##VIDEO ID:AKQE9J_Bqio## [Music] a [Music] [Applause] [Music] the August 14 2024 meeting of the local planning agency of the city of denen will now come to order the local planning agency is an Advisory Board of citizens appointed by the city commission this board is comprised of volunteers who represent the thoughts and concerns of the community the purpose of tonight's meeting is to make recommendations to the city commission regarding each item on the agenda anyone in the audience who wishes to give testimony to any items on the agenda will need to be sworn in by the deputy city clerk the swearing in process will occur after tonight's first agenda item which which will be approval of the minutes of the last local planning agency that was a good meeting citizens citizens speaking on an agenda item or during citizen comment shall not engage in loud boisterous and or disruptive speech or conduct any speaker that has continued any speaker that has continued inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be requested to relinquish the podium by the chair Please be aware that the local planning agency is not a quasi judicial board and therefore has no no final decisionmaking power our procedures however are structured in a quasi judicial manner for the benefit of those who come before it tonight's format will be as follows I will introduce each item on the agenda after which the city representative will present information about it the thereafter the members of the local planning agency will ask questions of the city representative finally any one from the public may come forward those from the public wishing to give testimony will approach the deis state their name and address and then utilize the speaker Lector in order for their comments to be recorded individual speakers will be limited to 3 minutes of speaking time and we kindly request that speak speakers are respectful of the countdown clock upon conclusion of each public hearing the local planning agency will consider the evidence before it and will vote on the agenda item that Voice vote is the rendition of the order of the board and there will be no written decision issued by the board the first item on the agenda is to approve the June 12th and July 29th 2024 LPA minutes are there any corrections additions or deletions to the minutes no hearing none do I hear a motion to accept the minutes so moved can I get a second second thank you all in favor I all opposed the eyes have it the clerk will now swear in all persons wish wishing to speak or give testimony to any of tonight's agenda items do we have to do the you've got one more set of minutes to approve LPA the special meeting of July 29th our special meeting well didn't I mention the 29th right oh he did June 12th and July 29th oh okay you're thank you very much to thre them all together am I losing it today I've lost it before all right so the clerk will now swear on all persons stand ra your right you SAR the testimony you're about to give in this truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you the second item on our agenda tonight is application Dr 24-4 has anyone had any experte Communications regarding this application I'm thank you hearing none we will hear from our city representative thank you Mr chair uh George Kenny and Joseph depasco on behalf of the Community Development Department uh thank you for allowing us the opportunity to present this this evening to you and your and your colleagues um this is a design review request number 24-4 it is design review approval request for a new single family residence known as the Wilkerson residents at 125 Edgewater Drive the owner is lb W WCW LLC and the representatives are Clifford M Schultz and Daniel schaer um you can see from the aerial that's provided in this first Slide the property in question uh it had does have an overall area of 1.13 Acres or roughly 49259 Square ft uh it is uh comprised of several different flood zone categories um however where the uh residen is proposed would be outside of any flood plan areas and in what we call Zone X the land use for the property is residential Urban and Recreation open space the zoning district is single family r60 and the existing use of the site is currently vacant from a property history perspective uh the home and the out buildings that previously occupied the site were demolished earlier this year so the property is currently vacant um to the right uh of this particular slide you can see the survey of the property showing the buildings and below is actually a Google image of the home that was there prior to demolition the project description uh through the representatives the owners again are requesting design review approval to construct a new single family home um what is kind of unique and I think to probably the first time the board has seen one of these properties in a design review form because it is a pro a property that is in the South dunen overlay and as part of those provisions of the South dunen overlay there is a requirement that no new construction can exceed 60 ft in width and since this is an ask for 77.6 7 ft that's the reason that the applicant's here today to uh talk about the new new home and its position with within that overlie uh very quickly just the land use plan evaluation pretty consistent what you would with what we see down in that particular area it's the residential Urban category and of course it would permit residential uses from a zoning District perspective again consistent throughout the area it's zoning is uh single family residential R 60 uh maximum residential density uh in the ru is 7 and a half dwelling units oh I'm sorry I backed up is U from a uh density standpoint 7 and a half is permitted under the ru from a zoning standpoint um it is also consistent and permissible for single family residents to be located in this particular district and the next slide then is just an evaluation of the dimensional standards for the r60 category um you can see on the left all of those dimensional standards from lot area lot width lot depth number of stories Building height front setback side setback and rear setback uh this particular proposal does meet or exceed all of those standards as you can see uh U uh the conformance on the right hand side of the slide for each of those categories um just very quickly then getting back to the South Den Eden character overlay um because the property is located within that overlay there are additional standards that apply and that's what this chart's intended to show you um you may all you all probably recall the discussion on adopting the daylight plane uh some additional building design standards and architectural style so this chart kind of outlays uh this proposal against those particular standards um they do meet the height and daylight plane requirements of the South overlay from a building design standpoint the building orientation comports with the overlay uh the garage and carport placement is consistent with what the overlay requires and the building elevation is consistent where the reason we are actually here is again for that building width which is uh not to exceed 60 ft unless you enter into the design review process uh and they are also compliant with the architectural style I'm going to at this point so one of the things we wanted to do as we worked uh uh through this analysis was we wanted to uh make sure when we're talking about design review approval and exceeding that 60 ft in withd that we're we're permitting or we're recommending something that's consistent with that neighborhood from a compatibility standpoint and that's what I'm going to ask Joey to kind of walk through what our compatibility analysis was and what our methodology was and I'm sure you're going to have questions after that but I I kind of want to turn it over to him at this point to talk to you about how we arrived at the recommendation we arrived at uh thank you George um so as you can see here on the on the um the slide that that's sort of a a summary of it but if I could I'd like to just back up for a minute and explain to you what our compatibility analysis invol involves in this particular case of course under design review we follow objective 2.9 in our future land use element and so you're looking at physical compatibility of the proposed development or Redevelopment with the surrounding environment ments and some of the things you're looking for are height architectural features of the existing structures historic aspects of the existing structures natural features that are existing existing land uses existing residential densities and economically related uses and so what I will tell you is as George mentioned when you look overall at the uh previous evaluations we did both with the overlay district and with the zoning dimensional you essentially have height compatibility this is a single story structure um the use itself as George mentions it's it's single family that's what our land use is and that's what you have predominantly in the area single family there are some some two family but it's all residential and so then and then and of course they've already selected one of the approved architectural style and they've met all the dimensional standards so what we really are focusing on is what when you look at that exercise of compatibility with regard to building with how does that fit in with the consistent theme of building with through throughout that area and we look when we look at compatibility we look at the immediately surrounding area that's how we do it as you know when we do any kind of design review so with that being said um we did examine uh 30 34 properties of which 33 of them I had buildings on and one being vacant and consistent with the way the code is intended you are you're when you're looking at building with the way our code reads this is the primary structure so it's not a cumulative of multiple buildings on the property how they uh would add up so to speak this is the primary structure and what I will tell you is we did confirm that with the city attorney uh City attorney's office that that is the intent of the code so with that we did examine uh those 30 uh 33 properties immediately surrounding both North and South you'll notice we went about 11 lots to the north 11 lots to the South and wrapped around the structure that is the surrounding environment both built and then one vacant and what we what we determined out of those is 10 of those buildings are greater than 60 ft in width I'll I'll also share with you and just for the record although it's this all of this is in the Staffing we use the uh building diagrams from the property appraisers to determine building width because each building there's a footprint and so it's not hard to calculate the linear length of a building of all existing buildings so instead of trying to use a Google Street View and trying to measure things on the Fly we simply use the footprints from the property appraisers records and using that methodology 10 buildings are greater than 60 ft in width with the largest being 109 ft in width uh 23 buildings are less than 60 ft in width with the smallest being 29 ft in width the average building width when you take all 33 of those structures is about 53 ft and the previous home that occupied this site was 63 ft in width uh going a little further you have five properties including the subject property are larger than one acre uh with an average lot width of 18 ft so you've got a handful of properties that are both large in area and quite wide and you um and buildings on those properties average about 74 ft in width or approximately 63% of the lot width is what we're talking about is lot width to building ratio here how much massing do you have on the width of the lot it's really just an exercise in that mathematical um an exercise in math uh 28 properties are less than one acre with an average lot width of 80 feet and buildings on those properties that are less than one acre average 49 ft in width or about 61% of the lot width so you got you've got about um you got 63% lot width on the larger lots and about 61% on the large on the smaller Lots uh buildings on properties uh excuse me so then to take it a step further because depth because area can be derived from a lot of these very deep Lots we're we're focusing on lot width as well as building width and that ratio so we then moved into the fold all lots that are at least 100 feet wide The Wider Lots there's nine of those and that are greater than 100 fet in width with an average lot width when you average those nine of 114 fet and buildings on those nine Lots average 73 ft in width or approximately 64% of the average lot width so when you apply those guiding principles to the sub property which is larger than an acre and larger than 100 ft 102 ft wide and you use the average between the large lots of 63 to 64% you end up with a an average building with on this lot using that ratio of 64.3 ft to 65.3 Ft and you average those 64.8 ft that's taking the nine largest lots and using those as your best comparison of lot width to building width ratio and we've just simply said rounding this 64 uh 8 ft to 65 ft so that's the methodology behind uh why the recommendation is that given the width of this lot given the surrounding built environment and the lot to width ratio for those larger Lots with generally larger buildings on it that's how staff arrived at the recommendation of 65 ft question what was the reason for the 60 foot limitation in the first place um yeah so I think it was um there was a desire at the time there was a lot of conversation about uh limiting the masses front um and making sure there was some architectural style and that's kind of the reason for the the rear yard garage placement but it was more about just minimizing the massing and trying to uh minimize the the larger Frontage homes that appear at least that and when was that when was it yeah no it was two it was two it was before I left two years ago so but you're recommending that we ignore that and several have ignored it so so no the no the so the design review piece of this is not intended to um limit what an OP to do it's just meant to get it into a public environment for for for a review okay so it it's not to say that 65 is bad it's not to say that what they're proposing 75 or 77 is bad it's just it's the idea was to that there needed to be more public scrutiny for homes that started to to to evolve to a state where it appeared there was more massing okay well if I can also say something it was indirect that the lot that the structure should fit the lot size so you don't so you didn't take one piece of property and totally build it out and that was the heart and soul of that ordinance and to add on that that's a great Point uh Miss KES and to add on to that I think there was a concern about aggregating Lots as well and if you could aggregate Lots you could continue to get wider and wider and wider so the idea was even if you aggregate lots that 60 foot then D brings you back into the to the idea and then the method methodology that Joey just explained hits exactly on that is now we need to look at that character of the area and what is that Mass against the frontage WID and that's where we deriv the percentage so by looking at all those lots what we arrived at was if you basically take all of those homes in there about 60 about 65 ft for the Lots over an acre or 100 feet in width that's what you're seeing out there and that's your recommendation so we'll get to that but yes that's going to that's ultimately our recommendation can can I see some of the the you you gave us all these you know you show all the houses on Edgewater could I see those pictures please so I don't know if I have that in the PowerPoint it should be in your Staffing no I know I we read it but um one I mean I'll just move to strike it because 505 should not have been included in those calculations strike 505 right that's the larger one that was yeah that's just for the record that that the analysis that was used for the recommendation was the 33 homes you saw on exhibit D which stopped at Florida did not it did not go north of Florida but I I think it would have been interesting if you could have shown them what we we saw see we got to see those and you presented them to us all those photographs of here's all these houses but they can't see it because you well the audience right the public here public because our staffing did not include any any photographs that might have been the all I saw every photograph there was 505 I mean you went right down the line that that might present it's their documents it's your document I'll move to strike 505 gladly yeah just for the record the for the purpose of the staff report now we did we did look at the properties North we did take a look at those but for the prop for the purpose of compatibility analysis it is the surrounding area and frankly north of Florida Avenue is no longer a surrounding area really for the purpose and that's how we've consistently looked at compatibility with regard to designer view whether it's this project so you just looked at Florida to Orange Wood we is that what you're telling me from Florida North the corner of Florida and Edgewater down to Union Street okay and then everything along there and then wrapping around the property as well which I believe is orange and citrus if I remember correctly okay okay I've got a question um so you said your recommendation is about 65% of the width of the the lot correct 64 64.8 I think it was wasn't it rounded up to 65 64% the number came out to 64.8 okay gotcha so if I take the 77. 67t width of this design divided by the 102 I get about 76% which is a pretty significant deviation from the goal correct you said of the nine lots that are greater than 100 ft the average width was 73 ft so in getting that average how many of those properties were approaching maybe that 76 70 to 76% width of property 70 cuz there must be some that are that are wider than the 64% to get to that average but not F you cannot take into consideration 505 because it was built before they had already pulled the permit and it was built before the ordinance came into play it is built property line to property line you can look at it right well let them answer his question yeah sorry yeah I've already made a mental not don't count 505 the so what I what I can tell you I'm just looking at the table that was the spreadsheet that was was used to prepare this so it it we do have um a number of building the average again is 64 you do have um the low being 50% the high being 91% okay so again you you've got you got I'll just give you the numbers of the nine properties 63% 48% 91% 39% 80% 62% 73% 50% and 73% okay so when you when you so four properties are roughly this same percentage width of the property okay okay are there other questions of the St staff so we have a couple more slides Dr B it's okay uh so we'll just and I'll walk through these quickly um I do want to get to the recommendation as well uh design standards you've seen this uh several times as we bring design applications through these are the these are the tests that are required as part of the application process obviously they're a little bit uh they're somewhat mitigated because this is a single family residence versus a large commercial project or a large residential project however they have they have complied with each of those res those design review standards uh the development Review Committee did hear this request on May 15th of 2024 all of their comments and items have been addressed or are addressed as part of the recommendations of approval and the architecture Review Committee also solved the project uh and recommended to the um LPA on June 4 2024 a formal review took place on July 2 of 24 with The Arc unanimously approving the design of the design of the project and then finally our staff determination so uh kind of getting back to that methodology and all those things we spoke at spoke about uh staff is uh recommending design review 2404 uh for consideration subject to the following conditions uh that the new single family residence not exceed 65 ft in width at the front setback line for physical compatibility with existing buildings and surrounding areas and I would just add the home that came out of there was 63 so it it was not lost on us that that's kind of where that landed you know in as part of the review uh number two the applicant developer is responsible for meeting the minimum criteria of the Land Development code for acquiring all our jurisdictional permit approvals three construction plans shall be consistent with the approved design review plans and drawings and four design review approval shall expire in 12 months from the date of City commission design review approval unless the applicant obtains building permits and those are fairly standard conditions so with that uh that concludes the presentation and we're happy to answer any additional questions the board might have I have one what is um the H how many feet is it from the property you know from the right of way to the front of this building the house2 yeah they're set back a a considerable distance so it's 102 and which is yes I think that's correct okay and part of that is it it puts the building outside of the 100-year flood plan excuse me roughly 110 110 even better okay so I just want to clarify so your recommendation is they meet all the criteria but it should be redesigned to fit 65 ft instead of the 77.6 we're recommending not to exceed 65 ft okay okay other questions so Mr Schultz and Mr Schaffer you want to make your presentation please good evening David Brandon branding Construction general contractor on the project um I'll have some opening marks and then I'll turn it over to our architect Cliff Schultz for some further detail and um some good questions that you all have so our clients are from out of state desire to move here they've sold their business their kids have gone off to school and they want to become full-time Florida residents they literally traveled every County all 67 counties in the State of Florida settled on pelis drilled down to dunon and they drove all around the city probably seen every house in the city of dun Eden very sensitive to the architectural requirements that the city has and trying to you know kind of protect the charm that's in that District which is why they settled on the cottage style architecture and they also desired to keep it one story it's a lot easier to meet these narrow requirements if we go multi stories but not when you have a single story home as they mentioned from staff it's a significant lot over an acre um so you know the the massing of the existing home I would respectfully disagree with the interpretation of staff was 82 ft if you stand on the edge water and you can see north to south corner it was 82 ft there was four structures on that site that we tore down that 82 ft is measured corner to corner because those overlapped and it would have been one structure if we just put a roof just a connected walkway to one of those out structures then that's one structure so it's kind of semantics to say it was 64 ft wide it was 82 ft as your eye sees it from Edgewater what we're proposing is 778 in um on the front setback I I Believe Miss K you asked the question is a great question because it's in my notes we're we're 4.48 times the required front setback 110 plus feet back so it we significantly back off of Edgewater and we're five times the rear setb so it's very diminutive relative to the overall gross area of the site um on the on the comparison the analysis that staff used they they turned the corner and they went in some back streets there's lots over there that are 50 ft wide I I think this is a this is an Edgewater question this is kind of the the main thoroughfare through the city on the waterfront so if we we took just the the homes on Edgewater there's 23 homes that are over 60 ft wide there's 21 others that are that are 60 fet or less and that includes Fenway couple of churches in the vacant Lots so we didn't count Fenway as an over 60 but that's that would make it 24 out of the 44 total properties um and we'll show you that you know we've we've got a a a good good charming architecture which is not overpowering to this lot when The Architects come up and make their presentation and just a kind of a note on the the structure we tore down the structure is four structures uh but we had actually had a discussion early on could you even renovate this house economically it was just not feasible there was so many code bust and it had been just added on to bastardized Through The Years there was no cohesion in architecture whatso ever the structure was grossly insignificant nowhere's near the code floors out of level settlement termites rats roaches all over the place mold infested asbestos we had to do an asbestos abatement on the home when we tore it down it was a mess I mean when we dropped that structure rats were flying through the air and I've been doing this 41 years I've torn down a lot of buildings I've never seen that we get your point so with that I'm going to turn it over so you can see the the charm of the architecture to Cliff Schultz with Cliff Schultz architecture thank you thank you good evening I'm Cliff scholes with cmsa Architects out of Sarasota Florida I appreciate the opportunity to present our proposal and um I just want to give you a little background on myself a little bit I've been a registered arch in state of Florida for 40 3 years uh we do 70% Customs single family homes about 30% Light commercial um the owners came to us Chad and Lindsay Wilkerson and they had a few requests for us to do and part of it was they wanted a one-story house they saw some of the two-story and three-story residences and other buildings uh along Edgewater and uh they said we we don't want to do that that's too overpowering for us uh they do have a big family uh so uh they also uh wanted it in a Craftsman cottage style uh and get it back from Edgewater as far as practical which was I think 2 feet uh the uh and part of that was to reflect the quaint appeal of Don Eden which is the way they put it to us uh the other thing was they wanted privacy for their pool and thus ends up the uh width issue the pool is actually surrounded by two parts of the house and in order to make that work with a decent sized pool that's where we ended up at 77' 8 in um the it is in multiple flood zones uh kind of worked out where they wanted it far back and we were able to get into an X zone which currently is probably a good thing uh but I do differ with staff on the width of the quote primary residence that was demolished um you know the existing residents that were demolished were four structures which the out toout width distance from north to south was 81 ft 5 in this is our assessment opposed to staff that's saying it's 63 ft wide um apparently staff mentioned to me that the this was a ruling from the city attorney that only the one section of the building which was furthest towards Edgewater was the only primary part of this multiple structures I disagree with that the existing primary structures outf front there was a twostory residences we think uh there were multiple doors on both levels there was no vertical connection between the two floors it leads me to believe that actually there were three hous is on this property one the ground floor the Upper Floor and then the front uh building as well uh I don't know why that two-story structure shouldn't be counted in width of the existing structures because it's just as much of a primary part of the structure as the front part so that's that's where I differ the so we're going from 81t 5 in to 77t 8 in and that was a very uh determined thing that we wanted to stay under um we've gone through the design Review Committee had some very positive input from them which we took to heart and changed part of the design we also went through the arc twice and we were unanimously approved by them um as David had mentioned when we first assessed what was happening on Edgewater we did do 44 residences we did not turn up orange wood or go on to Citrus those properties are are a lot of them are just 60 ft wide and they're severely smaller than our subject property so I don't know how that would apply to those the 60t max how does that apply to a piece of property that's 60 ft wide it's you know you're you're going to be bound by the side setbacks not the 60t mark so I don't see how those can be used in comparison for the rest of the properties along Edgewater we did have 23 over 60 ft along Edge Water including the demo structure that was at 815 we had 21 others which were made up of uh uh 60 ft or less there was 14 of those those four vacant Lots two churches Fenway and our property itself so I think our analysis of what was existing is a little bit more accurate with regard to what is the visual going to be when you're driving or walking or riding your bike down Edgewater I don't see where going around the corner has any relationship to our property um this staff's report indicates that it's consistent with codee's intent and their in evaluation of a reasonable width of 65 ft I believe is based on opinion uh there's nothing in the codes that I see uh with regard to any kind of percentages it's all about 60 ft wide which honestly uh you have a wonderful City here I think it should be changed I think it should be a relationship you could have property 0 to 50 ft certain width certain setbacks 50 to 100 100 to 200 and over 200 you know probably have to review individually so I think the 60t width is inappropriate uh you're going to get you're going to get a lot of issues around some of the smaller properties where they're going to max out everything they can only to the side setbacks not to any pre-ordained uh percent AG I believe that concludes my presentation thank you other questions I just wanted to ask you now you're you're the speaking to you m you're the architect correct so you're not an attorney correct no okay thank you do I look like one okay okay so I think the fundamental question is city code we're okay with 65 your belief is from the frontal view this will be the former property was 82 so this will if you're on the sidewalk looking at it this isn't going to be even as big as what was there before now from the visuals perspective correct and one story less too okay yes got it okay so George question for you um because of all the work that went into that overlap district and that was a contentious topic if we make an exception here are we setting a precedent that could compound future development in other Lots in that overlay district and secondly because the unique this is a huge lot because it's so deep are we limiting ourselves by just looking at the frontal width and not looking at the percentage of the lot that the structure is actually taking up because there's an awful lot of green space left because of the length of lot any thoughts on those two points um regarding your the first part are we setting a precedent I don't I don't I don't believe so and I I say that because getting you getting people into this process kind of suggests that it's it's a unique situation and the merits kind of lay in each particular case so I don't necessarily believe there's a precedent set um the second part again was um the collective versus the so that we believe when we look at compatibility and we have consistently applied this particular standard from C compatibility generally that um you have to look at the surrounding area so some of those homes behind orange yes are a little bit smaller but as we see from the analysis the the width to lot ratio is still the same and in fact we actually kind of back office took a look at their product and what they where they did not include that and went up the road a little bit farther on Edgewater and that actually works to their disadvantage under our analysis it would it would require a lesser structure a lesser size structure so when we're looking at just the frontages we had that same question we decided to talk to the City attorney since this is the first one kind of coming out of this and it was it was our opinion that we need to look at the primary if if there's secondary buildings that create a view Ambiance we understand that but this is the focus is on the primary building those secondary buildings can come and go out buildings can come and go that primary building is really the focus and we believe that was the intent as we work through that South overlay process was to focus on those primary buildings and make sure they were not uh overly developed in the front and and part of that is that you know part of that masing in the front was not only that but then to offset the garage which they have done right that 5ot back so that we don't create a flat plain surface either right so there's a lot of design considerations I think that went into it okay I'm just thinking the um you know Edgewater is obviously a prime location for the city of denen so this is where our top properties are probably going to be and you've got a unique set of lot sizes there and the only alternative and looking at the structure of the house would have to skinny it up but it's just getting really long and deep and just from a livability standpoint that might not be as desirable and so right so I'm thinking if this isn't going to really set a precedent or that create other problems on those smaller Lots in that area how do you feel about it is this we we've provided you our recommendation that's that's where we're at if if certainly it's the board's prerogative with that kind of information to to to recommend what you think's appropriate to to the commission okay yes um Mr microphone oh I'm sorry oh microphone um you know I should I I don't think I have any kind of conflict I mean I live on edge water drive but this is not the final decision but I'm asking the attorney to clear me or whatever no conflict from living there okay thank you I I just wanted to put always good to check yeah thank you so George when the the district was was being created um was Edgewater Drive taken into consideration kind of separately you know based on the size of the Lots in the the rest of the overlay was that ever looked at different or the same kind of question with lots greater than an acre I I don't think there was that much I I don't recall to be honest with you it was two years ago at this point but it I don't believe we we got that in the weeds I think it was more about being you know collectively compatible within the district and I think you know CR frankly the daylight plane was kind of the hot topic of the bunch but but massing I and I honestly think going back I I I think one of the real reasons was you know if somebody has multiple Lots side by side and they're collectively acquiring those lots to make sure that we don't have somebody that gets four lots that provides 200t of Frontage and then we have 100 foot wide height you know that kind of thing um so that Paul I mean I I I can't remember if there was any specific discussion to it I don't recall any of it though okay um I got a couple more questions but one is I'm not familiar with the term daylight plane can you explain that please so the daylight plane they they they comply with the daylight plane the daylight plane is a uh provision where you're limiting the massing towards the property lines so it it creates an interior setback that you rise from and then and then T2 and you can't penetrate that plane with it with new construction so your construction your new construction has to kind of focus more towards the center of a knot versus impinging on your your side your side yard neighbors okay and and what did how how how did this one fit into does it comply with that it fits yes it complies with that fits with it it actually fits with every piece of the south over L except for the building L okay and then and um I guess the other question I had is for like Corner lots and things where you might have a a front door on edge water but you theic corner I know um but I went and drove it I went and drove edge water today um on the way here just to to look at once again compatibility and and some the things I did notice there was some very long homes and I didn't stop to look to see where the front door was if it was on uh was it President Street or or one of those streets there that was a nice long one it might have been kind of skinny facing Edgewater but it was kind of long on um and if you know somebody's that's somebody's house here I apologize but uh but the you know the lot was very uh I guess very deep and so you ended up with a a very wide home so depending I guess on where the frontage is I guess that would make a difference in this right so if you're once again just corn lot but trying to match everything up with size width and length yeah there's there's some building orientation Provisions in the South overlay as well so how you Orient the street that that front-facing piece is where we're measuring that 60 ft thank you may I add a couple of things I don't want to speak out of turn but yeah I've got one more thing go ahead go ahead make your comments first well two things uh one with the daylight plane just information it started in Naples Florida and the reason why it was because Naples the city has a lot of smaller Lots you know right in the city and what was happening developers were coming in building setback to setback going up to three floors and they're actually putting adjacent properties in shade so that's why it was called the daylight plane which I think is a great thing uh a good designer shouldn't have an issue with it uh the other thing is this the uh distance of measuring 60 feet in the quote primary which I'm hearing is the most frontal uh structure that can be a problem because if that's going to be the uh way it's measured then I can have a 60ft wide part of a house and then it goes back and can go all the way to the setbacks so you're going to defeat what you're trying to do I think so that's just information Charlie looking at the drawings it looks like it is not centered on the property it favors one side or the other what are the two measurements on either side 13 ft I think 13 and 1/2 ft on one side and then 7 and2 on the other on the North side 7 1/2 which is a setback and on the south side it's 13 1/2 ft thank you quick question so uh the architecture Review Committee did approve this what was the other committee the design Review Committee design review and architecture have both approved I'm sorry development Review Committee yeah okay well uh so the development Review Committee doesn't make a recommendation okay that's that's internal review basically the arc makes a recommendation only on architecture okay not on the code and fit to the lot or anything okay Dennis you have anything super thank you thank you we are now open for public input is there anybody from the public who wants to share about this issue all right then are we ready for a motion looks like it um well you may not accept my motion but um I'm I'm going with staff's recommendation at 65 ft which is also the recommendation of our attorney um I do want to say I think the architecture is gorgeous it is truly spectacular um I love the 110 ft setback wonderful I also know you were also looking at the flood planes and getting around that but I love the setback but you know 77 is just out of whack and I know Edgewater Drive 45 years so you know saying all that I I moved staff's recommendation which was also based on our attorney's uh landu law interpretation on the 60 ft but we're giving 65 because of the calculations that were done so that's my so you're moving to accept the recommendation is that correct correct is there a second second thank you all in favor I I I all oppose I so I think we need a count so how many said I I on on approval approval should should we do it as a roll call vote Joan say and what you recommending I'm asking Joan to do it as a roll call so she'll call each one of you and you'll each indicate what you voted Mr Alpa I Mr Flatley I Mr Benjamin nay Dr Broom I miss Kines I Mr stanik thank you so I think we had three four 42 42 424 correct 42 so the motion has passed thank you very much can I ask one point if it's quick it will um so if we designed a 65 ft does that mean we're going to have to go through DRC Arc and all this again that'd be a question for City staff I mean I would say if there's no substantial changes that we would bring it right back to you guys right and we're just recomending something to the if it doesn't go to two floors or if it doesn't you know what it depends what the changes would be have to go okay then it would have then it would be full design review again M right and our recommend what we're doing is simply a recomend to the City Commissioner they might make a different decision okay um I understand this correctly so if we come back 65 and it's two stories the substantial design change we're going to go through the whole thing again sir sir I'm going to suggest that you talk with them about that later okay all right thank you thank you all right moving right along Land Development code update kickoff meeting with the LPA okay I think we're all settled again hi hello I'm Kathy gader I'm with the Community Development Department and the project manager of the Land Development code update uh thank you chair thank you LPA members for having us um I'm really excited tonight to present our kickoff for the Land Development code update it's a two-year project um and the purpose of updating the code is uh to improve inconsistency throughout the land development code resolve conflicting language and enhance readability of the Land Development code while improving user friendliness with the new encode plus software platform um so it won't be mun code anymore it will be encode it's customer and user friendly and it's an online platform it will be really easy to use um the purpose of tonight's presentation is to um give you an overview of the Land Development code update as well as present to you your role in this twoyear project so we would like to present to you as an advisory committee to the Land Development code so you'll be really int really really involved in the Land Development code update so you're going to be our primary go-to advisory committee for this update so we're going to rely on you heavily because you know the code you use it all the time and and we see that so thank you for that um I would like to introduce to you um our main Consultants tonight um we have Steve seore and Rachel Booth from Kenney ke and they'll say they'll introduce more of themselves in a minute um behind me I have uh Stephanie McQueen she's with hgr and um she would like to say a few words so after that then um they'll say a few words and then they'll go on with their presentation thank you thank you thank you Kathy um just a brief introduction to myself again my name is Stephanie McQueen I'm with HDR we are one of the consulting firms who will be working on the Land Development code update and a brief summary of myself I'm a land use and transportation planner based in Tampa uh HDR is a engineering and Architecture Firm that has done work for the city before myself um I actually personally worked on the form based code for the Causeway Boulevard so I've worked in den and I've worked in pellis county and looking forward to the next couple years working with you guys thank you thank you and welcome and so the rest of the time I just want to say thank you for welcoming uh us to your community um as a child I came here can you hear me okay yeah as a child I came to this area quite a bit um so it's nice to be back and and and and experiencing it as as an adult as a planner so um but I'm Steve seore with K keis collaborative um I'm in the Louisville Kentucky office and I'm joined by Rachel Rachel Booth who is actually here in the in the Clearwater office and so we will be leading the the project from our side but working with with Stephanie and Andrea ostraka who's with um tool Design Group so kind of give you an idea of the structure of this so we're kinda keist and our sister company's in code plus that Kathy mentioned that's going to be the the platform where the host uh hosting the site and where we'll be drafting in and where you can be interacting with um it's extremely user friendly I think you'll appreciate the outcome of that so tool design is going to be managing the contract with the city uh we are going with working with tul on that and then HDR is also in that in that same capacity so just a little bit about uh Ked Keys collaborative we're a multidisciplinary firm uh based out of Sugarland Texas uh Brett keys is our is our owner and president CEO he's also going to be the Principal in charge in this so he's our he's our guide in this and any time he's actively involved in in all of our activities we're a small company so I'll be the project manager and then Rachel will be the the the principal uh assistant with me but we also have a couple of other planners who would be involved as well so basically this process is focusing not on totally redoing everything you have have a lot of great Provisions but the key the key approach here is to make it more consistent remove duplications make it easier to use not only as a for staff but for applicants and kind of find a way for to be a single source for all the procedures the definitions put them in their proper place rather than having the applicant navigate all over the place for similar procedures so and and then doing that simplifying the use of it but also the interpretation the way it's administered and the way it is enforced and so in that process it just makes a more userfriendly uh document what this will not be will be changing other processes other policies and such such as the building code annexation policy but this will be working to complement that um so those will stay intact these will just be cross referencing where it's appropriate Etc so uh the goals of this project project Kathy mentioned a couple of those in the process you have a in the sense of a modern code you do have a more modern code than some codes you have places where land uses are and such but we're going to look to modernize it even more particularly in making it more user friendly with cross references use of graphics and tables and figures all throughout and just making it easier to interpret the the the standards and procedures um and really one of the key factors in this is implementing the the comprehensive plan strive for 2035 uh you have a very detailed set of goals and objectives throughout that document that we can use to implement uh those and then in the process of making this a userfriendly code reorganizing it in a way that it just makes uh it's it's logical in terms of how the standards are are aligned with each other how the uses are aligned how the zoning districts and and the procedures putting like things with like and that and I think you'll see in a moment here what I'm talking about um tailor the the design standards to more high quality environment you have a high quality environment really duplicate and enhance what uh what has been working well for you and what's in the comp plan as well and then we talked you hear streamline being but streamline can mean the processes themselves but also the way that the code is the information is accessed so by putting it into a userfriendly format like in code that we're going to use is one step towards that but also just making it less time intensive for everybody and then in doing that creating a user friendly code uh kind of the overall objectives in this um finding ways to promote uh lower cost affordable housing opportunities uh for for existing and future residents and giving options for for for households uh look at opportunities denen we we know that denen is is generally built out so a lot of the opportunities are going to be infill and Redevelopment as you saw the case tonight um and then promoting reinforcing your connectivity and your walkable neighborhoods it's a wonderful town and and so the code should work to to to implement that protecting your your natural resources your Open Spaces access to those as well and then really capitalizing on integrating new trends new practices in writing codes uh that that is are have been identified in the comprehensive plan but also that are emerging uh as opportunities for this for this process so uh a little bit of how we approach you've heard some of these words already but uh one of the the approaches that Kenda kees takes in writing uh drafting codes and working with communities like Denon is just finding ways to make the language as simple as possible removing no offense to the attorney in the room but removing legal language that that that can be said in two or three words or in a graphic or a table uh because really at the end of the day you just want to access what you have to do what you're required to do um and also just creating Clarity and easier way for for all to access U Implement development related policies so basically using the comp plan using the adopted policies and plans to imple using this process to implement that where it is appropriate and focus on really focusing on form and Community character in that process of doing that that's a lot of what you have here in in those documents so that's that's we we specialize in that as a firm um and then in a process create value out of the applic application process uh by by integrating the best practices and really focusing on quality neighborhoods um and then uh the last real principle is kind of one sizeit doesn't fit one size does not fit all um they have to as you saw tonight the standards have to be contextual and so really finding ways to work to where we can uh integrate more contextual standards uh complimenting existing character desired character of of of neighborhoods and just understanding the local climate here not literally the climate but the the business what what the needen is uh wants to experience and and and see in their future development so you're going to hear the term module uh it's really like a word for part but we will be drafting the the the LDC in three modules or three parts uh this is just conceptual right now until we do the uh the the code analysis and the annotated outline or the proposed structure of the reorganization but generally with the three the first module will be the general provisions and the zoning districts and land uses the second module would be more the development standards um and then the Third will be the subdivision and more administrative uh so at each point in this as you'll see in the next we'll be incorporating the the the existing chapters the provisions from those amending those updating as needed um and I'll I'll get to the the modules here in a second too where you will have a role um but the the restructuring of the code is is done in a way that you think of the average user of accessing the code how what information do they want first so instead of putting definitions in the beginning and a lot of things up front non-conformities that's not as important to you know if you want to how what to build on a property how much can I build so we put those up front for the more casual users the more technical users like yourself or for staff that information the procedures and such are more towards the the the end of the document and um with the idea being this would just helps uh enhance the formatting of the and user friendliness of it so in the process we want to make sure that we are one reflecting what has been more recently uh added to the state uh State Legislature as far as being making sure we're in compliance with that but also with Federal uh with Federal requirements as well integrating best practices and you've heard us talking about preserving and enhancing character um and then the outcomes of that will be one not only just the high quality environment but predictability making the process predictable for all uh applicants and for staff and for you as a decision-making body uh and in that process really creating multiple paths to yes to where there is that flexibility built in but there is there are still ways to achieve the the the end goal of of a high quality product um making it legally defensible and then making sure that it's just intuitive and easier to use going back to that same theme um the public engagement part of this this is different from a comprehensive plan or small area or corridor plan in the sense that uh it is not as Visionary in in the sense that this is an opportunity to really dive into the more technical details so it's not as exciting um it is for folks like us and for you who have to review this but but really uh the the engagement process of this we're going to have in the phase one of the project here it's going to be more stakeholder interviews a focus group interview interviews you're going to be involved in that as our main advisory committee um and also really helping build the engagement platform with the key information of the timeline and the and the scope and the goals and objectives of this of this particular project and then the phase two is really in the more drafting phase and there will be uh opportunities for public engagement throughout uh populating the the public engagement page or the the the platform as well as uh using the inco plus site to have a more public facing component of that using social media your newsletters and then each at Mo each module having an open door uh meeting meaning where the the uh citizens can come in and we can walk them through what what changes are being proposed and what we're exploring um and for them to ask questions but also throughout the process and as I mentioned at each of the point at the end of each module you will have the opportunity to review uh what we have what we have drafted and what we're proposing for that particular part where at the end of the process there's no surprises to either you as the decision-making body or to the community uh through that process so that's the overarching goal of the public engagement we have a two-year process mapped out for this um and we are just getting started uh with this the initial public Outreach is going to be the next we'll be returning in no November uh doing the focus group meetings stakeholder meetings um and then in the meantime we'll be populating the public engagement page and then we'll be doing also during that time this is not you know stop that process and continued we will be start beginning the diagnostic and annotated outline now based off what we're learning this week while we're here and then once we what's right at the end of the year the beginning of next year actually the begin of next year we'll be beginning our drafting phase once we get to kind of goahead that everything it's fair that we've what we've identified is the key parts of the uh from the diagnostic so we'll go through the a year long process or so for the Drafting and then the adoption phase is going to take about three months or so a public public review process and then the adoption Pro process at the end so with the goal being we'll be wrapping up by the end of July um in in 2026 sounds like a long way away but it will go by fast I promise you um so your role as the as the key advisory committee for this process so we're going to be meeting regularly through the process and as I mentioned at the end of each module um what you'll have the opportunity to provide feedback and ask questions and sort of help guide that process you are the experts in this and you know what you've seen and what the community desires um and then so your IDE your think questions to think about was like what's not working in our current regulations uh what what should be left as is what do we like what do we want to add remove Etc and so and anything you've seen implemented elsewhere uh each of you have Inspirations from places you visit and live and such and so bringing that to the table as well and then the city commission you you will be the at the end as the decision-making body you will make be making a recommendation to the city Commission which they will be adopting it eventually in public in the public hearing process so um and then eventually that will be their role but your the key for them will be we'll be updating them in that process as well they'll have the opportunity to we'll have some joint sessions along the way to where uh they can ask questions and be informed the goal being by the time we get to the adoption phase there are no surprises uh that everything is clear we just may have to adjust some things here and there based on feedback or or kind of discovery of of of things we need to fix so with that said uh that is all that I had intended to to present to you but if there are any questions or comments in the meantime our team is open to to I bet you go believe it or not I have a question so I got a question for you on the public engagement process what does that look like and the reason I bring that up is um we've all seen experience with social media and the misinformation the negativity the misunderstanding and um how was this done so that it's going to be done in a constructive way is it more communicating people to inperson sessions for feedback and and how do we make sure misinformation isn't getting spread out there in social media so we're going to be working closely with Kathy and through your commun uh communication specialist uh to make sure that what's presented on the engagement side is accurate and consistent with what we're doing okay so that's one uh there's going to be misinformation misunderstanding planners are are wonderful with confusing the public with our terminology so we want to make sure in the process we're using proper terminology we're we're communicating that we're we're using uh our presentations in a way that can help at least guide them into what is what is remaining the same what is being updated uh as far as controlling how they understand the process we'll see how that goes but uh we're not looking to change drastically what this code does right this there's a lot that's working already this will be just making the information easier to use uh most of what with it being built out and entitlements and such we we really just want to make the the code function better function better more efficient it's going to be important we really stay focused on the benefits just there's a lot of long termers in Denon and and new people too there there is a fear of change yes whether it's founded or not so we just need to be very sensitive to that there will be some Concepts introduced uh the the idea being that one it's consistent with the comp plan so there has been that process to to uh vet those those policies those goals and make sure that it's consistent with that but also to make sure that uh it's legally defensible making sure that it will help promote what the community uh really does desire I mean we're not looking to we're going to hear from from you we're going to hear from staff tomorrow we have a workshop uh with with the staff with not just the planning staff but other uh other uh offices and really dive deeper into what's working what's not working what do we want to keep out and they they ideally they have their ear to the community they know what is working so um hopefully by the end what we are proposing is consistent with that and and the key is just making sure the information is available for folks because really we can set up an engagement process that goes to where everybody is but it's really hard a zoning code is hard to get people excited about unless you're changing something or proposing drastic changes but if we're just making it easier to use that in the end that's uh hopefully that's going to be uh happy for happy happy meeting for everybody so okay anybody else really not yet yeah super all right well thank you we look forward to working with you our team is excited to to be starting this project right so we're going to open up for public input we've got a a scattering here so okay I do have a question um come up come on up then you need to be swor in you SW in earlier the testimony you're about to in this proceeding is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay Jude ZM I live at 95 Milwaukee Avenue and my question is just um who is doing this work now and why do they need to be replaced by another Consultant Group Well the the current code is being uh administered by by the city of the in planning Community Development staff so uh and there have been a number of amendments and I don't you know I know we have not been involved in that but but the idea being that they are administering what has been adopted um so there's not we don't have any role in in administration we're just proposing uh ways to to update and improve the the existing code that makes sense well I guess I'm just wondering why why the city needs to pay another Consulting Group if I don't I I don't know the answer to that why are we paying another Consulting Group Well let's see if we have an answer thank you um so this is a uh City commission uh approved project and they approved it in they approved the contract in June um oh it's already been approved yes so um the budget was approved through the city commission process as well as this contract so um right now we don't have any other Land Development code update main like the whole Land Development code not there are um specific ordinance that are making their way through their process the outdoor dining is making its way through the process right now and that's a Land Development code update but this is a totally separate project this is the entire well not the entire Land Development code we're only doing certain sections of it so so I guess this is a contract that's already been established for two years from July 2024 to July 2026 yes ma'am okay just wondering where our money's going thank you fair question is it kind of like cleaning your closet we got a closet full of stuff in there we need to pull some of it out maybe a little bit gets thrown away and and everything gets organized and neat and it's a lot easier to work with afterwards is that yes sir kind of what it is you said it perfectly I could add something to that too um staff has a lot of they they get proposals they get applications on things it's really hard sometimes for them to step back the communities a lot of communities that try to do it internally it takes forever to do that there's always setbacks in the process and something as complex as a zoning code step back objectively and look at like I said clean the closet sort things out sometimes it helps to have other eyes on that our firm HDR we we see codes from around the country we write in multiple States in Florida we have a pretty good feel for what is functioning well Across the Nation and so aligning theon's code in a way that makes it uh function better um it just of course staff could do that uh but it would be hard unless one person is only doing that um it's just hard for them to do it I've just seen too many communities try to do it internally and it just it's just really challenging so so so we're going to see you at the end of each phase is that correct right at the end of each uh right of each part of drafting correct so when will we see you again November November and that's the this will be part of it's not really the end of of of of any particular part it's kind of in the middle of the engagement part working with Community stakeholders and focus groups and then we'll come back in uh the at the end of the year uh or J January I guess to or early February to present our analysis the the do the you answered my question thank you Steve did you say we're going to be meeting with the with LPA semimonthly did I catch that and when will that process start and when will those times be because we're going to have to be prepared for that so we're going to be meeting with the LPA at the end of each module as well as um a few other times we're going to do a like a public engagement in November uh with the LPA as well as having a joint session with the LPA and the city commission and um we'll be setting up the days for that and we'll put it on the calendar um we'll work with um miss m and um we'll make sure that you know exactly when in advance and then it will also you know go through the regular um upload to your agenda packet as well okay these are these intended to be separate meetings or part of the normal LPA calendar right now we were thinking they were going to be part of the normal LPA meeting unless there will be any objections to that and then we could you know we could work with uh George Kenny and the LPA chair super thank you and and you'll you will receive the materials in advance uh we will come and and and present the the big picture of those particular modules and so you will have the opportunity to read this ahead of time um and be prepared with any any questions and comments ideas thank you anything else just one quote question the subdivision phase what can you in in 30 words or less uh describe kind of how that works or what you're looking at I guess as far as that goes right uh well first of all we have not uh begun the analysis part of that but I can say the main part we would likely do is making sure that one it's up to date to State comp compliance with the state regul or State uh legislature but also to make sure it's organized in a way that's just easier to access we likely won't be changing too much with the subdivision regulations and the processes with that but just making them easier to to use and and would this be more representative of existing or new or both or well it' be for new subdivisions new subdivisions okay which you're not likely to have too many okay yeah you got where I was going is that it super thank you very much mhm thank you thank you so we moving now to selection of new members to our local planning agency yeah uh so we need uh two new alternate LPA members do we have any recommendations for alternates I I believe we have some folks that are present that want to Super so would you like to come up and make a before we start I do have one question uh Mr James John's has a resident status uh or an address uh in Palm Harbor Country but at the same point in time is that just a a mailing situation I think that's country Woods yeah I I confirmed it with George that's within the denan property lines north of C even though that's a Palm Harbor address that is actually within the city limits super good I um is that my area did did you want to oh sure tell us why you want to be on this board as an okay well I'm very interested in what's going on in dun Eden I've lived here since uh 2010 raised my three children in Tampa and now very very happily retired here in our small town of denen and I love the quaintness and I love the walking and I love the biking and I would just like to know more about uh you know what the planning is and uh how the decisions are made as to what is planned and what's implemented and I live right on Orangewood and Milwaukee by the stadium so I'm in the South End and I'm let's say I don't know you want to know anything about me I'm retired realtor um Grandma actually great grandma now uh and um I ride my bike um I sail with the wind lasses I'm a member of the dunen boat club so I'm very very happy with the way Duneden has been run since I've been here super thank you that Jude right Jude ZM is that yes okay that was Jude Jude uh who else might be present please sir hello everyone thank you for the opportunity to uh to meet with you and and listen in tonight uh I am interested in joining your name my name is James Johns I'm sorry my address is 2879 deerhound way uh and I'm the the person with the Palm Harbor address but uh I do live in the city of d Eden uh all services are provided to Country Woods by dun Eden okay uh so yeah we've lived in dun Eden since 2019 love the city um and want to try and make sure that we we do our part to pay forward and and contribute as best we can to make sure that all the good things that done need continue to be good things and if there's anything that we can improve upon we want to try to help improve upon them as well and I my uh my days are spent working full-time with jll I'm a senior vice president with them I look they do I'm sorry what does jlll do uh we are a commercial real estate firm one of the top five in the in the in the world so uh my my part of that is I'm the commercial real estate appraiser I look at uh a wide variety of different uh commercial properties throughout the US uh $50 million in and above is uh is supposed to be coming through my desk as best we can uh time permitting uh I have a a bachelor's degree in city and Regional planning and a master's degree in finance and so I know a little bit about this stuff uh from a commercial real estate standpoint and uh you I want to pay it forward if you will and uh and do uh do what I can and and uh uh my lovely partner Jill has experience with uh uh City of Pittsburgh uh working with the city council so she's also uh you we want to we want to do our part we've seen some things and we want to do our part to try and and uh do good for dun Eden dun Eden residents and friends thank you sir any questions good thank you good evening my name is Jeremy Reynolds live at 973 cwood Avenue I think four of you are familiar with me a couple of new faces um I'm here tonight to try to get on the LPA because I love denen I love my neighbors and we all need to follow the code and the best you know when you whenever you get upset with things the city does you're not upset with the people you're not upset with the execution you're upset with the code and our code it has some things that that I'm you know we've been able to show over the years that people miss you know I devil tell you I was a a very challenging and and um uh staunch citizen advocate for in development projects for a long time I even expanded that Beyond just the city of Denon I've actually been involved in uh development applications and land use rights cases um inv as an advocate as well as a pargal in Clear Water Safety Harbor St Pete um and then a little bit with bell Shores and beler Beach but I've been trying to get on this committee um since 2017 I believe when I first put my application in uh we did have a some kind of a technical staff F sometime during the the pandemic or the date got shifted um in terms of your criteria for being on this committee I'll remind you there is no certified technical criteria for qualifications to serve on the LPA as well as I have attended I think at least two LPA me with Dr Broom uh Mr alow we've been around for many years um I'm happy to answer any questions you guys have tell me again what it is you do I was a a pargal and did my uh uh even did my uh paralal my thesis for my degree on land use compatibilities in penelo County where the term compatible is not defined in the uh comprehensive plan and is that work you do now yes sir I I'm still a a a paralal I do General litigation for the kitchen Law Firm out of Tallahassee we do civil litigation criminal defense family law M thank you you bet super thank you is Sally Karen here hello my name is Sally Karen I live at 966 Douglas Avenue um I work for a management company I'm on two committees already for Den Eden um I've lived in Den Eden 9 years I've seen It Grow Love the growth um just want to be a part of it and make it better thank you you're welcome Sally what committees are you on I knew you were gon to ask that I am on the co- compliance in the C did those count as question both of those count get to this I'm not city but I you I didn't know that okay okay is that a problem for you not at all I can find out for sure but thank you any questions thank you thank you uh we also have applications from Natalie Rivera Christopher wadin and Philip fiser but they are not present this evening I have a question is it still policy that someone to be on this board must attend at least one meeting prior to coming on this board from what I understand that's true so yes any of the individuals that are missing have they ever been to a meeting that we're aware of so we don't have that information this so that would in effect eliminate them from our conversation this evening since we don't know that they have met that is correct okay all right do we have any motions for alternate one I'd make a motion uh for Sally Karen um The Code Compliance and CRA experience could be pretty helpful to the committee as we move forward particularly with the land use code work do we have a second a second that motion thank you all in favor I I any opposed Sally you are an alternate not yet no she's got to yeah we got to confirm something she has to take or she has to step down from oh got it okay thank you it also has to be go to the commission for approval you're making a recommendation so you're not you can't appreciate the reminder we need a second alternate is there a motion I'll make a motion I'd recommend uh James John uh as an alternate uh the regional planning expertise commercial real estate experience as we go forward uh I think could be really valuable is there a second second all in favor I I I any opposed we have our two new Al new potential alternates thank you yes all right so we have an open Forum any input updates isn't that wonderful not just quiet as a little mouse and I thank you all right at this time we welcomed the opportunity for the public to address any item that is not on the agenda I don't think there's anybody here to do that so do we have a motion to adjourn I'll second okay in favor we are adjourned thank you everyone for being here [Music] for