Stand and face the flag.
Pledge ‸ allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:00:19–00:00:20 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:24–00:00:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Chairperson Park.
Here.
Vice Chair Anderson.
Here.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:32–00:00:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Board Member Finley. Board Member Greenwood.
Here.
Board Member Jones. Board Member Stewart. Board Member Wheeler.
Here.
Board Member Sangle. Board Member Wall.
Here.
Board Member
Bashan, and then City Attorney Ike.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:00:53–00:01:09 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Here.
All right. Thank you, ma'am. Our next item, item 2, is for the approval of agenda and the minutes. Can
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:01:09–00:01:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
get someone to make a motion or move to approve the agenda? Has everyone had time to look over the agenda?
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:01:09–00:01:17 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Are there any staff changes?
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:01:19–00:01:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:19–00:01:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
I will up motion to accept as admitted
I
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:01:28–00:01:29 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
second
motion by mr. Anderson and a second any further discussion all in favor
any
opposed? All righty. And then for the minutes,
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:01:41–00:01:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that everyone had time to look over the minutes? If so, you get someone to move to approve.
the ‸ only thing I notice is sometimes they forget to change the next meeting date on there but other than that as far as the the actual minutes themselves I thought
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:05–00:02:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
this one I don't think it's I just think it's a notation
‸ gotcha you know
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:15–00:02:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:18–00:02:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?
Excellent. Motion passes.
All right. Next on. We have no old business. So under new business, ‸ item one.
all right. I'll jump right in good evening Alexis Crespo I am the consulting city planner ‸ on this next case. items one and two, are both related to the Four Corners Overlay District. Item one is a comprehensive plan amendment, a text change to the mixed use, future land use category text of the comprehensive plan. It's not a map change. So, ‸ first time is fairly minor in nature. It does lay the groundwork for the land development code amendment to establish the Four Corners Overlay District, which is a
meatier
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:03:13–00:03:14 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
longer document, as you may have noticed from, from the ordinance.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:16–00:03:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
on the comprehensive plan amendment to start and then I can abridge my second presentation is needed as we get to the next item so I'll start again with the with a city initiated comprehensive plan text amendment. We're, seeking your recommendation of approval this evening, to, send this up for expedited state review to amend the text, which is specifically figure future land use table one standards for future land use categories
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:49–00:03:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
implementing zoning district for the next use future land use category so that sounds confusing and I think the table will will illuminate how straightforward that really is. But in general tonight we're talking about an area known as the four corners overlay district. This is a key intersection that you're all very familiar with at the intersection of the US Highway
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:19–00:04:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and State Road 520 as you're entering into Cocoa Village.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:23–00:04:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
adopted specifically for this portion of the city. And the applicable zoning district is commercial parkway or CP this next slide is an aerial location map with the overlay district depicted in the red dashed line
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:47–00:04:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
corridor were analyzed but today we're here because this specific area has inconsistencies between the underlying future land use category and the specific implementing zoning district in place.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:06–00:05:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
one portion of this overall visioning exercise so it really is a relatively small area I think it's ten acres including the rights of way around this US 1 and 520 intersection
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:22–00:05:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
shop establishment if you will as you move to the west across the streets on the north side of 520, you have a predominantly vacant lot. There is an existing building there that's not currently being used.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:44–00:05:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you have a vacant lot or vacant parcels totaling about one and a half acres in size. And then lastly, the southeast quadrant is the car right car dealership. so laying some of the groundwork. The mixed-use future land use category was adopted into the comprehensive plan in 2010. And it was really intended to establish what we'll call meaning meaningful standards for a better form of development in the
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:19–00:06:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
as you exit the interstate you see a lot of what we call strip commercial development form, where you've got a parking lot, ‸ single-use building. There's not a lot of pedestrian infrastructure or other than a sidewalk along the frontage, very little landscaping, lack of architectural detail, etc. So in efforts to allow for quality development and redevelopment, this specific future land use category was created 15 years ago. And it's very specific language. It includes about a page or two of policies, which makes it fairly unique from your other standard the future land use categories
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:03–00:07:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to the property solely by vehicle and orienting the use of the property. to vehicles. It speaks to the reduction of greenhouse gas by promoting bicycle and pedestrian movements to these sites. And it also really looks to beautification of the city,
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:27–00:07:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And again, really focusing on wanting a mix of land uses, meaning having some residential commercial retail restaurants, office, a plate, a building where you could have office on the ground floor. And units above So encouraging a range of uses and instead of just having commercial retail along the frontage the other I think important piece of background that we included in your backup materials is your community redevelopment area plans,
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:03–00:08:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the diamond square and the cocoa CRA is in place you've adopted those plans you continue to update them. These plans are also very focused on walkable pedestrian friendly redevelopment. In order to
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:08:20–00:08:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
beautiful gateway to downtown. cocoa or cocoa village And as you can see, the four corners
overlay district in
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:08:27–00:08:28 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
red here is just
[unclear audio — 0:09 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:29–00:08:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
about 13 years after we adopted the mixed-use future land use category, you have this table in your comprehensive plan. It's not a typical that a city includes a chart to explain what the implementing or allowable zoning districts eligible zoning districts are for each future land use category ‸ try to provide clarity. It became evident and it was really directed in the initial 2010 comp plan that the city reconcile the allowable zoning districts and land development code regulations for this mixed-use future land use category
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:14–00:09:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
buildings so there's in order to even do a mixed-use building you'd need at minimum a special exception so the uses there are very auto oriented and so
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:31–00:09:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
some unique design and use standards and in order to reconcile ‸ the long-standing CP zoning district and the future land use category category so something like this doesn't happen overnight this is you might remember Steve Noto who
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:56–00:09:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
him presenting at a very well attended community workshop back in June of last year so about a year in the making before you hear this evening
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:07–00:10:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
CRA's city council to get input and working on preparing these amendments for some time and taking it to public hearing that community outreach meeting we sent out 1800 notices there was also a newsletter that included notification of
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:29–00:10:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
so we really tried to go above and beyond to let people know we were working on this project and get their input in and include them in the process it was also
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:41–00:10:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
website and that
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:45–00:10:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
online attendees and those follow-up meetings we did were with the Cocoa CRA specifically Diamond Square CRA
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:57–00:11:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
year at these visioning workshops I think a picture is worth a thousand words as they say ‸ so what we did is
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:11–00:11:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
what zoning is and the inconsistencies in place and then talked about how do we achieve better design synergy and why when you're in certain locations do you feel more comfortable? Do you think it looks more attractive? Do you feel more able to walk to that place or would you like to sit on the patio and have the coffee? There's some places you would not want to sit on the patio and have the coffee
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:38–00:11:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so we looked at how do we communicate that from a picture to code? So this
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:48–00:11:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
some key things here that we believe incorporating into the four corners will have a positive impact on development and redevelopment
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:59–00:12:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the high visibility crosswalk connections due to the contrasting painting there's outdoor seating that's set back comfortably from the street and not only
accessed
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:12:14–00:12:15 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
by a sidewalk but there's also additional plantings plantings in between so that you feel buffered and protected from vehicles. You note that the building is very close to the property line. You're not looking at parking lot that you would have to traverse to get to the door and maybe cross a drive through lane or
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:33–00:12:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
The building is very close to the street, so you're able to enjoy the architecture of the building. Along with that, you can see that there's additional windows. as large windows that provides visual interest. You've got canopies, awnings, and different texture changes on the building to also make it attractive. here's another view of the same ‸ Starbucks and we know that the market is going to demand certain things where it's this is America people love their vehicles people are going to want to have the convenience of drive throughs especially on arterial roads so the intent here is not to preclude it's just to implement better design standards so that we get to sites that look more in line with this than what we have today
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:22–00:13:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and the sidewalk to make the pedestrian feel more comfortable. You've got a knee wall to screen headlights and screen direct views of vehicles. You've got the drive through is actually along this portion of the building so that you're not seeing the queuing cars from the street. And so again, to make for a more attractive environment. We did some visualizations of taking those types of concepts of bringing the building closer to the road, including streetscape standards,
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:56–00:14:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:02–00:14:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we're going to roll out to you today. This is with a building with heightened design standards located closer to the roadway. and more pedestrian street planings along that front edge. Here's another view. here's
another view again
some of the same concepts of when you bring the building closer.
um
and the environment that that can create. And then this is, of course, of the church and the smoke shop parcel. And if that were to be redeveloped for the building closer to the roadway with maybe outdoor seating, different articulation, how that can, um dress up the intersection. ‸ So to kind of close out the text, amendment so we can probably dig into what you might be more interested in, which is the LD land development code amendment. We're really only making one change. The future land use is not being changed for this area. It will still be mixed use, which is a very dense, intense permissible category. It just does direct the the land use pattern to be mixed use in nature and compact walkable and urban informed.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:11–00:15:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
is the implementing zoning district. So
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:20–00:15:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
when you read the allowable uses and the intent of that district.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:29–00:15:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the overlay to supplement that, to ensure that redevelopment does meet the comprehensive plan, which is the guiding document for the city. staff and their staff report outlined that this is consistent with the comprehensive plan, particularly the
policy
policy 1.1.2.6 which is your mixed use category this builds in the architectural enhancements the mix of uses and a walkable environment and standards to achieve that
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:58–00:16:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
so this will actually enhance consistency by getting rid of ‸ the cp
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:10–00:16:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
objectives, and policies under goal 1.2 and other policies under
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:16:15–00:16:20 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:16:20–00:16:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:18 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:16:27–00:16:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:45–00:16:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
hearing before City Council.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:49–00:16:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
questions for staff?
Thank you. ‸ My question is going to be basically addressing the CP zoning because I don't know if some of the members of the audience here were here when a project was being presented for this location and there was a concern which was almost all the people that live in that area and own property in that area and it was for what was being presented was a combination car wash and gas station sales. With this CP that you all are going to include in with the mixed-use definition because
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:47–00:17:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I don't think would be comfortable with that.
Right. So this will apply a zoning district
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:00–00:18:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So the zoning will
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:05–00:18:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:10–00:18:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
but will also eliminate those uses that are solely auto-oriented, where there's no, you know, if you're a pedestrian you're not there's no reason for you go to a car wash. So taking out those uses that are solely car focused in order to meet the intent of mixed
use.
So
I can understand now. You're saying it would not allow the car wash idea, but it would allow a gas station.
No sir.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:46–00:18:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
next 02-2025. Yeah that's very deep in your package because of all the data and analysis included but that ordinance has a
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:58–00:19:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
that will apply to this area and it and
I'll wait to get more info then on the next panel.
Thank
you.
I
can
refer you to which page that
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:16–00:19:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
this package 281 it gives an overlaying update to what that code will be specific to it in its verdict.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:27–00:19:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
at that as well and that will address the car wash, the liquor store, the smoke shop, and the gas station codifying that these are not within the
parameters.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:19:42–00:19:43 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
that's
important diamond square made it very clear. So
that has been noted in the information that was thank you Marcus. Thank
you.
And
this specific
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:51–00:19:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that's where the permitted uses for the new CP-FCOD are enumerated starting on page 47. There's a total of 26 permitted uses. There's also uses allowed by
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:20:13–00:20:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Yeah,
[unclear audio ▶]
was
just looking
for it.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:20–00:20:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
If we would like to pause the meeting and I can print that the last meeting we decided we didn't want full packets. Oh, I'm sorry.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:36–00:20:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So
it's fine. Okay.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:42–00:20:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:47–00:20:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
They have the staff report from ‸ the full agenda.
Okay.
Okay.
All right. Any further questions from the board to the staff? All right. Thank you. All right. We'll close this portion to the board and open it up to the public on this ordinance. 25-00500002. Anybody from the public like to speak on this item?
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:17–00:21:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Good evening. Cole Oliver, [address], Cocoa Village.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:29–00:21:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. Sorry.
Sorry.
Okay.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:37–00:21:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ and they own the properties on the northeast corner of the intersection
in
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:21:45–00:21:45 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
the southeast corner of the intersection. Just ‸ for clarification, that's
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:49–00:21:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You know, I guess ‸ I'll start with where I was going to end and then kind of backfill with that if you guys can indulge me for a few minutes. So, what we're here on behalf of my client and the other property owners are here too, and I can't speak on behalf of them, is that we're asking the city to take a step back tonight and table this item to allow us to come in and work with the city towards
a
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:22:16–00:22:17 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
ordinance that perhaps can work for us on our properties. And the rationale behind that is my client did attend the meetings in 2024. And the first time that we saw a copy of the ordinance that was being proposed here as drafted was in about early May, about seven days or eight days before it was supposed to come before this board.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:37–00:22:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We went in and worked with the city manager and he agreed to push the hearing back a little bit so we could try to understand what was being proposed.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:49–00:22:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and the different information that we've gotten. And we do have some objections as ‸ to how the use section of this ordinance and the Comp Plan Amendment is being proposed. The architectural standards, the design standards, the look and feel of it,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:07–00:23:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
okay with that. We want to work with the city.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:11–00:23:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of land on one of the busiest and most dangerous intersections in Brevard County. You know, the own
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:23:24–00:23:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
through this intersection. We have 30 lanes of traffic when you add up the turning lanes and everything else here. And we have two railroad tracks that are going through with the high speed rail now. So there's a lot of conflicting stuff going back and forth through here. And to try to, in our opinion, shoehorn pedestrian uses in between railroad tracks and 30 lanes of traffic ‸ is maybe inconsistent at best and dangerous at worst, because we probably don't want to encourage the pedestrians to be crossing at this intersection. A safer place for these pedestrians to cross would be further north and south where we don't have all the conflicting turning lanes back and forth. And so, you know, we're, that's ‸ the biggest concern on the use section, is trying to shoehorn in this, the pedestrian friendly uses. The, to the picture of the Starbucks,
you
know, at least one of my clients properties is 0.09 acres. The minimum Starbucks is really looking to go on in these days. And there's a real estate expert here that can speak on it. It's approximately one and a quarter acres. And when you add in retention, everything else is, it's very hard to do on these. And so while everyone would love a Starbucks, they're a great asset to the community, they just don't fit here.
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:46–00:24:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
land use designations that would fit in there, or zoning designations that would fit into the overlying comp plan land use is ‸ difficult at best for our clients to make an economic return. I think if it passes as is, ‸ those of us that live and work here in the village are probably going to be looking at least on my client's property, because there are developed parcels with existing uses that aren't, won't be allowed. Is there going to be locked in to those uses in the foreseeable future? And there's no real ability to get an alternative use in there that fits what the market is demanding on these thoroughfares and throughways that exist.
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:34–00:25:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
just making it look better, he's in danger of losing that sole use that he's making any economic return off of now. And they don't, my client doesn't believe that if those uses are disallowed in the future, that there is something that's really going to work for them there. And then
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:57–00:25:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that someone eventually will try to buy and come in and go through the whole visioning process of trying to change it to what could fit ‸ there. You know, the,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:09–00:26:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
take a step back, let us come in. We can set some times and dates certain because everybody's calendars are difficult. The city's, you know, very busy with a lot going on. And so are the property owners, but we do want to work with the city. And we don't think that the drafting basically a brand new designated zoning code to fit into the mixed land use category is really fixing the problem.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:37–00:26:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So our preferred approach would be table it, come in. We reevaluate whether this small slice should be mixed use. I mean, I don't know many people that want to put residential uses next to 30 lanes of traffic and a high speed rail. And that's, that's kind of what mixed use is. Otherwise it's looking at what does the commercial market want in this section.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:03–00:27:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that they, it's, they won't. Unfortunately, it's stuff the city doesn't want necessarily, which is the car washes and gas stations, but that's what the market's saying is there. So our first option would be is let's take a step back, look at if we can determine whether the mixed use future land use is the appropriate category here. Our opinion is commercial would be appropriate here instead of mixed use. If that doesn't work, we can take a look at the other existing city zoning designations that might fit here and work.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:36–00:27:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:39–00:27:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
future land use that has commercial general as the allowed land use in it and the existing land use in it. And I mean, we're talking not even, and I'm a terrible golfer, but not even a nine, you know, iron away from us. It's just on the other side of the railroad tracks that allows commercial general. That might be a use category that could work that
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:03–00:28:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And, you know, if not,
I
would, we just stick with the commercial parkway district. But again,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:12–00:28:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the landowners because all of the private landowners are here tonight in opposition to the ordinance as drafted, not in total, but just as drafted now. And, you know, I'm happy to take any questions that that you all might have of me and then otherwise I'll shut up and let the other folks speak.
Any questions from the board?
Mr. Chabot. How much time do you need?
Well, depending on how quickly we can get scheduled, you know, if I would think if we could come back to you guys in August, if the city can coordinate with us and say, look, we can have either weekly or biweekly meetings to try to. To set a plan out,
you
know, that that I think I'm speaking on behalf of my client, but he's amenable to working with the city. It's just
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:03–00:29:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from when we saw the plan as presented.
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I do have a couple of points of reference in which
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:18–00:29:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
This has been a visionary process for some time. So this isn't something that has happened by happen chance. It has already been in play. So we know this to be a fact. So as to when you've elected to interact with it, that's at your chosen discretion. So I will say that publicly. ‸ Second, you spoke about and I'm going to paraphrase a blight. One would already say that these four corners are already a blight. So we know that something has to be done in order to elevate and to move us forward under current streetscaping. We would note that there are several different options that have been relayed through interaction through staff and
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:02–00:30:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
held in the month of August of 2024. So I don't know if you are a privy to attending ‸ those, but they were there at that time. I will give you a point of reference when you speak about now an example while you were speaking. There are similar
intersection
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:30:21–00:30:22 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
here in Brevard County,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:23–00:30:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to what we're speaking about when you ‸ yourself stayed at Starbucks. We go
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:31–00:30:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
there? It is a Starbucks. And I know firsthand that the parts of land is probably equivalent to what we were discussing here in this open forum today. So overall, when you ask for time and consideration of time, I would also ask you to be considerate of, you outline in terms of your, to whom you represent, getting a return on their investment.
Well,
I'll give you a little background. I work in banking, so I think about this all the time. So this is where I get happy. Okay. So when you talk about return on investment, now you're talking, we said car wash, liquor store, smoke shop, general gas stations. Well, you already have a smoke shop there, correct? ‸ My client does, yes.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:18–00:31:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:21–00:31:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
what have you done to improve the streetscape?
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:28–00:31:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
member of the community, we've met the code. Okay. So that's all I just wanted to highlight those points that you've made so that we can have a better course to move forward.
Yeah,
Mr. Wheeler, if I may, I, you know, just, I would say that, um, you know, as I think I probably ineloquently stated is that we don't necessarily have a problem with the streetscape standards and the architectural standards and that aspect of the, of what's being presented.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:57–00:32:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:01–00:32:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
I mean, if you're going to say you want more time, then what do we want time for? What do we, what would we like to use them for?
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:11–00:32:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It would be probably more uses that are oriented to the motorist public. You know, for example, some of the uses that are allowed in the code as presented are bowling alleys, you know, greenhouses. Is that really what's
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:23–00:32:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So we would like to try to work through what would maybe be viable.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:30–00:32:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you know, it says specifically that it's to work with market studies and market data on that.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:38–00:32:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
in this portion. And we will commit to providing that to, you know, the group if we can work together.
All right. Thank you.
And, you know, I don't disagree with you on the saying it's blight. Our concern wasn't the existing condition today. It's that the code as drafted would almost force the person, the client to leave it as is or else potentially have to go vacant for a long period of time. So thank you, Mr. Wheeler for your questions.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:08–00:33:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
‸ I'm following up from Marcus when he mentioned that there's been a lot of meetings about this. And I know the staff has done extensive work on this to get to the point where we're at. But there's a lot of money that land on all those four corners very valuable. And I don't think that anybody's going to do or build something on there unless the return is there because it's just cost prohibitive. But one thing I wanted to discuss with you because postponing it, I think we have dealt with this long enough. We need the staff is asking us for direction about this property. And because we've gone to these meetings, I have ‸ in reference to ‸ the location of these four corners and the input that was put there, especially from Diamond Square.
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:11–00:34:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that might be available that you could ask for and maybe get approval for it. But I need input from the staff if I'm on the wrong track here. Is there any variance possibilities or special exceptions that could go with this property the way that you are proposing for the change here?
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:43–00:34:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
standard of the code. There are uses listed as special exception here. You can always file for a planned unit development zoning district, which can be deemed consistent with any future link. That's an implementing zoning district of any of the future land use categories because you get a site plan. You can condition it to meet certain policies.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:09–00:35:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And this is not precluding anyone from asking for flexibility.
Thank you, because of that information there,
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:23–00:35:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
staff has done and also the other properties you identified. I guarantee you the staff has looked at what is all around this property before they spent all their time and work on putting this together. So what I'm trying to tell you is you've got some wiggle room, lack of a better term, and something that it ‸ is definitely going to be a final decision.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:57–00:36:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
be packed with the people that are directly in that neighborhood and they're ‸ going to let us know what they want there. And ‸ we've already done that. They've already given us this information, which is why in the very beginning, even Marcus had mentioned that, that we had a meeting here
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:22–00:36:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
They had and that's when it became even more evident that the people that are in that ‸ neighborhood, they want something that would be a positive thing for the diamond square because they going to get TIF money out of it. And that helps support diamond square for it to be able to function. Sure. So that's where the importance is. And
I'm not aware of the
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:36:52–00:36:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
different CRAs. But ‸ this
is why I'm giving you this background information because I'm more inclined not to postpone it. And they need something concrete. The staff ‸ needs something concrete like what's being presented to us to further massage the ideas that now can be done on that property.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:19–00:37:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that the staff had to correct in order to support good ideas for those different four corners.
Yes, sir. And please don't take anything I've said as any sort of disparagement. Well, I didn't. ‸ I did.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:37:36–00:37:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
I'm just sharing information. And ‸ our thing is we know they've worked hard in a long time to get it to the draft that it is now. That draft was presented to us ‸ in May. So we're barely a month from it. And we're digesting it and getting the different records and trying to provide feedback.
Yes, sir.
To your point on continuing to massage it, once it gets passed tonight, it goes up to council and then
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:00–00:38:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That's what it is. It's not
really gone. I mean, even if it when it does go to council, that's why I brought up my questions about variances and special exceptions. And there are a list as was stated. So you might want to look into that.
Yes, ‸ we're asking time to be able ‸ to do that. But I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
Yes,
sir. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Are there any other questions for the.
Mr. Chair,
may
I just I wanted to address two things briefly. One. This is directed to
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:31–00:38:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
One is just that the four
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:38:34–00:38:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's not in the diamond square CRA. Just OK. Thank you. And also
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:42–00:38:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So I did want to make that clear. Yes.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:51–00:38:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There's still options.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:54–00:38:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
some options, but. Yeah.
Thank you. That being our concern. Yeah.
All right. Any further questions for the gentleman? Thank you, sir. Thank you all. Would anybody else like to speak on the side
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:39:11–00:39:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from the audience? Just presented a card.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:18–00:39:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We've owned two of the four corners for about 20 years, at least 20 years. When I received notice of the city visioning session, I was excited. I understand the perception of those two parcels, and we are certainly open minded to something that increases the value and serves the community better. I saw it as a real opportunity to deliver a win for the city, the citizens and for us. For us,
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:50–00:39:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
easy group to figure out myself and the other owners. We're real estate developers, commercial property folks.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:57–00:40:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And we frequently work with cities and governments to take stuff that, in your words, is blighted and make it nicer. And it's nicer for the city.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:11–00:40:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And it's nicer for the people. And it's nicer for us because the rents are. We're easy to figure out. So I was excited when I got notice of this and I went to the visioning meeting, introduced myself to staff and went in, just, you know, let's get together and let's work something out that's a win. The other great thing about this project is you've got the church and,
you know,
three or four other owners. You can get us in a room and we can sit and figure out what the market wants, what people want, what we're able to build and kind of turn ‸ it into. And, you know, ‸ that's an easy win. So I reached out to staff and wasn't really able to connect with them, you know, ‸ and this is the business that we're in. So we weren't able to really kind of get up with them on it. And initially I was really excited by it. So, you know, I'd figured it, ‸ you know, they'd kind of gotten distracted with it.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:09–00:41:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
ordinance.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:41:13–00:41:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Asked for a meeting, finally got a meeting that time with our attorney. And then we got a chance to look at that code in May. And at that point at the meeting, staff was helpful and they agreed to give us a month and push it back and to look at this. But that's all we've been able to kind of work with on them.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:34–00:41:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:39–00:41:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And it's going to end up being a loss for the city. If you go ahead and you pass this through,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:46–00:41:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We know that costs a lot of money.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:52–00:41:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of money to get that Starbucks thing.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:55–00:41:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
shop parcel. So that one could kind of mislead some folks, but not to say we can't find something that's valuable that goes there. The car right parcel that we own ‸ can certainly put something valuable ‸ there. And we want something valuable there. But, you know, the what's happening now is if you go and pass this through, you're not going to ever get anything valuable or anything nice. Because when I looked at the ordinance, you got a bunch of boilerplate in there that doesn't really make sense. Like it's like they didn't even kind of really stop and think about it.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:42:31–00:42:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There's we're not building a lot of bookstores ‸ these days on that corner. Driving range. OK, really. So so but you've only got now we can shake our heads and say like, oh, OK, this is a big thing. You've got four parcels. So it makes me worry that's that we're not really thinking and applying all of our efforts to this. If we're just like bookstore, bowling alley, greenhouse. And meanwhile, the owners are here and we're like, let's sort it out. You know, let's get something that the market wants, that the people wants.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:04–00:43:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So I don't want to see the people and y'all spend all this time and money to have a bad outcome. And if you pass this, you're going to get a bad outcome because my current uses are locked in. I personally, as a property owner,
am
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:43:24–00:43:25 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
not in love with smoke shops and I'm not in love with used car dealerships. OK, I am in love with what the market gives me the best return on for my property. And on those two corners,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:34–00:43:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
OK, now it's a smoke shop. It's a
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:40–00:43:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
things.
It's
because if I go out in the world of tenants and say, who's going to rent here? That's what gives me the most money.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:51–00:43:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
view to a lot of people and citizens, because I look like a bad, greedy guy.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:59–00:44:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
If Starbucks pays me more, let's get a Starbucks in there. If something pays me more, let's get something in there. Let's get something nicer. And that's what we want. All the options that are in here, ain't none of them are going to be better than the smoke shop and the used car lot. But my use is grandfathered in there. So you don't give me any options.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:20–00:44:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And then I can't, worst of all, I can't improve my properties to even make them nice.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:27–00:44:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
since I'm already non-conforming, I lose my use. I'm not going to do that. Like I said, I'm a simple guy to figure out how I'm going to, how to incentivize me. OK, and we want something nice. So if you pass it as it is, there is no incentive for me to not have it be a smoke shop and not have it be a used car lot. But I'm here to tell you, please send it back and work with me so we can find an incentive. Because I don't want to lose a bunch of money. ‸ I want to, ‸ you know, ‸ I think that's pretty how people work. ‸ Like we're in that business and that's what we want to do. I work with cities all the time to find a middle ground.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:07–00:45:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
but I want something that's as profitable. And we're just I'm just here asking as the property owner to give me some time. And I'm very sensitive to the time that the city has put in. I'm not really worried about why
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:45:22–00:45:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
why we're here.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:25–00:45:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And you've got you've got such a chance for a big win because
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:32–00:45:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We're all developers. We can all deploy capital to make things better. You know, we just got to stop and find something that works that isn't that is actually not fantasy. And I'm sorry, but
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:46–00:45:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
No one's going to do a bowling alley there and ‸ brick and mortar border stores, bookstores or, you know, none of that makes sense. But I'm here and I'm the guy that we can get together and make sense with if we can just get the city to sit down with us. And that's what we're asking for. So because here's the thing, I don't want to
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:05–00:46:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
into perpetuity. I don't want to do the used car lot into perpetuity. But that's if this passes, that's exactly the what's being incentivized because it's the most profitable thing.
Okay.
Does anybody have any questions for the speaker? Are you done?
sir?
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:46:24–00:46:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
I didn't want to cut you off there.
No, I'm done. Okay, I'm happy to answer questions. Thank you guys for your time.
Any questions for the speaker? So I'll make a question or kind of a statement.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:35–00:46:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:40–00:46:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
do something better with the property. I think that's kind of the upsetting part. Right. We were left with a payday loan and a weed shop. Smoke shop. Excuse me. That promotes chronic right there on the corner. And then the used car dealership. Right. And so in 20 years of capitalism and the better, better markets, why did you wait to the city forces your hand to choose a better place to do it? A better, better business. You know what
I
mean?
Well, I don't have an answer for that, but I'm here and I'm ready to, because if not, you're going to keep having those things that you yourself say you don't like. And I understand that.
Yeah.
So if you pass,
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:21–00:47:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So, I mean, if ‸ you want to pass it and have that, you can or I'm here and I'm saying, let's figure it out. Right. And give us some time to figure it out.
My question would be, and I respect what you're saying, what
you're saying. The
city doesn't still doesn't want to do the things that you're saying you believe are the best market for your properties. What will happen then if they come back and say we've worked with them, but we recommend the same amendment?
‸ You know, that's difficult to answer. I don't know. I'm hopeful that we can find something. I haven't even really thought about that. Like it's I think it's the city has an interest. We have an interest.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:00–00:48:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
time that we've been there. I understand that y'all don't like it and it's an eyesore, but ‸ there's a problem. We fix it. You know, we pay our taxes and we abide by the laws and the rules. And, you know, so, I mean, I would think that we can sit down and find something that works for everyone. We just haven't had that opportunity yet. So I understand and appreciate your question. I just can't speculate as I don't know. That's a couple of steps removed. Hopefully we don't get there.
Gotcha. Thank you very much.
I got
one.
Mr.
Shabba.
Once again, you're saying by August you could be ready.
Yes, I would. If the city will sit and work with us and go through some stuff. I just want an opportunity to sit and meet with the city and go over it. All we've been able to do with the city is meet and have them say, yeah, we'll delay it a month. And then I said, okay, can we get together and talk? And that didn't really work out. So we just want to earnestly be able to find something that works. And I mean, it's this formula I explained. We're happy to reinvest and put stuff in it if we can find a use that is palatable to this. We haven't been able to explore that yet.
And
I'd like to be able to try and find something that's palatable for them and make sense for us.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 00:49:11–00:49:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:15 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:09 ▶]
What specifically did not work out?
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:49:40–00:49:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
set up a meeting to discuss this.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:49:44–00:49:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
visioning. And I think it's good to do that.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:49:50–00:49:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
room and you can sit down and you can. That's normally what we do in these situations. You go and meet with the ‸ planners and ‸ the city manager and say, hey, you know, what works for you guys? What works for us? This is our ‸ it's a collaboration. We weren't able to set up a meeting to have a collaboration. And I and that's what I would like. I would like a collaboration because that's what we normally do in this situation with cities.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:16–00:50:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the same. You know, we're not complicated folk. So. Thank
you.
All right.
Any further questions for the gentleman? Thank you again.
Thank you.
Anybody else from the audience like to speak on this item? Presented a car. Yes, sir.
Hi, good evening. I'm Max Kaiser.
[00:50:46] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:50:46–00:50:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We own the southwest corner, roughly acre 1.39 acres of land there. I don't think I met any of you before. I've spoken to some of these nice people here over email for a few years now. So it's nice to actually meet them in person. I just wanted to give you a little just to elaborate on what these two gentlemen said and just to give you a little bit of a history of my property.
[00:51:17] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:17–00:51:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
everyone's memory. I took it took a long time to assemble what you see there. It wasn't just one property.
It
was it was actually four different owners and also vacating that little section of Stone Street. And we did that back in 2017, 2016. The original intent of us purchasing that from the former owners, Mrs. Crum, ‸ if you know her, was to do
[00:51:48] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:48–00:51:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:50] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:50–00:51:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
at some point when we when we bought the property from the with that intention.
[00:51:56] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:56–00:52:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
much approved. We even got a zoning letter back then. I'll give you a copy of it at the last minute
[00:52:09] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:09–00:52:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
They sold the company to ‸ European firm.
[00:52:14] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:14–00:52:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
All right. It happens all the time, unfortunately, or else there probably would have been a Cumberland there today. And ‸ I wouldn't be here standing talking to you anyway. So the back in 2018, they did that. They canceled.
Okay.
‸ We kind of just let it let it go for a couple of years and COVID hit. We just kind of just waited. We said, let's just wait till the pandemic things over. And then about three years ago, I hired Colliers, which is one of the big commercial brokers in the country to market the property. And they spent a lot of time marketing this ‸ specific property through email blasts.
[00:52:56] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:56–00:53:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
one in Vegas, in Orlando. They did that.
[00:53:04] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:04–00:53:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
continuing to market it. And, you know, I don't know if you're familiar with my site, but the site has a lot of issues between the size, the railroad, the FPL power lines that run through it. That's probably one of the bigger issues, the right of ways, but and those distribution lines, this having to move that pole, which is what's going to have to be done no matter who goes there, because that's in the way of the of anything that could be built there. So this moving that is probably going to cost over a million dollars.
[00:53:38] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:53:38–00:53:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah, I'm not going to spend a million dollars moving that. I already have a lot of money invested in this property. I'm fortunate enough not to have a mortgage, but it's a lot of money for me tied up there, you know. So just to give you a little a little little idea here of what we've done so far. And this is just the feedback that I've gotten from the market. OK, we presented it to hundreds of tenants, national tenants, ‸ smaller tenants. You mentioned Starbucks. They turned it down. The site doesn't work for them for whatever reason. More of a demographic issue for them. It doesn't work for them. I mean, Burger King turned it down. Aldi, it's too small for an Aldi, a grocer. It's just too small. Between the ‸ setbacks, the retention areas, the FPNL lines, all those things that you might have, you have under an acre of buildable somehow to make a building fit there. And that doesn't work for any grocer in this country. The other issues with it is, you know, the entire rear of the property runs around a railroad. ‸ That's an issue for a lot of people. The population and the mile radius is pretty, is a little light as far as, you know, population goes. The good thing ‸ is, is that it has a traffic, has a lot of traffic and it has a lot of visibility. That's the good thing about it. And that's why I was attracted to the property. Like I said, we, we marketed it to several, several tenants. We had over 11,000 leads, 11,000 leads. Okay. 2,646 impressions. Okay. 27 different email campaigns were sent. This is the past three years through Collier's and they do a really good job. They, they know the market. Collier's knows the market.
[00:55:28] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:28–00:55:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
McDonald's, Starbucks, Burger King. Um, the only people, Bojangles, Raising Cane's, which was like a fast food chicken place, Del Taco. The only people that have expressed any interest is a gas inconvenience. That's just the reality of the site. It's a reality. You know, those are the only people that could spend the money to develop it.
[00:55:55] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:55–00:55:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
a gas
[00:55:59] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Machine re-recognized
and convenience
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:55:59–00:56:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
store. Um, they're the only type of user that will pay the kind of rent. That will make me any type of return, you know?
[00:56:07] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:07–00:56:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:11] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:11–00:56:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Um, we even talked to different cannabis dispensaries, which is not really what I'd like to do, but they turned it down.
[00:56:20] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:20–00:56:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:21] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:21–00:56:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So,
you know, it's, it's a nice visioning process. The pictures look great, but the market is what it is, you know? So
[00:56:34] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:34–00:56:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm going to be left with a vacant property. And that's going to hurt the community because every year that's been sitting empty, the city's losing a big tax revenue. It's costing me $10,000 a year in taxes to keep it. Not much. That you should be collecting $200,000 a year in tax revenue to help Diamond Square. That's not happening.
[00:56:57] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:57–00:56:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That could have been over a million dollars going to Diamond Square to help the people. Jobs. There's a lot of benefits, even with the gas inconvenience.
I
know it's not the number one choice, but that's a reality for my particular property.
[00:57:13] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:57:13–00:57:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
any interest for my lot. So I wanted to tell you that and just express my concerns about this ordinance. And if it passes, I'm going to be stuck with a vacant lot. And that's really not what I intended to do when I bought that. And that's that's it. So thank you. If you have any questions, I'll be more than happy to answer them.
Thank you. Any questions for the gentleman?
The Cumberland
[00:57:41] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Farms
idea.
Yeah.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:57:43–00:57:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:57:44] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
2017. Yeah. Yeah. It's about 10 years ago. Yeah. And I really think that things have changed a lot from that time to now. Mm hmm. But I have another question for staff, but that was all I wanted to ask.
Okay. Yeah. And also this this one more thing at the time. I remember there was a big concern when we vacated Stone ‸ Street that the people came out and were a little were very like anxious about reopening the railroad crossing. That's not going to it's not going to happen. ‸ And that's before I bought the property. So once it closes, it's not going to open again. I don't see that happening. So that's all. Thank you. ‸ Thank you very much.
Thank
you.
Any further audience members like to come up?
I have a handout.
I'm
sure that's how to get it to y'all. Just walk around.
Yeah, let's just give it to me, Kim. Yeah,
I'll walk around. I've got a lot of wires.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:51–00:58:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Thank you.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:56–00:58:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:59:00–00:59:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You
know, you guys are the only city that doesn't have security out there.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:59:07–00:59:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Even Titusville now does.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:10–00:59:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:12–00:59:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Oh, oh. Oh, gotcha. Okay. Ron, yeah. Doc, hide. I have ten copies. Good evening, Chairman Park, members of the Planning and Zoning LPA.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:59:39–00:59:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm here on behalf of East Florida Motor Sales, LLC, and Urban Properties, Inc.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:48–00:59:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
These are properties that are owned by Mike Erdman, have been owned for him over 20 years. 25 years, I believe. And he is in opposition to the comprehensive plan change and the FCOD overlay zone. I have two separate presentations because that's the way I thought this would go forward. So this is the first packet I have for you. I just wanted to show you where the properties are. Urban Properties was not even part of the visioning. It's not in the overlay that was presented back to the public. I'm not really sure why it was included, and I would ask that it be excluded from this overlay district. Actually, I'd ask for East Florida Motor Sales properties, those two parcels, to be excluded as well. There are
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:37–01:00:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Half of that is for the future ‸ for the comprehensive plan change, and the other is for the zoning ordinance. I've read them. I looked through them.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:47–01:00:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I
also did a public records request and got over a thousand pages, which I have not gotten through yet. Because in order to pass this comprehensive plan amendment, you must have facts, data, and studies that support it. And I would present to you that this is a vision of what the city wants, the city public and potentially you all and the city council. But this is not what Mr. Erdman wants. Mr. Erdman was never called. Every other time I've seen this done, my clients have been called and interviewed by the planner,
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:15–01:01:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
What do you think? He was not contacted.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:19–01:01:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
boards. Dots on boards are not data. They're not studies. They're a vision. And we get that they want a vision and you want something. These are property owners that have property rights. That is a comprehensive plan policy that this city has adopted. And you all are obligated to at least consider private property rights when you pass future land use elements and zoning ordinances. So what I provided to you is to show you the property, this property, the East Florida Motor Sales property was purchased in 2000, ‸ 2001. That building has been there since 1961.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:01–01:02:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm not sure that sign is not a historic sign. It's not registered.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:06–01:02:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Oh, thank you. I didn't know that, but it is a cool sign.
Moved
there from five points.
Thank you. So, and then, so this is just to show you the properties that he owned, the sizes. He's been paying taxes on the property. He does have, as I said, that parcel that is a Erdman properties, LLC. It's currently vacant. It should not be included in this four corners overlay.
It
doesn't make sense when other properties in that area are not.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:35–01:02:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
He
currently does have active licenses on the property. East Florida Motor Sales property does have an active DMV sales license. And he does have a business tax receipt for auto sales currently to the city of Cocoa. There was a radius map in the information I received. There were over 164 people notice for this meeting. You said people would come out and support this. There's not anyone here except the property owners that are in opposition to this. They like their visioning. They want their Starbucks. I get that. But obviously the demographics don't work for Starbucks, nor to the size of the lots. My clients' particular properties are adjacent to a cemetery. And cemeteries devalue property, special residential, especially a residential ‸ property. I just pulled something,
a
blog yesterday that talks about that.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:03:31–01:03:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And there's nothing that can be done about that.
So
page 224 of 587 of your packet, which I've printed here again, this is the four corners visioning area that was presented at the visioning meetings.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:03:50–01:03:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
People didn't get to put stickers on that property. So I would ask that that be excluded from this overlay district. As to the actual text amendment to the comprehensive plan, I'd ask that you strike the within FCOD and just make CP to be consistent with the future land use. That's what ‸ should have been done in 2012 when they adopted the mixed use future land use.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:04:21–01:04:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
For some reason he didn't fix it then. You all knew about it in 2022 when Mod Wash came forward. I represented Mod Wash. I was here. They knew it was inconsistent then. You've had the Biscayne Bay properties has a ‸ zoning change pending. You all heard it last year. It's been stagnant.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:04:41–01:04:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
staff makes it out as if, or the planner makes it out as if, we have to do this to make it consistent. All you have to do is add CP in the text amendment. If you put this FCOD with it, you're taking away property rights.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:04:59–01:05:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:02–01:05:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
but it's not on the website. It's not part of the existing comprehensive plan on the website. But it did indeed adopt the city adopted the private property rights element of the comprehensive plan. And it does pretty much mimic the ‸ state statute, which I have in the last two pages of this packet.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:05:26–01:05:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The following rights have to be considered in local decision making. The right of a property and to physically possess and control his own interest in the property. And a property owner's right to use, maintain, develop, improve his property for personal use or for use of any other person. There's a lot that's in that package.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:46–01:05:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
My client is aggrieved and adversely affected by this comprehensive plan amendment. This does indeed alter the use and intensity of the uses currently allowed by putting a new zoning ‸ overlay on top of the other zoning overlays you have in this area.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:09–01:06:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The staff report says it is anticipated that construction of projects and
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:19–01:06:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
if you make this future land use change. There's no evidence to support that. If the mixed use allows a lot of things. If it were feasible, people would have come. Obviously the market is not driving businesses that you want to this area. I believe someone here said that the property is only valuable if market businesses want it. And that's true. The market is not wanting what you all are putting or saying must go here. If better design standards are what you want, which is what was told at the visioning meeting, then that can be adapted. But you are changing the uses on these properties that have been there in place.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:08–01:07:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
land use. And comfortable and attractive and outdoor seating are not things that draw property owners necessarily to develop their property. With that, I would ask that you recommend denial of this change except for changing to add the CP into the text into the future land use chart. Also, I mean, I have a whole nother presentation on the actual ordinance itself.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:43–01:07:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:07:46–01:07:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Thank
you for your time.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:07:54–01:07:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
have any questions? I got it. Mr. Chabot.
How much time does Mr. Erdman need to figure out what he wants to do with the property if things are changed?
Well, currently he's got a tenant in his building and he's got cars out there for sale.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:10–01:08:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That's not in the four corners. So I would ask that be taken out completely. He doesn't know what he's going to do with the property. No one's banging on his doors to buy it to develop it because the demographics don't warrant it. So I'm not asking for it to be tabled. I'm just asking for it to take out within FCOD and to
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:32–01:08:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
if you wanted to, but definitely the Erdman properties, the vacant property, it's not at
[unclear audio ▶]
four corners. Thank you.
Anyone else? All right. Anybody else from the audience like to speak on this item?
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:52–01:08:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
a property owner at 373 Stone Street in Cocoa, Florida. I ask that you pass this comprehensive amendment. And I'd like to thank you for listening to the people of Diamond Square and all those that came out to express their interest in our area because those property owners matter. They own property, they pay taxes just like everyone else. And whatever happens in that four corners directly impacts them too. The Diamond Square plan clearly requests connecting at all four areas of Diamond Square, connecting and reaching out and a walkable community does that. I grew up on Stone Street.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:09:50–01:09:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
with my brother and my mother. Stone Street has always been a walkable.
coco
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:09:58–01:09:59 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
has always been a walkable community. And I am grateful that you're looking at returning that back because it's not going to go away. People are still walking across 520, across the railroad track. That's a part of our culture. Walkable communities are the way. So perhaps you find businesses that are amenable to walkable communities like a Starbucks. I think that's a beautiful presentation with the buildings close to the roadways, allowing people who really matter the most is people.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:37–01:10:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
or whatever it is that ‸ works for that area, has to blend in with a walkable community. And that's what Diamond Square is with bicycles and pedestrians. And it's also a direct connect into downtown Cocoa Village.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:00–01:11:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
track, that does not deter people from walking. And I'd just like to thank you very much. I ask that you do not delay and go ahead and pass this comprehensive amendment, which is in favor of the Diamond Square plan and the people of Diamond Square and the entire surrounding Cocoa area. Thank you.
All right. Thank you, ma'am. Any further public comment?
My name is Pastor Oliver Wells
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:11:42–01:11:45 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:11:45–01:11:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:48–01:11:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm standing because I've been aware of the history, a great amount of history, with this area and all of the changes that have happened. And I recognize ‸ that the commerce and the commercial part of this, when I say commercial, I'm talking about the financial concerns are great. But you have people that have to be considered. I'm sure there's been some talk, and I'm sure there's been some representative amount of people that have been involved in this. But let me help you to recognize that the entire community, African-American community, was really historically, and I need to talk about this for a quick second,
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:13:05–01:13:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
disenfranchised in such a way where Stone Street was closed in the first place. And that really still leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of the residents in that area, because that area had history. And Ms. Bryant just really referenced that. It's always been a walkable community. It has. However, there are concerns now. Now, you don't want to just make something happen or shut down the opportunities that could come of this. The ‸ area has been closed. The reasoning was placed on the FEC, on the railroad. The
area has been closed. But
we know that the city had its hand in that as well. We know that for a fact. So I'm standing here to say, if you're going to do something, do something that benefits the community, that benefits the people, and not just the business owners that are looking for their pocketbooks, ‸ but think about the people. Think about what will help them. And I'm making this impassioned plea, so to speak, because I know a lot of those individuals in that community. I grew up here. That's why I'm here tonight. And so if you're going to do something that will help the community, then do that. Don't just come up with a gas station or something just to ‸ satisfy what we think the public wants. Because what the public wanted was really rejected years ago. And by not looking at the community, you're adding insult to injury. I want to be clear about ‸ that. So I'm asking that you be mindful of this as you consider this approval and do what will help. The approval seems to help.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:18–01:16:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And we want what will help the community. And what will be in their best interest. Thank you. Thank
you, Pastor.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:32–01:16:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
further items out in the audience? I think we've covered everybody just in case. All right, then I will close it to the audience and bring it back to the board. And Mr. Greenwood had a question.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:53–01:16:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There's two different property owners that made the same statement that I needed a little more input from. One was made the statement that they are stuck to leave their properties as they exist if this gets approved.
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:15–01:17:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
made the statement also similar to that, that they're stuck to leave it strictly as a of what they are, a car lot and also the smoke shop. And what I'm wanting to ask the staff is, is that a correct statement? Are they if this gets approved are are their hands tied with what they could
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:48–01:17:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
No, they will be able to redevelop or develop in accordance with the code.
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:58–01:18:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
property, our car dealership or a gas station,
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:18:09–01:18:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
few other things will work. And since those uses are now prohibited, they are going to be deemed legal nonconforming. So they will be able to continue anything that's an existing use today that's no longer in compliance with this code.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:18:24–01:18:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and then they can make very minor adjustments to the site without triggering coming into compliance with the entire, you know, not just this part of the code, but, you know, landscaping, things of that parking, things of that nature. So they're stating if they want to maintain ‸ a use that's not permitted, which appears to be the case, they would their hands would be tied to just leave it status quo to avoid losing their status.
But they're not that property, though, is not prohibitive for enhancement with another use than what is there now.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:19:05–01:19:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Again, there's over 20 use. There's more uses in the proposed code.
That's what I thought.
There, I will note, you know, there, he noted bookstores. I mean, that's encapsulated with bookstores and business service tight. So it's not just a bookstore. It's encapsulated in a larger use. You know, ‸ the reference to the golf driving range, that's commercial recreation. So that could be an escape room.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:19:32–01:19:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Apparently I haven't done one. But so those minute uses referenced are part of larger use categories that are allowed. It's I think the the issue is the loss of the auto auto oriented use.
And the last question, the property that Ehrman property. Why was it important for that to be included into the four corners? Because I can see the point that they might feel it's it's it should not be included. And I was trying to get more information on that.
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:10–01:20:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
presentation we gave in June. It's always been in our study area. So this. Yes, it's been in the reference kind of a larger study area.
And
then we shrunk down to what we should focus on for the four corners.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:27–01:20:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But it was it was a part of the conversation. I think it is a larger vacant parcel that's right on the approach to the intersection. And again, getting getting it developed with the building close to the frontage. It could just have a really significant impact because it is a larger property and it's right there. ‸ within the area.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:51–01:20:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Mr. Wheeler, your answer.
My question was regarding to when council was speaking directly towards the urban properties, I was going to ask what was the justification for that scope in the outlay of that. But you provided a sufficient ‸ answer. Now my subsequent question in the advent. ‸ This board would consider amongst all the other things under which we must. Is there a way for that elect parcel? The.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:21:36–01:21:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:21:40–01:21:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
‸ I mean, you could potentially again make that as part of your recommendation. I would just add that that particular property which I think we're discussing which is north of the st. John Street
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:05–01:22:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
with the commercial Parkway and the mixed-use feature land use So It would remain inconsistent if you were to make that recommendation to remove it
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:22:25–01:22:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yes, the future land use and the zoning are currently inconsistent
‸ All
right, any further questions to staff board ‸ Excuse me
[01:22:47] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:47–01:22:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Can I say one more thing?
Yeah,
just one second.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:22:54–01:22:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Mr. Chabot,
go
ahead. Thanks
If the properties I guess this is the staff Have they researched? On their own any businesses that might want to come in Because what I'm hearing
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:23:18–01:23:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
we're going to stay the same And Staying the same is not what we want So I don't know Have there has there been research done on Have we reached out and I don't know if the city Can do stuff like that, but I mean I just I don't want
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:44–01:23:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Well, I don't say this. Mr. ‸ Kaiser who owns the southwest corner of this
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:49–01:23:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You said that you did prolific work with Colliers and I'm familiar with Colliers as well
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:58–01:24:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
business entities that were not in favor of your elect parcel towards development And I do understand that I want to express that because the overarching thing that has been resonating in my mind is that You have some parcels that do come with
their
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:24:24–01:24:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
series of challenges and obstacles But these challenges and obstacles were already prevalent at the time that you acquired them Some of you have over time have been able to overcome But then there are other mitigating factors as you outlined I'm
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:24:37–01:24:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:24:45–01:24:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Whether it be a million dollars, whether it be a dollar In summation of all of that, going back to what you were asking That was a level of research That was prolific research because Colliers is a large firm So it sort of concerns me because he told us what couldn't go there
But
he couldn't tell us what could go there Because I'm sure Colliers could have found something That could have went there Colliers is a multi-billion dollar corporation That does a whole lot of land
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:23–01:25:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:25:25–01:25:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the chair would allow it
[01:25:27] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
‸ That's
fine Go ahead
One minute
Did you want to add something, Mr. Anderson, first?
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:25:32–01:25:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah, I know exactly what he's going to say The only thing that I wanted to mention was the fact that It seems to me that this boils down to a conflict of The community wanting foot traffic And the owners wanting automobile traffic That's a simple terms, okay?
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:49–01:25:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Will Progress Into automotive ‸ Businesses ‸ In order to move them into a foot traffic Community businesses It's going to take a lot longer and a lot more work To make that happen, okay? One thing that I had spoken to
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:21–01:26:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And let me ask the Developer Or the ROI Was it? If this were to pass Could Mr. Kaiser have a Bus station on that corner?
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:26:41–01:26:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
When you're trying to
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:26:50–01:26:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Okay ‸ When you're trying to create foot traffic There are certain things that do create foot traffic Bus station being one of them The bus station that we currently have now Out of the five points
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:27:02–01:27:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:27:05–01:27:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It is Beyond what This community should Uh Put up with, okay? Um I am Under the firm belief That this
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:27:20–01:27:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And With some Funding from the state Could build a proper Decent Air-conditioned Covered Beautiful Landscaped Bus station On that corner On Mr. Kaiser's property What would happen there with a bus station? It would create some foot traffic That may
Uh
Help the Uh The other three parcels on those corners To create something Where they could sell a cup of coffee Or a bowl of soup Or A baseball cap
Whatever So
that's That's That's That's my concern Is I think some Government partnerships here
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:06–01:28:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
To put something on that corner That's going to be an impetus To help the other three properties Because my experience is When you go to a Neighborhood And you have somebody that moves into a neighborhood And Beautifies their property And makes their house look really good I've seen In my lifetime The other neighbors Start to try and catch up So that's That's My two cents Thank you Mr. Anderson If he wants to speak Yes
[01:28:38] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
sir Yeah I agree with what you're saying I just want to point out one thing about My property is
a
little unique It's vacant So I have no existing use Right now So if this passes I get like a double penalty You know I can't do anything that's there Because there's nothing there And I'm going to be forced to Go with that ordinance And just to address what he said The nice gentleman here The pastor Whatever ends up being there Is going to create jobs And a tax revenue That's going to help the Diamond Square District
[01:29:10] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:10–01:29:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Well
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:29:12–01:29:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:29:13] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[01:29:15] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:15–01:29:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Those properties are outside of the Diamond Square I think he means
[01:29:22] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
indirectly
[01:29:22] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:29:22–01:29:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I
[01:29:24] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
just want to make sure
that we're not confusing
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:29:26–01:29:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
revenue
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:28–01:29:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
it's
[01:29:32] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
going to create jobs It's going to help
[01:29:34] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:29:34–01:29:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
We closed in 2017 So it's been about eight years
[01:29:45] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:45–01:29:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
That's
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:48–01:29:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Thank
you very much
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:29:53–01:29:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
If
it passes and nothing gets built And it stays the same Are you happy with that? ‸ Just so you know
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:16–01:30:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
I'm 69 years old I know Mr. Wells ‸ So I'm very
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:30:25–01:30:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But I've got to understand If nothing's built there Or it stays the same Are you guys Good with that?
I'm sure something would be built there And it would not stay the same
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:30:39–01:30:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We want access to Um As a walkable community We don't want to be shut off And disenfranchised So there are other opportunities available I believe For that area That's going to continue to let the Diamond Square people Have access to US 1 To ‸ a walkable community And that it could work together It's just a matter of finding the right fit
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:31:13–01:31:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Let
me clearly make this statement Uh Again It's a matter of finding what fits for the community Rather than telling the community what will fit them
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:31:40–01:31:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
And again It puts a bad taste in the mouth Because Uh This is what was told to the community years ago When Stone Street was shut down And I have to go back to that because It's a sore spot Now I know the board members here ‸ You don't have anything to do with that But you need to be sensitive to it And so Whatever
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:10–01:32:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Is brought up In this meeting Even if it happens
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:16–01:32:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It needs to be able to benefit that community And not just And I'm not just talking about Diamond Square I'm saying
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:31–01:32:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It needs to be able to benefit that community
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:39–01:32:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
just a few individuals Alright ‸ That have some loud voices With this particular group
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:53–01:32:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And I hope you're sensitive to that Because it will come back up again
I will convey that Reverend Wells I've lived in such a community with great pride Yes, ma'am Okay For 45 years So I'm aware of many historical factors When it comes to community So I'll speak as that person I'll be that mouthpiece that I'm sitting here I will say that In an open forum I
think that A
laborious amount of time Has been vested towards it I think every person that is here Has a An interest that far exceeds beyond today And that's the perspective I think each of us are trying to relay Is that There have been visionary sessions that have been held within our community Right And collective voices have been heard in that platform that according to public record
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:33:58–01:33:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Even though we may be few in number here today So we do have the opportunity to have all four property owners here Where it does present a resonating factor It has no
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:34:14–01:34:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Prediction to the outcome of what will happen Because if status quo remains ‸ status quo We'll continue to look at everything that we're looking at today I I think in this visionary process Because I try to be holistic In everything that I consider Given the fact like I said
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:34–01:34:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But it But I just simply said
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:39–01:34:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
reason Not to pick on Mr. Kaiser But There's a reason We discussed the things that were not opportunity But I go back to opportunity Something that has been recently brought up to me In terms of me being a resident of Cocoa Is a disenfranchisement of banking Of which the field under which I work in So That
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:07–01:35:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ Yet still another opportunity for you And I'll say that
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:12–01:35:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But There may present an opportunity
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:19–01:35:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I'm just trying to Trying to elevate And Get to what is needed From a community perspective Which is access to banking Access to food Access to a whole bunch of other things We can speak about
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:36–01:35:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
essential fact That we all have Which is property rights
[unclear audio — 0:09 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:46–01:35:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And also in planning session So in spite of what I know other people may think they think This is what I'm saying To the board for us to consider I will go ahead and say that I am at this time Favor that we try to propel this in the rightful motion But I will also ask that we be table One more time So that these four property ‸ owners Can do the thing that at least 50% of them stated Have a collaboration session Before we make a final and determining motion from this board To move forward Only out of respect for time Because this has been going on for 20 years Let
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:36:43–01:36:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It just happened By half a chance today Nor did some of these issues regarding the use of property Because when we speak about And I'll just say this When we speak about property usage And when we speak about Creating what is termed in larger metropolis pedestrian gateway That has been the resonating theme There has to be other underlying factors supported
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:10–01:37:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It may not make sense in another municipality But it may make sense in order to drive that walkability To have access to other As we'll say districts Such as Cocoa Village
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:27–01:37:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You know for the sake of what ‸ is we're trying to do I
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:34–01:37:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
a level of passion about But once again I'm thinking on both sides of it Because there
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:37:43–01:37:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And I don't want anybody to walk away and say That was not thought of Because I thought about it before I got here I thought about it while I'm here And I thought about it while I'm talking about it now But in the same pretense There is an economic piece that is needed
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:38:00–01:38:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
land as ‸ man just told you We get $10,000 for I appreciate it But if I can get $200,000 Guess what that's going to do That's going to improve the streetscapes And I say that potentially throughout our entire community And we see that Diamond Square
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:38:19–01:38:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we addressed it
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:20–01:38:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:21–01:38:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
have come before this board To discuss food deserts within Diamond Square These things have not been over-sided And I don't want anyone
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:36–01:38:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
To walk away Because I'm a very loud mouthpiece I'll stand up and sing it again These things have not been over-sided They are being highly considered And I think about that for every decision that I make In terms of the dynamic of the city
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:38:51–01:38:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:38:53–01:38:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:57–01:38:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And I live within the same square block of that time Because that's the only square block they could buy in So I'll just say it for them
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:06–01:39:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
can't afford another So let that all be known for the record
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:39:15–01:39:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
If you'd like to provide a motion If you could provide a date to the motion of a table
Well... Mr. Schmoe... I think he...
led
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:39:28–01:39:29 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
with that
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:39:29–01:39:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Pick up the... Pick up on that
You speak so eloquently I'm in agreeance with Mr. Wheeler Two more months is not going to make or break anything But I will say The area needs to be cleaned up
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:39:54–01:39:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:56–01:40:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the veterans in those two cemeteries The predominantly black cemetery by the sewage plant
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:40:08–01:40:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
And
it's horrendous what goes on in those cemeteries The needles The people laying out there And that's part of Mr. Erdman's property too right behind it
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:40:28–01:40:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
had a lot of pride out there putting them flags down Black, white, green, yellow I don't care what you are You're a veteran You ‸ serve
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:40:40–01:40:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
country But we need to clean the area up And...
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:40:47–01:40:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the whole situation What I'm hearing is I'm hearing Mr. Erdman's not going to...
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:40:56–01:40:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ change anything
So...
But the area needs some work And... Two more months is not going to ‸ make or break it So I'm with Mr. Wheeler And I'll make the motion to table it till...
August
6th would be in August if that's what you'd like
August 6th
I'll second
that motion Okay
There's... Roberts Rule says there's no further discussion after a second of
a
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:41:23–01:41:23 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
table Is that... is that correct here also?
Sorry
Um...
Your question was whether there can be a discussion I'm
just... I'm just letting you know that for Roberts Rules when there's a table motion made
in
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:41:40–01:41:40 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
a second made there's no discussion And I was just wondering if that was the case here or not Just getting clarification
I believe that you can discuss the motion
Sounds
good Thank you
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:41:53–01:41:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
6th
To
add another wrinkle
Okay So let's have... let's have a discussion and we'll keep that in mind Thank you very much
Plus there's quite a few board members that are not here tonight that may be able to attend Because we're... I think we're...
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:42:13–01:42:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
as well So... I'm... I'm for the table Okay Mr. Wall
I'm... I'm leaning on that also even though I was in a position where I was more leaning towards
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:31–01:42:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Just two more months and I'm thinking people like this
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:37–01:42:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Two months Yeah,
two more months and that shows that we're trying to work with this
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:42:45–01:42:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The motion was made I think we should just call the question
Yeah, based on what Ms. Cresco said Should... does the staff prefer that she is in attendance? Well,
she... she's worked on the... on the... on the ordinance So...
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:43:09–01:43:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
them and collaborate on things that they don't like
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:43:18–01:43:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
say, okay, we can sit and talk but The prohibited uses are still going to be the prohibited uses And so... and so when you really get down to the... to the... the simple fact of the matter is... is that... they don't like the prohibited uses and so... there was council discussion on the prohibited uses There's... there's the... the visioning... uh... from the community on the prohibited uses And so... if I sat here as a city manager and said, yeah, I'll...
I'll
go away and we can sit in... in the room and talk but... I'm...
still
gonna... not budge on... car washes... uh... auto repair... um... convenience stores... dry cleaning plants and... and...
and
all of those things that are... liquor stores... that are prohibited... then... they're not gonna be happy when we come back because nothing's gonna change or at least nothing in terms of those... significant... ‸ prohibited uses and so... so again, I just want to put that on the table... because if it's just... we're tabling for purposes of sitting down with staff and... and... and those... those uses that the community was pretty clear on... are going to now be under permitted uses... then... that's probably not gonna ‸ happen... just being... being honest and... and...
and
putting that on the table for discussion...
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:44:48–01:44:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
your collaborative feedback... but... there comes a point where you have to shift the conversation... and I think that's what's being employed... we are... well within definition of understanding what cannot be done... this has already existed before we even got here to... today... um... of... of... of...
of... what
parameters under which... um... they're currently bound to... with their existing property... and then... what parameters under which... we're looking to try to move them forward with their property...
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:24–01:45:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
mindset... because if you present the same thing...
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:33–01:45:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:36–01:45:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
putting it... then... your planning session... will yield you... no further ‸ result... then... guess what... you're not making any money... we're not collecting any taxes... and... we still... do not have... a gateway... under which... uh... is... presentable... to...
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:53–01:45:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and... presentable... to... not only... uh... uh... the residents here within the
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:59–01:46:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
but... those that will pass through...
on
their... on their way... to... to... other... destinations... so... it... there's a lot... that... that you guys need
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:46:08–01:46:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of the day... I'm gonna keep paying... for...
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:46:12–01:46:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
and...
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:46:14–01:46:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
gonna be... doing what y'all do...
with the chair's permission... uh... I don't want to speak
on a
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:46:20–01:46:20 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
term... but... just a real quick... comment... to...
yeah... yeah... Mr. Chair... I think... I think... they deserve an opportunity... to respond... to what I just said... okay...
yeah... and... you know... the city manager and I work together... on a lot of stuff... and... I can't speak... for the other... property owners... but... as the uses... you know... my client... isn't particularly... ‸ doesn't really... push... isn't really... pushing... for the gas stations... or the car washes... or any of
the...
four uses...
that
were discussed...
at
the city council hearing... last year... in August... he is... and... he's here... he's okay... with those... restrictions... it's all... the other... restrictions... that... get... added... in... that... weren't... those... four... that... were... listed... in... the staff... report... and... you know... so... that's... where... we are... so... I think... that... the city manager... and... I... at... least... on... our... clients... can... can...
move...
towards... some... sort... of... agreement... and...
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:47:08–01:47:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we... don't... want... to... shut... down... any... pedestrian... access... that's... better... for... my... client... to... have... more... pedestrian... access...
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:47:15–01:47:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:15 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
All right, we have
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:47:33–01:47:34 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:47:34–01:47:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
on the table. It's been seconded. Any further discussion on it? All right, then we'll call that motion into question. All in favor, say aye. Aye.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:47:34–01:47:44 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:47:45–01:47:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
say nay. Say nay. All right, the motion passes.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:47:46–01:47:50 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:47:50–01:47:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
item is tabled
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:47:51–01:47:52 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:47:52–01:47:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
6th.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:47:52–01:47:53 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:47:54–01:47:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
unanimous?
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:47:54–01:47:55 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:47:55–01:47:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Does it have to be unanimous for a table? Go ahead, ma'am. Can
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:47:56–01:48:01 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:48:01–01:48:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
postpone because if Alexis is not
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:48:06–01:48:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
there and so ‸ let's just ‸ do we have to do the notices?
You would have to re-notice everything.
Could we try for July or is that too we think that's too quick?
‸ August is fine, July is fine. We want to work to find a solution.
September 3rd will be the next one.
Okay.
‸ Can we amend? We'll amend the how we do it after I think a new motion would need
to be made.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:48:45–01:48:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
If there's consensus among the whole board.
All
right is
everyone okay with moving the tabling to September 3rd?
Yeah. Yeah.
Yes. Nobody's going to build on that property
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:48:57–01:48:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the next three months. There's not going to be a
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:49:00–01:49:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
Thank you. All right the next item is item two under that. Is it something that we should consider for tabling immediately or present presented first because of the first item?
I would ‸ suggest that you would table that that one as well. That's what I was thinking. Yeah. Okay.
So based on our previous item I'll make the I'll move to table item four two to September 3rd. Second by Mr. Greenwood. Any discussion on that tabling? All right. All in favor? Aye.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:49:50–01:49:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
time of that meeting will be at six o'clock. It will be here at Cocoa City Hall.
Thank you ma'am. All right. Next we'll
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:50:07–01:50:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:50:13–01:50:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:14 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
Would you like a small recess? Yeah. That's what I needed a minute ago. So is five fine or okay five minute recess? Any anybody opposed to that? Five minute recess? Five minute recess?
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:50:58–01:51:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
How
do I check my battery?
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:51:05–01:51:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:51:08–01:51:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Thank you,
Alexis. Okay. Thank you.
‸ I'm gonna ‸ go to the restroom.
[unclear audio — 0:15 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:51:57–01:52:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:52:16–01:52:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:52:18–01:52:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:52:20–01:52:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:52:21–01:52:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That would have been great. Yeah.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:52:25–01:52:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
And they might
come
back.
The only people that want that. Automotive service. Businesses.
Thank you.
[unclear audio — 0:11 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:52:49–01:53:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
To
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:53:01–01:53:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And then micro.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:53:08–01:53:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
The
things that we. I guess the more things change.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:53:21–01:53:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Because the things we turned down 20 years ago. ‸ We said we don't want any more car dealerships.
We
got 300 car dealers. And yeah we didn't want.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:53:33–01:53:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:53:34–01:53:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Next to the ice house. They were supposed to build a beautiful car.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:53:40–01:53:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:53:43–01:53:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:29 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:53:47–01:54:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:54:16–01:54:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 01:54:19–01:55:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:09 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
so much. Thank you.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:55:28–01:55:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
No, I know.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:55:36–01:55:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
No, no, listen.
He
made a statement. He made a statement.
And of course, he said, well, they started remodeling it three years ago.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:55:49–01:56:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:56:04–01:56:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
supposed to be water.
And
in the city,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:56:19–01:56:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Stripping out. ‸ You got it. ‸ What's that happen? ‸ Slowly.
It's been three years. I missed one year.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:56:34–01:56:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That
needs to be.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:56:40–01:56:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There's a
lot.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:56:42–01:56:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:56:43–01:56:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 01:56:45–01:57:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:57:18–01:57:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:09 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:57:25–01:57:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 01:57:34–01:57:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:57:41–01:57:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 01:57:43–01:59:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:15 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:11 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:10 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:15 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:11 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Good to
see you.
Good to see you,
too. Good to see you, too. All
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:00:01–02:00:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Oh, okay.
I'm
just...
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:00:05–02:00:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
I knew you would call me. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Oh, you did? Oh, okay.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:00:19–02:00:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I didn't know that.
Oh, man.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:00:33–02:00:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Good.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:00:38–02:00:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
You,
too.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:00:40–02:00:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 02:00:44–02:01:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:11 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:09 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:16 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:13 ▶]
Well, good evening and welcome back, board members. Thank you for your patience. I'm Jen Webster, ‸ staff
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:01:46–02:01:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And this ordinance, this next item is ordinance ‸ 042025, a city initiated land development code amendment regarding alcoholic beverage sales. And I'll go ahead and read the title of the ordinance for the record. It's an ordinance of the city council, the city of Cocoa, Brevard County, Florida, amending the zoning ordinance of the city of Cocoa relating to regulation of alcoholic beverages, imposing separation requirements for liquor stores and package stores from certain other uses, imposing separation requirements between locations for on-premise consumption of alcohol in public parks and playgrounds, updating the zoning ordinance to be consistent with state law regarding separation requirements between schools and locations for on-premise consumption.
of alcohol. Amending the method of measuring separation for purposes of alcoholic beverage regulations. Amending certain definitions to clarify the application of the alcoholic beverage regulations. Modifying the regulations pertaining to alcoholic beverage sales as an accessory use. Amending the
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 02:02:33–02:02:52 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 02:02:52–02:02:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
exception uses in the General Commercial District CG relating to alcoholic beverages. Providing for the repeal of prior inconsistent ordinances and resolutions. Incorporation into the code severability and an effective date. So a little history and background on this ordinance is that in December of 2024, ‸ City Council gave staff notice to proceed to amend the zoning ordinance to be consistent with florida statute 562.45 regarding the 500 foot distancing requirement for public or private elementary schools, middle schools, or secondary schools and location for on-premise consumption of alcohol. To impose a minimum 300 foot separation distance between liquor stores and package stores and schools, churches, parks, and playgrounds and residential zones. And these do not include grocery stores or convenience stores. To impose a minimum 300 foot separation distance between locations for on-premise consumption of alcohol in parks and playgrounds. And also to amend the method of measuring separation distances under appendix A, article 13,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:04:00–02:04:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
legislation in progress, a directed staff not to issue permits or business tax receipts or approve applications for building permits, development orders, or other land use permits within the city which would conflict with the pending amendments.
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:04:19–02:04:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So it affected appendix A, article 5, which is definitions. um
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:04:31–02:04:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
revised. uh We added a definition for alcoholic beverages and as an accessory use. And then uh in article 11, section 12, in district and commercial and intent for general commercial, we clarified a conflict in the list of uses. And then in article 13, supplementary district regulations, which is the, you know, our alcoholic beverage ordinance. uh we we regarding restaurants, we are adding a definition of a commercial kitchen to further describe uh what a restaurant is. And we are also uh lowering the number of seats to be required, a restaurant from 40 to 20 seats. um And
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:05:22–02:05:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And with regard to restrictions to location distancing requirements, we are adding public parks and playground playgrounds into those categories that require distancing. We are adding liquor store and package store to the category of establishments that require distancing of 300 feet. And
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:05:47–02:05:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And then we are amending the method of the distancing measurement for separation distance. So first of all, in the definitions, um the definition of a bar was amended, adding the language defining bottle clubs, consistently with section 561.01 of the florida statutes and adding language for types of establishments that include bars as a subordinate use. And and just like in the actual ordinance, uh
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:06:20–02:06:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
strikeout is is something that's being deleted. And so I won't necessarily read each one of these. They are in the staff report as well as defined in the ordinance. So um I'll just to point out again that the definition of bar was amended and expanded um uh per florida Florida state law and uh to be consistent with section 561 of Florida statutes. And then also the definition of the lounge or cocktail lounge was amended to say
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:06:51–02:06:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and they're often used interchangeably. And then the definition of convenience store was amended entirely to differentiate liquor stores from convenience stores, which are not subject to separation requirements in the proposed ordinance.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:07:11–02:07:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
as follows, consistent with state law, specifically regarding sealed original containers and 51 of sales. So I'll go ahead and read that definition. It's a retail establishment which primarily sells
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:07:28–02:07:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
only in sealed original containers for consumption off premises, not limiting such beverage sales to beer and wine, except where specifically stated in the zoning
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:07:42–02:07:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
greater of the business's gross revenue derives from the sale of such alcoholic beverages shall be considered a package store. Package stores shall not include convenience stores or grocery stores. So we made that clear to differentiate those. And then furthermore, the definition of liquor store in in this section was amended to say C, package store, because they are also synonymous in the code and are also used interchangeably. And then the definition of
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:08:13–02:08:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
as as follows. A retail establishment primarily sells alcoholic beverages containing more than
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:08:25–02:08:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of alcohol by weight only in sealed original containers for consumption off premises, and
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:08:31–02:08:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:08:36–02:08:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:08:40–02:08:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
which is the ‸ establishment with alcohol as an accessory use. And now this uh this particular definition was added in response to an increase in popularity of establishments wishing to serve alcohol as a complement to another service, such as a beauty salon, and those that allow patrons to bring their own alcoholic beverages as a complement to
the
the establishment's uh primary
activities,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:09:05–02:09:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
such as like arts and crafts workshop. So this code amendment includes the addition of the definition of establishment with alcohol as an accessory use, distinguishing it from one that is a bar which sells and serves alcohol on premises as its primary use, and one that contains a bar as a subordinate use.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:09:25–02:09:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So this is a retailer service establishment which offers alcoholic beverages to its customers for consumption on premises as an accessory service, or that allows customers to bring alcoholic beverages onto the premises for consumption as an accessory service. For example,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:09:47–02:09:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
services, or an art studio that allows customers to bring a bottle of wine to consume while creating artwork. But consumption of alcohol is not the primary business. The retailer service establishment may not derive revenue from alcohol beverage sales directly. Establishments with alcohol as an accessory use, satisfying the above criteria, shall not be considered a bar or lounge under this ordinance. This provision shall not apply to convenience stores nor special event venues for hire that operate as a bottle club as defined in this audience ordinance ordinance. So again, an establishment
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:10:25–02:10:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
it also, would ‸ be subject to the footage, square footage, I mean the distance rules?
No, no, not the alcohol as an accessory use. And I will talk about the the distancing in in another section in a little bit. But um just real quickly on Article 11 in Section 12, uh District and Intent for General Commercial, uh clarifying the the conflict in between the principal uses and structures and special exceptions. So we're deleting cocktail lounges from principal uses, and we're deleting package store from special exceptions. Because because of the synonymous nature of those terms, it looked like they were allowed in both uh principal and special exception uses. So we we clarified that. And then also, um moving on to Article 13, which is the the heart of the you know alcoholic beverage ordinance, uh regarding restaurants, we're reducing the number of seats and adding a definition of a commercial kitchen. So as I mentioned, the number of seats uh to be considered a restaurant is being reduced from 40 to 20 seats. um
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:11:43–02:11:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
defined as a commercial kitchen for purposes of this section shall mean a facility located on the premises of a restaurant that is used for the daily preparation of cooked full course
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: words the first reading may have missed · 02:11:58–02:11:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
a facility must include full kitchen infrastructure consisting of commercial grade burners, ovens, range hoods, and refrigeration units.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:12:07–02:12:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
restaurant's total occupancy in accordance with applicable state and local regulations. And
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:12:18–02:12:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the criteria. And then
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:12:27–02:12:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
an accessory use as it was defined in Article 5,
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:12:33–02:12:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
affirming service of alcohol to patrons on the premises or allowing customers to bring alcohol onto the premises for consumption, uh stating that it shall not be the primary business of the establishment and that no revenue from the sale of alcohol uh alcoholic beverages is direct. And also that
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:12:58–02:13:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
not be able to convert to a bar without first complying with the location requirements described below and must meet all other zoning zoning code requirements. And this does not apply to hotels, motels, and restaurants. And so talking about the separation distances, the way that the code reads now is that there's a 300 foot separation distance requirement from schools, churches, and residential
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; words the first reading may have missed · 02:13:28–02:13:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
to add with the new ordinance is
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:13:38–02:13:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
which is liquor stores and package stores, to that category of businesses that require the separation distance. And we're adding parks, public parks and playgrounds to those establishments as well as
well
Or I should say those types of uses. And then uh regarding the separation, the Florida state statute requirement for the separation from on-premises sale and consumption or bars and lounges from schools,
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:14:10–02:14:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that separation distance specifically to 500 feet. Do
we have any, do we have anybody that's grandfathered into that or is going to affect us? yeah. That's just going to affect us? yes I've got a bunch of them. Yeah.
There there is, um ‸ we did do analysis as part of this um uh amendment. We did do an analysis of non-conforming uses. So I'll, I can discuss that and in a little bit as well. We'll cover that.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:14:41–02:14:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So we, uh the way it currently is measured is
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:14:49–02:14:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of measurement to property line to property line. And so
[unclear audio — 0:10 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:15:01–02:15:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
justification for the change and the relationship of the proposed amendment to the purposes and objectives of the current zoning code and the city of
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:15:19–02:15:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
comprehensive plan. So part of staff's analysis was also to determine if any of the code revisions would create any over restrictive or non-conforming conditions. So, so just as a reminder, a non-conformity is defined in Appendix A Article 5 as any lot use ‸ of land, use of structure, use of structure and premises or characteristics of any use which was lawful at the time of enactment of this ordinance, but which does not conform with the provisions of the district in which it is located. And so that would be an example of something that's legally non-conforming like was described in our prior presentation of a, ‸ use or a business that can be,
um
be considered a legal non-conforming ‸ use in that it's allowed to continue as long as there's no major modifications. So, um so, ‸ non-conformities are regulated by Article 10, and that if a non-conforming use is created by the adoption of this ordinance, it will be permitted to continue so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the provisions of Article 10 regulating non-conformities Excuse me.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:16:32–02:16:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of analysis that we did was with regard to the parks and playgrounds. And analysis of the impact of this amendment, including the new revised method of measurement from parcel line to parcel line regarding the creation of non-conforming uses provided the following results, that the addition of parks and playgrounds as properties from which a minimum distance of 300 feet will be required from alcoholic beverage establishments for on and off premises consumption. using the revised method of measurement from parcel line to parcel line does not create any new non-conforming uses And then the buffer distance between alcoholic beverage establishments with on-premise
consumptions
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:17:25–02:17:26 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
in schools, increasing it from 300 feet to 500 feet in compliance with the Florida statute, using the revised method of measurement from parcel line to parcel line, does create one non-conforming use, which is a
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:17:38–02:17:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from a school. level
and
then
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:17:49–02:17:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
establishment requiring a minimum separation of 300 feet from parks, schools, playgrounds, churches, and residential zones, using the revised method from parcel line to parcel line, does create one new non-conforming use, a liquor store located at 1105 Clear Lake Road due to its less than 300 foot proximity proximity to a residential zone.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:18:18–02:18:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
uh shown in green and the buffers, the 300 foot buffers for the parks, and then you have the yellow, which is the schools, and the 500 foot buffer from the school so we kind of just did a ‸ an overlay of all of it on top of each other. And then the the purple is the 300 foot separation from churches. And then the the kind of pinkish area, which you can see covers most of the city, that is your offset from residential zones. So just wanted to kind of to do an illustration to show the the coverage and the impact that the the buffering requirements have on the city. And so um you see the one uh non-conforming use that was created at 1105 Clear Lake Road. And it's because it is is it is less it's right adjacent
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:19:19–02:19:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:14 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:19:23–02:19:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
square feet or more, there is no buffering distance required for those. And that's current that's in the current code.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:19:43–02:19:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ required uh if the establishment is located in the CBD. So I just left those two there on the map for for reference and for context. So the determinations that were made regarding the two non-conforming uses that were created is that the non-conforming uses may continue as long as it complies with the regulations set forth in Appendix A, Article 10, regarding non-conformities. And staff has determined that with the addition of parks and playgrounds to the list of community uses from which
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:20:25–02:20:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And with the increased separation of distance of 500 feet between bars and schools and the addition of package stores as a type of alcoholic beverage establishment that has location distancing requirements,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:20:41–02:20:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to address public health and safety concerns associated with the potential over concentration of liquor stores and other alcoholic beverage establishments within the city. And just as kind of as a side note, in doing the analysis
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:20:59–02:21:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
in concern of being overly restrictive for future businesses,
[unclear audio — 0:13 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; a language review questioned the wording; words the first reading may have missed · 02:21:08–02:21:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Regardless of that, residential zones, playgrounds, parks, and schools will still be measured using their respective parcel lines. So there still will be that ‸ coverage and that protection is
based
on the buffers, uh parcel line buffers for those uses. And then just uh enough further analysis that we, um according to the zoning code article 21, that
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:21:54–02:21:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
um We found the proposed amendment is necessary to address the public health and safety concerns associated with the potential over concentration of liquor stores and other alcoholic beverage establishments within the city. Studies referenced in the ordinance indicate that neighbors with a higher density of liquor stores experience increased rates of childhood accidents, assaults, and child abuse injuries. These areas are also more likely to experience weakened social controls contributing to elevated levels of crime and nuisance activity. Research further supports that a high density of alcohol outlets is directly associated with increased instances of violence and alcohol abuse.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:22:42–02:22:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
has identified the relation of alcoholic alcohol outlet density as an effective strategy to prevent excessive alcohol consumption and its related harms the cdc recommends the use of zoning and licensing tools to control the number and proximity of alcohol selling establishments in the response to these findings staff has made the determination that regulating the location of liquor and package stores is in the best interest of the community and necessary to protect vulnerable populations ‸ and ‸ the proposed amendment also updates key definitions and establishes a more precise methodology for measuring separation distances thereby improving clarity and enforcement and consistency within the city's land use regulations and I can also refer you to the work cited in ‸ the actual text of the ordinance
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:23:39–02:23:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and then
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:23:45–02:23:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the comprehensive plan with regard to the future land use goals by calling for the thoughtful planned use and development of land to protect the public health safety welfare and appearance the proposed amendment is directly in line with this goal by implementing regulations that minimize the potential for adverse social and environmental impacts associated with alcohol outlet clustering and then with neighborhood protection by ensuring that additional growth and development will be respectful of established neighborhoods that define much of the city's character and with the redevelopment goals and community revitalization by continuing to support the revitalization of the Diamond Square redevelopment area
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:24:30–02:24:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
concentrating on issues such as crime, economic development, and affordable housing. And then finally, for promoting public safety and welfare through planning and regulation, by considering the topography, facilities, and services, and other factors being consistent with sound planning principles. So, staff requests the Planning and Zoning Board recommend approval to City Council of Ordinance 04 2025 amending the zoning ordinance of the City of Cocoa, relating to regulation of alcoholic beverages
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:25:05–02:25:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
imposing separation requirements for liquor stores and package stores from certain other uses, imposing separation requirements between locations for on-premises consumption of alcohol and public parks and playgrounds, updating the zoning ordinance to be consistent with state law regarding separation requirements between schools and locations for on-premises consumption of alcohol,
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:25:26–02:25:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
amending certain definitions to clarify the application of the alcohol beverage regulations, modifying the regulations pertaining to alcoholic beverage sales as an accessory use, and amending the list of permitted and special exception uses in the general commercial CG related to alcoholic beverages.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 02:25:51–02:25:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 02:25:53–02:25:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:11 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:25:59–02:26:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:09 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 02:26:10–02:26:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And it says such alcoholic beverages, it means such packaged alcoholic beverages, is that what you're saying?
Yes. In both cases. Yes, as described where they're in sealed containers uh and sealed original containers specifically for off-premises consumption. So how
does it work for breweries is what I was wondering. Now,
in the case of a brewery, so a brewery is more of a standalone use, uh but when it, a lot of them have a bar. uh And
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:26:47–02:26:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that that would apply to. But
if they canned their beer and then 51 of their sales came from that, it would be a package store? That's what i was trying to clarify. Yeah,
i
think we, I think we would have to would be either or kind of look at at what their primary, what their primary business was.
yeah
and then looking to see what their secondary use was or their
um
what their secondary use was to determine whether they would fall in a bar category or package store category. Okay.
Well, I would say that the the code already does have um craft breweries. And um I think we, in the Four Corners or ordinance that we discussed earlier,
we'd
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:27:38–02:27:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
also talked about craft wineries. um But for those, that is a specific standalone use. And it provides that it is a craft brewery with a um bar ‸ lounge as an accessory use. And so
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:27:53–02:27:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I don't think we would have difficulty with trying to fit that craft brewery into a package store or a bar. It really is its own standalone use.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:28:05–02:28:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Bar. It's
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:28:14–02:28:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
within the it's a bar brewery? it's a
it is It's the Hidden Level Brewery. Yes,
ma'am.
And it does have a bar inside. And when it was originally permitted, um
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:28:27–02:28:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from a school. And so um but with that distance now increasing to 500 feet,
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:28:40–02:28:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
major modification to the area, they would lose their
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:28:49–02:28:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
to lose their
business?
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:28:54–02:28:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
modifications or changes to their business type. As
[unclear audio ▶]
as they keep it ‸ present. ‸ It's
conforming.
Okay. It's
not conforming. So they just wouldn't be able to expand. um ‸ And
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:29:09–02:29:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
seeking further approval anyway. um But they wouldn't be able to to as I said, wouldn't be able to expand or enlarge the business.
Even within their business? Just just wondering. like The square footage of let's say I know it's a laser etching. This is just a scenario. um If they stop laser etching, or at least they reduce their amount of laser etching so they ‸ they allow to expand their bar space like that? Or is that
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:29:40–02:29:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
etching? it's where they do
that
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:29:44–02:29:44 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
you know. Yeah, they put the patterns on things. that's going to be effective?
No, no. I'm just
so this is a uh it's just Hypothetical scenario.
Sure. So, So when we talk about non-conforming uses and expanding, we do refer to physical expansion.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:30:00–02:30:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
or or something like that, that would trigger, uh well, for them to come back, you know, for a change to their special exception or and to consider whether it was a change large enough to affect their...
And what is, i'm sorry, thank you.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 02:30:19–02:30:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
you now. I appreciate it very much. I don't want to cut you off.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:30:23–02:30:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
changing the method was to to create a more uniform uh method of measurement because some were being measured from building to building, some were being measured from property line to property line, some from building to property line. So we were just trying to make, we were trying to make the
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:30:48–02:30:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
So
the Florida statutes addresses
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:30:57–02:31:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from uh schools to establishments with on-premises sales. It defines the measurement shall be taken from the real property, which includes the, the parcel the parcel line, the land.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:31:15–02:31:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the school. Okay. Where previously we had been doing it from the building.
Yeah. I was just wondering if we were kind of following state guidelines. in that
just a real question too.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:31:28–02:31:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I don't want to be here either. um but you know, let's say the school, I know where the school is here. um let's say a school moves within 300 feet of a bar. Can it?
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:31:41–02:31:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
because that would also, well,
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:31:46–02:31:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
um in that case, I believe that we, I believe the way that we described it in the staff report was that, especially if it were a public school, something that were considered part of the city infrastructure necessary for the community, that it would not be subject to the distancing requirements. So you would still,
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:32:12–02:32:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
or playground, something that would be public infrastructure would still be able to be placed there. Okay.
So, so let me, let me make sure I understand it. So if, if, if the
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:32:27–02:32:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
a school, they could do that. The bar still could exist. The school could actually do that, could uh be constructed also.
Yes. okay but
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:32:41–02:32:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
it would become non-conforming with the placement of the school, but you know prioritizing things that are public infrastructure over um over those uh businesses. What
about private private private playgrounds owned by ‸ charity?
uh in the In the ordinance and in the staff report, we specified public parks and playgrounds. okay
Yeah. ‸ yeah that It's not in english ‸ but
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:33:14–02:33:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
actually an actual business that people go to, talk about walking in traffic. i I watch them walk. I watch now groups of people, whether they drink or not. We'll just assume so.
um
But then, you know, they I've
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:33:29–02:33:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
place. ‸ That blows my mind that someone would walk that far. And I'm happy to see it. Because that could promote more businesses or charities or whatever in the area. uh A place that's been reasonably dead, to be fair. Right? So... ‸ Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yeah. Just opened it. again Again, they're a laser engraving. They have a special exception to to be able to do both. Remember them getting approved for that and stuff. So... I have a question. Thank you, sir. Sorry to take it
‸ I'm not used to hearing in
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:34:05–02:34:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that you could
um
allow people to bring their own bottles of wine or beer or liquor to an establishment. I don't remember
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:34:20–02:34:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
ever having that as an option. And it's concerning me. Because you're talking about what group of people are you going to be attracting to be able to do that. And
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:34:36–02:34:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
in the past about allowing that is very young people don't have a lot of money. They want to go out, get drunk with their own liquor, and cause more problems. That's what I've seen with allowing people to bring liquor to establishments on their own. Also, the restaurant loses money. Because most of the money that they make is selling the liquor in the store. So you're actually going against the business. And I'll give you an example. The hair salon
that
that ‸ was an appeal made to it. now
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:35:24–02:35:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
and wine while they're in there, uh getting their hair done or whatever. And I'm i'm not really used to hearing that. And i it's be it just seems like that we're promoting, let's bring more liquor to the field. I don't like that. That that that got me concerned about what the level of people were going to have. Now I want to remind everybody, it was in the paper not too long ago. Two people were drunk, showed up late, and one got killed by being shot at. And
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:36:06–02:36:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
be present and seen.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:36:15–02:36:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
because they
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:36:22–02:36:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
police officer drive by.
[unclear audio — 0:09 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:36:29–02:36:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
That everything that you all did, ‸ this was a lot of work. You cleaned up a lot. You guys really did a beautiful job to correct the things that were wrong. And I only learned that by working with you folks about some of the properties in the downtown area that we worked together on. And quite frankly, I'll give you an example. The one hair salon that wanted to sell liquor, and they ended up trying to do that. And that was against their, uh was it their variance? ‸ Yeah. um
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:37:13–02:37:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
um they said they were going to do all these things and all that. And they just violated everything. Everything. To where they had to be approached by the code enforcement people. You need to stop. And now they, of course, were prevented to do it anymore. And they're going to be fined every day, ‸ which is the way it should be. So I know you it's being brought up a lot where you have to get approval and all that. I've been to too many of the board adjustment meetings where it's always approved. And their answer to the concerns to the public is that, oh we have a noise ordinance and then the code enforcement got enforcement. That's not where we're at just yet.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:38:01–02:38:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from it. So the council approved the security guard idea because it helps the police department. They don't have to take one of their men off of the more serious crimes of
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:38:22–02:38:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
working together. And it sends a ‸ message to homeless people that want to sleep. when when If I was homeless and I saw representation of professionalism and an officer of the law, be it a police officer or a security guard of that type, I wouldn't feel comfortable sleeping under the bridge or in the park or trying to act like an idiot. from drinking too much and so this plan is good but we need the other things to support it but the one major flaw here that
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:39:04–02:39:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:39:08–02:39:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
wrong element because it's a way for them to get drunk ‸ cheap and now the people that own restaurants are losing liquor sales and let me tell you something with food costs and all that like it they're only making their money off of liquor do you know if you
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:39:31–02:39:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
or so
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:39:36–02:39:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and sometimes more depending on the brand so it sort of seems like it's sending a message that
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:39:49–02:39:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and that's really what it's saying bring your own bottle and I'm not comfortable with that I just don't I know that you can say well we have you know noise ordinances and all that but they go above the law and we're still having two places that are doing that right now your village and they even are arrogant about it and that's the part that really bothered me and then recently I don't know if you all know that or not you
know what but
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:40:24–02:40:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
no no sir we we didn't that wasn't
no sir
then what was it with the uh
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:40:32–02:40:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
not a carjacking in the village it was an incident where the individuals stole a car
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:40:42–02:40:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
apprehended in the village i
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:40:48–02:40:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
just don't feel comfortable with it.
Thank you,
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:40:57–02:41:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
‸ the beer business and liquor. um And I will tell you, over the years, there's been hair salons, nail salons, volunteer fire departments. I can't tell you how many businesses would give away product. And
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:41:21–02:41:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
to disagree with the concern. um If a hair salon wants to give some
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:41:33–02:41:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of wine, I don't see a problem with that.
Well, the only reason I had a problem is because we had that happen and it turned out to be ugly. Yeah,
well,
that's there's always one or two
things. Well, anyway.
Well, if i if I might, thank you, Mr. Greenwood and Mr. ‸ Chabot, if I could just just to read just as a a reminder and hopefully a reassurance as to the distinction between the definitions of a bar and uh an establishment that that serves as an accessory use.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:42:09–02:42:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
is a retail establishment selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on premises or an establishment commonly known as a bottle club. So as far as the city of Coco goes in our ordinance that we put bottle club and bar in the same category to where they would require a special exception if it was, say, an establishment. ‸ we've had lengthy conversations with the DVPR, with the state about their definition of a bottle club and making sure we're not in conflict with that definition and what they consider one. And so they consider anything where there's an establishment, say,
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:42:51–02:42:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
in off of the street and bring their own. ‸ So that's a bottle club. That's what they would consider a bottle club.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:43:03–02:43:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
it in the same category as a bar, which would require a special exception, especially in the village. And then
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:43:13–02:43:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
as an accessory use, like I mentioned, it it has been coming up more often uh in the business tax receipt applications that we get. um ‸ businesses who do want to kind of provide that um complementary beverage with their haircut or something like that, which is where the the establishment would have it on hand, but there would be no exchange of money.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:43:45–02:43:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's not for sale.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:43:46–02:43:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
have written. It's not for sale.
Yeah, right. Where the set, where the... um
The establishment provides... Yeah,
the establishment may not derive revenue from alcoholic beverages sales directly. So it is ‸ an individual
can bring their own liquor.
uh That's not the way that we interpret our our... However,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:44:12–02:44:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
proprietor of the salon. But in the case of say an establishment like Painting with a Twist, it's their business model where they have, you know, they provide the venue and the art supplies and the classes and workshops and whatnot. And their patrons are allowed to bring in their own wine. um You know, things like that.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:44:35–02:44:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
what this is talking about.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 02:44:39–02:44:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But uh does that... How does this work when a bar is actually selling liquor? Will they be able to let patrons come in there with their own liquor?
No, no. And that is
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:44:51–02:44:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
clarify. You went over a lot of subject here and I was having trouble keeping track because I'm a layman. I don't
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:45:00–02:45:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And that's why I'm asking the questions I am.
Of course. uh
And uh at first glance, that's what I thought. It was like we're promoting bottle clubs. And I don't think that that would be a good fit. That's why I brought it Right.
And a bottle club is definitely different from an establishment like a salon or an art studio. ‸ we don't
have guidelines for a bottle club, I guess, right?
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:45:24–02:45:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
category. So that it would be subject to the same... ‸ that would
be an example of people bringing their own liquor?
Yes.
Okay. but So that... I'm sorry? I
was just going to clarify. There wouldn't be an instance where there would be an establishment that sells alcohol and also has people bring it in. The state would not allow them to have those dual licenses like that.
Okay. But a bottle club that is strictly you bring... your They don't sell liquor, but you'd have to bring your own liquor there.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:45:58–02:46:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
closed. That's what I meant. I said earlier
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:46:08–02:46:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
And I never said that I didn't approve of firefighters or any other groups like that to have liquor. I'm looking past that.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:46:22–02:46:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
on uh Clear Lake? How's that going to help What's going to happen there?
So that liquor store becomes legally non-conforming.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:46:33–02:46:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
because of its proximity to residential zone. But it is it it's it's been a liquor store for a very long time, and it it would be able to continue um you know in perpetuity as long as it was not expanded um you know as per the non-conforming code. The
old ABC. Which
business
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:46:59–02:47:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
old ABC by the fire
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:02–02:47:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Clear Lake Road? I'm just asking because I don't know. I'm not picking that ‸ there
I believe there is another one on Clear Lake Road that's not in the city
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:15–02:47:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
question.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:22–02:47:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
blow your mind up here. um Liquor sales, beer sales are down nationwide.
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:31–02:47:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the the state and nation.
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:47:39–02:47:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:46–02:47:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the bars don't
[unclear audio — 0:07 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:47:54–02:48:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
not even in the equation. And I think that you the state and the city should look at that. That's, um
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:48:11–02:48:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
more of a mellow thing. It, the 20 puts you to sleep like, like regular THC. It's hemp based and it's legal. So it's something that, um is up and coming and it's on the rise and a lot of profit in it. So, um you might want to put that in the, in the, thingy cap, ‸ how to deal with that. because it's, uh winn Dixie is getting ready to go bring it in to all their stores. Wow. um so it's not going away. um and winn
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:48:55–02:48:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:48:58–02:49:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
is a revenue source for these these people.
sure
so just uh
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:49:07–02:49:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So um even though I'm retired, I still get informed and uh I want to keep up with what's going on.
Thank you. Thank you very much for that. Those comments. all right Mr. Anderson
had
a
question. yes um i mentioned briefly, you've created a whole new category here with, it is called establishment with alcohol as accessory use. Right? So that's a new category. And you had mentioned that it, every category that we were talking about in this ordinance is subject to the distance ‸ rules. However, you've created a new category. And all of a sudden, it is not subjected to the distance rules. However, you can have a bottle of wine next to a school if you bring it yourself, but you can't buy a bottle of wine next to a school. You see what I'm saying? I think legally you created a huge loophole. So I'm not opening a bar. I'm opening up a craft store. And by the way, this craft store, we're painting and you can bring all your wine you want. And we're right next to a
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 02:50:14–02:50:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
You see what I'm saying? This should be subject because this category was added to the bars, liquor stores, package stores, convenience stores. This should be also subject to the exact same distance rules. Exactly. I agree.
Well, just thank you, Mr. Anderson. Because
it's
part of the same ordinance. ‸ So it should be part of the distance rules. And no,
thank you for the comment. We appreciate that. But just to also clarify that the difference between with with bars and liquor stores, it involves the the the sales of
consumption,
the sales and consumption. And that um it's more than
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:50:54–02:50:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from that activity. So with this category, um and we're just really creating a definition for things that already exist in the community to distinguish them as a standalone category. So this would be a situation where in an art studio or ‸ salon where, as it's stated in the definition, where
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:51:20–02:51:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
there's no revenue derived from the alcoholic beverages. It's just complementary My
suggestion would be, since this category was created,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:51:30–02:51:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I don't think anybody's going to be conforming or non-conforming. I just think in order to be compliant, you know, 10 months from now, 10 years from now, there's a huge loophole here. If I was a business owner, that's a loophole I would use.
I'm
just telling you. So this new category should be added to the distance rules. And then everybody's
happy.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:51:57–02:51:57 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Okay? I'm just legally, I think that should be done.
And that's for free your own budget, right? Well,
it says directly here, it says a retailer service
establishment
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:52:09–02:52:10 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
which offers, huge word, beverages to its customers for consumption upon the premises. There's no level there. I could drink six bottles. Okay? It also states in this new uh category, it says while providing beauty services or an art studio that allows, which is broad, because
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:52:33–02:52:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
for you, ‸ bottle for you? To consume while creating artwork. I'm not against any of this. I'm just saying that if we're going to make a bar or package store owner conform to a distance rule, we should also make these people in this new category conform to a distance rule. That's all I'm saying. I'm not against people drinking a bottle of wine while they're doing art. I think that's great. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Good
point.
So I don't know how we make that happen, but I think
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:53:09–02:53:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:53:20–02:53:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Anderson's comment. um I just want to make clear that, like um Jennifer stated, the bottle club is considered a bar. So, for instance, if you have a business that does special events, they are going to be considered ‸ bar and they have to abide by the distance requirement and also go
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:53:46–02:53:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that business is not alcohol.
The word implies doesn't work in legal terms.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:53:58–02:54:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
But it's just
to...
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:54:02–02:54:03 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
I'm just saying it needs to be subjected
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:54:06–02:54:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
I think he has... I think it's... Yeah. I i know his his point is is that
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:54:15–02:54:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
mine's is a very short cut. But if you got long hair, you could you could go through a six pack, you know, and pull out of there. So so i I get your point there. So, but again, i think that's at the at the board's discretion in terms of what you want to recommend to the to the uh city council. ‸ Make
a motion
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:54:48–02:54:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:54:54–02:54:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's not lucy that big a deal. I'm just...
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:55:00–02:55:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:55:01–02:55:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
can you go back to
the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:55:04–02:55:04 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
map with all the the the boundaries?
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:55:07–02:55:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
buffers. Like if you if you just take
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:55:11–02:55:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
it's already pretty limited the locations where you can have alcohol. If you include every beauty salon, nail place, you even further that buffer even more, it creating a bigger restriction. I just want to highlight that for you to think about it because it's already pretty restrict. The way we have it set it up now, most likely the place to have a bar, for instance, it has to be in
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:55:43–02:55:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
open a bar as this ordinance passed because of those buffers. So most likely you're not going to have a place selling alcohol that is not a restaurant within the city. And that will be the same for the package stores. If you take in consideration the package stores, is pretty limited the areas where you can have a package store. So if we have to assess all the beauty salons and nail places and everything else, you
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:56:15–02:56:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So I just want to highlight that.
No, you're not. All you're doing is saying every beauty salon is not giving out free bottles of wine. ‸ Okay? But if they happen to do that, let's say we have 30 salons, but you have two of them that are giving out wine. Then what you do is you say you're allowed to do that, but
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:56:37–02:56:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But the beauty salon across the street or 500 feet down or something like that. I'm not saying, I'm saying all of this is good. It just needs to be restricted in a distance the exact same way a bar would be. I mean, it's not complicated. and
All
I'm saying is the
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:56:59–02:57:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
it's not hurting anybody. It's just making them apply to the exact same distance rules. makes
them responsible
yeah It makes them responsible. Because
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:57:11–02:57:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah. And they walk from the salon drunk
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:57:17–02:57:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
it happen personally, but you like, you
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:57:26–02:57:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
yeah
but
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:57:33–02:57:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
schools, I wouldn't think.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 02:57:42–02:57:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
‸ I'll make
[unclear audio — 0:12 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:57:49–02:58:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
rules as all the other categories.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:58:03–02:58:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
motion and it's been seconded. uh Further discussion on the motion? All right. Since this is all we're going to talk about right now. um
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 02:58:21–02:58:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I just want to get over in Edgewise
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:58:28–02:58:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
get a chance to ask that. the state refers to federal and then i think in the federal side it says 0.5 i was just wondering Not my deepest concern. Just.
um I would have to to look that up, frankly. um
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:58:44–02:58:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we just weren't proposing to change. That's what's in the ordinance already. um ‸ But i I will look into that. Since we
were aligning with the state. I was just going with it.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 02:58:59–02:59:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I didn't get a chance to ask about my
one point. ‸ And
then I, if we did call this to question,
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:59:09–02:59:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that we. To his
motion?
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:59:16–02:59:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the distance from building to building like we currently are. That
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:59:26–02:59:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that we could do that and I would like to have that made if possible, that amendment.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 02:59:36–02:59:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 02:59:38–02:59:38 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
property
‸ Because uh this wouldn't exactly pertain to this one because
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 02:59:41–02:59:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But in I'll just use the school as an example. It has a corner that goes out farther than everyone else. And so now you go from about 250 to, you know, closer to 300 to 500. I know it's not 500 feet, but uh you get closer to that line. that That corner cuts in another 40 to 50 feet uh that you
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:00:02–03:00:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
And I will tell you, St. Mark's is close to uh the beer garden,
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:00:09–03:00:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
That's why they're changing it now. That's not ‸ example.
No, the the CBD, which is the Central Business District, allows allows for... um There are no distancing requirements in the CBD. But we're changing that. No, we
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:00:38–03:00:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
That
that except exception remains.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; words the first reading may have missed · 03:00:46–03:00:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
I'd like the motion amended,
i'd
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:00:55–03:00:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
need a second for that. Is that correct?
Correct. Yeah. I'd have to amend mine. No. It
would be me amending to um
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:01:03–03:01:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:06 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
two motions. The amendment there's this motion
that's out there now, and it can... Can I hear what she was going to say? Mr.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 03:01:19–03:01:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
talking first, so that's fine.
this is
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:01:21–03:01:21 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
like oh I
apologize. It's okay. uh What I was saying is you have a main... There was a main motion on on the floor, and then a motion to amend was made. That must be seconded in order to be... Correct.
And that was the discussion that... So I do not know the outcome of this motion, and so to ensure that I uh amend or make the um move to amend, and it is captured correctly,
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:01:48–03:01:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
to amend uh that the measurement be from building to building instead of lot to lot where we're applicable.
That's in addition to his original? Amending
to his
motion.
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:02:00–03:02:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
second his.
God bless you. And... Okay. And so we'll... Any further discussion? Because I made the amendment. Any further discussion? All over that. Last call on that. All right. I think it should ‸ be
two separate motions.
Yeah.
you
might have a point you need to speak?
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:02:20–03:02:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
The motion now has been seconded. The amendment has been seconded. So you're... The motion on the floor at the moment is whether or not to make that amendment. That's what you all are voting on.
oh one thing is Okay. oh
one thing at a time. Good. One thing at
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:02:42–03:02:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
the amendment now.
You are voting on the requested amendment. Because it all it just received a second. Now you need to have a majority.
Gotcha.
Yeah.
So on the amendment, uh all in favor? Aye. Okay. All opposed? No. Let's get a head count on this.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:03:07–03:03:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
There's a roll call. Roll call. On the amendment.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 03:03:14–03:03:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 03:03:20–03:03:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 03:03:30–03:03:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Anderson, how do you vote?
Yes.
And then um
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:03:41–03:03:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yes.
‸ All right.
Thank you. So the motion passes. On the amendment. Now to move on to the uh motion that was first presented. uh All in favor. Say
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; words the first reading may have missed · 03:03:56–03:04:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
so
Brianna, can we get a roll call on the. uh On the proposed motion, which was
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:04:17–03:04:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Make sure. Hold on. oh no. That was just.
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:04:24–03:04:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:04:29–03:04:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
with alcoholics accessory use added to the distance
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:04:35–03:04:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
your
amendment. Correct. Yes. Correct.
That is now a part of it because
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:04:42–03:04:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
all done. So we're we're good. The amendments there. Mr. Mr. Let's
just make sure Brianna has that.
That's what I'm
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: words the first reading may have missed · 03:04:51–03:04:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
we going to go down again? Yeah.
Okay.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:04:58–03:05:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
uh
Board member Wheeler, how do you vote?
No. Board
member Greenwood, how do you vote?
Yes.
Chairperson uh Park, how do you vote?
No.
Vice Chair Anderson. ‸ Yes. And then board member
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:05:15–03:05:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
vote.
No.
Okay. So the
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:05:18–03:05:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I
would like to make a motion to approve the ordinance as written with the change that the uh distance be measured by building to building when applicable. If I could get a second.
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:05:43–03:05:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
this motion? Excellent.
are we This
is for the approval of the ordinance as written. This is distance only. No, this
is
the approval of the ordinance as written. But with the change, see, in this ordinance, this is here, in this ordinance, there was a change to go from building to building to lot to lot, lot line to lot line. And it was mentioned in there that staff recommends, you know, the possibility that we could remain building to building. I would like to remain building to building. And that was my proposal in the in the motion or the move um was to approve it just as we see it, except for I'd like to take the recommendation of remaining building to building instead of lots a lot where they where it's applicable. Because uh schools, I think, is not applicable. That's lots a lot.
And
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:06:41–03:06:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
No,
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:06:44–03:06:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:06:46–03:06:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
make sure.
That's fair.
That's fair. that's good
[03:06:50] ▶ Play Speaker 14 (introduced as “Max Kaiser” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
All right.
‸ So here we go. let's let's
[unclear audio ▶]
We want to do ‸ roll call. All in favor, say aye aye. Okay. Any opposed? Say nay. No. Thank you very much. The motion passes. All right. uh Yes, ma'am. I
apologize. um Chairperson Park,
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:07:08–03:07:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
state for the record. We didn't open it for public comment because
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:07:12–03:07:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Thank you. have that in the record. I
appreciate it. Thank you. That wasn't my thoughts at one point.
Yeah.
um We move on to our item number
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:07:21–03:07:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
staff? Nobody's tried to take a tree down? or anything No approvals we need to look at?
All
right. Then we will move on from ‸ the tree board and go to open discussion. We
have had some open discussion. if
we could If I could, you know, this is my own personal belief, but I'll say it publicly. uh My deepest condolences to our mayor.
Yeah. uh
His father is a amazing figure of our community and of my my whole childhood, my parents. And and
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:08:02–03:08:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
And he was a figure I'll never get out of my mind when it comes to the best principal I ever had.
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:08:10–03:08:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
I just wanted
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:08:15–03:08:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
he'd say. I was
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:08:23–03:08:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
okay Thank you, Mr. Blake. Tiger Pride. I love
him. I love him.
uh All right. uh Last call for open discussion. Moving on to other business. I don't see any. Our next meeting for item number eight. oh yes, sir.
a business Can I
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:08:40–03:08:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
What's new
[unclear audio — 0:08 ▶]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 03:08:42–03:09:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:10 ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:08:55–03:09:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Mr. Greenwood on the whole carjacking thing in the
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:09:05–03:09:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
from Indian Harbor Beach to Clear Lake in
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 03:09:13–03:09:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And then they were chased into the village and apprehended in the village there.
Well,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:09:21–03:09:22 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
That's a little better. I just wish it didn't happen. That's a
lot. That's a lot better. The
[unclear audio — 0:04 ▶]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:09:27–03:09:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:10 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:09:30–03:09:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
city
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:09:42–03:09:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
but how's that going, sir? ‸ Lee Winter
Park will be um completed. uh If it's not before July 4th, the park will be open for the
fireworks
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 03:09:56–03:09:57 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
celebration. good We'll be able to utilize it to to do the fireworks. But it should be early July or mid july where we're completely Yeah.
thank
you
for Thank you all for your hard work on getting that done, too. All right. um Our next meeting for item number eight is Wednesday, July 9th
[unclear audio — 0:05 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:10:16–03:10:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:10:20–03:10:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
[unclear audio ▶]
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
i didn't read it. All right. And I'm going on record to say I won't be there. yeah That is the future commander of American
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 03:10:33–03:10:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:10:36–03:10:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Congratulations. All right. Motion to adjourn. Anybody second
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:10:43–03:10:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
right. All in favor? ‸ Take it outside.
Thank you all very
[unclear audio ▶]
Flag: words the first reading may have missed · 03:10:52–03:10:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:01 ▶]
course, thank you for your
questions.
[unclear audio — 0:03 ▶]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 03:10:58–03:11:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[unclear audio — 0:02 ▶]
It fills the room up.
It says OR.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 03:11:11–03:11:12 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)