2. POLK STREET HOTELS, INC. (AKA FAIRFIELD INN HOTEL) AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (REZONE) (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2537-2025; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE A 0.33-ACRE PARCEL WHICH IS LOCATED AT 255 SW 6TH STREET FROM THE URBAN WATERFRONT ZONING DESIGNATION TO THE URBAN HIGHWAY ZONING DESIGNATION; PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CITY CLERK; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

[2. POLK STREET HOTELS, INC. (AKA FAIRFIELD INN HOTEL) AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS (REZONE) (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2537-2025; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY’S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE A 0.33-ACRE PARCEL WHICH IS LOCATED AT 255 SW 6TH STREET FROM THE URBAN WATERFRONT ZONING DESIGNATION TO THE URBAN HIGHWAY ZONING DESIGNATION; PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CITY CLERK; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

CALL. ORDINANCE FIRST READING. MR. BAGGETT, WILL YOU READ ITEM TWO FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2537 DASH 2025, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY'S OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE A 33 ACRE PARCEL, WHICH IS LOCATED AT 255 SOUTHWEST SIXTH STREET FROM THE URBAN WATERFRONT ZONING DESIGNATION TO THE URBAN HIGHWAY ZONING DESIGNATION, PROVIDING DIRECTIONS TO THE CITY CLERK, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. MR. MAYOR, IF I MAY BE HEARD BRIEFLY, WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY STAFF. WE DO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY GIVE SOME LEGAL GUIDANCE ON THIS. AS YOU RECOGNIZED INITIALLY THAT THIS IS THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE COME UP MULTIPLE TIMES WHEN WE HAVE TWO HEARINGS, AND I JUST WANTED TO REFERENCE OUR CODE FOR A REZONING SUCH AS THIS. IT SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING, TWO HEARINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED REZONING. SUCH HEARINGS MAY BE SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA OF A REGULAR CITY COMMISSION, BUT SHALL BE HELD AFTER 5:00 PM AND SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN TEN CALENDAR DAYS APART. THE REZONING ORDINANCE MAY BE READ BY TITLE AT THE FIRST HEARING, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE AT NOW, AND THEN THE SECOND HEARING SHALL BE QUASI JUDICIAL IN NATURE. THE REZONING ORDINANCE MAY BE ADOPTED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, WHICH IS THE SECOND HEARING. I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE AT THE FIRST HEARING AND UNDER OUR CODE, IT SAYS AT A MINIMUM IT SHOULD BE READ. YOU COULD HAVE THE OPTION OF JUST DOING A MOTION TO POSTPONE OR TO MOVE IT TO THE SECOND HEARING AND HAVE THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING NEXT WEEK OR THE NEXT HEARING. HOWEVER, IT'S BEEN KIND OF PRACTICE OF THE COMMISSION TO DO IT AT BOTH HEARINGS. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT TO GIVE YOU SOME SORT OF LEGAL GUIDANCE AS FAR AS WHAT OUR CODE SAYS, IN MY IMPRESSION, IT TENDS TO AND I'VE SEEN IT IN OTHER CITIES, IN FACT, A CITY THAT I USED TO WORK AT, THAT THEY WOULD DO THE SAME. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A QUASI JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING AT THE FIRST READING.

THEY WOULD DO IT AT THE SECOND HEARING. HOWEVER, I'VE SEEN US DO IT AT BOTH. SO I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE THE AGENDA ITEM INDICATES IT IS QUASI JUDICIAL. YEAH, EXACTLY. THAT'S WHY I FELT THE NEED TO POINT IT OUT TO YOU WHAT OUR CODE READS. IS THERE A CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED HERE? I HAVE MY LIGHT UP. SO, MR. CITY CITY ATTORNEY, IF I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE STAFF REPORT AND THEN HAVE CONSIDERATION, AND THEN MAYBE WE'LL VOTE AT THE NEXT MEETING. DOES THE MAYOR HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE QUASI JUDICIAL COLLOQUY NOW, OR DO WE JUST ASK FOR THE STAFF REPORT? NO. HOW DOES THE STAFF PREPARE? LIKE IF THEY HAD THEIR LEGAL NOTICES, THEY WOULD TURN THAT IN. NOW, TODAY, I WE CAN GO THROUGH THE STAFF PRESENTATION AGAIN. IT'S UP TO Y'ALL. AT A MINIMUM, ALL YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO IS READ. WHAT I JUST DID IS

[00:30:05]

READ THE TITLE AND THEN WHERE I ENVISION WHEN THEY CREATED THIS CODE AND I'VE I'VE WITNESSED IT WHEN I WORKED FOR PORT SAINT LUCIE IS THEY JUST MOVED THE THEY MOVED THE ITEM TO THE NEXT NEXT HEARING. AND THEN THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING. BUT MY CONCERN IS HAVING EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY IN ONE HEARING AND THEN HAVE IT AT A SECOND HEARING. OKAY, TECHNICALLY YOU'RE NOT. WE HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION. IT'S IF WE WERE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, WE'RE IN A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AT THAT POINT. CORRECT. I WOULD I WOULD JUST CAUTION YOU BECAUSE YOU CAN MAKE COMMENTS LIKE YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION NOW WHEN YOU HAVEN'T HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE AND ALL THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE CONCLUDED AT THE SECOND HEARING, AND THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN ABOUT VOTING ON YOUR OPINION ON, ON, ON THE ITEM. AS FAR AS WAITING FOR ALL THE EVIDENCE TO BE CONCLUDED AT THE SECOND HEARING. OKAY, AFTER YOU'VE READ YOUR WHAT YOU'VE READ NOW, SHOULD WE MOVE IT TO A DATE CERTAIN? THEN FOR TWO WEEKS FROM NOW IT'S ALREADY SCHEDULED.

WHAT IS THAT? IT'S ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT AGENDA. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. THE SECOND.

YEAH. SO WE HAVE THIS IS THE FIRST READING AND THEN SO THE FIRST, THE SECOND HEARING IS SO THEY KNOW AND THE NOTICES WILL WILL FOLLOW THAT. SO THEN IN ORDER NOT TO MESS ANYTHING UP OH JUST HEAR HIM OUT. WE SHOULDN'T HEAR ANYTHING TODAY. WE SHOULD JUST MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND I SO HERE'S THE ISSUE THAT COMES UP. YOU MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR WHATNOT, AND YOU COULD RAISE THAT IN THE FIRST HEARING. AND THEY COULD ADDRESS IT AT THE SECOND HEARING. YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING TODAY OR HEAR FROM ANYBODY, I'M JUST GIVING YOU THE NEGATIVE ASPECT OF IT. YOU GET TO THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE A THIRD HEARING TO HAVE THEM COME BACK. SO WHICH IS THE NEGATIVE SIDE TO DOING AS I'M PROPOSING. BUT I'M JUST I'M EXPLAINING TO YOU HOW THE CODE IS WRITTEN, AND IT'S MY IMPRESSION THAT THAT'S HOW IT WAS ENVISIONED. JUST A MERE READING AT THE FIRST HEARING.

AND WE HAVE ADDRESSED THIS IN THE PAST. AND I'VE, I'VE, I RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE, AND I'VE EMAILED YOU ALL ABOUT MY OPINION ON THIS IN THE PAST, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I'D BRING IT UP BECAUSE HERE WE ARE AGAIN AND WE HAVE A FIRST READING, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A SECOND READING AT THE NEXT HEARING. WE SHOULD JUST PROCEED WITH IT SO THAT WE CAN HEAR FROM JODY. WE CAN HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, WE CAN GET OUR QUESTIONS OUT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR LEE ON THIS PROCEDURALLY. SO AT THE END OF ASSUMING WE HEARD FROM, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT, JODY, WE REALLY WOULDN'T VOTE BECAUSE THERE IS TECHNICALLY A ROLL CALL AT THE END OF THE. AND I AND I HOW I'VE HEARD IT AT OTHER HOW WOULD YOU IN OTHER PLACES IS THE MOTION IS TO TRANSMIT THE ITEM TO THE NEXT STAGE. THE SECOND READING TRANSMIT TO THE SECOND READING. RIGHT. AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD VOTE ON. RIGHT. SEEMS THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. AND THEN YOU DON'T VOTE ON THE MERITS OF THE MOTION BECAUSE. AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, I THINK WE SHOULD DO QUASI JUDICIAL. AND THEY NEED TO BE UNDER OATH, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THEN YOU CAN RELY ON EVIDENCE YOU HEARD IN THE FIRST HEARING, ALSO IN THE SECOND HEARING. AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED, WE CAN'T VOTE NO BECAUSE THE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES YOU TO TRANSMIT IT TO THE SECOND HEARING. RIGHT. SO OKAY, SO LET'S JUST LET'S FOLLOW THE RULES. BUT AND I'VE HEARD THE REASON WHY YOU GUYS HAVE HAD IN THE PAST, MAYBE NOT THIS BOARD BUT PRIOR BOARDS. AND I THINK WE MIGHT HAVE AS WELL IS WHEN YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, A QUASI JUDICIAL AT THE FIRST READING ALSO YOU, YOU, YOU PREVENT HAVING A THIRD HEARING BECAUSE YOU GIVE GUIDANCE OR FEEDBACK TO THE APPLICANT AND THEY COME BACK. I DON'T THIS SEEMS MORE OF A STRAIGHT ISSUE THAN LIKE THEY'RE NOT PRESENTING A PROJECT, YOU KNOW, AND THERE WOULD BE A LOT GOING BACK AND FORTH. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST READING I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT BECAUSE THIS HAS THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE. WELL, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME. AND I THINK, I THINK THE MANNER IN WHICH WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED IS SIMPLER AND SAFER FOR ALL OF US. SO DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE WITH THIS APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER READ. YES, I SPOKE TO THE APPLICANT FRIDAY OR SATURDAY THIS WEEK. OKAY. COMMISSIONER JOB. I'M NOT SURE. I'M GOING TO ASK LEE A QUESTION. THE CITY ATTORNEY, I DID NOT SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT I WAS AT THE LPA MEETING, SO I DID HEAR THEIR PRESENTATION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COUNTS FOR BEING FOR ANYTHING, BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET THAT BE KNOWN. NOTHING WRONG WITH DISCLOSING IT, BUT IT'S

[00:35:03]

MORE OF IT'S MORE OF DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF A PUBLIC HEARING THAT THEY WOULD KNOW ABOUT. SO IT WOULD GET, LET'S SAY YOU SPOKE TO ANYBODY, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT. THEY THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO QUESTION YOU ABOUT THOSE COMMUNICATIONS. I HAVE NONE, AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. THANKS, MAYOR. I SPOKE WITH THE MESH PROBABLY A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. A WHILE AGO, TWO YEARS AGO. IT'S TIME'S FLYING, MAN. THAT'S ALL. SURPRISINGLY, I HAVE NONE WITH THIS APPLICANT. SO I GUESS THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TALK TO US. DID YOU PLACE ANY POTENTIAL WITNESSES UNDER OATH, PLEASE, MISTER BAGLEY. ANYBODY'S GOING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. RAISE YOUR HAND, INCLUDING STAFF. DO YOU AFFIRM THAT EVERYTHING YOU'RE ABOUT TO TESTIFY AND PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? ALL RIGHT, THAT'S GOOD. WELL, THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE AGENDA ITEM, INCLUDING THE LOCATION, SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, CURRENT ZONING, ZONING REQUESTED, AND LIST THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JODY COOGLER.

I'M THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WITH THE CITY OF STUART. TONIGHT, I'LL BE PRESENTING THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS. FROM URBAN WATERFRONT TO URBAN HIGHWAY ZONING DESIGNATION, LOCATED AT 2255 SOUTHWEST SIXTH STREET, PURSUANT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2024, THE APPLICANT MAILED NOTICES TO ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE REQUESTED PETITION AND THE DATE AND TIME OF TONIGHT'S PUBLIC HEARING. IN ADDITION TO THREE PUBLIC NOTICE SIGNS WERE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE SAME INFORMATION. FOR CONTEXT, THE 0.33 ACRE PARCEL AT 255 SOUTHWEST SIXTH STREET IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THE SITE IS WITHIN THE URBAN OVERLAY DISTRICT IN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT. AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS URBAN WATERFRONT, WHICH REFERS TO SPECIAL WATERFRONT ORIENTED USES INCLUDING MARINAS, RESTAURANTS, ENTERTAINMENT, HOTELS, AND HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

EXISTING MARINE INDUSTRIAL USES ARE CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED TO SHOWS THE PROPERTIES WITH THE EXISTING ZONING. AS YOU SEE, MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS IN A PURPLE AND THIS PROPERTY IS IN A BLUE, WHICH IS THE URBAN WATERFRONT. THE PROPOSED ZONING IS URBAN HIGHWAY. THIS OCCURS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE SOUTHEAST FEDERAL HIGHWAY, AND IT TRAVERSES THE URBAN CODE DISTRICT. THIS AREA ALLOWS FOR LARGE FRONT SETBACKS AND HIGHWAY ORIENTED COMMERCIAL OR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES WITH GENEROUS PARKING LOTS. AS YOU CAN SEE, MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE URBAN HIGHWAY. THE PROPERTY THAT IS IN QUESTION IS LOCATED. LET ME JUST PUT MY CURSOR ON THERE. IS THIS RIGHT HERE. IT WOULD BE CONSISTENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO THE WEST. THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AT THE PLANNING, THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. THEY HELD A PUBLIC HEARING ON JANUARY 16TH, 2025, AND A BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY, PASSED A MOTION TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY OF STUART CITY COMMISSION. ALSO AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, SOME OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS DID EXPRESS CONCERNS REGARDING NOT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, BUT WHEN IT MOVES FORWARD THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION OF THE PARKING LOT, THE LIGHTING, THE POLLUTION, LIGHTING, POLLUTION, SECURITY AND THE CONDITION OF FRAZIER CREEK. THE LPA ALSO RECOMMENDED IF THE PETITIONER WOULD CONSIDER HOLDING A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO DISCUSS SPECIFIC CONCERNS, AND THE PETITIONER IS GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ONCE THE PLANS ARE PREPARED AND READY TO BE SEEN FOR SITE PLAN LEVEL, THIS PETITION CONFORMS TO THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN SECTION 11.01 .09 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, FLORIDA STATUTES AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICY OF THE CITY OF STUART.

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAFF RECOMMENDS THE CITY COMMISSION FOR TO THE SECOND READING SLASH ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 25, 20 2537 DASH 2024 TO APPROVE THE REZONING. THE SUBJECT PARCEL FROM URBAN WATERFRONT TO THE URBAN HIGHWAY. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF PRESENTATION. WE ALSO HAVE THE PETITIONER, WHO ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION PREPARED FOR YOU TONIGHT JUST BEFORE WE GO

[00:40:04]

FORWARD. IT DOESN'T INDICATE THAT STAFF CAN TAKE QUESTIONS, BUT LET ME ALLOW THE COMMISSIONERS. YEAH, I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF I DO OKAY. MR. GOP YES. I REALIZE THAT A SITE PLAN IS PROBABLY NOT READY YET, BUT DID THEY SUBMIT A TEMPORARY SITE PLAN AS TO WHETHER THIS IS AGREED UPON OR NOT? BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE TWO WAYS THAT THIS WOULD BE BUILT. COMMISSIONER JOB. THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. THAT'S WHEN THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES WITH THE URBAN WATERFRONT VERSUS THE URBAN HIGHWAY ONE, SAYS PARK IN THE REAR, ONE SAYS PARK IN THE FRONT. SO TO MAKE THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT, STAFF RECOMMENDED THEY REZONE THE PORTION. THEY PURCHASED ALL THE OTHER PARCELS AND PUT IT IN A UNIQUE TITLE. SO THIS IS ONE LITTLE PIECE THAT ACTUALLY IS NOT EVEN TOUCHING THE FRAZIER CREEK WATERFRONT. SO THIS WOULD MAKE THE GUIDELINES CONSISTENT. OKAY. AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE JUST TOUCHING THE CREEK WHERE THEY'RE NOT FULL BLOWN ON THE CREEK? OR ARE THERE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO THIS? SO IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, LET ME JUST GO BACK TO THE SLIDE. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY THAT'S UNIFIED WHICH IS ALL YELLOW. THIS IS THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER IS ALL CONSISTENT, EVEN THOUGH ONE PORTION OF IT DOES TOUCH THE FRAZIER CREEK. BUT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ZONED URBAN HIGHWAY. SO THIS JUST MAKES IT CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE CORRIDOR. OKAY. AND HAVE THEY MET WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO. THEY MET WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW AT THE LPA MEETING, I JUST HEARD THAT THERE WERE SOME THAT THEY WANTED TO MEET WITH THE DEVELOPERS. SO THE STAFF HAS BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ONCE WE RECEIVED THE NEW REVISED SET OF PLANS, WITH THE NEW ARCHITECTURAL, WITH THE CONSISTENT DESIGN GUIDELINES, WE WILL BE SETTING UP A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND WE'LL BE MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL. OKAY.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. IS THERE FORGIVE ME. GO AHEAD. I'M GOING THROUGH THE APPLICANT'S MOTION. READ. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NOT YET. OKAY. VICE MAYOR, ARE THEY REQUIRED TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITHIN THE URBAN. SO YOU'RE DOING THAT SUPPLEMENTARY TO TRY TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR? YEAH. I MEAN, COMMISSIONER COLLINS TO DO A ZONING CHANGE.

THE THEORY IS THAT THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT AT ALL. RIGHT. WELL, YOU'D BE LOOKING AT UNDER CHAPTER THREE IS ALL OF THE USES THAT COULD BE DONE IN URBAN HIGHWAY OR URBAN WATERFRONT. YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW. AND WE'VE HAD BUSINESS DEALINGS WITH THEM IN THE PAST. SO EVERYBODY'S FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING. BUT THE TRUTH IS, THE AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT IS NOT ABOUT A SITE PLAN OR THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT IS RATHER LIMITED TO THE ISSUE OF THE ZONING. AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FLIP THIS TO DO APARTMENTS, RIGHT? I'M JUST KIDDING. SO I KNOW YOU'RE A HOTELIER. I'M JOKING. NO. MAKE A PRESENTATION AND THEN YOU CAN. OKAY, SO JODY, WHAT'S WHAT IS DID THEY HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT HERE. YOU JUST RECOMMENDED JUST TO HAVE THE CONSISTENT ZONING COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. WE DID RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE THERE IS PORTIONS OF THE CODE. AND WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF DESIGN GUIDELINES, URBAN HIGHWAY SAYS EVERYTHING SHOULD BE PUSHED UP TO THE FRONT. YOU'RE PARKING IN THE REAR. YOUR URBAN WATERFRONT SAYS, PUT A CHERRY BIKE IN THE BACK WITH THESE VEGETABLES SO THEY CAN SEE DOWN THE WATERWAY.

SO THAT WAS IF YOU KEPT WITH THE URBAN WATERFRONT AND THE URBAN WAY IT IS TODAY. IT'S VERY INCONSISTENT. SO YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A DESIGN GUIDELINES THAT ARE A LITTLE HODGEPODGE, JUST TRYING TO MAKE BOTH OF THEM WORK. SO BY CHANGING IT TO THE URBAN HIGHWAY, THEY WILL PUSH THEIR HOTEL FURTHER TO THE FRONT WHERE IT SHOULD BE. AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER GUIDELINES WITHIN THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN WATERFRONT AND HIGHWAY THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL TO REMAIN WATERFRONT? IS THERE ANYTHING BEYOND THE PARKING THAT'S A CARDINAL DIFFERENCE THAT YOU COULD POINT TO, OR IS IT JUST REALLY ISOLATED TO PARKING AND MAKING SURE THAT IT'S INCIDENTAL TO JUST INCONSISTENCY? YES. IT WOULD BE THE PARKING AND WHERE THE PLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE. AND FOR CLARIFICATION, URBAN HIGHWAY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THIS TO, WOULD HAVE THE PARKING IN THE BACK SO OFF OF US ONE WHICH WOULD CREATE ADDITIONAL BUFFER IN BETWEEN THIS HOTEL AND THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT CREEK. AND THAT IS CORRECT. AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, WHICH IS IF YOU NOTICE ON MY SCREEN RIGHT HERE, THIS DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH THE WATERFRONT. YOUR WATER IS RIGHT HERE. THIS DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH THE WATERFRONT. SO REALLY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED AS URBAN HIGHWAY WITH WITH THE

[00:45:02]

PARKING LOT GOING IN THE BACK AND BEING RIGHT UP AGAINST THE CREEK, DOES THAT AFFECT THE DRAINAGE AND OR IF THAT SHOULD BE MORE OR LESS PERMEABLE WITH THAT PARKING LOT IN THE CREEK THERE, ARE THERE CONSIDERATIONS WITH THAT IF IT'S FRONT VERSUS REAR? SO WITHOUT REALLY GETTING INTO THE SITE PLAN WEEDS, THEY DO HAVE TO ADDRESS ALL THEIR DRAINAGE AND FIX THE LONG TERM DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BEEN GOING ON OTHER PROPERTIES. SO THEY WILL I THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO ESTABLISH SOME OF THE IMPERVIOUS PAINT PAVERS, WHETHER THE PARKING WAS IN THE FRONT OR BACK, THOUGH, AS IT RELATES TO ZONING, WE SHOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING THEIR SITE PLAN.

RIGHT. SO BUT IF THE CARDINAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ZONING DESIGNATIONS IS WHERE THE PARKING GOES, I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT, RIGHT? THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE THE STRUCTURE GOES, BUT NOT THE STORMWATER CONTROL. OUR CODE REQUIRES EVERYONE TO MAINTAIN STORMWATER AND PRESENT AN ENGINEERED STORMWATER PLAN, REGARDLESS OF WHICH ZONING IT IS. IT'S NOT MORE. AND THEY BOTH HAVE THE SAME ZONING REQUIREMENTS. IT'S NOT MORE DEMANDING ON WATERFRONT VERSUS HIGHWAY. IT'S THE SAME. NO, THAT'S IN YOUR CHAPTER SIX. AND THAT'S ALL GETS INTO SITE DETAILS. OKAY, I THINK THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. OKAY. DOES THE PETITIONER WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION I SHOULD READ? OH COMMISSIONER READ. I'M SORRY. DO YOU HAVE A. OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO STATE I WAS GOING THROUGH IT. YES. THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS THE PARKING FRONT.

REAR? IF THERE WAS PARKING ON THE SIDE, THAT WOULD LIMIT THEM TO THE THREE STORIES. WITH THE URBAN HIGHWAY, THERE WAS CURB CUTS, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT MATTER TO SOME. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW, THOUGH. THAT'S WHY IT'S GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE. YOU CAN REAL TIME DIG IT UP OUT OF THE. OKAY. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JARED GAYLORD. FOR THE RECORD, I DO HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FOR POLK STREET HOTELS. I'M JOINED BY MR. NIMESH PATEL THIS EVENING OF POLK STREET HOTELS, INC. AS JODY MENTIONED, WE WERE BEFORE THE CITY'S LPA MEETING ON THE 16TH, WHERE WE DID RECEIVE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. AND I'M GOING TO ASK JODY TO FLIP THROUGH THE SLIDES WHEN IT'S A MOMENT. SO NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION, IT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF US, ONE JUST SOUTH OF THAT FRAZIER CREEK BRIDGE AND JUST SOUTH OF DUNE. DOG FOR THE HOT DOG AFICIONADO'S. AND JUST NORTH OF SIXTH STREET, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS SOMEWHAT OF A UNIQUE SHAPE PROPERTY. THERE'S ABOUT 100FT THAT IS FRONTING FRAZIER CREEK. BUT AGAIN, THE ODD PART ABOUT THAT IS THAT 100FT THAT FRONTS FRAZIER CREEK IS NOT THE PORTION THAT'S ZONED URBAN WATERFRONT THAT'S ACTUALLY PREVIOUSLY ZONED URBAN HIGHWAY. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS AN UP CLOSE PORTION OF THE SLIDE. IT'S THE SOUTH EAST CORNER WHICH IS 0.33 ACRES. THAT'S CURRENTLY WHERE JODY IS USING THE CURSOR TO DESIGNATE THAT VACANT AREA. RIGHT THERE IS CURRENTLY URBAN WATERFRONT. THE REST OF THE LOT IS URBAN HIGHWAY. AS JODY DID MENTION, MY CLIENTS PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN APRIL OF 2023.

IT WAS THREE SEPARATE PARCELS AT THAT TIME. THOSE OBVIOUSLY NEEDED TO BE JOINED WITH A UNITY OF TITLE SO THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE REDEVELOPED. OBVIOUSLY YOU WANTED TO HAVE ONE COHESIVE PROPERTY AS OPPOSED TO THREE WITH DIFFERENT SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. SO THERE WAS A UNITY OF TITLE FILED IN THE MARTIN COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS IN MAY OF 2023. THIS IS AN AERIAL BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS AT THE LPA MEETING THAT I DID WANT TO SHOW THAT THAT THAT VANTAGE POINT FROM SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ACROSS FROM FRAZIER CREEK TOWARDS THE PROPERTY, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE DISTANCE FROM SOME OF THE HOMES ON THE EAST SIDE OF FRAZIER CREEK TO THE, TO OUR PROPERTY IS ABOUT 71FT. SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A DISTANCE THERE. THERE.

THERE'S ALSO A DENSE MANGROVES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CREEK WHICH WILL HELP BUFFER SOME OF THE VIEW. IT'S ALSO OUR OPINION AT ABOUT 40FT TALL, THEY'RE NOT. NO, NOT 40FT TALL. THEY DO HAVE PLANS. THEY DO HAVE PLANNED A SIX FOOT SIGHT WALL THERE. AND AGAIN THESE PLANS ARE PRELIMINARY. SO THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. BUT THERE IS A SIX FOOT CBS SIGHT WALL ON THE REAR OF THOSE OF THE PROPOSED PARKING LOT. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO EIGHT WAX MYRTLE PLANTS THAT ARE ABOUT 12FT TALL. SO THERE WILL BE SOME LANDSCAPING IN ADDITION TO THE TO THE EXISTING MANGROVES THAT WILL HELP BUFFER OR OR LIMIT THE VIEW FROM ACROSS THE WATERWAY, WHICH WE THINK IS HELPFUL. WE'RE ALSO REMOVING THE OLD CREMATORIUM, WHICH SHOULD BE A POSITIVE. NEXT

[00:50:04]

SLIDE PLEASE. AND THEN THIS IS JUST A VIEW FACING EAST. AGAIN YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE CREMATORIUM IS LOCATED THAT'S ACTUALLY ZONED URBAN HIGHWAY. AND THEN JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THERE WHERE THE CURSOR IS THAT IS ZONED URBAN WATERFRONT. NOW THE PARCEL DIRECTLY TO THE EAST WHERE THAT STRUCTURE IS, THAT'S ALSO ZONED URBAN WATERFRONT, WHICH MAKES SENSE. AGAIN, IT IS LOCATED ON FRAZIER CREEK. BUT OUR LOT IS NOT. OR THAT PORTION OF THE LOT RATHER IS NOT ALONG FRAZIER CREEK. AND AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME THERE ARE SOME VEGETATION ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CREEK. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE EXISTING SITE PHOTOGRAPHS. IF YOU'VE BEEN BY YOU CAN SEE THAT THE YOU KNOW THE PROPERTY NEEDS SOME ENHANCEMENT. AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW HOTEL WILL PROVIDE THAT. IT WAS A FORMER A FORMER FUNERAL HOME. AND AGAIN THE HOTEL WILL BE LOCATED ON THE FRONT. IF IT WAS URBAN WATERFRONT AGAIN, THAT HOTEL WOULD BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE CREEK, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO BUFFER WITH LANDSCAPING. ANYTHING ELSE? NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS JUST A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE WHICH IS A CLOSE UP. YEP. THIS IS JUST A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS 1.58 ACRES TOTAL, OR 68,891FT■!S. AND AGAIN, THAT PARCEL D IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER IS WHERE THE REZONING WILL TAKE PLACE. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS JUST A COPY OF THE UNITY OF TITLE. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. AND THESE ARE SLIDES THAT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH WITH THE REZONING. NEXT SLIDE. THAT'S JUST THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATED DOWNTOWN. NEXT SLIDE.

AND I'M HAPPY TO READ THROUGH THE REZONING STANDARDS. BUT THERE SHOULD BE IN YOUR AGENDA PACKETS. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO COMMISSIONER JOB. HELLO. HI.

HI. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. I KNOW THAT THE WHERE THE CREMATORIUM IS DESIGNATED. IT'S NOT DESIGNATED WATERFRONT, BUT IT IS BASICALLY CLOSER TO THE WATER. THE DISMANTLING OF THAT CREMATORIUM, WILL IT IN ANY WAY IMPACT OR DAMAGE THE CREEK? I NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A QUESTION FOR THE CONTRACTOR, WHICH I'M SURE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE RUBBLE DOES NOT FALL INTO THE CREEK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, OR THAT THERE WILL BE SAFEGUARDS TAKING PLACE SO THAT THOSE SAFEGUARDS WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN THAT CONTRACT. I WOULD HOPE. OKAY. AND THAT AND THAT WOULD BE, I PRESUME, WITH THE CITY'S PERMITTING OFFICE AS WELL. SO THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THAT LITTLE 0.33 ACRES. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONLY AREA THAT WE'RE MAKING A DECISION ON THIS EVENING. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR.

YEP. OKAY. OH, COMMISSIONER REED. YES. I JUST WANTED TO ASK. THIS MIGHT BE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. I KNOW IT'S THE ZONING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING. WHY WOULD THERE BE THINGS IN HERE WHERE IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBLE OVERLOADING OF THE CITY'S SEWAGE COLLECTION TREATMENT? OBVIOUSLY, GOING FROM A FUNERAL HOME TO A HOTEL THAT WE NECESSARILY. I UNDERSTAND IT'S A ZONING CHANGE, SO WE HAVE NO CLUE ON THE SITE PLAN. SO WE DON'T KNOW THE ROOM SIZES, THE CAPACITY. SO HOW DO YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AND WHY WOULD IT BE IN THE PACKET FOR THE ZONING THAT YOU WOULD BE DETERMINING IS IF YOU LOOKED UNDER CHAPTER THREE, UNDER THE URBAN CODE, WHERE YOU WERE JUST READING THE DIFFERENCE OF WHERE THE BUILDINGS WERE, YOU WOULD LOOK AND DETERMINE WHAT THE CAPACITY WAS FOR URBAN WATERFRONT, AND THEN YOU WOULD COMPARE IT WITH URBAN HIGHWAY. AND THE DISTINCTION WOULD BE, DOES THE CITY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ABSORB ANY CHANGE? IT'S A LOT DIFFERENT WHEN YOU'RE CHANGING IT FROM R1 TO B2, WHERE IT'S GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO MULTI-FAMILY OFFICE. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WHAT STAFF WILL TELL YOU IS THAT IF YOU READ THE URBAN CODE THAT BOTH ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOW THE EXACT SAME USES, SO IT WOULDN'T MATTER WHICH ZONING IT WAS, THE IMPACTS OR INTENSITIES ON PARKING, UTILITIES, POLICE SERVICE. ET CETERA ARE IDENTICAL. IT'S JUST

[00:55:03]

THE LOCATION AND STYLE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT WAS GOING TO BE BUILT. THAT IS THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR. SO FROM A CONCURRENCY OR CAPACITY STANDPOINT, IT'S EQUAL BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A HOTEL HERE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE USE. YOU HAVE TO IMAGINE THAT IF THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND AND DIDN'T BUILD IT, IF SOMEONE ELSE CAME ALONG, IT WOULD BE ZONED URBAN HIGHWAY. AND THEN WHAT COULD THEY BUILD AS URBAN HIGHWAY VERSUS URBAN WATERFRONT? THE ONLY NEW THING THEY COULD BUILD IS UNDER OUR CODE. YOU CANNOT BUILD A AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS UNLESS IT'S URBAN HIGHWAY. AND THEN IT HAS TO BE INSIDE. SO BY CHANGING IT FROM URBAN WATERFRONT TO URBAN HIGHWAY, TECHNICALLY THAT SOMEBODY COULD ULTIMATELY BUILD AN AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICE THERE, BUT ADJACENT TO IT ALREADY, THEY OWN THE PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY URBAN HIGHWAY. SO TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, THEY COULD DO THE AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICE ANYWAY. WHICH LEADS US FULL CIRCLE BACK TO THE FACT THAT BOTH CODES ALLOW THE SAME USES. SO THE CAPACITY OR INTENSITIES OF USE DON'T CHANGE. THEY BOTH WOULD HAVE THE SAME IMPACTS ON THE STEWART'S INFRASTRUCTURE. SO AS LIKE A BOARD MEMBER UP HERE, WHAT WHAT WOULD WE DO TO LOOK OUT FOR I GUESS THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST AS WELL BECAUSE AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, MIKE. AND BUT IT'S A BIG ZONING CHANGE, OBVIOUSLY, AND A BIG DEVELOPMENT CHANGE. LIKE I SAID, GOING FROM A FUNERAL HOME TO MANY MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE THERE BESIDES COMING FOR A FUNERAL HOME SERVICES AND THEY'RE LEAVING. AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S ZONING, SO YOU CAN'T REALLY DISCUSS IT THEN. I MEAN, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A FUNERAL HOME. WELL, THE FUNERAL, WHAT WAS WAS IT IT WAS URBAN WATERFRONT WHICH ALLOWED HOTELS, FUNERAL HOMES, MOVIE THEATERS, RESTAURANTS. ET CETERA. AND THEY'RE REQUESTING TO MAKE IT URBAN HIGHWAY, WHICH ALLOWS FUNERAL HOMES, HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, ETC. SO I KNOW THAT THE USE WAS A FUNERAL HOME AT SOME POINT. WAY LESS INTENSE. YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH IT. THE ZONING ALLOWED, CORRECT. THEY COULD HAVE BUILT A HOTEL THERE AS WELL, JUST LIKE YOU COULD BUILD A HOTEL. THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A SITE PLAN. THEN YOU GUYS ARE SPEAKING TWO DIFFERENT LANGUAGES. YOU'RE SPEAKING REAL WORLD PRACTICAL INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. AND YOU'RE SPEAKING WELL. NO, I'M SPEAKING ABOUT ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT THE HEARING IS. JUST ZONING, NOT SITE PLAN. THE THING IS, WHEN YOU HAVE AN URBAN, WHEN YOU HAVE A CODE, COME IN FOR A SITE PLAN THOUGH, WILL IT? WELL, THAT'S THE THING. THE ONLY FUTURE LAND USE THAT THE CITY HAS THAT REQUIRES EVERYTHING TO COME IN FOR THE COMMISSION VOTE IS NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT. EVERY OTHER LAND USE THE CITY HAS ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THESE PROPERTIES ALREADY HAD A FUTURE LAND USE OF DOWNTOWN, WHICH ALLOWED DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT WITHIN DOWNTOWN. THEIR ZONING WAS EITHER URBAN HIGHWAY, URBAN CENTER, URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD OR URBAN WATERFRONT, AND THOSE ALL CAME WITH DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT WITHOUT NEEDING TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, UNLESS THEY WANTED TO VARY FROM THAT CODE.

IN THIS INSTANCE, WHAT YOU HEARD WAS THE PRIMARY DISTINCTION BETWEEN URBAN WATERFRONT AND URBAN HIGHWAY IS THAT BOTH ALLOW HOTELS, BOTH ALLOW FOR STORIES, BOTH ALLOW THE SAME NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET. IT'S JUST THAT URBAN HIGHWAY REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO BE BUILT AGAINST THE HIGHWAY AND UP AGAINST THE HIGHWAY, WITH THE PARKING IN BACK AND URBAN WATERFRONT REQUIRES THE BUILDING TO BE BUILT UP AGAINST THE WATER, WITH THE PARKING IN FRONT TOWARD THE HIGHWAY. SO FROM AN INTENSITY OR DENSITY OR WHATEVER THAT PERSPECTIVE IS, IT'S THE SAME.

THE REAL QUESTION IS, AS A COMMISSIONER, WHAT IS VISUALLY, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE ON THAT CORRIDOR? AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS, IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT USES? WELL, THE REALITY OF IT IS, IS THE BLUE ON THAT MAP IS URBAN WATERFRONT. SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH URBAN WATERFRONT AND THE PURPLE ON THE MAP, WHICH IS EVERY OTHER PROPERTY ON THE HIGHWAY ALL THE WAY DOWN, IS ALSO DEMONSTRATED, IS ALSO BEING COMPATIBLE. SO THE BOARD REALLY HAS THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHICH IT DEEMS MORE APPROPRIATE. I THINK HE RAISES A

[01:00:09]

GOOD POINT. THAT MIGHT BE A SUB CONVERSATION, OR MAY NOT EVEN BELONG IN THIS PARTICULAR HEARING. BUT HOW HOW DOES THIS COMMISSION BEYOND THE, YOU KNOW, LEGALLY TECHNICALLY ACCURATE ZONING AND THIS KIND OF THING, HOW HOW DOES THIS COMMISSION SAY, CAN I JUST ASK THAT WE ARE WE FINISHED WITH THE PETITIONER. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF HIM FROM THE BOARD? IF NOT, OKAY, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT. YEAH. AND YOU AND YOU DON'T WISH TO PRESENT ANY OTHER INFORMATION? NOT UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. SO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE HAS ENDED AND THE HEARING IS CLOSED. DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT REGARDING THIS? MAYOR, I HAVE NONE OKAY. YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL TIME TO MAKE PRESENTATION ADDITIONAL FACTS KNOWN. I DID INCLUDE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS, BUT THERE THEY'RE MUCH MORE RELATED TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL RATHER THAN THE REZONING MATTER. OKAY, SO I'M ASKING FOR DIRECTION IN THE FORM OF A MOTION TO SIMPLY TRANSMIT IT TO THE NEXT.

CORRECT? YES. SECOND, I'D LIKE TO MAKE DID DID ANYONE MAKE A MOTION? OKAY. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. ON THE PREMISE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WOULD BE DONE BEFORE THEN. IS THAT POSSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS, IF I MAY, MAY. SO THEY'RE NOT THE WAY THAT WE TALK TO THEM TO DO THAT. I MEAN, THEY COULD HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. WE'RE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED TO. OR. NO. NO, SIR. THANK YOU. APPARENTLY WE'RE NOT LEGALLY REQUIRED THEM TO DO THAT. BUT WE CAN ASK SEPARATE FROM THE MOTION. YES, SEPARATE FROM THE MOTION. YES. JODY, I'M SORRY IF I MAY INTERVENE. THE WAY WE LEFT IT WITH THIS, THE RESIDENTS THAT HAD CONCERNS AND WANTED A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IS ONCE THEY GET THE CONSISTENT ZONING, THEN WE'RE MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GO OVER THE SITE PLAN AND HOW IT'S GOING TO FUNCTION, HOW IT'S GOING TO LAY OUT AND, AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WOULD GO STRAIGHT TO THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. IT IS. YES, IT WILL GO STRAIGHT TO THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT MEETING BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS EVEN DRAWN UP. OKAY.

BUT AFTER THE ZONING IS DECIDED BY THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE A MOTION. I'M GOING TO SECOND. ARE YOU WITHDRAWING? SO YOU HAVE A MOTION YET? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE THIS FORWARD TO THE SECOND REQUIRED MEETING. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK SECOND, AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY THE VICE MAYOR. WILL YOU CLARIFY THE MOTION FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE, MR. BAGGETT, CAN I CLARIFY? THERE WAS A MOTION FOR IT? NO, I THINK IT THE MOTION WAS TO TRANSMIT THE AGENDA ITEM TO THE SECOND READING AT THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING, WHICH IT'S ALREADY SCHEDULED. OKAY.

ORDINANCE NUMBER 2537 DASH 2025, AS PRESENTED AND READ BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSIONS OR QUESTIONS AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS? I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THAT LETTER THAT WE HAD ON THE PRESENTATION WAS THAT THE SAME LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT BEFORE IT CAME BEFORE THE LPA BOARD? BECAUSE I THINK THE PROPERTY ADDRESS WAS DIFFERENT.

COMMISSIONER READ. WE DID CORRECT THAT AND SEND OUT NEW LETTERS. OKAY. THAT WOULD BE A BIG DEAL. VICE MAYOR. ANY ADDITIONAL. YES. JUST BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL POINT. I KNOW WE'RE STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, BUT HOW TO COMMISSIONER REED'S POINT, HOW DO YOU SAFEGUARD INTERNALLY, YOU KNOW, IF EVERY SINGLE, FOR INSTANCE, ON US, ONE IF EVERY ONE OF THOSE PARCELS BECAME FOUR STORY HOTELS, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PUT SOME DEMAND ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NOT WHOLLY ACCOUNTED FOR. YOU DON'T YOU DON'T PUT THAT IN YOUR CODE. I MEAN, THAT'S I MEAN THAT HONESTLY, THAT'S THE TRUTH OF IT IS WE KNOW THAT ECONOMY WISE, IF EVERYTHING WAS A HOTEL, THERE'D BE TOO MANY HOTELS AND NOBODY WOULD STAY IN THE MALL AND THEY'D GO BROKE. AND OF COURSE, BUT IF EVERYTHING WAS FOUR STORY APARTMENTS, THEORETICALLY MIXED USE, AND THE SECURITY BEHIND IT IS THAT THAT'S WHAT CODES ARE FOR A LOT OF COMMUNITIES. AND THAT'S WHERE THE IN TERMS OF LIKE WATER SUPPLY, WATER SUPPLY, HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE AUDIT THAT WE HAVE SUFFICIENT WATER SUPPLY BY A LOT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE WATER AND

[01:05:04]

SEWER FOR EVERYTHING LEFT IN STEWART VERY EASILY. AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS THAT RIGHT.

AS A METRIC. HOW WHAT IS THE ACTUAL MEASUREMENT TO THAT? THAT'S THAT'S TANGIBLE TO CHECK OFF THAT WE STILL HAVE ROOM. SO WHEN THERE'S WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING A COMMERCIAL BUILDING YOU HAVE A EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS. AND AN EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTION IS A FORMULA THAT THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT USES TO DETERMINE HOW MANY GALLONS PER DAY A PARTICULAR USE WILL USE, BASED UPON ACTUARIAL NUMBERS THAT ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE IN THE INDUSTRY, AND THEREFORE A DENTIST OFFICE THAT HAS A WATER PICK IS PROBABLY GOING TO USE A LOT MORE WATER THAN A LAWYER'S OFFICE. AND SO THE INFORMATION THAT'S AVAILABLE, ALL CALCULATED DOWN TO THESE EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS OR ERCS, IS HOW THEY CHARGE THE PERSON BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTING, WHETHER IT'S OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL, HOTEL, MOVIE THEATER, WHATEVER IT IS, BEYOND CODE. AND LIKE LAND USE AND ZONING THAT ACTUALLY MARRIES TO TANGIBLE, REAL WORLD WATER SUPPLY. DO WE HAVE SORT OF A RUNNING TALLY OF HOW MUCH WE'RE USING AND WE HAVE TO SUPPLY WE DID A. STUDY LAST FEBRUARY, TWO FEBRUARIES AGO NOW FOR A CONSUMPTIVE USE THAT AUTHORIZED US TO GENERATE AND PRODUCE ROUGHLY 3.1 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY. WE ARE NOT CONSUMING 3.1 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER PER DAY. ARE WE TALLYING WHAT? YES, WE'RE CONSUMING EVERY SINGLE DAY. WE KNOW HOW MANY GALLONS OF WATER WAS PUMPED OUT OF THE OUT OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND THIS HOTEL. AND AGAIN, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THE MATH ON WHAT ERCS ARE, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN THEY DO THE REVIEW, A FOUR STORY HOTEL OR A TWO STORY HOTEL, OR A 20 ROOM HOTEL VERSUS AN 80 ROOM HOTEL VERSUS A 400 ROOM HOTEL, THERE'S MATHEMATICAL NUMBERS THAT WOULD BE AND AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT EXACT, BUT IT'S AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE CONSUMPTION WOULD BE. JUST LIKE I CAN TELL YOU, THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD USES X GALLONS A DAY, BUT SOME PEOPLE USE MORE. AND SO THEN THAT CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT, COUPLED WITH WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY OUTPUTTING PER DAY IS, IS THAT METRIC RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU PUT UP AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT. EXACTLY. GOT IT. THAT'S. WHAT YOU ACTUALLY BRING UP. AN INTERESTING POINT, VICE MAYOR. BECAUSE THE CITY WE WILL EVENTUALLY BUMP UP AGAINST THAT, THAT WILL BE THE CAPACITY OF THE CITY. WELL, THAT WE ALREADY HAVE WHEN WE DID THE CONSUMPTIVE USE FOR 23,700 PEOPLE, WE KNOW WHEN WE GET THERE, IT'S OVER, RIGHT? SO WHETHER THEY'RE IN PRIVATE HOMES OR HOTELS OR. RIGHT. YEAH. SO THAT THAT WILL BE A LIMITING ELEMENT TO THE CITY'S GROWTH.

YEAH. YOU WOULD BASICALLY REDEVELOP WITH THE SAME DENSITY AND USE USAGE IN TERMS OF WATER CONSUMPTION, SOMETHING SIMILAR. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE YOU'RE CONSUMPTIVE USE ON THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL WOULD HAVE TO MIRROR WHEN YOU REDEVELOP. RIGHT. WELL DO SO WHERE WHERE'S LIKE THE RUNNING TALLY OF WHAT WE'RE CONSUMING CURRENTLY. WHAT WE KNOW HOW MUCH WATER WE USE EVERY DAY WE CAN I MEAN, RIGHT, YOU CAN COME IN EVERY DAY AND PETER CAN MEET WITH YOU AND TELL YOU HOW MANY GALLONS. THE OTHER THING IS, IT'S AN INTERESTING NUMBER BECAUSE. HOLD ON, TIME OUT. YOU SAID OUR YOU SAID OUR PERMITS FOR 3 MILLION A DAY, ROUGHLY 3.1 MILLION PER DAY. BUT WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT AT THE END OF THE MONTH, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S 30 DAYS AND IT'S $3 MILLION OR 3 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE NUMBER OF GALLONS THAT WE MADE WOULD EQUAL THE NUMBER OF GALLONS THAT WENT TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON'S HOUSE. BUT WE HAVE FOUND OVER THE YEARS THAT THERE'S PIPES UNDERGROUND THAT LEAK. AND SO AT THE END OF THE MONTH, WHEN THE BILLING COMES IN, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE USE 2.5 MILLION GALLONS LEFT OUR LEFT, OUR PLANT TODAY, THE BILLING MIGHT ONLY SHOW THAT 2,490,000 GALLONS WERE USED. AND THERE'S 10,000 GALLONS THAT DIDN'T GO THROUGH A METER. NOW, THAT MIGHT BE BECAUSE SOMEBODY CUT THE PIPE AND MADE IT GO AROUND THE METER TO SKIP IT, OR THAT SOMEBODY CUT A HOLE IN IT ON ACCIDENT, OR THAT THERE'S A LEAK SOMEWHERE THERE. THERE'S A JOINT LEAKING OR A THOUSAND DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT SO THAT THAT CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT ISN'T, ISN'T MARRIED JUST TO A POPULATION DENSITY. IT'S ALSO MARRIED TO THE TOTAL TOTAL DEVELOPMENT. HOW DOES THAT HOW DOES HOW DOES THE 3.1 MILLION AND 25,000 OR 24,000 DOVETAIL? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS LIKE A POPULATION DENSITY.

IS IT LIKE IT WAS. WELL, OR THE REASON THAT IT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU GUYS IN POPULATION DENSITY IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR. THE PRESENTATION BY THE CONSULTANT WAS RESPONDING

[01:10:04]

TO YOUR QUESTIONS. BUT THE TRUTH WAS THAT IF EVERY SINGLE PARCEL IN STUART WAS DEVELOPED TO ITS MAXIMUM, IT WASN'T ALWAYS RESIDENTIAL. SOME OF IT COULD HAVE BEEN OFFICE BUILDING OR COSTCO OR WHATEVER IT WAS. BUT THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE WAS THE MAXIMUM OF EVERY SINGLE PARCEL EQUALS THIS PROJECTED NUMBER OF GALLONS. AND THEY USE THAT TO EXTRAPOLATE IT AND SAY, ESSENTIALLY BASED UPON THE LAND USES YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW AND THE MAXIMUM DENSITIES YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH 23,700 PEOPLE. WHEN YOU GET TO EVERY PIECE OF LAND THAT'S DEVELOPED TO ITS MAXIMUM DENSITY, THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT. THE TRUTH IS, WE COULD HAVE PRODUCED 4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY, BUT THE BOARD CHOSE TO PRODUCE THE NUMBER THAT EQUATED TO THE STUDY. SO TO GO THE OTHER WAY AND CAP IT AT THE 23.7. SO EFFECTIVELY REGULATING THE AMOUNT OF GROWTH ACROSS THE BOARD, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS TO THAT NUMBER. AND SO IN ORDER TO CHANGE THAT, YOU'D HAVE TO CHANGE THE CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT CHANGE CAPACITIES. AND YOU ALSO, OUR SEWER HAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CAPACITY ANYWAY. BUT THAT ALSO PLAYS A ROLE IN IT. AND WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT IN 2007 WITH THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE THEM SEWER AND TO HAVE INTERCONNECTION FOR OUR WATER IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WAS AN EMERGENCY, SO THAT NO ONE WOULD ACTUALLY GO WITHOUT WATER. WHENEVER WE DON'T HAVE A SLAMMED AGENDA BECAUSE IT'S A LARGER CONVERSATION, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT JUST TO BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS GOING FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT. AND YOU KNOW HOW THAT RELATES REAL WORLD INTO WHAT JODY? CERTAINLY, I AGREE WE CAN BRING SOMETHING FORWARD FOR YOU FOR THAT JUST SO WE'RE NOT TYING UP. SO YOU'RE PAYING A LOT PER HOUR TO HAVE HIM HERE, RIGHT? SO AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, OBVIOUSLY FEBRUARY FEBRUARY IS A TIGHT MONTH BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ZONING IN PROGRESS. SO IT'LL PROBABLY BE IN MARCH THAT I BRING IT BACK. NOT BECAUSE WE CAN'T BRING IT BACK SOONER, BUT JUST STRATEGICALLY. IT'S PROBABLY BETTER TO WAIT TILL MARCH WITH THE AGENDAS WE HAVE. BUT THEORETICALLY, MIKE, MR. MORTAL, YOU COULD HAVE A BY RIGHT DEVELOPMENT ON YOUR PIECE OF PROPERTY. BUT IF THE CITY CAN'T SUPPLY YOU THE WATER, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY, WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT. WE CAN'T APPROVE IT, RIGHT? WE CAN'T APPROVE IT. RIGHT. IT IS A LIMITING FACTOR, I WONDER. AND BY THE WAY, INDIAN TOWN IS IN THAT POSITION RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? YEAH. THEY DON'T HAVE THE WATER AND THEY'VE GOT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS THEY CANNOT ADDRESS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE IT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER JOB I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER, MR. MORRELL. I'M JUST QUESTIONING THAT KIMLEY-HORN PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE TO THE CITY BECAUSE YOU QUOTED IT.

AND I'M JUST CONFUSED BECAUSE IT DID SAY THAT THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE CITY DEPEND ON SHALLOW WELL, WHICH DRAW FROM THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER TO PRODUCE 3 MILLION GALLONS OF WATER A DAY. THE CURRENT CAPACITY OF THE 23 WELLS IS 5.5 MILLION GALLONS. ON A GOOD DAY, THE CITY THEN WOULD MAXIMIZE PRODUCTION OF THE REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT TO YIELD 3 MILLION GALLONS A DAY, 1.5 MILLION MORE THAN ORIGINALLY PLANNED. SO IT'S ALREADY AT THE POINT IN JULY WHEN THEY MADE THIS, THEY IT WAS ALREADY BASICALLY YIELDING MORE THAN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO. IT HAD A TOTAL CAPACITY NOW OF 6 MILLION A DAY. RESIDENTS, VISITORS AND BUSINESSES CURRENTLY USE AN AVERAGE OF 3.1 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. IN JULY OF 2024, NOT EVEN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING THAT WAS BUILT SINCE THEN OR WILL BE BUILT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. OKAY, SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE SAYING THE REPORT WAS BASED ON INFORMATION WE WERE ASKING BACK FOR? NO. WAS IT NOT FACTUAL? I SAID THE REPORT RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY BECAUSE THAT'S THE QUESTION YOU WERE ASKING, NOT THE NUMBER OF GALLONS THAT WAS BEING PREPARED AND GENERATED. BUT THE QUESTION THE COMMISSION ASKED WAS, HOW MANY PEOPLE DOES THAT EQUATE TO? AND THE ANSWER WAS 23,700 PEOPLE. BUT THE ENGINEER THAT DID THAT REPORT DIDN'T CARE ABOUT DENSITY. THEY WERE FOCUSED ON, WELL, CAPACITY, VOLUME OF WATER AND A DEEP CONVERSATION AS IT RELATED TO A CONSUMPTIVE USE PERMIT FOR WATER. ALTHOUGH WE COULD PUMP MORE WATER OUT, THE DEP'S CAPACITY IS AT 3.1 MILLIO. BEFORE WE BUILT THE RO PLANT, WE WERE PUMPING 3 MILLION GALLONS A DAY OUT OF THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER. WE THEN BUILT THE RO PLANT, AND AS THE REPORT POINTS OUT, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUMP $1.5 MILLION A DAY OR GALLONS A DAY OUT OF THE RO PLANT. THAT

[01:15:06]

WOULD BE NICE. NO, IT FEELS LIKE IT GOES THE OTHER WAY. BY THE WAY, ALTHOUGH WE'RE SAYING ACTUALLY WE PUMP IT IN. IT WAS 3 MILLION, 3 MILLION GALLONS A DAY, 1.5 MORE THAN ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED. BUT BOTH PLANTS COULD OPERATE ALONE. THE POINT OF IT BEING IS THAT IF THE PROBLEM WITH PFOA COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CURED AND WE COULDN'T HAVE PUT IN THE OR, THE ION EXCHANGE FAILED AND WE COULDN'T USE THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER AT ALL, WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO USE THE RO PLANT, GENERATE THE 3 MILLION GALLONS, AND PROVIDE OUR CITY WITH WATER. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE DID. WHAT WE DID IS WE USE BOTH PLANTS, AND WE USE A PORTION OF WATER FROM THE RO PLANT AND A PORTION OF WATER, AND WE BLEND THEM TOGETHER TO DO TWO THINGS. NUMBER ONE, IT HELPS CHARGE THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER. NUMBER TWO, IT SAVES US MONEY ON THE REPLACEMENT OF THE ION EXCHANGE MEDIA. THAT'S EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. AND NUMBER THREE, IT SAVES MONEY ON THE OPERATION OF THE RO PLANT, WHICH IS ALSO EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. SO WHAT IT IS, IS TRYING TO FIND THE SWEET SPOT THAT MAKES OPERATIONAL COSTS MOST EFFICIENT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVEN THOUGH BETWEEN THE TWO PLANTS WE COULD HAVE HAD 6 MILLION GALLONS, WE ONLY GOT A PERMIT FOR 3.1 MILLION GALLONS, AND THE 3.1 MILLION GALLONS IS BASED UPON TAKING EVERY SINGLE PARCEL IN THE CITY OF STUARTS WATER AREA AND SAYING, IN THE FUTURE, IF THIS GETS BUILT OUT TO ITS MAXIMUM DENSITY, CAN THIS SYSTEM SUPPORT THOSE USES? AND THE RATIONALE FOR THAT WOULD BE THAT YOU REALLY SHOULD NOT BE GOING ABOVE THAT. THREE BECAUSE IF, GOD FORBID, EITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO WERE TO FAIL, WELL, YOU WOULD NOW BE IN TROUBLE AND WE WOULD DESTROY THE SURFICIAL AQUIFER IF WE STARTED TAKING 5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY OUT OF IT, BECAUSE IT WOULD NEVER REHYDRATE. AND YOU WOULD YOU WOULD LOSE THE RESOURCE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER REED. THANK YOU. YEAH, THIS WAS FOR JODY. SO GOING THROUGH THE AGENDA PACKET, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. I KNOW THE TRAFFIC DATA GETS VERY CONFUSING. I WAS LOOKING ON ONE OF THE PAGES IT WAS TALKING ABOUT BASED OFF OF 94 ROOMS. AND THEN IT GOES TO 147, THEN 164 AND 159. I BELIEVE IN THE AGENDA PACKET. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. THOSE ARE PROJECTIONS OKAY. BUT WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THERE'S OBVIOUSLY RIGHT. THESE ARE JUST PROJECTIONS THAT BASED ON THAT TYPE OF LAND USE, THOSE PROJECTIONS COULD THE COULD THE ZONING SUPPORT THOSE TYPE OF USES. SO IT ALL DEPENDS ON WHAT TYPE OF USE YOU'RE LOOKING AT. SO THOSE ARE JUST PROJECTIONS IN THE REPORT. SO FOR EXAMPLE WHEN IT SAYS DAILY TRAFFIC GENERATION OF 414 TPD, WHAT IS TPD STAND FOR PER DAY RIGHT. TRAFFIC PER DAY. SO THAT'D BE THE DAILY TRAFFIC PER DAY OF VEHICLES COMING IN. SO WHAT WOULD THE TPD BE FOR? 147, 164 AND 159 THEN? I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE THAT REPORT. WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT THIS. IT'S JUST IN HERE. YEAH. SOME OF IT WAS MAYOR RICH AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. THANKS. SO THOSE ARE JUST PROJECTIONS BASED OFF THE DIFFERENT TYPE OF USES WITHIN THAT LAND USE OR THAT ZONING DISTRICT. WHEN THE SITE DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, THEY WILL HAVE TO DO A SITE SPECIFIC TYPE OF TRAFFIC REVIEW BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ROOMS. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU AND I WOULD BE ABLE TO SIT DOWN ON? SO I UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE I KNOW IF THERE WAS 94 ROOMS, IT SAYS IN HERE THERE'D BE 414 TRIPS DAILY.

SO IF HYPOTHETICALLY I SAT WITH YOU, YOU WOULD HELP ME CALCULATE THE 147, 164 AND 159 NUMBER. I CAN ASSIST YOU, BUT I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, SO. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. I WOULD ASSIST, OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME TO MAKE IT UP. MOTION IN A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND WE'VE WE'VE CONCLUDED OUR DELIBERATION. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, YES. SO MAY WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MADAM CLERK. VICE MAYOR COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER REED, DID WE? YES. OH, THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER. JOB. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES. AND MAYOR RICH. YES. WHAT IS THAT DATE? CERTAIN AGAIN FOR THE PUBLIC. FEBRUARY 10TH. OKAY. TO MAKE SURE, MR. BAGGETT, ITEM

[3. REPEAL OF ARTICLE IX, EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE AND PLASTICS REGULATION (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2538-2025; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, REPEALING ARTICLE IX, EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE AND PLASTICS REGULATION, OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.]

THREE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE. THANK YOU GUYS. THANK YOU. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA. REPEALING ARTICLE NINE EXPANDED POLYSTYRENE AND PLASTICS REGULATION OF CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WE HAVE A PRESENTATION BY STAFF ON THIS. THERE, THERE THERE REALLY ISN'T

[01:20:07]

A PRESENTATION BY STAFF IN I BELIEVE IT WAS EARLY NOVEMBER. THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO BRING BACK THE STRAW ORDINANCE AS A RESCISSION. NORMALLY WHEN WE DO THESE TYPES OF ORDINANCES, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO GO THROUGH THE LANGUAGE AND TWEAK IT TO PROVIDE LANGUAGE TO FULFILL YOUR INTENT OR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T OPENING UP AN OPENING FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DIDN'T INTEND. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, THE DIRECTION WAS TO REDLINE THE ENTIRE REGULATION AND THEREFORE THERE ISN'T. IT'S MORE OF A THUMBS UP OR A THUMBS DOWN. I WILL SAY THAT HOW WE GOT HERE, I GUESS, IS A BETTER DESCRIPTION. THE ORIGINAL INTENTION WAS THAT IT WAS TO BAN PLASTIC BAGS AND GROCERY STORES LIKE THEY'VE DONE IN COMMUNITIES, AND TO GET RID OF THOSE PLASTIC BAGS. BUT AFTER THE COMMISSION THAT ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE BROUGHT IT UP, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAD PREEMPTED THE REGULATION OF ANY PLASTIC CONTAINERS, INCLUDING PLASTIC BOTTLES, BAGS, ETC. AND AS A RESULT, THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO BAN THE BAGS. THE INTENTION BEHIND THE STRAWS WAS TO SEND A MESSAGE. YOU KNOW, LOOK, WE CARE ABOUT THE PLASTICS. WE WANT OUR, OUR, OUR COMMUNITY TO BE AWARE OF IT AND TO TAKE STEPS TO, YOU KNOW, AVOID SINGLE USE PLASTICS. THE REALITY OF IT IS, IS THAT SINCE IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED, THERE HASN'T BEEN A NOTICEABLE DECLINE OF SINGLE USE PLASTICS BY ANYBODY OTHER THAN THE BUSINESSES IN THE CITY OF STUART THAT DO NOT USE PLASTIC STRAWS. THOSE BUSINESSES ACTUALLY HAVE TO INCUR AN ADDITIONAL COST BECAUSE NON PLASTIC STRAWS LIKE THE BAMBOO STRAWS OR WHATEVER THEY ARE, ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE. THE BUSINESS THAT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE, FRANKENSTEIN'S THE GUY THAT OWNED THAT AT THE TIME, TOLD ME THAT HE COULD BUY A THOUSAND PLASTIC STRAWS FOR $10 AND HE COULD ONLY BUY A HUNDRED OF THE OTHER STRAWS FOR $10. AGAIN, NOT THAT IT MATTERS, BECAUSE YOU COULD ALSO HAVE NO STRAWS AT ALL, BUT IT TURNED OUT THAT THAT THE ISSUE OF STRAW. WELL, AND THAT WAS THE OTHER THING PEOPLE ARE USING BIODEGRADABLE STRAWS WITH A STYROFOAM CUP AND A PLASTIC LID. AND, AND IT IT REALLY JUST TURNED OUT TO BE A, NOT A HUGE FINANCIAL BURDEN, BUT IT WAS A FINANCIAL BURDEN AND A REGULATION PLACED ON BUSINESSES IN STUART THAT DIDN'T EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE. AND IF YOU WERE IN SOUTH STUART OR NORTH OF THE BRIDGE, THERE WAS LITERALLY COMPETING BUSINESSES ACROSS THE STREET THAT DIDN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH IT OR DO IT. AND SO THE COMMISSION GAVE US DIRECTION TO BRING IT BACK, TO HAVE IT RESCINDED. AND THAT'S HOW WE'RE HERE. AND IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. MAYOR. YEAH. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2538 2025. WE HAVE A MOTION BY THE VICE MAYOR.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOB. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? MR. BRACKBILL, DO YOU KNOW BETTER? WILL YOU PLEASE HAND A GREEN CARD? YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR NEW ADDRESS ON THERE. YES. 406 SOUTHEAST FINNEY DRIVE, STUART, FLORIDA. 34996. YEAH, YEAH.

QUICKLY. THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO COMMENT ON AND MIKE, HIS ANALYSIS IS REALLY GOOD IN THAT IT PUT A REAL ECONOMIC BURDEN ON ON BUSINESSES IN STUART AND PUT THEM IN A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE. AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING THAT. AND THAT WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT AT THE TIME FOR THAT REASON. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THE WHOLE IDEA OF POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, RECYCLING AND KEEPING THAT STUFF OUT OF THE WATER AND OUT OF THE, YOU KNOW, ENVIRONMENT IS STILL A GENERALLY GOOD IDEA. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FORCE IT ON PRIVATE BUSINESS. BUT I THINK WE COULD INCENTIVIZE THE USE OF THERE'S DESIGNATIONS THAT YOSHINAGA THAT THAT CAN BE DONE FOR CLEAN OCEANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WE COULD INCENTIVIZE A BUSINESS THAT CHOOSES TO GET THAT DESIGNATION. MAYBE WE CAN GIVE THEM A SMALL CREDIT AGAINST THEIR FEE OR THEIR PERMIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO ENCOURAGE. I DON'T YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE FORCED THE BUSINESSES, BUT I THINK WE COULD ENCOURAGE THE BUSINESSES TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE TAKE A STEPS TO STILL CONSERVE BECAUSE IT'S OUR RIVER AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S OUR ENVIRONMENT. SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU. FRANK MCCRYSTAL. THERE WE GO. WE WALKED UP LIKE THAT. WHAT'S THE WHAT'S WHAT THEY CALL THE IN IN. EVOLUTIONARY OR EVOLUTIONARY

[01:25:05]

TERMS A VEGETABLE APPENDAGE OR SOMETHING A VESTIGIAL APPENDAGE. YES. SO THIS IS JUST A THIS IS LEFT OVER FROM A PREVIOUS COMMISSION AS A FEEL GOOD ABOUT OURSELVES. OKAY. AND I'M, I JUST LOVE THOSE MUSHY PAPER STRAWS. I MEAN ONCE ONCE YOU'RE DONE WITH YOUR DRINK, YOU JUST YOU CAN JUST SLAM IT DOWN AND GET SOME FIBER. IT ALL WORKS OUT GOOD. ALRIGHT, SO BUT MY POINT IS THIS. I'M WONDERING IF WE WENT SEARCHING, HOW MUCH MORE OF THAT FEEL GOOD STUFF OF THE PREVIOUS.

AND HOW IS A GREENIE? WAY BACK BEFORE IT WAS COOL. I WAS GREENIE WHEN IT STARTED IN 1974.

OKAY, BUT HOW MUCH OF THIS NONSENSE CAN WE FIND FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. BYE BYE. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS. BE NICE. COUNT YOUR BLESSINGS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A. OH, I'M SORRY HELEN. THAT'S OKAY. I'M SORRY.

HELEN MCBRIDE. FLAMINGO AVENUE. IT WAS THE ENVIRONMENTALIST. WE WANTED TO SAVE THE TURTLES. AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE THING. IT WAS OUR TURTLES. NOW, WE'RE NOT OUT THERE ON THE OCEAN. WE'RE IN HERE. AND IT WASN'T. I DON'T BLAME PAST COMMISSIONERS OR THE FUTURE COMMISSIONERS. AT THE TIME, WE WERE ALL HERE, AND WE WERE TRYING BECAUSE THEY SHOWED WHAT OUR TURTLES WERE GETTING INTO THEIR STOMACHS. BUT IT WAS THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WHO LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE BECAUSE THE MOVEMENT WAS SAVED. THE TURTLES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PAST COMMISSIONERS, PEOPLE LIKE HELEN MCBRIDE, WHO CAN'T STOP TALKING. IT WAS WE WERE THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WAS THAT FOR OR AGAINST? TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT? WE HAVE NO MORE MAYOR.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION REGARDING THIS? YEAH, I THINK I LIKE HELEN. I STILL I KNOW THAT IT'S A HARD THING, AND I'VE SEEN THE RESTAURANTS AND PLACES THAT I'VE GONE TO AND BASICALLY NOBODY'S COMPLYING. BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE THROW UP AND SAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING. I THINK THAT THERE'S OTHER MATERIALS THAT CAN BE USED, AND I KNOW THAT THE SHOPS DO WHAT THEY CAN. AND SOME PEOPLE, NOT EVERYBODY USES SOGGY PAPER STRAWS. BUT I THINK THAT I, I SUBSCRIBE TO MAKING EVERY SINGLE EFFORT WE CAN IN EVERY LOCATION. AND IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HAVING A THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING RESTAURANTS IN OUR JURISDICTION ON THE BEACH OR WHATEVER. WE HAVE THEM ON THE WATER HERE, ON THE WATERFRONT TOO, BUT THINGS ARE JUST GOING TO ARE GARBAGE. SO I WANT TO SEE US STILL CONTINUE TO DO AS MUCH AS WE CAN. I DON'T SEE ANY ENVIRONMENTAL FOLKS HERE TODAY, AND I HAVEN'T REALLY HEARD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER FROM ANY RESIDENT RESIDENTS, BUT I THINK THAT I JUST WANT TO AT LEAST SAY THAT I'M TRYING TO DO AS MUCH AS I CAN FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S SOMEWHAT SEEMS LIKE A FAIT ACCOMPLI WITH OUR LITTLE CITY. BUT. THANK YOU. YEAH, THIS IS ONE LAST QUESTION. OKAY, I'M JUST GOING TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT YOU SAID. I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY ABOUT BEING AN ENVIRONMENTALIST. IT'S JUST BEING A GOOD STEWARD OF OUR COMMUNITY AND OF OUR PLANET. SO WHATEVER STRAW YOU GET, JUST DON'T THROW IT ON THE BEACH.

THROW IT, THROW IT IN THE GARBAGE AND IT WILL BE RECYCLED. THANK YOU. SO THIS ALLEGATION THAT PFOS AND PFOA IS IN THESE STRAWS COMES FROM ONE STUDY. AS FAR AS I COULD TELL. I COULD ONLY FIND ONE STUDY THAT WAS IN BELGIUM. COME ON. YOU KNOW, A COUPLE YEARS AGO AND. BECAUSE IT WAS SET UP HERE, YOU CAN GET YOU CAN GET STUDIES TO SAY ANYTHING YOU WANT. I THINK COMMISSIONER CLARK MAKES A GOOD POINT. I REALLY HATE GOING BACKWARDS HERE. AND EVERY EFFORT. HOW SMALL. AND IT IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE WASTE STREAM THAT IS AFFECTED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO READ SOME OF THESE WITH ME. NO, I MAY FINISH MY COMMENTS. I MEAN, WE CAN GO DOWN THE LINE ON THESE IF YOU WANT. AFTER YOU MAY MAKE A COMMENT AFTER YOU. THERE'S PFOS AND PFOA IN PLASTIC STRAWS. THERE'S PFAS AND PFOA AND SO MUCH, YOU KNOW, THE PLASTIC PACKAGING THAT YOUR FOOD

[01:30:03]

IS IN IN THE GROCERY STORE. THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH THE PLASTIC STRAWS IS THEY CONTAMINATE THE WASTE STREAM. AND WHEN WE SEND OUR RECYCLING TO THE PLANT, IF THERE'S TOO MANY PLASTIC STRAWS, THEY REJECT IT AND THEY JUST SEND IT ALL TO THE DUMP. SO WHAT IS THE NET RESULT THERE? IF WE'RE JUST CONTAMINATING OUR OWN GARBAGE STREAM AND RECYCLING LESS AND LESS? SO I JUST, I REALLY DON'T FEEL LIKE I HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION AT THIS POINT. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE RESULT, UNDERSTAND THE COSTS INCURRED BY CONTAMINATING THE WASTE STREAM.

IF THAT ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN, THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONTENTION THERE, BUT. SO I ALONG WITH, WITH ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER CLARK, I JUST DON'T LIKE TO GO BACKWARDS. I THINK EVERY EFFORT IS WORTHWHILE AND CLEARLY WE HAVE A COMMITMENT TO OUR ENVIRONMENT AND OUR WATERWAY, AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD DECISION AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO THERE'S BEEN YEAH, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL DIFFERENT STUDIES. AND IN FACT, IF YOU START TO GET INTO THIS AND I'M GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF AUTHORITY ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF MY WORLD. IT'S KIND OF WHAT I DO WITH HEALTH. IN FACT, THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF COMPANIES THAT PRODUCE NON PLASTIC PLANT BASED STRAWS THAT HAVE NON-DETECT LEVELS OF PFAS. IT'S SUCH AN OVERWHELMING NORMAL WITHIN THE PLANT BASED STRAW INDUSTRY. YOU HAVE TO SEARCH PRETTY FAR AND WIDE AND DIG IN TO EVEN FIND COMPANIES THAT HAVE NON-DETECT LEVELS. AND SO BASICALLY OUR OPTION WOULD BE EITHER FORCE, YOU KNOW, DOUBLE DOWN ON THIS AND FORCE BUSINESSES TO BUY STRAWS FROM A 1 OR 2 COMPANIES, WHICH DOES NOT SEEM LIKE A GOOD IDEA. OR, YOU KNOW, JUST LEAVE IT UP TO BUSINESS OWNERS TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR THEMSELVES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SEEMS LIKE THE BEST IDEA TO ME. BUT I'LL STOP WITH THAT. I AGREE WITH YOU. I'M ALWAYS VERY RELUCTANT TO FORCE BUSINESSES TO BEHAVE IN A CERTAIN WAY. AND I THINK THE POINT THAT IT'S THAT IT'S NOT COUNTYWIDE IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT POINT, BECAUSE THAT IS UNFAIR. I SHOULD ALSO THROW INTO THIS CONVERSATION FLORIDA STATUTE, SECTION 403.7033. THE LEGISLATURE FINDS THAT PRUDENT REGULATION OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS IS CRUCIAL TO THE ONGOING WELFARE OF FLORIDA'S ECOLOGY AND ECONOMY. AS SUCH, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SHALL UNDERTAKE AN ANALYSIS OF THE NEED FOR NEW OR DIFFERENT REGULATION OF AUXILIARY CONTAINERS, WRAPPINGS OR DISPOSABLE PLASTIC BAGS USED BY CONSUMERS TO CARRY PRODUCTS FROM RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS. THE ANALYSIS SHALL INCLUDE INPUT FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, STAKEHOLDERS, PRIVATE BUSINESSES AND CITIZENS, AND SHALL EVALUATE THE EFFICACY AND NECESSITY OF BOTH STATEWIDE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS OF THESE MATERIALS TO ENSURE CONSISTENT AND EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT WITH CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE NO LATER THAN FEBRUARY 1ST OF 2010, AND UNTIL THIS REPORT IS FINISHED, THE LEGISLATURE ADOPTS AND RECOMMENDS OF THE DEPARTMENT NO LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY MAY ENACT ANY RULE, REGULATION OR ORDINANCE REGARDING USE, DISPOSITION, SALE, PROHIBITION, RESTRICTION OR TAX OF SUCH AUXILIARY CONTAINERS, WRAPPINGS OR DISPOSABLE PLASTIC BAGS, AND AS A RESULT, THIS IS WHY WE ONLY HAVE A STRAW, RATE, BECAUSE THE STUDY ISN'T QUITE FINISHED YET.

BUT THEY'RE CLOSE. WELL, IT'S ONLY 14 YEARS OVERDUE. COME ON, GIVE IT MORE TIME. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I HAVE NO OTHER COMMENTS. THERE'S A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MADAM CLERK.

COMMISSIONER REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. SELBY. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. NO. MAYOR.

RICH. NO. AND VICE MAYOR. COLLINS. YES. SO MOTION PASSES. ON. FIRST READING. ON FIRST READING, WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE OUR MIND. SECOND READING. RIGHT ON FIRST READING. DISCUSSION D

[4. AUTHORIZATION TO SCHEDULE ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION (RC): RESOLUTION No. 18-2025; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SCHEDULE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION WITH THE CITY COMMISSION, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, AND OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION MATTERS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES, §286.011(8); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

AND D AUTHORIZATION TO SCHEDULE. WOULD YOU READ THIS ITEM FOR DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION, PLEASE, MR. BAGGETT? ABSOLUTELY. RESOLUTION NUMBER 18, DASH 2025, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO SCHEDULE AN ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSION WITH THE CITY COMMISSION, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, AND OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION MATTERS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION TWO,

[01:35:07]

86.011, SUBSECTION EIGHT, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND THIS WAS AN AGENDA ITEM THAT I PREPARED. AND WE HAVE THREE SEPARATE CASES IN LITIGATION. AND IT WAS MY OPINION THAT WE AND THEY'RE ALL BEING HANDLED BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL, THREE DIFFERENT LAWYERS. AND IT'S BEEN MY OPINION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY CLIENT SESSION FOR VARIOUS REASONS ON EACH OF THESE THREE CASES, I CAN IDENTIFY THEM, BUT THEY'RE LISTED IN THE AGENDA ITEM. THESE ARE WHAT ARE CALLED SHADE MEETINGS. CORRECT. SO AS WE COMMONLY HEAR SUNSHINE COMMISSIONERS YOU CAN. SURE. SO YOU HEAR FLORIDA SUNSHINE FLORIDA SUNSHINE FLORIDA SUNSHINE. WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT. SO OKAY THEY CALL THIS SHADE MEETINGS. SO IT'S OUT OF SUNSHINE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. SO WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IS WE WOULD COME TO A PUBLIC MEETING AND WE WOULD OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THEN ANNOUNCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SHADE MEETING AND WE'LL GO INTO THE ANTECHAMBER WITH ALL OF US UP HERE AND OUR OUTSIDE COUNSEL.

AND WE'LL ALSO HAVE IN THE ROOM A COURT REPORTER WHO WILL TAKE TAKE DOWN EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID. AND THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE CLOSE OF ANY OF THE CASES. NO. AFTER THE LITIGATION, EACH ONE. YEAH, YEAH. EACH SEPARATELY RESPECTIVELY. WHEN THAT CASE IS OVER, THAT BECOMES PUBLIC RECORD. AND SOMETIMES WE'LL HAVE MORE THAN ONE SHADE MEETING, BUT IT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE LAWSUIT. I JUST IT GIVES US A REASON TO DISCUSS STRATEGY IN THE CASE AND ALSO POTENTIAL SETTLEMENT WITHOUT THE OTHER SIDE KNOWING ABOUT IT. HOW SOON DO WE NEED TO DO THIS? WELL, I'VE, I'VE SUGGESTED I'VE GOT TWO SEPARATE DATES. NUMBER ONE, I WOULD SUGGEST A SPECIAL MEETING BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE CASES WE'VE GOT TO DISCUSS FEBRUARY 5TH, WHICH IS A WEDNESDAY, AND WE COULD DO IT ANY TIME DURING THE DAY. WE CAN'T DO THAT. OR WE CAN ADD IT TO THE REGULAR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 24TH. HOWEVER, WE DO HAVE A CRA THAT DAY AT 4:00, AND THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING STARTS AT 530. AND I BELIEVE THE ZONING OF PROGRESS SECOND READING WOULD BE THEN. SO THAT WOULD BE A LONG DAY. WE COULD DO IT EARLIER IN THE DAY. WE HAVE THE MPO ON THE 24TH. AT WHAT TIME IS THAT? 9 TO 12 IT'S SLATED FOR ON MY CALENDAR. CAN'T DO IT THE 10TH. TAKE A LOOK HERE. WE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL SCHEDULE, AND THOSE WERE THE TWO DATES, YOU KNOW, ON FEBRUARY THE 12TH.

OH, BECAUSE THE COUNSEL CAN ONLY COME ON THOSE TWO DAYS. WELL, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO IT ON THE 24TH AT 1:00. 2 OR 3:00? YEAH. LIKE 2:00, LIKE 130 OR 2:00 IF YOU'RE DONE. TWO HOURS IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH THE CASES. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN WE WOULD GO RIGHT INTO THE MEETING. WE'RE GOING TO IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE TIME TO GO THROUGH THE, THE PROCEDURE JUST TO GET IN THE ROOM. BUT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DO IT AT THREE AND THEN WE'LL GO INTO OUR CR, I THINK WE NEED MORE THAN AN HOUR, 2 P.M. OR 130 ON THE 24TH. 230 IT WAS JUST 130. NO, NOT 130. I WOULD SUGGEST TWO TWO. THEN WE HAVE A BREAK IN BETWEEN CRA IN THIS. IT COULD GO ON. I MEAN, YOU GUYS COULD JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS COULD DISCUSS A LOT. I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE CAN WE EVERY MEETING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK OUT. CAN WE GET IT DONE IN AN HOUR AND A HALF? IF YOU THINK SO. AND YOU GUYS CAN BE QUICK. WE DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT BETWEEN THEM. WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT ON. WE'LL WE'LL ANNOUNCE ALL THREE. WE'LL GO INTO THE SHADE MEETING, DISCUSS EACH ONE AND SEPARATE THEM ON THE COURT REPORTER. AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK OUT. AND THEN THAT WAY THE RECORD WILL BE CLEAR SO THE COURT REPORTER CAN TRANSCRIBE JUST TO SAVE MONEY.

RIGHT. WE DO HAVE THREE SEPARATE LAWYERS. SO EACH OF THEM WILL HAVE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT LAWYER COME IN. YEAH, RIGHT. BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO REDO ALL THE PROCESS EACH TIME. ALL OF THEM ARE, YOU KNOW, APPLIED BY TRICO RELATION INSURANCE. SO OR OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON THESE. SO IT'S THAT ONE DAY THE 24TH AT 2:02 P.M. CORRECT. YEAH. THAT'S EITHER FEBRUARY 5TH ANY TIME DURING THE DAY OR NIGHT OR THERE IS NO MEETING AND THAT'S A WEDNESDAY 24TH. WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT. NO NO I CAN'T DO THE FEBRUARY 10TH AND FEBRUARY 24TH ARE OUR REGULAR MEETINGS. SO FEBRUARY 10TH DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE OF OTHER CONFLICTS. SO FEBRUARY 24TH IS WHAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING. YEAH. TWO 230 YEAH. COMMISSIONER CALLS FOR THE FIFTH. COMMISSIONER COLLINS CAN'T DO THE I CAN'T DO THE FIFTH. CAMPBELL. OKAY, I GOTTA WORK. I'M NOT INDEPENDENTLY WEALTHY AS YET. MARK WILL FIND A WAY. I GOT IT, I GOT IT, I GOT I GOT MOUTHS TO FEED, MAN. WHAT HAPPENED ON THE FIFTH? HE CANNOT DO THE FIFTH. I GOTTA WORK. SO THEN WE'LL WE'LL NEED, YOU KNOW, VOTE ON FEBRUARY 24TH AT 230. YEAH. NOW WE'RE TALKING. DO YOU THINK WE CAN DO THEM ALL IN TWO HOURS? 3 IN 2 HOURS? THAT'S THAT'S AN HOUR AND A HALF. PLEASE CONTINUE. RIGHT. OKAY.

[01:40:02]

ONE HALF HOUR. IT'S LIKE WE DID TONIGHT. YEAH. WORST CASE SCENARIO. OKAY. YOU KNOW WHAT THE CASES ARE? THERE'S THREE. I CAN READ THEM OUT. THE CITY OF STEWART VERSUS NORTH POINT VENTURES LLC, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTERS LLC VERSUS CITY OF STEWART, AND GIANT OIL, INC.

VERSUS CITY OF STEWART. WHY ARE YOU NOT MENTIONING THE ONE IN THE FEDERAL COURT? THAT'S WHAT THAT'S OUR MEETINGS ABOUT. YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S NOT REQUIRING A SHADE MEETING. APPARENTLY. SO.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION AT THE MOMENT OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT ARE WE DONE WITH THAT ITEM, MR. BECKER, DO YOU NEED A MOTION OR IS CONSENSUS GOOD ENOUGH OR. IT'S A DO YOU FEEL AUTHORIZED? I DON'T THINK IT'S A RESOLUTION, BUT I THINK WE HAD A RESOLUTION IN IT.

OH, OKAY. THEN THE RESOLUTION NEEDS TO BE WHEN WE'RE FINISHED. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? ROLL CALL.

THE ROLL CALL REQUIRES US TO PUT THIS NOTICE OUT IN ADVANCE. SO IT'S BETTER TO PASS IT BY RESOLUTION. SO IT'S DOCUMENTED. SO, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MOVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 18 2025.