Planning and Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I need water. I know, I forgot my water. I call the June 2nd City of Claremont Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6.30 p.m. Will the clerk please call the roll?

Commissioner Tidona?

Present.

Commissioner Nemec? Present. Chair Colby? Here. Commissioner Kramer? Here. Commissioner Hoisington? Here. And Commissioner May on teams? Here.

Thank you very much. Please stand if you are able for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. You may be seated. Thank you. I'll remind everyone to please turn on your microphones before you speak. Anyone in the audience who is speaking at the lectern this evening, that should already be on. So please speak clearly into the microphone and say your name and address. As a reminder, this meeting is being recorded and broadcast on the city's YouTube channel, which is at City of Claremont. Commissioners you should have received a copy of the minutes From the last planning and zoning meeting on if there are no additions corrections or questions. I will entertain a motion I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the previous meeting Second, we have a motion in second all in favor aye aye Chair votes aye any opposed aye Okay, that passes unanimously. At this time, we will do reports. I'll start to my left. Commissioner Todona, do you have a report?

Actually, I don't. The only thing I wanted to mention is that I will not be here next month in July. Other than that, I have no report.

OK. All right. And the meeting, I'll ask the clerk or council that we'll have the meeting at the regular time. It will be on the first Tuesday.

My understanding is we will have a meeting then.

That is 4th of July week. Is there anybody else who would not be able to attend? All right. Commissioner Nemec, do you have a report?

No, it's just good back to be in the United States. Thank you. No report.

All right. Commissioner Kramer. No report at this time. Commissioner Hoisington.

No report, Mr. Chair.

Commissioner May, do you have a report?

No, sir. I just want to welcome you guys back from Italy. I hope you enjoyed your visit and no report from me. Thank you.

Okay. And I have no report, but it is also good to be back from Italy at no time. Did I see Vinnie while I was in Italy? But I understand we both had a great time on our separate trips in Italy. So good to be back here in Claremont. All right. That that takes care of the reports. So I will call on staff for item one.

Good evening planning and zoning commissioners and guests Nick and sauce development services. This is agenda item one land development code amendment mobile food dispensing vehicles. City staff is proposing an amendment to Chapter 125 of the Land Development Code to establish a clear review and approval process for mobile food dispensing vehicles, consistent with the requirements of Section 509.102 Florida Statutes. In recent months, the City has experienced a significant increase in applications for food trucks and food trailers seeking approval through the conditional use permit process. At the direction of the City Council and City Manager's Office, staff has prepared a targeted amendment to formalize standards for MFDVs and to streamline the review pathway, reducing reliance on a conditional use permit for routine mobile vending operations. To ensure best practices and regional consistency, staff reviewed and compared ordinances from nearby municipalities, including the City of Maitland and the City of Winter Springs. These references informed the development of the proposed ordinance language. Some main points within the ordinance are listed below. Only one MFDV allowed on a non-residential property. may be temporary or permanent on site requires not notarized affidavit from property owner regarding authority to operate in restroom usage. Outdoor dining is prohibited and hours of operation are 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and certain setbacks from residential properties and existing restaurants. Staff is presenting this ordinance as a starting point for discussion for mobile food dispensing vehicles to be included in the LDC. Staff is seeking guidance and direction on the proposed ordinance. Any conditions, changes will be presented to city council for final consideration. That concludes staff's presentation.

All right, thank you very much. Now is the portion of the meeting for public hearing on item number one. Is there any member of the audience who would like to speak on item number one? Hearing no one, I will bring it back to the commission and I will go in the same order that we did reports. So starting with you, Commissioner Todono.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for putting this together. There were some things that popped out to me. So I just want to go over those points. I'm not going to go over everything. But again, I want to thank you for compiling this. I think this was an excellent document. On page 15. Numbers 4 and 5. Temporary mobile food dispensing vehicle may operate a single location up to a maximum of 4 days a week, but no more than 3 consecutive days. And on 5 the thing that stood out for me was the person in charge of the mobile food dispensing vehicle when in operation must be present at all times. So I'm assuming that's going to be a little bit of policing on our part to make sure that that is taking place. Right?

With the, I mean, as far as policing.

Well, I don't, making sure that somebody, how do we make sure that somebody is not there three consecutive days? So that would be through code? Okay, through code enforcement. Code enforcement. Okay, I'm not saying we send the police out. Yeah. Okay, through code enforcement, awesome. Page 16. 16 you said? 16, yep. Number 14, mobile food dispensing vehicle shall be located at least 100 feet from a lot occupied by a single family or two family duplex dwelling. So I'm just hoping that we said that this is a living document, amendable document. If 100 feet turns out to be a good number, that's great. But if 100 feet turns out to be not such a good number, I'm assuming that we can revisit that if there are complaints and so on and maybe it becomes 200 feet, 300 feet. Awesome. Number 17. No additional signage should be permitted on the developed site related to the mobile food dispensing vehicle except as to the signage per permanently a fixed and displayed on the vehicle. Will this be retro to anything that was already approved. And the reason why I ask is A couple of months ago, we had a food truck that was going to be placed on 50 that was below grade and below a fence. And part of the concern of that food truck was you wouldn't see it because it was below grade and behind a fence. So it came up, can we put something on that sidewalk or on the fence? And meanwhile, it says that

shall not be placed within the right of way so it it also has to be within 10 feet of the dispensing vehicle itself um the particular one that you're discussing it's under a conditional use permit so i don't believe it can be retrograded back to this yeah so

Yeah, the way it's written and the way we're talking about it. I mean, it's still just a conversation. No, the way it is, I don't see it as retroactive to that or any prior approval, whether it due to the fact that it's a CP.

Okay. Okay. Parking page 18. Provide a minimum of one or 3 parking space for 4 seats in addition to parking required on any principal use of a site. So I'm assuming that goes back to kind of code enforcement just making sure that this thing doesn't spread out where it is without the appropriate amount of spots.

That would be done through site review so inside where they would have to put the amount of seating if it's a permanent location and they're adding seating right. We would make sure that they have the right number of the right not parking space.

Like I said I I think this was well put together well thought out. Thank you thank you thank you Mister chair, thank you for the comments.

Commissioner Nemec.

Yes, I just have one question I look to so could you just explain to me in here where the lighting comes in. You have your days of operations till 10 o'clock at night. Certain times during the change back of times, it gets pitch dark at 5.30. You're gonna have all these people buy a food truck with no lighting. So can you explain to me where you guys thought about lighting?

I'm trying to see one section on the site of a site review on what is being reviewed, but if it was missed that can be a there is lighting this mentioned in here. It's like this is OK good.

I'm sorry Council that.

Well, I'm just trying to help I mean I think could you tell me where it is that's why I'm asking because so at least on it appears to be on page. I can't give you a page number. I don't see numbers on the documents, but it's in section, I think D25, where it talks about permanent establishments, additional standards. then it talks about location and approvals and then it talks about unimproved sites and here's what it says for 100 sites permanent establishments located on unimproved sites in non-residential zoning districts require full site plan review and approval by the city site review committee the site plan shall show access circulation emergency route stormwater lighting any seating parking ada routes no more standards than that but it has to address it Correct. And that's one mention of lighting, but yeah.

You're a better person than me because when you said lighting, that's all I saw was the word lighting. I didn't see how much lumis, how much area this lighting has to have, if it's just by the food truck. I'm not trying to be a pain to anybody. I'm just being here for safety. You're going to go out there, pitch dark at night in front of a food truck, with cars going by, and there's no lighting. Your word says lighting. Who's going to judge it? The planning and zoning before it comes to us? That's my question.

And it still has to abide by our own code regarding lighting with regard to one candlelight, one full candlelight. Right. the property line so it still has to buy under the entire property line if that's in here because I don't see it in here that was in here I would never ask my question and I'm sorry I didn't see you Monday I was going to bring that up I'm sorry but it's part of the the land development code of lighting so it's still it still would

I would feel a little more comfortable if that was in here before it went to the City Council.

A reference to our lighting code?

Exactly. Instead of saying the word lighting, that could be anything. That's a broad awakening. And to get back to piggyback off Commissioner Contona, to Dona's question, the previous food trucks that were approved, Counselor, question for you, they would be grandfathered in, correct? Yes, okay, that's it. No other questions.

Thank you Thank You Commissioner Kramer Thank You chairman so I Think staff knows that I've been a big supporter of this and and I have asked for this for some time as well and I'm really pleased to see this because In my opinion, this is starting to create some clear rules and one of the strengths of this ordinance is that it establishes clear expectations for both food trucks, food truck operators and property owners. So rather than handling each application individually through a conditional use permit process, we're creating an objective standard that everyone can follow. So I like that this is expediting the process and reducing a layer of bureaucracy for our people trying to establish themselves as a food truck vendor in Claremont. And not every food truck vendor requires an application would require a public hearing. We spent an inordinate amount of time, in my opinion, on public hearings for food trucks. But I do have some questions for staff. Why was the setback from existing restaurants set at 100 feet? How did we land on 100 feet?

Just language that we've seen from other ordinances. But if that was something that would want it, it's just a starting point. If you wanted to adjust it or had a recommendation, it can be changed.

Well, nice thing, Nick, is that this is a fluid environment. And as Commissioner Tonella already checked, we can do that. And so I appreciate that. along that same line. I know of one place where we have three trucks located in an area together, but this is specifically saying one food truck per property, which shows as a limit. So I think that's a good idea. We don't have that congregating in there. Have we had many complaints at the city? Has the city received any complaints or very many complaints about our existing food truck operations?

Of recent, I haven't received any complaints or code violations.

OK. Will staff be able to revoke approvals administratively? Or would it require us intervening, city council, or anyone? Or will you guys be able to handle revocations?

Yeah. In the document, revocation can be done on the staff level. Thank you.

And what will prevent a food truck from becoming a de facto permanent restaurant without the same development standards required as a traditional restaurant? So they're there for a long time and just kind of become a de facto restaurant, but they aren't necessarily being held to all the standards that we would hold restaurant. Do we have anything in there to prevent long term?

I think it's specific in the wording how many days and how many consecutive days.

That's for a temporary structure. But if it became a permanent structure, they can stay on property. So that would just depend on... Can you explain the difference of the rest of... I'm trying to understand what you mean by what they may be getting away with.

I'm just worried that they're going to become a permanent. A food truck's not permanent in nature. And so I'll take the question back. There's not a good answer to it any way you look at it.

No, it's a valid question. In my thought process, I'm trying to think of if it's a permanent location, I'm not sure how or... What's the best way of ensuring that it's not a long-term solution, if that makes sense?

I think we can review it in the future. Yeah. And one more question for staff. Have you discussed these standards at all with any local restaurant owners, the Chamber of Commerce, anybody else, or? Did you guys just come up with this on your own?

This is your first, I guess, the first time this is being seen. Wanted planning and zoning's recommendation. If you think this is a document that needs to be vetted more closely, that's something that we can do as a staff level.

Thank you very much for your hard work on this. Cal, thank you everyone who's been involved in this because this really is eliminating bureaucracy and helping move Claremont forward. No more questions. Thank you.

Commissioner Hoisington.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, want to join my fellow commissioners on thanking you for putting this document together. I feel that you put a lot of work into it. A lot of the questions that I had have already been addressed. One of the things that I want to focus on, the issue where the permanent, I think, I'm not sure who brought it up, but the permanent person has to be on duty when it's in operation. and saying that it would be enforced by code enforcement. But how would code enforcement know if the permanent person is there? Who's going to report it? Because I know we don't have staff to be going around to all food trucks to see if the owner or the permanent person is there. And if that should happen, what action is taken? If their privileges are revoked, is there an appeal process to where they can correct those deficiencies and continue to work?

That's about that's a really good question. I think I was more I was answering the the Number four with code enforcement of if it's there more than three consecutive days As far as five when you're talking about the person in charge of the mobile dispensing vehicle That's that's a valid question. I'm not sure how that would be the best practice of making sure that number five is being being abided by it.

Well, I mean, the answer to that, too, is code enforcement. It's a difficult thing. There are other portions of the city code that are difficult to enforce that look like that as well. And then the question is, normally with code enforcement, you have to give them a time to comply before a violation is actually found. Well, I mean, here, when would a violation actually be found? You issue the notice, they come back in 30 minutes, it's gone. And so one of the things that you can do is make a finding that they were guilty of it, just once, even though it's been rectified. And then make it a repeat violation later on. You can do a one-time fine. You can levy the cost. We actually have an ordinance right now going to the council about increasing the code fines, but it also includes our ability to levy our investigation costs. which we've never done. So people shouldn't get the benefit of us having to go out, investigate, they fix it, and then we don't charge them with anything. Here, that could be something. At least we'll get the cost of investigation if we found that they did violate it. Short answer to your question is code enforcement.

Okay. And thank you. Thank you for the clarity. I just don't want us to put things in here. That's not actual going to be enforced, just to say we have a document so we can check the box. If it's something that can't be managed, then why have it in there, but I understand. I understand what you're saying.

And I think the intent of staff was to make a document that had enough information, guidelines, guardrails, that if you decided to take things away, it would be better to take things out than put things in.

Okay. All right. Thank you. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. All right.

Thank you. Commissioner May.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank the staff for putting together a really good draft. But it still needs to be tweaked. But bravo to a really good start. So whoever really started this, kudos to you. I do want to ask in regards to the confusion between me reading this was in regards to the temporary accessory versus the per minute. because I know in the definitions, there's really nothing that describes what a temporary versus a permanent establishment. You do have permanent in your definitions, but you don't have temporary, you have accessory. So while I was reading word for word, I was going through it and the entire time that I was going through the ordinance, I felt that I was reading about permanent, but then it jumped into permanent. So there was really no, changes between temporary and permanent so it was kind of confusing because first you're talking about no seating area and then all of a sudden you talk about seating area so there's really i don't know if there's a way to separate to really define temporary like you did where it said permanent establishment um so if there's a way to kind of say okay this is temporary establishments and you know and they're defined and then you jump into permanent because for me it was kind of confusing in that sense um when i read it um so sorry so in regards to like temporary and permanent they're both prohibited in hours of operations from 7 to 10 p.m correct yes okay um And I know that we did in the past meeting, we had some issues in regards to time because of safety issues. So, and I know based on what was said, this is not going to be coming in front of us. After this ordinance is going to be approved, this ordinance is not coming in front of the Planning and Zoning. It's not coming in front of Planning and Zoning. It's administratively done. So I just want to make sure that a lot of our comments and our recommendations are put forth and we're comfortable as a commission. And of course, comfortable as council that once these permanent and temporary is a little different, but permanent is a little bit different in a sense. I just want to make sure that the residents concerns are being met. And so I'm just taking in from the residents concerns on the previous one that we had, their concerns were on the hours and we made a point to listen to them and make sure that the hours coincided with the business presence. So an example, the gas station, we wanted to make sure that Food truck hours of operation coincide with the business. But in this sense, it basically just says 7 AM to 10 PM. So is there a way, I mean, I just, you know, in regards to an operation for say, you know, food truck decides they wanna be on another gas station or a business that closes at five or six. So we're saying we're okay for them to, continue to operate at 10 p.m even though maybe the community around it is not comfortable with that so i'm just like i said i'm just going with what just happened on the previous meeting that some of our commissioners weren't there so um because we're strictly saying okay we're good with 70 say 7 a.m to 10 p.m so that's just you know just based on just the previous you know vote that we just did um So that's one thing. Food trucks may operate a maximum of four days per week, but no more than three consecutive days. That section, I think number four, I guess, pertains to temporary and it doesn't pertain to the permanent. And that's where I got the confusion in. So I just wanted to get clarity from you. Food trucks, all food trucks, Operate a maximum of four days or is that just on the temporary ones?

That would just be for the temporary. If it was a permanent, it could be seven days a week.

Right, but it doesn't say that in the permanent section and that's where my confusion is.

We can add that, include that into the definition of permanent.

Yeah, and I don't know if there's too much language, and I would ask our attorney, because I know you've dealt with this in other cities, should there be a separation between temporary and then half the rules and then permanent and half the rules? Because for me, it was very confusing in that sense.

It's totally your discretion and the city's discretion how it wants to do it.

perfect okay and then the um so again going back to the confusion i mean we talked about paved surface you know you talk about paved surface not to exceed 600 square feet unless city manager determines more areas required um that is all in the beginning but then you go past the permanent and then you talk about um surfacing and you don't talk about anything about requirements of 600 feet and things like that so that's where my confusion was and i that was past number 25. so when you talk about paved surfaces that's in number six it doesn't exceed 600 square feet so does that also apply in the permanent establishments

I'm reading number six right now and looking at 25C. Well, it says the mobile food dispensing vehicle temporary sales area must be on a paved area, not exceed an area of 600 square feet. So that would be for the temporary.

Right, but there's no square foot requirements on the permanent side.

Would you want it to be 600 as well?

I don't know. That's where you guys come in. I mean, is it open-ended? I mean, are they allowed to do whatever size?

I think the paved area was to make sure that wherever the vehicle itself was on a paved area. So I guess it was dependent on the size of the vehicle itself.

So does that not be dependent as well on the permanent?

No, that is the permanent, yes.

But it doesn't say that, right? I mean, it just says improve stabilized surface. It doesn't really say.

Adequate to support vehicle loads without rutting surface.

Yeah, they can have an oversized double wide or, you know.

I mean, are we going to?

I'm not a food, I mean, I'm just looking at you. That's just, that was where, you know, I'm just trying to figure out, you're saying 600 square feet on temporaries, but you're not saying anything on the permanent. So shouldn't it be equal? I mean, I'm assuming food trucks are all the same size or they're not. You know, is there any maximum size or minimum size? It's just, you know.

Yeah, we can look into the dimensions and add some language at least to put a at least 600 square feet. Or if you want to have a minimum or a maximum, we can add that into 25C. Okay.

It's all about consistency because you're doing it for one, but you're not doing it for the other.

Mm-hmm.

Okay. All right. Let me see what else. I get there's no outdoor seating allowed for temporary.

Correct.

But it doesn't really say temporary in that section of seven. Hold on. Seven. Seven. Again, Great. But for me, it was just, I read every little word and it just was very confusing for me because I was going, okay, are we talking about temporary? Are we talking about permanent? So outdoor dining areas are prohibited, included, but not limited to table. So I'm assuming you're talking about temporary. So I don't know if you have to say temporary accessories, outdoor dining areas are prohibited. I guess you say outdoor seating is a permanent establishment, maybe permanent where it complies with. Okay.

Correct. And there's some typos I did find. There's a few times a reference subsection D23 when it should be D25D. And that'll be changed before it goes to council.

Yeah, that was one of my other ones that I was going to say.

Sorry about that.

Yeah, no worries. Again, great draft. that's all i want to say um oh um this goes back to i think mr niemeck had brought it up in regards to actually no um lighting that was a question of mine because i didn't see anything in there i mean i did see a section under 20 that talked about prohibited lighting but there was no language in there in regards to lighting itself that was another question of mine Generators that's going to be something that. Is something that's not mentioned. There's nothing mentioned about generators. There's only. There's only there's only language in there in 20 that talks about excessive fumes and we're assuming that's generators. and there's no language in number 18 in regards to sound. There's something about no music, but there's something that says other sounds and generators do cause a lot of sound issues and fumes. Is there any mention of generators or do you guys plan to have any language about generators in the organs?

There's no mention in the ordinance, but it would have to fall under our sound ordinance, which would have to be under a certain decibel.

Okay, and what about generators in regards to fumes? Because that is an issue. I mean, some people do complain about the smell and the noise during food truck night. Okay.

So number 20 says the operation of these vehicles should not create or cause nuisance conditions to include and not be limited to displaying flags or unauthorized signage, loud noises, visual glare, flashing animated lights, shouting and amplified music, excessive fumes or smoke, environmental hazards, and any vehicular or pedestrian hazard.

So basically, if a generator is making any excessive fumes or smoke, then code enforcement can...

It becomes a nuisance, yeah.

A nuisance, okay. All right, then I'm satisfied with that. Let me see if there's anything else. Right, now I'm going over to the permanent establishment side.

Mm-hmm.

Let's see. Parking. One off-street parking per four seats. How are we establishing the seating now? I mean, for a food truck. Is there... Because I know it's based on... Isn't it based on square footage? How do we establish restaurants right now? Is it one off-street parking per four seats?

It's based off seating.

It's only based off seating. So if they decide that they want 15 seats in their parking, on their food truck, then that means that they need more than, like who controls the seating?

They would come in through site review and ask for how many seating if they asked for 15 that would be for parking spaces that they would need and they would have to put that on the site plan and we would staff would review and make sure that the parking that they have is adequate into our standards.

So how do we establish it on a restaurant, though? I mean, say, for instance, it's the same way?

The same way. Restaurants are based off seating, not square footage.

I just wanted to make sure. I just wanted to clarify that. A better record. Okay, perfect. And then on, I saw that the buffers and setbacks, and I thank you so much for that. 100 foot is great. Are we requiring any other buffers in regards to, I don't know, fake landscaping or anything like that or just strictly the 100 foot buffers on each.

I do believe on the site review that we do mention on unimproved sites that the site plan shall show access, circulation, emergency routes, stormwater, lighting, any seating, parking, ADA routes, trash, restroom facility and buffers.

Perfect. And then the other, I think this is my last one. I think the other thing that I have that I would like to add comes with the parking, and that was an issue that I had on the last month's parking. I just want to make sure that if they do go on an improved site that they're sharing parking, that They must show, the food truck must show that they are not reducing the required parking for the existing business.

And this is for the improved parcels, correct?

Correct. Correct. Because I think that was an issue that was brought up at the previous one. And I just don't want... our business is to be affected because all of a sudden they're popular and all of a sudden all their parking spaces are being used and then the business that is there then their parking is being affected i just want to make sure that there's going to be adequate parking for both separately so we should have language that says must show they aren't they are not reducing the required parking for the existing business or use

Understood.

But other than that, great job guys.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner May. I also think it was a great job and I love that you went out and found best practices that people are using. elsewhere, and this is, I think, a really great draft. There have been a lot of comments, and to capture this, I know that you've been writing furiously, and staff has been noting. I'm not sure that the best way, does anybody on the commission, would somebody like to to to make a motion and perhaps putting in some of the things that that that we had talked about so I'll open it up to the to the commission now and.

We have discussion, yes, we can have discussion or I just have basically 2 questions all right. Commissioner hoist and brought up a very very good point with the owner operating, okay I'm not saying this is New York. Just tell me that's why I came from a long time ago and back Back in back in those days they used to have a license and they had a tag around their neck with a picture and of who the ownership belongs to, and that ownership had to run the business with a picture on it. So that might be able to help you out, Commissioner Hornston. I mean, you brought that up. The first thing I thought about is I assumed, which makes a blank out of me and you, that it was in there, or that staff would take care of it, but seeing that this is wide, I just have my last question is, this is going to the council. they vote on it that's it it's permanent it introduced into the land development code but it could always be amended okay i would highly suggest i mean one every commissioner up here had questions and i'm sure the public's going to have a lot of questions too at a city council meeting because this is their town as well All right, I would highly suggest they do a workshop on this before they take a vote just to get everything right now because you got you got right is grant right now some right you just writing everything now that's my advice that's what I would like to do. And if you don't want me you know how to bring that put that in writing, I'll be here at the City Council and I'll be given my advice to put this on a workshop because when you rush things out he makes waste. You did a great job. I'm not knocking it. I'm just saying there's a lot of gray areas. And we knew this was going to be a starting point. Well, that's why I asked. If they vote on it, does it go through? And then the blame is going to be on you guys. And that's not right. Right after the hard work you did. Thank you. That's all I got, Commissioner. Any other? I would like to set a motion, but I'm not going to remember everything they said.

Well, let's see if anybody else has any comments, input they want to make before we.

All right. I will open it for a motion, though. Do I got to say everything they said from Jenny to Mr. Kramer? I mean, Commissioner Kramer.

Well, I think I'd like to set a motion for what he wrote down. Here's some of the things that I got just to kind of reference, go back, reference to the lighting code. adding temporary in the definitions, parking for improved properties, showing that there's not a reduction of parking that does not affect existing businesses. There was talk on generators, if that would be, but I think we figured out with the fumes. As far as the person in charge of the mobile dispensing vehicles being present is this something that we wanted to add or I mean to keep or remove. And then possible workshop that you make it okay, you have to make that and I appreciate.

i like that did he leave anything else i i was there possibly well addressing the concrete and the 600 yep 600 feet that's on the other page you didn't turn over possibly segregating the temporary and permanent sections that was thrown out there by commissioner may um those are things that i remember as well commissioner may is there anything that you could think of that we might have forgot when we put it in a motion

No, I think he took good notes so.

OK very good commissioner may thank you.

Did we mention the hours wasn't their comments about the hours so to 10 in previous it's been the time of the business being in operation.

And I did want to make a comment to that the the seven to ten was just a range that we felt comfortable with Normal business operating hours that we have throughout the city if anything was going to be after that or you know I don't think anybody's gonna be open at 6 a.m. 5 a.m but anything after that they would have to come to to PNZ and and counsel for conditional use permit and And then if you did want to, I think Commissioner May was kind of alluding to was what if the if they're on an approved property and they're using the facilities of an existing business or, you know, let's say a gas station and they close early. what happens then uh and maybe if you wanted to add language that uh if it's seven to ten unless you know it's with the the the operating hours of the business some something along those lines uh to make sure that if a business does close early that that's that's their cap i think we should have something i mean and i and i go back to what commissioner made mentioned um i think the last food truck there were actual

folks that live close proximity to the one and they were concerned about the first about the food truck being an operation after the gas station closed so I would hate for us to just have a blanket 7 to 10 and what is located near a neighborhood and we have to go through here in the public say why you know what this is being disturbing after the business is close.

there is one thing that i totally forgot and i apologize um on the temporary uh in regards to the no outdoor seating allowed what if there is an event you know next to a park um you would think that you would want to allow some seating or would that seating be part of the event i'm just I'm just trying to figure out how it would be, say for instance, people at the park, there's a food truck that is close to a parking lot. Again, going back to the other one that we just approved, it's next to Dock Park. Wouldn't we want to provide some seating for people if there is no seating at the park to be able to enjoy some food at that food truck? So that's where, you know, can we put some language that says unless, It's next to a city park or unless it's. I'm just trying to make it, you know. I don't. I'm just taking it from the previous one.

Yeah, but you but you could that could go the other way. Commissioner may that there could be people coming out to to an event and then they thought they were going to enjoy a spot and then there was there's all these these the seating for I mean it could go the other way. It could annoy.

the residents because they're like oh i was going to come out set up my chair but i can't because they're setting up you know chairs and seats yeah i i i don't know i think it's a little bit dicey and and good point thank you very much i just brought it up as part of the discussions okay okay so i'll set a motion for everything staff has proposed everything everything okay even the pages you didn't read to have a set of the appropriate motion.

I mean I think it's cognizable.

Okay, thank you very good. I've done it before us so we have a motion we have a second by commissioner hoising 10. All in favor.

I'm sorry. There's a cold commissioner Colby. With that include the recommendation of possibly doing a workshop as well.

Yes, I said everything OK.

Now I do have a question for the council right we have so we have we have a motion and a second all right, but I go ahead I may I'm go ahead please.

Since this is being recorded they could go back. And just in case we missed anything because I said the word everything and they usually do that's what I'll be okay, that's what I want to give you that advice. Yeah, well, okay, my brain is not that good.

I'm sorry David, I know that so we have a a motion and second any other. conversation all in favor aye aye any opposed chair votes aye unanimous thank you all right we will move on the agenda to item number two staff take it away

Good evening planning and zoning commissioners and that's just in a with development services. Due to both agenda item number 2 and 3 being of the same properties. I'm going to read them at the same time if that is OK.

Sounds great.

So the city as the applicant is requesting a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the subject property following a staff-initiated annexation. The approximately 88-acre property includes the Hammock Point and Hammock Reserve subdivisions, which are fully built out and contain 196 existing single-family homes. The parcel has already been platted, developed, and is receiving city wastewater services. On October 28, 2025, the city council approved the annexation with the understanding that the appropriate future land use and zoning designations would be established at a later date and time. Staff is now proposing to complete the process. And on your screen outlined in yellow is both the subdivisions for Hammock Point and Hammock Reserve.

All right. Thank you. And now, counsel, we can we can discuss these for public comment as well as commission discussion, but they would be voted on separately, correct?

Yes. Okay.

All right. At this time, I will open it up to the yes, I am.

oh i'm sorry you just you just did one okay yeah go ahead keep going keep going okay so on to the future land use um the property is currently designated with the urban low density feature land use category under lake county the category allowed up to four dwelling units per one acre with the subdivisions being developed at 2.2 dwelling units per net acre Under the city's requirements, the compatible feature land use category would be low density residential, which allows for three dwelling units per one acre. The adjacent property to the east within the city is also designated as low density residential. So up on your screen, it has the parcels again outlined in red this time and shows the low density right next to it abutting. And then next photo just shows what that would look like under the amendment to the map. Both subdivisions are currently zoned R3 medium residential under Lake County, which requires a minimum lot size of three dwelling units per one acre based on gross acreage requirements. Existing lot sizes within the development vary, with the smallest lots measuring at 85 by 140, or approximately 11,900 square feet. To ensure compliance with the land development code and maintain property rights, staff is recommending rezoning the entire property to the city's R1 single family medium density residential district. The proposed change in the city's low density residential feature land use is consistent with the comprehensive plan and aligns with the existing uses and land uses within the area. The proposed R1 zoning district presents no conflicts and is compatible with the adjoining properties as required by the comprehensive plan. If you again look at your screen, the rezoning Lake County zoning is showed on the north. were on the top photo sorry showing that are 3 zoning district and then the bottom photo shows the are one zoning. Within the city. Staff recommends approval of ordinance number 2026 dash 21 and ordinance number 2026 dash 0.22 this concludes that presentation.

Thank you very much.

This time I will open it up to the public for public comment. If you would please come over to the lectern and if additional speakers would like to come up, you can line up behind her.

Thank you all for letting us have this discussion. Could you please state your name and address? Karen Catron. I'm at Hammock Point at 12436 Hammock Point Circle. And I'm a little confused by the designations because the staff person just spoke to the fact that it would be low density. But R1, in Claremont when I read it online says it's medium density and some of this other paperwork says medium density and when I look at it I see that medium density can be 8 to 12 units per acre and that's quite a contrast from low density which is three units per acre and current lake community or lake county where it's currently zoned at three to four units per density. So I'm reading here urban low density, but then I look at the actual motion and it's saying medium density, which can be up to eight to 12 units per acre. And that's a big conflict. So I'd like to better understand what it is are you just trying to move us from what lake county had into an equivalent claremont city zone which would be an r1-a or are you really wanting to zone to say that you're now zoning this 8 to 12 units so that you can do some further urban build in the vacant lots adjacent like we're Sunday was supposed to go. And that really concerns me.

Okay. Um, is that you're done with your question? Okay. Okay. Um, I'll let you finish and then I'll, I'll let, I'll give staff the opportunity to, to respond.

I have, um, just a few other. I guess I wanna know if you know what the purpose, if it is your intent to go medium density with eight to 12 units per acre and urban, what is your intent with those lots where Sandeo was supposed to go in other places and is this opening you up to be allowed to change your mind later and build other things And I'd also just like to say I was quite disappointed that I couldn't get any of this information about this zoning online from Claremont, even though we were annexed as of last October, we're still not part of Claremont on any map online. So that's just a side thing. Personally, I'm extremely concerned about noise. Less so traffic, but yes, noise if you were to put an urban development in that lot adjacent to Hammock Point.

Thank you.

Well, thank you. The city is the applicant, so I think probably what would be easier to respond to this woman's questions now, if you could do that.

Thank you.

so with the future land use being low density residential we are just going by what's currently out there and coming into compliance with the code we are not redeveloping the property to be more um So that would be because the zoning districts also have the minimum lot size requirements and some of the lot sizes do not meet the requirements for that R1A. R1A requires 100 feet for that frontage. Some of those lots are at 85 instead of that 100 foot requirement. So that would make them non-compliant with our codes.

They were built and known according to Lake County. The R1A would make the residents feel much better about adjacent properties and future builds.

There's supposed to be a chance for public comment, and then, honestly, it's not even really supposed to be a question and answer. It's nice that you're willing to do it.

So why don't we finish the questions?

You've given your answer. So why don't we finish with public comment, and then we'll have the city staff answer, and then the commission will have questions as well. Sir?

Thank you. My name is Richard Benedetto. I live at 12428 Hammock Point Circle. I've been there since the home was built, since the property was built. I am part of that growth. My family is part of that growth. When we first came here, the locals hated us because we were invading. And now I understand it because my concern is not necessarily the neighborhood that's going in, although it's rental properties, and if it goes up to like 8 or 12, that's alarming. But my concern is the unfettered growth in Claremont. I believe the traffic... or have the traffic surveys been done the environment environmental impacts schools impacts utilities storm water all of that for this new subdivision i know it was done for ours but i i sit there our it's a four-lane road so i don't think traffic would be that big of an issue but traffic is a humongous issue in front of imagine south lake Huge issue. And on State Road 50, I'm not blaming you all. It's just, and I thank you all for doing what you do. I work for the government, too. But, yeah, that traffic is horrific. And it was noted in your last minutes about the burnout, something like that, about how State Road 50 has just become an utter nightmare. And I've witnessed it because I go through it a lot. So that was my concern, have the studies been done? Are we aware of the impact to schools? Do we have enough emergency services available? And is the traffic, how is this going to impact? And is there going to be more development outside of Ivy Ridge in that area? So that was it. I think this is perfunctionary going from the county to the city. My address hasn't changed yet, you know, because of the numbers. And I wasn't aware that we were involved in the city now. But that's it. That's all my comment. It's my concern about traffic, services, and all of that stuff.

All right. Thank you, sir. And just to be clear, none of us up here work for the government. We're all volunteers who come out in the community. Any other questions? Comment anyone in the public want to make comment? All right.

I will turn it back to the city if you'd like to To say anything else I would just like to make a note that Ivy Ridge is already approved gone through the rezoning process They this has nothing to do with ivory Ridge. It's just hammock point and reserve Designating the zoning of the future land use with the most compatible within the city.

I

Great, all right, thank you very much. Okay, we will bring it to the commission. So we will start with you, Commissioner May.

Yes, thank you. I looked at both items two and three. I understand the public comment that was stated. I just want to reiterate that it is not considered medium density. I think there's some confusion there. It is all one single family, medium density residential use, which is compatible to what the Lake County. So Lake County right now is R1, which I believe is four units to one. We're pushing it out to city of Claremont, I believe, low density, correct? Three units to the acre. And it's R1, single family, medium density. I think that's where the confusion is, where it's single family, medium density versus R3. So I think that's where the confusion is. That's where I'm thinking where it is, but with that, I'm okay with approving both items. Thank you.

All right, thank you commissioner was into.

Thank you Mister chair. I am also OK with us moving forward with the approval of these. I would just like before we end that we try to address the public's comments to where they walk out of here at least having some understanding of where we're going in the direction.

And how would you like to do that.

If she had any additional questions for staff, if that's permissible.

Yeah, I believe staff will be will be available and they're always available. So but perhaps answering any questions. So thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Kramer. Thank you, Chairman Colby.

So I'm just going to try to help you out, just because I, you know, try to help staff to me this amendment appears to be a logical step next step in completing the annexation that was previously approved by City Council and it aligns with the city's planning documents with the reality of what already exists on the ground so you've got me on that one importantly this request does not increase density This subdivision is already developed at approximately 2.2 acre, 2.2 dwellings units per acre, which remains below the city's low density residential threshold, so good. I think residents should understand that this amendment is not going to change the character of their neighborhood, the home sizes, lot sizes, or development, and the development pattern remains exactly as they are today. The surrounding area is already predominantly residential, and proposed designation is consistent with nearby city land use classification. So to me, I think having annexed property continue under the county future land use categories indefinitely can create confusion. This amendment provides consistency and clarity within the city's comprehensive plan. I'm glad to see that we're just continuing through and moving from, it's a difference which you're not gonna feel the difference, but moving from Lake County into the city, you're already enjoying the support of the fire, the police, the rescue, all the emergency services are already there. And for me, the benefit of joining the city is having a voice, because right now you're outside the city commenting, But as a resident, you're a voter. And there's a huge difference between a Lake County resident coming to the city of Claremont and making a comment and a resident who is a voter when they talk to. Because understand, we're just going to make a recommendation today whether we're for it or against it. But it goes to city council. And that's where your voice really will matter, especially if you're a voter. And this is an election year, so just always remember that. So being part of the city does give you some distinct advantages. I think this is a good move, and I think staff's gonna do a good job with this, so thank you.

I would just point out that every year is an election year in the city of Claremont.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Nemec.

Okay, real quick, I want to just piggyback off of Commissioner Cramer. For those, the gentleman that was out there and the young lady that was there. All right, all right. Jesus, I had my phone on, bad boy, spanked me. Okay, okay, so anyway, the difference between being in the city like Commissioner Cramer said, You have a lot more power. Trust me. Take it from one that goes to the county at least once or twice a month. You're falling on deaf ears, okay? Also, I want to bring up that their zoning laws, I bite my lip every time we have to annex something, all right? Because a young lady said, oh, well, we have to go to all these other homes. No, that's not the way City of Klamath does it. That might be the way the county does it. That's not the way we do it here. I'm against over development, you know that. And that's basically it. I read it, I think I agree with it. It's straightforward. I'd rather have it in our hands controlling it than the county, because you have no say with the county. You think you do, but you don't. So I agree with my fellow commissioners and that's all I want to say. I don't want to take up too much of the mic.

Thank you. Commissioner Todono.

Thank you, Chair. I definitely want to thank my commissioners for some clarity. As someone who lives in Fox Chase, HOA, and has seen the traffic, that's probably the only point I would disagree with you, sir, seeing the traffic Magnify on what I call panic Ridge Road It's nice to know that and I'm gonna put it in my own words that Ivy Ridge which I think was approved that a hundred and five homes is not going to get any larger because of this correct and the free space in your area is is not gonna be developed at eight residents or 12 residences per acre, correct? None of that is gonna happen.

That is correct. That's all okay.

So knowing that it sounds like again welcome to the city as opposed to being on the outer edge. And as I said as somebody who is your neighbor down the block believe me the last thing I want to see is more traffic on Pantage Ridge Road and I've been up here advocating for that stuff as well I think it's absolutely ridiculous. So I do thank all my commissioners for their clarity on that. It was a main concern of mine reading through this. Um, but I think it is going to work out. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right.

Thank you so much. And, um, you know, I always feel bad for, for, um, residents who, you know, can't really get what they're looking for. Um, sorry, you couldn't find your information online, but, but I have to say that our staff is extremely responsive. You can, go to their office anytime. They're always very accessible, and hopefully you can get your questions answered. I do want to apologize to my fellow commissioners for breaking protocol a little bit. I was trying to be neighborly and get the women's questions answered and did not... um try to have that much breakdown in our regular protocol um but with that i do want to bring it back to um to the commission see if there's any further discussion and see if anybody would like to make a motion

Yes, I'd like to make a motion on item number 2, ordinance 2026021 for approval. Do we have a second?

Oh, so you're making it on the first? The first one. The first one. Separate.

Correct. Correct. OK. I'll second the motion.

We have a motion on item number 2. We have a second by Commissioner Kramer. Did you have something to? Discussion.

OK.

I just saw. Jenny. Oh, I was just thinking. Oh, you were. Sorry.

OK.

That's when the light bulb came on.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. And the chair votes aye. That is unanimous. Do we have a motion for item number three?

I'll send a motion for item number three, ordinance 2026-022. All right. Rezoning Hammond Ridge Point Reserve for approval.

We have a motion. Do we?

I'll second.

All right. Did I hear you, Commissioner May, as a second? Yes, sir. Okay. That was a second by Commissioner May. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. That is also unanimous. All right. So that is item number three. Thank you folks for coming to talk about that. We also have on our agenda discussion of non-agenda items. Item number four.

This is really on me. And this is what I was thinking about, so I apologize. Some time ago, you'll recall, we had the joint workshop with the city council, and we were talking about checklists. We were talking about what you wanted to see as part of the CUP process, things like that. And so upon your direction and the city council's direction, I started thinking about it, started working on it. But then I really started agonizing about some of the things that I was working on and some of the changes that I and I wanted to present some of the things I was encountering to you because if I have to agonize about the drafting that means I really don't have proper direction and I don't want to substitute my direction or preferences for yours so what I'd like to do is have a discussion about section 101-212 in our city code that talks about the criteria for how you assess conditional use permits. Now I do this with the caveat that of course we're right in the middle of a major review process. We have great consultants. They're working on the zoning code. They're working on the comp plan. So this might end up being tossed out anyways within the next six months whatever we do here but if you'll indulge me a little bit i want to walk through some of the thoughts i had on this section but also some of my concerns and that are relevant for i think how you consider cups even today um and without further ado i'll jump in so What you have in front of you and is part of the agenda packet is kind of where I got in this process. Now, when we amend an ordinance, we have to strike through the stuff we're taking out. We bold and underline the stuff that we're adding in. And I wasn't really... looking at changing anything in subsection A or B. Those are rote procedural things and it's really not what any of us talked about. What we did talk about is subsections C and D. So in subsection C when I started looking at it, I said, I don't know why I would have language and saying that the granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the comp plan. Because I don't know what that means. What I do know is if something violates it. So what I wanted to do was change something subjective that is capable of debate. Your definition of what adversely affects might be different from someone else's definition. But if it violates the comp plan, that's objective. So to me, that was easy. Then you look at number two. really there's no change there three it says the proposed use will comply the old version is comply with the regulations and conditions specified in the codes for such use well that's your land development code and again i'd rather it just simplify it the proposed use will not violate the land development code that includes the lighting that in in It includes everything in your land development. I think that's more objective. It includes more than just the codes for such use. To me, it's very clear. I was thinking, I felt like the direction I had was to eliminate the proposed use may be considered desirable because it was so subjective. I thought that was something we did discuss at the joint workshop. the issue with that if we eliminate four is that your next subsection D talking about specific development standards really refers in part to that I don't like how this thing is organized because it gives you these three to think about in subsection C. The grant will not violate the comp plan, will not violate the land development code, but also will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare. And to me, that's your catch-all. It's that one right there, the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare. That's when you get to consider pretty much anything. So I like keeping that and eliminating desirable at the particular location because that's subsumed with your analysis about the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. That's the way I look at it. If you disagree, I'd like to know. But when we get even further, this is when I really start getting into some issues. So subsection one, density or intensity character and type of development. The density or intensity shall be in conformance with the city's comp plan, future land use, future land use. The reason why I struck through it, because I think we'll all agree density is important, you do want to consider density, is it has to comply with the code anyways. Like to me it's a completely redundant thing. So we already say that it has to satisfy the land development code. That's all this does, is it really just says, well, it has to be consistent with your land development code and comp plan. Well, guess what? We already have that in the previous section. So that's my thinking there. I don't want you all to think I've completely lost my mind. In subsection two there, compatibility development, which I guess would become one, I eliminated undue noise and odor because those are nuisances. So if I'm keeping nuisances in there, I don't need to have these additional words. In subsection three, transportation, I listened to what y'all talked about, emphasis on multimodal, talk about trails, talk about the future of the city's direction. We want to talk about how developments satisfy these things. So that's why I integrated those words. My real problems start arising in subsection four. And here's why. Site planning. The development shall be planned and designed to consider A through H. Now, we've had some back and forth over the last year and a half since I've been here. about the degree to which you should be able to consider site plans. And normally what I do is I'll interject and I'll say, well actually, site plan is a part of the criteria for the CUP. You're allowed to consider that. But look at that specific language. It doesn't actually give, in my view, the PNZ board or the city council for that matter, discretion to consider those things. What it says is the development shall be planned and designed to consider effectiveness of plotting, orientation, avoidance of sensitive areas, If that, what that says to me as a lawyer, okay, is if the site plan has a layout or orientation or visual, it doesn't, it just says it has to show these things. It doesn't say. Exactly, there's no discretion involved with that. And so once I started looking at this, I was like, I think we really have a problem with this code. And I want y'all to think about it and talk to me about it, consider it, because it would be an easy fix to say, you know, the board or it shall be these, I could eliminate those words the development shall be planned and designed to consider and instead say the following elements shall be considered by the board or and that would be an easy fix but we still have look at the wording of this orientation of units what the heck does that mean? I mean that could literally mean you don't like I mean, and maybe it's valid, but I mean, you don't like the way it is facing the sun or not facing the sun. And the more I start getting into this, the more I'm like, I think we really need to think about these a little bit more. If we're going to take the time to amend this thing, and I'm not trying to slow you all down, I just... I don't think we're there on have we spent enough time thinking about it. It might be that we need a workshop. But alternatively, we could talk about it today. So this is just something I'm thinking about. And I don't know if I'm making full sense. I hope I'm making sense. But that's my thought process here. And I wanted to talk to you about it. That's it.

Discussion? I mean, yeah.

Look I'm going to be Frank all right. This ain't going to be done overnight, you know that I know that and so does all the commissioners appear even hopefully commissioner to don't know. We could talk about it. But this item I would like to suggest this is part one or have a workshop on it because with 7 brains appear the last time we got a lot accomplished when the council was with us. So that's a whole dozen brains thinking of something I didn't see, Paula, David, and so on. Okay, so that's my opinion. I'm not prepared to even dig into it, but I hope that the rest of you guys are.

And now you know where I'm coming from.

No, I'm in agreeance with you 100%, counsel. Welcome to my world, finally.

Yeah.

Really, everybody thought I was going crazy, but really, it's wide open, and that's why they're saying, you can't say that. Sure I can.

I think it's some great points, and we don't have a full complement. Commissioner is not here tonight either, but I think it would be good for a focused discussion and have all of us, you know, think about it a little bit more. Either, you know, maybe we could start with a discussion at the end of the next meeting, and then, you know, if there's a workshop. I like that a lot. But, you know, take the next month. We have...

Or if you individually have thoughts in the meantime, talk to me. Email, whatever it is. If you don't feel comfortable creating the public record, just call me. But what I'm trying to get is so that y'all know where I'm coming from and can start thinking about this so we can have that discussion.

I like that idea a lot.

Well, thank you for answering.

Thank you. I appreciate I appreciate you starting this. I appreciate you actually putting in under transportation, I think, including sidewalks, trails, multiple paths and all that good stuff. I think that is great. That's a great start. But I agree with everyone. I mean, I was like, wow. There's a lot here to look at so. Mister attorney I appreciate you bringing this up and then providing your comments on this so thank you very much for this and I look forward to working on it.

OK is everybody else good with discussing a commissioner was in 10 commissioner to don't any any comment I do so thank you.

I like some of I like some of the wording I like the strikeouts. When it came down, and maybe I'm taking this to the nth power. It's not the time to do it, but I got the microphone. Compatibility of development. The first thing that reared in my head was this has got to be worthy of a fight against SB 399. Because 399 basically says we cannot deny anything based on how it impacts a property. So you're going to wind up, and I respect you incredibly, you're going to wind up with a fight on your hands. When it comes down to transportation, I love it. I love what you made, but John taking it to the nth power with section six on site planning, does that give us the ability to also say, that an HOA or a development needs to be wider so that for public safety, if I park on the street and you park on the street, we can get a bus down to grandma's house who's having the heart attack. So again, you got a huge fight on your hands and I'm happy to give you, I'm not gonna be here next month, but I'm happy to email you some thoughts and you could share it with them. You have my permission if that's what you need. But if this gives us the ability to at least respond to how we think a development should go together. I'm all for it. With the caveat, and I'm saying you because you're the guy, you got to be ready to fight 180, 840, and 399 with the potential of this document.

And that's a bigger problem. That is a huge problem. All this comp plan stuff we're doing. I mean, is it all for naught because of SB 180? Correct. You pointed something out that I wanted before I forget. Look at the language in Section 3 versus your site planning. In Section 3, it says... Whatever we end up, the city transportation system must be of sufficient size. That's a standard. That's something. Because then you come at a hearing and you review something and say, well, you know what? I don't think it is wide enough to handle the emergency vehicles or the bus or whatever. So, yes, I think that encompasses that, but I don't get that in Section 6. It just says it shall be planned and designed to consider. We've got to change that. Because you've got to provide some kind of standard to judge these things by.

Well, I think because of overdevelopment, it's just my opinion, we're beyond, to your point, considering. Somewhere along the line, we're going to have to put a foot down to say, you just can't keep building the way you're building. And again, I raised this up at the workshop, that anything DPZ is doing, which is awesome stuff, But the bottom line is, if it doesn't hold up in court, and I'm sorry for the redundancy, against 840-183-99, we should get our money back. Because then it's all for naught. So, yeah, if this gives us the ability, maybe not to be a nudge to say your house should be facing northwest at 68 degrees on an angle, but if all of a sudden I would rather see a sidewalk throughout an HOA, so, you know, my mom can take a walk as opposed to having to cross the street onto grass off the grass and so on and so forth then yes and those will be in my notes i'm sorry for being verbose but kudos to you city attorney thank you

Commissioner Hoisington, do you have anything you want to? Okay. Commissioner Kramer. Okay. All right. Well, that sounds good. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We appreciate that very much. I just had one other non-agenda item I wanted to bring up that I did receive. FROM THE FLORIDA STATE COMMISSION ON ETHICS OF FORM 1 COMPLIANCE. HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY GOT THAT, BUT I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO BRING THAT UP. IT CAME THROUGH. THE STATES MADE IT A LOT EASIER THAN IT USED TO BE. YOU CAN JUST GO ONLINE AND DO IT ELECTRONICALLY. I USED TO HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS AND GET A DATE STAMPED AND THE WHOLE THING. But I just wanted to mention it because that notice recently went out, and noncompliance is a fine of $25 a day, and that's a lot more than we make for sitting up here. So I just wanted to bring that up and make sure everybody was aware of that. That's July 1st. July 1st. It says on or before July 1st. And, yeah, it looks like the fine, yeah, looks like fines kick in on September 1, but it does say that.

There is a grace period until September, but let's not even think about that. It's July 1.

Yeah, yeah. So it's very, very easy to fill out now that it's electronic. I just wanted to bring that up. And I have to say, city staff is always great. If ever anyone forgets, they do notify. But since it was in my email, I just wanted to mention that. Does anybody else have anything? All right. So nothing else on the agenda? Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Motion to adjourn.

And I'll second. All right. We are adjourned.

Thank you. Yes, I'm back up to this. So we were basically changing from how to make it. It's like, no, there's no way out. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you.