Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:11]

>>> GOOD EVENING. WE WILL OPEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IT IS JANUARY 14.

HAPPY NEW YEAR. IT IS JANUARY.

I CAN REMEMBER YESTERDAY I CELEBRATED JANUARY 2019.

NOW HERE WE ARE ON THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2020.

>> IF YOU WOULD PLEASE JOIN US AND TO STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE. >> 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. WE ONLY HAVE TWO GUESTS TONIGHT.

AND I AM GLAD TO SEE YOU AND I AM SORRY IT IS ONLY THE TWO OF YOU. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN YOUR CELL PHONES OFF. THAT GOES FOR OUR BOARD AS WELL.

>> SOMETIMES I HAVE TO REMIND MYSELF.

AND WE HAVE MS. COX SITTING IN TONIGHT FOR ALICIA.

AND WE HAVE ANOTHER SUBSTITUTION RIGHT HERE.

VERY GOOD. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

I AM SO GLAD AND, I MEAN, THIS WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

I AM SO GLAD THAT WE HAVE DEDICATED EMPLOYEES IN THIS CITY OF GOVERNMENT. EVERYWHERE I LOOK I CAN SEE OUR CITY PEOPLE NOT ONLY DOING THEIR JOBS BUT REACHING OUT AND TRYING TO DO ADDITIONAL THINGS FOR US. WE ARE VERY BLESSED.

>> OF THE FIRST THING ON OUR AGENDA IS TO CALL THE ROLL.

>> GLORIA JOHNSON SCOTT. PATTI DEAS.

BOB BURGE. TIM O'CONNELL.

MICHAEL BRODERICK. AND JIM.

ALL HERE. >> WE TECHNICALLY DON'T HAVE ANY ABSENCES. DO WE KNOW WHEN THE COMMISSIONERS SESSIONS MAY OFFER SOMEONE TO FILL THE CHAIR.

>> SOLOMON LEE WILL BE APPROVED AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING

ON THE 21ST OF JANUARY. >> AND LEE?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>>> IT IS GREAT TO HAVE OUR CITY CLERK WITH US WHO KNOWS THESE

THINGS. >> MAYBE SHE SHOULD COME TO

EVERY MEETING. >> WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOU

HERE. >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A SUGGESTION ABOUT THE ATTORNEY CHANGE.

[a. Minutes from the December 10, 2019 meeting]

>> I HAVE A CHANGE I THINK -- I THINK I HAVE A CHANGE ON THE MINUTES UNDER PRESENT. I DON'T SEE MS. EARLY'S NAME AND YOU WERE HERE AND I DON'T SEE MR. SWANEY'S NAME BUT I BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE IN DECEMBER IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY.

>> WE WILL HAVE THAT CHANGE. >> WE WILL AMEND THAT.

>> WHEN I ASKED FOR A MOTION PLEASE STATE THE MOTION WITH THE MEMBERS PRESENT TO INCLUDE THEM AND I WILL ACCEPT IT.

>> THE CHAIRMAN HAS OUTLINED THIS SPIRIT.

>> I SECOND PERIOD. >> A MOTION BY MR. AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. AND I DON'T EVEN NEED YOUR NAME

TAG. >> WE HAVE ONLY KNOWN EACH

OTHER'S 12 YEARS FOR. >> MR. BURGE.

MR. O'CONNELL. MR. BRODERICK.

MISS JOHNSON SCOTT. MS. DEAS.

AND MILLER. >>> OF A FIRST ITEM IS.

[a. Future Land Use Map Amendment - BGDN - 2152 South Jenkins Road (4 Parcels)]

>> IT IS FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT.

AT 2150 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD. FOR PARCELS.

WE WILL REDO THE READING FOR ITEM SIX A AND ITEM 7A BUT PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT I AM GOING TO CALL FOR TWO VOTES.

[00:05:02]

WHEN WE BRING OUR -- ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR THIS PROJECT WE WILL ONLY BE ASKING QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE FUTURE LAND USE

MAP IN THIS DISCUSSION. >> TONIGHT WE ARE HERE FOR AN AMENDMENT FOR FOUR PIECES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2152 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD. THE FUTURE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY IS IN RESIDENTIAL. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A FUTURE CHANGE FOR FOUR PARCELS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TO OUR AGE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 20 TO 131 OF THE CITY CODE AND COMPANY IS PLAN AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.

SO JUST TO SHOW YOU AS PROPOSED IT WOULD BECOME OUR AGE HIGH DENSITY FOR FOUR PARCELS. THERE ARE IMMEDIATELY THREE OTHER PARCELS WITHIN THE VICINITY WHICH CARRIED THE SAME DENSITY. THE POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE BOARD YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR YOU

CAN RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. >> I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. I UNDERSTAND THIS PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SEVERAL YEARS AGO FOR 174 UNITS UNDER THE MEDIUM DENSITY ZONE CLASSIFICATION.

>> THIS IS PERTAINING TO THE FUTURE LAND USE.

>> YES. >> I'M TAKING THIS RIGHT OFF OF THE FUTURE LAND USE REQUEST FOR CHANGES DOCUMENTATION.

THAT IS ALL WHERE THIS INFORMATION CAME FROM.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES BUT THE READING ON IT IS

A LAND USE. >> WERE DOING THE FUTURE LAND USE FIRST. WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS FUTURE

LAND USE. >> SO IS THIS QUESTION FOR THE

OTHER SECTION. >> WE CAN COVER THIS SECTION TOO. IT HAS A DENSITY REQUIREMENT AS WELL AS ZONING. THEY GO HAND AND HAND.

>> IS K? >> I JUST WANT TO SEEK SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS. THE PROPOSED ZONING WITH THE HIGHER DENSITY -- TRACK AND WHERE I WAS GETTING MY NUMBER FROM I WAS COMPUTING IT FROM HERE.

THIS IS THE CURRENT ZONING WHICH ALLOWS TEN USERS AND 12 UNITS FOR DEVELOPMENT. I WAS USING THE RATIO OF 12 TO GENERATE THE 204 UNITS. THE PROPOSED ZONING BASED ON MY CALCULATION, WILL ALLOW FOR MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 15 UNITS.

ACRE SO I MAXIMUM OF 306 UNITS. IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT?

>> IT WOULD BE 15 UNITS TIME EIGHT.

>> THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

WITH THIS DOCUMENTATION, THEY HAVE INDICATED THE NET EFFECT OF THIS CHANGE IN LAND USE AND ZONING WILL BE IN AN EDITION OF 90 DWELLING UNITS. IS THAT IN EXCESS OF THE 174

THAT WERE ORIGINALLY APPROVED. >> OR THE EXISTING ZONING WITH

THE HIKE DENSITY. >> THE PLANT DEPARTMENT IS NOT RECEIVED A SITE PLAN FOR THIS YET.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING IT WOULD BE 90 IN EXCESS OF THE UNITS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT SO WE ARE LOOK AT A CHANGE FROM 2042 THAT YOU HAVE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. >>> THIS IS FOR CERTAIN

[00:10:24]

PROPERTIES ON SOUTH JENKINS ROAD.

I THINK THE APPLICATION IS SIMPLE AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I WILL HAVE MY COMMENTS ON THE ZONING AND I UNDERSTAND THE PETITION WILL BE A SEPARATE HEARING WHERE A SEPARATE ACTION WILL BE REQUIRED. WE CURRENTLY HAVE IMMEDIATELY THIS. MY CLIENT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF A PROJECT ON THE SITE. THE REQUEST FOR INCREASING INTENSITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PROPERTIES THROUGH THE SOUTH EAST AND SOUTH. IT WOULD GET US THE SAME YIELD AT THE END OF THE DAY. MR. BRODERICK WE HAVE UNDER THE CITY CODE THE MAXIMUM LAND USE IS 15 ACRES -- 15 UNITS.

ACRE. BUT IF YOU MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA YOU ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THOSE HERE WE HAVE NOT WORKED OUR WAY THROUGH THAT INFORMATION YET. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION WAS DONE ON THE MAXIMUM CLASSIFICATION BASED ON A SIMPLE APPLICATION. SO THE NET CHANGE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN HERE, RIGHT NOW TODAY IS ROUGHLY 95 UNITS GIVE OR TAKE THE CURRENT DESIGNATION IS BACK AS YOU POINT OUT THERE COULD BE SOME OTHER BONUSES THAT COULD TAKE EFFECT.

WE DO BELIEVE THAT THE LOCATION IS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THAT.

ANYTHING WE PUT ON THE PROPERTY HAS TO FIT AND BEAT CITY CODES.

WHEN WE GET TO THE SITE PLAN STAGE WHICH WILL FOLLOW THE ENTITLEMENT STAGE, WE WILL HAVE ALL OF THOSE DETAILS AND I WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU. IF WE DO THINGS RIGHT SOMETIME BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLANT THAT WILL ADDRESS ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THAT BEING SAID, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND IT BE FORWARDED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC REVIEW FOR ACTION BY THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONING AS WELL AS TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.

IF THERE IS ANYTHING I NEED TO FOLLOW BACK UP ON I WILL DO

THAT. >>

>> ALL OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION BUT WHEN YOU BRING YOUR SITE PLAN BACK IN THE FUTURE, ARE YOU GOING TO BE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ROAD ITSELF.

>> TO THE EXTENT WE ARE TRIGGERED TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS WE WILL. CANNOT COMMIT TO ANYTHING SPECIFIC RIGHT NOW, ANYTHING WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DO IN TERMS OF ADJUSTMENTS YES. YOU PROBABLY PICKED UP THROUGH THE REVIEW OR THE REPORT THAT THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS RAISED AT THE REVIEW THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ABOUT TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENTIRETY OF THE CORRIDOR.

AND WE ARE JUST ONE CALL IN A LARGER WHEEL THAT AFFECTS THINGS OUT THERE. WE WILL BE ABLE TO AFFECT THESE INTO OUR TREATMENTS AND WE WOULD EXPECT THAT AS WE BRING FORWARD OUR DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT WILL -- THE ACTION WILL HELP TO PUSH THINGS FORWARD. THAT WILL TRIGGER MORE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AS TO THE ULTIMATE

IMPROVEMENTS OF JENKINS ROAD. >> I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS CONCERNING THE EXISTING SURVEY.

OVER TIME, SINCE THE LAST DISCUSSIONS ON THIS PROPERTY, THE COUNTY AS I UNDERSTAND HAS EXPANDED THE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS FOR JENKINS ROAD AND THE RIGHT OF WAYS IF YOU WILL.

>> THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO SOME RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS AND THE NEED FOR YOU ARE CORRECT THERE WAS A PRIOR PLAN ON THIS PROPERTY SOME YEARS AGO AND THERE WERE SOME CHANGES MADE AT THAT TIME. THE SURVEY WE SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION, WAS A LITTLE OLDER SO IT MAY NOT HAVE SHOWN ALL OF THE

[00:15:01]

LINES PROPERLY IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SPIRIT ALL OF THE OTHER INFORMATION WAS DEEMED TO BE SUFFICIENT.

WE WILL OF COURSE ADHERE TO AND COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE CODE REQUIRED DEDICATIONS TO PROVIDE THE NEED TO WIDEN THE ROAD IF IT IS NEEDED. MATHEMATICALLY IT WILL TRIGGER THAT SOON. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAPS YOU WILL SEE THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY THERE IS AN EXISTING 70 OR 80 ALONG JENKINS RIGHT NOW AND I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY DID SOME RIGHT-OF-WAY CHANGES. YOU ARE GIVING PIECES OF IT.

SEGMENTS AS IT GOES UP AND DOWN THE HIGHWAY.

THOSE ARE ROUGH-CUT GASES. NO DESIGN HAS BEEN DONE SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL BE NEEDED BUT WE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY AND COUNTY TO ACHIEVE WHAT HAS TO BE DONE.

>> WHEN I WENT ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE I COULDN'T PIN IT DOWN.

>> IT IS A BIT OF AN ARC TO FIGURE OUT.

>> I GET CONFUSED. I SAID I WILL LEAVE THIS UP TO

THE ENGINEERS INVOLVED. >>'S OKAY THOSE QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED AS YOU MOVE FORWARD. OKAY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> NOT SEEING ANY COST THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WILL MOVE -- ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK QUICK STAND HE IS HERE

WITH YOU. >> I WILL MOVE BACK TO ANY

QUESTIONS FOR MR. CREIGHTON. >> JUST ONE QUESTION.

I AM ASSUMING THAT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS THERE WILL BE SOME TYPE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY.

>> ABSOLUTELY. THE COUNTY WILL ALSO HAVE THEIR OWN TRAFFIC ENGINEER LOOK OVER IT AS WELL.

>> I THINK IT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY AS WELL AS THE CITY COMMISSION, THE CONCERNS OF JENKINS ROAD AND DENSITY. I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BEFORE WITH MARTY THAT HE WAS AWARE THAT SOME INITIATIVE WAS STARTED PERFECT HEDGE IF I MAY.

>> THE COUNTY IS THAT SHREK HAS REACHED OUT AND THEY ARE CREATING A STAFF COMMITTEE TO LOOK MORE COMPREHENSIVELY AT PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING ON AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS.

>>'S PROCYCLICAL -- SPECIFICALLY IN THE JENKINS CORRIDOR.

>> YES. WE ARE TAKING THAT INITIATIVE.

>> WHAT IS THE TIMELINE FOR THAT WORKING GROUP?

>> THE FIRST MEETIN SHOULD BE BY THE END OF THE MONTH OR THE BEGINNING OF NEXT MONTH. I DID GET A NOTICE OF INTEREST.

>> THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A CONCERN. I KEEP HEARING JENKINS ROAD.

THANK YOU. THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW.

>> IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, MR. SANDERS HAD NO QUESTIONS OR

OBJECTIONS. >> NO COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.

HE DID E-MAIL BRANDON. >> HE HAD OTHER OBLIGATIONS TONIGHT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD MEETING THAT INTERFERES WITH HIS SCHEDULE BEING ABLE TO COME HERE SO THAT IS WHY HE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR M MR. CREYAYFMILLER. WOULD YOU BRING THIS SLIDE UP REGARDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT?

>> HERE IT IS. >> AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MR. CHAIR.

GO AHEAD. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR THE CITY

COMMISSION. >> ON.

>> ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT TO MOVE THE LAND USE INTO HIGH DENSITY.

>> SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> MR. O'CONNELL.

MR. BRODERICK. MS. JOHNSON SCOTT HERE MR. BERG

HERE AND CREYAYFMILLER. >> MOVING FORWARD I WILL ACCEPT

[a. Zoning Atlas Map Amendment - BGDN - 2152 South Jenkins Road (4 Parcels)]

THE MOTION ON THE ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT.

[00:20:01]

>> SECOND PERIOD. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK. AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. CALLED THE ROLE PLEASE.

>> IT WILL BE IN THE SAME ORDER. >> MR. O'CONNELL.

MR. BRODERICK. MS. JOHNSON SCOTT.

MR. HAS. MR. BURGE.

CHAIRMAN CREYAYFMILLER. >> VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. KEEP BRINGING THESE PROJECTS A

[b. Text Amendment - Chapter 3 and Chapter 22 - Four-Fifths Vote]

ARE. >>> NEXT ITEM ON OUR END IS CHAPTER THREE CHAPTER 2240 AND THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED TO US.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU START.

NOT LONG AGO WE HAD AN AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO US THAT INCLUDED TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS OF OUR CODE. IT WAS IN ONE AMENDMENT.

SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE WHEN WE PRESENTED IT WE SPLIT IT BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTOOD IT WE COULD NOT VISIT AN AMENDMENT OF TWO DIFFERENT PORTIONS OF THE CODE AS ONE AMENDMENT.

AS ONE TEXT AMENDMENT. >> IT MAY HAVE BEEN WITH DIFFERENT SUBJECTS THAT YOU HAD TO SPLIT IT.

BUT WE WANTED TO REVIEW SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 22.

AS I GO THROUGH MY PRESENTATION YOU UNDERSTAND WHY AM INCLUDING

CHAPTER THREE. >> UNDERSTAND BUT IT SEEMED LIKE

WE HAD TO SPLIT IT. >> CHAPTE 23 OF THE HISTORIC --

>> THERE WERE THREE DIFFERENT ITEMS IN IT.

>> I GAVE YOU A PORTION OF IT SO I AM DOING THE SAME THING TONIGHT SO YOU HAVE CONTACTS. I DON'T LIKE TO BRING BEFORE THE BOARD AND A HALF MEASURE. EVEN THOUGH YOU WILL NOT VOTE ON IT I FEEL LIKE IT WILL BE A DISSERVICE BY NOT GIVING YOU THE

FULL THING. >> IT OVERLAPS.

A SNIPPET OF AN OVERLAP. >> I JUST WANT TO CHECK SURE -- CHECK TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING.

I STILL HAVE TO ASK. >> I'M READY.

>> GOOD EVENING MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

ASSISTING PLANNING DIRECTOR. SO I HAVE A TEXT AMENDMENT COMING BEFORE YOU FOR CHAPTERS 22 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

HOW THIS CAME ABOUT. A LITTLE QUICK HISTORY.

ON OCTOBER 14 THERE WAS A CITY CONFERENCE AGENDA DURING THAT AGENDA WE WERE STAFF, WE WERE DIRECTED BY CITY COMMISSION AND CITY MANAGER TO DO A PRESENTATION ON WHAT EXACTLY IS THE CODE. WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHAT DOES IT MEAN WHAT IMPACT DOES AFTER WHAT PROJECTS ARE AFFECTED.

SO WHAT IS IT. THE FOURTH FIFTH ZONE IS ALSO CALLED A FIFTH MAJORITY VOTE. THERE HAS TO BE AT LEAST FOUR FIFTHS OF THE PRESIDING MEMBERS OF THAT PARTICULAR BOARD IN THIS CASE THE CITY COMMISSION THAT MUST AGREE ON ONE PARTICULAR MOTION THAT IS MADE. SO IF THERE'S A MOTION MADE FOR DENIAL FOUR FIFTHS OF THAT BOARD OR THAT COMMISSION MUST VOTE IN FAVOR OF THAT MOTION FOR IT TO PASS.

IF THEY DON'T THAT MOTION DOES NOT PASS.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THE OPPOSITE HAPPENS, IT SIMPLY MEANS IT DOESN'T PASS. SOME PEOPLE WILL CALL IT FOUR FIFTHS VOTE. IN OUR CASE IT IS CALLED FOR FIFTH VOTE BECAUSE THERE ARE FIVE MEMBERS.

SO THAT IS A SUPER MAJORITY. IT MEANS WHEN YOU GO OUT TO THE PLANNING WORLD. THEY ASK US TO LOOK TO SEE WHICH SECTION OF THE CODE ARE AFFECTED BY THE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE.

IN FACT THE SECTIONS AFFECTED ARE CHAPTER THREE AND 22.

THE OTHERS ARE MANDATED AND PRETTY MUCH REGULATED BY STATE STATUTE WHICH DEALS WITH DOMAINS AND TAKINGS AND LAND.

LAND ISSUES AND A LIST THAT IS REGULATED BY THE STATE THAT SAYS A SUPER MAJORITY IS REQUIRED BY A LEGISLATIVE BODY FOR THAT MOTION TO PASS. WE WILL NOT TOUCH ANY OF THIS.

[00:25:01]

WE CAN'T TOUCH IT. WE WILL TOUCH UPON THE ONES AFFECTED BY THIS CODE AND THE ONES AFFECTED BY THE CODE AS I GO THROUGH LATER ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED BY

APPLICATIONS. >> SO WHAT WE ALSO DID AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION WAS WE LOOKED AT WHAT OUR NEIGHBORING COUNTIES DID. DO THEY EVEN HAVE IT.

DO THEY HAVE THE SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT.

DO THEY HAVE A THRESHOLD THAT IS MET.

BECAUSE WITH THE CITY ASCOT IS WE HAVE A TWOFOLD SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT. WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT IF THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES AN APPLICATION OF DENIAL LIKE CONDITIONAL USE OR A TEXT AMENDMENT FOR REZONING, WINICK DEALS BEFORE CITY COMMISSION IF THEY CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD CATH CITY COMMISSION IS BOUND BY CITY CODE TO MAKE A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE OR A SUPER VOTE ON IT IF YOU RECOMMEND DENIAL ON IT.

BUT WHAT WE ALSO HAVE IS A THRESHOLD VOTE.

WHAT HAPPENS IS AS PART OF OUR WORK LAPSE THAT WE DO FOR REZONING, IF WITHIN THOSE 500 FEET IF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE 500 FEET IF 20% OR MORE COME BACK, SAYING THEY DISAPPROVE OR THEY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED APPLICATION THAT IS BEFORE YOU ALL AND BEFORE CITY COMMISSION, THAT TRIGGERS A BOAT AS WELL.

THOSE ARE THE MAJOR INSTANCES IN WHICH THIS CITY AS THAT THRESHOLD OR REQUIREMENT TO UPHOLD THE FOURTH FIFTH VOTE WHEN IT GETS TO THAT POINT. SO WE LOOKED AT THE OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES AND BY LOOKING AT THE OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES AND GOING THROUGH WITH WHAT THEY EACH DID, WE FOUND THEY REALLY LIKED THE STYLE IN WHICH THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN USED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO MANDATE OR PUT FORWARD THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE. SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE CODE, AND THEY DISCUSSED IT EVEN FURTHER, THEY FOUND THROUGH THEIR DISCUSSIONS THAT REALLY THE TWO MAIN APPLICATIONS THAT THE CITY RECEIVED THAT REALLY HAVE THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON HOW DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS, EITHER ON A SPECIFIC SITE OR OVERALL WITHIN THE CITY ARE REZONING THEMSELVES WHICH WE INCLUDE STRAIGHT ZONINGS AND TEXT AMENDMENT SPIRIT THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE BECAUSE REZONING OR ZONINGS AND GENERAL DICTATE HOW A PROPERTY DEVELOPS. HOW HIGH CAN YOU GO.

WHAT IS YOUR BLOCK COVERAGE WHAT ARE YOUR SETBACKS.

THIS IS A PSEUDO- ZONING. TEXT AMENDMENTS HAVE A BROADER RANGE. THEY HAVE A BROADER IMPACT BECAUSE IT AFFECTS EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY.

CANCEL THEY WANTED THAT SUPER MAJORITY.

THEY WANTED TO KEEP THE SUPER MAJORITY.

THEY RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT.

QUITE FRANKLY OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION MOVING FORWARD.

IF YOU DECIDE A REZONING OR TEXT AMENDMENT SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED, THAT SHOULD HOLD SOME WEIGHT.

THEY FELT THAT YOU DID SUCH A GOOD JOB BETTING YOUR PROJECTS OUT AND ASKING THE HARD QUESTIONS THAT IT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IF THEY DON'T PASS THROUGH THIS BOARD.

SO THEY FELT THAT THROUGH THIS IS WHAT SHOULD TAKE PLACE.

BUT THEY ALSO FELT HOWEVER THAT THE THRESHOLD CAP THAT 20% WAS TO ONEROUS TO PLACE ON A PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.

IT STIFLED CONVERSATION IT STIFLED PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD.

IT DID NOT REALLY ALLOW FOR THE TRUE NATURE AND THE TRUE DISCUSSIONS OF CITY COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD BECAUSE THEY WERE HAMPERED BY THIS REQUIREMENT TO ABSOLUTELY DO A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE. IT WAS THEIR DECISION WE BRING FORWARD A TEXT AMENDMENT WHICH REMOVED THE THRESHOLD OR THE TRIGGER ALTOGETHER. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BEFORE HE MOVED TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

>> MAKES PERFECT SENSE. >> YOU SAID 20% BY THE

RESIDENCE. >> WE ARE REQUIRED BY CODE TO SEND OUT MAILERS WITHIN 500 FEET ON-SITE.

20% OF THOSE, THAT IS HE AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE WE GET 20% BACK, WE GET A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE BACK THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT TRIGGERS THE THRESHOLD.

IT DOESN'T TRIGGER IT AS LONG AS YOU HAVE TO BE WITHIN THE 500 FEET. IF YOU ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT IS NOT THAT YOU DON'T GET HURT OR YOU GET THE OBJECTION CAP THEY JUST DON'T GET COUNTED WITHIN THE 20%.

>> IS NOT A 20% RESPONSE RATE A NONRESPONSE RATE.

>> OUT.

>>> SO CHAIRMAN 14 -- MIKE CREYAYFMILLER ASKED ME TOO INCLUDE THE TABLE WE HAD SHOWN CITY COMMISSION.

[00:30:01]

THAT TABLE WAS TOO LARGE TO PUT ON THE SCREEN.

WE HAVE GIVEN YOU A CONDENSED VERSION OF THE TABLE.

IT HAS THE SAME COUNTIES AND THE SAME CITIES AND TELLS YOU EXACTLY THE SAME INFORMATION BUT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN READ IT

BECAUSE I MEET THE FONT BIGGER. >> WE HAVE ALL OF THE CITIES AND COUNTIES THAT WE LOOKED AT ON THE (THE THREE COLUMNS TO YOUR RIGHT YOU WILL HAVE WHO HAS A SUPER MAJORITY REQUIREMENT.

WHAT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS DO IT'S APPLIED TO OR AFFECT.

AND WHO OUT OF THAT LIST ALSO AS A MINIMUM OF -- OBJECTION.

WHO ELSE HAS THIS SPIRIT AS YOU CAN SEE BY LOOKING AT THE TABLE.

THERE ARE FOUR THAT WE REVIEWED THREE OF THOSE THAT WE REVIEWED HAVE THAT. YOU HAVE THESE RIGHT HERE.

IF YOU LOOK TO THE FAR RIGHT, THERE WAS ONLY ONE MUNICIPALITY THAT HAD THAT REQUIREMENT. THAT MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IN THE 80S WHEN THE COLD WAS BEING WRITTEN, IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT PLANNING OR COLD WRITING, NO ONE REINVENTS THE WHEEL.

WE BUILD UPON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN AND WE TWEAK IT TO SUIT IT WHEN SOMETHING DOESN'T WORK.

SO IN THE 80S, THIS IS MUCH OF WHAT ST. LUCIE COUNTY DID BUT THERE THRESHOLD WAS EVEN MORE STRICT THAN WHAT THE COUNTY HAD.

YOU CAN SEE THEY HAVE A 50% THRESHOLD WE WENT WITH 20.

I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH BACKGROUND TO TELL YOU WHY BUT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. SO, WHEN THE CITY COMMISSION WAS LOOKING AT THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, THEY LOOKED AT THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICTIONS THAT THE SUPER MAJORITY WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO. NOW YOU HAVE TO TAKE THIS IN ITS CONTEXT. APPEALS AND THERAPY AND Z THEIR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MAKES FINAL DECISIONS ON A GROUP OF CASES. YOU NEED TO TAKE THAT CONTEXT AWAY BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT POWER.

BUT WHAT THEY DID TAKE OUT OF THIS WAS THAT ANY APPEAL TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STATE STATUTE NO PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CAN APPROVE IT NO PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CAN APPROVE A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT. SO EVERY PLANNING BOARD THAT EXIST IN THIS STATE MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THAT MUNICIPALITY.

THOSE DECISIONS LIKE A TEXT AMENDMENT AND REZONING IS WHAT THE CITY DOES. AND THEY AGREED THAT THIS IS

SOMETHING THEY WANTED TO DO. >> SO IN ESSENCE THIS IS WHAT THE TABLE TELLS YOU. I WILL GIVE YOU A SECOND TO REFLECT ON IT. I HAVE GIVEN YOU THE EXACT TAXPAYER YOU CAN SEE THE REVIEWS AND THEIR POWERS.

AND WHAT IS THE APPEAL PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO TO PERU.

BY THE WAY, WE DO TOO. >> AND THE NEXT SLIDE.

>> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. >> THIS DOESN'T HAVE MUCH OF A CONTEXT FOR THEY DON'T HAVE A MINIMUM PERCENTAGE, HOW IS COMMUNITY INPUT SOLICITED FOR CHANGES THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THAT 20% OBJECTION. I'M ASSUMING THEY DON'T DO MAIL

OUTS THERE IS NO RADIUS. >> THEY ARE MAILED OUT.

THEY DO HAVE MAIL OUTS. THIS IS JUST A PERCENTAGE OF OBJECTIONS THAT ARE TIED TO A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE.

>> SO THEY DON'T HAVE THAT TRIGGER AVAILABLE.

SO PEOPLE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD IN THEIR COMMUNITY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT.

>> YES AND THEY HAVE MAIL OUTS. >> I KNOW I DISPOSE THIS PROJECT THERE'S NO PERCENTAGE OF HOMEOWNERS THAT HAVE PROTESTED OR ENTERED THAT AS THEIR POSITION.

>> BASED ON THE READINGS.I AM WORDING THIS VERY CAREFULLY.

[00:35:02]

THERE IS NO -- IF I SEND BACK MY OBJECTION THAT THEY WILL BUILD A

NUCLEAR POWER PLANT NEXT TO ME. >> THIS IS THE WORST EXAMPLE.

>> >> DID I MAIL IT BACK IN ESSENCE. THAT MAILER GETS PUT INTO A STACK WITH THE OTHERS AND FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL. HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE ULTIMATE DECISIONS BY CODE THAT CITY COMMISSION IN FACT THEY CAN HAVE IT AFFECT YOU AS A BOARD MEMBER. THE CODE HOWEVER DOES NOT TIE THEIR HANDS BY MAKING THEM HAVE A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE AS A RESULT

OF THE OBJECTIONS. >> THINK YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THAT. CAN YOU GIVE A RECAP, I UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED.

CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE SUPER MAJORITY.

>> THAT WILL BE THE NEXT LINE. >>

>> WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PLANS TO BUILD A SECOND POWER PLANT.

>> >> THAT WOULD BE AN INTERESTING

RUMOR TO HAVE FLOATING AROUND. >> FOR THE RECORD THERE WILL NOT

BE ANY. >> SO THREE SECTIONS AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY. THIS BOARD ONLY HAS THE POWER TO CHANGE OR MAKE CHANGES TO CHAPTER 22.

BUT THIS IS A FULL PICTURE. >> SO THE THREE SECTIONS AFFECTED WITHIN THE CODE. THAT HAVE THE FORFEIT

REQUIREMENTS. >> THIS HAS TO DO WITH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. THIS HAS TO DO WITH CONDITIONAL USE. SO TODAY THAT FOR FIFTH REQUIREMENT IS PLACED ON ANY CONDITIONAL USE THAT GOES BEFORE YOU AND IF YOU RECOMMEND DENIAL, THE CITY COMMISSION IS BOUND BY CITY CODE BY THIS SECTION TO HAVE A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE TO APPROVE OR DENY THIS PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.

>> I'M SORRY TO APPROVE NOT TO DENY.

>> SO THOSE ARE THE THREE BEING REMOVED.

IF SO THIS IS THE AMENDMENT PROCEDURE SPIRIT THEY DEAL WITH TEXT AMENDMENTS, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW AND ALSO AN ATLAS AMENDMENT. SO A ZONING AMENDMENT CAN BE A STRAIGHT REZONING. THAT IS WHERE SECTION 122 COMES IN. WHY I CALL IT REZONING.

QUITE FRANKLY IT IS EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND.

SO THE THREE SECTIONS. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE, CONDITIONAL USES CONTEXT AMENDMENT AND REZONING SPIRIT SO IN ALL THREE SECTIONS WE REMOVED ANY REFERENCE TO THE 20%.

ACROSS-THE-BOARD. THERE WILL BE NO MORE REFERENCES TO THE 20% THRESHOLD. HOWEVER, THE FOUR FIFTHS VOTE STAYS IN THAT SECTION 22, 128 FOR REZONING AND TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL FROM THIS BOARD.

>> RUN THAT WENT BY ME AGAIN. >> THE ONLY INSTANCE WHERE CITY COMMISSION, ASIDE FROM THOSE REGULATED BY STATE STATUES, THE ONLY TWO INSTANCES WHERE CITY COMMISSION WILL BE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, MADE TO HAVE A FOR FIFTH SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IS WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS DENIAL ON REZONING OR TEXT AMENDMENTS. SO BRANDON CAME BEFORE YOU WITH HIS REZONING AND YOU RECOMMENDED DENIAL, AT CITY COMMISSION, IT WOULD REQUIRE A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE TO APPROVE THE PROJECT.

>> OKAY THE WAIVER PROCEDURE FOR ALCOHOLIC LICENSING IS THIS

[00:40:04]

SPIRIT. >> YES.

>> THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT ONES.

>> PUT THEM ALL IN ONE. IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT THIS IS 1600 FEET FROM A SCHOOL OR A HOUSE OF WORSHIP.

>> IT RANGES FROM 1600 FEET TO 500 DEPENDING ON THE LICENSE.

CLIENT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IS GOING THROUGH A REWRITE.

>> WE ACTUALLY DID A CONFERENCE AGENDA ON IT.

>> I THINK THE PLAN PROVIDED US WITH A LITANY OF -- SO THAT WILL BE SCRAPPED AND MODERNIZED. SO THE ONLY REAL CONCERN IS CONDITIONAL USES. I WON'T EXTEND THE CONVERSATION PAST THAT. YOU HAVE ADDRESSED MY CONCERNS.

>> ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS.

>> YOU MADE MENTION, SOME OF THE INFORMATION MAY COME BEFORE THIS BOARD TOO. CURRENTLY MAIL OUTS DON'T HAPPEN BEFORE THE BOARD NEEDS SO THAT WILL CHANGE? MAIL OUTS WILL HAPPEN BEFORE THE MEETINGS.

>> I APOLOGIZE. WHEN I USE THE EXAMPLE OF THE PLANNING BOARD IT WAS AN EXAMPLE JUST IN GENERAL.

IN THIS CASE, THEY DO. THE MAIL OUTS WILL AFFECT CITY COMMISSION DECISIONS NOT PLANNING BOARD DECISIONS.

UNLESS WE RECEIVE SOMETHING AHEAD OF TIME.

>> WE COULD ALSO ASK THAT THAT HAPPENS SO -- YOU INDICATED WE WILL BECOME SEBASTIAN EYES WE CAN BE MORE IN-LINE WITH WHAT SEBASTIAN DOES. THAT'S WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TO US. THERE HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD WHO WANTED TO HAVE MILLER'S GO OUT BEFORE THIS MEETING. WE WERE NOT -- WE DIDN'T RECEIVE IT SO IT WOULD BE PASSED. THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE BROUGHT UP SO NOT ONLY WITH THE CITY COMMISSION HAVE THE AVAILABILITY BUT THE PLANNING BOARD.

>> THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT.

THAT IS ACTUALLY A TEXT CHANGE. THE TIMING OF THE LETTERS IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE CODE. IT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT PICTURES THERE ARE MANY MUNICIPALITIES THAT DO IT.

>> WE ARE NOT SAME DUPLICATION TWICE WE ARE SAYING AT LEAST

ONCE. >> IT GIVES THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND. YOU ALL HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN ANYONE GETS A NOTICE VIA MAIL OR IT IS POSTED OR THEY WRITE IN OR CALL AND THEY HAVE THEIR CONCERNS OR COMMENTS ON A PROJECT, IT GETS FORWARDED TO THIS BOARD AND THE COMMISSION.

IT DOES GO INTO A DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.

IT WILL NOW TRIGGER FOR FIFTH VOTE OF APPROVAL BIG.

>> I THINK MR. BURGE TOUCHES ON A GOOD POINT.

IN THAT FASHION WE ARE DEALING WITH THE SAME INFORMATION THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WILL ASK. AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE PUBLIC CONSUMPTION IS OF THAT PROJECT.

SO WE HAVE THE SAME BURDENS OF SHARING IT WITH THEM.

>> I THINK THEY ARE VERY HELPFUL.

>> I THINK ALL OF US HAVE VIEWED THIS AND WE HAVE THIS AS SOON AS THE LETTERS ARE SENT OUT THE MEETINGS ARE FULL OF INTERESTED PUBLIC THAT WE NEVER HEAR FROM. SOMETIMES WE HAVE MADE A DECISION AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY SAY NO WE WON'T DO THE RECOMMENDATION. IT MAKES US LOOK A LITTLE FOOLISH. WE SPEND HOURS DOING IT AND THEN IT IS THROWN AWAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS SUGGESTING.

IT ONLY ENDS UP RIGHT HERE. THEY ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION FOR INK IN IT IS THE --

>> I KNOW ONE OF THE BIGGEST OBJECTIONS WAS FROM STAFF IN THE SPIRIT IT WILL TAKE MORE CLERICAL WORK IT IS A STAFF LEVEL SITUATION. IT WOULD COST MONEY THAT THE

APPLICANT MAY HAVE TO PAY FOR. >> IF I MAY WE DID JUST

[00:45:04]

PURCHASED A TRY FOLDER WHICH SPAT UP THE STUFFING OF

ENVELOPES. >> EXPANDING ON HIS THOUGHTS.

IF THERE IS ONLY ONE PROCESS IT WOULDN'T BE ANY INCREASE IN COSTS OR PERSONNEL TIME BECAUSE IT WILL ONLY BE ONE MAILING.

IT WILL BE TRANSFERRED HERE WITHIN THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO MAILERS.

WE CAN'T PREDICT. MOST OF THE TIME.

80% OF THE TIME WE CAN PREDICT THE MEETING.

BUT IS THAT 20% YOU CAN'T OFTEN PREDICT SO WITH THAT INITIAL MAILING AND IT HAS THAT INFORMATION SOMEONE SAVES IT AND IT HAS A BOARD HEARING THAT DOESN'T TAKE PLACE IT'S HARD.

I HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A PLANNING BOARD MAIL OUT YOU DO IT SEPARATELY FROM YOUR CITY COMMISSION THAT WAY PEOPLE GET THE INFORMATION IN TIME.

WE HAVE BIT -- MET BOTH REQUIREMENTS BY DOING THAT.

>> I DO SHARE HIS OPINION THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

BUT THAT IS UP TO GREATER MINDS THAN MINE TO FIGURE OUT.

>> I THINK THE LOGISTICS OF HOW YOU GO ABOUT THAT REALLY DOESN'T

MATTER TO ME TOO MUCH. >> IS ANOTHER QUESTION.

>> THE FACT THAT HE BROUGHT UP AN EXCELLENT POINT.

I THINK IT WOULD HELP THE COMMUNITY PARTICULARLY IN BRINGING MORE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY OUT ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THAT WE GET THAT ARC SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSY APPEARED.

>> >> DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE

MR. BURDGE. >> THESE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BEING SUGGESTED, WHAT IMPACT WILL -- HAVE THEY MADE IN THE LAST YEAR OF PROJECTS THAT CAME BEFORE THE CITY IF ANY IMPACT AT

ALL. >> I WOULDN'T EVEN BEGIN TO TELL

YOU WHAT KIND OF AN IMPACT. >> WHAT TRIGGERED ALL OF THIS TO ELIMINATE THE 20% FROM THE CITY COMMISSION ABOUT BEING ABLE TO HAVE THAT. AND ALSO FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO HAVE THE FOUR FIFTHS VOTE. WHAT REALLY TRIGGERED THIS SPIRIT WAS IN A PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WAS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH IN TRYING TO MUSTER A VOTE.

>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER, IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT FOR FOR THE BODY TO COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION CAP TO MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE THE FOUR FIFTHS VOTE WAS HARD TO OBTAIN. THEN IT WAS JUST GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES AT THESE MEETINGS BECAUSE TOO MUCH OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION HAD TO MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISION AND A LOT OF THAT WAS BASED ON THE PUBLIC'S INPUT BUT MAYBE PERHAPS MORE OF A PERSONAL TYPE OF DECISION OF THAT PROJECT THEN ON THE FACTS THAT MAKE IT LAWFUL OR JUSTIFIED AND SOME OF THE CONDITIONAL USE THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET THESE CRITERIA IS IN --

>> THE CITY IN THAT INSTANCE WENT OUT AND GATHERED MORE INFORMATION DID MAKE. SO THE DECISION WAS EASILY MADE.

>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> PART OF THE RATIONALE IS WHEN THE COMMISSION SWITCH TO DOING HEARINGS AND THE EVIDENCE THRESHOLD. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE 20% WAS NO ONE HAD TO GIVE A REASON ON WHY THEY OPPOSE.

SO THE COMMISSION FELT THAT WAS AN UNFAIR BURDEN ON THEM IF THEY HAVE TO GIVE SPECIFIC REASONS AS TO WHY THEY WANTED TO DENY A PROJECT AND 20% OF THE PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.

PRESENT AT THE MEETING GOT THAN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT

PRESENTED. >> THE ONLY THING I WOULD HATE.

I WOULD HATE TO SEE THE FOUR FIFTHS VOTE BE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AS FAR AS CONDITIONAL USE.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT UNDER CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE THE WORD

[00:50:05]

CONDITION. CONDITIONED UPON THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE ABLE TO FIND THE REASONS TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE AND WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH REASONS, WE CAN'T JUST VOTE NO WE HAVE TO SEND IT TO THE CITY A REASON WHY IT WAS DENIED.

VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT MRS. COX SAID.

WE CAN'T JUST SAY NO AND LET THEM FIGURE IT OUT.

SO EVEN THOUGH WE ARE NOT QUASIJUDICIAL WE STILL TRY TO ACT IN THAT CAPACITY BY GIVING THEM INFORMATION ON WHY THERE WAS A NEGATIVE VOTE ON A PARTICULAR PROJECT.

THERE HAS ONLY BEEN A FEW IN THE PAST FROM WHAT I REMEMBER.

BUT THEN THE ASPECT OF EVIDENCE. WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE EVIDENCE. WE CAN HAVE A REASONABLE REASON AND LET THEM DETERMINE THE EVIDENCE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULDN'T WANT TO KEEP THE FOR FIFTH VOTE AS FAR AS CONDITIONAL USES CONCERN.

>> OF THE OTHER ONE AS FAR AS THE 20%, I UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT SAY WHY THEY DID IT.

MAYBE IF THEY INQUIRED OUT TO THE PUBLIC WHY THEY OBJECTED TO IT AND THE CITY COMMISSION COULD READ THE OBJECTIONS THAT THE LANDOWNERS WERE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE ABLE TO HELP.

BUT ANYWAY. I WISH WE COULD KEEP THE 20% AT THE FOUR FIFTHS PLANNING LEVEL. IF WE DENY SOMETHING BUT THAT IS

ONLY ONE BOARD MEMBER. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

WAS IT ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO JUST RAISING THE 20% TO A 50%.

>> THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN THE RECOMMENDATION WAS GIVEN TO STAFF GOT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO STAFF WAS ELIMINATE IT ALTOGETHER.

>> I SAID YESTERDAY AND TODAY, AND I WATCHED THE SPECIAL AGENDA MEETING FROM OCTOBER 14. OUTSIDE OF ONE OR TWO CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH AND BEEN PASSED ON TO THE COMMISSION, I CAN'T REMEMBER ANOTHER TOPIC THAT WAS INVENTED AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER VENTED THIS TOPIC.

THEY REALLY WENT AROUND ON THIS THING.

THEY LOOKED AT IT FROM EVERY ANGLE.

WHEN I FIRST READ THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, I HAD A NEGATIVE FEELING TOWARDS IT BECAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING MR. BURDGE, IS TO AGREE BY ELIMINATING THE ABILITY TO STRIKE A FOUR FIFTHS VOTE AT THE COMMISSION THAT MY FIRST FEELING

WAS. >> OUR ACTION WAS BEING WATERED DOWN. BUT AFTER LISTENING TO COMMISSIONERS THAT THIS THING AND COMPARE IT TO QUASIJUDICIAL, -- THEY SPENT ALMOST AN HOUR AND A HALF ON THIS SPIRIT THEY REALLY DID A GOOD JOB. AND I COMMEND THEM FOR DOING THE JOB THEY DID. THERE ARE TIMES I WATCH THESE MEETINGS OR I ATTEND THEM AND I THINK WHY DIDN'T THEY GET INTO THE MEAT AND POTATOES PART. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE THEY REALLY HAMMERED THIS OUT. AFTER LISTENING TO THEM, AFTER STUDYING THE MEETING TWICE TODAY AND MAKING NOTES, THAT IS WHEN MY MIND WAS CHANGED. I LOOKED AT THIS AND I THOUGHT THIS IS A PRETTY SMART MOVE. IT HELPS THE COMMISSIONER GET THEIR JOB DONE. AND TAKING AN -- NOT NECESSARILY TAKING A BURDEN OFF OF US IT IS NOT HURTING WHAT WE DO.

WHAT I HAVE SEEN OVER THIS PAST YEAR,.

>> I HAVE SEEN MORE COMMENTS COMING OUT OF THE COMMISSION THAN I HAVE EVER SEEN IN THE PAST CONCERNING HOW WELL THIS BOARD HAS VETTED PROJECTS AND LESS QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS

[00:55:11]

THE PLANNING BOARD THINKING. WE STILL GET SOME OF THAT.

BUT WE USED TO GET THAT ALL OF THE TIME.

WE GET LESS OF IT NOW WHICH TELLS ME THE COMMISSION IS SPENDING MORE TIME WATCHING AND PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT WE DO.

AND YOU ARE MAKING THAT HAPPEN. BUT THIS ITEM HERE, MY MIND WAS CHANGED AFTER PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE VENTING THAT BOOK COMMISSIONER DID ON THIS. FOR THAT REASON I AM IN FAVOR OF

IT. >> SO IS THERE FURTHER

DISCUSSION. >> HAVE ONE COMMENT.

I SHARE HIS CONCERNS ON THE CONDITIONAL USE.

IT APPEARS TO ME FROM MY YEARS ON THE PLANNING BOARD THAT MOST OF THE CONTROVERSY REVOLVES AROUND CONDITIONAL USE.

I THINK THE LONGER TIMELINES DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS FOCUSES ON THOSE ISSUES. THE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES, I ACTUALLY AGREE. I THINK IT IS AN ANTIQUATED PROCESS. THERE ARE BETTER WAYS TO FACILITATE PUBLIC INPUT. IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE

WITNESSED RECENTLY. >> HOWEVER, IN THE BALANCE TO THAT ON THE CONDITIONAL USES AND I KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS IS VERY SIMPLE. THIS IS AN APPOINTED BOARD.

CITY COMMISSION IS ELECTED. THEY ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. THEY REPRESENT THE CITY IN ITS ENTIRETY. I PUT MY FAITH IN THAT THEY WILL ACT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.

SO WHILE I SHARE MR. BURDGE'S CONCERNS, I AM PUTTING MORE FATE THAN THE FACT THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE HELD TO A HIGHER AUTHORITY SO IT IS EASY FOR US TO WALK AWAY AND NOT DEAL WITH THIS BUT CITY COMMISSION DEALS WITH IT ALL OF THE TIME.

I WILL AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN CREYAYFMILLER, I SUPPORT THIS.

BUT I DO SHARE MR. BURDGE'S CONCERNS.

I THINK IT WILL MAKE OUR DUE DILIGENCE FOR APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN EVEN MORE CRITICAL. WE NEED TO GET OUR QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIONS AND ISSUES ON THE RECORD.

SO THEY HAVE MORE INFORMATION TO WORK WITH WHEN THEY ARE MAKING THEIR FINAL DECISIONS. SO I WILL SUPPORT THIS AS WELL.

ALSO WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THE BURDEN IS SHIFTED TO US TO BE MORE THOROUGH. THEY SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED

BEFORE'S BEING SENT OFF. >> A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FOR CHAPTER THREE AND CHAPTER 22.

>> THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I AM OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU WE HAVE.

>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. THE PROPOSED APPROVAL FOR

CHAPTER THREE AND 22. >> I SECOND THAT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY JOHNSON SCOTT.

SECOND BY MR. BURDGE. >> SOMETIMES IT IS THE PEOPLE WE ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH THAT WE DON'T GET THEIR NAMES).

>> I CAN'T SAY THAT. CLL THE ROLE PLEASE PICK.

>> MR. BRODERICK. MISS JOHNSON SCOTT.

MS. DIAZ. MR. BURDGE.

MR. O'CONNELL. CHAIRMAN CREYAYFMILLER.

>> THANK YOU ALL. >> I GENERALLY TURN TO OUR SECRETARY TO HELP ME THROUGH THE NAMES BUT I GUESS I CAN'T DO

THAT. >> MAYBE YOU NEED A CHEAT SHEET.

>> I NEED SOMEONE RIGHT NEXT TO ME.

>> >> LET ME FIND MY AGENDA.

>> THE NEXT ITEM IS COMICS FROM THE PUBLIC AND THERE IS NO

[9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

PUBLIC. THE NEXT ITEM IS DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND I KNOW YOU HAVE SOMETHING.

[01:00:02]

>> I DO. I JUST PASSED OUT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, ANY EVENT I WAS ASKED TO ATTEND TODAY.

IT WAS A PANELIST FOR COMMERCIAL WOMEN AND COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE. IT IS THE PALM BEACH TREASURE COAST BOARD WHICH IS A SUBSIDIARY.

A NATIONAL FOUNDATION. SO I ATTENDED AND PRESENTED ON FORT PIERCE. I PRINTED OUT THE PRESENTATION THAT I MADE. THERE WERE ABOUT 50 ATTENDEES.

IT WAS REALLY WELL RECEIVED. THEY WOULD LIKE US TO HOST THE NEXT. SO IN THE COMING MONTHS WE WILL GET THE GROUP UP OUR WAY. THERE ARE NUMBER OF E-MAILS I RECEIVED AND ANOTHER GROUP OF LIKE SPIRIT THERE WERE ONLY A FEW MEMBERS FROM THE TREASURY COAST.

SO IT IS A GOOD WAY TO ADVERTISE AND GET SOME REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS UP OUR WAY. IT WAS A WONDERFUL LUNCHING.

>> AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SENT OUT A NOTIFICATION TO THE

BOARD WHEN THIS COMES UP. >> ABSOLUTELY WHEN WE GET THE EVENT SCHEDULED I WILL SHARE IT WITH EVERYONE.

>> VERY GOOD. >> THERE WERE NINE OUT OF TEN WOMEN. I THINK THERE WERE TWO MEN IN

ATTENDANCE. >> WE CAN CHANGE THAT.

>> THANK YOU THAT IS ALL I HAVE. >> THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA

[10. BOARD COMMENTS]

IS BOARD COMMENTS AND I WILL START ON THAT.

SOMETIME AGO, AND YOU WERE NOT HERE.

SOME TIME AGO, WE HAD ASKED AS A BOARD THAT COULD WE PLEASE HAVE TEXT AMENDMENTS EARLIER. SO FOR INSTANCE WE COULD TAKE OUR PACKAGES UP ON THURSDAY FOR THIS MEETING.

WE WOULD HAVE SEVERAL DAYS TO REVIEW IT.

FORTUNATELY, WE DID NOT HAVE A HEAVY SCHEDULE.

BUT THERE ARE TIMES WE GET TEXT AMENDMENTS WHERE WE HAVE HEAVIER SCHEDULES. THIS HAS BEEN LIGHT TONIGHT BECAUSE WE COULD TAKE OUR TIME AND RELAX A LITTLE.

IN THIS ONE, IT SAYS CITY PLANNING BOARD WILL REVIEW THE PROPOSAL OF AMENDMENTS WITHIN 45 DAYS.

IT TELLS ME WE CAN AT THE AMENDMENT UP TO 45 DAYS IN ADVANCE. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? I LIKE THAT. PARTICULARLY WITH TEXT AMENDMENTS. EVERYTHING WE SEE IS IMPORTANT, I DON'T WANT TO WATER ANYTHING DOWN.

BUT TEXT AMENDMENTS, I PERSONALLY SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON THEM. REVIEWING NOT ONLY THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH BUT HOW IT MAY HAVE AN EFFECT ON OTHER CODES THROUGHOUT OUR MASS VOLUME OF CITY CODES.

MAYBE I HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON MY HANDS.

BUT I LIKE TO SPEND TIME DIGGING INTO THEM.

SO IF WE CAN'T GET THOSE EARLIER I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

PERHAPS IT CAN BE DONE THROUGH E-MAIL.

>> WE CAN ALWAYS SEND IT SO YOU CAN HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IS

COMING FORWARD. >> AN E-MAIL IS FINE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

WE ONLY HAD ONE OCCASION WHERE IT DID.

IT WAS PRIOR TO YOUR ARRIVAL. I THINK IT WAS WHEN MS. GUERRERO

WAS THE INTERN. >> THE OTHER THING WE HAVE HIT ON IS I WOULD REQUEST TO THE COMMISSIONER, TO THE MAYOR, AND TO THIS DEPARTMENT THAT WE REVIEW AND LOOK AT PARTICULARLY TH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODES IN REGARD TO DISTANCE AND YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE ARE DOING THAT.

I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE REALLY HAVE TO KNEEL DOWN.

WE COULD PROBABLY ELIMINATE -- I DON'T KNOW I HAVEN'T BEEN KEEPING RECORDS, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN WE GET THE CONDITIONAL USE REGARDING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE THEY COME IN STOCKS.

THREE OR FOUR OF THEM OVER A COUPLE OF MEETINGS.

THEN WE DON'T HEAR IT AGAIN FOR A FEW MONTHS AND THEN WE GET ANOTHER STACK. IT IS OBVIOUSLY AN ISSUE IN FORT PIERCE. AND I QUESTION -- I WANT TO TAKE

[01:05:04]

A SPECIAL LOOK AT IT. TAKE SECOND STREET GOING THROUGH DOWNTOWN. WE HAVE HAD EFFORTS HERE TO BRING UP OUR ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT IN DOWNTOWN.

WE HAVE 2-4 FACILITIES WITHIN A STONE'S THROW OF ONE ANOTHER THAT ARE SELLING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

THERE ARE A TON OF THEM DOWN HERE.

WE GET MORE OF THEM ON THE ISLAND.

THOSE ARE THE TWO THAT I REALLY LOOK AT AND I QUESTIONED THE WISDOM AND THE THINKING WHEN THE COAT WAS FIRST WRITTEN.

WE NEED THE ABILITY TO EASILY LET THESE BUSINESSES GET IN

HERE,. >> WE ARE LOOKING AT FURTHER REFINING THIS. WE HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT A LOT OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. THEY ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE BUT THE BOTTOM LINE, RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE FOOD AND ALCOHOL DON'T HAVE THOSE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

WE STILL DO. WE HAVE DISTANT REQUIREMENTS FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT IF YOU ARE GOING INTO THE STORE TO PURCHASE IT AND LEAVE. IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. IT IS A BURDEN FOR ALL OF US.

REVIEWING THE APPLICANT'S CAR THERE ARE A LOT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES THAT DO INVOLVE ALCOHOL.

WE HAVE A LOT OF CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, ESPECIALLY CHURCHES ALL AROUND THAT HINDERS OUR ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

THEN IF THEY GO THROUGH IT IS A COST AND TIME CONSUMING.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE DIRECTED TO LOOK AT AND WE ARE

CURRENTLY UNDERWAY WITH THAT. >> I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO BE CONSCIOUS AND REALLY TAKE A HARD LOOK AT OUR DEFINITION OF CHURCH. I AM JUST GOING TO FOR ONE EXAMPLE OUT THERE. THEY CALL IT A COFFEE SHOP.

I KNOW THEY PROBABLY HAVE COFFEE IN THERE.

IT IS A CHURCH GROUP. THEY HAVE A PLACE IN ONE OF THE STRIP CENTERS. WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO IS ENTICE YOUNG PEOPLE TO COME IN AND SOCIALIZE.

I MEAN, I HAVE NOT BEEN THERE, I KNOW THEY ARE THERE, I DO KNOW WE HEARD A CASE THAT CAME BEFORE US FOR A RESTAURANT THAT WANTED TO SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN THE STRIP CENTER ACROSS THE STREET. WE HEARD THAT CASE ONLY BECAUSE THIS RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION HAD A FACILITY THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ENTICE YOUNG PEOPLE TO COME TO COX TO GIVE THEM AN ACTIVITY.

I THINK THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN LOOKING AT A CHURCH THAT IS

ACROSS THE STREET. >> WE WILL LOOK AT THAT.

>> WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS, LET'S REALLY LOOK AT IT.

I KNOW SOMETIMES IT IS HARD TO BE ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE BUT I GUESS THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO WHEN WE WRITE CITY

CODES. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM ANYONE ELSE QUICKSAND I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I CAN'T REMEMBER. IS THIS BOARD SUPPOSED TO REVIEW ON AN ANNUAL BASIS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND THE

BUDGET? >> IT IS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN. TYPICALLY IT IS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIONS -- COMPREHENSION PLAN.

IF THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ANY SAY IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS IT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED BUT IF YOU HAVE NOT THEN IT BECOMES.

>> SOMEWHERE IN OUR DUTIES OR RESPONSIBILITIES IT SAYS THEY WILL REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT IT.

>> I CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AS A LOCAL PLANNING ASSOCIATION.

I CAN LOOK IN -- IT HASN'T BEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

>> I WILL HAVE AN ANSWER TO YOU AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.

>> I REMEMBER WE DID BEFORE BUT I KNOW LAST YEAR IT DID NOT HAPPEN. I DON'T KNOW BUT I THINK THE YEARS BEFORE IT DID HAPPEN AT SOME POINT.

>> I REMEMBER SITTING THROUGH ONE BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IF WE

HAD ANY ACTION. >> WE WOULD JUST TRY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIEWING.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK INTO IT.

>> THE OTHER THING -- GO AHEAD. >> I DO HAVE A COMMENT AND MOST LIKELY A QUESTION. RECENTLY THE CITY COMMISSION SAT

[01:10:08]

THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL APPLICATION FOR THE FARMLANDS AND OBVIOUSLY IT WAS A WELL ATTENDED MEETING.

STANDING ROOM ONLY. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THIS BOARD WAS PRESENTED WITH A SPECIFIC PACKAGE OF INFORMATION AND WE MADE OUR DECISION BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US. THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEIR DELIBERATIONS OPTED TO GO OUT AND CIRCULAR TRAFFIC STUDIES COMMISSIONED BY THE CITY. AND CANDIDLY, I WISH WE HAD HAD ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION PRIOR TO THE BOARD TAKING ACTION.

THAT INFORMATION THAT WAS FORTHCOMING WAS VERY TELLING AND HONESTLY WOULD HAVE WEIGHED HEAVILY IN MY DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS THE BOARD ACTED WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAD AVAILABLE TO US WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE NEW INFORMATION. AFTER THE FIRST READING OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THEY ULTIMATELY VOTED THIS DOWN.

THE -- AND I AM NOT CRITICIZING IN THE LEAST.

I UNDERSTAND AND I MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE VOTED IN THE SAME FASHION. HOWEVER, I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT ONCE THE INFORMATION WAS COMMISSIONED TO GET THAT IT MAY HAVE BEEN ADVISABLE TO FORWARD THE CHANGES TO THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND UTILIZING ACCESS INTO THE HARBOR I'LL ACCESS ROAD.

THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY AND MORE.

IT MAY HAVE ASSISTED THE CITY TO SAY WE WANT TO SEND THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THE NEW INFORMATION WE HAVE SECURED SO THEY CAN REINVENT THIS PROJECT AND COME IN WITH A RECOMMENDATION. I AM NOT SURE THAT IS POSSIBLE AFTER THE FIRST READING BECAUSE SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPLICATION IS SHIFTED. BUT JUST FOR REFERENCE I THINK WE COULD'VE BEEN A GREAT ASSISTANCE TO THE CITY IF THAT WERE POSSIBLE. JUST A COMMENT.

NOT REALLY A QUESTION. SE.

JUST MY OBSERVATION. THEY WERE STUCK WITH THIS NEW CHUNK OF INFORMATION THAT WEIGHED HEAVILY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. I THINK THE BOARD WOULD HAVE PROVIDED GUIDANCE. MAYBE YOU CAN SHED LIGHT ON IT.

>> IF I MAY. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THAT WE DO NEED TO PAY MORE ATTENTION TO TRAFFIC IMPACTS AND HAVING A THIRD-PARTY REVIEW. WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT.

WE HAVE SOMETHING UP FOR THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.

THAT WILL HELP US TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS PRIOR TO HAVING THE

PACKET READY FOR YOU ALL. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

YOU MAY SEE THIS PROJECT AGAIN. THEY HAVE A SIX-MONTH PERIOD WHERE THEY CAN'T COME FORWARD BUT THEY HAVE ALREADY REACHED OUT TO US. YOU MAY HAVE A SECOND

OPPORTUNITY. >> THE WORK THAT THE CONSULTANT DID WAS GOOD. I WAS NOT SURPRISED WITH THE OUTCOME. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD WE SEEN IT. BUT IT WAS VERY ENLIGHTENING.

VERY ENLIGHTENING. THAT MAY COME TO PASS.

LET US KNOW AT THE NEXT MEETING. >> YES.

WE HAVE APPLICANTS AND IT IS UNDER REVIEW RIGHT NOW.

>> AS A SIDE NOTE I THINK THAT INFORMATION FROM AN INDEPENDENT PARTY IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT. LOOK AT THE JENKINS ROAD PROJECT. WE ARE GETTING PIECES OF TRAFFIC STUDIES AND WE NEED MORE COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION TO MAKE THESE LARGER DECISIONS. I THINK THAT IS EXCELLENT.

>> BOOKS CITY HAS NOT HAD A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.

WE HAVE ENGINEERS. NOW WE SEE THE NEED TO HAVE A CONSULTANT AND IT WILL HELP RIGHT NOW IF WE ARE IN NEED TO

PIGGYBACK WITH THE COUNTY. >> IF YOU READ THE TWO REPORTS GOT ONE GENERATED FROM THE APPLICANT AND ONE FROM THE CITY, YOU ARE READING TWO DIFFERENT REPORTS.

I FIND IT SOMEWHAT TROUBLING BUT I THINK IT IS SUBJECTIVE INFORMATION THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENT HE PERTAINS MIGHT SAY SOMEONE IS GIVING INACCURATE INFORMATION JUST HOW YOU PICTURE SPENT ON IT.

>> IT IS NICE FOR THE CITY TO RELY ON A PROFESSIONAL.

THAT PERSON CAN ADVISE US CORRECTLY.

[01:15:01]

>> WHERE THE MATERIAL WAS PULLED FROM IS ALSO BIG.

IT WAS VERY WELL PUT TOGETHER. >> VERY GOOD.

>>> I WAS VERY SURPRISED WHEN I LEARNED MS. COX THAT YOU HAVE BEEN HERE AT THE CITY FOR SIX YEARS.

>> YES. >> TIME JUST GOES BY.

>> IT GOES BY QUICKLY FOR ME. >> WE ARE IN 2020 TODAY.

CONGRATULATIONS ON BEING HERE FOR SIX YEARS.

AND HE HAS BEEN HERE FOR A YEAR. >> TIME FLIES WHEN YOU'RE HAVING

FUN. >> EVERY MINUTE OF IT.

>> SIX YEARS FOR YOU SO I HOPE TO BE HERE ANOTHER 60

YEARS. >> ALL RIGHT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? THEN

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.