RESOLUTION No. 70-2021; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA DECLARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO ABANDON AND TO SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON AUGUST 23, 2021 AT 5:30 PM, AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2021, AT 4:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS TO CONSIDER THE ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY, BEING THAT PORTION OF ALLEY, MORE CLEARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

]

ABANDON. FOR A PORTION OF SEMINOLE STREET AND OSCEOLA STREET RESOLUTION NUMBER 70-12.

UM I TURNED IN MARTEL, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE RESOLUTION TITLE? HIS RESOLUTION NUMBER 70-2021 A RESOLUTION THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, DECLARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA. THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO ABANDON AND TO SET PUBLIC HEARINGS ON AUGUST 23RD. 2021 AT 5:30 P.M. IN SEPTEMBER. 13TH 2021 AT FOUR P.M. IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS TO CONSIDER THE ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY WITHIN THE CITY BEING THAT PORTION OF ALLEY MORE CLEARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERE, TOO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, MADAM MAYOR, I'LL MOVE APPROVAL. SECOND THERE'S A MOTION BY MENTIONER MEYER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER. MCDONALD'S ALL THESE EMS. JUMPED THE GUN, BUT I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH AND GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION, MR BEATS, OKAY. PLEASE STOP. CAN I JUST ANNOUNCE THAT THE THIS IS JUST THE INFORMATIVE THAT WE ARE ANNOUNCING THE ACTUAL PROCESS. THERE'LL BE AN ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY COMES BACK. SO FOR YOU, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT STAFF WAS ACTUALLY GONNA MAKE A PRESENTATION TODAY.

I PUT IT ON COMMISSION ACTION. JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE WE'RE MAKING AN ANNOUNCEMENT. SO READ THE RIFT TO READ THE TITLE IN. MADAM MAYOR TOM REACH FOR THE RECORD. UH THE MANAGER IS CORRECT. IT IS INTENT TO ABANDONED. ONLY WE WILL BE BRINGING THIS BACK TO YOU. IN AUGUST 23RD FOR FIRST READING. AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I GUESS IT'S NOT A QUESTION AS MUCH OF A STATEMENT, AND I KNOW THIS IS JUST ANNOUNCEMENT, BUT I KNOW I'VE BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF ALLEYWAYS IN THE PAST AND US HAVING MORE. ARE YOU MORE UNIFIED APPROACH TO THEM OVER ALL THROUGHOUT THE CITY? UM THE REASON I'M MOTIONING FOR APPROVAL OF THE ANNOUNCEMENT WITH THIS ONE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP THERE THAT THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE ALLEYWAY AS IT IS WITH THE STRUCTURE ALREADY ON THIS ON THE SUBJECT. ALLEYWAY AND THE NEIGHBORING PARCEL TO THE EAST. UH OR I GUESS THE ATTACHED PARCEL TO THE EAST WITH THE POOL RUNNING THROUGH IT. SO NORMALLY LARGER DISCUSSION, I THINK, AH, MAYBE TO BE HAD AT THE. ACTUAL ORDINANCE, UM, READING, UM. I THINK IF WE HAVE INTACT ALLEYWAYS THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY THAT COULD SERVE A PURPOSE ON THE ROAD. I THINK IT'S WORTH US REALLY CONSIDERING PRESERVING THEM. UM. SO THAT IN THE FUTURE, THEY THEY WOULD BE VERY USEFUL. I BELIEVE, BUT IN THIS CASE AS AS WE'VE ALREADY SEEN, UH, THE OTHER WAY NOT BEING COMPLETE.

I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. RELINQUISHING IT SO ANYWAY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ON THE BOARD. GARDEN. THIS ANNOUNCEMENT. ANY COMMENTS

[00:35:03]

FROM THE PUBLIC. THIS, MAC. BRIGHT. JUST A QUESTION. SO I UNDERSTAND. IF WE RUN, ABANDON THE ALLEYWAYS ARE WE SELLING THE LAND TO THE LANDOWNERS? YOU KNOW, LIKE I REMEMBER BACK WHEN THEY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO BANG AND THEN VALUE WAYS AND THE.

ONE NEIGHBOR COULD BUY 15 BIG MEAN IF I COULD IF I COULD CHIME IN QUICKLY BEFORE WE VIOLATE THE LAW. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE SELLING THE PROPERTY TO THE LANDOWNER BECAUSE THAT WOULD VIOLATE THE LAW. BUT WE ARE ALLOWED TO CHARGE WHAT'S CALLED A PRIVILEGED FEED FOR THE COST OF DOING SO. IT IS A PURE. COINCIDENCE THAT THEY'RE PRIVILEGED B IN THIS CASE IS THE EXACT SAME NUMBER IS AN APPRAISAL. BUT THEY ARE NOT RELATED IN ANY WAY WAY. NO, NO, I JUST WANT TO BE SURE. YOU KNOW, UH, THAT EVERYBODY IS TREATED FAIRLY. YES NOW THE COMMISSION DOES HAVE THE ABILITY LIKE WHAT THEY DID ON THE. PROPERTY WITH THE, UH, MALI'S MOLLY'S HOUSE, WHERE THEY CAN WAIVE THE PRIVILEGE FEE OR WHEN THE COMMISSION UNDER STATE LAW IS NOT GOING TO BE USING THE RIGHT OF WAY. THEY THERE'S A PRESUMPTION THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO RETURN IT TO ITS UNDERLYING OWNERS. SO IN THE SITUATION WHERE THE COMMISSION WERE TO WAIVE AN ENTIRE STREET. WITHOUT AN APPLICATION FROM A RESIDENT TO DO SO IT WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO NOT HAVE A PRIVILEGE FEE BECAUSE THAT WOULD RESULT IN ONE PERSON COULD OBJECT. AND THEN THE WHOLE THING WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE TRANSFERRED. THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION WOULD BE BROUGHT. JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH THIS IN ANOTHER TIME YEARS YEARS AGO. THEY WAS HERE WITH DREAMY SO I KNOW. I MEAN, WE WENT THROUGH IT ONCE WHEN I WAS MUCH YOUNGER, AND NOW TEAMS WERE COMING RIGHT BACK TO IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR. UM. WE NEED THE CLERK TO GIVE US A. WATER WAS ALL IN FAVORABLE. IT WOULD BE A ROLE COLUMN ROLE CALLED CLERK. MR BRUNER? YES COMMISSIONER MATTHEW I'M COMMISSIONER MCDONALD. YES VICE MAYOR MATHESON. YES. MAYOR CLARKE? YES, I SHOULD ADMIRE.

YES, THANK YOU. I PASSED THE GAVEL TO, UM, COMMISSIONER, UM MATHESON TO HANDLE THIS OTHER ITEMS. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY. YOU CAN. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY BIG INTEREST, BUT JUST TO BE SURE. I'LL HANDLE ITEM FIVE. THE POWER OF THE GAMBLE. ITEM FIVE ON COMMISSION ACCIDENT. UM.

[5.

AUTHORIZATION TO ABANDON RIGHT-OF-WAY BETWEEN SE 16TH COURT AND SE 18TH STREET:

RESOLUTION No. 72-2021; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, BEING THAT PORTION OF LAND, WHICH LIES BETWEEN S.E. 16TH COURT AND S.E. 18TH STREET, WHICH IS MORE FULLY DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED HERETO, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

]

AUTHORIZATION TO ABANDON RIGHT AWAY. BETWEEN 16TH COURT. AND SOUTH EAST 18TH STREET. MR MARTEL, COULD YOU PRETTY, PLEASE READ RESOLUTION? THIS RESOLUTION NUMBER 72-20 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ABANDONMENT OF A CERTAIN RIGHT AWAY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS BEING THAT PORTION OF LAND, WHICH LIES BETWEEN SOUTHEAST 16TH COURT. IN SOUTH EAST 18TH STREET, WHICH IS MORE FULLY DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED THERE TO THE WRITING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THANK YOU MOVE TO A PROOF. SECOND WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MCDONALD AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MEYER ON RESOLUTION 72-2021. NOW THAT THE ITEM HAS COME UP, I'LL AGAIN RE INTEGRATE THAT I'M FILING THE FORM EIGHT B. AND THAT I WILL NOT WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE ANY GREAT INTEREST JUST IN THE. FOR CAUTION PURPOSES ON ALL THE BOMB BE VOTING ON THIS ITEM. MAYOR WILL BE ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? ON THE MOTION.

HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. MADAM CLERK. WE PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. VICE MAYOR MATHESON. YES.

COMMISSIONER BRUNER. YES, COMMISSIONER MEYER? YES FISHER MCDONALD? YES. AND FOR THE RECORD, MAYOR CLARKE. I'M UPSTATE UNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU. I'M FILING THE FORM A B YES. THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR, YOU PASS YOUR TESTS. THANK YOU. GOOD JOB PLACE, MAYOR. MM.

THERE ARE NO ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING ON FIRST READING. WE HAVE AN APPEAL OF

[7.

APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY AT 728 NW DIXIE HWY FOR USE OF RETAIL SALE OF VEHICLE PARTS TOGETHER WITH VEHICLE REPAIR, WITH ALL ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE WITHIN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED URBAN HIGHWAY. (QUASI-JUDICIAL)(RC)

]

DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY. HAD 7 28 NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY FOR USE OF THE RETAIL SALE OF VEHICLE PARTS TOGETHER WITH VEHICLE REPAIR. WITH ALL THE ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE

[00:40:04]

WITHIN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING. PROPERTIES ZONE URBAN HIGHWAY. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER. UM UH, CITY ATTORNEY. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU NEED TO READ? I DON'T NEED TO READ IT. AND ALTHOUGH IT IS QUASI JUDICIAL IN NATURE UM. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SIMILAR TO A P U D AS THERE IS NO BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE FROM A STANDPOINT OF A COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO DV FROM THE CODE, BUT RATHER IN THIS CASE. UM, IT'S A AN APPEAL AROSE OUT OF A. CODE INTERPRETATION BY THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND THE APPELLATE. IS A RESIDENT WHO LIVES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND HAS FILED AN APPEAL.

ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE SOME ATTACHMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ATTACHED BY STAFF. I BELIEVE STAFF MAY HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION AND THEN NICK SCHROTH WILL HAVE A PRESENTATION. AND THEN I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON A LEGAL BASIS THAT YOU WANT, AND THEN WE COULD MOVE FORWARD ACCORDINGLY. OKAY? MR. UM THREE MONTHS. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

COMING. FREEMAN, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR UM. THIS ITEM IS AN APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY AT A PREMISES. UH, A PLOT OF LAND KNOWN AS 7 28 NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY. FOR USE OF THE RETAIL SALE OF VEHICLE PARTS TOGETHER WITH THE COULD REPAIR. WITH ALL ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE WITHIN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED URBAN HIGHWAY AND LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. SO DETERMINATION OF COME THAT COMPARABILITY. GENERALLY YOU CONSIDERATION OF USERS NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED. IF THEY USE IS NOT LISTED WITHIN A SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT THAN THE USE IS NOT ALLOWED. SO THE DETERMINATION HERE WAS TO TRY AND ESTABLISH WHETHER OR NOT. THE USES PARTICULARLY LISTED IN THIS ALLOWABLE USES FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO STAFF USED THE FOLLOWING ITEMS TO, UM AS FACT, IN MAKING THEIR DECISION, THE LOCATION ZONING, THE FUTURE LAND USE, AND THE USE IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO THE LOCATION IS ADDRESSED AS 7 28 NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY. IS LOCATED ON THE SLIP EXIT OF, UM NORTHWEST FEDERAL HIGHWAY. AND WHICH LEADS TO NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY. FUTURE LAND USE. AS I SAID, REITERATE ITS IN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, AND ITS FUTURE LAND. USE IT DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT. ZONING IS URBAN HIGHWAY. AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE WITH THIS DETERMINATION. IT'S A BUTTERED BY URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH. AND ALL THREE, TO THE WEST. URBAN HIGHWAYS GENERALLY, UM, SET OUT ALONG US ONE FEDERAL HIGHWAY, BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH. IT. ENCOURAGES HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL OR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES, AND YOU NOTICED THAT WHERE YOU DO SEE IT. URBAN HIGHWAY. THERE ARE A LARGE PARKING LOTS. FROM SECTION 3.1 POINT 03 POINT F POINT, TOO. THE URBAN CO. DISTRICT USES AND THERE'S A TABLE WITHIN THAT SECTION, WHICH RELATES TO AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICE. AND I'VE. COPIED AND PASTED THE WORDING AND I THINK IT INCLUDES A TYPO IN THERE WHEN I INCLUDED THAT. WITHIN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING IN A LONG US ONE FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND SAVANNAH ROAD ONLY SO. THE USE OF AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICE WITHIN THE CODE AND THE DESCRIPTION WITHIN THE CODE FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW. UM.

STATES THAT IT'S IN IF IT'S IN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING AND THE PROPERTIES ALONG US ONE, UM IT IS PERMITTED. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS WHERE MAYBE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION MAY OCCUR, BUT STUFF. TAKE THE FRONTAGE OF THIS PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ADDRESSED ON DIXIE HIGHWAY. THIS PROPERTY IS ALONG US ONE OR US NORTHWEST FEDERAL HIGHWAY AND THAT IT FRONTS THE SLIP. RODEWAY, WHICH IS, UM, NAMED. NORTHWEST FEDERAL HIGHWAY, AND THAT'S. BOTH ON THE CITY SYSTEM AND ON OTHER SYSTEMS NATIONWIDE. SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO HEAR THE EVIDENCE THAT, UM IN FRONT OF YOU AND DETERMINED TO APPROVE OR DENY THE APPEAL. AND WITH

[00:45:07]

THAT I WILL HAND OVER TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS MR NEXT THROB SCHROTH AND, UM. I KNOW THAT I JUST BRIEFLY SPOKE WITH MR STRAW MYSELF. I KNOW THAT, MR MORTALS SAID THAT WE DID NOT HAVE TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE NORMALLY DO. BUT, UM. I THINK IT WOULD STILL BE APPROPRIATE. IF ANYBODY HAS IT HAD ANY EXPORTED COMMUNICATIONS WITH MR SCHROTH.

UH, THE APPELLANT. IF THEY WANT TO DISCLOSE IT AT THIS TIME. UM. AND THEN MR MR SHORT, WILL GIVE HIS PRESENTATION. ANY EXPORTED COMMUNICATION. LOOK WITH STAFF AND I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO MR SCHWARTZ ABOUT IT A MARATHON OPEN MIND. I'VE SPOKEN WITH. NICK AND WITH STAFF AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. MADAM MAYOR, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MR SHAW, BOTH AS WELL AS OUR CITY STAFF. UM ABOUT. THE DECISION BEFORE. MM. THE MAYOR. I'VE SPOKEN WITH RESIDENTS, UM, WITH STAFF. I HAVE RECEIVED COMMUNICATION FROM MR SHORT, BUT I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH HIM ON THE MATTER DIRECTLY. THE APPELLANT WOULD JUST TELL ME HOW TO PRONOUNCE IS THEM PROPERLY LOVE KNOWN YOU FOREVER. THAT'S ALRIGHT, SCHROTH, OKAY? THANK YOU, SIR. IT'S YOUR TURN TO, UM. DIRECT THE DETAILS OF YOUR APPEAL TO US. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS AND THANK YOU. STAFF NICK SCHROTH FOR THE RECORD 6 23 NORTHWEST PALM STREET. IS MY ADDRESS. UM, AS STAFF HAS POINTED OUT, I'M HERE TO APPEAL THE DETERMINATION OF THE. STAFF THAT THIS IS A PERMITTED USE ON THIS SITE. IN YOUR PACKET. THERE'S A THERE'S A FULL. ARGUMENT THAT I'VE MADE REGARDING THAT. I'LL TOUCH ON A FEW OF THOSE POINTS HERE AND THEN AND THEN EXPAND INTO A FEW OTHERS THAT I BELIEVE ARE PERTINENT TO THIS. UM. SO JUST TO GIVE A LAY OF THE LAND 6 23 PALM STREET IS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. UM. WHEN I PURCHASED THIS LOT AND MADE THE INVESTMENT TO BUILD A HOME THERE FOR LIFE AND I TO LIVE IN AND RAISE A FAMILY. WE.OGNIZANTL FACILITY. IT'S QUITE THE FACILITY. SO WE KNEW THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW WE NEEDED TO KEEP AN EYE ON. BUT YOU KNOW? WE PURCHASED A LOT IN THE SIERRA BECAUSE OF THE CODES AND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND THE INTENT OF THE SCIARRA AND SO UM I BELIEVE THAT THOSE HAVE BEEN. BRUSHED ASIDE HERE AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S PART OF MY APPEAL. UM AS FAR AS THE UH HUH. ADDRESSING UM YOU KNOW, MY PACKAGE APPEALS THERE, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSES THAT AND I'LL GET INTO A FEW OF THOSE POINTS SO OBVIOUSLY WITH NUMBER FIVE, THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY IS DIXIE HIGHWAY. IT HAS THAT ADDRESS. UM. I DISAGREE WITH STAFF ON NUMBER SIX. ACCESS IS FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY IN YOUR FEW IN THE PACKAGE THAT I'D PROVIDED YOU OTHERS PICTURES OF HOW THE PROPERTIES ACCESS FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY. THE LEFT HAND TURN LANE DIRECTLY THAT ACCESSES NO OTHER PROPERTY FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY EXCEPT THIS PROPERTY. UM. ANOTHER LARGE FACTOR. HERE IS THE LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED BY THE CITY IN 2000 AND 16 TO MR BRINKER. UM, IT REGARDS THE. LOSS OF GRANDFATHERING RIGHTS RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY. SO IN 2016, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE FACILITY OR THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN SHUT DOWN FOR PERIOD OF TIME, SUCH THAT ANY USE THERE WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM TO CODE.

UM I TOOK GREAT HOMAGE IN THIS LETTER, ALONG WITH OTHER NEIGHBORS WHO I THINK YOU'LL HEAR FROM TODAY AS WELL. AND THAT THE INVESTMENTS THAT I MADE IN THE AREA OF THIS PROPERTY. WE'RE GOING TO BE JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE HELD TO THE CODE. THE SAME URBAN CODE THAT I'M BUILDING TO THE SAME URBAN CODE THAT ANYBODY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD TO THE SAME URBAN CODE THAT. AS YOU KNOW, GREATER AND MORE THOROUGH THAN REGULAR CODES THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND THE COUNTY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, REDEVELOPED THIS AREA. NUMBER EIGHT. THE URBAN HIGHWAYS OWNING SPECIFICALLY RESTRICTS THE USE OF AUTO. THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY IN SAVANNAH ROAD, SO THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE. WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, A PROVEN UNDERWATER BASKET WEAVING OPERATION HERE, AND THAT IS NOT A USE THAT THE CODE SPECIFICALLY PERMITS, BUT IT'S SIMILAR TO ANOTHER COAT, NOT ANOTHER USE. ADMITTED UNDER THE CODE THIS USES SPECIFICALLY NOT PERMITTED ON THIS PROPERTY. A COUPLE OTHER ONES TO TOUCH ON NUMBER NINE, UM I TOUCHED ON

[00:50:05]

THIS A LITTLE BIT, BUT. IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE TRAVEL LANES OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY. YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL AT LEAST A MILE. EITHER UP TO WRITE BOULEVARD OR SOUTH TO JOAN JEFFERSON WAY TO ACTUALLY ACCESS A TRAVELING OF FEDERAL HIGHWAY. UM. AND THEN NUMBER 12. NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OF THE USE HAVE BEEN PROPERLY EVALUATED. GIANT OIL AS A FUEL JOBBER, AND IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT FUEL DRIVERS DO THEY OPERATE FUEL DISTRIBUTION AND THEY HAVE TRUCKS AND THEY HAVE OIL. REALLY STORE OIL AND WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'LL FIND ON THE PROPERTY TODAY. SO IS THE APPLICANT OR IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? GOING TO BE STORING, YOU KNOW, BULK OIL ON THIS PROPERTY. DOES THAT CHANGED THE OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING IF ALL OF THE GRANDFATHERING RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN. HAVE BEEN LOST. WILL THE BUILDINGS OCCUPANCY CHANGED FROM, YOU KNOW? WHATEVER IT WAS BEFORE TWO LEVEL H HAZARD OCCUPANCY, AND IF SO, WHAT IS BEING DONE TO FIRE PROTECT THAT BUILDING? WHAT KIND OF LIFE SAFETY. MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO, YOU KNOW, PERMIT THIS USE AND HOW DOES THAT APPLY? OR HOW DOES THAT CONFORM TO 2021 BUILDING CODE? UM. THAT TOUCHES ON A FEW OF THE THINGS HERE. FUEL TRUCKS BEING PARKED ON SITE. I DON'T KNOW IN MY PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST, I DIDN'T FIND ANY RELATIVE. YOU KNOW INFORMATION. IF THIS WAS A PUBLIC PROCESS, THESE QUESTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN ASKED IN A PUBLIC FORUM. SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS. UH IT DIDN'T APPEAR THAT THERE WAS ANY PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS PLAN. IN FACT, THE APPLICATOR THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS CITED FOR A CODE VIOLATION FOR TRYING TO TRENCH INTO A NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF WE COULD, IF THE BUILDINGS LOST ALL ITS GRANDFATHERED RIGHTS, AND IT NEEDS TO CONFORM TO THE CODE. STORM WATER IS A CODE REQUIREMENT. YOU KNOW, AT NEW DEVELOPMENT, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT I'M DOING THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE CITY HAS, YOU KNOW STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS THAT COST HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND. WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE THOSE INVESTMENTS AND I'M HAPPY TO BECAUSE IT HELPED IT LEADS TO A CLEANER RIVER. AND YOU KNOW THAT'S REALLY A GOAL THAT WE ALL YOU KNOW, HOLD VERY HIGH. UM. 12 12 DOT I SAYS THAT THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES CREATED BY THE PROPOSED USE IN COMPARISON TO IMPACTS FROM OTHER USE IS ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICTS. YOU KNOW, I WAS NEVER CONTACTED AND SAID, HEY, YOU KNOW WAS THIS IS THIS A USE THAT YOU WOULD BE OKAY WITH. IN FACT, WHEN ROOSEVELT TIRE AND AUTO WAS SOLD TO BECOME PART OF THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY UP THERE, I WAS CONTACTED BY TERRY MCCARTHY REPRESENTATIVE ROOSEVELT TIRE AND AUTO AND HE ASKED. HEY, IF WE APPLIED FOR VARIANTS HERE, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU. IN FAVOR OF IT, AND I TOLD HIM NO, AS I THINK OTHER NEIGHBORS DID AS WELL SO THAT THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN THIS TIME AROUND. UM. YOU KNOW, MR BANKER WHO? WHO YOU KNOW IS REPRESENTING THIS PROPERTY.

SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THAT SITUATION. HE WAS THE ADDRESS PERSON IN THE LETTER FROM 2016 SO. YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WAS JUST THE CHANGING GARDEN. THE PROPERTY OWNER TOOK ADVANTAGE.

UH HUH. SO THE USE IS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE. THE APPLICATION OF A SIMILAR USE DOESN'T DOESN'T HOLD WATER IN THAT SITUATION, IN MY OPINION, SO WE, YOU KNOW AGAIN, WE CAN'T CALL IT. YOGA IF IT'S UNDERWATER BASKET, WEAVING IN THIS CASE, I MEAN, WE COULD IN THAT CASE, BUT IN THIS CASE THE USE OF SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED TO BE ON FEDERAL HIGHWAY. SAVANNAH ROAD, AND THIS IS DIXIE HIGHWAY, AND IT'S A PROHIBITED USE BASED ON THE CODE. UM I'D ALSO LIKE TO TOUCH ON SOME OF THE. MATTERS THAT WEREN'T ADDRESSED AS WELL. UM THE URBAN CODE HAS VERY SPECIFIC DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND YOU KNOW AGAIN WHEN. WHEN DECIDING TO BUILD ON THE LOT THAT WE CHOSE TO BUILD ON. WE KNEW THOSE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. WE FELT THOSE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE APPLIED TO ANY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION ON THE ON THE REBEL OIL FACILITY. AND I FEEL LIKE IN THIS CASE, THEY WERE NOT, UM. SO SECTION THREE DOT A 11 A SAYS THE PURPOSE OF THE URBAN CODE IS TO ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE SUPPLIED WITH THAT PURPOSE HERE. NONCONFORMING USES, UH. AGAIN THE LETTER FROM THE CITY IN 2016 ADDRESSES THAT THE. THE PROPERTY HAS LOST ALL ITS GRANDFATHER AND USE, UM NO BUILDING OR OTHER DEVELOPMENT. OTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR UNLESS ALL PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE HAVE BEEN MET. SO WE'LL TOUCH ON THAT APPLICATIONS ARE REQUIRED TO CONTAIN PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

[00:55:01]

ACTIVITIES AND DESIGN BUILDING PLANS FRONT REAR. INSIDE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS.

THERE'S BEEN NO ELEVATIONS. I UNDERSTAND WE'RE WORKING WITH WHAT'S EXISTING HERE. BUT ARE WE? ARE WE CHANGING ANYTHING OF THE EXISTING? ARE WE MAKING IT LOOK ANY BETTER? I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THIS CASE, UH, MADE ANY OF THESE APPLICATIONS AND PROVIDED ANY OF THIS INFORMATION. UM. SHOULD BE UNLAWFUL AND A VIOLATION OF CITY CODE FOR ANY PERSON TO CONSTRUCT, RENOVATE OR REMODEL. RENOVATE EVERY MODEL IS IMPORTANT HERE. I BELIEVE BUILDING WITHIN THE URBAN CODE DISTRICT EXCEPT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS URBAN CODE. 3.1 POINT 03 URBAN STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS FOR DESIGNATED URBAN SUB DISTRICTS. SECTION D STATES. THE SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN 10. FT. I BELIEVE THAT. BUILDING DOES HAVE A SET BACK MORE THAN 10 FT. BUT THERE WASN'T A SURVEY INCLUDED AS THAT I COULD SEE THAT, UM YOU KNOW, PROVIDED FOR THAT. THE REAR SETBACK AT 15 FT. THE MINIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS TWO STORIES OR 26. FT. FROM THE FRONT BUILDING IS A SINGLE STORY BUILDING. SO WE ARE WE ISSUING A VARIANCE FOR THIS OR OR ARE WE NOT? ALL PARKING AREAS SHOULD BE LOCATED BEHIND THE REAR FACADE OF A PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR SCREEN FROM PUBLIC RIGHT AWAYS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S HAPPENING HERE. CUTS, NOT MORE WARRANT MORE THAN ONE CURVE. CUT EVERY 100 FT. I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SECTION OF THE CODE THAT REQUIRES THE BUILDINGS GET SET TO A CERTAIN FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION TO AVOID FLOOD DAMAGE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BEEN HANDLED HERE. AGAIN TOUCHING ON STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. UM. IT REALLY? THERE WASN'T A STORMWATER PLAN ISSUED THERE WASN'T. PERMIT FOR STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS TO MY KNOWLEDGE. PUBLIC ART. NOT A PART OF THE PACKAGE. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ARE TO BE 25% OF THE SETBACK. I KNOW THERE WAS A LANDSCAPE PLAN, PROVIDED. I DON'T I DON'T BELIEVE IT. CONFORM TO THIS CODE. SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING. UM STAFF COULD TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT UM. SECTION G TWO DOES GIVE THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SOME LATITUDE TO WORK AROUND EXISTING CONDITIONS, BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T LESSEN THE REQUIREMENT AND. PART OF THIS, UH, REQUIREMENT THAT STREET FACADE OF A BUILDING SHALL CONTAIN HEDGE POTTED PLANTS OR TREES PLANTED IN PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. I KNOW. I KNOW THAT HASN'T HAPPENED HERE SO YOU KNOW, I'M WONDERING WHAT YOU KNOW HOW THAT WAS DEALT WITH? ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A FAIRLY FAIRLY BIG ITEM HERE. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED. THERE'S REALLY. WE PUT A LOT OF WEIGHT IN THIS WHEN WE DECIDED TO BUILD THEIR BECAUSE THE C R A WOULD GENERALLY REQUIRE. PRETTIER BUILDING. THEN YOU WOULD GET ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY AND CERTAINLY IN THE COUNTY SO UM THINGS LIKE. WAS LIKE THE MANSARD ROOFS. UM. WINDOWS AND DOORS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHOWED THAT EITHER WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE CONFORMS WITH CODE OR WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REPLACE. INFORMS WITH CODE. BUILDING COLOURS AND FINISHES. THEY PROCEEDED TO PAINT THE BUILDING WHITE AND BLUE, SIMILAR TO AN EXXON STATION, AND I DON'T THINK THAT MEETS THE CODE. UM SO I. EVEN SIDEWALKS. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE SIDEWALK THERE IS A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S SIX FT. BUILDING AND SITE LIGHTING SHALL BE DECORATIVE. THEY REPLACED ALL THE LIGHTING. THERE WAS NOT DECORATIVE. TOP FACILITIES SUCH AS AIR CONDITIONING UNITS, AS WELL AS EXTERIOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED SO AS TO NOT BE VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC VIEW. YOU CAN SEE THE ROOFTOP A C UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY THAT PREFERRED PROPOSED GNOME ANSWERED, OR ANY KIND OF, YOU KNOW, REMEDY TO THAT. UH HUH. SO OH, THE CODES ALSO PRETTY SPECIFIC IN WHAT IS ALLOWED AS A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE. AND THAT IS SPECIFICALLY PUBLIC ART AND ARCHITECTURAL MATERIALS.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS A MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE, AND I THINK. IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE USE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS JUST NOT ALLOWED. OTHER ITEMS THAT I POINTED OUT TODAY. WHERE YOU KNOW, I TAKE ADDITIONAL ISSUE WITH THE DETERMINATION. AND.

THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO REQUIRE VARIANCES TO BE USED, AND THAT'S FINE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH VARIANCES, BUT THE PROCESS THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS A MAJOR URBAN CONDITIONAL USE. THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC INPUT. IT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED.

YOU KNOW I CAN'T MOVE THIS BUILDING. I'M TRYING TO REUSE IT. IT'S ONLY ONE STORY. WHAT CAN WE DO TO HELP? OKAY WOLF. LET'S COME UP WITH IDEAS AND LET'S LET'S FIGURE IT OUT THIS.

THIS PROPERTY WILL REQUIRE, UM YOU KNOW, SOME SOME. PUBLIC INPUT IS VARIANCES AND I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT I'M NOT. AN ANTI VARIANCE PERSON. THE CODE DID NOT. NOT BUILT AROUND

[01:00:06]

THE REB OIL FACILITY, BUT. THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS IN THE CODE THAT ARE THAT ARE, YOU KNOW? NOT TO BE DEVIATED FROM IN MY MIND, AND I THINK IT STARTS WITH THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THE OF THE CODE, AND THAT IS TO FOSTER REDEVELOPMENT IN AREAS THAT MERIT REDEVELOPMENT. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU, SIR. UM. AFTER YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR SCHULZ? I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR SHRAPNEL. MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR SHAW. MR SO WHAT YEAR TO DO BY THE PROPERTY, BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2018.

AND MR MEYER. UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR GROWTH. I MEAN, I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS, BUT. I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM SO. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME WITH AN APPEAL LIKE THIS. UM. JUST FOR OUR PURPOSES APPEAR. ARE WE LOOKING TO UH, MAKE A MOTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND THEN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT GO THROUGH THE APPEAL HAS SO YOU DID THE PURSUANT TO THE PURSUANT TO THE CITY CODE. EIGHT POINT. IT SAYS THAT A PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO AN APPEAL OR APPEAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OR DECISION BY A STAFF MEMBER. SO HE FILED THE APPEAL. AS AS AS BACKGROUND. YEP THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED FROM MY BY MR FREEMAN IN THE STAFF ITEM IS IN FACT. HEAVENS DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY THAT WAS ENTERED. I BELIEVE ON MAY 4TH OR FIFTH OF 2021. MR SHROFF HAD 30 DAYS FROM THE ENTRANCE OF THAT TO FILE HIS NOTICE OF APPEAL, WHICH HE PERFECTED AND DID IN FACT FILE WITHIN THAT 30 DAYS ORIGINALLY. REPRESENTATIVE GIANT OIL HAD TAKEN A POSITION AND WRITTEN A LETTER SAYING THAT HE OBJECTED TO MR SCHROTH. FILING HIS APPEAL BECAUSE IT WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE GIANT L TOOK THE POSITION THAT IT HAD BEEN GRANTED. THIS DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY SOMETIME BEFORE AND THEREFORE THE 30 DAYS HAD RUN. THAT DIDN'T END UP COMING TO FRUITION OR ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT BEING PRODUCED, AND IN FACT THERE WAS PRODUCED BECAUSE GIANT ALL TOOK THE POSITION THAT IT WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT THEY HAD BEEN ISSUED A PERMIT. PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED BY TOM REED'S, WHICH IS ALSO IN THE AGENDA PACKET. THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE PERMIT. VERY CLEARLY, STATES. THIS IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANTS. THIS IS NOT THE DETERMINATION COMPARABILITY, ETCETERA, AND RATHER, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE OBTAINED LATER. WHICH DEMONSTRATED THAT IT CAME DOWN SO THE APPEAL HAS BEEN TIMELY FILED BY NICK. THE APPEAL IS BEFORE YOU AS A BOARD NOW, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE APPEALING THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BOARD IS DID. DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAVE THE AUTHORITY. TO GRANT THE DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY. AND IF SO, DID HE. PROPERLY FOLLOW THE CODE IN SO DOING AND MAKING THAT DETERMINATION YOU WOULD SAY NOT COULD YOU DIFFER WITH HIM, BUT DOES ANYBODY COULD DIFFER, BUT. WAS HIS FINDING REASONABLE AND WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CODE, OR COULD SOMEONE HAVE DRAWN THAT CONCLUSION? FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY MR TROUGH WAS AND MR FREEMAN POINTED OUT THAT. IS THE CODE ITSELF IN SECTION TWO POINT OH, THREE. SAYS THAT THE DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY CAN BE MADE AT SUCH TIME. I'M SORRY, 2.201, A IT CAN BE DONE.

IF THE USES NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE CODE. KEVIN'S POSITION WAS IS THAT THE USE WASN'T LISTED. MR SHROUDS POSITION WAS. THE USE IS LISTED IN THE USES LISTED AND SAYS IT'S SPECIFICALLY NOT ALLOWED. SO FIRST. I GUESS THE BOARD'S FIRST DECISION WOULD BE. TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY BELIEVE THE, UM. ELEMENT DIRECTOR HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION. BASED UPON THE CODE ITSELF, SO. IN THE CODE, IT SAYS, IF YOU USE IS NOT ENLISTED USE THAN THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CAN DO A. WHATEVER IT'S CALLED THE DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY. SO IS THAT LANGUAGE THAT WAS POSTED IN THE CODE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE IT EIGHT LISTED USE OR A NOT A LISTED USE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CODE TWO POINT OH, THREE. PULL IT UP RIGHT NOW. IF I CAN I HAVE IT PULLED UP. OKAY? I HAVE A QUESTION MIKE, DO WITH ANY MOTION WE DO TO GRANT ER DENIED THE APPEAL. DO WE NEED TO DO A SERIES OF

[01:05:04]

FINDING EFFECTS AS PART OF THE MOTION? AS I GUESS IS WHAT I'M AT. I MEAN, HE'S TRYING. YOU'RE GOING TO DELIBERATE RIGHT? SO AT SUCH TIME AS YOU GUYS, WHATEVER THE MOTION IS, THE MOTION IS TO DETERMINE THE SKY IS BLUE. AND THEN THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO DISCUSS IT. I'M GOING TO SAY, WELL, I THINK THE SKY IS BLUE BECAUSE OF THE WATER VAPORS OR WHATEVER SO. THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE DETERMINED. IF, IN FACT YOU GUYS FEEL YOU NEED.

BASIS FOR YOUR MOTION OR A FINDING THAT IT WOULD BE ENCOURAGED BECAUSE, YES, THE MORE FINDINGS OF FACT THE EASIER IT WOULD BE FOR EITHER TO CHALLENGE OR NOT CHALLENGE IT. UM BUT IN TWO POINT OH TWO 0.1. IT SAYS CONSIDERATION OF USES NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IF THEY USE IS NOT LISTED WITHIN A SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT THAN THE USE IS NOT ALLOWED. HOWEVER A PROPOSED USE THAT IS NOT LISTED WITH ANY PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT BUT WHICH IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO HAVE CHARACTER, SIMILAR NATURE AND IMPACT. WHO HAVE PERMITTED USE IN THAT DISTRICT, THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAY MAKE A DETERMINATION OF COMPARATIVE ABILITY TO THE APPLICANT. SO THEN, IF YOU GO DOWN INTO THE USES IN THE CHART AT TWO POINT OH, TWO POINT OH, TWO TABLE TO LAND USES. AND YOU SCROLL DOWN, YOU FIND THAT IT SAYS. UM, BEAR WITH ME. STILL SCROLLING. IT SAYS. AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICES. COM A MAJOR AND MINOR REFERRED TO SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS NEXT ONE. AUTOMOBILE SALES PROVIDE ALL REPAIR AND SERVICES SHALL BE DONE WITH AN ENCLOSED BUILDING REFERRED TO SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD SECTION 2.6 POINT FIVE. AND WHEN YOU GO TO THE NEXT CHART I'M GOING. TO IS WITH THE ONE THAT SAYS THAT IT SHALL ONLY BE USED OR ONLY BE DONE. IN A ENCLOSED BUILDING ON US ONE OR SAVANNAH ROAD. SO THE QUESTION IS FIRST. IS THAT A USE THAT LISTED OR NOT LISTED. BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT LISTED. SON. WHAT? WHAT? I DISAGREE. UM OKAY, JUST LET'S LET MR MCDONNELL FINISHED. I MEAN, IT'S NOT LISTED AS A PERMITTED USE. IT IS LISTED, THOUGH, AND THAT'S THAT'S WHERE IT GETS TO THE POINT THAT IN. THE FIRST SENTENCE, MR MORTAL. JUST READ THAT. DICTATES. WHETHER IT SHOULD GO THROUGH THE COMMISSION. OKAY? AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAS THE AUTHORITY. BUT BASICALLY YEAH. IN SECTION TWO POINT. OH, TWO OF OUR CODE USES ALLOWED AND ZONING DISTRICTS. SECTION A CONSIDERATION OF USE NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED. THIS USE. THE PROPERTY IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT'S THE FIRST PART WE'D HAVE TO DECIDE IS THE USE SPECIFICALLY LISTED AND THE USE. THAT USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE REPAIR FACILITY IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED. IN SECTION 3.1. WE KNOW THREE OF OUR CODE IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK I AGREE THAT IT IS SPECIFICALLY LISTED.

HOWEVER IT IS LISTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT MAKES IT NOT A PERMITTED YOU EXACTLY SO WE'RE FINDING FACT IT'S SPECIFICALLY LISTED. AND IT'S ONLY PERMITTED. ON U. S ONE. OR SAVANNAH WROTE. OKAY SO WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT IT'S LISTED. AND IT'S ONLY ALLOWED ON US ONE AND SAVANNAH ROAD. SO THE QUESTION IS, IS IT ON US WONDER SAVANNAH ROAD? AND THAT'S. AND THAT'S THE FINDINGS OF FACT THAT WE HAVE TO EXAMINE AND. WELL AND THIS IS OUR C R. A.

THIS IS. FRANKLY MY ANSWER WHEN I LOOK AT ALL THE DATA PRESENTED, AND I ALSO EXAMINED THE LETTERS FROM. FROM THE CITY GOING BACK, UM, AND THE PROPERTY. THE JUSTIFICATION WITH THOSE LETTERS THAT THE PROPERTY HAS LOST ITS. GRANDFATHER IN OF THAT CERTAIN USE. AND THE FACT THAT. A LAND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WAS PAID. WHEN THE NEW ROOSEVELT BRIDGE ADJUSTED US ONE. THAT LANDOWNER WAS JUSTLY COMPENSATED BY F. D O T TO REMOVE THAT US ONE FRONTAGE IN THE ADDRESS CHANGED. THAT WHEN I LOOK AT THOSE. THOSE FACTS NOW I CANNOT

[01:10:09]

SAY THAT IT IS ON US ONE. I AGREE. META MAYOR JUST IF I COULD. BECAUSE WE HAVE A SONOGRAPHY HERE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR OWN ATTORNEY HAS HAS SUGGESTED THAT WE FIRST.

DELIBERATE OVER WHETHER OR NOT MR FREEMAN. HAS THE AUTHORITY. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? FIRST WE NEED TO DO THAT AS A HYPOTHETICAL IF I WERE TO SAY TO YOU THAT HI. HAVE COMPLETED THE COSTCO P U D AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR A SECOND HEARING. BECAUSE I WENT AHEAD AND FILLED ONE OUT. CAN WE USE ANOTHER EXAMPLE? PLEASE UH, YOU WOULD SAY I COULDN'T DO IT, BUT I WOULD SAY, LET'S SAY I COMPLETED THE AZUL PROJECT AND THERE'S NO NEED FOR A SECOND HEARING BECAUSE I SIGNED. DOCUMENTS AND WENT AHEAD AND FILLED IT IN THE WAY I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE. THAT'S REALLY EASY. EVERYONE WOULD SEE THAT AND SAY. MIKE MORTELL DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, AND THEREFORE IT MUST BE REVERSED. IT MUST BE CANCELLED.

SO. THE QUESTION THAT MR SCHROTH HAS RAISED IS DOES THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HAVE THE AUTHORITY? TO DO A. CONDITIONAL REVIEW OR A DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY IN THIS CASE DOES OUR CODE AWARD HIM THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE? WELL, THE ONLY THE ONLY LANGUAGE THAT IS INSTRUCTIVE ON THAT IS THAT INITIAL LANGUAGE IN THE 2.2 POINT. ONE THAT THAT COMMISSIONER MATHESON RED. AND THAT SAYS THE. IF IT'S IF THE USES CONSIDERATION OF USES NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED. IF THEY USE IS NOT LISTED WITHIN A SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT, THEN THE USE IS NOT ALLOWED. HOWEVER A PROPOSED USE THAT IS NOT LISTED WITHIN A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT, BUT WHICH IS DETERMINED BY THIS CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO HAVE A CHARACTER SIMILAR NATURE AND IMPACT. WHERE PERMITTED USED IN THAT DISTRICT. THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAY MAKE DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY TO THE APPLICANTS, SO IT IS BAD LISTED. WELL, THAT'S MY POINT IS A LISTED USE, BUT IT'S NOT PERMITTED. SO THE QUESTION IS. WHAT DOES THAT GIVE? MR FREEMAN THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DECISION, BUT THE BUT THE CODE SAYS, AS IF IT'S NOT LISTED. EXACTLY CORRECT. THAT'S THE ISSUE. IT IS LISTED, AND IT'S NOT ALLOWED IN THIS LOCATION. SO THE ONLY WAY BY OUR CODE THAT IT COULD BE ALLOWED IN THIS LOCATION AS IF IT CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION HAS AGREED ADDITIONAL USED PERMIT. I AGREE UNLESS WE WERE TO DIRK DETERMINED UP HERE. THE ADDRESS IS DIFFERENT. THEN DIXIE HIGHWAY. THIS IS DIFFERENT, THEN THAT IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT ZONING. THIS THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO. MAYBE BEFORE WE GO THROUGH, LIKE THE FINDING OF FACT ON THE MERITS OF THE ARGUMENT. I THINK THAT THE QUESTION WE JUST HAVE TO LIKE THE EASIEST SOLUTION HERE IS JUST TO SAY WE DON'T AGREE BECAUSE IT IS LISTED. SO IN THIS CASE, THE YOU KNOW, WE WOULD SAY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE. AGREED IF IT WANTS TO COME BACK, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME AS A CONDITIONAL YOU IN THIS INSTANCE OR. WHAT? ANYTHING ELSE? I MEAN THAT THERE COULD BE ANOTHER METHOD, I GUESS. BUT. UM. SO IS THAT MR MARTEL, MONSIEUR? DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE SECOND STEP. LET'S. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. WHERE IS IT NOT LISTED. NO, IT IS LISTED, BUT IT'S NOT PERMITTED, SO IT'S LISTED IN THE OVERLAY ZONE FOR ONE OF THE URBAN DISTRICTS OR FOR THE URBAN DISTRICT. SO IF YOU. DETERMINE ITS ADDRESS TO BE A DIFFERENT ADDRESS. LET'S SAY YOU DETERMINED ITS ADDRESS TO BE ON INDIAN STREET. THEN THAT OVERLAY ZONE WOULDN'T APPLY. AS IT WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT ADDRESS THAN THE ADDRESS. SO ITS LOCATION DOES MATTER. BUT THE PARCEL DOES CARRY A ZONING. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE SAY THE PARCEL ITSELF CARRIES A ZONING AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND IT'S LISTED IN THAT ZONING.

SO I JUST YOU KNOW WHEN THIS TO GET A SO THAT WE DON'T GET AHEAD OF OURSELVES. IF THIS MIGHT COME BACK AS A CONDITIONAL USE. THINK WE JUST SIMPLIFIED AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION. MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME, MR MARTEL. THAT THE. THAT AS THIS. USE IS INDEED LISTED. BUT AS A NOT PERMITTED USE BASED YES, IT'S LISTED. JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO AND THEN YOU GUYS COULD MAKE

[01:15:04]

THE VOTE ON THAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. CITY CLERK. COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM MR MEYER, AND THIS IS JUST FOR A FINDING EFFECT, RIGHT? RIGHT NOW. WE'RE NOT. IT'S NOT A GRAND. YEAH THAT'S JUST FOR THE FINDING EFFECT. GOOD OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. SHE'S GONNA REPEATED. AS THIS USES, INDEED LISTED, BUT NOT BUT AS A NON PERMITTED LET ME LET ME REWORD. BECAUSE THE USE IS AS THIS USES IS INDEED LISTED. MAMA. IN. AS A PERMITTED AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IN THE LAND ACTION. OKAY 31.1 POINT 03. BUT HE SAID POINT. YOU BEAT ME TO MUNICH CODE. I'M USUALLY THEM UNICODE GUY. HEY, SOMETHING. UH YEAH, I GOT TO WATCH MYSELF. UM. UH I MOVE AUTHORITY. I MOVED AT THE. AT THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DID THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE USE DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY. AS PER, YOU KNOW? YEAH. VIEWS. SECOND AND AGAIN I SECOND DAD AND OKAY, CAN I NOW ASK QUESTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. MADAM MAYOR? YES. MR FREEMAN. I'M SORRY. I'M NOT TRYING TO THROW YOU UNDER THE BUS. I AM UNDER THE BOWS. OKAY NOW, YOU KNOW IF YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST. BASED ON BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION AND WHAT I'M READING. I SEE IT AS BEING LISTED. THEREFORE, MY MOTION CAN YOU IF YOU WOULD. PLEASE DESCRIBE YOUR REASONING AS TO WHETHER IT'S LISTED OR NOT.

OKAY I BELIEVE IT IS LISTED. OKAY? UM, IT IS LISTED FOR THE URBAN HIGHWAY. THE QUESTION FROM MY POINT OF VIEW DOES THAT PROPERTY FRONT. FEDERAL HIGHWAY OR DOES IT NOT? AND MY DETERMINATION IS BASED ENTIRELY ON WHETHER THAT PROPERTY FRONTED. FEDERAL HIGHWAY OR NOT, I SEE AS TO THE, UM. ACTUAL PERMITS REQUIRED. THIS IS NOT. GRANTING PERMITS. THIS IS NOT GRANTING DEVELOPMENT SO ALL THE ISSUES THAT, UM NICK. QUITE. MR SHOW, QUITE RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THE PROCESSES THAT WE NEED TO GO THROUGH WOULD STILL BE IN PLACE, OKAY? THAT WOULD BE, UM ALSO THERE'S ANOTHER. PEACE TO THIS IS WHETHER THIS. BECOMES PART OF OUR REVIEW PROCESS. BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL RENOVATION. THE AMOUNT OF RENOVATION WORKS THAT WERE PROPOSED, DID NOT TAKE IT ABOVE THE 50% RENOVATION THRESHOLD.

RIGHT, SO THAT'S ANOTHER COMPLICATION TO THIS. WHERE. STAFF COULD REALLY NOT ENGAGE WITH THE SITE DESIGN AND PLANNING BECAUSE. FROM THAT MOMENT THAT THAT CAME IN THAT INQUIRY CAME IN. THAT. THE COST THAT WERE WE WERE PROVIDED WITH DID NOT CROSS THAT DIDN'T MEET THE THRESHOLD. OKAY ONCE THAT COSTS CROSSES THAT THRESHOLD THAN ALL THE ISSUES THAT MR SCHROTH. ELUCIDATED ON NOT ELICITED. UM WHAT WE'RE, UM. WOULD COME INTO EFFECT. OKAY YOU KNOW THAT PROPERTY WOULD THEN NEED TO ADDRESS WHAT THE URBAN CODE REQUIRED IT. TO DO.

TO ASK THE QUESTION JUST FOR THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE LISTENING. ENTIRE HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY. WOULDN'T SAY A REMAKE OF THE NEW BRIDGE AND CHANGING THE ROADWAY. THERE HAS ALWAYS MAINTAINED THE ADDRESS OF 7 28. NO. NO, IT'S NOT MAINTAIN THE ADDRESS OF 7 28 DIXIE. IN ITS HISTORY. IT HAS MAINTAINED THE ADDRESS OF 7 28 NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY. WHEN THE WHEN THE. COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAYS WERE FIRST PUT IN PLACE. I BELIEVE THIS MAP THAT ACTUALLY IS ATTACHED TO THE, UM DETERMINATION. IDENTIFIED IT AS FRONTING. FEDERAL HIGHWAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CLARIFICATIONS THAT WE NEED TO, UM. I FEEL I SHOULD JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION OF THAT DISCUSSION. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS OBVIOUSLY. THE DRAWBRIDGE PORTION OF DIXIE HIGHWAY WAS ORIGINALLY US ONE FROM MAINE TO KEY WEST. AND ROUGHLY 1996. THE NEW ROOSEVELT BRIDGE OPENED AND

[01:20:09]

THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PURCHASED A BUNCH OF. PROPERTY IN ORDER TO DO THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, SUNSET BAY MARINA WAS KNOWN AS A RESTAURANT. CALLED UM, RACE RAISE AT ONE POINT, BUT IN FRONT OF THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS, UH, RIGHT UP ON US. ONE NEITHER OF THOSE ADDRESSES ARE NOW US ONE. THEY'RE DIFFERENT ADDRESSES THEIR ATLANTIC OR WHATEVER THAT YES. ARE CODED SECTION 8.4 POINT, 00. IS ENTITLED, NONCONFORMING LOTS CAUSED BY EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS. AND THE CONDEMNED NOR CONDEMNED ME OF AN EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING MAY APPLY TO THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY RELATIVE TO A REMAINDER PARCEL, WHICH HAS OR WILL BE CREATED AS A RESULT OF AN IMMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING. WHAT THIS PERSON ACTUALLY IS. IS A REMNANT OF AN IMMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING THAT WAS DEEMED. A NON GRANDFATHER OR NON CARRIED FORWARD BECAUSE THEY WERE PAID FOR THE LOSS OF THEIR GAS STATION AND RETAIL STORE ON U. S ONE. IT, THEN SAT EMPTY FOR A DECADE OR SO. AND THEY CAME IN AND WANTED TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN. WE WASN'T GRANDFATHER AND THEN THEY COME FORWARD. THE QUESTION IS. WHEN THE COMMISSION LOOKS AT A PROPERTY THAT'S GRANDFATHER BECAUSE WE CHANGE THE ZONING FOR ONE REASON OR OTHER, YOU SAY, WELL, WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT STRUCTURE? DOES IT MEAN THEY JUST CAN'T USE IT EVER AGAIN? THAT WOULD BE A TAKING. IF YOU DID THAT, UNLESS, OF COURSE, IT WASN'T TAKING AND YOU PAID THEM FOR IT. WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. IN THAT SITUATION WHEN THAT HAPPENS, OUR CODE PROVIDES A STANDARD. AND THE STANDARDS WHICH, UM. CAN BE FOLLOWED BY AN APPLICANT TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY TO BE ISSUED, WHICH INCLUDE FILING AN APPLICATION PAYING THE FEES. UM, PREVENTING THE SEVERANCE OR BUSINESS DAMAGES RELATIVE TO THE REMAINDER PARCEL, WHICH WAS SHOWN. AND REDUCED BY THE ISSUES THE CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY SO THEY COULD HAVE. CHOSEN THEN TO ACCEPT THE USE AND THEN NOT GOTTEN PAID AS MUCH MONEY. THEN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PARCEL HAS BEEN PREPARED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WHICH MINIMIZE OR MINIMIZES THE NONCONFORMITY IS CAUSED BY THE IMMINENT DREAM PROCEEDINGS AND WHICH IS OTHERWISE CONSISTENT WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LANDER L DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF THE CITY, WHICH IS WHAT MR SHROFF IS POINTING OUT OF IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, ONE OF THE THINGS IN THIS URBAN OVERLAY ZONE IS THAT THE FRONTAGE HAS TO BE AT LEAST 60% OF THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THIS BUILDING WAS ALREADY BUILT. SO THE QUESTION WOULD BECOME WELL SINCE THEY DIDN'T SPEND 50% OF THE. MONEY. THEREFORE DO THEY STAY REMAINED GRANDFATHERED IN OR DO THEY NEED TO SPEND 50% OF THE MONEY TO MAKE IT? 60% OF THE WIDTH OF THE LOT AND YOU GET INTO THESE COMPLICATIONS BECAUSE THIS ISN'T A STANDARD SITUATION WHERE PROPERTY WAS JUST. GRANDFATHERED IN BY A ZONING CHANGE. IT WAS ACTUALLY A TAKING THAT TOOK PLACE BY AFTER THAT, AND THEY NEGLECTED TO KEEP THEIR REMNANT PARCEL. THEY WAITED. LONG TIME AND THEN SAID, HEY, WE WANT TO USE OUR PERSONAL JUST LIKE WE USED BEFORE WHEN WE GOT PAID FOR IT, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED. YEAH I THINK THAT I MEAN, THAT'S SOME GOOD INFORMATION. BUT. FROM WHERE FROM WHAT I CAN SEE. I THINK IT'S STILL IT STILL IS A SIMPLE AS WHAT'S THE AFTER? RIGHT? WELL, NOT EVEN BECAUSE AGAIN THE ADDRESS. THE PARCEL HAS A ZONING. THE ADDRESS. YOU CAN YOU CAN ACCESS IT FROM ANYWHERE.

WHATEVER NUMBER IT HASN'T. IT DOESN'T MATTER ON THE MAP. IT'S GOT A ZONING IN A FUTURE LAND USE. SO THAT IS WHAT THAT'S WHAT IT CARRIES. YOU KNOW? WELL AGAIN, IT'S LISTED. THAT'S THE ISSUE. THE USE IS LISTED, SO I THINK WE JUST AND FOR THE RECORD IF THE ADDRESS WAS US ONE OR SAVANNAH ROAD, THERE WOULDN'T NEED TO BE A DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY.

BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE THE ADDRESS OF US ONE. IT WOULD JUST SIMPLY GET A PERMIT. IT WOULD BE A LOUD USED, AND THAT'S THAT. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. IT. THE ADDRESS DOES MATTER. THE FRONTAGE JUDGE DOES MATTER AND IT. IS NOT ON US ONE, THE ORIGINAL LANDOWNER WAS PAID. THE INFORMATION IF IT'S CORRECT IN MY PACKET IS 284,000 FOR THAT FRONTAGE ON U. S ONE.

AND WHEN THE BE REMOVED TO BE REMOVED FROM THAT, AND THEN NOW HIS FRONTAGE IS ON DIXIE HIGHWAY, BUT HE WAS JUSTLY COMPENSATED FOR THAT FRONTAGE. SO THEN DO WE NEED TO CLARIFY THE MOTION. OKAY THAT MAKES SENSE. SO DO WE NEED TO CLARIFY THE MOTION? I THINK THAT DETERMINING COMPATIBILITY. STILL THE WRONG VEHICLE FOR THIS THE DETERMINANT CAP.

ALRIGHT CREATION OF COMPATIBILITY IS WHAT'S BEING APPEALED HERE, RIGHT? WE'RE

[01:25:03]

JUST DOING A FINDING OF FACT. RIGHT NOW THERE IS THE WRONG VEHICLE FOR THIS PROCESS IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO CHANGE HIS ADDRESS FROM DIXIE HIGHWAY TO US ONE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT PROCESS IS WITH THE DETERMINATION OF COMPATIBILITY SIMPLY SAYS IF THE USE IS NOT LISTED, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CAN SAY UNDERWATER BASKET WEAVING IS SIMILAR TO A YOGA STUDIO. I'LL ALLOW IT RIGHT. AUTO REPAIR FACILITIES ARE SPECIFICALLY RESTRICTED TO US ONE OR SAVANNAH ROAD. AND THAT'S NOT, BUT THAT'S NOT A DETERMINATION OF COMPATIBILITY.

THAT'S A DETERMINATION OF ADDRESS. IT'S 6 28 DIXIE HOT 7 28 DIXIE HIGHWAY IN THE CITY'S GIS SYSTEM. IT'S 7 28 DIXIE HIGHWAY ON THE LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED IN 2016. AND SO THEREFORE, YOU KNOW THE CITY'S HISTORICAL PATTERN HAS BEEN TO TREAT THIS AS DIXIE HIGHWAY EVER SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROOSEVELT BRIDGE, AND THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I FEEL. THE DETERMINATION OF COMPATIBILITY WAS NOT. NOT AVAILABLE AVENUE FOR THIS. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN ANOTHER AVAILABLE AVENUE, A MAJOR CONDITIONAL, YOU KNOW, USE AMENDMENT WOULD BE WOULD BE FIND THAT PROCESS YOU KNOW, CAN RUN ITS COURSE. IT INVOLVES PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE WOULD AT LEAST KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND SO THAT THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT THAT THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT. THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE A DETERMINATION OF COMPATIBILITY HERE. IT WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE MEASURES. THANK YOU, UH, YES. I JUST WANTED TO DO SOME HOUSEKEEPING. SO OUR ISSUE IS. A DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY AND STATED IN OUR GUIDELINES, NOT COMPATIBILITY. I KNOW THAT MR SCHROTH HAS SAID THAT. COMPARABILITY AND I WANTED TO ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT. WE DO HAVE OUR MISS CATHY IN LAW, THE COURT REPORTER HERE. FROM ESQUIRE HERE TODAY. AND. AND ALSO I WANTED TO ASK MR. MORE TAIL UNLESS VICE MAYOR. MATHIS AND FEELS LIKE HE'S ALREADY SAID WHAT HE SAID. I WANT TO ASK, UM. OH UH, I WANTED TO ASK, UM, OUR CITY ATTORNEY IF HE WANTS TO REREAD WHAT, UM, VICE MIA MATHESON READ IN SECTION TWO POINT. OH, 0.1, WHICH IS REALLY THE CRUX OF THE MATTER, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR. I KNOW THE COMMISSIONER, UM. READ I THINK A PORTION OF IT AND WE IT'S IN OUR IT'S IN OUR RECORD. IT'S IN OUR PACKAGE. JUST TO BE SURE THAT THAT'S. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY IF WE NEEDED TO ACTUALLY READ THAT INTO THE RECORD AS TO THE. ISSUE OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WITH THE, UM THE, UH. THE DECISION OF THE WRITTEN PUBLISHED DECISION OF THE. BOTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. I MEAN, IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.

I'M HAPPY TO READ TWO POINT OH, TWO POINT. YES, SIR. PLEASE DO OKAY. 2.2 POINT ONE GENERALLY, IT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION TO IDENTIFY THE USE IS ALLOWED IN EACH ZONING DISTRICT. OPEN PARENTHESES TABLE TO RESIDENTIAL USES BUSINESS USES AND PUBLIC SERVICE, INDUSTRIAL AGRICULTURAL HOSPITAL AND P U D DISTRICTS USES. OKAY? CONSIDERATION OF USES NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IF THEY USE IS NOT LISTED WITHIN A SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT, THEN THE USE IS NOT ALLOWED. HOWEVER A PROPOSED USE THAT IS NOT LISTED WITHIN A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT BUT WHICH IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO HAVE A CHARACTER. SIMILAR NATURE AND IMPACT TO A PERMITTED USE IN THAT DISTRICT. THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAY MAKE A DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY TO THE APPLICANT. CONDITIONS MAY BE PLACED ON THE DECISION. DETERMINATION BY CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT A PROPOSED USE IS NOT SIMILAR TO A PERMITTED USE MAY BE APPEALED, ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES IN CHAPTER EIGHT. IN MAKING SUCH FINDING, THE CITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MAY ASSESS ALL RELEVANT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED USE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING AS APPLICABLE A. TYPICAL VOLUME AND TYPE OF SALES RETAILER, WHOLESALE SIZE AND TYPE OF ITEMS. SOUL NATURE OF INVENTORY OF THE PREMISES. BE ANY PROCESSING DONE ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING ASSEMBLY, MANUFACTURING, WAREHOUSING, SHIPPING DISTRIBUTION AND ANY DANGEROUS, HAZARDOUS TOXIC OR EXPLOSIVE MATERIALS USED IN THE PROCESSING. SEE THE NATURE AND LOCATION OF STORAGE AND OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE WHETHER STORAGE IS ENCLOSED, OPEN INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND PREDOMINANT TYPES OF ITEMS STORED, SUCH AS BUSINESS VEHICLES, WORKING PROCESS, INVENTORY AND MERCHANDISE. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, SCRAP AND JUNK AND RAW MATERIALS, INCLUDING

[01:30:04]

LIQUIDS AND POWDERS, HAZARDOUS OR NOT. THE TYPE SIZE AND TYPICAL MASSING OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNLISTED USE. E TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE MODEL MODAL SPLIT FOR PEOPLE AND FREIGHT BY VOLUME TYPE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAFFIC GENERATION TO AND FROM THE SITE TRIP PURPOSES AND WHETHER TRIP PURPOSES CAN BE SHARED BY OTHER USES ON THE SITE. HAVE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, TURNOVER AND GENERATION RATIO OF THE NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED PER UNIT AREA OR ACTIVITY AND THE POTENTIAL FOR SHARED PARKING WITH OTHER USES. THE AMOUNT OF NATURE OF ANY EXTERNAL EFFECTS GENERATED ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NOISE. SMOKE. ODOR GLARE, VIBRATION, RADIATION AND FUMES. H ANY SPECIAL PUBLIC UTILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVING THE PROPOSED USE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER, PRE TREATMENT OF WASTES AND EMISSIONS REQUIRED OR RECOMMENDED AND ANY SIGNIFICANT POWER STRUCTURES AND.

MEDICATIONS TOWERS ARE FACILITIES AND I THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES CREATED BY THE PROPOSED USE IN COMPARISON TO IMPACTS FROM OTHER USE IS ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. THANK YOU AND I WENT TO THAT PAINS TAKEN, UM. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT AFTER WE'VE MADE A DECISION ON THIS THAT WE SAY THAT. THERE WAS ONE LITTLE ITEM E F G H, I. THAT WE DIDN'T CONSIDER ARE THAT MR FREEMAN DIDN'T CONSIDER OR THAT MR SCHROTH DID NOT, UM. ADDRESS IN HIS APPEAL, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MAIN AREA AS WELL AS US, OF COURSE, SECTION THREE POINT ALL. 1.3 UM, THAT WE ALSO. I HAVE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, BUT I WANTED ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THAT PART ABOUT THE, UM. THE EXTENT OF WHERE MR FREEMAN HAS, UM. THE ABILITY AND THE DISCRETION TO DO SOMETHING, AND I THINK THAT WE'VE. FLUSHED OUT WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING WAS LISTED OR NOT, UM, THAT WE. ARE THERE, SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO READ THAT FOR SURE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID NOT. MISS SOMETHING DEPENDENT ON HOW OUR DECISION MAKING COMES OUT, MR MEYER. UM I JUST I WISH I HAD MY WHITE BOARD BECAUSE I THINK IN PICTURES AND, UH. IT'S JUST IT'S VERY CLEAR AGAIN. THANKS FOR REREADING. UM THE MOTION WAS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF COMPARATIVE COMPARE ABILITY BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS. THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. MAYBE DO THAT, IF IT'S NOT LISTED, PERIOD, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT IT COULD HAVE GONE THROUGH. DON'T THINK IT'S OUR JOB TO DELIBERATE THOSE. THE APPEAL IS THAT HE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THE DETERMINED, DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY. THE ADDRESS DOESN'T MATTER, EITHER, BECAUSE. IF THE ADDRESS WERE CORRECT, HE WOULDN'T NEED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE ALLOWED USE. SO ANYWAY, YOU APPROACH IT ANY DIRECTION YOU APPROACH IT. THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE. HE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION BECAUSE IT IS A LISTED USE THAT CLOSES THE WHOLE CASE. SO. THANK YOU.

THERE WAS A PREVIOUS MOTION. IS THERE ANY OF THE DISCUSSION AND SHOULD I JUST DOESN'T POINT OF CLARIFICATION WHEN COMMISSIONER MCDONALD SAID THIS ISN'T THE CLOSING OF THE WHOLE CASE? THIS IS JUST A FINDING OF FACT, THE BOARD REACHED A CONSENSUS. SO IF. THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT MOTION IS THE MOTION INTENDED TO BE A CONCLUSION VERY OR JUST DEFINING, IN FACT, BEFORE MOVING FORWARD DO I NEED I CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION? WELL THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

YOU CAN MODIFY VOTE ON THE MOTION. AND IF YOU WANT TO MODIFY THAT MOTION TO YOUR TWO DIDN'T WELL, WE DID SAY IT WAS A FINDING OF FACT YOUR RIGHTS RIGHT? SO LET'S JUST DO THAT AND THEN HAVE A MOTION ON A GRANT HER TONIGHT, OKAY? ARE YOU MAKING A FOR CHANGE? TROY? SO THAT NO, NO, NO. THE MOTION WAS TO AS A AS A FINDING OF FACT. THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY. AS A FINDING EFFECT THEIR PUBLIC COMMENT. UM.

PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE THAT VOTE, I GUESS IS IT SECONDED CONTROI? YEAH, I SECOND OKAY. ALRIGHT.

THANKS. ANY PUBLIC. COMMENT ON THIS STUFF, OR THE APPLICANT WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT. FIRST. PUBLIC COMMENT. YES SIR. HOLD ON. DID YOU SEND UP SOMETHING FOR ITEM NUMBER DID FRESH CLONING. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THE FIRST CLIENT. YES, THANK YOU.

HOW ARE YOU? THANKS THANKS FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TONIGHT. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S. THEY DID A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU, NICK. WITHOUT NICK. I WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE KNOWN THIS WAS GOING ON. I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY BY THIS BECAUSE YOU SPEAK IN THE MICRO. YEAH I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY JUST THE NORTH 5678 YEARS AGO. AND I REMEMBER DOING MY DILIGENCE. I'VE BEEN IN COMMERCIAL REAL

[01:35:02]

ESTATE FOR 33 YEARS. AND I REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY SAYING WELL, IT COULD BE AN AUTOMOTIVE RELATED USE AND MADE FINANCIAL DECISIONS BASED UPON THAT, WHEN THERE IS A BELL TIRE GOT ABSORBED BY THE LEFT BEHIND MY OFFICE BUILDING A RAP INTO THE NORTH. TERRY MCCARTHY APPROACHED ME AND ASKED ME IF. IF THEY WOULD, IF I WOULD OBJECT TO AN OTTAWA IT REALLY USE NEXT DOOR. I SAID TERRY, I'VE KNOWN TERRY FOR 33 YEARS. YOU KNOW, DON'T YOU KNOW? SO YOU SAID THINGS APPROPRIATE FOR CR A SO. I THINK IT IS ALL ABOUT THE ADDRESS. I'M DIXIE.

HIGHLY ADDRESS. THIS IS THE DIXIE HIGHLY ADDRESS. IT DOES FRONT US ONE IF YOU'VE GOT A FIRE TRUCK LADDER, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT TO GET YOU KNOW 50 FT UP. YOU DON'T READ BANQUET TO GET TO US ONE. SO AND I WORKED WITH KEVIN ALL THE TIME. AND I THINK THAT THERE WAS. SOMETHING THAT WENT AWRY WAS SPECIFICALLY THE ADDRESS BECAUSE THAT WAS IMPORTANT WHEN I BOUGHT MY BILL. I'VE GOT ANOTHER PROJECT PLAN FOR THE BACK OF MY BUILDING, AND I'M NOT GONNA PUT IT NEXT ONE AUTOMOTIVE PROSTHETIC USE SO TO ME, IT COMES IN AWESOME COMES IN THE INTENT OF THE SIERRA PUTTING DOLLARS INTO THESE INFILL PROJECTS TO MAKE YOUR WHAT NICK DID TO HIS HOUSE. IT'S JUST BEAUTIFUL. I THINK HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT IF HE THOUGHT THERE SHOULD BE AN OUT OF ORDER. YOU MADE A KID, SO THE USE MATTERS, BUT I THINK THAT'S FOR THE NEXT STEPS. YOU KNOW, I THINK RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, I GET UP, BUT THEY WANT TO MAKE A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR WHATEVER. MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE TO THE SIERRA AND APPLY A LOT OF THESE COMMENTS, THE MORE PRESIDENT BUT IT IS ABOUT THE ADDRESSING. JUST APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. MISS SAID. YOU GOT ME OUT OF THE HOUSE JUST LAID AHEAD. THE SPIRIT. THANK YOU, MR KLEIN. THANK YOU. BLAIR SCOTCH. GOOD EVENING, AND THANK YOU. I'M SPEAKING TO YOU AS A PROPERTY OWNER ON PALM STREET, AUSTRALIAN AND ALSO STEWART AVENUE. UM. ALSO COMING TO YOU GUYS AS A PERSON WHO GREW UP IN STUART, FLORIDA AND HAPPY TO BE BACK SO REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THE PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN MADE OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES.

UM SO I FIRST OF ALL, JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING, NICK SHROFF SAID, UM, I THINK HE MADE VERY GOOD POINTS ABOUT THE ADDRESS. IT IS, IN MY OPINION AND JUST WITH GENERAL OBJECTS ON DIXIE HIGHWAY. I THINK THAT IS THE MATTER THAT IS KIND OF IN IN CONTEST RIGHT NOW. BUT JUST AS A HIGH LEVEL, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE USE. AS PROPOSED BY GIANT OIL. IT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM TO COMPORT WITH THE VISION OF THE CITY OF STEWART AND THE C R A AS IT IS GOING FORWARD. THERE'S A COUPLE OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND, UH VICE MAYOR MATHESON. ECHOED EARLIER TODAY HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAKEHOLDERS IN FLORIDA. I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE AND I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL USE THE OIL AND I AM ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR. ESSENTIAL PAST ISSUES WITH PLAYING WITH. THE CITY STANDARDS AND HOW THEY WOULD CONTINUE GOING FORWARD. AND ALSO TO ECHO. UH, MAYOR. YOU LOOK, CLARK WERE WORRIED THAT WE ARE CREATING SO MUCH TRASH.

I AM ALSO WORRIED THAT WE ARE CREATING SO MUCH TRASH AND I THINK A BETTER USE OF THIS AREA WOULD NOT BE FOR ANOTHER OIL PLACE OR A VEHICLE. AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, BUT MAYBE SOMETHING JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, WHICH WOULD ALSO KIND OF COMPORT WITH THE DIVISION OF STEWART AND A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS SCOTT. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO DID NOT PRESENT A CARD. AN ITEM NUMBER SIX WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AT THIS TIME BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS. SO FAR IN THE MOTION. THAT'S BEEN MADE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS BEFORE I ASKED FOR THE CLERK TO CALL THE ROLL. OKAY, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION. WE'VE HEARD FROM THE STAFF. WE WERE THE DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSIONERS. AND WE'VE HEARD FROM THE APPELLANT. MR SCHULZ.

UM. NO FURTHER INPUT CLERK WAS. THIS IS JUST THE FINDING OF FACT. MOTION HER. COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER MCDONALD? YES COMMISSIONER MEYER? YES NICE MAYOR MATHESON. MAYOR CLARKE. YES MR BRUNER? YES YES, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO GRANT THE APPEAL A ALRIGHT? THERE'S A MOTION AND THE SECOND IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO HAS, UH. UM CAN I JUST CLARIFY WHAT THE MOTION WAS GRANTED THE APPEAL? YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, MR MEYER? UM SORRY. OKAY CAN YOU UM CAN MR MORTAL READ THE APPEAL. WE NEED TO READ THAT AGAIN. MR MOTEL, APPEALED THE DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY AT 7 28 NORTH HEURISTICS, THE HIGHWAY. UM. YOU WANT ME TO READ MR SCHLOSS ENTIRE APPEAL OR WON'T IT'S

[01:40:01]

NOT, UH, RESOLUTION BUDGET. SO THAT'S THE TITLE AGAIN THAT THEY'RE RENTING. THIS IS AN APPEAL. OF A DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY AT SEVEN TO A NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY FOR USE OF RETAIL SALE OF VEHICLE PARTS TOGETHER WITH VEHICLE REPAIR, WITH ALL ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE. WITHIN AN ENCLOSED BUILDING. PROPERTY IS OWNED URBAN HIGHWAY. THANK YOU. THAT MOTION WAS MADE BY, UM. COMMISSIONER MCDONALD'S SECOND AND FIVE AND FOR CLARIFICATION TO THE GRANTING OF THE APPEAL. IS. TO RULE IN FAVOR OF MR SHROFF SAID OBJECTION TO THE USE OR TO THE DETERMINATION, RIGHT? NOT TO THE YOUTH, RIGHT? BY THE BY THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS TO WHATEVER IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS, BUT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT WAS DRIVING BY MY ANTENNA ARE UP WHEN I SEE THIS PHOTOGRAPHER, SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THIS IS NEW GROUND THAT WE'RE DOING HERE AND IT'S THANK YOU, KEVIN FOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS. LOOKING AT THIS THIS MANNER AND ALSO THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS. MR SHOW GROWTH IN THIS WILL HELP US TO HONE EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO DO IN OUR INFILL REDEVELOPMENT AND. IN DEALING WITH OUR CODE IN OTHER AREAS, SO THANK YOU. AND MADAM MAYOR IF I MAY. I JUST WANT TO SAY FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU KNOW WE'VE HEARD PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ON THE USE ITSELF. AND THE C, R A AND THE VISION AND AGAIN JUST TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS MOTION IS SOLELY ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS USE OF THE DETERMINATION OF COMPARABILITY. WE'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT GOING ANY DEEPER THAN THAT. SO, YES, THANK YOU. AND THAT'S WHY I MADE SURE THAT WE REREAD THE. MADAM AGAIN. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? IS THERE ANYTHING ON ZOO MR BALL? YES, SIR. THANK YOU. MA'AM THURK. MAYOR CLARKE. YES, COMMISSIONER BRUNER. YES COMMISSIONER MEYER? YES MR MCDONALD? YES, VICE MAYOR MATHESON? YES. WE HAVE TREAD NEW GROUND. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN CHAPTER 16 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT. THIS IS COORDINATE. THIS IS THE. READ ME READING OF ORDINANCE NUMBER. TWO WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STEWART, AMENDING. CHAPTER 16 EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE IN A CONFLICT CLAUSE PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AS A BRIEF BACKGROUND AS YOU KNOW, THE GOVERNOR SIGNED SENATE BILL 2006 INTO LAW ON MAY 3RD. AND IN THAT HE MADE SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE MADE SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE ABILITY FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO ENTER EMERGENCY ORDERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. RESTRICTING THEM TO, UH. SEVEN DAYS, THEY MUST BE RENEWED NO MORE THAN 42 DAYS IN A ROW AND. IF, IN FACT ONE EXPIRES. YOU CAN'T JUST RENEW ANOTHER SIMILAR ORDER. AS IT RELATES TO HEALTH. THE HURRICANE. UH, AND POLICE ACTIONS ARE EXEMPTED FROM THAT.

MM. AND IT'S IRONIC BECAUSE WE'RE FACING ANOTHER POTENTIAL INCREASE IN COVID RESPONSES AND EVERYONE'S GONNA GET TO TEST THIS THING PRETTY SOON. BUT THE INTENTION FOR OUR PURPOSES OF AMENDING IT WERE TO DO TWO FOLD NUMBER ONE TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THE CITY OF STEWART INTENDED TO HAVE A EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM RELATED TO HEALTH ISSUES, AND SECONDLY, TO BRING IT AND MAKE IT. SIMILAR TO OR IT CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW THAT WAS ADOPTED.

THANK YOU. I JUST JUST AS THE COMMENT AS YOU MENTIONED WITH REGARD TO THE HEALTH ISSUES AND THE POTENTIAL FOR WITH, UM. EXPANSION OR INCREASE. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING.

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO LOCALLY? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO AT THE CITY LEVEL? AND OF COURSE WE HAVE. THESE KINDS OF. MORE OBSTACLES. WHATEVER YOU MEAN, PAUL. I'M SORRY I WAS THERE. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? I'M GONNA MOVE TO APPROVE, BUT I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A COMMENT AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S JUST ANOTHER ATTACK ON HOME RULE. YES AND IT'S JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE LEGISLATURE. TAKING OUR ABILITIES TO, UH, THE ABILITY FOR US TO GOVERN OUR COMMUNITY, OUR COMMUNITY. CS IT, SO I I'LL SECOND THAT AND I AGREE. WE DON'T HAVE MUCH OPTION. YEAH. HERE. TO REJECT IT. BUT WE'RE PROBABLY WORSE OFF QUICKLY REJECTED. EXACTLY, UM SO SECOND THE MOTION TO APPROVE SO UM ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

[01:45:07]

ORDINANCE NUMBER 24 68 2021. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT SUMMER OUR SUMMER INTERN HAD A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN WRITING THIS ORDINANCE, AND THIS IS HER LAST MEETING CAME BACK. SHE'S HERE JUST TO SEE YOU GUYS ADOPT HER WORK ON HER WAY OUT THE DOOR HERE FOR FUN TODAY. THIS WAS BY THE WAY. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SECOND COVID OR THE SECOND COSTCO MEETING. REALLY THE REASON FOR HER EXTENDING HER STAY, BUT WE DISRUPTED THAT. SURE THIS WON'T BE HER LAST PUBLISHED LEGISLATION RIGHT? SHE'LL PROBABLY GET OTHERS TO THE FUTURE SUMMER IF YOU WANT TO COME SIT IN MY SEAT FOR THE COSTCO MEETING. YOU'RE MORE THAN MM HMM. OTHERWISE I WOULD BE A GREAT REASON TO TAKE OFF.

WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO GO BACK TO SCHOOL. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, UM. THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 24 68 2021, WHICH HAS BEEN MOVED BY COMMISSION, MCDONALD'S SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MEYER. MATHESON. MADAM CLERK. CONDITIONER BRUNER. YES COMMISSIONER MEYER? YES COMMISSIONER. MCDONALD YES. NICE MAYOR MATHESON. YES, THERE, CLARK. YES. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION OF A PROPOSED

[8.

DISCUSSION OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR EXTENDING OR REMOVING THE DEADLINE OF THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR NON-CONFORMING POLE SIGNS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

]