Apr 11, 2022 Regular City Commission Meeting

[Call to Order]

[00:00:10]

GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M MERIT. MATHESON MAYOR OF THE CITY OF STUART, I'M CALLING TO ORDER OUR REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING. IT'S APRIL 11TH. AT 403. PM. WE'RE AT 1 21 SOUTH WEST FLAGLER AVENUE, STUART, FLORIDA. AND STUART CITY HALL. POLICE SILENCE YOUR CELLPHONES. MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? YES, MR MATHESON HERE, MAYOR. MCDONALD COMMISSIONER BRUNER COMMISSIONER CLARK. HERE. COMMISSIONER MEYER HERE. THANK YOU. PLEASE RISE WITH ME AS WE SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. POTENTIAL AGENTS TO THE FLAG. STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD. INDIVIDUAL WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. THE FIRST ITEM IS AN ARTS MOMENT. PERFORMANCE BY MORE GUN. ROBERT. AND TURNING

[1. ARTS MOMENT - STARSTRUCK ACADEMY & THEATRE PERFORMANCE BY MORGAN ROBERT AND TIERNAN WATKINS]

STARSTRUCK MADE HIGH SCHOOL EASIER FOR ME, AND I CAN PROUDLY SAY THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS INVOLVED WITH MY SCHOOLWORK AND MY EXTRACURRICULARS HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR MY OLDER CLASSMATES AT STARSTRUCK. IN MY ROLE MODELS AS I GREW UP. WITHOUT HAVING THEIR INFLUENCE IN MY LIFE, I WOULD HAVE NEVER GONE ON TO BECOME MY SOPHOMORE CLASS PRESIDENT. I WOULD HAVE NEVER GONE ON TO BECOME THE PRESIDENT OF MY MARKETING CLUB DECA. HIGH SCHOOL WAS MADE SIMPLE AND THAT MADE MY COLLEGE APPLICATION PROCESS IS VERY SIMPLE. WITH MY RESUME EXPERIENCE AND GUIDANCE FROM JENNIFER AND THE STARSTRUCK TEAM. I WAS ACCEPTED TO EVERY SINGLE SCHOOL. I WANTED TO GO TO NEXT YEAR, I WILL ATTEND BOSTON UNIVERSITY WHERE I WILL BE ACHIEVING ABOUT BACHELOR'S OF SCIENCE AND BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION WITH A CONCENTRATION AND THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. VIOLET I AM NOT GOING INTO MUSICAL THEATER. I WILL CONTINUE MY WORK IN THE ARTS. THANKS TO THE LOVE THAT STARSTRUCK HAS INSTILLED IN ME. I CAN NOW CONFIDENTLY LEAVE MARTIN COUNTY TO BEGIN MY LIFE IN BOSTON. STARSTRUCK HAS BEEN A SUPPORT SYSTEM FOR ME THROUGHOUT THE MANY YEARS I'VE LIVED HERE. AND IT WILL CONTINUE AS I MOVE INTO BOSTON. I HAVE MY BEST FRIEND AND FELLOW STARSTRUCK ALONE. EMMA GARDNER, WHO IS UP THERE WITH ME, AND I AM INSANELY GRATEFUL FOR THE FAMILY THAT I HAVE CREATED AT THIS PURPLE HOME. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO THE SHINING EXAMPLE OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A STAR STRUCK HEAD AND SOMEONE WHO CONTINUES TO INSPIRE ME EVERY SINGLE DAY HERE TOO, SAYING DON'T RAIN ON MY PARADE. MORGEN ROBERT. DON'T TELL ME NOT TO LIVE, JUST LIFE'S CANDY AND THE SUN'S A BALL. BRING HER UP. TELL ME NOT TO FLY IF SOMEONE TAKES A SPILL TOLD YOU. TO TURN DIDN'T FAKE IT. I GUESS I DIDN'T MAKE IT PERFECT. OKAY RIGHT, SIR. GOTTA HUG FIGHT

[00:05:27]

YEAH.

I THINK THAT IS DIDN'T MAKE IT READY FOR ME, LOVE BECAUSE I'M A COVER MY HEART TO DRUMMER. NO BUDDY BODY IS GONNA. AH. HMM YEAH. YEAH, YEAH. OKAY? EGON.

IT IS NOT GOING TO PUT JENNIFER JONES IN THE PICTURE WITH YOU. AS IN FOR YEAH. JIM. FOR YES, PLEASE. JENNIFER. GREAT JOB STARSTRUCK. Q AGAIN. DON'T FORGET ABOUT MARTIN COUNTY. BETTER COME BACK AFTER YOU MAKE IT BIG UP THERE. RIGHT I MUST SAY MY DAUGHTER LOVES TAKING TAP LESSONS THAT STARSTRUCK SO THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE A PROCLAMATION FOR

[2. PUBLIC SAFETY TELECOMMUNICATORS WEEK - APRIL 10-16, 2022]

[00:10:02]

THANKS, LADIES. YEAH. UM OH, COVER YOUR EARS. I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR RECOGNIZE THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS. WE DO HAVE A FULL TIME DISPATCHERS. WE HAVE THREE PART TIME. THEY ALL WORKED VERY HARD. THEY WORK 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. FOR THAT MANY SMALL BOUND OF PEOPLE. THEY DO AWESOME COVERING EACH OTHER AND STANDING UP FOR EACH OTHER.

I DO WANT TO ALSO THANK OUR ADMINISTRATION. TOMORROW AND CAPTAIN HEATHER ROSS. FOR HELPING OUR DISPATCH CENTER BE REMODELED OR GETTING A REDO IT. I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR APPROVING THAT BECAUSE IT'S MUCH NEEDED AND EVERYBODY IN THE STATION REALLY APPRECIATES IT.

IT'S LOOKING GOOD IN THERE. SO IF YOU HAVE A CHANCE, STOP ON BY EXCELLENT ONE TIME THAT AND I WANTED EMERGENCY POLICE MEDICAL FIRE. AND IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS, MILTON WILL CLEAN UP AT THE END. ANYWAY THERE HE IS. MAY I? ABSOLUTELY JUDGMENTALLY CHIEF POLICE REAL QUICK. CAN YOU JUST AMEND THAT? TO WEAR AS POLICE HAS THE BEST DISPATCHERS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. YES.

APPRECIATE IT. I TRIED TO DO IT THAT WAY, BUT OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAD AN ISSUE WITH OKAY. WHAT'S ONCE? ONCE WE DO BECOME THE GOVERNOR AND THE CABINET. WE COULD MAKE PRESENTATIONS THAT YOU HAVE TO STAY. WE GIVE YOU THE CITY? IT'S STEWART BELIEVES IT THANKS,

[3. WATER CONSERVATION MONTH - APRIL 2022]

[00:15:03]

PLEASE. BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE DISTRICT IN MYSELF REALLY APPRECIATES THAT THE CITY RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF CONSERVING WATER AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW I SAY THIS EVERY TIME I STAND UP HERE THAT I WORK WITH UM, UH, MARY, AND NOW AND FOR THE PAST. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS 2024. I THINK NOW AND YOU KNOW, BESIDES MILK THEY'RE THEY'RE THE TWO THAT I WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, THE MOST WITH THE CITY AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ASK ME, YOU KNOW, DOES THIS MAKE A DIFFERENCE? AND YOU KNOW WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WATER CONSERVATION, THERE'S LOTS OF YOU KNOW YOU CAN. YOU CAN DO INFRASTRUCTURE YOU CAN DO. YOU KNOW OTHER THINGS, BUT MOST OF IT IS EDUCATION. AND SO YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD SOMETIMES TO GAUGE WHETHER THAT REALLY DOES, YOU KNOW, MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT I WILL TELL YOU AND I LOOKED UP THE NUMBERS. THAT 15 YEARS AGO, SOUTH FLORIDA WAS USING SOUTH FLORIDIANS WERE USING OVER 170 GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY PER PERSON, OKAY. AND AS OF 2020, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE IT UP TILL TODAY. THEY WERE USING 128. GALLONS PER WATER PER DAY PER PERSON. SO THAT'S QUITE A BIG DIFFERENCE. AND TO THINK THAT THAT DIFFERENCE WAS REALLY PRIMARILY MADE THROUGH EDUCATION. I THINK THAT'S A REALLY, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT GOAL. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. AMAZEMENT CENTER FOR THAT. CAN WE HAVE OUR

[4. SERVICE AWARDS - APRIL 2022]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT UP. BILL RITTER TACO FROM OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR 15 YEARS.

HANDED OVER LIKE A BRING IT ON READY FOR ANOTHER 15 YEARS, RIGHT? PHOTO BOMB THAT BILL. IS ONE OF THESE GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO DIES FOR HIRING ME FROM THE COUNTY 15 YEARS AGO AND THEN MILTON FOR TAKING YOU OVER AND IT'S JUST BEEN A LONG, BEAUTIFUL RIDING.

EVERYBODY HAS A PLUS WEEK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE TO FOR 20 YEARS OF SERVICE. FIRST UP IS MICHAEL GERWIN WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT 20. THANK YOU. AFFECTED GOOD LONG SPEECH.

HMM. HE IS HERE. GOOD EVENING. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THIS, UM YOU DO A LOT FOR YOUR EMPLOYEES. AND I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THIS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND FROM OUR FIRE

[00:20:06]

[5. LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT]

[COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS]

AND I'D LIKE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER HOLDING OFF ANY COMMENTS REGARDING FUTURE LAND USE. AND ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH THE CANOPY. YOU D UNTIL THE END OF THE AGENDA. DURING THE DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. I WOULD ENCOURAGE PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THAT TOPIC. DURING PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE AGENDA, IT'S JUST A DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION. THERE WON'T BE ANY MOTIONS MADE SO WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT DURING OUR PUBLIC COMMENT TIME ON THE AGENDA. OVER THE PAST FEW WEEKS, I'VE BEEN HEARING MORE AND MORE ISSUES REGARDING DOWNTOWN PARKING. I'D LIKE IT A FUTURE. MEETING. FOR US TO DUST OFF IF WE WOULD THE PARKING STUDY THAT WAS DONE A FEW YEARS AGO. REEVALUATED UM A LOT OF THE STUFF FROM THAT STUDY HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED. BUT IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE TO TAKE US ANOTHER LOOK AT THE STUDY. NOW, A FEW YEARS LATER. AND TOUCH UP ON. ALWAYS TALK ABOUT LAKE OKEECHOBEE. BUT REAL BRIEFLY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A GOOD TIME OF YEAR. LAKE OKEECHOBEE IS AT 13.53 FT. A MONTH AGO WAS AT 14.26 FT. AH THAT THREE QUARTERS OF FOOT REDUCTION IF WE COULD GET THAT IN THE NEXT COMING MONTH. WOULD BE A FAIRLY GOOD SITUATION. ALTHOUGH I HAD I'D RATHER HAVE THAT LAKE EVEN LOWER IN ANOTHER MONTH. WE HAVE A DATE SET FOR A RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM INSTALLATION CEREMONY. UM APRIL 23RD SATURDAY AT 10 A.M. AT SAINT PAUL AFRICAN METHODIST CHURCH. WHICH IS ADJACENT. TO DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR PARK. UM. FLYERS WILL BE COMING OUT FROM THE C R A TO EVERYONE INVOLVED IN ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO ATTEND THE CEREMONY.

SO FAR, I THINK WE'VE GOT ABOUT 14 30 GALLON SIZED TREES THAT WILL BE GOING IN DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL. HOUSES THROUGHOUT E. STEWART PLUS MORE IN SOME CITY PROPERTY. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO ATTEND APRIL 23RD 10 A.M. AT SAINT PAUL AFRICAN METHODIST CHURCH. FINALLY, WE'RE IN AN ACTIVE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN SEASON. POLITICKING OF ANY KIND IN THE COMMISSION. CHAMBERS IS NOT ALLOWED. THAT BEING SAID. WE ENCOURAGE PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING ISSUES AND TOPICS WITH THE CITY. THAT'S ALL FOR MY COMMENTS. MR MEYER. THANK YOU, MR MAYOR. I'LL BE BRIEF, UM YESTERDAY. I. HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK AROUND DOWNTOWN A LITTLE BIT. VISITED THE MARKET ON MAIN. UH AND WENT BY HUDSON'S, AND IT WAS GREAT TO SEE IT. PACKED AND BUSY. UM, BUT I DID HAVE A COUPLE I NOTED THAT DESPITE ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE SITE PLAN, ESPECIALLY WITH THE OUTDOOR SEATING AREA IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S MAYBE I WAS MISSING SOMETHING, BUT IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WASN'T ADEQUATE PUBLIC OPEN PUBLIC SPACE. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S ALL KIND OF

[00:25:01]

PUBLIC VALET PROGRAM. I HAVE HEARD SOME COMPLAINTS FROM FOLKS WHO HAVE GONE DOWN. NOTICE THAT THERE WASN'T PARKING THAT THAT SOME SPACES WHERE CONED OFF AND HAD SPOKEN TO SOME OF THE STAFF THERE. WHO WERE TOLD THAT IT WAS FOR HUDSON'S SO MAYBE IT'S WORTH CHECKING IN WITH THEM AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT DOWNTOWN. BUSINESS PATRONS ARE NOT TURNED AWAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT DINING AT HUDSON'S. THAT'S THE REASON THAT I VOTED TO APPROVE OF IT. I KNOW WE ALL DISCUSSED THAT A LOT SO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LIVING UP TO OUR RULES FOR THAT PROGRAM. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. AND JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE THE ACTUAL RESOLUTION THAT THE COMMISSION PASSED UH, THAT THEY COULD BALLET THE SPACES BUT BECAUSE THEY HAD TO STAY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES. THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO CHARGE FOR THE BALLET NOR CONDITIONAL ISAT. RIGHT FOR ANY PARTICULAR USE. AND WHAT IS THE LENGTH? OF OUR LEAST WITH THEM OUR EVENTUAL NO , NO 30 DAY OUT. IT'S A ONE YEAR TERM WITH A 30 DAY OUT, 30 DAYS.

OKAY WELL, YEAH, I MEAN, BUT IF SOMEONE'S BREACHING IT, IT CAN BE OVER. YES, PERFECT. KEEP MAKE SURE LET'S MAKE SURE THAT IT HAS BEEN NOTICED BY THE COMMISSION THAT YES. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CLARK ANY COMMENT ON THOSE TIMES? ACTUALLY HE USUALLY GOES TO YOU FIRST. SO OKAY. OKAY. ALRIGHT ALRIGHT THEN . SO I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. JUST I'VE TALKED TO CITY MANAGER JUST TWO ENDED CITY ATTORNEY ALSO, JUST TO GET A LITTLE EXPLANATION TO THE PUBLIC AGAIN ON HOW OUR RELATIONSHIP WORKS WITH THE STEWART HAS AN AUTHORITY. AND THEN YESTERDAY I WAS OUT AND ABOUT IN DOWNTOWN ANDY STEWART AND WE HAD A WALK IN THE COMMUNITY, AND IT WAS JUST AMAZING WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE. COMMUNIST SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS OR IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND HOW WILLING PEOPLE ARE TO WORK AND TO HELP AND IT JUST BRINGS A JOYFULNESS IN OUR COMMUNITY TO KNOW THAT THERE PEOPLE WHO ARE OUT THERE SERVINGIN SMALL WAYS. THEY'RE JUST OUT THERE SERVING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, AND OUR STEWART POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS JUST ABSOLUTELY WELL. THEY'RE ALWAYS WONDERFUL. SO IT'S JUST IT WAS JUST ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL. JUST THE YOU KNOW THEIR WAY THAT THEY WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY AND HELPED OUT AND SO THAT WAS VERY GOOD. AND I HEARD YESTERDAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS PUBLIC NEWS OR NOT, BUT I HEARD THAT ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS HAD COMMISSIONED A LEGO ROOM AT GERTRUDE WALDEN CHILDCARE CENTER AND THAT WAS I HAD KNOWN ABOUT THAT. SO, COMMISSIONER MEYER.

CONGRATULATIONS. AND I'M SURE THAT THE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE ENJOYING THAT AND WILL CONTINUE TO ENJOY IT. AND THAT WAS JUST ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL TO HEAR THAT SO IN LITTLE WAYS, WE DO THINGS EVERY DAY. WELL, I WILL SAY WE ALSO WE'RE HOPING TO GET THEM TO LEGO LAND FOR A TRIP, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, MISS WASHINGTON TOLD ME THAT, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY COULDN'T GO THIS TIME AROUND, SO THEY'RE GOING TO DO ANOTHER BIG, BIG FUN TRIP INSTEAD. SO ONCE I FIND OUT WHAT THAT IS, I'LL REPORT BACK, BUT, YEAH, I'M EXCITED THAT THEY GET PLAY WITH THE LEGOS. I LIKE THEM AS A KID. GOOD STEM STUFF. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SAMPLE IT. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. YES VICE MAYOR MCDONALD. JUST A COUPLE QUICK THINGS. ONE IS, UH, I SEE SOME ENFORCEMENT GOING ON AND PUMP CITY ROAD. SO, CHIEF, PLEASE. THANK YOU GUYS. LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE DOING A BANG UP JOB. SO APPRECIATE THAT. UM YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT MILTON A LOT. MAYBE WE NEED TO PUT WITH OUR NEW MONUMENT SIDES. WE NEED TO PUT THE BIRTHPLACE OF MILTON LEG HERE. HMM. MRS LOGAN LIKE THAT, ANYWAYS, ALL KIDDING ASIDE, MILTON IS DOING A GREAT JOB FOR OUR CITY HOME WITH EVERYBODY IN HIS DEPARTMENT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, UH, MR CITY MANAGER. THANK YOU GUYS

[COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER]

[00:30:03]

[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. MADAM CLERK. OH, SORRY. UM. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, PULLING ITEM SEVEN. YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THAT MOTION? NO, WE DO NOT. WE HAVE AN ALL IN FAVOR OF THE APPROVAL. THE AGENDA BY POSED. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY

[COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (3 Minutes Max.)]

I WAS ACTUALLY HOPING TO HEAR COMMISSIONER COMMENTS ABOUT THIS BEFORE MY COMMENT, BUT SO INSTEAD OF JUST GO RIGHT IN, AND I'M GONNA QUOTE A FEW THINGS FROM JUDGE FOLKS RECOMMENDED ORDER ON THE CASE OF ROBYN CARTWRIGHT VERSUS THE CITY OF STEWART. CITY STAFF FAILED TO CONDUCT ANY WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND RELATIVE TO THE STATUTORY FACTORS THAT GOVERN FLUME AMENDMENTS. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE CITY FAILED TO CONSIDER THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY AS NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT. THE FLUME AMENDMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROFESSIONALLY ACCEPTABLE METHODOLOGY THAT ANALYZES THE AVAILABILITY OF CENTRAL WATER SUPPLY WASTEWATER SERVICES. AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ON LEVELS OF SERVICE ON CANADA HIGHWAY AND ADJACENT RAILROADS, ROADWAYS. THE CITY'S ANALYSIS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED FLUME CHANGE TO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT. THE FLUME AMENDMENT FAILS TO PROTECT WETLANDS AND RESTRICT DIRECT AND INDIRECT DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS. THE FINDING, OF FACT RESULTED IN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CITY FAILED TO REACT APPROPRIATELY TO THE RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE DATA AND ANALYSIS ON THE SUBJECT OF THE UNDEVELOPED LANDS, CHARACTER AND NATURAL RESOURCES. I HOPE AS YOU LISTEN TO THOSE WORDS, YOU REMEMBER THAT I HAVE STOOD BEFORE YOU TWICE STATING THESE VERY THINGS. BUT NOW THESE COME FROM A STATE JUDGE. I WOULD GIVE EACH OF YOU A CHANCE TO DIG A LITTLE DEEPER AND SEE PASTURE DEVELOPMENT STAFF. WHICH IS VERY PRO DEVELOPMENT. JUDGE FOLKS CALLS OUT MR FREEMAN IN HIS STAFF MULTIPLE TIMES FOR NOT DOING PROPER ANALYSIS ANALYSIS THAT WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPER. WELL, I AM FULLY AWARE THAT THIS IS ONE BATTLE.

IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE LITTLE GUY THE CITIZEN, THE LOCAL THE NEIGHBOR CAN PREVAIL.

IT MAKES US WONDER COULD WE HAVE CHALLENGED BRIDGEVIEW CENTRAL PARKWAY? HOW MANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS APPROVALS HAVE BEEN PUSHED THROUGH BECAUSE THE CITY DIDN'T DO PROPER ANALYSIS. I HOPE THAT THIS ORDER IS OPENED THE EYES OF THE CITIZENS OF STUART IN MARTIN COUNTY TO NOT BE COMPLACENT AND TO GET INVOLVED IN THEIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AND I HOPE THAT THE CITY OF STEWART WILL TAKE THESE FINDINGS FROM JUDGE FOLKS TO HEART AND PROVIDE THIS PARCEL OF LAND AND APPROPRIATE FLUME WILL PRESERVE THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THIS BEAUTIFUL TOWN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? YES, MISS MCBRIDE. GOOD AFTERNOON. ALAN MCBRIDE, FLAMINGO AVENUE WITH HIS OFF THE TENT TO BE UM I ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LOVELY NIGHT OUT. THE KING TENOR. WHAT WAS THAT THE HARBOR. UM. THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR ANSWERS FROM MY NEIGHBORHOOD. I WAS AT THE MEETING WE CONSIDER THE STUART MONTEREY TO A ONE A. AND WE WHO LIVE OFF A CHANCE STREET AND WE USED 10 STREET AS OUR WAY OF GETTING TOMORROW HOMES OVER TO A US ONE TO PUBLIX. AND YOU KNOW THAT. A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, YOU GAVE $90,000 TO THE TAILOR TRUST FUND. AND TO CLEAN IT UP. AND WE WERE WONDERING JUST HOW LONG THEY HAVE HAVE. THEY

[00:35:02]

[CONSENT CALENDAR]

[7. STUART HOUSING AUTHORITY RATIFICATION APPOINTMENT (RC)]

THANK YOU. SO TO BE CLEAR THE ITEM BEFORE US. IS JUST TO RATIFY ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS TERMS. UM BUT COMMISSIONER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE A FEW COMMENTS AND I KNOW I JUST LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL. I KNOW MISS JENNY AND SHE SERVED WELL ON THE BOARD. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. UM. FROM MY DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR STAFF. THERE WOULD BE A COST SAVING TO THE STEWARD HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR THEIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO REMAIN UNDER THE FORT PIERCE HOUSING AUTHORITIES, UMBRELLA. BUT I BELIEVE STUART'S UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT GOING ALONG WITH THAT COST SAVING, THERE WOULD BE SOME IMPROVEMENTS. TO THIS THE HUD PROPERTIES AND STEWART WHETHER THEY'RE IMPROVEMENTS FOR TENANT OR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. UM, I'D LIKE OUR STAFF TO REACH OUT. TO THEIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AND PERHAPS WE CAN GET A PRESENTATION. ON. THE COSTS THAT WERE SAVED IN THIS EXCHANGE OF BEING UNDER THE FORT PIERCE HOUSING AUTHORITIES UMBRELLA, THEIR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. AND WHAT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE. TO THE CITY OF STEWART RESIDENTS USING THE HUD PROPERTIES. I'D BE INTERESTED TO KNOW THAT AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE OF PRESENTATION HERE WE TALK OFTEN ABOUT THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SO A GOOD, STRONG RELATIONSHIP.

WITH. STUART HOUSING AUTHORITY SEEMS TO BE ONE OF THE MOST OBVIOUS AND LOW HANGING FRUITS THAT WE CAN WORK ON AND WORKING TOGETHER WITH THEM WOULD BE CLEARLY BENEFICIAL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND THE SECOND IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE

[00:40:01]

[11. SATISFYING THE BALANCE OF PALMETTO HARBOR ASSESSMENT (RC): RESOLUTION 39-2022; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA ABSOLVING THE NON- AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR “PALMETTO HARBOR SEWER PROJECT"; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

THANK YOU, MR MAYOR. THIS ITEM COMES UP FROM A RESIDENTIAL REQUESTS FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD . PALMETTO COVE, IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE IS OFF OF PALM CITY ROAD, AND IT CONSISTS BASICALLY OF NORTH CAROLINA AND SOUTH CAROLINA DRIVE. IN 2000 AND SEVEN. THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, REQUESTED TO HAVE SEWER HOOKUPS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AT THAT TIME, THE CITY WAS NOT RUNNING THE GRINDER SYSTEM ARE RUNNING A SEWER TO THAT LOCATION. THEY PETITIONED THE COMMISSION IN ORDER TO HAVE SEWER RUN TO THEIR HOMES. THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A VOTE, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD VOTED AND PASSED THEM TO HAVE AN AD. NON ADVIL ORUM TAX ADDED TO THEIR TAX ROLLS SO THAT THEY COULD PAY FOR THIS ASSESSMENT. IT WAS APPROXIMATELY OVER $10,000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT. AT THE TIME IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. IT WAS PUT IN WITH AN 8% INTEREST AND ON THE 20 YEAR TERM. AS A RESULT, WHEN WE CAME IN WITH THE GRINDER SYSTEMS THAT CAME, THE SYSTEM CAME IN AT LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE SYSTEM THEY PUT IN PLACE. IN 2012. THERE WAS A REQUEST BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. TO GET SOME TYPE OF ALLEVIATION FROM THE FACT THAT THEY PAID MORE THAN WHAT WAS COMING IN WITH THE GRINDERS. THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ON THAT COMMISSION AT THAT TIME AND BETWEEN STAFF IT WAS ACTUALLY PUT BACK OUT OF THREE OPTIONS TO THE COMMUNITY TO CHOOSE FROM. I CANNOT FIND THE RESULT OF THAT COMMUNITY VOTE OR WHAT THEY DID WITH IT, BUT I AM TOLD BY, UM, OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR THAT THERE WAS A SELECTION OF LIKE A REBATE. I THINK APPROXIMATELY TWO OR $3000. DURING THAT REBATE, HE SAID THAT NOT MANY HAD TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF IT AND HE CAN'T FIND WHERE ANY OF THE REMAINING 18 PROPERTIES TOOK ADVANTAGE OF IT EITHER. AT THIS POINT, THE IT WAS IT WAS A HEAVY INTEREST LOAD. SO IT WAS THE INTEREST WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT PER YEAR AND THAT OBVIOUSLY ALL THE PROPERTIES AT THIS TIME HAS PAID PAID OVER $15,000, SO THEY PAID THE PRINCIPAL AND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INTEREST. THERE'S STILL A FIVE YEAR REMAINDER OF BALANCE ON THAT, AND THE RESIDENTS HAVE APPROACHED AND ASKED TO BE ABSOLVED OF THAT REMAINING BALANCE. AND THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AT THIS TIME, TOO. RELIEVING ABSOLVE THE NON ADVIL OR, UM, TAX FOR THE BALANCE FOR APPROVAL. SECOND. THANK YOU. MR DIES. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND I'LL TRANSPARENCY. I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OF PALMETTO HARBOR. I LIVE ON SOUTH CAROLINA DRIVE. I MOVED THERE IN 2013, AND DURING THE PURCHASE OF THAT HOUSE. THE SELLERS PAID OFF THE FULL CITY ASSESSMENT. I HAVE NO FINANCIAL BENEFITS TO GAIN. FROM THIS WAIVER. UM I'VE SPOKEN TO RESIDENTS ABOUT THIS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SOME THAT LIVE IN THE AREA AND SOME THAT DON'T MANY OF THOSE RESIDENTS ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION. I AM AND MANY YOU KNOW, HAVE FINANCIAL GAIN. BENEFIT FROM THIS. THAT BEING SAID. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? WE DO NOT HEARING NONE. MALIKI, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER CLARK. YES COMMISSIONER MEYER. YES COMMISSIONER BRUNER. YES VICE MAYOR MCDONALD. MATHESON? YES. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12 IS

[12. PALMETTO COVE RPUD ROW MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT (RC): CONTINUED TO APRIL 25, 2022 CCM RESOLUTION No. 41-2022; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN 924 SW PALM CITY ROAD AND THE CITY OF STUART RELATING TO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ALLEY-WAY OF 11 FOOT ALLEYWAY, AS SET FORTH IN THE ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

[13. FUTURE LAND USE DISCUSSION]

[00:45:11]

METHOD. THAT THE CITY USED RELATED TO COMBINING THE ORDINANCE. LAND USE CHANGE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL. WAS. WRONG OR WAS INCORRECT OR WAS LEGALLY INADEQUATE AND I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON THAT AND SAY THAT WHAT WOULD REALLY HAPPENED WAS HISTORICALLY FUTURE LAND USES AND STARTING IN 1985. WHEN THE STATE PASSES THE FLORIDA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACT. EVERY MUNICIPALITY IN EVERY COUNTY IN THE STATE, LITERALLY JUST PICKED A BLANKET OF FUTURE LAND USES AND THEY DIDN'T DO PHASE TESTING OF LAND AND SOILS, ETCETERA, AND THEY PUT TOGETHER WHAT THEY BELIEVED WAS A INAPPROPRIATE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND SINCE THEN THERE'S BEEN ANNEXATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO THOSE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. AS PART OF THOSE AMENDMENTS. WHAT WAS HAPPENING. BACK IN THE PROBABLY LATE EIGHTIES AND EARLY NINETIES IS A PROJECT WOULD COME IN. AND WOULD WANT TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PROJECT AND WHETHER IT WAS FOR A LARGE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY OR WHETHER IT WAS FOR A COMMERCIAL ENDEAVOR AND WHERE THERE WAS INDUSTRIAL DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. AND THEY WOULD COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND THEY WOULD SAY WE WANT TO CHANGE THIS 10 ACRES, TWO X LAND USE AND THE FIRST QUESTION EVERYBODY SAID WAS, WELL, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA BUILD? WHAT IS IT GONNA BE? AND OF COURSE, THE LAND USE DOESN'T TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THE COMMISSION WAS VERY HESITANT TO JUST BLINDLY CHANGE FUTURE LAND USES WITHOUT INCORPORATING INTO THOSE FUTURE LAND USES WHAT WAS GOING TO BE BUILT. AND AS A RESULT TO DEVOLVED INTO, RATHER THAN HAVING A SEPARATE COMING IN IN THE IN THE APPLICANT WOULD COME IN AND SAY, LOOK, WE WANT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE BECAUSE WE WANT TO BUILD THIS. AND THEN THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY COMBINED THEM INTO A SINGLE ORDINANCE.

FOR EFFICIENCIES AND FOR DISCLOSURES BECAUSE USING THE CANADA HIGHWAY, FOR EXAMPLE. IF THE CANTOR HIGHWAY CAME IN FOR A PUBLIC HEARINGS AND DURING THE 14 HOURS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THEY SAID SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT AND THEY TALKED ABOUT THE SAND AND THE SOIL AND THE SIZE OF THE SPACE. BUT THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT ANY APARTMENTS AND THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT ANY RETAIL STORES AND THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT COSTCO AND ANYWAY AND THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT WHAT WOULD WARRANT A TRAFFIC LIGHT OR WHAT WOULDN'T WARRANT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, AND EVERY TIME SOMEBODY CAME UP AND SAID, WELL, I HEARD THERE'S GOING TO BE A COSTCO THERE. IF WE SET UP OBJECTION THAT'S NOT ADMISSIBLE. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT DURING THIS PROCEEDING. THE PERCEPTION WOULD BE THAT IT WAS SOME BACKROOM DEAL AND THAT THERE WAS SOME PULLING THE YOU KNOW, CURTAIN OVER TO HIDE WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON, AND AS A RESULT, IT'S CONSOLIDATED. BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE CONCEPT THAT THE CONSOLIDATION WAS NOT. LEGAL OR WAS NOT PROCEDURALLY CORRECT.

RIGHT OUT OF THE TRANSCRIPTS FROM THE JUDGE'S RULING. THE JUDGE. AND ADDRESSING. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AND SOME SUBMISSION OF SOME DEVELOPMENT ISSUES DURING THE HEARING, AN OBJECTION WAS STATED IN THE MR GRASSO AND I TALKED ABOUT IT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE JUDGE AND AT THE END, THE JUDGE SAID. I UH, I'VE DONE A FEW OF THESE. NOW WE'RE CHANGING ZONING AND A

[00:50:03]

BUT I HAVE TO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT THAT. OR LOOK AT THAT. AND THE POINT OF THIS IS NOT TO DISCUSS THE JUDGES. OBJECTION OR WITH THE JUDGE SPECIFICALLY SAID, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IT'S TO DEMONSTRATE. THE JUDGE OPENS UP WITH. I'VE DONE A FEW OF THESE HEARINGS WHERE THEY WERE CONSOLIDATED IN PART OF THE SAME THING. AND THERE WAS NO CASE, LAW OR PRESENTATION OR OBJECTION BY ANYBODY. THAT THE PROCEDURE OF CONSOLIDATING THEM WAS BY ANY MEANS. ILLEGAL OR VIOLATION OF THE STATUTE OR INAPPROPRIATE OR NOT ALLOWED. THE ARGUMENT BY MR GRASSO WAS THAT BECAUSE IT WAS CONSOLIDATED, THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO ADDRESS THE DEVELOPMENT ISSUE. BUT WHEN I BRING THIS FORWARD, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR TO YOU GUYS THAT HAVING THEM TOGETHER.

WAS NEVER WRONG AND NEVER INAPPROPRIATE. BASED UPON THE RULING AND BASED UPON THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING THE KANNER HIGHWAY HEARINGS BEFORE THE RULING CAME OUT. THE COMMISSION HAD INDICATED TO STAFF THAT IT DID WANT TO START HAVING SEPARATION OF THE TWO AGAIN AND GO DOWN THE PATH OF HAVING THEM TREATED AS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT.

ORDINANCES OR OR DOCUMENTS. THAT MEANS THAT BEING SAID, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE NEXT TIME WHEN COMES UP. THAT WE SEPARATE ISSUES WILL BE SEPARATE, BUT AND I WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT AT THOSE HEARINGS. WHEN I IT'S GOING TO START AT THE OPEN BECAUSE OUR, UM CODE SAYS THAT ANY LAND USE EVEN IF IT'S A C R A LAND USE. GOES BEFORE THE LP FIRST, AND WHEN IT GETS TO THAT L P A LEVEL I'M GOING TO BE AT THOSE MEETINGS AND WHEN THEY START GOING DOWN THE PATH OF DEVELOPMENT OBVIOUSLY I'M GOING TO BE RESTRICTING THAT, AND I WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT I'M NOT DOING IT BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE. AND I'M TRYING TO HIDE THE DEVELOPMENT FROM ANYBODY. BECAUSE AS A MATTER OF FACT, MOST OF THE TIME IS L P A STUFF I TRY TO STAY OUT OF IT BEFORE THE LPGA STUFF STARTS SO THAT I, TOO, CAN PERCEIVE IT AS THE BOARD MEMBER TO SEE HOW IT'S BEING PRESENTED OR SEE IF I UNDERSTAND IT. BUT WHEN I'M DIRECTING IT AWAY FROM DEVELOPMENT, I JUST WANTED TO BE PUBLICLY CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT INTENDING. TO HIDE THE BALL OR TO MISDIRECT ANYTHING. IT'S JUST BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS THE PROCESS OF HAVING IT COMPLETELY SEPARATE. SO THE ACTUAL PROJECT WILL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE AND OR PART OF THAT RECORD DURING THOSE HEARINGS, AND THE BOARDS WON'T BE TOLD WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE OFFERED BY THE DEVELOPER TO BE BUILT. AND. THAT ISSUE HAD COME UP AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE THAT CAME UP BUT LET'S OKAY. PAUSE THERE. SO. JUST SO WE ALL KNOW UP UNTIL THIS TIME, THE CITY HAE ADDRESSED. FUTURE LAND USE. THE SAME ORDINANCE. WITH THE ZONING AND THE PROJECT. DURING THE HEARING. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR MARTELLI? THAT IS LEGALLY ALLOWED. WE COULD DO IT THAT WAY. OR WE COULD DO IT IN SEPARATE ORDINANCES, CORRECT EITHER WAY IS EITHER IS LEGAL EITHER IS LEGAL. THE JUDGE, THOUGH CHOSE. TO ONLY ADDRESS DURING THE ORDER. BY HER TRANSCRIPT. THE FUTURE LAND USE AND NOT EVEN TO OPINE ON THE OTHER STUFF IS THAT WELL TRANSCRIPTION INSTANCE THE JUDGE'S ORDER OPINES SIGNIFICANTLY ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT THE JUDGE'S RULING DURING THE HEARING WAS THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO LIMIT IT TO JUST THE FUTURE LANGUAGE. SO FOR ME. WE HAD A FAIRLY LOW BAR TO PROVE IN THE CITY. THE BAR WAS FAIRLY. DEBATABLE. AND BASED ON THE JUDGE'S ORDER. THE CITY. FAILED

[00:55:02]

I HAD ACTUALLY SENT AN EMAIL. TO THEM, UH, MENTIONING THAT THE JUDGE NEVER RULED THAT ANY OF THE PROPHET TESTIMONY WAS ADMITTED IN THE HEARING, AND THERE SHOULD IT SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ORDERS, WHICH WOULD SOON BE ADMITTED. BUT IT IT WAS INCLUDED AND AGAIN . IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE OUTCOME . I MEAN, THE JUDGE DID RULE THAT WAY. UM BUT IRONICALLY, WHEN YOU READ THE JUDGE'S RULING, THE JUDGE RULED THAT WE DIDN'T IF WE HAD DONE. UPLAND PRESERVATION. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY. BUT THIS PROJECT DID HAVE IN EXCESS OF 25% OF PRESERVATION. BUT BECAUSE THAT WAS PART OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT SIDE AND THE JUDGE HAD RULED THAT WASN'T ADMISSIBLE . THE CITY DIDN'T PUT ON ANY EVIDENCE OF THE ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT EVIDENCE. AND POLICY A 5.3 OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS. ON PRIVATELY OWNED LANDS.

IMPLEMENTATION SHALL OCCUR AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT. WHEN TALKING ABOUT MITIGATING WETLANDS. POLICY 85.5 STATES. THROUGH CURRENT AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE CITY SHALL CONTINUE TO ENFORCE POLICIES WHICH AVOID AND MINIMIZE DAMAGES TO WETLANDS AND DIRECT DEVELOPMENT TO LANDS THAT ARE NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE. PROMOTE COMPACT URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND DISCOURAGE URBAN SPRAWL BY ALLOWING WETLAND IMPACTS AND EXCESS OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS UNDER CERTAIN LIMITED CONDITIONS. AND PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF WETLANDS UNDER THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AND AGAIN THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL YOU GET TO THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE.

FURTHER. POLICY A 5.7 OF THE STUART COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES , THE CITY SHALL PROTECT THE NATURAL RESOURCES ASSOCIATED WITH RECREATION FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESERVATIONS.

IDENTIFIED IN THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT THROUGH LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND THROUGH ENSURING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS. THAT EXISTING OPEN SPACE AND NATURAL RESERVATIONS ARE NOT CHANGED TO MORE INTENSIVE USES. THAT WOULD DEGRADE NATURAL RESOURCES. OKAY, SO THAT THE DILEMMA THE CITIES IN IS THAT THE JUDGE'S ORDER SAYS THAT SHE WANTED US TO DRAW THOSE CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE WETLANDS. UP FRONT. BUT IF, IN FACT WE DID THAT, OR DO THAT. WE WILL BE CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF THE CAMP PLAN AND ANY LANDOWNER TO WHOM WE DO THAT IF WE DO IT WITHOUT GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND HERE DUE PROCESS AND HAVE THEIR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TAKE PLACE. IT WILL BE WHAT'S KNOWN AS A BERT HARRIS. TAKING YEAH. SO.

BEFORE WE DISCUSS. I HAVE A FEW THOUGHTS ON MOVING FORWARD. I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BUT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CITY OF STEWART. HAS TO ASSIGN THIS PROPERTY. A FUTURE LAND. THAT CORRECT RIGHT ? AND THAT'S ANOTHER MISNOMER

[01:00:05]

BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IN 2017 WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED THE ORDINANCE ANNEXING THE PROPERTY SPECIFIC, SPECIFICALLY RESERVED THAT. UNTIL THE APPLICATION CAME IN FOR A DEVELOPMENT. YEAH THAT DIDN'T TRIGGER BUT NOW IT HAS. IT HAS ALL RIGHT NOW. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS. SOME OF THIS HAS YOU MENTIONED COMMISSIONER MILES WE'VE SPOKEN ON THAT. THAT WAS THE OLD WAY OF DOING THIS. I THINK WE'VE ALL COME TO AN AGREEMENT. ANY OTHER ANNEXATIONS. THE FUTURE LAND USE. WILL BE DECIDED. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AT THAT TIME. UM, BUT I I'D LIKE TO HEAR SOME SOME THOUGHTS IF WE WERE ON OPINIONS MOVING FORWARD ANYTHING I HAVE.

SOME I'M OPENING IT UP TO FELL COMMISSION. OH, YOU'RE GONNA GO, MIKE. OR YOU CAN GO FIRST? WELL, SURE, I'LL GO. UM SO I HOPE EVERYONE READ THE ORDER. UM MY CONFUSION WITH IT IS KIND OF TO DRAW ON WHAT MIKE WAS EXPLAINING, USING, MAYBE LESS. UH LEGAL TERMINOLOGY WAS THAT.

IT SEEMS THAT THE JUDGE'S INTERPRETATION OF AND I LOOKED UP TO THE STATE STATUTE THAT SHE REFERENCED. 1 63. UM. THAT SHE'S KIND OF BOUNCING BETWEEN THE STATE'S STATUTE WHICH I CAN UNDERSTAND READING IT AGAIN. I CAN UNDERSTAND HOW IT MIGHT BE. YOU KNOW HOW THAT SHE COULD SUSTAIN THAT RULING? BUT AS FAR AS THE WAY THAT THE CITY HAS DONE IT AND LOOKING AT A COUPLE OTHER PARCELS THAT ARE REALLY KIND OF THAT ILLUSTRATE THE PROCESS. BESIDES, LET'S JUST TAKE BRIDGEVIEW OUT OF THIS. LET'S TALK ABOUT ONES THAT HAVE BEEN THAT WE'RE IN X ALONG TIME AGO AND WERE ASSIGNED LAND USES A LONG TIME AGO. SO THE FIRST ONE TOP OF MIND FOR ME IS WHAT'S THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT LAND USED TO THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY. EVEN LEO NOW WHEN I READ THE JUDGE'S ORDER TO KIND OF BLEND BOTH THE ELEMENTS OF THE COMP PLAN AND THE PORTIONS OF OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT TALK ABOUT PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS AND QUALITY. UPLANDS.

IF WE WERE TO IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW HER, HER INTERPRETATION. THEN CERTAINLY EVEN LEAH WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE OR APPROPRIATE. NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT LAND USE BECAUSE THERE'S SIGNIFICANT WETLAND ON THERE AND AS PART OF THE PLAN AS PART OF THE P U D THAT CAME IN AND AGAIN NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT IN OUR CODE REQUIRES APPEAL DATE.

THOSE ELEMENTS. THOSE WETLAND AREAS WHERE PUT INTO PRESERVATION THAT THEY WERE CARVED OUT. AND SO THOSE ELEMENTS WERE PROTECTED. SO THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR FUTURE LAND USE. OF NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT, WHICH SAYS RELATIVE TO ANY OTHER LAND USE TYPE WE HAVE THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE USING THIS LAND USE YOU CAN DESTROY THE WET ONES. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DOESN'T QUALIFY UNDER HER ORDER. EXACTLY NONE OF OUR LAND USES HAVE ANY THEY DON'T CONTEMPLATE. WELL YOU CAN DO IT. YOU CAN DO THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THIS LAND USE WITH RESPECT TO THE WETLANDS THAT SHE REFERENCES IN HER RULING. SO I JUST WANT TO SHOW HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT ON VERY HIGH QUALITY WETLANDS THAT THE WAY THAT THE PLAN WAS DEVELOPED, THOSE WETLANDS WERE PROTECTED AND YOU KNOW, PUT A PIN IN IT. THE REASON I ASKED FOR THIS IS BECAUSE I WANT US TO FOLLOW OUR RULES IN THAT DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAY BACK WHEN THAT SAID THAT WE SHOULD PUT THEM INTO CONSERVATION. ANYWAY OKAY, SO THAT'S ONE EXAMPLE. THAT DOESN'T REALLY FOLLOW THE LOGIC OF HER RULING. THE SECOND EXAMPLE IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR. CROSSING THAT INDIAN RUN. WHAT LAND USES THE CROSSINGS OF INDIAN RUN MULTI FAMILY MULTI FAMILY, WHICH IS A VERY INTENSE THE MOST INTENSE RESIDENTIAL USE. WE HAVE AND THE CROSSINGS AT INDIAN RUN HAS CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE WETLANDS THAT ARE PRESERVED ON SITE CONSERVATION CONSERVATION. THE ENTIRE PARCEL IS RIGHT HERE. I'M LOOKING AT IT ON G. I S THE ENTIRE PARCEL, THE WETLANDS AND THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE ROADS

[01:05:06]

REGARDLESS, THE IDEA THAT. BASED ON THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ON THE PARCEL THAT SOMEHOW THAT SHOULD GUIDE THE FUTURE LAND USE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S RELATIVES. IT'S REFERENCED AS ONE COMPONENT OF STATUTE. 1 63 1 COMPONENT. WE WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE LAND USE DOESN'T SPECIFY HOW WE DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ON A ON A PARCEL THAT SITE PLANT AND THE CODE DOES. SO IT'S LIKE THE DENIAL OR THE RULING WAS BASED ON POLLING FROM OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CODE AT THE SITE LEVEL THAT I THINK WERE INAPPROPRIATE. AND SO THAT TO ME JUST CALLS INTO QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE ART. WE NEED TO COMPLETELY REWRITE OUR WHOLE COM PLANT. BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT WHERE WE GO FROM HERE AND FIRST . IF I COULD ALSO JUST CHIME IN ON ONE OTHER ASPECT, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A TENDENCY TO GET CAUGHT IN THE WETLAND SIDE OF THIS. IF YOU READ THE JUDGE'S ORDER. SHE ACTUALLY TALKS ABOUT? THE UPLANDS AND AGAIN BECAUSE SHE RULED THAT NO DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN ETCETERA EVIDENCE WAS ADMISSIBLE. WE DIDN'T GIVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THE UPLAND PRESERVATION DONE THAT WAS REQUIRED OF A MINIMUM OF 25% UP ON PRESERVATION. AND I KNOW YOU DO, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION. WE NEED TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE IN HER CASE SHE SAYS THAT UNLESS YOU DO THE UPLAND PRESERVATION FIRST THAT YOU DON'T. YOU DON'T UNLESS YOU DEDICATE THAT UPLAND AREA TO CONSERVATION AS WELL TO PRAYER TO ANY DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME OF THE FUTURE LAND USE THAT VIOLATE OUR COMPLAINT. ON TOP OF THAT. YOU CAN'T EVEN GET TO IT SO ALL OF OUR LAND USES 100% OF OUR LAND USES WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO DO THE UPLAND PRESERVATION. INTO CONSERVATION BEFORE GIVING IT A LAND USE. AND THEN GIVING IT THE LAND USE. WHICH. IS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF VAST COMPLIMENTS LIKE IN MARTIN COUNTY, THE KIPLINGER SITE THAT'S GOT A CITY AS BIG AS THE CITY OF STEWART. EACH CHUNK AS THEY DO. EACH NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE ADDRESSED AS THEY DO THE DEVELOPMENT OF EACH ONE AND ADDRESSED ACCORDINGLY BECAUSE THE OTHER THING THAT HAPPENS IN FLORIDA IS WATER MOVES. SO YOU GIVE A FUTURE LAND USE TODAY OF COMMERCIAL AND YOU DEDICATE THIS IN CONSERVATION BECAUSE IT WAS A WETLAND ER, BECAUSE IT WAS A PRISTINE UPLAND AND THEN 15 YEARS LATER, THE DEVELOPMENT COMES IN. AND THAT HAS SHIFTED. 300 FT, BUT THE CONSERVATION CAN'T CHANGE. ONLY. THE NEW AREA CAN CHANGE, BUT THE LANDOWNER NEVER GOT THE DUE PROCESS TO PRESENT ANYTHING. AND BY THE WAY, IT VIOLATES OUR COMPLAINT. YOU'D HAVE TO CHANGE. EVERY SINGLE LAND USE, INCLUDING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEET THAT COMMITTED BY SMEAR, MIKE. UM COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS PROCEDURALLY REGARDING THIS CASE IS THE JUDGE'S ORDER. IS IT A FINAL ORDER OR HAS TO GO TO A COMMITTEE? IT GOES TO COMMITTEE AND REALISTICALLY, I DID NOT INTEND TO. TO GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE COMPLETELY TODAY, BUT WE CAN I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN

[01:10:02]

THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS THEY COULD ADDRESS IT, BUT BUT ON TOP OF THAT, NO MATTER WHAT IF THEY WERE TO KEEP THE ORDER THE WAY IT IS. FOUR. IF THEY GRANTED THE EXCEPTIONS. WE'D STILL BE AT THE SITUATION WHERE THE CITY THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE A LAND USE. I KNOW THAT I WAS JUST PROCEDURALLY WE FILED. THE EXCEPTIONS GOES TO A COMMITTEE. THEY'LL MAKE A FINAL DETERMINATION. AS TO THE STATUS OF THE ORDER, AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE, OKAY? THANK YOU. AND I GUESS ARE WHATEVER HAPPENED AFTER THAT. WHENEVER WE DECIDED , I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT OUR PROCEDURES. COMING UP BEFORE GOING TO CHANGE SOME THINGS. LATER ON IN OUR COMPLAINT PROCEDURES, BUT DEFINITELY LOOKING AT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAND USES THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BEING PUT ON THIS PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER PROPERTY WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING LAND USES.

I THINK THAT MAYBE THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT UM SHE WAS TRYING TO EMPHASIZE BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT? AS WE HAVE ALL SAID, WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHETHER IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL OR ALL PRESIDENTIAL, ESPECIALLY HIGH INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL. ANY ONE OF THESE WOULD STILL HAVE SOME OF THE SAME, UM, IMPACT, WHETHER IT'S ON THE CAN OR HIGHWAY OR ANY OTHER ROADWAY. AND SO YEAH, THAT'S WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT IS HALF THE INTENSITY OF WHAT I'M SAYING. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL OF IT'S GOING TO BE MORE SO IT'S AND THEN MITIGATION. I THINK THAT THAT'S DEVELOPMENT AND THAT'S THE THING THAT YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T GET ALL INTO THAT BECAUSE IT SUPPORTED THE DEVELOPMENT. SO YEAH, IT'S UM WILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO THE THING THROUGH IT.

BUT, MY, UM YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE WORKING, MAKING YOUR COMMENTS THAT GIRLS GET THAT DONE. I WILL. OBVIOUSLY I'LL WHEN I GET IT TO IT, I WILL OBVIOUSLY SHARE THEM WITH YOU AND SEEK INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY WON'T HAVE TIME FOR ANOTHER MEETING BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO BE FOUND IN LESS THAN 15 DAYS. UM, IT'S NOT EXTENSIVELY COMPLICATED . IT'S A SMALL EXAMPLE WOULD BE THAT ONE OF THE FINDINGS, THE JUDGE SAID, WAS THAT UM THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT IT WAS NOT NOT USING THE WORD COMPLIANCE USING THE WORD COMPATIBLE. THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT WAS NOT COMPATIBLE. WITH THE ADJACENT USE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT ADJACENT THERE, TOO, IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND JUST BEFORE THIS MEETING, I HAD PULLED UP MR GUARD EARS TESTIMONY WHO WAS THE EXPERT FROM TALLAHASSEE THAT TESTIFIED. AND I DURING IT ON PAGE 99 9. YOU TESTIFIED THAT IT WAS AN APPROPRIATE FUTURE LAND, USE ADOPTION AND CONFIRM THAT YOU FELT THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE FOR SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT TO BE NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY ZONING. OR FUTURE LAND USE. IS THAT CORRECT ANSWER CORRECT. QUESTION EVEN WHEN IT'S JUST AN X FROM THE COUNTY. YES EVEN WHEN IT'S ADJACENT, BUT GOING THROUGH IT SHOWING YOU NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT THAT'S A SIMILAR. THAT'S A SIMILARITY OF SOMETHING THAT'S NOT REALLY SIGNIFICANT. THAT SHOWS THAT IT'S A MINOR NUANCE. BUT THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED JUST TO SAY WAIT A SECOND. THE EVIDENCE DIDN'T NECESSARILY SAY THAT THAT ACTUALLY WASN'T IN DISPUTE THAT WASN'T THE ISSUE MIGHT DO YOU HAVE? YES OKAY, SO WELL, I KNOW

[01:15:07]

EXCEPTIONS. SORRY. WITH THE BOARD LIKE THAT TO BE A PRESENTATION. I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT ONCE IT'S FILED. I MEAN, SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THIS I'LL FILE IT PROBABLY RIGHT BY TUESDAY NEXT WEEK, BECAUSE IF I DON'T IT'S OVER HAS TO BE A WEIGHT UNTIL THE LITIGATION IS COMPLETED TO DISCUSS. I THINK THAT MAY WANT TO THINK THAT I WANT TO WAIT UNTIL OVER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL. HERE'S EVERYTHING IN REVIEWS IT YEAH, WHICH MIGHT BE A BETTER PATH. SO THAT EVERYTHING IS DONE. WE HAVE A FINAL DECISION. I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS AN OPPOSITION. TO THE CITY. PRESENTING THE LIST OF EXCEPTION. LIKE TO SEE THEM, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M HAPPY TO BUY THE WAY THE DAY THEY'RE FILED THEIR PUBLIC RECORD, SO I'M HAPPY I WILL BE. I'LL BE EMAILING THEM TO YOU INDIVIDUALLY BEFORE THEY FILED FOR JUST YOUR OWN PERSONAL COMMENTS. THAT WOULD BE ATTORNEY CLIENT AND I WOULD ASK YOU NOT TO SHARE THEM UNTIL THEY WERE FILED. ANDREW COMMENTS THE SAME BUT THE DAY THEY'RE FILED THEIR PUBLIC RECORD. I MEAN, THEY ANYBODY CAN READ THEM. ANYBODY CAN SEE HIM. ANYBODY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DISCUSSION. I THINK I AGREE THAT THE DISTINCTION RIGHT THAT LEVEL PRIOR TO THE RULING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BYE. SO. WHAT THE CITY CLEARLY DOES. FROM THIS ORDER THAT NEEDS IMPROVEMENT IS WE NEED TO SEPARATE NO FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS. FROM ZONING AND THE ACTUAL PROJECT. I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT. ON THAT MOVING FORWARD AND THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR THAT. IS NOT BECAUSE IT'S APPROPRIATE OR INAPPROPRIATE. IT'S THAT MOVING FORWARD. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY CAN USE THE DEVELOPMENT STUFF AS AN OBJECTION TO IT. AND SO FIRST.

THEY CAN MOVE CONCURRENTLY. FOR EXAMPLE. THE COUNTY DOESN'T CONCUR. OTHERS DO IT CONCURRENT , MEANING THE TWO COULD BE ON PARALLEL TRACKS AND EVEN BE HEARD IN THE SAME MEETING.

RIGHT? NOT. IN THE SAME ORDINANCE. BOTH ARE LEGAL. BUT THE PROBLEM WAS FRANKLY, OUR STAFF. FAILED BY THE JUDGE'S ORDER TO PROVIDE PROPER ACUMEN. ACCURATE TESTIMONY OF WHAT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND CONSIDERING JUST THE FUTURE LANGUAGE, WHETHER IT MATTERS OR NOT, BUT I DON'T THINK OUR STAFF FAILED. THE JUDGE MAY HAVE RULED THAT BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THEY DIDN'T FAIL. OUR STAFF BY THE JUDGE'S ORDER. FAILED TO DO THAT, BECAUSE IT WAS TOO COMMINGLED. OR FAILED FOR OTHER REASONS. I WAS COMING GOING. WELL THEN WHY DID WE FAILED SPECIFICALLY LAID OUT STATE STATUTES AND AREAS OF THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT ISSUES THAT SHE FELT WERE NOT POINTED OUT. AND YOUR ATTORNEY IS SAYING THAT THE JUDGE ERRED IN THOSE AREAS.

THEY WERE EITHER THERE. I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE AREA OF THE TIME FOR YOU TO AIR OUT ISSUES WITH STAFF. I THINK SHE DIDN'T THINK YOU SHOULD DO THAT WITH ME INDEPENDENTLY. ALL RIGHT. YEAH

[01:20:06]

WHICH WAS SUBMITTED TO US IN THE PACKAGE OF THE SECOND READING AND PART OF THE RECORD. THEY ALREADY DO DO THAT AND IN AGREEMENT THAT OUR POLICY IS APPROPRIATE IS APPROPRIATE, RIGHT? ANY OTHER COMMENTS. COMMISSIONER. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THE WAY THAT YOU PHRASED YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT. UM IT'S JUST I GUESS YOU ARE STATING THAT BASED ON WHATEVER EVEN MISS CARTWRIGHT HAS SAID IN HER COMMENTS TO US AS WELL AS WHAT THE COURT SAID, BUT I THINK MR MARTEL IS GOING TO ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE THINGS. WHATEVER THAT WORDING IS. MR MARTEL IS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT, IN HIS EXCEPTIONS. IS THAT CORRECT TO ME THAT REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF A PARTICULAR ORDER IN A PARTICULAR CASE THE INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE MOST TRANSPARENT AND THE MOST EDUCATIONAL POSITION YOU CAN HAVE FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE ITS DECISION.

SO IF, IN FACT. IT'S MORE EFFICIENT AND BETTER TO DO IT SEPARATE. LET'S DO IT SEPARATE AND TRY IT SEPARATE NOW. AS WE SIT HERE. I'LL ASK ANY ONE OF YOU. IS THERE A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT YOU NEEDED THAT YOU DIDN'T GET WHEN TRYING TO MAKE YOUR DECISION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE WAS AND I DON'T THINK THAT IF IT CAME BACK BEFORE YOU AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S GONNA, BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, IT'S COMING BACK. THAT THERE WAS A LACK OF INFORMATION WE HAD TO 10 OUR HEARINGS. IT WAS MORE INFORMATION THAN LOTS OF IT WAS MORE INFORMATION THAN THEY CAN'T THE KIPLINGER PROJECT HAD IN THE COUNTY AND IT WAS, YOU KNOW, NOT NEARLY THE SIZE.

THE DEBATE HAS FALLEN UNDER THIS ISSUE OF THE. CATEGORIZATION OF THE WETLANDS AND THE AND THE LAND BEFORE OR AFTER, AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT AT ANOTHER TIME. REGARDLESS I THE RULING OF THIS HEARING DOESN'T MATTER. MOVING FORWARD. WE WANT TO HAVE A CLEAN PRESENTATION FROM THE MAYOR.

MAYOR'S COMMENTS THAT WILL INCLUDE SEPARATE ACTIONS. AND THE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT PRESENTATIONS FROM THE CITY FROM THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL AND FROM THE APPLICANT IF THEY'RE SO INCLINED WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED AND NOT JUST OF SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT. BUT COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL, YOU KNOW? THE PROCESS IN GENERAL, NOT RIGHT.

BUT RIGHT. BUT JUST JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR IF YOU TALK ABOUT A SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT MAXIMUM BUILD OUT. IT'S VERY HARD BECAUSE MAYBE NINE AND 21 88 22 87 23. ALL THE WAY DOWN.

YOU COULD LITERALLY HAVE 1000 DIFFERENT PRESENTATIONS. JUST ON THAT ONE LANDRY COUNCIL WE HAD AND WE HAD MR FREEMAN ALL GIVE VARIOUS MAXIMUM BARRIOS. LIKE HEARING NO OTHER COMMENTS. I'LL JOIN THE MEETING. WAIT WAIT. WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT AVANDIA PURPOSE FOR THIS DND WAS THAT COMMISSIONER MEYER ADJOURNED. MR MAYOR RELATED INDIA GERMANY BIRTHDAY DINNER AND I'M HOLDING HER UP SO WE CAN DO THIS RIGHT RIGHT NOW. OKAY? SO UM, I DON'T KNOW IF MR FREEMAN IS HERE, BUT JUST IN CASE WE NEED HIM AND HE SAID THEY'RE READY. SO I HAD ASKED, UH, A COUPLE OF TIMES FOR US WHEN WE WERE WHEN WE REVIEWED THE ONLY PUBLIC UM BENEFIT. RIGHT AWAY IMPROVEMENTS PRESENTATION A FEW WEEKS AGO. UM KEVIN STAFF SHOWED US SOME OF THE LANGUAGE FROM THE ORIGINAL.

[01:25:08]

DEVELOPMENT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T GO BACK AND READ THROUGH EVERY YOU KNOW, MINUTES ANY OF THE MINUTES OF THOSE LAST MEETINGS AROUND THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE THERE AT THE TIME. UM, BUT WHERE THAT CONVERSATION BEGAN AND ENDED AND IF IT'S WORTH US NOW THAT WE'RE HAVING THOSE PARCELS BUILT OUT THAT MAYBE NOW IS THE TIME. TO PUT THOSE SECTIONS INTO CONSERVATION, CARVED THEM OUT WITH A NEW LAND USE. OR I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER SECTION, SAYING THAT WE COULD SUGGEST THAT THE LANDOWNERS WORK WITH THIRD PARTY. PLAYING TRUSTS TO PUT EASEMENTS ON THEM. I THINK THERE MAY BE THE CASE. THERE IS A SPECIFIC CONDITION IN THE OVEN. LI P U D THAT GIVES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO UM, MOVE THOSE INTO CONSERVATION, FUTURE LAND USE AND THAT WAS AGREED WITHIN THE EU DE SO JUST KIND OF. BIG PICTURE. WHAT WOULD IT WHAT WOULD THE PROCESS LIKE THAT LOOK LIKE IF WE WANTED TO.

INVESTIGATE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER. THE LANDOWNERS TO CARVE OUT THOSE PORTIONS AND PUT THEM IN WOULD COMMUNICATE WITH THE CONTROLLING ENTITY. THAT'S IN HEAVENLY AT THE MOMENT, WE WOULD ADVISE THEM THAT WE WERE INVOKING A PARTICULAR CONDITION OF THE P U D AND THEN WE WOULD CARRY OUT AN ANALYSIS AS WE WOULD DO ON A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS. INCLUDING ALL THE PIECES YOU BETTER MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PROFESSIONALLY ACCEPTABLE. I DO MY BEST. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A LAND USE CITY LAND USE CHANGE AND IN THIS LAND USE CHANGE THAT THE DEVELOPERS UNDERSTAND THEY'RE STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UPKEEP AND MAINTENANCE OF THOSE CONSERVATION AREAS. WANT TO START HAVING THE CONVERSATION? I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF LAYERS TO THIS AND YOU KNOW THIS WAS A LONG TIME AGO THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. THE ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. SO YOU KNOW THIS WILL PROBABLY BE REFRESHER FOR ON THEIR SIDE AS WELL AND CERTAINLY IS FOR ME. UM IF THERE'S ANY PANTS OR ANYTHING ASSIGNED TO THOSE NOW UNDER THE PRESERVATION SIDE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER THAT IT STAYS, THERE ARE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES, AND THOSE ARE UPDATED AS WE GET DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON THOSE PARCELS THAT COME IN, UM I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS INVOKED THAT P U D TO SUCH AN EXTENT THEY HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THOSE OBLIGATIONS WERE GETTING SITE PLAN REVIEWS NOW COMING THROUGH THE SYSTEM. WHICH THEY ARE REFERRING P U. DE QUOTING CONDITIONS TO US ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO. SO WE'VE BEEN QUOTING CONDITIONS BACK TO THEM ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR IF THERE SO I MEAN, IS IT WORTH US? JUST SIGNALING BOARD MAJORITY THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN GOING DOWN THIS ROAD WITH THEM. HAD THE SAME CONCERNS. OUR CITY MANAGER DOES WHO'S WHO'S MAINTAINING THEM? UM THIS MOVE GOING TO CHANGE ANY OF THAT. KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN. THE ENTITLEMENTS OF THAT SITE PLAN REMAIN THE CONTROL OF THAT SITE AND THE SITE AS A WHOLE REMAIN. ALL WE'RE DOING IS ESSENTIALLY CHANGING THE COLOR ON THE MAP. THEY'RE NOT. THEY DON'T BECOME CITY RESPONSIBILITIES. IT'S A FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE, WHICH YOU KNOW, AS WE WELL, NO CONTROLS WHAT COULD BE PLACED ON THOSE AREAS. WE HAVE A P U D, WHICH ESSENTIALLY GUARANTEES THOSE AREAS ARE MAINTAINED AS WETLANDS AND PRESIDENT PRESERVE AREAS. A MORE FORMAL WAY OF DOING THAT IS OBVIOUSLY ALLOCATING A CONSERVATION, FUTURE LAND USE. UM AND I THINK THEN PUT EVERYBODY ON NOTICE THAT IT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. IT'S THOSE AREAS WHERE TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF COMMISSION FOR AMENDMENT, IT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT. IT IN A WAY, IT'S ANALOGOUS TO WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH. THE SCHOOL PROPERTIES, THE SCHOOL BOARD PRODUCT COMPLEX. CAN BUILD A SCHOOL THAT DOESN'T NEED TO HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE APPROPRIATE FOR A SCHOOL, BUT WE ARE CLEANING UP OUR LAND USE MAPS. CURRENTLY IN DISCUSSIONS. WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD. PROBABLY THE SCHOOL SCHOOLS DO HAVE TO HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE THAT'S COMPATIBLE WITH INSTITUTIONAL. THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE DOING IT. THERE'S AN ATTORNEY WHEN THEY WERE ANNEXED. THEY DIDN'T GET. THERE'S AN ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RULING THAT SAYS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO APPLY BY THE CODE. THE L D ARE THEY DO HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE FUTURE LAND USE CLEANING THAT UP RIGHT NOW FOR THE PAST YEAR? YES. BEEN ON YOUR

[01:30:07]