>> I ASK THE CLERK TO PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:03]
>> THANK YOU. ALL THE COMMISSIONERS ARE HERE, AND THEREFORE, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM.
I UNDERSTAND THAT FATHER MATT MARINO WAS TO GIVE OUR INVOCATION, BUT I DON'T SEE REVEREND MARINO.
YOU KNOW WHAT, I CAN SAY AN INVOCATION.
DO WE STAND? WE STAND. PLEASE RISE.
[LAUGHTER] PLEASE BOW YOUR HEADS AND IF YOU'RE SO INCLINED, PLEASE JOIN ME.
FATHER, WE ARE SO GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE, TO LIVE IN THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY, TO BE IN THIS ROOM, TO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY, OUR FELLOW CITIZENS.
I PRAY THAT YOU WILL ALWAYS GUIDE US WITH HUMILITY AND WISDOM AND COURAGE TO DO THE THINGS THAT ARE RIGHT. IN YOUR NAME, WE PRAY.
>> PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA'S FLAG.
>> NO, BUT WE ARE SO GRATEFUL WHEN I WAS A POOR SUBSTITUTE.
DO YOU WANT TO DO A DOUBLE-HEADER? WE PROBABLY COULD USE THE EXTRA.
>> IF YOU PRAY MULTIPLE [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER]
>> WE ARE SO APPRECIATIVE AND WE'RE JUST VERY GRATEFUL AND I HAD A HOT GAVEL TONIGHT.
>> THANKS AGAIN. SORRY [OVERLAPPING]
>> NOT A PROBLEM. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MATT.
COMMISSIONERS, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU THE MODIFICATION APPROVAL OF THE REGULAR AGENDA.
[2. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS]
MR. REGAN, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES?>> MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING.
STAFF HAS ONE MODIFICATION TO THE AGENDA.
WE WOULD LIKE TO TABLE ITEM CAA, IT TURNS OUT THAT THIS TOPIC WAS EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED IN THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT EXECUTED ON THE 17TH OF FEBRUARY, SO THERE'S REALLY NO REASON FOR THIS LETTER.
>> YOU SAID TABLE, BUT WE'RE SIMPLY [OVERLAPPING]
>> ANY OTHER CHANGES, COMMISSIONERS?
>> YEAH. I'D LIKE TO PULL CA9 OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT ITEM 10A.
THANK YOU, SIR. ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONERS? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS RESTATED?
>> ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE.
WE'RE NOW ON ITEM 4; PUBLIC COMMENTS.
[4. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS OR FOR AGENDA ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING]
I HAVE TWO CARDS AND THE FIRST IS MELINDA RAKONCY.>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. JUST PUBLIC COMMENT.
BUT WE APPRECIATE YOUR READINESS.
>> YES. CITY OWNERSHIP OF KING STREET HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER.
IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY IN THE PAST THE CITY HAS BEEN HESITANT TO TAKE.
BUT WITH A LONG-RANGE MOBILITY ELEMENT, PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME.
I WANT TO COMMEND THIS CITY COMMISSION FOR AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO ENTER NEGOTIATIONS WITH FDOT FOR THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS IMPORTANT CORRIDOR THAT RUNS THROUGH OUR HISTORIC CORE.
I COMMEND THE CITY STAFF FOR HOLDING FIRM IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TERMS ARE STILL FAVORABLE TO THE CITY.
IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CITY STAFF HAS TAKEN LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE COSTS INTO CONSIDERATION.
THE BIGGEST ADVANTAGE IS THAT CITY OWNERSHIP TAKES US OFF OF FDOT SCHEDULES, WHICH IN THE PAST HAS RUSHED DESIGNS' DECISIONS THROUGH WITHOUT ADEQUATE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION IF I DIDN'T FEEL IT WOULD GIVE RESIDENTS AND LOCAL BUSINESSES MORE INPUT.
SINCE BEING THE CITY'S MOBILITY LIAISON, I'VE BEEN THE EARS TO THE GROUND TAKING PUBLIC CONCERNS BACK TO REUBEN FRANKLIN.
[00:05:05]
TOGETHER WE CONDUCTED WELL-ATTENDED MEETINGS ON THIS ISSUE, AND MOST AGREED THAT CITY OWNERSHIP WAS THE WAY TO GO FORWARD.I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC TONIGHT, THAT TONIGHT'S RESOLUTION DOES NOT LOCK IN ANY CONCEPTS OR PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE USE OR DESIGN OF KING STREET OR CATHEDRAL.
INSTEAD, IT IS JUST A BEGINNING.
THERE ARE MANY EXCITING POSSIBILITIES, EVEN MAKING NO CHANGES AT ALL, OR MAKING CHANGES GRADUAL IF THAT IS DETERMINED TO BE THE BEST SOLUTION.
OWNERSHIP BUYS US TIME TO STUDY VARIOUS DESIGNS, GET IT RIGHT, AND MAKE SURE THAT LOCAL CONSENSUS IS BUILT.
REGARDLESS OF MY ROLE IN THE CITY, I WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE FINAL DESIGN FOR THIS VITAL CORRIDOR THAT CUTS THROUGH THE HEART OF ST. AUGUSTINE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE ONE OTHER CARD BEFORE I GO TO THIS LAST CARD.
IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME? IF NOT, THEN I'LL CALL MY LAST SPEAKER, MS.BJ GLADY.
>> BJ GLADY, WEST CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
MY ADDRESS IS ON RECORD. I'M GOING TO START USING THAT.
EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE BEEN PULLING CHANGING THINGS, CONSENT AGENDA 8, THE CITY CRASH SHOULD NOT BE USED BY THE ST. JOHN'S CULTURAL COUNCIL AND OTHER PARTICIPATING AGENCIES AT THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE'S WATERWORKS BUILDING TO MAKE A BUCK.
THEY SHOULD USE SAINT JOHN COUNTIES' CREST.
SINCE FEBRUARY 17, 2022, HOW MANY DOLLARS HAS THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE RECEIVED FROM THIS 501C3, WHILE USING THE CITY'S HISTORIC WATERWORKS BUILDING? THIS 501C3 RECENTLY RECEIVED A HALF A MILLION DOLLAR GRANT, ALSO KNOWN AS STATE TAX DOLLARS TO RENOVATE ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH PROPERTY.
THE CITY WILL SPEND CITY TAX DOLLARS TO MAINTAIN KING STREET, CATHEDRAL, AND CORDOVA WHILE FAILING OVER THE YEARS TO MAINTAIN OUR HISTORICAL BUILDINGS.
IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY, NOT ABOUT PRESERVATION.
CONSENT AGENDA NUMBER 9, 36 GRANADA STREET.
THIS ITEM SHOULD BE PULLED AND RESCHEDULED AS A REGULAR AGENDA ITEM, NOT TONIGHT.
AT THE MAY 3RD PCB MEETING, THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 7TH.
THIS MEMO DATED APRIL 28, 2022, WAS NOT BROUGHT TO ANYONE'S ATTENTION.
THE ONE-YEAR TIME RESTRICTIONS SHOULD NOT BE WAVED.
OUR SWOT CAN WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER 18, 2022, TO CHANGE THE SITE PLAN.
THIS DOES NOT FACILITATE PROPER DEVELOPMENT.
THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE WILL NOT BE GIVEN $18 MILLION.
CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE TAXPAYERS WILL PAY CONTRACTORS, THEN THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE WILL INVOICE FDOT FOR PAYMENT.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS IF ANYONE CAN ANSWER THEM.
WHAT'S HAPPENING AT CORDOVA STREET? I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THIS AND JUST SAW THAT TONIGHT.
WHAT CITY FUND WILL PAY THE CONTRACTORS? THE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT FUNDED BY FDOT TAX DOLLARS IS NECESSARY.
I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE OF FLOODING, BUT MLH, SHOULD NOT BE AWARDED ANY CONTRACT INVOLVED WITH THIS UNNECESSARY TRANSFER OF KING STREET TO THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
THANK YOU. I WANTED TO SAY AGAIN TO CHAIR, MR. UPCHURCH.
I APPRECIATE THE WAY THAT YOU HANDLED THE CARDS, BECAUSE SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAD BEEN SITTING IN THAT CHAIR CANNOT READ AND FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT SO I DO APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? SEEING NO ONE ELSE, THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION OF THE MEETING IS NOW CLOSED.
[5. CONSENT AGENDA]
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA?>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
MADAM CLERK, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
I WAS SO PROUD OF MYSELF FOR REMEMBERING IT.
MR. REGAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ IT FOR US, THE CONSENT AGENDA?
>> I'D BE HAPPY TO. THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCES ARE TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR SECOND READING ON MAY 23, 2022: ORDINANCE 2022-03, ORDINANCE 2022-04.
WE'VE A REMINDER OF UPCOMING MEETINGS, THE MAY 23, 2022, 3:00 PM SPECIAL CITY COMMISSION MEETING TO REVIEW STRATEGIC PLAN, MIDYEAR BUDGET ANALYSIS, AND CIP.
MAY 23, 2022, 5:00 P.M. REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING,
[00:10:01]
JUNE 13, 2022, REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING.WE'VE RELEASED THE LIEN PER UNIT CONNECTION FEE MORTGAGE IN THE NAME OF JOSE MOLINA, 160 NORTH HAVARD STREET.
WE HAVE A NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION ISSUED.
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION IN 2022-04 CR, RECOGNIZING ALTRUSA INTERNATIONAL ST. AUGUSTINE FOR 60 YEARS OF COMMUNITY SERVICE, AND THAT COMPLETES THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE'VE READ THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MADAM CLERK, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> YES. THANK YOU. THE CONSENT AGENDA IS APPROVED.
MR. FRANKLIN, WE'RE NOW ON ITEM 9B1 RESOLUTION 2022-13.
[9.B.1. Resolution 2022-13: Authorizes the City Manager to execute the road jurisdiction transfer and construction reimbursement agreements related to King Street, Cathedral Place and Cordova Street. (R. Franklin, Director Public Works)]
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS.
REUBEN FRANKLIN, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
I HAVE A LOCATION MAP HERE TO SHARE WITH THE GROUP.
BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, I HAVE A RESOLUTION 2022-13.
THIS WOULD AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A ROAD JURISDICTION TRANSFER AGREEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR KING STREET, CATHEDRAL PLACE, AND CORDOVA STREET.
THIS WOULD BE FOR KING STREET BETWEEN US1 AND THE BASE OF THE BRIDGE OF LINES AT THE INTERSECTION CATHEDRAL PLACE AND THAT SMALL LITTLE SECTION OF CORDOVA STREET BETWEEN CATHEDRAL AND KING WHICH IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE STATE NETWORK.
BACK IN JUNE 28 2021, WE HAD PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION REQUESTING PERMISSION TO MOVE FORWARD TO NEGOTIATE A PROPOSAL FOR THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP.
WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. WE'VE COME TO THE BEST AGREEMENT POSSIBLE BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES.
THEY HAVE AGREED TO $18 MILLION TO TRANSFER TO THE CITY.
THE ONE THING THAT WE HAD ASKED FOR WAS A LUMP SUM WHICH WAS PART OF THE INITIAL PROPOSAL BUT IN FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH DOT, WE FOUND THAT THAT JUST IS NOT POSSIBLE.
THE FALLBACK IS A REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT.
THAT MEANS THAT THE CITY WOULD CONTRACT AND THEN SUBMIT INVOICES TO DOT AND REIMBURSE AND WE WOULD USE OUR RESERVES OR CASH FLOW TO EARMARK THAT.
IN THE MEANTIME, THE REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT, THERE'S INVOICES WE CAN SUBMIT MONTHLY TO GET REIMBURSED FOR.
THE AGREEMENT EXTENDS OUT TO 20 JUNE 30TH, 2033 WHICH IS WHEN WE WOULD HAVE THE ROAD RECONSTRUCTED.
THE STATE WOULD RECONSTRUCT THE SAN SEBASTIAN BRIDGE WHICH IS IN THE BLUE AREA ON THE LOCATION MAP.
JUST TO BREAK DOWN THE AGREEMENT REAL QUICK AND IT'S THREE DIFFERENT PARTS.
THE BLUE IS THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SAN SEBASTIAN BRIDGE.
CONSTRUCTION IS EXPECTED TO START IN SUMMER 2024.
ONCE THE DOT BUILDS THAT WITH THEIR OWN MONEY, THAT WILL GET TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY.
THEN I'M GOING TO JUMP OVER TO THE RED SEGMENT, THAT IS THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO CONSTRUCT THE OUTFALL FOR THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AT WHICH TIME WHEN THAT'S CONSTRUCTED, WE WILL BE ABLE TO CONNECT TO THAT NEWLY IMPROVED OUTFALL THAT WILL DRAIN THE REMAINDER OF KING STREET.
ONCE THAT IS CONSTRUCTED AND DEDICATED, THEN THE CITY WILL START TO RETAIN OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CORRIDOR OUTSIDE OF THE BRIDGE.
THEN THE GREEN AREA HIGHLIGHTED IS WHAT THE CITY WILL HAVE THE $18 MILLION TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT.
THAT WILL DESIGN PER THE AGREEMENT, WILL BE COMPLETED NO LATER THAN JUNE 30TH, 2027 AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE UNTIL JUNE 30TH, 2033 TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION.
WE MAY COMPLETE IT EARLIER BUT I WANTED TO GIVE US A LOT OF TIME SO WE COULD CREATE OUR OWN TIMELINE WITHIN THIS AGREEMENT.
STAFF HAS CONSIDERED LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS.
IN THE INITIAL PROPOSAL, WE HAD LAID OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE WOULD BE.
IN TOTAL, IT'S ABOUT 38,000 PER YEAR.
THAT WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN TRAFFIC SIGNALS, STREET SWEEPING, ROADWAY MAINTENANCE.
WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT AND FEEL COMFORTABLE TAKING ON THAT ADDITIONAL BURDEN.
WE ALSO LOOKED AT A FUTURE YEAR FOR PAVING.
WE PUT IT ON A 15-YEAR PAVING INTERVAL.
IF WE COMPLETED THE ROAD IN 2033, WE'D LOOK AT REPAYING IT BACK IN 2048.
WE TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL.
[00:15:04]
BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT RESOLUTION 2022-13.>> ANY QUESTIONS, MR. FRANKLIN?
>> WE ALSO HAVE MR. KNIGHT FROM DOT IN THE AUDIENCE TOO, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS FOR DOT.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION TO MR. KNIGHT.
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU. THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US AND WORKING WITH MR. FRANKLIN.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG ROAD AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME SO THANK YOU FOR KEEPING IT GOING.
MY CONCERN IS EVEN SOMEWHAT RELATED, NOT TOTALLY RELATED, MAYBE IN SOME WAYS RELATED BUT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH OUR FUTURE PLANS WHEN WE ACTUALLY DO DESIGN THE ROADWAY THERE TO OUR LIKING WHICH IS ONE OF OUR ADVANTAGES SWITCHING OVER.
BUT I'VE HEARD TALK ABOUT AND I'VE BEEN TALKING TO PEOPLE ABOUT A CIRCULATOR, AN OFFER OF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, [NOISE] MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS AND I WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT WITH YOU.
>> IT ISN'T DOT'S PLAN TO PROVIDE A MILLION OF SERVICE DEVELOPMENT FUNDS FOR FIVE YEARS THAT WOULD BE CONDITIONED ON THE FUNDS CONTINUE TO THAT PROGRAM CONTINUING TO EXIST.
>> THE SERVICE DEVELOPMENT FUNDS? IT'S A STATE TRANSIT PROGRAM.
>> I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON TO THINK IT WON'T BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THE 18 MILLION THAT YOU CAN GO ENFORCE IN COURT?
>> IT SAYS SEPARATE POT OF MONEY.
>> IT'S A SEPARATE POT OF MONEY, IT'S NOT PART OF THE CONTRACT.
>> BUT IT'S IN OUR PLAN TO DO THAT.
>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
>> OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> ONE OTHER COMMENT. I DID TALK TO MR. FRANKLIN ABOUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
WELL, TWO THINGS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
ACCORDING TO OUR STRATEGIC PLAN, EVERYTHING THAT WE DO PLANNING AND ESPECIALLY BIG MOVES LIKE THIS, WE WILL CONSIDER HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES WHEN WE DO THEM, AND ALSO, WE WILL CONSIDER RESILIENCY WHEN WE MAKE DECISIONS, IN ALL DECISIONS AND THAT STATED IN OUR VISION PLANS.
WE DID SPEAK A LITTLE BIT EARLIER AND I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING US WITH A COPY OF WHAT YOU'VE COME UP WITH SO FAR, AS FAR AS CULTURE AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES ON THE CORRIDOR.
>> YES. BOTH FOR THE BRIDGE PROJECT AND FOR THE ROADWAY PORTION, WE'VE DONE INITIAL SCREENINGS AND THUS WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY.
>> THIS IS FOR MR. FRANKLIN [INAUDIBLE]
THE FIRST BEING WILL THE PAYMENT UPFRONT THAT THE CITY ENCOURAGE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM.
WILL THAT IN ANY WAY IMPACT OUR SERVICES OR OUR OTHER PRIORITIES OR WILL WE BE ABLE TO OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE PLANS TO MANAGE THE BUDGET IN SUCH A WAY THAT THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT ANY EXISTING PRIORITIES OR SERVICES, RIGHT?
>> THEN IT OCCURRED TO ME HOW AND I KNOW THIS IS NEGATIVE BUT I'M TURNING IT INTO A POSITIVE.
THIS IS THE REIMBURSEMENT PIECE OF THIS MEANS THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS OVERSIGHT OVER THE CONTRACTORS THAT ARE UNDERTAKING ANY WORK THAT WE MAY APPROVE. AM I RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE CITY WOULD HIRE THE CONTRACTOR, HAVE THE OVERSIGHT AND WE WOULD BE SUBMITTING PROGRESS REPORTS AND INVOICES FOR REIMBURSEMENT.
>> BECAUSE I AM REMINDED OF WHEN BECAUSE I LIVE IN NORTH CITY AND WHEN THE PEANUT WAS BEING BUILT, THE MAIN STREET IN SAN MARCO INTERSECTION, I SAW BEHAVIORS BY THE CONTRACTORS REPEATEDLY WHICH NEARLY CAUSE SEVERAL HEAD-ON COLLISIONS.
I CALLED SO MANY PEOPLE IN DOT AND NOTHING WAS RESOLVED.
I'M REALLY EXCITED THAT THE CITY STAFF WILL HAVE OVERSIGHT SO THAT IF WE DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION, THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THEM RIGHT HERE.
THEN I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT REALLY REITERATE WHAT ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTORS MR. KHAN WAS SAYING ABOUT HOW SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT MOVING FORWARD IS JUST THE FIRST STEP.
IT DOESN'T LOCK US INTO ANY EXISTING DESIGN PLANS THAT WE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING, BUT WE HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT MOVING FORWARD.
>>THAT'S CORRECT. WE WENT THROUGH A MASTER PLANNING EXERCISE FOR KING STREET BUT WE WOULD START A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT,
[00:20:04]
WE'RE NOT LOCKED INTO ANYTHING.I WOULD STATE THAT OUR LONG-RANGE MOBILITY PLAN ENVISIONS A MULTI-MODAL WAY TO INCORPORATE SOME KIND OF SHUTTLE SERVICE BUT WE WOULD START THAT ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND BUILD A ROAD THAT FITS THE CITY.
>> WELL, THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.
I CERTAINLY WASN'T A PART OF IT FOR ALL THAT TIME.
I THANK EVERYBODY WHO WAS AND ALL THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND GOTTEN US TO THIS POINT, I'M 100 PERCENT BEHIND.
>> I WOULD JUST JOIN IN THE COMMENTS.
I THINK THIS IS A TREMENDOUSLY IMPORTANT STEP FORWARD FOR THE CITY.
IT GIVES US CONTROL OVER ONE OF OUR MAIN ARTERIES.
I'M APPRECIATIVE OF DOT WORKING WITH US AND SO WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE TO CITY STAFF FOR YOUR PERSEVERANCE AND PURSUING THIS FOR OTHER COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT IN THE PAST.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT IT AND I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2022-13.
>> I VOTE MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, MADAM CLERK, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> THE RESOLUTION IS APPROVED.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WE MOVED ITEM CA9 TO BECOME ITEM 10A.
[Additional Item]
SO, MISS. CANNER, I BELIEVE PERHAPS THIS IS YOUR ITEM AND WE WOULD WELCOME YOU FORWARD.>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AMY SKINNER.
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO 36 GRANADA STREET, INCLUDING EIGHT DE SOTO PLACE, WHICH IS AROUND THE CORNER BEHIND THE PROPERTY.
THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE ADOPTED PUD.
THE CURRENT PUD WAS ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER OF 2021.
THE OWNER SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO PZB TO CHANGE THE TEXT AND ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROJECT.
UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS A TIME LIMITATION IN THE ZONING CODE OF ONE YEAR BEFORE ANOTHER REZONING CAN BE HEARD FOR THE SAME PROPERTY.
WE CONSIDER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BE A REZONING WHICH REQUIRES THE CITY COMMISSION TO WAIVE THE ONE-YEAR TIME LIMIT BY CODE BEFORE THE PZB CAN CONSIDER THE ITEM.
THE ITEM WAS CONTINUED AT THE MAY 3RD PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING AND TO THE JUNE 7TH PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING IN ORDER TO GIVE THE CITY COMMISSION TIME TO CONSIDER THE WAIVER.
>> I DON'T RECALL THIS EVER COMING UP BEFORE.
THIS IS AN UNUSUAL REQUEST, PERHAPS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE EVER HEARD OF REQUESTS LIKE THIS.
>> YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO LOOK AT THE CODE AGAIN.
I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CASES OF THIS HAPPENING BEFORE.
WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE EXTENT OF THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE PUD, WE FEEL THAT IT IS BASICALLY A REZONING, AND SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE CODE, THE CITY COMMISSIONERS REQUIRED TO WAIVE THE ONE-YEAR TIME LIMIT.
>> IT GOES FAR BEYOND ANY MINOR MODIFICATION, MAJOR MODIFICATION.
>> THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE TEXT.
THERE ARE ALSO MAJOR CHANGES TO THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS THAT WERE INCLUDED AS ATTACHMENTS AS PART OF THE PUD, THEY'RE CHANGING THE ORIENTATION OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE TO THE NORTH SIDE.
THE SIDE ON GRANADA STREET WILL BE, IN OUR OPINION, SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.
THEY ARE ALSO CHANGING THE ELEVATION ON THE SOUTH SIDE ON TO DE SOTO PLACE.
>> WHEN WE DO PUDS ONE OF THE THINGS IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE MADE CLEAR IN THE PUDS IS THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT NEIGHBORS KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND THAT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE NEIGHBORING AREAS UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON.
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF PUD IT WAS A RECENT CHANGE AND I THINK COMMISSIONER HORVATH WILL REMEMBER THIS, THAT THERE'S ACTUALLY AN OFFICIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION IN THE CASE OF A REZONING.
>> YES. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WROTE INTO THE PUD ORDINANCE. YES.
>> IT'S BOTHERSOME TO ME THAT FIRST, IT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
SECOND, IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD REASON TO NOT APPROVE
[00:25:09]
THIS REQUEST TO BASICALLY CIRCUMVENT OUR NORMAL PROCESS.>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS TO GO BACK TO THE TABLE TO RE ADVERTISE IT, TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AGAIN.
I UNDERSTAND FROM THEIR STANDPOINT, THEY WANT TO MOVE THE PROJECT ALONG BECAUSE THINGS ARE CHANGING OR INTEREST RATES ARE GOING UP, THE PROJECT MAY BECOME NON-VIABLE.
NO HARM, NO FAR. THEY GO BACK TO THE TABLE, THEY GET RE-APPROVED.
IT MAKES A NEW PROJECT, THIS A NEW PUD.
I DON'T SEE WHERE THE HARM IS TO THE PUBLIC.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER VALDEZ, AND I DON'T SEE IT AS CIRCUMVENTING SINCE WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE ONE-YEAR REQUIREMENT.
THERE'RE SIMPLY ASKING FOR US TO EXERCISE A PROCEDURE THAT WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EXERCISE AND SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST.
>> INITIALLY, I WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, BUT I REMEMBER THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE HAVE REVIEWED THESE APPLICATIONS FOR THIS PUD OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO.
THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED BY US FINALLY CAME TO US AT ITS FIRST READING UNFINISHED, THE PZB HAD COMMENTED THAT IT WASN'T READY TO COME TO US, BUT FORWARDED AHEAD FOR OUR CONSIDERATION ANYWAY.
NOW WE'RE BACK IN JUST A FEW MONTHS TIME WITH THE MAJOR REVISION TO THE PUD, IT JUST FEELS TO ME, NO OFFENSE TO THE APPLICANT, BUT IT'S NOT FINISHED.
THAT'S WHY IT'S BACK IN FRONT OF US AGAIN, I THINK MAYBE EXTENDING THAT BACK OUT TO HOLDING UP THAT ONE-YEAR TIMEFRAME WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO GET IT RIGHT, TO GET IT FINALIZED, TO GET IT READY TO ANSWER.
THEY KNOW WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE AND I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF WAVING THIS ONE YEAR REQUIREMENT.
>> I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT, CERTAINLY.
BUT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER VALDEZ THAT THE PROCESS WILL WORK ITSELF OUT.
IF THEY'RE NOT READY THEN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET APPROVED.
I'M READY TO SEE SOMETHING NEW AND NOT HOLD THEM UP.
BUT IT BETTER BE COMPLETE OR WE PROBABLY WON'T APPROVE.
BUT WHAT WILL THE PROCESS ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE FROM HERE ON OUT, SINCE WE'RE WAVING THE REZONING, IT'S GOING TO GO AHEAD AS IF IT'S A FULL REZONING.
>> YES. IT WAS ADVERTISED CORRECTLY FOR THE MAY 3RD PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING.
IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVELY CONTINUED TO THE JUNE 7TH MEETING, WHICH IS A TIME CERTAIN.
EVERYONE WHO WAS PAYING ATTENTION, I GUESS IS AWARE THAT IT WAS CONTINUED TO A TIME CERTAIN FOR JUNE 7TH.
THAT WAS ADVERTISED CORRECTLY.
AS YOU SAID, THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOTIFICATION PROCESS WILL HAVE TO BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT, IT WAS INTENDED FOR OCCASIONS FOR PUDS WHERE THEY NEED TO NOTIFY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND OFFER AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTS TO HAVE A MEETING, IF THE CITY COMMISSION CHOOSES TO WAIVE THE ONE-YEAR TIME LIMIT.
YOU DON'T BE HEARD AT THE JUNE 7TH PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING.
THEN DEPENDING ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION, IT'LL COME FORWARD AS INTRODUCTION IN FIRST READING FOR AN ORDINANCE WITH THE DOCUMENTS ATTACHED FOR AMENDING THE PUD TO THE CITY COMMISSION, AND THEN IT WOULD GO TO A SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING AS A NORMAL ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PUD.
>> YES. IT WILL COME BACK TO US.
THE TWO HEARINGS, THE FIRST READING AND THE SECOND READING.
>> FOR THE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, SEEING NONE, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE WAIVER OF THE ONE-YEAR TIME RESTRICTION FOR 36 GRANADA STREET [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] MOTION AND A SECOND FURTHER DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE.
MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> THANK YOU. THE MOTION IS APPROVED.
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON CAN WE PLEASE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS GONE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
IT'S ACTUALLY AN ISSUE, IT'S SETTING A PRECEDENT.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE [NOISE] WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT.
[00:30:04]
>> WELL, THE LESSONS HAVE BEEN LEARNED, I THINK BY STAFF.
I THINK IT JUST WAS A LACK OF APPRECIATION OF IT INITIALLY.
THANK YOU TO COMMISSIONER BLONDER FOR PULLING OFF.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE NOW ON ITEMS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
>> THANK YOU. ITEMS BY THE CITY CLERK.
>> ITEMS BY MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS.
[14. ITEMS BY MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS]
I HAVE NONE. VICE MAYORS [INAUDIBLE].>> I DID NOTICE THAT WHILE I WAS DOING SOME OF MY RESEARCH FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING, THIS STRATEGIC PLAN THAT WE GO BY WAS LAST.
THE VERSION THAT'S ON OUR WEBSITE IS AN OLDER VERSION.
IT'S A 2020 AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT STAFF UPDATED TO THE MOST RECENT VERSION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.
>> I MEAN, IT'S A RESOURCE THAT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.