Sep 11, 2023 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

GOOD AFTERNOON. PREP PREP WE ARE PREPARING TO START THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2003. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

HERE, AND I APOLOGIZE. BOY, DID I EVER BLOW THAT.

OKAY, THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO START A CITY MEETING, ISN'T IT.

VERY QUICKLY BEFORE WE DO ROLL CALL, I'D LIKE TO MENTION THAT TODAY IS 9/11, IT'S THE 22ND -- I NIGHT CALL IT AS AN ANNIVERARY -- BUT AN ANNIVERSARY OF THE FATAL DAY AND JUST A QUICK NOTE BETWEEN 8:45 THIS MORNING AND WHEN WE STARTED THIS MEETING THERE WERE FOUR PLANES THAT CRASHED THAT DAY.

3,000 AMERICAN LIVES AND SUCH AT TWIN TOWERS WERE LOST.

INCLUDING THE PLANE THAT WENT DOWN IN PENNSYLVANIA, INCLUDING LIFE THAT WAS LOST AT THE PENTAGON.

ANOTHER 3,000 PEOPLE HAVE DIED DUE TO ILLNESSES CONTRIBUTING THROUGH 9/11 AND ANOTHER 7,000 MILITARY SERVICE PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S QUITE A NUMBER TO THINK ABOUT.

AND IT'S DELUDED WHEN -- DILUTED WHEN WE HEAR IT ON THE NEWS BECAUSE GENERALLY WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY TALK ABOUT THE 3,000 THAT WERE LOST IN THE TWIN TOWERS AND SUCH BUT MANY, MANY MORE. THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION IS IF WE LOST A COUNTY -- I GUESS IT DIDN'T REALLY WORK FOR THE COUNTY BUT SHE WAS THE ECONOMIC DEVEL DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY.

MS. JENNIFER DEBYE AND ALONG -- PARDON ME?

>> DEBAI. SEE, I TELL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME I MESS NAMES UP. AND SO OUR OWN CC ROSS LYLES AND HER LIFE DREAM WAS ALWAYS TO BE A AIRLINE STEWARDESS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU STILL CALL THEM AIRLINE STEWARDESS OR NOT, I'M OLD AND SHE ACHIEVED THAT. AND FLIGHT 93 WAS HER FIRST ASSIGNMENT. SO A LOT TO THINK ABOUT.

AND I HAD ALL OF THAT GOING NONE MY HEAD, AND THIS IS MY EXCUSE AND I'M STICKING TO IT WHEN I FOULED UP THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE SO BADLY. I APOLOGIZE.

ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> MS. DANIEL.

>> MS. CLEMONS. >> YES.

[4. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]

>> MR. CRIESLE. >> PRESENT.

>> MR. HEANING. >> PRESENT.

CHAIRMAN CHEYAUFMILLING. >> PRESENT.

>> AND LAST MONTH MR. -- >> THIS IS MY PEOPLE? YEAH, I HAD A CONFLICT IN A MEETING AT WORK SO SORRY ABOUT THAT I GUESS WE CAN'T FAULT YOU TOO BADLY FOR THAT.

I'D LIKE A MOTION FOR A CHIEF OF ABSENCE FOR A MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

>> MAKING A MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> A MOTION BY MR. HEANING AND SECONDED BY KREISL.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

SEE? >> NOT HEARING ANY, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT BEGINNING ON PAGE 3 ITEM C AND ON PAGE 6

[00:05:03]

THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE BY MR. HEANING SHOULD HAVE ALSO INCLUDED THAT HE NOTED THAT WE WOULD LIFT THAT ITEM FROM THE TABLE AT OUR NEXTS MEETING. I HAVE TO HAND? TO IDENTIFY IT WAS FOR SEPTEMBER 11TH MEETING.

I'D LIKE THAT CHANGED IN THE MINUTES AND IF I CAN I'D LIKE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES FOR APPROVAL WITH THE AMENDMENT.

>> THE MINUTES WITH THE CONDITION OF CHANGES, MOTION.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. HEANING, SECOND BY DANIELS. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

ALL ] FOR THE AUDIENCE AND BOTH THE VIDEO AND HERE PRESENTLY TOGETHER, IF YOU HAVE ONE OF THESE GADGETS, PLEASE TURN THE VOLUME OFF, THE TONE OFF, THE MACHINE OFF. I ONE TIME EXPLAINED HOW TO DO THAT AND IT FOULED UP AND IT RANG.

[a. FLUMA - Crownman PD - S. 2nd Street (Parcel ID: 2410-810-0002-000-6)]

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT SOUTH SECOND STREET...

APPLICANT IS PRESCRIBES EINSTEIN OF CROWNMAN, FLORIDA LLC.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE CHRIS EINSTEIN AND WALTER AND CHERYL BRITT. THE PARCEL ID AS MENTIONED

PREVIOUSLY. >> THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE OF ONE PARCEL FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS SERVICES TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE LOCATED TO THE WEST.

THIS IS THE FOR THE SMALLER PARCEL TO THE WEST, APPROXIMATELY.52 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS.

.52 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS. OFFICE PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SERVICES IS THE LAND USE. THE CURRENT ZONING IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL ZONE. THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE ISLE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND PROPOSED PLAN SOMETHING PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE COMPARISON FROM THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE OF OFFICE OP, OFFICES AND PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SERVICES, THE PROPOSED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WILL ONLY INCREASE THE POTENTIAL RESIDENTIAL TO ONE UNIT AND IT INCREASE THISSED TO COMMERCIAL TO APPROXIMATELY 45,000. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AN APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS ADJACENT TO FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF CBD AND WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE DOWNTOWN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, CONSISTENT WENT SECTION 125-136 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH'S SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND CHILD WELFARE. WE ASK FOR APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT ALONG WITH STAFF'S APPROVAL OF RECOMMENDATION OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. >> MR. GILLMOR, THIS -- THE THREE ELEMENTS OF THE CODE IS COMPLETELY MET WITH THIS

SUGGESTION? >> CORRECT.

>> THERE ARE TWO BUILDINGS ON THIS LOT PRESENTLY?

>> THIS ONE IS VACANT. >> IT'S TOTALLY EMPTY.

>> YEAH, VACANT. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILLMOR BY THE BOARD?

[00:10:12]

YOU MAY STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.

>> JOHN USSEN, I LIVE IN THE 519 SOUTH SECOND STREET WHICH IS THE PROPERTY RIGHT SOUTH OF THIS PARCEL.

MY QUESTION IS, YOU SAID THAT A NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WOULD

INCREASE BY WHAT? >> ONE.

>> I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT CAN BE AS ONE STATES IT CAN BE 15 UNITS PER ACRE AS OPPOSED TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT

ZONINGS. >> THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE,

NOT -- >> WELL, THAT'S THE SAME THING.

>> WE'RE ONLY HEARING FUTURE LAND USE PART OF THIS.

WE'RE NOT HEARING THE ENTIRE APPLICATION.

THERE'S A SECOND PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT WILL BE --

>> THAT WOULD ONLY INCREASE BY ONE UNIT.

IT'S A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THE CONCERNS OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT IT IS A RESIDENTIAL HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, AND ALL THE BUSINESS OFFICES ARE CLOSING THERE, AND WE'RE RETURNING TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. SO I WANT TO THROW IN -- DON'T WANT TO THROW IN SOME HUGE DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ABOUT. THAT'S ALL.

>> PLAIN THAT ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT AGAIN, PLEASE.

>> SO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS

SHOULD BE 30. >> SHOULD BE 30.

OKAY. SO THIS SHOWS OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS THAT COULD BE CULMINATED ON THE SUBJECT OF FUTURE LAND USE, THAT ONE. THIS WAS WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WOULD BE ABLE TO BE CITED ON THAT PROPERTY. AND THAT WOULD A TOTAL OF SIX

UNITS, I THINK. >> WHEN WE SAY SIX UNITS -- THAT'S SIX DOORS, NOT NECESSARILY BUILDINGS.

>> CORRECT. >> UNITS, IF THEY WERE APARTMENTS, THERE COULD BE SIX APARTMENTS OR WHATEVER THAT COULD BE. AT THE MOMENT, IT COULD ULTIMATELY GET 9 DOORS OR UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY.

AND ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN, WHICH I THINK IS IN THE NEXT PART OF THIS PROPOSAL. THIS SETS OUT THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PROGRAMS, AND THAT'S THE FUTURE LAND USE.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

IT'S TRULY NOTED. >> CHRIS EINSTEIN, THE APPLICANT AND OWNER, AND RESIDES AT 207 ORANGE AVENUE.

>> JUST TO ADDRESS A LITTLE OF THIS, AND I KNOW IT'S GOING TO COME WITHIN THE NEXT PRESENTATION.

THIS IS A VACANT LOT. WE ARE TRYING TO TIE IT IN WITH OUR OTHER PROPERTY. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A HODGEPODGE IN THAT AREA, ALL OF THE DIFFERENT USES AND EXISTING USES, FUTURE LAND USES, RESIDENTIAL, BUILDING, COMMERCIAL, AND YOU'LL SEE IN OUR NEXTS DESIGN OR WITH THE PD APPLICATION WHAT OUR OVERALL CONCEPT KIND OF IS AND WHERE WE'RE GOING TO THIS TO TIE EVERYTHING TOGETHER FROM THIS AREA, FROM THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO THE TRUE RESIDENTIAL.

THIS AREA RIGHT HERE THE RESIDENTIAL DOES NOT START UNTIL THE NEXT STREET DOWN TECHNICALLY.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO BRIDGE THE GAP BASICALLY, AND WE'VE BEEN VERY RESPONSIBLE WITH OUR OTHER PROPERTIES, TOO -- TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND WHAT'S DESIGNED AND BASICALLY WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS TO BE MORE COHESIVE WITH THE REST OF THE PROPERTY AND FLOW BETTER FROM DOWNTOWN TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS...

>> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> NOT HEARING ANY.

[00:15:01]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS TO MR. GILLMOR? >> NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MS. CLEMONS MOVE FOR APPROVAL, THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS, SECOND BY MR. KREISL, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> CALLING ROLE YES

[a. Annexation - Jules Annexation - Parcel IDs: 2417-331-0002-000-8, 2417-331-0003-000-4 and 2417-331-0004-000-1]

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL PASS. 7A, NEW BUSINESS, ANNEXATION OF

JULES PARCEL ID -- >> I'M GONNA LET YOU DOT IDS.

>> AN APPLICATION FOR AN ANNEXATION AT PARCEL IDS...

IDS ARE THE ONES I STATED PREVIOUSLY.

IN IS A REQUEST FOR A REVIEW AN APPLICATION FOR AN AN MEX ASIAN OF THREE PEARLSES INTO THE CITY WITH THE CITY OF FUTURE LAND USE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND CITY ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

THESE ARE THE SITE LOCATIONS. THE SITE AREA OF THE 3 PARCELS IS ROUGHLY 2.44 ACRES. THE ENFUTURE LAND USE IN THE COUNTY IS COMMERCIAL. AND THE PROPOSED IN THE CITY WOULD BE GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AND THAT IS HOW IT WOULD -- THIS IS THE COUNTY RIGHT HERE AND THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USES.

AND THEN THE CURRENTLY ZONED -- THERE IS ONE PARCEL, A LARGER GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND THE TWO SMALLER ONES OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

AND THIS IS AGAIN THE CITY ZONING FOR YOUR REFERENCE.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE THE PROPOSED ZONES FOR APPROVAL. THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR A RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I NOTICED THAT THE PARCEL IDS ON THE AGENDA DO NOT MATCH THE ONES THAT YOU JUST PRESENTED.

>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENCES.

OF. >> WANT TO CHECK THAT PRIOR TO

THE COMMISSION MEETING? >> ON THE COVER STREET YOU HAVE

24173310005000-8? >> SHOULD BE 000-2.

IS WHAT'S ON OUR AGENDA. >> I DON'T KNOW WHICH IS RIGHT.

I THINK WE COULD -- >> BRIAN, DO YOU WANT TO PULL UP THE APPLICATION? THE APPLICATION IS 00-8.

[00:20:11]

SO IT'S INCREDIBLE ON THE >> IT IS INCORRECT ON THE AGENDA. SHOULD BE 0005 RATHER THAN 0002-000-8. THE.

>> SO THE RIGHT ONES ARE 241733100020007 -- THAT'S THE PARCEL ALREADY IN. 241733100050008, 241733100030004

AND 241733100040001. >> YEAH, IT'S INCORRECT ON THE

AGENDA. >> RIGHT.

>> OKAY. >> ANYTHING FURTHER? GOOD CATCH. GOOD CATCH.

ANYTHING FURTHER? >> I ONLY HAD ONE QUESTION.

I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE ORDINANCE.

I DID NOT SEE IN THE BASIC ZONING DISTRICT USE TABLE OR ANYTHING THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY LIKE AN EQUIVALENT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AS FAR AS ALLOWED USES.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THE FUTURE -- THAT THE ZONING THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS JUST C3 FOR ALL THREE PARCELS.

>> YES, CORRECT. >> IS THERE ANY -- IS THERE ANY CONCERN ABOUT THE POTENTIAL SHIFT OF WHATEVER THOSE PARCELS AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL VERSUS THE BROWARD GENERAL COMMERCIAL? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IN OUR ORDINANCE WE BREAK THEM OUT, BUT CLEARLY IN THE COUNTY THEY DO. AND SO I'M AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE.

>> THIS IS THE COUNTY'S. THIS IS OURS.

>> IF YOU LOOK AT OUR ZONING MAP, YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY, NOT ALL OF THE SURROUNDING AREA IS C3.

>> GENERAL COMMERCIAL. >> GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

SO FUTURE LAND USE WE'LL NEED SEE THE ZONING.

AND THAT ZONING -- >> SO ALL THAT RED IS ALL

GENERAL COMMERCIAL? >> YES.

SO IT'S IN A PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO WORK TOWARDS.

>> OKAY. >> IT'S RATHER MIXED UP.

>> WE HAD AN OFFICE ON 37TH STREET IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD

THAT'S THE SAME WAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE BOARD?

>> NOT HEARING ANYONE, I'LL CALL THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING OPEN WITH THE APPLICANT. IF THEY'RE HERE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS, SIGN IN, PLEASE. >> YEAH.

JANNICA JULES, 430 NORTHWEST ARROW, PORT ST. LUCIE.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PARCEL NUMBERS BECAUSE THE WARRANTY DATE HAS A DIFFERENT PARCEL NUMBER THAT YOU JUST GAVE.

YOU SAID THE LAST ONE WAS 00040001.

ACCORDING TO WHAT I HAVE IT'S 0004 AT THE END.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT INFO UNLESS THE TITLE COMPANY PUT THE WRONG NUMBER ON THE WARRANTY DATE.

>> AND WHAT WAS THE PARSE -- WHAT YOU JUST HAD?

>> 2417-331-0004-000-4 IS WHAT I HAVE ON THE WARRANTY DEED.

JUST WANT TO DOUBLE-CHECK. >> SO THAT PARCEL DOES NOT

EXIST. >> OKAY.

>> IF IT'S WITH THE WARRANTY DEED, THAT WOULD BE THROUGH PROPERTY APPRAISAL. I WOULD CONTACT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND THEN WE CAN CORRECT THAT?

>> SO WHATEVER YOU SAID IS CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. I WILL GET THAT SORTED.

>> PERHAPS WE CAN GET OUR WITS TOGETHER IN A SIDEBAR AND

RESOLVE THIS? >> YES.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS, THOUGH, WE'VE GOT ENOUGH -- ENOUGH ON RECORD THAT WE MIGHT

[00:25:04]

>> PERFECT. >> ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT

TO ADD? >> NO.

ALL GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> THESE NUMBERS ALWAYS CONFUSE ME.

>> I THINK IT WAS JUST A TYPO THAT -- ON THAT LAST ONE BUT

HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THAT SOARED. >> I'M GONNA DEPEND ON Y ACTUAL

DO THAT. >> WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT.

>> I KNOW IT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU, SO I'M SURE YOU'LL FOLLOW UP.

>> YES, I WILL. >> NOTHING FURTHER?

>> NOTHING FURTHER FROM ME, THANK YOU.

>> I COULD HEAR YOU IN THE BACKGROUND TRYING TO GET MY

ATTENTION. >> IT WAS JUST BECAUSE WHEN HE READ THE NUMBERS I'M LIKE, OH, NO.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I HAVE ON MY PAPER.

SO THAT'S ALL. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? FROM THE BOARD? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

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

>> MR. DANIEL. >> YS.

>> MS. CLEMONS. >> YES.

>> MR. KREISL. >> YES.

>> MR. HEANING. >> YES.

>> MR. EDWARDS. >> YES.

>> WHICH WERE CHEYAUFMILLING. >> YELLOW OH CHAIRMAN

[b. Zoning Atlas Map Amendment - Crownman PD - 515 S. Indian River Drive & S. 2nd Street (2410-810-0001-000-9, 2410-810-0002-000-6)]

CHEYAUFMILLING. >> YES, MA'AM.

THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS ITEM 7B ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE CROWNMAN PD, ADDRESS 515 SOUTH MUCH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE AND SOUTH SECOND STREET AND ILL LET YOU RATTLE OFF ALL OF THESE NUMBERS. ANYONE THAT WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING TO THESE NUMBERS, DON'T HESITATE.

WE NEED TO TRY TO GET THEM RIGHT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.

BEFORE YOU WE HAVE A ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT FOR PEARLS IDS, 2410-810-0001-000-9 AND 2410-810-0002-000-6 AND THOSE ADDRESSES ARE THE 515 SOUTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE AND THE SOUTH SECOND STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RE-ZONING OF THE TWO PARCELLS, SO THE ZONING CLARIFICATION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL C1.

THE TWO TO THE EAST ARE ONE PARCEL.

THE PROXIMATE SIZE IS 2.24 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS.

THE CURRENT -- JUST THE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THIS SUBJECT PARCEL TO CBD.

THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE EASTERN PORTION IS CBD, AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS PD. THIS IS THE CONCEPT BUBBLE PLAN AREA FOR THE MAIN LARGER PARCEL. AND THIS IS THE CONCEPT BUBBLE PLAN AREA FOR THE SMALLER AREA PARCEL.

>> THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED SITE DATA FOR ALLOWABLE USES.

IT ALSO MINIMAL LOT AREAS, MINIMAL LOT WIDTH AND DEPTHS FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IT ALSO INCLUDES ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS REGULATION FOR THE PROPOSED AREAS.

PERMITTED USES ARE LISTED BEFORE YOU, AND THESE ARE ALL PROPOSED PERMITTED USES. THIS IS A SECOND PAGE OF PERMITTED USES. AND A THIRD PAGE OF PERMITTED

[00:30:24]

APPROVAL OF THE LATH ATLAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATED BUBBLE PLAN WITH STAFFS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATED CONCEPT BUBBLE PLAN, I RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING AT LAS AMENDMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATED CONCEPT OF A PLAN AND I ALSO HAVE THE CONDITIONS IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO READ THEM OFF.

IT'S LIKE 15. WOULD THE BOARD LIKE THESE

CONDITIONS THEY'D HAVE. >> ESSENTIALLY THE CONDITIONS RELATE TO THE FACT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A FINAL SITE PLAN WITH THIS CONCEPT PLAN, AND THAT FINAL SITE PLAN WILL NEED TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD AUTO IN ITS ENTIRETY.

THE LIST OF USES THAT YOU SAW BEFORE YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE USES THAT WILL BE SUBJECT OF THAT SITE PLAN.

IT'S JUST A GENERAL ZONING DESIGNATION AT MOMENT.

ONCE THE APPLICANT IS READY TO COME FORWARD WITH IT THE -- THE SITE PLAN, THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, THE PLANNING

BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION. >> THE APPLICANT ASSEMBLED A LIST OF POTENTIAL USES IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> I'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND MOST EVERYTHING THAT WAS THERE, AND I THINK I UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WHY THERE'S

15. >> CORRECT, 15.

WITH THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION.

WHAT IS OUR GENERAL FEELING IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THIS LARGE USES OF POTENTIAL USES THAT'S BEEN DRAFTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION? AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS COMING FROM THE STANDPOINT, DOES THIS -- PROVIDING ALL THAT INFORMATION DOES IT MAKE THE APPLICATION MORE COMPLEX IN OUR EYES OR IS IT HELPFUL? FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S POINT OF VIEW IT MAKES IT HELPFUL AS IT SETS OUT THE PARAMETERS OF THE POTENTIAL USES IN THERE. IF THE BOARD SEE ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY FEEL ARE NOT APPROPRIATE TO THIS LOCATION, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE CAN GO THROUGH THOSES AWFUL THESE USES AND HOW THEY'RE ACCOMMODATED OR IF THEY'RE ACCOMMODATED ARE SUBJECT TO THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THAT WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NEIGHBORING USES AND THE ACTIVITIES IN THAT LOCATION AT THIS POINT I SEE AS A SHOPPING LIST TO TRY TO COVER AS MANY BASES AS POSSIBLE TO OFFER THE GREATEST FLEXIBILITY TO THE PROPERTY AS IT'S BEING BUILT OUT.

>> CORRECT. AS WE DO WITH NORMAL ZONING DISTRICTS, WE HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF USES ATTACHED TO THEM.

AND SOME OF THOSE USE ALSO NOT BE, YOU KNOW, REALLY 100% SUITABLE FOR THAT LOCATION, AND IF IT'S A SITE PLAN THAT COMES IN AND IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE, WE WOULD BE REVIEWING THOSE.

IN THIS CASE ON THE WOULD GIVE A LARGE DECISION-MAKING OPTION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION WITH THE HOW A SITE

[00:35:02]

>> DO WE HAVE A PHONE COMING UP? >> WELL, I KNOW THEY WERE RUNNING TEST ON THE SYSTEM BECAUSE OF THE COMMISSION MEETING COMING UP. THERE'S GOING TO BE AN APPLICANT THAT HAS TO CALL IN. SO THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON HERE. I HOPE THAT IT'S NOT ANNOYING OR

DISTRACTING TOO BADLY. >> BUT, YEAH, IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS A LIST OF USES AND THAT -- THE ACTUAL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED ON THE SITE WITHIN THE SITE PLAN WILL BE THE REMITT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS IT COMES IN FOR REVIEW, TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AS IT GOES THROUGH THE VARIOUS INTERNAL/EXTERNAL DEPARTMENTS THEY'RE REVIEWS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD AND THEN THE CITY COMMISSIONER TO FINALLY STOP THAT.

SO, YES I THINK THEY'RE SOME USES ON THEORY WOULD NEED FURTHER ATTENTION IF THEY CAME IN.

>> WELL, THIS MAY HAVE BEEN PARTIALLY WHAT COULD BE THROWING UP A RED FLAG TO THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY.

I THINK THAT IF I WERE LIVING NEXT DOOR AND I SAW THIS, I MIGHT GET CONCERN BODY WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING, BUT I ALSO FEEL MYSELF IT HELPED ME WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THE APPLICATION TO LOOK AT IT AND NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR ORDINANCES AND -- TO SEE WHAT COULD BE DONE. AND IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO KEEP OUR EYE ON.

AND I TRUST THAT THE APPLICANT'S GONNA DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'VE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS UP TO THIS STATE. OKAY.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD TO STAFF?

>> MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE LOOKING AT IT -- THERE'S TWO SPOTS. THE ONE EAST OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING SHOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY BUILD ON SECOND STREET, FACING SECOND STREET.

FOR WHAT WAS FACING INDIAN RIVER DRIVE.

ARE WE GONNA KEEP AN EYE ON -- >> WELL, LET'S LOOK AT THAT -- IF YOU LOOK AT THE DESIGNATIONS HERE, IT'S QUITE A MISMATCH.

WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL FURTHER TO THE WEST.

WE HAVE THIS SANDWICH OF OFFICE PROFESSIONAL, THEN WE HAVE THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS REALLY AN EXTENSION OF DOWNTOWN. SO IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO OBVIOUSLY A SITE PLAN REVIEW ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY GOT PUT THERE, AND BECAUSE IT'S INDUSTRIAL TO THE WEST, THEN THERE MAY BE MORE REQUIREMENT FOR A BUFFER OR WHATEVER THAT WENT THERE, AND ALSO WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL TO THE

SOUTH. >> SOUTH, YEAH.

>> AND SO HOW TO BLENDS IN -- THIS WOULD APPLY NOTWITHSTANDING THE CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE, BUT THROUGH THE BARRIER -- THE BARRIER BETWEEN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND THE RESIDENTIAL WOULD NEED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THAT -- THAT ACTIVITY, AND WE WOULD SEE THAT IN A SITE PLAN, WE WOULD REVIEW THAT ASPECT IN SITE PLANS. THE QUESTION REMAINS WHETHER OR NOT TO THE NORTH OF THIS WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL.

WHETHER THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATELY RE-ZONED OR FUTURE LAND USE TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH THE DOWNTOWN.

IT'S THE INDUSTRIAL AN APPROPRIATE FUTURE LAND USE IN THIS LOCATION ALSO. SO THE OVERSLEW WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY TO THIS AREA AND TO CONSOLIDATE THE LIMITS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT EXTEND TO AND ALSO NOTE THAT WE DO HAVE

RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH. >> YOU ALSO HAVE THE BUSINESS -- DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.

>> YES. >> TO PLAY IN THIS GENERAL AREA,

AS WELL. >> YEP.

>> SO THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PIECES HERE.

OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> I'M LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CITY ORDINANCES, PD IS NOT INCLUDED.

SO THIS THIS LIST IS BASICALLY ANYTHING YOU CAN BUILD ANYWHERE SEEMS EXCEPTIONALLY BROAD. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT BECAUSE WHEN WE -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING A PD, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS IT COULD BE ANYTHING AND

[00:40:03]

AREA. >> YES.

>> SO IT'S A ZONING WHICH OVERRIDES AN EXISTING ZONING DISTRICT. AND EACH ZONING DISTRICT USUALLY WOULD HAVE A LIST OF USES. , WHEN YOU SEE PLANNED ACHIEVEMENT HAS A SIDE PLANE -- SITE PLAN ATTACHED IT USUALLY LOCKS IN THE USES THAT YOU SEE ON THAT SITE PLAN TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. IN THIS CASE, WE'RE LOOKING AT A CONCEPT OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

SO IN ESSENCE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS CREATING ITS OWN ZONING. SO THE GOAL IS TO OUTLINE THE LIST OF USES TO BE USED IN THE CONCEPT.

WHETHER THOSE ARE ACCEPTABLE, I THINK, IS -- THIS COULD BE A JUDGMENT CALL FOR THE PLANNING BOARD SAY, YOU KNOW, THESE PARTICULAR USES THAT YOU SEE LISTED HERE ARE NOT APPROPRIATE

FOR THIS LOCATION. >> YEAH.

YOU COULD RECOMMEND THAT SOME OF THOSE ARE REMOVED OR YOU COULD

SEE OTHERS THAT SHOULD BE ADDED. >> YEAH.

I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WEDNESDAY AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT, YOU KNOW -- THAT ALL OF THAT WILL COME BEFORE US IN THE

COMMISSION. >> YES.

>> BASICALLY ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

>> YES. >> AND NOT JUST FOR THIS PROPERTY BUT FOR POTENTIAL BE FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS, IF THEY DECIDE NOT TO DEVELOP ONCE THEY'VE CHANGED THE ZONING AND THEN SOMEBODY ELSE BUY IT IS AND IT'S ALREADY PD AND THEN THEY WANT TO PUT BATTING CAGES OR SOMETHING --

>> WELL, THIS PD WOULD SIT WITH THE LAND AND THE PROPERTY.

>> RIGHT. >> AND WHATEVER HAPPENS ON THERE WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SITE PLAN REVIEW.

>> WHICH WOULD COME THROUGH -- >> WHICH WOULD COME THROUGH TO

THE BOARD. >> THANK YOU.

>> I THINK TO TRY TO GO THROUGH THIS LENGTHY LIST IN THIS MEETING WOULD BE VERY TIME-CONSUMING.

BUT IN THE FUTURE THIS STILL COMES BACK FOR THE FINAL

PLANNING REVIEW ANYWAY. >> THIS IS WHAT THE -- ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON THIS PROPERTY NOW WOULD A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO

THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. >> WITH WHATEVER HAPPENS.

>> EACH STRUCTURE WOULD BE -- >> OKAY.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE BOARD.

IN THAT OCCASION I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND AGAIN I'D LIKE THE APPLICANT TO STEP FORWARD.

>> CHRIS EINSTEIN, SEVENTH ORANGE AVENUE.

>> WE'RE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH YOU.

>> IT'S BEEN A FEW YEARS. >> I'D LIKE TO COMMENT, DID YOU A GOOD JOB AT PUTTING ALL THIS TOGETHER.

I ALSO IN THIS PILE FOUND A DOCUMENT THAT'S PROPOSED FOR POTENTIAL ORDINANCE TO BE CREATED FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH I ENJOYED READING.

IT WAS VERY WELL DONE, BUT I'D RATHER -- WE'RE RESTRAINED ON TIME SO I'M GOING TO ASK TO YOU TRY TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU PRESENT TO US WHAT YOU HAVE TO PRESENT.

>> AS FAR AS THE USES, WE'VE TOOK EVERYTHING FROM THE FORT PIERCE'S USE CHART. C1 OUR CURRENT ZONING, C4 AND CBD AND THAT'S WHERE WE DREW FROM.

WE DIDN'T PULL FOR ANYTHING. WE ALSO DID NOT INCLUDE SOME THINGS THAT WE DID NOT THINK WOULD BE FIT FOR THAT ZONING AREA. SO WE ELIMINATED THOSE, DID NOT INCLUDE THOSE. SO WE ONLY INCLUDED THINGS THAT COULD BE TODAY TO TOGETHER. HOWEVER, IF WE DID A BOUTIQUE HOTEL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH IS A FAMILY BUSINESS, MOM, DAD, AND MYSELF, WE BUILT SMALL HOTELS ON THE BEACHES IN DELAWARE. THAT'S KIND OF OUR BACKGROUND, AND LUXURY TRAVEL. SO WE WOULD ALWAYS HAVE A LITTLE FLAUNT THERE. GRANTED WE DON'T THINK ABOUT HAVING A FREE-STANDING CHICK-FIL-A OR SOMETHING IN THERE BUT THE WAY YOU HAVE EVERYTHING TOGETHER IS IF WE HAVE A HOTEL AND WANTED QUICK SERVICE OR A TYPE OF RESTAURANT IN THERE, WE HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT WITH OUR LIST OF USES.

A LOT OF THIS IS TODAY TO TOGETHER.

DO WE WANT TO HAVE A FREE-STANDING RV PARK? NO. BUT IF SOMEBODY'S COMING IN WITH AN RV OR SUNRISE, ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU GUYS HAVE WITH SUNRISE -- AGAIN, WE HANDLE PRO ATHLETES AND CELEB TYPES, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THEM OVERNIGHT WHEN THE DRIVERS HAVE TO TAKE THEIR REQUIRED NIGHT OFF REST, THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THEM TO GO SO YOU'RE NOT GETTING MULTIPLE NIGHT PERFORMANCES AND STUFF.

[00:45:01]

WE ARE HERE, WE HAVE THE ORANGE AVENUE BUILDING, WE ARE VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS AND TRY AND DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE FUTURE.

AND FOR THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW ME, I HAVE AN ESSENTIAL TREMOR SO I SHAKE AND A LITTLE DYSLEXIC SO I READ THINGS BACKWARDS.

BUT AS FAR AS THE USES OF THE ZONING, IF YOU LOOK AT PORT ST. LUCIE MAP, TAX APPRAISER'S MAP, YOU'LL SNOW THAT AREA IT'S ZONED COMMERCIAL BUT YOU STILL -- IT'S -- YOU'LL SEE, HAVE YOU SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE IN C1 AND OFFICE PROFESSIONALS. WE REALLY ARE A HODGEPODGE, WILD, WILD WEST OF ZONING IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

WHAT WE ARE PLANNING TO DO OR WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THESE USES ISTOLOGY BRIDGE THE GAP WE WANT TO BE THE SOUTH ANCHOR FOR THIS PART OF THE AREA WITH RESPECT TO MOVING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. DO WE PLAN TO BUILD SOME MANSIONS OR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT USED FOR -- NO, WE HAVE NO INTENTIONS BUT AGAIN WE HAVE TO PUT IN ALL OF THESE USES TO ALLOW THE PLEXBILITY OF THE DEVELOPING OF THE PROPERTY.

AND FORT PIERCE HAS BEEN GOING THROUGH, YOU KNOW, JUST A LOT OF TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS HERE AND GETTING EVERYTHING STRAIGHT.

WE'VE BEEN BEFORE YOU YEARS AGO GETTING THIS DONE AND THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES. WE ARE THE ONES THAT BROUGHT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UP, THAT HEY, THIS IS EXPIRING.

WE HAD TO TABLE THE WHOLE PLAN. THEN COVID HIT.

WE HAD A LOT TO DO ANDED A JUSTING OUR PROJECT, MOVING FORWARD -- AND WE ADJUST OUR PROJECT MOVING FORWARD AND FELT CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO SEE WHERE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND EVERYTHING IS GOING FORWARD NOW AND HOW THEY'VE REALLY MADE SOME CHANGES TO MAKE EVERYTHING MORE COHESIVE, SO NOW WE'RE READY TO COME BACK AND PUT OUR TO IN THE WATER BY DOING THIS CONCEPT.

WE HAVE SPENT OVER $500,000 BEING SENT BACK AND GETTING PLANS AND HAVING TO RE-DO THIS AND RE-DO THAT, PUTTING FOR CONDITIONAL USE, OH, WHOOPS, WENT WHAT OF -- WHAT WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, WE NEED CONDITIONAL USE.

SO NOW WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD AND THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO DO THIS BUBBLE PLAN TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WOULD BE GREAT, WORKING WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ON HOW WE CAN DEIGN EVERYTHING MOVING FORWARD THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, A WIN/WIN FOR EVERYBODY. THE BARK LOT ACTUALLY WE WERE LOOKING -- AND THE REASON WE BOUGHT THAT SMALL VACANT WE NEEDED MORE PARKING. PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE VERY DIFFICULT. AND THEN TO ADD TO OUR PROPERTY, WE HAVE INDIAN RIVER DRIVE GOING THROUGH IT.

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO FOR PARK SOMETHING IN NO MATTER WHAT WE BUILD, EITHER WE HAVE TO GO BELOW OR BUILD UP.

AND YOU CAN REFER TO THE WATER FRONT THAT SHOWS, HEY, THIS AREA IS A PROBLEM AREA. THERE IS NO WAY TO BUILD PARKING UNLESS YOU GO ON THE RIVERSIDE. WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD PARKING ON THE RIVERSIDE. WE STILL WANT TO HAVE THAT THERE. BUT IT'S OUTLINING THE SHERETT.

THERE'S NOT A LOT YOU CAN DO BECAUSE YOU'RE RESTRICTED.

ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHERE IT IS WITH THE USES AND WE HAVE THE DOWNTOWN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, WHICH WE ARE CATTY CORNER FROM AND IN THE FPRI AND IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THERE'S ONLY 89 FEET -- 89.45 FEET THAT SEPARATES US FROM THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT ON THE OTHER SIDE.

SO WE JUST HAVE TWO LITTLE -- THE APARTMENTS, AND WE'D EVEN TALKED TO THE OWNERS BEFORE ABOUT DOING SOMETHING AND RE-ZONING TO C4, AND THEN WE WOULD BE KIND OF TODAY TO RIGHT IN. BUT WE FIGURED WE'D GO THIS ROUTE. OTHERWISE, ALL OF THOSE USES COULD BE ALLOWED AND WE'D GO UP AS HIGH AS WE WANTED.

SO THAT'S BASICALLY IT IN A NUTSHELL.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? ED.

>> THE COTTAGE HOMES IS SOMETHING WE ARE TOYING WITH.

THIS IS A FAMILY PROJECT. MY FATHER BUILDING HOTELS.

THE REASON WE DID THIS, HE WAS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER YEARS AGO AND WE CAP OVER HERE AND STARTED DOING SOMETHING ON A SMALL SCALE FOR HIM THAT COOING AND THIS KEPT HIS SPIRITS UP DURING HIS CANCER TREATMENT. HE BOAT IS IT, AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED THE B&B AND SAID, OKAY, IT GIVES HIM SOMETHING TO DO. SOME PEOPLE PLAY GOLF, HE LIKES TO DEVELOP. SO HE MIGHT SAY I'M GOING TO WHAT HE CAN KIND OF HANDLE. SO THAT'S WHY WE LOOKED AT COTTAGE HOMES. ONE OF HIS FIRST PROJECTS WAS A

[00:50:01]

SO THAT'S WHY WE THOUGHT MAYBE WE'LL DO THIS SO HE CAN BUILD A FEW HOMES. BUT NONE OF THAT IS OUTLINED, AND THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT, TOO IF IT'S INDIVIDUAL LOTS OR ONE LOT AND IN ASSOCIATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED HERE. SO THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF LEFT IT OPEN TO WORK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND OUTLINE THAT.

>> IT'S GONNA TAKE A LOT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN CITY AND YOURSELVES TO BE ABLE TO PULL THIS OFF AND KEEP EVERYBODY HAPPY AT THE SAME TIME, AND WIND UP WITH A GOOD PRODUCT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC SPEAKING TO THIS?

>> NOT SEEING ANYONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING, COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> NOT HEARING ANY.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >>> I MOVER APPROVAL WITH THE 15 STATED -- I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THE 15 STATED CONDITIONS.

>> I HEARD A WHISPER OVER HERE. >> JUST GO AHEAD.

>> SECOND. >> SECONDING THE MOTION, A MOTION FOR MS. CLEMONS FOR APPROVAL, SECOND FROM MR. DANIELS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. EDWARDS. >> YES.

>> MS. DANIEL. >> YES.

>> MS. CLEMONS. >> YES.

>> MR. CRIMES. >> YES.

>> MR. EVENING? >> YES.

>> -- MR. HEANING. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN CHEYAUFMILLING. >> YES, MA'AM.

[c. Zoning Atlas Map Amendment - Martin & Sons Planned Development - 1038 S. 37th Street]

>> ITEMS 7C. ZONING APP, THIS MAP AMENDMENT BARTON AND SON'S -- MARTIN AND SONS PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AT 1038 SOUTH 37TH STREET. AND I JUST COMMENTED ABOUT 37TH STREET BEING A BIT OF A MIX.

>> PLANNING BOARD, CHAIRMAN, BEFORE YOU TODAY IS AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT TO A PD FORMATTER INAND SONS. -- FORMATTER INAND SONS...

OF LAND TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, THREE UNITS PER ACRE, TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION AND THE SITE AREA OF GIVE OR TAKE 5.20 ACRES. THE FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH WILL NOT BE CHANGING, IS THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THE EXISTING ZONING RIGHT NOW IS THE E3, THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 3 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPOSED ZONE SOMETHING A PD

PLAN DEVELOPMENT. >>> THE STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSE SCHOOL THAT IT WOULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW A GREATER RANGE OF HOUSING THAN WHAT IS AYOU LOUD CURRENTLY IN THE E3 ZONING DISTRICT. UNDER THE CURRENT E3 ZONING, SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ARE THE ONLY HOUSES PERFORMED.

THE OVERALL PERMITTED DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN AT A MAXIMUM OF 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE IN THIS CASE, 33 UNITS.

THE E3 ZONING WOULD IN THIS CASE ALLOW UP TO 15 UNITS PER ACRE ON THE SUBJECT TO AN INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND FOR YOUR REFERENCE, THE E3 ZONING DISTRICT GUIDELINES A AND B ARE PROVIDED. CONDITIONS, STAFF, HAS TWO CONDITIONS WITH THIS RE-ZONING, A FINAL PLOT IS NEEDED TO SUBSIDIZE THE PARCEL INTO THE PROPOSED LOTS OF THE PD AND TWO THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ALSO MUST BE MET AS A CONDITION FOR THIS RE-ZONING. I'VE ATTACHED THOSE CONDITIONS TO THIS PRESENTATION THE TAF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RE-ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT. THE ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE BOARD CAN GIVE ARE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS OR A RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BY BOARD?

>> THANK YOU FOR GETTING THE NUMBERS CORRECT.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> HAWKEYE OVER HERE KEEPING AN

EYE ON US. >> AND WE NEED THE HAWKEYE.

>> WE DO. WE DO.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?

>> NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE -- ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE COMING TO SPEAK TO THIS IN PARTICULAR THE APPLICANT?

>> HI, FRANK OPRADO, MARK GATE, FLORIDA, HERE TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR ME. >> BOARD.

[00:55:05]

>> TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOUR VISION IS.

>> SO LIKE HE SAID, RIGHT NOW THE ONLY THING THAT YOU CAN BUILD IS A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY WITH THE PD WOULD OPEN UP DUPLEX OR TOWNHOUSE OR SOMETHING OTHER THAN JUST THE DETACHED

SINGLE FAMILY. >> YOU'RE JUST LOOKING FOR

FLEXIBILITY. >> EXACTLY.

CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> NOW, NO QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU'VE DRIVEN A LONG WAY.

>> OH, YEAH. >> FROM BROWARD, YEAH.

I WORK AROUND HERE, SO... >> OH, OKAY.

>> I DRIVE EVERYWHERE. >> OKAY.

SO YOU DIDN'T MAKE A SPECIAL TRIP IN --

>> FOR THIS, A SPECIAL TRIP, ABSOLUTELY.

BUT I TRY TO -- ON MY WAY DOWN I'LL PROBABLY BE DOING SOME

WORK. >> ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK TO THIS? NOT SEEING ANYONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

COME BACK TO THE BOARD, ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AND NOT HEARING ANY. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE -- WAS IT TWO CONDITIONS IN.

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE BY MR. KREISL FOR APPROVAL WITH TWO CONDITIONS, AND SECONDED BY MS. CLEMONS.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE YES AWL. -- YES

[d. Site Plan (Development and Design Review) - Treasure Coast General Contractors - 2006 Hartman Road]

>> BEFORE YOU IS AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AND SIGN REVIEW FOR TREASURE COAST GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

THE MISTAKE SCANT DEVIN WHEATON, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE DEVIN WHEATEN AND THE PASTEL NUMBERS ARE...

REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN OF THE 3,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE AND A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT SHOP FOR THE TREASURE COAST GENERAL CONTRACTOR BUSINESS. THIS IS A LOCALLY OWNED AND OPERATED SMALL BUSINESS HERE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED ON A PARCEL WITH A FUTURE LAND USE OF COUNTY COMMERCIAL AND A ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION OF AN AREA MISTAKE OR TAKE 2.29 ACRES. THE COUNTY COMMERCIAL IS THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT IN, IT SHOULD BE GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR THE CITY AND THE ZONING IS GENERAL

COMMERCIAL. >> THIS IS A SITE PLAN AND ALL PERMITTED USE UNDER THE CONTRACTOR OFF PREMISE CONSTRUCTION AND THIS IS THE DATA GIVEN FOR THE SITE PLAN.

THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THAT IS BEING PROPOSED ALONG WITH THE PLANT LIST. THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE BUILDINGS. THE RECOMMENDATION -- THE STAFF RECOMMENDS ONE CONDITION THAT A COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR WENT TO CITY CODE SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL OUTSIDE IS APPROVED. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW WITH THE ONE CONDITION FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COMMISSION. THE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS THE BOARD GIVE, THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OR A RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU. >> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY

THE BOARD? >> NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL MOVE DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? I'D LIKE TO YOU COME FORWARD PLEASE. S.

>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN, PLEASE.

>> DEVIN WHEATON, 1720, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA.

[01:00:15]

>> TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROJECT FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

>> I OWN TREASURE COAST GENERAL CONTRACTORS.

I'M LOOKING TO GET MORE SPACE, LOOKING SOMEWHERE TO STAGE MATERIALS, MATERIAL DISTRIBUTION HAS BEEN A TOUGH DEAL TO DEAL WITH RECENTLY, INTERNAL SCHEDULING AND ALL.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO STAGE EVERYTHING IN THE SHOP.

GETTING BIGGER. I NEED OFFICE SPACE.

I NEED A PLACE TO BRING CLIENTS IN TO GO OVER NEW PROJECTS AND HAVE A CONFERENCE ROOM AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT BUILDING A METAL BUILDING, ALL CVS STRUCTURE. IT'S GOING TO LOOK NICE.

NOT SOMETHING TO STORE A BUNCH OF STUFF OUTSIDE.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ENCLOSED.

KEEP IT LOOKING GOOD. I KNOW THERE'S SOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA NEARBY, BUT WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO STORE A BUNCH OF EQUIPMENT OR ANY OF THAT STUFF OUT THERE.

>> SO YOU CAN KEEP PRODUCT ON HAND.

>> I MIGHT HAVE A COUPLE GUYS IN THE SHOP TO REORGANIZE, TAKE IN MATERIAL, STUFF LIKE THAT AND WE'LL HAVE SOME RESTROOM FACILITIES AND STUFF, BUT THIS ISN'T SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, WORKING ON DUMP TRUCKS AND HAVING THINGS CLUTTERED OUT

THERE. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD?

>> I LIKE THE ELEVATION DESIGN. BUILDING LOOKS REALLY GOOD.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> I THINK THE VIEW FROM HARTMAN

ROAD IS -- >> YEAH, WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT

LOOK GOOD. >> AND I APPRECIATE THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES IN FRONT. LOOKS VERY NICE.

>> VERY GOOD. >> KEEP GROWING.

>> THANK YOU. >> KEEP PUTTING PEOPLE TO WORK.

>> WILL DO. APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS PROJECT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GONNA BE A VERY NICE CLEAN PROJECT.

HARTMAN ROAD AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS A MIX OF USES.

A LOT OF MIXED USES THROUGH THAT WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO VERY GOOD. I LIKE IT.

I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE

ONE CONDITION. >> SECOND.

>> WITH WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. KREISL FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS, SECOND BY MS. CLEMONS.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE

>> YES AWL.

[e. Final Plat - Fort Pierce Commercial - 5553, 5555 and 5557 Okeechobee Road]

>> BEFORE YOU STAYED AN APPLICATION FOR A FINAL PLAT FOR FORT PIERCE COMMERCIAL. THE APPLICANT IS TODDED HOWER WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OKEY GEN AND THE PARTIAL IDS...

FOR A REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A FINAL PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE THREE PARCELS INTO FIVE LOTS. YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THIS, THIS IS NOW THE FINAL.

THIS IS THE AERIAL MAP OF THE 14.14 GIVE OR TAKE ACRES.

THE. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND ITS ZONING IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

THIS IS THE PLAT, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FIVE DIFFERENT PLATTED LOTS. THE FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION TITLED OAKY GEN COMMERCIAL PLAT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THIS REQUEST AS IT IS THE FINAL PLAT MEETING CRITERIA IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

STAFF RECOMMENDS ONE CONDITION, THE APPLICANT WILL SUPPLY TWO MYLARS FOR APPROPRIATE SIGNATURES AND THEN THE PLAT IS RECORDED WITH ST. LUCIE COUNTY OF CLERKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 177-111. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE ONE CONDITION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

THANK YOU. >> BE COMMENTS, QUESTIONS BY

BOARD OR STAFF? >> ONE OF THE ENGINEERING

[01:05:04]

HAS THAT COMMENT BEEN RESOLVED? >> YES.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> YOU STOLE MY THUNDER.

>> OH, I'M SORRY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENT AS SOON AS NOT HEARING ANY. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? IN YOU WOULD, STATE OF MIND AND -- STATE YOUR NAME...

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS AARON STANTON FOR THE APPLICANT WITH MAV ENGINEERING. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THE PROJECT. >> QUESTIONS?

>> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, I THINK WE ACTUALLY TOUCHED ON IT THE LAST TIME WE LOOKED AT THIS PROJECT, BUT THE ACCESS ROAD ITSELF THAT ENTERS IN FROM OKEECHOBEE AND ALSO ENTERS IN ON JENKINS AND THE EXTENSION THAT HAVE ACCESS ROAD THAT WILL THEN TAKE OVER TO PARCEL 3, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS GONNA BE THE STORAGE

FACILITY, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> IS ALL OF THAT ROADWAY PRIVATE LAND MANAGED BY THE LAND OWNER OR IS ANY OF THIS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY AS

FAR AS THE ROADWAY ITSELF? >> NO, IT'D ALL BE THE LAND OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO CARE FOR THAT.

>> I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

>> THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ASSOCIATION DEVELOPED FOR THAT

PURPOSE? >> NOT GONNA BE AN ASSOCIATION.

THERE'S ACTUALLY A DECLARATION OF CONVENANCE THAT SPELLS OUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE MAINTENANCE.

IT WILL ACTUALLY BE THE BIG LOT OWNER PARCEL 2 WHO WILL BE THE MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARCEL 4, WHICH IS THE STORM WATER TRACT. SO THEY'RE GONNA BE -- BUT IT'S ALL SPELLED OUT IN THE DECLARATION OF CONVENANCE FOR

THAT. >> OKAY.

>> WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> NOT HEARING ANY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE FROM -- YOU CAME DOWN

FROM VERA BEACH? >> YEAH, I CAME ALL THE WAY DOWN

FROM VERA BEACH. >> YOU'RE A LOCAL.

>> I GET OFF WORK FOR THIS, THANK YOU.

>> I GET OFF WORK FOR THIS.

>> ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE COME TO SPEAK TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. COME BACK FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL ENTERTAIN

A MOTION. >> MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> WITH CONDITION.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. EDWARDS WITH CONDITION, SECOND BY MS. DANIEL.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE

>> YES

[f. Major Amendment to a Planned Development Site Plan - Gator Trace Planned Development - 2435-311-0001-000-4, 2435-243-0001-000-6 ]

I'M GOING TO LET YOU READ THE NUMBERS.

YOU KEEP AN EYE ON HIM. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, BEFORE YOU IS GATOR TRACE AND A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN FOR TWO PARCELS, PARCEL IDS, 2435-311-0001-00-4, 3425...

APPLICANT GATOR TRACE LLC AND THE PARCEL IDS ARE THE PARCEL

IDS THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. >> I CAN JUST READ SOMETHING

INTO THE RECORD? >> THIS STEM BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR ITS CONSIDERATION OF A MAJOR AMENDMENT OF A SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH PHASE 1 OF THE HE WAS GATOR TRACE PUD.

NOW, WE ARE AWARE THE OF OTHER ISSUES WHICH ARE SUBJECTED TO LEGAL PREVIEW AT THE MOMENT. ONE OF THOSE RELATES TO THE VALIDITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THE OTHER RELATES TO WHETHER THE EXISTING PUD CAN BE AMENDED SOLELY IN THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT.

SO NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TODAY, THE ITEM WILL NOT PROGRESS TO THE CITY COMMISSION UNTIL THE LEGAL ISSUES ARE RESOLVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. SO YOUR OVERALL REVIEW TODAY IS

[01:10:01]

AND ONCE THOSE ARE DONE, THE DECISION, WHETHER IT'S FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL, WILL BE TAKEN TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> SO WE SHOULD NOT CONSIDER ANY MORE PROPOSALS.

>> THANK YOU. FOR SUMMARY, ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT TOGETHER WITH A REVIEW OF TWO PARCELS WITHIN THE GATOR TRACE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ZONING RECOMMENDATION OF PD ZONE WHICH IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ALLOWED UNITS OF THE TWO PARCELS FROM 67 TO 83 UNITS AS IDENTIFIED AT PHASE 1 WITH AN EXISTING GATOR TRACE PD SITE PLAN.

THE SUBJECT PARCELS TOTAL 6.9 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS.

THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD BE AWARE THAT A LETTER OF OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT ON JULY 7TH, 2023. THE LETTER IS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA PACKET. IT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THIS APPLICATION TO REDISTRIBUTE THE EXISTING A INDICATESES OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS FROM ONE PART OF GATOR TRACE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ANOTHER. THE SITE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 6.94 ACRES. IT HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF 1 TO 1, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PERMITS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF UP TO 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THIS PROVIDES A MAXIMUM ALLOCATION OF 83 DWELLING UNITS IF APPORTIONED TO THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONE IF A CALCULATION OF THE GROSS AREA IS APPLIED TO THE WHOLE PD, THEN THE DENSITY WOULD BE LESS. THE SAME CALCULATION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS MAY BE APPLIED TO OTHER PARCELS WITHIN THE PD WITH THE AMENDMENT OF THE PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH COULD POTENTIALLY INCREASE THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNT ON THOSE PARCEL SUBJECT TO FUTURE APPROVALS.

PHASE 1 AND 2 OF GATOR TRACE DEVELOPMENT ARE SUBJECT TO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 26, 2007 AS ATTACHED AS A PART OF THE LETTER OF OBJECTION OF WHICH ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING THE CITY, ARE AWARE. THE CONDITION 15 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAY LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS TO THIS REQUIREMENT WILL NEED TO BE RESOLVED BY ALL PARTIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ITS OCCURRING ON THE SITE, EXTRACT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 15, CONSIDERATION AND CONDITIONS, SOUTH MARKET WILL SERVE AS THE SOLE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TO PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 OF THE PROJECT.

HERE IS A SKETCH, YOU COULD SAY, OF WHAT THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES COULD BE FROM SOUTH MARKET TO THE

SUBJECT SITE. >> OKAY.

>> HERE'S A LITTLE HISTORY ON GATOR TRACE.

IN 1984 THE GATOR TRACE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED.

THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS AT 678. NOT THE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS, KEEPING THE OVERALL PD DENSITY AT LESS THAN 3 ACRES PER UNIT.

-- 2 OR 3 UNITS PER ACRE, SORRY.

ON MAY 3RD, 1999 THE TWO SUBJECT PARCELS WERE APPROVED BY CITY COMMISSION FOR 120 UNITS BUILT BY NEW CENTURY VENTURES INCORPORATED. THE NEW OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SYMPHONY BUILDERS APPLIED TO APPLE THE SITE PLAN FOR THE TWO SUBJECT PARCELS, THEY CONSIDERED IT PHASE 1 OF SEVERAL OTHER PROPERTIES THAT THEY OWN.

THEY INTENDED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 112 BUT WITH FOUR STORY CONDOS. PLANNING STAFF DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CHATBILITY BECAUSE THE PD COMMUNITY.

STEPHANIE BUILDERS RESUBMITTED AND PROPOSED 67 TWO-STORY TOWN THEMES WERE MORE IN SCALE WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.

ON 1919TH IT WAS APPROVED TO BUILD GIANTS.

2022, REQUESTING APPROVAL TO BUILD 83 TOWNHOME UNITS ON THE

[01:15:06]

THE SITE WORK FOR THE LINK SIDE AT GATOR TRACE, AKA, THE PRESERVE AT GATOR TRACE, WAS APPROVED ON JULY 20TH, 2006.

THIS IS PHASE 2 AND YOU RECEIVED THE APPLICATION NUMBER WHICH FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS STEPHANIE BUILDERS, GATOR TRACE LLC, AND VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR THE FIRST CONDOMINIUM BUILDING WAS PROPERTY OWNER HST DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS INCORPORATED. THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED ON JANUARY

30, 2007... >> THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION WHICH IS THE 6.94 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS.

ONCE AGAIN THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RM AND THE CURRENT ZONE SOMETHING PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE TOWNHOME, PROPOSED TOWNHOME A DEVELOPMENT.

>> THIS IS THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THE 84-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE DATALE LEGEND AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A TOTAL OF 83 TREES WITH INCLUDING LANDSCAPE BUFFER. S.

>> OKAY. FOR DESIGN REVIEW, THIS IS A TYPICAL RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED TOWNHOME.

THIS IS A COLOR BOARD FOR THE PROPOSED TOWNHOMES.

S. >> STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH TWO CONDITIONS THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE SECTION 125-212 AND DASH 313 OF THE CITY CODE

AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> ITS CONDITIONS ARE, ONE, A COMPLETED CERTIFICATION BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, COST PURSUANT TO CITY CODE SECTION SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS APPROVED FOR THE SITE TWO PROJECT ISSUANCE OF ANY SITE CLEARING PREMISES.

PROVIDING TRUE MITIGATION SURVEY AND COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF

[01:20:03]

POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN AMENDMENT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE TWO SIGHT CONDITIONS.

THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY ON YOUR BULLET POINT 3 IF YOU BRING UP YOUR HISTORY.

ON MAY 3 READY, THE TWO SUBJECT PARCELS WERE APPROVED IN 1999 FOR 120 BE UNITS. THERE WERE SEVERAL PARCELS INVOLVED. EXACTLY HOW MANY, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I THINK THERE WAS PROBABLY FIVE PARCELS, PLUS THE TWO PARCELS THAT WE'RE VIEWING TODAY OF WHICH THE 120 UNITS WERE TO BE BUILT ON. ON THESE TWO PARCELS IN QUESTION, I BELIEVE THERE WAS 84 UNITS PLANNED.

AND I THINK WE HAVE SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WILL PROBABLY COMMENT ON THAT. THAT MAYBE -- PROBABLY MUCH MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE THAN I AM REGARDING IT AND GOING TO THE COMMISSION, THAT SHOULD BE ACCURATE.

THE NUMBERS -- FINAL NUMBERS, CORRECT, IT'S JUST HOW THOSE UNITS WERE DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE PARCELS.

I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THAT'S CORRECT.

BECAUSE ODDLY ENOUGH, THE 84 UNITS IS RIGHT IN LINE WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT TODAY IS REQUESTING TO BE BUILT THERE WHICH ALWAYS IN LINE WITH THE OUR PRESENCE ORDINANCES.

STOPPING THERE TO THE REST OF THE BOARD, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS

OR COMMENTS. >> ON THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS IS THIS EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE ANOTHER ENTRANCEWAY?

>> NO. >> THAT THE POINT NO.

>> THERE IS A SET OF DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE PD, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS GOING THROUGH THE LEGAL PROCESS AT THE MOMENT AND TO ASSESS WHETHER THAT'S STILL VALID, THAT DEVELOPMENT -- LISTED DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS ACTUALLY LOOKS AT THAT LOCATION AS A CONSTRUCTION ACCESS.

BUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S A QUESTION OF IT BEING ASKED OUTSIDE THIS MEETING. IN THE THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT IS IN APPROVAL OF 67 UNITS ON THE TWO PARCELS IN QUESTION.

WOULD YOU STILL HAVE A POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE PD PLAN BECAUSE OF THIS SITE PLAN WOULD BE DIFFERENT TO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED. >> I'M LOOKING AT NUMBERS OF THE TOTAL NUMBERS ALLOWED IN THE PD, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A -- WAS IT 343 -- UNITS LEFT TO BE BUILT WITHIN THE GARRET TRACE PD AND THAT WOULD BE AFTER THE 83 THAT'S BEING APPLIED FOR NOW.

WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY IN THE PD THAT COULD STILL LOCATE THOSE 343 UNITS AND IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE WITH STILL KEEPING IT UNDER THE DENSITY THAT'S BEEN

DESCRIBED. >> I THINK IT'S GOT A BIT CONFUSED IN TERMS OF HOW IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED HERE.

WE HAVE THE TWO PHASES, THE PHASE 1, WHICH YOU SEE OUTLINED HERE AS 67 UNITS WITHIN THERE DIDN'T ANOTHER REMAINING NUMBER

[01:25:02]

THOSE NUMBERS ACCOMMODATE WITHIN THE OVERALL PD.

WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU HERE IS A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THAT PD, WHICH IN ESSENCE INCREASES THE NUMBER OF UNITS GOING INTO PHASE 1. IT DOES NOT ALTER THE OVERALL NUMBER OF UNITS AVAILABLE FOR ANYWHERE THAT TELLS WERE ALREADY ALLOCATED, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THE OVERALL TOTAL NUMBER WOULD BE RAISED TO ACCOMMODATE BETWEEN THE 6784.

WE'RE NOT ALLOCATING UNITS FROM ELSEWHERE TO PHASE 1.

WE ARE INCREASING THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT COULD BE BUILT IN PHASE 1 WHICH WOULD THEREAFTER INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF

UNITS AVAILABLE IN GATOR TRACE. >> SO THE 343 WOULD GO UP BY --

>>> YES. >> YES.

>> OKAY. >> AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, EVEN IF THE NUMBER WAS 5,000, RIGHT, YOU'RE STILL LIMITED TO THE DENSITY PRESCRIBED. SO I MEAN THAT NUMBER IS REALLY KIND OF, YOU KNOW -- IT'S A CEILING THAT THEY WILL LIKELY

NEVER HIT. >> I WOULD SAY THAT.

WE HAVE A LARGE AREA OF GOLF COURSE IN THERE WHICH OBVIOUSLY TAKES OUT A LOT OF BUILDABLE AREA.

WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WATER RETENTION, STORM WATER ISSUES.

WE HAVE PRESERVE AREAS, WE HAVE ALL THE OTHER STUFF.

WHAT WE'RE WORK TOGETHER HERE IS THE ENTITLEMENT THIS WHOLE PD HAS UNDERLYING THE FUTURE LAND USE AND HEARD EARLIER THAT I HAD THAT FUTURE LAND USE ALLOCATES THE NUMBER OF UNITS, WHETHER THERE'S A NUMBER OF UNITS CAN ACTUALLY BE ACCOMMODATED ON THAT SIDE, ON THAT PROPERTY, AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT QUESTION.

AND IN THIS CASE WE HAVE AN AREA WHICH COULD ACCOMMODATE THIS BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USES. BUT EVEN IF YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO COMPRESS IT TO THAT FUTURE LAND USE, IN ESSENCE IT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE GROSS AREA OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE -- YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER OF UNITS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THIS FUTURE LAND USE. WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN BE ACCOMMODATED ISN'T THE QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENT AS SOON AS.

>> OPENING THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

I WOULD LIKE TO CAUTION EVERYONE, WILL YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE APPLICANT.

YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK.

IF SOMEONE AHEAD OF YOU HAS SAID WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY, EITHER FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY OR DON'T COME FORWARD.

THAT IS IN THE ESSENCE OF TIME. WE HAVE TO BE OUT OF THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT 4:30. -- COMMISSION MEETING THAT'S RATHER IMPORTANT TO THE CITY, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE BEHIND US. SO I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. I WOULD ASK THAT THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

AND SIGN IN, PLEASE. >> YES, SIR.

MY NAME IS AKAM GUZMAN, BOCA RATON.

MR. CHAIRMAN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD, I AM THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, AND I AM ALSO ONE OF THE ENGINEERS ON RECORD, AND I'M ALSO THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.

SO I KNOW EVERYTHING BY HEART ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND SEVERAL TIMES THE NUMBER 84 HAS BEEN SAID, BUT I'M NOT PROPOSING 84, I'M ROLLING DOWN TO 83. WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY AROUND LAST NOVEMBER AND SINCE LAST NOVEMBER WE HAVE APPLICATION GOING ON THREE YEARS AND FINAL SEVERAL BACK AND FORTH WITH THE ZONING DEPARTMENT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER REGARDING THE DENSITY, REGARDING THE ENTRANCE.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE MISTAKE INSTANT.

>> YOU'RE LOOKINGFOR THE APPLIC? I THINK I KNOW THIS PROJECT IN

[01:30:01]

I'LL MAKE A COMMENT THAT I THINK IT'S A GOOD-LOOKING PRODUCT OVERALL. THIS BOARD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTICIPATES HERE IN THE AUDIENCE, THIS BOARD CANNOT IMPOSE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES OF ARCHITECTURE ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THAT RIGHT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY STATE STATUTE.

>> AND IN THIS RESPECT, CHAIR, BECAUSE IT'S A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO BECAUSE IT'S TOWNHOMES, YOU DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, IF YOU WANTED TO, TO COMMENT ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN.

>> OKAY. I'LL STAND CONNECTED.

IT'S HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL OF OUR ORDINANCES, THE STATE STATUTES, BUT I THINK OVERALL IT'S A GOOD-LOOKING PRODUCT.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD-LOOKING LAYOUT.

I TOO, AS MANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD PROBABLY PREFER TO LOOK OUT ACROSS MY LANAI AT A STAND OF TREES RATHER THAN AT A CONTINUATION OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.

BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND INTIMATELY THE DEVELOPMENT, WHY IT WAS LAID OUT THE WAY IT WAS, WHY THE NUMBER OF UNITS WERE CHOSEN, THE ECONOMICS AND THE OPERATION OF THE OVERALL HEALTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT DEPENDS ON UNITS TO BE BUIL OUT.

SO THAT THE ASSOCIATIONS, WE ARE MULTIPLE ASSOCIATIONS, CAN AFFORD TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT THEY ARE GUARANTEED THE RESIDENTS. AND I'M GOING INTO A LITTLE BIT THIS HERE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SO MANY OF OUR CITIZENS IN THE CHAMBER. NORMALLY I WOULDN'T ENTER INTO THAT PORTION OF IT. BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD PRODUCT.

IT'S ENTANGLED WITH VERY COMPLEX LEGAL QUESTIONS AS MR. FREEMAN HAS TOUCHED ON, AND I'M GONNA STOP THERE BEFORE I CROSS ANY LINES. NOW, NOBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> I WOULD TURN TO THE BALANCE OF THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND BE PREPARED TO COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND SIGN IN, PLEASE. YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES TO SPEAK.

COME FORWARD. >> ONLY ONE AT THE PODIUM AT A

TIME. >> MY NAME IS RICHARD, HOLDEN FLORIDA REALTY. I WAS A LISTING BROKER ON THIS SALE. I'M ALSO INVOLVED IN ANOTHER -- NOT A SALE YET, BUT OF 242 UNITS, AND IF YOU COULD GO TO THE ACCESS SCREEN, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

>> YOUR CONSTRUCTION ACCESS, THROUGH GO.

>> RIGHT THERE. YEAH.

OKAY. WE HAVE AN APPROVED -- WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THIS ROAD GOING THROUGH YET AND THE ROAD COMING OFF OF THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY. YOU'LL SEE THE BLUE.

IT'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO HANDLE MANY HOUSES.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO PUT 242 UNITS IN THIS AREA RIGHT THERE SO IT'S

GOING TO BE EXPANDED. >> LET'S CHECK THE BLUE SECTION, SIR. IT'S THE COUNTY RIGHTAWAYS? WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS TO CROSS OUR PROPERTY AND WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THAT YET. BUT THERE IS AN OTHER ABSCESS ROAD AT THE END THIS PROPERTY THAT THERE'S A GATE THERE AND IT'S FULL OF EVERYTHING, BUT IT'S THE WAY IT STARTS.

BUT THAT ACCESS ROAD IS NOT ACCESSIBLE TO CREATE THESE.

WE HAVEN'T APPROVED THAT YET AS OUR PROJECT FOR THIS TO GET DONE. SO IT'S GOTTA GET APPROVED THROUGH US BEFORE HE CAN BUILD THAT ROAD THROUGH THERE, OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO GO RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE GOLF COURSE ROADS THAT ARE THERE. JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> SCOTT, 4103 GATOR TRACE ROAD, FORT PIERCE. THIS IS DIRECTED AT MR. FREEMAN.

I BELIEVE YOU CONTRADICTED YOURSELF.

THE DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT HERE SAYS THAT THE SAME CALCULATION

[01:35:02]

THIS IS A MATHEMATICAL PLOY HERE TO GO FROM THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY BY CROSSING GROSS AREA IN PLACE OF WHAT WAS USED IN THE ORIGINAL MEDIUM DENSITY PLAN.

THE PROPERTY HERE THEN WOULD BE CHANGED TO THIS PLAN WOULD ALLOW FOR ALL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO GO BEYOND THE ORIGINAL PLAN, EXCEED THOSE NUMBERS, AND CAUSE FUTURE INJURY TO THE GATOR TRACE COMMUNITY AS A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION WHICH IT WAS GIVEN. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT WILDLIFE, OPEN GREEN SPACE AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. THE 25% INCREASE TO THE ORIGINAL NUMBER IS WHAT WE OBJECT TO. WE DO NOT OBJECT TO THE 67 UNIT ITS, BUT THE INCREASE OF 25% TO THESE UNITS, BECAUSE BY DOING THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE PLAN, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS ON ALL SUCCEEDING DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT WOULD TAKE US OUT OF THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION. THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS INTENDED FOR GATOR TRACE. GATOR TRACE IS A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BY YOUR OWN DETERMINATION.

THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE 6.94 ACRES. ALSO THE ACCESS, AS YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE, HAS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED AND IT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH A MAJOR PORTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT EXIST ALREADY. THERE IS NO PLAN TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN TO GO DIRECTLY THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT EXIST NOW IN ORDER TO GET TO THIS SITE, OKAY.

THE MARKET STREET ACCESS DOES NOT STILL ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY RELIEF TO THE RESIDENTS.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT -- PARDON ME.

I HAVE A COUPLE NOTES HERE. >> YOU'RE NOT GETTING ALL

TANGLED UP IN PAPER. >> NO.

>> I DO ALL THE TIME. >> I NOTICE, FRANK.

YOU TALK A LOT, FRANK, AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE ALLOWED THEIR ALLOTTED TIME.

>> TAKE YOUR TIME, SIR. >> THERE WAS NEVER AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY DONE TO GATOR TRACE PROPERTY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT IS TO THE ENVIRONMENT, TO SAFETY ITEMS, TO ECOLOGICAL ITEMS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE IMPACTS ARE TO EXISTING WILDLIFE, WHICH INCLUDES MIGRATORY OFFARY, WHICH INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL WILDLIFE OF LARGE AND MEDIUM AND SMALL SIZE WE KNOW THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EMERGENCY FIRE, POLICE SERVICES, WATER AND ELECTRIC SERVICES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE INCHRIST CREASED.

WE DO NOT KNOW AND DID NOT SEE ON THE PLAN FOR A FIRE HYDRANT FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED. WE DID NOT SEE ANY ALLOTMENT FOR VISITOR PARK WITHIN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT THEY WOULD NEED TO BE ADVISED THAT THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT, THE LAKESIDE PROJECT, TO CONFORM TO THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT 2007 AND EVERYTHING CONTAINED WITHIN THAT.

THAT MEANS THAT THE 67 UNITS IS THE MAX BECAUSE THE OTHER PROPERTY STILL HAS TO MAINTAIN THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT AND WOULD BE RESTRICTED ALSO, AS SOON AS YOU CHANGE THAT, AS SOON AS YOU SUPERSEDE THAT AGREEMENT, WE'RE LEFT TO HAVE NO PROTECTION FROM MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> NEXT SPEAKER. LZ.

>> ANY FURTHER SPEAKERS? >> ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING?

[01:40:10]

>> YEARS AGO, NEW CENTURY OWNED THE PARCEL OF LAND THERE, AND IT IS CORRECT THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE 120 UNITS PUT IN PLACE, ONLY 32 WERE -- 36 WERE BUILT, I BEG YOUR PARDON, AND THAT DOES LEAVE A NUMBER OF 84. HOWEVER, THE BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE NEW CENTURY. THEY WERE 4 AND 6 PLEXES, TWO-STORY, NOT TOWNHOMES, INDIVIDUAL UNITS, WHICH ARE LAID OUT A LITTLE BETTER THAN THE CURRENT -- WHAT'S CURRENTLY PLANNED. SO THAT'S ALL I WANT TO ADD TO THAT. I DO LIKE -- THEY DIDN'T SHOW THE BACK OF THE UNITS WHEN THEY WERE SHOWING PICTURES AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE JUST GONNA BE FLAT PATIOS AND ANYONE THAT'S BEEN TO GATOR TRACE KNOWS THAT AREA IS GOING TO SEE A LOT OF GOLF BECAUSE, AND IT'S MEANT FOR -- TOWNHOUSES ARE MEANT FOR YOUNG FAMILIES. THERE'S REALLY NO AREA FOR CHILDREN TO PLAY. THIS THEY'RE OUT ON THE PATIOS OR THE PEOPLE ARE OUT ON THE PATIOS, THEY TAKE THE CHANCE OF GETTING HURT, THEY'RE NOT MEANT FOR YOUNG FAMILIES.

THE CENTURY IS A CONCRETE BLOCK AND HAVE A LANAI IN THE BACK, SO THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE SECURE AS FAR AS STUFF COMING AT THEM.

THAT'S ALL I WANT TO ADD TO THIS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? >> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

JUST A MINUTE. I NEED ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO

REBUT. >> THANKS, SIR.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS PROJECT IS NOT PROPOSING MORE THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED. I JUST WANT TO ANSWER THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN. AND THIS IS RESIDENTIAL MODEL 4, WHICH MEANS CERTAIN AMOUNTS OF UNITS PER PROPERTY.

IT CALLS FOR 84, AND WE ARE HOLDING DOWN TO 83.

I WILL EXPECT THE SAME SENSITIVITY FROM HIM REGARDING APPLICATION IN 2007. BECAUSE EVEN IN THE SAME ZONING, SAME FUTURE LAND USE, THAT PROJECT, THE APARTMENT SITE, WAS APPROVED FOR 15 UNITS PER ACRE. MY SITE WAS ONLY NOT EVEN 10.

THEY GET ALL OF THEIR LEVELS ON THE OTHER SITE AND I'M NOT BUILDING MORE THAN WHAT I'M ALLOWED TO AND I'M NOT HERE TO CREATE -- I DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THE MONSTER DEVELOPER COMING HERE AND DESTROYING OUR TOWN.

I'M NOT THE ONE WHO IS DOING THIS.

IF YOU JUST SIMPLY LOOK AT THE MATH AND THE NUMBERS WILL YOU SEE WHO'S OVERBUILDING. THANK YOU.

>> CLOSED THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING NOW.

RETURN TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?

>> NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. EVENING AND A SECOND BY MS. CLEMONS, A MOTION BY MR. HEANING AND A SECOND BY MS. CLEMONS.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> CALLING ROLL ]

>> YES

[g. Final Plat - Gator Trace on The Greens – 2435-311-0001-000-4, 2435-243-0001-000-6]

2435-243-0001-001 -- 000-6. >> I SHOULD HAVE JUST LET YOU DO

IT. >> THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN CHEYAUFMILLING AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.

THE FINAL APPLICATION WE'RE SEEING CHAIRMAN CHEYAUFMILLING.

[01:45:09]

>> THE FINAL FOR ONE OPEN SPACE TRACT, ONE RECREATIONAL TRACT, AND ASSOCIATED EASEMENTS AND BUFFERS OF THE GATOR TRACE ON THE GREEN SUBDIVISION. THE SUBJECT SITE 6.49 ACRES.

THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE SUBDIVISION IS TITLED GATOR TRACE ON THE GREENS. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST, THE FINAL PLAT MEETS THE CRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTER 121 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AND CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT

DOCUMENT. >> ONCE AGAIN THE PLAT IS FOR THE 83 PLATTED LOTS, TWO ROAD TRACTS, TWO -- ASSOCIATED EASEMENTS AND BUFFERS OF THE GATOR TRACE ON THE GREENS SUBDIVISION, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH ONE CONDITION, APPLY TWO MYLARS AND THE PLAT IS RECORDED WITH THE CLERK OF COURTS AND ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 177-111, CONSISTENT WENT CHAPTER 121 OF THE CITY CODE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE APPROVED PLANNING DEVELOPMENT AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD INCLUDE APPROVAL WITH THE ONE CONDITION, NO CHANGES, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT WITH CHANGES OREMING DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FINAL PLAT.

THANK YOU. >> THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME CRITERIA THAT WE MENTIONED DURING THE AMENDMENT TO THE PD, UNTIL THAT AMENDMENT TO THE PD IS RATIFIED BY CITY COMMISSION THIS WILL NOT BE MOVED TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> AND WHEN THAT IS RECEIVED, IF THIS IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, THE ITEM WILL BE MOVING FORWARD CITY COMMISSION

TOGETHER WITH THE PREVIOUS ITEM. >> VERY GOOD.

COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? >> BY THE BOARD.

>> NOT HEARING ANY. >> ANY STATEMENTS, COMMENTS? PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING HAS BEEN OPENED, ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME.

ADDRESS, SIGN IN, PLEASE. NOT SEEING ANYONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING, RETURN TO THE BOARD.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? NOT HEARING ANY, I WOULD

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THE

ONE CONDITION AND NO CHANGES. >> SECOND.

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

>> MOTION IS CARRIED FOR APPROVAL.

[h. Zoning Text Amendments; Establishing Sec. 125-328. Boardinghouses and Roominghouses. Amending Sec.125-3. Definitions Generally, Boardinghouse and Roominghouse, Fencing, and amending Sec. 126-187. Allowed Uses, Boardinghouse and Roominghouse, Mobile Homes/Single-Family units, Home Occupations, and amending Sec. 125-318. Home occupations ]

[01:50:08]

THIS STUFF. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> I THINK WE HEARD THIS IN JULY.

>> YOU CHEATED. >> AND WE ASKED FOR SOME

CHANGES. >> YOU CHEATED.

>> AND THE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT WENT BACK, TOOK A LOOK AT IT AND ACCOMMODATED MOST OF WHAT WE ASKED FOR.

I BELIEVE, IF NOT ALL. >> WE ATTEMPTED TO RATIONALIZE THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED AND LOOKED TO THE CODE AND THEY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE. AND THEN FROM THE PLANNING POINT OF VIEW, WE'RE I THINK HAPPY TO PRESENT THIS IN THE FORM THAT WE HAVE IT NOW. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY AS CHAIR, YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THERE'S SO MANY CHANGES GOING ROUND FROM THE STATE, THAT WE'VE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO, AS WE'VE OPENED THE CODERS AND SECTIONS, INCORPORATE SOME STATE REQUIRED CHANGES AND ALSO SOME HOUSE KEEPING IN TERMS OF FENCING. SO I'LL GO THROUGH WHAT WE HAVE.

>> SO THIS IS THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. AMENDING SECTION 125-3 DEFINITIONS GENERALLY, AMENDING SECTION 125-187, ALLOWED USE, AND THEN SECTION 125-318, HOME OCCUPATIONS, AND ESTABLISHING SECTION 125-328 BOARDINGHOUSES AND RADIOING HOUSES.

SO AS WE'VE JUST NOTED, THE ITEM PROPOSES THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, SPECIFICALLY AS THE TITLE SAYS FOR BOARDINGHOUSES AND ROOMING HOUSES.

THERE ARE AMENDMENTS CONTAINING THIS WHICH REFLECT STATE STATUTE CHANGES AND WE'RE A BIT LATE ON THOSE, BUT WE'VE MANAGED TO INCORPORATE THEM IN HERE. AS THE CHAIR SAID, THIS IS NOT ONLY BEING PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT ALSO THE CITY COMMISSION IN 2021 AND THEY'VE DIRECTED STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE AMENDMENTS. WE HAVE THE EXISTING DEFINITION OF BOARDINGHOUSE AND WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THAT CHANGES TOGETHER WITH A DEFINITION THAT INCORPORATES WHAT A BOARDING HOUSE OR ROOMING HOUSE UNIT IS, SO THEY CAN BE COUNTED CORRECTLY. ESSENTIALLY THE BOARDINGHOUSE DEFINITION IS -- TAKES OUT A LOT OF THE EXISTING DEFINITION AND INCLUDES IT HERE. SO WE REMAIN AT THE MINIMUM OF FOUR AND MORE THAN NINE PERSONS. I WOULD LIKE TO -- THE PLANNING BOARD'S COMMENTS AND I EXAMINED THE ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE WE THOUGHT FROM THE PLANNING POINT OF VIEW THESE SORT OF USES MAY BE ACCEPTABLE. WE CONSIDERED THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES OF R4 PRIMARILY BECAUSE THEY DO INCLUDE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING AND OTHER USES, WHICH ARE FAIRLY ACTIVE.

WE ALSO INCLUDED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE MULTIFAMILY PART OF THAT. AND THE NEIGHBORED COMMERCIAL ZONE, WHICH WAS THE ZONE THAT ORIGINALLY HIGHLIGHTED BY STAFF WHEN THEY WENT TO CITY COMMISSION.

AND THIS IS A CROSSOVER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY C2 ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY AND RARELY THEY ARE MORE INCLINED TO BE A COMMERCIAL AREA OR A STRIP SMALL OR SOMETHING LIKE, THAT RATHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL.

SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO EXHAUST THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THOSE TO BE CLOGGED UP WITH, IF YOU LIKE, TOO MANY BOARDINGHOUSES IF THEY DID COME IN. SO THERE'S ONLY DISTRICT USE TABLE AT SECTION 125-187. THIS IS THE ALLOWED USES TABLE.

SO THAT'S STAFF IS PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT A NEW SECTION BOARDINGHOUSE OR ROOMINGHOUSE IS ATTACHED AND WE CONSIDERED THE ZONING DESCRIBES, WHICH WERE ALREADY ALLOCATED FOR COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF UNITS AND ALSO FOR FROM A TENTER AND SORORITY HOUSES.

AND WE LOOKED AT WHERE THOSE ARE CONDITIONAL USES.

WE THOUGHT THE BOARDINGHOUSE SHOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE SO YOU'D HAVE MORE CONTROL GOING FORWARD, SO THAT WOULD NEED TO

[01:55:02]

SO THE ONE EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE C2 WHICH WAS THE ZONING DISTRICT REQUESTED TO BE MOVING FORWARD FROM CITY CONFERENCE.

SO WE PUT THAT IN. WE DO THINK THAT BEARING IN MILD THE OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED AS CONDITIONAL USES ESPECIALLY IN SIMILAR TYPE OF GROUP LIVING DO LEND THEMSELVES TO BECOME SUITED FOR A BOARDINGHOUSE OR ROOMING HOUSE.

ONE OF THE ISSUES WITH THIS TYPE OF USE IS HOW WE CONTROL THEM.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHANGE IS TO ESTABLISH AND ENFORCE STANDARDS FOR BOARDINGHOUSES AND ROOMINGHOUSES IN THE CITY IN A MATTER WHICH PROTECTS THE SAFETY, APPEARANCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY.

AND THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST A LOT OF CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WITH THIS TYPE OF USE, BUT NOTHING IN THE CODE REALLY TO HELP CODE ENFORCEMENT TAKE CARE OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE GOING ON HERE OR CONTROL THEM.

SO THE NEW CODE CONTAINS MINIMUM MAINTENANCE STANDARDS.

THIS ALLOWS A VERY GOOD OVERSIGHT TO HAPPEN FROM THE CITY'S POINT OF VIEW, AND TO ENSURE THAT THESE PREMISES ARE KEPT TO A REASONABLE STANDARD, AND DON'T REALLY CREATE THE ISSUES THAT WE SEE FROM SOME EXISTING BOARDINGHOUSE AND ROOMINGHOUSE UNITS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF MAINTAINING OF PROPERTY, MAINTAINING OF YARDS, ACTUAL INTERNAL FACILITIES, MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS DISPOSED OF.

CONTROL OF WHAT IS USED OR COULD BE USED AS A HABITABLE ROOM, MAINTAIN THE APPEARANCE OF THE EXTERIOR.

AND MAINTAIN THE ACTUAL USE OF THE OF UNITS IN TERMS OF RESTRICTING ANIMALS OR PETS. ALSO THE NEW CODE LOOKS AT MINIMUM SPACE REQUIREMENT SO WE DON'T GET OVERCROWDED OR UNITS -- EXCEED WHAT A UNIT SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE.

LOOKING AT UNIT SIZES AND THE STANDARDS FOR THOSE.

LOOKING AT PARKING. WE'RE LOOKING AT MAINTAINING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOARDINGHOUSES IN EXISTING PART OF THE CODE, 125-315. AND INSERTING THAT ROOMINGHOUSES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME REQUIREMENTS.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE DO HAVE WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS IT DOES REQUIRE A LOT OF PARKING.

WE KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THESE TYPES OF UNITS MAY NOT HAVE A CAR. SO AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE OF A CERTIFICATE THAT CAME FORWARD, WE'RE SAYING THAT AN APPLICANT COULD REQUEST A LOW RATING OF THOSE PARKING STANDARDS SUBJECT TO IF IT WAS IN PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OR OTHER ISSUES BUT THOSE WOULD NEED TO BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR THEIR CONSIDERATION WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER THAT THAT RESTRICTION IS APPROPRIATE.

WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE IMPACT POTENTIALLY ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, HOW THAT WOULD WORK, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO CONTROL THE PARKING AND SO FORTH.

>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THAT, I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES HAVE SPECIFIC ORDINANCE THAT PROHIBIT PARKING ON THE GRASS. DO YOU -- IS IT ESTABLISHED WITHIN THE ORDINANCES OF THESE TYPES OF APPLICATIONS?

>> SO WE WOULD -- THE PARKING WOULD NEED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING CITY REQUIREMENT.

SO WHERE THAT PARKING COULD BE LOCATED.

SO THAT WOULD BE, AGAIN, PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO SHOW WHERE THAT PARKING WAS GOING TO BE LOCATED. AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS

PART OF THAT CONDITIONAL USE. >> WE'RE LOOKING AT -- OKAY.

[02:00:08]

THEY WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND FIRE CODES AND THEN WITHIN 24 MONTHS THEY WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT COMPLYING WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE THINGS OR THEY WOULD COME IN FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE TO REDUCE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. IF THAT WAS APPROPRIATE.

>> EXCUSE ME. IS SOME OF THIS STUFF GOING TO BE GRANDFATHERED IN? LIKE ADA ISN'T GOING TO BE ABLE

TO -- >> WELL, THAT WOULD BE SUNT TO THE BUILDING CODE -- SUBJECT TO THE BUILDING CODE ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE SOME ALLOWANCES WITHIN THE BUILDING CODE FOR AN EXISTING USE OR AN EXISTING BUILDING WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE UPDATED, UNLESS THERE'S GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIAL INTERIOR RENOVATION TO THESE THINGS, THEN THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO PULL THE PERMIT AND THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED.

BUT EVEN SO, I THINK THERE'S SOME EXCEPTIONS THAT THE BUILDING CODE DOES ALLOW IF THERE'S AMENDMENTS TO BUILDINGS.

I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THAT. BUT I WOULD BE DISCUSSING WITH

THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. >> MR. FREEMAN, WE HAVE -- WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS LAST TIME, I BELIEVE WE IDENTIFIED THAT THERE WERE SOME EXISTING BOARDINGHOUSES AND ZONES OTHER THAN THE THREE THAT YOU IDENTIFIED HERE.

>> RIGHT, AND SO RE-ESTABLISH SOME WAY FOR THOSE EXISTING OPERATIONS TO CONDITION TO OPERATE?

>> IT WOULD BE GATHERED IN. >> BUT THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITHIN TWO YEARS.

>> OKAY. >> SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME FORWARD IF THEY WANTED, IF THEY DIDN'T MEET THE PARKING STANDARDS AS WE ARE PROPOSING NOW, THEN -- WHICH ARE ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, THEN THEY WOULD NEED -- THEY'D BE GATHERED IN.

THEY WOULD NOT BE -- GRANDFATHERED IN, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF UNITS OR MAKE SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDINGS, EXTEND THE BUILDINGS, EXTEND THE USE WITHOUT COMING IN FOR EITHER A CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONAL USE, OR MEETING THE PARKING STANDARDS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

SO THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, FOR MAINTENANCE AND EVERYTHING ELSE SO THAT WE'RE -- IT'S A TIDYING-UP OPERATION, AND ALSO GRANDFATHERING IN EXISTING USES TO MAKE THEM COME UP TO THE STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR HOUSING, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A NEED FOR THESE THINGS AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO IN AND CLOSE THEM DOWN. WE'D LIKE THEM TO BE OPERATING IN A WAY THAT BEST SUITS THE RESIDENTS.

>> SO IF SOMEONE IS OPERATING ONE OF THESE FACILITIES IN AN R3 CURRENTLY, ASSUMING THIS GOES THROUGH, WHAT WOULD THEIR PROCESS BE? WOULD THEY NEED TO PROACTIVELY

CONTACT THE CITY TO -- >> I THINK WHAT WE INTEND TO DO -- I WORK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT.

WE'LL NOTIFY THE EXISTING BOARDINGHOUSE AND BOARDING ROOM PLACES ABOUT THIS CHANGE, AND THEIR NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY NEED THE -- THEY MEET THING PASSAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND IF THEY DON'T, THEY WOULD NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE THAT.

BUT INSENS THEY WOULD NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE OTHER PIECES OF THIS APART FROM THE ZONING LOCATION BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN. AND I TAKE YOUR POINT AND MAY A SECTION THAT WE COULD PUT IN THE CODE THAT WOULD OUTLINE THE

GRANDFATHERING ISSUE WITH THIS. >> RIGHT.

RIGHT. I JUST DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FREAK OUT WHEN THEY SEE THIS AND SHUTTING THINGS DOWN.

WILL. >> THAT'S THE BOARDING AND ROOMING HOUSE PIECE OF IT. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, I CAN MOVE ON TO THE OTHER PIECES OF THE CODE.

[02:05:02]

>> OKAY. >> I KNOW WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT NEW BOARDINGHOUSES AND ROOM, HOUSES ARE NEAR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING WITHIN THIS

CODE THAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT? >> WELL, WE'RE TRYING WITH THE -- WE'VE GIVEN THE PIECE HERE WITH THE PARKING POTENTIAL.

WHICH WE KNOW -- THE BIGGEST ISSUE WAS LOCATING BOARDINGHOUSES IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PARKING THAT IS REQUIRED FOR EACH ROOM, WHICH I THINK IS ONE ON ONE, ONE ROOM, ONE PARK.

AND SO THEN IF AN APPLICANT WANTS TO COME IN AND LOCATE AND -- CLOSE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THEY COULD ASK FOR THAT REDUCTION AS PART THE CONDITIONAL USE, AND YOU WOULD SEE THAT. SO YOU WOULD SEE A CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR, YOU KNOW, A REDUCTION OF TWO PARKING LOTS BECAUSE THEY WERE CLOSED WITHIN QUARTER OF A MILE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, AND THAT WOULD BE THEIR JUSTIFICATION.

SO IT'S AN ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THIS TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT TO BE CLOSE TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BECAUSE THEY GET A POTENTIAL BENEFIT OF DOING THAT. NO GUARANTEES.

BUT THEY GET THAT POTENTIAL. ALSO AS WE OPEN UP THE CODE, WE ARE LOOKING AT TWO STATUTES THAT HAVE BEEN AMENDED, AND THAT ALLOW CERTAIN USES IN RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

AND IN ALL ZONING THAT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL UNITS NEEDS NOW TO CONSIDER MANUFACTURED, MODULE -- MODULAR, MOBILE HOMES TO BE CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND FOR SUCH DWELLINGS TO BE REVIEWED IN THE SAME MATTER AS CONVENTIONALLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSING. THE ONLY WAY THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE ANY OVERSIGHT OF THAT, WOULD BE IF THEY HAD DESIGNED REGULATIONS, NOT DESIGNED GUIDELINES, BUT DESIGNED REGULATIONS. STAFF ARE WORKING ON DESIGN REGULATIONS. TO MEET STATE STATUTE, AND SO THEY COULD BE APPLICABLE TO SOME OF THESE TYPES OF HOUSING, WHICH NOW WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE USE TABLE, WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE MOBILE OR MANUFACTURED HOME CATEGORY TO BE PERMITTED FOR CONDITIONAL USE, AS THEY ARE WITHIN ALL OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW -- WE HAVE TO TREAT THEM EXACTLY THE SAME, AS ANY OF THE PROPOSALS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, IN ANY OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS. SO ZONING DISTRICTS, FROM ALL FIVE OF WHICH -- WELL, A CAN BELIEVE USE WHICH IS, AGAIN, IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE WOULD DO FOR A DETACHED HOUSE ELSEWHERE.

BUT SOME OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOW AS PERMITTED USE A DETACHED HOUSE SO WE NEED TO ALLOW FROM CONDITIONAL USE TO PERMITTED USE FOR THE MANUFACTURING MOMENTS THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. THAT STATE LAW CAME INTO EFFECT I THINK LAST YEAR, SO BEHIND THE SCENES WE HAVE BEEN YOU KNOW HANDLING APPLICATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE STATUTE, I KNOW THAT ST. LUCIE COUNTY CHANGED THEIR ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE THIS CHANGE AT THE EDGE OF LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE.

AND SO WE'VE TAKEN THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE HAVE THESE DISTRICT -- WE WOULD INSERT THESE CHANGES OF THE TIME THE SECOND AMENDMENT ATTACHED IN THIS ITEM IS REGARDING A FENCE, WE DO HAVE A CODE WHICH ALLOWS FENCES TO BE ERECTED ON VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE OWNING REQUIREMENTS.

NOTWITHSTANDING, IT WHO COULD BE A VACANT LOT OR A BUILT LOT.

[02:10:38]

POTENTIALLY SOME AREAS WILL BE 4 FEET ON THE STREET AS WOULD YOU HAVE. I THINK IT STARTS TO DEFINE LOTS AND STARTS TO DEFINE A PATTERN OF LOTS ON THE STREET, SO I THINK FROM AN APPEARANCE POINT OF VIEW I'M LOOKING AT THIS AS A GOOD THING AND HOPEFULLY IT WOULD PREVENT A LOT OF DUMPING ON THESE SITES, AND THE HOURS OF THE SITES -- OWNERS WILL STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THEM TIDY AND MOW ASKING DOING EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE DO HAVE CODING ENFORCEMENT FOR THAT.

ALLOWANCES TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO GO ON YOUR PROPERTY OR CODE ENFORCE YOU AND THE LAST ONE REGARDING HOME OCCUPATIONS, AGAIN, IS STATE STATUTE. STATE STATUTE STATES THAT HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE ALLOWED IN ANY DISTRICT THAT PERMITS RESIDENTIAL. SO EXTENDING THE ALLOWED USE TABLE AND WE'VE EXTENDED THE PERMITTED USES FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS FOR ALL OF THE DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT'S THAT LINE THERE.

SO YOU SEE C1, C2 AND C4 ALLOW POTENTIAL USES, RESIDENTIAL USES IS THERE, THEN THEY COULD USE THAT HOME OCCUPATION.

AND IN TANDEM WITH THAT, WE'RE LOOKING AT SECTION 125-318, AND WE'VE REALLY CUT A LOT OF THIS OUT BECAUSE OF ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS AND NOW NEED TO COMPLY WITH FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 559.955 HOME BASE BUSINESS AND THE STATE SET OUT ALL CRITERIA WOULD YOU NEED FOR A HOME BASE OCCUPATION BUSINESS.

AND WHY THEY DO THAT, WE HAVE LITTLE SAY.

SO REALLY HOUSEKEEPING AND THE HOME OCCUPATIONS AND ALLOWED

USES ALL TIED UP TOGETHER. >> COMMENTS, QUESTIONS,

DISCUSSION? >> NOT HEARING ANY, THEN NO PUBLIC HERE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM MR. HEANING AND A SECOND BY MR. EDWARDS. COWELL ROLL, PLEASE

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. IT TOOK YOU WHAT, 30 MINUTES, 45 MINUTES TO GO THROUGH IT. PROBABLY TOOK YOU SINCE JULY TO

DO IT. >> YES.

>> IT'S KIND OF LIKE COOKING A BIG MEAL AND THEN YOU SATURDAY IN 10 MINUTES AND THEN YOU GOTTA WORK AN HOUR TO CLEAN.

>> HOPEFULLY I ENJOYED IT. >> NO PUBLIC FOR COMMENTS.

[9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

DIRECT'S REPORT. >> THE PLANNING BOARD MAY RECALL THE OLSEN RESIDENTS APPLICATION WHERE THERE WAS VOTES FOR A NO.

WHERE IT WOULD GO AND THEN THERE WAS A MOTION TO TABLE IT.

AND I THINK THIS WAS THE MEETING IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAILED TO.

I HAVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY DISPOARN ALSO WITH THE APPLICANT -- THE CITY ATTORNEY AND ALSO THE APPLICANT WHO WANTED THIS TO BE MOVED TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

AND UNDER CITY CODE, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A DECISION BY THE

[02:15:04]

STAFF WILL REPORT THAT MEETING. WE'LL INCLUDE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING. IT'S GONNA GO -- ON THE AGENDA FOR THE OCTOBER 1ST MEETING, THE OCTOBER CITY COMMISSION.

WE'VE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF THE HYPE, SO WE CAN CORRECTLY -- IN TERMS OF THE HEIGHT SO WE CAN CORRECTLY PLACE THE HEIGHT OF THE UNIT AND WE ALSO AS WAS PRESENTED TO PLANNING BOARD INCORPORATED THE TRANSITION THAT THE USE OF THE BUILDING WILL NOT BE USED FOR AIRBNB OR RENTAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO COMMISSION.

I WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT.

WE ALSO HAVE ON A MORE POSITIVE DIRECTION, AND I REALLY MEANT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO PRESENT TO YOU TODAY ON THE NAPA BUILDING, IF YOU RECALL. WE HAVE THE DESIGN DISCUSSION ON THE NAPA BUILDING. WE DID GET A REVISED DESIGN ON THAT. SO WHAT I WILL BE DOING IS SENDING THAT OUT TO YOU INDIVIDUALLY.

THAT IS GOING TO GO TO THE COMMISSION.

IT'S A MUCH BETTER DESIGN FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW.

IT'S STOLEN NAPA. I THINK IT DOES TAKE THE COUNTY OF BREAKING UP THE BUILDING MORE THAN WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO.

I'LL SEND OUT A BEFORE AND AFTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS TO SHOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT CAN COME OUT OF THIS, AND THE APPLICANT WAS VERY GOOD IN WORKING WITH US AND TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS TALKING ABOUT.

SO I'VE GOT LOTS OF CODE AMENDMENTS COMING FORWARD.

IN THE BACKGROUND WE'RE WORKING ON THE CITY PORT, WHICH HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. THERE ARE LOTS OF OTHER CODE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE REFLECTING SOME STATE STATUTE CHANGES. SO YOU'LL BE SEEING THOSE COMING FORWARD SOON. AND LOTS OF TIDYING UP OF CODE IN RESPECT OF I WANT TO LOOK AT SOME IN DEPTH CHANGES TO THE LANDSCAPING PART OF THE CODE. I THINK WE'RE LACKING IN SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY'S LANDSCAPING.

AND I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THAT THE ARK TECH TOUR DESIGN REGULATIONS I THINK -- ARCHITECTURE DESIGN REGULATIONS I THINK WE NEED TIDY UP ON. ESPECIALLY WITH THE STATE ALLOWANCES FOR SOME OF THESE HOUSING TYPES TO BE PUSHED INTO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. SO I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE

[10. BOARD COMMENTS]

THE TIME EXPIRES. >> I'D LIKE TO START THE BOARD COMMENTS AND LET'S START IT ON THE ALLSTON PROJECT IS GONNA TRY NOT TO GET -- OH AND GONNA TRY TO TO GET, KEVIN, ARE OR I IN

TROUBLE ON THIS. >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I DO APPRECIATE IT. >> THE CITY ATTORNEY WEIGHED IN ON OUR TABLING THE OLSON PROJECT, AND SHE REFERRED TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 101-23 IN A PARTICULAR ITEM NO. 10.

THERE WAS A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO CLEAN UP ORDINANCES, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD ONE ALSO TO BE LOOKING AT. AND I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A COUPLE MINOR EXAMPLES HERE. ON ITEM 2, IT REFERS TO THE ELECTORATE OFFICERS AND ELECTING OF THE SECRETARY.

MANY YEARS AGO THIS BOARD WOULD ELECT A CHAIR, A VICE-CHAIR AND A SECRETARY. IT WAS DECIDED COLLECTIVELY BY THE BOARD, BY A MOTION THAT -- AND IT WAS POINTED OUT AND I CAN'T EVEN REMEMBER WHICH OF OUR DIRECTORS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS POINTED IT OUT, THAT TH THEYED A -- THE DEPARTMENT'S ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING DOCUMENTS, THEREFORE SHE IS HERE AT EVERY MEETING AND SHE SHOULD TAKE THE MINUTES. AND KEEP THOSE MINUTES.

AND BY A MOTIVATION THE BOARD, THAT WAS DONE.

AND IT WAS DECIDED BY THE BOARD, AND I BELIEVE AT THAT TIME WE

[02:20:04]

WE ELIMINATED THE POSITIONS, ELECTED POSITION ON THE BOARD, OF A BOARD MEMBER BEING A SECRETARY IT WAS A POSITION.

I WOULD THAT I THAT SHOULD BE CLEANED UP ON THIS.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS ON HERE THAT I PREFER NOT TO GO INTO IN PUBLIC MEETING. BUT I WILL SAY THIS, THAT WE OPERATE UNDER ROBERT'S RULES. NOW, IF THE CITY WOULD PREFER THAT WE DID NOT OPERATE UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, THAT'S FINE.

BUT IN OUR PROCEDURES, IT CLEARLY STATES THAT WE OPERATE UNDER ROBERT'S RULES. UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE ONE ITEM AND UNDER ROBERT'S RULES YOU ARE THINGS THAT YOU DO WHEN YOU TABLE.

I THINK WE MEANT THE -- MET THE TERMS OF ROBERT'S RULES WHEN WE TABLED THIS, AND SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE IDENTIFIED A DATE THAT WE WOULD BRING THAT OFF OF THE TABLE, WHICH WAS THIS.

WE MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS I UNDERSTAND THEM TO BE AS THE CHAIR OF ROBERT'S RULES IN TABLING AN ITEM.

NOW, IF OPERATING ON THE ROBERT'S RULES PUTS US IN -- IN A POSITION THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COMPLY WITH ITEM 10, THEN EITHER THIS NEEDS TO BE AMENDED SO THAT IT COMPLIES WITH WHAT OUR PROCEDURES ARE AS DEEMED BY THE CITY, I BELIEVE, IN THIS VERY DOCUMENT IN, THIS VERY ORDINANCE OR WE NEED TO ADJUST THE ORDINANCE AND ADJUST OUR PROCEDURES.

IF WE'RE GOING TO ADJUST OUR PROCEDURES AND DO AWAY WITH ROBERT'S RULES, WE CAN'T DO AWAY WITH THREE OF ROBERT'S RULES AND KEEP SEVEN. WE HAVE TO -- AND BY THE WAY, FOLKS, IT'S ABOUT AN 83-PAGE BOOK, OKAY.

I DON'T KNOW IT ALL. TRUST ME.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH SOME OF THEM, DO AWAY WITH SOME OF THEM, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT WE HAVE TO DO AWAY WITH ALL OF THEM, AND IF THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, THEN I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION SHOULD DICTATE TO US HOW WE RUN OUR MEETING, WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO. NOW, I HAVE NEVER ADDRESSED THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT I'VE ALWAYS NATS WHEN WE DO OUR -- I'VE ALWAYS NOTICED THAT WHEN WE DO OUR REPORTS YOUR DEPARTMENT DOES THE REPORTS, THAT IDENTIFIES THAT WE ONLY HAVE TWO CHOICES.

>> YEAH. >> BUT I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO IDENTIFY THE MULTIPLE CHOICES IN ROBERT'S RULES THAT ARE OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, WE WOULD HAVE EXCESS TO US.

THIS BOARD IS REPEATEDLY OVER THE YEARS -- AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT WE'VE DONE IT HUNDREDS OF TIMES, BUT WE CERTAINLY DONE MULTIPLE TIMES WHERE WE'VE TABLED PROJECTS.

I BELIEVE THIS VERY ITEM THAT YOU'VE JUST PRESENTED WE TABLED IN JULY. NOW, SHOULD THIS HAS JUST GONE DIRECTLY TO THE COMMISSION? IT SHOULD HAVE, BUT IT DIDN'T.

NOW, I KNOW WHY THE OLSEN PROJECT WAS MOVEST HASTE -- WAS HASTINGLY MOVED TO THE COMMISSION.

BUT HAD IT COME BACK TODAY WITH THE PROPER INFORMATION THAT I ASKED FOR THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE THE STREET ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE, WITHOUT THOSE TWO DIMENSIONS I'M SORRY THERE WAS NO WAY FOR US TO CALCULATE HOW HIGH THAT HOUSE WAS.

IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. NOW, WITHOUT -- ACTUALLY ASKED FOR THREE, INCLUDING THE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION, AND THE APPLICANT COULDN'T SEEM TO OFFER AN ANSWER FOR ANY OF THEM.

AND WITHOUT THAT, WE COULDN'T DETERMINE HOW HIGH IT WAS.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S 35 FEET TODAY OR WHETHER IT'S 32 FEET.

OFF OF THE FEMA LINE. NONE OF US DO, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T

[02:25:04]

AND I UNDERSTAND WHY, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO WHY.

THAT MIGHT GET MY HEAD OUT THERE TOO FAR.

I'M STRETCHING IT OUT A LITTLE BIT NOW.

BUT I WOULD LIKE -- AND I UNDERSTAND PRESENTLY THE COMMISSION 'WAITING TO COME INTO THE CHAMBER TO SELECT A CITY ATTORNEY. THAT'S WHAT THIS MEETING IS ALL ABOUT, THAT WE'RE EVACUATING CHAMBER FOR.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS BEEN UNDER A LOT OF STRAIN AND I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE UNDER A LOT OF STRAIN PROBABLY FOR ANOTHER YEAR.

EVERY TIME WE CHANGE CITY ATTORNEYS, AND I'M NOT GONNA GO THERE. THEY'RE STRAINING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND I GET THAT, BUT WE COULD HAVE HEARD THAT CASE TODAY WITH THE PROPER INFORMATION BROUGHT TO US, AND YOU AND I HAVE HAD MEETINGS CONCERNING THAT INFORMATION.

YOU KNEW WHAT WE NEEDED. I KNEW WHAT WE NEEDED.

BUT HAD WE HAD IT HERE TODAY, WE COULD HAVE HAD A SHORT CONVERSATION, APPROVED THAT AND SEND IT TO THE COMMISSION WHO COULD HAVE STILL BEEN THERE IN THEIR OCTOBER MEETING.

>> YEP. >> SO THAT'S WHAT I GOT TO SAY

ABOUT IT. >> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO

SAY? >> NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT THIS.

PLEASE DON'T ENTER INTO THE DISCUSSION OF THIS.

>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. DID WE CLEAR UP HOW WE HANDLED

TIES FROM NOW ON? >> NO.

I HEARD SOMETHING THAT THE STATE ATTORNEY SAID IF IT'S A TIE, IT'S A FAIL. AND THAT WAS JUST OFF THE BOOKS.

>> THAT WAS QUITE SOME TIME AGO. AND IT WAS OVERRULED.

IT WAS BY A CITY ASSISTED ATTORNEY OVERRULED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE ITEM CAME BACK TO US.

>> OKAY. >> SO WE DON'T HAVE A FIX FOR

IT. >> SO WE DON'T HAVE A FIX FOR

IT. >> DON'T HAVE A FIX FOR IT.

I HAD TO TAKE TWO BLOOD PRESSURE PILLS ONE DAY OVER THIS DISCUSSION. NO, WE DON'T HAVE A FIX FOR IT, REALLY. SO, I MEAN, AND IT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE OPERATE UNDER ROBERT'S RULES AND THIS ORDINANCE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THAT.

SO WE HAD A TIE HERE TONIGHT IN THIS MEETING, WE WOULD BE IN THE SAME DILEMMA. WHAT I SUGGEST THAT WE QUICKLY JUST COME TO SOME KIND OF CONCLUSION AND THROW THE THING UP THERE ON THE TABLE AND SAY, OKAY, TAKE IT ON.

WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THIS. WE'RE TOO FOOLISH.

NO, I WOULD NOT SUGGEST THAT. I WOULD SUGGEST DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE DID LAST MEETING. UNTIL SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH AN ANSWER TO WHAT WE'RE REALLY SUPPOSED TO DO HERE.

THIS SITUATION IS EXACTLY LIKE NOT HAVING THE DIMENSIONS ON THE OLSEN PROJECT BECAUSE WE OPERATE UNDER ROBERT'S RULES.

THE COMMISSION ALLOWS US TO DO THAT.

SO I'M ALL DONE. ANYONE ELSE?

>> YES, MR. CHAIR. I WANTED TO BRING SOMETHING UP.

I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS LAST MEETING OR THE MEETING BEFORE, MR. YING BROUGHT UP SOMETHING THAT I THINK BEARS SOME DISCUSSION. IN TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THESE ANNEXATIONS. BRINGING PROPERTY INTO THE CITY.

STAFF PREPARES THESE REPORTS, WE READ THEM, AND THE REPORT HAVE PAGES AND PAGES OF REVIEW FROM VARIOUS DIFFERENT CITY AGENCIES, FIRE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, EVERYBODY ELSE.

CODE ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT REVIEW THESE ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS.

SO WE ARE POTENTIALLY TAKING ON PROPERTIES INTO THE CITY THAT HAVE OUTSTANDING CODE VIOLATIONS IN THE COUNTY OR HAVE CONDITIONS WITHIN THEM THAT ARE NOT IN LINE WITH OUR ORDINANCES PRESENTLY.

AND DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE STAFFING AND THE APPLICATION OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AGENCY, IT'S VERY LIKELY THAT WE COULD BE ANNEXING PROPERTIES WITH CODE VIOLATIONS BY OUR CITY THAT WILL REMAIN, AND IF THEY ARE NOT NOTICED BY THE NEIGHBORS AND REPORTED DIRECTLY, NOTHING WILL BE DONE ABOUT THEM.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE OR START THE DISCUSSION, AT LEAST, TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION THAT WE CHANGE THAT, AND THAT WE START ADDING CODE ENFORCEMENT TO THE LIST OF CITY AGENCIES THAT REVIEW THESE APPLICATIONS.

>> I THINK STAFF COULD DO THAT. WE WILL ADD IT TO THE LIST OF

[02:30:01]

I THINK THAT'S QUITE AN EASY FIX.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

YOU'RE RIGHT, I NEVER CONSIDERED -- POLICE DEPARTMENT

IS ON THAT LIST. >> YES.

>> WHY WOULDN'T CODE ENFORCEMENT BE ON IT?

VERY GOOD POINT. >> ANYBODY ELSE? MEETING'S ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.