[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
>>> WE ARE OPENING AUGUST 9 FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE PLANNING BOARD. I HAVE THE WRONG AGENDA IN FRONT OF ME. I AM REALLY MIXED UP HERE.
ANYONE WITH A CELL PHONE, PLEASE TURN IT OFF.
THERE WE GO. I HAVE THE RIGHT AGENDA NOW.
IF I DIDN'T HAVE THE AGENDA I WOULD BE BLANK RIGHT NOW.ET STAND IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE.THEY ARE LAUGHING AT ME. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE 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. >> THANK YOU.
CALL THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> MISS CLEMENTS.
>> PRESENT. >> MISS JOHNSON-SCOTT.
>> PRESENT.> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.
>> PRESENT. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: BEFORE I MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR ON THE AGENDA, I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE MENTIONS. AND WANTED TO MENTION I THINK EVERYBODY IN FLORIDA KNOWS THAT COACH ÃHOW DID YOU PRONOUNCE HIS NAME?HAS PASSED AWAY. AND HE IS LEAVING A BIG HOLE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA RIGHT UP UNTIL SEVERAL MONTHS AGO I SAW HIM SPEAKING RATHER QUIETLY, BUT SPEAKING TO A GROUP.
AND HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN BIGGER THAN LIFE.
AND WE WILL MISS HIM. ON A MORE PERSONAL LEVEL, WE LOST COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER AND HE IS ALSO GOING TO LEAVE A TREMENDOUS WHOLE HERE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IN PARTICULAR. I HAD SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO JOIN HIM IN EVENTS AROUND TOWN OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS OR SO I GUESS. AND PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY WOULD INVOLVE CHILDREN. HE COULD WALK INTO A ROOM WITH 100 CHILDREN AND THERE WOULD BE 110 OF THEM RUN UP TO HIM AND HUG ON HIM. HE WAS A VERY SPECIAL INDIVIDUAL.HIS HEART WAS CERTAINLY IN THIS COMMUNITY.
I CAN'T SAY I ALWAYS AGREED WITH EVERYTHING HE SAID OR WANTED TO DO AND I'M SURE THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO PEOPLE HERE THAT DON'T AGREE WITH ME AT TIMES.
WOULD BE SURPRISED, BUT THEE MAY BE THAT MANY.
COMMISSIONER ALEXANDRA WILL BE MISSED IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. KEEP HIM IN YOUR HEARTS, YOUR MINDS, YOUR PRAYERS ALONG WITH MRS. ALEXANDER.
I FOUND OUT THIS MORNING SITTING IN THE COMMISSIONER MEETING THAT MRS. ALEXANDER IS A BIT UNDER THE WEATHER AS WELL. AND I SPOKE WITH FORMER COMMISSIONER SESSIONS NOT LONG AGO AND HE SAID SHE SEEMS LIKE SHE IS GOING TO BE OKAY OVERALL.
AND WE CERTAINLY PRAY SHE IS. WANT TO KEEP THEM IN OUR MINDS.
[a. Absence from July 14, 2021 meeting]
MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCE.MR. ALBURY , YOU WERE ABSENT LAST MEETING.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE WAS NO CALL TO REPORT THAT YOU'D BE MISSING THE MEETING. CAN YOU GIVE US AN IDEA WHAT
HAPPENED?>>HAROLD ALBURY : I WAS JUST GETTING HOME FROM THE HOSPITAL THE NIGHT PRIOR. IF YOU WANT TO HEAR THE STORY.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: NOT NECESSARY.
HOSPITAL IS PRIVATE. >>HAROLD ALBURY : YES, AND I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THE ENERGY ÃI DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THERE WAS A MEETING. THAT'S HOW INTERESTING THAT STORY WAS OR IS. BUT NO, IF YOU NEED
DOCUMENTATION I DO HAVE IT. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: AND YOU ARE FINE NOW? YOU ARE BACK 100 PERCENT AND
THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT. >>HAROLD ALBURY : GROUNDED AND
HUMBLE AS CAN BE. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: VERY GOOD. WHAT I NEED TO DO IS CALL FOR A
MOTION. >> MOVE APPROVAL OF EXCUSED
[00:05:01]
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: MOTION BY MR. BURDGE .
I'M SORRY GENTLEMEN. AND SECOND BY MS. BAKER.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT BEHIND YOU.
>>HAROLD ALBURY : THANK YOU EVERYONE.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: AND THERE IS NO ONE ABSENT TODAY.
>> THIS MORNINGS MEETING MUST HAVE PUT THE FEAR IN THEM.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: IT MUST HAVE.
SPOKE WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT EXCUSED ABSENCES AND UNEXCUSED
[a. Minutes from the July 14, 2021 meeting]
ABSENCES THIS MORNING. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: BEFORE I CALL FOR A MOTION ON APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE TWO AMENDMENTS TO THIS.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT ON THE FRONT PAGE WE ARE SHOWING IT IS JULY 15. MINUTES FOR JULY 15 AND THE MEETING WAS JULY 14. AND I SPOKE WITH ALICIA A LITTLE WHILE AGO AND I THINK SHE HAS PROBABLY ALREADY CHANGED THAT. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY TO ME IN MY HEART, I JUST DON'T ALLOW MYSELF TO MAKE MISTAKES.
AND I FIND THIS ON ITEM 10 BOARD COMMENTS.
AND I HAVE BEEN REMINDED OF THIS SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE LAST COUPLE WEEKS HERE THAT I HAD MADE A MISTAKE.
AND HERE IT SAYS I MADE A COMMENT THAT IT WOULD BE A COUPLE MONTHS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FINISHED WITH THE VACATION RENTAL CHANGES TO THE REGULATIONS AND SO ON.
AND I COULD HAVE SWORN I SAID A COUPLE WEEKS.
BUT THIS IS A COUPLE OF MONTHS. I DON'T KNOW.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO FIX THIS?
I GUESS NOT THERE IN. >> DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT?
WE WILL CHANGE IT. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: WE WILL LEAVE IT ALONE THEN. THAT IS MY ONLY MISTAKE FOR THIS YEAR. I CAN'T MAKE ANY MORE.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: CAN I HAVE A MOTION OF APPROVAL OF THE MEN AND MEN'S WITH THE DATE UNLESS SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK THIS TIME AND A SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON-SCOTT.
SHE SQUEAKED IN THEIR OWN YOU. SHE'S VERY QUIET.
CALL THE ROLL CALL.> MR. ALBURY.
>> YOU.> MISS JOHNSON-SCOTT. >> YES.
[a. Development & Design Review - Walsh Kings Highway - 2564 S. Kings Highway]
>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. >> YES, MA'AM.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: MOVING ON.
ITEM 6 A UNDER NEW BUSINESS. EVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR WELSH KING HIGHWAY. 2564 S. KING HIGHWAY.
AND MR. CRAGIN IS GOING TO PRESENT.
>> MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, BEFORE YOU TODAY IS CONDITIONAL USE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A PROPERTY AT 2564 S. KINGS HIGHWAY. YOU RECENTLY SAW THIS IS AN ANNEXATION AND A REZONING OF FUTURE LAND USE REQUEST A FEW MONTHS AGO. PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A GENERAL COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE WITH A C3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE REQUEST IS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT TWO BUILDINGS TOTALING 88,784 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND FLEX SPACE IN ONE BUILDING CONTAIN 33,190 SQUARE FEET FOR AN RV STORAGE COMPONENT WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING USES AND ZONING AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH 125 TO 37 OF THE CITY CODE ENCUMBERING THE PLAN AND IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WILL BE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WILL BE 22 UNITS EACH THAT WILL BE 44,374 SQUARE FEET EACH. THERE IS GOING TO BE 1/3 BUILDING ON SITE THAT WILL BE A 23 UNIT RV STORAGE BUILDING THAT WILL BE 33,190 SQUARE FEET.
THERE ALSO BE 171 PARKING SPACES AND THERE WILL BE SPACES FOR BICYCLE PARKING AS WELL. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WILL PROVIDE FOR 141 TREES, 61 NEW HOMES IN 1990 SHRUBS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE WILL BE A VISUAL BUFFER GOING AROUND THE WHOLE ENTIRE SITE THAT WILL BE COMPLETELY LANDSCAPE WITH TREES AND SHRUBS. ALSO AS A PART OF THIS, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED IN REPORT THAT NOTED THERE WILL BE MEDICATION THAT WILL BE REQUIRED ON SITE AND THAT MITIGATION FEE WILL BE $62,998.57.JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE RENDERED BUILDINGS WILL LOOK LIKE UPON
[00:10:01]
COMPLETION. LIST OF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS.THE TREE MITIGATION FEE AS OUTLINED IN THE REPORT.
THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
SHALL BE PAID BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
A LANDSCAPE BOND FOR ALL SITE LANDSCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO CITY CODE 123 ÃSIX PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE SITE.
AND OF LIGHTING WITHIN LANDSCAE AREAS AND AROUND EACH BUILDING TO ENHANCE SECURITY AND VISIBILITY OF THE SITE DURING THE SHALL BE ADDED AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMITS.
POSSIBLE ACTION BY THE PLANNING BOARD IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THREE CONDITIONS. HE CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.
I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
THANK YOU. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD SPOKE WHAT IS TRIGGERING THE
CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT. >> THE RV STORAGE COMPONENT.
VEHICLE STORAGE IS A CONDITIONAL USE.
>> QUESTIONS?,? I WILL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE?
EVIDENTLY SO. >> GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD, BRAD CURRY WITH REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB PRESENTING THE PROJECT TO YOU. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER:
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I HAVE A COMMENT.
OUR FIRM IS INVOLVED WITH THE SPECIFIC TYPE OFPROPERTY .
IS A REAL DEFICIT OF THIS TYPE OF INVENTORY.
IS NOTHING AVAILABLE. SO APPLAUD THIS PROJECT COMING IN AND I HOPE IT IS A MULTITENANT DIFFERENTIAL OR A CONDO. ONE OF THE TWO.
AND I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE A VERY SUCCESSFUL PROJECT.ET
IT UP OUT OF THE GROUND. >> WE ARE TRYING TO EXPLOIT
WELL NEEDED. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ANY
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YOU JUST COMPLETED ONE STEP CLOSER NOW TO THE COMMISSION SAYING YES. I'M SURE THEY WILL DORGAN I AM ALSO AFAN OF THIS PROJECT . WE WILL COMMIT HERE IN FORT PIERCE. COMING BACK TO THE BOARD FOR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF MR. CRAGIN?
>> I DID HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT IS LOCATED NORTH OF THAT.
IS THAT SOME TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT?
>> THAT IS THE TREASURE COAST RV PARK.
>> THIS IS PERFECTLY IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE USE DIRECTLY
ADJACENT. >> IT'S PERFECT.> THANK YOU.
>> YOU ARE WELCOME. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ANYTHING ELSE? NOT HEARING ANYTHING I WILL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE WHERE THE COMMISSIONS WITH RECOMMENDATION FOR REMOVAL.
>> SECOND. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK , SECOND BY MR. BURDGE .
>> MISS JOHNSON-SCOTT. >> YES.
[b. Text Amendment - Chapter 125 - 321: Coastal Construction Control Line]
>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YES, MA'AM. MOVING ON THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 6B, TEXT AMENDMENT CHAPTER 125 Ã321 COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. I BELIEVE MR. THOMAS IS GOING
TO ASSIST IN THE PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH GERMAN BOARD MEMBERS. BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON AS A TEXT AMENDMENT. I HAVE INVITED PAUL THOMAS TO JOIN ME IN THE PRESENTATION AS HE SERVES AS THE CITIES BUILDING OFFICIAL IN ADDITION TO OUR FLOODPLAIN ADMINISTRATOR. JUST A BRIEF YOU, IN THE COMING MONTHS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A NUMBER OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO OUR CODE. WE ARE DOING SOME CLEANUP WORK AND ALSO SOME MAJOR REWRITES OF SOME OF OUR EXISTING CHAPTERS WITHIN OUR CODE. THIS ONE BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON IS WHAT WE CONSIDER A CLEAN UP.
IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY A BUILDER.
AND ALSO AFFIRMED BY MR. THOMA .
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN BUILDING AND PLANNING WERE IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT. AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF REVIEW OF STRUCTURES OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE WERE MANAGED BY BOTH PLANNING AND BUILDING PER UNIT BUT ACTUALLY, PLANNING JUST LOOKS AT IT AS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR ANYTHING THAT IS EASTWARD.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAPS SHOWN, RC CCL LINE EXTENDS WEST. A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES AREN'T
[00:15:02]
EVEN ON THE BEACH. AND IT IS JUST ANOTHER ADDED LEVEL OVERVIEW BY OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHEN THE REAL AUTHORITY IS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DORGAN LANZA WITH THE SUPPORT OF PAUL IN OUR ANALYSIS, WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES, HOW FEMA HAS CERTAIN ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS AND ALSO DEP IS THE STATE AGENCY.THAT AUTHORITY ON THE LOCAL LEVEL HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENTS WITHIN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN A TIME WHEN DEP STAFF WOULD COME OUT TO LOOK AT STRUCTURES EASTWARD, BUT THAT AUTHORITY IS NOW GIVEN TO THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGER.O WHEN WE LOOK THROUGH HERE, I BEGIN WITH THE AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTER 163, WHICH REQUIRES ALL COASTAL COMMUNITIES THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING STRUCTURESEE WORD OF THE CCR . ARTICLE 7 WITH AN OUR CITY CODE IS A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CODE WHICH REGULATE SUCH STRUCTURES.
AND THIS IS WITHIN OUR BUILDING CODE, NOT THE PLANNING CODE.
SO THAT IS A REZONING AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY PLANNING WAS NOT AWARE OF THIS LENGTHY CODE SECTION A MR. THOMAS WAS NOT AWARE WE WERE STILL GOING THROUGH THIS CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. AND IT IS ALL COME TO LIGHT THAT IT IS JUST ONE MORE LEVEL OF REVIEW THAT IS UNNECESSARY.
IS A BUILDING OFFICIAL IS TASKED WITH ENFORCING THE BUILDING CODE AND CITY CODE AND COASTAL CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, NOT THE ZONING CODE. SO WHAT WE HAVE DECIDED ON WHAT HAS BEEN AFFIRMED IN A MEMORANDUM FOR MR. THOMAS TO MYSELF IS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS SATISFIED WITH THE PROPOSED WORK AND IT CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING CODE AND THE LAWS AND ORDINANCES APPLICABLE, THE BUILDING OFFICE SHOW ISSUE A PERMIT AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AND THAT IS WHAT IS STATED IN OUR BUILDING ÃIN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. AND WITH THAT WE FEEL AS THOUGH THIS IS ONE MORE LEVEL OF REVIEW THAT IS UNNECESSARY.
AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WHAT WE WILL ALWAYS CONTINUE TO DO FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES REVIEW ALL STRUCTURES EASTWARD.
THE SINGLE-FAMILY MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL.
BUT RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THOSE STRUCTURES WHEN IT COMES IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW AND WE WILL THEREFORE CHECK TO MAKE SURE THE SETBACKS ARE CORRECT, THAT THE HEIGHT IS WITHIN THE HEIGHT LIMITATION AND THAT LANDSCAPING REGULATIONS ARE ENFORCED. SO PLANNING BOARD POSSIBLE ACTIONS IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.
AND WE BOTH ARE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OFUS.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: MR. THOMAS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO
ADD. >> I THINK SHE COVERED IT VERY
WELL. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: VERY GOOD. GOOD TO SEE YOU.
ALTHOUGH I DON'T REALLY SEE YOU.
[LAUGHING] >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ANY
ARE THERE ANY ELEMENTS IN THE PRESENT ORDINANCE WHICH WILL DISAPPEAR THAT ARE IN ANY WAY STRICTER OR ADDITIONAL TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE STATE.
>> CHAIRMAN BOARD MEMBER BAKER, THERE IS NO.
THE BUILDING OFFICIALS CORDONED OF ORDINANCES REGULATES IT IS A FOUR-PAGE DOCUMENT OR MORE, FIVE PAGE DOCUMENT FOR THE ZONING CODE. REALLY IS JUST A MATTER OF DOES IT AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.AND THAT IS ALREADY BEING REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
>> FOR INSTANCE, ON THE BEACH THERE IS A HEIGHT LIMITATION, THERE IS OTHER LIMITATIONS IN THE ZONE.
AND I WAS WONDERING ARE THOSE GOING TO BE ELIMINATED OR
CONSIDERED. >> THOSE WILL NOT GIVE YOU AN THOSE WILL REMAIN FROM YOU THAT IS WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. WHEN STAFF GETS BUILDING PERMITS. WE WILL AGAIN LOOK AT THAT AS
WE DO NOW. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T USING ANY ELEMENTS OF PROTECTION.
>> MR. CHAIR, TO FOLLOW UP ON THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, IF THE BUILDER COMES IN AND WANTS TO GO ABOVE BY LIMITATIONS IT WAS STILL HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY
COMMISSION FOR THOSE APPROVALS? >> A FOLLOW-UP ON THE FOLLOW-UP ARE IN WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN
[00:20:17]
RELATIVE NOT ALL ONLY THE ZONING BUT THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY REGARDING HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT MS. BAKER WAS GETTING UP.THIS IN NO WAY IMPACTS THE ABILITY FOR THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS HEIGHT RESTRICTION.
>> IT DOES NOT. THIS IS JUST TO ILLUMINATE THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS REVIEW STRICTLY FOR ANYTHING IS IMPORTANT IF AN APPLICANT WERE TO COME IN FOR SINGLE FAMILY INSTRUCTION WANT TO EXCEED TO THE MAXIMUM AND THEN IT WOULD BE BEFORE THIS BOARD AND THE COMMISSION.
>> THAT STILL TRIGGERS THE CONDITIONAL USE.
JUST FOR THE HEIGHT. NOT FOR ANYTHING.
AND MR. THOMAS HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE.
>> JUST UNDERSTANDING THE DEP REQUIREMENTS, THE WHOLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE IS BASED OFF OF HEIGHT. IS BASED OFF ALLEGATION PORT AND ITS SETS A STANDARD ALLEGATION ABOVE GRADE SO THAT IF YOU HAVE A STORM SURGE EVENT IS TO BUILD ON PILES AND BASICALLY THAT IS WHAT THE FOUNDATION OF THE REQUIREMENT IS HOW DO YOU ASSURE A BUILDING BUILT IN A VOLATILE FLOOD ZONE REMAINS THERE AND IS UNDERMINED WERE DESTROYED IN A FLOOD EVENT. SO THE FUNCTION OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION WHERE IS PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOOKS FOR ELEVATION AND HEIGHT.
AND THERE IS REALLY NO CORRELATION AS FAR AS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THIS ORDINANCE AND WHAT THE BUILDING CODE REVIEW OR THE FLOODPLAIN REVIEW IS AS WELL.
>> BUT THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FROM DEP FOR SEVEN FEET ABOVE WHAT SEA LEVEL. THAT IS A THRESHOLD WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE COMMENDS.
IT IS NOT STREET-LEVEL, NOT ANY OF THE ABOVE.
THAT IS WITH THE DEP LEVEL DORGAN I KNOW THAT QUESTION HAS COME UP MANY TIMES DORGAN JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE DEP HEIGHT IS
A BASELINE. >> THEY CALL THAT THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION IT'S AN 86 OR 88 OR 10 THAT IS ALREADY DETERMINED. WHEN YOU HAVE TO GO INTO CERTAIN AREAS WHERE THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ELEVATION APPROVED BY FEMA, IN YOUR FEMA FLOOD MAPS. FEMA DOES THAT.
MANY TIMES THE DEP SETS THAT BEEN SO THAT IS A DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION AND IT IS WHERE THEY WANTED TO BE.
IN MANY CASES THAT IS HIGHER THAN THE FEMA FLOOD ELEVATION WOULD BE, BUT IT IS FOR THE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS SPOKE WITH A SITE PLAN COMES IN IS THAT INDICATING WHAT THAT HEIGHT IS OF 60 OR SEVEN FEET ETC. WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS IN THE ELEVATION OF THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE ABOVE THAT, NOT BELOW THAT. SO THE STRUCTURE COMES IN WITH AN OVERALL HEIGHT OF 50 FEET TO READ IT COULD ONLY BE 38 FEET
ABOVE IN THEORY. >> IN THEORY, RIGHT.
>> I THINK THAT HAS CAUSED CONFUSION AS TO SAY WHY IS THE STRUCTURE SO HIGH WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY NOT.
IT'S BECAUSE THE BASELINE IS X, RIGHT?
>> AND IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND TOO THAT THESE ELEVATION NUMBERS ARE TRANSIENT.
AS SEA LEVELS RISE 20 YEARS FROM NOW, THAT NUMBER MAY BE HIGHER. YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME PROPERTIES AT THIS LEVEL IN THE NEXT ITERATION IS GOING TO BE AT THIS LEVEL FOR TWO YEARS FROM NOW IT WILL BE DIFFERENT.
MAYBE THEY WILL ALL BE UNDERWATER.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO STAY THE SAME.
THAT IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION IS VERY RELEVANT. YOU BASE YOUR HIGH OFF OF THE DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION AS SET BY THE FEM OR BY THE DEP.
>> AND IF I MAY JUST ADD TO THAT.
THAT IS WHY WE MEASURE HEIGHT TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
ONE FOR THE BEACH AND ONE FOR MAINLAND.
>> I THINK MR. CRAGIN HAS COVERED THAT NOT QUITE IN THE SAME DETAIL, BUT HE HAS COVERED IT SEVERAL TIMES IN PRESENTATIONS. IS BAKER, I THINK YOU HAD A
QUESTION QUICK. >> FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.THE ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS, ARE THEY DIFFERENT IN THE AE AND
THE X ZONE? >> SO AND X ZONE MEANS THERE IS
[00:25:03]
NO ELEVATION REQUIREMENT BOARD AND IF YOUR PROPERTY EXISTED IN X ZONE YOU CAN BUILD A SLAB ON GRADE AND YOU ARE GOOD DORGAN WHEN YOU ARE IN IN AE, THAT MEANS THERE IS AN ELEVATION THAT IS USUALLY DESIGNATED AND THAT IS GOING TO BE ACCORDING TO A FEMA FLOOD MAP. SO IS IT THE SAME MAP THAT DETERMINES IN AE AND AN X? THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS YES. BUT IT AE IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA WHERE IT ACTS IS CONSIDERED TO BE NOT IN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA WITH ANYREQUIREMENTS. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I THOUGHT THE X ZONES WERE THE ONES THAT WERE SUBJECT TO FLOODING AND WEIGHT ACTION.
>> YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT A Ã WHY CAN'T I THINK OF IT RIGHT
>> I'M SORRY. I MEANT THE V ZONE.
I'M OLD. I GET MY OFF A BIT MIXED UP.
HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS THEN IN LET'S SAY THE AE ZONE.
>> USUALLY THEY ARE GOING TOBE. BUT THAT IS ALL DETERMINED BY YOUR FEMA FLOOD MAPS . A FEMA DETERMINES IT IS A V ZONE, VE ZONE, X ZONE, AND A, IN AE.USUALLY THERE IS AN ELEVATION THAT IS GOING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ON YOUR FEMA FLOOD MAP. SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DETERMINES. WHATEVER IT IS GOING TO BE THE SAME FOR EVERYONE. YOU CAN GO ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL AND SEE WHAT FLOOD ZONES YOU ARE IN AND GENERALLY DETERMINE WHAT YOUR ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO BE.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: THIS HAS BEEN EDUCATIONAL.
>> I DO HAVE ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP.
>> THE CONUNDRUM HERE HAS BEEN, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A PROPERTY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE BEACH RIGHT NOW NEAR ARCHIE'S.
IN THE COMMENTARY PEOPLE AFRAID TO MEET IS IS IT THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY REQUIRES CONDITIONAL USE TO GET TO 38 FEET OR SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE.
WELL, DOES THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY STATE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS 38 FEET WITH CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL OR DOES IT STATE IN THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY THAT IT IS 38 FEET NET ABOVE THE HEIGHT REQUIRED BY FEMA.
SAID THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.
I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT BECAUSE WE DO WITH REGULARLY NO APPLICATIONS COMING IN TO TEST TO THE MAXIMUM OF THE HEIGHT REQUIRED OR ALLOWED UNDER THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY.
I SEE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD. >> ON THE BEACH AREA COMMIT YOUR ELEVATION IS BASED ON FEMA.
>> THAT WAS MY CONCERN. >> WHEREAS MAINLAND IT IS BASED ON CROWN OF ROAD. IT'S DIFFERENT.
>> I ASKED THAT QUESTION EVERY SINGLE TIME ON THE APPLICATION.
>> AS MR. THOMAS SAID, OVERTIME THAT MAY CHANGE BUT THE OVERALL MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS REGULATED BY THE TYPE OF USE IN SOUTH LAKE
OVERLAY. >> IT TIES INTO THAT.
>> WE ARE NOT TOUCHING THAT SECTION OF THE CODE.
ONLY REMOVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS FOR ALL STRUCTURES EASTWARD. BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE REGULATIONS THAT ARE TIED TO MAINTAINING SAFETY FACTORS FOR STRUCTURES AND FOR PROTECTION OF THE DUNE, WHICH PLANNING DOES NOT PERMIT CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IS NOT GOING TO PROTECT THE DUNE. AND A LOT OF THE STRUCTURES OF THE CC CL ARE NOT EVEN ON THE BEACH AND THEY ARE BEING AFFECTED. THEY HAVE ONE MORE LEVEL OVERVIEW THAT IS NOT DOING WHAT IT IS INTENDED TO DO.
>> I GET 38 FEET HURT SOMEBODY ON THE OPPOSING SIDE OF AN APPLICATION SAYING IT CAN ONLY BE 38 FEET MAXIMUM.
THAT'S WHAT THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY SAYS.
>> WE WILL BE ABLE TO MEASURE THAT FOR THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE BASELINE IS TIED TO FEMA AND THEN YOU HAVE A 20 8C OR THE EXTRA FIVE IF YOU WANT TO CONDITIONAL USE.
AND IN THE BOARD HERE WILL SEE THAT AND ULTIMATELY IT WOULD
HAVE TO BE. >> SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY WAS PUT IN PLACE X NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. THESE CONCERNS WEREN'T EVEN REALLY RELATIVE THEN. SO YOUR BUILDING TWO FEET, FOUR FEET OFF WHATEVER. BECAUSE THE FEMA MAPS HAVE ALL BEEN REDRAWN RECENTLY. THAT IS WHAT HAS CONSTITUTED THIS WHOLE REVISION. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THERE WASN'T A CROSS BETWEEN THE TWO SAYING YOUR BUILDING OVER THE 38 FEET. GUYS GOT IT UNDER CONTROL.
GREAT. >> I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP TO THE
FOLLOW-UP. >> TO THE FOLLOW-UP.
>> TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHETHER ANY V ZONES WITHIN THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE?
[00:30:03]
>> IF YOU WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT A V ZONE USUALLY DEALS WITH VELOCITY. THAT MEANS YOU DON'T JUST HAVE FLOODWATERS FROM RAIN BUILDING UP.
YOU FLOOD WATERS MOVING WITH A RIVER.
WITH STORM SURGE AND SHE HAVE WATER PHYSICALLY MOVING, WHICH PUTS DIFFERENT STRESSES ON STRUCTURES THERE WOULD ALSO IT SCOURS OUT FOUNDATIONS. SO ANYTHING ON THE BEACH AS YOU APPROACH THE WATER IS GENERALLY GOING TO BE IN A V IS ZONE.
THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE RUNS USUALLY, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP, SOMETIMES IT CROSSES OVER SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE.
AND EVERYTHING C WORD OF THAT FALLS NOT UNDER A V ZONE BUT IT GOES INTO THE DEP REGULATION. SO THERE IS A CHANGING OF THE GUARD PARIS AND THERE IS ALMOST TWO LAYERS OF PROTECTION OR TWO
LAYERS OF OVERSIGHT. >> AND A CASE OR SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD IN A V ZONE WITHIN THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE, THEY HAVE TWO SETS OF RULES TO FOLLOW?> THEY HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE ONE THAT IS THE MOST TRENDS AND IS ONE THEY WILL COMPLY WITH. IN MANY CASES IT IS HIGHER THAN
THE FEMA FLOOD ELEVATIONS. >> IT LOOKS LIKE PART OF ARCHIE'S IS EAST OF THE CONTROL LINE.
I AM USING ARCHIE'S IS A REFERENCE TO READ EVERYBODY AND
COUNTING US FOR THAT IS. >> NO OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING.
ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
NOT SEEING ANYONE. WILL CLOSE A PUBLIC MEETING.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? THIS WAS NOT ONLY ENTERTAINING, IT WAS VERY EDUCATIONAL.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE APPROVAL.
>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. BAKER, SECONDED BY MS. CUMMINGS.
PLEASE CALL ROLL CALL. >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT QUICK.
>> MR. ALBURY QUICK YES. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YES, MA'AM FORGET MR. THOMAS, THANK YOU FOR THE EDUCATION. WE MIGHT CALL YOU BACK.
>> I WILL BE AFRAID OF THE NEXT QUESTIONS.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: THE NEXT TWO, FOUR, FIVE.
I CAN'T EVEN COUNT.MS. HART IS GOING TO PRESENT THE NEXT
[c. Disposal of City-Owned Surplus Property on N. 14th Street (2404-814-0012-000-2)]
FIVE ITEMS AND THESE ARE ALL PERTAINING TO THE DISPOSAL OFSURPLUS PROPERTY. >> THAT IS CORRECT.>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YOU ARE JUST BUSY WITH SURPLUS PROPERTY.
>> I KNOW! USE OF THE LAST PRESENTATION WAS ENTERTAINING AND THIS IS NOT PERMIT I APPRECIATE YOUR
TIME. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET UP. CAN YOU JUGGLE?
I MEAN I CAN, JUST NOT WELL. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: IT MIGHT BE ENTERTAINING EITHER WAY. OKAY.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: I HAVE FIVE ITEMS, AS YOU JUST MENTIONED MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
THESE ARE KIND OF UNIQUE. THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT IN THE PAST.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AS WELL.
I WILL GO THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND THEN WE CAN DOES GUSTS AND HAVE ANY ENTERTAINING QUESTIONS.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: IF YOU WILL READ EACH ADDRESS OFF AS
THE FIRST ONE DOES NOT HAVE AN ADDRESS.
IT IS ON NORTH 14TH STREET. THE PARCEL ID IS IN THE RECOMMENDATION. YOU CAN SEE THIS LONG LINEAR PARCEL ON NORTH 14TH STREET BETWEEN F AND G. ALPHABET, MS. BAKER BERGEN I'M 32 AND I DON'T KNOW MY ALPHABET EITHER.
HERE ITIS. THERE IS ALSO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. NUMBER FOUR.WE ARE SUGGESTING IN RECOMMENDING THAT WE SELL BOTH PROPERTIES TO THE SAME DEVELOPER IN HOPES THEY COMBINE BOTH PROPERTIES AND DEVELOP IT AS ONE. THIS IS VERY NARROW AND SMALL.
0.15 ACRES IS OWNED ARE FOR IN THE MARKET VALUE ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY IS $4700. AND SO WE EVALUATED THEM BASED
[00:35:03]
ON THE SAME CRITERIA AS USUAL. FUTURE UTILIZATION, THE TIMELINE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS, WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC IMPACT IN THE NARRATIVE THAT THEY INCLUDE EXPLAINING THEIR EXPERIENCE AND WHY THEY ARE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THIS STORY AND TELL CO-INVESTMENTS WITH THE HIGHEST AT 160 POINTS.THERE COMPOSING A NEW TRIPLEX. THEN PROPOSING THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IS GOING TO BE APPROVED THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROCESS TO THE PLANNING PROCESS AND WHATNOT.
IT IS POSSIBLE TO READ IN OUR PLAN, WHICH YOU KNOW ALL THESE PARCELS ARE IN THE FPR A, WE HAVE A DESIRE FOR THAT MISSING MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. ALMOST RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN FAVORABLE TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP, WE DO HAVE THIS MISSING MIDDLE PIECE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION RENTALS, WHICH WE FEEL LIKE THIS COULD POTENTIALLY FILL THE GAP.
POTENTIALLY A DUPLEX, MAYBE TO SINGLE FAMILIES, WE ARE NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD WORK BUT THAT IS THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.
THEY'RE PLANNING TO PURCHASE WILL PARCELS FOR $5000 THROUGH THE TRIPLEX IS ESTIMATED AT $531,000 AND THE TIMELINE IS 18 MONTHS AFTER THE CLOSING. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SALE FOR THE REAL PROPERTY ON NORTH 15TH STREET AND THERE IS THE PARCEL ID TO TELL CO-INVESTMENTS.
I'M GOING TO KEEP GOING TO ALL OF THEM.
OR DO YOU WANT TO DO SEPARATE? >> CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH
ONE. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: WE ARE GOING TO DO THEM SEPARATE, MS. BAKER.
HAS THE TELCO PURCHASE PROPERTY FROM THE CITY BEFORE.
>> NOT FROM THE CITY NOT SINCE I HAVE BEEN DOING THESE PROJECTS. THEY PROPOSED, THEY HAVE SUBMITTED PROPOSALS BEFORE FORWARDING THIS ONE HAVE THE MOST INFORMATION SO WE WERE ABLE TO EVALUATE THEM.
YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THESE WERE RANKED SO LOW, WHICH IS WHY THIS PARTICULAR ROUND OF BIDS HAS BEEN INTERESTING.
BECAUSE WE WERE MISSING SO MUCH INFORMATION.
I HAVE SPOKEN TO A SECOND GENERATION AS AN EXAMPLE.
I KNOW WHAT THE BIDS LOOK LIKE, THEY HAVE QUALITY PRODUCTS.
DID NOT SUBMITTED A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THE BID DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE ABLE TO EVALUATE. WE ASKED FOR AN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DIDN'T GET IT. SO TELCO HAS SUBMITTED IN THE PAST. THIS WILL BE THE FIRST ONE THEY WERE AWARDED SINCE I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.
THEY SAID IN THEIR NARRATIVE THAT THEY HAVE DONE PROJECTS IN FORT PIERCE, I'M JUST NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT ONES.
>> WHATIS THE BILL AND SEE IF THEY DON'T FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE 18 MONTHS .
>> THERE IS A REVERSIONARY CLAUSE OF THE DEED.
TO THE CITY WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK IN AND RETAKE THE PROPERTY AND GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AGAIN.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS QUICK. >> YES, I HAVE A QUESTION.
BUT THIS WILL INCLUDE SEVERAL OF THE PROPERTIES HERE.
WHEN THERE IS NO ADDRESS, HOW DOES JOHN Q PUBLIC KNOW WHERE TO LOOK AND OFTEN THERE ARE NO SIGNS IN FRONT OF THE
PROPERTIES THAT ARE FOR SALE. >> WE DO PUT SIGNS OUT FOR ALL OF OUR CITY OWNED PROPERTIES. THE LISTING OF ALL THE AVAILABLE BIDS ARE ON THE WEBSITE AND WE WILL HAVE A LINK TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER MAP SO THEY KNOW.
BECAUSE YOU ARE RIGHT, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW.
BUT EVERYTHING IS IDENTIFIED BY THAT PARCEL ID, WHICH THEY CAN THEN SEARCH AND GET THE MAP LOCATION.
WE ALSO PUT IN OUR BID DOCUMENT A SUMMARY OF THE PROPERTY OF WHERE IT IS LOCATED IN RELATION TO LET SAY IN THIS CASE IT'S NORTH OF AVENUE D COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SOUTH OF LINCOLN PARK ACADEMY. WE TRY TO ADD LANDMARKS IN
THERE SO THEY HAVE AN IDEA. >> IT IS CONCERNING BECAUSE OF THE LAST MEETING THERE WERE PROPERTIES ÃI THINK WAS THE LAST MEETING WE HAD SURPLUS PROPERTY.
>>FRANKCREYAUFMILLER: WE HAD A COUPLE .
>> THERE WERE PROPERTIES WITH NO ADDRESSES.
SO JUST WONDERING HOW THE PUBLIC WOULD KNOW.
AND IF IT IS ONLY ON A WEBSITE, IN MY WAY OF THINKING THAT IS
YOU ARE RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR ALL OUR PROCUREMENT TO ADVERTISE IT IN THE NEW LOCAL NEWSPAPER, WHICH GOES THROUGH TWO ROUNDS OF ADVERTISING THEIR. IF THERE ARE INTERESTED PARTIES, LET'S SAY THERE IS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER WHOSE USE THAT SIGN CALLS ME AND SAYS I WANT TO BE NOTIFIED WHEN THIS GOES OUT, I WILL MAKE SURE THAT THEY GET A NOTICE WHETHER IT IS A PHONE CALL OR AN EMAIL OR WHAT OVER THE WANT TO BE CONTACTED. I USED TO DO ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE CITY SO THIS UNDERSTANDING OF NEEDING TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC, BUT THE PUBLIC HAS TO WANT TO CONSUME THAT INFORMATION.
IT IS KIND OF A ÃI THINK THE SIGNS ARE THE BEST WAY FOR THE LOCAL AREA DOES THEY ARE DRIVING THROUGH TO BE MINDFUL
[00:40:02]
OF THAT. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT SUBSCRIPTION FEATURES. AND UNFORTUNATELY A LOT OF ITIS SURROUNDED BY TECHNOLOGY. >> THANK YOU.
>> YOU ARE WELCOME. >> CAN YOU TELL ME THIS IS DISPOSABLE OF CITY SURPLUS PROPERTY? THE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE RECEIVED GO BACK INTO THE CITY
GENERAL BUDGET? >> THERE IS A SPECIFIC LINE ITEM, BUT YES.THEY GO BACK INTO THE GENERAL FUND.
THE FPR A PROPERTIES GOING TO RESTRICTED REVENUE ACCOUNT THROUGH THE FPR A THAT WE CAN USE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND WHATNOT. BUT FOR THESE I GO BACK TO THE
THANK YOU. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ANY
OTHER QUESTIONS QUICK. >> TO FOLLOW UP ON MY FIRST QUESTION, IF THEY DON'T DO IT, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MONEY THAT THEY PAID IN? IS IT REFUNDED?
>> NO, MA'AM. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: IT IS
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ANYTHING ELSE? OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.
COME BACK TO THE BOARD. I HAVE ONE.
WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MOTION ONCE I DO .
CAN WE GO TO THE ITEM THAT IS GOING TO BE CONNECTED.
>> THAT IS AN EXCELLENT. AND TOOK ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
D1 WHOLE LANGUAGE QUICK. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: NOT NECESSARY AT THIS TIME. SECOND MOTION? MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK , SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT.
>> MR. BRODERICK. >> YES.> MS. JOHNSON-SCOTT.
[d. Disposal of City-Owned Surplus Property at 701 N. 14th Street]
>> YES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.
>> YES, MA'AM. >> THIS IS THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR..12 ACRES OWNED OR FOR. IS MARKET VALUE IS AROUND $6500 ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER.
AS I MENTIONED, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT BOTH PROPERTIES GO TO TELCO. IN HOPES I CAN COMBINE BOTH PARCELS THEY WERE THE HIGHEST RANKED.AME PROPOSAL WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION OR THEY WILL PURCHASE A PROPERTY FOR 5500 35,000 IS A VALLEY OF THE DUPLEX AND THEY WILL HAVE 18 MONTHS TO COMPLETE THE IMPROVEMENTS.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK WE PRETTY MUCH INVENTED THE LAST ONE.
>> IS 18 MONTHS THE STANDARD YOUR RECOMMENDING.
>> THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.
WE ARE ALLOWING THEM TO SELECT AND DECIDE BASED ON THEIR OTHER PROJECTS. WE HAVE AT SOME SAY SIX MONTHS, WE'VE HAD SOME SAY IT 16 MONTHS.
SUMMER MAY BE UNREALISTIC. IS SELECTED A TWO-MONTH SPIRIT ONCE WE HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND ONCE WE GO TO THE CLOSING PROCESS WE COULD MAYBE SETTLE ON 24.HAT IS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME. HOWEVER, MOVING FORWARD WE ARE TRYING TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS SO WE DON'T END UP WITH LACKING INFORMATION LIKE WE ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW IMPORTANT SO WE ARE GOING TO BE STANDARDIZING IT AND DOING IT 24 MONTHS ACROSS THE BOARD. THE WAY THERE IS NO QUESTION.
WE DON'T GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY HOW LONG.
I THINK THAT WILL HELP THEM AND US BETTER UNDERSTAND.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: 24 MONTHS IS PROBABLY MORE REALISTIC, PARTICULARLY BY THE TIME YOU GO TO PERMITTING THROUGH DESIGN AND PERMITTING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I'M SORRY, ARE THE APPLICANTS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPERTY
AS SOON AS THE CLOSING OCCURS THEY ARE THE OWNER OF THE
PROPERTY. >> IF THEY DON'T KEEP THE GRASS CUT THE LIENS WOULD BE PUT ACROSS THE PROPERTY.
>> JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER.
>> OKAY. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ANYTHING ELSE? NOT HEARING ANYTHING I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.
ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE COMING BACK TO THE BOARD FOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. NOT HEARING ANY AND WILL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOVED TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE, SECOND BY
>> YES. >> MR. ALBURY WHAT YOU.
>> MR.BRODERICK. >> YOU.> MS. JOHNSON-SCOTT.
[e. Disposal of City-Owned Surplus Property at 606 N. 14th Street]
>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YES, MA'AM.
ITEM E. >> 606 NORTH 14TH STREET 01.8 ACRES ALSO ZONED R 4. $5300 IS A MARKET VALUE.
THE PICTURE ON PROPERTY APPRAISER LOOKS A LOT BETTER THAN IT DOES RIGHT NOW. I COULD BARELY GET THE SIGN IN BECAUSE IT WAS JUST DIRT. WE ARE REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THIS PROPERTY BE REDEVELOPED.
JAVIAN PROPERTIES OUT OF SAN DIEGO WAS THE HIGHEST RANKED.
[00:45:07]
THEY ARE PROPOSING A NEW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.HE OTHER PLAN TO SELL IT OR RENT IT OUT.THEY ARE ONLY PROPOSING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $1100, WHICH IS RELATIVELY LOW FOR BASED ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES AS YOU CAN SEE RANKINGS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER BASED ON LACK OF INFORMATION THEY RANKED THE HIGHEST.HEY BELIEVE THEY CAN BUILD THIS HOME FOR $100,000 AND DO SO IN SIX MONTHS. AND SO GOING BACK TO THAT PROGRAM SURE WE WILL RENEGOTIATE THAT AND DO SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE REALISTIC IT.
BUT OVERALL OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL OF THE SALE TO JAVIAN PROPERTIES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THAT?
>> I AM JUST ONE EVALUATOR. I EVALUATE THEM THE BEST I CAN.
145/200 IS NOT AMAZING TO ME. HOWEVER, CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IS IDEAL. I THINK THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS LOT IS IDEAL. WE OF THE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE WITH THE REVERSIONARY CLAUSE AS MS. BAKER ALLUDED TO EARLIER.
O THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION. >FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: AND WE ARE IN A POSITION ÃAT WHAT POINT ON A SCALE CAN YOU PULL THIS OUT OF THE SYSTEM AND PULLED OFF THE MARKET?
>> AS OF RIGHT NOW WE DO NOT HAVE THAT PROVISION AND PLACE IT IN THE NEXT TWO PROPERTIES YOU WILL SEE WHAT PROVISION WE DO HAVE IN PLACE. HOWEVER, MOVING FORWARD I WOULD SUGGEST THAT AT LEAST THEY HAVE A PASSING SCORE OF LET'S SAY 70 PERCENT. OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED. SO THAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THAT BENCHMARK IN PLACE.
>> IF YOU'RE GOING TO WORK ON THIS PROGRAM A BIT, IS THERE A WAY TO GIVE LOCAL BIDDERS EXTRA POINTS?
RIGHT NOW THIS IS THE EVALUATION CRITERIA WE HAVE.
THE NARRATIVE CAN KIND OF SPEAKS TO THAT.
WE ALL DISCUSSED 133 I THINK WAS THE ADDRESS.
NORTH 10TH STREET OUT OF WASHINGTON D.C. BUT THEY ARE ACTUAL LOCALS. AND THAT NARRATIVE WAS KIND OF ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT IN THAT LOCAL PREFERENCE.
WE KIND OF USED THAT BURDEN BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT THIS EVALUATION CRITERIA. WE WILL BE TAKING THE TIMELINE OUT OF IT SINCE WE ARE GOING TO BE OFFERING THAT TIMELINE OR MANDATING THAT TIMELINE. AND SO THIS CAN DEFINITELY BE ADJUSTED FOR LOCAL PREFERENCE IS DEFINITELY PREFERRED AND SO
IS OWNER OCCUPANT. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: I DON'T GET EXCITED WHEN I SEE SOMEBODY IN SAN DIEGO BUYING A PIECE OF
PROPERTY HERE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: THAT IS MY COMMENT.
AND THE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> HOW GOOD IS THE TITLE ON THESE PROPERTIES? HAVE THE LIENS BEEN CLEARED AWAY QUICK.> THEY ARE GOING TO THE TITLEPROCESS NOW . WE HAVE OUTSIDE COUNSEL.
WE ARE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF SEQUENCE BECAUSE OF OUR ATTORNEY THAT RESIGNED. WE HAD TO GET A NEW OUTSIDE COUNSEL. REGULARLY WE WOULD DO THE TITLE WORK BEFORE EVEN PUTTING IT OUT FOR BID, BUT THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT BACKWARDS. WE WILL BE SURE TO SQUARED AWAY
BEFORE CLOSING. >> THERE ARE NO CITY LIENS YOU
KNOW OF? >> IF THERE ARE WE WILL BE SURE
TO GET THEM TAKEN CARE OF. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YOU FIX
THOSE PRETTY QUICK. >> HAS JBM DONE ANY OTHER PROJECTS HERE IN THE COUNTY OR CITY?
>> I BELIEVE ÃNO, I AM WRONG. I DON'T THINK SO.
NO, MA'AM. I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT,
THOUGH. >> I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THE
QUESTION? >> IF THEY HAD DONE ANY OTHER
PROJECTS IN THE AREA. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: COMMENTS? I WILL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS? I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING BARGAIN ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> AND MOVE WE SET THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> SECOND. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: MS. CLEMONS MADE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE SALE AND
MS. BAKER SECOND-PERIOD. >> MR. BURDGE.
>> YOU.> MS. JOHNSON-SCOTT. >> YES.
>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YES.
HE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM F. >> MR. CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
[f. Disposal of City-Owned Surplus Property on 25th Street (2408-501-0067-000-3)]
BOARD, WE HAVE TWO PROPERTIES SIDE-BY-SIDE ON 25TH STREET IN BOOKER. THESE AE TWO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE BOTH AROUND 0.14 BUT I WILL SPEAK TO THEM INDIVIDUALLY. THE MARKET VALUE OF THE FIRST PROPERTY IS $6300. WE RECEIVED THESE FIVE[00:50:06]
PROPOSALS. YOU WILL SEE THE TOTAL SCORES ARE VERY LOW. YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE IS NOT ONE HIGHLIGHTED. THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF NO ACTION ON THESE TWO COMMERCIAL PARTIALS. NOW, I TRIED TO GET THEIR BID FORMS AND HEAR FROM YOU IS VERY SMALL BUT I WILL PULL OUT SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS. SOME OF THEM HAD NO INFORMATION OR NO PLANS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.SO THE TOP LEFT SAYS NO PLANS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT.
THEY ARE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER AND PLAN TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS GREAT.
BUT THERE IS NO PLAN TO DEVELOP A. THE NEXT ONE THEY LEFT THE INTENDED USE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS COMPLETELY BLANK SO WE CAN'T EVALUATE THAT. JBM SUGGESTED A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, WHICH THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE ON 25TH STREET.
MOVING DOWN TO JOANNA, SHE SAYS NO PLANS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT BUT WE WILL MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY.
AND THE HIGHEST RANK OF THEM ALL WAS LOOKING TO DO AN OUTDOOR EVENT SPACE, WEDDINGS, PARTIES AND MARKETS.
BUT THEIR ONLY IMPROVEMENTS WERE LANDSCAPING GATES AND SOLAR PANELS. SO IT LEAVES A LOT TO BE DESIRED. I'M NOT REALLY EVEN SURE WHAT THAT MEANS YOUR UNT OF THE GOING TO LEAVE IT UP IN AN OPEN SPACE AND POP OF THE TENT AND HAVE EVENTS THERE? I DON'T KNOW. SO THERE WERE NO PICTURES, THERE IS REALLY NOT A LOT INCLUDED.
SO THAT IS WHAT BRINGS US TO THE NO ACTION RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE OF INABILITY TO MEET THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THERE IS A PROVISION AS WE MENTIONED EARLIER IN OUR GENERAL BID DOCUMENT THAT BASICALLY SAY WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THESE BINS IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO. THAT IS AT YOUR DISCRETION ISA RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND YOU CAN DECIDE TO
DO SOMETHING OTHER THAN THIS . >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY THE BOARD?
>> QUESTION. IS IT JBM? IS HER APPLICATION, DOES IT LOOK THE SAME AS APPLICATION? IT'S THAT SIMPLE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME.
>> YEAH.THEY HAD A LITTLE FLOOR PLAN OF A HOUSE SIMILAR TO THE ONE THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO ON THE OTHER STREET .
IF WE PUT FIVE PROPERTIES OUT AT A TIME, OFTEN TIMES THEY WILL USE THE SAME PROPOSAL KIND CUT AND PASTE OVER THAT IS JUST THERE FLOOR PLAN THEY HAVE, THAT IS WHAT THEY CAN DO.
AND SO HE PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN LOOK.
THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND JUST KIND OF SUBMITTED THE SAME THING ALL ACROSS THE BOARD.
>>HAROLD ALBURY : FROM YOU LOOKING AT IT NOW IT DOESN'T SEEM TRUSTWORTHY. THAT IS WHY I SAID NO LAST TIME. IF THEY ARE JUST BIDDING AND THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO SELL WHEN THE MARKET IS HIGH FOR THAT AREA, THEY ARE LOOKING TO PROFIT OFF THE LAND.
AND FOR THE LAST THING WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FOR THEM TO LOWBALL IT SO MUCH AND IT'S GOING TO THE CITY BUDGET, I THINK WE AS A COUNSEL SHOULD BE LOOKING TO IMPROVE THAT BUDGET AT ALL TIMES. AND SO I SEE WE ARE NOT RECOMMENDING ANYONE. BUT I AM JUST CURIOUS ON WHY Ã IF THEY USE THE SAME THING WHY WAS THIS.
>> I'M LOOKING AT IT FROM A GEOGRAPHIC STANDPOINT.
THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AT 25TH STREET PARIS THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL. SO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THIS COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR THAT WE ARE TRYING TO REDEVELOP INTO SOMETHING THAT IS COMMERCIAL, THAT IS NOT WHY I PERSONALLY RANKED BOTTOM EXTREMELY LOW. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHY THEY DECIDED TO DO WHAT THEY DID.
BUT THE SAME SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS DEFINITELY IN MY OPINION MORE APPROPRIATE ON ANOTHER STREET IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT WAS MY THOUGHT PROCESS.
>> DO YOU INFORM THE BIDDERS THIS IS NOT THAT HEAVY USE SO THEY CAN POTENTIALLY BID AGAIN OR NO?
>> IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE THERE WERE COMMERCIAL, THE EVENT VENUE IS TECHNICALLY COMMERCIAL.
THE CAN OF COURSE LOOK LISTEN TO THIS PUBLIC MEETING ON THE CITY COMMISSION. THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT PREPARES A LETTER AND PROVIDES THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SCORING CRITERIA. WE WILL DEFINITELY PUT THIS PROPERTY BACK OUT IF THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT IS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.
WE HAVE A REAL ESTATE CONSULTANT, COLLIERS INTERNATIONAL, THAT WOULD BE VERY SUITABLE TO ADDRESS AND TO PROMOTE THESE TWO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES TO AN ACTUAL RETAIL OR A COMMERCIAL TENANT. I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD
[00:55:02]
NEXT STEP. >>HAROLD ALBURY : I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DRIVE THROUGH 25TH THAT OFTEN, BUT AS OF LATELY, THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY ACROSS IT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN USING IT TO SELL THINGS. FISH FRY.
X, Y AND Z. I'M JUST CURIOUS ON WHY WASN'T THE EVENT PLANNING
SOMETHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED? >> FOR ME THAT IS ALL WE GOT.
THE TWO SENTENCE STATEMENT OF THEM WANTING TO PUT LANDSCAPE GATES AND SOLAR PANELS. SO YOU COULD JUST SCRIBBLE OUT SOMETHING ON THE PICTURE. JUST MORE INFORMATION, NARRATIVE. HOW DID YOU COME TO THAT IDEA.
IS THERE A NEED, WHAT IS A PLAN MOVING FORWARD, WHAT ARE THE TANGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PARK THE CARS. THERE'S A LOT OF ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. WHEN WE PUT THE REQUESTS OUT TO ALL THE PROPOSALS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, WE DIDN'T GET ANY ADDITIONAL. THAT IS HOW THEY RANKED LOW FOR ME. YOU WILL ACTUALLY SEE THAT THE FRUIT STAND TENANT ACROSS THE STREET ACTUALLY SUBMITTED FOR THE NEXT PROPERTY. WE WILL GET TO THAT IN A MOMENT. BUT FOR THIS, THIS IS HOW I GOT TO IT. I JUST REALLY WANT TO SEE REDEVELOPMENT YEAR.NCE WE SELL THESE PROPERTIES, OF COURSE WE HAVE THE PROTECTION OF THE REVERSIONARY CLAUSE, BUT WHEN THEY ARE NOT SAYING THEY ARE GOING TO DO ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL , HOW ARE WE PROTECTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET THE BEST AND THE MOST REDEVELOPMENT OUT OF
AWESOME.THANK YOU. >> WHAT IS ORDERING THIS
PROPERTY? >> BOOKER IS TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE NORTH THERE IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR AGES. AND YOU KNOW I'M SURE FROM DRIVING ON 25TH STREET, THERE IS A MIX OF USES.
THERE ARE CLAUSES IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE DUPLEXES THAT ARE CHURCHES. AND SAY IT MAKES.
AS PLANNING AND AS WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, 25TH STREET IS A TARGET WALK FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND FOR MAKING SURE WE HAVE THE COMMERCIAL USES RIGHT THERE ON THE COURT OR.
SO WHILE THERE ARE HOMES THERE THAT HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD WE ARE LOOKING FOR MORE
COMMERCIAL USES. >> AS IT STANDS, BUT PROPOSING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON C3 PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A REZONING OF FUTURE LAND USE SO THERE'S AN ETHICS EXPENSE THERE FOR THEM THAT THEY MAY NOT BE AWARE OF.
WE DO SEE THIS EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TODAY WITH REDEVELOPMENT, IF THEY ARE C3ZONING, THE HIGHER VALUE OF IT IS COMMERCIAL LAND .
>> SO C3 WOULD LOOK LIKE WHAT? >> IT IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL DOOR WE HAVE A USE TABLE. YOU COULD HAVE RETAIL THERE.
WOULD BE IDEAL. WE LOOK AT 25TH ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF IT, WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION RIGHT NOW THERE ARE SO MANY DRIVEWAY .
IT REQUIRES A CORRIDOR STUDY, NOT PIECEMEAL.
THIS IS DEFINITELY A PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT VISION FOR
>> I HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION. ARE THESE SUCCESSFUL BIDS
TRANSFERABLE? >> TO WHOM? IF THEY WERE TO TURN AROUND AND SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE? THEY WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER, BUT THE DEED RESTRICTION WOULD STAY THE SAME. SO THAT THE NEXT PERSON WHO WERE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FROM THEM WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW
THE SAME TIME PROVISIONS. >> THANK YOU.
>> WITH HAVING A RESIDENTIAL, ONE OF THE PARAMETERS WHOMEVER GETS THIS WHEN IT COMES UP AGAIN.
IF THEY WANTED TO ASK FOR A ZONING CHANGE THEY COULD DO
IF THEY WERE TO PURCHASE IT Ã YES, THEY COULD ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.UT I KNOW THE DESIRE FOR THE PROPERTY IS MORE COMMERCIAL. ONCE IT BECOMES, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING IN YOUR AGREEMENT.
WOULD HAVE TO MEET AGREED-UPON USE.
>> INTERESTING. >> THIS ENTIRE CLUSTER OF PROPERTIES WAS VERY INTERESTING FOR US AS EVALUATORS AND WE TRY TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECAUSE IT WAS A STRUGGLE TO EVALUATE SUCH LITTLE INFORMATION.
THIS IS THE IMPETUS FOR REDOING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS AND MAKING
[01:00:03]
SURE WE GET ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED! I'M SPECULATING, BUT I BELIEVE MR. ALBER IS OPINION IS AT ACCURATE. AS I'M SITTING HERE ABSORBING MORE AND MORE OF THIS, IT SEEMS TO ME THROUGH AS MUCH OF THE WALL AS WE CAN TO SEE WHAT STICKS IT IF YOU'RE PUTTING IN RESIDENTIAL PROPOSALS YOU ARE NOT EVEN READING.>> YOU ARE JUST SENDING THESE THINGS OUT BY MASS PRODUCTION, WHICH IS A CONCERN. BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU GUYS ARE SENSITIVE TO THAT AND YOU MAY BE UPPING THE GAME TO DO WITH THAT. HE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
>> YOU MUST'VE CAUGHT THIS AN ADVANCE.
>> I JUST CARE ABOUT IT. >> TAKE IT, TAKE IT!
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: GOING TO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS? I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
IN THIS IS TO WITHDRAW. TAKE NEW ACTION.> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CITIES RECOMMENDATION.
>> SECOND. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK , SECOND BY MS. BAKER.
>> MR. ALBURY WHAT YOU. >> MR. BRODERICK.
[g. Disposal of City-Owned Surplus Property on 25th Street (2408-501-0066-000-6)]
>> YOU.> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. >> YOU.
>> MS. BAKER. >> YES.> THIS CLEMONS.
>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YES, MA'AM.
NEXT ITEM IS ITEM G. >> THIS IS A PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THE ONE THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, 0.14 ACRES C3, $6300. THIS IS A SIMILAR SITUATION.
AND YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF THE COPY AND PASTE GOING ON HERE AS WELL. A MAJORITY OF THESE ARE THE SAME. I WILL JUST POINT OUT THE BOTTOM CENTER PROPOSAL IS FOR THE FRUIT STAND REJIG IT CURRENTLY RENTS THE LOT ACROSS THE STREET.
JIGGLES IN THE FRUIT STAND BUT I KNOW THEY SELL OTHER THINGS THERE.SHE'S JUST KIND OF A STREET VENDOR.
SHE'S LOOKING TO PURCHASE A PROPERT TO DO THE SAME THING ACROSS THE STREET. AGAIN, THE STRUGGLE FOR US WAS NOW WE TAKE THAT ONE CORNER LOT AWAY, THAT MAKES THE OTHER PARCEL LESS MARKETABLE INSTEAD OF DOING THEM BOTH TOGETHER.
THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT SHE COULD LEASE THIS PROPERTY FROM THE CITY IF SHE IS HAVING AN ISSUE ACROSS THE STREET OR WOULD LIKE TO MOVE WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPLORE THAT.
BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE SAME PROPOSAL SUBMITTED FOR THE OTHER ONE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING NO ACTION FOR
THESE BIDS AS WELL. >> WHAT WE KNE ABOUT ÃCAN YOU PULL THAT APPLICATION BACKUP? WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THIS?
>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT SHE HAS SUBMITTED, WHICH ISGREAT. SHE HAD A PICTURE AND A DRAWING OF A CANOPY WITH HER FLOWERS AND FRUITS UNDERNEATH IT .
THAT IS ALL I KNOW IS WHAT SHE SUBMITTED.
>> MY COMMENT WOULD BE IF YOU ARE GOING TO PUT YOUR REAL ESTATE HAT ON HERE FOR IMMINENT IS THAT THE AGGREGATE VALUE IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN SUBDIVIDING THE ASSENTED TO BASED ON WHAT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOTS IS UNDER 10,000 FEET PER LOT. WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD ON 10,000 SQUARE FEET. IT IS NOT REALLY A REALISTIC DEVELOPMENT SCHEME.F YOU DOUBLE THAT YOU CAN PROBABLY GET COVERAGE IF 25, 30 PERCENT. YOU ARE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY 5000, 6000 SQUARE FEET OF FAITH SPACE POTENTIALLY.
I AM GOING TO SUGGEST WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IS ABSOLUTELY
CORRECT TO ELEVATE THE VALUE. >> THIS WILL IN NO PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT SO IT WOULD JUST BE TEMPORARY.
SHE WOULD COME SET UP AND LEAVE.
AGAIN, IF THERE IS INTEREST WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPLORE SOME TYPE OF LEASE AGREEMENT IF THERE IS THE DESIRE TO DO SO.
BUT JUST AS HE MENTIONED, CHAIRMANBRODERICK , THAT IS
WHERE MY HEAD WAS AS WELL. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ? YOU SEEM TO KNOW THAT VERY WELL. THAT'S WHY I'M POPPING IT BACK OUT TO YOU. YOUR WHEELS ARE JUST TURNING HERE A LITTLE BIT. OKAY.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION. HAS BEEN ANY BRAINSTORMING AS
[01:05:02]
FAR AS WHY THE CITY ISN'T GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY ITSELF? ALREADY THERE SEEMS TO BE AN INTEREST AS FAR AS THE COMMUNITY AREA. TRYING TO USE IT AS WE WANT TO SAY A FLEAMARKET. IF THAT IS WORST CASE SCENARIO.BUT WHY HASN'T THE CITY DECIDED TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE PROPERTY VERSUS LETTING PRIVATE INDUSTRY?
>> WE DECLARED SURPLUS SO THERE WAS NO NEED AND THAT WAS DECLARED. WANT TO SEE THESE PROPERTIES WERE IN 18. I COULD BE WRONG.
BUT THAT WAS BY RESOLUTION THAT THERE WAS NO INTEREST AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER, NONE OF THE PROPERTIES HAVE COME IN FRONT OF US AND WE ARE AWARE THEM AND EVERYONE KNOWS WHERE THEY ARE IMPORTANT SECULAR WILL HAPPEN.
WHEN THIS COMES TO THE CITY COMMISSION THEY MAY HAVE AN IDEA OR TASK STAFF WILL COMING UP TO THE.
THAT'S POSSIBLE AND IT COULD HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
>> A PERSON WOULD ADDRESS WHO. >> THEY COULD APPROACH ME.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: IN THE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WHAT KIND OF THE PARKING COMMITTEE IS LOOKING FOR LAND ALL OVER THE CITY TO PUT PARKING FOR EVERY TIME YOU BECOME AND NOW I'M GOING TO DRIVE PAST EVERY ONE OF THESE .
GREAT PLACE FOR A PARKING LOT. I GET IT.
KIND OF FORWARD THINKING HERE PRETTY OF HER THE CONVERSATION THIS MORNING. EVERYBODY IS DESPERATE FOR
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: I WILL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS? I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE. GOING TO CLOSE A PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND GO BACK TO THE BOARD.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
>> JUST ONE COMMENT. THE PROPERTIES WE AGREED WITH THE CITIES RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PERSON WHO MADE THE BIDS WOULD BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.
IT IS GOOD TO SEE THAT IN THOSE AREAS THERE IS POTENTIAL OF IMPROVEMENT ALONG THAT 14TH STREET CORRIDOR THAT WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE THAT COMMUNITY. BUT AGAIN, MY IN CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIGNAGE. OFTEN I GO OUT AND I JUST DON'T SEE THE SIGNS. I KNOW THEY ARE SMALL, BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE SIGNAGE AND THAT THE GENERAL LOCAL POPULATION IS ABLE TO SEE WHAT IS OUT THERE AND HAVE AN
AND WE ARE CONSTANTLY IN PROVING THAT PROCESS.
I WANT TO SHOW YOU REALLY QUICK IN CASE THERE IS ANYONE INTERESTED, THIS IS WHERE YOU CAN WAIT THEM.
CHOOSE PIERCE.COM. WE TRY TO COME UP WITH A QUICK DOMAIN NAME HERE. OF COURSE IT'S NOT GOING TO LOAD IT IF YOU GO TO MOVE HERE AND SURPLUS PROPERTY, THIS IS THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SURPLUS PROPERTY.
THESE ARE ALL THE ONES THAT WE HAVE PUT OUT SO FAR AND THE NEXT ROUND IS THIS CLUSTER. ANYONE WHO IS EVER INTERESTED, YOU COULD HAVE THEM CONTACT ME. AND IF ANYONE DRIVES BY THESE PARCELS AND DOESN'T SEE A SIGN, SOMETIMES THEY ARE REMOVED FOR WHO KNOWS WHAT REASON WOULD LET ME KNOW AND I WILL PUT IT BACK OUT. I AM HAPPY TO DO THAT AND WE CAN CONSTANTLY IMPROVE OUR COMMUNICATION, YES, MA'AM.
>> IS IT BEING ADVERTISED ON FACEBOOK.
>> YES. WE GET IT THROUGH OUR MARKETING STUFF AND HE POSTS EVERY TIME WE HAVE A CLUSTER THAT GOES
OUT. >> IT SEEMS LIKE SOME CORRIDORS SIGNS ARE AT A GREATER RISK THAN OTHERS.
>> SOMETIMES. I HAVE A LOT NEXT DOOR TO MY HOUSE AND IF THEY PUT A SIGN OUT IT MIGHT BE GONE THE NEXT DAY. BUT YOU NEVER KNOW.F YOU USE IT TO PARK ON. WHATEVER THE REASONS MAY BE.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK ONE MORE SELF-SERVING QUESTION.
AUGUST YOU HAVE A NEW DEED COMING UP THREE TO THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY LOCATED IN PROXIMITY TO LINCOLN THEATER?
>> IT IS NOT. IS ON THE CORNER OF 19TH.
IT'S FOR THE WEST. WE DO HAVE TWO OR THREE OR FOUR PARCELS NEAR THE LINCOLN THEATER THAT HAVE BEEN RESERVED FOR THAT REASON. THAT CAME UP IN THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE. BUT THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL YOU SAW, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER IS ONE WHO EXPRESSED INTEREST, WHICH IS WHY IT IS GOING OUT.
>> THAT WAS ALL DISCUSSED THIS MORNING AND IMMEDIATELY CAME TO
MIND LACK OF PARKING. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: THAT IS THE RISK WE TAKE WHEN WE HAVE ONLY THREE INDIVIDUALS MANNING THE BOARDS AND THE COMMITTEES IN TOWN.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON ITEM G.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CITY RECOMMENDATION.
>> SECOND. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK , SECOND BY MS. CLEMENS.
[01:10:04]
>> MR. BRODERICK. >> YES BUT MS. JOHNSON-SCOTT.
>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YES.
LEASE STAY PUT A MOMENT. I BELIEVE THAT ASKED NOT TO TAKE ACTION. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A MEANS AND OUR BOARD TO REVISIT. TO PULL AN ITEM BACKUP EVERY FORINSTANCE, WE HEARD ITEM E . IF I REALL CORRECTLY, WE HAVE
A WAY, MR. BURDGE. >> THE RULES ALLOW YOU CAN RECONSIDER ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN PASSED OR NOT PASTORING A MEETING AS LONG AS IT IS AT THE SAME MEETING AND THERE IS A
VOTE TO RECONSIDER. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: OKAY.
I WOULD LIKE TO PASS THE GAVEL TO MR. BRODERICK AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM E.
>> MOTION NEEDS A SECOND. >> SECOND.
>> MOTION AND A SECOND. >> MR. BURDGE.
>> YOU. >> MR. ALBURY BUT JUST.
>> MR. BRODERICK. >> YES.> MS. JOHNSON-SCOTT.
>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YES. MOTION BEING GAVEL.OTION HAS
THANK YOU. P>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: GAVEL HAS BEEN PASSED BACK TO THE CHAIR.
I WOULD LIKE TO REVISIT THIS PARIS AND I THINK WE INVENTED IT PRETTY WELL BUT I THINK WE KNOW WHAT IT IS.
BUT IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A REVIEW, PERHAPS WE MIGHT JUST GO AHEAD AND DO A QUICK REVIEW?
>> SURE. THIS PARCEL IS 0.18 ACRES OWNED R 4 AND THE MARKET VALUE IS $5300 FOR THE HIGHEST RANKED RESPONDED WAS JBM PROPERTIES OUT OF SAN DIEGO AT 145 POINTS OUT OF 200. THEY ARE PROPOSING A NEW CONSTRUCTION SINGLE-FAMILY HOME FOR EITHER RESALE OR TO RENT OUT. THEY ARE PLANNING TO PURCHASE OF PARCEL FOR $1100 IN THE VALLEY OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOME IS 100,000 AND THEY PLAN TO ACCOMPLISH THAT
WITHIN SIX MONTHS. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU. I HAVE ASKED TO RECONSIDER THIS BECAUSE NUMBER ONE, I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH SELLING THIS PROPERTY THAT SHE TO AN OUT-OF-TOWN BUYER BARGAIN WHEN IT BECAME EVIDENT THAT THE SAME POTENTIAL PURCHASER USED A COOKIE-CUTTER APPROACH TO TWO DIFFERENT PROPERTIES.
ONE BEING COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.
AND IN BOTH CASES OFFERING TO BUILD $100,000 HOUSE, WHICH I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU CAN BUILD FOR $100,000 TODAY.
THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO REVISIT THIS.
IN MY FEELING RIGHT NOW IS THE VOTES MR. ALBURY PRESENTED TO US AS A NO VOTE WHEN WE TOOK A MOTION ON THIS WAS PROBABLY A GOOD CONSIDERATION. SO I AM OPEN TO FURTHER COMMENT
AND QUESTIONS. >> THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS ON THE FACE OF IT IT CERTAINLY APPEARS TO BE A BUY AND FLIP SCENARIO, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE NO COOPERATION OF ANY OF THAT. CHALLENGING FOR A COMPANY TO BE DEVELOPING OUT OF CALIFORNIA TO BUILDA SINGLE-FAMILY HOME FOR $100,000 EVALUATION . THAT JUST SEEMS TO NOT MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. AND I AM NOT TRYING TO INSULT THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY BY ANY MEANS, IT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT AND PRACTICAL IN THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE QUITE THE ALIGNMENT. MR. ALBURY PICKED UP ON IT.
I THINK WE ALL GOT IT ON THE SUB SECOND APPLICATION.
THIS JUST REEKS OF BUY AND FLIP.
FOR $1100 WHAT DO YOU REALLY CARE IF YOU DON'T MEET THE BENCHMARK TIMELINES THAT CITY LAID OUT.IT WOULD BE MY REAL ESTATE PERSPECTIVE.LITERALLY. $1100.
WHAT IS THE RISK CAPITAL YOU ARE DEALING WITH.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT ELSE THEY HAVE BEEN ON IN THE
CITY. >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE AND I AM JUST ESTIMATING, I THINK THEY SUBMITTED TO JUST ABOUT EVERY CITY AND FPR A PROPERTY THAT WE HAD PUT OUT THIS YEAR.
THEY HAVE USED THE SAME ÃWHAT DID YOU CALL IT, COOKIE-CUTTER
[01:15:13]
PROPOSAL. BUT I DON'T WANT TO DISCOUNT THAT. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE PARIS BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THESE PROPOSALS ARE DOING THE SAME THING. YOU WILL SEE TOMORROW NIGHT FOR THE BOARD WE HAVE FIVE PROPERTIES GO INTO THE SAME PROPOSER AND IT IS THE SAME PROPOSAL FOR ALL FIVE.THAT IS CUSTOMARY FOR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPERS.
THERE ARE RED FLAGS, $100,000, SIX MONTHS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
THESE ARE THINGS TO CONSIDER. THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT IN THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE.
AND I THINK THE 145/200 THE SPEAK TO THAT.
AND WE HAVE TO COMPARE THEM FOR THERE ARE FOUR SUBMITTALS AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. YOU EVALUATE THEM INDIVIDUALLY, BUT IN ALL REALITY YOU HAVE TO COMPARE THEM TO EACH OTHER.
THE OTHER ONES WERE LACKING SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION.
I THINK THAT IS WHY THEY ROSE TO THE TOP.
THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, EXCELLENT.
WE DON'T HAVE LOCAL PREFERENCE. WHETHER YOU RENT IT OUT OR SELL IT, THAT MEANS SOMEONEIS GOING TO BE ABLE TO OWN A HOME .
THERE IS INCOME TO BE MADE, THERE IS PROFIT TO BE MADE FOR EVERYONE. THAT IS JUST HOW THE ECONOMY WORKS. BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY RED FLAGS. I AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK IT WAS SMART FOR YOU TO BRING IT UP AGAIN.
WE CAN ONLY EVALUATE BASED ON WHAT THEY SUBMIT.
IT IS HARD. DON'T WANT TO DRAW CONCLUSIONS.
IT IS EASY TO DO THAT, IS EASIER FOR ME TO DO THAT AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE ALL APPEAR WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS TO MAKE THESE TYPES OF REGULATIONS I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS
IN CONVERSATION. >> COULD YOU TELL ME, ON ANY OF THE PROPERTIES THAT THEY HAVE BID ON BEFORE, WITH A
SUCCESSFUL BIDDERS. >> NO, MA'AM.
>> CAN YOU TELL ME IF ANY OF THE OTHER BIDDERS HERE WHO FOR INSTANCE SECOND GENERATION, HAVE THEY BEEN SUCCESSFUL
BIDDERS ON ANYTHING? >> THEY ACTUALLY HAVE NOT.
I AM AWARE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THEY HAVE DONE IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER OF ANY OF OUR SURPLUS PROPERTIES ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF
I'M BEGINNING TO SEE THAT THERE IS A FLAW IN YOUR APPROACH.
>> THAT IS WHY WE ARE OVERHAULING IT.
WE HAVE BEEN USING THE STANDARD FORM FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS REALLY CAN EVALUATE BASED ON WHAT YOU RECEIVED.
WHEN YOU ARE NOT RECEIVING IT. THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE CAN ADDRESS EVERYTHING MEANS IT WASN'T THAT CONFUSING IN MY OPINION. LIVE AT HOW MANY ITERATIONS OF THESE GOING OUT? BUT I THINK IT CAN DEFINITELY
BE IMPROVED. >> YOU DON'T EVEN DO A BACKGROUND SEARCH ON ANY OF THESE PEOPLE?
>> WE DO NOT THE. WE ASK THEY SHOW THEIR PROOF OF FUNDS BASICALLY, BUT BEYOND THAT WE DON'T.
>> WHAT SIZE HOUSE WHERE THEY PROPOSING?
HOW MANY SQUARE FEET. >> I DON'T RECALL.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY MENTIONED IT.
>> I DON'T THINK THEY DID. >> I DON'T THINK THEY DID EITHER. BUT I CAN DOUBLE CHECK.
>> THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 1000 SQUARE FEET.
>> I AM NOT SURE TODAY'S VALUES.
I'M NOT SURE YOU COULD DO THAT. >> A FOLLOW-UP ON MS. BAKER'S COMPETENT. THIS OPENED UP THE WHOLE PANDORA'S BOX HERE. YOU BEEN DOING WITH THESE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. HOW MANY OF THESE GET TAKEN BACK BY THE CITY? HOW MANY OF THE PIECES OF PROPERTY OR THEY ARE NOT BEING DEVELOPED ON.HAT THE TWO DIFFERENT APPROACH.HEY ARE NOT BEING DEVELOPED ON IN THE CITY HAS TAKEN THEM BACK OR THE CITY HAS NOT TAKEN THE BACK.
WHAT ISA PERCENTAGE OF THE HIT RATE THAT SOMETHING COMES OUT
OF THE GROUND? >> SINCE I HAVE TAKEN OVER IN 2020, OUR FIRST PROPERTY WAS AND I THINK SHE HAS FIVE YEARS TO BUILD A HOUSE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
PRIOR TO ME BEING INVOLVED THERE WAS NO PROVISIONS.
IT WAS LIKE SOLD THE PROPERTY AND YOU SAY ÃI DON'T EVEN THINK THEY HAD A PROPOSAL. I THINK IT WAS THE HIGHEST BIDDER GOT THE PROPERTY AND THAT IS IT.
SO AS A WE DEVELOPER IT IS NOT JUST BECAUSE OF ME.
WE HAVE A BRAND-NEW PLAN AND THIS WAS IDENTIFIED AS WE HAVE A TON OF PROPERTY. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, THE ONE-TIME INFUSION OF YOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS OR $5000 IS NOT WHAT WE ARE AFTER. WE ARE AFTER THE REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS SO WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD, WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD IT, HOW YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD IT AND THE HOME.
I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA ON THAT AND WE PROBABLY WON'T 4 AT
[01:20:01]
LEAST TWO YEARS. >> YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TOO THE CITY STAFF TO RECLAIM THE PROPERTY.
>> NO, WE DON'T.BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT GOING INTO IT EVEN IF I WAS A DEVELOPER OR OWNER OCCUPANT, I WOULD BE NERVOUS.
LIKE I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU 10 GRAND AND YOU COME BACK AND BUILD THIS PROPERTY. I BETTER DO WHAT I SAY I AM GOING TO DO. IT'S REALLY THE ONLY PROTECTION WE CAN HAVE. PEOPLE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS SO IT IS WHAT IT IS. BUT THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO SAY WE ARE SERIOUS, WE WANT WHAT WE WANT AND I WOULD HOPE THAT NO ONE GOES INTO IT WITH ILL INTENTION.
>> I'M GLAD YOU ARE TRYING TO WORK ON MASSAGE THIS PROCESS.
>> I HAVE TO SAY, BUT FIRST PROPERTY TOOK A LONG TIME.
BECAUSE WE WERE JUST STARTING OUT.
AND WE WERE REALIZING HOW MANY PIECES OF PROPERTY THE CITY OWNS. AND THEY ARE JUST SITTING THERE.AND CHEYENNE REALLY Ã SHE DESERVES KUDOS.EALLY CREATED A WHOLE PROCESS THAT HELPS ALL OF US WE WOULD ALL THE DEPARTMENTS TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPERTY.
THAT IS WHAT INITIATES IT. AND IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT GETS A CALL FROM SOMEONE, WE ARE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT THE PROPERTIES THAT WE OWN. WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO GET THE WORD OUT THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE LAND NOT FOR VERY MUCH.
THAT IS SO CRITICAL. AND IT HAS REALLY LED TO AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL PROCESS WE ARE ALL INVOLVED IN SUPPORTING IT. AS EVERY PLAN, YOU LOOK TO SEE WHATWORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T . AND IT IS A CONSTANT CHANGING AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE BETTER.
>> I ASSURE YOU THIS IS THE LAST ROUND THAT WILL LOOK ANYTHING LIKE THIS BECAUSE I GET A STACK OF ACTUAL PAPER.
AND THAT IS NOT CATEGORIZED BY ADDRESS.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ÃIT TAKES SO MUCH TIME.
THEY HAVE TO BE CONFUSED, IS JUST SO MUCH FOR THIS WOULD BE THE LAST TIME WE ARE GOING TO STREAMLINE AND MAKE SURE IT IS EFFICIENT AND SUCCESSFUL AND WE GET WHAT WE WANT OUT OF THE
PROJECT THAT IS REDEVELOPMENT. >> IT STRIKES ME AS ONCE AGAIN GOING TO THE REAL ESTATE END OF THIS THING.
PEOPLE ARE BUYING OPTIONS ON THESE PROPERTIES.
$1100, $3000 FOR THEY ARE BUYING AN OPTION IF THEY CHOOSE TO DEVELOP, FIND. IF THEY DON'T, THE CITY WILL TAKE A WHILE TO CHASE THEM DOWN ANYWAYS IT IS NOT SIX MONTHS, IS NOT 18 MONTHS. IT'S AN INEXPENSIVE WAY TO TIE UP AN ASSET AND SUBSEQUENTLY MAKE A DETERMINATION LATER ON IF THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING.
THAT WOULD BE MY GUT REACTION TO EXPLAIN THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
IN IS AN EXPENSE INEXPENSIVE WAY TO TIE UP LAND.
>> FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, WHAT IS THE PROCESS FOR RESENDING THESE BIDS. IN THIS CASE SIX MONTHS FOR WHAT DOES THE PROCESS THE CITY HAS TO FOLLOW?
>> THROUGH OUR ATTORNEYS OFFICE, I DON'T KNOW.
I'M NOT GETTING INTO THAT. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW
LONG THAT TAKES. >> I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE.
ALONG TIME, I WOULD ASSUME . >> WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF WHAT IT COSTS TO GO BACK AND TAKE OWNERSHIP.
>> IT COSTS MORE THAN $1100 IN ATTORNEY FEES, I BET.
>> I'M SURE THAT IS TRUE. >> I WOULD OPEN THE DISCUSSION TO THE PUBLIC. AND WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER COMMENT
OR QUESTION. >> I APPLAUD YOU THAT YOU'RE MOVING US FORWARD AND REALLY DEVELOPING SOME PROTOCOLS HERE.
I SEE THE PROBLEMS YOU ARE FACING AND IT IS COMPLICATED.
I'M THRILLED YOU'RE GOING TO ELEVATE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL AND I THINK OVER TIME YOU ARE GOING TO FIND HOW YOU CAN
REALLY NAIL THESE PEOPLE DOWN. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> YOU GAVE THEM 35 POINTS FOR THE TIMELINE.
>> THAT WAS A COMBINED BETWEEN MY COLLEAGUE AND I.
I CAN TELL YOU WERE MY MIND WAS.
I DIDN'T THINK SIX MONTHS WAS REALISTIC SO I DID NOT GIVE THEM A LOT OF POINTS FOR A TIMELINE FOR IN WALL QUICK IS GOOD, SIX MONTHS DIDN'T SEEM REALISTIC SO THAT'S HOW I EVALUATED THEM. BUT 35 CUMULATIVELY OUT OF 60.
>> I WAS JUST CONCERNED BECAUSE HE MADE THE POINT EARLIER THAT 70 PERCENT WOULD BE AN IDEAL CUT OFF, WHICH WOULD BE 140 POINTS. IF THEY GOT 35 FOR THE TIMELINE COMMIT MOST OF US CONSIDER UNREALISTIC, THAT WOULD TAKE
THEM OUT OF THE RUNNING. >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE OTHER EVALUATOR, BUT THAT IS WHERE MY MIND WAS.
[01:25:04]
YOU SEE ZEROS ARE HERE BECAUSE THE TIMELINE WASN'T EVEN LISTED AT ALL SHE WOULD MOVING FORWARD WITH MANDATING THE TIMELINE IN THE BEGINNING SAYING YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY DUPLEX WITHIN 24 MONTHS, WE TAKE THIS WHOLE SECTION OUT AND WE CAN MOVE THAT TO THE LOCAL PREFERENCE OR SOME OTHER Ã MAYBE WE CAN EVALUATE THE PLANS THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SUBMIT BECAUSE IT'SGOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT OF THE ONLINE FORM THAT THEY CAN'T SUBMIT WITHOUT THE PLANS .HIS DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE REWORKED.>> I MOVE THAT WE REVERSE THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE AND HAVE THAT PROPERTY BUT BACK INTO THE SURPLUS POT.
>> SECOND. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: MOTION BY MS. BAKER, SECOND BY MS. CLEMONS .
>> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. >> I'M CONFLICTED.
>> MR. ALBURY BURGESS. >> MR. BRODERICK.
>> YOU.> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: YES.>> THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.
I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION AND INPUT.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: I HOPE THIS DIDN'T RUIN YOUR
AFTERNOON. >> NOT AT ALL! YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF IN THIS WITH ME. FEEL LIKE YOU ARE PART OF THIS. I'M NOT ALONE OUT HERE WITH ALL THE SURPLUS PROPERTIES APPRECIATE IT.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: I WILL TAKE THE HEAT WITH YOU.
>> HAVE A GOOD ONE . >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? I'M NOT SEEING ANYONE. NEXT ITEM, ITEM 8. DIRECTORS
[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]
REPORT KOREAN. >> CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ONLY WANT TO SAY ÃI KNOW MR. BRODERICK BROUGHT THIS UP AT THE END OF OUR MEETING LAST MONTH WITH REGARD TO CAPITAL PROGRAMMING AND PRESENTATIONS AND INVOLVEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD IMPORTANT PLANNING BOARD FOR HIM AND HE IS CORRECT. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH JACK ANDREWS. I WENT THROUGH THE REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PLANNING BOARD.
NEXT MONTH JACK ANDREWS WILL BE PRESENTING TO ALL THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, WHICH DOES CHANGE.
YOU CAN DO AMENDMENTS DURING THE AIR.
BUT GOING FORWARD YOU WILL BE PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR BUDGETING. SO WE WILL JUST MAKE SURE WE
COORDINATE THAT IN TIME. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: IS AT
[9. BOARD COMMENTS]
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: NEXTITEM IS ITEM 9 , BOARD COMMENTS.
I HAVE SEVERAL. NO SURPRISE, RIGHT?PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 2 .
I THINK THAT IS THAT ÃWHAT TIME IS THAT?
>> THAT IS AT 1:00. >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: FOR SOME REASON I DIDN'T WRITE THAT DOWN.
MS. CLEMONS WAS APPOINTED TO THE BOARD BY THE COMMISSION TO FINISH OUT MR. DIETZ ÃDIAZ TERM.
THANK YOU. THAT WAS NOT AMISTAKE.
>> I DIDN'T WRITE IT DOWN . >>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: AND HER TERM IS UP ON AUGUST 28TH, IS THAT CORRECT?
OR AUGUST 18? >> ONE OF THOSE TWO.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO BE TAKING ACTION DURING AUGUST 16 MEETING.
AND I EXPECT TO SEE YOU BACK. I HAVE SPOKEN TO SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS. SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
AND I EXPECT TO SEE YOU BACK. YOU HAVE COME A LONG WAY IN A SHORT TIME. I THINK BRINGING BACK UP ON THE DAIS FINALLY HAS BEEN A VERY GOOD MOVE BECAUSE NOW I CAN SEE YOU AND I REMEMBER YOU ARE HERE.
INFAMOUS JOHNSON SCOTT SOMETIMES WOULD WIND UP SITTING DOWN THERE.IT WAS HARD FOR ME TO FIND YOU ALL.
TODAY IT WOULDN'T BE ANY TROUBLE AT ALL FOR IT SO MEETINGS IT WAS VERY HARD FOR HIM AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU PUT IN, DO IT I DO EXPECT YOU BACK.
SOME NOT SAYING GOODBYE I EXPECT TO SEE YOU BACK HERE
NEXT MONTH. >> THAT IS MY INTENTION.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: OKAY., ANYWAY.
THE OTHER ITEM THAT I HAD IS Ã I WOULD LIKE TO SEE EVERYONE
[01:30:07]
START WATCHING THE COMMISSIONER MEETINGS.PARTICULARLY THE REGULAR MEETINGS.
EVERYTHING WE HEAR ON THIS DAIS GOES THERE.
YOU WILL PICK UP A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE FROM THE COMMISSIONERS WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THEIR PROCESS AFTER THEY HAVE SEEN WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND THEY STILL GO AND PICK SOME OF THE STUFF APART. AND PROBABLY WILL NOT BE AS LIVELY AS IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST NOW THAT THERE HAVE BEEN STEPS TAKEN TO STREAMLINE VACATION RENTALS.
BUT EVERYTHING WE SEE THEY WILL SEE.
SO WHAT I HAVE DONE IS BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ITEM THAT THEY HEARD SPECIFICALLY REGARDING BOARDS.
AND I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THAT ITEM, I DON'T WANT TO MENTION NAMES, I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT.
I DON'T EVEN WANT ANYONE ELSE TO TALK ABOUT IT.
OTHER THAN TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS SHORT CLIP OF WHAT COMMISSIONER TOM HAS SAID. AND I THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PULL IT UP. I HAVE THIS MAGICAL WIZARD OVER
HERE THAT IS A TECHIE. >> I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT.
I ACTUALLY SAT ON THE UTILITY BOARD FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST EXPERIENCE IS IN THE CITY I'VE HAD IN A WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMISSION SINCE I AM STILL HERE. THERE IS STILL TIME.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU A QUICK STORY ABOUT HOW I BEGAN.
I RAN FOR OFFICE AND I WILL NOT OFFICE AND FROM AN ELECTION TECHNICALITY I HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM OFFICE.
WAS REMOVED AS A COMMISSIONER FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.
AND I TOOK THAT. AND I KNOW IT WAS AN ERROR MADE IN QUALIFYING. I DIDN'T RESIGN FROM THE UTILITY BOARD AND THE EXACT TIMEFRAME I WAS SUPPOSED TO.
BUT I AM GOING TO TELL YOU THAT JUDGE AT THAT TIME HAD TO MAKE THE DECISION BASED UPON THE FACTS AND IT IS A TOUGH DECISION TO DO. BUT THAT DECISION GOT MADE.
I WAS REMOVED. RERAN THREE MONTHS LATER IN A BACK AT IT. OKAY? THAT IS HOW THIS IS. THAT IS THE BAR THAT HAD BEEN SET FOR EVERYBODY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.
HAS TO BE AT ISSUE WITH THE JOB YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.AND IT IS UP TO US TO MAKE SURE THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE GETS THE BEST OF WHAT WE CAN PROVIDE. WE THINK THAT'S NOT BEING DONE.
IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS A LITTLE SHADY OR A PROBLEM WITH CHARACTER OR A PROBLEM WITH AN ISSUE, WITH A LOOK AT IT, WE HAVE TO EVALUATE IT, WE OFTEN MAKE A DECISION SO THE DECISION TONIGHT SHOULD BE IT'S NOT EASY BECAUSE IT'S DEALING WITH SOMEONE I PERSONALLY LIKE AND THOUGHT WAS DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB, BUT IT IS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF FORT PIERCE AND WHAT WE AS COMMISSIONERS AND MAYOR HAVE TO DO TO MAKE SURE WE CONTINUE THIS TYPE OF PROCESS.
AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, I MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE.
>>FRANK CREYAUFMILLER: THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE IN REGARD TO A SITUATION ON A BOARD THAT A BOARD MEMBER BY THE CITY COMMISSION, I BELIEVE, WAS CHARGED WITH THIS THESIS.
IS THE CITY ATTORNEY OUTLINED WHEN SHE WAS ASKED WHAT THAT MEANT, SHE SAYS WELL, BE IN THE CITY AND THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DEFINITION IN THE ORDINANCE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO THE CITY, ENOUGH TO RETURN AND GO BACK TO THE DICTIONARY FOR THAT. AND IT'S A VERY BROAD CHARGE.
BUT IT IS THE SITUATION ANYONE OF US COULD FIND OURSELVES IN.
AND WHERE THE COMMISSIONER WAS GOING WITH THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION. YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND AT LEAST GO TO THE COMMISSION MEETING OF ÃWHAT WAS THAT? HE SECOND. COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 2.
AND MOVE THROUGH IT AND FIND THE ITEM REFERRING TO THE REMOVAL OF THE BOARD MEMBER. AND IF NOTHING ELSE, WATCH THAT
[01:35:09]
SECTION. BECAUSE HE WILL GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS.BUT ANYONE OF US CAN FIND OURSELVES IN THE SAME TYPE OF POSITION DEPENDING ON UPON WHAT OUR BEHAVIOR IS AT THE DAIS OR WHAT OUR BEHAVIOR MAY BE ON THE STREET.
AND THE REASON OUR BEHAVIOR ON THE STREET HOLDS JUST AS MUCH CONCERN TO THE CITY AS OUR BEHAVIOR ON THE DAIS IS WE ARE THE FACE OF FORT PIERCE WHEN WE STEP UP BEHIND THIS DAIS.
ANYTHING WE SAY, ANYTHING WE DO INSIDE THIS CHAMBER OR OUTSIDE THIS CHAMBER FLEXON FORT PIERCE.
I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY OF THE CONCERNED CITIZEN THREE OF FORT PIERCE AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE THAN WE THINK WE DO.
WE ARE ALL RECOGNIZABLE. UNSURPRISED SOMETIMES AND I TRY TO KEEP A LOW-KEY. BUT I'M SURPRISED SOMETIMES AT HOW OFTEN I AM APPROACHED WANDERING AROUND FORT PIERCE BY SOMEONE AND THEY GET INTO A CONVERSATION WITH ME ABOUT A DECISION WE MADE ON A CASE THAT WE HEARD.
SO THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU TOO IF IT HASN'T HAPPENED ALREADY. WE DO AND SAY NOT ONLY ON THE STREET, SPECIFICALLY HERE ON THE DAIS, MORE IMPORTANTLY PROBABLY HERE IN THE DAIS, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT.
WE ARE A VERY RECOGNIZED BOARD. ANYTIME YOU SIT ON A BOARD THAT WHEN YOU GO INTO THE CITY WEBSITE A NEW LOOK FOR BOARDS AND YOU SEE THE BOARDS THAT A VIDEO WRITTEN NEXT TO THEM, THAT THEY BOARD THE CITY COMMISSION PUTS A VERY HIGH MARK OF IMPORTANCE TO THIS CITY ON.
SO YOU ARE NOT SITTING ON A BOARD THAT SAYS BEAUTIFY FORT PIERCE, WHICH IS STILL IMPORTANT.
I AM NOT TRYING TO DEVALUE THOSE TYPES OF BOARDS.
BUT THIS BOARD WE HAVE A LOT OF EYES ON US.
HOW WE CONDUCT OURSELVES IS IMPORTANT.
SOMETIMES IT IS NOT SO MUCH WHAT WE SAY.
THIS IS A VERY OLD PHRASE. BUT IT IS HOW WE SAY IT.
IS HOW WE COME ACROSS. IT'S OUR BODY LANGUAGE OR HOW WE PRONOUNCE WORDS AS WE ARE CONSTRUCTING THE SENTENCE THAT REALLY MATTERS. AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY OF US COME TO A MEETING WITH THE QUESTION THAT WE KNOW IS GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT QUESTION FOR STAFF TO ANSWER.
WE ARE PERMITTED TO PICK THE PHONE UP AND CALL AND GET THE PLANNER ON THE TELEPHONE AND SAY HEY, BRANDON, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING HERE. WHAT IS GOING ON.
HOW ARE YOU GETTING TO THIS. WE CAN DO THAT AT ANY TIME.
AND IT IS MUCH BETTER OFF TO DO THAT ON THE TELEPHONE THAN IT IS WHEN BRANDON IS SITTING DOWN HERE PRESENTING THE CASE AND WE LOOK AT HIM IN WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? YOU ARE PUTTING THE PLANNER IN A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION.
HE CAN ANSWER WHAT HE IS THINKING ON THE TELEPHONE VERY EASILY. HE HAS TO BE VERY SELECTIVE SOMETIMES AND HOW HE ANSWERS THAT SAME QUESTION WHEN HE IS SITTING THERE AT THAT MICROPHONE.ND I'M USING YOU BECAUSE YOU ARE SITTING HERE. BUT I DON'T LIKE TO SEE A GOT YOU QUESTION. GO OUT TO A PLANNER ANY MORE THAN I DO TO AN APPLICANT. AND SOMETIMES "GOT YOU" QUESTIONS AREN'T NECESSARILY BECAUSE WE ARE CONSCIOUSLY SAYING BOY, WHEN I GET TO THE MEETING TODAY I'M GOING TO GET HIM. THIS IS A QUESTION THAT'S GOING TO GET HIM. IT COULD BE JUST THE WAY WE PHRASE IT. SO BE CAREFUL.
BECAUSE THAT COULDN'T BE VIEWED BY OUR COMMISSIONS Ã COMMISSIONERS. BECAUSE THE TERM IN THE DEFINITION IN THE DICTIONARY IS SO BROAD.
NOW, IF WE HAD OUR OWN DEFINITION FOR MISFEASANCE IN OUR CITY ORDINANCE OR CITY CODE, IT COULD BE VERY, VERY
[01:40:01]
SPECIFIC. BUT BECAUSE WE TURNED BACK TO THE DICTIONARY IT'S NOT. SO I'M JUST SUGGESTING WE ALL BE CAREFUL IN HOW WE CONDUCT OURSELVES OUT ON THE STREET AND CONDUCT OURSELVES HERE ON HE DAIS AND HOW WE QUESTION AND OUR BODY LANGUAGE. THIS IS A DIFFICULT POSITION FOR ALL OF US. WE HAVE A CAMERA ON US AND IF YOU WATCH THE NEWS YOU WILL SEE SEASONED POLITICIANS THAT ANSWER A QUESTION AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY HAVE ALL KINDS OF BAD PRESS OVER AND ANSWER. WHAT COLORGUARD DID YOU GET YOUR WIFE. I GOT HER A RED CARD.ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT IS BAD PRESS IN HELL BECAUSE IT SHOULD'VE BEEN A BLUE CAR. I DON'T KNOW SOMETIMES.
SUPPOSED TO BE VERY CAREFUL. THIS IS NOT TO PINPOINT ANY PROBLEMS. I'M JUST SUGGESTING WE ALL STAY VERY MINDFUL AND TRY TO ELIMINATE ANY POSSIBLE PROBLEMS. AND THAT IS ALL I HAD.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.