[h. Zoning Text Amendment - Establish the Port of Fort Pierce (PFP) Overlay Zoning District - Code of Ordinances Section 125-214 - Incorporating Planned Maritime Development (PMD) Site Plan Process]

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR . >> THIS WAS A CODE FORWARD IN 2020 , NOT THE CODE ITSELF, BUT THE INSTRUCTION FOR THE STAFF T MOVE TOWARDS THE CODE TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT , I WILL GO THROUGH SOME SLIDES HERE. STAF ARE REQUESTING A TABLE OF THIS ITEM DUE TO SOME NOTIFICATION ISSUES THAT WE BECAME AWARE OF THIS MORNING , THAT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT RECEIVE NOTIFICATION AND OTHERS HAVE AND SOME HAVE NOT. WE ARE TRYIN TO RESOLVE WHEN THAT OCCURRED AND MAKE SURE THAT IS CARRIED OUT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CARRIED OUT SUCCESSFULLY IN THE FUTURE. THE PORT OF FORCE PIERCE IS ONE IN FLORIDA AND IN 2020 , THE NUMBER OF ENTITIE FORMED THE MASTER PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THAT CAM TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN DECEMBER 2020, WHICH THE CITY DIRECTED STAFF TO COME UP WIT AN OVERLAY ZONE OR A ZONING O SOME SORT OF PLANNING TO WILL TO IMPLEMENT THE DIRECTIVES OF THAT MASTER PLAN. THIS IS INFORMATION THAT IS THE BOUNDAR . SITUATED BETWEEN THE NORTH AN SOUTH , WE SAW THE PROPERTY WITHIN THAT AREA PRIMARILY NORTH OF FISHERMEN . LET ME G THROUGH THIS. THAT IS A DIFFERENT AERIAL SHOT SHOWING YOU . THERE ARE DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS WITHIN THE AREA. WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A ZONING CODE TO LOOK AT HOW WE ENGAGE THE REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY OF THIS AREA AND THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD TO YOU AND MAYBE WE SHOULD TAKE MUCH

[00:10:04]

MORE TIME TO READ A REVIEW OF THE ZONING ITSELF AND WITHIN THAT VARIANCE BETWEEN NOW AND THE FUTURE DISCUSSION, WE WILL BE REACHING OUT AND INTENTLY REACHING OUT AND MAKING SURE THAT ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ARE AWARE OF THIS. WE WILL BE CONTINUING THAT DISCUSSION. THE INTENT AT THE MOMENT IS TO NOT MESS AROUND TOO MUCH WITH THE EXISTING SITUATION BUT A NEW WAY OF DOING ZONING, THAT IS IN DISCUSSION. THAT MIGHT COME BACK AS A NEW ZONING CODE IN ITSELF. THAT WILL BE ONE OF TH DISCUSSIONS TODAY. THE FUTURE LAND USE , AS YOU CAN SEE, IS SPLIT BETWEEN MARINE, COMMERCAL AND INDUSTRIAL. THAT CREATES A FEW CONFLICTS WITH THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN OF THE BOARD. THA IS ONE OF THE ISSUES WE ARE TRYING TO RESOLVE WITH THIS.

THAT NEEDS TO BE BALANCED WITH THE EXISTING USES GOING ON IN THAT AREA THAT WE DO NOT WANT T CAUSE CONFLICT WITH EXISTING USES AND WE WANT TO DO THIS IN A WAY THAT ENCOURAGES OTHER USE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THEY COULD GO IN THERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MASTER PLAN. DID I ATTACH THE MASTER PLAN TO THE AGENDA ITEM? THIS IS A GOOD TIME. MAYBE YOU CAN GO THROUGH THAT I SOME DETAIL YOURSELVES AND BECOME FULLY AWARE OF THE SITUATIONS WITH THIS PLAN. WE HAVE A SPLIT OF MANY DIFFEREN ZONING'S ON THIS AREA. THIS I A PLANNED UNIT REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IF YOU LIKE ZONING, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO A PLANT DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT IS NOT REALLY USED AT THE MOMENT . WE WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE THAT AND PUT IN PLACE SOMETHING THAT IS MORE RECOGNIZABLE FOR WHAT IS GOING ON HERE. WE HAVE COMMERCIAL ZONE PROPERTIES . ANOTHER BOUNDARY . THE RECOMMENDATION ON MAKING TODAY IS TO TABLE THIS ITEM. I THINK THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS. I REQUEST THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THAT TO HAPPEN AND MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE ITEM

>> THANK YOU. IT IS TIME TO OPEN THIS TO THE BOARD WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. WE ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PORTION.

STATE YOUR NAME IF YOU ARE FRO THE PUBLIC.

>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS MARSHA BAKER. I LIVE AT 1753 SEAWAY DRIVE FOR OVER 34 YEARS I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL PROJECT TO THE BOARD MASTER PLAN THAT WOULD INCREAS THE SAFETY AND WELL-BEING OF EVERYONE LIVING OR WORKING ALONG THE INLAND. THE AREA I A REFERRING TO IS SHOWN ON THE PORT MASTER PLAN PAGE 15. IT I A STRETCH OF DEEP WATERFRONT'S OR FRONTAGE WITH THIS MAP, THERE IT IS, THAT THIS AREA MAP STRETCHING FROM THE MANITOU RESTAURANT IS AND INCLUDING TH CITY-OWNED LOT EAST OF THE SQUARE GROUPER , THE AERIAL SHOWS WHAT THIS LOOKED LIKE WHE I FIRST MOVED TO FT. PIERCE WITH WATER DOCS AND BOAT LANDINGS AT THE RESTAURANT AND HOTELS. BECAUSE OF THE WALKWAY WHICH I'M PROUD TO SAY I DEVELOPED, THE RESTAURANTS CAN NO LONGER FENCE OFF THE ROCKS OR USE THE WATERFRONT FOR SPECIAL ACTIVITIES AS THEY DO NOT OWN THE 40 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WA THAT WAS DEEDED TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS IN 1933 WIT THE CORRECTIVE DEED DESCRIPTION IN 1936. I HAVE COPIES OF BOTH OF THOSE DEEDS. THE CITY CANNO ENFORCE SAFETY RULES OUTSIDE OF ITS 20 FOOT WALKWAY AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO FULLY UTILIZE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN LOST. WHEN THIS WAS DREDGED AND

[00:15:04]

DEVELOPED BY THE CITY, STARTIN IN 1921, AND CONTINUING TO 1935, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE FORT PIERCE BEACH SUBDIVISION FILED IN JULY 24, SOMEWHERE AROUND THAT TIME, HAD A 40 FOOT PUBLIC ACCESS ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY . I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THAT MAP AVAILABLE TO SHOW . IT IS THE ANTIQUE MAP . THAT WAS ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY AND FROM EAST 20 FEET OF WHAT IS THE SE TERM CONDOMINIUMS AND ALONG TH INLET EAST AND SOUTH ALONG THE OCEAN. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THA , THAT BELONGED TO THE CITY BECAUSE WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS PROVIDED, THE CITY DEMANDED A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ACCESS TO THE WATER. TO ALLOW FOR THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM USING THAT ACCESS FOR HARVESTING OR OTHER PURPOSES THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH ACTIVITIES, THE CITY 'S TOTAL TO THE GOVERNMENT. I SUGGEST THE CITY REACQUIRE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. THIS WOULD ALLOW THE RESTAURANTS TO HAVE FULL USE OF THEIR WATER USAGE AND ALLOW LEGAL ENFORCEMENT OF HEALTH AND SAFETY RULES. A FEW YEARS AGO, BO SMITH SUGGESTED A WATER TAXI PROJECT WITH A STOP AT THE MANITOU RESTAURANT. I THINK THIS IS A MARVELOUS IDEA AND WOULD ADD TO THE PORT PROJECT. THE ACQUISITION OF TH 40 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD ENHANCE THE BOARD PROGRAM AND ADD VALUE TO THE CITY-OWNED LOT AND INCREASE THE CITY'S ASSESSABLE PROPERTY TAX INVENTORY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU , MISS BAKER. ANYONE ELSE?

>> MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M JOSHUA, PORT DIRECTO FOR THE COUNTY. I'M HERE TO INTRODUCE MYSELF . I'M NEW TO THE POSITION. I WILL BE WORKING WITH KAZ ON THE OVERLAY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. I WANTED TO LET ANYONE KNOW THAT I'M AVAILABLE TO TALK. MY HOPE IS THAT WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES, WE WILL BE LOOKING TO THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE GUIDANCE ON WHAT CAN AND CANNO BE DONE WITHIN THE SPACE. WE HOPE TO DEVELOP THIS CONSISTEN WITH THE MASTER PLAN WHICH HAS ELEMENTS REQUIRED TO HAVE INPU FROM THE COMMUNITY AND ANY DEVIATION FROM THAT WILL CREAT A PROBLEM WITH US DOING THAT DEVELOPMENT AND FURTHER BUILDIN OUT. I WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT ONE OF TH ELEMENTS I HAVE BEEN TASKED TO DO THAT IS SOMEWHAT TO A PRIORITY IS A NEW POINT AND WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH TH ACQUISITION OF SOME OF THE LAND TO CREATE LAND FROM SECOND STREET AND BE ABLE TO PUT THAT BACK IN SO I CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE CITY AS WELL. FOR THE RECORD, JOSHUA, PORT DIRECTOR O FT. WORTH .

>> CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN? ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING THEM. I WILL BRING THIS BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY COMMENTS

OR QUESTIONS? >> JUST THE ENLIGHTENMENT I MISSED BAKER. I THINK THAT IS GREAT IDEA WHEN YOU SEE PATHWAYS IN OTHER CITIES WHERE THEY START TO ENHANCE BUSINESSES FACING INWARDS WIT A ENVIRONMENT. THANK YOU FOR

THAT. >> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. I WILL TAKE THE MOTION.

>> MOTION TO TABLE. >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED IN SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL

>> THANK YOU. ONE OF THE DUTIES OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS

[a. Future Land Use Map Amendment - Project Hunt - 7325 Pruitt Research Center Road]

[00:20:01]

TO ACCESS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. WE WILL START WITH ITEM SIX A , FUTURE LAND-USE . 7325 RESEARCH CENTER ROAD . WE HAVE

MR. GILMORE. >> YES, I'M COVERING FOR MR. GILMORE TODAY. BEFORE YOU TODA IS AN APPLICATION FOR A FUTURE LAND-USE AMENDMENT AT SEVEN 325 PRUDE RESEARCH CENTER ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS BRIAN NOLAND, AICPA SLA, A REPRESENTATIVE FRO LUCIDO AND ASSOCIATES. WE HAVE LNR INC. AND THIS IS 29 20 350100010003 . IN SUMMARY, THIS IS A REQUEST OF A REVIEW FOR APPLICATION FOR FUTURE LAND NOT USED AND 73 25 PRUDE RESEARCH CENTER ROAD. THIS HAS A FUTURE LAND-USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL RM AND A ZONING DESIGNATION OF MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL . THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION OF THE PARCEL THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 19.54 ACRES . CURRENTLY, THE FUTURE LAND-USE IS MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL AND THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND-USE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. FOR THE FUTURE LAND-USE CHANGE FOR ONE PARCEL FROM RM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO GC COMMERCIAL, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS IS THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS ADJACENT TO FUTURE LAND-USE DESIGNATIONS OF GC, CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 125-136 OF THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR GENERAL WELFARE. THE PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS TODAY ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH IS TH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR TWO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP PLEASE? SOUTH KICKS HIGHWAY, DID WE NOT JUST LOOK AT LIKE A

RESIDENTIAL PROJECT ? >> IT WAS APPROVED.

>> I'M WONDERING WHERE THAT IS ON THE MAP WHILE I'M LOOKING A APPROVE THE LUXURY CONDO APARTMENTS WITH A DRIVE GOING OUT NORTH TO PRUITT ROAD. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE LUXURY CONDOS GOING THERE AND WE APPROVED THAT.

>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT.

>> YES. THAT IS THE FEDERAL COMMUNITY AND THEIR OTHER

PROJECT. >> I WAS CURIOUS WHY WOULD WE APPROVE A COMMERCIAL AFTER WE JUST APPROVED A LUXURY APARTMENTS THERE? I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

>> CAN YOU GO OVER WHAT GENERAL COMMERCIAL COULD INCLUD

OR THE LIMITATION? >> SURE. GENERAL COMMERCIAL IS PRETTY MUCH A MORE OPEN ZONIN , A LOT OF RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL. THEY ARE CONDITIONA USES WITH MORE HEAVIER USES LIKE SOMEWHAT INDUSTRIAL, NOT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, BUT MANUFACTURING. GROCERY STORES, ANYTHING PRETTY MUCH WITH THAT HAS TO DO WITH COMMERCIAL THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED.

>> OKAY. IS OUT THERE SOMEWHERE IN THIS PACKAGE SAYING THERE WOULD BE A TRUCK AC REPLACE PLACE THERE?

>> YES. >> WE ARE NOT TALKING TO APPROV A GROCERY STORE RIGHT NOW. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A TRUCK AC REPAIR PLACE NEXT TO WHERE WE APPROVED THE LUXURY APARTMENTS . I WOULD NOT WANT TO BUY AN APARTMENT THAT IS BY A TRUCK A REPAIR PLACE. SOMEBODY ELSE HELP ME OUT HERE. STEER ME THE OTHER WAY MAYBE. SEEMS LIKE THIS IS NOT A RIGHT FIT.

>> WE PERHAPS MIGHT GET FURTHE CLARIFICATION ONCE THE APPLICAN PRESENTS. THAT SEEMS TO BE A MINOR CONCERN THOUGH.

[00:25:07]

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ? SEEING IN. THIS COMPLETES , IF THEY ARE ACTIVE, THEY CAN PLEASE STEP UP .

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. FOR THE RECORD, I AM LEE DOBBINS WITH THE DB LAW FIRM. I HAVE BRIAN LITTLETON WITH ASSOCIATES AND SUSAN ALL WORK, TRAFFIC ENGINEE WITH WORK ENGINEERING. THE APPLICANTS HAD PLANNED TO BE HERE , LOGAN HUNTLEY AND BOB HUNTLEY WERE GOING TO DRIVE DOWN AND ATTEND THE MEETING ON MAY 8TH, THAT WAS CANCELED. UNFORTUNATELY, LOGAN AND HIS FATHER COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY. THEY HAD A TRIP SCHEDULED FOR FAMILY. THEY APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING HERE. WE HAVE COREY WITH THERMO KING HERE. I'M NOT AWAR OF A RESIDENTIAL CONDO GOING I NEXT-DOOR. WE NEVER RECEIVED AN NOTICE OF THAT. THE APPLICATION FOR THIS WAS FILED AT THE BEGINNING OF 2020. WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS PROCESS FOR A WHILE. THIS SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE T ANYBODY THAT THE FACILITIES HAV BEEN COMING FORWARD BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR QUITE WHILE. I QUESTION IF WE TALK ABOUT THE CORRECT SITE BECAUSE DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THAT THAT THERE WAS A LUXURY CONDO GOING IN NEXT DOOR I FIND THAT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT ABOUT THI PROJECT. THE HUNTLEY IS WANT T BUILD A THERMO KING FACILITY O KINGS HIGHWAY. YOU ARE MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THERMO KING, EVE IF YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT. IF YOU HAVE SEEN REFRIGERATED SEM TRACTOR TRAILERS LOOKING LIKE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ATTACHE TO THEM, THOSE ARE REFRIGERATED AND MOST ARE BUILT BY THERMO KING. PUBLIC FAMILY BUSINESS I INSTALLING SERVICING AND MAINTAINING THERMO KING UNITS ON REFRIGERATED TRACTOR-TRAILER AND THEY HAVE FACILITIES AROUND THE STATE TO SUPPORT THERMO KING. REFRIGERATED TRAILER STARTS TO LOSE REFRIGERATION AN THE TEMPERATURE STARTS TO GO UP IN THE TRUCK AND THE TRUCK CAN PULL INTO ONE OF HUNTLEY'S FACILITIES TO GET SERVICED AND THEY HAVE ROAD CREWS THAT GO OUT TO REPAIR THESE UNITS. ST. LUCIE COUNTY GOT IN TOUCH WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCI BACK IN 2020 ABOUT BRINGING A THERMO KING FACILITY TO FT. PIERCE AND THE EDC SHOWED THE SOME PROPERTIES ON KINGS HIGHWAY. KINGS HIGHWAY SEEMED LIKE A PERFECT FIT BECAUSE ALL OF THE OTHER INDUSTRIAL USES GOING IN ON KINGS HIGHWAY. UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS NOT A SHOVEL READY PROPERTY THAT THEY COULD GO INTO AND DO THEIR FACILITY. THEY LOOKED AT DIFFERENT FACILITIES AND PROPERTIES AND THEY BOUGHT THI 19 ACRE PROPERTY THAT IS BEFOR YOU TODAY. THIS SITE IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN WHAT THE NEED FOR THEIR BUSINESS. THEY NEED LESS THAN A QUARTER OF THAT AREA FOR THE THERMO KING SITE. BRIAN NOLAND HELPED THEM DESIGN THE SITE WITH THE THREE LOTS. ONE LOT WOULD BE THE THERMO KING FACILITY THAT THE HUNTLEY'S WOULD USE FOR THEIR BUSINESS AND THE OTHER TWO LOTS WOULD BE SOLD FOR OTHER BUSINESSES. THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES A SITE AND DRAINAGE PLAN TO PROVIDE ACCESS AND DRAINAGE FOR ALL THREE PARCELS.

THIS NOT ONLY PROVIDES FOR TH HUNTLEY'S THERMO KING BUSINESS BUT IT PROVIDES SHOVEL READY LOTS FOR TWO MORE BUSINESSES T OPEN UP ON KINGS HIGHWAY. THERE ARE THREE CITY APPROVALS BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE FIRST IS THE LAND-USE AMENDMENT FROM RM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL TO GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THERE IS ZONING CHANGE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING. LAST FINAL THE PROPERTY INTO THREE LOTS. THIS IS THE FIRST OF THE THREE AND THE OTHER TWO ARE LATER ON IN THE AGENDA. THIS IS A FACILITY THAT WOULD EMPLOY OVER 20 EMPLOYEES AND COULD INCLUDE THE OFFICES AND THE FACILITIES FOR SERVICING THE DIRECTOR OF TRACTOR-TRAILERS. WITH THAT, W DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING . THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH THE APPROVAL. WE ARE HERE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUY

[00:30:02]

MIGHT HAVE. >> WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETERMINE IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PROPERTY.

>> I THINK WE ARE. >> MADAM CHAIR, I'M LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION AND YOU DO HAVE SOME OF THE SITE PLAN ON PAGE 235 OF THE APPLICATION AND WHA I'M SHOWING IS A LOT THREE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED , THAT APPEARS TO BE THE PROPERTY WITH THIS RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, THE PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS GOING TO BE THEIR DRIVE AN. I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY BUILDINGS BACK THAT WAY. THE FACILITY YO HAVE PLANNED LOOKS LIKE IT IS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF YOU PROPERTY. TALK ABOUT WHAT THREE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE MOS INTERESTED KIND OF PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY IF YOU HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT PLANNED FOR THAT

PROPERTY AT THIS TIME. >> RIGHT. COULD WE PULL UP TH SITE PLAN FOR YOUR PROPERTY? THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. THERE IS A STORMWATER TRACT IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND THEN THE THERMO KING SITE IS LOT TO ONE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER AND LOT TWO AND THREE ARE VACANT AND SOLD TO OTHER BUSINESSES, WHICH WOULD COME AND USE THE SHARED DRAIN OF THE ACCESS ROAD. AT THIS TIME, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE HAVE PURCHASERS FOR THESE PROPERTIES . THERE IS LANDSCAPE BUFFERING PROVIDED WITH RESPECT TO THOSE LOTS . O THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND WES PROPERTY LINE , THEY HAVE ADVANCED ALONG THE ROADS. IT IS

ON THE KINGS HIGHWAY . >> CAN YOU MAKE THAT A LITTLE

BIT BIGGER ? >> KEVIN, IF I'M LOOKING AT THI CORRECTLY, WHERE HE HAS THE THERMO KING SHOWN, THERE WILL BE A 40 UNIT BUILDING , 240 UNIT BUILDINGS BEHIND THE STORM WATER AND THERE IS ONE IN RIGHT DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THE THERMO KING, THERE WILL BE A 40 UNIT BUILDING ON THE OTHER SIDE DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF THAT.

>> YOU ARE CORRECT. >> THE TIMING ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT MATTER. IF COUNTY ENGINEERING HELD US UP FOR 90 DAYS REVIEWING THREE MINOR POINTS ON THE TRAFFIC PLAN, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY DO ON CITY PROJECTS ROUTINELY, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE THREE O FOUR MONTHS AGO AND I ASSUME YO WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKING THE COND DEVELOPERS WHY THEY WERE GOING INTO A INDUSTRIAL PROJECT FOR OVER TWO YEARS.

>> I DO NOT WANT THE APPLICANT TO MISS ATTENTION AT THAT SPECIFICALLY, JUST AT THE PRESENCE OF THE CONFLICT IN GENERAL, I A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THE TWO ELEMENTS DID NOT

SEEM TO BE CONCERNING. >> CAN WE POINT OUT WHERE

KINGS HIGHWAY IS? >> THE HIGHWAY IS ON THE SIDE.

THIS IS PRUITT ROAD . THIS IS WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE AND THIS IS WHERE THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE . THEY ARE

ALL RIGHT HERE. >> I MEAN IN THE AREA, THERE I ALREADY ENOUGH WAREHOUSES AS I IS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER

[00:35:02]

THIS, BUT MY CONCERN IS NOW IS THAT THERE ARE SO MANY OPEN SPACES FOR LEASE , WHY NOT JUS HOW IS ONE OF THOSE , BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. ADDRESSING THIS, IF THERE WERE ENOUGH BUFFERS AND THE ARCHITECTURE BLENDED IN WITH I THE ALREADY BEING DEVELOPED COMMUNITY, I PERSONALLY WOULD NOT HAVE A PROBLEM AS LONG AS THE ARCHITECTURE REFLECTS WHAT IS ALREADY GOING ON. I WOULD NOT WANT TO PULL UP TO MY LUXURY APARTMENT OR CONDO AND THERE IS THIS OUT OF NOWHERE , NOT BLENDING IN , BUILDING THAT IS KIND OF AN EYESORE TO WHAT I'M PAYING FOR. BUFFERING BEIN MORE TREES DEVELOPED AROUND THA TO NESTLE IT IN AND MAYBE THINK ABOUT BRINGING THE BUILDING MORE CLOSER TO THE STREET VERSUS HAVING IT IN WOR AND MAKING THE ARCHITECTURE REFLECT WHAT THE NEW DEVELOPMEN IS COMING IN AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE REST OF THE PLOTS THAT IS BEING UTILIZED, I WAS JUST MAKING SURE WE WERE THINKING ABOUT WHAT THOSE RESIDENTS CAN USE AND WHAT THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE WORKING THERE IN THOSE AREAS, THEY WILL GO TO LUNCH ON DAY. THERE SHOULD BE A RESTAURANT. THERE SHOULD BE THINGS THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO ENJOY AND GET OUT OF THIS GENERAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT . THAT IS HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT. I DO NOT THINK THAT SHOUL BE STOPPED, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, THE ARCHITECTURE, AND HOW IT APPROACHES AND PRESENTS ITSELF ON THAT LAND BECAUSE IT IS VIABLE LAND. YOU ARE STILL GOING FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> I KNOW THERE IS LANDSCAPE BUFFERING . BRIAN, DO YOU WANT

TO ADDRESS THAT? >> SORRY.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I AM BRIAN NOLAN WITH LUCIDO AND ASSOCIATES. I BELIEVE , I CAN PULL THE PLAN UP. WE HAVE A MI OF 25 AND 30 FOOT BUFFERS SURROUNDING THE ENTIRE PARCEL , AND SPECIFIC TO THE WEST BOUNDARY, WHICH WOULD APPEAR WE ARE RUNNING PROPOSED MULTI FAMILY .

>> CAN YOU ENLARGE THAT, BRIAN THAT IS A 34 FOOT EASEMENT ALONG OUR WEST PROPERTY LINE . IT IS A 40 FOOT LANDSCAPING

ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY ONE. >> WHAT KIND OF HOURS OF OPERATION ARE YOU ANTICIPATING FOR THE FACILITY? THEY WOULD BE

IN LINE WITH CITY ORDINANCE. >> 24 HOUR OPERATION?

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. >> PART OF THE ISSUE IS TRUCKS ARE RUNNING IN THE PARKING LOT ALL DAY USING THEIR AC.

>> WILL IT ACTUALLY BE TRUCKS? YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE AC COMPONENT OF IT. IT WILL NOT B ACTUAL TRUCKS, OR WILL THERE BE

TRUCKS? >> THERE WOULD BE TRUCKS COMING AND GOING AND THE SEMI-PART WHICH STAYS THERE WHEN THEY ARE BEING REPAIRED SOMETIMES AN OTHER TIMES THAT MIGHT BE DROPPED OFF. IT WOULD BE A 24 HOUR OPERATION BECAUSE THEY AR 24 HOURS. SOMETHING NEEDS TO GE REPAIRED. THAT NEEDS TO BE

THERE. >> I HIGHLY AGREE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY HUBS FO TRUCKS TO PARK IN TO GET FIXED AS WELL . NOW THAT I KNOW THER IS TRUCKING INVOLVED, IT IS HARD TO PICTURE THAT COMING IN AND OUT IN THAT AREA AS IT I

[00:40:07]

ALREADY BEING HOUSED OVER THE OTHER SIDE OF KINGS HIGHWAY.

>> I THINK THERE IS LITTLE OUT OF THE ORDINARY FOR A FACILITY LIKE THIS IN THIS LOCATION NOTWITHSTANDING THE SITE APPROVAL WHAT WE HEARD LAST MONTH. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY REASON TO TRY THIS OUT ANY LONGER. I DON'T WANT TO BE UNFAIR TO EITHER OF THE APPLICANT'S. I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO FACILITATE MAKING SURE THESE APPLICANTS ARE MORE AWARE OF EACH OTHER AND HOW THEIR DEVELOPMENTS WILL IMPACT EACH OTHER. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH SITE PLAN APPROVAL BUT YOU COULD GO WITH THE PRIOR APPLICANT AND THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT WILL BE AT THE NORTH END OF THEIR PROPERTY AS THIS WILL IMPACT THEM TO SELL THOSE UNITS AND AS WELL FOR THI APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE THEY CA PROCEED WITH THE SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN A WAY THAT IS AWARE WITH WHAT KIND OF NEIGHBOR THEY ARE WORKING WITH.

COMMUNITIES WOULD GO TO A CITY COMMISSION BUT THE APPLICANT PULLED THAT. RIGHT NOW, THEY AR ON HOLD AS OF RIGHT NOW.

>> I REMEMBER FROM THEIR APPLICATION, THEY HAD AT LEAST ONE OF THE BUILDING LOCATIONS. THERE MIGHT BE SOME OPPORTUNIT TO SOFTEN THE BLOW WITH THE IMPACT OF THAT. I THINK THEY NEED TO GET BROUGHT BACK INTO THE CONVERSATION.

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT IF I COULD.

FIRST OF ALL, KINGS HIGHWAY I DEVELOPING AS A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR. THIS IS NOT OUT OF LINE WITH WHAT IS GOING ON WIT KINGS HIGHWAY AND OTHER PROPERTIES. WHEN THE HUNTLEY'S ORIGINALLY APPROACHED THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, JOE BROUGHT THEM TO ME WITH THE CITY COMMISSIONERS AND LOOKED AT DIFFERENT PROPERTIES ON KINGS HIGHWAY. THIS IS WHER THE EDC DIRECTED THEM TO AND AL OF THE GOVERNMENTS PAY PAID CASH AND THE EDC MONEY OUT TO ATTRACT BUSINESSES. THIS IS A BUSINESS LOOKING TO COME TO FT PIERCE. WE SAID WELCOME TO FT.

PIERCE, COME HERE AND KINGS HIGHWAY IS THE PLACE YOU WANT TO BE FOR THIS THERMO KING BUSINESS. YOU HAVE GOOD HIGHWAY ACCESS AND THESE ARE WHERE THESE BUSINESSES ARE GOING. WE IDENTIFIED THIS PROPERTY. IT HAS TAKEN TIME AND THAT IS PARTLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE CHANGE THEIR PLANS A COUPLE OF TIMES AND IT IS PARTLY BECAUSE STAFF TURNED OVER AND THE STAFF TAKEN WITH STAFF BECAUSE OF A CONTINUING PROBLEM WE OFTEN HAVE WITH PROJECTS WITH THE COUNTY AND COUNTY TAKES A LONG TIME TO REVIEW TRAFFIC AND THE DO NOT GET PRIORITY WITH THIS PROJECT. THE CLIENT HAS BEEN CHEWING ALL OF US ON THE TEAM FOR THE PAST YEAR TO TRY TO MOV FORWARD TO A FINAL APPROVAL .

THEY WENT AHEAD AND PURCHASED THEIR BUILDING MATERIALS , BUT THEN THEY ARE SITTING AND WAITING ON THE APPROVAL TO GET THAT BUILD BECAUSE AS FAR AS W KNEW, THIS IS A NEW APPROVAL, WHICH NOTHING CONTROVERSY ABOUT IT . NOBODY RAISES THEIR HAND AND SAYS WE DO NOT WANT THIS NEXT DOOR TO US, SOME OF THE PROJECTS AS CONSULTANTS DEAL WITH AND WE KNOW THERE WILL BE BUNCH OF UNHAPPY NEIGHBORS, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN CONTROVERSIAL THINGS ABOUT IT. EVERYBODY HAS BEEN BEHIND AND SAID GO FORWARD, THIS IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

THIS IS NOT THE HEARING I WAS EXPECTING TODAY. I KNOW THAT IS NOT ANY OF YOUR FAULTS BUT I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION AND PERSPECTIVE OF MY CLIENT.

IT IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING THEY ARE NOT HERE TODAY BECAUSE I WOULD PROBABLY GET AN EAR FUL OF THEM, BUT AS BRIAN INDICATED IT IS DESIGNED WITH GOOD BUFFERING BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND ALTHOUGH THE KINGS HIGHWAY CORRIDOR IS GOING, OR HAS GONE COMMERCIAL, THERE IS RESIDUAL RM AFTER YOU CHANGE THE ZONING.

[00:45:03]

FROM THE BEGINNING, THIS WAS DESIGNED WITH BUFFERING TO ENSURE SAID THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY GO RESIDENTIAL, THAT THERE WOULD BE BUFFERING FOR I BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE A COMMERCIAL ON KINGS HIGHWAY AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING BEHIND IT. THE ZONING IS INCORPORATED. I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER ALL OF THAT AND ALLOW THE PROJECT TO GO FORWARD . IF THE OTHER PROJECT HAS NOT GONE TO THE CITY. BOTH PROJECTS WILL NEED TO GO TO CITY COMMISSION AND

THEY CAN MAKE THEIR DECISION. >> WE CAN WORK WITH STAFF IN TH MEAN TIME BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS WE CAN CONNECT WITH THE OTHER GROUPS O THE RESIDENTIAL BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SIT DOWN WITH THIS APPLICANT AND LOOK AT HOW WE CA REINFORCE THAT BUFFER ON THOSE BOUNDARIES ON THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN BOUNDARIES WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT , I THINK THAT CAN BE DONE THROUGH THE PD BEFORE IT GETS TO COMMISSION.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE WANT A PUBLIC

SPEAKING? >> QUESTION.

>> SEEING NO OTHERS FROM THE PUBLIC. I WILL BRING THIS BACK

TO THE BOARD. >> IT IS NOT ONLY, DO NOT GET ME WRONG, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ON KINGS HIGHWAY 100%, JUST OUR LAST MEETING, WE SAID IT WA A GREAT PLACE, OF COURSE THERE WAS NOT ANYTHING LIKE THIS NEXT TO IT, BUT THAT IS WHERE WE ARE WITH WITH THAT. I JUST DO NOT LIKE THE LOCATION AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN GOING O FOR YEARS. THE ISSUE I HAVE ONLY OF THE NOISE AND TRUCKING WITH LUXURY IS THE ROAD THAT YOU WILL BE COMING IN AND OUT PRUITT DRIVE THE SAME PLACE A WHERE THESE LUXURY CONDOS ARE USING FOR I THINK IT WAS THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WERE USING THAT ONE, BUT IT IS ONE LAYING IN AND OUT. IT IS A SMALL ROAD. NOW, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TRUCK AND LUXURY CONDOS COMING IN AND OUT. MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE IS IT JUST SPACE? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A 10 FOOT WALL WITH TREES? THERE ARE DIFFERENCES THERE. IF IT IS A OPEN GROUND OF 40 FEET AND NICE LAND NOT DOING NOTHING FOR TH HOUSING PEOPLE AND I DON'T WAN YOU TO THINK THIS GUY UP HERE, IT IS A PERFECT IDEA, BUT THE WAY THAT IT CAME OUT WITH BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME SPOT IS MY HEARTBURN.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> CAN WE CHECK TO SEE , WHEN YOU PUT THE APPLICATION, WHICH ONE GOES FIRST?

>> I HAVE GOT TO THINK WE WERE FIRST.

>> WE CANNOT SAY NO NOW. WE HA IT LAST MONTH AND SAID YES, THA

IS A GREAT THING. >> MADAM CHAIR , I THINK THE CONFUSION AND I'M SEEING THE PRESENTATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL LAST TIME OBVIOUSLY SHOWED THIS FUTURE LAND USE AS RESIDENTIAL. THEY ARE PROPOSIN A FUTURE LAND USE WITH COMMERCIAL AND THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN INDICATED AT THAT TIME.

MAYBE A PROPOSAL AT LEAST . >> THAT MIGHT HAVE OPENED UP

MORE QUESTIONS. >> MADAM CHAIR , SO PRUITT AND KING WILL BE SIGNALIZED ON THE FUTURE . AS THIS RELATES TO TH RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT , THAT RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS BACKING UP TO KINGS, THAT IS A MAJOR TRUCKING CORRIDOR WITH TRACTOR-TRAILERS TRAVELING UPWARDS OF 45+ MILES PER HOUR WHEN YOU FACTOR CIVILIZATION IN THEY WILL HAVE TRUCKS WITH POWER BREAKING AND STARTING AND STOPPING 24 HOURS A DAY ALONG THAT CORRIDOR. ANY TRACKING TRAFFIC THAT WILL ENTER OUR SIT WILL BE PRETTY MUCH AT AN ALMOST VITAL STATE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MANEUVER IN AND OUT OF THE SITE. TRUCK NOISE AND ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE, I THIN KINGS HIGHWAY WOULD BE THAT

[00:50:03]

ISSUE BY FAR BECAUSE THAT IS A MAJOR TRUCKING CORRIDOR. AS WE HAVE SEEN, THIS AREA OF KINGS HIGHWAY, ESPECIALLY THEY CALL THE FOUR CORNERS AREA, THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE INDUSTRIAL.

THERE IS A LARGE RESEARCH EDUCATIONAL PARK JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PRUITT RESEARCH ROAD.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT HAD ANY FANTASIES ABOUT WHAT THIS AREA IS OR IS NOT. THEY SEEM TO BE AWARE OF THAT. I KNOW THIS CAME UP WITH OUR MEETING MAKING SURE THEY WANTED TO DO WHAT THEY WANTED T DO IN THAT LOCATION . I THINK THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF THERE IS A WAY FOR THESE PROJECTS TO COEXIST AND NOT HAVE ANY ISSUES, FOR

[b. Future Land Use Map Amendment - Haisley Funeral Home - 1602 S. 30th Street]

[00:57:31]

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO STEP THREE OF THIS PRESENTATION.

LOOKING AT THE SELLING OR ZONING LOCATION. THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE , 29TH TO THE 31ST. I WAS JUST POINTING OUT THAT THE REZONING WITH THE GENERAL LOT AND QUESTION , IS THAT CORRECT ? I'M LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT PAGE AND IT , WE ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT STREETS. IS THIS ON 31ST ? OKAY. I WA JUST LOOKING AT THE LAYOUT OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, LIKE THE DEPTH O HOW MANY LOTS IT GOES INTO AND JUST POINTING OUT SHIFTING THIS TO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL WAS VERY IN LINE WITH THE ADJACENT SLOTS.

>> IF YOU WANTED TO PROJECT A LINE DOWN WITH AN ANGLE, YOU DO HAVE THAT PERIMETER BUT YOU HAVE THE PARAMETER THAT IN THE PAST WAS NOT RECOGNIZED AS BEIN OF THE OWNERSHIP AND BUSINESS.

BUILD A HOUSE ON BY THE CITY ORDINANCE?

>> .16 ACRES ON THE LEDGE . >> IT IS REALLY NOT GOOD FOR

ANYTHING. TIMING HELPS. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE BOARD ? I WILL OPEN FOR THE PUBLIC. ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC SPEAKING? SEEING NONE. I WILL BRING THIS BACK TO THE BOARD.

SECOND IN MOTION.. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND . >> PROPERLY MOVED AND SECOND.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >>

[a. Rezoning - Haisley Funeral Home - 1602 S. 30th Street]

[01:00:01]

>> WE WILL MOVE ON DOWN TO NEW BUSINESS ITEM A REZONING HAZIL FUNERAL HOME 1602 SOUTH 30TH STREET. WAIT A MINUTE. WHO IS DOING THAT? I'M DOING THIS AGAIN. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE ZONING COMPONENT OF THE PREVIOUS FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE WHICH IS TURNING OVER THE ZONING WITH ISSUES AND THE

ZONING IS GOING TO C3. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEN IN. PUBLIC PORTION IS OPEN. WE WILL COME BACK TO THE

BOARD. >> RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[b. Rezoning - Planned Development - Project Hunt - 7325 Pruitt Research Center Road]

>> ITEM B, PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAD 7325 PRUITT RESEARCH CENTER ROAD . I KNOW.

>> PLANNING BOARD, TODAY BEFORE YOU IS AN APPLICATION FOR A REZONING WITH A SITE PLAN FOR 732 PRICE PRUITT RESEARCH CENTE WOULD. THE APPLICANT IS BRIAN NOLAND AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR A LUCIDO AND ASSOCIATES. THEY ARE L AND R A AND 2320 350100010003 IS THE LOT NUMBER. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING ATLAS MAP ON THE SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW. AT OR NEAR 7325 PRUITT RESEARCH CENTER ROAD, TH APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CONSTRUCTION OF A THERMO KING FACILITY ON LOT 1 THE PROPOSED THERMO KING WILL REPRISE AIR CONDITIONING TO OFFICE-BASED BEFORE A GARAGE WAREHOUSE AREA WHERE IN SEMI TRAILER REFRIGERATION UNITS CAN BE SERVICED AND/OR INSTALLED AND A COVERED OPEN-AIR FLEX SPACE ATTACHED TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING , VEHICLE AND TRAILER PARKING AREAS ARE PROPOSED ALSO. THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION OF THE PARCEL WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 19.54 ACRES. THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL WITH A PROPOSED GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND THE ZONING IS MEDIUM RESIDENTIA ZONING WITH A PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PD DEVELOPMENT PLAN GIVEN THE DATA . THIS IS FOR LOT NUMBER ONE AND THIS IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN AS OF RIGHT NO FOR LOT NUMBER TWO AND THREE. THIS IS THE RENDERING AND ELEVATION OF THE TYPICAL THERMO KING RENDERING. THE ZONING MAP ATLAS FOR R-4'S RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO PD DEVELOPMENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WIT THE REQUEST OF NINE CONDITIONS.

THOSE CONDITIONS ARE PRIOR TO DEPARTMENT OF LOTS TWO AND THRE A FUTURE SITE PLAN APPLICATION SO BE SUBMITTED AS MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PD ZONING. TWO FUTURE SITE PLAN PHASES SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES AND BE SUBJECTED TO THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING. THREE, FUTURE PLAN SHOULD HAVE A SCHEDULE INDICATING THE APPROXIMATE DATE WHEN CONSTRUCTION CAN BE EXPECTED TO BEGIN AND THE NUMBER OF PHASES IN WHICH THE PROJECT WILL BE BUILT AND APPROXIMATE DATE WHEN EACH PHASE CAN BE EXPECTED TO BEGIN AND COMPLETED. FOUR, THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN SHALL INCLUD ALL AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS AND COVENANTS WHICH GOVERN THE USE, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINUED PROTECTION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND ANY OF ITS COMMON OPEN SPACE OR OTHER SHARED AREAS. THIS MATERIAL SHALL INCLUDE MATERIAL WHICH BINDS SUCCESSORS IN TITLE TO AN COMMITMENTS CONCERNING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND ITS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION. FIVE, AFTER COMPLETION OF THE SUBDIVISION, A GENERAL ADDRESS REQUEST FORM FOR THE NEWLY CREATED PARCEL ID(S) AND FOR AN AND EACH PROPOSED BUILDING SHAL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SIX, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL, PROVIDE COLORED ELEVATIONS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING CONFORMS TO THE SPECIFICATIONS OF CITY CODE 125-314, DESIGN REVIEW. SEVEN, A COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, COST ESTIMATE AND LANDSCAPE BOND PURSUANT TO CITY CODE 123-6 SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS APPROVED FOR THE SITE. EIGHT, PRIOR TO THE

[01:05:03]

ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE CLEARING PERMITS, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A TREE MITIGATION SURVE AND COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE ARBORIST FOR THE REQUIRED MITIGATION OF THE CITY REGULATED TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THIS SITE S DEVELOPMENT/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. NUMBER NINE, IF A MONUMENT SIGN IS PROPOSED, PLEASE CONSIDER INSTALLING A LANDSCAPED AREA AROUND THE PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN BASE WHICH EXTENDS A MINIMUM DISTANC OF THREE (3) FEET IN ALL DIRECTIONS. SUCH LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE COMPLETELY COVERED BY GROUND COVER AND SHRUBS, HEDGES, OR SIMILAR VEGETATIVE MATERIALS. THE POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNIN BOARD TODAY ARE A RECOMMENDATIO OF APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN INCLUDING THE NINE CONDITIONS. YOU CAN CREATE OTHER ALTERNATIV CONDITIONS TO ADD TO THIS AND YOU CAN ALSO RECOMMEND A DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING WITH THE ASSOCIATED

DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. MR. FREEMAN, WIT

HIS BE THE TIME TO ADD? >> YES. THIS IS WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD CAN RECOMMEND VARIOUS ASPECTS OF IMPROVEMENT OR CHANGES TO THE PLANS THEY SEE BEFORE THEM. YES .

>> THANK YOU . BOARD, THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY .

>> MR. FREEMAN, CONSIDERING YOU COMMENT EARLIER REGARDING ANY CITY COMPLIANCE ORDINANCE FOR INTRUSION INTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES , IS IT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE STAFF THAT THE PLAN PRESENTED HERE CONSISTS OF ADEQUATE MEANS TO ATTEMPT TO MEDICATE SOUND BEIN CREATED ON THE SITE FROM CREATING ORDINANCE ISSUES IN THE FUTURE? I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT CANNOT CONTROL THE SOUND OF TRUCKS ON KINGS HIGHWAY. ALL THEY CAN CONTROL I THE SOUND EMANATING FROM THEIR

PROPERTY. >> THAT IS WHERE CITY STAFF WIL BE LOOKING AT THIS PRIMARILY. I IS A COMMENT THAT IS DESIGNED TO MEET THE APPLICANT AND THE PROPOSED POTENTIAL FUTURE OCCUPIES OF THAT PROPERTY AWAR THAT THERE IS A CITY NOISE ORDINANCE. I'M NOT A SOUND ENGINEER AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO ASSESS OR PREDICT THE AMOUNT OF NOISE ILLUMINATING FROM A COMMERCIAL USE , BUT APPLICANTS SHOULD BE AWARE THERE IS A CIT NOISE ORDINANCE WHICH IS MEASURED DIFFERENTLY FROM PROPERTY WHICH ARE CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL EMANATING TO RESIDENTIAL. THIS RESTRICTS NOISE ACTIVITIES TO CERTAIN TIMES OF THE DAY, BUT WE HEARD APPLICANT CONFIRM THAT IT WILL BE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS ACTIVITY PROVIDED THAT IT IS THE OCCUPANT THAT GOES IN HERE STAFF WERE PART OF REPRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE TO CITY COMMISSION WHICH LOOKED A WAYS AND METHODOLOGIES TO ALLEVIATE SOUND AND TRANSMISSION FROM ONE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER AND ON SAYING WE DO KNOW, A PHYSICAL BARRIER DOES HELP IN THAT RESPECT. AT THE MOMENT, I WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT A MESH FENCE WOULD NOT B ADDING ANY OR TAKING ANY OF THE SOUND AWAY FROM NEIGHBORS TO SUCH AN EXTENT , WE WOULD BE FORCED, IF YOU LIKE, TO ENFORCE THE CITY'S ORDINANCE TO NEW AN RESIDENTIAL ENABLES , AND EFFECTING A BUSINESS THAT COULD ALREADY BE OPERATING FOR A NUMBER OF MONTHS. I'M TRYING T AVOID FUTURE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS . I THINK THESE CAN BE ESTABLISHED. I THINK IT IS NO GUARANTEE THAT HAVING NO PHYSICAL BUFFER IN TERMS OF OTHER THAN LANDSCAPING, I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE BEST OPTION I

THIS CASE. >> WOULD YOU SAY THIS CONCERN I SUMMED UP IN ANY OF THE 10 OR NINE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN TH

STAFF REPORT HERE? >> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT IS %-Ú

>> I WOULD PROPOSE WE ADD A 10T CONDITION FOR THE APPLICANT TO INVESTIGATE OR PROVIDE SCHEMATIC MEANS OPTIONS IN

[01:10:01]

THEIR DESIGN TO MITIGATE ANY SOUND PROPAGATION ASSUMING THA THE OTHER PROPERTY IS DEVELOPE AS PLANNED.

>> EVEN SO, AS A FUTURE LAND US OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOR AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE SAME THING, THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT MIGHT GO AWAY. THAT PROPERTY OWNER WITH THE REMAINING MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL AND ZONING FOR RESIDENTIAL MIGHT CHOOSE TO CHANGE THIS IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT COULD POTENTIALLY GO TO RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS AT THE MOMENT. THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, BUT THAT IS A POTENTIAL CONFLICT WE COULD BE LOOKING AT TO AVOID BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF A DISPUT IN TERMS OF ACTIVITIES AND NOISE. WE ARE ABLE AND WE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS AN IF YO LIKE WITH THE NEIGHBORS COMING IN TO INFORM THEM ABOUT WHAT I COMING AND WHAT TO BE AWARE OF.

THAT MIGHT BE A COMBINED EFFORT WITH TWO PROPERTY OWNERS TO PU IN PLACE A JOINT BUFFER AREA THAT RESULTS BOTH. WE ARE NOT PUTTING THE COST ON ONE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> THE PROPERTY THAT IS ADJACEN IS CURRENTLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL, WHICH MEANS WE SHOULD BE MAKING GUIDELINES AT THE CURRENT CONDITION, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL REGARDLESS IF TENANTS ARE TRYING TO GET THERE OR FUTURE TENANTS. WE SHOULD PROTECT WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE PROPOSE THAT WE DO RECOMMEND SOME TYPE OF PHYSICAL BARRIER OTHER THAN VEGETATION AS A

10TH CONDITION. >> I AGREE WITH THAT. I BELIEVE PRUITT ROAD IS AN ISSUE WITH ONE LIEN EITHER WAY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING WIT THE CITY TO MAKE THIS WIDER. I IS A DONE DEAL. WE WILL NOT GET ANYTHING DONE WITH THE ROAD AN WE HAVE THE RESIDENCE AND TRUCK COMING IN AND OUT ONE LANE

EACH WAY. THAT'S A CONCERN. >> KING HIGHWAY HAS ALWAYS BEEN BUSY AND TRAFFIC AND NOISE WHENEVER YOU GO THERE, I DOES NOT MATTER WHAT TIME. IT IS ALWAYS BUSY AND NOISE. I THINK PLAN ON DOING THIS, WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY PUT THEMSELVES THROUGH, BUT WHATEVER, ESPECIALLY KING HIGHWAY ALREADY KNOWS. ON ORANGE AVENUE, YOU KNOW YOU WIL HAVE TRAFFIC AND NOISE. IF I PUT MY APPLICATION FIRST AND I GET ALL OF THAT STUFF, I'M KIN OF LIKE IT IS ALREADY COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL ALREAD KNOWS HOW TO DEAL WITH IT. IF ANYTHING, I WILL APPROVE BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THEY STAND FOR. FOR ME, THAT I A YES BECAUSE I DON'T SEE ANY

WAY WE CAN AVOID ANYTHING. >> THE PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIA NOW SO WE ARE NOT SAYING LET' MAKE THIS ALL COMMERCIAL, IT IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AS WE SPEAK.

>> YES, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, IF YOU GO RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN ALWAY SEE THE TRAFFIC. THE TRAILER AND TRUCKS AND EVERYTHING ARE ALREADY RIGHT THERE. RESIDENTIA OR NOT, IT IS A BUSY AND CRAZY AND NOISY PLACE . THEY OUGHT TO GET USED TO THE NOISE.

ANYONE ELSE? >> I THINK THE CONCERN IS WHEN THESE CLASSES HAPPEN WITH DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE FINISHED , IT IS ALWAYS THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY THAT EVERYBODY BLAMES , WHY DID YOU LET THIS HAPPEN? WHO LET THAT HAPPEN? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I THINK AND I DON'T WANT TO BE TH GUY THAT SAYS NO, TWO APPLICANT , INDIVIDUALLY, THEY ARE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT . WE ARE IN A TOUGH SPOT AND I WANTED TO WRIT

[01:15:10]

BY BOTH APPLICANTS AND I DON'T WANT THE CITY TO LOOK LIKE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING. I WE ARE CONVINCED THAT WE CAN GET INTERESTED PARTIES AT THE TABLE AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE AWARE WITH EACH OTHER AND I HAV NO PROBLEM APPROVING THIS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO ADD A CONDITION AS WE STATE EARLIER, THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION . THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, I THINK MR. FREEMAN WOULD BE BETTER THAN ANYONE ELS TO CRYSTALLIZE, BUT I THINK WE ALL KNOW WHO I'M TALKING ABOUT, MAKING SURE THIS APPLICANT CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRUCKS ON KINGS HIGHWAY, BUT THEY CAN ONLY CONTROL WHAT IS EMANATING FROM THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH IS REGARDLESS OF WHO IT

IS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE BOARD? DRAWING BOARD FOR THEM. THEY AR THE ONES WHO HAVE DONE EVERYTHING RIGHT ALSO, BUT MAYB TABLE THIS UNTIL THEY COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT COULD WORK. THAT IS A DIRTY WORD ON THE BOARD WHEN WE SAY TO TABLE IT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONE THAT SAYS NO. IF I WAS IN THEI SHOES-

>> FROM THE SOUNDS OF IT, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS DEALT WITH ENOUGH DELAYS. I WOULD HAT TO PILE A LOT ON THEM. THEY ARE NOW AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT AND WOULD BE WILLING T MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME KIND OF PLAN TO DEAL WITH IT.

>> AGREED. IF WE PUT THIS ON A PHYSICAL BARRIER, WE CAN MOVE THIS ALONG WITH THE ZONING AND GO WITH THE PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT. >> YES, WE COULD ENSURE THE APPLICANT IS READY TO RESPOND TO THAT JUST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CONDITION THAT WOULD BE ATTACHE TO THIS. THAT WOULD BE USEFUL IF WE HAD A CONFIRMATION FROM

THE APPLICANT. >> OKAY GREAT. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE APPLICANT CAN STEP FORWARD.

>> THANK YOU. I AM LEAH DOBBIN WITH THE LAW FIRM , I WOULD ASK IF YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION THAT WILL PUT US IN A BETTER POSITION IN TERMS OF NOT DELAYING THE PROJECT ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO WORK THIS OUT. IT SOUNDS LIK THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS O HOLD AT THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

THINK DOING THAT WILL ALLOW U TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT AND THEY MIGHT WANT TO MAKE CHANGES, TOO. IF YOU COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION, THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO KEEP THIS PROJECT AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT PROJECT DIRECT.

>> ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING THEM. I WILL

BRING THIS BACK TO THE BOARD. >> FOR THE RECORD, WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.

>> I THINK YOU CAN INSTRUCT STAFF. THIS ORDER THING IS WHA WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT . I THINK WE COULD EASILY CONSTRUCT A RING WHICH TO CONSTRUCT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? >> YES.

>> JUST A COMMENT, THIS CONFLICT WE ARE HAVING, IT IS VERY NICE IN A SENSE BECAUSE I CHALLENGES THE CITY OF FT.

PIERCE TO DIG DEEP WITHIN AND THINKING ABOUT HOW ARE THINGS HOW OUR FUTURE PLANNING GOES AN HOW WE ARE INTEGRATING BUSINESSES WITHIN THE COMMUNIT WITH THEM STANDING ALONE IN ON LOT ON KINGS HIGHWAY. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, MAYBE A YEAR AGO, I MENTIONED WHEN WE WERE APPROVING THE COMMERCIAL, WE SHOULD SAVE SOME LAND FOR THE RESIDENT AND HERE WE ARE. WE HAVE A DILEMMA. I THINK MAKIN SURE WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER T ACCOMMODATE BOTH PARTIES AND I WOULD SUGGEST ON LOOKING AT TH PLANS BECAUSE THERE IS A ROAD THAT GOES ON PRUITT , SINCE

[01:20:11]

THERE IS A ROAD GOING ONTO KING HIGHWAY , LET'S TALK ABOUT REMOVING THE TRUCKS ACCESS FRO PRUITT AND HAVE THEM ONLY GOING TO KINGS ON AND OFF FROM KINGS HIGHWAY, THAT WAY THERE IS LESS CONSTRUCTION FOR THEM DEVELOPIN A ROAD AND AT , YOU ONLY HAVE ONE CONFLICT IF ANYTHING BECAUSE YOU ARE DEALING WITH

THE BUFFER. >> IF I MAY, AFTER REQUIRES US TO ACCESS A TRAFFIC LIGHT ON PRUITT , SO THERE IS A SAFETY ISSUE UP AND DOWN THE CORRIDOR. WE HAVE WORKED ON A FEW PROJECTS ON THE CORRIDOR. THEY WANT TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF ACCESSES FOR THAT REASON. THE ACCESS IS TO GO THROUGH THE

INTERSECTION. >> THERE WOULD NOT BE TRUCKS ENTERING OR EXITING FROM THE KINGS HIGHWAY?

>> YES. NO TRUCKS WILL BE ENTERING OR LEAVING THIS

PROPERTY WITH PRUITT ACCESS. >> HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WILL

NOT BE THE CASE? >> THEY WOULD NEED TO GO BACK.

IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THIS IN THE FUTURE, THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE SITE PLAN WITH THE CITY AN THEY WOULD NEED AN ACCESS AGREEMENT AUTHORIZATION WITH FDOT IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCESS O

KINGS HIGHWAY. >> THAT IS TOO CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION. I THINK IN THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR PATIENTS.

FEEL LIKE WE ARE BEATING YOU UP A LITTLE BIT AND THAT IS NOT YOUR FAULT. WE ARE TRYING TO FIND THE BEST PATH FORWARD.

>> I APPRECIATE THE POSITION AND I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING

WITH US. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIO 10 AS STATED EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSION.

>> SECOND . >> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[c. Final Plat - Project Hunt - 7325 Pruitt Research Center Road]

PROJECT 7325 PRUITT RESEARCH CENTER ROAD. PLANNING BOARD.

>> THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A FINAL PLAT FOR 73 FOR RESEARCH CENTER. WE HAVE BRIAN NOLAND AICPA SLA AS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSOCIATES. THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE L AND R INC. AND THE PERSONAL IS 2323 00010003 . IN SUMMARY, THIS IS A REVIEW FOR A APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 19.4 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS INT THREE PLATTED LOTS OF STORMWATE TRACK AND ASSOCIATED EASEMENTS AND BUFFERS FOR THE COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION OF PROJECT HUNT AT OR NEAR 7325 PRUITT RESEARCH CENTER ROAD. THIS IS THE SUGGESTED FINAL PLAT . AS YOU CAN SEE , THERE ARE THE DIFFERENT LOTS BEING PROPOSED ALONG WITH THE THREE LOTS AND STORMWATER TRACT . STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THE THREE PLATTED LOT STORMWATER TRACT AND ASSOCIATED EASEMENTS AND BUFFERS , STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ONE MY CONDITION, THE APPLICANT WILL SUPPLY APPROPRIATE SIGNATURES AND THE PLAT IS RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS AND WITH THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 177.111. THIS IS CONSISTENT WIT CHAPTER 121 AND THE CONFERENCE OF PLANT AND APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS DOES NOT AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC.

THE PLANNING BOARD'S ACTIONS AR A RECOMMENDATION OF THE APPROVA OF THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION WITH N CHANGES OR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE FINAL PLAT WITH CHANGES OR A DISAPPROVAL O THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT. THANK

YOU. >> ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD

[01:25:05]

THIS ITEM UNDERCUT ANYTHING WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS

ITEM? >> I DO NOT BELIEVE IT DOES. I THINK THE EASEMENTS AND THE DIVISIONS OF THE PARTS WOULD ACCOMMODATE WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED. THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WE WERE REQUESTING THE BUFFER , IS THAT

ON THE WEST ? AM I CORRECT ? >> CORRECT.

>> THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO LOTS AND STORM QUARTER AND WHA

THREE , AM I CORRECT? >> YES. TO PROVIDES THOSE .

>> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? OPENED TO THE PUBLIC. SEEING MEN FROM THE PUBLIC. COME BACK TO THE BOARD. I WILL ENTERTAIN

A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> IS THAT WITH THE CONDITION?

WITH THE CONDITION. >> THANK YOU. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> THANK YOU. >>> MOVING RIGHT ALONG WITH ITE

[d. Rezoning - Planned Development - Resurrection Life Multi-Family - 1910 S. Jenkins Road]

D REZONING PLAN DEVELOPMENT RESURRECTION OF LIKE MULTI FAMILY , 190 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD . I THINK WE HAVE ONE COMMENT

THIS TOPIC. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> TODAY IS APPLICATION FOR A ZONING APPLETS FOR RESURRECTION MULTI FAMILY. THE APPLICANT IS RADICALLY AICPA WITH ENGINEERIN CONSIGNING DESTRUCTION AND. WE HAVE PORTION CENTER INC. AND THE PARCEL IS 2418 322-0001 0005. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT OF ONE (1) PARCEL OF LAND TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-4) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD). THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION, THIS IS ONE PARCEL BUT IT IS BEING PUT IN TO BE SUBDIVIDED INTO THE TWO PARCELS. THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS THE SMALLER ONE, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 4.88 GIV OR TAKE ACRES. THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THIS IS THEY HAVE SUBDIVIDED THIS SO ONE IS RM, THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THE PARCEL WE ARE LOOKING A TODAY IS THE HIGH DENSITY . THE EXISTING ZONING IS R-4 OF MEDIUM RESIDENCY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPOSED ZONING WOULD BE PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THEY SUBMITTED A BUBBLE PLAN AND NOT A FINAL SITE PLAN SO THEY WOULD NOT COME FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL BUT THIS IS TO GIVE US A IDEA WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING ON THIS SITE. THIS IS MORE DETAILED INFORMATION THAT GUIDE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SETBACKS BUILDING COVERAGE SO ON AND SO FORTH. THE CONDITION HAS TWO CONDITIONS, ONE APPLICATION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LOT SPLIT TO SPLIT THEM INTO TH TWO PARTS WITHIN THE ZONING'S AND A SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED AS A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PD ZONING. THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE THE PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COMMISSION. THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS YOU CAN GIVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATI

THANK YOU. >> COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ?

OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION. >> FOR THE RECORD, BRAD CURRY WITH EDC. IT IS A PLEASURE TO B HERE THIS AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR RESCHEDULING THIS MEETING. KNOW WE HAD ISSUES AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MONTH BUT I APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING UP FOR THE MEETING. I'M REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF A 4.88 ACRE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF JENKINS ROAD JUST SOUTH OF BRAM ROAD. THE STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB PRESENTING THE OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT. WE WIL REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO PD,

[01:30:04]

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY SAW THIS PROPERTY BACK ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 2023 WHE WE CHANGED THIS FROM RM TO RH.

THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED I THE CITY COMMISSION ON APRIL 3RD 2023 SO THAT WAS FORWARDED FOR FINAL APPROVAL. THIS APPROVAL IS THE NEXT STEP IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE PROJECT. WE DID THE LAND USE AND WE ARE DOING THE ZONING. NEXT WOULD BE THE SUBDIVISION OR PLAT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL, SO WE ARE READY TO DO ALL OF THAT. TREVOR BANKS AND I ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ON THE

PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS

FROM THE BOARD? >> I BELIEVE WE HAD A FEW QUESTIONS WHEN THEY WERE HERE I FEBRUARY AND THERE WERE GOOD ANSWERS FOR ALL OF OUR CONCERNS

>> ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC SPEAKING ON THIS MATTER? SEEIN

NONE. ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

[e. Final Plat - Coral Sands - 511 S. Ocean Drive]

>>> LETTER IT, CORAL SANDS, 511 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE . MR.

RYAN ALTIZER. >> BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPLICATION FOR A PLAT AT 511 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE . THE APPLICANT IS DENNIS MURPHY CULPEPPER AND TERMINATE. THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CC FOR ENTERPRISES LLC AND THE PARCEL I.D. IS 2401-0020026006. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION (FINAL PLAT) TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 1.7 ACRES OF LAND (MORE OR LESS) INTO 13 PLATTED LOTS INCLUDING COMMON-AREA TRACT FOR THE CORAL SANDS SUBDIVISION AT OR NEAR 51 S. OCEAN DRIVE. THE PLANNING BOARD DID SEE THE SITE PLAN ALREADY AND IT HAS BEEN APPROVE BY CITY COMMISSION. THIS IS AN EXTRA STEP TO GET THE PLAT DONE SOTHEY CAN GO INTO THE SITE WORK. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS FUTURE LAND USE OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL HIR AND THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PD. THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION OF THE APPROXIMATELY 1.7 ACRE PARCEL. YOU CAN SEE THAT RIGHT HERE.

THE FUTURE LAND USE IS HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL AND THE ZONING IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT OF THE 13 LOTS INCLUDING THE ONE IN COMMON AREA . STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR 13 LOTS AT THE CLOSE AND SUBDIVISION IS FOR APPROVAL FOR THE REQUEST OF ONE CONDITION, THE CONDITION IS THE APPLICANT WILL SUPPLY TWO (2) MYLARS FOR APPROPRIATE SIGNATURE AND THEN THE PLAT IS RECORDED WITH ST. LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 177.111. THE PLAN THE COURTS ACTIONS TODAY A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT WITH THE ONE CONDITION WHICH IS STAFFED RECOMMENDATION OR RECOMMENDATIO OF DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.

>> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

>> I SEE THE FIRE DISTRICT HAD SOME NECESSARY REVISIONS, HAVE

THOSE BEEN RESOLVED? >> I BELIEVE SO. YES.

>> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. WILL THE APPLICANT

STEP FORWARD AND SIGN IN? >> MY NAME IS DENNIS MURPHY, I' INTERPRETING FOR PEARSON REPRESENTING THE CORAL SANDS DEVELOPMENT. YOU MIGHT REMEMBER WE SAW THIS ABOUT A YEAR AGO GIVE OR TAKE A LITTLE BIT AND THE LINES ON YOUR REALLY DON'T GIVE IT THE JUSTICE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLANNING. YOU CAN SEE THE EFFORT WE HAVE DONE TO TRY TO CITE THE HOMES IN A% WAY THEY ARE NOT IMPACTED TO TH NEIGHBORHOOD BUT THIS IS THE PLAT PROCESS. THIS IS THE IN STATE OF ALL OF THIS. THIS IS WHERE THE BUREAUCRATIC LINES SHOW UP. TO THAT END , SINCE W ARE AT THE PLANNED STATES, I WOULD REQUEST YOU FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION SO WE CAN PLAT THIS THING AND BEGIN LAND TRANSACTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS ?

[01:35:01]

SPEAKING? SEEING HIM. I WILL BRING THIS BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE

CONDITION. >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVE AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>> WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM F.

[f. City Initiated Annexation - Twenty-Five (25) Parcels]

CITY ANNEXATION WITH 25 PARCELS MR. FREEMAN.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. YOU WILL B RELIEVED IT WILL BE THE CITY COMMISSION WHO GOES THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE AND MAKING MOTIONS ONE BY ONE. WHAT I HAVE TRIED TO DO HERE IS PUT THEM TOGETHER AS ONE PRESENTATION AND YOU CAN CHOOSE , ACTUALLY, THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE A MOTION ON THESE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. I EFFECT , THEY MANAGED TO RESOLV THESE INTO 10 ORDINANCES. THER WILL BE 10 ORDINANCE NUMBERS ON THESE THINGS. I WILL EXPLAI THE SITUATION. THIS IS A CITY INITIATED ANNEXATION OF 25 PROPERTIES AND EACH OF THE PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECT TO A FT PIERCE UTILITY AGREEMENT. THESE ARE ALL AROUND THE ORANG OF NORTH JENKINS AND SOUTH JENKINS AREA. WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER, WHO IS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, CONNECTS TO CITY UTILITIES, FPU A UTILITIES , THEY SIGN AN AGREEMENT THAT SUCH A TIME THAT THEY BECOME CONTINUOUS WITH THE CITY BECAUS THEY ARE RECEIVING CITY SERVICES , THEY WILL BE VOLUNTARILY ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. EACH OF THESE PROPERTIES APART FROM THE ONE, WHICH IS CITY-OWNED, HAVE BECOME CONTIGUOUS OR WILL BECOME CONTIGUOUS WITH THE ORDER THEY ARE PROCESSED TODAY DUE TO ANNEXATIONS WE HAVE SEEN IN TH PAST WITH ORANGE ANNEXATION AN FUTURE ZONING CHANGES THAT HAV INITIATED THIS DOMINO EFFECT. ONCE THE PROPERTIES CONNECT WITH ANY OF THE PROPERTY IN THE CITY, THEY BECOME ELIGIBLE FOR ANNEXATION AND THE VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT IS PUT INTO PROCESS.

ALL OF THE LANDOWNERS HAVE BEEN INFORMED OF THIS. I HAVE HAD SOME COMMENTS BACK AND IT WAS CONCERNS THAT THEY WILL CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE, THAT'S NOT THE CASE, BUT WE ARE LEAVING THOSE IN PLACE . THE PROPERTY OWNERS WILL BE ABLE TO REMAIN CONFORMING IN THEIR OWN LOTS TO CARRY OUT THEIR BUSINESSES AND LIVING IN THEIR HOMES UNTIL THEY WANT TO COME BACK INTO THE CITY FOR FUTURE LAND USE OR A ZONING CHANGE. IN THE MOMENT, W ARE TALKING ABOUT THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES BEING EXTENDED , NO OTHER IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS WHATSOEVER. PAYING CITY TAXES. THE CURRENT ZONING OF FUTURE LAND USE WILL NOT BE AMENDED AT THIS TIME AND WILL B DESIGNATED AS THEY CURRENTLY HAVE. WE MANAGED TO RESOLVE THESE INTO 10 ORDINANCES ALTHOUGH THERE ARE 25 PROPERTIE WITH THESE ANNEXATIONS. THERE ARE OWNERSHIPS WHICH ARE GROUPED THESE THINGS TOGETHER SO WE CAN RESOLVE THOSE DOWN INTO 10 ORDINANCES. THESE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS DOMINO EFFECT. THIS I THE WEST ORANGE PARCEL TO THE EAST AND THAT CONNECTS WITH PARCEL NUMBER ONE ON THE LIST. AS SOON AS WE ANNEXED THAT , AND THESE PARCELS COME INTO CONNECTIVITY AND THE REASON WE HAVE ORDERED THEM IN SUCH A WAY IS THAT THEY ARE OWNED BY CERTAIN ENTITIES IN GROUPS. INSTEAD OF GOING BACK AND FORWARD AS THEY CONNECT AS INDIVIDUALS, WE CAN CONNECT THE AS A GROUP AND THOSE ARE THEN INTO ONE ORDINANCE. WE CAN HAV LOTS ONE THROUGH 13 INTO AN ORDINANCE AND WE GO INTO LOT 14

[01:40:07]

WHICH IS A SEPARATE ORDINANCE. THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES. 25 I A CITY-OWNED PROPERTY , WHICH WILL BE CONTIGUOUS AND THAT WIL BE WORTHWHILE PUTTING THAT INTO THE CITY AS IT IS CONTIGUOUS.

THAT IS ANOTHER MAP WITH ALL O THE PROPERTIES, SLIGHTLY CLEARE WITHOUT THE ORDINANCE NUMBERS ATTACHED. I WILL NOT BE READIN ALL OF THE PARCEL IDS. I WOULD RATHER DO THE LOTTERY THEN DO

THAT. >> MAYBE IF FRANK WAS HERE, HE

WOULD. >> THAT WOULD BE ON THE TITLE PAGE FOR FRANK. I THINK YOU MIGHT APPRECIATE THAT. THE FIRST ORDINANCE IS ORDINANCE 2303 ONE AND IT PROPOSES THE ANNEXATION OF 13 LOTS . THEY ARE ALL IN THE SAME OWNERSHIP AND THEY BECOME CONTIGUOUS WIT CITY PROPERTY, WHICH IS TO THE EAST. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE PLANNING BOARD MOVE THAT TO CITY COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. I THINK I'M AMENDING WE MAKE A MOTION ON THIS AND WE WILL MOV THESE THINGS FORWARD. THANK YOU .

>> WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC, I WILL OPEN TH BOARD FOR QUESTIONS AT THIS TIM FOR ALL OF THEM.

>> YES. >> NO QUESTIONS. WE WILL MOVE ALONG THROUGH EACH OF THEM SEPARATELY AND GETTING A MOTION FROM THE BOARD AND WE WILL MAKE A VOTE ON EACH ONE.

>> MOTION OF APPROVAL. >> MOTION SECOND..

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> ORDINANCE 032 PROPOSES THE ANNEXATION OF THE IDENTIFIED HEROES ON LOT 14. REQUEST APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD.

>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVE AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> 23-033 PROPOSES THE ANNEXATION OF LOT IDENTIFIED AS LOT 15 REQUEST PLANNING BOARD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO

THE CITY COMMISSION. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND .. >> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> 23-034 IS PROPOSING THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS LOT 16 AND 17 ON THE MAP AND REQUESTING , STAFF ARE REQUESTING A APPROVAL FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE THIS

TO THE CITY COMMISSION. >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ORDINANCE 23-035 PROPOSES THE ANNEXATION OF PACEL IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP AS 18. STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVA AND MOVE TO THE CITY COMMISSION

>> RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> SECOND .

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> ORDINANCE 23-036 PROPOSES THE ANNEXATION OF PARCEL 19 AS IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP , STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND MOVED TO

THE CITY COMMISSION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND .. >> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> 23-037 PROPOSES THE ANNEXATION OF PARCEL 20 AS IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP. STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND MOVED TO THE CIT

[01:45:02]

COMMISSION. >> ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND ..

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ORDINANCE 23-038 PROPOSES THE ANNEXATION OF LOTS 21 AND 22. THAT IS IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND MOVED T THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. ORDINANCE 23-039 PROPOSES THE ANNEXATION OF LOTS 23 AND 24 IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP . STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND MOVE TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> AND FINALLY, 23-040 ORDINANCE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF LOT 25 IDENTIFIED ON THE MAP . THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND MOVED TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> THANK YOU . WELL DONE. >>> MOVING RIGHT ALONG, COMING

[i. RFP 2023-020 Disposal of Surplus Property – 706 N. 20th Street]

DOWN TO THE SERVICE PROPERTIES ITEM I. WE HAVE MISSED GARCIA MIRIAM GARCIA WITH THREE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALISTS WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. I WILL BE HAPPY TO PRESENT THESE SURPLUS PROPERTIES. DO YOU WANT TO CALL THE ITEM? JUST GO AHEAD

WITH THE FIRST ONE? >> YES.

>> LET ME START. >> MADAM CHAIR, JUST TO POINT OUT, THESE ARE ITEMS WITH DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY FOR FT.

PIERCE. >>

>> THIS IS DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY. THIS DOES NOT GRANT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. I WANTE TO POINT THAT OUT. IF YOU SEE EXAMPLES WITH SITE PLANS, THEY ARE NOT GRANTING.

>> RECOMMENDING A WARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR A BOARD OF THESE SURPLUS PROPERTY BIDS. THE FIRST ONE IS 706 NORTH 20TH STREET. I WILL GO OVER THE PROCESS FOR THE DISPOSITIONS SINCE IT HAS BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS SINCE WE PRESENTD TO THE PLANNING BOARD. THE WAY WE START IS THE STAFF IDENTIFIES A PROPERTY FOR REDEVELOPMENT OR RECEIVE A CITIZEN REQUEST TO SELL A CERTAIN PIECE OF PROPERTY. ONCE WE DETERMINED THAT IT'S AVAILABLE FOR REDEVELOPMENT, WE WILL SEVERED THIS TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS T SEE IF WE MIGHT NEED TO RETAIN THAT FOR CITY USE , OR IF THAT CAN BE DECLARED IN SURPLUS PROPERTY. THE CITY COMMISSION DECLARES THIS BE A RESOLUTION AND AT THAT POINT, WE CAN SUBMIT A REQUEST TO THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT FOR A BID TO SOLICIT PROPOSALS FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS. ONCE WE RECEIVE THE PROPOSALS, THE STAFF EVALUATES AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY AND YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEY WILL AWARD TO THE HIGHEST RATE RESPONDED AND AUTHORIZED STAFF TO ALTER NEGOTIATIONS. THEN, THE CITY COMMISSION WILL APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DISPOSAL ALONG WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CITY ATTORNEY OR OUTSIDE COUNSEL WILL PREPARE TH CLOSING WITH THIS POTENTIAL DEVELOPER. OUR EVALUATION CRITERIA, THE FIRST, I WILL GO OVER THE EVALUATION CRITERIA THAT THE EVALUATORS REVEALED, THE FIRST ONE IS THE DEVELOPMEN

[01:50:01]

PLAN. WE ASSIGN 20 POINTS. WE ASKED THE PROPOSERS TO PROVIDE PULMONARY BUILDING PLANS INCLUDING ELEVATIONS OR FLOORPLANS OR FACADES . WE ALSO ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE A TIMELINE AND WE ASSIGNED 20+ T THE TIMELINE. WE WANT TO ENSUR THEY WOULD COMPLETE THE PROJECT ON TIME AND IN BUDGET. WE ASSIG 10 POINTS TO COST ESTIMATES AN ASK THEM TO PROVIDE ESTIMATES FROM A KNOWLEDGEABLE THIRD-PART PROFESSIONAL SUCH AS AN ENGINEER OR LICENSED CONTRACTOR WE ASK THEM TO PROVIDE PROOF OF FINANCIAL ABILITY AND WE ASSIGN POINTS TO THAT AND WE WILL HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION T DETERMINE IF THE PROPOSER HAD ENOUGH FUNDS NOT TO ONLY PURCHASE THIS, 10 OR 15,000 OR WHATEVER, BUT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD ENOUGH FUNDS TO COMPLETE TH PROJECT. PROPERTY UTILIZATION, WE ASSIGNED 20 POINTS. WE WANT TO KNOW HOW THE PROPOSER WOULD USE THE PROPERTY WHETHER IT WOULD BE OWNER-OCCUPIED OR DEVELOPED FOR REAL SALE AND ENABLING PROPERTY OWNER OR DEVELOPED FOR RENTAL PROPERTY.

LASTLY, 15 POINTS, WE ASSIGNED TO DEVELOPMENT, SO IF IT WAS DEVELOPER, WE ASK THEM TO PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THEIR EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD OF PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND PROVID PHOTOS IF THEY HAD SUCH, OR IF IT WAS A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER, WE ASK THEM TO PROVIDE A LETTER EXPLAINING WHY THEY WANT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR ON THE VACANT LOT. 706 NORTH 20TH STREET IS A PROPERTY LOCATED IN OUR HISTORIC LINCOLN TOWN DISTRICT. WE RECEIVED ON RESPONDENT FOR THIS PROPERTY, SECOND-GENERATION BUILDING CORP . THEY OBTAINED A TOTAL OF 244 POINTS ADDING 400. SECOND-GENERATION BUILDING CORP INTENSITY PURCHASED FOR $10,000. THEIR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ARE ABOUT 130,000, THEY INTEND TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OR THREE BEDROOM TWO BATH DUPLEX AND THEIR COMPLETION, THEY INTEND T COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN ON YEAR OF CLOSING. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW THE REQUEST AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF 706 NORTH 20TH STREET TO SECOND-GENERATION BUILDING CORP.. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> GREAT. WHEN DO THEY HAVE TO START CONSTRUCTION AFTER THEY

PURCHASED? >> THE CITY ATTORNEY IS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WIL OUTLINE ALL OF THAT , THE ONE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD, THE CIT COMMISSIONER AND WITH STRICTER GUIDELINES. THE FPR A BOARD WANTS US TO POSSIBLY DETERMINE TO OBTAIN PERMITS WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF CLOSING, SO WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY TO DEVELO A AGREEMENT FOR THAT. WE DO NO HAVE THE DETAILS YET. THAT IS WHAT WE HAD OFFERED TO THAT DEVELOPERS TWO YEARS AGO, 18 MONTHS TO COMMENCE INSTRUCTION BUT WE ARE CHANGING THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT THE BOARD WANTED.

>> MIGHT BE OUT OF THE BALLPARK BUT OF THOSE THAT WERE DONE, HO MANY OF THOSE HAVE DONE THAT? I'M SURE IT HAS BEEN 18 MONTHS.

PROCESS. THEY START IN FULL PERMITS BUT I DO NOT THINK THEY HAVE COMMENCED INSTRUCTION. SOM OF THEM ARE COMING IN THE NEXT MONTH IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS. RIGHT.

>> I THINK THAT WAS THE STIPULATION IF THEY HAD PERMIT AND STARTED BUILDING WITHIN THE 18 MONTHS .

>> CORRECT. MOST OF THEM HAVE PULLED PERMITS, THEY JUST HAVE NOT COMMENCED THE CONSTRUCTION YET. THEY HAVE CLEARED LOTS AND

DONE THAT. >> IF THEY DON'T HIT THE BENCHMARKS, WHAT HAPPENS? DOES THAT GO BACK TO THE CITY?

>> THERE IS A REVERTER IN THE DEED THAT WE CAN TAKE THE PROPERTY BACK IF THEY DON'T MEE THE DEADLINES.

>> ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? >> I THINK THAT IS A GOOD IDEA SETTING THOSE EARLY BENCHMARKS MAKING SURE THEY ARE KEEPING ON A STANDARD TIMETABLE. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.

>> THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION WE RECEIVED FROM THE FPR A BOARD THE CITY ATTORNEY IS WORKING ON THAT.

>> WILL THAT BE A PLACE FOR THESE? .

[01:55:03]

>> CORRECT. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL BE USED FOR

THESE PROPERTIES. >> ARE WE DOING MOTIONS TO APPROVE FOR EACH ITEM AS WE GO?

>> WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION APPROVE. >> SECOND .

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

[j. RFP 2023-021 Disposal of Surplus Property – 604 S. 6th Street]

>>> 604 SOUTH SIXTH STREET ITE J.

>> 60 SOUTH SIXTH STREET IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. I CAN OUTLINE THE PROCESS HERE, A VIOLATION CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL IS THE SAME. IT IS ONLY DIFFERENT FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. 604 SOUTH STREET IS SOUTH OF DELAWARE AVENUE AN WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONDENT FOR THIS PROPERTY, JOE JOHN MCVEIG 354 POINTS OUT OF 400 . MR. JOE JOHN MCVEIGH INTENDS TO PURCHASE THIS LOT FOR $15,000 AND INTENDS TO BUILD A TWO BEDROOM ONE BATH SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. HIS CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ARE ABOUT 225,000 AND HE INTENDS TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TWO YEARS O CLOSING. OUR RECOMMENDATION FO THIS ONE IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW THE REQUEST AND RECOMMEND A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF THE 604 SOUTH SIXTH STREET TO JOE JOHN MCVEIGH. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.

>> RECOMMEND APPROVAL. >> YOU ARE NOT TIRED ARE YOU?

HALF. >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

[k. RFP 2023-023 Disposal of Surplus Property – 515 Douglas Court]

>> MOVING ON TO ITEM K, 515 DOUGLAS COURT .

>> 515 DOUGLAS COURT. THIS ONE IS LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC LINCOLN PARK DISTRICT TAKEN PROPERTY. WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONDENT FROM PROGRESSION PROPERTIES LLC THAT SCORED HUNDRED 292 POINTS. THEY INTEND TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY FOR $10,000 AND BUILD A 1200 SQUARE FOOT THREE BEDROOM TWO BATH SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THEIR COSTS ARE $180,000 AND THEY INTEND TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 18 TO 24 MONTHS. STAFF IS REQUESTING THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF 515 DOUGLAS COURT TO PROGRESSION PROPERTIES LLC.

>> QUESTION MAINLY FOR HAVE KEVIN, DOES THE LINCOLN PARK HISTORICAL DISTRICT HAVE A CERTAIN LOOK THEY ARE GOING FOR DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN THE ORDINANCE?

>> THEY MIGHT BE IMPLICATIONS REGARDING ZONING FUTURE LAND USE AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES AND HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES, WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO ENGAGED THIS WITH THE PROCESS. YOU MIGHT GE TO SEE SOME OF THESE RETURN BECAUSE I DO SUSPECT THERE IS COMMERCIAL ZONING ON THESE. WE

WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. GARCIA, DO THEY GET MORE POINTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RENTALS?

>> NO. IT WAS THE SAME. I WOUL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EVALUATION.

LET ME PULL IT UP REALLY QUICK. YOUR QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE

GOT THE SAME POINTS ? >> GOING TO BE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AS OPPOSED TO A DUPLEX OR SOMETHING.

>> LET ME TAKE A QUICK PEEK. IT HAS BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE

[02:00:06]

SUBMITTED THESE. >> MY BIGGEST QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THE CITY WANT TO SEE FROM THIS AREA? ARE WE GIVING THE SAME AMOUNT OF POINTS? IF THERE IS NOT A POINT DIFFERENCE , CAN THEY GET THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES?

>> YES. LET ME TAKE A PEEK. >> TAKE INTO FACTOR, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS IN LINCOLN PARK, FINGERS CROSSED THAT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE THAT AVENUE D IS REVITALIZED, THEN WE WOULD WANT MORE DENSITY NEAR THE STREET A WELL. SEEING DUPLEX OR SOMETHING TO THE STANDARD OF DENSITY WOULD GO BETTER IN THA

AREA. >> THIS WAS THE SAME AMOUNT OF POINTS WHETHER IT IS OWNER OCCUPIED OR DEVELOPED FOR PROPERTY RENTAL, BUT THAT IS A GREAT POINT IN CASE WE HAVE THIS FOR THE FUTURE, THAT IS A GREAT POINT WE COULD CONSIDER.

THANK YOU. >> SEE NO QUESTIONS. I WILL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> WE ARE ON ITEM L 1204 AVENUE E .

[l. RFP 2023-024 Disposal of Surplus Property – 1204 Avenue E]

>> PERFECT. 1204 AVENUE E IN HISTORIC LINCOLN PARK DISTRICT WE RECEIVED FIVE PROPOSALS AN MARCELINO WAS THE HIGHEST RANKE RESPONDER WITH 328 POINTS. HE INTENDS TO PURCHASE THIS FOR $21,000. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ARE ABOUT 520,000 AN INTEND TO BUILD A TWO BEDROOM TWO BATH DUPLEX AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 6 TO 12 MONTHS AFTER ISSUED PERMITS. A RECOMMENDATION , STEPS RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW AND FORWARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR VINCENT MARCELINO.

THIS PROPERTY. >> IT IS THE CONSTRUCTION COST THAT IS THROWING ME BECAUSE WE JUST SAW A DUPLEX WITH MORE BEDROOMS AT A CHEAPER VALUE WHERE AS THIS IS TWO BEDROOMS AND IT IS ALMOST HALF 1 MILLION.

>> RIGHT. WHEN WE DO THESE RFP PROPOSALS, IT IS WHATEVER THEY SUBMIT IS PRESENTED TO THE EVALUATORS AND THAT IS WHAT WE SUBMIT TO YOU. IF THEY ARE AWARDED THAT PROPERTY BY YOU AN THE CITY COMMISSION , THEN WE WILL HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAD SOME O THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL AND HOW ARE THEY DETERMINING THESE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES AND MARKETS. THEY MIGHT BE ASKED T COME FORWARD AT A FUTURE MEETIN BEFORE THEY ARE AWARDED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

>> MR. VINCENT MARCELLINO CURRENTLY HAS ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE SAME BLOOD.

>> POSSIBLY. HE OWNS SEVERAL PROPERTIES.

>> I WENT YOU TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHERE THE PROPERTIES ARE.

HE HAS ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION O THE SAME LOT. ON THE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[m. RFP 2023-027 Disposal of Surplus Property – 1620 Avenue E]

>> 1620 AVENUE E SURPLUS PROPERTY. IT IS AT THE CORNER OF 19TH STREET AND AVENUE E, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. WE RECEIVED THREE RESPONSES FOR THIS PROPERTY, THE HIGHEST RATE WAS JOURNEY SEE IN THE GROUP WITH 239 POINTS. JOURNEY SEE IN THE GROUP INTENDS TO PURCHASE THIS FOR $10,000 AND THEY WANT TO BUILD A THREE BEDROOM TWO BATH DUPLEX. THEIR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ARE $320,000 AND THEY INTEND TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF CLOSING. STAFF

[02:05:06]

RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND REQUEST A FORWARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF 1620 AVENUE E TO JOURNE C&D GROUP . I WILL BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> LOOKS GOOD ON PAPER.

>> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION .

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[n. RFP 2023-028 Disposal of Surplus Property – Avenue D Parcel ID#: 2409-603-0055-000-2]

D. >> AVENUE D PROPERTY IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON AVENUE D AND 19TH STREET . WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONDENT TO THI ONE PROGRESSION PROPERTIES LLC I'M SORRY, I WILL GO BACK TO TH EVALUATION CRITERIA. IT DIFFERS BECAUSE IT IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. 25 POINTS, TIMELINE 20 POINTS, CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES 10 POINTS, PROOF OF FINANCIAL ABILITY 15 POINTS, PROPERTY UTILIZATION 15 POINTS AND SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT WAS 15 POINTS. LIKE I SAID, WE RECEIVED IN RESPONSE, THEY SCORED 274 POINTS . THEY INTEN TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR $5000 THE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES ARE AT 180,000. THEY WANT TO BUILD A THREE BEDROOM TWO BATH SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND THEY INTEND TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 18 TO 24 MONTHS. FOR THIS PROPERTY, WE REQUESTED THE PLANNING BOARD TAKE NO ACTION DUE TO THE PROPOSALS AND ABILIT TO MEET THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVE FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN THE TARGETED AREA. SINCE IT IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, THEY WANT TO ADD A DUPLEX THERE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THEY WANT TO ADD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME TO THIS VACANT LAND. WE RECOMMEND YOU TAKE NO ACTION FOR THIS BID

>> WHERE IS THIS BUSINESS LOCATED OUT OF?

>> PROGRESSION PROPERTIES? VERO BEACH.

>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE CALIFORNIA ONE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION IN GENERAL NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS ONE APPLICANT, BUT IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA PAGE AND TALK ABOUT POINTS SCORED FOR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES, WHICH DIRECTION IS THAT SCALE GOING? TO THE HIGHER CONSTRUCTION COST GETTING YOU MORE, OR THE LOWER CONSTRUCTION

COST? >> WE WANT THEM TO SUBMIT

CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES. >> AS LONG AS YOU , AS LONG AS THEY GIVE YOU AN ESTIMATE, YOU GIVE THEM THAT? BACK IN THE PAST, WE JUST RECEIVED SUBMITTALS WITH HANDWRITTEN ESTIMATES. IF THEY WERE FROM A THIRD PARTY PROFESSIONAL, WE ACCEPTED IT AND RECOMMENDED TH EVALUATION COMMITTEE SCORE THE AT LEAST ON THAT. UNFORTUNATELY WE DID NOT TAKE THAT INTO

CONSIDERATION. >> SO, WE ARE SAYING YES TO PUTTING A HOUSE ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY?

>> NO, WE RECOMMEND YOU TAKE NO ACTION HERE. CORRECT.

>> IS SOMEBODY JUST GOING TO DO THIS?

>> WE RECEIVED ONE SUBMITTAL. WE WILL NOT AWARD THIS PROPERTY. WE ARE RECOMMENDING NO ACTION.

>> THE CITY IS DENYING THIS THEN. WHY IS THIS ON THE LIST? THIS. THIS IS ARP, WE HAVE TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU AND THE CIT

COMMISSION. >> AT THIS POINT, IF WE DENY,

WE HAVE TO DO DISAPPROVAL? >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. >> SECOND .

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVE AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

[o. RFP 2023-029 Disposal of Surplus Property – N. 25th Street, Lot 1 & 2 Parcel ID #’s: 2408-501-0066-000-6 and 2408-501-0067-000-3]

>> AND FINALLY . >> THE DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY NORTH 25TH STREET LOTS ONE AND TWO. THIS ONE IS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SO THAT EVEN WITH CRITERIA FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY APPLYING TO THIS ONE. THIS PROPERTY IS

[02:10:02]

LOCATED ON 25TH STREET AT THE CORNER OF BOOKER AND 25TH STREE HERE. C-3 COMMERCIAL. WE RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSES FOR THI PROPERTY. LARRY LEE JR. & FAMIL LLC SCORED 308 POINTS OUT OF 400. THAT IS THE HIGHEST RANKE RESPONDER. LARRY LEE JR. & FAMILY LLC INTENDS TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY FOR $10,100. THE INTENT IS TO BUILD A OFFICE BUILDING AND THEY WANT TO USE FOUR SHARED OFFICES AND ONE ANCHOR BUSINESS FROM THIS PROPERTY. THEIR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES PROVIDED IS $300,000 AND THEY INTEND TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TW YEARS. WITH THIS ONE, WE ASK THE PLANNING BOARD TO REVIEW THE REQUEST, I'M SORRY, TAKE N ACTION AND REVIEW THE REQUEST AND FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSIO FOR THE SALE OF THESE TWO PARCELS TO LARRY LEE JR. &

FAMILY LLC . >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM

THE BOARD? >> ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE PROCESSING, NOT ABOUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THESE SURPLUS PROPERTIES, HOW IS IT THAT THE CITY ATTAINED THESE PROPERTIES?

>> THEY ARE EITHER DONATED OR THEY ARE PROPERTIES WE HAVE OBTAINED WHEN THEY ARE DEMOLISHED. WE HAVE HAD TO ABANDON PROPERTIES AND TAKE OVER.

>> THE SITE PHOTOS, PRETTY MUC ALL OF THESE SITES LOOK CLEARED, IS THIS SOMETHING THE CITY HAS TAKEN ON?

>> CORRECT. YES. FOR SOME OF THE LOTS, THERE WAS A HOME ON

THAT THAT WAS DEMOLISHED. >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? I

WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> APPROVED.

>> WE HAVE A QUESTION? >> A CONCERN/COMMENT. AN OFFIC SPACE RIGHT THERE , IT IS NOT T SAY IT DOES NOT FIT THE AREA, BUT THERE IS HOUSING NEXT TO I THAT MAY OR MAY NOT CHANGE, WH KNOWS? THERE IS HOUSING BEHIND IT . THERE IS SOMETHING NEXT T THE PROPERTY BEING REDEVELOPED AS WELL, THE IDEA OF AN OFFICE SPACE RIGHT HERE AND IT SEEMS OUT OF PLACE .

>> YES. >> IF THE PROPERTY HAS A COMMERCIAL ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE, THEN THERE IS AN ENTITLEMENT TO BUILD COMMERCIA AND WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DENY THAT PROVIDING THE DEVELOPMENT MET WITH THE APPROPRIATE CODE. SETBACKS AND SO FORTH ALSO. IF IT WAS ZONED THAT WAY, UNLESS THE CITY DETERMINED TO TAKE UNILATERAL ACTION AGAINST THAT, WHICH IS VERY RARE, SO PROPERTY RIGHTS IMPLICATION -SOMEBODY CAME IN

>> I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT. >> TRADITIONALLY, THAT PARTICULAR AREA HAS BEEN COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL UP AND DOWN THE STREET OR ON KEY BOULEVARD. I DO NOT SEE THAT BEING AN ISSUE. THIS IS NOT SOME BIG INDUSTRIAL TYPE FORM COMMERCIAL , I DO NOT SEE THAT BEING A PROBLEM. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? CNN. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND .

>> THIS HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVE AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >>

>> WE ARE MOVING ON TO ITEM 8 WITH THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, MR.

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

FREEMAN. >> FIRST ITEM IS TO REMIND PLANNING BOARD OF THE MEETING AND THE NEXT MEETING IS WILLING TO JULY THE 12TH WEDNESDAY AT 2:00 P.M.

>> NO JUNE MEETING. >> THE JULY MEETING.

[02:15:03]

>> THE JULY MEETING. >> DID I SAY THE NEXT MEETING? JULY THE 12TH. WEDNESDAY SAME TIME AT 2:00 P.M.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER? THAT'S IT?

>> I WANT TO INFORM THE BOARD THAT WE ARE SEEING SOME ACTIVIT IN RELATION TO STATE BILL 102, WHICH ALLOWS CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO PROPOSE DEVELOPMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR A PORTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WITH MARKET RATE HOUSING WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT . I HAVE RECEIVED THREE INQUIRIES TO DATE . THERE IS A COMPLICATION WITH THIS THAT IF ANYBODY WANTED TO UTILIZE THIS, IF PROPERTY OWNERS WANTED TO UTILIZE THIS, IT WOULD BE CARRIED OUT ADMINISTRATIVELY.

THEY WOULD COME STAFF REPROVE ALL AND PLANNING BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION WOULD NOT SEE THAT. I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO DEVELOPERS WHO DO NOT WANT TO BE SEEN AS NOT WANTING TO WORK WITH THE MUNICIPALITY OR THE PLANNING BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION , AND THEY HAVE AGREED, THE ONES I'M DEALING WITH, THEY DO COME FORWARD, THA THEY WOULD NOT RESIST A PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION OF THEIR PROJECTS IN THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT TAKE ANY ACTION, BUT IT WOULD B IN FORMATIONAL ONLY AND IT WIL KEEP YOU INFORMED ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON. I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO THAT. I DON'T HAVE RESISTANCE AT THE MOMENT. WE WOULD PUT THAT IN THE SYSTEM, JUST INFORMATIONAL ITEM TO PICK UP WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND COMMISSION S YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT IS GOING ON. THEY LIKE QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE THINGS. THEY WILL STILL GO THROUGH A SITE PLAN REVIEW, BUT EVERYTHING WOULD BE DONE AS THE STATE STATUTE WE DETERMINE ON A ADMINISTRATIVE BASIS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPL WITH ALL OF THE BASIS WHEN YOU APPROVE THE SIDE PLAN , BUT THESE WOULD ESSENTIALLY NOT REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD OR CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL. WE HAVE STATE BILL 102 THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL TO GO ON TO COMMERCIALLY ZONED FOR FUTURE LAND USE PROPERTY AND USE THIS ADMINISTRATIVE ROUTE . THE COMPROMISE ON THAT IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT HAS TO INCORPORATE A MINIMUM 40% AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION AND THAT WOULD NEED TO BE GUARANTEED FOR A MINIMUM OF 30 YEARS IN DURATION.

>> IS THIS KIND OF INITIATIVE INTENDED TO BE RESERVED FOR

RENTAL PROPERTIES ? >> IT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YO COULD PROPOSE AFFORDABLE FOR-SALE HOUSING . YOU WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER TH STATE DEFINITION OF HOW THAT INCOME AND AFFORDABILITY IS CALCULATED BUT I SEE THIS WORDED IN A WAY THAT IT IS PRIMARILY FOR RENTAL PROPERTIES

>> THAT IS IT. I THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE ENOUGH FOR THE 10 THINGS WITH PROGRESSION, WHICH IS IMPRESSIVE. THANK YOU FOR TAKING OVER THIS MEETING. YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB. I

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

APPRECIATE THAT. >> THANK YOU. BOARD CONFERENCE

I HAVE NONE. ANYONE ELSE? >> I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHAT HAPPENED HERE TODAY GOING AGAINST THE BOARD BY SAYING NO AND YES, IT IS SOMETHING DEAR TO MY HEART. I DO NOT SEE THAT AS RIGHT, SO I HAD TO STICK ON MY GUNS.

>> THAT IS WHY YOU ARE HERE. >> WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG AND HOW MUCH MONEY THAT WAS PUT INT IT, I SLEEP BETTER IF I SPEAK M MIND WITH IT. I DON'T LIKE TO B UP AGAINST LOOKING LIKE I'M NOT

WITH YOU GUYS. >> I FELT THE SAME WAY WHEN I SAID NO THE FIRST TIME, TOO. I WAS ON SURPLUS PROPERTY, TOO.

[02:20:02]

YOU JUST HAVE TO STICK IT OUT. >> ESPECIALLY IF I WAS THE ONE DOING THE RENTING IN THOSE LUXURY APARTMENTS OR CONDOS .

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I THINK YOU DID TERRIFIC

KEEPING US IN CONTROL. >> I TRIED MY BEST.

>> SHE TOOK HER TIME. >> I TRIED MY BEST. WE HAVE NO ONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.