Oct 10, 2022 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

>> WE'RE IN THE PLANNING BLORD MEETIBOARDMEETING OF OCTOBER 10.

WE ONLY HAVE ONE GUEST AND SURELY YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT PLACE. IF WE HAVE CELL PHONES, PLEASE TURN THEM OFF OR AT LEAST WISE, TURN THE SOUND OFF, NEW WOULD PLEASE. RISE FOR PLEDGE OF ALEGION ABSENCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE ULTIMATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH THE STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> IN CRIEX, PRESENT.

MR. ALBURY, PRESENT. MS. CLEMONS, MR. EDWARDS?

[a. Minutes from the September 12, 2022 meeting]

CREYAUFMILLER. HERE.

>> AT THE TOP, MR. BURDGE, CHAIRMAN BURDGE, AT CHAIRMAN BURDGE, THAT'S THE ONLY ERROR I SAW.

ANYONE ELSE SEE ANYTHING. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BURDGE, SECOND BY

MR. KREISL. >> KREISL.

CLOSE ENOUGH. >> OKAY.

>> YOU CAN BUTCHER HIS A LOT. >> YOU KNOW WITH A NAME LIKE MINE, YOU WOULD THINK THAT NAMES SHOULD BE EASY BUT I'M SORRY, I STRUGGLE WITH EVERYBODY'S NAME. I STRUGGLE WITH MY NAME TOO.

>> I'LL CALL THE ROLL. THIS MR. BURDGE.

YEMEN. MS. CLEMONS, YES, MR. BRODERICK.

YES, MR. EDWARDS, YES, MR. KREISL, YES, MR. ALBURY, YES, MR. CREYAUFMILLER. YES.

>> YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO KEEP ME STRAIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TWO ANNOUNCEMENTS BEFORE WE GET STARTED HERE.

NUMBER 1, MR. GILMORE HAS RECEIVED A PROMOTION AND HE IS NOW THE ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR.

CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE]

>> THANK YOU. >> AND MS. CLEMONS IS NOW OUR VICE CHAIR. SO SHE IS MY RIGHT HAND.

[APPLAUSE] >> I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO KEEPING ME STRAIGHT AND TAP ME ON MY SHOULDER AND TELL ME YOU

FORGOT. >> I FORGOT MY WHIP TODAY

THOUGH. >> OKAY THAT WOULD BE OKAY.

>> COME OVER TO MY HOUSE. >> WELL YOU'RE GETTING SOME TAKERS NOW. YOU'RE STEPPING INTO THIS!

>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT, SO MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS. WE HAVE ONLY ONE APPLICATION

[a. Annexations - Woods Family Annexations - 8 Parcels (3403-312-0000-000-4, 3403-312-0001-010-4, 3403-311-0005-010-9, 3403-311-0005-050-1, 3403-502-0075-000-3, 3403-804-0043-000-7, 3403-502-0070-000-8, 3403-502-0069-000-8)]

>> CORRECT. >> LEAST WISE IT WAS FOR ME AS I WAS GOING THROUGH IT. IF IT WERE -- WAS FOR THE REST OF THE BOARD, I UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY.

AND MR. GIL MOWE GILMORE IS GOIO PRESENT.

HE'S GOING TO SMOOTH OUT THE COMPLICATIONS, THE ANNEXATION OF THE WOODS FAMILY EIGHT PARCELS HERE I GO.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO DO THIS. PARCEL NUMBERS.

3403-312-0000-000-4, SELL ITEM.

[00:05:05]

3403-311-0005-050-1, NEXT PARCEL.

3403-502-0075-000-3, NEXT PARCEL, 3403-804-0043-000-7, ARE NEXT PARCEL, 3403-502-0070-000-8, AND THE LAST PARCEL.

3403-502-0069-000-8 HOW DID I DO?

>> GREATLY. >> I'M GETTING BETTER AM I?

>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT, MR. GILMORE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. PLANNING CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. BEFORE YOU WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION OF EIGHT PARCELS, LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTHWEST 101 IN MIDWAY ROAD IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. I HAVE SUBDIVIDED IT INTO FOUR SECTIONS AND WE WOULD NEED FOUR MOTIONS FROM YOU ALL.

SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH -- I'LL GIVE YOU A FIRST OVERVIEW OF IT. THE SIX OF THE SUBJECT PARCELS HAVE THE FOLLOWING FUTURE COUNTY LAND USE AND FUTURE LAND DECDESIGNATION FOR THREE OF THE. RESIDENTIAL URBANE FOR THE FOURTH ONE PLANNING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM AND THEN FOR TWO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO GO TO C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

OKAY. THIS IS A FUTURE LAND USE COMPARISON CHART THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

FOR ANY OF YOU THAT WANT TO TAKE A QUICK GLANCE AT THAT WHICH SHOWS THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE AND THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THE DIFFERENCE IS THE EXIIVETD ST.

LUCIE COUNTY, DIFFERENT ST. LEUFSIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL URBAN AND THE PROPOSED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND THE EXISTING ST. LUCIE GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE EXISTING ST. LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM AND THE PROPOSED HIGH RESIDENCY FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

WE'RE GS GOING TO START WITH FOUR PARCELS.

THE CURRENT IS COMMERCIAL, ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING HIGH DENSITY LAND USE. THE EXISTING IS COMMERCIAL ZONED ST. LUCIE COUNTY, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING R-5 HIGH DENSITY REPRESENTATION ZONE. THESE FOUR PARCELS ARE APPROXIMATELY 8.46 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS PROPOSED THE ANNEXATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICY 1.11 REGARDING ANNEXATIONS. THE CITY'S FUTURE RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS FOR 12 TO 18 UNITS PER ACRE.

THE FUTURE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, PROMOTES ZERO UNLESS 36 PER ACRE FOR MOMENT AND HOTEL. ST. LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, AND THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL, TOPOGRAPHY, SOILS

[00:10:09]

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILMORE?

>> LET ME ASK JUST ONE QUICK ONE.

IF MY MAP IS -- GO BACK THE YOUR MAP FOR A SECOND.

THE ORANGE AREA, THE LAND IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF THE ORANGE AREA, IS THAT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OR IS THAT STILL IN THE

COUNTY? >> THAT'S STILL IN THE COUNTY.

>> STILL IN THE COUNTY, OKAY. HAVE DEST ANY OF THESE SPARLTS D AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH UTILITY AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO

RECEIVE WATER OR SEWER? >> SUBJECT PROPERTIES?

>> YES. >> THAT, I'M NOT AWARE OF.

>> OKAY, ALL RIGHT. >> PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THE ORANGE THAT MR. BURDGE IS REFERRING TO IS A

MITIGATION POND. >> THE WHO?

>> MITIGATION POND. >> OKAY, OKAY.

WHO OWNS THAT DO WE KNOW? >> I'M NOT SURE.

I COULD LOOK IT UP FOR YOU RIGHT NOW.

>> I'M JUST WONDERING BECAUSE IT APPEARS AT LEAST AS FAR AS THESE ARE CIRND THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER FOR A REASON AND I CAN SEE THE ZONING REASON. WHAT THE SPECIAL USE COULD BE.

BECAUSE YOU HAVE ACCESS OFF OF MIDWAY ROADS THROUGH A PARCEL THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO BE ANNEXED AND THEN REST OF IT COULD BE DEVELOPED AS RESIDENTIAL, HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL. >> AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALSO ALLOWS FOR SOME COMMERCIAL USES.

>> POSSIBLY UP ON MIDWAY. OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

YOUR ... >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? THE -- IN THE TRC MEETING, OR COMING OUT OF THE TRC MEETING, DAVID HAYES, ENGINEER FOR COUNTY, REFERENCED MIDVILLE ROAD AS BEING 60 TO 65 FEET WIDE.

AND I MEASURED IT TWIE EARLIER R LAST WEEK AND I MEASURED IT AGAIN TODAY. BECAUSE I THOUGHT MAYBE MY MEASUREMENTS WERE WRONG. AND I WENT BACK THROUGH WHEN I WAS READING THIS AND IT'S JUST NOT 60 FEET WIDE.

AND IT'S KIND OF AN APPROVED ROAD BECAUSE IT IS PAVED.

I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE UNDERLAY -- UNDERBASE OF THAT ROAD MIGHT BE. BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THIS WERE TO GO TOWARDS APARTMENTS AS AN EXAMPLE I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT INGRESS AND EGRESS, UTILIZING MIDVILLE ROAD, IT IS AN UNIMPROVED ROAD TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, AND THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED TO THE WEST BY SINGLE FAMILY HOLMES. HOMES.

>> YES. >> AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LOOKING AT ZONING AND ANNEXING PROPERTIES LIKE THIS INTO THE CITY AND HAVE BEEN FOR AWHILE, WHEN IT'S SITTING IN A LOCATION THAT CAN DISTURB EXISTING AND LONG TERM COMMUNITIES.

THIS COMMUNITY IN THAT AREA HAS BEEN THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

AND I'M NOT OPPOSED TO CHANGE. >> I UNDERSTAND.

I THINK -- I GOT A LEVEL OF CONCERN.

>> SO CHAD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, CONSUME, WHAT WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER IS THAT THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE IS ALREADY IN PLACE. ON THESE PROPERTIES, WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WHETHER YOU'RE IN THE CITY OR THE COUNTY.

ONE CONSIDERATION THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL ZONING OR SORRY FUTURE LAND USE IS THE INTENSITY THAT THAT COULD CREATE.

AND YOU'LL SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THESE, ALL THE EIGHT PARCELS IN COORDINATION, YOU'LL SEIZE THE BIGGEST IMPACT OF THIS PROMOTE, THIS REQUEST IS THAT THERE'S A -- SEE THE BIGGEST IMPACT OF THIS PROMOTE, THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THIS STRETCH.

IT'S ALMOST 2 MILLION OR SO SQUARE FEET.

AND PART OF WHAT COMES WITH THAT COMMERCIAL OR THAT ENTITLEMENT TO RUN COMMERCIAL, IS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE FAR MORE

[00:15:01]

THAN YOU WOULD GET IF YOU HAD RESIDENTIAL.

WE ALSO HAVE AND THIS IS AN ANNEXATION TO START WITH AND IN OUR OCCASION A FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING, BUT WE HAVE THEN A CONTROL OVER SITE PLANNING, AND HOW ACCESS AND EGRESS IS CONTROLLED, OR MITIGATED. SO THERE IS OPTIONS DURING THAT PROCESS AND THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE SOME INPUT ON THAT ON THE VIABILITY OF THAT ADJACENT NORTH SOUTH ROID WAY, WHETHER THAT IS AVAILABLE OR NO, WHETHER THERE IS MITIGATION WITHIN THE SITE PLAN TO ADDRESS THE FRO PROMOTEF PROXIMITY TOTHE HOUSING DISTRICE WEST. THAT'S HOW WE GET INTO HOW STORM WATER IS TREATED AND HOW THE TRAFFIC IS --

>> IS NOT THERE. >> I KNOW THIS.

SO IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO ALSO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AS WE MOVE THROUGH THESE PIECES TO GET AN IDEA OF WHERE THAT'S GOING WITH

THE FLICT. APPLICANT. >> I AGREE.

AND BEING THAT WE HAVE NO PUBLIC RESPONSE, AND PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE DON'T REQUIRE SOON SIGNAGE AS STAGE, WHICH I THINK WE SHOULD REVISIT THE ORDINANCES CONCERNING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE STAGE THAT WE'RE AT NOW. BECAUSE IT IS UNFORTUNATE, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ACROSS THESE PARCELS, THERE IS ANOTHER ONE JUST SOUTH OF THE MITIGATION BOND, THAT LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THESE SPARMS ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED AS -- PARCEPARCELS, WE SHOULD LOOK INL FAIRNESS TO THE COMMUNITY HOW THEY'RE ALERTED OUTSIDE OF THE NEWSPAPER AND LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A PAGE AD THAT YOU CAN'T READ.

BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. THAT WITH THE PRESENT ZONING, MOST DISE DEFINITELY, IT COULD E COMMERCIAL, TRUCK TRAFFIC HAD WE'RE DEALING WITH, MR. BURDGE MADE A GOOD POINT TOO THAT THIS NARROW LEG THAT STICKS OUT ONTO MIDWAY ROAD COULD VERY EASILY BE THE INGRESS AND EGRESS. SHOULD THIS DEVELOP INTO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX AREA WHICH WITH 18 UNITS PER ACRE WE COULD EASILY SEE THAT TYPE OF THING HAPPENING.

AND I THINK BEING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC IN THE ROOM TODAY, I'LL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO STEP FORWARD AND PERHAPS CAN YOU ENTER INTO THIS CONVERSATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M BEGINNING TO GET VERY CONSCIOUS OF AND MORE AND MORE CONCERNED ABOUT AS WE'VE HAD THIS TREMENDOUS GROWTH IN FORT PIERCE, AS MOST COMMUNITIES HAVE HAD, IN RECENT MONTHS, IS I DON'T WANT TO SEE US GET TO A POINT THAT THE LAST CONVERSATION THAT'S HAD IS WITH THE COUNTY.

IN THIS CASE THE COUNTY RESPONDED AND IS CONCERNED, SHOWED LEVELS OF CONCERN ABOUT THE ROADWAYS IN THESE TWO AREAS, ONE ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 1, ONE ON THE WEST SIDE.

AND IT SHOULD BE RIGHTFULLY NOTED.

BUT I'D HATE TO SEE US WAIT UNTIL WE GOT INTO THE PLANNING STAIJTPLANNINGSTAGES WHERE WHATO WITH THESE ROADS? THAT'S ALMOST TOO LATE. COUNTY DOESN'T HAVE ANY MORE MONEY AVAILABLE TO RESURFACE AND WIDEN AND REDO ROADS THAN FORT PIERCE DOES. AND I THINK WE NEED BETTER COMMUNICATION FROM THE COUNTY SIDE TO US, AND FROM US TO THE COUNTY SIDE, AS WE SEE THESE PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD.

DID YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS?

>> I DIDN'T, MY COMMENT WOULD BE THE SAME ON EVERY ONE OF THESE.

IF YOU WANT ME TO WAIT IT WILL I CAN DO IT NOW, IF YOU WANT ME TO

ANSWER SOME OF YOUR QUESTIONS. >> I WANT TO YOU STATE JURY

NAME. >> I'M DON QUAZO, QUAZO PLANNING SOLUTION HE AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT, MR. WOOD FAMILY TRUST. MR. WOOD OWNS THE LEXUS

[00:20:02]

HE CAME TO ME AND SAID I WANT TO BE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

HE HAS ANOTHER PARCEL THAT DOESN'T SHOW BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

I THINK I WANTED TO GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION ABOUT THE ROADWAY. YOU MAY HAVE BEEN MEASURING THE ACTUAL DRIVE AISLE. IF YOU LOOK CIEK OF ON THAT ARROW KIND OF CLOSE CLI, KIND OF YELLOW LINES.

THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH.

>> RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH THERE. >> IS SMALL SOME THE DRIVE AISLE. AS YOU HAVE SAID, WE HAVE NOT STARTED ANY PLAQUE NOR ANYTHING ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

AS YOU ALL KNOW IT COST THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PRODUCE THOSE PLANS.

HE WANTED TO KNOW IF HE WAS WELCOME IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FIRST. THAT'S WHY WE ARE IN THIS ANNEXATION PROCESS. I CAN TELL YOU WE HAVE NOT DONE ANY PLANNING FOR THIS. AND AGAIN WHEN YOU ANNEX A PIECE OF PROPERTY, ANY OF THOSE CONCERNS YOU HAVE WOULD BE ADDRESSED AS WE'RE BRINGING SITE PLANS IN FOR YOUR APPROVAL OR DENIAL THAT IF IT IS IN THE COUNTY YOU DON'T GET THAT OPPORTUNITY. THE COUNTY WILL APPROVE SOMETHING AND YOU GET WHAT YOU GET.

SO I THINK IT ACTUALLY BEHOOVES THIS CITY TO HAVE THE CONTROL OVER NIECE PROCESSES. I THINK YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A BETTER PLANNING CRITERION IN THE CITY THAN IN THE COUNTY.

AND AGAIN THE TAX DOLLARS YOU'LL GENERATE WILL ACTUALLY COME INTO THE CITY IF IT'S DEVELOPED IN THE COUNTY, NO MONEY WILL GO.

AND WE WILL BE SIGNING THE UTILITY AGREEMENT.

OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO WANT UTILITIES FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, NOT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY.

I THINK IT'S A REQUIREMENT. >> IT'S A REQUIREMENT.

>> IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE SIGN THAT AGREEMENT SO WE WILL

BE DOING THAT. >> YOU HAVE THAT AT U.S. 1 AT

THE DEALERSHIP. >> AT THE LEXUS DEALERSHIP NOW.

>> DON'T MISUNDERSTAND MY CONCERNS --

>> THEY'RE VALID. >> I'LL USE JENKINS ROAD AS AN EXAMPLE. WE LEARNED JUST RECENTLY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE UNTIL 2026, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES. >> THAT THE COUNTY IS EVEN PREPARED TO START TO LOOK AT WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TO JENKINS ROAD TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC THAT WE'RE PUTTING ON IT WITH OUR DECISION BECAUSE IT IS A COUNTY ROAD.

THESE ARE COUNTY ROADS. AND BY ANNEXING AND GOING INTO SOME -- AT SOME POINT HERE, PLANNING OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD ON THIS, AND THE HIGH DENSITY OF RESIDENTIAL AS AN EXAMPLE, WHAT WE'RE SAYING TO THE COUNTY IS, WE'RE CREATING A PROBLEM FOR YOU COUNTY BY DOING THIS ALONG THIS COUNTY ROAD REGARDLESS WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPERTY IS ANNEXED INTO FORT PIERCE, THE COUNTY STILL HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ROAD.

SO IT'S EASY NOR US TO SAY OH YEAH, NO PROBLEM BUT THE COUNTY HAS GOT TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY.

FOR THE COUNTY TO BE FAIR WITH US AND US BEING FAIR WITH THE COUNTY WE NEED A GOOD JOB OF COMMUNICATION AND NOT TAKING ANY SHOT AT MR. FREEDMAN HE'S BRAND-NEW HERE OR ANY OF THE OTHER PAST DIRECTORS, FOR THAT MATTER, WE DON'T TEND TO DO A REAL GOOD JOB WITH THE COMMUNICATION CONCERNING HIGHWAYS AND ROADWAY SURFACES, AS WE'RE PUTTING OUR ANSWERS ESS

INTO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. >> ONE THING I WILL, IN MY 40 YEARS OF DOING THAT, THE MOST MAJOR PROBLEM IS AT INTERSECTIONS. WE AT LEAST NOW HAVE HAD AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE MIDWAY U.S. 1 INTERSECTION.

BUT THE INTERSECTIONS ARE FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS WILL ALWAYS BE

THE MAJOR PROBLEM. >> OH YEAH.

>> SO I DO SEE THAT. BEING -- THE GUY AT THE 7-ELEVEN YOU WORKED FOR HIM IN HIS EMINENT DOMAIN CASE, HE WASN'T HAPPY, HE LOST THERE BUT IT ACTUALLY MADE THE INTERSECTION A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER. I'LL JUST STAY UP HERE AND AS WE GO THROUGH IT, IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM. I LIKE THE WAY EVER DOING IT

ANYWAY. >> THERE ISN'T ANYONE HIRE TO STEP FORWARD AND HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY SO YOU'RE IN THE CAT BIRD

SEAT TOO. >> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION

[00:25:01]

I'M NEW SO I'M GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS.

IS THERE ANY MECHANISM IN OUR CAPACITY HERE TODAY TO APPROVE ANNEXATION INDEPENDENT FROM THE SPECIFIC ZONING TYPE REQUEST?

OR DO THEY HAVE TO GO TOGETHER? >> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SEPARATE ACTION HE HERE, REALLY. S HERE REALLY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE USUALLY GOES WITH THE ANNEXATION AND THEN THE ZONING WILL BE A SEPARATE CONSIDERATION AFTER.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> WOULD YOU BRING YOUR SLIDE UP MR. GIM MO GILMORE THAT SHOWS WR ACTION WILL BE ON WHAT WE'RE SPEAKING TO? THERE YOU GO.

THIS WOULD BE THE ACTION THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO US ON THIS

PROJECT -- >> AND LOOK AT THIS.

I SEIZE APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. I DON'T SEE ANY OPTION TO APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS OR APPROVE WITH COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS. WE LOOK AT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY VERSUS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WE'RE APPLES AND ORANGES WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IMPACT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

OBVIOUSLY, COMMERCIAL ZERO. EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE CRAZY INCREASE IN NUMBERS. BUT IF WE BOIL IT DOWN TO THE TWO CURRENTLY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, IF I LOOK AT PAGE 5 OF THE STAFF REPORT HERE, I BELIEVE PAGE 5 AND 6, SO I'M LOOKING AT THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL USE, DENSITIES AND MAX NUMBER OF UNITS FOR THE TWO URBAN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND I COME UP WITH AN INCREASE POTENTIALLY OF 120 UNITS BETWEEN THOSE TWO SETS OF PARCELS. THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT COULD BE BUILT THERE, RESIDENTIAL-WISE, NOW. MY QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT IS, WHAT JUSTIFIES THAT? SO WHAT IS IT IN YOUR PROPOSAL OR JURY PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE, THAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT YOU NEED THAT MANY UNITS? THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO APPLY WITH A MORE ANALOGOUS OR SIMILAR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY?

>> YEAH, WE WOULDN'T BE -- IF WE WERE ASKING FOR THE SAME DENSITY WE WOULD JUST STAY IN THE COUNTY.

I MEAN THERE'S NO POINT. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE GIANT LEXUS STORE AND ALL THE COMMERCIAL THERE, THE WHOLE AREA HAS CHANGED. YOU HAVE MAJOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT TO MIDWAY ROAD. THOSE THINGS STIMULATE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES AND PLANNING THAN WHAT WAS THERE WHEN THIS ZONING WAS PROBABLY PUT THERE 30 YEARS AGO. TIME OF CHANGE.

THE AREA'S CHANGING AND SO THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE PLANNING IS CHANGING ALSO FOR THE AREA.

THE RESIDENTS ALONG THAT ROAD WILL CERTAINLY BE ADDRESSED IN ANY DESIGN THAT OCCURS. I'M FROM -- I DO A LOT OF WORK IN NORTON COUNTY, SO VERY INTRENS LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WE HAVE TO SEPARATE, THAT'S IN MY HEAD.

SO AS WE GO INTO THE ASPECT, WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THAT WITH US AND SO WILL STAFF, THE EERIE REASON THESE THINGS ARE CHANGING NOW IS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A NEED OR A DESIRE FOR THAT LOW OF DENSITY OF HOUSING.

IT'S VERY, VERY EXPENSIVE. SUPER-EXPENSIVE.

AND THAT KIND OF HOUSING JUST WOULDN'T BE IN THE MARKETPLACE HERE. SO IT IS REALLY THE MATTER OF THE TIMING OF THIS THING. IF WE DID DEVELOP THIS 20 YEARS AGO, IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

I KNOW MY SON WON'T BUY A HOUSE, THEY LIVE IN APARTMENTS, I LIVE ON A SMALL URBAN LOT MYSELF. THAT IS BASICALLY MY ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION FOR YOU. FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, THE AREA HAS SEEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE AND THE MARKET HAS SIGN SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN HOUSING REQUESTS.

>> IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN AND PROBABLY NOT WRONG, FOR FUTURE ZONING WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR COMMERCIAL AS WELL WITHIN THAT ZONING OR S IS IT JUST RESIDENTIAL?

>> IT COULD BE A NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL USES.

>> OKAY. >> IF I MAY, I KNOW YOU ARE QUITE NEW TO THIS. SO WHEN STAFF ARE LOOKING AT THE IMPACTS, AND THERE IS SOMETIMES A DISCONNECT BETWEEN HEARING RESIDENTIAL AGAINST COMMERCIAL AND THINKING THAT THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE IS, TRAFFIC, WHATEVER

[00:30:10]

ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS IS WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITIES AROUND THAT, ON THE ROADWAYS AROUND THAT.

I'M NOT A TRANSPORT ENGINEER, BUT STANDARDS OF VOLUME TO TRAFFIC THAT OCCURS WHEN YOU HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MOVEMENT.

AND I DID SOME VERY QUICK CALCULATIONS AND I DIDN'T PULL OUT SEPARATE PARCELS IN EACH OTHER, I JUST DID AN OVERALL, THIS IS WHAT THESE EIGHT PARCELS IMPACT THESE EIGHT EX PARCEL ON THESE CITIES WOULD HAVE OFTEN TRAFFIC U.S. 1, MIDWAY, ALL THOSE BIG ROADWAY SYSTEMS. I CAME TO A NUMBER AND I THINK I'VE BEEN CONSERVATIVE, WHAT'S EXISTING TO WHAT IS BEING ASKED FOR YOU'RE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENTIAL OF AROUND 30,000 VEHICULAR MOVEMENTS PER DAY. BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER 2 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES.

SO STAFF HAVE BALANCED THAT REQUEST AND WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF HAVING A LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY AGAINST WHAT WILL BE A HIGHER USE BALANCE ID TO THAT.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE HAD A LARGE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN THAT LOCATION? THIS WOULD BE POTENTIALLY MUCH MORE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN THAT LOCATION.

THAT IS WHY STAFF HAS COME TO AN OPINION THAT IT IS PROBABLY WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THIS BUT I JUST WANTED TO EXPLAIN THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT WHEE WENT THROUGH WHEN WE'RE

LOOKING AT THAT. >> YOU'VE ESTIMATED 30,000, VEHICULAR MOVEMENTS PER DAY. IS BASED ON ALL EIGHT

PROPERTIES. >> AND THAT'S ON BALANCE BETWEEN WHAT YOU WOULD GET VEHICLE TRAFFIC OF THE RESIDENTIAL VERSUS THE VERK LAR TRAFFIC FROM THE COMMERCIAL.

MUCH MORE THAN 30,000 VEHICULAR TRIPS WOULD BE HAPPENING BUT THAT'S THE DIFFERENTIAL, THE INCREASED POTENTIAL BETWEEN

THOSE TYPES OF USES. >> OKAY.

DESTINY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOL NOT HEARING ANY --

>> I HAVE A COMMENT. WAITING OR THE THE WRAP UP HERE.

THE ANNEXATION FROM ST. LUCIE COUNTY INTO THE CITY ISN'T IT THE NORM THAT LIKE KIND ZONING IS APPLIED? SO YOU GOT AN R-1 ZONE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, YOU'RE ANNEXING IT THE IN R-1 IN FORT PIERCE TO BREAK THE DOWN TO A RUDE

IRUDIMENTARYBASIS? >> THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE LIKE FOR LIKE BUT WE HAVE DONE THAT.

WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THAT'S NORMALLY, A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT THAT YOU SEE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THAT ABUTS C-3 COMMERCIAL.

THAT IS SOMEWHAT OF A BUFFER BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS R-5. AND IF YOU REMEMBER CORRECTLY I THINK ON JENKINS WE HAVE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF R-5 NEXT TO THE C-3 AND WE WOULD NEVER PUT LOW DENSITY COMMERCIAL NEXT TO COMMERCIAL, DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.

R-4 TO R-5, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

>> YES. >> FOLLOW UP DOCUMENT THAT I

[00:35:01]

YES, I BELIEVE THE ANALYSIS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS CORRECT THAT THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS IF IT WOULD CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AND THIRDLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IN MY OPINION IS THE ABILITY TO CREATE AFTERNOON ABA AN ABUNDANE HOUSING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO WHETHER THOSE JOBS ARE BEING CREATED.

YOU CAN'T GET MUCH CLOSER TO WHERE 7,000 SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY IS CREATED NOT TO MENTION THE WAVE PARK, HAVING SAID THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE WHEN THEY COME IN FOR THIS SITE PLAN REVIEW, R-AND 5, IF YOU ARE SAYG THAT IS NOT MANDATE ID I'M GOOD.

IF THAT'S THE CASE THEN I DON'T CONTEMPLATE AN ISSUE.

IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? >> YES, THAT IS A VERY FAIR ASSESSMENT. ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS AND YOU GET MORE UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY.

THE COST OF DEVELOPING ONE OF THOSE UNITS WOULD BE LESS AND ECONOMY OF SCALE AND THAT THE RENTAL, THE SALE VALUE OF THOSE UNITS WOULD BE LOWER BECAUSE OF THAT WILL BE CONSTRAINED BY THE MARKET IN THAT WAY. STAFF, WHEN WE HAVE TO FOLLOW STATE STATUTE, WE CANNOT REQUIRE UNITS THAT ARE CERTAIN SPECIFICALLY AFFORDABLE OR LOW RATE RENTAL UNITS.

THAT'S STATE STATUTE. WE ENCOURAGE APPLICANTS TO DO THAT. THOUGH THERE ARE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALLOWANCES FOR DENSITY BONUSES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT ROUTE AS WELL.

IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT STAFF ARE UNWILLING TO DO OR UNWILLING TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS FOR. WE HAVE LIMITED LEGAL AUTHORITY THAT WE DON'T WANT TO COMPROMISE THE CITY'S STANDING IN THESE

PROCESSES. >> I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT.

JUST BY THE NATURE OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING YOU CAN SEE THE DIRECTION IT'S GOING. IT'S GOING TO BE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, APARTMENTS IS MOST LIKELY THE SCENARIO I WOULD SEE HERE. IF I WAS ON THE BODY AT THE TIME THAT THIS APPLICATION CAME IN CLEARLY YOU WOULD WANT YOUR ACCESS POINT OFF OF MIDWAY. A 65 FOOT THOROUGHFARE IS NOT GOING TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC LOAD THAT IS GOING TO BE GENERATED, IT WOULD BE UP TO THIS BODY TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.

>> HINT. >> YOUR ACCESS WAY SHOULD BE

FROM MIDWAY. >> ABSOLUTELY, VERY LOUD AND CLEAR. IT MAKES TOTAL PLANNINGS SENSE.

>> I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY PRUDENT MOVE ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO RECOMMEND GOING TO THE HIGHER DENSITY LEVEL THAN THE LIKE KIND EXCHANGE.

THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING TO THAT POINT.

R-1, R-2, WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE TO A LIKE KIND INTO THE CITY YOU WOULDN'T ACCOMPLISH ANY OF THIS.

YOU BASICALLY WOULD HAVE A BAG OF DIFFERENT NOT WORKABLE ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ON THIS VARIETY OF LOTS.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A GRAND SCHEME, I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT MOVE IN LIGHT OF THE FACT OF THE OTHER ISSUES AT PLAY HERE. AND JUST IN RECENT CONVERSATIONS THAT I'VE HAD WITH FOLKS THAT HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE OF THIS THAN I DO, THAT THIS WORKFORCE HOUSING SCENARIO IN THE CITY OF

[00:40:05]

WALL. >> YES.

>> AND THERE'S A EXTREME SHORTAGE OF HOUSING TO PROVIDE FOR WORKERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SOLICITED TO WORK IN ALL THESE COMPANIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOCATING VERY SOON AND WITH THE FUTURE PLANS OUT ON KINGS HIGHWAY FOR MULTIMILL SQUARE FEET OF PROPERTY COMING ON, IF WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. SO I GET IT.

IT'S ALL PROFIT-GENERATED AT THE END OF THE DAY, BY THEY WANT THE DENSITY BUT WE NEED THE DENSITY. SO IN THIS CASE I SEE WHERE THE CITY'S NEED AND THE DEVELOPER'S DESIRE ARE UNIFORM AT THIS JUNCTURE. ONCE AGAIN SUBJECT TO THEIR SITE PLAN. THAT'S ALL I GOT.

>> THE PLANNING BOARD CAN MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDING THAT ANY SIDE PLAN USE THE ACCESS FROM MIDWAY.

AND ANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY SEE FIT.

OBVIOUSLY, IT IS ADVISORY, BUT IT'S USUALLY LOOKED AT VERY CAREFULLY BY CITY COMMISSION IF IT MOVES FORWARD TO THE CITY

COMMISSION. >> THAT WOULD BE SUITABLE WITH THIS FI CONFIGURATION OF PROPERTIES.

IF WE LOOK NOW AT THE NEXT PROPERTY DOWN IS PROBABLY THE

NEXT ONE ON YOUR LIST. >> YES.

>> IT IS SOUTH OF THE MITIGATION POND.

THERE IS LINKAGE WITH A COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE MITIGATION FOND THAT CAN LINK THIS CONFIGURATION OF

PROPERTIES WITH THE NEXT ONE. >> YES.

>> AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE BACK OF YOUR --

>> YES, THAT LITTLE STRIP. >> YES, NO, I'VE SEEN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. LIKE I SAID WE'VE NOT SAT DOWN AND DONE ANY REAL PLANNING OTHER THAN --

>> I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO PLAN FOR YOU.

>> VERY EVIDENT -- RIGHT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT ROADWAY. I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH MANY CONSTRAINED ROADWAYS LIKE THAT. AND ANY TIME I DON'T HAVE TO PUT TRAFFIC ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S ROAD LIKE THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN THERE

FOREVER, THAT'S LIKE A DRIVEWAY. >> YES.

>> I'M CERTAINLY WILLING TO LOOK AT ANYTHING.

>> PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO GET A

WHACK AT THIS ONE. >> YOU'LL ALL SEE ME AGAIN, TRUST ME. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYBODY IN HERE AND YOUR STAFF DON'T ROLL OVER AT ALL BY THE WAY,

SO -- >> THAT IS A GOOD THING.

I THINK WE'VE GOT A PHENOMENAL STAFF.

>> YOU DO HAVE A PHENOMENAL STAFF.

>> THEY TAKE SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY WELL AND THE

APPLICANT. >> VERY RESPONSIVE WHICH IS ALL THAT AN APPLICANT EVER COULD ASK FOR.

>> ANY TIME I'VE ASKED AN APPLICANT IF THEY WERE HAPPY WITH THEIR MOST THEY'VE GOT BIG SMILES AND I HOPE YOU ARE TOO.

>> IF YOU DO ALL THE WORK IN THIS COUNTY THIS IS A JOY.

>> I HADN'T BEEN APPROVED YET.

>> I THINK THAT ATTACHING REQUIREMENTS TO THIS, AT THIS POINT, IS FREE MATURE BUT IF THAT'S WHAT A MOTION MAKER WOULD LIKE TO DO, THAT'S FINE. IS THERE ANY OTHER CONVERSATION?

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. SINCE YOU NORMALLY BRING IT UP I'LL BRING IT UP. WHERE IS ALL THE DRAIFN AN FOR

THIS DISPLAY ALL END UP GOING? >> IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WHATEVER YOUR REQUIREMENTS ARE.

IF WE HAVE A DISCHARGE WE'LL HAVE A DISCHARGE, IF WE DON'T HAVE A DISCHARGE, WE'LL MAINTAIN IT ON SITE.

>> I'M NOT GOING TO SAY A WORD. >> THE F FLOW, I'M SURPRISED THIS WARRANT PART OF WHITE CITY, IT WOULD HAVE OUTFLOWS INTO THE WHITE CITY WATERSHED. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, NOT HEARING ANY I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. CLEMONS, SECOND BY MR. ALBURY. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> ROLL CALL ] >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S ONE. NEXT ITEM.

>> YOUR NEXT ITEM IN PARCEL IS ONE PARCEL, LOCATED JUST TO THE SOUTH. THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS PUBLIC FACILITY ST. LUCIE COUNTY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING HIGH DENSITY, AND THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS APPROXIMATELY

[00:45:06]

SO TECHNICALLY OUTRIGHT, IT'S ONLY ALLOWED BETWEEN 12 TO 15 BUT IN THE FUTURE LAND USE IT GIVES KIND OF A -- I GUESS COULD YOU SAY A SCALE OF WHERE IT COULD GO.

THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, ALLOWS FOR ZERO UNITS PER ACRE, UNLESS PROVIDED FOR SPECIFIC DESIGNATIONS ONLY.

I DIDN'T SEE WHAT THEY MEANT BY THAT BUT IT DID STATE THAT UNDER SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THERE COULD BE UNITS.

AND THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS CONSIDERED TO BE SUITABLE HAVING EXAMINED THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND NATURAL SOILS, STAFF REPRESENTS THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND YOUR POSSIBLE ACTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILMORE?

>> I HAVE ONE. THAT IS THE, IN -- NO I'M GOING TO JUMP AHEAD. IF SITE PLAN WAS GOING TO BE BROUGHT IN FOR R-5 HIGH DEFENSITY RESIDENTIAL USE, COMBINING BOTH TRACTS IN THE ENTIRETY, WOULD THAT REQUIRE A

UNITY OF TITLE, ONE SITE PLAN? >> THE ONES TO THE NORTH?

>> YES. >> YES.

>> IF THEY WERE GOING TO BE JOINED IN SOME CAPACITY?

YET THIS IS TWO DIFFERENT -- >> CORRECT.

>> IN SOME CAPACITY THEY WANTED TO JOIN THEM IT WOULD REQUIRE UNITY OF TITLE OR TO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, THOSE

PARTICULAR LOTS, UNITY OF TITLE? >> CORRECT.

>> BEFORE A SITE PLAN COULD BE, OR THAT WOULD BE A STIPULATION

FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL? >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> IN REGARDS TO THAT, NOW I THINK WHO OWNS THAT RETENTION FONT IS IMPORTANT.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU MADE MENTION THAT MAYBE YOU COULD

FINDER THAT OUT. >> I THINK IT IS D.O.T.

>> THE D.O.T. OWNS THAT? >> I BELIEVE SO.

>> ALL RIGHT. WHY WOULD DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OAFN SOMETHING SO FAR AWAY FROM A FEDERAL HIGHWAY?

>> I DON'T KNOW, IF THEY HAVE A PIPE THAT RUNS FROM U.S. 1 TO --

>> I THINK IT'S SOMETHING AROUND THE AREA, THEY JUST RECENTLY RENOVATED THE MITIGATION ACTUALLY.

>> MITIGATION POND JUST TO THE EAST OF THE ONE WE BELIEVE IS

D.O.T? >> I COULD CHECK.

>> IS THAT PART OF THE -- >> THAT LITTLE ONE, OKAY I SEE

THE LITTLE ONE. >> I SEE THERE'S A SMALL ONE

BEHIND IT. >> MR. WEDGE OWNS THAT VACANT COMMERCIAL IN FRONT OF IT THAT GOES OUT TO U.S. 1.

THE LITTLE BUILDING YOU SEE IN THE AREA, HE OANGS THAT PARCEL

TOO. >> OWNS THAT TOO.

>> AND SUNRISE FORD THAT THE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF IT?

>> NO -- >> OR IS THAT THE BUICK

DEALERSHIP? >> I DON'T REMEMBER.

I DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS A CAR DEALERSHIP RIGHT THERE TO THE SOUTH. I THINK IT'S FURTHER SOUTH THAT THE DEALERSHIP, AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE PICTURE.

>> THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THE LEXUS DEALER, THAT

USED TO BE A PAWN SHOP. >> I THINK THERE WERE A CAR DEALERSHIP ON IT AT ONE TIME BUT THERE'S NOTHING ON IT RIGHT NOW.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE USE OF THAT PARCEL BUT HE WAS WAITING UNTIL HE HAD ALL THIS INFORMATION, ALL THESE PARCELS TOGETHER TO SEE HOW HE WAS GOING TO HANDLE THAT.

I THOUGHT WE OWNED THAT PARCEL THERE, THAT POND.

BUT I'M NOT SURE BECAUSE -- >> IT'S NOT THAT POND THERE, IT'S THAT POND.

I THINK WE ACTUALLY OWN THAT PARCEL, IT IS HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF AND IT MAY ALREADY BE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, BECAUSE AND SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO ANNEX IT. SO WHY IT WASN'T INCLUDED, I DON'T REMEMBER. I DO THINK WE OWN THAT PARCEL SO WE COULD CONNECT THE TWO. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY --

>> IT MAY BE CONNECTED. >> AND THEY MAY BE CONNECTED.

>> THAT MAY BE THE OUTFLOW TO THE STATE POND FROM YOUR -- AND

THE SMALL POND IS -- >> FROM OUR LEXUS DEALERSHIP INTO THAT. THE STATE NEVER ALLOWS YOU TO GO INTO THEIR PONDS. WHEN THEY CREATE THEM FOR A ROAD RIGHT AWAY, MAINTENANCE, YOU CAN'T PUT A DROP OF WATER IN THEM. THEY USUALLY HAVE A FENCE AROUND

[00:50:01]

>> THERE'S NO FENCE AROUND THAT ONE.

>> THEY DO NOT ALLOW YOU BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CAPACITY ANALYSIS THAT THEY DID WHEN THEY BUILT THAT FOR WHATEVER DRAINAGE THEY ARE HAVE, THERE IS NO WAY, IT'S LIKE TRYING TO GET A RAILROAD CROSSING, YOU'RE NOT GOING GETTING IN THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER CONVERSATION REGARDING

THIS PARCEL OF PROPERTY? >> JUST A COMMENT RELATIVE TO DENSITY AND ROAD ACCESS, IF THESE LOTS ARE NOT ADJACENT TO ONE ANOTHER WHEN THIS DOES COME IN FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW THAT ROAD IS GOING TO BECOME PROBLEMATIC.

ALTHOUGH I SEE A NICE SOLUTION GOING OUT TO U.S. 1.

>> WE DO OWN THAT PROPERTY. >> THAT'S ANOTHER HINT.

>> I HEAR YOU. THAT'S 80 MENTIONED IT, BECAUSE

YOU COULD HEAR YOU THINK. >> ANY OTHER CONVERSATION? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. CLEMONS FOR APPROVAL SECOND BY MR. BRODERICK -- BY MR. BURDGE.

HE'S GOING TO PUT AN X ON THE PAPER FOR ME.

I GOT ONE X ALREADY. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> MS. CLEMONS, YES, MR. BRODERICK, YES, MR. EDWARDS, YES, MR. KREISL, YES, MR. ALBURY, YES, MR. BURDGE, YES, MA'AM, CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER, YES.

THE NEXT ITEM IS EAST OF 1 THEN. >> LOCATED EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 1, 9.73 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES, CURRENTLY HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE RESIDENTIAL, NINE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING RH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, CURRENT ZONING IS RS 4 SINGLE FAMILY FOUR UNITS PER ACRE DONOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE R-5 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

ZONE. >> CONVERSATION, QUESTIONS?

>> DO YOU GUYS ALSO OWN THE LAND LEFT TO?

>> YES WE DO. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE. IT IS VERY ODD, THERE IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT COMES IN ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE THAT KIND OF SEPARATES THESE TWO PIECES.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE GO IN THAT WE WON'T BE ASKING ST.

LUCIE COUNTY TO ABANDON THAT PIECE THAT SEPARATES US.

>> JOIN THEM TOGETHER? >> AND JOIN THEM TOGETHER.

WE DO HAVE THAT PIECE IN THE FRONT YOU'LL SEE NEXT, THAT'S THE FEES THAT HAS COMMERCIAL STILL THAT WE DECIDED TO LEAVE COMMERCIAL ON IT. THIS IS A GREAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S SQUARE, IT'S GOT GREAT ACCESS. IT'S EVERYTHING ABOUT IT IS GOOD. AND SO I THINK THAT YOU MAY SEE THIS PIECE FIRST IN THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

>> QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

>> MY ONLY CONCERN WHEN BUILDING HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEXT TO LOW DENSITY IS THAT THE, DEPENDING ON HOW HIGH YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BUILD, PROBABLY THREE, THREE STORIES OR HIGHER?

>> FOUR. >> FOUR.

THAT YOU KIND OF WANT A BUFFER BETWEEN --

>> YES. >> -- ALL OF THAT NOT ONLY WITH JUST TREES BUT MAYBE, AND I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY TOO TAR AHEAD IN TALKING ABOUT THIS. BUT LIKE HAVING SOME FORM OF LIKE TWO STORIES AND THEN BUILD UP TO FOUR STORIES, RATHER THAN LIKE OVERCASTING WITH THESE STORIES BUILT NEXT TO ALL OF

THEM. >> I LIKE TO CREATE A BUILDING THAT LIKE TURNS BALCONIES WHICH IS THE INTRUSIVE PART TO A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING ON, I LIKE TO TURN THE BALCONIES INTERIOR TO THE PROJECT, LOOKING TO THEMSELVES INSIDE, AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING DOWN ON THEIR NEIGHBOR.

WE WILL BE VERY COGNIZANT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.

YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO HAVE A LOT TO SAY AND SO WILL STAFF ON THESE DESIGNS GOING FORWARD. IF YOU DON'T HAVE DENSITY WE CAN'T CREATE HOUSING THAT IS ANYWHERE NEAR, IT IS ALREADY CRAZY AS IT IS. I DON'T KNOW HOW KIDS DO IT TODAY ACTUALLY. I'M OLD I DON'T --

>> I'M DONE WITH IT ALL. I'M WITH YOU.

>> 75 FOOT, I MEAN I DOWNSIZE. I LOVE IT, TAKES ME FIVE MINUTES

TO CUT MY GRASS! >> I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES MY PEOPLE TO CUT THE GRASS.

[00:55:08]

>> EXERCISE. >> JUST READY TO CHECK.

OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> I'LL MOVE APPROVAL ON THIS

ONE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. BURDGE SECOND BY MR. ALBURY. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> MR. BRODERICK, YES, MR. EDWARDS, YES, MR. KREISL, YES, MR. ALBURY, YES, MR. BURDGE, YES, MS. CLEMONS, YES, CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. YES.

>> I BELIEVE THE NEXT ITEM IS GOING TO ENCOMPASS TWO PARCELS.

AND IT WILL BE THE LAST. >> THE LAST ITEM ENCOMPASSES TWO PARCELS LOCATED JUST TO THE EAST OF SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1.

IT IS. 8.63 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES AND THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE FOR BOTH OF THESE PARCELS IS COMMERCIAL, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A -- I'M SORRY, COMMERCIAL C -- 3 COMMERCIAL OFF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE, CURRENT ZONING IS COMMERCIAL OFFICE ZONE AND COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ST. LUCIE COUNTY. THEY ARE PROPOSING C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THAT'S A TYPO, SORRY.

>> YES, CHAD, THESE PARTICULAR LOTS ARE REMAINING IN COMMERCIAL

USE. >> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> CAN YOU RUN THAT ONE BY ME AGAIN?

>> THESE ARE GOING TO COMMERCIAL.

BUT THERE'S A TYPO. I PUT R-5.

>> BUT IT'S C-1. >> IT'S CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL, THIS IS CORRECT. SO IT'S CURRENTLY COMMERCIAL ST.

LUCIE COUNTY. AND THE CITIES PROPOSED IS INCORRECT. SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO GO TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL, FUTURE LAND USE AND C-3.

WHICH IS ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 1. >> COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BURDGE, SECONDED BY MS. CLEMONS. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> MR. EDWARDS. YES, MR. KREISL, YES, MR. ALBURY, YES, MR. BURDGE, YES, MA'AM, NEW CLEMENTZ, YES, MR. BRODERICK, YES. CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.

YES. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING OUT HERE FOR JUST ME, I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH.

>> WE APPRECIATE JURY APPLICATION.

NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, THERE ARE NO PUBLIC. I THINK THE PUBLIC IS JUST LEAVING. HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON.

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

DIRECTOR'S REPORT? >> THANK YOU CHAIR.

A FEW ITEMS TODAY FOR YOU. I DID SPEAK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON BRINGING FORWARD A PRESENTATION ON SUNSHINE.

THEY'RE WORKING ON THAT, HOPEFULLY AT THE NOVEMBER ONE,

PROVIDING WE HAVE A SLOT FOR IT. >> OKAY.

>> WE MIGHT BE VERY BUSY IN NOVEMBER BY THE LOOK OF WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS AT THE MOMENT. STAFF ARE ALSO WORKING WITH THE ATTORNEY ON THE EDGARTOWN CODE AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT TO THE NOVEMBER PLANNING BOARD SO YOU'LL SEE SOMETHING COME FORWARD WITH THAT. STAFF ARE ALSO WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS ON THE CITY PORT, A NEW FUTURE LAND USE ON THAT.

IT'S BEEN IN THE DEPARTMENT FOR A WHILE.

WE'VE HAD SOME GOOD DISCUSSIONS RECENTLY WITH STAKEHOLDERS IN THAT JUDICIARY AND HOPEFULLY, WE'LL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH SOMETHING SOON ON THAT. WE ALSO, AND I KNOW THE CHAIR IS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THE NEXT PIECE OF NEWS I HAVE OR WILL BE.

THE CITY HAS SET UP AN INTERNAL WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS THE ISSUES OF ANNEXATIONS, AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS, SPECIFICALLY IN THE JENKINS ROAD AREA AND ALONG THERE.

AND ALSO, IN RESPECT OF STORM WATER AS A WHOLE WHAT SORT OF IMPACTS THAT'S HAVING, WHAT SORT OF CONTROLS OR ISSUES CAN WE ADDRESS AS STAFF IN THAT PROCESS.

NICHELLE, WINITIALLY, WHAT WE WS SET UP A STRATEGY FROM POIFNL FROM BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS, WE'LL BE WORKING WITH THE PLANNING

[01:00:02]

AND ALSO TAKING YOUR ADVICE IN MAKING THAT COMMUNICATION AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. AND UNDERSTANDING EACH ENTITY'S STRATEGY ON THESE THINGS AND HOW WE CAN HELP EACH OTHER SETTLE

THESE THINGS. >> THAT WOULD BE EXCELLENT.

>> SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT AND I'M QUITE EXCITED AND IT WILL START TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES AS WE'RE DEALING WITH THESE ITEMS.

>> VERY GOOD. >> AND TAKING MR. BRODERICK'S COMMENTS ALSO TO HEART, STAFF ARE ALWAYS, ALWAYS SEEKING WAYS TO PROVIDE WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY.

WE UNDERSTAND FROM A PLANNING POINT OF VIEW IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A BALANCE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY AND COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE. WE NEED TO HAVE THAT BALANCE AND AT THE MOMENT WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.

THERE IS A LACK IN THE MARKET FOR A DEMAND IN THE MARKET FOR RESIDENTIAL TO SUPPLY THESE COMMERCIAL USES.

AND THAT'S PART OF BEING A VIABLE CITY, A VIABLE COMMUNITY.

AND SO NOTWITHSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SEEING TODAY, STAFF ARE WORKING HINDER THE SCENES IN ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE DEVELOPERS TO MOVE MORE INTO PROVIDINGS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING, SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOME APPLICATIONS THAT COME THERE AND UTILIZE THAT PROVISION.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION RELATED TO THAT.

ONE OF THE AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN A DISCUSSION POINT RECENTLY IS IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH FPOA RELATIVE TO THEY HAVE A MATRIX THEY USE FOR DENSITY OF POWER, DISTRIBUTION AND GENERATION, AND APPARENTLY THE CITY OF TORPTS IS AT THE LOWER END OF THAT THRESHOLD AND THAT IS IN ESSENCE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF INFILL LOTS, VACANT INFILL LOTS WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES.

NOW THE DISCUSS AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE IS THAT WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO AS A CITY TO INCREASE THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THOSE INFILL LOTS AND GET WORKFORCE HOUSING CONSTRUCTED ON THOSE LOTS? I KNOW THAT THE CITY HAS DOCUMENTED SOME TYPE OF LESSENING OF IMPACT FEES, ET CETERA. IN YOUR WIDE RANGING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY, I THINK IT MIGHT BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO RAISE THE SPECTER OF THE COUNTY REDUCING ITS IMPACT FEES TO BE ABLE TO GET THESE LOTS GENERATING A TAX REVENUE BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY CREATE ADDITIONAL INFILL HOUSING.

IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE THE EASIEST WAY OF GOING ABOUT THIS.

AND BASED ON THE PARAMETERS THAT FPOA IS QUOTING, WE HAVE MORE THAN AN ABUNDANCE, WE ARE ACTUALLY AN ANOMALY TO A CERTAIN EXTENT WITH THE NUMBER OF INFILL AND THE LOW LOW DENSITY AND THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO BROACH FROM THE COUNTY'S PERSPECTIVE AS THE COUNTY APPARENTLY IS ADVOCATING THAT THEY HAVE THEIR COFFERS ARE CURRENTLY FULL, WE COULD POTENTIALLY REDUCE THOSE FEES AND GET SOME REDUCTION GOING ON THESE LOTS TO PROVIDE THAT TYPE OF PRODUCT. THAT WAS JUST A COMMENT THAT

WARRANTS DISCUSSION. >> WE'LL MOVE THAT FORWARD.

>> MR. GILMORE, SOMETIME AGO, WE, I SAY WE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WORKED ON THE PROGRAM TO INCREASE DENSITY ON INFILL

LOTS. >> YES.

>> DID THAT INCLUDE ALL THE LOTS ACROSS THE CITY THAT WERE OWNED BY THE CITY? OR IS THAT SPECIFIC-WAS THAT

SPECIFIC TO A CERTAIN AREA? >> WELL IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THERE WAS JUST DISCUSSION. WE NEVER MADE ANY AMENDMENT TO THE CODE. I THINK THE ONLY AMENDMENT WAS TO ALLOW FOR DUPLEXES ON MORE LOTS.

THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WAS DONE.

>> THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO A CERTAIN AREA, WAS IT NOT?

>> NO, IT WAS THROUGHOUT CITY. >> SO THE DUPLEXES COULD BE PUT

ON ANY LOT? >> ON ANY LOT THAT DOESN'T MEET OUR REQUIRED DIMENSIONS, THAT SOMEONE WOULD BE OUTRIGHT PERMITTED TO BUILD THE DUPLEX. CURRENTLY, IF THE CITY, YOU DON'T ME THE DIMENSION YOU COULDN'T BUILD A DUPLEX, YOU ONLY CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

WE ELIMINATED THAT, BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE I GUESS

MAKING THAT MUCH OF A MOVEMENT. >> IT'S A SHAME NOT REALLY

[01:05:03]

>> YES. >> THEY MIGHT BE TITLED LOTS OR APPROVED LOTS IN THAT CAPACITY BUT DOES THAT ALSO PROVIDE A DELAY IN THE PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO GET SOMETHING APPROVED? LET'S SEE YOU HAVE A C-1 LOT, DOESN'T MEET THE MASSING, DOESN'T HAVE THE FRONTAGE ET CETERA.

YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT IF IT'S A LAW OF

RECORD. >> NOT WITH COMMERCIAL.

I THINK YOU'RE HITTING THE RIGHY THE RIGHT LIKE ISSUES, A LOT OF THE NONCONFORMING LOTS ARE IN OUR OLDER AREAS AND BECAUSE OF THAT IF THEY DON'T MEET CERTAIN THINGS THEY'RE EITHER UNABLE TO BUILD, OUR CURRENT CODE IS MORE SUBURBAN AND IT DOESN'T ENFIT SOME OF THOSE OLDER LOTS. SO YEAH.

>> THERE'S TRACTS OF LAND OF LOTS THAT DON'T MEET THE

DMEDIMENSION -- >> LOTS ARE REALLY SMALL, YEAH.

>> THOSE LOTS OVER THERE DO NOT MEET ANY OF THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS A PROBLEM.

IT'S A BIG PROBLEM. >> SOMETHING FOR TO YOU WORK ON

IN THE FUTURE. >> GOING RIGHT BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD HERE. IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BECAUSE YOU COULD HAVE SOME TYPE OF MEET THE MAJORITY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IN FILL LOT BUT IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE SITE PARAMETERS YOU ARE BASICALLY, KEEP IT AS A GREEN SPACE AND THAT'S AN ISSUE IN DELAWARE AVENUE, ORANGE AVENUE, AVENUE D, ALL THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ANTIQUATED, OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DO NOT MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO IT'S A VERY INTERESTING PARADOX THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN SOME CAPACITY.

TODAY IS NOT THE DAY TO FIX THAT PROBLEM.

>> WAS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER? >> NO THANK YOU CHAIR.

>> I'M HAPPY TO LEARN THAT WE'VE GOT SOME MOVEMENT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, CONCERNING THE SUNSHINE LAW.

IN THAT SAME DISCUSSION I'D LIKE TO TRY TO INCLUDE DISCUSSION OF RECUSALS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT DISCUSSION CONCERNING HOW TO RECUSE OR WHEN YOU SHOULD RECUSE YOURSELF HAS GOT OONGOTTEN A LITTLE MUDDY. THE STATE STATUTE IS PRETTY CLEAR BUT FOR SOME REASON IN CITY DISCUSSION IT'S GOTTEN A LITTLE MUDDY. I HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

TO START OFF THE BOARD COMMENTS. I SAW A DOCUMENT COME ACROSS MY COMPUTER FROM THE CITY ABOUT THE EMPHASIS TO TRY TO GO INTO A PAINTING PROGRAM WHERE PEOPLE COULD HELP GET THEIR COST REIMBURSED FOR PAINTING LOODGES THE ORANGE AVENUE CORRIDOR.

THE PARTICIPANT I DIDN'T SEE IS WHO MAKES THE DECISION ON

COLORS? >> WE'RE JUST HAVING THE

DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. >> I UNDERSTAND THE CULTURE OF THE COMMUNITY ALONG ORANGE AVENUE AND THE HAITIAN COMMUNITY AND SO ON. I UNDERSTAND THE TONES THAT THE COLOR AND THE TONES THAT SOME OF THESE COMMUNITIES LIKE.

BUT IF WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP A CORRIDOR THAT HELPS CREATE, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO CREATE FOR THE CITY AS AN ENTRANCE TO THE CITY, COLOR NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED TOO.

NOT TO TAKE AWAY FROM THE CULTURE AND I'M PROBABLY STEPPING IN SOME THIN ICE HERE WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS.

BUT IT NEEDS TO BE TALKED ABOUT. >> WHY DON'T YOU --

>> I DON'T MIND TALKING ABOUT IT.

HECK IF I LOSE MY JOB, THAT'S OKAY, YOU CAN TAKE IT.

>> I DEFINITELY DISAGREE WITH YOU AGREE WITH YOUWHEN YOU TALK.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A DIVERSE LOOK IN OUR COMMUNITY SO THINKING ABOUT COLOR SCHEME, MATERIALS THAT'S BEING UNIVERSITY SHOULD COME INTO PLAY AND IT SHOULDN'T BE TAKEN LIGHTLY.

ESPECIALLY WHEN NEW DEVELOPMENTS COME ALONG WITHIN THAT.

YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING EXTREMELY MODERN WITHIN THAT REDEVELOPMENT. IT NEEDS TO MEET A CERTAIN CRITERIA. SO WITHIN OUR OWN CODING, I THINK WE SHOULD BE MOVING DEEP INTEER TERINTO THAT, BIG BUILDIS SMALL BUILDING. WHAT DOES THE FACADE LOOK LIKE, HOW DOES THIS IMPACT NOT CARS BUT HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE CITIZEN THAT'S WALKING WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE DO SOMEWHAT OF A GOOD JOB WITH PEACOCKS AND HAVING LIKE THE PEACOCK DISTRICT AND PEACOCKS BEING DRAN EVERYWHERE

[01:10:01]

>> I JUST THOUGHT I'D MENTION PAINT AS AN EXAMPLE AND I'M GLAD

WE ARE DISCUSSING THAT. >> DISCUSSING IT IN TWO DIRECTIONS REALLY. BECAUSE IF THE PROGRAM AFFECTS A HISTORIC BUILDING, THERE MAY BE REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT GOES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD. I WOULD LIKE FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW TO HAVE A ECONOMY OF SCALE HERE AND HAVE A COLOR PALLET THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR MAYBE THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD IN RESPECT TO THOSE PROPERTIES WOULD ENABLE A FAST STRIKE PROCESS, FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE POINT OF VIEW, DEALING WITH THE APPLICATIONS IF WE ALREADY KNEW THEY WERE ON TRACK AN EVERYTHING IS ON LINE TO BE APPROVED THEN I'D RATHER NOT HOLD SOMEBODY ON MY DESK FOR THREE OR FIVE DAYS, UNTIL WE GET TIME TO SIGN OFF ON IT THAT THEY ALREADY KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET APPROVAL. AND IT'S THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES THAT ARE RUNG THIS PROGRAM AND THEY KNOW THAT THEY'RE TELLING THEIR CLIENTS, THEIR APPLICANTS THE CORRECT INFORMATION. AND I'D RATHER NOT SEE PAPER FLYING ALL OVER THE CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT COLOR YOU CAN USE.

IN PEOPLE IF PEOPLE ARE ALREADYF WE HAVE A PALLET SOMEWHERE --

>> MY BUILDING AT THE CORNER OF SEVENTH AND ORANGE IS IN THE PEACOCK DISTRICT AND OUR COLOR SCHEME HAD TO BE APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION. WE LOOKED AT THE PLOTS AROUND OUR COLOR SCHEME DID NOT MEET THE COLOR PALLET THAT WAS BEING

SUGGESTED. >> WE NEED TO HAVE APPROVED A

COLOR PALLET FOR NEIGHBORHOOD. >> YOU I WOULD HAVE TO CALL

HISTORIC PRESERVATION. >> THEN ONCE THAT'S APPROVED THEN PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD BE AWARE OF WHAT COLORS THEY COULD USE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO TO THE HISTORIC --

>> ESPECIALLY ONE-OFFS WHERE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN APPROVED WITH A SPECIFIC SCHEME BUT THERE'S GOT TO BE A PATH TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT APPROVED TOO THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

>> EXACTLY. IT'S PROVIDING A FAST TRACK FOR CERTAIN PIECES. IF PEOPLE WANT TO DEPART FROM THAT AS MOST CASES IN ANY PLANNING RELATED DECISION THEY CAN COME AND ASK OR THE A VARIANCE OR AN ADJUSTMENT TO WHICH OUR BOARD IS RESPONSIBLE. IS SO IT IS NOT A STRAIGHTFORWARD PIECE BUT IF I CAN FIND AN ELEMENT THAT CAN BE MADE TO BE STRAIGHTFORWARD, I'D LIKE TO DO THAT.

>> AS LONG AS YOU ARE LEAVING A PATH FOR ONE OFFICE TO DEAL WITH. WE'RE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION, WE DON'T MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT PROGRAM SO WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE AN ALTERNATE PATH TO GO DOWN IF WE CHOOSE TO GO THERE.

AS LONG AS THERE IS A MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT.

VERY GOOD IDEA. >> OKAY.

THE OTHER THING IS HOLIDAY. TODAY IS -- THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE'S DAY. BUT I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO CELEBRATE AS COLUMBUS DAY. I MEAN, I'M STRUGGLING WITH SOME OF THESE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING.

I'M OLD AND CRANKY WHIT COMES TS TO THAT.

PERHAPS AN ENGLISH TEACHER SO HELP IN THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT COLUMBUS. BY THE TIME WE GOT MEAN TO THE AMERICAN INDIANS, COLUMBUS WENT BACK TO ITALY.

HE WASN'T EVEN IN AMERICA ANYMORE.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE PICKING ON THE POOR GUY.

BUT THAT GETS INTO THE POLITICAL SIDE A LITTLE BIT BUT I'M OKAY

WITH THAT. >> THAT'S NOT PLANNING BOARD? OUR ELECTION IS COMING UP ON NOVEMBER 8TH.

AND NOR DISTRICT 2 IT'S AN FORTUNATEIMPORTANT ELECTION, I .

I'M JUST ASKING ALL OUR CITIZENRY THAT MAY BE LISTENING TO THIS OR WATCHING THIS ON VIDEO TO PLEASE REMEMBER TO GO OUT AND VOTE IF YOU HAVEN'T YET AND PLEASE MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION, WHATEVER THAT DECISION IS FOR YOU.

WE HAVE A PHONE LIST, I THINK ALICIA OF OUR MERKS?

>> YES WE DO. >> HAS THAT BEEN UPDATED?

>> IT HAS. >> DOES IT ALSO INCLUDE

MR. FREEMAN'S NUMBER ON IT? >> NO, JUST THE BOARD MEMBERS.

[01:15:02]

>> WE HAD A LIST AT ONE TIME THAT INCLUDED THE PHONE NUMBERS OF THE COMMISSIONERS, AND THE DIRECTOR AND THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR. AND WE'VE NOT -- NOT PUBLISHING

THAT ANY LONGER IS THAT RIGHT? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT LITS.

>> I KNOW WHEN I CALM A COMMISSIONER NOW IT GOES TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. SO THERE IS A BUFFER TRYING TO

REACH THE COMMISSIONERS. >> THAT'S JUST FOR YOU.

WELL BE.BUT IF WE COULD I'D LIKE BOARD TO KNOW HOW TO REACH MR. FREEMAN DIRECTLY, AT HIS HOME OR OTHERWISE

I'VE GOT A NUMBER WE COULD USE. >> YOU KNOW YOUR CELL PHONE NUMBER. I MEAN IF I CALL YOU, AT YOUR OFFICE IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH ALICIA ANYWAY SO --

>> IF YOU GOT MY DIRECT NUMBER AT MY OFFICE WE'VE GOT A SYSTEM IN PLACE NOW THAT IT GOES THROUGH TO MY E-MAIL SO --

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT EITHER. >> IF YOU HAVE TO LEAVE A VOICE

MAIL I CAN GET IT THAT WAY. >> I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST TO OUR BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS CONCERNING AN APPLICATION THEY CAN CALL THE PRESENTER OF RECORD.

AND THEN THERE'S NO PHONE LIST ANYMORE FOR ANY OF THAT.

SO PERHAPS WE CAN DO SOMETHING WITH THAT.

IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO USE THE DIRECTOR --

>> I'M FINE. THERE'S ALSO E-MAIL.

I PICK UP E-MAIL ANYWHERE I AM SO THAT'S USUALLY QUITE EASY.

>> THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.

>> I'LL CREATE A LIST. >> CONTACT NUMBER AND E-MAIL.

>> E-MAIL IT OUT AND ALSO PROVIDE IT.

>> I'D LIKE EVERYBODY TO HAVE THAT SO THAT IF YOU WANT TO CONTACT THE PRESENTER OR CONTACT MR. FREEMAN AND COMPLAIN TO HIM ABOUT SOMETHING YOU SEE IN THE DOCUMENTS YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO

SO, RIGHT? >> WELL I DO ACTUALLY LOOK FORWARD TO ANYBODY WHO HAS QUESTIONS AND WE CAN HELP JOIN THE PROCESS, I THINK IT HELPS BOTH SIDES.

>> WE'VE GOT SOME MEMBERS HERE THAT ARE RELATIVELY NEW AND MR. BURDGE DOESN'T NEED ANY HELP GETTING IN TOUCH WITH ANYBODY.

I DON'T NEED ANY HELP NECESSARILY GETTING IN TOUCH

WITH ANYBODY. >> I HAVE ALL THEIR CELL PHONE

NUMBERS. >> I'M SURE YOU DO.

YOU MIGHT EVEN HAVE SOME OF THEIR HOME NUMBERS.

>> I DON'T DO THAT. >> YOU DON'T DO THAT.

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

ANYTHING? >> I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT.

DENNIS, I AM THRILLED WITH YOUR ELEVATION TO ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR, IS THAT THE CORRECT TERM?

>> YES, SIR. >> I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH YOU NOW FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

>> YES. >> AND IT'S A WELL DESERVED PROMOTION. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO DO AN

OUTSTANDING JOB. >> THANK YOU.

>> IN THE POSITION AND I PERSONALLY JUST WANTED TO CONGRATULATE YOU. I THINK YOU'VE EARNED EVERY BIT OF IT. AND CONGRATULATIONS.

I THINK IT'S A PHENOMENAL MOVE. YOU'VE GOT A GREAT PERSON IN

THAT POSITION. >> THAT'S WHY HE'S THERE.

>> AND HE IS THE BACKBONE OF THE BACK OFFICE.

OF COURSE ALICIA IS THE STRONT OFFICE.

WITHOUT HER MIGHT AS WELL LOCK THE DOORS.

>> ALICIA'S GREAT. >> CONGRATULATIONS, WELL EARNED.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> MOVE FOR ADJ

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.