>> good evening ladies and gentlemen.
this evening the invocation will be given by brian
mcmillin.
>> recording in process -- the invocation will be given
by brian mcmillin from coastal community church which
is the new church that took over for trinity.
they had their grand opening on sunday.
brian, please come on up.
>> wouldn't be complete without trinity community
schools.
>> gay, we thank you for your elleblghted lears,
churches and schools and those who serve our comurptty
day in and day out without hesitation.
we're thankful for our community and the process that
provides this opportunity for our voices to be heard.
we pray for our elleblghted leader, protect them and
guide them a they carry out their elected
responsibilities.
lord, I pray for clear understanding tonight as this
meeting carries on.
lord, I pray we would have an empathetic year that
considers all the information being provided and we
would all listen wholeheartedly.
we I pray for the wisdom to seek your guidance to have
the patience to listen and the courage to about.
lord, as our city, our county, our state, our nation
faces a battle with covid, I pray you protect the great
families in this community.
that you would establish faith and withhold fear.
lord, I pray that you would allow lighthouse point to
be a place of healing, comfort, keep our great city as
a beacon of light for all to see.
in your name we pray.
>> started strong.
very good, very good.
excellent job.
>>> that's strong.
>> and as quickly as he came in, he left.
>> well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I would
like to welcome you to the regular scheduled city
commission meeting of january 11th, 2022.
at this point time we realize this evening due to
social distancing and the uprising in the omicron
virus, we have allowed for a virtual platform along
with in-person to continually keep with city quarterrum
and to make sure our city stays healthy and is safe.
commissioners, can we please stand up and for the
pledge.
>> I pledge al legdwroons the flag of the united states
of america, and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and
jufghts for all.
>> thank you very much.
>> nicole, could I please have roll call.
[roll call]
>> okay, we're all accounted for.
>>> thank you very much, jennifer -- or nicole, sorry.
thank you very much, nicole.
this evening we have a proclamation by mayor glenn
troast for arbor day, mayor?
>> I'm sorry, I was on mute.
>> no problem.
>> go ahead, mayor, we can hear you.
>>> okay.
>> just get fog the proclamation.
just getting to the proclamation.
>> whereas in 1872 j. Sterling morton proposed to the
nebraska board of agriculture that a special day be set
aside for the plants of trees and whereas this holiday,
called arbor day was first observed with the planting
of more than a million trees in nebraska, whereas 2022
is the 150th anniversary of the holiday and arbor day
is now observed throughout the nation and the world.
whereas trees can produce -- reduce the precious
topsoil, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate
temperature, clean the air, produce life oxygen and
provide habitat for wildlife, and whereas trees where
ever they are planted are a source of joy and spiritual
renewal and where the astcity of lighthouse point will
here afterhere in conjunction with florida arbor day,
now therefore I, glenn troast by the authority vested
in me by the city of lighthouse point claim the 1 fifth
in the city of lighthouse point.
>> already.
commissioners.
having been over a month since the last time we met,
we've had an opportunity to look over the last meeting
minutes.
do I have any issues with the meeting minute?
>> move approval of minutes of december 14th, 2021.
>> second.
>> motion on the floor, a second, any discussion?
all in favor please say aye.
vote passes 5-0.
thank you very much.
>> corey, treasurer's report, please.
>> evening, treasurer's report, january 11, 2022.
general fund 9,977, cleanup departments 39,600, garage
and trash fund 1,677,155 dollars and 16 cents special
purpose funds 3,432,708.27.
storm water utility funds $832,074.04.
construction and debt service funds $3,90 6,239.73.
reserve fubtd currency $617,425.37.
all other funds $5,865,719.10.
contingency fund.
total all funds $31,772,161.
76.
>> commissioners any questions for corey?
all right.
see nothing questions from corey, we're going move onto
public comments and request from the floor regarding
agenda items.
just for everybody is aware, tonight we have three
agenda items, one of which is a public as s a first
reading and public hearing for ordinance of lighthouse
point yacht club which they will have an opportunity
speak at thattime.
at w that being said, I was talking with nigh coal
earlier, we didn't have many people sign up, and I
wanted to make sure that we are good with the three mf
minute time cap so everyone has a proper opportunity to
speak is everybody wok that are we keeping the meeting
open on-line?
>> yes, we are.
>> I'll be keeping a timer here.
it will go off at 3-minutes at which pointly ask the
person to stop speaking.
>> I might want to hear more.
>> you might want to hear more than 3 minutes.
>> all I would say is to make sure that we don't at the
fourth person speaking we give four minutes I would
like to stick with a consistent basis so we're fair and
equitable.
you dwoont go to four min?
>> I rather then extends it somewhat.
you're the presiding officer of the admission I defer
to your opinion.
I have no doubt you'll keep good order.
>> commissioners are we okay to extend to four min.
>> I'm time with $o three minutes if you want for go to
4.
>> I don't care either way, but a second bite of the
apple.
>> and a third if they want to come back again.
we're going to get plenty of time for people to say
their peace.
>>> three minute?
>> we'll do 4 minutes.
I move the timer to four minutes at which point in time
we'll now open public comments and request regarding
agenda teams I'm going to open up to those in the
diminish chambers to come up, they have four minutes,
please state your name and address, and you'll have the
floor for four minutes.
f.
>> okay.
anybody the commission chamber that would like to speak
all right, seeing none.
nicole, do we have anybody that has their hand raised
in virtual attend this would like the speak at this
poin in time.
>> no, no one is raising their hand.
>> all right.
anybody that is in attendance on the zoom that would
like to speak they can raise their hand, one more
second.
seeing none.
>> mr. President, how many people do we have on the
zoom?
>> currently went from 34 down to 29, but it apparently
right now it is 29 people on a zoom as attended as a
nonpanellist.
>> thank you.
>> yep.
>> no problem.
at this point in time we close public comment and
request for the floor regarding agenda items.
report from city administration.
since we have none, department reports we also have
none.
however, commissioners you know at this time in the
evening, I would like the say if you have something to
ask from any of our department reports to department
heads to reach out and ask them the questions now.
anybody have anything for our department heads?
>> no.
>>> I do have one thing for chuck.
I know about 2 1/2, actually 3 months ago we had
someone come to us on 29th street about striping the
road.
I want to thank you guys for getting it striped.
it looks a lot better.
hopefully it is a little bit more definable for those
people driving there at night with that quick little
turn behind bank of america.
the only thing I would ask is there in way in front of
the apartment complex we paint a double white line so
it stands out that, you know, instead of just having a
middle line, they also have the far right hand line,
too, chuck?
>> so the standard is the single solid white line,
we're hoping that designates the roadway alignment more
clearly.
there is a mobilization fee because it is therm most
plastic not regular highway paint so it can be
reflective in the evening.
I can speak to engineer about widening that line if
need be.
>>> I appreciate it.
definitely stands out more than it ever has.
I know the residents on 29th street was happy it was
taken care of.
>> commissioner maucker.
>>> I run garage collection running obtain 24 hours
behind.
I just wonder if it is seasonal related or holiday or
covid or both?
and if s there any way to make sure on our twheabz
folks know they will get their garage picked up, just
may be running late.
>> yes, I can handle that.
and that you are correct, they did have a lot of
quantity right after the holidays.
but the bigger issue has been covid.
it is not just the drivers and the people working for
waste management.
it is some of the folks working at the dump and they've
experienced extremely long lines dumping the trucks.
although they have enough drivers on some days and they
get right out to the dump, when they've got trucks
waiting for a couple of hours.
they're frustrated by the situation, but, I'll ask them
to communicate with think on a daily basis and we can
definitely put something on the website and on
facebook.
we always tell anybody who calls to just leave their
stuff out until the next day, sometimes they don't get
ahold of me to 7, 8:00 at night because they do work
until dark.
and they check the routes at that time and see what was
missed and some of the driervetion you know, they need
to go back in the morning and we relay that information
to anybody who calls, and the rule of thumb is just
leave your stuff out.
>> thank you, I think they're doing a great job under
some very difficult conditions, but anything we can do
to communicate to the residents to know to keep it out
is beneficial, and I appreciate I, thank, chuck.
>> I agree, thank you.
>> commissioner, any other communication with our
department heads?
>> all right, thank you very much.
we have no reports from our city attorney.
>> no, sir.
>> okay.
our reports next board meeting, we have planning and
zoning february 1st.
code enforcement january 18th, community and appearance
board january 20th.
special magistrate is february 2nd.
and marine advisory is february 3rd.
we is have no unfinished business, no new emphasis this
evening our number one thing on the docket for
ordinance is first reading for ordinance to rezone
yacht club the.
and consideration of the proposed final site plan for
the yacht club redevelopment.
>> mr. President, members of the commission, this item
is here for first reading this is one of the items that
requires two readings by the city commission.
assuming the if this goes forward and gets adopted by
city admission evening it will be set for a
quasijudicial hearing in the future for second reading
and adoption what this ordinance does is takes the
yachted club floopt is currently zoned delete s 2 --
b2a and change toilet the ycu, under proposal.
that is why this would not be passed this evening, at
the next meeting if you pass this there will be is
quent shall adoptions going forward and one will be a
final adoption of the ymcu of which this will be zoned
into.
as part of the ymcu text there are a few requirements.
there is a requirement for the site plan as well as the
development agreement.
the development agreement is on the next item, that is
a public hearing tonight as a statute requires two
public hearings for the development agreements.
so with that, what I would roamed is if you want to
move forward with reading of the ordinance and then
turn it over to our city planner.
he can present, make some presentations on the issue,
most of which will candidly be throughout the site plan
that it go through planning and zoning review.
it did come through with an approval with several
recommendations, several topics of discussion, still.
na will be presented to you and then you condition ask
whatever questions you want.
understand this is not quasi-judicial, you'll have a
quasi-judicial at the next one, you can go through and
provide recommendation, suggestion as you see fit.
the applicant will be able to address those same issues
as well.
they have an opportunity because you'll be making a
decision to address some of the issues that they have
and that can remain on the item.
and just to make it clear, the applicant and their
representatives are not considered public comment.
they're applicant and they have -- need the opportunity
to present their information to you in a that make a
time that make sense so if you have any questions I'd
be happy to answer them, otherwise we can breed the
presentation by staff.
you can do the reading now or do it after you hear
everything.
it is up to the commission.
>> I have a quick question for the city attorney.
>>> give then is not quasi-judicial but the second
meeting on february 8th, on this will be yaws
sigh-judicial, I certainly don't want to ask questions
twice so what is -- I guess what would be the -- what
is the distinction or.
>> I think the minutes of this meeting the questions
and answers will be brought forward as part of the
record.
at that time, you know, but any type of sworn testimony
that you may need that will be the appropriate time to
get that information and make that record.
but if you ask a question tonight and get an answer and
moving it forward and we're going to pride, we're going
proceed founder the direction the commission gives thus
evening and set that item up for second reading through
whatever action you take this evening.
but begun, I would suggest that the minutes of that
meeting of tonight's meeting be part of the record in
the quasi-judd additional proceeding.
and if there is a need to have specific questions and
answers in that for the record, we can work with the
clerk to make sure that happens okay.
>> I have a motion to read by commissioner johnson.
>> second.
>> an ordinance for the city commission of the city of
lighthouse point florida own yacht poin investment
consistenting of 9.5 net acres more or less building
number 48431705060 described in exhibit a of this
ordinance, to ymca mix use pursuant to to rezoning to
the ymcu mix use zoning district provided for zoning
district map complex and effective date.
>> one more thing to a courtesy to folks.
we're all wearing mask, maybe speak more methodically
and loud.
I'm guilty of the ladder -- latter.
probably not guilty of the former but I will do my best
as well.
>> thank you very much.
mr. Cirillo.
your show, sir.
>> I'm just going run through a brief summary of the
rezoning and then when we get to the site plan we'll
see how we want to walk through that, because there are
a number of oissues and I don't know if we want -- if
you want me to run through all of them or if you want
to do q & a.
>> ideally commissioners, I would think that we would
want to tackle each issue as we approach them versus
letting them and trying to rehash it back.
we're okay with that?
as he comes up with one of the bulleted items there is
a decision made or discussion to be had, I think we
should stop at that point, have the discussion, get a
formal what the commission's will is and have our city
attorney take notes on.
and then we'll move onto the next one.
are we all in consense was that?
okay.
>> and again, for the record jim hickey, address 1800
eller drive in ft.
lauderdale.
just to give a little bit of background.
and I know folks have heard it before, I want to make
sure folks here or on-line get an understanding of what
we're doing, includes 63,173 yacht club, 3,927 square
foot tennis center 2,400 reasonvated children activity
center along with up to 22 residential units.
and 9.5 net acres.
the application and this rezoning, and again, this is
what we're doing, we're actually changing the map,
changing the zoning map from the b2a to a ycmu which is
the ycmu district.
I'll talk a little bit about that and where we are in
the process.
so there are other land development actions that have
to happen in concert of what we're talking about this
evening.
the first you've seen before, the first is a land use
map amendment, that is changing the actual land use,
future land use map to match which development is
coming.
that is changing a portion the residential area kind of
on if bottom of the parcel.
and that is going from commercial recreation to
residential at six units to the acre.
the second is an actual aiment to the tax within the
comprehensive plan.
we need to go in and make some changes to it to make
sure what is allowable in the presencive plan matches
what we're doing with the zoning and map and site plan.
those all have to be consistent with one another.
and the third you've already seen that, too is the
creation of the ycmu zoning district.
that is the language, the regulations we're putting in
place to make sure that the zoning matches up with the
site plan and matches up with the land use.
all of these need be in concerted in order for it to
work.
and then, of course, we're talking about the approval
of the development agreement, that will be the second
item this evening and the proposed site plan.
we'll talk about the proposed site plan as part of this
process.
so the analysis that we went through -- and I went
through and identified all of the established
requirements in there, is setbacks and heights and made
sure that the site plan and the regulations that we
have are consistent and we found with that analysis, we
found that those items have been addressed.
there are a couple of minor typo things we will talk
about later with the site plan just to make sure that
what is in the zoning district and what is in the site
plan are consistent.
okay.
so we looked at that.
we look at proposed height.
uses permitted, setbacks, all of those zoning items
that we look at to make sure that what we're if there
are any portions on that I would be happy to answer.
went through line by line of the ycmu and made sure
those thifngs there.
we're not talking about a gladder house, entry feature
and those types of things.
we need to make sure we make changes to the text before
it comes back to you for second reading.
>> is that going need to be stated here?
I noticed that when they talked about the ancillary
building structures, guard house, which we know is not
a guard house anymore or entryway feature, are we going
do clean that up, mike in?
>> that is going be part of a final adoption.
I don't know if you need to include it in your motion
whatever the commission feels comfortable doing.
but we're taking notes and as we resolve issues we're
going to note that and make sure that there is also for
you maybe to have to resolve at second reading if that
is possible.
>>> how many minor issues are we talking about?
>> there are not that many in there.
we talked about a guard house.
we have to look at the when we look at the text
amendment we have to make sure height and land use is
consistent.
that needs to be adjusted.
there is just -- I think there are minor edits I saw
when I read through it today.
probably four or five words we have to change in there.
but really, holistically, I will need to go through the
entire zoning text with what we have right now to make
sure they're consistent.
>> let's be clear, you evaluate this with respect to --
this san important point -- have you evaluated it with
what the applicant has proposed or what was recommended
by the planning and zoning board?
so when this analysis is based on the site plan.
>> as presented by the applicant.
I wanted to make sure what they're proposing matches up
with what is here.
if there are any changes -- and I can't think of any
off the top of my head -- that would alter the
potential text in here, but when we get to that we can
talk through.
you know, it is just one of those.
and same as development, we'll need to read through
that and make sure there is no inconsistencies with
that it is going to be a lot reading between now and
second reading.
and I think it is up to staff and the applicants to go
through and make sure we can find any of those issues
so when we get it back to you it is a complete package.
>> okay.
>> so that being through, I just wanted to get through
and I'm on page 12, rolling through page 12 and this is
the site plan conditional approvals.
so in this section what we did is identified, and this
is when I started in the beginning kind of how you want
to walk through these 11 conditions so these were the
conditions that were set onto the site plan by the
planning and zoning board at its october 5th, 2021
meeting.
so these are the items that we can kind of walk through
if you want.
and I just want to say on the record, too, and I think
you in front of you the three mums from our -- three
memorandums from our traffic engineer.
it is my fault for not getting all these, I apologize,
it was all my doing.
I talked to secretary about it.
just with the -- just in a rush to get everything in,
you didn't get all the information that you needed for
tonight.
so I apologize.
it wasn't city staff, it was me not sending right
information.
so for that, I apologize.
if first item, though -- and that is the first memo.
that was part of the attachment.
I do have diana white that is available.
she is the traffic engineer.
she can walk through this with you, if you'd like.
or if you want, we can summarize and.
>> continue talking about the yacht club access
memorandum.
>> sure.
>> the one we're talking about.
>> that is the one we're talkingto about.
>> and tied to a in your report, the city's traffic
engineer guarantees with the accident that the use of
the boom gates would not create a safety issue if
proper stabbing is provided, that is key, if roper
stacking is provided.
I think I would like to hear if proper stacking is
provided, what this is dispute is if there is no
dispute.
>> and the applicant is actually provided a revise
sketch.
we want to take a look at it because the can provide
that 22 feet, but that 22 feet falls outside of the
parcel.
so we want to just have a discussion, I think I talked
to dianne narcs I think think it is a matter of sitting
down.
the other issue that she has in that area is the
ability for cars to come in and actually do that
u-turn.
right now it looks like it is going over soant the
sidewalk and trees or hedges or something like that and
we really didn't want someone to do a 3-point turn
there if we have an event and people rushing to get
out, right?
we want to make sure that is done properly as well.
she's offered to sit down with the applicants and work
through those issues and see if we can come up with it.
I think she think it is more of a geometry issue than
potential site plan issue.
>> you mean decreasing the radius of center island or
however she wants to change the geometry of that turn
is that what you're saying?
>> I think you have to increase the radius in order to
make the turn.
>> so increase the radius nicole, is there any way we
can put that on the screen.
>> what did you want on the screen.
>> has the turning radius; is that correct, times?
>> yes.
>> and I heard a phrase.
it sounds like this is feasible, which is one less
issue to worry about.
but I heard an interesting thing, like, he can get to
the 22 feet, which I think was the amount of space
needed so every type of vehicle for lack of better term
can do the u-turn but it would not be on his parcel, so
how can he use land that is he doesn't own?
>> there are two separate things and if die glan is on.
if I say something wrong, diana let me yell at me.
>> let me time to speak in the meantime I will
attempter to share the screen.
it just no one will be able to see the chambers if I do
that.
>> die jana white?
>> yep, got her.
>> thank you, nicole.
>> you mentioned, too, the third one is dealing with
the property on southernmostnd.
>>> right, so there is really three issues here.
the first is having the 22 feet after the last driveway
and the south to wherever that stop sign is.
the second issue on the second page -- next page the
u-turns to get through.
and I think diana has come up with option, too.
I think it needs to be synthesized by the people that
know more about the traffic and turn movements than
myself.
and then the third item was -- I'm sorry my brain just
lost the third item.
the third item on this was the.
>> safety and concern.
>> the driveway.
I think the concern is especially during if we have a
special event that whole idea of the u-turn should not
be -- probably cordoned off during the events because
you'll have a lot of people coming out.
and to have someone turning that someone that might
be -- not that everyone is going to be rating out of
there, to bow have it blocked out makes it so those
people will be inconvenienced slightly when they coming
bas back but provide provides for a egress out of the
property.
>> that is a stipulation we can add into the agreement
here into the site -- well, into the.
>> we couldout add it to the development agreement.
I think that would be, or we make it a condition of the
site plan approval.
>> okay.
>> the site plan issues you would make it a condition
of site plan approval.
>> all right, what I think he's saying is to me,
separation and the distance, that is a site plan issue.
>>> correct.
>> the first to me, sounds like site plan issues, the
third issue sounds like a developer agreement.
>>> that is where I was thinking.
to me once the site plan is done, it is over with.
it is built, but the fact that the developer's
agreement would then say, hey, when you have this type
of occupancy or this type of event, you need to cordon
this off with cones or however they want to do it I
want to make sure it is in the right spot.
>> if we had it in the development agreement, we did
have a section when it gets to this number, you're
going have to provide on site and that might be a place
where we can put that in, and in addition, you'll need
to block off the entry so that the folks can get in and
out.
it is only going be -- it is a problem foreign those
three units, but also if someone comes in and decides
they don't want to go to the event, they would have to
move around and come back out and just for safety
concerns.
>> we have some language that we're going to talk to at
the development agreement portion about special events.
and perhaps that can be an item that needs to be
included in any plan that the yacht club gives the city
when they're required to give us a plan.
yes, we will indicate, we will put this for the
southern entrance, southern driveways.
>> I don't know, is there a dispute here?
sounds like there is a dispute here.
>>> no.
>> I think, you know, they're working through, you can
ask the applicant as well fnlgt but I think what
they're saying is it looks like it is a feasible,
logistics need to be worked out and can be worked out
as part of site plan development process.
eth they are or you continue to say you have a
condition that has to be signed off on before they can
get there first.
a lot of times when site plans get approved and they
have their concerns you never see the resized site
plan.
it is up to staff to make sure the conditions are
implemented before they get their building permit.
so if this can be something that can be handled between
first and second reading most likely, but statement --
at the same time, it is going to be conditioned staff
is going have to review and make sure the plans match
what is agreed to before they get any permits.
and that is the way would be handle for any condition
on any site plan even approved by p & z.
>> got it.
>> and I would just add, in my experience, too, I might
be speaking with the applicant, too.
the more we can get correct to you and finalized at the
second, the better, because then there is not an issue
of what was said.
they two feet, no, they said 2.7.
going bors and then come back to you.
whatever we can do to get that process finished so that
we can get that to you, we'll do our best.
>> okay.
commissioner joffe.
>> I just think it would be best between now and
everybody has been working so hard on this, but I just
think given all that has gone on with this project, I
think to the city's benefit, to mr. Paterson's benefit
as well spelled out in the site plan, however it ends
up getting approved whatever, so he knows.
we know, he knows and minimizes down the road.
>> attorney agree with this so we can move with this?
>> can the attorney of the applicant.
>> yes, my next thing is I would like the see terry
come up to give his point on that and look at him, get
a consensus here the commission and move passed this
portion of yet so I'll just address that point then.
>> just that one point, please.
>> name and address.
>> say your name one time and address and we'll go from
there.
>> 27021 northeast 42nd streetlighthouse point.
>> yeah, these items are minor.
the first was the turning radius of the car.
you have a search of all of this.
our traffic engineers auto turn, was just slightly off,
but you can see there is so much space there, so there
is nothing we're really worried about, but he should
provide a new auto turn which is what the city is
asking for, very simple.
>>> you're in agreement the turn needs to be largeer.
>> not larger.
>>> whatever the correct shape or geometry is.
>> correct, agree.
and twroordz the 22 feet from the for the boom, I guess
we had calculated 23 feet 8, it was doesn't in a
different way, I agree with the way the city's traffic
engineer has done it I gave you guys a copy of a
suggestion that we need to sit with jim and city
traffic engineer and make sure they're a good one to be
honest, my suggestion was to move the exiting boom to
22 feet, but considering -- I'm sorry, diana's
comments, I feel like the boom should be as close as
possible to the stop sign, which maybe we should --
I've got a dotted line, you'll see a little further
there, maybe we should extend the red line is what I
was suggesting that we extend the island a little bit
and move the boom.
but maybe we should extend it even further.
the boom we have 11 feet from the roadway already.
maybe it should be closer to the roadway so it is right
by the stop sign.
I think is something that diana, jim and myself decide,
but it is a simple fix in my mind.
>> and we're on b now, what about, it says in the
report and maybe this has been rendered moot by this
development.
reconfigures raying of redesign of the exit would be
necessary to meet that requirement.
>> that is what I did rezy design.
>>> is that what you're talking about, this is what
you're talking about will accomplish that?
>> yes.
if they can work all of that, the concern was, you
can't, per the code, you can't have that 22 feet.
the way it is currently designed there is not
sufficient space.
so my thought was and then I think what we talked about
with diana.
>>> diana are you on.
>> I'm here, I'm listening, guys.
jim provided a picture of a revision that he had spoken
to the applicant prior to this meeting.
and my concern is that the reservior needs be handled
entirely by this site and not by anything else outside
of property.
so I offered to sit down with the applicant and with
jim to provide some geometry alignments that would work
better for the boom.
>> so just to follow up with that chain where the last
southern driveway is located or a geometry of the
roadway out sit down whoever the architect and make
sure it works.
and even if it is moved it is probably minimal once we
do the lane.
>> it should be handled entirely by this site, that is
what is called reservior.
>>> if we were to do that, have 100% on silent, the
stop -- on site, what as it is currently designed --
how many feet do we have to the pile creek paver
driveway for the southernmost unit.
based on my review of the plans provided to me, you
know, it is a plus or minus, since I have a different
computer software than the architect.
what is provided today is 15 feet 11 inches, ruch live
15 feet.
>> six feet, roughly, about 16 six feet we're talking
about.
>> that we're missing, krejt.
>> and how wide is the paver driveway?
>> I know it is set too far.
>>> at least probably what 16 or 18, I don't have the
measurement.
18.
>> if you were to shrink that they would have a 12-foot
entryway, would they under code be able to open up?
>> there are many way, I wouldn't want to shrink it, I
rather just turn it.
I would rather sit with diana and jame and figure out
and see what is on their minds, that is the simplest
way just tilt it.
there might be our solutions they I have.
>> and you're open the that?
>> absolutely, very much.
>> we know there is a solution and that is simply agele
the driveway, I'm trying to avoid that because of the
consistent ski of the project.
>> commissioners joffe, go ahead.
>> on this topic the infamous booms.
I read a letter today from somebody.
and I watched all the planning and zoning meetings,
guard gate, boom, I know they're going to go up right
away.
I completely understand what you're trying to
achievement back there kind of keep it separate, I get
all that.
my recollection is the planning and zoning board still
express some concern about about the booms.
I know not part of the conditions, what this person
suggested, was that essentially we give it a try.
and I know that is not in any of the documents all the
decisionmakers are here which is a good thing for you,
I I was wondering if you would be amenable to giving
the booms a try and if there is a problem that all of
these geniuses and smart people that have tried to
predict traffic patterns and beged and pleaded and
figured out that the city, come up with something has
the ability to request that the booms be removed.
>> that was my suggestion at the last planning and
zoneing.
>> that was his suggestion if you remember correctly.
>> I didn't memorize the meeting I just attend them.
>> he actually recommended that that they give it time
trial and planning and zoning board actually said no.
actually susan motley mentioned that.
>> I don't know what that language would look like,
last thing I want to do is fight about the language
give it a year, have a look.
the I mean.
>> it is a complicated.
>> it is not complicated but has a lot of moving parts
you do want to slow traffic.
>> I want to count the traffic and get photo of it and
keep it safe and that actually helps with the study.
>> I thought, it was a good idea.
>> agreed.
does anybody think it is a good idea or not a good
idea?
>> I would they the plans he mentioned on the board
meeting they said that isn't what they looked at.
it is, I like -- I have no issues.
I thought it was a great suggestion.
I moved on from it.
however, though what I would just say is it becomes
arbitrariry of what work, right?
>> and so if we have the smartest people doing the
geometry and gee metrical shapes and all this fun stuff
and they're going over inches and feet and centimeters
and whatever and all of a sudden they go, did that
work?
yes, no.
then we're back to square one where we're having a
discussion.
so I have no problems with making it a year, I really
don't if that puts people at ease, but again, imcome
back to the fact that that was already brought up and
it was very clearly put away.
>>> okay, well, I'm not going die on that hill in are
other hills I'm going to die on tonight.
but I think it is a good idea, but I just.
>> I agree with jason, I think it is a good idea, too.
when I read it I thought, try it.
if it doesn't workings then we'll sit down.
>> in fairness, it is going to -- it is easier said
here than drafting it in an agreement that everybody is
going to be clear who gets to decide what doesn't work
and stuff like the.
>> if it doesn't work, I'm the one that will be getting
most of those letters and calls and complaints.
>> this is true.
>> and just to add, too, that was part of diana's
analysis if she did actually look at the booms and
whether those would be traffic issues and she doesn't
have an as high as.
>> that is a fair point.
>> she did say it in the memo.
>> that there was no issues with the boom.
I just.
>> and that is a fair point, those I don't want to now
remove the booms and screw up the hard work people have
done to figure out whether the booms work.
that is a fair.
>> would the commission be open to just having to
reopener on it, that the booms are in and if eater
party determines that they're not functioning properly
or as intended that they will get together and resolve
the issue with the possibility of having the booms be
removed because that could happen in a month, that
could happen in a year you know, we could just put some
reopener on the that issue in there and leave the
timing open to terry determining a month in this is not
working I need to go to the city right away and this is
why.
you know, we could possibly build something in the
development agreement that just provides a general
reopener on the boom, because right now we have a
traffic if it doesn't work we both should know it.
and then we work in good faith to come up with a
solution and if we can't they come down, something like
that.
>> if it doesn't work, I have more interest in getting
rid of them than you do.
>>> that is true.
>> so what do you propose exactly for the term for how
we state that properly, mike?
I guess my question, I just want to make sure to
commissioner joffe's pointed and everybody here, we
want to make sure we say it right so that we all feel
comfortable and walk away here heap with this one.
>> would because it is in the site plan, I would put a
noalt in the site plan approval it is subject to
reopening should the city or applicant determine it is
not functioning as intended.
leave it at that, something simple.
that will be a note in the site plan and the planners
will determine it the applicant will determine it and
like anything else the site plan if there is an issue
find way to get a planning and zoning board if we can't
resolve the issue.
I'm just saying and you know, I think that is enough
for if booms with the dwhraftion we have.
>> and that will be reflected in the sicked reading.
>> reflected in is the site plan.
>> everyone is good with the just stated commissioner,
good.
>> can we hear from the mayor, does he have an opinion?
>> mayor troast, do you have an opinion on this?
diswr.
>> I agree with the tact that the being proposed I
think we go with the attack being proposeed and move
forward.
>> okay, thank you, f moving onto the next one.
>> moved on.
>> we're on a roll.
number two, I'm sorry, not looking where you're talking
so number two is really just talking about the
consistency of the site plan where what we made changes
to the development agreement and the site plan, we need
to make sure the site plan is consistent with all of
those so that is just minor things make surg that we
have locations were we have that just some of the.
>> sorry to interrupt, we are all in agreement that
we're going have guard house everywhere guard houses
located to be changed to entry feature.
>> the only point.
>> yes, I agree with that in concept.
the point I have is when I went through the ycmu again
with the city attorney, I believe it is still referred
to as a guard house in the ycmu are we talking about
amending the ycmu?
>> we would have to amend the zone as well.
we have to change that to entry feature.
>> and the ycmu.
>> it is in there several time.
>> we need to comb through everything, contingent on
making.
to make that change.
>> and the definition, for example, these are important
definitions, that is where I'm coming from.
I'm in the ycmu.
a building that meets the standard of the florida
building code, located in the commercial recreation
land use area such as tennis center, which candidly, I
believe we now call the tennis center bistro, the
children activity center is now called the kids center
I think if I'm right.
a or that is located in the principal residential land
use area such as a guard house are we talking about
that as well?
>> which is fine, but I guess I'm just wondering.
>> just be consistent throughout our document just
absolutely, that is who what we're getting at.
again, we'll probably hit the phasing plan again a
little bit further down, but just make sure that we've
got the updates and we understand that the exhibit that
has the actual site phasing plan that shows what is
happening matches up with the phasing narrative.
so that is one of the condition, too we'll talk a
little bit about that as well.
>> so we got that taken care of, correct in.
>> yeah.
soirks I just want to make sure we're all clear on each
one of them to move passed that one.
>> jim, sorry about, that I would just like to make
sure all the commissioners are good down the line here.
>> please, interrupt me I've been at commission
meetings all day just say stop talking.
>> fla and then those changes.
and then, yeah, so again, this is just to make sure
that when this, if this comes back for a second
reading, the site plan matches up with all of the other
pieces and all the things we're talking about today
which are in agreement.
>> on the third item is the traffic calming along
northeast 27th, this was one, my apology, this is one
no one saw until you got this today.
>> including.
>> the applicant, right?
>> including the applicant, again, my apologies for not
getting this owrkts I don't know if you -- there is a
summary here this is actually a summary in the report
in the analysis so my analysis summarizes what is
there.
if you want specific questions, again, dianne is is --
die glan is on-line and she can answer if you need to.
>> big picture as I understand it, like, this has
been -- this has been, this is a qualification that has
been approve by the planning and recommended by the
planning and zoning board the city's traffic consultant
has now provided a 2-page memo on a bunch of different
things candidly, that mr. Paterson and I will spar on
the cost of other things but I like to be fair about
things.
I don't know if he's on board with all of this stuff.
right now as recommended and as requested by the
planning and zoning board, you know, this is what the
city retain traffic says the traffic calming solutions
have to be, candidly, have no idea whether the
applicant is good with that or not.
and I don't think it is very fair to have them right
now getting for the first time look at it.
>> I have my comment.
>> ready to rock?
>> possible even a sidewalk which is not included in
this piece and we rule talk to the neighbors.
the residents affected by it and I don't know if we've
done that yet or if they want a sidewalk there and that
is a great cost to everybody, especially the home owner
who doesn't want sidewalk.
it is also on the east side where it would probably
make more logical sense.
but we have telephone poles there, so I get that.
>> so why don't we hear what mr. Paterson has to say.
>> yep, that is what we're going do.
>> let's just start at the sidewalk which is not on
here.
I want a sidewalk, but it is not as you said not
address simple address just putting in a sidewalk so
you guys as the city can figure out how to put in a
sidewalk, we would like the put in a sidewalk, but I
don't see anything about that addressed yet so let's
look at the possible traffic calming treatments.
first of all.
>> why are we skipping over the first part?
>> giving -- I moon you want the read the whole thing?
>> no.
>> I've got note.
>> okay.
>> so let's go to the first page then, the first 100
feet of pavement by the area closer to northwest 39th
street is about 28 feet wide.
you know there is a section as you turn in there, it is
wider, I'm not sure how that ever came about.
>> it is parking.
>> works out great.
I don't know if that is swale from somebody's house but
one of the recommendations they're making is to create
a little bit of an island coming into 27th.
I love that idea.
I'd love to pay for that idea if you can swing that, if
you can say yes to that, I'm all over it.
and then as they put in here, it creates a bit of a
neighborhood feel that you're going to want to slow
down.
>> the next page is more on makingn comments on what
kru just saw.
the pavement on the street is all cracked up and not in
good condition.
and thank you very much for doing that.
because in a few years when you guys look at that
street and blame me for it, you have proof of your own
it is not me who destroyed that street.
they noted that markings should be redone on the
street, that o and reasphalt the street, because it
tends to just create more of a neighborhood feeling,
again, not because I've gone and destroyed anything,
you've all seen it.
the other recommendation they're giving is making
instead of we've got -- I think we have 22-foot-wide
streets there, I think our code is 21, 22, something
like that.
they're recommending a 20-foot-wide street.
making them narrower.
I know you're not going to ask me to do I'm absolutely
not going to agree to rip up an entire street for no
reason matching the entire city.
and I don't think that would serve us wisely, it won't
be safe.
you know, there is a lot of people that walk up and
down the street.
>> I think it gets back to the side, that is one of the
pieces I was when I just read over this one here, that
that sidewalk piece adds into it, I know there are
plenty of people who walk and down the street whether
to the yacht club or just in general.
>> an option would be making it a smaller street and
putting in a sidewalk.
that is not something I would be throg pay for is
mulling a entire city street and making it a smaller
size.
this street is probably due for -- I don't know if it
is every 15 years, in ft. Lauderdale they redo the
streets.
our street over there is obviously do.
it is do due for something.
the concrete median in the beginning I like that, point
number b.
>> wouldn't that have to be on the site.
>> it is not on the site plan, how do we accomplish all
this condition we like it, assuming everybody there is
a consensus a we put in the development agreement lou
do we.
>> one of the knsz of the planning and zoning board for
the site plan so we could probably add something there
that says that whatever is agreed to, we can put a
sentence in here as well, you know.
>> and obviously it would be agreed upon median with
the city and traffic engineer that we would put in,
obviously.
>> who own os that land, though.
>> it is and I'll just say, I would like to have
something in there saying that yes, we will work as a
city and the applicant to develop common plan 427 you
know, my concern is what the opportunities they
provided for us is you know, speed bumps and humps,
electronic speed sign, that is usually good for a
couple of days and people just ignore jits four hours.
>> if that.
>> other don't see it.
I think there is a lot of opportunities if we're truly
concerned about the speeding.
we're not going to affect the number of cars but will
affect the speed of the cars, the sidewalk, something
we've gotten input from our residents being affected by
it.
that is what I want to make sure happens as well.
>> if I was that person, and I park my truck there I
would be a little miffed if there is a traffic flow
coming through there.
you're right, it is city property but rather than
trying to agree on these things right now close to,
just saying, look, we agree there is traffic, we will
work with the applicant in order do that.
>> which could include and we could list all these
things.
>> but up to and including and not exclusive to that
other sidewalk we put in.
we also took a lot of concern and consideration.
>> which looks amazing. S
>> we tried our best to make sure we accommodated all
of our residents.
>> we have on the east side and west side, east side
has none of the telephone poles there which the west
side does.
west side will take you directly in not having to cross
another road.
so these are things that we can work up separately, as
a different issue, doesn't have to go through all of
this probably going through planning and zoning.
>> the city would pay for the sidewalks or the
applicant?
>> under this, the applicant.
>> the applicant.
>> yes, we've agreed that we would do that.
>> because there is safe street money, this would be a
couple of years before we had to put them in.
>> can I give you my what I would like to see and I
would love for us and the city to work together to make
happen is put the sidewalk on the street sphor that the
code needs to continue just have a sidewalk whrefl the
curb.
a city sidewalk has to be a publicity sidewalk has to
be 5 feet wide, a sidewalk like mine on private
property can be 4-feet wide we all know about the trees
and pole, but if we build it, and I don't want to say
which side right now because I don't want neighbors
getting angry at me.
you have to decide.
>> half will be upset.
>> that is true if a curb is more expense toiv do a
sidewalk with a curb.
but I would then approach county or state or somebody
to maybe potentially help with funding we said we will
take on that burden.
>> and the issue you have with the curbing is we have
drainage issues.
>> yes, sir.
>> right now a lot of the drainage goes into the swale
which is why we try to bring our grass down to the
street level so water goes in.
you're talking about drainage, putting in drains and
multimillion-dollar for that.
but I think we can probably come up with something that
will work for everybody.
and let's at least somehow memorialize that with
developer's agreement.
or site plan.
>> some of the site plan conditions are being covered
by the development agreement so we can put something in
development agreement about a permanent traffic plan on
northeast 27 tariff including a raised concrete median
near northeast 39th street.
>> that specific we would be locked into that but up to
and including a number of traffic features except to
understand it.
>> it is all couple buyia right now and that is great,
and I understand what you're saying, because I'm having
a hard time figuring out we can say the parties will
work together and I think everybody up here agrees
there needs to be traffic coming on 27th.
we say you've got to do this and you say no, it is too
expensive, then what?
>> hates got to be done.
>> the reason we have this memorandum is so that we
have some definitive answers on what we a at least a
minimum with mr. Paterson, with the applicant, and so
you know, we went through and I guess it is up to the
commission you saw.
these are recommendations and, you know, I guess any
combination of these would be acceptable to the
engineer.
I mean she's on, she can explain that to you.
but what I got my notes so far just hearing the
conversations with mr. Patterson would object to a, it
is too expensive and he's willing to work with the city
on b, likes the entrance feature on 39th.
I heard you all make competent comments about the
electronic feedback sign, not a material thing, that
could be something the police could do or whatnot.
it is up to you whether you want to put that specific,
and another issue is with the speed tables and humps.
I know we have criteria.
I believe for distancing along a road and if you want
that installed consistent with the criteria, you could
say, you know, the conditions to meet that condition
and planning and zoning board would be -- and again,
I'm not trying to put words in everybody's mouth, but b
& d in this them more and that go into the site plan as
condition for the site plan.
and if there is anything and then the sidewalk is
already in the developer's agreement, it says 1300
linear feet, at a location paid for selected by the
city.
you know, city is responsible for permitting and
construction and he's responsible for paying.
>> correct.
>> so the sidewalk is covered in development agreement
already, it is just that the conditions for traffic
calming on northeast 27th and not.
there would be the number and locations of permanent
traffic devices shall be determined by the city which
is speed humps.
that is in the development agreement already.
>> correct.
>> so really, at least four is if you're reaching
consensus, b as in boy.
and that could be put into a site plan and anything
else you all discuss this evening, additional signage,
additional speed limit signs, you know, remember
anything we do with traffic control twices.
that is done in broward county through an local
agreement with them.
there should be a study, approach broward county and
say need a sign there, no you don't.
distance requirement for speed signs just like stop
signs and everything else.
the there is a comment here removing the police slow
down signs, I think resident dossing that treat those
as any other signage.
but, maybe if you're looking for a consensus to move
on, you've got speed humps covered in 1122, and
development agreement and from the recommendations
here, you go with b.
>> I'm trying to visualize, I told you ten times I'm
horrible at visualizing this stuff.
>> design would have to be approveed.
>> I know, you're coming down 39th and heading east,
you're making a left on 27th to go into the main
entrance of the yacht club and talk about putting a
"welcome to the yacht club sign."
>> I'll standing here I like the idea, I love the
suggestion, but I seriously doubt the neighbor who owns
that property there is going agree to just give up his
space, number one.
number two, the immediate would have to be so narrow
we're not going to get landscaping and we know what
nonlandscape medians look like.
as much as I would love to see that, I just can't see
how it would work on a 22-foot wide.
>>> I'm think again, the idea is slow traffic.
what I'm thinking and I think that is what the rest of
the paragraph b is talking about is somewhere on 27
thrt is essentially a little -- they do it in
deerfield.
>> the narrowing.
>> I'm not a traffic engineer, I do question whether
that is going to anger some of the residents in the
area.
I don't know why we don't do that in other parking lots
of the city.
to me to me the not the sign, but like the median I
hate just doing this without something to do look at.
>> commissioner did you have something to say.
>> no, sir.
>> my concern is just that, from most of what we're
working with today is within the confines of a parcel.
and this is the only part that we're talking about,
coming outside now, on 27th terrace, and we're talking
about residents, residents how they're going to be
affected and, you know, with the traffic in and out,
we're trying to make some sort of calculation of how
much they're going to be affected and try to come up
with solutions to it that may affect them even worse
because if you were to do a median or median like
deerfield has done you've got to go down and make
u-turn and I do see it working in deerfield and you
know, narrow the actual roadway in, not tearing it up,
put the median there.
that is usually in someone's property and get a little
bit more landscaping or it is either a small hedge down
there or, just regular grass, but, you know, kind of
brings it in a little bit.
those are all option os.
I don't really see that here.
but I don't want to be adversely affecting the
residents of 27 terrace with what we're trying to do
because of the yacht club let's make sure whatever we
do, however we present this, something we put a lot of
othought into, like we have with north end of the city,
light house drive and other thins we looked at and said
how is this going to affect everybody.
we have a large residential units in there.
let's figure out a way to do it.
I don't want to be locked in including a raised conch
crete median, I would rather have other than open-ended
statement, I understand what you're saying about the
generalities of itf but this is where great minds like
you now incorporate the needs and wants of residents.
because the rest of the stuff, that is the city, that
is the applicant.
this is teaming with us.
>> I 100% agree with you commissioner.
>> I just don't know how to fix it.
>> I don't think that on some things we're going to
have a full consensus of things that are going o -- or
we're going be able to define without putting residents
input and spending time on it to you point.
as commissioners, we need have some sort of that is
about it.
>> that was going be my point, we have a lot to cover
tonight and we're arguing over things that the
applicant has no really no or minimal say-so.
I would suggest we stay with what we came here to do is
go through the plan.
alm these things are important, I don't mean to
minimize this but we're never going get through tonight
we dwhabt the city should do or city shouldn't do.
we're here for the applicant.
>> so with that being said, I think that
commissioner -- I'm sorry, commissioner johnson, I
apologize.
>> just wanted to ask one thing, why was it not
considered a possibility to put stop sign like the
streets that come into that street, a couple of stop
thans street.
why is not one of the consideration.
>> can I provide -- diana.
>> so stop signs are not considered traffic calming
devices for the manual unit for traffic devices, and
minor traffic movement which are your side street,
every time you put a stop sign and not warranted by the
required travel or traffic demands, what it does is,
you stop when then you accelerate until your next stop
condition and once you stop again because you have
another symptom sign and accelerate again for another
stop condition.
so that has been proven and studied having that stop
control uncontrolled intersection that cnn not
warranted and it doesn't work as a traffic calming
device.
and if you open the green book there is an entire
chapter of saying things we can do and cannot do and
stop signs are not considered traffic control devices.
I mean traffic calming devices.
>> I would just add, too if your signage and everything
is run by briar county, they will not install a stop
sign unless there is a warrant at the stop sign for the
other o, I worked for other cities where, they
miraculously a stop sign appeared and the county went
out and took the stop sign out.
so, yeah, it has to meet strict criteria for them to
meet a stop sign.
>>> to move this forward, I know commissioner long had
it, I thought had worded it properly, about having the
city along with the traffic engineer from the explibt
the city traffic engineer come up with a swleution that
commissioner long wanted to memorialize that and get a
consensus among the commission if I could do, that I
would appreciate it.
>> this is part of the development agreement.
>>> mike, can you make sure we note this, please.
>>> put in there in regards to the traffic calming on
27 terrace it would be determined to both the city,
city and the applicant for the best use of traffic
calming fateture, and without even going specifically
up to and including you can put that in there, but
we're not locked into having this piece here and having
that piece there.
but we're open for deeper discussion on this.
because that is part of the developer's agreement, it
does inside to be included in here and that is why
we're talking about it now, but rather going into
specifics, without any automatic real depth into it, we
know there is a lot of ooptions out there, let's have
it written so those options remain available and we're
not locked into it through the developer's agreement.
>>> I have proposed the city and applicant will develop
a permanent traffic calming plan for northeast 27th
terrace.
>> right.
and that as far as when that needs to be done.
>> I think, I mean that is a fair question, that for me
is the stick, right?
>> completed prior to the certificate of autothen
cities city.
>> it is a plan, you know, so that is the stick I'm
wondering, does that mean he.
>> I'm not in control of getting that permit.
>> building the stuff is easy, it is getting a
permitted and can designed.
>> right.
>> oklahoma.
>> I'm fine with that.
>> commissioners?
>> okay, commissioners all in consensus here.
all right, we know the city and mr. Paterson have to
get a plan together that they can both agree on with
their professional.
>> can I ask, how are we going to get that plan
together because we've got our oengineers given the
rimmeddations.
I'm not sure what other.
>> I think there are more recommendations possible out
there.
you used them different cities and light house point.
>> we have the speed bumps in and the sidewalks.
>> and bros and continues on all of this.
>> I think we're talking like, the logistics of
actually where it is going to go and that kind of
stuff.
>> where the speed bumps would go and sidewalks would
go.
I feel like those two alone to take care of the issue.
>> and candidly, let's just say it, we've had the great
speed bump debate many types we're not cool putting.
>> 149th street.
>>> not only that.
>> just being honest with each other.
>> we're not deciding where the sidewalks are going to
go, but putting speed bumps there.
>> I think the whole same thing, you know, this deal
with the part of the development agreement feels
outside the purview of the department itself.
I think there has to be some sort of information
provided to them, because they wanted a sidewalk, maybe
they don't.
at that point at least we know where we're stand ing
from a city per spective and represent what is best in
that particular area, even if it is a safety issue,
obviously that will take precedent over a number of
things.
if it is a drainage issue coming to putting in meetians
and curb and stuff like that, that is all different
issues, I think because of the fact we're dealing with
properties that our oresidents live with they have to
have input or knowledge to some sort of survey or
anything else, that is the pointed -- point.
it has to be done as farther of this process.
>> if I may interrupt for a sect.
>> yes, thank you, mayor.
>>> the off-site improvements for the sidewalks weren't
negotiated at lernlgt with the applicant consider
length with the applicant.
and the thought process was they're necessary because
of the traffic flow that will be occurring on 27
terrace.
the plan was to put the side tbhawk the right of way,
which would most likely because of where the telephone
poles are bon the right side of the road and the city
engineer and city traffic consultant are the one that
are supposed to come up with that plan and then the
responsibility was, that the city would pay for it and
the applicant would reimburse the city to 1300 loiniar
feet.
obviously if we're able to get some grant money, that
would reduce the developers contribution towards it,
but that is not a consideration that we would be to get
money from the npor or another source.
that is why, the developer's agreement contains the
provision it is, is because it is viewed as being
necessary and if you recall, we went through the same
survey up on the north section of town on lighthouse
drive.
when we put those sidewalks in and we came up with a
plan that created a very meandering sidewalk, but at
the same time, was very attractive, and it created a
huge safety enhancement for the people that walked that
area.
>> absolutely.
>> so I'm looking at the development agreement real
quick, 11.22 traffic calming device.
number shall be determined by the city, doesn't that
say also didn't you agree pay for these?
>> yes, the developer will pay for it, that is part of
the plan.
>>> plus or minus and city's disition discretion where
it will be located.
>> all right.
>> commissioners.
we move passed this one.
>> ready.
commissioner joffe.
okay.
onto the next one.
jim.
>> onto the next one.
number four.
number four this is something myself, mr. Paterson has
discussions, the concern with this is once have another
pair of eyes.
and I think we just want to make sure everything is
being addressed.
when we were going through p & z and getting wanted to
make sure we have the most recent phasing plan so that
we can all take a look at it just to move on and that
is really 4 and number five, too.
and that was, I think one of the issues I think we
brought up that is there was some concern with, again,
older phasing when we had a 3-phase plan.
phase 1 they were going have access along the docks and
make them accessible the whole time the accessibility
is needed until the done, when think get done there is
no need for the access.
I both in agreement that we need to make sure
everything is safe and secure out there for folks to
van active construction site and we'll have people
walking through it.
we want.
>> commissioners any questions or concerns with that?
>> I would just like to hear -- I just have a hard
time -- I would like to hear from the fire marshal
based on, it gives me some pause to wait to get fire
marshal approval prior to the.
maybe it is fine to give another review prior to it,
but I would like to hear from the fire marshal.
we'll get to it later, maybe not an issue but
discussion about it.
have we received an updated phasing plan from the
applicant?
>> I guess my point is, I would like to hear from the
fire marshal that he has approved to most updated
phasing plan as sits here today and comfortable with
the procedure.
that is a big, big issue in my book.
not saying can't look at it before the building permits
is issued.
>> the chief the on, commissioner joffe and I believe
he's ready to speak.
chief morrell.
>> yes, I'm familiar with the phasing plan and the new
phasing plan and watching it carefully delete s
carefully for changes and looking for anything that
will not affect emergency services at this time.
>> okay, go ahead.
>> thank you, chief.
>>> you're welcome.
>> okay, so that is number 4 checked off, correct?
>> we're good in.
>> good with the guardrail.
>> guardrail.
>> on the phasing plan.
>>> need to update, if note.
again, just to make sure they were available for the
time that is necessary during construction.
>> we can edit, I think it is on there just maybe the
way it is worded.
we can change whatever we want.
>> I think the way it was worded and three phases at
this point.
>> moving onto number 6.
mr. Hickey.
>> number 6 and if I remember correctly on this one,
that it didn't include but if I remembered.
>> again this is the planning and doning board wanted
start of construction because the discussion was if we
could get the ball and landscaping in that would
somewhat buffer the construction going on behind it and
construction fence there.
and have a established wawm there.
>> I think that was.
>> mature landscaping so on and so forth part of that
discussion.
>> not wring in the developer's agreement already?
>> it is.
it is in the developer's agreement, but I any in your
narrative description that is tamped is only referenced
to one or the other.
it is I don't think anything that the commission needs
resolve.
>> it is both.
>> and I believe it was the wall and the f the
landscaping it looks you know nice for the neighbors
during construction.
>> that is covered in development agreement.
it those be like I said.
>> that was the intent, jim, and if it is worded wrong,
we'll fix it.
>> okay.
moving on, number 6, number 7.
>> onto number 7 this was a discussion about, how to
kind of let neighbors know how I think there was a lot
of concern about the board had concerns that if they
were going do a 25 cement trucks one day and usually
only get two or three and somehow there would be a
notice to neighbor to say we're going have a lot of
traffic kind of be prepared and those types of things.
I went back and forth but I they really didn't say,
basically what their recommendation was, anything that
was additional beyond regular day-to-day construction
so I don't know.
>>> in the developer's agreement shall provide advance
public notice through social media platforms.
>> anything significant, they need to put on a social
media.
>> and do we between define that?
>> tiktok?
>> conversations using websites and using.
>> next door.
>> we don't have anything specific on the mechanisms on
that.
I guess the issue would be if there is a train, a line
of cement truck and nobody knew about it we could go
and figure out why not.
it is up to you all whether you want to get more
specific osh the juice of social media or the specific
platforms mr. Paterson can describe what his intent was
behind that gnu that language was added to the
development agreement to address that condition of the
planning and zoning board.
>> I have a suggestion, how about wesen sends out a
mailer to everyone down our 27th drive, that is really
the only one that could be affected by this, saying
that we will do this on our general facebook page, not
our member only facebook page and give them access to
it and if those people are concerned they would -- I
don't have a facebook of my own, but put notices on it
or whatever you do with facebook.
>> commissioner joffe is the facebook guy.
he's secretly the facebook.
your wife facebook enough for everybody.
>> if we let them allee is where they will be and if
they are concerned they will hashtag themselves or
whatever it is they do.
>> this is even something I don't want to micromanage.
>> okay.
>> if I could just make the suggestion because I know
that is for you, but a lot of the stuff that we're
talking about with the major concrete pours coming in,
public police will play fellow that as far as traffic
support as part of the mot from the a city perspective
we could use the system which is more of the
administrative through the city and police department
runs that because that goes out to all residents and
just because I don't live in the area, doesn't mean it
would be affected if I happen to be going to you know,
meet somebody on that street and suddenly, you know, we
have this traffic problem.
I think social media is great, I think 96om has a much
better broadcasting.
>> or broader range not only affect the people who are
right there but the ones driving down the street.
39this a busy street, 27th terrace is a busy street and
all those streets in between.
let's also include this as a responsibility of the
city, too, to be informed that we can use our platforms
as well.
>> so we would just notice the plicht of what we're
going to be doing?
>> I would say work with the administration on that
point but I think social media in many respects is not
affecting everybody within that area you may have older
people that don't do facebook, instagram, twitter
someone young and vibrant and you just don't want to it
and that is fine we have so many in our city that and
it is going come right to them as an alert.
>>> we can also do sent out a notification to all the
neighbors in our immediate area, because I didn't even
know about this.
I would like our neighbors to know about it.
>> as a resident you should know.
>> I should.
>> mike.
just so you know, part of the plan was that whatever
terry sent out to notify the neighbors via whatever
medium he would use he would use that to notify the
city which would enable the city to post it through
96el and other benefits and that is part of the plan
even though it is run written.
the goal was to place the burden on if floibt provide
the notification.
>> right, that is why I talk about the collaborative
piece and you've got to tell us, first.
>> there is always the option, I'm surprised
commissioner joffe didn't originally but iknow he's a
huge fan of door hangers.
>> there is some portion if you see up and see someone
on your door for people who live in the area you can at
least blast out an e-mail of what is coming is another
aspect of it, too, if you wanted to localize people on
those different streets.
>> all right, so moving on, number 8, mr. Hickey.
>> number 8, has been resolved in the phasing
narrative.
it was an issue of the timing of it perfect.
>> moving onto number 9 mr. Hickey, sir number tune is
lengthy and goes on to really number 10 so, I think
this has been a discussion with I'm not sure if you all
have had this discussion with you all as group is owe
know planning and zoning had an issue on this and
again, the west side and the west side having the
building separation at 16 where on the arrest side the
building separation is 24 they were trying to look to
see if there was a way to make that change so that
there would be sufficient the same building separation
on the west side as on the east side.
further they went displeu it is in the backup of page
15 where you go through and look at am of open space
and on the east side is two-thirds of that that doesn't
take into account the new clubhouse, that is the
parking area on the plan.
there is a little bit larger area on the east side
where the asteast side the only real large area is on
the south end.
south of the last three towns.
>> so that was the discussion for analysis purpose, I
did do some analysis on some adjacent communities to
give you an understanding of where the setbacks are.
in other parts of lighthouse point, it is a 10-foot and
three story, but the maximum building height is 90.
so there is a little bit of -- those within the main
code is a 90-foot or 117 soe a little wider so
therefore they take up a little bit more real estate as
you look up and down the canal area and then number 10
was looking at the potential of they said can you move
that?
can we take the buildings and move everything down?
the issue.
>> to the south, just want to make sure to the south,
where the open spot is.
>> you can move everything down, the issue becomes if
there are driveways then the egress [inaudible]
in order for that to happen there would have to be some
sort of ochange to that plan where the driveways count
exit out same example if everything moves down down 60
feet we've got basically no space between [inaudible]
last driveway and the egress and something safety and
security would have to address reorganizing the access
point, potentially, you know, is it less unit thans
side to make that work?
that is the discussion that the planning and zoning
board would have.
>> commissioners I have a feeling this will be the
heavy topic of the evening so let's hear it.
I am going to start off with ladies first, commissioner
johnson.
>> well, I don't really see the need to go to 24.
my house and all the houses on my street are the 18 or
16 feet between the two houses and they're respectively
close because mine is one of the few remaining
one-story houses around and when the two-story houses
there with their all the roofs, there are only 16 feet
between them and with the way that mr. Paterson
designed the houses that town house, redesigned them,
actually to have certain architectural design so
they're not all jammed in like total blocks next to
each other, I personally think that the 16 feet gives
him overnight though it is less, I feel strongly it
gives enough space.
and I went around looking like, tillison square there
is no space between there, there all together and I
don't know if it is even 16 feet between the two
buildings, but we allowed it over there.
>> and it is going be all the.
those are taller.
>> and they're taller, I think, appear to be taller.
and, you know, I looked around at some other o, and the
ones that are going in on 39th street when and if they
come they're pretty much all together, so I don't know,
at this state with everything going so far down the
road, I just feel like I think that the people looking
across the way to these buildings are going be looking
at the beautiful buildings, beautiful landscaping,
lovely yachts in the back there, I don't think for us
to sit here and argue over eight feet is really going
to make the difference between pass and fail on this.
that's my say on it sm.
>> commissioner maucker.
>> I'm with sandy.
I would push for 24 feet.
I think it is a good idea, but not a deal-breaker for
me.
I think the applicant has made it pretty clear if his
financials work the way he has set up, we have a
decision to make, we can approve this project or reject
it.
I would not reject it based on this, I would approve
with it the spacing as it is outlined in this planning.
I think what he intends to do with the yacht club and
parcel is extraordinary.
I would like -- I think it is a big asset to the city
and would like to see it go forward it is not a
dealbreaker for me and I would approve it as it sits.
>> okay.
>> commissioner joffe.
>> this is the one where it falls apart in a way I
bolings I struggled over this.
commissioner maucker has hit the nail on the head.
we're at a point, where it is really, we've got to
decide whether, I don't think you're ever going to walk
out of here with any sort of approval of the
redevelopment of the yacht club.
I was prepared to approve something tonight, it is
whether we're going do it terri's way or planning and
zoning way.
and candidly, I have been saying to you for two years
I'm going defer to the planning and zoning board on
these types of things when it comes to density.
and I just have not heard a good reason why not to
follow the recommendations of the planning and zoning
board on this.
in a waiz I wish I felt differently, I'm a bit
surprised to hear that from my fellow commissioners
that they are deviating since candidly, we've all sat
up here and talked about how they're the experts and
they know what they're doing and we should defer to
them.
so I'm not begrudging the decisions.
I'm just not comfortable address a simple attorney
substituting my judgment on since this like density and
building separation from their recommendation.
they're the subject matter experts, can'tidly, one is
even a member of the club and they unanimously voted to
recommend that the billing separation be what it is on
the west side.
>> not true, not what they voteed.
>> okay, well.
>> I heard a vote they wanted belter separation on the
west side.
they wanted more separation -- I'm going to get there.
we're going to talk.
I'm not completely done yet.
they voted in all fairness.
I did hear some discussion about it matching, but the
volt was, what greater separation on the west side in
all fairness.
so.
but also, I just think candidly, less density is
better.
I would like to see less densitying -- density back.
there I talked to the city planner about this.
and if he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I asked his
honest opinion about the denserty -- I'm going to call
it terry's way with all due respect and pan plansing
and e zoning way.
he thinks the planning and zoning board's
recommendation of further separation is too dense for
residential standpoint back there.
and I am willing in order to achieve a beautiful new
yacht club to even put maybe a little bit more density
back there than maybe there should be.
but I would like to see it minimized squint the
recommendations of the planning zoning board and
frankly, you've been told mr. Patternsonson all along
it was up 22 units and could be less when we pass the
loopa.
you kinds of acknowledged you might not get everything
you want.
and I canidly -- candid delete sidly voted for it based
on that representation and now you're here saying it
has got be this way.
and I completely understand why you've drawn a line in
the sand so you can get here today to the
decisionmakers to get a decision one way or the other
but I just can't justify in my mind the go against
planning and zoning board.
that said I would love nothing more to vote for this.
I mean that sincerely.
I think there are this is where I play architect.
I think there are ways to make this site plan work
still in a way that maybe even get you more unit,
another unit and comports with the separation that the
planning and zoning board likes you probably have three
votes here to pass it you have no incentive to
compromise, I would tell you even though my vote
tonight is going to be no, I would be willing if you're
throg continue to negotiate try to find a way that we
can get a complete conn census up here -- consensus up
here to complete the objectives you want and complete
the objectives of the planning and zoning board.
but I think at the end of the day I think less density
is better.
I wish you would negotiate a little bit more but I
completely understand why.
>> I would commissioner maucker, I just wanted to make
a point, I think what the planning and zoning board did
was give it to the city commission to give
consideration.
they had recommendations, but I don't know if their
intecialt was to say if project fails.
I think what planning and zoning said is this is what
we approve with these recommendations we now hands it
to the city commission to make the decision.
it is our decision, they gave it to us to make that
decision.
they didn't say thumbs down if you don't follow your
recommendations.
they said it is up to you.
we approve it, it is now in your hands.
>> I guess I just don.
>> they approved with it the recommendation, they
wouldn't make recommendation unless that is why my
position to either go with the planning and zoning
board's recommendation or not.
it is period, ends of story.
I would vote, I could make a motion right now approve
it but I could make a motion to approve this with the
planning and zoning board's recommendation with the
pration on the west side.
it is up to mr. Batterson whether he wants to go forth.
at least what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners,
I'm willing to vote for a way to redevelop the yacht
house, I want it consistent with the density
recommendation and building separation.
>> commissioner long, please.
>> I'm mixed on this and I think I said it all the way
through.
I believe the applicant has a right to develop this
property and we as a city have a right to work with the
applicant, work with our city.
when it comes down to all of the things we dealt with
over the last year really comes dpong to the big
sticking point here of the space on the west side.
I have seen where density is really a killer
particularly in this particular area and that concerns
me.
I think when we had sing feet residential neighborhoods
many of them are 10 feet and a total of 20 between
buildings.
here is 16.
and we're here we're talking 4 or five town houses put
together 117 feet which makes it a pretty big block and
four buildings put together when you include the old
racquetball court, gym and activity center that is a
and I know we've seen that is not from you're going see
a big wall.
there is nowhere else these buildings are -- there is
nowhere else in the city -- correct me if I'm wrong
where we have buildings that are 117 feet.
>> there are.
>> not in the middle of residential.
>>> many, many scwa first meeting I sat with members of
he was off that day and had someone sitting in with her
and had a google map and I circled all the houses all
around us that were more than 117 feet many, many.
>> they're not they're next door to them 16 feet apart
is the next house the residential building, yes.
we have designed it less than what the current code up
on the third once we get over and if I can finish that
there have been changes that. Of view.
>> going to be less and less and a shadow, you know,
you're getting a lot of shadows along the side here on
the west side.
I understand your financial aspect which obviously is
not a concern we should be looking at from a government
. Of view, but I understand yours.
and I just wondered if there is any other omeddation
you can make to somehow -- accommodation you can make
to increase that.
>> remember, we've all had this discussion for two to
three years is now.
and exactly the comment you said now, that is what
we've been doing constantly.
we have created the pancake effect.
the cut off the eyebrows and added more landscape and a
park on one side the original buildings were designed
with different way that you come into the driveways.
now we've created this 40-something foot open ospace.
>> had this discussion and I've done, you say.
>> no one is saying you haven't kamedded.
I would never.
>> I just wanted to point that out.
I have been -- I've changed this thing so many times.
but at what point do I just -- you guys made me go
through drc.
I had to finish these plans.
>> terry, hold on.
just work.
>> I'm just asking you on this particular specific
issue of the 16 feet, I mean can you see any other way
of accommodating the koarns of number of commissioners
here.
>> if we start to ship the building more south we start
to pinch the entry.
of course I can still turn the brings more and starts
to look a little weird but as the neighbor said, why
uld would I want to take away from this big, beautiful
open landscape space to create more separation from the
buildings.
it is not going to do much.
you're not going to to feel much.
the buildings are beautiful anyway, extremely heavily
landscaped anyway you caw the landscape impressions.
>> I've been here when we approved vintage, which, you
know, is extremely dense and a eldense but as we look
back and see some of the issues we have with density
and and lack of intration in buildings.
>> but you cannot coll pair the two.
>>> no, you can't a example of looking at lands scaping
from a design, that is great and see it in real life
and a few years later is always a concern, I'm mixed
and I want to hear what president van buskirk.
>> I'm selling these for 2 1/2 million dollar.
they're people buying them.
they will -- there is an hoa they're going to have a
say in what woe do.
if we let this landscaping go down, I'll have a riot on
my hands.
they will have a say themselves, not just me.
>> well, let's hear what president van buskirk says.
>>> thank you.
>> I am with the fact that we have gone down this road
apparently as far as I'm concerned, a lot.
and commissioner joffe's concerns about what planning
and zoning board has stateed and what we've done this
evening, we took what planning and zoning board said
and overalled them -- overruled them.
I can't sigh save --
>> a boom the different than.
>> no, no let's be very if they made a recommendation
and we went against it and they made a recommendation
and we're like, we've got to go for it that is the same
exact thing, whether it is a boom, not a boornlings
whatever.
that is out the window, you can't try to debate that
fact, unfortunately.
but I can tell you this, obviously as residents, we are
concerned about density.
there are many projects that have come in front of
us -- and I say that jokingly, considering that over
our careers this is the largest project that we will
ever see and that our city will ever see in the heart
of our city which is different than anything and to
commissioner long, he has been here the longest, he has
the knowledge and has seen it and he's tried and
learned from those experiences that how we want to make
sure that we set up our city for success in the future.
with that being said I look at the plans and think to
myself to commissioner johnson's pointed.
I went to tilton square today and started looking.
just do that, do that to yourself.
look up, look left and right and you think to yourself
is that 20 feet?
24 feet?
38 feet up there?
the answer is no.
so my point was, that I think that is a beautiful,
really nicely landscaped door facing in the right
direction, things I would have never thought of and to
your point I'm not an architect, neither am I.
I wouldn't have thought of that I wouldn't have thought
how the entryways look.
the front street side and waterside that we've debated
before.
to me I come back to the fact is this, we have one side
that is 24 feet, one side 16 feet. --
is there such a claireing reason for us to say both
have to be 24 or both have to be 16.
ultimately in the end this is going be the problem for
mr. Paterson to sell these properties if people find
they're too dense, a and also unfortunately the people
that have to look across from them, ultimately in the
ends no one sells going in there unless you're a
member, right?
or looking from across street.
so, and I want went down and actually today on olake
placid started looking at the two-story town homes
they're building on lake placid -- and I probably
remember misremember the street probably 34th street
the one with the swale parking on the opposite side
unfortunately, yes, there are lots in the city that are
going to have houses that are going be significantly we
do have larger lots.
I don't know if they're large enough, but ultimately in
the ends, we're developing city that is growing and
coming in to age of construction hopes that we've never
seen before and designs are changing and tastes are
changing, and people are fraying to maximize their
space whether personal resident.
I see where mr. Paterson comes in with init is 16 food
or 8-foot on each side of the property line for those
town home swiss a total of 16, which in my neighborhood
and commissioner's long point.
I remember when I first set up here, all over the city
there are different setbacks for each side.
there are places that are twelve, some that are 9,
you're 10, I'm 8 you don't want to be on a corner, but
ultimately in the ends I just think, guy, we've gone
over this, p & z did an am maying job of bringing this
to us and they put it all together.
they just said you have to pick the color bow.
sphars I'm concerned I'm perfectly fine with 16 on one
side 24 on the other.
the fact is, this is the decision-making time.
so I would just say that, I do know that the mayor
owould like to have some comments on this thing, and I
definitely we'll all get to speak again.
but I would like the mayor the mention his comments at
this point in time to hear him not attends of our
conversation.
then commissioner maucker back to you.
>>> mayor.
>> going back to p & z specifically said 24 feet.
four members of the board said that.
and they were very clear that they wanted that.
since that time I've also spoken to those board members
and their opinion hasn't changed.
there is an element ofy.
try that goes simet try that goes into it.
succeedly, I think there is room for compromise as
commissioner joffe said, maybe 24 feet is not the magic
answer, maybe it is 20, but getting some additional
building separation between buildings that are 117 feet
lodge and 35 to 37 feet all the depending how you
measure it and where you measure it from is critical to
me.
I agree that this project needs move forward.
I would encourage the commission to doapt something
greater than 16.
and I think that is the reason the planning and zoning
board did not put a specific number in so that the
commission was not tied to their number, but rather had
the ability to change and to modify it.
secondly, every development that we've done in this
city, if you go back as far as tillison, had density
delete sty issues tillisson has a pervious space issue
and part of that was, everyone wanted to get rid of a
mobile-home park and said we'll take this the how homes
on 20th way and 39th street, thois were built very
dense and they were unable to be sold because of that
tensity.
I would encourage the commission to come up with an
alternative that is greater than 16 feet.
24 feet is would be my recommendation based upon what
planning and zoning has said, but I think there is a
compromise to be had here if mr. Paterson is willing to
compromise and maybe 20 is the magic number because it
is in the middle.
but I think we need to have a wider separation between
these buildings so that we don't create this intense
density on the west side of the property.
and by doing that, you would eliminate and get the
canning effect that is going to exist.
if you look at the single-family residence around the
city.
and I did a souray of -- survey of this as well.
there are only a few that are that wide.
the white house being the most widest of the bunch.
that is, I believe built on a triple lot.
but putting that aside, we do not have a lot of
properties here like that.
so I would strongly encourage the commission to
consider an at toiv the 16 feet.
I think it is in the city's best interest and in the
residents best interest that we have something greater
and will create a symmetry in the project as a whole
without adversely impacting the developer.
I also did a look-back for the last ten years of every
site plan that has gone through planning and zoning,
not a one of the one of all I've looked nat the last
ten years went through without some kind of
modification to the site plan to make it moreet
esthetic magically and user pleasing to the residents
of our city.
and I don't want this commission to look back five
years from now and 10 years from now and say, you know,
I wish we had more space on the west side because it is
pretty dense.
those are my comments and I appreciate your
consideration of them.
>> mayor, thank you for your comments.
they're much appreciated and understood from up here.
commissioner, commissioner maucker.
>> yeah, just one last thought.
we keep talking about comparing this property to others
in the city.
there is no other property in the city that has a yacht
club sitting in the middle of it.
this is a unique parcel.
this is not low-income property this is very, very
expensive it belongs to -- it will be part of a home
owner's association with the members that are involved
in it that will have some say.
I think the developer and the applicant has done
enormous amount of compromising already just to get
where we are now, and I think we've got to look at this
as a unique piece of property.
and I'm prepared to offer a motion at this time if
you're ready.
>> let me go with the rest of the other two
commissioners here, commissioner long and commissioner,
I want to make sure everybody gets their community and
commissioner johnson gets opportunity, I just know
those two commissioner joffe has more.
>> right, of course.
>> I don't want to beat a horse.
>> I listen, ultimately in the end this is the biggest
project we'll ever see, the most unique piece of
property in the city.
and I think everybody deserves the opportunity that
sittings up here as our collegial body to make their
own, their point felt and known.
and understood by their fellow commissioners and I have
no issues with you going on and anybody speaking the
way they want to speak.
commissioner johnsongy just wanted to say a couple more
things I don't think there is any need of total
symmetry between the east side and west side of the
project when you have parking and everything in
between.
I don't think we have to balance on a scale there.
and second of all, on -- I'm not sure of every street
in the city, but on the canal streets that I'm familiar
with, there is 8 feet, total of 16 feet separation
between the houses.
and there are these monster houses now.
and there some 16 feet between them.
and building town houses like this, whether we like it
or not is actually the trend of the future, because
that is what they're building everywhere.
everywhere you go, del ray beach is a whole city of
these town houses that extend and extend and extend.
I don't think we're doing something -- we're doing
something that we never would have done in 1959.
but this is 2022.
and this is the look of 2022.
and I also want to restate that I believe that there
has been tons of compromising all along.
and tons of changes to try to make these more es
sympathetickic and make them look more pleasing, et
cetera, and I still totally believe that the folks that
are across the kanell looking at beautiful, beautiful
homes instead of a green tennis court fence I just
think that this project is too important to our city
that we need to move it forward.
and thank you.
>> commissioner joffe.
>> I had some other site plan comments.
we should finish the building.
I've said my peace on the building.
it looks like I see the handwriting on the wall and I
mean this sincerely, if this passes, I've said my
peases.
I wish you all the luck in the world.
I hope you build these completely underbudget, ahead of
schedule.
if I get invited to the grand opening, you can tell me
I told you so.
but, you know.
>> commissioner long, I don't know how to follow that
oil let you go first.
>> I'll restate my concerns also in the fact that I
understand what my other commissioners are saying.
and to the mayor's point, I don't know if if 20 feet is
going to make a huge difference from 16.
I don't know if that four feet is going to make a
difference.
the biggest concern is not as much from sandy talked
about other monster mcmansions, just the width, it is
not 117 feet.
and that is the scary part because you have 117, 117,
117, children's activity center with god, I hope you do
something fancy with that, because.
>> kind of a brick wall.
>> worst building ever put up, I think in the area.
but I can go with it if we have to and almost sounds
like we kind of have to.
I understand that, your issues as far as your finances,
how projects work, I get all that.
it is a wish that we could do something more to open
that up a little bit.
I mean there is no way to adjust one building up, one
building back and have a different look.
I hope I get a told you so but as you're coming down
the waterway you're not going to see one big wall.
and I think that the landscaping has to play a very
important role in this.
>> I would like to offer a motiongy would like to get a
consensus commissioner joffe and then make your motion
known and then this is not a final vote for
commissioner maucker, just a consenseus on item number
9 which is the spacing, sorry, I just want to make
sure.
the spacing of if left side, west side town homes
building to create a better esthetic view, the
discussion was between if separation of 16 feet or 24
feet is.
>>> commissioner macher are you okay with 16 feet.
>>> yes.
>> commissioner long.
>> ei'll accept it.
>> commissioner joffe.
>> no.
>> van buzz kirk says no, 16 feet, 4-1 going across.
okay, mr. Hickey from there I would like you to move
onto number 10 which is the sorry, that is there.
at this poin in time as with go down to the land use
comprehensive plan, and zoning by the site plan
approval of the land actions in order to be approved.
so number 11, commissioner joffe you bring up any other
site plan issues you have noticed or found during this
process mr. Hickey on number 11 is there anything else
that needs to be stated there, sir?
>> no and again, we talked about it in the beginning
these are all the other land development actions that
have to happen before the site plan is approved.
it is all these have to be in place so the site plan --
[inaudible]
>> okay.
>> commissioner joffe, where are we going?
>> I've had this raised.
I raised it before and want to raise it again to create
a picture for the commissioners.
and it is the lighted tennis courts on the rooftop I
just have to say respectfully, I'm concerned about
those.
and this yacht club is going to create for lack of
better term, an interior skyline smack-dab in the
middle of the city.
and I -- it is -- how all the is it going to be?
50 max, 59 to the tippy top of everything so the
lights.
>> the lights are 50, am I correct?
50 the max.
>>> the lights you get on the plan, because I didn't
see the plan.
>> they're going to be on the wall.
I have a suggest chun, why don't we do like the booms.
give it a year, tell me if we don't like it and take
them down and only whreaf it on the two of the tennis
center.
>> I -- I mean that has consider I would like that to
be our call, because I could live with that.
my concern is I know you've shaded them and.
>> there is new directional lighting.
>> I understand.
I was talking to some of the people about it.
I feel like no matter what you do, you're going to see
this sucker at night from a lot of different places
from around the city.
and I haven't seen a visual -- god knows you don't want
to spend money on the -- I haven't seen a visual of
what these lights are going to look like and candid lid
the rest of the lights on the building myself, this is
going to be a 50-foot, 55-foot max tawm structure the
middle of the city with big lights that are going to
light tennis courts on top.
I've had residents express concerns about I.
I just want to raise it and hopefully there is
something we can do about it again, I don't know how to
draft something to see fit works for a year.
I understand he there will be people who want to play
tennis at night.
we might be fighting with them now or making them angry
later but something this commission needs to think
about.
we're going to go from a city that is a very dark city
to begin with, which is a whole different debate that
we're not going have tonight.
>> we only have time for so many debate.
>> right now has a beautiful light howses spinning in
the distance.
and with all due respect mr. Paterson, you're going to
change.
that sounds like tonight you're definitely going to
change it.
I don't now, I talked -- correct me if I'm wrong mr.
hickey and I talked to our city planner about it and
don't pass out on the verbage, he says it is going to
look like a ball field on the top of the club.
and dwient to be looking at a ball club 60, 55 feet in
the their the middle of the city.
that is my concern, discuss.
>> commissioner ftion you don't mind me mentioning the
mayor does have some comments on this he would like to
mention, but before we worry about the ball field look.
ibe interest, commissioner joffe, your ball feel
comment.
>> not mine, his.
he told me.
>> it is interesting.
>> it depends where the liking is.
>> all yfs going say is this, ultimately in the end, it
is a ball field, because that is where they're hitting
tennis balls back and forth.
it is a ball field.
second of all we already have two ball fields in the
city with very large high standing structured lights
that are called park.
>> are they on top of the build inning.
>> let me ask you a question, is in it is 60 feet and
60 feet is there really a difference if they're both
the same height in the sky in.
>> I'm merely mentioning I think it is a valid concern.
>> you have extra parts but make sure everyone is
iware, I don't know the exact height of the current
light nlsz our park.
I've got to believe just by random guessing that
they're over 50-foot high in the air.
and the way looking at commissioner long he help get
those approved.
I have to believe they are higher than that.
but to be on the safe sigh, that means that we're going
to have a structure with lights that are directional,
that are very close to being that people do complain
about.
that is something to think.
commissioner johnson, please you're not going to leave
the lights on all night, what are you thinking the
hours.
>> the planning and zoning board made us.
>> 9:00.
>> 9:00, right.
>> so in the summertime, that is like.
>> an hour after it goals dark and the rest of the time
it is a few hours and that is like, you've compared
foitd the ball field.
the people that live around the ball field, of course,
don't like it.
people who live around the school don't like children
to come out forrie sess, but, you know, it is only
going to inconvenience them if somebody a few hours
every night.
>> if it is a problem I would be fixing it.
I am the closest neighbor to the property staring at
it.
and I am concerned about -- anything that I'm going to
do, I'm going to be concerned about the value of my
personal home as well.
>> commissioner long.
>>> using the ball field analogy, I think there is a
big difference here in the fact that the final height
of that light is 50 feet.
it is only really lighting up an area that is what, 15
feet, 20 feet belowna as compared to a ball field light
which has, you know, much higher lumens, I guess.
and has to broadcast light throughout, you know,
hundreds of yards.
so there has got to be a big difference that with the
proper shielding it can be done.
you're always going to have the halo effect of the
light.
I think your biggest concern they be from some of the
town house people, but again they get used to that, a
bunch of marina people will be a big concern.
I think you can with the proper use of lighting and
shielding and proper lights themselves and direction
you can probably really keep it controlled so it is not
a big halo effect like the hard rock guitar from 50
miles away.
>> something of a similar nature.
>> don't know how you do that.
>> I think one of the things obviously that I would say
that leaving the lights on until 9:00 at night is only
good if people are playing on it.
y been by the club before on this time of the year and
there is no one playing on the courts.
so I hope the idea I think outside of the time frame
one of the things that would be important, I think to
mr. Paterson is if no one is playing, they shut the
lights off I would say that takes frit that if
everybody is okay.
>> how all the are the normal lights in the parking
lot?
or typically.
>> it can be around,ca be around 25 feet.
ours are lower because we have a lot of trees that
means we have to put a lot more in the parking lot.
>> obviously that has, you know, all over the place.
>> again, I look at the fact the height of the pole
itself compared to the ground.
that lights up an entire park.
>> what we're trying to do is not have any light goes
over our max height of the building with landscaping
and different things that will shade the light.
the halo effect would be, they're up but you don't
really see lights up that is not how you don't see it
that way.
>> the poles themselves would be at or we have these
walls all the way around, remember tennis fences we
have now ours are by the time got the ennis court it
will be 12 feet the lights will be connected to those
walls and they will be directional and a lot more
lights than a normal set-up.
>> sit below the wall itself.
>> sit on the wall wru not going above the wall.
>> okay.
>> mayor troast you would like to say something, sir?
>> I have actually been going over to the yacht club
for the last couple of weeks just trying to see the
usage of the lights, and I'm noticing that they're not
used that much at this time of year during the evening,
I do have a suggestion that I think can make this a
little bit easier.
from may 1st through december 30th, the light imans on
until 9 p.m and the rest of the year they'd be on until
7 p.m that giveious about one hour after sunset if
terry was open to that that two would be idea and to
piggyback on, that we could look at complaints that
come in over a year's time and if we're getting a lot
of complaints, it would be up to the city and the
applicant to renegotiate those times.
but instead of having 9:00 yeararound, why don't we say
7 p.m.
from october 1st through april 30th and may 1st through
september 30th, it would be 9 p.m.
and the lights can only be on when courts are actually
actively being played on o.
I also have spent some time going around looking at
mcdonough park from different areas, yes, those lights
are at least 50 feet in the air, I agree but the light
radiation they give off is pretty confined because of
the directional paths that are used on the light, I
suspect if terry is plan tongue same smileds on the
lights the residents that have expressed their vehement
concerns about their backyards being lit up at night
are probably under misunderstanding so I would like to
propose that the commission recommend that the lighting
beyond for the hours that I suggested during the time
frames I suggested if the splint throg consider that.
>> so I am -- you are correct the directional lighting
and a lot of what you say.
there is a couple of things here.
the lights are not only on to play tennis, they're on
for the maintenance crew because they're clay court.
they have to be maintained after the and early in the
morning.
our guys come to work at 5 a.m.
, 6 a.m.
and get to work before anyone starts if we say 7:00
during hours, the reason we have night 10is is because
a lot of people work who want to play tennis.
and I don't know how to say to the tennis player, I'm
sorry, you can only play until 7.
you guys will have as much of a riot on your hands as I
will.
>> what are the tennis centers hour?
>> do you have the hours for our tennis centers lights?
>> sorry, yes we are open monday through thursday until
8 p.m.
and we do maintenance after when we actually do the
maintenance as soon as we can if the court is available
but if the courts are are being use wed have to wait
until they finish their play until 8:00 and sometimes
it takes a good hour, hour after that, so the lights
can sometimes be on until 9.
on on fridays, I would say actually on friday as well
it goases until same time.
saturday and sunday we close at 5.
>> but becky, the lights at the tennis center oare only
30, 35 neat the air.
>> correct.
I think actually 28.
and they are led lights that -- led lights that are
able to turn off separately.
even if they're done with maintenance they can shut
them off.
>>> a much lower lighting at our tennis center.
that is why I didn't consider our tennis center as when
I looked at what was going on at mcdonough park.
>> agreed.
>> commissioner long you had something to say.
>> I think the difference being is that you do have a
wall around whether you're 50 up in the air or ground
level, I mean you're still going to have the same glow
coming out of the top of it.
the perception of where you're standing is go odisub
going to be different.
knowing how liking has come, the led lighting and
filters they can put on it, from a timing perspective,
I don't know, maybe somewhere 8:00ish, to be honest
from play ending at 8, and then you have some
maintenance time to do that.
you know, and also, if led lights have them on
different circuits, you don't have to have them all on.
>> can we say we do the ones up at the top, play
finishes at 8, give us time for mans, no later than 9,
but the ones down by the two that we -- the ones that
are remaining, just leave them as is?
>> we're going to have people dhrb is not your problem
this is ours whoever is left up here.
>> your building is going to emerge in the middle of
this city and we all know that all of our residents
have been following this as closely as a lot of other
people and we're going to get people, whether or not,
there are people in the city that have absolutely no
idea this is getting built and they're going to be
like, what the hell is that.
and then lights are going to go on top and that is when
the problem is going to happen.
we all is been doing this long enough we know that is
going to happen.
that is what we're trying to mine mize and find a
compromise.
you've put up with more than any man I have seen put up
with over these three years.
so I hope we can find a compromise on this I think
esthetic magically, I just have a hard time -- first of
all we haven't soon ho it is going to look like,
essentially, none of us have.
and I have concerns that we're going to go to something
is not esthetic magically pleasing.
period.
>> commissioner joffe.
>> I would like to offer a motion, I want to make sure
we get a consensus here.
>>> I would like to offer motion to approve the
ordinance to rezone the light, future lighthouse point
club from yc-mu and proposal for the yacht club
redevelopment.
>> I have a motion on the floor.
>> I'll second it.
>> motion and a second.
we obvious will have some discussion.
verify the motion considers the site plan comments that
were the consensus of the commission on how to handle
those items in the zoning board memo.
no further discussion.
>> it is
>> so the development agreement is correct mike?
I believe it's not.
>> it says tennis courts that operate at the yacht club
should close at 5 pm and tennis court light should
operate only during tennis play on the courts.
>> mr. Patterson without states, is what it says to
you, if you want to do your daily maintenance and
everything they had better get off at eight at night so
they can see their courts maintained.
I have a motion on the floor.
all in favor, please say aye.
we move past this one.
thank you very much.
sue might think you very much ladies and gentlemen.
>> we will take a five minute recess at this point in
time.
it is 9 pm we will have everyone back here at 9:05 pm
everyone who is here the audience please come back to
the seats you are sitting in.
I hate to say it like that, but it makes it easier for
everyone.
>>
>> I would like to welcome you back we are all back
sitting down we are going to move on to agenda item
number two which is a first reading a public hearing of
an ordinance to approve the development agreement for
the lighthouse ? City attorney again, I want to mention
this is a public hearing so all of the residents on
those in attendance will have an opportunity to speak
and those who have sent an email the city attorney we
have touched base on it in the context of the site plan
and how they interact and hold on a second.
so the zoning district requires development agreement
so the development agreement has a lot of terms in here
about the construction, the timing, that uses, and
things like that for its development this is another
item that went through planning and development zoning
review.
this is, unlike the site plan which was not a public
hearing this evening, this one requires 2 public
hearings.
this is an ordinance, I can read the title anywhere you
want, we turn it over to the planner and go through
details, there are some issues we were hoping to with
the site plan get through with the applicant this
evening.
hopefully resolve admin 's we will have it all set for
you when it comes back.
>>
>> commissioners can I have the motion to read?
>> the ordinance of the city commission for the city
lighthouse florida with the development of the
development of property with the city of lighthouse
point.
[indiscernible] take all actions to perpetuate the
terms of the agreement providing for the effective
date.
>> commissioners, at this point in time will ask this
question, would you like mr. Hickey to speak?
>> we can address them through the best way and at this
point in time of the evening we will open up public
comments on this current first reading of the ordinance
to approve the developers agreement for the lighthouse
point yacht club.
I will start with those who were in virtual to raise
their hand if they would like to speak on the behalf of
the current development agreement.
>>
>> multiple people raising their hand I am going to
start from the top and work the way down if that's okay
with you.
>> so I am going to allow you to speak.
>> I want to remind everybody there will be 4 minutes
to speak I will keeping a timer nicole if you will
please note every person to speak and nicole I want to
thank you I know you were in their on one of our
toughest meeting some multiple efforts and >>
lighthouse point florida can everybody hear me okay?
>> we couldn't stay in person, had to head home so I'm
going to rehash the lighting issue quickly so my
property sits adjacent to the yacht club close to where
the tennis courts will sit on top of the main building
so we have a lot of concerns about that.
the point was raised about mcdonough and other folks
there that have to buy townhouses and they will have to
deal with that but they are buying their properties
knowing that was the case we enjoy our nights of quiet
dark and this is being done to us this wasn't our
choice so number one my preference would be, can't we
just make the lit courts, the courts that aren't
available that aren't on the roof those of the
nighttime courts and I understand there are constraints
they need more courts to accommodate team play that
should all be done during the day nighttime would be
probably less busy and that's my preference and terry
brought it up that we can make this a part of let's see
how it goes and if there are complaints we revisit this
and at the very least I would like to have that I
suspect knowing my neighbors I will not end up being
the only person unsatisfied with this result.
I would like to have myself and my neighbors have the
opportunity to make our case if we do end up with a
frank mcdonough situation.
we did not buy our house knowing it was going to be by
ballfield so I think it's a little unfair to make that
comparison.
so my preference is let's take those lights down and
have them just on me ground-level courts on the second
preference would be at the very least we would have the
opportunity to revisit this.
and I think the mayor brought up some good points I
understand people have to play tennis after work but
can't they just use the tennis courts on the ground
level and maybe we just close the roof courts at seven
so either way it's a huge concern for us all the way
around the yacht club and living here adjacent to the
club thanks guys I hope I didn't go over four minutes
kyle.
sue might think you very >> okay.
nicole do you have someone else raising their hand it
would like to speak?
>> scott cragin I will allow you to speak.
>> can you hear us scott?
thank you for allowing us to participate >> scott can
you state your name and address?
>> scott cragin and my wife is julia and we live in
highland beach florida.
we have pre-purchased a townhome my wife has worked
very closely with terry and very customer oriented and
very city oriented with any concerns associated with
lighting and traffic and we have been searching I don't
want the city to lose track of the trends in the
uniqueness because you have the opportunity to separate
yourself from new smyrna to key largo and what the
trend is now our communities and people can walk back
and forth and see each other so I know there were some
concerns about density and things but this is a very
unique opportunity for your city to really separate
yourself with a landmark opportunity we have some
trends that are very excited and we would have it lead
to more vibrant community and I just want to make those
comments let's not make pick this thing to death
because this is change but we will work together and I
felt like terry has done a nice job this has been two
or three years in the work said many things that are
you discussing will end up with phone call so I just
wanted to make those comments and I appreciate being
part of that and moving from a very dense area that we
think is going to be a much stronger beautiful
community area.
>> thank you scott, welcome to the city.
okay.
nicole, do you have anybody else that has raised their
hand to speak?
>> I had someone raising their hand but it's down, so
if you want to speak, please raise your hand again >>
so ? Folks who are watching there is a raise your hand
feature on zoom, press that we will give you an
opportunity to speak but can you go ahead and promote
him please?
>> of course.
[indiscernible] scotty can you state your name and
address?
>> scotty mac grade 1321 harbor drive.
>> yes sir. Go ahead.
>> I have been at the yacht club for 44 years and 2
owners and now we are trying to improve the property
and for some reason we have everybody dragging their
feet it should be approved because we need everything
that is going forward if it's venetian plaza or the new
fire station that is going on through and now all of a
sudden we can't have improvements on the yacht club
which has been established for years and mainly they
should establish 27th terrace as terry terrace so I am
all in for getting approval for the improvements after
50 or 60 years of it being I don't know why people are
dragging their feet on after all these years and thank
you scotty.
>> let's move onto another person who has raised their
hand.
>> can you guys hear me?
>> yes sir >> I am tom oates 4450 ne. [indiscernible] ?
.
[laughter] I appreciate the dialogue in you guys are
asking tough questions as a resident I understand what
you go through and I appreciate those being asked for
the question is frankly a lot of residents have you
represent them and I get this developer this site plan
this development agreement this is what we are going to
be stuck with I think it deserves the time and
consideration of every one of the commissioners that
everyone asked tough questions and if you have concerns
residents get concerns that should be part of the
developers agreement you need to be specific because
generations are going to look back on this and they are
going to say look it was hard to believe so I want to
say thank you for the dialogue on the tough questions I
want to see more of it in participation by the
commissioner.
so thank you.
>> thank you mr. Oates.
>> do I have anyone else raising their hand?
>> there is no one else raising their hand at this
point in time since we are going to transition to those
in person today we received an email from sammy salem
to speak on behalf of this public hearing and I wanted
to make sure it's noted all the commissioners have been
given the letter that he wrote to and it will be
notated and added to the meeting minutes from tonight's
commission meeting.
>> all right.
for those who are sitting here in the physical land,
let's call it that right now we are going to go ahead
and if you would like to come up and say something
please walk up and state your name and address and you
will have four minutes to speak.
okay. I am not seeing a mad dash to the front I will close
the public comments and request public comments on this
ordinance and bring it back to the commissioners and
mr. Hickey.
>> good evening everyone here to the talk about the
development agreement the one thing I did want to
mention was the certification letter we want to make
sure you have that and to certify the city requirements
? Notified and again on the first page it's an
incitement of the summary and I want to be consistent
that everyone understands that there are other
development actions that have to happen I believe this
is ? And getting right to the potatoes of the item
there is a development agreement and depending on the
commission if you would like to have what we did the
last time and the development agreement we can just
walk through it soon with the easiest way to do it as
long as we are okay with atlas walk right fair we can
move past each other move onto the next three >> so the
first was the pop up services we had here and we want
some discussion on this at various times and meetings
the language of the development which is what was
agreed to at the planning and zoning board and how that
service will be delivered will be approved and we want
to make sure the process is going to work with stone
for the requirement the language it's in there there's
an outstanding item that we had to work through within
the development agreement.
the second item is the overflow parking there have been
some discussions we have a planning and zoning meeting
on december 7 and the planning and zoning board
requested our ? Work with their son come up with an
actual number of what that criteria would be so
everyone understands if we have x amount and the
traffic engineer came up with an analysis based on 325
and that was reviewed by our staff I think we received
it for the 23rd maybe I can't remember to be honest
with you and we responded back on the 28th the
applicant did supply a memorandum to look at the
analysis again and dina is on the call she will be able
to talk through it we received that this morning and we
haven't had a chance to digest that this is one of
those items the same as ? I think it's something we can
sit down the staff and actually the traffic consultants
need to get together and figure out what that number
is.
>> I'm going to bring diane back on.
diana I'm sorry. I am I?
>> I am here.
>> I'm sure you heard what mr. Hickey said we just want
a confirmation that your thought process and with 325
is something you and the applicants could work on
together to come up with a resolution with the two
professionals.
>> correct.
>> we just seethed ? Received the applicant's response.
>> just a quick question when you use the number 325
how do you assume that would be for.
[indiscernible]
>> do you typically have two people to a car or less?
how are we looking at actual cars in the parcel for the
special events?
>> they did counts for two weeks in november 2018 and
they pick the highest state to have a conservative
analysis they came up with a ratio and I believe it was
a thanksgiving dinner on november again the occupancy
rate for the amount of guests that were invited suite
includes employees that includes people catering code
includes servers that includes gas so I can't remember
how I only have the response letter open and I can tell
you exactly what was the rate we agreed that the rate
they came up with included a little bit more of the
kitchen people and staff >> are you going to take into
consideration the residence as well?
>> they did not touch any parking stalls that were
dedicated >> my question is we were looking at 325
guests, not 325 cars.
I'm trying to get to the car piece of it.
>> you have a family of four your numbers are going to
be different or if many of your guests are coming from
the parcel itself and from the townhouses I am
wondering how that gets thrown into the equation
because that would skew the 1.8.
>> it was actually the number that triggered any
additional parking however for them to be considered a
little more conservative they reduced it to 325.
and 347 guests.
>> commissioner?
>> hopefully there is agreement on the number and
hopefully it's been addressed and I reviewed it
separately with the city attorney the way my version
reads, special effects 225 persons or more I don't know
I am assuming mr. Patterson that you will be able to do
multiple special events at the same time and I think
the way it reads right now I am not saying you would do
this but one of the callers wants it to be specific you
could do three separate events of 100 people and I
don't think that would be triggered I don't think that
was your intent I think you are talking about a total
event occupancy I would like to see the wording make it
clear that that's total deaths added events.
>> we might be having an event and we might have all a
cart in the restaurant.
>> that, to me this doesn't say that to me the way
this reads right now if there is one wedding with only
325 adult people, that's the only time you would need
to trigger this and I just don't think it reads that
way.
>> if it makes it go over 325 guests it could be an
event of 100 but we have reservations for 250 and >> I
don't think we're going to fight about what it says but
I think we are on the same page and I don't think the
language matches often only thing I would recommend
before the second reading is I think the language
matches the intent of the parties.
that's all I have.
>> any other discussion on this?
are we good with that?
>> to go back to the point we will clarify what the
professionals, on the numbers.
>> I think if there's a disagreement we need to resolve
it.
hopefully there's not a disagreement on the number.
>> they need to come and tighten up and clean up the
line and was what commissioner dolphy wants and if we
just leave it at that, that will be just fine.
so if it seems to work on everything else.
>> the question from the traffic engineer, was this
done with the marina, the gym, the tennis, and that was
something they haven't reviewed yet and the answer was
yes, that was done over two weeks and all of that was
dejected and that came to a specific amount of people
coming into the restaurant the food and beverage not a
specific amount of people in the building, the traffic
engineer comments are, people are not, gyms are not
busy at the time the restaurants are busy and that is
true by the traffic study and just general knowledge
without something they can work out, whatever they come
up with.
>> okay.
mr. Hickey.
>> I have a question.
just a reminder the site plan under review in the memo
there was a concern if during special events there
would have to be some sort of traffic accommodation.
>> that's the number we are talking about.
>> this only relates to parking management >> that's
only talked about before
>> that has to do with the u-turn being blocked off
>> it might be something different than the event might
do it and it might not work so would have to do
something else out if we need to how are you going to
deal with these driveways are these exits are these
u-turn as well?
>> depending on what the event is and how big it is it
could trigger different positions different areas that
we have to cut off >> I don't have all the answers.
>> if there is a special event what number that is if
the especially event happens we need to figure out the
process and in addition we want to make sure that that
was blocked off so we wouldn't have interference with
traffic coming in and out very
>> so you don't need planning, specifically what you
need >> thou shalt not make u-turns during a special
events.
>> so that planning would take care of that.
>> to clarify that's only for special events we would
have to block the u-turn?
>> just for special events and conflicting traffic
movements.
>> okay thank you.
>> commissioners?
>> beautiful.
>> 13.
>> moving on.
>> this has to do with the.
[indiscernible] plan and this was quite a process and
the zoning board meeting at the planning and zoning
born dashboard was the previous phasing plan had three
phases and surveys that actually creates the tennis
bistro and in addition it gets through the phase of
construction the yacht club buildings and that's really
the end of phase 2 and so phase 1 based on the schedule
would take 26 months from the start of construction and
that such term is defined in the development agreement
phase 2 would be the remaining building which would be
buildings one, six, single family we talked about
planning and zoning board that could be built at any
time so having that part of it phase 1 or two they felt
single family from the phasing plan and it's not
impending construction with the yacht club or the
townhouses very
>> I remember them that's why it was left off at this
portion.
>> commissioners.
so my question is we have talked about the landscaping
and it's kind of long after demo and everything if you
are pushing it to the limits on that.
and have we had conversation about having that done are
we talking about the wall on 42nd street and
landscaping?
>> I think it was clear >> but that's up to 10 months
on that.
>> yes.
our intent is to do that as one of the first things we
are in the little of finalizing the engineering, we
have a landscape plan already but the first permit we
are submitting we can get the tennis center bistro up
and running for members to use but that wall as soon as
I have engineering we will start to build it.
there is nothing stopping me from building it and our
property line it goes further towards the street with
what you guys see so there is nothing obstructing us
from building that.
? Can we put something in here >> is the actual phasing
plan I thought we heard, I believe when you said you
submitted it but to me it should say in the year it is
listing and 10 months and it's consistent with exhibit
g >> three phasing plans I still believe but the
planning and zoning board felt it wasn't necessary and
they just combined phase 1 and phase 2. I don't agree
but I am doing what I'm told I feel like it makes more
sense to show what's happening in phase 1 of the what
will be completed in the second but I am being
accommodating but it does create questions like this,
is it in phase 1, phase 1 is in 26 months and not 10
months but made a note on it.
>> it would be I think to make us feel to have a
phasing plan in front of us to show the fact that to
commissioner long's point in five months this front
wall is being built and then I think just like anything
visual is key to this and the quicker you're able to
move on that starts to show process and shield the
residence and those that show good faith as you are
moving forward >> it's noted that's what's going to
happen I do understand why you don't have it in your
package.
>> the phasing plan is the previous phasing plan as far
as I know we haven't seen the revised phasing plan at
least I haven't.
and I don't believe >> I need to double check but he
just had neck surgery and I think he had to leave but
you will have it.
we have done it and what we have tried to do is taking
phasing one into and combine them with a bunch of notes
which I think phasing plan one and two is great but why
we now need to have the architect who just got back to
work the same as everyone else had covid after new
year's and shut down why do we have to redo it to
combine one into?
I am quite certain is phasing plan one >> if it's an
phasing plan one are we talking 26 months which
includes a demo of the tennis center to make the
temporary clubhouse the building of the yacht club or
tennis bistro in the kids center and the landscaping is
in the 10 months of that 26 months.
>> in my question was in that 10 month is that wall
going to be the first three months of the last 10
months >> it's better for me.
>> you have to apply for the permit.
>> it will be done first.
it's quick and easy and underway and >> I know what
you're going to say but go ahead.
>> what am I going to say?
>> the commissioner needs a timeline for that.
>> and correct sir.
>> I know there was a dispute but I would like a
timeline what I was going to say was there was a
dispute mr. Patterson and I saw the great debate of
three phases versus two phases and it was riveting and
the start of construction and I know planning and
zoning was approved the 26 months and the 10 months so
have we reached an agreement?
I think starting is starting, and I know you disagree
with that, are we starting to count from when you start
sharing stuff down?
>> I do not agree with your statement in the end there
was a discussion but it was discussed and agreed to
what we had written in the developers agreement.
what we have written it was discussed at length and
when we started construction 30 days after receiving
the permit for the yacht club clubhouse are the
townhouse building 2345 basically the bulk of the main
construction that's going to start when I get the
permit I need to mobilize everyone we need mobilization
time.
that is what was discussed at length that we had a
disagreement and the wording was changed and when you
receive the first permit and I want to start doing some
permanent work in the first permit could be done ? And
it was discussed in planning and zoning so please go
back and watch.
[indiscernible] the wording was clear in the developers
agreement, that was discussed and very specifically I
said that it pointed out to them that that was when I
could start construction of the main project and also
it stated in the developers agreement that I would be
able to try to stop the tennis center early.
that's not happening obviously.
I wish it would happen, past going to be unfortunate
for us and our members but the main timeline would
start when the main building ? If we do it from
demolition you got a certain amount of time you have to
act on your permit and if you are acting on the
demolition permit, you can act by keeping it live every
90 days but what else can you do?
and then if I get that permit and something holds up
the issuance of all of my other permits I don't know
what that is.
we all know that it's not easy to get building permits
anywhere so that's why the date has to start when the
main construction starts just because I have a
demolition permit doesn't mean I'm starting
construction
>> so demolition process takes three months you have to
just for our regular house and the reason is have to
apply for the demolition permit you have to shut off
your water, your power, your gas, you have to get a
sewer cap permit and they do whatever they want to when
they want and how they want and you can say to fbl, I
want you to shut me down tomorrow.
but they won't.
they will show up five or six weeks later.
they could come tomorrow.
but ? Just the nature of it and it takes three months
to get these permits.
when I get letters from fpl the inspection on the sewer
cap on and all the other utilities and you have to do a
whole lot of asbestos testing felt the project and
being an old building with the process.
the actual demolition is not going to be longer than a
week and >> is the demolition including ports and
everything else?
>> I have a plan where yes, the courts that we are
building are just getting scraped and even the asphalt
and we have property right now it has been great soil
and rock we are scraping the top off and >> is there a
possibility working on the demolition and not engaging
in that permit until you have a building permit in
hand?
>> to get the demolition permit, we have to go through
the process I just told you even applying for the
permit I have to apply for a sewer cap permit what do
you regard as the permit?
>> the sewer cap that cap is a separate permit from the
devil ? Demolition permit >> no.
you have to pass that to be able to get the demolition
permit.
there's a reason it was worded and discussed by the
planning and zoning board and a developer architect he
knows what he is talking about
>> here is where I am on.
I understand the pangs of building something like this
I kind of think that the line should stand I know that
will probably put you under some pressure but I sat
through a planning and zoning board meeting where
people were in favor of terry's development and they
were still concerned about the length of how long it
was going to take and I see that it seems like there
has been some agreement on extensions and I say this
with all due respect if you run into problems like that
we are trusting you with 12 acres of the city that you
are going to redevelop and we need to trust that we
will be reasonable and fair and that is where I am on
and if you run into problems I know you might not have
liked my vote but I have tried to be reasonable about
stuff and that's kind of where I am.
>> many people have said to me over my 22 years of
building in my typical contract is three to $10 million
hi deal with lawyers and negotiations I just don't go
in and renovate somebody's kitchen.
if you don't negotiate those contracts correctly in the
beginning, two or three years later it gets thrown in
your face, had the opportunity to object and you
didn't.
and I am objecting now.
I know you are saying we are all going to be reasonable
later.
I brought a reasonable article to the board about my
own house and that was totally thrown out so how am I
supposed to expect for my own house which is a very
reasonable argument, what you guys are going to hear
next year and this year?
how can I expect that for when I am fighting for.
[indiscernible]
>> I expect you're going to be reasonable but I need to
negotiate the best that I can and I am not just a
magician but there is a very detailed ? It shows the
phases on what has to happen first and why construction
if you want me to build 24 seven overnight I cannot
even do that because they were allowed to and we don't
have either of those in our favor and I understand your
concern and I heard from a lot of residents concerned
about the length of time for a building and I feel like
we need to keep it on a tight leash as possible and I
am open to other ideas and I am not the only one here.
if anybody has an idea I will listen to it.
>> park planning and zoning did consider start of
construction to include demolition.
terry is right about mr. ? Who develops properties and
he serves as a fire station development consultant and
that john knox village and demolition includes, is a
permit that is issue that starts construction and part
of the problem is that we need to ensure that this
development gets done as exponentially as possible and
we went to our chief building official and asked him
the start of the construction ? Construction and under
the florida building code, yes it does.
so all weeds is to avoid any doubt is we added into the
statement the parenthetical including demolition permit
to make it clear but there was never a debate at the
start of construction included the demolition it was
discussed because it was understood that included
demolition.
mr. Patterson has a different opinion and at the end of
the day if he starts demoing and starts constructing at
the yacht club, do we want to extend that 26 months
into a time that could be 36 months and since he
brought up the residence offering it up as well that
has been going on over three years I drove by it today
there is nothing going on.
it was completely dead today when I drove by so we need
to ensure that the project keeps moving forward and
that's all we have the language but if there is an
unforeseen circumstance that he comes back to the
commission, the commission reasonably must consider
that and has the ability to grant a one-year extension
which gives him from 40 months to 52 months 52 months
is a long time we had a lot of residents express their
concerns as jason pointed out about the length of time
this is going to take the planning and zoning board
stated that this project should be done in two years
and that's not a viable if the yacht club is going to
remain open during the construction phase but they were
clear this could be done in two years and those are mr.
gallo's words.
I respect the opinion on this but at the end of the day
I do think that we need to stick to the start of the
construction definition that is in the developers
agreement.
thank you.
>> so I drove by today in the rain and I didn't see
anyone planning my jackson lane my pools
>> stream if there is nothing that the mayor is saying
that was correct so even the planning and zoning board
we need to look at the tapes >> I think the key here
ultimately and I looked to my left and my right the
commissioners from what they are hearing, we are
worried about the duration of the project area and I
think you don't want to be here any longer than you
want to and go ahead and sell these things and there
are mechanisms in here for you to come back to us I
don't even like to think about that we have to but
those of the mechanisms that we have in place for your
comeback and you are right.
can we not be sitting up here or whoever is sitting up
here is there a possibility?
absolutely but at that point this is a queen ? Clean
sweep at this point and it's important to me and
personally I think you start to get these things going
I would like to hear something more to mike's point
about this wall I like the free fate ? Three-phase
thing and this time in market is absolutely absurd to
say that what people said, I know more people that
can't get stuff done in a timely manner >> and then I
agree with that so to get people sitting here and the
people that sat up here that can say that no disrespect
to them that was the truth and it hurts but my point is
I think it's important that we stick to putting your
feet to the fire even if it puts you at a disadvantage.
>> your objection is duly noted.
>> you want to state what the planning and zoning board recommend? I urge you to watch the video and you will see that I
am right and look at what was presented to the planning
and zoning board and what was discussed.
the wording that I want and it was change for year that
was not approved by the planning and zoning board and
before the clubhouse that's when it was discussed.
I am not changing anything.
>> I like the site plan the development agreement and
this was not like an application that they acted on and
so this was put together with their input and
negotiations between ourselves and this is going to be
approved by the city commission there is a different
role and we relied on their expertise and it was a
different role it's not like they approve the document
they got through some of these negotiation points and
at the end of the day what is proposed is what the
administration believes it could be there for the
timing of it.
>> and you guys know this.
>> I just had a question for myself and for the people
who are listening if we set this time limit and what
happens with the supply chain and the rest of it what
happens?
soon 14.6 >>
>> I would say again we have to be looking back at our
self for our current construction issues not controlled
by anything out of our control and I believe in the
residence and those who sit up here it's open-minded
but to mr. Patterson's point we can't guarantee it.
but I think this is important to our residents.
>> is a commission we have to represent the residence
of the biggest concerns are the length of time and we
do understand the supply chain issues and I think that
would be logical for us to talk about and if it's the
fact that those issues don't exist and that's another
thing.
it's like chasing a stick so to speak and if he has
that released in 14.6 that could solve his major issues
>> I appreciate this debate because this has been the
item that we have spent the most time on which is the
length of the term of construction and how we get an
extension if we need it and I hear you loud and clear
and I understand what you are saying you want to hold
terry's feet to the fire you want to build extra time
into the agreement because you what to make sure he
works expeditiously I could tell you myself I am making
renovations to our home and I have to call the subs
every day and call them to finish the job I have a
unfinished driveway they can't get the turf they can
get the trees it's ridiculous so I think we can
reasonably acknowledge I think this is respectfully,
anyone who works in this industry knows how incredibly
difficult it is to meet this timeframe for a project of
this magnitude which leads me to number two which is
one thing I felt strongly about and it is important to
have language if terry has to come back and asked for
an extension it won't be with how that's common
language for a contract and this makes me exceedingly
uncomfortable I just have to tell you the language that
ended up in here mike proposed it and we can agree with
an accelerated timeline it's aggressive it will hold
his feet to the fire and that went from saying the
city's sole discretion which I totally disagree with
something that's a hybrid that means the city's sole
discretion and is the one thing I have been adamant
about that I just feel so strongly that >> I work hard
to get to the language that we have so I went and I
pulled case law on what your authority would be and
even though your government your sole discretion is
limited and this is from the case exercise of good
faith and you can't come in here and say no to terry
because you don't like the color of his tie and I'm not
going to debate her as our recommendation and when it
comes to the commission you should have that discretion
but you cannot be arbitrary and I have been consistent
on that and I think the whole time we have been in the
city commission and if you go with unreasonably
withheld and I think I believe that this was a point
that was negotiated and resolved until just now and if
not that's a point for the lawyers and you guys can
choose which lawyer which advised he would take but
this is the recommendation I would make.
>> we will have our third lawyer come in.
>>
>> I was also wanting to hold terry's feet to the fire
and I was the one that wanted to say sole discretion
and I wanted to be able to look at terry and say done
with him I'm not giving him the extension I realize
that I am the one that asked you I want to know if you
can't do that I think mr. Patterson it comes down to
trust I know we have such a wonderful record of trust
but hopefully that changes after tonight and I am hard
on this as well I want you to know.
[indiscernible]
>> I like this language and if I have to go through
case law I am not comfortable >> in this future
commission says sorry but now and that's really the
danger that you ask him to agree to and I have to go
read a bunch of cases to understand what it means and
we have the eighth version and no one is working and we
can't get workers and we can't get subs and the
commission at that time may be a different commission
comes in later and said I hate the yacht club project
and he takes a huge risk by not getting language that
gives that standard that is customary so I appreciate
you taking the step back and I would say to him I
wouldn't sign it I would just figure out something else
because it's dangerous and I appreciate mike taking the
way for sending me cases and the respect I felt and is
a very dangerous thing to agree to
>> you are doing a great job and I have been here long
enough and the one saying across the board we have
always been fair and open and we have dealt with others
who are not likable people I don't know where he is now
but he is gone and still lead out with him with proper
roles through the regulations and through our codes and
we have touched on the next 26 months how the supply
chain may change how the employment factors may change
and quite honestly everyone has the same issue but if
you are getting your kitchen read on we all understand
and I have enough faith in the commission that we will
do the right thing for the city take into consideration
all concerns that you have as a developer >> I totally
respect that I just wanted to have the discussion on
record so you can understand how I felt about it and is
the commission's decision and terry's decision but
thank you for the opportunity >> anybody else?
good.
that has been noted in the information commissioners,
we are currently good with the current languages and
the developers agreement.
commissioners?
>> we are currently good with the phasing plan as
stated in the current agreement utilized in the wording
that the commissioner mentioned, and the request was
made to the developer within 60 days.
correct?
assuming the only clarification I would make, and this
is one of my overarching comments and I am fine with
the text of the development agreement as written right
now in section 14 and the key to this is a key
important phrase at the beginning of section 14 what
mr. Hickey and mike and the mayor get to do next
between now and the second reading is make sure that
the language of 14 drives with I don't even know how
many visions.
>> 's whatever exhibit g is an mr. Hickey and mr.
patterson.
>> the second reading one of the questions I'm going to
have is has the city reviewed this as well?
the city attorneys, the planner, the mayor, have they
reviewed all the documents to make sure the will of the
commission is reflected in these documents and they are
all consistent?
it's very important and that's very key.
>> moving on mr. Hickey.
>> that's what it is.
the item was resubmitted on the 22nd and revising.
[indiscernible] with the applicant and last item on
page 15 section 14.4 and there was some discussion and
the agreement states within six months of the affected
agreement I think there's some concern about that time
frame and the applicant is concerned it would take
forever and doesn't want to be held responsible and the
city was to establish a timeline so there is no
slowdown in the process that starts right away with
construction moving forward.
>> come on up mr. Patterson.
>> as with the point before this is the same thing.
I am being held to specific times that I have huge
repercussions if I do not meet while I'm trying to get
permits and you could say if you architect engineers do
their job correctly and the most perfect set up plans
you have seen in your life and it goes through this
zoning and planning department in zoning and
landscaping and the company that reviews the mechanical
electrical plumbing and the comments come back and we
quickly turn those around and then we hash our permit
quickly it takes me a year to get a permit for a
single-family home at lighthouse point so now you are
holding my feet to the fire on time when I don't have
the permits in my hand that's why I wrote it in a way
that said when I have the permit to build, if you
understand construction at all, you will follow what I
am saying if you would like I could get every builder
in this town to come to you and explain how this
process works and what I'm talking about.
>> are you referring to the clubhouse?
>> I am trying to acknowledge what you are saying and
you are talking about this bistro just deal with that
one right now.
how is that a problem?
>> so let's say we sign this agreement february 8. And
I submit right now it comes down to the effective date
let's see we sign february 8 thus the effective date.
>> the effective date is not going to be the date we
sign it because you have to prove financial viability
before everything is signed and you have to get
signatures from your lenders and we are not going to
sign this the day after this is approved.
>> six months and you kind of made a lot of your
planning and your drawings and staff are done >> I get
the permit piece but six months to get a permanently
most of the work that goes into the permit is completed
you have your electrical.
>> the engineers and the architects we are going to be
ready we should have been ready a little while ago but
the architect has been in the hospital soon like you
just said monday you will have all of this.
>> not the permit.
it doesn't take a long time to get the permit through
next six months when that package is delivered and
ready to go it will take six months.
>> I am hoping it will take two or three months my
concern is it will take seven months then what?
I am going to be up here yelling and screaming.
but hold on one second.
I'm sorry.
mike did you have something to say?
>> this is when he would apply for his first permit is
not when it's issued.
I was looking at the memo that said 14 for is the issue
so we are talking about 14 three
>> prior to the effective date and this was originally
written and he would be able to move forward with the
tennis bistro and have those reviewed and this says he
can apply any time but then no later than six months
after brain after this agreement is recorded and it
could be seven or eight months.
so is there an issue with that?
>> maybe I misunderstood the way you guys are
discussing it.
sue mcginnis says that agrees to apply for a building
permit after the effective date and prior to
concurrently with the permit is for the first
residential building so you would apply for them within
six months and to get the ball rolling the timeframe is
that the start of construction when you get the permit
and scream at us with these two say just get out there
and start applying for them.
>> you are pretty close to just getting your final
package together for the yacht club.
>> we haven't made any change to the site plan and we
have a relief was 14.6 and >> there was another relief
in here and I couldn't find it >> and some natural
problems right?
you have a statute that allows for extensions and
>> thank you.
>> so that's the extension of time it would be like if
the whole state has put on it's a direct effect on the
property but that's another opportunity if you get a
hurricane here that affects the statute that provides
some relief to look at under the circumstances so that
type of thing can create the need for more time man >>
that's a government ? You are fine with 14.3 and 14.4?
slick as something happens swimming again this is a
periodic review by was reading over and I thought it
was all had little periodic review was 12 months and
you could come and explain the problems 60 days.
>> and the extension piece
>> you have to notify us within 60 days you can't come
in the day before it's due.
>> I think what I'm asking should come in more than
once a year and if we run into trouble it's going to
delay the project and what we do right now I apply to
my client was a change order in timing and they approve
or don't approve it we negotiate in the end everybody
forgets what happened.
>> I don't want to be where we have to worry about it
but the point is we are not going to know you have had
all these problems and I want to be part of the
solution and I do think something like six months would
be nice for periodic review and it doesn't stop him but
the periodic review is required and at least once every
12 months we review it and at least every 12 months.
>> my point was I would prefer to be once every 12
months or at least once every six months.
>> we wrote this basically the same as the statute if
you want to require us to look at this more frequently
we can.
>> I want the city to review the process and you to be
part of it.
the periodic review is a combination of the city and
you and.
[indiscernible] is just one of those things.
>> the commission's not going to be doing this this
administration, the building department.
how do you know about it?
>> you have any thoughts on this?
>> following the statute is what we need but we are
going to go pretty quickly within the first six months
to a year if there are problems and I think the
administration can report back to the commission six
months following the effective date and the reason I am
saying have the administration report back I don't know
what the effective date is going to be given all the
signatures and the requirements that are placed on
terry before this becomes effective >> so I think we
can do that separately from the agreement I think it's
direction from the commission six months following we
will get a report on where we stand on the yacht club
development and we can decide from there how often you
want to see that.
>> I am fine with that I just want to make sure we are
getting updates.
>> I don't want anymore language.
the lawyers will figure it out we half past 14.4, we
have gotten past the 14s?
>> there is a numbering issue that I caught when I was
referring this ? Reviewing this 14.5 there is in a
14.5.
soon if that's correct.
14 six will become 14 five you are looking at this.
>> that's cross reference in a couple places.
>> either that or we label 14.5 is not used.
>> let's do that, mike.
14.5 reserved so you don't have to find all of the
cross-references.
>> okay.
>> I do have one other question.
why do we think we can get a copy of exhibit g so the
administration can start reviewing at and I want to
give a copy to the commission asap and I need to see
when we are going to get the revised plan and you don't
need to answer that at this moment I would just like an
answer sometime in the next week.
we will be noticing this in two weeks.
>> I will say the next week we need to have it
>> we want everything ready and >> exhibit g will be in
line with section 14.
>> we will have to review that.
we will have to try it out to the developer agreement
as a site plan.
>> thank you, mayor.
>> moving on.
on to number four.
correct?
>> financial impact and recommendations so one of them
was provide.
[indiscernible] and the second was they would provide
additional analysis.
[indiscernible] so we will work with their acceptance
to remember their numbers.
[papers shuffling]
>> so I want to talk about the financial accountability
of the project.
[papers shuffling] and I guess the question for me the
understanding is this ties into when the agreement
becomes effective that's important for you, terry.
it has tied off the effective date of the agreement so
I see that the effective date is defined in paragraph
five and then we say a confirmation of.
[papers shuffling] prior to this agreement becoming
effective, so is the intent here, before you can start
doing stuff like before this is official.
if we vote to approve this I read this to mean that
unless terry gives the financial confirmation tomorrow,
maybe you can, I don't know, he can't proceed like to
me in my opinion I feel like we should be getting
comfort that you can pull this off financially before
we approve this because.
[indiscernible] we have to live with this and I am not
clear based on when we are going to get confirmation
that he has the money to do this before this gets
approved or after?
>> the way I read it, we are going to vote on it in the
city, the mayor will not sign it until he has this
agreement and >> but getting confirmation that >>
that's why the mayor doesn't.
[indiscernible]
>>
>> it was unclear to me that we are not starting
anything until the administration gets comfort
>> they're not going to sign off on something they
don't know what the developers agreement looks like
they come look at it make sure the viability is still
there.
>> chicken or the egg?
>> correct.
>> I just want to make sure and confirm I know we
talked about this earlier, that is correct.
>> the city will review the financing commitments
regarding all contingencies including the signatures of
all the lenders and lienholders on the property
including any that have filed notices of commencement's
and everything will have to be signed for the city
signs the city is the last of sign.
>> commissioner are you good with that?
>> any other thing on this one?
on the developers agreement?
>> ready for a motion.
>> I am.
that's why I like you.
that's why you are my favorite.
>> we approve the development agreement and investment
llc for the development of property within the city of
lighthouse point.
>> subject to the discussion of the commission tonight,
there will be a a few minor changes I think.
>> and all the information and the attorneys and
exhibit g is a few changes to tweak the language
>> okay.
so we have a motion on the floor.
are you still seconding commissioner johnson?
we have any further discussion?
commissioners, all in favor please say aye.
a post? It passes 5-0.
mr. Patterson?
sue necklace but requires us to announce when there
will be a second public hearing and that will be on
february 8 2022 at 6:30 pm there will be notice but it
does require us to announce it
>> if I may, that meeting is going to have a lot of
things on the agenda, is that the will of the
commission to start that meeting earlier so we can get
through the agenda items and not necessarily be here
until 11 at night because we are going to have seven or
eight items just with respect to the yacht club >> we
will have five.
>> and a few other items just from normal city
business?
sarah is the commission going to consider starting our
meeting a little bit earlier that night so we can get
through this because I am sure there's going to be some
questions as we go through the changes that have been
made.
>> so.
[indiscernible]
>> commissioners.
what time do we want to move it?
530? >> 530 is fine.
>> it has to be at least a minimum of 4 votes.
>> if there is no further discussion.
>> okay.
>> I will make a motion to move the time of the regular
city commission meeting on february 8, 2022 to 5:30 pm.
>> motion, I have a second, all in favor, please say
aye.
the vote passes 5-0 thank you mr. Patterson for your
extra vote on that one.
[laughter] >> your punishment is you have to sit through the rest
of the spring >> it is now 5:30 pm february 8.
>> and I'm sure it will be noticed in the proper
channels.
>> all right.
at this point we are moving on to agenda item 3.
which is a resolution approving the allocation of
response agreements with pharmaceutical companies and
proposing a nationwide settlement.
>> this is here for your consideration the deadline for
the settlement for those who want to participate the
end of this month the documents have been negotiated we
are ineligible to participate in the settlement there
are 2 different agreements one with pharmaceutical
companies and distributors and we are agreeing to the
settlement agreements which have been provided there
any funds you get after purposes going forward are not
to reimburse us for past expenses and although the
amounts we know the exact amount we don't know what
reporting would be the last information we got would be
about $8000 a year for 18 years and we can use that for
our own programs or I have been told through conference
calls with local attorneys that they may offer a
agreement where netsuite's here before you I'd be happy
to answer any questions.
>> the resolution authorizing the city of lighthouse
florida to approve the elocution's and will
participation agreements and.
[indiscernible] in effective date.
>> commissioner, discussion.
>> if this is too much if not hopefully it will be easy
enough can provide a lot of different services and it's
like a teenage issue is a full adult issue we see it
every day police and fire deal with it so I am in
support of this.
>> no opposition from me.
>> I will make a motion to pass the resolution.
resolution 2022 2412 asking the city to approve the
opioid allocation statewide response agreement for
pharmaceutical companies and distributors >>.
[indiscernible] all in favor please say aye.
the vote passes 5-0 perfect.
at this point in the evening, we have public comments
regarding any item or anything you would like to talk
about please state your name you have three minutes to
speak we will start with the people in person before we
move on to the virtual >> matt donahue 2820 ne. 39th
court I appreciate all of your hard work tonight
keeping me up two nights in a row past my bedtime with
the football game and now this exciting agenda.
commissioner I just want to go on record to say I'm
disappointed I am extremely disappointed we talked
about it for two years but you have your opinions and
your opinions are duly noted I am glad this got through
hopefully you can get it through in the next reading
and we can get this as soon as possible.
I keep hearing rumors about the property that might
have a hotel multi-I haven't seen anything I was just
curious when the next discussion on that might be
present going to planning and zoning it seems to be a
very enticing conversation.
to say the least.
so >> I heard about in the paper.
>> I have been hearing about it going around quite a
bit I heard the property was purchased and again it
goes back to the same conversation where they want to
hold him accountable for buying a piece of property
that was not zoned but this is going to go through
based on discussions but nobody has heard about it and
nobody has seen that and I keep hearing about mr.
patterson's funding and how much funding he needs to
have for a nature preserve I hope we put as much effort
it to knowing the kind of funny that person had for
that property where the funding is they had these
opportunities, the city administrator said the city
had given them the blessing to move forward and we are
still sitting there and funding I was told was an issue
where is the consistency of these issues so I would
love to hear what's going on with the hotel because I
know it's a concern as you mentioned and I know you are
concerned but I don't want a hotel sitting right there
and I'm sure people that live in those apartments don't
want the hotel right there so where's the discussion?
>> we're going to have a little discussion.
>> so they are in the process they have had a couple of
submittals >> is that zoned?
>> I can't remember it's going through the process they
are pretty much through that they would go to the board
and then planning and zoning so it's in process right
now >> how many residents know about this?
again, we are so concerned about residents and lights,
but all of those people that are living in those
apartments do they know?
>> they do now? Nobody up here knows >> obviously you know I haven't seen anything. >>.
[indiscernible] how quickly these things go and is
extremely concerning because again we want to hold
everybody's feet to the fire sorry but we want to hold
everybody's feet to the fire but these things go
through and it is what it is.
we didn't see it.
that's the answer that I get.
we didn't see it, it didn't come before it should.
>> I first noticed it because I look at the city online
website and I saw the drc notice for the property
located at >> we have never had a hotel as far as I
know and obviously it comes back down to that is
something I don't believe I personally ever thought I
but want to see here but if the commissioner knew about
it and is informing residents I wish we obviously
would've had some information to say by the way.
he could have said all along.
>> he did not know and what I heard, is that they had
made an original application it was indicated that it
was wholly inappropriate for the site when they came
back with a revised one and it makes a much bigger
question in my opinion and what they can do is talk
about the master plan and the strategic plan in one of
the things we are considering only get past all this
the one thing I was going to bring up at that meeting
is looking at the zoning on the federal highway and
shaping it and looking at it and zoning those
properties in a way that we believe is in the best
interest of lighthouse point because if it's now are
doing the next it's clear there's development coming
from the north and from the south and eventually it's
going to be here and >> that ship has sailed.
I think it's here.
>> you never know even in the future.
>> and I think the issue is we look at things and say
it's bust or broom and quite honestly, it's just going
at the fact is we have older properties and commercial
properties at us one that are very difficult because of
parking and other things to redevelop and if we can
look at that from a zoning perspective from a
commercial overlay to see if we can bring in the kind
of businesses that we want to not use car dealerships
or hotels that are maybe not a good fit.
that is something that we probably need to renew as
part of that master plan strategic planning
>> synnex only thing I would alert you but our city
attorney can alert you of we are zoned for certain
things you're looking at litigation.
soon as that ship has sailed the point is that I think
I am 100 percent in agreement I want to know not so
much what happens here but the properties that we have
met people say selling cars online now are doing this
and we are continuously having different things coming
in front of us staff to be cognizant of legal issues.
>> this would be moving forward and it's for the new
development
>> just because we don't like something >> we're
talking about the redevelopment and opportunities
because if you look at the history they basically have
a lot more space in front of most of the buildings
until the expansion of federal highway and the
installation of sidewalks >> we lost a lot on the
southern and and the shopping center you can see where
the oven is and the optometry and there used to be a
full parking lot right there and as you head north you
see the buildings there and these are things
>> there used to be a beautiful landscape area and
that's not even that old overbuilding and overall we
have to start looking at how our parking has been
trying to align so there is a possible redevelopment
and park sharing >> going back to this property the
4060 property and that is one of the most liberal
zoning districts and hotels are permitted and to echo
earl's comments it's very difficult to take away the
right that a property has without getting into
litigation and I am sure mr. Cirillo can expand on
cities that have tried to do that and the problems they
have had.
>> I think we need to allow this thing to progress the
public notices and whatnot.
>> any other person want to come forward and speak
before we move on to the virtual space?
>> everett marshall 2821 ne. 44th street two things,
the last meeting I was here I commented about the
wonderful response that I got for the police department
so now I have to give the fire chief his dues because
the paramedics had to come to my mother's home and they
did a fantastic job the lady didn't want to go to the
hospital but they talked her into it which was perfect
and everything is fine.
she is home.
I appreciate that and if you're still here, thank you
very much for your people and the other thing is this
property on federal highway were just talking about the
hotel about I would say probably when I first started
coming to these meetings, someone wanted to put a self
storage unit there and it was combined for whatever
reason, I have no idea but the fellow was going to put
some storage unit and he agreed that he would make it
look like a hotel or a building the front of the
building was going to be commercial and the storage was
not going to be sheds it was going to be a building and
it wasn't zoned for that I think was the reason but we
changed zones for different things all the time that
would not have ever put any stress on any of our police
or fire that a hotel potentially could.
wouldn't that've been better planning to try to
negotiate to be able to change something to get a...