Aug 14, 2023 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:10]

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE ARE OPENING THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, AUGUST 14.

BEFORE WE STAND FOR.

IF WE HAVE ONE OF THESE INSTRUMENTS, PLEASE TURN IT OFF SO THE RING TONE DOESN'T SOUND AND I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

GO FIGURE IT OUT. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE 209 FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION, UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE. WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR

ALL. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THANK YOU, I HAVE A FEW NOTES BEFORE IT GETS TOO FAR ALONG HERE.

ONE, SOME TIME THIS MORNING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED A REQUEST TO FACILITATE FOR ONE OF OUR AUDIENCE MEMBERS THAT IS HARD OF HEARING. AND I THINK THAT WHAT ALICIA WAS ABLE TO COME UP WITH ON SHORT NOTICE IS WE HAVE GOT A SCREEN SET UP. AND I WILL ASK MY BOARD TO TRY TO REMEMBER TO SPEAK SLOWLY AND CLEARLY AND INTO THE MICROPHONES SO THAT I HOPE THAT THE VERBIAGE IS COMING UP CLEARLY ON THE SCREEN. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO BE OVERBEARING ON -- ON OUR DIALOGUE.

I THINK THAT WAS THE BEST WE COULD COME UP WITH IN THE SHORT NOTICE. IN THE FUTURE, IF WE HAVE A SPECIAL REQUEST -- THIS ISN'T ONLY FOR OUR AUDIENCE BUT ANYBODY WHO MAY BE LISTENING IN FROM THE COMMUNITY.

IF YOU HAVE A SPECIAL REQUEST SIMILAR TO THIS, IF YOU CAN CALL IN A COUPLE OF DAYS IN ADVANCE. PERHAPS WE COULD BE ABLE TO FACILITATE A LITTLE BETTER. ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

>>ALEXANDER EDWARDS: -- DANIELS --

>>NICHELLE CLEMONS: HERE. >>HAROLD ALBURY: HERE CHRIST

HERE. >>JOHN HEANING: PRESENT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: PRESENT. AND I THINK THAT -- WE HAVE A QUORUM. HAS ANYONE INDICATED THEY WOULD

NOT BE HERE? >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUMILLER.

MR. EDWARDS AND MISS DANIELS SAID THEY WOULD BE IN ATTENDANCE

TODAY. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY, IS THERE A TRAIN ON THE TRACKS? [LAUGHTER] OH, HOPEFULLY THEY ARE ABLE TO MAKE IT BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR ALONG IN THE MEETING. IF NOT, WE WILL CONSIDER ABSENTEES AT THE END. WE WILL MOVE TO TO THE END OF THE AGENDA TO CONSIDER. ALICIA, IF YOU COULD, DON'T LET

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

I WILL ASK THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OR DISCUSSION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE HAVE AN APPROVAL BY MR. KRIESEL -- I AM SORRY, MR. ALBURY. I FORGET WHO WAS SPEAKING.

AND A SECOND BY MISS CLEMENS. >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: YES.

>>HAROLD ALBURY: YES ANTON KREISL YES.

>>JOHN HEANING: YES. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YES, MA'AM. FIRST ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS IS

[a. Annexation - Patrick & Keniesha Burton - Avenue Q - Parcel ID: 2405-501-0131-000-4]

AND MISS CHARLES. >>KERRY CHARLES: YES.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: IS GOING TO PRESENT.

>>KERRY CHARLES: GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS.

KERRY CHARLES HERE. TODAY WHAT WE HAVE IS THE BURTON ANNEXATION AT OR NEAR AVENUE Q. APPLICANT'S NAME IS PATRICK AND KENIESHA BURTON. PROPERTY OWNERS, PARCEL ID 2405-501 IS-031-000-4. IN SUMMARY, A REQUEST FOR REVIEW

[00:05:08]

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A ST. LUCIE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL URBAN.

FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY, FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RL, WITH A ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONED R 1. THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS $25,000. PURSUANT TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, 1.11.5, THE PROPERTY -- EXCUSE ME -- IS CONFERENCE I THINK IT GENT TO A MUNICIPALITY AND ANNEXATION WILL NOT CREATE ANY CREATION OF AN ENCLAVE. THE SITE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY .22 ACRES. AGAIN, THE CURRENT ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND USE IS R-U, RESIDENTIAL URBAN.

CURRENT ST. LUCIE RS-4. PROPOSED LOW DENSITY.

R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY LOW DENSITY. AS PROPOSED, ANNEXATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SPECIFICALLY POLICY 1.11 REGARDING ANNEXATIONS.

PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS DAY APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION. POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I NEVER CEASED TO BE AMAZED WHEN WE HAVE THESE KIND OF ANNEXATIONS COME IN. IN THIS CASE, HERE WE ARE IN THE STREETS OF THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE, LOOKS LIKE A WELL DEVELOPED CITY AREA, AND YET IT IS UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION PRESENTLY. AND SECONDLY, THAT WE ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE WATER BUT NOT SEWER. IT JUST -- I AM ALWAYS -- YOU KNOW, I JUST GET -- I LOOK AT IT AND I SAY, HOW COULD THIS HAVE HAPPENED? WHY DID IT HAPPEN? BUT, WE ARE HERE TO FIX IT, RIGHT.

>>KERRY CHARLES: YES. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: BOARD, ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS FOR OUR PRESENTER? NOT SEEING ANY. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE BY ANY

CHANCE? >>KERRY CHARLES: YES, THE

APPLICANT IS HERE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WILL YOU PLEASE STEP FORWARD. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU FOR A MOMENT. YOU JUST PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY

IN MAY. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YES, SIR.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUMILLER, WE NEED FOR HIM TO STATE HIS NAME

AND ADDRES FOR THE RECORD. >> PATRICK BURTON.

MY ADDRESS IS 1537 RUNNING OAK LANE, ROLLING OAKS, FLORIDA.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU JUST PURCHASED THERE IN MAY.

>> YES, SIR. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SURPRISED

TO SEE COUNTY PROPERTY. >> I WAS SURPRISED BEFORE I PURCHASED BUT ONCE I SAW IT, I LOOKED IN THE ANNEXATION PROCESS AND SPOKE WITH VENNIS AND COUPLE OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I FOUND OUT WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO AFTER THE PURCHASE. WE IMMEDIATELY MOVED INTO THAT

PROCESS AFTER WE PURCHASED. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THEY WERE

VERY HELPFUL, WEREN'T THEY? >> ABSOLUTELY.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: GOT A GREAT DEPARTMENT.

NOT BIG ENOUGH, BUT GREAT NONETHELESS.

THAT WAS A MESSAGE TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

WE NEED FOR PERSONNEL IN PLANNING.

>> IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT SEWER, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU SPOKE OF IT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THE QUESTION I ASK YOU HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR ANNEXATION. WHAT IS YOUR PLAN?

>> MY PLAN IS TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

AND WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING TO JUST HELP PROVIDE SOME RELIEF FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOME SITUATION IN TERMS OF RENTING.

BUT WE ARE HAVING SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT SELLING AND THEN MOVING INTO PURCHASE OF A -- ACQUISITION OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY ALLOW US TO BUILD A QUADPLEX HERE IN THE CITY FOR

[00:10:01]

THE PURPOSE OF RENTAL. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INTEREST IN FORT PIERCE. AND BOARD, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NO? VERY GOOD, THANK YOU, SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE TODAY SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANY, I WILL COME BACK TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUES QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION. THERE WAS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CHECK THESE BEFORE WE TURN THEM FROM COUNTY TO CITY, AND ACCEPT IT INTO ANNEXATION? SO EVERYTHING IS UP TO SNUFF

BEFORE WE ACCEPT IT AS A CITY? >>KEVIN FREEMAN: I AM NOT CERTAIN THAT HAPPENS, NO. USUALLY THE WAY THE PROPERTY GOES THROUGH THE PURCHASE, THEY WILL DISCOVER, HOPEFULLY, WHETHER THERE ARE ANY LIENS OR CODE ENFORCEMENT.

>> I AM LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER REPORT.

THAT GOT MY ATTENTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE BROKEN-DOWN CARS ON THE PROPERTY.

IS THIS -- NOT ONLY THIS, BUT OTHER PROPERTIES THAT WE ANNEX, IS IT A DUMPING GROUND BEFORE WE SAY LET'S ANNEX IT INTO THE

CITY? >>KEVIN FREEMAN: I THINK -- WELL, IF IT IS NOT IN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION, THEN WE CAN'T TAKE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS NOT --

>> SO SHOULD HAVE IT FIXED BEFORE WE SAY YES.

NOT THIS PROPERTY, BUT IN GENERAL.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: I CAN'T CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF ANOTHER ENTITY'S

-- >> UNTIL WE ANNEX IT -- THEN WE ARE STUCK WITH IT AFTER WE GET IT.

ALL RIGHT. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: IT WILL NEED TO BE TIDY NOW BECAUSE IT COMES WITHIN THE CITY'S JURISDICTION.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I DID A DRIVE-BY AT THIS PROPERTY.

I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME.

>>JOHN HEANING: BECAUSE IT IS OVERGROWN THERE.

JUST A CURIOSITY QUESTION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: LET'S GET AN ANSWER FOR THAT JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT.

AGAIN, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING AT THIS STAGE. BUT WOULDN'T YOU MIND COMING

FORWARD -- >> FOR THE RECORD MISS DANIEL

ENTERED THE MEETING AT 2:10 P.M. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: VERY GOOD,

THANK YOU. >> THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY CLEAR. THERE ARE SOME TREES ON THE BACK LINE, SOME CABBAGE PALMS AND ALSO AN OAK TREE.

IN THE PICTURE, I BELIEVE YOU SAW LIKE A VEHICLE PARKED THERE.

BUT THOSE VEHICLES WERE ASSOCIATED WITH THE -- WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE SO THOSE VEHICLES ARE NO LONGER

THERE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU HAVE

NOTHING CLEAN UP? >> NO, SIR.

MOW UNTIL WE START CONSTRUCTION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THANK YOU

VERY MUCH, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR ANSWERS? QUESTIONS? COMMENTS?

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. ALBURY. SECONDED BY MISS CLEMONS TO APPROVE. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>>HAROLD ALBURY: YES ANTON KREISL YES.

>>JOHN HEANING: YES. >>ULINE DANIELS: YES.

>>NICHELLE CLEMONS: YES. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YES,

[b. Annexation - Ubilla-Duque Holdings, LLC 3307 S. US Hwy 1 - Parcel ID: 2427-601-0050-000-7]

SOMEBODY HELP ME WITH THIS. >> THAT IS THE OWNER'S NAME.

>> I MEAN -- UBILIA-DUQUE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I DID MY BEST. [LAUGHTER] IT IS NOT ALWAYS VERY GOOD. HOLDINGS LLC, 3307 SOUTH U.S.

HIGHWAY 1, PARCEL NUMBER 2427-601-0050-000-7.

AND MISS CHARLES IS PRESENTING. >>KERRY CHARLES: GOOD AFTERNOON, AGAIN. SO BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE AN ANNEXATION FOR UBILIA-DUQUE HOLDINGS L.L.C. AT OR NEAR 3307 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY 1. THE APPLICANT'S NAME IS ALEJANDRO TORO. PROPERTY OWNERS UBILIA-DUQUE HOLDINGS, PARCEL ID 2427-061-0050-000-7.

[00:15:04]

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A ST. LUCIE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL HIGH IN THE ST.

LUCIE ZONING DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL, MULTIFAMILY WITH 11 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A FUTURE LAND USE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH A ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3.

THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS $359,260.

SHOULD THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION BE APPROVED, IT COULD CREATE A NEW SOURCE OF AD VALOREM TAX AND REVENUE TO THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE. THE SITE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 3.72 ACRES. THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE AGAIN IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. PROPOSED ZONING C-3.

GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AS PROPOSED, THE ANNEXATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.11 REGARDING ANNEXATIONS. PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION.

PLANNING BOARD ACTIONS IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. I WILL ALSO LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT AT THIS TIME, ALTHOUGH NOT NOTED ON THE PRESENTATION, IN CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT, THEY ARE LOOKING AT IN THE FUTURE DOING A SPLIT FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE PARCEL.

WHERE THEY WOULD LIKE THE EAST END TO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND THE BACK -- THE WEST END TO BE RESIDENTIAL; HOWEVER, THAT IS NOT BEING PRESENTED TODAY BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE WAITING ON ARE THE LEGAL SURVEYS FOR THE SPLIT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THE PROPOSED SPLIT WILL BE AT THE PRESENT COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE FRONTING U.S. 1?

>>KERRY CHARLES: YES IF. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: APRIL LINES WITH THE EXISTING COUNTY DIVISION OF THAT LOT, WHICH IS FURTHER TO THE WEST. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT.

>>KERRY CHARLES: YOU CAN PULL THAT UP NOW.

CURRENTLY THE FUTURE LAND USE -- ST. LUCIE COUNTY'S COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL. SO IN THE FUTURE, RIGHT NOW, WE ARE PROPOSING A FUTURE LAND USE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL JUST TO ALIGN WITH THE NEIGHBORING PARCELS.

BUT, AGAIN, THEY WILL BE LOOKING TO ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT ST.

LUCIE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE WHICH IS TO SPLIT IT FROM

COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ON THE

BACK HALF. >>KERRY CHARLES: THE BACK END AND COMMERCIAL ON FRONT FACING U.S. 1.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: IF I MAY. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YES, SIR.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: SO AT THE MOMENT, WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGALS OR THE SITE AREAS THAT THE SPLIT WOULD BE LOOKING TO ESTABLISH.

WE WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION BY THE BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SPLIT FUTURE LAND USE CONDITIONAL -- WELL, BEFORE IT GOES TO CITY COMMISSION BEING ADEQUATELY DIMENSIONED AND SURVEYED AND ALL THE LEGALS ATTACHED TO THAT SO WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THE -- THE SWITCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUST A TRANSFER OF THE COUNTY, CITY DESIGNATIONS IF YOU LIKE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THAT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BRING THE APPLICANT BACK IN FUTURE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE NEW FUTURE LAND USE APPLICATION.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: AND WE CAN DO THAT TODAY WITH A CONDITION

-- >>KEVIN FREEMAN: THIS DOES NOT MOVE TO CITY COMMISSION UNTIL THE APPLICANT ADEQUATELY DESCRIBES THE DIVISION BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY WITH A LOT SPLIT -- NOT A LOT SPLIT, BUT WITH A FUTURE LAND USE SPLIT THAT IS ESTABLISHED IN THE COUNTY AND EXISTING.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SO ESSENTIALLY WHEN -- WILL IT STILL COME BACK UNDER FUTURE LAND USE?

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: THAT WOULDN'T BE THE CASE.

IT WOULD GO TO CITY COMMISSION PROVIDING -- IF THE APPLICANT

[00:20:02]

TO CITY COMMISSION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: A DUAL PRESENTATION. ONE FOR THE ANNEXATION.

ONE FOR THE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND SEPARATIONS.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: YEP. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY.

BOARD, IF YOU WOULD KEEP -- GO AHEAD.

>> HOW ABOUT THE EGRESS FROM THE BACK SECTION? WILL THAT COME OUT ON 7TH STREET?

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: YES. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: IF YOU WOULD, BOARD, KEEP THE REQUEST OF DIRECTOR FREEMAN IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO -- INTO A MOTION HERE IN A FEW MINUTES.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THE -- REMIND ME AGAIN, THE COMMERCIAL ZONING THAT WE TYPICALLY LIKE TO SEE AS A CITY, AS A BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATION. IT IS NOT GENERAL COMMERCIAL, IF

I AM NOT MISTAKEN, RIGHT. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: NORMALLY C-3 FOR THE ZONING. GENERAL COMMERCIAL LIES UNDER C-3. LIES UNDER C-3.

OBVIOUSLY C-3 CONTROLS THE SPECIFIC USES THAT CAN BE PUT ON A C-3. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS TO INCORPORATE FURTHER DISTANCES TO RESIDENTIAL.

HAND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE BEEN SPEAKING TO THE APPLICANT ON, BECAUSE FEATURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE BOARD AND AT THIS TIME, THERE WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH HOW THIS WHOLE PROPERTY WOULD WORK.

WE HAD SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT.

AND MAYBE THEY CAN EXPAND ON THOSE WITH THEIR PRESENTATION.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANYTHING FURTHER? NOT BEING TOTALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE ORDINANCES FOR ACQUISITION, SEPARATION, AND FUTURE LAND USE. NOT HAVING ALL THE IS DOTTED AND TS CROSSED IN MY MEMORY BANK, I DON'T KNOW IF -- IF IT WOULD BE PROPER TO DO WHAT YOU ARE REQUESTING.

I AM NOT OPPOSED TO IT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE PROPER TO DO. AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND YOUR MAKING THE REQUEST. I AM NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO PUTTING THIS INTO A MOTION TO INCLUDE A CONDITION BUT BEFORE WE GET TOO RAMBUNCTIOUS AND MOVE FORWARD, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR YOUR BENEFIT AND THE DEPARTMENT'S BENEFIT THAT WE CHECK ALL THE DOTS ON THE IS AND CROSSES ON THE TS TO BE AN BE A CERTAIN WE ARE NOT STEPPING INTO SOMETHING WE DON'T WANT TO STEP

INTO LATER IN TIME. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: SO WHAT YOU WOULD SEE NORMALLY IF WE PRESENTED THIS TO YOU FOR ONE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE WILL BE A SINGLE ORDINANCE FOR THE ANNEXATION DESCRIBING IN THAT -- THE ZONING AND THE FUTURE LAND USE. AND THAT WOULD BE ONE ORDINANCE.

THE DIFFERENTIAL WITH THIS WOULD BE, IT WOULD STILL REMAIN ONE ORDINANCE, WITH EXHIBITS THAT WOULD DELINEATE AND IN LEGAL DETERMINES WITH LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND WITH A MAP THE DIVISION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL WITHIN THAT SAME ORDINANCE. ALL WE WOULD BE DOING FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW, RELYING ON THE APPLICANT TO SUPPLY THOSE EXHIBITS. AND THEN CHANGING OR AMENDING THE DESCRIPTIVE OF THE ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE THE AREAS AND THE FUTURE LAND USE TO BE DESCRIBED FULLY WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE.

IF YOU RECALL, SIMILAR ORDINANCES WERE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD MORE COMPLICATED IN TERMS OF MILL CREEK AND ORANGE AVENUE THAT WE HAD ONE ORDINANCE THAT DESCRIBED SPLITS OF FUTURE LAND USE WITH EXHIBITS WHICH DESCRIBE THE LEGAL AND THE SITE AREA AND MAPS ATTACHED TO THAT. WE HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE.

THIS IS A MUCH SMALLER VERSION OF THAT.

AND FROM A STAFF -- IT GIVES ME HEARTBURN THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. I THINK WE WOULD NEED OBVIOUSLY THE APPROPRIATE DONE MENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. OTHERWISE, WE WOULD JUST BE TAKING IT FORWARD AS IT STANDS TODAY.

[00:25:01]

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY. YOU ARE RIGHT.

I DO RECALL THOSE NOW. OKAY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD. AND I THINK YOU WERE ON YOUR WAY ANYWAYS. IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME

AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN, PLEASE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, FOR THE RECORD. ALEJANDRO TORO WITH THE APPLICANT AND ENGINEERING AND DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I APOLOGIZE FOR CLOBBERING YOUR

NAME. >> NO, NO.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: NOT ONLY CLOBBER ETHNIC NAMES.

I ALSO CLOBBER JONES AND FREEMAN.

[LAUGHTER] SO -- IF YOU WOULD, YOU HEARD THE CONVERSATION. CAN YOU EVER ANY COMMENTS?

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

WE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH PLANNING STAFF, AND WE AGREE IN ORDER TO PINPOINT WHERE THE SPLIT OF FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING ARE WOULD REQUIRE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR EACH.

HAND THIS WILL REALLY HELP IN THE LANGUAGE WHEN THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. IT WILL REALLY HELP TO FIND WHERE THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE. AND I HAVE THE SURVEY DEPARTMENT IN MY OFFICE CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, COMING UP WITH THE SCOPE FOR THAT LONG, AS WELL AS TWO SEPARATE SURVEYS PINPOINTING

EACH PORTION OF THE SPLIT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU ARE TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT TO GET THIS DONE PRIOR TO GOING TO THE CITY

COMMISSION? >> I AGREE, THAT'S CORRECT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: VERY GOOD. THAT'S MY -- MY MAIN CONCERN.

THAT WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> I AGREE, AS WELL AS AN EXHIBIT, A COLOR EXHIBIT JUST SHOWING WHERE THE SPLIT IS. I THINK THAT WILL BE VERY USEFUL. I AGREE, MR. FREEMAN, ON THAT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANYTHING ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT

ON. >> NO, SIR.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> DO YOU HAVE, LIKE, A ROUGH PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE GENERAL?

>> YES. SO IF THE -- SO IF THE PARCEL IS 3.72 ACRES, AROUND ONE ACRE OF IT WILL BE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF IT ON THE WEST SIDE OF IT FACING 7TH STREET.

>> PEACOCK. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS ALREADY MENTIONED BUT IS IT GOING TO BE -- WHAT DENSITY IS IT GOING TO BE? R-1, R-2?

MEDIUM, LOW? >> I BELIEVE THAT THE COUNTY'S PRIOR FUTURE LAND USE WAS RESIDENTIAL HIGH WITH A RESIDENTIAL HIGH ZONING. SO, THEREFORE, THE EQUIVALENT OF THAT WILL BE AN R-4 ZONING DISTRICT, SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE PROPERTIES WE HAVE ON THE SOUTH OF IT.

>> OKAY. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANYTHING FURTHER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? NOT SEEING ANYONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FURTHER

COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

THIS IS FOR THE STAFF. IS THERE ANY REASON WE DECIDED TO BRING THIS FORWARD PRIOR TO GETTING THE DESCRIPTION FROM THE

APPLICANT? >>KEVIN FREEMAN: WE ARE UNDER TIME LINE CONSTRAINTS FOR REVIEW PROCESS.

WE HAVE TOO MANY STATE STATUTES ON THAT.

WE DID ASK THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE THESE.

IT ALREADY HAS BEEN ADVERTISED, SO IT IS UP TO THE PLANNING BOARD WHETHER, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS ESSENTIALLY AS WE PRESENTED IT OR YOU WANT IT TO COME BACK WITH THE ATTACHMENTS SETTLED. I THINK -- WHAT OUR -- OUR INTENT IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS TRY TO NOT HOLD THINGS UP. BUT PUT HOLDS ON THEM WHEN -- WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE. AND THE HOLD YOU WOULD BE PUTTING ON THIS WOULD NEED TO BE SETTLED PRIOR TO CITY COMMISSION. AND THAT -- THEN STAFF WOULD NOT MOVE IT FORWARD. HAND THIS WILL BE A DIRECTION.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

IF. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANYTHING

FURTHER? >>HAROLD ALBURY: HOW DOES THE BOARD FEEL OF MR. FREEMAN'S RECOMMENDATION, FAST TRACK OR

SLOW TRACK. >> THE PROJECT LIKE THIS, THE SIZE OF IT, NOT GOING TO CAUSE A -- CAUSE A GREAT CHANGE IN A HUGE SPACE, SO I DON'T THINK HOLDING IT -- I THINK HOLDING IT UP WILL BE A MISTAKE RATHER THAN JUST PUSHING FORWARD, TO BE

AGREED. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: AGREED.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH A COMMENT CONCERNING THE CONDITION

[00:30:04]

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE LEGAL SKETCH AND DIAGRAM MATTIC EXHIBITS TO CONFIRM THE SPLIT WITHIN THE LOT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE. WHAT WE HAVE OPINION TOLD ASIDE OF THIS CONDITION IS THAT IT WILL BE ALIGNED WITH THE EXISTING LINE THAT THE COUNTY HOLDS NOW.

AND IF THAT IS PROVIDED, THEN THAT WILL BE TAKEN TO CITY

COMMISSION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SO THE CONDITION WOULD BE WHAT HE SAID. [LAUGHTER]

I HAVE A QUESTION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY.

>> IF IT COMES BACK TO YOU AND IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE COUNTY. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: WE WOULD MOVE IT FORWARD AS YOU SEE IT

PRESENTED TODAY. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: MEANING THAT IT WILL COME BACK US TO FOR FUTURE LAND USE.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: BECAUSE THE FUTURE LAND USE IS BEING ADOPTED WITH THE ANNEXATION. THE NEXT TIME YOU WILL SEE THIS, NOT WITHSTANDING IF IT CAME BACK AND WENT FORWARD AS A SPLIT FUTURE LAND USE OR A FULL FUTURE LAND USE.

THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE THIS PROPERTY IS WHEN IT WILL COME

BACK AS A SITE PLAN. >> SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY GUARANTEE THEY ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY BRING THAT BACK TO YOU

CORRECTLY. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: IT IS ON THE

APPLICANT THEN. >> WHAT I AM SAYING, IF THEY DON'T BRING IT BACK CORRECTLY, IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO US FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT IT ON OUR END.

THAT IS MY CONCERN OF ADVANCING WITH IT.

IF WE PUT THAT STIPULATION IN THERE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER ACTUALLY HAS TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: SO THE OPTION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD IS TO -- WELL, TO ADD ANOTHER CONDITION THAT I DON'T KNOW.

THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE COMMITTING AT THIS POINT WHETHER THEY WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DIVISION, THE BIFURCATION OF THE PROPERTY INTO TWO FUTURE LAND USES OR THEY WANT TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS. I WOULD LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT

TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I WILL CALL THE APPLICANT TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.

WE NEED TO SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN, ALICIA.

>>ALICIA ROSENTHAL: HE JUST NEEDS TO STATE HIS NAME AGAIN.

>> ALEJANDRO TORO. IT IS THE FULL INTENT OF THE APPLICANT TO HAVE A SPLIT TO MATCH WHAT THE COUNTY ZONING AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS ARE. MY APPLICANT -- MY CLIENTS' MAIN CONCERN IS REALLY THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF IT.

THAT IS WHAT HAS A MORE CLEAR FUTURE AS HE OWNS A -- A STONE AND GRANITE BUSINESS COMING OUT OF IT.

SO THAT ONE ACRE BEING RESIDENTIAL IS PROBABLY STAY THE ONE ACRE RESIDENTIAL AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS NOW.

THE COMMERCIAL ARE PORTION IS FAR TOO IMPORTANT.

SO HE IS WANTING TO USE THE ENTIRE TWO ACRES FOR THAT.

THE EXHIBIT OF WHAT WE DO WILL BE PRESENTED.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOUR FULL INTENTION IS TO GET THE WORK DONE PRIOR TO GOING TO THE COMMISSION?

>> ABSOLUTELY. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: IS THAT

SAT FAMILY, MISS CLEMENS. >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: NO, IT DOES NOT. PAUSE THAT DOESN'T GIVE US ANY TYPE OF WAY TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE AGREE TO TODAY IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY DONE. FLOSS GUARANTEE.

ALL IT DOES IS GIVE HIM THE OPTION TO BE CORRECT.

IF HE IS INCORRECT AND DOESN'T FOLLOW THROUGH ON WHAT WE AGREE ON TODAY, WE HAVE NO WAY TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

>> MAYBE A CONDITION THAT IT IS COMMERCIAL ONLY THEN.

HE DOESN'T GET THE SPLIT. THAT PROPERTY JUST STAYS

COMMERCIAL. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: OR WE WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THE EXHIBITS AND BRING IT PACK TO THE PLANNING

BOARD WITH THE EXHIBITS. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU CAN TABLE IT AND COME BACK. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IF WE TABLE IT AND IT COMES BACK, IT DOESN'T ADD ANY GREAT LENGTH OF TIME INTO THIS WHOLE PICTURE. WHY DO I HAVE A SECOND PERSON

COMING TO MY PODIUM? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, BRAD CURRY.

I WORK WITH ALEJANDRO. THIS ANNEXATION IS AN ANNEXATION. IF WE DON'T MOVE WITH THE LAND USE DESIGNATION CAN CONTAIN THE COUNTY'S USE OF ZONING.

BEFORE IT GETS THE OFFICIAL FROM THE CITY, THIS BOARD OR THE CITY

[00:35:02]

NOT REALLY UP -- WHAT WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE IS SIMILAR -- THE EXACT SAME WE HAVE IN THE COUNTY, WE DON'T HAVE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS YET FOR THAT PORTION.

FOR SOME REASON OR ANOTHER, WE DECIDE TO CHANGE, THE CITY COMMISSION HAS THE ABILITY TO SAY NO, WE CAN'T DO THAT OR YES, WE CAN DO THAT. THAT WAS AN APPLICATION IN THE SYSTEM. WE ARE TRYING MOVE IT FORWARD.

NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING CRAZY HERE.

KEEP IT THE SAME AS IT IS IN THE COUNTY.

IF IT DOES -- IF IT WERE TO CHANGE, IT IS COMPLETELY UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO DETERMINE WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE AND ZONING. IF WE DID NOTHING AND NEVER CAME FORWARD WITH THE LAND USE AND ZONING.

IT WOULD CONTAIN THE COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING THAT IT HAS TODAY. YOU COULD -- THIS GETS CONFUSING. PLANNING GETS CONFUSING, DEVELOP WITH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE WE LOVE THE CITY'S ZONING AND LAND USE A LOT

BETTER. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THE CITY

IS EASIER TO WORK WITH. >> I NEVER USED THAT

TERMINOLOGY. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I WILL.

OF COURSE, I AM PREJUDICED. [LAUGHTER]

>> I HOPE THAT HELPED A LITTLE BIT.

A SIMPLE APPLICATION. WE ARE MOVING IT FORWARD GETTING IT MOVING FORWARD AND WE EXPECT THE LAND USE AND ZONING LIKE IT IS IN THE COUNTY. COMMERCIAL ON THE FRONT HALF AND

RESIDENTIAL ON THE SECOND HALF. >> THE UNEASINESS OF A COUPLE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS MOVING FORWARD ON THE HITCH THAT X IS GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE IT GETS TO THE COMMISSION.

AND THE QUESTION, OF COURSE, WILL FEBRUARY X DOESN'T HAPPEN, HOW IS IT GOING TO GET HANDLED MOVING FORWARD.

>> IF X DOESN'T HAPPEN, KEEP THE SAME COUNTY LAND USE THAT IT HAS

RIGHT NOW. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: BOTTOM LINE, THE CONDITION SHOULD JUST STATE THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THANK YOU,

BRAD, VERY MUCH. >> MR. FREEMAN, IF WE -- IF WE PUT FORTH A RECOMMENDATION WITH APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITION YOU STATED EARLIER, PART OF THAT CONDITION IS IT IS NOT GOING TO GO TO THE COMMISSION FOR A FINAL RULING UNTIL THE EXHIBITS ARE

COMPLETED AND PROVIDED. >> IF THINK WANT CITY.

>> IF THEY WANT CITY. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: CITY FUTURE

LAND USE AND ZONING. >> NO WAY THEY WOULD GET

OFFICIALLY ANNEXED IN. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: GIVING FOR THE ANNEX -- AGAIN? THIS IS A DECISION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD AGAIN. THIS COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH ONLY THE ANNEXATION, RETAINING THE EXISTING COUNTY ZONING OF FUTURE LAND USE. THAT TAKES ALL THE VARIANCES OR THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS OUT OF EQUATION.

THE DIVISION BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL WOULD EXIST.

AND IF THAT IN FUTURE WANTED TO BE CHANGED TO THE CITY'S ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE, THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

AGAIN, THE ALTERNATIVE IS WE WILL REQUEST THOSE EXHIBITS TO DO THAT WITH THIS ORDINANCE OR DO WE SAY MOVE IT ON WITH JUST THE COUNTY'S FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SO YOUR OPINION IS, IF THE WORK DOESN'T GET DONE, IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION.

IT GOES WITH THE COUNTY DESIGNATIONS.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: YES. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SHOULD THE APPLICANT WANT TO CHANGE TO CITY DESIGNATIONS.

STILL HAS TO COME BACK THIS BOARD, CORRECT?

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: THAT WOULD BE ONE OPTION, YES.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THAT IS REALLY YOUR BIG CONCERN.

IF THE WORK IS NOT FOLLOWED THROUGH ON, HOW DO WE SEE

WHETHER THAT WAS DONE CORRECTLY. >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: THAT WAS MY APPREHENSION. WE ARE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SEE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO. THEY MIGHT NOT ACTUALLY FOLLOW

THROUGH ON WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: I UNDERSTAND THAT. DO YOU FEEL BET ABOUT IT?

>>NICHELLE CLEMONS: I DO. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: OKAY.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANY FURTHER CONVERSATION? THEN I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH A CONDITION OF WHAT DIRECTOR FREEMAN HAD TO SAY. I AM NOT GOING TO GO BACK AND DO

THAT AGAIN. >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: SECOND.

YOU MADE A MOTION? >> I WILL MAKE MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH DIRECTOR FREEMAN'S RECOMMENDATION.

>>NICHELLE CLEMONS: SECOND. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. CREISL. AND SECONDED BY MISS CLEMENS.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. ANTON KREISL YES.

>>JOHN HEANING: YES. >>ULINE DANIELS: YES.

>>NICHELLE CLEMONS: YES. >>HAROLD ALBURY: YES.

[00:40:01]

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YES, M MA'AM.

THAT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF LOOKING AT A -- AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA ON THE FRONT ANSWERED GOING, GEE, THIS IS GOING TO BE A PIECE OF CAKE. AND IT IS NOT.

[c. Conditional Use with New Construction - Olson Residence - 2507-234-0002-000-5 and 2507-234-0003-000-2]

LOT NUMBERS 2507-234-002-00-5 AND 2507-234-003-000-2.

AND MR. GILMORE IS THE PRESENTER.

FEIGNED UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THIS WAS KIND OF HANDED OFF TO YOU WITHIN THE LAST 48 HOURS OR SO.

>>VENNIS GILMORE: CORRECT. [LAUGHTER]

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: BUSINESS HOURS, AND SO -- OKAY.

BUT BECAUSE OF YOUR POSITION, YOU HAVE COMMON KNOWLEDGE, BUT MAYBE NOT ALL THE DETAILED INFORMATION.

>>VENNIS GILMORE: CORRECT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY.

I WANT TO SET THE STAGE FOR THAT.

AND ONCE AGAIN, BOARD, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE SPEAK SLOWLY AND INTO THE MICROPHONE, SPECIFICALLY DURING THIS APPLICATION, AND I BELIEVE T THAT CARA MAY BE INSISTING HAND THIS YOUNG LADY -- THEY WILL BE ASSISTING ONE OF OUR OTHER RESIDENTS THROUGH THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING.

YOU ARE ON STAGE, SIR. >>VENNIS GILMORE: GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS.

WE HAVE THE OLSON RESIDENCE, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE.

THE APPLICANT IS MIKE SEAL. PROPERTY OWNERS ERIC AND SANDRA OLSON, WITH THE SUBJECT PARCEL IDS 2507-234-0002-000-5.

AND 2507-234-0003-000-2. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 125-76 IN SECTION 125-192B 46 THE CITY ROAD, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR A 35-FOOT-TALL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.

DUE TO THE EXISTING HEIGHT OF THE DUNE AND BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, THE SECOND-FLOOR ELEVATION NEEDED TO RISE 9 FEET 8 INCHES ABOVE THE BASE FLOOR ELEVATION.

CONSEQUENTLY GREATLY REDUCING THE ALLOWANCE OF TALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A MULTILEVEL DESIGN.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COCONUT DRIVE AND SURFSIDE DRIVE.

AND SUBJECT AREA 1.04 PLUS OR MINUS ACRE.

LOW RESIDENTIAL RL. HAS A ZONING OF SINGLE-FAMILY.

IMMEDIATE ZONING 4-2. YOU HAVE THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. HERE IS A FIRST-FLOOR PLAN.

FIRST-FLOOR PLAN AS WELL. BUT FIRST-FLOOR PLAN AS WELL.

THIS IS AN ELEVATION FACING THE OCEANSIDE -- STORY, SURFSIDE -- SURFSIDE AND THIS IS AN ELEVATION FACING THE OCEANSIDE, I AM SORRY. PURPOSE OF A CONDITIONAL USE IS TO ALLOW, WHEN DESIRABLE, USES THAT WILL NOT BE APPROPRIATE GENERALLY OR WITHOUT RESTRICTION THROUGHOUT THE PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT. WHICH AS CONTROLLED OF NUMBER, AREA, LOCATION OR RELATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT ADVERSELY EFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, COMFORT, GOOD ORDER, APPEARANCE, CONVENIENCE, AND THE GENERAL WELFARE.

IN CONDITION, PERMITTING THE CONDITIONAL USE, THE CITY COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE WITH THE STANDARDS EXPRESSLY IDENTIFIED IN THIS CHAPTER ARTICLE V, CONDITIONAL USES, ANY CONDITION WHICH IT FINDS TO BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OF THE CITY, CITY CODE SECTION 125-237.

[00:45:03]

STAFF IS RECOMMEND TWO CONDITIONS.

NUMBER ONE, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, APPROVAL A UNITY OF TITLE WITH THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS AND FOR THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL SHOULD PROBABLE VIED.

NUMBER TWO, THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BE MAINTAINED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ONLY AND SHALL NOT BE USED TO ACCOMMODATE SHORT-TERM RENTALS, 22-5.6 OF THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THE PLANNING BOARD TO VOTE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE TO MOVE TO CITY COMMISSION WITH THE TWO CONDITIONS. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS OR TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: M MR. GILMORE, DO WE KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL SETBACKS ARE ON THIS -- THIS BUILDING.

>>VENNIS GILMORE: I AM NOT SURE. I WILL HAVE TO REFER THAT TO THE

APPLICANT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: AT THIS POINT, I AM GOING TO ASK THE APPLICANT, DEVELOPER, ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, WHATEVER YOUR TITLE IS, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

I HAVE GOT SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS CONCERNING DIMENSIONS.

AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU CAN HELP SATISFY THAT.

I LOOKED THESE DRAWINGS OVER. AND -- YES, PLEASE SIGN IN.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN WE GET STARTED.

>> MY NAME IS MIKE SEAL. 225 CHERRY CIRCLE, SATELLITE BEACH AND I AM THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD ON THE PROJECT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: LOOKING AT THIS, I SEE AN AWFUL LOT OF INFORMATION ON HERE. I SEE NOTES FOR OTHERS, FOR INSTANCE, FOR WALLS. I AM GUESSING RETAINING WALLS.

I DID SITE VISITS ON THIS. I WALKED OVER TOP OF THE DUNES.

AND ONE OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS I WILL HAVE AT SOME POINT, WHAT IS THE DUNE AND WHERE IS IT? BECAUSE WHEN I WALKED IT, IT LOOKS LIKE, PERHAPS, IT WAS A DUNE INSTALLED AND THEN MOVED MORE TO THE DIRECTION OF THE BEACH.

WHICH OF THOSE TWO DUNES IS THE ONE WE GOT TO HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS FOR? WHICH IS THE ONE THAT SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BUILD A BRIDGE OVER TOP OF BY OTHERS? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE FIRST THING I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY ARE THE SETBACKS. AND DO THE SETBACKS MEET OUR ORDIN ORDINANCES?

>> YES. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU ARE SAYING YES. CAN YOU DIRECTLY ON THE DRAWING WHERE I CAN FIND TO ASSURE THAT IT IS A YES.

NOT THAT I DON'T TRUST YOU, BUT I WANT TO SEE IT.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT ON THE FIRST-FLOOR PLAN THAT WERE SUBMITTED. WE HAVE THOSE ON THE CIVIL ENGINEER SITE PLAN WHICH WE CAN PROVIDE.

THE FRONT SETBACKS ARE 25 FEET. AND THE FRONT OF THIS BUILDING IS SET BACK WELL BEYOND THAT. IT IS CLOSE TO 50 SOMETHING FEET. SO AS FAR AS THE STREET SETBACK.

SETBACK AWAY FROM THAT HAND THIS IS PRIMARILY FOR THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE TO BE SET BACK FOR PRIVACY AND ALSO AIDS IN THE STREETSCAPE OF THE STREET THE VIED SETBACKS ARE WITHIN HERE.

SEVEN FEET. WE ARE BEYOND THAT.

WE ARE TEN FEET ON EACH SIDE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WHAT DOES THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY REQUIRE ON SIDE SETBACKS? AND I BELIEVE THAT FALLS IN THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY.

>> IT DOES, I BELIEVE. >> WE WILL JUST PULL THAT UP.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: IF WE CAN'T GET A CLARIFICATION ON THIS THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BOARD, I WOULD MUCH RATHER TABLE THIS UNTIL WE CAN GET THE DRAWINGS IN OUR HANDS THAT GIVE US THE INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ON THESE DRAWINGS.

VERY UNCOMFORTABLE ON A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE TO OFFER ANY KIND OF A MOTION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT IT IS AND WHERE IT IS THAT IT IS GOING TO BE BUILT.

THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT IS WE ARE GOING TO GET INTO

[00:50:02]

BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST, WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THIS THING IS SITTING ON THIS LOT AND THAT THE SETBACKS ARE CORRECT.

I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH WHAT I COULD FIND ON THE DRAWING FOR THE ON FROM FRONTAL SETBACKS. I CAN'T FIND THE INFORMATION THAT I NEED ON THE SIDE SETBACKS.

SO THAT IS ONE OF THE KEYS. THE OTHER IS, THIS DUNE ELEVATION VERSUS THE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION AND HOW IT IS AFFECTING THE BUILDING. I WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO THAT MORE IF WE CAN GET THIS SOLVED FIRST.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: MR. CHAIR, THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY. FOR RESIDENTIAL, WE DON'T HAVE SEPARATE SETBACKS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THAT OVERLAY. WE DO HAVE SETBACKS WHICH WOULD REVERT TO THE R-2 ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: PLANNED GILMORE

WILL BE ABLE TO RELAY THOSE. >>VENNIS GILMORE: THE FRONT SETBACK WILL BE 25 FEET. THE SIDE SETBACKS WILL BE 7.

HOWEVER, THE REAR SETBACK, BECAUSE IT IS A DOUBLE FRONTAGE

WOULD BE 15 FEET. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY.

YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU ARE -- YOU ARE WITHIN THE SEVEN FEET

BECAUSE YOU ARE AT 7.5 FEET? >> WE HAVE SEVEN FEET DIMENSIONED ON THE FIRST-FLOOR GROUND LEVEL PLAN.

WE CALL THAT THE PROPERTY LINE AND THEN A SEVEN-FOOT SETBACK

LINE DRAWN IN. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY, I

SEE THAT. >> ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING SITS WITHIN THOSE.

AND THOSE ARE DIMENSIONED ON THE CIVIL SITE PLAN WHICH ISN'T PART

OF THIS PACKAGE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I SEE A 7.5-FOOT SETBACK ON THIS BUILDING -- ON THIS DRAWING.

22-139. >> WE ADDED SIX INCHES TO MAKE

SURE WE WERE IN THERE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WHAT IS THIS WALL THAT I AM SEEING BY OTHERS? I THINK I SEE A WALL THERE BY OT

OTHERS? >> WHICH FIRST-FLOOR PLAN ARE

YOU LOOKING AT? >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WELL, THE TOP DRAWING IS 22139, ONE OF TWO.

I AM LOOKING FOR THE NOTE -- I AM GLAD MR. HE HAD REGARDS IS IN HERE. WOULD HAVE JUST HIT HIM WITH THE DRAW DRAWING.

>> MR. GILMORE, WHILE FRANK IS LOOKING FOR THAT SHEET.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO MEET INCREASE IN THE REAR SETBACK AND HOW THAT

WOULD APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY? >>VENNIS GILMORE: THE 15 FEET?

>> YES. >>VENNIS GILMORE: SO THE FRONTAGE WILL BE ON SURFSIDE, SO THE 15 FEET WOULD BE FROM THE

OCEANSIDE -- >> FROM THE OCEANSIDE?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IN THE APPLICATION, THEY STATE THEY ARE ALSO ATTEMPTING TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO BUILD EAST OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE. THAT COULD BE FOR THE -- IT LOOKS LIKE -- ON THE ELEVATION. IS OUR PROPERTY LINE BEYOND THE

CUSTOM CONTROL LINE? >>VENNIS GILMORE: IT COULD BE OPINION. WE HAD SEVERAL APPLICATIONS IN THE PAST. I AM GOING -- IT COULD BE JUST FOR THIS WALKWAY. ANY TIME YOU BUILD ANYTHING ABOVE -- WITHIN THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE, YOU HAVE TO DO A PERMIT THROUGH THE STATE AND THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. AND IT USED TO BE A CONDITIONAL USE WITHIN THE CITY TO BUILD ANYTHING.

EVEN IF SOMEONE WANTED TO BUILD A WALKWAY.

I AM ASSUME THAT IS WHAT IT IS. THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO

PROVIDE MORE DETAIL. >> THE ENTIRE STREET IS EAST OF

THE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. >>VENNIS GILMORE: THAT'S WHAT IT IS. THE STREET ITSELF?

>> THE LINE AS WELL AND LAND FROM THE STREET.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WHAT I SAW "BY OTHERS" WAS THE WALKWAY OVER

THE DUNES. >>VENNIS GILMORE: YES.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I MADE AN ERROR IN MY SPEECH.

[00:55:01]

>> REGARDING THE REAR SETBACK, THE PROPERTY LINE IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE DUNE. NO DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED ON THE DUNE OR PAST THE DUNE, SO WE AE KEEPING WEST OF THE DUNE

WITH THE PROJECT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: NOW IS THAT -- WHICH -- WHICH DUNE ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

YOU HAVE BEEN ON THE SITE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: HAVE YOU

WALKED THE SITE? >> YEAH, I WALKED IT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHEN I AM STANDING IN THE CROSS WAY FOR THE ASSOCIATION ENTRANCE ON TO THE PRIVATE BEACH AREA WHICH IS CALLED A PRIVATE BEACH THERE IS A DUNE AND IT GOES INTO A -- I WILL DOLL A VALLEY FOR GENERAL PURPOSES. SDAND MISS SEEING WHAT I AM SEEING? A LOT SEEMS TO BE BUILT UP.

ALL KIND OF STUFF BEING ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> FROM THE SURVEYORS, A DESIGNATED LINE WHICH IS DELINEATING THE LINE OF T THE DUNE.

I AM NOT A SURVEYOR OR GEOLOGIST TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT IS, BUT IT DOES HAVE SOME GRADUAL KIND OF SLOPE FROM YEARS OF WHO KNOWS

WHAT HAPPENING THERE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WALKED OVER AND PUSH IT DOWN AND DRIVEN OVER IT.

>> BUT THE SURVEYORS TELL US WHERE THE DUNE IS.

THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM, AS FAR AS ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, WE BUILD TO THE DUNE AND DON'T GO PAST THAT LINE.

AND THIS IS THE SAME PROCESS WE GO THROUGH FOR THE MULTIPLE HOUSES, EVEN THE HOUSE WE HAVE DONE RECENTLY ON THE SAME

STREET. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THAT IS THE FIRST FLOOR OVERHANG WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION WALL.

THAT IS THE ENCLOSURE TO THE GARAGE?

>> YES. YEAH.

THE GROUND FLOOR IS FRONT SET BACK FROM THE SECOND FLOOR.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY. AND THAT'S -- I THINK THAT IS WHAT CREATED THE CONFUSION THAT I HAD WHEN I STARTED LOOKING AT THIS 37 TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SETBACK -- WHAT YOU HAD FOR THE SETBACK. WHEN I GET INTO TROUBLE BECAUSE IF IT IS ELEVATED ABOVE THE FOUNDATION -- NOT SO MUCH FOOTER BUT WALL. FIRST-FLOOR WALL WHICH IS GARAGE, I GUESS THEY BUILD OUT OR FOLD IN, WHICHEVER THEY DO, TO ALLOW WATER FLOW THROUGH THE BOTTOM OF THE BUILDING.

THE OVERHANG IS NOT COUNTED IN THE SETBACK.

THAT'S CORRECT? >>KEVIN FREEMAN: THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS STILL RESTRICTED TO THE SETBACK.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE FOUNDATION OF

THE BUILDING. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING CANNOT BE WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK.

THAT WILL INCLUDE ANY OVERHANG. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANY

OVERHANG AS WELL. >> WE ARE STILL WELL BEYOND

THAT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE ON THE FRONT, SIDES, YOU ARE STILL OKAY ON. COMPLEFZ CHAIR, IF I MAY.

LET ME -- THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET, BUT THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA AND NEED TO MEET ALL FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS OF BEING IN THAT AREA.

IT WILL ALSO NEED A FLOOD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND HANDLED

BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. >> UNTIL ALL THE NECESSARY STATE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CANNOT MOVE

FORWARD. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: CORRECT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE HAVE BEEN ASSURED MANY TIMES BY THE COMMISSION THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. I HAVE SAT THROUGH SEVERAL OF THOSE MEETINGS. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK YOU HAVE SATISFIED MY BIGGEST CONCERNS. AND TAT THIS POINT /* AT THIS POINT, YOU MAY SIT DOWN AT THE MOMENT.

I MAY CALL BACK UP WHEN I TURN TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. I WILL TURN TO THE BOARD, BECAUSE I THINK THE SETBACKS HAVE BEEN SOMEWHAT SATISFIED.

MAYBE SATISFIED. I THINK GOING TO THE COMMISSION,

[01:00:12]

WHERE THOSE PROPERTIES LINES ARE.

SO THAT THEY DON'T GO THROUGH THIS SAME DISCUSSION ALL OVER AGAIN. WE HAVE ONE OF OUR COMMISSIONERS IN THE MEETING, BY THE WAY. PROBABLY SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK WAS AT THE MEETING WHEN I OPENED IT AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT DOING THAT. MAYBE YOU WANTED TO STAY INCOGNITO AND NOW I EXPOSED YOU. IT IS GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK IN THE CHAMBER WITH US, ON IN THE LESS.

TAKE YOUR BEST SHOT LATER. I THINK FOR GENERAL DISCUSSION.

I HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. SO, BOARD, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS

FOR MR. GILMORE. >> ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THAT OVERHANG IS WHERE WE START THE SEVEN FOOT OR 7.5 FEET?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: THE 7.5 FROM THE PROPERTY LINE GOING INWARDS.

>> THE PROPERTY LINE TO WHAT? >>VENNIS GILMORE: GOING INWARDS

OF THE PROPERTY. >> WHERE DOES IT STOP, AT THE FOOT OF THE HOUSE -- OR IS IT COUNTING THAT OVERHANG?

>> IT WILL COUNT THE OVERHANG. >> FROM THE OVERHANG TO THE

PROPERTY LINE? >>VENNIS GILMORE: CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THAT IS MY BIGGEST --

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SURELY YOU HAVE MORE.

>> NO. >> ARE THE OPENERS HERE?

BECAUSE I WANT TO MOVE IN. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANY OTHER QUES QUESTIONS?

>> MR. GILMORE, THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW ASKED THE QUESTION IN THE DOCUMENT REVIEW, PROPOSED RESIDENCE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE OR A MULTIFAMILY DWELLING BUILDING.

ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THE ANSWER YOU RECEIVED FROM THE

APPLICANT? >>VENNIS GILMORE: CORRECT.

THE APPLICANT -- THE APPLICANT CONFIRMED THAT THIS WILL ONLY BE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE AND WE HAVE ADDED A CONDITION TO MAKE

SURE TOF THAT. >> CORRECT, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT -- I BELIEVE IT WAS DURING COVID EXPANDED OUR CITY ORDINANCE TO DEAL WITH -- FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM WORKING-FROM-HOME ENVIRONMENTS. I DON'T HAVE THAT CODE REFERENCE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT ONE OF THE SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS IN THAT SECTION, THE NEW ORDINANCE WAS THAT THOSE ENGAGING IN BUSINESS FROM THE RESIDENCE NOT BE EMPLOYEES.

THAT THEY WOULD ONLY BE THE OWNERS OF THE ONLY WILL BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE GIVEN THAT THIS FIRST-FLOOR PLAN INCLUDES TWO OFFICES. I THINK IT WILL ALSO BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO THIS STIPULATION THAT YOU ALREADY WRITTEN IN THAT BE -- THAT THE HOMEOWNER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT -- THAT THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THAT ORDINANCE AS WELL. IN.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY.

I THINK THAT ORDINANCE OR THAT -- THAT CITY ORDINANCE HAS BEEN SUPERSEDED BY THE STATE MANDATING.

NOT MANDATING BUT ALLOWING BUSINESS OR WORK FROM HOME TO BE ALLOWED WITHIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

IT WILL NEED TO BE FAIRLY RESTRICTIVE FOR THE REQUIREMENTS ON THAT. SO I WOULD HAVE TO -- PROVIDING IT DOESN'T TURN INTO A BUSINESS, WE HAVE VISITORS TO THAT PROPERTY. AND I HAVE TO POSSIBLY SPECIFY STATE STATUTE WORKING FROM HOME AND CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS FROM

WORKING FROM HOME. >> I SEE.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I DON'T THINK THAT THE CITY ORDINANCE REALLY GOES INTO TO SPEAK TO -- PROMOTIONAL OFFICES IN YOUR HOME. IT SPEAKS TO BUSINESS WHERE IS YOU HAVE OUTSIDE CONSUMERS, SO TO SPEAK, THAT WILL COME TO YOUR THEM TO DISCUSS BUSINESS TO PURCHASE GOODS.

AND I THINK IT IS REALLY WHERE THAT ORDINANCE -- WHAT THAT ORDINANCE SPEAKS TO. WE COULD PULL IT UP IF WE NEEDED TO BUT IN A CASE OF. LET'S UNDERSTAND THAT THESE FOLKS ARE REALTORS. SO -- THAT'S -- THEIR PROFESSION AS I UNDERSTAND IT IN CALIFORNIA.

[01:05:03]

BUT I BELIEVE THEIR REALTORS. SO IT WOULD NOT BE UNCOMMON FOR A REALTOR TO OPERATE OUT OF THEIR HOME.

IT HAPPENS VERY OFTEN. HERE IN FORT PIERCE.

SO THE OFFICES AREN'T SO MUCH WHAT I HAVE A CONCERN IT WITH.

I HAVE A CONCERN LEVEL WITH THE SEVEN SUITES ON THE FIRST FLOOR THAT ARE INDEPENDENT FROM THE OWNER'S OCCUPIED SPACE.

AND WHAT THE INTENTION IS FOR THAT.

ULTIMATE ATTENTION IS FOR THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE OPINION TOLD SEVERAL TIMES THIS IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

BUT WHEN I SEE A SEPARATE AREA FOR SEVEN BEDROOMS, COMPLETE SU SUITES, I HAVE TO QUESTION, REALLY, WHAT IS THE INTENTION. AND I GET VERY NERVOUS ABOUT IT.

NOW WE HAVE DONE WHAT WE COULD DO IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WITH VACATION EVENTUAL TALS TO TRY TO GET CONTROL OVER VACATION RENTAL SITUATION. AND SPECIFICALLY ON SURFSIDE, SOME POINT OUT ON THE ISLAND OVERALL, THAT WAS A BIG PROBLEM FOR US. HAND THIS ISSUE SAT THROUGH HOURS AND HOURS OF MEETINGS THAT INVOLVED VACATION RENTALS WORKED THROUGH CITY GOVERNMENT TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THAT.

NOW THEY ARE NOT LICENSED, THEY ARE CERTIFIED.

WAS THAT THE TERM WE USE? >>VENNIS GILMORE: I BELIEVE SO.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE WENT THROUGH THAT TO HAVE A SPECIAL TASK FORCE TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES AND WE HAVE DONE THAT.

ON THE ONE HAND, IF THIS BECOMES A BED AND BREAKFAST, WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND SAYS IT ALLOWED.

I DON'T THINK THE INTENTION WAS EVER THAT SOMEONE COULD COME IN AND BUILD A FACILITY WITH SEPARATE SEVEN BEDROOMS AND OPEN UP AN AIRBNB THAT COULD VERY EASILY TURN INTO A PARTY HOUSE IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL OF OUR RESIDENTS SITTING HERE TODAY.

AND I AM SURE WE ARE GOING TO HEAR THE SAME THING FROM THEM.

AND I HOPE THAT WE DO. BECAUSE THIS MESSAGE NEEDS TO BE MADE LOUD AND CLEAR. I ONLY SEE ONE CONDITION IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE. AND IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HOW THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE USED.

>>VENNIS GILMORE: WELL, WE RECENTLY ADDED THAT CONDITION, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT CONFIRMED AS OF TODAY THAT -- WE HAVE IT -- WE HAVE IT ALSO BY E-MAIL IT WILL ONLY BE A SINGLE-FAMILY

RESIDENCE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: CAN YOU

BRING THAT UP HERE? >>VENNIS GILMORE: YES.

>> ARE YOU ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE THAT A YEAR FROM NOW?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RECEIVE THE REGISTRATION FOR THE VACATION RENTAL. AND IF THEY DID OPERATE AS ONE ILLEGALLY, CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD ENFORCE THE CODE.

>> OUR CODE ENFORCE SNMENT. >>VENNIS GILMORE: OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT, YES. [LAUGHTER]

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: NOW, JACK

-- >> DID I SAY THAT OUT LOUD?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: YEAH, WE WERE SENT THIS E-MAIL TODAY.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THIS E-MAIL TODAY?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: CORRECT. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: I WAS COMMUNICATING WITH THE APPLICANT LATE LAST WEEK TO ESTABLISH ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS THAT WE WERE RECEIVING IN THE PLANNING DEPA DEPARTMENT.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: IF I MAY, CHAIR.

I LOOKED UP THE STATE STATUTE REGARDING WORK FROM HOME, HOME BUSINESSES, STATE STATUE 559.955.

MANDATES THAT MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT REGULATE HOME-BASED BUSINESSES. THERE ARE CERTAIN -- CERTAIN ALLOWANCES WITHIN THAT HOME STATE BUSINESSES.

THE BUSINESS CAN HAVE UP TO TWO EMPLOYEES AND MAY OPERATE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. THERE ARE OTHER RESTRICTIONS, BUT ESSENTIALLY FROM A PLANNING OR BUSINESS LICENSING POINT OF

VIEW WE CAN NOT REGULATE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SOME VERBIAGE THAT THEY CAN NOT OPERATE THAT BUSINESS, THEY CAN

BASED ON THE STATE STATUTE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YES.

[01:10:01]

THAT WAS JUST CHANGED -- >>KEVIN FREEMAN: 2021.

THAT IS WHEN IT WAS CHANGED. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OH, GOSH.

TIME GOES BY WHEN YOU ARE HAVING FUN.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: I CHALLENGE THAT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY. [LAUGHTER]

IT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THAT I RECOMMEND THAT WE INCLUDE A LITTLE BIT STRONGER THAN WHAT YOUR E-MAIL IS. TILL RECOMMEND THAT THIS PROPERTY NOT BE USED AS A VACATION RENTAL, BED AND BREAKFAST, ROOMING HOUSE, OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF FACILITY THAT MAY RINT ROOMS. KEV VERY GOOD.

>>VENNIS GILMORE: YES. IF.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THIS APPLICANT MAY BE EXTREMELY HONEST AND UPHOLD WHAT THEY ARE TELLING US.

IF ONE WANTS TO GIVE HIM ANOTHER MILLION AND A HALF DOLLARS FOR THIS PROPERTY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO.

SO THAT WOULD HELP SECURE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING IN THE MATERIAL THAT MAKES THE STATEMENT TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY THE BEST WE CAN POSSIBLY PROTECT THE COMMUNITY.

AND THAT IS ALL MY CONCERN IS. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: YES, I AGREE.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO? OKAY.

I WILL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

I WILL INVITE THE APPLICANTS. BECAUSE I SEE A HAND WAVING BACK HERE. SO I IMAGINE YOU ARE PART OF THE APPLICANT IN THE BACK. IF YOU WOULD, STEP FORWARD, AND I WILL HEAR FROM YOU. IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME

AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN, PLEASE. >> ABSOLUTELY.

MY NAME IS MARCEL MACIAS, 2081 NORTHWEST 125TH AVENUE IN SUNRISE, FLORIDA. AND I AM ERIC OLSON'S BUSINESS PARTNER. NECESSARY CALIFORNIA RIGHT NOW.

SO HE COULDN'T MAKE IT. BUT HE ASKED ME TO JUST COME IN FOR A MINUTE. WE ARE -- WE OWN A FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPANY. THAT IS WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING.

SO HE WILL NOT BE RUNNING ANY BUSINESS FROM THE HOUSE.

THIS IS HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE. HE WILL BE HERE IN FLORIDA NINE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR AND IN SAN DIEGO THREE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR. THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING

THE HOUSE. >>ANDREA: IS MR. OLSON, ANY PART OF THE FAMILY THAT MAKE PUTTERS? MANUFACTURERS PUTTER AS SOON AS BECAUSE I ONLY ASK THAT BECAUSE OLSON.

AND I SEE THE -- THE GOLF SIMULATOR IN THE BUILDING.

SO I HAD TO ASK YOU. YOU KNOW, THEY MAKE REALLY NICE 200 PUTTER. SO --

I KIND OF TAKEN YOU OFF TRACK. >> I WANT TO REITERATE THE FACT IT IS NOT A RENTAL PROPERTY AND PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND NO BUSINESS WILL BE RUNNING OUT OF HERE.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THAT -- I WILL SPEAK FOR THE ENTIRE BOARD. THAT THE BOARD HAS WHEN WE SEE A DESIGN ELEMENT SUCH AS THIS COME IN.

AND FORT PIERCE REALLY STRUGGLES WITH VACATION RENTALS FOR A LONG TIME. AND WE FINALLY WORKED THROUGH AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SYSTEM THAT SEEMS TO BE WORKING OKAY.

I MIGHT HEAR TODAY FROM OUR RESIDENTS SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE THAT IT IS NOT, BUT I THINK IT IS.

SO YOU -- YOU MUST UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE SEE THIS KIND OF A DESIGN ELEMENT, THAT IS THE FIRST THING WE SEE IN BOLD LETTERS REGARDLESS OF WHAT SOMEBODY TELLS ME.

AND WE HAVE TO DO OUR BEST TO PROTECT THE CITIZENRY OF THIS CITY. AS THE COMMISSION DOES.

AND -- SO, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT REALLY BECAME A HOT BUTTON IN MY MIND. BECAUSE I LIVED THROUGH ALL THOSE VERY DIFFICULT MEETINGS. CHAIRED MANY OF THEM.

SOME OF MY BOARD MEMBERS TODAY WERE NOT ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME SO THEY DON'T HAVE THAT SAME TASTE IN THEIR MOUTH THAT I DO. SO I HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COMMENTS ARE COMING FROM.

AND I AM NOT TRYING TO BE NEGATIVE AND IT MAY BE, AS I SAID, THE PERSON BUILDS THIS HOME.

[01:15:04]

BUT WHO KNOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WHEN SOMEONE ELSE COMES IN AND BUYER THIS HOUSE, SIR.

AND SO -- THAT IS MY CONCERN. AND I THINK AT THIS STATE IT PRETTY CLEAR. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD?

>>? NO, I THINK SO THAT IS IS IT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I WILL GIVE EITHER OF YOU TWO GENTLEMAN AN OPPORTUNITY REBUT. AND I AM GOING TO OPEN UP NOW TO THE BALANCE OF THE COMMUNITY. AND WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK THE COMMUNITY TO DO, IF SOMEONE HAS COME UP AND SAID WHAT YOU WANTED TO SAY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME UP AND REHASH IT.

IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW, COME UP FOR INTEREST OF TIME.

I AM GOING TO GIVE EACH SPEAKER THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL THAT IS -- HAS A HEARING ISSUE. AND I WOULD -- I WOULD BE GENEROUS AND OFFER AS MUCH AS FIVE MINUTES IN THAT CASE.

BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, I TRY TO KEEP MY SPEAKERS TO THREE MINUTES. AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO HERE NOW. SO THE BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC MEETING IS OPEN. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, COME FORWARD, PLEASE. STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.

>> MY NAME IS CHARLES BECK. I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPOSAL. AT 001 SURFSIDE.

IT OCCURS TO ME THAT MOST OF THE ISSUES BROUGHT UP TODAY CAN BE ELIMINATED OR COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN ABOUT IF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS DENIED TO ALLOW THIS HOUSE TO SPREAD ON TO TWO LOTS. IF THE HOUSE SETBACKS WERE ENFORCED AS THEY ARE IMPLIED, THAT EACH LOT, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE WORRIED ABOUT A AIRBNB. WE WOULDN'T HAVE A 35-FOOT WALL THAT WILL EXTEND THROUGH AN ENTIRE BLOCK.

IT GOES FROM THE PUBLIC -- THE COCONUT GROVE PARK THAT THERE WILL BE A WALL -- THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WILL BE THE ENTRANCE TO KEY CONUT DRIVE PARK FOR BEACHGOERS TO THE OTHER PART OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE WALL WILL BE ON THE SURFSIDE PRIVATE BEACH. 35-FOOT WALL.

AS HIGH OF A TENNIS. AND.

THE TWO BLOCKS BLOCK THE BREEZE, THE VIEW AND THE WHOLE REASON TO BE NEAR THE OCEAN. I AM SURE THAT IS IN LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES. I WANT TO POINT OUT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ON SOUTH SIDE DRIVE TO JOIN TWO LOTS AS THIS PROPOSAL WILL OPEN THE FLOODGATES FOR TWO OR THREE MORE THAT RUMORS THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED ALONG THE BEACH. SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT, AS WELL AS ALL THESE AIRBNBS, SUGGESTION AND SUSPICIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SIR, YOU LIVE AT THE END OF SURFSIDE DRIVE AND YOUR HOUSE IS YELLOW.

>> ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPOSED PROPERTY.

2001 SURFSIDE DRIVE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THE

MAXIMUM SIDE. >> MINE IS A TWO-STORY HOUSE AND ON THE LEVEL. 35 FEET.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF.

>> TWO STORY HOUSE. EIGHT FEET.

16 FEET TO THE ATTIC, MAYBE 28 FEET TALL.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WHEN I LOOKED AT IT TODAY, IT LOOKED

LIKE 30 FEET. >> IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS AND BUILT ON GRADE LEVEL AND ONLY TWO STORIES TALL.

A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE LIGHT OF THE TELEPHONE POLE 35 FEET. THIS IS --

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: HOW LONG HAS YOUR HOUSE BEEN THERE?

>> I REALLY CAN'T TELL YOU. I SHOULD REMEMBER, BUT IN THE LATE '70S IT WAS BUILT. I BOUGHT IT IN 1989, I BELIEVE.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ALONG SURFSIDE, WE HAVE SEVERAL NEW HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS.

ONE OF TWO OF THOSE IS PEEK PEAKING -- PEAKING SOMEWHERE

BETWEEN 32, 33 FEET. >>VENNIS GILMORE: NOT R- B

BUT R-4-A. >> TWO NEW HOUSES.

ONE ON THE WEST AND ONE ON THE EAST SIDE THAT HAS 30-FEET ELEVATION. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THEY ARE TRADITIONAL APPEARING HOMES.

[01:20:02]

ESSENTIALLY A WALL. BOTH SIDES, NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ALSO A BLANK WALL. SO NOT A PARTICULAR APPEALING THING NO MATTER WHAT DO YOU WITH LANDSCAPING, IT DOESN'T FIT IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS ONE OF THE ISSUES ON THIS APPROVAL THAT IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU WILL FIND NOTHING LIKE THAT. ALSO, THERE IS NO -- THERE HAS BEEN NO PREVIOUS CONTINUANCE THAT ALLOWS TWO LOTS TO COME TOGETHER. AND I AM AFRAID THAT WILL OPEN THE DOOR FOR AT LEAST TWO OR THREE DEVELOPMENTS ON VACANT

PROPERTIES ON THE BEACH. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: IS SURFSIDE AN OFFICIAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION?

>> YES, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE WHOLE LEGALITIES, BUT THE SURFSIDE ASSOCIATION HAS ITS OWN BEACH AND I AM SURE THERE IS AN THAT PROPERTY. ATION THAT HOLDS- FOUR LOTS OF THE PRIVATE BEACH FOR SURFSIDE AS WELL AS THE COCONUT DRIVE BEACH THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE FACILITIES. THIS HOME PROPOSE WILL FILL THE GAP BETWEEN THOSE TWO BEACHES. SEND PROVIDE A WALL ON BOTH SIDES. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE ATTRACTIVE. THAT IS MY OBJECTION.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

ANY -- WELL, I DON'T GENERALLY DO THAT ANYWAY.

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS?

>> HELLO, STAN STAN KOWSKI, 2005 COCONUT DRIVE.

NOT TO BE REDUNDANT, BUT BY COMBINING THE TWO LOTS AND THE WAY THIS DESIGN -- THIS IS BASICALLY A BED AND BREAKFAST OR A HOTEL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT RESTRICTIONS YOU CAN PUT ON THAT. BUT FOR THIS OWNER AND PRIOR OWNERS, IT MAY BECOME THIS. THERE WERE SEVEN INDIVIDUAL LOCKABLE SUITES. IT IS CLEARLY A BED AND

BREAKFAST. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS, PLE

PLEASE? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD, I AM KA KAREN NNIEJIDLIK.

2001 SURFSIDE DRIVE. I'M HERE TO READ A STATEMENT FROM OUR NEIGHBOR HAL FEW IT RESIDES AT 2101 COCONUT DRIVE AND UNABLE TO BE NEAR PERSONS. HIS STATEMENT READS.

SURFSIDE ON SOUTH HUTCHINSON ISLAND IS A SMALL RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE MOST RESIDENTS PURCHASED HOMES TO AVOID LARGELY COMMERCIAL PARTS OF FLORIDA. CITY OF FT. PIERCE SHOULD DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO PRESERVE THE ATMOSPHERE AND REPRESENT THE RESIDENTSAY' REQUEST. I NEVER PROPOSED MODEST BUILDING, THIS PROJECT RESEMBLE AS LARGE HOME THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO BE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF SUITES THE PROJECT CAN BE COMMERCIAL RATHER THAN RESIDENTIAL AND WILL BE REQUIRED REZONING.

THIS LOT IS A RESIDENTIAL LOT AND NOT ZONED FOR HOTELS.

THAT BASS HIS STATEMENT. I CURRENTLY RESIDE AT 2001 ACROSS THE STREET. IN THE SUBMITTAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, CONTEXT PHOTOGRAPHS OF NEIGHBORING USES AND ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. HERE IS A PHOTO OF COCONUT PARK NEXT DOOR. IT DOESN'T REALLY GO ALONG WITH THE PLANS FOR A MULTIDWELLING. HERE IS ALSO SEVERAL PICTURES ON THE IPAD OF HOMES IN THE AREA. ALL THESE HOMES ARE MODEST HOMES. MODEST TWO-STORY HOMES, SINGLE-FAMILIES. THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS HERE IS ALSO A PICTURE OF SURFSIDE PARK, NEXT DOOR.

THE PRIVATE ENTRANCE TO THE COMMUNITY.

I HAVE WORKED FOR UPPER HIGH-NOTE INDIVIDUALS FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS. THE FACT THAT THE OWNER SUITE HAS ITS OWN SEPARATE ENTRANCE AND COMPLETELY LOCKED OFF FROM THE SEVEN SUITES SHOW ME THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE PRIMARILY USED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. I DISAGREE WITH THE COMBINATION OF THE TWO LOTS. I THINK IT DEFINITELY DOES NOT GO AND COINCIDE WITH THE NUMBER ARCHITECTURAL STYLES THAT ARE IN

[01:25:04]

THEY WERE -- >> EXCUSE ME, KARA, YOU NEED TO

SPEAK INSPECT MICROPHONE. >> SORRY.

INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY YOU CAN USE THE MICROPHONE RIGHT THERE

AT THE TABLE IF YOU WOULD LIKE. >> SO THIS 2001 SURFSIDE DRIVE.

THIS IS DOWN THE STREET ACROSS FROM THE SURFSIDE COMMUNITY.

THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE '60S.

THE WOMAN WHO IS 94 STILL LIVES THERE AND HAS NO PLANS OF CHANGING HER HOME. THIS IS THE HOME NEXT DOOR TO IT. THIS IS THE HOME ON THE BEACH.

THIS IS THE NEWEST HOME THAT WAS BUILT ON THE BEACH.

THERE ARE NO SURROUNDING WALLS ON EITHER SIDE.

IT IS OPEN. THE BACK IS OPEN.

MY OTHER CONCERN IS HAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BEEN DONE REGARDING THE TURTLES? THE ENTIRE BACK OF THE PROPERTY IS WALLS OF WINDOWS AND AN ENTIRE POOL IN WILL FACE OUT.

IN THE EVENING TO ENTERTAIN YOUR GUESTS, YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE THAT POOL LIT, AS WELL AS YOU ARE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE ALL OF THOSE ON SUITES LIT UP AND THE ENTIRE LIT UP.

HOW DO WE KNOW PEOPLE WILL COME IN AND ABIDE BY THE RULES OF THE TURTLES. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THIS PERSON WILL CLAIM THEY ARE GOING TO NEVER USE IT AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, BUT THEY GIVE IT -- BUT THEY LET THEIR FRIENDS BORROW IT FOR $20 A MONTH?

SO -- >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT, PLE

PLEASE? >> HI, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHARLES SEWIK. 1907 JACARANDA DRIVE.

JUST CLARIFY THE QUESTIN YOU HAD ABOUT SURFSIDE PRIVATE BEACH. THAT PRIVATE BEACH WAS DONATED BY THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND AS LONG AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PAYS THEIR DUES AND TAKES CARE OF THE PROPERTY, THEN THAT PROPERTY STAYS AS PART OF OUR

BEACH. >> SO IT IS BASICALLY AN ASSOCIATION FOR THE PRIVATE BEACH ACCESS?

>> EXACTLY. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: NOT A

HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, PER SE. >> TO THAT SUBJECT MOST OF US WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GO IN THE EVENING TO ENJOY THE BEACH AND SO FORTH. THERE IT IS A HOTEL COMPARED TO OUR HUMBLE ABODE RIGHT THERE OVERHANGING OUR LOT.

OR OVER ON THE BEACH, AS WELL AS THE PERSON TALKED ABOUT THE POOL AND EVERYTHING AT THE BEACH. ALL THAT NOISE WHEN YOU GO OVER THERE. IF THERE ARE SEVEN BEDROOMS, THERE WILL BE HOW MANY PEOPLE STAYING THERE, LIGHTS, EVERYTHING, BASICALLY IT WILL RUIN OUR PRIVATE BEACH THERE.

IT IS A QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THE PEOPLE SAID.

WE HAVE SMALL -- MOST OF US THAT DON'T LIVE BY THE BEACH THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE SMALL HOMES.

SO I THINK -- ONE LAST POINT I HAD WAS ABOUT FLOODING.

WHEN WE HAVE KING TIDES OR HEAVY RAINS, OUR PARKING LOT ALREADY FLOODS. THAT WHOLE STREET FLOODS.

YOU ADD IN ALL THAT ROOFING IN THAT AREA, ALL THIS WATER HAS GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE. BACK INTO THE STREET AND BACK IN THE PARKING LOT TO MAKE IT WOORS TO WADE THROUGH TO GET TO THE BEACH. AL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY, THANK YOU.

YOU ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO TH

THIS? >> HI, TOM RAGGER.

1909 VAL VISTA DRIVE. OUR PRIVATE BEACH IS RIGHT THERE. THAT WILL TAKE AWAY FROM OUR PRIVACY FOR -- FOR GOING TO THE BEACH.

AND WHERE THERE ARE SEVEN BEDROOMS, WHERE -- WHERE IS THE PARKING FOR THEM? WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK? TAKE UP ALL THE PARKING LOT FOR THE COCONUT PARKING LOT THERE? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FIT ALL THOSE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY THINK THEY ARE KIDDING.

THIS IS NOT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

THAT SHOULD DISQUALIFY -- WRITING THAT ON THERE IS A FALSEHOOD TO ME. I BOUGHT -- WE BOUGHT OUR HOUSE IN 2013. WE RENT IT OUT -- LAW, SAID YOU HAD A MINIMUM OF SIX MONTH RENTAL.

WE RENT OURS OUT ANNUALLY. IN FACT I HAD TO COME -- FLY

[01:30:01]

WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE. I BOUGHT THE PLACE TO RETIRE.

WE MOVED DOWN HERE IN 2017 TO RETIRE.

TO HAVE A NICE PLACE. THAT IS WHY WE BOUGHT IT.

NOW I AM GOING TO GO TO THE BEACH AND THERE IS GOING TO BE A HOTEL THERE? I THINK IT IS BS.

THANK YOU. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I THINK THAT UNIT ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU BECAME A PARTY HOUSE, SO TO

SPEAK? >> ACTUALLY IT GOT SOLD AND WE

HAVE GOOD NEIGHBORS THERE NOW. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS? LAST CALL.

I WILL GIFT APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> MIKE CAN SEAL, ARCHITECT OF THE PROJECT.

I GET THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THE WAY THE BUILDING IS DESIGNED. TO START, THE OWNERS CHOSE THIS SITE FOR PRIVACY, FOR QUIETNESS, YOU KNOW, TO GET -- TO HAVE THE SECLUSION OF LIVING THEIR LIFE ON THE BEACH.

IT IS AT THE END OF THE STREET. IT IS SETBACK OFF THE STREET.

YOU KNOW, THEY, TOO, ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR THEIR PRIVACY.

GUILT THROUGH ALL OF THESE AS THEY KIND OF CAME UP.

THE ORIENTATION -- AND INTENTION OF THE SUITES.

THESE CLIENTS AND THE SEPARATION OF THE OWNER SUITE.

YOU KNOW, I CAN GO BACK AND CALL THESE BEDROOMS FOR THEIR GUESTS TO STAY IN. WE CALL THEM SUITES BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE ELABORATE. THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE FRIENDS COME VISIT THEM. THOSE VISITORS ALSO WANT TO THEIR PRIVACY. SO THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THESE SUITES WHERE VISITORS A AND GUESTS CAN COME STAY WITH THEM.

IF THEY DON'T WANT TO HANG WITH THEM FOR THE DAY, THEY CAN STAY ON THEIR ROOM. ENJOY THE BEACH.

THE LAYOUT OF THE BEDROOMS LINEAR ACROSS THE SITE ALLOWS FOR EVERY GUEST TO BE STAYING WITH THEM TO HAVE A VIEW OCEAN.

THERE IS REALLY NO OTHER WAY TO DESIGN A BUILDING LIKE THAT AND HAVE THAT HAPPEN UNLESS YOU BUILD A TOWER.

SO THAT'S WHY IT IS LAID OUT THAT WAY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE -- LIKE A HOTEL WITH BEACHFRONT ACCESS. YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY GETS A VIEW OCEAN. ALL RIGHT.

THE MASSIVENESS OF THE HOUSE TO ADDRESS THAT.

THE GROUND FLOOR DOES DIG BACK INTO THAT KIND OF FALSE DUNE IN FRONT OF THE DUNE. THAT IS A WALL -- I WOULD SAY THAT WALL IS APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET TALL AND COVERS THE GROUND FLOOR AND THE GARAGES. AS IT RETREATS BACK INTO -- TOWARD THE DUNE, IT WILL GET LOWER BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE GRADE. PRESIDENT UPPER TWO FLOORS WHICH COMPRISES OF THE LIVING SPACES IN THE BEDROOMS, THAT IS AROUND 50 FEET DEEP, WHICH IS ABOUT WHAT A HOUSE IS DEPTH WIDE.

50 X 50 HOUSE. 50 FEET DEEP.

WE DON'T HAVE 150-FOOT WALL GOING BACK TOWARD THE BEACH.

DEALING WITH WINDOWS. THERE ARE MULTIPLE WINDOWS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDINGS, THE WINDOWS ARE LIMITED THERE.

ON THE SOUTH SIDE PRIMARILY FOR HEAT EX-MOWTURE SO THE BUILDING DOESN'T GET HEAT GAIN AND DON'T HAVE TO HAVE GIANT AIR CONDITIONERS. THE WEST SIDE, IT DOES HAVE PLENTY OF WINDOWS. IT IS LIMITED FOR PRIVACY.

THE NORTH SIDE DOES HAVE A LACK OF WINDOWS, FULL.

THAT IS TO PROVIDE PRIVACY FROM THE PUBLIC BEACH THAT IS THERE -- THE PRIVATE BEACH THAT IS THERE ON THAT SIDE.

TO BE CLEAR, THE CONDITIONAL USE IS NOT FOR A COMBINATION OF THE LOTS. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WE ARE ALLOWED TO COMBINE LOTS. THAT IS GOING THROUGH CURRENTLY UNITY OF TITLE THROUGH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE.

[01:35:01]

THIS IS PRIVATE RESIDENCE WITH A VERY LARGE HOUSE.

AND IT IS INTENDED TO BE THAT WAY.

WITH REGARD TO TORO LIGHTING. EVERY PROJECT HAS TO ABIDE BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROTECTION.

TURTLE LIGHTING HAVE TO BE INTEGRATED IN THE DESIGN AND PRESENTED TO FDEP. BUILDING DEPARTMENT WILL NOT GRANT A BUILDING WITHOUT FDEP APPROVAL.

THAT WILL BE ADDRESS WEFRD HOUSE DESIGNED AND EVERY HOUSE ON THE BEACH. WHETHER IT IS COLOR OF LIGHTS OR TIME OF YEAR LIGHTS WHERE THEY ARE SHUT OFF AND MINIMAL LIGHTS ARE PROVIDED TO ACCOMMODATE SAFETY AND DISTINCTIONS.

RETENTION AND RAIN BE WATER ISS ISSUES. WE HAVE CIVIL ENGINEERS FOR THE PROJECT THAT WILL DESIGN THE PROJECT ACCORDING ALL BUILDING CODES FOR RETENTION AND WATER RUNOFF.

PARKING FOR THE BEDROOMS, SIX GARAGE DOORS.

AND THE GARAGES ARE DOUBLE CAR DEPTH, SO THERE IS PLENTY OF PARKING FOR THIS -- FOR THE HOMEHOMEOWNERS AND THEIR GUESTS TO COME VISIT. BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS SO SET BACK FAR FROM THE STREET PLENTY OF PARKING ON THE DRIVEWAY AS WELL.

AND THE LAST ONE. IT IS NOT A HOTEL.

IT IS NOT A BED AND BREAKFAST. IT IS A PRIVATE RESIDENCE.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AT THIS TIME, AND BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY

FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >> I LIKE THE COMMENT ABOUT THE -- THE SEVEN BEDROOMS OR SUITES, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO ADDRESS IT.

ABOUT THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO, I WORKED ON A HOUSE THAT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE -- WELL, YOU CAN'T SEE OFF I-95.

IF IF CAUGHT MYSELF DOING CONSTRUCTION BEFORE BUT ANYHOO, IT HAD -- I WANT TO SAY EIGHT OR NINE ROOMS, AND THEY ALL WERE SUITES. THEY HAD TWO KITCHENS, ONE ON THE BOTTOM. ONE ON THE TOP.

AND I WANT TO SAY IT WAS A MAXIMUM OF FIVE PEOPLE LIVING IN THERE. AND THEY WANTED TO HAVE SPACE.

SO IF -- IF THE SON HAD A FRIEND OVER, THAT FRIEND CAN STAY IN ONE OF THOSE ROOMS NEXT TO THE SON -- IF THE DAUGHTER HAD A FRIEND OVER, THAT FRIEND CAN STAY NEXT TO THE DAUGHTER.

THEY EACH HAD THEIR OWN BATHROOMS AND SHOWERS.

THE OTHER THREE ADULTS PARTICIPATE IN THERE -- IT WAS A FAMILY THAT LIVED IN IT. THE -- THE OWNER -- OWNER OF THE HOUSE, THE ONE BRINGING IN THE MOST MONEY, HER ROOM PROBABLY TWICE IN SIZE OF MY OWN PERSONAL HOUSE.

THAT IS HOW MUCH SPACE SHE HAD. WALK-IN CLOSETS.

TWO BATHROOMS FOR WHATEVER REASON.

AN OFFICE. THE MOTHER AND FATHER-IN-LAW HAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPACE AS WELL.

AND THE SISTER HAD THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPACE AS WELL.

THEY ALSO INCLUDED KITCHENETTES WITHIN THAT UNIT.

SO TO -- I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION IN THE INQUIRIES OF EVERYBODY THAT IS STATING THAT IT POTENTIALLY COULD BE AN AIRBNB, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, PEOPLE HAVE FAMILIES JUST LIKE YOU DO. SO FOR ANYONE TO RULE OUT OR TO.

FALSE ACCUSE AND SAY THAT ME OR YOU THAT IS TRYING TO SET UP A LIFE FOR YOUR FAMILY, THAT YOU ARE JUST GOING TO PIMP OUT YOUR HOUSE WHEN THAT IS NOT THE CASE, YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO SET UP A LONG-TIME FUTURE, WHICH IN THAT LOCATION, THERE IS NOT A LOT GOING ON ON HUTCHINSON ISLAND AS WE ALREADY KNOW.

EVERYTHING IS LOCATED BY THE JETTY.

AND FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN, TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT IS OFF TO THE -- TO THE SIDE, THAT IS NOT NEAR ANYTHING.

YES, I GET IT. IT IS BIG.

IT IS HUGE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS -- I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS -- IT IS GOING TO BE AN AIRBNB AS THE GUY -- SORRY, THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED THAT, YOU KNOW, CONCERNING TURTLES.

CONCERNING PARKING. AND EVERYTHING WAS ADDRESSED.

[01:40:02]

YOU KNOW. THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

AND IF SOMEONE HAS THE CAPITAL TO BUILD THAT FOR THEIR FAMILY AS IF YOU HAD THE CAPITAL TO BUILD THAT FOR YOUR FAMILY, YOU WOULD DO IT THE SAME WAY TOO. IT IS YOUR LAND.

IT IS WITHIN EVERYTHING THAT IS REQ REQUIRED. SO --

>> CAN YOU PULL THE PICTURE AGAIN FOR ME, PLEASE?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: THE RENDERING? >>.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY THAT IS

SURFSIDE VIEW. >> FOR ME -- I WASN'T SURE IF YOU FELL ASLEEP THERE. I JUST WANT TO SAY -- I UNDERSTAND THAT -- THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA ARE COMING FROM; HOWEVER, WITH THAT SAID, IF YOU LOOK AT SURFSIDE.

I DROVE DOWN THERE SEVERAL TIMES.

YOU HAVE CONDO ON ONE END OF SURFSIDE.

AND CONDOS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SURFSIDE AND IN BETWEEN ON THE OCEANSIDE OF SURFSIDE, HOUSES THAT ARE THERE INCLUDING THREE-STORY HOUSES. TWO THREE-STORY HOUSE THERE IS.

AND THEY ARE NEW. SO THE ONLY THING THAT I THINK IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING THERE INCLUDING THE CONDOS THAT SOMEBODY SAYS DOESN'T LOOK IT FITS IN THAT AREA. THAT IS MORE BEAUTIFUL BUILDING THAN THOSE CONDOS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FROM THE '70S.

YOU CAN THROW A ROCK FROM THE GENTLEMAN'S HOUSE FROM THE YELLOW. COULD YOU THROW A ROCK AND HIT ONE OF THOSE CONDOS. I KNOW I COULD.

I DROVE OVER THERE. AND IT IS JUST A FENCE STOPPING FROM YOU GETTING INTO A CONDO AREA.

SO THAT IS REALLY A LOT MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN A -- THE CONDOS UP THERE RIGHT NOW. THE LIGHTNING, THE HEIGHT.

AND BEING ON THE WATER SIDE IS ALL BEING DONE ALREADY.

SO I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE AT ALL WITH ANY OF THIS STUFF THAT IS BEING DONE HERE. IF ANYTHING, IT IS BEAUTIFUL.

AND AS LONG AS THEY STAY WITH WHAT THEY SAY THEY ARE DOING, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A LEG A STAND O

ON. >>ULINE DANIELS: COULD WE HAVE SOMETHING ON THE DEED THAT MENTIONED THEY CAN NOT EVEN -- SOMEBODY ELSE BUY IT -- THEY ARE CALLING IT LIKE --

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: A CONDITIONS THAT COULD BE A FIX THAT WOULD NOT PERMIT AIRBNB, BED AND BREAKFAST, ROOMING HOUSE, RENTAL OF ROOMS, AS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT WE CAN AD ADD.

THIS PROPERTY IS -- IS FROM GRADE LEVEL IS 46 FEET, 10 INCHES HIGH, THAT ISN'T INCLUDING THE -- THE ELEVATOR SHAFT ON THE -- ON THE OBSERVATION DECK ON THE ROOF OF THE HOME. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE HE WILL VARIETY SHAFT BEING THAT IT IS NOT PART OF A LIVING QUARTERS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE HEIGHT CALCULATIONS.

SO YOU WOULD PULL TEN FEET, SEVEN INCHES OFF OF THAT AND PUTS IT AT 39 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING.

AND I AM LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS HERE.

THERE ARE WINDOWS, A LOT OF WINDOWS ON THE SURFSIDE OF THIS BUILDING. THERE ARE WINDOWS ON THE -- ON THE EAST SIDE ON THE BEACH SIDE VERY FEW WINDOWS ON THE END.

ON THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY, A SPECIAL IF I OCCASION OF THE NUMBER OF WINDOWS ON EACH OF THE FOUR WALLS OF THE STRUCTURE.

DOES THIS MEET THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY ON THE SOUTH AND NORTH SIDE WALLS ON THIS EXTERIOR STRUCTURE?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: I AM NOT SURE TO THAT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: TO THE WINDOWS.

I AGREE RIGHT NEXT DOOR ON OCEANSIDE OR OCEAN VILLAGE.

[01:45:05]

YOU REFERRED TO IT THE DEAD ENT OF THE STREET.

>> THERE ARE CONDOS. >> NEXT TO THIS SPOT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I LOOK AT THE LOCATION AND I LOOK AT SCALE OF THOSE BUILDINGS, BUT I STILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK BACK TO THE SOUTH PINEAPPLE PARK. YOU LOOK AT THE SCALE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS BUILDING DOESN'T GO INTO THE SCALE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW DO YOU GO ABOUT COMBINING THE TWO LOTS TOGETHER. THE COMBINATION OF TWO LOTS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES. HOW DOES -- IN OUR CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT, HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: SO THE LOT COMBINATION IS THROUGH THE ST.

LUCIE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER AND THE UNIT OF TITLE THROUGHOUT

ST. LUCIE CLERK OF COURT HE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THEY HAVE

A UNITY OF TITLE. >>VENNIS GILMORE: AND A LOT

COMBINATION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ON THIS PROPERTY. THE COMBINING OF THOSE TWO LOTS WAS DOWN THROUGH THE COUNTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: YES, HAPPENS ALL OVER THE CITY.

WE STAPLES GET NOTIFIED OF THAT AS A CODE.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: WE ARE SOMETIMES ASKED IF THAT MEET.

WE CAN'T PREVENT OF THE LOT COMBINATION.

PEOPLE IF THEY OWN LOTS ARE FREE.

IT IS THEIR PROPERTY TO COMBINE LOTS WHEREVER THEY ARE ABLE TO DO THAT. PROVIDING THEY MEET THE

UNDERLYING ZONING. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: ALWAYS IS DONE -- IT IS ALWAYS DONE THROUGH THE -- THROUG THE

APPRAISER'S OFFICE? >>KEVIN FREEMAN: THAT IS THE RECOGNITION. WE ALL CONSORTED BEFORE IT BECAUSE THE LOT SIZE DOES NOT MEET THE ZONING REQUIREMENT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE PROBABLY WERE CONSULTED AT SOME

POINT. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: BECAUSE IT IS PROBABLY SO LARGE. WOULD NOT RAISE ALARM BECAUSE THE RESULTING LOT WILL QUITE EASILY MEET THE R-2 ZONING

DISTRICT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: INTO THE R-2 ZONE WHICH IS THE ZONE DISTRICT FOR SURFSIDE.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: YES. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: MAJORITY OF SURFSIDE. OKAY.

IN TERMS OF THE LOT -- COMBINING OF THE TWO LOTS.

THAT IS DONE. THAT IS OVER.

A DEAD ISSUE AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED.

WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER IT. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: IT IS A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE. WE DO NOT CONTROL A PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHT TO COMBINE LOTS. WE WOULD BE PRONG TO DO THAT INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY WHEN WE TALK PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS.

CERTAINLY THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO USE THIS PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-2 ZONING AND BUILD THIS BUILDING.

THE ONLY REASON IT IS HERE FOR CONDITIONAL USE IS THE HEIGHT RESTR RESTRICTION.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: CORRECT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I AM A FAN OF PROPERTY RIGHTS; HOWEVER, I DRAW A LINE -- NOT A BIG WHITE LINE, NOT A RED LINE. FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA TALKED OF A RED LINE. I DON'T LIKE RED LINES BECAUSE THEY DON'T ALWAYS WORK. BUT I DRAW A LINE WITH PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ONE OWNER INFRINGES IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF ANOTHER OWNER.

NOW, HOW DO WE DRAW THAT LINE AND HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT LINE? IT IS VERY, VERY BLURRY.

AND THAT IS WHY IT CAN'T BE A BIG DARK LINE.

IT HAS GOT TO BE A BLURRY LINE. I CAN APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEIR CONCERN ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS IN

[01:50:02]

AND I THINK IF I LIVE AS A NEIGHBOR TO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, I WOULDN'T BE VERY HAPPY WITH IT EITHER.

BUT IT MEETS ALL THE ORDINANCES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HEIGHT.

AND YOU ARE GOING TO CHECK TO SEE IF THIS DISCUSSION OF WINDOWS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THIS BUILDING.

>>VENNIS GILMORE: SO THERE IS NO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR -- UNDER THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

AND I PULLED IT UP ON THE -- >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: NO ORDINANCE TO DICTATE WHEN THEY ARE TO MR. IT.

>>VENNIS GILMORE: NOT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY.

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: FURTHER RESTRICTED BY STATE STATUTE WHICH UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIFIC DESIGN OVERLAYS ADOPTED BY THE MUNICIPALITY, WE SHOULD NOT -- WE CAN NOT DESIGN SINGLE-FAMILY OR DUPLEX ACCOMMODATION. THAT IS STATE STATUTE.

IF IT IS CLASSED AS SINGLE-FAMILY, WE HAVE TO STEP AWAY FROM THE DESIGN AND LOOK AT THE ISSUE WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT, CHAIR WHICH IS THE HEIGHT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SO THE LAYMAN'S DEPOSIT ANYTHING TO THAT OR LOOK AT THIS FROM THE LAYMAN'S SIDE, THE STATE HAS TAKEN THE ABILITY OF MUNICIPALITIES AWAY FROM US TO GET INVOLVED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ON

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE DON'T HAVE ORDINANCES ALREADY IN PLACE

AS GUIDELINES. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: CORRECT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: IF THERE IS NO ORDINANCE WE CAN'T DICTATE WINDOW SIZES ARE ARE HOW MANY WINDOWS.

IF IT IS NOT IN THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY.

WE CAN'T DICTATE IT AND SAY WE WANT SIX WINDOWS IN THE SOUTH SIDE AND EIGHT WINDOWS IN THE NORTH SIDE.

WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM US.

KEV YES. CHAIR, THE ONLY WAY THAT IS CONTROLLED FROM THAT EXTENT WILL BE FROM THE BUILDING REGULATIONS POINT OF VIEW WHERE THEY ARE LOOKING AT HEAT LOSS AND SO FORTH. I BELIEVE.

INSULATION AND THERMAL LOSS OR GAIN.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THE -- IN TERMS OF LIGHTING, THAT IS ALL HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PRO PROTECTION CONCERNING LIGHTING, CONTAMINATION ON THE BEACH, AND IN CONSIDERATION TO OUR TORTOISES?

>>KEVIN FREEMAN: YES, CORRECT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: HAS TO BE DONE WITH THE SPECIAL REGULATIONS.

THE STATE ISSUE AS PERMIT IN THAT REGARD.

WITH PERMIT IN HAND, THE BUILDER CAN GO TO THE CITY AND GET A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD THAT BUILDING.

SO THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD NOR OUR CITY COMMISSION CAN PROBABLY GET INTO.

SO THAT IS TAKEN AWAY FROM US. AND I AM GOING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE, AND I KNOW I AM NOT GOING TO SATISFY THE RESIDENTS OF SURFSIDE NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS.

BUT I AM GOING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN THIS BOARD MAKES A MOTION, AND IF IT IS A MOTION THAT YOU ARE NOT HAPPY WITH, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT MOTION WAS PROBABLY MADE BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON THIS BOARD TO BE ABLE TO FUNCTION IN A CERTAIN WAY. ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE GOT HERE, ALL CIRCLES BACK AROUND IN A BIG CIRCLE, ROBIN'S HOOD BARN AND COMES BACK TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

SO THE ONLY THING HERE IS HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.

AND THE FEMA HIGH WATER LINE, I THINK IT IS CALLED SOMETHING OF HA THAT NATURE DICTATES SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF EIGHT TO NINE FEET TO THE FIRST LIVING FLOOR.

AND DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS, BUT I AM GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS EIGHT FEET, 13 INCHES OR SLIGHTLY MORE THAN THAT TO THE FIRST LIVING FLOOR AND FROM THAT POINT TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY THE DIMENSION THAT WE CAN WORK WITH. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE GRADE LEVEL TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING ISN'T REALLY OUR CONSIDERATION HERE. SO IT IS ACTUALLY THE 39 FEET THAT IS OUR CONSIDERATION. NOT THE 36 FEET, 10 INCHES, BUT

[01:55:07]

AND WHAT HIS POINT WAS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE HOMES THAT WERE COMING INTO US FOR CONDITIONAL USE DIDN'T NEED TO COME TO US FOR CONDITIONAL USE BECAUSE THE ELEVATION POINT TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING IS MEASURED FROM THE FEMA LINE, NOT GRADE LEVEL.

AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, IF MY NUMBERS HERE ARE ROUND NUMBERS, IN THE RIGHT FIELD, THIS BUILDING DIDN'T REALLY NEED TO COME TO US FOR CONDITIONAL USE EITHER.

UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING THAT I AM NOT READING RIGHT ON THIS

DRAWING. >>VENNIS GILMORE: WELL THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE IN R-2 IS 28

FEET. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: FROM THE

FEMA FLOOD LINE. >>VENNIS GILMORE: CORRECT.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I AM LOOKING AT THIS AND SAYING GRADE LEVEL IS NOT THE FEMA FLOOD LINE, IS IT?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: NO. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WHAT IS THE ELEVATION FROM THE STREET ELEVATION TO THE ENTRANCE INTO THE GARAGES? WOULD THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP, PLEASE. FROM STREET ELEVATION TO ELEVATION GOING INTO THE GARAGE, WHAT IS THAT ELEVATION CHANGE?

>> MIKE SEAL. GOES -- THE -- THE ELEVATION GARAGE IS ABOUT THE STREET LEVEL.

TO CLARIFY, BASE FLOOD ELEVATION IS ABOUT FOUR FEET ABOVE THE STREET ON THIS SITE. SO THAT'S WHERE WE START OUR

MEASUREMENT FROM. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WHAT IS

THE ELEVATION OF THE STREET? >> WE ARE CALLING THAT

NEGATIVE 4 FROM BASE FLOOD. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ELEVATION IS.

IT COULD BE 1.5 FEET OVER SEA LEVEL, RIGHT?

>> YEAH. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: NOT VERY MUCH. I KIND OF WALKED THAT AND I WAS TRYING TO PICTURE FROM -- FROM THE TIDE LEVEL AT 8:00 THIS MORNING OR SO TO THE STREET WHAT THAT HE WILL VATHS CHANGE WAS, BUT IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN -- ELEVATION CHANGE WAS.

BUT IT COULDN'T BE MORE THAN FOOT AND A HALF TO TWO FEET AT MOST. YOU HAVE THE GARAGE IS THREE FEET FROM GROUND LEVEL. AND WE ADD FOUR FEET TO THAT.

IF YOUR GRADE IS FROM -- SO I GET -- I GET TO ADD IF YOU WERE FEET TO THE TOP OF THE FEMA LINE.

>> THE WAY WE HAVE IT CALCULATED OUT.

IF WE CALL THE STREET NEGATIVE 4.

AND OF FEMA'S BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, WE CALL THAT 0.

NEGATIVE 4 UP TO ZERO IS OUR BASE FLOOD AND WHERE WE START OUR HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FROM. 35 FEET.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I SEE 13,8 TO THE -- WHAT YOU ARE CALLING THE SECOND FLOOR. 13, 8, LESS 4 IS 9, 8.

AND THEN YOU HAVE GOT 9, 8. SO IF WE -- IF WE TAKE NINE FEET OFF OF THE 30 -- THE 39, THAT PUTS US AT 30 FEET.

>> AT 28. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WHAT?

>> THE ORDINANCE SAYS 28. SO STILL TWO FEET OVER.

>> TWO FEET OVER. SO THEY STILL NEED TO COME BACK

HERE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY, THE TWO FEET IS WHAT IS CAUSING THE TRIGGER FOR CONDITIONAL USE?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: CORRECT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THE SOUTH

[02:00:02]

BEACH OVERLAY IS 28 FEET. >> FOR R-2 IS 28 FEET.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SOMEWHERE IN THIS PILE OF STUFF THAT I HAVE GOT THAT I HAVE SHUFFLED UP, I HAVE GOT 28 FEET WRITTEN DOWN. SO WE ARE APPROXIMATELY TWO FEET OVER. BECAUSE WE HAVE GOT TO WORK OFF

THE FEMA LINE, CORRECT? >> CORRECT INTERCOASTAL WATERWAY 48 FEET, 10 INCHES IS A NONISSUE.

A NONDISCUSSION POINT BECAUSE IT IS OFF OF GRADE WHICH IS -- WHICH IS FEMA LESS TWO FEET -- OR FEMA LESS FOUR FEET ON YOUR

CALCULATIONS. >>VENNIS GILMORE: WE ARE AT 35 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS WHAT WE HAVE FROM BASE FLOOD.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: FROM BASE FLOOD.

>>VENNIS GILMORE: SEVEN FEET OVER THE 28.

HAND THIS IS WHAT THE -- >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: AND THE

ELEVATOR SHAFT IS ABOVE THAT? >>VENNIS GILMORE: IT IS SEVEN

FOOT, TEN INCHES ABOVE THAT. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THAT IS

NONRESIDENTIAL. >>VENNIS GILMORE: UTILITY SPACE TO ALLOW THE ELEVATOR TO COME UP AND DROP YOU OFF AT THE TOP

FLOOR. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SEVEN FEET, TEN INCHES IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ELEVATION THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT ON ORDINANCE. THAT IS NONEXISTENT.

WE TAKE THAT RIGHT OUT OF THE PICTURE.

OKAY. THE DECK HEIGHT IS 31, 6 ON THE

TOP? >>VENNIS GILMORE: YEAH, THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, YEAH. THE OBSERVATION DECK.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THE FACADE WALLS TO ENCLOSE THE DECK DRIVING YOU UP -- WHAT YOU ARE SHOWING ON THE DRAWING IS 35

FEET. >> 35 FEET.

THAT IS THE TOP OF THE ROOF. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS

WHAT WE ARE KEEPING UNDER. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I JUST DID THERE.

[LAUGHTER] >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: ARE YOU

SATISFIED? >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I WANTED TO VERIFY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN HEIGHT HERE.

AGAIN, I THINK -- AND KEVIN MENTION TO ME THIS MORNING, HE SAID I THINK THAT THE SOME OF THE DRAWINGS ARE CONFUSING BECAUSE SO MUCH DETAIL ADDED INTO IT 3737 AND, YEAH, I AM AN ENGINEER TOO. AND I HAVE A TENDENCY TO WANT TO PUT A LOT OF DETAIL IN. AND WHEN I AM WORKING WITH MY HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION WHERE I LIVE, I HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT I NEED TO TAKE SOME OF THAT I DID TAIL OUT, BECAUSE IT JUST GETS TOO MUDDY, TOO CONFUSING, AND -- AND -- OKAY.

I GUESS AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE JUST HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE EXTRA SEVEN FEET.

RIGHT? TWO FEET.

>> SEVEN FEET BY HIS DESIGN. >> 35 FEET.

I WILL TRUST HIM AT THE 35 FEET. THE ONLY REASON WE ARE HERE.

THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE HERE TODAY.

IT IS THE ONLY REASON THAT I CAN THAT IS ATTENDING THIS MEETING EVEN GETS TO TALK ABOUT HOW THEY FEEL OF THE WAY THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO LOOK. SEVEN FEET.

MY QUESTION -- I AM SORRY TO MAKE YOU GUYS STAND UP AGAIN.

DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO DESIGN AN OPTION FOR THE OWNER THAT DID NOT REQUIRE YOU TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY TO ASK PERMISSION FOR THE SEVEN FEET?

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I WILL ALLOW YOU TO STEP FORWARD AGAIN.

>> WE DID. >> YOU DID.

DID THEY HATE IT? > WE COULDN'T GET IT TO WORK.

>>ANTON KREISEL: WERE THEY RUN FOR ANOTHER COUNTY TO BUILD IN.

AN ABOMINATION? >> WE COULDN'T GET THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THEY WANTED UNDER THE ROOF TO FIT WITHIN THE HEIGHTS BECAUSE IT WAS DRIVING FROM THE DUNE.

WE COULD HAVE MADE A WORK IF THEIR MAIN LIVING FLOOR, THE SECOND FLOOR WAS LOWER THAN THE DUNE HEIGHT.

SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE RAISED THAT MAIN FLOOR TO ABOUT T THE DUNE HEIGHT. WHEN YOU ARE ON THE MAIN LIVING FLOOR, YOU CAN LOOK OUT AND SEAT BEACH.

OTHERWISE, YOU WOULD BE BELOW, YOU KNOW -- STANDING BELOW IT.

[02:05:04]

DOESN'T FIT INTO THAT EQUATION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: HAS TO ALL

TO BE SCALE. >> RIGHT.

BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN WITH STRUCTURE AND ALL THE OTHER ENGINEERING THAT GOES IN WITH THAT BUILD, IT DICTATED WHERE WE WENT. AND TO ADD WHILE I'M HERE, APPLYING FOR THIS 35-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT VARIANCE IS NOT UNCOMMON. LIKE I SAID THE NEWER HOUSE THAT WAS SHOWN DOWN THE STREET WAS DESIGNED BY MY FIRM.

WE WERE HERE DOING THE SAME THING ASKING FOR THAT ADDITIONAL SEVEN FEET. SO IT'S -- IT IS DETERMINED BY THE DUNE AND THE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN HEIGHT.

THANK YOU. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: CHAIR, IF I MAY, THIS WHOLE AREA IS WITHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARDS AREA.

AND SHOULD ANY OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND THIS BE DAMAGED OR AFFECTED BY STORM EVENT TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THEIR DAMAGED MORE THAN 50% OF THEIR VALUE, THEY WILL NEED TO BE RECO RECONSTRUCTED A LOT HIGHER THAN THEY WERE ORIGINALLY FIRST

CONSTRUCTED. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: PUSH THAT

FIRST FLOOR UP. >>KEVIN FREEMAN: I WOULD BELIEVE THAT THE THIS BOARD WILL BE DEALING WITH MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS FOR PROPERTIES TO BE RAISED OF WHERE WE STAND WITH THE FLOOD ELEVATION NOW. AND THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THAT FLOOD ELEVATION WILL NOT INCREASE IN THE FUTURE WE ARE SEEING TREMENDOUS PROJECTIONS COMING IN FOR WATERFRONT PROPERTIES HAND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH.

WHAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS TO WORK WITH WHEN WE ARE APPROVING PERMITS. AND EVERYBODY WHO HAS NORTH THEIR I CAN'T WILL BE AFFECTEDER IS RUGSLY -- IF THERE IS A STORM IN THAT AREA. MES IN ON THAT --- WE DON'T WANT THAT OBVIOUSLY, BUT IT COULD HAPPEN AND PEOPLE SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.

>>ULINE DANIELS: CAN I SAY SOMETHING? ABOUT THE RENTAL, AIRBNB, OTHER STUFF.

CAN WE HAVE A CONDITION WHERE WE ASK THE OWNER TO HAVE A DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT EVEN IF THEY SELL IT, WHOEVER BUY IT CANNOT DO IT BECAUSE THEY CALL IT DEED RESTRICTION.

THE OWNER CAN PUT IF IN THERE. CAN WE HAVE A CONDITION LIKE THAT IN THERE? TO HAVE A CONDITION LIKE? THAT WILL BE RESOLVE, THE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE STUFF THAT WE PUT WITH THE RESTRICTION, THE DEED RESTRICTION FROM THE OWNER.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: OR ANY RESTRICTIONS THAT WE MAKE.

ANY CONDITIONS WE MAKE FOLLOW THE PROPERTY.

NOT A DEED RESTRICTION. DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THE DEED AND IN THE CITY GOVERNMENT AND FOLLOWS THAT PROPERTY, THAT ADDRESS. IF WE INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE THAT I READ INTO THE AND TOOLS IN PROPERTY THROUGH OWNERSHIP.

WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE COMPLEXITY OF DEED RESTRICTIONS.

AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT'S CORRECT?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: CORRECT, YES. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: UNLESS THERE IS FURTHER CONVERSATION, I GUESS I ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS. AND I WOULD REMIND THE BOARD THAT I READ INTO THE RECORDS A SUGGESTION FOR A CONDITION TWO

[02:10:05]

>> BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, M MR. GILMORE, I AM SORRY, A SLIDE IN THE PRESENTATION THAT I DIDN'T SEE THAT WAS ONLINE.

I FEEL IT IS THE SECOND PAGE. >>VENNIS GILMORE: THIS ONE? ANTON KREISL THAT IS THE ONE. I WOULD JUST ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE LANGUAGE ON THIS PAGE BEFORE THEY VOTE.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WHERE ARE YOU GOING WITH THIS? [LAUGHTER] IT UP TO THE COMMISSION TO TAKE

UP THIS BATTLE? >> WELL, I THINK THEY ARE GOING

TO ANYWAY, BUT -- >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: KEEPING IN MIND THAT OUR JOB IS TO FULLY VENT THESE APPLICATIONS AND MAKE THE BEST POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION THAT WE CAN.

>> I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, IT IS VERY OBVIOUS IN REVIEWING THE PLAN AND LOOKING AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC TODAY, THAT THIS IS A VERY ATYPICAL HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THAT IS NOT LOST ON ME. I KNOW PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I CAN SYMPATHIZE WITH THE IMPACT THIS WILL HAVE FOR NEIGHBORS.

I LOOK AT THE IMPACT 125-237, ANY INTEREST THAT PROTECTS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OF THE CITY.

AND I AM WONDER GOING WE ARE NOT OVERLOOKING SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WILL BE, BUT THAT IS A BIG HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT ANY OTHER HOUSES EVEN CLOSE TO ITS SIZE.

ORDER. I FULLY AGREE TO YOU.

THAT IS WHY I KEEP BUILDING UP SCALE.

SCALE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT I ALSO WANT TO CONFIRM THAT -- THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE STATE HAS TAKEN ABILITY AWAY FROM US TO BE INVOLVED IN THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF A PRIVATE RESIDENCE. ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, WE CAN GET INTO DISCUSSION, ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, WE CAN'T.

AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE -- WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO HERE COMES INTO PLAY IS THAT IT IS SO DIFFERENT OF ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. IT DOESN'T CONFORM WITH THE CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE AND ARCHITECTURE, AND I AGREE.

>> I KIND OF DISAGREE WITH BOTH OF YOU.

EVENLY CHAIN-LNK FENCE BETWEEN THAT HOUSE AND A TEN-STORY

CONDO. >> THAT IS NOT SURFSIDE.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SIR, PLEASE.

>> A DISTANCE OF 100. >>.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SIR, PLEASE.

>> JUST SO YOU ARE NOT MAD. JUST TO CLEAR IT UP.

IT ISN'T THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD AND A CHAIN-LINK FEBRUARY OF 100 YARDS BETWEEN THE TWO. THERE IS NOT TALKING ABOUT A WALL THERE AND A FOREST OR ANYTHING.

IT IS A CHAIN.LINK WEDNESDAY. >> YOU CAN NOT SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE. THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: DON'T RESPOND TO THE AUDIENCE.

IT PER WE HAVE WAITS THE DISCUSSION.

I DON'T WANT TO ASK ANYBODY TO LEAD CHAMBERS AND CALL SECURITY TO DO THAT. I PREFER TO KEEP IT AS FRIENDLY

[02:15:02]

LET ME FINISH THIS PART. JUST SOUTH OF IT IS CONDOS.

SO THIS BUILDING ISN'T THAT OUT OF WHACK WITH THE AREA.

THE SURFSIDE ROAD IS HALF A MILE LONG, IF THAT.

AND AT THE OTHER END OF THAT ROAD IS CONDOS.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS THAT FAR-FETCHED WITHIN A MILE. YOU HAVE CONGOS ON BOTH SIDES.

WE ARE NOT TALKING FAR-FETCHED

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: SIR, PLEASE.

PLE PLEASE.

>> JUST EXPRESSING OUR PASSION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: I UNDERSTAND TRYING TO BE AS LENIENT AS POSSIBLE BUT I CAN'T CONTINUE TO HAVE PUBLIC INPUT INTO THIS MEETING NOW.

I HAVE CLOSED THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

AND I THINK YOU CAN SEE BY OUR DISCUSSION THAT THIS BOARD IS REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS BECAUSE OF THE SCALE AND SIZE.

BECAUSE OF THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.

AND THE COMPLEXION OF YOUR COMMUNITY.

AND WE ARE NOT -- WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO ANYTHING YOU ARE SA SAYING.

WE HAVE GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL OF HOW WE DO THINGS.

THE ORDINANCE IS OUR GUIDE. I GUESS IS WHAT I HAVE TO LEAVE T THAT.

I JUST -- WHATEVER WE DO HERE, THE COMMISSION STILL HAS TO HEAR IT. SO I THINK WE HAVE VENTED IT.

PERSONALLY, I AM NNOT A FAN OF APPROVING THIS PROJECT DUE TO ITS SCALE. DUE TO ITS SIZE.

DUE TO THE SEPARATION OF THE PRIVATE USE OF THE STRUCTURE VERSUS VISITATION USE OF THE STRUCTURE.

THERE IS RED FLAGS IN THIS TO ME.

THE VERBIAGE THAT I PROPOSED FOR CONDITION TWO I WOULD HOPE WOULD HELP SOLVE SOME OF THAT DISC DISCUSSION. I AM A NOT A FAN OF THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BUILDING. AND I, TOO, STOOD ON THE END OF SURFSIDE TODAY AND SAW THE MASSIVE BUILDING AND LOOKED THAT THE EMPTY LOT AND SAID IF THIS THING WERE BUILT THIS HIGH, I AM LOOKING UP AT THOSE BUILDINGS, BUT WHEN I TURN BACK AROUND AND I LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY, I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN OF THE COMMUNITY. AND I FEEL AT TIMES THAT DECISIONS NEED TO BE MADE FOR THE -- FOR THE SAFETY, WELFARE AND HEALTH OF THE -- OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND I AM NOT SURE THAT THIS BUILDING FITS INTO THAT.

BUT WE ARE STILL AT A PLACE IN THIS MEETING THAT WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A MOTION. SO I WILL ASK AGAIN.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THE TWO STATED CONDITIONS.

>> SECOND. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: A MOTION BY MISS CLEMONS, AND SECONDED BY MR. ALBURY.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >>JOHN HEANING: YES.

>> MISS DANIEL. >>ULINE DANIELS: IS THERE ANY

WAY I CAN HOLD ON THAT ONE OR -- >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU HAVE TO MAKE -- YOU HAVE TO MAKE A VOTE.

>>ULINE DANIELS: NO. >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: YES.

>>HAROLD ALBURY: YES CHRIST NO. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: NO.

[02:20:03]

>> TIED. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: 3-3.

WE CAN HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION. IN.

>> IS IT BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE IT WE ARE SAYING NO OR GO --

>> IF YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN MY NO VOTE.

MY NO VOTE, I HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN THIS DESIGN TEAM.

AND I HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THEY CAN MAKE THIS WORK IN 28 FEET.

IT IS A 7200-SQUARE-FOOT STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT.

I THINK THERE ARE MORE WAYS THAT THEY CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT THEY WANT TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT EX-SEEDING THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION. AND I WILL LIKE FOR THEM TO TRY

AGAIN. >> YOU ARE SAYING IF IT IS SEVEN FEET LOWER, YOU WOULD GO WITH IT.

>> SEVEN FEET LOWER WE WOULDN'T BE HERE.

I WOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING. YE

YEAH. >> I THINK THAT IS A SHAME TO TURN SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR SEVEN FEET.

MY OPINION. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: FURTHER

CONVERSATION? >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: I HAVE A QUESTION. THERE WERE TWO OTHER BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT RECENTLY IN THIS SAME STRIP.

WHAT IS THE HEIGHT ELEVATIONS FOR THOSE TWO?

>>VENNIS GILMORE: SO ONE OF THEM -- I ACTUALLY HAVE A SLIDE -- IS ACTUALLY R-2. AND IT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COMMISSION, I BELIEVE, 2014 FOR 32.82 HAND THIS IS 1814 SURFSIDE. AND THERE IS ANOTHER LOCATION, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT R-2 BUT R-4A TO THE NORTH AND SOMEWHERE IN THIS VICINITY. AND IT IS 1607 SURFSIDE.

HAND THIS ONE IS I BELIEVE AS WELL -- BECAUSE IT IS THREE STOR STORIES.

>> THERE ARE THREE FEET THERE IN THAT DIFFERENCE.

>>NICHELLE CLEMONS: MY CONCERN AS BOARD MEMBER, WE ARE HERE STRICTLY FOR THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION.

WE ARE NOT HERE DETERMINING THE ARCHITECTURE AND EVERYTHING OF THAT CHOICE. AND I KNOW THERE ARE SOME CONCERN ABOUT THEM COMBINING A LOT AND BUILDING A LARGER HOME, BUT IF I HAVE A FAMILY OF SEVEN AND I WANT SEVEN BEDROOM HOUSE, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE MY CHOICE.

I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE LEFT UP TO ANYBODY ELSE.

AND THE NOTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO SIT HERE AND RESTRICT SOMEONE TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR FAMILY? I THINK IT IS RIDICULOUS, HONESTLY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR VIEW, THIS IS MY OPINION AND I WILL STICK WITH IT.

I DON'T THINK IT IS LEFT UP TO THE CITY, THE BOARD TO DICTATE WHAT TYPE OF HOUSE SOMEONE BUILDS FOR THEIR FAMILY.

YOU MAY CHOOSES TO HAVE A FAMILY OF FOUR.

BUT MY FAMILY IS A FAMILY OF EIGHT.

SO I NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THEM. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZE THIS FAMILY IS. AND NOT OUR JOB RESTRICT THAT.

SO THAT IS MY CONCERN. AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT, WE SEE THAT THOSE BUILDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT WITHIN ONE

MILE ON THAT SAME STREET. >> THIS BUILDING YOU ARE LOOKING AT IS FOUR LOTS NOW. ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET.

>> FOR CLARITY, THIS IS THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE.

WHY IT IS A VARIANCE AND NOT AN ORDINANCE.

ORDINANCE IS NOT 35 FEET, IT IS 28.

THAT HOUSE AND EVERY OTHER HOUSE BETWEEN THE END OF TIME IN FORT PIERCE WILL HAVE TO COME FOR A VARIANCE.

AND THE VARIANCE IS FOR US TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SQUARE IT WITH ALL THE THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER.

I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF THINKING THAT APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR 32, 5 FOUR LOTS DOWN SETS A PRECEDENCE.

IT DOESN'T. EVERY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IS UNIQUE, AS IS THE -- YOU KNOW THE STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT OF THAT HOUSE IN COMPARISON TO WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING TODAY.

AGAIN, I AM -- YOU KNOW, AT 28 FEET, WITH THE EXACT SAME CUBIC FEET UNDER AIR, AND WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE TODAY.

AND I WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT AT ALL, BUT THEY WANT 35. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO TALK

ABOUT IT. >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: JUST TO REITERATE WHAT KEVIN SAID EARLIER AS TIME CONTINUES TO SHOW US THAT THE FLOOD LEVELS ARE GOING TO RISE.

AND THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO RISE.

[02:25:01]

SO IF SOMEONE BUILDING HIGHER FOR FUTURE TIMES, EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM WILL EVENTUALLY HAVE TO DO THE SAME REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU FEEL TODAY. IN THE FUTURE, YOU WILL HAVE TO BUILD HIGHER. IT'S -- IT IS A FACT.

IF YOU ARE PAYING ATTENTION WHAT'S GOING ON IN OUR ENVIRONMENT AND IN THE WORLD RATHER THAN TRYING TO HOLD ON TO SOMETHING THAT GOING TO WHITTLE AWAY THE STRUCTURE IF YOU WILL BUILD HIGH ANYWAY, YOU WILL HAVE TO BUILD HIGH. SOMEONE IS ALREADY DOING IT AND PEOPLE WHO ARE MOVING IN AND CONSTRUCTING NEW CONSTRUCTION IS DOING IT WELL. I DON'T SEE THE -- THE -- I DON'T -- I DON'T SEE THE ARGUMENT RIGHT NOW.

>> CHAIRMAN, IF I COULD ASK. WHAT IS THE OPERATIONAL PROCEEDING FOR A STALEMATE TODAY?

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE CAN'T HAVE ONE.

>> WE HAVE TO STAY HERE -- >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE.

AND IT HAS TO PASS. SO, YES, WE WILL BE HERE FOR A

WHILE. >>NICHELLE CLEMONS: IF WE DISAPPROVE, IT CAN STILL GO TO THE COMMISSION AND THEY CAN

STILL APPROVE. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THEY CAN STILL APPROVE IT. IF YOU MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE, YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN YOUR MAKING THE MOTION FOR DISAPPROVAL. AND --

>>JOHN HEANING: WE HAVEN'T HEARD HER REASON FOR SAYING FOR

DISAPPROVAL. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU HEARD MINE. IT IS CLEAR.

>>JOHN HEANING: FOR A FEW HOURS I HEARD YOURS.

>> YOU WANT TO SPEAK. >> WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE DOUBLE LOT. SOME VIEW FOR THE OTHER AND THE ATMOSPHERE IT CAN MUCH -- ALMOST THE SAME THING.

WHY CAN'T THEY WORK IT OUT TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT.

TOO TOO MUCH OF AN ASK TO GO BACK AND REVIEW TO SEE HOW THEY CAN ACCOMMODATE WITH THAT IF THEY REALLY WANT TO DO THAT TO PUT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. I DON'T THINK IT IS TOO TOP OF ASK FOR THAT. WE CAN ALWAYS TRY.

I DON'T THINK IT IS TOO MUCH. IF THEY REALLY WANT TO DO IT, THEY CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE IT HAP HAPPEN. AND IT WOULDN'T CHANGE FROM THAT. THEY CAN'T DO IT.

>>JOHN HEANING: I DON'T BELIEVE THAT SEVEN FEET LOWER WILL MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAPPIER. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.

THAT IS NOT CHANGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AREA IDEA.

>>ULINE DANIELS: WE DO OUR PART. AT LEAST WE DO OUR PART.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: THE CEILINGS ARE SOMEWHAT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 12 TO 12, 8. ANTON KREISL WITH STRUCTURE AND

SYSTEMS INTERFACING BETWEEN. >>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: HOW MANY

FEET OVER THE LIMIT? >> BY THE APPLICANT, SEVEN.

>>FRANK CREYAUMILLER: YOU ARE GIVING TWO FEET OF WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO OFF THE DIMENSIONS. DOWN THE SIDE OF THIS PAGE.

>> THIS IS WHY ATTENDANCE OF THESE MEETINGS ARE SO IMPORTANT.

I WILL ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION.

[02:30:04]

>>JOHN HEANING: >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY

MR. HEEDING AND A SECOND BY AUDER. >> MR. HEENEY.

>> YES. >> MS. DANIEL. >> NO.

>> MS. CLEMENTS. >> YES. >> MR. ALBERY.

>> YES. >> MR. KRIESEL, NO. >> CHAIRMAN?

-FRPBLGTS NO. >> IT IS STILL TIED. >> IS THERE A HUNG JURY RULE?

>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. WHERE IS OUR -- WHERE IS OUR BOARD ATTORNEY? THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE AN ATTORNEY ON THIS BOARD.

I KNOW YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. >> I HAVE SEEN CASES LIKE THIS

WHERE THE CHAIR HAS THE CASTING VOTE. >> I AM NOT SURE IF THAT IS

CORRECT. >> I'M NOT EITHER. >> I DARE TO SAY IS IT POSSIBLE

TO HAVE A CHAIR BEING TABLED UNTIL WE HAVE A SEVENTH PERSON. >> THAT COULD BE A

RECOMMENDATION. THEN YOU WOULD NOT HAVE -- >> WE TAKE THE MOTION FROM THE

BOARD? >> MOTION TO CHAIR THIS TO NEXT MEETING, ARE -- TO HAVE SEVEN

PEOPLE ON BOARD. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YES. >> I MEAN, I KNOW WE ARE MAKING A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING, BUT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE WE WON'T HAVE AN ODD NUMBER PRESENT AND A QUORUM AND

WE ARE PUSHING THIS APPLICANT BACK ANOTHER -- >> I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA.

>> I KNOW, BUT THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> I THINK OUR PERCENTAGE OF HAVING MEMBERS ABSENT IS PRETTY SMALL. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, BUT YOU CANNOT GUARANTEE. >> NO.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE. >> THERE WAS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. WE HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND.

>> IT WAS SECONDED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION -- >> SECOND.

>> YOU SECONDED IT? >> YES. >> CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. HEENEY. >> YES. >> THE MOTION IS FOR TKAURB --

-- >> TO TABLE IT UNTIL NEXT MONTH WHEN WE HAVE SEVEN PEOPLE.

>> WHAT IF WE DON'T HAVE SEVEN PEOPLE? >> WELL, IT IS A GAMBLE.

>> YOU HAVE TO VOTE YES OR NO. >> THEN JUST SAY NO. >> UP OR DOWN.

>> IT WOULD ALSO WORK WITH FIVE PEOPLE. >> YES.

>> MS. CLEM -- CLEMENTS. >> NO. >> MR. AUBERY.

>> YES. >> YES. >> YES.

>> MOTION PASSED. >> THE MOTION WAS TO TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING TO REEVALUATE AND HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE TO REHASH THE WHOLE THING.

>> I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE SEND AN EMAIL OUT A WEEK OR SO PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING AND HAVE THE BOARD -- REMIND THE BOARD TO REVIEW THIS VIDEO SO THAT THEY CAN COME TO THE NEXT

MEETING AS UP-TO-DATE AS POSSIBLE. >> MAY I MAKE ANOTHER

SUGGESTION? >> YES. >> THAT WE FIND OUT EXACTLY HOW

WE HANDLE IN -- ANY TYPE OF DRAW DECISIONS? >> WELL, I CAN SAY THIS: I SAT IN A COMMISSIONER MEETING WITH A DRAW SOME TIME AGO AND THEIR GAMBLE WAS THE SAME AS WHAT WE DID HERE TODAY. THEY MADE A MOTION TO TABLE HOPING THAT MR. ALEXANDRA COULD

[02:35:10]

IT WAS DONE. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> I THINK IT WAS.

YOU'RE RIGHT. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. TO THE APPLICANT, I'M SORRY IT HAMMERED OUT THE WAY IT DID. I THINK THAT YOU SAW THAT THE BOARD WORKED TO TRY TO GET A RESOLUTION FOR YOU. TO THE COMMUNITY, WE WILL REVISIT AGAIN NEXT MONTH.

ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS VERY DIFFICULT. YOU -- I KNEW THIS WAS GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT APPLICATION WHEN I CAME IN THE CHAMBERS TODAY. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WILL WIND UP GOING THE NEXT MEETING. THE NEXT MEETING WE'LL TRY AGAIN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND TIME. DOES ANYONE NEED TO TAKE A

BREAK? >> PUSH ON. >> YOU WANT TO GET DONE? OKAY. PUSH ON. OKAY.

WE'LL PUSH ON. ALL RIGHT. GOLLY, WE ARE GETTING TO BE HALFWAY THERE. NEW BUSINESS 6C. NO.

WE JUST DID THAT ONE. LET'S NOT DO THAT AGAIN TODAY. 6D.

[d. Site Plan (Development Review and Design Review) - NAPA Auto Parts - 4001 Oleander Avenue]

MR. GILMORE IS PRESENTING. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.

BEFORE YOU WE HAVE A SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR NAPA AUTO PARTS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 400 OLEANDER AVENUE. THE APPLICANT, MICHAEL DUPREIST, PROJECT ENGINEER FROM DUPREIST ENGINEERING LLC, PROPERTY OWNER PERFORMANCE IS NAPA AUTO PARTS.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATELY 14,086 SQUARE FOOT AUTO PARTS RETAIL STORE WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

THE SUBJECT PARCEL HAS APPROXIMATELY 4.217 ACRES. THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE WEST DIT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL INCLUDE 39 PARKING SPACES AS WELL AS TWO OF THOSE BEING HANDY -P KAED. AND IN ADDITION A BICYCLE RACK WITH FOUR SPAEUGSS ARE PROPOSED -- SPACES ARE PROPOSED. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE PLUS OR MINUS 4.217 ACRES. FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY OWNER INTENDS TO NOT UTILIZE THE ENTIRE SITE.

SO MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE TO THE EAST. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE SITE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 52 TREES AND 12 SOUTHERN LIVE OAK AS WELL AS SHRUB AND GROUND COVER AND BAJIA GRASS SOD. THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED RETAIL STORE. THERE IS A FLOOR LEVEL AND A SECOND LEVEL.

[02:40:02]

STAFF HAVE PRESENTED EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE NAPA BUILDINGS WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT SOME ARCHITECTURAL VALUE CAN BE UH -- ACCOMMODATED IN THIS TYPE OF USE AND THE CORPORATE IDENTITY OF THE BUSINESS. THE PRESENT DESIGN HAS NO ARCHITECTURAL ROOF OVERHANGS AND NO ARTICULATION IN BUILDING LIMITATIONS AND NO ARTICULATION OF ROOF LINE AND LARGE AREAS OF BLANK WALLS. STAFF RECOMMEND THE NOW PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE BUILDIG.

WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1, COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT COST AND LANDSCAPE PURSUANT TO 123-6 SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS APPROVED FOR THE SITE. 2, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE CLEARING PERMITS THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A TREE LITIGATION SURVEY AND COORDINATION WITH ORBORISTS FOR THE CITY REGULATED TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 3, PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING BY CITY COMMISSION, THE PROPOSED DESIGN OF THE BUILDING SHALL BE AMENDED TO INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING THREE: A, ELEVATIONAL ARTICULATION, B, ROOF LINE ARTICULATION, AND C, BREAKING UP AREAS OF BLANK WALL. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMEND -- RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD, APPROVE, MODIFY APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.

>> MR. GILMORE, THIS SITS IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT --

>> OLEANDER -- >> -- WE JUST APPROVED WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS AND PAPER A

YEAR. >> WITHIN A YEAR. >> AND IT SITS TO THE NORTH OF PLATTS CREEK AND I THINK I SAW A DRAWING THAT THE COUNTY HAS DECIDED TO RENAME PLATTS CREEK CANAL 15, I THINK WHICH IS RUNNING KIND OF SORT OF EAST AND WEST THAT THIS PROPERTY WOULD DRAIN INTO WHICH IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE CREEKS THAT CONNECT TO A DITCH THAT IS DRAINED INTO AND THAT SAVANNAH PRESERVE IS GOING TO DRAIN INTO AND THAT ALL OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ALONG U.S.

1 WE HAVE BEEN APPROVING IS GOING TO DRAIN INTO AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

YOU CAN'T SEE THE CREEK FROM OLEANDER ROAD LOOKING WEST. YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IT IS THERE BECAUSE IT IS SO OVERGROWN. AND THIS MESSAGE IS GOING OUT TO THE COUNTY.

>> OKAY. >> THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE APPLICANT IS DOING.

THE APRIL PHRAU PRESIDENT KA, FROM -- APPLICANT, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE IS DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT. AND IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, AND IT IS A PERSONAL OPINION, AND I WILL PUT MY HEAD UP HERE ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK, THE COUNTY ISN'T DOING THEIR JOB.

THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. NOW THAT THAT'S SAID, YOU'VE INDICATED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WE CAN GET INTO THE DISCUSSION OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES. SO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD LIKE TO SATISFY MORE ARC -- LIKE TO SEE MORE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.

WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS AND I TRAVEL UP AND DOWN OLEANDER ALL THE TIME BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER TAKE A BEATING THAN TO GO OUT ON THE RACETRACK OF U.S. 1. SO I USE OLEANDER TO GO NORTH AND SOUTH OR INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. WHEN I GO UP AND DOWN OLEANDER I CAN SEE TO THE NORTH OF THIS I CAN SEE A GREAT DEAL OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WAREHOUSE SPACE AND SO ON, THAT MUCH OF IT

[02:45:05]

I SEE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO IT THAT'S GOING IN, AND THEN I SEE A BUNCH OF STUFF THAT I DON'T EVEN WANT TO TALK ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S SO NASTY.

FURTHER SOUTH I SEE A LOT OF NICER STUFF THAT'S BEEN BUILT AND OLDER STUFF THAT'S BEEN WELL CARED FOR. SO WHEN I SPOKE BRIEFLY WITH MRS MORNING, VERY BRIEFLY, HE SAID SOMETHING TO ME THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. BECAUSE WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT THIS, I SAID THIS IS PRETTY STANDARD OF WHAT I SEE IN NAPA -- I CALL THEM NAPA WAREHOUSE-STYLE CONSTRUCTION AND IT IS NOT TERRIBLE AND IT IS A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN WHAT IS ON OLEANDER AVENUE. IT IS AN UPGRADE TO WHAT IS ON OLEANDER AVENUE.

THE COMMENT MR. FRIEDMAN BROUGHT UP MADE ME LOOK AT THIS WITH A DIFFERENT EYE, AND I THINK HE'S RIGHT. THIS IS IN AN AREA OF ALEAND -- OLEANDAR THAT IS A COMBINATION RESIDENTIAL. AND WHEN I LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE RESIDENTIAL MIXED WITH THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, I THINK HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THERE SHOULD PROBABLY BE SOME ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ON THESE WALLS. NOW, SAYING THAT IN THIS CASE AND HERE WE JUST LOOKED AT A RESIDENTIAL SITUATION WITH BIG WALLS AND WE SAID -- SOME OF US SAID WELL, WE DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT THE ARC -- ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN RESIDENTIAL AND WE CAN IN COMMERCIAL.

PERHAPS WE SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT AND TRY TO BOOST THE LEVEL OF WHAT THE BUILDING MIGHT LOOK LIKE. I STILL HAVE SOME MIXED OPINION IN THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE I STILL LOOK AT NORTH OF THIS BUILDING STARTS THE CONSTRUCTION OR THE COMMERCIAL ZONE ALL THE WAY FROM WHERE THIS BUILDING WAS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO EDWARDS ROAD WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A COUPLE OF ONE LITTLE SMALL APARTMENT BUILDING THAT'S THERE AND A COUPLE OF DUPLEX BUILDINGS, THE ENDS OF THEM, COME UP TO OLEANDER SOUTH OF WHERE I THINK IT IS THE CHURCH OF GOD IS THAT HAS JUST BEEN PAINTED RED. THERE IS A MUSLIM MOSQUE ALONG THAT AREA, BUT MOSTLY EVERYTHING IS COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE. AND IN FACT, THEY JUST FINISHED ANOTHER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING THAT'S ON COUNTY -- ONCE AGAIN, THE MIX UP OF COUNTY AND CITY THAT IS SITTING ON COUNTY LAND THAT IS VERY BLAND AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE ONE THAT'S NEXT TO IT. IN FACT, I HAD A WAREHOUSE SPACE AND SO I HAVE SOME MIXED OPINIONS ABOUT -- I MEAN, IT IS NOT THAT THIS IS AN UGLY BUILDING.

SO BEFORE I START HAVING THE REST OF THE BOARD GET INTO THIS TOO DEEP, TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT -- I MEAN, I'VE GOT THE PICTURES YOU'VE BROUGHT UP WHICH ARE NAPA STORES THAT ARE IN -- COULD BE IN THE CENTER OF FORT PIERCE IN DOWNTOWN, BUT THAT'S NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THIS

[02:50:04]

THIS IS RIGHT THERE. WHEN I LOOK AT THAT AND WHEN I LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AT THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE JUST SLIGHTLY NORTH AND MAYBE ACROSS THE STREET, I'D HAVE TO GO TAKE ANOTHER RIDE AGAIN AND LOOK ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THERE IS A -- A BUDGET AUTOMOTIVE PAINT AND BODY SHOP ACROSS THE STREET. THERE IS JUST SEVERAL COMMERCIAL SHOPS. IN FACT, THERE'S ANOTHER BODY SHOP IN ANOTHER BUILDING.

THERE'S A DOC GROOMING SHOP -- DOG GROOMING SHOP. THERE IS A SMALL STRIP CENTER WITH A PIZZA SHOP IN IT AND A HAIRDRESSER. SO THERE IS SOME MIX, BUT THERE IS NO BUFFER BETWEEN THIS BUILDING AND THE NEW CONSTRUCTION RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NEXT DOOR ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PLATTS CREEK.

IF WE CLEAN PLATTS CREEK UP, THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

AND I THINK IT IS THE SIDE WITH THE FIRE EXIT GOING DOWN THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHICH IS JUST EXTERIOR STAIRS. WHAT ARE YOU VISUALIZING HERE ON THIS BIG, BLUE WALL?

>> LET'S LOOK AT THE FRONT ELEVATION. >> IT WOULD BE IN THE BACK, THE

STAIRS IN THE BACK. >> SO THIS IS A -- THE REASON WHY WE'VE BROUGHT THIS IN THE WAY WE HAVE IS TO INITIATE THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, AND UNFORTUNATELY, YES, THIS APPLICATION WILL BE SUBJECTIVE TO THAT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS CITY IS CHANGE THE IMAGE OF THIS CITY, AND JUST BECAUSE THINGS HAVE BEEN BUILT THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE MAYBE IS NOT THE RIGHT IMAGE FOR THIS CITY. WE'RE DOING A LOT OF WORK ON OLEANDER. WE ARE DOING A LOT OF WORK ON ORANGE, OKEECHOBEE, ON U.S. 1.

WHEN WE GET APPLICATIONS COMING IN, WE ARE TALKING TOWN VEST -- TO INVESTORS IN THIS CITY.

THEY ARE INVESTING THEIR FUTURE IN THIS CITY. PART OF THE INVESTMENT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING NEXT TO THEM, ON THE PROPERTIES NEXT TO THEM. AND WHATEVER THE REASON, AND THAT COULD PROBABLY GO BACK AND SAY THAT THE REASON IS AT SOME POINT IN HISTORY AND THIS CITY HAS HAD A DESPERATION ABOUT IT WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPMENT. AND HAVING PROJECTS COMING IN, WE STILL WELCOME PROJECTS COMING IN, BUT THERE WAS LESS STANDARD ATTACHED TO THOSE PROJECTS.

AND I HOPE YOU HAVE SEEN SOME OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH THE DESIGN OF BUILDINGS AND SPECIFICALLY COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS GOING FORWARD THAT WE MANAGED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE THAT INVESTING IN THE APPEARANCE OF THEIR PROPERTY ACTUALLY ENHANCES THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY, BUT ALSO GUARANTEES THAT THAT PROPERTY IS A SOLID INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GONNA GO ON NEXT DOOR AND UP AND DOWN THAT STREET. AND THE CITY DOES HAVE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE CODE WHICH JUST ARE REALLY NOT BEING MET BY MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENTS WHEN THEY FIRST APPEAR ON OUR TABLE. AND IT IS NOT THAT WE WANT TO SEE AN URBAN NAPA AUTO PARTS DESIGN GOING ON THIS LOT. HEY, WE DON'T WANT SHEDS. WE DON'T WANT BOXES.

WE'VE SEEN ENOUGH STORAGE UNITS COMING IN IN TOWN. I THINK WE ARE IN DANGER OF GUARANTEEING THE STANDARD OF ARCHITECTURE THAT OUR TOWN IS. AND WE ARE IN A TIPPING POINT HERE. DO WE CONTINUE WITH LOOKING ADJACENT, ALONG THE STREET AND SAYING THAT'S WHAT'S THERE AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED. THE FUTURE WILL LOOK LIKE THAT.

[02:55:03]

WE HAVE REFLECTED SOME ELEMENTS OF THE IDENTITY OF FORT PIERCE AND IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN BE PROUD OF. AND TO AN ALMOST BLANK FRONT ELEVATION IS, IN MY OPINION FROM A PLANNING DEPARTMENT OPINION, IT IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO BE MOVING.

SO IT'S AN OPEN DISCUSSION TO THIS BOARD, AND WE WILL ACT IN WHATEVER DIRECTION YOU WANT TO

PUSH THIS. >> WELL, I WAS REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAD IN THE REPORT. I AGREE WITH THEM 100%, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU LOOK AT DESIGN LIKE THIS AND IT IS WHAT THE BUILDING NEEDS TO BE TO SERVE ITS FUNCTION.

IT IS UTILITY, UTILITY, UTILITY. BUT WHEN YOU GO TO EVEN A STRIP MALL, I MEAN, THERE'S SO MUCH OF THAT ARCHITECTURE THAT IS NOT NECESSARY. IT IS THERE TO SERVE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF UTILITY WHICH IS CONFORMITY, ATTRACTIVENESS AND BEING RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS IT IS A GOOD IDEA AND YOU BRING UP A VERY GOOD POINT. NOT TO USE YOUR WORDS, WE SHOULDN'T BE LOOKING ADJACENT, BUT I WOULD SAY WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FORWARD, RIGHT? IT IS NOT JUST TO THE SOUTH OR THE NORTH OR THE WHATEVER. IT IS TO THE FUTURE.

THESE LITTLE THINGS ARE GONNA MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE AS THE YEARS GO BY.

>> COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT BETTER. >> I WAS GONNA SAY I WAS EXTREMELY PLEASED TO SEE THAT THE ARCHITECTURE WAS COMMENTED ON AND, YOU KNOW, SORRY THIS HAD TO BE THE ONE, BUT IT HAS TO START SOMEWHERE AND AS FRANK MENTIONED THERE IS DEVELOPMENT SOUTH OF THAT AND THERE ARE ALSO HOMES TO THE EAST 6 THAT -- EAST OF THAT AS WELL, DUPLEXES. IT IS LIKE INTEGRATING THIS NEW BUILDING OR THIS NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THAT COMMUNITY, IT NEEDS TO FIT THE COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, YES, THERE'S OTHER BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES TO THE NORTH OF THAT THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THE STANDARD BLOCK, BUT WHO IS TO SAY IN THE FUTURE THAT IF THAT BUSINESS DO DECIDE TO LEAVE TOWN AND SOMEBODY TAKES IT OVER THAT THAT MAY BE THE, YOU KNOW, THE NEW ANCHOR IN THAT AREA. I SEE PLENTY OF SPACES THAT CAN BE AN ANCHOR IN THE AREA TO BRANCH OFF FROM. SO WHY NOT ALREADY BE AHEAD OF

THE GAME WHEN IT COMES TO THAT? >> DO YOU HAVE EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE DONE WITH

THIS BUILDING? >> WE SUGGESTED -- WELL, WE HAVE SHOWED THE APRIL PHRAU CAN'T -- APPLICANT EXAMPLES OF NAPA AUTO PARTS STORES. SOME OF THOSE MAY BE OUT THERE, TOO FAR AHEAD, AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS LOCATION. WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS AT LEAST THE FRONT ELEVATION RESEMBLE MORE OF A RETAIL STORE THAN A WAREHOUSE.

AND PART OF THAT IS CREATING SOME BREAK POINTS IN THE ROOF LINE AND IN THE ELEVATION OR THE ARTICULATION OF THE BUILDING AND HOW IT POPS OUT OR IS RECESSED AND HOW THE ENTRANCEWAY PRESENTS ITSELF TO THE STREET. THAT'S REALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TRIED THE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE

[03:00:07]

WE ARE NOT ENFORCING A DESIGN NARRATIVE ON THIS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT BUSINESSES HAVE THEIR OWN IDENTITY AND WANT TO -- THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PROTOTYPES IN A WAY AND WANT TO USE THOSE AS FAR AS THEY CAN SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO REDESIGN EVERYTHING THEY COME FORWARD WITH. BUT THERE IS SOME ASPECT OF THIS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE AN I'D IN FORT PIERCE AND WITH BUILDINGS LIKE THIS WE WANT TO SEE MORE.

>> OLEANDER IS COUNTY ROAD? >> COUNTY ROAD, CORRECT. >> IN LOOKING AT THIS, ONE OF MY CONCERNS WAS TRAFFIC FLOW ON OLEANDER. I SAW A COMMENT IN THIS REAM OF PAPERWORK I'VE GOT HERE ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY, AND IT APPEAR -- APPEARED TO ME THAT THERE WAS A COMMENT BY THE COUNTY, TO MOVE THE DRIVEWAY TO THE NORTH SIDE, BUT THE DRAWING I HAVE IN THIS PACKET, I BELIEVE STILL HAS THE DRIVING ON THE SOUTH SIDE FACING THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND COMING IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CORNER OF THE PARKING LOT.

AM I CORRECT THERE? >> I DO BELIEVE YOU ARE CORRECT. HOWEVER, I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'VE

SOLIDIFIED THAT WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY. >> OKAY.

SO THE DRIVEWAY MAY NOT BE UP-TO-DATE AND CORRECT. >> RIGHT.

>> BECAUSE I DID SEE IN THAT REAM OF PAPER THAT THERE WAS A REPLY THAT THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE MOVED. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS TO THE NORTH.

AGAIN, IT IS STILL SHOWING IT ON THE SOUTH SIDE. WITH A NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEXT DOOR, WE GOT INTO A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND WE ENFORCED THE ABILITY FOR SCHOOL BUSES TO PULL INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT AND GET TURNED AROUND AND COME BACK OUT.

SO IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC ON OLEANDER, THIS IS NOT GONNA BE AN ISSUE WITH SCHOOL BUSES, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC ON THAT ROAD. I MEAN, THERE'S TIMES OF DAY I DON'T TRY TO GO UP AND DOWN OLEANDER BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC. OF COURSE, I'M OLD AND GETTING CRANKY TOO. THAT'S WHY I USE OLEANDER. YOU'RE SUGGESTING A DENIAL MOVING FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION TO GIVE THE COMMISSION AN OPPORTUNITY TO VET IT AND THEN COME BACK AND GIVE FURTHER DIRECTION, POSSIBLY. IF THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENTS

OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. >> SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, BUT TO MAKE AMENDMENTS

TO THE DESIGN PRIOR TO CITY COMMISSION? >> YOU ARE RECOMMENDING AN

APPROVAL. >> WITH THE SUGGESTED ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS.

>> DENIAL IS STRICTLY FOR THE DESIGN. >> OKAY.

>> IS THE OCCUPANT WILLING TO MAKE SOME CHANGES? >> YES I SPOKE TO --

>> WE ARE GETTING READY TO OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

IF WE ARE DONE WITH OUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. ARE WE DONE WITH OUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENCE? OKAY. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT FIRST.

I IMAGINE YOU ARE ALL APPLICANTS, CORRECT? >> NEXT ONE.

>> AREN'T YOU LUCKY. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MICHAEL DUPREIST.

I WANTED TO DISCUSS SOME OF THE POINTS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. FIRST OF AULG -- ALL, WE ARE

[03:05:01]

AND AS MUCH AS WE WOULD LIKE THAT, THOSE ARE SMALLER NAPA STORES AND TO HAVE A FULL FACADE ON ALL FOUR SIDES AND MEETING THE STANDARDS FEATURED MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. AS FAR AS -- WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, THAT FORT PIERCE IS TRYING TO CHANGE TO BECOME MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AREA, BUT ESPECIALLY FOR THIS AREA AND UNDERSTANDING THE CONCERNS OF IT DOES NOT MATTER IF IT IS THIS AREA OR NOT, BUT LOOKING FORWARD WE SEE METAL WAREHOUSES IN DIRT LOTS AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL NORTH I BELIEVE THERE IS AN APPLICATION TO BE A SILICA PROCESSING PROPERTY.

THE NEW OLEANDER OAKS IS PERMITTED AND SHOULD BE GOING IN.

WEST WE DO HAVE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL, BUT WITH A SUBSTANTIAL BUFFER OF THE EXISTING TREES AND THE UNDEVELOPED LAND IN THE AERIALS THAT SHOULD BUFFER THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AS WELL. AS FAR AS THE TRANSITION WE ARE GOING INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND THEN A CREEK AND SOME WET LANDS AND UNDEVELOPED LAND AND THEN RESIDENTIAL AREA. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A FAIRLY AGREEABLE BUFFER FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THE OLEANDER OAKS COMMUNITY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN DISCUSS. ALSO WITH ME IN CAME -- CHAMBERS IS THE PROJECT ARCHITECT WHO CAN SPEAK -- IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT -- YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK TO AN ENGINEER ABOUT AESTHETICS

BECAUSE I'M AN ENGINEER. >> SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT THIS IS THE -- THIS IS STREET

SIDE? >> THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN OLEANDER.

WHEN YOU PARK YOUR CAR AND WALK UP, THAT'S WHEN YOU WILL SEE THE FRONT ELEVATION.

AND IT IS NOT CLEARLY SHOWN, BUT THE ENTRY IS RECESSED ON THAT AS WELL.

THERE IS SOME ARTICULATION AND A PORCH FEEL AS YOU WALK INTO THE FRONT DOOR.

>> YOU MENTIONED PLATTS CREEK AND YOU ARE GOING TO PUT YOUR WATER IN PLATTS CREEK.

>> WE ARE NOT TOUCHING PLATTS CREEK ANYMORE THAN WE ARE ALLOWED TO, BUT WE WILL HAVE

TREATED WATER -- >> YOU ARE NOT MAKING ME HAPPY BY TELLING ME THAT.

AND THE REASON BEING IS I'M DOWNSTREAM AND MY COMMUNITY DUMPS ON AVERAGE ON WHAT THEY CALL AN AVERAGE RAINFALL IN THIS AREA AND THERE ARE AVERAGES IN THIS INSTANCES -- INCIDENCES.

WHEN IT IS MORE THAN THAT A 2-INCH RAINFALL PER HOUR AND YOU DUMP IT INTO A CREEK AND IT DUMPS INTO PLATTS CREEK THAT RUNS PAST YOUR PROPERTY ALONG WITH HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF GALLONS OF WATER. IF YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT HYDRAULICS, YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE

MY CONCERN IS. >> IN TERMS OF OUR SITE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, WE HAVE A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL FOOTPRINT TO TREAT THE WATER AND IT WILL BE RETAINED ON SITE AND DISCHARGING GRADUALLY INTO THAT CREEK, AND NO MORE -- SUBSTANTIALLY LESS BECAUSE WE ARE ON THE NORTH

[03:10:05]

>> SO THEY SAY. WE'RE IN SOUTH FLORIDA. JUST THE OTHER DAY I THINK WE GOT LIKE EIGHT INCHES OF RAIN IN AN HOUR. SO THE NUMBERS DON'T REALLY

WORK. >> SURE. >> I DON'T WANT TO --

>> -- SHOULD NOT LEAVE THE SITE. >> I DON'T WANT TO TURN THIS INTO THE DRAINAGE DISCUSSION.

I COULD DO THAT VERY EASILY. LET'S STAY ON WHAT WE'RE DOING, BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I JUST HAD TO GET THAT SHOT IN ANYWAY.

I HAVE TO TAKE IT ANY TIME I CAN GET IT SO MAYBE THE COUNTY HEARS ME.

OKAY, AESTHETICS. YOU WERE GOING TO TURN THAT OVER AND LET SOMEBODY ELSE BE IN THE

BOX. >> MY NAME IS THOMAS LAPERIERRE AND I AM THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD ON THIS PROJECT. ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE ARE KIND OF IN A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE WEIGHING THE NEEDS OF OUR CLIENT AS FAR AS USE AND BUDGET AGAINST THE AS -- THE AESTHETICS THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS ASKING US TO. OF COURSE, WE DID LOOK AT THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT AND YES TO THE NORTH YOU HAVE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL ON THE NORTH EAST SIDE. AND SO WE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE THIS NOT JUST A STANDARD WAREHOUSE. WE HAVE TRIED TO, AT LEAST ON THE LOWER LEVEL, ADD SOME SPLIT PLACE BLOCK COLUMNS. WE PUSHED THE ENTIRE LOWER PORTION OF THAT OLEANDER ELEVATION IN. WE HAVE MODIFIED THE MATERIAL THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE USING FOR THE FACADES. OBVIOUSLY AWAY FROM TYPICAL METAL BUILDING PANELS.

WE ARE USING ESSENTIALLY INSULATED METAL PANELS THAT HAVE EITHER A STUCCO TEXTURE TO THEM OR MORE ALONG THE LINES OF ACM PANELS THAT YOU SEE ON A LOT OF MORE MODERN BUILDINGS.

YOU ACTUALLY SEE THOSE ON THE -- ON SEVERAL OF THE EXAMPLES THAT WERE SENT TO US AS EXAMPLES OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING TOWARDS. SOME OF THAT I DON'T THINK IS NECESSARILY WELL VISUALIZED IN THIS PARTICULAR DRAWING. THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME -- THERE IS INTENDED TO BE VERTICAL BREAKS AND REVEALS, AND WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADD ADDITIONAL DETAILING TO IT AND ADD ADDITIONAL HORIZONTAL BREAKS AND DETAILS.

THE QUESTION -- FOR US IT GETS TO, AGAIN, A POINT OF BUDGET WITH THE CLIENT WHERE -- SO THEY ARE USED TO BUILDING A TYPICAL PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING, PUT IT ON THE GROUND AND THAT'S IT. SO WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF MAKE BOTH YOU GUYS AND OUR CLIENT HAPPY. AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS A CLIENT THAT IS ALREADY A BUSINESS IN FORT PIERCE. SO THEY ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE THE BUILDING THEY ARE IN CURRENTLY IS BEING SOLD, AND THEY ARE WANTING TO STAY IN FORT PIERCE.

THEY ARE KIND OF UNDER SOME TIME CONSTRAINTS AND THINGS HAVE BEEN GREATLY RUSHED.

AGAIN, WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO TAKING YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. SOME OF IT HAS BEEN, I GUESS, ON MY SIDE NEEDING ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION OF WHERE WE NEED TO FOCUS OUR EFFORTS.

IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS SOMETHING ACCEPTABLE TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AND THE PLANNING BOARD.

[03:15:04]

>> GO AHEAD. >> WHAT'S THE NEED FOR THE HEIGHT?

>> THE NEED FOR THE HEIGHT IS THERE IS STORAGE. I DON'T LIKE TO CALL THEM RACKS,

BUT THERE IS A MULTI-LEVEL STORAGE WITHIN THE BUILDING. >> THE STORAGE THAT'S BEING

REPLACED IS ON SOUTH MAIN? >> BELL AVENUE. >> OKAY.

I WAS TRYING TO GET IT PLACED ALONG THAT LINEUP. >> SO WE WANT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES SO WHY ARE WE HERE? WHY AREN'T YOU GUYS GETTING TOGETHER AND MAKE THE CHANGES IF

YOU ARE WILLING TO -- >> PART OF IT IS, AGAIN, THERE'S TIME CONSTRAINTS.

IN PARTICULAR, THE OWNER OF THAT BUILDING CAN GIVE OUR CLIENT TWO MONTHS NOTICE AND THEY'RE OUT, AND THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO GO, WITH THE STORE, WITH THE MERCHANDISE AND EMPLOYEES, ET CETERA. SO THEY ARE TRYING TO PUSH THIS AS FAST AS THEY CAN.

WE WANTED TO GET BEFORE THE BOARD AS SOON AS WE COULD SO WE CAN KEEP THE PROCESS GOING

WITHOUT DELAYING IT ANOTHER MONTH. >> NOW, YOU DO UNDERSTAND THIS

IS NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD? >> WHAT'S THAT? >> YOU UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT A

QUASI JUDICIAL BOARD AND THE NEXT STOP IS TO COMMISSION. >> YES.

>> EVEN IF WE PUSH THIS THROUGH RAPIDLY, IGNORING SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT KEVIN'S MADE, AND IT GETS TO THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION'S EAR IS ON KEVIN, YOU ARE GONNA HAVE TO RESPOND AT SOME POINT TO TRY TO MAKE THIS BUILDING MORE OF WHAT KEVIN'S TRYING TO KWAORB -- HIS VISION IS ALONG OLEANDER AVENUE AND TRY TO BRING OLEANDER AVENUE UP.

>> YEAH. AND THAT'S UNDERSTOOD AND THAT'S THEIR CONDITION FOR APPROVAL IS THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM TO BRING THIS BUILDING TO A POINT OF A --

>> THIS BUILDING IS NOW FACING SOUTH. >> YES.

>> THE FRONT ENTRANCE IS ON THE SOUTH. SO THE OP -- THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THIS BUILDING FACING WEST, THERE IS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BEHIND YOU.

>> YES. >> AND THAT IS LOOKING AT THIS HUGE, BLUE WALL AS KEVIN SO

RIGHTLY CALLED IT, WITH A STAIRCASE ON IT. >> CORRECT.

I GUESS THAT GOES BACK TO SOME OF WHAT -- >> AND THAT'S JUST -- THAT'S THE BLUE WALL THAT MY NAY -- MY NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST OF YOU IS GOING TO BE STARING AT.

>> I THOUGHT THEY WERE SAVING THE TREES. >> WELL, YOU ARE SAVING TREES.

>> NO. IT'S A LOT OF TREES. THERE'S A LOT OF DENSITY.

>> THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF THAT, I GUESS, NATURAL GROWTH REMAINING.

>> OKAY. ARE WE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH ON THIS BUILDING -- THE NORTH/SOUTH/WESE NORTH/SOUTH/EAST OF THE BUILDING AND NOT SO MUCH THE WEST OF THE

BUILDING? >> I THINK WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE -- WITH THE OLEANDER SIDE ITSELF. THAT'S WHAT THE CUSTOMER IS GOING TO SEE AND THE CUSTOMER DRIVING BY WILL SEE. TO THE NORTH WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL. TO THE WEST WE HAVE RETENTION POND AND A TON OF TREES ALL THE WAY UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE FROM WHAT I CAN SEE.

I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION FOR YOU. ON THE ELEVATIONS HERE, ARE THESE AWNINGS I CAN SEE PROTRUDING OUT? IT LOOKS LIKE A METAL FRAME, TRIANGLE STICKING OUT HAD -- OUT

THE SIDE THERE. >> YES. >> WILL THAT WRAP AROUND THE OLEANDER SIDE AND THE FRONT ENTRY? THEY DON'T REALLY SHOW ON THE

FRONT ELEVATION. >> THOSE WERE ONLY INTEPBLDED TO BE -- INTENDED TO BE AT THE WINDOWS. THE ENTIRE FRONT ENTRANCE IS RECESSED INTO THE BUILDING ABOUT

FIVE FEET, SO. >> AND I KNOW YOU'RE PROBABLY JUST NOT AT THAT POINT OF THE DESIGN, BUT FOR ROOF DRAINAGE, ARE YOU GOING TO BE DOING GUTTERS AND DOWN SPOUTS OR IS IT

[03:20:05]

JUST -- OKAY. >> GUTTERS AND DOWN SPOUTS. AND I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE WEST ELEVATION AND THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE NORTHERN ELEVATION WERE LEFT AS MINIMAL

AS THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T INTENDED TO BE SAVED. >> SO TO KEEP THIS MOVING, YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME CHANGES AND IF WE MOVE THIS ALONG FOR YOU WITH KEVIN -- WITH HELPING KEVIN OUT, WE ARE SAYING APPROVE IT WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WILL MEET YOU, YOU WERE SAYING, IS WHAT

YOU ARE LOOKING FOR US TO DO, RIGHT? >> I THINK STAFF ARE LOOKING TO ENGAGE WITH THE ARCHITECT, UNDERSTANDING THE CONSTRAINTS THAT YOU AND YOUR CLIENT ARE UNDER. WE WANT TO KEEP THIS MOVING. IT IS ABOUT BUSINESS FOR THE CITY. WE WANT -- ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, WE WANT A BIT OF MOVEMENT IN TERMS OF RECOGNIZING THAT THIS -- THAT THINGS COULD BE ADDED TO THIS.

IT ISN'T -- WHETHER WE HAVE A FIVE-FEET PUSH BACK OR WHATEVER THAT IS, IT REALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING FOR THE BOX STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING. I THINK SOME VERTICAL ARCHITECTURAL ADD ONS OR WHATEVER THAT IS IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS MIGHT DO THAT.

AND THE ROOF LINE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE CHANGED TOO MUCH IF THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING IS FIXED. THE BLANK AREAS OF THE WALL I THINK NEED ATTENTION, AND IF WE CAN ADDRESS THE ACTUAL INTERNAL RHYTHM OF THE ARCHITECTURE IN TERMS OF HOW THE BUILDING IS BROKEN UP AND NOT APPEAR AS JUST A BIG BOX. WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR SUBSTANTIAL BUILDING REDESIGN HERE. WE ARE LOOKING FOR ELEMENTS WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THE ARCHITECTURE AND WITHIN THE ELEVATIONS THAT START TO MAKE

THE PROPORTION SMALLER. >> HAVE YOU SAT IN A MEETING WITH KEVIN AND DENNIS AND A

PIECE OF PAPER AND STARTED SKETCHING AND TALKING? >> WE HAVE NOT.

>> NO. >> MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO.

PERHAPS THAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED BEFORE WE EVEN GOT TO THIS MEETING.

THAT'S WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN. >> AGAIN, I AM VERY MUCH OPEN TO THESE SUGGESTIONS.

AND AGAIN, I AM THE GO BETWEEN BETWEEN YOU GUYS AND MY CLIENT SO I AM TRYING TO MAKE EVERYBODY

HAPPY. >> EVEN IF YOU MAKE HIM HAPPY YOU WILL GO BACK AND SELL IT T*.

>> SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS AND THE CHANGE IN THE FACADE MATERIAL IS A SIGNIFICANT

INCREASE IN COSTS. >> DO YOU HAVE A SAMPLE OF THE FACADE MATERIAL?

>> I DON'T HAVE PHYSICAL SAMPLES ON ME. >> I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO SEE THEM TODAY, BUT MAYBE A SAMPLE AND YOU TAKE IT INTO DENNIS AND KEVIN AND IT MAY BE THE THING -- YOU SAY THIS LOOKS GREAT AND I THINK THAT IF YOU DO X AND Y OVER HERE, WE'RE HAPPY.

>> I PROVIDED CUT SHEETS OF THE MATERIAL FROM A MANUFACTURER, BUT AGAIN WE CAN GET SAMPLES AND

WE CAN DISCUSS. >> I THINK IT IS TIME FOR SOMEBODY TO COME INTO YOUR OFFICE AND SELL YOU ON WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

>> I THINK JUST THE STATEMENT THAT THESE MATERIALS HAVE INCREASED THE COST OF PUTTING THESE MATERIALS IN AS A STRIP OF THE MATERIAL HAS INCREASED THE COST.

MY COME BACK IS DO YOU NEED THAT VOLUME OF MATERIAL OR THE WAYS OF BREAKING THIS THING UP WITHOUT HAVING TO, YOU KNOW, ENCOURAGE COSTS BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF MATERIAL YOU ARE USING.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RHYTHM AND HOW THESE THINGS ARE BROKEN UP AND TO HAVE A STRIP OF COSTLY

MATERIAL TO ADDRESS THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT WAY TO GO. >> IT IS NOT A STRIP.

IT IS THE ENTIRE -- >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THE VOLUME OF THAT MATERIAL IS

[03:25:03]

>> YES. >> IF WE CUT DOWN ON THE VOLUME OF THAT MATERIAL AND USED OTHER METHODS TO SPLIT THE ELEVATIONS OUT, THAT CAN BE DONE BY OTHER FORMS OF, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A CORPORATE IDENTITY, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BLUE IS ESSENTIAL. OTHER FORMS OF STRIPING OR WHATEVER THAT IS, IN TERMS OF APPLYING PAINT OR COLOR OR OTHER THINGS, RATHER THAN CHANGING A WHOLE VOLUME OF MATERIAL TO OFFSET THAT COST, SO YOU ARE DESIGNING IN SOME FEATURES THAT DONE PROPERLY WILL NOT NEED A LOT OF MAINTENANCE TO KEEP THERE FOR UH WHILE -- FOR AWHILE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THREE TRUCK FULLS MATERIAL COMING TO THE SITE AND BEING PLASTERED ON THE WALL. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO TKPWE HERE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YES, IT DOES. >> I THINK THERE ARE THREE CONDITIONS HERE PRECLUDE THAT THERE IS WORK TO BE DONE AND YOU WANT THAT WORK DONE BEFORE YOU

GO TO COMMISSION. >> YES. I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WILL BE

VERY MOTIVATED TO DO THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE ELSE HERE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS? NOT SEEING ANYBODY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR OUR STAFF?

>> CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN? >> I DID. >> I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. ALBURY AND A SECOND BY MR. HEANING.

CALL THE ROLE. >> MS. DANIEL. >> YES.

>> MS. CLEMONS. >> YES. >> MR. ALBURY.

>> YES. >> MR. KREISL. >> YES.

>> MR. HEANIG, YES. >> CHAIR CREYAUFMILLER. >> YES.

>> I AM GOING TO GET SOME DINNER. SEE YOU LATER.

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS -- THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS 6E, FINAL PLAT, VILLAS

[e. Final Plat - Villas at Kings Landing - 125 A. E. Backus Avenue]

LUCKY YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON/EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS.

BEFORE YOU WE HAVE A FINAL PLAT APPLICATION FOR THE VILLAS AT KINGS LANDING AT 125AE BACKUS AVENUE. THE APPLICANT IS BRADLEY J CURRY, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF EDC INCORPORATED. THE PROPERTY OWNER, AUTOBAN CORP OPERATED.

INCORPORATED. THE REQUEST FOR A REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THE APPROXIMATELY 0.76-ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS TO 10 PLATTED LOTS INCLUDING ONE PRIVATE ACCESS TRACK FOR THE VILLAS AT KINGS LANDING SUBDIVISION AT OR NEAR 125AE BACKUS AVENUE. IT IS IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, CBD, A DESIGN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD. THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.

IT IS TO THE NORTH OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE KINGS LANDING PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THERE IS A FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP OF THE SUBJECT AREA. AND BEFORE YOU THIS IS THE PLAT DOCUMENT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH ONE CONDITION.

THE APPLICANT SHALL SUPPLY TWO MILARS FOR APPROPRIATE SIGNATURES AND THE PLAT IS RECORDED WITH THE CLERK OFE WITH FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 177-111. POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING

[03:30:01]

DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU. >> WHAT HAS CHANGED ON THIS FROM THE LAST DRAWING THAT WE SAW? I MEAN, THAT IS -- IT SEEMED LIKE A COUPLE YEARS AGO.

>> SO, ORIGINALLY, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, I THINK THESE VILLAS I THINK IT WAS EIGHT.

THE APPLICANT RECENTLY WAS APPROVED FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INCREASE IT FROM 8 TO 10.

YOU ALL DIDN'T SEE THIS BECAUSE THAT'S CONSIDERED A MINOR AMENDMENT.

IT WAS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY. THEY PASSED THAT -- THEY HAVE PASSED AND APPROVED WITH THAT AND NOW THEY ARE COMING WITH THE FINAL PLAT.

>> WHAT WAS DONE TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE IT FROM 8 TO 10? >> JUST THE AMENDMENT TO THE

PLAT DEVELOPMENT. A MINOR AMENDMENT. >> THE SPACE ON THE PROPERTY WAS

THERE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT WITH? >> CORRECT. >> IS THERE SOME REASON THEY

DIDN'T SHOW 10 AND THEY SHOWED 8? >> CORRECT.

IT DIDN'T REACH A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE POINT OF A CHANGE IN THE SITE PLAN.

5% OR LESS IS CONSIDERED MINOR. >> THE EGRESS AND IN-- INGRESS FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IS AROUND

THE BACK OF THESE UNITS? >> CORRECT. >> SO VISITATION WOULD BE

PARKING ON STREET PARKING? >> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. I DON'T HAVE THE SITE PLAN.

I THINK IT'S -- IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN THEY HAVE PARKING SPACES AND GARAGES.

I CAN DEFER TO THE APRIL PHRAU PRESIDENT KA. I CAN DEFER TO THE APPLICANT.

I DON'T HAVE THE SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF ME. I HAVE THE MAIN -- HANG ON.

I DO. >> ARE WE GETTING SHOVELS IN THE GROUND ANY TIME SOON OR IN OUR LIFETIME? THIS IS A TINY PIECE OF THE WHOLE THING.

>> ONCE THIS PIECE GOES YOU WILL HEAR SEVERAL. >> I HAVE HEARD THAT SEVERAL

TIMES. >> IT HAS SOME TYPE OF PARKING. >> I THINK WE STARTED THIS TWO DIRECTORS AGO. I'M JUST BEING TACKY NOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC PORTION

OF THE MEETING. >> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, BRAD CURRY AND REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. BEFORE I BEGIN I WANT TO SAY STAFF IS WORKING WITH US TO GET THIS THING SCHEDULED SO WE CAN GET A SHOVEL IN THE GROUND AND THEY WILL TRY TO GET IT DONE FOR

THE NECK CITY COUNCIL -- NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING. >> DID YOU PICK YOUR CHECKUP ON

YOUR WAY HERE? >> SO THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS PLAN AND THE PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY THE BOARD AND BY THE CITY COMMISSION WAS THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDINGS -- I WAS TALKING WITH DALE AND THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION ON THE LAST ITEM ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND THEY SAID DID YOU BRING THE ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATIONS? BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FITTING IF YOU SAW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE OLD PLAN AND THE NEW PLAN. THERE WERE EIGHT TOWNHOUSES AND FOUR BUILDINGS AND TWO BUILDINGS EACH. THERE IS A TWO-CAR GARAGE AND A CAR THAT COULD PARK IN THE FRONT. EVERYTHING IS ACCESSING OFF BACKUS. DALE SAID WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS, GUYS.

WE HAVE FLIPPED THE UNITS AND BROUGHT THE LEADING PORTION OF THE UNIT OUT CLOSER TO THE FRONT OF THE ROAD. BASICALLY IT WAS TOUCHING THE RIGHT OF WAY AND WE HAVE PUT THE DRIVEWAYS AND THE GARAGES IN THE BACK. EACH UNIT HAS A TWO-CAR GARAGE AND THERE IS SKPRA SPACE TO PARK FOR GUESTS. IF YOU HAD A BIG PARTY OR

SOMETHING, GUESTS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE PARKING SOMEWHERE. >> IT DOES HAVE A MINUTE PHUP OF TWO SPACES PER UNIT. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T BRING THE ELEVATION.

I KNEW MR. ALBURY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE. THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT TO BEGIN WITH AND IT IS EVEN BETTER NOW. TWO-STORY ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS.

THESE ARE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY THIS OUT LOUD, BUT THEY ARE ALMOST CUSTOM HOMES THE WAY THEY

ARE LAID OUT. >> ELEVATING THEM WHICH IS HELPING DOWN ON THE STEP

DOWNSCALE. >> IT IS NOT BLOCKING AT ALL. IT WAS A RECTANGLE.

>> AND THIS IS A DIFFERENT UNIT. >> IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE GOVERNMENT HOUSING.

[03:35:06]

>> THE APPLICATION IS TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY SO WE CAN START SELLING THESE AND HAVING THE ADDRESS. YOU ASKED ABOUT THE MAIN SITE, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING THE FINAL PERMITTING FOR THAT. NOTHING IS DONE QUICKLY HERE. IT IS WITH MYSELF AND MY STAFF

AND IT IS A LOT OF PROCESSES TO GO THROUGH. >> THERE IS A LOT OF MOVING

PARTS IN THIS THING. >> HAS THIS GONE BEFORE THE PRESERVATION BOARD?

>> I BELIEVE SO. >> HAVE YOU BEEN BEFORE THE BOARD?

>> THE OVERALL PLAN HAS BEEN, YES. >> THIS MODIFICATION?

>> THIS MODIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN BEFORE THE HISTORIC BOARD. >> DOES IT NEED TO?

>> NO. I THINK IT WAS ADMINISTRATIVE AND REALLY SO MINOR IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL PUD, SO IF WE WERE TO START TAKING ALL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD WE WOULD

NEVER DO ANYTHING. >> I UNDERSTAND. I AM JUST GOING TO BRING IT UP THAT IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO WE WOUND UP HAVING TO GO BACKWARDS TO THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GO TO THE HISTORICAL PRESERVATION BOARD AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN AGAIN. SO EVERYTHING YOU'RE TELLING ME, I'M HAPPY ABOUT.

I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN SOME, YOU KNOW, CONCEPT -- CONCEPTUAL --

>> SORRY I DIDN'T BRING ANY. I HAD MY CONSULTANT HAT ON AND IT WAS A PLAT AND WE WEREN'T

SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT ELEVATIONS. >> YOU DO THAT FOR THE

COMMISSION MEETING. >> YES, SIR. WE WILL DEFINITELY DO THAT FOR COMMISSION. WE WILL BRING IN PRETTY PICTURES.

>> DO THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REAL BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY TO SEE

-- >> THEY ARE GONNA PULL IT UP. >> I THINK WE CAN GET IT ONLINE.

>> ISN'T THAT AMAZING? HOW DID YOU DO THAT? SERIOUSLY.

>> IS IT SOLD? >> I THINK IT IS DIFFICULT TO SELL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ADDRESSES AND SO WE ARE TRYING -- THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE.

THAT IS THE ELEVATIONS. >> THIS LOOKS LIGHT YEARS FROM WHERE IT WAS.

>> THAT WAS SECOND STREET THAT IS ON THE BOUGHT -- BOTTOM RIGHT AROUND CORNER OF THE SCREEN.

THERE ARE THREE UNITS ALONG SECOND AND THERE ARE THREE BUILDINGS WITH TWO UNITS EACH.

>> SO THE SIDEWALK IS PART OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT. >> WE WILL HAVE TO ADD SIDEWALKS. I THINK THERE ARE SIDEWALKS THERE NOW, BUT WE MAY NEED TO

INSTALL SOME AS WELL IF WE TEAR THEM UP. >> I KNOW THEY ARE ON SECOND.

I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY ON BACKUS. >> YOU WILL WANT NEW ONES ANYWAY. IF NOT FOR THE RAILROAD TRAIN GOING BY THIS AT 100 MILES AN

HOUR IT WOULD BE PRETTY NICE. >> YOU WON'T EVEN HEAR THE RAILROAD TRACK.

>> I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING AND DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, BUT THE RESIDENTS THAT

WILL BE TAKING OCCUPANCY HERE, HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT PARADES? >> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR

THAT, BUT IF THEY LIVE DOWNTOWN, I'M SURE THEY LOVE PARADES. >> IT IS A GOOD SPOT TO BE.

>> IT LOOKS NICE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> YOU GOT TO SEE YOUR PRETTY

PICTURES. >> THAT'S GREAT. MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THAT FOR THE

COMMISSION. >> DEFINITELY. >> HAVE I A HOT QUESTION -- I HAVE A HOT QUESTION, NOT TO DO WITH THIS PART OF IT, BUT WHERE WILL EVERYBODY PARK WHEN YOU

START BUILDING? >> THERE IS A PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE WE WILL BUILD INTERNAL TO

THE MAIN SITE -- >> NO. THE WORKERS.

THEY WILL PARK ON ONE SIDE AND WE HAVE TO THE WEST OF SECOND STREET THAT IS UNDER OUR CONTROL AS WELL. IT WILL PARK ON THE WEST SIDE OF SECOND STREET AS WELL.

>> IF IT IS BEING USED FOR PARKING NOW. >> HOPE TO HAVE A HUNDRED

WORKERS IN HERE WORKING. >> WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS THE CITY IS GONNA USE THE USE OF THIS LOT AND THE LOT ALONG THE RAILROAD BECAUSE THIS LOT IS GOING TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND A LOT OF THE RAILROADS ARE GOING TO HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION GUYS PARKING IN IT.

HOWEVER MANY NUMBERS OF PARKING SPACES YOU HAVE THERE, I DON'T KNOW A HUNDRED, THEY'RE GONE.

>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHERE THE WORKERS ARE. >> DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE WE DON'T

HAVE PARKING. >> SEEMS LIKE WHENEVER I TAKE MY BOAT OVER TO MANATEE, I PARK

[03:40:02]

OVER THERE. I PARK IN THE BOAT SPACES. >> I PARK MY MOTORCYCLE IN

THOSE. THERE IS NOWHERE ELSE TO GO. >> I'M RIGHT THERE WITH YOU.

>> OKAY. VERY GOOD. >> THANK YOU.

>> I LIKE THIS. THIS LOOKS GOOD. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS? NO. OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND COME BACK. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY, DID YOU WANT TO PUT A DOWN PAYMENT ON ONE OF THESE?

>> I WANT ONE, YES. >> GET THE CHECKBOOK OUT AND ALL THE MOTHS FLY OUT OF IT.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE ONE -- WE HAVE ONE CONDITION,

CORRECT? >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE

AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL. >> MS. DANIEL.

>> YES. >> MS. CLEMONS. >> YES.

>> MR. ALBURY. >> YES. >> MR. KREISEL.

>> YES. >> MR. HEANIG. >> YES.

>> AND CHAIR CREYAUFMILLER. >> YES. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

I APOLOGIZE TO YOU THAT IT TOOK SO LONG TO GET TO YOU. >> AS LONG AS IT PASSED.

>> THE LUCK OF THE DRAW. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A PUBLIC

COMMENT? >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> YOU ARE JUST KILLING TIME,

AREN'T YOU? >> I GET HOME THE SAME TIME EITHER WAY.

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

>> DIRECTOR'S REPORT? >> YOU VIEWED THE CONFERENCE MEETING THIS MORNING, BUT I PRESENTED A -- AN IDEA TO LOOK INTO HOW WE ACCESS THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF THE SMALL LOTS IN THE CITY, SPECIFICALLY IN LINCOLN PARK THAT HAS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF SMALL LOTS AND PROPOSED TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT WE MOVE FROM THE UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY CALCULATION TO MORE OF A BEDROOM S PER ACRE DENSITY CALCULATION.

I'M USING THAT FORMULA YOU CAN HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF BEDROOMS ON A SMALL LOT THAT YOU KWAO -- THAT YOU COULD HAVE A THREE-BEDROOM HOUSE OR A TWO-BEDROOM OR A ONE-BEDROOM AND TWO UNITS. SO WE'RE ALLOWING OR WORKING TOWARD ALLOWING OR PERMITTING DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL FOR SMALL LOTS TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE HOME ON THERE, AND ONE OF THOSE HOMES WE ARE HOPING WOULD BE A SMALL HOME, MORE AFFORDABLE AND MORE ATTAINABLE.

I GOT INSTRUCTION FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO LOOK AT AND INVESTIGATE AND PROPOSE IDEAS FOR INCREASING HOME OWNERSHIP IN THE CITY. I WILL BE WORKING WITH THE GRANTS SECTION AND THE HOUSING SECTION AND LOOKING AT IF WE DO IMPLEMENT THIS, THEN WORKING ON A BEDROOMS PER ACRE CALCULATION. YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY ENABLING SMALLER LOTS FOR SALE.

YOU ARE ALLOWING THE SUBDIVISION LOTS THAT COULD HOUSE A SMALL OR TINY HOUSE AND THAT COULD BE SOLD OFF. WE ARE LOOKING TO INCREASE THE SPECTRUM OF HOUSING SUPPLY IN THAT DIRECTION AND ADDRESS THE MARKET DEMANDS AND REDUCE HOUSING COSTS AS FAR AS WE CAN, SPECIFICALLY IN AREAS THAT WE SEE ARE STRUGGLING. I HAVE DATA THAT I WORKED WITH THE I.T. DEPARTMENT TO EXTRACT FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS AND THAT IS REMARKABLE.

LINCOLN PARK HAS APPROXIMATELY 2,000 LOTS IN THERE, SMALL RESIDENTIAL AND ZONED.

OF THOSE 2000 ABOUT HALF ARE VACANT AND THE REASON IS THE LOTS ARE TOO SMALL TO PROPERLY ACCOMMODATE A DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD PAY FOR THE COST OF THE LAND AND THE COST OF THE BUILD.

SO BY INCREASING THE OPTIONS TO BUILD SMALLER HOMES ON THESE LOTS, WE'RE HOPEFULLY INCREASING THE POTENTIAL FOR SOME OF THESE LOTS TO BE IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN AND I THINK THAT'S A BIG DEAL AND IT IS A QUITE OUT OF THE BOX WAY OF DOING THINGS. I HAVE DONE -- I HAVE SEEN IT IN

[03:45:01]

>> SO YOU'RE THINKING IN TERMS OF A BROADER SCOPE THAN JUST A NARROW SCOPE OF PARTICULAR AREAS

IN THE CITY? >> I DON'T KNOW HOW COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO ENGAGE IN THIS, WHETHER IT IS LIMITED TO A SMALLER AREA IN THE CITY INITIALLY TO EXPERIMENT AND TO SEE HOW THAT WORKED, BUT I THINK A WIDER ATTACK TO ENCOURAGE AND ALLOW ACCESSORY DWELLINGS ON THE APPROPRIATE LOT SIZES IS A REALLY GOOD WAY MOVING FORWARD AND INCREASING THE HOUSING STOCK

>> AS LONG AS IT IS GOING TO INCREASE -- THERE ARE SO MANY TERMS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO USE ANYMORE. AS LONG AS IT IS INTENDED AND IT IS SUCCESSFUL IN PRODUCING AFFORDABLE TKPWELG -- DWELLINGS, I WOULD PERSONALLY BE ALL FOR IT. THE INTENT THAT IT IS OVER LOOKED AND IT IS AN INEXPENSIVE WAY AND A CONVENIENT WAY TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF VACATION RENTAL PROPERTIES, THAT BECOMES AN ISSUE IN MY MIND. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT OUR WORDING OF OUR ORDINANCES. I THINK WRAOE SKR -- I THINK WE HAVE SEVERAL ORDINANCE THAT'S ARE LOOSEY GOOSY TO A POINT THAT IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT FOR THIS BOARD TO HAMMER SOMETHING DOWN AND IT IS MUCH WORSE FOR YOU IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO LOOK SOMETHING DOWN.

SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE -- ABOUT HOW WE DEVELOP NEW ORDINANCES FOR THIS OR CHANGE EXISTING ORDINANCES TO PERMIT IT. I THINK IT IS GOING IN A GOOD DIRECTION. YOU'RE VERY PROGRESSIVE IN THINKING IN THESE KINDS OF THINGS, AND OF COURSE COMING AND WORKING YOUR WAY THROUGH THE EDUCATION SYSTEM RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE PROBABLY COMING UP WITH ALL KINDS OF NEW THINGS. US OLD GUYS, WE ARE STILL

THINKING ABOUT -- >> WHY DO YOU LOOK AT ME WHEN YOU SAY THAT?

>> WELL, YOU ARE MY SENIOR, RIGHT? OKAY.

WHAT ELSE YOU GOT? >> WE DO HAVE OUR FIRST APPLICATION IN PROCESS OF THE LIVE LOCAL AND TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR 210 AFFORDABLE HOMES LOCATED OFF U.S. 1 AND NORTH OF TUMBLING CLING ROAD WHICH ARE CURRENTLY LOCATED IN A COMMERCIAL ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE. THE STATE BILL 102 ALLOWS AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE PROCESSED OR MANDATES AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BE PROCESSED AS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BASED ON THE CITY'S REGULATIONS FOR MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

IF THE SITE IS INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL SO APPLICANTS CAN COME IN AND DO THAT.

THEY HAVE TO SHOW THERE IS A 30-YEAR GUARANTEE THESE HOMES ARE AFFORDABLE.

THEY HAVE TO BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY STANDARDS INCLUDING THE STORM WATER. THEY CAN LOOK AT PORKING -- AT PARKING REDUCTION.

THAT IS STATE MANDATED. AND IT GOES TO TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.

SO THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL GO TO TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON AND WE ARE RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS INVOLVED AND NO CHANGE TO FUTURE LAND OUTS AND NO CHANGE OF ZONING PROVIDED IT MEETS THE STATE REGULATIONS, WE WILL BE MOVING THESE THINGS FORWARD.

>> OKAY. >> WHEN YOU SAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

[03:50:09]

>> THE STATE CRITERIA IS THEY USE THE TERM INCOME ELIGIBLE WHICH IS BASED ON A -- WHAT I THINK THE ST.LUCIE STATISTICAL AREA THE RENTS OR THE PRICES IN THOSE TABLE ARE I THINK HIGHER THAN WHAT WE WOULD BE SEEING IN FORT PIERCE SO THERE IS LEEWAY IN THE STATE REGULATIONS.

IF THE DEVELOPER GOES AND LOOKS FOR STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING, THERE WILL BE RESTRICTIONS ON THAT NUMBER. WE DON'T KNOW THOSE AT THE MOMENT.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO SAY WE WILL SEE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE --

>> THEY HAVE TO. THERE IS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR 100% AFFORDABLE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. THEY WILL HAVE TO HOLD THOSE AFFORDABLE FOR 40 YEARS. THE MONITORING OF THAT, WE ARE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW

WE DO THAT. >> IT IS CALCULATED BASED ON AVERAGE INCOME?

>> YES. IT WILL BE EITHER -- I THINK AFFORDABLE IS ANYTHING LESS THAN

FROM STATE DEFINITION 120% OF MEDIUM -- MEDIAN INCOME. >> IS THAT LOCAL?

>> THE COUNTY WHICH IS DIFFERENT TO FORT PIERCE. >> FORT PIERCE IS LIKE 42,000 OR

SOMETHING. >> I DON'T I DON'T EVEN THINK IT IS THAT HIGH FOR FORT PIERCE.

>> IT IS LIKE 30 -- >> IT IS IN THE 30S. >> IT IS BASED ON MAYBE COUNTY

WAS 42. >> THE COUNTY MIGHT BE 45 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THE LAST TIME I SPOKE -- >> THAT MIGHT BE WHAT I SAW. OKAY.

>> THERE IS A DEMONSTRATION. WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT. THE THING IS WE HAVE TO SEE THE

DOCUMENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT. >> OKAY.

>> AND ANOTHER INQUIRY AS I FINISH MY LUNCH, ANOTHER INQUIRY FOR ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT HR LOOKING TO COME IN UNDER THIS PROVISION. I AM NOT CERTAIN YET.

>> CHEAP PROPERTY. IT IS GONNA HAPPEN. >> AND YOU HAVE DEALT WITH IT.

WE HAVE SEEN A CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL. YOU THINK OF THE WOODS PROPERTY AND IN THAT AREA. WE SUPPORTED THAT. PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE WANT THE HOMES TO BE LOCATED CLOSE TO BUSINESS AND I THINK DOING THAT IS A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHESY.

THE MORE HOMES YOU HAVE THE MORE WORKERS YOU HAVE AND THE MORE DISPOSABLE INCOME YOU HAVE AND THE MORE LIKELY YOU HAVE BUSINESSES COMING INTO THE LOCATIONS.

IT IS A SELF-FULFILLING TREADMILL, IF YOU LIKE. AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL SEE SOME POSITIVE OUTCOMES FROM THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHER THAN STORAGE UNITS WITH COMMERCIAL

ACTIVITIES COMING IN. >> STORAGE UNITS. >> AND CAR WASH.

>> AND AUTO SALES. >> IS THAT IT? >> YEP.

>> YOU'VE BEEN BUSY. >> YES. >> GOOD.

YOU'RE EARNING YOUR KEEP. >> YES. >> YOU'RE EARNING MINE TOO.

[4. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]

>> IS CHAIRMAN, BEFORE WE GO TO BOARD COMMENTS CAN WE DO CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES BEFORE

WE FORGET. >> YES. I WOULD HAVE FORGOTTEN.

SO WE HAD ONE ABSENCE. I'LL GET TO THAT LATER. WE HAVE ONE ABSENCE,

MR. EDWARDS. >> CORRECT. >> I WOULD GENERALLY -- WE DON'T DO THIS OFTEN BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ABSENCES. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND HE INDICATED HE WAS GOING TO BE HERE AND HE HASN'T SHOWN UP. BASED ON OUR RULES WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON HOW TO HANDLE IT. WE CAN DECLARE IT AN UNEXCUSABLE ABSENCE THAT PUTS HIM ONE MARK, THAT HE MISSED ONE AND IF HE MISSED THREE MEETINGS HE COULD BE DISMISSED BASED ON THE BOARD.

[03:55:04]

>> I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE UNTIL MR. EDWARDS IS ABLE TO ENTERTAIN THE QUESTION OF HIS ABSENCE.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> MS. DANIEL. >> YES.

>> MS. CLEN -- CLEMOS. >> YES. >> MR. ALBURY.

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

>> YES. >> MR. KREISL. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. >> YES. >> I WILL TRY TO BE QUICK ON THIS, BUT I HAVE SOMETHING THAT I REALLY FEEL LIKE I NEED TO COVER.

NUMBER ONE, WE ARE AN ADVISORY BOARD. WE ARE NOT QUASI JUDICIAL.

WE ARE ADVISORY. OUR ROLE IS TO ADVISE THE COMMISSION IN HOW TO HANDLE THIS APPLICATION. BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT CORRECTLY I FEEL, AND I'VE STATED THIS BEFORE, AND I HAVE HAD SOME PUSH BACK AT TIMES THAT WE NEED AS A BOARD THE FUNCTION UPLD -- UNDER THE SAME REQUIREMENTS THAT IN A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING JOHN PUBLIC WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN IN A STATEMENT THAT HE WANTS TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD AS EVIDENCE.

WHICH MEANS ANYTHING WE HAVE TO SAY MUST BE VALIDATED, SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT EVIDENCE.

>> ONE EXAMPLE, WE GET IT CONTINUOUSLY FROM OUR PUBLIC THAT COMES IN TO VOICE THEIR OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING. WE GOT IT TODAY. IF THIS HOUSE IS BUILT, IT IS GOING TO AFFECT MY PROPERTY. WE HAVE NO VALIDATED, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO THAT COMMENT. NOW, IT MAY BE ACCURATE, BUT NOBODY IS GOING TO KNOW FOR ANOTHER TWO, 10, FIVE YEARS WHEN MR. JOE PUBLIC DECIDES TO SELL HIS HOME AND THAT STRUCTURE WAS BUILT OR THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS BUILT. THAT'S WHEN YOU FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT IT HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY VALUE. UNFORTUNATELY.

IF WE WERE QUASI JUDICIAL AND JOE PUBLIC SAID THAT TO US, WE CAN'T USE THAT AS EVIDENCE.

IN OUR CASE, WE ARE AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE COMMISSION. IF WE SAY THAT -- IF WE SAY THAT THE BOARD CAN'T USE THAT AS ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY CONSIDERATION TO THAT APPLICATION, AND I'M USING THE PROPERTY VALUES AND EXAMPLES AND BECAUSE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO SPEED UP AND DOWN THE RIVER. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF THAT. IF WE SAY THAT FROM THIS DIOSCE, THE COMMISSION CAN'T USE THAT AS EVIDENCE TO HELP SUPPORT WHAT WE ARE TELLING THEM TO VOTE YES OR NO FOR. OUR JOB IS TO BE CERTAIN OF WHAT WE SAY IS ACCURATE AND THE COMMUNITY IS LOOKING FOR US TO BE ACCURATE. THERE ARE TIMES, AND I DO IT AS WELL, WHEN I WILL MAKE A STATEMENT THAT IS MY PERSONAL FEELING, AND I TRY TO START OFF WITH THIS IS MY PERSONAL FEELING , AND I DID THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES.

IT WAS NOT TONIGHT, BUT MUCH EARLIER. I TRIED TO IDENTIFY THAT THIS IS MY PERSONAL FEELING. I'M NOT SUGGESTING TO YOU THAT I'M RIGHT.

IT IS JUST HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. WHEN WE DO IT, WE NEED TO TELL PEOPLE WE'RE DOING THAT.

OTHERWISE JOE PUBLIC CAN LEAVE. THAT WAS A WINNING COMMENT. IT GETS TO THE COMMISSION AND IT

[04:00:04]

THE COMMISSION RELIES ON THIS BOARD. I CAN'T TELL YOU OFTEN -- AND SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T FEEL THAT WAY WHEN YOU LISTEN TO A -- LISTEN TO THE COMMISSION REVAMP A PROJECT. I WAS TOLD BY SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS, I REALLY TRY TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE PLANNING BOARDS DO AND WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS SAYING.

I WILL ASK YOU, WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD SAID THAT, WHAT WERE THEY -- WHY DID THEY SAY THAT? I HEARD THEM ASK YOU THAT AND SOMETIMES THEY SIT THERE AND SAY HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW? AND THAT'S WHEN IT IS A STATEMENT THAT JUST DOES NOT LINEUP AND CONNECT THE DOTS. SO THE STATEMENTS ARE ACCURATE AND THEY ARE AS TRUE AS THEY CAN BE AND THERE IS GOOD EVIDENCE THAT THE COMMISSION CAN USE THEM.

THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT, THAT'S OUR JOB. PARTICIPATION IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT. WE HAD GREAT PARTICIPATION THE LAST COUPLE MEETINGS.

KEEP IT UP. DON'T NOT SAY SOMETHING BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST SAID TONIGHT.

BUT JUST BE SURE THAT WHEN YOU SAY SOMETHING THAT IT'S -- IT FALLS UNDER THE VALIDATED SUB STAN COMPETENT INFORMATION OF EVIDENCE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.

>> OKAY. >> YOU CAN GO FIRST. >> I JUST WANTED TO SAY THERE IS A SECTION OF WHAT WE DO IS DISCUSSION. IT DOESN'T FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY AS YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT. SO WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THIS STUFF THAT DOESN'T COME INTO THAT CATEGORY BECAUSE WE CAN'T TALK OUTSIDE THIS BOARD. SO I JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT IN THERE.

THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME STUFF THAT IS TALKED ABOUT AND IT DON'T FIT YOUR CRITERIA THAT YOU

JUST READ OFF. >> WELL, THE DISCUSSION, YES. YOU'RE RIGHT.

BUT I THINK ALSO THE DISCUSSION -- EVEN IN OUR DISCUSSIONS I WILL GENERALLY SAY

THIS IS HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. I DON'T TRY TO MAKE THE -- >> I AM NOT SAYING YOU ARE WRONG. I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT ON THAT THERE WILL BE TIMES WHERE

YOU MAY NOT THINK I'M SAYING -- >> WE HAD A -- WE GOT JAMMED UP ON A MOTION.

WE ADD MOTION AND WE COULDN'T GET -- >> IT IS NOT A MOTION.

>> WE COULDN'T FINISH THE MOTION. OKAY SO WE GOT JAMMED UP ON THE MOTION. WE HAD TO TALK ABOUT IT AGAIN. PART OF THE DISCUSSION WAS YOU

TRYING TO SELL ME OR ANTONE OR -- >> NOT TRY TO SELL.

IT IS A DISCUSSION. >> THIS IS WHAT YOUR FEELING IS AND YOU'RE TRYING TO PROJECT YOUR FEELING TO GET US TO THINK ABOUT IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT ELEMENT ALSO. WHEN WE PULL UP THE MICROPHONE AND WE LOOK OUT BEYOND THE DYE -- DIOSCE AND START MAKING STATEMENTS IT FALLS INTO VALIDATED, SUBSTANTIAL,

COMPETENT EVIDENCE. >> ARE YOU SAYING ME? I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR.

>> NO. >> IF I WANTED TO POINT SOMEBODY OUT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW. >> THIS IS JUST OVERALL. I'VE DONE SOME OF IT TOO.

[04:05:10]

>> I'M JUST GONNA BE ME. >> I AM JUST ASKING TO BE CAUTIOUS ABOUT IT.

THE REASON IT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS THE REASON IT WAS HAPPENED AND I WAS CALLED ON OUTSIDE OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I THINK I HANDLED IT THE WAY IT NEEDED TO BE HANDLED.

WE NEEDED TO BE CAREFUL. WE ARE THE FACE OF FORT PIERCE WHEN WE ARE SITTING HERE.

WE ARE THE FACE OF FORT PIERCE. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? >> YEAH.

FIRST COMMENT -- IT IS GOING TO BE BRIEF, BUT KEVIN I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD YOU FOR TODAY AND, YOU KNOW EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID IS VERY SPOT ON THAT YOU LISTEN AND YOU TAKE YOUR NOTES AND YOU DO YOUR DUE DILIGENCE AND I APPRECIATE THAT WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALL REGULAR CITIZENS. IT IS NICE WHEN YOU DO STEP IN AND JUST TAKE IT AND GUIDE IT WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THE WORDS.

ALSO, IT SADDENS ME TO TELL YOU THAT THIS IS MY LAST MEETING DUE TO ME MOVING.

YES. IF I COULD BE ON IT WITHOUT BEING A RESIDENT, I WOULD STAY

IN THE GAME. BUT, YOU KNOW -- >> ARE YOU MOVING OUT OF THE

CITY? >> CAN YOU WAIT UNTIL AFTER THE NEXT MEETING?

>> WE COULD SUPPORT AN ANNEXATION. >> WHEN DO YOU MOVE?

>> QUITE SOON, ACTUALLY. THIS IS VERY, VERY -- I MEANT TO MENTION IT LAST MEETING, BUT WE KIND OF, LIKE, WENT OVER BOARD WITH EVERYTHING AND DEFINITELY IT SIDE TRACKED ME, BUT QUITE SOON. ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF EVERYTHING.

IT SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE THE MONTH IS OVER. >> OKAY.

>> BUT I'LL BE IN THE TAMPA BAY AREA. I HAVE BEEN STUDYING AND LOOKING AT ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS AND THINGS THAT THEY'VE DONE AND THAT THEY ARE IMPLEMENTING.

THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT UP AFFORDABILITY. THEY ARE TRYING TO DO A WALKABLE, 13-MINUTE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE AFFORDABLE IS LIKE YOU HAVE TO MAKE AT LEAST 80 SO I'M LIKE OKAY, WHO WILL BE ABLE TO HOUSE THAT? I LOOK FORWARD TO STILL COMING TO THE MEETINGS BECAUSE IT IS MY CITY AND I -- I REALLY BELIEVE WE ARE IN GOOD HANDS AS FAR AS A PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE TEAM THAT SUPPORTS EVERYTHING.

YOU KNOW, EVERY MEETING I'M LIKE, MAN, THIS IS GETTING -- I FEEL BETTER ABOUT LEAVING VERSUS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE SHAKY IF I LEFT OR, YOU KNOW, NOT TO SAY THAT I'M DETERMINING ANYTHING, BUT, YOU KNOW, I WAS PUT ON THIS BOARD BECAUSE SOMEONE THAT THE MY VOICE MATTERED.

AND WITH THE PROPER EDUCATION AND LEARNING, YOU KNOW, I SEE THAT THAT ACTUALLY DOES -- IT IS A FITTING THING, YOU KNOW? I WILL SEE YOU ALL PROBABLY AT THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE I DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE WHERE THE PRONG -- THE PROJECT GOES FROM HERE.

>> ARE YOU GONNA PHONE A FRIEND? >> YEAH. >> WELL, I WISH YOU WELL WHEREVER YOU LAND. FROM THE FIRST MEETING THAT YOU CAME IN TO TODAY, YOU'VE MADE GREAT STRIDES, AND OF COURSE THE EDUCATION THAT YOU'RE PICKING UP IS -- IT HAS BEEN A BIG FACTOR.

I THINK YOU'VE LEARNED A LOT JUST SITTING ON THE BOARD AND WATCHING AND BEING PART OF HOW

[04:10:07]

WE ARE NOT MAKING A DECISION THAT IS A FINAL DECISION WHICH GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF A BREAK , AND WE CAN TAKE A DEEPER BREATH WITH THAT, BUT IT'S STILL A DECISION THAT'S BEING MADE

THAT IS IMPACTING OTHERS. YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY WITH IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING. KEEP EXPANDING. AND I -- YOU'RE TAKING A JOB

OVER THERE? >> HOPEFULLY. RIGHT NOW I'M JUST TRYING TO ROOT MYSELF. THERE'S MEETING AREAS. THERE ARE MEETING AREAS.

I'LL SAY THE S -- THE SAINT PETE AREA PEEK -- PEAKED MY INTEREST. >> I I WAS IN CLEAR WATER FOR

AWHILE: >> I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG YOU HAVE BEEN GONE, BUT FROM THE TALKS OF EVERYBODY AND WHEN I UBER AROUND IT HAS CHANGED DRASTICALLY.

>> THE WHOLE AREA. >> DRASTICALLY. >> GOOD LUCK WITH EVERYTHING.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE'RE GONNA MISS YOU. GOOD LUCK.

I HOPE COMMISSIONER GANES HAS GOT SOMEBODY REALLY GOOD TO SEND IN TO US.

>> NO. JOHNSON. >> YOU'RE JOHNSON.

OKAY. WHO IS GAINES? >> THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. ALBUY, HAVE YOU PUT IN A RESIGNATION? >> NO.

>> I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW NOW. >> CAN YOU PUT IT IN AN EMAIL?

>> AGAIN, I THINK WE ALE APPRECIATE YOUR -- WE ALL APPRECIATE YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS

WITH US. ANYTHING ELSE? >> ALL RIGHT THEN.

WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.