Anyway, >> people start [Music] out like Yeah, exactly. [Music] >> Okay. I'd like to call to order the meeting of the planning and voting board. Today is October 14th. It is now
1:03 p.m. Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
>> Roll call, please. >> Chairman Sean P >> here. >> Member Randy Stout >> here. >> Member Lorie Simpson >> here. Member Michael Perez >> here. >> Member Ronald McDonald >> here. >> City Attorney Nancy Meyer >> here.
>> Perfect. Thank you very much. >> One second guys maybe. [Music] Okay. First we we will discuss is there any uh conversation or questions or concerns regarding the minutes from the planning
and zoning meeting on the September 9th? >> If not I will entertain any motions to approve the minutes October 9th. >> Got a second. >> A second. >> All in favor? >> Fantastic. All right. We're going to ask if there's any questions for the general
public besides the fact there's really nice new chairs there. >> So there is they're either laying down in the general public. We do have a member of the general public there. He's just a different chair. So, >> okay. Uh, any comments from the board regarding anything we you want to open up before we get into what we're talking about today?
>> I I had a a question. >> Sure. >> If you don't mind, and I don't know if it's allowable or not or if we're going to structure it. We got approached by uh Mr. Grimaldi. >> Okay. and he's talking about wanting to
put up like I don't know 14 to 60 units right there where the restaurant is next to Hooters. >> So if those who don't know Mr. Grimmaldi is a he's a developer real estate bro. >> Yeah. And I was wondering, you know, if
we're really going to make this a showplace, similar to John's Pass, how can we go ahead and and structure it so that all that property along the edge where we want to put the Riverwalk is
going to be used for retail or restaurants and not block it off again with more condos. So the short answer to that is we've already kind of addressed that in the waterfront overlay district. So the district itself will allows for a certain usage. Um and I think there's a
maximum and Eric probably knows as well there's a maximum residential units in there anyway. >> WD is 15 units per acre. >> Okay. So and and usually when we do that we the way that the overly district was designed originally because we discussed it 20 years ago 15 years ago was it was
supposed to be work flex space basically work live space. So, we wanted condos in the upper story units and then restaurants and and retail and everything else in the lower units. But the nice thing is it still have no matter what he wants to do, he's going to have to bring it to do we have an overlay board anymore?
>> You all, >> just us, right? So, we have to have conversation with him and we can kind of help guide that process through that and of course council will have the final say. But yeah, so that's it's a great question. It's designed that we were supposed to be able to have that as to be able to mix the two together. I'm
kind of curious where Burks gonna lie. Anyway, he's gonna he's gonna max his out where he's at. >> So, we we created a just sorry interrupt, but we created the a new district that includes the WOD and the old trailer park lot on 19. Uh I forget the name of it, but there's new land use
there that if you have 5 acres or more, you can come to the city um with a PUD um and ask for additional density up to 40 per acre >> uh or 2.0. But again, you have to have five acres to start that conversation based on our PUB.
>> So there's not. >> But is there there's any way we can go ahead and adjust it where that front portion, the river portion is designed so we can have a John's Pass type place or a Dun Eden type area and not stick
more residential right there on the water. I mean, that's that was the purpose of the overlay district initially was to to kind of um attract that type of buyers and developers anyway and not and not mixed use and not so much residential.
So, it was designed to be mixed use and if there was residential, it was going to be upper level stuff above restaurants, shops, ice cream shop, whatever kind of thing it would be, retail, whatever kind of there was. So, that's kind of in place already. Now, I don't
And one of the two you may answer this question. I'm not sure if there's been modifications to the last reiteration of that about was it five years ago the last one was >> there's nothing chang. >> Yeah it's been probably good five years right.
But as of right now though, I to your point though is as of right now, if they stayed within 15 units per if they stayed within 15 units per acre and they had an acre >> along the 1.3, >> they could build a 15 unit condo,
>> right? So, and there's nothing that we can do to like that could put a complete block on the idea of a riverwalk because there wouldn't be any kind of space there. And I think what you're saying is is should we be looking at the concept of in the waterfront overlay district should we put something in the
code that says that if you're going anything that you're putting there has to have a minimum setback from the waterfront that can be used for waterfront egress you know like do we need to look at the code in some way to say hey we want to make sure that
there's always we did it with the with the PUD we did it with the PUD to make sure that we knew that we could go in and say, "Hey, you're going to create a green space so that people have a walkable space, we're going to require that." We let them know ahead of time, we're going to require that. That needs
to be in your plan. Right now, if we don't have that, um, and they don't and they only have an acre or they have less than five acres and they come in and they want to build, they have a setback minimum from the waterfront, but there's absolutely nothing that forces them to allow CityWalk
along the water. you know, that forces us to let people pass through that space. If we're going to create a boardwalk environment, we would need to make that part of the waterfront overlay district zoning that anything built on the water there has a minimum setback of X from
the waterfront and that there's some form of verbiage for a granted easement for public passage in the first 10 ft. >> I think there was discussion about an easement in the original one. We last one. It's You're right. It's probably been like seven or eight years since we
did that. It would be worth looking into again as we start to to develop that and that's a good call. We should probably verify that that's in place. I know there was discussion of an ease because originally there was discussion the boardwalk would be made out of vinyl and made all the way all the way around like a pier almost and
>> but then we're but then we're dealing with >> correct. They changed the entire >> so when you step outside the seaw wall and you build something now we're talking about an army corps lease. >> Yeah. >> In the waterfront, >> right? that runs around which would I think it would be simpler to create a a
methodology in our >> in our code that simply says that you've got a 20 foot setback from the seaw wall and you have to allow 10 ft. you know, the city has right to an easement along the
waterfront there for public ingress egress along the waterfront. Um, so that we can facilitate this what we're talking about as a grand plan, right? The waterfront overlay district was supposed to be a grand plan for one visually
consistent build even though you're going to have multiple. >> And is that something that you want to predate? So, you know, part of our waterfront overlay district now says, you know, within two years you will adopt this or you will come into conformance with this. Is that the type
of verbiage you want it to say? You know, that's something else you need to think about. As of this date, you know, moving forward, the city will, you know, and and go forward with that. Yeah. Because right now it it doesn't have that in there. >> No. And we have several pieces of
property that are on there that that are now right already built on the water line. So I mean Hooters is right on the water. So and then we have so it's there's a little room around um
>> but Whiskey Joe's has it kind of they could and it doesn't even have to be something where they we where we're going to go through and change their look, right? It just needs to be something in the verbiage that says that there's going to be an allowable ingress egress path. sure from across their
property at the water line including up to 10 feet so that they can keep their look. It's Whiskey Joe's and you know they so they pass on to that but we're effectively saying if you want to develop down here that's fine but you have to give us >> but ideally they they'd want that access
anyway right somebody's going to park X location and walk through oh let's stop having whiskey >> but you would well you would think right but this was kind of the discussion when Mr. Burke was talking about what he was talking about was, you know, the city residents were like, "You want to build out our waterfront?" And we had to bring
up at that public meeting, "It isn't your waterfront, >> right? >> It's privately owned right now. You have no access to it unless you're patronizing those restaurants." Correct. >> You don't have access to that waterfront. What we want to do is facilitate building you access to the waterfront, but it needs to be something that's consistent, and the only way we
do that is by putting it in the code so that we have a consistent path across that. >> So, N you might want to add on this. Well, I don't believe that we could we could put an easement in without it's private property, so we'd have to negotiate that easement with the property owner for one. So, we can't just by code arbitrarily take somebody's
property. >> Um, now we can change setbacks and whatnot going forward where that would be in there, but it still be private property. It wouldn't be ours to to mess with and we would have no control over what happens on that. So during that process, can we request that they incorporate some kind of
>> So obviously planning process, especially if they're trying to access more density. If they had the five acres, you can negotiate that in. Hey, if you give us a boardwalk, we'll we'll give you additional density. That's that's was the the beauty of the construct we put in place is it puts uh contractual obligations on that
developer to in order to get that additional density, they would have to provide those things that the city wants. Um, so that's how you work through that. But just arbitrarily saying, "Hey, we're going to take the waterfront from you without doing some kind of a domain or some type process, we couldn't do that." >> Well, I think we'd have to incentivize
it. It would have to be something that says if you want to do X, you're going to do this, right? >> Um, and it would have to be something that we would put in because we can't just, hey, thanks, we appreciate that. Well, you could still do eminent eminent domain on that and take the 10 feet on
>> and have the city go ahead and take control of that 10-ft barrier. And if we did that, then of course we'd be responsible for the upkeep and the maintenance. But now it's completely open to the public. That's similar to what Readington Beach did with the beaches. They got all those houses up
there and the property lines. I know cuz I was out there asked to work on one. the property lines extend out toward to be inclusive of the beach area, but Reading Beach said, "No, no, no. This is all open to the general public. You're
going to have to allow this." And uh >> I just hate us to lose the image that we're trying to build >> because some developer decides he wants to go ahead and mess up our plans by putting something right there in the middle of it that we can't do anything about.
>> Well, I think it I think the way it's written with per acre is going to be cost prohibitive to do anything like that realistically. Um, so I think that kind of in itself solves the problem. I mean, I'm not going to put a 15 unit hotel there, right? I mean, just would be cost prohibitive. It be it would be cost
prohibitive. >> No, but they could put three stories at five units each. again. Is it they have to have >> as long as we still keep the pathway open so that because we have this nice area that Ryan and his group were
talking about developing where Gild Dogs had that walk around right where the park is. You know, can you imagine we start here and move then all of a sudden we have to stop and then what are we going to do? Uh we can't get past this one unless we come all the way out to a
parking lot and go back around and then try it again. That's it's going to build the damage we want. >> That's the running problem with any kind of development like this is that slowest man and last man standing are the ones that dictate >> completion of the entire overall idea. So I mean the idea is that we could make
changes to the waterfront over delay district for things moving forward. >> Um so we can say you this is what this is the plan is that you know it's your property but we you know we request pedestrian access through this space. doesn't even really have to be an
easement as much as it is you're in the commercial district. It's public space that we're requesting. You that's part of our code is that you have to allow that flow from one side to the other in that outside 10 ft along the seaw wall. The problem with imminent domain aside from the the legal running Nancy through
the ringer to try to keep to fight that is that if we do that then we also probably inherit all of the dockage >> correct >> ocean side of that of that thing. So, we inherit their seaw walls. The city inherits their seaw walls and inherits their dockage. And then there's a liability dispute of those are dockage
for people to use those restaurants. Now, they're crossing over that, but they're they're landing on city docks. They're not landing on on private docks. We want them to stay private docks. We just want to figure out how to verbalize that in the in the code so that we
create a and I think it's it can be done. I think it can be done by going through and offering something like, hey, look, we're trying to come up with one consistent look. As such, if you guys will agree to this and we can get this consistent passageway across there,
maybe the city will put up the same light, the solar lights or something along the walkway paths or something like that. That way, it solves two problems. want is that we get the walk light the walk lighting pathway that we want and it's one consistent look so we
maintain that look. They get path lighting without having to pay for it and they're giving up access across the space to do so. And then that way the front side on the roadside and the water side have the same visual appeal. And that was a problem we had with city council a while
back. clear when I was talking about path lighting around Treadway and down up and down those roads and it's like this is private property. It's not the city's responsibility to light this. That road doesn't even belong to the city. At the time it didn't. So it was like, you know, you're asking the city
to put up lights, but you're not giving the city anything in return. And so I think that's probably how we have to address it is come up with what are we going to give away? What can the city afford to give
in place in order to effectively purchase that right across those pieces of property to purchase compliance? Well, if we looked at it from a financial standpoint on their side, if they were smart and we proposed it to them, that pathway would give them
another entrance for their restaurants all the way along the way. And if it's, let's say they do one for 20 feet, that gives them a 10- foot outside dining at the same time. We still have our path there. It just seems that if we're going to do a boardwalk, a New Jersey type
boardwalk or something, we got to have some continuity to make sure that the whole area does it. Now, we'll run into an issue with Whiskey Joe's because they put their private beach in, but I don't think that's going to be an issue either as long as they have stairs to get up
and go down on the other side of the beach to have that walkway go all the way through there. And we have a couple of channels cut in that too that are that are going to be something we have to think about. The marina obviously creates a creates a roadblock. So, the pathway is going to
have to wind a little bit anyway. it's going to have to move through spaces. Um, and we probably have easements alongside some of those properties that we can use for that for that pathway. Um, but I I agree with you. We need the
continuity. And I agree, but I think it it can't ride if we're going to develop it, we c it can't ride on this will be really good for you. you should let us do this because it's going to bring people to you because you're gonna get the one guy that's going to buy the acre and he's going to put private residences in and
he's going to put fence up. >> So, as a point of order though, do we need to have ask city council to >> I was going to wait for my turn and I was going to say you have a good representative from city council that can I think can um bring this topic up with council if it's something they're interested moving forward. My thought
was to um touch base with our planner if council's interested in this conversation to kind of get her idea on ways she has seen um different areas um I'm looking at the waterfront early district like how has she seen it drafted to try to get to the things
you're talking about. Um so it's a good point. I think it needs to go to council to see if they want more >> because I know when we reviewed it last time several years it was council put it back out that they wanted us to review it. So, I it's good to have discussion about it and it's I'm glad you brought it up because it's a very real problem moving forward, especially that I'm sure
it's been something that's been discussed. >> Happy to bring it up council if uh the other representative here. >> I will bring up tonight if we can get that on your agenda to look at uh possible changes to WD. >> I know they have a list of stuff they want us to do. So, it' be a prioritization obviously. So, um
>> All right, cool. >> Does that kind of satisfy for now, Ron? >> Yeah, I'm just >> we're going to put a pin in it because I know we're I'm >> working with the plans. a number of people over there and it's like gee whiz it'd be terrible if we're looking at putting $60 million into a project and
then we have to stop because all of a sudden somebody wants to be arrogant about it and say oh no no you're not walking across my property then we're stuck >> yes can I ask something just to picture what's being discussed of boardwalk is are we talking about on their first 10
ft of land or hanging off their water >> so that's been that's been a question and issue in the past Bay Riverwalk. I think they did that after the fact. And so there's a there's a because there's development already there. The original discussion we had years ago, I think Veronica brought it up like eight or nine years ago when we discussed it was
there are properties there that would have to encroach on the river side of it and you know uh core of engineers was an issue in a conversation like for instance Hooters. Hooters literally built on the seaw wall, right? So we'd have to widen the space where their docks are and walk around there for instance or do you walk in front of the
building? There was multiple questions to ask that. I think it becomes a logistics problem that you have to discuss with the city of the council and see what they want. As far as a vision was concerned in the very first uh rendering of that and I remember it had it before the storms actually flooded everything away. Uh the rendering went
all the way around on the waterline. So if it was a new property was built that because Eric kind of incorporated that when he built Gildog he made that space you could walk along the water line and then they had the same question. Well what do we do where where Seaside is? What do we do where Hooters is? and it
was to go out into the actual water spaces and they were trying to get the the property owners to have a conversation be see if they were willing to even kind of chip in and do that which of course seaside was like you've lost your mind we're not going to pay we don't put our building together let alone anything else so um
>> so it's it's interesting we to have that brought back up now because from a from a large scale vision it was designed so the residents and more importantly guests to our city would park and then walk down that place and then use the
restaurants and go to the shops and do all those things like that and and many of the business owners and the property owners thought it would be fantastic. Nothing ever came of it. So, it's funny that it's coming back up now and now we're in the midst of seeing permits actually start, you know, being done. We have demo permits. I think Mr. B,
right? He's working on his B permits. I saw some fences going up. Yeah. So, >> so we're there. We just have to figure out how to make it happen. And I think anybody that you when you're talking to council, I think anybody that is uh you know doesn't want to doesn't
want to play um and puts up that roadblock then then we do use the easements that run between the properties to turn the to turn that walkway back out to the road out to the common space and then come back down the other side. But we fence it very specifically that forces traffic not to
go into that person's property until they play. Um and that's pretty consistent. And I've seen that in a lot of places where it's like, okay, but when traffic makes the turn here, you look like you don't you don't want people, you don't want customers of any
way. And if someone wants to build something residential, the likelihood is very low that they're not going to want a gate that gets onto the boardwalk in both directions um to go through there. And if they're not willing to allow passage through, then the city doesn't allow them to have a gate into the
boardwalk on their property. And you know, that way that way we push that along to get that consistency all the way across the waterfront. >> You get A or B, but not both. >> Right. >> It seems like we could start off with something more simple. At least start
off with changing the setback along the waterfront for any new construction. I don't know what it is now, but maybe make it 25 ft. And then that way in any future plans you have at least you don't have a new roadblock or somebody building
something because it's not going to not going to be anything there that doesn't address allowing the public there and all that kind of stuff. But that's I think that's a bigger hurdle to force that to happen. >> Hooters I know is talking about putting a new building in when all this happens
and get because they got flooded out on the last one. And if you're familiar with the Hooters over in Clearwater, it's on the second floor of of an apartment complex and it works very well. They got first and second floor and that's gives them a little more view
at the same time. So, they're talking that that way right now. And uh I I just get I don't know. It's a it's a feeling that Grimmaldi's not looking at the overall picture when
he's talking about what he wants to do with that restaurant and all. I mean, he's not doesn't want to be part of anything. He just wants his own little world over here. And if we're going to start on this side where Gildogs is and try to go all the way around, now all of a sudden we got to stop.
Uh, unless we go like they did at John's Pass and do an elevated walk and just go up. >> Mhm. >> Why don't Why don't we do this? Um, because it sounds like the real concern
is not necessarily the WOD, but more of the walkway initiative around the the water. And so I I'll bring up the council and see if we can get that process started to see at, you know, if we don't have a way to do that
and we don't have a a person that's going to work with us. I I will say that I've talked to several of the business down there and they'd be very willing to try to accommodate that as connect stuff together to to make that happen. Um, but if there was those that that that weren't um to that we could possibly
build out into the water house we kind of loop around and come inside like there's at Whiskey Joe's specifically they bought that other prop that house next door and I think they're going to put a wedding venue in there. So it' be very difficult to walk through that obviously. Right. >> Sure. >> Um event vent type venue where we might
be able to put something out in the water to go around and I think we could work with different property owners on that aspect. So maybe we we pursue that to to start those conversations, see what we need to do to actually make a connection all the way around. >> Sure. >> And then >> originally there was even discussion about putting it under the under the
bridge back in the very first rendering back in like 20 years ago. We have drawings showing it was going under the bridge. So we include that side of the waterfall as well. >> So that's still alive and well at the MO. The um it's like number six on the unfunded project list. It's moved back
up. Um, right now it's in the rightway study acquisition on both sides to see what the city would need to acquire rightaway wise to make that happen. >> Um, but the funding is there on the NO side to to help that. So, that's still very much alive. >> The only problem with that, and I talked to the owner of that marina because I
know him, is that he's all of his marina pretty much has access from a boat ramp that is right next to um the bridge. So there's no way you could go and connect it and be able to get through his his
ramp there. That property is in terrible shape. Uh especially after it got flooded. >> Wonder I've always wondered the legality of that boat ramp on the east side of the river as well. >> Yeah, there's there's there's ownership things that are cause problem, but he's very willing. I talked to him as well.
He's very willing to to work with us on that. And that's part of the part of the ride rightway acquisition study is to because the original plan actually dumped out and walked across that boat ramp onto Bailey or whatever that road is. Um so obviously we we probably would still want to do that and he's he'd be
willing to to allow some kind controlled access like a shut it off so he could use it and then he's not using it. You can walk across there, put some gates or something up. Um but also we would turn traffic up along 19 as well to go up there and connect on sidewalk. I think you really need both connections, >> right?
>> Um, so that's all in the works to find out what exactly we need to make that happen and then come back in some some plans to to >> So then you're you have a request from your board to talk to council this evening and see if they have us. >> Yeah. Overall, obviously we got to
figure out what next park is a boat ramp, another issue to go across there. So there's a lot of things to make that happen. So we can start. Are we going to allow the boat ra the uh the the boardwalk to now that now that Ryan has that Gildog property right there to go ahead and connect all the way and carry
it all the way through the park >> water park >> the boardwalk you know >> oh right in front >> um well I see that development where they put plans together that's part of the stuff we would have you guys have discussions with we would have discussions with about what we want to see all that connection
>> there won't be any objections to us including including the park in that because that makes a really nice nature walk then if we cover that whole little area just we're talking about a mile. >> Yeah, we there's even discussions that maybe we put a fly over that the waterway there to get connection from
the waterfront to the waterfront park. So I mean there's lots of things obviously that we can do going forward but alo we need development to kind of start in order to kind of plan for that. So lot lot of things up in the air. >> Got the permit started right here. I mean
>> that's a good start. Yes. >> Can I ask how far east you're envisioning? You talk about taking it under the 19 bridge. >> So the overlay district extends all the way, believe it or not, all the way through >> to Grand >> Not to Grand. No, where the WD stops at
19 Bay stops at B on Bay on the waterfront on Bayia. So um >> the WD includes the other side. >> Well, the master plan included, >> right? WD doesn't stop. >> The WD did not >> WD right now is just on the west side. The future landings maps show all the
way. But but no, it's it stopped right at Bailey all the way up this basically right where the little restaurants are and stuff like that where the one that burned down all that. That was where it was. >> Crab shack. >> Yeah. Crab shack all the way to little um I don't even know that place was called the Italian sub shop that was
there and it burned to the ground and I think they're rebuilding re are they rebuilding that? Yeah. So, yeah, right there, that whole street basically. But the future landing with it all the way to Grand. >> Okay. All right. Well, we're gonna put a pin in it then. All right. Moving forward. Uh, any other questions,
concerns, comments you guys want to bring up? Anything else we're going to put on the agenda? We don't have enough work to do already. Ron, come on. Keep adding stuff to us. All right. Let's move it forward. All right. Today, we are going to discuss the amendments of the water over District. Miss Nancy, you are on board. So, you may remember that
this came up um when we were talking talking about the sign code and you guys asked for some direction from council. So, I took it back to council and council has sent you some direction. So, this is a proposed change to just the sign portion of the WFD. Um the
ordinance is in your packet. Um and essentially this is proposed language, so they're just looking for your review and recommendation. Um the the direction I got was pretty much that the sign signage in the waterfront overlay district should follow the sign code.
And so that is what this verbiage does. It strikes out the specific language that was in the WOD about signage and says follow the sign code. Um so if there's any comments or changes or curses or anything you want to throw at me, I will take that back. >> So all the modified sign language we
already worked with for the the rest of the code just so I should let you know that. council went through >> went through the sign code um did make a couple of of tweaks um to what you guys already did. They are waiting for me to draft everything and bring it back >> which is a task, but I will get it done
and bring it back to them for um first reading hopefully in the near future. And we're trying to um keep >> this ordinance with that ordinance kind of kind of go hand in hand. So we don't want one to change and the other not to be ready to change. Um so all that's ready to go back to council. Um, they just need your recommendation on this
particular rewrite of 12755. >> Do we have any plans for a monument style sign or something like they've done over in Newport Reggie to welcome people to our new district?
>> No, this point that's and I think we're still waiting. I think what the mayor mentioned earlier that the development needs to kind of get geared up before that. I will tell you during the sign code workshops there was a lot of talk about signs and and different looks and different ways to notice the public, you know, turn right
here, turn left here. Um, but as far as any specific plan and I'll of course let the mayor speak, but I don't remember anything specific. >> No, it's just like if we're going to have something like John's Pass, you really want something that >> sure >> has a name and people know they're welcome. Like when you go into Main
Street of Newport Richie, they have some kind of acknowledgement that you're coming to someplace special, not just a bunch of places. >> I think they had uh briefly discussed something like that, uh Ron, and it it
was discussed. It's it's certainly not something right now we're trying to get development moving, but um for the signs, I think that that was discussed to be talked about. There was discussion about raising some money. So that's the biggest cry, right? We need some tax
space to be able to to worry about spending up. That was a quarter, three quarter of a million dollar sign that they put up there. >> Yeah. hours. >> Didn't we want to specify that that the signs in the waterfront overlay district would have to um be
uh similar to whatever the the um developer was envisioning because if one person wants a neon sign and another person wants like a wood natural sign, it's not going to look right in the new development. >> So, and I'll respond to that just because I was I did so much work on
overlay district stuff. There was discussion originally um and Eric, you weren't here for this. Um I think the only two of us is myself and Veronica. Originally there was discussion that the initial envision of the city 20ome years ago when they had this conversation
about the Olay district was that each one of the signs would be very very similar. Remember they had to have a certain style. They had a certain fit. But the problem we had with that was we couldn't dis disguise or figure out what exactly we were going to do. So it was like well are we doing a fishing
village? are we doing a Key West style? What are we doing? There was no So, we couldn't request any kind of continuity to the fact that we didn't even have an answer to give them. So, because of that fact, I think we pretty much left it very very blank in the overlay district design. Right.
>> Um, in our current WOD district, it was tiki like village, fish village shack type of style and that that was in our code. Um, and so, and that's what you're seeing down there with the exception
that over the years you've seen some LED lights, you've seen some amplified lights, you've seen some people wanting scrolling lights. And I think that that's what started the conversations with the sign code change because it's so outdated, you know, and and so and to
bring it up to date. people want to be seen from 19, you know, and if you have a if you have a woodlike, you know, lights coming from the bottom, lights coming from the top, are you going to see that from US 19? Probably not. Um, so there there was there was that was
what it was, right? And that's all that you could do. You couldn't do much. But now they they're wanting to change it and and update it. and they they put a lot of thought into those into the sign ordinance to to update it. >> So by removing all these other
stipulations, >> basically they have to be compliant with the sign code and ordinances you guys already suggested and the council tweaked and then approved so or in the process in the process. >> You could have somebody a business with a neon sign and then like a log gy
woodsy type sign right next to each other >> according the way it's written here. Absolutely. You were 100% correct. Do you think that's going to look good? I don't >> I I think the problem we have is and the council is having to deal with is the fact that there's we don't we've never given it we gave it a sort of a
direction and now our our developers who are coming to us are saying that that doesn't work for them. And do we do we try to redesign that sign code based off of what we're trying to keep as our design and feel there and turn them away? I mean, we've been turning them away for 25 years. I'd rather see
something actually get built finally. That's my personal position. >> So, I'm in a lot of towns now that are getting brand new signs because they all went away. >> Um and um and they're all getting rebuilt like so Fort Myers Beach where every building was destroyed and they
all are getting rebuilt. Some of them are getting rebuilt to look like they did before just in modern materials, but they still look beach shack because it was a 50-y old building. Um and their signage is done that way like it was before. So, it looks almost like it's a
hodge podge, but then the way the area handled it was to do a monument sign that kind of was like one of those pointing to all the and they did a single monument and then they did signs that were all done by the
same vendor, but they were done in the style of whatever that thing is to point to where it was. So, like you knew you were going to the the crab shack. was the crab shack wooden looking sign, but it was all on one monument to be one consistent thing. So that and it's I've
seen that now in also a lot of the little like Homosasa Springs where I grew up which was just trailer parks and and old houses is now almost exclusively Airbnbs. All of Homosasa Springs is nothing but Airbnbs. And every juncture
of every road is a is a pillar sign with the name of the cabin with 23 cabin names all in their own little handone signs, but they've put them on a single column. The column gives it the unity. >> Oh, I see. >> But now you're pointing out that you
have a mix of all of these different businesses in this space. And then you turn down there and you have all these cool different new signs throughout the whole thing that are that are their own personality for their space. And then it looks at least in Fort Meyers that what
they've done is they've dictated things like I was saying with all of the street all the little cute solar street lights are all consistent. So the walkway through this village is consistent. The pathway is consistent. But then when you get to the front gate of that
restaurant, it becomes that restaurant's style and then the next one's different. But you join it together in how you do the overall master plan so that the feel feel becomes consistent because you want those stores to have their own thing. You want their individuality,
>> you know, and so I think there's you we're either going to have to go, okay, everything's one thing. And I don't know how many of you have been to places like that where the master plan for a whole neighborhood, all the restaurants and everything were thought out and everything's the same and then all the signage is the same
>> and it doesn't really franchise. You know, we've got Hooters as a franchise. If we're looking at Starbucks or somebody else and the rules I know, read my book on franchising. The rules on franchising mean you're going to have to use the exact type face, the exact color
code, everything. So, we can't really tell Hooters, oh, you're gonna have to have a sign that looks like this so it conforms because Hooters National is gonna say, "Nope, not gonna happen." >> That's not Hooters National, though.
>> No, that's a franchise right now. But Hooters, >> it's not a franchise either. >> Well, Hooters is negotiating to buy that. Hooters corporate is right now >> because uh I was with Steuart, Mike Stewart yesterday. Um and they were
saying that the corporation is looking at taking that back over. So >> if so, they're going to want their own type face and their own sign the way it is. >> Yeah. >> I think there's a way to >> I think there's a way to make it look
consistent that it's all part of this village, but let them have their identity. Um, as long as we're, you know, like, you know, even if even if you just pick it at height, you know, if the if the code, which you already have code that kind of creates a consistency
in height, overall size. So, I mean, it's their sign, but they're not you don't have a neon sign and then a, you know, they're they're all over the place. They're all, if they're fairly consistent, then it has that village feel. It's one consistent thing, but it's they each have their personality.
And I think it makes it easier across the board if we if this one matches the other one. Um and then again, we do more with the Waterfront Overdelly District. We do more with the pathway connecting. >> Yeah, I agree. >> These are individual these are individual locations, but the path
connecting them is our town and they're part of that. Like this is their corner. >> I think the attraction from 19 should be to the waterfront district, not to individual places. Exactly. Otherwise, we'd have 20 big neon signs up there. >> Yeah. >> Of trying to shine on 19.
>> You just want to bring people to that. >> Yeah. Honestly, as so as it develops down there, um the city was going to have an infrastructure piece as well. We're going have roads, signage, lighting, and stuff that feed the area. And we would we would probably have some kind of signage that would direct. That's what the wayfinding uh stuff was
about was you know what we have. But since we don't really have a whole lot going on there yet, once we have that, then we can start to work with in those developments where they're going to lay out, what's going to look like, where we might have a entryway sign or something. We we can start looking at that. But we definitely do that from the city
perspective, but obviously these individual businesses as they put their individual business signs up, it it's very hard to keep them all succinct in a certain motif, if you will. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But putting a road sign up is perfect. That's I don't know if you remember the development. It used to be
down right next to the Clearwater St. Pete airport. They had that big village back in there and it was very echic with a whole lot of different vendors of all kinds down there. But they did the same thing you just said. They had their signs up and their signs
directed them to where this and that just like they do in the shopping. So you knew exactly where you're going to go to Hooters. you know where you're going to go to to Whiskey Joe's or wherever. And uh same thing with the
lighting. As long as the city puts a decorative light pole up or something to give it some kind of atmospheric ambiance, you know, we have more for that district than just bunch of restaurants put over there.
>> So Lori, since you brought it up, does that satisfy your question? >> I I understand it more, but Do you have any other discussion or a motion regarding what we have in front of us? Miss Nancy has put together. >> I will say you bring up neon sign toss
around or whatever. Um I know we we made change additional signs. >> I don't do we in our code do we >> prevent neon? >> I cannot remember what the ultimate decision was. I know it was talked about but I can't remember what you guys we
could definitely exclude neon signs. the Vegas look like. >> I don't I don't believe we >> I think it's in there. Um >> we could add because that's that's a very specific type of thing that's kind of annoying,
>> but that again that should be >> in the city the whole city. It's annoying everywhere. Yes. >> Not just in the water. >> Right. So, I mean, I think having this follow I think having this follow that this is too small of a town, >> I think, to have
>> a a signage code >> for the district 1.3 square miles that's not the one waterfront district and then have a completely different signage code there. I would love to see us come up with a master plan,
>> a town hall style with the city council to have a master plan for what the town looks like. The waterfront overlay district shouldn't be the only place that has a a theme. I mean, we're a tiny tiny town. We can have it can kind of be consistent. You we can start running
that that stuff throughout all of the city stuff so that it has a consistent feel because we're only talking about a fairly short space. That way when people come here, they know that this is what they've come into that space. They've come into port the whole thing. >> Well, until we get to item number three here, which annexation action, we're
going to grow 100%. But but again, if we have a theme, then restaurants and things that are coming in, businesses that are coming in, they want to be part of that, >> right? >> That helps guide them when they're designing, they're coming up with a new plan. Even even a Chick-fil-A or a a Starbucks, they will maintain their
their their main icon, but they will alter the shape of the building to fit and conform to the feel of the village or area that they're coming into. Um, you know, a Starbucks in downtown Tampa is very ultramodern. The whole building
is ultramodern. But then you go to an area where it is kind of more quaint, like go up north somewhere to a ski village, you know, you're in a ski town, it the the Starbucks looks like a ski chalet. Like they're perfectly okay with mapping the building to match the area.
They're still going to have their sign up. Um, but they're going to make it look like it like it belongs to the space. Is there a way we can go ahead and incorporate architectural approval on these buildings? I mean, right now
all the approval is based on whether or not you're meeting the engineering statutes and whatever. Is there any way we can say that we have an architectural committee that to make sure there's >> Are we talking about for the overlay district itself? >> Yeah. For goodformity.
>> Once again, now we want something we'd have to bring from point order. We'd have to put it back where council would suggest that that's in the actual original overly district as well. There was some kind of discussion about how buildings had to look to conform still has the fishing village theme in. So we talk about signs. It doesn't take away
from what we what that theme is. The theme is still there. But we haven't changed that. We're just saying that you know the sign code itself we're not we're not doing anything special from the WOD perspective. >> No, we're just trying to make the sign code consistent across the city all the miss this motion will do. and and I I'll
I'll just give you a little more background information in our discussion. Obviously, we didn't off the top of our head see any reason that we would necessarily make a special exception for signs in the waterway district. If you guys can think of something that makes sense, obviously we would definitely be looking
to to possibly incorporate that. But I didn't really see like at least my perspective is there anything really locked down in WOD. Now, the theme, the sign would go along with whatever theme. It's fishing village theme. the sign would would look like that as well. It just could be digital, it could be other things, the size, all those all those
other things would be the same. They have to follow a theme. Um, but if you guys think there's actually like you don't want you want the signs to be smaller or bigger, then you want to call that out. We like I said, our general sign, we we felt like it we need to do anything special
for the WOD. So, the only thing that I can think of specific to the waterfront overlay um would be if you're dealing with fair because LED signs are bright, digital signage is bright. Um it would be that it not point out across the water.
>> Yeah. There's there's lumen restrictions and how far it projects and stuff like that built into it. I believe >> well for sea turtles for pointing across water at open at residences. I mean, even with in the regular signage code, I'm assuming we have that it can't be obnoxiously bright and pointed at a
residential space and things like that. That would be the only thing I would want to be concerned is making sure that as we do this, but that's going to be more of just overlay district in general that we shouldn't have lights pointing out at the water. We we we might want to
if we don't have it already, if we can have signs on the water that we make sure that >> um those don't project out over the water. >> That is a good point. >> I'm just thinking about >> I don't think that was at all, Nancy. >> I'm just thinking about you guys have
seen the crazy signs that and they're changing. They're digital and they're changing and it's this it's it's lighting up the entire street for as far as you can possibly see. And I'm thinking about right now when I have to go drive around the other side of the bayou to knock on somebody's door and go, "Man, I love the new dock lights.
Can we point them back at your house?" >> Because they're casting a shadow in my house. >> Um, >> isn't that all addressed in the general sign language? Well, >> there's something in the sign code about the the brightness, but I don't know that it was specific to waterfront versus, you know, your neighbors flood
light kind of thing. And that might be something that we just cover in general code for we shouldn't have any like signage that are pointing that are that are over a certain lumen that are pointed out of the water in any at any point.
>> You still want so you can attract voters at night to go to a restaurant and want to be able to get their way in there. People that want to take their boat and have to go back afterwards. So you want to make sure you have enough illumination. No, but down but downlighting down lighting on dockage
and down lighting on markers and down lighting on things that's we has been covered in every every coastal town without broadcasting those lights out across the water for 150 200 yards. It's one thing to have a marker light in a waterway. You you expect that. But like
if I'm coming up to dock at Hooters, the last thing I want is 100,000 candle power pointed my direction >> as I'm coming up on it because then I can't see what I'm landing on. Um and and then it just goes and goes and goes and goes across the water.
>> So maybe that's and that may that may not affect this as much as it is that's something we need to be looking at just in our overall code in general that anything dealing with the water point on on Starbucks was a good one that you know do we have any art on the facade or
the image of the building structure itself? not how the building's built, but what we want it to be presented in the front if it's going to go ahead and keep a consistency. >> So, the short answer is yes. >> Good. >> Because the overlay district does have specific guidelines for it. So, yes, it
would it would go from the Well, sort of. >> It doesn't have any architectural. There's no if someone brought us a set of plans that wants to do a Starbucks, there's no We don't have an architectural board. And I I know what you're referring to. where it has to be
built a certain way to to a fish village and they all have to have this type of lighting and this type of material and this type of structure. We don't have that right now. It's very limited to what we have to that extent just
>> have a facade requirement of any sort like that. But >> I I think I think when you read it, it gives the idea of what the city's looking for, but there's no requirements that you have to do those certain things. You can include those kinds of things in your code. It would require obviously first direction from council
and a rewrite of the code. >> That's a good question. We had So, you're saying we don't have teeth in that to to make that happen? >> I've not looked at that specifically, but I don't remember seeing I just real quick. I don't see anything specific about, you know, certain looks and architectural requirements. I there are
some municipalities that we I don't believe there's any teeth attached to it at all. There was just a request to check the box. >> This is what we're trying to accomplish. Here you go. Welcome to >> when when they came to planning and zoning or council with their plans and it didn't and they they didn't follow
that theme. Couldn't they reject it based on that? Because it does say it in there. >> I don't think it >> right. But they don't if you're building a building down there and you're not asking for a variance of any kind and you're just building a building within the within the extent of the code, it never see we don't see it.
I'm not going to see you specifically says fishing village theme. So I would think that they would have to have >> but it doesn't like Mike said it doesn't have to come before planning and zoning unless there's a specifically reason for it. >> It doesn't come to us unless they're asking for a variance of some kind. So if it if they're just building in the waterfront overlay district and they're
following the code as it's already stated, >> right? Well, when the building official >> the building official would have to go, I don't like that. Yeah. Engineering has nothing to do with it. But it has nothing to do with architect and what the facade looks like. That's not
>> code though. It's a >> unless I'm unless I'm reading the wrong section. I don't really even see that kind of language. >> It's just really nothing. It's just it's the water the WOD is to improve the physical image of the waterfront community, protect environmental sensitivity. It just it I don't think it
I don't think it has in it what you guys are thinking is in it. Could we modify the planning and zoning board to also have architectural review to make sure something in that area meets? >> You wouldn't you wouldn't necessarily
have to Well, that's kind of two things. First, you'd have to get um you need to make sure the code has what you would need in it to to require those certain architectural things. That would be our first step and that would be a direction from council for us to have that
analysis and look at it. Um, if that's not in there, it would require a code rewrite, then it would be a determination if that's something the building official or the building department would do or if you'd actually want a separate committee to make sure those boxes are checked. So, there's different ways you could do it. I think the first step is discussing with
council if they want stronger language within the WOD um about an architectural look for a certain location because right now >> any new construction or remodeling of existing structures shall be in keeping with the character of the area and
provisions of the overlay district. All existing non shall be brought into compliance within two years. Um, but it but it it it doesn't specify what that is.
>> That sounds like no no final direction. >> But I think that's good enough. You guys are talking about a fishing village, not a shopping center, you know, and that's if you start making all these rules, then it's just going to look very uniform. It's not going to look like a shopping village. It's going to look like
>> Here it is. It's under item J, appearance, Nancy. Item number uh one, the appearance of any structure used for commercial purposes in WD shall portray an old Florida nautical or fishing village theme. >> I was in the wrong section. >> So, does that give us enough teeth? We don't have to modify
>> or depends on how much you want. >> That's interpretation. >> It is. And it's depends on what you want to do an attorney. You know, you're cutting. >> Yeah. It doesn't give the building official anything or >> that doesn't give us any guidance. So, yes. So, who makes that determination? So, I want modern looking houses up
there. Then, who's to say that's not fishing village? >> If you, my advice would be if you truly want to to control the architectural look of an area, you need to make your code say that. >> Okay. >> And I think we would need then every single permit would have to go through
some kind of ARB. We'd have to have a committee of some kind. Someone would have to have one what the city council dictated. We'd have to have a a set standards >> development permit in the WOD would need to come before >> which is what the original waterfront
over district uh committee was supposed to do. Remember that we had that in our committee and I think we met twice and it just went away. >> I don't see any reason why it can't be something that goes onto our agenda when someone bring we're not talking about
300 300 permits a year here. We're talking about 15 parcels. We're not talking about a lot of space. >> No, that if we could bring that back, we could actually make that change. It comes for us. Obviously, a PUD with five acres more, it's going to come for you, >> right? >> Um, but just if smaller stuff, if we
could, we probably do need to have that in there that it comes before. >> Is the board okay with having that additional responsibility put on you? >> Well, really, they don't have a choice of council direct. >> Good point. >> Can we request Let me Does anybody say that that hell no, I don't want to deal
with that? >> No. I think I I would I would like to if it's going to be our responsibility, I would like to have at least some form of guidance document from council. >> Of course, I would like to know what it is you're asking us to look for and what things maybe even some named exclusions.
>> I my recommendations is this needs to go to council as a discussion to see if you want if you want to dictate something architectural, you need to put it somewhere. It can't be an idea in someone's head, right? Someone needs to be able to pick up our code and go, I'm interested in buying property. It's in the waterfront overlay district. What
are my expectations there? Oh, I have to build to this certain criteria. They need to know that before they come in here with plans that needs to be re the code needs to be >> and and maybe we can stay vague enough that it lends itself to some degree of
discussion as to is fishing village or not. Yeah. As opposed to okay, it's got to have lap siding. It's got to be run as shiplap. It's got to we're not going to get that specific that that this is going to be an architectural like like an HOA level thing. I think we're
talking about it's got to meet a theme. We need guidance from council. If this is the direction you guys want us to go, then we would need guidance from council as to some very specific hard nos and then you know what we're what we're looking for. um so that we can as a
group have a discussion of it really is important and critical because if Ryan is gonna >> he's pushing to get a shovel in the ground by January and a nice conversation with him is he's going in front of the board um
in the next week or so with the drawings and and what he's put together for the area. But he's talking about lining up class A tenants, which you and I understand they have one, two years
ahead before they get approval. And if we're going to start looking at class A tenants like a Starbucks, like a whatever, um, we need something to say, hey, if you're going to put a Starbucks in here, we don't care what you do about the inside or how you build it out, but
it's got to have this kind of image on the front or you can't have it. And if we don't do that, we're going to lose the class A's and have to be stuck in a bunch of class B's or C's. >> So then we need guidance from council on what they would like us to look into and how far they would like us to take it.
>> I made a note. >> So >> facade, whether it's facade control or all the way down to architectural features and design elements. >> Neon signs only point at Perez's house. just >> as long as they're target shaped.
>> I think look good in a fishing village supposed to be. Is it a real fishing village or is it just a pretend? I don't understand. >> It says old nautical. >> I just old Florida nautical. >> I just I want to make sure there's a bounce that they're allowed to use
modern resilient materials, not just old driftwood. >> Right. Well, it's the look, not the >> It says the appearance the appearance and they still have to be all the regular building codes >> shall portray an old Florida nautical or
fishing village. >> It's okay. It's driftwood's fine. When we flood again, it'll go by my house. Fine. >> And then to Mr. Farz, you made a point earlier, just so you know, there's a waying project we're in the early stages of right now about you're talking about tying the whole city together kind of a theme. So, we're we're definitely
keeping that in mind. as we choose a style. But right now, the they've come and looked at the city and then they're coming back to us with ideas. >> And I think once we have a theme that's got some direction and some visuals, then it'll be a lot easier for council
to give us guidance as to how you how you want us to go about that as permits come across. >> N is it um I I know you don't want to ever have anything vague in there and and somewhat this is kind of vague. It's even in quotes. That Florida knuckle
village fishing theme is in quotes in the in the code. Um, is it is it something that you could just leave you you want that theme and it the decision makers are council could get in trouble for that. I guess let's say somebody comes with us and we say
well that to the current body who were sitting there at the time we don't think that's nautical enough. Usually the the legal analysis is the criteria are um the thing you're looking to do. The reasonable person needs to be able to look at objective
statements, objective information and understand it. So if it's usually like a nautical theme, okay, well I might picture that, well it has to have a boat on it. You might picture it has to have a fish on it. Like what does that mean? >> Do you want to get it so detailed that
it's you're dictating every single thing someone's doing? No. I mean, you want some, I would imagine, some differences, but you want a theme. So, I think we just need to look at it, provide some guidance, >> reference >> ref because you what you don't want is it you bring your issue before council.
Oh, no, that's not nautical enough. She brings her issue. That's perfect. You're not mad. You think yours is just as nautical as hers. >> What was that decision based on? Oh, you like her, you don't like me. You know where these things go. So the war direction guidance >> doesn't fact you have a theme there
causes issues >> right yeah >> so >> I don't you can find something from another area that has a theme I don't know if John's pass >> John's pass would be like that's exactly the place I was thinking about I know they have a certain look I I am pretty they have a master plan that talks about
that stuff so I think theirs is quite detailed >> but we'll we can look at that >> sthate does too as well >> okay >> there's very much old Florida >> and cedar Cedar Key might >> Cedar Key. >> Yeah, there would be some places that we definitely could could pull from to have that conversation. So, we'll see if
council wants us to do that. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Okay. >> Put everybody back on track just for the the issue of time. Um >> too late. >> All right. So, any other questions, discussion regarding the motion as it
sits in front of you or do I have a motion to approve to move on? Motion to approve the changes in the waterfront district signage code to conform to the general city.
>> Okay, second. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Fantastic. All right. >> Thank you. >> Moving on to item number two on our agenda. >> Three. Three. Thank you. I am going to pass that off to Mr.
Butterfield. >> Fantastic. >> Thank you, man. So, uh you probably see your packets are on your screens right now. There's two very similar just a couple of words are different on each, but uh two two pages. They would be a like a a two-sided
insert and then a draft letter. So, we basically refined what we showed you last month with based on your input and our planner took a crack at it and I I think it presents well, but I wanted to make sure this seemed like something that you you all thought would lead good places. And uh the second part of this
would be uh we talked about having a uh let's say an open house a businessfriendly open house or an annexation themed open house where we would have our u our our staff leads like Veronica and the fire chief police chief here and ask business owners that are already in the city that we would be
like to have some company with other you know they could actually testament what a great thing it is to be part of the city and then prospective business owners and homeowners and I just love the feedback on do you think we should fus on the businesses first or homeowners too and what sort of
gathering I know the holidays are coming what what what time of year would be the best time to have an open house like that so that's really all I had was a refinement on what we bounced off you roughs last time and uh and ask those questions
>> focusing on the business first step >> we go right right up the ridge road and uh right up 19 and fill in a lot of blanks. >> And on Grand, we've got we've also got
restaurants and such on also Grand that uh I think a couple of those are not within our city. >> Grand is ours by all 19. So on on the flyer, we tried not to promise we're lowering your taxes
because it could be a net lower for some folks and might be a net higher for others, but uh but we want to just highlight the benefits uh that we could foresee for for residents and and businesses. >> Lower their water cost though, right?
>> The water would cost less uh 25% less I think it is if uh if they're a city customer. >> Yeah. So u that's that can be substantial especially for businesses. >> I commend your team. It's I think it's exactly what we discussed. So it's a
green letter way to start for sure. >> Okay. >> To see if we get some kind of information. I don't I don't know that from a perspective as far as timing is concerned that we can have the for businesses we can have a kind of open house before the holidays. >> Thoughts? We're trying to do this
methodically. that uh we we want to get things done but we don't want to rush and >> right >> so I was thinking January >> I would think January February the latest right >> give us time to really hone our message and uh get the word out and get get some buzz about it >> interesting send it out start send it
out and then maybe do some touch points even have some of the board members go and meet some of the business owners and say hey we really like you'd be there in January I know you guys are really busy this because of the holidays that's why we pushed it out this time I mean I'll person I'll go knock on doors I have no So, this need this needs to happen.
>> Well, we'll look for a date in January and feel free that we've kind of got your blessing to send one of these flyers out and letter. We'll take one more look at the letter and make sure it says everything we want it to say and then um then we can send out a uh a follow- on letter about the uh about the
get together. >> How about giving them two options? Let's do one in the afternoon and then one at 5:30 or 6 because >> you got a lot of business people that are working running their small business. They're not going to be able
to take off. And then you've got others from the some of the larger groups that might say, "Come on, let's get this over with. I don't want to go when I get off." >> Yeah. >> I think even a third option where you they do by appointment as well. We come to you, you come to the city and
schedule appointment. And >> could you could you run this in really in two steps? Like a send a letter out that's less specific that explains that we're going to have an open house to discuss this before you send out the we would like to get your property. Uh you
we would like to have you jump in like maybe we send out something that's similar letter send the flyers that says we're looking at annexing property. you know, the the city's looking, you know, you know, the city of Port Richie is looking for looking at growth. Um, one you one avenue to that is is annexation
of properties that are that are keyhold in and explain some, you know, make just a very brief letter that says this is what we're thinking and then send the flyer along with that and talk about the open house before you send the you're one of the ones that we're thinking about kind of, you know, kind of letter
out that way because this seems more like you've already been talking about me and I don't know. >> Okay. um as opposed to maybe a bigger blast that says, "Hey, January, we're going to have after the holidays, >> we're going to talk about growing." >> And this is one of the ways we're
talking about growing. >> I would make I would make a case to to say, "We're growing. We're going to grow." I' I'd approach them that, hey, we're here. We'd like to >> offer some assist, you know, unlock the benefits be a part. Growth would happen
if if they actually come in, right? >> We're going to solve their issues because they got The sign code is another thing you can actually I don't know if you got that in. I haven't seen this yet, but um you know we we we're really focused on making things business friendly from a sign perspective and all that and that
can actually help them get outside the county's rules and come to city's rules where we're a little more lenient in some areas. >> Right. >> It's funny. I'm looking at the map and there's even one of a a property that I'm working on from a commercial standpoint that help one of our city
residents purchase and we're not it's not in there and the first thing he wants is he wants to be in the city and I'm looking at the map like oh I always thought Nikos was in the city >> it's right on the border. It's right there. >> I'm looking for my company and I'm very specifically
I I would rather have something in the city. I would rather have something, you know, so my my restraints on what I'm looking for limits me because I don't want something that's in Newport Richie. I don't want something that's in the county. I want something that's here.
>> Um, so I can defin I see the benefits. I think we all see the benefits there. Um, but I'm just thinking >> I do like the softer approach. >> Kind of ease them deal with it in January. >> So we can send two letters out that way. >> Yeah.
I wanted to comment on one thing. I was reading this the comparisons and she did change it as far as when I mentioned last time that >> the county roads are assessed for residences and then the city it's included in um I don't think that's
specified enough in there. It says regular road repairs, sidewalks and storm water upkeep by the city for city of Port Richmond and then for the county um county maintains main roads. local street upkeep may be delayed. I would also add an assessed on there because
that is a big I mean water you're talking hundreds of dollars maybe a difference maybe even only $25 but the assessment of the roads is thousands >> and I think that should be a little bit more >> I can add that >> out there >> under the public roads uh public works
and road maintenance. >> Yeah. Okay. So after maybe delayed and assessed maybe delayed and assessed. Okay. >> I mean, maybe they'll change the rules and they won't assess. So, at least you'll be protected that way because it says maybe. >> Well, currently they are assessing. They like their assessments.
>> And they just they just started that recently, too. So, >> they like their assessment. >> Probably not going back. >> No, they've been assessing roads for >> Well, they they did something >> as long as I've been here. >> Well, they they because I have a lot up in rental houses up in Embassy. >> They weren't assessing everybody, but
now they assess everybody is what it is. >> Um, they just made a change a couple years ago. Newport the same thing they says for roads. >> So why okay so if I understand correctly we're we're so your suggestion is to send the letter. How about sending a
letter um about the open house and sending them this information along with it. So we're not sending out two mailouts. We're sending out one and putting all the information. We could create a flyer for uh uh a workshop. uh
maybe set up two or three different times throughout, you know, maybe two different days that week or do something like that. >> How far are we sending this letter? >> I mean, how far are we sending this letter? Is it going all the way to Stone Road or all the way up to Embassy Boulevard on the NS corridor as far as
those property are concerned? >> I think I think you probably figure out a manageable number. Sure. Not too large, right? So, we can get a feel of how receptive they are. I mean, we're not having open house nobody show up, >> right? Plus, we have to be careful that we're not doing this spot annexation as
well. So, we have to be kind of careful. You have to be probably quarter mile, half mile. >> Yeah. Yeah. I wouldn't go any more than probably half a mile at this time and then see what we can get. We don't want enclaves and all that. We discussed that the last time. And we if we start bringing in little by little, you know,
and then we start hitting another half a mile and and start going. So, it it's it's got to be in in parts. you draw that radius and kind of do a count just kind of see what you pick up >> what where we're at. Yeah. >> And I would probably I would probably include especially right here behind
city hall these little enclave pockets that we have. >> I think we picked them. Uh so Derek did a spreadsheet and I believe uh there could have been maybe between 20 and 30 uh addresses so far that you know with the enclave you know that we want to hit
first and then um and then go from there. you know, once they annex in, then we have more to pick from and then we can go to the next group and yeah, you don't want to start picking and choosing and then somebody up on Stone Road wants to be in, but the the person off of here off of Springer doesn't want
to be in and then it just throws off our whole system. Do Nancy, have you looked into the the rules on the I guess the process? If you if you slept in an area, let's say we did a half mile radius or whatever, and 51% of the folks in that
half mile radius are good from a commercial standpoint, we should be able to take the whole half mile radius. >> I did look at them before our last conversation. I did not reook at them before today. Um, but there there was a number that um if you if it's not voluntary and if they voluntarily come in, that's one thing. today if you want to say we don't
>> we you know >> if if we're if we're looking at the math and we're doing that area once we get that threshold even if the other ones don't want it they come in >> forest annexation they got it >> I think when Matt was looking into this from what he told us was that if it's an
enclave area we don't even need your permission to bring you in because you're already surrounded by the city. So, when you're talking about the enclaves, cuz he even talked to the uh county manager and asked if there was
going to be an objection if we went ahead and annex these enclaves and the county said, "No, we have no problem because we can't service them as it is." >> Right. >> So, I don't know that we even have to ask these people if we want to do that >> legally. I think from what Matt said, we
can just majority of the people, right? If you get 50% of the people that are wanting to then probably go through that approach and then >> commercial >> residential needs to be I think >> there was something 10 or less I'm not still there now but that's that goes to
vote. So and it would be >> there is still some forced annexation there if it's over >> a surface percentage. >> Well so what what about sending what about sending this very specific letter to the properties that you've already identified that are the ones that we want to go after first? Well,
>> and then start and then send the we're going to have an open house to talk about annexation out to the broader half mile, you know, radius around, you know, around along the perimeter right now to say, "Hey, these are all the areas that that we're looking at voluntary
annexation." Um, but then send the very specific thing. you know, they get that they get that letter that says, "Hey, we're going to have an open house." But they also get the specific and you're one of these area. You're you're you know, you're tucked into an enclave space. That's definitely there's huge
benefits to you becoming part of this. Um I mean, I like what you've done. I just think we could hit a I don't know that everybody needs to get this. I don't think the person that's all the way up at the outside fringe edge of that half mile needs to get this letter and then think that they want to jump in and they're the only one and then
they're but they're so far away that it's not really going to happen because >> Well, right. But if you're if you're targeting that area, >> they could be very crucial in achieving that 50%. >> Right. Absolutely. 100%. >> Now, this letter is written basically to homeowners. Do we have a separate letter
for the commercial entities we're talking about? are using the exact same verbiage on the commercial. That's >> the feedback I was looking for. If you think it's we should have different slightly different for business and homeowner. I'm sure >> city manager has asked me to to create a
commercial one. I we were just focusing on, you know, does this look good? Is this something that you want to tweak? Do you want to see something different? Um before I mean your commercial is going to be somewhat similar to it. Um it's there's going to be some differences, not a whole lot. Uh but
we're not trying to reinvent something for commercial. Uh but you know, >> your residential is going to be a whole another unique process. And like I said, >> gear towards it, >> focus on the commercial and as let's say we we start to grow up 19, right? And then then you start targeting the the
residential areas, subdivisions or whatever individually, take them to vote um and then do it that way. But really commercial is the easiest path to getting somewhere. And once that once you start to grow up that way, you start then you start targeting residential around it because we're already kind of servicing right
>> down the street. So >> what about when we're talking these larger apartment complexes? >> The only only permission we need >> that's a commercial that's that's part of the commercial. >> Correct. >> Yeah. because all we need is permission
from the property owner, not the residents that are within there. So, >> okay. Any other discussion regarding what city has worked on so far? >> I have a weird question. >> Ask away. Today is your day for >> I just something really odd. I've never
kn I thought I knew everything about this city, but on page 14, there's this little piece of land. And it looks like it's out on an island lined in blue that's part of the city >> off. >> Yeah, it's an island
>> from boys. >> Well, yeah. Off of >> all the way to the left. >> Yeah. >> Cow key. >> What is that? >> It's part of Cow Key, I think. >> I'd have to look. I >> Do you guys see it? >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> Have you ever noticed that before?
>> That we have a We have city land. It's an island. just assumed everything out there was uh >> you got the same on the city. >> This little >> Well, that's not that's not Durn. That's north of Durnney. That's >> everything in between it is not further south
>> right here. >> Dirty out the city. >> What is >> that's an island. >> Yeah, >> really. I thought it was interesting. >> See, >> there must be a house there. >> There's no house there. >> I always thought Dirty Key was part of the city. >> That's not Dirty Key.
>> I thought it was too. No, that No, I'm saying you can't see on this. Yeah, >> but I always thought Durnney was part of the city property. >> Yeah, it's named after John Durnney, the city. >> No, that's in the picture. That's Cow Key. >> Cow key. >> Cow key.
>> Cow key. Right off of pressure. >> And our city owns that. >> We only part of it. We don't own all of it >> right there. >> Put a little park on one side. One park bench is why we have so far.
>> But it's all but it's all it's all mangrove according to the picture. So there's there's nothing dry there anyway. >> I mean I don't know why. >> So there's no cows there. >> There's no there might be a cow stuck in the middle. >> Poor cow. >> Okay. >> Shape more. >> Do you need a motion for that or >> No, that was a direction.
>> This is direction. Perfect. >> All right. Any other discussions, conversation or I want to entertain any other motions? That's the one that says they can go back to work and we can all go to work. >> We adjourn. >> I have a second. Okay. Thank you. All in favor?
>> Thank you guys. Poor Miss Nancy got more work to do on