MAYBE THE PAGE OR TWO UP THAT YOU WERE I WAS LOOKING AT THAT AND I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT WAS THE LOGIC BEHIND THE EFFORT TO WHY TARGETING THIS PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS VERSUS ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WHY THE CHANGE HERE? SO IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, THE BOARD WANTED TO SAFEGUARD ANY LARGE DEVELOPMENT COMING INTO EAST STUART AND PURCHASING A BUNCH OF PARCELS AND CREATING A HUGE ROW HOUSE OF MULTI-FAMILY UNITS. SO I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE INTENT. OR IF A HOTEL MOTEL WITH THE POTENTIAL, WITH THE TRAIN STATION COMING THROUGH, THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PROTECTED THE RESIDENTS WITHIN EAST STUART TO KEEP IT SOMEWHAT SINGLE FAMILY. I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT. AND MAYBE THIS IS NOT WHERE THEY LAND, BUT I THINK THEY HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE OLDER RESIDENTS THAT HAVE BEEN LIFERS THERE. AND THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THE HOMES THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WERE PASSED DOWN BY GENERATIONS. AND THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PROTECTED THEIR PROPERTY. I GUESS MY, MY, MY CONCERN STILL WOULD BE THEY THEY HAD GOOD INTENT, BUT THEY MISSED THE MARK. AND I AGREE THAT THEY NEED TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE WITH

[01:40:04]

THE COMMUNITY, WITH WITH THE CONVERSATION. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU'RE SHOOTING FOR, BECAUSE AGAIN, AND I TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE A NUMBER OF YEARS BACK, PHIL HARVEY, SOME OTHER GUYS, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS CONCEPT AND, AND THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT YOU'VE GOT LARGE BLOCKS OF AREAS BENEATH STUART WHERE YOU CAN'T GET CLEAN TITLE. AND SO THEREFORE THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER CAN'T SELL THEIR PROPERTY OR REFINANCE IT. THEY CAN'T GET MAXIMUM VALUE. THEY HAVE TO USE ALTERNATIVE FINANCING THAT CARRIES A HIGH INTEREST RATE. IT CARRIES THEY DON'T THEY WON'T PAY YOU. YOU KNOW, YOU WON'T GET 80% ON THE VALUE. YOU'LL GET A MUCH LOWER NUMBER. SO WHAT IS HAPPENING IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, AND IT'S A DEFINITE CONCERN, IS THAT A LARGE DEVELOPER GOES IN AND BUYS ENOUGH PROPERTY THAT THEY KNOW THEY GOT CLEAN TITLE, AND THEN THEY BUILD, YOU KNOW, MULTIFAMILY IN THERE. AND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE ARE GONE. I REMEMBER THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WE HAD IN EAST STUART WHERE ONE OF THE RESIDENTS SAID, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT RENT REALLY IS HERE? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHEN WE'RE TALKING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? WE'RE NOT TALKING $3,000 A MONTH. THAT WAS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. WE'RE TALKING $600 A MONTH, YOU KNOW. AND SO I THINK THERE'S I THINK THERE'S REAL CONCERN THAT THAT IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL, THIS IF IMPLEMENTED BEFORE TITLE IS CLEANED IN EAST STUART, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGER DEVELOPER SWEEP IN AND BUILD SOMETHING AND PUSH EVERYBODY ELSE OUT, PARTICULARLY THERE ON US1 OR ON DIXIE. BUT ANYWAY. LET ME JUST ONE LAST POINT OF CLARIFICATION. SO I, I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO THE EARLIER QUESTION ABOUT THE INTENT, BUT I, I GUESS, WHY NOW? WHY THE URGENCY NOW? IS THERE ANY MESSAGE ABOUT WHY LIKE IT HASN'T HAPPENED LAST WEEK OR LAST YEAR OR FOUR YEARS AGO? SO WHAT IS THERE? ARE WE SCARED OF SOMETHING COMING SOON OR WHAT IS THE WHAT WAS THE SENSE OF TIMING. SO I THINK AND THEN I'M JUST SPEAKING I'VE BEEN I'VE BEEN WITH THE CITY OF STUART FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN IN TWO ZONING IN PROGRESS IN MY TWO AND A HALF TENURE HERE. I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS MULTIFAMILY. WE BUILT TOO FAST, TOO QUICK, AND IN TRAFFIC. THE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC. SO I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THESE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A BRIDGE VIEW COMING THROUGH AGAIN OR A DOWN SOUTH WHERE I FORGET THE NAME OF THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S RIGHT BY THE SPRING TREE. SO I THINK THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS.

AND SO I THINK THAT AND THEN SO WHEN THEY DID THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, THEY DID STATE THAT THEY WANTED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THESE GUIDELINES. AND THOSE WERE THOSE WORKSHOPS THAT WE HELD.

AND THOSE WERE THE REQUESTED CHANGES THAT HAVE COME OUT THROUGH THE WORKSHOP. YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC IS ALWAYS A QUESTION, BUT I LIVE NORTH OF HERE. I KNOW ONE OF THOSE THAT TRAVEL HERE. I GO SOUTH BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE LIVE NORTH AND THEY TRAVEL SOUTH. I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.

SO IF YOU IF YOU GO PAST TO PORT SAINT LUCIE BOULEVARD OR YOU GO DOWN. BECKER AND I'VE BEEN IN PORT SAINT LUCIE FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS. AND THEN I MOVED FORT PIERCE WEST. YOU CAN SEE THE SPRAWL COMING. I MEAN, IT'S ALL THEIR DREAMS ARE COMING TO FRUITION THAT WERE QUIET FOR 20 SOME ODD YEARS. SO TRAFFIC IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE ISSUE BECAUSE CITY OF STUART IS A BYPASS. WE ARE ONE OF THOSE BYPASS CITIES THAT ARE ALWAYS GOING TO GET THE TRAFFIC, REGARDLESS. IF WE HAVE CARS THAT WE DON'T HAVE CARS, OR WE HAVE PARKING SPACES OR WE DON'T HAVE PARKING SPACES, AND IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO GET WORSE UNTIL THERE'S SOME TYPE OF RELIEF. SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S ALL COMING FROM THE CITY OF STUART. I DO BELIEVE THAT, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU GO NORTH, YOU'LL SEE WHERE THE TRAFFIC IS COMING FROM. I SEE WHEN I GO OUT TO TRADITIONS, I LOVE GOING OUT THERE, BUT I HATE GOING OUT THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS THE UNITS THAT CAME ON WITHIN THE LAST SIX YEARS. WE MOVED REALLY QUICK. THEY WERE APPROVED WITH A LOT OF WAIVERS. THEY'RE JUST I THINK THAT THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEXT WAVE COMING THROUGH. SO THAT'S WHY THEY REQUESTED TO DO A ZONING IN PROGRESS AND DISCUSS WHAT THE FUTURE MAY HOLD FOR CITY OF STUART. THANKS. CAN I KNOW AND I WHEN I SAW THE AGENDA AND SAW THIS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN DO JUSTICE TO ALL OF THIS GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS STUFF AGAIN. AND THEN WE STILL GOT, YOU KNOW, THE NOMINATED BOARD MEMBER. WE'VE STILL GOT SOME STUFF ON ETHICS. AND SO WE'D BE WE'D BE HERE ALL NIGHT. AND I APOLOGIZE THAT WE'VE TAKEN A

[01:45:04]

WHILE, BUT WE DO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THE COMMISSION WANTS INPUT FROM, YOU KNOW, FROM VARIOUS BOARD MEMBERS. SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE A QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS THAT IF THESE ARE MORE RIGID THAN WE WOULD LIKE OR NOT STRUCTURED THE WAY WE WOULD LIKE, WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION LATER TO THE CITY AND SAY, THESE ARE THE TWEAKS THAT WE THINK YOU MAKE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN. AND IT'S NOT JUST THEIR CONCERN, IT'S THE CONCERN OF MEMBERS WITHIN THE CITY OF STUART THAT SAW THESE HIGH RISES GO UP AND SAW THESE APARTMENTS GO UP. AND IT'S THE YOUNG PEOPLE AND THE OLDER PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT THAT AND THEY DON'T.

AND THEY'RE AFRAID THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY THE URGENCY ASK ABOUT THE URGENCY, I THINK THAT'S THE URGENCY IS THAT THEY'RE AFRAID IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN, BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY PROJECTS OUT THERE THAT ARE APPROVED. AND I THINK JODY WILL GIVE US AN EDUCATION ON THAT AT SOME POINT. AND WE'LL, I MEAN, OR GIVE US AN EDUCATION ON THAT AT SOME POINT WE'LL WE'LL FIND OUT WHAT THOSE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S SOME STUFF OUT THERE, BUT I WILL, I WILL SAY AGAIN, ANY DEVELOPER THAT COMES INTO TOWN RIGHT NOW AND SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO USE 102 TO PUT IN 4 OR 5 OR 700 OR 800 UNITS, CALL THEIR BLUFF BECAUSE THEY AREN'T GOING TO GET FINANCING FOR THAT. I GUARANTEE YOU THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET FINANCING FOR THAT WITH THE RENTAL MARKET THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW AND THE VACANCY RATES THE WAY THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. SO I DO THINK WE HAVE SOME TIME. BUT I GUESS IF WE'RE BEING OVERLY RESTRICTIVE, AT LEAST THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO BACK OFF OF IT. AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT SOMEBODY WHO'S GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE'RE GIVING SOMEBODY MORE RIGHTS INSTEAD OF LESS, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD THING, BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS TURN AROUND LATER AND GIVE THOSE BACK, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? SO OUR CONCERN IS IF WE GO TOO HARD THAT WE GET SUED BECAUSE WE TAKE PROPERTY RIGHTS AWAY FROM PEOPLE, I THINK THAT'S OUR BIGGEST, YOU KNOW, BIGGEST CONCERN. BUT ANYWAY, WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST, LEE, IN TERMS OF GOING FORWARD? I KNOW WE GOT OTHER STUFF ON THE AGENDA. THE OTHER STUFF IS WE HAVE YOU GOT TO NOMINATE THE TWO MEMBERS THAT WILL BE ON THE CRA, AND THEN CITY CLERK AND I HAVE A PRESENTATION JUST TO TALK ABOUT PUBLIC RECORDS. SO WE AND THOSE AREN'T BOTH OF THOSE. I MEAN, NOMINATIONS SHOULD TAKE TWO MINUTES. YEAH. RIGHT. UNLESS YOU GUYS HAVE A DEBATE, WHO WANTS TO BE IT. BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM THAT WAY FOR THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. SO I THINK WE GOT TIME. I MEAN, YEAH, NOW THAT WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, MAYBE WE'RE CHANGING OUR MIND. IT'S 10 TO 6.

SO IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK, THAT'S FINE. BUT I WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS. JUST OKAY. THE BOARD'S CLEAR. SO WHEN YOU LOOK UP THERE ON THESE CHARTS, YOU'LL SEE CHECKMARK REMOVED AND AN A PUT THERE. I JUST SO IT'S CLEAR TO SOME OF YOU NEWBIES THAT'S THE CHECKMARK MEANS YOU'LL HEAR PERMITTED AND A CHECKMARK MEANS PERMITTED. IT'S PERMITTED AS A RIGHT. THAT MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO DO THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. AS LONG AS THEY MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, IT CAN BE APPROVED BY A DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. WHEN THEY PUT ALLOWABLE THERE, IT'S STILL ALLOWED. THEY JUST GOT TO COME FOR THE ADVISORY BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION TO, TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE COMMISSION, BUT THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO PUT AN EXTRA STEP OF PROTECTION FOR EAST STEWART. OBVIOUSLY WE'RE CONCERNED, AND I WANTED TO ADDRESS SOME OF YOU NEWBIES WEREN'T HERE, BUT WE TALK ABOUT THE CLEAR TITLE PROBLEM, WHAT WE FOUND IN EAST STEWART IS YOU HAVE GRANDMA AND GRANDPA PASSED AWAY, AND THESE ARE OLDER HOMES, AND THERE COULD BE TWO GRANDKIDS OUT OF TEN GRANDKIDS LIVING IN THE HOUSE AND, YOU KNOW, PAYING THE ELECTRIC BILL. BUT NO ONE EVER TRANSFERRED THE TITLE TO ANYBODY. AND YOU HAVE MULTIPLE GENERATIONS THAT HAVE DONE THAT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THERE'S NO CLEAR CLEAN TITLE. AND SO WE HAVE A PROGRAM IN PLACE THROUGH THE CRA. AND THE CRB WENT THROUGH IT AS WELL. WHERE WE ARE. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED I DON'T KNOW, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED MAYBE LIKE 30 OR 40 PROPERTIES IN THE EAST. STEWART, THAT THIS COULD THIS WHAT I JUST EXPLAINED COULD BE A PROBLEM. AND SO WE HAVE DEVELOPED A PROGRAM WHERE WE PAY ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR A PROBATE REAL ESTATE LAWYER, AND WE PAY THE CRA FUNDS, WILL PAY THE ATTORNEY FOR THESE FAMILIES TO CLEAR UP THE TITLE. SO AND SO THERE'S AGAIN, IT WAS LIKE 30 OR SOME ODD PROPERTIES THAT WE IDENTIFIED. AND I THINK SOME OF THEM HAVE WE'VE DONE SOME SO FAR. NONE. BUT NO ONE'S DONE IT.

SO WE'RE OFFERING IT. AND I THINK WE'RE OFFERING UP TO LIKE 3 OR 5 GRAND FOR THE FEES. AND I REMEMBER SPEAKING TO AN ATTORNEY THAT SAID THAT SHE COULD DO IT FOR THAT. SO AND THEN THEY WOULD GO AND TRY AND CLEAR THE TITLE. AND SO I GUESS I'M SURPRISED NO ONE'S TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT.

[01:50:01]

BUT WE DO HAVE THAT. AND SO I WANTED FOR THE NEWBIES, YOU WEREN'T HERE, OBVIOUSLY, BUT WHEN WE'RE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ISSUE, THAT'S THE ISSUE. AND WE HAVE A SOLUTION, I GUESS NOBODY'S TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SOLUTION, RIGHT YET. OKAY, JODY, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK YOU NEED? YOU GOT, YOU GOT YOU NEED ANOTHER 2 OR 3 HOURS OR ARE YOU GOOD. SO I MEAN, AS FAR AS OTHER LIKE IN CHAPTER SIX IS ALL YOUR SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AGAIN, THAT'S IN YOUR LARGE DEVELOPMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE DID STRIKE THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE BOARD HAD REQUESTED, THAT NO SHARED PARKING. SO I MEAN, I CAN GO THROUGH CHAPTER SIX IF YOU LIKE. IT'S JUST REALLY SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE BASED OFF CHAPTER TWO AND CHAPTER THREE. THIS IS THIS IS THE MOST SUBSTANTIAL IN YOUR IN YOUR EAST DISTRICT AND YOUR CRA, WHERE SOME OF THESE CHANGES WERE PERMITTED BY RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE SOME TYPE OF APPROVAL PROCESS THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION. AND OTHER THAN YOUR SHARED PARKING, I CAN MOVE FORWARD IF YOU'D LIKE. BUT LIKE IN CHAPTER EIGHT IS JUST CHANGING YOUR NONCONFORMING LOT TO NON-CONFORMING PARCEL. SO IT'S JUST SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE THERE. WELL, MAYBE WE SHOULD SEE SIX THEN. IS THAT THAT'S THE ONE YOU THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THEN? IF YOU'D LIKE TO LOOK AT SIX SIX, THEN. OKAY. SHOULD WE ORDER IN PIZZA. SO SIX IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT'S NOT A URBAN DISTRICT OR AN OVERLAY DISTRICT. ALL YOUR OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL WILL FALL UNDER CHAPTER SIX. YOUR DESIGN GUIDELINES. WHAT TYPE OF ELEMENTS USED TO DECORATE THE BUILDINGS, YOUR PARKING STANDARDS, YOUR HEAT ISLANDS, ALL THAT. THIS IS WHERE THIS LIVES IN CHAPTER SIX. SO DID YOU SAY JODY? THIS DOES NOT COVER ANY OF THE URBAN. NO, THIS DOES NOT COVER ANY OF THE URBAN. SO FOR US IT REALLY IS FOR CRB.

IT'S NOT RELEVANT REALLY. IT WOULD NOT BE IRRELEVANT TO THE CRB. OKAY. BUT IF YOU WANT TO WALK THROUGH IT WE CAN I DON'T THINK SO. OUR, OUR OUR ISSUES ARE DIFFERENT I THINK. AND THEN THE ONLY THING IS IN CHAPTER IN OUR DEFINITIONS, WE DID ADD A DEFINITION FOR PARCEL RECORD. SO YOU CAN GO AND DEFINE WHAT THAT IS OKAY. BUT LIKE I SAID, MOST OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES HAPPENED IN CHAPTER TWO AND SOME CHANGES IN CHAPTER THREE, AND THAT FALLS OVER TO CHAPTER SIX. YOUR CHAPTER EIGHT IS YOUR VARIANCES AND YOUR NONCONFORMING LOTS. WE JUST CLEANED UP THE LANGUAGE THERE AS WELL. SO AS YOU KNOW, WE WILL NOT HAVE A VARIANCE BOARD ANYMORE. ALL VARIANCE WILL NOW BE HELD BY WILL BE HEARD BY YOUR LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. BUT THE SAME RULES IS LIKE YOUR HARDSHIPS AND EVERYTHING WILL STILL FOLLOW UNDER CHAPTER EIGHT. SO IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, I'D BE. I'M HERE TILL 8:00 TOMORROW MORNING. I DO HAVE QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD WHENEVER WE'RE READY. GO AHEAD. QUESTION. IT'S A REALLY GOOD PRESENTATION, JODY. THANKS FOR THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, LISTENING TO ALL THAT I WAS I WAS SKETCHING OUT A FEW, A FEW NOTES AS WE WENT ALONG AND THEN SOMEHOW BONNIE BASICALLY SAID HALF OF WHAT I HAD WRITTEN DOWN. SO BUT I DO WANT TO BRING UP A COUPLE MORE. I HAVE SEVERAL THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS IS THE THIS IS VERY COMPLEX AND MANY, MANY DETAILED PIECES SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, CHANGES AND SETBACKS. IS IT SHOULD THEY IS IT SEVEN. IS IT FIVE? OKAY. NOW MINIMUM IS TEN OKAY. THAT'S PRETTY THAT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC. AND THE IMPACTS OF THAT I'M PROBABLY NOT THE BEST POSITIONED TO COMMENT ON THAT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE GOING FROM 65 TO 50%. WHAT'S THE IMPACT OF THAT? I'M PROBABLY NOT THE BEST POSITION TO COMMENT ON THAT. AND I STARTED MAKING A LONG LIST OF THESE THINGS. THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, THE DUPLEXES, YOU KNOW, I JUST I REITERATE WHAT WHAT BONNIE SAID, IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE WERE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE SHOULD GET LIKE SOME REALLY SMART PEOPLE ON THESE TOPICS. SO URBAN PLANNING DEVELOPERS, PEOPLE WHO WHO UNDERSTAND THE SUBJECT AND MAYBE, MAYBE THE COMMISSION DID THIS PREVIOUSLY, MAYBE THEY WERE INVOLVED IN SOME OF THE MEETINGS. BUT THIS IS QUITE A COMPLEX EFFORT THAT IS INTENDED HERE. SO I, I GUESS I WOULD JUST CAUTION THE MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CAUTION THE COMMISSION IF THIS IS REALLY GOING TO SERVE THE,

[01:55:01]

THE CITIZENS AND WITH THE INTENT THAT EXISTS. AND I A LOT OF THIS MY CONCERN IS, I THINK THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT THAT I HEAR ABOUT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR JUST HOUSING. AND I'M NOT SURE THIS IS GOING TO HELP AT ALL. MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION. BACK TO THE COMMISSION IS HOW IS THIS ADDRESSING THE SHORTAGE OF HOUSING IN THE CITY, INCLUDING THE CRA DISTRICT? I REALIZE THE CRA IS PART OF THE CITY. MAYBE THAT WAS PART OF THE EFFORT OF THIS REVIEW. IF IT WAS, IT'S NOT OBVIOUS TO ME HOW IT'S GOING TO ADDRESS, BUT MAYBE I'LL JUST STOP THERE. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR ROLE IS HERE IN TERMS OF A RECOMMENDATION OR A COMMENT. BACK TO THE TO THE COMMISSION. BUT I, I THINK IT WOULD BE WORTH IT TO HAVE DOES THE WHOLE THING NEED TO START OVER AGAIN? THAT MIGHT BE ONE WAY TO DO IT. IF I WOULD JUST THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF SMART PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THIS SEVERAL TIMES, WHO WHO'S INPUT, ALL OF US WOULD PROBABLY BENEFIT FROM BEYOND BEYOND THE STAFF, NOTHING AGAINST THE STAFF. I'M SURE THE STAFF HAS DONE A VERY, VERY GOOD JOB. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF SPECIALTIES IN HERE AND BEING ABLE TO ANTICIPATE THE IMPACTS OF SUGGESTED CHANGES, I THINK WOULD BE QUITE HELPFUL BECAUSE THEY MIGHT END UP WITH THE WRONG RESULT IF, IF, IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL. I GUESS THAT'S ALL MY COMMENTS. OKAY. JUST JUST A GENERAL INPUT, NOT A NOT A SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION OR ANYTHING AS WE'RE TALKING IN KIND OF AN ISOLATION. OKAY. WE'RE LOOKING HERE AT STUART OKAY. HOW MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ALL THAT. GO DRIVE UP NORTHERN SAINT LUCIE, DRIVE DOWN TO, YOU KNOW, BRIDGE ROAD. THERE'S THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT, PRE-APPROVED AND BUILT. AND THERE'S OTHER UNITS THAT ARE BREAKING GROUND.

THERE'S NO SHORTAGE OF HOUSING. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ALL 2500, 3000 A MONTH. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. BUT TO CREATE MORE DENSITY HERE WITH WITH THE IDEA THAT WE'RE WE'RE CREATING SOME KIND OF SOLUTION TO HOUSING. THERE'S TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF UNITS OUT THERE NOW AND ABOUT TO BE BUILT. WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT. WE HAVE TO ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY. MAYBE. BUT I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT A LITTLE MICROCOSM OF STUART. BUT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE, THEY'RE COMING TO STUART. THEY'RE WORKING HERE. THEY'RE DRIVING THROUGH HERE AT 100 MILES AN HOUR ON US ONE. SO I MEAN, WE ALREADY HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF DENSITY THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT OR THINKING ABOUT. AND THAT'S OUR I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT IF THE CITY IS WILLING TO, TO GO INTO PRIVATE, PUBLIC, PRIVATE ASSISTANCE WITH THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE PROPERTIES TO HELP THEM TO DEVELOP, BECAUSE THAT COST IS AN ISSUE. SO SINCE THEY HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH THESE HOOPS AND GO THROUGH THE COMMISSION FOR AN ACTION TO DO WORK ON ON THEIR PROPERTIES, IS THE CITY WILLING TO HELP THEM? AND YOU KNOW, FREDERICK, THAT ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENED TO STUART OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS IS THIS ISSUE, YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT WITHOUT HAVING CLEAR TITLE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE CLEAR TITLE, THINK ABOUT IT. IN THE LAST 20 YEARS, WE'VE HAD TWO MAJOR INCREASES IN HOUSING VALUES. RIGHT. DID EAST STUART PARTICIPATE IN THAT. NO. RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BORROW MONEY TO FIX THEIR HOUSE UP AND MAKE IT WORTH MORE. AND THEY CAN'T SELL IT AND GET FAIR PRICE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GIVE IT CLEAR, CLEAR TITLE. AND SO OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, EAST STUART HAS SUFFERED FROM FROM THAT FROM THAT PROBLEM, WHEN THE REST OF US HAVE HAVE MADE A TON OF MONEY, YOU KNOW. AND SO I THINK IT'S A, I THINK IT'S A POINT THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THERE. BUT IF WE FIX THAT TITLE THING, I THINK ULTIMATELY PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO BORROW MONEY AGAINST THEIR HOUSE, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO FIX IT UP AND DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO AND KEEP IT, YOU KNOW? BUT BUT ANYWAY, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO. NO, THAT'S GOOD, BECAUSE I'LL GO BACK AND I'LL GET THE WORD. MAYBE. MAYBE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND OR DIDN'T CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY IS ACTUALLY TRYING TO HELP THEM AND NOT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THEIR PROPERTIES. SO I'M IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THAT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT BETTER TO SOME OF THE OWNERS. JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE 1 OR 2 LAWYERS THAT WILL BE ON A PROVIDER LIST, KIND OF AND THEY, THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN CONTACT A LAWYER AND DISCUSS IT WITH THE LAWYER BEFORE EVEN DOING ANYTHING. AND WE WOULD JUST PAY THE FEES. SO CAN I SAY WE THE CRA? I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO WRITE A CHECK. I GOT THE OKAY. I THINK THE. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF THE BOARD FEELS.

I COMMEND THE COMMISSIONERS FOR ADDRESSING A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE, AND THAT IS THAT WHAT THE

[02:00:09]

PREVIOUS COMMISSION BASICALLY APPROVED, ALTHOUGH THEY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO PRODUCE A DECENT RESULT, IT PRODUCED THE EXACT OPPOSITE RESULT. AND SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ENDED UP WITH ALL THIS STUFF COMING OUT OF THE GROUND. AND THE THOUGHT WAS THAT IF YOU BUILD IT AND THERE'S AN OVERSUPPLY OF IT, IT WILL BRING PRICES DOWN. RIGHT? AND THAT IS BASIC ECONOMICS. SO NORMALLY YOU WOULD THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN THIS MARKET BECAUSE. RIGHT. BECAUSE WITH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH THIS IS THIS IS COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH SINGLE WITH THESE APARTMENTS, THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY NOT ON SELLING THOSE AND NOT ON SELLING 1 OR 2 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO FINANCE IN A FREE AND CLEAR. THEY MAKE MONEY ON THAT BY GOING TO WALL STREET AND REFINANCING THAT PROPERTY. THEY DIDN'T SELL THAT PROPERTY ON, ON US ONE, THEY JUST REFINANCED IT WITH DIFFERENT INVESTORS. AND THE PREVIOUS INVESTORS GOT THEIR CASH OUT AND THE NEXT INVESTORS DIDN'T. WELL, THE VALUE OF A OF A PROJECT, A COMMERCIAL PROJECT, LIKE A HOUSING LIKE APARTMENTS, THAT VALUE IS BASED NOT ON OH, THIS IS A GREAT BUILDING. THIS IS WHAT IT'S NOT BASED ON COMPS.

IT'S NOT BASED ON IT'S BASED ON THE INCOME THAT THAT COULD PRODUCE. RIGHT? YES. AND SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT THESE UNITS OUT THERE. THERE'S BUILDINGS THAT ARE UP AND THEY'RE BUILT. BUT JUST LIKE YOU SAID, JEFF, THEY'RE EMPTY RIGHT NOW. AND WHY IS THAT? WELL, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DISCOUNT IT. THEY WOULD RATHER IT BE EMPTY AND GO INTO DISREPAIR AND FORECLOSURE, BECAUSE IF THEY DISCOUNT THAT PRICE, LET'S SAY IT'S 2000 AND THEY DROP IT DOWN TO 1500 TO FILL OUT THREE UNITS, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE VALUE OF EVERYTHING IN THERE FROM THAT POINT FORWARD. 1500 IS GOING TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A UNIT IN THAT HOUSING, AND THAT'S GOING TO DECREASE THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY BY TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. WHEREAS I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER OF WHAT I THINK WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL WITH. AND THIS IS WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO LOOK AT, IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AROUND AT PEOPLE THAT ARE ABLE TO LIVE HERE, RIGHT, MOST OF THE TIME IT'S BECAUSE SOMEBODY THEY KNEW ALREADY OWNED SOMEPLACE, RIGHT? AND NOW THINK ABOUT IT. IF I BUY A HOUSE AND I'VE OWNED A HOUSE FOR, SAY, I OWN A HOUSE FOR 15 YEARS, RIGHT? AND I OWN THAT HOUSE, AND NOW I GIVE IT TO MY I HAVE MY SON LIVE IN IT, OR I RENT IT OUT TO SOMEBODY LOCALLY. RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE TO GET I DON'T HAVE TO GET FULL VALUE ON THAT, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO REFINANCE THAT PROPERTY AND PULL THE EQUITY OUT. I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO RENT IT OUT. AND SO I'M I'M GETTING THE APPRECIATION, THE VALUE OF THE APPRECIATION EVERY SINGLE YEAR. BUT I'M NOT HAVING TO I'M NOT HAVING TO SELL THE HOUSE TO DO THAT. AND I DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAX ON IT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO SO I'M GOING TO GET A 6 OR 7 OR 8% RETURN DUE TO APPRECIATION AND A 5 OR 6 OR 7% RETURN DUE TO ACTUAL RENT. AND THAT KEEPS PRICES DOWN. AND SO I USE IT AS AN EXAMPLE, AS A LOCAL FAMILY THAT HAS THE UNIT I'M RENTING RIGHT NOW, IT'S A THREE BEDROOM DUPLEX NEAR FLAMINGO. IT'S NOT. IT'S IN ON FINNEY, BUT I GOT THAT UNIT FOR EIGHT 1850 BUCKS, THREE BEDROOM. NOW, HOW COULD YOU DO THAT? YOU COULDN'T DO THAT IF THAT WAS THAT WAS A WALL STREET INVESTOR. THERE IS NO WAY IN HECK THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN, RIGHT? THERE'S NO WAY IT WOULD HAPPEN. BUT BUT IT'S A PERSON THAT'S LIVED IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR 40 YEARS. HAS REAL ESTATE IN THE COMMUNITY, HAS INVESTED IN THE COMMUNITY? THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS I MEAN, I, I STILL THINK THAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO LOOK NOT JUST AT THIS ISSUE, BUT THEY NEED TO LOOK AT WAYS THAT WE CAN ENCOURAGE OWNERSHIP, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THE PROBLEM. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT NECESSARILY OWNERSHIP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE YOUNG AND JUST STARTING TO WORK BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUY HOUSES BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE LIVING YET. BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT OWNERSHIP, WHERE SOMEBODY CAN OWN A UNIT AND LEASE IT OUT AND KEEP IT FOR A LONG TERM. AND I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THAT. AND I WOULD, BUT I COMMEND THE CITY FOR STEPPING IN SO THAT WE DON'T GET A BIGGER PROBLEM. BUT I THINK THAT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE INDICATE TO THE COMMISSION THAT WE, YOU KNOW, WE APPROVE OR WE'RE BUT WE THINK THERE'S SOME CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE, THERE'S SOME TWEAKS THAT NEED TO BE MADE, AND IT MAY NOT MAKE SENSE TO HOLD OFF EVERYTHING TO TALK ABOUT THOSE TWEAKS, BUT THAT WE GO BACK. AND I THINK IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHAT BONNIE SAID TO SOME DEGREE. WE LOOKED AT THE PROBLEM AND WE CAME AND WE TRIED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM AND THEN GO THIS WAY INSTEAD OF SOLVING THE BASE AND GOING UP SO THAT WE COULD CUT IT OFF AT THE ROOTS. AND I THINK, I THINK IF WE COULD, I THINK WE NEED TO GET IT BACK TO THE COMP PLAN. I

[02:05:03]

THINK WE NEED TO GET BACK TO THE CRA PLAN. I THINK WE NEED TO GET BACK TO WHAT IS THE FUTURE FOR THE CITY. WE HAD DELANEY IN HERE. I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY AGREES WITH IT. THEY DIDN'T AGREE WITH HIM AT THE TIME, BUT I'M NOT SO SURE THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT PROCESS AGAIN.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I THINK. I WOULD AGREE MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, WOULD BE TO GO BACK TO A COMMUNITY LED CITYWIDE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS THAT WOULD GUIDE CHANGES TO CODE INSTEAD OF CHANGING THE CODE AND THEN SEEING WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH HOW OUR CITY DEVELOPS. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE WHAT WHAT DO WE NEED FROM THIS? THIS IS JUST DO WE NEED A MOTION OR JUST NEED OUR OPINION? OR WHAT IS BONNIE'S MOTION COUNT? CAN WE JUST USE THAT? IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION AND SECONDED THEN YOU GUYS CAN VOTE ON IT. BUT DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT AS A MOTION? YEAH. I MEAN I'D LOVE FOR 50 OTHER THINGS TO BE IN IT, BUT YES, THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION THAT THE CITY. HALTS ANY CHANGES TO CODES UNTIL THEY CAN PERFORM A CITY WIDE MASTER PLANNING UPDATE THAT IS COMMUNITY LED. SECOND. OKAY, DISCUSSION. YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I THINK THAT THEY NEED TO CONTINUE AND FINISH WHAT THEY'VE GOT RIGHT NOW AND GET THE ZIP COMPLETED SO THAT AT LEAST WE'VE GOT A BASE PROGRAM IN PLACE, BECAUSE THERE IS STILL THE THREAT OUT THERE THAT SOME OF THIS OTHER STUFF COULD HAPPEN. BUT BUT I DO THINK THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO PLAN, WE NEED TO WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHERE WE'RE AT. AND I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO SEE WHAT KIND OF COMMUNITY WE WANT TO BE. COULD I JUST ASK? SORRY.

MAYBE JODIE, IF I UNDERSTOOD. RIGHT. THE THAT'S A GOOD POINT, MARK. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT I HAVE NO VISIBILITY OF WHAT PROJECTS MAY ALREADY BE IN THE PIPELINE OR COMING, BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S NOT A LOT OR LITTLE. MAYBE I'M WRONG. THE INFORMATION I HAD. BUT IF IT'S BUILT OUT, THEN THERE CAN'T BE A WHOLE LOT COMING, RIGHT? OR HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT. SO WHEN YOU HAVE A BUILT OUT COMMUNITY LIKE THE CITY OF STUART, YOU'RE TYPICALLY GOING TO START GETTING REDEVELOPMENT. INFILLS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STARTING TO SEE NOW, SOME EXPANSION TO LARGER FACILITIES LIKE WALMART. THEY HAVE A SMALL EXPANSION, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO START SEEING THE INFILLS AND THE REDEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU KNOW, THE DENSITY HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED FOR THAT PROPERTY. SO IT'S A LIKE FOR LIKE SOMETIMES. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STARTING TO SEE. SO LET ME CLARIFY THE QUESTION. SO THE AND I DON'T KNOW THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT EXACTLY IS WHAT THE MAJORITY DO NOT WANT. BUT WHATEVER THAT IS REDEVELOPMENT SAY MAYBE IT TAKES A ZONING CHANGE OR A DENSITY CHANGE, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, I ASSUME THEY WOULD. THEY'RE PROBABLY IN ONE OF THOSE TABLES WHERE THEY HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION FOR SUCH CHANGES, AS OPPOSED TO JUST BY. RIGHT. CORRECT. SO A LOT OF THINGS IN THE CITY OF STUART ARE NOT I MEAN, THEY'LL SAY BY. RIGHT. BUT A LOT OF TIMES WE CAN'T PARK IT. YOU HAVE DESIGN CRITERIA THAT YOU CAN'T FIT ON A ON A SMALLER SITE. SO A LOT OF THE PROJECTS DO END UP IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION. SO AND THAT SEEMS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LAST 30 YEARS, HOW THE CITY OF STUART HAS DEVELOPED. RIGHT. SO I'LL STOP TALKING IN A SECOND. BUT I GUESS TO ME THAT INFLUENCES OR IT INFLUENCES THE, THE URGENCY. SO IF, IF THE, IF THESE BIG THINGS THAT WE, THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ARE GOING TO COME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION ANYWAY. THEN TO ME, COMING BACK TO THIS REVIEW OF THE CODE, MAYBE IT'S NOT SO URGENT. I MEAN, IT'S WELL INTENTIONED AND THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF CHANGES THAT MAKE SENSE. BUT IF WE WERE TO URGE THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER, IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT WHETHER THEY HAVE A VIEW OF FUTURE.

LET'S CALL THEM BIG PROJECTS, I GUESS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD. YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN? YEAH.

YEAH. OKAY. WELL, I THINK AND THE CITY OR THE COMMISSION HAS DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB. THEY, THEY TOOK OUT THE REALLY BAD STUFF. THOSE HALF UNITS THAT THEY ADDED THERE THAT, YOU KNOW, A UNIT ISN'T A UNIT IF IT'S A CERTAIN SQUARE FEET, IT'S A HALF UNIT OR IT'S A UNIT. YOU KNOW, THEY TOOK SOME OF THAT STUFF OFF THAT LITERALLY WAS PASSED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT DURING COVID. SO I THINK THAT I GIVE THEM A LOT OF CREDIT FOR GETTING SOME OF THAT JUNK OUT OF THERE.

BUT BUT I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT, I THINK THEY'VE HIT THE MAJOR STUFF, AND NOW THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND GET MORE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT, GET MORE PLANNING, AND THEN SAY, WHAT DO WE WANT TO BE? PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE. DURING THE DUANY PLAN, WE REJECTED THE CITY, ACTUALLY REJECTED THE PLAN THAT HE PROPOSED. IT'S NOT THE SAME PLAN THAT HE PROPOSED. SO EVERYBODY THINKS IT WAS, BUT IT'S NOT SO. SO WE'RE NOT YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S THAT KIND OF

[02:10:03]

THING WHERE WE ARE. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IF WE START MAKING MORE CHANGES LIKE THIS, WE'RE POTENTIALLY GOING TO MAKE LAND USE CHANGES, WHICH COULD HURT US DOWN THE ROAD. AND WE'RE ALSO GOING TO POTENTIALLY CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING AWAY FROM THE COMP PLAN AND AWAY FROM WHAT THE CITY WANTS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO EITHER. WE HAVE TO HAVE A BASE TO WORK FROM. THE COMP PLAN IS THE BASE. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. I MEAN, COULD WE INSTEAD OF JUST SLAMMING THE BRAKES ON EVERYTHING AND GOING BACK TO THE STARTING POINT, COULD WE COMPARTMENTALIZE SOME OF THE MAJOR THINGS THAT ARE UNDERWAY AND ANALYZE EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY? MAYBE TAKE, TAKE, GIVE THEM THE TIME THEY DESERVE AS OPPOSED TO JUST I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. BUT THE PROBLEM HERE AND LEE CAN PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, GIVE US SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT. BUT THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW IS THE LONGER THE ZIP TAKES PLACE, THE MORE CHANCE WE'RE GOING TO GET SUED FOR TAKING FOR. I MEAN, THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT CAN'T THAT ARE WANTING TO DO PROJECTS, WHETHER IT'S TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND HAVING TENANTS MOVE IN OR, YOU KNOW, OR IT'S BUILDING SOMETHING OR WHATEVER, AND THEY'RE STUCK RIGHT NOW. AND, AND SO THE LONGER THAT TAKES, THE MORE LIKELY THERE IS THAT THERE'S A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THAT WE TOOK THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT COMPENSATION. SO I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO FINISH THIS UP. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL SAYING. LET'S JUST FINISH THIS UP, GET IT IN PLACE, AND THEN LET'S START THE OTHER PROCESS, WHICH MIGHT TAKE TWO YEARS, BUT LET'S START THAT PROCESS AND SEE AND GET BUY IN AND LET'S SEE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT TO DO. RIGHT. IF I MAY. SURE, CHAIR. SO YOU HAD ASKED A QUESTION WHETHER WE COULD COMPARTMENTALIZE IT WHEN THE CHAIR ASKED FOR A MOTION. VICE CHAIR MOSER MADE A MOTION AND IT WAS SECONDED. RIGHT. YEAH. SECOND, SO THAT IN HER MOTION WAS THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION GO BACK TO COMMUNITY BASED LEAD AND CITY WORK ON A WIDE, CITY WIDE MASTER PLAN THAT IS COMMUNITY LED. I'M GOING TO MY NOTES HERE. SO THAT WAS HER MOTION, WHICH WAS SECONDED. UNLESS SHE AMENDS HER MOTION TO ADD IN TO COMPARTMENTALIZE, YOU GUYS WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION FIRST. OKAY? IF IT IF IT PASSES BY A MAJORITY, THEN THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. IF IT DOESN'T, THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER MOTION WHERE YOU SAY I WANT TO COMPARTMENTALIZE IT. BUT WHEN THE CHAIR ASKS FOR A MOTION AND IT'S FIRST TO FIRST TO MAKE THE MOTION, YOU KNOW, GETS TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, WHAT THEY WANT TO BE DONE. SO I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING YOU NEED TO BE QUICK ON YOUR FEET HERE, OKAY, I CAN SO CAN WE TALK ABOUT AMENDMENTS? YEAH. AND DISCUSS IT. VICE CHAIR YOU CAN DO AN AMENDMENT AND THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SECONDED.

AND THEN YOU GO THAT ROUTE. BUT OKAY, I'M GOING TO THINK OUT LOUD HERE. JUST ASK LEE TO TELL YOU WHAT TO SAY. HE KNOWS WHAT TO DO. MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE. THAT THE COMMISSION CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CHANGES TO DUPLEXES. ANY ANY CHANGES ABOUT DUPLEXES, ADUS, AND SHARED PARKING. I DON'T KNOW, THINKING OUT LOUD. SO ANY ANY COMMENTS? I'D SAY THE COMMISSION WILL BUY THAT. SO. BUT GO AHEAD. YOU SAY WILL OR WILL NOT. WILL NOT. THE PARKING IS AN ISSUE. SHARED PARKING IS AN ISSUE. AND THEY WANT TO THEY WANT TO SHUT THAT OFF PRETTY QUICK BECAUSE IT'S THAT THAT HELPS STOP. A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED WERE APPROVED UNDER SHARED PARKING, REDUCED PARKING ON STREET PARKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND THEY'RE THEY'RE SIGNIFICANTLY UNDER THE REQUIRED PARKING. SO I THINK RIGHTFULLY SO. THEY WANT TO STOP THAT. I MEAN, ALL OF THIS STUFF CAN BE REVISITED IF WE, YOU KNOW, LATER NOTHING, NOTHING GOES AWAY. AND ANYTHING WE DO PROBABLY DOWN THE ROAD IS GOING TO LOOSEN THE REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN INCREASE IT. SO ALL IT'S GOING TO DO IS CREATE VALUE FOR PEOPLE INSTEAD OF TAKING IT AWAY. YEAH. I THINK MY CONCERN WITH THESE CHANGES TO THE DUPLEXES AND ADUS IS IT'S BASICALLY JUST GOING TO ELIMINATE THEIR EXISTENCE OR MAKE IT INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT.

AND, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, THOSE DUPLEXES WHERE YOU'RE LIVING ARE SOME OF THE ONLY PLACES IN THE CITY OF STUART THAT ARE UNDER $300,000 FOR SOMEONE TO PURCHASE. SO I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO MAKE THAT HARDER FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING WITH. AFFORDABILITY. WELL, YEAH, I THINK, BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE ALSO GOT THE WE'VE GOT ALL THAT STUFF DOWN EAST OCEAN THAT'S YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE FOREMOST CEDAR, CEDAR POINT AND YOU KNOW, AND VISTA PINES OR WHATEVER'S DOWN THERE AND, AND KINGSWOOD AND ALL THOSE, THOSE ARE ALL THOSE ARE ALL PROVIDING

[02:15:02]

MOST OF, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE THAT MOST OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS FOR ELDERLY IN THE CITY OF STUART. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT YOUNG PEOPLE AND JOBS. IT'S THE ELDERLY. AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE LOSING A LOT OF POTENTIAL, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL HOUSING. BUT ANYWAY.

SORRY, BONNIE. NO, NO. IT'S FINE. ANYTHING ELSE I CAN. ANYTHING ELSE YOU TALK ABOUT? VICE CHAIR AMENDED HER MOTION. YEAH. LET ME JUST CLARIFY FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU WERE PIECEMEALING TOGETHER, SO. AND I'M GOING TO TRY. I TOOK NOTES, VICE CHAIR MOSER. SO IT'S YOUR MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COMMISSION. ALL OF THE COMMISSION'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, EXCEPT FOR THE AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO DUPLEXES, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND SHARED PARKING. YOU WISH THAT THOSE WOULD GO BACK TO A CITYWIDE MASTER PLAN, THAT IS COMMUNITY LED. SECOND, IS THAT RIGHT? LET'S MAKE SURE THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LIKE FOR ALL OF IT TO GO TO A CITYWIDE MASTER PLAN. YEAH, YEAH. BUT I, I THINK THE OTHER OTHER THAN THE AMENDMENT, THOSE CAN CONTINUE FOR NOW UNTIL THAT MASTER PLAN PROCESS IS COMPLETE. KNOWING THAT THAT WILL THAT WILL TAKE YEARS. YEAH. IF IT'S DONE WELL, WHAT WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THAT WE ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION TO GO TO FINISH WHAT THEY'VE GOT, GO FORWARD WITH WHAT THEY'VE GOT AT THIS POINT, BUT THEN FINISH THAT ZIP UP AND THEN LET'S THEN LET'S START A COMMUNITY BASED.

PROGRAM. AND THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO LEAD THAT TOO. BUT YOU KNOW, SO THEY'RE GOING TO HELP PICK THE PLANNER AND DO WHATEVER. SO WE JUST YOU KNOW, WE JUST DECIDE AT THAT POINT, THEN WE GET EVERYTHING WHERE STUFF CAN KEEP ON GOING. WE STOPPED ALL THE MAJOR STUFF FROM HAPPENING. THEY'RE GOING TO FINISH THAT UP AND THEN THE REST OF IT WE WILL. WE'LL RE REREVIEW. YEAH. THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLANNING PROCESS. RIGHT THUMB IN THE DIKE. YEAH.

YEAH. MORE OR LESS. YEAH. SO COULD I OFFER A ANOTHER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. SURE. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT REALLY APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING OF THIS. WE'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. RIGHT.

SO. RIGHT. AND GIVING FEEDBACK TO THE COMMISSION, WHICH OF COURSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT. SO I THINK THE MOTION AS IT STANDS IS THE RIGHT FEEDBACK. I THINK THEY THE COMMISSION CAN TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION, AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHAT THEY FEEL IS THE RIGHT THING. BUT AT LEAST THEY HEARD THE CONCERNS FROM THIS GROUP WITH SOME OF THOSE SPECIFICS. I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY FAR MORE IF WE HAD SOME OTHER PEOPLE IN THE ROOM LOOK AT IT. BUT ANYWAY, IT'S A GOOD START. WELL, THAT'S MY PROBLEM IS THERE PROBABLY ARE A LOT MORE. AND I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO TIE THIS THING UP BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OF JUST SOME SPECIFIC THINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO I THINK BONNIE'S THOUGHT PROCESS IS A GOOD ONE, AND I JUST BUT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO PICK SPECIFIC STUFF OUT RIGHT NOW. LET'S JUST LEAVE IT ALONE, GET IT DONE, TELL THEM, MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, GET IT DONE. AND THEN AFTER THAT'S FINISHED, AFTER WE'RE DONE WITH THE ZIP, THEY CAN FINISH OUT WHAT THEY GOT. WE'RE ONLY PROBABLY A COUPLE OF MONTHS AWAY FROM FINISHING THAT. AND. AND THEN IN THE MEANTIME WE CAN BE ORGANIZING. THEY CAN BE ORGANIZING AND HELP ORGANIZE A COMMUNITY BASED PLANNING SESSION. AND, YOU KNOW, TRY TO SEE WHERE WE'RE AT. OKAY. IS YOUR MOTION STANDING ON WHAT YOU JUST MENTIONED IT TO? BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN SECONDED, BUT I'M SURE WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY IF I THOUGHT I SECONDED SECONDED. YEAH. OKAY. I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT AS AS IT IS WE CAN VOTE AGAINST IT. BUT I WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE TO THE COMMISSION THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN HERE THAT ARE CAUSE FOR ALARM AND SHOULDN'T CONTINUE. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. ANY OTHER? NOBODY. I WILL JUST SAY THAT I, I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.

BONNIE. I, I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR MOTION BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN THERE THAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. AND I DON'T WANT EVERYBODY TO GET OFF TRACK. BUT THAT'S MY ONLY THOUGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I, I, THE CONCEPTUALLY, I'M 100% COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.

SO. ALL RIGHT. VICE CHAIR MOSER, JUST FOR THE RECORD, COULD WE CLARIFY YOU WANTED THE AMENDED MOTION OR YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION? BECAUSE I HAVE BOTH. SO I NEED TO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE IT RIGHT. FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS HER AMENDED MOTION. OH, NOW I'M GETTING CONFUSED. THE AMENDED MOTION. THE AMENDED MOTION WOULD STILL BE THE COMMISSION CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE EXCEPTION OF DUPLEXES, ADUS AND SHARED PARKING WITH THE REQUEST THAT THEY COMMUNITY BASED REVIEW.

YES, THAT THEY BEGIN THE PROCESS OF A CITYWIDE CITYWIDE MASTER PLAN THAT IS COMMUNITY LED VERY WELL. AND BOARD MEMBER CHAIR, YOU SECONDED THAT AMENDED MOTION. CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENT? COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC? I HAVE NONE. CHAIR. OKAY. OKAY. ALL

[02:20:10]

RIGHT. WE'LL I THINK ON THIS. SHOULD WE DO ROLL CALL. YEAH OKAY. LET'S DO A ROLL CALL.

BOARD MEMBER MANERO HERE. YES OR NO. SORRY. YES, YES. BOARD MEMBER. SCHER. YES. BOARD MEMBER. JAMES. NO. BOARD MEMBER. WHALEN. YES. CHAIR. BRECHBILL. NO. OH, THIS WAS FOR THE. I'M SORRY. YOU WERE. I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST TAKING A EXITING. I'M. NO, I'M A NO VOTE. OKAY. CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. MOSER. YES. SO WE NEED A NEW ONE, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. WHAT WAS THE FINAL ON THAT? SO IT'S THREE THREE. YEAH. GREAT. WHO'S WHO'S GOING TO DECIDE THAT. WELL WE'LL JUST WELL IT GOES TO SHOW WE WERE KIND OF UNDECIDED RIGHT. SO I THINK YOU GOT A FLAIR FOR WHERE WE'RE AT. SO I DON'T KNOW. DO WE NEED ANYTHING MORE. WE DON'T NEED ANYTHING MORE ON THAT DO WE. OKAY. YEAH I KNOW WHAT'S A PIZZA. SOMEBODY GET THE LUNAS. I'M HUNGRY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S. I

[4. NOMINATE BOARD MEMBER FOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RC): RESOLUTION No. 01-2025 CRB; A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA TO NOMINATE TWO MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; FOR THE REMAINING CURRENT TERM FROM PRESENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2025; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

GUESS WE GOTTA NOMINATE BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. IS THAT.

I'LL READ IT FOR THE RECORD, THE RESOLUTION OVER. OKAY. GO AHEAD. SO RESOLUTION NUMBER 01-2 THOUSAND TWO FIVE CRB, A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, TO NOMINATE TWO MEMBERS TO SERVE ON THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE REMAINING CURRENT TERM FROM PRESENT TO DECEMBER 31ST, 2025, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. OKAY, SO BASICALLY WHAT THIS IS, IS TWO MEMBERS THAT ATTEND AND ARE A PART OF THE CRA NOW BECAUSE THAT ORGANIZATION IS AN ORGANIZATION THAT CAN SET, YOU KNOW, DETERMINE SPENDING AND DO THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE ARE SOME, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE FINANCIAL REPORTING IS AT A LITTLE HIGHER LEVEL AS TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO REPORT. AND I THINK, MARY, WHAT ELSE IS THE ETHICS STUFF IS THAT'S EVERYBODY STILL HAS TO DO THAT. EVERYONE HAS TO DO IT ON THIS BOARD. AND THAT'S IN MY NEXT PRESENTATION. AND THE CRA, THEY'RE BOTH RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO BASICALLY THAT'S ALL IT IS.

YOU'VE GOT ANOTHER MEETING PER MONTH AND YOU'VE GOT YOU'VE GOT SOME DISCLOSURES YOU GOT TO DO.

AND I WILL TELL YOU, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO, TO FOR US TO GET REPRESENTED FROM THE CRB ON THE CRA AND, AND HOPEFULLY THAT'S YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO I KNOW BONNIE YOU SAID YOU KNOW AS VICE CHAIR USUALLY YOU KNOW THAT'D BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU SAY FROM A I UNDERSTAND THAT FROM A COMMITMENT OF TIME CONSTRAINTS, THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR ME. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND SO AND WE NEED WE NEED TWO. I GUESS WE CAN DO IT ONE AT A TIME. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR SOMEBODY TO SERVE. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SERVE.

WHO'S WHO ELSE WANTS TO SERVE? I'M JUST GOING TO ASK YOU, MARK, IS THAT IS THAT SOMETHING YOU'RE WILLING TO DO ANOTHER YEAR? WELL, YEAH, THEY THEY PROBABLY THEY'LL PROBABLY THROW ME OFF.

BUT I WOULD, I WOULD PROBABLY YEAH I WOULD DO IT I, I ENJOY PARTICIPATING IN THAT. IS THERE.

ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS THAT'S INTERESTED. CLAY. WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED. EXCUSE ME. YEAH, POTENTIALLY. I GUESS I NEED TO LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE TIME COMMITMENT AND SOME OTHER. ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS? IT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO DO, BUT I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD BE FAIR OF ME TO COMMIT AT THIS MOMENT. IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO REVIEW JUST REAL QUICKLY, THE CRA MEETINGS MEET ON THE FOURTH MONDAY OF EVERY MONTH. THEY'RE TYPICALLY AT 4 P.M. THERE ARE THE QUARTERLY MEETINGS, WHICH YOU ALL PARTICIPATED IN JANUARY. THAT HAPPENS IN PLACE OF THE REGULAR CRA MEETING. SO THAT'S JOINT WITH THE CRA, CRB AND CITY COMMISSION. BUT OTHERWISE IT'S ONCE A MONTH. YEAH, IT'S NOT TOO BAD. THERE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT ARE DISCUSSED, YOU'LL HAVE ALREADY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THEM AT THE CRB LEVEL A LOT OF TIMES. SOMETIMES IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. WE'RE SEEING THEM THERE AND THEN THEY'RE COMING IN TO CRB. YOU KNOW LIKE THIS ISSUE WAS. BUT BUT IT'S PRETTY THAT PART OF IT IS, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL EDUCATIONAL TYPE THINGS, YOU KNOW, AS IF YOU WERE SITTING ON ANOTHER ONE. AND JUST

[02:25:04]

TO CLARIFY, YOU WILL SIT ON A BOARD WITH ALL FIVE CITY COMMISSIONERS AND THERE'LL BE TWO FROM THIS BOARD. YEAH. AND YOU'LL BE A VOTING MEMBER OF THAT BOARD. YES. SO. ANYBODY ELSE? CLAY. WELL, IF YOU WON'T FIND ANYBODY CLAY, GO AHEAD. NO, NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THE IT'S VERY APPEALING, BUT THE TIME COMMITMENTS BEYOND THIS BOARD WOULD BE PROBABLY A STRETCH FOR ME. SO I THINK IT'S BETTER THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS A SHOT THAT CAN COMMIT THE TIME.

THAT'S GOOD. VOLUNTEER. OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT WE I GUESS WE CAN DO IT TOGETHER. WE GOT TWO PEOPLE.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THOSE TWO? SOMEONE NEEDS TO NOMINATE. OKAY, I THOUGHT SOMEBODY DID, BUT MAYBE NOT JUST SOME DISCUSSION. OKAY. YEAH WE JUST HAD DISCUSSION OKAY. SO I MOVE THAT MARK AND FREDERICK REPRESENT THE CRB ON THE CRA SECOND SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? HI. HI. OPPOSED? NO, I CAN'T DO THAT, CAN I? OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU I APPRECIATE IT, FREDERICK. THANKS. APPRECIATE IT. I KNOW YOU'LL GET THE SUPPORT FROM THE REST OF THE BOARD TOO. AND THEY'LL IF THEY'VE GOT AN ISSUE THAT THEY WANT YOU TO BRING UP, I'M SURE THEY WILL BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE ALWAYS WORKED PRETTY WELL TOGETHER AS A, AS A GROUP I TURN. YEP. YOUR TURN NOW YOU CAN TELL US ETHICALLY WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. I WILL TRY AND MAKE IT BRIEF AND NOT TO SCARE THE NEW MEMBERS. CONGRATULATIONS, BY THE WAY, ON YOUR APPOINTMENTS AND REAPPOINTMENTS AND BUT THESE MEETINGS ARE DEFINITELY NOT

[7. ADVISORY BOARD ORIENTATION REVIEW AND PUBLIC RECORDS PRESENTATION]