Jan 17, 2023 City Commission Regular Meeting

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

MEETING TO ORDER, TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2023, PLEASE STAND FOR THE OPENING PRAYER WITH ST. NICHOLAS GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH AND REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

LET US PRAY TO THE LORD, ST. PAUL SAID, I LAID THE FOUNDATION AND ANOTHER MAN IS BUILDING UPON IT.

LET EACH MAN TAKE CARE HOW HE BUILDS UPON IT, FOR NO OTHER FOUNDATION CAN ANYONE LAY WHICH IS JESUS CHRIST.

WE ASK THAT HE REGARD ALSO FOR US, BLESS THE WORK OF THESE, HIS SERVANT'S HANDS. WE ASK THE LORD'S STRENGTH TO MAKE THE BUSINESSES, COMMUNITY, OF FORT PIERCE SOUND AND FIRM.

LET US PRAY THAT THE UNDERTAKINGS OF THIS COMMISSION MAY BE GROUNDED ON THE ROCK OF FAITH, CORNERSTONE TO REMAIN FOREVER UNSHAKEN AND SOUND. L LORD, BLESS THE ENTERPRISE, GRANT PEACE AND SUCCESS FOR THOSE WHO PUT THEIR TRUST IN YOU.

BLESS THEM, GRANT COOPERATION BETWEENTHE COMMISSION AND CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY SO THAT BEING GOVERNED SO THEY WILL WORK IN HARMONY AND MAY BEST SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY. WE ASK LORD FOR THOSE INJURED YESTERDAY. FORGIVE THOSE RESPONSIBLE, BRING PEACE AND HEALING TO ALL OF THOSE AND REST THE SOUL OF THAT ONE WHICH LOST THEIR LIFE. WE ASK THESE IN THE LORD'S NAME. AMEN.

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, 1 NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALLWIT UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITHLIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR AL, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITHLIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR AL UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITHLIBERTY AN NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITHLIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR AL, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITHLIBERTY ANE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITHLIBERTY ANDLIBERTY AND JUSL WITHLIBERTY AND

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

>> FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR

JANUARY 3RD, 2023, MEETING. >> MOVE APPROVAL.

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

[7. LETTERS TO COMMISSION]

>> FOLLOWING LETTER WILL BE KEPT ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, WHICH WAS A LETTER FROM CHRISTINE CASILLE,

[8. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS OF THE AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. MR. MIMS.

>> WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT, CHIEF, DEPUTY CHIEF, AS WELL AS CHIEF DEPUTY SHERIFF MR. HESTER THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE A REPORT, UPDATE ON THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED YESTERDAY.

MOVING FORWARD HOW WE'RE HANDLING THEM.

ITEM NUMBER TEN, UNDER MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL.

>> ROLL CALL. >> MAYOR HUDSON.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT NO ONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THAT ISSUE.

[10. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS]

WHICH IS THE FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

>> MR. MIMMS, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY TO LEAD IN?

>> TURN IT OVER TO OUR CHIEF AND CHIEF DEPUTY.

>> WELCOME. >> PLEASURE TO BE BEFORE YOU.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE.

A DAY OF GREATNESS WAS YESTERDAY AND IT TURNED INTO A SITUATION OF HORROR FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY AND ALSO FOR OUR CITIZENS. IT'S A SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS WHEN WE TRY AND HAVE ACTIVITIES THAT SOME PEOPLE FEEL REGARDLESS OF WHERE THEY ARE, THEY CAN GO OUT AND COMMIT SUCH CRIMES WHILE SHOOTING AT EACH OTHER.

THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE. WE'RE IN UNISON WITH THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT BECAUSE WE WANT TO BRING RESOLUTIONS TO THIS SITUATION, BUT WE WANT OUR CITIZENS TO KNOW THAT WE'RE FIGHTING FOR THE ANSWERS AND WE'RE FIGHTING TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE VICTIMIZED BY THIS.

[00:05:04]

WE HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND FEDERAL PARTNERS. VICTIM ADVOCATES TO GO OUT TO THE SCHOOL AND TALK TO THE CHILDREN.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE PERSON THAT PASSED WAS A CHEERLEADING MOM.

SO WE WILL BE GOING OUT TO THE RECREATION CENTER TO ASSIST THE FAMILIES OUT THERE AS WELL. THIS IS HARD FOR US.

BUT THIS IS WHAT WE DO. AND EVERYONE HAS TO UNDERSTAND IT BECAME SUCH A CHALLENGE THAT THERE WAS WELL OVER A THOUSAND PEOPLE AT THIS SCENE AND AS WE'RE TRYING TO GET THERE, WE HAD SO MANY PEOPLE TRYING TO GET OUT.

IT KEPT US FROM DOING OUR JOB. BUT SEE, THIS IS WHAT WE DO.

THIS IS WHAT WE ARE SWORN TO DO.

PROTECT OUR PUBLIC. AND WHATEVER IT TAKES TO DO THAT, WE WILL DO THAT FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY.

NOW I TURN TO CHIEF DEPUTY HESTER TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF. >> THANK YOU, CHIEF.

MADAM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MR. MIMMS, CITY MANAGER, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE. I JUST WANT TO SAY FIRST, THANK YOU TO THE FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

YOU KNOW, CHIEF BURNY REACHED OUT TO ME FIRST THING THIS MORNING. I THINK ASSISTANT CHIEF WAS ON SCENE LAST NIGHT. I'M PRETTY SURE.

BECAUSE I SAW SO MANY PEOPLE. AND LIKE THE CHIEF SAID, WITHIN LESS THAN A MINUTE AND A HALF, I'VE LOOKED, LESS THAN A MINUTE AND A HALF, THERE WERE OVER 24 LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL FROM FORT PIERCE AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE ON THE SCENE.

CHIEF BURNY REACHED OUT TO ME IMMEDIATELY THIS MORNING, PROBABLY BEORE I WAS IN OFFICE, I THINK.

WE STARTED HAVING CONVERSATIONS, HOW WE WERE GOING TO COLLABORATE AND WE'VE COME UP, OUR PERSONNEL HAS WAYS OF COMMUNICATING NOW SET IN PLACE FOR TIPS THAT ARE COMING IN FOR WHAT WE'RE UNDERTAKING AND WE'RE UTILIZING THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT AS WELL TO HELP US.

BECAUSE YOUR CSU UNITS PATROL THERE IN THE STREETS, KNOW THE PEOPLE. WE HAVE A GOOD COLLABORATION.

I APPRECIATE THAT. WE'VE TALKED SEVERAL TIMES THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND WE ARE UTILIZING OUR STATE, LOCAL AND STATE AND FEDERAL PARTNERS AS WELL.

ATF WAS ON THE GROUND WITH US TODAY WITH A TWO CANINES THAT CAME UP OUT OF MIAMI, TRAINED, MAN, WERE THEY GOOD.

TRAINED SPECIFICALLY FOR FINDING SHELL CASINGS AND GUNS AND THEY FOUND THINGS THAT WE DIDN'T FIND LAST NIGHT.

THEY WERE A BIG HELP. FBI IS ASSISTING US WITH SOCIAL MEDIA STUFF AS WELL. SO WE'VE GOT -- I TALKED TO THE STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TODAY. EVERYBODY IS ON BOARD.

EVERYBODY IS WORKING RIGHT NOW REALLY HARD TO COME TO A RESOLUTION. THE FACT THAT THIS IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION AND THIS MEETING IS PUBLIC RECORD, AND THIS MEETING IS TELEVISED, I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL AS TO WHAT I SAY WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTIGATION.

SO I WILL BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS, IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BUT I CAN JUST TELL YOU THAT IT'S PROGRESSING. WE HAVE A VERY VERY SOLID IDEA OF WHAT HAPPENED, HOW IT HAPPENED, AND WE ARE FOLLOWING UP ALL INVESTIGATIVE LEADS. RIGHT NOW, BOTH OF OUR DEPARTMENTS HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO WORK WELL INTO THE NIGHT IN THIS. AND WE'LL GO UNTIL WE EXHAUST IT TONIGHT. AND WE'LL START BACK YOU KNOW, FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. WE DID HAVE TWO PERSONNEL, TWO DEPUTIES THAT WERE DOING A DETAIL AT THAT PARK THAT WERE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. AND I CAN TELL YOU, THEY WERE STATIONED KIND OF AT THE SOUTH END OF THE PARK.

KIND OF DOWN NEAR THE POOL AREA.

IS WHERE THEY WERE STATIONED. AND WHEN IT BROKE -- WHEN THE SHOOTING STARTED, THEY IMMEDIATELY RAN TO THE AREA THE SHOOTING WAS COMING FROM. WATCHING THE VIDEOS AND STUFF, I SAW MYSELF, MASS CHAOS, A THOUSAND PLUS PEOPLE PROBABLY THERE, PEOPLE RUNNING IN EVERY DIRECTION, HIDING, LAYING DOWN.

THE DEPUTIES WERE ASKING WHERE DID IT COME FROM, WHAT DID YOU SEE? PEOPLE WERE JUST RUNNING.

MASS CHAOS. PEOPLE WERE AFRAID FOR THEIR LIVES. BUT THEY IMMEDIATELY STARTED RENDERING AID. AS I SAID, FORT PIERCE POLICE UNITS WERE ON SCENE. OUR DEPUTIES WERE ON SCENE.

AMAZING AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ON SCENE IMMEDIATELY HELPING RENDER AID. FOUR PEOPLE, YOU GUYS KNOW THE NUMBERS. EIGHT PEOPLE WERE SHOT, ONE PERSON PASSED AWAY THIS MORNING TRAGICALLY.

[00:10:02]

HE IS TRAVELLING TO TALLAHASSEE.

I SPOKE TO HIM SEVERAL TIMES TODAY, HE TOLD ME TO SAY YOU KNOW, HE IS SORRY THAT HE COULDN'T BE HERE, BUT WE ARE

WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS ISSUE. >> QUESTIONS?

>> YES. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS BECAUSE OF THE YOU KNOW, ONGOING INVESTIGATION.

AND THIS PUBLIC RECORD. BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I APPRECIATE THE SWIFTNESS THAT YOU AND YOUR DEPUTIES AND CHIEF, THAT THE POLICE WERE THERE.

I WAS PRESENT AT THAT PARK. AND I THINK I LEFT MAYBE FIVE OR TEN MINUTES BEFORE I HEARD THE GUNSHOTS FROM WHERE I WAS RESIDING. AND I DON'T KNOW IF ME AND YOU CROSS PATHS, BUT YOU WERE BUSY, I RAN BACK OVER TO TRY TO ASSIST IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE. I HAD A BUNCH OF PLAYERS OVER THERE, A BUNCH OF PEOPLE OVER THERE TO TRY TO GET THEM CALMED DOWN. FOR THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THIS, WHEN THEY SAY THEY WERE THERE IN MINUTES, THEY WERE THERE IN MINUTES BECAUSE I SAW IT WITH MY OWN EYES.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THIS, WHATEVER I CAN DO FROM MY SEAT, THAT IS ALLOWED BY LAW, I WANT TO HELP.

BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T NEED IS FORT PIERCE TO BE ON NATIONAL NEWS FOR ONE INCIDENT, WHEN WE HAD A WEEK OF INCIDENTS.

ONE OF THE BEST PARADES WE'VE HAD IN A LONG TIME.

IF YOU WENT TO THAT PARADE, YOU SAW FACES OF ALL COLORS, RELIGIONS, KIDS HAVING FUN. ONE INCIDENT.

AND NOW FORT PIERCE IS ON THE NEWS.

I'M GETTING CALLS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ABOUT ONE INCIDENT AT A PARTY THAT IS ENDING. I WAS THERE, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WAS THERE. CITY MANAGER WAS THERE.

NO FIGHTS. I SAW YOUR DEPUTIES THERE.

EVERYBODY GETTING ALONG. WITHIN 15, 20 MINUTES OF THAT EVENT BEING OVER, WE'RE ON NATIONAL NEWS LOOK LIKE WE ARE THE WORST CITY IN THE COUNTRY. WE'RE NOT.

PUBLICIZE THE WEEK EVENTS THAT WENT ON IN FORT PIERCE, THERE WEREN'T ANYTHING, EVERYBODY WAS GETTING ALONG.

WE HAD AN EVENT RIGHT DOWN THE STREET, BLOCKED OFF, NO PROBLEMS. NOT ONE PROBLEM WITH THE PARADE. EVERYBODY WANTS TO COME TO FORT PIERCE NOW ABOUT -- I DON'T WANT TO CALL WHAT I WANT TO SAY. BECAUSE ONE OR TWO INDIVIDUALS WANT TO ACT UP, THAT IS NOT WHAT FORT PIERCE IS ABOUT.

SO STOP ALL THE NEGATIVITY, PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

AND EVERYWHERE ELSE ABOUT OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

IT WAS ONE INCIDENT. AND WE'RE ON TOP OF IT.

SO ANYTHING I CAN DO FROM MY DESK THAT I'M ALLOWED TO, WITH THE HELP OF MADAM ATTORNEY THAT I DON'T GET MYSELF IN TROUBLE, ANYTHING I CAN DO, I STAND READY TO DO IT.

BECAUSE IT WAS A GREAT WEEK OF EVENTS.

AND WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE TALKING ABOUT THE LOSS OF A CHEERLEADER MOM, CELEBRATING DR. KING'S DREAM.

>> THANK YOU >> COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU 100 PERCENT.

IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT WE ALL CAN DO, YOU GUYS AS COMMISSIONERS, AND WHAT WE ASK OUR PUBLIC TO DO, IS LET'S REACH OUT TO CONSTITUENTS, LET'S REACH OUT TO OUR PASTORS IN THE COMMUNITY, REACH OUT TO OUR OTHER COMMUNITY LEADERS THAT AREN'T SITTING HERE AND LET'S REASSURE ALL OF THESE PEOPLE THAT YOUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, WE'RE GOING TO PROTECT THEM.

AND IF THERE IS ANY WITNESSS, IF THERE IS ANYBODY WITH INFORMATION TO COME FORWARD WITH THAT INFORMATION, AND TO HELP US. WE KNOW PEOPLE SAW WHAT

[00:15:01]

WE CAN PUT THEM IN JAIL AND MAKE SURE THEY DON'T GET OUT.

WE CAN PROTECT THE WITNESSES THAT COME FORWARD.

THEY HAVE TO TRUST US BOTH AND WE CAN GUARANTEE THAT WE WILL PROTECT THEM BUT WE NEED THEM TO COME FORWARD. I THINK THAT IS THE REAL MESSAGE THAT WE PUT OUT, HEY, DON'T ACCEPT THIS AS A COMMUNITY. WE DON'T ACCEPT IT.

AND LET'S DEAL WITH IT. AND I THINK IF THERE IS ANYTHING WE CAN ALL DO, THAT IS THE MESSAGE WE GET ACROSS.

>> MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU.

YOU ACTUALLY READ MY MIND. IF ONE THING, I'LL PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, IS THERE A PHONE NUMBER THAT YOU CAN PUBLICIZE TONIGHT WHILE PEOPLE ARE WATCHING THIS.

JUST IN CASE. DO YOU HAVE THAT THAT YOU CAN

GIVE US? >> I DO.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS TWO NUMBERS YOU CAN CALL.

I PREFER PEOPLE AFTER HOURS TO CALL CRIME STOPPERS.

CRIME STOPPERS IS FORWARDED DIRECTLY AS OF RIGHT NOW, TODAY, IT'S FORWARDED DIRECTLY TO ALL OF OUR SUPERVISORS, THEY WILL ALL GET THE CRIME STOPPERS NOTIFICATIONS.

THAT IS REALLY WHERE THE MAJORITY OF OUR TIPS HAVE COME IN TODAY, THROUGH CRIME STOPPERS.

SOME OF THOSE ARE VERY GOOD INFORMATION.

CRIME STOPPERS IS ONE AVENUE. I CAN'T REMEMBER THAT NUMBER

RIGHT OFFHAND. >> IF YOU CAN GET THAT TO US.

>> EASY TO FIND ON OUR WEBSITE. THE SECOND NUMBER IS BACK FROM EIGHT TO FIVE DURING THE DAY. WE HAVE A DETECTIVE THAT IS SITTING AT A CALL STATION. THAT NUMBER IS 772-462-3230.

RIGHT TO A DETECTIVE TAKING TIPS.

BUT ALSO, THEY CAN CALL THE CITY AS WELL.

WE HAVE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNICATION ROUTE FOR ALL INFORMATION COMING TO THE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT TO GO TO THE DETECTIVES. THEY'RE WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH US. BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT

INFORMATION GETS DISSEMINATED. >> THANK YOU.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE STARTED WITH THAT.

TO THOSE UNFORTUNATE THAT WERE INJURED AND TO THE YOUNG LADY AND HER FAMILY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALL HAD SOME COMMENTS TODAY.

I'VE REACHED OUT TO FAITH LEADERS. AND REACHED OUT TO ONE SHORTLY. AND YOU KNOW, WE ARE FAITHFUL COMMUNITY. BUT THE ONE THING THAT THAT PERSON EXPRESSED TO ME IS WE NEED TO ABSOLUTELY SAY SOMETHING NOW. ABSOLUTELY PRAYER ABSOLUTELY WORKS. IT DOES WONDERS AND GREAT THINGS. WE NEED PEOPLE TO PRAY TO HAVE THE FAITH TO COME FORWARD TO FIND THAT TRUSTED VOICE, THAT TRUSTED PERSON, IS IT YOUR FAITH LEADER, COMMISSIONER.

IS IT SOMEONE THAT YOU TRUST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN GET TO US. BECAUSE WE ARE WILLING TO RECEIVE THOSE CALLS AND GET THAT APPROPRIATE INFORMATION OVER TO LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR YOU GUYS TO ENACT UPON THIS.

WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT, THINGS OBVIOUSLY WE READ, WE DON'T WANT OUR CITY EMBATTLED IN SOMETHING HERE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I MUST COME IN, DEPUTY CHIEF, YOU AND I TALKED EARLIER THIS WEEK, I KNOW THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED YOU ABOUT THAT AT A SOCIAL EVENT. I WAS HAPPY TO HEAR.

I TOO UNFORTUNATELY WAS THERE I LEFT SHORTLY BEFORE THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED. BUT NONETHELESS, YOU KNOW, WHAT MY PLEA IS TODAY IS YOU KNOW, THIS COMMUNITY, SAW SOMETHING, THIS COMMUNITY ACTUALLY RECORDED SOMETHING.

THERE WERE A LOT OF VIDEOS OUT THERE.

SO HOW CAN THEY HELP YOU WITH VIDEO EVIDENCE, IF ANY? SO DO YOU -- CRIME STOPPERS AS WELL, THEY'LL TAKE VIDEOS IF PEOPLE FEEL AS THOUGH THEY HAVE SOMETHING HELPFUL.

I WANT TO PLEAD TO THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF VIDEOS OUT THERE. CERTAINLY HOPE THAT IF YOU HAVE THAT FAITH, THAT YOU COME FORWARD AND SHARE THAT INFORMATION SO THAT THIS MATTER CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF VERY QUICKLY, THE COMMUNITY IS HEALING.

I MEAN, HURTING. BUT ONE WAY TO HEAL IT IS THAT WE HAVE AN ARREST HERE AND BRING THE SUSPECTS INTO -- PUT THEM UNDER ARREST AND START THAT PROCESS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, I DID SEE THE SECURITY DETAIL THERE.

SO I'M ASSUMING THEN THAT YOU'RE -- THAT THAT DETAIL, BASED ON WHAT, THEY HAD NO INTERACTION WITH POSSIBLE SUSPECTS AT THIS POINT. OKAY.

>> NONE AT ALL. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO THE UPDATES. ARE YOU PLANNING ANY PUBLIC UPDATES BESIDES THIS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TALK -- I'VE SEEN YOUR PRESS RELEASES ON FACEBOOK, ET CETERA, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE DOING ANYTHING ELSE PUBLICLY.

>> YEAH. WE DID THE TWO TODAY THAT WE SENT OUT, I THINK THE LAST ONE WAS ABOUT 11:00 A.M. THIS MORNING. I WAS TALKING TO THE CHIEF JUST BEFORE THIS MEETING, AS INFORMATION, AS PERTINENT STUFF TO RELEASE TO THE MEDIA COMES UP, MY REAL NEXT STEP, IS GOING

[00:20:04]

AND JUST TO REASSURE PEOPLE OF THEIR SAFETY.

AND PEOPLE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, TIPS ARE GOOD.

TIPS LEAD US IN A DIRECTION. TIPS DON'T GET ARREST WARRANTS.

TIPS DON'T PROSECUTE CASES. YOU HAVE TO HAVE WITNESSES.

AND THAT IS WHAT WE NEED, PEOPLE WHO WILL COME FORWARD AND BE A WITNESS. AND THAT IS HOW WE PUT ARREST WARRANTS IN HAND. THAT IS HOW WE PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL. THAT IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE AND CLOSE THIS CASE. KNOWING IS ONE THING.

BUT PROSECUTING IS ANOTHER. >> GOOD POINT.

THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT. BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. YOU'RE GETTING TIPS OBVIOUSLY.

I'M SURE YOU'VE GOT A NUMBER TO FOLLOW UP ON.

HAVE THE FAITH TO STEP FORWARD AND SAY I'M GOING TO BE A WITNESS IN THIS, WHAT YOU SAW. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> YOU GOT IT.

AND YOU GUYS JUST PLEASE KNOW, ON BEHALF OF THE SHERIFF AND MYSELF, YOU GUYS, THE CITY, YOU ALWAYS HAVE OUR SUPPORT.

WE WILL WORK HAND IN HAND, THIS CITY, ST. LUCIA COUNTY, CITIZENS WILL ALWAYS HAVE OUR COOPERATION.

GUARANTEED. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

>> NO, MA'AM. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO CHIEF AND CHIEF DEPUTY FOR GRABBING THIS AND TAKING HOLD AND GETTING OUT IN FRONT OF IT AS MUCH AS YOU CAN.

IN SUCH A DIRE SITUATION. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY MANY PRAYERS AND THOUGHTS FOR THE FAMILIES AND OUR ENTIRE CITY.

THERE IS NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. BUT I LOOKED UP ON THE NOTICES, THEY WENT OUT. I WANTED TO SAY THAT NUMBER HERE IN THE PUBLIC TOO, THE TREASURE COVE CRIME STOPPER, 800 NUMBER. 273-8477.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THAT OUT THERE.

AND GET IT PUBLICIZED AND CONTINUE TO PUBLICIZE IT AND SHARE THE MESSAGE THAT YOU KNOW, WE DON'T -- WE DON'T PUT UP WITH IT AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT AS A COMMUNITY.

HEAL AS A COMMUNITY AND PRAY FOR EACH OTHER AS WE DEAL WITH IT. SO THANK YOU BOTH.

>> ON A SIDE NOTE REAL QUICK, THE CRIME STOPPERS OBVIOUSLY OFFERS A CASH REWARD. FLORIDA SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION HAS COMMITTED THIS AFTERNOON, FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS REWARD AS WELL FOR APPREHENSION. YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE WILL START TO SEE MONETARY REWARDS START TO BUILD AS WELL FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO GIVE INFORMATION.

>> MADAM MAYOR. I WANT TO STATE THAT I SUPPORT COMMISSIONER GAINES'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE PERCEPTION OF FORT IERCE RELATIVE TO THIS EVENT. THE ENTIRE CITY COMMISSION PARTICIPATED IN THE MARTIN LUTHER KING DAY PARADE.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT WAS A THOROUGHLY ENJOYABLE PROFESSIONALLY EXECUTED EVENT. I'VE NEVER SEEN SO MANY LITTLE KIDS SMILING. A WONDERFUL DAY.

AND THE SECURITY PROVIDED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AT THAT EVENT WAS OUTSTANDING.

RELATIVE TO THAT, I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

THIS IS JUST TO EDUCATE ME, AS I'M NEW ON THE COMMISSION HERE.

EVENT SUCH AS THIS, THAT IS A PRIVATE EVENT, IS THAT CORRECT? THEY COORDINATE IT AND SPONSOR IT, IT'S NOT A COUNTY OR A CITY EVENT IN ANY CAPACITY. ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE TO SECURE CONTRACT DEPUTIES FOR AN EVENT LIKE THAT? CAN YOU JUST GIVE ME AN OVERVIEW OF HOW THAT ACTUALLY

WORKS, MECHANICS OF THAT. >> THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THAT THROUGH THE COUNTY. DOES NOT GO THROUGH US.

IT GOES THROUGH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT. AND WHAT HAPPENS IS IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE AN EVENT, YOU HAVE TO FILL OUT DOCUMENTATION. YOU KNOW, STATING WHAT THE EVENT IS GOING TO BE. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ATTEND, WHETHER THERE IS ALCOHOL OR NON-ALCOHOL AND SO FORTH AND SO ON. BASED ON THAT, THERE IS REQUIREMENTS BY THE COUNTY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL ON HAND. THUS, WHY WE HAD A DETAIL THERE. NOW, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE QUESTIONS COME IN AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE'LL HAVE TO REVIEW IS WHAT WAS THE EVENT SUPPOSED TO BE.

DID IT EXCEED THE NUMBER. WAS IT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALCOHOL AT THE EVENT. BECAUSE MANY OF THE EVENTS AT COUNTY PARKS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALCOHOL.

THERE WAS ALCOHOL AT THIS EVENT.

FROM WHAT I CAN GATHER ON THE VIDEOS THAT I'VE SEEN.

AND YOU KNOW TO BE LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED AS WELL. DID THE OWNER OPERATOR PERSON WHO HAD THE EVENT YOU KNOW, DID THEY DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO ON THE APPLICATION? DID IT MEET THE STANDARDS? SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT AS WELL AS WE GO FORWARD.

[00:25:03]

>> SPECULATE THAT IF I'M HAVING AN EVENT, I SAY WELL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HUNDRED PEOPLE, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY I NEED A DETAIL OF TWO. A THOUSAND PEOPLE, I NEED A

DETAIL OF X. >> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

>> BECAUSE I PICKED UP ON THE FACT THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT THERE WAS A THOUSAND PEOPLE THERE GIVE OR TAKE. ONLY TWO DEPUTIES SHERIFFS.

INTERESTING QUESTION THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE VISITED.

I MUST COMMEND YOUR DEPUTIES FOR STEPPING IN TO THE LINE OF DANGER, TWO OF THEM AND MASS CHAOS OF A THOUSAND PEOPLE.

THAT IS TRULY COMMENDABLE WORK. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF THEM. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

WE ARE VERY PROUD OF THEM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

>> LET ME ALSO MAKE A PLEA HERE TO CHIEF AND DEPUTY CHIEF.

SOMEONE THAT WAS THERE TO WITNESS THIS AND SAW THAT, THE WHOLE CROWD BUILDING AS THEY STARTED OUT AND SAW THE MAGNITUDE OF PEOPLE THERE, WE HAD A CROSS-SECTION OF PEOPLE, WE HAD SOME WHAT I CALL PEOPLE UP IN AGE, OLDER THAN ME, MY AGE AND OLDER. WE HAD SOME MIDDLE AGE.

WE HAD YOUNG PEOPLE. BUT I SAW KIDS.

THIS YOUNG LADY THAT PARISHED HAD A SIX-YEAR-OLD WITH HER THERE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I LIKE TO ASK THAT YOU COORDINATE, I HAVEN'T HEARD THIS RESPONSE YET OF MENTAL HEALTH. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAUMA THAT PEOPLE WITNESSED YESTERDAY.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE MECHANISMS. SO I ASK THAT WE HAVEN'T PUSHED THAT.

I WOULD ASK THAT YOU PARTNER WITH NEW HORIZONS OR SOMEBODY TO COME WITH YOU TO GIVE THAT INFORMATION AS WELL.

I KNOW THAT THE VICTIM ADVOCATES WENT TO THE SCHOOLS TODAY TO TALK TO THE KIDS, FIRST START.

BUT I'M WORRIED ABOUT ALSO THE COMMUNITY AND THE TRAUMA BEHIND THIS YESTERDAY. BECAUSE THERE WERE ALL KIND OF PEOPLE OUT THERE. AND THIS IS CONCERNING FOR ME.

BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. IT JUST RETRYINGETRIGGERS THAT TRAUMA. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REACH OUT OR HAVE THAT CAPACITY. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU BRING THAT ALONG AS A RESOURCE AS WELL. BECAUSE WE NEED THAT.

MAYBE WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THAT AS A CITY HOW TO SUPPORT GETTING THAT MESSAGE OUT SO PEOPLE CAN REACH OUT AND GET SOMEONE TO TALK TO. ESPECIALLY THE KIDS.

THERE WERE A LOT OF KIDS OUT THERE WITH THEIR FAMILIES.

ACTUALLY A CHEER EXHIBITION GOING ON JUST BEFORE THIS, WHERE CHEERLEADERS WERE DOING THEIR ROUTINES AND BEING CELEBRATED AND APPLAUDED FOR THEIR DEDICATION AND HARD WORK AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS LADY AND HER YOUNG DAUGHTER WERE THERE. SO THAT IS MY PLEA TOO.

THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, JUST FOR THE RECORD, I SPOKE TO DR. PRINCE AND DR. MILLS THIS MORNING. AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE KIDS IN THAT AREA, ALL THE SCHOOLS IN THAT AREA THAT THEY HAD, SO I WANT YOU GUYS TO KNOW I ALREADY SPOKE TO THE SUPERINTENDENT AND HE ALREADY PUT COUNSELORS IN THE SCHOOLS, IN THE GREEN AREA. SO THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

HOWEVER, WHAT I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, IT MAY BE SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK AT. THERE WERE SOME TRAUMATIZED ADULTS YESTERDAY. AND THEY CAN'T GO TO THE SCHOOLS TO GET THE COUNSELING. SO MAYBE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN

LOOK AT, TO GET HELP. >> GET THE RESOURCES.

>> GET RESOURCES THERE. I WANTED YOU GUYS TO KNOW THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD AND SUPERINTENDENT JUMPED RIGHT ON IT. I MEAN, I WAS ON THE PHONE WITH DR. MILLS THIS MORNING. AND SHE WAS LIKE WE'RE ON IT.

AND I GOT AN E-MAIL MAYBE ABOUT EIGHT THAT THEY HAD ALREADY DISPATCHED COUNSELORS TO THE SCHOOLS THAT WERE IN THE GREEN AREA, WHERE MOST OF THESE KIDS ATTEND.

SO IF THEY WERE OUT OF THE GREEN AREA, I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY HANDLED THAT. BUT I WANTED YOU TO KNOW.

AND I DID MAKE THAT CALL. >> SO I UNDERSTAND ALSO THAT THE FIRE DISTRICT HAD A PRESENCE THERE AND WAS HELPFUL TOO AND THAT THAT WAS BADLY NEEDED.

I APPRECIATE ALL THE AGENCIES COOPERATION, BECAUSE IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, THE WAY YOU DESCRIBE IT, THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED, KIND OF NEEDED ALL HANDS ON DECK, TO TRY TO MAKE SOME KIND OF SENSE OUT OF THE CHAOS.

I'VE WATCHED OTHER CITIES DEAL WITH THIS AND WONDERED HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH IT IF THIS EVER HAPPENED TO US.

WE'RE HAVING AN INNOCENT EVENT OR SERIES OF EVENTS AND

[00:30:03]

AND SOMETHING HAPPENS AND YOU SAY HOW COULD THIS HAVE BEEN PREVENTED. HOW COULD THIS -- AND I DON'T WANT THIS TO DEFINE FORT PIERCE.

BECAUSE THAT IS NOT FORT PIERCE.

THAT IS ONE PERSON. IT'S NOT FORT PIERCE.

AND A THOUSAND PEOPLE THAT WAS ONE PERSON.

I KNOW THAT YOU AND THE CHIEF, I AM SO APPRECIATIVE THAT YOUR SHOW OF COOPERATION, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE NEED IN THIS COUNTY. BECAUSE WE -- I'M WONDERING IF YOU, IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE, ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT IS WORRIED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY FROM THIS EVENT, IS THERE ANY ASSURANCE THAT YOU CAN GIVE THEM AND US?

>> I CAN. YOU KNOW, IF PEOPLE COME FORWARD, WE HAVE MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO PROTECT THOSE PEOPLE.

AND YOU KNOW, I WON'T GET INTO A WHOLE DISCUSSION OF HOW WE DO THAT. BUT WE DO HAVE WAYS.

WE CAN ASSURE THEM THAT WE WILL PROTECT THEM IF THEY COME FORWARD WITH THIS INFORMATION. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND IT, OR THE INDIVIDUALS WHO CREATE THE HAVOC, THE INDIVIDUALS WHO DO THESE CRIMES AND BULLY AND INTIMIDATE AND WHO USE WEAPONS AND DO THESE THINGS, THAT IS PART OF WHAT THEY DO, INTIMIDATE AND SCARE. AND THE FEAR OF THAT RETAILATION IS WHAT HOLDS PEOPLE BACK.

AND YOU KNOW, LET'S FACE IT, THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY EVEN AFTER WE DO OUR JOB, BUT THERE ARE MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO PROTECT THEM AND

ENSURE THEIR PROTECTION. >> I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THIS IS A SAFE CITY. WE INTEND TO KEEP IT A SAFE CITY. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO TOLERATE THIS. I MEAN, I'M WITH COMMISSIONER GAINES, WE HAD A BEAUTIFUL WEEK.

AND WE'VE COME FAR IN TERMS OF MAKING THIS ONE FORT PIERCE AND WE DON'T -- WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO TOLERATE SOMEBODY RUINING WHAT A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY THAT IS AS INTERESTED IN SAFETY AS THE WHOLE OF FORT PIERCE.

EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN A SAFE PLACE. AND SO I HOPE THEY DO COME FORWARD. I HOPE THEY SAY ENOUGH.

THIS IS ENOUGH. NOT GOING TO STAND FOR THIS.

I'M COMING FORWARD AND I'M GOING TO TELL WHAT I KNOW AND WHAT I SAW. SO THAT PEOPLE WILL KNOW THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN FORT PIERCE.

MR. MIMMS. >> MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY EVERYTHING THAT I WANT TO SAY.

BUT NUMBER ONE, I'M GOING TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATE FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND ALSO THE ST. LUCIA COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT BEING THERE AND SEEING PEOPLE RUNNING AND SEEING YOU ALL RUNNING INTO THE FIRE.

WE HAVE TO HAVE A STRONG LEVEL OF APPRECIATION FOR WHAT YOU ALL DO. I HAVE THE GREAT LEVEL OF APPRECIATION FOR THAT. BUT THE JOB IS NOT DONE AT ALL.

AND I THINK A BIG PART OF THAT IS THE COMMUNITY STEPPING UP.

WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT IN THIS COMMUNITY, WE WANTAN CHANGE.

WE WANT OUR COMMUNITY TO BE GREATER THAN WHAT IT IS.

OUR COMMUNITY HAS TO STEP UP RIGHT NOW.

AND WE HAVE TO COME TOGETHER AND IDENTIFY THE FOLKS THAT PERPETRATED THIS CRIME. THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

OUR PEOPLE NEED TO STEP UP AND START TALKING.

AND STOP HIDING AND WHATEVER ELSE WE'RE DOING.

YOU KNOW, I REALLY WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I CAN'T.

I MEAN, I'M IN A PUBLIC MEETING AND I'M UP SET.

VERY UPSET THAT THIS IS HAPPENING IN OUR CITY.

WE HAVE GOT TO GET OUR PEOPLE TO STOP PLAYING AROUND, COME, CALL THE DOG GONE NUMBER AND HELP OUR COMMUNITY.

SO I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT LIKE THAT.

THE JOB IS NOT DONE. >> WE ALL LIVE HERE.

NO MAN IS AN ISLAND. WE ALL LIVE HERE.

>> YES, SIR. >> LIKE I SAID, I'M NEW HERE.

OKAY. ONLY BEEN ON THE JOB FOR A SHORT TIME. CHIEF DEPUTY HESTER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION IS POSTING A REWARD FOR INFORMATION FOR PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION, I'M ASSUMING.

IS THAT ANY TYPE OF THING THAT THE CITY CAN GET BEHIND AND PUT MONEY INTO THIS AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANYBODY ON THE SPOT HERE. OR THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT, IF THE CITY IS NOT ABLE TO DO THAT FOR SUNDRY REASONS, THEN I'M GOING TO PUT THE CHALLENGE OUT THERE WITH THE MEDIA HERE, TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, TO DO IT.

THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY PROFITS FROM THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, IF THE CHIEF AND CHIEF DEPUTY THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD MAKE A PITCH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, TO FUND A PROGRAM TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR A REWARD FOR THE CAPTURE, PROSECUTION AND CONVICTION OF THE FOLKS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN

[00:35:02]

OF THIS CRIME. >> COMMISSIONER, I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO OUR CHIEF BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT CAN BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. BUT I WANT YOU TO TALK ABOUT THAT FIRST AND YOU KNOW, EXPLAIN SOME POSSIBILITIES.

>> THIS IS WHY WE GO THROUGH CRIME STOPPERS.

BECAUSE THEY DO THE AWARD FOR THAT.

AND SO NO ONE CAN SAY THAT WE WERE INVOLVED IN TRYING TO PAY SOMEBODY OFF TO DO THAT. SO THIS IS WHY OUR HANDS BECOME CLEAN AND CLEAR WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.

WITH CRIME STOPPERS, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO LEAVE THEIR NAME.

THEY ASSIGN THEM A NUMBER. SO THAT THEY CAN REMAIN ANONYMOUS. AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO FIND THE REASON, YES, BUSINESS OWNERS CAN DONATE AND HELP TO ASSIST WITH THE AWARD AMOUNT. THAT IS POSSIBLE, FEDERAL PARTNERS SOMETIMES THEY BECOME INVOLVED IN IT AS WELL.

IT'S JUST A HARD THING. BUT OUR COMMUNITY HAVE TO SAY IT'S NOT ABOUT HOW MANY DOLLARS YOU'RE GOING TO GET FOR GIVING US INFORMATION. IT'S ABOUT DOING THE RIGHT THING. THE PEOPLE WHO SHOT THAT DAY, THEY KNEW CHILDREN WERE THERE. THEY KNEW MOTHERS AND FATHERS, BROTHERS AND SISTERS, THEY KNEW THEY WERE THERE.

KIDS IN STROLLERS. THEY SAW IT ALL.

AND THEY DIDN'T CARE. AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT SOMETIMES WE AS A PEOPLE, HAVE TO TAKE BACK OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. WE HAVE TO BE THE VOICE OF REASON AND SAY OKAY, I KNOW IT'S YOU.

EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE VIDEO THAT SHOWS WHO DID IT, GIVE IT TO US. PLEASE.

AND THIS IS THE MAIN PART OF THIS.

WE NEED YOUR HELP. WE CAN'T -- WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR PART. AS YOU SAID, WE WAS RUNNING INTO, WE WAS RUNNING INTO THE FIRE.

AND WHEN DEPUTIES START DOING CPR AND GIVING TREATMENT, THIS IS WHAT I TALK ABOUT ALL OF THE TIME.

PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE WEIGHT OF THE BADGE WHEN WE WEAR IT. BECAUSE IT WAS STILL A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON. THEY STILL DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE BULLETS WERE. THEY DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING.

BUT YET, THEY WERE DOING THEIR JOB.

JUST AS THE OFFICERS WERE APPROACHING, THEY DIDN'T KNOW BUT THEY WERE COMING. SO WE'RE DOING OUR PART.

WE'RE PUTTING OUR LIVES ON THE LINE, SO I FEEL THAT OUR COMMUNITIES, CITIZENS SHOULD PLEASE SUPPORT US AND HELP US BRING TO JUSTICE THE INDIVIDUALS THAT DID THIS.

THIS IS MY PLEA. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO.

AND DON'T FORGET ABOUT YOUR MENTAL HEALTH TOO.

BECAUSE THAT WAS A TRAUMATIZING THING FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT I KNOW. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[11. CONSENT AGENDA]

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> IS THERE ANY COMMISSIONER WHO WOULD LIKE TO PULL ANYTHING FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MADAM, I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRINTED.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> ROLL CALL >> NEXT WE MOVE ON TO OUR

[a. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-001 Review and approval of a Voluntary Annexation by owners, Woods Family Limited Partnership II, and representative, Donald Cuozzo Design Group, Inc., to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include one (1) parcel at or near the east side of South US Highway 1 and Approximately 600 feet south of East Midway Road in Fort Pierce, FL 34982. The proposed Future Land Use designation for the subject property is GC, General Commercial, with a proposed Zoning designation of C-3, General Commercial Zone. Parcel ID: 3403-804-0043-000-7. SECOND READING]

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY.

TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH.

HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

SECOND READING. >> ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS

[00:40:01]

SEEING NO ONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

[b. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-002 Review and approval of a Voluntary Annexation by owners, Woods Family Limited Partnership II, and representative, Donald Cuozzo Design Group, Inc., to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include two (2) parcels at or near the east side of South US Highway 1 and approximately 800 feet south of East Midway Road in Fort Pierce, FL 34982. The proposed Future Land Use designations for the subject properties are RH, High Density Residential and GC, General Commercial, with proposed Zoning designations of R-5, High Density Residential Zone and C-3, General Commercial Zone. Parcel ID(s): 3403-502-0069-000-8, 3403-502-0070-000-8. SECOND READING]

>> WE HAVE ORDINANCE 23-002, ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE TWO PARCELS LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE EAST SIDE OF U.S.

HIGHWAY 1 AND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 1.

DIRECTING ST. LUCIE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER TO PLACE IT ON THE CITY TAX ROLLS. COLLECT TAXES ON THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY ESTABLISHING ZONING DESIGNATION, ESTABLISHING LAND USE DESIGNATION, DIRECTING FOLLOWING OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT.

DIRECTING REVISION OF THE CHARTER BOUNDARY ARTICLE TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE.

AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> SECOND READING.

ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

[c. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-003 Review and approval of a Voluntary Annexation by owners, Woods Family Limited Partnership II, and representative, Donald Cuozzo Design Group, Inc., to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include four (4) parcels at or near the southeast corner of Melville Road and West Midway Road in Fort Pierce, FL 34982. The proposed Future Land Use designation for the subject property is RH, High Density Residential, with a proposed Zoning designation of R-5, High Density Residential Zone. Parcel ID(s): 3403-312-0000-000-4, 3403-312-0001-010-4, 3403-311-0005-010-9, 3403-311-0005-050-1. SECOND READING]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 23-003, ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE AT OR NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MILLVILLE ROAD. DIRECTING THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISERS TO PLACE IT ON THE CITY TAX ROLLS.

DIRECTING THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR TO COLLECT TAXES ON THE HEREIN PROPERTY. AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF ST. LUSSY COUNTY, DIRECTING REVISION OF THE CHARTER BOUNDARY ARTICLE TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND APPEALING ALL ORDINANCES. THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

>> ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THEISH COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

[d. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-004 Review and approval of a Voluntary Annexation by owners, Woods Family Limited Partnership II, and representative, Donald Cuozzo Design Group, Inc., to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include one (1) parcel at or near the east side of Melville Road and approximately 1400 Feet South of West Midway Road in Fort Pierce, FL 34982. The proposed Future Land Use designation for the subject property is RH, High Density Residential, with a proposed Zoning designation of R-5, High Density Residential Zone. Parcel ID: 3403-502-0075-000-3. SECOND READING]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 23-004, ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE ONE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE EAST SIDE OF MELVILLE ROAD. SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A.

DIRECTING THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER TO ASSESS SAID PROPERTY AND PLACE IT ON THE CITY TAX ROLLS.

DIRECTING THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR TO COLLECT TAXES.

ESTABLISHING ZONING DESIGNATION, LAND USE DESIGNATION DIRECTED FILING WITH THE ORDINANCE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT. DIRECTING REVISION OF THE CHARTER BOUNDARY ARTICLE TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, REPEALING ALL THERE WITH.

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> ROLL CALL. >> OKAY.

[e. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-005 An Application for Annexation of a parcel of land approximately 61.76 acres, located north of Orange Avenue and west of N 41st Street. - FIRST READING]

DIRECTING THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER TO ASSESS SAID PROPERTY AND PLACE IT ON THE CITY TAX ROLLS, AS OF JANUARY 1, 2024. COLLECT TAXES ON THE HERE IN DESCRIBED PROPERTY. AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF ST. LUSSY COUNTY. TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PARTS THEREOF. THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. TODAY, WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION, YOU'LL SEE TODAY THAT THERE ARE TWO

[00:45:03]

THE FIRST IS FOR MILLCREEK ANNEXATION OF 61.76 ACRES.

THE APPLICANT IS RED TAIL DESIGN GROUP.

PROPERTY OWNER IS FM MILL CREEK HOLDING, LLC.

THIS ANNEXATION OF A SINGLE PARCEL IS ASSOCIATED WITH THREE OTHER CONTIGUOUS PARCELS, WHICH WE'LL SEE IN THE NEXT ITEM.

CONSTITUTE THE MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THEIR AUGUST 8TH, 2022, MEETING. THAT IS THE SITE LOCATION.

YOU'LL SEE IT'S NORTH OF ORANGE AVENUE.

ANDUALU YOU WILL SEE THE AREA SUBJECT OF SEPARATE APPLICATION YOU'LL HEAR NEXT. 61.76 ACRES.

EXISTING LAND USE DESIGNATION OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. TOGETHER WITH EXISTING ZONING OF PUD WILL BE AMENDED THROUGH SEPARATE APPLICATIONS AT SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING THE FUTURE LAND USE OR ZONING AT THIS MEETING.

PLANNING BOARD DID MENTION COUNTY OVERLAY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION PLAN. WE'LL BE ADDRESSING THOSE AGAIN IN FUTURE APPLICATIONS. FUTURE LAND USE, NOT DISCUSSING THAT AT THE MOMENT, FAIRLY PATCHWORK NETWORK OF FUTURE LAND USE. PROTECTION PLAN, LOCATION OF THE SITE WITHIN THE OVERALL PLAN, YOU CAN SEE IT FORMS ESSENTIAL PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUADRANT.

THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THIS APPLICATION IS FOR STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS MODIFIED THIS APPROVAL OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.

>> I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT, I'M NOT SURE IT'S RELEVANT HERE, BUT I PARTICIPATED IN THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING AND VOTED ON THIS MATTER AT THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING IN AUGUST. FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES

>> THANK YOU FOR TELLING US THAT.

SO I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

WELCOME. >> MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, PLEASURE TO BE HERE. TODD WITH RED TAIL.

I BELIEVE YOU HAVE HAD THE CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT EXCITED.

ONE THAT BRINGS SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ACREAGE.

GREAT AREA ALONG ORANGE AVENUE. YOU'VE SEEN THE BRANDING PROGRAM AS WELL THAT WE PUT TOGETHER, AS WE WORKED ON TRYING TO HELP BETTER IDENTIFY AND STRENGTHEN THAT CORRIDOR.

AFTER THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY, OBVIOUSLY ALL SCROUNGING TO FIND SOLUTIONS AND LOOK AT THINGS.

THIS WILL BE ANOTHER AREA THAT WILL BEGIN TO HELP ADD LIGHT AND BRIGHTNESS TO THE DIM SITUATION THAT WE JUST HAD.

IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER OR PROVIDE, GLAD TO DO THAT. OTHER THAN THAT, STAFF DID A GREAT JOB. HOLD OFF ON ANY PRESENTATIONS

WITH THAT. >> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN

DISCUSSION OR MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SEBLGD SECOND >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

[f. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-007 An Application for Annexation of three parcels of land approximately 18.96 acres, located north of Orange Avenue and west of N 41st Street - FIRST READING]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 23-007, ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE THREE PARCELS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 18.92 ACRES AND BEING LOCATED AT OR NEAR APPROXIMATELY 2250 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORANGE AVENUE AND SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A. PLACE IT ON THE CITY TAX ROLLS OF JANUARY 1, 2024. DIRECTING THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR TO COLLECT TAXES ON THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY. DIRECTING REVISION OF THE CHARTER BOUNDARY ARTICLE TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. YOU JUST HEARD, THIS IS THE THREE PARCELS WHICH ARE CONTIGUOUS TO THE PREVIOUSLY

[00:50:02]

REPRESENTED AGAIN BY THE SAME AGENT.

RED TAIL DESIGN GROUP. AND TODD MOWERY.

ORANGE AVENUE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON AUGUST 8, 2022, MEETING. YOU'LL SEE IT IS THOSE THREE PARCELS CONNECTED TO THE SOUTH OF THE PREVIOUS ANNEXATION APPLICATION. 18.92 ACRES.

SAME COMMENTS AS WE HEARD EARLIER.

PLANNING BOARD MADE SOME ISSUES REGARDING, WELL, WANTED STAFF TO BE AWARE OF THE JENKINS ROAD OVERLAY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION PLAN AND THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING WILL BE CONSIDERED AT FUTURE HEARINGS.

AGAIN, THERE IS A SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE.

THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTIES IN RELATION TO THE OVERLAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION PLAN. AGAIN, SOUTHWEST -- SOUTHEAST QUADRANT. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY ADMISSION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION.

ALTERNATIVES ARE MODIFIED APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

APPLICANT COME FORWARD. SAME TIME, SAME PLACE.

SAME SPIEL SPIEL RIGHT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF

ORDINANCE 23-007. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> NEXT WE HAVE ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR

[g. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-008 An Application for Annexation of four parcel of land approximately 56.67 acres, located north of Orange Avenue and east of N Jenkins Road - FIRST READING]

COLLECT TAXES ON THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY.

AND CHIEF AD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER.

FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH, PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>> MR. FRIEDMAN. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

SIMILARLY TO THE LAST TWO ITEMS, SPLIT ANNEXATION APPLICATION. BOTH CONTIGUOUS AREAS OF PARCELS. THE FIRST ONE BEING WEST ORANGE 56.67 ACRES. THE APPLICANT REPRESENTED BY RED TAIL DESIGN GROUP AND TODD MOWERY.

ORANGE AVENUE DEVELOPMENT II, LLC.

WE HAVE FOUR PARCELS ASSOCIATED WITH AN ADDITIONAL CONTIGUOUS PARCEL, FORM THE WEST ORANGE, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

AGAIN, RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR AUGUST 8, 2022, MEETING. THERE IS THE LOCATION OF THE SITE. YOU SEE IT'S EAST OF JENKINS ROAD AND NORTH OF ORANGE 5E6 AVENUE.

56.67 ACRES. SIMILAR COMMENTS AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED LATER AT SEPARATE APPLICATIONS, SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS. PLANNING BOARD DID MENTION AGAIN THE COUNTY JENKINS ROAD OVERLAY.

SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE, WE HAVE A MAJORITY OF COUNTY LAND USE, WITH A CONNECTION TO THE CITY.

JENKINS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION PLAN, DEVELOPMENT IS WEST OF THE MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.

AND MORE CENTRAL TO THE SOUTH OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION PLAN. SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO APPROVE THEIR PROPOSED ANNEXATION.

ALTERNATIVES ARE MODIFIED APPROVAL OR A DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. MR. MOWERY.

>> HEY, AGAIN. MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. BRIEF POINT ON THIS, PROPERTY NORTH OF JULY JULIAN. TODD MOWERY, AGAIN WITH RED

[00:55:05]

THE NEXT APPLICATION THAT YOU WILL HEAR WILL BE TO THE NORTH.

FULLY CONNECT THE CITY ON THE CORNER OF JENKINS AND ORANGE AVENUE. YOU CAN SEE THAT WITH THE GRAPHIC PULLED UP THERE, WIHIC IS THE SUBJECT FOR THE NEXT APPLICATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, GLAD

TO ANSWER THAT AS WELL. >> QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE.

NO ONE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS

>> MOTION AND SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> YES. >> ROLL CALL.

[h. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-009 An Application for Annexation of a parcel of land approximately 28.12 acres, located north of Orange Avenue and east of N Jenkins Road - FIRST READING]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 23-009.

AN ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE ONE PARCEL CONTAINING 28.12 ACRES, LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF JENKINS AND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A. DIRECTING THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER TO ASSESS SAID PROPERTY.

DIRECTING THE ST. LUSSY TAX COLLECTOR TO COLLECT TAXES, DIRECTING FOLLOWING OF THE ORDINANCE WITH THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF ST.

LUSSY COUNTY. SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >> MR. FRIEDMAN.

>> THIS IS THE CONTIGUOUS PARCEL WHICH LIES TO THE WEST OF THE PREVIOUS ANNEXATION APPROVAL.

CONSISTS OF 28.12 ACRES. PART OF THE WEST ORANGE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. APPLICANT IS REPRESENTED BY RED TAIL DESIGN GROUP AND TODD MOWERY.

CYPRUS LLC. AGAIN, THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR APPROVAL AT THE AUGUST 8, 2022, MEETING. THERE IS A LOCATION OF THE PARCEL. YOU SEE THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION THAT YOU HEARD IS HIGHLIGHTED TO THE EAST FROM THE CORNER OF JENKINS ROAD, 28.12 ACRES.

THE FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING WILL BE DETERMINED AND DISCUSSED AT A FUTURE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

PLANNING BOARD MENTIONED THE COUNTY'S JENKINS ROAD OVERLAY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION PLAN.

THAT WILL BE A PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE. PROTECTION PLAN AT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. AND MORE CENTRAL LOCATION IN THAT PROTECTION PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION.

ALTERNATIVES ARE MODIFIED APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> I'M CURIOUS AND HAVE ONE QUESTION, JUST FOR MY EDUCATION. WITH THESE FOUR PARCELS, OR THIS SAME PROJECT, WHY IS THERE FOUR ORDINANCES INSTEAD OF JUST -- CAN YOU EXPLAIN SO THE PUBLIC CAN KNOW AND I CAN UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, WE'RE VOTING ON ONE PROJECT. I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE DIFFERENT PARCELS, BUT IF IT'S ALL CONNECTED TO ONE PROJECT, WHY DO WE HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT ORDINANCES TO VOTE ON? NOT THAT I DON'T WANT TO DO WORK.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY Y'ALL DIDN'T PUT IT IN ONE AND MAKE IT SIMPLER FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS

ONE PROJECT. >> THESE WERE GROUPED TOGETHER IN TERMS OF OWNERSHIP. SO THE PARCELS ARE CONNECTED THROUGH OWNERSHIP. THE ORDER OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU ARE HEARING THEM IS DUE TOCONTIGUITY.

>> SOME LAYPERSON COMES IN AND SEE ALL OF THESE ORDINANCE, THEY THINK IT'S DIFFERENT PROPERTY, BUT IT'S REALLY ONE PROPERTY OR ONE COMPANY TRYING TO BUILD WHAT IS IT, MILL

CREEK? >> YES.

>> SO I'M JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER.

>> MADAM MAYOR, IF I MAY. THE FUTURE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE FUTURE, WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE ZONING WILL BE ASSOCIATED SINGLE ORDINANCES.

SO THAT WILL BE FAR MORE CLEARER.

THIS IS JUST A STEP TOWARDS -- >> ANNEXATION REQUIRES CON

CONTIGUITY. >> EASY ANSWER IS THAT IS THE

[01:00:01]

GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS. >> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

IF YOU HAVE SOME TYPE OF OPPOSITION TO THIS, AND SOMEBODY COMES AND STARTS PULLING ALL OF THESE ORDINANCES, WHAT IS THIS, WHAT IS THAT? JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT CLEAR, TRANSPARENT FOR EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS WHY WE'RE DOING IT BECAUSE THIS IS REQUIRED BY LAW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER.

>> NOT TO MAKE THE MEETING LONGER.

>> NOT SAYING THAT. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. MOWERY, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THIS?

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, TODD MOWERY WITH RED TAIL. WE ASKED MR. FRIEDMAN IF HE WOULD TRY TO MAKE THIS AS COMPLICATED AS POSSIBLE.

>> HE DID A GOOD JOB, TOO. >> FOR CLARIFY, THIS ACTUALLY IS TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS. WE'LL HAVE MILL CREEK IS THE ONE AND THEN YOU ACTUALLY, THERE IS SOME LAND IN BETWEEN AND THEN THE OTHER PROJECT IS WEST ORANGE, AS IT'S CALLED.

TWO SORT OF SEPARATE PROJECTS. BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF LANDOWNERS, YOU CAN IMAGINE AT TIMES TRYING TO PULL, HERDING CATS, TRYING TO PULL THEM TOGETHER AND GET AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACT ARRANGEMENTS IN PLACE. QUITE A TASK.

AT THIS POINT, GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> COMMENT.

MR. MOWERY, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH WE'RE ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 170 ACRES, INTERSECTION OF ORANGE AND JENKINS. WHEN DO YOU CONTEMPLATE HAVING SOME TYPE OF SITE PLANS THAT ARE GOING TO COME FORWARD FOR

REVIEW? >> WE'RE FULLY WORKING WITH STAFF AT THIS POINT. A YEAR AND A HALF INTO THIS PROCESS OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THESE PLANS AND IT'S BEEN A GOOD ADVENTURE SO FAR. BUT WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE YOUR ACTION WILL BE COMING UP IN FEBRUARY.

DEAL WITH THE LAND USE AND REZONING.

WHEN THAT COMES INTO PLACE, IT ESTABLISHES THE USES THAT WILL BE GOING INTO THIS. IT WILL BE FOLLOWED PROBABLY BY PROBABLY THE END OF MARCH. SO YOU'LL HAVE END USERS FOR SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. DIFFERENT BUILDER THAT WILL WANT TO DO THE MULTIFAMILY. TOWN HOMES.

COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS. SO ALL THOSE COMPONENTS THAT COME TOGETHER FOR THESE, WHICH MAKE IT CHALLENGING TO GET THE FINAL SITE PLANS PULLED TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS ALL OF THEIR REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, EACH OF THOSE BUILDERS, THEY HAVE ALL OF THEIR DESIRES. THEN WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CITY, COUNTY, SCHOOL DISTRICT DESIRES.

>> GIVE YOU CREDIT FOR CORRALLING ALL OF THIS.

WE SHOULD EXPECT SHOVELS IN THE GROUND BY JUNE?

>> APRIL 1ST. CATCH THAT?

>> I DID. MINUTES IN THE MEETING.

>> APRIL FOOLS. THANKS.

[i. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval of an application for a Conditional Use submitted by Michael Menard Architectonic, Inc.,to to convert the existing 2,833 square feet office building back to single family residence located at 326 South 2nd Street. Parcel ID:2410-808-0006-000-7]

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> NOW WE MOVE TO TO OUR QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE SUBMITTED BY MICHAEL DENARD, CONVERT THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING BACK TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. LOCATED AT 326 SOUTH 2ND

STREET. >> WE HAVE QUITE A FEW QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS THIS EVENING. I'M GOING TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO READ THE GUIDELINES FOR OUR PROCESS.

IF EVERYBODY WILL PLEASE LISTEN, SHE WILL ONLY READ IT ONE TIME. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. SO THE CITY COMMISSION SERVE AS BOTH LEGISLATIVE AND KWARL ROLE.

WHEN ACTING AS A KWARL BODY, COMMISSION IMPLIES LAWS AND POLICIES AND HELD TO A STRICTER STANDARD OF PROCEDURE.

LESS FORMAL PROCEEDINGS THAN CIRCUIT COURT, BUT MORE FORMAL THAN THE NORMAL COMMISSION MEETING.

DECISIONS MUST BE MADE BASED ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THEREFORE, COMMISSIONERS HAVE A DUTY TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS MORE LIKE JUDGES THAN LEGISLAORS.

THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIFORM PROCEDURES THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED THIS EVENING.

NO ONE SHOULD APPROACH ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OR THE CITY CLERK DURING THE HEARING.

IF DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY CLERK, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO THE SERGEANT OF ARMS, ONE OF THE UNIFORMED POLICE

[01:05:03]

OFFICERS IN THE CHAMBER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MADAM CLERK, HAS THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENT BEEN

MET? >> ADVERTISING HAS BEEN MET.

>> DID YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

>> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> NO.

>> MAYOR HUDSON. >> NO, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? PLEASE PROCEED.

>> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, TODAY I HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR 326 SOUTH 2ND STREET.

FOR THE REQUEST AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH 12576 AND 133 OF THE CITY CODE AND ARTICLE FIVE OF THE CITY CODE, APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION ORDERED TO CONVERT THE EXISTING 2,833 SQUARE FEET OFFICE BUILDING, CONSTRUCTED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO GO BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL USE, INCLUDING EXTENSIONS OF A BACK PORCH, ADDITION OF A SWIMMING POOL, REMODELLING OF A GARAGE. ADDITION OF AN ENTRY PERGOLA.

AND REMOVING PART OF THE PARKING LOT.

SUBJECT BUILDING IS LOCATED IN C1, FUTURE LAND USE OF THIS PROPERTY IS OFFICES, CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF CITRUS AVENUE AND EAST OF SOUTH 2ND STREET. SURROUNDING USES ARE COMMERCIAL, EDUCATION AND RESIDENTIAL.

PROPOSED 2,833 SQUARE FEET RESIDENCE WILL REPLACE AN EXISTING OFFICE SPACE. LOCATION MAP OF THE PARCEL.

YOU CAN SEE IT'S AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH 2ND STREET, INDIAN RIVER DRIVE AND CITRUS AVENUE.

ZONING IS C-1. THESE ARE SOME IMAGES OF THE FACADE FOR YOU FROM ALL ANGLES. THESE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF SOME ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR MORE CONTEXT.

LEFT IS EXISTING SITE PLAN. ON THE RIGHT, YOU HAVE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THIS PARCEL.

THE RENOVATIONS FOR THE FIRST FLOOR ARE SHOWN.

AS WELL AS THE RENOVATIONS FOR THE SECOND FLOOR.

THESE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR THE BUILDING.

AT TRC, TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWED THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE ON NOVEMBER 17, 2022, MEETING.

NO COMMENTS EXCEPT FOR THE FOLLOWING FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR ALL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES ON OCTOBER 24, 2022, MEETING.

AND THE PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR MEETING ON DECEMBER 12, 2022, VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST. THE CITY COMMISSION'S ACTIONS TODAY CAN BE THAT OF APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE, APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WITH CHANGES OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANY QUESTIONS? THIS IS YOUR TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO THIS APPLICATION THAT IS FRONT OF US, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A C-1, LOOKING AT CONVERTING BACK TO RESIDENTIAL. OKAY.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR.

BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY I READ IT AND HEARD.

SO WHAT OTHER PARCELS WITHIN THIS VICINITY ARE OF THE SAME ZONING AND ARE THERE ANY THAT HAVE THE SAME CONDITIONAL USE

APPLIED TO THEIR PARCEL? >> AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE TO THE NORTH IS C-1, THE SAME ZONING.

AND THEN TO THE EAST AND WEST ARE BOTH C-4 WHICH ARE HIGHER DENSITY COMMERCIAL. AND THEN YOU HAVE PDS TO THE SOUTH. AND A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO THE

SOUTHWEST. >> OKAY.

SO THAT IS VERY CLEAR ON THAT PART.

THE RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION FOR ABUTTING C-1 PARCELS, CONDITIONAL USE ON ANY OF THOSE PARCELS THAT WE'RE AWARE OF AS

OF TODAY? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

I WASN'T THE PLANNER TO REVIEW THIS.

[01:10:01]

>> THEY MAY BRING IT UP ALSO. BUT OKAY.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE IN OUR DOWNTOWN ZONING OR DOWNTOWN AREA RELATED TO THIS SPECIFIC ZONING OUTSIDE OF THIS MAP? I MEAN, HOW MUCH OF THE DOWNTOWN, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS, THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO KNOW WHY I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IN A FEW MINUTES, OR KNOW NOW.

IS YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION HAS HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY OR SURROUNDING ZONING DISDI DISDISTRICTS, TO WHERE WE ARE MIXING ISDISTRICTS, TO WHERE W MIXING SDISTRICTS, TO WHERE WE MIXING DISTRICTS, TO WHERE WE MIXING USES.

ISSUES OR DISCUSSIONS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY OF USES.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU CAN HELP ME WITH OUTSIDE OF THIS SPECIFIC MAP? ANYTHING WITHIN OUR DOWNTOWN?

>> I THINK IN GENERAL, COMMISSIONER, YOU HAVE A DOWNTOWN THAT IS PRIMARILY MIXED USE.

ENCOURAGING THE MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, ACACTIVIT ACACTIVITIES, RESTAURANTS AND SO CACTIVITIESACTIVITIES, REST FORTH.

WE HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S ON THE EDGE OF THE DOWNTOWN, AS THE NEIGHBORHOODS YOU'VE BEEN SPEAKING TO. BUT THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECOGNITION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS IN A WIDER SENSE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD AND GENERATE A MIXED USE ACTIVITY AREA WITHIN THE CITY. WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE, WORK AND PLAY. AND I THINK THIS IS A COMPONENT OF THAT. IT'S AN -- IN THE FUTURE, IT MAY BUILD TO SOMETHING ELSE. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAVE A BALANCE HERE WITH THIS PROPERTY, BEING ATTRACTIVE BUILDING. AND KEEPING IT IN SOME USE RATHER THAN ENCOURAGING REDEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD YOU KNOW, MAYBE BE THREE OR FOUR STORY OR EVEN HIGHER BUILDING.

IT FORMS A REALLY ATTRACTIVE ENTRANCEWAY TO THIS PART OF

TOWN. >> I DON'T DISAGREE.

WHILE MY QUESTIONING MIGHT SEEM, SLIGHTLY ON THE NEGATIVE IDE TOWARDS THE YOU KNOW, MIXED USE APPLICATION, IT'S REALLY NOT. I JUST WANT TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING PROVIDED WITH YOUR TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD, THAT THESE THINGS ARE BEING CONSIDERED.

JUST REFRESH MY MEMORY TO THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST OF THE ROUND ABOUT, I BELIEVE THOSE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN WITHIN THE CITY. THEY'RE SINCE EXPIRED.

BUT THOSE WERE RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS THAT CAME AT ONE

POINT ALSO? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST TOWARDS THE WATER IS INSTITUTIONAL EDUCATIONAL AT THIS POINT?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. I'M SURE OUR APPLICANT MR. MERNARD WILL SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF

STAFF? >> I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM A COUPLE OF FACTS. THIS WAS PUT IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

THEY NOT ONLY APPROVED THE USE, BUT THEY ALSO APPROVED THE RENOVATION PACKAGE PROPOSED. SO EVERYTHING SOUP TO NUTS THAT IS ON YOUR SITE PLAN HERE TONIGHT WAS APPROVED BY

HISTORIC PRESERVATION? >> YES, SIR

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD. HE IS HERE.

AND WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE. BUT PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR

THE RECORD, PLEASE. >> MICHAEL MENARD.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> NO. THEY COVERED IT ALL. MR. BRODERICK, EVERYTHING WAS EVALUATED, FIELD MEASURED, EXISTING CONDITIONS TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS ORIGINAL, WHAT WAS MODIFIED TO BE CONVERTED TO OFFICES OVER THE YEARS.

CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW SEPARATED INTO I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL IT THREE OFFICES, IF THAT. BUT WE'RE MODIFYING IT AND BRINGING IT BACK TO HISTORIC BEAUTY.

WHICH WILL BE VERY NICE FOR DOWNTOWN.

I THINK IT WILL BE VERY ATTRACTIVE AND BE A NICE CORNER POINT FOR 2ND STREET TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, MR. JOHNSON, DONE SEVERAL PROJECTS DOWNTOWN. SOME ARE C-1 RESIDENTIAL.

WORKING ON RIGHT NOW, THROUGH HISTORICAL THAT WILL BECOME A DUPLEX VACATION RENTAL TYPE SCENARIO.

[01:15:03]

BUT DUE TO CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THEY WERE PUT ON HOLD.

SO THERE IS A LOT OF MIXED USE TYPE VACATION RENTAL OR HOUSING TYPE PROJECTS. TRYING TO OCCUR.

>> MADAM MAYOR. JUST TO BUILD ON THAT, TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR AND THE RECORD IS CLEAR, WE LIKE TO REPEAT HISTORY, THAT IS OKAY. IT HAPPENS.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT IT IN A NEGATIVE MANNER.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CLIENT IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE WITHIN OUR CITY, OUR DOWNTOWN IS GROWING. I'M SURE THEY'RE MAKING THIS INVESTMENT IN THIS IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE THEY REALIZE THAT AND SEE THAT. IS THAT ACCURATE?

>> YES. HE WAS ACTUALLY CONSIDERING DOING IT AS AN INVESTMENT VACATION DUPLEX RENTAL SCENARIO. AFTER LOOKING AT IT AND SEEING SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE DEVELOPING DOWNTOWN AND EVERYTHING, HE DECIDED HE WANTED TO MAKE IT HIS

RETIREMENT HOME. >> WOW.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

JUST KNOW THAT WHAT COMES DOWN WITH A BUSY DOWNTOWN.

>> IT MAKES IT NICE. WALK TO THE EVENTS.

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO LIVE WORK AND PLAY IN THOSE AREAS.

THAT'S RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> HE IS GOING TO SEE EVERY CAR THAT COMES DOWN CITRUS AVENUE OVER THE OVERPASS.

THIS IS CURIOSITY QUESTION, HOW OLD IS THIS HOUSE?

DO YOU KNOW? >>

>> EARLY 19, 18 TO 22-ISH. >> VERY INTERESTING.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION OR A

MOTION. >> JUST GOING TO COMMENT ON COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON'S COMMENT.

IN THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION, YOU HAVE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, BED AND BREAKFAST, RESIDENTIAL. IT'S QUITE A DYNAMIC AND OFFICE USE. IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION.

CITRUS RUNNING NORTH ON 2ND, INDIAN RIVER, ET CETERA.

SO IT'S A REAL MIXED BAG THERE. BUT THAT IS GREAT.

IT'S A GOOD MIX AND IT SEEMS TO WORK.

SO I PERSONALLY CONVERTING THIS PROPERTY BACK TO ITS PRIOR USE AND RESIDENTIAL IS COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE IN THIS AREA AND BECAUSE IT REALLY IS A VERY KIND OF ECLECTIC MIX RIGHT THERE. REALLY DYNAMIC.

>> YEAH. AND IF I REMEMBER MAIN STREET, EARLY ON, WE WANTED RESIDENTIAL.

I MEAN, WE WANTED PEOPLE TO LIVE DOWNTOWN.

AND THAT WAS OUR REAL PILLAR OF THE MAIN STREET WHEN THEY DID THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN. SO ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO LIVE DOWNTOWN IS A GOOD THING. BUT WITH THE CAUTION THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS THEY GOT TO KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT IN THE FUTURE. RIGHT?

>> AND YES. SO JUST BRINGS TO LIGHT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAPPENED IN 2010, 2011 AND 2012.

OVERLAY DISTRICT. WE RESURRECTED THOSE SAME CONVERSATIONS IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT, DIFFERENT MANNER.

JUST WANT THAT ON THE RECORD. WHEN SOMEONE GOES BACK IN TEN YEARS, I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL BE HERE OR NOT.

WE'LL SEE. HOPEFULLY RETIREMENT.

>> THOSE ARE HISTORIC STRUCTURES TOO IN EDGARTOWN.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

>> CONGRATULATIONS. >> OKAY.

NEXT WE HAVE KWARL REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR

[j. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval of an application for a Conditional Use submitted by the applicant's representative, Engineering Design and Construction, Inc., to operate a 36,540 square-foot Middle School at 5900 Tedder Road, Fort Pierce FL, 34947. Parcel ID: 2324-113-0002-000-2]

>> HAS THE ADVERTISING BEEN MET?

>> ADVERTISING FOR THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MET.

>> WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

>> YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

[01:20:05]

>> YES. I ALSO BELIEVE I SAW THIS PLAN AT THE PLANNING BOARD. BUT MY MEMORY IS NOT PERFECT ON THAT. BUT I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATIONS.

YES. YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD YES I'VE SEEN IT THERE. NO. OKAY.

>> YOU MISSED THAT ONE. >> I DID MISS THAT ONE.

I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATION REGARDING THIS.

I TOLD YOU I WAS GOING TO TRY TO GET BETTER AT THAT.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> I BELIEVE SO, YES.

>> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON. >> I'VE NOT HAD ANY MEETINGS REGARDING THIS. I'M GOING TO SAY NO.

>> COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

I'VE HAD CORRESPONDENCE AND CONVERSATION WITH SURROUNDING

RESIDENTS. >> MAYOR HUDSON.

>> I DON'T THINK SO. BUT THIS ITEM HAS BEEN BEFORE US IN UNDER SUBJECT MATTER. SO RIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW.

RIGHT. BEFORE.

FOR SOME OTHER REASON OR SOMETHING.

YEAH. >> SO DO YOU WANT THAT ON RECORD? BECAUSE THIS DID COME BEFORE WE WERE AWARE OF IT AT A PUBLIC MEETING.

>> OKAY. I HAVE NOT MET WITH THE

APPLICANT OR ANY OF THOSE. >> I HAVE NOT.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE DONE.

OKAY. YOU WANT TO SWEAR IN THE

WITNESSES. >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THANK YOU.

>> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, TODAY BEFORE YOU IS AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE SYNERGY SCHOOL OF TOMORROW AT 5900 TEDDER ROAD. THIS IS A LOCATION MAP SHOWING THE APPROXIMATE 9.42 ACRES. THIS IS THE ZONING AND THE FUTURE LAND USE. FUTURE LAND USE BEING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONING BEING SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY. THIS IS PART OF THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SCHOOL INSIDE OF TWO EXISTING 36,540 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURES. SCHOOL WOULD RUN FROM 9:00 A.M.

TO 4:30 P.M. EMPLOY 20 TO 25 STAFF MEMBERS.

TENTATIVE CAPACITY OF APPROXIMATELY 3006TH THROUGH 8TH GRADE STUDENTS. BEFORE YOU IS THE LAY-OUT OF THE PARKING AND BUS LOADING ZONE.

LET THE APPLICANT TALK MORE ABOUT THE BUS LOADING ZONE, AS THEY HAVE SPECIFIC BUSES THAT TAKE THE CHILDREN TO SCHOOL.

THE PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR DECEMBER 12, 2022, MEETING VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PROPOSED USE OFFERS A PROVISION OF ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL REPRESENTING A LIMITED COMMERCIAL USE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

ALSO FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, I DO WANT TO ADD A CLIFF NOTE HERE ABOUT SAID PARCEL AT THE SCHOOL WAS BUILT AND COMMISSIONED TO BE A SCHOOL FOR WHITE STUDENTS ONLY DURING SEGREGATION. I AM HOPING THAT THE COMMISSION WILL SEE THE PAST THAT THIS PARCEL HAS AND ENSURE THAT THERE IS AN EQUITABLE FUTURE FOR THIS PARCEL AND CITY.

THE CITY COMMISSION'S ACTIONS TODAY ARE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO CHANGES, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WITH CHANGES OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE. THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> YOU INDICATED THAT THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION HERE IS R-1.

>> YES. >> DOESN'T REQUIRE REZONING FOR

THIS TYPE OF USE? >> THIS USE IS CONDITIONAL IN

ALL OF THE ZONING OF THE CITY. >> INSTITUTIONAL USE OF THIS NATURE IS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL IN R-1?

>> YES, SIR. >> YOU HAVE EDUCATED ME TODAY.

I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT. VALUABLE PIECE OF INFORMATION.

THANK YOU. >> YOU SAID IN ALL ZONING, IS

WHAT YOU SAID. >> SCHOOLS, I BELIEVE EXCEPT INDUSTRIAL. THEY ARE CONDITIONAL USE.

>> LEARNED SOMETHING TOO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE.

THAT IS WHY I SAID YES, AND I'M TRYING TO -- WHAT DID WE VOTE ON BEFORE? WHAT DID WE VOTE ON BEFORE?

>> THAT WAS THE HEARING, FOR THEM TO GO GET THEIR FINANCING.

AND THEY NEEDED COMMISSION'S SEAL OF APPROVW I'M TIRED.

I'M LIKE I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE. BASED ON YOUR CLIFF NOTE, THEY SAY IF YOU DON'T ASK A QUESTION, YOU WON'T GET AN ANSWER. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CLIFF NOTE.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME ANYTHING.

THE SCHOOL WILL BE OPEN FOR EVERYBODY?

[01:25:01]

>> I WILL LET THE APPLICANT TALK TO THAT POINT.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IT IS OPEN FOR EVERYBODY.

>> YOU BROUGHT THE CLIFF NOTE. >> YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

>> I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING. BUT I HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION

SITTING HERE. >> YES, SIR.

>> I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN ANSWER.

>> I'M PRETTY SURE YOU KNOW I WAS GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION, THAT IS WHY YOU GAVE THE CLIFF NOTE.

THAT IS FINE. I'LL WAIT UNTIL THE APPLICANT.

DON'T GET MAD AT THE APPLICANT. I HAD TO ASK THE QUESTION.

>> I'M GLAD YOU DID. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

>> SO CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SITE PLAN.

HERE IS WHAT I WANT TO DO, AND MAKE SURE THAT FROM YOUR RECOMMENDATION, ACTUALLY WELL, THAT IS THE SITE PLAN, BUT THAT IS LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

AND SO LET'S LOOK AT THE PARKING CONFIGURATION.

TRAFFIC PATTERNS. LOOK AND THINK ABOUT.

DID YOU CONSIDER AS A STAFF THE CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT PARENT DROP-OFF PICK-UP, STACKING TEDDER ROAD IN

RELATION TO JENKINS ROAD. >> THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AND ALSO WITH -- THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE STREET.

AND THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS, SIDEWALKS, CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT. BUT SINCE HOW THEY BUS CHILDREN INTO THE SCHOOL, AT SIN SYNERGY, THE

>> I THINK OF THIS ONE AS ABOUT AS SIMPLE AS IT GETS.

IT WAS A SCHOOL, COLLEGE AND NOW IT'S A SCHOOL AGAIN.

FULL CIRCLE HERE. SIMILAR TO WHAT MR. MENARD WAS JUST PRESENTING. SYNERGY SCHOOL A GREAT SCHOOL HERE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

EXISTING FACILITY DOWN ON OLD VIRGINIA COLLEGE.

I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WALKING THROUGH THERE AND AMAZED AT THE FACILITY THERE. THEY'VE BEEN LOOKING TO EXPAND FOR MANY YEARS NOW. WE'VE LOOKED AT A BUNCH OF PROPERTIES FOR THEM. IT'S PERFECT FOR THEM.

IT'S GOT THE SCHOOL LAID OUT THE WAY THEY WANT IT.

TYPICALLY HAVE ONLY SIX BUSES THAT ARE GOING TO BUS THE STUDENTS HERE. THIS HAS GOT THE BUS ROUTES.

WE DEAL WITH PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES ALL OF THE TIME.

THIS SITE IS PERFECT FOR IT. PARENT STACKING OVER ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE WITHIN THE PARKING LOT AND THEN THE BUS STACKING COMPLETELY SEPARATE. OUTDOOR AREA THAT IS PERFECT FOR THEM. AND ALSO, I BELIEVE IT HAS A GYMNASIUM AS WELL. MAKE IT THE PERFECT SITE.

AS FAR AS THE SIDEWALK, THERE ARE NO OTHER SIDEWALKS, SO IF 9WE BUILT IT ALONG OUR FRONTAGE, IT WOULDN'T GO ANYWHERE.

IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE STREET VIEW PHOTOS, THE PARKING LOT COMES RIGHT UP TO THE STREET.

REALLY NO ROOM. AGAIN, AS STAFF STATED, MOST OF THE STUDENTS WILL BE DRIVEN HERE BY THE PARENTS OR BUSTSED

[01:30:13]

SO WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> GOING BACK TO THE STACKING, WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF FOLKS THAT ACTUALLY BRING THEIR

KIDS TO SCHOOL? >> LET JASON ANSWER THAT

QUESTION, PLEASE. >> PLEASURE TO BE HERE IN FRONT

OF YOU. >> CAN YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF,

PLEASE. >> JASON MILLER.

>> YOU WERE SWORN IN I THINK, RIGHT?

>> YES. SO SYNERGY SCHOOL TOMORROW OFFERS FREE BUSSING. BECAUSE OF THAT, SPECIFICALLY ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF OUR STUDENTS ARE SCHOLARSHIP BASED.

MANY STUDENTS TAKE THAT UP, USE THE FREE BUSSING.

THIS WILL BECOME A BUS STOP FOR US.

THIRD CAMPUS. SO WE HAVE ONE CAMPUS THERE ON OLEANDER AT THE CROSSINGS CHURCH, WHICH WE JUST PURCHASED. AND THEN THE VIRGINIA COLLEGE SITE. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THIS SITE.

MULTIPLE, OFTENTIMES WE HAVE MULTIPLE STUDENTS FROM ONE FAMILY. AND SO WE TYPICALLY LIKE THEM TO DROP OFF AT SYNERGY AND REBUS THEM TO OTHER LOCATIONS.

THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE CROSSING SITE WHERE YOU HAVE A SCHOOL THAT IS ACTUALLY LOCATED RIGHT ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORHOODS. AND IT IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, AND WE HAD NOT HAD ANY IMPACT OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN THERE, WITH ANY OF THE TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH OUR STACKING.

VERY SIMILAR. >> GO AHEAD.

>> SO WHAT IF THAT CONDITION CHANGED? WHAT IF 90 PERCENT CHANGED AND I'M NOT GOING TO TESTIFY, BUT ALL I CAN SAY IS FROM EXPERIENCE, YOU KNOW THE PHENOMENON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES IS CHANGING WITHIN EDUCATION. SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOUR BUSINESS PLAN HAS TO CHANGE? WHAT DO WE DO THEN?

>> SURE. OBVIOUSLY THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT.

IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, I THINK THAT EVERY APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE YOU, YOU COULD ASK THAT QUESTION OF. WE HAVE TO BE FLEXIBLE IN THINGS THAT CHANGE. I THINK IF IT WERE BECOME A PROBLEM HERE, THERE IS THE ABILITY BECAUSE IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE FOR ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS TO BRING IT BACK BEFORE AND SAY HEY, WE'VE GOT AN ISSUE OUT HERE, THEY'RE STACKING BUSES. IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE.

YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, IF WE'RE VIOLATING ANY CODE THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD, THAT WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY. YOU DON'T FIND SITES THAT HAVE THAT GREAT OF A BUS LOOP THAT YOU COULD PROBABLY DOUBLE STACK BUSES IN THERE IF YOU HAD TO. I HOPE THAT SYNERGY IS THAT SUCCESSFUL. BUT I THINK THE ISSUE, IF IT BECOMES AN ISSUE, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO BRING IT BACK AND SAY WAIT A SECOND, WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS CONDITIONAL USE. BECAUSE THEY EXPANDED SO SO MUCH. SO THAT IS YOUR ABILITY TO DO

THAT AS A COMMISSIONER. >> THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT

ON THE RECORD. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> MY SAME QUESTION, LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, IN MY LEGAL FIELD, WHEN PEOPLE BRING UP FOOTNOTES, AND YOU KNOW, END NOTES, YOU KNOW, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK ABOUT. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER EDUCATION SYNERGY IS PROVIDING, THAT IT'S OPEN TO THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE. I KNOW YOU SAID IT'S A PRIVATE SCHOOL AND SCHOLARSHIP BASED. BUT I WANT EVERY CHILD THAT WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND OR ABLE TO ATTEND TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND YOUR PROGRAM.

>> YES. >> BASED ON THE FOOTNOTE, I'LL BE THE BAD GUY. I DON'T CARE.

I MEAN, I JUST NEED TO KNOW THAT BEFORE I VOTE ON SOMETHING, THAT EVERY PARENT WHO IS WATCHING THIS AND WHO GOES ON AND DOES YOUR RESEARCH ABOUT YOUR SCHOOL, HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENROLL THEIR 6TH OR 8TH GRADER INTO THIS PROGRAM. YOU KNOW, TO ACHIEVE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AT THIS LOCATION.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD, SINCE THIS IS A HEARING, THAT THE OPPORTUNITY IS THERE FOR ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE. REGARDLESS OF RACE, COLOR, SEX, WHATEVER. I MEAN, IT'S THERE.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GAINES.

SO WE PRIDE OURSELF HAVING A DIVERSE STUDENT BACKGROUND, IF YOU VISITED, YOU WOULD FIND ALL DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES.

[01:35:01]

IT'S AN AMAZING OPPORTUNITY FOR ANY STUDENT OF ANY GENDER, ANY SPECIFIC NATIONALITY TO BE ATTENDANCE TOO.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE A BIG DEAL OF THIS.

LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A HEARING AND WHEN MY STAFF BRINGS UP THE FOOTNOTE, I'VE DRIVEN BY AND SEEN THE ACTIVITY AT THE VIRGINIA SCHOOL. SO I KNOW WHAT I SEE OUT THERE.

SO YOU KNOW, FOR THE RECORD, I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT EVERY STUDENT OR EVERY CHILD IN FORT PIERCE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GO OUTSIDE OF FORT PIERCE, BUT I CAN WORRY ABOUT FORT PIERCE, HAS A CHANCE TO BENEFIT FROM YOUR PROGRAM.

AND THAT IS ALL I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

>> YES, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU. >> JUST SO THAT I'M CLEAR, TEDDER ROAD TURN OFF JENKINS ROAD IS TEDDER ROAD.

IS THAT A PRIVATE ROAD OR ANY OTHER RESIDENTS.

I CAN'T RECALL IF THERE IS ANYTHING AT THE END OF THE

STREET. >> IT'S A PUBLIC ROADWAY.

COUNTY ROADWAY. THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT USE THAT FOR THEIR ACCESS RESIDENTIAL AND I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME POTENTIALLY NON-RESIDENTIAL STUFF THE FURTHER NORTH YOU GET. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, IT IS RESIDENTIAL OTHER THAN THIS SCHOOL.

PUBLIC COUNTY ROAD. >> VERY WELL.

AND BASED ON WHAT THE LOOP THAT I SAW THERE, THE BUSES ARE ABLE TO COME OFF OF THAT COUNTY ROAD AND TURN ON TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH CAPACITY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I RECOLLECT THAT. I DID SEE THE SITE.

CAPACITY TO DOUBLE STACK IS THERE INSIDE YOUR PARCEL THAT

YOU WILL CONTROL, CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THEN THE ACCESS FOR PARENTS AND COULD YOU IDENTIFY ON THAT MAP WITH THE CURSOR.

>> AGAIN, THE SITE IS PERFECTLY LAID OUT.

IT HAS THE BUS LOOP ON ONE SIDE, PARKING FOR FACULTY AND FOR PARENTS ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THIS, PARKING LOT ACTUALLY DOES FORM A LOOP. SO YOU HAVE THE SPACES ON THE NORTH END, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE FOR MOST OF THE FACULTY AND THEN YOU DO HAVE A PARENT LOOP THAT CAN COME IN AND OUT OF THE SITE TO DROP KIDS OFF. ABOUT 90 PERCENT OF THE KIDS ARE ACTUALLY BUSTSED TO THE SITE.

>> ALL OFF TEDDER ROAD. ANYTHING ON TEDDER ROAD.G OR -

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND TURN THIS BACK OVER TO THE COMMISSION.

>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

>> CONGRATULATIONS. THANKS.

>> OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IS

[k. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval of a Site Plan (Development Review and Design Review) to construct a 252-unit multi-family development with eight (8) multi-family buildings, 5 garages, a clubhouse with a pool and a gym, and associated site improvements at or near 2101 and 2151 S. Jenkins Road Fort Pierce, FL 34947. Parcel IDs: 2313-800-0002-000-7 & 2313-800-0004-000-1]

IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. >> HAVE THE ADVERTISING

REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET. >> ADVERTISING FOR THIS ITEM

HAS BEEN MET. >> WOULD YOU ASK ABOUT EX PARTE

COMMUNICATIONS. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES.

>> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. I'M GOING TO SIDE OF CAUTION AND SAY YES. BECAUSE I REMEMBER THESE PICTURES AND SITES. SO I'M GOING TO SAY YES.

>> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON. >> NO, MA'AM, I DON'T BELIEVE

SO. >> COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> PLEASE PROCEED.

SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES, SORRY. >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> TODAY I HAVE BEFORE YOU AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR HILL POINT RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS THE LOCATION MAP OF THE

[01:40:02]

THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL, OR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND THE ZONING IS R-5, WHICH IS ALSO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS GIVEN BEFORE. BUT I DO WANT TO PREFACE THAT ONE WAS SENT YESTERDAY AND UPDATED.

AND SO I'VE INCLUDED THAT. AND IF YOU LOOK, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CHANGES ARE TO A DUMPSTER, THAT IS LOCATED RIGHT THERE. AS WELL AS SOME TRAFFIC SIGNALS. OR TRAFFIC MECHANISMS THAT ARE

RIGHT HERE. >> WHERE WAS THE DUMPSTER M

MOVED? >> THE DUMPSTER WAS HERE ORIGINALLY. RIGHT AT THE CORNER.

AND THEN IT'S BEEN MOVED JUST TO THE LEFT OF THIS BUILDING RIGHT HERE. THE SITE PLAN CONSISTS OF NINE BUILDINGS, FIVE OF THOSE BEING MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS WITH 36 UNITS, THREE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS WITH 34 UNITS.

FIVE GARAGES ARE ALSO INCLUDED WITH 470 PARKING SPOTS.

THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS BEFORE YOU.

AND THIS IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE 36 UNIT BUILDINGS.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE 24 UNIT BUILDINGS.

AND THIS IS THE DESIGN FOR BOTH OF THOSE.

THE CLUBHOUSE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN BELOW.

AS WELL AS THE DESIGN. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW HAVE FOUR CONDITIONS, COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT COST ESTIMATE AND LANDSCAPE PURSUANT TO CITY CODE 123.6 SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS APPROVED FOR THE SITE. NUMBER TWO, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL, UNITY OF TITLE WITH CLERK OF COURTS AND PARTIAL COMBINATION PROPERTY APPRAISER SHALL BE PROVIDED. NUMBER THREE, AFTER COMPLETION OF THE UNITY OF TITLE, PLEASE SUBMIT THE GENERAL ADDRESS REQUEST FORM AND FOR EACH PROPOSED BUILDING AND RESIDENTIAL UNIT. FOUR, MORE THAN TWO ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED.

STAFF WILL DISCUSS THE RATIO WITH THE APPLICANT.

I DO WANT TO ADD THAT I THINK A FIFTH CONDITION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION. THE TRAFFIC OR THE BUS STOP IS STILL IN REVIEW, MARTY SANDERS AND THE APPLICANT HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATIONS. WE'RE WAITING FOR THE FINAL APPROVAL FROM MARTY SANDERS. PLANNING BOARD ACTION SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW. PLANNING BOARD AT DECEMBER 12, 2022, MEETING VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REQUEST WITH CONDITIONS. TODAY'S CITY COMMISSION ACTIONS CAN BE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, DESIGN REVIEW WITH NO CHANGES. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW WITH CHANGES. OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW. THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> OF COURSE.

SEVERAL QUESTIONS ACTUALLY, RELATIVE TO THE PARKING RATIO.

WHAT WAS ACQUIRED AND WHAT IS BEING PROVIDED?

>> THE RATIO IS 1.5 I BELIEVE WITH 470, IT'S 1.6.

>> REQUIREMENTS SOMEWHERE AROUND 390, 400 AND PROVIDING

470? >> YES, SIR.

>> LANDSCAPE PACKAGE, DOES THAT MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED

BY THE CITY? >> YES, SIR.

>> I HAVE A CONCERN RELATIVE TO THE BUS STOP ISSUE.

WE DEAL WITH THIS FOR YEARS EVERY SITE PLAN THAT COMES THROUGH. HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE RECO RECONCILED, MY UNDERSTANDING THE SCHOOL DEPARTMENT HAS REQUIREMENTS RELATIVE TO THIS.

THAT INCLUDES YOU KNOW, COVERED, NOT COVERED ACCESSIBILITY PICK-UP, DROP-OFF ET CETERA.

YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT THIS PLAN BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION WITHOUT THOSE ISSUES BEING RESOLVED.

>> I'M SAYING A CONDITION WOULD BE ADDED THAT MARTY SANDERS

APPROVAL WOULD HAPPEN. >> THERE IS A MEETING OF THE MINDS BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND MR. SANDERS RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE AND IF NOT, THEN IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK HERE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING?

>> I WOULD SAY YES. IF MARTY SANDERS DOES NOT APPROVE WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED, I DO KNOW THAT THEY HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS. AND MARTY SANDERS HAS GIVEN HIS SAY. THIS IS THE MOST UPDATED. BUT IT STILL HAS NOT GOTTEN A FULL APPROVAL.

I WAS TOLD BY THE APPLICANT, THEY HAVE MESSAGED MULTIPLE

[01:45:01]

THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING WHERE MARTY SANDERS BROUGHT UP SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS. IT WASN'T A CONDITION THEN. BUT SINCE THEY HAVE NOT BEEN MET, I WOULD PUT IT AS A CONDITION NOW.

>> WAS IT DISCUSSED THAT THEY EXPECTED IT TO BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO IT COMING TO CITY COMMISSION.

THAT IS THE ONLY WAY I COULD SEE IT COMING OUT OF THE

PLANNING BOARD. >> NOT A CONDITION ADDED

>> DISCUSSION THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE IT GETS TO THE CITY COMMISSION. IS THAT A FAIR REPRESENTATION

OF WHAT TRANSPIRED >> YES, SIR.

>> I HAVE RESERVATIONS CONCERNING THAT.

BUT I'M ASSUMING LANGUAGE COULD BE PLACED IN THE -- I DON'T WANT TO STOP THE PROJECT. FIRST OFF, I WOULD SUGGEST THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT WE NEED IN THE LOCATION THAT WE NEED IT. WORKFORCE HOUSING ET CETERA, RELATIVE TO ALL OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS TAKING PLACE IN THE SPECIFIC AREA. I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THE PROJECT DELAYED IN ANY CAPACITY.

HOWEVER, MARTY'S REQUIREMENTS, IT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE, BASELINE AND NEED TO BE MET. SO I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WE ARE GOING TO WANT LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO THAT MOVING FORWARD. SAFETY OF THE KIDS.

YOU KNOW, WEATHER PROTECTION, ET CETERA.

SO MARTY IS VERY VERY -- I KNOW GO AHEAD, NICK.

>> MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, WE ARE REFERRING TO MARTY SANDERS. MARTY SANDERS WORKED FOR THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY SCHOOLS. PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SAYING

MARTY IS THE -- >> IF HE'S HAPPY, I'M HAPPY.

IN THIS INSTANCE, MARTY IS NOT HAPPY.

SO THAT IS KIND OF HOW IT'S FLOWING HERE.

BUT I'M ASSUMING WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME TYPE OF WAY TO RESOLVE THAT. KEVIN, I'M ASSUMING WE'VE GOT

SOME MECHANISM. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND MAYBE DEVELOP A CONDITION AROUND THAT.

>> WHERE ARE WE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?

>> THANK YOU. I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR. ON GRAHAM ROAD THERE IS A CONNECTION. IS THAT FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS

ONLY? >> YES.

>> IT'S HARD TO SEE. I TRIED TO ZOOM IN.

I COULDN'T SEE IT DIRECTLY. OKAY.

SO ANY COMMENTS FROM THE ENTITIES ABOUT THE GRAHAM R JENKINS ROAD. PRIMING THE PUMP FOR THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY COME FORWARD.

WE MOVED DUMPSTERS, ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC WORKS, IS THAT

ACCURATE? >> ENGINEERING.

>> ALL RIGHT. THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, I ALMOST SAID IT, IS GOING TO WEIGH IN ON THE BUS STOP. SO TALK TO ME ABOUT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I SEE IT.

I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTED AT THIS ENTRANCE WITH GANDER MOUNTAIN APPLICATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION. ARE THEY UTILIZING THAT SAME SIDEWALK AT THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTION.

>> I WILL LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR THE BUS STOP CONVERSATION. DEDICATION OF JENKINS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY IS PART OF THIS. HOW ABOUT SIGNAGE, WHEN WE DID GANDER MOUNTAIN ORIGINALLY, THE SIGNS WERE MISSED.

WE BROUGHT IT UP AT COMMISSION. WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH SIGNAGE

AT THIS LOCATION? >> I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN SIGNAGE WITHIN THE SITE PLAN ITSELF.

AS FOR ON TO JENKINS HIGHWAY, I'M UNSURE ABOUT THAT AND LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

>> I ONLY POINTED OUT THE ROADWAY CONNECTIVITY, BECAUSE THIS IS A SEPARATE APPLICATION BACK TO BACK.

MORE TRAFFIC, MORE VEHICLE TRIPS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT STAFF IS COMFORTABLE, ENGINEERING IS COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THEY'RE ANALYZING, ST.

LUSSY COUNTY, NOT TOO MANY COMMENTS ON THAT.

>> YES, SIR. WITH THE DEDICATION OF JENKINS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, IS THERE A CONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK ALONG JENKINS ROAD, OR WAITING FOR FUTURE EXPANSION.

BUT I DO BELIEVE A SIDEWALK HAS BEEN IN DISCUSSION.

>> I THINK THAT WAS ALL I HAD. THANK YOU

>> MR. GAINES, ARE YOU OKAY? >> OKAY FOR NOW.

>> ONE FOLLOW-UP COMMENT. KEVIN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I REMEMBER THE MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD AT THE PLANNING BOARD LEVEL REGARDING JENKINS ROAD, THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THE STUDY

[01:50:03]

>> I BELIEVE, YES. >> THERE IS NO ANALYTICAL DATA AT ALL THAT WE SHOULD EXPECT FOR ANOTHER THREE YEARS PLUS RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC ON JENKINS ROAD.

WE'RE THROWING A DART AT THE WALL TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE ANY CLUE RELATIVE TO TRAFFIC COUNT.

HOWEVER, THERE IS SPECIFICALLY, GREATER NEED TO PROVIDE THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT AND HOPEFULLY WISDOM TO MOVE THAT TRAFFIC STUDY FORWARD AND SO WE CAN BE PROACTIVE IN TAKING MITIGATION STEPS TO FIX THE TRAFFIC FLOW ON JENKINS ROAD VERSUS STUDYING. BUT THAT IS NOT UNDER OUR JURISDICTION. BUT I THOUGHT THAT THE 2026 RESONATED WITH ME FROM MULTIPLE MEETINGS.

BUT THAT IS KIND OF WHERE IT'S AT.

I THINK THE PRODUCT, THE NEED OF THE PRODUCT FAR OUTWEIGHS THOSE CONVERSATIONS AT THIS JUNCTURE.

>> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONER, YOU'RE ACCURATE.

THERE IS ANOTHER COMPONENT WITH THE TPO THAT TWO OF US SIT ON THE TPO. THAT IS A PART OF THE PROJECT WITH THE CORRIDOR. SO YOU'RE RIGHT.

I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE MINUTIA OF TRAFFIC.

OTHER THAN TAKING NOTES, TAKING CONSIDERATION THE TRAFFIC TRIPS AND DAILY TRIPS HAPPENING ON THAT CORRIDOR.

>> THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON SOMETHING. MR. FRIEDMAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE BUS STOP. WHERE IS THE PROPOSED AREA THAT WAS MENTIONED TO THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT THEY WOULD WEIGH IN

ON FOR THIS? >> THAT LITTLE OUT-CROP THAT

YOU SEE RIGHT HERE >> WHAT I WOULD CALL THE THROUGH-WAY TO GET TO THE PATRONS THAT ARE ON THERE.

SO WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT PROPOSED AREA HERE.

SO PEOPLE WOULD NAVIGATE FROM THEIR RESIDENCIES, AND COME UP A SIDEWALK, I GUESS. WALK ALONG THERE AND GATHER THAT SPOT THERE TO CATCH THE BUS, RIGHT? AND THAT BUS WILL COME BACK OUT TO JENKINS ROAD? SO WE'RE WAITING ON REVIEW OF SCHOOL BOARD TO LOOK AT THIS.

ASK THE ACTUAL PEOPLE CONSTRUCTING THIS WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS WERE VERSUS SHELTER AND ET CETERA.

OKAY. AND THEN THIS BOX TO THE FRONT HERE, IS THAT DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT? IS THAT WHAT IS GOING TO BE USED FOR THERE?

>> YES. I JUST WANT TO SHOW THAT THIS PARCEL RIGHT HERE WILL BE JUST DRAINAGE.

>> THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY.

I GUESS I'M A LITTLE ALARMED ABOUT THIS CORRIDOR.

BECAUSE NOT ONLY THAT, BUT ACROSS THE STREET, THERE IS ACTIVITY THAT IS TAKING PLACE THERE.

THAT HAS BEEN SITTING THERE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS BUT THAT LAND HAS BEEN CLEARED. I KNOW IN THE PAST I MET WITH PEOPLE POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT THAT.

AND THAT DENSITY IS MUCH LARGER PROPOSED THAN WHAT THIS DENSITY IS. SO IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT TRAFFIC STUDY, WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE DATA TO EVEN PROPOSE SIGNALIZATION AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE REAL BUSY.

SCHOOL THERE. I'VE GOT ANOTHER SCHOOL BACKS OFF A PRIVATE ROAD DOWN THE STREET.

I'VE GOT THIS. AND I'VE GOT CONSUMERS LOOKING TO TAKE THEIR LARGE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN OR GO PURCHASE A LARGE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE.

ALL TRYING TO NAVIGATE THIS ONE QUARTER OF A MILE STRETCH.

STORAGE UNIT BEING BUILT THERE. AND TWO APARTMENT COMPLEXES.

>> BUILDING A WHOLE NEW CITY OUT THERE.

>> MADAM MAYOR, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THAT MORNING WHEN THE PARENTS ARE TRYING TO GET THE KIDS IN AND OUT OF THERE. I GUESS IT WAS JUST BRINGING IT UP THAT WE WON'T GET A TRAFFIC STUDY UNTIL 2026.

OKAY. I'M GOOD.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM

STAFF? >> THEY'VE ASKED THEM ALL.

>> OKAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.

I THINK YOU WERE SWORN IN, MR. CURRY.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD EVENING, BRAD CURRY.

FOR THE RECORD, I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN.

LOTS OF GREAT DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS.

I'LL TRY TO ADDRESS AS MUCH AS I CAN, BASED ON THE HISTORY OF WORKING ON THIS PROJECT. WE DID DO THE GANDER MOUNTAIN

[01:55:06]

CAN WE GO TO THE NEWER PLAN. SOMEBODY MENTIONED STANDARDS ABOUT BUS STOPS. BEEN DOING THIS FOR ABOUT 23 YEARS NOW. I'VE NEVER SEEN BUS STOP STANDARDS. FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

SO I OFTEN, AS A PARENT, I WOULD SAY I WANT THE BUS OFF OF THE MAIN ROAD. WHENEVER WE DID PROJECTS, WE WOULD PUT A BUS STOP SOMEWHERE INTERNAL TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO THE BUS WOULD HAVE TO PULL OFF THE MAIN ROAD, AND GET BACK OUT. AGAIN, OVER MY 23 YEARS OF HISTORY IN THIS TOWN, I HAVE HEARD THAT THEY NEVER USE THOSE BUS STOPS, THAT THEY STOP ON THE MAIN ROAD.

EVEN WHEN WE PROVIDE THEM A TURN-AROUND.

SO THEN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOT HEAT ABOUT THAT.

THEY'RE PUSHING US TO START HAVING THE BUS STOPS OFF THE MAIN ROAD. I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. YOU GET INTO A COMMUNITY, YOU HAVE CONFLICTS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.

WE'VE LOCATED THEM WITHIN A ROUND-ABOUT IN THE ENTRANCE OF THE COMMUNITY. WE'VE HEARD FROM OUR CLIENTS THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT THERE WHEN THE BUSES ARE IN THE MORNING TIME, THE BUSES ARE THERE, POTENTIALLY BLOCKING PEOPLE AND IT BECOMES A PROBLEM.

MY CLIENT IN THIS CASE HAD RUN INTO THAT BEFORE AND DECIDED, ASKED ABOUT PUTTING THE BUS STOP DOWN ON THE ENTRANCE ROAD TO THE GANDER MOUNTAIN CAMPING WORLD PROPERTY.

AND AT FIRST I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A GREAT IDEA.

I STARTED THINKING ABOUT IT. AND IN THE MORNING TIME, WHEN THE KIDS ARE BEING PICKED UP, THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY CARS ON THE ROADWAY, BECAUSE KIDS ARE PICKED UP BEFORE BUSINESS HOURS. ELIMINATES HALF OF THE CONFLICTS THAN HAVING IT THERE. AND THEN MARTY BROUGHT UP THE FACTS THAT HE DIDN'T THINK A BUS COULD GET IN THERE, STOP AND PICK UP THE KIDS WITHOUT CONFLICTING WITH CARS COMING IN AND OUT OF THE GANDER CAMPING WORLD SITE.

WE'VE DONE THE TURN LANE ANALYSIS, THE BUS CAN GET FULLY OFF OF THE STREET, PULL BACK OUT INTO THE STREET.

WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MARTY.

I DON'T WANT TO THROW HIM UNDER THE BUS.

BUT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET IN TOUCH WITH HIM.

IF HE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THIS, THEN WE PROBABLY CAN MOVE THE BUS STOP INTERNAL TO THE COMMUNITY.

HONESTLY DON'T THINK IT'S THE RIGHT WAY.

I THINK HAVING IT CLOSER TO JENKINS IS THE WAY TO GO.

WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WORK WITH HIM ON IT.

SIDEWALKS, WE ARE PROVIDING A SIDEWALK TO THAT FACILITY, TO THAT BUS STOP FACILITY FROM INTERNAL AND WE ARE PROVIDING A SIDEWALK THAT IS THERE EXISTING ALONG THE ENTRANCE ROAD TO GANDER. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SIDEWALKS ALONG JENKINS ROAD. AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. 40-FOOT DEDICATION THERE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE COUNTY. SO THOSE TWO DASHED LINES THERE, 40 FEET HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE COUNTY.

WHEN GANDER CAME THROUGH, THEY ONLY HAD A SMALL FRONTAGE ON JENKINS ROAD AND THE COUNTY AGREED TO A FEE IN LIEU OF BUILDING A SIDEWALK FOR THAT FRONTAGE.

NOW, THIS PIECE HAS MUCH LARGER FRONTAGE ON GRAHAM, MUCH LONGER FRONTAGE ON JENKINS GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN.

THE SIDEWALK IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE BUILT 40 FEET FROM THE EXISTING, WHERE THE EXISTING ASPHALT IS TODAY.

AND PROBABLY WILL BE TORN UP WHEN THEY GO IN TO BUILD JENKINS ROAD. IN MY OPINION, AGAIN, PROBABLY NOT A VERY POLITICALLY CORRECT THING TO SAY, I THINK YOU SHOULD TAKE THE MONEY INSTEAD OF THE SIDEWALK.

BECAUSE THE SIDEWALKS GO TO THE COUNTY, NOT THE CITY.

BECAUSE I THINK THE SIDEWALK IS GOING TO BE A WASTE THERE.

40 OR MORE UP IN THE BUSHES AWAY FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT STUDENT WILL USE THAT.

BUT IF THAT IS WHAT THIS COMMISSION WANTS, BUILDING A SIDEWALK VERSUS GIVING THE MONEY FOR THE SIDEWALK, IT ISN'T THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE FOR US.

WE WOULD DO EITHER ONE. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE COUNTY ON THAT. SIGNAGE, I THOUGHT SIGNAGE IS TYPICALLY TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

SO WE'LL PROVIDE AND COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE SIGNS REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. THE TRAFFIC, WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS ON PROPERTIES IN THIS CORRIDOR WITH THE COUNTY. I WAS AT A MEETING THIS MORNING ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY NORTH OF ORANGE AVENUE AND MY CLIENT WAS TRYING TO BUILD JENKINS ROAD NORTH OF ORANGE AVENUE, THE COUNTY SAID WE DON'T HAVE MONEY.

[02:00:01]

I HEARD THAT TODAY FROM THE COUNTY ENGINEER.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS COMMISSION OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS AWARE OF WHAT IMPACT FEES ARE GOING TO BE PAID ON THIS PROPERTY.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

IMPACT FEES COULD GO TO PAY FOR THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS.

THERE ARE TWO APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THIS AREA, OURS IS CALLED THE HILL POINT. AND THE ONE ACROSS THE STREET IS CALLED WAY POINT. I GUESS YOU'RE GETTING THE DRIFT OF THE NEWEST NAMES HERE. ACROSS THE STREET IS 324 UNITS.

BEEN APPROVED. CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL FOR DPCR APPROVAL. AND THE COUNTY IMPACT FEES FOR 324 UNITS IS $1.3 MILLION. THE CITY IMPACT FEES FOR 324 UNITS IS $146,000. WHICH I KNOW SOUNDS REALLY LOW.

SO THE TOTAL IMPACT FEE FOR THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS ONE IS $1.4 MILLION. ALMOST $1.5 MILLION.

JUST FOR THAT PROJECT. FOR OUR PROJECT, WE HAVE 252 UNITS, A MILLION DOLLARS TO THE COUNTY, 113,000 TO THE CITY.

1.1. SO BETWEEN THESE TWO PROJECTS, THE COUNTY IS ALMOST GETTING THREE MILLION DOLLARS IN IMPACT FEES FOR THESE TWO PROJECTS. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS GOING TO SAVE ALL. JENKINS ROAD.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS OUT THERE.

I THINK COMMISSIONER BRODERICK BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT.

I READ ABOUT IT IN THE PAPERWORK FORCE HOUSING MEETING, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU ATTENDED THAT MEETING, BUT I BELIEVE SOMEONE AT THE MEETING BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE WORKFORCE HOUSING WITHOUT HAVING MORE DENSITY. AS A CITY AND COUNTY, STATE, WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF THIS WORKFORCE HOUSING IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO STAND BEHIND, THE ONLY WAY TO GET THAT IS TO INCREASE THE DENSITY.

I THINK IT'S A FINE LINE THERE. I DON'T HAVE THE PERFECT EQUATION. BUT I THINK IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK BROUGHT IT UP, THIS IS CLOSE TO ALL OF THE INDUSTRIAL, ALONG KINGS HIGHWAY, SIX MILLION SQUARE FEET OKEECHOBEE.

I THINK HAVING ADDITIONAL HOUSING AVAILABLE FOR THE PEOPLE WORKING THERE IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT.

QUICK JUMP ACROSS GRAHAM TO GET OVER TO KINGS HIGHWAY.

I THINK IT DOES PROVIDE THAT LOCATION.

I THINK I ANSWERED ALL OF THE QUESTIONS OR EVERYTHING I HAD JOTTED DOWN HERE. NICK FROM HILL POINT IS HERE.

MY CLIENT FOR THIS PROPERTY. HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU SPECIFICALLY HAVE ABOUT THE PROJECT.

ALEJANDRO WAS DYING TO THIS PRESENTATION.

BUT ALL THREE OF US WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

THAT YOU HAVE. >> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, THE PROPOSED BUS, ANY TALK OF SHELTERING THERE FOR THE

STUDENTS, KIDS. >> WE ARE NOT SHOWING A BUS SHELTER THERE RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DEFINITELY DO. AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> JUST I'M HAVING PROBLEMS HERE JUST SEEING THIS. COULD YOU POINT ME TO THE SIDEWALK THAT CONNECTS. I THINK I SEE IT.

>> HE MADE IT BOLDER AT ONE TIME.

>> WITH THE CURSOR, THE SIDEWALK THAT WILL CONNECT

>> SIDEWALK THAT RUNS AROUND THE LAKE, IT ACTUALLY CONNECTS ALL THE WAY UP TO THE UNITS AND OUT THAT WAY AS WELL.

MULTIPLE SIDEWALKS THAT CONNECT TO THE BUS FACILITY.

>> ALL I NEEDED. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. CURRY?

OKAY. >> HE ANSWERED.

>> SO ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> OKAY.

SO IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE? ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

SO LAST CHANCE TO ASK THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL DISCUSS. YES, SIR.

COMMISSIONER GAINES. >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE I'M LIKE COMMISSIONER BRODERICK HERE, I'M KIND OF WEARY. I DON'T WANT TO STOP THIS PROJECT. BUT THEY'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE SOMETHING WITH I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE FOR THIS BUS STOP. WHEN IT'S UP AND RUNNING, IF THAT BUS STOP AND ALL OF THESE OTHER AREAS OUT HERE, YOU KNOW,

[02:05:06]

I JUST WANT TO -- I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN APPROVE SOMETHING WITHOUT KNOWING. I UNDERSTAND WE CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON IT. SO MY QUESTION IS, IF WE PUT A CONDITION ON IT, FOR SOME REASON THEY DON'T COME TOGETHER, DOES IT BRING IT BACK HERE? MY QUESTION IS WE DON'T HAVE A TIMETABLE, BECAUSE I HEARD TESTIMONY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS E-MAILED AND TRIED TO GET AN ANSWER FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD.

NOT GOING TO CALL HIS NAME. BUT THE SCHOOL BOARD.

AND SO DO WE ADD A TIMETABLE? DO WE ADD A TIMETABLE FOR OUR CONDITION, SO WE'LL KNOW SO THIS WON'T BE SITTING OUT THERE. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE COME BACK AND SAY WAIT A MINUTE, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PROJECT? DID IT GO FORWARD, WHATEVER. MY CONCERN IS I LOVE THE PROJECT. WE NEED THE PROJECT.

WE NEED ALL OF THE HOUSING WE CAN GET OUT THERE.

HOWEVER, I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WITHOUT KNOWING THE FINAL OKAY WITH THIS BUS STOP, HOW DO WE PROCEED AS A COMMISSION? BECAUSE IF WE ALL SAY YES, WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE FINAL OUTCOME IS ABOUT THE BUS. BY SAYING WITH THE CONDITION, WHAT DO WE DO? HOW DO WE LABEL THAT CONDITION? AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO LOOK OVER TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY, BECAUSE I ALWAYS MESS WITH HER DURING THESE MEETINGS.

BUT I'M TRYING TO BE VERY CLEAR, BECAUSE THIS IS A JUDICIAL HEARING. THIS IS A RECORD THAT WE'RE MAKING. I WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE WHAT I CAN DO OR CAN'T DO. OR IS THERE CERTAIN TYPE OF LANGUAGE THAT I NEED TO PUT ON THIS CONDITION TO PROTECT

EVERYBODY UP HERE OR MYSELF. >> SO FIRST I'M GOING TO LET MR. FRIEDMAN TALK, AND THEN I'LL FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

>> LISTEN CAREFULLY, PLEASE. WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT ON AGREEMENT OF SOME SORT.

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE SCHOOL BOARD.

AND THE ACTUAL DESIGN OF THE BUS STOP.

IF THAT WAS ALREADY IN FRONT OF YOU, I THINK FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, THAT WOULD ENABLE THIS TO BE CONSIDERED IN FULL.

THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON BEHIND THE SCENES.

NEGOTIATIONS AND STUFF, BEEN AWARE OF THEM SINCE THIS APPLICATION CAME IN TO STAFF'S REVIEW.

GOING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS SINCE THEN.

A COMMON WAY OF DEALING WITH ITEMS STILL IN REVIEW, COMMISSION ARE INTENT ON SEEING THOSE IN PLACE PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT COMING ONLINE, IS TO ATTACH A CONDITION THAT RELATES TO A TIMELINE OF DEVELOPMENT IN SOME WAY.

AGAIN, THE COMMON WAY OF DOING THAT WOULD BE TO IMPOSE A CONDITION THAT WOULD BE PUT IN PLACE BY THE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WE GET INTO A GRAY AREA BETWEEN BEING ABLE TO DEMAND OTHER THINGS HAPPENING DUE TO STATE STATUTE BEFORE ISSUING A PERMIT.

COGNIZANT OF THAT AND CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.

PRIOR TO CO IS A FINAL MOMENT WHERE EVERYTHING IS INSPECTED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. AND EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL AGENCIES. WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS CONDITION BEING ATTACHED, WHICH WOULD RELATE TO, THIS IS THE WORDING, I'VE JOTTED DOWN. PRIOR TO FINAL CO, A BUS STOP AND SHELTER I'VE HEARD THE COMMISSION TALK ABOUT A SHELTER. BUS STOP AND SHELTER SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD AND CONSTRUCTED.

SO WORDING TO THAT EFFECT. SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE IN

[02:10:04]

>> ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT POINT.

WHEN YOU GET TO THE POINT OF OCCUPANCY, THAT MEANS BUILDINGS

AND EVERYTHING. >> OH, YES.

>> BUILDINGS AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN DONE.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT WHATEVER DECISION THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE SCHOOL BOARD MAKES REGARDING THIS BUS STOP THAT I'M GOING TO AGREE IT. I MIGHT NOT LIKE IT.

IF I WAIT TO THE POINT THAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEY HAVE SPENT MONEY, EVERYBODY IS READY TO GO, YOU GUYS HAVE DONE WORK.

YOU GUYS HAVE DONE WORK AND THEN WE GET TO THAT POINT AND THEY COME WITH A DESIGN THAT I'M LOOKING LIKE THERE IS NO WAY I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THAT NOW.

EVERYBODY IS SITTING HERE MAD, YELLING, FUSSING BECAUSE ALL OF THIS MONEY AND TIME HAS BEEN SPENT.

SO I'M TRYING TO AVOID THAT. I'M TRYING TO AVOID THAT.

I LOVE THE IDEA, BUT I'M TRYING TO AVOID THAT.

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYBODY COMING TO OUR CITY AND SPENDING ALL OF THIS MONEY AND RELYING ON US TO VOTE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT AGREEMENT IS GOING TO BE.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER LIKE I DON'T LIKE THIS AGREEMENT. AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT LEGALLY TO PROTECT US, THE CITY, PROTECT THE CITY, WHAT LEGALLY CAN WE DO AND WHAT CONDITION CAN WE DO TO PROTECT US SO WE WON'T PUT OURSELVES IN A POSITION WHERE THE APPLICANT OR ANYBODY ELSE IS UPSET THAT WE VOTED FOR THIS WITHOUT KNOWING.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I MEAN, THE ONLY CERTAINTY, THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU COULD HAVE THAT CERTAINTY WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY TO I HATE TO SAY IT, CONTINUE THE MATTER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS NEGOTIATIONS ARE COMPLETE AND YOU HAVE THE ENTIRE PLAN IN FRONT OF YOU.

THAT IS THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO KNOW 100 PERCENT GOING IN. SECONDARILY TO ADDRESS MR. FRIEDMAN'S COMMENTS, IT'S NOT UNHEARD OF TO HAVE AS A CONDITION THAT AN APPLICANT OBTAIN NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM OTHER STATE AGENCIES AND PROVIDE PROOF OF SUCH APPROVAL IN TERMS OF APPROVING THE SITE PLAN OR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES BY NECESSITY, ALSO IMPROVING THE SITE PLAN THAT COMES ALONG WITH ITSELF.

SO IN THAT CASE, I SUPPOSE YOU COULD PHRASE IT SOMETHING LIKE THE APPLICANT SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD AND PROVIDE PROOF OF SUCH APPROVAL TO CITY STAFF.

BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE ONLY WAY TO COMPLETELY AVOID THAT IS FOR YOU TO SEE IT AND FOR IT TO COME BACK.

>> I LIKE WHAT YOU JUST SAID. I HOPE Y'ALL WROTE IT DOWN.

BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SAY IT WRONG IF I MAKE A MOTION.

SHOULD SOMEONE PUT A TIME FRAME ON THERE, THAT IS THE FIRST QUESTION. SECOND QUESTION IS, SAY WE VOTE ON THIS TO APPROVE IT TONIGHT. IS IT PROPER FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE SCHOOL BOARD TO MEET TOMORROW, MEET TOMORROW, THEY HAVE THE AGREEMENT AND SOMEHOW GET THAT AGREEMENT BACK TO THE CITY MANAGER OR THE PLANNING BOARD OR WHATEVER, THAT WE CAN GET THE INFORMATION. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE APPLICANT TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND WE HAVE A WHOLE OTHER HEARINGS. I'M TRYING TO SEE HOW WE CAN GET THE INFORMATION AND WE KNOW THAT -- WE KNOW THAT WHAT IT IS. SO WE'LL FEEL GOOD GOING

FORWARD. >> YOU'RE ASKING MADAM MAYOR, IF I MAY, YOU'RE ASKING AS A PART OF THAT CONDITION YOU CAN PUT A DEADLINE ON IT, SAY WITHIN 60 DAYS, PROVIDE PROOF TO STAFF. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THAT DONE BY THIS COMMISSION. BUT MAYBE WHAT YOU COULD DO IS ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THAT CONDITION

[02:15:02]

BEING STATED AS SUCH. >> I'M NOT TRYING TO BE --

>> I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING TOO. BUT YOU GO AHEAD.

>> GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF THE TIME FRAME THAT YOU KNOW, I HAVE SEEN US MAKE DECISIONS ON THE FIRST BUILDING PERMIT BEING APPROVED SO THAT THEY CAN BEGIN VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION. THAT HAS TO BE IN PLACE.

WOULD THAT BE REASONABLE IN A TIME FRAME SCENARIO THAT YOU

JUST REFERENCED? >> I CAN'T SAY WHETHER THAT IS GOING TO MATCH UP WITH A SET NUMBER OF DAYS.

BUT I THINK THE WAY THAT YOU PHRASED IT I THINK IS PROBABLY MORE REASONABLE THAN PICKING AN ARBITRARY DATE.

YOU'RE TIEING IT TO A SPECIFIC EVENT RATHER THAN A DATE THAT WE HAVE TO PREDICT. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE

REASONABLE. >> I'M FINE WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER. I'M FINE WITH THAT.

KNOWING SOMETHING BEFORE A COMMITTEE HAS GRANTED.

SO WE CAN KNOW AS COMMISSIONER BRODERICK SAID, I'M UNEASY, AND I'M A LITTLE UNEASY VOTING ON ANYTHING, NOT JUST THIS APPLICANT'S APPLICATION, BUT ON ANYTHING ESPECIALLY IN A JUDICIAL HEARING, ESPECIALLY AFTER I HEAR YOU READ WHAT A JUDICIAL HEARING IS, AND HOW WE'RE ACTING NOW, YOU KNOW, HOW WE'RE ACTING AS QUASI JUDGES OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE P VO DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. A HEARING IS BASED ON EVIDENCE.

AND THAT IS WHAT I'M A LITTLE WEARY ABOUT.

AND I WILL STOP BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE.

APPLICANT, I LOVE THE PROJECT. DON'T GET ME WRONG.

BUT AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL HERE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, OUR VOTE HAS TO BE ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED.

THAT IS WHY YOU GUYS RAISE YOUR HAND BECAUSE IT'S TESTIMONY.

RIGHT NOW, I DON'T SEE THAT EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF ME.

SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT WE CAN GET THE EVIDENCE SO THAT IT COULD BE A PART OF SOME RECORD SO DOWN IN THE FUTURE, IF IT COMES BACK UP, WE'LL HAVE IT.

THAT IS ALL I'M TRYING TO DO. >> MR. MIMMS.

>> MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER GAINES, I AM SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THIS TO YOU. WE CAN ONLY APPROVE WHAT IS IN OUR PURVIEW TO APPROVE. WE DO NOT CONTROL ST. LUSSY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, FDOT.

WE APPROVE SITE PLANS ALL OF THE TIME WITH CONDITIONS THAT THE APPLICANT MUST ACQUIRE APPROVAL FROM DOT FOR A DRIVEWAY ACCESS CONNECTION OR OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

WE DO NOT CONTROL THE LAY-OUT OF THE BUS PICK-UP FEATURE.

WE DO NOT CONTROL THE CONNECTIVITY TO JENKINS ROAD.

WE DO NOT CONTROL THE LOCATION OF THE SIDEWALK.

WE DO NOT CONTROL THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PROGRAM THAT THE SIDEWALK COULD EITHER BE PAID DIRECTLY TO ST. LUSSY COUNTY.

IT WILL GO TO ST. LUSSY COUNTY. SO I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME YOU CAN ONLY LOOK AT THE PARAMETERS WITH WHICH WE CAN CONTROL.

AND YOU CAN PLACE A CONDITION ON THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE

DESIGN THAT CONCERN YOU. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE MAKING THIS SO MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN IT NEEDS TO BE.

BECAUSE THEY HAVE -- MR. CURRY JUST EXPLAINED TO US ALL OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS. AND THE SCHOOL BOARD IS ONLY, HASN'T ONLY NOT APPROVED IT BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A COMMUNICATION PROBLEM. WE'RE BACK FROM A HOLIDAY.

LET ME TELL YOU, THERE IS A LOT OF WORK FOR GOVERNMENT STAFF WHEN THEY COME BACK FROM A HOLIDAY.

SO HE IS NOT DELIBERATELY NOT COMMUNICATING.

HE IS NOT CAUSING PROBLEMS. HE IS NOT SAYING I DON'T LIKE THIS. IT'S JUST A MERE LACK OF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET TOGETHER AND TOUCH BASE.

AND I THINK THAT WE'RE MAKING THIS MUCH TOO COMPLICATED.

BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE -- I THINK THE APPLICANT IS VERY WILLING TO WORK WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT.

I'M NOT WORRIED. I AM NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT A BIT. AND THEY HAVE -- THROUGH ALL OF THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT THEY USED TO DO, SOMETIMES THE RESIDENTS COMPLAIN THE BUS. THEY HAVE THOUGHT OF EVERYTHING AS FAR AS I CAN SEE. THEY'VE GOT THE BUS OFF THE ROADWAY. THEY'RE WILLING TO BUILD THE SHELTER. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT WE NEED TO -- I SENSE THAT WE'RE ALL APPROVING OF THIS.

AND WE ALL SEE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.

[02:20:02]

WE CAN'T. SO I THINK WITH A CONDITION THAT THAT SCHOOL BOARD AND THE APPLICANT AGREE ON WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO AGREE ON AND MAYBE IT CAN BE AGREE ON WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US AND IF IT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THEN WE NEED TO BE INFORMED. AND I'M FOR MOVING AHEAD.

BUT I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION. >> I TEND TO AGREE WITH YOUR OPINION. WE'RE WAY OVER ENGINEERING THIS THING. SOLUTION, THE REASON THAT THIS PROBLEM IS HERE, IS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MOVED IT ALONG WITH THE ASSUMPTION IT WOULD BE RESOLVED BY THE TIME IT CAME HERE. THAT IS WHY I ASKED THAT QUESTION SPECIFICALLY. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S VERY SIMPLE. WE HAVE A SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW. WE APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AS IT SITS. PUT A 60-DAYTIME LINE ON THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD NEEDS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPLICANT. IF IT'S NOT CURED WITHIN 60 DAYS, IT COMES BACK HERE. IF THIS BUS STOP IS MOVED ON THE SITE PLAN, IT COMES BACK HERE.

SO IF THERE IS ANY CHANGE FROM THIS SITE PLAN, IT COMES BACK.

IF THERE IS NO AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, IT COMES BACK. COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON, RECOMMENDATION I SUPPORT AS WELL.

WE NEED A COVERED BUS STOP. THE APPLICANT INDICATED THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT. IF THERE IS A MODIFICATION OF THE SITE PLAN, IT COMES BACK. IF THERE IS NO AGREEMENT, IT COMES BACK. THE ONUS IS ON THE DEVELOPER AND SCHOOL BOARD TO COME UP WITH A RESOLUTION.

I HAVE A FEELING IT'S NOT GOING TO COME BACK.

>> THAT BEING SAID, IF YOU MAKE THE MOTION, WHAT YOU JUST SAID, HOW YOU JUST SAID IT, WE PUT IT IN THE RECORD, AS LONG AS YOU KNOW, NO CHANGES AND WHAT WE PRESENTED WITH, I CAN -- IT'S 60 DAYS, I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. I CAN VOTE TO YOU KNOW, APPROVE THIS. IF IT'S NOT MOVED IN 60 DAYS, THEY HAVE SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT, WE'RE GOOD.

I CAN MOVE FORWARD. >> THAT WAY THEY CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD AND REACH ON AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICANT IS

INDICATING THAT -- >> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS

BEING DIFFICULT HERE. >> HELLO.

WE'VE HAD A HOLIDAY. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVEN'T BEEN IN TOUCH. YES.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THANK YOU. >> I THINK THAT IS A GOOD

SOLUTION. >> QUICK COMMENT.

I MEAN, I'M OKAY WITH WHAT IS BEING TALKED ABOUT UP HERE.

I THINK 60 DAYS, A LITTLE TORN WITH.

BECAUSE I THINK IT SHOULD BE TIED TO SOMETHING ELSE THAT IS MORE SUBSTANTIAL AND A TIMELINE, IF WE WERE TO DO THAT. BUT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, WE DON'T EVER HAVE THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT A PERMIT WITH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT, HOWEVER THAT ENTIRE PROJECT BEING BUILT RELIES ON THAT PERMIT AND WE'RE OVER HERE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER AGENCY THAT MR. MIMMS TALKED ABOUT, WE DON'T CONDITION IT ON DOT CONNECTIVITY.

WE DON'T CONDITION IT ON A STORMWATER PIPE.

WE DON'T CONDITION IT ON A 25-YEAR STORM EVENT.

SO WHY WOULD WE DO THAT FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT? THEY'RE GOING TO COMMENT ON IT. THEY'RE PART OF OUR APPLICATION PACKAGE. TRC.

>> THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT. >> LIKE SOUTH FLORIDA, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT APPROVALS JUST LIKE THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

APPROVALS. >> I'M GOING TO YIELD.

I COULD COMMENT ON THAT BUT WE'LL BE HERE ALL NIGHT.

>> OKAY. >> SO IF WE COME UP WITH THE RIGHT LANGUAGE, BECAUSE I SEE MADAM ATTORNEY OVER THERE, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN HER MOUTH, I KNOW SHE IS UNEASY ABOUT THE 60 DAYS, COMMISSIONER.

SHE -- I KIND OF LIKE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S IDEA OF TIEING IT TO SOME OTHER TYPE OF EVENT.

SO IF WE CAN COME UP WITH THE RIGHT WORDING IN A MOTION, I WILL SECOND IT SO WE CAN MOVE ON.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK AND DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DOEAR YO. I GOT IT.

I NEED THE RIGHT MOTION. I CAN HEAR THE RIGHT LANGUAGE

SO WE CAN MOVE ON. >> OKAY.

WHO IS WILLING TO MAKE THAT MOTION? MS. EARLY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING MORE YOU WANT TO SAY?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. I'LL JUST SAY THIS, MAYOR, SO I

[02:25:02]

WHICH I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. SO I WILL JUST SAY -- I'LL TRY TO PUT IT IN THIS FRAME. YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER GAINES, LOOK AT IT LIKE YOU'RE A JUDGE AND YOU'RE TAKING THE CLAIMS THAT COME TO YOU. SO THE JUDGE DOESN'T ADD COUNTS TO THE COMPLAINT OR THE INFORMATION.

THEY JUST TAKE WHAT IS GIVEN. SO THIS IS WHAT IS GIVEN AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THAT.

I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS CONCERNING YOU.

>> I AGREE WITH MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

I'M WORRIED. >> WE APPRECIATE YOU.

>> I'M WORRIED WHEN EVIDENCE IS NOT THERE.

BUT I CAN ACCEPT THE SITE PLAN AS IS.

I CAN ACCEPT THE SITE PLAN AS IS.

I CAN ACCEPT THE TESTIMONY OF THE APPLICANT THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO STILL WORK WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THAT WHATEVER THEY AGREED OR SAID HEY, IF COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON WANTS A SHELTER OR A COVER, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE FINE WITH THAT.

AND IF IT'S NOT MOVED, OR IF IT'S CHANGED, THEY COME BACK IN FRONT OF US. I CAN AGREE WITH THAT.

SO LET ME -- MY LAST THING, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION SO WE CAN MOVE ON. IF IT'S BETTER TO PUT IT TOWARD SOMETHING ELSE LIKE A BUILDING PERMIT.

THAT IS WHAT I'M HEARING. THAT IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

SO MY MOTION WOULD BE THAT WE APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, WITH THE FOUR LISTED CONDITIONS THAT WAS PRESENTED WITH IT.

PLUS THE ADDITIONAL FIFTH THAT WAS ADDED TONIGHT REGARDING THE BUS STOP. THAT IS THE FIFTH ONE.

AND THAT WE ASK THAT IT BE -- YEAH.

PRIOR TO THE EXISTENCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT THAT IT BE DISCUSSED OR MADE KNOWN TO THE COMMISSION PRIOR TO A BUILDING

PERMIT APPROVAL. >> NO. YES? WRONG MOTION. YES.

>> DO YOU WANT IT TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION OR DO YOU

WANT THEM TO SHOW CITY STAFF? >> I WANT TO SECOND WITH A

QUESTION. >> YOU DON'T WANT IT TO COME BACK WITH THE COMMISSION. YOU WANT THE BUILDING PERMIT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ME TALKING, WE HAVE THESE OTHER CONDITIONS AND NONE OF THESE CONDITIONS REQUIRE THIS PLAN COMING BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

THIS IS MY RECOMMENDATION, SIR. PLACE THE OTHER CONDITION ON HERE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE BUS PICK-UP SHELTER BY THE SCHOOL BOARD, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. THAT IS IT.

>> I GOT IT. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON.

>> THAT IS A MOTION. >> ONE OTHER POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I BELIEVE THERE WAS AN UPDATE TO THE SITE PLAN NOT IN YOUR PACKET BUT WAS RECEIVED THIS AFTERNOON.

>> YESTERDAY. >> SO THERE AN UPDATED SITE PLAN THAT I WILL ADD TO THE AGENDA THAT WAS CHANGING THE

DUMPSTER LOCATIONS. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. >> THAT IS WHAT HE PRESENTED TONIGHT. NOT PART OF THE BACK-UP.

>> I GOT IT. >> SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND YET?

>> I'M ABOUT TO CORRECT IT FOR MY COMMISSIONER HERE.

SO MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THIS APPLICATION WITH THE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FIFTH RECOMMENDATION THAT THE THE BUS STOP BE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE ST. LUSSY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD.

ANYTHING ELSE? >> QUESTION ON THAT.

DO WE HAVE TO INCORPORATE THE SIDEWALK PAYMENT IN LIEU OF

VERSUS INSTALLING THE SIDEWALK? >> NO.

>> I NEED A SECOND. IS SOMEBODY GOING TO SECOND

THIS? >> I WILL SECOND THAT

>> ARE THERE FURTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU

CLEAR? >> I'M CLEAR.

>> EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR.

ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S GOING TO BE APPROVING THE UPDATED SITE PLAN WITH THE FOUR CONDITIONS PLUS AS A FIFTH CONDITION, THAT A BUS STOP BE APPROVED AND ACCEPTED BY THE

ST. LUSSY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD. >> AS PRESENTED ON THE UPDATED

[02:30:01]

>> I DON'T WANT TO MUDDY THE WATERS.

BUS STOP, THOUGH, THEY DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR A COVERED BUS STOP. DO YOU WANT IT COVERED, WEATHER PROTECTED BUS STOP? THAT WAS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S SUGGESTION. I AGREE WITH IT.

BUT IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD.

>> I DON'T WANT TO ADD THAT IN THE MOTION.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TESTIMONY FROM COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND FROM THE APPLICANT THAT SAID THEY WOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IF THAT IS WHAT WE WANTED.

ON THE RECORD. >> ON THE RECORD.

>> THAT IS WHAT I WANT. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

ARE YOU CLEAR NOW, MS. COXE? >> BUS STOP BE APPROVED AND

ACCEPTED BY THE SCHOOL BOARD. >> CORRECT.

FIFTH CONDITION. >> FIFTH CONDITION.

>> I NEED A VOTE. >> YES.

>> I'VE JUST GOT TO DO THIS, SORRY, I THINK THE CONDITION I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF FIRST BUILDING PERMIT, A BUS STOP SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE SCHOOL

DISTRICT? >> THAT IS THE MOTION.

SECOND. >> YOU SECOND.

>> YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT. OKAY.

MS. COX, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?

>> CLEAR AS MUD. >> CLEAR AS MUD.

SO CAN WE VOTE ON THIS NOW? SO CAN WE VOTE ON THIS NOW?

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> ROLL CALL.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OKAY.

[l. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval of an application for a Preliminary Plat Review submitted by applicant Michael B Schorah and Associates, Inc., to subdivide 1 parcel into 88 platted lots that include a reconfigured right-of-way and 88 single-family residential lots at 829 Bent Creek Drive, more specifically located at Parcel Control Number: 2407-700-0024-000-8.]

RECONFIGURED RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> MADAM CLERK, HAVE THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS

ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? >> YES, MA'AM.

COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS?

>> I'M GOING TO SAY YES. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON.

>> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON.

>> YES, WITH RESIDENTS OF BEN CREEK.

>> MAYOR HUDSON. >> NO, MA'AM.

>> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

>> PROCEED. >> NO SUGGESTIONS AT THE BEGINNING. NO CLIFF NOTES ANYMORE.

>> I LEARNED MY LESSON. >> THERE IS AN APPLICATION BEFORE YOU FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT, BEN CREEK PARCEL 82, MASTER PLAQUE. HERE IS AN AERIAL MAP OF THE PARCEL THAT IS TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO 88 PARCELS.

APPROXIMATELY 24.29 GIVE OR TAKE ACRES.

AND BEFORE YOU IT'S THE APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO 88 PLATTED LOTS, INCLUDE A RECONFIGURATION RIGHT-OF-WAY, 88 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. WATER MAINTENANCE FOR EIGHT-INCH GATE VALVE AND THREE FIRE HYDRANTS.

FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PARCEL. MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THE ZONING MAP OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS THE PLAT IN QUESTION. AND IT'S 88 PARCELS SUBDIVIDED.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF THE FINAL PLAT, THE APPLICANT SHALL ADDRESS ALL OF THE PLAT DOCUMENT.

PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION, DECEMBER 12, 2022, MEETING VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

CITY COMMISSION'S ACTIONS TODAY ARE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH

CHANGES OR DISAPPROVAL. >> QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME THE

[02:35:02]

IT. >> GOOD EVENING, BRIAN NOLAND.

IT'S BEEN A HOT MINUTE. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF, FIRST OF ALL? DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF

STAFF? >> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK STAFF.

GET TO THAT TO REWIND A MINUTE. I KNOW A FEW OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVEN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE.

I THINK MR. BRODERICK, YOU SAW IT AT THE PLANNING BOARD.

AFTER AMENDED THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT, WE PROCEEDED WITH THE FINAL PLAT, I THINK WE SUBMITTED THAT IN SEPTEMBER OF 2019. THE BIG CONDITION ON THAT WAS THAT NO FURTHER PLATS WERE GOING TO BE APPROVED UNLESS AND UNTIL PETERSON ROAD WAS CONSTRUCTED.

IN ABOUT TWO WEEKS THE COUNTY SHOULD ISSUE THE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF PETERSON ROAD. BACKTRACKING TO SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER. WE HAD A SYRUP CIRCLE UP CALL BECAUSE WE WERE GETTING NEAR THE COMPLETION AND MR. FRIEDMAN NOTIFIED US THAT WE HAD TO FILE A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

IT USED TO BE POLICY, IF YOU WANTED TO FINE.

IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO, THAT WAS OKAY.

MY COMPLIMENTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, TRC AS A WHOLE AND QUICKLY REVIEWING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. AND GETTING US TO THIS POINT.

AND ONLY A FEW SHORT MONTHS. THAT IS BASICALLY BEEN MY EXPERIENCE FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS IN THE CITY.

BEEN A PLEASURE TO WORK HERE. FORTUNATELY, MY CLIENTS HAVE TAKEN ME EVERYWHERE ELSE BUT HERE FOR SOME REASON THE PAST FEW YEARS. FEW IN THE PIPELINE, SO YOU'LL SEE MORE IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.

WITH THAT, I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN THE FINAL PLAT, IS ALL TED UP.

I THINK THE PRM INSPECTION, THAT WAS DONE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

AND PENDING APPROVAL OF THIS, AND THE COUNTY'S FINAL ACCEPTANCE, WE SHOULD BE ISSUED IN TWO WEEKS.

I THINK THERE IS A SECTION OF GUARDRAIL TO BE SPECIFIC, I THINK THERE IS A SECTION OF GUARDRAIL THAT NEEDS TO BE INSTALLED. PUA APPROVED EVERYTHING.

THE BRIDGE HAS BEEN CERTIFIED. AND YEAH, SECTION OF GUARDRAIL AND PETERSON ROAD WE WILL BE GOOD.

>> QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE NO DISCUSSION. MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> WITH THE CONDITION THERE WAS

ONE CONDITION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ON THE RECORD WITH THE CONDITION.

>> THANK YOU. >> SECOND STANCE.

ALL RIGHT. ROLL CALL.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS AGAIN.

[m. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval of an application for a Site Plan (Development and Design Review) with a Conditional Use by property owner Arrow Investment Group, LLC, and representative, Leslie Olson of District Planning Group, to construct a 112-unit multi-family innovative residential development with a 2,168 square foot clubhouse with a swimming pool, and associated site improvements at or near 3000 Okeechobee Road in Fort Pierce, Florida, more specifically located at Parcel Control Number: 2417-504-0020-001-6.]

>> GOOD LUCK. OKAY.

NEXT WE HAVE A KWARL HEARING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR AN APPLICATION SITE PLAN, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT FOR CONDITIONAL USE, LESLIE OLSON DISTRICT PLANNING GROUP, CONSTRUCT A 112 UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH 2,168 SQUARE FOOT CLUBHOUSE. ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS AT OR NEAR 3,000 OKEECHOBEE ROAD IN FORT PIERCE.

>> HAVE THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET?

>> THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.

>> I'LL COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

COMMISSIONER GAINES. >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON. >> WHAT WAS THE APPLICANT AGAIN ON THIS. I SAW SOMETHING A LONG TIME AGO ABOUT THE THIS SITE. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE

OWNER. >> ARROW INVESTMENT GROUP.

>> IF I NEED TO CHANGE IT, I'LL COME BACK.

I WILL SAY YES. >> COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON.

>> YES, MA'AM. MET WITH SURROUNDING BUSINESS OWNERS AND PARCEL OWNERS IN ADDITION TO THE APPLICANT.

[02:40:02]

>> MAYOR HUDSON. >> NO.

>> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE

WITNESSES? >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THANK YOU.

>> PROCEED. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, DESIGN REVIEW, WHICH IS A SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE FOR AN INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT 3000 OKEECHOBEE ROAD.

CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A ZONING OF R-4. HISTORY ABOUT THE SUBJECT SITE.

SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS SAME SITE PLAN PREVIOUSLY.

THE APPLICANT ONCE AGAIN IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CONSISTS OF 112 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. WITHOUT THE REQUESTED DENSITY BONUS, PROPOSED SITE WOULD BE ALLOWED 67 UNITS.

THE APPLICANT IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF ADDITIONAL TWO UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY BONUS OUTLINED INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, IN ADDITION TO MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE, THE APPLICANT IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE DENSITY BONUS OUTLINED IN CITY CODE SECTION, CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.17 THAT BOTH STATE THAT A MAXIMUM OF FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY PERMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT LOCATED WITHIN ONE-FOURTH MILE RADIUS OF A RAIL STATION, TRANSIT STOP.

THE DENSITY BONUS NEXT OF THE CODE FURTHER RESTRICTS THE DENSITY BONUS TO MAXIMUM FIVE UNITS PER ACRE, PURSUANT TO CODE 125-326C2. AS THE PROJECT IS INSIDE OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, CR-A.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A MAP THAT DEMONSTRATES THE PROJECT IS ONE-FOURTH MILE FROM A TRANSIT STOP, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR THE DENSITY BONUS OF UP TO FIVE UNITS PER ACRE UNDER THE ABOVE CRITERIA. APPLICANT'S REQUESTING APPROVAL OF 17 UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY. THE SITE PLAN WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 5TH, 2020, WITH 17 UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY. THE SITE PLAN AND DENSITY BONUS HAVE SENSE EXPIRED DUE TO NO BUILDING PERMITS.

WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION, THREE CRITERIA THAT YOU MUST MEET, LANDSCAPING, SITING AND DESIGN.

THE APPLICANT, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, PROVIDES EFFECTSIVE USE OF EXISTING VEGETATION AND STREETSCAPES.

BICYCLE PATHS. OPEN SPACES RECREATIONAL AREAS.

LANDSCAPING EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 125-314 FOR THE LANDSCAPE AREA BY TEN PERCEN FOR THE AMOUNT OF TREES BY TEN PERCENT. IN TERMS OF QUALITATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF LANDSCAPING, THE CODE MINIMUM FOR TOTAL OF TREES IS 168. APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED 303 TREES. EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT BY 80.4 PERCENT. FOR THE SITE PLAN, PROVIDES CREATIVE PLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND OTHER FACILITIES IN TERMS OF VISUAL FOCAL POINTS. EXISTING PHYSICAL FEATURES, TOPOGRAPHY VIEWS. CIRCULATION PATTERN, FACILITY GROUPINGS. FOR DESIGN ELEVATIONS PROVIDE MORE IMAGINATIVE DESIGN FEATURES, INCLUDING ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, USE OF BUILDING MATERIALS.

NEO MODERN DESIGN WITH BALCONIES, PITCHED ROOFS, OPEN

AIR SPACES. >> THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES SIX STRUCTURES, FIVE MULTIFAMILY, ONE CLUBHOUSE. AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, 112 UNITS, BUILDING TYPE ONE WILL BE FOUR BUILDINGS, INCLUDES 24 UNITS EACH.

BUILDING TYPE TWO WILL BE ONE BUILDING, 16 UNITS.

THERE WILL BE 172 PARKING SPACES WITH SEVEN HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE. CLUBHOUSE, POOL, TOT LOT, EQUIPMENT AND BENCHES. A WALKING TRAIL AROUND THE LAKE AT THE CENTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PARK WITH PICNIC

[02:45:03]

THE APPLICANT'S LANDSCAPING SHALL INCLUDE SEVERAL SPECIES OF TREES TO BE PLANTED, PALMS, SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER PROPOSED FOR THE SITE. AND ALSO NEW IRRIGATION WILL BE INSTALLED. THESE ARE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE. ELEVATIONS FOR THE TWO-STORY APARTMENTS. ELEVATIONS OF THE THREE-STORY APARTMENT. PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR DECEMBER 12, 2020, MEETING VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH FOUR CONDITIONS. NUMBER ONE, INCORPORATE ZONE PLANTINGS AROUND THE LAKE RETENTION POND PER CITY CODE 123-6, NUMBER TWO, COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. PURSUANT TO CITY CODE 123-6 SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS APPROVED FOR THE SITE. APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A TREE MITIGATION SURVEY AND COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE ARBORIST. PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE SITE'S DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. NUMBER FOUR, MORE THAN TWO ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS SHOULD BE PROVIDED.

STAFF WILL DISCUSS THE RATIO WITH THE APPLICANT.

THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, THE FOURTH CONDITION. CITY COMMISSION HAS POSSIBLE ACTIONS, APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE. WITH CHANGES OR DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

YES, SIR. >> JUST A QUESTION.

ON THE LAST CONDITIONAL USE, YOU SAID MORE THAN TWO.

BUT YOU SAID BASED ON THE DENSITY OF ACTUALLY THE PLACE.

SO WHAT DID THAT DISCUSSION LEAD TO AND WHAT IS STAFF

RECOMMENDING? >> WE'RE IN A CATCH 22 AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY CODE THAT WOULD GIVE US A RATIO. WE'RE TRYING AT THE MOMENT TO

WORK WITH THE APPLICANTS. >> BUT AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF

TWO. >> THAT'S ALL I NEED.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF

STAFF? >> APPLICANT AGREED TO IT.

THEY SAID IT WAS FINE. >> THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.

>> SO MY QUESTIONS COME UP, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS PROJECT ORIGINALLY IN 2020, THERE WERE CONVERSATION, I ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE APPLICANT BRIEFLY ABOUT IT.

NOT VERY MUCH TIME SPENT ON IT. BUT THERE WAS A DESIRE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND THOSE THAT I SPOKE TO AROUND THIS DEVELOPMENT OR REQUEST TO MAKE SOME KIND OF PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY THROUGH NEBRASKA TO GET OVER TO THE BUS STOP, NOT ONLY ON OKAY BUT A DRIVEWAY CONNECTION POTENTIALLY.

IF YOU THINK ABOUT TURNING MOMENTS, THINK ABOUT TRAFFIC, THINK ABOUT THE SKEWED ANGLE OF OKEECHOBEE ROAD, WHEN YOU GET TO 33RD, THAT IS A WEIRD U-TURN TO MAKE.

FOUR-LANE HIGHWAY, BUT IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION THAN THE NORMAL 90 DEGREE INTERSECTION.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A BREAK IN THE MEDIAN HERE, LEFT HAND TURN MOVEMENT, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS DESIRABLE. SO I'LL STOP RAMBLING.

DID YOU HAVE A CONVERSATION AT ALL ABOUT TRAFFIC PATTERNS OR MOVEMENTS WITHIN THE CONVERSATION?

>> NO. >> I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN MAYBE WEIGH IN AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS FROM THERE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF?

>> PARKING RATIO >> ABOVE

>> LANDSCAPE PACKAGE AS WELL? >> WENT ABOVE.

>> CHARGING STATION, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A NEW THING.

I DON'T RECALL THIS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD SEEING IT.

ARE YOU GOING TO PROPOSE, MOVING FORWARD, ARE YOU GOING TO BE PROPOSING SOME TYPE OF ORDINANCE OR REQUIREMENT, X NUMBER OF UNITS REQUIRES ONE STATION.

>> YES. WE'RE GOING THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS AT THE MOMENT AND ESTABLISHING SOME CRITERIA.

>> FOR EVERYBODY? >> YES.

EXCELLENT. >> GREAT IDEA.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

>> MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

>> IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.

[02:50:02]

>> LESLIE OLSON WITH DISTRICT PLANNING GROUP.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING US THIS EVENING.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I DO HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. >> YOU WERE SWORN IN, WEREN'T

YOU? >> I WAS.

THANK YOU. SO YES.

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON AND I KIND OF RAN INTO EACH OTHER ON THE WAY IN AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS REQUEST THAT HAS BEEN MADE BY A NEIGHBOR ABOUT THE CONNECTIVITY TO GET FOLKS OVER TO 23RD STREET WHERE THAT BUS STOP IS AND WHERE YOU HAVE A TRAFFIC LIGHT AND THAT MAKES SENSE. AS VENICE INDICATED EARLIER, A SITE PLAN APPROVED IN 2020, DUE TO COVID, IT EXPIRED.

WE BROUGHT THE EXACT SAME THING BACK THROUGH.

THAT DOES PROVIDE THE COMMISSION ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO SAY YOU KNOW, COULD WE HAVE MADE THIS ANY BETTER.

FORTUNATELY, WE HAVE A GREAT APPLICANT WHO WHEN I GRABBED HIM OUT IN THE LOBBY, I SAID YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY MOVE ANY BUILDINGS TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION TO 23RD, WHAT DO YOU THINK? HE WAS LIKE MAYBE.

SO I ALSO DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK WITH KEVIN ABOUT IF WE MADE THIS CONDITION OF APPROVAL WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

IF WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE SITE PLAN, OR IF IT WOULD BE DONE, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.

ALSO ABOUT THE CHARGING STATIONS, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT OUR CLIENT BROUGHT UP, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, THIS ISN'T A GATED COMMUNITY, WHICH I LOVE. I LOVE THIS IS AN OPEN COMMUNITY. PEOPLE COME AND GO AND THEY HAVE VISITORS. BUT HAVING A CHARGING STATION, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO DO THAT IN WHERE IT'S ALL OPEN AND ANYBODY CAN DRIVE IN AND PLUG IN THEIR CAR.

IT'S LIKE HAVING GAS FREE. >> THANKS FOR THE ELECTRICITY.

>> SO I DON'T KNOW. I'M SURE THERE IS A WAY TO HANDLE IT. I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW.

SO THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I WOULD HAVE.

>> MR. FRIEDMAN, DO YOU HAVE ANSWERS?

>> EV CHARGING SITUATION, THAT IS ALMOST LIKE CARDS OR TAGS OR SOMETHING CAN BE ISSUED TO RESIDENTS THAT ACTIVATE EV CHARGING STATIONS. AGAIN, THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY THAT THE COST OF THAT IS PASSED DIRECTLY TO THE RESIDENT RATHER THAN JUST AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

BUT THAT WOULD BE UP TO HOW THE DEVELOPMENT RUNS.

IN TERMS OF THE RENDERING SOME SORT OF CONDITIONAL CONVERSATION REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN THROUGH A CONDITION, WHICH ESTABLISHES A CONNECTION TO

23RD >> WELL, IT WOULD BE TO

NEBRASKA, I THINK. >> THAT IS NOT 23RD, THOUGH.

Ô> 33RD. >> THANK YOU.

A LONG WAY TO GO TO 23RD. >> SO THAT WOULD OCCUR --

>> I'M SORRY. MADAM MAYOR.

ISN'T THERE LIKE A DRAINAGE DITCH OR SOMETHING RIGHT THERE.

I WAS GOING TO COME TO THAT. >> BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND THAT AREA, THERE IS A CHURCH, WHAT USED TO BE A CAR WASH AND THERE IS A DITCH DRAINAGE AREA THAT RUNS BACK THERE.

SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN, JUST KNOWING THAT AREA AND HOW WOULD

YOU PROPOSE THAT. >> IT MAKES SENSE.

BUT WOULD YOU HAVE TO ACQUIRE RIGHTS I GUESS FOR PEOPLE WHO OWN THE PROPERTIES TO RUN THE ROAD THERE OR ACCESS TO

NEBRASKA? >> I CAN SAY WHEN THIS CAME UP IN 2020, THIS WAS MY PROJECT IN 2020, IN OUR CODE WE REQUIRE SIDEWALKS THAT ABUTT THE PROPERTY LINE.

OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED THAT WE NOT REQUIRE IT BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH.

THEY SAID IT WAS UNSAFE BECAUSE THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE PRETTY MUCH ABUTTING THE DRAINAGE DITCH.

>> SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE, THAT THE CONNECTIVITY MAY BE SOMETHING THAT IS COMPLICATES THIS.

IT LOOKS -- YOUR FACE LOOKS LIKE IT COMPLICATES THIS.

>> I'M NO GOOD AT POKER. >> I MEAN, I WASN'T AWARE FULLY BUT IT WOULD SEEM THAT WE'VE HAD INTERNAL DISCUSSION WITH THE ENGINEERS THAT WOULD MAKE IT FAIRLY DIFFICULT.

THERE COULD BE A CONDITION THAT IT'S EXPLORED BUT NOT NECESSARILY HINGED ON YOU KNOW, THE FUTURE BUILD-OUT.

[02:55:04]

>> OR DESIRABLE. >> YEAH.

>> IT MAY BE THAT THE ENGINEERING COSTS ARE DOING SO PROHIBITIVE TO THAT CONNECTION. I AM NOT SURE.

OING SO PROHIBITIVE TO THAT CONNECTION.

I AM NOT SURE.ING SO PROHIBITIVE TO THAT CONNECTION.

I AM NNG SO PROHIBITIVE TO THAT CONNECTION.

I AM NG SO PROHIBITIVE TO THAT CONNECTION.

I AM N SO PROHIBITIVE TO THAT CONNECTION.

I AM NOT SURE.SO PROHIBITIVE TO THAT CONNECTION.

I AM NOT SURE. SO ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE

PROJECT? >> IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, IF YOU WANT PRETTY PICTURES, BUT IT'S GETTING LATE SO I'M GRACEFULLY GOING TO BOW OUT OF THAT.

>> READY TO APPROVE. >> I GUESS EXITING THEY WILL HAVE A CAPACITY TO TURN RIGHT AS WELL AS ACROSS OKEECHOBEE TO

TURN LEFT. >> YES.

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL ACCESS. >> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT

THAT IS IN YOUR SITE PLAN. >> THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HER OR

CONCERNS? >> NO. I JUST THINK IT'S, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A CONNECTION POINT IF IT'S DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE APPLICANT AND STAFF. MAYBE THEY CAN DO THAT AT A LATER DATE. I KNOW THERE ARE LEFT HAND TURNING MOVEMENT OPTIONS, ALSO U-TURN OPTIONS AT THE INTERSECTION I STATED EARLIER, WHEN I ASKED STAFF THE QUESTION. SO MS. OLSON, AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE SPOKEN TO YOUR CLIENT AND LOOKED AT AN OPTION AND THERE IS A MAYBE ON THE TABLE.

DID I HEAR THAT OR I MEAN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN AS IT SITS. I KNOW YOU'RE PRESENTING THAT TODAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

IS THAT ACCURATE? >> YES.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE OPEN TO THE IDEA.

BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE IT SINCE WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT TONIGHT.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> SO SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH STAFF AND WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT IT WITH ENGINEERING, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE PRESENT HERE TONIGHT. IT'S HARD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO

SAY. >> THAT'S OKAY.

THIS IS YOUR TIME TO TELL US OF THE STORY.

I DON'T WANT TO BRING UP TOO MANY COMMENTS UNTIL MY DISCUSSION TIME. SO THANK YOU.

I WILL SAY THIS, THANK YOU FOR THE INNOVATIVE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES. IT'S NOT TOO OFTEN THAT WE GET ALL OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE INNOVATIVE APPLICATION WHERE YOU'RE BRINGING IN LANDSCAPING AND BUILDING DESIGN AND THOSE

TYPE OF PARAMETERS. >> THEY DID A GREAT JOB ON THIS. THEY CLUSTERED THE VIEWS AROUND THE LAKE, WITH THE FOUNTAIN, A LOT OF FEATURES.

THE CLUBHOUSE FACES THE ENTRANCE, THE TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FACES OKEECHOBEE, SO THE ENTRANCE IS GOING TO LOOK REALLY REALLY NICE.

FOCAL FEATURE AND A ROUND ABOUT WITH THE SPECIMEN TREE THERE.

SEATING AREA, PASSIVE PARK JUST OFF THE ROUND-ABOUT, WHERE THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS TALKED ABOUT PLACING THE BUS STOP AND THAT HAS BEEN AGREED TO. IT'S A GREAT PROJECT.

WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE. >> GOOD.

AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU, IN YOUR LOOKING AT THAT CONDITION FOUR AND TALKING ABOUT AN EV STATION, I ALWAYS HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION INSTEAD OF SAYING IT.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU AND YOUR APPLICANT, THE OWNER, TO BRING IN A PAY TO PLAY ELECTRIC CHARGING STATION? BASICALLY YOU PAY FOR THE CHARGE? NOT ONLY AS A RESIDENT, BUT IS

THAT AN OPTION? >> I THINK SO.

I THINK WHAT WE'LL DO IS TALK WITH STAFF ABOUT YOU KNOW, HOW THAT WORKS. THIS BEING AN INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WE'LL WORK ON THE INNOVATION.

>> I THINK THE OTHER PART OF IT IN YOUR -- DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THIS AT THE LAST APPLICATION. THAT IS OKAY.

HERE WE ARE. ON ANY CROSS-WALKS OR CONNECTIVITY, BECAUSE I BELIEVE CORRECT ME, PLEASE. YOU CAN - THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THEY DON'T BUS WITHIN TWO MILE RADIUS, IS

THAT ACCURATE? >> YES.

YES. >> SO IF WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL, WHICH I BELIEVE FAIRLAWN ELEMENTARY IS CLOSE.

WAS THAT DISCUSSED AT ALL? DID THEY BRING UP ANY TALK

ABOUT THAT? >> HE DIDN'T.

HE WANTED TO LOOK AT THE RADIUS, AUTO TURN ANALYSIS FOR THE ROUND-ABOUT SO THE BUS COULD COME IN, MAKE THAT TURN AND GO BACK OUT. I WOULD THINK THAT THE SAFEST PLACE TO CROSS HERE WOULD BE AT 33RD STREET AND YES, BUT

[03:00:10]

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

NO MORE FOR THE APPLICANT. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION.

>> ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A BADLY NEEDED PRODUCT.

SO I'M EXCITED TO SEE A CONTINUATION OF THE THEME.

SHOVELS IN THE GROUND BY WHAT, MA MARCH 1ST? JUST KIDDING.

GREAT ADDITION TO THE AREA AND THE IMPACT IS GREAT.

LOCATION-WISE, IT HELPED TO SATISFY THIS OVERALL NEED THAT

WE'RE FACED WITH. >> OKAY.

MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING FOUR CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED BY STAFF.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> I'LL SECOND IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, WE'LL CALL THE ROLL

>> ROLL CALL. >> CONGRATULATIONS.

[n. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval for a Conditional Use with New Construction, by property owner, Daniel B. Longman, and representative, John Brockhausen of LBJ Architecture to construct a two-story garage and guest house at the height of 33.7 feet (approximately 34 feet) at or near 1506 Thumb Point Drive in Fort Pierce, Florida, more specifically located at Parcel Control Number: 2401-605-0019-000-0.]

GREAT JOB. >> ITEM N, KWARL HEARING FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONAL USE, DANIEL LONGMAN AND REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BR BROCKHAUSEN.

>> HAVE THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET?

>> ADVERTISING FOR THIS ITEM HAS BEEN MET.

>> WOULD YOU ASK ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, PLEASE?

>> YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

>> YES, WITH RESIDENTS OF THE AREA.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES. >> NO, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

I'VE RECEIVED E-MAILS FROM RESIDENTS.

>> COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

I'VE HAD CORRESPONDENCE WITH RESIDENTS.

>> MAYOR HUDSON. >> I'VE HAD CORRESPONDENCE WITH

RESIDENTS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN

THE WITNESSES, PLEASE. >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ANYBODY GOING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. THANK YOU.

>> PROCEED. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR.

COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU WE HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE GARAGE AND GUEST HOUSE TO BE LOCATED AT 1506 THUMB POINT DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY GARAGE AND GUEST HOUSE AT A HEIGHT OF 33.7 FEET, APPROXIMATELY 34 FEET.

THIS CONDITIONAL USE IS ONLY FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, APPROXIMATELY 0.867 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS. FUTURE LAND USE IS RL WITH A ZONING OF R-1 SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY ZONE.

ORIGINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTED AND WENT TO PLANNING BOARD, IN NOVEMBER, THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SITE PLAN, SEVERAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS WEREN'T REALLY SURE OF THE SET BACKS AND HEIGHT. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL ONE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE GARAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, WHICH IS 1,974 SQUARE FEET. SECOND FLOOR LIVING AREA, GUEST HOUSE, SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE. BALCONY, 270 SQUARE FEET.

TOTAL 4,218 SQUARE FEET. APPLICANT RESUBMITTED AND THEY WENT TO THE DECEMBER 12TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING WITH A DET DETAILED SITE PLAN, THE LOCATION AND THIS IS THE DETAILED SITE PLAN THAT WAS SHOWN. THERE WERE ALSO QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC AND THE PLANNING BOARD ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE. THE APPLICANT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE ORIGINAL WAS SHOWN IN NOVEMBER PLANNING BOARD, THE

[03:05:02]

SUBJECT FLOORPLAN, GARAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

SECOND FLOOR, TWO BEDROOMS, TWO BATHROOMS WITH BAR AREA AND LAUNDRY ROOM. BECAUSE THIS IS A GUEST HOUSE, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE KITCHEN FACILITIES.

FULL KITCHEN, I'LL SAY. THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDED DENIAL AT NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020, MEETING, THE PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 12TH MEETING, HOWEVER, WITH THE REVISION AND MORE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND EXPLANATION ABOUT WHAT THE CONDITIONAL USE WAS FOR, THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CONDITION. WITH THE ONE CONDITION THAT PLANNING BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED THAT ONE, THE APPLICANT ADHERES TO THE LETTER AND PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE ARCHITECT DATED DECEMBER 1ST, 2022, WHICH WAS A PART OF THEIR RESUBMITTAL PACKET. WE DID INCLUDE THAT LETTER IN THE AGENDA PACKET. THANK YOU.

>> SO YOU HAVE ONE CONDITION, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

YOU'RE DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION?

>> YES. THE CITY COMMISSION HAS THE POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF APPROVAL, APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR

DISAPPROVAL. >> SO QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> MADAM MAYOR.

>> YES. >> I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. IT'S REGARDING THE DETAILS OF THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY DISTRICT HEIGHT MAXIMUM IS 28 FEET. SO PLEASE RELATE TO ME THE CONDITION THAT IS BEING APPLIED FOR TONIGHT IN RELATION TO

THAT. >> SO WITHIN OUR CODE, SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY DISTRICT OR ANY OVERLAY, THERE IS SECTIONS WHERE YOU'RE ALLOWED TO GO ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, AS A CONDITIONAL USE. AND IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO REQUEST APPROVAL FOR UP TO 35 FEET.

AND THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THE 33.7.

>> IS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION THAT IN THE, HOW DO I DESCRIBE IT.

IN YOUR TENURE WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, AND YOUR RECOLLECTION, DO YOU RECALL OTHER APPLICATIONS WHERE THIS COMMISSION AND/OR THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ESTABLISHED THE BASE OF 28 FEET WITH ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENTS ABOVE 28 FEET GOING FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE. IN MY EXPERIENCE, THAT IS WHERE WE'VE GONE NOT JUST AS A STRAIGHT CONDITIONAL USE.

WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE THERE? >> SO IN MY EXPERIENCE, I'VE SEEN PROBABLY THREE TO FOUR CONDITIONAL USES IN THIS AREA FOR A HEIGHT INCREASE. AND WE'VE NEVER DISCUSSED DESIGN. IT'S JUST ALWAYS BEEN THE

HEIGHT. >> MR. FRIEDMAN.

>> I THINK WE DID LOOK AT THIS DURING THIS APPLICATION.

WE LOOKED AT THE ABILITY OF THE CITY OR CITY STAFF TO RECOMMEND ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENTS AS PART OF DESIGN ACCEPTANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE. WE RAN INTO STATE STATUTE WHICH PROHIBITS CITIES, MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES, FROM PLACING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ON SINGLE FAMILY, THAT IS A SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX UNITS.

UNLESS THERE IS DESIGN REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE OVERLAY THAT IT'S BEING DEVELOPED OUT OF THAT REVIEW.

IN TERMS OF THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS. WE ARE ESTABLISHED FOR FAMILY OR DUPLEX UNITS. I THINK FROM A PLANNING STAFF POINT OF VIEW, I WOULD BE WARY OF CONDITIONING AN APPROVAL BASED ON AN ARCHITECTURAL EMBELLISHMENT.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT THE CITY HAS OPERATED.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT STATE STATUTE HAS COME THROUGH.P >> .

TWO YEARS PROBABLY. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS ANYONE ELSE'S EXPERIENCE. BUT I KNOW WHEN THE SOUTH BEACH

[03:10:03]

POINT -- >> WHEN YOU ACTUALLY INVESTIGATEVE THE OVERLAY, THE ARE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT BUT NONE FOR SINGLE

FAMILY OR DUPLEX. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. TALK ABOUT THAT AGAIN LATER.

SO YOU'VE GOT A COMMITMENT HERE.

YOU TALKED ABOUT KITCHEN FACILITIES.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE AND LOOK AT THE FLOORPLAN LAYOUT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE.

YOU HAVE A FEW BEDROOMS. IS THAT WHAT I SEE HERE?

>> YES. >> NO ONE COULD ESTABLISH THAT AS A RESIDENCE. I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY THE HOME,

THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. >> OKAY.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE CODE THAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED THAT TALKS ABOUT THE COVERAGE OF THE LOT AND WHAT IS THE -- ARE WE CLEAR ON THE LOT COVERAGE?

>> WE ARE CLEAR ON THE LOT COVERAGE.

WHEN WE EVALUATE LOT COVERAGE, WE GO BY THE SURVEY THAT IS PRESENTED TO US. BY A CERTIFIED SURVEYOR AND THE SURVEY PRESENTED TO US, IT MEETS THE CODE.

>> THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. THANK YOU.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES, SIR.

>> SO ZONING CLASSIFICATION IS R-1.

>> CORRECT. >> DENOTES SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL. >> CORRECT.

>> IN ESSENCE, AREN'T WE CREATING TWO UNITS?

>> NO. BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE KITCHEN FACILITIES.

GUEST HOUSE IN OUR CODE IS NOT CONSIDERED A UNIT. BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY AN ACCESSORY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

>> RENTED OUT AS AN APARTMENT. IN EFFECT, YOU HAVE TWO UNITS ON THE PROPERTY, WOULD BE MY ASSESSMENT.

>> THAT WOULD BE A CONDITION. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYTHING IN THE AMENDMENT THAT WE MADE TO THE VACATION RENTALS, I DON'T THINK WE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS.

>> CLEARLY THIS IS A SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN R-1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

THE KITCHEN WET BAR DISCUSSION IS ALMOST MOOT FROM MY ANALYSIS. THE HEIGHT ISSUE, COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON HIT ON, I FIND TO BE AN INTERESTING TOPIC FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION MOVING FORWARD.

BUT YOU INDICATED 28 FEET IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED.

35 FEET IS CONDITIONAL USE. I AM AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION, PLANNING BOARD AND ALL OF THAT HAS APPROVED THREE OR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES UP TO THE 35 FOOT MAXIMUM ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PROVISION.

HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS IS THAT YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY USE AND YOU'RE ADDING A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY USE ON THE SAME SITE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THAT IS MY ASSESSMENT. I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. THAT IS MY COMMENTARY.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

READY TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING? >> OKAY.

SO I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> NO. >> COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME,

SIR. >> DANIEL LONGMAN

>> YOU WERE SWORN IN, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> YES, I WAS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ACTUALLY PREPARED OR SENT A NARRATIVE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS RECEIVED BY YOU FOLKS OR NOT. BUT ANYWAY, REGARDLESS, BASICALLY THE HOME THAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT IN 1964, WE INTEND TO RENOVATE THAT HOME.

THAT WILL BE OUR MAIN HOME. AND BY THE WAY, THIS PROPERTY

[03:15:03]

WHICH WE INTEND TO STAY IN WHILE THE MAIN HOME IS BEING RENOVATED. ONCE THAT HOME IS DONE, THEN WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE WET BAR OR THE KITCHEN AREA, WET BAR AREA AND USE IT AS A GYM UP THERE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION OF RENTING THE PROPERTY.

DON'T HAVE ANY NEED TO RENT THE PROPERTY.

ALTHOUGH IF YOU LOOK AT MY NEWEST PROPERTY TAX NOTICE, YOU CAN SEE WHY YOU WOULD WANT TO TRY AND FIND A WAY TO CUT THAT DOWN. BUT BASICALLY, WE INTEND TO STORE BOATS OR MY BOAT AND MY WATER TOYS IN THE GARAGE.

AND WE NEED THE HEIGHT FOR THOSE -- FOR THAT STORAGE.

THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE HEIGHT.

WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT FIVE FEET OVER WHAT WE CAN BUILD.

WE CAN BUILD 28 FEET, ACCORDING TO THE CODE.

WE CAN GO TO 35 FEET WITH CONDITIONAL USE.

THIS WHOLE EXERCISE HERE TODAY IS SOLELY FOR THAT CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. AND THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE. OKAY.

SO BASICALLY I'M ASKING THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE OUR

HEIGHT REQUEST. >> I WATCHED THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING AND I FORGOT TO SAY THAT IN TERMS OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, IF THAT IS CONSIDERED, I WATCHED BOTH PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. YOU TALKED ABOUT, YOU'RE GOING

TO RAISE THE HOUSE >> YES.

>> MAKE IT HIGHER OFF THE GROUND, RIGHT?

>> WE'RE GOING TO RAISE THE CEILING.

THE ROOF. >> OH, OKAY.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO -- OKAY. >> WE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY RAISE THE FLOOR ALSO, BUT PROBABLY JUST SIX INCHES TO A FOOT. BUT THAT IS OUR INTENTION.

WE DON'T HAVE THE PLANS YET FOR THAT.

PHASE TWO OF THIS WHOLE THING. >> SO DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF

WHEN THAT MIGHT HAPPEN? >> SO ONCE WE GET MOVING ON THE CONSTRUCTION ON THIS GARAGE, WE WILL START ON THE PLANNING ON THE HOME. WE INTEND FOR BOTH STRUCTURES %-P. LIKE I SAY, THIS WILL BE OUR GARAGE FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THE CURRENT HOME DOES NOT HAVE A GARAGE.

>> I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHY WOULD YOU PUT THE EXPENSE OF A

BALCONY ON A GARAGE. >> THAT IS ACTUALLY -- YOU MEAN

THE DECKING? >> YEAH.

>> JUST TO SO THAT WE CAN LOOK TO THE WEST, TO SEE THE SUNSETS. YOU KNOW, THAT --

>> YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP THE BEDROOM.

YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP THE BEDROOMS?

>> ABSOLUTELY. IF WE HAVE ANY GUESTS COMING

IN, THEY CAN STAY UP THERE. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS

FOR THE APPLICANT? >> COULD YOU GO TO THE FIRST SLIDE OF THE PRESENTATION. YOU'VE TESTIFIED TONIGHT THAT

THERE IS NO GARAGE. >> TWO GARAGE DOORS THERE.

>> ARE YOU AWARE OF WHEN YOU RENOVATE AND REMODEL STRUCTURES LIKE THIS WHEN IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

[03:20:22]

THEY DIDN'T YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO REDESIGN THIS. THIS HOUSE IS LIKE GOING BACK IN TO THE '60S WHEN YOU WALK IN THERE

>> THE REASON I ASKED THAT QUESTION, I HAD A REASON BEHIND THE QUESTION, NOT JUST TO GET THE INTENT OF THE HOUSE, BUT TO GET THE IDEA OF IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A SPECIAL CONDITION, WHICH WE ARE, OF AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY, YOU'RE GOING TO RENOVATE THE MAIN STRUCTURE, IF THAT BECOMES THE STRUCTURE THAT YOU HAVE TO -- WHAT IF YOU -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASK THE QUESTION SPECIFICALLY.

WHAT IF YOU HAVE TO RAISE IT MORE THAN 6.4 FEET YOU JUST TOLD ME. WHAT IF IT'S SOMETHING HIGHER

AND YOU HAVE TO GO TO -- >> IT'S ALREADY SIX FEET

>> I'M SORRY? >> WE ONLY HAVE TO GO UP FOUR

INCHES TO MEET THAT. >> UNTIL YOU GET A CERTIFIED

PLAN THAT SAYS THAT, RIGHT? >> YEAH.

>> SO THE INTENT OF MY QUESTION IS MAKING SURE THAT THIS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS IS THAT WE'RE NOT BUILDING THIS PORTION SO THAT YOU CAN EVENTUALLY LIVE IN IT AND IF SOMETHING WERE TO GO DIFFERENT ON THE RENOVATION PROJECT, ALL OF A SUDDEN IT BECOMES YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENCE.

>> OH, NO. >> YOU SEE WHERE I'M GOING WITH

THIS >> NOT THE INTENT.

NEVER HAS BEEN. GARAGE IS PHASE ONE, THE HOUSE IS PHASE TWO. PHASE TWO.

SO THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR PLAN.

>> OKAY. THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR NOW,

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE

APPLICANT? >> YEAH.

SO THANK YOU FOR THIS. I THINK I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL.

YOU ARE ASKING FOR FIVE FOOT VARIANCE TO GO UP TO 33, RIGHT?

>> YES. >> BASED ON WHAT THE CURRENT CODE SAYS. NOW, IN THIS STRUCTURE, THE ACCESS OF IT -- I THOUGHT YOU HAD OTHER SLIDES.

SO OKAY. SO THE FRONT ELEVATION, SO ONCE YOU WALK AROUND YOUR CURRENT EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE FRONT ELEVATION WILL SHOW THESE BAY DOORS, ET CETERA RIGHT, THAT YOU SEE HERE. ASSUMING THAT IS YOUR PROPERTY TO THE LEFT OF THAT. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ACCESS

THAT? >> WE ACTUALLY ACCESS THE GUEST

HOUSE THROUGH THE GARAGE. >> I MEAN, I KNOW THAT.

BUT TO GET YOUR BOAT AND YOUR PLAY TOYS AND ALL OF THAT FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE GARAGE.

>> PART OF THIS IS TO GET RID OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND

PUT IN A NEW DRIVEWAY. >> WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THAT

TONIGHT, THOUGH, RIGHT? >> NO. THIS WILL BE A WHOLE NEW DRIVEWAY TO THIS. YEAH.

>> THAT WAS MY CONCERN. >> YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAY, IT'S -- WE WANT TO PUT IN, WE'VE GOT TWO BOATS.

A COUPLE JET SKIS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

WE NEED THE HEIGHT FOR THAT. >> I KNOW WITH STRUCTURE, CONCRETE, YOUR PROPERTY LINE, FLOODING THAT KIND OF THING COMES TO MIND THERE. I DON'T LIVE ON THE BARRIER ISLAND, I DO KNOW FROM PREVIOUS THINGS WOULD BE A CONCERN.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS PART OF THIS CONSTRUCTION TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT THAT CONCRETE.

I'M GOING TO CALL IT PAVE WAY TO TAKE YOU BEHIND YOUR HOUSE

TO GET TO -- >> NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO INITIALLY, YOU'RE ASKING FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL FEET TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE I SEE IN FRONT OF ME AND ALL I'M LOOKING AT TONIGHT.

>> RIGHT. >> THAT IS GOING TO LOOM OVER

YOUR CURRENT STRUCTURE. >> WELL, THE CURRENT STRUCTURE

IS GOING TO BE RAISED. >> ARCHITECTURALLY IT WILL FLOW

TOGETHER. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SO I'M GOING TO ASK FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO COME UP AND I MAY ASK YOU TO COME BACK AT THE END.

ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. WE HAVE THREE MINUTES, IS THAT RIGHT? THREE MINUTES.

>> OKAY. >> WAIT.

[03:25:02]

>> GOT TO BE ON THE RECORDING >> DAVID HICKS.

1502 THUMB POINT. >> YOU WERE SWORN IN?

>> YES, I WAS. AND MR. JOHNSON, I THINK MAYBE YOU WEREN'T -- HE IS PLANNING TO HAVE THE GARAGE DOORS FACE THE STREET. SO HE'S COMING STRAIGHT IN.

HE IS NOT GOING AROUND THE BACK.

SO THIS KIND OF STORAGE FACILITY KIND OF LOOKING BUILDING IS GOING TO BE NUMBER ONE, LET ME START OFF WITH THIS. IS IT OKAY IF I HAND IT TO YOU?

>> >> YOU SHOULD KEEP TALKING.

BECAUSE YOUR TIME >> YEAH.

I'M KIND OF VIEWING THIS AS KIND OF LIKE A NON-CONFORMING USE. WHEN YOU SEE THE PICTURE I WANT TO GIVE YOU, IT WILL SHOW ALL OF THE RESIDENCES AROUND IT.

IN MY E-MAILS THAT I SENT TO EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS AND TO THE MAYOR, I GAVE THE FOUR HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS BUILDING, ALL ONE STORY. AND THEY YOU KNOW, SO THIS KIND OF DWARFS THEM. WHEN YOU MENTIONED ABOUT LOOMS OVER, THAT WAS EXACTLY THE RIGHT WORD, MADAM MAYOR, BECAUSE IT WILL LOOM OVER THE NEIGHBORS.

AND I MEAN, I HAVE A SEVEN-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE.

NOW YOU HAVE THE PICTURE IN FRONT OF YOU.

HERE YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE ONE-STORY BUILDINGS ALONG THE STREET HERE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE HOME, 18 HOMES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THUMB POINT ARE ALL ONE STORY. THE WATERFRONT HOMES ARE ALL ONE STORY. THERE IS ONLY ONE THAT IS LIKE ONE AND A HALF STORIES. AND IT'S TO THE FOURTH HOUSE UP FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SO THE WAY YOU PUT THE SIGN HERE, I DID A BLACK LINE TO COME DOWN TO SHOW WHERE THE GARAGE WILL BE. AND IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT THERE LIKE YOU SAID, LOOMING OVER THESE OTHER PROPERTIES.

SO AT ANY RATE, THAT IS MY MAIN -- A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE HERE TO DISCUSS THIS. MARK ANTHONY, WHO IS GOING TO COME UP, ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS HE SAID WHY WOULD YOU SHOW AN ILLUSTRATION OF THIS. HOW IS THE WHOLE THING GOING TO LOOK IN THE END. HOW ARE THESE TWO GOING TO MELD TOGETHER. THEY'RE SO DIS-CONCORDANT, I GUESS YOU WOULD SAY. HOW DO YOU MELD THESE TWO TOGETHER. WE HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE END RESULT. I THINK AT LEAST LET'S SEE WHAT THE WHOLE PROPERTY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AND THEN WE'LL WORK FROM THERE. GARAGE DOORS BEING THISLA LARG.

MR. LONGMAN HAS ACREAGE WEST OF TOWN, WHERE I'M SURE A HUGE GARAGE LIKE THIS WOULD BE WELCOME AND NOBODY WOULD CARE.

BUT RIGHT HERE ON THE WATER ON THUMB POINT, I THINK IT'S WELL, IT'S NON-CONFORMING USE WITH THE REST OF THE HOMES.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO

THIS, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> I'M SALLY GRIFFITH, 1510

THUMB POINT DRIVE. >> YOU WANT TO PULL THE MIC

CLOSER TO YOU. >> WE OBJECT TO THE HEIGHT.

IT'S -- I AM A BIG BELIEVER IN BIG BUILDINGS HAVE A DIFFERENT EFFECT THAN SMALL BUILDING. THIS IS GOING TO BE A BIG BUILDING ON THE STREET AND JUST A GARAGE.

AFFECT THE PRIVACY OF DAVID HICKS AND HIS WIFE.

LOOKING OVER HIS PRIVACY FENCE. I THINK THAT IS A CONDITION THAT SHOULD BE NERVOUS. I JUST THINK THE PRIVACY SHOULD BE RESPECTED AND IF IT'S THAT BIG OVER A LOT OF HOUSES, IT'S GOING TO BE AFFECTING A LOT OF PEOPLE.

AND THE OTHER THING IS I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

I WORRY ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IF THIS BIG GARAGE IS GOING TO BE THERE. AND THEN WHAT IS GOING TO BE NEXT TO THE BIG GARAGE. WE DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE PLAN.

HOW BIG WILL THE NEXT BUILDING WITH.

WHEN WILL THE NEXT BUILDING BE BUILT.

I THINK MY TIME IS ALMOST UP. NO. I HAVE TIME.

I THINK THAT IS IT. HOW IS THE LARGE GARAGE GOING

[03:30:03]

THAT IS ALL. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS?

PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> MARK ANTHONY.

SORRY WE HAVE TO MEET LIKE THIS.

DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO MEET YOU.

I LIVED THERE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND YOU

>> MARK ANTHONY, 1503 THUMB POINT.

>> WELCOME. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. >> YOU WERE SWORN IN, CORRECT?

>> I WAS. YEAH.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

IT WILL BE EASY TO RUBBER STAMP THINGS.

I THINK BASIC FACTS THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT.

HAVING WORKED ON COMMUNITY PROJECTS MYSELF, OFTENTIMES WE FIND DISAGREEMENT AND HOPEFULLY YOU FIND PEOPLE WILL FIND A WAY TO NAVIGATE THIS FOR ALL OF US. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE LONGMANS. WHILE I WANTED TO REACH OUT AND MEET THEM, THEY'VE NEVER BEEN THERE LONG ENOUGH.

I RETURNED NORTH FROM THE SUMMER SEASON TO DO SO.

I REACHED OUT TO MY NEIGHBORS TO GET THEIR IMPRESSIONS AND THEY TOO HADN'T REALLY BEEN GIVEN ANY INFORMATION ABOUT IT.

SO THE ONLY THING I COME HERE TONIGHT, WHICH IS NOT CLEAR TRANSPARENT TO ME IS THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, THE FIRST MEETING, THE LONGMANS WERE NOT ABLE TO ATTEND.

ALL WE KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A LARGE GARAGE CONSTRUCTED FOR BOATS AND CAMPERS, TWO BEDROOM APARTMENT, 500 SQUARE FOOT DECK, FULL KITCHEN, LAUNDRY, LIVING SPACE.

DENIED. THE SECOND MEETING, MR. LONGMAN MADE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT ONE OF THE REASONS TO PUT A SLOPED ROOF. SO IN MY OPINION, HE HAS ADMITTED THAT IT'S NOT THE MOST LOVELY THING TO LOOK AT.

THEY SUBMITTED THE SAME CONDITIONS, EXCEPT REMOVE THE KITCHEN AND PUT IN A WET BAR. AND WET BAR WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND IN SUITE BEDROOMS BY THE WAY WITH LAUNDRY ROOMS, LARGE DECK, SITTING OVER THIS OLD STYLE HOME.

WHAT BRINGS ME HERE TONIGHT, I BELIEVE THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO BE DISCUSSED AND ANSWERED, FOR THE POINTS I'M ABOUT TO MENTION THAT THE PROJECT BE TABLED OR DENIED UNTIL ADDRESSED FOR THE WELFARE OF OUR COMMUNITY.

I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THE LIVING SPACE IS BELIEVABLE.

WHILE TWO BEDROOMS. THIS MIGHT SUGGEST THEY'RE NOT CLEAR ON THE USAGE OR I DON'T WANT TO ENTER THAT.

BUT THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS THE COMMENT ABOUT NEEDING TO LIVE THERE WHILE REMODELLING THE HOUSE.

THEY HAVE SOME PLACE TO LIVE CURRENTLY.

TO LIVE ANYWHERE WITHOUT A FULL KITCHEN WOULD BE TRYING ON A LONG-TERM BASIS. THEY MENTIONED THEY WOULD BE TIEING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE STYLE OF THE EXISTING HOME TO THE GARAGE AND HE WAS SUGGESTING THAT THAT MIGHT MITIGATE THE GARAGE'S APPEARANCE AT THE LAST MEETING.

I BELIEVE IT'S ONLY FAIR TO SEE THESE PLANS AND GET A PROJECTED COMPLETION DATE BEFORE ALLOWING THE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.

PREFERRED PLAN WOULD BE TO GET THE HOUSE DONE FIRST.

WE'VE SEEN MANY PROJECTS GO FOR YEARS UNFINISHED EMPTY.

>> I'M SORRY. YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP.

SORRY. >> GIVE IT TO THE CLERK, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I WAITED TWO HOURS. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. MR. LONGMAN, DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED?

>> WELL, AGAIN, I MEAN, WE'RE HERE SOLELY FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE. WITH REGARD TO THAT, ON THUMB POINT, WE HAVE EIGHT HOMES THAT ARE TWO TO THREE-STORY RIGHT NOW. SO THE HEIGHT OF THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT OUT OF LINE WHAT IS BEING BUILT THERE.

THESE ARE NEWER HOMES. SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I'M ASKING THIS COMMISSION FOR AN APPROVAL OF MY CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

UNLESS THERE IS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION

OF THE APPLICANT. >> MR. LONGMAN, IF I COULD.

>> YES. >> YOU'VE TESTIFIED TONIGHT ABOUT BOAT STORAGE AND SO WHAT SIZE ARE THESE GARAGE DOORS?

[03:35:01]

>> NO. THEY'RE GOING TO BE AT LEAST TEN FEET.

AT LEAST TEN FEET. I THINK THEY'RE 12 FEET.

THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE INTENDED TO DO INSIDE OF THERE.

>> OKAY. >> THIS IS THE REASON FOR THE

-- >> SO THE ELEVATION ON THE

SCREEN IS NOT ACCURATE? >> IT MAY NOT BE TO SCALE, I'M NOT SURE. THEY'RE TEN-FOOT DOORS.

>> OKAY. SO DOUBLE STACKED STORAGE UNIT.

OKAY. >> SO THAT WOULD BE INSIDE THE

GARAGE. >> OKAY.

>> ARE YOU STORING THESE SOME PLACE NOW?

>> YEAH. THE BOAT IS ON-SITE ON A TRAILER. THE WAVE RUNNERS ARE OFF-SITE

IN ANOTHER GARAGE. >> ANYTHING ELSE, COMMISSIONER? AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR, YOU KNOW, WE CAN BUILD THIS STRUCTURE TO 28 FEET. OKAY.

THAT IS IN THE CODE. THE CONDITIONAL USE IS TO GO TO 35 FEET. AND WHICH IS ALSO IN THE CODE.

SO THAT IS A DECISION. >> SO I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

>> I THOUGHT YOU SAID 33.7. >> THAT IS OUR HEIGHT.

>> PLEASE GO AHEAD. >> SO ARE YOU TESTIFYING OR SAYING THAT THE ACTUAL SPACE THAT YOU ARE USING FOR STORAGE IS CONTAINED IN THAT, THAT YOU'VE GOT A SLANTED ROOF HERE, RIGHT AND THE TIP OF THAT ROOF THERE, IS THAT PART OF -- IS THAT AESTHETIC OR SPACE UP THERE ON THAT PART?

>> NO. >> AESTHETIC THAT TAKES YOU UP

TO 33? >> TAKES YOU TO 33.7.

>> OKAY. I JUST NEEDED TO KNOW.

>> FLAT ROOF, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE 28 FEET.

BUT WE DO HAVE A PITCHED METAL ROOF.

>> OKAY. >> IT'S MORE AESTHETIC.

>> GOT IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I

UNDERSTOOD THAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE

APPLICANT? >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, ARE YOU OKAY? ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND TAKE THIS BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR DISCUSSION.

AND >> YES, SIR, PLEASE.

>> ONE QUESTION. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS GOING IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD.

IT WAS DENIED AND THEN IT WAS APPROVED.

WITH ONE CONDITION. >> CORRECT.

>> MADAM MAYOR, THE NARRATIVE THAT HE WAS SPEAKING OF, I THOUGHT HE MEANT HE SENT SOMETHING NEW.

SO THE NARRATIVE IS THE LETTER THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS A CONDITION SAYING HE NEEDS TO ADHERE TO.

I REALIZED AS HE WAS TALKING, OH HE IS TALKING ABOUT THE LETTER. SO IT IS IN THE AGENDA PACKET.

I THOUGHT HE MEANT A NEW ONE. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> WITH THAT BEING SAID, MR. FRIEDMAN, YOU TESTIFIED TO SOMETHING EARLIER ABOUT STATUTE AND VIOLATION.

DOES THIS LETTER THAT WE'RE TIEING TO THE RECOMMENDATION AS A CONDITIONAL PART OF THIS, DOES THAT ANY WAY LINE UP TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING EARLIER. BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THERE WERE ARCHITECTURAL SUGGESTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, ET CETERA AND MAYBE I MISINTERPRETED YOU.

I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT OVER STATEMENT OF WHAT SHOULD BE ARCHITECTURALLY RENDERED IS VIOLATION OF STATE STATUTE.

>> STATE STATUTE THAT I'M REFERRING TO 163.3202.

IN PARENTHESES, 5 IN PARENTHESES A.

THAT STATES, PULL IT UP, LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RELATING TO BUILDING DESIGN ELEMENTS MAY NOT BE APPLIED TO SINGLE FAMILY OR TWO FAMILY DWELLING UNLESS IT SORT OF SETS OUT A NUMBER OF CRITERIA. ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA NEED TO BE MENTIONED IN THE CODE AND IT NEEDS TO BE IN AN OVERLAY OR

[03:40:02]

AN APPROVAL >> MADAM MAYOR, I'M GOING TO TAKE US BACK TO OUR CODE. SECTION 125-237, APPROVES APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USES. COMMISSION IS ALLOWED PER OUR CODE IN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION, TO PUT ANY CONDITIONS THAT IT FINDS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE BEST INTEREST OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OF THE CITY.

SO IF THE COMMISSION REVIEWS THE CONDITIONS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD ATTACHED, YOU FIND THAT THAT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OF THE CITY, THEN I THINK YOU CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS.

THOSE MAY NOT BE NECESSARILY TO THE LEVEL, I'M TALKING REASONABLE CONDITIONS. NOT NECESSARILY VERY DESIGN SPECIFIC AS FAR AS YOU MUST HAVE THIS COLOR ON THE HOUSE OR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, OR YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THIS KIND OF FACADE NECESSARILY. BUT I THINK YOU HAVE LEEWAY

THERE. >> SO BASED ON THE PLANNING BOARD SUGGESTED, THOSE STANDARDS ATTACHED TO THE APPROVAL, THEY APPROVED IT BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS, IS THAT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WINDOWS HERE AND THAT KIND OF THING, IS THAT REASONABLE?

>> IT IS CERTAINLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT. BASED ON THE EVIDENCE YOU

RECEIVED TODAY. >> DID YOU HAPPEN TO NOTICE THE APPLICANT WAS THERE AS WELL? AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY AND KNOWLEDGE, HE WAS ACCEPTING TO THIS RENDERING I'M SEEING IN

FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW. >> IT WAS DISCUSSED.

THE SAME CRITERIA AS I EXPLAINED TO YOU.

STATE STATUTE DOESN'T MENTION THAT WE GET TO PLAY WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN DURING THAT.

WHAT IS A CONDITIONAL USE OTHER THAN APPROVE SOMETHING THAT MEETS COMMUNITY STANDARDS. MADAM MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE ME

TO READ THE LETTER? >> MAYOR I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. FROM HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, THERE HAVE BEEN PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS GRANTED. ABOVE 28 FEET.

HERE IS THE DELINEATION IN MY MIND.

THOSE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS FOR HEIGHT OVER THE 28 FEET WAS BASED ON ONE SINGLE FAMILY USE PER LOT.

THAT IS IT. NEVER BEEN A CONDITIONAL USE ISSUED ON THE ISLAND THAT I'M AWARE OF FOR ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN ONE SINGLE FAMILY USE PER LOT.

IN THIS INSTANCE, BY THE APPLICANT'S OWN ADMISSION,

[03:45:04]

WET BAR, QUOTE/UNQUOTE. WE ARE BEING ASKED TO GRANT A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR AN INCREASE IN THE HEIGHT TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE LOT.

R-1 SINGLE FAMILY USE WITH A GUEST HOUSE. MY VISUAL DIGESTING WITH THIS, IS THAT WE'RE CREATING TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON THE SITE. SO THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST I GET IT, IS THE SAME AS HAS BEEN REQUESTED PREVIOUSLY.

THE DIFFERENTIAL IS THE USE NOT THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, IT'S THE USE OF THE PROPERTY CREATING TWO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS IN R-1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

>> BUT ALSO, ISN'T THE DIFFERENCE WHEN WE'VE GRANTED IT, IT WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION? IT WAS NOT TAKING AN OLDER

STRUCTURE AND THEN -- >> NOT THAT I RECALL.

PRINCIPALLY IT'S ALL BEEN NEW CONSTRUCTION.

>> ALL AT THE SAME TIME TOO? IN OTHER WORDS THE HOUSE?

>> SINGLE FAMILY USE. >> RIGHT.

BUT I THINK IT'S THE UNDER-PINNING OF THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE, WE'RE CREATING A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR R-2 ZONING CLASSIFICATION. TWO UNITS.

SO THAT IS WHERE I SEE THE RUB. MAYBE THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN WHAT KEVIN AND VENICE ARE REFERRING TO THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, THAT TO ME IS THE QUANTUM LEAP BETWEEN THE TWO.

>> MADAM MAYOR, THIS IS MY CONCERN.

COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, I HEAR YOU AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SERVED ON THE PLANNING BOARD AND YOU KNOW HOW TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. BUT YOU KNOW HOW THAT BOARD OPERATES AND THINKS. MY CONCERN IS THAT, I KNOW WE HAVE OUR DUTY, EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE TODAY WAS SAID IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD.

THEY APPROVED IT WITH ONE CONDITION WITH THIS ARCHITECT.

SO I KNOW BASED ON WHAT MADAM ATTORNEY JUST READ, YOU KNOW, IT'S OUR DUTY THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT HERE WE ARE AGAIN WHERE I'VE SIT HERE TONIGHT AND APPROVED EVERYTHING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS. AND NOW WE -- EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN TESTIFIED TO TONIGHT WILL SAY IT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. HE WENT BACK AND WHAT THEY ASKED HIM TO DO. I GUESS WE'RE QUESTIONING THE PLANNING BOARD BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID WITH THE FIRST TIME AND SINGLE FAMILIES AND DOUBLE FAMILIES, NEW CONDITION.

I MEAN, NEW CONSTRUCTION VERSUS YOU KNOW, RENOVATION.

SO ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND DECIDED BY AT THAT PLANNING BOARD, AT THAT PLANNING BOARD HEARING? WAS IT ALREADY DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING BOARD HEARING? I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, HE WENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD, THEY TOLD HIM TO GO DO XYZ.

HE CAME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUS. >> I CAN INTERPRET WHERE THAT CAME FROM, HAVING SAT THERE FOR SIX YEARS.

>> THAT IS WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.

>> PLANNING BOARD WRESTLED WITH THIS ISSUE BEFORE.

THAT IS WHY I ASKED VENICE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS EARLIER, WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS THAT THE CODE ALLOWS A GUEST HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY AND A GUEST HOUSE BY DEFINITION HAS NO KITCHEN. SO THE KITCHEN FACILITIES ARE BEING RUN OUT OF THE MAIN HOUSE. MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION HAD A KITCHEN INCORPORATED IN IT.

NOW THERE IS A WET BAR. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE DIFFERENTIAL IS BETWEEN THE TWO CANDIDLY.

FROM MY OBSERVATION, I'M SUGGESTING THAT IT'S STILL A SECONDARY RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY.

THAT WOULD BE MY PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.

BUT I ASSURE YOU, WITH A LOT OF CONFIDENCE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DRILLED INTO THE DISCUSSION OF A KITCHEN CREATING A GUEST HOUSE VERSUS A KITCHEN BEING A SECOND RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE I SAT THROUGH THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM ON THE PLANNING BOARD.

SO THAT IS WHERE THEY RAN INTO A CONUNDRUM.

>> YEAH. YOU'RE RIGHT.

BECAUSE I WATCHED BOTH PLANNING BOARDS.

>> I DIDN'T WATCH IT. BUT I'M SPECULATING.

I SAT THROUGH THAT SPECIFIC DISCUSSION NUMEROUS TIMES.

>> C JOHNSON. >> SO HERE WE ARE AT A JUDICIAL HEARING. WHERE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT

[03:50:01]

PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS GONE ON THE RECORD AND SPOKEN.

WE HAVE HAD TESTIMONY THAT IS ON THE RECORD RIGHT NOW.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I ALWAYS WEIGH IN THESE DECISIONS, IT COMES DOWN TO EVIDENCE, WHAT NOT WHAT WE THINK, NOT WHAT WE HAVE INNUENDO, I HAVE TO GO ON THE FACTS. SO I GUESS WHEN I ASKED THIS QUESTION, IS A WET BAR A KITCHEN? WOULD WE ALLOW A WET BAR IN THIS CURRENT APPLICATION TO COME UP AND NOT BE DEEMED A KITCHEN WHICH GOT THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION STRICTLY BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING A KITCHEN WAS GAS LINES AND STOVES AND ALL OF THAT STUFF, RIGHT? FULL KITCHEN. WE ALL KNOW THAT.

IS THIS A KITCHEN BASED ON THE CURRENT APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO ME TODAY, WHICH IS THAT PERSON MAKING A SWORN STATEMENT THAT THIS IS WHAT IS GOING IN THERE, AND ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS PERJURY OR THEY HAVE VIOLATED.

RIGHT NOW, IS IT A KITCHEN BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS

SUBMITTED? >> THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A NARRATIVE WHICH STATES THERE ARE NO COOKING FACILITIES.

AND THAT CONSTITUTES THAT IT'S NOT A KITCHEN.

>> COLLEAGUES, COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE READ INTO RECORD. WE HAVE OUR WAY OF LOOKING AT THIS. AND MADAM ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE -- THIS IS NOT LEGISLATIVE.

THIS IS BASED ON EVIDENCE. OKAY.

SO THAT IS ALL I'M GOING TO SAY ON THIS

>> MS. EARLY, THE APPLICANT, THIS APPLICATION COULD THIS BE APPROVED WITHOUT THE CONDITION -- COULD THIS BE BUILT IF IT WAS ONLY TO 28 FEET, WE WOULDN'T BE DISCUSSING THIS, IS

THAT RIGHT? >> YES, MADAM MAYOR.

>> BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE GET TO DISCUSS.

BUT I'M GOING TO SAY BUT I CAN SEE THE CONCERN OF HAVING A STRUCTURE BUILT BEFORE THE MAIN HOUSE HAS BEEN BUILT, SO THERE IS A QUESTION OF TRUST. IS IT REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN OR IS THIS 33.7 STRUCTURE GOING TO STAY LIKE THAT? THAT IS -- IS IT REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN? AND NUMBER TWO, IF IT -- IF THE OTHER THING HAPPENS, THE OTHER HOUSE GETS IMPROVED, IS IT ALL GOING TO BE -- MAKE SENSE AND YOU KNOW, ARE WE GOING TO TRUST THAT THAT IS ALL GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I CAN SEE THE CONCERN. BUT ARE YOU TELLING US THAT WE ONLY HAVE TO VOTE ON THE HEIGHT?

>> MADAM MAYOR, WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION TO GO TO A HEIGHT IN EXCESS OF 28 FEET.

AND WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL.

SO THAT IS REALLY WHAT IS BEFORE YOU AND RESPECTFULLY, WHAT I THINK THE COMMISSION SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON IS FACTORS RELATED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, AND THE THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU RECEIVED, THUS FAR IS THAT, BASED ON WHAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SAYS, RIGHT NOW IT'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. OKAY.

SO I THINK THE CONCERN YOU'RE HAVING, MADAM MAYOR, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU'RE ASKED TO APPROVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 28 FEET, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE MAIN STRUCTURE. SO YOU'RE KIND OF MAKING A DECISION IN AN INFORMATION VACUUM SIMILAR TO HOW COMMISSIONER GAINES FELT WITH AN EARLIER PRO PROJECT.

>> EXACTLY WHAT I'M DOING. MAYBE I'M OVERTHINKING IT.

BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M DOING.

ANYBODY ELSE >> JUST TO WEIGH IN ADDITIONALLY. I SHOULD PUT MY GLASSES BACK ON. WE'RE BOUND BY KWARL, I

[03:55:01]

BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE OUR CODE IS THE STANDARD IN WHICH WE ABIDE BY, WHICH WE LIVE. WE USE OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES.

I ALWAYS HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

I CAN USE THAT BOOK AS MY GUIDE AND PRINCIPLE OF ANY APPLICATION THAT COMES IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.

ADDITIONALLY, CONDITIONAL USES PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY WITHIN ANY APPLICATION BECAUSE IT STATES VERY CLEARLY IN 125, 235, THE PURPOSE OF A CONDITIONAL USE.

BUT IT ALSO SAYS AT THE END, WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT, GOOD ORDER, APPEARANCE, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE.

IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN YOU HAVE TESTIMONY COMING TONIGHT AS NEIGHBORS ARE BEING AFFECTED IN THEIR TESTIMONY BY THE APPLICATION. AND I THINK THAT SPECIFICALLY APPLIES. ADDITIONALLY, IS THE ZONING DISTRICT ITSELF, IT IS UNIQUE BECAUSE IT IS R-1.

WE HAVE OTHER YOU KNOW, SECTIONS OF OUR CODE AND WITH THE STATE DISTRICTS, E-1 I THINK IT IS, OR E-2, ADDITIONALLY LEEWAY AND ADDITIONAL BUILDING ALLOWANCES AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OR ADDITIONAL LIVING FACILITIES IF THAT WERE TO COME IN FRONT OF US.

SO THAT IS THE CHALLENGE THAT IS IN FRONT OF US HERE TODAY.

THAT IS THE CHALLENGE I'VE GOT. BECAUSE IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS UNIQUE TO THE ENTIRE PROCESS.

SO WHILE I AGREE THAT IF IT CAME IN AT 28 FEET, THAT IT WOULD GO THROUGH, IT WOULD GO THROUGH PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW. IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY PERMIT PROCESS. ALL THOSE EFFECTS RELATING TO THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT. BUT THIS CASE WE GET A CONDITIONAL USE IN FRONT OF US. THERE IS MORE LATITUDE.

WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE TESTIMONY AT THE SAME TIME OUR CODE PROVIDES THAT. OR ELSE WE WOULD ELIMINATE IT FROM OUR CODE AND STOP ALL CONDITIONAL USES.

SO THAT IS WHERE I AM ON THIS. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE APPLICATION. I AM LOOKING AT THE LETTER.

I'VE TRIED TO PULL UP THE APPLICATION, WHOLE PACKET ONLINE. BUT IT'S A BIG DOCUMENT.

SO IT'S STRUGGLING TO LOAD ON MY IPAD.

BUT LET'S SEE IF I CAN BACK UP ONE.

>> VENICE, CAN YOU MAKE THAT BIGGER.

>> CAN I ASK QUESTIONS? >> WHILE HE'S LOOKING AT THAT, I WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR MYSELF. THE VOTE TONIGHT IS THE APPLICANT IS ASKING US TO APPROVE A HEIGHT FROM 28 TO

33.7, RIGHT? >> THIS IS NOT A SITE PLAN.

THIS IS NOT A SITE PLAN. THIS IS NOT A FINAL BUILDING PLAN. NOT ANYTHING.

HE IS ASKING FOR US TO APPROVE SO WHEN HE GOES BACK TO DO HIS SITE PLAN OR DO HIS BUILDING OR DO WHATEVER, HE KNOW HE CAN TAKE IT TO 33.7. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

SO IF IT IS APPROVED, HE HAS TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO COME BACK IN FRONT OF US TO GET VOTED ON TO SAY YES OR NO.

>> I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DIVORCE THE SITE PLAN AND THE ELEVATION. YOU'VE GOT TO CONSIDER WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED TO YOU IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE. I THINK THAT TRACKS WITH OUR CODE. ESSENTIALLY SAYS WHEN YOU LOOK AT SECTION 125236, THE APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE SHALL BE MADE BY FILING AN APPLICATION ON A FORM

[04:00:02]

THEM IN TANDEM. >> MY QUESTION, BASED ON GOING BACK, I SAW THE RENOVATIONS. IS THAT A SITE PLAN?

>> MADAM MAYOR, I DO HAVE A SUGGESTION.

I COME UP WITH FOUR CONDITIONS THAT COULD BE ADDED, AS THE MAYOR STATED, THERE IS TRUST ISSUES.

ADDITIONAL FOUR WOULD BE THE GUEST HOUSE WILL NEVER BE THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF THE APPLICANT DID COME IN AND THEY NEVER DID THE OTHER HOME, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEMOLISH BOTH AND NUMBER TWO, COMPLETE KITCHEN WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. NUMBER THREE, THE GUEST HOUSE WILL NOT BE RENTED. NUMBER FOUR, THE GUEST HOUSE WILL NOT BE A VACATION RENTAL. THAT WAY, THERE IS A PROTECTION

TO KEEP IT AS AN ACCESSORY. >> MADAM MAYOR, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT. I THINK IT WOULD BE CRUCIAL AT THIS JUNCTURE, THERE ARE SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT I HEARD, I ASK THAT THIS BE CONTINUED AND GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN ALONG WITH THIS APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT. SO WE COULD SEE EXACTLY WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO. YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHEN THE OTHER CONSTRUCTION OR HE'S GOING TO BUILD OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS. AND THEN WE CAN HAVE EVERYTHING TOGETHER LOOKING AT IT. IF NOT, THAT IS WHAT I WOULD WANT. I WOULD WANT TO SEE EVERYTHING.

IT'S A HEIGHT AND I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING, HE IS ASKING US FOR A HEIGHT. AND YES, CONDITIONAL USE, WE HAVE TO GO EVERYTHING, BUT THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF US IS HEIGHT. SO LISTENING TO MY COLLEAGUES AND MADAM MAYOR, THERE IS A TRUST, THERE IS CONCERN, IF OTHER THINGS ARE GOING TO BE BUILT.

WHY DON'T WE GIVE, INSTEAD OF VOTING, WHY DON'T WE TABLE THIS AND GIVE THE APPLICANT TIME. IF HE YOU KNOW, ALLOWS US TO DO THAT, GIVE HIM TIME TO COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN TO GO ALONG WITH THIS HEIGHT REQUIREMENT.

SOME OF THESE ANSWERS, SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS COULD BE ANSWERED. IF HE DOESN'T WANT THAT, THAT IS HIS RIGHT. HE WANTS US TO DO A VOTE, THAT IS WHAT WE CAN DO. WE CAN DO THE VOTE AND HE CAN MOVE ON AND TAKE IT AS HOWEVER THE VOTE COME.

BUT RIGHT NOW, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE IS CONCERNS FROM MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD. CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS THAT DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON AND THEY WANT TO SEE WHAT IS COGOING TO BE BUILT THERE.

NO ONE WANTS TO STORE IT AND NOT THE SECOND PART.

THEY'RE AFRAID THAT THE STORAGE IS GOING TO BE THERE AND NOT THE SECOND PART. I LIKE YOUR IDEAS, BUT I WOULD NEVER GO FOR TELLING AN APPLICANT TO BUILD SOMETHING AND IF HE DOESN'T BUILD SOMETHING AND SOMETHING ELSE, SO MANY YEARS OR MONTHS, THAT WE'RE GOING TO TEAR EVERYTHING DOWN. WHO IS GOING TO DO THAT? I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS.

SO GREAT IDEAS. BUT WHAT I'M THINKING, IF WE CAN, IF IT'S PROPER, BRING THE APPLICANT BACK UP AND ASK HIM IS HE WILLING TO DO THAT AND GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY YES OR NO. IF HE IS NOT, THEN WE MAKE A VOTE AND MOVE ON BASED ON WHAT IS PRESENTED AS COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON SAID WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IN FRONT OF US AND WE MAKE A VOTE.

>> COMMISSIONER, I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT.

ADDITIONALLY, I'LL ADD THE PART OF WE DID HEAR TESTIMONY AND SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WHEN THERE IS A RENOVATION OF THE PRIMARY, THAT THIS STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE USED AS A LIVING QUARTER. THAT WAS STATED HERE TONIGHT.

I THINK THAT IS PART OF THE CHALLENGE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING ITSELF.

WE'RE TRYING TO GO HIGHER BECAUSE WE WANT STORAGE.

[04:05:02]

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD BE HERE TONIGHT IF THERE WASN'T THE LIVING QUARTER PORTION.

IT WAS JUST A DETACHED GARAGE APPLICATION.

BRODERICK WAS TALKING ABOUT, IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL. DETACHED GARAGE WHICH IS VERY COMMON IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

SO I THINK THAT THOSE ARE THE CHALLENGES.

I THINK EVEN WATCHING THE PLANNING BOARD AND HEARING THAT INFORMATION, THAT WAS A CHALLENGE.

WHY IT WAS DENIED THE VERY FIRST TIME.

IT WAS BECOMING A SECONDARY HOME ON THE EXACT ZONING.

SO YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT IS WHERE I'M FOCUSED, MS. EARLY TALKED ABOUT THE HEIGHT BEING THE FOCUS.

THE CONDITION OF THE HEIGHT, THOUGH, IS THE ELEMENTS WITHIN.

SO YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE ELEMENTS WITHIN TO UNDERSTAND THE ELEMENTS ON THE OUTSIDE. SO I'M STRUGGLE WITH THE APPLICATION. AT THIS POINT IT WOULD BE BETTER SUITED FOR ME IF WE WERE TO APPLY SOME CONDITIONS OR I CAN'T VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE CONDITIONS OUT THERE THAT ARE WORTHY OR NOT.

>> WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER GAINES THAT WE WOULD BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO MAKE A GOOD DECISION IF WE KNEW WHAT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE TOO AND IF WE KNEW IT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN.

BUT WE'RE KIND OF DEALING WITH ONE STRUCTURE RIGHT NOW AND WE'RE DEALING WITH THE HEIGHT CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST.

SO WE HAVE TO EITHER APPROVE IT OR DISAPPROVE IT OR PUT

CONDITIONS ON IT. >> MADAM MAYOR, MADAM ATTORNEY.

SO THAT I'M CLEAR ON THE RULES AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE APPLICANT HAS HEARD THE DISCUSSION. IS IT PROPER TO ASK THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME TO COME BACK UP AND BASED ON WHAT WE'VE SAID, EITHER TRY TO TABLE HIS APPLICATION AND GO BACK AND TRY TO GET OUR ANSWERS, OR IS THAT SINCE THAT PART OF THE HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED, AND IS THAT IMPROPER TO DO SO? BECAUSE HE SAT HERE AND HE'S HEARD EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID.

TO ME IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO NOT HEAR ONE LAST THING FROM HIM TO SEE HOW HE WANTS US TO PROCEED BASED ON WHAT HE'S HEARD FOR THE LAST 30 MINUTES. REGARDING HEIGHT OF THIS

BUILDING. >> I DON'T THINK IT'S UNPRECEDENTED WITH THIS COMMISSION THAT WE'VE HAD APPLICANTS IN THE PAST SAY I'M WILLING TO HAVE THIS COME BACK ON ANOTHER DATE SO THAT I CAN PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION.

BUT I WILL YOU KNOW, I CAN'T PUT WORDS IN THE APPLICANT'S MOUTH. IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT, WE CAN. WE CAN'T MAKE ANY PROMISES AS TO HOW THE COMMISSION WOULD DECIDE IN THE FUTURE BASED ON WHAT THEY PROVIDE. BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY IMPROPER TO ASK THEM IF THEY WANTED TO BRING THIS

BACK. >> IS THAT SOMETHING THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN? BECAUSE WHAT WE WILL BE DOING IS OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN, SO WHATEVER HE SAYS, ANYBODY ELSE GETS TO COMMENT ON THAT ALSO.

JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT. THAT IS OKAY.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, MADAM MAYOR.

>> THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND. ANY COMMISSIONER OBJECT TO REOPENING THIS? AND ASKING THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS? ANYBODY OBJECT?

COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> I DON'T OBJECT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. LONGMAN, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME BACK TO THE MICROPHONE HERE SO WE CAN ASK YOU QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONER GAINES, YOU WANT TO START.

>> I'LL TELL YOU WHAT, I DIDN'T MEAN TO PUT YOU PEOPLE THROUGH THIS. AND I DEFINITELY DIDN'T WANT TO

[04:10:03]

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THIS DECISION.

I UNDERSTAND IT'S YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.

BUT YOU KNOW, MY INTENTION IS TO BUILD THE STRUCTURE, BUT I WON'T BUILD IT TO 33.7 FEET. THAT IS BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. SO I WILL FORMALLY WITHDRAW THAT CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION.

IS THAT GOOD WITH THE COMMISSION?

>> ANYBODY WANT TO ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS?

>> AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT ME FROM BUILDING A STRUCTURE ON MY PROPERTY. I MEAN, THIS DOESN'T LOCK ME IN

>> NOT FROM THIS COMMISSION. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYTHING ELSE. BUT NOT FROM THIS COMMISSION.

>> OKAY. VERY GOOD.

WELL, AGAIN, I'M SORRY I PUT YOU THROUGH THIS.

>> WE'RE OBVIOUSLY -- I KNOW YOU DIDN'T DO IT ON PURPOSE.

SO NOW THAT I'VE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND HE'S WITHDRAWN, DO WE NEED ANYMORE PUBLIC COMMENT OR IS THAT -- CAN WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD?

>> ANYTHING YOU NEED FROM ME, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE.

>> MADAM MAYOR, THE APPLICATION HAVING BEEN WITHDRAWN, I THINK

THE HEARING CAN CONCLUDE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO AT THIS PARTICULAR JUNCTURE, WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING THIS AT ALL. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY VOTE AT ALL. WE JUST MOVE ON, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS.

ALL RIGHT. SO

>> READY TO MOVE ON? >> THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM O,

[o. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval for a Site Plan (Development and Design Review) by property owner, J A Development Partners, LLC, and representative, Jeff H. Iravani, Inc. to construct two (2) flex-space buildings totaling 442,000 square feet of office and warehouse distribution space with associated site improvements at or near the southeast corner of South Kings Highway and Graham Road in Fort Pierce, Florida, more specifically located at Parcel Control Numbers: 2313-332-0000-000-7, 2313-332-0000-010-0, 2313-333-0001-000-7, and 2313-331-0000-000-4.]

FORT PIERCE >> HAVE WE MET THE ADVERTISING

REQUIREMENTS? >> ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS FOR

THIS ITEM HAVE BEEN MET. >> CAN YOU ASK ABOUT EX PARTE

COMMUNICATIONS? >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES.

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER C JOHNSON.

>> I DON'T THINK SO. >> DID YOU HEAR HIM?

>> NO, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER J JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM, FROM RESIDENTS NEARBY ON COP ENHAVER AND GRAHAM ROAD.

>> MAYOR HUDSON. >> NO, MA'AM.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES.

DO YOU SWEAR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> ANYBODY STILL ALIVE OUT THERE. PROCEED.

>> RECORD NUMBER HERE TONIGHT. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE YOU WE HAVE THE KINGS HIGHWAY COMMERCE CENTER SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR FOUR PARCELS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF GC, GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

WITH A ZONING OF CP-1, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL PARKWAY.

IT'S LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST -- SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAHAM ROAD AND SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO PROPOSED STRUCTURES WHICH WILL BE FLEX SPACE, INCLUDE OFFICE AND WAREHOUSE SPACES, BUILDING TYPE ONE, WHICH IS PHASE ONE.

206,000 SQUARE FEET OF WAREHOUSE, 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. BUILDING TYPE TWO, PHASE TWO, BASICALLY MIRRORS PHASE ONE. TOTAL PARKING SPACES IS 262 SPACES WITH HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY.

BEFORE YOU IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

IT WAS SPLIT INTO SEVERAL SHEETS.

SO I HAVE IT ON OTHER SLIDE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLANT SEVERAL TREE SPECIES, PALMS, AS WELL AS SIGNATURE PALMS. SHRUBS, ALONG THROUGHOUT THE SITE. GROUND COVERS THROUGHOUT THE SITE. AND NEW IRRIGATION WILL BE INSTALLED. BEFORE YOU WE HAVE ADDITIONAL SHEETS FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR DECEMBER 12TH, 2022, MEETING

[04:15:03]

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR FOUR CONDITIONS, NUMBER ONE, COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, COST ESTIMATE AND LANDSCAPE PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION 123-6 SHALL BE REQUIRED. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE TO ANY SITE CLEARING, APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A TREE MITIGATION SURVEY. AS A RESULT OF THE SITE'S DEVELOPMENT LAST CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

UNITY OF TILT TITLE. BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. NUMBER FOUR, COMPLETION OF THE UNITY OF TITLE AND LOT ACCOMMODATION.

PLEASE SUBMIT A GENERAL ADDRESS REQUEST FORM.

FOR EACH PROPOSED BUILDING. THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT. GOT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME UP.

YOU'VE BEEN VERY VERY PATIENT. YOU'VE WAITED LATE AT NIGHT BEFORE, I KNOW THAT. WELCOME.

>> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, GOOD EVENING.

JEFF IRAVANI. ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THEIR INPUT AND GLAD TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF THIS

APPLICANT? >> YES, SIR.

>> NO QUESTIONS. BUT MAYBE I'M ASLEEP UP HERE.

DID WE SWEAR EVERYBODY IN FOR THIS ONE.

OKAY. I COULDN'T REMEMBER.

>> YOU WERE SWORN IN. THANK YOU.

WE ALL NEED TO HELP EACH OTHER. WE NEED TO HELP EACH OTHER.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON.

>> ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU'VE GOT TWO

CONNECTIONS IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT.

THEY'VE BOTH BEEN APPROVED BY THE COUNTY.

COUNTY ASKED US TO MAKE THE WESTERN DRIVEWAY LIMITED ACCESS AND THAT IS WHY WE PUT THE MEDIAN IN ON GRAHAM ROAD.

AND THE EAST ACCESS IS FULL ACCESS.

BUT THEY BOTH HAVE BEEN APPROVED, NOT PERMIT WISE BUT

APPROVED THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> OKAY.

EXACTLY THE WESTERN DRIVEWAY WAS MY QUESTION.

SO THAT IS PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION OF KINGS HIGHWAY.

>> MEETS DOT REQUIREMENT. BUT DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A LEFT TURN. WHICH ARE FINE BECAUSE WE'VE

GOT FULL ACCESS ON WHITE ROAD. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE

APPLICANT? >> IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR APPLICATION. WHAT ARE THE FOOTPRINT SIZES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DEMISING YOUR SPACE TO.

NO. I DON'T. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LARGE GENERALLY. GOING TO BE LARGE.

>> RUNNING INVENTORY OF MY HEAD OF THE 7.5 MILLION SQUARE FEET.

GREAT PROJECT. >> GREAT LOCATION TOO.

>> YEAH. GREAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> COMMISSIONER.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S CALL THE ROLL.

>> WITH THE CONDITIONS. >> YES.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

>> FOUR AND A HALF HOURS. FOR EASY YES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD LUCK.

[a. Resolution 23-R12 reappointing Jessica Ching to the Sunrise Theatre Advisory Board as Commissioner Broderick's appointee.]

>> OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE RESOLUTION 23-R 12 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CERTIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE SUNRISE THEATER ADVISORY BOARD AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. REAPPOINTS MS. JESSICA CHING AS COMMISSIONER BRODERICK'S APPOINTEE TO THE SUNRISE

THEATER. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> ROLL CALL.

[b. Resolution 23-R13 approving borrowing by Fort Pierce Utilities Authority of up to $4,000,000.oo in the form of a taxable revolving line of credit from Seacoast National Bank.]

>> NEXT WE HAVE RESOLUTION 23-R 13, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE BORROWING BY THE FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, UP TO FOUR MILLION DOLLARS IN THE FORM OF A TAXA REVOLVING LINE F CREDIT.