[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:14]
MEETING FOR THE FORT PIERCE PLANNING BOARD OF JANUARY 8, 2024. AND HAPPY NEW YEAR TO EVERYBODY. HOPE EVERYONE HAD A GOOD NEW YEAR, SAFE, EVERYBODY IS HEALTHY. AND WISE AND PROSPEROUS THIS YEAR. CALL THE ROLL . NO DON'T CALL THE ROLL.
I TOLD YOU. IT IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THESE MEETINGS TODAY. I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND
JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> IT IS ONE OF THOSE. NOW
[4. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]
>> MS. CARTER STATED SHE WOULD BE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.
>> MAYBE RUNNING A LITTLE LATE MAYBE THE TRAIN STOPPED HER OR SOMETHING. OKAY ALL OF US THAT HAVE THESE WIDGETS , PLEASE TURN THE SOUND OFF. WE WILL DEAL WITH MISS CARTER
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
LATER IF SHE DOESN'T SHOW UP. THE MINUTES, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MISS DANIELS WAS ABSENT LAST MONTH, SO THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH THE AMENDMENT TO THE MINUTES TO REMOVE MISS DANIEL AS A PRESENCE.>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
UNDER NEW BUSINESS IS ITEM A. THESE ARE GOING TO BE , WHAT WE HAVE, FOUR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY OR SURPLUS PROPERTY.
[a. RFP 2024-009 - Disposal of Surplus Property - 706 N. 20th Street ]
FIRST ITEM IS RFP 2024- 009 , DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTYAT 706 NORTH 20TH STREET. >> MY NAME IS, I'M WITH CITY MANAGER OFFICE AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO PRESENT THESE DISPOSITIONS OF SURPLUS PROPERTY. I DID PRESENT THE FIVE PROPERTIES TO YOU IN MAY, HOWEVER THE BIDS EXPIRED THEREFORE WE HAD TO GO OUT FOR BID AGAIN , GET NEW PROPOSALS AND HERE WE ARE PRESENTING THESE AGAIN. WAITING ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND IT TOOK LONGER THAN EXPECTED DUE TO THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE AGAIN PRESENTING THE SAME PROPERTIES
. >> THIS IS BASICALLY CLEANUP
ON AISLE 13. >> YES OR. IF SOME OF THESE LOOK FAMILIAR IT IS BECAUSE I PRESENTED THEM IN MAY.
>> THEY DID LOOK FAMILIAR AND I WENT BACK AND LOOKED.
>> IT WAS MAY WHEN WE HAD A SPECIAL MEETING TOWARD THE END OF THE MONTH. THE WAY WE DETERMINE IF A PROPERTY SHOULD BE USED AS SURPLUS, STAFF IDENTIFIES OR WE RECEIVE A REQUEST FROM A CITIZEN TO DETERMINE IF THEY HAVE A REQUEST TO PURCHASE ONE OF OUR PROPERTIES, ONCE WE RECEIVE THE REQUEST WE WILL SEND A SURVEY TO THE DEPARTMENT HEADS TO DETERMINE IF THE PROPERTY IS NEEDED FOR CITY USE OR IF IT CAN BE SURPLUS IF THERE IS NO NEED FOR IT, CITY COMMISSION WOULD DECLARE SURPLUS VIA RESOLUTION THAN THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT CREATES THE BID DOCUMENT AND SOLICITS
[00:05:07]
PROPOSALS FOR UP TO 30 DAYS. ONCE WE RECEIVE ALL PROPOSALS STAFF WILL EVALUATE ALL PROPOSALS AND MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE HIGHEST RANKED PROPOSER TO THE PLANNING BOARD, ONCE PRESENTED YOU WOULD MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION. PRESENTING THE HIGHEST RANKED RESPONDENT AND THEN CITY COMMISSION WOULD AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ENTER NEGOTIATIONS. CITY COMMISSION APPROVES RESOLUTION FOR DISPOSAL WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSTRUCTION TERMS THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS AGREED TO.LASTLY THE CITY ATTORNEY OUTSIDE COUNCIL OR A TITLE COMPANY WILL PREPARE CLOSING DOCUMENTS AND WE WILL GET THE PROPERTIES CLOSE. I PRESENT EVALUATION CRITERIA. WE HAD FOUR EVALUATORS THE PROPERTIES. THE WAY WE ASSIGN , THERE WERE 20 POINTS. WE ASK PROPOSERS TO PROVIDE ELEVATIONS OR FLOORPLANS OF WHAT THEY INTENDED TO DO WITH PROPERTY. WE ASSIGN 20 POINTS ASKING FOR PROJECT SCHEDULE, PROJECTS WE ASK THEM TO PROVIDE TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN COMPLETE THE PROJECT ON TIME AND WITHIN BUDGET. FOR CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE WE ASSIGNED 10 POINTS ASKING TO PROVIDE ESTIMATES FROM A KNOWLEDGEABLE OR THIRD-PARTY PROFESSIONAL SUCH AS ENGINEER, ARCHITECT OR CONTRACTOR. PROOF OF FINANCIAL ABILITY WE ASSIGN 15 POINTS, ASKING THEM TO PROVIDE PROOF THEY ARE ABLE TO PURCHASE THE VACANT PROPERTY AND THEY HAD ENOUGH FUNDING TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING SO LETTER OF CREDIT OR, LOAN COMMITMENT FOR CASH ON HAND. PROPERTY THE UTILIZATION WE WANTED TO KNOW IF IT WOULD BE OWNER OCCUPIED OR DEVELOPED FOR RESALE OR IF IT WAS NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS DEVELOPED FOR RENTAL SO THERE WERE DIFFERENT POINTS ASSIGNED FOR THAT. LASTLY WE WOULD ASK A NARRATIVE OR SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT, WE ASK THEM TO PROVIDE SUMMARY OF THEIR EXPERIENCE AND IMAGES OF PREVIOUS WORK IF THEY HAD DONE ANY IN THE PAST IN DEVELOPMENT.
IF IT WAS OWNER-OCCUPIED OR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WANTED TO PURCHASE WE ASKED THEM TO PROVIDE A LETTER EXPLAINING WHY THEY WANTED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. THE FIRST ONE IS 706 NORTH 20TH STREET. WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES FOR THE PROPERTY. SUNRISE CITY CONCRETE SCORED THE HIGHEST WITH 364 POINTS OUT OF 400. EACH WAS ELIGIBLE TO SCORE UP TO 100 POINTS, 364 OUT OF 400, SUNRISE CITY CONCRETE INTENDS TO PURCHASE THE VACANT PROPERTY FOR $3000, THE INTENT TO BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THREE BEDROOM TWO BATH WITH CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES OF 185,000 AND THEY INDICATED THEY COULD COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN SEVEN MONTHS OF CLOSING.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH FORT PIERCE ORDINATES STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW THE REQUEST AND FORWARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT 706 NORTH 20TH STREET TO SUNRISE CITY CONTRACT SERVICES AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> I ASSUME ALL OF THE BACK WORK THE BACK OFFICE WORK THROUGH LEGAL IS COMPLETE AND DONE AND THESE WILL MOVE FORWARD ON THIS APPLICATION? EIGHT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TEMPLATE, ONCE YOU AUTHORIZE THE RECOMMENDATION TO GO TO CITY COMMISSION THEN THE STAFF WILL ENTER NEGOTIATIONS WITH DEVELOPERS AND THEY WILL INDICATE, I CAN PULL PERMITS WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF CLOSING AND I CAN START CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 12 MONTHS OF CLOSING SO THAT'S WHAT WAS IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE
DID NOT HAVE IN MAY. >> EVERYTHING ELSE IN ORDER? VERY GOOD. ENTERTAIN MOTION FOR DISCUSSION.
>> QUESTION. THE POINT SYSTEM PROPERTY UTILIZATION IS 20 POINTS? HOW DO YOU DECIDE HOW MANY POINTS FOR EACH ONE? DOES OWNER USAGE GET MORE POINTS THAN RESALE OR RENTAL?
>> EXACTLY, OWNER-OCCUPIED BUILDING FOR MYSELF THAT WAS THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF POINTS , 20 POINTS AND THEN FOR RESALE WAS PROBABLY 15, NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOP AS
[00:10:01]
RENTAL IS THE FIVE POINTS SO THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINED ONTHOSE. >> IS THAT INFORMATION PROVIDED
TO THE PEOPLE SUBMITTING? >> YES IT WAS PART OF THE BID DOCUMENT THAT THEY TURNED IN.
>> THE POINT BREAKDOWN? >> I WILL HAVE TO LOOK. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE BID PACKAGE WHEN THEY FIRST APPLIED. I WILL BE SURE TO ADD IT TO THE AGENDA IF IT WAS NOT
INCLUDED. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR
QUESTIONS? >> FOR THE RECORD MISS CARTER
ENTERED AT 2:06 P.M. >> I SAW HER SLIDING IN THE DOOR. VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOTION APPROVED. >> MOTION BY AND SECONDED
[b. RFP 2024-010 - Disposal of Surplus Property - 604 S. 6th Street ]
>> ITEM B UNDER NEW BUSINESS RFP 2024- 010 DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY AT 604 SOUTH SIX STREET .
>> NEXT PROPERTY IS 604 SOUTH SIX STREET. AGAIN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SO THE EVALUATION CRITERIA IS THE SAME. 604 SOUTH STREET JUST SOUTH OF DELAWARE AVENUE. WE RECEIVED TWO PROPOSALS AND THE HIGHEST RANKED RESPONDENT WAS 329 POINT 329.5 POINTS. HE INTENDS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $15,000 AND BUILT A TWO BEDROOM TWO BATHROOM IN THE FAMILY HOME WITH CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES OF 225,000 AND HE INTENDS TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF CLOSING. SO AGAINST AFRICAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW REQUEST AND FORWARD RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE SALE OF PROPERTY AT 604 SOUTH SIX STREET TO JOE JOHN MCVEIGH. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> QUESTIONS COMMENTS DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE I
WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION APPROVED.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION APPROVED AND SECOND.
>> WHAT DID I DO WRONG? >> YOU WERE TALKING AND I COULD HEAR. WHEN SHE CALLED MY NAME.
[c. RFP 2024-011 - Disposal of Surplus Property – 1204 Avenue E]
>> OKAY. ITEMS C. RFP 2024- 011 DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS
PROPERTY AT 1204 AVENUE E >> 1204 AVENUE E ZONED RESIDENTIAL AVENUE YOU BETWEEN COURT AND YOUR 12 STREET WE RECEIVED THREE RESPONSES IN THE HIGHEST RATE WAS INVESTMENTS LLC WITH 319 POINT. PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR $25,000 , THEY WANT TO BUILD A THREE BEDROOM TWO BATHROOM FOUR PLEX CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES OF $462,000, $462,000 AND 62 CONSTRUCTING WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF CLOSING. I WILL NOTE THEY ARE OWNERS OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES SO THAT IS HOW THEY INTEND TO BUILD SUCH A LARGE PROJECT ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. AGAIN, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW REQUEST AND FORWARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1204 AVENUE E AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY
HAVE. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
[00:15:02]
>> ARE ANY OF THESE APPLICANTS DIFFERENT FROM THE ONES WE
REVIEWED? >> YES, THIS ONE. THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT. IT WAS AWARDED TO A DIFFERENT RESPONDENT THEN WE
HAD IN MAY. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. CALL
[d. RFP 2024-012 - Disposal of Surplus Property - 1620 Avenue E]
012 DISPOSAL SURPLUS PROPERTY 1620 AVENUE E.>> 1620 AVENUE E LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF NORTH 17TH STREET AND AVENUE E, WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES AND SUNRISE CITY CONCRETE SERVICES WAS AWARDED , THE HIGHEST RANKED PROPOSAL WITH 244.5 POINTS. AGAIN THEY INTEND TO CONSTRUCT THE SAME PROPERTY AS THE ONE I HAD PRESENTED BEFORE THEY INTENDED TO PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR $3000, BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THREE BEDROOMS TWO BATHS WITH CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE 185,000 INTENDING TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN SEVEN MONTHS OF CLOSING. PLAN RECOMMENDS REVIEW OF REQUEST AND FORWARD RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COMMISSION FOR THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1620 AVENUE E TO SUNRISE CITY CONCRETE SERVICES. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NOT HEARING ANY ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. I AM
READING IT OFF THE PAGE. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.
BACK TO VACATION . >> I KNOW YOU MISSED ME.
[e. RFP 2024-013 - Disposal of Surplus Property – N. 25th Street, Lot 1 & 2 Parcel IDs: 2408-501-0066-000-6 and 2408-501-0067-000-3]
>> I DID. I SHED A TEAR. NEXT IS ITEM E RFP 2023- 029 DISPOSAL SURPLUS PROPERTY NORTH 25TH STREET LOT ONE AND TWO PARCEL 82 408-501- 00- 66-000 AND 2408- 501-0067-
000- 3. >> OKAY SO LOT LOCATED AT NORTH 25TH STREET LOT ONE AND TWO. THEY ARE ZONED COMMERCIAL AND THEY ARE C-3 FOR THESE PROPERTIES FOR THESE LOTS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE EVALUATION CRITERIA WAS PROPERTY UTILIZATION. PERMITTED OR NON-PERMITTED 15 POINTS AND SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT ASSIGNED 15 POINTS SO THAT WAS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE. THESE ARE LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF BOOKER STREET AND NORTH 25TH. WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES FOR THESE PROPERTIES, LARRY LEE JUNIOR AND FAMILY LLC WAS HIGHEST RANKED WITH 261 POINTS AND LARRY LEE JUNIOR FAMILY LLC INTENDS TO BUILD 2000 SQUARE-FOOT OFFICE PURCHASING PROPERTY $10,100 . THE BUILDING THE OFFICE BUILDING THEY INTEND TO BUILD IT WAS HER FOUR OFFICES WITH ONE ANCHOR BUSINESS LOCATED. CONFESSION COST ESTIMATE RANGES FROM 30 50,000 TO 550. THEY INTEND TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN TWO YEARS OF CLOSING ON THE PROPERTY. SO, REQUEST FOR YOU TO REVIEW THE RECOMMENDATION AND PROVIDE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT NORTH 25TH STREET LOT ONE AND TWO LARRY LEE JUNIOR AND FAMILY LLC. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER
[00:20:02]
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS?
>> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE DRAWING TO THE OVERHEAD VIEW OF THE PROPERTY? SO THAT IS ALL RESIDENTIAL?
>> YES, SOME OF IT ALONG 25TH STREET MAY BE COMMERCIAL.
GOING TO BE FACING? >> 25TH STREET WAS THE
>> A GENERAL QUESTION ABOUT THE POINT SYSTEM ? IF THERE'S A THRESHOLD WHERE PEOPLE DON'T SCORE ENOUGH POINTS YOU JUST DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECTS?
>> WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE PAST, YES, FOR THIS ONE THEY DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WHERE IT WAS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT YES WE HAVE DONE THAT, AS WELL.
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL , SECOND CALL THE
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY GOOD JOB. NEXT ITEM OF
[f. Annexation - Harry Blue Annexation - Parcel IDs: 2427-603-0104-000-7, 2427-603-0135-000-3, 2427-603-0134-000-6 and 2427-603-0136-000-0]
BUSINESS IS ITEM F ANNEXATION OF HARRY BLUE ANNEXATION PARCEL IDS , I NORMALLY HAVE YOU READ THEM.>> I WILL READ THEM FREE TODAY THERE ARE QUITE A FEW.
>> I GAVE, RIGHT? I WAS CLOSE. COME ON, CUT ME A BREAK. I GET BEAT UP EVERY MONTH I COME IN HERE TO TAKE THIS ABUSE FROM MY VICE CHAIR. SHE DOES A GOOD JOB OF IT, SHE DOES HER BEST TO KEEP ME STRAIGHT. IT DOESN'T WORK. OKAY. YOU ARE
ON. >> TODAY BEFORE YOU IS APPLICATION FOR AN ANNEXATION FOR THE HARRY BLUE ANNEXATION PARCEL IDS 2427-603-0104- 003 , 242760301040007 AND 242760301340006. THE APPLICANT IS HARRY BLUE AND PROPERTY OWNER IS HARRY BLUE AS WELL, PARCEL IDS AS MENTIONED BEFORE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION OF FOUR PARCELS INTO THE CITY TO CITY FUTURE LAND USE ARE AGE AND CITY ZONING OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION OF THE GIVEN PARCELS WITH A SITE AREA OF 2.95 GIVE OR TAKE ACRES. THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE CURRENTLY IS RH AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND COMING INTO THE CITY IT WOULD BE THE SAME RH.
THIS IS A MAP TO SHOW YOU. THIS IS THE COUNTY HIGHLIGHTED AND THEN HERE , HIGHLIGHTED THESE ARE THE CITY. CURRENTLY, THE ZONING IN THE COUNTY RM 11 WHICH MEANS MULTIPLE FAMILY 11 RM 11 WHICH MEANS MULTIPLE FAMILY 1111 UNITS PER ACRE COMING INTO THE CITY WOULD BE A MEDIUM DENSITY R 4 ZONING.
THIS IS ZONING FOR THE COUNTY AND THIS IS ONLY FOR THE CITY.
THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT STAFF RECOMMEND FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COMMISSION WITH ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS BEING THAT YOU COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITION OR RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.
>> VERY GOOD. I THINK YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR THAT ANSWERED IT.
PICTURE. >> YOU MIGHT HAVE ANSWERED THE
QUESTION. >> THE FOUR ITEMS UNDER THE WARRANTY OF DEED. NOT LISTED ON THE SPOT THE PARCEL IS
[00:25:09]
PLATTED SO THOSE ARE PLATTED LOTS NOT SEPARATE LOTS THEY ARE PART OF THE ONE PARCEL.WITH FOUR LOTS LISTED. THAT ARE NOT IN DARK BORDER ON YOUR LAYOUT OF THE LOTS. SO WE'VE GOT A DARK BORDER AROUND THE LAYOUT OF THE LOTS AND THEIR FOUR LOTS SHOWING THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE DARK BORDER. THAT ARE ON THE WARRANTY OF
>> THE OF THESE PAGES IN YOUR COMPUTER?
>> I CAN PULL THEM UP. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON IT AND IT IS A QUESTION OF , I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS A QUESTION OF. THAT'S WHY I TURNED TO MY REAL ESTATE EXPERTS.
>> BEFORE THE MEETING. >> WE WILL SEE.
THERE IS YOUR WARRANTY OF DEED, RIGHT HERE YOU HAVE YOUR LIST WITH WARRANTY OF DEED . AND THEN YOU'VE GOT , IN FACT ON THIS I CAN SEE WHERE YOU HAVE DOTS NEXT TO FOUR ITEMS ON THE WARRANTY OF DEED. LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE MARKED THE PAGE WITH A BALLPOINT PEN OR PENCIL OR SOMETHING. THESE FOUR ITEMS, THESE LOT NUMBERS . IF WE NOW GO ON DOWN I GUESS TO WHERE THE DIAGRAM IS .
EXPECTATIONS YOU WERE GOING TO SLIDE THROUGH THIS.
>> OKAY ON THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS SHEET YOU'VE GOT FOUR LOTS THAT ARE THE FOUR THAT YOU HAVE DOTS NEXT TO ON YOUR LIST IN THE WARRANTY OF DEED THAT IS NOT IN THE DARK COLORED BORDER. I'M ASSUMING ONLY THE LOTS THAT ARE BORDERED ARE THE
LOTS WE ARE REVIEWING. >> IS THE FOUR HERE ARE ALREADY
IN THE CITY. >> YOU WERE SAYING OKAY.
>> I THINK THEY ARE IN THE SAME OWNERSHIP.
>> THEY ARE UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP.
>> I'M ASSUMING THE SAME OWNERSHIP IS THE SAME BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER THE WARRANTY OF DEED. MY CONCERN WAS I FOUND FOUR LOTS THAT WERE NOT BORDERED AS THOUGH WE WERE HEARING THEM ON THE ZONING CHANGE OVER. THAT ARE SHOWING ON THE WARRANTY OF DEEDAND I WANTED TO BE CERTAIN THERE WASN'T SOMETHING THAT NEEDED TO BE REPAIRED.
>> WHEN I WRITE THE ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE WILL HAVE FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGED OVER FOR JUST THE LOTS MENTIONED, THOSE NUMBERS AND THEY WILL NOT BE PART OF THE
ANNEXATION. >> YOU WILL REMOVE IN THE ORDINANCE DESCRIPTION. AND THE WARRANTY OF DEED IS THERE TO SHOW IT IS UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP OKAY VERY GOOD. YOU SOLVED THE MYSTERY , MY MYSTERY TODAY.
>> PERFECT, LOVE BEING SCOOBY DOO.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NOT HEARING ANY. I WILL OPEN. IN I NEVER DID OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING A WHILE AGO. WE DID ALL OF THOSE RFPS AND I NEVER ASKED THE PUBLIC IF THEY WANTED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY PURPOSE, I DID THAT BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THOSE DAYS. PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING, ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS ITEM? NOT SEEING ANYONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.
ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL
ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
[00:30:06]
>> I SECOND. >> MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND
[g. Major Amendment - Trinity Lutheran Church of Fort Pierce - 2011 S. 13th Street]
>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM. ON OUR LIST IS ITEM G , MAJOR AMENDMENT TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF FORT PIERCE. 2011
SOUTH 13TH STREET. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. HAPPY NEW YEAR AGAIN. TODAY WE BRING BEFORE YOU, A MAJOR AMENDMENT TO TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF FORT PIERCE. 2011 SOUTH 13TH STREET . THE APPLICANT IS CULPEPPER AND TURPENTINE INCORPORATED PROPERTY OWNERS TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH OF FORT PIERCE. SID 24165040750 241650407500002. IN SUMMARY, AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR AMENDMENT TO ADD A 6530 SQUARE FOOT CLASSROOM BUILDING TO BE USED IN ASSOCIATION WITH RELIGIOUS EDUCATION AND DAY CARE PROGRAMS OFFERED BY THE CHURCH. THE PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION WILL BE A PREFABRICATED MODULAR STRUCTURE LOCATED ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPED AREA OF THE PROPERTY. PROPOSE USE REQUIRES MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND SITE STORM WATER SYSTEMS. HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SITE LOCATION. THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE IS INSTITUTIONAL . WITH THE ZONING BEING GENERAL RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE.
HERE IS THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN. WE HAVE TWO PAGES FOR LANDSCAPING. OKAY SURE. SO, FOR THE RECORD THE SITE PLAN, THE LOCATION OF THE PREFABRICATED MODULAR BUILDING WOULD BE TO THE LEFT . HERE ARE THE PROPOSED BUILDING
MODIFICATIONS. >> YOU'VE GOT A BIT OF A ZOOM
IN. >> OKAY LET'S SEE HERE. OKAY HERE IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING LOCATION.
>> IS THAT , IS THAT THE BUILDING THAT EXISTS NOW? THAT IS GROWING IN SIZE OR THIS IS A TOTALLY NEW BUILDING?
>> THIS WILL BE A TOTALLY NEW BUILDING.
>> IN THE PROXIMITY OF A BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY
FUNCTIONING? >> ABSOLUTELY. LET ME BACK UP A LITTLE BIT. HERE IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, THE BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE IN THIS AREA. THE IN THE RECTANGULAR AREA.
OKAY. >> WILL THE CLASSROOMS THAT ARE IN THE EXISTING BUILDING BE MOVED INTO THE NEW BUILDING OR IS THIS GOING TO BE IN ADDITION?
>> THIS WILL BE IN ADDITION TO. THE SCHOOL IS GROWING.
>> VERY GOOD. >> YES. ARE YOU ASKING
>> OKAY THIS IS DESIGN REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PREFABRICATED MODULAR THAT WOULD BE PLACED ON SITE. WITH RECOMMENDATION, STAFF , PLANNING BOARD IT IS RECOMMENDED THE APPLICATION IS APPROVED WITH SUBMITTED UPDATED DRAINAGE PLAN BEFORE GOING TO CITY COMMISSION. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, A
[00:35:02]
COMMON APPROVAL WITH ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS OR DISAPPROVE, I WANT TO BRIEFLY STATE PRIOR BEFORE THE MEETING SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTATIVE, THE PROPOSED CONDITION HERE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. SO, THERECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. >> IS THE APPLICANT AND THE PRESENTER HERE? I WOULD LIKE TO CHAT WITH YOU BRIEFLY.
GOING TO OPEN UP , I'M GOING TO COMBINE THIS BEING THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER PUBLIC IN THE ROOM. SOME GOING TO COMBINE THIS AND PUT IT TOGETHER AS ONE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION. SO IT'S NOT THAT I'VE GOT A LOT OF COLLOCATED QUESTIONS TO ASK, BUT IF YOU WOULD STEP UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN PLEASE.
>> PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CULPEPPER INTERPRETING, 2980, 25TH STREET FORT PIERCE IS OUR OFFICE LOCATION.
>> NOW THIS IS A MODULAR CONSTRUCTED BUILDING?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> VERSUS A PORTABLE BUILDING?
THING. >> WELL YES AND NO. ONCE IT IS CONSTRUCTED IT WILL BE ANCHORED DOWN AND BECOME A PERMANENT BUILDING. IS THIS CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO IS ELIMINATE ANY CONFUSION IF WE HAVE ANY VIEWERS OR IF ANYONE COMES ALONG AND WATCHES THE VIDEO OF THIS, THAT THEY GET A VISION THAT THIS IS A PORTABLE BUILDING MODULAR CONSTRUCTED PORTABLE BUILDING SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND ON THE GROUND, THE GROUNDS OF ONE OF OUR COUNTY SCHOOLS. AND WE HAD THEM SITTING OUT OFF OF EDGEWOOD ROAD FOR 20 YEARS AFTER THE HURRICANE DESTROYED THE SCHOOL. AND FOR SOME REASON A MODULAR CONSTRUCTED PORTABLE BUILDING MADE OUT OF PLYWOOD STAYED THERE AND THE SCHOOL WAS TORN DOWN. WHICH ALWAYS INTERESTED ME. THIS IS NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THOSE TYPES OF
BUILDINGS CORRECT? >> THIS IS A PREFABRICATED BUILDING BROUGHT TO THE SITE, SET ON FOUNDATION, ANCHORED TO THE FOUNDATION AND FOR ALL VISUAL PURPOSES, IT LOOKS LIKE A STICK BUILT BUILDING, A BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT ON SITE
FROM SCRATCH. >> IT BECOMES A PERMANENT FIXTURE AND IT BLENDS INTO THE CONSTRUCTION AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE VERY HAPPY WITH THIS BUILDING?
>> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION AND IT IS A HOT BUTTON AND THAT IS STORM WATER DRAINAGE.
IN THIS GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY THROUGH LAWNWOOD , WE KNOW WE HAVE A HISTORY OF FLOODING. I AM NOT AWARE AND IF IT HAS HAPPENED, I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M NOT AWARE OF IT. I AM NOT AWARE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A HISTORY OF ANY CONSIDERABLE FLOODING AT THIS SITE.
>> IF THAT'S A QUESTION TO ME I'M NOT AWARE OF IT EITHER. WE DO, WE HAVE DONE A PRELIMINARY HYDROLOGY STUDY ON THE PROPERTY. AND THE EXISTING POND WAS OVERSIZED WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED AND BUILT. SO, WE ANTICIPATE NO MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE OR TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM I SHOULD SAY. AS A RESULT OF THIS VERY MINIMAL ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS AREA.
>> WHAT IS THE TOTAL SIZE OF THIS AGAIN?
>> OF THE BUILDING? 6520 FEET. 6520?
>> SO WE ARE COVERING SOME DRAINAGE UP POTENTIALLY DRAINAGE. PUTTING THE BUILDING ON PERVIOUS AREA. WE HAVE GOT A GOOD DRAINAGE SYSTEM ON-SITE AND AGAIN I AM NOT AWARE WE HAVE EVER HAD DRAINAGE ISSUES THERE, BUT WE
[00:40:03]
DO HAVE DRAINAGE ISSUES IN THAT GENERAL COMMUNITY. SO THAT IS ALWAYS A CONCERN OF MINE. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONSOR COMMENTS? >> CAN YOU TELL ME WHY WE ARE DOING MODULAR? BECAUSE OF PRICE?
>> THE OWNER WRAP IS WITH ME TODAY. YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION BUT TYPICALLY MODULAR CONSTRUCTION I HAVE ALWAYS FELT IS BUILT IN A ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLLED BUILDING. IT IS QUICKER TO CONSTRUCT . IT IS NOT A STICK BUILT BUILDING IS SUBJECT TO THE ELEMENTS. IN TERMS OF THAT QUESTION, I THINK KURT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT.
>> I WILL ALLOW THE TWO OF YOU TO SHARE THE PODIUM BEING WE ARE JUST FRIENDS HERE BY OURSELVES TODAY.
>> MEMBER FROM TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH AND PROJECT MANAGER FOR THIS PROJECT. TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT TOM SAID . THE BUILDINGS ARE BUILT IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT , WE PLACE THE ORDER FOR THE BUILDING IN JULY. THE BUILDING WAS READY TO SHIP IN NOVEMBER.
SO IT IS DONE AND READY TO BE BROUGHT UP. THERE ARE SEVEN UNITS TO THE OVERALL CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING THERE WILL BE JOINED TOGETHER ON SITE, ANCHORED DOWN AND
PERMANENTLY FIXED. >> YOU JUST FLY THEM IN.
>> FLY THEM IN. >> ABOUT HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE
TO PUT IN THE CONSTRUCTION? >> ABOUT ONE MONTH TO GET THEM JOINED IN WITH PLUMBING AND SEWER, FIREWATER.
>> 30 DAYS AND YOU HAVE A 6500 FOOT SQUARE BUILDING READY TO ROCK 'N ROLL AND PUT CHILDREN IN IT.
>> TO BE CLEAR IT WILL LOOK LIKE A MODULAR BUILDING WITH RAMPS, THE LITTLE AC UNITS, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A REGULAR BUILDING IT WILL BE A MODULAR BUILDING EVEN AT THE END. IT WILL STILL LOOK LIKE A MODULAR BUILDING NOT LIKE THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS IN THE LITTLE
>> SO IT'S MORE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO DO IT FAST.
>> AND IT'S MORE ECONOMICAL TO DO IT THIS WAY AS WELL?
>> THERE WILL BE RAMPS ON EACH SITE, EACH END OF IT.
>> I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE THE LOOK THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING
THE QUESTIONS. >> MORE DISCUSSION?
>> IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A GABLE ROOF OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WITH A COVERING FOR THE ENTRY AND EXIT DOORS? FOR
STUDENTS GOING IN AND OUT? >> YES WE ARE LOOKING AT CANOPIES. AND WILL HAVE CANOPY COVERED WALKWAYS BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND THE NEW
>> THIS, I AM ASSUMING THIS ALL MEETS ALL CITY CODES?
>> WE HAVE DESIGNED GUIDELINES. THIS DOES NOT MEET DESIGN GUIDELINES, NO. BUT THEY ARE GUIDELINES NOT
REGULATIONS. >> DID YOU SAY WE HAVE GUIDELINES AND THIS DON'T MEET THE GUIDELINES?
>> I DON'T SEE THAT THIS MEETS THE GUIDELINES.
>> SO WHY ARE WE BEEN LOOKING AT IT?
>> WE DON'T HAVE REGULATIONS TO ENFORCE THOSE. AT THE MOMENT.
>> GOES BACK TO MY IDEA OF IT LOOKS LIKE A MODULAR HOME NO MATTER HOW WE LOOK AT IT. I WANT TO BE CLEAR IT'S MY PERSONAL VIEW I DON'T LIKE THE LOOK OF IT WITH THE WALK IN
RAMPS. IT'S A PERSONAL . >> THE STATE LEGISLATORS, IN THEIR WISDOM TOOK AWAY HOME RULE AS I BELIEVE THE STATUTE
. FOR MODULAR HOMES? >> FOR MODULAR HOMES. DUPLEX AND RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION YES.
>> DOES THIS FIT INTO INDUSTRIAL DISCUSSION OR DOES THIS FIT INTO? A SEPARATE CATEGORY OF EDUCATION OR?
>> OBVIOUSLY IT WOULD FALL INTO EDUCATIONAL BUT OUR REGULATIONS , GUIDELINES SHOULD I SAY DO NOT SPECIFY DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN NONRESIDENTIAL. SO IT WOULD FALL INTO THE
[00:45:03]
NONRESIDENTIAL CATEGORY. >> ANY MODIFICATION TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN INTENDED TO GO ALONG WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION
PROJECT? >> THERE IS A PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN MATTER OF FACT I WAS GOING TO BRING THAT UP.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER , I KNOW THESE ELEVATIONS , THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS ON THE SCREEN LOOK PRETTY PLAIN. WITH THE LANDSCAPING IT MAY PROVIDE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FOR YOU.
MICROPHONE, THANK YOU. >> IF YOU BRING UP THE LANDSCAPE PLAN YOU MIGHT GET A BETTER VIEW OR IDEA OF WHAT IT
LOOKS LIKE. >> CHAIR, ESSENTIALLY I THINK THE LANDSCAPE PLAN ESSENTIALLY SHOWS TWO TREES AND A
SHRUBBERY OR A HEDGE. >> I'M TRYING TO OPEN THIS THING BUT IT IS ALL GLUED TOGETHER.
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO PAGE 1 OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN? THANK YOU.
AT THE BOTTOM CENTER OF YOUR PAGE. I AM IN A LITTLE BIT OF A QUANDARY. BECAUSE OF THE APPLICATION, BECAUSE OF THE APPLICANT , I WANT TO SEE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL GO TO THE COMMISSION. I AM IN A QUANDARY WHEN I HEAR THAT THE BUILDING DOES NOT MEET OUR GUIDELINES , BUT WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR
APPROVAL. >> WE CANNOT OFFER A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL BASED ON CODE SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY CODE OR AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THE DESIGN TO BE CHANGED.
>> SO IN THE GUIDELINES WE HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE CODES THAT CAN APPLY TO THE GUIDELINES GIVEN ANY TEETH?
>> NOT AT PRESENT. WE ARE WORKING ON STANDARDIZING SOME REGULATIONS THAT WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CODE AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I WAS GOING TO BRING UP LATER. IN THE DIRECTOR REPORT BECAUSE YOU WILL BE SEEING SOME CODE AMENDMENTS COMING IN SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE DESIGN. BUT I SEE WHERE YOUR DISCUSSION IS GOING. IT IS THAT WE ARE IN A LOCATION HERE WHERE WE ARE NOT ESSENTIALLY FACING A STREET FRONTAGE. WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE IT IS A CHURCH CAMPUS AND IT IS TO THE REAR OF THE PRIMARY BUILDINGS AND I THINK THE LANDSCAPING MEETS THE CODE , BUT IT IS MINIMAL. AND THE DESIGN DOES NOT MEET THE GUIDELINES, BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH REGULATION TO RECOMMEND THAT IT IS DENIED BASED ON CITY CODE. THIS IS A STRAIGHT ZONING , SO WE ARE APPLYING THE CODE AS A STRAIGHT ZONING WHICH MEANS THAT WE CANNOT CONDITIONAL ICE OR ANYTHING BECAUSE IT IS STRAIGHT ZONING. SO WHATEVER YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU NOW, WHY WE BROUGHT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE CITY CODE AND THAT IS AS FAR AS STAFF CAN ACTUALLY REGULATE THIS , IF YOU LIKE. THE BIGGEST DISCUSSION POINT FROM THE STAFF POINT OF VIEW FROM TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEES WAS STORM WATER AND ENSURING THAT WE MET CITY STORM WATER AND WE DO NOT CAUSE FLOODING OR UNDUE LOADING TO THE EXISTING SYSTEM WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS OVERSIZED ANYWAY. THE REVISED DRAINAGE DRAWINGS I BELIEVE WILL SHOW CONNECTIONS TO THE EXISTING STORM WATER SYSTEM AS RECOMMENDED BY OUR ENGINEERING SECTION.
[00:50:03]
>> HAS THE APPLICANT BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE ELEMENT OF THE DESIGN THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES? ARE YOU EVEN
PERMITTED TO TELL THEM ? >> IT IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION FOR STAFF BECAUSE YOU KNOW WE GO TO THE PROCESS TRYING TO ENCOURAGE A BETTER DESIGN BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGULATION TO SAY YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING ANY FURTHER IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING. SO IT'S A VERY WEAK POSITION FOR STAFF TO BE IN WITH THE CODE WE HAVE.
>> IN THIS INSTANCE IS THE APPLICANT AWAY?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'RE FULLY AWARE.
>> THEY ARE GETTING THE IDEA WITH THE DISCUSSION HERE NOW.
SO BY THE TIME YOU'RE READY TO GO TO THE COMMISSION YOU WILL HAVE AN IDEA. HYPOTHETICALLY , NOT HYPOTHETICALLY, WE HAVE A SCHOOL ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS FACILITY THAT IS OWNED BY THE COUNTY. I'M ASSUMING BECAUSE THAT IS A COUNTY SCHOOL THE PROPERTY IS ALSO ZONED BY THE COUNTY. ARE ALL SCHOOLS IN THE CITY COUNTY PROPERTY?
>> SCHOOLS, NOT NECESSARILY. THEY ARE OPERATED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHICH CAN A PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OR THE COUNTY.
THE UNDERLYING BASIS OF DESIGN IN SCHOOLS , A LOT OF THAT IS EXEMPT FROM CITY REGULATION ANYWAY SO EVEN IF WE DID HAVE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR SCHOOLS, THEN WE WOULD NOT BE APPLYING.
>> SO THEY BROUGHT IN PORTABLE. MODULAR UNITS FROM TIME TO TIME THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, THE REASON WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE OF THE
ADDRESS AND THE USER. >> CHAIR I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUGGESTION IF I COULD. I THINK I CAN FEEL THE TEMPERATURE OF THE ROOM. THE CONCERNS HERE ARE FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM ADDRESSING THE CURB APPEAL OF THE BUILDING AS WE SEE. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA. I USED TO LIVE IN THE CONDOS JUST TO THE NORTH OF THIS. WHAT I KNOW IS THAT VERY LITTLE OF THIS BUILDING ELEVATION WILL BE VISIBLE FROM 13 STREET DUE TO THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE ON SITE. I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST TO THE APPLICANT THAT YOU LOOK AT YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN AGAIN TO SEE IF THERE IS A WAY IT CAN BE ADJUSTED TO MORE COMPLETELY CONCEAL THE LOOK OF THE BUILDING. WE ALL AGREE THE BUILDING LOOKS LIKE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. AND YOU KNOW WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE OTHER KIND OF GUIDELINES THAT THE CITY MIGHT HAVE, TO ADDRESS THE ARCHITECTURAL LOOK OF THE BUILDING FROM THE OUTSIDE, I THINK TO ALLOW YOU GUYS A PATH FORWARD WITH A VERY ECONOMIC BILL THAT YOU CAN CONSTRUCT QUICKLY WHICH IS A GREAT IDEA FOR YOU, I THINK THAT EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD WOULD BE HAPPIER WITH BEING ABLE TO MAYBE SEE LESS OF THE BUILDING FROM THE STREET, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.
>> WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEE MUCH OF IT FROM THE STREET ANYWAY.
KEVIN, FROM YOUR STANDPOINT , IF WE CREATED A CONDITION HERE THAT WE WANTED TO SEE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE TO CAMOUFLAGE THE BUILDING AND I GUESS PART OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN MY MIND HERE IS AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS GO TO THE COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL BECAUSE I THINK IT IS, THE ACTIVITY THAT THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE USED FOR IS PROPER. AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS . AND IT IS TUCKED AWAY IN THE BACK, BEHIND IT TO THE EAST ARE FIELDS THAT ARE USED FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES. THERE IS A LINE OF TREES AND SUCH THAT CAMOUFLAGE SOME OF THAT. MOST OF IT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STREET. YOU MIGHT BE OF THE SEA SOME OF THIS BUILDING FROM THE NORTH, BUT IT WOULD BE KIND OF SPOTTY. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS GOT A DIRECT VIEW AND SITE LINE, BUT IF WE TRY TO CAMOUFLAGE THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING IS MODULAR
[00:55:03]
CONSTRUCTION WITH ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE, I THINK THE PILL WOULD BE MUCH EASIER TO SWALLOW. IS THAT WHERE YOUWERE HEADED AS WELL? >> SO CHAIR, YET.
>> NOT TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF DOLLARS TO DO THAT.
>> THE PLANNING BOARD COULD MAKE A SUGGESTION OR A , AN ADVISORY NOTE , BUT ULTIMATELY, THE APPLICATION, IF IT MEETS ALL THE CITY CODE AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED . AND I SEE THAT FROM THE AERIAL, IT DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPING AROUND THE BOUNDARY FROM 13 STREET , SPECIFICALLY IN THAT DIRECTION IF THAT LANDSCAPING IS STILL PRESENT AND FROM THE REAR. SO UNTIL WE HAVE REGULATIONS , IT IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION TO ACTUALLY IMPOSE CONDITIONS RELATED TO DESIGN.
I WOULDN'T, YOU CANNOT CALL IT A CONDITION.
>> WE COULD REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT GET TOGETHER IN CONFERENCE TO SEE IF WE CAN'T BEAUTIFY. BEAUTIFY THE APPEARANCE THROUGH LANDSCAPE.
RATHER THAN TO HAVE A BILLBOARD OUT THERE THAT SAYS LOOK AT ME I AM A MODULAR CONSTRUCTED BUILDING AND IF YOU WANT TO PUT ONE IN YOU BETTER HURRY UP BEFORE REGULATIONS GET ANY TEETH. YOU KNOW.
>> EVEN TO SAY THAT IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THIS WOULD BE MAYBE THE MORE APPROPRIATE BUILDING BECAUSE IT IS A LOW-PROFILE BUILDING. IT IS NOT HAVE A LARGE ROOF, IT IS IN THE REAR OF THE SITE SO THERE ARE PROS AND CONS AND I SEE WHERE THE ARGUMENTS ARE COMING FROM.
>> NOW YOU MAY HAVE THOUGHT OR WONDERED WHAT I WAS DOING WHEN I OPENED UP THIS CONVERSATION, BUT THAT'S WHY I OPENED THE CONVERSATION THE WAY I DID. BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO BE TALKED ABOUT A LITTLE BIT. OKAY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS? >> IS THE BUILDING THE SAME COLOR AS THE OTHER BUILDINGS SURROUNDING?
>> YES IT WILL BE. >> OTHER COUNTY SCHOOLS HAVE MODULAR BUILDINGS AND YOU CAN TELL IT IS A MODULAR BUILDING, BUT IT LENDS IN, I DON'T THINK IT IS THAT BIG OF A DEAL. IS NOT AS ATTRACTIVE AS THE REGULAR BUILDING, BUT IT'S THE CLASSROOM, IT IS FUNCTIONAL, IT'S HELPING AID IN THE NEED OF THE CLASSROOM. SO I DON'T LIKE THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, BUT AS FAR AS FUNCTION AND PURPOSE IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE.
>> DO YOU NEED THIS? HERE. >> YOU CAN COME UP, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE. WE ARE ALL BY OURSELVES. I WANT TO HELP IN ANY WAY I CAN. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I THINK WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE GOING AND IF YOU ALL AGREE TO GET TOGETHER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT CAMOUFLAGING SOME OF THIS IN SOME WAY, I THINK MOST EVERYBODY WOULD BE HAPPIER. AND IN THE MEANTIME, IF THERE IS NO FURTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION I WOULD ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY APPROVAL AND
SECOND. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >>
>> JUST WORK WITH THEM A LITTLE BIT. I THINK THAT YOU ARE DOING A GOOD JOB THERE AND KEEP DOING WHAT YOU ARE DOING BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING.
[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]
>> APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU.
[01:00:04]
>> THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS DIRECTOR'S REPORT. KEVIN HAS GOT ABOUT SIX PAGES , SO I WILL LET YOU GO AHEAD AND TAKE
OFF. >> I THINK YOU HEARD MOST OF IT. WE ARE ENCOUNTERING , WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE CITY AS A WHOLE AND IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE CITY WHEREVER WE CAN. IN PARALLEL BEHIND THE SCENES AND COMING UP VERY SOON TO THIS BOARD WILL BE AMENDED LANDSCAPE CODE WHICH WILL INCORPORATE ELEMENTS FOR BUFFERS. WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE MORE OF A VISUAL CODE SO PEOPLE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE ARE TRYING TO GET A BALANCE BETWEEN MAKING THE CITY LOOK BETTER AND THE COST OF DOING SO. THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY. OBVIOUSLY WE DO NOT WANT TO AFFECT DEVELOPMENT OR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CITY TO BE OVER AND ABOVE THE COST OF SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE COULD DO ELSEWHERE AND WOULD CHOOSE A DIFFERENT LOCATION. SO IT IS A BALANCE. WE DO HAVE SOME METHODOLOGY WE ARE INCORPORATING TO LOOK AT A BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPERS BUT A BENEFIT TO THE CITY. SO AN IMPROVED VISUAL WITH IMPROVED FLEXIBILITY IN SOME RESPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO INCORPORATE. THAT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO A SERIES OF ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND I AM SAYING STANDARDS, NOT GUIDELINES, JUST TO CREATE SOME BETTER ARCHITECTURAL FEELING AND DESIGN AGAIN ALLOWING FLEXIBILITY AND TO LOOK AT THE INCORPORATION AND TO ENABLE THE INCORPORATION OF ALTERNATIVE BILLING TYPES , CONSTRUCTION, BUT IN A WAY THAT WE DON'T END UP WITH RECTANGULAR BOXES WITH NO DECORATION OR AESTHETIC VALUE IN THE CITY. AND YOU CAN SEE FROM LOOKING AROUND THE CITY AND DRIVING UP AND DOWN U.S. 1 OR ANY MAJOR THOROUGHFARE OF THE TYPE OF BUILDING WE HAVE HAD TO ALLOW TO BE APPROVED AND IN THE PAST IT HAS BEEN BUILT AND IT DOES NOT LOOK , IT DOES NOT GIVE A FEELING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE CITY TOWARD. TRYING TO GET A BIT OF PRIDE WHEN PEOPLE VISIT THE CITY AND PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE CITY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING FROM OUR DIRECTION AND HOPEFULLY THAT WILL HAVE A KNOCK ON EFFECT FOR RESIDENTS , THAT THEY SEE SOME QUALITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY. SO THOSE ARE THE BIG THINGS WE ARE COMING FORWARD WITH VERY SOON THIS YEAR. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS COMING OUT. I HAVE GOT A WHOLE RAFT OF ORDINANCES THAT ARE SITTING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVE OR LOOK TO CODE VARIATIONS OR WHATEVER.
SO THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS COMING OUT AND I WILL KEEP YOU VERY BUSY THIS YEAR I'M SURE. SO FOR THE MOMENT THAT'S WHAT I
HAVE. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE. OKAY.
YOU AND I CHATTED A LITTLE BIT TODAY BEFORE THE MEETING CONCERNING A PARCEL OR PROPERTY OUT ON THE ISLAND THAT HAS RECENTLY BEEN APPROVED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION. THAT INVOLVED THE JOINING OF TWO LOTS. I THINK I COMMENTED TO YOU IN THAT DISCUSSION THAT , I THINK THROUGH EMAIL , AFTER THE FACT , I THINK IT WAS THROUGH EMAIL, MAYBE A PERSON HERE. BROUGHT UP AN INTERESTING POINT OF VIEW WHERE WE LOST 15 FEET OF SETBACK BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS WHEN THEY BECAME A CONTINUOUS LOT WHICH IN THAT CASE MEANT THAT THE COMMUNITY LOST 15 FEET A POTENTIAL VIEW TO THE BEACH , NUMBER ONE. LOST 15% OF SALT SPRAY
[01:05:01]
COMING IN ON THEIR CARS. I DO WANT TO MAKE TOO LIGHT OF IT BECAUSE IT IS AN INTERESTING POINT OF VIEW. AND I THINK , IT SUPPORTS A CONCERN THAT I DEVELOPED WHILE WE WERE HEARING THAT PROJECT. AND I WANTED THE PROJECT DENIED AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I EVER REALLY CLEARLY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION IN THE WHOLE DISCUSSION OF WHY I WAS VOTING AGAINST IT. BUT THIS IS PART OF WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT. WE ARE GOING TO WIND UP WITH THIS MASSIVE STRUCTURE ON THE BEACH THAT BASED ON ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES OF ORDINANCE AND THE OVERLAY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH AND WHAT COUNTY HAD DONE TO JOIN THE LOTS TOGETHER, EVERYTHING WAS PROPER OR SEEMED TO BE PROPER EXCEPT THE COMMUNITY WAS VERY UNHAPPY ABOUT IT. I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS BOARD HAS HISTORICALLY TRIED TO DO WAS TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR WANTS AND NEEDS, AT THE SAME TIME APPLYING ORDINANCES AND SUCH. THIS ISSUE THAT JUST CAME UP , WHEN YOU SAID WE'VE GOT GUIDELINES WITH NO TEETH AND IN THAT CASE I KIND OF FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY AND IN SOME CASES HAVE NO TEETH. BECAUSE THE COUNTY WAS ABLE TO, I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM ARBITRARILY AND I MIGHT GET SMACKED DOWN FOR THAT BUT ARBITRARILY MADE A DECISION AFFECTING SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY, AFFECTING SOUTH BEACH RESIDENTS, AFFECTING THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BY JOINING TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY TOGETHER AND HAVE A 130 FOOT LONG WALL IS OVER THE BUILDING TURNED OUT TO BE? SOME REASON I HAVE 130 FEET IN MY MIND. A VERY LONG BLANK WALL NOT A BLANK WALL BUT A LONG WALL THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN SEVERAL RESIDENCES IN A SMALL OLD FLORIDA TOWN FIELD COMMUNITY HAD VIEWS TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM BUT EVERYTHING WAS PROPER. AND I THINK SOMETIMES, VERY OFTEN I LOOK AT FEDERAL LAW, I LOOK AT STATE LAW , LOOK AT OUR LAW IN FORT PIERCE AND SOMETIMES I SEE LAWS AND THERE ARE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.EVERYTHING WAS DONE CORRECTLY ON PROPER. THE APPLICANT AND THE ARCHITECTS DID EVERYTHING THEY SHOULD DO, BUT THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WERE NEGATIVE TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. YOU ARE EYEBALLS DEEP LOOKING AT ORDINANCES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. I GUESS SOMETIMES PARTICULARLY IN THE PAST I HAVE NOTICED IN FORT PIERCE I HAVE NOTICED AN AWFUL LOT OF ORDINANCES ON THE BOOKS THAT WERE WRITTEN VERY LIBERALLY. VERY LOOSELY IN TERMS NOT A LOT OF SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE WANT AND HOW WE WANT IT. MAY BE TO NOT RUFFLE FEATHERS I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT COMES BACK AND GET YOU LATER ON. SO AS YOU ARE DOING THAT EXERCISE, AS WE REVIEW THESE ORDINANCES, AS WE REVIEW ORDINANCES WHEN THEY ARE APPLIED TO APPLICATIONS THAT WE GET, READ THOSE ORDINANCES, TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEM AND IF YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT WE THINK NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED, KEVIN JUST LOVES DOING THAT.
>> MADE MY YEAR SO FAR. >> WE HAD A FEW IDEAS OR
[01:10:05]
SUGGESTIONS ON THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROPEL CITY ORDINANCES FORWARD WITH WAYS TO DEAL IN THE FUTURE HAVE YOU MADE PROGRESS WITH THAT?>> I HAVE GATHERED COASTAL COMMUNITIES ORDINANCES AND LOOKING AT HOW THEY DO IT. NOW THERE IS A ADDED CONVOCATION WITH STATE STATUTE LOOKING AT HOW WE REGULATE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE HAVE GOT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT IS VERY CAREFUL. I THINK THE PAST HISTORY OF FORT PIERCE HAS BEEN ONE OF WE HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO GET DEVELOPMENT AND ACTIVITY AND INVESTMENT IN OUR TOWN. NOT TO SAY THAT WE AREN'T NOW, BUT IT WAS A LOWER EXPECTATION LOOKING AT THE CODE THAT THE CITY HAD SET. UNFORTUNATELY WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND DO SOMETHING THEY LOOK AT THE CODE AND BUILD TO THE CODE SO IF THE CODE SAYS THERE IS NO RESTRICTION , THEY BUILD WITH NO RESTRICTION. OR COMBINING A LARGE LOT. I HAVE SEEN CODE THAT ENGAGE WITH VIEW CORRIDORS SPECIFICALLY WITH PROPERTY DEVELOPED ON THE WATERFRONT. AGAIN IT IS A DELICATE SITUATION BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY, YOU ARE TAKING AWAY SOME VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ENTITLEMENT OF THE PROPERTY. SO THERE IS THAT. THERE IS PUTTING SOME CODE IN PLACE THAT RETROACTIVELY REDUCES THE ENTIRE COMMENT ON A PROPERTY. IT IS A DELICATE POSITION TO BE IN. AND WE DO NOT WANT TO TAKE VALUE AWAY FROM PROPERTY, WE WANT TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AND ALL PROPERTY IN THE CITY. SO THAT THE CITIZENS CAN BENEFIT FROM THAT. SO YOU KNOW I DID HEAR THE SUGGESTIONS WE WENT THROUGH IN THE CONVOCATION TO HAVE BEEN FACING. NOT ONLY THROUGH THAT APPLICATION, BUT THROUGH THE ONE PREVIOUSLY NOW IN TERMS OF DESIGN. IF YOU RECALL THE DISCUSSION WE HAD ON THE NAPA PROPOSAL THAT WAS COMING IN. WE DO SIT DOWN WITH APPLICANTS AND TRY TO ENGAGE IN TERMS OF DESIGN BUT THEY GO TO THE CODE AND SAY THESE ARE GUIDELINES. WE HAVE A STANDARD AND WE HAVE A PROTOTYPE WE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD IN THE CITY AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET. WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT AND WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE A BIT OF DESIGN IN THE CITY.
WITHOUT DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY. >> IT IS A CHECK AND BALANCE
[9. BOARD COMMENTS]
AND BALANCING ACT. OKAY ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONSFROM THE BOARD? >> YES TAKE A MINUTE. FROM THIS THAT HAPPENED TODAY WHICH I DON'T LIKE A TEMPER A BUILDING USED AS A PERMANENT ARE WE GOING TO TAKE SOMETHING AWAY FROM THIS SO IT DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN?
>> I WILL GUARANTEE THAT IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. THERE WILL BE DEVELOPMENTS COME FORWARD , RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL , INDUSTRIAL THAT WILL ENGAGE WITH MANUFACTURED MODULAR BUILDINGS BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE INDUSTRY IS GOING IN TERMS OF CONSTRUCTION AND METHODOLOGY AND MATERIALS AND COST AND THE FEASIBILITY SOMETIMES BASED ON COST ESSENTIALLY. AND THE AVAILABILITY IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN TO GET THINGS DONE IN A APPROPRIATE SPEED.
>> GOING BACK TO THE NAPA BUILDING WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT NAPA AUTO PARTS, WE DID NOT LIKE THE BLUE SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH ONE STRIPE SO WE WERE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING TO MAKE SOMETHING MORE PRESENTABLE. WHEN I FIRST MET YOU AND WE HAD OUR SIT DOWN WE WANT TO MAKE FORT PIERCE LOOK GREAT AND THEN WE APPROVE A MODULAR BUILDING THAT THEY SAY IS GOING TO BE PERMANENT. IN AN AREA THAT DOES NOT MATCH THE REST OF THE BUILDINGS. I THINK YOU CHANGED THE ANSWER WHEN YOU ASK WILL IT BE THE SAME COLOR , MAYBE THEY CAN PAINT IT TO BE THE SAME COLOR. IT IS STILL A MODULAR BUILDING AND MOST MODULAR BUILDINGS ESPECIALLY UP TO THE DOORS, LIKE THE SCHOOLS WERE DOING, IT IS MORE FOR TEMPORARY VIEW, EVEN
[01:15:05]
SCHOOLS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE TEMPORARY EVEN THOUGH WE WENT 20 YEARS WITH THEM. THE PLAN WAS TO BE TEMPORARY. THESE GUYS ARE GOING INTO IT AS A PERMANENT BUILDING AND IT IS A MODULAR BUILDING. IT LOOKS MODULAR AND IT DOES NOT MATCH THE REST ON THE PROPERTY AND IT KIND OF BOTHERS ME WE HAVE NO TEETH LIKE YOU SAID. SO THAT IS SOMETHING MAYBE WE CAN LOOK INTO. SOMETHING WE COULD USE TO SAY YOU NEED TO DO THIS THIS AND THIS AND NOT JUST ASK THEM TO BE PRETTY ABOUT IT. IT ISSTILL . >> IT IS FRUSTRATING FOR STAFF WHEN WE GET THINGS IN FRONT OF US AND IS FRUSTRATING FOR THE BOARD WHEN OBVIOUSLY WE TRY TO IMPROVE THE STANDARDS.
>> THAT BUILDING IS NOT HELPING FORT PIERCE AT ALL FOR WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. I'M GLAD WHERE IT IS WE WILL NOT SEE IT BUT WE APPROVE THE HOW TO SAY NO TO SOMEBODY ON U.S. ONE DOING IT BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE WHERE IT'S AT?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING. I WILL BE BRINGING BACK ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND I SPOKE TO OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER WHO I ASK TO WORK ON STANDARDS, LOOK AT THE GUIDELINES AND CONVERT THEM TO STANDARDS AND I SPOKE WITH HER BETWEEN MEETINGS AND SHE HAD PREPARED SOME CODE WHICH I HAVE GOT EMAILED TO ME NOW SO I WILL LOOK AT THAT. I AM OPEN TO MOVE THAT ON FAIRLY QUICKLY. BECAUSE WE ARE IN A PLACE IN THE CITY WHERE WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF HIGH PROFILE PROPERTIES AND SITES UNDER THE MICROSCOPE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY AND WHEN THEY COME FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO EXPRESS IN TERMS OF REGULATIONS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AND I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU THAT AMMUNITION TO DO THAT. AND HOW FAR YOU WANT TO TAKE IT IS UP TO THE PLANNING BOARD. IT JUST GIVES YOU THAT STRENGTH TO DO THAT.
>> GREAT. >> KEEP IN MIND ALL THE WORK KEVIN CAN DO ON ORDINANCE VERBIAGE AND WORKING TO THE SYSTEM AND GETTING APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, IF WE DON'T READ AND UNDERSTAND THE ORDINANCES IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO APPLY THAT MATERIAL . I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT THIS BOARD IN PARTICULAR BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF WHAT WE WORK WITH, WE ARE NOT FORT PIERCE UNIFICATION PLAN SOME PRETTY FLOWERS BOARD . IS A GROUP WE NEED TO WORK ON READING THAT MORNING ORDINANCE.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE IT MORE EXCITING, YOU WILL SEE.
>>
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.