On the agenda

1. 3Approval of Minutes: April 21, 2016▶ 0:00
2. 1

   Rezoning Application REZ2016-01 Main Street Landing - 5500 Main Street

   approved

   The Land Development Review Board considered rezoning application REZ2016-01 for Main Street Landing at 5500 Main Street, changing the PDD to allow removal of a planned restaurant and addition of 8 residential units (totaling 80 rental apartments and 13,640 sq ft of retail across three buildings). Discussion centered on parking adequacy (223 spaces proposed vs. 260 required by code), unit sizes, phasing, seawall reimbursement, and mold inspection of the existing shell building. The Board recommended approval subject to 11 DRC conditions by unanimous roll call vote.

   Ord. Ordinance #2016-2079

   • motion:Recommend approval of rezoning application REZ2016-01 (Main Street Landing) subject to the 11 DRC conditions. (passed)7–0

   📍5500 Main Street🏢Chamber of Commerce🏢Spring Engineering👤Cato👤Gray👤Keith Humphreys👤Lisa👤Lou👤Masellas👤Michael👤Moran👤Mr. Matler👤Perillo👤Raleigh Dove👤Smith#$114,000 seawall reimbursement#Downtown core district guidelines#Main Street Landing#Planned Development District (PDD)#REZ2016-01#Transfer of Development Rights

   ▶ Jump to 1:07 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:01:07] Next. [00:01:10] Rezoning application, REZ2016-01, Main Street Landing, 5500 Main Street. [00:01:20] Lisa. [00:01:22] This is going to be presenting this case today. [00:01:24] Thank you. [00:01:25] OK. [00:01:27] Good afternoon. [00:01:29] What you have before you is a rezoning, which [00:01:32] would be the completion of the mixed-use commercial development [00:01:36] on Main Street Landing property. [00:01:38] I assume most of you know where that is. [00:01:56] So currently, the zoning is PDE, Planned Development District, [00:02:00] with a commercial planned district subcategory. [00:02:03] We're looking to rezone it to Planned Development District again. [00:02:08] And that's because there is a change in the number of units for residential. [00:02:14] The current development, as it was sitting, had a restaurant on it. [00:02:20] The proposal would remove the restaurant and add residential units in place, [00:02:26] additional residential units. [00:02:30] The proposed PDD district allows for the uses [00:02:37] that are permitted in the MF-10, MF-14, MF-30 office and commercial districts. [00:02:43] But it does exclude uses that are inconsistent with downtown core land uses. [00:02:53] So I'm going to go look through. [00:02:54] Here's the site as it sits. [00:02:58] At the latest aerial photos, we don't have anything more current. [00:03:02] Here's the PDD zoning. [00:03:03] Okay, here are the primary uses for the properties. [00:03:09] Like I said, they have not changed from the previous [00:03:14] other than the restaurant has been removed and eight additional [00:03:20] housing units have been added in that area. [00:03:24] So you're going to have 80 residential units and 13,640 square foot [00:03:30] of retail, which is in building one, which has not changed from the previous request. [00:03:40] Here's the site plan as it sits now with the three structures. [00:03:46] Shots of the structure of building one as it exists from Main Street, [00:03:51] from River Road, from across the river. [00:03:56] Here are the elevations, the most recent submitted by the applicant. [00:04:02] It's going to match the color scheme of the existing building and [00:04:05] it's going to have a Tuscany look, the same colors. [00:04:12] These are the adjacent properties, the Chamber of Commerce, commercial use. [00:04:21] You got some residential uses, 8th and 4th Streets. [00:04:26] We did, DRC did recommend approval for this with 11 conditions. [00:04:33] I'm not going to read them for the record, but there are conditions such as [00:04:37] the 34 building units would need to be transferred via the transfer of development [00:04:41] rights, which is going to be the next item on your agenda that Mr. [00:04:44] Matler will speak about, that buildings be designed similar to the building one right now. [00:04:51] Signage and fencing must meet the downtown district guidelines. [00:04:56] Landscaping right of way, the acorn right of way, [00:05:00] must be maintained as part of the landscaping plan. [00:05:03] Lighting fixtures must be coordinated with the overall site design. [00:05:07] Streetscaping, typical stuff, no outdoor storage, [00:05:11] the noise ordinance, other codes need to be met. [00:05:15] The rezoning request does meet the concurrency requirements and [00:05:21] is consistent with the comprehensive plan. [00:05:25] And I guess if you have any questions. [00:05:31] Is this going to be, is this still going to be listed as a condominium? [00:05:38] The proposed units would be rental apartments. [00:05:43] Pardon my question, you can have condominiums and have them as rentals. [00:05:48] Is this going to be developed as a condominium? [00:05:51] We'll let the applicant address that, but my understanding is it's not going to be [00:05:54] developed as a condominium. [00:05:57] Okay. [00:06:00] Can we address the parking guys, would you go over the parking issues for us? [00:06:04] Yeah, currently they're proposing 223 parking spaces [00:06:13] with a number of underground spaces and a number of surface spaces. [00:06:22] Under building you mean? [00:06:24] Under building. [00:06:26] Under building parking place? [00:06:27] Yes, I'm sorry, underground under the structure of the three. [00:06:34] According to the code they need 280. [00:06:39] According to the code they need 260. [00:06:41] 260. [00:06:43] Yeah, so under structure three or under building three there, [00:06:47] you see they have underground parking, or under the structure parking. [00:06:53] And then they have surface parking. [00:06:56] I'm a little concerned about the parking issue. [00:07:07] Where are we going to park, especially if it's a rental, Lisa? [00:07:11] And we had similar concerns and we worked with the applicant on that and [00:07:14] they did give us a pretty extensive narrative on [00:07:18] their expectation of how parking's going to work. [00:07:20] We would tell you that the site is located in the downtown core, [00:07:24] which is the most intensive use of our central business district. [00:07:28] And we don't expect that you're going to find a parking space for [00:07:31] each unit anywhere in the downtown. [00:07:34] We expect that people park once and maybe walk multiple occasions. [00:07:38] But we did have similar concerns as you did, and so they've designated [00:07:42] the parking that's on the lower level of building three as resident only. [00:07:47] And so the shared parking would be those spaces that would be for [00:07:52] both the commercial and the units above the commercial. [00:07:55] There's 14 two-story units above the commercial in building one, [00:08:00] and building two has eight additional. [00:08:03] So we had similar concerns, and they've offered that they don't think they'll be [00:08:07] occupied all at the same time, they think they'll have staggered hours [00:08:10] of operation for the commercial. [00:08:12] There are on-street parking spaces that are available adjacent to the site, [00:08:18] which they can't count as theirs, but [00:08:21] most likely will be used by the folks that frequent this establishment. [00:08:26] We also have a plan to do a parking study to the east, [00:08:31] most likely to the east of the river, where we're looking to build a city [00:08:36] parking garage, which would hopefully supplant any parking need that this site [00:08:41] would have. [00:08:42] I'm not mistaken, I don't think the city hall has the proper amount of parking for [00:08:47] it either, so. [00:08:48] Sometimes it feels that way on Tasty Tuesday. [00:08:54] You said that the only increase in number of units is where the rest was. [00:09:00] The other buildings are the same number of units, is that correct? [00:09:03] Correct. [00:09:04] So that's the same size they were going to be originally then? [00:09:07] Correct. [00:09:08] Some of those are really small, aren't they? [00:09:11] Different sizes available. [00:09:13] One bedroom unit. [00:09:15] Well even the two bedrooms, some of those are really small for [00:09:20] the amount of square footage there that you would expect. [00:09:28] Question about the phase. [00:09:30] In what phase is the seawall construction? [00:09:36] I'm going to bet the applicant can better address that than we can. [00:09:40] But I'm going to guess it's the last phase, Mr. Dove. [00:09:47] Please state your name and the record, please. [00:09:50] My name is Raleigh Dove with Spring Engineering. [00:09:52] I'm the civil engineer on the project. [00:09:54] The seawall was constructed in, I'm going to say 2008 or 2009, I believe, [00:10:02] and was accepted by the city back then. [00:10:06] What is the provisions in the deal, in the negotiation, [00:10:12] 114,000 for seawall reconstruction? [00:10:16] I'm not familiar with that. [00:10:18] The development agreement outlines, I think, a payback to the developer [00:10:22] because they actually had to repair it. [00:10:25] And so we had had an earlier provision where we were going to do it, [00:10:28] and they put that back into the most recent development agreement. [00:10:31] What's all done? [00:10:33] According to Mr. Dove, the repair's already been made. [00:10:35] We'll just be reimbursing. [00:10:43] Raleigh, does anybody have any questions for Mr. Dove? [00:10:51] So it's not going to be non-minimized as it stands now, right? [00:10:56] It's 80 rental apartment units. [00:11:00] Can those be adjusted at a later time if you wanted to turn those back [00:11:04] into condominiums, some of them? [00:11:07] Let me have Keith Humphreys, the developer, address that. [00:11:10] I'm strictly civil. [00:11:13] We're trying to be. [00:11:19] Hi, my name's Keith Humphreys. [00:11:21] The answer to your question is you can always convert apartments [00:11:25] back to condominiums. [00:11:27] We'll go through the legal one. [00:11:29] I'm presuming that keeping it at 80 apartments makes it easier to finance [00:11:33] and get it done versus having mixed condos and apartments? [00:11:38] I don't really get into the financial part. [00:11:41] That would be the owner. [00:11:43] But when you develop, we're doing it as apartments [00:11:47] because the market calls for apartments right now [00:11:49] with the rent generation that's going on. [00:11:52] So apartments are by far the best investment. [00:11:55] If someone comes in later or if the owner himself five years from now [00:11:59] decides that condos have all of a sudden become the rage [00:12:01] and it's an opportunity to make them into condos again [00:12:05] and then sell them, that is a definite possibility. [00:12:12] As I had mentioned a number of apartments inside, [00:12:17] is this something that you've found to be most desirable for a mix [00:12:22] to have that small of apartments and then also some larger ones? [00:12:26] I mean, some of those look really small, like in the two bedrooms. [00:12:29] If you look at the size of the bedrooms, [00:12:32] there's hardly room for a bed and a dresser. [00:12:37] There are some smaller units, but two aren't this length. [00:12:41] There's actually a lot of ones that are too big [00:12:44] because of where the sports are and where the walls have to be the units. [00:12:48] A lot of the 2-2s are larger than we would like. [00:12:52] So we have large ones and then we do have some smaller ones. [00:12:55] And the rents will reflect the difference. [00:13:10] What are the provisions in this completion project? [00:13:14] Are there any performance bonds? [00:13:19] I believe the development agreement does specify those. [00:13:22] I'm sorry I don't have those at hand, [00:13:24] but I believe there are performance criteria that have to be met [00:13:27] in association with the development agreement [00:13:29] that the city is providing to the applicant. [00:13:32] As an add-on to that question, [00:13:34] are the phases allowed to commence [00:13:37] if the phase preceding it is not completed? [00:13:40] What stage of completion must the phase, for example, phase one, [00:13:44] must it be fully completed and occupant ready [00:13:47] before phase two begins, or does it work? [00:13:51] Do you want me to ask that? [00:14:12] We are going to be starting and finishing it up. [00:14:16] There's not going to be phases. [00:14:18] It's all going to be done. [00:14:24] Even though it says it's phased, [00:14:26] you're just planning on going ahead with the whole project right now? [00:14:30] Yes, building two and three will need to be completed at the same time. [00:14:35] One, as you know, is a shell with the interior build-out. [00:14:38] It will also continue on and everything will be done. [00:14:42] The only thing that will not be completed at this time will be the docks. [00:14:47] We're reviewing what's going to work best for us there. [00:15:00] be going through that building and checking to make sure we don't have mold problems already [00:15:04] started before you close it up and what re-inspections that have to be done to make [00:15:09] to clarify that building is substantial and still ready to go for what it was. [00:15:13] They will have their it'll have its proper inspections but additionally [00:15:17] since this is not an uncommon thing since the slowdown real estate where buildings have sat [00:15:22] there are products where people come in and apply to all the interior surfaces [00:15:27] to just make sure exactly that that we don't have any microbial growth. [00:15:31] It's probably the number one question I get from people all the time is [00:15:35] that building need to be tore down or is it full of mold or what how are they going to make sure [00:15:39] that's right and we have addressed it and I've already contacted a company and we have actually [00:15:43] a price for that as well. Okay citizens are asking. [00:15:48] I don't have a question but I wouldn't make a comment but I think it's time [00:16:13] happily time that something happens there and gets finished because it's been sitting there [00:16:19] too long and I'm sure the owners feel the same way and I think whatever we can do to get moving we [00:16:24] ought to do it and and try to do everything we can to encourage it get finished. We do appreciate [00:16:32] it and we're excited and we're ready to go just you know crossing the t's dotting the i's and [00:16:37] waiting for approval. Make a motion for approval with the conditions of the ground lines. Excuse [00:16:43] me Mr. Chairman could I interrupt for just a moment this is a public hearing [00:16:47] yep and it would be appropriate to take public comment at this time. [00:16:51] Does anyone here to speak else to speak in favor of this project? [00:16:56] Anyone here to speak in opposition to the project? [00:16:58] Okay. [00:17:04] What's your pleasure? I make my motion. Motion's made that it be approved and we recommend [00:17:10] approval subject to conditions. Is there a second by Lou? Okay. Any further discussion? [00:17:18] All right have a roll call vote please. Mr. Perillo? Yes in favor. Dr. Cato? Yes to the motion. [00:17:25] Ms. Michael? Yes. Mr. Masellas? Yes to the motion. Mr. Smith? Approved. Ms. Moran? Yes to the motion. [00:17:32] Mr. Gray? Yes to the motion. [00:17:40] Okay.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 2

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “LUP2016-01” — transcript expanded below

   Land Use Plan Amendment LUP2016-01 & Rezoning Application REZ2016-03 – Expansion of the James E. Grey Preserve and Associated Transfer of Development Rights

   approved

   The board considered a land use plan amendment (LUP2016-01) and rezoning (REZ2016-03) for approximately 7 acres at the southern terminus of Congress Street to expand the James E. Grey Preserve, changing the land use designation from medium density residential to recreation open space and rezoning from mobile home park to government. The action also implements a transfer of development rights from the subject property to Main Street Landing to satisfy a development agreement enabling additional residential units. The board recommended approval unanimously.

   Ord. Ordinance #2016-2081; Ordinance #2016-2082

   • motion:Move to recommend approval of the land use plan amendment LUP2016-01, rezoning REZ2016-03, and the associated transfer of development rights. (passed)7–0

   📍6434 River Ridge Road📍Plath Road📍southern terminus of Congress Street, just south of Louisiana Avenue🏢Florida Wildlife Federation🏢Main Street Landing🏢Parks and Recreation Department👤Dr. Cato👤Elaine👤Mr. Carillo👤Mr. Grant👤Mr. Mastelis👤Mr. Smith👤Ms. Michael👤Ms. Moran#Coastal High Hazard Area#Coastal Transfer of Development Rights program#James E. Grey Preserve#LUP2016-01#Main Street Landing Development Agreement#REZ2016-03

   ▶ Jump to 17:45 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:17:45] Next case is land use amendment LUP-2016-01 and rezoning application REZ-2016-03. [00:17:56] Expansion of the James E. Grave Preserve and associated transfer of development rights. [00:18:05] All right. Land use amendment and rezoning case is a approximately seven acres owned by the city [00:18:14] of New Port Richey. The property was originally purchased for the expansion of the James E. Grave [00:18:19] Preserve that's located adjacent and just to the north of the preserve. The city is also taking [00:18:23] this opportunity to implement its coastal transfer of development rights program in order [00:18:29] to satisfy the terms of the development agreement that was signed with Main Street Landing. [00:18:36] Here you see the subject property is located here just north of the Grave Preserve approximate to [00:18:41] the river. In the previous case the rezoning for Main Street Landing that property is located [00:18:48] approximate here to the river. Both properties are located approximate to the river [00:18:53] at very low elevation and they're located within the coastal high hazard area. [00:18:57] The state discourages increases of density within the coastal high hazard area however they are [00:19:04] open to transfers of density from properties within the coastal high hazard area. And they [00:19:12] have approved our coastal transfer of development rights program and what we're implementing what [00:19:16] we're proposing here is a transfer of development rights from the subject property to Main Street [00:19:23] Landing. The subject property is like I said seven acres. It's vacant. It's located at the [00:19:30] southern terminus of Congress Street just south of Louisiana Avenue. To the north and to the east [00:19:38] is a mobile home park. To the northwest is the Riverside single-family subdivision. To the west [00:19:46] is a property owned by the Florida Wildlife Federation as a conservation property and to [00:19:53] the south is the Grave Preserve. This is looking south on Congress Street towards the subject [00:20:00] property. To the left to the east is the mobile home park property and to the right to the west [00:20:07] is the Riverside single-family subdivision. These are the mobile home properties and this is looking [00:20:14] west into the Riverside single-family subdivision. And this is looking south into the subject [00:20:21] property which is made up of two properties. A former mobile home site with the driveway there [00:20:26] to the left and then to the south looking straight into the subject property is a proposed new access [00:20:33] into the Grave Preserve. There you see a sign established by the Parks and Rec Department [00:20:38] describing the improvements that are proposed and to the right over here is the conservation [00:20:44] property owned by the Florida Wildlife Federation. This is a photo of the property where the Parks [00:20:51] and Recreation Department has started clearing some of the site. This is the main entrance to [00:20:55] the Grave Preserve from Plath Road. This is a map showing the layout of the Grave Preserve on the [00:21:03] property and the subject property that we're looking at today is located about where the [00:21:07] James and the sign is listed. This is the river access from the Grave Preserve. This is the proposed [00:21:15] land use change on the subject property. The property is currently designated with a medium [00:21:20] density residential designation which allows 14 units per acre which is true also for the property [00:21:27] located to the north and to the east. To the northwest this is single-family low density [00:21:32] residential to be developed at five units per acre. The property to the west is conservation [00:21:37] and to the south is not yet zoned, I'm sorry, is designated as recreation open space and that's [00:21:43] the preserve. And what we're proposing is to change the designation from medium density [00:21:48] residential to recreation open space. And as for the zoning, the colors here have changed apparently [00:21:57] but this should all be kind of a gray color showing a mobile home park and we're proposing [00:22:08] to change it to government which is consistent with how we zone properties owned by the city. [00:22:14] The City Hall is zoned government, Francis Avenue Park, Sims Park, and the recreation [00:22:21] center is currently zoned government. So we're proposing to zone the subject property as government. [00:22:30] The proposal meets concurrency requirements. We're down zoning the property. [00:22:34] We're expecting there to be less impacts on the property as it will be developed with a [00:22:38] passive city park. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan policies regarding transfer [00:22:42] of development rights and regarding the provision of recreation open space throughout the city. [00:22:47] It fulfills the terms of the Main Street Landing Development Agreement which required the city to [00:22:52] transfer development rights to the Main Street Landing so that they can develop the 80 residential [00:22:57] units that they were proposing. And with the down zoning on the property, we're providing [00:23:01] additional access to the preserve and the city plans to program the site with parking for the [00:23:08] preserve as well as trails and boardwalk access. And so we're asking you to recommend approval [00:23:15] of this land use change and the rezoning and the proposed transfer of development rights. [00:23:24] Any questions? [00:23:30] With pleasure. I think the parking spaces we're going to gain there. [00:23:35] That has not been determined. We're undergoing a master plan for all park facilities and then [00:23:40] this will get programmed as an individual park site so that really hasn't been determined yet. [00:23:46] Not a lot though. It's not it's not a very big upland space on which to do development. [00:23:51] It'll probably stay gravel like the rest of the great park. It might. I mean with the [00:23:55] exception of handicapped spaces it may be connecting trail from there over to the [00:23:59] rest of the park. That would be the hope so we could have a link, a necklace if you will. [00:24:06] We'll have to have something like that. That's a very appropriate term. [00:24:09] Thanks. Thank you. [00:24:13] I said there's your plan on having some kind of a boardwalk through there because I know [00:24:19] there's some place you have to go across the border. Elaine described it as boardwalk access [00:24:24] so I guess it's an entry access to the existing boardwalk on the preserve property. [00:24:32] By the way I just want to add another note that this would be access to the park from which you [00:24:37] wouldn't have to travel through the county to get there. Right now if you're in the city you [00:24:41] have to kind of circumnavigate through the county to get to Plath Road and this would be a direct [00:24:46] access from the southern terminus to Congress Street so we found it very exciting for that [00:24:50] reason. Not many cities have an 86 acre park in the city limits. That is true. We just need to [00:24:58] annex a few more properties don't we? Well there's that too. That's right. Have we talked about that [00:25:04] at all? We've talked about it. I don't know that the folks that we'd be annexing are as excited [00:25:09] about it as we are however. On the Congress was there going to be sidewalks put in to take you [00:25:17] people back into that? I mean how the residents in that area think of this? And that hasn't been [00:25:22] determined yet either. Last year the city acquired the land and so we're going to be undertaking it [00:25:27] again a master plan to determine how it gets programmed. We also know that as part of our [00:25:31] capital improvements programming we need to look at Congress Street in general because I don't know [00:25:37] if it's actually considered substandard but it's more of a narrow right-of-way and we don't have [00:25:42] continuous sidewalks on it so we really want to program that from I don't know Massachusetts down [00:25:48] to this point quite frankly. It needs to have some work done. If you have a question. The [00:25:58] reason that we're doing this is to not only for improvement in Park Hall, I know that, but [00:26:04] it's for those eight additional rental units. Is that why we're doing that? So they add those [00:26:10] eight additional rental units? That's right. This is a two-fold benefit. We need to [00:26:16] create the appropriate land use and zoning categories so we can use it for our [00:26:20] master plan purposes for a park land, a passive park, and also the main street landing [00:26:27] site would enjoy the additional units that were prescribed as part of the development [00:26:31] agreement that city council has already approved. They didn't need this for the original 72 that [00:26:38] they had, is that correct? They didn't need it for their plan that they approved years ago. That's [00:26:41] right. Because they converted the restaurant to additional residential units they needed additional [00:26:47] units to come from somewhere so we're having it come from this site. And that's because of the [00:26:51] increase in density. Correct. [00:26:58] What's your pleasure? My pleasure is let's don't build any more real dense apartments [00:27:04] along the river. That's my pleasure. Speaking to this issue, I'll move for approval. [00:27:11] I'll second. I think we have someone that wants to speak. [00:27:16] Okay. We'll hold that. Sorry about that. I don't want to draw it. [00:27:26] Would you please just give us your name and address for the record? 6434 River Ridge Road. [00:27:33] That's two lots and one little river canal from where your gate is and I totally approve of this. [00:27:42] Just west of it? You're just west of it? Just in what he called single house. Right. Okay. [00:27:48] I've been hoping for the 16 years I've been walking that land with my dog every day [00:27:53] that it turns into the park. Do I understand that the part they're clearing now is going to [00:27:57] be parking lot? It may be. It may be. I think the reason there was some movement of the landscaping [00:28:06] a lot of it was Brazilian pepper or you know questionable exotics. So I think they're just [00:28:12] trying to remove some of those species in order to kind of take a look at what we've got. [00:28:16] So if by exotic you mean it doesn't belong there? Correct. Right. This is third growth woods. [00:28:24] It's been cleared off once in the 1930s when they timbered all the big stuff out and then [00:28:29] was cleared off again when the pastor released it. Still in all it is supporting wildlife and [00:28:36] it really needs to be part. I've got one little thing to tell you that just happened two days ago. [00:28:42] We discovered an endangered species and I have it right here. It's a spider in the lake [00:28:50] and it's within two feet of the bulldozers. So I hope they're done [00:28:53] on the federation side and this is an [00:28:56] endangered species. [00:29:12] It's a cross. It's a really showy flower and we thought it is on the federation. [00:29:17] Wow. Okay so I would like to know what your relationship is with the federation and when [00:29:24] they're going to annex that land. I think it's inevitable. I can answer that question too. [00:29:29] Actually we have a really good relationship with the federation and we are in discussions with [00:29:34] how to best have that property used for public purpose. I can't tell you more than that but [00:29:39] we are speaking with that corporation. Of course it's 11 submerged acres. [00:29:46] It does have wetlands on it but it's really submerged. [00:29:49] Yeah and so it's a lot of what we've got going here but with the boardwalks I've seen on the [00:29:53] map I think it's just going to be wonderful. Most of my neighbors agree despite the increased. [00:30:00] what she said about the road being not enough to sustain an entrance there, [00:30:04] that's true. That would have to be fixed. And that's it. I'm just so glad you're [00:30:09] doing it. By the way, when I used to canoe up the river into the back [00:30:15] waters up in there, there are quite a few of those that are broken up in the [00:30:19] back water. But you have to get, I mean, you don't just walk and see them, you [00:30:25] have to, I think my wife has one of these, you know, birds she has that are clammed up, she has one. [00:30:32] I go up there all the time. [00:30:35] We do have another thing that happened last week, and that is we have a wonderful invasion of very nice young baby asters that are on the sand bars. [00:30:45] The water is changing salinity, and so it's causing changes. It's a very live area, despite the fact that it's during growth. [00:30:54] Anyhow, I thought mad people would show up, but I really haven't. [00:31:01] We like this a lot better, too. We don't like mad people. [00:31:07] Congratulations. [00:31:09] Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. [00:31:13] We have a motion on the floor and a second. [00:31:18] Okay. Roll call vote, please. [00:31:24] Mr. Mastelis? [00:31:25] To the motion. [00:31:26] Ms. Michael? [00:31:27] Yes. [00:31:28] Mr. Smith? [00:31:29] Approved. [00:31:30] Mr. Carillo? [00:31:31] Approved. [00:31:32] Ms. Moran? [00:31:33] Yes, to the motion. [00:31:34] Dr. Cato? [00:31:35] Yes, to the motion. [00:31:36] Mr. Grant? [00:31:37] Yes, to the motion. [00:31:41] Any further action to come before this active group? [00:31:46] No, but I thank you all for attending. This might be a record. And we'll see you again on June 23rd. [00:31:54] Thank you.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.