Oct 16, 2023 City Commission Regular Meeting

[11. CONSENT AGENDA]

>> WE HAD NO ONE SIGN UP IN ADVANCE SO MOVE ON TO THE

CONSENT AGENDA. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ANY ITEM THAT

[00:10:02]

ANY COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO PULL, OR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE

CONSENT AGENDA. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENCE IF I COULD.

I ALWAYS LIKE TO POINT OUT NUMBER ONE ON BEHALF FROM THE PUBLIC, THE RESTRIPING OF PAVEMENT MARKINGS ON DELAWARE AVENUE WHICH IS BADLY NEEDED AND MANY FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT. ONE OF THE ITEMS WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, ITEM K IS THE WATER TREATMENT PROGRAM LIKE WE DO IN MORRIS CREEK AND IN INDIAN HILLS. POINT THAT OUT TO THE PUBLIC THAT WE ARE BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: MADAM MAYOR, SAME THING WITH OUR TRAVEL FOR THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES.

WE JUST HAD A PROCLAMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENT WEEK, AND ANYBODY READING THIS, NOT JUST A TRIP FOR US TO GO AND ENJOY OURSELVES AND LAY BY THE POOL AND WATCH. WE ARE WORKING AND LEARNING TO BRING IDEAS BECAUSE TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FROM OTHER CITY OFFICIALS AROUND THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

SO IT IS A WORTHWHILE TRIP. I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A WORKING TRIP, AND WE ARE BRINGING BACK GREAT IDEAS AND GREAT KNOWLEDGE TO HELP RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: IT SAYS "ANNUAL CONFERENCE." IT IS "ANNUAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE." GETTING READY FOR THE LEGISLATIVE SESSIO.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: GO FIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FORT

PIERCE. >>MAYOR HUDSON: EXACTLY.

ANYTHING ELSE? ANY MEGS.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MOVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: SECOND.

YES. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YES,

[a. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-054 - Impact Fee Moratorium within Urban Infill and Redevelopment Area. FIRST READING.]

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 23-054, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, PROVIDING MORATORIUM ON THE COLLECTION OF CITY IMPACT FEE FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR OF THE CITY'S URBAN INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT AREA.

REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 113-8, 113-15.

AND INCLUDING 113.19 REPEALING OF ORDINANCES AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: MR. MIMMS. >>NICHOLAS MIMMS: MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, EXCUSE ME TARDINESS.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: THE FIRST TIME I REMEMBER YOU BEING LATE.

>>NICHOLAS MIMMS: YES, MA'AM, I WILL DO BETTER.

MADAM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, THIS WILL BE A CONTINUANCE OF POUR INCENTIVE PROGRAM OF THE IMPACT FEE PROGRAM WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FPRA.

AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE BACK-UP DOCUMENTATION, THE WITHIN BOUNDARY AND OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARY NEW CONSTRUCTION.

A 59 TO 5% RATIO. WE ARE NOT SIGHING MUCH OF A CHANGE AND SLIGHT DECLINE IN OVERALL BUILDING PERMIT.

THE ACTUAL RATIO REMAIN UNCHANGED.

SO IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO CONTINUE THIS ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AND SPUR PRESIDENT FREES OF THE URBAN INFILL AREA NFPRA.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS. AND THEY ARE EXCITED ABOUT IT.

AS A PARTICIPANT WITH THE TREASURE COAST FORT PIERCE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, THEY TAKE NOTE OF THIS.

PART OF OUR STRATEGIC PLAN MOST OF ALL TO PROVIDE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN OUR CRAS. SO IT WAS -- IT WAS NOTED AND APPLAUDED BY THOSE OUTSIDE OF OUR COMMUNITY.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: GOOD. THAT'S GOOD.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR.

SO WE HAVE -- THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE PASSED THIS ORDINANCE AND CONTINUED RESOLUTION.

AND I ALWAYS MAKE THIS STATEMENT POINT.

URBAN INFILL AREA, WHILE THE CITY DOES IT'S PART IN MOTION TO PUT THIS IN PLACE, TREASURE COAST FORT PIERCE BUILDER SOCIETY -- MANUFACTURING ASSOCIATION, THEY GET EXCITED.

I NEED TO BRING THIS UP. WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO HAVE A STRONGER CONVERSATION WITH OUR COUNTRY COUNTERPARTS.

BECAUSE THE FEEDBACK THAT I GET IS THAT WHILE THE CITY IS DOING THIS EFFORT, THE COUNTY PART OF THIS -- AND THEY HAVE A VERY HEAVY LIFT. AND IT IS NOT HELPING US BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN UP HERE FOR THREE YEARS, AND WE PASSED THIS FOR THREE YEARS, AND I STILL LOOK AT THE SAME BLOCKS, AND THEY ARE

[00:15:02]

STILL EMPTY. AND WE MUST GET THESE BLOCKS ACTIVATED AND GET ON THE TAX ROLL.

IT IS THE ONLY WAY WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN FORT PIERCE WHILE THERE IS STILL AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE IN FORT PIERCE.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT I NEED TO SAY THIS.

AND I DON'T KNOW -- I AM SURE WE SEND LETTERS.

I BROUGHT THIS UP TO MY COUNTERPARTS OVER THERE AT THE FORT PIERCE COUNTY AND HAD STRONG CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.

I AM GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT AGAIN.

BUT WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO SEND A SIGNAL, A LETTER FROM THIS COMMISSION THAT WE NEED THEIR PARTICIPATION, PARTICULARLY IN THE URBAN CORE, BECAUSE THOSE BLOCKS WERE ONCE INHABITED BY STRUCTURE. AND THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS THERE NOW. AND SO IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS AN UNDEVELOPED LAND AND, ETC. AND SO IT -- IT CONTINUES TO BE MY SOAPBOX. AND I WANT TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE US TO FIND A STRONGER WAY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH OUR FORT PIERCE COUNTY COUNTERPARTS TO COME ALONG AND SUPPORT US. THEY MAY NOT GO TO ZERO ON THEIR ACTUAL RATES, BUT IF THEY CAN CUT THEM IN HALF.

ANYTHING WE CAN TO DO SPUR DEVELOPMENT INSIDE THESE BLOCKS WILL HELP US TO CONTINUALLY GROW FORT PIERCE.

>> COMMISSIONER GAINES. I WAS GOING TO -- MY QUESTION WAS THE SAME THING I HAVE BEEN HEARING, YOU KNOW, ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW AND I WANT TO SEE ACTION.

WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER IS WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION IS HAPPY.

WHAT ELSE CAN WE TO DO MAKE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD AND DREAM UP AND DO, WHAT ELSE CAN WE DO OTHER THAN -- I KNOW WE GOT TO GO TALK TO THE COUNTY. I WILL GO TALK TO MY COUNTERPARTS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN THINK OF THAT WE CAN DO TO DO WHAT WE ARE

TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? >> WE TALKED ABOUT SOME OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FOR VACANT PROFIT PROPERTY.

WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT. NOW WE HAVEN'T ENACTED THAT YET, BUT TRUTHFULLY WE ARE TAKING THAT ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND WE ARE NOT SEEING THE LEVEL OF CONSTRUCTION TO EVEN BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION. I THINK HOPEFULLY WE CAN AGGRESSIVELY ADVERTISE THIS PROGRAM.

WE CAN WORK WITH OUR COUNTY COUNTERPARTS AND MAYBE WITH THEIR PARTICIPATION, THIS BECOMES THAT MUCH MORE ATTRACTIVE. AS WE -- WE TALKED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS OF OUR SURPLUS PROPERTIES.

WE WERE NOT SEALING THE RESULTS WITH OUR SURPLUS PROPERTY INITIATIVES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FPRA AND THE DISTRICTS WHERE WE HAVE MOST OF THE VACANT PROPERTY.

BUT I WILL SAY AGGRESSIVELY MARKET AND PROMOTE THE PROGRAM AND ALSO FIND A WAY FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY TO KNOCK DOWN THE UP-FRONT DEVELOPMENT COST IN THIS AREA.

BECAUSE THIS AREA IS ALREADY BUILT OUT.

I MEAN, TRUTHFULLY, THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE.

THE IMPACT IS BASICALLY NOMINAL. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A TRUE NEED FOR IMPACT FEES IN THIS AREA AT THIS TIME.

BUT, AGAIN, WE CAN DO THOSE TWO THINGS.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, IF I CAN ADD. COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON, YOU ARE RIGHT. THE CONVERSATIONS I HAD ARE THE SAME AS YOURS, INDIVIDUALLY, OF COURSE.

BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE TO THE COMMISSION SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES NOW.

AND THINKING IN STRATEGY OF WHAT WE COULD TO DO TALK TO OUR COUNTY FOLKS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THESE EFFORTS.

I THINK IN -- GENERICALLY AS WE INDICATED THE CRA COVERS US.

WE ARE COMFORTABLE WHAT WE WILL SEE IN A FEW MINUTES WITH A VOTE. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, MAYBE QUESTION NEED TO STRATEGIZE ON SPECIFIC DISTRICTS WITHIN OUR CRA BOUNDARIES THAT WE NEED TO DIAL IN ON AND ALLOW THE COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN A CERTAIN DISTRICT.

PEACOCK ARTS, LINCOLN ARTS, INSTEAD OF THE ENTIRE CRA AREA.

IF WE WOULD HONE IN ON LITTLE SMALL AREAS, IT MAY HELP, MR. MIMS AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US.

>> I AM VERY MUCH THANKFUL. >> WOULD YOU WANT TO SAY SOME SOMETHING.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: I ECHO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTARY ON THAT. DOLLARS AND CENTS AND TIME.

THE CITY HAS DONE ITS PART TO ELIMINATE THE IMPACT FEE.

THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS WORKING ON AN AGGRESSIVE FOR ACCESSORY UNITS ADUS IS THE VERNACULAR FOR THAT WHICH WILL SPUR THAT DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. I HAD THIS SPECIFIC DISCUSSION WITH OUR COUNTERPARTS AT THE FORT PIERCE COUNTY, AND THEIR POSITION TO ECHO WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING COMMISSIONER JOHNSON

[00:20:01]

TELL US WHAT TO DO. I THINK IF WE CAN INITIATE IN PROGRAM IN THE INNER CORE, I THINK THE PLANNING DEPARTMNT PRESENTED A PLAN THAT INDICATED THAT 40% OF LOTS IN LINCOLN PARK ARE VACANT. A LOT OF TERRITORY AND THE COUNTY IS I THINK SAYING YES, HELP US HELP YOU.

WE HAVE A LEVEL OF COOPERATION THERE THAT IS READY FOR ACTION.

AND SO IF WE CAN DEVELOP A PROPOSAL TO THEM SUGGEST THE ELIMINATION. CANDIDLY IMPACT FEE ON THESE LOTS ARE NOT OVERLY EGREGIOUS. THE END RESULT IS CHEAPER AND LESS EXPENSIVE HOUSING COMING OUT OF THE END OF THIS PROCESS.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE -- AS COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON IS SUGGESTING. SPECIFIC.

LET'S GET SPECIFIC WITH THE COUNTY AND SAY THIS IS OUR ASK.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: GOOD IDEA AND STRATEGIC FOR CENTER STORIES AND JUSTIFIED FOR CENTER STORIES. IN THE PAST WHEN WE TALKED TO THE FORT PIERCE COUNTY IN THE TEN YEARS I HAVE BEEN HERE.

NO DICE. NOT INTERESTED.

WE NEED THEM. WE ALL KNOW WE HAVE TO JUSTIFY OUR IMPACT FEE MORE AND MORE BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATURE.

EVERY SINGLE YEAR THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO CAP, REDUCE SOMEHOW BECAUSE THE BUILDERS TALK TO THE LEGISLATORS.

STRATEGIC SEEMS TO BE THE WAY TO GO SINCE THAT IS WHAT OUR TARGET

AREA IS. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I

WOULD AGREE. >>MAYOR HUDSON: GOOD IDEA.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, I THINK WE ARE AT A

POINT -- >>MAYOR HUDSON: I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. I ALMOST FORGOT TOO.

SEEING NO MOVEMENT. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND

READY FOR A MOTION. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: WELL, MADAM MAYOR, BEFORE -- I WANT TO AMEND THE MOTION ON THIS TOO. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN.

I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 23-054 FOR THE IMPACT FEE MORATORIUM WITHIN THE URBAN INFILL IN THE LINCOLN PARK AREA AND THE PEACOCK ARTS DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY AND ASK THE COUNTY

TO COME ALONG WITH THAT. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: I SECOND THAT. THE COUNTY TO ELIMINATE THEIR --

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: SORRY.

HE NEED TO RETRACT THAT. TWO PARTS.

WE WANT THE ORDINANCE. AND THEN I WILL COME BACK AT SOME POINT LATER BECAUSE WE CAN'T CO-MINGLE THE TWO,

CORRECT? >> I WOULD RECOMMEND ADDRESSING

THE ORDINANCE IN ITSELF. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 23-054.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: SECOND ON THAT AND THIS WILL COME BACK IN A DIFFERENT MEETING FOR THE STRATEGIC --

>>MAYOR HUDSON: THE STRATEGY WILL BE A WHOLE DIFFERENT MOVEMENT, THAT'S CORRECT? A WHOLE DIFFERENT EXERCISE.

>> WE MADE THE MOTION AND IF WE APPROVE IT, HE HAS THE

DIRECTION. >>MAYOR HUDSON: HE HEARD US.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: VERY WELL.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: YES. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YES,

>> OKAY, NEXT WE HAVE A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY OWNER AND APPLICANT DEVON WHEATON TO BUILD A 13,000-SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE/SHOP SPACE FOR TREASURE COAST GENERAL CONTRACTOR BUSINESS LOCATED 2006

[b. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and approval of an application for a Site Plan, Development and Design Review, submitted by property owner and applicant Devin Wheaton, to build a 13,000 square-foot office/shop space for Treasure Coast General Contractor business located at 2006 Hartman Road, more specifically at Parcel ID: 2417-332-0005-000-1.]

HARTMAN ROAD. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHTY.

A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. THERE IS ANOTHER ONE LATER -- AT LEAST ONE LATER, SO EVERYBODY LISTEN TO -- TWO LATER.

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE ATTORNEY WHO WILL GIVE US THE GUIDELINES

FOR THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. >> YES, MA'AM.

THE CITY COMMISSION SERVES BOTH THE LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE. WHEN ACTING AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY CONTRIBUTE TO LAW-MAKING ACTIVITIES.

WHEN ACTING AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY, THE COMMISSION APPLIES THOSE LAWS AND POLICIES AND HELD TO STRICTER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE LESS FORMAL THAN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT BUT MORE FORMAL THAN THE NORMAL COMMISSION MEETING.

QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MUST FOLLOW BASIC STANDARDS OF NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS AND DECISIONS MUST BE MADE BASED ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, COMMISSIONERS HAVE A DUTY TO CONDUCT THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MORE LIKE JUDGES THAN LEGISLATORS. THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED THIS EVENING.

FINALLY NO ONE SHOULD APPROACH ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION ON THE DAIS, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY CLERK

[00:25:02]

DURING THE HEARING. IF DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY CLERK, GIVE THEM TO THE SERGEANT-OF-ARMS EITHER OF THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CHAMBER.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: THANK YOU, MA'AM.

CITY CLERK, HAVE WE MET THE ADVERTISING ENVIRONMENTS FOR

THIS ITEM? >> WE HAVE MET THE ADVERTISING

REQUIREMENTS. >>MAYOR HUDSON: WILL YOU ASK COMMISS COMMISSIONER EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THESE EYE DEMOCRATS.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: NONE TO REPORT.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: NO. NONE.

NO. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON:

NO, MA'AM. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: YES, MA'AM. NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE APPLICATION, BUT ABOUT THE PARCEL AND OPPORTUNITIES OF THE PARCEL. THAT IS WITH THE APPLICANT.

>> WITH THE APPLICANT? OK

OKAY. >> AND MAYOR HUDSON.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: NO, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES?

>> SURE, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM -- ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC, IF YOU WOULD STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU WEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: PROCEED. >> COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR, BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN FOR TREASURE COAST GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT 20006 HARTMAN ROAD.

APPLICANT IS DEVON WHEATON. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DEVON WHEATON. THE PARCEL ID 2417- 32-005-00-1.

ACTION FOR A SITE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW OF A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE AND A 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT SHOP FOR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR BUSINESS. LY CALLY OWNED SMALL BUSINESS OPERATING IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

FUTURE LAND USE OF COUNTY COMMERCIAL AND ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION OF THE PARCEL WITH AN AREA GIVE OR TAKE 2.29 ACRES.

THE FUTURE LAND USE IS -- COUNTY COMMERCIAL AND ANNEXED INTO THE CITY IT WAS NOT GIVEN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL BUT THE COUNTY COMMERCIAL IS VERY MUCH THE SAME AS THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL HERE IN THE CITY.

THE ZONING IS C-3 WHICH IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN IN QUESTION.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE OFFICE OUT FRONT.

AND THEN THE SHOP IN THE BACK. THIS GIVES A LITTLE MORE DETAIL OF THE DATA SURROUNDING THE SITE PL PLAN. THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THE DETAILED LIST THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.

THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE BUILDINGS.

AS WELL AS THE DESIGN. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS ONE CONDITION, A COMPLETION CERTIFICATION BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, COST ESTIMATE AND LANDSCAPE BOND PURSUANT TO 13HORN 6 SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS APPROVED FOR THE SITE.

THE PLANNING BOARD AT SEPTEMBER 11, 2023 NIGHTING VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO MOVE THE SITE PLAN TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT IS FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO VOTE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEWS WITH THE ONE CONDITION. AN ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION CAN BE MADE OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR A RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: REAL QUICK. IT APPEARS THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FROM THE CITY.

IS THAT A CORRECT STATEMENT? >> YES.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: OKAY. THE OTHER COMMENT WAS, THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WANT IN THESE COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS, ETC. EXCITED ABOUT YOUR PROJECT.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET ANOTHER 20 OR 50 OF THESE GOING.

BUT IT IS PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR TO ACCOMPLISH IN THESE COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. AND HOPEFULLY MORE OF THIS TO COME AND GET IT OUT OF THE GROUND AS QUICK AS YOU CAN.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHTY.

I WOULD LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD, PLEASE.

STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

>> GOOD EVENING, DEVON WHEATON, 1720 COPENHAGEN ROAD.

FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. >>MAYOR HUDSON: WELCOME, MR. DEVON WHEATON. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> I DO NOT. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ANYTHIG TO ADD

OR A PRESENTATION OF YOUR OWN? >> NO, MA'AM, HOPEFULLY WE SHOWED YOU A GOOD-LOOKING BUILDING FOR THE CITY AND WE NEED THE WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE SPACE.

WE ARE GROWING. THE WAREHOUSE SPACE IS NEEDED BECAUSE WE ARE NORTHWEST LOOKING TO STORE A BUNCH OF MATERIALS ALL OVER THE PLACE AND HAVE THEM SIT THERE AND EYESORES FOR SPACES AND NEED THE SPACE TO ORGANIZE AND KEEP THEM INSIDE AND MAKE THEM LOOK NICE. AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING

[00:30:01]

TO DO. >> APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO MOVEMENT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COME BACK

TO THE COMMISSION. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: SECOND. >>MAYOR HUDSON: MOTION AND A

SECOND. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: YES.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YES, MA'AM.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: YES, MA'AM.

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

>>MAYOR HUDSON: YES, MA'AM. CONGRATULATIONS.

[c. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-055 - Review and approval for a voluntary annexation by property owners Daniel and Janica Jules of three (3) parcels at the South east corner of Totten Road and Rhode Island Avenue, more specifically at Parcel IDs: 2417-331-0003-000-4, 2417-331-0005-000-8 and 2417-331-0004-000-1. FIRST READING]

>> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 23-055, ORDINANCE EXTENDING -- THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE HEARING. ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE THREE PARCELS AT OR NEAR EAST OF TOTTEN ROAD AND SOUTH OF RHODE ISLAND AVENUE JUST NORTH OF OKEECHOBEE ROAD, PARCEL ID 2417-33150003-000-4, 2417-331-0005-000-8.

AND 2417-331-0004-000-1. AND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A, DIRECTING THE ST. LOUIS ST. LOUIS PROPERTY APPRAISER TO ASSESS PROPERTY AND PLACE IT ON THE CITY TAX ROLLS, JANUARY 1, 2024. HAVING THE TAX COLLECTOR TO COLLECT TAXES ON THE PROPERTIES ESTABLISHING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION DIRECTING FILING OF THE ORDINANCE WITH CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT AND CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF ST.

LUCIE COUNTY. AND TO IT BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND THE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHTY.

PROCEED. >> COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR, BEFORE IS YOU AN APPLICATION FOR AN ANNEXATION AT PARCEL ID 2417, 331003-000-4, 2417- 31-005-000-8 AND 2417-331-0004-00-1.

THE APPLICANT IS DANIEL AND JANICA JULES AND PARCELS WERE SAID BEFORE. ANNEXATION OF THREE PARCELS INTO THE CITY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND A CITY ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION OF THE THREE PARCELS WITH THE SITE AREA GIVE OR TAKE OF 2.44 ACRES. THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE IS COMMERCIAL. THE COUNTY COMMERCIAL.

AND PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

HAND THIS IS THE COUNTY. THIS IS THE CITY.

THE EXISTING ZONING IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. AND THE PROPOSED ZONING TONIGHT IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AGAIN THIS IS THE COUNTY'S MAP.

AND THIS IS WHERE IT WOULD BE ON OUR MAP AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 11, 2023, THE PLANNING BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO MOVE THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO VOTE APPROVAL OF THIS PROPOSED ANNEXATION. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION CAN BE GIVEN OF A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR A RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: YES. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION. IS THIS PROPERTY ADJACENT TO ANOTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS PLATTED POSSIBLY TO THE NORTH? I SAW IT ON THE MAP -- RIGHT THERE.

THAT ONE. >> THAT RILED AVENUE?

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IS THA A PLATTED RIGHT-OF-WAY?

>> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I AM NOT SURE.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THIS IS A TAX MAP MOST LIKELY OR FROM

-- FROM G.I.S. >> THIS IS THE COUNTY'S G.I.S.

AND THIS IS G.I.S. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IT FRONTS TOTTEN ROAD AND A COUNTY ROAD.

>> YES. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: DO WE KNOW THE CONDITION OF ANY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THE

LOCATION? >> CURRENTLY THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE, I BELIEVE, ON THE SITES THEMSELVES BUT THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE AT -- FPUA WILL BE ABLE TO CONNECT AS WELL AS THE STREET -- THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS THERE FOR

TOTTEN. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I THINK THAT IS IT. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO MOVEMENT.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO

[00:35:01]

APPROVE 23-055. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON:

SECOND. >>MAYOR HUDSON: MOTION AND A

SECOND 37 CALL THE ROLL. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: YES.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YES, MA'AM.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: YES, MA'AM.

[d. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Ordinance 23-056 - Review and approval of a Zoning Map Amendment by applicant Franco Prado to change the zoning of one (1) parcel of land from Residential Single-Family - Three Units Per Acre, E-3, to Planned Development, PD at 1038 S. 37th Avenue, more specifically at Parcel ID: 2417-213-0001-000-7 - FIRST READING.]

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

>>MAYOR HUDSON: YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY, NEXT ANOTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING FOR THE ORDINANCE 23-056.

AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AMENDING 9 CITY'S ZONING ATLAS AND REZONING ONE PARCEL GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 1038 SOUTH 37TH AVENUE, CONTAINING 5.28 ACRES OF LAND MORE OR LESS FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, THREE UNITS PER ACRE E 3 TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY INCLUDES, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES AN PARTS HERE IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: HAVE WE MET THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS.

>> ADVERTISING HAVE BEEN MET. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ASK COMMISSIONERS OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS?

>> YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: NOTHING TO REPORT.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: NO, MA'AM.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: NO, MA'AM.

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

I SPOKEN TO CITY RESIDENTS, COUNTY RESIDENTS, AND ALSO HAD MADE A SITE VISIT IN PERSON, DRIVEN BY THE SITE.

>> THANK YOU. MAYOR HUDSON.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: NO, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN ANY WITNESSES.

>> ANYONE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

>> I DO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR, BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN APPLICATION FOR A REZONING TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AT 1038 SOUTH 37TH STREET. THE APPLICANT IS FRANCO PRADO.

AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS MARTIN PRADO.

PARCEL ID IS 2417-213-0001-000-7.

IN SUMMARY, THIS IS A QR FOR REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT OF ONE PARCEL OF LAND TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY THREE UNITS PER ACRE E-3 TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION WITH A SITE AREA OF GIVE OR TAKE 5.02 ACRES. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IS E-3, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY THREE UNITS PER ACRE.

AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THIS IS NOT A FINAL SITE PLAN.

THIS IS NOT A FINAL PLAT. THIS IS JUST A CONCEPTUAL PLAN OF THE PD. IT IS A CONDITION THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO COME IN WITH A FINAL PLAT AS WELL AS -- THEY WILL HAVE TO COME IN WITH A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THIS SITE PLAN AND ITU PD IN PARTICULAR. STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPLICANT'S WILL ALLOW A GREATER RANGE OF N- HOUSING WHAT.

>> CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN T THE U E-3.

SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING IS THE ONLY HOUSING TYPE PERMITTED. THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS NOT SUBJECT OF THIS AMENDMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN AT AN A MAXIMUM OF 6.85. IT WILL ALLOW UP TO 15 UNITS UNLESS SUBJECT OF A INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

CONDITIONS. STAFF HAS TWO CONDITIONS WITH THIS REZONING. PONE THAT A FINAL PLAT IS NEEDE TO SUBDIVIDE THE PARCEL INTO THE PROPOSED LOTS OF THE PD.

AND THE 11 CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT PLACED ON THE CORRESPONDING OR R OR ORDINANCE MUST BE MET.

ONE OF THOSE THE MAJOR 5789 COME IN FOR THE FINAL SITE PLAN FOR THIS PD. PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 112024 MEETING VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO CITY COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT IS FOR THE CITY COMMISSION TO VOTE APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT.

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS CAN BE GIVEN OR AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL CAN BE GIVEN. AND THEN THESE ARE THE CONTINUES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE IN THAT ORDINANCE FOR YOUR REVIEW.

>> THANK YOU. >>MAYOR HUDSON: QUESTIONS OF

STAFF. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS IF I COULD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. WE HAVE A REQUEST -- IF YOU CAN GO BACK A FEW SLIDES WHERE YOU READ THE NARRATIVE.

IF YOU GO BACK -- OR FORWARD ONE MORE TIME.

[00:40:03]

I NEED HELP IN UNDERSTANDING A COUPLE OF ITEMS. WE ARE TALKING OF AROUND E-3 ZONING DISTRICT 6.5 DWELLING UNITS. AND E-15 WILL ALLOW 15 DWELLING UNITS UNLESS ANOTHER INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL APPLICATION COMES FORWARD. THEN WE HAVE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

I AM TRYING TO BALANCE THE APPLICANT -- THE APPLICATION WITH THIS INFORMATION THAT IS HERE.

IN THE INFORMATION, IT GETS LOST A LITTLE BIT WHETHER WE ARE DOING IT -- OR ASKING FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WITH THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN OR ASKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT PART?

>> YES. I KNOW THAT THE PD WAS WANTED BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW FOR A GREATER RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES.

SO SINGLE-FAMILY AND WHAT I HEARD WAS TOWN HOMES.

BUT THE -- THEY WOULD BE -- THE MAXIMUM THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO IS THE 33 UNITS, BECAUSE IT IS STILL

SINGLE-FAMILY LOW DENSITY. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: OKAY.

BUT GOING BACK ONE SLIDE, THEY ARE PLAT WILLING -- OR PROPOSING TO PLAT 14 LOTS. I DON'T KNOW WITH THE -- WHAT -- WHAT ARE OUR MINIMUM LOT WIDTHS AND DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS FOR SOMETHING THAT IS 76 FEET WIDE. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF PERSPECTIVE FARCE OUR DISTRICT?

>> SO, WITH THE 78, THAT -- THAT USUALLY MEETS THE 60 FEET.

THAT IS USUALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS FOR LOT WIDTH. AS FAR AS THE LOTS THEMSELVES, THEY WILL COMPLY ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY ARE THE PD AND MAKE REGULATIONS AROUND THAT AND THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED IN THE SITE PLAN THAT IS A CONDITION THAT THEY MUST COME BACK AND PRESENT BEFORE, NOT JUST YOU BUT THE PLANNING BOARD AND TO THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY AND THE COU

COUNTY. >> IF I COULD ADD ON TOP OF THAT. WHAT WE HAVE HERE TODAY IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AND ATTACHED TO THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS THIS SITE PLAN. WHAT WE ARE APPROVING TONIGHT IN ESSENCE IS THIS SITE PLAN. IT IS A CONCEPTUAL, AND ANY CHANGES TO THIS WILL NEED TO COME BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION. ISSUES OF DENSITY, HOUSING TYPES, HOUSE STYLES, HOUSE FORMS WILL ALL NEED TO BE APPROVED AS PART OF THE PD. NOW THE CITY COMMISSION CAN CHOOSE THAT THIS REMAIN SINGLE-FAMILY AS PART OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THAT LIES WITH THE CITY COMMISSION. IF THEY FEEL THAT THIS SITE CAN ACCOMMODATE MORE -- MORE HOUSING VARIETIES THAN SINGLE-FAMILY AND IN CERTAIN RESPECTS, PLANNING ASSOCIATES SINGLE-FAMILY WITH TOWN HOMES AND TOTALLY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY.

SO I THINK -- IF WE ARE IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH THE TYPE OF HOUSE THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO SEE ON THIS SITE, IF SINGLE-FAMILY IS THE OPTIMUM INPUT AND THEN OUTPUT FROM THE APPLICANT, AND THEY WILL COME FORWARD WITH A SITE PLAN, THEN THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.

NOW HAVING SAID THAT, IF THE CITY COMMISSION SAY THEY WANT TO SEE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING UNITS ON THIS SITE, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DOES GIVE THE SCOPE TO MOVE THE LOTS AROUND, TO HAVE SMALLER SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS ON SMALLER LOTS.

THAT, I THINK, FROM MY RECOLLECTION WITH PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT WAS PART OF WHAT THEY WERE THINKING OF DOING IN THE FUTURE. BUT WE DIDN'T GET THAT WITH THIS APPLICATION. SO WE SEE THAT SETTING THE LOTS OUT AS THEY WOULD NORMALLY GET UNDER THIS ZONING DISTRICT.

BUT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ACTUALLY GIVES MORE AUTHORITY TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO CONTROL AND DESIGN THE OUTCOME FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO THAT -- THAT IS ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS AND WHAT -- I HEARD OTHER COMMENTS FROM -- FROM E-MAILS AND THINGS THAT THIS -- YOU KNOW, THIS IS A -- THIS IS PRIMARILY A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, A CROSSOVER POINT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY.

AND I THINK THAT IS ONE CONSIDERATION HERE IS THAT SOME RESPECTS HAVE TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF BOTH.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THANK WHAT I WANT TO DO -- AND I WILL TIE IT IN A MINUTE. MAYBE YOU CAN LOOK IT UP WHILE I AM TALK, CHAPTER 12R5-326 TALKING OF DENSITY BONUSES.

[00:45:04]

THAT I SEE THAT UNDERLYING REQUEST WITHIN THIS APPLICATION.

I SEE WITHIN THE APPLICATION THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR THE ADDITIONAL DENSITIES AND YOU MENTIONED THAT IN YOUR PARAGRAPH.

IF YOU GO BACK TO THE PARAGRAPH THERE, AND TALKING OF THE 6.5.

THAT IS ALLOWED TODAY IN THE C CODE. E-3 ZONING.

AND I WANT TO FOCUS IN AND MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT SOMETHING ELSE PROPOSED THAT I AM NOT CATCHING ON TO.

THE FIRST TIME I SAW THE PLATTED LAYOUTS AND TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION AND PREVIOUS COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM. I ASKED THE QUESTION OF THE COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE. IT WAS LEGISLATIVE SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO DISCLOSE. BUT PART OF MY TRIP IN THIS AREA WAS LOOKING AT THE APPLICATIONS BECAUSE ALL WITHIN THE OKEECHOBEE, HARTMAN ROAD CORRIDOR NOW.

I WAS ALLOWED THE BENEFITS OF DRIVING AROUND THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. SO YOU ARE RIGHT.

THERE ARE COMPONENTS -- AND I WILL JUST SHARE WITH THE COMMISSION. THERE ARE COMPONENTS IN MY EVALUATION BECAUSE I WANT TO SHARE MY EVALUATION WITH THE COMMISSION THIS IS SINGLE-FAMILY.

THIS IS SINGLE-FAMILY FROM WHAT I SEE WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. SO THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON. I AM BRINGING THAT OUT BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE THAT AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT AND I WANT TO VOTE OR MAKE A DECISION WITH MY IF HE WILL LOW COMMISSIONERS ON THAT. MY NEXT QUESTION TOTTEN ROAD AND 37TH STREET. IS 37TH STREET CITY OR COUNTY?

>> I BELIEVE IT IS COUNTY. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: OKAY.

SO ANY INFRASTRUCTURE THERE WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT? DOES THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPER OR PROPERTY OWNER HAVE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE? WHAT IS THEIR -- WHAT IS THEIR

PARAMETERS. >> THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE ON THEIR PLATTED LOT.

I DO WANT TO MENTION OF THE DENSITY BONUSES.

THE ONLY DENSITY BONUS AGAIN THAT CHAPTER WILL BE INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL AND THAT IS OPEN TO ANY ZONING DISTRICT.

THEY WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR A -- FOR A DENSITY BONUS WITH TRANSPORTATION CLOSE TO THAT. AND THAT'S NOT IN.

AND THERE IS ONE FOR R-1 THAT WILL ALLOW FOR EXTRA UNIT AND NOT A R-1 ZONING. SO THEY WOULD NOT QUALIFY FOR

THAT -- THAT BONUS EITHER. >> RIGHT, THE WAY THE CHAPTER READS THOUGH. THEY DO QUALIFY FOR THE EXTRA THREE -- I THINK THE CHAPTER GOES INTO THREE AND FIVE.

>> A NUMBER OF -- I READ THROUGH THIS RECENTLY.

A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT NEED TO BE MET JUST TO QUALIFY FOR THIS. BUT THE CHAPTER ALSO -- THE SECTION ALSO STATES THAT -- THAT REQUEST HAS TO BE MADE TO THE CITY COMMISSION OR PART OF A SITE PLAN.

SO IT IS NOT GAR RAN TEED. IT HAS TO BE PROVEN IN THAT APPLICATION THAT THAT IS THE WORTHWHILE DENSITY BONUS.

SO THE UNDER LYING FUTURE LAND USE IS THE GOVERNING DENSITY HERE AND WHICH IS 6.5 MAXIMUM -- 6.5.

NO GUARANTEE YOU WILL GET THE MAXIMUM 6.5.

THE DENSITY BONUS IS APPLIED SUBJECT TO ONE QUALIFYING UNDER A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF THAT SECTION.

AND TWO, THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THAT AS PART OF A SITE PLAN. IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC.

IT IS NOT A BY RIGHT. IT IS PART OF A DELIBERATE ACTION BY THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES WITHIN THAT SECTION IN TERMS OF INNOVATION OF THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IN TERMS OF INNOVATION, WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS MAYBE EXTENSIVE STORMWATER TREATMENT.

GREEN ENERGY. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.

THOSE WILL BE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IF IT CAME FORWARD. AGAIN, NO GUARANTEE, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A PROOF OF -- AN EVI EVIDENTIAL PROOF THAT YOU WOULD GET THAN NORMALLY UNDER THE ZONING AND ALSO THAT IT WILL BE A BENEFIT TO THE CITY.

IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION, DEDICATION, STANDARDS OF RIGHT-OF-WAYS, SIDEWALKS, THOSE WILL ALL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE SITE PLAN AND THE MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE THE NEXT STEP. THIS IS NOT APPROVING A SITE PLAN. THIS IS NOT AGREEING THAT INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS AND IT IS ACCEPTABLE.

WE WOULD RELY ON COUNTY, IF IT IS A COUNTY ROADWAY.

RELY ON OUR OWN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

AND WE WOULD RELY ON FPUA TO NOTATE.

[00:50:02]

AND CONDITION CERTAIN TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF ANY FUTURE SITE PLAN THAT WOULD COME BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION. ONE BENEFIT, I WOULD SAY, IN TERMS OF COMMISSIONER'S OVERVIEW OF THIS AREA BECAUSE WE ARE LOOKING AT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

WE, THIS CITY COMMISSION MORE OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE END RESULT.

NO QUALIFICATION BY RIGHT FOR STRAIGHT ZONING OR UNDER DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. I THINK FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, THEY ARE LOOKING TO HAVE SOME INNOVATION INCORPORATED IN THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE AS STAFF SUGGESTED A PLAN DEVELOPMENTS RATHER THAN A STRAIGHT ZONING.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AND I WANT TO GET OUT OF THE WAY IN CASE RUN OUT OF TIME FOR OUR

FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. >>MAYOR HUDSON: COMMISSIONER BRODERICK AND COMMISSIONER GAINS.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: WE CAN STAY ON THIS TONIGHT AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR. E-3 ZONING, RIGHT.

SO THAT MEANS IF THEY KEPT IT AT E-3, THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT COULD BE ON THIS PIECE OF PARCEL WOULD BE 15.

THAT'S HOW I AM READING IT, RIGHT? SO NOW WITH THE CHANGE THEY ARE REQUESTING, IT GOES FROM 15 TO

33. >> POTENTIALLY.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: POTENTIALLY 3 AND COULD COME BACK WITH SOME SPECIAL INNOVATIVE IDEA AND THAT 33 COULD GO UP TO -- HOW MANY? 34, 35, 36?

>> GIVEN THAT IT IS FIVE ACRES, PROBABLY 38.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: NOW 38, ALMOST 40 ACRES ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE ZONE FOR 15. ORIGINALLY ZONE FOR 15.

IF YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP WHAT ARE THE LOCATIONS, WHAT ARE THE OTHER AREAS AROUND THE PROPERTY ARE THEY ALL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE WITH AT LEAST 40 -- AT LEAST 40 -- POTENTIAL 40 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, TOWN HOMES, WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE THAT AREA?

>> THESE AREAS HERE ARE MOSTLY SINGLE-FAMILY OR UNDEVELOPED LAND. THIS IS BENT CREEK THAT WOULD MEET THAT. AROUND HERE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THAT WILL ALLOW FOR A DWELLINGS TEE THAT IS SIMILAR TO THAT. BUT, AGAIN, THIS IS A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE GAINESVILLE GANSZ BENT CREEK, TO THE NORTH, SOUTH, WEST -- YEAH, BENT CREEK IS OVER THERE -- I KNOW WHERE THAT IS. I AM JUST TRYING -- I AM WORRIED ABOUT -- I AM JUST HON HEEST WITH YOU, I AM WORRIED OF THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE ALREADY THERE. AND TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, I AM GOING FROM 15 TOP -- I WAS HOPING GOING.

AND 30, 40 IF YOU DO IT RIGHT. AND JUST NOT KNOWING THAT I HAVE SOME CONCERNS. YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTIONS.

I WON'T. I WILL SAVE IF I HAVE SOME MORE,

COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >>MAYOR HUDSON: COMMISSIONER

BRODERICK. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THANK YOU FOR DOING SOME OF THAT HEAVY LIFTING AND I WAS GOING DOWN THAT DIRECT PATH. I AM SOMEWHAT CONFUSED SO GO BACK FOR CLARIFICATION. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE LOT LAYOUT. SO WE HAVE 14 LOTS HERE AND YOU ARE INDICATING THAT WITH THE PD -- WHAT IS IT, THE 3 ZONING CLASSIFICATION MAXIMUM OF 15 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.

THAT IS THE THRESHOLD THAT WE START OUT HERE.

HOW ARE WE ACCOMMODATING POTENTIALLY 40 UNITS -- 40 TOWN

HOUSE UNITS ON 14 LOTS? >> I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE.

I MEAN IF IT WERE TO BE THAT I THINK THIS SITE PLAN ITSELF WILL NOT BE THE PLAN IT WOULD PRESENT.

AND THAT IS THE PLAN THAT IS BEING PRESENTED.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO PUT 40 UNITS -- HAVE HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS FROM THE APPLICANT HAVE AS WELL AS REVIEWING THEIR PLAN AND, AGAIN, ANY -- ANY -- AND MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN NO MATTER WHAT IS DONE TONIGHT. YOU WOULD COME IN AND SEE

[00:55:01]

EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSING SO THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BUILD 450 UNITS WITHOUT THE COMMISSION

SAYING YES OR NO TO THAT. >> I DON'T WANT TO COME ACROSS AS BEING AN IMPEDIMENT OR DELAYING THIS IN ANY CAPACITY BUT A WIDE-OPEN QUESTION. THE MASSIVE DELTA BETWEEN 14 UNITS AND POTENTIALLY 40 UNITS. BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I HAVE THE CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER GAINES IS INDICATING AND COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON IS INDICATING THAT WE DON'T KNOW. I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE THE DESIGN ELEMENT TO DICTATE WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING. AGAIN, I AM NOT LOOKING TO DELAY ANYTHING. YOU KNOW ME.

I WANT TO MOVE IT FORWARD AND GET IT OFF THIS BODY'S AGENDA WITH AN AFFIRMATIVE APPROVAL FOR THE DEVELOPER.

BUT IN THIS CASE, WE ARE BEING ASKED TO RENTER A DECISION ON SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE ARE DECIDING ON.

THIS -- THIS IS HIGHLY UNUSUAL. I REALLY RECALL THIS TYPE OF SENARIO TO COME FORWARD TO SAY 14 LOTS AND THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN WILL BE REDONE. AND IN THEORY, THAT WILL HAVE TO COME BACK HERE BUT THEN AGAIN IF WE GO TO THE PD.

WE GRANTED THE AUTHORITY TO DROP THE PLAN.

AND IS THAT ACCURATE. >> NO.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: CLARIFY FOR US, PLEASE.

>> WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED WITH THE APPLICATION IS WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN NOW.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: WE WOULD BE APPROVING THIS PLAN, 14 LOOTS.

THEY HAVE 14 RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO PUT ON THOSE LOTS.

>> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THEN I

AM FINE. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, THAT IS EXACTLY WHERE I WAS GOING.

WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF ME IS WHAT YOU ARE ASKING US TO LOOK AT AND APPROVE. GO BACK TO YOUR WRITTEN NARRATIVE AGAIN. THAT WAS HERE TEN MINUTES AGO.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GUYS WERE.

AND -- YES, SO -- >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: I TOOK

A NAP. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: I NEED A NAP. BUT THE DECISION IS THAT.

ANYTHING I HEARD YOU SAY A COUPLE OF TIMES.

COME BACK ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN THESE 14 UNITS RESEE, THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR PERMISSION TO DO ANYTHING.

NOT EVEN A FINAL PLAT. >> A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

BECAUSE IT IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME

BACK WITH A FINAL SITE PLAN. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: GOT IT. DUAL PROTECTION FOR THE CITIZENS OF THAT AREA TO KNOW THAT NOTHING IS BEING BUILT.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL. THIS IS A TEASER APPETIZER FOR WHAT IS COMING INTO THE AREA TO SEE WHERE THIS COMMISSION FITS IN. BASED ON THE CURRENT ZONING RIGHT NOW. THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ZONED

WHAT RIGHT NOW. >> E-3.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: E-3 WILL ALLOW FOR 15 DWELLING

UNITS. >> YES, SIR.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: IF THEY GO TO PD, THEY WILL GET 6.5. WHAT PD MAY ALLOW.

>> PER ACRE. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON:

NOT ASKING FOR A PD. >> THEY ARE DOING A PD.

THIS IS PRETTY MUCH A REZONING TO THE PD.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: IT WAS CLEAR UP TO THAT POINT.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: YOU ARE TELLING ME HE COULD DO THE SAME THING WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY? WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY?

HE CAN DO THE SAME THING? >> YES.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: SO WHY ARE WE ASKING FOR A PD.

TELL ME THAT AGAIN? >> IT ALLOWS GREATER FLEX FLEXIBILITY. WHEN I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT AND I AM SURE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE BETTER THAN I, THAT THEY ARE THINKING OF INNOVATION AND DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES THAT MAY RESULT IN SMALLER LOTS.

SINGLE SINGLE-FAMILY.

>> DOESN'T PREDISPOSE TO DO ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE.

>> CORRECT. >> I WILL HAVE TO INTERRUPT FOR A SECOND -- MAYBE MORE THAN A SECOND.

I APOLOGIZE. ASK STAFF TO PULL UP MUNI CODE SECTION 125-212. 125-212.

[01:00:10]

C-2. ABOUT SITE PLANS.

>> WHEN AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO REZONE PROPERTY TO A PD ZONING DISTRICT. AND REGULATIONS.

SUBSECTIONS OF THAT IS A SITE PLAN.

VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. AND IT GOES THROUGH A-L OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE ON THAT SITE PLAN.

MY EYESIGHT IS NOT THAT GREAT BUT WHAT WAS PUT UP ON THAT SCREEN DOES NOT HAVE A-L ON THAT SITE PLAN.

THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO CONDITION SHORELINE FLOOD PLAINS, IRRIGATION PLANS, PROPOSED LOT LINES AND OTHER DIVISIONS, THE LOCATION, SIZE AND HEIGHT OF PRESENT AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, THE LOCATION SIZE OF ALL AREAS PROPOSED TO BE CONVEYED, DEDICATED AND PRESERVED FOR STREETS, PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS.

IT GOES ON AND ON. VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS WITHIN OUR CODE OF WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE ON THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE PD APPLICATION.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: BUT NOT WITH THE REZONING.

ARE YOU SAYING IT WITH THE REZONING?

>> THIS IS FOR THE PD REZONING. >>MAYOR HUDSON: IT IS FOR THE PD. I DON'T HAVE THAT SCREEN.

SO THAT'S WHY I AM ASKING YOU JUST TO MAKE SURE I KNOW WHAT I

AM DOING. >> IF WE CAN SCROLL UP A LITTLE BIT, RYAN, TO SUBSECTIONS -- THERE WE GO.

WE ARE UNDER C-2. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS.

GO RIGHT THERE. WHEN AN APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO REZONE PROPERTY TO A PD ZONING DISSTTRICT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING.

CORRECT? >>MAYOR: YES.

SHE READ IT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS.

GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THAT IS PART OF MY CONFUSION. BUT PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD -- I WANT TO POINT THIS PART OF IT TOO -- IS THAT ANY APPLICATION WE HAVE NOT TALKED ABOUT SPECIFICALLY THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AS PUBLIC RECORD. AND HERE IS MY CHALLENGE BASED ON WHAT I SEE ON THE SCREEN. IN ADDITION TO THE PLOT PLAN WE HAVE TONIGHT, 14 PARCELS. I AM CHALLENGED BY THIS.

AND I WILL -- I AM JUST GOING TO READ WHAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING A 14 -- UP TO 56 DWELLING UNIT SINGLE-FAMILY DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, QUADRIPLEX, TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT.

THAT MEANS FOUR UNITS PER ONE SMALL LITTLE BABY LOT WE SAW --

FOUR TIMES 14 MAKES 56. >> IT WILL NOT BE 56.

DEFINITELY NOT BE THE 56. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: DID THEY SUPPLY THAT? THAT IS MY QUESTION.

I AM READING THEIR APPLICATION. APPLICATION THAT IS ONLINE IS

THE APPLICANT SUBMISSION, RIGHT? >> YES.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: ALL RIGHT.

THE OTHER PART OF IT THAT I HAVE A QUESTION UPON IS IN THEIR PROPOSAL. THEY SAY PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE OF BUILDING AND STRUCTURE IS 70%.

IS THAT ALLOWABLE WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT? WITH INNOVATION. SO DOES THAT GIVE THIS COMMISSION, THIS CITY FLEXIBILITY TO APPROVE THAT?

>> YES. AND YOU CAN SET THE CONDITION OF

WHAT YOU WANT THE OPEN SPACE AS. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE -- CAN YOU BRING UP -- THIS IS PLY QUESTION FROM BEFORE.

BRING THE PLOT PLAN AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE MY BEARINGS ARE STRAIGHT. I THINK THEY ARE.

THE -- SLIDE FORT PIERCE NUMBER 8.

37TH STREET TO THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE WHICH IS TO THE

WEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT? >> YES JESHGZ THEY ARE NOT CONNECTING TO ANY CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EAST.

THERE IS A CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE EAST CALLED MEADOW LANE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NO PLANS WHATSOEVER TO CONNECT

TO THE EAST, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IN THEIR PROPOSAL?

>> RIGHT. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IN THE APPLICATION TALKS OF PROXIMITY TOO.

FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE CODE SECTION OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS.

THEY SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION TALKING ABOUT PROXIMITY IF HE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

NOT CONNECTING TO THE EAST OR NO PLANS TO GO TO THE EAST WHICH IS WHERE THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT RESIDES OR SIDEWALKS, ETC., ETC., THOSE ARE CHALLENGES.

THOSE ARE CHALLENGES. IS THAT ACCURATE?

[01:05:02]

>> THAT IS. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THAT WILL BE PART OF YOUR REVIEW? I WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS TO MAKE SURE I AM NOT TESTIFYING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU

TESTIFY. >> WE WILL REVIEW THAT.

THAT IS WHY THE -- WHY THE CONDITION HAS BEEN MADE THAT THEY NEED TO COME IN FOR A SITE PLAN SO THAT WE CAN FULLY UNDERSTAND. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS SIMPLY FOR THE REZONING TO A PD.

AND PART OF THE -- PART OF WHAT 24E6 TO BRING IN FOR A PD IS A SITE PLAN. LIKE SARAH HAD SAID.

SO THEY -- THIS IS -- THIS IS ONE PART OF THE REZONING OF THIS PD. THE OTHER PART IS THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN THAT NEEDS TO COME BEFORE YOU TO DO THAT.

WITH THAT SAID, EVEN IF THEY WERE TO CONNECT TO MEADOWS, THEY WOULD NOT GET ANY KIND OF BONUS FOR TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT WITHIN THE QUARTER I'M OF A TRANSIT STOP.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: GOTCHA, THANK YOU.

MAYOR MAYOR JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, YOU ARE SAYING SHOULD WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, THIS IS ONLY -- THE ZONING ISN'T APPROVED UNTIL THE SITE PLAN COMES.

IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> YES, THAT IS WHY THERE IS A CONDITION THEY NEED TO SUBMIT THE SITE PLAN, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST ONE PART OF THE OVERALL PROCESS.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: SOAR IN NOT ENTITLED TO THIS ZONING.

>> EXACTLY. >>MAYOR HUDSON: AS A RESULT OF

TONIGHT. >> I DON'T THINK THAT IS CORR CORRECT.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: MISS HEDGES? >> I DON'T THINK THAT IS CORRECT EITHER. WE ARE HERE TO P.D. IT UNDER THE

ORDINANCE. >> SORRY, THEN I MISUNDERSTOOD

THE QUESTION, YES. >>MAYOR HUDSON: MISS HEDGES.

>> MADAM MAYOR AND THE COMMISSION, THE SPECIFIC SITE PLAN IS WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE APPLICATION ON THE SITE PLAN. SO IF WE NEED THOSE PULLED UP

AGAIN, WE CAN. >>MAYOR HUDSON: NO, I.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR?

>>MAYOR: YES, SIR. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I I SAW A FEW FOLKS. MAYBE IF THEY ARE GOING TO TESTIFY OF THE PROJECT, WE WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT AND WE HAVE A

LOT OF QUESTIONS. >>MAYOR HUDSON: WE ARE READY --

OPEN TO ASK THE APPLICANT -- >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: ONE OTHER QUESTION OF STAFF. IT IS QUICK.

UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT MODIFYING TO A PD. THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED AT THAT TIME. WE ARE MOVING TO A PD AND THIS IS WHAT THE END RESULT IS GOING TO BE.

WE SEEM TO BE MISSING THAT STEP. WE ARE NOW MANAGING THAT A TWO-STEP PROCESS AND BUYING INTO A PROJECT WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

WE ARE SAYING -- WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON A PD BUT DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO. IS THAT FAIR?

>> THIS IS AN EXTREME VERSION OF THAT, YES.

>> BOILS IT DOWN TO A NUT FOR ME.

>> MADAM MAYOR, BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THAT, BASED ON WHAT I HEARD, BASED ON WHAT THE CITY ATTORNE HAS RELAYED TO YOU, AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. THIS NEEDS TO STOP.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE AN

INFORMED DECISION. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: I

AGREE. >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THE APPLICANT, THAT IS COMPLETELY UP TO YOU, BUT THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION. AND FOR TO YOU MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION, YOU NEED A COMPLETE APPLICATION WITH ALL OF THE

INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED. >>MAYOR HUDSON: DO YOU HAVE

ANYTHING TO SAY? >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. BECAUSE I HAVE A FEELING OUR ATTORNEY WILL TELL US THAT -- BECAUSE THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL.

AND IF WE CONTINUE ON, WE ARE IN A PUBLIC HEARING/HEARING MODE AND THIS IS TESTIMONY, RIGHT. SO WE PROBABLY NEED TO FIGURE OUT AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE A COMPLETE PACKAGE.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: MISS HEDGES, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY OF US

STOPPING THIS RIGHT NOW. >> MY SUGGESTION, MADAM MAYOR THAT WE BRING THE APPLICANT UP. HE HAS HEARD MY CONCERNS.

HE OR SHE, I AM SORRY. THEY HAVE HEARD YOUR CONCERN AND CONSENT THIS BEING PULLED AND FOR THEM TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE AND REQUIREMENTS.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: GOOD WITH THAT? ALL RIGHTY.

STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? COULD THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORW

FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND YOU WERE SWORN IN FRANCO PRADO, 559 NORTH 7 09S WAY MARGATE,

FLORIDA. >>MAYOR HUDSON: DO YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF GLAZE OVER AND ADDRESS EVERYTHING.

SO THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WE PROVIDED.

THE REASON IT HAS THE 14 LOTS GOING BACK TO THE E-3 ENTITLED ZONING OF THE 15 UNITS. THE IDEA BEHIND PRESENTING THAT

[01:10:05]

CONCEPTUAL PLAN WAS THAT THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN TECHNICALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT ZONING, WHICH IS THE E-3. SO WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO -- I DON'T WANT TO PUT MASSIVE DEVELOPMENTS.

I DON'T -- WE ARE NOT -- WE ARE NOT LOOKING INTO THAT.

THE MAIN THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH, IN ESSENCE, IS TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PUT DUPLEX HOUSING AND NOT BE SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO THE E-3 WHICH IS A DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY. IT IS SPECIFICALLY SAYS "DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY." BUT IF BUT GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY CODE, R-1, 3, DUPLEX ARE ALLOWED.

TRIPLEXES ARE ALLOWED. AND SO I CONSULTED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. ORIGINALLY MY ORIGINAL APPLICATION WAS FOR A R-3. WE DISCUSSED IT AND SAID, HEY, IF YOU DO A PD, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME AS AN R-3 BUT HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY. SO THAT -- THAT WAS THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN. AND IN OUR MEETINGS -- WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS -- THEY TOLD ME THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN WILL SUFFICE AS WHAT IS CALLED THE BUBBLE PLAN.

AND THE SECOND PART, LIKE THEY ARE SAYING THE SITE PLAN WILL HAVE TO COME TO AN AMENDMENT. SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A REZONING FOR ME TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN. THERE IS A LOT OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A SITE PLAN. AND WE ARE NOT SURE WHICH DIRECTION THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE US TO GO.

WE DON'T WANT TO GO AGAINST THE CURRENT PEOPLE AND, LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE A DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL MAKE YOU WORRY. SO THE IDEA BEING LET'S DO -- LET'S GET THE PD OUT OF THE WAY. AND THEN I COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN WHICH HAS TO GO, AGAIN, THROUGH ALL THESE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS. AND I AM NOT TRYING TO SLIP ANYTHING BY. I AM NOT TRYING TO GO BEHIND YOUR BACK. BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT IS SET UP, IS THAT I HAVE TO NOT ONLY GET THEIR APPROVAL FOR A SITE PLAN, BUT THAT APPROVAL THEN HAS TO GO TO A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. SO ALL OF THESE WORRIES THAT WE HAVE WHAT WILL BE THERE. HOW IS IT GOING TO BE.

ALL OF THAT -- I WANT TO WORK WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUT WE ARE NOT -- WE ARE NOT AT THAT STEP YET.

I DON'T WANT TO WASTE TIME AND MONEY SITTING DOWN AND COMING UP WITH ALL THESE SITE PLANS AND ALL THESE THINGS TO THEN NOT -- FOR EXAMPLE, TO NOT GET THE PD OR AGAIN, REWINDING BACK NOT GETTING THE R-3 WE WERE ORIGINALLY LOOKING FOR SO RYAN AND KEVIN, WE DECIDED THAT STRAIGHT R-3. E BETTER THAN A - AND IN AN EFFORT TO SHOW YOU THAT WE ARE NOT LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE DEVELOPMENT, I AM NOT COMMITTING A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS WHAT DRIVES THE DENSITY ALLOWABLE UNDER A PD BY NOT CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE, I AM CAPPING -- WE ARE CAPPING OURSELVES TO THE SIX AND A HALF DWELLING UNITS. RM, YOU ARE AT 15.

RH, YOU ARE, LIKE, OVER 20, WHICH IS WHAT -- SEE MORE DENSITY GOING FURTHER EAST. AND LIKE THEY SAID, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE MAPS, WE ARE RIGHT IN -- RIGHT IN THE ZONE.

I MEAN, LESS THAN -- LESS THAN HALF A MILE YOU HAVE ALL OF BENT CREEK WHICH IS GOING TO BE 500 MORE HOUSES COMING.

AND THE IDEA IS GOING -- AGAIN, GOING BACK.

THE HOUSING SITUATION IN FORT PIERCE IS UNIQUE.

BECAUSE IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A CHEAP HOUSE, YOUR FORCED INTO AN OLD HOUSE. THERE IS A LOT OF OLD INFRASTRUCTURE AND SMALLER U UNITS.

AND THEN THERE IS BENT CREEK, 400,000, 300,000.

THE MEDIAN PRICE FOR A HOME IN FLORIDA HISTORICALLY IN THE MID-200,000S. BY BEING ABLE TO PUT A DUPLEX,

[01:15:05]

1,000-SQUARE-FOOT DUPLEX, THAT IS AN AFFORDABLE HOME TODAY.

NOT MANY PEOPLE -- IF YOU WANT A LARGER HOME, THERE IS BENT CREEK. IF YOU WANT AN OLDER HOUSE, THAT IS WORSE FOR HURRICANE CODES, BAD INSULATION, BAD ROOFING, FORT PIERCE HAS A LOT OF THAT. AND I THINK THE CITY IS BEAMING, IT IS GROWING. AND THERE IS A -- FIVE-ACRE LOT SURROUNDED IN -- AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, A LOT OF FORT PIERCE COUNTY PROPERTIES. THOSE PROPERTIES THAT AREN'T COLORED, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE CITY.

IF YOU ZOOM OUT EVEN MORE, YOU WILL SEE THERE IS ONLY ONE O OTHER E-3 PROPERTY IN THIS ENTIRE AREA OFF OF JENKINS ROAD AND GOT REZONE TO A PD. THAT E-3 IS ALMOST LIKE AN ESTATE ZONING. IT IS THREE UNITS PER ACRE.

AND EVEN AT THAT THREE UNITS PER ACRE, IT ALSO LIMITS THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE. ONLY A 25% LOT COVERAGE PER THE CODE; WHEREAS, AS YOU GO TO R- NOT ONLY SMALLER LOTS BUT A 35% COVERAGE UNDER R-3. SO THAT E-3 ZONING IS -- IS KIND OF OUTDATED ESPECIALLY FOR THE AREA.

ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING FROM THAT PROPERTY, I CAN DRIVE 40 SECONDS AND GET INTO THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR LENNAR AVALON CROSSING, BLUE SKY AFFORDABLE HOUSING OFF OF JENKINS.

ANOTHER CONSTRUCTION OUT OF JENKINS.

IT IS A VERY TRANSITIONAL ZONE. ORIGINALLY WENT FOR THE R-3.

IN THE CODE OF THE R-3, IT LITERALLY SAYS THIS WILL BE SERVED AS A TRANSITION FROM LARGER HOUSES TO SMALLER MORE DENSE DWELLINGS. SO REALLY MY INTENTION WAS TO SIMPLY HAVE THE RIGHT OR HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN TO PLANNING BOARD SAYING, HEY, CAN WE PUT SOME DUPLEXES THERE. AND THE LOTS THAT ARE ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, BECAUSE THEY ARE DRAWN TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE CURRENT E-3, WHICH IS BIG LOTS, 75 COMPARED TO 60 FEET FRONTAGES OR LESS ON THE R-3 OR R-4.

THE IDEA WAS THOSE LOTS, NOT ONLY MEET THE CURRENT E- BUT THEY MEET THE R-3 STANDARDS FOR DUPLEXES.

SO IF THERE WAS ANY ISSUE WITH LOT SIZES AND LOT COVERAGES, THE IDEA WAS I AM COPYING THE EXISTING ZONING, WHICH ALREADY IS CODIFIED. AND I -- I AM JUST TRYING TO CHANGE THE ZONING SO THAT I HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND SAY, HEY, NOW THAT IT IS A PD, THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN CAN CHANGE ENTIRELY. WE COULD BE TEN LOTS.

WE COULD BE HOWEVER YOU ALL DECIDE.

HOWEVER THE PLANNING BOARD, WE WORKED TOGETHER TO COME UP WITH THAT SOLUTION THAT WILL BE GOOD FOR THE CITY, GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, PROVIDE NEWER OR CHEAPER HOUSING IN A RANGE THAT IS TRADITIONALLY AFFORDABLE, ESPECIALLY FOR -- FOR FORT PIERCE. MAYOR MAYOR WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU REALLY STUDIED AND REALLY THOUGHT THIS THROUGH.

QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. MR. PRADO.

>> YES. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THANK YOU FOR GIVING US SOME INFORMATION THERE.

YOU HEARD A FEW OF MY COMMENTS TONIGHT.

SO YOU DID SOME RESEARCH IN THE AREA, RIGHT.

I ALSO DID RESEARCH THAT I CLARIFIED EARLIER TODAY AND KNOW THE AREA WELL. ALL THE RESIDENCES I SAW WERE SINGLE-FAMILY BY THEMSELVES. WHY BUILD A DUPLEX IN THE MIDDLE

OF THAT? >> SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE THAT TYPE OF HOUSING THAT IS IN A BETTER PRICE RANGE.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MAY I.

YOU SAY PRICE RANGE. I AM GOING TO JUMP IN A FEW TIMES. YOU ARE GOING TO LIST THESE AS FOR SALE? EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT WILL BE FOR SALE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO PURCHASE A DUPLEX OR PURCHASE A

[01:20:05]

UNIT. >> A UNIT OF A DUPLEX IS

CONSIDERED ITS OWN DWELLIN. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: RIGHT. SO YOUR EXPERIENCE -- SO YOU HAVE -- YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE IN THE REAL ESTATE MARKET, RIGHT

AND DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS? >> ME, PERSONALLY, I DON'T.

BUT, AGAIN, THE IDEA IS TO SIMPLY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY IT IS A LARGE LOT, AND BY CONFORMING THE LOT SIZES TO MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER SIMILAR ZONING FOR THAT SAME HOUSING STYLE, I FEEL LIKE WE ARE NOT ENCROACHING -- I AM NOT TRYING TO CRAM. I AM NOT TRYING TO HALF THE LOT SIZE AND DOUBLE THE DENSITY. I AM TRYING TO SAY THESE ARE THE LOT SIZE AS THAT WILL BE APPROPRIATE NOW, BUT BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT ZONING I CAN ONLY PUT A SINGLE HOUSE.

BUT THAT HOUSE -- THE FOOTPRINT OF THAT HOUSE TODAY COULD EASILY BE DESIGNED TO BE A DUPLEX. SO YOU -- YOU GO FROM OFFERING A

HOME $400,000 -- >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I UNDERSTAND. YOU SAID THIS EARLIER.

IN FORT PIERCE, IF YOU HAVE DONE YOUR STUDY AND YOU HAVE SEEN THIS COMMISSION BEFORE. WE ARE LOOKING FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP. WE ARE LOOKING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR RESIDENTS T HAVE THEIR HOME.

AND OWN A HOME. NOT RECENT HOME.

>> THIS IS NOT A RENTAL AT ALL. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: WE

DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE. >> THAT IS THE IDEA WHAT THE SITE PLAN. THE SITE PLAN, YOU WOULD ALLOW -- YOU WOULD SAY, FRANKCO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET YOU PUT 100 UNIT TOWN HOUSES. SORRY.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: OKAY. MY OTHER QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU HAD CONSERVATIONS WITH -- YOU HEARD ME ASK ABOUT THE ROADWAY, RIGHT. YOU TALKED ABOUT I■NFRASTRUCTUR.

WHEN YOU DEVELOP ANY PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO IMPROVE THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. BECAUSE IT SHOULD NOT BE THE BURDEN OF THE TAXPAYER AND GIVING IN THE CITY TO APPROVE A RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT GOES TO YOUR PROPERTY.

YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING. YOU ARE DEVELOPING AND YOU WILL BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS. IS YOUR INTENTION TO DO THAT.

>> I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. I HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS WITH BILLY DUPREE. AND --

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: TALKING OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION.

ST. LOUIS ST. LOUIS SHOW. >> FPUA IS --

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: UTILITIES.

ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE. STORMWATER AND ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE. PAVING A ROAD.

>> THAT WILL COME TO THE DEVELOPER, THE PERSON THAT WILL BE IN CHARGE OF THAT. OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAWS. THAT IS THE IDEA IS THAT EVERYBODY STILL HAS TO BE APPROVED.

YOU ARE NOT GIVING ME A BLANKET STATEMENT TO DO WHATEVER I WANT, BUT YOU ARE ALLOWING ME TO AT LEAST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OTHERWISE

UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU BEFORE I HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE WAY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. TALK ABOUT THE E-3.

I HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT TAKE OF A E- IN A NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING LIKE THIS. BECAUSE I THINK THAT PREVIOUS COMMISSIONS, COUNTY COMMISSIONS HAD THE FORESIGHT TO SAY THESE -- THESE SMALLER DENSITY, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AREAS ARE NEEDED WITHIN A COMMUNITY. YOU TALK OF TRANSITION ZONES.

EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD A NEW TALKED ABOUT, YOU TALKED ABOUT HIGHER DENSITY, BENT CREEK. A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN BENT CREEK. DESIGNED THAT WAY TO CONNECT TO A MAIN THOROUGHFARE LIKE JENKINS OR HARTMAN ROAD OR PETERSON ROAD WITH A ROUNDTABLE. REQUIRED TO ALL THE

INFRASTRUCTURE. >> THEY STILL ABSOLUTELY WILL.

WHERE THE MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN WILL INCLUDE.

ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS WILL BE MET TO MEET THE CODE OF THE

CITY. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND THE CODE.

MY LAST QUESTION. IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

I WANT TO ASK YOU A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND IF YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE, COMMON FOR YOU, A DEVELOPER OR IN YOUR EXPERIENCE TO PLANT A DUPLEX, TRIPLEX, QUADRIPLEX WITHIN A LOW RESIDENTIAL DENSITY NEIGHB

NEIGHBORHOOD? >> AS LONG AS WE ARE NOT GOING OVER THE DENSITIES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE FUTURE LAND

USE. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IN YOUR EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, DO YOU USUALLY PLANT DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES.

>> AGAIN, I AM NOT A DEVELOPER. WE ARE THE PROPERTY OPENER.

SO I WORK -- I WOULD WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER WHO WOULD

THESE CONCERNS OF YOURS. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: OKAY.

THANK YOU. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHT.

[01:25:02]

>> I AM JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION.

I THOUGHT THE QUESTION ORIGINALLY WE WERE GOING TO SEE IF THE APPLICANT WANTED TO WITHDRAW HIS APPLICATION FOR THE TIME BEING. NO?

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: WE WANTED HIM TO GIVE TESTIMONY.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: MISS HEDGES, SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO GET TESTIMONY OR SOMETHING -- BECAUSE CERTAIN THINGS HAVE NOT

BEEN MET. >> THE PLAT PLAN IS NOT EVEN ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE. IT IS NOT EVEN AN EXHIBIT TO THE ORDINANCE. IT ESSENTIALLY DOESN'T EXIST.

>> WHAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT --

>>MAYOR HUDSON: WAIT ONE MINUTE.

WE ARE ALL CAUGHT IN THIS. I AM TRYING -- I AM TRYING TO

HELP YOU HERE. >> THANK YOU.

MISS HEDGES. >> SINCE WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, THE OPTIONS EXIST FOR THE APPLICANT TO WITHDRAW HIS APPLICATION, IF HE CHOOSES TO DO SO.

100% HIS CHOICE. FOR THE APPLICANT TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE HEARING SO THAT HE CAN GET THE REQUIRED SITE PLAN UNDER THE CODE TO SUBMIT FOR REVIEW, IF IT IS CONTINUED, WE CAN GIVE HIM THE NEXT DATE FOR THAT HEARING.

IF HE WOULD LIKE TO GO FORWARD, THE COMMISSION WOULD GO FORWARD, AND THEN IT WILL BE THE COMMISSION'S DECISION WHETHER THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE OR DENY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE

CODE REQUIREMENTS. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHTY.

SO -- WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION.

YOU WANT TO ASK FURTHER QUESTIONS OR ASK HIM IF HE WANTS

TO -- >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: CANDIDLY AND I WILL BE BLUNT ABOUT THIS.

THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.

WE ARE EXPECTED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON A MASSIVE VACUUM OF INFORMATION AND NOT A REASONABLE POSITION FOR THIS BODY TO PUT IN. THAT IS EXACTLY HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. THE CITY ATTORNEY IS INDICATING THAT IS THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO, I CAN'T BE EXPECTED.

NOBODY CAN BE EXPECTED TO MAKE A DETERMINATION BASED ON A COMPLETE LACK OF INFORMATION. BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER IS EVEN INDICATING THAT HIS PLOT PLAN IS BASICALLY AN ATTACHMENT OF NOTHING. YOU ARE INDICATING -- I AM NOT TRYING -- I AM NOT BEING CRITICAL, BUT INDICATING TO ME YOU HAVE 15 LOTS ON THIS SITE. BUILD DUPLEXES THERE POTENTIALLY. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SELL FEE SIMPLE PROPERTY ON DUPLEXES ON ONE LOT? WELL, THIS SITE PLAN NOW BECOMES A SECONDARY MATTER.

SO IN THAT -- WELL, LET ME FINISH.

IN THAT REGARD, WHAT I AM SUGGESTING THAT THE PLAN WILL BE TABLED OR -- UNTIL MORE DETAIL CAN THE PRODUCED.

I CANDIDLY IN ALL MY YEARS, I NEVER SEEN A PLAN BROUGHT FORWARD LIKE THIS WITH THIS COMPLETE LACK OF INFORMATION.

SO I AM -- I AM SUGGESTING CITY MANAGER MIMS COMMENTARY TO GATHER MORE INFORMATION AND ABOUT I THINK IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION IN A FORMAT NOT TO SAY WITHDRAW IT OR TABLE IT.

WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, SIR, IS WHERE I AM GOING.

>> THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION AND GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT THE PLOTTING. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IF -- IF THAT WERE THE CARES THAT WE WANTED TO DO DUPLEXES, THE CONDITION OF THE PLAT TO BE SUBMITTED, THE PLAT WOULD HAVE

TO REFLECT. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK:

SUBDIVIDE. >>MAYOR HUDSON: HERE IS THE THING. I THINK WHAT WE WANT.

WE DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME AND WE DON'T WANT TO WASTE OUR TIME. BECAUSE APPARENTLY THINGS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ATTACHED TO THIS THAT ARE NOT.

AND I AM NOT -- WE ARE NOT SAYING ANYBODY'S FAULT OR ANYTHING. SO I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY OPEN WITH YOU BECAUSE WE WANT TO HELP YOU.

WE WANT TO HELP YOU DO THE RIGHT THING.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO -- PROCEEDING, WE DON'T -- YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE DENIED. SO IF -- IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THIS AND YOUR -- AND YOUR -- YOUR HEART SET ON THIS, THEN I -- I AM SORRY, BUT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY. AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE TOLD OR -- IS -- IS A -- IS -- I JUST WON'T GO THERE.

I WANT TO SAY I APOLOGIZE. I APOLOGIZE.

I DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY OR OUR TIME.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER HAVE ANYTHING?

COMMISSIONER GAINES. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: I DO, MADAM MAYOR. AS YOU KNOW, I TRY TO THE TO PUT ON THAT OTHER HAT I WEAR; HOWEVER, COMMISSIONERS, WE ARE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. WE ASK QUESTIONS.

WE REALLY DON'T DICTATE TO SOMEONE.

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO ASK QUESTIONS.

HE SEEN THE TEA LEAVES. HE HEARD ALL THE QUESTIONS WE ASKED THE STAFF. WE ARE SUPPOSED TO REQUEST QUESTIONS. ESPECIALLY DIDN'T COME UP AND TRY TO SAY I WANT A CONTINUANCE. I WANT TO PULL IT.

[01:30:05]

HE CAME UP TO TRY TO EXPLAIN HIS REASONING AND WHY HE DID IT.

SO IF YOU HAD A QUESTION TO WHY WE SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT SO IT COULD HAVE BEEN ON THE RECORD.

AND ONCE IT IS ON THE RECORD, THEN WE SAY, OKAY, HE HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS THE BEST HE COULD.

NOW BASED ON HIS TESTIMONY, THE TESTIMONY OF THE PLANNING BOARD.

WE MAKE A DECISION. WE ALSO USE THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR CITY MANAGER WITH THE RULES IN THAT DECISION.

ALL THIS IS -- IS A GATHERING OF EVIDENCE.

37 BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO COME BACK AND BE READ AGAIN BECAUSE WE ARE NOT IN A LEGISLATIVE HEARING.

IT IS QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. THERE IT IS.

I GOT IT RIGHT. QUASI-JUDICIAL.

SO WE JUST CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE AND SAY, OKAY, IN THE MIDDLE -- THIS IS MY TAKE. IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS TYPE OF HEARING, SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE HEARD ENOUGH.

PLEASE PULL YOUR APPLICATION FOR -- OR WHATEVER.

WE GO THROUGH THE HEARING AND THEN WE MAKE OUR VOTE.

THAT IS HOW I UNDERSTAND THIS HEARING TO BE.

WE HAVE GOTTEN THE -- WE HAVE GOT THE CODE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. WE HAVE GOTTEN TESTIMONY FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WE GOTTEN TESTIMONY.

AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO STOOD UP WHEN THIS CAME.

WE JUST CAN'T STOP, UNLESS HE RAISES HIS HAND AND MADAM K57 ATTORNEY, YOU CAN HELP ME, UNLESS THIS APPLICANT RAISES HIS HAND AND SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, LET'S JUST STOP THIS AND I WANT TO PULL THIS. I DON'T THINK WE CAN TELL AN APPLICANT TO PULL HIS APPLICATION.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: KICK ASK.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: WE CAN ASK HIM AND YOUR QUESTION TO HIM, YOU CAN ASK HIM THAT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THROWING OUT THAT WE SHOULD PULL HIS APPLICATION, THAT'S -- THAT'S HIS CHOICE. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHENEVER HE SITS DOWN AND WE SAY, MADAM MAYOR SAYS ANY MORE, YOU KNOW, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AND WE CLOSE IT.

AT THAT POINT WE MAKE A DECISION AND WE MOVE ON.

SO I WANT TO SAY THAT FIRST. THIS IS MY THING TO YOU, SIR.

I DON'T WANT TO WASTE -- I DON'T WANT YOU TO GO OUT AND SPEND MONEY, RIGHT. ON A SITE PLAN AND FROM WHAT I AM HEARING AND YOU COME BACK AND YOU PUT YOUR SUN TO HOMES OR WHATEVER ON THE SITE PLAN, AND THEN YOU SPEND ALL THIS MONEY.

AND YOU COME BACK AND SAY, WE COME BACK AND SAY THE SAME QUESTIONS WE HAVE TONIGHT, AND THEN WE DENY IT.

I WOULD HAVE RATHER SEE YOU SAY, OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, THIS IS MY IDEA. I WANT TO PUT -- I AM TRYING TO SAY 56 -- WHATEVER COMMISSIONER JOHNSON READ -- FOUR TOWNHOMES ON EACH OF THESE LOTS OR DETACH HOME -- HOWEVER YOU WANT IT ON EACH OF THESE LOTS, RIGHT. I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE GENERATED MORE QUESTIONS FROM US TO SAY, HEY, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO THIS AND GO FROM THERE. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS GRANT THIS -- GRANT THIS. YOU GO OUT WITH THIS IDEA THAT WE ARE ALL HAPPY. NOW YOU HAVE THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. YOU GO AND SPEND ALL THIS MONEY AND COME BACK, AND WE ARE IN THE SAME SPOT WE ARE IN NOW AND NOW YOU SPENT THE MONEY -- YOU SPENT THE MONEY.

AND WE SAY NO. NOW YOU ARE REALLY MAD.

NOW YOU ARE REALLY MAD. MY THING IS THIS.

I LOVE THE IDEA THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROBLEM. UP JUST THINK THAT YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND, ME PERSONALLY, GO BACK AND LET US SEE YOUR VISION.

RIGHT NOW, I HEAR IT, BUT I DON'T SEE IT.

AND IF I SEE YOUR VISION, THAT GIVES ME TIME BEFORE THE NEXT HEARING TO STUDY IT AND SAY WHAT THIS, WHAT ABOUT THAT, WHAT ABOUT THIS. THE COMMISSIONER HERE TO MY LEFT, HE IS ASKING TO ASK YOU ABOUT SIDEWALKS.

HE IS GOING TO ASK YOU OF STORMWATER RUNOFF.

HE IS GOING TO ASK ASK YOU ABOUT ANYTHING ENGINEERING -- ANYTHING ENGINEERING POSSIBLE BECAUSE THAT IS HIS EXPERTISE.

THE COMMISSIONER DOWN THERE WILL ASK YOU PRICES, MARKETING, ALL OF THIS STUFF. THE COMMISSIONER AT THE FAR END, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE IS GOING TO ASK.

BUT HE KNOWS REAL ESTATE. SO HE IS GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY -- YOU ALREADY HEARD HIM SAY, FEE SIMPLE AND ALL THIS STUFF ON PROPERTY. SO WE ARE KIND OF GIVING YOU THE -- WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE YOU THE KEYS AND COME BACK AND PUT IT TOGETHER. SO I DODON'T WANT YOU TO IT BE DISAPPOINTED. I WOULD PREFER YOU -- LET ME ASK YOU YES, SIR. LET'S GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND GO FROM THERE. THAT'S HOW I WOULD DO IT.

BUT THIS IS YOUR TIME IN FRONT OF US.

SO I DON'T WANT TO STOP YOUR HEARING, BUT YOU HAVE HEARD

WHERE SERVE SAYING. >> I WILL TAKE YOUR ADVICE AND MAYBE REACH OUT TO YOU GUYS DIRECTLY AND SEE WHERE YOU WOULD

[01:35:02]

LIKE ME TO BE. BECAUSE ALL OF THIS IS COMING FROM THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD WITH THE IDEA WAS THAT ALL OF THESE REQUIREMENTS AND THE DETAILS OF THE PLATTING AND THE ENGINEERING WOULD -- WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED FIRST WITH A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT.

AND SO IT'S -- IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF SITE PLAN I CAN PROCURE IF I KNOW WHAT MY UNDER LYING ZONINGS WILL BE. SO WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSIONS AND THE MEETINGS, THAT IS WHEN THEY RECOMMENDED APPLY FOR THE ZONING. WE WILL PUT A CONDITION OF THE ZONING BE THAT YOU HAVE TO PUT IN THE PLAT.

YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A SITE PLAN ALL OF WHICH HAVE TO MEET THE ENGINEERING AND PLATTED CORRECTLY.

ALL OF THE DETAILS BOO COME LATER.

AT LEAST THAT IS WHAT I WAS RECOMMENDED AND THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO. BUT SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT THE

DETAILS UP FRONT. >>MAYOR HUDSON: THAT IS WHAT OUR CODE SAYS. THAT IS WHAT OUR CODE SAID.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: PRIME EXAMPLE.

EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID. EVERYTHING -- WE SIT DOWN AND VOTED, RIGHT. AND WE VOTED NO.

>> RIGHT. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YOUR NEXT STEP WILL BE, LET ME FIX IT UP.

THAT'S ALL I AM SAYING. >> I HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY.

SO IF YOU DENY IT, I JUST HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD, BECAUSE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE APPROVED IT. THEY ARE RECOMMENDING YOU TO APPROVE IT. WHAT WOULD BE MY NEXT -- WHAT KIND OF FURTHER APPROVAL WOULD I NEED TO COME BACK?

>>MAYOR: LET ME JUST STOP YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO SAY ANYTHING TO THIS GENTLEMAN, THE APPLICANT?

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF REALLY. I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THIS

GENTLEMAN HERE. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I DO.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: SO MY -- I GUESS ONE OF MY FINAL QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE OF THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE AND BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING SFWHOENG ON THE PARCEL AND BECAUSE OF YOUR SUBMISSION OF A PLAT PLAN OF 14 PARCELS, WOULD YOU OR WOULD YOU NOT BE OKAY IF THIS BODY WERE TO CONDITION THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR OTHER INNOVATIVE QUALITIES WITHIN THE CODE IF WE LIMIT IT TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ONLY ON ONE PER PARCEL. WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?

>> WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF SINGLE-FAMILY, WILL THAT INCLUDE

DUPLEX? >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: NO.

THEN THAT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE MY ZONING BECAUSE THAT IS MY CURRENT ZONING. THE WHOLE PURPOSE BEHIND THE PD IS THAT I CAN PUT A DUPLEX. AND BECAUSE WE ARE STILL UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE DENSITY LIMIT, BY CODE, BY LAW, THAT IS -- THAT IS WHAT YOUR CODE IS. SO MY IDEA WAS I AM NOT -- I AM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE.

THE FUTURE LAND USE WILL REMAIN THE SAME SO THAT NET DENSITY DOESN'T CHANGE. WHAT IS REALLY CHANGING IS THE FACT THAT I AM NOT SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO A DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY. BECAUSE THAT WORD "DETACHED" IS EVERYTHING. SINGLE-FAMILY, A DUPLEX IS ONE BUILDING, BUT IT IS A SING OF SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT.

IT IS TWO SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS. BECAUSE THE E-3 CODE HAS THE WORD "DETACHED." WE WANT TO GET AWAY FROM THAT

DETACHED .SO IF YOU WANT TOS} >> HE ANY DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX THAT IS ALREADY IN A SINGLE-FAMILY CODE, FOR EXAMPLE, UNDER THE R-3. THE R-3 IS A SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY CODE AND THAT ALLOWS DUPLEX, TRIPLEX,

QUADRIPLEX, TOWNHOUSE, ETC. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: NOT THE WAY IT IS ZONED TODAY. WOULD YOU HAVE TO ASK THIS BOARD TO A REZONING TO AN R- 3 AND R-4.

>> THAT WAS OUR INITIAL THINKING.

I WENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND SAID THIS IS A BIG LOT.

WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO BE ABLE TO ENTITLED TO PUT A DUPLEX.

THEY SAID YOU HAVE TO CHANGE A ZONING TO A R-3 AND PD.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THAT IS YOUR QUESTION.

THAT IS MY QUESTION. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: HAVE YOU RUN ANY COST ANALYSIS ON INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS, SPECIFICALLY CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD THAT FRONTS YOUR PROPERTY? HAVE YOU RUN ANY COST ESTIMATES FOR THAT?

>> THAT PART IS BEYOND MY EXPERTISE AND WOULD BE THE

[01:40:02]

ENGINEER'S THAT I WOULD HIRE TO SUBMIT A SITE PLAN TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THEIR REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

THEY WOULD RUN ALL THOSE COSTS ANALYSIS STUDIES.

11 CONDITIONS AS PART OF IT. AND IT EXPLICITLY STATES THOSE.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: MR. MIMMS. >>NICHOLAS MIMMS: I WILL STATE WHAT I SAID PREVIOUSLY. THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE.

THIS SHOULD BE REJECTED COMPLETELY OR REMOVED FROM THIS PROCESS. BUT THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION. YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY MAKE A

DECISION ON THIS. >>MAYOR HUDSON: MISS HEDGES WHAT

CAN WE DO AT THIS POINT? >> MADAM MAYOR, THE OPTIONS ARE UP TO THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT.

IF HE WOULD LIKE WITHDRAW AND CONTINUE THIS, HE CAN MAKE THAT REQUEST. THAT IS COMPLETELY HIS POSITION IF THE PROCESS CONTINUES, YOU BOO HAVE TO VOTE BASED ON THE CODE AND WHATEVER EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED TO YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

>> YES. I GUESS I WANT TO GO BACK AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOUR

PLANNING BOARD. >>MAYOR HUDSON: WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WE ARE HERE NOW.

I AM SORRY, BUT WE ARE HERE NOW IF WE ARE CONTINUED AND IT IS DENIED, I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: WHAT IS THE PROCESS, MISS HEDGES, WHEN CAN

HE GO BACK? >> I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW IF HE IS ABLE TO GO BACK. I AM NOT POSITIVE THAT HE IS I WILL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT. HE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: HE CAN AT A CERTAIN TIME.

A CERTAIN TIME LIMIT. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THE PAST OF LEAST RESISTANCE IS TO CONTINUE IT.

YOU ARE NOT GOING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

YOU ARE COMING BACK TO THIS BODY TO REVISIT THIS.

IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE WILLING TO DO, THAT WILL SEEM TO BE A LOGICAL SOLUTION. YOUR DECISION, NOT --

>> I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, APPROACH YOU GUYS AND GET YOUR OPINIONS.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE PROVIDING YOU ALL THE INFORMATION, BUT, AGAIN, I AM -- MY INTENTIONS WERE TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE LIMITS ON THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF HOUSING

THAT IS ONLY ALLOWED. >>MAYOR HUDSON: I THINK WE GOT IT. YEP.

I THINK WE GOT IT. SO WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE. >>MAYOR HUDSON: WOULD YOU LIKE A

CONTINUANCE. >> WHATEVER -- WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONTINUANCE AND --

>>MAYOR HUDSON: I AM GOING TO ASK.

MISS HEDGES, IS THAT WHAT WE ARE CONTINUING? MADAM MAYOR, WHEN HE SAYS HE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE, I TOOK THAT THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE HEARING TODAY.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN?

>> YES. >>MAYOR HUDSON: I THOUGHT YOU

MEANT A CONTINUANCE. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON:

POSTPONEMENT. >> WHAT -- CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN TO ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONTINUANCE AND VOTING FOR IT

NOW? >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: MISS

HEDGES. >>MAYOR HUDSON: EXPLAIN IT TO ME

AND HE CAN HEAR IT. >> YES, MA'AM, MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. IF THIS HEARING CONTINUES, IT STOPS NOW, IT WILL PICK BACK UP AT A LATER DATE WHERE HE CAN COMMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WILL BE REVIEWED PRIOR TO THAT. IF HE IS ABLE TO DO SO.

IF WE CONTINUE WITH THE HEARING TODAY, YOU WILL VOTE ON WHATEVER THE MOTION IS TO DENY OR APPROVE THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: THEN HE HAS TO START ALL OVER AGAIN IF WE CAN.

>> YES, MA'AM. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: SO MY COMMENT WAS A CONTINUANCE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.

TO NOT HAVE A VOTE. >> I THINK THAT IS THE BEST PLAN

TO GIVE YOU MORE INFORMATION. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THAT

IS WHAT I WAS DRIVING AT. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. >>MAYOR HUDSON: YOU WILL HAVE TO MAKE THE APPLICATION COMPLETE. SO YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET WITH THE PLANNING STAFF AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU -- YOU BOTH ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. AND SO -- IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE

ASKING? >> YES.

AND IF POSSIBLE, SOMEONE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF CAN COMMENT AS WELL, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS ALLOWED.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: NOT IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING.

THEY ARE PART IS OVER. SO -- BUT THEY WILL BE TALKING TO YOU, I AM SURE. AND I AM GOING TO ASK YOU ONE MORE QUESTION, MISS HEDGES, BECAUSE THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WANTED TO TESTIFY, DO WE NEED TO GO INTO

THAT AT THIS POINT? >> NO, MA'AM.

IF HE IS ASKING TO CONTINUE THIS, WE WILL NOT.

PUBLIC COMMENT STILL DOES EXIST AT THE END, IF THEY WANT TO

[01:45:01]

STICK AROUND, THEY COULD GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT IF THEY CHOSE TO.

BUT THIS WILL COME BACK TO YOU ALL AT A LATER DATE.

MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GIVE HIM A DATE CERTAIN FOR THE NEXT TIME HE WOULD BE BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, THAT THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE TESTIMONY AT THAT NEXT MEETING, DATE SPECIFIC TO BE SET NOW.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IN BETWEEN --

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THIS IS NOT GOING AWAY.

THIS WILL COME BACK AND STOP AND START.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ARE YOU CLEAR? >> I AM CLEAR WITH THAT AND THAT

IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHTY.

WE ARE GOING TO ASK FOR -- THE RIGHT WORD "CONTINUANCE" OR "POSTPONE."

>> THEY MEAN THE SAME THING. >>MAYOR HUDSON: THE LAWYER LET'S ME SAY EITHER WORD. THANK YOUU THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: NEED A MOTION.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE THAT THIS HEARING BE CONTINUED UNTIL DATE TO BE DETERMINED --

>> I WILL ASK FOR A DATE CERTAIN WITHIN THE NEXT 30 DAYS.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: MAKE IT 30.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: LET ME PIPE UP AND SAY -- I AM NOT GOING TO SUGGEST THAT OUR PLANNING STAFF BRING BACK ANYTHING UNTIL IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN 30 DAYS.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: THEY NEED MORE TIME AND YOU NEED MORE TIME FOR

ADVERTISING. >> IT WILL BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ORDINANCE WHEN IT COMES BACK.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: 60 TO 90.

>> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS .MA MAY BE THE BETTER IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION COMPLETELY AT THIS POINT AND THE PROCESS WILL COMPLETELY START OVER.

>> DO I HAVE TO REPAY THE FEE FOR THE APPLICATION?

>>MAYOR: I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. MR. MIMMS.

>>NICHOLAS MIMMS: I WILL WAIVE THE FEE.

WE JUST NEED THE INFORMATION FOR THE CITY COMMISSION.

IT WILL NOT HAPPEN IN 30 DAYS. >>MAYOR HUDSON: WE DON'T WANT TO

DO THAT FOR. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: I HAVE SOME CONCERNS I WILL BRING UP WITH STAFF.

FANZ GAINESVILLE MADAM MAYOR, BASED ON THE LENGTHY CONVERSATION. I MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO WITHDRAW HIS APPLICATION THAT WE AGREE THAT HIS FEE IS WAIVED. AND HE WILL PRESENT A NEW APPLICATION WITH THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: SECOND.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: YES. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YES,

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM

MAYOR. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, WHILE THE ROOM IS SETTLING OBVIOUSLY.

BUT I HAVE CONCERNS WITH THIS AS A COMMISSION, RIGHT.

WHAT HI THOUGHT I HEARD. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERN ME -- I KEPT HEARING THAT IT.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HEARD THIS OR NOT, BUT IF THERE WAS A SUGGESTION OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO GET THE PROPER ZONING.

SOMEHOW THERE WAS A DISCONNECT OF WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THAT PACKET OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IF HE IS GOING TO ASK FOR THAT TYPE OF ZONING. AND -- DID THAT -- DID I MISS THAT? BECAUSE IF -- IF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE, THE APPLICATION WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETE WITH EVERYTHING WE NEEDED. SO SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT, RIGHT. AND WE HAVE TO FIX THAT.

BECAUSE THAT KEPT STICKING OUT IN MY MIND HOW DO WE GET HERE.

AND ONE THING COMES IN LOOKING LIKE THIS KNOWING THAT DOES NOT NEED -- IT NEEDS TO LOOK SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

AND SO I WOULD HOPE THAT WE WOULD WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT IN FUTURE -- AND I GOT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY, RIGHT.

I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT IF THERE WAS SOMETHING COMING FORTH, THEIR NEXT STEPS -- OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF MONEY, PLANNING, ETC. THAT GOES TO IT. AND I THINK THAT IS JUST A CONCERN I NEEDED TO VOICE AT THIS, BECAUSE IT IS CHALLENGING TO ME. AND AND I WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH LEGAL, BECAUSE, TO ME, HOW -- WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN REALLY CONSIDERING THAT IF THE PACKAGE WAS NOT EVEN COMPLETE, PERIOD.

THAT IS WHERE I WAS GOING TO HAVE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: I FEEL THE SAME WAY.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHT. ARE WE MOVING ON TO E.

[e. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-057 - An ordinance amending the code of ordinances of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida; amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan to change the designation of property generally located at the northeast corner of Selvitz Road and Devine road and west of Christensen road, from low density residential, RL, to mixed use development, MXD.- FIRST HEARING]

>> WE ARE MOVING ON TO ITEM 12-E WHICH IS A LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE 23-057, AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE

[01:50:03]

LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THREE PARCELS GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SELVITZ AND DIVINE ROAD AND 600 FEET NORTH OF DIVINE VOTED FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, YOUU RL LOW DENSITY TO CITY OF FORT PIERCE, MXD MIXED AUTO US DEVELOPMENT PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, FOR ORDINANCES REPEALED, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHTY,

PROCEED, PLEASE. >> MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, BEFORE YOU A LARGE SCALE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE SELVITZ MIXED USE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A COVERAGE SEPTEMBER PLAN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SELVITZ.

THE APPLICANT IS DANIEL. PROPERTY OWNER SELVITZ 1 LCC, 2 AND 3, LCC, DONALD STEVENSON.

34211-0006-000-3. 2432-211-0005-000-6, AND 432-343-0001-000-4. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A APPROVAL FOR THREE PARCELS OF LAND TO CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

BEFORE IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH WAS APPROXIMATELY 122.8 ACRES, PLUS OR MINUS.

THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THE CURRENT ZONING, YOUR-1. THE LAND USE IS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPOSED ZONING IS PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. FUTURE LAND USE COMPARISON FOR THE 122 BE 8-ACRE SITE WITH THE CHANGE, THE APPLICANT CAN GO UP TO APPROXIMATELY 8 MILLION SQUARE FEET AT MAXIMUM.

THE DENSITY CHANGE IS -- INSTEAD OF 202 UNITS, THE APPLICANT COULD POSSIBLY DO 1842. THERE IS AN INCREASE OF 1640 UNITS. OF THE -- AN INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE 4-2.

THE FEE LAND USE OF THE THREE PARCELS FROM RL TO MXD, MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A~ APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST. SUBJECT PARCEL IS ADJACENT TO DESIGNATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 125-136 OF THE CITY CODE IN THE BREAST CANCER PLAN AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE PUBLIC SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF CITY COMMISSION ARE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

GOING FROM LOW -- LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OBVIOUSLY A MUCH HIGHER INTENSIVE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, EITHER RESIDENTIALLY OR COMMERCIALLY. I AM JUST CURIOUS WHY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDING APPROVAL?

>> SO THE -- THE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS -- WHICH WILL BE REVIEWED NEXT FOR THE PD OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY WILL BE DOING -- ORIGINALLY 829 UNITS TOTAL. THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE REDUCED THAT TO 799. WHEN YOU CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACREAGE, THAT TOTAL 6.5 WHICH KEEPS IT STILL IN THE RANGE OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

WHAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT SHOW THEY ARE KEEPING IT WITHIN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THE QUESTION APPARENTLY.

ALMOST AS IF IT WAS A ONE FOR ONE EXCHANGE FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REQUEST IS PAIRED DIRECTLY. SO WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE THEN

[01:55:02]

BASED ON THAT IF -- IF WE ARE -- IF THE DENSITY IS BASICALLY THE SAME AS THE CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

WHAT IS THE ADVANTAGE TO THE ZONING CHANGE? I DON'T GET THAT PART IN LIGHT OF THE FACT WE HAVE PARITY.

>> THE ADVANTAGE WILL, THE ADDITION OF THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AND THE MULTIFAMILY.

THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHICH WILL BE LIKE -- THE RV, BOAT STORAGE FOR ONE OF THE PODS. ANOTHER PART IS BASICALLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHICH, I GUESS, IS TRANSITIONAL ZONING FROM THE ABUTTING INDUSTRIAL TO THE NORTH.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THANK YOU.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: YES, SIR. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRETTY CONSISTENT IN ANY QUESTIONING AND EVALUATIONS TONIGHT IS ABOUT THE AJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ARE WE TALKING OF THIS PARCEL ADJOINING A CITY OR COUNTY

RIGHT-OF-WAY? >> THEY ARE ALL COUNTY

RIGHT-OF-WAYS. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: ALL

COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAYS. >> YES.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

TALK TO KNEE ABOUT OPEN SPACE. WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THIS

APPLICATION? >> FOR THE PD ZONING DISTRICT, THE REQUIREMENT IS 20% OPEN SPACE.

AND THE APPLICANT DOES MEET THAT MINIMUM 20% OVERALL FOR THE PD.

FOR THE PD WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED FOR THE NEXT

ORDINANCE. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THE CURRENT ZONING LOOKS FOR WHAT FOR OPEN SPACE IN COMPARISON?

>> THE CURRENT ZONING? I WOULD HAVE TO -- THAT WOULD BE R-1. I BELIEVE IT'S -- 60.

YEAH. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: SO WE ARE TALKING OF 60% TO ESPECIALLY SPACE.

>> FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES BECAUSE R-1 WILL BE RESTRICTED

TO SINGLE-FAMILY, CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IN THE CONVERSATIONS -- I HAD CONVERSATIONS -- I WILL TESTIFY TO THAT NEXT ITEM, BUT IN THE QUASI-JUDICIAL, BUT I TALKED TO THE APPLICANT. MANY NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS, CITY AND COUNTY. SO THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GETS BROUGHT UP. SO IS THERE ANY CONCERN OR ANY DISCUSSION HAPPENING IS THAT HAPPENED WITHIN PLANNING STAFF FOR THE PLANNING BOARD REGARDING THOSE COMPONENTS? REGARDING THE DEVELOPED SPACE OR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH REGARD TO OPEN SPACE AND THOSE COMPO

COMPONENTS? >> IF I MAY, MADAM MAYOR, WE HAVE TO SEPARATE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INTO THE FUTURE

LAND USE AND THE ZONING. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON:

RIGHT. >> WHEN THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT STAFF FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH IS THE ITEM WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US NOW WE DID RAISE CONCERNS THAT THE OVERALL SITE BEING MOVED INTO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT MIGHT BE TOO INTENSE REGARDING THE UNDERLYING FEW THURSDAY LAND USE ALLIANCES WITH THE SURROUNDING NUMBER AND THE COMMERCIAL USE POTENTIAL.

SO I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT ONLY.

THAT IS -- THAT WOULD GIVE THAT ENTITLEMENT FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE. SO WE HAVE TO SEPARATE THAT FROM A FUTURE SITE PLAN APPLICATION. SO THERE WAS DISCUSSION.

>> BUT IT WAS AN ENTITLEMENT. >> RIGHT, ENTITLEMENT.

PART OF THAT ENTITLEMENT GIVES THAT YOU POTENTIAL DENSITY IN THAT INTENSITY OF COMMERCIAL. AND WE DID RAISE THAT CONCERN WITH THE APPLICANT AND RAISED THE OPTION SPLITTING THE FUTURE ST. LOUIS IN CERTAIN AREAS. AND USING SORT OF A JIGSAW PUZZLE AROUND THAT TO GENERATE WHERE THE LOW DENSITY WAS AND WHERE THE INCIDENCE TEE WAS. WE WENT THROUGH THAT AND THE INTENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WE COULDN'T FIX THAT UNLESS WE HAVE A MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH GIVES US THE POTENTIAL TO MIX USES, TO HAVE CERTAIN USES ALLOCATED TO THIS IN THE FUTURE WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SO THE REASONING WHY STAFF CHOSE AND THE DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT TO ALLOW FOR A POTENTIAL FOR A TRUE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

AND DIFFERENT USES AND DIFFERENT INTENSITIES WITHIN YOUR FUTURE LAND USE. AND THE ZONING APPLICATION SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ISSUE AT HAND WITH THIS HEARING IS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT FUTURE LAND USE

[02:00:04]

ACCEPTABLE TO ENABLE THAT. AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTROLLED BY THE PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IN DISCUSSIONS AND I UNDERSTAND FULLY AND THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. PART OF THE COMPONENT OF MY CONVERSATIONS AND WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID FROM THIS DAIS MANY YEARS NOW IS THE TRANSITIONAL ZONING.

IT IS ACTUALLY CREATING BARRIERS AND NATURAL COMPONENTS AND PHYSICAL -- NEW PHYSICAL COMPONENTS THAT CREATE A CHANGEOVER FROM INDUSTRIAL-ZONED PROPERTY INTO COMMERCIAL INTO SOME OTHER RESIDENTIAL JUST BASED ON THE COMMON SENSE THAT I DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO THAT, WHATEVER THAT IS -- HOWEVER YOU DEFINE THAT, RIGHT. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMPONENTS IN YOUR CONVERSATION THAT MIXED USE -- MIXED USE JUST FITS THE BILL FOR WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY.

IT FIT THE BILL FOR CREATING THOSE COMPONENTS OF TRANSITIONING AND RESIDENTIAL BARRIERS.

IS THAT ACCURATE? >> WE HAVE MULTIPLE MIX OF USES IN THIS AREA. WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL.

WE HAVE INSTITUTIONAL. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: WE

HAVE IT ALL. >> A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING HERE AND THE DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT IS CAN WE DEVELOP A PLAN -- CAN THEY DEVELOP A PLAN WHICH SHOWS US THIS TRANSITIONAL USE, A FUTURE LAND USE THAT WILL ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT AND ALLOW THIS TRANSITIONAL USE AND FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL, HOW DO WE CREATE THAT AND ALLOW THE PLATFORM FOR YOU TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT WOULD DO THAT. THIS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE SEEM TO BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THESE VARIATIONS OF USES ON THE SAME PROPERTY AND HAVE THEM DESIGNED TOGETHER OF THE DIFFERENT PLANS IF YOU LIKE AND TO SHOW A SPECIFIC PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT PROPERTY.

GOING TO MIXED USE DEFINES WITH THE LANDOWNER THAT YOU HAVE A MINIMUM AMOUNT AT 20% OPEN SPACE.

IS THAT ACCURATE? >> CORRECT.

>> DOES THAT INCLUDE FORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE?

OPEN BOTHS OF WATER. >> CORRECT.

>> WE ARE GOING -- WE ARE JUST VOTING ON RIGHT NOW.

AND WE WILL GET INTO THE CALCULATION DETAILS IN THE NEXT APPLICATION, THE NEXT ANSWERS ITEM TO SAY 20%, 40%, 60%.

>> YES. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> BRING UP THE PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR.

EYE NAME IS DAN SORROW WITH CUTLER AND HEARING REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. I WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF POINTS BETWEEN MISS SANDS MAKES THE PRESENTATION FOR THE DEVELOPER. MY CLIENTS OWN THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2004. A LOOKING TO DEVELOP THIS PRO PROPERTY.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ARE YOU AWARE YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE THIS IS THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING.

AND MXD. THIS IS THE BEST LAND USE FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WHEN YOU HAVE A TRUE MIX OF USES INSTEAD OF GOING JUST COMMERCIAL WHERE YOU CAN'T HAVE RESI OR J JUST RESI. IF WE WERE IN ST. LOUIS ST.

LOUIS, WILL RESTRICT THOSE MAXIMUMS. WE DO IT WITH A CURRENT REZONING TO PD.

THE PD THAT IS FOLLOWING ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM DOES HAVE THE THRESHOLDS THAT SPECIFIES THE AMOUNT OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THE MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THE PD PLAN THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED. THE TRANSMITTAL HEARING.

YOU ARE NOT APPROVING EVERYTHING TONIGHT AND VOTING TO TRANSMIT IT TO DEO TO GET FURTHER COMMENTS FROM OTHER STATE AGENCIES. THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNT IN

[02:05:02]

THE TREASURE COAST AND THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

I THINK THERE WILL BE SOME PUBLIC COMMENT OFFERED AFTER THIS ITEM. WE WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE A LITTLE TIME TO RESPOND TO THOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS IF WE MAY.

THANK YOU. >> HELLO, EVERYONE, GOOD EVENING, MARIANNA SANDS WITH CUTLER AND HEARING AS DAN MENTIONED AND I WILL DO A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW IN MY THREE MINUTES WITH SOME VISUAL AID FOR MY PRESENTATION.

I WON'T GO OVER INTO MUCH DETAIL SINCE I HAVE LIMITED TIME, BUT AGAIN, THE APPLICATION IS SELVITZ 1, 2, AND 3, AND THEY CONTRACTED US AS AGENTS TO REPRESENT THEM IN THIS PROBABLY.

THE SITE IS LOCATED JUST NORTHWEST OF THE 25TH STREET AND MIDWAY ROAD INTERSECTIONS. IT IS LOCATED ALONG SELL VIRILITIES AND TWO MILES AWAY. AND VERY WELL LOCATED.

AN AERIAL TO SHOW THE SURROUNDING USES.

WE HAVE PRECASTS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES AND INDUSTRIAL OFFICES AND SPECIALIZED RETAILS. THEN WE HAVE THE FORT PIERCE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL TO THE NORTHEAST ALONG WITH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALS. TO THE SOUTH, MORE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND SOME OTHER MISCELLANEOUS USES SUCH AS A PLANT NURSERY, YOUTH SHELTER AND AN ANIMAL SHELTER .TO THE WEST, WE HAVE A ST. LUCIE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION HUB PLANNED FOR THE FUTURE AND A PARK PLANT AND RELOCATED FPUA STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANT. SO I WANTED TO SHOW THE CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING LAND USES INCLUDING THE ONE FOR OUR SITE WHICH IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS IMAGE, THERE ARE A LOT OF COLORS WHICH MEANS A LOT OF DIFFERENT LAND USES THAT INCLUDE HIGH INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL, PUBLIC FACILITIES, INSTITUTIONAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENCES. THEREFORE, WE BELIEVE THAT LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SITE AS WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES. THERE ARE PLENTY OF USES IN THIS AREA. AND THE MIXED USE LAND USE WOULD PROVIDE THE MOST FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW FOR A TRANSITIONAL USE OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO DEE BECAUSE WHICH DON'T REALLY SEE MUCH CAPACITY BETWEEN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH INDUSTRIAL WHICH IS DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH AND OTHER USES SURROUNDING THE SITE.

JUST TO CONCLUDE REALLY QUICK, WE ARE VERY THANKFUL FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR STAFF'S WORK THIS EVENING AND THROUGHOUT THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF OR SO WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.

WE SECOND THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO TRANSMIT THIS FOR STATE REVIEW AND GET ANOTHER LOOK INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

I MADE IT WITH TWO MINUTES AND 30 SECONDS.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: GOOD JOB. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHTY, ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE

COME FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING, JILL SUTHERLAND, 4640 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD AND I LIVED THERE OVER 30 YEARS. CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS DOING A WONDERFUL JOB IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT IF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED AS IS, WILL BE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ITS HISTORY.

THE COMMUNITY SELVITZ CROSSING AND SHOULD ENTER AND EXIT ON SELVITZ VOTED. A SEPARATE PARCEL THAT WILL AFFECT ON CHRISTIANSEN AND DIVINE.

OUR ROADS ARE DIRT AND SUBSTANDARD AND PROPOSING 74 UNITS ON CHRISTIANSEN ROAD, THE LONG STRETCH RIGHT THERE.

PLANNING ON PUTTING 74 UNITS IN THERE WITH DIRECT ACCESS TO CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT ISES IN THAT DEVELOPMENT IT DOESN'T EXIT ON TO SELVITZ ROAD.

THE SMALL AREA THEY HAVE SET ASIDE FOR THE TRANSITION DOES NOT RUN THE ENTIRE LENGTH. A LITTLE CORNER WHERE THEY ARE SUGGESTING A LOW INDUSTRIAL AREA.

THE CONCRETE PLANNED IS LOCATEDED THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THAT END. LET'S SEE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND RUNS ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT. WE DON'T THINK ANY THOUGHT WAS GIVEN TO THE NOISE, THE POLLUTION WHEN THIS PERMIT WAS APPROVED. WE FELT THAT A PURE I CAN'T REMEMBER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENSURED FOR THE RESIDENTS IF THEY DID ANY CONCRETE DUST. I LIVE RIGHT DOWN HERE.

LOUD AND PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THIS AREA.

[02:10:02]

THEY ARE PLANNING ON PUTTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE INDUSTRIAL PARK. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS FAIR.

WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER MOD FILING THE DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE THE RESIDENTS OF MAINTAIN THEIR QUALITY F OF LIFE.

WE WALK WITH OUR CHILDREN AND TAKE LODGE WALKS WITH OUR DOG IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE ALL SORTS OF THINGS, CATTLE AND HORSES, FARM ANIMALS AND WE LOVE IT.

WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU NOT TURN OUR ROAD INTO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. SELVITZ IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS CARS, TRACTOR-TRAILERS USING OUR ROAD AS CUT THROUGH.

THEY DROVE AROUND THE BARRIER TO STOP THE TRAFFIC.

CONSTANTLY USED AS CUT THROUGH FROM SELVITZ TO MIDWAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE REQUEST AND INCORPORATE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT TO GO OUT ON SELVITZ ROAD.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS?

ANYONE ELSE? >> MY NAME IS AMY QUAID, OAK ALLEY DRIVE. I CAN SEE MY HOUSE ON THESE MAPS. I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. THE KIND REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE ZONING BOARD WAS SAYING IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS THE SAME AS IT WAS. IF YOU LOOK AT SLIDE NUMBER 6, IT IS NOT THE SAME AS IT WAS. THEY ARE LOOKING AT A MAXIMUM DENSITY FROM 1.65 TO 15. THEY ARE LOOKING AT UNITS GOING FROM 02 TO 1800 AND 42. NOW I PRINTED OUT THIS MAP OF THE DIFFERENT AREA AND THE ONLY MAP THAT IS SINGLE-FAMILY IS POD ONE AND I COULDN'T FIND IT AND IT WAS THIS TEENY TINY STRIP.

ANYTHING LIKE WHAT THE OTHER PEOPLE SAY LIVES NEXT TO IT.

I DID THE MAP. ON THIS TEENY TINY STRIP, THEY HAVE 6.76 ACRES AND THEY WANT TO PUT 44 HOUSES ON THAT.

THAT IS .15 OF AN ACRE NOR A HUES.

THAT IS NOT A VERY BIG -- NOT A VERY BIG LOT PRETTY HIGH DENSITY AT THE LOWEST PART OF THE WHOLE THING.

YOU LOOK AT THE LAYOUT, THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY LINE. THREE FEET BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE BUILDING AND THE EASEMENT WHICH IS ALSO JUST THREE FEET.

I AM VERY -- I AM VERY SKEPTICAL ABOUT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO PUT -- HOW THE ZONING PEOPLE CAN SAY, THIS IS KIND OF THE SAME AS IT WAS. IT WAS NOT THE SAME AS IT WAS.

ONE LAST THING AND I I WAS VERY PLEASED TO SEE THE ZONING PEOPLE TO PUT SOMETHING LIKE GOPHER TORTOISE SURVEY.

A LOT OF GOPHER TORTOISES AND WILDLIFE.

THIS WILDLIFE NEEDS PROTECTION. MY ONLY QUESTION, WHAT AGREE OFFICER TORTOISE SURVEY. ASKING THEM THEIR OPINION? [LAUGHTER] THE REASON I BRING THAT UP IS BECAUSE I -- I DO READ SOMETIMES THE WEB SITE NEXT DOOR.

AND PEOPLE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, P PORT ST. LUCIE, WHERE GOPHER TORTOISES.

THEY ARE A PROTECTIVE SPECIES AND YOU CAN'T JUST KILL THEM AND BULLDOZE OVER THEIR HOUSE. SO THAT IS THE LAW.

BUT HERE IS WHAT I GOT TO TELL YOU, PEOPLE ARE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW -- SOMEONE EVEN PUT A PICTURE OF A TRUCK.

SOMEBODY GOT OUT AND WENT AND KILLED THE GOPHER TORTOISES.

NOBODY EN FORCES IT. BE MINDFUL OF THE WILDLIFE.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ANYONE ELSE? >> GOOD EVENING, MICK EL SIGMON,

[02:15:03]

4695 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. ALSO AT 4795 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD.

409 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. I HAVE MY BUSINESS THERE THERE.

AND I AM IN COMPLETE SUPPORT OF THE CITY -- OF THEIR DECISION OF MAKING THE .5-ACRE LOTS THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE TO DISCUSS THIS MAT -- 2 BE 5 ACRE LOTS -- SECTION 8 IS NOT A GOOD IDEA FOR OUR AREA.

IT IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

ALL THE RESIDENTS UP AND DOWN THE ROAD.

I LOOKED AT EVERYBODY'S LOT. AND NONE OF THEM HAVE 40-FOOT LOT LINES. NONE OF THEM HAVE 70-FOOT LOT LINES. THEY ARE ALL TWO, TWO-AND-A-HALF-ACRE RANCHETTES DOWN CHRISTIAN AND DIVINE.

A STONE'S THROW AWAY FROM THIS PROPERTY, BUT I WASN'T INVITED TO THE -- TO THE MEETING AT THE -- AT THE WHITE FORT PIERCE CITY IMPROVEMENT CENTER. FOUND OUT THIRD PARTY TO GO THERE. BUT I LEARNED A LOT THERE.

I ASKED ONE QUESTION TO THREE DIFFERENT OF THE PEOPLE.

AND GOT THREE DIFFERENT ANSWERS. BUT ONE OF THEM TOLD THE TRUTH, AND THAT THEY WERE MINIMIZING THE LOT SIZES BECAUSE IT WAS -- BECAUSE WHAT THEY HAVE NOW IS NOT PROFITABLE.

NOT REALLY ANY OF OUR CONCERN IF IT IS PROFITABLE OR NOT.

IT WAS -- I -- I BUY THINGS ALL THE TIME IF IT WASN'T PROFITABLE FOR ME TO BUY IT, I SHOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IT.

TO MAKE THIS MROFTABLE TO SQUEEZE IN TEN POUNDS OF CRAP IN A FIVE-POUND BAG IS NOT WHAT YOU NEED TO DO AND THIS IS GOING ON HERE AND IT DOESN'T NEED TO START.

IT NEEDS TO STAY THE WAY IT IS OR COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN TO

MAKE IT BETTER. >>MAYOR HUDSON: THANK YOU, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS SUBJECT? ANYONE ELSE. MISS MENTION, FOR A LEGISLATIVE HEARING, CAN THE APPLICANT COME BACK AND RESPOND WHAT WAS SAID IN THE -- DO WE DO THAT AT THE QUASI-JUDICIAL?

>> HE WOULD HAVE THAT ABILITY IN I HAVE NOT SEEN YOU ALLOW

SOMEONE TO COME BACK -- >>MAYOR HUDSON: THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. HE HAD ASKED IS EARLIER AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS RIGHT. IN THE KWAURS KWAUS HE CAN

ADDRESS THOSE? >> YES, MA'AM.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHTY. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. OKAY, I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND TURN IT -- RETURN IT BACK TO

THE COMMISSION. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: SURE, I THINK -- YOU TEALLY THINK MY QUESTIONS ARE MORE RELATIVE TO THE SECOND PHASE OF THIS, SO I THINK I AM GOING TO JUST DEFER UNTIL THEN, NOW THAT I AM KIND OF THINKING IT THROUGH.

WITH THE SITE PLAN IS WHERE THE ISSUES LIE.

I WILL PATIENTLY HOLD MY QUESTIONS.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: ALL RIGHT. THIS IS -- WE ARE JUST DEALING WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE. AND WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THIS, IF IT -- IT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE STATE, CORRECT?

>> YES. >>MAYOR HUDSON: GENTLEMEN?

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: JUST A FEW COMMENTS.

BASED ON WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, IT DOES DEAL WITH THE SITE PLAN, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF YOU AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE, THEN THE BOUNDARIES, THE PARAMETERS, THEY CHANGE, THEY CHANGE. IF IT IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BODY THAT THE -- THE REZONING -- SORRY, THE FUTURE LAND USE IS -- IS SENT UP TO -- TO THE STATE FOR APPROVAL, THEN, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THAT IS WHERE IT STANDS.

BUT I THINK SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT I HAVE DEAL SPECIFICALLY WITH THE SITE PLAN, BUT THEY ALSO DEAL WITH THIS PART OF IT. I HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT. I HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATIONS WITH RESIDENTS. AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE MAP SPECIFICALLY -- LET ME GET BACK TO MY SLIDES. MAKE SURE I AM NOT ON THE WRONG ONE DEALING WITH A VARIETY OF ISSUES, WITH ZONING THAT ARE EXISTING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.

WE ARE DEALING WITH COMPARISONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIOS AND LOOKING AT. AND I THINK WITH SOME -- WITH SOME CREATIVE APPLICATIONS, I THINK THIS ONE HAS COMPONENTS OF

[02:20:01]

CREATIVITY. I JUST THINK THERE ARE -- THERE ARE ISSUES WITHIN IT THAT CREATE SOME RESERVATION FOR MME THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THIS IF YOU LOOK AT THE PD -- THE RESIDENT CAME TO SPEAK OF OAK ALLEY. AND IT COME HAVE COME FROM AN APPLICATION LIKE THIS, WHICH FROM THE CURRENT ZONING.

AND -- BUT, AGAIN, I HAVE SOME GREAT CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHY AND HOW AND BUFFERS AND EXISTING CONDITION THAT THEY DID BRING INTO CONSIDERATION.

CONSIDERATION OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE THAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL NIGHT LONG.

IT SEEMS LIKE I HAVE NO IDEA THAT IS WHAT I WOULD BE ASKING ABOUT TONIGHT, BUT ASKING OF A COUNTY ROAD IN EVERY APPLICATION THAT IS HERE TONIGHT. SO WHAT KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE IS -- IS THERE. YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GO INTO THE COMPONENTS OF FUTURE LAND USE. IT WAS BROUGHT BY THE APPLICANT.

AND WE COULD BRING UP STAFF, IF YOU CAN BRING UP THE LARGER AERIAL VIEW WITH THE DIFFERENT SITES.

ADJACENT HIGH SCHOOLS. KEEP GOING A COUPLE OF SLIDES.

YOU HAD IT ON THERE. >> WAS IT ON THERE?

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I THINK IT WAS A COLORED DISH ZONING OR DIFFERENT -- OR MAYBE LOOKING AT THE APPLICANT.

THE CITY LOGO. IT WAS.

>> IT WAS ON THE ZONING. >> THAT ONE.

>> THAT IS ON THE FUTURE FUTURE LOUIS.

>> I HAD IT IN THE SECOND PRESENTATION.

>> A GOOD AERIAL VIEW. LOOKING AT THE COMPONENTS WHAT IS AROUND THE PROJECT. DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE? IS THAT IS THE QUESTION.

>> EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENED WITH MIX USE, KEVIN, THAT WAS

DIFFERENT THAN NOW. >> MIX USE ALLOWS A MIXTURE OF USES. MINIMUM TWO DIFFERENT USES ON THE -- DID I SAY SOMETHING WRONG?

>>MAYOR: APPARENTLY. WELL, A MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE ALLOWS A MIXTURE OF USES USUALLY TWO OR MORE, AND WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE NEIGHBORING FUTURE LAND USES AND ACTUAL USES IN THE LOCATION. AND AS I DESCRIBED, WE HAVE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

MULTIPLE USES ON THE PERIPHERY THAT A MIXED USES FUTURE LAND USE ALLOWS FOR THOSE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IF THE SITE IS DEVELOPED AND DESIGNED PROPERLY TO DO THAT.

THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EXISTING ACTIVITIES. THE IMPACT OF THOSE EXISTING OPPORTUNITIES ON ITS PROPERTY AND THE IMPACT ON THE EXISTING ACTIVITIES,ING IT RESIDENTIAL WHETHER IT IS COMMERCIAL OR

INDUSTRIAL. >> IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, IT

ALLOWS FOR MORE DENSITY. >> THE FUTURE LAND USE ITSELF DOES THAT. IT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT FUTURE LAND USE. CHANGING THE FUTURE LAND USE CHANGES THE ENTITLEMENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT EARLIER.

I WANT TO REPEATED. >> THOSE NUMBERS ARE SCARY WHEN

WE DO THE ANALYSIS. >>MAYOR HUDSON: VERY.

>> BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS AND FUTURE ST. LOUIS CODE ALLOWS. THAT WE.

I HAVE NEVER SEEN A PROPERTY OR A SITE OF THE COMPLAINTS IN TERMS OF OPEN SPACE, ROADWAYS, PARKING.

LANDSCAPING. ALL THOSE ELEMENTS COME IN AND START TO RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF HOMES AND SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE THAT CAN BE ACTUALLY ACCOMMODATED ON THE SI SITE.

IT'S A CONFUSING CALCULATION. BUT IT IS THE ONE THAT WE HAVE

[02:25:01]

TO DO THAT WAY. AND THE STATE WILL LOOK AT THAT, AND MAKE ITS ASSESSMENT BASED ON THAT ENTITLEMENT.

BUT THEY WILL ALSO LOOK AT THE IMPACTS ON THES AND TRANSPORTATION, ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMPONENTS OF WHAT THE STATE AND AGENCIES LOOK AT DOESN'T MEAN IF THE COMMISSION GRANTS THE CHANGE RIGHT NOW THAT IS THEIR FINAL ACTION.

GOES TO THE STATE TEN OR 11 DIFFERENT STATE AGENCIES LOOK AT THIS AND THE STATE GIVES US THEIR COMMENTS ON THAT.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: I GUESS WHAT BOTHERS ME, I TRAVEL THAT ROAD -- I USED TO, BUT I CAN'T A LOT GOING TO PPORT ST. LUCIE FOR MEETINGS. THAT IS VERY -- AS YOUR MAP SHOWS, A LOT OF DIFFERENT USES ALL TRYING TO COEXIST THERE ALONG SELVITZ. AND BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL UNTOUCHED LAND IS THERE. THAT ROAD IS HEAVILY -- I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE TO USE IT TO GO TO ST. LUCIE.

IT WAS A BACK WAY TO GO TO ST. LOUIS ST. LUCIE WEST.

I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT AND A VERY HEAVILY USED ROAD AND NOT IN VERY GOOD SHAPE AND I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASED DENSITY. AND INCREASED ACTIVITY.

I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: TWO COMMENTS, ONE IS WE DEALT WITH THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF THE CITY WHEN WE GET INTO DEVELOPMENT WITH TRANSITIONAL USE AND THIS IS AN ISSUE WITH THIS AREA SPECIFICALLY FOR YEARS ON EVERY SITE PLANETS, ETC., THE R-1 GIVES US THE LOWER DENSITY POSSIBLE ADDRESSING THE TRAFFIC ISSUE, BUT ALSO ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. SO THERE IS A TRADE-OFF HERE.

AND THE TRADE-OFF IS, DO WE GO WITH THE HIGHER DENSITY TO CREATE TRANSITIONAL AREAS FOR PROPER PHASING INTO RESIDENTIAL? THAT IS IS A CHALLENGE. AND THE -- THE SIMPLE SOLUTION IS, YOU KEEP IT R-1 AND SAY BUYER BEWARE.

IF YOU ARE BUYING A HOUSE ADJACENT TO A CONCRETE SITE, THEN YOU CAN'T REALLY MAKE NOISE THAT NO PUN INTENDED.

THE TRANSITIONAL FEATURE OF THIS SITE LENDS ITSELF TO MITIGATING THAT PROBLEM AND THAT IS THE ADVANTAGE BUT THE DENSITY IS THE STRAYEDOFF AND THE DIFFICULT PART OF THE DECISION.

>> RIGHT, RIGHT. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT STEPS AND THE 11 AGENCIES, ETC.

AND YOUR OPINION, WHEN THEY COME BACK, YOU KNOW, WE ALL TRAVEL THIS ROAD. IT'S BAD.

QUITE FRANKLY, IT IS JUST HORRIBLE.

AND I AM NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE TPO IS DOING WITH THIS, COMMISSIONER. WE SIT ON THAT BOARD.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HAS COME UP.

AND IT MAY HAVE. AND I DON'T KNOW THE FUTURE PLANS. ARE YOU A I WARE OF ANY FUTURE

PLANS ON THIS ROAD, SIR? >> WE DID HAVE SOME COMMENTS BACK FROM THE FORT PIERCE COUNTY.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: DID YOU?

OKAY. >> WE DID AND BROUGHT UP THE CONCERNS THAT YOU AND YOURSELVES ARE BRINGING UP.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES AROUND THIS SITE BASED ON SELVITZ, IS ITDEVINE AND CHRISTIANSEN AND ALSO THE -- THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT IS LIKELY TO BE COMPOUNDED ON THOSE -- ON THOSE ROADWAYS. THE COUNTY HAS RAISED COMMENTS.

AND THEY ARE ASKING FOR ONCE A SITE PLAN IS COMING IN, AND REVIEWED, THAT THE -- THAT THE APPLICANT IS MADE AWARE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

IMPROVEMENTS TO ROAD BAYS THAT WILL NEED TO BE MADE.

SIGNIFICANCE STALL INIZATION, POTENTIALLY AT CERTAIN INTERSECTIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE MADE.

AND IMPROVEMENTS -- SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT TO SELVITZ DOWN TO ITS INTERSECTION WITH FAVORITE ROAD, WHICH IS, I THINK, HALFWAY

DOWN WHERE THE INDUSTRIAL -- >> FURTHER DOWN.

SOMEWHERE DOWN HERE. >> SOMEWHERE DOWN HERE.

[02:30:03]

SO THOSE -- TURNS IT INTO LIKE A SPLIT ROADWAY.

AND I THINK THE COUNTY HAS PLANS TO CONTINUE THAT TO RELIEVE THE CONGESTION. I AM NOT SURE IF THAT IS PROGRAMMED OR IF THAT -- IF THEY HAVE THAT IN LINE YET, BUT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD LOOK AT DEDICATIONS OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SO FOR THE WITH THAT. THOSE COMMENTS PASSED TO THE STATE AGENCY AND IF THERE ARE ANY MORE COMMENTS, THERE WILL BE -- THOSE WILL BE REFERRED TO. BUT AT THE MINIMUM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MITIGATION AND IMPROVEMENTS OF THE VICINITY OF

THIS PROJECT. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON:

THEY ARE, YOU ARE SAYING? >> THEY ARE REQUIRED.

IF THE FORT PIERCE COUNTY HAS FUNDING OR PROGRAMMING FOR TO HE WAS, THAT IS NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING IN THE RECENT PLANS.

>> SO THOSE 11 AGENCIES, ETC. GO FOR TORTOISES WILL WEIGH IN AND COME BACK WITH A -- WITH A RULING, FINDING, SUGGESTIONS, AND OR IF YOU ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD, THIS MUST BE DONE.

THAT IS TYPICALLY HOW THAT WILL GO.

SO THEY WILL -- SOUNDS LIKE THEY ALSO WOULD HAVE THE -- IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET THE TRUE FUTURE LAND USE MODIFICATION TO CHANGE, THESE THINGS MUST BE MET. THAT MEANS WHOEVER OWN THIS OR PUTS THAT PROCESS IN WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THOSE STEPS TO DO WHAT THE STATE IS SAYING TO GET THE FUTURE CHANGE?

>> THOSE WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENTS ULTIMATELY THAT WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE ADOPTION PHASE.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: IT COMES BACK HERE?

>> COMES BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR THE SECOND READING FOR THIS.

AND IT COULD BE ANYWHERE -- I THINK IT IS 180 DAYS BUSINESS DAYS THAT THE STATE -- THAT WE HAVE TO TRANSMIT BACK TO THE STATE. THE STATE, I THINK, HAS 0 DAYS ONCE WE TRANSMIT IT TO HAVE THE REVIEWS BACK TO US TO UNDERTAKE ANY REMEDIAL ACTION WITH THE APPLICANT BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE ADOPTION.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: IN THAT PHASE WHEN IT COMES BACK, IF THE APPLICANT -- THEY WILL LOOK AT IT AND SAY, I CAN -- I WILL CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD OR STAY R-1 AND COME UP TO WHAT

RIGHT. >> UNTIL IT IS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. WHEN THE CITY COMMISSION WILL HAVE THE COMMENTS FROM THE STATE AVAILABLE IF THERE ARE ANY THEN IT IS NOT ADOPTED. EVEN SUBSEQUENTLY TOO THAT ADOPTION PEOPLE CAN CHALLENGE THAT.

THERE IS A CHALLENGE THAT THE STATE WILL ALLOW IF --

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: YOU SAY A CHALLENGE, BY CITIZENS

SURROUNDING ENTITIES? >> ANYBODY CAN COME.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR WALKING ME THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH SO WE WILL HAVE AN APPLICATION BEFORE US ON THIS PART OF THE AGENDA TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THIS PARCEL THAT I SEE HERE.

>> YES. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON:

OKAY, THANK YOU. >>MAYOR HUDSON: COMMISSIONER

GAINES. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I HAVE BEEN SITTING HERE LISTENING TO EVERYTHING. I HEARD BOTH SIDES.

WHAT I HEARD FIRST WAS, BASICALLY WHAT YOU ARE ASKING ME TO VOTE ON IS THIS MIXED USE, WHICH IF WE VOTE YES, RIGHTS, WE HAVE TO KICK IT TO THE STATE, AND THE STATE IS EITHER GOING TO TELL US WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING, NO, OR THEY ARE GOING TO TELL US

YES. >> YES.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: BUT THEY WILL COME BACK WITH ALL THE CONCERNS OF CHRISTIANSEN ROAD, TORTOISES, ANIMALS.

EVERYTHING OUT THERE. SO WE ARE BASICALLY JUST SAYING THIS IS SOMETHING WE ARE TRYING TO DO.

STATE HOOK AT THIS 11 AGENCIES. GET A REPORT AND BASED ON.

>> CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: THE STATE HAVE REVIEWING ANY DECISION WE MAKE, ANY CITIZEN CAN CHIME IN, THEIR TWO CENT, THREE CENT, FOUR CENT TO THE STATE AGENCIES AND THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO US AND GO FROM

THERE? >> THERE IS THE PERIOD FOR CHALLENGE. THAT COME TO THE POINT THAT THE

[02:35:05]

CITY ADOPT OF FUTURE LAND USE FROM THE SECOND READING.

I THINK THE 30 DAYS AFTER THAT ADOPTION THAT PEOPLE.

IT HAS TO BE A SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHALLENGE THAT -- THAT IS SENT

TO THE STATE. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: THAT'S WHERE I AM GOING. THIS IS IT THE FIRST READING.

>> YES. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE US AGAIN AND THEN COME BACK AND PUT ANY CHALLENGE ON AND KICK IT TO THE STATE.

AND THE STATE WILL SAY YES OR NO AFTER THEY DO THEIR INVESTIGATION OR WHATEVER, IS THAT WHAT I AM HEARING?

>> THE CHALLENGE FROM OUTSIDE FROM AN EXTERNAL PARTY WOULD OCCUR WITHIN THE 30 DAYS AFTER ADOPTION.

THIS IS TRANSMITTING AND YOU HAVE REVIEW BY STATE AND STATE COMMENTS. AND PRESENTATION.

ONCE THAT IS ADOPTED, ORDINANCE IS SIGNED AND 30 DAYS FOR

POTENTIAL CHALLENGE FOR THAT. >> WHAT I AM SAYING, HOWEVER THIS VOTE COMES BEFORE TONIGHT, COMES IN FRONT OF US FOR SECOND READING AND THEN GO TO THE STATE.

AND WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE STATE TO COME BACK TO DO WHATEVER THEY ARE GOING TO DO. DO YOU HAVE A TIME FRAME FOR

THAT? >> SIX MONTHS.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: THAT IS THE STATE, RIGHT.

THE STATE WILL DO THAT AND THE STATE WILL ISSUE SOME TYPE OF ROMP TO US SAYING THIS IS WHAT THEY FOUND.

THIS IS WHAT THEY LIKE, DISLIKE OR WHATEVER.

>> YES. >> YOU WILL BRING THAT BACK TO US AND AT THAT POINT, THE STATE HAS APPROVED IT OR DISAPPROVED IT OR THIS IS WHAT THE STATE WANTS US TO DO.

AND WE TAKE A VOTE THEN TO FINALIZE WHATEVER IT IS -- WHATEVER IT IS, FUTURE USE IS GOING TO BE.

>> RIGHT. >> MY ONLY QUESTION COMMIS COMMISSIONERS, LET THE STATE -- LET -- AND EITHER WAY IF YOU KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS.

IF YOU KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS OR YOU VOTE ON IT, LIKE YOU SAID, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, GIVES THEM TO DO WHATEVER WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. IT IS NOT GOING TO STOP THE DEVELOPER FROM DEVELOPER ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY ME PERSONALLY, I WILL SAY I AM CURIOUS TO SAY WHAT THE STATE WILL STAY ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY LIKE THIS, BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES OVER THERE IN THAT AREA AND WILL HAVE A BETTER IDEA. THE STATE WILL SAY WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING DOWN THERE AND WE SAY NO.

THEN WE HAVE OUR ANSWER. IF THEY SAY YES, WE STILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITIES WITH THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO SEE.

I CAN PUT IT ON RECORD, 1200 -- WHATEVER THAT NUMBER WAS, THAT WILL BE A HARD SELL FOR ME. I AM -- PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD NOW. THAT -- I KNOW YOU ARE LAUGHING, MADAM ATTORNEY, BUT A HARD SELL -- YOU SAY YOU ARE PUTTING ALL OF THAT OUT THERE. A HARD SELL FOR FOR ME.

BUT I ALSO HEARD YOU SAY IT WENT FROM 800 SOMETHING -- THEY ALREADY MOVED IT DOWN TO 700 SOMETHING.

THINK ALREADY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON OUT THIS WHY NOT KICK IT TO THE STATE AND SEE WHAT THE STATE SAYS.

THEY MAY COME IN AND SAY IN THE BIGGEST GOPHER TURTLE -- I AM BEING HONEST. SHE BROUGHT UP GO OFFICER TORTOISE. YOU KNOW THEY WILL STOP IT THEN.

I DON'T KNOW. GOING FORWARD, WE WILL KNOW ABOUT THIS MIXED -- MIXED USE AND KNOW.

IN MY DIET, THERE IS NO HARM FINDING OUT IF WE CAN DO IT.

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING UNTIL THE STATE READS IT. AND SELVITZ ROAD AND THE CONGESTION ON SELVITZ ROAD, WE KNOW THE STATE WILL LOOK AT THAT AND PUT PRESSURE ON THE COUNTY OR EVERYBODY ELSE TO FIX THAT ROAD OR WHATEVER. AND AS THE RESIDENTS SAID, MAKE THEM GO OUT ON 7 TH SELF VILTS, THE ROAD NEED TO BE FIXED.

>> AND SIGNALIZED. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: SIGNALIZED AND ALL OF THAT. I HEAR -- I HEAR THE RESIDENTS.

I HEAR THE DEVELOPER. AND YOU KNOW, OUR JOB IS TO MEET SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE SO EVERYBODY CAN -- EVERYBODY CAN -- CAN TRY TO IT BE HAPPY. USED TO THINK I COULD MAYBE EVERYBODY HAPPY UP HERE. TOOK ME LESS THAN TWO YEARS TO UNDERSTAND I EXPECT DO THAT AND TRYING NOT TO MAKE EVERYBODY

[02:40:06]

HAPPY AGAIN. HOWEVER, THIS IS DIFFERENT FOR ME BECAUSE NOW I WILL HAVE THE STATE OF FLORIDA LOOK AT SOMETHING WE ARE TRYING TO DO AND SAY PUT THEIR STAMP ON IT.

PUT THEIR STAMP ON IT AND SAY, HEY, GUYS, I LIKE THIS IDEA.

I DISLIKE THIS IDEA AND WE GO FROM THERE.

I KNOW FROM RIGHT NOW FROM THIS POINT, WE ARE LOOKING AT, WHAT, SIX MONTHS IF THAT -- IF THAT -- IF THAT IS BEFORE ANYTHING IS BUILT. ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN SIX MONTHS. THAT'S WHERE I AM LEANING.

I AM CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE STATE IS GOING TO STAY.

AND I ASK ALL THE RESIDENTS WHO CAME HERE TONIGHT IF BEFORE THIS NEXT HEARING, MAKE AN APPOINTMENT, COME SEE ME AND E-MAIL ME WITH YOUR CONCERNS SO I CAN GET BACK IN HERE, I CAN SAY IT. YOU SEE WHAT I AM SAYING.

I CAN SAY IT. NOW IF WE GO TO THE NEXT PART, I ALREADY SAID -- I MET WITH THE APPLICANTS AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. SO, YOU KNOW, I AM -- LIKE I SAID. I AM JUST CURIOUS I WANT TO SEE WHAT THE STATE IS GOING TO SAY AND I DON'T THINK IT IS HURTING ANYBODY RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT IS GIVING US AT LEAST A SIX-MONTH WINDOW TO COME BACK AND TRY TO FIX THIS THING.

THAT IS WHERE I AM AT. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: I THINK THAT -- MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONER GAINES, YOU HAVE OUTLINED IT QUITE WELL. AND THE DENSITY ISSUE TO CON FIRM WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THIS SITE CAN BE DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW OF R-1 WITH A HIGHER LEVEL OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS PUT IN, NO TRANSITION AREAS, ETC. I THINK YOUR SUGGESTION IS A VERY GOOD ONE. AND GIVES US THE ABILITY TO GET MORE CEREBRAL INPUT FROM OTHER AGENCIES.

AND, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, WE CAN REVISITED THE SITE PLAN ISSUES AND TRAFFIC EXITING ON TO CHRISTIANSEN AND SELVITZ AND COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON LIGHTING AND, ETC.

BECAUSE ACCOMMODATIONS WILL HAVE TO BE MADE, SIMPLE AS THAT.

THE MOST CRITICAL POINT YOU MADE, COMMISSIONER, THEY CAN GET A BULLDOZER OUT THERE AND BUILD 800 SOME ODD HOMES VERSUS THE NUMBER THEY ARE DICTATING ON THEIR THEORY, THAT IS REALLY JUST A THEORY. SO I WOULD SUPPORT YOUR

INITIATIVE ON THAT. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR. I WANT TO CLARIFY, 02 MAX UNITS AT R-1. I BELIEVE IN THE CHART.

00. >> HIGHER THAN THAT INJURIES JRZ I WROTE IT DOWN TO TAKE A NOTE OF IT.

RIGHT HERE. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON:

MAX UNIT. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: MY

APOLOGIES, YOU ARE CORRECT. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I

WASN'T TRYING TO CLARIFY. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: GLAD YOU DID. THAT MEANS THAT THE LOT -- THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES ARE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT 202 LOTS ON 122 ACRES. YOU ARE CORRECT.

A FORMULATION THAT IS DIFFERENT. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IF I CAN ADD TO IT. AND DIDN'T SEE IT CHANGE MUCH WITH THE MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT TONIGHT. I UNDERSTAND ALL THE ELEMENTS OF IT, BUT IN THE APPLICATION SPECIFICALLY, SHOW AS PLAN AND TRANSITION ZONES AND CONNECTIONS AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF.

I KNOW IT IS A CONCEPT PLAN AND IT IS PART OF THE APPLICATION WHICH IS PART OF THE RECORD. JUST LIKE THIS CALCULATION IS IN FRONT OF US. SO THE CHALLENGES ARE AND WHAT I HAVE HEARD EVEN FROM RESIDENTS -- RESIDENTS AND NEARBY HOMES THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT TAMPA IS THIS AN APPLICATION WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IN THE CITY AND STRATEGIC PLAN AND BUILDING HOMES PROVIDING THE ABILITY. AND THE TRANSITIONING ZONE IN A VERY CHALLENGED AREA THAT ALREADY HAD MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS ACROSS CITY AND COUNTY DESKS, I AM SURE WITHIN THE WHOLE SELL RESULTSY RESULTSY VILTS ROAD.

AND COUNTY OWNED AND MAINTAINED THAT ARE -- PROBABLY CANAL MAINTENANCE ROADS THAT ARE USED A AS CONNECTORS LIKE DEVINE ROAD. A DIRT ROAD.

AND CHRISTIAN ROAD IS THE EXACT SAME THING.

AND AG PROPERTIES. I AM CHALLENGED WITH THIS APPLICATION AND THE PARAMETERS AND ALL THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAD I AM CHALLENGED WITH PROPOSING THIS TO THE STATE THE

WAY IT SITS. >> MADAM MAYOR, THERE IS

[02:45:04]

ACTUALLY A TYPO FOR THE DENSITY FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, IT IS ACTUALLY 6.5. THAT WOULD COME TO 798.2.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: SOMETHING --

>>MAYOR HUDSON: A BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> YEAH, 798 AND APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSING THE 799

WHICH WOULD KEEP IT AT THE 6.5. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: OKAY. BACK TO WHAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK -- MADAM MAYOR, RIGHT NOW R-1 THEY CAN BUILD 799 UNITS BY IS A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR SELVITZ ROAD EVERY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT RIGHT NOW. OKAY.

I -- >> YES, THE FUTURE LAND USE IS 6.5 FOR LR. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: I AM GETTING TIRED.

WALK ME THROUGH IT. EXISTING ZONING IN R-1 WILL

ALLOW WHAT. >> 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: 798. AND THEIR OPTION 798 OF 9.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THE COMMERCIAL SPACE IN ADDITION TO

THAT. >>THE COMMERCIAL SPACE WILL BE

THE ADDITION. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY. THE R-1 IS CALLING FOR 798 --

APPRECIATE YOU NOT -- >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. DOES THAT MODIFY YOUR THOUGHT

PROCESS. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: IT DOES, BUT I AM GOING WITH THE MUNI CODE.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: MAY I ASK STAFF, MADAM MAYOR.

CAME OUT OF THE MUNI CODE. UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE OF

6.5. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: THIS IN FRONT OF ME WAS PREPARED BY HOME.

>> MADAM ATTORNEY. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, EASY MATH. 122.8 ACRES.

PUT 6.5 HOMES PER OUR CODE ON ONE ACRE.

THEY CALCULATY CALCULATE OUT AND GET THE 798.

THEY CAN DO THAT RIGHT NOW. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: I GOT THAT. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE MATH. I JUST -- I AM LOOKING FOR CONFIRMATION FROM OUR MUNI CODE. ONE LOOKING OVER HERE AND ONE LOOKING OVER HERE. I AM IN ALIGNMENT WITH YOU.

BUT I THINK THE FAIL-SAFE FOR THE COMMUNITY IS WE WILL HAVE SOME TYPE OF INFORMATION HERE SO WE ARE DEALING WITH FACTS.

WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH FACTS. DEALING WITH INNUENDO, SPECULATION AND A THANK WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS AND WON'T FLY IN QUASI JUDICIAL. AND WE ARE ALL SITTING UP HERE.

THIS IS JUST A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO GET US TO THE POINT.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION?

>> PRETTIEST CLOSE TO A MOTION. OY DON'T HAVE A SUGGESTION BUT A MO MOTION.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON, I AGREE. BUT THE FACTUAL DATA IS IN FRONT

OF ME. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: FACTS AND DATA. NO INNUENDO.

NUM NUMBERS.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: CHECKING MUNI CODE.

COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON ON THE MUNI CODE.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I AM GOING WITH STAFF.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: BRING THE CODE UP LINE.

[02:50:03]

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: FUTURE LAND USE IS R-1.

>> R-1. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: WHAT

PER ACRE? >> WHICH IS.

>>THE REASON I AM BRINGING THIS UP, WHAT CAN THEY BUILD TODAY IF THEY BRING THE PLAN IN FRONT OF U

US. >>MAYOR HUDSON: SAYS 1.65.

>> SO FOR CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS, IT IS FOUR, BUT FOR BUT FOR BUT THE FUTURE LAND USE IS WHAT DETERMINES THE MAXIMUM DENSITY. FOR CONVENTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS IS FOUR. BUT IF THEY DID ANYTHING INNOVATIVE, THEY CAN GO UP TO 6.5.

>> FUTURE LAND USE IS GROSS DENSITY PER ACRE.

THE ZONING IS LOOKING AT NET DENSITY.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THE ZONING ALLOWS 488 UNITS WITHOUT ANY BONUS. 488 SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

WHERE DID YOU GET THAT? CANDIDLY, I WOULD -- I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE SOME SUCCINCT INFORMATION BROUGHT BACK THAT WE ARE NOT SPECULATING ON. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE PROCESS IS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE LOOKING AT R-1, FUTURE LAND USE. R-1.

X NUMBER OF UNITS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS DEFINITIVELY RESEARCHED AND BROUGHT BACK.

THESE ARE THE FACTS NOT GUESSING IT 20 MINUTES OF 8:00 AT NIGHT WHAT THAT STATUS IS. I AM NOT SURE IF THAT IS EVEN POSSIBLE, BUT I THINK THIS BODY IS LOOKING FOR THOSE ANSWERS.

I KNOW I CERTAINLY AM. >>MAYOR HUDSON: AND -- AND MAYBE FOR EVERYTHING OF THIS NATURE. EVERY -- THAT WOULD BE A

STANDARD OF THIS NATURE. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: YES, I AM NOT FAULTING ANYONE. IF WE HAVE ANOTHER VACUUM OF INFORMATION. COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON IS DRIVING THIS HOME LIKE DRIVING A BS.

I COMPLETE LOOK COMPLETELY AGREE.

WE ARE NOT GOING TO SPECULATE THAT IS WHAT IT IS AND SEEING IN THE MUNI CODE. WE NEED TO HAVE IT RESEARCHED AND CITY ATTORNEY TO HAVE AGREEMENT.

I AM COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON THAT WE NEED THE INFORMATION. I THINK WHAT WE ARE FACE SOMETHING THE GENTLEMAN IN THE HEARING BEFORE WAS TALKING ABOUT HIS -- THIS IS A GREAT PLACE AND PEOPLE WERE FINDING -- DISCOVERING IT AND WANTING TO -- I MEAN THEIR -- THERE IS 8600 DEVELOPMENT GOING OFF GLADES CUTOFF ROAD.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: THAT COMES INTO THIS.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: WE ARE HAVING TO DEAL WITH THIS WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT -- THAT OUR PLANNING STAFF IS HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT THEY ARE SLAMMED WITH BUSINESSES AND ISN'T THAT GREAT AND WE ARE SLAMMED WITH BUSINESSES, ISN'T THAT GREAT.

THEY WANT TO DO IT RIGHT. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: ALL

THE FACTUAL DATA. >>MAYOR HUDSON: COMMISSIONER C.

JOHNSON. >>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON:

C. JOHNSON. >>MAYOR HUDSON: I EMBARRASSED.

I APOLOGIZE. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: IT'S

LATE. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: I AM CHALLENGED BY A NUMBER OF THINGS.

SO -- >>MAYOR HUDSON: I AM TOO.

I AM TOO. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: CAN WE

TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT MEETING? >>MAYOR: WE HAVE A QUASI AFTER THIS. CAN THE WHOLE PACKAGE BE TABLED?

>>MAYOR: MISS HEDGES. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: WHAT

WILL THAT. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: THE PLANNING STAFF TO COME BACK AND GO BACK TO THE OFFICE AND MAKE REASONABLE DETERMINATIONS AS TO THE LOAD CALCULATED IN R-1.

THE LOAD CALCULATED WITH THE OTHER MANIFESTATIONS THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE. THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CONCEPT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

AND I, FOR ONE, AM SIMPLY SAYING WALK THROUGH THOSE NUMBERS WITH ME SPECIFICALLY AND GIVE THE TEAM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE INFORMATION 100% ACCURATE. THAT IS ALL I AM ASKING FOR.

[02:55:02]

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR, I WILL AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT SUBMITTED INTO RECORD AND WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE. IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.

THAT WE ARE ROAR NEEDS TO BE CONNECTED AND SO THAT IS NOT QUESTIONED OR CHALLENGED BECAUSE WE WERE ABOUT TO MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN CONTESTED, PERIOD BECAUSE IT WAS INACCURATE. WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHERE THE IT LIES TO WORK WITH OUR ATTORNEY TO MAKE SURE WE ARE DEALING WITH INFORMATION BECAUSE WHAT THIS TRIGGERS WHAT IS COMING NEXT.

I WANT TO HAVE FACTUAL INFORMATION AND TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, WORK WITH STAFF, TO GET THIS RIGHT SO THAT WE -- AND THE PUBLIC -- THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ALWAYS PEOPLE CONTESTING CAN THAT BE DONE? I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE MATH SAYS THE MATH.

AND I DON'T BUILD HOUSES, AND I KNOW MATH.

AND MATH SAYS MATH. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE FIND A WAY HERE TO CONTINUE

THIS -- >>MAYOR HUDSON: THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO GET OUR ATTENTION. AND MISS HEDGES, DID YOU HAVE -- DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION BEFORE I CALL UP THE

APPLICANT AGAIN? >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: HOLD UP, MADAM MAYOR, MAYBE IT IS JUST ME, BUT THE CODE IS THE CODE. THE CODE SAYS SECTION 121-19 SINGLE-FAMILY LOW DENSITY ZONE R-1.

PURPOSE, THE CLASSIFICATION IS PRIMARILY INTENDED TO PROVIDE THE AREAS OF SINGLE-FAMILY WITH THE AVERAGE NET DENSITY OF LESS TTHAN CONS VENTUALAL DEVELOPMENTS.

REGULATIONS ARE DESIGNED TO PROMOTE SOUND NEIGHBORHOODS AND ACCOMMODATE NONRESIDENTIAL USES SUCH AS WATER, SEWAGE, SERVICES NOT BEING AVAILABLE. GOES TO B, BASIC USE STANDARDS.

USE IN THE R-1 ZONE ACCEPT -- ACCEPT -- INITIATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS MUST MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION.

GOT THE NUMBER THERE AND YOU CAN COME BACK AND USE INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT GIVE YOU -- THAT GIVES YOU WHAT -- WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT A CHANCE FOR THESE BONUSES SO IT COULD BE OVER FOUR. OR COULD BE OVER FOUR.

RIGHT THERE THE CODE SAYS IT RIGHT HERE.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE SAYING THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. THIS IS OUR CODE.

SO IF ANYTHING, IF WE DON'T LIKE THE CODE, THEN WE NEED TO GO BACK AND CHANGE THE CODE. BECAUSE THE CODE IS SAYING IT.

>> THAT IS WHERE THE PROBLEM COMES IN, COMMISSIONER GAINES.

IT IS 49 488 UNITS. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: CORRECT.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: 498, 798 AND 799.

USE CREATIVE FORMULATION, HOW DID YOU COME ARE UP FROM 498 TO

799. >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: I UNDERSTAND THAT. IF THEY WERE COMING SIMPLY

PROMOTING 400 -- WHAT IS IT? >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: 88.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: SAME COMPLAINTS OF THE TRAFFIC ON SELVITZ AND NEW RESIDENTS COMING OUT THERE.

TWO CARS PER HOUSEHOLD AND HAVING THE SAME COMPLAINTS.

FIVE A DIRT ROAD I WANT TO RIDE HIGH HORSE OR WALK MY DOG, I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE CODE IS SIMPLE.

YOU ARE TALKING OF 500 NEW HOMES THAT THEY CAN START RIGHT NOW.

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: NOT WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR.

>> EVERYTHING WE ARE SAYING. THE SAME COMPLAINTS OF THE SAME 500 ROADS. WE ARE TALKING OF THESE NUMBERS.

I AGREE. MAYBE WE NEED TO PUT IN THE CODE. BUT RIGHT NOW THIS IS HOW IT GOES BY. IF WE USE THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF HOUSE THIS DEVELOPER CAN GO AND PUT UP RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD BE 488. THAT IS MORE TRAFFIC ON SELVITZ.

HOUSES NEXT TO INDUSTRIAL CONCRETE.

TURTLES BEING REMOVED. WILDLIFE BEING REMOVED.

CHANGING OF LIFE OUT THERE AND EVERYTHING I HEARD AND I EXPECT FROM THESE RESIDENTS WILL BE THE SAME ISSUE.

[03:00:02]

THE SAME ISSUE. SO WE ARE TALKING OF KICKING IT DOWN THE ROAD. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHATEVER.

AND THEY CAN COME BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE WILL BUILD THE 488 HOUSES. THEN WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: 488 HOUSES BUT THE SAME ISSUES I HEARD OF HERE OF SELVITZ ROAD. TOO MUCH TRAFFIC ON SELVITZ ROAD, SIDEWALKS AND EVERYTHING. THAT IS -- WE ARE GOING TO BE OKAY WITH THAT? THAT IS ALL I AM SAYING.

THE SAME THING. JUST NEW DEVELOPMENT.

AND EVERY WEEK I'M HERE, ALL WE TALK ABOUT UP HERE IS THAT WE NEED HOUSING IN FORT PIERCE. THAT IS ALL WE TALK ABOUT.

WE NEED HOUSING IN FORT PIERCE BECAUSE WE MADE ALL OF THIS STUFF, ALL OF THESE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES COME IN AND WE NEED HOUSING IN FORT PIERCE. I AM NOT EVEN GOING TO SAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE A WHOLE DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

BUT NOW -- NOW WE ARE TALKING OF PUTTING HOUSES ON BIGGER LOTS.

WHO ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD THEM?

>>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT. FOR US TO MAKE A QUALIFIED DECISION, WE NEED QUALIFIED INFORMATION.

THAT IS THE ONLY DIRECTION I AM GOING BECAUSE I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW WHAT INFORMATION IS ACCURATE.

WHEN WE GET OFF THE LEVEL OF THE 488.

WE GET INTO THE CHANGE OF USE, ETC.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ADEQUATE INFORMATION.

IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS COMFORTABLE THAT THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE, I RESPECT THAT.

I AM JUST SUGGESTING THAT I AM NOT AT THAT POINT.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: I AM GOOD WITH THAT.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: MADAM MAYOR.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: YES. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: A COUPLE OF COMMENTS IF I COULD. IT IS ALWAYS OFFER THE LANDOWNER, DEVELOPER TO QUALIFY THIS INFORMATION.

STAFF IS THEN ABLE TO COMPARE IT AND THEN ADJUST WITH RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPLICANT BASED ON THE CODE PARAMETERS THAT THEY MIXED THE MARK. I CAN READ THE LANGUAGE AND THE CODE AND HERE IS MY APPLICATION, AND I BELIEVE IT MEETS THE CODE, AND TELL ME WHY IT DOESN'T NIGHT THE CODE, STAFF.

THAT IS MY PERSONAL VIEW OF IT. AND I BELIEVE THAT IS HOW STAFF OPERATES, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF 488. THE WAY THE FIRST LINE READS WITH THE AVERAGE NET DENSITY, NOT GROSS, NET DENSITY OF LESS THAN FOUR UNITS. LESS THAN.

THAT DOESN'T SAY FOUR, IT IS LESS THAN.

THE VERY -- IT IS -- SO WITH A NET DENSITY.

NOT GROSS DENSITY. YOU HAVE TO CALCULATE STORMWATER PONDS, ROADWAYS, ALL THE ELEMENTS.

WHEN AN APPLICANT MAKES -- >>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YOU HAVE

TO READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT. >>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: THE APPLICANT IS THE ONE THAT DETERMINES IT.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YOU CAN'T SAY THE LESS THAN FOUR AND YOU DON'T READ B. YOU GOT TO READ B.

YOU CAN'T PICK AND CHOOSE PART OF THE STATUTE.

YOU HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE STATUE AS IS WRITTEN.

>>COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON: CORRECT.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING.

IT IS RIGHT THERE. LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.

WHAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. WE ARE NOT FIGHTING.

THIS IS WHAT WE DO OUT HERE. THERE IS NO FIGHTING.

COULD THIS -- COULD THIS DEVELOPER COME IN BASED IN R-1.

BUILD MORE -- BUILD MORE THAN 488 HOUSES BASED ON THIS

STATUTE? >> WITH APPROVALS, YES.

AND CURRENTLY I THINK THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CONFUSION WITH THE ZONING BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE. AND FUTURE LAND USE IS 6.5 WHICH, YOU KNOW, OVERLAYS ON THE ZONING SO I THINK I WAS ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS OF THE PD AND I ANSWERED AND THAT IS WHAT THE CONFUSION WAS WITH THE 799. THE ZONING CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN HAS ATTACHED TO THE FUTURE LAND USE.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE 799 KEEP IT AT THE 6.5 WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE.

THAT IS WHERE THE CONFUSION HAPPENED.

MAKES MUM 6.5. >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS.

JUST SO I CAN ANSWER COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON'S QUESTION. YOU CAN RECESS THIS HEARING AND POSTPONE IT TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IF THAT IS WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO. WE NEED TO GIVE THEM THE NEXT DATE AND TIME OF THE HEARING IF THAT IS THE MOTION AND WHAT

CARRIES. >>MAYOR HUDSON: THANK YOU.

>> YES, MA'AM. >>MAYOR HUDSON: SO I THINK IF THAT POSTPONEMENT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO DO, IF THAT IS A

[03:05:02]

SERIOUS THING WE WANT TO DO, I THINK WE OUGHT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO COME UP, WHO WANTS TO COME UP.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: I AM PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT ONE. HEARD US THRASHING ABOUT.

>>COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON: US NOT VIOLATING SUNSHINE LAW.

ONLY CHANCE WE HAVE TO MEET AS A COMMISSION AND TALK.

WE DON'T HAVE PRIVATE MEETINGS .THIS IS IT.

YOU SEE IT ALL UNFOLD BEFORE YOUR EYES.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: IDENTIFY FOR THE RECORD.

>> DAN SORROW, MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. I APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE.

YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY GREATER DENSITY THAN WHAT THE CURRENT LAND USE ALLOWS 6.5.

IF YOU LET US GO TO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM WE WILL BE WELL BELOW THAT. WE ASKED FOR MIXED AUTO US FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WITH MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. A BALANCED MIX OF USES.

AND YOUR PLANNING STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB.

MR. MIMMS AND KEV AND -- AND -- AND MR. GILMORE.

THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB REVIEWING THE APPLICATION.

THEY GET A LOT OF APPLICATIONS. NO HARM SENDING THIS FORWARD TO THE STATE TO GET THE ORC REPORT. THE OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. IT COMES BACK -- IT STILL HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU. YOU STILL GET TO SAY, LISTEN, DAN, WE THINK 800 IS TOO MANY. LET'S BRING IT DO YOU KNOW TO 700. GIVE YOURSELF THE OPPORTUNITY BUT LET'S HEAR WHAT THE STATE HAS TO SAY BECAUSE IT STILL HAS TO COME BACK FOR APPROVAL ANYWAY.

I AM CERTAIN BETWEEN NOW AND ADOPTION, YOUR STAFF AND MY OFFICE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO PROVIDE YOU ANY KIND OF CHARTS, ANY KIND OF ANALYSIS, ANY KIND OF FURTHER DOCUMENTATION YOU NEED TO SUPPORT YOUR FINAL DECISION TO BE ABLE TO ADOPT OR TO ADOPT WITH CONDITIONS ON THIS.

I AM HAPPY TO WORK WITH STAFF. AND WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STATE REPORT. WE HAVE BEEN WITH THIS PROCESS FOR A LONG TIME AND WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT THE SECOND APPLICATION FOR THE FLUMA AND THAT YOU AND SOME OF THE RESIDENTS WERE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WE ARE HAPPY TO

ADDRESS. >>MAYOR HUDSON: GENTLEMEN?

>> I MOVE NOR APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 23-507.

>>MAYOR HUDSON: IS THERE A SECOND?

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: SECOND. >>MAYOR HUDSON: CALL THE ROLL

PLEASE. >>COMMISSIONER BRODERICK: YES.

>>COMMISSIONER GAINES: YES, MA

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