Feb 06, 2025 Local Planning Agency

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

ARE YOU READY? WE'RE READY TO ORDER. ROLL CALL PLEASE. CHAIR LORRAINE HERE. VICE CHAIR PETERSON HERE. BOARD MEMBER. WARNER HERE. BOARD MEMBER. BRUMFIELD HERE. BOARD MEMBER.

STROM HERE. BOARD MEMBER. VOGEL HERE. THANK YOU. EVERYONE. LET'S STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

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

PLEASURE TO BE BEFORE YOU TODAY. I'LL BE REAL BRIEF. MYSELF AND SEVERAL RESIDENTS IN EAST STUART. WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS, AND I THINK I'VE EXPRESSED SOME OF THEM TO YOU BEFORE. AND BASICALLY WE SUBMITTED A PLAN TO THE CITY COMMISSIONERS. OKAY. THAT PLAN TALKS ABOUT PROTECTIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR THE RESIDENTS. CURRENT RESIDENTS OF EAST STUART. WE SENT THE INFORMATION IN GENERAL, AND THEN WE ACTUALLY SENT THE PLAN. THAT PLAN WAS JUST SENT TO YOU GUYS. THE LPA BOARD. AND IT WAS ALSO SENT TO THE CRB. OKAY. AND THEN WE ASKED FOR IT TO GO TO THE C R A. AND WE KNOW THAT'S A LITTLE REDUNDANT BECAUSE THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE THE CITY COMMISSIONERS. EASTWARD AS FAR AS ON THE PRECIPICE OF BEING DISENFRANCHIZED BY DECISIONS BEING MADE BY THE CITY, BY OUTSIDE INVESTORS, BY EVERYBODY. AND WE FEEL WE DON'T HAVE THE VOICE THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY. WE WANT TO BE THERE. WE WANT TO BE IN STEWARD, AND WE WANT TO BE IN THIS STORY AND WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT THE THREAT OF EVERYTHING ALWAYS COMING DOWN AND DECISIONS BEING MADE. ONE DECISION THAT WILL TAKE AWAY THE CULTURE OR MAKE IT HARD FOR US TO LIVE THERE FINANCIALLY OR WHATEVER. SO YOU GUYS GOT THAT PLAN? I ASK YOU TO LOOK IT OVER. WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND WITH THE PLANNING BOARDS TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF RESOLUTION. WE FEEL THAT THAT AREA, WE SHOULD HAVE A GREATER IMPACT IN MAKING DECISIONS THAN WE DO. SO THAT WAS ALL I HAD TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

OKAY. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THAT WE RECEIVED THIS EMAIL FROM THE CITY, FORWARDED IT TO US OR YOUR NOTE FORWARDED TO US AT FEBRUARY 6TH OF THIS EVENING. SO I ACTUALLY STARTED TO LOOK AT THE FRONT PART. IF YOU DON'T MIND, SINCE I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO READ KIND OF THE SUMMARY STATEMENT THAT YOU. SO I'M GOING TO READ THE SUMMARY STATEMENT THAT HE SENT, SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD A TIME TO REALLY LOOK AT IT.

AND I THANK YOU FOR COMING FORWARD. THIS IS THE STATEMENT THAT WENT ALONG WITH IT. THERE IS A MATTER OF PROFOUND URGENCY AND IMPORTANCE. THE GENTRIFICATION OF EAST STUART, A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD WITH DEEP ROOTS IN THE BLACK AFRICAN COMMUNITY, BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITY. EXCUSE ME? FOR YEARS, RESIDENTS HAVE FACED SYSTEMIC CHALLENGES, FROM REDLINING TO NEGATIVE STIGMA, STIGMATIZATION AND DISPARATE TREATMENT. THESE INJUSTICES HAVE CAUSED MANY TO BE IN A CONDITION OF LESS WEALTH AND LESS ABILITY TO IMPACT OUR OWN COMMUNITY FOR OUR BEST INTERESTS. MANY OF THE CURRENT ENCROACHMENTS ARE THREATENING TO DESTROY OUR COMMUNITY.

GENTRIFICATION IS NOT JUST A CHANGE IN DEMOGRAPHICS. IT IS A CONTINUATION OF THE CYCLE OF OPPRESSION AND DISPLACEMENT THAT HAVE LONG AFFECTED BLACK AMERICANS. AS WE WITNESS THE RAPID TRANSFORMATION OF EAST STUART, IT BECOMES ALARMINGLY CLEAR THAT THE CITY'S INACTION RAISES CONCERNS THAT ECHO THROUGHOUT OUR SHARED HISTORY. WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE REALITY THAT WITHOUT INTERVENTION, WE, OUR BELOVED COMMUNITY, MAY BE IRREVOCABLY

[00:05:05]

LET US UNITE TO ENSURE THAT EAST STUART REMAINS A VIBRANT, RESILIENT COMMUNITY WHERE RESIDENTS HAVE A SAY IN THEIR FUTURE. PLEASE INDICATE IF THE CITY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PROVIDING REPRESENTATION. TO DISCUSS THE ABOVE PROPOSAL. WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAN IN PLACE FOR THIS URGENT PROJECT, AND TOGETHER WE CAN ESTABLISH A BLUEPRINT FOR JUSTICE THAT HONORS THE PAST WHILE FOSTERING A HOPEFUL AND INCLUSIVE FUTURE. AND THEN YOU STATE THE PROJECT, WHICH I WON'T READ THAT, BUT I DID THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT, SINCE WE JUST RECEIVED THIS AT 505, THAT WE MADE SURE THAT THE VOICE OF WHAT WAS SENT WAS HEARD AS PART OF OUR MEETING THIS

[COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS (Non-Agenda Items)]

[2. 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, CITY OF STUART'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

[00:10:04]

BUT IF THE BOARD IS REQUIRING IT BEFORE IT MOVES FORWARD, YOU HAVE IT SO THAT YOU CAN REQUEST IT ALL THIS STUFF AND GET IT. WELL, MY CONCERN FOR THIS IS THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ZIP DID NOT FOLLOW TRADITIONAL PROCESS WHEN BEING DEVELOPED, THAT TRADITIONALLY THIS WOULD HAVE GONE OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, IT WOULD HAVE HIRED AN EXPERT TO REVIEW, PROVIDE COMMENT. IS THAT CORRECT? DID THIS NOT FOLLOW THE NORMAL PROCESS? MIKE MARTEL, CITY MANAGER WELL, SO THE PROCEDURES FOR ADOPTING CODE HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN IF A IF THE COMMUNITY IDENTIFIES A PROBLEM, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE 1980S, THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN. AND SO IT WAS VACANT. SO THEY SAY, OH MY GOSH, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. THEY GET TOGETHER AND HOLD A CHARRETTE, OR THEY GET TOGETHER AND HAVE WORKSHOPS. AND THEN FROM THE WORKSHOPS THEY HIRE A CONSULTANT THAT WOULD COME IN AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT RELATES TO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO CHANGE THAT PROBLEM. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION OR THE BOARDS AS A PROPOSAL MOVING FORWARD. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE CITY COMMISSION FOLLOWING THE ELECTION RAISED THE ISSUE AND SAID IT VOTED THAT IT FELT STRONGLY THAT THE CODE HAD BEEN TOO LENIENT AND THAT IT WANTED TO CHANGE THE CODE. AND SO IT MOVED FOR A ZONING IN PROGRESS, WHICH PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE HELD TO VOTE ON THE ZONING IN PROGRESS ON, I THINK, SEPTEMBER 9TH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR 13TH. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT HEARING, THERE WERE EITHER 2 OR 3 PUBLIC WORKSHOPS HELD. AND AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, WE RECEIVED EMAIL AND OTHER PUBLIC INPUT AND LETTERS AND PUBLIC COMMENT AT ALL THE WORKSHOPS. AND THEN FOLLOWING THAT, THE CITY COMMISSION HELD ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THEY PASSED A RESOLUTION AND WENT THROUGH EACH OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAD DIRECTED STAFF TO CHANGE IN THE CODE TODAY. AND THEY HELD PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN AT THAT AS WELL. AND NOW THEY ALSO WENT TO THE CRB ON TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK, WHICH AGAIN, THE CODE REQUIRES IT TO GO TO THE LPA. BUT THEY WENT TO THE CRB AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC OUTREACH. AND THEN IT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. IT IS NOT DRAFTED BY THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL BECAUSE THE CITY COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY TOLD STAFF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR FROM THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, AND THEY DIDN'T WANT TO HIRE AN URBAN PLANNER BECAUSE THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE OF THE COMMISSION WAS THEY WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM THE MIXED USE, AND THEY WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM THE SHARED PARKING, AND THEY WANTED TO GET AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN ITS ENTIRETY. BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, FROM A STANDPOINT OF THE APPROVALS. AND SO WHAT THEY DID IS DURING THE ZONING AND PROGRESS HEARINGS OR WORKSHOPS, THEY LITERALLY WENT ITEM BY ITEM BY ITEM THROUGH THE CODE AND DIRECTED STAFF TO MAKE THE CHANGES. IS THAT FUNDAMENTALLY HOW THE CITY HAS DONE IT IN THE PAST? NO, IT ISN'T IN THE PAST. WHETHER IT WAS THE 1980S, THE 1990S, OR EVEN IN 2003, THE CITY HELD A CHARRETTE, HAD ALL THE PEOPLE GIVE THEIR PUBLIC INPUT, AND THEN FROM THE PUBLIC INPUT, THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL TOOK THAT INFORMATION AND DID IT. TWO YEARS AGO, THE CITY ADOPTED THE EAST COAST OR THE EAST STUART OVERLAY ZONE, AND THE CREEK DISTRICT OVERLAY ZONE HIRED JESSICA FROM THE TREASURE COAST PLANNING COUNCIL. THE CRA HAD MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS, MULTIPLE PUBLIC INPUT, AND THEN DRAFTED A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE DOCUMENT AND HAD THE PUBLIC HEARINGS DURING WHICH THE PUBLIC WAS ALLOWED TO COMMENT ON AND IT WENT FORWARD AND WAS ADOPTED. IN THIS CASE, THE COMMISSION WAS SAYING, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM PLANNERS, WE'VE ALREADY HEARD FROM PROPOSALS TO INCREASE DENSITY. WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING TO

[00:15:06]

[00:20:01]

AND SO YES, THERE IS THERE THE WE DID NOT HIRE A CONSULTANT BECAUSE WE COULDN'T GIVE THEM A CHARGE. WE COULDN'T SAY TO THEM, THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT, BECAUSE THE CONSULTANT WOULD HAVE JUST BEEN PAID TO THEN SIT THROUGH THE ZIP AND SAID, GO, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE ON THIS PAGE OR ON THIS PAGE? BUT SO THE CONSULTANT COULDN'T HAVE GIVEN A SANITY CHECK TO SAY THAT ISN'T WHAT NORMAL PLANNING OR GOOD PLANNING IS. WELL, SO IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE. IF YOU HIRE AN URBAN PLANNER AND TELL THEM TO CREATE A HIGH DENSITY URBAN ENVIRONMENT, THEY CAN CREATE AN A HIGH DENSITY URBAN ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S REALLY GOOD PLANNING. THAT MIGHT BE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT. OR IF YOU HIRE A PLANNER AND SAY, CREATE A VERY RURAL, LOW DENSITY ENVIRONMENT, THEY COULD DO THAT TOO. BUT THAT TOO MIGHT BE CONTRARY TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS. AND AS A RESULT, WHAT WE DIDN'T GET UP FRONT FROM THE COMMISSION WAS WHAT THEY WANTED THE OUTCOME TO BE, OTHER THAN THEY WANTED THE OUTCOME TO BE, THAT WE WANT TO GO THROUGH THE CODE AND REIN EVERYTHING BACK. I SHOULD MENTION ANOTHER REALLY SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THIS PUZZLE IS THAT THE CITY OF STUART HAS LESS THAN 200 VACANT ACRES. IT HAS ZERO ACRES OF MULTIFAMILY. IT HAS ZERO ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT. IT HAS ABOUT 20 ACRES

[00:25:03]

THIS INSTANCE PROBABLY IS GOING TO HAVE COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS AND OTHER CHANGES THAT HAVE TO TAKE PLACE AFTER THE ZONING PROCESS EXPIRES ON MARCH 4TH, JUST BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE FINISHED.

AND THE COMMISSION'S INSTRUCTION TO STAFF WAS TO GET AS MUCH OF IT DONE AS WE CAN BEFORE MARCH 4TH, BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS BELIEVE THAT ON MARCH 5TH, IF IT WASN'T DONE, THAT THERE WOULD BE A DEMAND FOR DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND BUILD UNDER UNDER THE OLD CODE. I HAVE TO TELL YOU, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IF THE INTEREST RATES WERE STILL AT 2.5%, BUT AT 6.5% THERE IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST NOT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT'S NOT TO SAY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. AND THE

[00:30:06]

BUT SUBSTANTIVELY THERE'S NO SWEEPING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS COMING. IT WOULD BE MORE LIKE ONE OF THE CHANGES WAS THAT IT INCLUDED THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE TEN FOOT SETBACKS IN ALL HOUSES IN THE CITY. THAT'S NOW BEEN CHANGED. AND IT GOES BACK TO THE ONES THAT HAD FIVE FEET SETBACK ARE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO HAVE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS. SO THAT CHANGE IS NOW IN THERE. BUT IN THE DOCUMENT YOU RECEIVED IT WAS TEN FEET. OKAY. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING THAT'S CHANGED FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED TO REVIEW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET TOLD AS THIS PRESENTATION, WHERE IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE ORIGINALLY RECEIVED. I THINK THAT'S FAIR, AND I THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT BECAUSE OF THE REDLINING. OH, THERE'S A LOT OF IT HAD RED LINES. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT LIKE THE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT WERE DIFFERENT, BECAUSE I KNOW ALL OF US HAVE SPENT, YOU KNOW, THE PAST FEW DAYS REALLY REVIEWING THIS IN DETAIL BECAUSE AS MEMBERS OF OUR AND RESPECTIVE PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITY, WE KNOW WHAT AN IMPACT THIS COULD HAVE.

SO IF THERE ARE CHANGES THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO REVIEW, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ANNOTATED SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THE FEEDBACK WITH ALL FULL INFORMATION. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YOU MAY DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE SHE STARTS? I'LL SAVE IT FOR AFTER ALL RIGHT. SOUNDS GOOD. YOU'RE UP. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JODY COOGLER. I'M THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME FOR THIS PRESENTATION TONIGHT. I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU SEE IN YOUR DOCUMENT ARE A LOT OF CLEANUP LANGUAGE. LIKE WE ONE OF THE REQUESTS WAS TO CHANGE IT FROM LOTS TO PARCEL OR LOTS OF OR PLATTED LOTS VERSUS PARCEL RECORDS. SO WE YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THAT CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE DIFFERENT CHAPTERS. SO THAT WAS A CLEANUP. AND WE DID DEFINE WHAT A LOT OF RECORD I MEAN, A PARCEL RECORD IS. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE IN CHAPTER 11. BUT WE DID PROVIDE YOU THAT DOCUMENT. SO THE ONE OF THE FIRST CHANGES THAT THE BOARD REQUESTED WAS THAT WE DO AWAY WITH THE HALF UNITS. THAT'S IN THE PLANNED UNIT, THE URBAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. SO THIS IS ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT YOU SEE, WHICH IS THE POTENTIAL BONUS ALLOWABLE UNITS. SO THEY FEEL LIKE THAT WAS NOT A THING THEY WANT TO SEE IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT WAS THAT HAS BEEN STRIPPED THROUGH. AND I APOLOGIZE IF I GO TOO FAST AND OR MAKE YOU DIZZY. I DO APOLOGIZE. AND SOME OF THIS IS JUST SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE LIKE THIS RIGHT HERE. IT'S JUST IT SHOULD BE UNITS. SO I JUST CLEANED IT UP A LITTLE BIT AGAIN IN TABLE IN TABLE THREE B THERE IS THIS ALSO IS THE CLEANUP LANGUAGE FOR THEY DIDN'T WANT ANY DENSITY BONUS AVAILABLE FOR A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT HAS BEEN STRIPPED THROUGH. AGAIN. THIS IS IN TABLE FOUR FROM LOT TO PARCEL. SO THIS I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANYWHERE IN THIS DOCUMENT I DIDN'T SEE IT WHERE YOU'RE DEFINING WHAT A PARCEL IS. SO PARCELS IN CHAPTER 11 OKAY I CAN IF YOU WANT ME TO MOVE TO THAT REAL QUICKLY JUST BECAUSE YOU YOU'RE CHANGING THAT FOR LIKE ITS ENTIRETY FROM LOT TO PARCEL. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HEAR WHAT YOU'RE USING AS A DEFINITION FOR PARCEL. SURE. LET ME GET THAT FOR YOU. NONE OF THIS. INFORMATION. OKAY. I APOLOGIZE, I. SO I'M JUST GOING TO MOVE THIS OVER HERE. SO IT'S

[00:35:07]

OKAY. SO THIS IS IN YOUR DEFINITIONS WHICH IS CHAPTER 11. PRIOR TO DOING THE STRIKETHROUGH IT USED TO SAY C LOT, BUT WE ACTUALLY ADDED THE WHAT A PARCEL RECORD A PARCEL RECORD IS A PIECE OF LAND THAT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN PUBLIC RECORDS AND IS DEFINED BY ITS BOUNDARIES AND LOCATIONS. PARCEL OF RECORD IS ALSO KNOWN AS LOTS OF RECORDS OR TRACKS. OKAY, AND I ACTUALLY STOLE THIS DEFINITION FROM MARTIN COUNTY AND FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. THIS IS HOW THEY IDENTIFY IT AS WELL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE SINCE WE'RE CHANGING EVERYTHING FROM LOT TO PARCEL, THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT DEFINITION IS. OKAY. SO YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THAT CLEANUP LANGUAGE. ONE OF THE LARGER CHANGES THAT WE DID MAKE OR THE BOARD REQUESTED US TO DO, WAS TO REDUCE SOME OF THE DENSITY THAT'S ALLOWED IN A MIXED USE OR MULTIFAMILY TYPE DEVELOPMENT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, COSTCO, IF YOU HAD TO DO A FLOOR AREA RATIO AND IT'S IF YOU WHATEVER FLOOR AREA RATIO, SAY, IF YOU HAD A ONE ACRE LOT AND YOU HAD 5000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, YOU WOULD DIVIDE THAT BY 800 AND IT WOULD COME UP TO SIX UNITS THAT YOU WERE YOU WOULD HAVE TO DEDUCT FROM THE ONE ACRE PARCEL THAT YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE 15 UNITS, SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO COUNT THE DENSITY IN, IN COMMERCIAL THE SAME AMOUNT. THEY'RE TRYING TO BREAK IT UP. SO YOU HAVE TO BREAK UP SOME OF THAT DENSITY. THEY'RE NOT CHANGING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, BUT THEY ARE CHANGING THE. IF YOU ALREADY ALLOCATED SPACE OVER TO THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, THEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE AWAY THE NUMBER OF UNITS BY 800FT■!S EQUATES TO ONE UNITO BE REMOVED. WHAT? JODY, WHERE DID THEY COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER? 800FT■!S. THAT IS SOMETHING. THE BOARD STARTED OUT WITH A THOUSAND AND THE BOARD VOTED TO MAKE IT EIGHT. JUST KIND OF HEY, LET'S THERE'S NO DATA THAT SUPPORTS. RIGHT. WHY? THE REASON WHY AGAIN WAS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOKED AT THE HALF UNIT INFORMATION TOO, THERE WAS NO DATA AS TO WHY 900FT■!S WAS ENTITLED TO CREDIT FOR A HALF UNIT EITHER. BUT WHAT THEY DID IS THAT WAS PART OF THE SUBJECT MATTER AND THAT WAS THAT. THAT HAD GONE FROM 900 TO 600FT, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO COME UP WITH WHAT A FAIR UNIT IS. AND SO IF YOU WENT TO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT NOW AND SAID, WHAT'S THE MEDIAN UNIT SIZE? MOST NEW APARTMENT COMPLEX IS A TWO BEDROOM, TWO BATH, COMES IN AT BETWEEN 900 AND 1000, AND A ONE BEDROOM COMES IN BETWEEN 500 AND 700. SO IF YOU TOOK THE AVERAGE OF THAT, YOU COULD PROBABLY COME UP WITH ABOUT 800. IN REALITY, YOU START FINDING. IT DOESN'T MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CUSTOMER BASE, THEY HAD A 50 ACRE PARCEL AND VICTORIA RATIO OF THREE. YOU'RE ENTITLED TO MORE MONEY THAN 800,000FT■!S OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. THEY BUILT 36,000 SQUARE FOOT STORE IN A 30,000 STORE FROM RETAIL, WITH OVER 200,000FT■!S DIVIDED BY 80. WITA 200 AND FAST. IT'S EASY, 200,000FT■!S DIVIDED BY 800 PEOPLE. THAT WOULD BE 250 UNITS WERE REDUCED FROM THE MAXIMUM USE OF THE CLASSICAL BUILDING.

THE PAST 1500 UNITS. SO THAT WOULD REDUCE THE. UNDER THIS NEW CODE, THE COSTCO AND ITS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WOULD REDUCE THE DENSITY OF COSTCO FROM 1500 TO PRODUCE 250 UNITS OF SPACE DOWN TO 1250. NOW AN ENORMOUS PROPERTY SIZE LIKE THAT, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE, BUT IF YOU PUT IT IN LIKE A FIVE ACRE PARCEL AND YOU HAVE A 2.2 THAT GOES TO 100,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, AND THAT TAKES 90 UNITS OFF, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT DOES START TO IMPACT IT. BUT THE

[00:40:04]

DOING THESE CHANGES MIGHT CHANG. THAT KIND OF IDEA. IS THIS COMMISSION, BECAUSE IT IS A VERY DIFFERENT MAKEUP OF COMMISSION. IS THAT NO LONGER THE PRIORITY THAT IT ONCE WAS? BECAUSE FOR A LONG TIME, THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD. I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, THESE CHANGES WILL MAKE HOUSING IMPOSSIBLE. THAT AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT WAS LIKE OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE FOR PROBABLY THE FIRST TWO YEARS THAT I SERVED ON THIS BOARD. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE OVERALL MINDSET OF THE COMMISSION, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO UNDERSTAND AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, HAS CHANGED FROM THAT MINDSET THAT IT WAS IN THE PAST.

CAN I ASK, SO ARE WE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE ITEMS AND DISCUSS THEM AS WE GO? OR ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR PRESENTATION? AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SAY ON EACH ONE AND HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL, LIKE WHAT IS THE HOW ARE WE VOTING ON THIS? WHAT IS THE PROTOCOL HERE? BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON AND CHAIR HERE. ON THE VIDEO OKAY. RIGHT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M WONDERING. REMEMBER I CAN EXPLAIN. SO I CAN JUST CITY ATTORNEY LEE BAGGETT FOR THE RECORD CHAIR. LORENE, YOU GOT A CONSENSUS FROM EVERYBODY THAT YOU WANTED HER TO GO THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND THEN HAVE COMMENTS AFTER THAT.

THAT'S THAT'S FINE. IT'S NOT. YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S FINE. I THOUGHT YOU GUYS ALREADY HAD A CONSENSUS ON THAT. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FINE. GO AHEAD OKAY. SO THE NEXT CHANGE WAS AND THE MANAGER DID TOUCH A LITTLE BIT ON THIS WAS IN TALKING ABOUT THE PARCEL SIZES. AND THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WAS MADE. THE BOARD DID RECOMMEND THAT THEY GO BACK UP TO 6000FT■!S. AS YOU CAN SEE, R2 AND R3 WOULD NO LONGER BE 5000FT■!S. IT WOULD BE UP TO 6000FT■!S FOR A MINIMUM LOT SIZ. AND THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE DID ADD TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

THESE CHANGES FOR EXISTING PARCELS WITH A SIGNED PARCEL ID NUMBERS AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CODE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2024 IS DEEMED LEGAL. PARCELS OF RECORD. ANY NEWLY CREATED PARCEL RECORDS AFTER SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2024 SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE OF 6000FT■!.

THIS IS A CHANGE FROM YOUR INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED WHEN SPEAKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. HE RECOMMENDED THAT WE ADDED A LITTLE BIT MORE. SOME OF THE SENTENCES WERE NOT MAKING SENSE, SO WE WENT BACK AND TRIED TO MAKE IT LOOK A LITTLE BIT MORE. SO ESSENTIALLY IN R3, WE DO HAVE A PROJECT THAT HAS 4300. 96. IS IT 4000 4356 HOME LOTS? THERE'S TEN LOTS. I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THEY DID HAVE WAS ONCE THESE ARE BUILT AND THEY'RE BEING ADDED ON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THE FUTURE, HOW WOULD SOMEONE KNOW THAT THIS WAS A ESSENTIALLY DEEMED LEGAL LOT OF RECORD OR LEGAL PARCEL RECORD? SO THAT IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID RECEIVE FROM THE MRS. MARCEL AND THE AUDIENCE. SO I WILL HAVE HER SPEAK TO THAT WHENEVER WE GET DONE WITH THE PRESENTATION. SO THIS SO ONE OF THE CHANGES AND WE WENT BACK AND LISTENED TO THE DECEMBER 9TH, THE 50% IS NOT GOING TO BE ONE OF THE CHANGES.

IT'S GOING TO STAY AT 65%. SO THIS WILL BE CHANGED WHERE YOUR MAXIMUM PERVIOUS FOR COMMERCIAL AREAS WILL BE, REVERT BACK TO YOUR 65%. SO THAT WILL BE A CHANGE THAT WILL BE UPDATED.

AGAIN, A LOT OF THEM IS SAME THING HERE. A LOT OF THESE ARE CLEANUP FROM PARCEL TO FROM LOT TO PARCEL. SO IF YOU SEE SOME REDS IT'S JUST BECAUSE I'M SCROLLING THROUGH AGAIN. THIS IS ANOTHER THING. WE NO LONGER HAVE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. THE ALL VARIANTS ARE WE HEARD FROM THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. SO WE DID STRIKE OUT THIS LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT. AGAIN ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL AREA REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS STILL PART OF YOUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND YOUR LOT SIZES. THAT LANGUAGE, AGAIN WAS EXPRESSED ABOUT THAT. IF YOU HAVE A PARCEL RECORD SHALL CONTAIN LESS THAN 4356FT■!S THAT EXISTED ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2024, AND IT'S INCONSISTENT ABOUT THE DATE, I DO APOLOGIZE, IT IS THE FOURTH, SO I WILL GO BACK AND CHANGE THAT. AND ANY NEWLY CREATED PARCEL RECORD SHALL CONTAIN NOT LESS THAN 6000FT■!S AFTER SEPTEMBER 4TH, 2024. AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST SOME CLEANUP. CLEANUP LANGUAGE. SAME THING. MOST OF YOUR CHANGES

[00:45:09]

THERE WAS PROVIDED SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT THE DETOX CENTER AFTER GOING BACK. WE ARE HOLDING OFF ON THAT. ON MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THAT DEFINITION AT THIS TIME. SO ANY LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE IN THERE, AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT IS. WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THAT AS OF TODAY. AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE ABOUT PARCEL RECORDS OR PARCEL. SO AND IF I'M GOING TOO FAST, I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE YOU DIZZY. I DO BELIEVE THAT WAS ALL IN CHAPTER SIX. THOSE ARE ALL THE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED. PRETTY MUCH YOUR LOTS OF RECORDS, YOUR PARCEL RECORDS, THE DATE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE LEGAL CONFORMING AS OF A CERTAIN DATE. SO IN THE CASE OF THE TEN LOT SUBDIVISION, IF THEY WERE DESTROYED OR IF THEY WANTED TO ADD ON OR IF THEY THEY CAN STILL REBUILD THAT PROPERTY BASED OFF THE SETBACKS THAT WERE APPROVED AT THAT TIME. SO I'M GOING TO SHIFT OVER TO CHAPTER THREE, WHICH IS YOUR URBAN DISTRICTS. WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, MAY HAVE TO SPEAK, I WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO THERE WERE SEVERAL HEARINGS, PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE WE WENT THROUGH THIS. THERE WERE THREE WORKSHOPS AND IN MULTIPLE REGULAR SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETINGS WHERE THIS CAME UP. THERE WERE SOME INSTANCES WHERE THE BOARD VOTED, WANTED US TO DO A PARTICULAR CHANGE. AND THEN WHEN WE WENT BACK THROUGH NUMEROUS HOURS OF THE VIDEOS, WE FOUND THAT THEN THEY RETRACTED ON SOME OF THEM. SO SHE'S MENTIONED THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS CAUGHT LIKE IT WENT FROM THE 65% BACK TO 50%. THEY RETRACTED IT AT A SUBSEQUENT HEARING. SO OKAY, WHEN WE FIRST DRAFTED THIS, WE WENT BASED ON OUR NOTES THAT WERE FROM. BUT WE DID. WHEN WE WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT SOME OF THE OTHER HEARINGS, THEY RETRACTED IT AND VOTED AGAINST IT. SO SOME OF THEM, THEY SAID, HEY, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. WE CHANGED OUR MIND. WE'LL JUST LEAVE IT THE WAY IT WAS WHEN SHE SAID 50% AND 65% UNDER THE COMMERCIAL. THAT WAS AN EXAMPLE IN THE SETBACKS WILL COME UP HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. AND THAT WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT THEY RETRACTED AND WENT BACK ON. SO JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IN YOUR CHAPTER THREE OR YOUR URBAN DISTRICTS AND THEN YOU'RE ALSO YOUR NEWLY ADOPTED FORM BASED CODES, WHICH IS YOUR CODE AND YOUR CREEK DISTRICT THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2023. AGAIN, THOSE WERE CODES THAT WERE WORKED ON FOR OVER TWO YEARS WITH THE TREASURE COAST PLANNING REGIONAL COUNCIL AND OUR CRA DIRECTOR. SO THERE WERE SOME CHANGES IN THIS CODE. ONE, THE BOARD DOESN'T FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE HONORING SHARED PARKING AT THIS POINT. YOU SHOULD BE. IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, YOU NEED TO PARK IT AT COMMERCIAL, OR IF YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL, YOU NEED TO PARK IT AT THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. IF YOU HAVE THAT MIXED USE AND YOU HAVE TO PARK THEM AT EACH DIFFERENT TYPE OF USES. SO YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN HERE. THAT'S JUST SOME OF THE VERBIAGE IN HERE THAT'S BEEN STRIKETHROUGH THAT SAYS SHARED PARKING. THIS IS YOUR URBAN CODE. NOT TOO MANY CHANGES WERE HAPPENING IN YOUR URBAN CODE. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS IN YOUR EAST, STEWART, WITH MAKING THE LOT SIZES AT 6000FT■. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT LANGUAGE WAS IN THERE TO PROTECT THE EXISTING PARCEL OF RECORDS, THAT THEY CAN STILL BUILD ON THOSE PARCELS, OR THEY CAN IF THEY IF THE STRUCTURE GETS DESTROYED OR THEY WANTED TO DO THE ADDITION, THEY CAN STILL ADD ON TO THAT THAT PARCEL BASED OFF TODAY'S BASED OFF PRIOR TO THE SEPTEMBER 4TH DATE. SO YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THOSE CHANGES IN HERE AS WELL. I DO APOLOGIZE IN CHAPTER TWO WE DID ADD SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT THE ADUS, WHICH IS THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. THEY WANT THEM TO BE ON ONE METER FOR WATER AND ELECTRIC AND SEWER. THEY WANTED THE OWNER TO LIVE ON SITE, SO EITHER THEY CAN LIVE IN THE PRIMARY OR THEY CAN LIVE IN THE ADU. BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THE. IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, NOT TO TURN IT INTO TWO DWELLING UNITS.

SO YOU CAN RENT THE DWELLING UNIT IN THE BACK, AND YOU CAN RENT THE DWELLING UNIT IN THE FRONT. SO THE PRIMARY OWNER HAS TO BE LIVING ON SITE, WHETHER IT'S IN THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR AGAIN, UNDER THE PRIMARY. SO THAT WAS DONE IN CHAPTER TWO I DO APOLOGIZE I.

LET ME JUST MOVE THIS OVER HERE FOR A SECOND, JUST SO I DON'T MAKE YOU CROSS-EYED TRYING TO MOVE THIS. SO THERE WAS NO PARKING CHANGES IN THE EXEMPT AREA, WHICH IS IN THE DOWNTOWN

[00:50:09]

AND THE SAME THING WITH DWELLING UNITS FOR IN THE IN THE URBAN DISTRICT. I THINK THE OTHER BIGGEST CHANGE IS WHEN WE GET INTO THE EAST, STEWART ZONING DISTRICT. THERE'S A DISTRICT CALLED GROW. AND THEN BMU, WHICH I'M JUST GOING TO MOVE THIS DOWN HERE. LET ME SEE HERE FOR A SECOND. I'LL JUST MOVE THIS OVER HERE. ONE OF THE CHANGES THEY REQUESTED US TO DO WAS TO. HAVE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THOSE DISTRICTS TO BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE WOULD REQUIRE A BOARD ACTION BY THE CITY COMMISSION. AND I WILL SHOW THAT TO YOU IN JUST ONE MOMENT.

AND I DO BELIEVE, LANCE, YOU DID BRING THIS TO MY ATTENTION. THANK YOU. SO HERE IS A CHART.

IF YOU'RE IN THE EAST DISTRICT AREA, THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS. IF YOU HAVE TO GO FOR A VARIANCE OR ANY MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR ZONING CHANGES, INSTEAD OF THE. ZONING, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR A VARIANCE, IT WOULD BE HEARD UNDERNEATH THEM. IT WOULD BE HEARD UNDER THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY IN YOUR PACKET. I HAD IT AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SO THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT TO ME. AND THEN ALSO, WE DID DO SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE HERE. IF YOU NEEDED A ZONING CHANGE OR A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT, YOU WERE REQUIRED TO GO TO A PRE-APPLICATION. THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, AND THEN TWO OTHER PUBLIC HEARINGS. IT JUST FELT LIKE THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT EXTREME TO GO TO ALL THOSE BOARDS. THE CRB CAN ACT AS THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, SO WE'RE JUST STRIKING THROUGH THESE TWO CHECK MARKS RIGHT HERE THAT YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO GO TO ALL THOSE BOARDS. IT'S JUST AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THIS WAS JUST EAST STUART WHEN I EMAILED YOU. SO I'M FINE WITH THAT. YES. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. SO SOME OF THE OTHER CHANGES THIS IS JUST SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE RIGHT HERE. WHEN THE FORM BASED CODE WAS ADOPTED, THEY THEY CITED THE WRONG SECTION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE. SO WE CLEANED UP THAT LANGUAGE. IT'S REALLY SHOULD BE 11.0 1.11 NOT TEN. SO WE DID CLEAN UP THAT LANGUAGE. SO THIS IS WHERE A LOT OF THE CHANGES HAPPENED IN THESE TWO DISTRICTS. AND THE EAST STUART, THE BMU AND THE GROW DISTRICT. IF YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF THESE WERE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. AND THE BOARD FELT THAT ANYTHING OTHER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SHOULD BE APPROVED BY SOME TYPE OF BOARD ACTION THROUGH A RESOLUTION. SO IT SHOWS THE CHECK MARK CROSSED OUT AND THEN A WHICH REPRESENTS ON NUMBER FOUR ALLOWED THROUGH A CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS AS MARKED WITH A BY RESOLUTION. SO IF YOU WANTED TO BUILD ANY TYPE OF MULTI-FAMILY OR IF YOU WANTED TO DO A DAYCARE FACILITY OR ACCESSORY DWELLING, ALL THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION. AND THAT KIND OF GOES DOWN THE BOARD. SOME OF THEM ARE CONDITIONAL USE. IT WAS ORIGINALLY. SO WE JUST IT WAS VERY CONFUSING TO HAVE THE CHECK MARK AND THEN CONDITIONAL USE. SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. OTHER THAN IN CHAPTER THREE WAS JUST ANYTHING THAT SAID SHARED PARKING WAS STRIKETHROUGH. YOU WILL HAVE TO PARK. IF YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL, YOU HAVE TO PARK BASED OFF YOUR COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN THE PARKING TABLE. AND IF YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL, YOU HAVE TO PARK ACCORDINGLY TO YOUR RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN CHAPTER SIX IS WHERE A LOT OF THE OTHER CHANGES TOOK PLACE. IN YOUR CHAPTER FIVE AND FOUR, JUST SOME CLEANUP LANGUAGE WITH PARCEL VERSUS LOT VERSUS PARCEL. SO CHAPTER SIX IS MORE YOUR IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP IN THE CITY OF STUART, THIS IS THE CHAPTER THAT YOU GO TO IF YOU'RE NOT IN THE URBAN AREA OR SPECIAL URBAN OR SPECIAL DISTRICTS. THIS APPLIES TO ALONG US ONE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE DID MAKE

[00:55:07]

SO WE DID ADD SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE AS WELL. AGAIN THIS IS THE SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE STRIKING THROUGH. THE BOARD DID ASK US TO LOOK AT SOME PARKING ALTERNATIVES. SO THIS IS PROBABLY MORE APPLIED DOWNTOWN WHERE MOTORCYCLES ARE PARKING. THEY CAN USE TWO MOTORCYCLES FOR ONE SPACE, THE GOLF CARTS. YOU CAN PUT TWO GOLF CARTS IN ONE SPACE. SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO KEEP BUILDING ALL THOSE PARKING SPACES FOR THOSE TYPE OF USES. ALSO, IF YOU WANTED TO DO A TRANSIT PULL OFF STOP, IT WOULD BE JUST CONSIDERED FOR FOUR SPACES. THIS IS ALSO PART OF SHARED PARKING. SO WE HAD SOMETHING IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE A PRINCIPAL USE WITHIN LESS THAN 500FT THAT YOU CAN SHARE, YOU CAN USE A PARKING OFF SITE THROUGH A PARKING SHARE PROGRAM. AND AGAIN, IF YOU CAN'T PARK IT, THEY YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO BUILD IT. AGAIN. PART SHARED PARKING. THIS ALL IS STRIKING THROUGH FOR SHARED PARKING. THE OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS HAS CHANGED AS WELL. YOUR MULTIFAMILY IS 1.5 NOW TO ANY TYPE OF ONE BEDROOM, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT IN MULTIFAMILY WITH TWO OR MORE BEDROOMS, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE 12.5 PARKING SPACES. AND I THINK THE OTHER LANGUAGE THAT WE JUST MODIFIED WAS EV CHARGERS. SO WE WROTE LANGUAGE PROBABLY ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO STATING THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PUT IN EV CHARGERS. THE STATE HAS NOW PREEMPTED THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CANNOT MANDATORY EV CHARGERS. SO WE DID TAKE OUT WE DID STRIKE THAT LANGUAGE THROUGH JUST TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE STATUTES. JUST LOOK AT MY NOTES REAL QUICK. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT IS THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD AND THROUGH LISTENING OF HOURS OF REDUNDANT MEETINGS. AGAIN AT THE DECEMBER AT THE MEETING ON MONDAY, IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES THE BOARD WILL REQUEST US TO MAKE AT THAT TIME. OKAY. DO WE HAVE COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC? GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE LPA, MARCELLA CAMPBELL. FOR THE RECORD, A PROPERTY OWNER, BUSINESS OWNER. MY OFFICE IS 47 WEST OSCEOLA STREET HERE IN STUART, FLORIDA.

YOU SHOULD HAVE AS THE LPA THREE LETTERS OF OBJECTION FROM MY ATTORNEYS. ONE WAS SUBMITTED IN DECEMBER AND DIDN'T MAKE, I GUESS THIS MEETING AND TWO WERE SUBMITTED THIS WEEK JUST IN CASE. I WILL PRESENT ANOTHER COPY FOR THE RECORD. AND THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE AMENDMENTS ARE THREATENING MY INVESTMENTS AND THREATENING MY REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT BACKED EXPECTATION.

MY FIRST LETTER OBJECTS, THE PROPOSED LOT SIZE REDUCTION IN R3. THERE'S TALK ABOUT LOT SIZE REDUCTION ALL OVER THE CODE. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING BUT R3. I WOULD LIKE MIKE AFTERWARDS TO CLARIFY FOR ME PLEASE. WHERE IN THE COMP PLAN WAS THIS EXPLANATION? ABOUT 4356 AND THEREFORE IT'S A MINIMUM. AND I'M NOT VIOLATING THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE I CAN'T FIND IT, BUT I LEGALLY PLATTED TEN LOTS IN 2022, IN R3 ZONING, WHERE I WAS ENTITLED TO BUILD 30 UNITS TO THE ACRE AND FOUR STORIES, AND THE CITY PUT OUT AN OPTION. IT WAS AN INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO

[01:00:05]

THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH HAS BEEN CHANGING THANKS TO ALL THE LETTERS I HAVE BEEN SUBMITTING AND THE LITTLE FEW MINUTES I GET TO TALK IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION IS CHANGING THE LOTS TO NOW A LARGER SIZE. NOT ONLY AM I THE ONLY PERSON IN ALL OF OUR THREE, ONE WHO HAS DONE THIS, BUT THIS IS DOING AWAY WITH THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY AND THE ONLY PROGRAM THAT THE CITY EVER PUT OUT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO SELF DOWN ZONE, TO SELF REDUCE THEIR DENSITY. I THOUGHT WE WANTED LESS DENSITY, NOT MORE. SO WE'RE TAKING THIS AWAY. APPARENTLY MY ONLY PROJECT IS A VERY BIG PROBLEM. SO I KNOW STAFF HAS DONE AN ATTEMPT TO PUT SOME LANGUAGE THE WAY IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN TWICE NOW, BECAUSE IT WAS CHANGED IN THIS VERSION STILL DOES NOT PROTECT MY PROPERTY RIGHTS. SO I URGE YOU, BEING THAT I'M THE ONLY ONE, BEING THAT I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS BEING DONE TO ME IN R3. IF I COULD RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO GET THE BOARD TO EITHER ELIMINATE THIS THING THAT AFFECTS ONE PERSON, OR USE THE LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY MY LEGAL COUNSEL, WHICH IS VERY SIMPLE. THE SECOND LETTER IS REGARDING PROPOSED PARKING CHANGES, INCREASE IN PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR APARTMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR STUDIOS TO HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PARKING AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OUT IN PALM CITY, AND A TWO BEDROOM TO HAVE MORE PARKING THAN A HOUSE OUT IN PALM CITY. IN MY APPROVED. COULD.

THESE CHANGES, FROM WHAT I AM INTENDING TO DO, WOULD TAKE ME FROM 45 PARKING SPACES TO 85 PARKING SPACES. YOUR ORDINANCE SAYS THAT YOU KNOW THAT WE NEED TO MEET FLORIDA STATUTES, AND WE NEED TO MEET THE CODE. THIS PARKING CHANGE BY MY PROFESSIONAL ANALYZES BECAUSE I AM A PROFESSIONAL, I DO THIS FOR A LIVING. IT AFFECTS AT LEAST, OR IS INCONSISTENT AT LEAST WITH THREE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES. AND THEY'RE IN THE LETTER THAT MY COUNCIL HAS SUPPORTED. NONE OF THIS PARKING HAS BEEN VETTED WITH ANY PROFESSIONAL. YOUR ORDINANCE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE THAT THERE ARE PROFESSIONALLY ACCEPTABLE MATERIALS THAT YOU AND THE BOARD HAVE REVIEWED. I HAVE DONE A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR THAT INFORMATION AND IT TURNED BACK EMPTY. SO FINALLY, AS STATED, I WOULD LOVE TO TALK ABOUT ALL THE OTHER PORTIONS, BUT I UNFORTUNATELY, I HAVE TO ONLY TALK ABOUT WHAT CONCERNS ME BECAUSE I HAVE THREE MINUTES.

BUT AS STATED IN YOUR ORDINANCE, IT REQUIRES THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ALIGN WITH AND IMPLEMENT THE. CAN I PLEASE FINISH? I HAVE TWO JUST ONE MORE PARAGRAPH. OKAY. ONE MORE PARAGRAPH. MY ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. AND BY THE WAY, ALL THE ONES THAT WERE PRESENTED INITIALLY ARE NOT HERE. AND THEY'RE NOT JUST CHANGES TO SETBACKS. I FOUND 27 INCONSISTENCIES WITH GOALS, POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I ASK YOU, PLEASE, TRANSPARENCY. WE CAN'T COME TO A MEETING AND DISCOVER THAT F.A.R AND DENSITY IS CHANGING AND IT'S CHANGING IN ALL THE PUDS AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS. THIS IS NOT TRANSPARENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MIKE, CAN YOU ADDRESS HER CONCERN ABOUT THE COMP PLAN AND THE 4000 SOMETHING? 60 543 65 I THINK OKAY. PROBABLY A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT OKAY, OKAY. BUT SEEING HOW I SAID IT, I MIGHT AS WELL CITY ATTORNEY RIGHT IN MY MOUTH. IF YOU GO TO THE COMP PLAN PRIOR TO 2020, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE CITY OF STUART WAS 6000FT, WITH THE EXCEPTION FOR COTTAGE LOTS OF 5000FT. AND IN 20 THE AMENDMENTS WENT THROUGH. AND BECAUSE R3, WHICH IS A ZONING STANDARD, IS TEN UNITS PER ACRE, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SAID TEN UNITS PER ACRE EQUATES TO TEN UNITS OR TEN HOUSES. BUT THAT REALLY WASN'T WHAT R3 WAS DESIGNED FOR. R3 WAS DESIGNED FOR TOWNHOUSES, APARTMENTS, CONDOS AND THAT FORM OF HOUSING. IT WASN'T INTENDED TO BE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO PRIOR TO 2020, 4300 FOOT PARCELS WERE NOT ALLOWED IN THE CITY OF STUART. THEY HAD TO BE 5000FT■!S AND THY

[01:05:02]

HOWEVER, A COMP PLAN CHANGE WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION THAT MADE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 4365 BASED UPON THE R3 TEN UNITS PER ACRE, AND AS A RESULT, IF YOU OWNED AN ACRE OF LAND, YOU COULD THEN, IF YOU MET AS MARCELLA DID, THE 50 BY 100 OR WHATEVER THE DIMENSIONS WERE, THE 4300FT PLUS YOU HAD 50 FOOT OF FRONTAGE. YOU COULD TECHNICALLY PLAT TEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT MARCELLA DID. THIS. THE COMMISSION ISN'T ISN'T BY ANY MEANS TARGETING OR TRYING TO DISCOURAGE MARCELLA'S PROJECT. IT'S ALREADY BEEN PLATTED. IT'S ALREADY UNDERWAY. THE COMMISSION, IN FACT, INSTRUCTED US, AND AS JODY SAID, THE WORD GRANDFATHER, BUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY GRANDFATHERING. THEY INSTRUCTED US TO DEEM HER PARCELS AS VALID PARCELS THAT EVEN IF THEY GET KNOCKED DOWN IN A HURRICANE OR EVEN IF THEY BURN DOWN TO THE GROUND, THEY'RE NOT NONCONFORMING, THAT THEY CAN'T BE BUILT BACK. THEY ARE DEEMED ALL PARCELS PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 4TH THAT ARE 4365FT OR MORE ARE DEEMED VALID AND LEGAL, AND CAN BE BUILT ON IN PERPETUITY. AND AS A RESULT, THE QUESTION THAT SHE ASKED WAS, SHOW ME IN THE COMP PLAN WHERE IT SAYS THAT IT'S NOT A VIOLATION OF THE COMP PLAN. AGAIN, IF YOU CAME IN FOR A PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, 36FT TALL IS THE HEIGHT OF THE TALLEST HOUSE YOU CAN BUILD, OUR COMP PLAN SAYS YOU CAN'T BUILD A BUILDING OVER FOUR STORIES NOW.

NOTHING IN THE COMP PLAN SAYS MY 36 FOOT HOUSE VIOLATES OR DOESN'T VIOLATE THE COMP PLAN.

HOWEVER, THE ZONING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO 36FT. IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE IT'S LESS THAN THE FOUR STORIES. IN THIS CASE, THE COMP PLAN SAYS YOU CAN HAVE NO LOT SMALLER THAN 4365FT. WELL, WHAT'S IT SAY? WHAT'S THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE? IT SAYS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 4365FT. SHOW ME THE POLICY. OKAY. I'LL SIT DOWN AND SHOW HER. IF THAT'S ALL IT IS. THAT'S EASY. I CAN SHOW HER THE 4365FT. SO AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT YOUR LOTS ALREADY HAVE A PARCEL ID? SO IF THEY ALREADY HAVE A PARCEL ID, THEN THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM, CORRECT? WELL, THE VERSION THAT IS PRINTED THAT I GOT TO READ, THE VERSION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. HOLD ON. I'M SORRY. THE VERSION THAT THE PUBLIC RECEIVED WHICH IS POSTED, WHICH IS ALSO THE SAME ONE THAT IS POSTED FOR COMMISSION, ESSENTIALLY READS LIKE EVERY LOT THAT WAS PLATTED PRIOR TO 2024 IS ESSENTIALLY NON-CONFORMING. AND THE ONES THAT ARE OUT OF 2025 ONWARDS, OR THAT THIS ONWARDS AND THE SENTENCE IS INCOMPLETE. SO YOU CAN IMAGINE, YES, THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT PROTECTING ME THAT LANGUAGE. WHEN I MET WITH MY ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY HERE, ESSENTIALLY, I WAS TOLD THAT WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF, THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE A COTTAGE LOT. WHAT? A COTTAGE LOT REDUCES MY HEIGHT. I MEAN, THIS IS REALLY CONFUSING. WE'RE DOING SO MUCH AROUND SOMETHING VERY SIMPLE. WE PROPOSE LANGUAGE THAT KEEPS US VERY CLEAR WITH THE SETBACK. IT'S LIKE IF I'M THE ONLY ONE. AND IF THEY TRULY WANT TO PROTECT ME, WHY ARE WE GOING AROUND SO MANY THINGS OVER ONE PERSON? THAT'S MY OTHER QUESTION FOR YOU. IS THIS THE ONLY ART SHE'S SAYING? SHE'S THE ONLY ONE. SO IS THIS REALLY THE ONLY R3 LOT THAT EXISTS IN THE CITY OF STUART? SO SHE'S NOT THE ONLY ONE, AND ONLY ONE WITH PLATTED 4365 FOOT LOT. BUT SHE WILL BE. I KNOW WE'RE SAYING WE DON'T LIKE THE TERM, BUT SHE'S GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN. AND SO SHE'S OKAY. CORRECT. THAT'S THE INTENTION. OKAY. GRANDFATHERED IN IS NOT A GOOD TERM. I UNDERSTAND POINTED OUT THAT IT'S NOT IT'S GOOD THEY ARE DEEMED CONFORMING LEGAL. ALL RIGHT. WELL THAT'S NOT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS POSTED ON. THE ONLY THING I HAD ACCESSIBLE, WHICH IS THE NOTICE AND WHICH IS THE SAME NOTICE FOR THE COMMISSION. SO THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. AND SO WE CAN BE ASSURED THAT THE LANGUAGE AS IT SITS NOW IS THAT THOSE THAT'S STILL. NO, I HAVEN'T EVEN READ IT. I CAN'T READ FROM THE FROM THE CHAIR TO THAT WALL. MY ATTORNEYS WILL SEE IT. I AM, LIKE I SAID, ASKING. WE PROPOSED A VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION FOR THAT TABLE WHERE I AM NOT GOING TO BE THROWN INTO STAFF HAVING TO WRITE A SPECIAL

[01:10:04]

IT REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL POLICY. THEY JUST NEED TO LEAVE ME ON THAT TABLE AND SAID, IF YOU WERE PRIOR FOR THREE, FIVE, SIX ONLY APPLIES FOR PEOPLE BEFORE THIS, YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME HEIGHT AND THE SAME SETBACK. IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED. SO I WOULD ASK IF WE CAN PLEASE JUST LEAVE IT OR CREATE A SECTION THAT CLEARLY STATES WHAT MY SETBACKS ARE AND NOT AS I WAS TOLD YESTERDAY, I BECOME A COTTAGE LOT, BUT MAYBE NOT. AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR SETBACKS OR HEIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE. THE REST OF THE LOTS. I'M SORRY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THAT SITUATION AND HAVE NOT HIRED COUNSEL. SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INTENTION NOW, WITH THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT HAS NOT BEEN POSTED, BUT HAS NOW BEEN CHANGED IN THE DOCUMENT, LIKE YOU'RE PRESENTING TO US THIS EVENING, IS THAT THOSE THAT WERE PLATTED PRIOR TO THE I THINK IT'S SEPTEMBER 6TH, SEPTEMBER 5TH DAY OF THE ZONING AND PROBABLY FOURTH OR FIFTH, FOR THAT MATTER. DOESN'T MATTER. OKAY. PRIOR TO THAT, YEAH, IT'S ON THE SCREEN. WHAT? OKAY. THEY ARE NOW GOING TO BE DEEMED OKAY. BASICALLY. YES. OKAY. THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. AND I NEED MY BUT THEY'VE REMOVED ME FROM THE TABLE. SO NOW I'M A CONFORMING LOT WITHOUT ANY SETBACKS OR HEIGHT OR ANY I DON'T I DON'T BELONG ANYWHERE. SO WE PROPOSED A VERY SIMPLE SOLUTION. AND I'M ASKING UNFORTUNATELY YOU DON'T HAVE IT. I HAVE IT HERE. I'VE SHARED IT WITH STAFF. YOU KNOW. IS THERE A REASON WHY THEY GOT REMOVED FROM THE TABLE? I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A REASON THAT SHE WOULD HAVE HER OWN DESIGNATION. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I'M WONDERING TOO. BECAUSE IF SHE'S THREE AND SHE'S NOT THE ONLY R-3, THEN ANYWHERE THAT IT SAYS R-3, THAT WOULD BE HER CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE THAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THAT TABLE RIGHT THERE, THE CHANGE FROM FOUR, THREE, FIVE, 6 TO 6000. THAT'S WHAT SHE'S SAYING. REMOVED HER FROM THE TABLE, BUT SHE GOES TO THE TABLE THAT WAS IN PLACE SEPTEMBER 4TH, WHICH HAD THE 4356. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POINT. WE CHANGED IT TO HELP HER OR HER ATTORNEYS CALLED, WROTE LETTERS, EMAILS.

SO WE CHANGED THE LETTER. SHE'S COMPLAINING THAT WE CHANGED IT FROM THE ORIGINAL, BUT WE CHANGED IT FOR HER BENEFIT. SO YOU SEE, I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH NO, I HAVE TO BECAUSE IT'S MY LIVELIHOOD. AND SO THE PROBLEM WITH REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO 4365 TIED TO MY SETBACKS ARE FIVE AND 20 AND TEN, AND THEN LEAVING ME AS A PARCEL SMALLER THAN THE NORM, THE CODE. AND AS YOU INTERPRET IT IN MY MEETING WITH OUR ATTORNEY, THE CODE THEN NATURALLY TAKES YOU INTO WHAT IS CALLED A SUBSTANDARD COTTAGE LOT, WHICH HAS LARGER SETBACKS THAN WHAT I HAVE. IT'S ALSO R-3, AND IT HAS ONE STORY LESS. ALL I'M SAYING IS FIGURE OUT A WAY, WHICHEVER ONE YOU PREFER. THAT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT MY SETBACKS REMAIN WHAT THEY ARE AND MY HEIGHT REMAINS. THREE STORIES. AND IF YOU WANT TO WRITE A NEW PARAGRAPH FOR IT, IT CLARITY, AND WE JUST PROPOSED A SIMPLE FOOTNOTE BELOW THE TABLE ON LOTS THAT SIZE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 4TH. SO IT'S NOT DESIGNED TO BE THE MARCELLA HAMLET CODE, RIGHT? YEAH, BUT THERE IS MARCELLA'S CONCERN. SURE THAT APPLIES, BUT IN A MORE GENERIC BASIS, IT'S NOT JUST R3, IT'S NOT JUST R1, IT'S NOT JUST DOWNTOWN EAST. STUART HAS LOTS THAT HAD NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE BECAUSE EAST STUART HAS ITS OWN OVERLAY ZONE. YEAH, IT'S MEETING THE MINIMUM LOT WITH MINIMUM SETBACKS OF WHATEVER ZONING YOU HAD IN HER. ZONING IN THE R3 WAS FIVE FEET. BUT PERHAPS IN R1 IS TEN FEET. SO IF WE PUT A LITTLE ASTERISK. THAT SAID, MARCELLA GETS FIVE FOOT ZONING, I'D NEED A LITTLE ASTERISK THAT SAYS MIKE MARTEL GETS TEN FOOT ZONING. SO. SO COULD WE COULD WE TO ADDRESS THIS, CAN WE REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE A MEETING WITH MARCELLA AND HER ATTORNEYS? WHAT WE KNOW FOR SURE. OKAY. WE HAVE ALREADY MET WITH HER. OKAY. FOLDER IS OUR INTENTION TO CORRECT IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT SAYS WHAT SHE WANTS TO SAY AND PROTECTS HER, HOWEVER IT'S FLUID. WE HAD A CRB MEETING ON TUESDAY NIGHT. WE HAVE THIS MEETING TONIGHT. WE HAVE A MEETING ON MONDAY NIGHT WITH THE CITY COMMISSION. THE ORDINANCE IS NOT GOING TO BE ADOPTED UNTIL THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE ON FEBRUARY 24TH. I'M HOPEFUL THAT BETWEEN NOW AND WE CAN GET EVERYBODY'S COMMENT.

YEAH. AND THAT WE'RE ALL SAYING WE'RE AGREEING. WE'RE JUST FIGHTING OVER AGREEING WITH EACH

[01:15:04]

IT'S JUST GOING TO CREATE BIGGER PARKING LOTS AT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS. BUT WITH PARKING IT WOULD HAVE MADE A CHANGE TO LIKE THE PARKING THE APARTMENT ACROSS FROM THE COURTHOUSE, BECAUSE THAT'S 58 UNITS ON ONE ACRE. IT DIDN'T MEET THE PARKING ALREADY, SO THE COMMISSION WAIVED THE PARKING. SO THE CODE AS IT EXISTED GAVE THE COMMISSION THE ABILITY TO DENY THE UNIT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE COURTHOUSE IN THAT IN THEORY, IF THAT SAME COMMISSION WERE SITTING HERE UNDER THE NEW CODE, THEY WOULD JUST WAIVE FIVE MORE PARKING SPACES AND IT WOULD THEN STILL BE THE SAME PROJECT WITH THE SAME WAIVER. IT JUST WOULD BE A HIGHER NUMBER OF SPACES WAIVED BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE COMP PLAN. IT'S IN THE CODE, WHICH IS WAIVABLE BY THE THREE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE COMP PLAN. BUT IN RESPONSE TO LANCE'S COMMENT ON THE ISSUE, SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE INTENTION OR THE FREEDOM OF WHAT TO USE, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. THE INTENTION, THOUGH, OF THE COMMISSION WAS THAT WHAT THEY WERE SEEING, AND A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF IT WAS THERE'S A BIG LOT THAT HAD A BIG HISTORIC HOME ON IT OVER OFF OF PALM CITY ROAD. AND A GUY BOUGHT THAT BIG HOUSE AND IT WAS A 100 YEAR OLD HOUSE AND TORE IT DOWN, SPLIT IT INTO TWO, AND SOLD THE TWO LOTS OFF. NOW, THE TRUTH OF IT IS, IN THAT CASE, THE LOT WAS 25,000FT■!S. SO THE TWO LOTS THT HE SOLD OFF WERE 12,000FT■!S EA.

SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE APPLIED THERE. BUT AS YOU GO THROUGH EAST STUART AND YOU GO THROUGH THE RIVERSIDE DRIVE AREA AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE'S LOTS OF LOTS THAT ARE 12 OR, YOU KNOW, 10,000FT THAT IF YOU HAD A 5000 FOOT MINIMUM COULD BE SPLIT IN HALF. BUT THOSE ARE R1 AND R1 A, SO THEIR MINIMUM LOT SIZE WAS 7500FT■!S ALREADY. ANYWAY, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COMMISSION IN THE WORKSHOPS? ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, THE FIRST WORKSHOP, SAID HE THOUGHT IT

[01:20:03]

SO EVEN THOUGH I COULD CREATE 210 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT LOTS, ONE OF THEM WOULDN'T HAVE 100FT OF FRONTAGE ON THE STREET AND THEREFORE WOULDN'T BE A LEGAL LOT AND WOULDN'T BE SUBJECT TO A LOT SPLIT BECAUSE I COULDN'T MEET THAT OTHER INGREDIENT IN THE STEW. AND WHEN WE DO THESE EXERCISES, A LOT OF TIMES WE ARE DOING THIS IN A VACUUM, LIKE ONE PIECE AT A TIME, RATHER THAN LITERALLY LOOKING AND SAYING, OKAY, WELL, WHAT'S NECESSARY TO BUILD ON THAT? IT'S NOT JUST THE LOT SIZE, BUT IT'S AND AS AS MARCELLA CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, SHE'S ENTITLED TO DO A 36 FOOT HIGH HOUSE. IF IT WAS A COTTAGE LOT, I BELIEVE IT'S 25FT HIGH.

SO THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THAT SECOND OR EVEN THIRD FLOOR THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT BUILD IN A HOUSE. AND THAT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT WHERE YOUR ZONE AND WHAT IT IS, AND THE REST OF

[01:25:03]

WE ARE HERE NOW. SO LET'S LOOK FROM HERE FORWARD. BUT WE HAVE HEARD THIS STORY FOR SO LONG THAT IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE ANYBODY WHO'S RESPONSIBLE, BECAUSE THAT HAPPENED 30 YEARS AGO AND I WASN'T HERE. WELL, I MEAN, AS I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTATION AND LOOK THROUGH THE PICTURES, IT BROKE MY HEART TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT I SEE IN THOSE PICTURES THAT I KNOW ARE NOW DEAD. THEY'RE LIKE MOSES. THEY ONLY VIEW THE PROMISED LAND FROM AFAR, AND THEY HAVE NOT SEEN ANY CHANGES IN EAST STUART. I SENT MY SON TO GERTRUDE WALDEN BECAUSE I WANTED TO CONDITION HIM TO SAY, YOU KNOW, YOUR DAD'S FAMILY IS FROM EAST STUART AND I LIVE HERE. I WANT YOU TO GO TO SCHOOL THERE AND SEE WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS LIKE, SEE WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS LIKE, BECAUSE I'M HOPING THAT HE WOULD GROW UP AND BE A CHANGER. AND HE LOOKS ME IN THE EYE AND SAY, MOMMY, WHAT AM I GOING TO COME TO STUART FOR? WHAT IS IN STUART FOR ME? HE NOW LIVES IN JACKSONVILLE. THAT'S WHERE HE WENT TO SCHOOL. SO I AM SAYING THAT WE STILL HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT WORKS FOR THE MASS, THE PEOPLE OF EAST STUART. SO THERE NEED TO BE ANOTHER PRESENTATION. I'M GLAD MR. CHRISTIE IS HERE STANDING UP FOR HIS COMMUNITY,

[01:30:04]

STUART AND ALVAREZ STUART ARE SAYING, NO, I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE CALLING ME UP AND SAYING THEY WANT TO BUY MY HOUSE. I DON'T LIKE PEOPLE SHOWING AN INTEREST IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THE COMMISSION IS TRYING TO PROVIDE THEM SOME ASSURANCES THAT THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO SELL OUT THE COMMUNITY. NOW, WHAT THOSE ARE WHAT THOSE AREN'T I CAN'T PUT IT OUT SOMETIMES THAT THERE'S AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE AND IT MIGHT BE THEIR MINIMUM LOT SIZE, ESPECIALLY FOR MOST LOTS. THERE'S SEVERAL LOTS THAT ARE 830. SO THEY HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED AS YOU KNOW, AS A YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT EXIST EXIST. BUT I CAN POINT OUT WHERE THE MCCARTY FAMILY CURRENTLY OWNS A LOT. THAT'S TWO LOTS TOGETHER. AND IT'S BEING HELD AS ONE PERSONAL ID, AND IT'S 100FT WIDE. AND BEFORE SEPTEMBER 4TH OR BEFORE THIS THING WAS ADOPTED. EXCUSE ME, CITY MANAGER HAD TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOME. WE GO TO THE MIC.

THANK YOU. IT COULD HAVE RESULTED IN HAVING TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON IT, BUT ONCE THIS GETS ADOPTED, DIVIDING THAT IN HALF WOULD BE WOULD RESULT IN LOTS THAT ARE ABOUT 5000FT■!S EACH, WHICH WON'T HAPPEN SO THAT ONE LOT WILL STAY AS ONE LOT. BUT IF IT STAYS AS ONE LOT, IN ORDER TO MAKE A THE BEST USE OF THE LAND, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD A 1300 SQUARE FOOT BUNGALOW INSTEAD, BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A BIG LOT. YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A 3500 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, WHICH ALL OF A SUDDEN IS GOING TO BE $900,000 TO PURCHASE, WHICH IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO RECONCILE WITH WHAT THE VISION IS FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE. BUT AGAIN, I, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OR NOT HAPPEN, BUT THE PURPOSE WAS TO TRY AND SECURE

[01:35:02]

[01:40:02]

BUT THE TRUTH IS, IT'S TWO STORIES WITH PARKING ON THE ROOF, AND IT'S ONLY TAKING UP 30 PARKING SPACES BECAUSE THEY'RE STACKED INSTEAD OF 200 PARKING SPACES. THAT WOULD BE ON SURFACE. NOW, IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN? PROBABLY NOT, BUT I COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT. BUT IS IT GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT MR. GIANT DEVELOPER MAKES WITH DEEP POCKETS? NO. IF HE'S INTENDING ON BUILDING 300 UNITS, HE'S JUST GOING TO BUILD MORE PARKING AND BUILD 300 UNITS. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE ULTIMATE OUTPUT OF UNITS THAT ARE BUILT. IT'S JUST GOING TO CHANGE THE COST TO THE GUY BUILDING THEM. WELL, I WAS TRYING TO GET A DOES THIS SATISFY THE VISION THAT THE COMMISSIONERS MIGHT HAVE IN TRYING TO DO ALL THIS? WELL, IT JUST. A COMPLICATION, I THINK. I MEAN, YOU'D HAVE TO ASK THEM. I MEAN, THEY'VE INSTRUCTED US TO MOVE FORWARD ON IT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THEY FEEL THAT IT MEETS THE NEEDS THAT THEY SEE THAT IT MEETS. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M HERE SHOOTING FROM THE HIP BECAUSE I DON'T GO OUT AND TALK TO PEOPLE AS A CITY COMMISSIONER EVERY DAY AND GET THE FEEDBACK FROM ANYBODY. SO I'M KIND OF GUESSING AT WHAT THEY HEAR. OR DO YOU KNOW? SO I'D REALLY RECOMMEND YOU SPEAK TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY AS IT RELATES TO THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES AS TO THE WHY? BECAUSE NOT BEING THAT FAMILIAR WITH IT, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN BUILDING FOR A LONG TIME. BUT IS THERE ANY INCENTIVE FOR SOMEONE TO BUILD, QUOTE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING? AND I GUESS THAT COULD VARY HOW YOU DEFINE IT CLOSE TO THE PLACES THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE EMPLOYED, IN ORDER THAT THEIR CARS WOULD NOT BE TRANSPORTING DURING THE WORK HOURS THEY'D BE SITTING AT HOME. TECHNICALLY, NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE

[01:45:04]

SO AS FAR AS WHERE I LIVE, IN NEIGHBORS, WHERE I'M LIVING, THE ONLY THING I EVER HEAR OF IS TRAFFIC. IS SOMEBODY GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT TRAFFIC. SO LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING ABOUT TRAFFIC REAL QUICK. WE ARE NOW IN WHAT'S KNOWN AS THE PORT SAINT LUCIE URBANIZED AREA. WHEN I GREW UP, IT WASN'T THAT BECAUSE PORT SAINT LUCIE DIDN'T REALLY EXIST? IN 1974, WE HAD 300 RESIDENTS IN PORT SAINT LUCIE. HOWEVER, THEY'RE PROJECTING IN BETWEEN THE YEAR 2050 AND 2060, MARTIN COUNTY WILL BUILD OUT FROM 170,000 TO 200,000 PEOPLE, AND THE PORT SAINT LUCIE URBANIZED AREA WILL BUILD OUT FROM 522,000 TO 950,000 PEOPLE. SO WE'RE GOING TO ADD ANOTHER 400,000 PEOPLE TO OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, WHILE WE ADD 25 TO 30,000 TO MARTIN COUNTY. THOSE 400,000 PEOPLE TO GET TO THE BEACH ARE GOING TO TAKE EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD OR JENSEN BEACH BOULEVARD, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DRIVE TO FORT PIERCE, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY FAR OUT OF THE WAY. THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE ON THE SOUTHERN END OF SAINT LUCIE COUNTY AND THE NORTHERN END OF PALM BEACH COUNTY. SO IT'S BRIDGE ROADS, EAST OCEAN AND JENSEN BEACH BOULEVARD IS HOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET THERE. SO IF YOU THINK FOR A SECOND THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE AN ALLEVIATION IN TRAFFIC, THE TRUTH OF IT IS RIGHT NOW THAT SINCE 1974, THE CITY OF STUART HAS GROWN AT A RATE OF 130 PEOPLE A YEAR. SINCE 2001, THE CITY OF STUART HAS GROWN AT A RATE OF 166 PEOPLE PER YEAR. YET 58,000 PEOPLE A DAY GO OVER THE ROOSEVELT BRIDGE. IN 1974, THE CITY OF STUART WAS 12,000 PEOPLE IN MARTIN COUNTY WAS JUST ABOUT 48,000, WHICH MADE US 25% OF THE POPULATION, WHICH MEANT THE CITY GOT 25% OF THE GAS TAX, 25% OF THE SALES TAX. WELL, WHEN MARTIN COUNTY GREW FROM 48,000 TO 100,000, THE CITY OF STUART SHOULD HAVE GONE FROM 12 TO 24. AND THEN WHEN MARTIN COUNTY WENT FROM 100 TO 170, THE CITY SHOULD HAVE GONE FROM 24 TO 30 5 OR 40 TO KEEP UP WITH THE SAME RATIOS.

BUT IT DIDN'T. THE CITY WAS THE SLOWEST GROWING COMMUNITY IN THE COUNTY OTHER THAN JUPITER ISLAND. IT GREW AT NO RATE AT ALL. IT MARTIN COUNTY GREW AT ABOUT 1%, THE CITY GREW AT LESS THAN HALF A PERCENT PER YEAR. SO THE TRAFFIC YOU FEEL AND SEE AND HEAR IS NOT COMING FROM WITHIN THE CITY. IT'S COMING THROUGH THE CITY. IT'S COMING FROM PALM CITY. IN 1990, PALM CITY HAD 2300 RESIDENTS. IT'S NOW GOT MORE THAN 27,000 RESIDENTS. IN 1990, THE CITY OF STUART HAD 14,000 RESIDENTS. AND YOU KNOW, WE'VE NOW GROWN TO 18,500. SO WE'VE ADDED 4000. AND IN THE 34 YEARS. BUT HOBE SOUND, JENSEN BEACH AND PALM CITY HAVE TAKEN MARTIN COUNTY FROM THE 60 TO 70,000 RANGE TO THE 170,000 RANGE AND TAKEN PORT SAINT LUCIE FROM 300 TO 247,000 PEOPLE. THE TRAFFIC'S NOT STUART, AND IF YOU HEAR EVERY DAY ABOUT, OH MY GOD, HAVE YOU BEEN OUT ON KANNER HIGHWAY AT 5:00? WELL, NO. YOU KNOW WHY? BECAUSE I LIVE IN STUART. I DON'T NEED TO DRIVE OUT ON KANNER HIGHWAY AT 5:00 BECAUSE I'M NOT DRIVING HOME TO THE HOUSE. I LIVE IN THE SPRAWL LANDS. I LIVE HERE, AND I DON'T DRIVE IN THAT, SO I DON'T SEE IT. BUT THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE DRIVING IN IT DON'T LIVE HERE. THEY'RE DRIVING IN THE SPRAWL BECAUSE THEY'RE LIVING IN ONE OF THE PLACES THAT WERE BUILT IN AN AREA THAT CREATED TRAFFIC. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THEY'RE OUT OF TOWN IS BECAUSE THE COST OF HOUSING, THEY HAD TO GO OUT OF TOWN. I DON'T THINK STUART'S MEDIAN HOUSING COST HAS EVER BEEN ABOVE OR EVEN CLOSE TO 75% OF THE MEDIAN HOUSING COST IN PALM CITY, STUART'S MEDIAN HOUSING COST IS ABOUT A THIRD OF WHAT PALM CITY MEDIAN HOUSING COSTS ARE. MAYBE PORT SAINT LUCIE? TRUE, BUT NOT NOT, YOU KNOW, NOT DOWN COVE ROAD AND NOT DOWN KANNER HIGHWAY AND NOT OFF SALERNO ROAD AND NOT IN NORTH JENSEN AND NOT IN PALM CITY. THOSE HOUSES COST FIVE TIMES AS MUCH AS STUART HOUSES BECAUSE THEY STILL CONSIDER THEMSELVES STUART. THEY CALL THEMSELVES STUART ANYWAY. SO THAT'S WHY YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR I THINK IT WAS PAGE 70 AND MAYBE THIS IS THE THING BECAUSE I DON'T SOMETIMES I DON'T HEAR VERY WELL THAT YOU SAID IS IT NOW GOING TO BE INCLUDED WHERE IT WAS TALKING ABOUT TREATMENT FACILITIES AND INPATIENT, THE NUMBER THAT WAS INPATIENT TREATMENT IS THAT IS THAT STILL INCLUDED? I NOT AT THIS TIME IS WHAT IT IS NOT INCLUDED AT THIS

[01:50:05]

ALL RIGHT. SO MY QUESTION IS HOW DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON SOMETHING. ARE YOU TAKING OUR COMMENTS BACK? HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS THE FINALITY OF THIS MEETING? CHAIR, IF I MAY ADDRESS THAT, IF YOU COULD FORMULATE A VOTE TO MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT YOU FEEL NECESSARY, EITHER EXPRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT YOU SEE SOME LANGUAGE CHANGED. OKAY, I WILL START. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SECTION ON EAST STUART IS HANDLED IN A SEPARATE FASHION, AND THAT A MEETING IS SET UP IN THE COMMUNITY TO GAIN FEEDBACK FROM ITS RESIDENTS. I DO BELIEVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, YOU MAY HAVE TO PASS THE GAVEL. OKAY, PASS THE GAVEL.

OKAY. THERE WE GO. OKAY. YOU DON'T NEED TO REPEAT THAT. I DO HAVE THAT. OKAY. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN. OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. I THINK JUST FOR THE RECORD, CLEARLY STATE YOUR MOTION. I MOVE. OKAY. SAY IT AGAIN. OKAY. AND IF SOMEONE WANTS A SECOND, IF THEY CAN SECOND IT AND THEN YOU HAVE A VOTE. OKAY. SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PASS FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THE COMMENT THAT THE EAST STUART SECTION OF THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND KIND OF SEPARATED OUT AT THIS POINT UNTIL THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET AND GAIN FEEDBACK FROM ITS RESIDENTS. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING? BECAUSE DO WE NEED TO MAKE CAN WE MAKE MORE THAN ONE MOTION ABOUT THIS, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION. WELL, FIRST OFF, THERE'S A MOTION AND YOU'RE NO LONGER THE CHAIR. OKAY. WE NOW HAVE CHAIR PETERSON. OKAY, WHO'S CONTROL OF THE MEETING? BUT YOU WOULD MAKE A MOTION. AND IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SECOND THAT BEFORE SOMEONE SECONDS THAT YOU WANT TO AMEND IT, YOU CAN AMEND IT. IF SOMEONE DOES SECOND IT AND YOU WANT TO AMEND IT, THEY WOULD THE PERSON OR WOULD HAVE TO DO SECOND, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AGREED TO THE AMENDMENT. OKAY, SO I WOULD GET A MOTION IN A SECOND AND THEN YOU CAN DISCUSS IT. OKAY. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION. I'LL SECOND. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO AT LEAST REVIEW THE FLOOR AREA RATIO NUMBER THEY CAME UP WITH AND PROVIDE A BETTER JUSTIFICATION. AND I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE SHARED PARKING OR THE INCREASE IN PARKING RATIOS. AND THIS IS JUST AS IF WE'RE JUST TALKING THE EAST STUART PROVISION AT THIS POINT. CAN WE DO MULTIPLE. THIS

[01:55:03]

THERE WERE PEOPLE FROM ALL OVER THE COMMUNITY. AND I WOULD SAY AT THE BEGINNING WE HAD A MUCH FULLER HOUSE OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT. AS WE WENT ALONG, WE HAD SEPARATE TIMES WHERE WE WOULD ACCEPT SOMETHING FROM THE ZONING AND PROGRESS. INITIALLY IT WAS ZONING IN PROGRESS FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, I RECALL. AND THEN AS WE WENT ALONG, THEY KEPT TAKING CERTAIN THINGS OUT OF THE ZONING AND PROGRESS. AND SO THE FREEZE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS GOT SMALLER. AND I THINK TOWARDS THE END THEY ACCEPTED ALL COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES THAT DID NOT INVOLVE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE UPSET ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING AND PROGRESS BEING APPLIED TO COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS. SO JUST SO YOU GUYS ARE CLEAR, ONCE THEY INITIATED ZONING AND PROGRESS, YOU WEREN'T ALLOWED TO PUT IN A BRAND NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. THE STUFF THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT ANYTHING NEW, UNLESS IT WAS ACCEPTED, THEY WENT ALONG. THEY ACCEPTED MORE AND MORE. SO IT SEEMED LIKE THE CROWD GOT SMALLER AND SMALLER BECAUSE IT AFFECTED LESS PEOPLE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. AND THEN WE HAD THE THREE WORKSHOPS AND THEN WE HAD A FOLLOW UP REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING WHERE WE DID A RESOLUTION WHERE WE OUTLINED EVERYTHING, ALL THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAD TOUCHED TO GET A RESOLUTION. YES, WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. SO AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER DURING THE WORKSHOP, THEY MIGHT HAVE SAID, HEY, WE WANT TO INCREASE THE SETBACKS FROM 5FT TO 10FT. AND THAT WAS SAID. AND THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT. BUT WHEN WE WENT BACK TO A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, SOMEONE BROUGHT IT UP, IT CAME UP AGAIN AND THEY RETRACTED IT. SO AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT MARCELLA CAMPBELL HAD IN HER INITIAL LETTER WITH HER ATTORNEY. AND WE'VE CORRECTED THAT AND RESOLVED THAT. SO BECAUSE WE WENT BACK AND LISTENED TO A BUNCH OF THE TAPES AND THEY THEY VOTED ON TO JUST LEAVE IT AS IS, SO THEY'RE NOT EVEN TOUCHING IT. SO WHEN YOU HAVE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THESE MEETINGS. SO I KNOW THAT, LIKE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO COME BEFORE US, THERE'S A SIGN THAT'S PUT OUT. SO EVERYBODY KIND OF SEES IT DO SO BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO MAY BE IN ONLINE. CORRECT. BUT FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE IN A LOWER INCOME COMMUNITY THAT MAY NOT HAVE REGULAR ACCESS TO CERTAIN THINGS, I KNOW THAT THAT VISUAL SIGN CAN HELP DRIVE PEOPLE TO SEE, OKAY, THIS IS HAPPENING, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT WITH THIS TYPE OF THING. SO LIKE EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A LOT COVERED WITH EAST STUART, YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT BASICALLY A MORE VISUAL SIGN LETTING THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS HAPPENING. RIGHT? I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO SOMEONE WHO'S BRINGING A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. BUT LIKE I'M JUST CURIOUS, IS THERE I SEE ONLINE, BUT IS THERE ANY, I GUESS, MORE VISUAL, PARTICULARLY FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THAT LOCAL COMMUNITY

[02:00:03]

THANK YOU SIR. YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ZIP MEETING AND ALL THESE MEETINGS, EVEN THESE COMMISSIONERS KEEP GOING BACK AND CHANGING THEIR OWN WHATEVER THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. SO HOW CAN THE COMMUNITY EVEN KEEP UP WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING? I CONCUR WITH KELLY THAT BEFORE WE MAKE THESE RULES AND CHANGES, THAT AFFECTS PEOPLE'S LIVES AND THEY WILL NOT KNOW UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS AND THEY HAVE TO REBUILD, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW. SO WE NEED TO GET THE INFORMATION TO THE PEOPLE WHERE WE KNOW THEY GOT IT IN ANOTHER CHARETTE, ANOTHER MEETING LOCALLY. AND AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, THEN THE ONUS IS OFF OF US, BUT THE OPPORTUNITY NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED CLEARLY. CAN I AMEND MY MOTION? YES YOU CAN. THE SECOND YOU CAN DO AN AMENDMENT. BUT THEN THE PERSON WHO SECONDED WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO THE OKAY, AMEND IT TO SECONDING THE AMENDED. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THAT BASED ON. BUT MR. BOWLES JUST POINTED OUT, WHICH I THINK IS A VERY VALID STATEMENT.

AND BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO US EARLIER THAT I ASKED THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE EAST STUART PORTION TO EITHER HOLD A MEETING OR TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION AND DISCUSS THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT WAS EMAILED TODAY AT 505 FOR THE STUART COMMUNITY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. AND IF THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME YOU COULD TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN VOTE. ANY COMMENTS? SO THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SAY IS THAT THIS DEADLINE OF MARCH 4TH OR WHATEVER, THE PEOPLE'S, THE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO DECIDE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KEEPING THE COMMISSIONERS DEADLINE. WHAT'S THE BIG RUSH? SO ZONING IN PROGRESS ONLY ALLOWS 90 DAYS TECHNICALLY. ACTUALLY I THINK IT SAYS THREE MONTHS, BUT. SO WE HAVE A ZONING AND PROGRESS ORDINANCE AND IT SAYS YOU CAN INITIATE IT AND IT CAN GO FOR THREE MONTHS, AND THEN YOU CAN EXTEND IT FOR GOOD CAUSE FOR ANOTHER THREE MONTHS. SO WHEN MR. MORTEL MENTIONED YESTERDAY OR EARLIER, SIX MONTHS OR 180 DAYS, THAT'S WHAT HE WAS REFERRING. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME YOU CAN DO FOR A ZONING IN PROGRESS. THE REASON WHY THAT IS THE CASE, BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE, THEY PUT A FREEZE ON NEW DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS TO PUT A FREEZE ON IT FOR MORE THAN THAT IS A BURDEN IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS. SO YOU CAN'T DO IT FOR FIVE YEARS. OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE SOME CONDITIONS OUT THERE THAT JUST DO A ZONING IN PROGRESS FOR FIVE YEARS AND SHUT DOWN ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS. SO THEY HAVE A TIME DEADLINE AND THAT'S THE DEADLINE. SO IF WE DON'T MEET IT BY THAT DEADLINE, THEN NEW APPLICATIONS CAN START UP BE FILED. IF WE DON'T FINISH IT BY THAT TIME AND WE YOU CAN'T FREEZE THAT ISSUE EXCEPT FOR UP TO A SIX MONTHS, BASICALLY A MAXIMUM. DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? DID I GIVE YOU THE PAPER? YES. AND THIS IS ABOUT EAST STUART. THE MOTION THAT'S

[02:05:03]

AND WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE HEARINGS BEFORE WE EVEN GET WE'VE HAD IT WITH THE CRB AND WITH YOU ALL TONIGHT. TECHNICALLY, THE CITY COMMISSION AT THE SECOND HEARING COULD SAY WE WANT TO CONTINUE IT FOR ANOTHER HEARING. WE WANT TO MAKE MORE CHANGES. SO UNTIL THEY FINALLY VOTE ON THESE ISSUES, IT'S NOT FINAL UNTIL THEN. AND IN 30 DAYS AFTER THAT. SO AND JUST AS OF RECORD, THEY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO TAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. BUT THAT'S WHY WE EXIST TO GIVE THEM WHAT WE HEAR IS THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITY, CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ARE AN ADVISORY BOARD TO ELABORATE ON THAT. SO I FOLLOWED THIS WHOLE PROCESS, WATCHED EVERY MEETING, AND I GET THE INTENT. I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN. THE CONCERN IS THE BRIGHT LINES COMING IN THAT IT'S JUST GOING TO HAPPEN SO FAST EAST. IT'S JUST GOING TO GET OVERWHELMED WITH DEVELOPERS COMING IN. IT'S GOING TO CHANGE BEFORE ANYONE EVEN BLINKS AN EYE. AND I HAVE THAT SAME CONCERN. BUT COMING THROUGH AND MAKING THESE CHANGES AND IS DRASTIC AS THEY ARE, THE CONCERN IS THAT YOU'RE NOW TYING THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE NOW AND THEN. THEY CAN'T DO THEIR PROJECTS. THEY CAN'T DO SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS THEM TO STILL AFFORD TO LIVE THERE. AND

[02:10:03]

YEAH, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT IT STILL HAD TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD. AND I THINK AS YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WHEN. SO WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT STRAIGHT ZONING AND YOU'VE HEARD THE TERM PUD AND SOME OF YOU MIGHT KNOW WHAT PUD IS, BUT BASICALLY THAT'S LIKE A CUSTOM ZONING. SO WE ALLOW PUDS HERE. AND BY A DEVELOPER COMING FORWARD WITH A PUD THEY GET TO DO CUSTOM. BUT THAT ALSO THE COMMISSION GETS TO GET INVOLVED AND ASK FOR EXTRA THINGS THAT THEY WOULDN'T NORMALLY GET. SO AND THAT'S HE GAVE MR. MORTEL GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE COSTCO PROJECT, WHICH IS A PUD. SO, YOU KNOW, ANYTIME YOU CAN BRING SOMETHING BEFORE THE BOARD, THEY CAN ASK FOR CONCESSIONS AND GET STUFF THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE ENTITLED TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPER TO DO THAT. AND THEN THEY GIVE SOMETHING BACK THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN IF EVERYTHING WAS STRAIGHT ZONING, YOU KNOW. SO WHAT IS THE MOTION? CAN I CALL THE QUESTION. YES.

AND THEN AND YOU CAN VOTE. AND IF MR. SCHRAM I THINK HE HAS MORE EMOTIONS HE WOULD LIKE TO DO. BUT AFTER THAT WE CAN GO. OKAY. SO ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? WILL YOU REREAD THE MOTION, PLEASE? WELL, I ARE WE? YEAH. I MEAN, THE MOTION WAS MADE TO PASS COMMENTS ON TO THE COMMISSION THAT EAST STEWART BE HANDLED SEPARATELY UNTIL THEY MEET AND GAIN FEEDBACK FROM THE RESIDENTS. AND THEN IT WAS AMENDED TO STATE BASED ON MR. BULL'S STATEMENT. ASK THE CITY FOR EAST STEWART TO TAKE THE PLAN. EMAILED TODAY AT 505 AND ACT ON IT OR NO, TO TAKE IT UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT IF THEY CAN'T HOLD THE PUBLIC THAT THEY WOULD TAKE THE EMAIL PLAN AS UNDER CONSIDERATION. DOES THAT SOUND CORRECT? THAT SOUNDS CORRECT. AND THEN WE HAD A SECOND BY MR. VOGEL. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? RIGHT. OKAY. BOARD MEMBER STRONG. YES. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MAKE A MOTION FOR THE WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. WE'RE VOTING. WE'RE VOTING ON THE FIRST ONE. YES, YES, YES. NO. YOU'RE JUST JUMPING THE GUN TONIGHT. THE SLIDE. YES. WAS THAT A YES? YES OKAY, OKAY. BOARD MEMBER BRUMFIELD. YES. BOARD MEMBER. BOWLES. YES. VICE CHAIR. PETERSON. NO. CHAIR. LORRAINE. YES. AND BOARD MEMBER. VOGEL. YES. OKAY, OKAY, I GUESS I'LL TAKE THIS BACK NOW. I DON'T REALLY LIKE IT. OKAY. IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION THAT WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT? YES. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION FOR THE COMMISSION TO RECONSIDER INCREASING THE PARKING RATIOS AND THE REMOVAL OF NO SHARED PARKING AND RECONSIDER THE FLOOR AREA RATIO DEDUCTION. REDUCTION. SO THE NO SHARED. OH. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. SORRY. THAT'S. THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A SECOND. AND THEN WE'LL OPEN TO COMMENT. CAN WE JUST CLARIFY RECONSIDER

[02:15:05]

BUT THERE ARE OTHER AREAS LIKE ACROSS FROM THE COURTHOUSE WHERE THE COMMISSION REALLY COULD HAVE USED STRICTER GUIDELINES. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT HAVE HAD LEGAL MAYBE, YOU KNOW, PREEMPT LEGAL CHALLENGES OR CHALLENGES FROM DEVELOPERS SAYING, WELL, THAT'S NOT FAIR.

YOU'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD GET THIS WAIVER. SO THAT'S KIND OF MY THINKING ON THE PARKING IS YOU DO HAVE TO WE CAN'T SHARE WHAT'S NOT THERE. OKAY. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENT? OKAY.

CAN WE CALL A VOTE PLEASE? OKAY. BOARD MEMBER VOGEL. YES. BOARD MEMBER. STRAHM. YES. BOARD MEMBER. BROWNFIELD. YES. VICE CHAIR. PETERSON. NO. BOARD MEMBER. BOWLES. YES. CHAIR.

LORRAINE. YES. I BELIEVE THAT'S EVERYONE. IS THERE ANYONE? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I HAVE ONE QUESTION. DO WE NEED TO MAKE A FORMAL MOTION REGARDING? BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE AS IT SITS DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THE GRANDFATHER THING THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. DO WE NEED TO MAKE THAT AS PART OF A FORMAL MOTION, OR WILL THAT ALREADY BE TAKEN CARE OF? I THINK THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED, AND IT'S GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. OKAY. I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF WE NEEDED TO ADD IT THE BEST WE CAN. OKAY. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IN PROGRESS, IN MOTION, YOU KNOW, AS TIME GOES ON. SO OKAY OKAY. WE STILL HAVE MULTIPLE MEETINGS TO GO FOR. SO OKAY. ALL RIGHT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS THAT WANT TO BE MADE ON THIS TOPIC. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER STAFF DISCUSSIONS THAT NEED TO BE STATED TONIGHT? NO, MA'AM. OKAY. SO I THINK I'M CHECKING MY THING. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. CALL THIS MEETING. KNOW WHAT? MOTION TO ADJOURN. OH, PERFECT. FORGOT THAT PERFECT QUESTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? YES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ALL RIGHT, THERE WE GO.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.