[00:00:00] Speaker 1
P.M. Monica, will you read
[00:00:07] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:00:07–00:00:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:08] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
[00:00:17] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Simpson, here. Susan Ma, Alec Greenwood, here. Mary Beth Burgess, here. Debbie Joyce.
[00:00:26] Speaker 1
Okay.
[00:00:26] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:26–00:00:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:32] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:00:34] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:00:36] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:00:36] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:00:37] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:00:37] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:00:38] Speaker 4
the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ‸ all.
[00:00:50] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
The first thing on the agenda is the approval of the August 3rd planning and zoning agenda. Can I get a motion to approve the agenda? I have
[00:00:59] Speaker 4
a question.
[00:01:00] Speaker 1
What is your question?
[00:01:01] Speaker 4
I noticed that it's not listed what normally is on the agenda for, and it's after, I think, new business, for treewardness and open discussion. Is that something that we need to ask to have it added? That's been something always on every one of our meetings.
[00:01:24] Speaker 1
Would that come under other business?
[00:01:26] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
No, it was always printed as a line item, like we're talking about, where we have here, where it says item 3
[00:01:34] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:34–00:01:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:40] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
new business. And after that would be the ‸ 2 locations
[00:01:47] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:47–00:01:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:54] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
open discussion and for also the tree update.
[00:01:58] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:58–00:02:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:02:01] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
don't see it here.
[00:02:03] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
In the past, it's been under other pages.
[00:02:06] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:06–00:02:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:02:08] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:08] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:10] Speaker 3
Should be a few more pages in.
[00:02:26] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:26–00:02:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:02:27] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:27] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
[00:02:35] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:02:35–00:02:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:02:35] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:02:39] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:02:39–00:02:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:02:39] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:42] Speaker 5
In the past,
[00:02:43] Attribution uncertain
under
[00:02:43] Speaker 5
other business,
[00:02:44] Attribution uncertain
it
[00:02:44] Speaker 5
said, um, it's usually under other
[00:02:47] Attribution uncertain
business. It's usually under
[00:02:47] Speaker 5
other
[00:02:47] Attribution uncertain
business. Tree
[00:02:47] Speaker 5
board update, recent development update, and open discussion by board members.
[00:02:53] Speaker 4
Right. That's what I was looking for. So where is it located, please?
[00:02:57] Speaker 5
It's typically located under other business.
[00:03:00] Attribution uncertain
It
[00:03:00] Speaker 5
is not currently on your agenda today. Should
[00:03:02] Speaker 4
we do it by phone or what?
[00:03:05] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:05–00:03:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:08] Speaker 4
share with the board. Is that not okay with the staff or not?
[00:03:13] Speaker 5
You can make a motion to add it to the agenda and then it's up to the board.
[00:03:17] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:03:17–00:03:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:19] Speaker 4
All right. I'd like to make a motion that we add on the agenda for open discussion and also the tree updates.
[00:03:34] Speaker 3
I'll second the motion.
[00:03:38] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:38–00:03:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:40] Speaker 1
agenda.
[00:03:43] No voice detected · Machine re-recognized
Aye.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:03:43–00:03:44 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:03:44] Speaker 1
Any nays.
[00:03:48] Speaker 6
Accepted.
[00:03:48] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:03:48–00:03:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:48] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:03:50] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
We just say other
[00:03:52] Speaker 4
business when we get to that point.
[00:03:53] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:03:53] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
agree. It's on the agenda.
[00:03:55] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:55–00:03:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:57] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
‸ You can bring it up. Yeah. I can bring the old ones and it's actually listed there. I'd like to start.
[00:04:02] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
It's my error.
[00:04:03] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:03–00:04:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:04] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I'm sorry.
[00:04:05] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:05–00:04:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:05] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:04:07] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:07–00:04:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:09] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
last meeting.
[00:04:10] Speaker 1
Was there any more discussion with respect to the agenda?
[00:04:13] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
No.
[00:04:14] Speaker 1
All right. I guess we're going to go now to the approval of the minutes from May 4th.
[00:04:24] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Is there
[00:04:25] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
discussion on the May 4th? Minutes. Any changes? No. Can I get a motion to accept the minutes as presented?
[00:04:35] Speaker 3
I make
[00:04:35] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:35–00:04:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:39] Speaker 1
All those in favor?
[00:04:41] Speaker 3
Aye.
[00:04:42] Speaker 1
Those opposed? Okay. Approval of the minutes for July 6th. Planning and zoning ‸ meeting. Were there any changes that aren't noted?
[00:04:57] Speaker 2
Yes.
[00:04:58] Speaker 1
Okay.
[00:04:58] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I did clean up the formatting on them a little bit. As you all know, I was not here at the last meeting. That's right. And so I did not do them. I didn't change any of the context. I just cleaned them up. I fixed the formatting, justified it.
[00:05:13] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:13–00:05:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:18] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Right. So that was just a grammatical thing. So I did change those. But I didn't change any part of the language or anything.
[00:05:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. Any further discussion on this? Okay. Can I get a motion to
[00:05:30] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:30–00:05:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:32] Speaker 3
Make a motion to approve.
[00:05:34] Speaker 1
Second?
[00:05:36] Speaker 6
I'll second.
[00:05:37] Speaker 1
I'll say aye.
[00:05:39] Speaker 3
Aye.
[00:05:40] Speaker 1
Any opposed? No. Okay. There's no old business. So we're going on to new business. And I guess staff would like ‸ to do presentation.
[00:05:55] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:55–00:06:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:00] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:06:07] No voice detected
Good
[00:06:08] Speaker 5
evening, everyone.
[00:06:10] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:10–00:06:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:15] Speaker 5
We have one item before you tonight, which is a follow on to your last meetings agenda. So this is for, um, this is for a recommendation to the city council to adopt an amendment to appendix a article 11 section 13 of the zoning ordinance ‸ for adopting conforming zoning amendments to the central business regulations consistent with ordinance 07 2022, which is what you had approved at your last
[00:06:55] Attribution uncertain
meeting.
[00:06:55] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:55–00:07:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:00] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
authorizing the city council to approve the development agreement. Approved by development agreement residential densities of up to 125 dwelling units per acre related to
[00:07:12] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:12–00:07:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:17] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:07:17–00:07:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:18] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:07:18] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:07:21] Speaker 5
The affected parcels in the geographical area depicted on the map that you all have in front of you. And identified by their parcel number as shown on the map. So to give you a little background and kind of bring to the table what was discussed at the last at your last board meeting. So this is the map that you generally have in front of you.
[00:07:53] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:07:53–00:07:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:53] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:07:55] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:07:56] Speaker 5
We have the three parcels listed as 430 Brevard, 505 Brevard. I know right it's working weird. 603 Brevard.
[00:08:11] No voice detected
And
[00:08:11] Speaker 5
this was the amendment for the 125 dwelling units per acre, allowing these parcels only to allow up to that density on those parcels.
[00:08:24] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:24–00:08:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:08:30] Speaker 5
at the last board meeting.
[00:08:32] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:08:32–00:08:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:08:39] Speaker 5
to the state. So the next piece of that, which we talked about at the last board meeting was the trifecta of plans that need to come together. You can see on the screen here, the future land use for mixed use is the top box in a light blue, light gray. That is what you completed at the last meeting. Today, we're discussing the orange box, the zoning code in the loud zones and as titled in those two boxes for the CBD, the CBD dash CBO. And what we are requesting is that we make the zoning code consistent with the changes that we approved last month in the future land use amendment. So again, it is a, um, it is kind of a layer cake in going through the process.
[00:09:41] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:41–00:09:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:49] Speaker 5
what we did last week or last month. It is just simply in the zoning ordinance that would identify the same, the ability
[00:09:58] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:58–00:10:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:01] Speaker 5
the same three, um, parcels.
[00:10:06] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:10:06–00:10:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:08] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:10:08] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:10:12] Speaker 5
the both the application today and the application that you saw last month, our city initiated because they affect multiple properties within the city. It's not just a request, um, per applicant, but looking at the slide that you have before you should everything go through today. Okay.
[00:10:32] Attribution uncertain
And
[00:10:32] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
then should we follow through with the second reading at city council for the future land use after the state has reviewed the application, then it would be up to the applicants to make a request for application to amend the waterfront overlay district and adding a CL designation, which, um, on the regulating plan designates, um, um, large commercial mixed use on those lots. They would be required to submit a development agreement showing that, um, there are multiple items, five to seven items showing that those five to seven items are met. So this is the second application in which the city is authoring before you, um, because it does affect multiple properties. And it is making the same change as last month from allowing currently the,
[00:11:30] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:30–00:11:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:34] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
that you have before you then would be to allow to increase that to
[00:11:38] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:38–00:11:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:42] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:11:42–00:11:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:11:43] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:11:43] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:11:44] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:11:45] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:11:46] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
[00:11:54] Speaker 5
which I believe I've explained because we've changed the comprehensive plan.
[00:11:58] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:11:58–00:12:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:01] Speaker 5
And then secondly, we need to look at ‸ the relationship of the proposed amendment to the purposes and objectives of the comprehensive plan program. So again, similar, but kind of drilling down a little bit more into the comprehensive plan to take a look at are the goals and objectives within the comprehensive plan, are they supportive of this amendment?
[00:12:33] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:33–00:12:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:33] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
[00:12:38] Speaker 5
staff report from pages three and four, but I'll highlight on the most important ones is we have a future land use element within the comprehensive plan. And under mixed use, it encourages this type of development, right? A mixed use development. It even drills it down a little bit more into the objectives of saying that we want to encourage smart growth principles. And then also within that, it wants to encourage the walkability and other such type of items that make it a multimodal, that improve the multimodal benefits within the district, i.e. around these parcels within the waterfront overlay district.
[00:13:27] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:27–00:13:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:35] Speaker 5
future populations of the city and accommodating them with the projected housing that is needed. Also, we have, um, the mixed use developments and. The comprehensive plan states that we want to encourage a wide variety of housing types and prices. And that the city shall promote the opportunity for create for the creation of housing and infill development. Obviously, these sites would all be infill development.
[00:14:08] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:08–00:14:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:14] Speaker 5
element that the city shall, um, encourage more efficient and climate resistant development practices. That include low impact development techniques and obviously based on other areas of our, of our comprehensive plan and the city code. Those type of, um, developments are required for any future new development. So any new development on these sites, we would see that being implemented. Um, lastly, promoting orderly, compact urban growth and discouraging urban sprawl. Which obviously all of these are adding to our, our core of the city and not expanding on, on the edges of the city.
[00:15:03] Speaker 8
So for all of those reasons,
[00:15:05] Speaker 5
um, staff is recommending that you recommend approval to city council of the pros proposed amendment. Um, to appendix a article 11 section 13 of the zoning ordinance.
[00:15:19] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:19–00:15:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:20] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:15:20] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:15:22] Speaker 5
conforming amendments to the central business district regulations consistent with ordinance.
[00:15:29] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:29–00:15:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:31] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:15:31] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:15:31] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:15:32] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:15:32] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:15:32] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:15:32] Attribution uncertain
And
[00:15:32] Speaker 5
I'd be happy to take any questions.
[00:15:35] Speaker 1
I'd open this for poor discussion.
[00:15:37] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:37–00:15:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:44] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:15:44] Speaker 5
a year for the city?
[00:15:47] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:47–00:15:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:48] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice
Yes.
[00:15:48] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
it's
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:15:48–00:15:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:15:49] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
a great. What percentage go up?
[00:15:52] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
Well, all of the, all future land use amendments to, all amendments to our future land use must go to the state.
[00:16:01] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:01–00:16:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:16:04] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
And if you're thinking how many amendments does the city make on average? No,
[00:16:08] Speaker 7
just all, all do go up.
[00:16:09] Speaker 5
All.
[00:16:10] Speaker 7
Yes. How, how long does it take them to respond on average?
[00:16:16] Speaker 5
It takes approximately 30 to 60 days. Typically.
[00:16:23] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:16:23–00:16:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:16:32] Speaker 7
proposed?
[00:16:33] Speaker 8
Yeah. Typically the process is, um, it's called expedited state review in this, uh, in this context and. And the state, uh, the department of economic economic opportunity, as well as
[00:16:48] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:48–00:16:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:16:54] Speaker 8
the opportunity to provide comments to the city on the amendment. And we take those into account.
[00:17:00] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:00–00:17:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:05] Speaker 8
ordinance. And that's when you have your adoption hearing at the end. So it gives us the opportunity to take into account and adjust
[00:17:14] Speaker 8 · Machine re-recognized
if
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:17:14–00:17:14 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:17:15] Speaker 8
If the state has, um, you know, has comments on, on the ordinance.
[00:17:22] Speaker 1
Okay. Yeah. Are there any other. Points.
[00:17:26] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:26–00:17:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:30] Speaker 7
Okay.
[00:17:30] Attribution uncertain
Well,
[00:17:31] Speaker 7
let me ask one more. Have you ever. Done a study.
[00:17:35] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:35–00:17:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:38] Speaker 7
What you would like the city of Coco to look like in 2030. Eight years down the road.
[00:17:48] Speaker 5
Yes. The city. The really, that is the purpose of the comprehensive plan. And we did just go through an ear amendment a few years ago. And that looks at a 20
[00:17:58] Speaker 2
year horizon.
[00:18:00] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I believe it looks at a 20 year horizon. And so that was just performed a couple of years ago. And then there are other complimentary plans. And in this instance to the waterfront overlay district is, um, a prescription for looking into the future as far as how, um, the village should look and develop into the future. So there are
[00:18:22] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:18:22–00:18:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:18:26] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
compliment the comprehensive plan.
[00:18:29] Speaker 8
I would point out the redevelopment plan as well.
[00:18:33] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:33–00:18:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:18:37] Speaker 8
Any
[00:18:37] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
other
[00:18:38] Speaker 1
discussion?
[00:18:38] Speaker 6
Any height restrictions are, uh, in the comprehensive plan, right? So they addressed which part of this process are height restrictions. No,
[00:18:49] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the height restrictions on these particular projects before you today are in the waterfront overlay district. Okay. And
[00:18:57] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
that has a cap at like 80 feet or something. It has
[00:19:00] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
a cap on stories based on the type of architecture you choose.
[00:19:04] Speaker 6
Okay.
[00:19:05] No voice detected
Yes.
[00:19:08] Speaker 8
Any further discussion?
[00:19:11] Speaker 1
Hearing none. Uh, I don't see any public here to make comments.
[00:19:16] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:19:16] Speaker 1
guess we'll close the discussion and call the question on.
[00:19:19] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:19–00:19:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:20] Speaker 4
I'd like to move that we approve as presented by
[00:19:23] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:23–00:19:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:25] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:19:26] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
All in favor? Aye. Aye. All ‸ opposed? Nay. Not meaning me. There was no, no response there.
[00:19:38] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
There was not a nay vote. There was not a nay
[00:19:41] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
vote. Okay. Um, I guess now we are going to other business.
[00:19:48] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:19:48–00:19:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:51] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
bring up is we had discussed at the last meeting about a vision plan for the board.
[00:19:57] Attribution uncertain
And
[00:19:57] Speaker 1
we've gone to do that earlier tonight, but perhaps you can update us on that. Angela.
[00:20:03] Speaker 5
Thank you. So, yes, we are still absolutely 100% as a staff committed to the visioning plan for the mixed use future land use and looking at the appropriate zones.
[00:20:15] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:15–00:20:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:20] Speaker 5
Unfortunately, we've had two resignations within the planning department. Both Cindy Thurman and Paul Bodie have resigned. And, um, we are looking at, um, hiring three new positions. So if you know of anyone, we are looking to hire a planning manager, either a planner or a senior planner. And then we are looking to also hire a planning slash GIS specialist. So somebody to do the mapping and that portion of, um, of the duties within the department. And so
[00:20:55] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
we're
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:20:55–00:20:55 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:20:55] Speaker 5
looking at trying to get, um, the department ramped up with those positions. In the meantime, obviously, uh, it is Sandra Leone and myself.
[00:21:04] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:04–00:21:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:09] Speaker 5
um, we are looking, we've entered into a temporary contract with East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. Who is going to help us with some of the staff reports and things that you're going to see becoming before you next month.
[00:21:23] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:23–00:21:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:28] Speaker 5
We need to first focus on several of the applications. And then we will basically the next thing on the list is the visioning project.
[00:21:37] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So bringing us full circle back to your question.
[00:21:40] Speaker 5
Um, obviously
[00:21:41] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
we're
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:21:41–00:21:41 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:21:41] Speaker 5
committed to that and, and we've done a little bit of the, the background work. We may actually have East Central Florida Regional Planning Council help us with a little bit of the visioning too.
[00:21:52] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:21:52–00:21:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:56] Speaker 5
And hopefully by next month we'll have a better idea of meeting dates and things like that. And then be able to come back to you with those dates, um, for moving forward with that project.
[00:22:07] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:22:07–00:22:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:08] Speaker 1
Really.
[00:22:09] Speaker 7
Did the two resignations come as a surprise?
[00:22:14] Speaker 5
Yes. I would say yes.
[00:22:17] Speaker 7
Any disagreements within the courses of action the city was pursuing?
[00:22:22] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:22–00:22:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:25] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yes, I'm not sure to be honest with you.
[00:22:28] Attribution uncertain
Or
[00:22:28] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
not to
[00:22:28] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:22:28–00:22:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:29] Speaker 7 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
fair enough.
[00:22:31] Speaker 1
Any more discussion on the vision plan? ‸ I guess the next order would be, uh, ‸ tree updates per our admitted. Any
[00:22:39] Attribution uncertain
more discussion?
[00:22:39] Speaker 4
If, if there is any from staff,
[00:22:42] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:42–00:22:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:47] Speaker 4
trees and other areas of the city that need to be cut down or not. Uh, if you're not prepared for that, we can bring that up at the next meeting. Uh, because I had heard that there were some other trees causing issues with sidewalks.
[00:23:02] Speaker 5
We have no information from public works, which is where that information would come from. So, no, at this time we have no applications from public works.
[00:23:10] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:10–00:23:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:11] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:23:15] Speaker 5
Okay. Actually, and,
[00:23:17] Attribution uncertain
and
[00:23:17] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
just so you know too, if public works is looking at taking out trees or, um, you know, any of the other items identified in the code, they actually make application to us just like a resident would.
[00:23:30] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:30–00:23:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:33] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
I do know that, um, our code has helped save a lot of trees in the right of way. We do get calls from residents wanting them removed and, um, public works works with each of the applicants, obviously to save the trees and then to work out the issues that they may have with their sidewalks and driveways.
[00:23:53] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:53–00:23:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:57] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
citizens consider saving them.
[00:24:02] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:02–00:24:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:05] Speaker 4
discussion before they're actually torn out. That was the purpose.
[00:24:11] Speaker 5
Yeah, it's required to be. And, and really basically, um, public works has encouraged, the ones that I know of to date, public works has encouraged those trees to stay.
[00:24:21] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:24:21–00:24:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:26] Speaker 5
taking them out.
[00:24:27] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Thank you. Very
[00:24:28] Speaker 1
good. Uh, open discussion.
[00:24:30] Speaker 4
Uh, yes. Um, what I wanted to do is bring an update in reference to the brief discussion we had at the last meeting about the fireworks for the July 4th celebration.
[00:24:42] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Fireworks is not the responsibility of this board. I
[00:24:46] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
didn't say that it is. And we have an attorney here that can correct us. This is open discussion and it's information that I'd like to share with this board. Like I did in the very beginning when the tree board was basically not enforced. I
[00:25:03] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
believe this is not pertinent to the ‸ jurisdiction of the planning and zoning board. So I call us. If the attorney would like to make a comment,
[00:25:14] Speaker 4
that's fine.
[00:25:15] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:15–00:25:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:15] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:25:18] Speaker 4
the last time that we discussed it as far as the fireworks go just for a consensus, not to make a motion. Open discussion. A
[00:25:28] Speaker 1
consensus on a responsibility that this board does not have.
[00:25:32] Speaker 4
I know that I'm not arguing ‸ that I need to ask our attorney in reference to this point to see if it's something that we really need to mute as it's being stated.
[00:25:44] Speaker 8
Well, I mean, I would tend to agree that this is not the topic of fireworks is not included within the scope of the board's duties. Um, it is the board is intended to perform certain functions, which includes looking at comprehensive plan amendments, making, um, recommendations on land development regulations, but fireworks would not be one of those things.
[00:26:10] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. Are
[00:26:11] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
there any other
[00:26:12] Speaker 1
discussions that
[00:26:14] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
we'd like to bring open through yet?
[00:26:15] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:15–00:26:19 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:26:18] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:26:18] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:26:20] Speaker 1
Well, then what else do you have to say, sir?
[00:26:22] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:22–00:26:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:26:27] Speaker 4
only the, uh,
[00:26:28] Attribution uncertain
okay.
[00:26:38] Speaker 4
Okay, uh, I'll pass it. Then we very much for clarifying that. I appreciate hearing it from ‸ an actual attorney. Thank you.
[00:26:49] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:49–00:26:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:26:51] Speaker 1
in our open discussion? Hearing none. Well,
[00:26:56] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
you know, I just thought of something. I'm sorry. This is just added information on what we voted on today.
[00:27:02] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:02–00:27:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:08] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
we've already passed. Issues that a lot of the public brought up.
[00:27:13] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:13–00:27:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:14] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:27:15] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:27:16] Speaker 4
The one that we already voted on? Yes. There were statements made by the public that, uh, were upset because of the historic significance. And I think that I have enough information here that, um, it would be important for people to hear it.
[00:27:33] Speaker 1
Can I ask a question that maybe is a little dumb here?
[00:27:37] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:37–00:27:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:43] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:43–00:27:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:48] Speaker 1
No. No. Okay.
[00:27:49] Speaker 6
That's an individual property designation.
[00:27:52] Speaker 1
Yes.
[00:27:54] Speaker 6
And that
[00:27:55] Speaker 4
was what I was going to share.
[00:27:59] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:59–00:28:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:03] Speaker 4
And it's in reference to the historic ‸ significance that some of the public here is very strong about saying that it's affecting the historic character of the village. I think this is very important.
[00:28:14] Speaker 1
Perhaps we should have discussed that during discussion.
[00:28:17] Attribution uncertain
I'd like to
[00:28:17] Speaker 4
hear from the attorney about the legality of my question. Am ‸ I able to share information about what the public had talked about in reference to the historic significance of what these zoning changes are affecting the village? There were people that several that didn't even live in the village that feel that we are losing the historic character. You've heard that in a lot of meetings, council meetings, including this meeting.
[00:28:51] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:51–00:28:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:55] Speaker 4
I don't think they even know it.
[00:28:58] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice
Um, that sounds, I mean, that sounds to be something that is within the board's, um, uh, purview. If you would like to discuss.
[00:29:11] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:29:11–00:29:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:29:13] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:29:14] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
anything as a
[00:29:15] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
point of order, I would have ‸ suggested that this be brought up when we opened this up to board discussion.
[00:29:24] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:24–00:29:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:29:25] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:29:27] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
And I, again, I'd like to hear from the attorney that is familiar with the legalities.
[00:29:32] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:32–00:29:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:29:37] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
I am not like the council board has an attorney. So since you mentioned that it's okay to share, I'm going to continue. Um, I don't know if people realize or not, but they're very quick to say that we're on the verge of
[00:29:54] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
ruining
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:29:54–00:29:54 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:29:54] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
the historic significance of Cocoa village. And it kept bothering me because that we're not the areas that we're looking to do renovations and new construction are not historic. The building areas that we just approved today, the bank of America building was built in 1957. Right.
[00:30:19] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:19–00:30:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:20] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
Okay. That's not historic. Right. Chase Bank built in 1956. That's the other location that we changed and approved for the construction here. In comparison, I'll share what is historic and they're not being affected at all. And I'm tired of hearing people saying that we're ruining the historic significance of Cocoa village. 415 Brevard Avenue, Norman early, ‸ very good friend of mine owns Norman's his buildings built in 1920. Trafford. That was there for years built in 1925.
[00:31:03] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:03–00:31:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:08] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
The playhouse 1926. Cafe Margot. So that whole property there 1925. Travis Hardware.
[00:31:24] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
you all
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:31:24–00:31:26 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:31:26] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
want to guess
[00:31:26] Speaker 6
1910.
[00:31:28] Speaker 4
You were close.
[00:31:32] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:32–00:31:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:35] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:35–00:31:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:40] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:31:40–00:31:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:41] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Doesn't look the same.
[00:31:42] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:42–00:31:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:44] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Exactly.
[00:31:45] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:45–00:31:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:48] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Even though they added renovations to it.
[00:31:50] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
The
[00:31:50] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
last one is the historic building,
[00:31:52] Attribution uncertain
a
[00:31:52] Speaker 4
library.
[00:31:54] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:54–00:31:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:56] Speaker 4
So, when I am in a public meeting, or during a council meeting, and I hear issues brought up about ruining the historic significance of Cocoa village, it's a mute point.
[00:32:12] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
They actually did that when they built Bank of America.
[00:32:14] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:14–00:32:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:19] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yes, sir. ‸ The old cat lady on the
[00:32:21] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
corner.
[00:32:21] Attribution uncertain
But
[00:32:21] Speaker 4
the point is, people that don't even live in the village have a problem saying, and it's been stated numerous times, even by certain council members. And I just thought y'all would be interested in knowing the significance of the buildings that are historic compared to the ones that we have just voted on. I just thought that this board would be interested in knowing that.
[00:32:47] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:47–00:32:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:51] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:51–00:32:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:52] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
next to
[00:32:53] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Pub Americana. Yeah, they moved that. Right. An attorney friend of mine did that. Yeah.
[00:32:57] Attribution uncertain
And
[00:32:57] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
that's the
[00:32:58] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
oldest wooden structure in the village. Right.
[00:33:00] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
But I
[00:33:00] Speaker 6
didn't have time to get that
[00:33:02] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
date. But I think that this list is enough to show that when people come up here and complain that we're ruining and losing the historic significance of Cocoa village, it is completely a mute point. It is not to be discussed. Because it doesn't. It's mute based on this information. And you can look it up. Brevard County property appraiser office. Okay. Now, the other thing that's important about this, since there's a concern about the historic significance, is what I brought up also at the last meeting. And
[00:33:41] Attribution uncertain
the last meeting, when
[00:33:41] Speaker 4
it came up about having an ordinance guiding the way that new structures are to be built.
[00:33:49] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:49–00:33:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:56] Speaker 4
by the council, by an ordinance.
[00:33:59] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:59–00:34:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:02] Speaker 4
And, but the problem is it didn't state ‸ anything about the type of materials to use when they're building new and colors. So, I did some homework on that. I couldn't find anything that specifically addresses that. And I thought that this board and the staff would find it interesting to look into it because of this other information about the other ‸ properties that are still existing. They're still historic and they're not being altered.
[00:34:39] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:39–00:34:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:44] Speaker 4
That's all I have to say. Thank you for listening.
[00:34:49] Speaker 1
Anything else from anyone else?
[00:34:52] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:52–00:34:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:56] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:56–00:34:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:00] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:35:00–00:35:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:35:02] Speaker 3
Motion to adjourn. Second. All
[00:35:04] Speaker 1
in favor?
[00:35:05] Speaker 3
Aye.
[00:35:07] Speaker 1
‸ Opposed? There you go.