[14:08] >> good evening ladies and gentlemen.
[14:09] this evening the invocation will be given by brian
[14:16] mcmillin.
[14:16] >> recording in process -- the invocation will be given
[14:19] by brian mcmillin from coastal community church which
[14:22] is the new church that took over for trinity.
[14:25] they had their grand opening on sunday.
[14:29] brian, please come on up.
[14:37] >> wouldn't be complete without trinity community
[14:40] schools.
[14:41] >> gay, we thank you for your elleblghted lears,
[14:44] churches and schools and those who serve our comurptty
[14:47] day in and day out without hesitation.
[14:49] we're thankful for our community and the process that
[14:51] provides this opportunity for our voices to be heard.
[14:53] we pray for our elleblghted leader, protect them and
[14:57] guide them a they carry out their elected
[15:00] responsibilities.
[15:01] lord, I pray for clear understanding tonight as this
[15:04] meeting carries on.
[15:05] lord, I pray we would have an empathetic year that
[15:08] considers all the information being provided and we
[15:10] would all listen wholeheartedly.
[15:12] we I pray for the wisdom to seek your guidance to have
[15:15] the patience to listen and the courage to about.
[15:17] lord, as our city, our county, our state, our nation
[15:20] faces a battle with covid, I pray you protect the great
[15:24] families in this community.
[15:25] that you would establish faith and withhold fear.
[15:29] lord, I pray that you would allow lighthouse point to
[15:32] be a place of healing, comfort, keep our great city as
[15:37] a beacon of light for all to see.
[15:40] in your name we pray.
[15:42] >> started strong.
[15:44] very good, very good.
[15:45] excellent job.
[15:45] >>> that's strong.
[15:46] >> and as quickly as he came in, he left.
[15:50] >> well, good evening, ladies and gentlemen, I would
[15:53] like to welcome you to the regular scheduled city
[15:56] commission meeting of january 11th, 2022.
[15:58] at this point time we realize this evening due to
[16:02] social distancing and the uprising in the omicron
[16:05] virus, we have allowed for a virtual platform along
[16:09] with in-person to continually keep with city quarterrum
[16:12] and to make sure our city stays healthy and is safe.
[16:17] commissioners, can we please stand up and for the
[16:22] pledge.
[16:23] >> I pledge al legdwroons the flag of the united states
[16:27] of america, and to the republic for which it stands,
[16:30] one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and
[16:33] jufghts for all.
[16:34] >> thank you very much.
[16:39] >> nicole, could I please have roll call.
[16:41] [roll call]
[17:24] >> okay, we're all accounted for.
[17:25] >>> thank you very much, jennifer -- or nicole, sorry.
[17:28] thank you very much, nicole.
[17:30] this evening we have a proclamation by mayor glenn
[17:40] troast for arbor day, mayor?
[17:45] >> I'm sorry, I was on mute.
[17:47] >> no problem.
[17:51] >> go ahead, mayor, we can hear you.
[17:53] >>> okay.
[17:56] >> just get fog the proclamation.
[17:58] just getting to the proclamation.
[18:08] >> whereas in 1872 j. Sterling morton proposed to the
[18:11] nebraska board of agriculture that a special day be set
[18:14] aside for the plants of trees and whereas this holiday,
[18:18] called arbor day was first observed with the planting
[18:21] of more than a million trees in nebraska, whereas 2022
[18:24] is the 150th anniversary of the holiday and arbor day
[18:27] is now observed throughout the nation and the world.
[18:30] whereas trees can produce -- reduce the precious
[18:35] topsoil, cut heating and cooling costs, moderate
[18:39] temperature, clean the air, produce life oxygen and
[18:45] provide habitat for wildlife, and whereas trees where
[18:50] ever they are planted are a source of joy and spiritual
[18:57] renewal and where the astcity of lighthouse point will
[19:03] here afterhere in conjunction with florida arbor day,
[19:08] now therefore I, glenn troast by the authority vested
[19:14] in me by the city of lighthouse point claim the 1 fifth
[19:21] in the city of lighthouse point.
[19:25] >> already.
[19:27] commissioners.
[19:28] having been over a month since the last time we met,
[19:31] we've had an opportunity to look over the last meeting
[19:33] minutes.
[19:34] do I have any issues with the meeting minute?
[19:37] >> move approval of minutes of december 14th, 2021.
[19:41] >> second.
[19:42] >> motion on the floor, a second, any discussion?
[19:45] all in favor please say aye.
[19:47] vote passes 5-0.
[19:48] thank you very much.
[19:51] >> corey, treasurer's report, please.
[19:57] >> evening, treasurer's report, january 11, 2022.
[20:01] general fund 9,977, cleanup departments 39,600, garage
[20:09] and trash fund 1,677,155 dollars and 16 cents special
[20:20] purpose funds 3,432,708.27.
[20:25] storm water utility funds $832,074.04.
[20:30] construction and debt service funds $3,90 6,239.73.
[20:38] reserve fubtd currency $617,425.37.
[20:46] all other funds $5,865,719.10.
[20:55] contingency fund.
[20:56] total all funds $31,772,161.
[21:02] 76.
[21:06] >> commissioners any questions for corey?
[21:11] all right.
[21:11] see nothing questions from corey, we're going move onto
[21:14] public comments and request from the floor regarding
[21:17] agenda items.
[21:18] just for everybody is aware, tonight we have three
[21:21] agenda items, one of which is a public as s a first
[21:26] reading and public hearing for ordinance of lighthouse
[21:29] point yacht club which they will have an opportunity
[21:32] speak at thattime.
[21:34] at w that being said, I was talking with nigh coal
[21:40] earlier, we didn't have many people sign up, and I
[21:45] wanted to make sure that we are good with the three mf
[21:52] minute time cap so everyone has a proper opportunity to
[21:57] speak is everybody wok that are we keeping the meeting
[22:03] open on-line?
[22:04] >> yes, we are.
[22:04] >> I'll be keeping a timer here.
[22:06] it will go off at 3-minutes at which pointly ask the
[22:14] person to stop speaking.
[22:17] >> I might want to hear more.
[22:22] >> I might want to hear more.
[22:23] >> you might want to hear more than 3 minutes.
[22:25] >> all I would say is to make sure that we don't at the
[22:31] fourth person speaking we give four minutes I would
[22:34] like to stick with a consistent basis so we're fair and
[22:38] equitable.
[22:39] you dwoont go to four min?
[22:40] >> I rather then extends it somewhat.
[22:42] you're the presiding officer of the admission I defer
[22:47] to your opinion.
[22:48] I have no doubt you'll keep good order.
[22:50] >> commissioners are we okay to extend to four min.
[22:54] >> I'm time with $o three minutes if you want for go to
[22:58] 4.
[22:58] >> I don't care either way, but a second bite of the
[23:02] apple.
[23:03] >> and a third if they want to come back again.
[23:05] we're going to get plenty of time for people to say
[23:08] their peace.
[23:08] >>> three minute?
[23:09] >> we'll do 4 minutes.
[23:11] I move the timer to four minutes at which point in time
[23:14] we'll now open public comments and request regarding
[23:17] agenda teams I'm going to open up to those in the
[23:20] diminish chambers to come up, they have four minutes,
[23:23] please state your name and address, and you'll have the
[23:26] floor for four minutes.
[23:27] f.
[23:30] >> okay.
[23:32] anybody the commission chamber that would like to speak
[23:38] all right, seeing none.
[23:40] nicole, do we have anybody that has their hand raised
[23:43] in virtual attend this would like the speak at this
[23:46] poin in time.
[23:47] >> no, no one is raising their hand.
[23:53] >> all right.
[23:54] anybody that is in attendance on the zoom that would
[23:58] like to speak they can raise their hand, one more
[24:02] second.
[24:03] seeing none.
[24:04] >> mr. President, how many people do we have on the
[24:07] zoom?
[24:08] >> currently went from 34 down to 29, but it apparently
[24:11] right now it is 29 people on a zoom as attended as a
[24:16] nonpanellist.
[24:16] >> thank you.
[24:17] >> yep.
[24:18] >> no problem.
[24:19] at this point in time we close public comment and
[24:22] request for the floor regarding agenda items.
[24:24] report from city administration.
[24:25] since we have none, department reports we also have
[24:28] none.
[24:28] however, commissioners you know at this time in the
[24:31] evening, I would like the say if you have something to
[24:34] ask from any of our department reports to department
[24:37] heads to reach out and ask them the questions now.
[24:40] anybody have anything for our department heads?
[24:42] >> no.
[24:43] >>> I do have one thing for chuck.
[24:46] I know about 2 1/2, actually 3 months ago we had
[24:49] someone come to us on 29th street about striping the
[24:53] road.
[24:53] I want to thank you guys for getting it striped.
[24:55] it looks a lot better.
[24:57] hopefully it is a little bit more definable for those
[25:00] people driving there at night with that quick little
[25:03] turn behind bank of america.
[25:04] the only thing I would ask is there in way in front of
[25:08] the apartment complex we paint a double white line so
[25:11] it stands out that, you know, instead of just having a
[25:14] middle line, they also have the far right hand line,
[25:17] too, chuck?
[25:17] >> so the standard is the single solid white line,
[25:24] we're hoping that designates the roadway alignment more
[25:29] clearly.
[25:30] there is a mobilization fee because it is therm most
[25:33] plastic not regular highway paint so it can be
[25:36] reflective in the evening.
[25:38] I can speak to engineer about widening that line if
[25:41] need be.
[25:41] >>> I appreciate it.
[25:42] definitely stands out more than it ever has.
[25:45] I know the residents on 29th street was happy it was
[25:52] taken care of.
[25:54] >> commissioner maucker.
[25:55] >>> I run garage collection running obtain 24 hours
[25:58] behind.
[25:58] I just wonder if it is seasonal related or holiday or
[26:01] covid or both?
[26:02] and if s there any way to make sure on our twheabz
[26:05] folks know they will get their garage picked up, just
[26:08] may be running late.
[26:09] >> yes, I can handle that.
[26:13] and that you are correct, they did have a lot of
[26:17] quantity right after the holidays.
[26:18] but the bigger issue has been covid.
[26:21] it is not just the drivers and the people working for
[26:24] waste management.
[26:25] it is some of the folks working at the dump and they've
[26:28] experienced extremely long lines dumping the trucks.
[26:30] although they have enough drivers on some days and they
[26:33] get right out to the dump, when they've got trucks
[26:35] waiting for a couple of hours.
[26:37] they're frustrated by the situation, but, I'll ask them
[26:40] to communicate with think on a daily basis and we can
[26:43] definitely put something on the website and on
[26:45] facebook.
[26:46] we always tell anybody who calls to just leave their
[26:49] stuff out until the next day, sometimes they don't get
[26:52] ahold of me to 7, 8:00 at night because they do work
[26:55] until dark.
[26:56] and they check the routes at that time and see what was
[26:59] missed and some of the driervetion you know, they need
[27:02] to go back in the morning and we relay that information
[27:06] to anybody who calls, and the rule of thumb is just
[27:09] leave your stuff out.
[27:10] >> thank you, I think they're doing a great job under
[27:13] some very difficult conditions, but anything we can do
[27:16] to communicate to the residents to know to keep it out
[27:19] is beneficial, and I appreciate I, thank, chuck.
[27:22] >> I agree, thank you.
[27:23] >> commissioner, any other communication with our
[27:28] department heads?
[27:29] >> all right, thank you very much.
[27:30] we have no reports from our city attorney.
[27:32] >> no, sir.
[27:33] >> okay.
[27:35] our reports next board meeting, we have planning and
[27:39] zoning february 1st.
[27:40] code enforcement january 18th, community and appearance
[27:43] board january 20th.
[27:44] special magistrate is february 2nd.
[27:46] and marine advisory is february 3rd.
[27:50] we is have no unfinished business, no new emphasis this
[27:54] evening our number one thing on the docket for
[27:58] ordinance is first reading for ordinance to rezone
[28:01] yacht club the.
[28:03] and consideration of the proposed final site plan for
[28:07] the yacht club redevelopment.
[28:08] >> mr. President, members of the commission, this item
[28:11] is here for first reading this is one of the items that
[28:16] requires two readings by the city commission.
[28:18] assuming the if this goes forward and gets adopted by
[28:22] city admission evening it will be set for a
[28:26] quasijudicial hearing in the future for second reading
[28:29] and adoption what this ordinance does is takes the
[28:33] yachted club floopt is currently zoned delete s 2 --
[28:37] b2a and change toilet the ycu, under proposal.
[28:40] that is why this would not be passed this evening, at
[28:43] the next meeting if you pass this there will be is
[28:47] quent shall adoptions going forward and one will be a
[28:50] final adoption of the ymcu of which this will be zoned
[28:53] into.
[28:54] as part of the ymcu text there are a few requirements.
[28:57] there is a requirement for the site plan as well as the
[29:03] development agreement.
[29:04] the development agreement is on the next item, that is
[29:07] a public hearing tonight as a statute requires two
[29:09] public hearings for the development agreements.
[29:11] so with that, what I would roamed is if you want to
[29:15] move forward with reading of the ordinance and then
[29:17] turn it over to our city planner.
[29:20] he can present, make some presentations on the issue,
[29:23] most of which will candidly be throughout the site plan
[29:26] that it go through planning and zoning review.
[29:29] it did come through with an approval with several
[29:33] recommendations, several topics of discussion, still.
[29:36] na will be presented to you and then you condition ask
[29:39] whatever questions you want.
[29:41] understand this is not quasi-judicial, you'll have a
[29:44] quasi-judicial at the next one, you can go through and
[29:48] provide recommendation, suggestion as you see fit.
[29:52] the applicant will be able to address those same issues
[29:54] as well.
[29:55] they have an opportunity because you'll be making a
[29:59] decision to address some of the issues that they have
[30:03] and that can remain on the item.
[30:06] and just to make it clear, the applicant and their
[30:10] representatives are not considered public comment.
[30:13] they're applicant and they have -- need the opportunity
[30:15] to present their information to you in a that make a
[30:19] time that make sense so if you have any questions I'd
[30:22] be happy to answer them, otherwise we can breed the
[30:25] presentation by staff.
[30:26] you can do the reading now or do it after you hear
[30:28] everything.
[30:29] it is up to the commission.
[30:30] >> I have a quick question for the city attorney.
[30:33] >>> give then is not quasi-judicial but the second
[30:36] meeting on february 8th, on this will be yaws
[30:39] sigh-judicial, I certainly don't want to ask questions
[30:42] twice so what is -- I guess what would be the -- what
[30:46] is the distinction or.
[30:48] >> I think the minutes of this meeting the questions
[30:51] and answers will be brought forward as part of the
[30:54] record.
[30:54] at that time, you know, but any type of sworn testimony
[30:58] that you may need that will be the appropriate time to
[31:02] get that information and make that record.
[31:04] but if you ask a question tonight and get an answer and
[31:08] moving it forward and we're going to pride, we're going
[31:11] proceed founder the direction the commission gives thus
[31:13] evening and set that item up for second reading through
[31:15] whatever action you take this evening.
[31:17] but begun, I would suggest that the minutes of that
[31:21] meeting of tonight's meeting be part of the record in
[31:25] the quasi-judd additional proceeding.
[31:26] and if there is a need to have specific questions and
[31:31] answers in that for the record, we can work with the
[31:35] clerk to make sure that happens okay.
[31:38] >> I have a motion to read by commissioner johnson.
[31:40] >> second.
[31:40] >> second.
[31:41] >> an ordinance for the city commission of the city of
[31:47] lighthouse point florida own yacht poin investment
[31:51] consistenting of 9.5 net acres more or less building
[31:56] number 48431705060 described in exhibit a of this
[32:00] ordinance, to ymca mix use pursuant to to rezoning to
[32:06] the ymcu mix use zoning district provided for zoning
[32:11] district map complex and effective date.
[32:14] >> one more thing to a courtesy to folks.
[32:18] we're all wearing mask, maybe speak more methodically
[32:21] and loud.
[32:22] I'm guilty of the ladder -- latter.
[32:25] probably not guilty of the former but I will do my best
[32:28] as well.
[32:29] >> thank you very much.
[32:33] mr. Cirillo.
[32:35] your show, sir.
[32:38] >> I'm just going run through a brief summary of the
[32:41] rezoning and then when we get to the site plan we'll
[32:44] see how we want to walk through that, because there are
[32:47] a number of oissues and I don't know if we want -- if
[32:50] you want me to run through all of them or if you want
[32:54] to do q & a.
[32:55] >> ideally commissioners, I would think that we would
[32:58] want to tackle each issue as we approach them versus
[33:02] letting them and trying to rehash it back.
[33:04] we're okay with that?
[33:06] as he comes up with one of the bulleted items there is
[33:10] a decision made or discussion to be had, I think we
[33:13] should stop at that point, have the discussion, get a
[33:17] formal what the commission's will is and have our city
[33:20] attorney take notes on.
[33:22] and then we'll move onto the next one.
[33:25] are we all in consense was that?
[33:27] okay.
[33:28] >> and again, for the record jim hickey, address 1800
[33:33] eller drive in ft.
[33:35] lauderdale.
[33:35] just to give a little bit of background.
[33:38] and I know folks have heard it before, I want to make
[33:46] sure folks here or on-line get an understanding of what
[33:54] we're doing, includes 63,173 yacht club, 3,927 square
[33:59] foot tennis center 2,400 reasonvated children activity
[34:05] center along with up to 22 residential units.
[34:10] and 9.5 net acres.
[34:15] the application and this rezoning, and again, this is
[34:19] what we're doing, we're actually changing the map,
[34:23] changing the zoning map from the b2a to a ycmu which is
[34:28] the ycmu district.
[34:29] I'll talk a little bit about that and where we are in
[34:33] the process.
[34:33] so there are other land development actions that have
[34:37] to happen in concert of what we're talking about this
[34:40] evening.
[34:41] the first you've seen before, the first is a land use
[34:44] map amendment, that is changing the actual land use,
[34:47] future land use map to match which development is
[34:50] coming.
[34:50] that is changing a portion the residential area kind of
[34:53] on if bottom of the parcel.
[34:54] and that is going from commercial recreation to
[34:58] residential at six units to the acre.
[35:01] the second is an actual aiment to the tax within the
[35:05] comprehensive plan.
[35:05] we need to go in and make some changes to it to make
[35:09] sure what is allowable in the presencive plan matches
[35:12] what we're doing with the zoning and map and site plan.
[35:15] those all have to be consistent with one another.
[35:17] and the third you've already seen that, too is the
[35:21] creation of the ycmu zoning district.
[35:23] that is the language, the regulations we're putting in
[35:26] place to make sure that the zoning matches up with the
[35:30] site plan and matches up with the land use.
[35:33] all of these need be in concerted in order for it to
[35:36] work.
[35:36] and then, of course, we're talking about the approval
[35:39] of the development agreement, that will be the second
[35:42] item this evening and the proposed site plan.
[35:44] we'll talk about the proposed site plan as part of this
[35:47] process.
[35:48] so the analysis that we went through -- and I went
[35:52] through and identified all of the established
[35:55] requirements in there, is setbacks and heights and made
[35:59] sure that the site plan and the regulations that we
[36:04] have are consistent and we found with that analysis, we
[36:08] found that those items have been addressed.
[36:12] there are a couple of minor typo things we will talk
[36:14] about later with the site plan just to make sure that
[36:17] what is in the zoning district and what is in the site
[36:20] plan are consistent.
[36:21] okay.
[36:24] so we looked at that.
[36:24] we look at proposed height.
[36:27] uses permitted, setbacks, all of those zoning items
[36:33] that we look at to make sure that what we're if there
[36:42] are any portions on that I would be happy to answer.
[36:50] went through line by line of the ycmu and made sure
[36:57] those thifngs there.
[36:58] we're not talking about a gladder house, entry feature
[37:01] and those types of things.
[37:02] we need to make sure we make changes to the text before
[37:06] it comes back to you for second reading.
[37:08] >> is that going need to be stated here?
[37:11] I noticed that when they talked about the ancillary
[37:14] building structures, guard house, which we know is not
[37:17] a guard house anymore or entryway feature, are we going
[37:20] do clean that up, mike in?
[37:22] >> that is going be part of a final adoption.
[37:35] I don't know if you need to include it in your motion
[37:38] whatever the commission feels comfortable doing.
[37:40] but we're taking notes and as we resolve issues we're
[37:43] going to note that and make sure that there is also for
[37:47] you maybe to have to resolve at second reading if that
[37:51] is possible.
[37:51] >>> how many minor issues are we talking about?
[37:54] >> there are not that many in there.
[37:55] we talked about a guard house.
[38:01] we have to look at the when we look at the text
[38:04] amendment we have to make sure height and land use is
[38:08] consistent.
[38:08] that needs to be adjusted.
[38:10] there is just -- I think there are minor edits I saw
[38:13] when I read through it today.
[38:15] probably four or five words we have to change in there.
[38:18] but really, holistically, I will need to go through the
[38:22] entire zoning text with what we have right now to make
[38:26] sure they're consistent.
[38:27] >> let's be clear, you evaluate this with respect to --
[38:31] this san important point -- have you evaluated it with
[38:34] what the applicant has proposed or what was recommended
[38:38] by the planning and zoning board?
[38:41] so when this analysis is based on the site plan.
[38:44] >> as presented by the applicant.
[38:46] >> as presented by the applicant.
[38:47] I wanted to make sure what they're proposing matches up
[38:50] with what is here.
[38:52] if there are any changes -- and I can't think of any
[38:55] off the top of my head -- that would alter the
[38:58] potential text in here, but when we get to that we can
[39:01] talk through.
[39:02] you know, it is just one of those.
[39:06] and same as development, we'll need to read through
[39:09] that and make sure there is no inconsistencies with
[39:13] that it is going to be a lot reading between now and
[39:17] second reading.
[39:18] and I think it is up to staff and the applicants to go
[39:21] through and make sure we can find any of those issues
[39:23] so when we get it back to you it is a complete package.
[39:25] >> okay.
[39:29] >> so that being through, I just wanted to get through
[39:34] and I'm on page 12, rolling through page 12 and this is
[39:39] the site plan conditional approvals.
[39:41] so in this section what we did is identified, and this
[39:45] is when I started in the beginning kind of how you want
[39:49] to walk through these 11 conditions so these were the
[39:53] conditions that were set onto the site plan by the
[39:56] planning and zoning board at its october 5th, 2021
[40:00] meeting.
[40:00] so these are the items that we can kind of walk through
[40:04] if you want.
[40:04] and I just want to say on the record, too, and I think
[40:10] you in front of you the three mums from our -- three
[40:14] memorandums from our traffic engineer.
[40:17] it is my fault for not getting all these, I apologize,
[40:21] it was all my doing.
[40:23] I talked to secretary about it.
[40:25] just with the -- just in a rush to get everything in,
[40:28] you didn't get all the information that you needed for
[40:31] tonight.
[40:32] so I apologize.
[40:32] it wasn't city staff, it was me not sending right
[40:37] information.
[40:37] so for that, I apologize.
[40:41] if first item, though -- and that is the first memo.
[40:59] that was part of the attachment.
[41:00] I do have diana white that is available.
[41:02] she is the traffic engineer.
[41:04] she can walk through this with you, if you'd like.
[41:07] or if you want, we can summarize and.
[41:13] >> continue talking about the yacht club access
[41:16] memorandum.
[41:17] >> sure.
[41:18] >> the one we're talking about.
[41:19] >> that is the one we're talkingto about.
[41:23] >> and tied to a in your report, the city's traffic
[41:27] engineer guarantees with the accident that the use of
[41:30] the boom gates would not create a safety issue if
[41:33] proper stabbing is provided, that is key, if roper
[41:36] stacking is provided.
[41:37] I think I would like to hear if proper stacking is
[41:42] provided, what this is dispute is if there is no
[41:46] dispute.
[41:46] >> and the applicant is actually provided a revise
[41:50] sketch.
[41:50] we want to take a look at it because the can provide
[41:54] that 22 feet, but that 22 feet falls outside of the
[41:57] parcel.
[41:57] so we want to just have a discussion, I think I talked
[42:01] to dianne narcs I think think it is a matter of sitting
[42:05] down.
[42:05] the other issue that she has in that area is the
[42:09] ability for cars to come in and actually do that
[42:12] u-turn.
[42:12] right now it looks like it is going over soant the
[42:16] sidewalk and trees or hedges or something like that and
[42:19] we really didn't want someone to do a 3-point turn
[42:22] there if we have an event and people rushing to get
[42:26] out, right?
[42:27] we want to make sure that is done properly as well.
[42:30] she's offered to sit down with the applicants and work
[42:32] through those issues and see if we can come up with it.
[42:35] I think she think it is more of a geometry issue than
[42:39] potential site plan issue.
[42:40] >> you mean decreasing the radius of center island or
[42:44] however she wants to change the geometry of that turn
[42:48] is that what you're saying?
[42:50] >> I think you have to increase the radius in order to
[42:53] make the turn.
[42:54] >> so increase the radius nicole, is there any way we
[43:00] can put that on the screen.
[43:04] >> what did you want on the screen.
[43:12] >> has the turning radius; is that correct, times?
[43:16] >> yes.
[43:19] >> and I heard a phrase.
[43:20] it sounds like this is feasible, which is one less
[43:25] issue to worry about.
[43:26] but I heard an interesting thing, like, he can get to
[43:30] the 22 feet, which I think was the amount of space
[43:34] needed so every type of vehicle for lack of better term
[43:38] can do the u-turn but it would not be on his parcel, so
[43:43] how can he use land that is he doesn't own?
[43:47] >> there are two separate things and if die glan is on.
[43:50] if I say something wrong, diana let me yell at me.
[43:56] >> let me time to speak in the meantime I will
[43:59] attempter to share the screen.
[44:01] it just no one will be able to see the chambers if I do
[44:09] that.
[44:09] >> die jana white?
[44:11] >> yep, got her.
[44:12] >> thank you, nicole.
[44:15] >> you mentioned, too, the third one is dealing with
[44:22] the property on southernmostnd.
[44:25] >>> right, so there is really three issues here.
[44:29] the first is having the 22 feet after the last driveway
[44:35] and the south to wherever that stop sign is.
[44:40] the second issue on the second page -- next page the
[44:43] u-turns to get through.
[44:46] and I think diana has come up with option, too.
[44:49] I think it needs to be synthesized by the people that
[44:53] know more about the traffic and turn movements than
[44:57] myself.
[44:57] and then the third item was -- I'm sorry my brain just
[45:02] lost the third item.
[45:04] the third item on this was the.
[45:08] >> safety and concern.
[45:09] >> the driveway.
[45:10] I think the concern is especially during if we have a
[45:13] special event that whole idea of the u-turn should not
[45:16] be -- probably cordoned off during the events because
[45:19] you'll have a lot of people coming out.
[45:22] and to have someone turning that someone that might
[45:25] be -- not that everyone is going to be rating out of
[45:29] there, to bow have it blocked out makes it so those
[45:33] people will be inconvenienced slightly when they coming
[45:37] bas back but provide provides for a egress out of the
[45:41] property.
[45:42] >> that is a stipulation we can add into the agreement
[45:48] here into the site -- well, into the.
[45:53] >> we couldout add it to the development agreement.
[45:55] I think that would be, or we make it a condition of the
[45:58] site plan approval.
[45:59] >> okay.
[46:00] >> the site plan issues you would make it a condition
[46:03] of site plan approval.
[46:04] >> all right, what I think he's saying is to me,
[46:07] separation and the distance, that is a site plan issue.
[46:11] >>> correct.
[46:13] >> the first to me, sounds like site plan issues, the
[46:16] third issue sounds like a developer agreement.
[46:19] >>> that is where I was thinking.
[46:20] to me once the site plan is done, it is over with.
[46:23] it is built, but the fact that the developer's
[46:28] agreement would then say, hey, when you have this type
[46:32] of occupancy or this type of event, you need to cordon
[46:37] this off with cones or however they want to do it I
[46:42] want to make sure it is in the right spot.
[46:47] >> if we had it in the development agreement, we did
[46:50] have a section when it gets to this number, you're
[46:52] going have to provide on site and that might be a place
[46:55] where we can put that in, and in addition, you'll need
[46:58] to block off the entry so that the folks can get in and
[47:01] out.
[47:01] it is only going be -- it is a problem foreign those
[47:05] three units, but also if someone comes in and decides
[47:07] they don't want to go to the event, they would have to
[47:11] move around and come back out and just for safety
[47:14] concerns.
[47:14] >> we have some language that we're going to talk to at
[47:19] the development agreement portion about special events.
[47:21] and perhaps that can be an item that needs to be
[47:25] included in any plan that the yacht club gives the city
[47:28] when they're required to give us a plan.
[47:31] yes, we will indicate, we will put this for the
[47:36] southern entrance, southern driveways.
[47:38] >> I don't know, is there a dispute here?
[47:41] sounds like there is a dispute here.
[47:42] >>> no.
[47:43] >> I think, you know, they're working through, you can
[47:46] ask the applicant as well fnlgt but I think what
[47:49] they're saying is it looks like it is a feasible,
[47:52] logistics need to be worked out and can be worked out
[47:55] as part of site plan development process.
[47:57] eth they are or you continue to say you have a
[48:00] condition that has to be signed off on before they can
[48:02] get there first.
[48:03] a lot of times when site plans get approved and they
[48:06] have their concerns you never see the resized site
[48:09] plan.
[48:09] it is up to staff to make sure the conditions are
[48:12] implemented before they get their building permit.
[48:14] so if this can be something that can be handled between
[48:18] first and second reading most likely, but statement --
[48:20] at the same time, it is going to be conditioned staff
[48:23] is going have to review and make sure the plans match
[48:27] what is agreed to before they get any permits.
[48:29] and that is the way would be handle for any condition
[48:32] on any site plan even approved by p & z.
[48:35] >> got it.
[48:36] >> and I would just add, in my experience, too, I might
[48:39] be speaking with the applicant, too.
[48:41] the more we can get correct to you and finalized at the
[48:45] second, the better, because then there is not an issue
[48:48] of what was said.
[48:50] they two feet, no, they said 2.7.
[48:53] going bors and then come back to you.
[48:54] whatever we can do to get that process finished so that
[48:58] we can get that to you, we'll do our best.
[49:01] >> okay.
[49:04] commissioner joffe.
[49:05] >> I just think it would be best between now and
[49:08] everybody has been working so hard on this, but I just
[49:12] think given all that has gone on with this project, I
[49:16] think to the city's benefit, to mr. Paterson's benefit
[49:19] as well spelled out in the site plan, however it ends
[49:23] up getting approved whatever, so he knows.
[49:25] we know, he knows and minimizes down the road.
[49:30] >> attorney agree with this so we can move with this?
[49:33] >> can the attorney of the applicant.
[49:36] >> yes, my next thing is I would like the see terry
[49:39] come up to give his point on that and look at him, get
[49:43] a consensus here the commission and move passed this
[49:45] portion of yet so I'll just address that point then.
[49:48] >> just that one point, please.
[49:51] >> name and address.
[49:53] >> say your name one time and address and we'll go from
[49:55] there.
[49:55] >> 27021 northeast 42nd streetlighthouse point.
[50:00] >> yeah, these items are minor.
[50:02] the first was the turning radius of the car.
[50:09] you have a search of all of this.
[50:10] our traffic engineers auto turn, was just slightly off,
[50:13] but you can see there is so much space there, so there
[50:18] is nothing we're really worried about, but he should
[50:21] provide a new auto turn which is what the city is
[50:25] asking for, very simple.
[50:27] >>> you're in agreement the turn needs to be largeer.
[50:31] >> not larger.
[50:32] >>> whatever the correct shape or geometry is.
[50:36] >> correct, agree.
[50:39] and twroordz the 22 feet from the for the boom, I guess
[50:44] we had calculated 23 feet 8, it was doesn't in a
[50:48] different way, I agree with the way the city's traffic
[50:52] engineer has done it I gave you guys a copy of a
[50:57] suggestion that we need to sit with jim and city
[51:01] traffic engineer and make sure they're a good one to be
[51:06] honest, my suggestion was to move the exiting boom to
[51:10] 22 feet, but considering -- I'm sorry, diana's
[51:13] comments, I feel like the boom should be as close as
[51:17] possible to the stop sign, which maybe we should --
[51:21] I've got a dotted line, you'll see a little further
[51:25] there, maybe we should extend the red line is what I
[51:29] was suggesting that we extend the island a little bit
[51:33] and move the boom.
[51:35] but maybe we should extend it even further.
[51:38] the boom we have 11 feet from the roadway already.
[51:41] maybe it should be closer to the roadway so it is right
[51:43] by the stop sign.
[51:44] I think is something that diana, jim and myself decide,
[51:48] but it is a simple fix in my mind.
[51:51] >> and we're on b now, what about, it says in the
[51:55] report and maybe this has been rendered moot by this
[51:58] development.
[51:59] reconfigures raying of redesign of the exit would be
[52:01] necessary to meet that requirement.
[52:02] >> that is what I did rezy design.
[52:05] >>> is that what you're talking about, this is what
[52:08] you're talking about will accomplish that?
[52:09] >> yes.
[52:10] if they can work all of that, the concern was, you
[52:15] can't, per the code, you can't have that 22 feet.
[52:19] the way it is currently designed there is not
[52:21] sufficient space.
[52:22] so my thought was and then I think what we talked about
[52:41] with diana.
[52:44] >>> diana are you on.
[52:48] >> I'm here, I'm listening, guys.
[52:54] jim provided a picture of a revision that he had spoken
[52:58] to the applicant prior to this meeting.
[53:00] and my concern is that the reservior needs be handled
[53:04] entirely by this site and not by anything else outside
[53:09] of property.
[53:10] so I offered to sit down with the applicant and with
[53:17] jim to provide some geometry alignments that would work
[53:24] better for the boom.
[53:26] >> so just to follow up with that chain where the last
[53:34] southern driveway is located or a geometry of the
[53:41] roadway out sit down whoever the architect and make
[53:47] sure it works.
[53:49] and even if it is moved it is probably minimal once we
[53:57] do the lane.
[53:59] >> it should be handled entirely by this site, that is
[54:03] what is called reservior.
[54:05] >>> if we were to do that, have 100% on silent, the
[54:11] stop -- on site, what as it is currently designed --
[54:15] how many feet do we have to the pile creek paver
[54:21] driveway for the southernmost unit.
[54:24] based on my review of the plans provided to me, you
[54:28] know, it is a plus or minus, since I have a different
[54:33] computer software than the architect.
[54:35] what is provided today is 15 feet 11 inches, ruch live
[54:42] 15 feet.
[54:44] >> six feet, roughly, about 16 six feet we're talking
[54:50] about.
[54:50] >> that we're missing, krejt.
[54:51] >> and how wide is the paver driveway?
[54:57] >> I know it is set too far.
[54:59] >>> at least probably what 16 or 18, I don't have the
[55:11] measurement.
[55:12] 18.
[55:12] >> if you were to shrink that they would have a 12-foot
[55:17] entryway, would they under code be able to open up?
[55:21] >> there are many way, I wouldn't want to shrink it, I
[55:25] rather just turn it.
[55:26] I would rather sit with diana and jame and figure out
[55:29] and see what is on their minds, that is the simplest
[55:33] way just tilt it.
[55:34] there might be our solutions they I have.
[55:38] >> and you're open the that?
[55:39] >> absolutely, very much.
[55:43] >> we know there is a solution and that is simply agele
[55:47] the driveway, I'm trying to avoid that because of the
[55:51] consistent ski of the project.
[55:53] >> commissioners joffe, go ahead.
[56:00] >> on this topic the infamous booms.
[56:05] I read a letter today from somebody.
[56:07] and I watched all the planning and zoning meetings,
[56:10] guard gate, boom, I know they're going to go up right
[56:12] away.
[56:12] I completely understand what you're trying to
[56:16] achievement back there kind of keep it separate, I get
[56:20] all that.
[56:21] my recollection is the planning and zoning board still
[56:24] express some concern about about the booms.
[56:26] I know not part of the conditions, what this person
[56:31] suggested, was that essentially we give it a try.
[56:35] and I know that is not in any of the documents all the
[56:40] decisionmakers are here which is a good thing for you,
[56:44] I I was wondering if you would be amenable to giving
[56:49] the booms a try and if there is a problem that all of
[56:55] these geniuses and smart people that have tried to
[56:58] predict traffic patterns and beged and pleaded and
[57:02] figured out that the city, come up with something has
[57:06] the ability to request that the booms be removed.
[57:10] >> that was my suggestion at the last planning and
[57:13] zoneing.
[57:13] >> that was his suggestion if you remember correctly.
[57:16] >> I didn't memorize the meeting I just attend them.
[57:20] >> he actually recommended that that they give it time
[57:23] trial and planning and zoning board actually said no.
[57:26] actually susan motley mentioned that.
[57:31] >> I don't know what that language would look like,
[57:35] last thing I want to do is fight about the language
[57:38] give it a year, have a look.
[57:41] the I mean.
[57:45] >> it is a complicated.
[57:46] >> it is not complicated but has a lot of moving parts
[57:52] you do want to slow traffic.
[57:55] >> I want to count the traffic and get photo of it and
[57:57] keep it safe and that actually helps with the study.
[57:59] >> I thought, it was a good idea.
[58:03] >> agreed.
[58:09] does anybody think it is a good idea or not a good
[58:12] idea?
[58:13] >> I would they the plans he mentioned on the board
[58:16] meeting they said that isn't what they looked at.
[58:19] it is, I like -- I have no issues.
[58:23] I thought it was a great suggestion.
[58:26] I moved on from it.
[58:28] however, though what I would just say is it becomes
[58:31] arbitrariry of what work, right?
[58:33] >> and so if we have the smartest people doing the
[58:37] geometry and gee metrical shapes and all this fun stuff
[58:40] and they're going over inches and feet and centimeters
[58:43] and whatever and all of a sudden they go, did that
[58:47] work?
[58:47] yes, no.
[58:48] yes, no.
[58:49] then we're back to square one where we're having a
[58:52] discussion.
[58:52] so I have no problems with making it a year, I really
[58:56] don't if that puts people at ease, but again, imcome
[59:00] back to the fact that that was already brought up and
[59:03] it was very clearly put away.
[59:05] >>> okay, well, I'm not going die on that hill in are
[59:08] other hills I'm going to die on tonight.
[59:10] but I think it is a good idea, but I just.
[59:14] >> I agree with jason, I think it is a good idea, too.
[59:18] when I read it I thought, try it.
[59:20] if it doesn't workings then we'll sit down.
[59:24] >> in fairness, it is going to -- it is easier said
[59:28] here than drafting it in an agreement that everybody is
[59:31] going to be clear who gets to decide what doesn't work
[59:34] and stuff like the.
[59:36] >> if it doesn't work, I'm the one that will be getting
[59:39] most of those letters and calls and complaints.
[59:41] >> this is true.
[59:41] >> and just to add, too, that was part of diana's
[59:45] analysis if she did actually look at the booms and
[59:48] whether those would be traffic issues and she doesn't
[59:51] have an as high as.
[59:52] >> that is a fair point.
[59:54] >> she did say it in the memo.
[59:56] >> that there was no issues with the boom.
[59:58] I just.
[59:58] >> and that is a fair point, those I don't want to now
[1:00:02] remove the booms and screw up the hard work people have
[1:00:05] done to figure out whether the booms work.
[1:00:07] that is a fair.
[1:00:10] >> would the commission be open to just having to
[1:00:13] reopener on it, that the booms are in and if eater
[1:00:17] party determines that they're not functioning properly
[1:00:19] or as intended that they will get together and resolve
[1:00:22] the issue with the possibility of having the booms be
[1:00:26] removed because that could happen in a month, that
[1:00:29] could happen in a year you know, we could just put some
[1:00:33] reopener on the that issue in there and leave the
[1:00:36] timing open to terry determining a month in this is not
[1:00:40] working I need to go to the city right away and this is
[1:00:44] why.
[1:00:44] you know, we could possibly build something in the
[1:00:48] development agreement that just provides a general
[1:00:51] reopener on the boom, because right now we have a
[1:00:55] traffic if it doesn't work we both should know it.
[1:01:00] and then we work in good faith to come up with a
[1:01:04] solution and if we can't they come down, something like
[1:01:07] that.
[1:01:07] >> if it doesn't work, I have more interest in getting
[1:01:10] rid of them than you do.
[1:01:12] >>> that is true.
[1:01:12] >> so what do you propose exactly for the term for how
[1:01:16] we state that properly, mike?
[1:01:18] I guess my question, I just want to make sure to
[1:01:21] commissioner joffe's pointed and everybody here, we
[1:01:22] want to make sure we say it right so that we all feel
[1:01:25] comfortable and walk away here heap with this one.
[1:01:27] >> would because it is in the site plan, I would put a
[1:01:32] noalt in the site plan approval it is subject to
[1:01:36] reopening should the city or applicant determine it is
[1:01:39] not functioning as intended.
[1:01:41] leave it at that, something simple.
[1:01:43] that will be a note in the site plan and the planners
[1:01:47] will determine it the applicant will determine it and
[1:01:51] like anything else the site plan if there is an issue
[1:01:55] find way to get a planning and zoning board if we can't
[1:01:59] resolve the issue.
[1:02:00] I'm just saying and you know, I think that is enough
[1:02:05] for if booms with the dwhraftion we have.
[1:02:09] >> and that will be reflected in the sicked reading.
[1:02:11] >> reflected in is the site plan.
[1:02:21] >> everyone is good with the just stated commissioner,
[1:02:26] good.
[1:02:26] >> can we hear from the mayor, does he have an opinion?
[1:02:30] >> mayor troast, do you have an opinion on this?
[1:02:34] diswr.
[1:02:36] >> I agree with the tact that the being proposed I
[1:02:40] think we go with the attack being proposeed and move
[1:02:44] forward.
[1:02:45] >> okay, thank you, f moving onto the next one.
[1:02:49] >> moved on.
[1:02:51] >> we're on a roll.
[1:02:54] number two, I'm sorry, not looking where you're talking
[1:02:57] so number two is really just talking about the
[1:03:00] consistency of the site plan where what we made changes
[1:03:04] to the development agreement and the site plan, we need
[1:03:08] to make sure the site plan is consistent with all of
[1:03:12] those so that is just minor things make surg that we
[1:03:17] have locations were we have that just some of the.
[1:03:21] >> sorry to interrupt, we are all in agreement that
[1:03:24] we're going have guard house everywhere guard houses
[1:03:28] located to be changed to entry feature.
[1:03:30] >> the only point.
[1:03:32] >> yes, I agree with that in concept.
[1:03:35] the point I have is when I went through the ycmu again
[1:03:40] with the city attorney, I believe it is still referred
[1:03:45] to as a guard house in the ycmu are we talking about
[1:03:50] amending the ycmu?
[1:03:51] >> we would have to amend the zone as well.
[1:03:53] we have to change that to entry feature.
[1:03:58] >> and the ycmu.
[1:04:00] >> it is in there several time.
[1:04:02] >> we need to comb through everything, contingent on
[1:04:07] making.
[1:04:08] to make that change.
[1:04:08] >> and the definition, for example, these are important
[1:04:11] definitions, that is where I'm coming from.
[1:04:14] I'm in the ycmu.
[1:04:16] a building that meets the standard of the florida
[1:04:20] building code, located in the commercial recreation
[1:04:23] land use area such as tennis center, which candidly, I
[1:04:27] believe we now call the tennis center bistro, the
[1:04:31] children activity center is now called the kids center
[1:04:34] I think if I'm right.
[1:04:37] a or that is located in the principal residential land
[1:04:41] use area such as a guard house are we talking about
[1:04:45] that as well?
[1:04:47] >> which is fine, but I guess I'm just wondering.
[1:04:54] >> just be consistent throughout our document just
[1:04:57] absolutely, that is who what we're getting at.
[1:05:00] again, we'll probably hit the phasing plan again a
[1:05:03] little bit further down, but just make sure that we've
[1:05:07] got the updates and we understand that the exhibit that
[1:05:10] has the actual site phasing plan that shows what is
[1:05:14] happening matches up with the phasing narrative.
[1:05:17] so that is one of the condition, too we'll talk a
[1:05:19] little bit about that as well.
[1:05:21] >> so we got that taken care of, correct in.
[1:05:24] >> yeah.
[1:05:27] soirks I just want to make sure we're all clear on each
[1:05:30] one of them to move passed that one.
[1:05:32] >> jim, sorry about, that I would just like to make
[1:05:34] sure all the commissioners are good down the line here.
[1:05:36] >> please, interrupt me I've been at commission
[1:05:41] meetings all day just say stop talking.
[1:05:44] >> fla and then those changes.
[1:05:46] and then, yeah, so again, this is just to make sure
[1:05:49] that when this, if this comes back for a second
[1:05:52] reading, the site plan matches up with all of the other
[1:05:56] pieces and all the things we're talking about today
[1:05:59] which are in agreement.
[1:06:00] >> on the third item is the traffic calming along
[1:06:04] northeast 27th, this was one, my apology, this is one
[1:06:08] no one saw until you got this today.
[1:06:11] >> including.
[1:06:13] >> the applicant, right?
[1:06:14] >> including the applicant, again, my apologies for not
[1:06:17] getting this owrkts I don't know if you -- there is a
[1:06:21] summary here this is actually a summary in the report
[1:06:24] in the analysis so my analysis summarizes what is
[1:06:27] there.
[1:06:27] if you want specific questions, again, dianne is is --
[1:06:33] die glan is on-line and she can answer if you need to.
[1:06:40] >> big picture as I understand it, like, this has
[1:06:45] been -- this has been, this is a qualification that has
[1:06:50] been approve by the planning and recommended by the
[1:06:54] planning and zoning board the city's traffic consultant
[1:06:58] has now provided a 2-page memo on a bunch of different
[1:07:03] things candidly, that mr. Paterson and I will spar on
[1:07:07] the cost of other things but I like to be fair about
[1:07:13] things.
[1:07:13] I don't know if he's on board with all of this stuff.
[1:07:16] right now as recommended and as requested by the
[1:07:19] planning and zoning board, you know, this is what the
[1:07:22] city retain traffic says the traffic calming solutions
[1:07:25] have to be, candidly, have no idea whether the
[1:07:28] applicant is good with that or not.
[1:07:30] and I don't think it is very fair to have them right
[1:07:35] now getting for the first time look at it.
[1:07:39] >> I have my comment.
[1:07:40] >> ready to rock?
[1:07:43] >> possible even a sidewalk which is not included in
[1:07:51] this piece and we rule talk to the neighbors.
[1:07:59] the residents affected by it and I don't know if we've
[1:08:02] done that yet or if they want a sidewalk there and that
[1:08:05] is a great cost to everybody, especially the home owner
[1:08:07] who doesn't want sidewalk.
[1:08:08] it is also on the east side where it would probably
[1:08:11] make more logical sense.
[1:08:12] but we have telephone poles there, so I get that.
[1:08:16] >> so why don't we hear what mr. Paterson has to say.
[1:08:20] >> yep, that is what we're going do.
[1:08:21] >> let's just start at the sidewalk which is not on
[1:08:25] here.
[1:08:25] I want a sidewalk, but it is not as you said not
[1:08:29] address simple address just putting in a sidewalk so
[1:08:33] you guys as the city can figure out how to put in a
[1:08:37] sidewalk, we would like the put in a sidewalk, but I
[1:08:41] don't see anything about that addressed yet so let's
[1:08:45] look at the possible traffic calming treatments.
[1:08:47] first of all.
[1:08:48] >> why are we skipping over the first part?
[1:08:50] >> giving -- I moon you want the read the whole thing?
[1:09:00] >> no.
[1:09:01] >> I've got note.
[1:09:02] >> okay.
[1:09:03] >> so let's go to the first page then, the first 100
[1:09:07] feet of pavement by the area closer to northwest 39th
[1:09:10] street is about 28 feet wide.
[1:09:11] you know there is a section as you turn in there, it is
[1:09:15] wider, I'm not sure how that ever came about.
[1:09:17] >> it is parking.
[1:09:20] >> works out great.
[1:09:24] I don't know if that is swale from somebody's house but
[1:09:27] one of the recommendations they're making is to create
[1:09:30] a little bit of an island coming into 27th.
[1:09:32] I love that idea.
[1:09:34] I'd love to pay for that idea if you can swing that, if
[1:09:36] you can say yes to that, I'm all over it.
[1:09:38] and then as they put in here, it creates a bit of a
[1:09:47] neighborhood feel that you're going to want to slow
[1:09:52] down.
[1:09:53] >> the next page is more on makingn comments on what
[1:09:57] kru just saw.
[1:09:58] the pavement on the street is all cracked up and not in
[1:10:01] good condition.
[1:10:02] and thank you very much for doing that.
[1:10:04] because in a few years when you guys look at that
[1:10:07] street and blame me for it, you have proof of your own
[1:10:10] it is not me who destroyed that street.
[1:10:12] they noted that markings should be redone on the
[1:10:16] street, that o and reasphalt the street, because it
[1:10:21] tends to just create more of a neighborhood feeling,
[1:10:25] again, not because I've gone and destroyed anything,
[1:10:29] you've all seen it.
[1:10:31] the other recommendation they're giving is making
[1:10:33] instead of we've got -- I think we have 22-foot-wide
[1:10:37] streets there, I think our code is 21, 22, something
[1:10:41] like that.
[1:10:42] they're recommending a 20-foot-wide street.
[1:10:46] making them narrower.
[1:10:48] I know you're not going to ask me to do I'm absolutely
[1:10:52] not going to agree to rip up an entire street for no
[1:10:56] reason matching the entire city.
[1:10:58] and I don't think that would serve us wisely, it won't
[1:11:03] be safe.
[1:11:04] you know, there is a lot of people that walk up and
[1:11:08] down the street.
[1:11:09] >> I think it gets back to the side, that is one of the
[1:11:13] pieces I was when I just read over this one here, that
[1:11:16] that sidewalk piece adds into it, I know there are
[1:11:19] plenty of people who walk and down the street whether
[1:11:22] to the yacht club or just in general.
[1:11:24] >> an option would be making it a smaller street and
[1:11:27] putting in a sidewalk.
[1:11:28] that is not something I would be throg pay for is
[1:11:32] mulling a entire city street and making it a smaller
[1:11:36] size.
[1:11:37] this street is probably due for -- I don't know if it
[1:11:41] is every 15 years, in ft. Lauderdale they redo the
[1:11:44] streets.
[1:11:45] our street over there is obviously do.
[1:11:48] it is do due for something.
[1:11:53] the concrete median in the beginning I like that, point
[1:11:57] number b.
[1:11:58] >> wouldn't that have to be on the site.
[1:12:01] >> it is not on the site plan, how do we accomplish all
[1:12:07] this condition we like it, assuming everybody there is
[1:12:12] a consensus a we put in the development agreement lou
[1:12:17] do we.
[1:12:18] >> one of the knsz of the planning and zoning board for
[1:12:24] the site plan so we could probably add something there
[1:12:29] that says that whatever is agreed to, we can put a
[1:12:35] sentence in here as well, you know.
[1:12:39] >> and obviously it would be agreed upon median with
[1:12:43] the city and traffic engineer that we would put in,
[1:12:47] obviously.
[1:12:47] >> who own os that land, though.
[1:12:51] >> it is and I'll just say, I would like to have
[1:12:55] something in there saying that yes, we will work as a
[1:13:00] city and the applicant to develop common plan 427 you
[1:13:03] know, my concern is what the opportunities they
[1:13:06] provided for us is you know, speed bumps and humps,
[1:13:10] electronic speed sign, that is usually good for a
[1:13:13] couple of days and people just ignore jits four hours.
[1:13:17] >> if that.
[1:13:19] >> other don't see it.
[1:13:20] I think there is a lot of opportunities if we're truly
[1:13:23] concerned about the speeding.
[1:13:24] we're not going to affect the number of cars but will
[1:13:29] affect the speed of the cars, the sidewalk, something
[1:13:33] we've gotten input from our residents being affected by
[1:13:36] it.
[1:13:37] that is what I want to make sure happens as well.
[1:13:41] >> if I was that person, and I park my truck there I
[1:13:47] would be a little miffed if there is a traffic flow
[1:13:52] coming through there.
[1:13:53] you're right, it is city property but rather than
[1:13:56] trying to agree on these things right now close to,
[1:14:00] just saying, look, we agree there is traffic, we will
[1:14:04] work with the applicant in order do that.
[1:14:07] >> which could include and we could list all these
[1:14:09] things.
[1:14:09] >> but up to and including and not exclusive to that
[1:14:21] other sidewalk we put in.
[1:14:26] we also took a lot of concern and consideration.
[1:14:31] >> which looks amazing. S
[1:14:31] >> we tried our best to make sure we accommodated all
[1:14:35] of our residents.
[1:14:36] >> we have on the east side and west side, east side
[1:14:40] has none of the telephone poles there which the west
[1:14:43] side does.
[1:14:44] west side will take you directly in not having to cross
[1:14:47] another road.
[1:14:48] so these are things that we can work up separately, as
[1:14:52] a different issue, doesn't have to go through all of
[1:14:56] this probably going through planning and zoning.
[1:14:59] >> the city would pay for the sidewalks or the
[1:15:03] applicant?
[1:15:03] >> under this, the applicant.
[1:15:04] >> the applicant.
[1:15:05] >> yes, we've agreed that we would do that.
[1:15:10] >> because there is safe street money, this would be a
[1:15:13] couple of years before we had to put them in.
[1:15:15] >> can I give you my what I would like to see and I
[1:15:20] would love for us and the city to work together to make
[1:15:24] happen is put the sidewalk on the street sphor that the
[1:15:28] code needs to continue just have a sidewalk whrefl the
[1:15:32] curb.
[1:15:32] a city sidewalk has to be a publicity sidewalk has to
[1:15:37] be 5 feet wide, a sidewalk like mine on private
[1:15:42] property can be 4-feet wide we all know about the trees
[1:15:47] and pole, but if we build it, and I don't want to say
[1:15:52] which side right now because I don't want neighbors
[1:15:56] getting angry at me.
[1:15:58] you have to decide.
[1:16:00] >> half will be upset.
[1:16:01] >> that is true if a curb is more expense toiv do a
[1:16:06] sidewalk with a curb.
[1:16:07] but I would then approach county or state or somebody
[1:16:15] to maybe potentially help with funding we said we will
[1:16:22] take on that burden.
[1:16:25] >> and the issue you have with the curbing is we have
[1:16:29] drainage issues.
[1:16:30] >> yes, sir.
[1:16:30] >> right now a lot of the drainage goes into the swale
[1:16:33] which is why we try to bring our grass down to the
[1:16:36] street level so water goes in.
[1:16:37] you're talking about drainage, putting in drains and
[1:16:41] multimillion-dollar for that.
[1:16:42] but I think we can probably come up with something that
[1:16:45] will work for everybody.
[1:16:46] and let's at least somehow memorialize that with
[1:16:53] developer's agreement.
[1:16:55] or site plan.
[1:16:56] >> some of the site plan conditions are being covered
[1:17:03] by the development agreement so we can put something in
[1:17:10] development agreement about a permanent traffic plan on
[1:17:15] northeast 27 tariff including a raised concrete median
[1:17:21] near northeast 39th street.
[1:17:24] >> that specific we would be locked into that but up to
[1:17:28] and including a number of traffic features except to
[1:17:32] understand it.
[1:17:32] >> it is all couple buyia right now and that is great,
[1:17:42] and I understand what you're saying, because I'm having
[1:17:49] a hard time figuring out we can say the parties will
[1:17:58] work together and I think everybody up here agrees
[1:18:05] there needs to be traffic coming on 27th.
[1:18:12] we say you've got to do this and you say no, it is too
[1:18:22] expensive, then what?
[1:18:24] >> hates got to be done.
[1:18:27] >> the reason we have this memorandum is so that we
[1:18:30] have some definitive answers on what we a at least a
[1:18:34] minimum with mr. Paterson, with the applicant, and so
[1:18:38] you know, we went through and I guess it is up to the
[1:18:42] commission you saw.
[1:18:43] these are recommendations and, you know, I guess any
[1:18:47] combination of these would be acceptable to the
[1:18:50] engineer.
[1:18:51] I mean she's on, she can explain that to you.
[1:18:54] but what I got my notes so far just hearing the
[1:18:58] conversations with mr. Patterson would object to a, it
[1:19:02] is too expensive and he's willing to work with the city
[1:19:06] on b, likes the entrance feature on 39th.
[1:19:09] I heard you all make competent comments about the
[1:19:11] electronic feedback sign, not a material thing, that
[1:19:13] could be something the police could do or whatnot.
[1:19:16] it is up to you whether you want to put that specific,
[1:19:19] and another issue is with the speed tables and humps.
[1:19:21] I know we have criteria.
[1:19:24] I believe for distancing along a road and if you want
[1:19:28] that installed consistent with the criteria, you could
[1:19:30] say, you know, the conditions to meet that condition
[1:19:33] and planning and zoning board would be -- and again,
[1:19:36] I'm not trying to put words in everybody's mouth, but b
[1:19:39] & d in this them more and that go into the site plan as
[1:19:44] condition for the site plan.
[1:19:45] and if there is anything and then the sidewalk is
[1:19:49] already in the developer's agreement, it says 1300
[1:19:53] linear feet, at a location paid for selected by the
[1:19:57] city.
[1:19:57] you know, city is responsible for permitting and
[1:20:00] construction and he's responsible for paying.
[1:20:03] >> correct.
[1:20:04] >> so the sidewalk is covered in development agreement
[1:20:09] already, it is just that the conditions for traffic
[1:20:14] calming on northeast 27th and not.
[1:20:17] there would be the number and locations of permanent
[1:20:19] traffic devices shall be determined by the city which
[1:20:22] is speed humps.
[1:20:23] that is in the development agreement already.
[1:20:25] >> correct.
[1:20:26] >> so really, at least four is if you're reaching
[1:20:31] consensus, b as in boy.
[1:20:34] and that could be put into a site plan and anything
[1:20:39] else you all discuss this evening, additional signage,
[1:20:43] additional speed limit signs, you know, remember
[1:20:47] anything we do with traffic control twices.
[1:20:50] that is done in broward county through an local
[1:20:54] agreement with them.
[1:20:55] there should be a study, approach broward county and
[1:20:59] say need a sign there, no you don't.
[1:21:02] distance requirement for speed signs just like stop
[1:21:07] signs and everything else.
[1:21:09] the there is a comment here removing the police slow
[1:21:15] down signs, I think resident dossing that treat those
[1:21:21] as any other signage.
[1:21:24] but, maybe if you're looking for a consensus to move
[1:21:28] on, you've got speed humps covered in 1122, and
[1:21:32] development agreement and from the recommendations
[1:21:35] here, you go with b.
[1:21:37] >> I'm trying to visualize, I told you ten times I'm
[1:21:42] horrible at visualizing this stuff.
[1:21:44] >> design would have to be approveed.
[1:21:45] >> I know, you're coming down 39th and heading east,
[1:21:48] you're making a left on 27th to go into the main
[1:21:52] entrance of the yacht club and talk about putting a
[1:21:55] "welcome to the yacht club sign."
[1:21:57] >> I'll standing here I like the idea, I love the
[1:22:01] suggestion, but I seriously doubt the neighbor who owns
[1:22:04] that property there is going agree to just give up his
[1:22:07] space, number one.
[1:22:08] number two, the immediate would have to be so narrow
[1:22:13] we're not going to get landscaping and we know what
[1:22:18] nonlandscape medians look like.
[1:22:20] as much as I would love to see that, I just can't see
[1:22:23] how it would work on a 22-foot wide.
[1:22:26] >>> I'm think again, the idea is slow traffic.
[1:22:28] what I'm thinking and I think that is what the rest of
[1:22:33] the paragraph b is talking about is somewhere on 27
[1:22:37] thrt is essentially a little -- they do it in
[1:22:41] deerfield.
[1:22:42] >> the narrowing.
[1:22:44] >> I'm not a traffic engineer, I do question whether
[1:22:48] that is going to anger some of the residents in the
[1:22:53] area.
[1:22:53] I don't know why we don't do that in other parking lots
[1:22:56] of the city.
[1:22:57] to me to me the not the sign, but like the median I
[1:23:05] hate just doing this without something to do look at.
[1:23:10] >> commissioner did you have something to say.
[1:23:13] >> no, sir.
[1:23:14] >> my concern is just that, from most of what we're
[1:23:17] working with today is within the confines of a parcel.
[1:23:19] and this is the only part that we're talking about,
[1:23:23] coming outside now, on 27th terrace, and we're talking
[1:23:27] about residents, residents how they're going to be
[1:23:30] affected and, you know, with the traffic in and out,
[1:23:33] we're trying to make some sort of calculation of how
[1:23:37] much they're going to be affected and try to come up
[1:23:41] with solutions to it that may affect them even worse
[1:23:45] because if you were to do a median or median like
[1:23:49] deerfield has done you've got to go down and make
[1:23:53] u-turn and I do see it working in deerfield and you
[1:23:58] know, narrow the actual roadway in, not tearing it up,
[1:24:01] put the median there.
[1:24:03] that is usually in someone's property and get a little
[1:24:06] bit more landscaping or it is either a small hedge down
[1:24:09] there or, just regular grass, but, you know, kind of
[1:24:12] brings it in a little bit.
[1:24:14] those are all option os.
[1:24:15] I don't really see that here.
[1:24:16] but I don't want to be adversely affecting the
[1:24:20] residents of 27 terrace with what we're trying to do
[1:24:24] because of the yacht club let's make sure whatever we
[1:24:29] do, however we present this, something we put a lot of
[1:24:33] othought into, like we have with north end of the city,
[1:24:38] light house drive and other thins we looked at and said
[1:24:43] how is this going to affect everybody.
[1:24:46] we have a large residential units in there.
[1:24:49] let's figure out a way to do it.
[1:24:51] I don't want to be locked in including a raised conch
[1:24:57] crete median, I would rather have other than open-ended
[1:25:01] statement, I understand what you're saying about the
[1:25:06] generalities of itf but this is where great minds like
[1:25:11] you now incorporate the needs and wants of residents.
[1:25:15] because the rest of the stuff, that is the city, that
[1:25:19] is the applicant.
[1:25:20] this is teaming with us.
[1:25:23] >> I 100% agree with you commissioner.
[1:25:25] >> I just don't know how to fix it.
[1:25:27] >> I don't think that on some things we're going to
[1:25:31] have a full consensus of things that are going o -- or
[1:25:34] we're going be able to define without putting residents
[1:25:37] input and spending time on it to you point.
[1:25:40] as commissioners, we need have some sort of that is
[1:25:45] about it.
[1:25:46] >> that was going be my point, we have a lot to cover
[1:25:51] tonight and we're arguing over things that the
[1:25:54] applicant has no really no or minimal say-so.
[1:25:57] I would suggest we stay with what we came here to do is
[1:26:02] go through the plan.
[1:26:03] alm these things are important, I don't mean to
[1:26:06] minimize this but we're never going get through tonight
[1:26:08] we dwhabt the city should do or city shouldn't do.
[1:26:11] we're here for the applicant.
[1:26:12] >> so with that being said, I think that
[1:26:15] commissioner -- I'm sorry, commissioner johnson, I
[1:26:18] apologize.
[1:26:18] >> just wanted to ask one thing, why was it not
[1:26:22] considered a possibility to put stop sign like the
[1:26:25] streets that come into that street, a couple of stop
[1:26:28] thans street.
[1:26:29] why is not one of the consideration.
[1:26:31] >> can I provide -- diana.
[1:26:35] >> so stop signs are not considered traffic calming
[1:26:40] devices for the manual unit for traffic devices, and
[1:26:44] minor traffic movement which are your side street,
[1:26:48] every time you put a stop sign and not warranted by the
[1:26:53] required travel or traffic demands, what it does is,
[1:26:57] you stop when then you accelerate until your next stop
[1:27:02] condition and once you stop again because you have
[1:27:06] another symptom sign and accelerate again for another
[1:27:10] stop condition.
[1:27:11] so that has been proven and studied having that stop
[1:27:16] control uncontrolled intersection that cnn not
[1:27:19] warranted and it doesn't work as a traffic calming
[1:27:24] device.
[1:27:25] and if you open the green book there is an entire
[1:27:27] chapter of saying things we can do and cannot do and
[1:27:30] stop signs are not considered traffic control devices.
[1:27:32] I mean traffic calming devices.
[1:27:38] >> I would just add, too if your signage and everything
[1:27:42] is run by briar county, they will not install a stop
[1:27:46] sign unless there is a warrant at the stop sign for the
[1:27:50] other o, I worked for other cities where, they
[1:27:53] miraculously a stop sign appeared and the county went
[1:27:56] out and took the stop sign out.
[1:27:59] so, yeah, it has to meet strict criteria for them to
[1:28:03] meet a stop sign.
[1:28:05] >>> to move this forward, I know commissioner long had
[1:28:08] it, I thought had worded it properly, about having the
[1:28:12] city along with the traffic engineer from the explibt
[1:28:15] the city traffic engineer come up with a swleution that
[1:28:19] commissioner long wanted to memorialize that and get a
[1:28:22] consensus among the commission if I could do, that I
[1:28:26] would appreciate it.
[1:28:27] >> this is part of the development agreement.
[1:28:29] >>> mike, can you make sure we note this, please.
[1:28:32] >>> put in there in regards to the traffic calming on
[1:28:36] 27 terrace it would be determined to both the city,
[1:28:39] city and the applicant for the best use of traffic
[1:28:43] calming fateture, and without even going specifically
[1:28:46] up to and including you can put that in there, but
[1:28:50] we're not locked into having this piece here and having
[1:28:53] that piece there.
[1:28:54] but we're open for deeper discussion on this.
[1:28:57] because that is part of the developer's agreement, it
[1:29:00] does inside to be included in here and that is why
[1:29:03] we're talking about it now, but rather going into
[1:29:06] specifics, without any automatic real depth into it, we
[1:29:08] know there is a lot of ooptions out there, let's have
[1:29:11] it written so those options remain available and we're
[1:29:14] not locked into it through the developer's agreement.
[1:29:16] >>> I have proposed the city and applicant will develop
[1:29:21] a permanent traffic calming plan for northeast 27th
[1:29:25] terrace.
[1:29:25] >> right.
[1:29:27] and that as far as when that needs to be done.
[1:29:30] >> I think, I mean that is a fair question, that for me
[1:29:34] is the stick, right?
[1:29:35] >> completed prior to the certificate of autothen
[1:29:38] cities city.
[1:29:39] >> it is a plan, you know, so that is the stick I'm
[1:29:45] wondering, does that mean he.
[1:29:47] >> I'm not in control of getting that permit.
[1:29:53] >> building the stuff is easy, it is getting a
[1:29:56] permitted and can designed.
[1:29:57] >> right.
[1:29:58] >> oklahoma.
[1:29:59] >> I'm fine with that.
[1:30:00] >> commissioners?
[1:30:02] >> okay, commissioners all in consensus here.
[1:30:06] all right, we know the city and mr. Paterson have to
[1:30:09] get a plan together that they can both agree on with
[1:30:12] their professional.
[1:30:13] >> can I ask, how are we going to get that plan
[1:30:17] together because we've got our oengineers given the
[1:30:20] rimmeddations.
[1:30:20] I'm not sure what other.
[1:30:21] >> I think there are more recommendations possible out
[1:30:25] there.
[1:30:26] you used them different cities and light house point.
[1:30:31] >> we have the speed bumps in and the sidewalks.
[1:30:34] >> and bros and continues on all of this.
[1:30:37] >> I think we're talking like, the logistics of
[1:30:40] actually where it is going to go and that kind of
[1:30:43] stuff.
[1:30:43] >> where the speed bumps would go and sidewalks would
[1:30:46] go.
[1:30:46] I feel like those two alone to take care of the issue.
[1:30:50] >> and candidly, let's just say it, we've had the great
[1:30:56] speed bump debate many types we're not cool putting.
[1:31:01] >> 149th street.
[1:31:03] >>> not only that.
[1:31:04] >> just being honest with each other.
[1:31:09] >> we're not deciding where the sidewalks are going to
[1:31:12] go, but putting speed bumps there.
[1:31:15] >> I think the whole same thing, you know, this deal
[1:31:20] with the part of the development agreement feels
[1:31:23] outside the purview of the department itself.
[1:31:27] I think there has to be some sort of information
[1:31:30] provided to them, because they wanted a sidewalk, maybe
[1:31:32] they don't.
[1:31:33] at that point at least we know where we're stand ing
[1:31:36] from a city per spective and represent what is best in
[1:31:39] that particular area, even if it is a safety issue,
[1:31:42] obviously that will take precedent over a number of
[1:31:45] things.
[1:31:45] if it is a drainage issue coming to putting in meetians
[1:31:50] and curb and stuff like that, that is all different
[1:31:54] issues, I think because of the fact we're dealing with
[1:31:58] properties that our oresidents live with they have to
[1:32:02] have input or knowledge to some sort of survey or
[1:32:06] anything else, that is the pointed -- point.
[1:32:09] it has to be done as farther of this process.
[1:32:11] >> if I may interrupt for a sect.
[1:32:14] >> yes, thank you, mayor.
[1:32:16] >>> the off-site improvements for the sidewalks weren't
[1:32:19] negotiated at lernlgt with the applicant consider
[1:32:22] length with the applicant.
[1:32:23] and the thought process was they're necessary because
[1:32:26] of the traffic flow that will be occurring on 27
[1:32:30] terrace.
[1:32:31] the plan was to put the side tbhawk the right of way,
[1:32:35] which would most likely because of where the telephone
[1:32:39] poles are bon the right side of the road and the city
[1:32:43] engineer and city traffic consultant are the one that
[1:32:47] are supposed to come up with that plan and then the
[1:32:51] responsibility was, that the city would pay for it and
[1:32:55] the applicant would reimburse the city to 1300 loiniar
[1:32:59] feet.
[1:32:59] obviously if we're able to get some grant money, that
[1:33:04] would reduce the developers contribution towards it,
[1:33:07] but that is not a consideration that we would be to get
[1:33:12] money from the npor or another source.
[1:33:16] that is why, the developer's agreement contains the
[1:33:18] provision it is, is because it is viewed as being
[1:33:22] necessary and if you recall, we went through the same
[1:33:26] survey up on the north section of town on lighthouse
[1:33:30] drive.
[1:33:30] when we put those sidewalks in and we came up with a
[1:33:34] plan that created a very meandering sidewalk, but at
[1:33:38] the same time, was very attractive, and it created a
[1:33:42] huge safety enhancement for the people that walked that
[1:33:45] area.
[1:33:45] >> absolutely.
[1:33:46] >> so I'm looking at the development agreement real
[1:33:51] quick, 11.22 traffic calming device.
[1:33:54] number shall be determined by the city, doesn't that
[1:34:01] say also didn't you agree pay for these?
[1:34:08] >> yes, the developer will pay for it, that is part of
[1:34:12] the plan.
[1:34:13] >>> plus or minus and city's disition discretion where
[1:34:16] it will be located.
[1:34:18] >> all right.
[1:34:19] >> commissioners.
[1:34:20] we move passed this one.
[1:34:22] >> ready.
[1:34:23] commissioner joffe.
[1:34:26] okay.
[1:34:27] onto the next one.
[1:34:28] jim.
[1:34:28] >> onto the next one.
[1:34:29] number four.
[1:34:31] number four this is something myself, mr. Paterson has
[1:34:38] discussions, the concern with this is once have another
[1:34:45] pair of eyes.
[1:34:47] and I think we just want to make sure everything is
[1:34:53] being addressed.
[1:34:54] when we were going through p & z and getting wanted to
[1:34:58] make sure we have the most recent phasing plan so that
[1:35:02] we can all take a look at it just to move on and that
[1:35:08] is really 4 and number five, too.
[1:35:10] and that was, I think one of the issues I think we
[1:35:15] brought up that is there was some concern with, again,
[1:35:18] older phasing when we had a 3-phase plan.
[1:35:21] phase 1 they were going have access along the docks and
[1:35:26] make them accessible the whole time the accessibility
[1:35:30] is needed until the done, when think get done there is
[1:35:35] no need for the access.
[1:35:37] I both in agreement that we need to make sure
[1:35:40] everything is safe and secure out there for folks to
[1:35:43] van active construction site and we'll have people
[1:35:46] walking through it.
[1:35:47] we want.
[1:35:50] >> commissioners any questions or concerns with that?
[1:35:53] >> I would just like to hear -- I just have a hard
[1:35:56] time -- I would like to hear from the fire marshal
[1:35:59] based on, it gives me some pause to wait to get fire
[1:36:03] marshal approval prior to the.
[1:36:05] maybe it is fine to give another review prior to it,
[1:36:08] but I would like to hear from the fire marshal.
[1:36:12] we'll get to it later, maybe not an issue but
[1:36:16] discussion about it.
[1:36:17] have we received an updated phasing plan from the
[1:36:27] applicant?
[1:36:29] >> I guess my point is, I would like to hear from the
[1:36:33] fire marshal that he has approved to most updated
[1:36:36] phasing plan as sits here today and comfortable with
[1:36:39] the procedure.
[1:36:40] that is a big, big issue in my book.
[1:36:42] not saying can't look at it before the building permits
[1:36:47] is issued.
[1:36:48] >> the chief the on, commissioner joffe and I believe
[1:36:54] he's ready to speak.
[1:36:57] chief morrell.
[1:36:57] >> yes, I'm familiar with the phasing plan and the new
[1:37:01] phasing plan and watching it carefully delete s
[1:37:04] carefully for changes and looking for anything that
[1:37:07] will not affect emergency services at this time.
[1:37:10] >> okay, go ahead.
[1:37:11] >> thank you, chief.
[1:37:12] >>> you're welcome.
[1:37:13] >> okay, so that is number 4 checked off, correct?
[1:37:17] >> we're good in.
[1:37:18] >> good with the guardrail.
[1:37:20] >> guardrail.
[1:37:20] >> on the phasing plan.
[1:37:22] >>> need to update, if note.
[1:37:24] again, just to make sure they were available for the
[1:37:31] time that is necessary during construction.
[1:37:35] >> we can edit, I think it is on there just maybe the
[1:37:38] way it is worded.
[1:37:39] we can change whatever we want.
[1:37:41] >> I think the way it was worded and three phases at
[1:37:46] this point.
[1:37:47] >> moving onto number 6.
[1:37:49] mr. Hickey.
[1:37:51] >> number 6 and if I remember correctly on this one,
[1:37:57] that it didn't include but if I remembered.
[1:38:02] >> again this is the planning and doning board wanted
[1:38:07] start of construction because the discussion was if we
[1:38:11] could get the ball and landscaping in that would
[1:38:15] somewhat buffer the construction going on behind it and
[1:38:20] construction fence there.
[1:38:21] and have a established wawm there.
[1:38:28] >> I think that was.
[1:38:32] >> mature landscaping so on and so forth part of that
[1:38:36] discussion.
[1:38:36] >> not wring in the developer's agreement already?
[1:38:38] >> it is.
[1:38:39] it is in the developer's agreement, but I any in your
[1:38:43] narrative description that is tamped is only referenced
[1:38:46] to one or the other.
[1:38:48] it is I don't think anything that the commission needs
[1:38:51] resolve.
[1:38:51] >> it is both.
[1:38:52] >> and I believe it was the wall and the f the
[1:39:01] landscaping it looks you know nice for the neighbors
[1:39:07] during construction.
[1:39:09] >> that is covered in development agreement.
[1:39:11] it those be like I said.
[1:39:15] >> that was the intent, jim, and if it is worded wrong,
[1:39:18] we'll fix it.
[1:39:19] >> okay.
[1:39:19] moving on, number 6, number 7.
[1:39:23] >> onto number 7 this was a discussion about, how to
[1:39:28] kind of let neighbors know how I think there was a lot
[1:39:33] of concern about the board had concerns that if they
[1:39:38] were going do a 25 cement trucks one day and usually
[1:39:43] only get two or three and somehow there would be a
[1:39:48] notice to neighbor to say we're going have a lot of
[1:39:54] traffic kind of be prepared and those types of things.
[1:39:58] I went back and forth but I they really didn't say,
[1:40:05] basically what their recommendation was, anything that
[1:40:09] was additional beyond regular day-to-day construction
[1:40:13] so I don't know.
[1:40:16] >>> in the developer's agreement shall provide advance
[1:40:27] public notice through social media platforms.
[1:40:35] >> anything significant, they need to put on a social
[1:40:38] media.
[1:40:38] >> and do we between define that?
[1:40:41] >> tiktok?
[1:40:44] >> conversations using websites and using.
[1:40:49] >> next door.
[1:40:50] >> we don't have anything specific on the mechanisms on
[1:40:53] that.
[1:40:54] I guess the issue would be if there is a train, a line
[1:40:58] of cement truck and nobody knew about it we could go
[1:41:01] and figure out why not.
[1:41:03] it is up to you all whether you want to get more
[1:41:07] specific osh the juice of social media or the specific
[1:41:10] platforms mr. Paterson can describe what his intent was
[1:41:13] behind that gnu that language was added to the
[1:41:16] development agreement to address that condition of the
[1:41:19] planning and zoning board.
[1:41:20] >> I have a suggestion, how about wesen sends out a
[1:41:24] mailer to everyone down our 27th drive, that is really
[1:41:28] the only one that could be affected by this, saying
[1:41:31] that we will do this on our general facebook page, not
[1:41:35] our member only facebook page and give them access to
[1:41:39] it and if those people are concerned they would -- I
[1:41:42] don't have a facebook of my own, but put notices on it
[1:41:46] or whatever you do with facebook.
[1:41:48] >> commissioner joffe is the facebook guy.
[1:41:53] he's secretly the facebook.
[1:41:55] your wife facebook enough for everybody.
[1:41:57] >> if we let them allee is where they will be and if
[1:42:01] they are concerned they will hashtag themselves or
[1:42:04] whatever it is they do.
[1:42:06] >> this is even something I don't want to micromanage.
[1:42:10] >> okay.
[1:42:11] >> if I could just make the suggestion because I know
[1:42:15] that is for you, but a lot of the stuff that we're
[1:42:19] talking about with the major concrete pours coming in,
[1:42:22] public police will play fellow that as far as traffic
[1:42:25] support as part of the mot from the a city perspective
[1:42:29] we could use the system which is more of the
[1:42:32] administrative through the city and police department
[1:42:35] runs that because that goes out to all residents and
[1:42:38] just because I don't live in the area, doesn't mean it
[1:42:41] would be affected if I happen to be going to you know,
[1:42:45] meet somebody on that street and suddenly, you know, we
[1:42:49] have this traffic problem.
[1:42:50] I think social media is great, I think 96om has a much
[1:42:56] better broadcasting.
[1:42:57] >> or broader range not only affect the people who are
[1:43:00] right there but the ones driving down the street.
[1:43:03] 39this a busy street, 27th terrace is a busy street and
[1:43:07] all those streets in between.
[1:43:09] let's also include this as a responsibility of the
[1:43:12] city, too, to be informed that we can use our platforms
[1:43:16] as well.
[1:43:17] >> so we would just notice the plicht of what we're
[1:43:20] going to be doing?
[1:43:21] >> I would say work with the administration on that
[1:43:25] point but I think social media in many respects is not
[1:43:29] affecting everybody within that area you may have older
[1:43:33] people that don't do facebook, instagram, twitter
[1:43:36] someone young and vibrant and you just don't want to it
[1:43:40] and that is fine we have so many in our city that and
[1:43:45] it is going come right to them as an alert.
[1:43:48] >>> we can also do sent out a notification to all the
[1:43:52] neighbors in our immediate area, because I didn't even
[1:43:55] know about this.
[1:43:56] I would like our neighbors to know about it.
[1:43:58] >> as a resident you should know.
[1:44:01] >> I should.
[1:44:01] >> mike.
[1:44:03] just so you know, part of the plan was that whatever
[1:44:06] terry sent out to notify the neighbors via whatever
[1:44:09] medium he would use he would use that to notify the
[1:44:12] city which would enable the city to post it through
[1:44:15] 96el and other benefits and that is part of the plan
[1:44:19] even though it is run written.
[1:44:21] the goal was to place the burden on if floibt provide
[1:44:28] the notification.
[1:44:29] >> right, that is why I talk about the collaborative
[1:44:32] piece and you've got to tell us, first.
[1:44:35] >> there is always the option, I'm surprised
[1:44:39] commissioner joffe didn't originally but iknow he's a
[1:44:44] huge fan of door hangers.
[1:44:46] >> there is some portion if you see up and see someone
[1:44:49] on your door for people who live in the area you can at
[1:44:52] least blast out an e-mail of what is coming is another
[1:44:55] aspect of it, too, if you wanted to localize people on
[1:44:57] those different streets.
[1:44:58] >> all right, so moving on, number 8, mr. Hickey.
[1:45:02] >> number 8, has been resolved in the phasing
[1:45:06] narrative.
[1:45:06] it was an issue of the timing of it perfect.
[1:45:14] >> moving onto number 9 mr. Hickey, sir number tune is
[1:45:19] lengthy and goes on to really number 10 so, I think
[1:45:24] this has been a discussion with I'm not sure if you all
[1:45:30] have had this discussion with you all as group is owe
[1:45:35] know planning and zoning had an issue on this and
[1:45:40] again, the west side and the west side having the
[1:45:44] building separation at 16 where on the arrest side the
[1:45:49] building separation is 24 they were trying to look to
[1:45:54] see if there was a way to make that change so that
[1:45:59] there would be sufficient the same building separation
[1:46:03] on the west side as on the east side.
[1:46:07] further they went displeu it is in the backup of page
[1:46:13] 15 where you go through and look at am of open space
[1:46:20] and on the east side is two-thirds of that that doesn't
[1:46:26] take into account the new clubhouse, that is the
[1:46:31] parking area on the plan.
[1:46:33] there is a little bit larger area on the east side
[1:46:37] where the asteast side the only real large area is on
[1:46:41] the south end.
[1:46:42] south of the last three towns.
[1:46:45] >> so that was the discussion for analysis purpose, I
[1:46:50] did do some analysis on some adjacent communities to
[1:46:55] give you an understanding of where the setbacks are.
[1:47:00] in other parts of lighthouse point, it is a 10-foot and
[1:47:06] three story, but the maximum building height is 90.
[1:47:12] so there is a little bit of -- those within the main
[1:47:17] code is a 90-foot or 117 soe a little wider so
[1:47:21] therefore they take up a little bit more real estate as
[1:47:26] you look up and down the canal area and then number 10
[1:47:31] was looking at the potential of they said can you move
[1:47:36] that?
[1:47:37] can we take the buildings and move everything down?
[1:47:40] the issue.
[1:47:40] >> to the south, just want to make sure to the south,
[1:47:44] where the open spot is.
[1:47:46] >> you can move everything down, the issue becomes if
[1:47:49] there are driveways then the egress [inaudible]
[1:47:53] in order for that to happen there would have to be some
[1:47:58] sort of ochange to that plan where the driveways count
[1:48:02] exit out same example if everything moves down down 60
[1:48:06] feet we've got basically no space between [inaudible]
[1:48:11] last driveway and the egress and something safety and
[1:48:15] security would have to address reorganizing the access
[1:48:19] point, potentially, you know, is it less unit thans
[1:48:23] side to make that work?
[1:48:25] that is the discussion that the planning and zoning
[1:48:33] board would have.
[1:48:35] >> commissioners I have a feeling this will be the
[1:48:38] heavy topic of the evening so let's hear it.
[1:48:41] I am going to start off with ladies first, commissioner
[1:48:46] johnson.
[1:48:46] >> well, I don't really see the need to go to 24.
[1:48:55] my house and all the houses on my street are the 18 or
[1:49:01] 16 feet between the two houses and they're respectively
[1:49:05] close because mine is one of the few remaining
[1:49:09] one-story houses around and when the two-story houses
[1:49:13] there with their all the roofs, there are only 16 feet
[1:49:18] between them and with the way that mr. Paterson
[1:49:22] designed the houses that town house, redesigned them,
[1:49:25] actually to have certain architectural design so
[1:49:29] they're not all jammed in like total blocks next to
[1:49:33] each other, I personally think that the 16 feet gives
[1:49:38] him overnight though it is less, I feel strongly it
[1:49:42] gives enough space.
[1:49:44] and I went around looking like, tillison square there
[1:49:47] is no space between there, there all together and I
[1:49:51] don't know if it is even 16 feet between the two
[1:49:55] buildings, but we allowed it over there.
[1:49:58] >> and it is going be all the.
[1:49:59] those are taller.
[1:50:01] >> and they're taller, I think, appear to be taller.
[1:50:07] and, you know, I looked around at some other o, and the
[1:50:11] ones that are going in on 39th street when and if they
[1:50:15] come they're pretty much all together, so I don't know,
[1:50:19] at this state with everything going so far down the
[1:50:22] road, I just feel like I think that the people looking
[1:50:26] across the way to these buildings are going be looking
[1:50:30] at the beautiful buildings, beautiful landscaping,
[1:50:32] lovely yachts in the back there, I don't think for us
[1:50:36] to sit here and argue over eight feet is really going
[1:50:40] to make the difference between pass and fail on this.
[1:50:43] that's my say on it sm.
[1:50:45] >> commissioner maucker.
[1:50:46] >> I'm with sandy.
[1:50:48] I would push for 24 feet.
[1:50:50] I think it is a good idea, but not a deal-breaker for
[1:50:55] me.
[1:50:55] I think the applicant has made it pretty clear if his
[1:50:59] financials work the way he has set up, we have a
[1:51:03] decision to make, we can approve this project or reject
[1:51:06] it.
[1:51:06] I would not reject it based on this, I would approve
[1:51:11] with it the spacing as it is outlined in this planning.
[1:51:16] I think what he intends to do with the yacht club and
[1:51:20] parcel is extraordinary.
[1:51:21] I would like -- I think it is a big asset to the city
[1:51:27] and would like to see it go forward it is not a
[1:51:31] dealbreaker for me and I would approve it as it sits.
[1:51:36] >> okay.
[1:51:37] >> commissioner joffe.
[1:51:39] >> this is the one where it falls apart in a way I
[1:51:45] bolings I struggled over this.
[1:51:47] commissioner maucker has hit the nail on the head.
[1:51:51] we're at a point, where it is really, we've got to
[1:51:54] decide whether, I don't think you're ever going to walk
[1:51:57] out of here with any sort of approval of the
[1:52:00] redevelopment of the yacht club.
[1:52:02] I was prepared to approve something tonight, it is
[1:52:06] whether we're going do it terri's way or planning and
[1:52:11] zoning way.
[1:52:12] and candidly, I have been saying to you for two years
[1:52:15] I'm going defer to the planning and zoning board on
[1:52:19] these types of things when it comes to density.
[1:52:22] and I just have not heard a good reason why not to
[1:52:26] follow the recommendations of the planning and zoning
[1:52:29] board on this.
[1:52:30] in a waiz I wish I felt differently, I'm a bit
[1:52:33] surprised to hear that from my fellow commissioners
[1:52:36] that they are deviating since candidly, we've all sat
[1:52:39] up here and talked about how they're the experts and
[1:52:42] they know what they're doing and we should defer to
[1:52:45] them.
[1:52:45] so I'm not begrudging the decisions.
[1:52:48] I'm just not comfortable address a simple attorney
[1:52:52] substituting my judgment on since this like density and
[1:52:56] building separation from their recommendation.
[1:52:59] they're the subject matter experts, can'tidly, one is
[1:53:02] even a member of the club and they unanimously voted to
[1:53:07] recommend that the billing separation be what it is on
[1:53:11] the west side.
[1:53:12] >> not true, not what they voteed.
[1:53:14] >> okay, well.
[1:53:16] >> I heard a vote they wanted belter separation on the
[1:53:20] west side.
[1:53:21] they wanted more separation -- I'm going to get there.
[1:53:23] we're going to talk.
[1:53:24] I'm not completely done yet.
[1:53:25] they voted in all fairness.
[1:53:27] I did hear some discussion about it matching, but the
[1:53:29] volt was, what greater separation on the west side in
[1:53:32] all fairness.
[1:53:33] so.
[1:53:34] but also, I just think candidly, less density is
[1:53:40] better.
[1:53:41] I would like to see less densitying -- density back.
[1:53:46] there I talked to the city planner about this.
[1:53:48] and if he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I asked his
[1:53:52] honest opinion about the denserty -- I'm going to call
[1:53:55] it terry's way with all due respect and pan plansing
[1:53:59] and e zoning way.
[1:54:00] he thinks the planning and zoning board's
[1:54:04] recommendation of further separation is too dense for
[1:54:07] residential standpoint back there.
[1:54:09] and I am willing in order to achieve a beautiful new
[1:54:13] yacht club to even put maybe a little bit more density
[1:54:17] back there than maybe there should be.
[1:54:19] but I would like to see it minimized squint the
[1:54:24] recommendations of the planning zoning board and
[1:54:27] frankly, you've been told mr. Patternsonson all along
[1:54:30] it was up 22 units and could be less when we pass the
[1:54:36] loopa.
[1:54:37] you kinds of acknowledged you might not get everything
[1:54:39] you want.
[1:54:40] and I canidly -- candid delete sidly voted for it based
[1:54:43] on that representation and now you're here saying it
[1:54:47] has got be this way.
[1:54:50] and I completely understand why you've drawn a line in
[1:54:54] the sand so you can get here today to the
[1:54:59] decisionmakers to get a decision one way or the other
[1:55:03] but I just can't justify in my mind the go against
[1:55:08] planning and zoning board.
[1:55:10] that said I would love nothing more to vote for this.
[1:55:13] I mean that sincerely.
[1:55:15] I think there are this is where I play architect.
[1:55:21] I think there are ways to make this site plan work
[1:55:26] still in a way that maybe even get you more unit,
[1:55:30] another unit and comports with the separation that the
[1:55:34] planning and zoning board likes you probably have three
[1:55:38] votes here to pass it you have no incentive to
[1:55:42] compromise, I would tell you even though my vote
[1:55:46] tonight is going to be no, I would be willing if you're
[1:55:51] throg continue to negotiate try to find a way that we
[1:55:55] can get a complete conn census up here -- consensus up
[1:55:59] here to complete the objectives you want and complete
[1:56:03] the objectives of the planning and zoning board.
[1:56:07] but I think at the end of the day I think less density
[1:56:11] is better.
[1:56:12] I wish you would negotiate a little bit more but I
[1:56:15] completely understand why.
[1:56:16] >> I would commissioner maucker, I just wanted to make
[1:56:21] a point, I think what the planning and zoning board did
[1:56:26] was give it to the city commission to give
[1:56:31] consideration.
[1:56:31] they had recommendations, but I don't know if their
[1:56:35] intecialt was to say if project fails.
[1:56:38] I think what planning and zoning said is this is what
[1:56:41] we approve with these recommendations we now hands it
[1:56:44] to the city commission to make the decision.
[1:56:46] it is our decision, they gave it to us to make that
[1:56:50] decision.
[1:56:50] they didn't say thumbs down if you don't follow your
[1:56:53] recommendations.
[1:56:53] they said it is up to you.
[1:56:57] we approve it, it is now in your hands.
[1:56:59] >> I guess I just don.
[1:57:02] >> they approved with it the recommendation, they
[1:57:06] wouldn't make recommendation unless that is why my
[1:57:10] position to either go with the planning and zoning
[1:57:14] board's recommendation or not.
[1:57:16] it is period, ends of story.
[1:57:17] I would vote, I could make a motion right now approve
[1:57:22] it but I could make a motion to approve this with the
[1:57:26] planning and zoning board's recommendation with the
[1:57:29] pration on the west side.
[1:57:31] it is up to mr. Batterson whether he wants to go forth.
[1:57:35] at least what I'm hearing from my fellow commissioners,
[1:57:39] I'm willing to vote for a way to redevelop the yacht
[1:57:43] house, I want it consistent with the density
[1:57:46] recommendation and building separation.
[1:57:48] >> commissioner long, please.
[1:57:50] >> I'm mixed on this and I think I said it all the way
[1:57:55] through.
[1:57:55] I believe the applicant has a right to develop this
[1:57:58] property and we as a city have a right to work with the
[1:58:02] applicant, work with our city.
[1:58:04] when it comes down to all of the things we dealt with
[1:58:07] over the last year really comes dpong to the big
[1:58:10] sticking point here of the space on the west side.
[1:58:13] I have seen where density is really a killer
[1:58:16] particularly in this particular area and that concerns
[1:58:20] me.
[1:58:20] I think when we had sing feet residential neighborhoods
[1:58:23] many of them are 10 feet and a total of 20 between
[1:58:27] buildings.
[1:58:28] here is 16.
[1:58:28] and we're here we're talking 4 or five town houses put
[1:58:37] together 117 feet which makes it a pretty big block and
[1:58:46] four buildings put together when you include the old
[1:58:53] racquetball court, gym and activity center that is a
[1:59:01] and I know we've seen that is not from you're going see
[1:59:10] a big wall.
[1:59:13] there is nowhere else these buildings are -- there is
[1:59:16] nowhere else in the city -- correct me if I'm wrong
[1:59:19] where we have buildings that are 117 feet.
[1:59:22] >> there are.
[1:59:25] >> not in the middle of residential.
[1:59:27] >>> many, many scwa first meeting I sat with members of
[1:59:31] he was off that day and had someone sitting in with her
[1:59:36] and had a google map and I circled all the houses all
[1:59:41] around us that were more than 117 feet many, many.
[1:59:44] >> they're not they're next door to them 16 feet apart
[1:59:54] is the next house the residential building, yes.
[2:00:01] we have designed it less than what the current code up
[2:00:16] on the third once we get over and if I can finish that
[2:00:33] there have been changes that. Of view.
[2:00:43] >> going to be less and less and a shadow, you know,
[2:00:46] you're getting a lot of shadows along the side here on
[2:00:49] the west side.
[2:00:50] I understand your financial aspect which obviously is
[2:00:52] not a concern we should be looking at from a government
[2:00:55] . Of view, but I understand yours.
[2:00:57] and I just wondered if there is any other omeddation
[2:01:00] you can make to somehow -- accommodation you can make
[2:01:03] to increase that.
[2:01:04] >> remember, we've all had this discussion for two to
[2:01:07] three years is now.
[2:01:08] and exactly the comment you said now, that is what
[2:01:12] we've been doing constantly.
[2:01:14] we have created the pancake effect.
[2:01:16] the cut off the eyebrows and added more landscape and a
[2:01:20] park on one side the original buildings were designed
[2:01:23] with different way that you come into the driveways.
[2:01:26] now we've created this 40-something foot open ospace.
[2:02:02] >> had this discussion and I've done, you say.
[2:02:05] >> no one is saying you haven't kamedded.
[2:02:07] I would never.
[2:02:08] >> I just wanted to point that out.
[2:02:11] I have been -- I've changed this thing so many times.
[2:02:14] but at what point do I just -- you guys made me go
[2:02:18] through drc.
[2:02:19] I had to finish these plans.
[2:02:20] >> terry, hold on.
[2:02:22] just work.
[2:02:24] >> I'm just asking you on this particular specific
[2:02:30] issue of the 16 feet, I mean can you see any other way
[2:02:38] of accommodating the koarns of number of commissioners
[2:02:43] here.
[2:02:44] >> if we start to ship the building more south we start
[2:02:49] to pinch the entry.
[2:02:51] of course I can still turn the brings more and starts
[2:02:55] to look a little weird but as the neighbor said, why
[2:03:00] uld would I want to take away from this big, beautiful
[2:03:04] open landscape space to create more separation from the
[2:03:08] buildings.
[2:03:08] it is not going to do much.
[2:03:09] you're not going to to feel much.
[2:03:12] the buildings are beautiful anyway, extremely heavily
[2:03:17] landscaped anyway you caw the landscape impressions.
[2:03:22] >> I've been here when we approved vintage, which, you
[2:03:26] know, is extremely dense and a eldense but as we look
[2:03:31] back and see some of the issues we have with density
[2:03:35] and and lack of intration in buildings.
[2:03:38] >> but you cannot coll pair the two.
[2:03:40] >>> no, you can't a example of looking at lands scaping
[2:03:44] from a design, that is great and see it in real life
[2:03:49] and a few years later is always a concern, I'm mixed
[2:03:54] and I want to hear what president van buskirk.
[2:03:58] >> I'm selling these for 2 1/2 million dollar.
[2:04:00] they're people buying them.
[2:04:04] they will -- there is an hoa they're going to have a
[2:04:08] say in what woe do.
[2:04:10] if we let this landscaping go down, I'll have a riot on
[2:04:14] my hands.
[2:04:15] they will have a say themselves, not just me.
[2:04:17] >> well, let's hear what president van buskirk says.
[2:04:22] >>> thank you.
[2:04:22] >> I am with the fact that we have gone down this road
[2:04:27] apparently as far as I'm concerned, a lot.
[2:04:30] and commissioner joffe's concerns about what planning
[2:04:32] and zoning board has stateed and what we've done this
[2:04:35] evening, we took what planning and zoning board said
[2:04:38] and overalled them -- overruled them.
[2:04:41] I can't sigh save --
[2:04:42] >> a boom the different than.
[2:04:44] >> no, no let's be very if they made a recommendation
[2:04:47] and we went against it and they made a recommendation
[2:04:50] and we're like, we've got to go for it that is the same
[2:04:54] exact thing, whether it is a boom, not a boornlings
[2:04:56] whatever.
[2:04:57] that is out the window, you can't try to debate that
[2:05:00] fact, unfortunately.
[2:05:00] but I can tell you this, obviously as residents, we are
[2:05:05] concerned about density.
[2:05:07] there are many projects that have come in front of
[2:05:10] us -- and I say that jokingly, considering that over
[2:05:13] our careers this is the largest project that we will
[2:05:16] ever see and that our city will ever see in the heart
[2:05:19] of our city which is different than anything and to
[2:05:22] commissioner long, he has been here the longest, he has
[2:05:25] the knowledge and has seen it and he's tried and
[2:05:28] learned from those experiences that how we want to make
[2:05:31] sure that we set up our city for success in the future.
[2:05:35] with that being said I look at the plans and think to
[2:05:41] myself to commissioner johnson's pointed.
[2:05:43] I went to tilton square today and started looking.
[2:05:47] just do that, do that to yourself.
[2:05:49] look up, look left and right and you think to yourself
[2:05:53] is that 20 feet?
[2:05:55] 24 feet?
[2:05:55] 38 feet up there?
[2:05:57] the answer is no.
[2:05:58] so my point was, that I think that is a beautiful,
[2:06:02] really nicely landscaped door facing in the right
[2:06:05] direction, things I would have never thought of and to
[2:06:09] your point I'm not an architect, neither am I.
[2:06:12] I wouldn't have thought of that I wouldn't have thought
[2:06:15] how the entryways look.
[2:06:16] the front street side and waterside that we've debated
[2:06:20] before.
[2:06:20] to me I come back to the fact is this, we have one side
[2:06:25] that is 24 feet, one side 16 feet. --
[2:06:28] is there such a claireing reason for us to say both
[2:06:34] have to be 24 or both have to be 16.
[2:06:39] ultimately in the end this is going be the problem for
[2:06:43] mr. Paterson to sell these properties if people find
[2:06:45] they're too dense, a and also unfortunately the people
[2:06:48] that have to look across from them, ultimately in the
[2:06:51] ends no one sells going in there unless you're a
[2:06:54] member, right?
[2:06:55] or looking from across street.
[2:06:57] so, and I want went down and actually today on olake
[2:07:04] placid started looking at the two-story town homes
[2:07:09] they're building on lake placid -- and I probably
[2:07:15] remember misremember the street probably 34th street
[2:07:19] the one with the swale parking on the opposite side
[2:07:26] unfortunately, yes, there are lots in the city that are
[2:07:33] going to have houses that are going be significantly we
[2:07:40] do have larger lots.
[2:07:42] I don't know if they're large enough, but ultimately in
[2:07:47] the ends, we're developing city that is growing and
[2:07:51] coming in to age of construction hopes that we've never
[2:07:55] seen before and designs are changing and tastes are
[2:07:59] changing, and people are fraying to maximize their
[2:08:03] space whether personal resident.
[2:08:05] I see where mr. Paterson comes in with init is 16 food
[2:08:09] or 8-foot on each side of the property line for those
[2:08:13] town home swiss a total of 16, which in my neighborhood
[2:08:17] and commissioner's long point.
[2:08:18] I remember when I first set up here, all over the city
[2:08:21] there are different setbacks for each side.
[2:08:23] there are places that are twelve, some that are 9,
[2:08:27] you're 10, I'm 8 you don't want to be on a corner, but
[2:08:32] ultimately in the ends I just think, guy, we've gone
[2:08:36] over this, p & z did an am maying job of bringing this
[2:08:41] to us and they put it all together.
[2:08:45] they just said you have to pick the color bow.
[2:08:48] sphars I'm concerned I'm perfectly fine with 16 on one
[2:08:52] side 24 on the other.
[2:08:54] the fact is, this is the decision-making time.
[2:08:57] so I would just say that, I do know that the mayor
[2:09:01] owould like to have some comments on this thing, and I
[2:09:05] definitely we'll all get to speak again.
[2:09:07] but I would like the mayor the mention his comments at
[2:09:10] this point in time to hear him not attends of our
[2:09:14] conversation.
[2:09:14] then commissioner maucker back to you.
[2:09:18] >>> mayor.
[2:09:20] >> going back to p & z specifically said 24 feet.
[2:09:30] four members of the board said that.
[2:09:32] and they were very clear that they wanted that.
[2:09:35] since that time I've also spoken to those board members
[2:09:39] and their opinion hasn't changed.
[2:09:41] there is an element ofy.
[2:09:43] try that goes simet try that goes into it.
[2:09:50] succeedly, I think there is room for compromise as
[2:09:53] commissioner joffe said, maybe 24 feet is not the magic
[2:09:57] answer, maybe it is 20, but getting some additional
[2:10:01] building separation between buildings that are 117 feet
[2:10:04] lodge and 35 to 37 feet all the depending how you
[2:10:09] measure it and where you measure it from is critical to
[2:10:13] me.
[2:10:13] I agree that this project needs move forward.
[2:10:16] I would encourage the commission to doapt something
[2:10:20] greater than 16.
[2:10:22] and I think that is the reason the planning and zoning
[2:10:27] board did not put a specific number in so that the
[2:10:32] commission was not tied to their number, but rather had
[2:10:36] the ability to change and to modify it.
[2:10:40] secondly, every development that we've done in this
[2:10:45] city, if you go back as far as tillison, had density
[2:10:51] delete sty issues tillisson has a pervious space issue
[2:10:56] and part of that was, everyone wanted to get rid of a
[2:11:03] mobile-home park and said we'll take this the how homes
[2:11:08] on 20th way and 39th street, thois were built very
[2:11:14] dense and they were unable to be sold because of that
[2:11:20] tensity.
[2:11:20] I would encourage the commission to come up with an
[2:11:26] alternative that is greater than 16 feet.
[2:11:30] 24 feet is would be my recommendation based upon what
[2:11:33] planning and zoning has said, but I think there is a
[2:11:37] compromise to be had here if mr. Paterson is willing to
[2:11:40] compromise and maybe 20 is the magic number because it
[2:11:44] is in the middle.
[2:11:45] but I think we need to have a wider separation between
[2:11:50] these buildings so that we don't create this intense
[2:11:54] density on the west side of the property.
[2:11:57] and by doing that, you would eliminate and get the
[2:12:03] canning effect that is going to exist.
[2:12:07] if you look at the single-family residence around the
[2:12:10] city.
[2:12:11] and I did a souray of -- survey of this as well.
[2:12:14] there are only a few that are that wide.
[2:12:16] the white house being the most widest of the bunch.
[2:12:22] that is, I believe built on a triple lot.
[2:12:25] but putting that aside, we do not have a lot of
[2:12:29] properties here like that.
[2:12:31] so I would strongly encourage the commission to
[2:12:35] consider an at toiv the 16 feet.
[2:12:38] I think it is in the city's best interest and in the
[2:12:43] residents best interest that we have something greater
[2:12:46] and will create a symmetry in the project as a whole
[2:12:51] without adversely impacting the developer.
[2:12:53] I also did a look-back for the last ten years of every
[2:12:57] site plan that has gone through planning and zoning,
[2:13:01] not a one of the one of all I've looked nat the last
[2:13:06] ten years went through without some kind of
[2:13:09] modification to the site plan to make it moreet
[2:13:12] esthetic magically and user pleasing to the residents
[2:13:15] of our city.
[2:13:16] and I don't want this commission to look back five
[2:13:20] years from now and 10 years from now and say, you know,
[2:13:24] I wish we had more space on the west side because it is
[2:13:28] pretty dense.
[2:13:29] those are my comments and I appreciate your
[2:13:31] consideration of them.
[2:13:32] >> mayor, thank you for your comments.
[2:13:35] they're much appreciated and understood from up here.
[2:13:42] commissioner, commissioner maucker.
[2:13:44] >> yeah, just one last thought.
[2:13:46] we keep talking about comparing this property to others
[2:13:49] in the city.
[2:13:51] there is no other property in the city that has a yacht
[2:13:53] club sitting in the middle of it.
[2:13:55] this is a unique parcel.
[2:13:58] this is not low-income property this is very, very
[2:14:02] expensive it belongs to -- it will be part of a home
[2:14:07] owner's association with the members that are involved
[2:14:10] in it that will have some say.
[2:14:14] I think the developer and the applicant has done
[2:14:17] enormous amount of compromising already just to get
[2:14:20] where we are now, and I think we've got to look at this
[2:14:25] as a unique piece of property.
[2:14:27] and I'm prepared to offer a motion at this time if
[2:14:30] you're ready.
[2:14:30] >> let me go with the rest of the other two
[2:14:35] commissioners here, commissioner long and commissioner,
[2:14:38] I want to make sure everybody gets their community and
[2:14:42] commissioner johnson gets opportunity, I just know
[2:14:45] those two commissioner joffe has more.
[2:14:47] >> right, of course.
[2:14:49] >> I don't want to beat a horse.
[2:14:51] >> I listen, ultimately in the end this is the biggest
[2:14:54] project we'll ever see, the most unique piece of
[2:14:56] property in the city.
[2:14:57] and I think everybody deserves the opportunity that
[2:15:00] sittings up here as our collegial body to make their
[2:15:03] own, their point felt and known.
[2:15:05] and understood by their fellow commissioners and I have
[2:15:08] no issues with you going on and anybody speaking the
[2:15:11] way they want to speak.
[2:15:12] commissioner johnsongy just wanted to say a couple more
[2:15:15] things I don't think there is any need of total
[2:15:18] symmetry between the east side and west side of the
[2:15:21] project when you have parking and everything in
[2:15:23] between.
[2:15:24] I don't think we have to balance on a scale there.
[2:15:26] and second of all, on -- I'm not sure of every street
[2:15:30] in the city, but on the canal streets that I'm familiar
[2:15:34] with, there is 8 feet, total of 16 feet separation
[2:15:38] between the houses.
[2:15:39] and there are these monster houses now.
[2:15:41] and there some 16 feet between them.
[2:15:45] and building town houses like this, whether we like it
[2:15:49] or not is actually the trend of the future, because
[2:15:53] that is what they're building everywhere.
[2:15:55] everywhere you go, del ray beach is a whole city of
[2:15:58] these town houses that extend and extend and extend.
[2:16:01] I don't think we're doing something -- we're doing
[2:16:03] something that we never would have done in 1959.
[2:16:06] but this is 2022.
[2:16:07] and this is the look of 2022.
[2:16:11] and I also want to restate that I believe that there
[2:16:15] has been tons of compromising all along.
[2:16:18] and tons of changes to try to make these more es
[2:16:24] sympathetickic and make them look more pleasing, et
[2:16:28] cetera, and I still totally believe that the folks that
[2:16:33] are across the kanell looking at beautiful, beautiful
[2:16:37] homes instead of a green tennis court fence I just
[2:16:42] think that this project is too important to our city
[2:16:47] that we need to move it forward.
[2:16:50] and thank you.
[2:16:52] >> commissioner joffe.
[2:16:53] >> I had some other site plan comments.
[2:16:56] we should finish the building.
[2:17:00] I've said my peace on the building.
[2:17:03] it looks like I see the handwriting on the wall and I
[2:17:06] mean this sincerely, if this passes, I've said my
[2:17:09] peases.
[2:17:10] I wish you all the luck in the world.
[2:17:11] I hope you build these completely underbudget, ahead of
[2:17:16] schedule.
[2:17:17] if I get invited to the grand opening, you can tell me
[2:17:19] I told you so.
[2:17:20] but, you know.
[2:17:24] >> commissioner long, I don't know how to follow that
[2:17:28] oil let you go first.
[2:17:31] >> I'll restate my concerns also in the fact that I
[2:17:35] understand what my other commissioners are saying.
[2:17:37] and to the mayor's point, I don't know if if 20 feet is
[2:17:41] going to make a huge difference from 16.
[2:17:44] I don't know if that four feet is going to make a
[2:17:46] difference.
[2:17:47] the biggest concern is not as much from sandy talked
[2:17:51] about other monster mcmansions, just the width, it is
[2:17:55] not 117 feet.
[2:17:56] and that is the scary part because you have 117, 117,
[2:18:01] 117, children's activity center with god, I hope you do
[2:18:04] something fancy with that, because.
[2:18:06] >> kind of a brick wall.
[2:18:08] >> worst building ever put up, I think in the area.
[2:18:11] but I can go with it if we have to and almost sounds
[2:18:14] like we kind of have to.
[2:18:16] I understand that, your issues as far as your finances,
[2:18:20] how projects work, I get all that.
[2:18:23] it is a wish that we could do something more to open
[2:18:26] that up a little bit.
[2:18:28] I mean there is no way to adjust one building up, one
[2:18:34] building back and have a different look.
[2:18:37] I hope I get a told you so but as you're coming down
[2:18:40] the waterway you're not going to see one big wall.
[2:18:42] and I think that the landscaping has to play a very
[2:18:49] important role in this.
[2:18:51] >> I would like to offer a motiongy would like to get a
[2:18:58] consensus commissioner joffe and then make your motion
[2:19:02] known and then this is not a final vote for
[2:19:07] commissioner maucker, just a consenseus on item number
[2:19:11] 9 which is the spacing, sorry, I just want to make
[2:19:16] sure.
[2:19:17] the spacing of if left side, west side town homes
[2:19:22] building to create a better esthetic view, the
[2:19:26] discussion was between if separation of 16 feet or 24
[2:19:31] feet is.
[2:19:32] >>> commissioner macher are you okay with 16 feet.
[2:19:34] >>> yes.
[2:19:35] >> commissioner long.
[2:19:37] >> ei'll accept it.
[2:19:38] >> commissioner joffe.
[2:19:39] >> no.
[2:19:41] >> van buzz kirk says no, 16 feet, 4-1 going across.
[2:19:44] okay, mr. Hickey from there I would like you to move
[2:19:50] onto number 10 which is the sorry, that is there.
[2:19:55] at this poin in time as with go down to the land use
[2:20:00] comprehensive plan, and zoning by the site plan
[2:20:02] approval of the land actions in order to be approved.
[2:20:06] so number 11, commissioner joffe you bring up any other
[2:20:11] site plan issues you have noticed or found during this
[2:20:15] process mr. Hickey on number 11 is there anything else
[2:20:20] that needs to be stated there, sir?
[2:20:23] >> no and again, we talked about it in the beginning
[2:20:26] these are all the other land development actions that
[2:20:28] have to happen before the site plan is approved.
[2:20:30] it is all these have to be in place so the site plan --
[2:20:34] [inaudible]
[2:20:35] >> okay.
[2:20:38] >> commissioner joffe, where are we going?
[2:20:41] >> I've had this raised.
[2:20:43] I raised it before and want to raise it again to create
[2:20:46] a picture for the commissioners.
[2:20:47] and it is the lighted tennis courts on the rooftop I
[2:20:54] just have to say respectfully, I'm concerned about
[2:20:59] those.
[2:21:00] and this yacht club is going to create for lack of
[2:21:05] better term, an interior skyline smack-dab in the
[2:21:09] middle of the city.
[2:21:11] and I -- it is -- how all the is it going to be?
[2:21:15] 50 max, 59 to the tippy top of everything so the
[2:21:20] lights.
[2:21:21] >> the lights are 50, am I correct?
[2:21:23] 50 the max.
[2:21:23] >>> the lights you get on the plan, because I didn't
[2:21:26] see the plan.
[2:21:27] >> they're going to be on the wall.
[2:21:28] I have a suggest chun, why don't we do like the booms.
[2:21:32] give it a year, tell me if we don't like it and take
[2:21:36] them down and only whreaf it on the two of the tennis
[2:21:39] center.
[2:21:40] >> I -- I mean that has consider I would like that to
[2:21:43] be our call, because I could live with that.
[2:21:46] my concern is I know you've shaded them and.
[2:21:52] >> there is new directional lighting.
[2:21:54] >> I understand.
[2:21:55] I was talking to some of the people about it.
[2:21:57] I feel like no matter what you do, you're going to see
[2:22:00] this sucker at night from a lot of different places
[2:22:03] from around the city.
[2:22:04] and I haven't seen a visual -- god knows you don't want
[2:22:08] to spend money on the -- I haven't seen a visual of
[2:22:12] what these lights are going to look like and candid lid
[2:22:16] the rest of the lights on the building myself, this is
[2:22:20] going to be a 50-foot, 55-foot max tawm structure the
[2:22:23] middle of the city with big lights that are going to
[2:22:27] light tennis courts on top.
[2:22:30] I've had residents express concerns about I.
[2:22:32] I just want to raise it and hopefully there is
[2:22:36] something we can do about it again, I don't know how to
[2:22:40] draft something to see fit works for a year.
[2:22:44] I understand he there will be people who want to play
[2:22:47] tennis at night.
[2:22:47] we might be fighting with them now or making them angry
[2:22:51] later but something this commission needs to think
[2:22:54] about.
[2:22:54] we're going to go from a city that is a very dark city
[2:22:58] to begin with, which is a whole different debate that
[2:23:01] we're not going have tonight.
[2:23:03] >> we only have time for so many debate.
[2:23:06] >> right now has a beautiful light howses spinning in
[2:23:10] the distance.
[2:23:10] and with all due respect mr. Paterson, you're going to
[2:23:14] change.
[2:23:14] that sounds like tonight you're definitely going to
[2:23:17] change it.
[2:23:17] I don't now, I talked -- correct me if I'm wrong mr.
[2:23:20] hickey and I talked to our city planner about it and
[2:23:24] don't pass out on the verbage, he says it is going to
[2:23:27] look like a ball field on the top of the club.
[2:23:30] and dwient to be looking at a ball club 60, 55 feet in
[2:23:35] the their the middle of the city.
[2:23:37] that is my concern, discuss.
[2:23:39] >> commissioner ftion you don't mind me mentioning the
[2:23:42] mayor does have some comments on this he would like to
[2:23:45] mention, but before we worry about the ball field look.
[2:23:48] ibe interest, commissioner joffe, your ball feel
[2:23:52] comment.
[2:23:53] >> not mine, his.
[2:23:54] he told me.
[2:23:54] >> it is interesting.
[2:23:55] >> it depends where the liking is.
[2:23:59] >> all yfs going say is this, ultimately in the end, it
[2:24:03] is a ball field, because that is where they're hitting
[2:24:06] tennis balls back and forth.
[2:24:07] it is a ball field.
[2:24:08] second of all we already have two ball fields in the
[2:24:13] city with very large high standing structured lights
[2:24:16] that are called park.
[2:24:18] >> are they on top of the build inning.
[2:24:20] >> let me ask you a question, is in it is 60 feet and
[2:24:24] 60 feet is there really a difference if they're both
[2:24:27] the same height in the sky in.
[2:24:29] >> I'm merely mentioning I think it is a valid concern.
[2:24:36] >> you have extra parts but make sure everyone is
[2:24:38] iware, I don't know the exact height of the current
[2:24:41] light nlsz our park.
[2:24:42] I've got to believe just by random guessing that
[2:24:45] they're over 50-foot high in the air.
[2:24:48] and the way looking at commissioner long he help get
[2:24:51] those approved.
[2:24:52] I have to believe they are higher than that.
[2:24:54] but to be on the safe sigh, that means that we're going
[2:24:59] to have a structure with lights that are directional,
[2:25:03] that are very close to being that people do complain
[2:25:07] about.
[2:25:08] that is something to think.
[2:25:09] commissioner johnson, please you're not going to leave
[2:25:12] the lights on all night, what are you thinking the
[2:25:17] hours.
[2:25:17] >> the planning and zoning board made us.
[2:25:19] >> 9:00.
[2:25:20] >> 9:00, right.
[2:25:22] >> so in the summertime, that is like.
[2:25:24] >> an hour after it goals dark and the rest of the time
[2:25:28] it is a few hours and that is like, you've compared
[2:25:31] foitd the ball field.
[2:25:32] the people that live around the ball field, of course,
[2:25:34] don't like it.
[2:25:35] people who live around the school don't like children
[2:25:38] to come out forrie sess, but, you know, it is only
[2:25:42] going to inconvenience them if somebody a few hours
[2:25:45] every night.
[2:25:46] >> if it is a problem I would be fixing it.
[2:25:48] I am the closest neighbor to the property staring at
[2:25:52] it.
[2:25:52] and I am concerned about -- anything that I'm going to
[2:25:55] do, I'm going to be concerned about the value of my
[2:25:58] personal home as well.
[2:25:59] >> commissioner long.
[2:26:00] >>> using the ball field analogy, I think there is a
[2:26:04] big difference here in the fact that the final height
[2:26:08] of that light is 50 feet.
[2:26:10] it is only really lighting up an area that is what, 15
[2:26:14] feet, 20 feet belowna as compared to a ball field light
[2:26:18] which has, you know, much higher lumens, I guess.
[2:26:20] and has to broadcast light throughout, you know,
[2:26:23] hundreds of yards.
[2:26:25] so there has got to be a big difference that with the
[2:26:28] proper shielding it can be done.
[2:26:30] you're always going to have the halo effect of the
[2:26:33] light.
[2:26:33] I think your biggest concern they be from some of the
[2:26:37] town house people, but again they get used to that, a
[2:26:42] bunch of marina people will be a big concern.
[2:26:45] I think you can with the proper use of lighting and
[2:26:53] shielding and proper lights themselves and direction
[2:26:58] you can probably really keep it controlled so it is not
[2:27:05] a big halo effect like the hard rock guitar from 50
[2:27:13] miles away.
[2:27:14] >> something of a similar nature.
[2:27:15] >> don't know how you do that.
[2:27:17] >> I think one of the things obviously that I would say
[2:27:21] that leaving the lights on until 9:00 at night is only
[2:27:25] good if people are playing on it.
[2:27:27] y been by the club before on this time of the year and
[2:27:31] there is no one playing on the courts.
[2:27:33] so I hope the idea I think outside of the time frame
[2:27:37] one of the things that would be important, I think to
[2:27:42] mr. Paterson is if no one is playing, they shut the
[2:27:46] lights off I would say that takes frit that if
[2:27:50] everybody is okay.
[2:27:51] >> how all the are the normal lights in the parking
[2:27:54] lot?
[2:27:54] or typically.
[2:27:56] >> it can be around,ca be around 25 feet.
[2:28:00] ours are lower because we have a lot of trees that
[2:28:05] means we have to put a lot more in the parking lot.
[2:28:10] >> obviously that has, you know, all over the place.
[2:28:13] >> again, I look at the fact the height of the pole
[2:28:21] itself compared to the ground.
[2:28:24] that lights up an entire park.
[2:28:28] >> what we're trying to do is not have any light goes
[2:28:34] over our max height of the building with landscaping
[2:28:39] and different things that will shade the light.
[2:28:44] the halo effect would be, they're up but you don't
[2:28:48] really see lights up that is not how you don't see it
[2:28:53] that way.
[2:28:54] >> the poles themselves would be at or we have these
[2:29:00] walls all the way around, remember tennis fences we
[2:29:04] have now ours are by the time got the ennis court it
[2:29:10] will be 12 feet the lights will be connected to those
[2:29:16] walls and they will be directional and a lot more
[2:29:21] lights than a normal set-up.
[2:29:24] >> sit below the wall itself.
[2:29:29] >> sit on the wall wru not going above the wall.
[2:29:33] >> okay.
[2:29:36] >> mayor troast you would like to say something, sir?
[2:29:39] >> I have actually been going over to the yacht club
[2:29:43] for the last couple of weeks just trying to see the
[2:29:46] usage of the lights, and I'm noticing that they're not
[2:29:50] used that much at this time of year during the evening,
[2:29:53] I do have a suggestion that I think can make this a
[2:29:57] little bit easier.
[2:29:58] from may 1st through december 30th, the light imans on
[2:30:04] until 9 p.m and the rest of the year they'd be on until
[2:30:11] 7 p.m that giveious about one hour after sunset if
[2:30:17] terry was open to that that two would be idea and to
[2:30:24] piggyback on, that we could look at complaints that
[2:30:29] come in over a year's time and if we're getting a lot
[2:30:36] of complaints, it would be up to the city and the
[2:30:42] applicant to renegotiate those times.
[2:30:45] but instead of having 9:00 yeararound, why don't we say
[2:30:50] 7 p.m.
[2:30:51] from october 1st through april 30th and may 1st through
[2:30:57] september 30th, it would be 9 p.m.
[2:31:01] and the lights can only be on when courts are actually
[2:31:05] actively being played on o.
[2:31:07] I also have spent some time going around looking at
[2:31:11] mcdonough park from different areas, yes, those lights
[2:31:15] are at least 50 feet in the air, I agree but the light
[2:31:22] radiation they give off is pretty confined because of
[2:31:26] the directional paths that are used on the light, I
[2:31:31] suspect if terry is plan tongue same smileds on the
[2:31:36] lights the residents that have expressed their vehement
[2:31:40] concerns about their backyards being lit up at night
[2:31:44] are probably under misunderstanding so I would like to
[2:31:49] propose that the commission recommend that the lighting
[2:31:53] beyond for the hours that I suggested during the time
[2:31:57] frames I suggested if the splint throg consider that.
[2:32:02] >> so I am -- you are correct the directional lighting
[2:32:05] and a lot of what you say.
[2:32:07] there is a couple of things here.
[2:32:09] the lights are not only on to play tennis, they're on
[2:32:13] for the maintenance crew because they're clay court.
[2:32:16] they have to be maintained after the and early in the
[2:32:19] morning.
[2:32:19] our guys come to work at 5 a.m.
[2:32:21] , 6 a.m.
[2:32:22] and get to work before anyone starts if we say 7:00
[2:32:27] during hours, the reason we have night 10is is because
[2:32:32] a lot of people work who want to play tennis.
[2:32:36] and I don't know how to say to the tennis player, I'm
[2:32:43] sorry, you can only play until 7.
[2:32:46] you guys will have as much of a riot on your hands as I
[2:32:54] will.
[2:32:55] >> what are the tennis centers hour?
[2:33:01] >> do you have the hours for our tennis centers lights?
[2:33:09] >> sorry, yes we are open monday through thursday until
[2:33:14] 8 p.m.
[2:33:15] and we do maintenance after when we actually do the
[2:33:18] maintenance as soon as we can if the court is available
[2:33:21] but if the courts are are being use wed have to wait
[2:33:24] until they finish their play until 8:00 and sometimes
[2:33:27] it takes a good hour, hour after that, so the lights
[2:33:30] can sometimes be on until 9.
[2:33:32] on on fridays, I would say actually on friday as well
[2:33:35] it goases until same time.
[2:33:37] saturday and sunday we close at 5.
[2:33:41] >> but becky, the lights at the tennis center oare only
[2:33:45] 30, 35 neat the air.
[2:33:46] >> correct.
[2:33:47] I think actually 28.
[2:33:49] and they are led lights that -- led lights that are
[2:33:53] able to turn off separately.
[2:33:55] even if they're done with maintenance they can shut
[2:33:59] them off.
[2:34:00] >>> a much lower lighting at our tennis center.
[2:34:02] that is why I didn't consider our tennis center as when
[2:34:06] I looked at what was going on at mcdonough park.
[2:34:09] >> agreed.
[2:34:13] >> commissioner long you had something to say.
[2:34:15] >> I think the difference being is that you do have a
[2:34:19] wall around whether you're 50 up in the air or ground
[2:34:22] level, I mean you're still going to have the same glow
[2:34:26] coming out of the top of it.
[2:34:28] the perception of where you're standing is go odisub
[2:34:32] going to be different.
[2:34:34] knowing how liking has come, the led lighting and
[2:34:37] filters they can put on it, from a timing perspective,
[2:34:41] I don't know, maybe somewhere 8:00ish, to be honest
[2:34:44] from play ending at 8, and then you have some
[2:34:48] maintenance time to do that.
[2:34:50] you know, and also, if led lights have them on
[2:34:53] different circuits, you don't have to have them all on.
[2:34:57] >> can we say we do the ones up at the top, play
[2:35:02] finishes at 8, give us time for mans, no later than 9,
[2:35:06] but the ones down by the two that we -- the ones that
[2:35:10] are remaining, just leave them as is?
[2:35:13] >> we're going to have people dhrb is not your problem
[2:35:17] this is ours whoever is left up here.
[2:35:20] >> your building is going to emerge in the middle of
[2:35:23] this city and we all know that all of our residents
[2:35:26] have been following this as closely as a lot of other
[2:35:29] people and we're going to get people, whether or not,
[2:35:32] there are people in the city that have absolutely no
[2:35:35] idea this is getting built and they're going to be
[2:35:38] like, what the hell is that.
[2:35:40] and then lights are going to go on top and that is when
[2:35:44] the problem is going to happen.
[2:35:45] we all is been doing this long enough we know that is
[2:35:48] going to happen.
[2:35:49] that is what we're trying to mine mize and find a
[2:35:52] compromise.
[2:35:53] you've put up with more than any man I have seen put up
[2:35:56] with over these three years.
[2:35:58] so I hope we can find a compromise on this I think
[2:36:01] esthetic magically, I just have a hard time -- first of
[2:36:03] all we haven't soon ho it is going to look like,
[2:36:05] essentially, none of us have.
[2:36:07] and I have concerns that we're going to go to something
[2:36:10] is not esthetic magically pleasing.
[2:36:12] period.
[2:36:13] >> commissioner joffe.
[2:36:14] >> I would like to offer a motion, I want to make sure
[2:36:18] we get a consensus here.
[2:36:19] >>> I would like to offer motion to approve the
[2:36:24] ordinance to rezone the light, future lighthouse point
[2:36:29] club from yc-mu and proposal for the yacht club
[2:36:34] redevelopment.
[2:36:34] >> I have a motion on the floor.
[2:36:37] >> I'll second it.
[2:36:38] >> motion and a second.
[2:36:40] we obvious will have some discussion.
[2:36:45] verify the motion considers the site plan comments that
[2:36:52] were the consensus of the commission on how to handle
[2:36:59] those items in the zoning board memo.
[2:37:04] no further discussion.
[2:37:05] >> it is
[2:37:18] >> so the development agreement is correct mike?
[2:37:22] I believe it's not.
[2:37:24] >> it says tennis courts that operate at the yacht club
[2:37:33] should close at 5 pm and tennis court light should
[2:37:41] operate only during tennis play on the courts.
[2:37:47] >> mr. Patterson without states, is what it says to
[2:37:50] you, if you want to do your daily maintenance and
[2:37:53] everything they had better get off at eight at night so
[2:37:56] they can see their courts maintained.
[2:37:58] I have a motion on the floor.
[2:38:00] all in favor, please say aye.
[2:38:02] we move past this one.
[2:38:03] thank you very much.
[2:38:04] sue might think you very much ladies and gentlemen.
[2:38:09] >> we will take a five minute recess at this point in
[2:38:12] time.
[2:38:12] it is 9 pm we will have everyone back here at 9:05 pm
[2:38:16] everyone who is here the audience please come back to
[2:38:18] the seats you are sitting in.
[2:38:20] I hate to say it like that, but it makes it easier for
[2:38:23] everyone.
[2:38:24] >>
[2:45:38] >> I would like to welcome you back we are all back
[2:45:41] sitting down we are going to move on to agenda item
[2:45:44] number two which is a first reading a public hearing of
[2:45:47] an ordinance to approve the development agreement for
[2:45:49] the lighthouse ? City attorney again, I want to mention
[2:45:52] this is a public hearing so all of the residents on
[2:45:55] those in attendance will have an opportunity to speak
[2:45:58] and those who have sent an email the city attorney we
[2:46:01] have touched base on it in the context of the site plan
[2:46:04] and how they interact and hold on a second.
[2:46:33] so the zoning district requires development agreement
[2:46:37] so the development agreement has a lot of terms in here
[2:46:45] about the construction, the timing, that uses, and
[2:46:50] things like that for its development this is another
[2:46:56] item that went through planning and development zoning
[2:47:01] review.
[2:47:02] this is, unlike the site plan which was not a public
[2:47:10] hearing this evening, this one requires 2 public
[2:47:15] hearings.
[2:47:15] this is an ordinance, I can read the title anywhere you
[2:47:19] want, we turn it over to the planner and go through
[2:47:22] details, there are some issues we were hoping to with
[2:47:25] the site plan get through with the applicant this
[2:47:27] evening.
[2:47:28] hopefully resolve admin 's we will have it all set for
[2:47:30] you when it comes back.
[2:47:32] >>
[2:47:32] >> commissioners can I have the motion to read?
[2:47:37] >> the ordinance of the city commission for the city
[2:47:41] lighthouse florida with the development of the
[2:47:44] development of property with the city of lighthouse
[2:47:47] point.
[2:47:48] [indiscernible] take all actions to perpetuate the
[2:47:51] terms of the agreement providing for the effective
[2:47:55] date.
[2:47:56] >> commissioners, at this point in time will ask this
[2:48:07] question, would you like mr. Hickey to speak?
[2:48:16] >> we can address them through the best way and at this
[2:48:23] point in time of the evening we will open up public
[2:48:31] comments on this current first reading of the ordinance
[2:48:36] to approve the developers agreement for the lighthouse
[2:48:42] point yacht club.
[2:48:44] I will start with those who were in virtual to raise
[2:48:47] their hand if they would like to speak on the behalf of
[2:48:50] the current development agreement.
[2:48:52] >>
[2:48:59] >> multiple people raising their hand I am going to
[2:49:03] start from the top and work the way down if that's okay
[2:49:07] with you.
[2:49:08] >> so I am going to allow you to speak.
[2:49:16] >> I want to remind everybody there will be 4 minutes
[2:49:23] to speak I will keeping a timer nicole if you will
[2:49:31] please note every person to speak and nicole I want to
[2:49:38] thank you I know you were in their on one of our
[2:49:47] toughest meeting some multiple efforts and >>
[2:49:51] lighthouse point florida can everybody hear me okay?
[2:49:57] >> we couldn't stay in person, had to head home so I'm
[2:50:04] going to rehash the lighting issue quickly so my
[2:50:09] property sits adjacent to the yacht club close to where
[2:50:14] the tennis courts will sit on top of the main building
[2:50:20] so we have a lot of concerns about that.
[2:50:27] the point was raised about mcdonough and other folks
[2:50:29] there that have to buy townhouses and they will have to
[2:50:31] deal with that but they are buying their properties
[2:50:32] knowing that was the case we enjoy our nights of quiet
[2:50:34] dark and this is being done to us this wasn't our
[2:50:36] choice so number one my preference would be, can't we
[2:50:38] just make the lit courts, the courts that aren't
[2:50:39] available that aren't on the roof those of the
[2:50:41] nighttime courts and I understand there are constraints
[2:50:42] they need more courts to accommodate team play that
[2:50:44] should all be done during the day nighttime would be
[2:50:45] probably less busy and that's my preference and terry
[2:50:47] brought it up that we can make this a part of let's see
[2:50:49] how it goes and if there are complaints we revisit this
[2:50:51] and at the very least I would like to have that I
[2:50:53] suspect knowing my neighbors I will not end up being
[2:50:55] the only person unsatisfied with this result.
[2:51:45] I would like to have myself and my neighbors have the
[2:51:50] opportunity to make our case if we do end up with a
[2:51:56] frank mcdonough situation.
[2:51:58] we did not buy our house knowing it was going to be by
[2:52:03] ballfield so I think it's a little unfair to make that
[2:52:07] comparison.
[2:52:07] so my preference is let's take those lights down and
[2:52:10] have them just on me ground-level courts on the second
[2:52:13] preference would be at the very least we would have the
[2:52:17] opportunity to revisit this.
[2:52:18] and I think the mayor brought up some good points I
[2:52:22] understand people have to play tennis after work but
[2:52:25] can't they just use the tennis courts on the ground
[2:52:29] level and maybe we just close the roof courts at seven
[2:52:33] so either way it's a huge concern for us all the way
[2:52:37] around the yacht club and living here adjacent to the
[2:52:41] club thanks guys I hope I didn't go over four minutes
[2:52:45] kyle.
[2:52:45] sue might think you very >> okay.
[2:52:50] nicole do you have someone else raising their hand it
[2:52:55] would like to speak?
[2:52:57] >> scott cragin I will allow you to speak.
[2:53:02] >> can you hear us scott?
[2:53:08] thank you for allowing us to participate >> scott can
[2:53:15] you state your name and address?
[2:53:20] >> scott cragin and my wife is julia and we live in
[2:53:25] highland beach florida.
[2:53:26] we have pre-purchased a townhome my wife has worked
[2:53:27] very closely with terry and very customer oriented and
[2:53:29] very city oriented with any concerns associated with
[2:53:30] lighting and traffic and we have been searching I don't
[2:53:31] want the city to lose track of the trends in the
[2:53:32] uniqueness because you have the opportunity to separate
[2:53:33] yourself from new smyrna to key largo and what the
[2:53:35] trend is now our communities and people can walk back
[2:53:36] and forth and see each other so I know there were some
[2:53:38] concerns about density and things but this is a very
[2:53:39] unique opportunity for your city to really separate
[2:53:40] yourself with a landmark opportunity we have some
[2:53:41] trends that are very excited and we would have it lead
[2:53:42] to more vibrant community and I just want to make those
[2:53:44] comments let's not make pick this thing to death
[2:53:45] because this is change but we will work together and I
[2:53:46] felt like terry has done a nice job this has been two
[2:53:48] or three years in the work said many things that are
[2:53:49] you discussing will end up with phone call so I just
[2:53:51] wanted to make those comments and I appreciate being
[2:53:52] part of that and moving from a very dense area that we
[2:53:54] think is going to be a much stronger beautiful
[2:53:55] community area.
[2:55:32] >> thank you scott, welcome to the city.
[2:55:34] okay.
[2:55:39] nicole, do you have anybody else that has raised their
[2:55:43] hand to speak?
[2:55:44] >> I had someone raising their hand but it's down, so
[2:55:49] if you want to speak, please raise your hand again >>
[2:55:53] so ? Folks who are watching there is a raise your hand
[2:55:58] feature on zoom, press that we will give you an
[2:56:02] opportunity to speak but can you go ahead and promote
[2:56:06] him please?
[2:56:07] >> of course.
[2:56:13] [indiscernible] scotty can you state your name and
[2:56:25] address?
[2:56:26] >> scotty mac grade 1321 harbor drive.
[2:56:38] >> yes sir. Go ahead.
[2:56:41] >> I have been at the yacht club for 44 years and 2
[2:56:44] owners and now we are trying to improve the property
[2:56:47] and for some reason we have everybody dragging their
[2:56:49] feet it should be approved because we need everything
[2:56:51] that is going forward if it's venetian plaza or the new
[2:56:53] fire station that is going on through and now all of a
[2:56:56] sudden we can't have improvements on the yacht club
[2:56:58] which has been established for years and mainly they
[2:57:00] should establish 27th terrace as terry terrace so I am
[2:57:02] all in for getting approval for the improvements after
[2:57:04] 50 or 60 years of it being I don't know why people are
[2:57:07] dragging their feet on after all these years and thank
[2:57:10] you scotty.
[2:58:31] >> let's move onto another person who has raised their
[2:58:38] hand.
[2:58:38] >> can you guys hear me?
[2:58:41] >> yes sir >> I am tom oates 4450 ne. [indiscernible] ?
[2:58:49] .
[2:58:49] [laughter] I appreciate the dialogue in you guys are
[2:58:51] asking tough questions as a resident I understand what
[2:58:53] you go through and I appreciate those being asked for
[2:58:55] the question is frankly a lot of residents have you
[2:58:57] represent them and I get this developer this site plan
[2:58:59] this development agreement this is what we are going to
[2:59:01] be stuck with I think it deserves the time and
[2:59:02] consideration of every one of the commissioners that
[2:59:04] everyone asked tough questions and if you have concerns
[2:59:06] residents get concerns that should be part of the
[2:59:08] developers agreement you need to be specific because
[2:59:09] generations are going to look back on this and they are
[2:59:11] going to say look it was hard to believe so I want to
[2:59:14] say thank you for the dialogue on the tough questions I
[2:59:16] want to see more of it in participation by the
[2:59:18] commissioner.
[3:00:00] so thank you.
[3:00:01] >> thank you mr. Oates.
[3:00:05] >> do I have anyone else raising their hand?
[3:00:09] >> there is no one else raising their hand at this
[3:00:13] point in time since we are going to transition to those
[3:00:17] in person today we received an email from sammy salem
[3:00:21] to speak on behalf of this public hearing and I wanted
[3:00:25] to make sure it's noted all the commissioners have been
[3:00:29] given the letter that he wrote to and it will be
[3:00:33] notated and added to the meeting minutes from tonight's
[3:00:37] commission meeting.
[3:00:45] >> all right.
[3:00:49] for those who are sitting here in the physical land,
[3:00:54] let's call it that right now we are going to go ahead
[3:01:00] and if you would like to come up and say something
[3:01:05] please walk up and state your name and address and you
[3:01:11] will have four minutes to speak.
[3:01:14] okay. I am not seeing a mad dash to the front I will close
[3:01:18] the public comments and request public comments on this
[3:01:20] ordinance and bring it back to the commissioners and
[3:01:23] mr. Hickey.
[3:01:24] >> good evening everyone here to the talk about the
[3:01:29] development agreement the one thing I did want to
[3:01:33] mention was the certification letter we want to make
[3:01:37] sure you have that and to certify the city requirements
[3:01:42] ? Notified and again on the first page it's an
[3:01:47] incitement of the summary and I want to be consistent
[3:01:52] that everyone understands that there are other
[3:01:56] development actions that have to happen I believe this
[3:02:00] is ? And getting right to the potatoes of the item
[3:02:06] there is a development agreement and depending on the
[3:02:10] commission if you would like to have what we did the
[3:02:16] last time and the development agreement we can just
[3:02:20] walk through it soon with the easiest way to do it as
[3:02:26] long as we are okay with atlas walk right fair we can
[3:02:32] move past each other move onto the next three >> so the
[3:02:38] first was the pop up services we had here and we want
[3:02:44] some discussion on this at various times and meetings
[3:02:48] the language of the development which is what was
[3:02:53] agreed to at the planning and zoning board and how that
[3:02:58] service will be delivered will be approved and we want
[3:03:03] to make sure the process is going to work with stone
[3:03:08] for the requirement the language it's in there there's
[3:03:13] an outstanding item that we had to work through within
[3:03:18] the development agreement.
[3:03:36] the second item is the overflow parking there have been
[3:03:38] some discussions we have a planning and zoning meeting
[3:03:39] on december 7 and the planning and zoning board
[3:03:41] requested our ? Work with their son come up with an
[3:03:43] actual number of what that criteria would be so
[3:03:44] everyone understands if we have x amount and the
[3:03:46] traffic engineer came up with an analysis based on 325
[3:03:47] and that was reviewed by our staff I think we received
[3:03:49] it for the 23rd maybe I can't remember to be honest
[3:03:51] with you and we responded back on the 28th the
[3:03:52] applicant did supply a memorandum to look at the
[3:03:54] analysis again and dina is on the call she will be able
[3:03:56] to talk through it we received that this morning and we
[3:03:58] haven't had a chance to digest that this is one of
[3:04:00] those items the same as ? I think it's something we can
[3:04:02] sit down the staff and actually the traffic consultants
[3:04:03] need to get together and figure out what that number
[3:04:05] is.
[3:05:01] >> I'm going to bring diane back on.
[3:05:03] diana I'm sorry. I am I?
[3:05:06] >> I am here.
[3:05:11] >> I'm sure you heard what mr. Hickey said we just want
[3:05:17] a confirmation that your thought process and with 325
[3:05:21] is something you and the applicants could work on
[3:05:25] together to come up with a resolution with the two
[3:05:30] professionals.
[3:05:30] >> correct.
[3:05:37] >> we just seethed ? Received the applicant's response.
[3:05:44] >> just a quick question when you use the number 325
[3:05:48] how do you assume that would be for.
[3:05:52] [indiscernible]
[3:05:59] >> do you typically have two people to a car or less?
[3:06:04] how are we looking at actual cars in the parcel for the
[3:06:12] special events?
[3:06:13] >> they did counts for two weeks in november 2018 and
[3:06:21] they pick the highest state to have a conservative
[3:06:26] analysis they came up with a ratio and I believe it was
[3:06:34] a thanksgiving dinner on november again the occupancy
[3:06:40] rate for the amount of guests that were invited suite
[3:06:46] includes employees that includes people catering code
[3:06:51] includes servers that includes gas so I can't remember
[3:06:57] how I only have the response letter open and I can tell
[3:07:04] you exactly what was the rate we agreed that the rate
[3:07:12] they came up with included a little bit more of the
[3:07:19] kitchen people and staff >> are you going to take into
[3:07:26] consideration the residence as well?
[3:07:29] >> they did not touch any parking stalls that were
[3:07:37] dedicated >> my question is we were looking at 325
[3:07:45] guests, not 325 cars.
[3:07:48] I'm trying to get to the car piece of it.
[3:07:57] >> you have a family of four your numbers are going to
[3:08:02] be different or if many of your guests are coming from
[3:08:07] the parcel itself and from the townhouses I am
[3:08:10] wondering how that gets thrown into the equation
[3:08:14] because that would skew the 1.8.
[3:08:16] >> it was actually the number that triggered any
[3:08:22] additional parking however for them to be considered a
[3:08:28] little more conservative they reduced it to 325.
[3:08:33] and 347 guests.
[3:08:39] >> commissioner?
[3:08:43] >> hopefully there is agreement on the number and
[3:08:45] hopefully it's been addressed and I reviewed it
[3:08:46] separately with the city attorney the way my version
[3:08:48] reads, special effects 225 persons or more I don't know
[3:08:50] I am assuming mr. Patterson that you will be able to do
[3:08:53] multiple special events at the same time and I think
[3:08:55] the way it reads right now I am not saying you would do
[3:08:58] this but one of the callers wants it to be specific you
[3:09:01] could do three separate events of 100 people and I
[3:09:03] don't think that would be triggered I don't think that
[3:09:05] was your intent I think you are talking about a total
[3:09:07] event occupancy I would like to see the wording make it
[3:09:10] clear that that's total deaths added events.
[3:09:38] >> we might be having an event and we might have all a
[3:09:41] cart in the restaurant.
[3:09:42] >> that, to me this doesn't say that to me the way
[3:09:47] this reads right now if there is one wedding with only
[3:09:52] 325 adult people, that's the only time you would need
[3:09:56] to trigger this and I just don't think it reads that
[3:10:00] way.
[3:10:01] >> if it makes it go over 325 guests it could be an
[3:10:07] event of 100 but we have reservations for 250 and >> I
[3:10:12] don't think we're going to fight about what it says but
[3:10:17] I think we are on the same page and I don't think the
[3:10:23] language matches often only thing I would recommend
[3:10:26] before the second reading is I think the language
[3:10:30] matches the intent of the parties.
[3:10:33] that's all I have.
[3:10:39] >> any other discussion on this?
[3:10:47] are we good with that?
[3:10:52] >> to go back to the point we will clarify what the
[3:11:02] professionals, on the numbers.
[3:11:05] >> I think if there's a disagreement we need to resolve
[3:11:09] it.
[3:11:09] hopefully there's not a disagreement on the number.
[3:11:12] >> they need to come and tighten up and clean up the
[3:11:19] line and was what commissioner dolphy wants and if we
[3:11:25] just leave it at that, that will be just fine.
[3:11:31] so if it seems to work on everything else.
[3:11:33] >> the question from the traffic engineer, was this
[3:11:36] done with the marina, the gym, the tennis, and that was
[3:11:39] something they haven't reviewed yet and the answer was
[3:11:41] yes, that was done over two weeks and all of that was
[3:11:44] dejected and that came to a specific amount of people
[3:11:47] coming into the restaurant the food and beverage not a
[3:11:49] specific amount of people in the building, the traffic
[3:11:52] engineer comments are, people are not, gyms are not
[3:11:54] busy at the time the restaurants are busy and that is
[3:11:57] true by the traffic study and just general knowledge
[3:11:59] without something they can work out, whatever they come
[3:12:02] up with.
[3:12:25] >> okay.
[3:12:25] mr. Hickey.
[3:12:29] >> I have a question.
[3:12:30] just a reminder the site plan under review in the memo
[3:12:34] there was a concern if during special events there
[3:12:38] would have to be some sort of traffic accommodation.
[3:12:42] >> that's the number we are talking about.
[3:12:45] >> this only relates to parking management >> that's
[3:12:52] only talked about before
[3:12:54] >> that has to do with the u-turn being blocked off
[3:12:59] >> it might be something different than the event might
[3:13:06] do it and it might not work so would have to do
[3:13:13] something else out if we need to how are you going to
[3:13:21] deal with these driveways are these exits are these
[3:13:26] u-turn as well?
[3:13:30] >> depending on what the event is and how big it is it
[3:13:35] could trigger different positions different areas that
[3:13:38] we have to cut off >> I don't have all the answers.
[3:13:43] >> if there is a special event what number that is if
[3:13:48] the especially event happens we need to figure out the
[3:13:52] process and in addition we want to make sure that that
[3:13:57] was blocked off so we wouldn't have interference with
[3:14:01] traffic coming in and out very
[3:14:03] >> so you don't need planning, specifically what you
[3:14:10] need >> thou shalt not make u-turns during a special
[3:14:18] events.
[3:14:19] >> so that planning would take care of that.
[3:14:21] >> to clarify that's only for special events we would
[3:14:24] have to block the u-turn?
[3:14:26] >> just for special events and conflicting traffic
[3:14:29] movements.
[3:14:30] >> okay thank you.
[3:14:32] >> commissioners?
[3:14:34] >> beautiful.
[3:14:36] >> 13.
[3:14:38] >> moving on.
[3:14:42] >> this has to do with the.
[3:14:45] [indiscernible] plan and this was quite a process and
[3:14:47] the zoning board meeting at the planning and zoning
[3:14:49] born dashboard was the previous phasing plan had three
[3:14:50] phases and surveys that actually creates the tennis
[3:14:52] bistro and in addition it gets through the phase of
[3:14:54] construction the yacht club buildings and that's really
[3:14:55] the end of phase 2 and so phase 1 based on the schedule
[3:14:58] would take 26 months from the start of construction and
[3:15:00] that such term is defined in the development agreement
[3:15:02] phase 2 would be the remaining building which would be
[3:15:04] buildings one, six, single family we talked about
[3:15:05] planning and zoning board that could be built at any
[3:15:07] time so having that part of it phase 1 or two they felt
[3:15:10] single family from the phasing plan and it's not
[3:15:12] impending construction with the yacht club or the
[3:15:13] townhouses very
[3:16:11] >> I remember them that's why it was left off at this
[3:16:19] portion.
[3:16:20] >> commissioners.
[3:16:26] so my question is we have talked about the landscaping
[3:16:31] and it's kind of long after demo and everything if you
[3:16:36] are pushing it to the limits on that.
[3:16:40] and have we had conversation about having that done are
[3:16:46] we talking about the wall on 42nd street and
[3:16:52] landscaping?
[3:16:53] >> I think it was clear >> but that's up to 10 months
[3:17:01] on that.
[3:17:02] >> yes.
[3:17:02] our intent is to do that as one of the first things we
[3:17:07] are in the little of finalizing the engineering, we
[3:17:12] have a landscape plan already but the first permit we
[3:17:16] are submitting we can get the tennis center bistro up
[3:17:20] and running for members to use but that wall as soon as
[3:17:25] I have engineering we will start to build it.
[3:17:29] there is nothing stopping me from building it and our
[3:17:34] property line it goes further towards the street with
[3:17:39] what you guys see so there is nothing obstructing us
[3:17:45] from building that.
[3:17:46] ? Can we put something in here >> is the actual phasing
[3:17:52] plan I thought we heard, I believe when you said you
[3:17:57] submitted it but to me it should say in the year it is
[3:18:03] listing and 10 months and it's consistent with exhibit
[3:18:08] g >> three phasing plans I still believe but the
[3:18:13] planning and zoning board felt it wasn't necessary and
[3:18:17] they just combined phase 1 and phase 2. I don't agree
[3:18:22] but I am doing what I'm told I feel like it makes more
[3:18:29] sense to show what's happening in phase 1 of the what
[3:18:34] will be completed in the second but I am being
[3:18:39] accommodating but it does create questions like this,
[3:18:43] is it in phase 1, phase 1 is in 26 months and not 10
[3:18:50] months but made a note on it.
[3:18:53] >> it would be I think to make us feel to have a
[3:19:00] phasing plan in front of us to show the fact that to
[3:19:05] commissioner long's point in five months this front
[3:19:09] wall is being built and then I think just like anything
[3:19:14] visual is key to this and the quicker you're able to
[3:19:20] move on that starts to show process and shield the
[3:19:24] residence and those that show good faith as you are
[3:19:29] moving forward >> it's noted that's what's going to
[3:19:33] happen I do understand why you don't have it in your
[3:19:39] package.
[3:19:39] >> the phasing plan is the previous phasing plan as far
[3:19:45] as I know we haven't seen the revised phasing plan at
[3:19:51] least I haven't.
[3:19:53] and I don't believe >> I need to double check but he
[3:20:02] just had neck surgery and I think he had to leave but
[3:20:12] you will have it.
[3:20:15] we have done it and what we have tried to do is taking
[3:20:20] phasing one into and combine them with a bunch of notes
[3:20:23] which I think phasing plan one and two is great but why
[3:20:28] we now need to have the architect who just got back to
[3:20:32] work the same as everyone else had covid after new
[3:20:35] year's and shut down why do we have to redo it to
[3:20:39] combine one into?
[3:20:41] I am quite certain is phasing plan one >> if it's an
[3:20:48] phasing plan one are we talking 26 months which
[3:20:53] includes a demo of the tennis center to make the
[3:20:59] temporary clubhouse the building of the yacht club or
[3:21:04] tennis bistro in the kids center and the landscaping is
[3:21:10] in the 10 months of that 26 months.
[3:21:14] >> in my question was in that 10 month is that wall
[3:21:21] going to be the first three months of the last 10
[3:21:27] months >> it's better for me.
[3:21:30] >> you have to apply for the permit.
[3:21:35] >> it will be done first.
[3:21:45] it's quick and easy and underway and >> I know what
[3:21:51] you're going to say but go ahead.
[3:21:55] >> what am I going to say?
[3:21:57] >> the commissioner needs a timeline for that.
[3:22:04] >> and correct sir.
[3:22:08] >> I know there was a dispute but I would like a
[3:22:13] timeline what I was going to say was there was a
[3:22:18] dispute mr. Patterson and I saw the great debate of
[3:22:22] three phases versus two phases and it was riveting and
[3:22:26] the start of construction and I know planning and
[3:22:30] zoning was approved the 26 months and the 10 months so
[3:22:35] have we reached an agreement?
[3:22:41] I think starting is starting, and I know you disagree
[3:22:46] with that, are we starting to count from when you start
[3:22:51] sharing stuff down?
[3:22:53] >> I do not agree with your statement in the end there
[3:22:58] was a discussion but it was discussed and agreed to
[3:23:03] what we had written in the developers agreement.
[3:23:07] what we have written it was discussed at length and
[3:23:12] when we started construction 30 days after receiving
[3:23:16] the permit for the yacht club clubhouse are the
[3:23:21] townhouse building 2345 basically the bulk of the main
[3:23:26] construction that's going to start when I get the
[3:23:30] permit I need to mobilize everyone we need mobilization
[3:23:35] time.
[3:23:42] that is what was discussed at length that we had a
[3:23:48] disagreement and the wording was changed and when you
[3:23:52] receive the first permit and I want to start doing some
[3:23:58] permanent work in the first permit could be done ? And
[3:24:04] it was discussed in planning and zoning so please go
[3:24:09] back and watch.
[3:24:14] [indiscernible] the wording was clear in the developers
[3:24:17] agreement, that was discussed and very specifically I
[3:24:21] said that it pointed out to them that that was when I
[3:24:26] could start construction of the main project and also
[3:24:29] it stated in the developers agreement that I would be
[3:24:33] able to try to stop the tennis center early.
[3:24:37] that's not happening obviously.
[3:24:39] I wish it would happen, past going to be unfortunate
[3:24:43] for us and our members but the main timeline would
[3:24:47] start when the main building ? If we do it from
[3:24:51] demolition you got a certain amount of time you have to
[3:24:56] act on your permit and if you are acting on the
[3:25:00] demolition permit, you can act by keeping it live every
[3:25:04] 90 days but what else can you do?
[3:25:09] and then if I get that permit and something holds up
[3:25:13] the issuance of all of my other permits I don't know
[3:25:18] what that is.
[3:25:19] we all know that it's not easy to get building permits
[3:25:24] anywhere so that's why the date has to start when the
[3:25:29] main construction starts just because I have a
[3:25:32] demolition permit doesn't mean I'm starting
[3:25:35] construction
[3:25:35] >> so demolition process takes three months you have to
[3:25:39] just for our regular house and the reason is have to
[3:25:44] apply for the demolition permit you have to shut off
[3:25:47] your water, your power, your gas, you have to get a
[3:25:52] sewer cap permit and they do whatever they want to when
[3:25:56] they want and how they want and you can say to fbl, I
[3:26:01] want you to shut me down tomorrow.
[3:26:08] but they won't.
[3:26:09] they will show up five or six weeks later.
[3:26:13] they could come tomorrow.
[3:26:16] but ? Just the nature of it and it takes three months
[3:26:24] to get these permits.
[3:26:26] when I get letters from fpl the inspection on the sewer
[3:26:31] cap on and all the other utilities and you have to do a
[3:26:37] whole lot of asbestos testing felt the project and
[3:26:41] being an old building with the process.
[3:26:44] the actual demolition is not going to be longer than a
[3:26:52] week and >> is the demolition including ports and
[3:26:59] everything else?
[3:27:01] >> I have a plan where yes, the courts that we are
[3:27:09] building are just getting scraped and even the asphalt
[3:27:14] and we have property right now it has been great soil
[3:27:21] and rock we are scraping the top off and >> is there a
[3:27:30] possibility working on the demolition and not engaging
[3:27:35] in that permit until you have a building permit in
[3:27:41] hand?
[3:27:42] >> to get the demolition permit, we have to go through
[3:27:47] the process I just told you even applying for the
[3:27:52] permit I have to apply for a sewer cap permit what do
[3:27:57] you regard as the permit?
[3:27:59] >> the sewer cap that cap is a separate permit from the
[3:28:08] devil ? Demolition permit >> no.
[3:28:12] you have to pass that to be able to get the demolition
[3:28:19] permit.
[3:28:19] there's a reason it was worded and discussed by the
[3:28:24] planning and zoning board and a developer architect he
[3:28:28] knows what he is talking about
[3:28:31] >> here is where I am on.
[3:28:36] I understand the pangs of building something like this
[3:28:38] I kind of think that the line should stand I know that
[3:28:40] will probably put you under some pressure but I sat
[3:28:42] through a planning and zoning board meeting where
[3:28:43] people were in favor of terry's development and they
[3:28:45] were still concerned about the length of how long it
[3:28:47] was going to take and I see that it seems like there
[3:28:49] has been some agreement on extensions and I say this
[3:28:51] with all due respect if you run into problems like that
[3:28:53] we are trusting you with 12 acres of the city that you
[3:28:55] are going to redevelop and we need to trust that we
[3:28:57] will be reasonable and fair and that is where I am on
[3:28:59] and if you run into problems I know you might not have
[3:29:01] liked my vote but I have tried to be reasonable about
[3:29:03] stuff and that's kind of where I am.
[3:29:50] >> many people have said to me over my 22 years of
[3:29:56] building in my typical contract is three to $10 million
[3:30:01] hi deal with lawyers and negotiations I just don't go
[3:30:06] in and renovate somebody's kitchen.
[3:30:09] if you don't negotiate those contracts correctly in the
[3:30:12] beginning, two or three years later it gets thrown in
[3:30:15] your face, had the opportunity to object and you
[3:30:18] didn't.
[3:30:18] and I am objecting now.
[3:30:19] I know you are saying we are all going to be reasonable
[3:30:24] later.
[3:30:25] I brought a reasonable article to the board about my
[3:30:28] own house and that was totally thrown out so how am I
[3:30:32] supposed to expect for my own house which is a very
[3:30:35] reasonable argument, what you guys are going to hear
[3:30:38] next year and this year?
[3:30:39] how can I expect that for when I am fighting for.
[3:30:43] [indiscernible]
[3:30:53] >> I expect you're going to be reasonable but I need to
[3:30:56] negotiate the best that I can and I am not just a
[3:30:59] magician but there is a very detailed ? It shows the
[3:31:01] phases on what has to happen first and why construction
[3:31:04] if you want me to build 24 seven overnight I cannot
[3:31:06] even do that because they were allowed to and we don't
[3:31:09] have either of those in our favor and I understand your
[3:31:11] concern and I heard from a lot of residents concerned
[3:31:13] about the length of time for a building and I feel like
[3:31:16] we need to keep it on a tight leash as possible and I
[3:31:19] am open to other ideas and I am not the only one here.
[3:31:49] if anybody has an idea I will listen to it.
[3:31:56] >> park planning and zoning did consider start of
[3:32:04] construction to include demolition.
[3:32:07] terry is right about mr. ? Who develops properties and
[3:32:11] he serves as a fire station development consultant and
[3:32:14] that john knox village and demolition includes, is a
[3:32:17] permit that is issue that starts construction and part
[3:32:21] of the problem is that we need to ensure that this
[3:32:24] development gets done as exponentially as possible and
[3:32:27] we went to our chief building official and asked him
[3:32:31] the start of the construction ? Construction and under
[3:32:34] the florida building code, yes it does.
[3:32:47] so all weeds is to avoid any doubt is we added into the
[3:32:54] statement the parenthetical including demolition permit
[3:32:57] to make it clear but there was never a debate at the
[3:33:04] start of construction included the demolition it was
[3:33:08] discussed because it was understood that included
[3:33:12] demolition.
[3:33:12] mr. Patterson has a different opinion and at the end of
[3:33:16] the day if he starts demoing and starts constructing at
[3:33:19] the yacht club, do we want to extend that 26 months
[3:33:22] into a time that could be 36 months and since he
[3:33:26] brought up the residence offering it up as well that
[3:33:29] has been going on over three years I drove by it today
[3:33:33] there is nothing going on.
[3:33:35] it was completely dead today when I drove by so we need
[3:33:37] to ensure that the project keeps moving forward and
[3:33:39] that's all we have the language but if there is an
[3:33:41] unforeseen circumstance that he comes back to the
[3:33:43] commission, the commission reasonably must consider
[3:33:44] that and has the ability to grant a one-year extension
[3:33:46] which gives him from 40 months to 52 months 52 months
[3:33:48] is a long time we had a lot of residents express their
[3:33:50] concerns as jason pointed out about the length of time
[3:33:52] this is going to take the planning and zoning board
[3:33:54] stated that this project should be done in two years
[3:33:56] and that's not a viable if the yacht club is going to
[3:33:59] remain open during the construction phase but they were
[3:34:01] clear this could be done in two years and those are mr.
[3:34:03] gallo's words.
[3:34:42] I respect the opinion on this but at the end of the day
[3:34:48] I do think that we need to stick to the start of the
[3:34:55] construction definition that is in the developers
[3:34:58] agreement.
[3:34:59] thank you.
[3:34:59] >> so I drove by today in the rain and I didn't see
[3:35:04] anyone planning my jackson lane my pools
[3:35:07] >> stream if there is nothing that the mayor is saying
[3:35:11] that was correct so even the planning and zoning board
[3:35:15] we need to look at the tapes >> I think the key here
[3:35:20] ultimately and I looked to my left and my right the
[3:35:24] commissioners from what they are hearing, we are
[3:35:27] worried about the duration of the project area and I
[3:35:31] think you don't want to be here any longer than you
[3:35:35] want to and go ahead and sell these things and there
[3:35:39] are mechanisms in here for you to come back to us I
[3:35:43] don't even like to think about that we have to but
[3:35:47] those of the mechanisms that we have in place for your
[3:35:51] comeback and you are right.
[3:36:03] can we not be sitting up here or whoever is sitting up
[3:36:07] here is there a possibility?
[3:36:09] absolutely but at that point this is a queen ? Clean
[3:36:16] sweep at this point and it's important to me and
[3:36:22] personally I think you start to get these things going
[3:36:28] I would like to hear something more to mike's point
[3:36:34] about this wall I like the free fate ? Three-phase
[3:36:40] thing and this time in market is absolutely absurd to
[3:36:46] say that what people said, I know more people that
[3:36:52] can't get stuff done in a timely manner >> and then I
[3:36:59] agree with that so to get people sitting here and the
[3:37:05] people that sat up here that can say that no disrespect
[3:37:12] to them that was the truth and it hurts but my point is
[3:37:19] I think it's important that we stick to putting your
[3:37:25] feet to the fire even if it puts you at a disadvantage.
[3:37:36] >> your objection is duly noted.
[3:38:03] >> you want to state what the planning and zoning board recommend? I urge you to watch the video and you will see that I
[3:38:05] am right and look at what was presented to the planning
[3:38:06] and zoning board and what was discussed.
[3:38:08] the wording that I want and it was change for year that
[3:38:13] was not approved by the planning and zoning board and
[3:38:18] before the clubhouse that's when it was discussed.
[3:38:22] I am not changing anything.
[3:38:28] >> I like the site plan the development agreement and
[3:38:31] this was not like an application that they acted on and
[3:38:34] so this was put together with their input and
[3:38:37] negotiations between ourselves and this is going to be
[3:38:39] approved by the city commission there is a different
[3:38:42] role and we relied on their expertise and it was a
[3:38:45] different role it's not like they approve the document
[3:38:48] they got through some of these negotiation points and
[3:38:50] at the end of the day what is proposed is what the
[3:38:54] administration believes it could be there for the
[3:38:56] timing of it.
[3:39:27] >> and you guys know this.
[3:39:30] >> I just had a question for myself and for the people
[3:39:38] who are listening if we set this time limit and what
[3:39:46] happens with the supply chain and the rest of it what
[3:39:54] happens?
[3:39:55] soon 14.6 >>
[3:40:14] >> I would say again we have to be looking back at our
[3:40:22] self for our current construction issues not controlled
[3:40:26] by anything out of our control and I believe in the
[3:40:33] residence and those who sit up here it's open-minded
[3:40:38] but to mr. Patterson's point we can't guarantee it.
[3:40:46] but I think this is important to our residents.
[3:40:48] >> is a commission we have to represent the residence
[3:40:53] of the biggest concerns are the length of time and we
[3:40:59] do understand the supply chain issues and I think that
[3:41:05] would be logical for us to talk about and if it's the
[3:41:11] fact that those issues don't exist and that's another
[3:41:16] thing.
[3:41:24] it's like chasing a stick so to speak and if he has
[3:41:30] that released in 14.6 that could solve his major issues
[3:41:35] >> I appreciate this debate because this has been the
[3:41:39] item that we have spent the most time on which is the
[3:41:45] length of the term of construction and how we get an
[3:41:50] extension if we need it and I hear you loud and clear
[3:41:55] and I understand what you are saying you want to hold
[3:42:00] terry's feet to the fire you want to build extra time
[3:42:05] into the agreement because you what to make sure he
[3:42:09] works expeditiously I could tell you myself I am making
[3:42:13] renovations to our home and I have to call the subs
[3:42:18] every day and call them to finish the job I have a
[3:42:24] unfinished driveway they can't get the turf they can
[3:42:28] get the trees it's ridiculous so I think we can
[3:42:32] reasonably acknowledge I think this is respectfully,
[3:42:35] anyone who works in this industry knows how incredibly
[3:42:39] difficult it is to meet this timeframe for a project of
[3:42:44] this magnitude which leads me to number two which is
[3:42:48] one thing I felt strongly about and it is important to
[3:42:53] have language if terry has to come back and asked for
[3:42:58] an extension it won't be with how that's common
[3:43:02] language for a contract and this makes me exceedingly
[3:43:06] uncomfortable I just have to tell you the language that
[3:43:10] ended up in here mike proposed it and we can agree with
[3:43:16] an accelerated timeline it's aggressive it will hold
[3:43:19] his feet to the fire and that went from saying the
[3:43:24] city's sole discretion which I totally disagree with
[3:43:28] something that's a hybrid that means the city's sole
[3:43:32] discretion and is the one thing I have been adamant
[3:43:36] about that I just feel so strongly that >> I work hard
[3:43:41] to get to the language that we have so I went and I
[3:43:47] pulled case law on what your authority would be and
[3:43:52] even though your government your sole discretion is
[3:43:55] limited and this is from the case exercise of good
[3:44:00] faith and you can't come in here and say no to terry
[3:44:05] because you don't like the color of his tie and I'm not
[3:44:10] going to debate her as our recommendation and when it
[3:44:15] comes to the commission you should have that discretion
[3:44:19] but you cannot be arbitrary and I have been consistent
[3:44:23] on that and I think the whole time we have been in the
[3:44:29] city commission and if you go with unreasonably
[3:44:32] withheld and I think I believe that this was a point
[3:44:37] that was negotiated and resolved until just now and if
[3:44:42] not that's a point for the lawyers and you guys can
[3:44:46] choose which lawyer which advised he would take but
[3:44:50] this is the recommendation I would make.
[3:45:46] >> we will have our third lawyer come in.
[3:45:48] >>
[3:45:55] >> I was also wanting to hold terry's feet to the fire
[3:45:58] and I was the one that wanted to say sole discretion
[3:46:01] and I wanted to be able to look at terry and say done
[3:46:05] with him I'm not giving him the extension I realize
[3:46:08] that I am the one that asked you I want to know if you
[3:46:12] can't do that I think mr. Patterson it comes down to
[3:46:15] trust I know we have such a wonderful record of trust
[3:46:18] but hopefully that changes after tonight and I am hard
[3:46:21] on this as well I want you to know.
[3:46:55] [indiscernible]
[3:46:59] >> I like this language and if I have to go through
[3:47:06] case law I am not comfortable >> in this future
[3:47:12] commission says sorry but now and that's really the
[3:47:17] danger that you ask him to agree to and I have to go
[3:47:25] read a bunch of cases to understand what it means and
[3:47:32] we have the eighth version and no one is working and we
[3:47:39] can't get workers and we can't get subs and the
[3:47:45] commission at that time may be a different commission
[3:47:51] comes in later and said I hate the yacht club project
[3:47:57] and he takes a huge risk by not getting language that
[3:48:04] gives that standard that is customary so I appreciate
[3:48:09] you taking the step back and I would say to him I
[3:48:17] wouldn't sign it I would just figure out something else
[3:48:23] because it's dangerous and I appreciate mike taking the
[3:48:28] way for sending me cases and the respect I felt and is
[3:48:35] a very dangerous thing to agree to
[3:48:40] >> you are doing a great job and I have been here long
[3:48:46] enough and the one saying across the board we have
[3:48:51] always been fair and open and we have dealt with others
[3:48:57] who are not likable people I don't know where he is now
[3:49:03] but he is gone and still lead out with him with proper
[3:49:09] roles through the regulations and through our codes and
[3:49:13] we have touched on the next 26 months how the supply
[3:49:19] chain may change how the employment factors may change
[3:49:23] and quite honestly everyone has the same issue but if
[3:49:28] you are getting your kitchen read on we all understand
[3:49:33] and I have enough faith in the commission that we will
[3:49:39] do the right thing for the city take into consideration
[3:49:44] all concerns that you have as a developer >> I totally
[3:49:49] respect that I just wanted to have the discussion on
[3:49:54] record so you can understand how I felt about it and is
[3:50:00] the commission's decision and terry's decision but
[3:50:04] thank you for the opportunity >> anybody else?
[3:50:08] good.
[3:50:09] that has been noted in the information commissioners,
[3:50:15] we are currently good with the current languages and
[3:50:21] the developers agreement.
[3:50:23] commissioners?
[3:50:26] >> we are currently good with the phasing plan as
[3:50:33] stated in the current agreement utilized in the wording
[3:50:38] that the commissioner mentioned, and the request was
[3:50:44] made to the developer within 60 days.
[3:50:48] correct?
[3:50:52] assuming the only clarification I would make, and this
[3:50:55] is one of my overarching comments and I am fine with
[3:50:59] the text of the development agreement as written right
[3:51:02] now in section 14 and the key to this is a key
[3:51:06] important phrase at the beginning of section 14 what
[3:51:09] mr. Hickey and mike and the mayor get to do next
[3:51:13] between now and the second reading is make sure that
[3:51:16] the language of 14 drives with I don't even know how
[3:51:20] many visions.
[3:51:35] >> 's whatever exhibit g is an mr. Hickey and mr.
[3:51:47] patterson.
[3:51:48] >> the second reading one of the questions I'm going to
[3:51:57] have is has the city reviewed this as well?
[3:52:05] the city attorneys, the planner, the mayor, have they
[3:52:08] reviewed all the documents to make sure the will of the
[3:52:12] commission is reflected in these documents and they are
[3:52:15] all consistent?
[3:52:16] it's very important and that's very key.
[3:52:19] >> moving on mr. Hickey.
[3:52:28] >> that's what it is.
[3:52:29] the item was resubmitted on the 22nd and revising.
[3:52:32] [indiscernible] with the applicant and last item on
[3:52:35] page 15 section 14.4 and there was some discussion and
[3:52:38] the agreement states within six months of the affected
[3:52:42] agreement I think there's some concern about that time
[3:52:45] frame and the applicant is concerned it would take
[3:52:49] forever and doesn't want to be held responsible and the
[3:52:52] city was to establish a timeline so there is no
[3:52:56] slowdown in the process that starts right away with
[3:52:59] construction moving forward.
[3:53:26] >> come on up mr. Patterson.
[3:53:28] >> as with the point before this is the same thing.
[3:53:41] I am being held to specific times that I have huge
[3:53:43] repercussions if I do not meet while I'm trying to get
[3:53:45] permits and you could say if you architect engineers do
[3:53:46] their job correctly and the most perfect set up plans
[3:53:48] you have seen in your life and it goes through this
[3:53:50] zoning and planning department in zoning and
[3:53:51] landscaping and the company that reviews the mechanical
[3:53:52] electrical plumbing and the comments come back and we
[3:53:54] quickly turn those around and then we hash our permit
[3:53:55] quickly it takes me a year to get a permit for a
[3:53:57] single-family home at lighthouse point so now you are
[3:53:58] holding my feet to the fire on time when I don't have
[3:54:00] the permits in my hand that's why I wrote it in a way
[3:54:02] that said when I have the permit to build, if you
[3:54:04] understand construction at all, you will follow what I
[3:54:06] am saying if you would like I could get every builder
[3:54:07] in this town to come to you and explain how this
[3:54:09] process works and what I'm talking about.
[3:54:58] >> are you referring to the clubhouse?
[3:55:00] >> I am trying to acknowledge what you are saying and
[3:55:07] you are talking about this bistro just deal with that
[3:55:13] one right now.
[3:55:15] how is that a problem?
[3:55:18] >> so let's say we sign this agreement february 8. And
[3:55:26] I submit right now it comes down to the effective date
[3:55:35] let's see we sign february 8 thus the effective date.
[3:55:43] >> the effective date is not going to be the date we
[3:55:47] sign it because you have to prove financial viability
[3:55:50] before everything is signed and you have to get
[3:55:53] signatures from your lenders and we are not going to
[3:55:56] sign this the day after this is approved.
[3:55:59] >> six months and you kind of made a lot of your
[3:56:05] planning and your drawings and staff are done >> I get
[3:56:10] the permit piece but six months to get a permanently
[3:56:15] most of the work that goes into the permit is completed
[3:56:21] you have your electrical.
[3:56:23] >> the engineers and the architects we are going to be
[3:56:28] ready we should have been ready a little while ago but
[3:56:33] the architect has been in the hospital soon like you
[3:56:37] just said monday you will have all of this.
[3:56:41] >> not the permit.
[3:56:43] it doesn't take a long time to get the permit through
[3:56:49] next six months when that package is delivered and
[3:56:54] ready to go it will take six months.
[3:56:58] >> I am hoping it will take two or three months my
[3:57:02] concern is it will take seven months then what?
[3:57:05] I am going to be up here yelling and screaming.
[3:57:07] but hold on one second.
[3:57:11] I'm sorry.
[3:57:13] mike did you have something to say?
[3:57:14] >> this is when he would apply for his first permit is
[3:57:26] not when it's issued.
[3:57:30] I was looking at the memo that said 14 for is the issue
[3:57:33] so we are talking about 14 three
[3:57:34] >> prior to the effective date and this was originally
[3:57:39] written and he would be able to move forward with the
[3:57:45] tennis bistro and have those reviewed and this says he
[3:57:50] can apply any time but then no later than six months
[3:57:55] after brain after this agreement is recorded and it
[3:58:00] could be seven or eight months.
[3:58:26] so is there an issue with that?
[3:58:30] >> maybe I misunderstood the way you guys are
[3:58:35] discussing it.
[3:58:36] sue mcginnis says that agrees to apply for a building
[3:58:39] permit after the effective date and prior to
[3:58:43] concurrently with the permit is for the first
[3:58:46] residential building so you would apply for them within
[3:58:49] six months and to get the ball rolling the timeframe is
[3:58:54] that the start of construction when you get the permit
[3:58:58] and scream at us with these two say just get out there
[3:59:02] and start applying for them.
[3:59:12] >> you are pretty close to just getting your final
[3:59:20] package together for the yacht club.
[3:59:24] >> we haven't made any change to the site plan and we
[3:59:39] have a relief was 14.6 and >> there was another relief
[3:59:52] in here and I couldn't find it >> and some natural
[4:00:06] problems right?
[4:00:09] you have a statute that allows for extensions and
[4:00:16] >> thank you.
[4:00:19] >> so that's the extension of time it would be like if
[4:00:28] the whole state has put on it's a direct effect on the
[4:00:37] property but that's another opportunity if you get a
[4:00:43] hurricane here that affects the statute that provides
[4:00:49] some relief to look at under the circumstances so that
[4:00:57] type of thing can create the need for more time man >>
[4:01:05] that's a government ? You are fine with 14.3 and 14.4?
[4:01:13] slick as something happens swimming again this is a
[4:01:20] periodic review by was reading over and I thought it
[4:01:27] was all had little periodic review was 12 months and
[4:01:34] you could come and explain the problems 60 days.
[4:01:40] >> and the extension piece
[4:01:41] >> you have to notify us within 60 days you can't come
[4:01:49] in the day before it's due.
[4:01:53] >> I think what I'm asking should come in more than
[4:01:58] once a year and if we run into trouble it's going to
[4:02:04] delay the project and what we do right now I apply to
[4:02:10] my client was a change order in timing and they approve
[4:02:15] or don't approve it we negotiate in the end everybody
[4:02:20] forgets what happened.
[4:02:24] >> I don't want to be where we have to worry about it
[4:02:29] but the point is we are not going to know you have had
[4:02:34] all these problems and I want to be part of the
[4:02:38] solution and I do think something like six months would
[4:02:41] be nice for periodic review and it doesn't stop him but
[4:02:45] the periodic review is required and at least once every
[4:02:49] 12 months we review it and at least every 12 months.
[4:03:03] >> my point was I would prefer to be once every 12
[4:03:07] months or at least once every six months.
[4:03:10] >> we wrote this basically the same as the statute if
[4:03:19] you want to require us to look at this more frequently
[4:03:27] we can.
[4:03:29] >> I want the city to review the process and you to be
[4:03:33] part of it.
[4:03:34] the periodic review is a combination of the city and
[4:03:38] you and.
[4:03:40] [indiscernible] is just one of those things.
[4:03:47] >> the commission's not going to be doing this this
[4:03:52] administration, the building department.
[4:03:53] how do you know about it?
[4:03:57] >> you have any thoughts on this?
[4:04:00] >> following the statute is what we need but we are
[4:04:05] going to go pretty quickly within the first six months
[4:04:09] to a year if there are problems and I think the
[4:04:14] administration can report back to the commission six
[4:04:17] months following the effective date and the reason I am
[4:04:21] saying have the administration report back I don't know
[4:04:25] what the effective date is going to be given all the
[4:04:29] signatures and the requirements that are placed on
[4:04:33] terry before this becomes effective >> so I think we
[4:04:37] can do that separately from the agreement I think it's
[4:04:41] direction from the commission six months following we
[4:04:45] will get a report on where we stand on the yacht club
[4:04:50] development and we can decide from there how often you
[4:04:54] want to see that.
[4:04:55] >> I am fine with that I just want to make sure we are
[4:05:01] getting updates.
[4:05:01] >> I don't want anymore language.
[4:05:08] the lawyers will figure it out we half past 14.4, we
[4:05:16] have gotten past the 14s?
[4:05:19] >> there is a numbering issue that I caught when I was
[4:05:25] referring this ? Reviewing this 14.5 there is in a
[4:05:31] 14.5.
[4:05:31] soon if that's correct.
[4:05:34] 14 six will become 14 five you are looking at this.
[4:05:40] >> that's cross reference in a couple places.
[4:05:46] >> either that or we label 14.5 is not used.
[4:05:55] >> let's do that, mike.
[4:05:56] 14.5 reserved so you don't have to find all of the
[4:06:01] cross-references.
[4:06:01] >> okay.
[4:06:04] >> I do have one other question.
[4:06:09] why do we think we can get a copy of exhibit g so the
[4:06:15] administration can start reviewing at and I want to
[4:06:18] give a copy to the commission asap and I need to see
[4:06:23] when we are going to get the revised plan and you don't
[4:06:28] need to answer that at this moment I would just like an
[4:06:32] answer sometime in the next week.
[4:06:35] we will be noticing this in two weeks.
[4:06:39] >> I will say the next week we need to have it
[4:06:41] >> we want everything ready and >> exhibit g will be in
[4:06:57] line with section 14.
[4:07:03] >> we will have to review that.
[4:07:08] we will have to try it out to the developer agreement
[4:07:11] as a site plan.
[4:07:13] >> thank you, mayor.
[4:07:15] >> moving on.
[4:07:19] on to number four.
[4:07:20] correct?
[4:07:23] >> financial impact and recommendations so one of them
[4:07:28] was provide.
[4:07:29] [indiscernible] and the second was they would provide
[4:07:32] additional analysis.
[4:07:33] [indiscernible] so we will work with their acceptance
[4:07:41] to remember their numbers.
[4:07:47] [papers shuffling]
[4:07:49] >> so I want to talk about the financial accountability
[4:07:56] of the project.
[4:07:58] [papers shuffling] and I guess the question for me the
[4:08:06] understanding is this ties into when the agreement
[4:08:13] becomes effective that's important for you, terry.
[4:08:18] it has tied off the effective date of the agreement so
[4:08:22] I see that the effective date is defined in paragraph
[4:08:25] five and then we say a confirmation of.
[4:08:28] [papers shuffling] prior to this agreement becoming
[4:08:32] effective, so is the intent here, before you can start
[4:08:38] doing stuff like before this is official.
[4:08:42] if we vote to approve this I read this to mean that
[4:08:48] unless terry gives the financial confirmation tomorrow,
[4:08:52] maybe you can, I don't know, he can't proceed like to
[4:08:58] me in my opinion I feel like we should be getting
[4:09:03] comfort that you can pull this off financially before
[4:09:08] we approve this because.
[4:09:11] [indiscernible] we have to live with this and I am not
[4:09:20] clear based on when we are going to get confirmation
[4:09:29] that he has the money to do this before this gets
[4:09:38] approved or after?
[4:09:42] >> the way I read it, we are going to vote on it in the
[4:09:50] city, the mayor will not sign it until he has this
[4:09:56] agreement and >> but getting confirmation that >>
[4:10:00] that's why the mayor doesn't.
[4:10:03] [indiscernible]
[4:10:04] >>
[4:10:10] >> it was unclear to me that we are not starting
[4:10:18] anything until the administration gets comfort
[4:10:23] >> they're not going to sign off on something they
[4:10:30] don't know what the developers agreement looks like
[4:10:35] they come look at it make sure the viability is still
[4:10:43] there.
[4:10:44] >> chicken or the egg?
[4:10:46] >> correct.
[4:10:51] >> I just want to make sure and confirm I know we
[4:10:56] talked about this earlier, that is correct.
[4:11:00] >> the city will review the financing commitments
[4:11:04] regarding all contingencies including the signatures of
[4:11:07] all the lenders and lienholders on the property
[4:11:12] including any that have filed notices of commencement's
[4:11:16] and everything will have to be signed for the city
[4:11:21] signs the city is the last of sign.
[4:11:25] >> commissioner are you good with that?
[4:11:27] >> any other thing on this one?
[4:11:29] on the developers agreement?
[4:11:31] >> ready for a motion.
[4:11:35] >> I am.
[4:11:35] that's why I like you.
[4:11:37] that's why you are my favorite.
[4:11:44] >> we approve the development agreement and investment
[4:11:49] llc for the development of property within the city of
[4:11:55] lighthouse point.
[4:11:56] >> subject to the discussion of the commission tonight,
[4:12:02] there will be a a few minor changes I think.
[4:12:09] >> and all the information and the attorneys and
[4:12:14] exhibit g is a few changes to tweak the language
[4:12:19] >> okay.
[4:12:26] so we have a motion on the floor.
[4:12:32] are you still seconding commissioner johnson?
[4:12:35] we have any further discussion?
[4:12:40] commissioners, all in favor please say aye.
[4:12:42] a post? It passes 5-0.
[4:12:43] mr. Patterson?
[4:12:47] sue necklace but requires us to announce when there
[4:12:50] will be a second public hearing and that will be on
[4:12:54] february 8 2022 at 6:30 pm there will be notice but it
[4:12:58] does require us to announce it
[4:13:00] >> if I may, that meeting is going to have a lot of
[4:13:06] things on the agenda, is that the will of the
[4:13:11] commission to start that meeting earlier so we can get
[4:13:15] through the agenda items and not necessarily be here
[4:13:20] until 11 at night because we are going to have seven or
[4:13:25] eight items just with respect to the yacht club >> we
[4:13:31] will have five.
[4:13:32] >> and a few other items just from normal city
[4:13:35] business?
[4:13:35] sarah is the commission going to consider starting our
[4:13:39] meeting a little bit earlier that night so we can get
[4:13:43] through this because I am sure there's going to be some
[4:13:48] questions as we go through the changes that have been
[4:13:52] made.
[4:13:52] >> so.
[4:13:54] [indiscernible]
[4:13:55] >> commissioners.
[4:13:56] what time do we want to move it?
[4:13:58] 530? >> 530 is fine.
[4:14:00] >> it has to be at least a minimum of 4 votes.
[4:14:09] >> if there is no further discussion.
[4:14:14] >> okay.
[4:14:18] >> I will make a motion to move the time of the regular
[4:14:33] city commission meeting on february 8, 2022 to 5:30 pm.
[4:14:44] >> motion, I have a second, all in favor, please say
[4:14:47] aye.
[4:14:47] the vote passes 5-0 thank you mr. Patterson for your
[4:14:51] extra vote on that one.
[4:14:52] [laughter] >> your punishment is you have to sit through the rest
[4:14:55] of the spring >> it is now 5:30 pm february 8.
[4:14:58] >> and I'm sure it will be noticed in the proper
[4:15:01] channels.
[4:15:02] >> all right.
[4:15:03] at this point we are moving on to agenda item 3.
[4:15:08] which is a resolution approving the allocation of
[4:15:15] response agreements with pharmaceutical companies and
[4:15:20] proposing a nationwide settlement.
[4:15:24] >> this is here for your consideration the deadline for
[4:15:26] the settlement for those who want to participate the
[4:15:28] end of this month the documents have been negotiated we
[4:15:30] are ineligible to participate in the settlement there
[4:15:31] are 2 different agreements one with pharmaceutical
[4:15:33] companies and distributors and we are agreeing to the
[4:15:35] settlement agreements which have been provided there
[4:15:36] any funds you get after purposes going forward are not
[4:15:38] to reimburse us for past expenses and although the
[4:15:40] amounts we know the exact amount we don't know what
[4:15:42] reporting would be the last information we got would be
[4:15:44] about $8000 a year for 18 years and we can use that for
[4:15:46] our own programs or I have been told through conference
[4:15:48] calls with local attorneys that they may offer a
[4:15:50] agreement where netsuite's here before you I'd be happy
[4:15:52] to answer any questions.
[4:16:48] >> the resolution authorizing the city of lighthouse
[4:16:58] florida to approve the elocution's and will
[4:17:08] participation agreements and.
[4:17:13] [indiscernible] in effective date.
[4:17:16] >> commissioner, discussion.
[4:17:18] >> if this is too much if not hopefully it will be easy
[4:17:25] enough can provide a lot of different services and it's
[4:17:31] like a teenage issue is a full adult issue we see it
[4:17:38] every day police and fire deal with it so I am in
[4:17:45] support of this.
[4:17:47] >> no opposition from me.
[4:17:55] >> I will make a motion to pass the resolution.
[4:18:05] resolution 2022 2412 asking the city to approve the
[4:18:15] opioid allocation statewide response agreement for
[4:18:22] pharmaceutical companies and distributors >>.
[4:18:27] [indiscernible] all in favor please say aye.
[4:18:29] the vote passes 5-0 perfect.
[4:18:31] at this point in the evening, we have public comments
[4:18:35] regarding any item or anything you would like to talk
[4:18:40] about please state your name you have three minutes to
[4:18:44] speak we will start with the people in person before we
[4:18:49] move on to the virtual >> matt donahue 2820 ne. 39th
[4:18:53] court I appreciate all of your hard work tonight
[4:18:57] keeping me up two nights in a row past my bedtime with
[4:19:03] the football game and now this exciting agenda.
[4:19:06] commissioner I just want to go on record to say I'm
[4:19:10] disappointed I am extremely disappointed we talked
[4:19:12] about it for two years but you have your opinions and
[4:19:15] your opinions are duly noted I am glad this got through
[4:19:19] hopefully you can get it through in the next reading
[4:19:22] and we can get this as soon as possible.
[4:19:25] I keep hearing rumors about the property that might
[4:19:29] have a hotel multi-I haven't seen anything I was just
[4:19:34] curious when the next discussion on that might be
[4:19:38] present going to planning and zoning it seems to be a
[4:19:43] very enticing conversation.
[4:19:44] to say the least.
[4:19:45] so >> I heard about in the paper.
[4:19:52] >> I have been hearing about it going around quite a
[4:19:54] bit I heard the property was purchased and again it
[4:19:55] goes back to the same conversation where they want to
[4:19:57] hold him accountable for buying a piece of property
[4:19:58] that was not zoned but this is going to go through
[4:19:59] based on discussions but nobody has heard about it and
[4:20:01] nobody has seen that and I keep hearing about mr.
[4:20:02] patterson's funding and how much funding he needs to
[4:20:03] have for a nature preserve I hope we put as much effort
[4:20:05] it to knowing the kind of funny that person had for
[4:20:07] that property where the funding is they had these
[4:20:08] opportunities, the city administrator said the city
[4:20:09] had given them the blessing to move forward and we are
[4:20:11] still sitting there and funding I was told was an issue
[4:20:12] where is the consistency of these issues so I would
[4:20:14] love to hear what's going on with the hotel because I
[4:20:15] know it's a concern as you mentioned and I know you are
[4:20:17] concerned but I don't want a hotel sitting right there
[4:20:18] and I'm sure people that live in those apartments don't
[4:20:20] want the hotel right there so where's the discussion?
[4:21:14] >> we're going to have a little discussion.
[4:21:17] >> so they are in the process they have had a couple of
[4:21:21] submittals >> is that zoned?
[4:21:22] >> I can't remember it's going through the process they
[4:21:26] are pretty much through that they would go to the board
[4:21:29] and then planning and zoning so it's in process right
[4:21:33] now >> how many residents know about this?
[4:21:36] again, we are so concerned about residents and lights,
[4:21:45] but all of those people that are living in those
[4:21:55] apartments do they know?
[4:21:59] >> they do now? Nobody up here knows >> obviously you know I haven't seen anything. >>.
[4:22:08] [indiscernible] how quickly these things go and is
[4:22:11] extremely concerning because again we want to hold
[4:22:13] everybody's feet to the fire sorry but we want to hold
[4:22:17] everybody's feet to the fire but these things go
[4:22:19] through and it is what it is.
[4:22:22] we didn't see it.
[4:22:22] that's the answer that I get.
[4:22:25] we didn't see it, it didn't come before it should.
[4:22:29] >> I first noticed it because I look at the city online
[4:22:41] website and I saw the drc notice for the property
[4:22:51] located at >> we have never had a hotel as far as I
[4:23:04] know and obviously it comes back down to that is
[4:23:14] something I don't believe I personally ever thought I
[4:23:23] but want to see here but if the commissioner knew about
[4:23:34] it and is informing residents I wish we obviously
[4:23:43] would've had some information to say by the way.
[4:23:52] he could have said all along.
[4:23:55] >> he did not know and what I heard, is that they had
[4:24:01] made an original application it was indicated that it
[4:24:05] was wholly inappropriate for the site when they came
[4:24:09] back with a revised one and it makes a much bigger
[4:24:14] question in my opinion and what they can do is talk
[4:24:19] about the master plan and the strategic plan in one of
[4:24:24] the things we are considering only get past all this
[4:24:28] the one thing I was going to bring up at that meeting
[4:24:34] is looking at the zoning on the federal highway and
[4:24:38] shaping it and looking at it and zoning those
[4:24:42] properties in a way that we believe is in the best
[4:24:47] interest of lighthouse point because if it's now are
[4:24:51] doing the next it's clear there's development coming
[4:24:55] from the north and from the south and eventually it's
[4:24:59] going to be here and >> that ship has sailed.
[4:25:04] I think it's here.
[4:25:07] >> you never know even in the future.
[4:25:09] >> and I think the issue is we look at things and say
[4:25:13] it's bust or broom and quite honestly, it's just going
[4:25:16] at the fact is we have older properties and commercial
[4:25:19] properties at us one that are very difficult because of
[4:25:22] parking and other things to redevelop and if we can
[4:25:25] look at that from a zoning perspective from a
[4:25:28] commercial overlay to see if we can bring in the kind
[4:25:32] of businesses that we want to not use car dealerships
[4:25:35] or hotels that are maybe not a good fit.
[4:25:52] that is something that we probably need to renew as
[4:25:56] part of that master plan strategic planning
[4:25:58] >> synnex only thing I would alert you but our city
[4:26:03] attorney can alert you of we are zoned for certain
[4:26:09] things you're looking at litigation.
[4:26:11] soon as that ship has sailed the point is that I think
[4:26:17] I am 100 percent in agreement I want to know not so
[4:26:22] much what happens here but the properties that we have
[4:26:27] met people say selling cars online now are doing this
[4:26:31] and we are continuously having different things coming
[4:26:35] in front of us staff to be cognizant of legal issues.
[4:26:50] >> this would be moving forward and it's for the new
[4:26:53] development
[4:26:53] >> just because we don't like something >> we're
[4:26:58] talking about the redevelopment and opportunities
[4:27:02] because if you look at the history they basically have
[4:27:07] a lot more space in front of most of the buildings
[4:27:14] until the expansion of federal highway and the
[4:27:18] installation of sidewalks >> we lost a lot on the
[4:27:24] southern and and the shopping center you can see where
[4:27:30] the oven is and the optometry and there used to be a
[4:27:36] full parking lot right there and as you head north you
[4:27:43] see the buildings there and these are things
[4:27:47] >> there used to be a beautiful landscape area and
[4:27:52] that's not even that old overbuilding and overall we
[4:27:57] have to start looking at how our parking has been
[4:28:02] trying to align so there is a possible redevelopment
[4:28:06] and park sharing >> going back to this property the
[4:28:11] 4060 property and that is one of the most liberal
[4:28:16] zoning districts and hotels are permitted and to echo
[4:28:20] earl's comments it's very difficult to take away the
[4:28:25] right that a property has without getting into
[4:28:29] litigation and I am sure mr. Cirillo can expand on
[4:28:34] cities that have tried to do that and the problems they
[4:28:39] have had.
[4:28:46] >> I think we need to allow this thing to progress the
[4:28:57] public notices and whatnot.
[4:29:00] >> any other person want to come forward and speak
[4:29:03] before we move on to the virtual space?
[4:29:05] >> everett marshall 2821 ne. 44th street two things,
[4:29:08] the last meeting I was here I commented about the
[4:29:12] wonderful response that I got for the police department
[4:29:16] so now I have to give the fire chief his dues because
[4:29:20] the paramedics had to come to my mother's home and they
[4:29:24] did a fantastic job the lady didn't want to go to the
[4:29:29] hospital but they talked her into it which was perfect
[4:29:32] and everything is fine.
[4:29:45] she is home.
[4:29:48] I appreciate that and if you're still here, thank you
[4:29:48] very much for your people and the other thing is this
[4:29:48] property on federal highway were just talking about the
[4:29:48] hotel about I would say probably when I first started
[4:29:48] coming to these meetings, someone wanted to put a self
[4:29:48] storage unit there and it was combined for whatever
[4:29:48] reason, I have no idea but the fellow was going to put
[4:29:48] some storage unit and he agreed that he would make it
[4:29:48] look like a hotel or a building the front of the
[4:29:48] building was going to be commercial and the storage was
[4:29:48] not going to be sheds it was going to be a building and
[4:29:48] it wasn't zoned for that I think was the reason but we
[4:29:49] changed zones for different things all the time that
[4:29:49] would not have ever put any stress on any of our police
[4:29:50] or fire that a hotel potentially could.
[4:29:53] wouldn't that've been better planning to try to
[4:29:58] negotiate to be able to change something to get a...