All right. Good. Oh, gez. Good morning, everyone. We're going to call this meeting to order. Today is Tuesday, November 25th. It is 9:00 a.m. All council members are present. Uh LPA members are present with Mr. Ecman and Mr. Adhalt will be via Zoom. Uh I believe Jim will be just audio only, but
uh this is a joint meeting between the LPA and the town council. If we please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I aliance 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. >> All right. Before we get started, we have to take a vote both from the LPA and from the council to allow the members to via Zoom be here via Zoom. So LPA got motion by Mr. Dunlap. >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. McClean. All those in
favor signify by saying I. >> I. Opposed. Hearing none. That motion carries unanimously. Next is the town council. I will make a motion to approve Mr. Adheralt being via Zoom. >> Second. >> Seconded by Vice Mayor Saffford. Any further discussion? All those in favor signify by saying I. I I opposed
hearing. None. That motion carries unanimously. We have one item for discussion that we will have public comment before. Nancy, it wasn't on here, but we're going to have public comment. Uh but do you want to do before and after or just before? >> Um as long as the public has an opportunity to comment on what you'll be
uh reviewing. You can do it before, you can do it after, you can do it once, you can do it twice. >> Okay. Is everybody okay with starting once? Then if we have to do it twice at the end, um would you >> I I if you'll remember, I sent you a message about this. Uh I think if we can
do it in chunks, uh I think it'll be the most expeditious way to go through this and it will allow everybody to kind of get out of their system everything that needs to be said. So if we take element one, element two and allow public comment during those elements, is does
anybody object to that? I don't have any issue with it, John. >> Good. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's perfect. >> Great. >> Okay, that's what we'll do then. >> You out there okay with it? >> They're just like, let's get going.
>> Yeah. All right. Our first item for discussion is ordinance 2410, a comprehensive plan adoption. Uh, Chair Sarita, would you like to kick this off and kind of explain how we got here? >> Yes, I'll explain how we got here. And I'd just like to thank uh you will for
your accommodation of this joint meeting and all the staff and um you know as I kind of uh my first reaction to this was ah what's going on and since the ah what's going on I've uh I've stepped
back and just kind of thought about how we got here. So you know the Cordino group was hired in the middle of COVID in June of 2020. uh the town was wrestling with that there, you know, all the things that came with that. Uh it
was very much a different community in 2020 than it is today. Uh so you know 2020 it's co we start this process uh with that particular town council. Two years later the town's wiped out. We get
a new council uh hurricane Ian does its damage and then another two years following in all of this process we get two more hurricanes. So, it has been a difficult challenge for this community to come together and do this planning.
Um, the outreach, I know I spoke with Jason one day and he said, you know, we didn't get the outreach or the the response that we were hoping with the outreach even though we got some. And I thought, you know, everybody's been digging themselves out of whatever their situation has been. But nevertheless, we
still have um deadlines to abide by. We've got um a work in progress here and I think if we just go step by step I think that most of the comments we're going to hear are in the future land use element. Um there's, you know, there are
comments that I've gotten about um Frankie, I'm just going to tell you this. So, you'll you'll since you're you're the director here, um about um punctuation and grammar and stuff like that, which I'm guessing when this goes through a final test, all of that would
be corre um corrected. But that was something that several people said, "Well, look on this page and look on this page." And um that's not the kind of content I think we need to talk about today. So, but that's that's kind of where we are, how we got here. And I
mean, we got here. It's been a long and winding road to this point. And um I hope that today will go a long way to helping the council um put this forward on the first. >> Very good. With that, we'll get started
with our first element, which is the vision. Does anyone have any issues with the vision or would you like to have any comments on that? Madam Chair, >> I I'll I'll I'll have a comment. >> Okay, >> Frankie, I'm just going to talk to you and Jason because I know you guys are the ones that, you know, I when I read
this and um I mean, there's some kind of ironic things like we're a town that has many transportation choices and easy to get around. I mean, this weekend proved that wasn't true, but um and and we know living here that that is that's really a challenge. But there is just a um kind
of a a tone here of you know you talk about a beautiful community it's peaceful and enjoying our natural resources and then the sentence that is while still being able to find good eats experiences. I don't know what those are. And music locally when one desires
to me it's just awkward. It's awkward. I I would I'd like somebody to take another shot at this at this. I don't know if anybody else agrees or if you all think, hey, that's great. >> Seems kind of honky tonker. >> It it comes across honky tonky. Yes.
Yes. >> Who, Jason? Do we know who came up with this wording or was it just kind of a >> Oh, Ed's here. >> Yeah, he was he was hiding. >> You're you're going to be so glad to get rid of us, aren't you? [laughter] >> Well, it's been my pleasure to work with
you all for the last several years. We come full circle on a lot of items. >> As far as the text of this, this is um from what was presented to you in June. We then took comments. I wrote down the comment of exactly what you guys wanted. You had very specific changes during
that meeting. I made those changes and where it was unclear, but you had very specific direction. I finagled some of the word based on your direction. So really, it comes from you all from that meeting at the end of June. Okay.
>> Yeah. >> Microphone. >> Um I don't know. As I read it, it seems like it was written during COVID when we all had buildings here because it it talks about, you know, height and commercial intrusion into neighborhoods
and um and it still seems like we're talking about existing and not tearing down things and, you know, with without the need for cars in the midst of peak season. Do we have something like that happening here? uh other than golf carts
and bicycles. I I don't know anything about that. Um unnecessarily unnecessarily unnecessary building heights. Um stable neighborhoods established uh with urban designs in order to prevent tear downs.
I'm like, have we not >> Jane, are you moving into the future land use element? >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, does anybody else have any comment on the on the vision statement or >> the only thing I would add is we're putting it through the lens of
sitting here today >> and it says vision at the top. So, it's supposed to leap the current circumstances and situation and be aspirational and and purposeful about what we're trying to evolve to. And some of this fits in that kind of a context.
If we're describing today and people read it and say, "I want to go there because this is what it's like." It has a different thing. So, I think there needs to be at least a second around are we really trying to talk about today? Are we trying to talk about what we want to make sure happens going forward as these words represent our desires versus
current situation? >> Anything? >> Yeah. My comment would be when I read this to me it described what I feel obviously I defer to people who've lived
here much longer than I have but the feeling and the aspirational vision of this town I feel is captured whether we can quibble over good eats versus fine dining but I don't think that that's
really what this >> that's this town is >> it is good eats and live music and having some fun and that's part of the culture that I think we need to make sure that we >> ag I don't know about I mean we got a lot
of people around this table word smithing every sentence is probably not what we should be doing >> not what we should not >> we should be >> focusing on are there any big [clears throat and cough] I don't really like what this is opening
the door to or shutting the door on >> and focus on those types of issues as opposed to >> editing for grammar or >> preferred language. >> If I could just add, you know, I think
it's a where what we're our vision is is a sense of community, right? like this is this is a community of um homesteaders, a community of vacationers, a community of uh part-year residents, um
>> yeah, small businesses. And so to the extent we could somehow capture the sense of community and the memories that are created in that community, um I don't think it's just about what we're doing now because we're obviously rebuilding now and we certainly have an
opportunity now that we didn't have in 2020 with respect to tear downs and other things. But so to me it's a it's about community and I think there's a there's a chance there's a good chance we could still maintain that same community we had before. It feels like,
you know, we're kind of moving more towards a um a vacation spir I I don't want to say Disney, but a more more of a uh entertainment attraction uh island than maybe where we were before. But I
think we have to find a way to capture the essence of both because we are all and have been residents here. We all have you know memories here uh where we've been part of the community either as a vacationer or as a because the way you become a resident here is at some
point you are a vacationer. You are a visitor and you have to have an experience here that is and a sense of community to want to live here. >> Agreed. >> John, I I wholeheartedly agree with you. I think to go line by line and try to wordsmith this would be
counterproductive. we would be here for days to try to get through that. >> You know, the vision although very important, I don't know that it's as as important as the nuts and bolts as you get into this. Um I mean I have not ever seen one person come up and say, "Well, the vision says in any project that's
come forward, right? Usually it's 4A or you know gets down into the nuts and bolts." So I agree with your your sentiment that the word smithing I mean over the next two weeks if if people want to send in suggestions, we can certainly look at those. you know, if there's some edits that maybe you want as far as texting, we can look at those
and have that discussion on the first. But I think today, I agree, John, we should just focus on each element and what is in there, if there's issues with consequences or or try to get through what we think, try to see around the corner, if you will. >> Are we good to go ahead?
>> Yeah, I'd like to add Thank you, mayor. Um, I love the comments that you had. I think one thing we might add is the generations to come. You know, we want to continue this on and on. And if I may, I would uh like to make a swipe at this and send it on later. Just the high
level vision that the folks >> Great. >> Thank you. Um how about how about we take some public comment on section one on the um future land use map >> on section two? You mean >> on section two? Well, they could include section one, two, if they want, but that
might be an easier way to start. That >> sounds good. >> Doug, did you want to say anything? >> Uh, no, ma'am. It's all well said. >> It's nice to see you. >> Nothing to add. Hope you can hear me. Okay, >> we can hear you just fine. How about
you, Jim? >> Not at this time. Thank you, Anita. >> It's nice to nice to not see you there, but uh to hear your voice. [laughter] >> Good morning. >> Good morning. Um, okay. Public comment on future land use element or the vision.
Bill, >> thanks everybody. Um, yeah, there's there's a like we talked about a lot of grammatical things I think is important to clear up though. Some things are like um the the 1978 coastal construction line is called three or four different things throughout the document. If it's a legal document, the legal term should
be consistent throughout. And there's there's a few examples of that. Um there's some things that make substantive changes and I'll just kind of concentrate on on those. Um one thing I'm going to curious about is they they call it non-residential F. The implication seems to be the commercial space does not contribute to F. Um that
would be I just be interesting to clarify that. Um there's also one line I let's go from um an FLU um A3. It says a town um should protect residential neighborhoods from intrusive commercial activities.
They went from shall to should, which is a softer term. I'm not quite sure is that is that a policy to say that we're allowing some commercial intrusion into residential neighborhoods. Um there is some some in specific areas like an FLU I'm sorry jumping around a little bit
FLU1 um B2 uh it says encroachment into the adjacent lowdensity residential neighborhood should be prohibited. It's only in that one zone where they make that strong of a statement. >> Um there was there was a section about
how uh in 4B1 where it said that overbuilding what the town town is overbuilt and we have to be conscious of that. That was removed entirely. Um let me see. It's it's like you said it's a big section. probably most of the changes
are in this one section in um FLU-1-C4. Uh there's a change and this happens in a few different places where it changes um from two to three fours above flood throughout the different areas. Now this seems to me one of the one I remember one of the the first directions we gave
to the group when they came was that we don't want to have any more density or height by right from changes to the comprehensive plan. It seems to me that changing this, even if it's done in the uh for the sake of consistency with the different um with the different um
sterile commercial zones, I think that it it seems clearly to be an expansion of um of floors and density. Uh the the other thing I thought was really interesting and I'm I think it's it's a it can be positive, but I think it's got to be maybe hashed out a little
more is the uh the ADU, the accessor accessory dwelling unit. that's FLU-1 C-7 just basically says that they're 0.5 density units without any kind of definition or conditions later on in other parts of the document they start talking about those conditions um but
it's not in this section and that to me seems a little vague because there's no it doesn't say are there limitations on uses on sizes or any of that kind of thing and I think with that my three minutes are up >> thank you Bill >> thank you >> anyone else Terry
>> it's your lucky day I [clears throat] minutes. I didn't bring all my notes with me. >> Good morning, Terry Kane. For the record, >> I want to thank you all for having this meeting. First off, I want to thank the council, LPA, and the staff for going
through this yet again. So, thank you very much for that. I appreciate it. And I think everyone does appreciate that. Some areas of the comprehensive plan are great. FLU is one that you're going to find I think we need the most meat. Like I said, I only picked out my top few because I knew I land a few minutes. So,
just like what Bill just said, FLU1- C-4 building height. Again, they deleted or whatever you want to call scratched out the twotory height and added the threetory height throughout the plan. It's throughout. And I think it should remain the twotory. This is just not my
ideas. This was 63% of the population that just voted because it wasn't a popularity contest. It was a policy um recall that we had um on FLU1-B1 map adoption. When you look at our FLU
map, you will see that there is a recreation area and we no longer have I guess we didn't have before. I was trying to go back and forth an environmentally critical area. usually um Boutage Point, the beaches, Little Eststerero Island were environmental
critical zones at least for um and so I think we need a future land land use map that has envir environmentally critical areas for preserves, reserves, and beaches. Um the recreation layer takes a layer of protection off of those
wildlife areas. FLU1-B2H-10 wetlands. I have a question here. Why is a density attached to wetlands in a conservation area? I don't understand that. Um, as you get to know me, I'm all about the environment. Um, and I think, let's see, there are all the FLUs I
brought with me today. Um, there are many more. As we said, if you go through this this section, it's um pretty intense. I'm sorry I didn't bring my other notes with me. So, um, please review it again. And I thank you very much for doing this. Really appreciate it. Really do. >> Thank you, Terry.
Anyone else? >> No one else. Okay. Thank you, >> Sonia. I think um as everybody I think understands, this is probably going to be the most discussed one out of all of it. >> Maybe we go each policy one by one to make sure
>> we we get it as close as we can as far as what everybody's vision or what issues they see. It's going to take a little bit of time, but I think this one in particular is probably the most important that we spend the most time on. um because it does have the biggest implications.
>> You okay with that, Eddie and Jason? Okay, let's start with the uh the first one, the objective for FLU1A small town character. Are there any major issues that anyone has with that that they'd like to discuss? >> I'll let you get back to the
>> Yeah, >> you're right. Jim, out out there in TV land, you'll you will uh you can't see it or maybe you can see it, but I have I have uh I I've gone down the Adderhole Forest path because my battery is dying on my
computer. So, [laughter] we're you're here in spirit, my friend. >> The outer hole forest. >> So, he always he agendas. >> Yeah, he likes the paper. >> Um I think that m >> Thank you. the statement maintaining the
small town character is important to folks. Um it of course that that definition becomes relative as the community changes but um I think the feel will remain >> okay >> you know there was a question someone
sent me about if I could just well maybe it's not never mind never mind >> well if it comes to you we can always come >> thanks >> revert back to it all right then we'll move on to uh policy [clears throat] FLU181 one uh there was one line that
was was scratched out, but everything else was added. Does anyone have any major changes to that or any issues with that section? >> Um uh Jim asked me a question earlier. It says Villa Santini. Uh that's Santini Marina Plaza currently. It's had a lot
of incarnations [clears throat] namewise. And I just wonder if we shouldn't identify it the same all the way through the plan because currently it's called Santini Marina Plaza. >> Okay. Um we can make that. Yeah, it it generally doesn't matter. But if you
want to make it sens, what whatever you want to name it, that that's a very easy change right there. I would just, you know, go ahead and name it the way you would like to name it. >> What do you think, Jim? You brought that up earlier. >> I I think just it should be consistent. It should be correct.
>> Consistently correct. I agree. >> So, what it should be what should be called now? >> What is it? What's it currently called now? It's called Santini Marina Plaza. >> Okay. >> I don't have any issues with keeping it
that. Does anyone have any? >> No. >> Okay. Anything else in that section? All right. Policy FLU1 A2. Any major comments to the added verbiage in that?
>> No. >> Okay, we'll move on to policy FLU1A3. >> Any comments on that? >> This is this is one of those locations where the where sha um sha was changed to should. Don't know if it matters here
that much. Um but you know protecting residential neighborhoods uh from intrusive commercial activities was the mantra of the incorporation of this town. >> So you know I would heir back to we
shall protect residential neighborhoods because should is like well if you feel like it >> Nancy and quite frankly there were nothing that weak. >> This is Doug Eman. You could even say the town will protect residential laboratories. >> Yeah. >> Or will. >> Go ahead, Eddie.
>> Yeah. This what uh to be quite frank, this was something that was provided to us against staff advice that direction. So, uh originally my advice would remain shall instead of should. In this case, >> we were told to change it.
>> Would we want to go back to it? >> We're good either way. I will help you with this. But that what worded based on destruction I received and counted to staff advice >> legally which is what's a better word or stronger word I guess that
>> well if shall was the original language that was there >> yeah then we recommend again changing it >> we would be making it more permissive or more interpretive um easier if if we use should
>> remain shall >> yeah okay >> and and it was shall initially. So, we're not making it by this change, >> just we all know about SP 180, right? >> So, we're not making it more restrictive or overly burdensome because it was
existing language that was in our code. >> Yep. >> I think that's a very important point to say I find the word should kind of ambiguous, >> right? So could we just say across the entire document if it was shall keep it
shall because you rais a good point Nancy if you go to should and it's more if it's you're never going to go back >> correct >> you're never going to be able to go back the other way. We would from our end double check for you on if that's the
general direction we can change everything back to shall with the exception of where you may have rules that are loosening up and create internal conflict. So after we render these rules, we will you know uh uh uh specifically we would probably just go
back and say change everything to shall except where you say should is where staff has done the review and said hey you might not want shall because you introduced this other policy and now you're creating internal conflict which you don't want to do. So that would be that would be uh my suggestion there.
>> Do you off the top of your head Eddie know a a a particular example of that? Because I'm trying to think of what that would be. Well, uh, not off the top of my head, but for example, one that might come up would be if you decide to keep a regulation that allows you to build on the second floor and then you actually
have a shell that shall be a freeboard of 3 ft. Those are mutually incompatible because shall at 3 ft doesn't really give you that 10 ft for the second floor that we're aspiring to and with the public had mentioned in their uh, you know, in those workshops. >> I see what you're saying. Okay.
>> So, we have to tread carefully on some of those. So then it goes on and I think is important as shall and should here the end of the sentence that no non zero of any kind negative impacts on adjoining properties result.
>> Yeah. So who puts what that through what filter including a shadow all the way to >> pick your no. >> That one's more dangerous to me or more challenging to me than the should and shall >> because it's a >> because there is it's absolutely clear and that case can be made born against
in every single circumstance. >> No way to define it. >> Sounds like a public benefit, huh? >> Not defined. >> Yeah, it it sounds it sounds like a it sounds like a lawsuit is what it sounds like. >> That's what it is. Yeah, >> that's what it sounds. >> It's the eye beholder thing. And that's where it gets dangerous some money.
>> What do you [clears throat] think about that, Eddie? Do you know what he's do you know what Jim's saying? The last sentence in um in 1 A3, these regulations should incorporate criteria for determining compatible home occupation uses and standards to ascertain that no negative impacts on
adjoining properties result. What are the those negative impacts? I think that is complicated. I didn't highlight that, but it's a good point. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I would defer to the city attorneys uh on more on the legal implications. I would say that from a
planning perspective based on what you have in your land development regulations, it's no different to criteria. You know, you you currently review uh it's pretty standard text. Um >> you should I don't like that answer at all. >> Right. So um the fact you can you can
take it or leave it on this one honestly. But yeah, from a legal standpoint, [clears throat] I defer to the attorney's office. >> Are we losing anything if we remove the sentence? What part of this do we have to have >> or at least the last half of it that has that >> and standards to ascertain that no
negative impact has to be if we're going to operate and then the dialogue becomes real. I think it becomes pertinent to the moment situation project >> and not a blanket statement where we could have >> challenges endlessly. >> Well, you have to define it. It's just that simple. >> You'd have to define it.
>> You have to define it. >> There you go. >> Perhaps >> height of 30 feet or a color of >> blue, purple, or pink, you know. I mean, [snorts] >> oh, not to not not to say anything about purple, Mike. >> Um, >> his house is purple. [laughter] >> Oh. Uh,
>> so, >> madam chair, if I may. Sorry. >> Go ahead. Well, I was going to say that if you want to minimize um you could say and standards to ascertional >> uh to minimize impacts on adjoining property results. If you use something
like that, it puts it back into the discretion of the LPA as far as your >> [snorts] >> uh deliberations and then ultimately the town council as opposed to saying no negative impacts. I [snorts] mean, that might be a language. Yeah, I think the
attorney were on on similar pages what I was about to suggest was to um uh uh um home and standard to mitigate impact of uh of the proposed use or development would be one way to think about it
because that way it gives you an angle to say >> you know there are going to be impact if there's anything negative you're going to be able to mitigate and point to that from a LPA and council standpoint. What what about recognize Nancy? In
other words, that that gives no >> quantification, but just recognizing impacts or >> and and that that's fine as well. And again, you know, your >> your comp plan I was good. Um your comp
plan is more of the as Jim would say, the 30,000 look down. Um the more detail you have in your comp plan, the more difficult it is to actually implement it. >> It is easier statements.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I would note that because you already have the word for determining at the beginning of that you are already recognizing that it's there because you're using criteria to determine therefore that the criteria to determine it's intended to recognize that this is
you know it's part of your review process so that you know you want to change that that's where that change would be instead of determining it would be to recognize but determining if they're you know you have here determine exactly stronger language than just recognizing
that they're there cuz you're running through a kind of like a checklist and like professional based professionally based review from staff to provide the advice to the LPA at the council in that point. >> What was the reaction to Dan's recommendation of removing the last half
of the sentence? >> Well, the reason I I bring that up is because you know it's it's talks specifically about home occupations. Well, is an Airbnb be considered a home occupation? And and is you having a swimming pool that people enjoy till 11 o'clock? Is that a
negative impact on the neighbors? I [clears throat] mean, >> it it's a lot of open-endedness here that could cause a lot of conflict between neighbors >> based on just the >> what what exactly is a home occupation use >> and incompatible home? it that is always
determined in your code like in terms of your zoning code the uses that are listed in your code you want to keep it broad and then determine in your code because these uses may change new uses may occur that's why I generally
recommend you going overly prescriptive uh on what compatible and harmation uses are because it's applied code of ordinances implied zoning where that really should matter Yeah, I go back to just you can almost end it at the end of uses. I mean it's
>> Yeah, but >> but nature takes its course with the process we have in place >> because yeah, then you then it reverts it back to the land development code and the termination gets made there. >> Sorry. >> May I ask a question in relation to this whole topic? So, what I'm hearing from
residents is what happened or what will happen to what has been designated in the past the quiet zone part of Fort Myers Beach. I'm hearing a lot of uproar about that specifically for people who moved from other areas of the beach to
the quiet zone >> to have that. >> Well, I think we'll get into that as we go further along into the future land use muse elements. I think that's going to be a pretty big topic that will arise. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Uh, mayor if I may uh to council member uh link question this
where compatible is your key word to link to in your comprehensive plan and then determine in your code. If you want to preserve a quiet zone then you as a council have to have the discretion there to judge on the face of compatibility. You have to enable your
ability to judge on faith of the compatibility by putting that word compatible within your comprehensive plan at the binding cross aspect for which you are making your termination. How you determine how you how is it
compatible or not? It's applied in the code, but you need the basis for to judge that in the first place that this we have the authority to say that it's compatible or not compatible at the uh LPA and council >> and that's where that thought process comes from. >> Thank you for helping me through this learning curve.
>> Y >> So Nancy, are you comfortable with being able to end it at the end of uses or do you think it needs to be more in depth? >> Um no, I think it's fine. I think it's fine to to end it there because your LDRs will bring up
>> um the standards. >> I support that. >> Yep. I do too. >> Anyone >> have any Okay, you got that change, Eddie? >> Um if I could just make sure I am getting it right. Just like you know when you had we went through an hour of
work meeting with the vision in June. They're done with it verbatim in here. I want to sure because we're in such a time tight timeline that we want to make sure we get that right. Um, so these regulations should incorporate criteria for determining compatible home
occupation uses and >> yeah. All right. [laughter] >> Can we help you with that? >> No. And >> yes, no. And okay, that lot more clear. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah. >> See, that's why I'm like running. That's
great. >> That's good. >> All right. Anything else? We'll move on to the next one. >> All right. Next is FLU184. Discussions on the changes proposed there. >> Seems pretty straightforward. >> No issues.
>> No. >> All right. We'll move on to FLU185. >> Any questions or comments on that one? Do we have any areas where parking garages are going to be built that could be built? >> Well, remember this is aspirational future. >> Well, I think I think this is where the
land development code then comes in. We have things in our land development code that are preventing the building of parking garages that we're going to have to address after this is done. Am I correct in saying that? >> It's going to be fun, too. >> Well, yes. Buffers and all that kind of stuff that are in the land development code right now that are restricting the
building pretty much of of any parking structure. I'd say we are doing that where we're putting a parking structure in the flood area right underneath of a building. There's a couple across the street here, right, that were built >> technically. Yeah. I'm just talking about just a specific parking garage. I think that's what
>> as a standalone. >> I think that's what this >> seems aspirational. >> It is. Well, >> quite >> all right. Then we'll move on to FLU1 A5. >> No, I already did. I just did that one.
Sorry. Six. 1 A6. Any questions or comments on that? >> Nope. >> You want to get a copy? >> No. All right. >> Because this is this is talking about protection of the shore birds and the shoreline wetlands
>> and and we have shell. Yes. Right. >> This is where uh we would from staff standpoint encourage you to make the change because it's the it's the basis by which you're going to hook on to when you have accretion when you have those new dunes
when you have to look at the fact that you have split parcel and then can do and do an overlay perhaps in your zoning for where you have that conservation that edges uh along the residential areas. That's a major concern from where we were from staff standpoint evaluating
your comprehensive plan because you have split parcels and those are very split zoning and split land uses and those are from a more legal standpoint very difficult to administer. So this creates one of the first to talk in there and say you're going to preserve those but
you have to determine your code how part of the code and how you do how then at that point is it say you know what I have a property that the very edge of it should be conservation but I can't with zoning because I'm not planning this park to a certain way. So, I need to
redone and put an overlay onto those properties a different way in order to protect that uh conservation uh uh aspect. That the kind of the beginning of that that you need in there. >> Okay. Any other comments?
>> No. >> All right. 1 A7. Nothing changed in that. I assume no one has any issues with that one. >> No. >> FLU18. That's a whole new added section. Are there any comments or suggestions on that one? >> No.
>> Uh, one thing it doesn't specifically call out is the fact perhaps doing the barrier the >> Yeah, >> I think that's Yeah, I think it's pilot programs to adapt sea level rise and storm surges. I don't know if that would if we need to be specific to a wave mitigation
>> the way it is, but it's it's such a big topic of conversation. >> Yeah, I think this covers that whole idea of trying to Anything else? >> No. >> All right. FLU 1 A9. No changes to that. I assume no one has any issues with that
one. Uh 1 A10. Just a couple of minor changes. Um anybody have any issues with that? The changes there is one section that was added at the end. [clears throat] The rest of it looks like it's just
>> text amendments. >> It It's to ensure consistency with the other portions of your comprehensive plan that wasn't there before regarding concurrency. It needs to be in your future land use for that to be active. Um, >> okay. And we'll move on.
Uh, most of that was crossed out with the the basically you're just condensing the wording is what it looks like to me. There's not a huge >> huge change in what you can or cannot do there. Right. >> Yes. There's no really effective change
in this regard. It's just it's extremely wordy and cumbersome to read through that several times and we're like there's an easier way to state this. >> All right. Then we'll move on to FLU1 A12. It looks like you just got rid of the duplication. >> Yes. >> Of the of what moved it up,
>> right? Not not I know we didn't want to go into grammar, but it should be provide not provides. >> Might as well. over right here. >> Well, if you see something, you might as well throw it out. >> Just flag it and we can we can bring it
back. >> So, just a question if I may for the expert. These next couple three started a process of calling out the LDC as the governing doc for specific details. Is there a reason that fits there and is
not implicit in everything we're doing throughout the comp plan in this particular section? Why does land development code have to be called out as being the governing dock on that if it isn't called out the other sections? >> I'm not sure if I understand your question. >> See how land development codes shall
provide detailed regulations that distinguish etc. >> Right. >> Why is that in the comprehensive plan? >> Um well that's on your original text and the I just also noted the grammar from your original text that we didn't take
out that F there. Uh normally it's it it's there to just provide guidance that you you need to it's a specific issue that you need to address within your land development code. Not that it's the only issue but in some it's just putting extra emphasis from the original text.
So your original text that you you know >> long as it belongs there not other places. >> To me I I read it as though there was nothing in there before >> that referred because there was always when it came to heights and those kind of things people didn't understand that it was the land development code that dictates that not the comp plan.
So that's how I read this is this was just >> added language to let people know where they need to go to find that information >> specific to this type of use. uh hotels and motel are transient residential they usually fall under a special category and including how it's defined under
state statutes as well at sometimes with some preemptive aspect for example uh you know you see aspect of vacation rental being preempted you see other aspect of house defining state uh uh uh statute because this type of land use is regulated differently in statute with
the physic definition it also behooves most communities too kind of think about that separately within their code and put that in the call it out as well. >> Thank you. >> But that's a that's from a structural standpoint from your original comprehensive plan to carry it forward.
>> Uh this is Doug Eman. I've got just one comment. Um if I may, not the word smith again, but I would say the land development code shall provide regulations that distinguish. I don't think the word detailed is useful or
helpful there. Um the fact that you're providing regulations [clears throat] that distinguish hotels and motel from residential uses and other types of lodge and I think more direct way >> detailed sort of
>> how you know was it detailed or not detailed you know ambiguity [clears throat] >> without that distinction you're regulating met transate residential so no different than Airbnbs and so forth and clearly they are different within your code right now so if you choose take that out that's perfectly okay but
you also have to amend your code accordingly to make everything transient residential whether it's hotels or whatnot >> so that the distinction that you have in there specific for that reason >> makes sense >> can I just make a general comment and and I am trying to I mean I I have a
planning background so I'm really being reserved here um your current um land development code does have a section and it's section 34-91 one, which gives the town council the authority to interpret
sections of the comp plan that might have some ambiguity in them. Um, and that interpretation would then basically be we would my recommendation is that we codify it in the form of an ordinance and then when your plan is amended
subsequently, that interpretation gets rolled into it. If there's a intent to change that interpretation, then the comp plan does need to be amended. So, as we're going through this, if there are some ambiguities,
it might be okay to leave them in there to get through this process because if it does become an issue, we could under that section of your LDR come back and [snorts] ask, you know, LPA, what do you think this means? Council, what do you think this means? So that process and
mechanism is in place. So if we don't get it perfect, >> it flexibility. Yes. >> Eddie, what do you think of that? You kind of nodded [clears throat] like Yes. >> Yes. Um what the state attorney is saying is correct. I would posit one caveat to that. The caveat that I
provide towards my client is this consistency of of findings. So yes, you are subject to interpretation. But if you had one type of finding and you're finding the fact for one property
and you do not for good reason do that for another property then you run into issues down the line as a community where someone can come back and say why did you interpret this differently for us without valid the proper reason. So
there's a balance here, right? When it comes to the ambiguity, there is an aspect where you get to a certain point where it's categorical and there may be still some ambiguity within those categorical aspects. Sometimes that's clarified by state law
as we saw in the recent passage of uh 1730 with the live local act update where the state came in and clearly defined what commercial and industrial meant as far as live local act and other areas then it's subject to your interpretation. But ultimately it comes back to uh uh if you are being
consistent in your application of your code and equally so among the different applicants. [snorts] >> And and I agree with that um because my my comment was that when an interpretation is is made if it gets to that level then it would be codified in
an ordinance and so the ordinance then would have to be applied equally and not in any type of arbitrary or discriminatory manner. So we're on the same >> Yeah, we are. Like attorney's absolutely right. >> Would you say John James? I'm sorry. >> I said it also sets precedent. You
interpret ambiguity in a certain way. >> Then the next guy comes along and said, "Hey, you already did this. What's why am I different?" >> Right? >> Because each property is different. >> But precedent is necessarily based on
the property. It's on the interpretation of how it was applied. >> Okay. Okay. And [clears throat] this cost that the city attorney is always it is also important for any community as well particularly in a community like ours here which is rebuilding you know
notwithstanding the fact that technology is changing and different uses come into play you know life changes right um in 5 years there may be something new that comes along but you also have a certain level of potential reinvestment community and might someone might come
up with this cool idea or the idea that you want to be able to evaluate on your own terms. So some guide posts are important, some ambiguity there is also important with the ability under your code to continue to make those interpretation that makes fit.
>> So you need you need the flexibility >> a bit in the comp plan um instead of being really really precise and I think that was kind of a comment made as well. The other thing um I want to just put out there so everybody keeps it in mind um and then I'll try to be reserved a
bit. Um this will come back to council on Monday. Uh today is Tuesday and we have a holiday. Um so staff will be working very very quickly in order to perhaps have a list of all these changes so that it could be reviewed on Monday.
The agenda for Monday has already gone out with >> this document. We would know from an administrative standpoint the people who are formatting this are on Thanksgiving leave right now. I actually cancelled my leave to be here today. Um you know I
appreciate you all in your trust and confidence over the over the years. Um >> but you know what we would have to do as a matter of record during the public hearing and the changes that we have today we would have to up you would have to approve and because it's always
published. That's the other important aspect that the city attorney pointed out. we would have to approve with the prescribed amendment [clears throat] listed. >> Um we will run through and make griveners that as needed for the final thing but it's actually the content that's important here and those specific
procedures that we have to follow on Monday based on the changes that you want today. >> All right, >> carry on. >> Good to move on from that. Yes. I'm sorry. As a newbie, I have another question and I don't know if it's the appropriate time, but >> thinking aspirationally, I'm not sure
the acronym begins with a C, but the discount we get for based on how resilient we are. Does any of that impact our vision in the comp plan or would that all be in the LDC? So, if we want to strive for 25%, we do these
things. If we want to strive for 50%, we do these things. Would they have to be included in the comprehensive plan or not? >> Oh, it's a good question. I get he probably would be able to answer that the best. I my my initially it would be [clears throat] that no, it doesn't have to be that the land development code
would cover that, but I could be wrong. >> It goes both ways. Um sometimes folk put it in the comprehensive plan because they want to be stringent about it and have maximum cap. uh if you want to live amid you can come out with some exceptions like there are some things
that are required in the statutes um so in those cases you know I wouldn't recommend that but in >> other I I've always found at least my opinion this >> the more options that you have and you know this if you get too strict as has been said you really are hamstringing
yourself to options or potential options down the road and that's why you have the back stop of the land development code >> to be able to do those types of things in >> so if in the next 20 years. We wanted to be more stringent. We wouldn't be limited because it was missing here.
>> Yeah. You would just adjust the land. Correct. >> Thank you for that. I'm certain I don't want to >> Eddie. He's got it in there because I remember reading you've got some very general language related to your policy concern that you've raised. Um, and then
the other thing I would just put out there is you do have a strategic planning session that's coming up and that is somewhat the implementation perhaps of some of the things that are in the land use arena. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> And I think there's also an inventory of
items that go into the calculus of that discount that we can put as strict as we want in here. If we can't physically through parks and other things meet the criteria, right, >> you could kill yourself trying to get there and get no impact. So, >> well, and I think you just give more ammunition to the interpretation of the
federal government >> how they could things, >> right? >> We're already at whatever we can do without >> putting another section of land on and having a park. So, >> why bind oursel to something we can't achieve and give them more restrictions
on us, right? >> Oh, [laughter] >> thank you. That's very helpful for me. >> All right. If there's we'll move on to the next one. This one's pretty straightforward. Uh 13 is just Anybody have any issues with 13? That seems pretty straightforward. >> Get it done.
>> All right. Next one is uh 1 A14. The only comments I have on this one is to me this this reads as though it's telling us we have to basically come up with some sort of not necessarily point system, but something that provides an incentive for development by through an
ordinance. To me, that takes that takes away flexibility. >> I disagree. Uh, mayor, here's why. There's all this ordinances that you will evaluate and adopt as appropriate. If you do not find that public benefit
ordinance are appropriate for your community, you do not have to adopt it. The key there is as appropriate there. However, this product is in there because for the past four years, you've had me come before you [laughter] no less than eight times to talk about
public benefits ordinance as you have had Sarah when you still here and Jason on staff. So, because there's no conclusion, but we want to keep the door open to you being able to adopt one in the future. That's why I said you'll evaluate, but it doesn't require you to adopt one if you don't find it
appropriate. >> Eight times. Really? I thought it was probably more >> deli day times. It probably to do a dozen. >> We had a lot of extra meetings that were not on a scope. >> I I I mean, I'm not going to die in the vine in this one either, but to me it
just seems that it's it's it's opening a door that you're not going to be able to close later, >> Mayor. >> It's the word will. >> What's that? [clears throat] >> It's the word will that's there. >> My my my concern is back to Senate Bill 180. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Is maybe not this council, maybe not the next council, maybe the next council decides that they want to put in a point system for or an ordinance that allows. Now, you can't undo that. >> You you can't take that away. So, although this says as appropriate, once it's there, you're not going to be able to take it back.
>> But you would, Dan, because it was appro because it would be an ordinance and an ordinance is legislative in nature it. So, you could uncreate the ordinance. How about the mayor? >> Put it. >> You can make it less >> mayor. If if I make a suggestion to help
move it along, >> how about rule of that a may adopt appropriate and that way it can be done. >> I mean I I I would say given the conversations you've all had so far, you have always been continuously evaluating
this for the last five years. Um, and you can probably continue to do so long after I'm gone. Um, so I don't think having that policy or not, you guys are still going to have that discussion. May adopt doesn't constrain you to actually having to adopt, but if you find that
it's in your best interest at some point, you're not procluded. >> I I don't know if that solves my concerns, but I get what you're saying. Again, I just see once you once you if someone may down the road enact an ordinance that says if you build a 200
square foot bathroom on the roof will allow you to go for five stories taller. I'm just using crazy things at other. >> They may decide to do that 10 years from now, but once it's there now precedent's going to set that everybody's going to say, "Well, I can now do this to get this." And maybe that's not what the
vision will be 10 years or 20 years from now. To me, this just leaves an un unintended consequences that could come down the road. >> If a developer can find a way to do something to get something, they'll do it. So >> to me, this provides another avenue, not necessarily just for development, but
for developers, but residential homes, I could see how this could >> run through a public benefits ordinance for another community or part of an overlay. I can tell you that optins are not as binding as giving something by right because you still retain that
discretion. And that's why we didn't, you know, put things with public benefit by right that as originally and we pushed back from that standpoint from the conversations about 3 years ago because you shouldn't be giving public benefits by right. They should be
malleable and based on community need as they evolve and also as market circumstances dictate because they are discretionary in nature and opt in. you're not taking anything away by
changing the guide post on a public benefit program so long as you don't make it retroactive to the one you already granted. Um, so that's the caveat there. So if you grant it and you have an ordinance and someone comes in
and you grant them that exchange and public benefits ordinance, you can't actively hammer them. You can still change it afterwards based on your parameters. It's just that you know those we already granted are still you know inactive or are active and then the ones moving forward we subject to the
new rules >> but that you know where that comes in it it it's not the same as something by right >> sounds like we'll disagree on this mayor but I personally think that >> I like the pressure that comes with definitions
and clear communication on that I think there ought to be more pressure on us to put some uh criteria around public benefits you know I've authored documents that others have on that. So having this in there as a reminder that we have an obligation at least to attempt or to keep the conversation
um alive. I personally like that in our >> Yeah, it's a fair point. No, I think that's a fair point. I'm not against coming up with ideas. I just want to make sure that once an idea is come up with does it then bind the town to not be able to take that right away from someone? If I come in and I offer a public benefit that be now ends up in an
ordinance. Now, if I try to take that away and developer C comes along and says, "Wait a minute. You had it here. Now you've taken it away. You've restricted my ability to build what they had because you've now taken away the right that you gave them." >> But the context, that's my concern. >> The context may be um that whole part of
the island or that situational >> uh environment. We need what we need to make that happen or nothing for the rest of us is going to happen. >> So that may not be consistent with the second, third or fourth request. I think the flexibility is inherent in the in the in the power of the count town
council in my mind. >> Mayor, I want to be really clear for the LPA and the council any public benefit or you do never term it as something you're giving by. Right. >> Right. >> It is an optin and is within your
council and your LPA discretion. It is discretion. I cannot stress that enough as a staff member that a critical piece of advice on how you term it in a meeting. Um you know I'll be gone at some point but hopefully you continue to
have staff who will remind you that you have >> you [laughter] but you know um but that would be my advice. It's never by right. >> Well it's always by contract right? We have a development agreement and so there's a legally binding contract and
only in that contract would that be allowed. In other words, would the ordinance be >> utilized? >> Yeah. In that case, what it does when you have the type of ordinance like the one I just had to do a couple months back, it it provides the terminal parameters so that you can
use that as guide post or you can say and have you know an easy to to determine when someone comes in. Now they can still offer something else you know [snorts] and then as it is when your discretion as a uh at the council and the LPA to review those with due
diligence that you [clears throat] do with all your other projects. >> Changing the word shall to may would make this so that it's more permissive in nature and not >> obligation. Good point. So, but the the
word public benefits I think later on needs to be defined as a policy statement somewhere. >> Absolutely. >> And it is not the word public benefits through this document needs to have some teeth put into it.
>> Right. Agreed. If I may interject one thing, the town had the town had gone through this a few years ago with public benefit and staff going through its first development agreement and we're struggling uh in negotiations of what is a public benefit.
>> Staff should never be put in that position. >> You know, as policy interpreters, the [clears throat] LPA and >> here we are with development agreements. That's exactly what you're doing. >> But it is, but it puts you in a very precarious spot because the suggestive part of it we can come up and we can
make that suggestion but it may not fit the parameter or the policy which you're wanting to enact by granting that >> I want to give if you indulge me for a couple of decades a story that um from when I was community development
director I sat up there and we had a development come in and a council member one of the commissioners there's a commission there asked oh what what are you going to give us for our library It was an illegal act from the deas
because they had no backing for it. We had no public benefits ordinance and it was seen as coercive. >> The developer that we'll give you 40,000 and then turn around came to my office and said while we were coercing it
during the public hearing. We had another instance where we had the same thing with the rightway. Guess what? that community that had to give back $500,000 of money because it was an illegal act from the deas. These guide books are
important because unless you tie certain things into concurrency or the public benefit, they may be seen as a legal act when it's asked from the day during the public hearing. >> Very important to remember. >> Very good. All right. Like I said, I'm not going to die on the vine over this.
I just I I'm just trying to look around the corner and see that there's going to be some unintended consequences from this part of this comp plan and and we'll have to address those as they come up. But >> do you make a very valid point to update the language to May? >> May my comment.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm fine with that. >> Did you may instead of shall >> so the town may I think that I had suggested may adopt as appropriate instead of child appropriate. Yes. So you will evaluate >> but you may adopt >> there you go
>> as appropriate could be criteria >> um general criteria that could be applicable >> that's much better >> I will evaluate and may adopt >> with [snorts] criteria >> as [clears throat] appropriate is fine that's how I'm interpreting your as
appropriate >> okay >> wanted to make sure >> yes that is >> but look how much >> maybe I need to stop putting question marks behind these is direct. >> All right. Are there any other You got that change, Eddie? >> Uh, yes, sir. I think >> Okay. Any other think we beat that one
to >> nothing left. >> Okay. FL L FLU1A15 variation regulations. Anyone have any heartburn over those? >> I like that. >> No, I think it's good, too. All right. Uh 1 A16 small lots.
>> Any heartburn over any of that? [clears throat] >> Okay. Gentlemen on the screen, you got any issues, just jump in. Otherwise, we're going to just keep moving. Uh 1.
>> Okay. 1 A7 Community Development. >> No major changes there. Just looks like they added a couple words and enhances the >> Yep. [cough] [clears throat] And we'll go back where there's um no title or so forth to make
it consistent. We had that in your prior comprehensive plan as well where some things were labeled and some things were not. Um you know in response to also the public comments we you know we as I was running through it as he was saying I was like oh yeah there are some things in your original comprehensive plan that
were internally inconsistent as well like cultural construction line wasn't capitalized with C in some areas but they were capitalized in other areas. That's part of the original plan that you have. So we will try our best to catch those grammatical and typo issue from your original plan as well.
>> Thank you. >> All right. So the next one, the entire thing got crossed out. Eddie, you just want to give us a quick brief overview of what you did there. If you put it in other areas so that people understand why that entire section >> Oh, this one has come full circle in the five years. Um or if you recall at the
beginning when we were first [laughter] tired we're told to uh really push the envelope and we gave these different much higher densities. Then we were given the instructions and we've held then to just maintain your existing
densities which is what we have done. The main difference being while maintaining your density, trying to open up your land uses a little bit more with different nodes across the island that will more equally distributed to deal
with your traffic issues because you have a oneway road. And these the land use overall then provide for the mixeduse district that are really just concentrated along a third boulevard at very specific points that [clears throat] we discussed.
uh in I think about five meetings over the last uh yesh a year and a half as well as in the three public additional workshop that the council funded over this past year. We we brought those maps to the public as well uh at the um music
festival at the opening library and then and a third workshop where we tried to have a shared process and I bought about $1,500 of language up to the third floor in case people wanted to you know play with that and we showed you those in pictures in the June meeting as well so that to try to get that community input
on where things should be distributed. Importantly, where the youth competition originally came to play was that back in 2020 2021, we're finding that folks who were trying to uh put new users in on the island that were services such as
the bank as my at the example that we keep going back to, they weren't able to do so because your land use code was not was too much too restricted. And so trying to opening that up then allow for that investment to occur a little bit
differently. Uh but you will do still provide for those restrictions where you can't have certain uses that are trying to come in. >> Thanks Eddie. >> Next is uh >> 1B1. That's essentially just the map
adoption. There's nothing nothing major there. >> I have a question on that one. >> I don't understand the last sentence. It says this map enhances the principles of this comprehensive plan by assigning one of nine eight categories. >> Yeah. Is that like a six?
>> Um, sorry. Council member Link, could you uh can you point to the incorrect >> policy flew one B1 map adoption >> one? >> The last sentence. >> Let's see. >> Assigning one of 98 C.
>> I believe we were trying that to be a strike through on the eight. that that was the formatting issue because they would uh >> with the different changes it changed from eight to nine categories in order to differentiate one. Uh that uh thank you for that
Eddie. We I think we all received an email where um a resident raised the question of encroachments into residential areas with the business nodes that are being uh suggested in the
land use map for the benefit of that person. Could you explain the process or how the residential neighborhoods would be protected or [snorts] buffered from a a business node? >> Right.
>> Originally, when we had gone through for the node, we actually had a much more expansive area >> uh that included some changes to the medium, residential, and so forth based on the direction at the time. After meeting with the LPA and the council in
a joint meeting, we're instructed to scale those back and the instructions would scale back to what was currently a pedestrian commercial or other similar categories where those uses would already have been in place in order to
protect against the intrusion. In that sense, the mixed use districts that you see were aligned with things there, you know, district that were [clears throat] designed with that in mind in the first place. So that's a pedestrian commercial that you currently have under your code.
Further when we went through and went with that you if you recall during the discussion about the uh the small arts uh miscu center which is actually where we are right now the LPA and the council felt that the air is too expansive and
at that time they actually asked us to remove a couple of properties uh from that designation and revert back to residential with that map had been changed accordingly because it wanted to provide for that. The last aspect of uh
intrusion prevention is by designating these areas for growth and for certain densities, you are helping protect those other neighborhoods because you're trying to corral that type of investment into these particular district that you've already assigned in your original
comprehensive plan. Just a little bit more loose in in in terms of what you can allow in those districts by changing the categories a bit. And Jim, I think we're going to get into that over the next eight >> right >> discussions >> that [laughter] that are coming through
here. >> All right. The 1B2. That's just the apply to the future land use. I don't know that anybody has any issues with that one sentence. This is where I think Eddie, you're going to get into the meat and potatoes of what everybody's had issues with if
I'm not mistaken. Uh the first one is U 1B2A low density residential. Any comments or concerns with that as it is laid out? Looks like they just changed one minor letter.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. We added a word right. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Yeah. That to make it clear. >> Next is uh 1B 2B medium residential. There were some crossouts and some adds to this. Anybody have any concerns with
this section? >> I just have a comment that we crossed out mobile home but we left RV parks. >> Yeah, remember that. >> I saw that >> the the mobile homes were crossed out but RV parks are left.
>> You wanted to cross out the RV park now too? >> Yeah. There's no [laughter] >> Yeah. No, I I I definitely agree, but I just need, you know, uh, you know, >> I wonder why everybody >> the most. Yes. >> Every house becomes one.
>> All right. That's good because it's consistent with where the state wants every community to go with reducing this over time. So, yeah. Period. Right. The fact is that true SB 180.
>> Yeah, [clears throat] right. Actually, now that you remind me, that is why I kept it in. I want to delete it. Anyway, um Jason brings a really good point. If you delete that, it might be considered more restrictive. >> Oh, >> SP 180 >> because we have it. I think we did have
that internal discussion that he joged my memory and >> I mean you can always remove it at a later date. [laughter] >> Yeah, >> but doesn't the FEMA code say you can't allow it? So, we're kind of being consistent with >> there you go. Well,
>> FEMA FEMA is highly uh they they don't want temporary structures like that on in flood zones and you know specifically we have established by ordinance some way some exceptions to that you know with people
people apply for uh the proper permit. So, I don't uh I mean I would Yeah, I understand what you're saying about SB180, >> right? And they're they're really two different things. The mobile home and RVs, the the mobile homes a challenge. You're not going to get many here. It's just the the way that you have to build
them and elevate them. It's not it's not practical. So, I think it's solves itself somewhat uh from that perspective. Um, RVs is a different conversation because it's typically RVs are typically in I know they don't want them to be used as housing, but RV [clears throat] parks are typically in
recreation and flood areas. I mean, that's they're all over the state. That's where >> I guess where where I'm where I'm confused, Jason, is you seem to be okay with crossing out mobile home but not RV parks. Wouldn't couldn't I make the same argument that you're saying, but crossing out mobile homes would be more restrictive?
>> Yeah. What my answer to you is I think what if you don't cross out mobile homes because we're concerned about 180, >> you're okay because you're not going to get more of them just because the logistics of having to build them there. I don't think it's a it's a housing type that's going to can afford to move here and be built because of how much they
have to be elevated. It solves itself. The >> I guess I'm with Jim on this. Go ahead. You want to call us to the M? >> Call us out. Yeah, >> I guess it's the risk of a challenge is is where you're coming from because of the likelihood of having mobile homes on the island is is not it's not feasible.
But the same is true for parks. This is RV parks, not just RVs. >> RVs on different. >> So to me, it's maybe we don't cross either of them because of the challenge or or you [clears throat] go all the way and cross mile out, I guess, >> and take the risk that somebody might
challenge it, but >> Eddie, what do you think? >> I don't think you cross either out to be on the safe side, and then when the time is appropriate, you can always go back and cross it out then. But I uh I just had another community that got there
>> that that really really going through an SB180 challenge and over a scrivener error no less. Um so it's been really difficult to work with >> on a barrier island Eddie. >> Um they have a barrier island uh uh uh but it you know they're both inland and
a barrier island. Okay. So uh but yeah it it's >> [snorts] >> uh >> well I I guess I see you're if you don't cross either them out they still have to meet flood plane regulations to be approved anyway. They do. That is correct. >> So then it's move >> and our parks are vehicles, right? So they're going to leave a storm. It's not
like we're not we're not promoting using that as a residential occupancy use. That's how >> Yeah. But the point is what if they don't? >> Well, we have codes and regulations that >> after three people's houses, right? >> I know. I won't die on it either.
>> It's a policy statement, >> not an ordinance. >> Yeah. >> Agree. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> Yeah. We're not. Yeah. So, uh, we agree that we're not going to cross either them out then and we'll keep opening them. Well, we're going to cross out the extra word. >> I don't know that we agree on that, but
but if that's your advice, that's your advice to leave them out there. >> I mean, I'm happy to do whatever you wish. It's just that if it comes down to it and the state challenges it, it, you know, you might have to enter in a lawsuit to pass that through, >> right? But it it's it's a risk
management as far as is it are we going to get have litigation? We might I mean we have litigation all the time about things that have really no basis. Um if you leave it in and nothing happens.
>> I I would say leave it in because then you got rid of that potential risk and you can deal with other risks that you might want to uh to take. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Keep them in. Eddie, anybody have any I mean we can go around the
room and ask everybody. I mean it >> there's a lot of whatifs here and >> but you are saying this is going to be an issue at the state level review if you take this out >> right so that's the >> meeting
all right we'll continue so the other thing that I that caught my eye was the where it says commercial activities are appropriate prim primarily along a sterile boulevard and are must be sensitive to demi residential uses. To
me, that's contradictory. You're saying that residential or commercial activities are appropriate, but then you're saying must be sensitive. >> Well, what's what's what is that? >> We're all sensitive. >> Yeah. >> And well, obviously the grammar seems a little off to me, too. >> And must be
>> and are must be sensitive. It could be >> I think that's a node issue. >> It is a node issue. It is a node issue issue. Yeah. The business [clears throat] zones nodes work for commercial along as sterile and we need to worry about the buffer
and the impact on the adjacent >> and the uses. I think what when you start defining those uses later on in here that there's some words that need to be changed I think but we'll get to that. >> So that's just a grammar thing I think we need to clean up. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um
>> we we'll uh drag out the word are uh and and go with must be >> um do you want to say and must be sensitive to impacts on nearby residential uses? Well, I I don't know if we would say commercial activities
may be appropriate primarily along instead of are I mean, you're just that to me that's saying [clears throat] if I'm if I'm coming into a mixed >> mixed medium residential area, I'm going to say, well, the comp plan says that my commercial use is
>> according to way I read this. >> Yes. as opposed to maybe. me. >> I would say that if you use maybe as opposed to are >> you have current uses along if there are
boulevard at the hotels and so forth that are on mix residential properties and the state may come in and say that because you changed the maybe instead of R, you may be restricting them and that might be similar to
>> Well, that'd be assuming that you wouldn't grant back the use that they had pre-storm. I don't >> no because it's um uh because they're currently allowed um and so the state might come back and issue a similar comment that this community say that this they wouldn't outright say that
this would be run about 180. They would say this may want to file 180 and they may have you know that they may have caused concern for it. They also may take a a notch higher and say hey you know we we think that this violates SB 180
>> but this this you added this this wasn't there before you added this. So if we put it in there then SB 180 comes comes issue right now this sentence is not in that realm of an issue. If you take that sentence out, you must restore the other sentence that the portion of the
sentence that is struck out did lower impact uses. >> It goes back to the issue that we spoke about about the limitations that we had with the bank and so forth that um that you were trying to cure as a uh council and LPA. Um so this was kind of the
middle ground here. >> If you take that out, you were not curing the issue that you brought up to us four years ago and have repeated. Couldn't you then just take lower impact commercial activities are instead of I mean commercial activities can be anything. I mean we want to build a steel factory. Go ahead. It says it's
appropriate. >> Well no because that >> excuse me. >> Well I think the sensitive aspect is to allow you that discretion to say what to what level of impact. Right. Okay. You say uh you know the sensitivity is low impact. But what if you have something
that uh uh uh uh um you know, you're changing the rules at some point? >> I mean, you're allowed to go either way. >> I see what you're saying. >> Um will write it the way you want to, but that would be my caution there is that you're taking your discretion away
from yourself in that regard. Is that what you want to do? >> No. >> Okay. >> So, I understand what you're saying, >> right? >> It just to me that's >> okay. Well, other than a little wording, I guess it sounds like. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Everybody else is okay with it? I'm okay
with it. >> Uh, then you got the density part of it. That didn't change, right? You're just codifying that >> that the six dwelling units per acre, that's the same that it's always been. It's not adding. There was some concern that this read that you're adding some density that wasn't already there, which is not the case.
>> Yeah. No. >> Yeah. Our instructing. >> Yeah. Go for it. Uh, and I just want to take the opportunity to touch on that too because there's confusion over that overlay which used to be called an overlay in the platted neighborhoods. That is not density that new development can take advantage of. It is limited to
six. That that language was always in there to protect existing platted lots that were small [snorts] because if you did the calculation, they would it would work out to be about 10 units an acre. It's just another way to say if you have a platted lot, you're you're protected. But when [snorts] you buy a bunch of
those lots and combine them to do new development, you're subject to the density limitations of six. That has been tried to be used other ways in the past and is not the way your plan was set up and it says >> so it is six. >> Yep. >> And protecting existing that's all that is.
>> Good clarity. >> Very good. >> You get a lot of the other way. [laughter] It's not what it's meant to be. >> Why did we take that out then Jason? >> New development the max. Why did we strike through that then? They moved it. >> It's It's
>> It's not written. >> It's done. It's a new set. It's just a new one. >> Oh, you've got it down below. I see. Thank you. Yes. >> Right. [clears throat] >> Yeah. Yeah. It you you see that it just moved. There's a there's a bunch of text
here also in the other section where it didn't make sense in the order and sequence it was. Sometimes you had to jump. That's fine. Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> All right. We'll move on to the uh 1B2C5 [snorts] mixed use.
There's a lot of added context here. Does anybody have any major heartburn over the way it's worded? [clears throat] >> It's not heartburn, but what how we're using must versus will and shall. >> Yeah.
>> Do we care? Lessons. I harked on this too and I thought is this something to worry to concern about but it is that consistency thing where you want to see the same over and over again >> right I think for the the purposes of >> reviewing I think we've already
established that we're going to go through and change everything to shall except where staff has a recommendation to you where it should be because of conflict or other great >> reasoning um for time purposes because I know we have a large document to get through. >> Yeah. Yeah.
Anything else on that one? No. [clears throat] >> All right. Next is the Times Square mixeduse district. Goes into the purpose and the uses. Just a typo there. You might want to catch the word used. Mixed. Used. Take the D.
>> Anything else? All right, we'll move on to the intensity part of it. Anybody have any issues with the >> the 2.5 F which again is consistent with what's there correct? >> It's exactly what's there.
>> Um transient I see they added they broke that out. Non-residentidential development subject to rules of F. It seems pretty straightforward. Y >> and then the density same [clears throat] thing. It's basically just a reiteration of what the previous one was. It's actually a slight change
from what you have now because the concern provided to us was that [clears throat] the what coming back and those hotels and motel were not able to redevelop in a way that would be economic sustainable for them. And so the instruction to us
at the time was to come up with something different and this was what we had landed on about two and a half years ago and presented to you. And um uh um we have not received any comments on that. Since what this does is instead of
doing a uh weird mathematical somersault to figure out how much um hotel motel units you have you uh uh you could have on a property. It changes to did this the buildable square footage
that you have and based on regulation on how small or big unit size it can be with that. This is your max total. It's a much easier way to calculate when for you put in your LDR instead of trying to do a um you have a portion and
I believe it's a portion and proportion [clears throat] ratio right now that I think Jason can speak more to that I haven't really seen anywhere else actually. >> So the the headache is it's based on square footage of unit size which >> I don't I don't I can't figure out why
it was you know so over 750 you can't do the math. Let me put it that The short version is it's impossible to do the formula the way the code has set it up based on the comp plan. So trying to simplify it so it's more straightforward. So for example, you get less multiplier if it's more than 750
ft. You get a different amount if it's between >> 450 and 749 and then it's another one. So you got to do the calculation three or four times and it actually doesn't work. So, um, what we've been saying is number of rooms to density, but it's really incorrect to do it that way
because the code has a different thing. But is that it's just a bad way to do it. >> It's been a headache. >> So, another question. >> So, what we want is ultimately what we want from when we bring something to you is you want to use other projects as comparisons, right? You want to be able
to visualize it and these numbers are getting thrown around and miscalculated and misrepresented. We want you to be able to be very simple in how you can understand what they're asking for. That's that's the hope. >> Yeah, I would totally agree. But uh with regards to the Times Square, it are
there any plotted overlays even there? >> Well, so as an example, the whole intent of that uh recognizing existing development is Yeah. You have very very tiny lots in Times Square or other places um some under 4,000 square feet. >> That's right.
>> Right. So >> you can do this a thousand different ways. The point of it is to recognize that those lots platted prior to certain dates, usually the 80s, are safe invested and we're not going to take rights away. >> Right. And you've done a lot of changes
over the years to your mud process and to the requirements of that. It used to be if you had a structure within a foot of a of a property line built after a certain date, then you didn't get both lots and you had to combine them. And and that's a very dangerous place to be from a from a vesting standpoint. So,
we've simplified all that and said if you had a plat lot, you've got utilities, you're on a roadway, you're vested and that's all that's really getting at. Okay. >> All right. We'll move on to the Civic Center mixeduse district.
Any comments, questions, concerns on the purpose? What about the uses? [clears throat] That's the old town hall area, correct? >> Is yes >> right.
>> All right. But the intensity that is staying the same that 1.5 that's >> all right. And then the density is just another just adding the same sentence in the each [clears throat] one of these. Yeah, you'll see that with the bond of the district because since that was an
existing rule and you ased to >> use the pedestrian commercial, we had to retain that, right? Otherwise, it's more restrictive. >> All right, we'll move on then to the center island mixeduse district. Any issues with the purpose?
What about the uses? >> Nope. Because it all pretty much stays the same. >> Intensity and density. Jane, we're on page 15, bottom of page 15. I was just looking. >> All right, then we'll move on to the
theater and arts mixeduse district, >> which is where we are now. It just >> The name of this district makes no sense because there's no theater, no arts. >> You all are welcome to change the name to whatever you want. It was proposed at
the time because they had a theater and we're like we we had a placeholder for it. I think we mentioned that last time theater arts. [laughter] >> It encompasses the old theater. >> We're part of this right now. So maybe we should recognize that.
>> The town hall district. Is that what you're getting at? >> We have a civic district that doesn't have a town hall. We have the theater district that has a town hall. >> Perhaps we should think about what we want. We would like to have instruction like
directed from you on the exact name because we're at that point >> where we want. >> What if we just flip it and just make these instead of civic center just call it the center mixed use and move the civic over to where >> theater and arts is. >> Wasn't that just called the heart of the island?
>> I think it was originally the the center the center mix. Is that what you're talking about? >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it was. I think it originally wasn't >> center island at Newton Park. center island and make this the civic area. I I I don't care. I I only bring it up because it doesn't make sense.
>> Somebody would say, "Well, where's your theater? Where's your Where's your art center? Where's your whatever." So, it but I don't know what it should be. >> So, let's look and see what we think it's going to include. Let's think about Let's think about going
>> The arts are actually down by um >> they're off the island on McGregor Boulevard now. [laughter] what it used to be. >> It used to be >> Yeah. What used to be >> a bank and a theater. >> Well, if we make a decision now, we
don't have to come back to it. So, why don't we just take civic out of the first one and move it over to this one >> if everybody's okay with that or some other suggestion? >> Is there any reason any any problem with that? >> Pardon? >> Any problem with that? Are you like that? Just move a word.
>> Move the word absolutely okay with me. Did it your plan? I'm happy to just >> It's just a title. It's what substit >> but you know uh uh uh um you know uh uh I I want to make sure it >> what you got the name. So
you just want me to just flip the name for B and C. I'm B and D. >> No, we don't want D anywhere. We don't want theater and arts anywhere because we don't have that. >> What are we naming it now? >> B would just be center mixeduse district and then D would be the civic district.
Civic mixed use district. >> So center mixeduse district >> and D is civic. >> Well then you have two center mix. Oh, you have a center mixed and a center island mix. >> That's true. >> Yeah, that's confusing. [clears throat]
>> Oh, and all our uses are going to get a little coangled here in a minute. >> Purposes. >> Yeah, their purposes. >> They're just going to get all changed. >> This is >> so nice to >> Hey, Doug. Yeah. Hey, I just want to offer um the area that we are currently
calling the civic area does include like the ball fields. >> Yeah. >> And you know civic amenities. >> It's true. >> Yes. >> Community it happened to at one point include town hall. >> So leave everything the same and change
the town hall next year. >> And we have to change the purpose. [clears throat] >> How about center cultural? center cultural >> or just call it cultural mixed use >> or cultural mixed use. Yeah, that that can work out well. >> Okay, >> then do we have our purpose that needs
to be changed since the word those changes as well? Paragraphs will take >> all the purpose. >> Can everyone live with cultural mixed use and leave everything else the way it is? >> Somebody [snorts] will talk about us next time doing that. That's fine. [laughter]
>> I know we can't. I like that because that encompasses Bay Oaks and they're looking to do more things there. >> Yeah. >> So, it promotes [clears throat] that. >> Okay. >> Good job, Doug. >> All right. >> So, civic center goes to cultural center
island will stay the same and the arts and theater will then >> Oh, I think we just went civic. >> I think we went [laughter] I think we went the other direction. >> We did. >> I think I think B stays the same. Civic Center mixed Use >> and D only changed. You get rid of
theater and arts and it's called cultural mixed use. That was what I was >> Oh, cultural. You're saying should should be D. >> Should be D. Yes. >> Is that it? >> That's that was what I thought we were talking about. >> What we were talking about it doesn't still feel anything like cultural
[laughter] >> whatever. >> Well, every town council meeting the culture changes in here. So, I don't know. >> That's true. >> It's kind of a culture. >> It sets the culture, right? personal voice. >> I I think important civic here. >> Civic here. >> Cultural where
we want. I like that. Go back. >> Yeah, we do civic things here. We do cultural. Perfect. >> All right. Flip it around then. >> Civic and library and all kinds of classes. Yeah. >> Okay. I think Santini Village.
>> You want to change the name of that? >> We do. Who want to call it Santina Marina? >> What' you call it? >> I would call it Santini Marina. >> There you are. >> All right. >> Yeah. People would love to know that there's a marine call. >> Santini Marina. >> We have a determination there. I will
make that change. >> Santini Marina. >> Santini Marina. Can I take out the word the >> I'm sorry. >> Can I take the word the >> You can if you like. >> Okay. >> So, is it Santini Marina Village or is it Santi Marina Marina mixeduse? >> Okay. Just making sure I got it right.
So, we're getting rid of village as well. >> And nothing changed. >> It does say that later down in the body, too. >> It does. [laughter] It does. And but nothing changed here as far as density or F. It's all the same. >> Correct.
>> Yes, it is the same. If you recall, part of the earlier discussion was, do we add on to this for the marine type uses or for extra residences and LPA and council said no, just revert back to the original. So, this is where we are. Yep.
>> Okay. Boulevard. Comments, questions, concerns. >> What about for the density part of it? >> I the increase for workforce housing. I just don't know how what the reality of is. Excuse me. But I it doesn't bother
me that it's there. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think the original discussions however many years ago was, you know, could you use that as an enticer to go higher in >> in certain areas to be able to offer that? >> Yeah. >> Whether or not that's, you know, lots
changed since that initial discussion, >> right? Yeah. That that was what our instructions were with Len Council at the time. >> Y >> does anybody want to remove it or everybody fine with that staying in there? >> Again, your project's going to be >> staying in there. Okay.
It's going to come up again under housing one2. >> Yes, it is. [clears throat] >> Then we'll move on to FLU1B2E pedestrian commercial. >> Nothing major changed in there that I noticed. Anybody have any issues with
that? >> Okay. >> Well, you just wording Villa Santini Plaza. >> Yeah. Again, right. We're going to change that. >> Okay. That can be good. So, it's just so it's consistent. Um,
as a reminder to the council and LPA, originally this portion why it's still a category here. Originally, all of it was put into mixed use. The remaining portion that were carved out, we need to keep this definition in here because you have to reduce the area further without
changing the land use for those remaining parcels. So, that's why you have that pedestrian commercial here. And and the 2.5 is the same F it was. >> Yes. >> And of course we do need to retain that aspect of the density that you see under here. >> Yeah.
>> Uh uh um that >> no change actually that was the original text right there. So moving on to Marina there there's there seems to be a and I'm just trying to reread it here a conflict of encourage marina has no density
>> but it encourages residential use which would require density >> the density flora ratio is a form of density and allow for 1.5 we had originally suggested you allow uh up to half a dwelling unit per acre and
we were told to reduce it to no residential and only to make it fully commercial from floor area ratio standpoint. Um that was where that's how that ended up the way it was. Um so we had recommended that under the marina you allow for a little bit of you know
about ground floor residential uh uh uh uh uh um but we were told no. >> Well, how did we get to where we are with the marina from Moss Marine? They did have a comp plan amendment. >> They did. They changed their designation.
>> The >> So you don't think there's a conflict here? >> We don't think there's a conflict here. It's a category in of itself. the we feel that from a staff standpoint it's an improvement because if you look at the original text you don't have any
density in there and make it completely unviable as a language category because you have no metrics uh by which to put it into your code afterwards. >> So at minimum well whatever format you don't stra it out you need to put metrics in there.
So this then contributes to the conversation we had about how essential we felt marinas were to the community, >> right? >> And I think it to your point, Anita, it to me, in my mind, it becomes counterproductive if if in order for a marina to be viable, if you can have
some sort of dwelling units that they can do. To me, that's a way to try to ensure that you save a marina, >> right? >> How you word it in a way that >> it just seems it seems conflicted to me, right? I don't know. Maybe it could just be me. We had originally recommended the
residential because marinas have different aspect that you see even like elsewhere in the state where they do have some of the residential components either in a vertical or horizontal mixed use and that anchor some of the businesses within the marina. It's also folks who
keep their boat there might want to live close to their property, right? But they go in the water for a reason. We live here for a reason. [laughter] Um and so that we thought, you know, that's one aspect. The other aspect is that while it doesn't always pan out, if you have some residential and someone's willing
to offer that at as at workforce housing as an incentive, then that's where some of those workers may live. That's not always the case. Uh particularly at a low ratio for marinas actually it, you know, like you have incentive program that almost never happen for marina because of the high value of those
properties. Um, >> Eddie, can you answer me a question with >> in our current codes and said I'm just trying to think of the pink shell one when they they came back and they added some liverboard space. Do liverboards count as residential dwelling units >> in our current code?
>> I don't I thought I remembered that they that count was being counted towards but >> I don't believe it is counted towards the overall density and intensity. >> Shouldn't it be? They they were limited by permitting. I know I think there there's the number of liboards was in
their D permit. I don't know if that has more to do with waste or what, but pollution >> increased. And I guess what I'm trying to get at is >> are if living boards are not considered dwelling units >> currently in your code? I don't. No, I
don't I don't think it is. >> Okay. >> There are some codes that have that as a definition in in the Keys as as a perfect example. They very much regulate them as density, but yours does not. >> Yeah. To me, this one is the is really fights itself because you don't want to
give away density. At least that's been the what people have said, but you want to save marinas and most marinas now will have some sort of density to be able to operate as a marina. So, can't have it both ways. Either you're going to have a marina that's going to operate
the way it is now with no dwelling units or you allow them to have some dwelling units. Your recommendation was a half a dwelling unit per acre originally. I don't I don't we've gone back and forth so many times I can't remember. >> And
>> I think we originally proposed half a dwelling unit per acre and that would have to be reduced to nothing. >> Well, basically what we're saying is that you know Mid Island has residential. So what we're saying is Santini cannot >> because that's the only other >> marina >> or Snookbite.
>> So Snookb talking about Mid Island. That's old school. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I'm old. >> Is there was there I don't remember the zero conversation to be frank. Was that because of overtaking the marina or was it in becoming the option instead of >> No, I think it was just it came up as a
conversation in the Moss discussion because there was the current code or comp plan doesn't allow for any dwelling units, right? >> So, it didn't allow any flexibility which forced them to go through the comp plan amendment to be able to do what they wanted to do. >> Is this an opportunity to correct some
of that? So if there was say even a half acre >> or a half a dwelling unit per acre or even one whatever or you keep the same language of the six dwelling units per acre, >> right? >> Would that then >> should Snookbite or Santeni want to come forward to do something would allow them to be able to do that without making
another comp plan amendment >> or would they still need to do a compound amendment based on the numbers? >> No, I mean if you add the density then you can include that. I would also include some percentage cap so that doesn't overrun the category. You don't want it to become primarily residential, right? So, a lot of categories throughout the state have a if you're
going to do this mix, they they define the percentage mix within it. So, you would want to yes, six units an acre, but no more than 25% is residential. So, something like that. Um, that's it's up to [clears throat] >> as we're restricting Santini because
everybody else has it. >> Snook has it. >> This is Doug. I guess >> I'm trying to get my head around this a little bit too, but like Snip Bike does have >> Yeah. >> rent. I mean, you know, for people on
their boats and they go there and then they there's room there's a swimming pool. >> Um >> there's a swimming pool. >> Is that It seems like marinas do need maybe not >> I don't know. >> I don't know if residential is the right word, but they do need accommodations
for overnight guests. Um, >> yeah. And I'm not sure why we're concerned about >> I'm not sure why we're concerned about zero. >> Exactly. If the marina has to operate by all the rules we currently have in place, we want to encourage the marina to continue to operate and not be
tempted to sell and turn over. I think we would make it as attractive as possible to multi-use that space with the proven that the marina has to remain a full marina fully operating all the things that are in the codes already today. So, I was interested in whoever talked you out of that, which doesn't
sound like anybody knows anymore, but I think Daniel raised a great issue. I have no problem supporting dwelling there at all. >> Of course, that is increasing the density. >> That's why I said you're kind of fighting the the message, but this is a very unique situation. I I don't know how you operate a marina without
encourage operation of a marina without allowing some flexibility totally in their ability to be able to do it. >> Yeah. And we even talk about broadening those uses. Sorry. uh diversified. You know, they have rooms for captains and crew to stay >> overnight. You know, when they bring a
boat in for service, >> you know, there's the captain, you know, they have rooms to rent. >> Yeah. I don't have any heartburn. >> I don't have any heartburn with offering some flexibility with dwelling units in a marina >> just for what Doug was talking about,
things like that. I mean, >> you still have back stops through the land development code to prevent certain things from happening, but >> yeah, I mean, more than likely I'm up in a land development situation, reszoning type of situation anyway. >> So, what do you want to put in there?
>> You want to go back to the half that Eddie suggested at the beginning? >> Yeah, you could do half. You could do one. I would say anything. Can you just say you're limited to the 1.5 far period? Well, that that's interesting.
>> So, if you just if you don't say anything, can >> that that would be that would be a very big number or potentially a very big number. I'm >> doing that right now >> on Santana. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's a lot of land >> to go from zero to whatever's in the box.
>> That That's a big jump. >> Knowing you guys, I don't know. That's >> not highrise. What about >> Well, no, you still you still have height restrictions. >> Oh, just concept of density. >> Try it as transient. >> Yeah, right. Well, that's >> it. >> Oh, yeah. >> Well, does it make sense to keep
consistency that has been throughout with the the dwelling units per acre? >> Sure. [snorts] >> Can you do it that way? I mean, I >> we're like, would that be like six per acre? >> Isn't that similar to what we have everywhere else density >> except dwelling unit per acre? >> Grandfather,
>> that would reduce it and keep it >> right. Mhm. for getting rid of this multiplier and all these other things that make it impossible to >> calculate. >> I like that. >> It just concerns me that you said don't don't increase anything. Don't give anything new by right and this would be
a big give. >> No, I 100% agree. >> It's a clarification too because it's undefined right now. Right. So that's it doesn't say zero now. It just doesn't talk Well, no, the proposed does. It the existing policy doesn't talk about it. So if we left the existing policy as it
is, uh the two existing marinas we have would be obligated to come in as Moss Marina did for an amendment in order to pursue whatever other development they might want. Is that correct? >> Yes. Currently, yes.
>> Does that make more sense than changing this to six units per acre? >> Which hat do you want me to wear to answer that question? >> Well, go ahead and change hats. Go ahead and tell both sides. Uh, if I was on the development side, I would probably most likely never use it. The legislative side, you don't you it's very easy for
you to I don't mean to say this, Nancy is going to kill me, but make up the rules as you go, so to speak, on the legislative side versus the quasi judicial side. >> Um, he knows >> we right. So, [laughter] if I'm on your side, you know, you want as much control as you as you can get over that. So, >> um, it just depends on which one you
want. I don't think some I mean our our whole point from the beginning was diversify the marinas keep them >> and if they can still have that option if it's not enough and they want more they can still come through and create do an amendment to the plan I mean you got an application now that's
pending that's going to be an amendment to your plan already so uh you always somebody else always has that so if you gave some move forward hopefully it helps somebody >> the more the more you keep talking the more it doesn't make sense to change it in my opinion because if they can do it anyway >> sure we're Well, they can come through
with an application to amend the >> case by case, >> right? So, they could come through with a sight specific >> with an amendment. They could create a new category for themselves. They could ask for an existing category if it fit. I mean, there's a lot of there are options. Yes.
>> But it won't take a comp plan amendment if they come in for residential application inclusion with their >> I think it would. >> Yeah. >> If we leave it like it is. I mean, >> if we leave it like it is, they'd have to do the same thing that Boss Marina would have any res. >> Yeah. So the marina portion on the
changes originally came out as a change because the original look at the mixed uses included the air marinas and so we had originally struck the entire section out and had subsumed it into the mixed use.
During the meeting, the one the joint meeting with the LPA and the council, we were asked to separate that back out of the mixuse and then restore it as a separate category because it wasn't while we're focused on one area of the
map. we there were discussion on whether or not other portion of the island might be reszoned at some point to a marina use not just where we're talking about uh with that particular property by uh San Carlos. Um so that's why I did this
in the here the way it is to provide a basis for both that area and a consistent basis for other areas. So that's a little bit of the history. we're good to change it the way you want to whether it's retaining or not with I would say you know you would if you
don't give any metric on it the state may also still come back and say look you didn't change it but you didn't put a metric either so how you going to regulate this like you can't you know this comp plan doesn't make sense in that regard so you might have risk of that happening too um so that's where we
kind of have to you know >> pick a number >> yeah pick a number >> may have to you said if it comes back from the state. >> You don't want to come back. >> You don't want to come back on second reading. No,
>> like it it um I I would say the May is very high because I don't think I've ever gotten a comprehensive plan policy through where it didn't have the metric for density and a land category because until that point, it's not actually
something that you could utilize. Um, madame attorney, do you have any thought on that? >> Well, I I agree with your comment and putting the zero in there as you have it kind of
I think keeps what was already there because what was there was basically zero pushing people to go get a um future land use uh change. Um I know there was some reference made to Santini
but there is a separate uh future land use category for Santini. >> Yes that's true. >> Is there um >> is there some inconsistency if we say in zero dwelling units per
acre and then in the last sentence >> we say inclusive of commercial and residential uses provided uses and not displacement independent related services. Yeah. >> So we we tal the last time we talked the redevelopment of existing range shall
encourage a working waterfront with mixed use development inclusive of commercial and residential use. >> There's the conflict, >> right? So if you decide to go with zero, we will remove that last sentence. If you need to put a number that would that that should probably stay with a with
some adjustment for cap limiter. So if we stay at zero and remove the last sentence, does that still give you heartburn as to the state kicking it back? >> No, because you're giving metrics. You said we're not going to have any residential. We allow for 1.5 F. It's a
measurable metric where opposed to right now you don't have any. It's just having that that a valuable metric within your land. That's what they look for. They don't, you know, unless there's something there that's, you know, >> tied to something out that that that debate for, you know, objection. Go
ahead. >> Can can we just what about permanent zero permanent dwelling? Because, you know, a transient, which is what a marina residential use is, is a use. It's a residential use. It's just not a permanent residential use. So, do we do
it just that simple? I I agree with you because I think that addresses what Doug brought up around the business being able to be more modern and competitive with >> a temporary transient. >> Yeah. >> Can we do that?
>> It's still is it? I mean >> you can add whatever uses you want. Is it right? >> You're going the voter in there. >> Yeah. >> Same person. What about >> I mean you implemented through zoning essentially but yes >> six dwelling units per acre would still
keep it lower than any other way to >> but it would be it would be increasing the density overall of the island though >> because it doesn't have any now >> you're right >> well we want them to survive >> well we do and I think the modern economic models allow some flexible
residential use >> and the last thing you want to do is have waterhead flip it or something and say I can't make it work because we want to do some of these issues. I just think that's real life today. >> Yeah. It's almost like you're encouraging
a marina something a property in the marina district to decide not to be in a marina. >> That's exactly right. Or very commercial only. And I mean high-end and that kind of stuff that that wouldn't fit our matrix at all.
Uh, mayor, council member LPA, if I if I may for one second to to kind of build on what you're saying. >> When you think of a marina, modern marina, what do you think of, you think of a place where >> you can have lunch and dock your boat
and get gas and water and I do not think about staying there. >> But you don't have a boat. >> But but that's that's >> we're talking about >> arenas all over the world. Even in third world countries have think of it as a truck stop. >> Hotels and everything. All resial around there. >> All of them have houses. So you see
>> you bring something in for maintenance for example. >> Exactly. Could >> be 3 weeks. >> Yeah. The AC's out on the boat. >> Don't listen to me. >> Nobody's >> Okay. So when I think of a marina, >> what do you think? >> I go to and I'm like, okay, this is where someone can mo their boats partial
longterm. This is where I may have restaurant, waterfront restaurant. I may have, you know, other things like a ginger store or like a place where I can go ice cream. You know, I'm making ice. >> We go to the same evidently. Yes. >> Now, let's take a look at what it
actually currently says in the dropout portion. If you would revert back to it, >> this categorizational boating >> and fuel and you know >> Yeah. Yeah. >> purposes to maintain a boat too. If you
were to keep your existing definition, >> none of that's allowed. >> None of it. You only allow for recreational baiting uh voting and uh and and and related access without knowing what they are. >> Exactly. >> You can't have a restaurant if you put
marine district under your definition. You can't have a store >> period. >> Oh gosh. that does you have to converation. Yes, you're absolutely right. And your vision is to allow for those [snorts] restaurants or for you
know paperwork mall whatever you know you can always regulate another code and size and typology or you want those doors this don't this isn't going to apply you have to say commercial and then in in your code when you establish that these are the type of commercial
uses that we are going to allow >> I I'm I'm all for flexibility and whether it's zero or whatever I if they still have an avenue to be able to go forth and ask for it like Moss Marine did. >> I think that was the encouragement that I remember through all the meetings over
the years is to allow the uses that you just said where they want to have a liquor store, they want to have a restaurant, they want to have a ice cream shop, >> right? And remembering your code can be written as uses by right and uses by condition. The cadial
uses always come back to you at that point. And that's a very important distinction here. You allow for the general aspect within your comprehensive plan within your code. You say this is what's by right. I want to have restaurants by right. But hey, if I want
to restrict the amount of uh convenience stores that we have in the Marina district, I'm going to make that a conditional use. >> So, but if we want to keep the folks we have because they know us, we know them. We want them to be economically viable and the complexity of what services and
products need to be in that local for that to work. Saying zero is very clear. We're telling you >> once again do not try this. Now you can when you say zero it's a much ter impact and leave it ambiguous to not restrict
it specifically but it's allowed if you want to come and talk about it. I just have a real problem with taking the marketing aspect of how wonderful those services are and how precious we need them and they aren't building any more of them around anywhere um just because of all the reasons we
all know. I just think this makes it a lot less attractive. >> So are you saying we should just eliminate the end zero dwelling units per acre and leave it at at 1.5 F? >> I could do that or I could do six an acre back to what Jane was talking about which limits it by design. I'm not.
>> If you have a period after F, >> you've implied that it's zero. >> That's where I'm at. Yeah. >> Because there was no accommodation. >> Yeah. >> Can't stretch it from It's the same thing as putting zero in the falling. >> I mean, I think why do we have the word continue?
Marine district shall be limited to 1.5 far. Why do >> we We didn't have a marine district before, did we? >> I guess I would continue. I would broker putting something in there that we're comfortable with, even if it's not saying zero, but the allowability of it.
>> And we're going to get some public impact. I understand the density concern. This just seems to be consistent with the reality of the things that people really want to exist and have access to. >> And if some density is a consequence for that versus the absence of it in total,
>> isn't that a trade-off? We should let the public give us some feedback on that between now and and council. This could definitely be one where I think people would be okay adding a little density because of what they're going to get. >> Remember, it's not by right or it's not by right. >> It's not by right that he just talked
about all the other >> things that you can put in your code, conditional use as >> whether you have zero or you have one or you have six, they're still they're going to have to come in and ask for, >> right? Whether it's through reszoning or conditional use or whatever, there's there's another process to do that. Yes. >> We just want you to have a number
>> six. [clears throat and cough] So whether it's zero or six or two or higher, >> I think if consistency is what everybody's concerned with, that makes the most sense to me. But >> I think that's >> see what reaction we get because it's very specific and I think valuable right here
>> and it's specific to two locations. >> So what was the number >> on we want to keep? >> Well, we want to keep a marina, right? We want to have a marina. [clears throat] We already lost one and I think that's >> what was that number. >> I'm sorry I missed. >> Big guy. Thanks. Let's move on. Okay,
[laughter] >> I'm worried about losing fair, but I always >> What was the number? >> Zero. >> Six. >> Six. >> I'm going to type that in and save it.
>> Eddie, I think that's the most excited I've seen you in five years. [laughter] >> He's like, I'm typing that in right now before changing their mind. >> I think he always looks excited. >> Oh, no. That face. He was running that computer faster than Usain Bolt. [laughter]
>> John King. Let's get this moving. >> I mean, we are on page 17. >> Yeah. >> At this rate, Thanksgiving's off. >> Yes. >> All right, everybody. Good on Marina now. We can move forward. All right. >> I didn't think it was going to be that. >> Take a break. >> Do we need a break?
>> I think if you got it. I >> I think just >> Okay, we'll give you a pass. >> Just keep just keep moving. Um, let me just say something about recreation and open space. Here's the overriding concern [snorts] about that is that instead of recreation and open
or what what folks are concerned about this category is that it doesn't um it doesn't say um critical wildlife area or it it doesn't in other words these are all areas that should be protected and
and the idea of recreation doesn't necessarily imply protection. I think this is where um one you look to the conservation element
>> which does have to cover certain things under by statute uh and you have every anything like uh for example sea turtle methane turns uh in other places go bass go that has to do during review those
are in the conservation uh element and were checked by the you D under policy review which is why we got comments changes which were included. Um here recreation and open space um you
have a separation within your land category between recreational open space and wetland. Now if you recall we have strongly recommended and provided full t before on changing your wetland to a
conservation land use category. Mhm. >> You all had to remove that. So those protections that were there and in the conservation portion separate from your old revenue state with how other communities do it. We provided that to you in our original recommendation and
we were told to take it out >> the conservation section. You were told to take out. But we gave you a conservation land use >> category that would replace the wetland we because in our argument at the time it was broader and accomplished what we
were hearing from the community. >> We were told to take it out. >> Well again and remember that was original discussions were before Ian. So land situation was much different then than it is now. And I I remember a little bit about the wetlands conversation and it was about a specific property that was
>> up behind the old town hall. one that >> that yeah there were and that's I think where the discussion was again that was >> right >> pre- storm so >> yeah but our recommendation was to look at that property separately but not deal with the fact that you should be
changing and updating your categorical land use so that you could apply it differently at the time um that that that was the discussion then now you know in the after the conservation we And we wrote a dice on it with the
first reading with the state because our argument back to you at the time was the state may object to you not having a conservation uh hh as a category but they may also look at the fact that you begin your wetland item as conservation
district and they view that as your conservation district by which do I still think and as a professional believe that if you were to make it a conservation land use it would have been more effective Absolutely. That's the solid standard advice that I had given to other communities and which I had provided to
you guys really early on. >> But I think it's safe to say what I think your concern was that the recreation open space is separate from the wetland or if it gets changed to conservation district. They're two separate things. One doesn't override the other. >> Yes, it doesn't override the other. And
you want to be able to use your park bait a certain way and you want to use your conservation land with even more stringent. That's why you generally maintain different categories so that you have that legal backing to make it more stringent and to separate that from
say a potlock or like you know you know something that like Bay right recreation center that's recreation open space you're going to the our our little offshore island here where we want to maintain that as wetland to conservation that's completely different. You want to
lower those regulations to the point where the only thing you probably have that's built it may be a pathway that's you know non-intrusive to native wildlife and and and protecting animals and so forth but you're not going to build it like bay oaks.
>> So you do you feel comfortable with the wreck and open space part of it now that he's described I mean it sounds like we're going to have some more discussion on the wetland conser conservation side of it. Yeah. >> Is there any other concerns with the recreation and open space as it's written? >> Yeah.
>> I I had a question, excuse [clears throat] me, where it says additional accretions of beach whether by natural causes or through breach reourishment and then >> yeah, >> we've got a strike. To me, that's an incomplete. >> I was just going to say that before you
did >> and I don't know what the objection would be to having that new sand >> automatically become part of the category. To me, it's why would it strike? Yeah, >> you technically can't. Uh we I went through this a couple years ago because
the same language similar language was in the code. Um you can't have a self- amending plan. Uh but what what it does is it equates back to conservation elements and stuff where it says we need to monitor and evaluate and continually do studies to see where where those
lines are. Right? So um you technically can't have a next month we update it and it's got a different line. We're supposed to go through the amendment process, but we use that as data to support that amendment. It gets a little tricky with um the legal side of it to
do that. I I take this language as being we need to evaluate and monitor and continually update as necessary. >> I guess I don't get that from additional accretions of beach whether by natural causes or through benefit through beach reourishment. That's just a sentence.
What does that mean? >> Oh, what? >> So Jason, you need to either add what you just said or strike out the whole sentence. >> I think >> right. Yeah, I think that that that portrait shouldn't be deleted. We'll
automatically assign it a category. >> Yeah, we did not delete that. >> What would I say? Right. >> Right. I think either or if it can't be self amending then change it to what Jason recommended. >> So essentially >> replacing the part that struck out. >> Yes. >> Because it can't be self- amending.
We'll do will be evaluated through studies evaluated. >> Thank you. Thanks for bringing it. You got that changed? >> Yep. >> All right. >> Then we'll move on to the wetlands. >> Can I jump in for a minute? Um, so the
recreation and open space designation provides for public parks schools. Then there is a separate section on schools. And I guess when we get to there, I just want to make sure there's compatibility
between those sections. Right. >> All right. >> All right. >> Wetlands. >> So you think wetlands should be the name wetland should be changed to the conservation district or conservation category or
>> we have recommended that you change the the designation from wetland to conservation just because it encompasses a wider area. >> It does because conservation would encompass wetlands, >> right? Wetland's too specific, >> right? You have more than wetland here. >> Yeah, you're right. You're right.
>> Wetlands has a like a specific definition. >> It does >> legally. And then but and then why do you conservation district applied to all remaining weapons? I don't understand what that says. >> Well, you'd have to rewrite that if you change the name. >> Right.
>> There were other things that we had put in there as well with the name change. >> What was it? Um it what we had recommended that you do certain things about uh restoration well it's already here restoration degraded habitat but we added we we were suggesting adding
aspect of like protected species and other items that I normally do in like a review like uh like for example um if you compare to Key West where I was evaluating the uh the old hawk missile site and it utilization for as you know
recreational area you know with former land that was occup by by the Navy uh uh uh and given to Key West. Um we ran through some very specific criteria in that valuation of whether or not you could put a private park there. Uh uh um or a public park there, you know, um
regulations about what facilities you can put on there were restricted. Uh of course, you know, that city was also subject to a federal lawsuit on protected species. So, we had to incorporate that aspect. We won't have that here but generally we want to have some aspect of like consideration for
species protection uh water management things like that as considerations >> not necessarily absolute but shouldn't be missing >> it shouldn't be missing and it is missing >> it is so we have provided that recommendation before [clears throat] we
were told to revert it completely uh during that conversation this is where we are right now I'm happy to take further instruction on whether we keep the dodged or we make certain changes moving forward for Monday. >> Can we recommend that you all look at that language again?
>> Yeah, I'd say bring it back. I mean, again, that was that discussions were happened before >> the land changed. >> All right. So, >> and I I don't think anybody I certainly don't remember. Maybe Jim does, but >> what what the language was >> back then.
>> All right. We will try to find a language and uh see if there's any update and also bring it back at Monday. I have it in my note to um make sure it's a specific point of discussion to bring back up for the uh the council. In
the meantime, if anyone has specific aspect that they recall or would like to make sure we address particularly, you know, protected species and so forth, um if you can get that to staff like >> today [laughter] >> because you know, Thanksgiving is
Thursday and >> this pace it might be tomorrow, >> right? Tomorrow. Yeah. So this >> I I apologize but I would like to not work on Thanksgiving if possible. >> Work on Thanksgiving. >> Not all day anyway. I [laughter] >> I I agree. I agree with everything that's been said.
>> Still football. >> No, I need my football though. >> There are >> incredible protections built in for conference conservation later in >> in the conservation element. >> In the conservation element. So
>> let's make sure that we address it, get it captured, but not >> duplicate it. Exactly. >> Okay. >> Okay. Great. Great. [snorts] >> Yeah. I think just a general reference to the more Right. >> The more specific outlays, [clears throat]
>> we would probably take tidal water and take portions of that into conservation. Moving the next one. That's all right. Because they are sense, >> you know, anything that you know, tidal, estuarial uh uh and nature should be considered very very specifically in your in your
land use and comprehens. You might, you know, you still treat beaches differently as you saw in the open space before just because of, you know, the accretion and the restoration, especially in light of SB1622 this past year and how the state judges when you
restore D who had ownership and all that stuff. But, uh, you know, you keep the conservation el portion separate, then that can go back into a different category. Could you email all of us with with your suggested change in case there's any of us want to make comments at the at the meeting on Monday?
>> Say that again. >> Just what what Eddie's talking about going to conservation and >> yeah, >> we'll try to get that up tomorrow if possible. I still have to travel after we leave. I leave here. So, let's see what hour I get back home. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Let me just move over here.
>> Okay. >> All right. the FLU1B3 platted overlay. Just basically [clears throat] >> re rewarding everything. >> No, no issues with that. >> No, not here. >> All right. Uh 1B4 land use types. Does
anybody have any issues with the strikethroughs and additions? >> I did with residential but in marina, but now I don't. So, okay, >> perfect. >> Well, you've got RV parks in here again. So, you're going to have to >> undo homes. >> Undo that.
>> Right. >> Put in. >> Exactly. [laughter] >> Right. >> All right. We'll move on to 1B5. Uh, public facilities. >> Mayor, I'm sorry if I might interrupt. Go ahead. Would we need to add anything
about the ADUs >> in the residential use or is that not appropriate there? >> Add what? I'm sorry. >> ADUs. >> I accessory dwelling unit. >> I would suggest and change it to here
first is just use ADUs that's drawing units if you're going to keep those but delete the word for commercial structures. Um and then on the third one where it said >> marina uses and then had residential right underneath it to delete that word
residential. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, thank council member. >> Um, is there any need to look at uh recreational uses because it's a very short definition just to for compatibility if you want to just check
the box make sure it's okay. >> Um, I think the usage was the kind of the catch all there. I would say that the definition hadn't changed, but um I would actually consider um that you
might want to consider indoor recreation uh um uh uh as part of it um that isn't before there before because when you're in a [snorts] community that doesn't have that land space, you have to think about that uh verticality or indoor recreational space and you already have
that at BAO but you know that's part or a park and so that how you want to move that forward. >> You know, similar uses does technically cover that. So there is necessarily a need to >> say it, >> but at the same time that's a specific
direction you might want to go. It doesn't hurt to specifically note that giving the, you know, you're on a barrier island with no more space to expand. >> I like saying it because then if it comes up, it's not an issue because it's stated. >> So you want to add indoor recreation to
this? Yeah, just to the list. >> And similar uses. >> Okay. >> So, we've already defined from a policy that uh indoor recreation is a similar similar use. >> Okay. >> Sounds good to me. Anybody have any objection?
>> Move on. >> And we're walking. >> We're walking. [laughter] >> All right. Public facilities. Any changes or concerns with the the scratchs or additions to that? >> No. >> None. All right. Uh 1 B6 schools.
There's some crossouts and some additions. >> Nancy, I know you had some >> Yeah. concerns with >> Well, now that we are changing some of the category names, clearly that needs to be consistent. Um, but it almost it's
almost as if you cannot have it in the recreation and open space district. Yet in that prior district, we did list schools. That was the issue that I had. Um, and then uh being compliant with the
flood and then exempting the beach elementary school I thought was a little interesting. I don't know the reasoning behind that. I think we we were asked to add >> You're referring to where it says except for wetlands and recreation and open space.
>> Yes. Because it's saying that you can have it in those uh categories but then you cannot have it in wetlands and mostly in recreation open space yet it it is listed schools. >> Yeah, that should be the second portion
to be deleted. I think >> the wetlands obviously makes sense, but >> after that, >> well, it [clears throat] would now be conservation, >> right? >> Yeah, that's conservation. >> I I would that the Thank you. Thank you, Madam Attorney.
>> I would suggest that the um H I know what you we probably got here on this because we were asked to make a change at one point. >> Yeah. >> And we didn't. So maybe one way to keep moving, keep walking is um how does
council feel about where do you want where do you want your schools? I mean it's it's broad already. Um do you want them to be in the new conservation [clears throat] district or future land use category as well? that would probably encompass the
wetlands and recreation and open space and then maybe take it out of the list in recreation and open space. >> I I don't know. I I'm open to suggestions. Seeing some
>> inconsistency, just just hi. Thank you. Just this is Jim. [laughter] Just a quick question, Nancy. Is there any language that we can put in our comp plan regarding the school that would advantage us in our mediation legal
dispute with the school district? >> I'm really not in a position to give you an opinion on that, Jim. >> Try, Jimmy. Uh but I I think regardless of if it is the um beach elementary school or any other school, we need to
know within the comprehensive plan what categories the town would like to have them located in. >> Yeah. >> So we know >> Oh, I guess couldn't to make it easy. >> The the one place you probably wouldn't want to put it is in a wetlands or
conser conservation area. Everywhere else on the island, it's a school. To me, would make sense to fit anywhere else on the island besides the conservation wetland. >> Yeah. I mean, 20 years from now, we might they might want to build a high school. You just let them build it. >> Why constrict yourself to put it?
>> Okay. So, it would just pretty much be except for conservation. >> Conservation. >> Okay. >> I'm that makes sense because your original text allow for everything but wetland. So if you delete
the and recreation and open space on the third line, >> then you're not making things more restrictive. >> Okay. >> And that's what going to that that's the overriding rule here. >> It's the overriding rule. >> It's always one of those. >> But what about the rest of that?
Provided that the school is >> not seawword. >> It couldn't be. >> You could, right? >> It can't be, >> right? But it you already don't allow that. It's not and never not and never. It it's really the same thing in in in this context. So
that's not going to change that doesn't change anything. >> Now the compliant with flood and order regulation that's established by the land development code about that is that's up in the air, right? >> We need that.
Um >> I think it's kind of a given that it has to be >> compliant with our flood regulations. >> Um [clears throat] however, by having it there, it is indication that you are very vigilant about making sure that any
type of um development is consistent with your flood regulations. >> Right. >> No, we don't. Yeah. What we do, >> there's probably another section on flood as well. Correct. >> I think the issue, if I may, is that
it's exempting Beach Elementary >> building that is not above flood. That's I believe >> what is being it's to >> highlight that Beach Elementary in its existing form is [clears throat]
okay. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> With us. >> With us. with us. >> With us, [laughter] >> which it is >> with us, >> which it is, right? So, >> may I may I ask something of the council here >> just to make it a little bit
easier when we submit to the state, can we say and continue to be compliant since we already require it. But if without those words, they may deem it as in violation of SP 180 when that's not actually the case. It's just something
that you already require. But I'm making that recommendation. >> That's an that to me that's an easy amendment. If you feel that's important, it doesn't really change anything >> and continue to be. Okay. >> Well, let's Yeah, you guys are the experts, you know.
>> Right. [clears throat] You know, I'm just thinking through what the date review going to be like and it had to be >> right. So to to John's point here, I think does this >> hinder us in any way with their existing
historical building that is in the zone that it's in? >> It doesn't restrict being able to potentially rebuild that or >> No, >> because it still has to be compliant with all rules and regulations. >> Well, yes, the Yes. So,
>> yeah, I'll just say yes. >> Okay. >> Got it. >> Yes. What? That's got to be the shortest answer you've ever given. >> I can read the face. They can read the room. >> I can read the room. >> There's nuances to it. And so the answer is yes. They have to be compliant with regulations. Period.
>> So should you take that sentence out >> because it's saying it's exempting the historic beach elementary school shall be exempted. >> Uh no because there's exemption regulations that are in place under state and local and federal laws and you're allowed to adopt certain things locally. So >> I understand
>> that's the nuance of >> over 50 under 50 historic. So you're calling it historic and we're recognizing that. >> All right. 1 C there's nothing that's changed there. >> Um 1 C1 legal effect that nothing changed there.
1 C2 commercial intensity. There any uh comments or concerns on this? >> Once again I had a note here and I'm [clears throat] not sure if it was just my copy. I I had a note that I didn't see chapter 15 >> on legal effect. Back to one
>> legal effect. Yes. Chapter 15 of this plan. >> Yes. Because there's only 13 >> and so for some reason I don't think I had a 15. >> Okay. Go ahead, >> Eddie. On under legal effect, it says at the very last sentence chapter 15 of
this plan, but there is no chapter 15. >> I think we did. I I I think that part of me better to the old plan that we just need to go in and delete that sentence. >> So you're gonna delete that entire sentence by design. >> Yeah, there's a lot of cross references in
your original plan that are not needed. >> Understood. >> Catch the ones we can. >> Thank you for that. >> Yeah, thank you. >> Good catch. Uh commercial intensity. Any comments or questions, concerns? Yeah, I had some notes about keeping
some of this. Let's see. >> Nope. When we talk we talked about keeping some >> I think they just added the the F to it is what it essentially height and F. >> Yes. [snorts] But overall it's just it's keeping everything the same.
>> Got right. And instead of duplicating it in different places, we put it back in the category where it belongs. So that if you change it on one area at some point, you don't accidentally forget to change it in another area, which happens quite
often. >> That makes sense. All right, we'll move on to 1 C3 commercial locations. Is there any comments, questions, concerns on that one? >> No. All right. 1 C4 building heights.
>> Easy one. [laughter] >> No, I'm sorry, mayor. Yes, I flipped them to I'm a little slower. >> No, that's okay. >> Um, the boulevard. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Proposals must be sensitive to nearby
residential uses, contribute to the public realm as described in the comprehensive plan, and meet design concepts of this and the land development code. What is your >> I had some notes here from some discussions with folks about looking for
some stronger language and I I can't seem to remember what they were >> they or perhaps that they >> page 20 number number four boulevard. Just give me a second to see if I can
figure out >> I don't have anything. Yeah, >> I I think we're okay that back. >> Well, again, this goes back to kind of like the other one where it says they are permissible and then could there be confusion to how does that fit in to the
interpretation of the second line that >> that perhaps could have been >> Rebecca read. So >> again, should that be maybe permissible or something >> because I think >> well I we were reading it >> your project has to >> still has to come back
>> well it has to consider those things proximity to the residential it must be considerate of the neighbors that's the way I read the sentence but [laughter] if I'm a developer and I come in and I've got my landfuse person up there I'm going to point out the first sentence I'm not going to say anything about the
other sentence I'm going to say it says they are permissible And then there's going to be the argument about well it needs to take into consideration and now we're back to where >> I I I know we we by the state law you have to define uses within a category. I think that's why we have a tendency to say that. Okay. But
>> um however you want to word it. This this really goes back to that boulevard conversation and the zoning and there's other ways to mitigate uses adjacent to residential through landscaping, lighting, all those other things rather than just real real restrict use. >> That makes sense. Jason learning curve
on that. So, as you redevelop or whatever, additional buffers can can buy you more intense uses because you're doing things to mitigate it. Uh, sound, air, light, and all that. >> Okay. >> So, let's move on to height. So, the
height, the big the big uh question that's raised is changing two to three stories even though the 30 feet has not changed. And it seems to me that that's just a clarification of how it's measured, but it may not be. This the
real question here is are we increasing height? >> Right. >> Yeah. >> I just it's >> so if you measure by the raw number, the issue was the town's policies or codes
have regulated both stories and height, >> right? And if you read that two stories and 30 feet, that's 15 feet per story, but you're also limited in your height per story, right? So there's several places in the plan and in the codes where it's I'll call it falsely
restricting. It's saying you can do something, but you really can't ever achieve that. >> That's hard. >> So >> what's it called? >> Fully >> falsely. So it's it's promising. It's saying you can do something, but you really can't. And so >> I like >> you can get three stories within 30 feet. And if you can design it that way,
then if height is what you're worried about, then let's focus on the 30 ft. >> So 30 feet is that's it, right? Okay. >> Yeah. I've I I've always wondered why you have to put stories in there. I mean, >> it's an architectural appearance thing.
>> If your height is your height up to 30, >> it's all throughout your code, too. So it's just it's always referred to both. So, you're suggesting to keep it as both stories and >> that's up to you guys, but it's traditionally you're you focused on both because the appearance of windows stacking on top of each other, right?
It's an aesthetic thing versus total total height. >> I I to me the height's the height, right? That's what everybody seems to have the issue with. If you've got three 8 foot ceilings in there versus two 15 foot ceilings, >> who cares? >> At the end of the day, does it
>> not going to know that from the outside? >> Yeah. So, you're basically saying up to three [laughter] stories. Yeah. >> Well, I think you need I think you're fighting yourself when you're trying to say three stories or I mean [clears throat] >> to me that just adds more confusion that doesn't need to be there. But >> I'm
>> Yeah, I think 30 ft implies three 10 foot stories more or less, but you could just say 30 ft. >> Yeah, you're not going to get four in there. It takes away the arguments that we've been having is do you actually count the initial story of flood proofing in
>> well that the height doesn't start until there anyway [snorts] >> right [clears throat] but you're you're below your to your point you're at grade is a story >> right so >> well yeah I >> to me getting rid of the stories makes the most sense
>> that's why it's confus it's been confusing I think to many of us >> yeah because now they have to say We're technically four stories because you're counting this as a story. >> Exactly. >> So, should we eliminate stories? [clears throat] >> I think >> I would vote yes. >> I think just having it >> clear
>> based on the overall height keeps it keeps it clean. >> And I do also let me ask about the definition of flood elevation because there's the FEMA elevation, there's FD elevation, there's the design flood
elevation depending on where you are. >> That's right. Does that need more definition? The word flood elevation. >> Jason, did you hear that? >> Yeah. Yeah, that's what we're um >> you should say above design flood elevation. [clears throat]
>> Does that include freeboard? >> Yeah, because when say design elevation, then that's freeboard and some of the other nuances. I thought we made some changes >> in the land development code where you could get a little bit more based on if you go maximum freeboard versus one foot
over freeboard. Did we ever make those changes? I know. >> No, your your current code allows up to three feet of freeboard um to not count towards height. You start the height if you use it. If you use it >> taller, you go. >> Yeah. So, if you want to go taller, it doesn't count against >> um
>> Yeah. Let us let me get back to on that. I I don't want to overdefine it because we do have different DFE BFEs. You have D regulations and height that supersede FIVA flood regulations. Um >> and by >> building code has a different definition. So >> that makes sense. >> By eliminating the stories conversation,
would that potentially eliminate the requirement to have more deviations? If someone comes in and says three stories, we're meeting the height, but because it's three stories, we are technically four. we have to have a deviation request now because it's your code says would it eliminate some of that because
I seems like everything that's coming forward is have to ask for a deviation for because of the stories context versus the overall height context >> not immediately because it's still in your code [clears throat and laughter] >> but eventually it will eliminate that >> 12 months correct >> within 12 months yes
>> I'm in favor of of eliminating the story it just if if the height okay >> calculates that >> so let's leave the flood term there now and I'll by tomorrow or Monday will'll determine what that should be. I'd rather it be more broad and then further
defined by these other studies and documents that we're required to meet. Um but let me get back to you on that one. >> Doug, are you and Jim okay with >> above uh um minimum or design or maximum or something flood elevation but maybe it's
okay like it is but flood elevation as was mentioned there's a number of definitions of what the flood eleation is depending on jurisdiction who's looking at it whether it includes freeboard or does not include free board whether it's in the B
zone or not in the B zone way action zone all that stuff >> so another section of discontent was the town may consider taller buildings building heights in the mixed residential in the mixed use districts if appropriate. But what does that mean?
>> Yeah. >> Yes. If appropriate. >> What's appropriate? >> Exactly. What's appropriate. [cough] >> I don't like this section. Just FYI. >> Yeah. Because then it says to limit
heights or provide for additional buffers, but it doesn't really >> development is within of a detached single family resident. I mean, [clears throat] where is there not a resin ft? >> It's just the whole notion of you may
consider taller building heights in the mixed use districts if appropriate. But what's the if appropriate part? I don't know why we've included this >> because you look at that almost every month with applications. So, it's the
flexibility of your decision-m >> but does it need to be in there then? Does it need to be codified if we're doing it anyway? >> I I think so because the very beginning, your very first sentence is setting up that benchmark limitation at 30 ft if
appropriate um could refer back to perhaps a development agreement. >> I see what you're saying. >> But it's subjective. The word appropriate subject. >> Totally correct. and >> and what we're trying to do is >> make policy statements that are
enforcable. >> I'm with Jim that one, not this one. >> Not a unique feeling to me. [laughter] >> I think that will come up in every case. >> Yes, but that that only refers to the additional buffers. But if you do draw that limitation at
30, we could have some SB180 issues because now you've capped it. >> I don't think anybody's saying that. I think they're just trying to figure out, is there a better way to say if appropriate? >> Is there a better way to word that? >> Um, >> where it's less interpretive. >> Just get rid of if appropriate.
>> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Just take it out. >> Period. >> One of those periods right there. And it is, >> you know, it's almost like I would want to >> then >> I'm like the town, you know, under certain conditions
the town may consider taller building heights. >> Period. Work for you? >> Yes. I I I just I I don't know why we need this here. This is an addition and I don't know why we're adding it. And Jason's saying it's because you all are dealing with it all the time. And he's
right. We are. But you're going to continue to because you have a process. >> Correct. >> That's why you deal with it. >> That's right. So, do we need this sentence in here? >> I don't either. >> I kind of think you do. >> My concern is you say 30 ft.
>> Just to just to um to have a statement. Otherwise, you just defer back to the 30 feet. But this sentence, if you take out if appropriate and you don't put in some additional language, um then these two sentences
conflict. >> What if we what if we put in if uh or through development agreement? Because that's the only instance, right? >> Not necessarily. >> I don't know for a fact that that is the only instance. um if otherwise provided
in the land development code maybe or some of the language that um that Doug >> so it already it already says this right if you go back to the original language and and see from the beginning the 30 ft is being added because there is no there was no height in this section it was
saying height shall be under certain conditions and be considered and blah blah blah right so it's it's basically the same thing as what we're saying now but we're defining it more in the mixed use centers which is what you're seeing most applications for. So I think it's just rewarding it so that we can also add the 30 ft.
>> But it already is undefined and will be as appropriate through the processes. That's essentially what it says currently. >> But that that sentence the town may consider taller buildings in mixed use districts if appropriate. I mean the town can always consider things. I I
don't see what that sentence, [cough] >> right? [clears throat] The sentence is fine, >> right? But that sentence we can always consider taller buildings and I guess we'd have to make it so that it's appropriate. So what does that say?
>> Nothing. >> So your suggestion is to remove the entire first sentence >> and just leave it as mixeduse district regulations. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Restrictive. >> No. Well, under the uh the very first
sentence, it does say under most conditions. So, there is some flexibility in those terms, >> right? >> So, okay. >> I'm all right with that. All right. >> What was our >> So, we're going to get rid of the first sentence. >> Keeping the second one. >> And our flexibility comes from the first
sentence. Okay. >> Right. >> Nice. >> Say that again. I'm sorry. Delete which one? >> The first sentence. The town may say >> the town may consider taller building heights in the mixed use res districts if appropriate. Eliminate that but keep the sentence after it.
>> Good. >> All right. Right here that Tommy consider. >> Okay. Delete that one and then >> so then again following that we have the two three story height limit >> again.
>> Yeah. Do we want to switch that to 30? >> I think it needs to be consistent if that's going to be the change. >> It does. I I mean, if you're going to delete the first sentence, I would delete the second one, too, because at that point, >> why have mixed use? >> I mean, you're 30 stories. You're a
maximum at at three story uh at 30 ft at three stories. Um so, you take this at this point. If you're going to limit provision further, you're thinking at like one story. Where's the mix? Where? What? I don't know what you're
saying. >> Okay. Doesn't make sense. >> Oh, we can delete that. >> Mixed. I I don't I'm I'm lost there. >> So, I'm lost with the concern. >> I I missed part. I was trying to read. I'm sorry. That that sentence that you
want to delete is because >> because we can always consider taller buildings in mixed use districts >> based on what? uh uh based on our regulations, I mean based on applications, based on >> right the policy is your policy now says
that right currently that language says we'll consider it says it right there. Um >> different heights may be applied to officially designated mixed use area blah blah blah. Right? So your current policy >> says we're going to consider those. >> Okay. >> Right. That's all this is trying to say
is basically stating that same thing. I guess any of my concern would be if you eliminate that sentence or some version of that. Are you not saying it? Are you not saying you're not being definitive about other than the 30 ft? But the current policy says we'll
evaluate that consider in these mixed use districts. That's all we're trying to receive. But I think what Nancy said was in that first sentence where we say under most conditions >> that gives them some >> that gives us the flexibility. >> Okay. >> Because it does say and different
heights may be applied to officially designated mixeduse areas. >> Right. Right. >> Okay. Yeah. So we want to say this is the height but you may consider other things. >> Yes. >> And I think it does say that by the even with the elimination of that. >> Okay. >> Would that make sense? I would agree.
>> Yes. So that [clears throat] first solve it. I got you. >> All right. Cool. Okay. >> All right. But that part they that part go. Okay. That got confused. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I thought you were also deleting different height as well. So, okay. Sorry. >> Thank you for the clarification. >> We'll get there. >> Thank you.
>> Change is where you say the two three story um height we should put 30 feet instead of two three story height. >> They cross after the 100 foot detached. Yeah. >> 30. Yeah. >> Yeah. just get rid of 33 story and put
30 feet height limit again. You just re restate that. >> Then it doesn't look like we just gave everybody an extra floor. >> So density the the uh FLU1C5 nothing has changed. >> Oh no, don't go. >> Oh yeah, >> we're still in the building.
>> Nice try. [laughter] There we go. I was trying to I was trying to go. >> The last >> the last sentence of the paragraph. >> Jim, you need to be on mic. >> Thank you, >> Jim. You got Michael. >> The last sentence of this paragraph is
really I think the gorilla in the room. >> Oh, it is. >> And it says that we're going to balance public benefits and height, >> but as a policy statement, I would think
that we should make [snorts] some statement on what public benefits are because without that it's totally subjective and it's everybody's individual interpretation.
So both Jim and I submitted earlier to the uh joint session we had thoughts on public benefits. Now my recommendation then
uh was that public benefits should be perpetual. >> I remember that. and while not exclusively for public use are [snorts] intended primarily to benefit the public. There was also had some discussion that
complying with the town's code requirements would not be considered a public benefit. >> Yep. >> Oh, absolutely. So I think we should have some discussion on whether or not we need
additional clarification to the last sentence. >> My only concern with that, Jim, I agree with everything you said is does it need to be codified in the comp plan? Because it in here earlier it talked about creating >> an ordinance >> an ordinance and these would be through
that ordinance. It's still in the comp plan, but it's not specifically laying out. >> And the comp plan has a different position in government than ordinances. Ordinances can be changed at any time.
>> The comp plan is a whole different process and it's our philosophy. It's not our implementation. The ordinance is to implement it. >> So you'd like to strengthen it with words like perpetual, things like that that you discussions. Yes. to define public benefit of that in the
>> comp or remove it >> from the comp plan until we >> remove it >> until we define the public benefit and then amend it. So I >> I'm going to play devil's advocate for for for you all say you define public
benefit you find it broadly you can go back and change it but you define right now say you know what open space versus height is a public benefit right like you if you give me more open space uh or plaza or workforce housing
what if you decide a community in the future that you don't want to uh uh you uh uh uh you know have that as a defined public benefit. Now, convention said that you have the ability to go back and change it through a comprehensive plan
amendment, but you will always have the right to do to add or delete, but it is a more ownorous process to go through. And sometimes, if we see right now with SP 180, once you put it in, you might not be able to take it out. But if we're if we're broad enough,
>> I think that, you know, the the open space, a point system, a uh scale, a percentage, all of that would be >> in the ordinance, the way I would see it. >> The ordinance is easier to be changed
and that that's how it's implemented. But a statement about what a public benefit is, I don't see that as being um restrictive. >> It depends on how you define what the public benefit is. Uh if you take it to
a certain point, then you are being prescriptive. If you don't take it a certain point, then it really doesn't uh uh um provide for what your intent is right here. So uh um >> Eddie, react to his specific statement. Jim, read read what you what we did with
the >> what we discussed before. All right. >> Public benefits shall be perpetual >> and while not exclusively for public use are intended primarily to benefit the public.
>> I think that is broad enough that you would be fine here to include that language if if you know I I don't think that would would hurt. Let me let me add because Jim and I submitted these simultaneously and I think this is consistent. What I had in my guiding
principles on that in the document I authored was it had three criteria. Accessible to or for the benefit of all. >> Unique in its nature or physical location. So you're not just duplicating but you're enhancing. And a long-term or
perpetual commitment. >> Those are the three guiding principles I had >> before I wrote the details. we we get and I think we're going to see it again in December that there's a big difference at least in my mind between a
public benefit and an amenity. >> Absolutely. >> And with what London Bay has probably shown all of us now, they have a whole list of things that to me are all amenities. I
don't see that any of these or very few of that list is really a public benefit. It benefits our development. Maybe there's some spillover benefit to the public, but it's not exclusive to the public.
>> And you know, having done other public benefits ordinances, I can say that it sometimes, you're absolutely right, not an amenity. It's an effect. Um ultimately, what it is is about the effect. The amenity can be part of effect. Monetary aspect can
be part of that effect. [cough] Um you know you have amenities like uh uh a trolley system that sometimes public benefit but sometimes the public benefit is actually preservation of value to community because it's allowed to design a certain way. a preservation
of viewpoint a viewshed uh may not be deemed as amending by some folk but it can be deemed a public benefit because you're maintaining certain character by offering something in return. >> Um I think that what you know you have
provided is um at first glance pretty innocuous. It doesn't uh but it doesn't really extend beyond to constrain uh uh uh madam attorney would you first agree would you agree or
I don't think that what there to constrain them >> yeah I would keep it as broad as possible um what I did hear the word perpetual >> yes >> um so there may be some agreement on that specific word adding that
>> perpetual public. Both of them had that in their >> and and not to confuse it even more if you go before that where it says particular attention would be paid to any permanent view corridors or the Gulf or bay waters in exchange for you're you're already saying that that's a public benefit
>> in the comp plan. So if if a developer comes in, which we have seen, they're going to say >> it says right in your comp plan that I gave you a view quarter. It doesn't specify it. You're right, >> but that's considered a public benefit. So that whole section to me needs to be cleaned up. If we're going to change it,
>> to me that's basically saying if you do this, that's automatically a public benefit. And I think we saw firsthand >> when they provided viewers, it changed the construction of the buildings in a way we didn't like them. >> Now they got taller, >> right? >> So that quarter thing kind of diminished
my mind pretty quickly, taking EIBC in particular, they tried to comply with that public benefit as you're suggesting, mayor, and up went the building. you know, the squish had to happen to get the same number units back. >> So, there's the unintended consequence of some of these things if they're not general. >> Can I just bring one point to light and
that is everything that you're mentioning is is great because it's giving guidelines over the >> it's giving guidelines for staff as we move forward and for you to make policy, but can we please constrain from naming out developments that haven't come before the LPA or council yet as it might show prejudice in some way,
fashion or form. So those comments about any future development that may be coming before LPA probably should be stricken from the conversation and just keep it to what is a public benefit. >> Good comment. >> Jim, can I ask you to read what you said
one more time but slowly and as you go I'd like to think we can say sounds good. Continue. >> Which Jim? The good one or the bad one? [laughter] >> I haven't figured out which the good one because sometimes they flip. I'm gonna say [laughter] Jim Jim Dunlap
>> because I I like all of that. I want to hear it piece by piece. >> Sure. >> Number one, accessible to or for the benefit of all. >> Good. >> Unique in its nature or physical location.
>> Good. I like physical location >> because the South needs a restaurant. >> Yes. >> Third, a long-term or perpetual commitment. >> Like it. And Jim, you had something else that he didn't have. >> Yeah, there was something additional. >> Well,
what I had said was, you know, uh, public benefits are perpet perpetual, but while not exclusively for public use, are intended primarily to benefit the public >> andor intended, if that could be added, andor intended for Yes. And then the
last part was, you know, doesn't necessarily mean a policy statement, but complying with the town's code requirements is not a public benefit, which is what we we're being sold all the time. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Well, you're going to get foundation
planning. >> Yeah. >> And that's a benefit. Well, there's a five or a 10 yard >> uh setback and you got to do landscaping anyway. So, it's not it's a code requirement. It's not a benefit. >> Yeah. >> It would be helpful for you if they'd
send you what they do. >> Are you taking all this in, Eddie? You got any recommendations? >> Yeah. He's thinking >> and or or >> and or or >> what do you mean? >> All that just lifted and or or
>> those and or or is it all inclusive or are they individual? >> I would say go with or. >> I think they're >> No, they're not ants. you want to get your dog. >> Was that a trick question? [laughter] >> Yeah, it was. I wanted to make sure that we thought about it though because it could and you have to have mine all
other conditions and if it's unique to place, you have public benefit type that aren't necessarily unique to place that you may consider in the future. For example, workforce housing and under the definition of a provider, workforce housing may not maybe be, you know, someone that privately might benefit,
but it's still technically a public good because by taking that out of the pool, you have an a collective effect on a community ability for to have affordability as a whole. And so you make it too restrictive. Can we can we
just try to throw something out here to see if we could get closer to >> where it says particular attentition could be attention could be paid to permanent viewing quarter. It would that be a good place to add particular attention would be paid to perpetual [snorts] however you want to see it sustainable
incorporate what you both gyms have there. You're you're you're eliminating the permanent view corridors, but that still would be covered under perpetual or potentially could be covered under perpetual >> and and try to get that sentence to keep it more broad versus specific to >> what is a view corridor or what is a,
you know, to me a view corridor that would be a perpetual thing, >> you know, until another development potentially could come in. But >> to try to stay within the guidelines of Senate bill, the Senate bill as well >> and that could be specified in the ordinance. >> Correct. that a view corridor is
>> sure >> a a public benefit. >> No, no objection at all. >> I think that makes great sense, especially because view corridors is the only public benefits that's called out in any of these in this document anywhere. So, >> people are hanging their projects on.
>> But that's Yeah, but that statement would be broad enough to include that. >> We would include it, >> but it wouldn't be >> But they can think of other things. >> Yeah. [snorts] >> Mhm. >> I like that. What do you think? >> I think that's the right place to put it. >> Eddie has a perplexed look on his face.
>> I just think from that particular to have one particular item and be asked to compare it to other items that you may want. So it doesn't it's not precluded
in this case and it just acted the way the last time said in each case the town shall balance the public benefit the high limit against other public benefits that would result in the specific proposal. So it keeps it open for you to balance [snorts] but if you change it then I wonder if
the revised text would constrain you in a way that you may not intend. Uh, it shouldn't, Eddie. I think if you were to leave the last sentence as is, >> but make the comments that the gyms both
brought up to where Dan suggested they be inserted, I think we actually are not focusing on view corers and are giving some guidance as to public benefits are public and long-term and near perpetual
and basically for the benefit of the public primarily >> and can change over We can capture those in that spot. >> And could you take it even further by let's say perpetual sustainable or as laid out in the land development code [clears throat]
>> because then that allows you however you change land development code or policies and procedures in that it's still covered under the comp plan. >> See the view corer thing come from as you can see here the original part of your comprehensive plan. It's not how I would written it. >> Um
>> and that's what we're trying to address. So would that perpet per perpetual sustainable whatever words you need to use there >> encompass that maybe this is a Nancy question would that encompass that >> to be >> it's not more restrictive actually it's more open as opposed to what this says
>> um I agree I don't think it's more restrictive I think it gives more guidance >> as to what we're looking for from a value foot >> right >> look >> I would actually strip out that entire portion there starting with particular
attention >> start that out >> uh from particular all the way to proposal. So you start from the bottom page 12 >> the six line in after natural resource criteria.
I would say your best approach then is to take um everything ex to the um out path to the word golf. So particular attention will be paid. Da
da da da da. >> Yeah. >> Um that enhanced the view corridor to the Gulf. And then you say um before that the town may consider uh public benefit. We can use the uh the
text you know provided or just keep it simple and say the power uh may uh consider a variety of public benefits as defined as you know uh uh >> perpetual >> perpetual >> perpetual whatever
>> exactly exactly what said period and then keep the last sentence >> that [clears throat] that I think that's how >> and I think it needs to be more than just perpetual. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I would say my form of perpetual is that if that development >> goes away something is out
>> nothing gets perpetual in life >> then what do you do about that perpetual aspect >> when it gets redeveloped or if it gets redeveloped that that's a consideration you have to consider too. So maybe for the lifime when you get to it
>> or you say for the um you know the lifetime of the the uh you have to tie it into the actual development order which is how public benefit ordinance really are tied in anyway. >> Yeah, perpetual's really tricky because I remember
certain development down there that there was a rightway that some guy gave it in >> perpetuity. perpetuity. >> And that's why I put long-term or perpetual nature. >> Gotcha. >> Because people can buy 10ear commitments, if you will, do some stuff for the town for a decade. It gives you
all kinds of >> Okay. I see where you're [clears throat] coming from. >> That's what I stuck in there. We haven't gotten there yet, but >> I was trying to get there. >> Yeah. >> So, what's it going to be?
Yeah, we got it. So, you're saying just get rid of basically where it says particular all the way down to where it says golf, but leave the last sentence in. Is that what you're >> Leave the last sentence in and add that uh definition that we had just described right before that sentence instead to [snorts] define the public benefit to
give you that range and then keep it to it that you know keep that same portion of policy where it says the town will evaluate and balance, right? It's only by balancing it. You have to evaluate to figure out what you believe as a council the balance is that give you the
discretion while then maintain the fact that hey this is you know if it's the public benefits being proposed you're going to evaluate it and go forward from there. Um it's a little bit more loose. It doesn't focus on the view corridor.
>> I'm sorry. >> Oh Don. Oh, okay. >> I have to see going the other way. Oh, >> we're we're just going to uh reflect that Don Sudd has stepped away for Did you say Jim? >> Don. John.
>> For an hour. Okay. >> For an hour. >> Um, >> mayor, after this item, um, it will be possible to take a >> break, a a lunch break. Um, you may have seen me texting my sister with bleeding and in the urgent care. So, I need to
take my lunch break to uh check in on her really quickly. So, after we get this item, I apologize for being slightly distracted. >> Yeah, we'll take care of >> 10 to your sister. Take a break. >> We'll take a break. What time is it? >> Noon. >> Thank you. Come back at 12:30.
>> Yes. >> Uh uh this is Doug. I will not be able to join you after it. >> Okay. Well, I hope you have a happy Thanksgiving wherever in the world you are, Doug. >> Dallas, Texas.
>> All right. >> Thanks. >> It was good to see you. Happy Thanksgiving. >> Happy Thanksgiving, Doug. >> Well, we'll come back when he is able to come back. >> I think that's your right hand. >> You mean if it's 10 minutes? It's 10 minutes. What's 20 minutes? >> I sent around a copy of those things I read. So, you all got those? You want to
steal from there? >> That's my whole document, but the top I read. >> I think we just used the top three. I think it's right. We're going to call the meeting back to order. It is 12:31. Uh, believe it or not, we are still on building Heights on
page 12. [laughter] >> Are you guys >> page 20 >> or page? Well, yeah, the document's 12, but page 20. >> I I correct my wrong, mayor, but I think Do we have on that one? >> Well, that last line. Yes. I think Nancy
made a very good point. You guys understood where we were going with it and Monday come back with your suggested >> and we'll review it on Monday if everybody's okay. >> Yeah. >> With that because everybody will have a chance then to read it. >> Oh yeah, definitely. Yep. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Then we'll move on to 1 C5 density. That did not change. Anybody have any? >> Nope. >> No. Okay. Then we'll move on to transient densities. Um pretty much summed it all up in one word. Does anyone have any
any changes that uh that haven't been scratched out already? >> All right, then we'll move on. 1 C7 accessory dwelling units for residential properties. >> Um Rebecca, I know you >> Yep, I see that here.
>> Is there is got everything that >> um should we add something that says it must be homesteaded? >> Be on mic, please. >> Thank you. Can you repeat that, please? >> Yes. So, I'm curious as to whether we
might consider adding that the property must be homesteaded. So, we don't have a a rental property trying to get another rental, but you have a homestead resident maybe trying to have their mother-in-law >> going to restrict it more. So, I don't think you can do that.
>> And >> turn your mic on. Sorry, >> you're going to restrict that and they are grandfathered in accessory apartments and that's why I don't understand why all of this is blocked
out. I mean this >> why it's all stricken because the accessory apartments are grandfathered in that are still around >> but new ones.
>> Well, they're Jason. Do you have do you have anything to say about this? >> Maybe. Hold on. We'll look forward to it. >> So, it's using a accessory apartment policy to switch to accessory dwelling unit policy. Um, most of this is was
written to recognize the old Lee County apartments and attached units. >> Um, which I don't think they even exist anymore, honestly. Um, >> here. >> There may be. Yeah, there may be. >> There's grandfathered in units. I have a list of them.
>> Uh, right. But I don't know how many of them meet this definition of what this was restricted to. >> I know. But half >> we have the two different apartments in the code that talk about you can only have something there if the [clears throat] owners there. There's a whole bunch of details that go into it. >> Um
>> I would say that they're two portions of that. I'm writing an ADU to for another city right now. Um so I just agree with Homer uh uh action. It is a policy a community choose to have or they choose not to. Um I would say how you define
that occupy is important because sometimes what we found with that they made it too restrictive so that you had to be uh uh an occupant of the uh the primary building but if you're elderly and your kids have moved away you don't need that big of a space then what that
does is prevent you from moving to the smaller unit. So we have to be very careful in addition for using homesteaded it's important to think about the fact that uh from a state statutory standpoint what's proposed on the table and only narrowly got defeated
last year and it's come back and it's been refiled again is that they are looking at treating the accessory growing unit and the the primary unit as different from a homestead and taxation purpose. Uh uh um so how you deal with
the wording on that may come into play with the state where um I wouldn't use necessarily use the word homesteaded. I may use the word uh you know the that that the property owner must you know be in either the accessory rolling unit or
the primary residence and that's a little bit more clean from that standpoint if that's your intent from a holiday standpoint cuz they are running through language of the state right now that may impact how you if you don't want homestead it >> okay so could someone potentially use it
let's say someone is rebuilding their home here they used portion of it before to rent out and they lived in a portion of it, but now they may consider an ADU, rent their house and live in the ADU. >> Depends on how your code is written.
ADUs by their nature can be attached or detached. And communities when they run through and write their ordinances can go either way. The ordinance that I'm working through with a city uh one of the cities right now, they don't want to detach ADUs. They want attach ADU so
that it's part of the primary building. They may have a common entrance but it for all intents and purposes is its own separate unit with certain minimum requirements that make an accessory dwelling unit. These include the living area and um base minimum for living areas as well as kitchen, bathroom, etc.
to make it a living unit. As a community, you can do it either way. Some communities allow both attached and detach. Other only allowed detach and others only allowed attach. That is a policy decision. >> Okay. Thank So, are we planning on
allowing uh accessory dwelling units in the future by eliminating that they um were previously from 1962 to 1984 by crossing all this out? >> Pardon? >> Are we now going to allow accessory
units whereas they were only grandfathered in if they were prior 1962 to 1984? By crossing everything out, you're eliminating those dates. It allow you to enact an ADU ordinance that will allow for it, but you do not
enact one. They won't be allowed. Um, so that would be the uh >> in what in what did you say? In actuality, it won't be allowed. >> They can be allowed. Only you put it in your zoning code >> without the Yeah. >> You don't put in your zoning code, they're not allowed. But if you do put
it in Yeah. So if if a unit was destroyed, are they allowed to rebuild that or not? >> The build by regulations allow for that right now. >> So I'm I'm reading this as being more broad than the existing or the proposes
broader and not limiting limiting it to what you were talking about which is just during those dates as a possibility. We still have to fix the >> so it is going to be broader and not >> I I believe so from a from the Senate Bill 180 perspective I would say yes. However, implementation of it, we still do allow the buildback. So for those
units that are above density but had two units and we can prove that then they still are provisions to allow them to build back. >> The code >> the code or the code or the >> ordinance would grandfather in these
older units. >> Uh you already have the buildback provisions in your comp plan and and the land development code >> get destroyed. >> It it's still there. It was there, >> right? So if it was built, if it is built, >> then yes, it's legal. >> Would it have to be on the grandfather
accessory list to be legal? >> No, there's I haven't there's an apartment list that was floating around years ago. I've never actually seen that. So you Okay. [laughter] And I believe that was because of this these dates, right? So I think what this
does is open opportunity for somebody that if they didn't meet those dates, they could potentially get >> an ADU. >> So it is broader from that perspective. >> Okay. I just want to make sure. >> All right. Are we okay to move on to the next section? >> There is. >> Oh, go ahead.
>> Uh it starts off with accessory apartments. >> Yeah, that growing unit. >> I have a note here as well. Yeah, it's a growing unit. And just so that I'm abundantly clear on my end, is the consensus at this point to say we want
to ensure that our ADUs have to have an occupancy rule or no? >> I wasn't clear on more detail what you're what you're asking. >> Well, we uh council member Link had brought up uh the aspect of um the
homestead uh h portion. I had gone to an explanation, but I don't believe I have a direction either way on whether the owner need to occupy the primary or secondary drone unit or not.
>> How it was that both units could not be rented. >> Okay. And that might be something that you would put in a code as opposed to a comprehensive plan to be quite frank. >> Yes. >> Yeah. just how we're doing in other places.
>> Makes sense. >> Sounds good. >> Thank you for allowing me that clarification. Appreciate it. >> Dan, maybe could we just say for the record that Doug Ecman has um left the building? >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> Oh, yes. He left the meeting. He's Yeah, he technically he wasn't in the meeting. >> He left the He left He left our max headroom view. >> That's right. Oh, max head room. Yeah. All right. Next is 1 C8, auxiliary dwelling units for commercial properties. >> This is uh looks like it's a whole new
section. >> It is. >> Anybody have any issues with the way it's worded or any context? >> Yes, sir. >> N okay, we'll move on density transfers.
I have a question as to why you know this has always been a thorn in our sides is the proximity factor because it's subjective what's what's proximity is proximity a mile six miles >> that's why we crossed it out >> and is that why it's crossed out
>> that's part of it the other part of it is that for any density transfer that you're doing a transfer development right scenario you always define your um your donation and your receiving area proximity
doesn't matter. You establish your district proximity the move point and you really should move toward that model because that's how they're supposed to be written. >> Okay. >> All right. Uh 1 C10 there was no changes. 1 C11 no changes.
>> Wait. >> Okay. >> Um >> what you and you okaying, Jane? Um my question is um on C11 let's see >> C1 is Santos road. >> No it's right now it's on map
amendments. >> Oh map amendment one >> levels allowed by future land use map may be increased through formal amendments to this plan to increase is clearly in the public's interest and not
just the one asking for it. Um, so what would that h how would that be defined as public interest and not just I mean it's the person who's coming to ask for it is asking for it but
>> it would have to be a public interest. No, I mean, frankly speaking, this was from your original plan, and I it's one of those where it's like, you had it, I'm not going to object to it as as your
consultant or your advisor, but if you were to get rid of it, I wouldn't, you know, I wouldn't object to that either because from a professional standard standpoint, when you look at that, you all have the ability to change this plan
as you deem fit in the best interest of the town. Adding this language doesn't really change that. So why have it, right? It it it it it kind of like >> you know what I'm saying? >> Well, this is here and I've seen several
cases where staff has said based on this this policy that it is clearly not in the best interest of the town. So it refers to this >> the latest I mean we had just had a development that came through that was approved where it specifically referred to this as clearly not in the best
interest of the town. >> Right. >> Oh well yeah where I have seen similar regulations is where in the code you might limit certain application to portions of the year but you don't normally see that with a barrier island.
You see that in cases for example at a county level where they have an urban development boundary and they're constricting that boundary and they limit the application period to twice a year >> and so this then becomes part of the legal underpinning for that type of action but you don't normally see this
in a barrier island uh comprehensive plan. >> Okay. >> So I the timeline though may be of interest moving forward because in here it says one year. Um, it doesn't say how the council will determine to accept more because we usually we got to take the
application for you to know that know about it. But the one year may be helpful if we see a run on amendments to this after this is adopted and consolidating those all into a hearing type of thing. I could see from a staffing perspective instead of us running through amendments every month, it would become a nightmare. So, or
maybe we go to two two times a year, but limiting how often we come to you with the amendments to this plan moving forward might be beneficial from a staffing and pers perspective. >> Okay. >> I think you can make a good point there. The other thing from a devil's advocate point to think about in that standpoint
is after a failed application. If you end up deciding that there is a period time period for which folks have to wait until they reapply with a with application we see it sometimes with site plans right either substantive change or you have to wait 6 months or a
year you see in other communities then this would be part of that underpinning for that. If you that is your intent I don't see a harm in keeping this. Again, I want to stress that at any given point, the uh that the council has the ability to go in and say, you know what,
we want to make a policy change and uh you always have the right to go back and edit this comprehensive plan after adoption uh through the process. So, >> good point. >> Are you okay, Jane? Move forward. Okay.
Uh Santos Road, that was all completely strickened out. >> Gone. gone. All right. Uh, wetland buffers. Looks like the only thing you change is cross out the C chapter 15 at the end. >> Got that? Yeah. >> Continue on. 1D post disaster
development. No changes to that. 1D1 post disaster bill back policy. Doesn't appear that there's a any substantial changes to that other than a couple letters here or there. >> Mhm. Some of that's because now is not the time to do this.
>> Right. [laughter] >> We'll figure out afterwards. >> Right. >> Right. >> Uh policy 1D2, economic development and recovery. That's a new section. Anyone have any issues with the way that's worded? >> Only we have to update the Santini
Village strictly that. >> Yeah. [snorts] >> To be the same context. You guys got that? >> Got it. the Santini Marina Village. >> Yes. >> Up that text. >> Right.
>> Uh onee, hazard mitigation. Just added a couple couple words which are much more relevant now than they were >> 25 years ago. >> No changes to that. Uh 1E1 pre- disaster
buildback policy. There were some changes. Anybody have any issues with the changes in there? No. >> All right, we'll move on to coastal setbacks. >> No changes. >> I do have a question on that. Okay. >> On the predesaster build back, it said,
you know, what was crossed out >> was um >> Oh, right. >> the um space at ground level could be permitted in addition to the replacement >> of the pre-existing enclosed square
footage. So, it's saying that if you lift it, you can't have that space back. Is that right? As as as a garage or anything? >> Garage. >> They're allowed storage. >> Parking and storage. >> Parking storage. Yeah.
>> So, right. So this was the this was the policy that you had that allowed you to uh change the bill back bit uh differently but only for commercial buildings when you wanted them to elevate after a storm because you want
that for residential too. >> I thought that we'd made that change with residential. If you had livable square footage below that you couldn't have you could add it through the post- disaster bill back or predesaster post- disaster bill back. could build that back on top of it. >> What did what?
>> So you could take your space and put it on top as long as you were within the height requirements. You could you could get that square footage back. I I want to say we've already made that change. >> You did make that change. >> Yeah. >> But Jane's talking about pre- disaster, >> right? >> Right. This pre
>> Right. >> Okay. >> If you want to keep it, we would have to adjust the language to allow for what you have updated in the code as well. taking it out kind of allow you to kind of swing it both ways a lot easier. >> So would this allow say someone wants to
to build back to make their place more resilient? Would this allow them in in pre- disaster? Would it allow them to take and keep that square footage and go up? I suppose as long as I don't know how that would make even an issue. Most small houses are going to have the
ability to go bigger anyway just by just by right. >> But if it's existing unit or something. >> Yeah. had preyear elevating an existing unit. >> Right. But I mean, what is this going to apply to? Some small 800, two bedroom, one bath house, Dan. So, I have a 2700
ft ranch that we raised 12 ft up in the air. >> Uh, underneath it is >> garage storage. I plan to put maybe a pool table under there, but it can't be any living, no toilets, no nothing. Uh, any electrical. It's just outlets that
are up above flood. >> Sure. It's just >> No, I totally get that. But what I'm I think what Jane was asking is does it allow you to take what you had down there? Let's say you had a non-conforming >> and allow you to go up and what I'm saying is just building codes the way they are now would allow you to have another story on your home. So this
>> two units, can you keep two units is the question I'm asking with >> Wouldn't that be make it a commercial unit then? I mean no could make it a duplex. The difference in pre and post essentially is >> you're kind of rewarded for doing it before the storm by not having to meet
certain setbacks. >> Um post disaster generally has to meet setbacks. That's why you get a lot of variances and other things. >> Um the the biggest issue with this I mean when are you in pre and when are you in post right that's a separate conversation but um it's the next to
last sentence where it says allows commercial uses. The problem with that was also that if you're in a mixeduse future land use category, but you're a residential zoning, then it was applying. [snorts] Um, but if you're not in a mixeduse category, then it it we didn't know how
that applied. It was a very wonky policy in general that's being stricken. I don't think it affects what you've done in the code and your I'm trying to think of the names of them. The um cottage lots and those other processes that you've done. I don't think it affects those the change of that.
>> I I would agree with that assessment. Okay, Jane, you still look like you're >> I don't think we answered whether they would get to have if they had a separate unit like an accessory unit downstairs and they have their house upstairs. If they're going to bring it all up, do
they still get to have their accessory unit as two? So the same conversation we're having with post disaster, I guess, you know, now that I'm rereading the existing language again, the real question for me for you would be, do you want to have to go through the RPD process to do that
>> RPD >> because right now >> reszoning, so you're going to have all you have all these spot zonings within neighborhoods of RPDs rather than RS or RC or something like that in order to do the the pre- disaster buildback. we've been dealing post so it's kind of
fallen the pre has kind of fallen off the spotlight a little bit but um so moving forward I want to take the steps to do something before a storm I have to go through an RPD so a lot of people actually didn't do it before the storm because of that cost and that that
timeline >> well to me common sense would say if you have a duplex >> that's non-conforming and you want to make it conforming that you should be allowed to have >> the ability to do that >> correct And I guess what Jane is asking is does this allow that to happen?
>> It allows it to happen but it maintains the reszoning part of that process. >> So they would still have to reszone it. >> Correct. Which is cumbersome? No. >> So >> how do we do we need that >> to be cumbersome? >> I I would say if you want to encourage it done before the damage happens, then
you would eliminate the the processes that restrict it. >> No, I agree. So it would stay it could be an RC or an RS. You wouldn't have to spot zone to your point. So we could get into the whole differential. If they wanted more square footage, then it is the RPD. If they just want to be able to do it, then we eliminate that step.
>> So square footage stays the square footage, then you could do it without having to go to RPD. >> Correct. >> But if you want to increase it, then you have to go through the RPD proc. >> That's an option. >> That's some nuance that you could add to that. >> Is there a way to add something like that? >> It go. Okay. >> So I think the only change I'll talk
about. >> How do you remember to put that in the code? [clears throat] >> Maybe we strike the RPD part of this and just say defined in the code. Yeah, I I would agree. >> Yeah. >> So, >> make it easier to >> come. Right. Right. Right. >> Word again.
>> So, can we move on to coastal setbacks? >> You may if you'd like. >> Yes, we can. >> Anybody? >> Nothing. Nothing changed there. >> Nothing changed. >> So, we'll move on to National Flood Insurance Program. >> Oh, >> boy. Congratulations,
>> town manager. You want [laughter] to have some input here? [clears throat] >> Why did we eliminate the four there? >> The what? >> The four things that we used to have. [cough] >> Being able to improve um things that are are just
strengthening without having to [cough] be a part of the 50% rule. We fought for that. >> Where? >> We're on national we're on NFIP >> one echo three. >> Why did we remove one through four? My gosh. I mean, but they added the the sentence at the end there. So, let me see.
>> Yeah, I think that kind of encompasses it all. >> I think it's uh right. So, >> yeah. Um, part of it also is you're putting in very specific CRS items.
>> Okay. So, in my other life, I have done the CRS program as well. And I can tell you that it's a menu of options, right? And there's more than four options, that menu of options to get to your point threshold for each set at the 5% a decrease. By modifying the way we did
here, it allows you to not just stick to the four strategy, but to use the menu of options that may evolve over time as the CRS panbook evolves. So that was the basis for our recommendation here is to open up your possibility for that a little further so that you could have that menu of options. >> I agree.
>> Yeah. So, and well, the 50% rule to your point, Jane, if you've looked at your tax bill lately, >> you can't do it anyway because it's your home is worth nothing and your land is worth it just shifted. >> So, you get two inches of water in your house, Jim. Well, no, you're tearing the house down anyway based on the
valuations that 50% rule in our case is pretty much all but a mute point now. >> It's all land. >> It's all land value now. >> The values in the land pretty much >> I agree with the rewarding. It's especially scary for you and me and Jim, >> right?
>> So, if you live in a single family home that was rebuilt under the 50% rule and go look at your land value versus your property value now, >> some have zero. >> Some have zero value >> or or it has significantly gone down even though you've incre improved your property. So, 50% rule. >> How is that fair and legal?
>> Well, that's a whole another conversation. >> Yeah, we could go through that another one. >> Yeah. >> Well, let's belly up and do something about that. Yeah. >> Okay. Damn it. Excuse me. >> All right. Moving on to flood proofing
of commercial buildings. >> Was that a good idea? [laughter] >> Gosh darn him. He's responsible for the obvious. >> All right. Nothing to change there. >> Anybody have any things with the coastal building regulations that was crossed out? It was just picked up, I think, in
the next in other areas. Correct. Yeah, it it's too it's hyper specific and it doesn't make sense to, >> you know, do something island wide to just do with something that's like >> one particular area in this case.
>> All right. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Um, yeah, we're going to re number these as well. I did it to three when we were reumbering them. Yeah. So, we'll we'll we'll adjust the number. >> Uh one E4. Anybody have any issues with the wording on that? [clears throat]
>> I do not. >> All right. 185. Any concerns or changes to the freeboard? All right. 1 E6 vulnerability assessment. Pretty straightforward.
One uh one F redevelopment. The only issue I see there is the theater district. You got to change our theater district name. >> So Civic. >> Yep. >> Villa Centini Plaza. >> Oh yes. There it is again. Jim, you
missed that one. Come on. >> Guess when I said change them all, I meant it. >> Yeah. Who would have thought? [cough] >> And we still leave red coconut area. >> Oh, >> wait. Am I supposed to refer to you as the good gym or the bad gym? I'm not sure. It depends. He flip flops. So, it keeps you on your toes. You never know. >> Rebecca had a question.
>> Yeah. >> So, is that do we still keep the red coconut area? Assuming that because that means something to all of us. >> Just keep it for a while. >> Well, it's so those redevelopment areas have unique uh code sections. >> Okay.
>> And I wouldn't mess with that right now. >> Got it. >> Yeah. Do we need to rename it? >> Uh, it's >> just keep that. >> It's called that code. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> There's ZVL's out there with that name. >> Yeah. Changed too much.
>> Perfectly okay from my end. I just needed to know which way we were going. >> All right. Historical buildings 1 F1. >> Wait, wait, wait. >> Oh, okay. >> Oh, wait. Never mind. Not there yet. Never mind. >> All right. 1F1. Any changes or questions about
historic buildings? 1F2 specific redevelopment plans. A lot of same things. Santini Village. >> I I I love the traditional neighborhood design emphasizing porches on the front,
primary entrances visible from the street and cars to the rear. Is anybody building anything like that? No. Why is that our traditional? This was designed back when Joanne was drawing pictures at the LPA and this is not traditional
anymore. >> Well, no, actually those designs stemmed from wanting a walkable community where people were in touch with people and so it was the expanse of the of front porches and and that kind of thing. But
there's no prime. There's no entrance from the rear on a 50 foot wide lot. >> No, that is true. Unless somebody built a very small thing. But I don't think you want to preclude it from not happening. >> No. But is this really what our design
is for houses on Fort Myers Beach? >> Residentials. If you look at almost every one of the woodlid homes that's going up, it's got this lovely big porch in the front and parking underneath >> off of the bedrooms off the >> So, just remember that this is really
only applying to the predetermined redevelopment areas. >> So, so the the what is it called? the village, the RV park, those are predetermined and have rights that go with them to be redeveloped or they have the option of CPDs and RPDs and other
things or development agreements or what have you. So, this was just a way to set out development redevelopment of these areas can occur under these parameters. If you want to do something different, then you're not a it's not a mandate other than to
get the density and intensity by It essentially mimics what's in the code right now. So, we've had we've had a couple that came in and wanted to do something else, so they applied and >> submitted something else. >> Okay.
>> I would only recommend not touching much of it only because >> yeah, >> like I said, there's a lot of >> entitlements out there that are section, >> but it does not apply broad. >> Okay. >> All right. I would say that J
I would add some words in there just for SP 180 purposes if we want to just you know in accordance with the underlying zoning. We don't have to but it might help with that J so they don't think that we're
adding something new when we're not. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So that would be my thing. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So yeah. >> Yeah. What about H? Significantly reduce density from the existing level of 27 RV mobile homes per acre. >> That's existing language. >> Okay.
>> So, >> and it only pertains to one property essentially. >> Uh, right. >> Okay. >> We don't we don't generally consider mobile RVs as density anyways, but I think this is just a reference to show
you. All right. Everybody good with moving on to the next one? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Workforce housing density. This is a new added end to the future land use element >> and they're lining up at the door to add
it. >> I don't have any objection to this. Me >> neither. >> I just asked for a clarification on this. And uh >> Jim, >> which zoning >> microphone >> which zoning district
is workforce housing appropriate in or is it allowed in any district? >> I think I think it I think it was brought up back in this district. I think whether or not it's still in there I remember it was in there just
>> originally we had left that bit open after a couple of meetings on this you'll see that the word in the mixeduse areas was added at the at the end of the second sent like second line that defined the specific district in that
regard. So it would be a mixeduse area that will only be where this would be provided for in the future. So any district that you designate as mixed use now and in the future. >> Okay. >> Okay. Everyone all right with that?
>> Yep. >> Yep. >> All right. As we move on, we're going to go we'll do public comment again for the next section. But unless I don't think we need to go page by page, section by section, unless >> you leave the map. >> Yes, sir. Um, does the legend match the changes we made?
>> No. >> To the titles anymore? >> No, it does not. So, >> yeah, the map the map has >> We'll have to edit the map. Yes, the titles. >> And And I don't see a line for mixed use. >> For what? >> For which use? Mixed >> where what color is it?
>> No, because you've got medium residential. Well, >> maybe the legend needs to read as to what each one of those zones are as it's described versus >> There you are. >> Yeah. So, the medium higher density. >> Okay. >> So, Santin Marina [clears throat]
Village, you know, >> I don't even know where to take my boat. >> It's in there. >> It's the >> Well, it says at the top proposed misused. >> It says at the top proposed misused districts and then existing. >> Right. >> But there's still no misuse.
Well, that it tells you that time square that whole distance, every one of those under that are all mixed. >> Yeah, you're right. >> So then would the word proposed come out if we adopt it and it is the mixed? >> I would think that it would >> proposed. Okay. >> There's no category of mixed use.
>> Yes, it is. That whole top section, right, is no longer proposed. [clears throat] which is >> it's defined as >> easier >> public comments for community. >> Yeah. >> Well, let's finish. So,
>> if everybody's okay with it, unless you have anything specific within each one of the remaining categories, we'll take public comment. If they bring it up, we'll discuss it. If not, we'll move on to the next one instead of going paragraph by paragraph. >> Yeah. Unless somebody's
>> We're all in agreement that on this map it's no longer going to say proposed. It's mixed use. >> Yeah, of course. Because it'll when it's adopted. >> Once it's adopted. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. Public comment for the community design element. >> Bill.
Hi there. Bill Beach for the record. [clears throat] A very chilly Bill Beach. Um just a couple little points. one as I noticed that on uh on on CD1D2 that the language went from must have workforce housing to may consider initiatives for workforce housing. That
seems like a softening of the line. Um even with the hardening line, we're not getting a lot of workforce housing. Um another thing is that in CD-1F they talk about parking lot standards that I don't think existed before. I'm just not sure if that um is that going
to make that more restrictive in Bernison under House Bill or Senate Bill 150 >> if you're adding new parking lotions. [clears throat] >> Um and there's a mention that I didn't get in CD3-
is about a new public pedestrian plaza to the east of Old San Carlos Boulevard. I'm not sure where that is or what it is or >> it's not a lot of specificity. Say that. Uh, what was the >> CD-3- number five? >> 23.
>> Number five. >> Street connectivity. >> It's number Yeah, it's like a new public pedestrian plaza at the east of old San Carlos. >> No, that's not >> what is that? >> I don't see a
>> right here. >> Yeah. And then point it's like and then it goes to the small letters or [clears throat] >> it's page three or page 31. >> 31. >> Okay. Got it.
>> That's all. Thank you very much. Okay, Bill. >> Thanks. Anyone else? >> All right. Does anyone else have anything? If not, we'll touch on those couple things that Bill brought up if everybody's all right with that. >> Sure. >> Okay. The first one Bill mentioned if I
was 1D2. >> Is that correct, Bill? >> D CD1 D2. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, you'll see that uh the first sentence is crossed out.
>> Mhm. >> Because of SP 180. >> Oh, >> that's gone now. Okay. Okay. >> Yeah, that makes sense. there where it's underlined and crossed out. >> It's not only softened, it's gone up. >> Yeah. Yeah. However, we kept the rest of
it in our recommendation to you because SP 180 provide for if you make it more restrictive, but you still have this as an optin. So, retaining the opt-in portion of it
won't want to foul of 180. that exceeding the seven acres however would make it restrictive and in a way that might possibly not pass must >> definitely for one3 as well. Yeah. >> Okay. And then the other one of the
other concerns was the um parking looks like it was CD1. Sorry, Dan. Go ahead. Go back to 20 of the last paragraph >> one >> page 20. >> Page 20 last CD1. D3. I just want to make sure you understand the flexibility here. Town should consider measures in
LDC for incentives workforce housing as a public benefit. >> Yikes. >> Um, is that really true? >> As a clearly defined public benefit >> emotionally. Oh, I get that. >> Yes. Yeah. But go back to functionally,
operationally, enforcably, legally. >> Keep going. >> Yeah, you could. >> Oh, sorry about that. Yeah, >> and if it does, then what's that incentive look like? >> Taller, wider.
Well, the incentives are um page 34. >> That that sentence does only refer to master plan developments. So, I I don't I Yeah, I don't know. I don't I >> just don't want it to be used against us. >> Yeah.
>> Well, what do you say, guys? Right. >> I didn't want that to be brought up, I guess. >> Yeah, I think we can. >> Well, and for me, how does that come out to which we've seen in the past where it becomes employee housing,
>> of course, >> because they're working here. >> Exactly. >> Versus more affordable, or whatever you want to call it. >> Right. >> Um, >> I just think we got to deal with it. >> On that one, you could delete it. I will say at the rate of which you're deleting uh or keeping workforce housing because
you stayed away from affordable housing remember that under state statute for your comprehensive plan you have to account for >> have to account for it >> for for for workforce board affordable housing. Now we skirted it with the affordable by moving it towards the workforce housing which is that higher
level AMI but the more you reduce on this but more likely that your housing element is not going to pass muster on >> concern about defined public benefit. So maybe this one that's why I said it's okay leave everything else just take out the that it's a public benefit. So
>> for incentives for work, >> you can take out the public benefit that yeah, a part of this um >> uh uh um I would delete everything passed like um >> as part of a clearly defined >> as part of a yeah >> um I would say instead of as part of a
clearly defined public benefit, I would say as part of a package for master plan development. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, the other issue is around the parking lots. >> Uh, CD-1-f >> I believe that was the the one.
>> Yes, that's what page is that 21. [snorts] [cough] >> Yeah, it says li that limit parking lots along main streets. I mean, that to me, yeah, it's counterproductive. A sterile
boulevard would be a main street >> which is be the most >> different you have build two lines rather than setback lines in the mixeduse districts and the time square and all that >> right >> but this says to limit parking lots >> which which you already do because you
have to build the facade the front of the building to a stereo or to the principal street rather than >> I think we're thinking about just a parking lot. >> Oh >> without a building. No, this is >> the difference between the word fronting and the use of the whole property.
>> So that I think that's where the differentation is. You want the front of that property to not create a pedestrian vehicle conflict of people pulling out if you want to make it more walkable and bikable. >> This is orientation >> all has to do with the building.
>> Yeah. So the the top parking lot in the back you have to have a frontage that is >> shielding for the view along the corridor. as opposed to limiting use that that that totally different matter. >> Did Did that Did you get that light bulb? Because it's it
>> No. >> Okay. >> The way I read this is that you can't have a parking structure build to the sterile bar. >> You're Okay. >> You're you're thinking about parking decks.
>> Yes. and you want to allow for them potentially and your fears that this would >> I'm not well that's where the word limit I mean when you say limit to me that doesn't open up an option to do that >> yeah well what if we did service parking lots >> well I mean how broad can you so say
someone wants to build a parking garage but they want to have retail on the front of it but they're still parking on that first level does this eliminate the ability to be able to do that >> no your code actually requires those parking decks to have the retail on the first at the front facing the Right. Well, that's where you get into like the setback.
>> The intent of this was your your surface lots. >> Surface LS >> where asphalt sea of asphalt not buildings and architectural >> which you already do. It's just >> Mhm. >> So then why would street >> why wouldn't you add the word surface to it?
>> Parking lot. >> Got it. >> And then carry that through. >> There's one word but >> there it is. >> Yeah. Perfect. Very easy fix on this one. And then the other ones was the CD3A. I don't I didn't have one specific one
highlighted, but >> KD3. >> It was the new pedestrian mall if I >> Yes. What is it? >> Yeah, it was sub B. >> Where is >> A12 or three?
>> It's >> It's 3 A3. 38 3 V >> three. >> Oh, the public. >> Yeah, >> I mean that just that might >> east of old San >> that might actually be a carry over from
your old code. And the reason why it's underlined because we had to move it. >> That's Bayside Park. >> I think it is Bayside Park. >> Well, Bayside Park would be north. >> You just think >> Old St. Carlos. >> Okay. >> East would be the Cigar Hut. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Or Yucatan or the parking lot.
>> And that's the east side of old San Carlos. >> Old old San Carlos runs north and south. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So on that entire section there that you're that'll underline if I could direct you to page 28 where it's drug
through policy 3- D-4. It's a copy and paste over. The reason why it's underlined that section is because since we had to move things around within your community of D element, we had to strike
through everything in order to do the reordering correctly in the uh from a structural standpoint notification standpoint. So everything you see here under 3 CD-3- A-3 is a copy and paste over maybe some minor modification. So
like kind of reduce the language because it was duplicative in some instances. >> Well, it is a difference work with the private sector to do that not just develop that. So that was fully intentioned to provide incentives, partnerships, cooperations, whatever
they are to get the public sector to set that up. >> So that to me those words changed quite a bit. >> Yes. If you want to edit this, we're all ears. But where I'm just noting from a historical standpoint, that's where that came about. It's in your original comprehensive
plan. >> So Jim, would you say that you would reinsert the private sector portion of >> because that shows where the >> intention is, not us. >> Which would allow for somebody to redevelop it in the public
interest. >> Totally. John, where would you put that? >> So, where we were where Mr. V picked up uh where is that park? And it could be >> any of those open spaces near the cigar hut or something. If we reinsert the
private sector portion that was removed when it was moved up above where we were at 21, I think it was page 21. It's just putting that language back in. So it goes to V23 where it says a new public pedestrian
plaza. Just insert the um >> work with your language. >> Yeah. Work with the private >> sector to establish a site for and then a new public. >> There you go. >> Did you get that? >> Um >> work with the private sector to establish
>> V right. >> Yeah. a new public >> there are two significant size properties along old east side of old San Carlos >> right >> private [clears throat] okay >> that good
>> okay it's all >> and that was it for unless somebody has anything else for the the uh community design element >> Scott your hidden path is in here >> yeah so the the hidden path that uh
which >> it's I'll show you where it is. It is >> Oh, are we talking about the road? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The >> It's 2A. It's on page 33 or 25 depending on which number you're looking at.
>> Goal two to upgrade residential neighborhoods. Objective hidden paths. >> Where is [cough and clears throat] >> Well, it says hidden path, so I'm assuming it's under here somewhere. Side streets. You have to go to >> interconnected. It's called interconnected paths
>> right here. >> Now it's gone. >> CD3A1 >> page. >> Uh page >> Oh, here we go. >> Page. >> Oh, interconnected pass 23 or 31. >> 23 or 31. >> So, this this came up last year.
It was the understanding that they were specifically talking about that road connecting Dora to Lover's Lane, >> right? >> But this doesn't specifically say >> road >> that. >> But in theory, this isn't really
specifically speaking to that. I think everybody thinks that. But this what this is saying is that there are pathways if you're on a bike or you're or whatever that you can move north I say north and south on the island east and west on the island whatever without
hitting a [clears throat] sterile boulevard and there might be I mean you can in Laguna shores for a bit you can in my neighborhood the shell mound neighborhood >> well so the the thing with that development was
>> he couldn't push the building back any further because he said that this sentence >> would violate the it would violate the comp plan him moving that those buildings back.
So I guess my question is is that true? >> Oh boy. I didn't >> um >> I don't know that I don't know that site plan but planning of a kind of grid network internally is good practice. you want additional exits and all that. All
they had to do is accommodate a stub out to a future connection. >> Y >> and then plan around that. And now the internal layout of that could have been modified, I'm sure, a dozen different ways. >> Um, so I I can't speak specifically to that site plan and whether they could or
couldn't. I mean, I could argue you could change the building shape, you could do this, you Right. There's a thousand different ways you could do it. But the whole point is, as you mentioned, is to get traffic, foot, pedestrian, even vehicular traffic off of a sterile boulevard, >> right? >> But what the end result is if if it's
not a bike path or a golf cart path, it becomes a road and it's just another cut through that. >> We we see it all the time. People flip down Connecticut and then they cut through Shell Mound and >> Yes, they do. Yeah. Yeah, >> I mean the intent should be bikable,
walkable, maybe golf carts. >> That's the way that's the way I read this is >> that that the intent here that you have to have in connect that include designated spaces for walking bike bicycling and uh uh vehicle day and transit. So it
does it's trying to include everything in into a more complete network. >> Although it does say cars, >> right? that they car but >> this is island walk right this policy this policy is directing >> infrastructure projects CIP type things
>> neighborhood >> you know we we had that one lady from um you know how they're doing the bike path all the way to a stero I get that would be that would be super cool if we could figure out a way to to do it on the island but if it's >> you're also going to have cars too I
mean you're just you're just >> bringing traffic to neighborhoods you're >> bringing traffic neighborhoods. You want the traffic on a sterile, not everybody's zipping through shell mound. >> I can't speak to the specific site plan because I haven't seen it. I tell you in another site plan where I had to
negotiate, uh, I gave them a little carve out to overhang on the path alongside building from the setback. And I asked them, well, if the if the city were to give you an extra story, will you carve out 10 feet on the bottom
floor, design that space really well as a dual path bicycle lane because it'll connect to where we had a gap. So when you have policies like this then you can think about the design implication and that's staff job to go together with the with the applicant say
well do you have a continuous path to what we have planned outside your site. This is what that points to. And when they don't, this is what where staff is able to hold their feet to the fire and say, "We want you to think of a solution that creates a continuous path on a
multimodal basis, but you have to put that multimodal basis in there to begin with to even get to the point where I have with that other community." >> Yep. >> Okay. >> Leave cards in there. >> Aspirational. Okay. >> All right. >> Clears that up.
>> Thank you. Is everyone okay to move on to the next section which is the housing element public comment >> bill for the record just have one [clears throat] thing here really that stood out to me is that um HO1B4
item VIII um it says provide for redevelopment of single family dwellings to multi family dwellings in the form of duplex, triplex, and quadruplexes, provided the facade is visually consistent with the surrounding development. That seems to me like it's uh it's opening the door
for >> page 32. >> Yeah. For a lot of density. >> Did everybody catch that? Doesn't say housing. >> Yep. On page 32. >> Uh just a just a scoch above the bottom.
Yeah. >> Scotch >> bill. Is that your extent of your public comment? >> We're kind of getting off the >> green number. >> Want to make sure the >> protocol is declining. >> Family dwellings in the form of duplex.
>> So the real question here is does that increase density? >> How big was that family in the single volume? So what would your answer to that question be? Does that increase density or does that potentially increase density? >> No, because your density is absolute in
your uh other require and your other aspect. So what this does is that if the density allows for it, you can allow for this difference. We're talking about those uh drawing units and they're either they're built at detach or attach right. Um in terms of attach that's what
it actually the factor becomes. I know because uh I was part of an award-winning plan where they changed that they had to change the regulation in order to go from single family to allow for those and and all senses of the word in your code. It potentially
regulated like a duplex trip or quadriple into a cated when you allow those ADUs. >> Absolute converting single family to duplex, triplex and quadlex. >> Does that make sense?
I I see I see the argument is kind of >> neighborhood preservation and now you're going to take a single family home and allow triplex duplexes and make it more of a commercial. >> Yeah. Well, the beauty of that award-winning plan was that we actually allowed for that regulation but kept the
facade regulation. So on the outside, no one would be the wiser. It still had that Bahamian village historic look that they wanted to keep in the area, but on the inside it could be restructured so that you could have that ADU and it was, you know, effectively on the outside looked like a single family house. On
the inside it was that technically a duplex though. >> Well, congratulations on your award-winning plan. But >> does that achieve what we're trying to do with our award-winning plan >> and and protect residential neighborhoods? >> Absolutely. Your protection is to think about how it looked on the exterior.
Would it part of neighborhood? >> No, I think you're missing the point. It's not about what it looks like. I don't think about the functionality. >> It's about the functionality. Cars and >> what it looks like is one thing, but what goes inside the building is important, too. >> Yeah. >> Instead of one car, there's six, >> right?
>> And to me, that doesn't preserve >> density. It's re reshaping >> the functionality. senior functionality, >> but it it's going completely against the word preservation, >> which is what is the title, neighborhood preservation.
>> From a design standpoint, if you're not changing the density, then you would have allowed for an extra unit anyway um on that property. So, in terms of allowing for the extra vehicular traffic and so forth, you would have been able
to allow for that anyway within the district. So the last aspect of neighborhood preservation in that standpoint is whether it visual looks different because all other things are kind of set equally at that point. >> I I can tell you if I lived in a neighborhood and the house next door went from a single family to a three
family rental whether it's a monthly weekly street that's not preserving anything that's deteriorating. >> I think the second I think this one should be removed. >> Okay. >> It was added and I think okay Roman numeral seven should be eliminated. That's just my thought. I don't know how you all feel about it.
>> Just remember though, it wasn't a quad showing up where single family was. >> Right. >> Right. You could end up having a quad where four single families were, >> right? >> And it looks like a single family. It's just cheaper to build and it's more efficient to construct. That's the wasn't >> Well, I see. I I get I get your intent on where you're coming from, but I don't
think for >> But that's the way people are going to interpret it. That's the way people are going to ran out of context. >> Right. But your your traffic and all those other impacts were are the same essentially. >> We understand. I will also ask >> four. What did you say?
>> Seven. >> What about four? >> I will also ask this LPA and the council about your policy intent for accessory dwelling units. >> Is your intent to allow for attach and detach or only detach?
>> That will provide my >> technical advice to you on this particular >> problem. So wonky here. >> Yeah, I think >> Yeah. How do you p Do you have to pigeon hole it to one or the other? I mean, you could There's one right up the road where it's a detached one because the property was big enough. >> Yep.
>> Move one with a breezeway between the two as well. >> I mean, it's just each property specific. So, I don't know. >> Yeah, you can't. My recommendation then if that is what you want to do is >> to change the wording of this to say
>> where appropriate for addressing for addressing a accessory growing unit provide for regulation governing the redevelopment of single family dwellings to duplexes
>> because the facto adding a unit as an add-on for the ADU. You are creating a >> duplex. We're still >> Yeah, >> I think we want to you >> take out the rest, right? >> Winning decision over here and we're going to delete it. >> Pardon? >> We just delete it. >> Huh? Delete it.
>> Yeah, I think it's a good idea, Dan. Take seven out. >> Delete it. >> You ever did the other one because it said the same thing. >> I'm not going to You're not going to be able to regulate the uh >> What's four on the other one, Jane? What are you saying? I'm looking I'm going
back to it. >> Protect residential areas from intrusion by poorly regulated short-term >> rental. She's talking about something >> uh 38 or 30. Um number four on the policy housing 181.
Number four says consider imple implement of incentivedriven regulations. Anyway, >> wait wait wait wait. >> Oh yeah. >> Pathway for No, that's not it. was what was it that said single family >> to duplexes triplex that is
>> consider implementation of driven regul >> as appropriate >> pathways for hotel to condo conversions and single family to duplex triplex and quadruplex. That's right. So number four on um >> page 30,
>> page 30 needs to be consistent with the under policy 1 A1 in housing needs to be consistent with what we just did. >> Yeah. >> So take it out that out as well. >> Get it out of there.
>> Do we also want to address >> for what the leaked director of that >> hotel to condo or strictly the >> [clears throat] >> of housing. >> Yeah. Um and then accessory apartments to stay accessory accessory growing units. I yeah I will note you know D we're
talking under this you are really only going to have regulation for detached unless you provide a pathway otherwise. So it's okay to delete that but I want you guys to understand the implications of that. You want the option to have both. You need a pathway to provide for
attach and detach. If your regulation provide for a way where you regular things on duplex and you factor duplex attach units have to be regulated with that understanding. >> So it's a policy decision. My my job is just to provide you the
advice based on you know that understanding. >> That's a good catch. >> Yeah. M >> yeah we're [snorts] stuck to attached approvals only. >> So I have one question um on at the very first uh depiction on the housing element. I
mean that's this picture right here. Come on. >> Can we get Can we update this picture because this is not never going to happen. >> It's charming though, isn't it? >> It's charming. [laughter] I don't know why that is, but >> it's fantasy. It's fantasy island
>> 204. [laughter] >> Oh yeah, >> we're going to do this. Let's do it do it right. But this [clears throat] who are we kidding here? This >> we can definitely replace it. We did ask for pictures. That's why you see some pictures in here like Bay View, but we didn't receive a picture for this one.
So >> the biggest comment I got about pictures was the one you have at the very beginning, which is like an aerial view of the south end of the island. and and it just was disturbing to a lot of people. It's like, oh, that looks big. >> It is. >> It [laughter] is. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. But >> but it's an aerial view, though. >> It is an aerial view. Um, so the real question here is back to are we are we only on a path to have accessory dwelling units be detached?
>> And that's if we strike those, that's what we'll have. If we strike those. >> Well, it says right there in number four that it create and maintain policies on accessory apartments. So, that to me says that your policy could be attached or detached based on what that says.
>> What do you think about that? >> Well, >> I would say that you want to you want to carve out a pathway where you say that if you have Yeah. My my concern is that the fact though if you have an attached accessory drone unit, it operates like a
duplex. So you end up having other regulations and you don't carve out that aspect of it. It's going to fall under those rules. So if you want to, that's fine. But I'm just kind of pre-warning because I've seen it happen elsewhere. >> So we just need to add a sentence
somewhere to provide for that maybe. >> Yeah. So, we need to add that as a tag including um attached as well as >> detached. Could you add that then to where it says cons this number four? Add that verbiage to there but still
eliminate seven on the other page that we were talking about. >> Right. Maybe is attack and detach the um drawing unit. And then the caveat after that is if you end up having
regulation for that the it's just a reminder that when you go change your code please address any aspect if this does duplex because those regulations would >> conflict. >> Sure. For me the key word here want to be clear about those
>> it's consider. So it still allows you even if you eliminate this on this page it still allows you to come in and ask for it. you can consider it as an ask >> with that additional language and also with what I mentioned on the caveat when you go to change your code make sure you
>> cross review on that >> remember Jason [laughter] >> you play poker ever you shouldn't [laughter] >> I did it speaking from personal experience I spent the last three weeks deciphering why a community couldn't
have an attached ADU and it had to deal with these anti-duplex rules but weren't written like anti-duplex rules where there was like you couldn't have an extra entrance on the side that type of deal but if you're going to regulate on those same basis then you could inver inadvertently have a code that prevent
this type of thing so you have to make sure it's reconciled somewhere you can point to it and say we want to allow this and these are the rules that conflict with that policy initiative that's all yeah I'm just really speaking from personal experience at this Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Did we get to where we needed to get to? >> I think I got the instruction I need. >> Jason's nod his head. You understand? >> Play poker. >> Okay. >> You can always ask me. >> Play poker. >> He had my number. >> All right. Any other housing element?
>> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. >> Um >> page 34. This should be a simple one, I think. Uh last [clears throat] uh word says the development code is going to be amended by 2025.
So should that be 2026 since I don't think you're going to get any code amendments done this month? >> That does feel like an easy one. >> That's an easy one. Good. >> How much time we have left? >> Well, [laughter] what made it confusing is the page number which which which 34
or 42. >> Okay, there we go. 42. Got it. >> You got it. Thank you for that. I believe that made sense when we first did first reading which was over a year ago. [laughter] >> And we wanted to have a problem here. Yes.
>> What day would you like to [laughter] >> that was when you mentioned >> eight years? >> Yeah. All right. Our transportation element public comment. >> Did we say 2026? >> Got to do 12 months. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. transportation. >> Okay, Bill V for the record. [clears throat] The transportation I one thing I I noticed is um >> restricted. >> There's a lot of talk about assets that the town doesn't control. So there's talk about Astero Boulevard and specifically in T-1-G-2,
it kind of hints at recommending that the town council um the town takes uh responsibility for the Matanis Pass Bridge. >> Yep. which I don't know that's something to I can't see any reason we'd ever want to consider that considering that the um
the San Carlos bridge cost like what $80 million. So I I don't know why a lot of that stuff's in and one thing I think is missing and I tried and tried intentionally not to look at aspirational things. >> Um was that they talk about bicycle
lanes in T-1 H-12. They talk about bicycle lanes. One thing that's kind of missing in the conversation is I talked to one guy once who was a contractor who he had his workers were parking at the park and ride and riding ebikes on the beach during season to get past traffic.
And I think that ebikes particularly getting on and off the island are um and maybe throughout the island is a new technology that's not really being addressed in our transportation element. >> Oh, e >> um a comment on this picture that is here. You're not allowed to ride bikes
through Time Square anymore. So that's a bad picture for >> you never allowed to ride bikes square. >> Then why are we saying this is okay by this picture? >> Somebody took that picture. They were doing it. >> I know. Yeah. [laughter] >> Okay. Get on it. >> Let's go find them. >> Road enforcement.
>> All right. Let's uh Eddie, let's cover the first concern, which was >> the bridge. >> The bridge. >> Page 40 or 48. >> Yeah. 40 or 48. One or TG. The future of the bridges.
>> Okay. T of the bridges. >> T1 G2. >> Maybe want you to turn over to us. Well, now we have two bridges. >> Yeah, >> these were your existing policy. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> That's an existing >> They may want to, but you would still >> Why would we want it? >> You would have to accept it. >> Yeah. [laughter] >> Peak period tools here, too. >> I don't have the money for that. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Really? >> You don't have the budget. >> Just remind me everybody.
>> Unless we want to go through another process >> with a different outcome. I don't have the time for that. >> I'm not sure you want it or not. I would actually >> I don't know that it makes >> I mean it's a policy decision, right? because the the the bridge costs so much
and you see another community on the other coast of Florida dealing with similar issues and that is keep and they have a toll bridge and and item and that's always been a point of contention who pay for the bridge how to are paid because you know for them there's one way and one way on off the island
through Virginia key and so forth. So that's you know perfect example. Now this didn't come from us. This was in your existing plan. So at some point >> it was politics say if they turn it over we'll evaluate give them any ideas. >> Well I don't well it still has to be
voted in. I don't see there's any reason to remove that. >> Well I mean why would you >> you still would have to vote on it. with >> I I would say um if you want to make it more
robust, I would say if you were to keep it um if ever offered uh to the town as an option, the town will conduct a study
and the council and LPA will make the final determination. I don't know. Leave it as is. >> Leave it as. >> Leave the wording as we're going. >> We didn't touch it for that reason. >> Yeah. >> No change. >> I mean,
>> I I don't see a reason to to change it or delete it or do anything or that it's >> Yeah. >> There he go. There he goes again. >> Now I know. Then the other opt the other
discussion point was uh T1H12 emerging technologies >> T1H12 give us a page T12 >> 50 or 42 depending on which number you're looking at. >> Thank you emerging technologies
>> and ebikes is appropriate for the town. Ebikes is here. >> Yeah, it's here. >> Yeah, it's in there. >> Yeah, I sees it. >> So, >> yes, >> doc bike share. I mean, >> what happened to the >> as appropriate >> right outside?
>> See this to me? This keeps it very open-ended again. Ebikes as appropriate. >> Looking at it right now. >> It's not There's no pick. >> It's right there. >> Right in front of there. >> No, it's there. >> I'm sitting there looking at it right now. >> They put it back right after you guys came in
>> since it's morning. [laughter] Yeah, it's it's sitting right there. We can see it. >> They're good like that. >> It's fun to start coming back from. [laughter] >> Okay. So, we're going to leave that. >> Yeah, I don't I think it covers everything. >> Are there any other discussion with the
the uh transportation element? I guess just a question because >> it seems extreme. Um under policy T B2 widening under no circumstances shall
conventional for laning of eststerero be considered as desirable. >> Uh which one is that again? >> 36 36. Okay. >> 36 or 42. Yeah. >> That's your policy.
I there was a whole rightway issue when they >> Oh, there I'm sure there's the when you fourlane things, it becomes very ugly and traffic and >> well very auto oriented. >> Auto absolutely >> versus pedestrian oriented. >> It would be just as busy.
>> Yes, that's right. >> It just have two lane or four lanes too. We didn't fix it. >> Anything else? Not well. Public comment for historic preservation element. >> Where's historic?
>> It's >> page 43 >> or 51 >> depending on which one you build for the record. [clears throat] I just in HP-1-E-2 it mentions the Marine Resources Task Force. um now the marine and
environmental resources task force to be the um I think an education ar something when we have cell cab which is I think part of their acronym is environmental education. I just wondered if salec would be a better committee to do that.
>> I think that's it. >> Thanks. >> I don't know. >> Okay. >> I I didn't catch what number it was. It's page 46 >> 54 >> one E oh 1 E2 task force of town. Got it. >> We'll just remove the name of the
committee. So >> we just it doesn't need to the name of the committee doesn't need to be polic >> but it ensures that you have a committee right now >> in favor of that. >> Good. >> Anybody else have any other comments, suggestions, concerns with uh the
historic preservation element? All right. If not, we'll move on to number seven. >> Public comment for recreation and open space element. >> Can we get you a chair bill just to set up there? You'd be more comfortable. [clears throat] >> You wanted to [laughter] build Bill
Beach for the record. Um, RO-1- A-4. >> Um, I was a little confused. >> I guess I've never seen >> Sorry. One a what? >> Uh, four. It talks about the moundhouse, Matanis Preserve, and then about beach accesses. And I didn't know what
the mouth and Matanis Preserve had to do with beach accesses >> because neither of them are on the beach. >> Well, but do they have a beach access at the end of that street, which >> more like water? I think I think well this is this might be a TDC thing
>> because we get money for the M house from the TDC and if you remove the word beach access from that that you then lose money for beach access >> I don't know >> that's why we don't get money for time square because it's not considered a beach access.
>> Let's make it change that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. More public comment. I didn't see you. >> Oh, yay. Welcome. >> A new voice. >> Hi. >> Well, I'm not that new a voice because I've been before you before. >> No, but I mean not today. [laughter]
>> And I only have a little Well, I have a small part that I wrote you guys a letter, but Kathy Schultz for the record. >> You're Kathy. Oh, it was a very good It was a very good letter. >> 394 stero. And my comment is about both um content and process. Um the
amendments to the Bowage Point part of the plan replace the words enhance the natural resources at Bowage Park with increase accessibility for recreational purposes. And this small change represents a pretty significant shift in the town's position towards Bowitch, which is described in the current
comprehensive plan as a preserve and a quiet beach. In fact, our current comprehensive plan recognizes the importance of having a variety of recreational resources, contrasting Bowitch's quiet beach with Lynh Hall Park's lively one. The 17 acres of
Bodich Point Park were purchased by Lee County to save the property from commercial development and preserve as much of the natural flavor as possible. Seven acres are developed for passive recreation, while the remaining 10 acres are a restoration or preserve area. The
park provides a habitat for migratory and nesting shorebirds and is the only place remaining on Asterero Island for burrowing gopher tortoises. It's one of only 14 Lee County sites on the Great Florida Birding Trail. It's the second highlight on the Great Kousa Blueway
Paddling Trail through Astero Bay. If this all sounds familiar to you, it's because this is the fourth time I have made public comment on this item. And in spite of the fact that both the LPA and the town council have previously recommended against amending the original language, this is the fourth
time this amendment has been included in the 2045 plan. A year and a half ago, on April 9th, 2024, the LPA unanimously recommended keeping the original 1999 language. Yet on May 6th, 2024, the town
council was forwarded the same amendment. Town Council 2 recommended keeping the 1999 language instead. Planner Sarah Propes apologized for missing the LPA's changes, saying, "There's so much text, so I apologize
for anything that we did not catch." Four months later in the packet for the September 9th town council meeting, the amended language appeared again. Once more, I sent a comment on the matter. That hearing was continued and there was no discussion. Which brings us to today
when the recreation and open space element is once again proposed to be amended with the same changes declined by the LPA and town council a year and a half ago and the changes are obscured by simply striking through the entire section so you can't even look.
It's discouraging to participate in this process. It's hard to have any confidence in the document before you now when specific directions you provided at past hearings are at best overlooked and at worst disregarded. And I'm only looking at a
tiny part of the plan, the top onethird of one page of a 96-page document. This is a discomforting way to create a document that's supposed to serve as a vision for Fort Myers Beach for the next 20 years. Thank you guys for your time
and for listening. I know you're trying to produce the best guiding document you can for the town going forward and appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> We can fix that right now. Yeah, >> right now.
Does anybody even see where the old information is? I don't see >> Yeah, I either Yeah. Right. Um, I see where we had a confusion because if you look on page 51 and 52,
you'll see that their portions are crossed out. >> There it is. >> And it says Bage, right? >> Yes. >> So, when we go back to Bage and those other items, when we were given the instruction to keep things that is,
we kept things as is. So that language that you see that about that the the the the private vote and things like that that's in your original plan. Now, if you want to remove that, that's fine. But it was in the original plan and our instructions were keep things that they
were before with it when what we adhere to and we're okay with however changes you want, but that's where that came about. Um because we are, you know, and it's right here on page 51. You can see where we copy and pasted your original
language. And if that's the, you know, if you know, we're we're not saying, you know, hey, don't change it, but we're giving you the D tax history on that. We need clear instruction. Do you want us to remove it? >> I'm
I'm not clear where you see the copy and paste. >> Uh, go on page 51. >> Page 51. >> Okay. >> And you see, for example, policy 10-b2 where it's crossed out. uh electric pram uh public docks and the bay for private
boat and a water taxi stop. Then I'm going to refer you back to where you know you had the other language uh earlier on about um h um on page um
gosh on on page um 49 I'm looking at it says construction of construction of public dos and bas private boat and a water taxis or ferry stop including the grammatical error that but in your original plan. So to me that kind of
tells me that when we looked at it perhaps where it came to play was we told keep your original language and you want to amend it now the time >> this was moved right >> yeah this was just moved so that we kept
the original language you can see it even with the grammatical error that carried over from your original plan >> okay don't say that >> third time you pointed out [laughter] >> I mean >> hey Mrs. Scrammits, >> right? >> By original plan, are we talking about
just a prior version of this document or are we talking about the original plan? >> The original plan. Oh. Oh. Which one is it? That's a good question. >> So the when you see that there's a cross through without an underline, it mean it came from your original plan.
>> From our original plan. >> Yes. From >> very early on. So that's where we had copy and pasted over. If you want to amend it, now's the time. >> Best way to move forward, right? >> I I'm still struggling to see with where the exact language
>> process >> the cross through that went to what did we see in front of us. >> All right. I'm going to read one particular packet as an example. >> Well, can you start with >> Can you tell us where >> start with it? Yeah. I mean, we'd like to know like paragraph title. >> Okay. So, page 49. >> Yeah.
>> Going there. Okay. >> Look at the very top. I would say the green >> at one actively promote alternate means of access to both this park point park frequent and free public service and especially construction of public dock on the bay side for private boat in a water taxis or fair stop.
>> So that's new or is that old? that I'm going to point you now to um on page 52 >> and then I'm going to uh at the very top of that page that says policy 10-B2
actively promote alternative means of access to both this part that trend more frequent and free public service is best constructed public do they side for private boat and a water taxi stop >> so I would agree that that's >> over from your original pretty much a
cut and paste. However, it doesn't capture what we just heard in public conflict about preserving the n all of the preservation of >> activating accessibility, >> making it more active. We voted we
recommended you voted against increasing parking at that very location for that reason. >> Even that title as she's indicating indicates increase accessibility for recreational purposes. >> The title, >> right? So, >> so where did that >> I would have to look I would have to
look through this and I'm not equipped to answer >> very quickly on the time >> see where that copy >> I think it comes from our >> given that I've already shown you one example of where we kept it as a copy paste my interest right now and helping you move forward is for you to make the
appropriate edits you want at this time >> so that we're not copy and pasting from the original plan if that then and that way we can positively move forward on this. >> Maybe where I'm confused on 51 >> cross out see it.
>> Yeah. Enhance the natural resources blah blah blah. >> Then you go to 49 >> increase accessibility for recreation. >> All right, folks. >> Yes, >> it 2 p.m. and none of us had had food. So, if we could focus on the edit we
want to make >> to this to bring it to where you want to be. I apologize, but I'm hangry. >> No, that's okay. Can we get a sandwich? >> I've got something. >> John John always has something to play.
>> I have something. >> Thank you. You are a lifesaver. Thank you. >> What do you want to say? Right. >> Uh I I think what what we want the essence is to maintain BIC point as a
passive park >> not to increase uh >> you don't want it to you don't want it to be party central. You don't want it to be Lake Hall Park. >> Right. >> So I don't know how you I don't know how you echo that there but that's that's
[clears throat] the gist of it. We have it in email form where it's strike uh increase accessibility for recreational purposes and replace with enhance for n the natural resources at about point park. How about this
>> which doesn't seem to survive. >> How about this? Go ahead Eddie. >> Balance accessibility and the need for environmental protection for boldest point.
Period. Delete the rest of that. >> Deast what? >> Delete the rest of >> the rest of it. >> Oh, >> yeah. >> Okay. >> That um at the beginning to make it like dramatic correct, the town shall enact policies to balance
the need for accessibility with environmental protection for Bus Point Park. >> I think that's the essence. >> What do you think, John? John's >> I don't think we want more car traffic and I do support having a a ferry stop
there. So that's my thoughts on it. We could do bike paths there. That'd be awesome too. We kind of have one. But >> I think what you just said encompasses >> that fit. Yeah, that would fit. >> That encompasses everything. >> See, you just needed a snack while I fit in so I can make
>> t-bone coming for [laughter] a hawk coming up. >> Exactly. Okay. >> Thank you for the sugar because you're welcome. >> Kathy, did you hear that? >> But I am diabetic. >> Okay.
>> Well, >> I have something that I'd like to see addressed. >> Okay. on uh blue page 49, number 49, policy 1B2, marine task force, expand the purview of the town's marine
resources task force to include the sustainability of recreational use of marine resources. I guess I'd like an understanding of what that means. I guess I have a concern that that might be stepping into Anchorage Advisory Committee uh territory. What is that?
>> 49 57 of 152. >> Do you know Eddie? >> Sorry, I was typing in that item. >> I missed that. >> Uh, blue page 49. Um, >> item RAZ 1B2, Marine Task Force.
>> Expand the purview of the town's marine resource task force to include the sustainability of recreational use at marine resources. >> Marine resources of yes of marine resources. >> And his question is, does that tread into Anchorage Advisory Committee's
already perview of >> marine resources? Yeah. >> Yeah. I think you just delete the word recreational use of and just kind of keep it broad and that way you can assign
things to that task force as needed in relation to marine resources, not just recreational. But there are need that might pop up, right? >> That makes sense. Does that address your concern >> with that and just correct it to the now marine environmental resources task
force? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Anything else for the recreational open space element? >> Are we going to address Newton Park in any way?
I think I wanna I want to go back and make sure we capture a little bit more of the bulleted point stuff. So, if you bear with me for a quick minute while I look through, I want to >> make sure we [clears throat] capture the rest of that. >> Where is >> It's important that we >> Yeah. I mean,
>> it's not in here. No, I'm saying >> I don't see it in here. And we we struck out even neighborhood parks. We county the only references to Newton that I'm finding are in struck language.
>> Yeah. Um >> well I think maybe >> the town still owns that, right? >> Yeah. >> R1A8. I wouldn't necessarily provide for anti- parking at about this point. I would actually encourage folks to park off
site and maybe find other ways in, right? Like so >> but there is on-site parking at each point. >> Yeah, it is. But >> encourage more >> encouraging to put more than >> then then would kind of put them in a position to expand that parking lot at
some point >> and we don't necessarily maybe want to >> have that. will maybe encourage um inter alternative modes of access for the public. So similar to what keeps
gain did for a southern end, right? So they have a park on the southern end of that island. And so you want to capture that and have people walk into the park and focus parking at the edge of the park and then walking in. So I would suggest that perhaps ROS1-
A-8 be amended accordingly. >> If it's all right with the uh with the LPA and the council, I would suggest encourage the county to study and uh provide for
alternative non-vehicular means of access for the general public. instead of saying provide on parking. >> That makes sense. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> That that if they're okay with that, give me a second to type that in. >> Sure.
>> Please [clears throat] to um study maybe you know did you do you know if Newton Park is addressed in here at all my search? >> Yeah. Or unless it's under civic center what it was called before.
center island. No, I think most of the perks we address are >> study implement >> because if we're not addressing it and and we struck out >> which >> natural or uh neighborhood parks
>> All All right. And then a part of that um deleting the thing in the parentheses office. >> Thank you. >> Newton's going to be, you know, reconstructed, >> right?
>> I said neighborhood parks was struck. That's the only >> area where >> Newton Park would exist unless it is created as its own policy. >> I guess that's the same.
>> The language from before was all pre-acquisition of Newton. So, >> right. >> Looking to acquire the land and use it, etc. >> Check that off. >> So, where did we land on the Newton Park? We've gone back. So apparently it
it's not there um because of the timing. >> Um so the direction could be for them to come back with some language on Monday that captures the policies that you're considering. >> I don't think you can make it up on the
on the fly. It's covered under >> the previous policies were for acquisition using it and becoming part of the fabric of the town, right? But it was part of the pre-acquisition. >> I think the policies were drafted in that manner. So they're not necessary.
You have it. >> You don't need to spell out Newton Park because it's already been >> right now. If you want to create a policy about the development of it or >> when you read through it, it's all about within five years you must acquire blah blah blah blah. >> Correct. All those are all policies that technically should have been eliminated
during your evaluation appraisal report process every seven years. Once you did it or you weren't going to do it anymore, you you're supposed to strike those out. So, we're just cleaning that up. >> Got it. >> Right. If you have other policies you want, I don't know that you need them. I mean, you make those decisions. You are deciding. >> Yeah. I mean, >> about development.
>> Is it active park? Is it a passive park? Is it going to have parking? Is it going to >> Yeah, I think >> you've [clears throat] already made those decisions when you're instructing design of that. Anyway, so >> doesn't need to be granular is what you're saying.
>> Correct. The policies you have in here are mostly for the ones you don't own and you want to influence or coordinate with another agency. Got it. And how to direct policy. >> Okay. Then we'll move on unless somebody has anything else they want to
>> take a swing at at that. All right. The conservation element. Public comment. [laughter] >> Yeah. >> You've been here a long time. >> Watchers. Oh, if you only knew. Um, Terry Kane for the record.
>> So, we're back to conservation. So, under conservation 3B2, I'm going to speak slow and clear. Additional protection for the dunes and beaches in this I'm going to run out of battery in the middle of this because I've had
it on all day. >> Um, yep. >> Oh, you got it. Okay. >> 63. >> I don't have >> 70 or 62. I got 62 on mine. Okay. You have a section that there is an I. You have the I one, two, and three. You've
got plant appropriate plants. Great. Exotic plant control. Great. Dune restoration. Great. I think there needs to be a number four. And that's how we treat our dunes. So, and I'm not sure if it belongs in here, but we need to have something said as far as how we take
care of our dunes in regard to raking. um and maybe then refer back >> to the to the um the manage the other plan and say you know 12 feet away from the dune line and the grass line and the vegetation line so forth and so for on
for that one. So I do believe you need a number four for that one. My next one is um under the conservation 4B3 task force element. There's a number three again the three little eyes. It says adopting a ban on commercial
collection of live shells. No, no, no, no, no. We don't collect any shells. So, we already have that in our plan. It's um no collection of live shells period. So you don't have to make a ban on commercial collection because we have no
private collection. We have no commercial collection. We should have no live shelling on Fort Meers Beach. >> And that was in there before. >> No live shelling was in there before. >> Yeah. >> But now they add it. They add it. There's a new one. Adopting a ban on the
commercial live shelling just needs to be deleted. >> Just take it out >> or just leave in >> adopting a ban on no live shelling. It's all it's a very simple sentence. No live shelling. We have signs at the end of the street.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks for your time. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Terry. >> Isn't the underlying what existing? >> No, underneath was previous. Yeah. >> Oh, Bill.
>> Oh, he left snacks for me. Great. Bill Beach [clears throat] for the record. Um, so there's uh con-2- A-5 in the same area about sea turtles. >> Give us a second, Bill. >> Okay. >> Con-2. A >> 2 A5.
>> That would be page 61 in the printed. >> Okay. Okay. Um, it it there was it was omitted uh a bit about um basically education. So what was admitted was in order in order to further the objective of full implementation. This article
also includes provisions designed to educate residents and beach users in the town to the benefits and appropriate coastline lighting, provides weekly inspections, etc., etc. That was taken off and I, you know, for my money, I'd prefer education over enforcement if you can.
>> Okay. Anyone else public comment? >> No. All right, let's go back to the first >> I can go find it. >> First one. >> The first one was uh let me go back
through my little notes here. Actually, it would have been We're going in order. Sea turtles would be the first page. Can we add the word education back into this >> last? >> One second. Let me find the [clears throat] right policy. Sea
turtles conservation two dust a da >> it does say public education >> correct >> lighting system for education >> it says protect nesting and hence details on the beaches in the town of Fort Myers Beach town by ensuring that their nesting habitat not degraded by
artificial light through the appropriate design information of coastal lighting system public education code enforcement and land development regulation >> so I don't understand what was removed >> simplifying >> the lesson that's what it says on page 61 at the bottom. >> Yeah,
>> that's not crossed through. It does say public education right there. >> So, um >> so it is already in there. >> Um I >> think the only sub >> Do you want to restore the next sentence then at what it is >> inspections?
>> Yeah. >> Oh, it's fine. It is. >> Yeah. >> And the next section was uh 3B2. The protection of the dunes. >> Protection dune protect, maintain, improve dunes and beaches, the recreation area, val habitat, protection
from storms and the high scenic aesthetic value. Then you have sub policies under there regarding dune walkover structured. Terry's primary concern is the grooming of the beach, the raking of the beach
and how the dunes are managed >> under section. >> Yeah. So you have you have dune raking permits now that you have are issued or not they're beach raking permits I should say >> right >> um
>> so that's >> I would say >> that's probably a complicated conversation >> I would say that if you're going to do it >> and according in order to get those you have it's a it's a state it's not a town issue >> you have a town raking permit
>> right >> but are we are we regulated by state regulations Yes. >> Yes. I I can't speak to I could speak to that, but how detailed, but you also have a local permit that you issue and some have it, some don't. >> Plus, I think we need to um consider
that with the new vegetation, um people were sold on the burm or the dune by being able to then accumulate the new sand that that goes there and disperse it on their property as how they see fit.
And that might might be a concern uh if we address it on the raking area >> that the permits require you to stay within is it like 15 ft or something of the doom. >> That is correct. It also it also complies with the D permit that's out there.
>> So we we have to go with FWC and D on regulations strictly more with the D side. >> So it's covered somewhere else. It doesn't have to be memorialized in the comp plan. >> Right. So you know I think um the easy fix on it is actually not add number
four but add under number two a couple words and take a management and maintenance program to uh uh uh uh well actually it's already saying protect so >> uh uh um >> and your man maintenance program would
naturally include the pering process. Um so that's okay. So okay. So where that said undertake a management maintenance [clears throat] program control invasive exotic um vegetation. Um I would say undertake a management
maintenance program uh to um to protect existing dooms existing and future doom and control invasive exotic vegetation. That way you can include any permitting process or anything else you need on top of that part of your overall management
[cough] program. and take, you know, new new ideas from the light, right? You don't want to be, >> you don't want that to call a parent program. >> That would be my >> and you just put in there to to coincide with state federal requirements.
>> So, if it changes, it changes with that >> organically. It doesn't have to. >> You could, but you could, but that's already necessarily implied. And there may be times when the town might want to exceed the program. So I don't want to necessarily >> right >> have you guys limit yourself in that
regard. Right. >> So that that's the trade-off. >> Okay. So u maint uh >> to protect >> third one should >> current and future
dunes and control invasive exotic vegetation. And that way part of that man program that you already have. Did that make that? Did that work? >> Yes. >> Works for me. >> Thank you. Okay. >> You want to correct that?
>> Yeah. B under B. There's two and then there's two. Romanet two and then Romanet two again. They're supposed to be two and three. Correct. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, that should be three. >> Yeah. The first portion is your prohibition. The second portion is what you're doing to incur it. So, >> he's talking about the actual numbers.
>> Yeah. And then there be a three, >> right? chip. >> I caught another formatting elsewhere that we're going to change, but there were like a two and then in the middle of that, that was a two that should have been moved to a separate line as a
three. So, that one I really caught. >> And then I believe the last three or four >> issue was under 4B3 task force element under uh triple I to say just no live shelling. Keep it simple. I would say
instead of adopting then you would be then you already adopted one then maintain >> maintain the ban on collect >> yeah instead of just eliminating it you don't need to adopt a new one but you need to maintain it >> maintain maintain >> the ban on all live shelling
>> right >> and take out the word >> right >> gone >> just save those shelves >> yeah and I believe that was the only other issue unless Someone else has something additional
through all the cleanup material here. All right, then we'll move on to the coastal management element. Public comment. No public comment. >> Okay. Uh, can we change that picture?
>> The first page. Change the picture. >> Change the picture. >> That's tragic. That's my life in ruins. Yeah. [laughter] This doesn't really promote FMV. >> No. >> Not in a positive way. >> No, that's horrible. >> Yeah.
>> Maybe if you just crop it. [laughter] >> Well, even the Even the water. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Looks down there. >> Give it a month or two. We'll take another picture. >> Oh, that's >> just
picture until here. Yeah. >> How about how would the picture face the opposite opposite direction from now? >> There you go. >> Chopped up. >> Does anyone have any issues in the coastal management element that they need to talk about address? >> None.
>> We're making progress. >> Okay. We will move on then to the utility utilities element. Public comment. >> I have nothing of this. I hope they order. >> All right. See none. Anyone have any issues with the utilities element?
that they have to bring up. >> Stop. >> Mayor, >> I do want to note something for council on utilities. >> You'll see right now that it comes up. It did September 2016. >> That's because that's the current version we have when the town updates it
next plan or I think it's in the process of trying to update it plan. I see it. >> We don't have that from our end. It's okay for the purposes of this report if it comes up. >> Okay. Very good. >> Seven. >> All right. Then we will move on to the
capital improvements element. Public comment. >> All right. Anyone in at the the table? >> Nope. Nothing. >> I don't know if we we probably should. I haven't heard from Jim. I don't know if Jim's still on here or not.
>> Looks like he is. He's still alive. >> Is he? Okay. >> Concert if he's awake, but >> I have never I've never felt so alive. [laughter] >> What did he say? I never felt >> alive. [laughter] I know his phone battery is still going. >> Right.
>> All right. Nobody has any concerns with that. We'll move on to the inter intergovernmental coordination element. >> Public comment. >> Mayor, our apologies on page 85. >> Okay. So, we're going back. Got it. >> Yes, please. Sorry.
>> I will note that uh there be a strike through at 200. It' be 175 gallon per day. >> Oh, got it. Y >> right. >> Sounds good. We'll move on to intergovernmental coordination element
public comment. All right. >> And unwill for that right now. have anything about the school? >> He's happy. I'm happy. Yeah, >> there's a nice looking [laughter] picture. It's missing the flags, but it's a good picture. >> That's a great
>> Any any comments? >> The flags because then it would look >> Yeah. >> Yes, sir. >> 14- D-2 uh VI Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program. It should be partnership. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Yes, that's right. Partnership. Yeah. Anything else? >> Okay. Last but not least, property rights element. Public comment. All right. No public comment. Any questions? >> Where do you get all these bitcoins?
>> Comments, concerns? >> You're losing value fast. They sure >> all those millionaires. >> All right. We have nothing additional to add there. >> Is that it? >> Okay.
>> Anybody have anything on the exhibits yet? >> You you feeling better? >> Oh, the exhibits. Yeah, we got exhibits here. >> We do. >> Any comments on the exhibits? >> I didn't have anything written down. >> We like bald eagles, right? >> Yeah. Let me know >> um tables
>> right >> for the exhibit. Um I do want to note for the um the council and the LPA that we have received public comment including last Monday saying about the efficiencies and they quoted directly from the comments from the uh D. I would
like to note that within that packet that you had you'll see that with the following where as follows those were the comments that we received >> and so all those comments were addressed uh accordingly with the D and without
addressing those comments you would continue to be deficient so that's where I wanted to clarify including for the public yes it was done deficient and you are quoting from their letter that's correct but you got to we we have to go back to following and actually read the actual comment and we have tried to
address all those. >> Okay. >> So of all the discussion of all discussion we've had today you comfortable from your professional perspective this will pass muster with the changes we made? >> I am comfortable overall that we should
be able to pass muster on this. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Of course you know the state is also >> short staffed and rushing reviewed at the point. So, >> so procedurally, how long do you think if the council
>> passes it by the end of the year, >> when do you expect to hear back from the state? >> But December 1st. >> Oh, >> Monday, right? >> Monday. >> Well, Monday. >> All right. So, the >> Oh, no. But they have the council has to have it twice, right?
>> No, this is a second hearing. >> Question of procedure then. Procedurally, once it's adopted in second reading, it goes into um a submitting submitt to the state including your neighboring municipality, department of state, etc. There's a
whole list that goes through. Um we have 30 days to submit now per change of state used to be 10. And from the date of that receipt, it takes effect within 30 days. It takes place 30 days after
unless objections are received in which case it goes into obeyance while those objections are run through. Now I will say that because of the number of changes that right here I mentioned that we would have to uh provide for you know those changes as a supplemental cuz the
full formatting after that my folks are going to need at least a week to run through and make sure we caught all your changes correctly. Uh um so we will not be able to submit until that point. In addition, once the ordinance is passed, we need
the signed ordinance with uh the mayor signature and the uh the attorney signature for legal sufficiency before we can submit. So that's part of that process as well. So it's part of like a comprehensive package item. I would expect that um it will take us about a
week or two before we can submit that package as a whole. And from that point it'll be 30 days before it can take effect. >> So can you comment and maybe provide some expectations for Monday what what the council um should
anticipate receiving? >> Right. So >> he can correct me. Um we're going to try to make well he was making edits. We'll clean that up and hand those out and try to go through each of these changes. So, we any last wording changes you want to
make, we can make in that meeting um and come to an adoption. >> Can you vote just as a [laughter] a favor to the council? Yes. >> Can you make those changes in a different color so that I mean we covered a lot of bases here so it would be nice to not have to re do this all
over again on Monday >> when you changed them. So it's going to be hard to >> [clears throat] >> um so perhaps highlighting it >> highlighted how whatever you need to do. >> So that way you have the existing strike and insert and then >> and we've got our notes too. >> Yeah. Comparing.
>> Oh yeah. Yeah. >> Does that work? >> Yeah. So I say that again. It's going to say that again. >> Um I think what we are going to do because I'm not going to be able to have my full format the entire document because it's Tuesday afternoon and you need it for Monday. We are going to work
tomorrow on a change sheet and that change sheet will know all the specific changes coming from today. So that it you know and >> during the meeting what uh what the council is going to have to do because
you already have a publicly advertise set of plans is say you will move to adopt with these changes uh uh as noted on this particular document um just to keep everything kosher. So you have to
that that that motion has to be specific and I'm sure the attorney will guide us uh at a time if needed. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. As amended. Yeah. >> Um and there'll be some changes as well to the uh ordinance that would be before you will mark it and draft and we can
pass it out and that's just going to update to reflect that today you had a very robust meeting for additional consideration that kind of thing. >> Very good. All right. There's nothing else. John, >> happy Thanksgiving everyone. >> Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Have a safe trip at home and uh move to journ. >> All right, >> we any objection? No. >> We are adjourned at 2:29. >> Thank you all so much for this. Thank you.