e call this meeting to order if you would please call the RO chairman wof present commissioner gaki here commissioner Dylan here commissioner Noble here commissioner Connelly here commissioner Mah here commissioner laru here all right we got a full house thank you everyone so now is our time for public comment uh I see no public but I will make the announcement if you'd like to make a make public comment you're welcome to do so we ask you to reserve for to reserve your comments three minutes into topics that are not on tonight's agenda uh if you do come up want to say anything give us your name and address for the record anyone no one okay um I'll need a motion for approval of May's minutes please I make a motion to approve May's minutes as written thank you second from anyone I'll second thank you Mr Connelly all right all in favor of the motion to approve Ma's minutes uh we'll call the rooll commissioner Dylan yes commissioner Connelly yes commissioner Mah yes commissioner Noble yes commissioner Laro yes commissioner gaki yes chairman W yes thank you the minutor approved so our next item up is uh new business and uh we only have one item that appears of new business that is ordinance [Music] 2024-25 to amend height front side and rear yard requirements to include a provision for fences around swimming pools and to add a non-conforming fence gate hedge our wall provision providing for conflict codification and severability and providing for an effective date very nice thank you who from our city would like to take the Reigns now hi my name is Joe petraia um been with the city a little less than a year and if you recall last month's meeting I discussed the fence code a little bit um we also took it to the Board of Commissioners Workshop before the last meeting uh so we took the feedback from that meeting feedback from this meeting brought it to the City attorney took feedback from them um and then discuss it internally once more and then here's our final draft okay so starting on page 14 uh and the biggest change between this and what you guys saw last month is really just the the non-conforming that was a big topic that we talked about last time and I'll show you how we address that shortly and that is so we addressed it in the building line definition instead of changing the non-conforming section of the fence code what we did is we changed the building line definition to basically say make it less restrictive say so originally we when we first discussed this we talked about how the fence height would have to change based on the setback right now just to remind everyone it's based on the building line which non-conforming structures it's different for every structure and then we discussed changing it to the setback line of the primary structure which would make it the same for everyone in that zoning District but then there was the discussion about well if there's a non-conforming structure on a really small lot then they wouldn't be able to get a fence as far as some of their neighbors so we changed some of the verbi here to say that it'll be the less restrictive of the two whether that be the setback line of the building or if there's a house that's already built beyond that setback then they can get their fence up to the house line um so we felt like that was the best way to address that and then also we added some verbiage well then there's that issue if if the neighbor's house goes a little farther than yours and it's also beyond the setback so we address that also by saying the furthest vertical structural member of the primary structure on the subject property or the abing neighbors shared property line so this is kind of a black and white answer and it's not um what's the word it's yeah it's kind of not left open to interpretation good and okay that's how we address the non-conforming continuing down um most everything else is the same from how we discussed last week last month uh the intersection the uh we also another change we if you're remember from last month we had a number 10 about temporary construction fencing uh we decided not to add that in the only thing we're adding in about temporary construction fencing is going to be where is it number two we just add a little section about Exempted that it's yeah it's not going to be mentioned in this section and just to reiterate temporary construction fencing will be brought more in depth in a late different section of the code that's specifically going to be about temporary construction fencing um that'll be brought in a later meeting so that the only thing we're talking about temporary construction fencing here is just saying that it's not going to be it's going to be exempt from the section of the code and just um we do have caveats in our code to about construction fencing required um so that is still addressed in our code okay and then continuing down I'm on page 17 at the bottom uh is the swimming pool fencing which already exists we haven't changed this from last month's meeting but just to reiterate um it already exists in our code we're just kind of bringing it here so that whenever someone wants to build a fence it's all black and white everything's all in the same section when we lay out black and white how if you have a property on the water and there is a swimming pool you're technically you're not allowed to have a fence that's more than 3 feet but if you have a swimming pool there has to be a fence that's 4 feet so this kind of lays out exactly what you need to do and that's a a 4 foot open fence or a hybrid with the top foot being open and then finally the non-conforming section that we're adding to the fence code uh just to this hasn't also also hasn't really changed much since last month's meeting but the there's non-conforming sections in other sections of the code but not in the fence code and we just want to add a little B here to show that any new fences would have to meet this section of the code and and we have that definition codified elsewhere right on what requires permit for the what requires a permit that would be in 82- two which is our definition section on what requires a permit okay so this would basically say that all fences would have to meet this code if this wasn't here then it's kind of a gray area it would have to go to the regular non-conforming section which technically means it wouldn't always have to meet the code but this kind of puts it black and white and cool I like it cool that's everything I have so our recommendation is to see if there was any other feedback from you guys if not uh we recommend approval to bring it to the Board of Commissioners meeting excellent anything else to add from you guys other than I think um with j I mean Joe coming on for the year now I think he was really surprised about how hard fence permitting was and he made it a goal to get this corrected looks like he did a heck of a job thank you yeah everything's hard here uh because it's you we have so many non-conforming lots and all these little tiny things and it's same in Treasure Island um you know just seems to be everything was here then we went okay let's make rules now and tried to lay that blanket over top of everything and you know we're trying to unwind all that and you guys are doing a great job thank you thank you the temporary the temporary construction fence you're going to bring that back in front of us or you just okay because that we remember we talked about you were giving them a week to take it out yes after construction's over so that's that's later so that will be later in the special temporary construction fencing code so we the two days the two weeks we just remove that completely from the yeah this makes much more sense for the guy who just put in a fence with three permits yeah we need you'd appreciate it so I do one one thing and and I'm not sure that the question will come up but my little devious mind comes up with this um on page 14 where we have the the big correction um addition if the furthest vertical structure member of the primary structure on subject property or the abing neighbor property does that need to say the a budding neighbor's property nearest to where the fence is because if you know some of our some of our homes are L-shaped and only one part is beyond the setback does that allow them on both sides to go to that building line that's kind of where why we put a budding neighbors line originally I put like a neighbors line but then it's like oh what about the other neighbor um so we felt that this was the most clear way to say only the neighbor directly next to the one that with the shared property line okay cool all right I have a question for you planing commission member yeah Mr Connelly uh um if you put up a block wall as a fence your blocks are basically 6 inches wide and if you want a stone face it both sides you'd be out of the requirement which says cannot be greater than 6 in are you are you looking at the open fence requirements where where are you seeing the six inches I'm on 45 yeah open fence but I'm just saying if you built the block wall which is six inches and you wanted to face it making Decorative Stone you would be wider than 6 inch if you did both sides actually black walls are 8 inches well you can get a six inch block typically they're 8 inch block you guys have to f it out a construction block you're absolutely right it's still wider yeah yeah it's still wider just wouldn't be allowed to do it according to the way it's written that would be for that would be for open fences I'm trying to yeah I don't see anything about block walls so the block walls would be limited would be treated like a solid fence be limited to three feet in height and the entirety of that would have to be located on your property so that would be a solid fence and we wouldn't it wouldn't be H I'd have to let me I can revisit the verbiage here exactly make sure we don't not allow for that especially if it's 3 feet it would be allowed solid entirely on your property and we definitely you know that would be reasonable if somebody wanted to do something like that so we can make sure we have not done that so if I go out of open fences let's see I I don't see anything that limits the size of the fence other than the open fence right and wall means a non-bearing landscape wall so would go there and has no limitations there that because it's not here there's nothing there's nothing in this about block where um I have blocked three quarters around my house well I mean it says what it can be the materials that the fence can be in walls traditional building materials Brickstone stuck over concrete block finish concrete metal vinyl wood natural stain or painted composite products blah blah blah yeah and then when you go to like rear yards side yards all fences walls like on side yards all fences Hedges and walls must not exceed 6 feet so it's covered there your wall um front yards again it mentions walls which would fall into what you're talking about as does the rear yards I believe reads the same as well yes walls so walls are covered in each front yard side yard and rear yard under 110- 447 and so the walls would fall under there and would not have the limitation you're talking about the only height the only rtion is the solid 3T Limited in the rear then the side yards can be six and then that would be how we would interpret that y good catch and and open open fences has a set definition and criteria in in the code that that solid block fence wouldn't wouldn't meet fall under that category right good anybody else got anything motions anyone who's up I'm gonna have like a a chip that'll drop somebody's table I have a question yeah so if we have two neighbors and their buildings let's say 10 feet apart 10 feet from the property lines and then your your fence would have to line up with the with the face of the building right and if both properties want to put fences up then you have that distance in between that's Hiatus that's like you know makes it look like a snow land yeah yeah so I mean does that even make sense you're saying distance in between the fences if both people want yeah the the distance is between the distance between the two fences it just like you know just like a little alley that nobody can Main main I guess they could come around the fence and mow it but it just makes it like a doesn't make sense so technically they could both put the fence against the property line and they could have back toback fences if they didn't want to work together and and share a fence that would be allowed that's still allowed and that's not something that's being changed um as for like a little alley if they for some reason want to have a fence within their property lines then I guess hypothetically they're there could be an alley with the in between the property lines uh that's not something we've seen or for SE seeing um but if they they both are able to put the fence along their property lines so if they didn't want to work together and share a fence then they could both hypothetically have their own fences back to back yeah if that answers your question yes thank you and I I will say when we do our permits we we we we we can do them with conditions so if we catch that we can put a condition in there that you know you've elected to stay two feet off your property creating this vacant space and you will be responsible for maintenance and care and stuff like that so we're pretty good with adding conditions um and catching things like that okay thanks and if you share off fence it can be on both properties right it can straddle the yep it could be along the property line there I haven't seen a fence that isn't an encroachment in a long time in my fence guys are you know anyway don't get it on the line all the time so um but I don't I haven't seen that where somebody had put you know Miss it by that much you know and have a have a weed Row in the middle there I guess we haven't seen that around anywhere no it's not common okay sure fair enough all right any more or a motion I make a motion to approve ordinance 202 24-8 thank you Mr Dylan a second I'll second it all right Noble with a second any discussion on the motion seeing none we'll call the rooll commissioner Dylan yes commissioner Noble yes commissioner con Connelly yes commissioner marah yes commissioner laru yes commissioner gavahi yes chairman woff yes that motion passed unanimously thank you everyone thank you for the presentation and um any other administrative or staff presentations before our next uh Adventure good okay so number seven on the agenda is Planning Commission discussion under that we have our Johns Pass Village Activity Center zoning Workshop so wants to start that okay uh I I can uh start that and and clarify what's going on tonight so after uh doing the the public workshops in in April and and getting a feedback from from you you guys the Board of Commissioners and and residents um and and also we looked at um the previous like the uh dwan plan and a couple other activity similar activity centers like I I we looked at denans and there because it's kind of similar in size and scale to what we're would be proposing um we developed a it's a rough draft of an ordinance for uh the the the Land Development regulations for the John's Pass Village Activity Center um basically the like the participants from the public workshops and this is what we kind of drafted into the ordinance was to protect the existing built environment and characteristics of the John pest Village activity center and nearby neighborhoods maintain height limits similar to existing built structures but do not increase height limits to be as high as previously approved plan developments or variances and focus on pedestrian friendly designs that enhance walkability um attached to the memo is is the draft of the ordinance um it's split up into different sections like how how our zoning is normally set up in our Land Development regulations kind kind the the a difference though um we have uh like maps and figures that that would be including the ordinance to show the character districts um this was done uh to make it easier to understand instead of trying to shoehorn the existing zoning that's down there over that land it it'd make more sense to just have the like a like a like a submat app that has the character districts in it so it's much easier for for property owners residents to understand what what can be done down there um the sections are split up um as principal uses which is um like primary uses that you could do with the property um and each character district has its own allowed uses um next is accessory uses so so each one has some of these were influenced by what was existing allowed in in the the categories zoning categories down there um we're still going to be uh prohibiting drive-throughs in in the village like we we currently do in our code um under special exception uses so that would be um it you have to go through the special magistrate to do a special exception use and it would have to be approved there um so some of them was from the previous zoning others uh one one thing that was kind of a unique thing down there is there are a couple commercial buildings along the beach side G Boulevard but just on the Gulf Boulevard side not on the beach so we did um have a special exception use for certain commercial uses but only Froning Golf Boulevard because we don't want people doing restaurants and other Standalone restaurants next to people's single family homes because that wouldn't be right we don't we don't want that but there are some commercial structures where the people have had a tough time kind of figure out what to do with them because they they're kind of stuck in almost like like a a legal non-conforming use even though they're fronting Gulf Boulevard which is a ma major commercial Corridor um but because they were zoned R3 it was kind of like like tough to really find a use for those properties so and then there vacant lots that that were um are currently vacant next to those commercial uh uses um let me just so next section is building Site Area requirements um lot sizes are pretty similar uh to what's currently in like the C1 C2 and R3 zoning districts um yeah so not much CH change with that uh the setback requirements um were based off of like feedback from from those public workshops and and we did look at at the dwani plan a bit on this one thing we did notice when we were doing um tours down of John's Pass with uh the Commissioners was that uh on the boardwalk side the the the public right of way and the proper there's not really room room between this where the curb is of the street and the property line compared to the other side where you you do have a very wide sidewalk so we on the boardwalk side we are requiring a 10 foot setback from from that curve um just because we want to make sure that when someone goes in and bu like that there's enough room and it's pedestrian friendly because we don't want someone building a structure right up onto the curb of our public right of way because that that wouldn't be good and it would just be kind of shadowing over the the streets so we we did want a because elsewhere through there there's a there's a good amount the RightWay is pretty wide and and the sidewalks are pretty wide but that area was kind of a tight area so we had had to allow for a little more setback there just that to make it and it's still a reduction from what's currently required but it it we we couldn't do the zero feet there because then it would just lead to structures being right up on the curb um and then so the setbacks another thing we did um and we we've heard this countless times that people don't like these Square buildings so what we did was we're going to require people to have the upper floors and this varies between each character District have to be stepped back so for example in the commercial core for floors above the second floor they have to be step back 10 feet okay so the reason for doing that is so you don't get these big Square building buildings that are imposing over the streets because because you want because the thing is there are build like that that are have some like the parking garage for example is six floors but the the the part that's Froning the street is only two floors and the garage part is set back so and so you can't really see it because it's set back so we so something like the Cambria for example wouldn't be able to be built down there cuz it when the upper floors aren't set back for example um I got a quick question here so are there going to be six separate districts like they're not going to be c1s r1s they're going to be separate and basically titled Boardwalk commerci commercial core and the area is going to be site specific correct you you're going to have those character districts that will have the the all those requirements because we want to make sure um because each char District really has like unique like uses and other character so like like it that's the best way to do it um well and so on the zoning map it would be a single color over it but then in the ordinance you'd have that submap with the character districts um and that was just the cleanest way to do it we've seen other cities that's how they they do it when they have an activity center um um clear water for their downtown area has it set up where um they have a single color on their zoning map but they have a character District map so it was just it's just the cleanest easiest way to understand because trying to shoehorn the existing it just it just we tried doing that and it just it what we want to make sure this is a clear easy to understand process and not and not try to confuse people um okay so yeah the yeah the setback section is pretty long because there's a lot of different lot sizes and different kinds of structures and I think that's kind of one of the the uniique things down there is is you have all these different types of uses so we've had to really kind of figure out well if you have an acre of land you can do this with your property but if you have like I don't know like 0.15 Acres this is what you can do um so as you can see like they can it can vary on on use and lot size one thing we did try to do is the larger lot sizes we we did try to require a little more setback um just just just to make sure especially on on the beach side because we know there's kind of a mix between kind of that there's some Condominiums there's some there hotel with bareford beach club and then there's some single family and duplexes and stuff mixed in so we want to make sure those like kind of multif family Condominiums and hotels and stuff like have enough setb from like the the other residential uses um and then and then the density stuff that's the same as what's in the that was in the special area plan and and the land use change so that but we also have Maps so it shows um and and shows what the densities are uh clearly um uh the height um based on feedback we we tied it to the size of the loot because we didn't want people to try to max out and do tall any buildings one of the things we did do in the low intensity mixed use is it it originally we were proposing 44 feet but we reduced it to 34 based on I guess the context of it but but all the heights are tied to uh like lot size um The Heights proposed they're all significantly less than than stuff like like befa beach club or madira Bay so we're not legalizing those Heights like the max fight our height real was is 50 55 ft um from design flood elevation to the E line on the roof so that that would potentially be five stories of living space over one floor of parking it is a similar height to what was proposed in the dwani plan in the R3 zoning District um and we thought that was reasonable because DW the D with the DW plan they wanted to make it pedestrian friendly and they didn't want to have big massive High Rises so we thought that was a reasonable compromise to and also there are buildings down there like like uh like madira Norte and Beach place that are the five stories over one floor parking and previously those were built to the um U before uh the the more recent zoning was adopted in the 80s um the height limit down there was uh was 60 feet from grade which ended up being back then five floors of living space over one floor of parking above the eve line it would would be like like so like if you have like a like architect architectural features because we know we know certain people they don't really like the flat roofs and we want to allow for some flexibility um what we don't want to allow and what what we're making sure to not allow um would be the someone try to sneak an extra floor above that like the the that area above the evil that's supposed to be only for for access to like mechanical equipment and like like like architectural features and have in you have like a kind of like a special like like roof so we we wanted the avoid trying to like because because what happens is if if we did like currently we have people that'll just max out and then they'll just do a flat roof which which a lot which doesn't look like a lot of the buildings down there so we wanted to for flexibility so we get kind of the the unique kind of buildings we want um down there uh so and then it explains further so we I did a map of the height limits and then we have the densities and intensities um so this is just more just what what's allowed Bas and this this it matches up with what was in the the special area plan um so uh one thing I um we did work on um and we'll definitely want feedback on our design standards and guidelines so this kind of shows what we expect so for example we want to make sure that your mechanical equipment is shielded we don't we don't want that stuff exposed like we want to make sure that stuff's hidden um certain newer buildings do have that stuff hidden like there's a this mixed use uh building that's kind of a turquoise color that does have has the dumpster hidden it has the AC units shielded and but that's one of the few build a lot of the older buildings don't have that so um so basically the the next couple our design our design standard is just similar to what currently exists um and basically any any anything new going in would need to meet these standards um but I I I hope that kind of this is just a draft version you guys aren't voting on it tonight uh we we would hope to to bring an actual ordinance version potentially in July or August depending we we have we we need we still need forward pelis and to to look through it um and give their blessing on it but we wanted to get your feedback first before we send it off to Ford pelis because it could take a couple weeks for them to review it yeah so I I have a question on um all along Gulf Lane as an example which would be in the John's Pass Resort District or at least part of it is um there are some smaller Lots um and they're zoned they're going to be zoned for 18 units an acre um but is are we still retaining the minimum lot size per unit type deal like you know a single unit requires X number of square feet two units requires X number of square feet per unit yeah we we have to just because so th those lot minimum size are are are usually based off the density so um fortunately like that that we're kind of locked I gota so it's just it's you can just do the straight math off the density yeah that that's how that's how it was done that makes it simple cuz I know it's elsewhere in some of our codes there's density but it seems like uh where we ran into that duplex issue on Fourth Street right um there was a duplex there if he hadn't torn it down it could rebuild a duplex but it got torn down now a duplex can't go there um you know zone for it because there wasn't enough land mass to accommodate the duplex yeah and in in my head I'm trying to think of the math there was would the math work out the same I I mean that's kind of the the challenge um honestly our hands are tied with residential density the county did does not and actually that's what killed the previous version of this back in the 2000s that so after the dwani plan they passed a resolution the Consultants came up with a comprehensive plan ordinance for it and what happened is the state and County rejected it because they were it was going to increase residential density which was um um the state didn't want back then they still they don't want that now we actually removed some residential density because there was still some on the boardwalk that we took away okay um so like they they basically was either keep it the same or take it all away so we we kept it outside the bwalk area we kept it the same so unfortunately we're our hands are kind of tied on that um I I know it's we we would like to allow have with the smaller Lots we did try to um adjust some of the minimum lot sizes to to try to give a little flexibility um like uh we we ended up with the building Site Area going really based off of um we removed some of the the the minimum lot size requirements but it still has to meet the density um I'd have to do the math on it um to see how how how much lot area you need po per unit um but well based on 18 an acre it's 2420 square feet per unit yeah yeah that that sound that sounds right so um we did give a little more flexibility with that because because currently usually lot is like about 4,000 because we wanted to allow for a little bit more so people could build kind of like smaller residential things on those lots so they can use them because because we want we want people to be able to use their property reasonably but but we were limited on the on the on the density thing B based based on uh the the the count County County and States limitations related to that okay and there is a process by which you can retain what you have if you're non-conforming unfortunately the example you gave um things got out of scraping it yeah erase that correct ability underst yeah I have a question Mr chairman sir um so when we talk about density are we we're looking at residential and we're look looking at overnight accommodation right correct so so what's the difference between density for overnight accommodation versus density for residential um I let me just go to the the that section um yeah and and this more or matched what was so the I write temporary lodging density um varies by character District a as you know I like the boardwalk doesn't allow for any residential or temporary lodging density um the buy right in the commercial core and John's Pass Resort is 60 um which is equal to what the commercial General category allowed before we had to uh reduce it and then the John's Pass Resort the previous maximum was 75 by right so we reduced that to uh 60 um we do have the County's alternative temporary lodging use standards which requires the Board of Commissioners to adopt a development agreement which ha has specific criteria in the countywide rules related to design uh Mobility um and also with that one you have to count the parking structures part of the f as another restriction um so but these were all this was all adopted with the with the ordinance the the was 2023 d01 so it just it just matches what's in the special area plan um which during that vote the board did reduce it um for for the max so it was reduced compared to the ones you guys voted on is there a maximum unit area for overnight accommodation we don't have a room size limit we we wanted the use f as that restriction for residential and overnet accommodation yeah what's kind of confus compared to the other part of so f is is all inclusive in the activity center uh that was one one thing the county allowed us so basically all all the air conditioned space counts towards that f um while in other other areas it might just only be for the commercial use of it but for in in John's past it's it's an all-inclusive F so so if you're let's say you're proposing something it would have to meet the density and the F all right so so the F and density is f also the same for density as it is intense as it is um f for overnight accommodation versus um residential it's it's the same except if it's the alternative temporary lodging use standards where it is slightly higher but you have to count the parking structure so there there are tradeoffs with with with going to the board and asking for that through a development agreement so but the max buy R is a 2f but that's like an all-inclusive so that's like all the air condition space so that like if you did a mix use build that that'd be all the air conditioned commercial and all the air conditioned residential condominiums or temporary lodging units whatever mixed use thing you're doing down there or or single use because there are areas that that people would be doing just single use like a small smaller bti family building what is the maximum stay for overnight I'd have to check our condo hotel section um I I know we have some restrictions mentioned there um Let me let me explain the fear I have in general terms and I think Marcia may agree with me um is that I know you have limiting you have have you have created limitations for certain parts of it but you could go and design for overnet accommodation to get more density and use it as residential if if we don't have a way of monitoring uh the length of stay then who's to say that you know one could go and design for higher higher intensity um and density so so in our in our code I'm just going to pull up the condo hotel part because that does have the restrictions and then the county with the alternative temporary lodging use standards um prohib it's converting it into residential units like it would violate the development agreement if if that took place um but in our code currently and this would still affect um whatever gets adopted there so here's our requirements for condo hotels mad madira Bay for example is a condo hotel a condo hotel means a hotel motel tourist or seasonal accommodation room or group of rooms forming a separate habitable unit used which could be used for living and sleeping by one family with independent kitchen facilities each unit shall be owned by an independent or or by an individual Corporation or any other legal entity having membership into an association comprised of all owners within the same development no unit in a condo hotel shall be used as a time share or fractional ownership unit or be converted to a permanent non-tourist dwelling unit that that I I knew but uh okay I mean I'm just explaining to you what my fear is as far as you know designing for overnight accommodation but using it for residential if there is no way to monitor um and and especially when it comes to overnet accommodation you can build those units much much bigger um and you know then it becomes more conducive to overnight to to uh residential use yeah I I mean I mean they still have to meet the height limits are are pretty restrictive down there compared to other Beach communities and they still have to meet the height setbacks at f um we just wanted to give some flexibility because they they we want to have like unique accommodations down there we don't want like generic whatever like other places are are are doing so some people do like kind of the the units that are closer to being more like that have more amenities than others but um it still would have to look and feel like Johan's pass and and meet th those height limits that are more restrictive than other Beach communities have um we we could I mean we could add a reference to the condo hotel section I was I was going to pull up the County's requirements too that they would also have to meet that we do reference um but that that's why we it's just we just didn't want to like we felt like we had enough restrictions through the F and height and setbacks to uh restrict and avoid allowing for too much we don't have anything in the codes that restricts the length of time a non-owner can stay I think it's three months I I've I've seen it someplace that was three months and um but 90 days that's what I had seen somewhere well it says and they could be available to the owner for use no more than 90 days within the calendar year should be available for lease to parties other than the owner in intervals of 30 days or less yeah it's a it looks like 30 days okay 30-day thing there we go but I think we're violating that a lot as we have we have our Northern visitors that come for three four months at a time and the other question I had it has to do with height uh DF obviously we we measure the height from design flood elevation but as you know at the ground level we can always build uh retail as long as we flood proof the building so we could get a bonus L if we design it correctly um so would you still measure everything from DFE even if you put a ground floor retail uh we we would um because you'll still lose some of it to parking um but there are uh there like there's a turquoise building where half of the the ground is is the flood roof retail while the other half is parking behind the structure and partially under the building so wouldn't the floor area ratio kick in then too yeah yeah it would be the the air condition whatever air conditioned space there is would be included in that so that that would be another limiting factor uh we do want some we do want ground floor retail because we we want to make sure the it's interactive at at great so people are they're not just walking by like like parking garages and parking lots and because because that John's Pass has that that ground floor retail so we wanted to kind of preserve and promote that um but as I said the height limits are are much lower than a lot other other places allow and it's still less than what what we we uh that our board approved with with Barefoot Beach Club a few years back because we get that um residents they don't want super tall buildings so um the height the height limit we we did was is is pretty similar to what was allowed pre 1983 or or what was proposed in the dwani plan in in 2002 who um who has authority over design guidelines and standards um on by right development so certain projects would have to come as a major site plan review and that's a section of the code I think we we are looking to update and and and change kind what what projects would would need to come through because we want to make sure that like that that the community is getting input on on on more projects so so anything that's a major site plan review so Mo most most of the temporary temporary logging stuff coming through would would probably hit that hit that density uh requirement or or most commercial uses anything small res also the other thing is by State Statute like single family homes were not allowed to like have design standards for them it's it's a weird thing I asked Ford pelis about and they were like yeah that's what it says and and I was like wow that's a I I wonder how that got put into state law but we got kind of but but we can definitely most of the like most a good amount of the commercial or temp would coming would probably qualifies as a major site plan review which you guys would have to see okay yeah I mean it just seems like when we call it character districts and then we don't have any codified authority over the character should be yeah like it feels like there should be more of a check I know we don't have that elsewhere and I know we've talked about different things that have come up before where it's like hey can you do this or do that and it's always just a request and we don't have any real Authority or or over hey actually I know it says it's a guideline but we kind of need you to do this or or whatever um I feel like it should be codified this seems like the type of place where that would make sense because we want it to be a certain way um yeah especially in the commercial core the boardwalk and the traditional Village areas the other ones not so much maybe but ones that are really tight within John's Pass but and it's one of those things where it's like we can talk about F and density and intensity and that kind of creating a funnel of things but ultimately that funnel is not going to capture every project so it's kind of like how do we do it in such a way that we'll capture projects that are not res not residential obviously but could be um scrutinized I guess I I know event we do want to bring in a separate ordinance from this related to a site plan review because we we know that that is a a big kind of concern to have have more input related to that I just pulled up our what it currently says in our code so pretty much I I guess the challenge is a lot of this stuff that's either being built right now was approved years and years ago before a lot of you guys were on Planning Commission and it finally got underway or it's small enough where it didn't qualify to require the major site plan review um but as of right now anything like multif family with more than 13 units or commercial or new construction over um like that's for non-residential so for commercial uses over 2,000 square feet um require the major site plan review so I I think most stuff that that would be coming through would probably end up being a major site plan review for you guys uh did you guys look through the design standard section because it because it it lists a lot of the requirements that that are in our that they would have to meet and and if they did come through the major site plan review you would make sure that they're they are meeting these guidelines and then also in the setbacks we did we're not allowing that those big or or the square brick or Square buildings so some of the ones that I we've heard people complain about they wouldn't be allowed to be built just just based off of what's what's in our in being propos in the code so but but yeah um if you want us to add or look to see if we get we're allowed to add any anything additional to these design standards and design guidelines we're I'm I'm happy to take down notes and see if we're we're allowed to do that just to um unfortunately the state preempts us on on certain things so I I I don't want to say oh yeah you can do that and then find out a state statute so says we can't so U but I I would I'm happy to take down and and check to see if we're allowed to do that or not yeah I mean I just to me and if I'm not understanding this correctly but you know the benefit of having um development standards for a special district is that we can maybe Implement some things that aren't that are more restrictive than the code of ordinances right like if we wanted to implement some something more of a strict like a more strict review process in this area versus what's codified here doesn't isn't this a vehicle that we can do something like that obviously if it's within legal bounds yeah I I mean it still has I mean I guess the challenge is if something comes through that meets these requirements it it meets the requirements so I mean it it is it it's important to have these things in the Land Development regulations adopted so when it comes through you guys if it goes as a major site plan review that you know that it has to meet these standards because you can't really like kind of pull additional that aren't in in here um so but as shown we we will require um and or some of these are guidelines like and some of them are requirements like we want to make sure people have the dumpsters enclosed and shielded from the public RightWay because we know on some of the existing older buildings it isn't and it's not a good situation um so anything new going in there won't have that issue luckily um but then we have suggestions like wood siding uh um brick or stone should remain unpainted um and roofs that are not flat should should be standing um seam metal um there's some metal roof buildings a second floor and above porches May protrude into the front setback and are encouraged to create a more pedestrian friendly environment because some some of the buildings do have the porches and the exterior lighting should enhance the old Floridian fishing Village Aesthetics such as caged and hooded metal lighting fixtures so yeah I I think you did a good job addressing that stuff uh you know those design guid lines and it it does lay it out at the beginning of section D13 too you know should have some character to it um should conform the historical FL and fishing Village style um decorative elements BL BL I mean think and the facade rhythms I think that that does give rise to the ability for the city to say hey this isn't going to fit here aesthetically because of this and this this is in the will be in the codes so I think it does give it a little bit of latitude for the city say now you know you can't build just a box here and sell trinkets I guess that's my question though like who and when does should get enforced you know what I mean like the standards are clear obviously but saying it should look like a Floridan fishing Village doesn't tell me it has to I'm not saying that people would and I'm not saying that you know what I mean like the likely story is anyone building something there is going to try to make it fit the character I mean God forbid but I just don't you know you should is just hard I understand what you're saying I I I totally get it you know we're we don't have a whole lot of projects to have like an architectural committee you know to oversee all this and review it Clearwater has the same situation and the staff administers it so the staff has that watchful eye to make sure that whatever is designed meets the intent of the code so uh I think the staff is charged to to look out for that and and and we want to to make sure because we we get your concerns and it's kind of unfortunate uh previous planning efforts didn't focus on on doing more of that especially in in town center but um or you you learn learn from kind of previous mistakes and and you try to fix them so um feel I definitely feel like uh like compared to previous efforts this like kind of really focused to look on on trying to reduce the risk of those mistakes happening again but um we'll have to bring in the like a like the site plan review thing would need to be a SE separate ordinance um but we we could re I mean if you want more things to be able to come through like for example it says 13 units it makes it qualifies as a major site plan review we could obviously reduce that to a lower number so it triggers it sooner um yeah well I mean I guess my thing is as long as it's yeah can be filtered and captured that's fine that's I was just posing the question because it just seems like we got a lot of input and we got a lot of guidelines and and standards and things that people want and I hate for it to just like not be enforcable you know if if the public wanted hey we wanted to look like this and then ultimately when someone comes to review it and it's like well yeah you say should but I don't you know what I mean like you know it's it's not entirely impossible so I just I agree completely and another set of another seven sets of eyes on the stuff is very good of seven sets of residential eyes and in terms of some of the stuff is it's excellent but I think what we could maybe even do is put this throughout the city you know so this is the guidelines for John's Pass Village I mean you know and I think we should have some some criteria also for the rest of the stuff in the rest of the city and as I've gone through some of the magistrates hearings I feel we should see things that gets approved by the magistrate as an example there was a 5 and A2 foot offset on a property so now they're going to have 5 and 1/2 foot offset so they're going to have a structure running 5 1/2 ft all along along the edge of their property the other side was 6 and 1/2 ft so you know and you guys do a good term good job that you met in the middle of odd shaped Lots well I would say a good third of our properties are odd shaped Lots so but to have somebody you know keep from these massive structures going in you know and this is residential I mean you know but if you have a 5 and a2t set back on one side then the other residence gets a 5 and2 foot setback so now we're the concrete jungle I mean you know they're huge huge buildings and and that's where I think Matt's trying to get a little bit of input and I agree completely I think there should be another set of eyes on these things and if you could quantify it by if it goes in front of the magistrate or special circumstances then it's got to come in front of the planning committee because we're planning for what the city is supposed to be I could if I could jump in I think I think we having two conversations at once so and and I know we want to have it because we wanted to have it last month so we'll get to there but to stay focused on this topic I did want to point out which I think is something you were looking for on page 36 um section d113 the end of the first paragraph says that guidelines are recommended while standards are required so there are certain things in here that are standards so if it hits Major site um it comes here you will have the power to say you have to do that you're right some things are suggested and that's kind of the way it has to work and you kind of kind of work with that but there are some some definite guidelines in here um that will help you do that yeah yeah one a through G are are the standards so these are like it must meet these requirements um the other thing we did to avoid that Concrete Jungle thing on a side note so for example in the commercial core district for Corner Lots with a sidey yard along the street the side setep back along the street must be 10 feet so no matter what you're gonna have some space along a public rideway so you won't have a building right right up on on a side street so and you have the the step backs for the multistory correct well and that's not a guideline that's a requirement right they have to like in commercial core if you're looking at this chart with the colors on it the last one under setback D under commercial core for multiple story buildings 10 foot minimum step back behind the primary facade of the building is required for stories above the second floor so you won't just get that massive wall right the giant wall so at least there's some stepping back and then the facade requirements for the rhythm of the facade and things correct I think I think it's pretty fairly addressed yeah so like something like like as I said like the Cambria could couldn't be built down in John's past like it just it wouldn't meet these requirements yeah I mean short of having like a whole separate Architectural Review Board or set of requirements I I think I think it's done a pretty good job yeah I mean you can't standardize everything Ian there's nothing standard here in our town part of the problem we have very little standard anything but I guess to that point and what we're talking about what's in this draft what is the next step on on like opportunities to incorporate other things that we might find important like I know we're gonna this draft is going to forward panel and then kind of what's the next I I mean it I mean it would come back for uh public hearing and we we'd have to advertise for for it um but I I'd have to talk with Jenny about when she think I mean since it could take a couple weeks before pelis it it could potentially end up being more like August than than July but um I mean I we I'm taking feedback now tonight and even you can email us and suggest things just um but what it until until you guys actually vote on it and and and and pass it at a public hearing to go to the board you guys still have opportunity to give feedback and change things in it so as of right now it's just discussion item and in rough draft form so you guys don't have to worry about voting on anything tonight so so you have time to kind of digest it more if if you need to also yeah there's a lot here for sure it's pretty intense so that would be all of 7 eight it's in the packet all of those things are are kind of penciled in and we're going to excuse me go through these and give you more input next month I guess and then you're going to present it to Pell County no no I I mean they don't have they only have to review it to make sure it meets the countywide rules they don't have to vote on anything with it because this is Our Land Development regulations this is like local it's just more of a a night nice thing to do just make sure it meets the countywide rules they're happy with it we get their their blessing just just because sometimes previously the city didn't go to for so but we've been much better about doing that now to make sure that they're good and happy with any anything we do related to Planning and Zoning so well would it make sense to present this like it is and then let them scrip it up and say no this isn't acceptable this isn't acceptable I mean you or and I'm just asking you know in terms of it's it seems pretty good to me I mean you know as I read through it and seeing everything it it's it's everything that we really I believe that we've looked for and you guys have gotten together with the you know all the U meetings that were held and you've got all the feedback and you made it concise and and and pretty good so you know I so you know forward penelas is really only interested in density and tensity yeah the rest is up to this community right here yep yeah because they'll just check density intensity and and and maybe uses but mostly density intensity that's that's what they care about but um so it really is up to the community um and another thing as a side process that's going on is we're going to have H our first workshop for the master plan later in the month um and we'll be advertising for that shortly that would be more likely the impact the rest of the city and have us suggestions of what would we we would later do in separate ordinances and revise our L ldrs because we we would like to have other standards in different parts of the city but I guess the challenge is we want to do all these things but then we have to do all the we have to do all these ordinances to do those things so it ends up being like we only can do one thing at or one or a couple things at a time but usually like a thing like this this this takes up a lot of time so until this like passes it's tough to like go on to like the next stuff and and and bring other for other zoning districts and and and I think the master plan because kimley horn has had a lot of experience with like design standards and guidelines for like for communities so I think what they they they suggest in like will probably be be pretty good stuff that will be able to eventually bring his ordinance for El update our ldrs but um I I agree I I would like to have standards in other parts of the city also um but unfortunately this is just focused on John's past so um right and with the Planning Commission we can always make suggestions when the plan come before us like I remember when the Barefoot Beach Resort came before the Planning Commission we worked with them they brought the plans the community was involved and they wanted the parking lot Southside moved over the building because the residents are right there yeah so it's just parking but as the Planning Commission we made a motion we'll accept the plans and part of the motion was we know you have a seaw wall but we still want you to put Sea Oats out back there and okay so the motion passed it went to the board the board just dropped it the Commissioners didn't vote on that didn't make them do it so that's where we're limited here with what we can we can make the suggestions but we're appointed We're Not Elected and the the ultimate decision is up to them like right if you have the seaw wall you don't need sea outs and they just doesn't make sense to me I think we should have seots up and down the beach unless it's a beach access and that protects the whole Community but we never seem to get anywhere with that but we worked with them and the Barefoot Beach people worked with us and it finally you know they got it done all right anyone else have anything else any other discussion on the village good all right um we have one more item on our penciled into our agenda Mr Conley had something please sir hi everybody um you've heard me talk about this before about us getting more power and having a decision just like what Mr luru was just saying um now that we have everybody here we can basically kind of get a feeling and get a some kind kind of cesses of what everybody thinks um and what I mean by more power more chew it's just like what Michael just said that it went upstairs the Commissioners and they didn't hold their feet to the fire to plant the sea outs um I'd like to try to make something that where we had a final decision on a lot of this of where all of this is going because it's all going to come through here and if we don't have some kind of say that it's just going to end up like you're not going to want to see that so you're smiling because you know I'm right so so um I don't know how to do this how to change the what we don't have to what we could have so that's why I'm asking all of you how do you feel about this can I jump in before please I was gonna I was gonna ask you to jump in so go ahead trying to figure out how to start it so depends on what you you want what you want if you're looking for um we want wording in the code that we can say the Planning Commission can won't even that would even work you want wording in the code that says you have to have the co which I think what your example was you could have a CO or a CO they chose a seaw wall you guys said Well we'd like you to have Co too and they said oh okay well my guess is I had nothing to do with it the commission went we can't require that because the code doesn't require them to do both so part of it is what's in your code which is why what you're seeing today there's a change in the code they bring it to you guys for your input when it becomes part of the code then you can hold someone accountable to the those standards so that's one thing is changing the code or recommending changes come be made to the code that you can force those requirements that you want the other thing I think I've heard you talk about is you wanted to see more okay and to see more I think um Andrew mentioned earlier they're thinking about bringing the site major site plan or something something back to to look at that so maybe there will be more stuff that comes through that'll be a discussion that might bring more before you um but again even if it comes before you if your code doesn't require what you think it should require the first they're kind of two conversations if that makes sense um I'm not tell and of course ultimately it's going to be up to the commission what they Grant or don't Grant either more review power and I don't I don't know what other process they would want you to review other than major site plans um you definitely don't want to be here every day all day sitting in sitting with them downstairs reving everything right you don't want to go that extreme um so I think that's why the division is there that the major major site plans need to be looked at and that's why they come to you now whether it's decided that those standards should be lessened so you see more that conversation it sounds like you're going to have when they are ready to present that to you yeah it has to be a separate ordinance from this and it's important to REM remember that like getting this ordinance done the John's Pass would mean that you'd have more projects coming through that that might hit that that major like site plan threshold because it is that's what I I mean like pretty much anything non-residential that's like over 2,000 square feet of building area or and has like more than 21 parking spaces would come through for you guys so if someone did a small boutique hotel with a ground for restaurant or something in Johan's pass that would you guys would have to review it and it would have like a neighborhood meeting also so even as of right now if you if this the our board adopted eventually when they adopt whatever zoning ordinance this is already in our code so you guys would end up seeing it anyways I I guess the thing is there's projects that were kind of on the borderline that were under the threshold but like like for example example like there's a someone building a a like a single family home down down on Pelican that most likely it'll be used for vacation rentals but it is it is a one unit but it is a nine-bedroom home it's a big house but it is just one unit so I think one of the things to your point that's important is to understand what our scope is defining the code I think Mr Connelly is saying we should maybe look at the code to expand that scope is that what you're okay as it stands now we have a certain box that we fit in and understanding our Authority is just recommendation and that's as far as we go which you know whatever it's fine by me but um that's that's the that's the chair we sit in at this point just to say I think our position is to be a representative of the citizens and using our as residents using our knowledge of the town and our you know representing the our neighbors to say this is what we think is the best to send that upstairs for the actual vote because we really don't have that Authority and I don't know where how if anything any of that Authority or that scope changes without massive changes to the code and I think we would be probably get a lot of push back yeah well we're we're like the first filter yeah it comes through us first and I don't know if anybody's been on the board I was for some of these big projects but there were some angry people out there yeah on what we're deciding to do and they're voicing their opinion and we're listening to them and we're still making our recommendations and uh you know some people got ugly out there you know out outside of here too and it's like who and we always we have the luxury of saying we don't get to vote on it well that that's well that's that's what I the wrap up point was I've said many times we're appointed you got to you know the elected people are the ones that are making the decision and I think that's where our role as a Planning Commission is different because we are appointed and not elected and the elected guys and girls are the ones who ultimately have to make the choices because they are chosen by the V I think with this new what's being proposed we are going to see more things because the threshold for becoming a major project has been lessened right well that's what's in our code current there just hasn't been much proposed down in John's past because of the land use and Zoning incompatibility issues but once the once this changes we probably will see more yeah once the John's Pass activity Zone if it were to pass and be accept be adopted we probably would see more things it's going to open up some other opportunities that then fall within this major Redevelopment category yeah did you ever see Jeff's plans on Pelican Lane well I did yeah but not this because you're a real yeah but it's one unit though that's what I yeah that's the thing it's only one saying we never we never even saw that yeah well that's what I'm basically saying yeah that was all by right so he okay and and state preempts us on single family un last Workshop I had a gentleman talk to me on the way out and he said to me the old veterans uh um the dog hospital yeah is getting a four-story building and he said do you know anything about it I have nothing no no that actually that actually is going to be coming in so what's happening is will come that's coming before you guys you'll see that yeah that did trigger it just it bar it hit the major site plan review threshold barely but it it hit it that's not all right I understand that's gonna come but there's other things that are have been done that we never even saw yeah okay and that's that's what so where's the planning well I mean technically the planning's been done right by well by the codes that we have and the example that one on Pelican Lane I don't think anybody's more affected by that than me personally sitting here because I'm looking right at it um and there's really nothing that there's nothing really that could be changed because of the preemption from pelis County because it is technically a single family home and there's nothing that the planning board can do to modify that we are we are actually reduce proposing to reduce the height a little bit right now it is 44 feet from DFE because it it's zoned R3 so we are proposing to reduce it to 34 feet from DFE to the Eon so any anything new that gets built there like basically the living space would be within that 34 feet and then whatever architectural features on the roof or or a AC units or whatever would could be above that 30 with but no living space above that so we we are actually proposing to reduce it a little bit to kind of keep that uh contained um with that one that it is I think it is just rooftop access on that which is within that threshold but we wanted we wanted to make sure to and and also I think we did require let me pull up the step back requirements because I I think we did we're are we are going to start requiring proposing the require step backs actually yeah so for a multi-story building a 10- foot minimum and this is in the low intensity mix use where that building is currently being built what we have proposed is for mult for multiple story buildings a 10 foot minimum step back behind the primary facade of the building shall be required for floors above the third floor for portions of a building facing or bordering a public right of way so so yeah there's standards and there's codes and there's that right for against by development and by right which I think is good is a good thing um you know they can they can build what they want to build what I do he is the consistent word is recommendation I think like that's the power that we have is the power of recommendation so to me but it also sounds like there's a little bit of an interest or a lot of bit of an interest in a like I don't want to say Architectural Review Board because I just think sometimes maybe that's a lot but there's an interest in something adjacent to that right um is there a vehicle is do we have a vehicle on the behalf of the public to recommend that there is a discussion about the development of that and if it were to Fallen you know what I mean like actually have a discussion with the public about that in this kind of setting or is that reserved to like the commissioner meeting only because sounds like if it's like an idea that we're having because we keep running into it because we're here and the public isn't necessarily here all the time and we feel like it's important yet we still have to get public input you know is there a way to say Hey you know we we'd like to recommend like a formalized discussion on an agenda with the Public's involvement about you know proposing that kind of vehicle or ordinance to the Commissioners is that something that can happen a lot can happen yeah I think I finally I think towards the end I finally I finally caught on so so a lot can happen whether it will or not of course is a different conversation but so I think what you're asking is if there's a way for the Planning Commission to make can make to make an agenda item about this conversation so the public knows you're going to have it so they can come and say yes we agree we don't agree and this is what we think your problem still the starting point still is you have the authority granted to you by the commission right it they need they need depending on what what you're looking for either your code has to change to give you specific requirements that you can hold people to that come before you like like some of the requirements and what you saw today so it's still a code change which would be ordinance public meetings you ultimately the commission all that same same process if you're looking for whether it somehow to give you I don't want to use power but that you would review more items or that you would see more items it's going to depend it's first all the commission is going to have to prove it the the um um items that were mentioned I think Chuck mentioned them about um the special magistrate you guys aren't going to see those those are variances those are special exceptions those are not for a Planning Commission a planning board by law they're going somewhere else that's why you're not going to see those um you can go see them but you're not going to hear them now sometimes those things will come together you how about how about afterwards see and I'm not looking you know in terms of okay so if if there's a variance done that's when could trigger that okay so the variance is going to be done and approved and all of that so could we then see what is being proposed from the variant if if it qualifies major yeah if it triggers a major site plan review like the sanderling does you guys will see yeah so again it's just as of right now it's the way your code is written um so that's that's where you have to go so I don't so the easy answer to your question is if the city manager wants to put it as an agenda item it can be an agenda item and there can be a discussion right but where the where that first discussion should happen is here is it with the the commission that's for them to kind of figure out um I think the first question might be and I don't know this it's chicken or the egg right where it's kind like where do we go first does the commission want to have this conversation which would probably be the first thing the city manager is going have fig we're not in a position to Define our scope no you can't Define your scope you can't demand that the commission Define your scope um there there's limits to what you can do but there's also um language that you serve at the pleasure of the commission and sometimes they can give you more than what you have right now depending on what they're asking you to do so um you know obviously we talked about if the requirements for what triggers a site a major site site yeah you know that that all of a sudden now your guys are going to say you have us here all night we're too busy right but there are things that you could do um should the commissioner want to that does trigger um more things coming before you possibly um but it doesn't you're never going to see everything and that's just the way it's gonna I me that's just the way it is in any City I don't want to see everything it sounds like it sounds like in summary this is a conversation that I think some of us would like to have yes in the city yet that conversation has to either come from you know that topic has to either come from the city manager which probably not going to happen and then or from the Board of Commissioners right it has to be said hey we want this to take place which is not something that we can do so um I think it would be nice to be the vehic to be the vehicle for that conversation just because we're the ones that see these things come across and to be involved in that and to have the public and everyone here talking about it would be great but it sounds like we can't really it's not really a conversation we're really allowed to have unless it's kind of told to us hey we want you to have it right I mean is that is that essentially what I'm I think at this point you have it needs to become an agenda item and I I I apologize you don't create the agenda does the city manager control the agenda do you guys the board board does board does and I guess see man for for what it's worth though the the current board and our current city manager uh H have been uh pretty um like I compared to previous boards they have like they're not they've been much more closely looking at new development compared to other boards that were very Pro develop this one is is they're they're much more um willing to um work s um listen to the residents concerns and and and and put the residents first versus putting the developer first so I I I feel at least as of right now I I wouldn't be as about our current board or being being very excessively pro-development um but I it's usually either the board brings it up or the city manager like like it come up at a boc workshop um but I I know we do want to look at um updating our site the site plan review section as a separate ordinance and then and then potentially updating our the PD section um to to change change some some things in it um what's interesting is in the dwani plan actually proposed the plan development idea but it had set um standards related to like like setbacks height limits and for some reason with the part of it they adopted was the plan development but not as much about the height limits and setbacks because as I said the max height in the dwani plan proposed was was at five stories over one floor parking on the on on in the R3 zoning um so which the PD doesn't uh or in its current form doesn't really reference height height limits more references other things of similar size and scale but um I I'll have to talk Jenny is currently out of town so I I I kind get the gist of it you guys want more input when when we we have have new development in the city um maybe it's also something to bring up to the Board of Commissioners during the public remarks right any any one of us as residents can get up there and say hey this is we're serving this capacity here's an idea that was discussed and just for your deliberation then they maybe Workshop it and you know and I I was going to say also as Andrews can they let Jenny know I'll let Tom trass know that this conversation happened and if they have any different ideas about a method to bring that conversation forward we will get back to you but I think I think this is kind of it like you have public comment might help city manager knowing about the issue would help um but here collectively there's not do say we yeah we all agree we would like to change something understanding there's kind of different Avenues if you're looking for specific teeth in your codee that's one way you want to review more that's a different thing you want both that's fine but understand there's different different Avenues to get where you're going um and it's just finding a way there should the commission want you to do either of those and I think basically what I'm trying to say is once the building the new building gets done on elican Lane by you guys I understand it's going to be you know he's going to put some Schultz in it you know what every so once that's finished and we've already basically seen K's building the new restaurant the front part of it on John's Pass is fantastic the backside is terrible because that's where 80% of the people are going to drive up to that is what they're going to see they're going to see a backside of a building now if you go down Pelican [Music] Lane the backside of Pelican Lane is horrible the front side is fabulous that's where the tourists are okay but what I'm getting at is once Jeff's building gets done and it meets our criteria that we want to basically kind of keep that throughout the whole Activity Center in other words words that kind of look that kind of finish and let everybody try to outdo each other so we have a a fantastic looking Community down there yeah and I think I think the thing is is this becomes the natural forum for this conversation but unfortunately it always is like you you get the the PD shows up and it's like you're behind the curve because it's like well we're here we're here to get approved or whatever or recommendation for approval um so it's just a little it's like I think we keep having this conversation because it's like every single time one of these comes in we're like wait why didn't we see this before and I think but I I think based on the authority that has been defined and sounds like we should if we really want that we as Citizens not just just board members probably need to start asking questions like can we have this conversation can this become a real item because we keep we keep running into it and this is like the natural place where it gets run into the most right so and I mean I I would be in favor of like you know reaching out and trying to see if we can get that combo started well I think also John had the kind of question is everybody willing here of the seven of us to be taking on more things you know cuz like if there's only two or three of us that are willing to do that then we you know vacate it yeah so don't like me I mean I think I think there's limits to everything right I it's more of yeah but that's where the conversation comes into play because maybe someone in the public has a really good idea as to how to handle it and maybe it becomes a totally separate entity I mean who who knows um I don't think it necessarily has to happen here um but I on the concept of that kind of review process happening I would I would be generally in favor of something like that makes sense you know you have something yeah I mean and just want to say you know on behalf of me um City staff I have no objections bringing as much in front of you guys as you're willing to see and weigh in on I I love have more sets of eyes on stuff especially as we get into more trickier things that come up or stuff you just would so for City staff you know we would understand if things go that way and be supportive of you know in be more inclusive um and we do have very Savvy land use attorneys who know when they're submitting with a developer what they're required to do and what they're not so if we were to say you know gez our Planning Commission would really love to see this sooner they'd be like we don't have to do that so you know as much as we would love to sometimes throw it to you guys a little sooner so that you don't feel blindsided um it we Rec I I personally recognize the time that you guys are putting in and I appreciate it we get some really good feedback so I completely understand why you would want more teeth and your voice to go a little further so I just want you guys to know from from my perspective um I absolutely know what you're going for um and figuring out how to get there through our ordinances and through all the proper channels is probably the hurdle we're up against but I I hear you and I know why you want it and what you want so and cool good Mr P that satisfy your yeah desire for the moment anyway get get the conversation started I think it's good stuff make sure the be involved with the how do you all feel about it I think we're all in agreement that we'd like to be involved as much as we can and and within the scope that we're permitted right and if that scope needs to be changed by some other authority maybe that's where we start you know bring that to the city commission and let them Workshop it and see where they want to go with it whether it requires another Board of some variety I don't know or if it puts more on our plate then so be it cool I've got something back to the village in terms of uh is property owned from the property line to the cccl and can anything be built and I'm going back to let's see here you can definitely own P the cccl but restriction on what you can do with it well yeah I mean you know and that's what there's quite a few of the properties right there on the water I mean you know and as we're losing some of the water beach rights does something need to be defined you know and basically I'm trying to I'm not sure if it's in the transitional area or it's the um transitional and John's Pass Resort I think it's a transitional no it's actually John's Pass you've got all these houses that own property beyond the CC cccl line so can they build to their property line or is it just to the C C CL line they can't build beyond the co uh County Coastal control line well I mean you know and and I I understand you know you say that but is there anywhere that it's written going Beyond that's a federal thing if if I may um any any construction water WS of CCC line would have to be approved by the EP yep correct D fdp yeah my protection um case in point would be Moby mats for instance we have done a few M mats along the beaches and anything water WS of Coastal constru Construction Control line you'd have to you to say the line people know what you mean it's a tongue twister it's a mouthful yeah so we there are you know we're seeing that the Articles going around next door whatever the post about Readington where people are saying you can't be on my beach because I own up to the high water mark well you obviously can't build anything out there you your lot line may be described as going out to the high water mark well beyond the line but you can't do anything with it you can't build anything any permanent structure beyond that line preservation right yeah there might might and that line moves yeah sure that's not a static line either it it the D can decide they want to move it landward and then what's in there can stay but if it has to be replaced it's moved a couple times yeah during my lifetime yeah so and there might be some non-conforming stuff that that might be built over it but that wouldn't be allowed if it had to be rebuilt so um keep that if in mind like if you see something that it might just be like a legal non-conforming use but if it had to be rebuilt they wouldn't be allowed to do that again so okay um that hit what you wanted now who she brought us some pictures yes y are we allowed to just add stuff without it being on the agenda since it's not posted or we if it's just discussion I don't want to get us in trouble I could no yes so it kind yes yes you can's nothing we're voting on or anything you can talk about stuff that's not on the agenda but the the question then becomes if you want to and I don't know what it is so I'll start that that's not going to affect what I'm saying I'm not sure what it is either the idea is the agenda the point of it is to let the public know what you're going to talk about so they can be part of that discussion and have their three minutes or more to to to talk with you about that topic so if it's something that you think would be better off being an agenda item you could move it and ask it to be an agenda item again I'm not not sure I'm assuming it's the city manager that controls that whoever controls that it's not me sure um and that I'm trying to be sensitive too I don't want to overstep our balance it's not wrong but sometimes there's certain things you really want to make sure the public knows your about like a high level of what this is about and it is I mean this is not this is if I can jump in on this one because we went through this before and with Linda was here we voted as the Planning Commission that we wouldn't bring anything day of you would send an email to Linda and then she would approve it and put it on the agenda so that we know what's coming and we're not just looking at a piece of paper sitting here going what is this for and then we have you know we couldn't research so we kind of voted on it before and the Planning Commission voted that that's the way we would handle these so that way we would know and not just be here for hours talking about whatever topic and then another one and it just keeps rambling on how about you give us a minute or two synopsis of what we're going to talk about at the next meeting really it just recommending to put some like truncated domes in John's past that's all it is that's that's all that is and this is for Access yes Ada accessibility yeah just just uh just to note that for instance there's a handicap sign that doesn't doesn't meet code and there aren't really any truncated domes at at ramps so it just basically bringing a little bit attention that maybe we should take a look and um put some truncated domes in some areas it's nothing big so this more informational for yeah enforcement or for planning department to look into you're welcome I mean I don't know that's within our scope right um good information and I'm totally on board with you know making it the pass as accept do it talk public work why am I not surprised um yeah we can get with we'll get with engineering Public Works planning and we'll all bring this to our attention and get get this on our radar some of it that's just a little note appropriate that that fit what we need okay cool without crossing boundaries of non-agenda items being on the agenda things like that try to be sensitive to that thank you for that but now that we know there was a vote in a I forgot about that I remember talking about that a couple years ago legally yes you can do what you just did policy wise it sounds like no you cannot okay so that didn't happen everyone anybody who listening all right um anything else for the good of the order here the good of the city I don't see anything so our meeting is scheduled for Monday July 1 at 6: PM uh right here at the same location hope to see all of your smiling faces here again will not see mine but someone will be here ah well we'll miss you terribly and uh thanks for all you do for us by the way thank you and thank you guys for putting together a really good presentation letting us know what's going on and we really appreciate that and I know it's a lot of effort so thank you on our behalf thanks this meeting is adjourned thank you e