##VIDEO ID:EWKljrPd19s## I saw sent email early July recording yes sir ready to roll no sir here we go not at all but here we are to call the meeting to order Terry can I get you to do the invocation sure our heavenly father we thank you for this beautiful day you've given us we thank you for your son who died save our sins we pray these things in Jesus name amen PL to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all playall thank youer all right Madam clerk can I ask you to do the roll call please okay I'm sorry I'm not even listen listen who is number one sorry I am hi here Mr Rich I'm sorry I have your names backwards and then we got mer Mr Meritt Meritt Mr Meritt I didn't even look at that sorry sorry it's all good here and do we not go in alphabetical order we do right we're supposed to it's okay all right and Mr Striker here and chairman rioo yes here thank you and uh ladies and gentlemen we're going to to uh approve the minutes from last month next month okay just uh you know we're going through a transition right now and it'll take us a little bit of time to get those to us so um first of all thank you to the two people who have shown up should be a fast easy meeting today um I do want to go ahead and uh recognize that everybody was reinstated by our governing board uh in you know as our planning Commissioners congratulations to you and congrat ulations to Bev who is our new Vice chairman thank you no no thank you we really appreciate that today we have a relatively simple straightforward meeting we've got two public hearings um where we will open the the floor up for any discussion one of them has to do with the new FEMA firm maps and the other one has to do with uh off- premise signs and then the last time we were here I did ask everybody to review at least the first 15 pages of the comprehensive plan to look for conflicts or anything that we would need to do in order to uh update it um so let's uh let's go right to the the public hearing I'm going to open the public hearing uh the first public hearing has to do with an update uh by the uh flood insurance or for flood insurance Maps um just a little history on this if you're interested Bay County is required to adopt federally Mark uh mandated updates to their flood plane Management program FMA has issued firm Maps these are flood insur insurance rate Maps these Maps do reveal properties elevation and flood likeliness uh and also it's based on nine different categories that's changed it used to be 11 different categories they whittel it down to nine our goal today is to have the first of three public hearings the first one being today open to the public for comment uh and then after that there will be another one on August 20th which will be done by the council and then September 3rd meeting the notification requirements so do I have anybody in the audience that's interested in speaking about this ordinance very good well I'm going to go ahead and shut it down Mr Sloan is does there need to be a formal reading of this or uh can we can we simply vote on it it uh you have it in your packet with the heading I can read it if you would like but the council is the one that that does the reading normally for those who might be watching on film uh is it should we just read the ordinance itself uh yes sir you can or or I can just read the header if you do a motion uh to recommend the approval of this and I can read the header and and talk about the change very good we'll do that I'll make a motion to recommend the approval to uh Council to go to them we have a motion on the floor to approve the coun to go to councel for their review do a second very good Madam clerk can I get a Mr H yes Miss Hut yes Mr Meritt yes Mr Striker yes chairman Regan yes and this will be for ordinance number 2024 d423 entitled an ordinance of the city of Parker Florida amending the Land Development regulations ordinance number 2022 d49 as amended to update the date of the flood insurance study and the flood insurance rate Maps providing for applicability providing for mechanism for correction of scrier Errors providing for the liberal construction of the ordinance providing a for repealer Clauses and providing for an effective date and what it's changing the the flood insurance study and the flood insurance rate Maps will be dated October 24 2024 instead of June 2009 2 2009 very good I don't know if anybody got a chance to review what those Maps actually look like but it looks like Parker actually did really well on those it looks like they actually reduce the number of properties that would come into a flood zone and they put them into a02 or a 1% flood that could be good news for a lot of people who have to pay flood insurance absolutely I compared that to the 2009 map which is still out there right now because it's active until did we say August 16th I think August 16th is when they go in effect well October it would be in effect uh on September the 3 oh September the 3D okay very good that's when your resolution takes effect the actual maps come into effect October 24th very good so good news for the city of Parker and I don't kind of related to flooding I don't know if anybody noticed but we've had some big rains that giant ditch that they dug in front of the Cherry Hill Apartments looks like it's absorbing all of that water I haven't seen that road you know get flooded so oh the m property yeah well the melindia property and then they also dug a large ditch right in front of the Cherry Hill Apartments so okay we're done with that okay the second uh public hearing uh is ordinance 202 24-42 uh I'm going to open the Public Public hearing uh has to do with off- premise signs just a little bit of History here uh planning had done a lot of research on this over the last several months reviewing the benefits and the disadvantages of having Billboards in the city of Parker um there were many many many communities that looked uh at uh Billboards in their communities and there are four states who in fact have outlawed Billboards entirely they brought to uh the Forefront reasons of beautification fighting blight uh Scenic uh conservation visual pollution and the concept that beauty is good for business in their communities and they proved it there's some science behind it that they actually showed so uh we took that information uh and we are recommending to the governing body our council members and our mayor uh that we wish to disallow future Billboards from being erected in in the city of Parker um so if passed uh that would uh that would essentially be what we're requesting not to remove any of the current bill boards but simply to prevent new ones from being erected so uh does anybody from the AUD AI have any thoughts that they would like to share about this please hi John that's my prence that's guys decision well listen I it's it's your decision but I will tell you this recommendation we we did just so you know and I always appreciate your your opinions because they're they're well thought out but we we did talk to Mr SLO specifically about that and uh he he let us know that the few that are actually in existence and and they're relatively new that the legal challenge that the city may have to undertake in that environment may not be worth the fight um so um being that we're not I've been in some towns pounds where seems like every 400 ft you got a giant ugly billboard we don't have that here and because right now it's only on Tindle Parkway uh that these off- premise giant Billboards and of course this has nothing to do with uh signage for on premise signs for businesses that want to promote their signs it's really just uh you know a company that doesn't exist here that wants to put a big billboard up and and wants to advertise solar cane for example and put it on a big 60 sign those tend to be hazardous as well some communities actually showed in Hurricane communities they were hazardous because if those fall they're G generally giant steel structures that could destroy whatever is under it when they come down during a hurricane so aside from beautification and fighting blight and all of that stuff um that's why we chose to eliminate future ones and of course it's going to be council's decision to make that final choice this is only our recommendation but it was based on that beautification fighting BL Scenic conservation visual pollution and beauty is good for business but we we did tackle that question that very question you brought up about removing the few that we do have and uh I think we came to the conclusion that we would absorb and understand Mr Sloan's legal uh concerns about it and decided not to put that into this particular um request for our council members to decide on not to remove the existing share with Mr chair and and Mr Haney that I'm still looking at a mechanism to potentially address those so it it's not in this ordinance but this one just addresses prospective yes but I'm still looking at the issue that you brought up I appreciate your diligence I think most of us are with you yeah it's just how do we get there and I think this is could it be done where if it was damaged in hurricane then they could not put it back up well again if it becomes a nonconforming right structure right then it would have to comply with the current codes and if the current code says no sign then no sign all right so you know not to say we want a hurricane but we get some good strong winds that it happens to knock one over than I'm pretty sure you got a a cutting torch somewhere too John don't you that's a good question yeah that is a good question very good question could be one of the means that we use in order to U you know prevent it from existing in in the future very good no no thank you John the other thing I wanted to point out Mr chair I didn't know everything that I have struck through was under all premise signs but I don't know if you want to leave in on page three 3 through seven which are kind of more or less uh generic and it doesn't it's not specific to offter sign so you could leave that part in without without dealing with off premise anymore because it would it would relate to any sign for instance saying the sign can't be posted unless they have the written percent of the property owner obviously that would apply to any sign um maintain good and safe structural condition that sort of thing so you know I struck everything but you know in retrospect I I wanted to bring to your attention that perhaps three through seven I don't think I I don't think I included that no the strike through but but he's talking about what's already in the ldr right under signage the ordinance would have the strike oh no yeah we don't have a copy of that Mr s uh that's okay but you're talking about your your strikethroughs would be under signage in the and and what I'm addressing there Mr chair is seven days 10.4 General restrictions and limitations the first two are clearly off PR sign limitations which would be not needed since you would be banning uh the future off premise signs three through seven of that s days 10.4 are are more generic if you want to look at it that way and they could apply to any signage and those specifically relate to city and state signs and government agency signs and informational signs so those wouldn't U come under this ordinance anyway right so at the end of the day maybe those should be left in and not stricken and then uh I can adjust the numbering and we can Mo I know that when Council when you brought this to council that this was our intent um um I think the mayor had already identified that he was didn't have an appetite for um you know asking anybody who already had a signed to reduce it so that'll that'll be you know their their area to to review but I do know that there was a strong desire to make sure that we didn't impact and I don't think we even have the authority to impact any of the government signs that would be there anyway that would be under the same category informational signs electric signs those are informational sign not under what I would be considering so once again you wanted to strike which one of 7104 which ones were you originally I had stricken all of 7 d10.4 oh and I'm saying perhaps only just one and two and leave that that makes sense yeah because because three specifically talks about city state and government agency sides yeah so that would have to stay yeah okay that's good I mean the intent for a mus right now is to prevent future Billboards from being erected for all the reasons we identified and then I guess uh on another date if we choose to um begin to tackle you know John's request about having the few signs that are there that are that are purely Commercial Business Signs uh be removed then that'll perhaps be in another day okay well let me do this then as it's written today day without the it sounds like Mr Sloan wants to go ahead and um remove some of the strikeouts but the with the major concept being that future Billboards non-government non-state uh non-informational signs uh would be exempt from this ordinance um I'm asking for a motion to go ahead and uh we done with public move it to the public yeah I'll I'll shut the public meeting down thank you so the public will be shut down so now I'll ask for a motion to go ahead and thank you see look at that already we got we got the vice chair technicality that's okay appreciate it looking for a motion to go ahead and uh move forward with the future elimination from whenever Council reviews it the recommendation to council to prevent future Billboards and off- premise signs from being erected in the city of Parker do we need to specify that it only causes the one and two and we want to or is that that General everybody understand I think I like that uh so uh with the only strikeouts Rich being item one and item two will the there are other strikeouts 101 102 103 which are all directly addressing the the the signs the alter signs yeah but but uh but I think that's what m Mr Hall is saying is that so strikeout one and two would remain struck out and items three and beyond that that were struck out would remain right and that's under 7 d10.4 what I'm what I'm also saying is that 7 Days 10.1 location restrictions for off premis signs oh yes 7-10 point2 size of those off premis signs 7-3 10.3 the spacing of off signs those are those remain stricken all of the yeah because all of those would become obsolete at point so maybe then so how about how about this I make make the recommendation to do it as is with the exception of striking out 3 through seven of 104 deleting the strike yes yeah sounds good I'll second I have a second can we get a vote Yes Sir Mr Hall yes MTO yes Mr Meritt yes Mr Striker yes chairman re yes thank you did I do something I'm sorry ma'am laughing I'm sorry she's laughing at me oh no no no all right very good okay so the uh the third thing on the menu here uh was in relationship on an annual basis we are required by law to review the comprehensive plan uh for any uh any changes that need to occur um these firm Maps will be updated but that's in a different section than the first 15 pages so if we can let go ahead and grab the first 15 pages of this and um let me just go ahead and give everybody s get everybody calibrated on this all right so if we uh so I think if we get through sections one two and three um I think that that will be a good day's work uh and then we'll attack uh four five and six uh at next month's meeting but ultimately here um the first part is about future and land use uh this you know these seven pages in future land use really um speak to the protection and preservation of the elements in are seven different districts seven districts being the low density residential mixed use mixed use to General commercial recreational District Conservation District and the public institutional District um has everybody had a chance to review that page one for any conflicts or alterations that we are requesting do we need to insert the light manufacturing yes Light Industry uh that is a darn good question um let's see I think not in these not in in page one Terry I think that will likely come in on page two item three okay okay um but good good call out there I didn't know if that would go under the commercial or commercial because the only District light manufacturing is lowed in is commercial is commercial yes sir yes sir so really we just have the goals the objectives and the policies here uh and page one really just covers the residential district uh and also the mixed use uh districts uh and mixed use one uh it talks about the density uh in those areas this is of course is all uh headlined by the state under chapter 163 part two um I personally did not find any conflicts with page one right okay so we're moving on to to page two uh and you're exactly right Terry uh this is where we would add light manufacturing to uh General commercial under uh conditional use um so Mr Sloan that would be the first change there and I think you're probably already aware of that uh so under under uh commercial A and B commercial General commercial District GC um we've already addressed that language in the proposed ordinance for 2024 d422 which is going to be sent to tahy for their review very good okay so look at that Terry you're already way ahead of that game okay he beat you too very good outstanding imagine that very good I did find a conflict the uh in General commercial and that same one uh we talk about a floor area ratio everybody who is unaware of what that term means uh very simply if you bought yourself a 5,000 squ foot parcel of property in an mu1 area you can't build more than a five if you had a floor area ratio of one you can't build more than a 5,000 foot building people wonder how that's possible you can have a three-story building you know with each store being you know approximately 1,700 square feet so you could get there so right now the verbiage is correct and that in General commercial we're saying that the Flor area ratio that could be a maximum of 1.5 um it is written that way however in the chart we've got 1.0 so there's conflict there and I believe the comprehensive plan is is is right but I think that the uh the alteration on the chart um in the ldr so Madam clerk if you'll just kind of note that uh for future reference that the chart uh for floor area ratio is wrong and we need to update it that would be great me see if I can get you a page yeah it's uh it's actually the page 4-15 and it is on the new one it was just a we just missed it it it shows up as a general commercial 1.0 and it should be 1.5 thank you the only other thing is uh I know that I've done this at a at another time and in our life here um where we clearly Define the difference between high medium and and low intensity commercial development uh the um the comprehensive plan says high-intensity commercial development is the designation for General commercial but the ldr says low intensity commercial development so Mr Sloan is that enough of a uh I think we probably need to decide which one's right were we right in the comprehensive plan or were we write in the in the um ldrs um if we just look at the um I did not bring that oh no worries no worries I I'll just uh so we just identifyed a Comm commercial it says all low intensity commercial activities eligible to obtain a valid occupational license is accepted but in the comprehensive plan we say this District allows for high intensity commercial development um the comp plan's going to Trump okay and that language is currently in process of going to Tallahassee from the comp plan so very good the ldr should match okay very good that language so Madam clerk if we'll ask that item a on page 4-10 um match the high intensity commercial development um that's on page 4-10 of the ldrs uh we need to change that word low out with high and there is a big difference because the state actually defines high medium and low based on building size and things of that nature very good okay and I think any anything else for page two guys okay so I think we're done with page two we're going to move on to page three um the one thing I will I found here um is uh if you look under the powers of the city clerk uh the city clerk um should have had the powers to provide um options for individuals wanting to construct docks and here we specifically say that um you would prohibit construction of docks Pi Wares and other similar con uh structures and and water bodies under City jurisdiction unless specifically approved by the city council we currently give uh docs uh the the city clerk whoever that may be the right to uh approve that on their own you know as long as U environmental uh permits are are dra and it's done proper so Mr slan I've got to I've gotta grab your brain for a minute here uh once again I I think I know the answer because of the last question so within the comprehensive plan we we prohibit construction of docks Piers Wares and other similar structures unless city city council gets a chance to vote on it but in the ldr we give that right to the uh city clerk so do we want to resort to this land language here we need very good we'll do so uh Donna if you don't mind well I I put a caveat in unless you want to make a future Amendment to the comp plan to change it to the city cler when you put that's more difficult than simply amending the L and and when you putting in a dock um you might I mean there's such sensitivity around seagrass and uh in a habitat that may be harmed uh I certainly don't want to end up like South Florida where it takes 25 years to get an approval for a dock but I think it probably makes sense to remove that from the city clerk's responsibility because there's a lot that has to be reviewed uh from a environmental impact study standpoint we we had a doc build and it was amazing how the environmental impact study took weeks and it was expensive um so at the end of the day uh it's probably a little bit more complex than just allowing the clerk to make that choice would be my thought but do you want to but I do remember when we were going through this the council members um gave that power to the clerk so do we want to check with them first or do we want to revert to what the comprehensive plan is well right now the comp plan would Trump okay U and you could recommend whatever course you want my recommendation would be to follow the comprehensive plan based on what I know about environmental issues and and things of that nature and then the next LR Amendment we can just pick that up pick that up okay will you just show that as a conflict with the ldr and then what we'll do is we'll ask Council what their thoughts are very good and then Madam clerk if you'll just send me the corrections that need to be made I'll go ahead and start working on those as we go through this process yes sir Donna just so that you have an exact uh that is on page uh 4-5 under uh powers of the city clerk okay right now the city clerk I'm sorry skip that 4-6 powers of the city clerk do allow uh them to uh provide permit approval for a dock seaw wall okay so we probably want to back that out of there again because of the complexity nature of it 3 five or four five 46 is where I'm at right now under permit Authority for the city clerk and it's item number four okay is it there we're talking about in the are location yes sir page 4-6 permit approval Authority item Four Construction of do SE wall rich I think at one point uh I remember that my pages may be off by uh one page or two but it's under 3-43 permit approval Authority oh yeah I was okay that's it was okay very good so I'm just going to circle that as um something to review and uh knowing that the comprensive plan trumps the ldrs because it's the Bible that the state has and uh I think that's probably something we should go along with all right let's go to page four okay so I do want to point something out the language that I'm seeing from the state is pretty very is very specific that municipalities should really uh be true to their districts in other words if you're low density residentials app approve this style of a dwelling if your m1's approve these businesses and these dwellings then they really want you to to stick to that I want to point out um on Section B there within the comprehensive plan one of the things that it does request the city do is to follow that that concept that ultimately districts should be pure um and in fact it uses the words there um I'll just read the whole thing to you regulate the the use of land and ensure the compatibility of of adjacent land uses including maintaining an official land use map maintaining land use districts and allowable uses including accessory land uses maintaining Environmental Protection and developing standards creation of measures to reduce the potential for nuisances caused by incompatible land uses providing for the elimination of non-conforming land uses and other such re relevant requirements okay so in your districts and that is pretty close to exactly what the state says in terms of what their expectation is uh for municipalities within the State of Florida so just um I'm kind of bringing that up because we had some past meetings where there were some concerns over that you know which direction we go U for a a variance that was before us I do want you to know that that language does exist in our own Bible here all right um anything on page four okay very good all right let's go to page five okay page five is really about concurrency management uh the concept of concurrency management is that the city uh be in a position where we limit or or slow development if the infrastructure doesn't exist in other words if we don't have water sewer fiber optic um what other you know electric uh services that can go into an area that we be aware of that before we actually put that information that those um developments in place um one of the things that I believe our mayor and our council members are asking us to tackle at some point is to review uh the different districts that we have and make sure that um you know it's compatible with what we want the visibility or the vision of the city to be if you look at those sections a through k um that can really be a model for determining where those district lines exist okay so if we have to make those changes it makes sense to start there and those are things like uh availability of facilities and services that goes hand inand with concurrency uh suitability of site conditions Ingress and egress things of that nature so when we get to that challenge and I think we probably will because I'm hearing it more and more where we review the different districts where they're at and the adjacent uh districts that they exist then we may be in a position where we use that as the model to determine exactly uh what changes we recommend to council okay all right any any thoughts about page five other I didn't find any any conflicts on that page either so okay we're going to move on to page six uh okay um this is an interesting page so you've got the state telling us to be true to each of the districts and now you've got some language that's seems to oppose it but if you dig into it it it it doesn't really it wants us to have flexibility in the appeal process to eliminate bladed areas okay so um what it says is that if you're a city and you've got unsightly or eyes sour or blighted areas you should have some flexibility if you've got a builder that's interested in bringing some new progress to that area uh that may bend the rules a bit uh so that is um that's in page 1-6 uh and it's actually stated on two different policies our own policy 1.4.1 and 1.6.1 so um I don't see any conflicts there with the ldr or anything of that nature but that's an interesting page because it does ask for of course the council members do have flexibility based on hardships and a variety of other things to bend the rules but um that's the state that's our own comprehensive plan and the state language essentially asking us to have flexibility when there are blighted areas particularly or isour or areas that we need to improve so might be a good thought in the future just to keep in mind okay all right G to go to um page 7 uh policy 1.8.2 uh regarding non-conforming uses or structure I want to point this out as well this is in our Land Development rules and once again because a few months ago this came up and uh I know that we were conflicted uh when these particular uses in a residential area came up but um very specifically it does talk about um this policy talks about being true to your districts the trigger uh essentially uh or sometimes so essentially you're grandfathered in if you're a non-conforming structure uh on or over use until uh the recording or the transfer of fee simple legal title in other words you you've sold you've got new owners so you're grandfathered in until you have a new owner and then at some point you've got to um you got to be true to your district and that's a policy 18 1.8.2 very good any questions about where we're at so far all right guys okay we're we're on to page two- one this is about Transportation uh element um so this is really about uh Auto traffic uh nonmotorized traffic things like bikes pedest pedestrians maybe golf cart things of of those Natures um this is really just about making sure that the roadways uh whatever they are our material roadways um any of the roadways that we have uh don't exceed a level of service and what the uh what the state does is they give you levels of service a through F and essentially it's about you determine if those roadways are efficient by determining at peak hour of service whether or not there is a time delay so in other words if it's a if it's a time if it's an a level of service if you have traffic that roadway isn't wide enough but you have a you have a traffic delay which causes you more than 30% of your time you you you're at the peak of what that roadway is capable of doing according to the state and then B is uh 45% and then C is 60% it's all based on time so if you've got a 30 m hour speed limit and ultimately you're slowed down to 15 miles an hour you it's cost you half of your time the state says you have met that level of service you you've exceeded that level of service so essentially what this section is telling us is that as a city we have an obligation to the citizens of the city in order to make sure that each of the roadways whether they're principal arteriors minor artery uh arterial roads collectors or local roadways that we don't allow or we allow the right kind of development to occur which either doesn't allow us to exceed those levels of service or we widen the roads or do whatever else is necessary in order to achieve that goal so who reviews this and when um well the city is supposed to but we're supposed to do that in conjunction with the transportation planning organization uh and also with the fdot okay um I can't remember the last time I saw Don out there Counting Cars but at the same time I don't know that we you know with Florida being the fastest growing state in the country right now at some point and and keep in mind great question notaria keep in mind the goal today isn't to fix a problem that we may have but it's only to make sure that the language we have comprehensive plan overa that absolutely absolutely get that yep but right now um we're where we're at is principal arterial theaters are are a d level of service which means that uh we can't have greater than a 75% reduction in time uh you know to follow that roadway and then e which are uh I'm sorry less than 75% and then e which are greater than 75% so and again this carries over to the ldr Mr chair because this is what the city may require uh traffic studies to be done by applic who want a development order such as was required of E flat there they had to do a traffic study to ensure that they did not exceed the the peak hour level of service that we had comp absolutely so really that's what this is about it's the transportation element that ultimately and the other thing it does by the way is it encourages non-motorized that you put infrastructure in for non-motorized things like bicycle and pedestrian traffic and we see that all over we're putting in sidewalks and we've recently adopted uh you know that people can can have golf carts and things of that nature so I didn't find any conflicts here uh it looked to me like it was pretty straightforward and it didn't look like there are any conflicts with the ldr at least okay we're going to go to the next page which is 2-2 this is a continuation of this um but um this this piece here just makes sure that the city of Parker ultimately is in cooperation with those agencies that do these things like the TPO and the fdot and I know that we are because uh I know that when we're talking about connectors you know uh businesses that have to inter you know have to have an exit to a roadway they have to follow very specific rules and they they get that information from the fdot M and there are very specific rules about how many of those in conjunction to uh for example a corner so you're not creating an accident prone Zone and these two are I found consistent with everything in the ldrs okay any questions or comments about that page and the other thing we're doing too is U if you remember when we rewrote the ldrs one of the things we did is new subdivisions are supposed to have both bicycle paths walking paths that's another provision that they're that they're looking for is that not only are you doing those things but you're also providing areas for bicycles to be parked things of that nature and if we look at the sidewalks around the mende park and if we look at the new sidewalks along you know 98 here as a city we're doing a good job of that stuff all right good deal we're going to go to uh page 2-3 um this is really about um residential and non-residential so whenever you're you're looking at new residential um uh dwelling new residential dwellings or or non-residential buildings being constructed uh that you are continuing to accommodate pedestrians bike traffic uh bike parking things of that nature uh this is consistent with everything we've put in with regard to new subdivision development um in terms of you know you have to have a roadway we're looking for bicycle paths uh uh sidewalks and then bicycle paths if they're capable of being placed into that area and again I I didn't find anything wrong with this this passage and I I checked with the state and it looks like it's pretty consistent with their their belief too okay any thoughts about am I am I missing any other forms of so we've got golf carts we' got pedestrian traffic we've got bicycle traffic we've got uh automobile traffic should we be thinking about anything else bike paths sidewalks roadways pretty much covers it we're not doing horses no Horse no horse trails and then that that next page 2-4 that's that's we kind of briefly touched on that's your that is your connection that's all about Connections in other words new businesses new new subdivisions wherever you exit uh you know egress Ingress uh all of those have to do with um you know how they can get out of those subdivisions how they get out of those businesses and it be legal and not impose a um you know a safety issue for others and by the way all of those rules can be found uh by the Florida greenbook which covers pretty much everything to do with road construction and um a variety of different things all right very good all right we're almost we're almost wrapping it up guys so hang in there with us so uh we're now on to the housing element um the overall concept here is about is to encourage um you know household Development Across various types of income so as as a city what we're really trying to do here is um is have housing for a variety of different income levels so your low low uh income housing your low income housings your medium income housings all all on up so as a city they're they're asking us to make sure that we maintain uh a a means for having all of those different housing uh developments and I think we're essentially doing that I know one of the bu the builders that we have right now is in fact building low-income housing single family dwellings um and uh you know they are in a position where those homes are in many cases already built or on the verge of being completed the state ultimately came out with about a 60 or 70 page document encouraging municipalities to do that the key now is before they never used to penalize you if you weren't now they are they're penalizing you if you don't so so um it's important that uh that that piece remain like it is the other piece about this is policy 3.1.4 which is asking us to make sure that we protect and stabilize existing residential neighborhoods so protect and stabilize is the is the verbiage that's used here um very specifically how do you do that you do that by promoting things like um getting rid of isour junk junk control um be true to your land uses and mitigate impacts from adjacent land districts you know in a residential area now we do that if you look at the if you look at what the rules are in the ldr if you've got a business that's right in a General commercial area building next to a residential area we require as a city that they put um barriers up whether it be fencing or foliage or uh you know and and make it nice uh things like uh downward facing lighting so that we're not shining into residents's homes things of that nature so that's what this section is all about is uh not only making sure that we open the door to all different forms of income housing but that we also protect those existing neighborhoods and we do the right thing when we have new businesses come in that might impact those people that are already there that's what that 3.1 is all about and that language looks good to me it looks really it looks like it protects the people who were there okay and then we're going to go on to page 3-2 um this is really um these are essentially the actions the city is going to incorporate to deal with things like unfit unsafe different from isour different from light this is about unfit unsafe housing um Mr Sloan I know wrote some pieces in the ldr specific about that uh if you've got people's roofs in you know after a storm um you know you you've got to you got to make sure that they're not living in that in that structure and that it gets uh you know properly repaired um we'll need to update the ordinance number on policy three or 3.4.3 3.4.3 343 undertake measures to limit a oh let's see the lettering or the numbering and this is Jack yeah it looks like the numbering got all long not saying just saying that's probably actually three or 3 do 6.2 yeah actually I've got yours Mr s that 3.4.3 that's the one I have that's location of mobile homes must conform to density intensity and performance standards specified in the Land Development regulation you see it's under objetive 3.6 so it should either be 3.6.2 oh I see you see what I'm saying yes sir so the number is just I got you we go from 3.6 to 3 we go from 34 to 36 and then we got 35 so we go 34 36 35 and then on the other page it's 36 assisting the provision of Lo relocation I think I think the number number just so something so my point was that ordinance number 871 needs to be updated yeah I need to make sure that I understand what you just said Mr slon so ordinance 87151 right a and uh is that in Lo in relationship to location of mobile homes yeah it's part of the part of the flood prevention coordin okay it talks about where mobile homes can be located in a flp okay and then on top of that also correct the uh the numbering of the numbering definitely okay so um Donna just so it's easy on you to write this not so we're going to review ordinance 87151 we're going to update that number because it's a 1987 ordinances right which has been updated very good and then we're going to resolve the numbering structures within the com comprehensive plan to be consistent with the uh the titles that it's under and I Mr s do you see do you just see that starting at 3.6 or is it somewhere even shy of that well you you see on that page you have objective 3.4 then you have two policies 34.12 then it jumps to 3.6 objective then it's got policy 3.6.1 then policy 3.4.3 yeah the numbering just got off there so the the the verbage is okay but the number wrong right corre okay I got you okay very good okay very good all right all right we're going to go to three- three next page this is really about assistance programs and resources for affordable housing I didn't find any conflicts with the verbage uh and it looks like if that page was under 3.6 and then it goes on to 3.7 as long as all of that gets moved under objective 3.6 then we're probably okay with it any questions anybody about that particular uh area and again that's that's what the city will do in terms of if you have somebody that needs to be relocated if you have something uh where you've got you know the city's got to you know uh relocate because of unfit unsafe it's it's asking the city to uh take actions to assist those those low income um housed people okay so it's about location and it's about the assistance that the city May provide in order to help those people get housed again all right very good well guys that was the first 15 pages of it um and uh so I'm now on in an infrastructure element which starts at 4.1 so if we could kind of power through next month the next 15 pages that would be great and once again we're looking for three or four different things we're looking for any conflicts that it may have with the ldrs or or ordinances uh or anything that just doesn't look like it's verbalized properly or or you know it just doesn't make sense when we read it okay Harry anything uh that you want to share with the group I have I just have a couple questions when a property sells is going to lose its non-conforming status correct yes sir it's going to lose performing use status use yes so after that happens they would at least have to come and get a variance to be able to use it the new owner does that start here the New Perspective owner that starts here right I just got a question the old tree service U so a lot of money but they are using it for storage I mean is that our road I think they came before us I think one guy did and he said well I'm going to use it for that and he was told basically you can't what what kind I don't think we've done any variance on it what kind of business has gone in there I don't know it's just there because the gentleman that was going to go in there I don't know if it's the same person had uh they were water um cleansing machines and and some sort of like electrical thing that they took out two job sites so I I mean to put your items there and then to take them to job sites I mean if that's the same I don't know that that's actually them storing it there they're taking that equipment and they're taking it to job sites and then bringing it back to their place of business they're not store there the the former owner did a lot of storage of their stuff there that was allowed by the city so it's the storage is just incidental to the operation of the torage business I think that's in a commercial area is that right commercial area so the so the issue would have just been uh not the district it was in it would have been it was in a CRA right in a CRA what kind of business you can have there right right that was just my question when I saw that I don't remember that coming yeah but is it storing the items there if you have I don't know work trucks that you take out to a job site for them to use for five days and bring them back I mean the property appraiser has it property use code is Warehouse which is not allowed the C I guess my question question was if the property sold and that non-conforming use wasn't it's still it's still the the same use it was the commercial use that was allowed and now the commercial use was allowed as a matter of fact the mayor was asked to and did give a letter to them talking about that they could continue to keep the large equipment outside the way the prior owner had done okay yeah so it's a little different that was our pathway or not well they came before us and I think we we said because it was a CRA that we would advise against it but I don't I don't know that it ever sounds like it happened a different way but they did come before us at one point and I think because of this the language within the CRA I think we probably said no to it but uh you know the governing board likely ultimately made a different Choice okay very good anything else Siri Bev how about you no nothing for me thank you for voting for me although I think that was done because I wasn't here no it's because you're by night it's because got a lot of good energy and uh you're knowledgeable Rich anything from you I know right I do um and there's a lot of knowledgeable people in here what have we done uh to address like signage for businesses and things like that I mean I like and maybe it's just something I need to read and look into but like uh like stipulations of how big their sign can be or do we have anything like that absolutely it's it's a in article seven uh sign regulations we did a we um just before before you had got here Kyle uh we reviewed this extensively and uh what we did is we rewrote uh the section seven uh in conjunction with our governing board uh so you'll find section s under sign regulations um will include all of the new uh requirements that we put in okay very good listen if there's nothing Donna anything you want to say Mr Sloan anything you want to tell the group I'm going to shut the meeting down everybody thanks for participating yeah