[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:13]
>>> WE WILL BEGIN THE FORT PIERCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING
ON JANUARY 10TH, 2022. >> HAPPY NEW YEAR.
>> 1922. I KNOW YOU WERE AROUND THEN.
>> I WASN'T AROUND THEN. SORRY.
2022. >> WERE YOU AT THE PLANNING
BOARD THEN TOO? >> SOME DAYS I FEEL LIKE I MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN A PAST LIFE.
WE WILL START OFF AT THE TOP TODAY.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDERGOD, UNDO VISIBLE -- INDIVISIBL, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> THANK YOU. I HOPE THAT THE REST OF THE MEETING GOES BETTER THAN THIS.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN YOUR CELL PHONES OFTEN.
I ONLY KNOW ONE PERSON IN HERE WHO CLAIMS HE DOESN'T HAVE A CELL PHONE. IT IS GOOD TO SEE YOU HERE.
>> THANK YOU. >> YOU HOPE THAT'S A GOOD SIGN
MOVING FORWARD. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
>> OKAY. BEFORE WE CALL ROLE, I JUST WANT TO GO OVER SOMETHING HERE.
I JOTTED IT DOWN. WE ARE -- TODAY IS THE 10TH, RIGHT? WE ARE TEN DAYS INTO THE NEW YEAR. FROM THE LAST WEEK OF DECEMBER THROUGH TODAY, WE'VE LOST SIX CELEBRITIES.
I PUT JOHN MADDEN IN THE REALM OF CELEBRITY.
HE WAS BIGGER AND LARGER THAN LIFE, JOHN MADDEN WAS AND HE COULD SPECIAL FILL A ROOM. THE LIKES OF BETTY WHITE.
I MEAN, THESE ARE NAMES THAT ALL OF US GREW UP WITH, BETTY WHITE. WHO ELSE? SIDNEY POITIER. BOB SAGET THIS MORNING.
I TURNED ON THE NEWS AND MY GOODNESS.
WE ALSO LOST A SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, HARRY REID.
THAT WAS ON THE 28TH OF DECEMBER.
IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT HARRY REID AND YOU ARE A YOUNG PERSON, EVEN AN OLDER PERSON, AND YOU ARE HERE IN FORT PIERCE, PHYSICALLY, IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT HARRY REID, YOU NEED TO LOOK HARRY REID UP.
YOU NEED TO RESEARCH THIS MAN. YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND IF YOU HAVE EVER ASKED YOURSELF THE QUESTION CAN I MAKE SOMETHING OF MYSELF IN AMERICA? THE BACKGROUND OF THIS MAN IS GOING TO TELL YOU HOW YOU CAN DO IT.
JUST FOLLOW HIS LEAD. WE STARTED OUT -- HE STARTED OUT POOR AND GREW UP IN A MINING TOWN IN LAS VEGAS.
>> SPOTLIGHT IS THE NAME OF TOWN, SOUTH OF VEGAS.
>> HE HITCHHIKED BACK AND FORTH TO HIGH SCHOOL TO GET HIS HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION. HE WAS A BOXER IN HIGH SCHOOL. HE GOT A SCHOLARSHIP TO GO TO COLLEGE AND BECAME AN ATTORNEY.
HE WAS A POLICE THAT GAIRDED THE CAPITOL -- THAT GUARDED THE CAPITOL, CAPITOL POLICE DEPARTMENT I THINK? A CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER AND HE BECAME A SENATOR AND BECAME A MAJORITY LEADER IN THE SENATE OUT OF NOTHING.
SO IF YOU THINK FOR A MINUTE THAT AMERICA DOESN'T OR CAN'T PROVIDE FOR YOU AND YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMETHING OF YOURSELF, YOU NEED TO STUDY THIS MAN. CLOSER HERE TO HOME.
WE HAD TWO DEPUTY SHERIFFS THE FIRST WEEK OF 2022 KILLED THEMSELVES, TWO DEPUTY SHERIFFS.
THEY WERE A COUPLE OUTSIDE OF THE DEPARTMENT.
I REALLY LIKE TO THINK THAT WE WILL ALL KEEP THESE FAMILIES, THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT ON OUR MINDS AND OUR HEARTS AND PRAYERS AND TUCKLY THIS YOUNG COUPLE HAD A YOUNG SON THAT WAS A MONTH OLD. I CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER WHAT IS THIS POOR CHILD GOT IN FRONT OF HIM AS HE GROWS UP? HE IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE AN ORPHAN AS WE THINK OF
[00:05:03]
ORPHANS, BUT HE IS ORPHANED. HE WILL NOT HAVE HIS BIRTH PARENTS IN HIS LIFE. I REALLY STRUGGLE WHEN I SEE STORIES LIKE THIS. THERE'S NO TELLING WHAT PRESSURES AND DEMONS THIS YOUNG COUPLE WERE DEALING WITH IN THEIR LIFE. THERE IS A LOT OF MENTAL ILLNESS IN THIS WORLD, AND I DON'T THINK WE DO A GOOD ENOUGH JOB AS A SOCIETY DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE.IT IS VERY DIFFICULT OF THE -- IT IS VERY DIFFICULT.
MOVING FORWARD, ROLE CALL. >> MR. AB -- ALBURY.
>> HERE. >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT.
>> HERE. >> WE HAVE A FULL HOUSE.
THANK YOU FOR COMING TO OUR FIRST MEETING THIS YEAR.
[a. Minutes from the December 13, 2021 meeting]
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. BERGE AND AND SECONDED BY MS. BAKER. CALL THE ROLE PLEASE?
>> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. >>Y YES.
[a. Annexation - Jetson TV & Appliances - 4145 S. US Highway 1]
>> NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS NEW BUSINESS ITEM 6.
MR. GILMORE IS GOING TO BE PRESENTING -- MR. GILMORE, DO YOU WANT TO PRESENT ITEM A AND B TOGETHER?
>> SEPARATE. THE ANNEXATION HAS TO BE --
>> OKAY. >> OPERATE -- SEPARATE
FIRST ITEM OF BUSINESS IS ITEM A IS ANNEXATION OF JENSEN TV
AT 4145 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. BEFORE YOU HAVE AN AN PLAW LOCATION FOR ANNEXATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 4145 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ONE PARCEL. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A MISTAKE PREVIOUSLY WITH THE ANNEXATION FOR THE HIGHLIGHTED PARCELLS -- PARCELS YOU SEE. AND THAT'S FOR PARCEL FIVE AND SIX THAT TOTAL .755-ACRES. SO THIS IS PRETTY MUCH A CORRECTION TO BRING THEM TO THE CITY LIMITS WHICH THEY SHOULD BE. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL GENERAL.
THEY HAVE A PENDING ANNEXATION ZONING OF C3 AND FUTURE LAND USE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AS PROPOSED THE ANNEXATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY POLICY 1.11 REGARDING ANNEXATIONS.
PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.
THANK YOU. GYRE ARE THERE ANY QUESTION
-- >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF
>> THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA LAST MONTH ON -- OR THE MONTH
>> SO THE SAME APPLICATION, BUT TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS ITEM PLEASE STEP FORWARD. NOT SEEING ANYONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND MOVE BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? >> CHAIR A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE OF THE ANNEXATION AND A SECOND BY MR. BURGE.
CALL THE ROLE PLEASE. >> MS. BAKER.
[b. Site Plan - Jetson TV & Appliances - 4145 S. US Highway 1]
>> ITEM B, SITE PLAN REVEUT OF JETSON'S TV AND APPLIANCE, 4145 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1. MR. GILMORE?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN, CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. BEFORE YOU WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN AND THE DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS BY THE REPRESENTATIVE MBV ENGINEERING AT 4145 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1.
THESE APPLICATIONS WILL ENCOMPASS BOTH PARCELS, THE PARCEL TO THE WEST OF THE ONE WE JUST -- I GUESS PROPOSED THE COMPLETE ANNEXATION OF. 7.42 ACRES.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TUMBLING CLEAN AND SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1.
THE SITE PLAN WILL CON -- CONSIST OF AN ADDITION WHICH
[00:10:03]
IS 32,330 SQUARE FEET. IT IS A ONE-STORY STRUCTURE AND AN ADDITIONAL 66 PARKING SPACES AND A DRY RETENTION AREA. BEFORE YOU THIS IS THE ELEVATION FOR THE EXTENSION. IT IS A RETAIL WAREHOUSE EXTENION. STAFF RECOMMEND USA PROFESSIONAL WITH FIVE CONDITION -- RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH FIVE CONDITIONS.LANDSCAPE BY ARCHITECT, BICYCLE PARKING PROVIDED ONE SPACE PER EVERY 10 PARKING SPACES.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL, PROVIDE COLOR ELEVATIONS TO DEMONSTRATE THE PROPOSED BUILDING CONFORMS TO THE SPECIFICATION OF CODE 125-314 DESIGN REVIEW. PROVIDE LIGHTING TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING TO HELP WITH THE LIGHTING AT NIGHT AND ENHANCE SECURITY AND VISIBILITY AND THE UNITY OF TITLE WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS AND A PARCEL SAME AS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE THE ISSUE OF PERMIT FOR THE TWO PARCELS. THANK YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR MR. GILMORE?
>> MR. CHAIR, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PRIOR SCREEN? THIS IS THE POPULAR TOPIC. PROVIDE LIGHTING TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING TO HELP WITH THE LIGHTING AT NIGHT AND ENHANCE VISIBILITY. THEY NEED TO DO A SURVEY?
>> THIS IS NOT JUST LANDSCAPE LIGHTING.
>> CORRECT. >> THAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> MR. GILMORE, I HAPPEN TO SIT IN THE TRC MEETING AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AT THE TRC MEETING CONCERNING THE EGRESS IN AND AROUND THESE TWO BUILDINGS. HAS THAT BEEN SOLVED?
GYRE THAT CURRENTLY HASN'T -- >> THAT CURRENTLY HASN'T BEEN SOLVED. THEY ARE IN TALKS WITH THE COUNTY. THE APPLICANT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THE DRIVEWAYS UNTIL THEY GET COUNTY APPROVAL.
THEY WILL MORE THAN LIKELY HAVE TO HAVE A MINOR MODIFICATION IF THIS CHANGES WHICH CAN BE DONE
>> I HAVE A QUESTION THAT IS MORE GENERAL INFORMATION FOR ME. IT IS CONSIDERING DISCUSSION LATER. THIS IS PRIMARILY -- WELL, IT IS RETAIL SALES, BUT ALSO A GREAT SHARE OF THE NEW BUILDING WILL BE ALL WAREHOUSE SPACE?
>> CORRECT, STORAGE. >> THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU'VE GOT IDENTIFIED HERE 125-315 CONCERNING NUMBERS OF BICYCLE SPACES PER NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
THAT'S ONE BICYCLE SPACE TO 10 PARKING SPACES.
THE PARKING SPACES REQUIREMENTS ARE CALCULATED BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. >> AND THERE IS NO -- WE DON'T LOOK AT A RETAIL BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE DIFFERENTLY THAN WE LOOK AT WAREHOUSE WHEN WE LOOK AT SPACES PER SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
>> SO THE QUESTION I WOULD HAVE TODAY REGARDING THIS ONE BICYCLE SPACE PER 10 PARKING SPACES, IS IT AN OVER KILL IN AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS? IS IT -- COULD WE LOOK AT IT AS AN OVER KILL IN AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS?
>> IT IS A REQUIREMENT. LOOKING AT THIS THERE ARE OTHER AREAS IN THE CODE THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE REEXAMINING WHEN IT COMES TO A ADA PARKING.
THAT IS A FEDERAL PARKING AND WE CANNOT CHANGE THAT.
I UNDERSTAND WITH THE BICYCLE PARKING WE CAN LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE IT IS GEARED TOWARD NOT ONLY THE EMPLOYEE, BUT ALSO THOSE WHO ARE VISITING. I WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE WHEN IT COMES TO WAREHOUSE AND THAT'S COMPARED TO RETAIL. IT IS THE BOARD'S PLEASURE WE
CAN LOOK AT THAT. >> YOU PICKED RIGHT UP WHERE I WAS GOING, DIDN'T YOU? I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ORDINANCES WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT.
I NOTICED THIS ON SEVERAL APPLICATIONS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. I HOPE OUR PLANNING
[00:15:06]
DEPARTMENT -- HAVE WE HAD A NEW PERSON START?>> NOT YET, BUT VERY SHORTLY. PROBABLY MOST LIKELY NEXT
WEEK. >> ONCE THIS NEW PERSON STARTS, I WOULD HOPE THAT SOME OF YOUR TIME WILL FREE UP THAT WE CAN START TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION RELATING TO BICYLE PARKING.
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A BICYCLE? HOW ABOUT PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES LIKE MOTORIZED WHEELCHAIRS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? WOULD THAT CLASSIFY AS A BICYCLE?
>> SO THIS BICYCLE AREAS ARE ONLY FOR NON-MOTORIZED
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOT SEEING ANY I WILL OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS
PROJECT PLEASE STEP FORWARD? >> HELL, HELLO -- WELL, HELLO. GYRE GOOD AFTERNOON.
-- >> GOOD TO SEE YOU BACK IN THE
I AM WITH MBV ENGINEERING AND I AM HERE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF ITEMS. HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT MAY COME UP ON JETSON, BUT TO RECAP SOME OF THE DISCUSSION, WITH SAINT LUCY COUNTY WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY. WE DO HAVE A PERMIT INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS SO THERE IS GOING TO BE ULTIMATELY A RESOLUTION. I THINK WE CAN FIND 5 RESOLUTION FAVORABLE TO DASH DASH FIND A RESOLUTION FAVORABLE TO ALL PARTIES. IF THAT CHANGE HAD WE CAN DO A MINOR MODIFICATION. BIKE PARKING IS A GREAT QUESTION. I THINK IT WOULD INCLUDE AN E-BIKE, BUT NOT AN ADA ACCESSIBILITY THREE OR FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLE. THAT'S AN INTERESTING THOUGHT FOR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THINGS. WE DEFINITELY WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF THAT NUMBER CAN BE REDUCED DOWN FOR THE BIKE PARKING RATIO. WITHOUT A DOUBT WE CAN INSTALL A COUPLE OF BIKE RACKS ON THE SITE.
GIVEN THE HUGE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IT MAY BE WEIRD IF WE END UP WITH A HUNDRED RACKS.
>> A HUNDRED BIKE RACKS? >> WELL, PROBABLY NOT THAT
>> ONE FOR 10. >> SO 6 FOR 10?
>> ONE PER 10. >> HAVE I BEEN IN HERE TOO -- I HAVE BEEN IN HERE TOO MUCH TODAY.
THE ROOM IS GETTING TO ME. I AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT.
AS A SIDE NOTE, I READ THE SAME SPECIFICATION YOU ARE REFERRING TO, FRANK, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WILL BE IN THIS 32,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE, BUT I'M SURE IT IS EMPLOYEES MOVING AND LOADING AND BIKING TO WORK COULD BE A PRETTY REGULAR SOURCE.
I AGREE WITH FRANK. 10 MAY BE A LITTLE OVERKILL.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT NOW BECAUSE THIS ORDINANCE IS AN ORDINANCE.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD GYRE IN THE WAREHOUSE --
>> AND IN THE WAREHOUSE PROVISION -- THE USE IS WAREHOUSE, CORRECT? IT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED FOR
IT SEEMS TO ME THEY ARE BEING TAXED ON PARKING AS IF IT WAS RETAIL. AM I INCORRECT IN THAT?
>> NO BECAUSE THIS PORTION WON'T BE VISITING -- VISITED
BY THE CONSUMER. >> THE 66 PARKING SPACES ON SITE IS RELATIVE TO SPECIFICALLY FOR THE WAREHOUSE
>> I THOUGHT THE FORMULA EM SOD HIGH.
I DIDN'T CALCULATE IT OUT. GYRE IT IS BASED ON SQUARE
FOOTAGE. >> WE DON'T DESIGNATE.
>> IT IS ALL GOOD. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> NO. WE THANK THE STAFF FOR THEIR TIME AND DILIGENCE WITH THAT APPLICATION.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR YOUR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION.
>> VERY GOOD. >> JUST ONE THING, CHAIRMAN, IF IT COMES BACK ON THE ROAD ISSUE YOU INDICATED IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CAPACITY SO IT DOES NOT HAVE TO COME BAY TO THIS -- COME BACK TO THIS BOARD? UNLESS IT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OR SITE PLAN.
JUST THINGS GET MOVED ALONG WITHOUT HAVING US COME BACK HERE? OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO YOU WILL HANDLE THAT.
IF IT COMES BACK YOU KNOW THERE WAS A PROBLEM.
>> I WILL ASSUME THERE WON'T BE A PRAB.
I WILL ASSUME THERE WON'T BE A PROBLEM.
[00:20:02]
>> ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO COMING BACK?
IT IS A WAREHOUSE SPACE. LET'S GET IT BUILT.
>> IT IS AN EXPANSION OF A GREAT BUSINESS IN TABORET -- FORT PIECE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GET MOVING WITH IT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM MR. GILMORE? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK AND SECONDED BY MS. CLEMENS. CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.
>> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. >> QUESTION BEFORE I VOTE.
THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE, IS THAT --
>> I'M SORRY. WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS MY VOTE IS YES.
>> THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS ITEM D.
MRS. HOFMEIST ARE. IT IS FOR -- HOW DO YOU SAY
THIS? >> WE ARE MISSING ONE AND IT WOULD BE 6C AND MR. GILMORE HAS THAT ONE.
>> I JUST MARKED OFF 6C. I'M SORRY.
I STARTED OUT IN 1922 AND HERE I AM RUSHING THIS THING RIGHT
[c. Site Plan - Fort Pierce Commercial - 5555 and 5553 Okeechobee Road]
ALONG, AREN'T I? OKAY.MR. GILMORE, A SITE PLANNED FOR FORT PIERCE COMMERCIAL 5555 AND 5553 OKEECHOBEE ROAD.
>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.
BEFORE YOU WE HAVE A SITE PLAN DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR 5555 AND 5553 OKEECHOBEE ROAD FOR FORT PIERCE COMMERCIAL BY MBV ENGINEERING.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JENKINS ROAD AND OKEECHOBEE ROAD AND IT IS APPROXIMATELY 12-ACRES AND HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF GC, GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
THERE IS A ZONING OF C3, GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WOULD INCLUDE 24,190 SQUARE FEET FOR A MASTER COMMERCIAL DEVELOP MEANT THAT WILL INCLUDE SEVERAL PARCELS FOR PARCEL ONE AND WILL INCLUDE THE ALDI GROCERY STORE. FOR PARCELLS -- SORRY PARCELS ONE, TWO AND THREE WILL INCLUDE THE CHIPOTLE RESTAURANT WITH ADDITIONAL RETAIL UNIT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THE ARYKS LDI -- THE ALDI GROCERY STORE WILL BE ON PARCEL2.
THE PROVIDED PARKING WILL BE 160 SPACES WITH 15 BIKE RACKS BRIARED. THE CHIPOTLE WILL HAVE INDOOR AND OUTDOOR SEATING WITH A DRIVE-THRU AND THE SITE PLAN WOULD INCLUDE A WET RETENTION POND OF THE -- POND.
THIS IS A NORTHERN AND WESTERN EXTERIOR ELEVATION FOR THE STAND ALONE TWO-UNIT RETAIL BUILDING.
NEXT THE SOUTHERN AND THE EXTERIOR FOR THE RETAIL STRUCTURE. AND BEFORE YOU ARE ALL ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED APPROXIMATELY 19,000 SQUARE FOOT ALDI GROIS -- GROCERY STORE.
THERE WILL ALSO BE LANDSCAPE PLANS WHICH WILL COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. THE FIRST IS FOR PARCELS, ONE, THREE AND FOUR WHICH IS THE ALDI RETAIL UNIT AND THE RETENTION POND AND THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
IT INCLUDES 119 TREES AND 109 SABLE PALMS AND 197 SHRUBS OF GROUND COVER AND IRRIGATION. THE SECOND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PARCEL2 INCLUDES 44 TREES AND 27 PALMS AND GROUND COVER AND NEW IRRIGATION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW WITH THREE CONDITIONS.
A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE MASTER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. NUMBER TWO, A COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND LANDSCAPE BOND
[00:25:01]
PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 123-6 IS REQUIRED TO FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. AND NUMBER 3, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE CLEARING PERMITS, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A SURVEY AND COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE ARBORISTS OF THE CITY-REGULATED TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH THE SIGHT -- SITE DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THANK YOU.>> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILMORE?
>> I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT LOCATION.
THIS IS DIRECTLY EAST OF THE WAU-WAU.
>> CORRECT. >> THE MAP SORT OF INDICATED THAT, BUT IT IS ALL SQUARED UP.
THANK YOU. >> JUST ONE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE MAINEN -- THE MAIN ENTRY INTO THE PARCEL1?
>> OKEECHOBEE ROAD. >> OKEECHOBEE ROAD.
EXPWRIERVE IT IS KIND OF -- >> IT IS KIND OF HIDING IT, BUT IT IS RIGHT HERE. SORRY.
>> IS IT SHARING A CURB WITH WAU-WAU?
>> CORRECT. >> I SAID ONE QUESTION, BUT I HAVE ANOTHER ONE. DOES WEST SIDE BAPTIST OPERATE
A SCHOOL? >> THAT'S FURTHER SOUTH.
IT IS NEARED WARDS. IT IS NEAR EDWARDS.
GYRE IT IS ABOUT A 10TH OF A --
>> IT IS ABOUT A 10TH OF A MILE OR .20 OF A MILE SOUTH OF
THE WUA-WUA. >> THERE IS ANOTHER SCHOOL, A
PRIVATE CHARTER SCHOOL THERE. >> THERE IS.
THERE IS A CHARTER SCHOOL. >> IT IS ON THE EASTSIDE.
>> IT IS JUST NORTH OF THE KOA.
>> AND OF COURSE THE REASON FOR THE QUESTION IS THE IFN -- THE INCREASE OF TRAFFIC WE WILL GET ON JENKINS ROAD, OKEECHOBEE ROAD AREA. I AM NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF WALKERS AT THAT SCHOOL GYRE NO.
AND THE COUNTY IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON THE EXPANSION OF JENKINS ROAD. I AM NOT SURE WHEN THAT WILL
HAPPEN. >> THE AREA SOUTH OF OKEECHOBEE FOR JENKINS ROAD WILL OCCUR SOONER THAN --
>> OH, OKAY. >> I DO KNOW THEY ARE WORKING ON THAT. YOU ARE RIGHT.
ALL OF JENKINS ROAD NEEDS -- IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED NUMEROUS TIMES WITH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AND TPO STAFF AND WE HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING ON THE ROAD.
AND RIGHT NOW IT IS DESIGNED AS A RURAL ROAD.
THERE WILL BE A FAIR SHARE OF CONTRIBUTIONS AND EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO AT SOME POINT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXPANSION BECAUSE I DO FORESEE THAT WITH ALL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT WE ARE HOPING IT MOVES UP ON THE RANKING AND THE REVIEW MOVING FORWARD. THEY HAVE GONE -- THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS AND THEY KOSM PLEAT -- THEY COMPLETED THE DESIGN. AND IT MAY OCCUR SOONER.
>> AND THAT WILL INCLUDE SIDEWALKS?
ANYTHING FURTHER? >> I DON'T HAVE THAT ON ME.
GYRE IF I MAY, ALL OF THE -- >> IF I MAY, ALL OF THOSE ARE WITH THE COUNTY. IT CURRENTLY ALREADY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL.
IT IS MORE HIGHLY SCRUTINIZED GOING FROM RESIDENTIAL TO
COMMERCIAL. >> I THINK THE ISSUE HAS BEEN WELL IDENTIFIED AND A NIGHTMARE UNTIL IT GETS RESOLVED. I AM NOT SURE HOW MANY WE APPROVED, BUT IT IS THOUSANDS.
>> A LOT MORE COMING. THERE IS A LOT GOING ON.
>> YES. I THINK IT IS AN APARTMENT.
>> MCNEIL AND EDWARDS AND EVERYTHING, IT ALL
INTERRELATES. >> EVERYTHING OUT THERE.
>> IS THE COUNTY ACTUALLY SERIOUSLY LOOKING AT THIS OR
>> YES. AND SO IS THE PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND -- IS LOOKING AT THIS.
>> IT IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.>> AS I UNDERSTAND WHENI
[00:30:01]
LOOKED AT IT LAST, THE HOLDUP HAS BEEN -- THERE ARE TWO SETS OF POWER LINES AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I THINK I AM CORRECT THE.
THE FPUA LINES RUN PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF OKEECHOBEE AND SOME FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT LINES.
AND THERE WAS A DISCUSSION BETWEEN FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT IN THE COUNTY AS TO HOW TO DEAL WITH THAT RIGHT AWAY.
THAT'S BEEN A LITTLE HICCUP. I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE MAKING HEADWAY ON FIGURING OUT WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.
>> IT IS COST. >> THE HOUSING DEVELOP -- DEVELOPMENT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW.
I THINK THE MAIN CONCERN I HAVE IS NOT THE EGRESS/INGRESS OFF OKEECHOBEE ROAD AS IT IS OFF JENKINS.
>> THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL -- THESE PROPERTIES DO SHARE A CROSS ACTION WITH WUA-WUA SO THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT TO ALLEVIATE NOT JUST OKEECHOBEE, AND THAT WOULD BE JENKINS ON THERE. YOU CAN SEE ON THE --
>> I CAN CONFIRM -- BELIEVE THE INGRESS/EGRESS TO THE SOUTH THAT -- RIGHT NOW YOU CAN MAKE A LEFT TURN GOING SOUTH ON JENKINS AND THE COUNTY -- THAT'S GOING TO BE ELIMINATED WHEN THEY WIDEN IT.
YOU WILL ONLY BE ABLE TO MAKE A RIGHT TURN.
>> I WOULD EXPECT THAT TO BE TRUE.
>> WITHOUT IT BEING SINGLEIZED, IT IS DANGEROUS.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE TRUE AND THAT WILL ONLY COMPOUND SOME OF THE ISSUES LATER ON, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE DONE.
>> YEP. >> I DO MAKE A LEFT OUT OF THERE NOW DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF DAY I MIGHT BE THERE.
THERE ARE TIMES AT JENKINS ROAD IT IS VERY, VERY CONGESTED GOING THROUGH THERE.
I GO DOWN OKEECHOBEE. IT IS GOING TO BE A BIG CONSIDERATION AND IT IS A GOOD CATCH THAT YOU HAVE LOOKED AT THAT. ANYTHING FURTHER FOR MR. --
>> LET ME JUST ASK A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO OKEECHOBEE ROAD. WHY WASN'T THERE A DISCUSSION ON TWO ENTRANCES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY? THE ONE BEING SHARED AND ONE FURTHER EAST AND CLOSER TO THE ALDI STORE? SO THAT THERE WOULD BE TWO WAYS TO GET OFF OF -- ON TO OKEECHOBEE ROAD?
>> I WILL DEFER THAT TO THE APPLICANT.
>> MAYBE THE DRAINAGE EASE MEANT, BUT THE APPLICANT WOULD
BEST BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT. >> WITH THAT I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND ASK THE APPLICANT TO STEP
FORWARD, PLEASE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, REBECCA GROW-HALL. MVB ENGINEERING.
THE DISTANCES REQUIRED BY DOT ARE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME PUTTING A SECOND DRIVEWAY TO SERVICE THAT SITE BECAUSE PART IS A CANAL FOR NORTH SAINT LUCY WATER CON -- CONTROL DISTRICT. WHEN THE WUA-WUA SITE WAS DEVELOPED IT IS THE SAME OWNERS DESPITE THE FACT YOU CAN SEE DIFFERENT NAMES. BUT IT WAS ALWAYS INTENDED THE DRIVEWAY WOULD SERVE BOTH SITES.
AND THEY CAN ACCESS THROUGH THE JENKINS ROAD PARCEL TOO.
>> IN THAT SAME VEIN, THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SITE, THAT IS OWNED BY THE SAME ENTITIES OR THE SAME GROUP AND SAME
>> OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW WILL THEY ACCESS THAT SITE?
>> THEY SHARE AN ACCESS EASE MEANT THAT GOES THROUGH THE ENTIRE SITE. I DON'T KNOW -- I THINK ON YOUR SITE PLAN IT MIGHT BE SHOWN ON ONE OF THE OTHER
GRAPHICS. >> IT SHOWS IT ON HERE.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS LAND LOCKED.
>> IF YOU LOOK TO THE SOUTHEAST OF THIS SECTION THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED, YOU WILL SEE AN EGRESS GOING IN THERE.
>> OH THAT DOESN'T HAVE THAT -- THAT JUST HAS THE OVERLAY. I WILL CHANGE IT.
>> IT IS SHOWN ON YOUR SITE PLAN.
>> IF YOU BRING THE SITE PLAN BACK UP YOU WILL SEE IT.
IT IS OFF HERE TO THE VERY EXTREME RIGHT OF THE PAGE.
IT COMES IN OFF -- TO THE -- PARDON ME TO THE EXTREME TOP OF THE PAGE. IT COMES IN OFF OKEECHOBEE ROAD THERE. I DON'T RECALL WHETHER OR NOT THE CURBING HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE FOR IT, BUT IT'S BEEN THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. JIESH I SEE A CANAL --
>> I SEE A CANAL THERE, BUT I DON'T SEE --
>> IT RUNS NEXT TO THE CANAL. GYRE IF I MAY --
>> IF I MAY AND IT WILL NOT INCLUDE A SITE PLAN FOR A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THAT WILL ALL HAVE TO BE
[00:35:02]
ADDRESSED WHEN THE TIME COMES.>> THAT IS CORRECT. FOR PARCEL3, A NEW SITE PLAN WILL BE PREPARED. THEY ARE IN NEGOTIATION FOR IT TO BE A SINGLE USER, BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AS SHE IS UP HERE? NOTHING? VERY GOOD.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR MR. GILMORE?
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK AND SECONDED BY MS. BAKER. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
>> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT? >> CHAIRMAN?
[d. Site Plan - Scavello Taylor Creek - 1433-431-0001-000-4 ]
>> YES, MA'AM. >> AND NOW WE CAN MOVE TO ITEM
>> MRS. HOFFMEISTER-DREW WILL PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BEFORE YOU -- I GUESS THIS IS OUR FOURTH ITEM AND IT IS THE SCAVELLO TAYLOR CREEK SITE PLAN.
IT SAYS PERMITTED USE WITHIN THIS FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING CATEGORY. SHOWN ABOVE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE ZONING FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS SHOWN IN YELLOW AND THE SURROUNDING AREA HAS BOTH A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH A COMPATIBLE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL AS WELL, C3. IF YOU CAN SEE THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT IS COLORED, OUR PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THE CITY, THOSE THAT ARE NOT, LIKE THE AREA TO THE NORTH IS WITHIN THE COUNTY, BUT PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS AREA DOES HAVE COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION AND THE AREA IS ON THE OUT -- SOUTH SIDE OF TAYLOR CREEK IS MAINLY A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IS SHOWN ABOVE.
THE TOTAL SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IS 5.33-ACRES AND THE PROPOSE -- PROPOSE SALT IS THE ENTIRE SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS JUST OVER 33,600 SQUARE FEET WHICH WILL CONSIST OF THE LARGER BUILDING AND WILL CONSIST OF A RETAIL STRUCTURE WITH EIGHT SEPARATE BAYS.
THE BAY THAT IS ALL THE WAY HERE TO THE WEST SIDE IS PROPOSED FOR A DRIVE-THRU. WE WILL ALSO BE JUST OVER 2,000 SQUARE FEET OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS CALLING A CASUAL RESTAURANT WHICH IS LOCATED OVER HERE ON THE EASTSIDE.
ADDITIONALLY, 7,900 SQUARE FEET IS PROPOSED FOR FINE DINING IN THIS AREA THAT IS SHOWN HERE IN BLUE.
IT IS WHAT THEY ARE CALLING A COVERED ROOFTOP DECK WHICH WILL BE A NICE AMENITY YOU WILL BE ABLE TO LOOK OVER AND SEE TAYLOR CREEK. ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS WILL INCLUDE THE ACCESS POINT FROM TAYLOR CREEK PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER AND PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS THE MAIN ACCESS -- THE ONLY ACCESS TO THE SITE RIGHT NOW.
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE TAYLOR CREEK SHOPPING CENTER, THE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER, WAS ALL PART OF A PLANNED MASTER DEVELOPMENT.
THERE IS A RECORDED EASEMENT AS PART OF YOUR PACKET THAT GRANTS ACCESS THROUGH THE U.S. 1I -- U.S. UN, SIGNALIZATIN TO THE SHOPPING CENTER. THERE WILL BE A SIDEWALK AND GREEN SPACE ALONG THE PERIMETER AND LANDSCAPE TREE ISLANDS THROUGHOUT THE PARKING LOT.
ALL OF THE BUILDINGS WILL BE CONNECTED THROUGH INTERESTING PAVER -- PAVERRED SIDEWALK SYSTEM.
THEY WILL ALSO CONNECT TO THE PERIMETER OF THE TAYLOR CREEK AREA. SHOWN ABOVE IS THE SITE DATA THAT REFLECTS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY CODE SECTION -- THE JOAN COMMERCIAL OR C3 AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROMOTES -- PROPOSING AND THE APPLICATION MEETS ALL OF THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS SECTION OF THE CODE.
THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN ABOVE.
THE TOP ONE IS THE FRONT ELEVATION FOR THE CASUAL DINING OR QUICK SERVICE. THE RETAIL CENTER IS IN THE CENTER AND THE FINE DINING IS AT THE BOTTOM PART OF THE SLIDE. THEY ALL WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH ONE ANOTHER, BUT INTERESTING CHANGES AND VERY YAKS -- VARIATIONS WITH THE ROOF THAT LENDS ITSELF TO AN INTERESTING DEVELOPMENT. STAFF RECOMMEND USA PROFESSIONAL -- APPROVAL WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS SHOWN ABOVE. THE FIRST ONE IS OUR GENERAL CONDITION AS IT RELATES TO PROTECTION AND MITIGATION AND
[00:40:02]
FINAL TREE MITIGATION PLAN. THE SECOND IS A CERTIFIED LETTER OF A COMPLETION ALSO RELATED TO LANDSCAPING WHICH WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF THE SITE AND THREE STAFF IS REQUESTING AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THE APPLICANT IS COMFORTABLE AND THE COUNTY SUPPORTIVE TO RESTRIPE THE ACCESS DRIVE FROM U.S. 1 TO THE SWIERT -- TO THE SITE. IT IS WHAT IS A MAIN ACCESS WITH THE REMAINING PART OF THE PARKING AREA FOR PUBLIX AND ALL OF THOSE OTHER BAYS. THESE ARE THE THREE POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD WHICH YOU ARE ALL AWARE OF.EITHER RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS OF STAFF AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL AS REBECCA WHO IS HERE ON THIS ITEM AS
WHEN I SAW THIS APPLICATION I WAS VERY PUZZLED.
THIS MORNING -- EARLY THIS AFTERNOON I WENT OVER TO THE SITE AND HAVING GONE TO THE CVS I WENT UP THAT ROAD TO THE PROPERTY, AND IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE FIRST SCREEN WHICH SHOWS THE ACCESS. OKAY.
THAT LITTLE YELLOW BL -- BLOB WHERE THE ACCESS IS THE ONLY ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, AM I CORRECT?
>> YES, MA'AM. >> SO SOMEBODY WANTING TO GO TO THE FINE DINING RESTAURANT -- THE TAKEOUT RESTAURANT I ASSUME THAT IS, QUICK RESTAURANT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND AND COME IN PAST THE CVS AND GO INTO THAT ONE ACCESS POINT AND THEN DRIVE UP THERE AND GO AROUND, AM I CORRECT? THERE IS NO OTHER ACCESS TO
THE PROPERTY? >> CHAIRMAN, THERE IS NO OTHER ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY. THE SAND RIDGE ROAD WHICH IS THE UNIMPROVED ROADWAY FROM THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE ABANDONED. IT IS NOT A SAFE ROAD.
>> I WENT UP THAT ROAD AND IT IS A MESS.
>> IT IS A MESS. SO WITH THE WIDENING OF -- WELL, RATHER WITH THE NEW BRIDGE ON TO THE NORTH ENTRANCE TO HUTCHINSON HIGHLAND, TO THE BRIDGE AND THE CHANGES THIS ROAD WILL NEVER MEET -- IT DOESN'T MEET TODAY'S STANDARDS AND NOR WILL IT.
IF IT IS THE PROXIMITY, IT USED TO BE OLD DIXIE ROAD.
I PUT THE MATERIAL AS PART OF THE PACKET.
IT IS JUST PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. THIS ROAD WILL BE ABANDONED.
WHEN IT COMES TO ACCESS TO HERE, IT WILL SERVE -- AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIX.
IT WILL WHEN IT IS DESIGNED WILL LOOK AND FEEL -- WOULD FEEL VERY SIMILAR IN ITS ONE DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S HY THE ACCESS DRIVE I THINK DELINEATES DESCRIBING IT OR SHOWING IT WITH PAVE MARKINGS WILL HELP WITH THAT ACCESS. ONCE YOU PULL INTO THERE FROM THAT ONE AND IT IS A DIVIDED DRIVEWAY.
IF YOU WANT TO GO UP TO THE QUICK RESTAURANT YOU GO UP AND YOU CAN STOP AND YOU CAN TURN AROUND.
THE ENTIRE SITE IS CAUSE FOR CIRCULATION.
THIS IS CIRCULATION IF YOU ARE GOING TO THE DRIVE-THRU.
THE WHOLE SITE IS INTERCONNECTED.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE SIGNAGE. DO THEY HAVE ANYWAY OF BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE -- ANY SIGNAGE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE
TAYLOR CREEK DEVELOPMENT? >> CHAIRMAN OR MADAM BAKER, YES. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
THEY ARE COMING IN. IT IS NOT PART OF OUR PLAN APPROVAL FOR SIGNS. IT IS A PLAN APPLICATION AND THEY WILL BE COMING IN FOR THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM.
SO THERE IS IDENTIFICATION AT THE BEGINNING AND WHAT LEADS YOU. THAT WAS A LOT OF OUR DISCUSSION WHEN IT CAME TO TRC.
WE DID TALK ABOUT THAT. >> I DON'T BELIEVE ADDITIONAL STRIPING WILL HELP THAT NARROW ENTRANCE WAY VERY MUCH.
IF YOU GO OUT OF THE CVS PARKING LOT TO THE BACK THERE, YOU COULD PROBABLY GET THERE EASIER, BUT THAT WOULD INVOLVE PEOPLE GOING THROUGH THE CVS PARKING LOT.
>> IF I MAY, CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBER BAKER, THIS IS NOT THROUGH THE CVS. SO WHEN YOU PULL IN FROM U.S.
[00:45:05]
1, YOU ARE GOING -- THERE IS PUBLIX -- IT WILL BE JUST THE DRIVE THAT YOU GO STRAIGHT AND CVS WOULD BE TO THE RIGHT ANDPUBLIX WILL BE TO THE LEFT. >> I UNDERSTAND.
I WAS JUST THERE. WHAT I AM TRYING TO SAY IS TO GET INTO THAT ACCESS ROAD YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE CVS PARKING LOT AND YOU CAN COME OUT RATHER THAN HAVING TO GO
STRAIGHT ACCESS RIGHT NOW. >> I DON'T THINK SO.
>> NO. YOU HAVE TO TAKE A RIGHT TO
IF YOU EXIT THE CVS PARKING LOT AND TO THE BACK YOU CAN
GET BACK ON TO THAT -- >> SAND RIDGE ROAD?
>> YEAH. >> THAT ROAD WILL BE UH -- ABANDONED. RIGHT NOW THE CVS DOES NOT INTERFACE WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WE ARE DISCUSSING.
IT HAS MORE RELATIONSHIP REALLY TO ITS OWN.
YOU PULL IN AND YOU PARK. I FREQUENT IT OFTEN, SO IT IS MORE OF A DESTINATION RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE
PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. >> WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME, AS A SHOPPER FREQUENTLY IN THE TAYLOR CRICK SHOPPING CENTER AND -- TAYLOR YIERVEG SHOPPING CENTER AD PUBLIX AND EVERYTHING ELSE, HAVING ONE ENTRANCE ROAD TO A NEW DSM MEANT -- DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO CAUSE A LOT OF TRAFFIC
PROBLEMS. >> WELL, THEY HAVE DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY AND IF I MAY, THE AREA TO THE NORTH IS PART OF THE COUNTY AND UNDEVELOPED.
THERE IS TALK IN THE FUTURE THAT BECAUSE IT IS PRIVATELY OWNED THERE IS NOTHING THAT WE CAN DO AT THIS TIME TO UH -- ACQUIRE BECAUSE THIS IS MORE OF A COUNTY APPLICATION AND THE COUNTY CAN MAYBE SPEAK TO THIS TOO.
I BELIEVE SHE HAS HAD MORE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY ON FUTURE ACCESS FROM JUANITA, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE FROM SAND RIDGE ROAD BECAUSE IT IS NOT SAFE, AS I SAID.
THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES IN THE FUTURE THAT YOU COULD HAVE ACCESS THROUGH THESE -- THROUGH THIS PARKING AREA, BUT RIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT WAS DETERMINED TO BE SAFEST AND MOST EFFICIENT WAY OF GAINING ACCESS TO THE SITE.
THAT WAS THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AND THROUGH THEIR TRAFFIC STUDY AS WELL.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION, I LOOKED AT THE ELEVATIONS AND WOULD THESE BUILDINGS BE VISIBLE FROM U.S. 1?
>> I WOULD -- I DON'T THINK -- I THINK IT IS TOO FAR AND I THINK THE ACTUAL PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER WOULD BLOCK THAT VIEW SO NO I DO NOT THINK THEY WOULD BE.
THERE MAY BE SOME ABILITY TO SEE IT WHEN YOU ARE TRAVELING SOUTH ON U.S. 1 AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THERE IS SOME VACANT LAND AND THE DEVELOPMENT IS THERE.
A SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL OFF U.S. 1.
YOU MAY. IT DOES GO UP TO 65 FEET.
YOU MAY HAVE SOME ABILITY TO SEE IT.
>> THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SIGN ON THE BUILDINGS FOR IT TO BE VISIBLE FROM U.S. 1, ESPECIALLY FOR THE DWRIEFER --
DRIVER THREW. >> IT WILL HAVE SIGNAGE.
>> PERHAPS WE SHOULD CALL HER UP.
MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS IF YOU
DON'T MIND. >> I DO NOT MIND AT ALL.
>> I GUESS I AM OPENING UP THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE
FOR THE RECORD, REBECCA GROW-HALL, MBV ENGINEERING.
SIGNAGE IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT ONE OF THE UNIQUE ASPECTS OF THE SITE. IT GRADES FROM THE HIGHEST AND THE LOWEST AND EAST TO WEST AND THEN ALSO NORTH TO SOUTH.
>> THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS A LITTLE HIGHER ELEVATION. THERE'S A LOT OF ELEVATIONS TO CONSIDER. SIGNAGE, DEFINITELY.
MUCH LIKE THE SITE BECAUSE IT WAS A PARCEL FOR THE TAYLOR CREEK DEPARTMENT AND IT HAS INGRESS AND EGRESS AND MASTER SIGNAGE. AT SOME POINT IN TIME THEY WILL COME IN WITH A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE SITE ITSELF AS WELL AS TO MODIFY THE POLE SIGN FOR THE SITE.
[00:50:04]
ONCE THIS GETS UNDER CONSTRUCTION IT WILL GENERATE A LOT OF DISCUSSION. THERE HAS NOT BEEN MUCH NEW IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD FOR QUITE SOME TIME.WE THINK THE SIGNAGE ISSUES WILL WORK THEMSELVES OUT.
AND THROUGH THE USE OF STRIPING AND MAYBE SOME SORT OF PAVEMENT MARKING SYSTEM IT WILL HELP DIRECT PEOPLE IN THERE. TWO DRIVES WOULD DEFINITELY BE PREFERRED. I THINK WHEN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE, ON THE NORTH SIDE, LOOKING AT A LONG-RANGE PERSPECTIVE, AS THE COUNTY BUILDS OUT THAT ROAD WHICH WOULD BE ALONG TO THE NORTH THERE, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT THERE COULD BE A NEW DRIVEWAY CONNECTION ON TO THAT SITE.
>> DO WE WANT ME TO DO THE AERIAL, REBECCA?
>> I THINK EITHER ONE IS GOOD.
KIND OF WHERE THE YELLOW LINE IS.
ULTIMATELY THE COUNTY IS GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE WHOLE AREA.
THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL INGRESS/Y -- EGRESS. THEY PRESENTED A GREAT ONE WITH THE IDEA THAT FPUA WOULD HAVE TO MOVE THE LIFT STATION THAT SERVES THE ENTIRE SITE IS OVER THERE.
>> IS THAT UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE PROPERTY PART OF THE TAYLOR CREEK DEVELOPMENT? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE UNDEVELOPED?
>> WHERE NORTH 13TH STREET COMES ALONG TO THE BOUNDARY.
DO YOU HAVE SEVERAL PARCELS THAT ARE COMMERCIAL, I
BELIEVE, RIGHT? >> THIS PORTION IS SHOWN WHERE THE MOUSE IS HOVERING. THERE IS SOME UNIMPROVED PROPERTY FURTHER NORTH THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE
COUNTY. >> OH, THEY ARE RESIDENTIAL.
I MISSED THAT SOMEHOW. I THOUGHT THAT WAS COMMERCIAL
ALSO. >> THEY ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL.
>> RESIDENTIAL IN NAME ONLY. >> IT IS COMMERCIALLY ZONED.
>> I'M SORRY. IT IS COMMERCIALLY ZONED.
THE WAY IT WAS UNUSUALLY -- INITIALLY PLATTED IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE IT IS ONE POINT IT WAS INTENDED TO BE
RESIDENTIAL. >> BUT IT IS COMMERCIAL?
>> YES. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WHEN I LOOKED AT ANOTHER MAP THAT I PULLED UP.
THAT IS NOT PART OF THE TAYLOR CREEK DEVELOPMENT
NECESSARILY? >> THIS IS THE TERMINOUS OF
WHAT WAS THE MASTER PLAN. >> IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA. IT IS ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL AND WHO KNOWS WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY HAPPEN WITH THAT.
>> SO AT THE TIME -- LET'S ASSUME WITH THE MOVEMENT OF COMMERCIAL GOING NORTH ON U.S. 1 AND WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT STARTING WHAT WE WOULD HOPE IS A TREND, AND YOU COULD PLAY A REAL ACTIVE ROLE IN THAT, GO FIND SOME MORE CUSTOMERS.
>> GLADLY DO THAT. >> WE COULD, IN OUR PLANNING, ASK FOR EGRESS/INGRESS IN AND OUT OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THROUGH THE ADDITION OF THE NORTHERN PROPERTIES.
>> IF I MAY, CHAIRMAN, THAT IS THE HOPES OF THE COUNTY.
WHEN A FUTURE DEVELOPER COMES IN, THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE NO DEVELOPMENT PLANS IN ORDER TO PROPOSE THAT CONDITION.
>> WITH THINGS BEING LAND LOCKED WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT
WE GOT. >> ARE THERE PLANS TO ANNEX THE NORTHERN SECTION INTO THE CITY?
>> WELL, IT IS CONTIGUOUS AS PART OF ANNEXATION PROGRAM.
I KNOW WE ARE FOCUSING ON THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST AND IT
IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN -- >> IF IT WERE ANNEXED THERE WOULD BE A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EGRESS AND INGRESS INTO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
>> THAT SITE WOULD BE SERVED BY FPUA AND IF YOU GO BACK IN TIME -- SORRY TO JUMP IN, BUT FP OIRKS A REQUIRES AN AGREEMENT ON SERVICE THAT'S OPENS THE DOOR FOR THE CITY TO ANNEX IT. AND QUITE FRANKLY I THINK FOR ANY APPLICANT IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY AND GAIN SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF WORKING WITH THE CITY. GYRE ALL I COULD SAY --
>> ALL I COULD SAY IS GOING UP THERE AND GOING UP THAT ROAD AND IN THROUGH -- AND PAST THE CVS AND INTO THE TAYLOR CREEK SHOPPING CENTER, IT'S DIFFICULT -- IT IS A DIFFICULT
[00:55:03]
ROAD ANYWAY RIGHT NOW. TO ME THE AMOUNT OF ADDED TRAFFIC, POTENTIAL ADDED TRAFFIC, IT IS GOING TO BE A BIG BOTTLENECK THERE, IN MY OPINION.I AM NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, JUST A DRIVER.
I SHOP THERE ALL THE TIME. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A GOOD RESTAURANT AND SOME DEVELOPMENT THERE, BUT I GET STOPPED AT THE TURN LIGHT ALL THE TIME THERE AT THAT INTERSECTION. IT IS A VERY SHORT TURN SIGNAL AND EAST SPECIALT -- AND ESPECIALLY WITH ALL OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS GOING ON -- ANYWAY.
I JUST THINK IT IS GOING TO BE A REAL MESS IN TERMS OF
GETTING IN AND OUT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY TWO OTHER ACCESS POINTS FROM U.S. 1 TO THE TAYLOR CREEK DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS ONE NEXT TO THE WENDY'S AND THERE IS ONE WHICH IS TO THE SOUTH OF THE WENDY'S. I GO THERE A LOT, AND I TAKE
I WOULD TAKE THE SOUTHERN ONE TOO IF THEY HAD A TURN
SIGNAL. >> YOU CAN MAKE A LEFT TURN
FROM U.S. 1. >> THERE IS NO LEFT TURN SIGNAL AT THE WENDY'S BELIEVE ME.
GYRE -- >> I DON'T TURN ON U.S. 1
UNLESS THERE IS A SIGNAL. >> AT THAT SIGNAL WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH DOT.
AS THE BRIDGE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION THERE WILL BE A SIGNALIZATION AT JUANITA AND THEY WILL ADDRES THE TIMING AT THE NORTH CAUSEWAY TAYLOR CREEK ENTRANCE THERE.
I THINK YOU WILL SEE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES START TO RESOLVE
THEMSELVES. >> I WOULD EXPECT --
>> IT IS JUST ON HOLD FOR THE NEW BRIDGE.
>> I THINK THE WHOLE INTERSECTION IS GONNA CHANGE IN COMPLEXION. WHAT IS THE TARGET ON THE NEW
BRIDGE? >> THEY ARE STILL ON DESIGN.
>> 2038 OR SOMETHING MAYBE? I HOPE NOT.
>> IT WILL BE SUBSTANTIAL. IT WILL CHANGE THE DYNAMICS OF CIRCULATION AND OTHER USES THAT WILL COME ABOUT.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU, MS. BAKER.
THE TRAFFIC FLOW IN AND OUT OF THERE MIGHT BE A BIT QUESTIONABLE. I THINK WE ARE STUCK WITH WHAT WE HAVE GOT. YOU GENERALLY DO A NICE JOB AT LAYING THINGS OUT AND WORKING ON IT.
YOU CERTAINLY KNOW FORT PIERCE.
>> JUST A LITTLE BIT. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?
>> CAN YOU GO BACK AND REVISIT THE SIGNAGE ISSUE AT THE ENTRANCEWAY? ARE THEY PLANNING TO RETROFIT THAT TO IMPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT?
>> IT IS A RETROFIT TO THE EXISTING SIGN.
>> THAT'S BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN AND THEY HAVE SOME INPUT INTO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SIGN SHA
AND MR. SCIVELLO WORKED THAT OUT WITH THE ACCESS GROUP.
>> THE OTHER POINT I AM IN COMPLETE WITH MS. BAKER ON THE ACCESS. CAN YOU GIVE US THE BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH THIS ACCESS ROAD? IT IS ALMOST LIKE A PATHWAY UP THERE, IN MY OPINION.
I HAVE BEEN ON IT SEVERAL TIMES.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SAND RIDGE?
THAT IS AT THE -- AT THE HEART OF THE PROBLEM OF SAND RIDGE IS IT IS A PATH. IT IS A TWO-LANE ROAD, BUT LARGELY UNIMPROVED AND IT IS RIGHT ON THE RIDGE.
UNFORTUNATELY IT COMES OUT ON JUANITA SIGNIFICANTLY TOO CLOSE TO WHAT WILL BECOME THE SIGNAL LIESED INTERSECTION THERE TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF A SAFE TURNING MOVEMENT.
GOING BACK IN TIME, A PORTION OF SAND RIDGE ROAD THAT STARTS SOUTH OF THE CUL-DE-SAC WHICH IS THE NORTHERN LIMIT OF OUR SITE AND GOING DOWN TO THE CANAL ITSELF, THAT PART OF SAND RIDGE ROAD WAS ABANDONED ABOUT 30 YEARS AGO FOR THE PUBLIC'S DEVELOPMENT. THE COUNTY WILL BE ABANDONING SAND RIDGE ROAD. THEY LOOKED AT IT A NUMBER OF TIMES AND UNFORTUNATELY THE CONDITIONS OF THE ROAD AND WHERE IT TERMINATES SO CLOSE TO JUANITA CREATES AN UNSLOVABLE -- UNSOLVABLE ISSUE FOR THE COUNTY.
THEY ARE LOOKING TO ABANDON THAT.
THE PARCELS ALONG U.S. 1 WILL ALWAYS HAVE ACCESS TO U.S. 1.
THE PARCELS THAT ARE INTERNAL ARE GONNA HAVE TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ON DEVELOPING THOSE ACCESS POINTS.
AND THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE NEXT DEVELOPER COMING IN ON THAT SITE IS GONNA HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO WORK AND BUILD A SITE WITH BETTER CIRCULATION.
WHAT YOU SEE OF SAND RIDGE NOW UN-- UNFORTUNATELY WILL COME
AWAY IN THE YEARS TO COME. >> I KNOW I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THIS, SO JUST SO I HAVE IT CLEAR.
[01:00:01]
THE ACTUAL PRIMARY ACCESS THEN IS WEST OF THE CVS ON THATACCESS ROAD, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.
>> WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO THAT ROAD? I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ACTUAL DAILY TRAFFIC COUNT IS?
>> THAT'S AN INTERNAL DRIVEWAY. THERE IS REALLY NO IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE NEEDED, BUT WE ARE GONNA WORK TOGETHER ON THE STRIPING TO MAKE IT MORE APPARENT THAT THAT'S A DRIVE AND TO WHICH SHOPS ARE IN WHICH DIRECTION.
YOU WILL SEE DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE.
>> ASSUMING THAT'S THE PRIMARY ACCESS POINT.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE TRAFFIC IS CONTEMPLATED TO BE POST
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT? >> I DON'T THINK I HAVE THAT NUMBER HANDY, BUT IT IS IN THE FILE.
I CAN GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK.
>> I WON'T GET INTO THE MY KNEW SHAW.
MINUTIA. MS. BAKER, I SHARE YOUR CONCERN. THAT WILL BE A PROBLEM AND THAT ROAD I CONSIDER TO BE REASONABLY HAZARDOUS JUST ON A DAY WITHOUT DEVELOPMENT. IT IS INTERESTING.
I WAS SITTING IN THE CVS LINE GETTING A COVID TEST FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME AND WATCHING THE CARS SCREAMING UP AND DOWN
>> YES. I AM NOT IN THE BEST OF MOODS TO LOOK AT TRAFFIC COUNT, BUT MS. BAKER, I SHARE YOUR
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR -- >> ONE OTHER.
FOLLOWING UP ON THE SIGNAGE. YOU SAY A SIGNAGE WILL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND THAT IS
>> AND THAT IS DEALT WITH ADD -- ADD --
ADMINISTRATIVELY? >> THROUGH THE BUILDING COMPLIANCE REVIEW FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THE -- TO THIS PROJECT, PUBLIC? NOT SEEING ANYONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION MEETING AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. HUFFMEISTER-DREW? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER
DISCUSSION. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE PROPOSAL WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. CLEMENS FOR APPROVAL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. CALL THE ROLE PLEASE.
[e. Site Plan - Crossroads Parkway Warehouse - 2324-710-0019-000-7, 2324-710-0020-000-7, 2324-710-0021-000-4, 2324-710-0022-000-1 ]
>> THE LAST ITEM ON THE NEW BUSINESS LIST IS ITEM E AND THE SITE PLAN FOR CROSSROADS PARKWAY WAREHOUSE.
MY GOODNESS, HERE WE GO AGAIN.
2324-710-0019-000-7, AND 2324-7. AND 2324-710-0002-1-00-4.
AND 2324-710-0022-0001. AND YOU ARE ON.
DON'T GO BACK THROUGH ALL THAT.
>> I'M NOT. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON IS THE LAST ITEM IS CROSSROADS PARKWAY WAREHOUSE SITE PLAN.
IT IS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL PARKWAY ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EASTSIDE OF CROSSROADS PARKWAY JUST WEST OF I-95 WITHIN THE CITY. FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICTS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING USES AS YOU CAN SEE THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE ZONING ARE COMPATIBLE WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL PARKWAY ZONING. NOW, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL ARE AWARE, NOW I FLIPPED THE SITE PLAN SO IT FITS BETTER ON THE JEAN. THIS IS HOW IT WAS ALSO PROVIDED INSTEAD OF PACKETS. THE NORTH ARROW IS TO THE RIGHT. I-95 IS NOW TO THE BOTTOM RATHER THAN ON THE RIGHT. WHICH I HAD SHOWED.
IT IS THE CROSSROAD TO THE NORTH, 95 TO THE SOUTH.
THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING OVER 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
THE OFFICE WOULD BE SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE OVERALL
[01:05:03]
MAIN USE OF THE WAREHOUSE. THERE IS LOADING AREA AND THE ENTRANCES IS OFF CROSSROADS AND SHOWN IN COLOR ARE THE DUMPSTER AREAS. THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A SUBSTANTIAL PERIMETER BUFFER TO SURROUND THE AREA AND TO ACTUALLY GIVE SOME GREENERY FROM I-95.WE HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT IS TAKING PLACE NOW ON I-95. WE ARE REALLY WORKING HARD TO TRY AND MAKE THAT A VISUAL APPEAL WHEN ENTERING FORT PIERCE. THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE COME FORWARD. NOW, WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT THERE IS NOT A WATER FEATURE. THIS IS A DRY DETENTION AREA AND HEAVILY LANDSCAPED. SHOWN ABOVE IS THE SITE DATA AS REFLECTED WITH THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION.
BECAUSE THIS IS A PERMITTED USE IT IS THE ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SUBMITTING TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE MEETING THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
AS YOU CAN SEE THIS APPLICATION DOES MEET THE MINIMUM CRITERIA OF THE SITE AND THEY PROVIDED SUBSTANTIAL FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD AND SIDE YARDS TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THAT BUFFER TO 95.
THEY DO NOT HAVE CURRENT TENANTS RIGHT NOW.
THE APPLICANT HAS GONE ON TO REALLY PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION OF THE STAFF REPORT OF HOW THEY SAY THE ELEVATIONS AND WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROJECT AND CROSSROADS.
AND IT WILL ALSO ALLOW FOR VARIATIONS IN COLOR SO THAT WHEN THEY GET TENANTS THAT THE TENANT HAS THE ABILITY AND THIS WOULD THEN ALLOW THEM TO GET APPROVED NOW AND THEIR COLOR BOARD RATHER THAN DO AN AMENDMENT AND COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD. SHOWN ABOVE ARE THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND THE FIRST TWO ARE THE GENERAL STANDARD COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO TREE PROTECTION AND MITIGATION.
THE SECOND ONE IS WITH REGARD TO THE FINAL LETTER OF COMPLETION OR TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO GET THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AS IT RELATES TO LANDSCAPE BOND.
THE THIRD THEY ARE ASKING FOR REDUCTION IN THE PARKING.
THERE WAS A PARKING ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE AND STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE REDUCTION IN THE PARKING AND WITH THAT THEY WILL PAY A PARKING IN LIEU FEE AT THE TIME OF PERMIT.
AND FOURTH AS THE CHAIRMAN NOTED, THERE ARE FIVE LOTS THAT MAKE UP THIS PROPERTY AND THEY WILL ALL HAVE TO BE UNITIZED WITH THE SAINT LUCI AND PROPERTY APPRAISER PRIOR TO THE BUILDING PERMIT. POSSIBLE ACTIONS IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS OR TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. I AM HERE AS WELL AS BRAD CURRY WITH EDC AS THE APPLICANT FOR THIS ITEM.
>> ANY QUESTIONS OF MS. HUFFMEISTER-DREW.
>> MR. CHAIR, THIS IS A MULTI-TENANT BUILDING I'M
ASSUMING? >> THE INTENTION IS, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY DO NOT HAVE A TENANT OCCUPIED, SO THEY ARE BUILDING IT ON SPECS. THEY ARE NOT SURE HOW MANY TENANTS THAT WOULD BE AND THAT WOULD BE AN INTERNAL BUILDOUT
WHEN IT GETS TO THAT POINT. >> SUBSEQUENTLY IS IT POSSIBLE THEY WOULD CHANGE FROM A GARAGE OVERHEAD DOOR TO TRUCK BAYS OR ARE BOTH OF THOSE CONTEMPLATED IN THE SCHEME? AND I WILL HAVE A FOLLOW-UP TO THE REASON I AM ASKING THAT.
HAVE THE CURB CUTS AND THE DRIVE -- THE REAR AREAS OF THE BUILDINGS BEEN CON FIGURED FOR 18-WHEELER FUNCTIONALITY AND
ALL THAT? >> IF I MAY, I I DO KNOW THEY HAVE THE LOADING AREAS IDENTIFIED ON THE SITE PLAN.
I WOULD ASSUME IT IS NOT AS TO WHETHER THEY ARE HAVING ONE TENANT OR FOUR TENANTS. IT IS SOMETHING IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. THEY ARE GOING THROUGH THAT NOW. THE APPLICANT IS HERE NOW.
>> EVERYBODY LEFT IN THE CHAMBER IS INVOLVED WITH THIS APPLICANT, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? THEN I WILL LET YOU COME UP AND WE WILL JUST DO THIS
>> AS A PRESENTATION IF YOU MAY.
MAYBE THAT WILL HELP MOVE IT ALONG.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. FOR THE RECORD BRAD CURRY AND REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT BEFORE YOU TODAY.
THE INTENT HERE IS THAT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING WILL NOT CHANGE. THE TENANTS COULD CHANGE.
WE ARE GOING TO DO DOCK HIGH LOADING IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING FOR 18-WHEELERS AND TRUCKS OF THAT SIZE.
THE BACK OF THE BUILDING WOULD STAY THE SAME.
[01:10:01]
THE ONLY THING I THINK IF MY CLIENT COULD LEASE TO ONE USER HE WOULD BE HAPPY. BUT IF HE HAD TO BREAK IT UP WE ARE SHOWING POTENTIAL BREAK UP SPOTS.A TENANT CAN HAVE TWO OR THREE SPOTS, BUT IT IS BEING BUILT AS SHOWN. THERE ARE NO MODIFICATIONS TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. THE INTERIOR BUILDOUT CAN BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHO THE TENANT IS OF THE.
>> THE QUESTION IS MORE OF A TRAFFIC FLOW FOR 18-WHEELERS.
IT IS MY EXPERIENCE THAT SINGLE-USER BUILDINGS OR A COUPLE OF TENANTS OR A HANDFUL OF TENANTS IN THIS SIZE YOU HAVE A MORE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT FOR TRUCK DELIVERIES VERSUS PUTTING 20 TENANTS IN THE BUILDING AND THEN GENERATING A MASS OF TRUCKING ACTIVITY THAT WOULD CREATE PROBLEMS POTENTIALLY FOR THE TENANTS AND THE LOADING AND UNLOADING. IT IS MORE OF A CURIOSITY FACTOR AS IF THAT HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED FOR MULTI-TENANTS AND YOU HAVE A SUFFICIENT SIDE YARD AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE FOR YOUR TURNING RADIUSES AND ALL THAT TYPE OF STUFF.
IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE THAT BUILDINGS SUCH AS THIS THAT GENERATE 20, 30 TENANTS POTENTIALLY YOU HAVE A FREE FOR ALL. IF YOU CONTEMPLATED IT IN YOUR SITE PLAN TO BE MULTI-TENANTED, I'M GOOD.
>> THE PLAN BEFORE YOU SHOWS ABOUT 9 TENANTS.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT DOING.
WE HAVE AN AUTO TERM, AND I'M SURE YOU HEARD THAT BEFORE WITH AUTO CAD. WE HAVE DONE THAT.
MY -- MICHAEL REM, THE DEVELOPER IS HERE IF YOU HAVE
ANY QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
DOING A LOT OF SHOPPING ONLINE AS MOST OF US HAVE DONE, SOME PROVIDERS OFFER PICK UP AT THE WAREHOUSE.
ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE PICK UPS OF CUSTOMER -- RETAIL CUSTOMERS BEING ABLE TO PICK UP AT THE WAREHOUSE THERE?
>> AT THIS TIME, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY USERS, SO I BELIEVE IF THE TENANT WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ARRANGED.
BUT THERE WOULD PROBLEM BE BE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. I BELIEVE THAT TENANT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE OF STAYING WITHIN THAT.
IF IT WERE WHERE A RETAIL PERSON COULD COME AND PICK UP SOMETHING, THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE SPACES JUST FOR
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ? >> JUST A COMMENT.
I SUGGEST THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY FIRST MULTI-TENANTED INDUSTRIAL SPEC BUILDINGS COME BEFORE THIS BOARD.
THAT'S AN INTERESTING INDICATION TO WHERE THE MARKET IS GOING. THE OTHER BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN IN THE MILLION SQUARE FOOT RANGE AND LOOKING TO BE LARGE DISTRIBUTION CENTERS. WELCOME TO FORT PIERCE.
YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS NEEDED. THERE IS A TRUE SHORTAGE OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE. 20,000 SQUARE FOOT BASE AND 10,000 SQUARE FOOT BASE, MAY BE A LITTLE LARGE FOR THIS MARKET, BUT WE WILL SOON FIND OUT.
WELCOME. >> ANYTHING FURTHER? NOT HEARING ANY, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOVE APPROVAL. >> I SECOND THAT.
>> I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. BAKR, APPROVAL WITH
>> AND A SECOND BY MR. BRODERICK.
CALL THE ROLE PLEASE. >> MS. CLEMENTS.
I DON'T EXPECT YOU WILL HAVE A PROBLEM AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL WITH THIS PROJECT. WELCOME TO FORT PIERCE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE PLEASED TO BE HERE.
>> BEING THAT THERE IS NO ONE IN THE CHAMBERS FOR PUBLIC QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, WE WILL MOVE FORWARD TO DIRECTOR'S
REPORT. >> I HAVE NOTHING, SIR.
HAPPY NEW YEAR. >> YOU HAVE NOTHING? NOTHING? WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON?
[9. BOARD COMMENTS]
OKAY. I ONLY HAVE THE ONE COMMENT THAT KEEP WORKING THE WAY YOU ARE, BOARD.I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO.
MS. HUFFMEISTER-DREW, I WILL SPEAK FOR YOU AND YOU DO AS WELL, AND I KNOW THE CITY COMMISSION DOES.
I HAD AN OCCASION OVER THE HOLIDAYS TO CHAT WITH TWO OF OUR COMMISSIONERS AND OUR MAYOR BRIEFLY.
THEY TAKE NOTICE OF THE WORK THAT WE ARE DOING.
THAT WASN'T ALWAYS THE CASE. THEY TAKE NOTICE OF THE WORK WE ARE DOING. WE'RE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT.
I THANK YOU. WITH THAT, T
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.