[00:00:00] Speaker 1
As usual,
[00:00:00] Speaker 2
call the
[00:00:01] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:00:01–00:00:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:02] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:02–00:00:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:05] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:00:05] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:00:08] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:00:08] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:00:09] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Here. Alec Greenwood. Here. Veronica Lopez. Here. Justin Simpson. Here. Wesley Park. Here. Marcus Wheeler. Present. Mary Beth Burgess. Here. And Catherine Stewart. Thank you.
[00:00:21] Speaker 1
Great. Thank you. And once again, if everyone could please stand up, face the flag. ‸ I pledge allegiance to the flag
[00:00:31] No voice detected
of the United
[00:00:32] Speaker 1
States of
[00:00:33] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:00:33–00:00:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:43] Speaker 1
you. We have a short agenda tonight. We've had a high turnover rate.
[00:00:53] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:53–00:00:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:54] Attribution uncertain
board
[00:00:54] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:00:58] Speaker 1
everyone. Years ago, people would stay on this board for a long time.
[00:01:03] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:01:03–00:01:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:04] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:04] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:01:04] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:05] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:01:07] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:01:09] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:01:10] Speaker 1
that bad, guys. And, uh, we have to vote, or is anyone having questions about the agenda?
[00:01:18] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[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 · 00:01:18–00:02:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:19] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:19] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:01:22] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:58]
[00:02:20] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:21] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
[00:02:32] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
We will cover all of those topics in the training.
[00:02:36] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Is the training that you're talking about, is that something where we're going to have another meeting for that? Or is this going to be a really quick presentation when we get to that point?
[00:02:48] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:48–00:02:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:02:49] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
is today. And I prepared it. And it will take some time. I anticipate it will take at least an hour.
[00:02:56] Speaker 4
Okay. All right. And then that was basically the summary that I wanted to make at this point.
[00:03:04] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:04–00:03:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:08] Speaker 1
Okay, Alec, thank you. I only had one comment that sometimes we have an applicant come before the board,
[00:03:15] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:15–00:03:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:21] Speaker 1
And the board here will approve it. And then nothing happens. It
[00:03:27] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:03:27–00:03:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:27] Attribution uncertain
be
[00:03:27] Speaker 1
very frustrating. You approve something in a year later ‸ if it never happened. There should be some effort made on the part of the staff to follow up to get something. If after a year's time, there's absolutely no substantive action, that approval should be vacated and start all over again. If
[00:03:50] Speaker 6
people
[00:03:50] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
are serious about doing something, they don't start the next day or the next week. But certainly within a matter of months, they should be doing something. Okay, that's happened several times. Past members have commented on that. And that's all I have on that.
[00:04:05] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Machine re-recognized
Please
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:04:05–00:04:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:04:06] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
take that into consideration.
[00:04:11] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:04:11–00:04:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:13] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
up that one is financing. And sometimes they're not getting enough financing for the project. Or once they do get the financing, it turns out that it needs to be even greater than what they thought. It's things like that that come up. And once it's been a year, the
[00:04:32] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
building
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:04:32–00:04:32 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:04:32] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
department requires you to renew your permit.
[00:04:37] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:37–00:04:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:42] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
So it can't be an ongoing thing. If they don't follow through within the six months to renew the permit after a year, then it basically dies. And they have to go through the whole process again. So you're right. There are issues that that's happened before. But that's some of the reasons that it's happened.
[00:05:05] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:05:05–00:05:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:05] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:05:06] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:05:06] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:05:06] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:05:07] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
understand that financing could be an issue ‸ through one of several companies.
[00:05:11] Attribution uncertain
Or
[00:05:11] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
maybe the
[00:05:12] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
partnerships changed or there's a lawsuit or a divorce. I mean, there's all kinds of things that could happen from the time it's been approved. And that can change everything. But that's normally the process.
[00:05:25] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:25–00:05:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:29] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:29–00:05:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:33] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
So moved. Second? Second. Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. We're going to move ‸ on. Old business, new business, election of a new chairperson and vice chairperson.
[00:05:47] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:47–00:05:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:51] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:51–00:07:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:55] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 1:02]
[00:06:57] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:06:57] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:20]
[00:07:17] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:07:19] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So I would like to nominate. Wait, wait,
[00:07:20] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
hold on. We haven't called for the nominations yet.
[00:07:23] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:23–00:07:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
just take a second. We'll try to keep some format. There's no further discussion or comments. Alec, thank you.
[00:07:32] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:32–00:07:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:36] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
He usually has good things to say. Usually. Usually. 90% of the time he does, the other 10% you could
[00:07:44] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Thanks for that word. Okay.
[00:07:45] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
90% is not bad. Okay. We're going to open it up for nominations. We're first going to select a chairperson.
[00:07:54] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:54–00:07:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:57] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
When that person is selected, then we will go to the vice chair. Now at this point, I'll open it up to a nomination.
[00:08:05] Speaker 4
I'd like to make a nomination if I
[00:08:06] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
could.
[00:08:07] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Please
[00:08:07] Speaker 1
do.
[00:08:07] Speaker 4
All right. This is for the chairperson. I'd like to nominate Justin because he is the one that I
[00:08:15] No voice detected
was
[00:08:15] Speaker 4
referring
[00:08:15] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:08:15–00:08:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:08:19] Speaker 4
spends and understands what is being presented to us. He really stood out from the crowd and I hope other people agree.
[00:08:29] Speaker 1
Okay.
[00:08:31] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:31–00:08:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:08:36] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:08:36] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:08:38] Speaker 1
Let me ask one question.
[00:08:39] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:39–00:08:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:08:45] Speaker 1
each meeting?
[00:08:46] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:46–00:08:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:08:46] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:08:48] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:08:48] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:08:49] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:08:49] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:08:49] Attribution uncertain
You
[00:08:49] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
know. Okay. You're the only one. All in favor of Justin being the new president chair of the board. Raise your hand or please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. ‸ Congratulations.
[00:09:03] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:03–00:09:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:04] Attribution uncertain
Can
[00:09:04] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I
[00:09:04] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
just ask who seconded it? The motion's made.
[00:09:08] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Oh, okay. That was my fault. I didn't get a second. Okay. I apologize for that. That's okay.
[00:09:13] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:13–00:09:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:14] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:09:15] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
We have a second. Okay.
[00:09:17] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:17–00:09:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:19] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
we'll take the second. We'll be flexible. Justin did surprise me. When he first came on the board, he knew more about what was going on than somebody who'd been here for two or three years. Exactly. Okay. Now,
[00:09:36] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:36–00:09:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:39] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
chair. Sir, may I ask?
[00:09:43] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:43–00:09:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:46] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. I would like to nominate because of all the
[00:09:49] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:09:49–00:09:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:58] Speaker 4
chair because of exactly the way that you've handled this meeting since it started. You're very attentive and
[00:10:05] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:10:05–00:10:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:09] Speaker 4
room full
[00:10:09] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:10:09–00:10:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:14] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:10:16] Speaker 4
heck of a team. And I hope that there's a second for that nomination. I second.
[00:10:21] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
Okay.
[00:10:22] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:22–00:10:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
Since I've been on the board about 17 years, I didn't intend to do that when I first came on.
[00:10:32] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:32–00:10:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:35] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
I didn't know what, I had an idea what she's referring to. So I picked this board and ended up being
[00:10:41] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a possible machine repair could not be placed · 00:10:41–00:10:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:41] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
for about seven years. ‸ Outlasted everyone else. Okay. Is there anyone else who would really like to serve because I really don't have to serve as vice chair. If someone else would like to fill that position, I'll graciously back out.
[00:10:58] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:10:58–00:10:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:59] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
I'll say Todd Anderson as a secretary. Okay. Todd, would you like to, would you serve as vice chair if selected?
[00:11:08] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:08–00:11:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:12] Speaker 4
be city council member. ‸ He's always been involved in the city. And that includes things that he has heard was being involved here that doesn't necessarily affect him.
[00:11:24] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:11:24–00:11:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:28] Speaker 4
He wants nothing but success and with professionals. That's what I know about Todd.
[00:11:33] Speaker 1
Okay. Todd, if you are selected, would you agree to be here on a regular basis?
[00:11:42] Speaker 2
Yeah, I'd much rather you do it, but.
[00:11:48] Speaker 1
You would rather that?
[00:11:49] Speaker 2
Yeah.
[00:11:50] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Justin, I think Justin's been here. I know we're talking a lot here, but they've been here on a very steady basis. So I'll agree to serve as vice. My concern
[00:11:59] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
is I miss meetings because I'm still working 12 hours every day. So I do miss meetings.
[00:12:05] Speaker 1
Okay. Justin,
[00:12:06] Attribution uncertain
you
[00:12:06] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
agree to be here virtually all the time. Yes. Okay. Okay. Then I will accept that vice chair position.
[00:12:13] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:13–00:12:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:15] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
You know, we, or I've served two, three-year terms.
[00:12:18] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:12:18–00:12:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:21] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
Okay. I'll accept the vice chairs. All in favor.
[00:12:26] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:12:26–00:12:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:29] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Hi. All right.
[00:12:30] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:12:30–00:12:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:34] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:12:34–00:12:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:39] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
Okay. Well, that's it. We'll close this issue.
[00:12:42] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:12:42–00:12:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:43] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
I'll serve as vice chair. Since we're next to each other, we don't have to really change seats.
[00:12:48] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:12:48–00:12:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:50] Speaker 6
You too, sir.
[00:12:51] Attribution uncertain
I'm going to say
[00:12:51] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
that,
[00:12:51] Speaker 1
uh, whoops. Okay. And I will turn the meeting over to you now, and we will probably go on to the training.
[00:12:59] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:59–00:13:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:00] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:13:00] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:13:01] No voice detected
Justin, thank you.
[00:13:02] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a possible machine repair could not be placed · 00:13:02–00:13:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:02] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:13:03] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:13:03–00:13:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:03] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
[00:13:12] Speaker 1
Okay. This is easy, really.
[00:13:16] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:16–00:13:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:21] Speaker 1
had 40 years of federal service, and they got some of those meetings on occasion. Got brutal. You have no idea what they're like. When it came to funding issues, who gets the money,
[00:13:32] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:32–00:13:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:34] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:13:35] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:13:36] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:13:36–00:13:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:36] Speaker 1
everyone stand up and walk away, and
[00:13:39] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
then
[00:13:39] Speaker 1
come back. ‸ It gets bad. Nothing like this has ever happened on this board. We're all very collegial work well together. Yeah. So, so far.
[00:13:52] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:52–00:13:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:55] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:13:56] Speaker 4
it light.
[00:13:57] Speaker 1
Yes. ‸ Okay.
[00:13:59] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:13:59–00:14:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:00] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:14:00] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:14:03] Speaker 1
Justin here for the training portion.
[00:14:05] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. Is that okay? Go
[00:14:08] Speaker 7
ahead.
[00:14:08] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
All right. So for the new members, my name is Kristen Ike.
[00:14:15] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:15–00:14:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:20] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
I assist this board. So you'll see me almost every meeting, unless I have to have somebody cover for me. So I prepared this training. I thought that it was important because we have, we do have so many new members. And we really haven't done one like this before for planning and zoning
[00:14:40] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Machine re-recognized
board.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:14:40–00:14:40 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:14:40] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
So I think it will hopefully be helpful to you. I have listed here in the outline the topics I want to cover. Hopefully I don't intend to insult anyone in terms of, you know, going over basics, but I really, you know, I don't know how much experience all of you have with planning and zoning matters. So I felt I wanted to cover basics ‸ and get into some of the, some, some of the things you really need to know. So I'm going to cover the role of the planning and zoning board, meaning what are the duties that are assigned to this board by the city code. We're going to talk about what the comprehensive plan is and what function it serves for the city as well as comprehensive plan amendment requests, which you are often asked to review and provide recommendations on as well as what, what is zoning generally and what our land development regulations and rezoning requests, which you also will have to.
[00:15:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:54–00:15:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:55] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:15:56] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
We're going to talk a little bit about site plans.
[00:15:59] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:59–00:16:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:16:10] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the statutory requirements regarding development permits and orders that we need to consider when making decisions, as well as covering some of the procedures that govern all of these different types of applications.
[00:16:28] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:16:28–00:16:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:16:33] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Those are certain types of applications that we hear and we have legislative items, which are really the comprehensive plan items. So there are different procedures that apply to those different types of applications and I'll go over that. I'll talk a little bit about private property rights and then do some of the general discussion on the sunshine law, public records, ethics and voting conflicts. So, um, the role of the board, like I said, is determined by the city code, um, as an advisory body, um, the, your, your duties are delegated by the city council through the code.
[00:17:19] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:19–00:17:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:24] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
questions related to zoning, um, investigate proposals to change zoning regulations. And here applications and make recommendations to the city council on, um, proposed changes to the permitted use of a property,
[00:17:37] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:37–00:17:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
In addition, um, state law, the community planning act requires that the city must designate a board as the local planning agency or local land planning agency. And so often you'll see, for example, in our advertisements for, um, for,
[00:18:04] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:04–00:18:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:18:09] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
The LPA is the, is the local planning agency. So you serve both functions and the community planning act is focused, focused on, um, comprehensive planning. And so the roles that you play here is really, um, reviewing, um, you, you are really in charge of the comprehensive planning program for the city. Um, although it says you prepare the comprehensive plan, typically you don't usually prepare it, but what happens is staff is either preparing a version for you to review, or we have a consultant that works with the city to, um, help prepare that document and you are asked to review changes to it.
[00:18:52] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:52–00:18:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:18:58] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
um, along with, uh, recommending, um, that the comprehensive plan or elements or portions or amendments there to, um, um, are to the council for adoption modification or rejection, um, you are to monitor and oversee the effectiveness and status of the comprehensive plan and recommend any changes to the council that you deem to be, um, necessary.
[00:19:23] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:23–00:19:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:30] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
I'll talk a little bit more about what that means in a, in a few minutes. Um, and of course, perform any other functions, duties, and responsibilities assigned by the city ‸ council. You also have a third function, which is to act as the city's tree board. Um, and so, uh, the code provides that you are to, um, help investigate, develop, and advise the city council regarding policies and standards relating to
[00:20:00] Attribution uncertain
the city council.
[00:20:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:00–00:20:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:00] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:20:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
[00:20:06] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
in parks, um, along streets and in other public areas. Um, you're to, when, when requested by council, consider, investigate, make findings of fact on any other special matter related to trees, essentially. Um, there's also a provision in the code and you'll find that you get, um, applications, uh, regarding
[00:20:30] Attribution uncertain
the city council.
[00:20:30] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:30–00:20:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:30] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:20:30] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:20:34] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
only, and it provides that no oak tree located on city public right of way or city owned property shall be removed or significantly pruned prior to a recommendation by the tree board and then approved by the city council. So you provide a recommendation. Um, there are certain exceptions to that. Uh, but I'm not going to get into all of those, but there are some exceptions.
[00:20:57] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:57–00:21:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
oak tree, you are tasked with including in your recommendation, a location and species of a replacement tree. Um, so in the past, a lot of them have been, the, the applications
[00:21:16] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:16–00:21:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:21] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
the roots, for example, are not going to, um, damage, uh, public property, which is often the reason that they're being asked to remove them. Yes.
[00:21:31] Speaker 2
Private homes.
[00:21:33] Attribution uncertain
We
[00:21:33] Speaker 2
have no jurisdiction.
[00:21:35] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
‸ You do not. Um, we, I mean, in terms of, um, what you would make recommendations in terms of, um, changes to the code, right? That could affect private property. But,
[00:21:50] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:50–00:21:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:56] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
private property. Sometimes you get a private property owner who asked to remove a tree in the right of way in front of their home. So you might see, you know, you might have a private property applicant in, in rare circumstances, but, um, generally, generally not. So, um, I was going to make a note. I did pass out, uh, this was a little while ago, a memorandum on open discussion for board members, um, and guest speakers.
[00:22:25] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:25–00:22:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:28] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:28–00:22:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:37] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
open discussion of the members. And the memo essentially said, it set out that during that time, what you're supposed to be discussing really should relate to one of those ‸ three functions that we just talked about. Talking about comprehensive planning, you know, zoning, or your role as a tree board, something to do with one of those things. And if you want to have, um, speakers during that time, the, I think the, the board has asked that you talk about that beforehand, right? And agree to have a guest speaker before you bring the person.
[00:23:14] No voice detected
Um,
[00:23:16] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
all right. So I wanted to dive into the comprehensive plan.
[00:23:20] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:20–00:23:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:27] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
the city. Um, on planning related matters. It's a state required plan. Every city in Florida has one. And it provides the principles, guidelines and standards and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental and fiscal development of the city. Um, the statute provides, and I quoted it here, the plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. So, as I said, this is generally more of a guidance document. Although sometimes there are specific regulatory language that's included in the, in the, um, comprehensive plan. Uh, but we get more specific land development regulations in our city code.
[00:24:28] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:28–00:24:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:34] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
actually codified in the code. You're not going to find it. Google going to look on muni code, for example.
[00:24:40] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:40–00:24:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:47] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
growth in the city. And there are required and optional elements, um, under state law that must be in the, or the required elements must be in the comprehensive plan.
[00:25:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:00–00:25:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:07] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
of the future land use element, the conservation element. There's a capital improvements element. Um, those things need to be in there. Um, and as I said, guide the future development of the city. Um, all of our land development regulations have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Um, the, ‸ because again, the comprehensive plan is certainly overriding document, um, and the governing document for planning in the city. The elements have to be consistent with each other as well. So whenever we're looking at amending the comprehensive plan, we look to make sure that it's not causing there to be an inconsistent, inconsistency with some other part of the plan. Um, whenever we are looking at adopting, um, amendments to the plan as well, you will see, um, the statute uses the language that we're supposed to present
[00:26:05] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Machine re-recognized
relevant
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:26:05–00:26:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:26:05] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
and incorporate relevant and appropriate data and analysis. So that would include, could include studies,
[00:26:13] Attribution uncertain
um,
[00:26:14] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
surveys,
[00:26:14] Attribution uncertain
uh,
[00:26:15] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
community goals and vision and other data available at the time of the adoption of the comprehensive plan or the amendment. And they have to be taken from professionally accepted sources. Um, the future land use element is probably the one that you'll be most familiar with. Um, so it, that element designates, um, proposed future general distribution location and extent of uses of land for residential uses, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, conservation, um, and public, public facilities. These are all categories of land and it basically designates the approximate, approximate acreage or percentage of the city that are going to be used for each type of, of land, uh, or each type of use.
[00:27:07] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:27:07–00:27:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:08] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Machine re-recognized
it sets the general range of density or intensity of use that will be provided within each category. So, I think I, as I said, the, the, not only are, do the elements have to be internally consistent, our land development regulations are, have to be consistent with the comprehensive plan and are intended
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:27:08–00:27:34 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:27:34] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:34–00:27:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:36] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
policies that are in there. All development applications in the city have to conform with a comprehensive plan. And there are provisions in state law for interested parties to appeal any decision that they believe doesn't comport with the comprehensive plan.
[00:28:01] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:01–00:28:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:08] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
So this is just an example of what the future land use map looks like. You'll ‸ become familiar with this over time.
[00:28:17] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:28:17–00:28:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:18] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
quite up to date, but it gives you an example of what it looks like and the different categories that we have in the future land use map. So when you get a comprehensive plan amendment, you might get, I'll go back to it,
[00:28:35] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:35–00:28:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:38] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
So they could be asking to change the category of their future land use. Let's say they want to go from medium density residential to high density residential. So you may get an application like that and it'll actually be a change to the map. Or it could be a text amendment.
[00:28:57] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:57–00:29:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:29:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
policies or goals that are within the comprehensive plan. Or it could involve both. So it just depends on what the application is. The applications can be initiated by the city or it can be a developer owner of real property or another government agency can actually initiate a comprehensive plan amendment. So factors that we consider when reviewing proposed comprehensive plan amendments include the following. And I listed them here because I think it's important for you to be familiar with these criteria and what it's going to be in your staff report. So for every application that you see on this board, the staff prepares a staff report for you to review. And their job is to review these, the application criteria and at least provide some recommendation to you as a board about whether or not the application meets those criteria.
[00:30:13] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:13–00:30:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:16] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
For comprehensive plan amendments, you're looking at the effect on the city budget, the
[00:30:22] Attribution uncertain
effect
[00:30:22] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
on public facilities, and this is a very important one.
[00:30:25] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:25–00:30:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:31] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
you are to consider, which would include transportation and roads, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, education, and parks and recreation.
[00:30:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:44–00:30:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:45] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
to look at whether what is the impact of the amendment on those public facilities.
[00:30:51] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:51–00:30:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
The impact on the environment and natural and historical resources, the compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and land uses, compatibility with the remainder of the plan. Again, making sure we have that internal consistency. And impact on the health, safety, aesthetics, and welfare of the city. Impact on the ability to find people to find adequate housing reasonably accessible to their places of employment.
[00:31:24] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:24–00:31:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:31] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
of the East Central Florida Regional Planning Council area. So, ‸ as I said, in each staff report that you receive, you'll receive an analysis of these criteria.
[00:31:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:44–00:31:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:50] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
big takeaway is to please review those staff reports. Because staff spends a lot of time preparing them for you. And they become, you know, part of the record that, ‸ of the decision. So, it's very important that you look at them.
[00:32:08] Speaker 2
Yes. And those reports are received prior to the meetings?
[00:32:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yes. They're received prior to the meetings. I think staff aims to try to get them to you at least a week beforehand. Sometimes it might be a little shorter. We aim for that. But because we want to give you time to ‸ review. But, yes, you will receive a report.
[00:32:29] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:29–00:32:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:35] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
site plans and things, you'll have a lot of attachments and things that go into the report. So, there's a lot to review. But the staff report really is there to kind of summarize all of that information for you. So, I would highly recommend ‸ you spend time reviewing that. Yes.
[00:32:57] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:57–00:33:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:57] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:33]
[00:33:30] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:33:35] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[00:33:41] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:16]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:33:41–00:33:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:57] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:33:58] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
it varies, obviously, depending on the application and how, you know, what the level of detail for that application. But,
[00:34:08] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:08–00:34:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:15] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
I want to make sure that whatever decision you make, you have a sufficient record to base your decision on. And staff spends ‸ quite a bit of time.
[00:34:27] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:34:27] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
don't know if Justin can speak to that. But, you know, it's a long process. Many hours. Many hours go into it. I've
[00:34:37] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
experienced it, and so have other people who make presentations here. And whenever a package is put together, sometimes they're like 50 pages. I mean, sometimes it's that involved. And
[00:34:51] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:50–00:34:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:58] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
a lot of the information that they're providing is what they've checked on legally and how...
[00:35:06] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:35:06–00:35:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:12] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:41]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:12–00:35:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:53] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
not just by one person, but we're talking about several people that we end up getting as a package. Am I correct in that?
[00:36:02] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
Yeah, I mean, obviously, you know, sometimes there's something that gets missed or whatever, but we try very hard to review all of the applications and the reports, you know, to ensure that all of the criteria that
[00:36:21] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:21–00:36:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:36:24] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
and that we are providing some recommendation to you about
[00:36:29] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:16]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:36:29–00:36:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:36:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
know, to deny the application. But when that happens, there needs to be, again, you need to be looking at what are the criteria and explaining why it is that the board disagrees with what the staff has ‸ presented.
[00:37:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:37:00–00:37:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:37:01] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:37:02] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 1:35]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:02–00:38:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:38] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
Well, I mean, ‸ what I can say is that ‸ if staff has written, you know,
[00:38:45] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:45–00:38:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
recommendation, again, ‸ that's definitely possible. But I would say you need to be focusing on what criteria or what part of the analysis you don't agree with and how it relates to the criteria.
[00:39:10] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:10–00:39:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:15] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
of my role is if you, you know, if I see you going down a different path, that's fine again. But it needs to be based on the criteria and to simply make a motion to deny, for example, without any explanation
[00:39:32] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:32–00:39:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:38] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So ‸ I would be stopping you ‸ and trying to, you know, drag out the reasoning there from you. So just be aware. You're required
[00:39:47] Speaker 4
to make a vote. You cannot refrain from making a vote.
[00:39:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Correct. And I'll cover that later with the Sunshine Law. But, yes, everyone does have to vote on every measure. You cannot, unless you have to recuse yourself for a voting conflict or something. But you, otherwise, you do have to vote. I
[00:40:11] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
wanted
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:40:11–00:40:11 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:40:11] Speaker 2
to bring up just a real quick example of what she's talking about. It was a project that came to us several years ago for an off-site parking for the Port Canaveral on 524. And the board turned it down.
[00:40:27] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:27–00:40:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:32] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:40:32–00:40:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:36] Speaker 2
And so we had denied that project. And now we have a much better.
[00:40:40] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:40:40–00:40:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:44] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice
Christian, can I just say something? I just want to highlight that when it's for the site plan and land development, it does go through a review process internally with the fire department, with public works, with ‸ utility department. So there is a review for land development and site plans that takes time. And it is in place within the city of COCO before we have the project actually gets to a final stage where there's a staff report and that becomes an agenda item. So I just want to clarify. Of course, comprehensive plan amendment
[00:41:22] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
would
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:41:22–00:41:22 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:41:22] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice
be like a different aspect.
[00:41:25] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:41:25–00:41:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:28] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:41:28–00:41:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:31] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:31–00:41:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:35] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
accommodate the code and whatever the compliance that they have to follow. So I just want to make that clear. So then it's not just five people looking. You have even
[00:41:45] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
more.
[00:41:45] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah,
[00:41:46] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:46–00:41:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:49] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice
You have public works. You have fire department.
[00:41:52] Attribution uncertain
You
[00:41:52] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice
have, they have to comply with all the codes in the city to be able to develop.
[00:41:56] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:41:56–00:41:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:58] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
already the final stage where they already revised the plans to comply with all the requirements. There were a lot of people doing that revision process. I just want to clarify that.
[00:42:11] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:42:11–00:42:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:42:13] Speaker 8
Yeah.
[00:42:15] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
So on comprehensive plan amendments, the procedure
[00:42:20] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:20–00:42:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:22] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
to consider plan amendments. There is a notice that goes, that has to be published and there's a specific
[00:42:32] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:42:32–00:42:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:36] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
We're going to encourage and accept public comment at the hearing on the proposed amendment. And the board, like I said, will make a recommendation to the city council regarding the plan amendment application. As I said, it should be based upon all the factors in the city code. So the board would recommend to either deny, approve, or approve with modifications. For comprehensive plan amendments, because this is a state process, there are varying levels of state review and involvement that go into the comprehensive plan amendments as well. That happens further down the line from you all. You're the first body that reviews it. And then the city council will have two readings. And again, depending on the type of application,
[00:43:29] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:43:29–00:43:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:43:38] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
other cities. And Brevard County can review that as well. So there's a whole review process that involves not just you, but other governmental agencies as well. Okay. So stepping away from comprehensive planning, we're going to get into zoning and land development regulations. Our zoning code is in Appendix A. You can find it on Municode. You'll see all the references to Appendix A when you get your reports. A land development regulation means it includes not only the zoning ordinance, but it also includes our subdivision code, our building code, sign regulations, which are actually not in Appendix A. So you can be asked to make recommendations on any of those things, not just what's in Appendix A. So
[00:44:34] Attribution uncertain
that's a good way.
[00:44:35] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
The land development regulations are supposed to, by state law, contain specific and detailed provisions that are necessary, again, to implement the comprehensive plan.
[00:44:48] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:44:48–00:44:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:44:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
LDRs for short, regulate the subdivision of land, regulate the use of land and water for those land use categories in the future land use element. They provide for protection of
[00:45:08] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:08–00:45:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:45:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
regulate areas subject to seasonal and periodic flooding, and provide for drainage and stormwater management. So we do have provisions in the code regarding that and regarding development in floodplains, for example. So you'll see that analysis come to you sometimes. Ensure the protection of environmentally sensitive lands and regulate signage and provide that public facilities and services meet or exceed the standards established in the capital improvements element and are available when needed for development. So that's essentially the idea of concurrency, right? That we have adequate public facilities at the time a development is built, that we have adequate public facilities to handle that, the impacts of that new development.
[00:46:04] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:04–00:46:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:46:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
So for rezoning and for site plans especially, you'll see a concurrency section that talk about what is the impact of this development on the public facilities to make sure that we have adequate capacity for our public facilities. Our city is divided into different zoning districts on the city's official zoning map. Each zone allows different types of development. So it will set out the allowed uses in the zoning district. And then also it'll have, let's say, so the principal allowed uses, it'll have accessory uses that are allowed, special exceptions within the zoning district, and prohibited uses. Sometimes we list some prohibited uses, but the rule is that if it's not listed, it's not allowed. So that's the general rule.
[00:47:13] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:13–00:47:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:18] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
can be in the city. So
[00:47:24] Attribution uncertain
we,
[00:47:24] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I gave the example here for residential estate, which is the largest, or I guess the least dense zoning district in the city along Indian River Drive.
[00:47:36] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:36–00:47:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:40] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
So there's for every district, there is a language in the code about what the intent of the district is. And then we talk about, it gets into some of the specifics about, you know, what are, for example, setbacks in that district. What are the uses allowed? What are the minimum lot sizes? All of those kinds of things are going to be found there in the zoning district regulations.
[00:48:07] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:07–00:48:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:12] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
council on map amendments or text amendments for the zoning code.
[00:48:17] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:17–00:48:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:22] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:22–00:48:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:26] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
in the future land use categories, right? So within each of the future land use categories we had, we have several different allowed districts within that area.
[00:48:36] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:36–00:48:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:42] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
different zoning districts that would allow commercial uses. We have CN, neighborhood commercial. We have, you know, the central business district, commercial parkway, core commercial, general commercial, commercial warehouse, ‸ or wholesale commercial. So you'll see, you know, there's a number of different zoning districts for each
[00:49:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:49:03–00:49:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
land use category. Again, for the procedure for rezoning applications, we hold a hearing, a public hearing. Zoning map amendments have to have a 15-day public notice by city code. And that's ‸ a requirement particular to COCO. And it's found in your code. So ‸ we publish the notice of the meeting 15 days in advance. Again, you're going to accept public comment at the hearing. You'll make a recommendation to the city, to the city council, to deny, approve, or approve
[00:49:43] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
with
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:49:43–00:49:44 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:49:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
conditions.
[00:49:45] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:49:45–00:49:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:49] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
I'm going to, I listed them on the next slide so we can talk about those. The zoning change has to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. So you usually, you should see in the staff report
[00:50:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
and
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:50:03–00:50:03 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:50:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
analysis of whether or not the change is consistent with the comp plan.
[00:50:10] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:10–00:50:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:16] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
presenting the rezoning application with a development agreement, which constrains ‸ the property to build a certain project, the rezoning application would be just a general application, meaning they could build whatever is allowed in that zoning district. So the staff reports, unless, again, unless we're having a, doing a binding development agreement with it that requires the developer to build that certain project, usually it's like a conceptual plan that will be attached if we're going to do that.
[00:50:55] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:55–00:51:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:02] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
use that can be built in that zoning district, right? Because often developers come in and they have certain, a certain intention to build a certain project, but
[00:51:14] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:14–00:51:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:19] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
And then another person buys the property and they have a totally different idea. So, yeah, yeah. So, so when we are analyzing our rezoning, I would just caution you, unless we are specifically telling you that there is a development agreement or some other condition that requires them to build that particular project, Our analysis is really broader about what are all the uses that are allowed in that zoning district and what's the most intense that they could possibly do.
[00:51:47] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:47–00:51:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:47] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:51:48] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:51:48] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:51:50] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:51:51] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:51:51] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:51:52] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:51:52] Attribution uncertain
This
[00:51:52] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
is the list of criteria for rezoning applications. So, there's more than you have for the, for the comprehensive plan amendments. You're looking at, is it contrary to the established land use pattern? Would it create an isolated district that's unrelated to adjacent districts? Essentially, are you creating a spot zone that's unrelated to what's around it? Would it materially alter the population density pattern and thereby increase or overtax the public facilities that we have? Is it illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property? Would it be contrary to the land use plan and have an adverse effect on the comprehensive plan? Have there been changed conditions that would necessitate, you know, rezoning the property?
[00:52:49] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:49–00:52:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:52] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
that would suggest you should, you should make that change? And, and so on. I mean, I'm not going to read through all of them just because
[00:53:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:00–00:53:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:53:01] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
but you can read through, through these. And these are the things that you're going to be asked to, to analyze. And again, they're all going to be analyzed for you as well in a staff report. So, site plans are another type of application you're going to be asked to review. This is getting down into kind of the nitty gritty of what is actually going to be built on a site. You're going to see basically engineering plans that have all the utilities, where the building is going, what the building is going to, the footprint of the building.
[00:53:40] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:40–00:53:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:53:45] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
It's prepared by an engineer or surveyor architect. You'll see, you know, the square footage of the buildings.
[00:53:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:54–00:53:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:53:56] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:56–00:54:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
What is the lot coverage that they're proposing? The height? All of those things are considered in the site plan. So, you know, again, we try to help you by summarizing this kind of information in the staff report. For site plans, ‸ really, ‸ the criteria is does it meet the city code? And so, we have to help you by drawing out some of those requirements and, again, trying to help summarize that for you. Parking and circulation and traffic are also big concerns, you know, for site plans. So, you'll be looking at that as well. Again, you're going to deny, approve, or approve with conditions. This is important.
[00:54:47] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:47–00:54:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:50] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
They do not go to the city council. So, most of the other, excuse me, the other applications I mentioned, you're making a recommendation. These, you make the final decision. The conditions that you include have to be, they have to have a rational nexus to what is an adverse impact, right, of the development. Or ‸ sometimes we have conditions that we put in there because they've almost met the city code, but they didn't quite make it. There's something that isn't quite right. So, we're putting in there, you need to ‸ fix this on the application so we can help move it forward. ‸ Under the city code, ‸ I think Alex brought up this point, there are time limits. So, you have 90 days, actually, to meet any conditions. If you don't meet that,
[00:55:46] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
the
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:55:46–00:55:46 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:55:46] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
developer doesn't meet it within 90 days after,
[00:55:50] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:50–00:55:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:53] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
But if it goes beyond that, it would need to come back to you or the application is void, the approval is void. So, they all have a ‸ limited amount of time to satisfy the conditions. And then, in addition to that, even if they satisfy conditions, the site plan approval lasts for one year. So, they have to get their building permits issued and obtained within that one year. If they fail to do
[00:56:22] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:56:22–00:56:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:27] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
by staff. Otherwise,
[00:56:30] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:30–00:56:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:34] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
I did want to mention that there are different types of site plans in our code.
[00:56:38] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:38–00:56:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:42] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
that are done by staff. So, if it's under a certain size, they don't come to this board.
[00:56:48] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:48–00:56:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
one of your functions also can be an appeal of a decision that staff has made on a small-scale site plan. And, actually, we might have one at the next meeting.
[00:57:06] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:57:06–00:57:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:57:09] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
We don't have that happen often, but that might be coming down the pike. I wanted to cover PUDs quickly because these are kind of unique. PUDs are essentially a site plan and a rezoning application in one. So, they're asking, ‸ PUD is an actual zoning district. It will be marked as PUD on the map. But, in order to get a PUD, you have a, what is called a final development plan. There are different options in the code for how you, how a developer would get that. They can do a preliminary one first, or they can skip right to a final. But, the zoning change to PUD doesn't actually happen until you approve the final development plan. The final development plan is, and so, the zoning and that final development plan are, like, inextricably linked, right? They're, they're one and the same. You can't separate the two. So, the ‸ final development plan is going to have, ‸ it's essentially a site plan, but with more information. It's going to include, also, the aesthetics for all of the buildings.
[00:58:34] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:58:34–00:58:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:58:37] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
for example, that are going to be included? And, the reason that we have PUDs is, typically, especially for residential PUDs, what they're asking is they're going to, let's say, have more flexibility on their density or lot size. They might want
[00:58:55] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:55–00:59:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:59:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
residential zoning districts. But, in exchange, they're doing something, ‸ they're putting in a lot of community amenities where you have common gathering space.
[00:59:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:11–00:59:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:59:13] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Or widening roads. Yeah,
[00:59:15] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
sure. So, there's a lot of things that
[00:59:17] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:59:17–00:59:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:59:19] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
They're designed to have more flexibility.
[00:59:23] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:23–00:59:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:59:29] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
you know what it is, you know, what that development is going to look like.
[00:59:34] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:34–00:59:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:59:36] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
schedule and a lot of other information that goes into it that's, like I said, it goes above and beyond what you would normally get for, like, a residential subdivision or ‸ a site plan. I think I covered everything there. So, you're also asked, as a board, to review plats. And, ‸ a plat is what allows, ‸ that's governed by both state law and the city code. There are minimum requirements for plats in state law. When we talk about a plat, that means the map that actually represents the subdivision of land that you approve. We have a two-step platting process in COCO. We have a preliminary plat, which you'll see the preliminary plat for the subdivision. When that's approved, it authorizes the developer to go ahead and start installing their infrastructure. So, their, you know, the roads and the utilities and things like that. And, when they get to a point where it should be this way, ‸ they get to a point where they've substantially completed installation of that, they can come back and request final plat approval, which actually allows them to record the plat in the official records of the county.
[01:01:05] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:05–01:01:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:01:10] Attribution uncertain
So,
[01:01:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a possible machine repair could not be placed · 01:01:11–01:01:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:01:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
you know,
[01:01:13] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:13–01:01:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:01:17] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
It involves both legal and review by the city surveyor. So, we have a city surveyor that's on, that's on retainer who reviews these plats for sufficiency with state law. So, there's a lot of technical requirements. But,
[01:01:36] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:01:36–01:01:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:01:42] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
You have, and then the developer has one year to apply for their final plat. All right, development permits and orders. Again, this is under, according to state law. Whenever we are approving a development permit, which means any zoning permit, a subdivision approval, rezoning, special exception, variance, those are board of adjustment items. Or, any other official action of a local government that has the effect of permitting the development of land. We have to provide, ‸ we have to approve or approve with conditions or deny the application. And, it has to be based on written findings supporting our decision, which is why the staff report is so important.
[01:02:33] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:33–01:02:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:36] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
So, ‸ I think going forward, I'm going to try to be a little bit more,
[01:02:42] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:02:42–01:02:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:02:45] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
strict with the board. And, asking you to, if you're going to, you know, recommend approval, let's say, or approve something, that you would incorporate in your motion, that you're ‸ incorporating the findings of staff. Because, otherwise, we have to have findings for our decisions. If you don't agree with the staff decision, then we have to go and start talking about what it is that you don't agree with. ‸ And, for denials of development permits and orders, we have to include the citation to the applicable portion of the ordinance, rule, or statute, or other legal authority that allows for us to deny it. So, again, it's important that we know our reasons for denial. So, I will, I'll start to try to ask you to do that on a regular basis. All right. So, getting into the procedure, this is important because this, like I said, the applications that you review are either going to be legislative or quasi-judicial.
[01:03:58] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:03:58–01:04:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:04:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
I've got this, I think, handy chart here. The legislative decisions are those decisions where you're creating policy. You're setting a policy for the city. Those are going to be your comprehensive plan amendments and text amendments, right, changing the text of the actual code or the comp plan. Those are things where you're setting policy. Those are reviewed
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:04:00–01:04:28 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[01:04:28] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
So,
[01:04:28] Attribution uncertain
if you're going to be a little bit under
[01:04:28] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
a fairly debatable standard, if someone were to appeal, it's a much broader and lenient standard of review.
[01:04:37] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:04:37–01:04:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:04:43] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:04:43–01:04:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:04:47] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
The quasi-judicial decisions are going to be those that affect a limited number of particular property owners, right? So, if they're coming to you for an application for a site plan, it's going to affect the owner of that particular property. And, what you're doing in a quasi-judicial setting is that you're applying rules that we already have. You're applying the code that has been written and set by the city council and approved.
[01:05:14] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:14–01:05:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:24] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
site plan applications. They're all quasi-judicial. The standard of review, I'll talk about a little more, but it's competent and substantial evidence. So, it's a more stringent review standard ‸ if it's appealed to a court.
[01:05:38] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:38–01:05:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:05:43] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
For quasi-judicial decisions, there are three requirements that a reviewing court looks at to make sure that we have done our job properly. One is, does it afford procedural due process? So, have we afforded the property owner the procedures that they're entitled to? Secondly,
[01:06:07] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:07–01:06:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
And, third, does the decision, is it based on competent and substantial evidence? So, I'll talk a little bit about those three things. Procedural due process requires reasonable notice of the hearings. So, that's why we have notice requirements in our code and we will post notices. Sometimes we provide mailers, right, to folks that are within 500 feet of a particular property. Depends on what the application is. But, it requires reasonable notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard on the matter. You're going to also,
[01:06:48] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:06:48–01:06:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:06:52] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
able to cross-examine witnesses. And, they have to be informed of all facts presented to the quasi-judicial body. That means that your decision is supposed to be made on the evidence that is presented to you in this room.
[01:07:06] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:06–01:07:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:07:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
It's not supposed ‸ to be going to the property to investigate it yourself. Your decision is supposed to be made based on what happens here and the materials that you're provided. It would be, you know, for
[01:07:28] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:28–01:07:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:07:34] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
like a judge. And, you would not expect a judge to go talk to a bunch of other people about your case without you there, right, to know what was happening.
[01:07:45] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:07:45–01:07:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:07:49] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
and find out more information and make decisions based on that without telling you, right? So, those are the kinds of things that are going to be required in order to provide the due process that the law requires to an applicant. They're also entitled to an impartial decision maker. So, you have to approach it in an unbiased and fair manner and without pre-judgment of the issues. If you feel that you can't make a decision based on, you know, the evidence that's presented to you because you've already decided you don't like this project, you can't make a decision based on, you know, the objective factors that you're given, then you need to let me know and we'll figure out how you're going to be able to potentially to recuse yourself.
[01:08:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:44–01:08:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:50] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
an open mind, then,
[01:08:52] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:52–01:08:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:08:55] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
The
[01:08:56] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:08:56–01:09:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:09:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
like I said, you're not to be talking to interested parties outside of this room. So, this doctrine requires that if you are contacted, let's say, by a developer or even a neighbor, right, who's interested in a particular matter, and they talk to you about an application, you're required to disclose on the record ‸ what happened or what you said, basically what was said during this conversation. And that should happen before we start down the road of hearing that application. So,
[01:09:36] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:09:36–01:09:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:09:41] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
you know, you should speak up before we start, you know, hearing the staff report and everything on an application. ‸ Yeah, ‸ if you, I mean, some ‸ boards, they announce that ‸ at the beginning of each meeting. If you'd like me to do that, I can. Again, we haven't done that in the past to remind you, but this is for every quasi-judicial application. If you have ex-party communications to disclose, you need to disclose them.
[01:10:12] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:12–01:10:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:10:17] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
an application that's coming up on the board for a
[01:10:20] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Machine re-recognized
quasi judicial matter,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:10:20–01:10:21 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:10:23] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
you know, ask them, my suggestion is ask them to, you know, come to the meeting and provide comments there, or they can provide written comments and we can put them in the record. But it's ‸ really not appropriate for them ‸ to talk to you outside of the hearing room.
[01:10:41] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:41–01:10:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:10:46] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
law. So, we haven't, let's say, applied the wrong zoning district regulations, or if we have applied them in an incorrect ‸ way. The third item is decision. The decision has to be based on competent and substantial evidence. That means relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. So, it has to be more than just a little bit, but it's, you know, what exactly that means is kind of, it's hard to say, but it has to be something that would, that a reasonable person would find would be adequate to support the approval or denial.
[01:11:29] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:29–01:11:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:32] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
They're not going to, so if there is at least some evidence in the record that supports your decision, they're not
[01:11:38] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:38–01:11:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:43] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
know, their separation of powers and things like that.
[01:11:46] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:46–01:11:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:11:49] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
But you have to have some evidence in the record to support what, what the decision that you've made. Again, the decision has to be made based on the information that's in the record,
[01:12:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:03–01:12:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:12:09] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
‸ I will also, that's why we swear in our witnesses on quasi-judicial matters too. We swear them in so that their testimony is going to be, supposed to be truthful. They're saying it's truthful. And this is really important.
[01:12:25] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:12:25–01:12:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:12:25] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
[01:12:32] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
does not constitute competent and substantial evidence. The number of people that show up to oppose an item is really, it's not relevant. What is relevant is, you know, what they're saying. And they have to be, they have to be competent to provide that kind of testimony. So, for a layperson, meaning somebody who's not an expert in a field, they're going to be talking about facts that they're able to observe, right? They can talk about what the existing traffic looks like. What does the neighborhood look like?
[01:13:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:13:11–01:13:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:13:15] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
If it is something that is, that ‸ an expert would be required for in the field, let's say what the impacts on the feature traffic would be, you would need a traffic expert to testify to that, to that point.
[01:13:33] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:13:33–01:13:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:13:37] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
expertise in that area. So, not only do you have to have substantial evidence, but the person that's providing the evidence has to be competent in that area to give you that evidence. I hope that makes sense. So, the legislative procedure is much more relaxed. Really, that's more just like a public hearing. Those are, again, our comprehensive plan and text amendment applications. We don't have the rules about having to, being able to cross-examine witnesses, for example.
[01:14:16] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:16–01:14:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:22] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
you know, on a comp plan amendment, and that's not permitted.
[01:14:27] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:27–01:14:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:29] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
know, what kind of application is, is very important. And I try to help you with that if things come up. But the legislative procedure, again, is, it affects a large portion of the public.
[01:14:45] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:45–01:14:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:14:51] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Is it reasonable? That's really ‸ the way that the court looks at it. But still, there is case law saying testimony of neighboring landowners or other concerned citizens is not a sufficient basis upon which to deny a comprehensive plan amendment. You still have to look at the criteria. I'll just touch on property rights, just because you hear people want to discuss their private property rights to develop their property. The Florida Community Planning Act does, did require, and we've already done it, require the comp plan to include a new element, which is the private property rights element. It essentially states that the ‸ government entities must respect judicially acknowledged and constitutionally protected private property rights. It doesn't necessarily create new rights, but it is that we have to take that, take what is ‸ judicially recognized into account. And we do that. ‸ We definitely do that.
[01:16:00] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:00–01:16:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:16:06] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
would call more relief, a relief valve, which is really a variance, right? If you can't make reasonable use of your property because a regulation is too restrictive on your property, then there are ways in the code that we have for you to try ‸ to resolve that issue.
[01:16:25] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:16:25–01:16:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:16:32] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
exactions. If we were to, let's say, you know, require a developer to, this is just an example, build a sidewalk, let's say, in another neighborhood way down the street, you know, there's no rational nexus to their development. So ‸ they could bring an exaction claim. There's a Burt Harris Private Property Rights Act in Florida, which is an inordinate burden test, which is even, it's easier to meet than what would normally be required for a takings under the constitution.
[01:17:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:11–01:17:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:17] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
try to, I'm going to try to hurry up here. So the last couple things, these aren't specific to planning, but they're for all boards. You are subject to the Sunshine Law. Really summarized, the Sunshine Law requires a couple of three things. It requires meetings to be held open to the public. It requires minutes to be taken of those meetings, and it's going to require reasonable notice to the public of the meetings that are going to take place.
[01:17:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:54–01:17:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:17:58] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
is that it applies to any communication between two members of the same board. So it doesn't even have to be a quorum of you, just two, Two of you talking about any matter that reasonably or foreseeably can come in front of the board. So essentially, if it's related to board business, you should not be talking to each other outside of this room, because it has to be, your conversation has to be open to the public, and it has to be noticed, and minutes have to be taken. So that would include not only oral discussions, but also correspondence, written correspondence via email, text message, or any other kind of method of written communication.
[01:18:52] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:18:52–01:18:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:18:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
There is some allowance to circulate position statements under the Sunshine Law. I don't recommend it, and it's discouraged. The AG discourages it. But if there's something that you really want, you feel that needs to be distributed to the board, I would recommend talking to the board, to staff, and they can kind of see if it's something that can be distributed, but it shouldn't be discussed, that you shouldn't be writing back and forth to each other about it.
[01:19:23] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:19:23–01:19:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:25] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:19:26] Speaker 9
Yeah, I did have a question. I just didn't, I couldn't read the small print to see that on the next slide.
[01:19:30] Speaker 9 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:19:30–01:19:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:31] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:19:31] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:19:31] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay, okay.
[01:19:33] Speaker 4
Would we be able to get a copy of your guidelines that you've been utilizing for this education for the board? Is there a printed version of these items? Because I didn't get that.
[01:19:48] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Oh, you didn't?
[01:19:49] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:19:49–01:19:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:50] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:19:51] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:19:51–01:19:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:51] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:19:52] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:19:52–01:19:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:52] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Machine re-recognized
slideshow?
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:19:52–01:19:52 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[01:19:53] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:19:53–01:19:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:54] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
these here. This that's on the screen.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:19:54–01:19:57 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[01:19:57] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:19:57–01:19:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:19:58] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:19:59] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
paper.
[01:19:59] Speaker 4
That's
[01:20:00] No voice detected
it?
[01:20:02] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:02–01:20:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:20:05] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Well, if we can, we can also send out an electronic version to the board.
[01:20:10] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:20:10–01:20:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:20:10] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:20:10] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:20:11] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:20:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:20:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:20:11–01:20:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:20:17] No voice detected
All
[01:20:18] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
right. Members of the public have to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard on a proposition before a board or commission. So before you take final action on any item, you have to provide time for a public comment. This board doesn't have just an ‸ open public comment section of the agenda because pretty much everything we do is a public hearing item. So you're going to, you, the public can, has an opportunity to speak before you make a motion and take final action. If it, if something did come up, I would try to remind the board chair that we need to open this up for public comment before you vote.
[01:21:07] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:21:07–01:21:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:21:12] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
It doesn't apply, though, to things like minutes, right? So we don't, we don't have to do that for minutes.
[01:21:18] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:21:18–01:21:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:21:25] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
voting conflict of interest or in a quasi judicial proceeding, you have some other reason to recuse yourself. Like I said, if you, you know, couldn't proceed without being free of bias or something like that, then we would, we would make provision for that for you to recuse yourself. This is, these are just some do's and don'ts. So, you know, don't talk about board matters during recesses because people can see you doing that. Please don't do that. Don't talk about matters before or after meetings with the other board members. You can talk to staff. Staff's there. They're not subject to the sunshine law. So if you have questions and I'm not either. So if you have questions that you need addressed, try to talk to staff or me. You know, don't talk about board matters between meetings and amongst each other. Don't pass notes or whisper to each other during a meeting.
[01:22:35] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:22:35–01:22:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:22:40] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
And don't talk about votes, hearings or actions after the public meeting because it could come back to you in a different time. There are penalties for the sunshine law violations. And we don't want that to happen for you or the city. Okay. Public records. Basically, all the documents, papers, you know, anything in a physical format of written communication or oral communication, if it's a voicemail or something like that, are going to be considered public records. To the extent that they relate to city business. It doesn't really matter the format. They have to be retained in accordance with the records retention schedules that the state establishes. If you have questions about a document, then you can contact the city clerk's office or me. Generally, your notes, though, are not going to be considered a public record. As long as you don't distribute them to others. So feel free to make notes on your own papers, you know, and that wouldn't be subject to a public records request.
[01:24:02] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:24:02–01:24:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:24:06] Speaker 6
So I don't know if everyone on the board has been informed, but as you can see on the wall there, it does say recording. So every time when you speak, make sure the microphone's on. People can hear you. We have had phone calls from people in the public saying that they can't hear us, the video, whatever. We try to make accommodations to people that are not present. So even if you don't
[01:24:28] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:24:28–01:24:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:24:32] Speaker 6
You may not know who they are. They may never come forward. But just be mindful of what you say when you're at a meeting. And then the other thing is, too, is that there have been issues with the public because
[01:24:49] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:24:49–01:24:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:24:52] Speaker 6
we will get a summarized version. The next meeting that we will approve. A lot of people have an issue with the summary version. And, of course, we've had comments made. If they have an issue with the summary version, the public access can be recalled or they can go online. It's videoed. It's recorded. So I just wanted to make sure that everybody
[01:25:19] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:25:19–01:25:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:25:20] Speaker 6
the board was aware that when you speak, make sure your microphone's on because it's all recorded. So just be mindful of that.
[01:25:31] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:31–01:25:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:25:34] Speaker 7
Yes.
[01:25:34] Attribution uncertain
It's
[01:25:34] Speaker 7
probably a very novice question. But
[01:25:36] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:25:36–01:25:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:25:41] Speaker 7
about, is it appropriate? If I went to the meetings, you know, when the developers had meetings for the public and for business owners, can I go to those or not go to those? Or where would that fall as I own a business that would be involved in it?
[01:26:01] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
Yeah. I don't really have an issue with that. I mean, that's a community. I assume you're talking about like a community workshop or something.
[01:26:09] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:26:09–01:26:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:26:10] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:26:11] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah. Okay. Right. And you had a chance to ask questions. Right.
[01:26:14] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
‸ If you're, you know, you own property or you own a business that's going to be potentially impacted, you know, I don't have an issue with you going to that because presumably that information is going to be presented to you at the board level when it comes to you. So, so I think ‸ the main thing is really having, so I don't have an issue with that, but I, but, you know, the more concerning is if you have, you know, private conversations with folks about.
[01:26:48] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Well, what if they come to your store? Like they do, did walk around to all of us who own businesses and talk to us.
[01:26:55] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:26:55–01:26:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:26:59] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice
Or
[01:26:59] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
yeah, I would say, you know, absolutely be polite, you know, say, I appreciate you coming in, but I'm on the board. So I'd appreciate it if, you know, you can, you know, just talk to the neighbors or whatever, but you can talk to me when you come before the board on that item.
[01:27:20] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:27:20–01:27:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:27:20] Speaker 9 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[01:27:23] Speaker 9
that meeting, that public meeting, and then one of us was there also, we couldn't talk about it. Yeah.
[01:27:28] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right.
[01:27:31] Speaker 1
Right. ‸ I think a lot of it really concerns judgment calls. It's a matter of judgment.
[01:27:37] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
It's
[01:27:38] Speaker 1
not always black and white. You know, life would be easy if it was that.
[01:27:43] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Yeah.
[01:27:43] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
And when we take public comments, we do limit comments to three minutes.
[01:27:47] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:27:47–01:27:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:27:48] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[01:27:52] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Mm-hmm.
[01:27:53] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:27:53–01:27:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:27:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Yeah. Yeah.
[01:27:56] Speaker 1
Yeah. And I know that. That
[01:27:57] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:27:57–01:28:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:28:01] Speaker 1
reference to them meeting all the criteria.
[01:28:04] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Right.
[01:28:05] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
But it would have a very adverse effect on neighboring property. Mm-hmm.
[01:28:09] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:09–01:28:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:28:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Well, that's what the criteria, I mean, the criteria takes that into account. Yeah.
[01:28:16] Attribution uncertain
You
[01:28:16] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
know.
[01:28:17] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
We've made judgment calls on that, too.
[01:28:20] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Yeah. I think, you know, right. So I ‸ would say if, again, ‸ the criteria are designed to take into account what the impact is on neighboring property.
[01:28:38] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:38–01:28:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:28:39] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[01:28:43] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Oh, I was just going to say people could make a public records request to you, right? There's no official, I mean, and I would say if they are asking for records from you regarding the planning and zoning board or ‸ anything related to the city, make sure you contact Monica. And she'll help you with that ‸ because there isn't a particular form or format that they need to use to ask for records.
[01:29:16] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:29:16–01:29:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:29:20] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
make sure you contact the city clerk. All right. Code of ethics. Chapter 112 of the Florida Statutes does apply to board members. There are quite a few requirements here. They essentially, you know, I'll just run through a couple of them. You cannot solicit or accept anything of value such as a gift,
[01:29:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
alone,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:29:44–01:29:44 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:29:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
favor, or service for the purpose of influencing your vote, obviously. Shouldn't have to say that. But you can't do business with your own agency, meaning you can't sell, lease, or rent property to the city. There are exceptions to that. So, and all of these have a lot of exceptions. So if you think you might fall under ‸ one of these, the best thing to do is, again, you know, contact staff and they'll put you in touch with me to talk about whatever the issue is with the code of ethics. You can't use your position to secure a special privilege or benefit. You can't hold a conflicting employment or contractual relationship.
[01:30:35] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[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 · 01:30:35–01:30:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:30:38] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
[01:30:46] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:30:47] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:30:47] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:30:47] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:30:47] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[01:30:52] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:30:56] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:30:56] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
no municipal officer can vote in their official capacity upon any measure that would inure to your special private gain or loss.
[01:31:07] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:31:07–01:31:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:31:12] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:31:12–01:31:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:31:16] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
gain or loss or to the special private gain or loss of a principal by whom you are retained. So like one of your employers or clients or to the parent organization for your employer, essentially, ‸ or to a relative or business associate of yours. Okay. So that would include, I put here, it's your, the specific family members are set out in the statute of who this would apply to.
[01:31:50] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:31:50–01:31:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:31:59] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
on this application, you would potentially, you would have a voting conflict. So keep that in mind. And if you feel that you could be, you might have a voting conflict, again, talk to staff and they'll put you in touch with me so we can analyze that properly. If you are going, if you do have a voting conflict, what happens is that you're going to have to potentially recuse yourself. And that might take the form of you recuse yourself from the entire conversation. If you're going to participate because let's say, and that, this would be rare, but if you were going to participate in the discussion, sometimes that could be allowed, but you have to announce your interest and you have to fill out a voting conflict of interest form.
[01:32:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:54–01:32:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:32:56] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
So again, if you feel that you might have a voting conflict, let, get in touch with staff as soon as you can. So we don't try, we're not trying to deal with that at, at a meeting. And that's it. So, sorry, I went a little long, but I hope that it was helpful. Yeah.
[01:33:16] Speaker 4
Yes.
[01:33:17] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:33:17–01:33:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:33:26] Speaker 4
and wanted to discuss a project that's going to be coming before the board, even though I had said, I'm
[01:33:33] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:33:33–01:33:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:33:44] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I don't think you need to announce the attempt.
[01:33:47] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:33:47–01:34:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:33:48] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:13]
[01:34:02] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:34:03] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:03–01:34:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:34:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:34:04] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
That person came to me to show that I was.
[01:34:07] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:07–01:34:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:34:13] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
from doing that. You can do that. I don't think it's required. I mean, what we're trying to do with the ex party communications for quasi judicial items. What we're trying to do is make sure that whatever is said is put on the record so that others can either rebut ‸ that statement or, you know, everyone's aware of what's going on. So, you know, if there's no substance that's conveyed to you because you've told them, you know, thank you, but I really can't speak to you about this. I'm, I'm not too concerned about it.
[01:34:51] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:34:51–01:34:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:34:54] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
So I hope that was helpful.
[01:34:58] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:34:58–01:34:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:34:59] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:34:59] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:34:59] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:34:59] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:35:01] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
That
[01:35:02] No voice detected
was
[01:35:02] Speaker 4
a lot of work.
[01:35:03] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
Yeah. Yeah. But this will be good because they were recording it. So as new board members come on, hopefully, you know, they'll, they'll get this as sort of like their intro packet and then they can watch it and we don't have to repeat this all
[01:35:18] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the time. Okay. Before we move on, is there anybody on the board that has
[01:35:24] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:35:24–01:35:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:35:29] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
that was presented? No. Okay. Thank you again, Christian.
[01:35:35] Speaker 4
You're welcome.
[01:35:36] Speaker 6
Moving on to other business. I see there's no tree board update. Let's see.
[01:35:44] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:35:44–01:35:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:35:49] Speaker 6
Unless there's anything else. From.
[01:35:54] Speaker 1
I said. One thing, the ‸ hotel. Which I have no personal interest in, per se. But that's been something that's been with us for about three, four or five years now.
[01:36:06] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Do
[01:36:07] Speaker 1
you think it will ever actually go in or take place?
[01:36:13] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 01:36:13–01:36:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:36:18] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:36:20] Speaker 1
I'm afraid to, but go ahead anyway. I'm
[01:36:22] Attribution uncertain
going
[01:36:22] Speaker 4
to tell you the fact. ‸ The
[01:36:24] Attribution uncertain
truth.
[01:36:27] Speaker 4
The RFP, and of course our attorney here is going to correct me if I'm wrong anyway. So don't worry about that part there. But there is an RFP that's coming, ‸ that was required by the council because the amount of time, well let me back up. The RFP is going to be receiving other proposals because the city has taken the position that
[01:36:57] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 01:36:57–01:38:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:37:02] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:47]
[01:37:49] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:37:49] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:13]
[01:38:02] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[01:38:08] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:40]
[01:38:49] Speaker 4
I mean, we can't avoid the time it takes for a project of that magnitude to be approved and done. It's just physically not possible. So I hope that that answers your question because, yes, we do have an RFP, and yes, there can be people that can put their interest in, but it's not avoiding what they're going to have to go through that's already been. Through the first project, and they basically voted saying, we've given you a lot of extensions, and we're at the point now that we really, they felt more comfortable to start clean again. Can
[01:39:33] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:33–01:39:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:39:40] Speaker 4
The answer is yes. Can
[01:39:41] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:40–01:39:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:39:42] Attribution uncertain
previous person that wanted to build a hotel there put, and
[01:39:42] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:39:45] Speaker 4
Because, Mike, if you're talking about the long length of time it's taken, the previous people have everything in order. And
[01:39:53] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:53–01:39:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:39:57] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:57–01:39:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:40:00] Speaker 4
And I just hope that this is something that the city is going to be able to achieve, because I think it's going to be a major catalyst to our
[01:40:13] No voice detected
area.
[01:40:13] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:40:13–01:40:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:40:17] Speaker 4
visit you here, the only place I put them up in a hotel somewhere is Cocoa Beach or Orlando, unless maybe now in Melbourne, since there's new hotels there. But we have nothing in this area. And then we have a tremendous amount of people that come. Cocoa Village has put Cocoa on the map. We have an enormous amount of people that visit here for the holidays. We're talking about July 4th, Christmas events, craft fairs, art shows. I mean, and there's a lot of people that drive here that don't necessarily live here that would like to have a place to stay, to enjoy it. Then there's the cruise ships. And they used to be bringing a lot of people to the village for them to get familiar with our actual historic downtown area. And they would unload them with buses.
[01:41:19] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
And
[01:41:19] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:41:19–01:41:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:41:20] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[01:41:24] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
experiencing at this point.
[01:41:27] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:41:27–01:41:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:41:31] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
‸ do you even know?
[01:41:34] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
I'm, I, I doubt that,
[01:41:37] No voice detected
but
[01:41:37] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified)
I think it, it will be coming forward soon.
[01:41:41] Attribution uncertain
I
[01:41:42] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
don't know that in the next couple days.
[01:41:43] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:41:43–01:41:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:41:43] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:41:43] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:41:44] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[01:41:47] Speaker 4
And then that's going to stay up for 30 days?
[01:41:51] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
30 days.
[01:41:52] Speaker 4
30 days. So anybody can put their information in during that time.
[01:41:59] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:41:59–01:41:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:41:59] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:41:59] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:41:59] Speaker 4
hope that
[01:42:00] Speaker 4 · Machine re-recognized
answers
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:42:00–01:42:00 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:42:00] Speaker 4
your question.
[01:42:02] Speaker 1
Did I? Yes. I'll go out. Yes. Yes. It's not going to happen anytime soon. No,
[01:42:10] Speaker 4
either way it's going to go. It's, it's a time sensitive thing.
[01:42:15] Speaker 1
I only
[01:42:16] Speaker 1 · Machine re-recognized
ask,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:42:16–01:42:16 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:42:16] Speaker 1
and it's unfair of me, that 40 years of the Department of Defense,
[01:42:21] Speaker 1 · Machine re-recognized
whenever
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:42:21–01:42:21 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[01:42:21] Speaker 1
someone ‸ wants something done, it gets done quickly. It never goes through the
[01:42:28] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:28–01:42:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:42:32] Speaker 1
Well, any.
[01:42:32] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Certain parts of the process are required by state law. I
[01:42:37] Attribution uncertain
understand.
[01:42:37] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:42:37–01:42:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:42:37] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:42:38] Speaker 1
Some general on high or assistant secretary says,
[01:42:41] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:42:41–01:42:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:42:44] Speaker 1
It does.
[01:42:46] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:42:46–01:42:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:42:50] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I want to mention one thing for open discussion. Since we have so many new members and we have new leadership, if it's okay with the board members, when we come together for our next meeting, I think it would be appropriate and nice to get a photograph in front of the dais with the new board members and maybe Samantha Sanger can put it in the, look through the bullpen or something like that. But just wanted to bring that up.
[01:43:19] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:43:19–01:43:23 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:43:23] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
So, you know, wear something nice or whatever.
[01:43:25] Attribution uncertain
But
[01:43:25] Speaker 2
I'd like to get a vote around or
[01:43:28] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:43:28–01:43:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:43:31] Speaker 4
So we might have to include them as well. So it could be a lot of extra work. I mean, it's a good idea. I agree with you, but then it's up to staff, whatever.
[01:43:42] Speaker 9
Justin, can I ask one more question? You'd you'd open it up for us to talk to you, Kristen, but I just have one last thing that came to mind when it
[01:43:49] Speaker 9 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:43:49–01:43:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:43:52] Speaker 9
board denied the offsite parking for later development. I'm I'm I'm
[01:43:58] Attribution uncertain
I
[01:43:58] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
as a citizen, I fully backed that and was happy to see that. But how did they deny that if the person proposing it maybe met all the criteria at the time to do that based on what you're talking about when it comes to a reason for. ‸ Yeah,
[01:44:11] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I actually I'm not that was before I was I was here. So I've been here for six years, so it was before that time.
[01:44:19] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:44:19–01:44:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:23] Speaker 5 (introduced as “Kristen Ike” — machine-transcribed, not verified) + overlapping voice
You know, so I'm not quite sure what the what the rationale was for that particular.
[01:44:30] Speaker 9
Todd, do you remember why what the rationale was for that? I just wanted personal reasons just to understand it better.
[01:44:38] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
There
[01:44:39] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:44:38–01:44:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:45] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Gotcha.
[01:44:46] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay, that's what that's
[01:44:47] Attribution uncertain
been
[01:44:47] Speaker 9 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
used
[01:44:47] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the comprehensive plan even though it met zoning requirements.
[01:44:51] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 01:44:51–01:44:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:51] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[01:44:57] Speaker 2
They
[01:44:57] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:44:57–01:44:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:44:58] No voice detected
wasn't viable.
[01:45:00] Speaker 9
And I was under the assumption that that probably what you do is use the comprehensive plan. So thank you for confirming that. I appreciate it.
[01:45:08] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Any further?
[01:45:09] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:45:09–01:45:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:45:09] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[01:45:17] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[01:45:18] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:45:18] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:45:18] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:45:18] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:45:18] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:45:18] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:45:19] Speaker 6
Tentatively, we have a board for March 1st. So be prepared for that. I know Monica's ‸ fairly good about keeping us up to date on boards. So please monitor your emails in case of like monitor your cell phone. Other than that,
[01:45:46] Attribution uncertain
I
[01:45:46] Speaker 6
don't believe we have anything. Again, thank you, Kristen, for putting together this wonderful presentation. There were even things in there that I've been on the board for a little bit and I didn't even know. So greatly appreciate it.
[01:45:59] No voice detected
Okay.
[01:46:00] Speaker 6
If there's nothing for that, I'll take a motion to adjourn.
[01:46:04] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 01:46:04–01:46:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[01:46:06] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[01:46:07] Speaker 6
‸ All
[01:46:07] Attribution uncertain
right.