01:12The development order request from Bay Reores Mel Enterprises Incorporated sparked considerable debate and resident concern. This order involves the construction of 38 units in the form of 19 duplexes on a property that requires compliance with floodplain management regulations. Residents from Cashmera and Grassy Point Road had previously expressed opposition during a planning board meeting, citing issues such as traffic congestion and the elevation of the property. The planning commission initially voted against the project due to this community opposition.

13:15A point of discussion was the lift station associated with the development. While the lift station on Cashmera has adequate capacity, lift station 47, located at the foot of the bridge, will require future upgrades because of existing demands, not due to the new development. The city engineer confirmed that these upgrades would address capacity issues through larger pumps and potentially a larger force main.

04:30Legal issues with the homeowners association concerning emergency service access were also addressed. A lawsuit had been initiated over access concerns, but it was clarified that this issue had been resolved by modifying the plans to exclude the problematic ingress/egress. The city attorney emphasized the importance of transparency in communications with advisory boards, especially in quasi-judicial matters like development orders.

19:49Another focal point was the ongoing discussion regarding the structure and necessity of the city’s advisory boards, specifically the Board of Adjustments. The commissioners debated whether this board, which meets infrequently, could be merged with the planning board to streamline decision-making processes. The city attorney noted that while the Board of Adjustments is a decision-making body, the planning board only provides recommendations, raising questions about the effectiveness of maintaining both.

24:23Suggestions were made to possibly eliminate the Board of Adjustments if variance requests remain low, with some commissioners sharing historical perspectives on its establishment. The procedural implications of such a merger were discussed, including the need to review and potentially amend the city charter. The role of liaisons and the clarity between boards and committees were also points of discussion, with an emphasis on consistent appointment processes.

15:12In addition to the development and board restructuring discussions, the commission reviewed a landscaping project funded by a grant. Two contractors submitted bids, with the lowest bid being $119,800, under the grant amount of $151,000. The project aims to enhance the visual appeal of entranceways at Mosley Drive, Mo Road, and the intersections of 24th and 26th Streets.

36:36The commission also weighed in on the possibility of allowing alcohol at private rentals on city property. Opinions varied, with some older citizens opposed and younger residents in favor. Concerns about public safety and liability were paramount, leading to a consensus on the need for insurance requirements and clear labeling of events as private. The city manager stressed that any events involving alcohol would not be city-sponsored to avoid liability issues.

40:58Scheduling conflicts due to an upcoming election on April 24 were also considered. The potential overlap of election results with a commission meeting led to a suggestion to reschedule the meeting to Monday instead of Tuesday. Additionally, there was a proposal to cancel a pre-commission meeting to allow commissioners to attend a Bay County Chamber of Commerce event.

43:08Finally, the commission confirmed that current members would continue to serve until the next commission meeting, even if a candidate were to win outright on election day.