Jun 14, 2021 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> WE'LL BEGIN THE JUNE 14, 2021 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.

NUMBER ONE I'D LIKE ANYONE THAT HAS ONE OF THESE DEVICES TO PLEASE TURN THEM OFF. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU.

I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF ITEMS AND I NORMALLY DO THIS AND I HAVE NOT GOTTEN ANY PUSH BACK YET SO I'M GOING TO KEEP DOING IT.

NUMBER ONE TODAY IS FLAG DAY AND BEING THAT IT WAS FLAG DAY TO JOG MY MEMORY ABOUT AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED IN MY LIFETIME WH--WHICH MAY HAPPEN IN THE LIFE OF YOUR LIFETIME.

>> I'M DATING MYSELF A LITTLE BIT.

OUR CONGRESSIONAL CONGRESS ON JUNE 14 OF 1777 ADOPTED A RESOLUTION FOR A FLAG AND IT RED THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE 13 STRIPES ALTERNATING RED AND WHITE WITH 13 STARS IN WHITE IN A BLUE FIELD REPRESENTING THE NEW CONSOLATION. AT THAT TIME IF YOU REMEMBER YOUR HISTORY WE HAD JUST FORMED THE UNITED STATES AND THE 13 ORIGINAL COLONIES HAD BECOME THE 13 ORIGINAL STATES WHICH WERE REPRESENTED BY THE 13 STARS AND 13 STRIPES.

SHORT TIME AFTER THAT IN 1795 TWO ADDITIONAL STATES WERE INSTALLED AND TWO ADDITIONAL STARS AND TWO ADDITIONAL STRIPES. THE STRIPES IN OUR FLAG HAVE NOT CHANGED FROM THE 15 STRIPES SINCE 1795.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE HAD CHANGES IN THE NUMBERS OF STATES.

AND HERE IS WHERE MY MEMORY STARTS TO COME IN NOT QUITE HERE BUT VERY SOON. BETWEEN 1836 AND 1912, 33 MORE STATES WERE ADDED WHICH PUT OUR NUMBER OF STATES IN TOTAL AT 48.

THIS IS WHERE MY MEMORY STARTS. I CAN REMEMBER THE FLAG WITH 48 STARS ON IT. AND IT WAS IN MY LIFETIME AND IN 1959 THAT WE ADDED ALASKA AND HAWAII.

ACTUALLY IT WAS HAWAII FIRST AND ALASKA SECOND AND IN 1960 CHANGED OUR FLAG TO HAVE 50 STARS ON IT.

AND THAT IS THE PART THAT I REMEMBER AND IT WAS VERY EXCITING WHEN THAT WAS GOING ON. NOW THERE IS A POSSIBILITY WITH THE POLITICAL CLIMATE THAT WE COULD SEE WASHINGTON, D.C. AND PUERTO RICO BE ADMITTED WITH STATES WHERE WE WOULD WIND UP WITH 52 STATES BUT AT THIS POINT THAT'S QUESTIONABLE.

AS FAR AS FLAG DAY FLAG DAY HAD BEEN OBSERVED FOR MANY YEARS BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL 1949 AND ACTUAL AUGUST 3,149 THAT HARRY TRUMAN INSTALLED FLAG DAY AS A LAW IN THE UNITED STATES.

WHERE WE WOULD OBSERVE FLAG DAY. THE OTHER ITEM THAT I HAVE IS THAT WE JUST OBSERVED ON JUNE 6 -- THE 77TH ANNIVERSARY OF IF YOU WILL HAVE D-DAY. D-DAY WAS JUNE 6, 1944.

AND D-DAY IS ONE OF THOSE WAR TIME HOLIDAYS THAT REALLY TUG AT MY HEART BECAUSE FOUR MEMBERS OF MY OWN FAMILY WAS LOST ON THAT DAY ON THE BEACH IN NORMANDY. AND SOMETIMES I WONDER IF ALL OF THESE WAR TIME EVENTS ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND I GUESS

[00:05:01]

SO, THAT IS THE END OF THE HISTORY LESSON FOR TODAY.

WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

>> AND WE HAVE NO ABSENCES. AND WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE

[a. Minutes from the May 10, 2021 meeting]

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> ON TO NEW BUSINESS. MR. CREYAUFMILLER IS GOING TO

[a. Voluntary Annexation - 186 Melton Drive]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPLICATION AT 186 MILTON DRIVE. THE PROPERTY HAS A COUNTY FUTURE -- LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL. IT HAS A COUNTY ZONING OF COMMERCIAL. AS PROPOSED THE ANNEXATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE PLANS SPECIFICALLY POLICY 1.11 REGARDING ANNEXATIONS. POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. CREYAUFMILLER? NOT SEEING ANY I GUESS WE GO TO PUBLIC MEETING.

WOULD-- WOULD ANYONELIKE TO SPE? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. BAKER SECONDED BY MR. BRODERICK.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[b. Voluntary Annexation – King Orange Drive & Mura Drive]

>> NEXT ITEM IS ITEM B VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION KING ORANGE DRIVE AND

MURA DRIVE. >> WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR FOUR PARCELS ON THE CORNER OF KING ORANGE AND MURA DRIVE.

THE IT'S RESIDENTIAL HIGH 15 DWELLING UNITS.

THE CURRENT ZONING IN THE COUNTY IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM 11 DWELLING UNITS AND ACRE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO

THE COMPUTER. >> IT'S GOING TO BE GORGEOUS

WHEN IT'S DONE. >> THAT WAS QUICK.

>> THERE WE GO. AS PROPOSED ANNEXATION MEETS THE PROPOSED PLAN. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MAY HAVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I THINK IT WAS INDICATED IN THE PACKET THAT THE DEVELOPER PLANS TO BUILD DUPLEXES.

WILL KING ORANGE BE IMPROVED SO THE BACK PROPERTIES WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO BEING ABLE TO GET IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY?

>> THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE LOOKED UPON AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. IT WILL GO TO TRC FOR REVIEW WHERE THE COUNTY WILL REVIEW IT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS A

COUNTY ROAD. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YES. I HAVE A QUESTION AND IT RELATES TO MR. BURDGE'S ALSO. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR THE ROADWAY IS 70 FEET BUT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION THAT IS GOING IN THERE IS A WAIVER AND THE ROADWAY COULD POSSIBLY BE ONLY 50 FEET. I'M WONDERING WHAT SAFETY FACTORS MAY BE INVOLVED HERE AND WITH THE INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT IS GOING TO GO INTO THAT AREA WHAT ACCOMMODATIONS

ARE BEING MADE FOR SAFETY? >> AS FAR AS THE ROADWAY I HAVE

[00:10:07]

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WANT TO REPLAT THE PROPERTIES AND CHANGE THE BOUNDARY CONFIGURATIONS BUT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE HERE TODAY SO I'LL LET THEM SPEAK TO WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE. THEY WANT TO DO DUPLEXES AND THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TRC PROCESS.

>> OKAY. IN THE PACKET YOU HAVE A ROADWAY WITH AND THE CITY MINIMUM IS 70 FEET.

BUT CURRENTLY -- THERE IS AN ADJUSTMENT OF 50 FEET FOR THE

ROAD. >> WHICH PAGE WAS THAT ON?

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE KING ORANGE DRIVE AND MURA DRIVE.

>> YES. >> I DIDN'T DOWNLOAD THE FORM.

I JUST MADE NOTES SO I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT PAGE.

>> IT WAS PROBABLY ON THE BACK OF THE MATERIAL THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED AND IT'S PROBABLY SPEAKING TO COUNTY STANDARDS. BECAUSE THE CITY HAS A STANDARD ROAD WIDTH OF 60 FEET. AND THE COUNTY MIGHT BE A LITTLE MORE STRINGENT. THEY TAKE MORE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> 50. >> SINCE IT'S A COUNTY ROAD TYPICALLY THE COUNTY WILL WORK WITH THE CITY TO ENSURE THAT THE ROADWAY IS CONDUCIVE BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SAFETY MEASURES THAT ARE IN PLACE. THIS ROAD WILL END UP BEING OUR ROAD AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE PROBABLY IS GOING TO BE MORE DEVELOPMENT UP TO THE NORTH BECAUSE I DID SEE A TRC PACKET FROM THE COUNTY ABOUT DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH FOR RESIDENTIAL AS WELL SO WE PROBABLY WILL SEE AN IMPROVEMENT

TO THIS ROADWAY. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> NO. IT DOESN'T REALLY ANSWER THE QUESTION BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION SO WE'LL MOVE ON.

>> THIS WILL GO THROUGH TRC REVIEW SO THE COUNTY AND OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

AND WE'LL MAKE SURE WHEN IT GOES THROUGH IF THE APPLICANT CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT RIGHT NOW -- THAT THAT ISSUE IS ADDRESSED AND WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU ALL WITH THAT.

THEY WON'T BE SEEING THIS SO PERHAPS -- AFTER THEY GO THROUGH TRC I CAN DO THAT AS PART OF OUR DIRECTOR'S REPORT AND I'LL LET

YOU KNOW. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT AND IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD FIRST. THE APPLICANT NOT HERE?

I GUESS NOT. >> HE WAS NOTIFIED OF THE CHANGE

IN TIME. >> OKAY.

>> AND-- ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL CALL FOR A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK AND A SECOND BY MS. CLEMSONS.

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON NEW BUSINESS IS ITEM C MR. C BEGAN IS STILL

[c. Voluntary Annexation - Edwards Landing - 3 Properties]

EDWARDS LANDING. >> IT ENCOMPASSES THREE PARCELS.

THE CURRENT SITE IS AT CORNER OF SOUTH 25TH STREET AND EDWARDS ROAD. RIGHT NOW A PORTION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

AT IT'S A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THERE IS A SMALL PORTION ON THE CORNER FOR FULL BUSINESS SPACE.

IT WILL BE GIVEN OUR FUTURE LAND USE OF MEDIAN DENSITY

[00:15:07]

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MAY HAVE. >> WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS STARTED THERE WERE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER THAT AS THIS DEVELOPER -- THIS DEVELOPMENT PROGRESSED WE WOULD SEE THIS AND THIS WOULD BE TAKEN --

>> IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WERE TALKS OF AN AGREEMENT BUT NOTHING FORMULATED IN TERMS OF WHEN WE COULD OR COULD NOT ANNEX AND ACTUALLY DURING A REVIEW OF THE SITE RECENTLY I WAS HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH ONE OF THE COUNTY INDIVIDUALS AND THEY NOTED THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT AND THAT IS WHEN WE LOOKED INTO IT AS TO POSSIBLY ANNEXING IT. THE OWNERS WILL BE SUBMITTING -- -- AND WE HAVE THEM ON THE DOCKET IN A FEW WEEKS.

>> BECAUSE WE WERE UNDER THEST THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT WE DID NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ANNEXATION WHEN WE WERE DOING THE ANNEXATIONS ON THE CORRIDOR. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I DIDN'T THINK MY MEMORY WAS

TOO TERRIBLE AT TIMES. >> AS SOON AS WE FOUND OUT -- WE ARE WELL WITHIN OUR RIGHT TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER OF COMMENTS FROM THE

BOARD? >> IS THE DEVELOPED PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY LIMITS NOW?

>> NOT YET. >> SO IS THE PLAN TO ANNEX THAT

AS WELL? >> YES.

>> THE DEVELOPED AND THE UNDEVELOPED.

>> OKAY. I SEE OBVIOUSLY THE PIECE THAT IS BEING ANNEXED. WHERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT?

TO THE SOUTH? >> YES.

MORNING DEW LANE IS WHAT IS DEVELOPED NOW.

IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS AN AERIAL FROM WHEN THEY WERE STARTING TO DO THE DRAINAGE AND GRADING SO WHERE EVER YOU SEE THE GRADING AND THE LAKES THAT IS PROBABLY WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION IS

NOW. >> DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY PROPERTY AROUND THIS SITE CURRENTLY.

THIS IS NOT A STAND ALONE. >> WE DO.

SO WE HAVE THE SCHOOL TO THE SOUTH AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPERTIES THAT WE ANNEXED TO THE EAST RECENTLY.

>> SO IT MAKES SENSE TO ANNEX ON THE SOUTH AS WELL.

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING NICKEL'S OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND ONCE AGAIN THE DEVELOP ERROR APPLICANT IS HERE I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM.

DON'T SEE ANY. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? DON'T SEE OR HEAR ANYONE. I WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. CLEMSONS AND A SECOND BY MR. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR LIST NEW BUSINESS IS ITEM D ZONING ATLAS

[d. Zoning Atlas Map Amendment - Kings Highway Commerce Park - 9 Parcels]

NINE PARCELS AND YOU TOLD US WE WERE GOING TO HEAR THIS THIS

MONTH. >> YES.

I DID. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

SO THIS IS -- AMENDMENT FOR THE KINGS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL PARK WHICH ENCOMPASSES NINE DIFFERENT PARCELS.

THERE WERE SIX THAT WERE SEEKING ANNEXATION.

THOSE ARE NOW BEING FORWARDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION SO THE SIX PARCELS THAT ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN THE COUNTY ARE GOING TO BE ANNEXED AND GIVEN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE.

THE ZONING ON THE SIX PROPERTIES THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THE ANNEXATION HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY TWO DWELLING UNIT OR WILL AND THREE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE CITY LIMITS HAVE A C3 COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE ZONING REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE SIX PARCELS THAT WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY -- TO THE

[00:20:03]

CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT IS GOING THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS. AND IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH AND WELFARE.

YOU'LL SEE THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

IT'S GOING THROUGH THE TRC PROCESS RIGHT NOW.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS ARE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MAY HAVE. >> WOULD YOU PULL UP THE FORMER SLIDE UP? SHOWING THE DIAGRAM OF THE PROPERTY. TELL ME ABOUT THAT SLIVER ALONG

KINGS HIGHWAY. >> THIS?

>> YES. >> THAT IS TAKEN FROM THE DOT.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS.

>> MR. CHAIR IF I RECOLLECT THIS IS FLEX SPACE.

>> WAREHOUSE AND FLEX SPACE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NOT HEARING ANY.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? VERY GOOD.

I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO BE REPRESENTING SOMETHING.

>> I WORE MY JACKET FOR YOU. >> I RECOGNIZE YOU.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS.

GOOD AFTERNOON. BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MAY HAVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? >> CURIOUS, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY SQUARE FEET THEY ARE LOOKING TO PUT UP.

>> 1.9 MILLION. ULTIMATELY.

RIGHT NOW 485,000. >> AND THIS IS THE LOGISTICAL

FACILITIES. >> CORRECT.

>> LOOKING TO SUBDIVIDE THAT SPACE DOWN?

>> IT WOULD BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES.

>> ONE APPLICATION CAME IN FOR A MILLION SQUARE FEET.

AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD PUT IN 2010 ANTS.

500,000 SQUARE FEET. I FIND IT UNIQUE IN THAT IT APPEARS AS THOUGH COMPANIES THAT SPECIALIZE IN THESE DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES ARE SIGHTING FORT PO--PIERCE.

IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THIS IS THE THIRD ONE OF THESE THAT WE'VE HEARD WHICH IS GREAT. I THINK IT'S A PHENOMENAL USE OUT THERE AND IT'S THE PERFECT LOCATION FOR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS. THAT IS A LOT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SIX MONTHS. A COUPLE OF MILLION SQUARE FEET.

>> RIGHT YOU GO INTO TURNPIKE AND I-95 AND CERTAINLY FORT PIERCE IS A PLACE YOU GO SOUTH THERE IS NOT THAT MANY MORE

PLACE. >> THE INTERSECTION OF THE HE'S AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SOUTH FLORIDA AND THERE IS NO SPACE LEFT DOWN THERE TO BUILD. 10 ACRES WORTH OF BUILDING.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE I'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOST BY MR. BRODERICK TO APPROVE AND SECOND BY MS. CLEMSONS.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> AND THIS WILL COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD WHEN THEY HAVE READY FORESIGHT PLAN? *.

[e. Zoning Atlas Map Amendment (PD Modification) - Harbour Cay Phase II - 835 Seaway Drive]

>> NEXT ITEM IS TUCK E. CORRECT? I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T LOSE MY PLACE.

I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THAT REAL QUICK.

I USED TO TEACH SEVERAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE COURSES AND I KEPT A PEANUT AND I WOULD MOVE IT DOWN THE PAGE AS I WAS GOING DURING MY PRESENTATIONS AND I DON'T KNOW WHY ONE NIGHT I CRACKED IT OPEN AND I ATE IT AND THEN I LOST MY PLACE.

I WAS MESSED UP THE REST OF THE NIGHT.

THAT IS WHERE THAT CAME FROM. ITEM E.

ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT PD MODIFICATION HARBOR CAY PHASE II

[00:25:09]

835 SEA WAY DRIVE. >> FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION FOR THE HARBOR CAY PHASE II AT 835 SEA WAY DRIVE.

YOU SAW A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT AT 825 SEA WAY DRIVE WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR. HUTCHINSON ISLAND MIXED USE.

THE ARE REQUEST IS FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 6500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND 12,000 FEET OF SELF-STORAGE SPACE.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USES AND ZONING.

-- REVIEWED THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND DETERMINED THAT THE IMPACTED ROADWAY HAS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE TRIPS AND WILL OPERATE ACCEPTABLY UPON BUILD OUT.

THE RETAIL BUILDING WILL BE 6500 SQUARE FEET.

THE SELF-STORAGE COMPONENT WILL BE 4200 SQUARE FEET.

THERE WILL BE SOME OPPORTUNITY FOR OUTDOOR SEATING IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THERE IS A DRIVE THROUGH FOR A FAST-FOOD TYPE BUSINESS. 42 PARKING SPACES ALONG WITH FOUR BICYCLE SPACES AND THE LANDSCAPE PROVIDES FOR 14 TREES, 19 PALM TREES AND 329 SHRUBS. THIS IS AN IDEA OF WHAT THE RETAIL BUILDING WILL LOOK LIKE. SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW AND THIS IS THE SELF-STORAGE COMPONENT.

THE APPLICANT CAN OPINE ON THIS BUT I BELIEVE SELF-STORAGE WAS ONE OF THE ASKS OF THE HARBOR AISLE RESIDENTS.

* SO POSSIBLE ACTIONS ARE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL WITH ONE CONDITION WHICH IS A LANDSCAPE -- SHALL BE PRESENTED. YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> MR. CREIGAN -- WHEN THE PROJECT CAME TO US AND WE WERE INUNDATED WITH RESIDENTS AND SOME OF THE FOLKS HERE MUST BE FROM HARBOR ISLE ONE OF THE CONTINUES THEY MAY MADE AND I QUESTIONED IT BACK IN MY MIND AT THE TIME BECAUSE THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME WAS PROMOSSING THAT THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THAT AREA AND THEY CITED -- THAT HAD A METAL ROOF AND I NOTICE THAT THE PRESENT BUILDING HAS A METAL ROOF ON IT. ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM HARBOR ISLE AT THE TIME AND THE COMMENT THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT AND AT LEAST WHERE ARE THEY COMING FROM ON THAT? IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE HARBOR ISLE BRANDING SO TO SPEAK THEN WHY WOULDN'T IT LOOK MORE LIKE OUR BUILDINGS? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? HOWEVER NOW THAT I SEE THE EXHIBITING BUILDING THERE WITH THE BACK DROP OF THE TILE ROOFS I WANT TO BE THE VERY FIRST ONE IN THE CITY TO SAY TO HARBOR ISLE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN YOU WERE RIGHT.

IT SHOULD HAVE HAD TILE ROOFS. NOW I UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMICS AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE METAL ROOF AND THE TILE ROOF BUT ESTHETICALLY THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD TILE ROOFS.

NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY THIS ALL ALSO NOW HAS METAL ROOFS TO CONFORM WITH WHAT IS ALREADY ON THE LOT AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE LOOK AT DOING THAT SO NOBODY GET THEMSELVES IN AN UPROAR HERE. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> YES. ON THE EGRESS THERE THE RIGHT TURN ONLY EGRESS WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE A ONE WAY -- ONE WAY ROAD -- IT DOES NOT LOOK TO ME AS IF IT'S DESIGNED SAFELY BASE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S VERY, VERY EASY FOR SOMEBODY TO TURN IN THERE IN EITHER DIRECTION -- AND ALSO IT'S EXTREMELY EASY FOR SOMEONE LEAVING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN.

AND I'M WONDERING IF THE -- IF THAT PART OF THE EXIT CAN BE

[00:30:02]

LEFT-HAND TURN. >> YEAH.

I WILL RESPECTFULLY FIELD THAT QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT BUT I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND.

THE DRIVEWAYS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY DOT BUT THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE ABLE TO OPINE IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN ADJUST WITH DOT OR SOMETHING THAT DESIGN WISE THEY CAN CHANGE.

>> IF I MAY CHAIRMAN -- WE MAY WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THAT BECAUSE THIS IS A RENDERING AND NOT THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN. WHICH MAY APPEAR TO BE A MORE

ACCURATE REPRESENTATION. >> I'LL ALLOW THAT.

SPEAK. I LIKE TO GET THESE KIND OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED RIGHT AWAY. YOU MAY COME UP.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN PLEASE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. BRAD CURRY WITH EDC REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB PRESENTING TODAY AND ACETATED WE'RE PROPOSING A 6500 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL CENTER WITH SELF-STORAGE.

ON ABOUT 1.55 ACRES. THE ACCESS AS STAFF PRESENTED HAS BEEN APPROVED BY DOT THAT RIGHT OUT WAS APPROVED ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN. THE CONFIGURES IS TRICKY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO AVOID THE PALM TREES. IT WAS A SIGNIFICANT DEAL FROM THE CITY TO NOT IMPACT THOSE. SO TO AVOID THE PALM TREES WAS REALLY IS HOW WE CAME ONE THIS. THERE WILL BE SIGNAGE THAT SAYS NO LEFT TURNS AND DO NOT ENTER AND THOSE THINGS.

WE UNFORTUNATELY SOMETIMES HAVE A HARD TIME DESIGNING OUT BAD DRIVING. SO THE INTENT IS TO BE A RIGHT ONLY. WILL PEOPLE TRY TO GO IN THERE? POTENTIALLY BUT THE SIGNAGE AND THE STRIPING AND THE ANGLE OF THE ACCESS IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY DOT AND CITY ENGINEERING STAFF.

WE THINK IN THIS CASE IT'S THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO.

>> AND WE'VE DEGREESES AND INGRESSES HERE IN * FORT PIERCE -- THE SUPERMARKET ON U.S. 1 THAT THERE IS AN ENTRANCE EXIT AND IT'S DESIGNED IN SUCH A FASHION THAT IT'S ALMOST NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A LEFT-HAND TURN AND GO NORTH ON U.S. 1 COMING OUT OF THAT PARTICULAR EGRESS.

AND IT'S DONE WITH -- CURBING. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

AND I DON'T PERSONALLY KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO MAKE A MINOR MODIFICATION AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE MS. BAKER IS TRYING TO GO

HERE WITH THAT. >> I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AND COME UP WITH A BETTER DESIGN MAYBE WITH SOME CURB --ING. WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

>> PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CURB DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD TO PREVENT LEFT-HAND TURNS FROM GOING IN THERE AND PREVENT PEOPLE FROM DOING THAT BUT WE KNOW THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN SO HERE WE ARE. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

MS. BAKER? >> WELL WE WE'LL SEE HOW IT

WORKS OUT. >> AGAIN WE'LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT. I'LL SPEAK WITH MY OFFICE.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME STORAGE BUILDINGS SO YOU MIGHT HAVE BIGGER TRUCKS. THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS THAT WENT INTO THIS DESIGN SI -- SO H THE SIGNAGE -- -- BUT YOU CANNOT DESIGN OUT BAD DRIVING. THE REASON I BROUGHT THE SUBJECT UP WAS BECAUSE THE STORAGE FACILITIES WILL ONLY HAVE ACCESS FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS AT KINGS ISLE BY GOING THROUGH THE BACK END OF THE SHOPPING THE ADJOINING SHOPPING PLAZA.

AND IF SOMEBODY IS HAULING A BOAT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND TO PUT INTO STORAGE -- MOST PEOPLE IT'S HUMAN NATURE TO TRY

[00:35:04]

I'M NOT QUITE AS CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE MAKING A LEFT HAND TURN BECAUSE YOU CAN'T AVOID THAT TOO MUCH.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE COMING IN FROM SEA WAY DRIVE WITH A BOAT TO PUT INTO THE STORAGE UNIT AND IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG PROBLEM I THINK IN TRYING TO KEEP THEM OUT.

>> WE'LL DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT LESS LIKELY FOR PEOPLE MAKING

A LEFT TURN IN. >> WHO IS THE STORAGE SPACE

AVAILABLE TO. >> MY CLIENT MR. CRAIG MASON AND HE NEGOTIATED THAT WITH THE ADJOURNING RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND HE MIGHT BE BETTER TO ANSWER WHO'S ABLE TO LEES FROM THAT.

IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THEM.

>> GOOD EVENING. GREG MASON.

THE STORAGE UNITS ARE AVAILABLE FOR REPRESENT TO THE PUBLIC AND THERE IS NO SPECIAL DEAL WE HAVE WITH THE HARBOR ISLE.

THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE TO RENT TO THE PUBLIC.

>> NORMALLY STORAGE SPACES HAVE GAITS AND THEY ARE NORMALLY GATED AND THIS IS AWKWARD TO SEE A STORAGE SPACE AVAILABLE.

I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND A GATE GOING TO TURN OUT OR A GATE IN GENERAL BECAUSE IF I'M PUTTING SOMETHING IN A STORAGE SPACE AND IT'S TOO PUBLIC I FEEL LIKE ANYONE COULD COME AND VANDALIZE OR GET INTO THE STORAGE SPACE. SO I HIGHLY RECOMMEND A GATE -- OR SOMETHING SO THAT THE DRIVEWAY IS ONLY USED FOR PEOPLE PUTTING THEIR STUFF IN STORAGE AND IF THERE IS A GATE GOING OUT THEN NOBODY WILL BE MAKING A LEFT TURN OR RIGHT TURN INTO

THAT SPACE. >> DO YOU MIND SHOWING THE

ELEVATIONS? >> SO STORAGE UNIT IS A PRETTY LOSE TERM THAT COULD MEAN 100 STORAGE UNITS.

THESE ARE REALLY GARAGES THAT COULD BE USED TO STORE A VEHICLE WHEN SOMEBODY IS OUT OF TOWN. PEOPLE THAT ARE POTENTIALLY HAVE MOTORCYCLE. PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN HARBOR ISLE THAT DON'T HAVE SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL BELONGINGS.

WE DON'T SEE THIS AS A HIGH TRAFFIC USE.

THERE ARE 16 UNITS AND WE DON'T SEE IT AS A STORAGE FACILITY THAT IS GOING TO BE USED ON A DAILY BASIS.

A FAIRLY LOW USE ITEM. FOR THE MOST PART THERE WOULD NOT BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH HERE.

>> MOST LIKELY THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH

THERE. >> I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT ME DRIVING OVER THERE AND I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING OVER THERE. SO I WOULD HIGHLY RECOMMEND A GATE AT LEAST. BECAUSE IT SEEMS DANGEROUS.

TO ME. IT SEEMS DANGEROUS.

WHO WARNS TO BE PUTTING SOMETHING IN STORAGE AND THEN YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING FROM THE FAST-FOOD PLACE DRIVING THROUGH THAT AREA TO GO TO THE BEACH. THAT IS GOING TO BE A TYPICAL

RIGHT TURN THAT PEOPLE MAKE. >> SO YOUR CONCERN IS TRAFFIC --

>> GOING THROUGH THE STORAGE SPACE.

>> DRIVING FROM THE RETAIL THROUGH THE STORAGE ON TO SEA WAY OR SEA WAY ON TO THE PROPERTY?

>> BOTH. >> IS THAT DRIVEWAY -- THERE HAD TO BE -- TO BE A TRAFFIC COUNT AND THE FLOW RATE OF VEHICLES COMING IN AND OUT OF THE FACILITY.

THAT IS TENDED TO BE PART OF THE FLOW RATE EXITING.

>> THAT WAS PART OF OUR TRAFFIC STUDY WAS TO USE THAT AS AN ACCESS TO DISTRIBUTE THE TRIPS WHEN LEAVING THE SITE.

>> THE IDEA THERE ARE NOW GARAGES AND I RECALL THE CONVERSATION THAT WAS HELD HERE AND AFTER THESE MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD HERE YOU HAD OTHER MEETINGS WITH HARBOR ISLE AND ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS FROM HARBOR ISLE WAS TO PUT GARAGES OVER THERE. THAT THEY WOULD BE LEASED BY HARBOR ISLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OR NOT ENOUGH OF THEM

[00:40:04]

AND THAT IS HOW THIS CAME ABOUT. -- THERE IS A LOT OF BACKGROUND HISTORY IN TERMS OF THE TRAFFIC FLOW ON AND OFF OF THE STATE.

* BUT YOU'RE MAKING GOOD POINTS ON IT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN -- IF I COULD ADD ONE THING.

GATES OFTEN TIMES BRING ABOUT PROBLEMS OF THEIR OWN FROM A STACKING -- STANDARD OF HOW MANY CARS ARE YOU -- IS IT GOING TO STOP TRAFFIC AND THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PLACE TO STACK THE CARS. IF A CAR DOES TRY TO MAKE A LEFT TURN HOW DOES IT GET OUT. GAITS IS TYPICALLY NOT AS SIMPLE -- TYPICALLY YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT A LOT OF OTHER THINGS.

SO THIS AS MR. MASON STATED IT'S A SMALLER NUMBER OF UNITS.

I THINK OF SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES ALSO THE ONES THAT WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH ARE TYPICALLY WALLED OFF.

YOU'RE KIND OF INTERNAL AND PEOPLE CAN DO BAD THINGS IF YOU'RE BEHIND A WALL AND THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO BREAK INTO THINGS SO THIS IS PRETTY MUCH OUT IN THE OPEN IT'S GOING TO HOPEFULLY THE EYES ON THE STREET WILL KEEP PEOPLE FROM BREAKING IN. THERE IS SECURITY CAMERAS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THIS IS AN ATTEMPT AS THE CHAIRMAN STATED TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND TO HELP AND JUST BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR WITH THE RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST OF US. IT'S NOT GOING -- IT'S A SMALL FACILITY. I THINK IT IS 14 SPACES.

NOT EVEN 16. >> TODAY WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE AMENDMENT MODIFICATION.

WE'RE STILL GOING FOR SEE THE PLANS AS THEY DEVELOP.

COME BACK TO US ON THIS? >> THESE ARE THEM RIGHT NOW.

>> I SAW THE PACKET THE PLANS. SO, IT'S NOT GOING TO RETURN.

>> YOU'RE HERE TODAY FOR A RECOMMENDATION.

>> THE WHOLE ENCHILADA. >> JUST TO ADD TO MR. CURRY, THE SELF-STORAGE UNITS ARE MUCH LESS OF A -- GENERATION THAT WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED AND THE TURNING MOVEMENT ON TO SEA WAY THAT REQUIRED A AN APPROVAL FROM OUR STATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING OF DOT. I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD APPROVE A GATE THAT WOULD EXIT ON TO A STATE ROAD BUT MR. CURRY'S SUGGESTION THAT HE COULD GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT RIGHT TURN LANE A LITTLE BIT MORE AND WE DO HAVE A RENDERING HERE THAT IS BEING SHOWN. IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.

>> THAT ANGLE IS IN BETWEEN TWO PALM TREES.

THERE IS ANOTHER PALM TREE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ACCESS SO, IT'S SHOOTING BETWEEN TWO PALM TREES.

SO I THINK WE CAN LOOK AND SEE IF THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO TRY TO KEEP FROM MAKING THE LEFT IN. I DON'T HAVE A GOOD SOLUTION RIGHT NOW BUT I CAN TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT.

AS FAR AS THE GATED ACCESS -- I DON'T THINK THAT IS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE IT LIMITS THE ABILITY FOR THE CARS TO LEAVE THE SITE AND WE LIKE TO HAVE AS MANY PLACES FOR CARS TO LEAVE AND GET AWAY FROM THE SITE OR GET TO THE SITE.

IT HELPS DISPERSE THE TRAFFIC. WE COULD EASILY GATE IT.

IT'S SIMPLE BUT IT CAUSES A LOT OF OTHER PROBLEMS. WE'LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT. BUT IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE IS ADJUST

PUTTING A GATE UP. >> IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A SECURITY SIGNS AT THE EXIT ON TO SEA WAY DRIVE ON THAT RIGHT TURN ONLY THING. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS AVAILABLE NOW BUT SURELY SOME KIND OF LIT SIGN THAT WOULD SAY NO LEFT TURN. NO -- ENTRY.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND MAKE SURE THAT THE PLACES --

[00:45:01]

>> I DON'T KNOW WHO THE ENFORCER OF THAT IS.

>> THAT WOULD DISCOURAGE PEOPLE FROM JUST DOING IT CASUALLY.

I THINK. >> I THINK WE CAN DEVELOP HAVE THE SIGNAGE AND STATE THAT YOU'RE UNDER -- SECURITY CAMERAS ARE WORKING AND THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO AND OF COURSE IF THE POLICE IS OUT THERE AND THEY SEE SOMEBODY BREAKING THE LAW THEY COULD POTENTIALLY ISSUE A CITATION.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> MR. CHAIR, A SMALLER STORAGE BUILDING THERE LOOKS LIKE A PAVE BRICK AREA. WHAT IS THAT?

>> JUST A LITTLE GAZEBO OVER IT OR TRELLIS WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. A LITTLE STAND -- YOU CAN SEE IT RIGHT HERE. UNDER THE FRONT ELEVATION.

GARAGE BUILDING "A" ." >> JUST TRYING TO ADD A LEVEL OF

INTEREST THERE ON THE CORNER. >> THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE. I RECALL ON THE ORIGINAL SITE SUBSEQUENT AND THEN THIS SITE THERE WERE MULTIPLE IT WILL STUDIES -- DONE. WHO'S AUTHORIZING THIS?

>> FROM THE DEVELOPER BUT REVIEWED BY -- KIMLY HORN.

>> THEY ARE SATISFIED? >> YES.

>> AND THEY WERE BROUGHT IN AFTERWARD TO CONSULT.

MY CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE IT'S SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT AND I UNDERSTAND THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION.

I WAS PRESENT FOR THAT REGARDING THE STORAGE UNITS AS BUFFERS AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP BY RESIDENTS OF HARBOR ISLE.

WE FIND TWO STORAGE BUILDINGS BUT THERE IS NO LOADING CAPABILITY OR PACKERRING CAPABILITY.

YOU HAVE STORAGE BUILDINGS BACKING OUT INTO A TRAFFIC LANE.

IT'S A STORAGE FACILITY SO YOU'RE LOADING STUFF FROM YOUR VEHICLE INTO THE UNIT AND VISA-VERSA.

WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK IF THIS IS A TRAVEL LANE.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO PARK ALONG THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING SO, ITS COMMON SENSE DICTATES THAT YOU'LL HAVE CARS ON THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT AND NOW YOU'VE GOT TWO CARS SQUEEZE INTO A TRAVEL LANE. I CONSIDER THAT WE'VE CREATED A

HAZARD. >> THESE ARE 14 UNITS.

THEY ARE GOING TO RENT OUT SO FAST FOR PARKING CARS.

>> THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. YOU'VE GOT YOUR NICE FANCY CAR YOU WANT TO DRIVE ON TO THE WEEKEND.

>> THAT IS GRANDPA'S PROBLEM. >> I DON'T THINK SO.

YOU'RE LITERALLY DIRECTING TRAFFIC WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE RUNNING DOWN THE ROAD AND THERE IS NO CAPABILITY OF LOADING. SO YOU'LL HAVE CARS LITERALLY STACKED UP AND OF COURSE THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND CREATING A HAZARD. >> A COUPLE OF SPEED BUMPS.

>> SO THIS DISTANCE IS 35 FEET. FOR OUR TYPICAL TWO-WAY TRAVEL LANE IT'S 26 FEET SO THIS IS 11 FEET WIDER THAN A TYPICAL TWO-WAY TRAFFIC. THIS IS A ONE WAY TRAFFIC SO YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO STACK THREE CARS GOING IN ONE DIRECTION.

SO, THAT IS NOT GOING TO STOP CARS -- WHEN YOU BACK IN THAT IS -- THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE CAUTION BUT FROM A TYPICAL DAY-TO-DAY FASHION YOU HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR THREE CARS.

>> YOU UNDERSTAND MY CONCERN. WE'RE CREATING A HAZARD.

WE MAY BE ABLE TO DEBATE WHETHER OR NOT HOW LARGE THE HAZARD IS BUT WE'RE SETTING SOMETHING UP FOR AN ACCIDENT HERE BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE WAREHOUSE CONCEPT CAME FROM BECAUSE I SAT THROUGH THE MEETINGS. AND THEY DIDN'T WANT THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT AND DIDN'T WANT IT BACK ON THE BACK PART OF THE PROPERTY LINE. I SEE HOW YOU ADDRESS EDIT BUT I HAVE MY RESERVATIONS. THIS IS SETTING UP FOR INJURY IN SOME CAPACITY AND I CAN SEE SOMEBODY BACKING OUT WITH THEIR BRAND-NEW CORVETTE AND GETTING WHAT HAPPENED WITH A DELIVERY TRUCK. IT'S PROBLEMATIC.

IT'S A MANAGEMENT OR LOGISTIC ISSUE.

IF YOU'VE GOT A STORAGE UNIT AND MOVING IN 20 BOXES THAT WITH A 40 POUNDS A PIECE YOU'RE GOING TO PARK IN FRONT OF THE DOOR.

[00:50:05]

WHILE I SHARE MS. BAKER'S CONCERNS ABOUT VEHICLES TRAVELING -- THAT JUST COMPLICATES THE MATTER.

NOW THEY ARE NOT INDICATING THAT ON THEIR PLAN BUT I HAVE A

CONCERN. >> IT WAS A STAFF COMMENT EARLY ON. THE BUILDINGS WERE ACTUALLY CLOSER TOGETHER AND WE WIDENED THEM TO GIVE THAT 35-FOOT WIDE DRIVE LANE. WE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION TO STRIPING THAT ASPHALT AREA. IF YOU LOOK DOWN BEHIND THE BUILDING -- YOU SEE THE LOADING ZONE.

WE HAVE NO ISSUE TO STRIPING. PEOPLE ARE INTENDED TO PARK IN FRONT OF THEIR SPACE AND WALK IN AND THAT IS --

>> THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE ISSUE. FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.

AT LEAST KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THOSE DRIVING AREAS BLATANTLY.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO STOP IT BUT THAT WOULD BE A CONSIDERABLE HELP THAT IF YOU HAVE CARS PARKING AND LOADING THEY NEED TO HAVE SOME PROTECTION. EVEN FAITH JUST STRIPING.

>> AS BRAD SAID A TYPICAL DRIVE LANE IS 12 FEET WIDE AND THIS IS 35 FEET WIDE. WE COULD HAVE TWO LOADING SPACES

ON EACH SIDE. >> DOES THAT WORK FOR YOU?

>> WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT A MOMENT AGO SUGGESTING

STRIPING AS WAS SHOWN. >> YOU'LL FIND AN INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT -- BUT THEN AGAIN THAT WAS ASKED OF YOU SO I RESPECT YOUR REASONING FOR DOING IT BUT THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AND IF WE COULD INCORPORATE THAT IT WOULD BE

MORE COMFORTABLE. >> DO YOU HAVE OTHER PROPERTIES

TO DEVELOP HERE? >> WE OWN THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF IT. 825.

>> DO YOU HAVE OTHERS? >> WE HAVE OTHER PROPERTIES UNDER CONTRACT. WE HAVE NOT ACTIVELY STARTED DEVELOPING THEM. BUT WE HAVE OTHER PROPERTIES

THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. >> AS A DEVELOPER AND YOUR APPROACH -- TO WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY I REALLY APPRECIATE.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO SEEING YOU DO MORE DEVELOPMENT IN FORT PIERCE.

>> THAT IS VERY KIND. I APPRECIATE.

>> YOU TEND TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYBODY.

>> WE'VE BEEN AT THIS APPROVAL PROCESS I BELIEVE IT IS YEAR NUMBER FOUR. SO WE'VE BEEN TO A LOT OF

MEETINGS. >> I RECOGNIZED YOU RIGHT AWAY.

>> ON THIS PHASE OF IT AND I RECOLLECT -- THERE WAS SOME CONFLICT AND DIFFERENCES OF OPINION RELATIVE TO MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF HARBOR ISLE.

IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION HAVE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT OR DETERMINED THAT WAS NOT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION

FOR THIS? >> WE DID NOT -- PHASE I WE HAD A MEETING AT THEIR COMMUNITY ROOM -- AND HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE AND IT BECAME A LONG DRAWN OUT MEETING AND WE DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE RIGHT APPROACH SO WE LEARNED FROM OUR MISTAKES.

THE WINE I THINK WAS THE ISSUE. BUT WE'VE SINCE WORKED DIRECTLY WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION AND PROVIDING INFORMATION DIRECTLY TO HIM. WE'VE HAD GOOD DIALOGUE AND HIS SUPPORT AND HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION TO HIS

GROUP. >> SO THEY ARE IN FAVOR.

>> YEAH. >> THAT IS GOOD TO KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT A WORKING RELATIONSHIP.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS AS YOU CONTINUE ON IN

THE APPROVAL PROCESS. >> PHASE I TURNED OUT TO BE A GOOD LOOKING DEVELOPMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT WE SAID WE WOULD DO WE DID. SO THERE IS A LEVEL OF TRUST AND I THINK PHASE II IS GOING TO BE SIMILAR IN ARCHITECTURAL

FEATURES AND DESIGN. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOMED. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL OPEN THE TRULY THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPER IS THERE ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT?

>> NOT SEEING ANYONE. I'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

NOT HEARING ANY? >> THERE WOULD BE A NOTATION

MADE MOVING FORWARD -- >> EITHER A NOTATION OR I WOULD

SUGGEST A CONDITION. >> I WILL DO IT AS A CONDITION.

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE ADDITION OF THE DEMARCATION AREAS IN FRONT

[00:55:05]

WANT TO SEE THERE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION -- >> THAT WORKS OKAY.

WE'LL GET THE WORDING. SORRY ALICIA.

IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. >> DOES THAT COME WITH THE

CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY -- >> ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS

LISTED. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK AND SECOND BY MS. BAKER.

>> MOTION PASSES. NEXT ITEMS ITEM "F" ."

[f. Text Amendment - Chapter 125-187: Dwelling Rentals]

>> HELLO. >> ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT THE

COMPUTER? >> I HAVE A QUESTION IT'S JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. AND I OBSERVE IN OUR I FEEL SLIGHTED MAYBE. I OBSERVE IN OUR COMMISSIONER MEETINGS REGARDLESS WHETHER THEY BE THE GENERAL COMMISSIONER MEETINGS OR THE AGENDA MEETINGS -- WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT COMES BEHIND EVERYONE THAT COMES UP TO SPEAK AND EVERYONE THAT LEAVES COMES FROM A TABLE THIS CHARACTER RUNS AND HE IS WIPING EVERYTHING DOWN. WE'RE NOT DOING IT HERE.

I'M QUESTIONING THE THEATER. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE NEED TO DO IT. I'M JUST --

>> THEY ARE NOT DOING IT DURING CONFERENCE AGENDA --

>> NO. >> I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE VIDEO AGAIN BECAUSE I THINK I SAW THEM.

>> THERE WAS NO ONE HERE THIS MORNING.

>> DO YOU WANT US TO WAIT WHILE YOU GO CHECK THE VIDEO.

>> HANG ON. I'M GOING TO CHECK THE VIDEO.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO KILL SOME TIME AND DO A LITTLE PICKING.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 125 SUBSECTION 187.

THIS COMES AS A RESULT OF A DIRECTION OF THE CITY MANAGE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ANOTHER TEXT AMENDMENT WHICH WILL AFFECT CHAPTER 22 FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND VACATION RENTALS WHICH WAS ONE OF THE SUBJECTS OF THIS MORNING'S CONFERENCE AGENDA. THIS HAVE SEEKS TO MODIFY THE USE TABLE TOE ELIMINATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DWELLING RENTALS. IT WILL AFFECT THE E2EE3 -- ZONING DID IT STRUCKS. -- DISTRICTS.

* IN THIS TEXT AMENDMENTS THEY ARE PROPOSED TO BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN EVERY ZONING DISTRICT OF THE CITY.

THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH STATE STATUTE.

THIS IS WHAT THE -- WOW! I APOLOGIZE.

I DO APOLOGIZE. FOR SOME REASON THE TEXT AMENDMENT DID NOT GET SAVED SO IF YOU CAN IMAGINE IN YOUR HEAD PS ACROSS THE BOARD. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT

THOUGH. >> THERE IS A CAMERA UP AT THE

TOP OF YOUR HEAD. >> THE IPAD IS NOT WORKING.

>> FOR SOME REASON WE WERE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM THIS

MORNING WITH POWER POINT. >> I WAS GOING TO REACH UP AND

[01:00:17]

HELP YOU BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. >> THERE WE GO.

>> NOBODY BREATHE. AS YOU CAN SEE THE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE ON THE TOP AND -- WOULD HAVE PROPOSED PS OR PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN EVERY ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION -- THE POSSIBLE ACTIONS WOULD BE TO APPROVE WITH NO CHANGES. APPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT WITH CHANGES OR DISAPPROVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT.

FOR THE SECOND OPTION THAT YOU MAY HAVE -- ONCE IF AND WHEN THIS EVER GOES THROUGH CITY COMMISSION ANY CHANGE THAT'S HAVE TO DO WITH DURATION OR LOCATION -- OF DWELLING RENTALS.

VACATION RENTALS OR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

THAT MEANS THAT THE REMAINDER OF ANY ORDINANCE OR REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE -- GO AWAY. SO THIS IS A CHANGE TO THE LOCATION -- SO THAT MEANS THAT ANY PROTECTIONS LIKE FOR E1 WOULD GO AWAY. WE'RE LIMITED IN SCOPE TO WHAT WE CAN DO. IN THIS REGARD WE CANNOT SAY WE WANT TO APPROVE THIS BUT KEEP A C FOR E.1.

THAT IS NOT AN OPTION BEFORE YOU TODAY.

SO I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT SO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE VERY LIMITED IN THAT SECOND OPTION.

IF AT ALL. YOUR ABILITY WOULD BE BASICALLY EITHER APPROVE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH WHAT IS BEING SHOWN BEFORE YOU OR RECOMMEND DENIAL.

THOSE WOULD BE YOUR ONLY TWO OPTIONS BECAUSE OF THE STATE CONSTRAINTS AS TO DURATION AND LOCATION OF VACATION RENTALS.

>> IF I MAY AND REBECCA IF YOU COULD ALSO ELABORATE ON THE CHAPTER 125 AS COMPARED TO CHAPTER 122 WHICH I BELIEVE WAS DISTRIBUTED. THIS IS WHAT WAS THE CONVERSATION PIECE AT THE CONFERENCE AGENDA BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL IS TO TAKE THE DWELLING REMEMBER TELLS OUT OF THE ZONING WHICH YOU ALL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION ON AND MOVE IT INTO CHAPTER 22. WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CLERK MAINTAINS AND IS NOT A CHAPTER IN OUR CODE THAT YOU ALL HAVE AUTHORITY TO OPINE ON. SO THE REASON WHY WE ONLY HAVE THE USE TABLE BEFORE YOU AND SOME OF THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PROPOSED IN CHAPTER 22 IS FOR THAT VERY REASON.

>> I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE TWO PART.

WHY THIS IS BEING PRESENTED IN A DELIBERATE MANNER.

LETS GEE WITH THE USE TABLE FIRST.

THE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE -- PROPOSED TO CITY COMMISSIONS A REGISTRATION PROCESS. THIS IS NOT A LICENSE.

THIS IS NOT A FEE OR PENALTY. THIS IS A REGISTRATION PROCESS.

BECAUSE IT'S A REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT IS LINKED HAND IN HAND WITH THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT PROCESS.

THOSE ARE FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD FUNCTIONS OF THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COMMENTS THROUGH CHAPTER 22. THE ONLY SESSIONS WITHIN THE CHAPTER 125 WE LIKE TO CALL IT THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT AFFECT VACATION RENTALS OR ARE THE REDUCE TABLE -- * AND THERE IS A SECTION IN EVERY TOWN THAT TALKS ABOUT VACATION RENTALS THAT STIPULATES HOW THEY MAY OPERATE WITHIN EGGER TOWN.

-- THAT IS THE * MANNER IN WHICH VACATION RENTALS ARE REGULATED AND THEY ARE REGULATED THROUGH 125 BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. SO THE USE TABLE AS YOU CAN SEE CONDITIONAL USES HAVE TO RUN BY THE DICTATES OF 125 OUR ZONING ORDINANCE SO THE ORDINANCE SAID YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.

YOU HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE CITY COMMISSION AND THEN THE DECISION GETS MADE AT THE CITY COMMISSION PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE SIGNAGE AND LETTERS TO GO OUT.

THE ONLY REASON WHY YOU'RE SEEING JUST THIS CHANGE IS THIS

[01:05:04]

WE CANNOT ALLOW IT BY RIGHT IN EVERY ZONING DISTRICT.

RIGHT. UNLESS THE ZONING -- THE USE TABLE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS CHANGED.

22 IS NOT BEFORE THIS BOARD THAT IS THE REGISTRATION PROCESS IS NOT BEFORE THIS BOARD BECAUSE THE CODE OF ORDINANCE ESSEX SPECIFICALLY THAT THIS BOARD ONLY HAS PURVIEW OVER CHAPTER 125. I TAKE THAT BACK.

YOU ALSO HAVE PURVIEW OVER THE PLATS.

BUT THAT IS A SMALL SUBSECTION OF THE CODE.

YOUR POWER HAS TO DO WITH CHAPTER 125 WHICH IS THE ZONING ORDINANCE. YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON 22 BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE ZONING

ORDINANCE. >> I'M GOING TO ADD A LITTLE COLOR TO THAT IF THAT'S OKAY. I DO FEEL A SENSE OF RESPONSIBILITY TO SUGGEST TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THIS WAS NOT HOW I ENVISIONED THIS WHOLE PROGRAM BEING ROLLED OUT.

NOT THE END RELATE BEING DIFFERENT HOWEVER THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TASK FORCE WAS DEVELOPED AT THIS LEVEL.

I WAS THE APPOINT TEE FROM THE PLANNING * BOARD AND A VARIETY OF CITY STAFF AND OTHERS FROM THE COMMUNITY AND HIDDEN VISIONED THIS COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR AN EXPLANATION PROCESS. HOWEVER THE PROCESS WAS SPED UP FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION SO IT ALMOST GOT FLIP FLOPPED THAT WE WERE IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION THIS MORNING AND THEN HERE WE ARE WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON.

THE GENESIS OF THE CHANGES THAT REBECCA IS SPEAKING TO CAME FROM THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TASK FORCE AS A RESULT OF THE GENERATION OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU'VE BEEN PROVIDED HERE.

NOW THAT IS THE END WORK PRODUCT OF THE TASK FORCE.

THE TASK FORCE IS GOING THROW MAIN INTACT AND CONTINUE OPERATIONS ON AN AS NEEDED BASE. THE PROCESS SEEMS TO BE SOMEWHAT BACKWARDS ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT. THE CITY COMMISSION AFTER THE LAST 60 DAYS OF DEALING WITH VACATION RENTALS FELT THEY HAD TO GET THIS ISSUE RESOLVED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND TO GET THE PROCESS MOVING BECAUSE THERE ARE DATE SPECIFIC THINGS.

HELPS WE WERE AT THE CONFERENCE AGENDA THIS MORNING INSTEAD OF COMING HERE FIRST. JUST AS A COURTESY IS HOW I THOUGHT IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED HOWEVER LARGER ISSUES PREVAILED.

I'M SUGGESTING THAT THERE WAS NOT DONE AS AN INTENTIONAL SLIGHT. THIS DOCUMENT WAS COMPLETED LAST THURSDAY. IT WAS THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WORKED ON BY SEVERAL OF US THROUGHOUT THE WEEKEND ALL THE WAY UP TO THIS MORNING AT 8:59 WITH THE MEETING STARTING AT 9:00.

I JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT.

THEY INITIATED THIS PROGRAM. I FELT THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING IT BACK TO THEM AND I WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD THAT THIS WAS NOT US THAT HAD DONE THIS.

THIS IS HOW IT HAD TO PROCEED. >> AND I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT WHEN WE BRING FORWARD TEXT AMENDMENTS AS DID I WITH THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES THERE WERE MAJOR COMPONENTS NOT PART OF 125. AGAIN IN FULL TRANSPARENCY I BROUGHT FORWARD THE OTHER SECTIONS SO YOU WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT. WHAT WE HAD SIMPLY WAS NOT READY TO GO BEFORE THIS BOARD FOR YOUR REVIEW UNTIL LITERALLY THE LAST MINUTE. AND IT WAS THE CITY COMMISSION'S CONSENSUS TO STAFF THAT IT WAS THEIR DESIRE FOR STAFF TO BRING FORWARD A TEXT AMENDMENT ALLOWING FOR VACATION RENTALS ACROSS THE BOARD TO BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

>> AND TO BE CLEAR ON THAT JUST SO EVERYBODY GETS THIS, THE VACATION RENTAL ISSUE WHICH IS A CONDITION IN THE PROCESS WILL NO LONGER COME TO THIS BOARD. OR THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE REGISTRATION PROCESS -- CONSENSUS APPROVAL TO FORMALIZE THE PROCESS SO, THAT IS STILL BEING WORKED ON.

THIS IS ONE OF THE OTHER STEPS THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE TO KEEP THIS MOVE EGG FORWARD. -- MOVING FORWARD QUICKLY *.

[01:10:01]

>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT. THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS WE THINK GOES A LOT OF THE MISNOMERS ARE THAT OR MISINFORMATION THAT IS THIS GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE REGISTRATION. IT DOESN'T.

THERE ARE TWO DISTINCT INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONS SO.

THE CHANGES TO -- THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PROPOSED REGISTRATION PROCESS IS A PROCESS THAT WORKS INDEPENDENTLY REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.

IT'S GOING DIRECTLY TO CITY COMMISSION ON JULY 6TH AND THIS IS SIMPLY TO DISSOLVE THE REQUIREMENT OR REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL USE OR TO REMOVE THE PROHIBITION IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS TO ALLOW FOR DWELLING RENTALS.

THIS IS ALL THAT THIS IS. AND AGAIN ONE MORE TIME WITH FEELING -- I OF WANT TO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TODAY'S CITY COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSION THAT THIS MOVE FORWARD AND THAT IS WHAT STAFF IS DOING.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IF THIS CHANGE IS MADE AND THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT IS REMOVED FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS DWELLING RENTALS -- IT WOULD APPLY NOT ONLY TO -- R1, 2, 3, 4 AND. E1, 2 AND 3 AND ALSO TO THE C1,

2, 3 -- AM I CORRECT? >> YES.

>> SO HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING -- WHILE THE IMPETUS FOR THIS WHOLE THING WAS TO OPEN UP VACATION RENTALS ALONG INDIAN RIVER DRIVE FOR THE E.1 WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF ALSO OPENING UP VACATION RENTALS IN THE C1, 2 AND 3 DISTRICT.

AM I CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> AND JUST TO BE CLEAR WHY. THE STATE HAS SAID IT'S ALL OR

NOTHING. >> THE OTHER POINT IS THAT IS I THINK WE CAN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE -- IS SIMPLY BROKEN. IT DOESN'T WORK AND I THINK THAT IS THE UNDER PENNINGS OF THIS ENTIRE MOVEMENT.

THE E1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS THE CARNAGE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD UNFORTUNATELY. THAT IS THE CASUALTY OF OPENING UP THE OR REMOVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS E.1 NOW LOSES ITS PROTECTION. AND THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS I WAS NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT BUT THE E1 WAS A RELATIVE MATTER.

WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IS THE HOUSES BEING USED FOR EVENTS.

WHICH IS PRECLUDED BY OUR PROCESS BUT WE ALL KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE TAKING PLACE. BUT THE PROCESS TO REPLACE THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS HERE ALSO INCLUDES STRICT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY THAT WE REALLY STRESSED THIS MORNING THAT WE DON'T HAVE CURRENTLY. AND PART AND PARCEL IS TO INCORPORATE THE ADDITION OF TWO FULL-TIME CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF THAT ARE GOING TO BE HANDLING THE VACATION AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS SO WE FEEL THERE IS A BIG ADVANTAGE TO BRING THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY IN-HOUSE AND KIND OF CLEAN UP THIS MESS SO WHAT WE'RE LOSING IS SIGNIFICANT.

WHAT WE'RE GAINING IS I BELIEVE PERSONALLY IS A MUCH BETTER SCENARIO THAN WE'RE CURRENTING EXPERIENCING BECAUSE THE PROCESS NOW IS BROKEN. SO I THINK THIS IS A BENEFIT AND THIS HAS BEEN DEBATED FOR WEEKS. WHEN YOU PUT EVERYTHING ON BALANCE I BELIEVE THIS IS THE CORRECT WAY TO GO.

>> THE REASON I BROUGHT UP THE C1, 2 AND 3 DISTRICT IS THERE IS IN MANY AREAS HAVE VACANT PROPERTIES THAT ARE ZONED C1, 2, 3 THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED INTO A SERIES OF COTTAGES RENTAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL COTTAGES AND WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE NORMAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A HOTEL OR MOTEL. BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, COTTAGES IN A C1, 2 OR 3 DISTRICT AND THEY COULD BE INDIVIDUALLY PUT OUT AS SHORT-TERM RENTALS SO YOU HAVE

[01:15:02]

THAT WOULD HAVE NO WAY OF BEING REGULATED AT ALL.

AM I BEING INCORRECT ON THIS? >> I THINK SO.

THEY WOULD STILL BE REGULATED. FIRST OF ALL REGARDLESS OF WHAT THIS CHANGE DOES IF YOU WANT TO DO -- IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WITHIN THE C1 OR 2 OR 3 YOU WOULD NEED A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL.

THAT IS IN THE CODE. YOU IN JUST BUILD A HOME IN A

COMMERCIAL -- >> YOU CAN BUILD A MULTI-FAMILY

-- >> YOU COULD BUILD A

MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE. >> WHICH WOULD STILL GO -- THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS COULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REGISTRATION PROCESS.

>> IF A MULTI-FAMILY STRUCTURE IS BEING BUILT BUT WAS BEING FINANCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TURNING IT ALL OF THE UNITS INTO VACATION RENTALS. THERE WOULD BE NO RESTRICTION .

>> I'M SORRY I FAIL TO SEE HOW THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM AN

APARTMENT BUILDING OR CONDO. >> SOMEONE BUILDS A CONDO -- IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE. ON WHAT IS NOW VACANT LAND.

AND HAS IT AS THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO HAVE ALL OF THE UNITS BEING USED AS VACATION RENTALS -- THERE WOULD BE NO

RESTRICTION ON IT. >> I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH

SITE PLAN APPROVAL. >> MULTI-FAMILY HAS TO -- THE REGISTRATION PROCESS. FOR EVERY SINGLE UNIT.

>> ANY EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY UNIT IN A C1, 2, 3 --

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE REGISTRATION PROCESS EVERY

YEAR. >> OKAY.

BUT FROM AN INVESTMENT POINT OF VIEW -- THAT WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS INVESTMENT BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD IN EFFECT BE ABLE TO HAVE A HOTEL WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE HOTEL

REQUIREMENTS. >> I STILL HAVE TO -- GET STATE

LICENSED -- >> MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I HAVE NOT SLEPT. --

>> I GOT UP REALLY EARLY. >> DID YOU A MARVELOUS JOB.

I APOLOGIZE. >> I WATCHED THE WHOLE THING THIS MORNING DID A MARVELOUS JOB.

I JUST SEE -- I SEE THE OLD EXPRESSION THROWING OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER HERE. I THINK AS MARVELOUS AS THE NEW REGULATIONS ARE AS HOPEFUL AS I AM THAT THEY WOULD BE HELPFUL I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE VERY PRUDENT TO THROW OUT THE ONE CONTROL THAT WE HAVE NOW WHICH IS THE CONDITIONAL USE.

MAYBE IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE SEE HOW THE REGULATIONS WORK.

MAYBE A YEAR FROM NOW. UNLESS THE STATE LEGISLATURE COMES ALONG AND PUTS THE CAR BASH ON EVERYTHING.

* MAYBE THEN WE CAN RECONSIDER ELIMINATING THE CONDITIONAL USE.

IN THE MEANTIME THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN AN E1 ZONE AND WANT TO HAVE A VACATION RENTAL LET THEM GO INTO A ZONE OF CHANGING FOR E2 AND GO IN FOR A CONDITIONAL USE VACATION RENTAL.

MUCH EASIER THAN THROWING OUT THE WHOLE THING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BEING ABLE TO -- GET SOME OF NICE VACATION RENTALS

ALONG INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. >> I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE A VALID POINT. THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

THE CITY COMMISSION WAS PRESENTED WITH THREE OPTIONS.

ONE -- IN THE FORM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

TWO, KEEP IT AND THREE, TO ADOPT THE PROVISIONS.

KEEP THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IN PLACE WITH THE FORETHOUGHT TO ABANDON AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE AND THOSE THREE OPTIONS

[01:20:05]

THE HYBRID WAS DISCUSSED BRIEFLY BUT IT DID NOT GO ANY FURTHER THIS. IS SATISFYING WHAT THEIR END RESULT WAS BASED ON THE MEETING THIS MORNING.

>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT I WOULD ARGUE WITH THE BRIEF. I THINK THEY DISCUSSED EACH -- EACH COMMISSIONER TOUCHED UPON IT AND OPINED AND ASKED QUESTIONS AND EVEN OUR LEGAL -- OUR CITY ATTORNEY OPINED ON IT AS WELL. MY OPINION WOULD BE BASED ON WHAT HAPPENED THIS MORNING IT WAS WELL DISCUSSED AND VETTED.

EACH COMMISSIONER OF WEIGHED IN ON IT AND IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF THE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT TO DO THE TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WE'LL SHOWING YOU TODAY. BUT I WOULD AGREE WITH MR. BRODERICK -- AND YOU MADE A GOOD POINT THIS.

WAS NOT THE TASK FORCES SCOPE OF WORK.

THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS NOT A RESULT OF THE TASK FORCE.

THIS IS THE RESULT OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE TASK FORCE WAS APPOINTED TO DO THE REGISTRATION PROCESS AND THAT IS ALL THAT WE LOOKED AT BUT WE FELT IT OUR DUTY TO SHOW THE THREE OPTIONS AND ALLOW THEM TO TELL US WHAT THE CONSENSUS WOULD BE. BY KEEPING OUR SCOPE TIGHT AND FOCUSED WE WOULD DO A MERCHANDISE BETTER JOB TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING IN TERMS OF JUST THE

-- >> THE ACTION THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TAKE TODAY IS ACTION IN PREPARATION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT COME TO FRUITION. WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TAKE AN ACTION HERE IN PREPARATION OF THE COMMISSION MAKING A FINAL DECISION -- THAT THEY WANT TO MAKE CONDITIONAL USE QUESTIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE ON VACATION RENTALS GO AWAY AND IF THEY DO THEY WANT TO BE IN A POSITION THAT THEY CAN TAKE THIS ACTION THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT TODAY HAVE IT PREPARED AND READY FOR THEM. WE'VE APPROVED IT.

AS AN EXAMPLE. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PICK IT UP AND HAVE A VOTE. THEY APPROVE IT.

THAT GETS SET ASIDE. THEY'VE GOT THE NEW ACTION THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THEM THIS MORNING THAT THEY CAN VOTE ON, MASSAGE AND DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO AND THEY'VE GOT THE JOB DONE.

IF WE WAIT UNTIL WAIT AND SEE WE COULD BE SIX MORE MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD BEFORE THIS IS ALL DONE.

VERY EASILY. AND AN EXAMPLE TO SHOW EVERYONE THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE FUNCTION AND VACATION RENTALS -- IS NOT WORKING FOR THE CITY. IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.

I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE ONE -- ONE OF THE MOST RECENT ONES WHICH WAS AT 1507 FIREBIRD COURT.

ONE THAT WE HEARD LAST MEETING. WE SPENT THIS BOARD SPENT I'M LOOKING FOR MY NOTE TWO HOURS AND 20 MINUTES VETTING THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT BEFORE WE PASSED A MOTION -- BEFORE WE PASSED A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. I THINK.

RIGHT. >> YES.

WE DID. I WAS THE ONLY DE DESCENTING

VOTE. >> IT TOOK US TWO HOURS AND 20 MINUTES AT THIS BOARD. HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE ON AN AVERAGE FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE A VACATION RENTAL CONDITIONAL USE BRINGING IT TO US?

>> EASILY TWO TO THREE TIMES AS MANY HOURS.

>> AND THEN TECHNICAL REVIEW. >> 8-10 HOURS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. ANOTHER FOR YOU FOUR OR FIVE HOURS IN THE ADMINISTRATION -- IT WILY 12 HOURS THERE.

WE'VE COMPLETED OUR PORTION IN TWO HOURS AND 20 MINUTES WHICH IS NOT UNCOMMON. THE AVERAGE IS WELL OVER AN HOUR ON EVERY ONE OF THESE. THE COMMISSION WORKED ON THAT SAME PROJECT ON MARCH 15TH. THEY SPENT APPROXIMATELY TWO HOURS AND 55 MINUTES. THEY TABLED IT.

THEY BROUGHT IT BACK. -- ON APRIL 19TH.

[01:25:07]

THEY MUST HAVE TABLED IT AGAIN. THEY BROUGHT IT BACK ON MAY 17TH. THEY HAD A TIE VOTE SO THEY BROUGHT IT BACK MAY 17TH HOPING THAT COMMISSIONER ALEXANDER WOULD BE PRESENT WHICH HE WAS BY PHONE.

THEY SPENT THREE HOURS AND 42 MINUTES BEFORE THEY HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. IT AIN'T WORKING.

IN TERMS OF DOLLARS THE CITY IS SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY ON VACATION RENTALS AND OVER WELL OVER 80% OF THEM GET APPROVED REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE SITUATION IS.

BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET ENOUGH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS OUTLINED BY OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO NOT PASS ONE.

NOT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO. NOT BECAUSE WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T. BUT BECAUSE THE STATE LEGISLATORS HAVE GOT OUR HANDS SO CUFFED THAT WE CANNOT GET THE JOB DONE. SO TO MAKE THIS -- WE'RE NOT MAKING IF WE VOTED TO APPROVE THIS TODAY ALMOST TONIGHT -- IT'S NOT GOING AWAY. IT'S GOING TO SIT ON ICE SOMEWHERE FOR ANOTHER 60-90 DAYS MAYBE.

COULD IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION WOULD MAKE THE FINAL DECISION?

>> IT WILL GET OVER RIDDEN. >> JULY 6TH FOR FIRST READING.

>> THEY WILL EITHER BE READY TO MAINTAIN A HYBRID APPLICATION OR GO -- MASSAGE THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED TODAY.

AND VOTE ON THAT. BUT THEIR IDEA IS TO MOVE THIS FORWARD. WHETHER WE APPROVE THIS OR NOT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE FACT THAT IF THE COMMISSION WANTS IT TO GO AWAY DOWN THE ROAD IT'S GOING TO GO AWAY.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IF WE DID AN APPROVAL TODAY AND I'M NOT FIGHTING DOING APPROVAL NECESSARILY BUT IF WE DID AN APPROVAL TODAY IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION AND I IT'S A SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE TO MAKE IT GO AWAY.

IF WE DISAPPROVE IT DISALLOW IT TODAY AND IT GOES TO THE

COMMISSION IT'S A 4::5TH ROTE. >> TEXT AMENDMENTS AND ZONING MAP CHANGES ALL REQUIRE SUPER MAJORITY VOTES IN THE EVENT THAT THIS PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL AND WE DID THAT ON PURPOSE BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ZONING CHANGES AND FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS.

>> CAN I ASK A HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

LET'S ASSUME WE APPROVE THIS TEXT CHANGE AND THE -- COMMISSION ALSO APPROVES AND THE REGISTRATION PROCESS IS BEING

BEING VETTED AND ORGANIZED. >> THE COMMISSION WOULD NOT DO

THAT. >> IN ALL LIKELIHOOD I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE CHAIR. AS A MATTER OF FACT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING FOR THE 6TH IS TO OPEN UP THIS TEXT AMENDMENT AND THE CHAPTER 22 TEXT AMENDMENT AT THE SAME TIME AND NOT HAVE A VOTE ON THE 125 UNTIL ALL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.

THE REGISTRATION PROCESS AND THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS SO THAT WHEN THEY ARE READY TO MAKE THE DECISION IT'S A SEAMLESS FOLLOW FOR THE REGISTRATION SO WE DON'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE RECOMMENDATION ON SECOND READING FOR 125 AND NOW WE HAVE OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS FOR THE REGISTRATION PROCESS.

OUR ATTORNEY IS A VERY GOOD ATTORNEY AND HE WILL CATCH THAT BEFORE IT EVER MOVES FORWARD TO SECOND READING AND ONE GETS

APPROVED WITHOUT THE OTHER. >> IN YOUR OPINION WHAT IS THE SAFEST WAY FOR THE CITY TO PROCEED?

>> AGAIN I THINK I'M DOING THIS. >> IN TERMS OF THE ORDERLY GROWTH OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

IN TERMS OF THE PROTECTIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS.

[01:30:04]

WHAT WOULD BE THE SAFEST WAY? >> THE ONLY THING THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN OPINE ON AGAIN WHAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD IS ON THE DIRECTION CIT- AS IMPORTANTLY THE CITY COMMISSION HAS MADE THE CONSENSUS THAT THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE STAFF MOVE FORWARD AND SO IT WAS THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO FOLLOW WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TOLD US TO MOVE FORWARD ON. WHAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN OPINE ON IS THE REGISTRATION PROCESS.

WE WORKED HAND IN HAND WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.

OTHER DEPARTMENT HEADS PUTTING THIS REGISTRATION PACKET TOGETHER. IT'S ONE OF THE FINEST PIECES OF LEGISLATION I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING WITH THESE RESPECTIVES AND STAFF MEMBERS WITH.

AFTER HAVING 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS -- MARVELOUS.

>> NOW THINK OF THE PROCESS. >> I THINK THE REGISTRATION THE WHOLE THING WAS UNBELIEVABLY GREAT.

HOWEVER, EVEN IF IT WERE ENACTED IF WE LOSE THE CONDITIONAL USE AND THE STATE DECIDES TO DO AWAY WITH INDIVIDUAL COUNTIES OR CITIES BEING ABLE TO REGULATE VACATION RENTALS THEN WE'RE LEFT WITH NO REGULATION AT ALL EXCEPT WHAT THE STATE HAS DECIDED WOULD BE PROPER. AM I CORRECT?

>> I DON'T HAVE AMENIC 8 BALL IF THE DECIDES TO DO THAT.

ULTIMATELY THERE IS NOTHING THAT THIS BOARD THE COMMISSION A STAFF MEMBER OR ANYONE CAN DO IF THE STATE HAS DICTATED THEY ARE GOING TO WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN. THANKFULLY IT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET AND I DON'T MEAN TO MAKE LIGHT OF IT BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO OR PREDICT IN THE FUTURE.

WHAT WE CAN DO IS TODAY WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE A REGISTRATION PROCESS WHICH ADDRESSES NUISANCES AND ENFORCEMENT AND ALL OF THE THINGS -- THAT WE'VE TALKED

ABOUT. >> THE ABILITY TO KEEP THE

CONDITIONAL USING A SAFEGUARD. >> AND THAT VERY QUESTION WAS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND IT WAS THE CITY COMMISSION'S CONSENSUS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW IT ACROSS THE BOARD AND MOVE AWAY FROM THE

CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. >> I HAD THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY WERE TIRED OF GETTING THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS AND THEY FIND IT TEDIOUS TO HAVE THE HEARINGS AND I DON'T MEAN TO DEMEAN ANY OF THEIR OPINIONS BUT I THINK THEY ARE TAKING A SHORTCUT AND NOT PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY.

MY OPINION. >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS AND THE TASK FORCE LEASHED OVER THESE PARTICULAR MATTERS.

AND ULTIMATELY AT LEAST FROM MY PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE IS THE PROCESS IS SO BROKEN AND THE THRESHOLD IS SO CHALLENGING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH DENIAL OF THIS NATURE SIMPLY PUT WE NEED SOMETHING BETTER. NOW IS THIS PERFECT? NOT EVEN CLOSE HOWEVER IT HITS THE HIGH POINTS OF WHAT WE NEED MOVING FORWARD AND THE ENTIRE DEBATE OF VACATION RENTALS UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE PUBLIC'S CONSUMPTION THAT DEBATE IS STILL RAGING. THAT DEBATE IS LONG GONE FOR THOSE ON THE INSIDE. THAT HAS SAILED AWAY.

SO NOW WE SIMPLY NEED TO COME UP WITH A WAY TONE FORCE REQUIREMENTS, GET THEM INTO THE SYSTEM ETC. ETC. AND I DON'T SEE A BETTER WAY TO DO THAT AND THIS IS WHAT THE TASK FORCE LABELED OVER FOR WEEKS. -- LABORED OVER FOR WEEKS.

AND THE * CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IS NOT DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH VACATION RENTALS. THIS IS A SQUARE PEG IN AROUND HOLE AND IT DOES NOT WORK. SO THIS IN MY OPINION IS GOING TO BE A MUCH BETTER PROCESS. FREE UP A TON OF STAFF TIME SO YOUR CONCERNS ARE LEGITIMATE. ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE HOWEVER, THE CARDS THAT WE'VE BEEN DEALT WE CANNOT DO MUCH ABOUT IT.

>> MR. BRODERICK DO YOU BELIEVE IF WE WOULD THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT IT WOULD SPEED UP THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS

CONSIDERABLY? >> SURE.

WELL IT DOES FROM A PAPERWORK PERSPECTIVE IT CERTAINLY DOES.

[01:35:02]

THE REGISTRATION PROCESS I DON'T THINK WE'VE DRILLED IN THE TIME.

BUT DAYS AND WEEKS VERSUS MONTHS.

>> WE'RE LOOKING AT -- IT DEPENDS ON HOW FAR EXTENSIVE THE

-- >> REALISTICALLY IT'S 30 DAYS.

>> WHEN WE SAY THE REGISTRATION PROCESS WILL TAKE THIS LONG LET'S THINK OF IT IN A SCENARIO WHERE SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH AN APPLICATION AND PAPERWORK DONE. IS SO NOT INCLUDING ALL OF THE STUFF THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE BACKGROUND.

YOU HAVE THE APPLICATION. FILL IT OUT.

GO TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICE.

SCHEDULE AN INSPECTION. YOU TAKE THE TIME TO INSTALL YOUR SMOKE ALARM AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR -- THE FIRE EXTINGUISHER. YOU DO THE PREP WORK AHEAD OF TIME. THIS IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU COME IN WITH A COMPLETE PACKAGE AND READY TO SUBMIT YOUR REGISTRATION TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

THE CLERK'S OFFICE WILL HAVE A CHECKLIST THAT GOES THROUGH WHAT IT IS THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO DO.

THE APPLICATION AND FEE AND INSPECTION.

DAYS I WOULD ARGUE INSTANT. YOU GET YOUR APPLICATION THE SECOND THAT YOU -- THE REGISTRATION THE INSTANT YOU COME IN IF YOUR CHECK MARKS ARE CHECKED.

HOW LONG THE PROCESS TAKES IS DEPENDENT ON THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE REGISTRATION APPLICATION.

IF THE WORK IS DONE AHEAD OF TIME IT'S DONE WITHIN A MATTER

OF MINUTES. >> IF THE REGISTRATION PROCESS IS DONE AND THE CONDITIONAL USING LEFT IN PLACE AND THE PERSON COMES WITH A CONDITIONAL USE AND THEY HAVE NOT MET THE TERMS OF THE REGISTRATION PROCESS THAT IS A LEGALLY GOOD REASON TO DENY THEM THE CONDITIONAL USE.

>> IT WOULD NEVER GET US TO. BECAUSE IF THAT WERE THE CASE AT THIS STATE AND PLACE THE REGISTRATION PROCESS WOULD HAVE TO BE COMPLETE BEFORE THE APPLICATION WAS COMPLETE TO COME TO US. SO WE WOULD NEVER SEE IT.

IT WOULD NOT GET HERE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE COMPLETE.

>> IT WOULD GET KICKED BACK UNTIL IT WAS COMPLETED.

>> SO THE COMMUNITY -- WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO INPUT ON IT.

SO IF SOMEBODY IF AN INVESTOR BOUGHT A BLOCK OF FIVE HOUSES IN A ROW AND FILLED OUT ALL OF THE REGISTRATIONS AND TURNED IN ALL OF THE THINGS AND GOT EVERYTHING AND THERE WAS NO CONDITIONAL USE REQUIRED WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE DENSITY EXCEPTION IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW TO DENY THEM BECAUSE THERE IS NO CONDITIONAL USE. WHEREAS IF WE HAD THE CONDITIONAL USE STILL IN FORCE WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REGULATE THE VOLUME OF VACATION RENTALS AT LEAST IN ONE AREA.

>> IT DOESN'T EXISTS NOW. >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE

DENSITY REQUIREMENT. >> THE STATE SPECIFICALLY PRECLUDES TRYING TO STOP THEM DUE TO DENSITY.

>> THAT RESTRICTION DOESN'T EXIST TODAY.

>> THERE IS STILL DENSITY AND INTENSITY THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH EITHER REST DENIES, OR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND WE WOULD NOT BE IMPACTING THAT. YOU STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE

CODE. >> WHERE THE DENSITY COMES IN IS CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT IF WE'VE CONDOMINIUM BUILDING ONCE YOU GET TO A CERTAIN POINT OF PERCENTAGES THAT ARE NUMBERS OF CONDOMINIUMS THAT ARE VACATION RENTAL THEN IT FALLS INTO REQUIREMENTS THAT GO INTO SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND SO ON AND

SO FORTH -- >> HAS TO DO WITH UNITS.

>> EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS DWELLING UNITS.

DENSITY IS NOT PEOPLE. THAT IS OCCUPANCY.

DENSITY HAS TO DO WITH DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

>> WE'RE JUST USING THE WRONG TERM.

>> A HOUSE -- >> THE FUTURE OF THIS IS ALSO THAT TRACTS OF LAND ARE BEING DEVELOPED SPECIFICALLY OFF OF VERY INDICATION RENTALS. THIS IS -- VACATION RENTALS.

*. THE CITY BLOCK IS GOING TO BE THE FUTURE VERY SOON. THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENT IS

[01:40:03]

BUT THAT IS LOST ON THE FACT THAT THE DENSITY ISSUE DOESN'T

EXIST. >> I THINK I MAY KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS. IF YOUR FEAR IS THAT THAT BLOCK WILL BE REDEVELOPED AS A MULTI-FAMILY THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY CAP.

THAT PART OF THE ISLAND HAS A TIGHT CAP ON THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYONE WHO WOULD PICK A BLOCK THAT WOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF SIX DWELLING UNITS AND SQUASH THEM ALL INTO ONE MULTI-FAMILY FOR THE ENTIRE BLOCK. IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO KEEP THEM

AS HOUSES. >> AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BOTHERED ME INITIALLY WAS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND VOICE THEIR CONCERNS. AND AS I THOUGHT THROUGH IT MORE AND I WENT BACK AND I LOOKED AT A YEAR AND A HALF OF AND I HAD TO GO TO A YEAR AND A HALF BECAUSE WE HAD THE PANDEMIC AND WE WERE CLOSED FOR A WHILE. SO I WENT BACK A YEAR AND A HALF. AUTOMATICALLY BACK TO JULY OF 2020. AND THAT IS NOT REALLY A YEAR AND A HALF YET BUT CLOSE. WE'RE ALL GETTING BRAIN DEAD.

I WENT BACK TO JULY OF 2020 AND LOOKED AT THE VIDEOS OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE COMMISSION AND PARTICULARLY PAYING ATTENTION TO YEAH I DID -- IN ONE -- THERE ARE TOO MANY HOURS -- I'M A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT.

PARTICULARLY PERTAINING TO THE VACATION RENTALS AND WHAT I SAW WITH ALL OF THE FRUSTRATION VOICED, BODY LANGUAGE.

YOU COULD SEE IT ON PEOPLE'S FACES OF EVERYONE THAT CAME AND TESTIFIED AND PARTICULARLY OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS THE REAMS OF PAPER THAT SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS ARE COMING IN WITH TRY TO JUSTIFY THEIR ARGUMENT AGAINST A PARTICULAR VACATION RENTAL.

ONCE THAT WAS ALL DONE AND SAID -- THIS ONE DOCUMENT -- THAT TALKS ABOUT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHAT IT WASHED EVERYTHING THAT HAD BEEN SAID BY THE COMMUNITY.

THERE WASN'T ANYTHING THAT WAS PRESENTED IN ANY OF THOSE MEETINGS THAT THE COMMISSION OR THIS PLANNING BOARD COULD USE TO DENY AN APPLICATION. NOW THERE WERE SOME APPLICATIONS THAT WERE DENIED BUT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, ALL OF THE DISCUSSION NONE OF IT COULD BE USED.

BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LOOKED AT AS HEARSAY.

EVERY BIT OF IT BASED ON WHAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY TELLS US WE CAN AND CANNOT DO. SO IT'S NOT WORKING.

I WOULD LOVE TO SUGGEST TO KEEP IT.

IN FACT AT ONE TIME I DID AND THEN I FLIPPED AND I SAID NO WE'VE GOT TO GET RID OF IT AND I CAME BACK AND YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT IT. WE'VE GOT TO KEEP IT.

IT'S NOT WORKING. WE CAN BEAT THAT HORSE UNTIL IT DROPS DEAD. IT AIN'T WORKING AND DAMN SURE ISN'T GOING TO WORK UNTIL WE BEAT IT UNTIL IT DROPS DEAD.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YOU'RE REALLY QUIET OVER THERE.

>> I'VE ENJOYED ALL OF IT. >> ANY COMMENTS?

>> ONE OF THE NEW EBB MEMBERS OF THE -- BOARD VACATION RENTALS HAS TAKEN UP THE MAJORITY OF OUR DISCUSSIONS.

I OF CAME TO THIS BOARD BACK IN FEBRUARY AND WE'VE APPROVED EVERYONE EXCEPT ONE AND IT WAS BROUGHT BACK AND THEN APPROVED.

I FELT LIKE IT HAS NOT DONE ANYTHING FOR THE CITY OR THE COMMUNITY WITH THIS PROCESS AS FAR AS VACATION RENTALS ARE CONCERNED. WE DON'T HAVE ANY LEG TO STAND ON TO DENY THEM. THE PLANNING COMMITTEE STAFF HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND CHECKED OFF THE BOXES AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE QUALIFIED AS A RENTAL SO WE DON'T HAVE

ANYTHING TO DENY THEM. >> AND WHEN WE DID DENY THEM

[01:45:04]

DENIED * HALF A DOZEN. >> THREE OR FOUR.

>> I CAN REMEMBER WHEN THE VERY FIRST ONE CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD IN 2015 YOU WERE SITTING IN THIS CHAIR AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS YOUR VERY FIRST VACATION RENTAL BUT IT WAS THE FIRST VACATION RENTAL IN MY CAREER ON THIS BOARD AND BEFORE WE LEFT THAT NIGHT MR. BURDGE SAID THAT IS THE OPENING OF THE FLOODGATES. SO THERE IS ANY FURTHER COMMENTS

BY THE BOARD? >> I THINK WE'VE BEAT THIS UP.

>> NOT HEARING ANY I'LL OPEN IT UP ON THE PUBLIC.

>> HELLO. PAUL -- FORT PIERCE RESIDENT.

PROPERTY OWNER. I MISSED THIS MORNING'S DISCUSSION SO I CAN REALLY -- CAN'T REALLY COMMENT ON THAT.

BUT -- JUST TO SAY IT STRAIGHT OUT I'M IN FAVOR OF VACATION RENTALS. I'VE SUPPORTED THEM IN THE PAST AND NOT JUST BECAUSE I'M A REALTOR.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING FOR FORT PIERCE.

YOU MENTIONED IT TAKES UP SO MUCH OF YOUR TIME.

VACATION RENTALS COST YOU MONEY. THEY ARE GOING TO BRING YOU MONEY. THEY ARE GOING TO BRING MONEY TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. VACATION RENTALS IS NOT A DISEASE. FLORIDA IS THE CAPITAL OF THE WORLD. COME ON IN.

HOW CAN YOU BEAT UP VACATION RENTALS IF THAT IS OUR NUMBER ONE INDUSTRY TO START WITH. YOU'VE BEEN FIGHTING THIS AND YOU'RE RIGHT -- THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING TO DENY THIS. YOU GET BEAT UP WITH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT OPINIONS. THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT COMES IN FRONT OF YOU. I DON'T WANT THE VACATION RENTALS. I DIDN'T MOVE HERE FOR THIS.

IT'S GOING TO BE GOOD FOR FORT PIERCE.

IF IT STREAMLINES THE PROCESS IT'S A GOOD THING AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE MONEY FOR THE CITY. I'M SURE THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE A WAY OF -- OF WORKING OUT. IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A BAD THING.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE COMMISSION ALWAYS THINKS OF THIS AS BAD FOR THE CITY OR JUST BECAUSE THERE IS SOME PEOPLE THAT THINK IT'S A BAD THING. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.

IT'S GOOD. IF THIS IS WHAT STREAMLINES YOUR PROCESS AND IT'S A GOOD THING FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

VACATION RENTALS. >> THANK YOU.

>> WOULD YOU SIGN IN PLEASE. >> SURE.

>> AND MOVING FOLDER WE'RE GOING TO DO A ONE MINUTE TIME.

>> I WAS MOTIONING HE HAD ONE MINUTE LEFT.

>> OKAY. THREE MINUTE.

>> NOW YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS. >> DON'T FEEL BAD THAT YOU DON'T -- THAT YOU'RE NOT INVOLVED ANY MORE.

THERE IS GOING TO BE PLENTY OF ENFORCEMENT INVOLVED.

YOU HERD TWO SPECIAL CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS?

>> NOT YET. THAT IS WHAT IS BEING PROJECTED.

>> DON'T HIRE PEOPLE FOR A PROBLEM YOU DON'T HAVE YET.

>> THAT IS WHAT IS PROJECTED WOULD BE NEEDED POSSIBLY.

OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO USE THE THREE MINUTE RULE. NOT THE ONE MINUTE RULE.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? NO ONE ELSE SPEAKING.

OKAY. HERE WE GO F. YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK * PLEASE BE PREPARED TO COME FORWARD.

>> HOYT MURPHY ON THE TASK FORCE.

KIND OF UNFORTUNATE THAT YOU WON'T ABLE TO GIVEN PUT ON THE REAL MEAT OF IT BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

THERE ARE CONCERNS. I THINK YOU MAY HEAR SOME OF THAT TONIGHT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO FOLLOW IT.

[01:50:04]

THIS PORTION MAKES SENSE AS TO WHAT THEY ARE DOING HERE.

BUT A LOT OF CONCERN, A GOOD EXAMPLE OCEAN VILLAGE -- THERE IS NEVER A PROBLEM THERE. AND YOU ARE TAKING A BIG HAMMER AND SQUASHING THEM. THERE IS ALSO A MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND VACATION RENTALS.

THE ISSUE IS VACATION RENTALS. YOU'RE LUMPING IT ALL TOGETHER.

THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HOPEFULLY BE MORE DISCUSSION ON IT AND YOU'LL SEE IT -- YOUR INPUT IS GOING TO BE -- APPRECIATED BUT YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT IN THIS FORMAT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT IS A MEMBER OF OUR TASK FORWARD.

>> MAY I JUST GOING FORWARD -- WITH EVERYONE COMING UP TO TALK THEY NEED TO STAY TO THE TOPIC AND THAT IS WHAT IS ON THE TABLE

RIGHT NOW. >> THE TEXT AMENDMENT.

>> COMMENTS CANNOT BE REFLECTIVE OF THE REGISTRATION PROCESS.

COMMENTS NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT.

>> AND THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO DO THAT AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON JULY 6TH AND THE 20TH.

>> NEXT. ANYONE ELSE?

>> MR. MURPHY JUST RAISED A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION.

IF WE DO AWAY WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR VACATION RENTALS WILL THAT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON PEOPLE WANTING TO HAVE

A 31 DAY SHORT-TERM RENTAL? >> THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO DO IT. ACCORDING TO THIS IT WILL BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. REGARDLESS IF IT'S A VACATION OR

SHORT-TERM RENTAL. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE -- THE ITEM OF DISCUSSION FOR CITY COMMISSION.

>> EXCUSE ME BUT THE 31 DAY RENTALS WOULD NOT BE COVERED

UNDER THE NEW REGULATIONS. >> IT WOULD BE.

>> SORRY. >> AND WE HAVE A DEFINITION FOR SHORT-TERM AND VACATION RENTAL IN THE CHAPTER 22 CHANGES GOING

BEFORE CITY COMMISSION. >> I'M TRYING TO KEEP THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING AS RELAXED AS WE CAN.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THIS VETTED.

>> ARE YOU NOT GOING TO TALK TO ME?

>> NOT TODAY. OKAY.

>> REGISTRATION QUESTIONS? >> YEAH.

BECAUSE SOME OF IT WAS HINGING ON TO DISCRIMINATION AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU'RE -- THE FAMILY DISCRIMINATION FOR HAVING A CERTAIN AGE LIMIT AND EVERYTHING FOR THE FAMILY IS A DISCRIMINATION.

>> I'LL WAIT AND HOLD MY COMMENTS.

SO WHEN ALL OF THESE ITEMS WERE CHANGED FROM THE L295 AND GOING BACK AND FORTH -- THIS IS WHAT KEPT MY QUESTION -- THAT IS WHAT HAS KEPT EVERYTHING WITH THE GRANDFATHERING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

>> THE USE TABLE HAS -- WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT SECTION 187 STANDS THE WAY THAT IT READS TODAY SO, THAT IS WHY WE'RE PROPOSING THE CHANGES BY RIGHT IN EVERY ZONING DISTRICT WHICH WOULD DO AWAY WITH ANY GRANDFATHER STATUS.

>> AND THAT 187 IS THE USE TABLE.

>> SO IF YOU HAVE THE USE TABLE THAT IS GRAND FATHER IN NOW AND IF YOU DO THE NEW RULES THE NEW RULES BECOME PERMITTED FOR EVERY

SECTION FOR -- >> THE NEW RULES HAVE -- ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS USE TABLE SO THE USE TABLE WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY ANY CHANGE.

THE STATE SAID IF YOU TOUCH DURATION OR WHICH WE DON'T REGULATE DURATION EXCEPT FOR WHAT THE STATE TELLS US WE CAN DO. IF WE TOUCH LOCATION WHICH HAS TO DO WITH ZONING THEN THE WHOLE THING GOES AWAY.

THIS REGISTRATION PROCESS IS GOING TO BE PUT INTO CHAPTER 22 AND IT DOES NOT EFFECT ANYTHING WITH DURATION OR LOCATION.

SO THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION CONTEMPLATED THIS HYBRID IDEA OF

[01:55:01]

>> YOU ANSWERED THAT FOR NOW. >> CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR

NAME AND SIGN IN. >> I CROSSED MYSELF OFF.

>> -- 207 ORANGE AVENUE. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? NOT SEEING ANYONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. I'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? I FEEL LIKE I'M STEPPING OUT ON THIN ICE WHEN I ASK THAT QUESTION.

>> OKAY. I AM COMPLETELY CONFUSED.

THE NEW REGULATIONS WILL APPLY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

SO ANYTHING UNDER SIX MONTHS. >> CORRECT.

WOULD HAVE TO BE REGULATED THE SAME WAY?

>> YES. AND HAVE TO REGISTER THROUGH THE PROCESS AND GO THROUGH -- WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED AS THE

SEPARATE REGISTRATION PROCESS. >> SO A PERSON -- LET'S SAY A SNOWBIRD -- HYPOTHETICALLY WHO RENTS THEIR HOME OUT HERE FOR FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS REGISTRATION

PROCESS? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> INSPECTIONS. >> SO THE 187 EXISTING ONE THAT'S YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WERE JUST VACATION RENTALS AND THEY DID NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PRESENTLY REPRESENTING THEIR PROPERTIES OUT FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS.

>> NOT ALL OF THEM WERE UNDER 31 DAYS.

THERE WERE THOSE THAT ARE PART OF THAT OF 187 THAT ARE MORE

THAN A MONTH -- >> I DON'T HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER

BUT THEY WERE A MIX. >> THEY CAME IN FOR UNDER 30

DAYS. >> SO PEOPLE WHO RENT THEIR HOMES OUT FOR THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS A YEAR ARE NOT GOING TO BE ADVERTISING ON AIRBNB. HOW IN THE WORLD ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THE REGULATIONS ON THOSE PEOPLE?

>> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

EVERY QUESTION THAT YOU'RE ASKING WITH ALL DUE RESPECTIVE THE UTMOST RESPECT BUT I CANNOT ANSWER QUESTIONS ON A CHAPTER 22 CHANGE BEFORE THIS PLANNING BOARD.

THE ISSUE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION TODAY HAS TO DO SOLELY WITH THE

CHANGE TO 125. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS IF WE DO AWAY WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE -- AND RELY COMPLETELY ON THE REGISTRATION PROCESS -- THEN WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST VACATION RENTALS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPOSING SOME REALLY STRONG REGULATIONS ON PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE VACATION RENTALS BUT JUST ARE SNOWBIRDS AND WE WOULD BE HAVING -- THEY DON'T HAVE TO APPLY FOR CONDITIONAL USE.

FOR UNDER SIX MONTHS. >> YES.

THEY DO. >> YES.

>> AND THEY HAVE TO RECEIVE A BTR.

AND THEY HAVE TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE STATE AND THE COUNTY.

>> ANYTHING UNDER SIX MONTHS. >> I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING A

CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION -- >> WHEN WE FIRST STARTED HEARING THEM MOST OF THEM WERE BETWEEN SIX MONTHS AND 31 DAYS OR SOMETHING. AND THEN IT WASN'T UNTIL --

>> I STAND CORRECTEDDED. >> THE TREND YOU'RE * 100% IN THAT THE TREND THAT YOU'VE BEEN SEEING HAS BEEN FOR UNDER 30 DAYS AND THIS IS MY OPINION AS A PLANNING PROFESSIONAL IN THIS DEPARTMENT BASED ON THE TRENDS OF THE TYPE OF APPLICATIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING AS MORE FOLKS HAVE BEEN SEEING SUCCESS WITH BEING GRANTED THEIR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS FOR UNDER 30 DAYS THE UP TICK THE WORD GETS AROUND THESE THINGS ARE BEING APPROVED. THERE IS A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR REVIEW. LET'S START SMICKET THESE APPLICATIONS FOR CONDITIONAL USES WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR STAYS UNDER 30 DAYS. I THINK THE TREND IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

THE TREND THAT YOU'VE BEEN SEEING HAS BEEN IN FACT FOR 30 DAYS OR LESS OR UNDER 30 DAYS. WHAT YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN WAS

[02:00:05]

SO I WOULD ARGUE IT'S ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY APPLICATIONS FOR VACATION RENTALS AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS UNDER 30 DAYS.

>> I WOULD BE INCLINED TO THINK THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE SNOWBIRDS WHO ARE RENTING THEIR HOMES FOR FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS WHO HAVE A APPLIED FOR CONDITIONAL USE.

>> I'M SURE THERE ARE MORE THAT ARE NOT -- BUT I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING HERE THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GET MAD AT ME.

YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD AND -- I'M GOING TO LET THIS YOUNG LADY SPEAK BECAUSE SHE IS BOUNCING UP AND DOWN -- AND THAT IS WHY I'M GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE SHE HAS GOT SO MUCH ENERGY AND I'M GOING TO SHUT THAT BACK OFF-AGAIN.

>> I'M LISA -- I LIVE OFF SOUTH HUTCHINSON ISLAND.

I ALSO AM A LANDLORD BUT CURRENTLY AT THE MOMENT I DON'T DO SHORT-TERM RENTALS BUT I'M ALSO A MANAGER FOR CALDWELL BANKER PARADISE AND I WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE BEGIN WITH OCEAN VILLAGE AND THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND I CAN TELL YOU OF THE 187 THAT YOU TALK ABOUT I BELIEVE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE BUSINESS LICENSES FOR 120 OF THOSE 187 AND THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE OVER 30 DAYS AND THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO COMMENT ON. EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SEEING MORE OF THE SHORT-TERM A LOT OF THE STUFF IS OVER 30 DAYS PARTICULARLY IN OCEAN VILLAGE. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD HELP ANSWER ANY OF YOUR QUESTIONS THAT YOU WERE HAVING.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY MUCH OF WHAT IS IN OCEAN VILLAGE WOULD NOT GO BEFORE THIS BOARD AS THEIR APPROVALS WERE GRANDFATHER ERRED IN. * THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THAT TREND IS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT.

>> THE REGISTRATION PROCESS IS NOMINAL.

>> THE BTR PROCESS. >> NOT MUCH TO IT.

>> AND THEN WHATEVER INTERNAL DOCUMENTS THEY HAVE FOR THE

OPERATION. >> OCEAN HOUSE WAS THE ONLY ONE.

>> I THINK THE OCEAN HOUSES AND THE HOMES.

>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION THAT IS GOING TO OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS. WILL THE -- UNITS IN OCEAN VILLAGE THAT WITH RESPECT IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT FOR THE ABILITY TO VACATION RENTALS -- WILL THEY NEED TO COME BACK NOW AND REGISTER THROUGH THE

REGISTRATION PROCESS. >> AGAIN THAT IS PART OF THE

CHAPTER 22 CHANGES. >> THAT YOU CANNOT TALK ABOUT.

>> IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO IT'S BECAUSE THE COMMISSION HAS NOT INDICATED IF IT WILL BE OR NOT.

IT'S NOT GERMANE TO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

>> I ASKED THAT QUESTION FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE, I WAS INTERESTED TO SEE IF I COULD GET AN ANSWER OUT OF YOU. TWO WAS TO GET THE QUESTION ON RECORD. AND I THINK NOW THAT IT'S ON RECORD IF IT HASN'T BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE LAST 10 HOURS

MAYBE IT WILL BE. >> THAT IS ALL I HAD.

I JUST WANTED TO SHARE A COMMENT.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE

OPPORTUNITY. >> I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH

THAT. >> I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS QUITE ENOUGH. AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> THE TWO POSSIBLE ACTIONS. I REMOVE THE SECOND ONE BECAUSE THE STATE HAS PRETTY MUCH BOUND YOUR HANDS IN WHAT YOU CAN DO.

>> WELL IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I WAS ON THE TASK FORCE IT

FALLS TO ME TO MAKE THE MOTION. >> IT'S UP TO YOU.

>> I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENTS CHAPTER 125-187

YELLING RENTALS. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK AND A SECOND BY MS. CLEMSONS. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[02:05:12]

>> IT HAS BEEN APPROVED. WHERE'S MY THING? I'M LOST HERE. I'VE GOT SO MUCH PAPER THAT I SURE OFFER HERE NOW. STAFF COMMENTS.

>> COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? >> COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

>> THEY ARE HEADING FOR THE EXITS.

>> THEY ARE ALL LEAVING US. OKAY.

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

STAFF REPORT. >> JUST WANTED TO AGAIN REITERATE THAT WE HAVE HANDED OUT THE DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR CHAPTER 22 THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY FOR YOU TO REVIEW AND PLEASE IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR YOU WANT TO SHARE PLEASE COME JULY 6 AND 20 WHEN IT GOES BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

AND OF COURSE ALWAYS AND WE'RE ALWAYS HERE FOR YOU.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ESPECIALLY REBECCA -- SHE WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER. THAT IS ALL I HAVE.

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

>> BOARD COMMENTS. I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT WHEN I REMIND PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SHUT THEIR PHONES OFF THAT INCLUDES OUR BOARD. FURTHER THAN THAT DO YOU HAVE A LIST OF THE MEMBERS ON THE TASK FORCE?

>> YOU HAVE A LIST. IT IS ON THE PRESENTATION.

>> COULD YOU READ IT OFF. >> INDEED.

>> BECAUSE OUR BOARD IS NOT AWARE OF WHO ALL SAT ON THAT TASK FORCE. AND I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS BOARD PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF A

LONG TIME AGO. >> THAT IS -- EVERY LISTED PERSONAL WAS TECH ANY SCHOOLLY ON THE TASK FORCE.

THE ONES ON THE TASK FORCE -- >> JUST READ IT OFF FOR ME.

>> MR. BRODERICK WAS THE PROJECT LEADER.

MYSELF. MS. LINDA COX.

MARIANNE GARCIA OUR DEPUTY CITY CLERK.

PEGGY -- PAT MURPHY WHO REPRESENTS THE REAL ESTATE --

>> PAT JUST SPOKE HERE. -- ROBERT RIDDLE OUR DEPUTY CHIEF OF THE FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND -- THE BUILDING

OFFICIAL. >> SO OUT OF THAT LIST YOU CAN SEE THAT WITHIN THE CITY WE HAD HEAVY HITTERS ON THIS TASK FORCE. THIS TASK FORCE WAS NOT SET UP BY A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT NUMBER ONE WERE NOT IN SOME WAY -- IMPACTED BY THE DECISIONS AND WHAT THE TASK FORCE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE. THEY ALL IMPACTED IN SOME WAY.

AND THEY ALL HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT IN THE SUCCESS -- OF THE FINAL DOCUMENT. AND WILL ALL BE IMPACTED BY THE FINAL DOCUMENT MOVING FORWARD. EVERYONE ON HERE AND -- I CAN ONLY IMAGINE I WAS NOT ON HERE, ONE OF MY GOALS WHEN WE ASK -- REQUESTED FOR A COMMITTEE TO BE FORMED WAS TO NOT BE ON THE COMMITTEE. AND I ASKED MR. BRODERICK BECAUSE OUT OF ALL OF US ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME MR. BRODERICK CERTAINLY HAD MORE BACKGROUND THROUGH STUDY ON VACATION RENTALS THAN ANY OF US DID AND HE HAS WORKED PAINLESS -- HE HAS PUT IN HOURS AND HOURS WORKING ON THIS EFFORT AND MS. GEERRA I DON'T KNOW IF HER HOURS CAN BE MEASURED.

LINDA COX HAS A BIG EFFORT IN IT.

EVERY ONE OF THESE PEOPLE WERE A BIG EFFORT IN IT.

AND I JUST WANT TO PASS MY SINCERE THANK YOU TO THEM ALL

[02:10:02]

THE DISRUPTION OF THEIR PRIVATE LIVES THAT THEY REALIZED THROUGH THE ACTIVITY ON THIS TASK FORCE AND WILL CONTINUE IF THE COMMISSION DOES WHAT WAS ASKED OF THEM TODAY -- AND THAT WAS TO KEEP THIS TASK FORCE IN PLACE -- SO THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS ON OR AN AD NEEDS BASES THAT THEY COULD BE * UTILIZED FOR THEIR KNOWLEDGE. THEY'VE ALL TURNED INTO EXPERTS ON VOCATION RENTALS. SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

THE AMOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE THAT HAS BEEN PUT TOGETHER HERE YOU COULD PROBABLY WRITE A BOOK ABOUT IT. BUT THEY WORKED VERY HARD ON IT AND TO THINK A YEAR AGO -- MAYBE WHEN I TURNED TO MIST HOFMEISTER AND SAID LET'S GET A COMMITTEE PULLED TOGETHER TO START DOING A STUDY ON THIS AND COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF WHAT WE MIGHT DO TO FIX THE PROBLEM. AND I DON'T KNOW WAS IT 15 MONTHS AGO -- HERE WE ARE TODAY WITH A DOCUMENT THAT IS 19

PAGES. >> 15-16.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> A STRONG DOCUMENT.

WELL WRITTEN DOCUMENT. YOU DID ALL OF THE WRITING I UNDERSTAND. AND SO IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE

ITS I'M YOUR FAULT. >> THAT IS ALL THAT IS GOING TO BE REMEMBERED.

>> CERTAINLY A JOINT EFFORT BUT TO THINK THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH A DOCUMENT AND THE TASK FORCE WAS INFORMED WHEN WE FIRST TALKED ABOUT IT. IT WAS ANOTHER SIX MONTHS.

-- TO BE ABLE TO GET THE WORK DONE AND GET THE DOCUMENT IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION TODAY -- * IS REALLY QUITE AMAZING.

PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IT AS BEING PART OF GOVERNMENT.

IT'S AMAZING THAT IT WAS DONE THAT FAST.

AND I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT EVERYBODY PUT IN AND WE'LL CALL

ON YOU FOR SOMETHING ELSE. >> I DON'T THINK SO.

I'VE BEEN HERE FOR SIX HOURS TODAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.