Oct 25, 2021 Planning Board Special Meeting

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:11]

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE SPECIAL FORT PIERCE PLANNING MEETING OF OCTOBER 25TH. NO WONDER I'M MIXED UP ALREADY. IF EVERYONE WOULD PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES. THE OTHER THING IS I WANT TO MAKE NOTE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. MR. BRODERICK PUT A PACKAGE IN EACH ONE OF YOUR STATIONS. I THINK HE'S GOT SOMETHING HE WANTS TO DISCUSS CONCERNING THAT. FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND WITH US.

>> 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.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU. AS I NORMALLY DO, IS I BRING A POINT OF INTEREST TO OUR MEETINGS WHEN I OPEN THEM.

AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT COLIN POWELL PASSED AWAY ON OCTOBER 18TH. AND I DID A LITTLE BIT OF DIGGING INTO THIS GENTLEMAN. AND HE WAS FIRST OFF, FIRST GENERATION AMERICA.

WHICH I WAS NOT AWARE OF THROUGH HIS CAREER. THERE'S BEEN AN AWFUL LOT IN THE MEDIA SAID ABOUT HIM. AND YOU MIGHT THINK THERE'S NOTHING NEW TO SAY. BUT I HAD NOT HEARD THAT OUTSIDE OF ONE TALKING HEAD ONE EVENING THAT HIS PARENTS CAME FROM JAMAICA. AND MR. POWELL WAS BORN HERE IN NEW YORK CITY. AND HE GREW UP IN THE BRONX. HE HAD A VERY MEAGER BEGINNING IN HIS LIFE. AND WHEN YOU CONSIDER WHAT HE WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE, HE SPENT 35 YEARS IN THE MILITARY. HE WAS GIVEN MANY COMMANDS THROUGHOUT THAT 35-YEAR PERIOD. HE RAISED THROUGH THE RANKS AS A FOUR-STAR GENERAL. HE WAS -- HIS LAST MILITARY ASSIGNMENT WAS THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF. AND HE FILLED THAT POSITION FROM 1989 THROUGH 1993. HE WAS THE 65TH SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE FIRST BLACK AMERICAN TO BE NAMED SECRETARY OF STATE. VERY HONORABLE BACKGROUND AND VERY HONORABLE MAN. VERY HIGHLY THOUGHT OF. AND A TRUE PATRIOT IN THE UNITED STATES. AND HE'S BEEN ON MY MIND A LOT THIS WEEK. FOR A LOT OF REASONS. I PAID A LOT OF ATTENTION TO HIM FROM THE TIME HE BECAME JOINT CHIEF OF STAFF AND MOVED ONTO SECRETARY OF STATE. I WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE WAY HE HANDLED HIMSELF AND THE WAY HE PUT A GOOD FACE ON FOR AMERICA. I HOPE WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE LIKE HIM TO COME UP BEHIND HIM. MOVING FORWARD, CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> (ROLL-CALL)

[a. Major Amendment to the Planned Development (PD) and Site Plan - King's Landing - 322 North 2nd Street]

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: IF THERE ARE NO CONSIDERATION FOR ABSENCES, WE'LL MOVE ONTO NEW BUSINESS. IN THIS ACTION TODAY, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE FUNCTIONING AS THE CITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. AND WE ONLY HAVE THE ONE ITEM, ITEM-A, MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN KING'S LANDING AT 32 NORTH 2ND STREET. MISS HOFMEISTER-DREW WILL BEGIN THE PRESENTATION. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE APPLICANT

WILL COME TO THE TABLE. >> CAN COME NOW, IF YOU WOULD

LIKE. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I WOULD LIKE THAT, PLEASE. WHOMEVER IS DOING THE PRESENTATION FOR THE APPLICANT, JUST COME SIT AT THE TABLE,

[00:05:01]

>> FOR THE RECORD, CURRIE WITH ENGINEERING DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION, 10250 SOUTHWEST VILLAGE PARKWAY.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU. YOU'RE ON.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY. TODAY'S PRESENTATION WE'RE HOLDING A SPECIAL MEETING ON AN INTERESTING PROJECT. ONE WE'RE TEAMING. IT'S RIGHT NOW OWNED BY THE CITY AND OUR BOARD BUT WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AND THE POTENTIAL NEW OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WITH US IN THIS PRESENTATION. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS JUST UNDER EIGHT ACRES. 7.24 ACRES. IT'S THE OLD KING'S PLANT AT 322 NORTH 2ND STREET. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. IT WAS ORIGINALLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. PART OF THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, THE CITY WAS CHARGED WITH CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING. WE CHANGED IT TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AS REFLECTED HERE. THIS IS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AND THE PRIMARY ZONING -- RATHER, FUTURE LAND USE IS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH CORRESPONDING ZONING OF C-4. I GIVE THE BOARD SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS PROJECT, AS SOME WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2020. TO GIVE YOU HISTORY, NOVEMBER 14TH OF 2018, THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE CITY, ISSUED REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS. ON DECEMBER 2ND, 2019, AUDUBON DEVELOPMENT AND CITY ENTERED INTO A AGREEMENT AS THEY WERE THE CHOSEN RESPONDER TO THE RFP. MAY 4TH, 2020, THE CITY ADOPTED TH FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND REZONING FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, AS I SPOKE EARLIER. JUNE 21ST OF 2021, THE CITY APROPPED THE ABANDONMENT OF PORTION OF THE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR AVENUE D TO ACCOMPLISH THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. THE CURRENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE THIS BOARD TODAY, IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES BOTH DEVELOPMENT AND THE DESIGN REVIEW COMPONENTS OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. OUR CURRENT APPLICATIONS ARE CHANGES TO THE PD SITE PLAN. WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS A MAJOR AMENDMENT. YOU CAN HAVE A MAJOR OR MINER WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS TO OUR CODE. AS THIS APPLICATION IS A MAJOR AMENDMENT OR JUSTIFICATION WAS FOR WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2020, THE PLAN WAS CONCE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE.

INORDER TO REFLECT WHAT THE SITE PLAN IS TODAY, WE ARE NOW AMENDING THE APPLICATION TO INCLUDE OR INCORPORATE THE SITE PLAN PROPOSED BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE USES THAT ARE PROPOSED AND WE'LL GO INTO THIS, IT'S A FIVE-STORY HOTEL. THERE'S RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, AND RESIDENTIAL. WITH THE DENSITIES AND INTENSITIES SHOWN ON THE COLUMN TO THE RIGHT. A TOTAL OF 140 ROOMS. GIVE OR TAKE 17,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL. AND APPROXIMATELY 35,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANTS. AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS COMPRISE 114. 106 CONDOMINIUMS. 8 PROPOSED AS TOWNHOUSE VILLAS. THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS THAT MANY OF THE BOARD SAW AND CITY COMMISSION WHEN IT WENT THROUGH THE APPROVAL ARE SHOWN ABOVE. RENDERINGS ARE PART OF THE RFP RESPONSE. THE SITE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA ARE SHOWN ABOVE. I WANT THE BOARD TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF SITE PLAN REVIEW WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PROJECT BEING THAT IT'S LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC

[00:10:01]

THE CITY'S PLANNING BOARD FUNCTIONS AS THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGN REVIEW ELEMENTS, INCLUDING ELEVATIONS, WHICH ARE COMPLETED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. HOWEVER, FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE EITHER HISTORIC AS IN A HISTORIC STRUCTURE OR ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION ON A HISTORIC SITE OR HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH THIS PROJECT IS, IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT -- HISTORIC DISTRICT, SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 111. THIS APPLICATION DID GO FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION MAY 24TH, 2021. AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD WAS REVIEWING THE RENDERINGS AND SITE PLAN. AND THE PROJECT DID RECEIVE APPROVAL. THE BOARD AT THAT TIME DID OFFER SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I AM GOING TO GO THROUGH THE THREE THAT THEY LISTED OR MENTIONED AT THAT MEETING. AND BECOME PART OF THE RECORD. ONE, ASK THAT THE -- IF THE BUILD WERE TO BE PROPOSED OVER EIGHT STORIES, THEN, IT SHOULD COME BACK TO THE HIHISTOC PRESERVATION BOARD. ESPECIALLY COURAGE REVIEW OF PARKING SUPPLY, BECAUSE AT THAT TIME THEY DID NOT LIST THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE STRUCTURE AND SURFACE. THAT THAT BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND STAFF REVIEW THE FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS. AT THAT TIME, THT HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED. SO TO ADDRESS THESE THREE STATEMENTS THAT CAME FROM THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD THIS WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD FOR DIVINE REVIEW. AS I STATED, THIS REVIEW BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE DEVELOPMENT, SITE PLAN, HOW IT MEETS THE CODE OF OF ORDINANCES WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH UNDER LINING DISTRICT OF C-4. THE DESIGN REVIEW, ELEVATIONS WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER. THE PARKING SUPPLY, STAFF HAS REVIEWED.

WE'RE COMFORTABLE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS THEIR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, WHO ALSO OPINED ON THIS PARKING SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS. BECAUSE AS YOU ALL -- OR MAY NOT KNOW, WITHIN THIS AREA IT'S WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY. AND THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY DOES NOT REQUIRE PARKING. THERE'S NO ESTABLISHED SET OF REQUIRED PARKING WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN.

NEITHER IS A HEIGHT LIMITATION OR A LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENT. SO THE LANDSCAPE DETAILS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. AND WE HAVE REVIEWED THEM. AND RIGHT NOW, THEY WILL FOLLOW THROUGH THE PROCESS. AND THE FINAL ONES WILL BE DONE AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. BUT AGAIN, THAT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. BUT THAT WAS WHAT HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT. SO WHEN THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD LOOKS TO THE DESIGN REVIEW ELEMENTS, THIS IS ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH AN INTERPRETATION OF THE DIFFERENT STYLES OF A BUILDING. IT TAKES CUES FROM ELEMENTS THAT WE SEE WITHIN OUR CITY. THEY'RE LISTED. THESE ARE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. THERE'S AN INTERPRETATION. BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW BUILDING, THAT IT ISN'T HISTORIC. THE INCORPORATION OF THOSE HISTORIC ELEMENTS ARE WANTED. WITH ALSO UNDERSTANDING THAT IT IS A NEW BUILDING. SO IT'S A NICE BLEND TO HAVE A NEW BUILDING WITH HISTORIC FEATURES THAT BLEND IN WELL. AND STAFF IS VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. AND WE'VE GONE FORWARD AND WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THOSE ELEVATIONS. BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATI BOARD LOOK NOW AT THOSE SPECIFIC ELEVATIONS THAT WILL BE COMING IN NOVEMBER. AND HERE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE MORE REFINED AND DETAILED DESCRIPTION TO THEM TO THE APPLICANT DURING HIS PRESENTATION. BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MINE, THESE ARE ALL FOUR SIDES OF THE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE EAST, WEST, NORTH, AND SOUTH. AND THEY WERE ALSO PART OF YOUR PACKET. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. AND I PROVIDED THE -- THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED IN COLOR, AND I HAVE IT UP HERE, BECAUSE I FIND IT'S EASIER TO UNDERSTAND WHEN IT'S IMPOSED UPON THE SITE PLAN IN THIS MANNER. TAKE SOME TIME TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING FOR EACH. BUILDING A IS A THREE-STORY RESTAURANT, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, WHICH WILL BE ALONG 2ND.

[00:15:01]

-- THE BUILDING C WAS 121 RATHER. BUILDING E IS THE FIVE-STORY 140-ROOM HOTEL. BUILDING F IS A ONE-STORY RESTAURANT AND THREE-STORY PARKING STRUCTURE. AND THIS IS WHERE THE ACCESS WILL BE PROVIDED RIGHT HERE ALONG B, AVENUE B, WHICH WAS B. AND WHICH WILL BE ABLE TO BE ACCESSED FROM THE RIVER THROUGH HERE. AND BUILDING G IS A PROPOSED EIGHT-STORY RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, 107 FEET.

LASTLY, THE TOWN HOMES ARE RIGHT ALONG THE SETTLEMENT ZONING DISTRICT. AND THAT COMMUNITY. AND THAT HEIGHT IS LIMITED TO 40 FEET FOR THESE TOWNHOUSEVILLE LASS. THEY'LL CONSIST OF FOUR TWO-STORY TWO-UNIT HOMES. TO GO OVER THE DETAILS OF THE ACCESS AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE SITE PLAN, THE MAIN ENTRANCE IS A TWO-WAY ACCESS FROM INDIAN RIVER DRIVE FROM AVENUE B AND NORTH 2ND STREET AND NORTH VIA MAIN ACCESS DRIVE. AND SOUTH FROM AVENUE B. 299 PARKING SPACES PROVIDE TOTAL. 129 ARE PROPOSED AS SURFACE, WITH THE REMAINING 270 SPACES PROPOSED FOR THE THREE-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE. LANDSCAPING PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY WILL CONSIST OF INTERCONNECTED SIDEWALK SYSTEM COMPROMISED OF PAVER BRICKS, TREE LINED STREET AND WIDE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE WATER'S EDGE WITH A CANOE/KAYAK LAUNCH AND AMPLE BENCHES. POTTED PLANTS AND OTHER ELEMENTS CONTRIBUTING TO THE HARD SCAPE ARE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT THE SITE PLAN, WHERE LANDSCAPING WAS NOT FEASIBLE FROM THE GROUND. THERE WAS A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PERFORMED. AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER SUSAN O'ROURKE IS HERE. THE STUDY REVIEWED TO DETERMINE THE TYPES AND NUMBER OF LANES AND TRAFFIC CONTROL ALONG THE ROADWAY FROM ST. LUCIE AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. UTILIZING THE TRIP GENERATION RATES ACCEPTABLE THROUGH ITE 10TH EDITION FOR THE FOLLOWING CLASSIFICATIONS.

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, SHOPPING CENTER HOTEL AND HIGH TURNOVER SIT-DOWN RESTAURANTS. THE PROJECT WILL GENERATE 4,519 NET NEW DAILY TRIPS. AND THOSE ARE COMPROMISED OF NET A.M. OF 306.

180 ENTERING. 126 EXITING. AND 329 NET P.M. TRIPS WITH 193 TRIPS ENTERING. AND 136 TRIPS EXITING. THE PROJECT DRIVEWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS PRACTICE EXAMINED AT BACKUS AVENUE AND 2ND STREET AND INDIAN RIVER DRIVE AND AVENUE B AS A.M. AND P.M. TRIPS. BACKUS WILL OPERATE AS SERVICE A IN THE A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOURS. INDIAN RIVER DRIVE AND AVENUE B OPERATE AS LEVEL B A.M. AND P.M. PEAK HOURS IN ADDITION TO PROJECT TRAFFIC AT THE PROJEC BUILD-OUT. THESE FINDINGS CONCLUDED THEY WILL OPERATE AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR THE CITY.

STAFF'S CONCLUDING ANALYSIS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PERFECTLY POSITIONED IN A PROMINENT DOWNTOWN LOCATION OVERLOOKING THE WATERWAY AND MARINA. THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS CONTEMPORARY BUT FEATURES ELEMENTS THAT BLEND WELL IN THE EXISTING SURROUNDINGS AND URBAN MARINE SETTINGS AND BEAUTY AND PROVIDES TRANSITION TO HUMAN SCALE AND PEDESTRIAN ORIENTATION THROUGH DEDICATED SIDEWALKS, ARCADES SHADED AND EXPANSIVE STORE FRONTS. THE LANDSCAPING ALSO PROVIDES INVITING AND

[00:20:01]

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I WOULD RATHER GO RIGHT INTO YOUR PRESENTATION, PLEASE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. FOR THE RECORD, LEE DOBBINS WITH THE LAW FIRM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. WE'VE GOT OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM HERE. WE'RE GOING GIVE A PRESENTATION TO YOU IN A MINUTE.

POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. I WANTED COVER A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR WORK. THIS HAS BEEN A LOT OF MOVING PARTS AND A LOT OF WORK PUT IN OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS ON THIS PROJECT. AND I'D LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR THE HARD WORK ON THIS. THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROJECT. AND I THINK YOU GOT SOME OF THAT FROM YOUR VERY GOOD PRESENTATION PUT ON BY MISS HOFMEISTER-DREW. SPECIFICALLY WHEN I COME BEFORE YOU AT THE PODIUM, WE HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER COMING BEFORE YOU WITH AN APPLICATION OR MAYBE A DEVELOPER THAT HAS A PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT WITH AN APPLICATION. THIS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM ANYTHING I'VE EVER DONE BEFORE CERTAINLY GIVEN THAT IT'S WITHIN RFP AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON CITY AND FPUA LAND. AND WE ENTERED INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN DECEMBER 2019. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IT'S BEEN THAT LONG NOW.

AND THAT AGREEMENT LAID OUT THINGS THAT EACH PARTY HAD TO DO. AS EXPLAINED, THE CITY AND WENT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND ZONING CHANGE. AS PART OF THE PD ZONING CHANGE, WE HAD BASIC CONCEPTUALLY SITE PLAN, STRAIGHT OUT OF THE RFP.

THE CITY HANDLED THE ABANDONMENT OF AVENUE B. AND THEN, ON OUR SIDE OF THE TABLE, IT WAS OUR TEAM'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PULL TOGETHER THE SPECIFIC SITE PLAN YOU'RE LOOKING AT BEFORE YOU NOW AND THE ELEVATIONS. BUT STILL WE'RE LIKE CO-APPLICANTS, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE DOING AN APPLICATION ON A PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY THE CITY AND FPUA. I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND SOME OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS BEHIND THE SCENES, BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND I THINK THERE MAY BE SOME PERCEPTION AMONG THE PUBLIC THAT THIS HAS BEEN MOVING SLOWLY. THAT WE'VE BEEN DRAGGING OUR FEET. I WANT TO DISPEL THAT. WE'VE HAD MEETINGS CONTINUOUSLY WITH CITY STAFF, SOMETIMES TWICE A MONTH. SOMETIMES ONCE A MONTH. USUALLY GOING OVER VARIOUS ISSUES AND RESOLVING THEM. JUST TO GIVE YOU A FLAVOR OF SOME OF THOSE ISSUES, BURIED CONCRETE. EVERYBODY KNEW THERE WAS A POWER PLANT THERE, AND THAT IT WAS LEVELLED. AND CONCRETE WAS TAKEN OUT TO SEVERAL FEET BELOW GROUND, WHICH I'M SURE AT THE TIME EVERYBODY THOUGHT WAS PLENTY. BUT WHEN YOU'RE COMING IN AND TRYING TO DO 8-10 STORY BUILDINGS, YOU'VE GOT TO GO UNDERGROUND QUITE A BIT TO PUT IN THE FOOTERS. I'VE GOT TO DRIVE PYLINGS IN THE GROUND. THE CONCRETE WAS NOT REMOVED TO A DEEP ENOUGH LEVEL THAT REQUIRED A LOT OF ADDITIONAL DUE DILIGENCE AND TIME. WE GOT GROUND-PENETRATING RADAR TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS UNDER THERE AND WHERE IT IS. THE ENGINEERS HAD TO LOOK AND FIGURE OUT CAN WE NAIL PILINGS IN AROUND WHAT IS THERE? WHERE DO WE NEED TO CLEAN IT OUT? SOME OF IT IS DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE TO COME OUT. HOW FAR DOWN DO WE HAVE TO DIG AND HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE TO TAKE OUT? WE'VE GOT A SITE THAT HAS A RELATIVELY HIGH WATER TABLE. THE WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST TO TAKE THAT OUT? WE'VE GOT TO GET COST ESTIMATES. IS THIS COST FEASIBLE ANYMORE? THAT TOOK SEVERAL MONTHS TO WORK OUT.

COMPLICATING THAT FURTHER, CONTAMINATED SOIL. THIS WASN'T A SURPRISE. EVERYBODY KNEW THERE WAS CONTAMINATED SOIL.

[00:25:01]

SO NOW WE'VE GOT TO DIG OUT CONCRETE. AND WE'VE GOT TO DIG UNDERGROUND. WE'VE GOT TO DEWATER TO DO THAT.

SO NOW WE'VE GOT TO GO TO FDEP. HOW DO WE DEWATER THIS? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO LET US DO? HOW ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO HAND AMENEL THE WATER WE PULL OUT OF THE GROUND WHEN WE DISPOSE OF IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT THE NORMAL WAY YOU WOULD. THAT'S GOING TO COST AND ADDITIONAL TIME. THERE WAS UTILITY LINES AND WATER SEWER, AND ELECTRICAL THAT RUNS THROUGH THERE THAT CAUSED BRAD HEADACHES TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW EVERYTHING LAYS OUT WITH THE UTILITY LINES THAT LAY THROUGH THERE. AND WHERE THINGS COULD BE PLACED AND WHAT HAD TO BE MOVED. THE LAST ONE AND -- SUBMERGED LANDS. BECAUSE WE HAD TO BEAT OUR HEAD AGAINST THE WALL SO MUCH ON THE SUBMERGED LANDS ISSUE. I RECEIVED A REAL EDUCATION IN THE HISTORY OF DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE. 1/3 OF THIS PROPERTY AT ONE TIME WAS UNDER WATER BECAUSE OF THE OLD SHORELINE. IT WAS FILLED SEVERAL TIMES. ULTIMATELY GETTING TO WHERE IT IS NOW SOMEWHERE BEFORE 1925. WE'RE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHEN. I'VE GOT AERIALS GOING BACK TO SHORTLY AFTER THE WRIGHT BROTHERS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE SHORELINE WAS AND WHEN IT WAS FILLED. ALSO, MOORE'S CREEK DIDN'T USED TO BE STRAIGHT LIKE NOW. IT USED TO MEANDER THROUGH THAT PROPERTY. WHY DOES THAT MATTER? BECAUSE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE STATE OWNS ALL SUBMERGED LANDS. WHEN YOU FILL THEM IN, THE STATE STILL OWNS THEM. THAT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM WHEN IT WAS THE MUNICIPAL POWER PLANT. IT WAS AN ISSUE BETWEEN THE STATE AND THE MUNICIPALITY. AND APPARENTLY, WAS NOT SO MUCH AN ISSUE WITH FPOA EITHER. BUT NOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT HAVING A LENDER COME IN AND LEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD TALL BUILDINGS. YOU'RE LOOKING AT A HOTELIER COMING IN WITH THEIR ATTORNEYS AND INSPECTING IT. WE HAD TO SHOW WE HAVE CLEAN TITLE, AND WE COULD NOT. MOORE'S CREEK WAS FILLED BETWEEN 1904 AND 1905. WE WEREN'T ABLE TO NAIL THAT DOWN. WE GOT FDEP TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE STATE IS NOT GOING TO ASSERT RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THOSE SUBMERGED LANDS. THAT TOOK A LONG TIME TO DO, ESPECIALLY DURING COVID WHEN EVERYBODY WITH THE STATE WAS WORKING FROM HOME AND NOT RESPONDING VERY QUICKLY. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S TAKEN US TWO YEARS TO GET FROM A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, JUST SHY OF TWO YEARS, TO GET TO THAT TO BEING BEFORE YOU TODAY. I WANTED YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND THAT. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK. THEY HAD TO DO A LOT OF WORK. THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH RECORDS, TRYING TO FIND INFORMATION ON THIS STUFF. THEY HAD TO WORK WITH THE STATE ON THEIR CONSULTANTS. WE WOULDN'T BE HERE NOW IF STAFF HADN'T BEEN PUSHING THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE ATTENTION OUT OF F THE DEP AND OTHER AGENCIES THAT WE GOT IF NOT FOR THE INTERVENTION OF STAFF. I APPRECIATE ALL THEIR HARD WORK IN HELPING THROUGH THE POWERPOI IDENTIFY SOME OF THE THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. I THINK IF THERE'S ONE THING THAT ALWAYS TRY TO HAVE ONE POINT IN MY POWERPOINTS, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE CONCEPT PLAN CHANGING FROM THE RFP TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT HASN'T CHANGED THAT MUCH. I THINK OF THERE BEING FIVE COMPONENTS, RESIDENTIAL, RESTAURANT, RETAIL, PARKING. THE COMPONENTS ARE STILL THERE TODAY. THOSE THINGS HAVE STAYED THE SAME. THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS I BELIEVE STAYED THE SAME, AROUND 1 -- 110 AT ONE POINT. WE'RE AT 114.

THE RESTAURANT USES MAY FLUCTUATE. WE'RE AROUND 35,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT USES. A COUPLE OF FREE-STANDING AND INLINE. THE HOTEL WAS 110 ROOMS AND NOW IT'S 140.

WE DID GO THROUGH SOME CHANGES WITH THE HOTEL. WE HAVE A HOTEL GROUP ON BOARD AND DALE CAN TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THAT. OVERALL, GETTING A HOTEL IN DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE IS DIFFICULT BECAUSE HOTELS LIKE TO HAVE DATA. THERE'S NO DATA REALLY IN DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE. IT WAS DIFFICULT TO GET A HOTEL PERSON

[00:30:01]

COULD BE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, SOMETHING WITH THE CITY.

THERE'S OPTION FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING ON THE WEST SIDE OF 2ND AVENUE. I KNOW STAFF IS IN THE PROCESS OF CHANGING THIS INTO ONE, CALLING IT THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION. I LIKE THAT.

MAKES THINGS EASIER. RIGHT NOW, THE THREE APPLICATIONS WE SUBMITTED, THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL -- IN ADDITION, WE'RE DOING THE PUD AMENDMENT. STAFF TALKED ABOUT THE LOCATIONS. I DON'T THINK I NEED TO GO INTO DETAIL THERE.

THESE ARE THE OLD ELEVATIONS. I THINK THERE'S COMPARISON BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW. AND THIS IS LOOKING FROM THE SORT WEST TO THE NORTHEAST. THE HOTEL IS THERE ON YOUR LEFT-HAND SIDE.

RESIDENTIAL TO THE RIGHT. FREE-STANDING RESTAURANT IN THE FRONT THERE. RESIDENTIAL TO THE LEFT. THE MIDDLE, YOU SEE A STRUCTURE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED RETAIL AND RESTAURANT.

THAT'S WHERE THE THREE-STORY PARKING GARAGE WILL BE GOING.

WE HAVE ELEVATIONS THAT SHOW THAT. OF THE AVENUE B ON YOUR RIGHT. INDIAN RIVER DRIVE BEHIND. YOU CAN SEE THE MARINA BEHIND IT. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING TOWARDS THE NORTHWEST. AGAIN, THAT RESIDENTIAL TOWER, REALLY THE PINNACLE OF THE MOST INTERESTING POINT WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE SITE, HIGHEST POINT WAS THE HIGHEST POINT ON THIS PLAN, THE HIGHEST POINT IN THE NEWER PLAN. YOU SEE THAT INTERNAL ROADWAY NETWORK. THAT WAS SOMETHING ELSE I WANTED TO MENTION. ANOTHER ACCESS FROM INDIAN RIVER DRIVE TO THE SITE AND AVENUE B TO 2ND AVENUE.

THIS IS A PHOTO AT NIGHT. IT DOESN'T REALLY SHOW ANYTHING.

IT SHOWS THE -- AGAIN, THAT TOWER FEATURE ON THE EAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND THE RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN. VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE. THE RESIDENTIAL AND RESTAURANT USE IS ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, EAST SIDE. RESIDENTIAL AND RETAIL USE ON THE SOUTH. THAT FREE-STANDING RESTAURANT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND THEN, THE HOTEL IN THE MIDDLE ALONG THE NORTH. AND THEN, THE TOWNHOUSES THAT WE SHOW ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE AS WELL. THIS IS THE NEW SITE PLAN. A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT COLOR THAN WHAT STAFF SHOWED. I AM GOING TO GET INTO MORE DETAIL LIKE STAFF AND TALK ABOUT EACH BUILDING A LITTLE BIT LATER. I WANT TODAY SHOW YOU. THIS SHOWS THE PARKING GARAGE IN THE MIDDLE AND THAT FIRST FLOOR RETAIL AS WELL. THESE ARE THE NEW ELEVATIONS. AND I'M GLAD THAT JOE IS HERE. BECAUSE HE DOES A BETTER JOB OF ANSWERING QUESTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO ARCHITECTURE. I'M GLAD HE'S BEHIND ME. THIS IS THE EAST VIEW. SO SOUTH WOULD BE LEFT-HAND SIDE. NORTH TO YOUR RIGHT. SO MOORE'S CREEK TO THE RIGHT. WE'RE STANDING ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE LOOKING WEST. THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR. SAME AS THE BUILDING ON YOUR LEFT. IT WOULD BE A SECOND OR THIRD-STORY CROSSOVER FROM THE PARKING GARAGE SO THAT RESIDENTS THAT LIVE ON THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT CAN PARK IN THE GARAGE, COME THROUGH THE BUILDING ACROSS THE WALK TO GET TO THEIR CONDO ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE.

RIGHT-HAND SIDE, EIGHT STORIES. LEFT-HAND SIDE IS 11 STORIES OF BUILDING WITH A LITTLE BIT OF AN AMENITY ON THE TOP. I'M SORRY, TEN STORIES OF BUILDING WITH AMENITY ON THE TOP THIS. IS PART OF THE AMENITY AS WELL AS THIS. THE AMENITY, WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT'S GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OR PRIVATE. BUT IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET HIGHER IN THE CITY TO GET BETTER VIEWS.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION. THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION STANDING ON AVENUE B LOOKING NORTH. AGAIN, THAT PINNACLE, POINT OF REFERENCE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, SOUTHEAST CORNER, 11 STORIES, TAILORING DOWN TO NINE STORIES THE FURTHER WEST YOU GO. IT GETS CONFUSING BECAUSE NOW WE'RE INSIDE THE SITE. WE'RE LOOKING SOUTH HERE. THAT'S THE PARKING GARAGE YOU'RE SEEING IN THIS AREA HERE. FIRST FLOOR WOULD BE THE RESTAURANT.

YOUR RESTAURANT OR RETAIL HERE. THIS WOULD BE PARKING GARAGE.

[00:35:04]

RETAIL AND RESTAURANT ON FIRST FLOOR AND 48 RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THIS IS THE NORTH-NORTHEAST BUILDING. SIMILAR TYPE OF BUILDING. SAME TYPES OF USES. A LITTLE SMALLER, EIGHT STORIES.

THIS IS THE BUILDING ALONG THE SOUTH. VERY SIMILAR AGAIN.

SIMILAR USES AND 25 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. PARKING GARAGE IN THE MIDDLE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. IT WILL HAVE THREE FLOORS. TWO FLOORS OF SOLID PARKING AND ONE FLOOR OF PARKING AND RETAIL SPACE. TRYING TO REALLY OPEN THAT FIRST FLOOR ALONG OUR EAST-WEST STREET WHERE IT'S NOT JUST A PARKING GARAGE. THAT IT DOES HAVE SOME PEDESTRIAN SCALE SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE WALK ALONG, THEY'RE NOT JUST WALKING ALONG THE PARKING GARAGE. IT LOOKS LIKE A BUILDING AND FUNCTIONS AS A BUILDING AS WELL. THE CHARLESTON HOMES IS WHAT WE CALL THOSE TOWNHOUSES. THERE'S EIGHT TOWNHOUSES ALONG BACKUS AVENUE WITH LANDSCAPING AND THE HOTEL 140 ROOMS. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, RETAIL, RESTAURANT WITH LAST FLOOR RESIDENTIAL ABOVE. RESTAURANT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, 7,000 SQUARE FEET. WE'RE CALLING IT TWO STORIES WITH OUTDOOR DINING ON SECOND FLOOR AS WELL. THESE ARE THE -- THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT LANDSCAPING ALONG BACKUS AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE THE ENTRANCES ARE AND LANDSCAPING BACK OF THE LOTS AND ALONG 2ND AVENUE. I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP. I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT IT BEFORE.

AGAIN, IN HAD SUMMARY, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU WAS FOR FIVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL, HOTEL, AND PARKING ONSITE. WE'VE TRIED TO STAY THAT CONSISTENT. INCREASE IN THE BUILDING HEIGHT THAT STAFF TALKED ABOUT -- WE DIDN'T INCREASE DWELLING UNITS. THERE WASN'T ADDITIONAL DENSITY ASKED FOR. WE'RE DOING MATH AND TRYING TO DETERMINE THE SIZE OF THE UNITS AND HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WE NEED. SO THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT WAS TO GAIN LARGER UNITS, MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE. IT WASN'T AN INCREASE IN OBTAIN ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS. THAT'S THE CHANGE THERE.

WE TRIED TO TALK JOE INTO HAVING EVERYTHING AT EIGHT OR NINE FLOORS. AND THE ARCHITECT WAS LIKE THAT DOESN'T GIVE YOU SENSE OF ARCHITECTURE. SO HE WANTED US TO STEP IT UP. THAT'S THE REASON IT'S STEPPED UP AS YOU GO FURTHER TO THE SOUTH ALONG INDIAN RIVER DRIVE ALONG THE SOUTH-SOUTHEAST CORNER. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY LOOK AT MY NOTES WHEN I DID THAT. I HOPE I DIDN'T MISS ANYTHING. 299 PARKING SPACE. THE CODE REQUIRES ZERO PARKING SPACES.

THE PARKING SPACES WE'RE PROVIDING WILL PARK ALL THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ONSITE PLUS SOME. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS

HAVE. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I'D LIKE YOU TO REMAIN SEATED BEFORE ME.

>> YES, SIR. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I WILL ALLOW THE BOARD TO REQUEST WHETHER IT BE STAFF OR THE

APPLICANT PRESENTER. >> I HAVE A QUICK ONE. SIMPLE ONE. Y'ALL MAY KNOW THE ANSWER OR YOU MAY NOT KNOW. DOES ANYBODY KNOW THE ELEVATION OF THE POWER PLANT WAS?

>> I DO. IT WAS 15 STORIES AND 150 FEET.

>> IS THAT INCLUDING THE SMOKE STACK?

>> YES, SIR. >> HOW ABOUT THE BUILDING

ITSELF? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO

THAT. >> FOR THE RECORD THAT WAS DALE MATHESON SPEAKING. I DON'T KNOW WHO IS TAKING NOTES THERE.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU. WOULD YOU REPEAT HIS

RESPONSE. >> HE SAID HE FELT THERE WAS TWO COMPONENTS OF THE POWER PLANT. SMOKE STACKS OR STACKS FOR THE PLANT 150 FEET OR 15 STORIES. BUT THE ACTUAL BUILDING WE'RE NOT SURE HOW HIGH THAT WAS.

>> THE ELEVATION ON THE OLD BUILDING IS FAIRLY TALL. I'M TRYING TO VISUALIZE IT. I COULDN'T BEGIN TO GUESS.

>> I MEAN YOU LIVED WITH IT. >> WELL, HERE AGAIN I'M LIKE YOU, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. THAT'S WHY I'M WONDERING IF

ANYBODY KNEW. >> I DO.

>> WE HAVE ANOTHER I DO. >> WE CAN'T BE TALKING FROM THE

AUDIENCE. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE ROOM. YOU'VE GOT IT ON

[00:40:03]

MAYBE WE CAN GET THAT FROM YOU LATER.

>> THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF SOCIAL MEDIA CONCERNING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. I BRING IT UP TO COMPARE IT TO WHAT WAS THERE, YOU KNOW. WE MIGHT SAY THAT THIS IS A NEW BUILDING, BUT IN THE SENSE IT'S TAKING THE PLACE OF A LARGE BUILDING THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT LARGE BUILDING THAT WAS ALREADY THERE WAS NOT AS ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED AS THIS ONE. THAT WAS A SQUARE BOX WITH ALUMINUM ON THE OUTSIDE COMPARED TO THIS ONE THAT YOU ALL ARE MAKING YOUR PRESENTATION.

THAT'S THE REASON WHY I BRING UP WHAT WAS THERE COMPARED TO WHAT IS GOING TO BE THERE. WHAT WAS THERE WAS AN EYESORE BUT DEFINITELY COMPARED TO WHAT COULD BE THERE, WHICH DEPENDING ON THE EYE OF THE PERSON, WHAT THEY BELIEVE IT IS. THAT'S THE

REASON WHY I BROUGHT IT UP. >> YES, SIR, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WE'LL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT.

>> IT MIGHT BE A QUESTION THAT WOULD COME UP LATER AT THE CITY COMMISSION LEVEL OR HISTORICAL LEVEL.

>> YES, SIR. >> MR. CHAIR?

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: YES. >> CAN I ASK SOMETHING?

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU. MY QUESTION I GUESS IS BOTH FOR STAFF AND FOR EDC. BY THE WAY, YOUR PLANS AND EVERYTHING, YOUR PRESENTATION HAS BEEN THE HIGHEST QUALITY I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MANY YEARS IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE STAFF'S ATTENTION ON THE STAFF REPORT, PAGE 24. THE PROJECT IS MISIDENTIFIED AS KIKING'S HIGHW COMMERCIAL PARK.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK THAT'S JUST A MATTER OF

PASTING -- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? >> I'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S

CONNECTED. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: IT'S ON SOMETHING THAT MR. REAGAN HAD PROUD, I BELIEVE.

>> OKAY. I HAVE A KIND OF A BASIC QUESTION. AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER STAFF OR EDC CAN HANDLE IT. WHAT STAGE ARE WE IN TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT? FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE THE CITY OBLIGATIONS, AND THEN, WE HAVE AUDUBON OBLIGATIONS. I'M KIND OF CONFUSED WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

OR ARE WE AT THE AUDUBON TIONS,- OBLIGATIONS? AND ALSO, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, ONCE WE GET INTO THE AUDUBON OBLIGATIONS, WHERE THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE SUBDIVISION PLAT, SUBDIVIDING THE PARCELS. IS THERE INDICATION ON THE MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE NOW AS TO WHERE THESE SUBDIVISIONS ARE GOING TO BE? AND I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE IN ITEM 1 OF B, AUDUBON OBLIGATIONS OR STILL IN -- UNDER THE CITY OBLIGATIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO IS PAYING YOUR BILL. (CHUCKLING)

>> WELL, DALE IS PAYING OUR BILLS.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: IF YOU WOULD, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO HANG OUT CLOSE TO THE PODIUM, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S MORE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY BE BEST SERVED TO ANSWER FOR US.

>> HE'S DOING A GREAT JOB. (CHUCKLING) THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS COMPLEX. BUT IT'S SIMILAR TO LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT. SO YOU HAVE PERSON CONDITIONS OF CLOSING THAT HAVE TO BE MET BEFORE THE PROPERTY IS CONVEYED. AND THERE'S CERTAIN CITY THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE. AND CERTAIN AUDUBON THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE. THE WAY THE AGREEMENT IS STRUCTURED, ONCE ALL THOSE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET, THEN, WE GO TO CLOSING WITHIN NO LESS THAN 30 YEARS OR NO MORE THAN 60 DAYS AFTER ALL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET. AT THIS POINT, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN MET OTHER THAN THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SO ONCE THAT HAPPENS, ALL CONDITIONS WILL HAVE BEEN MET, AND WE WILL GO TO A CLOSING WITHIN THAT 30 TO 60-DAY TIME FRAME. HOWEVER, WE ALSO HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT COMING FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME. THIS IS NOT BEFORE THE BOARD TODAY BECAUSE YOU DON'T APPROVE AGREEMENTS. IT'S GOING TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE WORKED OUT WITH STAFF AND THE CITY ATTORNEY MAINLY TO DEAL WITH THE TIME FRAMES. THIS AGREEMENT WHEN WE ENTERED INTO IT, WE ASSOCIATED VARIOUS TIME FRAMES BASED ON HOW WE THOUGHT THINGS WERE GOING TO GO. AND THEN, AS THE ENGINEERS

[00:45:06]

BECAUSE ORIGINALLY, WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT AT THE SAME TIME OF THIS APPROVAL. WE WOULD BE COMING FORWARD WITH A SITE PLAN AND A PLAT. NOW, WE'VE DECIDED TO DO THAT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY. WE'RE NOT DOING THE PLAT NOW. WE'RE NOT GOING TO WAIT ON THAT. WE'RE GOING TO GET THE SITE PLAN ARE APPROVAL.

WE'LL CLOSE. WE CONTRACT WITH THE HOTELIER. WE BEGIN BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WE CAN GET THE PLAT APPROVED DURING THAT SO THAT IT'S READY TO GO TO TURN OVER THE HOTEL PARCEL TO THE HOTELIER. SO THAT ORDER OF THAT IS CHANGING.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN ADD TO

THAT? >> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER:

OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS? >> THIS IS TO STAFF. EXCUSE ME. AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FRONTAGE, THERE WAS SEVERAL PROPOSALS. NOW, WITH THESE CHANGES, HOW CLOSELY DO THESE CHANGES MIRROR SOME OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSALS? AND IS THERE OBLIGATION OF STAFF TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PERSONS WHO PRESENTED PROPOSALS WITH THESE CHANGES?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE ARE OTHER TWO APPLICANTS THAT SUBMITTED FOR THE RFP. AND THE CITY CHOSE AUDUBON DEVELOPMENT.

THE SUBSEQUENT TO THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL, THERE HAVE BEEN REFINEMENTS ON THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL BECAUSE THE RENDERINGS WERE REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THE RFP PROPOSAL WAS. ONCE YOU GET FURTHER AND FURTHER INTO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND PREPARING FOR YOUR SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS, THEN, IT GETS MORE DETAILED. AND THE ELEVATIONS NOW THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED ARE VERY MUCH REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THE RENDERINGS ARE. THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS CONSISTENT. THE SITE LAY OUT.

THE OVERALL, AS MR. CURRIE STATED, THE USES THEY PROPOSED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS IS WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING NOW.

IF THE ELEVATIONS HAVE GROWN OR ADJUSTED, HEIGHT INCREASED A BIT, BUT THESE ARE ALL VERY COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEIR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, SOME OF THOSE CHANGES CAME ABOUT IN JUST SEEKING AN OCCUPANT FOR THE HOTEL. AND SOME OF THE ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE BASED ON WHAT THEY FOUND THROUGH THEIR DUE DILIGENCE. IF I -- IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU NEED TO ADD, I WOULD WELCOME THAT.

>> I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: ANY

FURTHER QUESTIONS? >> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PARKING SCENARIO. MR. CURRIE, I SAT THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION AT THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD IN MAY OF THIS YEAR. YOU AND I HAD A DISCUSSION REGARDING PARKING AT THAT TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO RECAPTURE THAT DISCUSSION AND DRILL INTO IT MORE DETAIL. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT 299 PARKING SPACES ARE BEING PROVIDED IN TOTALITY. 16 SPACES I'M ASSUMING ARE DEDICATED TO THE

TOWN HOMES? >> YES, SIR, I BELIEVE.

>> THAT'S DOWN TO 283 SPACES. YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT THE CONDOMINIUMS ARE GOING TO HAVE DESIGNATED PARKING AS WELL.

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT'S 114 UNITS.

>> NO, SIR. I THINK IT'S 108. >> 108. 283 MINUS 108, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER, THAT'S DOWN 175, GIVE OR TAKE. WHAT ABOUT THE HOTEL, OUT OF 175 SPACES REMAINING, HOW MUCH IS

DEDICATED FOR HOTEL USE? >> AT THIS TIME, MR. BRODERICK, WE DO NOT HAVE A NUMBER THAT IDENTIFIED FOR THE HOTEL. IT'S

[00:50:02]

NOT BEEN DETERMINED YET. >> SO YOU HAVE 140-ROOM HOTEL.

I'M ASSUMING IT'S GOING TO BE A LARGE COMPONENT OF THE 175 SPACES REMAINING DEDICATED FOR THE HOTEL USE. BACK IN MAY --

>> THAT'S NOT CORRECT, SIR. WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS IT'S GOING TO BE VALET PARKED AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AN AGREEMENT TO IPODATE INTO THE CITY WITH FORT PIERCE TO ALLOW THE VALET

TO BE IN THE CITY'S PARKING LOT. >> THE CITY GARAGES?

>> YES. >> OKAY. CITY PARKING GARAGE IS 480 SPACES CAPACITY. THEY'RE GOING LOOK TO SHIFT THAT BURDEN.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT AS OF YET. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO WARRANT FURTHER INVESTIGATION. HAVING SAID THAT, THE 170 REMAINING SPACES THAT ARE THERE TO SERVICE THE BALANCE OF THE RETAIL AND OFFICE AND DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS OF THE

PROPERTY. >> CORRECT.

>> YOUR COMMENT AT THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD AFTER OUR DISCUSSION, I CONSIDER THE PARKING TO BE RELATIVELY SHORT, WAS THAT A PARKING PROBLEM IN DOWNTOWN IS A GOOD THING. WOULD YOU CARE TO ELABORATE ON THAT?

>> IT MEANS EVERYBODY IS BUSY. >> WHAT IS THAT?

>> IT MEANS EVERYBODY IS BUSY. >> HAVING SAID THAT, IN THE PLANS WE'VE BEEN PROVIDED AT THE PLANNING BOARD, BACK IN MAY 19 OF THIS YEAR, YOU AFFORDED A LETTER FROM BRANDON CREGAN FROM THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT WITH A REQUEST. PLEASE PROVIDE A PARKING CALCULATION WITH PROFESSIONALLY ACCEPTED STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE OR PASSERBY TO BETTER DETERMINE THE PARKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. WAS THAT CALCULATION PROVIDED? IT'S NOT ON OUR PLAN. THEY WEREN'T ON THE HISTHISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD PLAN. HOWEVER -- I DISTRIBUTED THIS TO MY -- THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HERE. AN ANALYSIS THAT WAS PROUD BY YOUR FIRM -- I LEFT A COPY FOR ALL OF YOU HERE. THAT ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT THE PARKING REQUIRED TO PROPERLY SERVICE THIS SITE IS 749 SPACES. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?

>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT SHEET. BUT THAT'S NOT THE -- THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE 749 SPACES.

>> I UNDERSTAND THE CODE THOROUGHLY. WHAT I'M GETTING AT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK DISPLACED OR TRANSFER THE BURDEN OF PARKING FOR KING'S LANDING INTO CITY CONTROLLED OR OWNED OR LEASED

PARKING? >> JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER

DOWNTOWN IN AMERICA. >> WE'VE GOT 175 SPACES NET.

149 GROSS AGGREGATE NEEDED. THAT NUMBER IS PROBABLY FAIRLY

ACCURATE, EVEN WITH THE CHANGES. >> WHICH NUMBER?

>> 749? >> I DO NOT KNOW.

>> THAT WAS THE NUMBER I WAS PRO PROVIDED ON THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PLANS, THE BASIS OF MR. CREGAN'S

LETTER, THE RESPONSE TO THAT. >> IF I MAY?

>> PLEASE. >> MR. CREGAN WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THAT QUESTION WAS WANTING TO KNOW WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE. BECAUSE OUR DOWNTOWN AS WE'VE ALL STATED, DOES NOT REQUIRE PARKING. BUT WHAT SHOULD HAVE FURTHER BEEN ELABORATED AND PERHAPS IT WAS BUT WE DO NOT KNOW, IS THAT TYPICALLY PROJECTS OF THIS CALIBER THAT ARE MIXED-USE, ALWAYS GO THROUGH A SHARED PARKING ANALYSIS. YOU DO NOT DO STRAIGHT PARKING. YOU DO NOT EXPECT A PERSON WHO IS LIVING IN ONE OF THOSE UNITS TO GET INTO HIS CAR OR HER CAR TO DRIVE TO THE RESTAURANT RIGHT ACROSS THE WAY. SO THERE'S A SHARED USE. A PASSERBY, UNDERSTANDING THAT PROFESSIONALLY I KNOW THAT IT'S ON AVERAGE, 25 TO 35, SOMETIMES MORE PERCENT FROM A STANDARD TYPICAL PARKING BASED ON EACH OF THE USES. IF THAT WAS 750.WE'RE TALKING 40%, WHICH IS 280 SOMETHING. THAT WOULD BE IF IT WERE REQUIRED. BUT WE DON'T REQUIRE IT. BUT WE ASSUME THAT IF SOMEONE WANTS WHO IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPING A PROPERTY OF THIS CALIBER, AND WANTS IT TO BE SUCCESSFUL, THAT THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE PARKING PROVIDED. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING. I WANT TODAY MAKE SURE BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMMENT FROM A PREVIOUS EMPLOYEE. AND HE'S NOT HERE TO STATE WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: HE CAN'T TESTIFY TO IT.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> FOR THE INFORMATION FOR MY

[00:55:04]

THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE HAS ENGAGED IN A PARKING ANALYSIS OF DOWNTOWN PARKING AND BEACH PARKING. I'M FOCUSING DISCUSSIONS ON DOWNTOWN PARKING SCENARIO. THE STUDY INCORPORATES PARKING ANALYSIS FROM CITRUS AVENUE TO THE SOUTH, SEA WAY TO THE NORTH, INDIAN RIVER AND U.S.-1 TO THE WEST.

INCLUDED IN THAT ANALYSIS IS GROSS AGGREGATE NUMBER OF AVAILABLE PARKING IN THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR, WHICH IS 2,034 PARKING SPACES, WHICH INCLUDES PARKING GARAGE, SURFACE PARKING, AND ONSTREET PARKING. SO ALL COMPONENTS OF DOWNTOWN PARKING ARE INCLUDED IN THAT NUMBER OF 2,034. WITH THE ADDITION OF THE KING'S LANDING PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE A NET LOSS OF PARKING. THE LOSS OF PARKING IS BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER IS ACTUALLY PURCHASING SOME OF THE LAND WHERE THAT PARKING EXISTS. THERE IS'S 87 PARKING SPACES CURRENTLY. ONE OF THE SURFACE LOTS AND 114 IN A SECOND SURFACE LOT THAT GOES WITH THE KING'S LANDING DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE'S A NET LOSS OF APPROXIMATELY 200 SPACES THERE. IN ADDITION, THERE IS A THIRD LOT THAT THE CITY LEASES ON A SHORT-TERM BASIS, WHICH IS ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, BASICALLY ACROSS FROM --

>> >> MANATEE.

>> MANATEE. THANK YOU. THAT LOT, IT'S SPECULATED ON WILL END UP IN SOME TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PHASE AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

THE CITY LEASES IT ON AN ANNUALIZED BASIS. THERE'S A TOTALITY, A POTENTIAL NET LOSS OF PARKING OF APPROXIMATELY 317 SPACES. WHICH DROPS THE CITY'S GROSS NUMBER OF PARKING IN HAD THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR, CITRUS TO SEA WAY INTO THE 1,700 AND CHANGE RANGE. AND THE REASON I'M GETTING ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IN THE RECORD IS FOR THE CITY COMMISSION AT DELIBERATION AS TO HOW THE PARKING ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO BE CREATED IS GOING TO BE HANDLED. NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS A KING'S LANDING PROBLEM. BECAUSE THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS THE ONE THAT HAS CREATED THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND ELIMINATED THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. YOU GET A HALL PASS. THAT'S THE CITY'S DOING. I UNDERSTAND THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, SITTING ON THE BOARD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. HOWEVER, THAT DOES NOT ALLEVIATE THE PROBLEM THE DOWNTOWN IS GOING TO BE BURDENED WITH WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE KING'S LANDING PROJECT. I'M NOT ANTI-KING'S LANDING. DON'T MISUNDERSTAND MY POSITION HERE.

WHAT I AM TRYING TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY IS THE NEED FOR PARKING TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSEDED BY THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND ALSO FUTURE GROWTH OF THE DOWNTOWN. WE'RE CREATING MORE OF AN ISSUE HERE BY SHIFTING SEVERAL HUNDRED SPACES OF PARKING INTO THE DOWNTOWN AREA, SURFACE PARKING, AS YOU MENTIONED, SHUTTLING VEHICLES TO THE HOTEL, WHICH PROBABLY RUNS -- I MEAN TO THE CITY PARKING GARAGE, WHICH PROBABLY RUNS IN THE VICINITY OF 50% CAPACITY CURRENTLY. SO GIVE OR TAKE. IT'S ONLY 480 SPACES GIVE OR TAKE. SO YOU DON'T NEED A CALCULATOR TO FIGURE OUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT SHORTFALL IN PARKING. NOW, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I WAS GOING TO RAISE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS -- AND MR. CURRIE, YOU MIGHT BE BEST TO ANSWER. I BELIEVE YOU TOUCHED ON IT AS WELL. IS THE PHASED SCENARIO OF DEVELOPMENT OF KING'S LANDING. CAN YOU TOUCH ON THAT FURTHER? BECAUSE CANDIDLY, THAT MAY BE A PORTION OF THE SOLUTION HERE.

DEPENDING ON THE TIMELINES IF THAT'S BEING PHASED IN, ET CETERA, THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY POTENTIALLY TO ADDRESS THE PARKING ISSUE THAT'S GOING TO BE CREATED. CAN

YOU SHED LIGHT ON THE PHASING? >> MR. BRODERICK, RIGHT NOW, THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL ALL BE BUILT IN ONE PHASE. THE ROADS, WATER, SEWER THAT PROVIDE FOR SERVICE TO THE PROPERTY. THE -- SO MY OPINION -- I THINK DALE AND LEE WORKED OUT DIFFERENT PHASING WITH THE CITY WHEN THE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO GO UP.

FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, THE WHOLE SITE IS GOING TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WATER, SEWER, ROADS, DRAINAGE, ALL THAT WILL BE DONE IN ONE PHASE. THAT WILL IMPACT THE MAJORITY OF THE PROJECT. AS FAR AS THE PROJECTS, LEE MAY BE ANSWER THAT

BETTER THAN I. >> YEAH, THE BUILDINGS GO IN DIFFERENT PHASES OVER TIME. I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME.

THEY'RE STAGGERED WITH THE HOTEL BEING EARLY ON BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WANTS TO SEE. INITIALLY, THERE IS GOING

[01:00:05]

PROVIDING PARKING. >> WHAT WOULD YOU ANTICIPATE THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL FLOORS COULD OFFER IN THE NUMBER OF

SPACES? >> 70 PER FLOOR.

>> 70 PER FLOOR? (INAUDIBLE)

>> 70. >> 70 PER FLOOR. 140. OF

>> 140 FOR TWO ADDITIONAL FLOORS IN THAT PARKING STRUCTURE.

>> OKAY. I THINK -- (INAUDIBLE)

>> THE COMMISSION AS TO THE RESOLUTION. OUR RESOLUTION WILL BE NEEDED. STATUS QUO IS NOT GOING TO BE SATISFACTORY.

ONSTREET PARKING IS NOW ENFORCED I BELIEVE IT'S PROPOSED 9:00 A.M. TO 2:00 P.M., TWO-HOUR PARKING REQUIREMENT. HOTEL GUESTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE HAPPY IF THEY'RE GETTING TICKETS WHEREVER THEY'RE PARKING. YOU CAN SEE THE INFUSION OF THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANT AREAS. AND I HAVE CONCERNS RELATIVE TO THE MAL HEALTH OF THE MARINA OPERATIONS.

IF YOU CAN'T GET TO YOUR BOAT, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR BOAT SOME PLACE ELSE IS MY BEST GUESS. I HAVE CONCERNS ACROSS THE BOARD ON THE PRIMARY IMPACTS TO THE MARINA, TO THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, I HAVE CONCERNS OF SHIFTING ALL THIS PARKING BURDEN INTO EDGARTOWN. EDGARTOWN IS A JEWEL OF A CITY AS FAR AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT IS CONCERNED. AND GROWING UP RIGHT OUTSIDE OF BOSTON, WE USED TO GO TO FOOTBALL GAMES NOT TO PAY $25 TO PARK IN SOMEBODY'S DRIVEWAY.

YOU KNOW TO GO TO THE GAMES BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PARKING.

SO IT CREATES MORE OF A BURDEN INTO THAT AREA OF TOWN, WHERE THERE'S ONLY ONSTREET PARKING ON THE MAIN THOROUGHFARES. AND THERE'S A REAL SHORTAGE OF PARKING IN EDGARTOWN BASED ON THE AGE OF THE STRUCTURES AND ET CETERA. NATURALLY, THERE'S GOING TO BE OUTCRAWL OF PARKING INTO THOSE AREAS. IN MY OPINION SOLELY, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE DIMENSION AND THE MAKEUP OF THOSE AREAS PERMANENTLY. AND I WOULD HAVE TO THINK THE RESIDENTS WOULD BE SOMEWHAT CONCERNED WHAT IS COMING IN THEIR DIRECTION. I'LL GET OFF THE PARKING ISSUE FOR A MINUTE, UNLESS OTHER FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS. I BELIEVE I GOT EVERYTHING INTO THE RECORD THAT I THOUGHT SHOULD BE IN THE RECORD. MY SECOND LINE OF QUESTIONING IS REGARDING THE CHANGE IN HEIGHT ON THE PROJECT. I SIT ON THE HISHISTO PRESERVATION BOARD AND SAT THROUGH THE MEETING IN MAY WHEN THE DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE REGARDING THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS OF THE PROJECT. IT WAS A LENGTHY DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE REGARDING HEIGHTS. THERE WAS A MOTION MADE. I CAN READ IT INTO THE MEETING MINUTES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU THINK IT'S

NECESSARY. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: IT'S

IN THE PRESENTATION. >> OKAY. IF YOU'RE SATISFIED IT'S THERE, I'M GOOD. AT THAT TIME, IT WAS A DISCUSSION WITH THE VOTING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BECAUSE SEVERAL HAD TO RECUSE THEMSELVES DUE TO POTENTIAL CONFLICTS. THE DISCUSSION FOCUSED ON MAXIMUM HEIGHTS ALLOWED. THAT IS EIGHT STORIES APPROVED BY THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD 3. WHEN DID

THIS CHANGE TAKE PLACE? >> I DON'T KNOW THE LAST PLACE.

PROBABLY THE LAST 60 DAYS DURING A MEETING THAT WE HAD, STAFF MEETING, TEAM MEETING, WHERE WE STARTED DOING THE CALCULATIONS ABOUT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE UNITS AND HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WE NEEDED AND WE NEEDED ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE NUMBER OF AND STYLES OF UNITS THAT THE

[01:05:01]

>> IF I REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION AT THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DIRECTLY, IT FOCUSED ON THE FACT THAT SCALE AND SIZE WERE STRONGLY BEING DEALT WITH AT THAT MEETING IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THE RENAISSANCE BUILDING IS FIVE STORIES. I BELIEVE THE CITY CLERK'S BUILDING IS SIX STORIES.

THOSE ARE THE LARGEST STRUCTURES IN DOWNTOWN TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. THE KING'S LANDING WAS PROPOSED AT EIGHT. THEN, SBSEQUENTLY JUMPED TO 11. THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, WHO I HAVE A LOT OF FAITH IN THEIR REVIEW AND AKNOLLE NATIONAL CYST OF THESE TYPES OF ISSUES, HAS NOT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS NEW PLAN. THEY'RE STILL FREIGHTING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS PROJECT WAS EIGHT STORIES. NOW, IT'S COMING BACK TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION WHAT I UNDERSTAND. HOWEVER I BELIEVE THE PROCESS HAS BEEN REVERSED. AND AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN AROUND THE HTHE HISTORIC PRESERVATION, SIX YEARS, I'VE NEVER SEEN A PLAN GO FROM PLANNING BACK TO HISTORICAL PRESERVATION. THIS IS AN UNUSUAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE INPUT OF THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD WHICH IF YOU READ THE MINUTES, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING, SCOPE, SIZE, SCALING, ET CETERA. ALL OF THESE EXACT ISSUES WE'RE NOW ASKED TO ADDRESS FROM A PLANNING BOARD PERSPECTIVE WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD WHO OVERSEES DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN FROM A HISTORIC PRESERVATION CAPACITY, WE'RE ASKED TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR UNPINPUT. I CONSIDER THA PROBLEMATIC.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: PLEASE, MISS HOFMEISTER-DREW.

>> CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, MR. BRODERICK, OUR CODE DOES NOT LAY OUT A SCHEDULE OF CHAIN OF COMMANDS ON WHO SEES WHAT PROJECT FIRST. BOTH THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATI BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD ARE ADVISORY BOARDS. YOUR REVIEW SON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, SITE PLANNING, MEETS THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, WILL BE BOTH TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. ALL COMMENTS, EVERYTHING WILL BE PART OF WHAT IS THEN BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOUR CITY COMMISSION. AND WE ARE HOLDING THIS SPECIAL MEETING, SO WE CAN GET THIS PROJECT BOTH OF THESE REVIEWS, ONE NOW IN HAD ABOUT TWO OR THREE WEEKS WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION TOGETHER TO BE PRESENTED TO THIS THE CITY

COMMISSION. >> I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT THAT CHANGE DIDN'T HAPPEN IN A VACUUM. YOUR RIGHT. THIS IS A LITTLE UNUSUAL. THIS PROJECT IS UNUSUAL. AS I WAS INDICATING BEFORE. AND WE'VE BEEN HAVING THOSE CONTINUAL MEETINGS WITH STAFF A COUPLE OF TIMES A MONTH OR ONCE A MONTH GOING OVER THE PROJECT AS CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE AND OUR TEAM. WHEN WE FIGURED OUT THAT SOME CHANGES WERE GOING TO NEED TO BE MADE ON THE HEIGHT, WE DISCUSSED THAT IN MEETINGS WITH STAFF AND OUR DIRECTION FROM STAFF WAS TO BASICALLY MAKE THOSE CHANGES TO THE SITE PLAN. CONTINUE WITH THE PROCESS WE WERE DOING. BRING IT FORWARD TO PLANNING. AND BRING IT FORWARD TO THE BOARD. THOSE CHANGES CAME ABOUT. AND AGAIN, WE WERE GOING -- WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS WITH STAFF AS IT WENT. CAME ABOUT PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE DIFFICULTY IN GETTING THE HOTEL COMPONENT AND BRINGING THAT HERE. AS MR. CURRIE WAS INDICATING, YOU KNOW, BRINGING A HOTELIER TO DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE IS A CHALLENGE. WE FOUND AN EXCELLENT HOTEL PARTNER THAT IS A QUALITY HOTEL DEVELOPER THAT WE THINK REALLY ELEVATES THE PROJECT. AND WILL REALLY HELP ANCHOR THE PROJECT. AND MAKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN IT MORE VALUABLE. BUT YOU KNOW, BRINGING IN A PARTNER LIKE THAT, ISN'T FREE. OF THE THEY UNDERSTAND HAD THE VALUE OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING, AND THEY HAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY WANT. AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY ON THAT, WITH THE COUNTY, AND WITH EDC. PART OF THAT DISCUSSION REQUIRED CHANGES IN DESIGN. AND WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT DALE IS ABLE TO MAKE A PROFIT ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE,

[01:10:04]

THAT'S HOW THAT CAME ABOUT. >> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT, YOU KNOW, MR. BURDGE WAS REFERRING TO, THE ONLINE SURPRISE, SUDDEN CHANGE IN HEIGHT AND SCOPE. I THINK THAT'S -- I DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THIS UNTIL CANDIDLY, SATURDAY. I SIT ON ALL THE BOARDS THAT HAVE HAD INTERACTION WITH THIS. SO IT DID COME AS A BIT OF A SHOCK HONESTLY. ONE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION PERTAINING TO WHAT YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER WITH THE CITY ENGAGING IN HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT COMMITTING SPACES IN THE CITY PARKING GARAGE. IS THERE GOING TO BE -- IF IT'S GONE ALONG AND FAR ENOUGH IN THAT DISCUSSION, IS THE CITY PLANNING ON DESIGNATING PARKING IN THE GARAGE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE HOTEL? AND IF YES, IS THERE A QUANTITY OF PARKING THEY'RE LOOKING TO DESIGNATE?

>> WE'VE NOT GOTTEN THAT FAR IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. THAT WOULD REALLY BE A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE HOTEL OPERATOR AND THE CITY.

THEY WOULD NEED TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT.

>> THERE'S NO COMMITMENTED TO THAT YET? IS IT

>> THERE'S NO COMMITMENTS FOR THAT YET.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: FURTHER QUESTIONS? WE DON'T HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE MORE, IF YOU WANT. (LAUGHTER)

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I'M SURE YOU DO.

(LAUGHTER) >> I WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS OF MR. MATHESON. IS HE GOING TO BE COMING FORWARD?

>> I CAN. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: JUST A MINUTE, PLEASE. LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. I ALLOW PRESENTERS TO COME FORWARD TO -- YOUR PRESENTERS ACTUALLY AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION TEAM. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. I WOULD LIKE THE OWNER TO COME FORWARD AND ANSWER A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE RELATIVELY EASY AFTER THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS PROVIDED.

>> I'M DALE MOTTADISON, DEVELO OF KING'S LANDING. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. TO ADD COLOR TO WHAT OUR TEAM HAS SAID, IT REALLY IS FROM WHERE WE SIT, A BASIC ECONOMICS OF WHAT THE RFP ASKS FOR OF US, WHICH WAS A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WITH RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL, RESTAURANTS, AND A HOTEL. AND SO THERE ARE CERTAIN ECONOMIES OF SCALE, LIKE THE HOTEL GREW FROM 120 ROOMS TO 140 ROOMS. THEY HAD TO DO THAT TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY VIABLE. THE KIND OF HOTEL WE WANTED IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE COULD HAVE ACHIEVED A LOWER HOTEL WITH LESS ROOMS, WOULD HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, A MOTEL 6 VARIETY. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE HAD IN MIND FOR THIS.

SO IT'S A BY-PRODUCT OF WHAT THE CITY WANTS. IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT OF OUR BUILDINGS, THE BALLOON HAS GONE UP AND DOWN.

IT'S A MATTER OF ECONOMICS. IF WE GO LOWER IN HEIGHT, THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT AND THE COST OF EACH UNIT, CAN OUTPRICE THE MARKET. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A MATTER OF HOW DO WE MAKE THIS FIT IN THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO? YOU KNOW, THE SITE COULD HAVE A CITY PARK THERE. AND BUT THAT DOESN'T CREATE TAX BASE FOR THE CITY. WE COULD HAVE DONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, BUT THAT DOESN'T BLEND WELL WITH HOTELS. SO IN TRYING TO PUT ALL THE PIECES AND PARTS TOGETHER, RESPONDING TO THE RFP, THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO A HOTEL ROOM THAT IS SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN WHAT WE INITIALLY THOUGHT OF BUILDING.

OUR TALLEST BUILDING IS SLIGHTLY TALLER THAN WE THOUGHT. WE WERE INITIALLY EIGHT STORIES. NOW, WE'RE 11.

THE 11TH FLOOR IS AN AMENITY DECK. IT'S THE ROOF OF THE TENTH FLOOR. IT'S NOT HOMES UP THERE. SO WE'RE REALLY TWO STORIES MORE THAN WE WERE WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THE PROJECT. WHEN WE WENT BEFORE THE HISTORICAL REVIEW BOARD, THEY WANTED US TO LOWER IT TO EIGHT STORIES. THAT KNOCKED $20 MILLION OUT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THAT

[01:15:03]

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW. >> MR. CHAIR, CAN I INTERJECT

SOMETHING? >> I THINK MISS BAKER HAD A

QUESTION. >> I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON YOUR PROGRESS. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. HAVE YOU BEEN CONTACTED BY BRIGHT LINE FOR THE USE OF THE AREA THAT'S MARKED

FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? >> WHEN WE INITIALLY STARTED THIS, WE -- I CALLED BRIGHT LINE THE DAY AFTER WE WERE AWARDED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND I SAID I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE YOU TO PARTNER WITH US ON THIS SITE THAT IS NEXT TO THE RAILROAD SITE IN AND WEST OF 2ND STREET. THAT IS GOING TO BE THE LAST PIECE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO WE WELCOME YOUR INVOLVEMENT. I THINK IF THE BOARD RECALLS, BRIGHT LINE SAID THEY COULDN'T THINK OF FORT PIERCE AND DEVELOPMENT HERE UNTIL FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. OF SO WE SAID, WELL, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE LAST PIECE OF THE PUZZLE FOR US, SO PERHAPS BY THAT TIME YOU'LL BE READY TO MAKE THE COMMITMENT TO FORT PIERCE. I THINK WHAT THEY'VE LEARNED IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS THEY'RE DEVELOPERS. THEY DON'T MAKE MONEY FROM $15 TRAIN TICKETS. THEY MAKE MONEY DEVELOPING THE TRAIN SITE. SO THAT'S ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. BUT THE OTHER PIECE IS FORT PIERCE IS NOT GOING TO BE A BIG STOP FOR THEM ANYWAY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE BRIGHT LINE STOP AT THE SITE. SO LONG WAY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH BRIGHT LINE. AS SOON AS WE WERE AWARDED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE WOULD LIKE TO DO A DEAL WITH THEM. BUT ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER WE WERE AWARDED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT WAS LIKE COVID HIT. THEY STOPPED RUNNING THE TRAIN. AND ALL OF OUR CONTACTS HAVE GONE OTHER DIRECTIONS. SO NOW THEY'RE FOCUSED ON ORLANDO AND DISNEY TRYING TO GET THAT OPEN. SO HOPEFULLY, WHEN THEY COME BACK TO FOCUSING ON THEIR INTERMEDIATE STOPS FROM WEST PALM TO ORLANDO, WE CAN START THAT DISCUSSION AGAIN. IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE THEM THERE. THE STRUCTURED PARKING THAT BRAD AND LEE SPOKE ABOUT ON THAT WESTERN PARCEL, THE TRAIN PARCEL, COULD ACCOMMODATE -- IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HAVE BRIGHT LINE PARKING AND CITY PUBLIC PARKING. WE'VE GOT COOL OPTIONS AHEAD OF US. AND IF BRIGHT LINE CHOOSES NOT TO GO THERE, WE'RE DEVELOPERS. SO WE'LL DEVELOP. I THINK IT'S A GOOD PARCEL FOR SOME NICE APARTMENT COMMUNITY THERE.

>> MY OTHER QUESTION, I KNOW YOUR POTENTIAL PROFIT IS IN RESIDENTIAL, RATHER THAN THE HOTELS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. ARE YOU THE SUBSTANTIALLY AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS THAT YOU'RE TAKING FOR RESERVATIONS ON YOUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, ARE THOSE AMOUNTS BEING HELD IN ESCROW OR ARE THEY BEING UTILIZED FOR YOUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES?

>> THEY'RE COMINGLED WITH OUR OPERATING BUDGET. WE HAVE HAD IN THE COURSE OF OUR DEVELOPMENT RESERVATION PROGRAM, WHICH HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR 18 MONTHS, I'M GLAD TO REPORT WE'VE HAD THREE

[01:20:01]

MONTHS. >> THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: ANYTHING FURTHER? MISS BAKER?

>> HMM? >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER:

ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO. THE I GOT THE COMINGLED

FUNDS LOUD AND CLEAR. >> YOU SAID IN OPENING REMARKS, BASED ON THE INTERACTION WITH THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATION BO YOU HAD NET LOSS OF $20 MILLION WORTH OF BUILDABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE. I DON'T RECOLLECT THAT HAPPENING AT THAT MEETING CANDIDLY. WHAT TRANSPIRED AT THAT MEETING? IF YOU GO ONLINE AND LOOK AT THE PACKAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD FOR THE MAY MEETING, THAT WAS AN EIGHT-STORY BUILDING. THAT BOARD APPROVED AN EIGHT-STORY BUILDING. THERE WAS NO REDUCTION IN SCALE OR HEIGHT. I COULD BE WRONG.

THERE ARE SEVERAL MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT. AND DURING PUBLIC COMMENT CAN COME UP. OR WE CAN GO ONLINE AND LOOK AT THE PACKAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED AND WHAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED.

BUT I DON'T WANT THE RECORD TO BE SKEWED. UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN HERE, THERE WAS NO ADJUSTMENT IN HEIGHT, NO ADJUSTMENT IN DENSITY

OR SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATIO BOARD WE WERE SHOWING THE SAME RENDERING WE'RE SHOWING NOW.

THEY'VE GONE UP AND DOWN. WHEN WE WERE BEFORE THE BOARD, WE WERE TALKING A TEN-STORY RESIDENTIAL UNIT. AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD ASKED US TO REDUCE IT TO EIGHT.

>> I DISAGREE WITH YOU. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE.

>> OKAY. WHERE WE ARE TODAY, IN ORDER TO MAKE IT FEASIBLE, WE NEED TEN STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN OUR TALLEST BUILDING. THE 11TH STORY IS AN AMENITY DECK. IT CAN BE WHATEVER THE CITY AND CITIZENS WANT. IT'S JUST SOMETHING HAS

GOT TO GIVE. >> I'M NOT DEBATING THAT POINT.

I WANT THE RECORD TO CLEARLY INDICATE WHAT THE HISTORY OF THIS PROGRESSION IS. I DON'T WANT THIS GOING INTO THE RECORD SOMETHING THAT IS -- THAN WHAT TOOK PLACE AT THE MEETING.

I WAS AT THE MEETING AND SAT ON THE DAIS.

>> I WAS THERE. I FELT THE $20 MILLION GO AWAY. WE ARE YOUR PARTNERS. WE WILL DO WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU GUYS THINK MAKES SENSE. AND IF WE CAN MAKE IT MAKE SENSE -- WE'VE CAN. THE CITY WANTED A PARTNER FOR PARKING AND SOME SOLUTIONS TO THE PARKING PROBLEM. WE'VE GIVEN TWO OPTIONS WITH THE PARKING DECK BOTH IN INTERIOR IN KING'S LANDING AND THE RAILROAD PARCEL. WE DO HAVE 299 PARKING SPACES THAT COME WITH KING'S LANDING. A LITTLE OVER 100 OF THOSE ARE JUST SURFACE PARKING THAT ARE PUBLIC PARKING. AND THE REST OF FOR RESIDENTS. SO EVEN IF THE CITY DOESN'T TAKE US UP ON THE PARKING OPTIONS, THERE'S STILL OVER 100 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE A NET GAIN FOR THE CITY JUST ON SURFACE STREET PARKING. SO BUT AGAIN, WE ARE YOUR PARTNERS. SO WE'RE HERE FOR GUIDANCE AND WE'LL TRY TO

MAKE IT WORK. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I WANT TO CLARIFY THE HISTHISTORI PRESERVATION BOARD OF MAY...

>> 21ST. >> 24TH.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: 25TH, 24TH, WHATEVER IT WAS, I THINK THE RECORD OF THE BOARD STANDS FOR ITSELF ON OUR CITY RECORDS. AND WE DON'T NEED TO NECESSARILY TRY TO ENFORCE A RECORD HERE IN THIS MEETING OF THE HISTHISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD. THE OTHER THING I THINK IS THAT THE ISSUE CONCERNING PARKING, I THINK HAS BEEN WELL ADDRESSED. AND THE THING THAT I THINK THAT CAME OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION OF PARKING IS THAT IT'S OVERFLOW OF PARK SOMETHING GOING TO BECOME THE CITY'S PROBLEM. THE ORDINANCES DO NOT DICTATE YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING THAN YOU ARE. AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT, I THINK. SOME OF US MAY NOT BE AS HAPPY ABOUT IT AS SOME OTHERS WOULD LIKE

[01:25:07]

DEVELOP OUT. >> CORRECT.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT YOU'RE CONTRIBUTING TO THE CITY IS GOING TO BE SPREAD OUT OVER THAT THREE TO FIVE YEARS AS WELL. SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE JUST GONE HOME AND TURNED THE INSIDE LIGHT ON. AND PRESTO WE'VE GOT A TREMENDOUS PARKING PROBLEM. THIS IS SOMETHING THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO OVER A PERIOD OF TIME JUST AS YOU'RE TRYING TO COMPLETE YOUR DEVELOPMENT.

>> BUT WE HEAR YOU LOUD AND CLEAR. AND WE RECOGNIZE IN ORDER TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, WHAT IS IN CODE AND WHAT IS RIGHT TO DO ARE TWO -- MAY BE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: WELL, THE MORALE RESPONSIBILITY IS ONE ISSUE. THE CODE IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE.

>> RIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: BUT A WISE BUSINESSMAN COMING IN TO DEVELOP IS GOING TO LOOK AT THE CODES AND RELY ON CODES PRETTY FIRMLY. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I'VE BEEN THERE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M A PLANNER, AND I CAN TALK ABOUT PARKING IN DOWNTOWNS ALL DAY LONG.

SOMETIMES I'M OFTEN SARCASTIC, SO WHEN I SAID A PARKING PROBLEM IS A GOOD PROBLEM. I WOULD ASK MR. BRODERICK AND THE BOARD, WOULD YOU HAVE NO ONE DOWNTOWN OR TOO MANY PEOPLE? I WOULD RATHER HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE. EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO WALK TO GET TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING. FOR THE PEOPLE AT HOME AND WE OFTEN SAY THAT IN THIS BUSINESS, FORT PIERCE ISN'T ALONE IN HAVING A DOWNTOWN THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE PARKING. EVERY DOWNTOWN WEST PALM FORT LAUDERDALE, STEWART, ALL OF THESE DOWNTOWN AREAS HAVE

A PARKING -- >> BOCA RATON.

>> FORT PIERCE IS NOT ALONE. EVERY DOWNTOWN. TYPICALLY, YOU WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE COME TO DOWNTOWN AND TYPICALLY, THE PROGRESSION IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST STATED. IS THAT WHEN YOU CAN'T START PARKING IN FRONT, YOU WALK. WHEN IT'S TOO FAR, YOU TAKE AN UBER, BIKE, SCOOTER. WHICHEVER ELSE YOU TAKE. THAT'S THE TRANSFORMATION OF A DOWNTOWN. IT GOES FROM BEING WHERE YOU CAN PARK TO A PLACE WHERE YOU HAVE TO TAKE OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORTATION. WHAT IS MORE AVAILABLE? A PARKING SPACE NEXT TO INTERCOASTAL AND RIVER DRIVE OR CONDO? I THINK THE CITY WOULD RATHER HAVE MORE INCOME. A PARKING LOT DOESN'T DO THAT. HAVING THIS MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WHILE IT MIGHT PINCH DOWN ON PARKING A LITTLE BIT, PEOPLE WILL FIGURE IT OUT. I ALWAYS USE THE EXAMPLE, GAINESVILLE IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE.

I GO THERE ALL THE TIME AND GO TO THE HOTEL. I SHOW UP, JUMP OUT OF MY CAR. VALET GETS IN. I DON'T KNOW WHERE MY CAR GOES.

I DON'T KNOW. SO I MEAN, FROM A PARKING STANDPOINT, WHEN I GO TO ANY CITY, I EXPECT IT. THE BUT I PLAN FOR IT. AND IT WORKS OUT. THAT'S WHAT WE DO WHEN WE GO TO DOWNTOWNS.

>> UH-HUH. >> VERY TRUE. I HAVE TO SAY.

AS A PLANNER, WHEN DOWNTOWNS GET POPULAR, THEN, PARKING IS NOT AS CONVENIENT, BUT THEN, CITIES WORK TO MAKE IT CONVENIENT.

THAT'S WHY OFFHAND, I THINK OF DELRAY AND BOCA. THEY HAVE VALET STATIONS. THAT CREATES ANOTHER EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

THERE. >> I'VE MANAGED TO TALK TO TWO COMMISSIONERS. AND I SEE OUR CITY MANAGER SITTING IN THE BACK CORNER HERE. HE'S TRYING TO BE IN INCOGNITO BUT IT'S NOT WORKING. NICK, YOU CAN'T HIDE. THEY

[01:30:03]

HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER TO ADD? >> NO.

I'M HONORED TO BE YOUR PARTNER IN THIS CITY. YOU KNOW, I'M COMMITTED TO THIS PROJECT IN FORT PIERCE. YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO THIS PROJECT, I SERVE ON THE SUNRISE THEATRE BOARD THE ADVISORY BOARD. I'M ABOUT TO BE ELECTED TO THE ST.

LUCIE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. I'M HERE TO BE A PARTNER.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: GLAD TO HEAR THAT. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC MEETING. THIS IS WHERE I THINK THAT OUR APPLICANT AND THE CITY IS GOING TO GET A LITTLE FURTHER EDUCATED. SO ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. WHAT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO DO IS STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN. AND WE HAVE A THREE-MINUTE LIMIT. SO OUR WONDERFUL CLERK HERE WILL BE EXERCISING THE -- I DON'T KNOW

WHAT SHE DOES -- ELECTRONIC. >> IT ZAPS ME.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I DON'T KNOW IF IT ZAPS YOU OR NOT. I THINK SHE'S GOT A SPECIAL BUTTON THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT. FIRST OF ALL, MY NAME IS JOHN. I AM A RESIDENT OF FORT PIERCE AND EMPLOYED DOWN IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA OF FORT PIERCE. SO ONE THING ABOUT PARKING, AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP MR. BRODERICK, ABOUT PARKING, BECAUSE THE OTHER NIGHT I WAS IN THIS SAME ROOM WHERE THE STAFF WAS TAKING A LOT OF INPUT FROM THE LOCAL PEOPLE ON WHAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT METERS FOR PARKING METERS. THE BIGGEST THING THEY PUSHED, IT WASN'T FOR MAKING MONEY. IT WAS MORE FOR WE'RE HURTING SO BAD FOR PARKING, THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO MOVE PEOPLE OUT SO MORE PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND GO AS THEY WANT.

(INAUDIBLE) >> SAYING THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING RIGHT NOW. I LOVE THE IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE BUILDING HERE. THIS IS GREAT. AND PUT MONEY INTO DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE.

I'M LOVING IT. BUT PARKING IS A BIG ISSUE FOR US NOW. WHERE ARE WE GETTING AT IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD AND THEN PARK? ? AGAIN, WHAT I SAID THE OTHER NIGHT, WE'RE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. IF WE'VE GOT A PARKING PROBLEM, LET'S FIX IT AND THEN BUILD. NOT BUILD AND THEN WORK OUT THE PARKING LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD. AND IN THE MEANTIME, LET'S CHARGE EVERYBODY THAT IS LIVING AND WORKING DOWN HERE TO PARK. THAT'S ONE OF MY PROBLEMS RIGHT THERE. I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP. THE OTHER THING I WANT TODAY ASK ABOUT AND I WAS HOPING I WOULD HEAR IT OR SEE IT ON ONE OF THESE GRAPHS. BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS WHOLE COUNTY HAS AN ISSUE WITH BUILDING AND NO INFRASTRUCTURE BEING BUILT AROUND IT. IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE 2ND STREET OR INDIAN RIVER DRIVE OR ANY OF THAT STUFF BEING WIDENED OR ANYTHING DONE WITH IT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- WHAT DID YOU SAY, 299 MORE PARKING SPOTS? BUT THE STREETS ARE GOING TO STAY THE SAME. THE IS THAT CORRECT OR AM I WRONG? I'M GOING BY THE DRAWINGS AND TRYING TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE. YOU DRIVE NOW DURING DINNERTIME, IT'S HARD NOT ONLY TO FIND A, PAING SPOT, BUT IT'S ALSO -- YOU'RE IN TRAFFIC. IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD THE BEAUTIFUL CONDOS -- DON'T GET ME WRONG, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO BE THE FIRST TO EAT AT THE RESTAURANTS. I JUST WANT TO KNOW THERE'S A WAY TO GET IN THERE AND NOT AN HOUR WAIT TO GET INTO A PARKING SPOT IN A LINE AND TRAFFIC. BECAUSE THE ONE THING WE WANT TO DO IS GET PEOPLE TO COME TO THIS CITY. IS MY TIME UP? I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN TALKING FOREVER. THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.

MR. BRODERICK, THANKS FOR THE STUFF YOU BROUGHT UP.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE

SPEAKING? >> ARE WE GETTING ANSWERS?

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: WE'LL TRY TO ANSWER IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. I'M EXPECTING -- WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS GET SEVERAL QUESTIONS. AND THEN, GIVE SEVERAL ANSWERS AT ONCE.

>> MY NAME IS VALERIE, I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER HERE IN DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE. MY OFFICE IS LOCATED AT 200 SOUTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE, SUITE 302. I PARK DOWNTOWN AND I'M PLUGGED IN YOUR GARAGE NOW AND GRATEFUL FOR THE THINGS YOU GUYS HAVE DONE TO ACCOMMODATE OTHER TYPES OF VEHICLES THAN JUST GAS POWERED.

I AM NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING AS SOME FOLKS ARE. I DO

[01:35:06]

THAT WILL HELP WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN ADDITION TO THIS. AS FAR AS WIDENING THE ROADS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK SLOWING DOWN THE CARS AND MAKING THE CITY A SAFER PLACE TO WALK, IS A BENEFIT. SO THIS WILL ACTUALLY HELP THINGS. KEEP THE ROADS NARROW. KEEP THE PARALLEL PARKING GOING. IT WILL HELP SHELTER PEDESTRIANS IN DOWNTOWN.

AND MAKE IT A SAFER PLACE TO BE. AS TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND SCALE, I DO HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS THERE. IF I RECOGNIZE THAT THROUGH OUR ZONING CODE WE HAVE UNLIMITED HEIGHT. HOWEVER, THE EXISTING SCALE OF OUR TOWN IS THAT OF A TOWN. WE'VE GOT LOW-RISE BUILDINGS, FIVE STORIES AND DOWN PRIMARILY IN DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW. THE JUMP TO EIGHT STORIES IS SIGNIFICANT. BUT MANAGEABLE. WHEN YOU JUMP TO 11, THAT'S AN EXTREMELY DIFFERENT FEEL IN SCALE. THAT FEELS VERY URBAN.

VERY HIGH-SCALE. IT'S CONSIDERED MID-RISE. BUT TO PEOPLE IN FORT PIERCE, IT WILL FEEL LIKE HIGHRISE. YES, BY BUILDING CODE, A HIGHRISE BUILDING BECAUSE IT HAS THE FEELING OF A HIGHRISE AND TENDS TO CREATE CANYONS OF BUILDINGS WHEN YOU HAVE TWO BUILDINGS THAT ARE EIGHT, TEN, 12 STORIES ON EITHER SIDE OF A NARROW STREET, THAT STREET WILL ALWAYS BE IN THE SHADOW. IT WILL ALSO FEEL A LITTLE LESS SAFE, BECAUSE IT CONSTRICTS THE VIEW CORRIDOR. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE ON THE STREET TO MAKE IT FEEL SAFE. IN HAD GENERAL, IF WE'RE GOING TO SCALE UP OUR BUILDINGS IN DOWNTOWN, THEY NEED TO BE SCULPTED TO THE HIGHEST POINT IS IN THE CENTER PART OF THE WALK CREATING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF SHADOW IN THE STREET AND HELPING TO SCALE DOWN THE FEEL OF THE BUILDING. I SPENT PART OF MY CHILDHOOD IN MIAMI IN COCORRAL GABLES..

THAT'S WHERE I HAVE MY ARCHITECTURE AGREE FROM UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI. I'M FAMILIAR WITH URBANISM AND NEW URBANISM FROM MY EDUCATION AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. IVITY WATCHED CORRAL GABLES GO FROM A SMALL TOWN FEEL AND GO TO MID-RISE WITH 12 AND EVEN 20-STORY BUILDINGS. EXTREMELY DIFFERENT ATMOSPHERE AND ENVIRONMENT. IT WENT FROM FEELING LIKE SMALL TOWN TO FEELING EXTREMELY URBAN, AND THAT IS THE SENSE THAT EVERYONE IS GOING TO GET FROM THIS PROJECT. AND IT WILL SET PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PROJECTS OF THAT SCALE. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO ACHIEVE WITH 11 STORIES. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PROGRAM DATA IS FOR THAT 11TH STORY, IT'S STILL THE SAME HEIGHT. I WOULD RECOMMEND IF WE WANT TO KEEP A SENSE OF SMALLER SCALE BUILDING TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD JUST A LITTLE BIT, SCULPT THOSE BUILDINGS BACK. GET THOSE UNITS IN THE MIDDLE.

AWAY FROM THE STREET EDGE. BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, THE PUBLIC PERCEPTION WILL NOT BE THAT THE BUILDING IS NEARLY AS TALL. YOU CAN BURY THAT HEIGHT ON THE INTERIOR OF THE BLOCK.

AND SAVE THAT SENSE OF SCALE FOR THE PEDESTRIANS. YES, YOU'LL SEE IT FROM ACROSS THE ISLAND. YOU'LL SEE IT FROM A BOAT. BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT SENSE AS A PEDESTRIAN OR EVEN A DRIVER IN HAD DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU.

>> HI. MY NAME IS JEANNIE. I LIVE IN THE PIRATE SHIP DOWNTOWN. AND TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT SHE WAS JUST SAYING, I ALSO GREW UP IN MIAMI AND CORAL GABLES, SOUTH MIAMI. HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE '60S AND NOW. AND YOU REALLY ARE GOING TO BE LOSING THAT SMALL TOWN FEEL. WHICH IS WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE, NOT JUST THAT WE'RE BORN AND RAISED HERE AND LOVE ABOUT FORT PIERCE. IT'S A SMALL TOWN. THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE ARE MOVING HERE FOR. IT'S A SMALL TOWN. YOU START THROWING UP 11-STORY BUILDINGS THERE IT'S GOING TO BE 11-STORY BUILDINGS -- YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST REALLY GOING TO CHANGE FROM A SMALL TOWN TO NOT. BUT THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT IS THE PRICE OF THE

[01:40:05]

SO HAVING ONE SPOT PER RESIDENCE I THINK MIGHT BE A LITTLE UNREALISTIC. AND JUST AS A THOUGHT, AS FAR AS TRAFFIC GOES, IT SHOULD BE VERY INTERESTING LISTENING TO ALL OF THE NEW PEOPLE COMING IN, GOING OVER TOMMY TICKLE HILL. SO THAT'S

ALL. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER:

ANYONE ELSE? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JAMES. I LIVE IN FORT PIERCE. BORN IN FORT PIERCE. AND I THINK ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD THIS EVENING IS UNUSUAL PROCESS. I HEARD THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES EARLIER. YOU KNOW, THIS DEVELOPER IS ASKING -- I'VE BEEN A BIG FAN OF KING'S LANDING. I SHOULD SAY THAT.

I'M REALLY INTERESTED IN GETTING IT COMPLETED THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AND ORIGINALLY PROPOSED. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT FOR FORT PIERCE. I THINK THAT WITH THESE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS BEING ASKED FOR, NOT SO MUCH YOUR BOARD BUT MORE CITY COMMISSION, WE NEED TO FIND OUT THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PEN FIT PROVIDED. WE KNOW THE DOWNTOWN AREA NEEDS PARKING. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FOOT THE BILL. IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE CONTRIBUTING THE PROBLEM OF PARKING, WHICH I SEE IT AS A PROBLEM, WE NEED SOME KIND OF PUBLIC BENEFIT ADDED TO THAT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S BASICALLY MY THOUGHTS ON THAT.

I THINK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED ALREADY FROM THE FIRST TWO PUBLIC COMMENTERS TO MOTION DENIAL FROM A PLANNING AND ZONING STANDPOINT. BUT THAT'S WHERE I STAND. I HOPE THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD AS APPROVED. THANKS.

>> MY NAME IS HOLLY. I RESTORED A HISTORIC HOUSE IN EDGARTOWN IN DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE. TRANSPARENCY ON NUMBER 32 ON THE LIST. BECAUSE I THINK HAVING A DOWNTOWN CONDO IN THIS FIVE YEARS MIGHT BE COOL. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE -- WHERE THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE INCLUDED THE COMMUNITY AND PLANNING DEVELOPMENT OF THE KING'S LANDING OVER THE LAST 15-20 YEARS. AND IT INCLUDED A HOTEL BECAUSE WE KNEW THEN WE NEEDED A DOWNTOWN HOTEL. IT INCLUDED RETAIL. IT INCLUDED RESIDENTIAL. FORT PIERCE IS A LIVE, WORK CITY. IT'S GOING TO GROW WHETHER WE CHOOSE GOOD OR BAD GROWTH. I THINK WE DIDN'T PICK TWO PEOPLE WHO PROPOSED FOR THIS RFP BECAUSE IT WAS BAD GROWTH. WE WAITED UNTIL AUDUBON CAME WITH A PROPOSAL THAT WORKED WITH THE CITY'S PLAN WITH WHAT THE -- HAD COME UP WITH IN TERMS OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, HOTEL, DOWNTOWN. AND I THINK THIS PROJECT IS AMAZING. AND WORTHY OF FORT PIERCE'S DOWNTOWN

WATER FRONT PARCEL. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I'M GOING TO ADDRESS SOMETHING AT THE MOMENT. HOLLY IS NOT ONLY A CITIZEN OF FORT PIERCE, YOU DIDN'T IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS A BOARD MEMBER OF THE HISTORICAL BOARD AND SHE DOES SIT ON A BOARD THAT MR. BRODERICK JUST RESIGNED FROM. SO IF THERE'S QUESTION OF ANYONE OUT HERE IN THE AUDIENCE CONCERNING POTENTIAL SUNSHINE LAW VIOLATIONS, I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THAT CALL. SO I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT CALL. AND WE DO NOT HAVE AN ATTORNEY, CITY ATTORNEY IN THIS MEETING.

SO I'M GOING TO ALLOW ANY MEMBERS OF ANY OTHER FORWARDS TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK. (INAUDIBLE)

>> YOU NEED TO SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: HOLLY, JUST THE FACT THAT YOU SIT ON THE HISTORICAL -- THE THEATER BOARD HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT. (INAUDIBLE)

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? PLEASE.

[01:45:09]

>> I AFOLLOW GUISE, I HAVE TO TAKE OFF MY MASK BECAUSE I'M

SOFT SPOKEN. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER:

THAT'S WELL. >> I'M MELISSA CARTER.

(INAUDIBLE) >> I WANT TO THANK THE PRESENTERS FROM AUDUBON'S DEVELOPMENT. I THINK SINCE THE BEGINNING AND SINCE THE SECOND RFP WENT OUT FOR THE SITE THAT YOUR DESIGN HAS BEEN ONE OF THE BEST AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONTEXT. I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T SAY SOME OF MY OTHER CONTEXT. I HOLD A MASTERS AGREE IN ARCHITECTURE FROM THE SAVANNAH SCHOOL OF ART AND DESIGN AND COLLEAGUE OF VALERIE SLACK.

BEFORE I WORK WITH VALERIE I WORKED FOR (INAUDIBLE) AND BEECH FOR FOUR AND A HALF YEARS. I LOOKED UP THE MISSION STATEMENT. IT SAYS IT'S A BOUTIQUE DEVELOPMENT OFFICIAL -- KUDOS. GREAT MISSION STATEMENT. MY CONCERN SO FAR WITH THE PRESENTATION, THOUGH, IS THAT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST A LITTLE BIT SHY OF ADDRESSING SOME SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES. FOR EXAMPLE, I DIDN'T HEAR MUCH DISCUSSION OF HOW THIS TEN-STORY BUILDING THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A RATHER LARGE SOUTH-FACING FACADE WILL SHADE ITSELF. ARE YOU GOING TO USE CONTINUOUS INSULATION? HAD SHADING STRUCTURES? WHAT'S YOUR STRATEGY? THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG, NEW PULL ON OUR CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE. WE SHOULD BE DOING THE BEST FOR THAT. ALSO, FORT PIERCE'S MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IS $35,000. THE PEOPLE IN POVERTY, 29% -- OR ROUGHLY 41% BLACK AND 21% HISPANIC. SO JUST IN THE CONTEXT OF TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR KIND OF DISCUSSIONS, EVEN STARTING NOW, ABOUT HOW THE FUTURE PROGRAMMING OF THE SITE WILL ADDRESS SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES. MAYBE YOU CAN GO AFTER NATIONAL ENDOWMENTS FOR THE ARTS FUNDING TO DEVELOP THIS AS SOME SORT OF NEW CULTURAL HUB VENUE. MARTY, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE IN FREE AND REDUCED LUNCH IN

THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE? >> I DON'T KNOW NUMBERS OFFHAND. ACTUALLY, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ALLOWED US TO DO UNIVERSAL FREE LUNCH. WE MAY HAVE 68% OR 86%. BUT WE ACTUALLY PROVIDE 100% UNIVERSAL BREAKFASTS AND LUNCHES IN THIS SOME CASES. SO I DON'T KNOW THOSE NUMBERS OFFHAND. BUT THEY

ARE RATHER HIGH. >> YEAH. SO LET'S PLAN SOME COMMUNITY SPACE IS FOR SOCIAL YOUTH OUTED REACH AND CULTURAL AND CIVIC EVENTS THAT COULD BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I NEED TO INTERRUPT YOU FOR A MOMENT. YOU'RE GOING ALONG VERY GOOD AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MUCH OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT OUR MISSION HERE TODAY IS TO REVIEW A PLAN.

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE ADEQUATE SOCIAL --

>> BUT DO WE HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE FOR SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY EVENTS?

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THIS DEVELOPER AND THE RFP WAS REQUIRED TO DO. YOUR COMMENTS, I THINK, WOULD BE BETTER SERVED AT THE COMMISSION MEETING IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT IN REGARD TO THIS PROJECT. THAT WOULD BE A BETTER FORUM TO SPEAK TO IT. THE

>> OKAY. SO OTHER COMMENTS I HAVE ABOUT THE PLAN IS SIMILAR TO VALERIE AS. I'M CONSIDERED ABOUT SCALE. THERE'S NOTHING OF THIS SCALE IN THE COMMUNITY. IF YOU USE A STEPPING BACK APPROACH, I THINK THAT MIGHT BE MORE SUCCESSFUL AND MORE COMFORTABLE FOR WALKING. THE CHARLESTON HOUSES DON'T VERY MUCH RESEMBLE CHARLESTON HOUSES BECAUSE IT HAS A TON OF GARAGE FRONTAGES. SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE WALKING ALONG A BUNCH OF GARAGES. SO I MIGHT ENCOURAGE YOU TO DEVELOP THOSE WITH MORE SIDE YARDS AND MAYBE SIDE YARD PARKING.

(BEEP) >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER:

YOU'VE RUN OUT OF TIME. >> OKAY.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY GOOD.

VERY GOOD INPUT. >> OKAY.

[01:50:03]

>> HELLO. MY NAME IS MARGARET. I LIVE IN ON 12TH STREET IN FORT PIERCE. I LOVE OUR CITY. I THINK THIS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE HISTORICAL COMMITTEE TO REVIEW BECAUSE OF THE CHANGING IN HAD THE HEIGHTS. AND I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE SO TALL. I REALLY THINK THAT THE EIGHT-STORY TOWER IS HIGH ENOUGH. AND FIVE STORY FOR THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS IS -- MAYBE SIX STORIES FOR THE OTHER BUILDINGS IS HIGH ENOUGH. I'M SURE THERE WILL BE A WAY FOR THEM. THEY WILL MAKE PLENTY OF MONEY. AND I THINK IF IT'S GOING TO BE SUCH AN ISSUE ON PARKING, THEN, MAYBE THEY SHOULD GO BACK TO 120-ROOM HOTEL AND NOT 140-ROOM HOTEL. THAT KIND OF THING. AND I AGREE. I THINK WE SHOULD PUT THE PARKING BEFORE THE BUILDING. WHETHER THEY BUILD A TALLER GARAGE MAYBE IN HAD THE MIDDLE OR SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THERE FOR THE PARKING. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD APPROVE THIS BECAUSE OF THE HIGHER ELEVATIONS IN THE BUILDINGS. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU. THIS PLAN IS BUILDING -- THIS PLAN IS GOING BACK TO THE HISTORICAL PRESE PRESERVATION BOARD. I THINK IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THIS PRESENTATION THAT WAS OUTLINED.

AS FAR AS THE STREET CHANGES, THE GENTLEMAN I THINK HAS LEFT.

AS FAR AS THE STREET CHANGES, THERE IS DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY CONCERNING INDIAN RIVER DRIVE AS IT GOES THROUGH THIS AREA. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR ALONG THAT DISCUSSION HAS MOVED. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THERE'S GOING TO BE DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL PARKING ALONG INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. AS FAR AS 2ND STREET, B STREET, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT JACK PRESENTED LAST -- WAS IT LAST WEEK?

>> TWO WEEKS AGO. (CHUCKLING)

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: TWO WEEKS AGO.

>> CHAIRMAN, WITH REGARD TO THE WIDTH OF THE ROADS IN THE DOWNTOWN, WE ARE NOT PLANNING ON DOING ANY ADDITIONAL LANAGE IN THE DOWNTOWN. WE ARE CONSTRAINED IN THAT REGARD. AND THE DOWNTOWN IS INTENDED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT LOOK AND FEEL THAN OUR SUBURBAN SHOPPING CENTERS. IT IS INTENDED TO BE A PARK ONE TIME AND GO THROUGHOUT THE DOWNTOWN. WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE MORE AND MORE OF THAT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD. AND WE WANT PEOPLE TO DRIVE SLOWER. SO BECAUSE WE ENCOURAGE -- IT'S A PEDESTRIAN FEEL FOR OUR DOWNTOWN. SO JUST TO LET YOU ALL KNOW, AND I'LL BRINGING FORWARD THE FINALINGS, WE DO HAVE TWO CONSULTANTS TAKING A LOOK NOT ONLY ON OUR LEVEL OF SERVICE IN THE DOWNTOWN AND THE WHOLE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BUT ALSO IN PARTNERSHIP WITH A CONSULTANT FOCUSED ON MULTIMOBILITY. AND WE'LL BE COMING FORWARD WITH A PRESENTATION ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS BOTH, YOU KNOW, THE EASE OF GETTING AROUND TOWN BUT WITH THE PEDESTRIAN AS THE PRIMARY USER. SO OFTEN WE FOCUS ON THE VEHICLE WHEN WE SHOULD BE REALLY LOOKING AT SAFETY ISSUES

AND PROTECTING OUR PEDESTRIAN. >> HEAR, HEAR.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: GREAT. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS? I SAW A COMPETING -- GOING ON HERE.

>> MY NAME IS LESLIE. I'M HERE AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. I AM AT 1001 SOUTH 8TH STREET IN -- THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND WATCHING WHAT HAPPENS AND BEING IMPORTANT IN THIS PROCESS AS OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPS. ALSO, LET ME SAY I'M A BIG FAN OF THE KING'S LANDING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. I THINK I'VE BEEN REALLY EXCITED ABOUT WHAT THEY'VE BEEN -- WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED SINCE DAY ONE. I'M HERE ONLY CONSTRAINED BY THE DEBATE ABOUT WHAT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION RECOMMENDED AND WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THEM. I DO NOT SIT ON THE HISHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. THE I DO SIT ON THE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD BUT THAT'S INCIDENTAL. I PULLED UP THE AGENDA, BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW. BECAUSE I DID NOT THINK THAT I EVER SAW UNTIL NOW A TEN-STORY BUILDING OR 11-STORY BUILDING. SO I PULLED UP THE AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE. AND THE

[01:55:01]

OR FIVE? >> FIVE.

>> FIVE. OVERALL, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MAINTAINS A HUMAN SCALE. SO TLTHERE'S A REALLY, REALLY BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EIGHT STORIES AND 11 STORIES WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN SCALE AND MASSING. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT. I THINK WE'LL BE -- WE WON'T BE HAPPY ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS. I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE RENDERINGS DONE AT MINIMUM TO SHOW WHAT WAS SHOWN AT THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD FROM THOSE PERSPECTIVES, NOT JUST THE ELEVATIONS BUT RENDERINGS THAT SHOW IT FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. AND IN HAD COMPARISON TO OTHER BUILDINGS NEARBY. SO WE CAN GET A SENSE OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. DID YOU SIGN

IN? >> UH-HUH.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: ANYBODY ELSE SPEAKING?

>> I FOUND ABOUT THIS THROUGH AN EMAIL THROUGH SOCIAL MEDIA. AND I DROVE. THERE WAS NO SIGNS ON THIS PROPERTY WHATSOEVER. IN MY OPINION, THIS IS A -- WE'VE HEARD A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO A ZONING APPLICATION. AND IT WAS NOT A SINGLE SIGN OWN THIS PROPERTY. AND YOU PUT A 4:00 MEETING UNFORTUNATELY ALL FOLKS LIKE ME CAN COME BUT THE MAJORITY OF WORKING CLASS CAN'T.

AND I TALKED TO SEVERAL OF THEM. SO IN A WAY, THIS PROCESS IS FLAWED. NEVER MIND TO MENTION HOW I AGREE WITH MR. BRODERICK THAT HOW DO YOU GO TO HISTORICAL PRESENTATION BOARD AND IF YOU LICE SENTENCE TO THAT MEETING, WHICH I DID YESTERDAY, THEY COULDN'T ANSWER HALF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED OF THEM. THEY DIDN'T HAVE HEIGHTS. THEY DIDN'T HAVE DENSITIES.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE PARKING. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TRAFFIC. THE FACT THAT THEY DID VOTE IN MAY, LISTEN TO IT. AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF. BUT THE PROJECT IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT TODAY THAN IT WAS. I'M ALSO DISAPPOINTED. WE'RE TWO YEARS INTO THIS AND WE ARE STILL JUST TALKING ABOUT A SITE PLAN. COVID IS AROUND, BUT EVERYBODY IN THE STATE, INCLUDING -- HAS BUILT LIKE CRAZY IN THE PAST YEAR. IT WAS THE BIGGEST DEVELOPMENT WITH COVID-19 VERSUS THE PAST 15. AT THE ENDED OF THE DAY, I THINK THAT THE TAXPAYER IS REALLY THE BIG LOSER IN THIS. AND THE DEVELOPER HAS A WIND FALL. AND GOOD FOR HIP. IN TERMS OF ECONOMICS WHICH THE DEVELOPER BROUGHT UP, THE ECONOMICS HAS TO WORK FOR THE CITY ALSO, AND IT DOESN'T. WHEN YOU TAKE A PROJECT LIKE THIS AND HAVE 35,000 FEET OF RESTAURANT, THAT'S MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN THE CITY HAS. THIS SMALL TOWN DOESN'T NEED 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT. YOU'RE GOING TO CANNIBALLIZE AND COMPETE WITH THE EXISTING RESTAURANTS, WHICH IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. I WAS AT THE CHARETTES. EVERYBODY WANTS A HOTEL. I WOULD RATHER HAVE A CONVENTION SPACE THAN RESTAURANT AND RETAIL AND COMPETE. ANYWAY, IN TERMS OF STRUCTURE, I'M NOT AS CONCERNED WITH THE HEIGHT AS THE MASSING. THIS DOESN'T FIT ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. THIS IS SIX POUNDS OF SUGAR IN A FIVE POUND BAG. MR. BRODERICK IS DEAD ON WITH THE PARKING. I MEAN, AS A BUILDING OWNER DOWNTOWN, I CAN TELL YOU, THE

[02:00:06]

>> THE PARKING IS HORRENDOUS. I'LL FINISH UP. IN A PD, THERE'S A GIVE AND TAKE. AND WHEN YOU GO HIGH AND YOU GO -- THEN GIVE SOMETHING. WHAT CAN YOU GIVE? I CAN GIVE A PARKING GARAGE, PAVING OF THE ROADS. THERE'S USUALLY OPEN SPACE INVOLVED. LOOK AT HARBOR SIDE WHICH IS FAILING.

LOOK AT DOWNTOWN AND CITY PLACE WHICH FAILED IN WEST PALM BEACH.

ALL THREE ARE SIMILAR. NO PARKING. TOO MUCH DENSITY. AND INCONVENIENT FOR THE SHOPPER. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? GOING ONCE. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? GOING TWICE.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? (GAVEL)

>> CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. I'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD. COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> MR. CHAIR? >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: YES.

>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION AND COUPLE OF STATEMENTS. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR MR. CURRIE. SOME PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SCALE OF BUILDING AND BLOCKING THE RIVERVIEWS, YOU KNOW, FROM OTHER PARCELS. WHAT VIEWS WOULD WE BE BLOCKING? AND WHAT PROPERTIES ABUTT THIS TO THE WEST?

>> MR. SANDERS, I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 2ND AVENUE PROBABLY TWO STORIES. I THINK THEY'RE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSES ALONG THE SIDE.

>> I WAS LOOKING, YOU KNOW, MORE EAST COAST LUMBER AND NATALIE'S ORCHID ISLAND AND YOU'VE GOT ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS. SO A LOT OF WHAT YOU'RE BLOCKING IS THINGS THAT ARE NOT REALLY DO NOT HAVE VIEWS ANYWAY. AND YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE ACADEMIC WHETHER IT'S EIGHT STORIES OR TEN STORIES. IF IT'S A TWO-STORY BUILDING, ANYTHING ONE STORY IS GOING TO BLOCK IT REALISTICALLY WITH AN ARCHITECTURAL ROOF LINE. SO BUT, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AS REALLY A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. I'VE SEEN THIS WHEN I WAS AT SCHOOL IN GAINESVILLE. THE DOWNTOWN GAINESVILLE AREA WAS DEAD.

NOTHING GOING ON. THE CITY MOVED TO GET THE SINGLE BUILDING TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS DOWNTOWN GAINESVILLE. THAT'S WHAT THEY SAW TO RESTORE AND REVITALIZE AN ECONOMY IN A DOWNTOWN THAT WENT BEYOND THE COURT DAY, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 9:00 TO 5:00. YOU HAD TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS DOWN THERE.

YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND THEN, WHEN YOU BRING IN A HOTEL, YOU GET 140, WAS IT, 140 NEW WALLETS SHOW UP EVERY DAY TO BRING MONEY TO THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES AND REALLY PROVIDE THAT ECONOMIC ENGINE TO A DOWNTOWN. SO IT'S A LOT OF GREAT OPPORTUNITIES. AND YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THE SCALE AND MASSING A LITTLE DIFFERENT. I'M AFRAID WE'RE GOING TO MISS OPPORTUNITIES IF THE SCALE AND MASSING ISN'T LARGE ENOUGH.

THAT WHAT WE BUILD HERE IS ONE OF THE FEW REMAINING LARGE PARCELS DOWNTOWN THAT WE WILL LOSE OPPORTUNITIES IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ECONOMIC ENGINE TO KEEP THE DOWNTOWN ROLLING. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE -- THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT WHAT IS THE DEVELOPER GETTING? AND IS IT A DIFFERENT DEAL THAN WHAT THEY PROPOSED ON? WHAT THIS BOARD IS LOOKING AT IS HOW DOES IT FIT WITH THE ZONING CODE 2. THE BUSINESS DEAL WITH THE CITY AND DEVELOPER, NOT THIS BOARD. THAT'S SOME OF MY THOUGHTS. AND I AM EXCITED. I'VE BEEN A FAN OF HAVING RESIDENTIAL UNITS DOWNTOWN FOR A LONG TIME. AND KING'S LANDING IS A VERY

EXCITING PROJECT TO HAVE HERE. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> MR. CHAIR, I DO HAVE THE SITE PLAN FROM THE HISTHISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD IN MY POSSESSION NOW. IT WAS EIGHT STORIES. IT'S DELINEATED ON THE PLAN. I HOPE THAT CLOSES THIS

MATTER OUT. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: ANYTHING ELSE? I'M GOING TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS HERE. AND WHAT I SAW, THE NEW PLAN -- WEDNESDAY I THINK I OPENED IT THE FIRST TIME, I WAS KIND OF SHOCKED THAT HAD GROWN HOUR STORIES. THE FIRST THING I LOOKED AT IS HOW IT WAS GOING TO DWARF EVERYTHING ELSE IN HAD DOWNTOWN. AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO DWARF EVERYTHING DOWNTOWN IF I'M WALKING ALONG

[02:05:07]

YES, THE TALLEST PART OF THE BUILDING IS ON THE STREET. AND THE SHADOW EFFECT IS GOING TO BE QUITE AMAZING. NOT SPEAKING TO A PHYSICAL SHADOW. BY THE WAY. IF I'M STANDING OUT ON ORANGE AVENUE AND 2ND STREET LOOKING ACROSS, I'M GOING TO SEE IT TOWERING UP ABOVE THE BUILDINGS. BUT THE EFFECT ISN'T THE SAME AS IF I'M STANDING AT THE FOOT OF THAT BUILDING ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. THIS BOARD ONLY HAS A WINDOW SO LARGE THAT WE CAN LOOK THROUGH WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING A PROJECT LIKE THIS. AND WE HAVE TO RELY STRICTLY ON THE CODES. IF I RELY STRICTLY ON THE CODES AS I WENT THROUGH THIS PROJECT, I FOUND THAT IT MEETS ALL THE CODES IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. CAN I ARGUE THAT SOME OF THOSE CODES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DIFFERENT OR CHANGED IN THE FUTURE SO THAT THIS MAY NOT HAPPEN AGAIN? PERHAPS. BUT THE FACT IS, THE CODES THAT ARE IN PLACE ARE THE CODES OR ORDINANCES AS WE CALL THEM THAT ARE IN HAD PLACE. AND THOSE ARE THE ORDINANCES THAT THIS BOARD HAS TO REVIEW A PROJECT OVER.

THERE'S BAN LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HISTHISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HISTHISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD, THEY LOOK AT IT FROM DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.

THEY LOOK HOW THE BUILDING AFFECTS THE HISTORIC VIEW OF THE CITY. THEY CAN LOOK AT IT FROM AN AESTHETIC VALUE. THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS PLAN IS ABOUT. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT WINDOWS THAT THEY LOOK OUT OF AND CAN APPLY. WHICH THEY DID IN THE MEETING BROUGHT UNFORTUNATE SEVERAL TIMES HERE TODAY. WHICH THEY WILL AGAIN ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS GOING BACK TO THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, I BELIEVE AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT WAS A LEGAL JUDGMENT CALL FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY IT SHOULD GO BACK, CORRECT?

>> CHAIRMAN, IT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THEY ARE THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. IT HAS CHANGED. THEY LOOK AT THE DESIGN REVIEW AND ARCHITECTURE AND THEY WILL OPINE TO SEE WHETHER IT MEETS THE INTENT. AND WHATEVER OTHER COMMENTS THEY'RE AN ADVISORY BOARD AS YOU ARE. THOSE COMMENTS WILL BE MADE AND PRESENTED TO THE ULTIMATE DECISION MAKERS, WHO ARE --

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: THE COMMISSION.

>> THE CITY COMMISSION. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: FURTHER, I THINK WHEN IT WAS BEFORE THE HISTHISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD IN MAY, VERY WISELY, WHEN A MOTION WAS MADE, IT WAS MADE TO INCLUDE A GREW OVER EIGHT STORIES, I ING - BELIEVE IS WHAT THE MOTION WAS, IS THAT THIS BRPROJECT WOULD RETURN TO HISTORICAL PRESERVATION. IT'S GOING BACK AND REVIEW THE HEIGHT AND -- NOT SO MUCH THE DENSITY BUT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS. I DON'T DISAGREE. THE IF THERE WASSOMETHING THIS BOARD COULD DO, I WOULD EXERCISE THAT OPTION IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT. I LOOK AT IT FROM THE DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMICS OF THE PACKAGE OF THE PLAN. I ALSO LOOK AT IT FROM THE OLD FLORIDA DISCUSSION THAT I'VE HEARD HERE TODAY, AND I LOOK AT IT FROM WHERE DOES THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WANT TO GO BY 2024, 2025 OR 2030? DO WE STILL WANT TO BE STUCK WHERE WE'RE AT? AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S HEALTHY FOR THIS CITY. THIS CITY IS GROWING. DO I WANT TO SEE IT BE MIAMI? NO, I DON'T. THERE'S BEEN SOME COMMENTS THAT THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THIS BUILDING PUTS US INTO MIAMI, FORT LAUDERDALE.

THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THERE. ONCE AGAIN, THIS BOARD HAS GOT ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE TO WORK IN. AND DECISION THAT

[02:10:04]

AND I JUST WANT TO FOREWARN YOU OF THAT. THE WHAT I ALSO WANT TO DO IS INVITE YOU ALL TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING.

SOME OF WHAT WAS SAID HERE TODAY, I GAVE LOTS OF LATITUDE.

I LIKE TO GIVE LATITUDE TO THE CITIZENRY WHEN THEY COME IN AND VISIT OUR BOARD. I GAVE A LOT OF LATITUDE, AS MUCH LATITUDE AS I COULD. SOME OF WHAT WAS SAID IS MORE THAT THE FORUM IS MORE SUITABLE AT THE COMMISSION MEETING. GO AND TELL THE COMMISSION WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. THEY WANT TO HEAR IT. JUST LIKE WE WANT TO HEAR IT. WITH ALL THAT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE,

I'M READY TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I HAVE COMMENTS THAT I'D

LIKE TO MAKE. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: HOP

TO IT. >> THANK YOU. I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN NEW YORK CITY. AND I'M VERY ACCUSTOMED TO VERY TALL BUILDINGS. AND AS TO PARKING, I WOULD MUCH PREFER THE FUTURE OF PLANNING FOR THIS CITY. IN FACT, FOR THE WHOLE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD TO FOCUS ON FINDING ALTERNATE WAYS OF TRANSPORTATION RATHER THAN MORE PARKING SPACES. WHETHER IT'S TROLLEYS OR TRAMS OR MINI BUSES OR MOVING SIDEWALKS OR WHATEVER, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE FUTURE IS. INSTEAD OF HAVING MORE AND MORE PARKING FOR MORE AND MORE CARS. CARS ARE GOING TO BE FEWER AND FEWER IN OUR FUTURE. AND I THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONCENTRATE ON SEEING INTO THE FUTURE RATHER THAN TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR PAST MISTAKES. AS TO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, I DON'T SEE MUCH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EIGHT STORIES AND 11 STORIES IN TERMS OF VIEWS OF DOWNTOWN. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF FORT PIERCE. MY BIGGEST CONCERN ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN THE EFFECT THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE ON THE REST OF THE CITY. THE CONCENTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT IN ONE AREA DOWNTOWN IS GOING TO CREATE A LACK OF DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT REALLY NEED DEVELOPMENT. AND I WOULD STRONGLY, STRONGLY URGE AND HOPE THAT THIS DEVELOPER AND EVERY OTHER DEVELOPER OF ANY DEVELOPMENT ANYWHERE PUT SOME PORTION OF THEIR ATTENTION AND FUNDS INTO WORKPLACE HOUSING AND INSTEAD OF ROADS AND INCREASING ROADS. WE HAVE A FUTURE. AND WE HAVE TO STOP BEING BLIND TO THE FUTURE AND BEING MORE CONSCIOUS OF OUR BEST PROBLEMS. SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY.

THAT'S IT. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: WELL SAID. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> CHAIRMAN, MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT ABIND ABINDICATION -- APPLICATION TO

THE MAJOR AMENDMENT. >> SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: HAD MOTION BY MR. BURDGE AND SECOND BY MISS CLEMONS. (ROLL-CALL)

[6. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Chair, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The Planning Board will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Board and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

>> MOTION PASSED. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: DO

WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS? >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER: YES WE DO. WE HAVE OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS. ANYONE CAN COME UP AND SPEAK TO ANY ISSUE YOU

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.