So we'll be calling today's planning and zoning meeting to order. Madam Clerk, if we can take attendance. All right. Mr. Spear? Here. Mr. Stahl? Here. Ms. Demby Berger? Here. Mr. O'Brien? Here. Mr. Freeman? Here. Mr. Goldstein? Here. Ms. Gelfand? Here. Thank you. Do we have a motion for last meeting's minutes? An order. I'm sorry, we don't have any minutes from the last meeting. It was only two weeks ago, so the folks who do our minutes prototype, they didn't have them in time. Also, the young lady who does our minutes was affected by Hurricane Helene. So they should be ready by the meeting that we have at the end of the month. Yes. So no, we will certify two sets of minutes at the next meeting. We should. I believe we're going out of order, and we're going to take, sorry. On the agenda, it's the number one quasi-judicial item, PM 24-0087, consideration of request to approve the practical difficulty waiver for the Rodriguez residents. The property is located at 101 South Bel Air Drive and zoned RS 3D. So if anyone is going to speak, Quentin will be swearing you in. No. No. But I will read the news, and the clerk will swear in my name, but you're doing great. Thank you. The city clerk will swear in all the witnesses before speaking. Please come to the microphone and state your name and whether or not you have been administered the oath. Any speaker may be cross-examined. If you refuse to be cross-examined, your testimony will not be considered. Cross-examination shall be conducted in a careless manner. The material in the city clerk's agenda packet will be made a part of the record. The city staff will meet the first presentation, followed by a presentation from the applicant, and any affected parties. Do we have any affected parties tonight, clerk? We have no affected parties, and then we'll open it up to the public, and then the board may set a reasonable time for our speakers. The hearing will then be closed, and the matter decided. The board's decision will be delineated in this motion and rendered in writing by way of a development order based on the evidence decision tonight. The board may also continue now to a designated time to allow for additional time or research or review. Madam Clerk, can you swear in the witnesses, please? Sure. Okay, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. Good evening. Lisa Selk, Senior Planner with the Planning and Zoning Department. Again, as you said, this is PN 24-0087, located at 101 South Bel Air Drive. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Southwest 1st Street and South Bel Air Drive. The property is 14,317 square feet and developed with a single family residence. The property is zoned RS3D and is surrounded by properties with the same zoning district and development pattern. Okay, here's the aerial. The purple boundary is the public notification boundary, and the property is also located in a neighborhood called Plantation Park. Okay, here's the survey. Now, I'm not sure when the house was built, but the pool was built in 1978. Oh, the house was built in 1960? Okay, so the house was built in 1962, per the applicant. Okay, so the pool was built in 1978, and at the time that the pool was built, it was meeting code. It currently meets the front setback area here, which is 30 feet from the front, which is South Bel Air Drive, and it meets over here at the corner street side setback as well. At the time, it was also installed a five-foot-high wood fence. Okay, so there is the background on that property. You can also see another view of their plans showing the pool and the fence. They've also put the locations of the gates and that type of thing. Okay, so the applicant is here before you today because they were cited on October 17, 2023, for constructing a six-foot-high fence without the benefit of a building permit. The applicant applied for the permit, and the permit was denied because the height of the fence is too high in the front setback area. Code limits it to four feet in height. They were asking for a six-foot-high fence. As you can see here, this is their front yard off South Bel Air Drive, and they're just trying to screen the pool over here. Here we go. So we've got some Google photos for you. This is also our typical diagram that we send out to people from the print-up fences to kind of show maximum height in the front yard setback is four feet. Okay, here's their request to put up the six-foot-high fence instead of a four-foot-high fence in the front setback. I also will say, which I forgot to put in there, is that the fence is setback from the front property line approximately 20 feet, and on the side, corner street side, is about 12 feet. So they meet the setback requirements as well. Okay, here is a Google or BCPA pictometry view. We're going to see here's Southwest First Street. Here's South Bel Air Drive, and there's the pool. Here's our Google Street view, and here's the installed fence condition right here in their front yard. You can also see the fence over here. Here is at the corner where you've got the corner street side view, and you've got their front yard view. Okay, and then here is also the corner street side view. Okay, notices were sent out on September 17th. We've had no objections or support at all, no contact with the public. So there's that. We are requiring, though, that they do put in the required hedge material on the outboard side of the fences along First Street and South Bel Air Drive. Okay, and the staff has found, per the criteria, that the request shall not be a substantial relationship to what is required by code, partially meets, and that the approval of the practical difficulty waiver is compatible with the development patterns, mostly, yes, it is, and that the essential character of the neighborhood will be preserved. We believe it meets that as well, and that the request can be approved without causing substantial detriment to the adjoining properties, and that the request is due to unique circumstances of the property, and that the property owner or applicant would render nonconformity with the strict requirements of the code and necessarily burdism. Yes, that their house is situated in a way where there's no way they could move their pool in the backyard. Okay, we're recommending approval. Do you guys have any questions? So do we open it up? Is anyone else testifying first? You would ask for the applicant if they had any additional presentation they wanted to make. If none, then you open it to the public. And if none, then you close it in. Do you guys want to come up? No, Richie, Lisa, what's the fee on this deal? I saw it was like $500, but you only want $1,000, or they've already paid $500? They've already paid $500, so we want another $500. And the permit fee? The permit fee, that I don't, you know. They're going to get double fee on the permit side as well. So they're going to pay $1,000 plus? Yes. A fee? Yeah. Another fee for the? Yes, sir. And what that is? I do know off the top of my head. I mean, is this $1,000 standard, or is it because they did it without the permit? If they had not done it without a permit, it would be $500. For our fee. But since it was done without a permit, it's $1,000. We just did a code rewrite for our fees probably about a year ago, and we went up for that. I'm going to open it up first to the dais. Anyone? Questions? Okay. Anyone in the public or audience want to speak? Okay. Yeah, you said that we paid $500, and then talk about it. You have to go up to the... It's got to be part of the record. That's why, yeah, it's not my question. That's great. I found a receipt. She has to say her name. Enter the microphone. Caridad Rodriguez? Okay. I was trying to understand. What is... You were reading that $500 hasn't paid, and it's going to be the $500. Okay. My question is, my husband was sold. They gave him a receipt, and he paid $1,000 already. If we have the receipt, talk to me. Okay. And call me tomorrow morning, and I'll give you my card before we leave, and then we'll... Say that. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Okay. Yep. Okay. Yeah, so if we... That's... And you're asking... You're saying there's another $500? No. If you guys have that, then that's going to be wiped out. Yeah, I'm going to sit right here. Okay. Okay. Very good. So just get with me after on the weekend, Tom. Okay. Motion to approve. Second. With staff conditions. Were there any staff conditions? There was staff condition for my hands in front of the fence. Okay, so I call. I'll amend the motion to be... Motion to approve subject to staff conditions. I'll second. Can we call the vote, Madam Clerk? Okay. Yes. Mr. Stalk? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. O'Brien? Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gelfand? Thank you. The motion passes. So now, unless staff wants to go out of order, I guess we'll go to public hearing number one. Mr. P.D. 24-0001, an ordinance of the City of Plantation, Florida, pertaining to the subject of comprehensive planning, adopting the annual amendment to the capital improvements element of comprehensive plan of the City of Plantation. Daph, thank you. Hey. How are you guys doing? Excellent. I'm doing great. This is the first time I believe you guys have seen the capital improvements element for most of you. I think, Mr. Stalk, you probably have seen it in the past. Okay. So the capital improvements element is an element of our comprehensive plan, which is state mandated. Part of the capital improvements element is that we have this beautiful table in the back. These are for capital improvement projects that are basically going to help with the level of service within the City. We're talking traffic, transportation, roadways, sanitary sewer, drainage, water, parks and recreation, if we have any projects that we don't meet level of service. Right now, we're okay there. Every year, by December 1st, we are supposed to have updated this table. Now, just full disclosure on this, the last time we updated the table was in 2019. So we're trying to comply with our state mandates. So this is before you here. The projects that you see listed on the table, because basically the only thing that's changed, we haven't done any text amendments or anything like that, in volume one. All right, let's go back to that. So we have two sections on this that we're looking at. We've got volume one, which are going to be our goals, objectives, and policies. And volume two is going to be our data and analysis. So volume one, the goals, objectives, and policies did not change. We just updated the project table, which those projects did come from the city budget, the annual comprehensive financial report for fiscal year ending September 30th, which was published in March of 2024, and the transportation improvement plan from the Broad Metropolitan Planning Organization. So what you see here are projects that have funded and have already been approved by some type of agency, whether it's the city council or the private NPO, FDOT, that type of thing. So that being said, do you guys have any questions for us? We'll open it up. Okay. So I have a quick question. Okay. So you just mentioned that these are for projects that are already funded, because I know that the NMTP, for example, I believe that the city council did adopt it. Yes. But not all those projects are funded. So I sound like the Cleary Boulevard project, but I didn't see some of the Midtown projects. Is that why? That's why. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, they have to be funded. They have to have money before they get on their list. Yeah. We can't be like the NPO and have an unfunded priority section? No. A wish list, yes, no. Okay. I have a question. This is supposed to be done in the last time it was done was five years ago. Why is that? I think it was an oversight. The person that was actually in charge of doing this, he retired, and nobody picked it up. So I'm just going to be honest on that. Yeah, I appreciate that. Will the city be, if it's done, if the state requires it, and they didn't get any of this information for five years, they haven't even said, hey, plantation, what's going on? I think they finally said something to us this year. It took them five years to notice. It took them five years to notice, so that's okay. We do have to get this done before our year-based amendments are approved, which our consultant is currently working on. Okay. So I believe those are going to be coming before you guys probably in the spring, February, March maybe. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? Anything else from the desk? Anyone from the public? Motion to approve. Okay. Sergeant. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Thank you. I mean call the vote, sorry. Just call. Mr. Spear? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Mr. Andy Berger? Yes. Mr. O'Brien? Yes. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Thank you. Let's drop the mic before the voting you have. I thank you. It was out of the way. Let the record with last. That's confidence. Number one has passed. We are now on to number two, PP24-0025, an ordinance of the city of Plantation, Florida, pertaining to the subject of zoning and land development, amending Chapter 27 of the City Code of Ordinances, specifically amending Sections 27 through 59 entitled murals. Thank you, staff. Good evening, board members. Michael Lopper, Assistant Director. So, amendments to Section 27-59 include the following, allowing murals not just within the Plantation Midtown District, but also citywide for properties with at least 150 dwelling units or 12,500 square feet of commercial or office space. And the original mural ordinance was adopted in 2022, which I think is in your backup. So, really, the only change here is allowing it outside of Midtown as well. And the process has been going to initially was to go to a Plans Adjustment Committee or to the City Council, depending on the size of the mural. However, earlier this year, and this board saw that ordinance as well, where we removed the PAC, the Plans Adjustment Committee, from the City Code, and that became effective in January. So, all of these murals would go to City Council for consideration. And staff recommends approval. Do you have any questions? Any conditions? No. I have a quick question. Sure. With regards to the new buildings that are going up on Cleary, on Pine Island, and southern areas, they have over 150 units. Who is going to approve these murals? Is it going to be council? Is it going to be right from their mouth to the council's ears? It doesn't come before us at all? As written, this ordinance, those requests would go to Planning, Zoning, Economic Development Department, and we would do an agenda item that would go straight to City Council. Okay. Thank you. Has been expressed interest in doing some more of these, not a lot, just a few, around the Gateway region or some areas that are just outside of Midtown. And in case I didn't explain it earlier, Midtown boundaries are Cleary Boulevard to the north, State Road 84 to the south, between University Drive and Pine Island. So, it's the very center part of the city. As long as it meets the requirements of the size. You can make whatever recommendation you'd like to this ordinance. Yeah. Right. I would anticipate mostly would be commercial properties, possibly some residential areas, multifamily, but predominantly commercial. I'll give you an example of, they would go before council. They may or may not approve each case. There's one example where La Coretta, sorry, Padrinos is the new location where the Albertsons used to be, that shopping center. Padrinos moved from the fountains. Yeah. So, actually, the side of that building, there's a mural which was approved. Yeah. That was approved by the city council. Yeah. Yes. Michael, is there, is there, I can understand what the gentleman said. Is there a reason why it wouldn't come before this board before it went to the council? The original ordinance just was either PAC or council. If this board would like to be part of that, you can ask to add that into the code. It's just been a policy issue when it was first adopted. I've seen it, and I love that the Padrinos mural is beautiful, but, you know, who knows who's going to be on the council in two years and four years and eight years, and what kind of murals are going to be in the city if we leave it up to the council only. That's five people deciding for a city of 95,000 people. Yeah. We're just in the advisory room. I mean, that's true, but don't they, I mean, don't they take what we offer in our judgment on this board in any way, shape, or form? Sure. Because if they don't, then why are we wasting our time here? And most of the time they do go along with the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation, but sometimes it's a very different decision at the end, one way or the other, so. I have a question. Yeah. Just to clarify, the council would have discretion over the content of the mural, so they'll just apply for a mural permit, and then you get to put it up, like they actually have to show them the rendering of the art? They would have to show what the subject is, and it gets a little hairy, I guess, when it gets into subjectivity and content and so forth. And council has a discretion to approve or not based on whatever content they choose to evaluate it on? That's fair. Okay. Yeah, I mean, we don't have specific criteria in here in the code as far as how to. I don't like that style, so I'm going to go against this mural. Like, that would be acceptable? I'm just asking, hypothetically. I'm just going to have hypotheticals in this situation. Yeah, exactly. It would be a case-by-case basis, I think. Obviously, they have to follow what the law is, but there are certain parameters that they can follow for that. So since this passed in 2022, how many murals do you have in the city? Yeah, just two. You said one, you said two. Well, there's one, actually. There's two. For the record, Dan Holmes, Planning and Zoning, Economic Development Director. To answer your question, the building in question where we talked about Padrinos, although Mr. Alport indicated the one mural that is on the south wall, you've probably seen another one. If you're driving south on University Drive, it says Midtown. It's sort of black and behind the New Burton's, you know, restaurant that's there. Those were done at the same time. So there's two. Now, we just finished. There is a new mural in a park, in a public park, which was part of a Browder County effort where they commissioned an artist that's doing murals across the United States, actually. He's love murals. Well, we did put one recently in a park, but that's on city space. And that's a beautiful mural as well. But in terms of private property, people requesting for murals, there are two that have been placed or painted on thus far. The other thing I would like to point out is that the ordinance does require that this be done by, you know, an artist, a person that has done work and, you know, substantial work. So it's not just someone walking off the street just saying, hey, I want to, you know, paint this cool, you know, design here or there or what have you. So there are some standards. And as I said, it does go to council because, you know, art is up to interpretation. So people see different things. I can tell you that the mural that was done at Padrino's was modified, actually, because someone thought that there may have been an element of satanic, you know, something in there, although the artist was kind of surprised by that. Well, they did modify it because it did bother, you know, some residents. So it was modified. But, you know, thus far, we have two. So those two, the normal course, I guess, kind of piggybacking off of Vicki, basically they had a proposal, they brought it to council, council voted, but they must have, you know, obviously publicized what it was if people came with objections. And that's correct. They submitted a proposal. The artist kind of gave his credentials in terms of the work he's done or what have you. They showed renderings of it. The artist gave an interpretation of what that was. And it made its way up to the council. The council reviewed it. And it was ultimately approved by the council. Thank you. So to Dan and Anchor's point, you all want to make a recommendation that you all see those applications before it goes to council. That can be part of your recommended action for this item. So you have the ability to request that. And the council may or may not agree with that. But you do have that ability here tonight. I just have something to say about that, which is that this is for art, for painting, something that's usually not on the very expensive side and usually done out of goodwill for their property and for the surrounding properties. And us requiring it to come before our board as well as city council before getting approval just adds, you know, one or two months to the timeline, just adds costs, while we don't ultimately have that much of a say because the city council has the ultimate say, we can just make a recommendation. But do we really want to add that extra burden onto these projects when it's something like that? That's my concern. It's going to get a lot of people to not want to do that. Michael, do you know what the mural at Kingsley Park cost? I do have the numbers in an email, but I don't know it offhand. It's over a couple of thousand dollars, like close to five or something like that? Something like that. The man who painted a mural at Kingsley Park has painted murals all over the world. He's a professional. I mean, I think that if it comes before us and if it's going to have to go to the council, I don't think that that's such a bad idea. I think that as a group of adults that live in the city plantation, maybe you like pop art, maybe I don't, whatever. But if we got a chance to see, rather than winning just the council, you know, we don't know what their taste is, and their taste could be totally out there. We can approve that anyways. We can't. Yeah, we can just let them know. I think we can motion that as part of the steps for passage, as this is now in front of us, as we're basically codifying the 2022 one for now, so we could add an additional factor. The 2022 one is already codified. Okay. You're just making some changes based on what was put in the agenda was on the table for discussion as well or not. You want to add in the step of bringing that application and discussion here before it goes to the city council. But the 2022 said it went before PAC? There is no more PAC. If it was under 400 square feet, it could be approved by the Plans Adjustment Committee, and over 400, it went to council. It went to council directly. Well, personally, I don't see any different than a marquee or a sign that's on the side of the road. It's still something. I mean, we approve landscaping here. We approve signs here. So, to me, I don't see it as any different. So, I think it should come before this committee. So, does anyone make a motion? Do we approve signs here? No. Those are assigned special exceptions. They would go straight to council as well. But it comes to us as part of plans all the time. I've seen them here before. Right. But there's a note on the elevations that says it's not part of – it's shown for reference, but, you know, it doesn't necessarily – They're asking for an exception. Right. Which would go straight to council. Yes. Is there a move that we approve the item that is presented by staff? Second. Clerk, if you can call the vote. Mr. Spear? No. Mr. Stahl? No. Ms. Demby-Burger? No. Mr. O'Brien? Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gelfand? No. Thank you. I believe it did not pass. Is there a second motion on the dais? I make a motion to approve the amendment to the state ordinance with the stipulation that had come before the PNZ board prior to going to the council? Second. Can we please call the vote, Madam Clerk? Mr. Spear? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby-Burger? Yes. Mr. O'Brien? Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gelfand? Yes. Thank you. The motion passes with that language adding in that it has to come to PNZ before it goes to the whole council. Thank you very much. Just to allay the concern, Mr. Goldstein said, this is not something that would necessarily be resubmitted for a re-review by staff. So I think if it comes to planning and zoning board, we would write it such that it would go straight to council at the very next available meeting. So that way, from the time frame perspective, it would be a little bit. Assuming council agrees with the recommendation here tonight. Exactly. Thank you. Finally, number three, PP24-0026, an ordinance of the City of Plantation, Florida, pertaining to the subject of streets and land development, amending Chapter 23 of the City Code of Ordinances, specifically amending Sections 23-22, entitled Numbering and Naming of Streets Prior to an Issuance of Building Permits. Okay. Michael Oppert. So, again, this is one section of the chapter dealing with streets and sidewalks, Chapter 23, but it is a land use issue. This is why it's before you today. So it's amending Section 23-22 to include the following. When these requests may be granted, the original language was adopted in 1964, last amended in 1986. It talked about doing this prior to your certificate of occupancy, you know, when the city was just developing and streets were being built and so forth. So this amendment would actually still have that case, but also a case of it's already has some buildings on it, already has a street name. So that would be able to be a part of this. It also required that the Postal Service approve before the City Council. And we've heard from the Postal Service that they want the City Council to approve it, and then they would approve it. So we're changing that as well. It's clarifying the internal process, because the language initially didn't really describe it that well. Clarifying that the name change is optional and secondary. What I mean by that is, well, we had a case, and I believe it's in the backup. The original name can remain. It would just be a secondary name that could be added to the street sign. So if there are existing businesses, tenants, property owners that choose not to use that new name, it's optional for them. They could still be known as whatever address. So they don't have to change all their letterhead and that type of thing. So it would be optional and secondary. And then adopting specific criteria for the City Council to consider and adopting specific notification requirements to make sure that everybody, all the property owners and business owners along the street would, or residents, whatever the case may be, would be properly notified about this request by an applicant. This was discussed by our Development Review Committee on August 27th, and staff recommends approval of these amendments. Okay, we are now opening for questions. Can you go back, if you don't mind, the list of numbers? Thank you. I have a question. So right now the post office approves after the council approves? There was a request that came before the council back in June 26th, and the postal service said that they don't have anybody that will do that. They were just basically telling us they won't do that. They want the city council to approve it first. So it kind of created a discrepancy with our current code. Did it used to be that the post office had to give primary approval? Perhaps in 1964 or whenever this was written. There's four streets. There's three streets besides mine with my house number. Right. I must thank the post office for that. So you're saying that basically... I'm speaking specifically about this versus the city engineer is the one who assigns addresses upon building permits and construction. So that's actually an internal city process. Okay. And then coordinates it with the post office and then the other outside agencies. So this actual process for what we're looking at here is the way it's written is outdated because the post service doesn't do that anymore. They will give an applicant a letter saying they approve it if the city council doesn't approve it. So it's the reverse. Thank you. So is this coming about because it's Jazzware or whatever it is wants to put their name on the signage? That is the reason for this coming at this time because when they had the request back on June, the city council had asked that we take a look at the code and amend it to clarify things because there were a lot of questions that came up. Yeah, because if there are some more businesses on the street that came on there, and I guess you're saying, yeah, fine, they can use Southwest 6th Court or it could... Jazzware is where. Jazz? Yes. So I just want to be clear, though, if this code amendment, if it's approved by UL and by the... Well, ultimately approved by the city council, it doesn't mean that Jazzware will get approval. They still have to go through the process. So staff is recommending approval regardless of any requests. It's just to clean this language up so it makes it easier for the city to process any type of request like this. So tell me then, I guess, what would happen. I mean, they're going to pay an application fee or signage fee or something? They will pay an application fee. What was that? How much is that? I believe it's a minor... It's called a minor side plan amendment. 500 bucks or something? Something in the range of 1,000, 1,500. I don't remember exactly. All right. So then do they... Are they on the hook to possibly change the sign at the end of the street that might have their name above it and then say Southwest 6th Court? Or is it the city? If it's a certain applicant... That's what they're trying to get. They're trying to say, hey, we want a sign that says your business name and then the actual street address underneath it, correct? Right. And one of the concerns that the council had was, well, why can't it remain Southwest 6th Court, the larger text, and then your name goes under that, either equal or smaller. I mean, I think it sounds like it's kind of why we're even talking about it pretty stupid because there's 10 businesses down there. Why are we going to, you know, just take someone that wants to at least get their name? I mean... Correct. And that's... How do you want city would even want to discuss it? And that's why we, unlike the previous ordinance, we added some criteria for the council to consider in here. We added notification requirements where it really wasn't clear, those types of things. And we don't anticipate that this will be used very frequently, but in case it does, we want to be able to have a clear process. So, again, whether or not this is approved, this doesn't necessarily mean that that particular application will be approved or any others after it. Can you go over number five, the criteria for city council to consider? Okay. So, it's listed on page two of three and three of three. It is the new section that would be called 23-22H. So, criteria considerations for reviewing requests to rename or co-designate a street. And so, all of these applications would be considered, reviewed by the city engineer for completeness, submitted to the city council for consideration. So, just to kind of paraphrase without reading them all point by point, whether or not the request is proposed to co-designate or rename. In other words, rename it entirely or just have a secondary name. Whether that name is already being used somewhere else in the city or in Broward County or both, you don't want to have confusion, especially with emergency services. Whether or not it's a segment of a particular street, as in the case of Southwest Sixth Court, it's actually several Southwest Sixth Courts in the city. That particular one was in the Midtown area near Pine Island Road. Whether or not it's perceived to be immoral or offensive. Whether or not it is requested to be, hold on. Whether or not the street requested to be co-designated as an existing co-designation. So, in other words, not more than one. So, it wouldn't be duplicative. Whether or not it has met the requirements of notification and it's been, has the support of affected property owners. Whether or not it has any significant historical value. And then if it's being named after a person, that person should be either retired or deceased. And then did not have a criminal record. And then whether it's named after a corporation must have, obviously, a reputation without criminal or fraudulent or immoral history. And then finally, if it's a corporation that it would be named after, whether that corporation has brought significant jobs or has brought an economic benefit to the city. So, we didn't have any criteria before. It was pretty much, the way it was written, was very, could be deemed subjective. This could still be deemed subjective, but it's a little bit clearer to the decision makers. Thank you for that. I guess if it's printed out, it's page 60 of the packet that starts. Yes. Sorry about that. No, it's okay. Questions? Prior to this, it had come through. So, just for example, American Expressway. Oops, they moved to Sunrise. Oops, the street's still called American Expressway. It was approved because there were probably 500 people employed there. And now they're gone. And now is it still called American Expressway. I don't think there's any businesses on that street. Is there a way that's going to be in part of this to change it back to whatever street it would be? Process. Right. Who's right? Whoever makes the application. No, but American Expressway, I don't believe that there's anything there except, I believe there's condos there now. So, in other words, if it was a condo association, You're saying is there an automatic reversion to the original name of the street? The answer to that is no. So, why not? Can you read my lips? Yeah, I can. But why not is because there is no process for that. That would create more burden for the individuals that remain there than create the reason why you want to be a virgin. I'm not sure if it's still named American Expressway, but point taken. I have one question, which is, is there a mechanism for the city itself to apply for an own change? Not in this ordinance, but... Okay, because the city, I mean, technically it is... I mean, technically we could do the applicant, just like we are with code amendments. Yeah. Yeah, so... Okay. So, the city can always apply to change the name anytime it wants. Right. This would be, if that's the case, it would be a council agenda item. You should probably just add that in there, though. I guess it's just so that there's no question from Max Goldstein on Wednesday night. Right. And just for a little history, Vicki brought up what, you know, there have been some streets that have had one or two names. American Express, there's one named after Rabbi Haar, there's the one that's very close to the city. Hull, 78th, and it has, I forgot the name, the other name of it, but... So, it's... Maybe on the way, I think, was another one. So, federated way around which boundaries bounds the Rourad Mall. Right. So, there are some cases that, I guess, this ordinance was utilized in the past. And then it says you reserve the right to evoke the... And incorrect information. So, you have the right to go back anyways, I think. Right. So, yeah, that's... So, perhaps that would be if the city council deems... That one would be 20 years later, though. Right, right. Okay. Now you're looking to Vicki Gaffin drive. No, you have to be retired. Heroes. Any other questions? Is there a motion? Addition of requesting it before it goes to council, but we add a mechanism for the city to apply to change the names without needing an applicant on the street itself. Could you add with that, costs would be waived, obviously, assuming if the city's applicant, they wouldn't have to pay the costs that are laid down here, that $1,000 deposit? I think there's a, we don't want to do that. There's different cost allocations that go on within the city that it probably would affect that. Okay. In this case, it would be an issue, but we don't want to create issues where there may not otherwise be any. Well, the fiscal costs would include, you know, changing the actual street signs. Public works would do that, so. Right. So that's a little bit illegal, but yeah. A little bit. Very little. Half price. Oh, there's a second for the motion. Second. Madam Clerk, please call the vote. Mr. Spear? Yes. Mr. Stahl? Yes. Ms. Demby Berger? Yes. Mr. O'Brien? No. Mr. Freeman? Yes. Mr. Goldstein? Yes. Ms. Gaffin? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. The last, I believe that's the last one. It just passed. We're good. I don't know if you want to. We'll actually, I want to, for the record, Mr. Corman, it is 6.50. We are closing within an hour. I want that notated on the record, please. Yes. We have to watch. Yes. So we are closing in under an hour, and then we will close the meeting, and I guess housekeeping will you tell us the next dates of the future meetings, if you don't mind? Still not quite decided yet, as far as what's going to happen with the next meeting in November, but we're looking at all the possible applications and projects that we have coming before you. But Shamika will reach out to you, and we'll decide that. Do we have an end of October meeting, or am I making that up? It was suggested at the last meeting, possibly. So we're just not there yet with the decision. Thank you very much. Sure. I'm adjourned.