4. LEWIS LEONARD, 433 SE LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE - EAST STUART MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (RC): RESOLUTION No. 16-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN EAST STUART MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 433 SE LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE, AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION; GRANTING APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN OUTBUILDING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 700 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF A REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT, TO ALLOW THE MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) DENSITY UNITS, AND TO CONFIRM THE IMPERVIOUS AND PERVIOUS REQUIREMENTS; GRANTING APPROVAL AND ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A REVOCABLE RIGHTOF-WAY PERMIT FOR THE USE OF THE CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE EXISTING PAVED ACCESS FOR SE LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

[4. LEWIS LEONARD, 433 SE LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE - EAST STUART MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (QUASI-JUDICIAL) (RC): RESOLUTION No. 16-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN EAST STUART MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 433 SE LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE, AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION; GRANTING APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN OUTBUILDING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 700 SQUARE FEET, TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF A REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT, TO ALLOW THE MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) DENSITY UNITS, AND TO CONFIRM THE IMPERVIOUS AND PERVIOUS REQUIREMENTS; GRANTING APPROVAL AND ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A REVOCABLE RIGHTOF-WAY PERMIT FOR THE USE OF THE CITY’S RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE EXISTING PAVED ACCESS FOR SE LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL. YES. SO IF YOU COULD PULL OUT THE YELLOW CARD. YES, SIR. THE TITLE OF THE ITEM IS LEWIS LEONARD, 433 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE, EAST STEWART.

MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IT IS QUASI JUDICIAL RESOLUTION NUMBER 16 DASH 2026. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, GRANTING AN EAST STEWART MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 433 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE, AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION, GRANTING APPROVAL TO ALLOW AN OUTBUILDING TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF 700FT■!S TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF A REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW THE MAXIMUM OF FIVE DENSITY UNITS AND TO CONFIRM THE IMPERVIOUS AND PERVIOUS REQUIREMENTS. GRANTING APPROVAL AND ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A REVOCABLE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT FOR THE USE OF THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE EXISTING PAVED ACCESS FOR SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL, AND IT MAY SEEM LIKE IT MIGHT BE AN ORDINANCE THAT THERE WOULD BE A FIRST AND SECOND READING, BUT THIS IS ONLY ONE READING AS IT IS A RESOLUTION. SO I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? I SPOKE WITH MR. BECKETT AT LENGTH TODAY REGARDING THIS ITEM. I SPOKE WITH LENGTH WITH THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND WITH JODY NETWORK OF THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER. WITH REGARD TO THIS MATTER, MANY MONTHS AGO, I HAD A TOUR OF MR. LEONARD'S PROPERTY. I'VE SPOKEN WITH MR. LEONARD AT THAT TIME AND ALSO WITH CITY STAFF AT THAT TIME, WHEN BEFORE THIS WAS PUT ON THE AGENDA. I HAVE A LOT. I SPOKE WITH ROD PETERSON, I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT. I SPOKE WITH AUDRA. I SPOKE WITH THE LISTING AGENT, ROSIE SHEPHERD. I SPOKE WITH LEA ABOUT IT, SPOKE WITH ROSS ABOUT IT. I SPOKE WITH MIKE MORTEL ABOUT IT. I SPOKE WITH JOLIE ABOUT IT. I ALSO DID A SITE VISIT, I BELIEVE TWICE JUST TO VERIFY THERE WASN'T A 30 OR 50 AMP BREAKER FOR A STOVE. I THINK THAT'S IT. I, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH STAFF. LEA, WOULD YOU PLACE ANY POTENTIAL WITNESSES UNDER OATH? SURE. PAUL, THAT'S GOING TO BE TESTIFYING. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. YOU AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE YOU'RE ABOUT TO PROVIDE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD. OKAY. YOU CAN BE SEATED. THANK YOU. WILL 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, IF ANY. YES. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JODY COOGLER, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF STUART. TONIGHT I'M PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THE APPLICANT, LEWIS LEONARD, THE PRESENT PETITIONER IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF AN EAST STEWART MAJOR CODE CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO SECTION 11.01 .0.11 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF STEWART LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 433 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE AND IS ALSO LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA SPECIAL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, PUBLIC NOTICES REQUIREMENTS WERE MAILED OUT MARCH 6TH, 2026. THE APPLICANT ALSO MAILED OUT, POSTED THE PROPERTY AND WITH ONE SIGN DESCRIBING TONIGHT'S MEETING. 3.29 ACRE PARCEL IS OUTLINED IN RED AND IS LOCATED AT 433 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE WITHIN THE EAST STEWART DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED BUSINESS MIXED USE BUSINESS. MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT ENCOMPASSES EAST STEWART TRADITIONAL BUSINESS AREA ABUTTING THE SOUTH SIDE OF

[00:35:03]

MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR BOULEVARD, ADJACENT TO CENTRAL AND EAST AVENUES. THE AREA IS CURRENTLY CHARACTERIZED BY SEVERAL VACANT PARCELS, A FEW SCATTERED SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS, AND A SMALL NUMBER OF BUSINESSES. THE DESIRE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE BUSINESS AND OFFICE USES WERE APPROXIMATELY TO RESIDENTIAL USES PERMIT PROMOTE A VIBRANT, MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS E STEWART PER POLICY 1.87.1. K OF THE CITY OF STEWART'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE EAST FUTURE LAND USE IS DESIGNATED. APPLIES ONLY TO LAND AREA WITHIN THE STEWART COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THE DESIGNATION IS SPECIFIC TO THOSE HISTORIC AFRICAN AMERICAN DISTRICTS AND ADJACENT LAND AREAS. GENERAL USES INCLUDE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RECREATION, AND MIXED USE PROJECTS. ON MARCH 26TH, 2025, THE APPLICANT, LEWIS LEONARD, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 433 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE WITHIN THE EAST STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIAL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF STEWART, SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION REGARDING THE PARCEL. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 0.29 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS DESIGNATED. THE BUSINESS MIXED USE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE BMU ZONING DESIGNATIONS INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, DUPLEXES, DWELLINGS, MULTIFAMILY AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS MAY COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OUTLINED IN SECTION 3.0, 2.0, 4.5.04 OF THE EAST STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DESIGNATION WITHIN THE CITY OF STEWART'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THE APPLICANT, LEWIS LEONARD, IS REQUESTING AN EAST STEWART MAJOR CODE CONDITIONAL USE TO SEEK APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS FROM THE EAST STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD CODE TO BE CONSIDERED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. THIS JUST VERIFIES THE. MARTIN COUNTY DID VERIFY THE APPLICATION. THE ADDRESS AT 433 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE. THERE WAS SOME DISCREPANCY AS. AS THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN MOVING THROUGH THE PERMIT CHAIN. THIS IS THE EXISTING 900 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT IS SHOWING THE OUTBUILDING THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED. AND PART OF THE PETITION'S APPLICATION TONIGHT. THE CURRENT OUTBUILDING FLOOR PLAN, THIS IS WHAT IT WAS PERMITTED AT ONE POINT IN TIME OR WAS WAS SUBMITTED. WE'RE SHOWING THREE DIFFERENT UNITS AND THIS IS SHOWING THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY TYPE OF TO REDUCE IT DOWN TO FIVE UNITS. THE THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. EACH PARCEL LOCATED AT EACH PARCEL LOCATED AT EACH. 433 EAST STEWART EAST SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE AND 437 SOUTHEAST LAKE MUST ESTABLISH ALL APPLICABLE UTILITY COUNTS WITH THE CITY OF STEWART CUSTOMER SERVICE DIVISION. AQUA UTILITY SERVICES INCLUDE WATER, SEWER AND SANITATION, AND STORMWATER, AND ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK, INCLUDING THE INTERIOR REMODELING, EXTERIOR STRUCTURE, MODIFICATIONS TO WALLS, AND CHANGES TO ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, MECHANICAL UTILITY OR FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS REQUIRE A PERMIT. MOST PERMITS REQUIRED, SIGNED AND SEALED ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERED DRAWINGS. A REVOCABLE PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FOR THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY ACCESS THROUGH THE CITY OF STEWART PRIOR TO FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AT THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN RESOLUTION 16, DASH 2026, AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED PETITION FOR THE EAST STEWART MAJOR CODE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DETERMINED THEY CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS REVIEW OUTLINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. I DO HAVE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE WHO WILL GO OVER THE INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENT USES THAT THEY'RE ASKING FROM DEVIATIONS FROM. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.

I KNOW THAT WE ALL HAVE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DO, SO I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

ADDITIONALLY, THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR GOING THROUGH THE OVERALL FACTS OF THIS MATTER. AND WE'RE GOING TO DIG IN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER INTO THE SPECIFICS. I APOLOGIZE, THERE WILL BE SOME REPETITION, BUT WE WE HAVE TO DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME AS WE ALREADY KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE. AND DO I HAVE A CLICKER? PERFECT. THANK YOU. ONE FURTHER

[00:40:02]

CLARIFICATION BEFORE I BEGIN. THIS IS AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL APPLICATION. THE REASON IS BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE WAS INDEED IN MARCH OF 2025. THE SECOND ONE WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT HAPPENED THIS YEAR, I BELIEVE, IN 2026. BUT I CAN GET THAT CONFIRMED IF THE COMMISSION SO WISHES. BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP IN NOW. SO OF COURSE, WE'RE HERE ON THE EAST STEWART URBAN CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR FOUR THREE THREE SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE. THAT IS THE PROPERTY LOCATION. WE'RE GOING TO ZOOM IN IN A MINUTE. BUT AS TALKED ABOUT, WE ARE MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD RIGHT HERE. WE'RE COMING DOWN EAST AVENUE, LAKE STREET, AND THEN THIS LITTLE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH I'M SORRY, I'M SHAKING, BUT THIS LITTLE RIGHT OF WAY IS THE ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE NEED THE REVOCABLE PERMIT FOR.

AND THAT IS SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH, JODY. OKAY, SO THE PARTICULAR BUILDING THAT WE ARE INVOLVED WITH NOW IS THE OUTBUILDING, THE OUTBUILDING THAT IS CIRCLED IN ORANGE, THAT IS ACTUALLY THE BUILDING INVOLVED HERE. THE REST IS PREEXISTING AND GENERALLY NOT A PART OF THIS PARTICULAR CONDITIONAL USE, EXCEPT FOR THAT REVOCABLE PERMIT FOR THE DRIVEWAY. AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THE LAND USE IS INDEED THE E STEWART C R A.

ADDITIONALLY, AS NOTED UP HERE, THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE DENSITY WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. SO WITHOUT A CITY APPROVAL BEYOND JUST BUYING THE PROPERTY IS 17 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THAT'S GOING TO BECOME RELEVANT IN JUST A SECOND. SO AS WE TALKED ABOUT, WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS MIXED USE AREA OF E STEWART. SO WE CAN HAVE A MIX OF USES INCLUDING MULTI-FAMILY. SO THE PARCEL IS 0.29 ACRES IF YOU DO THE MATH 0.29 TIMES 17. HENCE WHY I BROUGHT IT UP. YOU GET 4.93 UNITS. BUT THE CITY, OF COURSE, IS GOING TO ROUND DOWN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LIVE ON LESS THAN ONE, RIGHT? CITY ALLOWS ROUND DOWN TO FOUR UNITS BY RIGHT. SO THAT MEANS WE WHATEVER DENSITY WE ARE INCREASING HERE IS ONLY BY ONE.

WE HAVE A RIGHT TO FOUR JUST AS IT IS RELEVANT. PERMITTED USES IN THE BMU ZONING INCLUDE. AND THIS IS THE RELEVANT ONES. THERE ARE OTHERS, BUT THESE ARE THE ONES WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH TODAY. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, DUPLEX DWELLING, MULTI-FAMILY AND ACCESSORY DWELLING. SO WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO WHAT THE E STEWART CODE ACTUALLY SAYS. AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE REAR SETBACKS, WHICH IS THE SPACE IN BETWEEN THE REAR BOUNDARY AND A BUILDING IS HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF TEN FEET CURRENTLY IN THE CODE. ADDITIONALLY, IMPERVIOUS AREA CANNOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM OF 75% ON ANY GIVEN LOT. SO THAT MEANS AT LEAST 25% HAS TO BE PERVIOUS, HAS TO BE OPEN. RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CAPPED AT A MAXIMUM OF 17 UNITS PER ACRE BY RIGHT.

HOWEVER, IF YOU WANT MORE DENSITY, YOU CAN ONLY GO UP TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE WITH CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THIS SITE IS SO SMALL, WE CAN ONLY GO UP TO FIVE UNITS PER ACRE OR FIVE DWELLING UNITS ON THIS SITE WITH CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FROM YOU. THE COMMISSION. FINALLY, THE OUTBUILDING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THE BUILDING THAT WAS CIRCLED IN ORANGE, THAT OUTBUILDING CANNOT EXCEED PER CURRENT CODE MORE THAN 700FT■!S. IT IS CURRENTLY AT ABOUT 900. SO WHAT ARE YOU THE COMMISSION HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE MOST AS FAR AS A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHEN YOU ARE DECIDING WHETHER TO GRANT ONE? WELL, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.0 1.11 SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT A CONDITIONAL USE SHALL BE GRANTED IF THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE E STEWART NEIGHBORHOOD CODE AND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT THE REQUEST WILL FURTHER THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CRA.

WE KNOW THAT THE CRA IS THE E STEWART ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE GRANTED REQUEST WILL MEASURABLY IMPROVE THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE REQUEST, IF GRANTED, HAS WILL SATISFY THE CITE QUALITATIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN LDC SECTION 6.00.04. WE'LL GET INTO THOSE A LITTLE LATER, BUT FIRST WE'RE GOING TO TACKLE THE FIRST THREE. NOW, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THIS IS AN AMENDED CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENT, THE APPLICANT LEWIS LEONARD, IS ASKING FOR. SO WE KNOW WHAT THE CODE IS. WE KNOW WHAT THE STANDARD REQUIRED TO MAKE THE DECISION. AND NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT IT IS THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR TO ALLOW THE ONE OUTBUILDING, THE ONE CIRCLED TO BE 900FT■!S INSTEAD OF 700. WE ARE ALSO HERE TO CONFIRM SINCE THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT QUESTION. WE ARE HERE TO CONFIRM AND DEMONSTRATE AND PROVE THAT THE IMPERVIOUS AND PERVIOUS REQUIREMENTS ARE FULFILLED ON THIS SITE BY WAY OF A SURVEY. ADDITIONALLY, WE ARE ASKING THAT THE COMMISSION

[00:45:04]

GRANT LEWIS LEONARD THE ABILITY TO HAVE HIS EXISTING STRUCTURE WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THAT REAR BOUNDARY. SO INSTEAD OF THE TEN FEET REQUIRED UNDER THE REAR SETBACK, WE'RE ASKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO BE ALLOWED AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH FIVE FEET. WE ARE ALSO ASKING THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS FIVE UNITS. LIKE I SAID BY RIGHT IS FOUR.

WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT LAST ONE. AND THEN FINALLY THE ABILITY OR THE CITY COMMISSION TO ALLOW US TO GO FOR A REVIEWABLE, REVOCABLE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE USING, AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING, THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY, BECAUSE CURRENTLY THERE IS A DRIVEWAY THAT DOES CONNECT AND FLOW THROUGH THE RIGHT OF WAY. THIS IS THE SURVEY I'M GOING TO ZOOM IN IN A MINUTE. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PARTICULAR BUILDING WE'RE DEALING WITH IS RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW. THE SURVEY WAS DONE IN JANUARY OF 2026, SO IT IS VERY RECENT. THAT IS THE BUILDING WITH THE STAR. ONCE AGAIN PROPERTY LOCATION. NOW WHEN WE ZOOM IN ON THAT PARTICULAR SURVEY, SIGNED AND SEALED BY A FLORIDA CERTIFIED MAPPER, THE TOTAL LOT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OUT OF A 12,893.86FT■!S LOT 6467. SO 6467FT■!S IS IMPERVIOUS. THEREFORE, WE ARE WELL UNDER THE 75% MAXIMUM. WE ONLY HAVE 50% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. SO THAT'S THE LOW HANGING FRUIT. THAT'S THE STUFF THAT WE CAN EASILY PROVE IS BEING FULFILLED HERE. SO AS DISCUSSED BY MISS KUGLER, THE EXISTING OUTBUILDING IS SET UP AS THREE UNITS, VERY LINEAR, HAVING EXTERIOR DOORS WITH BATHROOMS THAT ARE SEPARATE, ETCETERA, ETCETERA. THIS IS THE CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN FOR WHAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO MAKE THIS OUTBUILDING INTO WHEN THE CONDITIONAL USE IS APPROVED. SO THIS IS A ONE UNIT. THERE ARE FOUR BEDROOMS, THERE'S ONE KITCHEN OR KITCHENETTE, THERE ARE TWO BATHROOMS, BUT IT IS ALL ONE COHESIVE UNIT. IT IS ONE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT AS UNDER THE BUILDING CODE. THAT'S ONE OF THE FACTORS. SO IT WILL BE ONE UNIT WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE. BUT AS MRS. KUGLER SUGGESTED, WE WILL HAVE TO GO TO A BUILDING PERMIT TO GET THAT CHANGED. BUT THAT IS THE CHANGE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTING UPON CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. NOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE CONDITIONS, THOSE THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO OR THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. ONE OF THEM, SORRY TO BE FLIPPING IS BASICALLY, DOES THIS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IF GRANTED, IS IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE AREA? IS IT INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USES AND THE USES SURROUNDING IT? AND I WOULD SUGGEST AT THIS TIME THAT IT IS NOT. ONE OF THE REASONS IS, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THIS IS OUR LOT. WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH SIDE. ON THE WEST SIDE WE HAVE A LAKE. ON THE EAST SIDE, WE HAVE A DUPLEX, AND THEN WE HAVE A BUSINESS, ACTUALLY ANOTHER DUPLEX HERE, I BELIEVE. AND THEN WE HAVE A BUSINESS HERE AND THEN A TEN UNIT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX UP AGAINST MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD. WE'VE GOT A DUPLEX ACROSS THE STREET AT THE LAKE, AND THEN SOME OTHER MULTIFAMILY AND CHURCH USES DOWN BELOW WHERE THE AERIAL REACH IS. SO WE HAVE A MIX OF USES OF VARYING DENSITIES, VARIOUS INTENSITIES. THIS IS BMU. SO THAT MAKES SENSE, RIGHT? SO TO ADD ONE MORE DWELLING UNIT TO THIS SCENARIO IS NOT INCONSISTENT AND GENERALLY IS ALMOST NOT CHANGING ANYTHING TO BE QUITE HONEST WITH YOU. SO THAT'S MY BREAKDOWN OF WITHIN 190FT AT THE CORNER, WE'VE GOT MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT BUILDING, TEN RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 230FT NORTHWEST. WE'VE GOT A MORTUARY, CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM 210FT SOUTHWEST. ACROSS THE LAKE IS A DUPLEX, ETC. ETC. SO DENSITY WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT. SORRY TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE. WE HAVE FOUR RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT ARE AVAILABLE. GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE ESTABLISHED DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA, THE PROPOSED PROPERTY HAVING AN APPROVED DENSITY OF FIVE UNITS, ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DEPART FROM THE ESTABLISHED DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT AND ENTITLED, AND ALSO DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE LOAD ON PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, UTILITIES, STREETS, OTHER PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. ONE MORE FAMILY IS NOT GOING TO MAKE OR BREAK THE SYSTEM, SO GOING TO WHETHER THIS COMPORTS WITH THE COMP PLAN, WHETHER THIS COMPORTS WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT AND

[00:50:01]

ITS CODE, WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO SOME OF THE CODE GOAL STATEMENT ONE POINT D OF THE CITY OF STUART COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE GOAL OF ESTABLISHING AN E STUART OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT, IS TO ADDRESS THE UNIQUE AND SPECIAL LAND USE AND RELATED DEVELOPMENT ISSUES OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S ALSO MENTIONED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE COMP PLAN. SO WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE? WHAT'S THE GOAL OF THE E STUART ZONING DISTRICT? WELL THE COMP PLAN SAYS IT OBJECTIVE ONE POINT D ONE TO REDUCE SUBSTANDARD HOUSING CONDITIONS, INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES, IMPROVE INFRASTRUCTURE AND SAFETY CONDITIONS, AND PROVIDE FOR LAND USE REGULATIONS THAT REFLECT AND STRENGTHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OF E! STUART. THAT INCLUDES REPLACING SUBSTANDARD HOUSING WITH CODE COMPLIANT HOUSING, CREATE AN ACCESSIBLE AND SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD, ENCOURAGE A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES, AND ENCOURAGE NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS SIDEWALKS AND WALKWAYS. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN OUTBUILDING THAT IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE. WE ARE HERE TODAY WITH THIS CONDITIONAL USE TO GET IT INTO COMPLIANCE, OR AT LEAST THE PROCESS THEREOF, TO ALLOW FOR A NON SUBSTANDARD HOUSING CONDITION THAT WILL BE AFFORDABLE TO A FAMILY. WE GO FURTHER INTO THE COMP PLAN AND THE E STUART OVERLAY DISTRICT CODE OBJECTIVE THREE POINT C POINT ONE. VERY SIMILAR SETUP AS TO WHAT WAS SEEN IN THE PRIOR OBJECTIVE, BUT SLIGHTLY WORDED DIFFERENTLY. PROMOTE ATTAINABLE OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN E STUART. THE CITY SHALL CONTINUE TO APPLY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES CONTAINED IN THE STUART OVERLAY DISTRICT, AS WELL AS THROUGH EFFECTIVE AND ONGOING CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES TO STRENGTHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. SO, OF COURSE, REPLACING SUBSTANDARD HOUSING WITH CODE COMPLIANT HOUSING. NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS BUILDING IS SUBSTANDARD. WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT CURRENTLY IT DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT CODE. SO GIVEN ALL THESE GOALS, YOU KNOW, GOAL STATEMENT ONE POINT D OBJECTIVE ONE POINT D POINT ONE, AND THEN OF COURSE, OBJECTIVE THREE POINT C POINT ONE. THE APPLICANT'S AMENDED APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE, IF APPROVED, WOULD INCREASE THE DENSITY TO FIVE UNITS. IT WOULD CHANGE THE REAR SETBACK. IT WOULD ALLOW ONE LARGER OUTBUILDING THAN WHAT'S USUALLY REQUIRED, AND IT WOULD ALLOW A REVOCABLE RIGHT OF USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, ALLOWING ACCESS TO THE BUILDING. THIS IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE, NOR ADVERSE TO THE GOALS OR OBJECTIVES OR POLICIES OF THE CITY OF STUART, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE STUART NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT BASICALLY AGREE WITH WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE. SO ONCE AGAIN, WE'VE TACKLED THE FIRST THREE. A CONDITIONAL USE SHALL BE GRANTED AND SHALL IS IS SOMEWHAT OF A MUST SHALL BE GRANTED. THE APPLICANT. IF THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE STUART NEIGHBORHOOD CODE AND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT FURTHER FURTHERS THE CRA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN MEASURE MEASURABLY IMPROVES THE FORM AND FUNCTION OF TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS. I THINK ALL OF US CAN AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING A DENSITY THAT'S HIGHER THAN CODE WOULD POTENTIALLY DO THAT, RIGHT. AND WE NOW GET TO THE FINAL ITEM HAS SATISFIED SITE QUALITATIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

NOW LDC SECTION 6.00.04 IS A RELATIVELY LONG SECTION. IT HAS A LOT OF QUALITATIVE THINGS, WHICH MEANS IT'S FOCUSED ON QUALITY. AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IT'S VERY WE SHOULD DO THIS. THIS SHOULD HAPPEN. THIS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. SO WITH THAT HARMONIOUS AND EFFICIENT ORGANIZATION, OUR OUTBUILDING IS RIGHT UP AGAINST ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO IT'S EFFICIENT PRESERVATION OF NATURAL CONDITIONS. WE'RE ONLY USING UP 50% OF THE LOT.

SCREENING AND BUFFERING, NOT AS MUCH SCREENING AND BUFFERING HERE, BUT THEN AGAIN, THE OTHER LOTS AROUND IT DON'T HAVE IT EITHER. ENHANCEMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PRIVACY. THE OUTBUILDING THAT IS DISCUSSED IS BEHIND A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WITH WALLS BASICALLY BETWEEN IT AND THE RIGHT OF WAY, SO COULD BE INCREASING PRIVACY, EMERGENCY ACCESS. YOU HAVE ABILITY TO ACCESS THE AREA BY WAY OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE INVOLVED, AND I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE SITE. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE ARE INDEED A ROAD AND THEN SIDEWALKS AND PARKING ALL IN FRONT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THE OUTBUILDING. ACCESS TO PUBLIC AND PRIVATE WAYS. WELL, BY WAY OF SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE, YOU HAVE ACCESS TO SOUTHEAST LAKE STREET, WHICH THEN HAS ACCESS TO MARTIN LUTHER KING BOULEVARD, PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION. YOU'VE GOT ABILITY TO WALK UP AND DOWN THAT ROADWAY AND IT IS PAVED

[00:55:01]

LOCATION DESIGN OF ACCESS DRIVES. I THINK FROM THAT AERIAL, WE NOTICE THAT IT'S RIGHT UP AGAINST THE BUILDING AND HAS PRETTY GOOD ACCESS. LOCATION AND DESIGN OF ACCESS DRIVES. I THINK I'VE SEEN I'VE SHOWED IT ENOUGH THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY THAT THOSE ARE AVAILABLE COORDINATION OF ON SITE AND OFF SITE COORDINATION. SO WE HAVE THAT ROADWAY THAT TAKES THESE INDIVIDUALS, INCLUDING MY CLIENT, BUT OTHER RESIDENTS, RESIDENTS, RESIDENTIAL OWNERS ON THAT STREET OFF OF SOUTHEAST LAKE STREET, THUS GETTING THEM OFF OF THE MAIN, ONE OF THE MAIN DRAGS. LOCATION AND DESIGN OF ON SITE WAYS LOOKS PRETTY GOOD.

DRAINAGE AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING. THERE HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS OR OTHER ISSUES WITH DRAINAGE OR EXTERIOR LIGHTING TO THE BEST OF ANYBODY'S KNOWLEDGE. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, AS DISCUSSED, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD ON MARCH 3RD WAS UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, AND WE REQUEST AT THIS TIME THAT THE APPLICANT BE GIVEN AN APPROVAL OF HIS AMENDMENT. AMENDED URBAN CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY. THANK YOU. DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, FOR THE APPLICANT? I. THE FIVE UNITS. HOW MANY ELECTRICAL AND WATER METERS ARE THERE FILLING.

SO THAT'LL BE DEALT WITH A BUILDING PERMIT. I HONESTLY HAVEN'T BEEN ON SITE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY CURRENTLY HAVE SEPARATE ELECTRICAL METERS FOR THE THREE UNITS. NOW THAT IS MY THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I HAVE NOT SEEN IT AND LORD KNOWS I AM NOT AN ELECTRICIAN, SO I MAY BE ABSOLUTELY WRONG, BUT THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AT THIS TIME. OKAY, IT WILL BE DEALT WITH A BUILDING PERMIT. THIS WOULD BE FOR DURING THE PERMIT PROCESS. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT, THAT EACH UNIT WOULD HAVE ITS OWN BUILDING IN A SENSE FOR ELECTRIC AND WATER? YES. SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

RIGHT NOW THE THREE UNITS ARE JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, THERE'S SEVEN UNITS RIGHT NOW. THERE'S TWO DUPLEXES IN THE FRONT, AND THEN THERE'S THREE UNITS IN THE BACK, WHICH IS THE OUTBUILDING THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING DURING PERMITTING THOSE. THEY DO HAVE THREE SEPARATE METERS RUNNING TO THREE DIFFERENT UNITS DURING THE PERMITTING THAT WILL BE HAVE TO BE REMODELED, MODIFIED AND RE PERMITTED. AND SO YES, IT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED HERE IN PERMITTING. SO FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT OUTBUILDING WILL HAVE ONE. WE'LL HAVE ONE UNIT. YES. CORRECT. THERE WAS A LOT OF MENTION ABOUT AFFORDABILITY. DO WE ALREADY KNOW. I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THREE OF THEM ARE ALREADY OCCUPIED. IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY ARE NOT OCCUPIED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T IN COMPLIANCE. SO THEY WEREN'T REALLY RENTABLE BECAUSE OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES.

OKAY. SO IS THERE A CRITERIA FOR MEETING THE AFFORDABLE AFFORDABILITY OF THE OF THE DIFFERENT UNITS? NOT AS FAR AS THE EAST STUART. NOT AS FAR AS I KNOW. IT IS SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, MARKET MARKET VALUE, HONESTLY. BUT EAST, YOU KNOW EAST STUART HAS HAD SOME CHALLENGES. SO IT, IT MAY BE MORE AFFORDABLE THAN ANOTHER IN OTHER PLACES. OKAY. I THINK HE'S READY TO FAMILY VICE MAYOR. OH YEAH. WERE ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AWARE OF THIS DURING THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, BY THE WAY, OF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT OR. YEAH, THIS WAS MENTIONED BY MR. MORTEL QUITE A FEW TIMES. YEAH. BECAUSE IT WAS IT WAS IT WAS SO VAGUE, LIKE THE ENTIRE TIME.

BUT YEAH. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH HIS STUFF. I, I THINK THERE'S FLAWS ON BOTH SIDES FROM THE APPLICANT AND FROM THE CITY OF STUART DURING THE PROCESS. HOW THEY'RE ADDRESSED. I GUESS WE'RE HERE NOW. BUT I, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO. I THINK, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY THE CITY HAD WROTE A CONDITIONAL. A CONDITIONAL USAGE WAS REQUIRED REGARDLESS, BY THE WAY, UNDER THE OLD URBAN CODE OR THE NEW URBAN CODE, AND WHERE THE BALL WAS DROPPED, WHETHER THAT'S ON THE CITY OF STUART OR THE APPLICANT. I'M NOT HERE TO BLAME ANYBODY, BUT THERE'S MULTIPLE THINGS. AND MOVING FORWARD, HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD SO WE'RE NOT KNOCKING A BUILDING DOWN OR CONVERTING IT TO ONLY ONE UNIT. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THIS IS PART OF THE BACKLOG OF ISSUES THAT I DON'T THINK SOME OF US UP HERE SHOULD BE DEALING WITH, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. SO DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND YEAH, NO, I, I'M I AM CONFUSED THOUGH. WHY, WHY THEY HAVE THREE METERS AND THEN

[01:00:01]

THEY'RE GOING TO BE MADE TO CONVERT IT TO ONE METER. IF THEY HAD THREE METERS ORIGINALLY ON A BUILDING PERMIT, YOU KNOW, WAS IT THERE ON THE ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMIT. THIS PLACE HAS BEEN INSPECTED MULTIPLE TIMES. I'M NOT SURE LOU IS HERE TO REALLY GIVE ANY KIND OF INFORMATION. LOU IS OF COURSE, OUR OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. SO I, I DO HAVE A PROJECT HISTORY, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THAT I JUST SHOWING. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT. YES. WHERE SOME OF THE ISSUES LIE. IF, IF I MAY JUST BE AWARE THAT THE HISTORY IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU'RE MAKING THE DECISION ON TONIGHT, THE DECISION IS MADE ON THE CODE AND WHETHER WE MET OUR BURDEN AS AN APPLICANT, RIGHT, TO FULFILL THAT CODE. JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. THANK YOU. AND MAYBE WE SHOULD SAVE THE QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE PROJECT HISTORY FOR ONCE WE'RE IN A MOTION AND JUST FOCUS ON QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRESENTATION WITH THE APPLICANT RIGHT NOW. THE APPLICANT WOULD BE GRATEFUL. I THINK YOU ASKED IF THERE WERE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION OF STAFF, AND THIS WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS.

OKAY, JODIE. JODIE.

THANK YOU. SO WE DID DO A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT WHAT THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ORIGINAL PERMIT WAS ISSUED IN 2008 FOR THE ADDITION. AS YOU CAN GO DOWN TO DIFFERENT TIMELINES THAT PERMIT HAD EXPIRED AND THE APPLICANT HAD RENEWED IT SEVERAL TIMES. IT WAS EXPIRED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 2021. AND THAT PERMIT IS WHERE THE THREE DIFFERENT ADDITIONAL UNITS SHOWED UP ON THAT PERMIT. SO YOU CAN JUST SEE SOME OF THESE. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME. ALSO DURING THAT REVIEW FOR THAT PARTICULAR PERMIT, IT DID HAVE A, A NOTE IN THERE FROM THE ZONING THAT THEY HAD TO GET A SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE AT THAT TIME. AND THAT WAS IN 2021. ALSO, THERE WAS AN EMAIL SENT TO THE THE ARCHITECT AT THAT TIME OUTLINING ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT WAS SENT FROM A PREVIOUS STAFF MEMBER IN OUR IN OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, OUTLINING ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS THEY NEEDED FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. AND THAT WAS WHEN IT WAS 20. IT WOULD BE UP TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE WITH A SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE. AND THIS SHOWS WHERE THE APPLICANT HAD REQUESTED A PERMIT EXTENSION THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ON NOVEMBER 28TH, 2022, HE WAS PROVIDED A AN EXTENSION APPROVAL FOR 90 DAYS BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THAT PERMIT. AGAIN, THIS IS THE 2021 PERMIT. IT DID EXPIRE FEBRUARY 27TH, 2023. SO THE APPLICANT HAD SEVERAL NOTICES THAT THIS PERMIT HAD EXPIRED AND DID NOT GOING ON THE SITE DURING THIS PERIOD. YES. SO THERE IS SOME DISCREPANCY WITH HOW THE APPROVAL HAPPENED. I WAS NOT DURING THAT TIME. YOU'RE HERE DURING THAT TIME. HOWEVER, WE DID SIT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEIR THE REPRESENTATIVE TODAY TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE COULD GET THERE. SO MR. LEONARD COULD GET MOVING FORWARD AND TRYING TO GET THIS PASSED. AND I THINK WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE RECOMMENDED WOULD HELP MR. LEONARD GET TO THE FINAL GOAL, WHICH IS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE REALLY TODAY. BUT THIS THIS IS THE HISTORY THAT WE DID PROVIDE THAT WE DID FIND WITHIN HIS PERMIT RECORDS. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TO CLOSE OUT THE PERMIT AND TRY TO GET MR. LEONARD WHERE HE NEEDS TO GO.

MR. CLARK. YES. THANK YOU. SO THAT KIND OF IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER BECAUSE. MR. WHEN. MR. WHEN COMMISSIONER REED, VICE MAYOR REED CAME ON AND HE HAD HE BECAME FAMILIAR WITH MR. LEONARD AND THE SITUATION AND HE BROUGHT IT UP. I WANT TO BE SURE I KNOW THAT WE HAD THE NEW CODE AND THINGS HAD TO COME IN, EVEN THOUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE WAS THERE BEFORE. AND HE'S BEEN GOING THROUGH GETTING BUILDING PERMITS THIS TIME AROUND, AND I'M NOT SURE WE'RE IN QUASI JUDICIAL. DID WE HAVE TO SEND OUT NOTICES FOR THIS? DID YOU DECLARE THAT IN THE BEGINNING

[01:05:03]

OF THIS MEETING? YES, COMMISSIONER CLARK, WE SENT OUT TWO SETS OF NOTICES. THE FIRST WAS FOR THE CRB MEETING AND WE POSTED FOR CRB MEETING ONLY. AND THEN UPON THE CRB MEETING GETTING COMPLETED ON MARCH 3RD, WE THEN SENT OUT A SECOND SET OF NOTICES FOR THE CITY COMMISSION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A CITY COMMISSION DATE JUST YET WHEN WE PUT OUT THE FIRST. SO WE SENT OUT A SECOND SET OF NOTICES TO EVERYONE WITHIN 300FT AS REQUIRED. THE RETURNS HAVE BEEN TURNED IN AND AND THE THE BUILDING WAS POSTED FOR THE CITY COMMISSION. WE DON'T DO RETURNS UNDER THE CITY. THE CODE ONLY REQUIRES US TO. DO YOU APPROVE NOTICE REGULAR MAIL AND TO GIVE A CERTIFIED LIST OF WHO WE SENT IT TO, AND THEN I HAVE TO CERTIFY IT AS AN ATTORNEY THAT THAT WAS COMPLETED. OKAY, SO SO THAT WAS TAKEN CARE OF. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THIS ONE PARTICULAR THING THAT WE'RE DOING NOW, THAT EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T COVER EVERYTHING, THAT WE WON'T HAVE THIS SITUATION COMING UP AGAIN, THAT ALL OF YOU SEE, ALL THAT RED MARK THAT WAS UP THERE AND THINGS THAT HAVE GONE ON YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT MOVING FORWARD, MR. LEONARD WANTS TO RENT THE PROPERTY. HE WANTS PEOPLE TO USE IT. HE WANTS HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO USE IT. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS COMING UP AGAIN, AND I DON'T WANT TO CALL ANYBODY UP HERE TO. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF IF MR. HATTON HAS ANYTHING TO SAY US WITH REGARD TO HOW THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS HANDLED THINGS AND WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, WE JUST NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT AND MAKE SURE THAT WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE COMES UP FOR ANOTHER PERMIT, THAT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED YEARS AGO WITH THE SEWER THAT LIMITS SOMETHING OR DOES SOMETHING ELSE, THAT WE WON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO THIS AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE CLEAR AND THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, AND THAT IF THERE'S ANY REDEVELOPMENT OR ANYTHING THAT NEEDS TO COME OUT WHEN THE THE NEW OWNER, IF HE DECIDES TO SELL THIS PROPERTY, THAT THAT PERSON IS COMFORTABLE, THAT THIS IS WHAT'S ON THERE, WHETHER IT'S FIVE UNITS, SEVEN UNITS, NINE UNITS, AND THAT THEY CAN GET LIGHT AND POWER TO THEM AND WATER TO THEM. AND THAT'S WHAT'S ON THERE. AND WE DON'T HAVE THIS QUAGMIRE GOING ON FOREVER. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER CLARK, IF I MAY ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WHEN WHEN, MR. LEWIS, I MEAN, MR. LEONARD LEWIS CAME IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT TIMES. WE WERE OPERATING FROM AN OLD SYSTEM. WE DO HAVE A NEW SYSTEM IN PLACE THROUGH THE COMPUTER PROGRAM, THROUGH ELECTRONIC ONLINE SUBMITTALS.

WE HAVE SOPS SET IN PLACE FOR ZONING REVIEWS AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE STOPPED. SO WHEN THERE IS A DEFICIENCY, THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF IT AND THEY HAVE TO THEY HAVE TO MEET THE DEFICIENCIES BEFORE MOVING ON TO THE NEXT PROCESS. IF I MAY, COMMISSIONER, THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WILL RUN WITH THE LAND, SO IF IT IS APPROVED TODAY, IT WILL RUN WITH THE LAND. IT WILL BE RECORDED. IT WILL BE OBVIOUS IN ANY DUE DILIGENCE, IN ANY TITLE SEARCH, IN ANYTHING YOU DO WHEN YOU PURCHASE PROPERTY. ADDITIONALLY, IT WON'T JUST GO AWAY. IT WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED BY A CITY COMMISSION. ONCE IT IS PUT IN PLACE. THERE IS NO EXPIRATION DATE ON THIS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. NOW WHEN IT COMES TO BUILDING PERMIT, THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER DISCUSSION. BUT MISS MRS. KUGLER AND LU OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WAS GAVE ME A CALL WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS AND SAID, HERE'S THE FOUR THINGS THAT WE SEE THAT WILL NEED TO CHANGE ON BUILDING PERMIT. THAT TRANSPARENCY, I BELIEVE, WILL GET US TO THAT FINISH LINE. AND I DON'T FORESEE THAT CHANGING BECAUSE THEY STATED IT, AND I'M STATING IT TO YOU TODAY THAT THAT CONVERSATION HAPPENED. SO WE KNOW WHAT WE HAVE TO DO, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO TRY AND EXECUTE AS BEST AS POSSIBLE TO GET EVERYTHING DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. AND AS LONG AS WE'VE BEEN TRANSPARENT, WHEN WE HAD ALL THOSE EXPIRED PERMITS, I DON'T THINK IT SHOWED IN BETWEEN. AND MAYBE YOU WEREN'T REQUIRED TO SHOW THIS, THAT WHAT WAS APPROVED IN BETWEEN THAT. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE WORKING WITH AN EXPIRED SITUATION AND THAT YOU'RE BUILDING AND MAKING CHANGES AND THINGS AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS STILL GOING OUT AND SOMEBODY APPROVING SOMETHING, I JUST WANT US TO BE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS ON ONE PAGE TODAY AND THAT APPROVING THIS ONE LITTLE PART HERE THAT WE'RE DOING ON THE CONDITIONAL USE, THAT WE DON'T GO BACK WHEN SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS AND SAYS,

[01:10:01]

WELL, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DEAL WITH THIS, YOU STILL HAVE TO COME AND DO THIS OR THE OTHER.

I WANT US TO MAKE SURE THAT WHENEVER WE'RE WORKING WITH MR. LEONARD, THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS GOING TO BENEFIT HIM NOW AND IN THE FUTURE, AND MR. LIN IS NOT GOING TO BE AROUND FOR ANOTHER 80 YEARS. OKAY? HE NEEDS TO KNOW. HE NEEDS TO KNOW THAT HE CAN SAY, I'VE BEEN DOWN TO CITY HALL. THIS HAS HAPPENED, AND THIS IS WHAT I CAN DEPEND ON. YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM. THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WILL BE RUNNING WITH THE LAND, AND IT CANNOT BE REMOVED OR CHANGED UNLESS ANOTHER CITY COMMISSION. FIRST OF ALL, THE APPLICANT HAS TO BRING IT UP, WHICH HE WON'T.

BUT AN APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO BRING IT UP, AND ANOTHER CITY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE IT. AS FAR AS THE BUILDING PERMIT, I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ABSOLUTE SMOOTH SAILING. I KNOW WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. I EXPRESSED THAT FROM THE CITY TO THE APPLICANT, AND ALL WE CAN DO IS EXECUTE. AND THAT IS ONE THING THAT JODI AND I HAVE DONE ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. WE CAN EXECUTE PROJECTS AS LONG AS IT FOLLOWS THE CODE, WHICH IT WILL AFTER HOPEFULLY THIS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. MR. MAYOR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SURE. AND THIS THIS PROBABLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, BUT WE NOW HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNER, AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS IN THAT LIST OF ACTIVITIES ON THE PROPERTY.

BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S A NICE LAKE THERE AND THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. AND I WASN'T SURE IF JODI HAD SEEN ANYTHING IN THE HISTORY OF THE CREATION OF THAT LAKE. AND IF ANYTHING NEEDS TO BE SAID OR DONE WITH REGARD TO THAT AND THE DELINEATION OF THAT ON THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE I WANT TO BE SURE BECAUSE IT'S A IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL IT'S A LITTLE WATER BODY THAT'S THERE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND I JUST WANT TO BE SURE. COMMISSIONER CLARK, IF I MAY, I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU. AS FAR AS THE LAKE IS CONCERNED, MR. LEONARD LEWIS WILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN ALL HIS STORMWATER ON SITE. HE'LL DEMONSTRATE THAT DURING HIS BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. SO THAT IS A STANDARD REQUIREMENT IN GENERAL. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY ISSUES WITH OR ANY COMPLAINTS THAT HE'S HAD RUN OFF OFF THE BUILDING. I DO KNOW THAT THE BUILDING SITS MUCH HIGHER. I'VE BEEN ON THE PROPERTY MANY TIMES. IT DOES SIT MUCH HIGHER AND IT HAS THE PROPER SLOPING DOWN TO SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING A QUICK DRAINAGE FALL RIGHT INTO THE LAKE. SO THERE IS SOME NATURAL FLOW. SO HE WILL HAVE TO PROTECT THAT. BUT THAT WILL BE DURING HIS BUILDING PROCESS. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR. CAN I ASK MR. LEWIS A QUESTION? I KNOW HE STOOD UP AS A PERSON WHO WAS GIVING TESTIMONY. MR. LEWIS, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION, MR. LEONARD, CAN I JUST ASK YOU ONE QUESTION? IS, IS HE ON CITY SEWER? YES, HE IS ON CITY SEWER.

AND HE DOES HAVE. SO RIGHT NOW, THE THE FIRST CONDITION IS THERE'S 433 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE, AND THEN THERE'S. 437 THAT'S HE DOES HAVE TO HAVE SEPARATE METERS FOR THOSE BECAUSE AT ONE POINT IN TIME, I DO BELIEVE THAT PROPERTY WAS ALL ONE PROPERTY AT ONE TIME.

YES. UNTIL THE CITY ASKED ME TO DIVIDE IT IN ORDER TO GET THIS PERMIT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE DONE. OTHER THAN THAT, IT WOULD HAVE STAYED AS A WHOLE. BUT I WON'T FORGET WHEN THEY WHEN I WAS TRYING, WHEN I PUT IN MY APPLICATION, THEY SAID THAT IT WOULD BE MORE MONEY FOR THE CITY. WHICH ONE OF THE GUYS SAID IT, I DON'T KNOW. SO WE DIVIDED IT AND HE GAVE ME THE PERMIT AND THAT'S WHAT. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE DIVIDED IT. OTHER THAN THAT WE COULD PUT IT BACK TOGETHER. TODAY WOULDN'T BE NO PROBLEM. THANKS. MR. LEONARD, MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT YOU'VE DONE THE DRIVEWAYS AND YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE ENTRANCE. AND AND I THINK YOU'VE DONE YOU KNOW, YOU'VE MADE THE AREA PAVED TO GET IN THERE. WHAT IS THE HISTORY ON THE ANY FLOODING OR ANYTHING IN THERE? BECAUSE WE KNOW THE BUILDING'S SET A LITTLE BIT HIGH ABOVE THE LAKE. WHAT IS YOUR WHAT? JUST TELL US HONESTLY, WHAT IF YOU'VE HAD ANY FLOODING ISSUES OR ANYTHING? WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE NO ISSUES, NO ISSUES, NONE WHATSOEVER. EVERYTHING FLOWS PROPERLY. EVERYTHING FLOW PROPERLY. YES. AND I'M IN CONSTRUCTION AND WE, WE MAKE SURE EVERYTHING FLOWS PROPER. THAT'S ONE OF MY MAIN ISSUES ON MY JOB. WHAT I DO IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WATER DOES NOT STAND, PERIOD. AND YOU'RE AGREEING WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TODAY? YES, MA'AM. YES. BECAUSE I HAVE INVESTED ALL MY INCOME. I HAVE NO MORE MONEY UNDER THE MATTRESS. I HAVE PUT IT ALL IN THIS BUILDING. MY LAST SAVINGS. SO. AND WE ALSO NEED MY PROPERTY AND RENTAL IS LOW

[01:15:12]

INCOME. IT'S ACTUALLY, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY THE LOWEST INCOME YOU CAN GET A ROOM. MY PLACE IS EQUAL TO A ROOM AND THOSE APARTMENT AND WE FURNISH THE WATER AND THE GARBAGE AND SECURITY. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM THERE. WE ARE VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT WHAT WE DO. THEY'RE VERY PARTICULAR. SO WE HAVE NO PROBLEM. AND WE WE NEED SOMEWHERE. MY FAMILY MEMBERS ARE SLEEPING ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, AND THAT DOESN'T GO TOO WELL WITH ME. WE NEED SOMEWHERE FOR THEM TO LIE. AND IT'S A FACT. IF YOU COME BY, THEY'RE TWO AND THREE IN THE MORNING. AT NIGHT, COMMISSIONER REESE SEEN HIM. HE'S BEEN THERE AND SEEN. SLEEPING ON THE CONCRETE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, WHICH THEY COULD BE INSIDE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR, CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? NOT OF MR. NOT OF MR. LEONARD OF STAFF AND AND ATTORNEY. PREACH, PREACH. YOU KNOW ME ALL MY LIFE, BUT IT'S ALL GOOD. WITH REGARD THIS THIS PROBABLY IS OUR FIRST UNDER THE NEW CONDITION, THE NEW LAWS OR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. DID WE GET BACK ANY RESPONSES DIRECTLY FROM RESIDENTS WHO RECEIVED THE NOTICE THAT WE GET BACK ANY ANYTHING? SO YES, WE DID. I GOT QUITE A FEW PHONE CALLS THAT WERE LIKE, WHAT'S HAPPENING? WHAT IS THIS? AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD EXPLAIN THAT WE'RE SIMPLY COMING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AND THAT IT DOESN'T AFFECT THEIR PROPERTY. AND THEN THEY ASK, WHY ARE YOU HAVING TO DO THIS? AND, YOU KNOW, THE NORMAL THINGS. I PUT MY LETTERHEAD ON ANY NOTICES AND PUT MY CONTACT INFORMATION. SO I EXPECT TO GET SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF 7 TO 15 CALLS ON ANY SET OF NOTICES. SO THAT I DID GET THAT. AND I BELIEVE WE ALSO GOT A FEW LETTERS OF SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY FROM SOME OF THE PILLARS OF THE COMMUNITY, A COUPLE OF THE PASTORS. AND IF YOU KNOW THAT CULTURE, THAT MEANS A LOT. SO WE DID GET QUITE A FEW SUPPORT LETTERS. JODI NETWORK. COOGLER WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH NAMES TODAY. SO WE OFFICIALLY RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM WALTER E ODIN, THE SECOND IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT. WE DID RECEIVE THAT. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTIONS, IF THAT'S HELPFUL. ADDITIONALLY, THE CRB DID VOTE A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. RIGHT? IT'S JUST THAT THIS IS A TIME WHEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL PROCESS. AND THIS WAS NEW WITH THE THE E STUART CODE AND GOING THROUGH IT AND NEW FOR THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALL, YOU KNOW, IN THE CODE, BUT HAD NEVER BEEN USED PER SE. SO I JUST WANTED TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE, WE HAD THAT. JODIE, IF YOU COULD PLEASE PUT UP THE ACTUAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE, THE SPECIFIC ON THE BOARD AGAIN FOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

ANYTIME. OH HANG TIGHT. OH, YOU HAVE OTHER PEOPLE. YES. THE YELLOW CARD, YOU'RE LIKE, FOLLOW THE CARD AGAIN. THOSE ALL YOUR CARDS, ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FAR AHEAD.

YEAH. SO SO THE OKAY, SO JUST DO IT. THAT'S WHAT WE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW. THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS, THE CONDITIONS BY THE CITY THAT IF WE EVER MADE THAT. ALL RIGHT.

BUT GO ON. OKAY. VICE MAYOR. YEAH I JUST I GS COMMISSIONER CLARK, I, I HONESTLY, I DON'T THINK THIS WILL HAPPEN AGAIN FOR NEW APPLICANTS WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. JODY DOES AN AWESOME JOB THAT THAT'S WHY STUFF LIKE THIS GETS CAUGHT UP. MY COMMENT WOULD BE, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN US THIS LONG. I KNOW I BECAME AWARE OF THIS ISSUE, PROBABLY Q1 OF 25, Q2 OF 25 DURING THE ZONING IN PROGRESS, AND I DIDN'T EVEN BECOME AWARE OF IT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY WENT OVER TO E. STEWART. AND MR. LEONARD TRIED TO BRING IT TO OUR ATTENTION, AND I FULLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AT THE TIME. AND, AND EVEN THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS

[01:20:01]

OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS ON THIS, THINGS THAT I'VE BEEN TOLD FROM PRIOR STAFF AND CURRENT STAFF, EVEN TO GET TO THIS POINT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL WERE EVEN BROUGHT UP, BY THE WAY, DURING THE ZONING AND PROGRESS, I WILL SAY THAT IT WAS TOTAL OPPOSITE. BUT YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT WILL HAPPEN AGAIN. AND AS FAR AS THIS REVOCABLE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT, IS THIS NORMAL FOR THE CITY OF STEWART BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING AN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT TO ABANDON RIGHT OF WAY. AND THAT'S ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA AS WELL. SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF THIS IS LIKE NORMAL PROCEDURE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A QUESTION FOR LEA. I WHOEVER WANTS TO ANSWER IT FROM STAFF, VICE MAYOR REED, I CAN PROBABLY I CAN HELP YOU WITH THAT. SO THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY USING IS THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY. IF IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS USED FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND THEY'RE GOING TO IMPROVE IT, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REVOCABLE PERMIT FOR FOR LIABILITY IN PERPETUITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND MAINTENANCE. IS THIS THE ONLY REVOCABLE RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT FOR ACCESS TO PROPERTY OR BECAUSE LIKE IF HE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T HAVE IT, HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACCESS HIS PROPERTY. SO IS THERE ARE THERE OTHER LOTS OR PARCELS IN THE CITY OF STEWART THAT HAVE THIS? YES. RIGHT BEHIND T T K GUTTERS ALSO HAS A REVOCABLE PERMIT AS WELL THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH WITH THE CITY. SO IT'S LIKE NORMAL. IT IS NORMAL ONCE WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE YOU SAID IT WAS GUTTERS BY T K IS THAT. YES. BEHIND THERE THERE WAS A REVOCABLE PERMIT THAT WAS ISSUED FOR THE ACCESS BACK THERE AS WELL. BUT THEY HAD ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY STILL FROM MARTIN LUTHER KING. THEY DID ADDITIONAL ACCESS. SO ONE POINT IN TIME THIS WAS ALL ONE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE ONE IN FRONT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO ACCESS OFF THE MAIN ROAD. AS TIME WENT ON, THE ACCESS HAPPENED ALONG THAT RIGHT OF WAY, THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEY'VE IMPROVED THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, NOT TO CITY STANDARDS. SO YEAH. AND DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND, JODY, IF THIS IS THIS IS THE ONLY PROPERTY TO WHERE IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS, HE COULDN'T ACCESS IT AT ALL BECAUSE GUTTERS BY T K THAT WAS THE SECOND ACCESS. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT OR ANYTHING. I WAS JUST CURIOUS FOR MY OWN PEACE OF MIND, BECAUSE IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE IT, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THIS PROPERTY AT ALL, RIGHT? RIGHT. HE WOULD HAVE TO IMPROVE IT. YES. CAN I ADD ON TO THIS? SO IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU CAN BRING UP THE AERIAL.

PLEASE. I GUESS WITH THE RED LINE. SO THE RED LINES COVERING THE DRIVEWAY, BUT THE RIGHT OF WAY GOES BETWEEN MR. LEONARD'S PROPERTY AND YOU'LL SEE THERE'S 2 OR 3, MAYBE FOUR OTHER PROPERTIES THAT IF, IF WE ABANDON GETS 50% OF IT AND MR. LEONARD GETS 50% OF IT, BUT HE'S OVER 100% OF IT. SO HE WOULD LOSE HIS DRIVEWAY IF WE ABANDON THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND THE OTHER PEOPLE, THE VACANT, VACANT LOTS, AND THERE'S ONE ON THE RIGHT, THEY'D HAVE TO PAY AS WELL TO US FOR US TO ABANDON EVERYTHING, JUST LIKE WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCEDURE IN A FEW MOMENTS. YEAH, WELL, A REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE IN A VALUE, WOULD HAVE TO BE ASSESSED ON THE PROPERTY. MR. LEONARD AND ALL HIS NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE TO PAY MONEY TO BUY IT, BASICALLY. AND HE'S ALREADY EXPRESSED BEING STRAPPED. SO I THINK THE BEST ALTERNATIVE IS DOING THE REVOCABLE PERMIT FOR OR MAINTAINING IT AS IT IS.

IT'S USED FOR PARKING TOO. AND WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE COME UP MANY TIMES ALONG RIVERSIDE DRIVE. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE REVOCABLE PERMITS SO THEY COULD PARK AND THEY PUT LIKE A LITTLE GRAVEL PARKING SPOT ON IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DO ON A REGULAR BASIS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. BUT IF WE ABANDON THE RIGHT OF WAY, HE'S NOT GOING TO HAVE ACCESS BECAUSE UNLESS HE GETS AN EASEMENT FROM HIS NEIGHBORS. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE'RE WE HAD TO GET HERE, BUT WE ARE HERE NOW. SO. ANY QUESTIONS? MY, MY QUESTIONS REALLY WERE JUST ABOUT THE OUT PARCEL AND MORE FOR JUST EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ME, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE DEALT WITH. YOU HAVE FOUR BEDROOMS AND 900FT■!S.

[01:25:04]

SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? YOU MENTIONED HOUSEKEEPING UNITS OR SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT OR NEEDING TO BE A FAMILY. HOW DOES THAT WORK WITH OUR CODE AGAIN TO TO COMMISSIONER CLARK'S POINT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE LIKE A FUTURE PROBLEM, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S BUTTONED UP? HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO, MAYOR, I'LL ANSWER THAT QUESTION. SO ULTIMATELY HE'S GOING TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT, CONVERT IT BACK TO THE ONE SPACE, WHICH IS A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN THAT YOU SHOWED WITH THE FOUR UNITS. HE WILL GET A CO FOUR ROOMS, RIGHT? SO IT'S IT'S FOUR ROOMS, BUT ONE WE CONSIDER IT ONE DENSITY UNIT. HE WILL BE ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ONE UNIT. SO THAT FOLLOWS WITH THE WITH THE PROPERTY. IF YOU SELL IT MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SO IF TIMES HAVE CHANGED OR IF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER GOES OUT THERE AND DOES SOME SOME INVENTORY AND IT'S CHANGED, THEY TYPICALLY TRY TO NOTIFY THE CITY. AT THIS POINT. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW HE WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT. AND THEN ULTIMATELY HE'LL RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY THAT SAYS ONE UNIT, ONE DENSITY UNIT.

OKAY. IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, I ASKED THE SAME QUESTION OF STAFF AS A PART OF GETTING READY TO PREP FOR BUILDING PERMIT AFTER THIS. AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, WHAT MAKES A DWELLING UNIT? YOU HAVE SOME SOME DEFINITIONS IN YOUR CODE, BUT THEY'RE NOT OVERLY ILLUMINATING TO ME. CAN YOU GIVE ME MORE FEEDBACK? AND LOU, I BELIEVE, PUT A COMMENT IN THE THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION GIVING ME THE DEFINITION OF A UNIT. AND ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS THERE WAS A DESIGNATED KITCHEN, A DESIGNATED BATHROOM. AND THEN ONE OTHER THING THAT I'M REMEMBERING, I DON'T REMEMBER IT PERFECTLY IS ONE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT WAS A PART OF THAT DEFINITION. SO WHEN I USED HOUSEKEEPING UNIT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS PLUGGING INTO. SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE IF YOU DON'T MIND THE CURRENT FLOOR PLAN. SURE. I THINK MAYBE THIS WILL HELP. THE CURRENT FLOOR PLAN OBVIOUSLY HAS SEPARATING WALLS, RIGHT? THE WALLS DON'T REALLY HAVE A CROSS ACCESS. THERE'S NO DOOR IN THE MIDDLE OF ANY OF THESE WALLS.

SO BECAUSE THEY HAVE A SEPARATE BATHROOM AND WALLS. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A BUILDING PROFESSIONAL, BUT THAT'S WHY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT REALLY CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER. THEY'RE SOMEWHAT CONSIDERED MORE SEPARATE HOUSEKEEPING UNITS. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY THING. I AM NOT A BUILDING PROFESSIONAL, BUT THAT'S WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE DEFINITION I WAS GIVEN.

YEAH, SURE. ON THAT SAME LEVEL, I HAVE LIKE THREE QUESTIONS. SO WHEN IT COMES TO THOSE THREE UNITS THAT ARE THE LAKEFRONT TYPE UNITS, THE NEWER UNITS, WE HAD GONE AND VISITED THEM AND THEY'LL HAVE INDIVIDUAL FPL. THEY'LL HAVE THEIR OWN UNIT FOR THE FPL. YEAH, THEY HAD ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. YOU MEANS THE ELECTRICAL BILL AND THE WATER BILL. THEY'LL BE SEPARATED OUT AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE THAT. RIGHT. SO IT'S GOING TO BE CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE. RIGHT. BUT THAT BUILDING, COMMISSIONER CLARKE, IF I ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU AND I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE PROPOSED BECAUSE IT'S STILL CONSIDERED UNIT A, B AND C, GO ON. RIGHT. GO ON. THANK YOU. GIVE ME THE ANSWER. GO ON. SO A, B AND C WILL NO LONGER EXIST. IT'S GOING TO BE ONE TOTAL UNIT OF 900FT■!S. WITH THAT THE THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO PROVIDE A APPLICATION, A BUILDING PERMIT DEMONSTRATING THAT IT'S ONE UNIT, WHICH MEANS. SURE, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S THE OLD ONE. YEAH. THAT IS NO BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I THE OLD ONE. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT. SO THE NEW ONE, THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS CONCEPTUAL BECAUSE THERE MIGHT BE A COUPLE THINGS THAT CHANGE, BUT NOT THE NOT THE DENSITY WILL NOT CHANGE IN THIS UNIT. SO TYPICALLY THIS WILL REQUIRE ONE METER. THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE ONE SEPARATE ADDRESS. WE WILL ASSIGN A SEPARATE ADDRESS TO THIS PROPERTY JUST FOR MAIL PURPOSES CENSUS BUREAU, LOCAL COMMUNICATION TAXES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE GET CREDIT FOR ALL THAT. PLUS YOUR 911 DATABASE WILL ALSO RESPOND TO THAT AND KNOW THAT IT'S UNIT SUCH AND SUCH IN THE REAR. SO THEY'RE NOT LOOKING THROUGH THE ALL FOUR UNITS TO TRY TO GET TO SOMEONE THAT'S IN THE, IN THE BACK WITHIN OUR CODE. IS THERE.

PER SQUARE FEET. WHAT'S WHAT IS ALLOWABLE. WE DON'T HAVE A MAXIMUM OR A MINIMUM. WE

[01:30:01]

THOUGHT WE WERE SO BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T PUT LIKE 50 PEOPLE IN IN 900FT■!S. SO WHAT IS THE ISEF WHAT'S APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONALLY? THAT'S A, I KNOW THAT'S A YOU QUESTION. SO WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WE'LL LOOK AT THIS. THERE'S AN OCCUPANCY LOAD THAT'S GOING TO BE PROVIDED ON THE BUILDING CODE FROM THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, AND THAT WILL HAVE THAT WHENEVER HE'S REVIEWING THE PLANS. YOU DON'T SEE THAT ON THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN, BUT HE WILL HAVE AN OCCUPANCY LOAD THAT HE WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW. IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE BUILDING CODE OF WHAT THAT OCCUPANCY LOAD WILL BE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THE WHOLE STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE ONES TO THE NORTH OF THE WHERE THE BIG PARKING LOT IS? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COVERS IT. AND THE OTHER HOUSE WOULD FOR FUTURE SALE OF THIS PROPERTY, WOULD IT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED A FOR A POD? NO, YOU'RE JUST KEEPING IT AS IT IS. SO THE. IF IF THE URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE IS GRANTED OR THIS. THE. STUART. THE. THIS WILL RUN WITH THE LAND. SO IF MR. LEONARD SELLS THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD STILL HAVE THE SPECIAL CONDITIONAL USE ON THE PROPERTY. IF IT'S GRANTED, YES IT WOULD. IT DOES NOT GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE MR. LEONARD SELLS THE PROPERTY. YES, MA'AM. IT RUNS WITH THE LAND. SO ANY SUCCESSOR, BUYER OR PURCHASER WILL HAVE THE RIGHTS THAT IN THEORY ARE GRANTED BY THIS CONDITIONAL USE. ALL OF THE PROPERTY LIKE I'VE SEEN THE ADVERTISEMENT BEFORE THAT MR. SHEPARD HAD THAT HAD THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, AND THIS IS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE WE'RE DEALING WITH.

IF THE CONDITIONS, IF THEY'RE PULLED BACK UP, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT FOUR, THREE THREE AND FOUR THREE, SEVEN ARE ADDRESSES THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY NOTATED. THAT IS TO ENCOMPASS BOTH OF THEM. FOUR, THREE, THREE SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE AND 437 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE MUST ESTABLISH ALL APPLICABLE UTILITY ACCOUNTS WITH THE CITY OF STUART CUSTOMER SERVICE DIVISION. APPLICABLE UTILITY SERVICES INCLUDE A WATER, SEWER, SANITATION AND STORMWATER. SO WHILE THE APPLICATION WAS DONE ON FOUR, THREE, THREE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE OUTBUILDING IS, AND ALMOST ALL OF THIS IS PERTAINING TO THE. AND IT WOULD APPLY TO BOTH. OKAY. VICE MAYOR. YES. WITH THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN, IS THAT SOMETHING LIKE THE BILLING DEPARTMENT'S GOING TO HOLD? LIKE THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO FOR A CONCEPTUAL PLAN BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE MOVING BATHROOMS THEN, DOESN'T IT? THAT'S GOING TO COME BACK. YEAH, IT'LL BE TWO BATHROOMS VERSUS I MEAN, DID IT DID IT. VICE MAYOR REED, THIS IS CONCEPTUAL. WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO JUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY COULD CONVERT THIS INTO ONE UNIT. WHEN HE DOES THE WHEN HE GETS THE PLANS DRAWN BY THE ARCHITECT, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEMO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE OR INSIDE THE INTERIOR, AND THEN CONVERT IT BACK TO ONE UNIT THAT WILL BE THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT. AND THEY'LL DEMONSTRATE THAT THROUGH THEIR. JUST SHOWING YOU A CONCEPTUAL THAT THEY COULD MAKE THIS ONE UNIT. IT'S NOT LIKE A SITE PLAN WE'RE HOLDING THEM TO OR ANYTHING. WE ARE NOT HOLDING THEM. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL. AND IT WAS IT WAS WRITTEN LIKE THAT IN THE IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT. AND THEN WHETHER OR NOT WHAT ULTIMATELY GETS. WHATEVER THE ARCHITECT COMES UP WITH WILL HAVE TO MEET A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPING UNIT DEFINITION AS PER LU. CORRECT.

HE WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR DENSITY UNIT. SO WE'RE WE ARE CONDITIONAL UPON IT BEING ONE UNIT AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE BUILDING. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN YOUR RESOLUTION TITLE, IT DOES STATE THAT AS WELL. GOT IT.

GOOD. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO OFFER ANY MORE INFORMATION BEFORE WE CONCLUDE YOUR PRESENTATION? WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HOPEFULLY AND OUT OF YOUR HAIR. THEN THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE HAS ENDED AND THE HEARING IS CLOSED. DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT? PUBLIC COMMENTS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. I DO HAVE ALL RIGHT. I HAVE RODERICK PETERSON. GOOD EVENING. BOARD. I STAND HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MR. LEONARD, MY NEIGHBOR, HIS FAMILY, HIS WIFE. THEY'RE GREAT PEOPLE AND THEY'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE. AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE Y'ALL, I REALLY DO. I'M VERY, VERY THANKFUL THAT

[01:35:14]

Y'ALL CONSIDERING GIVING HIM SOME TYPE OF HOPE TO GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF. I'M FULL OF FAVOR FOR MR. LEONARD AND HIS FAMILY. LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE. THEY'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE COMMUNITY IS IS WELL TAKEN CARE OF, ESPECIALLY ON MY SIDE OF THE TOWN, WELL, COMMUNITY. HE JUST ALL AROUND THE FAMILY'S GOOD PEOPLE. AND, AND I TRULY WANT TO THANK THE BOARD. MAYOR COLLINS, VICE MAYOR REED, COMMISSIONER CLARK JOBBY DJOBI COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER RICH AND. I REALLY I'M ASKING YOU IN CONSIDERATION TO REALLY HELP HIS FAMILY OUT IS TRULY FROM THE HEART. THANK YOU. NEXT, I HAVE FRANK MCCRYSTAL. A LITTLE WHILE BACK, I GOT BUSHWHACKED INTO BEING THE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE CRB. AND SO GOING THROUGH THIS ITEM, I RAN ACROSS SOMETHING THAT REMINDED ME OF THE REASON I GOT OFF THE COUCH AND DECIDED TO GET INVOLVED WITH THIS CITY. IT REMINDED ME OF THE GOOD OLD DAYS OF THE MIKE MEYER MERIT MATHESON COMMISSION'S. THE REVIEW OF A CONDITIONAL USE SHALL FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE SET FORTH IN THE LDC SECTION 1101 .11 FOR MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW. A CONDITIONAL USE SHALL BE GRANTED IF THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE REQUEST.

AND THEN THE FOURTH THINGS HAVE TO DO WITH E STEWART C R A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS AND CALL QUALITY QUALITATIVE JUST DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND THEN.

AND THEN I GET REMINDED OF THE COMMISSION WHOSE LEGACY IS PAPER STRAWS. IT SAYS THE CITY COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO. AGAIN, THE CITY COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ONE PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES IN THE FORM OF ALL OF BENCHES, COURTYARDS, SHARED USE PATHS, PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE FORMS OF AMENITIES LOCATED ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC SIDEWALK AND RIGHT OF WAY. NUMBER TWO GREEN DEVELOPMENT. WE CAN IMPOSE ON SITE RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION, INDOOR AND OUTDOOR WATER USE REDUCTION OR GREEN DEVELOPMENT AS OUTLINED IN LDC SECTION 5.09.00. NUMBER THREE. WE MAY IMPOSE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS SUCH AS REPLACING EXISTING SIDEWALKS WITH MY FAVORITE INTEGRAL COLORED CONCRETE OR PAVERS ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD REQUIRE EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITIES TO BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. OPEN SPACE. NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE AS PROVIDED BY AS DESCRIBED BY LDC IN SECTION BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. RELOCATE RELOCATION OR A MONETARY CONTRIBUTION IS MADE TO THE RELOCATION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS FUND FOR HISTORIC STRUCTURES AS DEFINED WITHIN BLAH BLAH BLAH. SO THE APPLICANT. THANK THE LORD. YOU GOT A COMMISSION THAT DOESN'T RESEMBLE THE COMMISSION THAT REMINDED ME OF THIS. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. I HAVE NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT. OKAY. COMMENTS. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO OFFER ANY, YOU KNOW, FINAL AFTER THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO. NO NEW EVIDENCE, BUT YEAH. YES, SIR. HE'S RIGHT. YOU COULD PUT A CONDITION. YOU COULD PUT MORE CONDITIONS. YOU ALREADY HAVE

[01:40:07]

THREE. I WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS NOT THE PERSON OR THE PROJECT FOR THAT TYPE OF CONDITION.

THEY ARE EXPENSIVE. THEY ARE PAINFUL. THEY TAKE TIME. I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN ENOUGH BLOOD OUT OF MR. LEONARD. THANK YOU. YEAH. OKAY. NOW WE CAN. NOW WE CAN HAVE A MOTION. YOU MAKE A MOTION WITH REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER FOUR, RESOLUTION NUMBER 16, 2026, AS READ BY LEGAL PREVIOUSLY, THAT WE APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION BEING PROVIDED BY STAFF AS TO THIS ITEM ON THIS PROPERTY. I DON'T HAVE THE PROPERTY ADDRESS, BUT IT'S IT'S 433 SOUTHEAST LAKE CIRCLE DRIVE.

THANK YOU. 433 SOUTHEAST EIGHT CIRCUIT DRIVE. OKAY. ARE YOU DONE? YES. I SECOND THE MOTION AND HOPEFULLY YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD TO HAVE MR. LEONARD'S FAMILY MOVE INDOORS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY, SO JUST TO CLARIFY THE MOTION, WE'RE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR APPROVAL WITH NO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, JUST WHAT'S WITHIN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT? YEP. OKAY. IS THERE DELIBERATION FROM THE COMMISSION NOW THAT WE'VE. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT, AND I AGREE WITH THE VICE MAYOR THAT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN ERRORS ON THE PART OF BOTH OF THE PARTIES TO THIS, AND IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT IT FINDS IT IN FRONT OF US, AND WE ARE WE ARE MAKING THE EFFORT TO ACCOMMODATE MR. LEONARD, AND I DO THINK WE SHOULD. AND ONE REASON I'M COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR IT IS THAT HE IS ALSO HAVING TO MAKE SOME ACCOMMODATION BY NOT DEMOLISHING. BUT I THINK HE'S RENOVATING THE STRUCTURE AS IT CURRENTLY IS. SO I THINK THAT'S A FAIR TRADE FOR BOTH PARTIES AND HOPEFULLY THE NEW CITY MANAGER IS PAYING ATTENTION AND CAN DEVELOP PROCESSES THAT WILL AVOID THIS IN THE FUTURE. VICE MAYOR YEAH, MY ONLY THING IS CAN WE TAKE A BREAK AFTER THIS AGENDA ITEM? ABSOLUTELY. YES. JUMPING JACKS. THANK YOU TO HAVE COMMENTS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS. NOPE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE, MR. LEONARD. I APPRECIATE YOU USING YOUR HANDS IN BUILDING HOUSING FOR PEOPLE IN YOUR COMMUNITY, AND I'M THANKFUL FOR THE FLEXIBILITY WITHIN OUR CODE AND OUR PROCESSES THAT WE CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE THIS COME TOGETHER AND WORK OUT. SO I THINK THIS IS I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. AND, AND I'M THANKFUL THAT WE HAVE, AGAIN, THAT FLEXIBILITY. AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG, LONG ROAD TO GET HERE FROM MR. LEONARD AND FROM STAFF. I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY THAT'S WORKED HARD TO BRING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN. AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY CAN LIVE THERE, YOU KNOW, AND OUR OUR PEOPLE CAN LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN THIS COMMUNITY. SO YES, THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. SO WITH THAT SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS. OKAY, MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL VICE MAYOR REED? YES. MAYOR COLLINS.

YES. COMMISSIONER. YES. COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, COMMISSIONER. YES. AND NOW WE'LL TAKE A OKAY. SO MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE. FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FUNDING

[5. FIRST AMENDMENT TO FUNDING AGMT. WITH MARTIN COUNTY RE: HANEY CREEK (RC): RESOLUTION No. 20-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2011 FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH MARTIN COUNTY THAT AUTHORIZED THE PURCHASE OF 51.4 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE HANEY CREEK WATERSHED PRESERVE, WHICH WILL RESCIND THE CARVE-OUT OF THE 1.97 ACRE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ALLOWING THE 1.97 ACRES TO BE USED FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES ALONG WITH THE ADJOINING HANEY CREEK WATERSHED PRESERVE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

ARRANGEMENT WITH MARTIN COUNTY RAINY CREEK RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2011 FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH MARTIN COUNTY THAT AUTHORIZED THE PURCHASE OF 550 1.4 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE HANEY CREEK WATERSHED PRESERVE, WHICH WILL RESCIND THE CARVE OUT OF THE 1.97 ACRE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, ALLOWING THE 1.97 ACRES TO BE USED FOR CONSERVATION PURPOSES. ALONG WITH THE ADJOINING HANEY CREEK WATERSHED PRESERVE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHERS, WE. THIS IS MY AGENDA ITEM AND I WILL LIKE TO STATE THAT RUTH HOLMES HELPED ASSIST WITH SOME OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, AND SHE'S ALSO WORKING WITH ME ON POTENTIAL REFERENDUM LANGUAGE FOR THE NEXT STEP. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS BEFORE. I MENTIONED TO YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO THAT WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IS DO AN AMENDMENT TO IT'S CALLED THE FUNDING AGREEMENT, BUT IT'S AN

[01:45:03]

INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY THAT WE HAD ENTERED INTO IN 2011. AND WHEN WE ENTERED INTO THAT FUNDING SLASH INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, INITIALLY, IT WAS WITH THE MARTIN COUNTY.

BOTH OF US OWNED LAND AND CONTRIBUTED TO THE PROJECT, BUT IT WAS SUBJECT TO US GOING OUT TO REFERENDUM AND AND USING THIS TWO ACRES TO PAY FOR THE REST OF THE USE THE TWO ACRES TO DEVELOP INTO COMMERCIAL PURPOSES SO THAT WE COULD HELP FUND PRESERVATION. THE CONTINUED MAINTENANCE FOR THE FOR THE REST OF THE PRESERVE. WE HAVE NEVER DEVELOPED THE LAND. NO PROJECT HAS COME FORWARD THAT'S BEEN ACCEPTABLE AND WE'VE BEEN PAYING FOR THE MAINTENANCE FOR BASED ON OTHER WAYS, OTHER INCOME. I THINK THERE'S A BILLBOARD THAT WE GET IT. AND THEN JUST FROM GENERAL FUNDS, WE'VE HAD NO ISSUE. IT'S NOT A LARGE COST FOR MAINTAINING THE PRESERVE. AND SO THE BOARD HAS ASKED THAT WE JUST CONTRIBUTE THE ENTIRE TWO ACRES INSTEAD OF CONTINUING TO ZONE IT AS COMMERCIAL, TO USE IT AND JUST INCORPORATE IT IN WITH THE REST OF THE PRESERVE. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE'VE GOT TO AMEND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, AND IF THEY AGREE TO IT, THEN IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE REFERENDUM GOING OUT IN THE ELECTION. WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT DONE. SO IT'LL BE GOING OUT IN THE AUGUST 18TH, 2026 ELECTION. THE NEXT STEP WOULD, IF YOU GUYS APPROVE THIS, WE WOULD SEND IT TO THE COUNTY AND THEY WOULD PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR THEM TO TO AGREE TO THIS AMENDMENT. AND IF THEY APPROVE IT, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK TO US. AND THEN WE'D GO OUT TO WE'D COME BACK BEFORE YOU BUY A RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE REFERENDUM LANGUAGE. AND THEN THE NEXT STEP WOULD GO TO THE ELECTION. MR. MAYOR, YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 20 DASH 26, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO 2011 FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH MARTIN COUNTY.

AND AS READ AND EXPLAINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. SECOND. THANK YOU. OKAY. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE NONE SEEING NONE. OKAY. COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS BEFORE YOU FINALIZE IT. I DID HAVE A SMALL EDITS THAT RUTH AND I HAD DONE AFTER WHAT WAS PUBLISHED. WE PUT ONE IN FRONT OF EACH OF YOU AND YOU'LL SEE WHERE THERE'S RED MARKINGS AND IT'S JUST ONE OF THE. WHEREAS CLAUSES WE. WHEREAS BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY DESIRE TO ABANDON. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD DO. SO RUTH AND I ARE HOPEFUL. BUT WE WANTED TO REMOVE THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD DO. SO THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO REFINE THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THAT. OR IS IT ASSUMED I'M SUBJECT TO. YEAH. SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENTS THAT MR. BHAGAT MENTIONED. PERFECT. OKAY. MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 20 DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OR CITY OF STUART APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 2011 FUNDING, ALONG WITH THE AMENDED RESOLUTION 20 DASH 26, AS EXPLAINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. I AGREE WITH THE AMENDMENT. AMENDED MOTION. OKAY. VICE MAYOR REED. YES, COMMISSIONER RIDGE, I THINK THE NO. IT'S FINE. OKAY. MR. RICH. NO, HE'S CHANGED HIS MIND ONCE THE ONCE THE ROLL BEGINS, IT HAS TO PROCEED. YES. LET'S GO.

COMMISSIONER RICH. NO. COMMISSIONER. YES, COMMISSIONER CLARK, I. YES, AND MAYOR COLLINS. YES. OKAY. SO MOVING ON TO ITEM SIX. APPOINTING A CITY MANAGER AND ADOPTING AN

[6. APPOINTING A CITY MANAGER AND ADOPTING AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (RC): RESOLUTION No. 21-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL A. GIARDINO AS CITY MANAGER AND AUTHORIZING AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH THE CITY MANAGER; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT. RESOLUTION NUMBER 21 DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL, A GUARDINO, AS CITY MANAGER AND AUTHORIZING AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. PREVIOUSLY, YOU GUYS HAD APPROVED AN BY RESOLUTION TO OFFER MR. GIARDINO THE CITY MANAGER POSITION AND HE GRATEFULLY ACCEPTED. WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN HIMSELF AND AND ROSS JOHNSON AND MYSELF AS FAR AS COMING UP WITH AN AGREEMENT AND TERMS, AND WE HAVE REACHED PROPOSED TERMS AND THOSE TERMS ARE INCORPORATED IN THE CITY MANAGER EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS RESOLUTION. BOTH ROSS AND I ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPOSED CONTRACT AS IS, AND MR. GIARDINO CAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF, BUT I BELIEVE HE IS ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH IT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AGREEMENT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE ONE LATER. ALL RIGHT. IT'S IT'S TEN ITEMS IN THIS AGREEMENT. VERY SHORT AGREEMENT. AND SINCE THAT TIME THAT YOU'VE. PROPOSED THIS AND SEND IT OUT IN THE PACKAGE

[01:50:01]

WITH THE AMOUNT THAT'S IN THE IN THE IN THE AGREEMENT, I THINK IT'S ITEM NUMBER 3 OR 4 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT HAS THE AMOUNT IN IT. NUMBER TWO. NUMBER TWO, THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING NEW OR STRANGE THAT HAS OCCURRED THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE THIS, THIS MOTION, THIS, THIS PROPOSED CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT WITH MR. GIARDINO. IF ANY OF US KNOW, ARE YOU ASKING ME? NO. AND I GUESS MR. JUNIOR IS IN AGREEMENT WITH IT. IF WE WOULD MOVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS TODAY. NO CHANGES. TWICE HERE. YEAH. WAITING. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO. UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO MAKE A MOTION. OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I JUST WANTED TO MOVE IT ALONG.

MAKE THE MOTION. OKAY. WITH REGARD TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, RESOLUTION NUMBER 21, 2026 FOR APPOINTING A CITY MANAGER AND APPROVING AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE DOCUMENTS AND THE CONTRACTS AS PROVIDED. OKAY. OKAY. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? YES, I HAVE ONE, ROBIN CARTWRIGHT. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. WELCOME. IT'S VERY EXCITING TO BE HIRING A NEW CITY MANAGER, AND I KNOW I SPEAK FOR ANYONE. I SAY, THIS IS VERY EXCITING. I'M SURE THAT THE COMMISSION AND STAFF ARE WORKING TO MAKE THIS TRANSITION AS SMOOTH AS POSSIBLE. BUT NOT TO BE A DEBBIE DOWNER, BUT I WOULDN'T BE ME OTHERWISE. I WOULD CAUTION WHAT FEELS LIKE. WHAT IS HAPPENING IS A DAVE ROSS 2.0, WHERE CERTAIN COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE SETTING THIS UP AND EVEN ROOTING FOR THIS TO FAIL, INCLUDING SOME CLOSELY AFFILIATED WITH THE CITY AND INCLUDING SOME OF OUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS, SPECULATION CAN BE MADE AS TO WHY, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WHATEVER THE REASON, IT'S NOT REALLY THE CASE. HOWEVER, BASED ON COMMENTS PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY MADE, I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED. SO LET'S INSTEAD FOCUS ON A STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE BY SOME ON THE DAIS, AS WELL AS BY SOME OF US AS PART OF OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND EVEN BY SOME OF US IN CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF. AS ALLUDED TO EARLIER, THERE ARE OUTSTANDING ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE REMEDIED IN ORDER FOR THE CITY AND THE NEW CITY MANAGER TO BE SUCCESSFUL. ON 1210, I EMAILED THE FORMER INTERIM CITY MANAGER AFTER MAKING PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE DECEMBER 8TH MEETING AND I SAID, QUOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A MEETING WITH YOU TO DISCUSS OPPORTUNITIES TO CLEAN UP SOME ITEMS THAT COULD BENEFIT THE CITY. I ALLUDED TO THIS OPPORTUNITY AT MONDAY'S MEETING AND WOULD APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO SIT DOWN WITH YOU AND PRESENT SOME THOUGHTS AND IDEAS AS TO HOW WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS. I WOULD ALSO BE AMENABLE TO INCLUDING COMMISSIONER REED, AS HE'S DONE CONSIDERABLE RESEARCH INTO SOME OF THESE SOLUTIONS AND COULD OFFER SOME INSIGHT INCLUDED. THAT IS NOT ON ANY CODE ENFORCEMENT OR PERMIT FILES. AND I MET WITH THE FORMER CITY INTERIM CITY MANAGER ON DECEMBER 12TH. MY QUESTIONS AND TOPICS WERE MANY AND INCLUDED HOW TO SOLVE THESE ISSUES IN THE HOPES OF MITIGATING POTENTIAL ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COURT COSTS IF POSSIBLE. UNFORTUNATELY, I FEEL LIKE I WAS MOSTLY PLACATED IN THAT MEETING WITH REASONS WHY THINGS COULD NOT BE RESOLVED. I WAS SINCERELY LOOKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO REMOVE OBSTACLES, SPECIFICALLY TO SET THE STAGE FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO OUR NEW CITY MANAGER. THIS NEW HIRE IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO HAVE A FRESH START, AND I HOPE THE COMMISSION WILL ENCOURAGE A POSITIVE WORKING ENVIRONMENT. I'M SURE YOU WILL. FROM THOSE INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY INVOLVED WITH THE TRANSITION, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A REDO OF WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT WE HAVE LEARNED FROM THE PAST, AND I TRUST THAT WE ARE ALL WORKING TOWARDS THE SAME GOAL TO MAKE HIM AND THEREFORE THE CITY SUCCESSFUL.

THANK YOU. AND MISS CARTWRIGHT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ROLE ON THE THE CALL, THE SELECTION OR SCREENING COMMITTEE. SHE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RICH, ARE WE DONE WITH COMMENTS? IS THERE ANY OTHER. NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? I THOUGHT YOU LOOKED TO ME FOR THE CALL. SO COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS. YES, YES. SO IN LIGHT OF WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE PREVIOUS HIRE THAT EVERYONE WAS VERY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT AND WHICH ENDED UP COSTING THE CITY AND THE TAXPAYERS QUITE A BIT OF MONEY, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD TO ITEM FIVE. I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT SHOULD MR. GIORDANO BE TERMINATED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF HIS INITIAL HIRE FOR ANY REASON THAT HE WOULD ONLY BE ENTITLED TO TWO WEEKS OF SEVERANCE. I DO NOT ANTICIPATE THIS HAPPENING. BUT AGAIN, IN LIGHT OF WHAT TOOK PLACE AND WHAT A MESS THAT WAS AND WHAT IT COST THE CITY TAXPAYERS, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO PROTECT OURSELVES.

SO IF HE'S TERMINATED, YES. BECAUSE IF HE'S TERMINATED FOR CAUSE BY THE CITY COMMISSION,

[01:55:08]

HE'S SAYING FOR ANY REASON, FOR ANY REASON, IT WOULDN'T BE ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE IF IT WAS TERMINATED FOR CAUSE. THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. SO IT WOULD BE FOR ANY REASON. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. NEITHER AM I. WELL, THEN IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY NEED A SECOND.

MAY NOT BE SO CONTRACTED OR ASSIGNED OR TRANSFERRED. I'M JUST LOOKING TO SEE IF ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS. YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NOT COVERED IN NUMBER FIVE, 6 OR 7 EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE IT'S COVERED. BUT HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO REMEMBER. HE'S STARTING WITH HE'S STARTING WITH 80 HOURS OF PTO. I SEE THAT. SO. NO, HE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO. WHAT IS IT, MR. BAGGETT? I SEE IT'S 20 WEEKS TO 20 WEEKS. DON'T FIRE HIM. PRETTY EASY. THESE CONVERSATIONS ARE FAMILIAR. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE OTHER ONE. WELL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT TO PUT ON OUR BRITCHES AND DO SOMETHING AT SOME POINT IN TIME. AND EVERYBODY HAS A PART AND RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN THIS BUSINESS.

SO AND IF IT HAPPENS, IT HAPPENS. BUT WE SHOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST TRY TO MOVE FORWARD POSITIVELY AND HOPE THAT I WAS ONE OF THE ONES AND I MISSED IT, PROBABLY HAS WATCHED EVERYTHING. MY PRIORITY IS FLORIDA. MY PRIORITY IS A PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE IN FLORIDA. I THINK THAT'S EVERYBODY'S PRIORITY. BUT WE ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, LEADERSHIP AND OTHER THINGS AND WAYS TO WORK WITH OUR COMMISSION, WORK WITH STAFF. WE WENT THROUGH A BIG PROCESS. THE SCREENING COMMITTEE WENT THROUGH A BIG PROCESS. WE WENT THROUGH A BIG PROCESS, ADDING PEOPLE, DROPPING, PEOPLE GOING BACK AND FORTH. AND WE'RE HERE.

AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LIVE WITH WHAT WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH AND AND MOVE FORWARD. SO I DON'T KNOW, YOU SAID YOU NEEDED A SECOND AND IS THERE A SECOND, SIR? I ALSO WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S TO COMPARE THE CALIBER OF PERSON. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, WHO DAVE ROSS WAS TO MR. GIARDINO. THIS IS THIS IS A DIFFERENT CALIBER OF PERSON. AND UNFORTUNATELY, TO MRS. CARTWRIGHT'S POINT, IT'S YOUR GOOD FRIEND WHO IS A BIG PART OF MAKING THIS ENTIRE PROCESS UGLY. AND SO I DON'T APPRECIATE EVEN THAT COMMENT FROM YOU. WE ARE BLESSED THAT WE'VE HAD HIM APPLIED. IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, WHETHER IT WAS HIRING RUTH OR NOW MR. GIARDINO, THERE HAS TO CONTINUOUSLY BE A NEGATIVE CLOUD FROM YOU AND MR. CAMPINI, YOUR GOOD FRIEND. AND SO I DON'T APPRECIATE IT AGAIN WHEN. ROZ MOVED INTO THE INTERIM ROLE, HAD TO BE A NEGATIVE CLOUD. YOU HAD TO DISRESPECT ROZ. AND NOW WITH THIS GENTLEMAN WHO'S COME HERE ALL THE WAY ON, YOU KNOW, UNDER DURESS WITH WHAT'S GOING ON AT LAGUARDIA TODAY. HE'S HE'S HERE WITH US. WHY GO THERE? WHY? WHY HAVE TO MAKE IT UGLY? IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY EVERY STEP THAT THIS COMMISSION TRIES TO TAKE TO DO SOMETHING TO DELIVER TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, IT HAS TO BE UGLY. AND. AND I JUST DON'T APPRECIATE IT. I FEEL LIKE THIS COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR APPLYING. YOU GOT THE JOB. WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT THESE STRANGE.

BUT JUST THESE SECOND. SO. NO, BUT I'M GOING TO LET YOU HAVE IT BECAUSE. BECAUSE I JUST DON'T APPRECIATE IT. IT'S EVERY SINGLE TIME, YOU KNOW? AND I WAS REALLY HOPING THAT THIS WASN'T GOING TO BE ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THAT THIS GENTLEMAN COULD START, YOU KNOW, WITH A POSITIVE NOTE. AND I JUST HOPE THAT HE'S NOT SUBVERTED AS WE GO FORWARD FROM YOU OR MR. CAMPINI OR ANYBODY ELSE, SO THAT THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST CAN, YOU KNOW, MOVE FORWARD, THE STAFF CAN HEAL AND FUNCTION PROPERLY AND THE CITY CAN GET TO WORK SERVING RESIDENTS INSTEAD OF HAVING TO HAVE CONSTANT BEHIND THE SCENES DRAMA ABOUT HOW THE CITY'S ON FIRE AND EVERYTHING'S TERRIBLE FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES, PURELY POLITICAL PURPOSES. SO. VICE MAYOR, I THINK THE MAYOR SUMMED IT UP. I LOOK FORWARD TO THE NEWS ARTICLES. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS? MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL? NO, WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND ON

[02:00:04]

THAT. WELL, WE HAD WE HAD THE ORIGINAL ORIGINAL MOTION. YES. I WAS GOING TO REREAD THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS QUOTED. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. NO PUBLIC. NO, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC. MISS CARTWRIGHT WAS PUBLIC. WELL, THERE WAS ROBYN. OH, YEAH. ROBYN. MARY.

COMMISSIONER JOB. YES. COMMISSIONER CLARK. YES. VICE MAYOR REED. YES. COMMISSIONER.

RICH. YES. MAYOR COLLINS. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. CONGRATULATIONS. I NORMALLY DON'T CLAP. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. THANKS. JUST TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. THANK YOU. SIR, IF YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE JUST INTRODUCING YOURSELF TO. THE COMMUNITY. MICHAEL GIARDINO, SOON TO BE 3642 SOUTHEAST FORECASTLE COURT, OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, BUT WITHIN 15 MILES OF THE CITY. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE COMMISSION, TO THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY. THE PROCESS WAS RIGOROUS. IT WAS FAIR. I ENJOYED EVERY CONVERSATION THAT I HAD WITH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU. I LEARNED SOMETHING AND I'M LEARNING EVERY MINUTE TO THE CITIZENS. I'M MIKE GIARDINO. I GREW UP IN UPSTATE NEW YORK, IN ROCHESTER, NEW YORK. I JOINED THE NAVY. I HAD A FABULOUS CAREER. I FINISHED IN KEY WEST, FLORIDA, AND I ALWAYS WANTED TO BE A CITY MANAGER IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA SINCE I RETIRED, LIFE HAS A WAY OF TAKING YOU IN CERTAIN ROUTES, AND IT DID. AND I'VE HAD A GREAT CAREER, BUT I AM GRATEFUL TO BE HERE. I AM PROUD TO BE HERE AND I'M READY TO WORK. AWESOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MARK. MOVING ON TO ITEM SEVEN. RESOLUTION NUMBER 22 DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

[7. SEPARATE VOTE OF COLA AND MERIT RAISES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES (RC): RESOLUTION No. 22-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA REQUIRING COST OF LIVING INCREASES AND MERIT RAISES FOR THE CITY’S NON-BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE VOTE BY THE CITY COMMISSION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, REQUIRING COST OF LIVING INCREASES AND MERIT RAISES FOR THE CITY CITY'S NON-BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE VOTE BY THE CITY COMMISSION, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. I THINK PREVIOUSLY THE COMMISSION HAD REQUESTED THAT WE BRING FORWARD A RESOLUTION TO THIS EFFECT. I THINK THE TITLE SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. AGAIN, THIS IS FOR NON-BARGAINING UNIT EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY. THE BARGAINING UNITS WILL OBVIOUSLY BARGAIN SEPARATELY, AND THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE ISSUE AND SUBJECT TO A CONTRACT. BUT THIS THIS RESOLUTION WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ALL NON-BARGAINING EMPLOYEES, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE A SEPARATE VOTE WHEN BUDGET TIME. NORMALLY IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN INCORPORATED WITHIN THE BUDGET OVERALL. SO NOW THERE'LL BE A SEPARATE ITEM AT BUDGET TIME JUST FOR THE RAISES FOR THE NON-BARGAINING UNIT STAFF MEMBERS. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? NUMBER EIGHT? MR. MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 22 DASH 2026 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, REQUIRING COST OF LIVING INCREASES AND MERIT RAISES FOR THE CITY'S NON-BARGAINING UNIT. EMPLOYEES BE SUBJECT TO A SEPARATE VOTE BY THE CITY COMMISSION PROVIDING EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MOTION? I HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE A COMMENT FROM COMMISSIONERS? AREN'T WE EFFECTIVELY CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO DO THIS? CAN'T WE INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER TO SAY WE DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY RAISES FOR THE EMPLOYEE BUDGET AND THE EMPLOYEE BUDGET? I MEAN, DO WE HAVE A LINE ITEM IN REALITY AT THIS POINT? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A LINE ITEM ACTUALLY SEPARATING THEM. THIS ACTUALLY FACILITATES THAT DISCUSSION SO THAT IT IS CLEAR IT ALWAYS APPEARS IN THE POWERPOINT THAT IS PRESENTED BY THE FINANCE DIRECTOR WHEN THE BUDGET IS PRESENTED, BUT A SEPARATE LINE ITEM IN THE BUDGET. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS.

SO THIS ACTUALLY SIMPLY REQUIRES A SEPARATE VOTE. AND THE UNIONS ARE UNDER THE COMMISSION, SAY LAST YEAR YOU SPENT THIS MUCH MONEY ON EMPLOYEES. THIS YEAR WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO HOLD THAT STEADY. DON'T WE CURRENTLY HAVE THAT ABILITY? YOU DO. YOU DO.

HOWEVER, THIS PROVIDES A LITTLE MORE CLARITY AS TO THE EXPECTATION, AND IT ALSO PROVIDES CLARITY TO THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AS WELL THAT IT HAS TO BE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. YES.

[02:05:02]

AND IT'S MINIMAL. IT'S A IT'S A NOMINAL THING THAT CAN BE DONE. CAN IT GO DOWN TO AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE? CAN THE COMMISSION SAY. THIS DEPARTMENT DESERVES A RAISE, BUT THIS DEPARTMENT DOES NOT KNOW. ACROSS THE BOARD IT'S A COLA, A GW IS ACROSS THE BOARD. MERIT IS DEPENDENT ON THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS WHO OVERSEE THOSE STAFF. SO THAT'S ALL ALIGNED WITH POLICY IN THE EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK. SO THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY THIS PARTICULAR EMPLOYEE DON'T WANT TO GIVE IT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL UNDER THE CITY MANAGER. AND THEN RESPECTIVELY, THE DIRECTORS. ARE WE TRYING I MEAN, BECAUSE IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS IN THE THE CITY MANAGER'S DUTIES ARE. TO BE AUTHORIZED TO DEAL WITH SUBORDINATE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND TO NEGOTIATE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, I MEAN. ARE WE GETTING INTO THE ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS OF THE CITY MANAGER HERE TO TO TWO GREATER DEGREE? I WOULD OFFER THAT THIS IS SIMPLY ENSURING THAT THERE IS A DISCUSSION ON THAT SPECIFIC ITEM, AS OPPOSED TO GETTING INTO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY MANAGER THROUGH THE WORK OF THE DIRECTORS. I DON'T SEE IT THAT WAY. I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, BUT IT'S IT'S SOMETHING WE ALREADY VOTE ON. WE'RE JUST PARCELING IT OUT. SO FOR TRANSPARENCY, WE HAVE A CLEAR DISCUSSION FOR THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT. IT'S ALREADY SOMETHING THAT'S VOTED ON WITHIN OUR BUDGETS. WE'RE JUST BRINGING IT OUT FOR TRANSPARENCY. IT'S NOT A NEW THING THAT WE'RE DOING HERE. I GUESS I'M SORT OF SEEING THE BUDGET LIKE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE WANTED TO, WE COULD SAY, COULD WE PULL THE THAT ITEM OUT? WE COULD DO THAT NOW REALLY COULDN'T WE? WOULD IT FORMALIZES IT GOING FORWARD AS A PRACTICE WITH THIS COMMISSION VERSUS JUST DOING IT ONE YEAR, MAYBE NOT DOING IT ANOTHER? IT ENSURES TRANSPARENCY GOING FORWARD FROM THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLE MAYOR COLLINS? YES, COMMISSIONER. RICH. I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THE ROLE THAT STARTED THEN VOTE NO. YEAH, I'M GOING TO VOTE NO. OKAY. VICE MAYOR REED. YES. COMMISSIONER. YES. COMMISSIONER.

[8. INTENTION TO ABANDON A PORTION OF MARINA COVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTOF-WAY (ROW) (RC): RESOLUTION No. 23-2026; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA DECLARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO ABANDON AND TO SET PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS TO CONSIDER THE ABANDONMENT OF A 25’ WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NW DIXIE HIGHWAY, SITUATED BETWEEN NW POINSETTIA STREET TO THE NORTH AND NW OLEANDER STREET TO THE SOUTH, MORE CLEARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]

CLARK. YES. OKAY. MOVING ON TO ITEM EIGHT. RESOLUTION NUMBER 23 DASH 2026, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, DECLARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO ABANDON AND TO SET PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS TO CONSIDER THE ABANDONMENT ABANDONMENT OF A 25 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE CITY. LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY, SITUATED BETWEEN NORTHWEST POINSETTIA STREET TO THE NORTH AND NORTHWEST OLEANDER STREET TO THE SOUTH. MORE CLEARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED. PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THIS. I EMAILED YOU ALL AND KIND OF GAVE YOU THE PROCESS. BUT AS A REMINDER, THIS IS STEP ONE AND THIS IS A RESOLUTION WITH THE INTENT TO MOVE FORWARD. IF WE GO PAST THAT, THEN WE WOULD GO TO STEP TWO, WHICH WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE. SO YOU'D HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND READING OF AN ORDINANCE. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURE, WE CAN DISCUSS IT. BUT OTHERWISE WE CAN ALLOW JODY TO GIVE HER PRESENTATION ON IT. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JODY COOGLER, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF STUART. TONIGHT I PRESENT THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT REGARDING THE CITY'S INTENT TO ABANDON A PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE MARINA COVE AT RIVERSIDE DEVELOPMENT. THIS AMENDMENT, THIS ABANDONMENT WOULD FACILITATE ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ALONG NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY. THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM FIVE STAR DEVELOPERS, INCORPORATED. THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING TO ABANDON A PORTION OF THE 25 FOOT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OUTLINED IN RED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN NORTHWEST OLEANDER STREET AND NORTHWEST POINCIANA STREET AND JUST WEST OF NORTHWEST OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY. THE CITY'S PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS DETERMINED THAT THE USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS NO LONGER IN THE BEST INTEREST OF

[02:10:02]

THE PUBLIC, AND DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE CITY'S INTEREST. THE PROCEDURES FOR AN ABANDONMENT OF A RIGHT OF WAY OWNED BY THE RIGHT, OWNED BY THE CITY, IS GOVERNED BY SECTION 30 6-3 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY COMMISSION TO FIRST ADOPT A RESOLUTION DECLARING ITS INTENT TO ABANDON THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE VACATION, NARROWING OR RENAMING OF ANY STREET, ALLEY OR ROAD OR ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE ORDINANCE. THE CITY COMMISSION MAY ADDRESS MULTIPLE ACTIONS SUCH AS RENAMING, VACATION OR NARROWING, NARROWING, OR MORE THAN ONE STREET, AVENUE OR ALLEY WITHIN A SINGLE ORDINANCE. HOWEVER, PRIOR TO VACATION OR NARROW ANY PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THE CITY COMMISSION MUST ADOPT A RESOLUTION FORMALLY CITING ITS INTENTION TO DO SO. THIS. THIS AERIAL SHOWS THE PLOT OF THE ORIGINAL RIVERSIDE PLAT PARK THAT WAS PLATTED IN 1925 AND AND RECORDED THE 25 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AS OUTLINED IN YELLOW. IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE HERE, SO I'M JUST GOING TO KIND OF POINT IT OUT RIGHT HERE IS THE REQUEST THAT'S OUTLINED IN YELLOW. AND THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAYS HAVE BEEN THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAYS, WHICH IS HERE AND HERE AND ALSO HERE HAVE BEEN ALREADY ABANDONED BY THE CITY. SO THIS ESSENTIALLY IS A LITTLE ENCLAVE THAT'S NO LONGER NEEDED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE. AGAIN, THIS THIS DESCRIBES IN CHAPTER 36 HOW WHAT IS REQUIRED WHENEVER YOU'RE ABANDONING A RIGHT OF WAY, WHEN, IF, IF THIS GETS APPROVED AND MOVES FORWARD WITH ANY MOVING FORWARD WITH AN ABANDONMENT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO PAY WHAT'S CALLED A PRIVILEGE FEE AND THAT IT HAS A. IT'S BASED ON THE APPRAISAL REPORT PREPARED BY. IT'S. THE PRIVILEGE FEE IS DETERMINED AND FIXED BY COMPUTING 100% OF THE VALUE ADDED TO THE ADJACENT REAL PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. THE VALUE IS ADDED AND IS DETERMINED BY THE APPRAISAL OF A QUALIFIED REGISTERED REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL WHO PRACTICES IN THE COUNTY AND IS PAID FOR BY THE PETITIONER. IN ADDITION TO THE PRIVILEGE FEE, THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE AN APPRAISAL BASED ON THAT. IT WAS DATED DECEMBER 17TH, 2020 FOR THE ESTIMATE, PRIVILEGE FEE WOULD BE PAID TO THE CITY IS 32,600. THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER. THIS GIVES THE OVERALL SITE PLAN THAT'S BEING THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THE 22 TOWNHOMES AND THE FIVE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ALONG NORTHWEST DIXIE. AND IF YOU CAN SEE THE RED IS THE ABANDONMENT THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING. AGAIN, THIS APPLICATION WAS APPROVED THROUGH A MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE ZONING. AND PROGRESS WAS IN PLACE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 23, DASH 2026 AND DECLARATION OF INTEREST OF ABANDONMENT. CERTAIN RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. MR. CLARK, JUST WANT TO CONFIRM JUST FOR THE PUBLIC AND MAYBE THOSE OVERSEEING THE PLANNING DETAIL, THAT LINEAR RIGHT OF WAY IN RED THAT YOU JUST DID AT THE LAST THE LAST SHOWING, THE LAST SLIDE. THAT'S THE SAME AS THE THE PIECE IN IN YELLOW. COMMISSIONER CLARK. THAT IS CORRECT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KNOW. SO YOU DEPICTED IT IN YELLOW BEFORE, BUT NOW IT'S IN RED. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YES, MA'AM. THIS JUST SHOWS A CLOSE UP OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. AND THIS SHOWS WHAT WAS APPROVED THROUGH THE MINOR SITE PLAN THAT WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED AND APPROVED BY DEVELOPMENT. AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S 22 TOWNHOMES AND THEN ALSO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WILL FACE THE NORTH WEST DIXIE HIGHWAY. IF YOU RECALL THIS PROJECT ALONG DIXIE, POINSETTIA AND OLEANDER WAS APPROVED THROUGH A CRA GRANT FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND ON STREET PARKING. THAT WAS THROUGH A GRANT THROUGH THE STATE. SO WE THE ACCESS POINT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE ACHIEVABLE ALONG THE NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY AS WE OWN A PORTION OF THAT. AND ONE OF THE GRANTS, THE GRANT DOES STATE THAT WE CANNOT HAVE DRIVEWAYS ALONG NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY. SO THE ONLY ACCESS THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED WOULD BE THE ALLEYWAY THAT IS NOW THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY, AND THAT'S THE ONE THEY'RE ASKING TO ABANDON. AGAIN, IT'S BEEN ABANDONED TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH AS WELL. MORE QUESTIONS. EVERYTHING IS POSITIVE. THE IMPACT IS POSITIVE FOR THE

[02:15:09]

UNITS AND FOR THE THERE'S NO NOBODY. I MEAN IT'S CREATES MORE ACCESS TO THEM AND NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE DENIED OF ANY ACCESS BECAUSE THE RIGHT OF WAY IS BEING ABANDONED.

COMMISSIONER CLARK, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. JODY, HOW HOW MUCH IS THAT PRIVILEGE FEE? AROUND 32,000. ALMOST 33,000. WE HAVE NOT VERIFIED THE APPRAISAL YET, BUT THEY DID GIVE US A DRAFT APPRAISAL. ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS OR A MOTION? OH FORGIVE ME. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE APPLICANT OWNS THE LAND ON BOTH SIDES OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. WHEREAS WITH MR. LEONARD, HE ONLY OWNED ON ONE SIDE, RIGHT OF WAY. SO THEY'RE THE ONLY OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ON BOTH SIDES. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, MR. BAGGETT. THAT IS CORRECT. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE BIGGER MAP? MAYBE. THAT'S GOOD. WHAT'S THE OTHER ROAD SURROUNDING THAT? THAT DEVELOPMENT AGAIN? IT'S NORTHWEST OLEANDER, NORTHWEST DIXIE HIGHWAY AND THEN NORTHWEST POINCIANA STREET. I'M JUST LIKE THE THE ATTORNEY SAYS THAT PIECE THERE WOULD ONLY BE IMPACTING THEMSELVES. SO LIKE, LIKE I ASKED BEFORE, IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE WHOLE STREET PATTERN AND CONFIGURATION BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY RIGHT OF WAY THERE WHEN SOMEBODY WANTS TO, YOU KNOW, DO SOMETHING, IT'S.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, OKAY. FURTHER COMMENTS FOR STAFF OR EMOTION? IS THERE A MOTION? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT RESOLUTION 23 DASH 2026 RESOLUTION TO THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, DECLARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 36 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO ABANDON AND SET PUBLIC HEARING IN THE CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS TO CONSIDER THE ABANDONMENT OF 20 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE CITY. SECOND, YOU HAD YOUR COFFEE TONIGHT. THAT WAS GREAT. THIS COMES BACK TO US AGAIN. LEE. YES, THIS WILL COME BACK FOR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. IT'LL BE A FIRST AND SECOND READING. YES, IT'LL BE VIA ORDINANCE. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MOTION? SEEING NONE, COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS. OKAY.

SEEING NONE. MARY, WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLE MAYOR COLLINS? YES. COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES.

COMMISSIONER. RICH. YES. COMMISSIONER. JOB. YES. VICE MAYOR REED. YES. MOVING ON TO

[9. PERMISSION TO SUBMIT A COMMENT LETTER TO THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORP OF ENGINEERS ON THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) TO SUPPORT THE CENTRAL EVERGLADES PLANNING PROJECT (CEPP) OPERATIONAL PLAN (PHASE 1) BY THE DEADLINE OF MARCH 31, 2026, AT 5 P.M. ]