5.a Motion to Reconsider TR14095 - Approving a Restrictive Covenant for the property commonly known as the Colony West Championship and Glades Golf Courses. TR14095 -A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, approving a Restrictive Covenant for the property commonly known as the Colony West Championship and Glades Golf Courses located in the City of Tamarac and restricting the use of the property in perpetuity as recreational, golf course use, open space, and cultural facility, attached hereto as exhibit "a"; providing the City Manager and the City Attorney to do all things necessary to effectuate this resolution ; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.

[5.a Motion to Reconsider TR14095 - Approving a Restrictive Covenant for the property commonly known as the Colony West Championship and Glades Golf Courses. TR14095 -A Resolution of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida, approving a Restrictive Covenant for the property commonly known as the Colony West Championship and Glades Golf Courses located in the City of Tamarac and restricting the use of the property in perpetuity as recreational, golf course use, open space, and cultural facility, attached hereto as exhibit "a"; providing the City Manager and the City Attorney to do all things necessary to effectuate this resolution ; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

TR 14095 CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

[00:35:03]

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

ITEM FIVE A IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER TEMPORARY RESOLUTION 14095 APPROVING A RESTRICTED COVENANT FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS CONNIE WEST CHAMPIONSHIP AND GLADES GOLF COURSE.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

THANK YOU. I NEED A MOTION A SECOND.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I BELIEVE THE SECOND ONE IS BY VICE MAYOR WRIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. AND NOW PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I HAVE MANUELA.

TAHIR KELLER.

YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS MESS UP YOUR LAST NAME.

I'M SO SORRY.

MY MOTHER. MY NAME IS MANUELA, AND I'M A RESIDENT OF PELHAM BAY.

DISTRICT TWO.

TAMARAC, WILL YOU PLEASE PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME THE WAY I CAN'T.

OKAY. IT'S TARAJA KELLER.

SPANISH. YOU HAVE TO.

YOU HAVE TO ROLL MY R'S.

I KNOW I SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

ANYWAY I'M SPEAKING ACTUALLY ON BEHALF ALSO OF PEOPLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHO CANNOT COME TODAY BECAUSE OF THE SCHEDULE.

THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE THIS MEETING IN THE EVENING.

SO IF WE HAVE THAT TIME, THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE HERE.

BUT ANYWAY OUR NEIGHBORS NEIGHBORS WERE RILED UP BECAUSE THEY HEARD ABOUT OPTION TWO CONCEPT.

AND WHEN I TALK WITH THEM, YOU KNOW, I DEFINITELY WAS MAD TOO.

BUT THEN I REALIZED IT'S A CONCEPT.

SO I WENT BACK TO THE MEETING AGENDA AND PREVIOUSLY AND I LOOKED AT THE RESTRICTED, RESTRICTED COVENANT AND I WAS FURIOUS.

AND I SENT THE COMMISSION AN EMAIL ABOUT IT.

ACTUALLY, FIRST OF ALL, THE RESTRICTED COVENANT IS VERY AMBIGUOUS.

THE WORDING IS REALLY BAD.

IT DOESN'T REFLECT AT ALL WHAT THE COMMISSION PROMISED LAST YEAR ABOUT HOW TO CHANGE, I MEAN, HOW TO KEEP THE GOLF COURSE, THE GOLF COURSE, AND NO HOUSING UNITS.

BUT NONE OF THIS IS ACTUALLY SPECIFIED IN THE RESTRICTED COVENANT.

IT'S SO ANNOYING.

THAT'S THAT'S BECAUSE WHAT THE SCULPTURAL ACTIVITIES MEAN, YOU KNOW, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES COULD MEAN ANYTHING, WHICH IS NOT WHAT THE HOPE THE RESIDENTS WANTED.

SO BY THINKING ABOUT IT, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.

IT WILL DEFINE THE IMPROVEMENT, FUTURE IMPROVEMENT OR DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA.

SO A VERY HAPHAZARD DISCUSSION OF THE RESTRICTED COVENANT IS, FOR ME, NOT SO GOOD.

YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND REWARD THE RESTRICTED COVENANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS PROPERLY WORDED.

NO AMBIGUITY, AND DEFINITELY NO HOUSING UNITS IN THAT AREA IN THE FUTURE.

SO THAT'S WHAT MY REQUEST FOR THE COMMISSION IS TO THINK AND ANALYZE WHAT THE RESTRICTED COVENANT SHOULD HAVE TO BE FAVORABLE TO THE CITY AND ALSO TO THE RESIDENTS.

AND THAT'S MY REQUEST.

SO PROBABLY NEXT TIME WHEN YOU TALK AGAIN, THERE WILL BE LESS BICKERING WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THIS AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

SORRY. WE DO HAVE TO TRY TO KEEP IT TO THREE MINUTES.

I'M SORRY, BUT CONSIDERING WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF A.

SO WE HAVE OH, DONNA FISCHER IS NOT HERE.

BUT I KNOW SHE WANTED TO SPEAK.

SHE'S NOT HERE YET.

NO, SHE WON'T BE HERE.

SHE WON'T BE ABLE TO MAKE IT.

OKAY. FRED.

NO. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WHO HASN'T SPOKEN ON THIS ITEM, WHO WISHES TO AND DIDN'T SIGN UP? SEEING I SEE.

I SEE THE FINGERS, BUT I'M NOT SEEING HIM RISE.

SO. SEEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO OUR COMMISSION DISCUSSION.

AND THE COMMISSION DISCUSSION FOR THIS IS SOLELY, SOLELY WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE TABLE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN TABLED TO BE PUT IN A WORKSHOP FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM.

[00:40:02]

AND THAT'S ALL THAT THAT IS.

IF IT IS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE, IT WILL THEN COME AROUND FOR DISCUSSION HERE VERSUS AT THE WORKSHOP.

WE'RE ALL UNDERSTANDING.

OKAY, MAYOR, JUST WANT TO MAKE THE IS TO REMOVE IT FOR THE TABLE AND ALSO VOTE ON THE ITEM THAT WAS REMOVED.

IT'S TWO SEPARATE ITEMS. WE REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE, AND IF WE REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE, IT'S THEN AND IT'S REMOVED FROM BEING ON A WORKSHOP.

THEN IT IS DISCUSSED HERE ON THE NEXT ITEM.

BUT THE FIRST ONE.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

NO NO NO, IT'S BEING RIGHT NOW.

IT'S CURRENTLY TABLED TO DISCUSS AT A WORKSHOP TO AT A FUTURE DATE.

AND SO THE FIRST ITEM IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS GOING TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE AND DISCUSSED HERE.

IF IT PASSES THAT IT IS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE, AND IT WILL THEN BE DISCUSSED ON THE NEXT ITEM.

CORRECT. I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION.

OKAY. WE'RE FINE.

YEP. NOW THAT WE'RE ALL FINE.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS ON WHAT WE'RE DOING.

I'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON, A SECOND BY VICE MAYOR WRIGHT.

DO I HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? WHILE SEEING NOBODY ELSE IS GOING COMMISSIONER, RIGHT? DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING? NO, NO, YOU CAN SPEAK.

YOU SAID WE'RE NOW REMOVING IT FROM TABLE.

WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON REMOVING IT.

YES, IT'S A DISCUSSION WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TO REMOVE IT.

OKAY, OKAY. PERSONALLY, HAVING MET WITH THE COMMUNITY AND TALKED TO THE COMMUNITY, I DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS WISE FOR US TO REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE.

I BELIEVE THIS HAS MANY PARTS AND IN THE FORMAT ON THE COMMISSION, WHERE WE HAVE OUR FIVE MINUTES AND OUR TWO MINUTES TO DO A NEGOTIATION AND DISCUSSION, IT IS NOT A FREE FLOW OF EXCHANGE OF IDEAS TO BE ABLE TO HEAR WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SAID OR COMMUNITIES PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITIES HAVE SAID.

I DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS WISE TO REMOVE IT FROM A WORKSHOP SUCH DISCUSSION.

I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE WITH THE PATH THAT WE HAD IT ON, WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY TALK AND CONTEMPLATE AND WORK THIS OUT VERSUS IT FEELING LIKE IT WILL JUST BE SOMEBODY WILL BE PUTTING THINGS OUT THERE, PEPPERING THINGS, AND THEN ON THE FLY VOTING ON SOMETHING THAT IS TOO IMPORTANT.

THESE ARE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

THIS IS NOT JUST SAYING WHETHER WE'RE KEEPING A BUSINESS OPEN FROM NINE TO NOON OR NINE TO DUSK, IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT ITEM.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD STICK TO OUR PLAN OF HAVING AN INTELLIGENT, FULL FLEDGED CONVERSATION IN THE SUNSHINE AT A WORKSHOP.

THAT IS MY OPINION, COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

THANK YOU. MAYOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO GO FORTH WITH IT SIMPLY BECAUSE AFTER SPEAKING TO THE RESIDENTS AFTER THE LAST MEETING, THEY WANTED THIS IN PLACE SO THEY COULD HAVE SOME SORT OF SECURITY REGARDING THE LAND.

SO THAT'S MY REASON FOR SAYING, OKAY, WELL, LET'S GIVE THEM SOMETHING IN THE MEANTIME.

AND COMMISSIONER.

DANIEL, I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

I KNOW THAT MY MEETING WAS WITH THE COMMUNITY JUST MONDAY NIGHT, AND THE COMMUNITY HAS EXPRESSED, EVEN IN WRITING TO US, FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMUNITY, THAT THEY WISH, THAT WE KEEP IT AS A WORKSHOP.

SO WE'RE ALL TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND SO THEN I ASK YOU THIS IF WE'RE REALLY ALL TRYING TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY, TO GIVE THEM THAT CONFIDENCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO WRITE SOMETHING THAT TAKES CARE OF EVERYTHING, THEN WHY WOULD WE NOT KEEP IT AT A WORKSHOP WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY FULL FLEDGE, PLAN IT OUT, VERSUS POSSIBLY PUTTING SOMETHING IN A RESOLUTION THAT GOES INTO EFFECT RIGHT AWAY THAT DOESN'T THAT MIGHT BRING US BACK HERE AGAIN BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS.

SO BASED ON WHAT WE SAID THE LAST MEETING, I THINK THIS ADDRESSED THAT THERE THERE'S NO HOUSING IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT I READ THAT HOUSING IS ALLOWED. SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.

OKAY. BASED ON WHAT WE PROMISED THE LAST TIME AND BASED ON KEEPING THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE AT LEAST KNOWING THAT WE DID LISTEN AND PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER THAT WILL STOP ANYTHING BEING BUILT ON THAT LAND OTHER THAN GOLF RELATED ACTIVITIES.

OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

VICE MAYOR WRIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

CITY MANAGER, THE ITEM FOR THAT WE HAVE FOR THE DISCUSSION ABOUT OPTIONS ONE AND TWO, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO BRING THAT BACK UNDER FOR THE NEXT MEETING FOR, FOR FOR A DISCUSSION? I'M GOING TO INTERRUPT ON THIS ONE THAT'S NOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MOTION FOR TABLING THE ITEM.

IF YOU CAN PUT A CONNECTION TO WHY THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE IT'S I'M TRYING TO KEEP IT BIFURCATED.

OKAY. ON WHETHER OR NOT WE REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE.

I UNDERSTAND YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT.

CONCEPTS, BUT I'M TRYING TO BITE.

WELL, YOU'RE ALSO VACILLATING DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS AND THEY DON'T WANT THIS.

[00:45:04]

THEY DON'T WANT US TO REMOVE FROM THE TABLE.

THAT'S WHY I MADE THE COMMENT.

AND I GET THAT.

BUT BUT YOU'RE INTEGRATING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AS WELL IN TERMS OF MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS AND SAYING WHAT THEY DON'T WANT.

IF MY RECOLLECTION SERVES ME CORRECTLY, YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO LIKE DOCTOR DANIELS MENTIONED THAT THIS IS SOME SORT OF PROTECTION.

I'M THE ONE THAT ASKED THE CITY ATTORNEY, HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS A LITTLE STRICTER AFTER WE VOTED BACK IN JULY 12TH THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROCEED WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT? AND I SAID, WHAT CAN WE DO? AND HE OFFERED THIS AS A AS AN OPTION SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.

IF THE MOTION TO TABLE PART WE GO INTO, IF IT DOESN'T, IT GETS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND THE OPTIONS.

BUT WHAT I HEARD YOU ASK, WHAT I HEARD YOU ASK WAS THAT WHEN CAN WE BRING THAT ITEM BACK TO AN AGENDA? THAT'S A CALENDARING ITEM, WHICH IS WHY I AM ASKING YOU TO SEPARATE THAT OUT, BECAUSE TO ASK FOR A CALENDAR ITEM IN THE MIDDLE OF WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT HAS BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED FOR THIS MEETING.

WELL, I THINK THE RESIDENTS HAVE A LOT OF CONFUSION.

AND WHAT'S HAPPENING, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ITEM AND THEY'RE TYING IT TO THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

SO I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY, HEY, LET US SEPARATE THIS AND LET US MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT CONFUSION.

I THINK IT BRINGS UP MORE CONFUSION, BUT GO AHEAD.

IT'S THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON FOR WHY THESE THINGS SHOULD BE IN A WORKSHOP SETTING VERSUS IN THE MIDDLE OF A COMMISSION MEETING WHEN WE DON'T.

WELL, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S, LET'S LET'S KNOW LET'S VOTE.

LET'S VOTE ON LET'S VOTE AND LET'S MOVE ON.

LET'S VOTE. SO IF I HEAR YOUR COMMENTS, YOUR COMMENTS, YOU WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE TABLE.

PROCEED TO THE VOTE. WE CAN PROCEED TO THE VOTE.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THAT ON THE NEXT.

IF THE VOTE PASSES OBVIOUSLY WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

OKAY. YES. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO SAY? NO. NO MAIER.

I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT IF WE IF WE REMOVE THE ITEM FROM THE TABLE, THEN THE ITEM IS OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

YOU KNOW, IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A WORKSHOP SETTING TO DISCUSS THE THE, THE CONCEPTS AND THE ALTERNATIVES AND OTHER RESTRICTIVE COVENANT LANGUAGE TO BE INCLUDED, THEN A WORKSHOP IS PROBABLY A BETTER SETTING, AND THAT MEANS WE SHOULD LEAVE THE ITEM ON THE TABLE SO WE CAN BRING IT UP FOR, FOR FOR A WORKSHOP CONVERSATION. BUT IT'S YOUR CALL.

ALL RIGHTY. SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS ON THE ITEM, WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE QUESTION.

AND IF YOU VOTE YES FOR THIS, IT MEANS TO REMOVE THE ITEM FROM THE TABLE.

AND THEN HERE THE ITEM IN THE NEXT MOMENT.

SINCLAIR. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

YES, MAYOR.

GOMEZ. NO. COMMISSIONER.

VILLALOBOS. NO.

COMMISSIONER. BOLTON.

YES. VICE MAYOR WRIGHT.

YES. MOTION TO RECONSIDER.

PASSES 3 TO 2.

OKAY. THE MOTION IS NOW GOING TO BE HEARD.

AND THAT IS TR 14095 CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

IT'S AN ITEM.

58014095 IS A RESOLUTION OF CITY COMMISSION, CITY TAMARAC APPROVING A RESTRICTED COVENANT FOR THE PROPERTY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE COUNTY WEST CHAMPIONSHIP AND GLADES GOLF COURSES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF TAMARAC AND RESTRICTING THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN PERPETUITY AS A RECREATIONAL GOLF COURSE, OPEN SPACE AND CULTURE FACILITY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE, EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU.

I NEED A MOTION A SECOND, PLEASE.

SO MOVED. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

AND WE HAVE OUR CITY MANAGER AVAILABLE AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, I OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENTS YET AGAIN.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM AGAIN.

IT'S A SEPARATE ITEM. I SEE YOU READY, BUT I DON'T SEE YOU.

DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK? NO PRESSURE.

THAT'S OKAY. MY COMMENT IS.

MANUELA TEIXEIRA KELLER.

YEAH, I REALLY AM DISAPPOINTED WITH THE VOTE ON THE CONTINUANCE OF THIS THING, BECAUSE I REALLY THINK THAT YOU SHOULD INCLUDE THE RESIDENTS, GET EVERYBODY, NOT JUST ONE PART, NOT ONLY THE DISTRICT TWO RESIDENT, NOT ONLY THE DISTRICT ONE RESIDENT OR DISTRICT FOUR RESIDENTS. WE SHOULD HAVE AN INPUT TO THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT RESTRICTED COVENANT.

AND I WOULD RATHER HAVE YOU GUYS THOROUGHLY THINK ABOUT IT.

OTHERWISE, I WOULD THINK THAT THE COMMISSION IS SUCH A HAPHAZARD COMMISSION WHO JUST VOTE AND KNOW ON SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT CLEARLY

[00:50:01]

SPECIFIED. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED.

DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION.

VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

CITY ATTORNEY, CAN YOU DEFINE CULTURAL FACILITIES IN TERMS OF THE LANGUAGE OF SOME OF THE CONCERNS THE RESIDENTS HAD? IS THAT THE LANGUAGE IS VERY BROAD.

CULTURAL FACILITIES.

MULTI-PURPOSE. RECREATIONAL.

CAN YOU GIVE DEFINITION FOR THOSE? VICE MAYOR. IN FACT THIS COVENANT WHEN YOU HAD ASKED STAFF TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION BASED ON CONCERNS OF RESIDENTS IN THE DISTRICT RELATING TO GOLF COURSE.

WE STAFF, CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY STAFF WORK ENSURING THAT THIS COVENANT WOULD PRECLUDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON ON BOTH GOLF COURSE EXCEPT WHAT EXISTS NOW.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT IT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE.

IT WAS REVIEWED BY MISS CALLAWAY TO MAKE SURE THE LANGUAGE IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS PERMITTED IN THE CODE AND THE LAND USE CODE.

LAND USE AMENDMENT. SO CULTURAL FACILITY IS NOTHING BUT A COMMUNITY CENTER SOMEWHERE.

I WOULD DEFINE IT AS THAT.

AND BUT IT'S CONSISTENT IN WHAT IT'S PERMITTED IN THE CODE TODAY.

WITH RESPECT TO IT'S NOT A COMMERCIAL USE.

IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL USE.

IT'S REALLY A GOVERNMENT USE THAT THE CITY WILL USE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE.

THAT'S WHAT THE CULTURAL FACILITIES.

AND, AND IF THIS COMMISSION BELIEVED THAT TERM IS TOO BROAD, IT CAN BE DELETED.

IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION.

HOW CAN WE MAKE IT ONLY FOCUS ON AN 18 HOLE, 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE? HOW CAN WE MAKE IT? STRICKER I REMEMBER MY MY 168 LSAT COLLEAGUE MAKE A MENTION OF THE LAST MEETING OF HOW WE CAN MAKE IT.

STRICKER IT SEEMS LIKE MY 168 COLLEAGUE HAS A BRILLIANT, BRILLIANT LEGAL MIND.

AND MENTIONING WHAT HE MENTIONED LAST TIME, CAN YOU TELL US HOW CAN WE MAKE THIS STRICKER? HOW CAN WE MAKE IT ONLY FOCUS ON ON THE GOLF COURSE? I BELIEVE OUR COLLEAGUES, JD, NOT ELSA, BUT AS ANY AMENDMENT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION OR AMENDMENT COMMISSION PROPOSED THAT BASICALLY WOULD MODIFY THE LANGUAGE TO SAY THAT THE COURSE SHALL REMAIN AS A 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE, AS IS IS TODAY IN PERPETUITY.

THE LANGUAGE CAN BE AMENDED THAT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SHALL ENSURE THAT THE GOLF COURSE AND GLADES AND CHAMPIONSHIP SHALL REMAIN AS AN 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE.

AND THAT THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SPECIFY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT MODIFY IT TO A NINE HOLE GOLF COURSE.

WE CANNOT MODIFY IT TO ANY OTHER GOLF AND CONCEPT.

IT JUST WILL REMAIN AS IS, EXCEPT IF IF THE COVENANT IS RELEASED BY THE COMMISSION.

CITY MANAGER, GOING BACK TO MY QUESTION, I ASKED INITIALLY THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE OPTIONS FOR OPTIONS ONE AND TWO THAT WE HAD A FEW WEEKS AGO.

IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE HAVE THAT AS A DISCUSSION FOR THE NEXT MEETING? YOU MEAN IN A WORKSHOP SETTING? NO, THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 10TH.

CAN I BRING THAT UP AS AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION SO WE CAN GET TOTAL CLARIFICATION ON WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH, WITH, WITH WITH THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.

YOU CAN DEFINITELY BRING THAT UP.

AND IF THE COMMISSION PROVIDES US WITH A DIRECTION IN, YOU KNOW, PURSUING ONE OF THOSE ALTERNATIVES, YOU KNOW IRRIGATION ONLY REPAIRS, GREEN ONLY REPAIRS OR SOME OTHER ALTERNATIVES, YOU KNOW, FROM THE LIST.

AND THEN WE CAN DEFINITELY BRING THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION UNDER SECTION TEN.

IS, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE YES, I WOULD, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION ON SECTION TEN.

JUST TO ANSWER THE RESIDENTS CONCERN, I THINK I HEARD THE RESIDENTS CONCERN ABOUT US DOING THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, I CAN COUNT I KNOW MAYOR IS IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT ON A GOLF COURSE.

DOCTOR DANIELS WAS ON THE FENCE, AND I'M HAPPY THAT SHE BROUGHT THIS BACK TO THE DISCUSSION.

SO I KNOW I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE STRICKER.

I WOULD WANT IT TO BE A LOT MORE, YOU KNOW, STRINGENT.

BUT I KNOW I CAN COUNT MY NUMBERS, I CAN COUNT MY NUMBERS, AND I CAN SEE WHAT I CAN GET.

AND A SMART ELECTED OFFICIALS FIGHT FOR THEIR PEOPLE AND LOOK AT THEIR NUMBERS AND SEE WHAT THEY CAN GET.

SO EVEN THOUGH I WOULD WANT THIS STRICKER AND I WANT MORE, I SEE I CAN GET THIS AS A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

I KNOW BEFORE I COULDN'T GET ANYTHING BECAUSE INITIALLY PEOPLE WANTED DEVELOPMENT.

SO TO ANSWER THE RESIDENT IS NOT THAT I'M BEING HAPHAZARD.

[00:55:03]

IT'S NOT THAT I'M PUSHING FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THOROUGHLY RESEARCHED, IT'S THE FACT THAT AT LEAST I CAN GET THIS BASED ON MY NUMBERS.

AND I'M FIGHTING FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF YOU, OF.

THIS. WHAT I ALSO WANT IN THIS AS WELL IS NOTIFICATION.

LAST TIME WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN, THE RESIDENT WAS NOT NOTIFIED THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY READ ABOUT IT IN THE SUNSET ZONE.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT THEY HAVE TO NOTIFY ANYONE WITHIN 400FT OF THE COMMUNITY ONCE YOU'RE NOTIFIED, LIKE YOU ORGANIZE LAST TIME, YOU CAN COME IN BIG NUMBERS AND YOU CAN CHALLENGE THIS COMMISSION. IF THERE'S DEVELOPMENT, YOU CAN FIGHT AND SAY, HEY, WE DON'T WANT THIS.

YOU DID IT LAST TIME. LAST TIME IT WAS VOTED AND YOU CAME OUT IN NUMBERS AND YOU SAID NO.

AND EVERYONE CHANGED THEIR SENTIMENT.

BUT I KNOW THE FEELING OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS COMMISSION.

I KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO GO.

THERE'S A ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

PEOPLE CAN GET OFFICERS CAN CHANGE, SOMEONE CAN GET ELECTED, AND THE NUMBERS CAN FLIP SWAY OUT OF MY FAVOR.

SO I KNOW COMMISSIONER BOLTON IS UP FOR ELECTION AND COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

OBVIOUSLY, HE'S IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE MAYOR IS IN FAVOR OF IT, SO THAT'S TWO.

SO COMMISSIONER BOLTON AS OF NOW IS NOT IN FAVOR OF IT, WHICH I'M HAPPY HE'S NOT.

SO I AM JUST DOING THE BEST THAT I CAN DO AS YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT PERFECT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING WE DID NOT HAVE THIS SIX MONTHS AGO.

THIS IS AN OPTION THAT I'VE BEEN ASKING THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.

OVER AND OVER. CAN WE GET THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT? CAN WE GET THIS GOING? I FINALLY HAVE IT GOING.

IT JUST HAPPENS THAT THIS ISSUE WITH THE GOLF COURSE, OPTION ONE AND TWO CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION AT THE SAME TIME.

THE LANGUAGE IS VERY BROAD, BUT OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT GOING TO GET THE SUPPORT FOR TIGHTER LANGUAGE.

SO I'D RATHER HAVE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WITH BROAD LANGUAGE THAN NO RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AT ALL.

SO THAT'S THE WAY THAT'S THE REASON I'M CHAMPIONING FOR THIS.

AND I'M GOING TO I WANT TO SUPPORT THIS OPTION.

MADAM MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE SOME SOME CLARIFICATION.

AND IN TERMS OF DISCUSSING THE THE ALTERNATIVES, AS YOU KNOW, WE JUST COMPLETED OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION LAST WEEK AND WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF STRATEGIC ITEMS WHICH THIS COULD BE CONSIDERED ONE OF THOSE AS IT'S A COSTLY CONVERSATION.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE AS DISCUSSED AS PLANNED IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING CONVERSATION TO BRING ALL OF THESE YOU KNOW PROJECTS IN THE NEXT MEETING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.

SO YOU CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, A LENGTHY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE THE COST AND THE ALTERNATIVES AND IMPROVEMENTS, ALTHOUGH ALL THAT CONVERSATION IN THAT SETTING.

WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT ON THE NEXT MEETING WHERE THE RESIDENTS CAN COME UP AND VOICE THEIR CONCERN.

AND LET'S GET CLARITY.

OBVIOUSLY, IN THE STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING, I THINK I REMEMBER WE HAD AN INCREASE IN REVENUES BASED ON THE GOLF COURSE.

SO OBVIOUSLY THE GOLF COURSE IS DOING PRETTY WELL.

I THINK THE FINANCIAL MANAGER MENTIONED THAT WITH WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN REVENUES.

AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS SAY IS THAT WE SHOULD FIND MORE WAYS TO GENERATE REVENUES.

I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT.

BUT BUILDING ON THIS GOLF COURSE IS NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD DO IT.

AND THE RESIDENTS HAVE HAVE VOICED THEIR CONCERN.

MADAM MAYOR, I KNOW YOU MET WITH THE RESIDENTS A FEW DAYS AGO.

ACTUALLY, A RESIDENT CALLED ME AND TOLD ME THAT YOU WERE OUT THERE, YOU KNOW I MET WITH THE RESIDENTS SIX MONTHS AGO AS WELL.

IT WAS 100 OF THEM.

I'VE GONE TO HOA MEETINGS.

I ONLY SEE 5 OR 10 PEOPLE, BUT WHEN ITS DEVELOPMENT WAS HAPPENING, I SAW 100 PEOPLE SHOWED UP AND WE SPOKE ABOUT THE SILENT MAJORITY, THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE THE LOUDEST VOICE. BUT BUT THEY SHOW UP WHEN THERE'S A.

FINISH LINE. SO.

OKAY. KEEP IT ROLLING.

SO. YES. SO I, I, I WOULD LIKE THAT FOR THE AT APRIL 10TH TO BE ON A DISCUSSION THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

LIKE I SAID, IT'S BEEN SIX MONTHS.

WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET THIS.

I KNOW THIS IS THE BEST THAT I CAN GET, EVEN THOUGH I WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON MY BASED ON THE VOTES AND BASED WHO'S IN SUPPORT OF WHAT AND BEING THE FACT THAT DOCTOR DANIELS BROUGHT IT BACK, THAT MEANS SHE'S KIND OF LIKE IN FAVOR OF IT.

SO I KNOW I KIND OF HAVE THAT VOTE.

SO AGAIN, IT'S NOTHING THAT'S HAPHAZARD.

I AM JUST DOING THE BEST I CAN DO WITH THE OPTIONS THAT I HAVE.

AND, AND.

THIS IS THE OPTION THAT WE WE WE ARE, WE ARE GIVEN.

COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU.

A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I DON'T WANT IT, STRICKER.

I DON'T WANT IT MORE.

HARD, I GUESS BECAUSE SOME FORM OF DEVELOPMENT HAS TO TAKE PLACE.

I KEEP SAYING WE CANNOT STAY THE WAY WE ARE.

IT'S NOT JUST 100 PEOPLE THAT LIVES IN TAMARAC MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT'S 74,000 PEOPLE, AND THAT GOLF COURSE IS FOR 74,000 PEOPLE PLUS VISITORS, RIGHT? SO I'M OKAY WITH RESTRICTING IT TO GOLF ACTIVITIES, CULTURAL FACILITIES THAT ALL THE RESIDENTS OF TAMARAC CAN ENJOY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I KNOW HE'S HUFFING AND PUFFING NEXT TO ME, BUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CHILDREN LEARNING HOW TO PLAY GOLF THERE, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN INTERESTED LATELY, AND ALL I SAW WAS

[01:00:07]

NONRESIDENTS I DIDN'T SEE.

I'VE BEEN DRIVING, I'VE BEEN LOOKING, I'VE BEEN VISITING THE RESTAURANT.

I DON'T SEE ANY CHILDREN.

I DON'T SEE ANY RESIDENTS THAT I KNOW OF THAT WAS PLAYING GOLF.

SO I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE MORE OPEN TO THOSE PEOPLE.

BUT BECAUSE I LISTEN TO THE THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE IN PALM BAY, I CAME, I BROUGHT THIS ITEM BACK SO THEY WILL HAVE SOME SORT OF PROTECTION.

SO IT'S NOT THAT I'M ON THE FENCE, IT'S THAT I'M TRYING TO HAVE A BALANCE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN HAVE A PART OF THE GOLF COURSE.

AND I ALWAYS SAID, THAT'S MY PLATFORM.

I'VE NEVER BEEN ASHAMED TO SAY THAT I WANT MORE RECREATION, RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY FOR YOUNG PEOPLE, FOR NEW RESIDENTS, FOR FAMILIES, NOT JUST FOR A SMALL GROUP OF RESIDENTS, BUT FOR EVERYONE TO ENJOY BECAUSE SOME OF US HAVE BEEN FELT LEFT OUT.

SO WE NEED ACCESS AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THE WORDS THAT WERE BEING USED WITH BUILDING AND ALSO DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE NOT DEVELOPING COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY, VERY CLEAR.

WHAT WE ARE DEVELOPING WOULD BE A RECREATIONAL SPACE ON A99 COURSE AREA.

JUST AS COMMISSIONER DANIEL MENTIONED YOU KNOW, AND AS COMMISSIONER WRIGHT MENTIONED, I AM IN FAVOR OF IT BECAUSE IT'S A FAMILY ORIENTED SITUATION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

FOR ME, GETTING TO THE COMMUNITY IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT.

WE NEED TO HEAR WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS SAYING BEFORE WE MAKE THIS DECISION.

THIS IS A BIG DECISION WHERE IT COULD MAKE OR BREAK A PIECE IN TAMARAC THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY, IN MY OPINION.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

BUT ALSO, AS COMMISSIONER DANIEL SAID, IT'S NOT JUST FOR PLUM BAY AREA BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO ENSURE WHEN WE DISCUSS THIS ITEM AT A WORKSHOP, PREFERABLY, THAT THE NOISE AND THE LIGHT POLLUTION IS CONTROLLED, RIGHT? WHEN IF WE WERE TO BUILD SOMETHING, WHETHER IT'S TEACHING GOLF TO KIDS OR FAMILY WOMEN, MEN, WHOEVER, TEENAGERS, WHETHER IT'S JUST TO SWING THE BALL FOR PRACTICE, THAT THE NOISE IS CONTROLLED, THE LIGHT IS CONTROLLED, THAT IT'S NOT PAST A CERTAIN TIME WHERE IT PENETRATES TO PEOPLE'S HOMES THROUGH THEIR WINDOWS.

SO WE WANT THAT INPUT FROM THE RESIDENTS.

AND THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. SO COMMISSIONER RIGHT.

I SEE YOU REACHING FOR YOUR BUTTON.

THE WHOLE REASON FOR WANTING TO HAVE THIS AS A WORKSHOP WOULD BE WHERE I WOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY TO YOU, YOU USE YOUR SEVEN MINUTES.

SO NO, NO, NO, THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.

WE ALL KNOW IT. NICE TRY, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO TABLE THIS AND HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, CONTINUE TO A WORKSHOP LIKE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO TRY TO DO, SO WE CAN HAVE A FREE EXCHANGE, THEN DO SO.

IF NOT, THIS IS WHAT YOU ASK FOR.

THIS IS WHAT YOU GET. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I'M CITY MANAGER. REMIND ME OF WHO MADE THE PRESENTATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WAS IT MISS CALLOWAY OR SOMEBODY FROM PARKS? PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR? MR. GALINDO? OKAY.

MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION? GOOD MORNING. RUDOLPH GALINDO, PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.

OKAY. WHEN YOU MADE THE PRESENTATION, WHAT WAS THE MOTIVE BEHIND THE PRESENTATION AND THE FIRST PLACE? SURE. SO THE INTENT WITH THE PRESENTATION WAS TO BEGIN A DISCUSSION ABOUT OPTIONS FOR THE GLADES GOLF COURSE.

IT IS IN DISREPAIR.

SO WE DO HAVE A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO IMPROVE.

THAT WOULD BE CAPITAL PROJECTS, INCLUDING IRRIGATION, TURF, ALL OF THE GREENS IN THE AREA.

SO PART OF THE INTENT WAS INITIAL DISCUSSION TO DETERMINE FROM THE COMMISSION IF THERE WAS INTEREST IN PURSUING OTHER OPTIONS TO UPGRADE, ADD AMENITIES THAT WOULD INCLUDE CHILDREN, FAMILIES BASED BASED ON THE BASED ON YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY.

SO THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED WAS TO GO BACK OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND GET THAT FEEDBACK.

OKAY, SO THE TWO CONCEPTS THAT YOU PROVIDED TO US, YOUR INTENT WAS TO FIGURE OUT FROM DISCUSSION WHICH OF THOSE THOSE TWO CONCEPTS WE WE LIKED.

[01:05:02]

AND IF YOU AT LEAST GOT THREE PEOPLE TO AGREE TO ONE OF THE CONCEPTS, THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH.

SO THE INTENT WAS TO FIND WHAT THE FEEDBACK WAS ON EACH ITEM AND THEN GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.

BUT WE WANTED TO FIRST TALK TO THE COMMISSION TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY TO BE PRESENTED.

SO THE FEEDBACK WE HEARD WAS SOME MODIFICATIONS, POSSIBLY TO THE SECOND IDEA, BUT IT WAS NOT TO GET A VOTE ON EITHER ONE.

IT WAS TO START THAT DISCUSSION.

SO WITHOUT ANY FROM FROM MY INFORMATION, WITHOUT ANY PRIOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OR DATA, WE WANTED TO START THAT PROCESS, BUT FIRST START IT WITH THE INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH THE COMMISSION.

SO IT WAS NOT TO SELECT ONE OR THE OTHER WAS TO JUST START A DISCUSSION, WHICH IS WHY WE DID AT A WORKSHOP RATHER THAN A COMMISSION MEETING.

SO, RUDOLPH FROM MY RECOLLECTION WHEN WE REALIZED THAT WE WERE BEING PIGEONHOLED INTO SELECTING ONE OF TWO CONCEPTS I ASKED SPECIFICALLY THAT WE DO NOT THINK ABOUT ANY OF THE CONCEPTS, BUT AT THAT JUNCTURE, GO OUT TO THE COMMISSION, GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.

I SAID THAT WHERE THE DISCUSSION WAS STARTING WAS NOT THE PROPER PLACE THAT STAFF WAS COMING TO US, AND RATHER THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE COMMUNITY FIRST.

DO YOU RECALL THAT? SURE. I DO REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION AND MY APOLOGIES.

THERE WAS NO INTENT OR PART OF THE PRESENTATION FOR A VOTE OR SELECTION, BUT WE THE FEEDBACK THAT I DID TAKE BACK FROM THAT IS THAT WE WOULD GO OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND COME BACK WHEN WE HAD THAT INFORMATION SO THAT THE COMMISSION HAD THE INFORMATION TO MAKE A VOTE ON.

AND I'M GOING TO ASK COMMISSIONER BOLTON, I WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THESE QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED REGARDING POTENTIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY IS TYING BACK TO THE PURPOSE OF THE ITEM, WHICH IS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT WE CURRENTLY ARE TRYING TO DISCUSS WHETHER WE ARE VOTING ON OR NOT, VERSUS A CONCEPT THAT IS NOT ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW FOR DISCUSSION.

SO, RUDOLPH YOU YOU DO REALIZE THAT WHEN YOU PROVIDE OR YOU PRESENT CONCEPTS TO US THAT ANYONE RESIDENTS, MEDIA COMMISSIONERS WOULD WOULD TAKE THAT IN A WAY, IT'S YOU'RE PRESENTING SOMETHING TO US.

SO YOU HAVE TWO ITEMS YOU'RE DISCUSSING THESE TWO ITEMS AND YOU'RE SAYING THESE ARE YOUR OPTIONS.

DO WE WANT TO GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY TO SUGGEST THESE ITEMS? IT WASN'T A GENERAL CONVERSATION TO SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

SO COMMISSION, WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.

YOU PRESENTED CONCEPTS TO US.

AND AND THAT'S WHERE THIS, THIS WHIRLWIND STARTED.

IF, IF STAFF, THE MANAGER WANTED US TO GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND, AND DISCUSS WHATEVER CHANGES SHOULD BE THERE AT THAT TIME, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE NOT TO HAVE CONCEPTS, BUT IT IS STAFF THAT PROVIDED TWO CONCEPTS AND.

BECAUSE YOU PROVIDED TWO CONCEPTS.

THAT'S WHERE THIS ALL STARTED.

NOW WE HEAR DIFFERING IN IN OPINIONS.

WE HEAR, OKAY, MAYBE WE DON'T WANT RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE WANT RECREATION.

WHAT IS THAT GOING TO BE? IS IT GOING TO BE A TOP GOLF LIKE STRUCTURE? IS IT GOING TO BE PUTT PUTT GOLF? IS IT GOING TO BE THINGS THAT BRING NOISE? WILL WE HAVE LOTS OF KIDS PLAYING AT 10:00 AT NIGHT? IS IT GOING TO BE SHINING LIGHTS? REMEMBER THERE ARE PEOPLE.

LIVING NEXT DOOR TO WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO BUILD.

SO. TO MAKE A RECKLESS STATEMENT THAT YOU KNOW, I'M FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND WE WANT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THIS RECREATION, AND THAT'S THE STUFF.

IT'S. I FIND IT RECKLESS AND AND I'M NOT HUFFING AND PUFFING.

I'M BREATHING. I THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BREATHE.

YOU KNOW, SO IT'S IT'S CONCERNING.

AND IT'S IT'S SO CONCERNING THAT.

I'M. I'M EVEN MORE GOING TO FIGHT IN NOVEMBER TO STAY HERE.

[01:10:04]

TO MAKE SURE THAT I FOLLOW THROUGH ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S I'M NOT JUST PROTECTING DISTRICT ONE RESIDENTS, BUT I HAVE TO PROTECT ALL RESIDENTS OF TAMARAC.

AND, AND AND KNOWING THIS COMMISSION AND AND THE PERSONALITIES HERE, I DON'T HAVE FAITH THAT THIS CONVERSATION IS JUST ALWAYS GOING TO BE RECREATION.

WE MAY SAY IT NOW, BUT I, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU.

AND I'VE BEEN RIGHT IN THE PAST.

YOU'VE NOT BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW HOW RIGHT AND ACCURATE I'VE BEEN.

BUT I'M TELLING YOU, THIS IS THE LIPSTICK ON A PIG FOR SOMETHING ELSE TO COME.

JUST REMEMBER, I TELL YOU THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER. DANIEL. THANK YOU.

HENCE WHY WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR THIS RESTRICTION.

ALSO, THE WORKSHOP SHOULD BE REGARDING THE OPTIONS, NOT THE RESTRICTION.

ONE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER.

I MEAN, KIND OF, SORT OF, BUT NOT REALLY.

THEY'RE DERIVATIVE DERIVATIVES, WHATEVER THAT WORD IS.

BUT ANYWAY SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE RESTRICTION.

IT'S FINE TO BRING MORE OPTIONS.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE LEFT THAT MEETING WITH, IS THAT YOU'LL BRING MORE OPTIONS OR MORE IDEAS, AND THAT'S FINE.

I THINK IDEAS ARE GREAT.

SO WE COULD DISCUSS MORE IDEAS AT THE, THE WORKSHOP.

AND IT WAS ALSO SAID THAT IT WOULD BE BROUGHT UP IN OUR DISTRICT MEETINGS.

SO I DON'T KNOW, WHERE ARE WE STIRRING UP CONFUSION? ONCE AGAIN, THERE'S NO CONFUSION.

IT'LL BE DISCUSSED IN DISTRICT MEETING.

AND THIS IS JUST RESTRICTION TO GIVE THOSE COMMUNITY MEMBERS, WHICH I THINK IS GREAT.

NOW WE GIVEN YOU SOME SORT OF BALANCE AND YOUR VOICE WAS HEARD.

IT WAS.

YOU CAN'T GET EVERYTHING YOU WANT ALL THE TIME.

I HAVEN'T YET, I HAVE YET TO GET EVERYTHING I WANT.

BUT YOUR VOICE IS BEING HEARD.

AND WE REACTED TO THAT.

COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HEAR COMMISSIONER I HEAR VICE MAYOR, RIGHT.

I'M SAYING NEXT MEETING.

SO, CITY ATTORNEY, ARE WE MAKING ARE WE LISTENING? ARE WE DISCUSSING NOW AND THEN COMING BACK THE NEXT MEETING WITH THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, OR IS IT THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW? YOU'RE LISTENING, YOU'RE WRITING, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE CHANGE AND YOU'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

THERE'S TWO ISSUES.

ONE IS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT, AS IS I WAS MOTION.

AND SECOND, THAT'S THE ONE ISSUE THAT THE COMMISSION WILL DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO APPROVE IT AS IS OR MODIFY IT.

THE SECOND ISSUE THAT VICE MAYOR WRIGHT INDICATED WAS THE TWO OPTIONS FOR THE GLADES GOLF COURSE THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE WORKSHOP.

HE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD LIKE THE MANAGER TO PLACE IT ON THE NEXT COMMISSION AGENDA AND OTHERS SO THE COMMISSION COULD DISCUSS IT.

IF I MAY YOU KNOW, I THINK THE RIGHT WAY WOULD BE TO FOR, FOR VICE MAYOR TO INCLUDE THAT AS A DISCUSSION ITEM UNDER SECTION TEN IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT UP IN THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING.

AND AT THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, WE CAN DISCUSS WHATEVER THE EXISTING OPTIONS OR ALTERNATIVES WERE PRESENTED, OR IF THERE IS SOMETHING NEW THAT NEEDS TO BE RESEARCHED, INVESTIGATED BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

WE CAN WORK ON THAT, TOO.

BUT FOR NOW, THOSE ARE THE THE ALTERNATIVES THAT THE STAFF IS, IS WORKED UP IN TERMS OF SOME PRELIMINARY COST INFORMATION.

SO FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, THIS ITEM OF RESTRICTION OR RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS NOT TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS, WE ARE GOING TO GO OUT AND LISTEN TO THE RESIDENTS AND AND PROVIDE OPTIONS OR LISTEN TO WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO THERE.

THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS JUST GOING INTO PLACE NOW SO THAT WHATEVER THEY DECIDE IN THOSE COMMUNITY MEETINGS, THEY WOULD BE NOTIFIED OF IT.

EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY, THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WOULD DO JUST THAT.

NOTIFY EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY ON WHAT IS GOING TO GO IN THEIR BACKYARDS.

AND ALSO GET SOME FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN GOLF.

SETTINGS. SO IF WE'RE VOTING ON THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT NOW, AND WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM THE POWER TO OF OF KNOWING WHEN

[01:15:09]

SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT DOES.

IT TRIGGERS NOTICE WHY WOULD WE WORKSHOP THIS, TAKE THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS OFF, AND THEN GO TO THE RESIDENTS TO ASK QUESTIONS? IT'S YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THEM NOW AND THEN GO OUT TO THEM AND ASK THE QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER IT'S NOT ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, THE WORKSHOP.

THE MAYOR JUST SAID IT'S ABOUT THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

WE SHOULD NOT TALK ABOUT THE OPTIONS.

WELL, IT'S IT'S IT'S A COMBINATION.

WE GOT TO CHOOSE WHICH PARTY TO EAT.

YOU WANT SPICY OR MILD, YOU CAN HAVE BOTH.

IT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR YOU.

WELL SO IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A COMBINED CONVERSATION.

SO IT'S RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS I THINK IT'S UNDERSTOOD.

SO IT'S YOU KNOW IT WILL BE THAT'S THE, THE, THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION AND HOW WE WANT TO IMPROVE THE GOLF COURSE.

SHOULD WE JUST DO THIS PART? SHOULD WE DO THAT PART? THAT'S THE PART, PART OF THE CONVERSATION, THE WORKSHOP CONVERSATION THAT CAN BE HAD.

AND THAT'S A WHOLE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE WORKSHOP CONVERSATION.

SO I AGREE THEN WITH DOCTOR DANIEL AND COMMISSIONER.

RIGHT. VICE MAYOR WRIGHT.

WE SHOULD PUT INSTITUTE THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.

NOW IT GIVES THE COMMUNITY THE RIGHT OF KNOWING.

WE GO OUT AND ASK THEM WHAT THEY WANT, AND WHEN THEY AGREE ON WHAT THEY WANT, THEY WILL BE NOTIFIED.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR.

I THINK SOME OF US JUST CONFUSED EVERYBODY.

CITY ATTORNEY WHO WROTE THESE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

THE DRAFT IS BASICALLY A TEAMWORK BETWEEN THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICE AND CITY MANAGER VIA MAXINE CALLOWAY.

WHEN WE BRING ANYTHING THAT OBVIOUSLY IMPACTS LAND USE ZONING, WE SHARE IT WITH MISS CALLOWAY TO, IF SHE HAS ANY INPUT.

BUT THE LANGUAGE THE GENESIS WAS WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER VICE MAYOR WRIGHT, BASED ON THE CONCERNS THAT THE RESIDENTS HAD FROM A PREVIOUS COMMISSION MEETING TO PRECLUDE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, OBVIOUSLY WORKING THE DRAFT LANGUAGE WITH STAFF.

WE WANTED TO GIVE THE COMMISSION AT LEAST A PROPOSED COVENANT THAT AT LEAST KEEP THE STATUS QUO, BUT DOES NOT GO TOO FAR IN TERMS OF IMPOSING VERY RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS. HOW STRONGLY DO YOU FEEL THAT OUR SENTIMENTS HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT THAT PROTECTS THE RESIDENTS? I BELIEVE IN FACT, IT'S NOT AS WHAT? WHAT COMMISSIONER.

VICE MAYOR WRIGHT.

HIS GOAL, HIS INTENT AND WORKING AND DRAFTING WITH THEM.

LOOK, WE WE HAD A CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED AT THAT PREVIOUS MEETING ABOUT THE GOLF COURSE.

LET'S ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

THE GOAL WAS TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS.

AND AT THE SAME TIME THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT ALLOWING SOME TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT ON THE GOLF COURSE THROUGH STAFF INTERACTION.

THERE WAS THERE WAS ALREADY IDEAS ABOUT MOVING, IMPROVING THE GOLF COURSE IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

SO THE COVENANT ALSO DID NOT PRECLUDE THAT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. OKAY, BRINGING IT BACK TO THE ACTUAL TOPIC AT HAND, WHICH IS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ITSELF, AND THE PURPOSE IN THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IS VERY VAGUE.

THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED.

SO I'M GOING TO TOUCH ON A FEW THINGS.

I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION BEING LABELED AS WE ARE AGREEING TO BUILDING ON THIS.

NO ONE'S AGREEING TO BUILDING IS GREEN OR REDEVELOPMENT.

IN A NASTY WORD, IT IS BEING FOR REVITALIZATION OF A GOLF COURSE WITH GOLF COURSE AMENITIES.

WANT THAT? VERY CLEAR.

ALSO WANTED VERY CLEAR WATER FOR A SECOND, PLEASE, BECAUSE COMMISSIONER.

BOLTON IS TELLING CITY CLERK THAT YOU HAVE LESS TIME THAN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE IS DISTRACTING.

THE MAYOR WAS THE FIRST TO SPEAK.

SHE WAS.

SO BY RULES.

BY RULES. THANK YOU.

NOAH. YOU KNOW WHAT? THANK YOU.

BUT NO. YEAH.

PAY ATTENTION. INSTEAD OF BEING ON YOUR PHONE.

YOU MIGHT HAVE SEEN MY COMMENTS WERE IN CLOCK.

POLICE IS THE ONE.

WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S NOT YOUR JOB.

THANK YOU FOR PLAYING. IT'S NOT HIS JOB ANYWAY.

PUT BACK THE TIME THAT I ORIGINALLY HAD, NOT THE TIME THAT I'M BEING ACCUSED TO HAVE.

[01:20:03]

IF THAT'S MY TIME, THAT'S MY TIME.

THANK YOU. SO BASICALLY MAKING IT ALSO VERY CLEAR I'M ALLOWED TO GO TO ANY COMMUNITY MEETING THAT I AM INVITED TO.

I DO NOT NEED PERMISSION FROM ANYBODY ON THIS COMMISSION.

JUST PLEASE KNOW THAT.

ALSO KNOW THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO ACTUALLY LISTEN TO MORE THAN JUST ONE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS.

WHILE PLUM PLUM HARBOR IS A GREAT COMMUNITY, THERE'S ALSO 27 OTHER COMMUNITIES ON THE 232 ACRES OF OUR COLONY WEST GOLF COURSE.

SO THE PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T CLEARLY STATE.

THERE WILL BE NO BUILDING OF ANY RESIDENTIAL.

COMMUNITIES ON THIS PROPERTY.

THAT IS WHAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR.

THEY ARE ALSO ASKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A DEFINITION OF CULTURAL.

AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY WANTS A COMMUNITY CENTER.

HOWEVER, NEEDING TO KEEP IN MIND THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THE VIEW, WHICH HAS WHAT'S CONSIDERED A COMMUNITY CENTER UP TOP.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO WRITE WORDING THAT DEALS WITH PINES AND GLADES AND ALSO WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.

SO WE COULD AND SHOULD DEFINE CULTURAL CENTER BETTER.

THE COMMUNITY HAS NO PROBLEM OR COMMUNITIES FROM THAT WHICH WE'VE HEARD GOLF RELATED ACTIVITIES.

WE HAVE TO, IN MY OPINION, REMOVE NIGHT TIME GOLFING SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED BECAUSE THEN WE'RE KILLING THE CURRENT GOLF THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

BECAUSE WE LIVE IN FLORIDA, WE STAY LATE AND WE HAVE BEAUTIFUL WEATHER SOMETIMES TILL 9 P.M.

THE COMMUNITY IS USED TO THAT BY NOW, SO THEREFORE WE SHOULD HAVE DUSK TO DAWN AS ANY OF OTHER PARKS OR UNTIL 9 P.M., EXCEPT IF WE SHOULD PUT IN A RESTAURANT BECAUSE COMMUNITY IS NOT AGAINST A RESTAURANT.

IF IT IS PUT IN A PROPER PLACE, THEN.

BUT ALSO KNOWING THAT WE WOULD DISCUSS THAT THE RESTAURANT WOULDN'T BE HAVING HOURS TILL 2 OR 4 IN THE MORNING.

THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO DO THIS TODAY.

THE COMMUNITY KNOWS WE'RE WORKING ON IT.

THE COMMUNITY KNOWS THAT WE ARE GOING BACK FOR INPUT.

AND THE ONLY REASON WHY THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO FORCE THIS TODAY IS IF WE ACTUALLY BRING BACK CONCEPTS ONE AND TWO FOR DISCUSSION AT A LATER COMMUNITY MEETING, BECAUSE THEN IT IS BRINGING IT UP FOR DISCUSSION AND VOTE WHERE PEOPLE SHOULD BE CONCERNED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PLACE.

SO I DON'T AGREE WITH BRINGING THIS UP IN THE NEXT MEETING AS CONCEPTS ONE AND TWO, BECAUSE YOU ARE THEN REMOVING THE ABILITY TO TALK TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF IF WE ARE TO REVITALIZE AND WORK ON OUR STRATEGIC PLAN, WE NEED THE INPUT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

SO HAVING THIS COME BACK UP IN THE NEXT MEETING IS NOT TIMED APPROPRIATELY IN MY OPINION.

AND THEN RESTRICTS OUR ABILITY TO TALK TO THAT COMMUNITY.

SO IF THIS IS TO GO FORWARD TODAY, THEN I HEREBY MAKE THE REQUEST TO ALSO IN TERM IT SAYS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON RECORDATION.

IT SHOULDN'T BE UPON RECORDING, IT SHOULD BE UPON SIGNING THE SECOND IT IS SIGNED BY THE CITY, IT GOES INTO EFFECT.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO GIVE COMFORT TO THIS COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITIES AROUND THE GOLF COURSE, THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT HOWEVER LONG IT MIGHT TAKE FOR THE PAPERWORK TO BE SIGNED AND THEN PUT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.

SO IF WE TRULY WANT TO DO THIS, THEN I HEREBY MAKE THE FOLLOWING REQUESTS THAT THIS GO BACK TO BEING REVIEWED AND INCLUDING WORDING THAT SAYS NO RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY SHALL BE BUILT THE WHEREAS THE GOLF RELATED ACTIVITIES ONLY.

EXCEPT FOR ALLOWING OF A RESTAURANT, BAR OR OTHER THING COMMON WITH A GOLF COURSE.

HOURS BEING FROM DUSK, DAWN TO DUSK OR 9 P.M., WHICHEVER IS LATER, FOR WHEN THE LIGHT IS OUT THERE FOR PLAYERS, EXCEPT IF THERE SHOULD BE A RESTAURANT AND AGAIN ON ITEM NUMBER THREE FOR THE TERM.

IT SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE UPON SIGNING.

SO THOSE ARE MY REQUESTS FOR CHANGES ON THIS ITEM.

IF THIS ITEM IS TO GO FORWARD, I BELIEVE I HAVE CAUGHT WHAT THE COMMUNITY HAS ASKED FOR.

AND THEN ACTUALLY ONE LAST THING, MAKING IT MORE RESTRICTIVE THAT IT CANNOT BE CHANGED WILLY NILLY, THAT IT WOULD BE A FOURTH OUT OF FIVE VOTES IN ORDER TO CHANGE IT. AND THIS WAY THE COMMUNITY WOULD KNOW THAT THEY'RE GETTING.

THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS THAT THEY NEED THROUGH A RESOLUTION INSTEAD OF AN ORDINANCE WHICH IS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT ONLY COMES AROUND ONCE FOR A VOTE VERSUS TWICE.

AND THEY KNOW THAT THEY WILL NOT HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ON THAT PROPERTY.

SO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS IN A WORKSHOP.

CITY ATTORNEY WOULD SAY YOU ON HOW WE CAN GET MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO THIS.

IS IT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT? IT CAN'T BE A DISCUSSION.

BUT AGAIN, THIS ITEM COULD BE TABLED FOR A CONVERSATION.

MADAM MAYOR, WE HAVE A MOTION.

AND SECOND, OBVIOUSLY THE MAKER OF MOTION CAN ACCEPT ANY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

WITH RESPECT TO THIS ITEM.

IT WAS ITEM THAT WAS REQUESTED SPECIFICALLY BY VICE MAYOR WRIGHT.

[01:25:06]

IT PRIOR TO MOVING FORWARD WITH IT HAD SOME DISCUSSION WITH HIM, WHAT HE WANTED, I THINK I THINK WE ACHIEVED THAT GOAL AND PRECLUDE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND CONSISTENT WHAT THE CODE PERMITS NOW AND, AND THE LAND USE PLAN PERMITS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS COVENANT DOES.

AND WITH RESPECT TO.

CAN I ASK YOU FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, YOU SAID FROM WHAT THE VICE MAYOR WANTED DONE, THIS WAS A COMMISSION VOTE AT THE MEETING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT WE ALL WANTED, A RESOLUTION.

SO A RESOLUTION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

SO PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT WORKING FOR ONE.

YOU'RE WORKING FOR ALL. NO, NO, OBVIOUSLY THIS THIS ITEM WAS ITEM THAT IF WHICH THE VICE MAYOR BASICALLY DIRECTED STAFF TO WORK ON.

AT THE TIME HE WAS COMMISSION.

IT WAS. IT WAS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AT A COMMISSION MEETING FOR IT TO BE WORKED ON.

IF YOU HAD SPECIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH VICE MAYOR ON IT FOR FURTHER INPUT, SO BE IT.

BUT THIS IS NOT ONE PERSON'S ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

THE QUESTION AT HAND IS I HAVE SOME CHANGES THAT I THINK THE COMMUNITY ACTUALLY KNOW THE COMMUNITY WANT IN THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. THAT IS NOT THEIR AMENDMENTS OF WORDING THAT IS IN HERE.

AND I THINK IT NEEDS I BELIEVE I ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

THE MAKER OF THE MOTION CAN ACCEPT ANY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

SO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE WAS COMMISSIONER.

VILLALOBOS. NO, YOU DID THE.

YOU HAVEN'T DONE A MAKER OF A MOTION.

WHAT ARE YOUR FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS AGAIN? SORRY. OKAY.

MY FRIENDLY AMENDMENTS.

ARE WE SPECIFICALLY STATE THERE WILL BE NO RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, NO RESIDENTIAL BUILT ON THESE ON THIS PROPERTY? AND YOU CAN'T SAY COMMERCIAL BECAUSE GOLF IS COMMERCIAL.

IF YOU NEED TO DEFINE COMMERCIAL, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEFINING COMMERCIAL TO BE NO RETAIL OTHER THAN DEALING WITH GOLF.

RIGHT. BECAUSE ACCESSORY USE ACCESSORY USES TO GOLF.

BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A GOLF PRO, IT COULD BE CONSIDERED RETAIL.

IF YOU HAVE A PRO SHOP, IT IS RETAIL, BUT IT IS ALSO ACCESSORY USE TO GOLF, INCLUDING ALLOWING A RESTAURANT.

NO RESTAURANT. DUSK RESTAURANT PRO SHOP TYPICALLY HAVE YOU KNOW MOST GOLF RIGHT.

YEAH. RESTAURANTS THAT WOULD BE COMMENSURATE WITH GOLF RELATED.

WOULD THAT LIKE WOULD THAT BE IT'S NOT CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL A RESTAURANT IF IT'S AGAIN, MOST GOLF COURSE HAS A COUNTRY CLUB WHICH HAS A RESTAURANT USE WITH IT.

SO IT IS AN ACCESSORY USE.

TYPICALLY YOU WILL FIND THAT IN A COUNTRY CLUB AS PART OF MOST GOLF COURSE.

WE ALREADY HAVE IT LISTED WITH AMENITIES SUCH AS HOTEL AND RESTAURANT WITH A CONFERENCE ROOM, BUT THIS WOULD.

SO WE CAN'T REMOVE THAT PART BECAUSE WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

WE HAVE THAT ALREADY. YEAH, YEAH WE HAVE.

SO WE NEED TO JUST KNOW THAT THERE IS ADDITIONAL USE.

BUT ALSO THE RESTAURANT COULD HAVE A GOLF COURSE VERSUS WITH A GOLF COURSE.

BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE WORDING YEAH, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER IS PERMITTED CURRENTLY UNDER THE CODE AND LAND USE PLAN, THE COVENANT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE INTERNAL REVIEW.

IF IF THE RESTAURANT IS ACCESSORY USE TO THE, THE GOLF FACILITIES THIS COVENANT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE IT. SO WE RIGHT.

WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO BE NON-CONFORMING, RIGHT.

WE DON'T WANT TO WIND UP, THAT'S WHY.

BUT IF FUTURE BUILDING OF A RESTAURANT DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE A CONFERENCE ROOM, IT MAY NOT BE THAT BIG.

THAT'S. AND IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT'S FOR DISCUSSION.

THE OTHER THING WAS FOR THE LIGHTING.

THE LIGHTING IS DUSK TO DAWN, EXCEPT IF THERE IS A RESTAURANT.

AND BASICALLY MAKING IT THAT NUMBER THREE SECTION IS RESTRICTIVE.

COVENANT SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON SIGNING, NOT RECORDING.

AND THAT.

ANY CHANGES TO THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WOULD BE BY A VOTE OF THREE FOURTHS OF THE COMMISSION.

[01:30:09]

I'M SORRY. 4/5 I DID NOT MEAN TO CUT OUT A BODY FROM THE COMMISSION, SO FORFEIT A SUPERMAJORITY.

BASICALLY, IT'S A SUPERMAJORITY AND I WANT TO SAY 4/5 PER SE, BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY DECIDES NOT TO SHOW THAT DAY, THEN IT WINDS UP BEING THREE FOURTHS.

SO IT'S A SUPERMAJORITY IN ORDER TO MAKE ANY CHANGES AFTER THIS RESTRICTIVE COVENANT IS PASSED.

AND I WILL SAY THAT I WILL NOT BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE FOUR, THE SUPERMAJORITY BEING PUT IN WITHOUT ANY OF THE OTHER CHANGES INCLUDED.

FOR ME, THAT IS MY BOOTSTRAP, BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO AGREE TO.

THE CHANGES I'M ASKING FOR, OR THIS DOCUMENT AS IS.

AS A SUPERMAJORITY UNLESS IT'S AMENDED.

SO THOSE ARE MY REQUESTS FOR THE MEND, MY CHANGES ON BEHALF OF CONVERSATIONS WITH COMMUNITY.

AND IT GOES TO COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

IF HE WISHES TO ACCEPT THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THEN IT GOES TO COMMISSIONER BOLTON IF HE WILL SECOND IT.

I'LL ACCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

DO YOU SECOND IT? NO, BECAUSE YOU SAID THERE'S NO BIFURCATION.

WHAT? LOOK.

HERE'S THE. YOU SAID THAT YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT THE SECOND PARTS IF THE FIRST PARTS ARE NOT ACCEPTED.

WE'RE WE JUST SAID THAT WE WANT TO GO OUT TO THE COMMUNITY TO ASK WHAT THEY WANT YOU.

YOU CANNOT THEN RESTRICT EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT AND NOT WHAT THEY WANT.

WHAT IF WHAT IF 80% OF THE COMMUNITY SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT? INSTEAD OF GOLF OR A OR A TOP, TOP GOLF LIKE STRUCTURE OR GOLF SHOPS AND RESTAURANTS, WE WANT FIVE HOUSES.

WHAT IF THEY SAY THAT? THEN YOU KNOW WHAT? BUT EXCUSE ME, I'M.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF WE'RE REALLY GOING TO GO TO THE RESIDENTS TO ASK THEIR OPINION, ASK THEIR FULL OPINION.

AND COME BACK.

WHAT I AGREE WITH IS, IS THE SUPERMAJORITY.

AND, AND THE ATTORNEY WILL HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT SIGNING VERSUS RECORDING MEANS.

OTHER THAN THAT, THESE RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THEIR VOICE.

AS YOU ALWAYS DO, YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THEIR VOICE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION. I'M ACTUALLY GIVING THE VOICE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ASKED ME TO PUT THIS IN, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING THE RESIDENTS THEIR OPINION ON IF THEY WANT RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ON HERE.

THEY DON'T WANT RESIDENTIAL HOUSING ON HERE.

DO WE COMPLETELY MISS THE MEETING WHERE THEY WERE UP IN ARMS ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT SAID RESIDENTIAL IN A TITLE? THERE'S A WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS WHOLE THING IS TO MAKE THE RESIDENTS COMFORTABLE THAT THERE WILL BE NO HOUSING ON THE 232 ACRES OF GOLF.

THOSE ARE YOUR PRIVATE MEETINGS.

WE I WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE RESIDENTS AND ASK WHAT THEY CAN.

I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM.

SO. CITY ATTORNEY.

CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO A WORKSHOP? NO, SHE SHE'S HE'S ASKING A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM.

IF THERE'S A SECOND, HE CAN TABLE THE ITEM FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION.

BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF TO DIGEST HERE.

AND WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME.

NOT IN A COMMISSION MEETING.

IN A WORKSHOP SETTING.

I SECOND IT.

IT'S AN INTERVENING MOTION.

THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

CITY CLERK CAN CALL THE ROLL.

THE MOTION TABLED. THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO PUT THIS BACK TO A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, THE INTRICATE OF EVERYTHING.

AND THEN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

HERE'S A GAME PLAN.

SEPARATE PATH IF WE'RE GOING FORWARD TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING ON WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN TO THE GOLF COURSE. YEAH, BUT YOU GUYS ARE PLAYING GAMES BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF VICE MAYOR.

NO, LET LET THIS MOTION IS MADE.

LET IT LET IT HAS NOTHING TO DO, MY MAYOR.

IT'S FINE. MADAM CLERK.

CALL, CALL. WE'RE GOING TO.

CITY ATTORNEY IS SAYING THAT.

WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE GOING TO TABLE.

AND AGAIN, IT IS ONLY ON THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

IT IS NOT WHAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS BEING THROWN IN HERE.

IT'S THIS PIECE OF PAPER AND THE WORDING ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER.

ON THE TERMS IN THIS PIECE OF PAPER.

RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ABOUT WHAT IS BEING SAID.

[01:35:05]

CANNON CANNOT BE DONE IN CONTINUING THE CONVERSATION.

SO THE MOTION IS THE TABLE.

THAT'S ALL VOTED ON. CORRECT? FOR A DISCUSSION AT A WORKSHOP OF THIS ITEM.

THAT'S WHAT THE CONVERSATION THE TABLE MOTIONS IS.

GO AHEAD. COMMISSIONER.

VILLALOBOS. YES.

VICE MAYOR WRIGHT.

NO. MAYOR GOMEZ.

YES. COMMISSIONER DANIEL.

NO. COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

NO. MOTION TO TABLE FAILS.

3 TO 2. ALL RIGHT, THEN, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE.

BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACCEPTANCE OF A SECOND BY FRIENDLY AMENDMENT OF THE TERM'S TO.

THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS.

WE ARE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ITEM OF THE RESTRICTED COVENANTS AS WRITTEN.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

SORRY, COMMISSIONER. DANIEL.

YES, COMMISSIONER.

LITTLETON. YES.

COMMISSIONER. VILLALOBOS.

NO. VICE MAYOR WRIGHT.

YES, MAYOR.

GOMEZ. NO.

THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 3 TO 2.

I HAVE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER.

UPON SIGNING THIS.

IT THEN GETS RECORDED.

THAT'S WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS.

SIGNING IS IMMEDIATE.

AS SOON AS IT'S SIGNED, RECORDING TAKES A LITTLE BIT.

WE HAVE NOW SAID THAT WE CANNOT PLAY GOLF AT COLONY WEST.

AT NIGHTTIME.

AGAIN. LINE TWO.

SECTION TWO.

PLEASE MAKE SURE COLONY WEST IS MADE.

ADVISED THAT AS SOON AS 6 P.M.

HITS, WHICH IS LEGALLY EVENING, THERE IS NO MORE GOLF PLAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OR AS SOON AS THIS IS RECORDED.

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY.

ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE A BREAK UNLESS WE REALLY NEED TO.

EVERYBODY'S BLADDERS ARE OKAY.

GOOD. MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING 780255 FOR CITY ATTORNEY, PLEASE READ THE TITLE FOR THE RECORD.

[7.a T02554 - An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida granting a one year extension, Nunc Pro tune to March 9, 2025, by approval of the second amendment to the amended and restated development agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", between the City of Tamarac, Pulte Home Corporation, and Woodmont Country Club, Inc., for the development of property located within the Woodmont plat, as recorded in Plat Book 88, Page 20, of the public records of Broward County, Florida, and authorizing the appropriate City Officials to do all things necessary to effectuate the intent of this ordinance; providing for conflicts; providing for severability; and providing for an effective date.]

ITEM SEVEN A ITS ORDINANCE, CITY COMMISSION AND CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA GRANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION NON PROMPT TUNC TO MARCH 9TH, 2020 FIFTH. I APPROVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTE.

WE STATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TAMARAC PULTE HOME WOODLAND COUNTRY CLUB FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AS RECORDED PLAT BOOK 88, PAGE 20 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS.

BROWARD COUNTY. AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICIALS TO DO ALL THE THINGS NECESSARY TO FRACTURE THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.

PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING STABILITY.

PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE.

SO MOVED. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOLTON.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER VILLALOBOS.

I WILL NOW OPEN THIS ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THIS ITEM IS SEVEN A.

GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE.