Apr 12, 2021 Planning Board

[00:00:03]

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO STAND, PLEASE, FOR THE PLEDGE OF

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

ALLEGIANCE. >> PLE

>> THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO TURN OUR INSTRUMENTS, THE RINGTONES, OFF. SOME OF THEM GET REALLY INTERESTING, BUT THEY'RE RATHER DISTRACTING IN THE MEETING.

WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> MR. ALBURY.

>> PRESENT. >> MR. BURDGE.

>> YES. >> MISS CLEMENS.

>> YES. >> MR. BROAD ARE RICK.

>> YES. >> MISS GLORIA JOHNSON-SCOTT?

>> YES. >> WE HAVE A MEMBER THAT MAY NEED TO LEAVE EARLY, AT 2:55, IF POSSIBLE.

>> THAT MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE WHATSOEVER IN TODAY'S MEETING FOR SURE, I HOPE. DEPENDS ON Y'ALL.

ALL THIS, DIDN'T I? APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. I'LL ENTERTAIN A

[a. Minutes from the March 8, 2021 meeting]

MOTION. >> MOVE APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS BAKER, SELECTED BY MISS CLEMENS.

>> BEFORE I GO INTO THE BUSINESS, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP CONGRESSMAN HASTINGS FAMILY IN OUR MINDS AND HEARTS AS CONGRESSMAN HASTINGS PASSED AWAY ON APRIL 6 AFTER UNDURING A LONG ILLNESS CONCERNING CANCER. AND HE WAS AN INTERESTING CHARACTER, I MAY SAY HERE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. WITH HIS HISTORY, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO HIS HISTORY, BUT I WILL SAY HE WAS CERTAINLY -- HE CERTAINLY DID A LOT FOR RACIAL JUSTICE, EQUAL RIGHTS, HE WAS A STRONG LEADER IN CONGRESS AND I -- I THINK THAT HE'S GOING TO BE MISSED. I DIDN'T ALWAYS PERSONALLY AGREE WITH ALL OF HIS POLITICS BUT HE WAS VERY STRONG IN WHAT HE DID, AND I APPRECIATED HIS SERVICE TO

OUR COUNTRY. >> MAY I ADD TO THAT, SIR?

>> CERTAINLY. >> HE SERVED FORT PIERCE AND OUR NATION WELL IN ALL HE DID AND HE WAS AN INSPIRATION TO ME AND MANY OTHERS IN THE 60 YEARS I HAVE KNOWN HIM AND WORKED WITH

HIM. THANK YOU. >> OFFICERS ORDER OF NEW

[a. Conditional Use with New Construction - Slater Residence - 1629 Thumb Point Drive]

TO PRESENT. >> YES. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. A CONDITIONAL USE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BE LOCATED AT 1629 THUMB POINT DRIVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY .28 ACRES AND JUST WEST OF FABER AVENUE IN THUMB POINT DRIVE INTERSECTION. SUBJECT PROJECT HAS A FUTURE LAND USE LOW USE RESIDENTIAL. LOW DENSECY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE SITE PLAN, THE SINGLE FAMILY -- PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WILL INCLUDE A SHELL DRIVEWAY, POOL, POOL DECK AND BOAT DOCK. FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 5,805 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS AREA AND THERE WILL BE THREE STORIES TALL WITH THE FIRST FLOOR INCLUDING THE GARAGES, BREEZEWAY, PORCH AND FOYER. THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOORS INCLUDE SLEEPING AND ENTERTAINMENT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET OVER 28 FEET ALLOWED TO HAVE A BUILDING HEIGHT OF APPROXIMATELY 33 IN HEIGHT ABOVE

[00:05:01]

CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU. >> THE ONLY PURPLES OF THE CONDITIONAL USE ON THIS STRUCTURE IS THE ELEVATION.

>> THE ELEVATION, YES. >> THE ELEVATION IS --

>> APPROXIMATELY 33 FEET. >> 33 FEET? WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY FIVE FEET ABOVE THE LIMIT?

>> CORRECT, THE 28 FEET. >> OKAY. VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILMORE BY THE BOARD?

>> MR. GILMORE, IF MEMORY SERVES ME THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY REQUIRES ADDITIONAL USE APPROVAL UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET IN

HEIGHT? >> NO, NOT JUST SOUTH BEACH, THAT'S MOST RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO ABOVE THE 28 OR WHATEVER THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS IN THAT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO A CONDITIONAL USE.

>> ISN'T THERE A CAP AT 35 FEET THAT TRIGGERS SOME OTHER --

>> YEAH, THE CAP IS 35. >> AND THERE ARE 33.

>> 33. >> AND MULTIPLE APPROVALS ON THE

ISLAND. >> THE SOUTH BETARRR BEACH HAS A

CAP AT 35 FOR EVERYTHING. >> 35 FEET IS WITH CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AND 33 IS WHERE THE APPLICATION IS AT?

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU, I'M GOOD.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MISS JOHNSON-SCOTT? I DON'T WANT TO FORGET YOU. IT'S HARD FOR ME WHEN ONE OF MY MEMBERS IS SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE BECAUSE I HAVE A TENDENCY TO FORGET THAT YOU'RE THERE. NOT HEARING ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM OUR BOARD, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? OKAY. THIS WILL BE A GOOD TIME TO HEAR

FROM YOU. WE'LL START WITH YOU. >> YOU MAY COME TO THE MICROPHONE. STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS, DO WE HAVE A SIGN-IN

SHEET? >> YES WE DO.

>> AND IF YOU WOULD, SIGN IN PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS RICHARD SLATER. WHAT AM I -- WE'RE GOING TO BE RESIDING AT 1629 THUMB PRINT DRIVE. WE CURRENTLY RESIDE AT AVALON BEACH CLUB AT 355 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, NUMBER 301. WE CAME INTO THIS AREA A COUPLE YEARS AGO WITH THE INTENT OF RETIRING HERE. AND THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF.

WE'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO LIVE WATERFRONT. WE CAME HERE BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE WATER SPORTS. THE INLET, WE'VE BEEN SAILING SINCE MID IT'S A. WE SAILED TO THE BAHAMAS AND BACK AND ALWAYS CAME THROUGH FORT PIERCE, LOVE THE AREA SO WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF, THE LAND BECAME AVAILABLE, WE JUMPED ON IT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE NOW, TRYING TO GET THE CONDITIONAL USE OKAYED. THAT'S REALLY ABOUT IT. MY WIFE RETIRED IN 2015, AND RIGHT AFTER THAT, WE CAME OVER TO AVALON AND SINCE THEN WE HAVE BECOME MORE INTERESTED AND FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AND DECIDED WHERE WE WANTED TO LIVE AND SETTLE DOWN. THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO BUILD HERE. WE'VE LIKED WHAT THE CITY HAS DONE WITH THE AREA SINCE WE FIRST CAME OVER. YOU'VE COMPLETED SEAWAY DRIVE. THAT AREA BEAUTIFICATION, IT'S A WONDERFUL AREA. WE LIKE THE PEOPLE, THE RESTAURANTS. EVERYTHING'S GREAT. SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHY

WE'RE HERE. >> YOU CAME HERE IN --

>> HERE? >> WHAT YEAR DID YOU COME HERE?

>> WE BOUGHT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. MY BROTHER-IN-LAW LIVES IN THE SAME BUILDING ON AVALON AND WE'VE BEEN VISITING HIM. I'M A LIFELONG FLORIDA RESIDENT, I GREW UP IN THE PANHANDLE. WE LIVED IN ORLANDO SINCE '89, BEFORE THEN MELBOURNE BEACH. WE WANTED TO GRAVITATE BACK TO THE OCEAN ONCE LIFE DIRECTS WHERE YOU GO SOMETIMES. WE LIKE THE COAST, SO THAT'S -- BUT WE'VE BEEN IN CENTRAL FLORIDA SINCE WE GOT OUT OF SCHOOL IN '81. SO

WE'VE BEEN HERE SINCE THEN. >> WE THINK FORT PIERCE IS THE

[00:10:02]

>> I DON'T WANT TO TELL ANYBODY ELSE THAT BECAUSE IT'S WONDERFUL

THE WAY IT IS. >> WELL ...

>> IT'S VERY NICE. IT'S BEEN A REAL -- REAL GREAT PLACE TO COME AND VISIT AND NOW TO LIVE HERE AND HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY IS

GREAT. >> I AGREE WITH YOU. MY SELFISH SIDE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT STAY THE WAY IT IS. ON THE POLITICAL SIDE, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO HAVE GROWTH. I HOPE WE CAN MANAGE THE GROWTH AS WE HAVE BEEN AND KEEP EVERYBODY HAPPY.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> MR. SLATER, ARE YOU PLANNING

ON PUTTING A DOCK IN? >> YES.

>> LET ME ASK OF STAFF, COULD HE HAVE APPLIED FOR THE DOCK AT THE SAME TIME? THAT WILL BE CONDITIONAL USE TOO, WON'T IT?

>> NO. >> IT WON'T?

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> YES. MR. SLATER, WELCOME -- VERY MUCH WELCOME TO ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE COUNTRY AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. I HOPE THAT YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS WILL CONTINUE TO TRY AND MAINTAIN THE RESIDENTIAL

NATURE OF THE THUMB POINT AREA. >> YES. YEP.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> NO?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. >> I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.

>> IS ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS APPLICATION? NOT SEEING ANYONE ELSE, I'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS? NOT SEEING ANY. >> APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOVE TO APPROVE BY MISS BAKER, SECONDED BY MR. BURDGE. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> YOU'RE ONE STEP CLOSER TO FULFILLING YOUR DREAM.

>> SHOPPING FOR FURNITURE NOW.

[b. Development Review & Design Review - Bobcat of Treasure Coast - 4405 Prosperity Drive]

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR LIST IS 6B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, DESIGN REVIEW FOR BOBCAT AT TREASURE COAST. 4405 PROSPERITY DRIVE, AND -- MR. CREAGAN. I'M IN MY NAP TIME, I'M SORRY.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

>> IS THE PRESENTER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY AT 4405 PROSPERITY DRIVE. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS HI, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. WITH ZONING OF I1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. THE REQUEST IS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL TO EXPAND AN EXISTING BUILDING WITH -- STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING USE AND SECTION 125, 136 OF THE CITY CODE AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENES. THE CURRENT BUILDING IS 567 SQUARE FEET, A RETAIL EXPANSION WILL BE 1,875 SQUARE FEET. A PORCH EXPANSION, 1,125 SQUARE FEET AND EQUIPMENT WASH AREA TO THE SOUTH OF THE BUILDING, OTHER RATHER THE WEST OF THE BUILDING, THAT WILL BE 2,400 SQUARE FEET. IT WILL OFFER 17 PARKING BASIS AND TWO BIKE SPACES COMPLIANT WITH OFFSTREET PARKING LOADING. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, 22 TREES, 371 SHRUBS AND NO MITIGATION. AN IDEA OF WHAT THE BUILDING WILL LOOK LIKE UPON COMPLETION. THE BACK HALF OF THE BUILDING WHERE THIS ROOF IS THE EXISTING PORTION SO WHERE THIS WHITE LINE IS, THAT'S WHERE THE NEW PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST SUBJECT TO NO CONDITIONS. POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE BOARD, APPROVE AT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. YOU CAN APPROVE WITH CHANGES OR DISAPPROVE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. CREAGAN? >> LET ME ASK ONE QUESTION. I LOOKED AT THE AERIAL YOU PROVIDED. IT APPEARS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PROSPERITY DRIVE THERE ARE SIDEWALKS. IS THAT

TRUE? >> I DO NOT SEE ANY SIDEWALKS OUT THERE. I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING ANY OUT THERE. THIS IS A COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY SO PART OF THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE COUNTY FOR A DRIVEWAY PERMIT.

[00:15:05]

>> MAYBE -- JUST DISTINGUISHING THE LOT LINE. IN FRONT OF THAT ONE THAT SAYS DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE SITE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ACROSS THE STREET, YOU SEE THE WHITE LINE THAT'S JUST TO

THE OTHER SIDE OF -- >> YES, I SEE.

>> DO THEY APPEAR TO BE SIDEWALKS?

>> THAT DOES APPEAR TO BE A SIDEWALK. SO THAT WAS PROBABLE A CONDITION PUT UPON THE COUNTY BASED ON THEIR SITE PLAN. IN THIS, THIS ITERATION, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE COUNTY IF SIDEWALKS NEED TO BE ADDED OR PAYMENT IN LIEU.

>> I WONDERED, IF THEY WERE ON THE NORTH SIDE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE

TO BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. >> OH, YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> IT'S FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE TURNPIKE. CAN YOU TELL ME IF THERE ARE ANY PLANS TO HAVE THE SIGNAGE VISIBLE FROM THE

TURNPIKE? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. THIS IS SOMEWHAT CLOSE TO THE TURNPIKE BUT IT WOULDN'T BE CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE TURNPIKE THAT THERE WILL BE ANY SIGNAGE. IT'S PROBABLY, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY, MAYBE A MILE AWAY.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT'S A -- A SIDE NOTE ON THE -- IF THE SIDEWALK WERE TO BE REQUIRED OR FEE IN LIEU OF THE SIDEWALK, WHO WOULD BE THE BENEFICIARY, THE CITY OR COUNTY.

>> ST. LUCIE COUNTY. >> BUMMER. OKAY.

WANTED TO TAKE THE ROADWAY. SO ...

>> THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> I SEE NOTHING ELSE. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? IS THE APPLICANT HERE?

>> HERE. >> WOULD YOU STEP FORWARD, PLEASE. IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN

IN, PLEASE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME ISAL HAND ROW JACKSON, THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD OF THE PROJECT. ALL THE EXPLANATION THAT -- BRANDED IS PERFECT, DESCRIBING TOTALLY HOW THERE WILL BE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE SITE. SO I DON'T KNOW

WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW? >> WELL, I --

>> IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE PROJECT. >> GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE INFORMATION FROM THE TRC, I SAW THAT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT PAINTING THE BUILDING SO IT ALL MATCHED NEW CONSTRUCTION TO OLD CONSTRUCTION. I SUPPOSE THAT'S BEEN WORKED OUT.

>> YES. >> THE PARKING ISSUE WE SPOKE OF EARLIER TODAY, AND THAT'S BEEN RESOLVED.

>> YES. >> I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO ISSUES THAT I SAW OTHER THAN COMMENTS BY THE COUNTY CONCERNING THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH YOU HAVE COMMENTED ABOUT.

YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ON THAT.

>> YES, WE WENT THROUGH THE COUNTY REVIEW AND WE WERE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. SO I THINK WE'LL BE GOOD IMPACT FOR THE CITY. NOW IT'S -- YOU KNOW, A GOOD BUSINESS, AND THE AREA IS TRYING TO, I GUESS, TO CONSOLIDATE AS INDUSTRIAL.

SO -- AND THEY ARE VERY SENSITIVE ABOUT THIS -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THIS REASON. THEY WILL PUT REALLY NICE LANDSCAPE, FLAGS, POLES, NICE LIGHTING. THEY WILL TRY TO DO SOMETHING APPEALING INSTEAD OF SOMETHING INDUSTRIAL PER SE. SO THAT IS THE GOAL. AND CONTINUE BUILDING HERE ALSO. WE'LL HAVE

MORE PROJECTS HERE. >> OBVIOUSLY A GOOD FIT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT BY

THE BOARD? >> QUICK QUESTION. ARE THERE CURRENTLY LOCATED AT KINGS HIGHWAY, THE TURNPIKE FEEDER

ROAD? >> NO. IT'S FROM ORANGE AVENUE, THIS -- IT'S A HALF MILE. I CAN TELL YOU FROM 95 IS PROBABLY

THREE MILES OR TWO MILES. >> I KNOW THAT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CURRENT LOCATION. AT ONE TIME THEY WERE 13TH AND ORANGE AVENUE. AND I JUST WANTED TO RELAY, IF YOU WOULD RELAY ON TO THE BOBCAT PEOPLE, WE'RE GLAD -- I THINK THEY'RE OUT OF THE CITY AND I WANTED TO RELAY TO THOSE FOLKS, WE'RE

HAPPY THEY'RE BACK IN THE CITY. >> YES, EXACTLY, YES. I THINK THEY HAVE BEFORE A BIG BUILDING NEAR THE 95. I THINK SO. BUT

DIDN'T DO TOO MUCH RESEARCH. >> RELAY TO THEM WE'RE GLAD

[00:20:04]

THEY'RE BACK IN FORT PIERCE. >> THEY'RE VERY HAPPY TO BE IN

THE AREA AGAIN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> APPRECIATE IT. >> HAVE A NICE DAY.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC? I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE. EVERYBODY ELSE BELONGS HERE. WELL EVERYBODY BELONGS HERE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> MR. CHAIR, I WOULD REITERATE WHAT YOU STATED, WHAT MISS BAKER STATED AS WELL, THE USE OBVIOUSLY IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. IT'S GOOD TO SEE A COMPANY LIKE THIS EXPANDING HERE. WE HAVE SEEMED TO GENERATE A LOT OF INTEREST FROM EQUIPMENT SELLERS, CA BOAT AT A, JOHN DEERE, BOBCAT, IT'S A GREAT PRESENCE TO HAVE IN THE AREA AND EXPANSION OF THESE FACILITIES IS POSITIVE FOR THE CITY TO SEE SO I THINK IT'S A GREAT USE FOR THE SITE AND I'M THRILLED THEY'RE EXPANDING. THAT MEANS BUSINESS

IS GOOD. >> MR. BURDGE, COMING BACK INTO THE CITY PROPER AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT ALSO. I'LL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. BURDGE. AND A SECOND BY MR. BRODERICK. I DON'T KNOW -- THE SWITCH JUST TURNED OFF HERE OR SOMETHING.

>> CHEAT SHEET. >> I DO, I NEED A BIGGER CHEAT SHEET. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 7, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. AND I THINK THE PUBLIC THAT HAD COMMENTS MADE THEIR COMMENTS AND WE'RE BY OURSELVES AGAIN. DIRECTORS REPORT.

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

>> CHAIRMAN CREAGAN, I I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE TIME TO TALK ABOUT GIVING AN UPDATE ON OUR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND HOW THE TASK FORCE IS PROGRESSING AND THE SCHEDULE AS TO WHEN IT WILL GO BEFORE OUR COMMISSION FOR A CONFERENCE AGENDA AND THEN THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.

>> OKAY. I HOPE WE'RE NOT TIGHTENING DOWN OUR COMMITMENT TO WHEN WE'RE GOING TO THE COMMISSION. I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THAT AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE AT THE MOMENT.

>> CURRENTLY WE HAVE A DATE IN JUNE AND WE HAVE SET THAT --

>> LET ME RUN THROUGH THE SCHEDULE AND YOU'LL HAVE AN IDEA

OF WHERE THE COMMITTEE STANDS. >> MR. BRODERICK, DO YOU WANT ME

TO BEGIN? >> YEAH, GO AHEAD. YOU ROLL IT

OUT AND I'LL ADD COLOR. >> IT'S NOT UP ON THE SCREEN

RIGHT NOW. >> I DON'T HAVE IT.

>> WHAT HAPPENED? BRANDON. >> BRANDON MESSED IT UP.

>> HE ALWAYS DOES. HE JUST LOOKS AT IT.

>> I WOULD COMMENT ... >> BRANDON IS AT ATTENDANCE AT EVERY MEETING TO MAKE SURE THE TECHNOLOGY WORKS. HE GETS

CALLED EVERY TIME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. REBECCA GUERRA, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE EXACT POWERPOINT, THAT'S WHY I HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING THAT THE CITY COMMISSION SAW SO YOU WON'T SEE ANY DIFFERENT INFORMATION OR HEAR ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY THAN THE CITY COMMISSION HAS HEARD.

WITH THAT, THESE THE MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE, MR. BRODERICK IS OUR PROJECT LEADER ALONG WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, POLICE DEPARTMENT, CITY CLERKS OFFICE, CODE ENFORCEMENT. WE HAVE A REAL ESTATE REPRESENTATIVE AND CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVE. WHAT IS NOT MENTIONED IS WE ALSO HAVE OUR ESTEEMED ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY, MISS TONYA, WHO IS ON OUR COMMITTEE ADVISING US AS WE STAY FORWARD. WE MEET EVERY OTHER WEEK BUT THIS WEEK AND -- FOR THIS SEGMENT AND THE NEXT, WE'LL BE MEETING EVERY WEEK.

I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH AS TO WHY SO WE'VE ALREADY MET SO THE FIRST ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR MEETINGS HAVE TAKEN PLACE WHERE WE HAVE WRITTEN OUR MISSION STATEMENT, REVIEWED EXISTING REGULATIONS, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THE APPLICATION THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS AND THE PROCESS ITSELF. THAT WAS IN PLACE SO WE WOULD HAVE A FIRM HANDLE ON WHAT IS HAPPENING TODAY. ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAVE REVIEWED WHAT THE STATE RESTRICTIONS ON STR AND

[00:25:02]

ALL THEY DID WE DID IN OUR FIRST MEETING. WE DISCUSSED EXISTING CONDITIONS. WE DID THAT SO WE CAN SEE HOW WE CAN INCORPORATE THEM IF WE STILL WANT TO KEEP THEM WITHIN THE NEW ORDINANCE THAT WE'LL BE WRITING. WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS SO WE COULD DO JUST WHAT I SAID.

THE FOLLOWING WEEK WE REVEREND DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES AND DISCUSSED WHAT WE LIKED, DIDN'T LIKE. WE HAD SOME REALLY GREAT FEEDBACK FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. LATER WE FOUND ONE FROM HOLMES COUNTY, SOME FROM MARTIN COUNTY, MONROE COUNTY, FROM KEY WEST AREA, LARGO, FROM POMPANO BEACH. THESE ARE MUNICIPALITIES THAT SEEM TO HAVE THEIR ACT TOGETHER AND THEY HAVE A DEFINITIVE PROCESS IN PLACE THAT'S WORKING. SO LAST WEEK WAS WHEN WE BEGAN OUR EVERY WEEK MEETING AND WE'LL DO THAT ALL THROUGH APRIL 23RD. SO WE'LL HAVE A TOTAL OF FOUR MEETINGS AND NOT TWO BETWEEN THAT TIME FRAME. SO WHY THAT IS WE WANT TO FIGURE OUT OVERALL BROAD STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC SUBJECTS WHAT DO I MEAN? THINGS LIKE PARKING. WHAT'S THE PARKING SITUATION? HOW ARE WE GOING TO CALCULATE PARKING. WHERE WILL PEOPLE BE ABLE TO PARK? WHAT KIND OF SURFACE WILL REREQUIRE.

THOSE ARE THINGS WE CAN LOOKING TO INCORPORATE BECAUSE WE'RE A UNIQUE COMMUNITY AND WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S TAILOR FIT FOR OW WE WANT TO OPERATE. IS IT PERFECT? NOT YET. THERE ARE GOING TO BE GROWING PAINS BUT THIS WILL ENCOMPASS THE MAJORITY OF CONCERNS WE'VE HEARD FROM THE RESIDENTS. THAT'S A COMPONENT.

WHAT IS THAT PROPERTY MANAGER GOING TO LOOK LIKE, HOW DO WE ENFORCE THINGS, WHAT IS THE APPLICATION GOING TO LOOK LIKE? JUST A HOST OF THINGS THAT WE'LL BREAK UP INTO SUBJECTS AND LOOK AT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND SEE WHAT WE LIKE. WE STARTED WITH WHAT WE DON'T LIKE. WHAT DO WE NOT LIKE AND TWEAK IT SO IT FITS WHAT WE NEED AND LIKE. WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT BASICALLY FOR THAT FOUR WEEK PERIOD. THEN WE MOVE ONTO THE PHYSICAL PROCESS AND APPLICATION, WHICH IS REALLY REGISTRATION. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT REGISTRATION IS GOING TO BE LIKE. WHAT IS THE APPLICATION GOING TO LOOK LIKE, THE ACCOMPANY DOCUMENTS? ARE WE GOING TO HAND OUT BOOKLETS? ALL OF THAT. WE'LL LOOK AT AND SEE WHAT IT IS FROM TIP TO TOE.

WHAT'S THAT PROCESS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALCULATE FEES BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE FIGURING OUT WHAT ARE THE STEPS AND THE INITIAL STEPS AND FRANKLY WHAT I THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT, RENEWAL STEPS. SO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT WITHIN THAT WEEK. THAT MAY BE A TWO-WEEK PROCESS. THERE ARE A LOT OF MOVING PIECES. AFTER THE FIRST MEETING WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA HOW MUCH WE'VE -- HOW MUCH WE HAVEN'T BY THEN OFF THEN WE WILL -- WE WILL SOLIDIFY WHAT THAT REGISTRATION PROCESS IS AND THE PHYSICAL MATERIALS ARE. THAT'S WHY I'M HESITATING ON WHETHER IT'S ONE WEEK OR TWO WE'LL FINALIZE IT THAT WEEK. WE REVIEW ALL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BEGINNING AGAIN. WE'LL LOOK AT EVERYTHING WE DID FROM THE GET GO AND MAKE TWEAKS. JUNE 4 WE COMMITTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONFERENCE AGENDA PRESENTATION ON THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT THAT CONFERENCE AGENDA WILL LOOK LIKE. IT'S A -- THE PROCESS IS VERY IMPORTANT MOVING FORWARD. NOT ONLY FOR HOW THE TASK FORCE MOVES FORWARD BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY HOW THIS BOARD MOVES FORWARD BECAUSE YOU WILL BE THE FIRST TO VET ALL OF THIS. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BASIC PREMISE OR ROADMAP FOR HOW WE'LL PRESENT THIS. WE'RE GOING TO REEDUCATE, IF YOU WILL, AS TO WHAT ARE THE CURRENT STATE MANDATES AND RESTRICTIONS SO THEY UNDERSTAND THE PARAMETERS AND RESTRICTIONS WE'RE WORKING WITH. THEN THE BIGGEST QUESTION WILL COME INTO PLAY. WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE CITY COMMISSION TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT CONFERENCE AGENDA, WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS US TWEAK THE EXISTING ORDINANCE -- BY THE WAY, STILL KEEPING THE REGISTRATION PROCESS. THAT REGISTRATION IS GOING TO BE THERE REGARDLESS OF WHAT DECISION THEY MAKE. THE ONLY QUESTION THEY HAVE TO ANSWER IS DO WE KEEP THE

[00:30:01]

WE SPOKE WITH THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE AND WHAT THIS PROCESS WILL LOOK AT IF THE CONDITIONAL USE GOES AWAY IS THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE WILL HANDLE REGISTRATION AND RENEWAL WITH THIS WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT BEING THE ONES TO NOT ONLY ENFORCE IT BUT TO DO THOSE INITIAL INSPECTIONS AND RENEWAL INSPECTIONS THAT WILL BE REQUIRED. JUST TO GIVE YOU A BROAD SENSE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS. I'M GIVING YOU GENERALITIES AS WE HAVE THEM. AGAIN, THE REGISTRATION, ACCOUNTABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT, WE'LL GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT WE'LL SHOW ON JUNE 14TH.

MR. BRODERICK, I'LL HAND IT OVER TO YOU. MISS HOFMEISTER IS ALSO

ALSO. >> LET'S HEAR FROM MR. BRODERICK

BEFORE WE GO INTO QUESTIONS. >> REBECCA, THANK YOU, THAT WAS A VERY CONCISE PRESENTATION. THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN DIGESTED BY THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS FOR WEEKS SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE NUANCES OF THIS. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE ISSUES THAT REBECCA BROUGHT UP THAT ARE FLOATING AROUND OUT HERE AND MAY BE MISUNDERSTOOD IN A CERTAIN CAPACITY. I'LL COME BACK TO E1 ZONING. AS REBECCA INDICATED, IF BY CHANGING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS WE SUBSEQUENTLY LOSE THE PROTECTION AND E1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT PROHIBITS VACATION RENTALS OR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AT THIS TIME SO THERE'S BEEN A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AT THE TASK FORCE LEVEL RELATIVE TO KEEPING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS AS IT EXISTS AND ENHANCE WITH THE REGISTRATION, APPLICATION PROCEDURE, THAT PACKAGE OF INFORMATION MOVING FORWARD. WE CAN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS AS IT EXISTS DOES NOT WORK IN THIS -- FOR THIS PARTICULAR PRODUCT. HAVING SAID THAT, THERE IS THIS DOWN SIDE TO ABANDONING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF -- OR NO LONGER PROHIBITION AGAINST SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE E1 OR STATE ONE ZONING, WHICH REBECCA INDICATED IS ONLY IN INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. THE COMMENT YOU HAD, YOUR OFFICE IS CALLED REGULARLY BY POTENTIAL BUYERS TO WANT TO BUY THOSE BEAUTIFUL HOMES FOR SHORT TERM RENTAL. SO THERE'S A RUB WITH THAT. THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT IS THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS AS IT EXISTS SIMPLY IN THIS INSTANCE DOESN'T WORK. WE NEED A BETTER PROCESS SO THERE COULD BE CARNAGE BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD WITH THE EE1 ZONING BUT THAT'S UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION DEPENDING ON WHAT ROUTE THEY WANT TO GO.

AS IS INDICATED, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THIS RATHER EXTENSIVE APPLICATION OR REGISTRATION PROCEDURE WITH FEES ATTACHED. LET ME TOUCH ON THAT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE INTO DETAIL WITH THAT. BUT THE TASK FORCE HAS TAKEN THE PERSPECTIVE, WE BROADENED HORIZONS AS FAR AS NOT JUST DEALING WITH APPLICATION BUT HOW WILL REROLL OUT THE NEW ADMINISTRATIVE

[00:35:02]

WE'VE IDENTIFIED FUNDING SOURCES AND STAFFING NEEDS. WE WANT TO PUT THIS IN A NICE PACKAGE AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION, IT'S NOT JUST A PACKAGE OF PAPERWORK, IT'S A BUSINESS MODEL IN A GOVERNMENTAL WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FUND AND GET THEM PROPERLY MANAGED AND ENFORCEMENT IS CRITICAL. HAVING SAID THAT, I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE WEEDS AS FAR AS THE NUANCES OF EVERYTHING YOU PRESENTED BECAUSE THE PAPERWORK IS VOLUMINOUS. IT IS MASSIVE. I'M NOT GOING TO BORE YOU WITH THOSE DETAILS. SUFFICE TO SAY THE TASK FORCE IS CUTTING THROUGH THIS STUFF WITH A HOT KNIFE TO TRY TO TAKE OUT THE BEST COMPONENTS FROM ALL THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES BURDENED WITH THIS PROBLEM LONGER THAN WE HAVE SO WE'RE TRYING TO LEARN FROM THEM AND THEN PUT A LITTLE BIT OF A FORT PIERCE TOUCH ON IT AS FAR AS WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE SPECIFIC ISSUES WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

THE ORIGINAL TARGET DATES WERE AGGRESSIVE. THEN ONCE WE STARTED REALIZING HOW MUCH INFORMATION WE WERE DEALING WITH, IT WAS A PROPER THING TO EXTEND THE TIMELINES INTO THE JUNE CONFERENCE AGENDA. HAVING SAID THAT, MY OPINION, I DIE VERGES IS CLEAR. KEEP THE CONDITIONAL USE AS IT EXISTS AND ENHANCING THAT WITH THE RECOMMEND TRANSPORTATION PROCESS AND OTHER THINGS WE JUST DESCRIBED OR WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND ABANDONING THAT AND MOVING FORWARD WITH JUST THE REGISTRATION PROCEDURES THEMSELF. THAT'S A CITY COMMISSION CALL. THE OTHERS HAVE TO VOTE. IT'S A VERY, VERY DIFFICULT DECISION BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING CLEAN GOING IN EITHER DIRECTION. IT'S CONVOLUTED AND THERE'S PROBLEMS CREATED IN EITHER DIRECTION. IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? WE WISH THERE WAS A SILVER BULLET TO SAY THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH. REBECCA HAS DONE A MASTERFUL JOB BRINGING THAT INFORMATION TO THE TABLE TO DIGEST IT AT THE TASK FORCE LEVEL TO BRING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION BECAUSE NOW THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, THIS IS LIGHT YEARS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I CONTEMPLATED GOING IN.

>> THAT'S A GOOD -- >> IT'S TOTALLY CHANGED DIRECTION. THE FLEXIBILITY OF THE TASK FORCE HAS BEEN GREAT.

WE'VE JUMPED ON TOPICS AS THEY COME UP, DISPENSE WITH THEM AND MOVE ON BUT WE KEEP RUNNING INTO MORE UNIQUE PROBLEM AREAS THAT IS GOING TO BE IN ESSENCE EVERYBODY'S PARTICIPATION TO MAKE A PROPER DECISION MOVING FORWARD. PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

THAT'S MY GIST OF IT FROM THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE. BUT I THINK STAFF'S DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB GETTING THIS STUFF TO THE TABLE TO SIT THERE AND SAY WOW, ARE YOU KIDDING ME? WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT TOO. WE'RE GETTING THERE. IT'S JUST A SLOW PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME OF INFORMATION WE'RE DEALING WITH. I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE.

I DO KNOW THIS IS A HIGH PROFILE ISSUE RIGHT NOW. I HAVE HAD THE

[00:40:01]

>> I THINK THE COMMENT YOU MADE -- THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IN THIS APPLICATION IS NOT WORKING.

>> IT'S BROKEN. >> THAT'S ALMOST AN UNDERSTATEMENT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT LED ME INTO ASKING FOR THIS -- I CALLED IT A COMMITTEE ORIGINALLY. THAT IS NOW BEING CALLED A TASK FORCE. I GUESS I'M NOT -- I MEAN --

>> IS SOUNDS -- >> POTATO, POTATO. MY OBJECTIVE WHEN I REQUESTED THIS WAS TO TRY TO GET THE CONDITIONAL USE SHORT-TERM RENTALS OFF OF THE DAIS. I FELT A NEED WAS THERE TO GET IT OFF OF THE COMMISSIONER'S DAIS. THIS WAS MAYBE A YEAR AGO THAT WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS. AT THAT TIME I STARTED SPEAKING WITH COMMISSIONERS ONE-ON-ONE.

AND MANY OF THEM BOUGHT INTO THE IDEA OF GETTING THIS OFF OF THEIR DAIS. AND I THINK THAT COMMENTS PARTICULARLY OVER THE PAST TWO MEETINGS, MAYBE FOUR, FROM THE COMMISSION, THEY ARE BOUGHT INTO THE IDEA OF GETTING IT OFF OF THEIR DAIS. THEY DON'T LIKE IT ANY MORE THAN WE DO. Y'ALL DO. AND I THINK THE ONLY WAY THAT CAN HAPPEN IS TO SET UP THE PROPER MEANS OF CERTIFYING AN APPLICATION AND POSSIBLY IT STAYS IN THE CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE IF YOU START FOOLING WITH IT AS I BELIEVE YOU HAVE POINTED OUT, YOU MAY, NOT TODAY, BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YOU HAVE POINTED OUT THAT WHEN YOU START FOOLING WITH THE CHANGING THE CONDITIONAL USE, NOT ONLY ARE YOU OPENING THE DOOR FOR SOME ISSUES IN AREAS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO OPEN THAT DOOR, BUT IT ALSO HAS AN IMPACT ON THE ORDINANCE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN A NEGATIVE WAY. I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. SO I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW DO WE MANEUVER THROUGH THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO THROW ON THE TABLE, IT'S PROBABLY ALREADY BEEN ON THE TABLE, YOU'VE PROBABLY ALREADY HEARD IT BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT ANYWAY. I THINK WHAT NEEDS -- WHAT I WOULD LOOK AT DOING IS CREATING A MEANS OF CERTIFICATION THAT THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT MUST BE MET BEFORE WE CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN APPLICATION. ONCE THIS IS MET, IT COMES BACK TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOOKS AT IT. IT'S EITHER THERE OR IT'S NOT. IF IT IS, THEY'VE GOT THEIR CONDITIONAL USE. AND GET IT OUT OF THES DIE SASS. WE SPEND WAYO MANY HOURS ON THIS. THERE'S NO AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT YOU COULD COLLECT TO PAY THE CITY FOR THE MAN HOURS THAT HAVE BEEN SPENT ON VACATION RENTAL PROPERTIES IN FORT PIERCE. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO SAY, WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE VALUE OF WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THIS ... A CERTIFICATION, A LICENSE, A PERMIT, WHATEVER LEGALLY YOU'RE ALLOWED TO CALL THAT PIECE OF

[00:45:02]

I HAVE LOOKED AT SOME OF THE -- I'M GOING TO CALL IT LICENSING BECAUSE LAYMEN'S TERMS, IT'S GOING TO BE A LICENSE. I HAVE LOOKED AT SOME PROFESSIONAL LICENSES THAT ARE RETIRED IN FORT PIERCE NOW THAT ARE AS LITTLE AS $10, WHICH TELLS ME THEY PROBABLY HAVEN'T BEEN CHANGED SINCE THE 1800'S. IT'S TIME TO CHANGE THEM ACROSS THE BOARD. IT'S TIME FORT PIERCE BECOMES WHAT WE ARE IN OUR FEE ARRANGEMENTS. I CAME OUT OF THE BIG WORLD. IF A MUNICIPALITY TOLD ME I NEEDED TO SPEND $5,000 TO GET A LICENSE TO DO X AND I THOUGHT I WOULD MAKE A LIVING DOING X, I SPENT THE $5,000 WHETHER IT WAS A ONE-TIME DEAL OR AN ANNUAL DEAL. IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO ME.

THAT'S THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS. BUSINESS PEOPLE ACCEPT THAT COST. WHAT DO WE DO WITH IT? PASS IT ON TO YOU WHEN YOU WANT TO USE OUR SERVICE OR PRODUCT. I WISH OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD FIGURE THAT OUT IN TAXES.

BUT DON'T BE BASHFUL ABOUT THAT IF I WANT TO BE IN A VACATION RENTAL BUSINESS, CHARGE ME FOR IT.

>> NO WORRIES. WE'VE GOT IT COVERED.

>> CHARGE ME FOR IT. >> IF I MAY ...

>> NO.

NO, GO AHEAD. >> IT WILL TAKE ME A YEAR. BEST OF LUCK TO YOU. IF I COULD JUST WHAT -- I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND NOT JUST WHAT THE STATE'S RESTRICTIONS ARE BUT WHAT IMPACT THEY HAVE ON WHAT STAFF CAN BRING FORWARD TO THE TASK COMMITTEE AND OTHERWISE TO ALL OF YOU AND THE COMMISSION.

WE CAN'T TOUCH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. I CAN'T CHANGE IT SO THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS FOR AN STR WILL BE ADMINISTRATIVELY HANDLED. CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS PER OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES HAS TO GO TO YOU FIRST AND CITY COMMISSION.

THE SECOND WE TOUCH THAT CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, AS SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO STR, EVERYTHING GOES OUT. IT'S ALL DONE AWAY WITH. THE INSTANT WE TWEAK ANYTHING THAT SPECIFICALLY HAS TO DO WITH LOCATION OR DURATION, IN THIS CASE, LOCATION, IS NOT JUST SPECIFICALLY WHERE AN APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR, IT'S WHAT OUR CODE IDENTIFIED YOU CAN ASK FOR PERMISSION TO HAVE IT IN. SO UNFORTUNATELY AS MUCH AS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL MIGHT HAVE SOUNDED WELL, RIGHT? AND IT MAY HAVE MADE SENSE IN THE COMMON SENSE WORLD, IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES, WE DON'T HAVE THAT LATITUDE. OUR CODE SAYS CONDITIONAL USES HAVE TO GO BEFORE THIS BOARD AND THEY HAVE TO BE APPROVED ULTIMATELY OR DENIED BY CITY COMMISSION.

THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO IN THAT REGARD.

>> ONCE WE CHANGE IT, OR ELIMINATE IT.

>> THEN WE LOSE IT. WE KEEP REFERRING BACK TO E1.

>> IT'S THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THERE ARE OTHER COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THAT DON'T ALLOW IT.

>> WHEN I LOOKED AT -- YEAH, THAT DOES NOT ALLOW.

>> YES, SIR. >> SO THEY ARE PRIMARILY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY'RE THE PROPERTIES ALONG INDIANA RIVER

DRIVE. >> I WOULD SAY 80% ARE THERE.

>> THAT CANNOT EVEN BE USED UNDER CONDITIONAL USE BUT THE CONCERN THEN WOULD BE THAT IF WE DID ANYTHING TO THE CONDITIONAL USE ORDINANCE, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN I COULD COME IN, BUY AN 18 ROOM MANSION ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, COME INTO THE CITY AND SAY I WANT TO PUT VACATION RENTAL AND THEN YOU GET A CALL FROM MY NEIGHBOR, POSSIBLY, COMPLAINING THAT YOU JUST GAVE ME A CONDITIONAL USE NEXT DOOR TO THEM.

>> IT COULD BE CONDITIONAL USE. >> BECAUSE THE CONDITIONAL USE

WOULD BE GONE. >> RIGHT.

>>

ABOUT. >> WHAT THE COMMISSION AND WHAT YOU ALL WILL BE OPINING ON WHEN WE BRING THIS THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS IS WHETHER IT'S GOING TO HAVE CONDITIONAL USE AND GO THROUGH A PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WITH THE REGISTRATION OR WHETHER IT'S GOING TO HAVE REGISTRATION AND WHAT EVER FEES WILL BE DIRECTED, THAT APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH SO THERE'S AN INVESTMENT THAT EITHER WAY WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRING OF AN APPLICANT. BUT THE REAL QUESTION THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MADE IS WHETHER IT GOES THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, WHERE WE ALL KNOW HAD A THOSE HAVE BEEN LIKE, OR WHETHER IT JUST GOES THROUGH THE REGSTRATION.

>> SO THE SECOND THING I WANTED TO BRING UP WAS THIS IDEA OF

[00:50:05]

BUT GUESS WHAT, I'M GOING TO BE BRINGING IT BACK HERE SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS AGAIN AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE RESOLUTION WILL LOOK LIKE. NORMALLY I WOULDN'T BRING A RESOLUTION FOR FEES BECAUSE IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY PART OF A CHAPTER 125. BUT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT. SO THAT LEADS ME TO TO THE THIRD CONFIDENCE. AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO CHARGE THE MOON, I COME FROM THE SCHOOL OF PLANNING. AS MOST BUSINESS FOLKS ON THE DAIS, I HAVE TO HAVE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THOSE FEES. I HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH DATA AND INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO YOU. THIS IS THE COST OF SERVICE FROM STAFF AND FROM OTHER MEMBERS THAT ARE PROS PROCESSING THIS THAT WILL JUSTIFY THE FEES CHARGED. SO I HAVE TO CALCULATE FROM STEP ONE THE STAFF THAT ARE INVOLVED, WHAT'S THE PAY THAT'S GOING TO BE ATTRIBUTED THROUGH ALL THE INSPECTIONS, THROUGH THE PROCESSING, EVERYTHING. THROUGH THE DATABASE SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE, I HAVE TO TAKE ALL OF THAT INTO ACCOUNT. THERE'S A MILLION MOVING PIECES INVOLVED WITH THIS FEE. AND I'M GOING TO BRING A NUMBER MOVING FORWARD NOT JUST TO THIS BOARD BUT TO THE COMMISSION, I'M GOING TO HAVE IT JUSTIFIED SO YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW EXACTLY WHY I'M CHARGING. FOLKS THAT HAVE TO PAY THAT FEE FROM NOW ON THAN ARE NOT EXPECTING IT -- BY THE WAY, THE ONCE DOING IT ARE PAYING A 5-DOLLAR RENEWAL FEE.

YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE THE OBJECTIONS THE CITY CLERK RECEIVES FROM VARIOUS FOLKS, NOT JUST THEM. EVEN THAT RENEWAL FEE FOR THAT, WHICH COSTS $10 AND THEN $5.

>> WHICH AGAIN. >> RIGHT. WE'RE ANTICIPATING BACKLASH, PARTICULARLY FOR THE FOLKS ALREADY GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH CONDITIONAL USE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN FROM THE REGISTRATION PROCESS. THAT WILL BE THE INITIAL ONE WITH ANNUAL RENEWAL AND A BI-ANNUAL INSPECTION. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT HIT TO THEM. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THE TASK FORCE IS WRESTLING WITH. HOW ARE WE GOING TO PROCESS NOT JUST NEW APPLICATIONS BUT FOLKS ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS WE CONTEMPLATED IN THAT VENUE WAS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A NEW APPLICATION VERSUS A GRANDFATHERED UNIT AND TIERING THE COST STRUCTURE FOR PEOPLE ALREADY IN THE SYSTEM AND MAKING IT NOT NECESSARILY REASONABLE FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE ANYTHING OVER $5 WON'T BE DEEMED REASONABLE BUT WE FELT THERE NEEDED TO BE SOME PARITY BETWEEN EXISTING RENTALS AND NEW APPLICATIONS COMING IN.

SUBSEQUENTLY, WHEN THEY'RE ALL IN THE SYSTEM THEY'RE TREATED EQUALLY AS FAR AS A FEE ON ANNUAL RENEWAL. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE WRESTLED WITH FOR TWO MEETINGS BUT WE'LL GET THAT SORTED OUT AS WELL. THE OTHER THING, BACK TO THE JUNE 14 CONFERENCE AGENDA, WE DID HINT THAT YOU MAY NOT WANT TO PUT MUCH ELSE ON THAT AGENDA I HAVE A SENSE IT'S GOING TO BE A FAIRLY LONG SESSION OF A ZILLION QUESTIONS. EVERY COMPONENT OF THIS NEW DOCUMENT WILL BE NEW INFORMATION. THIS IS NOT A REVAMP OF SOMETHING THAT IS EXISTING SO THE COMPETITION WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT EVERY SINGLE COMPONENT AND WHAT WAS THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS THE TASK FORCE WENT THROUGH TO COME UP WITH THAT PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A

BUSINESS MORNING. >> COMMISSION DIDN'T GET OUT OF

[00:55:01]

HERE UNTIL 1:30 TODAY. >> I'M NOT GOING TO LOOK YOU IN THE EYE.

>> JUST A MINUTE, WE HAVE A MEMBER THAT NEEDS TO LEAVE AND I APPRECIATE YOU COMING THROUGH TODAY AND MAKING SURE YOU ARE HERE FOR YOU WERE HERE FOR THE BIG PART OF IT.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME. CONTINUE ON.

>> A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I'M SURE THESE HAVE BEEN TOUCHED UPON WITHIN THE COMMITTEE ITSELF. ONE OF THEM IS, IN THE REGISTRATION PART, BECAUSE THESE ARE CONSIDERED BUSINESSES, RIGHT? THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. MISS BAKER BROUGHT UP AN IMPORTANT PART ABOUT HAVING THE TYPE OF INSURANCE ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD QUALIFY IN THE ASPECT OF BUSINESS VERSUS RESIDENTIAL. HAS THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSED THE TYPE OF INSURANCE

THE PROPERTY SHOULD MAINTAIN? >> SO WE ACTUALLY HAVEN'T. IN THE RESEARCH THAT WE'VE MADE TO THE DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE THESE ORDINANCES IN PLACE -- BY THE WAY ALL THE MUNICIPALITIES I CHECKED HAD THEM IN PLACE FROM TWO TO THREE YEARS. WE DIDN'T PICK ANY THAT JUST IMPLEMENTED THEM. NOT ONE HAS THAT PUT IN THERE. SO WE WILL OF COURSE CHECK WITH OUR LEGAL STAFF AND LEGAL COUNSEL BUT THERE ISN'T A SINGLE MUNICIPALITY THAT HAS THAT COMPONENT WRITTEN INTO THEIR

LICENSING OR REGISTRATION. >> THE OTHER THING IS, I'M SURE SOMEBODY HAD TO LOOK AT THIS BEFORE -- WAS THAT THE RENTER, THE RENTER OF THE APARTMENT, PAY A FEE IN ORDER TO RENT THE PROPERTY. PAY A FEE TO THE CITY FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL OF CODE ENFORCEMENT MAY HAVE TO COME OUT AND TAKE CARE OF SOMETHING THAT THEY MAY START OR NOT START OR SOMETHING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY MIGHT WANT CODE ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE AND IT THE RENTER HELP PAY FOR THOSE FEES IN ORDER FOR ENFORCEMENT, ESPECIALLY. IT'S THE SAME THING AS OCCUPANCY TAX, WE ALL PAY IT WHEN WE GO TO THE MARRIOTT IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, YOU PAY A ROOM TAX.

>> IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE ACTUALLY HAVE DISCUSSED VIOLATIONS SO WHAT WE HAVE FOUND FROM DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES AND A MORE INTERESTING CONVERSATION WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER IS BUSINESS OWNERS ARE MORE INCENTIVIZED WHEN THEY'RE THE ONES BEING CHARGED THAT VIOLATION. SO WE HAVE A FIRST VIOLATION FEE AND SECOND AND GUESS WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE THIRD VIOLATION? THEIR REGISTRATION GOES AWAY AND THEY MAY NOT GET IT FOR ANOTHER YEAR WHAT WE HAVE FOUND AND WHAT MISARAY'S EXPERIENCE TAUGHT HER WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THE ONE WHO HAS TO BE THE FEE AND IS IN DANGER OF LOSING THEIR REGISTRATION, THEY'RE MORE INCENTIVIZED TO MAKE SURE THEIR RENTERS FOLLOW THE RULES AND THEY'RE MORE APT TO SHOW UP FASTER AND BE MORE RESPONSIVE AS A RESULT OF NOT JUST THE FEE, WHICH BY THE WAY $50 FEE, NO, BUT THE FEAR OF LOSING THEIR REGISTRATION AFTER -- AFTER THE THIRD TIME IS MORE OF AN

INCENTIVE MOVING FORWARD. >> ONE OF THE THINGS TYING INTO THAT AND THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO THE WEEDS. WE HAD TO GET A COMPLETE EDUCATION ON HOW DO YOU ACTUALLY REVOKE A LICENSE? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH PROCESS AND CITY COMMISSION? WE HAVE DELAY IN THAT PROCESS OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION OVER TO PULL THE PLUG SO WE WERE TRYING TO SPEED THAT UP TO ACTUALLY CARRY THE STICK WHEN NECESSARY HERE. HOWEVER, THAT QUESTION REMAINS OPEN. THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED.

THE CONCERN ON THE VIOLATION END WAS PROVING THE VIOLATION, OF COURSE. SO WE HAVE THE BURDEN OF ALL THESE PROCESS THAT NEED TO BE GONE THROUGH AND THAT'S STILL IN ANALYSIS BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE TANGENTS WE GET STUCK ON FOR AN HOUR AT A TIME. YOU ARE

POINT IS 100% VALID. >> I'M JUST INTERESTED IN THE ASPECT OF IF I RENT A PLACE ON SOUTH BEACH IN FORT PIERCE, THE OWNER'S GOING TO GET $100 A NIGHT AND THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE A OCCUPANCY TAX OF 5 OR 1% OF WHATEVER THE RATE IS --

>> THERE'S A HOTEL TAX LICENSE INVOLVED.

>> THAT GETS PAID. >> IN VACATION RENTAL. THAT'S A COUNTY TAX LICENSE. DO THEY NOT SHARE ANY OF THAT HOTEL TAX WITH

THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE? >> NO.

>> SO THERE'S THREE BASIC LICENSES THAT YOU HAVE TO RECEIVE IF YOU'RE IN THE CITY. YOU HAVE A CITY ONE, WHICH IS OUR BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT, THE COUNTY ONE, THEIR LICENSE, THEIR BUSINESS TAX LICENSE FROM THE COUNTY, THEN THEY HAVE THE STATE

[01:00:04]

>> ON THE TAX SIDE, WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS THEY PAY THE COUNTY, THE HOTEL TAX -- TOURIST TAX.

>> AND THEN PAY SALES TAX SO THERE'S NOTHING COMING BACK TO THE CITY. THE CITY IS NOT GETTING A BITE OF THAT APPLE.

HOWEVER, WHO IS DEALING WITH IT THE CITY, BUT THE CITY IS

COLLECTING ZERO FUNDS. >> THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE

OUGHT TO HAVE A OCCUPANCY TAX. >> THAT WOULD BE PART OF REGISTRATION FEE AND THEY WOULD -- I ASSUME THE OWNERS WOULD BE PUTTING THE -- MOVING THAT COST TO THE RENTERS.

>> I DON'T THINK YOUR APPLICATION FEE IS LARGE ENOUGH.

>> TO TRY TO -- WE CAN'T JUST CREATE A TAX IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A LOT OF REGULATIONS.

>> THE POINT IS WELL TAKEN AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT

WHEN WE -- >> WE'RE DOING THE FEE SCHEDULE.

>> OKAY. >> A NIGHT TAX, EVERY NIGHT IT'S

5 $5 OR $10. >> IF I HAVE A COST OF SERVICE, I CAN VISIT FI IS. IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE, WE CAN HAVE A COST OF SERVICE FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT AND INTEGRATE THAT AS PART OF APPLICATION -- I'M SORRY, REGISTRATION.

>> WHAT WE LOOKED AT IS WHAT IS THE MECHANISM FOR COLLECTION.

WE LOOKED AT COUNTIES AND CITIES THAT HAVE SLIDING SCALES ON FEES THAT YOUR EYES WOULD ROLL AROUND IN THE BACK OF YOUR HEAD TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU PAY. OUR GROUP WANTS TO SIMPLIFY IT.

IT'S NOT INEXPENSIVE BUT WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP IT FLAT SO IT'S CONSISTENT, EASY TO COLLECT AND DETERMINE, THIS IS WHAT I PAY ANNUALLY. THEN YOU HAVE RENEWAL FEES SO ONE TIME UPFRONT AND

THEN RENEWAL FEES. >> I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE ASPECT OF THE PERSON WHO IS RUNNING THE PLACE PAY SOMETHING OTHER THAN THROUGH THE RENTAL AGREEMENT OF THE $100 AN EVENING. PART OF THAT WILL HELP PAY FOR THE TAXES, THE BUSINESS PART OF IT. I UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO GET WHAT WE CAN FROM THE PERSON WHO IS USING THE PROPERTY AND HOPEFULLY USING IN A CORRECT WAY. IF IT'S INCORRECT, THE CITY RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE DON'T NEED TO BE PAYING TO MAKE

THEM COME INTO ORDER. >> WE AGREE WITH THAT. WE THOUGHT ONE OF THE ISSUES THERE IS WE NEED TO MAKE THE PROCESS AS SIMPLE AS -- TO COLLECT THE FEES. TRYING TO COLLECT FROM A RENTER IN TOWN THREE DAYS, I CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW YOU DO THAT. WE THOUGHT UPFRONT FEES PAID BY THE OWNER SO EVERYTHING IS FOCUSED ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, NOT THE RENTER. THAT'S WHERE THAT STRUCTURE WOULD REST IF THEY WANT TO GET THEIR LICENSE TO OPERATE. OR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING

WITH THAT. >> YES.

>> THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT THAT PROCESS WAS IN.

>> WE'VE GOT -- GO AHEAD. >> IN ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION, HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT CORRECTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS THAT WAS CHANGED ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING

ABOUT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY. BECAUSE FOUR YEARS AGO, THE ISSUE OF THE -- OF A COMMERCIAL USE WAS CONSIDERED, IF IT WASN'T FOR NEIGHBORHOOD USE, IT WAS CONSIDERED -- THINGS WERE REJECTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOE THAT WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FOUR YEARS AGO, THAT WHOLE AREA WAS COMPLETELY ELIMINATED FROM THE STAFF REPORTS AND WE WERE INSTRUCTED IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IN THE PLANNING BOARD, NOT TO BE ABLE TO USE THE LACK OF COMPATIBILITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A REASON FOR DENIAL. AND I HAVE NEVER QUITE UNDERSTOOD WHY BECAUSE THE CITY CODE CLASSIFIES USE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE TRANSIENT COMMERCIAL SLEEPING QUARTERS OR COMMERCIAL USE AND ALL OF THE -- ALL OF THE ANALYSIS AND FUTURE LAND USE SAYS THAT THE ONLY COMMERCIAL USE IS INTENDED TO SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THIS WAS AROUND FOUR YEARS AGO THAT IT WAS ELIMINATED FROM THE STAFF REPORTS ON CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS. I'M WONDERING IF ANYONE EVER ADDRESSED THE

[01:05:03]

>> IF I MAY, THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TWO YEARS AGO FOLLOWED THE STATE MANDATE THAT SPECIFICALLY WAS WRITTEN FOR STR'S AND VACATION RENTALS WHICH SAY THAT HOMES, WHETHER UTILIZED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES OR VACATION RENTAL, CANNOT BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. THE RULES YOU HAVE IN PLACE FOR HOW YOU PROCESS A HOUSE AND HOW YOU PROCESS A VACATION, YOU CAN'T MAKE ONE MORE STRICT THAN THE

OTHER. >> I THOUGHT WE WERE

GRANDFATHERED ON THAT. >> WE WERE GRANDFATHERED FOR THE EXISTING CODE BUT ANYTHING WE TREAT DIFFERENTLY AND APPLY DIFFERENTLY THAN WRITTEN IN THE CODE CANNOT TREAT VACATION RENTALS ANY DIFFERENTLY THAN RESIDENTIAL. SO OUR CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS UNFORTUNATELY DOES NOT HAVE CRITERIA WRITTEN FOR IT. WHAT IT SAYS IS IT CAN'T CREATED A VERSE EFFECTS. SO THERE'S NO SPECIFIC CRITERIA WRITTEN FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR STR'S SO WE'RE BOUND BY WHAT OUR CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IS WITHOUT CHANGING IT SPECIFICALLY FOR STR'S. SO THAT'S WHERE THE STATE'S RESTRICTIONS COME IN THAT WE CAN'T TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY. ANYTHING WE CREATE APRIDE FOR STR'S WOULD FALL BACK ON WE'RE TREATING THEM DIFFERENTLY FROM HOMES. WE ARE, HOWEVER, AS PART OF THIS TASK FORCE LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES. SO THIS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD, WHEN I PRESENT BOTH SIDES, I'M GOING TO HAVE TWO DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMISSION SO THEY UNDERSTAND IF THEY CHOOSE TO FOLLOW THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, THIS IS HOW WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE CHANGED IN ORDER FOR -- WITHIN THE STATE'S PARAMETERS OF HOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROCESS, STILL WITHIN THE STATE MANDATES BUT HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD AND FOR THE COMMISSION TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF BASIS FOR REVIEWING THOSE APPLICATIONS BUT WE HAVE TO BE APPLIED BROADLY SO WE'RE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION. AT THE SAME TIME I'M BOUND TO HAVE THE SECONDARY CONVERSATION WHICH MEANS DOING AWAY WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS AND HERE WE ARE WITH THIS REGISTRATION PROCESS. SO WE'LL BE HAVING THAT CONVERSATION, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT IT. BUT TODAY I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN SPECIFICS BECAUSE FRANKLY WE'VE PUSHED IT TOWARDS THE END OF OUR CONVERSATION. WE WANT TO GET THIS REGISTRATION PROCESS SOLIDIFIED BEFORE WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS AND GIVE THE COMMISSION BOTH SCENARIOS AND ULTIMATELY

YOU. >> ARE YOU SAYING ANY COMMERCIAL USE OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS PROTECTED BY STATE LAW?

>> NO MA'AM, I'M SAYING ANY VACATION RENTAL STR USE IS

PROTECTED BY STATE LAW. >> BUT THE VACATION RENTAL STATUTE YOU'RE REFERRING TO WAS NEW AND WE ARE GRANDFATHERED UNDER THE VACATION RENTAL STATUTE.

>> THE SECOND WE CHANGED CONDITIONAL USE.

>> NO, I'M NOT SAYING CHANGING THE PROCESS, I'M JUST SAYING FOLLOWING THE LAWS AS YOU WERE FOLLOWING THEM BEFORE.

>> WE WERE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY ON RECORD WE WERE FOLLOWING IT INCORRECTLY. WE WERE ADVISED BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT THIS IS HOW WE HAD TO PROCESS OUR CONDITIONAL USES.

>> CAN YOU GET AN OUTSIDE OPINION ON THAT FROM THE -- FROM

THE LAWYERS FOR THE STATE? >> IF I MAY, WHEN --

>> I THINK WE'RE GOOD. >> WHEN PLANNING GOES BACK AND LOOKS AT OUR SPREADSHEETS OF VACATION RENTALS WE APPROVED, IT DATES BACK TO 2015, SO WE REALLY HAVEN'T -- THIS IS A NEW PHENOMENA. SO WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN HAPPENING PRIOR TO THAT, WE WERE NOT EVEN MANAGING IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO I'M NOE WAS ANY CHANGE TO OUR CONDITIONAL USE THAT DID AWAY WITH REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO VACATION RENTALS.

>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT REGULATIONS, I'M TALKING ABOUT

STAFF REPORTS. >> WELL, LET'S GET BACK TO WHAT THIS TOPIC IS. IT'S NOT WHAT WAS TAKEN AWAY OR DONE AWAY WITH AT SOME POINT. WHATEVER CHANGE, MISS BAKER, IT WAS CHANGED THROUGH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT UNDER COUNSEL OF LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE CHANGES WERE MADE. THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS CLEARLY STILL, IN THAT ORDINANCE OF 125, 235, IT'S IN EVERY ONE OF OUR CASES THAT COME

[01:10:03]

>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK TO THIS. IF THAT'S A DISCUSSION WE NEED TO HAVE, YOU'RE VERY GOOD AT WHAT YOU DO, MAKE SOME NOTES ON IT AND POSSIBLY WHAT WE NEED TODAY IS HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION ON THAT, MAYBE AT THE END OF OUR NEXT MEETING BUT LET'S GET BACK TO THIS. I THINK YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB AT PRESENTING THIS MATERIAL HERE TODAY. I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB IN THE COMMISSION MEETING, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND YOU GOT BEAT UP A LITTLE BIT. YOU GOT HAMMERED ON A LITTLE BIT. YOU WERE ASKED QUESTIONS YOU WEREN'T PREPARED TO ANSWER, BUT THE COMMISSIONERS THAT I SPOKE TO TODAY THOUGHT YOU DID A GOOD JOB THEN TOO, JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW THAT. I THINK THAT THE TASK FORCE, I KEEP WANTING TO CALL IT A COMMITTEE. TASK FORCE IS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND KEEP GOING IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> I WOULD ADD TO THAT JUST TO SUGGEST IT'S WORK PRODUCT. THIS IS STILL -- WE'RE STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS.

>> YOU HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO. >> THERE'S NOT AN ANGLE TO PRESENT FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT ISN'T FINAL. REBECCA TRIED TO RESPOND TO THE QUESTION BUT DIDN'T HAVE THE AMMUNITION BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN FINALIZED. WE'LL BE PREPARED FOR THE JUNE 14TH CONFERENCE AGENDA PRESENTATION AND WE'LL HAVE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS AND CANDIDLY, QUESTIONS WILL COME UP THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANSWERS TO. AS YOU STATED, THIS IS ALL NEW STUFF. THERE'S NO GAME PLAN TO GO BY HERE. SO

WE'LL GET THERE. >> QUITE FRANKLY, HAD WE HAD A CRYSTAL BALL BACK IN 2006 WHEN THE ORIGINAL --

>> 2001. >> 2001, WHEN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE WAS DONE, IF THERE WAS A CRYSTAL BALL, THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT CRYSTAL BALL AND IT'S WELL OVERDUE FOR SURE.

KEEP MOVING FORWARD, KEEP BEATING THIS THING UP. KEEP DOING IT. IF WE GET CLOSE TO -- I THINK YOU HAD JUNE 12TH THAT

YOU PRESENT TO US. >> JUNE 14TH IS WHEN I PRESENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THERE'S GOING TO BE A SERIES OF MONTHS -- AT LEAST TWO MONTHS IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO WRITE THE ORDINANCE AND HAVE SOMETHING READY TO BRING FORWARD TO THE TASK FORCE. SO YOU ALL WILL BE SEEING THE ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN THEN CITY COMMISSION. THEY MAY SAY, THERE COULD BE A MYRIAD OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN WITHIN THAT TWO MONTHS AND I MAY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD BASED ON WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR CITY COMMISSION SAYS AND TWEAK CERTAIN ASPECTS

OF IT. >> ALSO I THINK THERE'S SO MUCH ANTICIPATION AS TO WHAT'S COMING OUT FROM THE TASK FORCE THAT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT MONTHLY AT THE PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS, WE MAY WANT TO GET A BRIEF UPDATE JUST SO THE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE. I KNOW THERE'S A ZILLION QUESTIONS FLOATING AROUND AS TO WHAT ARE THEY DOING BEHIND THOSE CLOSED DOORS. WE'RE GETTING THERE BUT THAT'S NO LONGER ACCEPTABLE. WE NEED TO SUGGEST WE FOCUSED ON THESE ISSUES AND WE'RE MOVING ON TO A SUBSET AND WE'RE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO ADDRESS THOSE POINTS. WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS PRESENT TO THE CITY COMPETITION AND THEY'RE ASKING QUESTIONS AND WE DON'T HAVE ANSWERS SO WE NEED TO GO WITH THE LOGIC AS TO THE CONCLUSIONS WE'VE COME TO.

WE'LL BE COMFORTABLE IN THAT POSITION, I'M CONFIDENT OF THAT YOU PULL ON ONE STRING AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS COME FALLING

OUT. >> I THINK MR. BRODERICK HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. WE WALKED INTO THAT TASK FORCE THINKING ONE THING, THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO A SERIES OF THINGS, RESEARCH AND PULL THINGS WE LIKED, WRITE IT AND IT WAS GOING TO BE DONE.

THE MORE WE TACKLED INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS, THE MORE REREALIZED TWO OTHER SUBJECTS WOULD SPRING UP THAT WE NEVER CONTEMPLATED SO WE HAVE HAD TO REALLY RETAILOR WHAT OUR SCHEDULE WAS AND FOCUS ON INDIVIDUAL SUBJECTS, CHASE THEM DOWN AS FAR AS THEY WILL GO AND JUMP ON THE NEXT ONE. THAT'S LESSONS LEARNED FOR US.

WE THOUGHT GRANDER THAN WE DID ORIGINALLY AND NOW WE'RE SORT OF MORE HUMBLED. AND LOOKING AT EVERYTHING AS IT COMES IN AND JUST REALLY HANDLING IN PIECEMEAL SO IT'S MANAGEABLE.

>> YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO PUT T EVERY MEETING IS ALMOST

[01:15:01]

>> OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE, AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. FOR THE PUBLIC, DON'T GET EXCITED. THE TASK FORCE IS MOVING SLOWLY AND METHODICALLY THROUGH THIS, AND AS GOOD INFORMATION COMES OUT, IT WILL BE HEARD FIRST. HERE FROM THAT DAIS I SUPPOSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. AND MAYBE MISS JENNIFER CAN HELP US OUT.

IN A FEW MONTHS ALL OF US HAVE TO REDO OUR FORM 1 FOR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA. I HAD TO FILL ONE OUT FOR AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, I SERVE ON A COMMITTEE THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS IT SAID WAS HAVE YOU HAD FOUR HOURS WORTH OF ETHICS TRAINING? I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS BOARD COMES UNDER THAT ASPECT OF NEEDING TO HAVE ETHICS

TRAINING ORDINANCE. >> WE HAVE HAD IT.

>> EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD HAD IT.

>> WHEN YOU BECOME A BOARD MEMBER.

>> I THOUGHT EVERY YEAR YOU HAD TO HAVE FOUR HOURS. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S INDICATING. THE QUESTION I'M ASKING YOU --

>> THAT'S NOT HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. I SERVE ON A BOARD AS WELL.

>> MISS EARLEY, ARE YOU STILL HERE? MAYBE YOU CAN FIELD THIS QUESTION AND JUST PUT AN END TO IT AND WE'LL KNOW WHETHER OR NOT

WE DO OR DON'T. >> I BELIEVE THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING THERE'S AN INFORMAL TRAINING PROCESS FOR ALL NEW BOARD MEMBERS WHERE WE TALK ABOUT SUNSHINE LAW, ET CETERA.

THERE IS A FOUR-HOUR ETHICS TRAINING THAT'S REQUIRED OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. IF YOU LOOK AT CHAPTER 112 FLORIDA STATUTE, I BELIEVE 112, I DON'T THINK IT APPLIES TO VOLUNTEER MEMBERS ON AN ADVISORY BOARD. I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS IN REFERENCE TO.

>> I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT QUESTION ASKED ON THE SECOND PAGE OF FORM 1 OF OUR FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE. THERE'S A BIG BOX THAT SAYS HAVE YOU, AND I WAS -- THEN I WENT BACK AND LOOKED. THE PLANNING BOARD IN 2019,NY MARK AN X SO I STARTED QUESTIONING QUESTIONS. I DID MEET WITH HER AND ASK THE QUESTION SO I'M GLAD YOU HAVE THE ANSWER NOW. THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S WHY MISS EARLEY IS HERE. SHE DOES THE HEAVY LIFTING.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, BY OUR BOARD?

>> MOVE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.