##VIDEO ID:vPvvGYrgs5c## e e e e e e e e e e e e e um is this also a work session or just a regular session right work session regular yeah I was telling them I was like you I said ter call me and she was like excited to talk to so I knew she really dangerous the only time you're hey testing testing like oh it's you again and she was here last work session [Music] to talk about okay you need to come to that there's a good reason you have to be there okay I'll be there but then the problem H in it's first meif that's the problem okay good that's we we Daryl we're ready okay I lost my train of thought good evening welcome to the July 13th U LPA agency meeting August August huh a August August that's right what am I saying July August 13th it's been a long day uh can we have a roll call yes present tonight we have Bruce kavana darl Lopez David poock and David de thank you and we can just take a moment to silence our cell phones next item is approval of minutes from I don't have the agenda in front of me it has that's why I'm stumbling Sor you go that is why I'm stumbling no road map so approval of minutes any motions for the July 2nd Mr kov yeah my thing I got no battery we'll share we'll share I made a motion to approve the July 2nd uh meeting minutes who second it second never yep any conversation on the minutes for July 2nd there but I don't have any discussion okay no all those in favor approving the minutes for July 2nd say I yes hi next one is uh the work session a minutes any motion I'll make a motion to approve the July 2nd work session meeting minutes too second David second it yes all those in favor approving the minutes as is say I I all those opposed next item is public comments this is the timer anybody wishes to speak on any item that's not on the agenda this is the time to do so seeing down I'll close the public comment next item is public meeting we have no public meeting we do have one item for public hearing ordinance number 1750 amendment to article 9 concurrency management of the city's Land Development code I guess is saf's taking over at this point Thank you Mr chairman this is a request for the local planning agency to consider an amendment to article 9 concurrency of the city's Land Development code the LPA is required to um by Land Development code sections 2.4d and E to review Land Development code amendments and make recommendations to the city council on the proposed amendments Florida Statutes 166 also requires the local planning agency to hold or the local government to hold two advertised public hearings on the proposed ordinance um therefore the Land Development code amendments will undergo three public hearings one with LPA and two with the city council so this is the first of the three public hearings the city has contracted with Jonathan Paul with new Urban Concepts who's with us tonight to develop a Mobility plan and Mobility fee the proposed Mobility plan which the LPA has considered at a work session already and the mobility fee will affect development and Redevelopment throughout the city the purpose of developing the proposed Mobility plan and Mobility fee is to replace the city's Road impact fee and the County's Mobility fee with the combined City administered Mobility fee based upon the projects listed in the Mobility plan now city council has conducted numerous um work sessions on the 2040 proposed 2045 Mobility plan and Mobility technical fee and the LPA also conducted one on November 29th 2022 so there are some companion ordinances to this ordinance that is not considered by this board but will be considered by the city council one is the adoption of the Mobility plan and Mobility fee the other is um a code of ordinance that amends the city's Mobility um fee the impact fee itself and how we assess impact fees those are going to city council including this particular ordinance on Monday August 19th as well as Monday September 16th amendments to the code of ordinance chapter 28 impact fees by public facility incorporates the recommendations of the 2045 Mobility plan and Mobility fee technical report as well as the city of Ido 2045 Mobility plan and Mobility fee extraordinary circumstances study the amendments to the code of ordinances chapter 28 replace certain references to multimodal impact fee and Mobility fees a summary of the Amendments is provided in your staff memo um we have also placed in front of you on the table um exhibit a and there has been a change to exhibit a and I want to go over that um with you that Chang today um if you look at um the paper that's in front of you is section 9.2 General provisions and it's under A4 and I highlighted the area that I need you to take a look at um if you look at three it says the city shall not issue a development agreement site development order unless or until there is concurrence a concurrency finding for the development so we struck through development agreement and we place development agreement a new section um new letter for development agreement and for um we numbered it four and it says the city shall require language within the development agreement stating the following the maximum number of units for residential uses and maximum square feet for non-residential uses are not guaranteed until there is a concurrency finding for the development and then our previous language with which is in your um staff memo said that the number of residential units and the amount of non-residential square footage may be reduced in the development agreement to comply with the concurrency finding well it was brought to staff's attention that the language appear to allow the city to change a development agreement unilaterally without the consent of the property owner so there was new language proposed which is the highlighted um language that is the new proposed language and it says the developer property owner acknowledges that the number of residential units and square footage of the nonresidential development that may ultimately be developed pursuant to the development agreement shall not exceed what is supported by the future concurrency findings for the development so A and B will now have to be incorporated into a development agreement which says that they the developer or the owner understands that if there is not capacity um that they will not be able to achieve what they're proposing so that's what A and B States so this new language has been reviewed by our City attorney as well as staff our assistant City attorney and our staff and we concur with the the language the proposed language um staff recommends approval of the ordinance and um with the amended with the amended language this concludes staff's presentation and we're available for questions and we also have Jonathan Paul here just in case you all have questions about the Mobility plan and fee so the whole thing of number four is new not just B that is yellow right that is correct the whole thing is new it's underlined y it's so why was b yellow B is the new language that was changed that's not a part of your your original ordinance yes it was changed okay fine I'm good with you no that's fine Mr chair you will have to open up to the public okay this time we'll open up to the public for comment but not everybody all at once right I'll open this now up for public comment seeing that I will close the public comment section I have a motion miss Mr pa uh motion we're just recommending right recommending approval motion to recommend approval of ordinance 1750 amendment to Article 4 concurrency management of the city's Land Development code with the with the adjust with the amended with the added language with the added language as set forth by C staff in exhibit a there a second I second all right any other discussion can you repeat your your motion again sure uh recommend approval of ordinance 1750 uh with staff's recommendation for the addition of I think it says b yes it's the whole say four four subsection B well the whole it's the yeah yeah whatever you guys said can't quite go that route yeah okay who seconded the motion I did Mr any discussions no say now I'll take a call of vote all those in favor say I I I all those post say n okay that will carry forward next item on the agenda is discussion items I will bring this up for discussion in our earlier joint session with ldcc it came uh one of the hot items was the allocation of members to this board originally they had proposed that four members should be of X area put that back on screen yeah remember we discussed that oh that thing came up again oh I thought we made it clear what our position was on that so yeah all right so the the compromise has been and I understood where they were coming from because if you remember back there used to be two Engineers on the board and we used to have a landscaper and they brought both bought some nuances that most of us did not know sure so the compromise was it said a four three should be and the emphasis is on should be I'm gonna I'm going to su su sustain my objection to that for the very reason that board members are supposed to sit in a quasi judicial capacity and evaluate competent substantial evidence they're not supposed to substitute their own judgment in lie of competent and substantial evidence so I don't care what their background is the likelihood of them misapplying judgment in lie of competent substantial EV uh evidence is a greater risk to me than the lack of understanding not provided by such evidence so no I don't think that's a good idea at all let me not everything you do is crazy out judicial I mean you is what now I'm sorry not everything you do is quide judicial okay so that that you shouldn't base it on that you're not you're not a quide Judicial what what instances Would we not be acting in a only when we have a actual um primary authority over certain deviations exactly yeah CU you're you're only in a in a in a recommending capacity so you really when you're in that you're not in equ IAL when we're in a recommending capacity we're not in a coed judicial capacity not really no because you're not making any decisions you're only recommending to counsel could I get clarification on that because it's always been explained that when this board sits in a recommending capacity we're still in a quasa judicial capacity and have to consider substantial a competent substantial evidence in our recommendations if that's not the case that's different than what I've always been understood okay I I will check it for sure but you know this this you're not in a decision-making capacity except on certain on certain matters you have we are in this decision making then we are quite judicial right you would be correct so that we do have items that do we approve and they go on that's it but if we're recommending to the council he's saying we're not right that I would like clarification on that because that my understanding is is any time almost every time actually we're sitting I should justest as a recommend but anyway if we can get clarification on that but but that would be my argument for qualifications of board members not not being relevant unless the board now when you're talking about the land vment code committee that was a group of people from specific backgrounds um uh I guess brought together to make recommendations to this body based on the fact that we didn't come from those uh uh disciplines and combine that with with City staff's recommendation we were able to fully consider our recommendations to council I think that's a much more effective um situation where those situations might rise where specific knowledge might be relevant but for everyday purposes I think putting people with interested backgrounds inevitably I think makes this board less effective and not more effective and that's my position well I mean and I hear what you're saying and I'm I'm my only compromise since it's only three that should be doesn't really affect is that still will leave four member and it doesn't it doesn't have to be obviously council is going to appoint the people to the board anyway so they're saying if you have someone that's willing and I'm I'm I'm of the opinion and I made that clear this afternoon is that over the years and you know we both been on it just as almost just as long as each other that a lot of the responsibilities of this board have been taken away and gone to city council sure so I I would be okay with changing that language from Sha right it says should should or shall anything that puts an affirmative uh Duty on on on Council to say well this is what you should consider to maybe consideration consideration should be given to the to the uh um applicants background not do you see I'm saying consideration I'm okay with saying consideration shall be given yeah because the way it says it says should and then it says at least currently at least four members from all those things and I was see the reason we couldn't come to an agreement because I disagreed well yeah I mean was only two of us and I just the two of us but we did get the three down to three so we can we got them down to three if we can agree to we hav agree do the three and do the language that you suggested they can take so the language is already there right should should is not what saying well should is not a requirement sh is so moove the sh so sh there is no shell there is no shell so it's not an obligation is that we should try to get at least three the language specifically yeah he's trying to pull it should it should well I understand the word it should but how is it used yeah I like why you put I've spent semesters arguing over the word should I like the way you said you said consider they should yeah I I I I do like the verb for consider that consideration should be given that could be you know I'm okay with I don't want to tie council's hands and their ability to put a point who they deem as being most qualified based on whatever factor I got when I brought up the fact that we are really representing the community here I thought I got my I got slapped all over the place for for pointing that out um and why that was wrong well when they still think it is correct I didn't agree when when they sign up to you know to apply for it is the council aware of the application they sub yeah because it says what what your background is so I mean if I'm on Council and that's what the route I want to go then that's the route I'll go one of the points that I made also was that a lot of these people that you know these categories that they had and we've had some of them and they don't want to stay because they can't commit to the time well regardless of that how many times have we had board members go well in my experience that plant won't fit there because and we're like I don't care what your experience is I have the city staff telling me they're recommending that plan I don't want board members becoming um Witnesses and I don't that's the issue we don't need to be substituting our own professional experience I'm a lawyer I don't give legal and that was the thing that that was the thing I said is that you know I think we have intelligent people on the board we got two attorneys business owners financialy whatever and I thought that you okay I might not know the rules about exactly what they're talking about today but I think I can there's also a reason there's a you know there's that board where they want those yeah people on there and this board has always not been that way I mean I I can see both sides of it sure I mean I I I I can but but I I don't know as long as it's not must be yeah that I would have a problem with but should be well must be would be a problem because some years may have only one person interested and then you need to fill three or why instead of putting because that currently puts a number we if they had you I think you should have no number say consider people from these profession consideration should be given consideration should be given to not necessarily have a number I would like that terminology and then you don't need a number exactly and you're just saying that if I have an application for somebody who is a greeter at Walmart or somebody that's an engineer I'm going to go hey I'm giving this person the job why now should be given to somebody with exper now last time like when Lisa and I came on there was a lot of people than what it normally was I think it was like 16 which was it's never happened yeah I mean that's yeah that was crazy so I was like you got lucky Mr chair can we have a five minute break I'm going to get my computer cuz this one for some Reon we can save you can you just read it to us and that we need we need to access the computer you don't know your password but I'm going to get M did you try password it won't even let did one two three have youed it did you unplug it and plug it back in did you get a hammer yet only when you're under subpoena what you only need to do that when you're under subpoena oh the hammer take a hammer too I said you get a hammer for it yes only when you're in subpoena oh you don't need a hammer e e e e e e you can be a little late for it excuse 45 minutes Sam I was in the middle of a training here trust me [Laughter] somebody what's that somebody ever you know the gri we're all in trouble we're all in trouble for so many reasons yeah that's just one that's just one it's better just to not know and the idea today with the joint SE session was to get everything that there was no no consensus to trying to find consensus so that ideally at city council will have one document that everybody recommends well yeah because it's it's the one that whatever happened with that whatever did the that thing ever get settled with the the new fee that we were arguing about that 1% they AR not yet not yet you that word doc to the comparison this should even be contentious I know we're not on the record yet but this should this work session anyway this shouldn't be contentious well this is it was not really contentious it was just that there was a recommendation of having you know a portion of the board more professional you know in with those professions right should include at least four how all that and I would say consideration should be given um to applicants from the following professions that's it yeah applicant consideration should be given to applicants from the following professions that's all it should say right I'm okay seems reasonable we want a whole Board of just people from that thing I would say no well but I wouldn't put I would say consideration should be given I mean I don't think it should be I I don't think it should be on there at all yeah to be honest I mean let them listen removing it completely I think it it's not necessary let's see if we but absolutely here's what I would say I think if we have consensus to remove it completely I think we we say that and then I say we say in the alternative if Council decides it must be there then fine then then reward it to say um consideration should be given to applicants from the following professions and that shouldn't be what it says I think that's we should just do to begin with I mean I mean I would only say to put it in there because they want something in there they want something yeah and if if that makes them happy then great but in the same sense too does council want it in there or just the well then then Council Council we decide what they want to do when it gets to them I I'm just saying I should let should we should let Council know that we feel nothing should be there yeah but something has to be there make the so can I speak on behal of the board then and say this is our recommendation like the consideration we don't want it to be on there but if there something I have the recommendation consens recommendation of the board if May if I may articulate the cons are we back on the yes please let us know what the we back on the record yeah we never we're back on the record um the consensus of the board is the following we don't recommend um section two to leave it out at all we would like it we would like it struck stricken okay can you write that can you type that there's more to this though there's more yeah yeah yeah we would like we recommend that it be stricken in the in the event that City the council does not agree we make the following recommendation that section two read consideration should be given okay hold on he's going to type it it's not it's in the event that Council chooses to read this section we would recommend that it should read um consideration should be given to applicants from the following professions wow put in the donations be given to all L it's not B final okay I guess you that it that this section should be I have open to all professions so that's right a consideration should be given to this Prof it's the so what this is saying is you can try to because should for us is not an obligation in the LC sh is an obligation which is why we said consideration should be given to applicants from the following professions but should be given consideration should be given to all professions right are we discriminating the other professions because if it's just consideration it's a all professions will be considered or should be special consider special consideration yeah um special consideration should be given to applicants from the following professions that's it what okay do you want to put how many no because we don't want it to seem as if we're requiring any body from thing decides down what what if they're giving special consideration to everybody who's to anyone in that profession and only to those in in that profession well they're going to do that anyways if you leave it the way it is there's no limits this one limits I mean you can limit so the way the AR the argument not even the argument the suggestion from staff was that it says should it's not a binding oblig on councel so if it's not a binding obligation on Council no matter what we say they don't have to have it's just a guiding principle it's a guiding principle and and that's I think that's how we read Because should include at least as possible all of us are reading this to suggest that it seems as if even though the language should is in there it appears as if it's a minimum because at at least this many it's it's reading more like an obligation than a choice and that's the the I think the contention of the board so we would prefer that it say consideration should be given to applicants from the following professions so what if you remove at least what if you just move you have explain to me the difference because this says three members froming position well we're removing the numbers first of all're removing the the number and um so instead of saying it should include at at least four which makes the suggestion that if I was reading they came down to three they backed off they came down to three whatever when I read this as an attorney and as a member of the community and a member of this board when I read this I go huh this is telling me I have to pick three people from that list I know that's not what it says because as a lawyer would interpret that no that's not putting a binding Duty on you it still gives the perception that you must have I think it guides you to that when you have that language in there and you said it's a guide that is that was the in but so the board basically is to have Prof okay but but you're this is what's frustrating me and no no disrespect if it's if it if you're s if you're putting a recommendation to the council that they consider these professions but then saying we want it's the intent it's if you're intending to bind the council to make certain decisions you're not really making it optional no it's not really binding because if if there let's say if the pool of of of applicants do not have mhm those professions which is why consideration is being given to them if they do well it's not even consideration if if they are not there you know they will have they have to be residents right the LPA composition requires to be residents so they all have to be residents but if if the there is a position open a vacancy tomorrow and this is in effect in all of the applicants do not fit those see one they will still pick pick you know from it's not forcing them to have this is just a guiding but we're reading it as if so but and we made a recommendation and and with respect we made we said well this is the way we'd like it to read we don't want it there at all but if Council wants it there this is what we'd like it to say whether it says the same thing and you know Mr Hall if you think it we're basically just you know Reinventing the W then cool we're more happy we're more comfortable with the language we recommended true I think semantics yeah well fine we like our semantics can I ask a question sure just a quick question so what if it just reads the LPA should include members from the following professions with as many professions represented the lowest possible and get rid of the four no I I like the the way we said the way it's been articulated gives in my opinion reads like the difference goes to councel you know consideration should be given to profession you know to um applicants um because it also says members in there that was the other issue it says um for members of yeah it it almost seems as if they would scrutinize anybody on the board but I would say if we're considering if I'm city council and I'm like okay what are the terms for LPA and you're like hey here's what you have to consider when I read that it seems like it's obligatory that I pick at least three people from that list even we change it but if you said consideration should be given to applicants um from the F you know with the following uh backgrounds or Prof you know from the following Prof professions I would go okay cool I have two ANS here one of them has that one of them doesn't I think we should give this person you know more and and the problem is is if you have all applicants with those backgrounds have one citizen or two citizens then good all you you're not going to have any citizens you're going to have people from no no they're still citizens it's special consideration is what you're doing what you mean is people without yes if I have PE if I have applicants if I'm on Counsel and I have six openings and I have six or seven applicants and six all of them have that and all of six have the profession and one does not then I think we would have a board made up of people that have a lot of experience relevant to the function of so you would go with the six that have it as opposed to adding to one person yeah my concern is in I don't want to punish somebody from having professional experience I just don't want it to seem as if we're specifically targeting a certain number of people with a certain relevant experience which is the way it reads in my opinion and the reason why I just think your your suggestion has some unint ended consequences that's the only thing yes I think it does only because it does not Li you too many people with this would you let me ask you this then we flip it around if we had seven applicants and seven openings and all seven applicants had that background or there was eight applicants in seven openings and they all had that background would you say yeah sorry we have too many experienced people let's take somebody who has no idea what they're doing that's going to be better you want you want that you want that mix mix you do want the mix then remove section completely that's why suggested to remove it because I I think when Council or anyways if I was on councel and I get all the information that comes to me I'm going to make a decision I mean whether that's on there or not I'm probably going to make a decision based off the information I read what I think at that time I mean for example when myself and Lisa run there were people in that profession that submitted it I think there were 16 people and um neither Lisa or I were in that profession which which I I also understand the the leaning towards getting that profession and having a nice mix of that too but I also understand what everybody else is saying and that's why I I would strike the whole thing so that there's no yeah concerns like well that wording might open it for this or that don't have it there and then again council is still going to make a decision based off the information they're given yeah and at the end of the day that's exact what it is either you trust Council to consider all of the relevant information including resumes and professional backgrounds and say yeah I'd rather have somebody that's an architect than somebody who's you know whatever astronaut um but why do we have to give them guidelines on how they should make their decision I trust Council it's it this board acts on their behalf and I trust them to appoint the people that they think or speak for them uh most most effectively I this language is designed to let Council know this is what other cities are doing yeah and that's the the consultant's point is other cities are going to this Orlando has gone to this model where the where the LPA is basically professionals well but that makes sense there are other cities that are going to that so I think this was the consultant saying Council this is what the other plate things are going to so that's why they do we know any cities that are our sized going to that format yeah there's difference between us Orlando I mean Orlando is not our format that is 100% true if Orlando is doing it we don't want to I we don't know I mean I sizewise you saying well I you know I think too where oito is and and we're doing and it may have been a reaction as much as we we're doing the downtown the water tire District that take that's going to be very technical and very specific and what's because it's going to be a complete change from the rest of the Suburban estate are I like your language yes but I would also like to put a number to it yes just just so that and I mean and here's my reasoning yeah is so that the general lay person citizen doesn't feel left out but it says that's because if it could still be all seven or well I understand that but it's saying if you have a minimum should be or because minimum at least is does you know but what I'm saying is that language at least four doesn't mean but no but the language you just descri consideration should be given to people from the following perspec Le what if you do the reverse more than three or no more than three but I wouldn't do that either because what if you had forc to put somebody unqualified on the board so that's why I don't every decision we make I mean even Deborah saw the the fallacy in my suggestion because you're like well we don't want the whole thing so this is the problem anytime we're I understand other cities are doing it you're legislating and every anytime you legislate you are there's the consequences that you have to think about which which is why I'm in favor of if the legislation isn't needed we don't need it yeah decide we use the word recommend what do you mean that we recommend the DAT you know X number should we say something like or would you consider saying something like the LPA members should reflect a mix of you know professions professions with and then we can give because then we can guarantee that we have have a a number of citizens at large that there's no way to guarantee it if it shall and this is the well but again it's a direction it's a direction it should but it's a it's a it's a guideline but who but if city council is elected by the community to make certain decisions and appointing members to the city council as one of them why should the the the code set forth what how they should be making their DEC the code says how many LPA members we we cefine all that right that has to be resident public art public art board members don't need to be residents they can be from the local community so that was a decision a poli that's an objective standard like okay I live here a profession it is too I mean and it's okay if you do not agree yeah we going to take the two decisions the two you know both both ideas to council and Council in a work session will give the direction when it's when it's brought to council or the information going to say this is what the LPA recommends this is what the when I would rather be a little bit more cohesive in a I'd rather be a little more cohesive um with the other board um you know um well that that was reason because of the number you that's why they went from the four down to three right and that's why in one sense too I I kind of lean to what you're saying is including a number in there um I mean where there's more I mean I don't want to alienate any of the regular citizens and I shouldn't say regular but the the non laay person right because because they bring a vital right input to the city different on Council whether it be on this board or that board they do bring an Insight of a even if it's emotional it's still an Insight I mean absolutely I still lead towards wiping I agree there's no way you're going to phrase this that doesn't create the unintended consequences to avoid your concerns correct there's no way if you say a minimum of well then you're going to kick somebody out if you say at least the council's going to think or a maximum but either way that you're you're putting parameters on discretion I mean like I said we used to have two Engineers yeah and one and that wasn't required it just it wasn't required worked out that way it worked out and I you know and I enjoyed them being on you know for the most part Larry being you know why also because don't forget when the applicants come in we all have to put down what we do city council looks at it and go oh this guy's we should put him on so yeah why do we need to tell them what they should I trust the the city council I I don't know i' say strike it then I say strike it all right it's up to y'all I say strike so we have two to strike is there a third yeah I I that's my first ankling is a striking they make the decision we were going to the consideration wording only in the them to appease them yeah but I don't think it needs to be there I trust the city council to make those those consider if I'm on Council I'm going to go okay let me look at these resumes and if I see somebody with a background is relevant to the LPA so so what about your other language the contingency because I have the original to be stricken through but then you have the we're going to throw out the rid of the contingency is this correct yeah sure yeah I'm I'm good with that think your swim that's it swim let them figure look because look if Council gets this and goes nah I want people to tell me how to think cool it's our choice but I'm not going to tell them should we let you present this what's that we should let you present this to council I'll present it to councel 100% just schedule tell me when it is LPA so we had our discussion we had our discussion this section should be stricken LP that said I think we have we have anything on the um perfect Tuesday August 20th no meeting no meeting Wednesday at the end of the month work session on August 28th y 4:30 September 3rd there's no meeting another work session on September 9th I won't be here on the 9th we'll be out of town and a no meeting on the 17th of September so when do we have a meeting well all all we have is work sessions work sessions oh okay next week we don't have anything next week right no okay I had it on my account I got take it off yeah I'm good with that good discussion gentlemen yes too bad youall weren't here earlier got to work tell I know I'm sorry boss I need to take vacation time oh where you going a work session weed we adjourned we're adjourned thank you talk 5 Seconds sure e e