[0:00] .
[23:42:09] >> mayor: call to order the
[8:19] august tweafnth -- 27th meeting
[8:22] 
[8:22] of the gains scril city plan
[8:23] board.
[8:23] ms. Mcplul -- ms. Mcmullen,
[8:28] formula -- uld call       fold
[8:30] if you
[8:31] would call the order.
[8:32] please.
[8:32] >> robert ackerman.
[8:35] tina certain is absent.
[8:36] robert mermer.
[8:38] will be joining late.
[8:39] jay morassky.
[8:41] >> here.
[8:42] >> joshua ney.
[8:43] >> here.
[8:44] >> jason sanchez.
[8:44] >> here.
[8:46] >> stephanie sutton.
[8:46] >> here.
[8:47] >> you have a quorum.
[8:49] >> fantastic.
[8:51] do we have a motion to adopt t
[8:52] he
[8:52] agenda as presented?
[8:52] >> so moved.
[8:54] >> second?
[8:55] >> second.
[8:55] >> all those in favor?
[8:57] thet wasn't all of us.
[8:59] >> aye, sorry.
[9:00] [laughter]
[9:00] >> felt like all those opposed?
[9:03] 
[9:03] all right, the agenda is
[9:05] adopted.
[9:05] going to be an oddly contentio
[9:08] us
[9:08] adoption.
[9:08] do we hava proval of the -- hav
[9:10] e
[9:10] approval of the minutes of las
[9:11] t
[9:11] meeting?
[9:11] or motion to approve the minut
[9:16] es
[9:16] from last meeting?
[9:17] >> so moved.
[9:18] >> second.
[9:20] >> all right, had those       a
[9:22] ll
[9:22] those in favor?
[9:23] aye.
[9:23] all opposed?
[9:24] okay.
[9:24] we all like the minutes from
[9:25] last meeting.
[9:26] at this point in the meeting I
[9:32] 
[9:32] open the      open it up to mem
[9:36] bers
[9:36] of the public who want to speak
[9:38] 
[9:38] to items on the agenda.
[9:40] the floor is yours.
[9:41] >> ralph's coming up.
[9:42] >> no.
[9:43] I thought he was doing it.
[9:43] all right, seeing none, let's
[9:45] start with the first item on th
[9:47] e
[9:47] agenda, please, ms. Mcmull
[9:49] ?oon first item on the agenda,
[9:50] 
[9:50] 2026-538hc sarks I-75 corridor
[9:56] 
[9:56] sign height extension request
[9:58] ld26-00008y with       000080 wit
[10:02] h a
[10:02] presentation from allison
[10:03] pager.
[10:03] >> okay, good evening, board
[10:06] chair and board members.
[10:07] thank you for having me
[10:08] tonight.
[10:08] my name is allison pager, I'm a
[10:10] 
[10:10] planner in the department of
[10:11] sustainable development, and I
[10:12] 'm
[10:12] before you tonight to present a
[10:13] 
[10:13] height extension request for a
[10:15] n
[10:15] I-75 corridor sign for hc sarks
[10:19] a
[10:21] identified as petition number
[10:24] ld26-00008o.
[10:24] this request is for subject
[10:29] parcel others 6974-040-000 for
[10:33] 
[10:33] property that is generally
[10:33] located along archer road and
[10:37] southwest 41st boulevard.
[10:38] it's adjacent to I-75 and is
[10:40] home to a recently constructed
[10:41] 
[10:41] hospital campus and freestandin
[10:43] g
[10:43] emergency room.
[10:44] this parcel is owned by hca
[10:47] florida gainesville hospital.
[10:48] the application is submitted
[10:49] by -- enterprises and there is
[10:51] 
[10:51] representation here tonight by
[10:52] 
[10:52] the applicant and ownership.
[10:55] the parcel has medical services
[10:58] 
[10:58] zoning and office land use
[10:59] designation.
[10:59] the next few slides are going to
[11:01] 
[11:01] provide some context and
[11:02] familiarly to the subject
[11:04] area -- familiarity to the
[11:05] subject area before jumping int
[11:07] o
[11:07] the dethey       the details of
[11:10] the
[11:10] request.
[11:10] provided here is a map of the
[11:11] subject area.
[11:12] the parcel for the request is
[11:15] outlined ipred.
[11:15] to the north is archer road, a
[11:17] nd
[11:17] general business zoning, to the
[11:18] 
[11:18] south is business industrial.
[11:20] to the east is I-75.
[11:22] and to the west there is some
[11:23] additional medical services and
[11:26] 
[11:26] multifamily, and then further
[11:26] west is alachua county
[11:28] jurisdiction and their
[11:29] residential zoning.
[11:32] and similarly is provided here
[11:38] a
[11:38] land use map of the area and
[11:40] similar trends for the land
[11:41] use.
[11:41] and this is a summary of the
[11:43] nearby existing uses, and the
[11:44] zoning and land use as
[11:45] previously seen.
[11:46] and in terms of existing uses,
[11:49] 
[11:49] north there is a gas station, a
[11:51] 
[11:51] hotel, a restaurant.
[11:52] south there is self-storage, a
[11:54] n
[11:54] office space.
[11:56] east is of course I-75 and
[11:58] fdot right-of-way.
[12:01] and west there is largely
[12:01] residential -- properties.
[12:05] and the aerial base map as wel
[12:07] l
[12:07] to kind of see what this area
[12:09] looks like.
[12:11] I wanted to provide a couple o
[12:15] f  po
[12:15] pot of view slides using
[12:16] google street view to help som
[12:18] e
[12:18] familiarity to each area for
[12:19] this request.
[12:19] if you haven't been by there
[12:20] recently, so this slide shows
[12:21] the intersection of archer roa
[12:24] d
[12:24] and 41st boulevard.
[12:27] so this is looking towards the
[12:28] 
[12:28] I-75 overpass with the hospital
[12:31] 
[12:31] campus on the right.
[12:31] this   this is to show the mai
[12:35] n
[12:35] entrance to exiting the parcel
[12:37] 
[12:37] and accessing facilities.
[12:38] so turning routh down this
[12:39] intersection would take you dow
[12:40] n
[12:40] 41st boulevard, and that
[12:41] roadway is what largely goes
[12:42] arou the parcels and how you
[12:43] get to the parking lot that
[12:44] accesses the facilities.
[12:50] and here we are located on the
[12:53] 
[12:53] offramp from the southbound
[12:55] lanes of I-75.
[12:56] this is heading towards archer
[12:57] 
[12:57] road so looking directly towar
[12:59] ds
[12:59] the hca campus with I-75 to the
[13:02] 
[13:02] left, and as you can see here,
[13:03] 
[13:03] and this is going to come up
[13:05] later as well, around these
[13:07] interstate areas, especially t
[13:09] he
[13:09] interchange areas, there's goi
[13:10] ng
[13:10] to be larger areas of state
[13:13] right-of-way associated with
[13:15] these places, es
[13:15] overpass where there is going t
[13:20] o
[13:20] be larger -- and infrastructur
[13:21] e
[13:21] and right-of-way areas.
[13:25] and here we are on I-75, in the
[13:27] 
[13:27] northbound lane heading north.
[13:28] 
[13:28] this is located at the entranc
[13:30] e
[13:30] of that exit ramp that we were
[13:31] 
[13:31] just on, so looking towards the
[13:34] 
[13:34] hospital campus, which is on t
[13:35] he
[13:35] left.
[13:35] just to kind of show that view.
[13:39] 
[13:39] and finally, here it is located
[13:41] 
[13:41] on the actual overpass,
[13:43] specifically in the southbound
[13:45] 
[13:45] lanes, looking to the right ove
[13:47] r
[13:47] towards where the hca campus
[13:48] would be, and you can see arche
[13:50] r
[13:50] road and we can also see the
[13:51] on-ramp area as well.
[13:54] okay, so now that we're a littl
[13:57] e
[13:57] bit more -- know a little bit
[14:01] more about the subject area,
[14:02] we're going to jump into the
[14:03] request.
[14:03] we do not get these requests a
[14:05] 
[14:05] lot, so just wanted to provide
[14:06] 
[14:06] some extra information to cover
[14:07] 
[14:07] on this slide about what I-75
[14:09] corridor signs are in general
[14:12] before we jump into the height
[14:13] 
[14:13] part.
[14:13] so these signs are a type of
[14:15] frestanding permanent sign tha
[14:16] t
[14:16] are specifically conched  --
[14:19] covered in section 309/7d of t
[14:22] he
[14:22] land development code.
[14:22] there are certain criteria for
[14:24] 
[14:24] meeting the requirements of an
[14:25] 
[14:25] I-75 corridor sign in order to
[14:27] 
[14:27] be allotted having one.
[14:28] if not, the development would b
[14:30] e
[14:30] subject to the regular allotment
[14:32] 
[14:32] of freestanding permanent signs
[14:33] 
[14:33] as allowed by the code.
[14:35] these include that the signage
[14:37] 
[14:37] is for the permitted use in a
[14:39] nonresidential district.
[14:41] in this case it's medical
[14:41] services and hospital is a
[14:43] permitted use by right, and the
[14:45] 
[14:45] sign is for the hospital.
[14:46] the location being within a
[14:48] quarter mile of the centerroid
[14:50] 
[14:50] of an I-75 interchange with any
[14:52] 
[14:52] arterial roadway.
[14:53] this sign should be readily
[14:55] visible from I-75.
[14:56] this sign area of I-75 area
[15:03] in -- must not exceed 300 square
[15:05] 
[15:05] feet and the sign should fough
[15:06] t
[15:06] be located on frontage where
[15:07] adjacent or facing properties
[15:09] have single-family land use.
[15:12] these crituria have        cri
[15:16] teria
[15:16] have been confirmed by staff.
[15:17] this will have to be main
[15:19] maintained during permitting.
[15:22] so this section further provide
[15:25] s
[15:25] that an I-75 corridor sign by
[15:27] right can have a maximum sign
[15:30] structure height of 18 feet.
[15:31] for context, the normal maximum
[15:33] 
[15:33] height for freestanding sign I
[15:36] s
[15:36] 10 feet for the structure.
[15:37] this section further details a
[15:39] 
[15:39] process for height extension
[15:41] requests, which is why we're
[15:42] here tonight, where an
[15:44] application can be applied for
[15:46] 
[15:46] to request up to a maximum of
[15:48] 90 feet in height with certain
[15:50] 
[15:50] special considerations that mus
[15:51] t
[15:51] be met during review.
[15:55] wih the city plan board to be
[15:57] the final decision maker.
[15:59] for this sign the applicant is
[16:00] 
[16:00] requesting 30 feet for their
[16:01] height extension request.
[16:05] staff has reviewed the
[16:06] application with the criteria
[16:07] outlined in section 30-9.7d of
[16:10] 
[16:10] the land development code for
[16:11] height extension requests for
[16:12] I-75 corridor signs.
[16:14] the criteria of which are shown
[16:16] 
[16:16] on this screen.
[16:17] I'm going to provide some
[16:18] details about some of the
[16:19] criteria but please note that
[16:21] a
[16:21] more in depth analysis of the
[16:23] criteria are provided in the
[16:24] staff report.
[16:25] I'll also use some of the next
[16:26] 
[16:26] slides to help with
[16:28] demonstrating some of these
[16:29] points.
[16:29] so for criteria a, the applica
[16:32] nt
[16:32] provides that the special
[16:34] condition and circumstance
[16:35] necessitating the need for a
[16:36] sign structure with a height o
[16:40] f
[16:40] 30 feet in order to be sign by
[16:42] 
[16:42] motoristed on I-75, the greener
[16:51] y
[16:51] reduces the -- to ground mount
[16:54] ed
[16:54] sign that is at or below
[16:57] 18 feet.
[16:58] staff finds from past reviews o
[17:00] f
[17:00] hospital campus to examine the
[17:02] 
[17:02] proposed location of the sign I
[17:03] n
[17:03] relation to the sight line of
[17:05] the I-75 interchange, that the
[17:07] 
[17:07] justification is sound.
[17:10] so between the hospital campus
[17:13] 
[17:13] and the I-75 interstate, there
[17:15] 
[17:15] are multiple natural manmade
[17:17] buffers, including stormwater
[17:19] areas, right-of-way on both
[17:21] county and state.
[17:22] there's the on ramp, there's
[17:23] roadways, landscaping, and
[17:25] infrastructure that is
[17:25] associated with the overpass.
[17:28] kind of seen with both of these
[17:30] ,
[17:30] so this picture is you are on
[17:32] 41st boulevard.
[17:33] the parking lot for the hospita
[17:34] l
[17:34] is on the right.
[17:34] you're looking towards the
[17:37] interstate.
[17:37] for criteria b, the applicant
[17:43] and their engineer provide tha
[17:46] t
[17:46] the proposed 30 feet requested
[17:48] 
[17:48] for the height extension, which
[17:49] 
[17:49] is 12 feet above what is allow
[17:51] ed
[17:51] by right for the I-75 corridor
[17:52] 
[17:52] signs is the minimum necessary
[17:53] 
[17:53] to achieve a readable sign fac
[17:55] e
[17:55] above the obstructed sight line
[17:58] 
[17:58] in order to deliver adequate
[17:59] advanced identification to I-7
[18:01] 5
[18:01] motorists.
[18:01] the applicant and engineer
[18:03] further provide with proposed
[18:05] signage elevations as seen here
[18:06] 
[18:06] that the letter height would
[18:08] provide optimal reading from
[18:11] 275 feet with maximum full
[18:13] reading from 825 to 1,238 feet.
[18:19] 
[18:19] for criteria d, the request is
[18:22] 
[18:22] found by staff to be compatibl
[18:24] e
[18:24] with the primary use of the
[18:27] property as a hospital campus
[18:30] and location is optimal being
[18:32] directly adjacent to the I-75
[18:33] interchange.
[18:33] for additional context in terms
[18:35] 
[18:35] of compatibility and height for
[18:36] 
[18:36] existing structures on the
[18:37] property, the permitting for t
[18:41] he
[18:41] campus shows a maximum building
[18:43] 
[18:43] height of four stories and
[18:46] 58 feet from the elevations of
[18:47] 
[18:47] that review; and that's outside
[18:49] 
[18:49] of necessary rooftop equipment.
[18:52] 
[18:52] and considering other factors
[18:55] like faa requirements and the
[18:56] gains ril      gainesville reg
[18:59] ional
[18:59] airport height zone
[18:59] requirements, this property
[19:00] being within subzone 2, the
[19:02] proposed height of 30 feet wou
[19:04] ld
[19:04] remain below the height that is
[19:05] 
[19:05] currently existing on the
[19:07] property as constructed on sit
[19:08] e,
[19:08] and well below what is allowed
[19:09] 
[19:09] by right in the medical service
[19:11] s
[19:11] zoning district and the office
[19:13] 
[19:13] future land use category.
[19:16] and lastly on that point, the
[19:18] proposed location of the sign I
[19:21] s
[19:21] nearest that I-75 interchange,
[19:24] 
[19:24] so it's a pretty large parcel.
[19:26] 
[19:26] so where the proposed sign is
[19:28] found to be optimal for what
[19:32] I-75 corridor signs are for, a
[19:35] nd
[19:35] it's opposite the side of the
[19:37] property that is nearest the
[19:38] city limits and nearest the
[19:40] alachua county residential
[19:43] 
[19:44] residentially zoned parcels tha
[19:45] t
[19:45] are on the other side of the
[19:46] parcels, so it provides distanc
[19:47] e
[19:47] and buffer to any potential
[19:48] impacts of the sign height fro
[19:49] m
[19:49] that side of the property.
[19:55] and finally, here is provided
[19:56] the public notice items as
[19:57] required for this public
[19:58] meeting.
[19:58] and lastly, based on
[20:02] of the criteria mentioned in
[20:08] this presentation, staff --
[20:08] recommend approval of additiona
[20:11] l
[20:11] 000080 for the I-75 corridor
[20:12] sign height extension request
[20:14] for the sign structure height o
[20:15] f
[20:15] 30 feet as the final decision
[20:17] making authority for these
[20:18] requests, the land development
[20:19] 
[20:19] code in section 30-9.7d outline
[20:23] s
[20:23] the three applicable decisions
[20:24] 
[20:24] available for the board in
[20:25] making their decision that are
[20:26] 
[20:26] provided on the screen.
[20:28] in addition, staff did receive
[20:30] 
[20:30] today a public comment in the
[20:32] form of an email that did
[20:33] express concern pertaining to
[20:35] the property owner
[20:36] authorization.
[20:36] the concern was reviewed and
[20:38] responded to, and no issues wer
[20:40] e
[20:40] found to continue from that
[20:41] concern.
[20:41] so just wanted to share that.
[20:45] so we are available for
[20:48] questions and discussions and
[20:49] the applicant and also
[20:49] representation from hca is her
[20:51] e
[20:51] as well.
[20:51] >> okay, thank you see    so m
[20:56] uch
[20:56] have    for a very thorough
[20:58] presentation.
[20:58] does anybody on the board have
[21:01] 
[21:01] questions?
[21:01] ms. Bell, like out of practice.
[21:07] 
[21:07] >> thank you for that.
[21:08] I'm just curious, because the
[21:09] email wasn't forwarded to us
[21:12] that I could see.
[21:12] what was the resident's
[21:14] concern?
[21:14] >> so they were referencing a
[21:18] section of florida
[21:19] administration code that was f
[21:22] or
[21:22] wastewater permitting but they
[21:25] 
[21:25] were calling into question the
[21:27] ,
[21:27] the property owner authorizati
[21:29] on
[21:29] because for any application you
[21:31] 
[21:31] have to be property -- you hav
[21:33] e
[21:33] to have property owner
[21:34] authorization so it is who is
[21:35] signing the application, so if
[21:36] 
[21:36] someone is signing on behalf of
[21:39] 
[21:40] of a property owner that is par
[21:42] t
[21:42] of the checks we do as staff a
[21:44] s
[21:44] part of the submittal so all o
[21:46] f
[21:46] that stuff was tbowpped to be I
[21:47] n
[21:47] line -- found to be in line.
[21:49] so we just replied to address
[21:50] their expern let them know that
[21:51] 
[21:51] it did meet the standards that
[21:53] 
[21:53] are in our land development cod
[21:55] e
[21:55] and that the section he was
[21:56] specifically referencing wasn'
[21:58] t
[21:58] really applicable, but also jus
[22:00] t
[22:00] to let him know that we did do
[22:02] a
[22:02] thorough check for what our
[22:03] procedures are for checking ea
[22:05] ch
[22:05] of those conditions.
[22:07] >> okay, thank you.
[22:08] >> thank you, and the property
[22:09] 
[22:09] owner authorization and the
[22:12] letter of authorization that w
[22:13] as
[22:13] also provided in the submittal
[22:15] 
[22:15] are part of the backup as well.
[22:17] 
[22:17] >> thank you.
[22:18] >> thank you.
[22:19] >> any other questionsfor
[22:21] ms. Pager while we've got her
[22:24] up
[22:24] here?
[22:24] seeing none, if the applicant
[22:26] wants to come some    and speak
[22:29] ,
[22:29] you're more than welcome to.
[22:30] if you don't, that's also
[22:31] totally fine.
[22:32] >> I can never be that
[22:33] thorough.
[22:33] [laughter]
[22:33] >> fair enough.
[22:35] it was a very good
[22:36] presentation.
[22:36] >> we don't get a lot of these
[22:38] ,
[22:38] so.
[22:38] >> like -- this is the first
[22:41] like giant sign item that's com
[22:44] e
[22:44] before me at least, so I don't
[22:46] 
[22:46] recall having to do -- oh,
[22:48] yeah.
[22:48] well I see these guys have don
[22:51] e
[22:51] it longer than I have, so
[22:53] they've seen a little bit more
[22:54] 
[22:54] than I have.
[22:56] all right.
[22:56] well, I see, I suppose I'll ope
[23:00] n
[23:00] it up to members of the public.
[23:02] 
[23:02] I don't think you guys have an
[23:04] 
[23:04] opinion on this at all, so we
[23:05] will bring it back to the board
[23:06] 
[23:06] for discussion and a motion.
[23:09] do we have a motion on this
[23:13] item?
[23:13] >> I'll make a motion to approve
[23:16] 
[23:16] ld26-000080 I-75 sign height
[23:25] extension request as presented
[23:27] .
[23:27] >> a second?
[23:28] all right, a second.
[23:28] all those in favor?
[23:29] aye.
[23:29] all opposed?
[23:31] it's unanimous.
[23:31] all right.
[23:32] congratulations.
[23:32] you have a big sign.
[23:35] thank you very much.
[23:49] all
[23:57] >> all right, if you want to
[23:58] read it into the record, then
[23:59] the floor will be yours.
[24:01] >> so this next item is a
[24:03] discussion item for you all, no
[24:04] t
[24:04] asking for any votes this
[24:05] evening, but wanted to bring you
[24:07] 
[24:07] an update on one of the, or a
[24:11] few of the statutory changes
[24:13] that have gone into effect as o
[24:15] f
[24:15] july 1st of this year.
[24:18] there are, there are several
[24:19] different statutes that have
[24:21] been adopted that go into effec
[24:23] t
[24:23] at various times, so one that
[24:25] I'll be talking about this
[24:26] evening is house bill 803.
[24:28] there are a few others which
[24:30] we'll bing you more info on tha
[24:32] t
[24:32] go into effect in january of
[24:33] next year.
[24:33] but there's a few things in the
[24:35] ,
[24:35] if the     in the bill that wil
[24:39] l
[24:39] impact how the planning and
[24:40] building departments operate a
[24:42] nd
[24:42] some of the land development
[24:44] code regulations that are
[24:45] currently in our code, and may
[24:48] 
[24:48] be policy considerations for y
[24:50] ou
[24:50] all, so just wanted to inform
[24:51] you of those and just let you
[24:53] know kind of some things we've
[24:56] 
[24:56] been working on.
[24:57] so just an informational item,
[24:58] 
[24:58] and then feel free to have
[25:00] discussion afterwards if, you
[25:01] know, if there is anything you
[25:03] 
[25:03] want to propose implementing,
[25:07] but yeah.
[25:08] so just to give you an
[25:11] overview.
[25:11] loic I said, this, this is
[25:14] specifically related to house
[25:16] bill 803, effective in july.
[25:19] a few things that it provides
[25:21] for are greater statewide
[25:22] standardization of permit
[25:23] applications and electronic
[25:24] permitting.
[25:24] that's something that the city
[25:26] 
[25:26] already does.
[25:27] we already do all electronic
[25:28] building permitting, so there
[25:30] won't be much that we have to d
[25:31] o
[25:31] to address that, but that's kin
[25:33] d
[25:33] of one of the big things that's
[25:34] 
[25:34] been talked about with this
[25:35] bill.
[25:35] it provides for more specific
[25:37] requirements for communicating
[25:39] 
[25:39] deficiencies, denials, and
[25:40] incomplete applications.
[25:41] that's part of building permits
[25:42] 
[25:42] as well.
[25:44] and you'll see a few of the
[25:46] things that are covered here a
[25:48] re
[25:48] more pertaining to the building
[25:50] 
[25:50] division specifically, but
[25:51] things that we work closely wit
[25:52] h
[25:52] them on and we do participate I
[25:55] n
[25:55] building permit reviews, so th
[25:56] ey
[25:56] will affect the planning in som
[25:58] e
[25:58] ways as well.
[25:59] one of the big things that it
[26:01] does is provide new limits on
[26:02] permit fees and the type of
[26:04] documentation that can be
[26:06] required by the building
[26:07] department 689  .
[26:09] again, that's a building
[26:11] division thing but that's a big
[26:12] 
[26:12] thing the building divisioning
[26:15] 
[26:15] is working on now.
[26:16] providing for expanded permit
[26:17] exemptions for qualifying small
[26:20] 
[26:20] residential projects, expanding
[26:21] 
[26:21] authority and use of private
[26:22] providers for plan review and
[26:23] inspections, the probably the
[26:25] biggest thing that you might b
[26:28] e
[26:28] interested in at a policy level
[26:29] 
[26:29] are new requirements affecting
[26:30] 
[26:30] manufactured and offsite
[26:31] constructed housing.
[26:33] I will get into ins some more
[26:34] specifics on that, and then som
[26:35] e
[26:35] limits on certain local
[26:37] architectural and urban design
[26:38] 
[26:38] requirements.
[26:38] so the first few, I think we'll
[26:44] 
[26:44] go through pretty quickly
[26:45] because they learnlg are
[26:48] largely
[26:48] are related to building but jus
[26:51] t
[26:51] to let you know at a high level
[26:52] 
[26:52] some of the things the bill
[26:53] covers.
[26:53] it does require for application
[26:56] s
[26:56] to be made available
[26:57] electronically, like I said, w
[26:59] e
[26:59] already do that, so not
[27:00] something that we need to
[27:00] specifically address.
[27:02] it does require additionally
[27:04] more specific review comments
[27:07] for building permit reviews, s
[27:10] o
[27:10] administered by the building
[27:11] department, or the building
[27:13] division, the planning
[27:14] department does review a large
[27:16] 
[27:16] number of building permits as
[27:17] well, so that'll be some,
[27:19] something operationally nat
[27:21] we'll need to make sure we're
[27:22] doing as a team is providing
[27:23] very specific review comments
[27:27] for building permits, something
[27:28] 
[27:28] we try to do anyway, but just,
[27:30] 
[27:30] just something to kind of keep
[27:31] a
[27:31] closer eye on.
[27:32] so the emphasis on this is a
[27:35] predictable, code based     bas
[27:37] ed
[27:37] based and transparent review f
[27:38] or
[27:38] building departments rather tha
[27:39] n
[27:39] discretionaryo open ended type
[27:41] 
[27:41] of situation.
[27:43] the next part I really won't g
[27:45] o
[27:45] into a lot of detail on because
[27:47] 
[27:47] it really just impacts building
[27:48] 
[27:48] fees, which I'm not, heightly
[27:50] involved with and it's not my
[27:52] division, but this is something
[27:53] 
[27:53] that the building official is
[27:55] working very, very diligently o
[27:58] n
[27:58] to figure out changes ibbuildin
[28:00] g
[28:00] -- in building permit fees and
[28:03] 
[28:03] how they'reicalitycuted and wha
[28:04] t
[28:04] type of -- they're calculated
[28:06] 
[28:06] culated and what type of
[28:07] documentation they can require
[28:07] 
[28:07] for those.
[28:09] another thing that it changes I
[28:14] s
[28:14] allowing for single-family
[28:15] homeowners or their contractors
[28:18] 
[28:18] to any exempt from permitting
[28:24] certain work under -- it can't
[28:27] 
[28:27] be structural, electrical,
[28:29] plumbing work, or electrical, o
[28:30] r
[28:30] gas work, and it wasn't be
[28:31] located within a flood hazard
[28:32] area.
[28:32] but essentially what we think
[28:35] this will largely cover are
[28:36] things like sheds and detached
[28:38] 
[28:38] accessory structures.
[28:41] so you know one of the impacts
[28:43] 
[28:43] from that will be we'll see les
[28:45] s
[28:45] permits come through for thing
[28:47] s
[28:47] like sheds.
[28:51] they will still be required to
[28:52] 
[28:52] meet zoning standards though
[28:54] things like -- typically, and
[28:57] in
[28:58] the single-family zoning
[28:59] district for example.
[29:00] it's typically a five-foot
[29:02] setback from the rear property
[29:04] 
[29:04] line and the side property
[29:05] lines.
[29:05] they still need to meet those
[29:07] setbacks, but they won't have t
[29:09] o  apply
[29:10] apply for a permit for it, so
[29:10] you know we've talked about way
[29:11] s
[29:11] of just kind of putting fyis
[29:13] out there for people, letting
[29:14] them know technically you still
[29:16] 
[29:16] need to meet these setbacks,
[29:19] essentially it would become a
[29:20] code enforcement issue if it
[29:21] starts to become a problem whe
[29:23] re
[29:23] people are installing sheds tha
[29:26] t
[29:26] either don't meet setbacks or
[29:27] don't meet certain size
[29:30] requirements in certain
[29:30] instances, things like that.
[29:33] so that's something that will
[29:35] affect planning in some ways.
[29:38] did you want to ask questions
[29:41] now?
[29:41] we can just talk through each
[29:43] item.
[29:43] >> I think I just, through
[29:45] context my question was
[29:46] answered.
[29:46] >> okay.
[29:48] and let me know, you know, fee
[29:49] l
[29:49] free to stop me at any time wi
[29:50] th
[29:50] a question on any of these in
[29:51] particular.
[29:51] the next thing that we've talke
[29:56] d
[29:56] about a good bit in planning a
[29:58] re
[29:58] restrictions on glazing
[30:00] requirements.
[30:00] so local governments may not
[30:03] require more than 15% glazing o
[30:05] n
[30:05] the primary facade of most new
[30:08] 
[30:08] commercial or mixed use
[30:09] projects.
[30:09] there are some limitations or
[30:12] exceptions within historic
[30:13] districts.
[30:13] this will impact the glazing o
[30:18] r
[30:18] the percentage of windows that
[30:20] 
[30:20] we can require in transect zon
[30:22] es
[30:22] and in mixed use and
[30:24] nonresidential zoning districts,
[30:26] 
[30:26] and the glazing requirements I
[30:28] n
[30:28] transect zones are fairly high.
[30:32] 
[30:32] so that's in effect now.
[30:34] at some point it would be
[30:35] probably a good idea to update
[30:36] 
[30:36] our code to reflect that, but
[30:38] currently as of july 1st, we
[30:41] can't require more than 15% on
[30:44] 
[30:44] the commercial and mixed use
[30:46] projects on the front -- on the
[30:47] 
[30:47] primary facade.
[30:49] so that's something that's
[30:51] impacting us with this.
[30:55] along the lines of design
[30:58] requirements, there are also
[30:59] some restrictions on branding
[31:02] and corporate identity kind of
[31:06] 
[31:06] interference so to speak in tha
[31:08] t
[31:08] largely as it pertains to
[31:09] signage in addition to any
[31:11] restrictions that might
[31:13] interfere with the ability for
[31:16] 
[31:16] gas stations to comply with gas
[31:19] 
[31:19] price signage, visibility
[31:21] requirements.
[31:21] I'm not really seeing anything
[31:23] 
[31:23] that stands out too much on
[31:26] these at this point in time.
[31:28] I think, you know, we'll see I
[31:30] n
[31:30] the future if anything specific
[31:32] 
[31:32] comes up with signage perhaps
[31:34] there could be questions about
[31:38] 
[31:38] interfering with logos and
[31:39] things like that.
[31:42] but you know, we don't have
[31:43] anything, the city doesn't hav
[31:44] e
[31:44] anything in the code that
[31:45] specifically talks about those
[31:48] 
[31:48] things in particular, so we'll
[31:50] 
[31:50] see kind of what the effects
[31:51] are.
[31:51] there is a good deal of expanded
[31:57] 
[31:57] private provider authority.
[32:00] again, largely related to the
[32:02] building division.
[32:04] we do expect to see an increas
[32:07] einstances of private
[32:09] providers for building items.
[32:12] a different bill that we'll tal
[32:15] k
[32:15] about at another time that goe
[32:16] s
[32:16] into effect in january kind of
[32:19] 
[32:19] expands this to get into
[32:21] planning functions.
[32:24] for this one in particular this
[32:25] 
[32:25] is just affecting the building
[32:26] 
[32:26] division, but it's a big thing
[32:28] 
[32:28] that this bill does, so just
[32:29] wanted to bring it up.
[32:30] it really doesn't affect
[32:32] planning too much.
[32:34] but the other thing that this
[32:36] part of the bill does is stres
[32:38] s
[32:38] the importance of timeliness of
[32:40] 
[32:40] the comments, so, you know,
[32:45] there will be increased pressur
[32:47] e
[32:47] on making sure that we get our
[32:48] 
[32:48] comments in all departments on
[32:51] 
[32:51] time and issued.
[32:53] otherwise there are potentially
[32:54] 
[32:54] some consequences of sort of
[32:58] automatic approvals so to speak
[33:00] ,
[33:00] so just something that we're
[33:01] going to have to look at and
[33:03] make sure we are really tight o
[33:04] n
[33:04] our timelines.
[33:07] so probably the big one for
[33:09] planning from this bill is the
[33:14] 
[33:14] placement for residential
[33:16] manufactured buildings.
[33:19] so the language talks about a
[33:23] couple different things.
[33:25] placement in rv parks in
[33:26] addition to placement in
[33:28] single-family districts.
[33:29] so one of the things that it
[33:31] does is require that state
[33:35] certified residential
[33:36] manufacture building may not b
[33:37] e
[33:37] denied placement in mobile hom
[33:40] e
[33:40] or similar communities so that
[33:42] 
[33:42] includes rv parks.
[33:44] the bigger one probably is
[33:46] talking about qualifying offsi
[33:48] te
[33:48] constructed homes must be
[33:49] allowed anywhere single-family
[33:50] 
[33:50] detached homes are allowed.
[33:53] so that -- there are some
[33:55] specific definitions in the
[34:00] bill.
[34:00] I can read a couple of those o
[34:06] ff
[34:06] to you.
[34:07] but it talks about offsite
[34:08] constructed residential
[34:09] dwellings meting a manufacture
[34:12] d
[34:12] building as defined in florida
[34:14] 
[34:14] statute which is intended for
[34:15] single-family residential use or
[34:17] 
[34:17] a manufactured home defined in
[34:18] a
[34:19] separate statute, which is
[34:20] constructed in whole or in par
[34:22] t
[34:22] offsite and is treated as real
[34:23] 
[34:23] property.
[34:23] so this, this will impact the
[34:27] type of those type of structures
[34:30] 
[34:30] being allowed in the
[34:31] single-family districts and
[34:32] other districts that allow
[34:33] single-family homes.
[34:35] previously and up until recent
[34:38] 
[34:38] hisory, the application has
[34:40] been of the code language that
[34:42] 
[34:42] we have which doesn't generally
[34:46] 
[34:46] allow for those types of
[34:47] structures to, to be construct
[34:52] ed
[34:52] in kind of the typical zoning
[34:54] district.
[34:54] it kind of limited them to
[34:55] mobile home zoning.
[34:57] and the code is pretty outdated
[34:59] 
[34:59] t. Talks about a structure tha
[35:03] t
[35:03] has an integral chassis, things
[35:07] 
[35:07] like that.
[35:08] at any rate, this is something
[35:12] 
[35:12] that we are implementing now
[35:15] allowing for manufactured homes
[35:18] 
[35:18] based on state statute.
[35:20] so the bill requires or it doe
[35:25] s
[35:25] state that local governments c
[35:28] an
[35:28] put additional standards on
[35:31] these types of structures, but
[35:32] 
[35:32] they've got to be applied
[35:33] equally to site built homes and
[35:35] 
[35:35] nonsite built homes.
[35:38] and the types of standards tha
[35:42] t
[35:42] local government could add are
[35:44] 
[35:44] things like roof pitch, square
[35:47] 
[35:47] footage, foundation treatment,
[35:54] 
[35:54] setbacks orientation.
[35:57] approval of qualifying homes o
[36:01] f
[36:01] offsite constructed homes in
[36:02] zoning districts that allow
[36:03] single-family as a use.
[36:07] we wanted to bring this to you
[36:10] 
[36:10] as a policy consideration.
[36:12] so this is kind of wrapping it
[36:19] 
[36:19] up, and then we can go into
[36:20] discussion.
[36:20] so the kind of the big takeaways
[36:22] 
[36:22] for this bill in relation to
[36:24] planning and building in
[36:27] gainesville, it allows for
[36:28] greater housing flexibility, s
[36:30] o
[36:30] like I mentioned the offsite
[36:32] factory built housing must be
[36:34] accommodated.
[36:34] it provides for private
[36:38] providers and sort of limits t
[36:41] he
[36:41] city's ability to do deplicati
[36:44] ve
[36:44] reviews.
[36:44] it requires timeliness of
[36:47] reviews.
[36:47] it looks at local governments
[36:50] reviewing their fees t. Does
[36:51] impact some of our design
[36:52] regulations, and it applies som
[36:55] e
[36:55] exemptions for the smaller
[36:57] permits for single-family
[36:59] homeowners.
[36:59] so areas for staff follow-up
[37:02] that we've identified, the
[37:04] building division is re viewing
[37:05] 
[37:05] their permit fee schedules and
[37:07] 
[37:07] fee calculation
[37:08] methodologieses.
[37:08] we're working to make sure tha
[37:11] t
[37:11] we've got development review a
[37:13] nd
[37:13] building permit work flows
[37:14] providing for private provi
[37:16] coordination and meeting
[37:20] timelines.
[37:20] and application materials, and
[37:24] 
[37:24] just coordinating across
[37:26] planning, building, legal, and
[37:28] 
[37:28] all the various functions to
[37:29] make sure we're implementing
[37:31] these changes.
[37:33] and that's it.
[37:35] so I wanted to get any feedback
[37:36] 
[37:36] from y'all or answer any
[37:37] questions you might have.
[37:39] >> thank you.
[37:41] ms. Sutton.
[37:43] >> I would say I'm generally
[37:45] in what we're able to
[37:48] do on the, likic mobile homes
[37:51] offsite built homes, what we're
[37:54] 
[37:54] willing and able to put into the
[37:56] 
[37:56] code, and I would like to get
[38:02] maybe some analysis on what
[38:03] other places are doing.
[38:03] I know the county did implement
[38:05] 
[38:05] something recently.
[38:09] it might, I don't know how man
[38:10] y
[38:10] of you are going to the state
[38:12] planning conference.
[38:13] that may be something you can
[38:14] ask others about there if
[38:16] there's staff going to the
[38:17] conference.
[38:17] I'm interested in seeing what
[38:20] our options are and considering
[38:23] 
[38:23] putting something in place.
[38:27] I think even if it's orientation
[38:30] 
[38:30] or whatever we can do I think w
[38:32] e
[38:32] should think about it.
[38:35] how the parking is associated,
[38:37] 
[38:37] how the, I mean, I think inwe
[38:38] don't       if we don't have a
[38:41] ny
[38:41] design standards other than yo
[38:42] u
[38:42] can put this on a single-family
[38:42] 
[38:42] lot, and with the dengsties tha
[38:45] t
[38:45] we're allowing in our
[38:47] single-family zoning right now
[38:48] ,
[38:48] it could kind of create a
[38:54] situation we don't want to see
[38:56] 
[38:56] in single-family districts.
[38:58] >> ms. Bell.
[39:01] >> out of curiosity, can you
[39:02] expand on that a little bit
[39:04] more, ms. Sutton, on where you
[39:06] 
[39:06] think this is headed?
[39:08] just help me understand.
[39:10] >> I just think we changed the
[39:11] 
[39:11] single-family zoning
[39:12] requirements in the last couple
[39:13] 
[39:13] of years, so we have very small
[39:16] 
[39:16] lot sizes now, very small
[39:18] setbacks.
[39:18] I think you could create a
[39:22] series of really, really tiny
[39:25] lots and essentially it would
[39:25] look almost like a trailer par
[39:28] k
[39:28] in any single-family zoned
[39:30] place.
[39:30] because your side setbacks wou
[39:34] ld
[39:34] only be five.
[39:34] you would have a mobile home in
[39:35] 
[39:35] the middle.
[39:37] I mean without any design
[39:38] considerations, if you look at
[39:40] 
[39:40] what our lot standards allow, w
[39:44] e
[39:44] could be creating something tha
[39:46] t
[39:46] I don't think is compatible wi
[39:47] th
[39:47] all of the neighborhoods of
[39:49] gainesville.
[39:49] >> I would be curious if staff
[39:52] 
[39:52] could provide a future meeting
[39:54] 
[39:54] sort of like a table or
[39:57] something indicating what the
[39:59] current restrictions are on
[40:01] traditional single-family versu
[40:03] s
[40:03] offsite still because of the
[40:04] law, the new law is that it
[40:08] would have to be allowed and I
[40:10] t
[40:10] can't be more restrictive
[40:12] ordinances than traditionally
[40:13] built homes, so could you help
[40:17] 
[40:17] us understand more what the
[40:18] implications are by providing
[40:19] kind of like a side by
[40:21] side-by-side of what our current
[40:22] 
[40:22] regulations are, because like
[40:24] from the perspective of more
[40:27] opportunities for affordable
[40:27] housing, I'm intrigued.
[40:31] but I understand what you're
[40:32] saying from an aesthetic and
[40:33] like neighborhood vibe for lac
[40:36] k
[40:36] of a more technical term
[40:38] perspective, so I would just b
[40:40] e
[40:40] curious from a, like what our
[40:42] starting point is before we loo
[40:45] k
[40:45] into what we could do to smoot
[40:49] h
[40:49] this transition if you will if
[40:51] 
[40:51] it's being required regardless.
[40:52] 
[40:52] >> sure, yes, definitely.
[40:53] and so I will, I can let you
[40:56] know now that there generally
[40:58] are not design requirements for
[41:00] 
[41:00] new single-family homes.
[41:03] an issue that we would run int
[41:05] o
[41:05] with, with adding any new
[41:06] requirements is, yes, senate
[41:10] bill 180 -- making things more
[41:15] 
[41:15] restrictive than they currently
[41:16] 
[41:16] are.
[41:16] so any kind of restrictions that
[41:19] 
[41:19] put, they also have --
[41:22] they'rapplicablecross the
[41:23] board --
[41:26] >> [off mic]
[41:27] >> I guess the confusion is for
[41:30] 
[41:30] me, at face value, is like, what
[41:33] 
[41:33] the difference would be like
[41:34] putting a series of tiny on-si
[41:37] te
[41:37] built homes versus smaller
[41:40] offsite built homes and what
[41:41] like the practical difference
[41:43] would be.
[41:45] that's more of what I'm looking
[41:46] 
[41:46] for education on I guess to hel
[41:48] p
[41:48] me understand.
[41:53] if that makes sense.
[41:55] >> d   .
[41:57] >>> dr. Mermer.
[41:59] >> thank you, mr. Chair.
[42:00] so my understanding
[42:01] understanding and please corre
[42:01] ct
[42:01] me if where I     I'm wrong,
[42:03] ms. Mcmullen, this would,
[42:05] there are two different
[42:06] requirements, so anything with
[42:08] a
[42:08] chassis would be put in the, t
[42:15] he
[42:15] requirements on regulating
[42:16] mobile home parks would be
[42:21] relevant, right?
[42:22] because they have to be state
[42:24] approved mobile homes.
[42:28] >> yeah, so I think --
[42:29] >> verse this manufactured hom
[42:32] es
[42:32] in single-family neighborhoods
[42:33] ,
[42:33] those, we could require that
[42:36] they not be allowed if they hav
[42:37] e
[42:37] a chassis, in which case, it
[42:40] would only allow what most
[42:42] manufactured home manufacturers
[42:45] 
[42:45] build, which look just like
[42:48] on-site built houses but if you
[42:50] 
[42:50] look an on-site built house tha
[42:52] t
[42:52] has vinyl siding, that's noted
[42:55] 
[42:55] ney       what they look like.
[42:57] 
[42:57] we can still require they put
[42:59] into a foundation and all that
[43:00] 
[43:00] stuff, right?
[43:01] >> so I think, and I -- may hav
[43:02] e
[43:02] made it a little bit more
[43:04] confusing the way I described
[43:04] it, but I think the current, s
[43:07] o
[43:07] the current definition in the
[43:08] city's land development code of
[43:09] 
[43:09] a mobile home talks about --
[43:13] >> mobile homes would not --
[43:15] >> yeah.
[43:15] >> , the part of the new law
[43:17] that affects single-family zon
[43:18] ed
[43:18] neighborhoods, mobile homes
[43:19] would -- those, that new --
[43:25] doesn't aplooito moibl homes.
[43:27] >> -- apply to mobile homes.  >>
[43:28] >> it does apply to mobile hom
[43:30] es
[43:30] fabricated after june 16th,
[43:33] 1976.
[43:33] so effectively it is allowing
[43:34] mobile homes, and I don't think
[43:35] 
[43:35] the code's definition is reall
[43:37] y
[43:37] applicable anymore in talking
[43:38] about the chassis and whatnot.
[43:40] 
[43:40] sorry, I might've made that a
[43:42] little bit more confusing.
[43:43] >> I don't think so because I
[43:44] thought -- if it's a mobile
[43:45] home, that's already regulated
[43:46] 
[43:46] by the state.
[43:46] the state decides what's
[43:48] considered a mobile home.
[43:48] so the new law does say we do
[43:51] have to allow mobile homes.
[43:52] >> essentially.
[43:56] >> offsite whenever.
[43:56] >> I mean, there's still will
[43:58] be, there are requirements in
[44:02] terms of how it has to be
[44:03] anchored.
[44:03] it probably would be more
[44:07] helpful to get information fro
[44:09] m
[44:09] thebuilding official on kind o
[44:10] f
[44:10] those distinctions because he
[44:11] explains it much better than I
[44:13] 
[44:13] can, but they don't necessarily
[44:15] 
[44:15] have to be put on a permanent
[44:17] foundation.
[44:17] they can be attached -- they c
[44:18] an
[44:18] be like piers and things like
[44:20] that.
[44:20] so we did discuss, you know, m
[44:23] ay
[44:23] be looking at compatibility
[44:26] standards of requiring a
[44:27] permanent foundation.
[44:29] that could cause, the concern
[44:30] that came up for us on that is
[44:32] 
[44:32] some of the older neighborhoods
[44:34] ,
[44:34] historic neighborhoods that hav
[44:38] e
[44:38] houses on piers.
[44:39] >> [off mic]
[44:42] >> the type of things we've
[44:43] talked about so far, and why w
[44:46] e
[44:46] ultimately so far have decided
[44:48] 
[44:48] not to recommend any additional
[44:50] 
[44:50] restrictions because we don't
[44:53] want that to affect houses tha
[44:55] t
[44:55] are already in existence, you
[44:56] know, and it's not necessarily
[44:58] 
[44:58] always the way things are done,
[45:01] 
[45:01] but.
[45:01] >> so the last thing I would
[45:02] say, it sounds like, sounds lik
[45:06] e
[45:06] maybe the next step or the nex
[45:08] t
[45:08] step I'm, I  I think we should
[45:10] do
[45:10] is maybe see what, look at the
[45:16] ,
[45:16] get a sense of the designs tha
[45:17] t
[45:17] are currently offered by mobil
[45:20] e
[45:20] home manufacturers.
[45:22] you know, to see like you know
[45:23] 
[45:23] what we're possibly --
[45:29] >> the date was 1976 though.
[45:31] >> so I mean --
[45:32] >> 1976?
[45:33] 1976?
[45:33] >> it's not things that like
[45:36] would necessarily be new and
[45:37] modern.
[45:37] >> yeah.
[45:39] >> I mean, that's why I think
[45:41] design considerations to the
[45:42] extent that we can think about
[45:46] I
[45:46] would like to see our options.
[45:46] 
[45:46] >> I agree.
[45:47] okay, I totally missed the 1976
[45:49] 
[45:49] thing.
[45:49] sorry.
[45:49] >> I didn't say that at the
[45:52] beginning, so it's, you've got
[45:53] 
[45:53] to go a little bit deeper in t
[45:54] he
[45:54] statute.
[45:54] >> 50 years.
[45:58] >>> I imagine, I don't know
[45:59] who's going to the planning
[46:00] conference.
[46:00] I imagine this is going to be
[46:02] topic of conversation there.
[46:04] if not even a presentation, I
[46:06] would just be interested in you
[46:07] 
[46:07] all gathering information about
[46:09] 
[46:09] what, what other communities I
[46:11] n
[46:11] florida are doing --
[46:12] >> absolutely.
[46:13] >> florida specific issue, and
[46:14] 
[46:14] bringing just some information
[46:16] 
[46:16] back to us.
[46:17] I would like to explore that
[46:18] further and not just let it go
[46:20] 
[46:20] tonight as like we're not takin
[46:21] g
[46:21] action on this.
[46:22] >> sure.
[46:24] yeah, we're happy to do that
[46:24] research.
[46:24] >> dr. Mermer.
[46:27] >> yep.
[46:28] mr. Chair, should we make a
[46:30] motion about that, ms. Sutton?
[46:32] 
[46:32] >> I mean, britney, do you fee
[46:34] l
[46:34] like you need a motion to that
[46:37] 
[46:37] effect, to bring us back more
[46:38] information.
[46:38] >> not necessarily.
[46:43] >> I have a question about
[46:43] this.
[46:43] maybe this is actually good that
[46:45] 
[46:45] we've got our attorney here.
[46:49] my understanding of sb180 is
[46:51] that we couldn't apply any new
[46:53] 
[46:53] restrictions on mobile homes
[46:55] because we would be applying new
[46:58] 
[46:58] restrictions to single-family
[46:58] homes which would be a new
[46:59] restriction which we're not
[47:00] allowed to do.
[47:01] >> that's my understanding is
[47:02] also.
[47:02] sorry.
[47:02] you were asking.
[47:06] >> I mean,.
[47:08] >> we've talked about it, and
[47:09] we -- I think we both agree tha
[47:11] t
[47:11] yeah, I don't know I don't thi
[47:12] nk
[47:12] we could make those changes
[47:14] until at least october of '27 o
[47:16] r
[47:16] if something changes.
[47:17] >> or regarding a        -- bar
[47:21] ring a
[47:22] hurricane, state of emergency.
[47:23] 
[47:23] >> sure.
[47:25] >> ms. Bell.
[47:30] >> I don't disagree with the
[47:31] idea of like evaluating what o
[47:33] ur
[47:33] options are, but I would ask I
[47:36] f
[47:36] staff, I would -- I would just
[47:39] 
[47:39] ask if staff could provide som
[47:41] e
[47:41] cost impact assessment of what
[47:43] 
[47:43] any requirements couldpably
[47:45] 
[47:46] could potentially add because
[47:47] without getting into any of the
[47:48] 
[47:48] politics of it, strictly from
[47:50] someone on the ai ahac, the
[47:55] affordable housing impact of I
[47:57] t,
[47:57] it's an opportunity to bring I
[47:59] n
[47:59] more affordable housing options
[48:00] 
[48:00] into our city, comes is
[48:02] desperately fee -- which is
[48:03] desperately needed.
[48:04] so from a neighborhood, again,
[48:05] 
[48:05] I'm having a brain fart on the
[48:06] 
[48:06] word, like neighborhood vibe
[48:08] compatibility perspective, I g
[48:10] et
[48:10] why we're going with that, but
[48:11] I
[48:11] would be interested in what the
[48:14] 
[48:14] cost impact of enforcing that
[48:18] compatibility would have and
[48:19] would it take away the
[48:20] affordable benefit essentially.
[48:23] 
[48:23] thank you.
[48:31] >> can I just say I think the
[48:32] impacts of it a little
[48:33] overblown.
[48:33] I think it would be great to
[48:35] have more housing di v.ty in
[48:36] neighborhoods.
[48:36] -- diversity in neighborhoods.
[48:37] 
[48:37] I think the idea of the vibe of
[48:41] 
[48:41] a neighborhood being disrupted
[48:43] 
[48:43] is -- I don't agree with that
[48:45] thinking because neighborhoods
[48:45] 
[48:45] are ever changing, and so if
[48:47] this is a way neighborhood
[48:48] changes, so be it.
[48:49] I also think that the
[48:51] neighborhoods that are most
[48:52] concerned about the vibe
[48:53] changing are probably not the
[48:54] ones where people are seeking t
[48:56] o
[48:56] put manufactured or mobile
[48:58] homes.
[48:58] they can make more money in
[49:01] using nose lots in other --
[49:02] those lots in other ways.
[49:05] I always get worried when we
[49:07] bring up this character of the
[49:08] 
[49:08] neighborhood thing because I
[49:09] would rather have more people I
[49:10] n
[49:10] houses than caring about some,
[49:12] 
[49:12] everybody has a different vision
[49:13] 
[49:13] of what a neighborhood's
[49:13] supposed to be like anyways, so
[49:15] 
[49:15] trying to -- everybody I think
[49:17] 
[49:17] is a fool's errand.
[49:18] with that said, ms. Sutton.
[49:21] >> yeah, I dyou
[49:23] know, I'm necessarily worried
[49:27] about the old established
[49:28] neighborhoods -- gainesville.
[49:29] I think my concern is, like, I
[49:32] 
[49:32] think you underestimate the, t
[49:36] he
[49:36] profit motive of developers tha
[49:38] t
[49:38] are trying to maximize some of
[49:40] 
[49:40] the areas around the universit
[49:41] y
[49:41] and some sensitive areas that
[49:43] already have had a lot of
[49:46] redevelopment in a more tasteful
[49:47] 
[49:47] way than this might be.
[49:50] I think, you know, people who
[49:51] have a large profit motive hav
[49:53] e
[49:53] done some really interesting
[49:55] things in the neighborhoods
[49:56] close to campus, and I'm afrai
[50:00] d
[50:00] not for necessarily what's goi
[50:01] ng
[50:01] to happen next to my house, but
[50:03] 
[50:03] what's going to happen to these
[50:04] 
[50:04] parts of our community that hav
[50:07] e
[50:07] already been impacted immensely
[50:11] 
[50:11] without this being a potential
[50:13] 
[50:13] option.
[50:13] >> dr. Mermer.
[50:18] >>> thank you, mr. Chair.
[50:18] yeah, I mean, I'm not concerned
[50:20] 
[50:20] about the, the aesthetic of the
[50:23] 
[50:23] neighborhood or the feel or
[50:23] anything.
[50:23] I just, I grew up in a mobile
[50:27] home that was manufactured in
[50:29] the early 80s, and the
[50:32] neighborhood I grew up in,
[50:33] that's all there was.
[50:35] and there are just serious
[50:36] health and safety issues with
[50:37] a
[50:37] lot of the 80s mobile homes.
[50:41] so I'm concerned about, you
[50:42] know, even if you pack them
[50:44] together, the fire risk oo   o
[50:48] of
[50:48] these particular buildings.
[50:49] inthis was anything -- if this
[50:51] 
[50:51] was anything built after 2010,
[50:53] I
[50:53] would be like whatever, but I a
[50:54] m
[50:54] concerned about the fireisk
[51:00] fire
[51:00] risk in general and
[51:02] habitability.
[51:02] I don't know if that's useful
[51:04] for you when you're gathering
[51:06] information but I wanted to
[51:07] throw that out.
[51:07] >> thank you.
[51:08] any other comments or questions
[51:10] 
[51:10] from the board on this item?
[51:15] boy, sure is fascinating all
[51:17] this stuff the state is doing.
[51:18] 
[51:18] it's basically putting us out o
[51:19] f
[51:19] business on the board, you
[51:20] know?
[51:20] [laughter]
[51:20] >> at least somebody is.
[51:23] >> well, you know.
[51:25] dr. Mermer.
[51:28] >> mobile home conversation.
[51:30] private providers of fees.
[51:34] if we have -- if you have to,
[51:37] all staff really have to work
[51:38] harder and faster to meet the
[51:41] new deadlines, would that
[51:43] additional work be ought to be
[51:45] 
[51:45] factored into the fees?
[51:46] so I think you have to give them
[51:47] 
[51:47] a discount for using a private
[51:50] 
[51:50] provider essentially but it is
[51:53] 
[51:53] putting more work on staff to
[51:55] rush to get comments in.
[51:57] so is there a way to recruit
[51:58] that cost?
[51:59] -- recoup that cost.
[51:59] >> it's a good question.
[52:03] I would have to let the building
[52:04] 
[52:04] departments -- a little bit mor
[52:07] e
[52:07] about that.
[52:07] I can tell you they are doing a
[52:09] n
[52:09] assessment of all of that right
[52:11] 
[52:11] now so I can let you know what
[52:12] 
[52:12] the results are of that: I
[52:14] haven't been as involved with
[52:15] the building fee part.
[52:17] I mean I can tell you the
[52:19] building fund though is, you
[52:21] know, without trying to get int
[52:23] o
[52:23] too much detail on the budget,
[52:25] 
[52:25] the building fund is separate
[52:26] from the general fund, it's kind
[52:29] 
[52:29] of only for the building
[52:29] department.
[52:29] but I'd be happy to let you know
[52:34] 
[52:34] what --
[52:36] >> yes and not being able to
[52:38] open --
[52:41] >> yeah.
[52:42] >> okay.
[52:44] anymore questions or comments
[52:45] about any of the items that wer
[52:47] e
[52:47] just presented in our statutory
[52:49] 
[52:49] updates?
[52:49] if not, I think we'll move ont
[52:52] o
[52:52] board member training.
[52:56] board's favorite city attorney,
[52:57] 
[52:57] mr. Mcdermott.
[52:59] >> good evening.
[53:01] shawn mcdermott, assistant cit
[53:03] y
[53:03] attorney.
[53:03] so staff asked me to come and
[53:08] just speak to the board about
[53:10] some, just the general laws tha
[53:12] t
[53:12] pertain to public boards.
[53:18] also just on tuesday went to t
[53:19] he
[53:19] development review board and a
[53:20] 
[53:20] big chunk of those members are
[53:22] 
[53:22] brand new, and so they
[53:23] appreciated and wanted me to
[53:26] give the full blown
[53:28] presentation.
[53:28] this board has a lot of
[53:29] experience, and so --
[53:30] >> we have a couple -- you know,
[53:32] 
[53:32] there are some still some
[53:32] newness I think on --
[53:34] >> sure, so I'll just give you
[53:35] 
[53:35] the option of, I can either wal
[53:38] k
[53:38] through the whole -- what I
[53:41] think are the highlights of wh
[53:43] at
[53:43] you need to know, or
[53:43] alternatively, if there is jus
[53:45] t
[53:45] any questions or things you've
[53:46] 
[53:46] always thought about like how
[53:48] does that work legally with our
[53:49] 
[53:49] board, what can we can't we do,
[53:53] 
[53:53] you know, I'm happy to go down
[53:55] 
[53:55] that road too.
[53:56] whatever you want prefer,
[53:57] whatever's the most helpful I'l
[53:59] l
[53:59] do.
[53:59] I just given your experience an
[54:02] d
[54:02] new members like I'm happy to
[54:04] even if one on one, you know, I
[54:05] f
[54:05] it's, if it's better in that
[54:07] regard, I just don't want to
[54:10] bore bob and everybody else.
[54:13] >> I think start with the high
[54:14] 
[54:14] level overview, and then you
[54:15] know this board is not afraid o
[54:16] f
[54:16] asking questions.
[54:19] so if they'll have questions I
[54:20] 
[54:20] feel like they will pepper you
[54:22] 
[54:22] with questions.
[54:23] >> okay, well, of course, feel
[54:24] 
[54:24] free to ask questions.
[54:25] but I'll just,.
[54:26] >> actually we've got one
[54:27] already.
[54:27] I can tell.
[54:28] >> no, I was just going to say
[54:29] 
[54:29] even though like some of us are
[54:30] 
[54:30] newer to this board, we think
[54:32] we've all served on boards,
[54:34] like, you know, dr. Mermer's on
[54:36] 
[54:36] the count aahac, I'm on the cit
[54:39] y
[54:39] ahac.
[54:39] >> she has been a city planner
[54:45] 
[54:45] and on the board so basic,
[54:47] basic, basic we're probably oka
[54:48] y
[54:48] on for what's that worth.
[54:49] >> dwhraw,     yeah, that's wha
[54:52] t I
[54:53] assumed.
[54:53] so yeah.
[54:53] I'll just hit a refresher on
[54:59] what I think are high level
[55:00] things.
[55:00] and feel free to ask any
[55:02] questions at any time or we can
[55:03] 
[55:03] veer the discussion wherever y
[55:05] ou
[55:05] want, but there     all to say
[55:09] 
[55:09] should be short and sweet but
[55:11] stay as long as you want.
[55:12] so the big picture laws that
[55:15] govern public boards that you
[55:16] all know are sunshine law public
[55:18] 
[55:18] records and ethics.
[55:19] and then zooming in from there
[55:24] 
[55:24] there are certain particulars
[55:26] every board needs to know about
[55:28] 
[55:28] how their board operatessism so
[55:29] 
[55:30] so -- operates.
[55:31] so to fly through those.
[55:32] the sunshine law, the main thi
[55:34] ng
[55:34] you would need to know is when
[55:35] 
[55:35] you would have a meeting but
[55:36] any -- a meeting between twent
[55:37] y
[55:37] two or more -- between two or
[55:39] more members of this body has to
[55:40] 
[55:40] be in the public, has to be
[55:45] noticedded to the public, and
[55:48] notes have to be taken.
[55:49] staff takes care of that but
[55:52] what's a meeting because that'
[55:54] s
[55:54] what you want to avoid out of a
[55:55] 
[55:55] public was peye.
[55:57] a meeting is when two or more
[55:58] members communicate in any way
[55:59] 
[55:59] about business that would come
[56:00] 
[56:00] before this board.
[56:02] it could be informally.
[56:05] it  it doesn't have to be in
[56:08] person.
[56:08] it could be through e-mails.
[56:09] anything where like I said, two
[56:11] 
[56:11] or more members of this
[56:12] particular board communicate
[56:13] about items that could come
[56:15] before this board.
[56:16] if that ever happens, you just
[56:17] 
[56:17] want mike    make sure that's at
[56:20] a
[56:20] public meeting.
[56:21] so avoid e-mails, back and for
[56:23] th
[56:23] e-mails, text messages, if you
[56:25] 
[56:25] see each other in publix, that
[56:27] 
[56:27] type of stuff.
[56:28] keep all discussion about this
[56:29] 
[56:29] board in the public meetings.
[56:32] of course you can discuss
[56:33] anything else outside you know,
[56:36] 
[56:36] you can be friends and hang out
[56:37] 
[56:37] otherwise, but just that.
[56:41] so public records is pretty, y
[56:45] ou
[56:45] know, common sense.
[56:47] it's just any type of data
[56:49] that's recorded that you make o
[56:52] r
[56:52] receive that has anything to d
[56:53] o
[56:53] with the official business of
[56:54] the city or your board, that h
[56:57] as
[56:57] to be kept pursuant to certain
[57:02] 
[57:02] florida statutory requirements
[57:04] 
[57:04] about how long it has to be
[57:05] kept.
[57:05] so all the important takeaway
[57:08] there is if you ever receive a
[57:09] ny
[57:09] type of data, I say data becau
[57:12] se
[57:12] it's broad, you know,
[57:12] voicemails, e-mails, text
[57:14] messages, papers, that have
[57:16] anything to do with the business
[57:17] 
[57:17] of this board, just make sure,
[57:20] 
[57:20] just give it to staff.
[57:23] just make sure staff has it, a
[57:24] nd
[57:24] then you're fine.
[57:28] so common things that you'll r
[57:29] un
[57:29] into are like paper copies tha
[57:31] t
[57:31] you receive.
[57:31] if it's just a copy and staff
[57:32] has the original version, then
[57:34] 
[57:34] you can throw the paper copies
[57:36] 
[57:36] out as soon as it loses its
[57:37] value to you.
[57:39] so it's the original you know
[57:40] you just want to make sure
[57:42] somebody in the city has an
[57:43] original of whatever you come
[57:45] across as far as public
[57:46] records.
[57:46] ethics is the big ones to
[57:51] remember for ethics are that
[57:53] this board has certain reporting
[57:55] 
[57:55] requirements at the state level
[57:56] 
[57:56] that you want to, you know, be
[58:00] 
[58:00] apprised of.
[58:01] one of them is the form 1 I
[58:05] believe it is that you have to
[58:08] 
[58:08] fill out, which is, it's an
[58:11] abbreviated financial
[58:14] disclosure, so it's relatively
[58:16] 
[58:16] short, it's not to the lengths
[58:19] 
[58:19] that an elected officials have
[58:21] 
[58:21] to go through, so it's hole fea
[58:22] p
[58:23] hopefully painless, but that
[58:25] form, the form limited one
[58:27] financial disclosure has to be
[58:28] 
[58:28] provided to the florida
[58:29] commission on ethics once a
[58:31] year.
[58:31] so you just need to make sure
[58:32] you do that once a year, it's
[58:33] done electronically, I think
[58:35] through their web site: staff
[58:38] can help you out if you need,
[58:39] you know, some --
[58:40] >> just required, so --
[58:42] >> okay.
[58:44] >> theoretically we've got a
[58:45] year to do it.
[58:45] I don't think we're -- june or
[58:47] 
[58:47] july.
[58:47] >> they shoot you an email and
[58:50] a
[58:51] few reminders.
[58:52] >> oh, good.
[58:52] >> they're pretty good about
[58:53] being on top of you, so as lon
[58:54] g
[58:54] as you're on top of your email
[58:55] ,
[58:55] you should in theory be able
[58:57] to.
[58:57] >> okay, yeah, that's great.
[58:59] so that's the one you have to
[59:00] do.
[59:00] there's two or disclosures jus
[59:03] t
[59:03] to keep in miewnd you only hav
[59:04] e
[59:04] to do if that situation arises
[59:06] 
[59:06] for you.
[59:07] one is the quarterly client
[59:09] disclosure and, and you just
[59:12] file that if you or your partn
[59:15] er
[59:15] or associate of your firm
[59:16] represents a client for
[59:16] compensation before the city.
[59:19] so if that ever happens, in tha
[59:21] t
[59:21] case, you would need to fill o
[59:22] ut
[59:22] the disclosure, and provide it
[59:24] 
[59:24] to the state.
[59:25] so that's just as needed.
[59:28] >> like in general or someone
[59:32] who comes before this board an
[59:35] d
[59:35] is represented?
[59:35] >> it's generally the best
[59:36] practices in general.
[59:37] so if you work for like an
[59:37] engineering firm that comes
[59:41] before the city often asking f
[59:44] or
[59:44] different development approvals
[59:45] 
[59:45] or whatnot, whether it's this
[59:47] board or the city commission,
[59:49] you should disclose that to th
[59:51] e
[59:51] state.
[59:51] so yeah I think engineers,
[59:55] planners maybe, those are the
[59:58] ones who might run into it the
[1:00:02] 
[1:00:02] most frequently.
[1:00:03] law firms, you know, stuff lik
[1:00:04] e
[1:00:04] that.
[1:00:04] so yeah, just remember if you o
[1:00:10] r
[1:00:10] anybody who works for your
[1:00:11] company comes before the city,
[1:00:13] 
[1:00:13] you just want to disclose that
[1:00:14] 
[1:00:14] so it doesn't look like a
[1:00:16] conflict.
[1:00:16] >> does that include like gru
[1:00:18] related items?
[1:00:19] because like I work for an
[1:00:20] engineering firm and we don't
[1:00:21] really do much work for the
[1:00:22] city, but but   we do a lott
[1:00:28] a lot
[1:00:28] of gru projects.
[1:00:29] is that something that needs t
[1:00:30] o
[1:00:30] be disclosed?
[1:00:31] is that requiring any elected
[1:00:32] official approvals, it's at lik
[1:00:34] e
[1:00:34] staff level.
[1:00:35] >> gru is not the city anymore.
[1:00:36] 
[1:00:36] >> well, yeah.
[1:00:37] >> well, technically they are.
[1:00:39] 
[1:00:39] [laughter]
[1:00:39] >> yeah.
[1:00:41] >> um.
[1:00:42] >> so that's a little in the
[1:00:43] weeds.
[1:00:43] I could ask you after.
[1:00:44] >> yeah, you can ask me after,
[1:00:46] 
[1:00:46] and so I should preface this a
[1:00:50] ll
[1:00:50] by saying as opposed to most of
[1:00:52] 
[1:00:52] the other laws that are
[1:00:53] board where
[1:00:56] office and thecity would get
[1:00:57] involved with more hands on,
[1:01:00] ethics rules of ethics are all
[1:01:02] 
[1:01:02] state level personal
[1:01:05] responsibilities for the board
[1:01:06] 
[1:01:06] members, and so staff can kind
[1:01:09] 
[1:01:09] of help point you out what we
[1:01:10] think you might want to look
[1:01:12] for, but it's an area of the l
[1:01:14] aw
[1:01:14] that you really on your own with
[1:01:16] 
[1:01:16] so to speak, so I don't want t
[1:01:17] o,
[1:01:17] you know, again we're happy to
[1:01:20] 
[1:01:20] help you out informally, but you
[1:01:22] 
[1:01:22] really want to contact the
[1:01:23] florida commission on ethics,
[1:01:24] and they have a hotline number
[1:01:26] 
[1:01:26] that they're really receptive
[1:01:28] to.
[1:01:28] they'll respond to you right
[1:01:30] away.
[1:01:30] that you can call them about a
[1:01:33] ny
[1:01:33] ethics questions like that.
[1:01:34] so that would be a perfect tim
[1:01:35] e
[1:01:35] to do that is if you have a
[1:01:37] question like how does this
[1:01:38] work.
[1:01:38] and they will      they'll giv
[1:01:41] e you
[1:01:41] direction.
[1:01:41] you know, so I want to caveat
[1:01:45] that even if I gave you an
[1:01:47] opinion about your particular
[1:01:48] instance you're mention, I wou
[1:01:49] ld
[1:01:49] still --
[1:01:50] >> it's my responsibility to --
[1:01:51] 
[1:01:51] >> I would still encourage you
[1:01:52] 
[1:01:52] to call the commission on ethic
[1:01:55] s
[1:01:55] and they can tell you exactly
[1:01:57] how to handle that.
[1:01:57] but yes, so that would be for
[1:01:59] that quarterly client
[1:02:00] disclosure.
[1:02:00] and the last disclosure would b
[1:02:04] e
[1:02:04] the quarterly gift disclosure
[1:02:06] and it's quarterly meaning if
[1:02:08] this ever applies to you you
[1:02:10] just got to make sure you do I
[1:02:12] t
[1:02:12] quarterly.
[1:02:12] and what this is is you file I
[1:02:16] t
[1:02:16] only if you received a gift
[1:02:18] worth more than $100 from anyon
[1:02:23] e
[1:02:23] that are not relatives as
[1:02:25] defined pursuant to a particula
[1:02:27] r
[1:02:27] statute, or gifts that are
[1:02:29] associated primarily with your
[1:02:31] 
[1:02:31] employment.
[1:02:31] so in other words a gift above
[1:02:37] 
[1:02:37] $100 from anybody except your
[1:02:38] rel tbz or    atives or your
[1:02:40] employer you're supposed to
[1:02:42] disclose it to the state.
[1:02:46] I think it's all about optics s
[1:02:49] o
[1:02:49] it doesn't look like you're
[1:02:51] being influenced to sway your
[1:02:52] vote on any particular matter.
[1:02:54] 
[1:02:54] so out of an abundance of
[1:02:57] transparency, they require tha
[1:02:59] t
[1:02:59] quarterly.
[1:02:59] so those are thethree
[1:03:01] disclosures to keep in mind.
[1:03:03] there's behavioral kind of
[1:03:05] ethics floors that, and it's a
[1:03:08] ll
[1:03:08] in the presentation, so the
[1:03:09] presentation goes deeper, and
[1:03:10] then feel free to reach out to
[1:03:11] 
[1:03:11] me if you have any questions,
[1:03:12] but we don't need to go through
[1:03:14] 
[1:03:14] the -- it's pretty common sense
[1:03:16] 
[1:03:16] the behavioral, mandates that
[1:03:19] the ethics law dictates.
[1:03:21] it's just like a floor of being
[1:03:23] 
[1:03:23] a decent person type thing.
[1:03:29] the other big -- the last
[1:03:30] important thing to know about
[1:03:31] the ethics law, our    are vot
[1:03:34] ing
[1:03:34] conflicts.
[1:03:34] how voting conflicts work.
[1:03:38] for those keep in mind that if
[1:03:41] 
[1:03:41] any matter comes before your
[1:03:42] board, or you let me get the
[1:03:48] class of people here right.
[1:03:49] it's you, a relative, I'll read
[1:03:52] 
[1:03:52] you what the definition of
[1:03:53] relative is in a second, but I
[1:03:55] f
[1:03:55] you, a relative, a business
[1:03:57] associate, or a principal by
[1:04:01] whom you're retained could
[1:04:03] potentially have a special
[1:04:04] private gain or loss as a resul
[1:04:06] t
[1:04:06] of the decision, then you have
[1:04:08] a
[1:04:08] voting conflict, and you can't
[1:04:09] 
[1:04:09] vote on that matter.
[1:04:12] so I'll just say that again is
[1:04:14] 
[1:04:14] like any matter that comes
[1:04:15] before this board, keep in min
[1:04:16] d
[1:04:16] especially for engineers and
[1:04:18] folks who kind of work, you
[1:04:21] know, in areas that come before
[1:04:22] 
[1:04:22] the city fairly often.
[1:04:24] if a matter is coming before
[1:04:26] your board where there could be
[1:04:27] 
[1:04:27] a special private gain or a los
[1:04:30] s
[1:04:30] to yourself, a relative, a
[1:04:32] business associate, or the   t
[1:04:36] he
[1:04:36] principal by whom you're
[1:04:38] retained, you have to declare a
[1:04:40] 
[1:04:40] conflict and abstain from voting
[1:04:41] 
[1:04:41] on that matter but you can sti
[1:04:42] ll
[1:04:42] dus the matter.
[1:04:43] so -- discuss the matter.
[1:04:45] so you can still discuss the
[1:04:46] matter and offer your
[1:04:47] professional opinions or
[1:04:48] whatever, but you just can't
[1:04:49] vote.
[1:04:49] and the relatives that are
[1:04:50] included in that are father,
[1:04:53] mother, son, daughter, husband
[1:04:56] ,
[1:04:56] wife, brother, sister,
[1:04:58] father-in-law, mother-in-law,
[1:05:00] son-in-law, or daughter-in-law
[1:05:02] .
[1:05:02] so.
[1:05:02] >> no mysteries.
[1:05:05] >> and no cousins, you know, t
[1:05:09] he
[1:05:09] family circle is relatively
[1:05:11] tight there.
[1:05:13] so, and again it's this is all
[1:05:16] 
[1:05:16] in your materials and if you
[1:05:17] have ever have a question, sta
[1:05:20] ff
[1:05:20] can help you through it, but
[1:05:21] just remember that for keep it
[1:05:24] 
[1:05:24] in mind voting conflicts.
[1:05:28] those are the big state laws.
[1:05:29] the -- the remainder of what
[1:05:32] I'll just touch on are just som
[1:05:34] e
[1:05:34] specifics to like could help
[1:05:37] govern h this board does its
[1:05:40] business
[1:05:40] and one of those is I think a
[1:05:45] majority of what this board doe
[1:05:48] s
[1:05:48] is hold quasi-judicial
[1:05:49] hearings.
[1:05:49] as opposed to legislative
[1:05:52] matters, legislative matters a
[1:05:56] re
[1:05:56] like what you just did about
[1:05:58] weighing in on new statutory
[1:06:00] requirements.
[1:06:00] it, it's where you can exercis
[1:06:03] e
[1:06:03] the full breadth of your
[1:06:04] discretion.
[1:06:04] whether you like something or
[1:06:08] not, your opinion, whatever yo
[1:06:10] u
[1:06:10] want to bring to the table, you
[1:06:13] 
[1:06:13] can for a legislative matter.
[1:06:15] a quasi-judicial matter,
[1:06:16] however, your discretion is
[1:06:19] constrained.
[1:06:19] because what it is is
[1:06:24] quasi-judicial means it's kind
[1:06:25] 
[1:06:25] of like a court hearing, where
[1:06:26] 
[1:06:26] you're adjudicating rights.
[1:06:27] you're adjudicating the
[1:06:29] property, or personal rights o
[1:06:32] f
[1:06:32] a person or legal entity.
[1:06:35] so because of that there are a
[1:06:36] ll
[1:06:36] these common law restrictions
[1:06:37] that get imposed that dictate
[1:06:39] how you have to do that.
[1:06:42] and the three things you want t
[1:06:43] o
[1:06:43] keep in mind when you are
[1:06:44] holding quasi-judicial hearing
[1:06:46] s
[1:06:46] is that due process has to be
[1:06:49] afforded to all affected
[1:06:51] parties.
[1:06:51] staff really kind of takes the
[1:06:54] 
[1:06:54] lead on that, so that just
[1:06:57] involves giving proper notice
[1:06:59] and defining who are truly
[1:07:00] affected parties as opposed to
[1:07:02] 
[1:07:02] just general residents of the
[1:07:05] city.
[1:07:05] and it's those affected parties
[1:07:09] 
[1:07:09] who get a heightened level of
[1:07:11] due process that again staff
[1:07:12] will kind of take the lead on
[1:07:13] that.
[1:07:13] the second two are more
[1:07:17] pertinent to you personally, a
[1:07:18] nd
[1:07:18] that's when you're at the
[1:07:19] hearing, what you're really
[1:07:22] doing is you're accepting what'
[1:07:24] s
[1:07:24] called competent substantial
[1:07:25] evidence, so you're like a
[1:07:27] courtroom listening and
[1:07:29] receiving a bunch of evidence.
[1:07:31] 
[1:07:31] whether it's coming from city
[1:07:32] staff or the property owners o
[1:07:36] r
[1:07:36] anybody else including members
[1:07:37] 
[1:07:37] of the public who offer
[1:07:40] evidence.
[1:07:40] and evidence is a heightened
[1:07:42] threshold.
[1:07:42] it's notsgist an        not jus
[1:07:45] t an
[1:07:45] opinion.
[1:07:45] it's not just I think this
[1:07:46] development's going to cause a
[1:07:48] 
[1:07:48] bunch of bad traffic.
[1:07:49] that's just an opinion.
[1:07:51] as opposed to if somebody comes
[1:07:53] 
[1:07:53] up and is says I'm a traffic
[1:07:55] engineer with such-and-such
[1:07:57] years of experience, and based
[1:07:58] 
[1:07:58] on this objective data and my
[1:08:00] analysis, this is going to, you
[1:08:03] 
[1:08:03] know, and then their opinion I
[1:08:04] s
[1:08:04] based in fact and evidence in
[1:08:06] that way.
[1:08:07] that could be competent
[1:08:08] substantial evidence that the
[1:08:09] board takes into account.
[1:08:11] so again, you're collecting thi
[1:08:13] s
[1:08:13] competent substantial evidence
[1:08:15] 
[1:08:15] from all affected parties,
[1:08:17] andial all members of the publi
[1:08:19] c
[1:08:19] who speak, if it truly is
[1:08:21] evident, you're collecting that
[1:08:22] 
[1:08:22] evidence and then you're
[1:08:23] applying it to the correct law
[1:08:29] 
[1:08:29] that is applicable in that
[1:08:30] case.
[1:08:30] what that means is the specifi
[1:08:32] c
[1:08:32] criteria that governs your
[1:08:35] particular decision for that
[1:08:36] hearing.
[1:08:36] so for instance, for this last
[1:08:39] 
[1:08:39] one with the sign height
[1:08:42] extension, the land development
[1:08:45] 
[1:08:45] code lays out like six or seven
[1:08:48] 
[1:08:48] criteria that's in the code for
[1:08:49] 
[1:08:49] how this board is to make that
[1:08:51] 
[1:08:51] decision.
[1:08:51] and allison for, you know,
[1:08:53] presented those in her
[1:08:55] presentation.
[1:08:55] so those are the criteria you
[1:08:58] want to stick to.
[1:09:00] what you'll find is in most all
[1:09:03] 
[1:09:03] of the quasi-judicial -- I wou
[1:09:04] ld
[1:09:04] say all of the quasi-judicial
[1:09:06] hearings that this board holds
[1:09:09] ,
[1:09:09] the criteria never includes jus
[1:09:12] t
[1:09:12] do you like this project.
[1:09:14] does it look cool to you or
[1:09:15] does -- you know, do you think
[1:09:17] 
[1:09:17] it's a good thing or a bad thi
[1:09:18] ng
[1:09:18] for the city?
[1:09:19] the city's going in a good or
[1:09:20] bad direction or you know where
[1:09:23] 
[1:09:23] like housing this is pro-housing
[1:09:24] 
[1:09:24] this is an   anti-housing.
[1:09:28] it's none of that stuff.
[1:09:30] it's just are these criteria m
[1:09:33] et
[1:09:33] or not.
[1:09:33] so you know all the
[1:09:34] policymaking, all those fun
[1:09:35] questions so to speak, are
[1:09:36] handled at the policy level, t
[1:09:38] he
[1:09:38] legislative level, I
[1:09:39] mentioned,.
[1:09:39] quasi-judicial, all that's
[1:09:44] already been established.
[1:09:46] you're just applying it now.
[1:09:48] so that's how    how the major
[1:09:51] ity I
[1:09:51] think of your decisions as a
[1:09:52] beard operate is in that
[1:09:53] quasi--- board operate is in
[1:09:54] that quasi-judicial realm and
[1:09:56] this board does a great job.
[1:09:57] I've never compared to a lot o
[1:10:00] f
[1:10:00] cities where city attorneys are
[1:10:01] 
[1:10:01] busy because boards kind of go
[1:10:02] 
[1:10:02] rogue.
[1:10:02] like you guys do a good job
[1:10:08] so, so the, that's a
[1:10:13] quasi-judicial hearing -- just
[1:10:15] 
[1:10:15] points about quasi-judicial
[1:10:16] hearings to keep in mind.
[1:10:20] is if the interest of that fir
[1:10:21] st
[1:10:21] one I mentioned due process, y
[1:10:23] ou
[1:10:23] do want to avoid ex parte
[1:10:26] contacts they're called, and s
[1:10:28] o
[1:10:28] nat    that just means best way
[1:10:31] to
[1:10:31] apply it I think the easiest w
[1:10:33] ay
[1:10:33] is just do not talk to anybody
[1:10:36] 
[1:10:36] about that matter outside of t
[1:10:39] he
[1:10:39] public hearing.
[1:10:40] anybody's a little too much
[1:10:42] because you can talk to, you
[1:10:45] know, your spouse or your best
[1:10:47] 
[1:10:47] friend, who has nothing to do
[1:10:49] with it.
[1:10:50] technically only that ex
[1:10:52] prohibition only applies to
[1:10:55] parties, affected parties in t
[1:10:57] he
[1:10:57] case.
[1:10:57] but because unlike courtroom
[1:10:59] where you might be dealing wit
[1:11:00] h
[1:11:00] two litigants, the affected
[1:11:02] parties for a matter that's
[1:11:04] comes before this board could b
[1:11:05] e
[1:11:05] hundreds of people, so rather
[1:11:07] than discerning, you know, if
[1:11:10] you see somebody at publix
[1:11:12] whether you're an affected par
[1:11:14] ty
[1:11:14] or not it's just easier to not
[1:11:15] 
[1:11:15] talk about stuff, you know,
[1:11:17] unless you're certain they have
[1:11:18] 
[1:11:18] nothing to do with the issue.
[1:11:21] so yes, so that's where you want
[1:11:22] 
[1:11:22] to avoid any, any contact.
[1:11:25] so that includes e-mails, you
[1:11:28] know, people might email you
[1:11:29] because of your role but don't
[1:11:31] ,
[1:11:31] don't reply.
[1:11:34] and just avoid communications
[1:11:35] and leave it all for the publi
[1:11:37] c
[1:11:37] hearing.
[1:11:37] that's an interest in due
[1:11:41] process.
[1:11:41] so.
[1:11:41] >> I was just going to say, it
[1:11:44] 
[1:11:44] doesn't happen at often now, b
[1:11:47] ut
[1:11:47] in the past when we had very
[1:11:49] controversial ims it it would
[1:11:50] not be uncommon for us to get
[1:11:52] e-mails to our personal email
[1:11:55] accounts.
[1:11:55] just make sure you send them t
[1:12:00] o
[1:12:00] britney.
[1:12:00] also sometimes it's hard, peopl
[1:12:05] e
[1:12:05] call and at least the past
[1:12:09] advice has always been if I in
[1:12:11] 
[1:12:11] fact talk to somebody and it
[1:12:13] strayed into quasi-judicial
[1:12:15] issues, you disclose before the
[1:12:17] 
[1:12:17] hearing.
[1:12:17] >> yeah, exactly.
[1:12:19] that's true.
[1:12:19] so if you do have inadvertent e
[1:12:22] x
[1:12:22] parte contacts, it just happens
[1:12:23] ,
[1:12:23] before you realize what's
[1:12:25] happening, your duty is to
[1:12:28] disclose it at that hearing to
[1:12:30] 
[1:12:30] say that, you know, what the
[1:12:31] scope -- that it happened and
[1:12:32] what the scope of what was
[1:12:33] discussed, and the whole purpo
[1:12:35] se
[1:12:35] really is to for any, any
[1:12:39] affected parties who, to allow
[1:12:42] 
[1:12:42] them to hear what you talked
[1:12:44] about so that they can respond
[1:12:45] 
[1:12:45] to that.
[1:12:46] you know, if need be.
[1:12:48] so it's just an issue of likepr
[1:12:49] ocess and fairness.
[1:12:53] another, this is a tricky one.
[1:12:55] 
[1:12:55] but under florida law, which I
[1:12:57] s
[1:12:57] unique to several other states,
[1:13:01] 
[1:13:01] but as you all know well, land,
[1:13:04] 
[1:13:04] the use of land is largely
[1:13:06] regulated with a two tier
[1:13:10] process in the state with land
[1:13:11] 
[1:13:11] use planning and then zoning.
[1:13:14] so the comprehensive plan and
[1:13:15] land use planning, all of that
[1:13:19] 
[1:13:19] is the state law for whatever
[1:13:20] reason in the courts not
[1:13:23] statutory, has deemed that
[1:13:24] legislative.
[1:13:24] so it's that first instance of
[1:13:28] 
[1:13:28] decision making where your
[1:13:30] discretion is as broad as it c
[1:13:31] an
[1:13:31] be.
[1:13:31] land use planning is all
[1:13:34] legislative, even a land use
[1:13:36] change for a particular piece o
[1:13:38] f
[1:13:38] property.
[1:13:38] and even, and this is where it
[1:13:41] 
[1:13:41] gets confusing and why I'm
[1:13:42] telling you s because often the
[1:13:44] 
[1:13:44] land use change and the zoning
[1:13:46] 
[1:13:46] change will come together is
[1:13:50] staff will present them
[1:13:50] together.
[1:13:50] it's just a weird quirk in
[1:13:52] florida law that the land use
[1:13:54] portion is legislate fn,    iv
[1:13:56] e, but
[1:13:57] the zoning portion is always
[1:13:59] quasi-judicial.
[1:13:59] why that's tricky is you'll ge
[1:14:03] t,
[1:14:03] you know, seasoned engineers a
[1:14:07] nd
[1:14:07] other folks who might approach
[1:14:09] 
[1:14:09] you behind the scenes, outside
[1:14:11] 
[1:14:11] of the public meeting, and say
[1:14:13] ,
[1:14:13] oh, I want to talk to you about
[1:14:14] 
[1:14:14] this development.
[1:14:16] I'll only talk about the
[1:14:17] legislative portion.
[1:14:17] and they're kind of hard to,
[1:14:18] like, divorce that way because
[1:14:22] 
[1:14:22] it just, becomes kind of
[1:14:25] arbitrary like.
[1:14:26] so but they'll, you know,
[1:14:27] they'll couch it in those terms
[1:14:30] 
[1:14:30] that, we'll just talk about the
[1:14:31] 
[1:14:31] legislative portion so we can
[1:14:33] fully kind of try to convince
[1:14:34] you, and then we'll save the
[1:14:37] quasi-judicial portion for the
[1:14:38] 
[1:14:38] end.
[1:14:38] you know, at the hearing.
[1:14:41] anyways, my advice is always
[1:14:45] unless you are, you know, that's  a personal
[1:14:49] a personal decision -- I would
[1:14:50] 
[1:14:50] just counsel if it was me havin
[1:14:52] g
[1:14:52] ima eof those        any of tho
[1:14:56] se
[1:14:56] discussions because it's just
[1:14:57] hard to separate those.
[1:14:58] even planning had a hard time
[1:14:59] when they're giving
[1:15:00] presentations they'll give a
[1:15:01] detailed presentation in   for
[1:15:06] the
[1:15:06] land use portion to kick it off
[1:15:07] 
[1:15:07] and when the zoning comes up, w
[1:15:12] e
[1:15:12] already told you everything.
[1:15:13] sometimes it's a very
[1:15:14] abbreviated presentation, so
[1:15:15] that's just an example of how
[1:15:17] kind of interwoven those two
[1:15:20] proses are, and -- processes
[1:15:22] are, so yeah, you know, I would
[1:15:23] 
[1:15:23] tend to avoid any ex parte
[1:15:27] discussions and that might eve
[1:15:28] n
[1:15:28] include the legislative portion
[1:15:31] 
[1:15:31] for situations like that.
[1:15:33] the last bit of advice I could
[1:15:35] 
[1:15:35] give for quasi-judicial hearings
[1:15:39] 
[1:15:39] is so when you're making a
[1:15:41] decision, you generally I would
[1:15:43] 
[1:15:43] say have four options.
[1:15:45] anytime a dcomes before
[1:15:49] you.
[1:15:49] and fortunately, you know -- b
[1:15:50] ut
[1:15:50] we're going through a phase
[1:15:51] right n where there's just not
[1:15:52] 
[1:15:52] many controversial items for
[1:15:54] whatever reason.
[1:15:57] >> knock on wood sphwhoo don't
[1:15:58] 
[1:15:58] say it too loud.
[1:15:58] >> you guys need to get some
[1:16:00] controversy.
[1:16:00] but you know, it goes through
[1:16:07] waves and several years back we
[1:16:08] 
[1:16:08] had a ton of them that we were
[1:16:10] 
[1:16:10] dealing with.
[1:16:11] but and I just preface the
[1:16:14] comments because keep in mind
[1:16:16] when you have a decision that
[1:16:18] comes before you, it's importa
[1:16:19] nt
[1:16:19] to know especially if it's
[1:16:20] controversial but even for any
[1:16:22] 
[1:16:22] of them, there's four options
[1:16:24] you really have you can approve
[1:16:26] 
[1:16:26] it outright the way it was
[1:16:28] applied for.
[1:16:30] you can deny it outright; if t
[1:16:34] he
[1:16:34] competent substantial evidence
[1:16:36] 
[1:16:36] shows that the, that the corre
[1:16:39] ct
[1:16:39] law, the criteria you have to
[1:16:41] apply is not met.
[1:16:43] so if the evidence that was all
[1:16:44] 
[1:16:44] gathered shows that the
[1:16:45] criteria's not met then you can
[1:16:46] 
[1:16:46] deny it outright.
[1:16:48] so you can approve it outright,
[1:16:49] 
[1:16:49] you can deny it outright, you
[1:16:52] can, you can continue the
[1:16:53] meeting, that's one that
[1:16:54] sometimes is important to know
[1:16:56] 
[1:16:56] again that's why I was thinking
[1:16:56] 
[1:16:56] controversial.
[1:16:56] for controversial ones or ones
[1:16:59] 
[1:16:59] that get in the weeds at the
[1:17:02] hearing, so you know again
[1:17:07] hasn't happened here lately but
[1:17:08] 
[1:17:08] in past years, for really meaty
[1:17:12] 
[1:17:12] issue you might get a lawyer
[1:17:13] that shows up representing the
[1:17:14] 
[1:17:14] property owner or an adjacent
[1:17:16] property owner, that at the
[1:17:18] hearing just has like a mountain
[1:17:19] 
[1:17:19] of evidence to support their
[1:17:22] whatever their argument is.
[1:17:25] well, this, you know, the board
[1:17:27] 
[1:17:27] can't be expected to review all
[1:17:29] 
[1:17:29] that evidence of course that the
[1:17:30] 
[1:17:30] night to make it an informed
[1:17:32] decision, so there is an abili
[1:17:36] ty
[1:17:36] to continue the hearing to a
[1:17:39] future date to make sure that
[1:17:43] the hearing takes place
[1:17:45] thoroughly and fairly with due
[1:17:47] 
[1:17:47] process.
[1:17:47] there are limits to that.
[1:17:48] staff would help you, you know,
[1:17:50] 
[1:17:50] you can't just keep continuing
[1:17:51] a
[1:17:52] meeting and hearings to, you
[1:17:53] know, a delay tactic and stuff
[1:17:56] 
[1:17:56] like that.
[1:17:57] but nonetheless, continuation I
[1:17:58] s
[1:17:58] an option.
[1:17:58] I just want to point out.
[1:18:00] the last option is an approval
[1:18:02] 
[1:18:02] with conditions.
[1:18:03] which you know, I think that
[1:18:05] happens routinely.
[1:18:08] there's a practical matter of
[1:18:09] course this board relies heavi
[1:18:10] ly
[1:18:10] on staff who are the experts and
[1:18:14] 
[1:18:14] work day to day on this, so
[1:18:15] staff will really vet issues
[1:18:16] well and bring it to you, and
[1:18:18] make a recommendation that we
[1:18:20] recommend you approve this but
[1:18:21] 
[1:18:21] with these conditions and the
[1:18:23] conditions are only there to,
[1:18:29] because it's to get that
[1:18:30] application to the place where
[1:18:31] 
[1:18:31] it can be approved.
[1:18:32] so in other words, it was
[1:18:34] approvable and meets everythin
[1:18:35] g
[1:18:35] in the code and the
[1:18:37] comprehensive plan, except for
[1:18:38] 
[1:18:38] like these two or three things
[1:18:40] 
[1:18:40] that need to be done to fix thi
[1:18:41] s
[1:18:41] little area that was, you know,
[1:18:43] 
[1:18:43] eskew a      askew a little bit
[1:18:47] so
[1:18:47] that's when the recommendation
[1:18:47] 
[1:18:47] is approved with conditions and
[1:18:48] 
[1:18:48] you can do that to, certainly.
[1:18:51] 
[1:18:51] the reason I'm telling you all
[1:18:53] 
[1:18:53] this is because, and again thi
[1:18:56] s
[1:18:56] board doesn't do it, so you
[1:18:57] know, but if you on your own
[1:19:01] want to desire to make up
[1:19:02] conditions on the fly, you know
[1:19:04] 
[1:19:04] because you're like okay, thank
[1:19:04] 
[1:19:04] you, staff, for your
[1:19:05] recommendation, but I would like
[1:19:07] 
[1:19:07] to move to continue this, I
[1:19:09] mean, to approve this with the
[1:19:11] 
[1:19:11] condition that x yz.
[1:19:14] you just have to be very caref
[1:19:16] ul
[1:19:16] with those conditions because
[1:19:17] there's a whole body of case l
[1:19:19] aw
[1:19:19] that governs the limits of wha
[1:19:21] t
[1:19:21] you can do.
[1:19:22] and there is in the state of
[1:19:23] florida there's what's called a
[1:19:24] 
[1:19:24] dual rational nexus test that
[1:19:26] just says without boring you t
[1:19:28] oo
[1:19:28] much, the conditions that you
[1:19:30] want to impose have to be
[1:19:32] related to that, to the impacts
[1:19:34] 
[1:19:34] of that specific development.
[1:19:38] an example there is say
[1:19:39] traffic.
[1:19:39] if there's going to be a
[1:19:42] development on a street that's
[1:19:43] 
[1:19:43] already taxed, it's already
[1:19:46] pursuant to traffic engineering
[1:19:47] ,
[1:19:47] you know, out of the standards
[1:19:49] 
[1:19:49] of what it should be, well, you
[1:19:52] 
[1:19:52] can't condition that new
[1:19:54] development on fixing stuff tha
[1:19:58] t
[1:19:58] that development didn't cause.
[1:20:01] 
[1:20:01] so that's the first portion of
[1:20:05] 
[1:20:05] that condition decision tree s
[1:20:07] o
[1:20:07] to speak, is that whatever
[1:20:08] condition you want to impose h
[1:20:10] as
[1:20:10] to be related and caused by tha
[1:20:12] t
[1:20:12] specific development.
[1:20:14] nothing else.
[1:20:15] the second tier is that once
[1:20:19] that's the case then you can
[1:20:20] impose a condition but the
[1:20:21] condition has to in relationshi
[1:20:26] p
[1:20:26] to the specific issue that tha
[1:20:28] t
[1:20:28] development is causing.
[1:20:30] so in other words if they are
[1:20:31] causing an issue with traffic,
[1:20:35] 
[1:20:35] using that same example, and you
[1:20:37] 
[1:20:37] do want to make a condition that
[1:20:40] 
[1:20:40] is, is tailored to the impact
[1:20:41] that that development is
[1:20:42] causing, well then your  co
[1:20:45] condition to fix that can't be
[1:20:47] 
[1:20:47] so we want you to deed us over
[1:20:49] a
[1:20:49] five-acre public park, for
[1:20:51] instance.
[1:20:51] you know?
[1:20:52] urban cities do this, like the
[1:20:54] re
[1:20:54] is case law where, you know,
[1:20:55] like oh, you're causing a littl
[1:20:57] e
[1:20:57] bit of traffic.
[1:20:59] we're going to need 10 acres s
[1:21:01] o
[1:21:01] we can have a public park like
[1:21:02] 
[1:21:02] down, you know, down the
[1:21:03] street.
[1:21:03] so that's where you got to be
[1:21:06] careful with that second tier I
[1:21:07] s
[1:21:07] that your condition is related
[1:21:09] 
[1:21:09] to what they're doing.
[1:21:12] and so anyways, that is about a
[1:21:14] s
[1:21:14] brief as I can get you.
[1:21:15] any questions?
[1:21:16] >> [off mic]
[1:21:21] advisory on almost everything.
[1:21:22] 
[1:21:22] the only thing we're not
[1:21:23] advisory on is the special use
[1:21:25] 
[1:21:25] permits.
[1:21:25] and so when the special use
[1:21:29] permit has a list of god I thi
[1:21:31] nk
[1:21:31] it's up to 13 different
[1:21:35] criteria, so if you want decid
[1:21:37] e
[1:21:37] you want to deny a special use
[1:21:38] 
[1:21:38] permit, in your motion you nee
[1:21:41] d
[1:21:41] to specify what the grounds are
[1:21:44] 
[1:21:44] for doing that, and that gives
[1:21:47] 
[1:21:47] these guys if somebody wants t
[1:21:50] o
[1:21:50] sue us, it gives our attorneys
[1:21:53] 
[1:21:53] the ability to defend.
[1:21:55] >> that's true.
[1:21:58] wayerhauser was a big one the
[1:22:05] city did.
[1:22:05] it led to a lot of litigation
[1:22:08] but my office and staff did a
[1:22:09] good job of counseling the
[1:22:10] commission and having a bunch o
[1:22:11] f
[1:22:11] legitimate reasons for denial
[1:22:15] that led to success in
[1:22:17] litigation.
[1:22:17] but a lot of boards won't and
[1:22:20] they'll just deny and go rogue
[1:22:21] 
[1:22:21] and that's when cities lose
[1:22:23] those cases.
[1:22:25] so that's all I had to say.
[1:22:31] if there are any questions or
[1:22:32] any areas you want to touch on,
[1:22:33] 
[1:22:33] I'm happy to hear.
[1:22:34] >> I would volunteer if you're  going
[1:22:35] going to deny a special use
[1:22:37] permit based on incompatibility,
[1:22:39] 
[1:22:39] that's probably the weakest
[1:22:44] criteria when you take that to
[1:22:45] 
[1:22:45] court unless you can give some
[1:22:47] 
[1:22:47] specific reason why it is
[1:22:50] incompatible rather than a
[1:22:51] generic it's incompatible.
[1:22:54] incompatible doesn't have a
[1:22:57] strong definition.
[1:23:01] I don't like gas stations.
[1:23:02] I've heard somebody from this
[1:23:04] board say that a couple of yea
[1:23:06] rs
[1:23:06] ago.
[1:23:06] you just, you know, that's just
[1:23:10] 
[1:23:10] not going to work.
[1:23:12] >> people have rights to have
[1:23:13] gas stations and you may not
[1:23:14] like them, but you have to mee
[1:23:17] t
[1:23:17] the ordinance.
[1:23:18] >> yeah.
[1:23:22] quasi-judicial realm.
[1:23:24] beput it's legislative, we   I
[1:23:28] f
[1:23:28] you say I hate gas stations
[1:23:30] 
[1:23:30] stations and want to keep them
[1:23:31] 
[1:23:31] in the very corner of the city
[1:23:33] 
[1:23:33] you can make that recommendatio
[1:23:35] n
[1:23:35] to the city.
[1:23:36] okay, good luck.
[1:23:37] if you have any questions in th
[1:23:38] e
[1:23:38] future, just reach out.
[1:23:39] >> okay.
[1:23:41] >> bob, I bored bob like I
[1:23:44] said.
[1:23:44] I was trying not to.
[1:23:46] >> bob spoke more than anybody
[1:23:48] 
[1:23:48] else, so I think you didn't bor
[1:23:49] e
[1:23:49] him.
[1:23:49] >> only the tenth or 12th
[1:23:51] time.
[1:23:51] >> you guys should do it --
[1:23:53] >> it's always been you.
[1:23:53] >> it's always been me.
[1:23:55] >> yeah and it's always been
[1:23:56] me.
[1:23:56] [laughter]
[1:23:56] okay.
[1:23:56] >> all right,.
[1:24:01] >> well, thank you so much for
[1:24:02] ,
[1:24:02] for the refresher, and you know,
[1:24:05] 
[1:24:05] yeah.
[1:24:05] I wish I had known some of thi
[1:24:06] s
[1:24:06] stuff like years ago when I was
[1:24:08] 
[1:24:08] really screwing up as opposed t
[1:24:10] o
[1:24:10] now where I'm only sometimes
[1:24:12] kind of.
[1:24:15] but very helpful.
[1:24:16] okay.
[1:24:16] we're moving onto member
[1:24:19] comment, of which I have a
[1:24:21] member comment.
[1:24:23] I did want to talk adjust
[1:24:25] briefly about our last meeting
[1:24:28] 
[1:24:28] because there was some after
[1:24:32] meeting e-mails and after
[1:24:33] meeting discussions, and so I
[1:24:35] don't know about the board but
[1:24:36] 
[1:24:36] from other people, it's just a
[1:24:48] 
[1:24:48] reminder we should treat each
[1:24:49] other with grace, we should
[1:24:50] treat each other with respect.
[1:24:51] 
[1:24:51] we all have passion which is w
[1:24:54] hy
[1:24:54] year here.
[1:24:54] sometimes that passion leads u
[1:24:55] s
[1:24:55] to -- it can boil over a bit a
[1:24:57] nd
[1:24:57] lead us to kind of butt heads,
[1:24:59] 
[1:24:59] and I think respectful
[1:25:00] disagreement is okay.
[1:25:04] I think we also should remembe
[1:25:05] 
[1:25:05] to respect the people that com
[1:25:08] e
[1:25:08] before us.
[1:25:10] it takes -- to come up and spe
[1:25:13] ak
[1:25:13] in public so make sure that
[1:25:14] anybody that comes before us, w
[1:25:15] e
[1:25:15] afford them respect and then
[1:25:16] also just remember that what
[1:25:18] we're dealing with is people's
[1:25:20] 
[1:25:20] homes, people's businesses,
[1:25:23] their churches, their
[1:25:24] communities, their
[1:25:26] neighborhoods, and so when we'
[1:25:29] re
[1:25:29] also speaking to people about
[1:25:30] these issues and speaking about
[1:25:33] 
[1:25:33] the issues in particular, to
[1:25:36] afford those issues the respect
[1:25:37] 
[1:25:37] they deserve as well because
[1:25:38] everything that comes before t
[1:25:41] he
[1:25:41] board matters to somebody,.
[1:25:43] if if did   didn't matter to
[1:25:48] anybody, it wouldn't be before
[1:25:49] 
[1:25:49] us.
[1:25:49] just a reminder to everybody.
[1:25:50] generally I think we do a good
[1:25:51] 
[1:25:51] job of this, but just in gener
[1:25:53] al
[1:25:53] reminder to do that.
[1:25:54] and then of course with us, you
[1:25:56] 
[1:25:56] know, on the board, if you hav
[1:25:58] e
[1:25:58] something you want to say, jus
[1:25:59] t
[1:25:59] hit the button.
[1:26:01] that stupid little button will
[1:26:03] 
[1:26:03] light up in front of me and the
[1:26:04] n
[1:26:04] I'll at some point remember to
[1:26:05] 
[1:26:05] hit it, and then you'll be abl
[1:26:07] e
[1:26:07] to speak.
[1:26:09] and so you know that'll be you
[1:26:11] r
[1:26:11] time to speak and if somebody
[1:26:13] wants to jump in because they
[1:26:14] disagree, just hit your button.
[1:26:17] 
[1:26:17] I will hit the button and once
[1:26:18] 
[1:26:18] they are done making their poi
[1:26:19] nt
[1:26:19] you can jump in and say whatever
[1:26:20] 
[1:26:20] you want to say to rebut them o
[1:26:22] r
[1:26:22] you know, I don't know.
[1:26:24] but please do it respectfully.
[1:26:26] 
[1:26:26] and the last thing, which is
[1:26:28] ironic because I'm kind of
[1:26:29] grandstanding right now is jus
[1:26:30] t
[1:26:30] we all do it from time to time,
[1:26:32] 
[1:26:32] we're all very passionate, we
[1:26:34] should try to keep that to a
[1:26:36] minimum and try to keep focused
[1:26:37] 
[1:26:37] on the agenda at hand and work
[1:26:39] 
[1:26:39] at hand.
[1:26:39] these meetings run pretty long
[1:26:41] 
[1:26:41] sometimes.
[1:26:41] I'm extending it right now to
[1:26:43] say this, so I know I'm aware o
[1:26:45] f
[1:26:45] that.
[1:26:45] all right.
[1:26:47] that's my piece.
[1:26:47] that's my member comment.
[1:26:48] if anybody else has any member
[1:26:49] 
[1:26:49] comments, now's the time.
[1:26:54] and seeing none, I'm going to
[1:26:56] end this meeting.
[1:26:57] the next meeting of the plan  bo
[1:26:57] board, september 24th, 2026.
[1:27:00] with that, this one's