Mar 11, 2024 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

MARCH 11, 2024 PLANNING BOARD MEETING , CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> ÊI 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.Î MOST ALL OF US HAVE ONE OF THESE LITTLE DEVICES IN OUR POCKET. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN IT OFF SO THE RING TONE DOES NOT SOUND OFF. THE BOARD AS WELL. HELLO . HOW ARE YOU,

MS. CARTER. >> WONDERFUL. WE HAVE A QUORUM. CALL THE ROLE-PLAYS .

>> MS. CARTER . >> PRESENT .

>> MR. EDWARDS . >> PRESENT. SUSPECT MR. CARTER

. >> PRESENT.

>> MS. CLEMENTS. >> PRESENT.

>> CHAIRMAN CRAFT. >> PRESENT.

>> DID -- CALL IN? >> SHE DID. WITH A REASONABLE

EXCUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING. >> THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES BUT BEFORE I ASK FOR THAT, ALICIA, YOU DID AN OUTSTANDING JOB ON THESE MINUTES. THE PAST MONTH OUR HANDS WERE KIND OF TIED AND WE WERE DOWN AT THE RIVER WALL CENTER. AND, ALICIA HAD TO TAKE ALL OF THE MINUTES BY HAND AND SHE HAD NO, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, VIDEO OR AUDIO TO FALL

BACK ON. >> WE DID HAVE SOME AUDIO. MR. FREEMAN RECORDED IT ON HIS CELL PHONE.

>> HE DID, DID HE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL

[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

YOU. >> REGARDLESS, EXCELLENT JOB AND I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF MINUTES.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL . >> SECOND.

>> CALL THE ROLE-PLAYS. >> MR. CRY SOUL. THE NEXT

[a. Future Land Use Map Amendment - Florida Barn - 3720 Okeechobee Road]

AT 3720 OKEECHOBEE ROAD. >> PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN IT IT BEFORE YOU IS AN APPLICATION FOR A MAP AMENDMENT AT 3720 OKEECHOBEE ROAD. THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE DANIEL AND JANET -- AND THE PARCEL ID IS 24-17, 0002 , 0007. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND TO CHANGE IT FROM BOUNDARY COMMERCIAL TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION WITH A SITE AREA OF 1.06 ACRES. CURRENTLY, IT HAS FUTURE LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL AND IT IS PROPOSED TO CHANGE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO FIT THE SURROUNDING AREA. ZONING, THERE IS REZONING WITH THIS APPLICATION AS WELL THE ZONING AS OF RIGHT NOW IS A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND IT IS BEING PROPOSED TO REZONE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. AS YOU CAN SEE WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE WITH THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO FOR FLORIDA USES. AT THE CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR 15 UNITS PER ACRE BUT I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT LOOKING TO -- WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ON WITH DISPERSAL WHEN IT IS

[00:05:02]

WHEN THEY DO GET THIS CHANGE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AS IS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, OR GENERAL WILL WELFARE OF FORT PIERCE. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL TO CITY COMMISSION. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS OR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL

OR DISAPPROVAL. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WE COULD GO BACK TO PAGE 3. THE COLOR-CODED MAP. OR THE NEXT

COLOR-CODED MAP. >> THIS ONE?

>> YES. THIS IS JUST A REQUEST FOR ME. THESE PRESENTATIONS IN A THE FUTURE, I LIKE THE COLOR-CODED MAPS THAT USUALLY WHEN YOU PROVIDE THESE FOR US WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COLORS

MEAN. >> I USUALLY DO PUT ON BUT I

DID NOT WITH THIS ONE. >> JUST AS WE COMPARE, MY UNDERSTANDING IN LOOKING AT THIS WOULD BE THAT ALL OF THE DARKER RED PARCELS ARE ALREADY C 3 AND THE ONE IN QUESTION WITH THAT JUST HAVE THE MAP AMENDMENT CHANGE TO MATCH THE

SURROUNDING PARCELS? >> EXACTLY.

>> MY OTHER QUESTION IS, I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT IS NOT LOOKING TO DEVELOP ANY RESIDENCES. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL USE CATEGORIES THAT , WOULD IT BE APPLICABLE IN THIS AREA THAT DON'T ALLOW ANY RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCES AT

ALL? >> YES. C-1 AND C-2 DO NOT ALLOW BUT ALL OF THE OTHERS DO ALLOW FOR SOME SORT OF

COMMERCIAL. >> OKAY.

>> SO, THERE ARE NOT ANY BOUNDARY COMMERCIAL PARCELS IN

THAT AREA? >> NO. THIS IS THE ONLY ONE.

AND THE BOUNDARY COMMERCIAL IS NOT FUTURE LAND USE THAT WE SEE OFTEN. SO, IT WAS KIND OF SURPRISING TO ME TO SEE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? THERE ARE OTHER PARCELS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THE PARCEL IN QUESTION?

>> YES. >> AND THE HAVARTI BEEN

CHANGED? >> THEY WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE ZONING TO ALLOW THEM TO BE ABLE TO UNITE ALL OF THOSE PARCELS TOGETHER. THEY WOULD NEED TO CHANGE TO THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL BUT FOR FUTURE LAND USE AND THE ZONING, FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE C-2 DISTRICT, WHICH YOU WOULD SEE WITH THE REZONING SO JUST TO ENSURE THEY ARE ABLE TO COME IN FOR CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH YOU WILL SEE, WHEN THEY DO HAVE THAT

FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? WE ARE PREPARED TO OPEN

UP THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS. >> I'M CURIOUS ABOUT

INAUDIBLE ]. >> I HAVE SEEN SOME ROUGH IDEAS OF WHAT THEY WANT THE AREA TO LOOK LIKE. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE AESTHETIC OF WHAT WOULD BE PROPOSED BY LET THE APPLICANT

HANDLE THAT. >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD? NOT HEARING ANY EYE OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK TO THIS ITEM, PLEASE DO SO. NOT SEEING ANYONE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE BOARD? NOT HEARING ANYTHING I

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

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY CLEMENTS AND A SECOND BY THE -- FOR LAND-USE AMENDMENT.

[a. Rezoning - Florida Barn - 3720 Okeechobee Road]

[00:10:08]

>> BEFORE YOU TODAY IS A REQUEST OF ZONING. THE APPLICANT IS -- AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE DANIEL AND -- IN THE PARCEL ID IS 331, 0002 -0007. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF A PARCEL OF LAND TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL , C-3.

>> THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION WITH THE SITE AREA OF 1.06 ACRES. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS BOUNDARY COMMERCIAL AND THEY ARE PROPOSING A FUTURE LAND USE GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE CURRENT ZONING IS C-2 AND THE CHANGE WOULD BE C-3. IT FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-3 THE DISTRICT WILL PROVIDE FOR A BROAD VARIETY OF ACTIVITIES INCLUDING CONVENIENCE GOODS, SHOPS, STORES, OFFICES, AND TOURIST FACILITIES. MANY PUBLIC USES ARE APPROPRIATE IN THIS DISTRICT IS MORE SUITABLE FOR USES WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF ACCESSIBILITY FOR TRAFFIC.

REPAIR SERVICES AND WAREHOUSING AND OTHER OPERATIONS. IT SHOULD PROMOTE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. FOR THE ZONING THEY ARE LOOKING TO DO AN OUT DOOR ENTERTAINMENT USE AS WELL AS INDOOR ENTERTAINMENT AND IN ITS CURRENT ZONING THAT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE BUT IN THE C-3 IT WOULD BECOME A CONDITIONAL USE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 125 OF THE CITY CODE AND THIS IS NOT DOES NOT ADVERSELY -- ADVERSELY IMPACT . STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE APPROVE THE PROPOSED REZONING WITH ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS BEING FOR APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.

>> I THINK WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THE C-3 ZONING WOULD BE DASHWOOD CONFORM WITH THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING.

>> YES. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

>> WHAT ARE WE AGREEING TO WITH THE THIS PROPERTY?

>> THE APPLICANT IS JUST GOING TO REZONE IT.

>> WE KNOW WHAT IT IS BUT WE DON'T WANT TO SAY YET?

>> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS GOING TO BE. THIS IS FOR A REZONING ONLY. CONSIDERING ISN'T APPROPRIATE TO MOVE THIS TO A ZONE THAT IS COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH

THE SURROUNDING AREAS. >> AND THE COLOR RED IS C-3

ALREADY? >> YES.

>> AND WHATEVER THE APPLICANT DECIDES TO DO WILL HAVE TO DO WITH THOSE REUSES. RYAN HAS INDICATED THAT -- BUT THAT IS SUBJECT TO A DIFFERENT SET OF REVIEW. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT ANY SITE PLAN OR ANYTHING HAS BEEN APPROVED AT THIS POINT

IN TIME. >> THANK YOU. SO IT IS STILL

A SECRET? >> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE

FUTURE IS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOBODY IS TRYING TO SLIDE ANYTHING IN.

>> IT WAS JUST CURIOSITY. >> SOMETIMES WHEN PRESENTATIONS ARE MADE LIVE YOU CAN'T GO BACK AND AUDIT IT AND SOMETIMES WE SAY THINGS AND -- THINGS THAT WE THINK WE KNOW WILL WOULD BE BEST SERVED BY -- BUT I DON'T THINK

[00:15:03]

>> YES. >> PLEASE COME UP TO THE

PODIUM AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF. >> ENEMAS JAZZ JEWELS.

>> I THINK YOU HAVE BEEN BEFORE US.

>> I HAVE. >> SEE, I RECOGNIZE YOU. SO, MY NAME IS JAZZ JEWELS AND I AM HERE FOR 3720 OKEECHOBEE ROAD.

WE ARE LOOKING AT BUILDING AN EVENT CENTER TO HOLD WEDDINGS, FUNCTIONS. IT WOULD BE MULTI CITED AND WE ARE DOING ONE BUILDING THAT IS ABOUT 10,000 OR 12,000 SQUARE FOOT THAT WOULD HAVE TWO ROOMS AND WOULD SEE ABOUT 400 PEOPLE IN THE LOBBY WOULD CEDE ABOUT 200 PEOPLE. A SITE PLAN IS BEING DONE WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND THE CIVIL ENGINEERS ARE WORKING ON IT. WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE COUNTY LAST WEEK ABOUT THE ROADWAY TELLING US WE WOULD HAVE TO DASHED BECAUSE THAT WAS A PREREQUISITE FOR ANYTHING MOVING FORWARD IF THEY WOULD AGREE TO REZONING SO WE MET WITH THEM AND CIVIL ENGINEERS AND WE CAME UP WITH A PLAN. WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. NO BIG SECRET. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING SO WE ARE PRETTY EXCITED TO BRING THIS TO FORT PIERCE AND WE HOPE YOU ARE EXCITED TOO. WE LOOK TO DO WEDDINGS, CORPORATE CONFERENCES. OTHER EVENTS SO, IT IS NOT A HOTEL. IT IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT. SO THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE BRINGING THEIR OWN VENDORS IN SO THEY ARE NOT TIED TO OUR FOOD AND BEVERAGE.

YOU CAN BRING IN YOUR OWN STAFF SO WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE IT MULTIPURPOSE FOR TO BE ABLE TO COME IN. WHETHER IT IS A SCHOOL BIRTHDAY PARTY OR A 400 PERSON CONFERENCE WHERE THEY WANT A FORMAL DINNER. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE BUILDING AND IS NO LONGER THE FLORIDA BOND. WE HAVE NAMED IT THE HIDDEN OASIS BECAUSE WE PLAN TO LOOK VERY MUCH LIKE PGA NATIONAL BUT NOT A HOTEL AND NO SWIMMING POOL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. A MANICURED BEAUTIFUL LAND AREA WITH OUTDOOR AND INDOOR SPACING THAT LOOKS NICE., A LOT OF METAL, GLASS, CONCRETE AND WE WILL AT SOME WARM TONES TO IT.

WE ARE PRETTY EXCITED AND WE HAVE ARCHITECTS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS WORKING TO GET PLANS DONE SO WE CAN SUBMIT PLANS TO

YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. >> IT SOUNDS GREAT.

>> I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO YOU COMING UP TO THE MIC. IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU ARE WELL VERSED IN THIS PROJECT AND

DEEPLY INVOLVED. >> I HAVE DONE EVERYTHING

MYSELF PERSONALLY. >> I WAS NOT SURPRISED TO READ IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT THAT THERE ARE CONSIDERABLE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CONDITION OF SOIL AND SUCH ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE AND I GUESS IT IS A FUEL DELIVERY COMPANY FOR THE MOST PART. HAS ALL OF THAT BEEN RESOLVED?

>> WE DID A PHASE 1 AND A PHASE 2 BEFORE WE EVEN CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY. THE ENVIRONMENTAL GUY THAT DID ALL OF THE TESTING, HE TESTED EVERYTHING AND HE SAID THE WATER THAT RUNS ON OUR PROPERTY RUNS TOWARDS WHERE THE SPILL HAPPENED AND HE TESTED IT AND WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THAT OUR AREA WAS VERY CLEAN. BECAUSE THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE TO CLEAN UP THAT LOT. HE WAS VERY SURPRISED THAT IT WAS CLEAN AND HE DID NOT EXPECT THAT. SO THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE PROCEEDED WITH THE SALE. HE DID SAY THAT THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR CAN BE

[00:20:04]

AREA. >> THAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD.

>> YES. >> I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS SITE. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS IN ONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS, CONCERNING THE QUESTION OF

WETLAND. >> YES. THE ENVIRONMENTAL GUY CAME IN . THERE WAS ONE WHO DID PHASE 1 AND ONE WHO DID PHASE TWO. HE LOOKED FOR TORTOISES AND TO LOOK AT ALL OF THE TREES AND HE SAID THERE WERE NO WETLANDS IN ANY OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WILL DO THIS. HE SAID THE PREDOMINANT TREES WERE JUNK TREES THAT WERE INVASIVE SO HE SAID WE WOULD BE CLEANING UP THE AREA. WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP ALL OF THE OAK TREES THERE WITHOUT HAVING TO MOVE THEM SO WE ARE TRYING TO MANEUVER AROUND THOSE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO -- AND WE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY MOVE TREES AND PUT THEM AROUND THE VICINITY OF THE PROPERTY SO WE ARE NOT EATING READ OF TREES

DASHWOOD OF TREES. >> SO YOU WERE GOING TO KEEP

THE WOODLAND ACRES? >> I AM LEAVING THE MAIN DETAILS TO THE ARCHITECTS. I JUST KNOW THAT THERE ARE TREES ON THERE THAT WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TECHNICALLY TO GET RID OF SO WE ARE GOING TO REPOSITION THEM IF THEY ARE IN THE WAY. OTHERWISE IF WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED WORKS, WE WILL KEEP THEM WHERE THEY ARE AT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I WAS A BIT SURPRISED TO SEE ANY KIND OF CONVERSATION ABOUT WETLAND. I THINK PROBABLY THE ONLY REASON THERE WAS POOLING THERE IS BECAUSE IT DID NOT DRAIN WELL AND I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SANDY CONDITIONS.

>> WE ARE AWARE THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE SPACE FOR DRAINAGE SO WE ARE WELL AWARE OF THAT AND WE UNDERSTAND AND WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS WHETHER IT IS A WET POND OR A DRY POND BUT ONE OF THE LOTS, WE ARE NOT EVEN PLANNING TO BUILD ON THAT AT ALL. IT WILL JUST REMAIN OPEN SO WHEN THEY CHECKED IT THEY SAID THEY DID NOT SEE ANY WETLANDS ON THE MAJORITY OF THAT LAND BUT WE ARE STILL HOPING TO KEEP THE LOT CLEARED.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD? NOT HEARING ANY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? NOT HEARING AND ANY I

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

>> SECOND. >> FURTHER CONDITIONS?

>> JUST A STRAIGHT REZONING.

>> RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONS. AND THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS CLEMENTS AND A SECOND BY MR. HERRING.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> CLEMENTS .

>> YES . >> CARTER.

>> YES . >> EDWARDS .

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUF MILLER.

>> YES . >> HOW LONG DID IT TAKE FOR ME

WITH YOU? >> YOU STILL HAVEN'T BUT I

THINK YOU ARE AROUND 50%. >> THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. YOU

HAVE BEEN HERE A WHILE . >> YES.

[00:25:02]

>> OKAY. A YEAR AND A HALF.

>> I TELL YOU, THIS IS A TOUGH CROWD. IT'S NOT EVEN THE

AUDIENCE. >> YOU HAVE HIGH STANDARDS.

>> YOU DO , I GUESS. WHAT DID I DO WITH MY --. WHAT NUMBER

[b. Annexation - 2507 Rolyat Street]

ARE WE ON? >> 7-B . I AM ON 7-B .

RIGHT? >> YES.

>> I LOST MY WHOLE AGENDA. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WENT.

>> CHECK HIS POCKETS. >> I'M ALL WORKED UP HERE AND I AM LOST. ALL RIGHT. IT 7-B, ANNEXATION ON -- STREET.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. BEFORE YOU WE HAVE THE GARCIA ANNEXATION NOTED THAT 2507 ROLYAT STREET . THE PARCEL ID IS 241960100498000 TWO. IN SUMMARY EVERY QUEST FOR REVIEW FOR APPLICATION OF ANNEXATION OF ONE PARCEL OR LAND NEAR 2507 ROLYAT STEET. IT THEY ARE REQUESTING A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF ONE PARCEL . THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A ST.

LUCIE COUNTY -- AND THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL OFFICE, CO. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING GENERAL COMMERCIAL. WITH THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF OFFICE COMMERCIAL OR C-1. HERE IS THE AREA OF VIEW OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS MORE OR LESS .24 ACRES. THERE IS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY. THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS $150,700. SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE ANNEXED IT WILL NOT CREATE ANY ENCLAVE INTO THE CITY. HERE IS A COMPARISON TABLE FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE. THE EXISTING IS COMMERCIAL ON THE PROPOSED IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY WILL INCREASE BY THREE UNITS PER ACRE.

AGAIN, THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND-USE IS COMMERCIAL, HIGHLIGHTED IN RED WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE EXISTING ZONING IN THE COUNTY IS COMMERCIAL, CO AND THE PROPOSED IS OFFICE COMMERCIAL, C-1. RECOMMENDATION, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE THIS FOR APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION IS RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR TWO, DISAPPROVE .

>> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR THE BOARD? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. NOT SEEING ANYONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. THIS IS A

VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION ? >> YES, IT IS.

>> AND OUR ZONING IS TO BE APPLIED?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ANYTHING FURTHER? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> WE HOPE WILL MOVE FOR APPROVAL BY MISS CLEMENTS.

AND THE SECOND BY MR. EDWARDS.

>>

[c. Site Plan - Youth and Family Health Center- 1211 and 1213 S. 25th Street]

>> NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS SITE PLAN FOR THE FAMILY

[00:30:10]

YOUTH AND HEALTH CENTER. >> PLANNING BOARD AND CHAIR IS AN APPLICATION FOR YOUTH AND FAMILY HEALTH CENTER AT 1211 AND 1213 SOUTH 25TH STREET. THE APPLICANT IS JERRY COMPTON AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE JOHN MARIE MONTVILLE AND THE PARCEL IDS ARE 2417 507-0005 0007 . THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW FOR A SITE PLAN OF A 4300 SQUARE FEET BUILDING TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR AGES THREE AND UP. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES A RING GUARDED AND USES DRAINAGE . THE PROPOSED ELEMENT IS LOCATED ON A PARCEL OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THIS IS THE SITE LOCATION WITH THE SITE AREA OF 0.52 ACRES. THE CURRENT FUTURE USE IS COMMERCIAL AND THE ZONING IS C-3, AND RULE COMMERCIAL. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING. THE RETENTION ONE AND TWO AREAS ARE WHERE THE RAIN GARDENS WOULD BE LOCATED.

THIS IS THE SITE INFORMATION FOR THE SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. ALONG WITH THE PLANT LIST AND DETAILS OF THE SPECIES. AND THIS IS THE ELEVATION FOR THE BUILDING AND THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION. THIS WOULD BE FACING 25TH STREET. THESE ARE THE NORTH ELEVATIONS. THESE ARE THE WEST ELEVATIONS. AND THE SOUTH. STAFF RECOMMENDS CONDITIONS FOR THIS PROJECT. SECOND A TORTOISE -- WILL BE PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE , THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A TREE MITIGATION SURVEY -- PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY I'M PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT A UNITY OF TITLE WITH THE ST. LUCIE CLERK OF COURTS AND WITH THE -- SHALL BE PROVIDED. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEWS WITH THE FOUR CONDITIONS. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS COULD INCLUDE ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS OR SITE

DISAPPROVAL. >> THIS IS ON WHAT I TEND TO

CALL MEDICAL ROAD ? >> YES. VERY MUCH SO. THE HOSPITAL IS RIGHT HERE IN THIS IS 25TH STREET AND THE MAJORITY OF THE BUSINESSES ALONG THIS AREA ARE MEDICAL RELATED.

>> THIS BOARD WOULD NOT EVEN SEE THIS PROJECT TODAY IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR 306 SQUARE FEET. OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE FIT INTO THE 4000 CAP AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE HAD FULL AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AND IT WOULD NOT HAVE EVEN BEEN SEEN BY THE COMMISSION SO, BECAUSE OF THAT 306 SQUARE FEET IT COMES HERE AND IN THE NEXT 30 DAYS IT SHOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION. IT WILL HAVE TO BE HEARD BY TWO MEETINGS. IT IS A BIT OF A DRAWN OUT PROCESS FOR 306 SQUARE FEET. I APOLOGIZE TO THE APPLICANT. IS THERE

ANY QUESTIONS? >> IT IS FACING EAST, RIGHT ?

>> YES. IT IS FACING TOWARDS 25TH STREET.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. IF THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE WOULD LIKE TO STEP FORWARD WE APPRECIATE HEARING WHATEVER YOU MIGHT CHOOSE TO ADD.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BUT WE ARE HERE FOR ANSWERS

[00:35:03]

ARCHITECT. >> YOUR NAME?

>> COMPTON, CREECH ENGINEERS.

>> NO QUESTIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST COMMENT THAT I LIKE WHAT YOU DID WITH THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, ESPECIALLY RECESSING THE ENTRY DOORS. AT SEVERAL FACILITIES ON THAT STRETCH, YOU HAVE THE LOBBY RIGHT INSIDE THE FRONT DOOR AND THAT FIRST HOUR YOU CANNOT EVEN SEE WHAT YOU ARE DOING SO I'M VERY GLAD YOU THOUGHT OF THAT. IT IS A GREAT FEATURE.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. NOT HEARING ANY, THANK YOU. THIS SERVICE THAT WILL BE MOVING INTO THIS FACILITY IS NEEDED IN FORT PIERCE. IT HAS BEEN FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND I AM HAPPY TO SEE SOME ACTIVITY IN THIS DIRECTION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOT HEARING ANY I ENTERTAIN A MOTION? MOTION APPROVED.

>> WITH CONDITIONS? >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM A MR. HEANING. SHE IS HOLDING UP AN LETTER AND FOR ME. AND A SECOND BY MS.

CLEMONS. >>

>> DO G HERE ON THE END? ALICIA TRIES. SHE TRIES VERY HARD. THIS DENSE OLD MAN TAKES A WHILE. I MEAN, IT TOOK

ME A YEAR WITH MR. BAKER. >> SO , WHAT DO WE HAVE NEXT?

[d. Zoning Text Amendment - Sec. 125-3 - General Definitions Providing Consistency with the State Statute and the City's Comprehensive Plan]

>> YES. >> AND ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO BEAT -- UP ON THESE, HAVE AT IT.

>> I DO APPRECIATE THAT. >> THANK YOU. SO, MR. CHAIR AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, WE DO HAVE A SET OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS COMING FORWARD. DAY'S ARE A WHOLE RAFT OF TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD IN THE NEXT TWO OR THREE MONTHS AND THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT. WE HAVE HAD STAFF COMMENT ABOUT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO WORK ON. THESE ARE COMING THROUGH NOW WITH INTERIOR REVIEW SYSTEMS OF THE CITY AND THE BUREAUCRACY BEHIND THE SCENES. NOW THESE WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU AND YOU MAY HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WILL SEE TODAY BECAUSE YOU MAY HAVE SEEN, ALL OF THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT TO YOU IN THE PAST.

HAVING THE NUMBER OF TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE PROCESSING, WE FOUND THAT IT IS PROBABLY BETTER TO SEPARATE THESE ALL OUT BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY SUBSTANTIAL PARTS OF THE CODE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS AND VERY IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS COMING UP WITH HOUSING , LOT SIZES, AND ALL OF THAT . THIS IS THE FIRST PART OF THAT. WE WILL SEE THEM COMING ALONG IN A CERTAIN ORDER AND THAT IS REALLY DESIGNED TO PUT IN PLACE VARIOUS PIECES BEFORE WE GET TO THE MORE SERIOUS DISCUSSIONS AND SO, THE AMENDMENT I WILL PRESENT THE GENERAL DEFINITIONS , THEY LINKED TO OTHER CODE AMENDMENTS COMING OUT IN THE FUTURE. WHAT WE HAVE HERE DOES NOT REALLY AFFECT ANYTHING IN CODE THAT WE HAVE AT THE MOMENT. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE GENERAL DEFINITIONS SO, WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THOSE. SO, THE FIRST ONE I WILL BE DOING IS A -- AT SECTION 125-3.

[00:40:10]

WE ARE CONSTANTLY BRINGING IN BILLS WHICH WOULD AFFECT SIGNIFICANT PARTS OF OUR DEALINGS, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SO, WE ARE BRINGING THOSE THINGS FORWARD AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THOSE AND EXAMINING THEM AND LOOKING AT STATE STATUTE. GOING THROUGHOUT DEFINITIONS AND LOOKING AT INCONSISTENCIES OF WHAT THE STATE VIEWS OF CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND ALSO, WE THINK SOMETHING SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA THEN IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT WE WILL MOVE FORWARD AND WE SHOULD BE PREPARED IN A WAY THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THE EXISTING CODE BUT ALSO ADDRESSES , PREEMPTIVELY, WHAT THE STATE MIGHT BE WANTING TO DO SO WE TRIED TO COMBINE THOSE THINGS AND WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE INTERNAL CONFLICTS AND WILL WE ARE REVIEWING PLANS AND APPLICATIONS WE FIND WITHIN OUR CODE MANY INTERNAL CONFLICTS WITH THE CODE THAT PREVENT THE SORT OF THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DO . WE ARE SEEING CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPRESSIVE PLAN AND THE WAY THAT THINGS ARE DEFINED AND THEY ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING. AGAIN, APPLICANTS THAT ARE PREPARING APPLICATIONS SOMETIMES STRUGGLED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO GO WITH THESE THINGS AND THEN WE ARE UNABLE TO GET A REMEDY BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF REGULATIONS, IF YOU LIKE. SO THAT IS THE BACKGROUND TO SOME OF THESE CHANGES. MOST OF THE GENERAL DEFINITION CHANGES ARE TO DO WITH THINGS THAT WE HAVE COMING UP BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE TO DO WITH STATE STATUTE AND INTERNAL CONFLICT THAT WE FIND SO I WILL JUST GO THROUGH THESE VERY QUICKLY. IN THE CODE THERE IS A DEFINITION FOR ACCESSORY USE AND STRUCTURES. WITHIN THAT DEFINITION THERE IS A LARGE SECTION THAT REGULATES THE SIZE, THE LOCATION, THE PERCENTAGE. REALLY, FOR A DEFINITION THAT IS REALLY NOT THE PLACE TO REGULATE THOSE THINGS. THE PLACE TO REGULATE THOSE THINGS IS THE ZONING CODE IN THE ZONING CODE ALREADY REGULATES THAT HEIGHT, DENSITY, AND ETC. SO WE HAVE, IN A WAY, THEY ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE . WE ARE SAYING WE ARE NOT JUST DESCRIBING ACCESSORY USE HER WHAT A STRUCTURE IS. IN THE CODE. WE ARE SAYING WHAT PARAMETERS HAVE TO BE MET . THAT IN OF ITSELF HAS HINDERED SUBSTANTIALLY, ANY ATTEMPT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE TWO ENGAGE WITH THE PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION TO STAFF AND THE CITY COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF TO ALLOW OR FIGURE OUT WAYS OF ALLOWING MORE USE OF PROPERTY FOR ACCESSORY USES , ACCESSORY DWELLINGS TO TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF SMALL LOTS AND WE ARE NOT PROPOSING INCREASING DENSITY BUT WE ARE JUST WANTING A MECHANISM WHICH REMOVES THE ENCUMBRANCES THAT WE FIND TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD. I THINK AT THE LAST PLANNING BOARD MEETING WE DID HAVE A COMMENT FROM MEMBER -- MR. HEANING -- MR. KREISEL RATHER THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WAYS TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO MAKE BETTER USE OF THE PROPERTY AND JUST BY STRIKING THIS DEFINITION, AMENDING IT. NOT STRIKING IT AND WE WILL BE OPENING UP FURTHER ADDITIONAL ALLOWANCES IN THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED THROUGH

[00:45:03]

AGRICULTURAL USE, WE HAVE NO DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL USE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE ZONING REGULATIONS. WE COME ACROSS THIS WHEN WE HAVE AN ANNEXATION ON THE EDGE OF TOWN AND IN THE COUNTY THEY DO HAVE VARIOUS AGRICULTURAL USES THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE IN THE CITY. PART OF THIS EXPANSION OF THE CITY IS A DISCUSSION IN THE FUTURE AND HOW DO WE DEFINE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY AND IS THAT DEFINED BY A GREENBELT THAT WE HAVE A BUILT AREA AND THE GRADUAL DISSOLUTION OF DENSITY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY THAT WE SECURE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY BY ALLOWING FOR USE SO THAT WE DEVELOP A PATTERN THAT IS MORE CONCENTRATED ON THE DOWNTOWN AREA. WE NEED AN AGRICULTURAL USE JUST SO WE CAN WRITE OTHER PIECES OF CODE TO DO THAT SORT OF THINKING AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO ANNEX THAT TO THE CITY AND WANT TO RETAIN THE AGRICULTURAL USE, AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ALLOW THAT. WE DON'T NEED TO COME INTO THE CITY AND DEVELOP 3000 HOMES. IT IS PART OF THIS MOVEMENT OF WHAT WE ARE AS A CITY. YOU SAW SOME CODE IN THE PAST REGARDING BOARDINGHOUSE AND ROOMING HOUSES AND WE DID NOT GET A GOOD DEFINITION IN THE CODE. WE NEED THIS DEFINITION IN THE CODE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE REGULATIONS THAT YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE. THOSE HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

AND IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS I THINK THIS WILL COME FORWARD, THE BOARDINGHOUSE AND ROOMING HOUSE. WE HAVE BETTER DEFINITIONS NOW , WE ARE PROPOSING BETTER DEFINITIONS.

FOR A LOT OF TERMS THAT INCLUDE DENSITY AND DEVELOPABLE AREA. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS USED THROUGHOUT PLANNING ENTITIES AND WE HAVE SEPARATED OUT NET DENSITY AND GROSS DENSITY AND MOST OF THE POLICIES WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE BASED ON GROSS DENSITY AND THAT IS HOW THE STATE ANALYZES THE PLAN AND THAT IS TO LOOK AT THE TOTAL LAND AREA THAT IS DEFINED IN CERTAIN FUTURE LAND USES AND THEN USE THAT GROSS DENSITY TO ANALYZE A FUTURE BUILDOUT OF THE CITY. SO, THAT IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT WE ALIGN THOSE DEFINITIONS TO THE ZONING CODE AND ANY STATE STATUTE DEFINITIONS THAT WE

[00:50:01]

THE DEFINITION OF LOT COVERAGE IS THE SAME THING. WHAT YOU COUNT AS LOT COVERAGE. THERE IS A LOT TO DO WITH GROSS DENSITY AND HOW THAT COMPLIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE ALSO HAVE DEFINITIONS NOW BEING PROPOSED FOR MOBILE HOME AND MANUFACTURED HOME. THERE IS AN IN STATE STATUTE THAT BRINGS FORWARD REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, OF WHERE THESE TYPES OF HOMES CAN BE LOCATED. WE, AS A CITY, WE DON'T MAKE TOO MUCH OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THESE THINGS.

THE COUNTY ITSELF HAS MADE PROVISIONS FOR THESE TO BE INCORPORATED ON ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT PROVIDED THEY MEET SETBACKS AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS. WE WOULD HAVE A CODE COMING FORWARD LATER TO ADDRESS THAT. IT IS QUITE CONTROVERSIAL. WE KNOW THE COUNTY HAS MADE SUCH INTERPRETATION AND WE KNOW OTHER COUNTIES HAVE GONE THE OTHER WAY SO, -- BEFORE THE CITY MOVES IN THE DIRECTION OF THAT SO I THINK YOU HAVE A PRINTOUT PUT TOGETHER IN THE DEFINITIONS SECTION AND THAT IS REALLY A SUMMARY. THERE ARE SOME TYPOS AND CORRECTIONS, WORDING THAT IS PUT IN THERE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE THINGS I WOULD BE VERY WILLING TO TRY TO ANSWER THOSE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING A MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO CITY COMMISSION AND FOR APPROVAL.

>> WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THIS I THOUGHT BACK TO A COMMISSIONER MEETING WITHIN THE PAST SIX MONTHS THAT WAS ABOUT A 30 MINUTE DISCUSSION ON WHETHER OR NOT THE WORD " SHALL " REALLY MEANT THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU DO VERSUS "MAY " WHICH MEANT MAYBE YOU DO THAT OR MAYBE YOU DON'T. AND I THINK YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT. IT WAS IN LEGAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN TWO LEGAL ENTITIES OF THE CITY OR TWO LEGAL BIND INDIVIDUALS IN THE CITY THAT TENDED TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION AND I AM RATHER HAPPY TO SEE THAT YOU HAVE THIS IN HERE THAT "SHALL" MEANS THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO DO. THERE IS NO MORE GRAY AREA. NOT TO SAY THAT ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE COVERED IN HERE ARE NOT GOOD STUFF BUT THAT JUST JUMPED OUT AT ME BECAUSE I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT 30 MINUTE DISCUSSION AND I'M THINKING THROUGH THAT WHOLE DISCUSSION, WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS? >> YES. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR FROM US. YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE DEFINITIONS BUT YOU ARE NOT ASKING FOR OPINIONS FROM US ON THIS. HOW WOULD I

BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT? >> YOU SHOULD SEE THAT ON YOUR

AGENDA ITEM. >> IT IS A STRIKEOUT COPY.

>> YES. >> YOU CAN READ WHAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE AND WHAT HAS BEEN CHANGED.

[00:55:03]

>> IT IS ALMOST A SOLID CUT THERE.

>> IF YOU GO TO YOUR AGENDA ON THE COMPUTER AND CLICK ON THE ITEM IT WILL BRING UP EVERYTHING THAT IS RELATED TO

THAT ITEM. >> THEN, I WILL SHUT UP AT THIS

POINT. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE JUST LOOKING FOR APPROVAL TO GO FORWARD WITH THE CHANGES AND I DID NOT SEE THE CHANGES SO IT WAS HARD TO MAKE A DECISION.

>> FOR ONE EXAMPLE, THE USE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS ALL OF THIS IS THE ZONING REGULATION THAT IS IN THE DEFINITIONS AND THAT SHOULD NOT BE IN THE DEFINITION PEACE. IF WE ARE GOING TO DO ZONING REGULATIONS SPECIFICALLY IN MORE DETAIL THAT SHOULD BE DESIGNING. THAT IN ITSELF, THAT DEFINITION THERE, IS SUCH A FOUNDATIONAL OBSTACLE TO ALMOST EVERYTHING ELSE WE ARE TRYING TO DO IN TERMS OF INNOVATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE JUST CAN'T GET BY THAT. IT IS THERE AND IN THE CODE AND WE KNOW IT SHOULD NOT BE THERE BUT ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO CHALLENGE IT,

WOULD YOU SAY, IT IS THERE. >> IT'S RIGHT HERE.

>> SO, WE HAVE GOT TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY WHERE WE CAN AND WE HAVE GOT TO PUT REGULATION WHERE THE REGULATION SHOULD BE AND IT SHOULD BE IN SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT CODE. THAT IS SOME OF THE THINGS YOU WILL SEE GOING FORWARD.

>> THIS BASICALLY IS JUST THE FIRST STEP OF THE HOUSEKEEPING

THAT NEEDS TO COME BEHIND IT? >> YES.

>> WITHIN THE REVIEW OF THESE, WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR APPREHENSION FOR THE CITY ENTITIES AS FAR AS APPARATUS WITHIN THE CITY TO OVERSEE OR REGULATE THOSE ACTIVITIES? THIS IS FORT PIERCE AND THERE IS A LOT OF AGRICULTURAL USE AROUND HERE. I WAS REALLY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING IN THE CITY CODE AND I WONDERED HISTORICALLY IF THERE WAS A SPECIFIC REASON FOR THAT OR FETISH IS SOMETHING THE CITY DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED

WITH. >> I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT. WE HAVE HAD QUESTIONS WHERE PEOPLE ON THE LIMITS OF THE CITY ARE LOOKING TO COME INTO THIS CITY AND MAYBE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE DO SOMETHING ON THEIR PROPERTY BUT IN THE INTERIM, THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAINTAIN USAGE OF THAT PROPERTY. AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO SUPPORT AND IF THERE WAS A BIT -- A MOVE TO MAINTAIN THIS WE WOULD BE IN THE POSITION TO DO IT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT CALL OUT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND USE SO YOU WILL GET TO SEE THIS BETWEEN NOW AND 2025 IN REVIEW OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WOULD INCLUDE AN AGRICULTURAL FUTURE LAND-USE. SO, IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THROUGH THE ATTORNEYS OFFICE AND I HAVE HAD SOME COMMENTS BACK FROM APPLICANTS, PROPERTY OWNERS AND SO ONE AND WE HAVE TRIED TO DISTRIBUTE AS FAR AS WE CAN AND THOSE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND THERE MAY BE MORE LITTLE TWEAKS AS IT GOES THROUGH TO CITY COMMISSION. I KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE, I MET WITH THEM LAST WEEK AND EXPLAINED SOME OF THE CHANGES AND THERE ARE STILL QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THEY WERE ARRANGED AND I THINK IT IS JUST A MATTER OF EXPLANATION RATHER THAN , THIS SCALE DOES NOT WORK.

>> THANK YOU. >> SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THREE MISS -- , WE HAD A CASE COME TO US JUST SOUTH OF EDMONDS RESIDENTIAL THAT HAD SIGNED AN AGREEMENT 17 YEARS PRIOR THAT THEY WOULD ALLOW THEMSELVES TO BE ANNEXED INTO

[01:00:03]

WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION OUT OF IT WAS THAT ON THIS PROPERTY THE OWNERS HAD HORSES. AND BECAUSE OF THE ANNEXATION, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY AGRICULTURAL IN THE CITY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GIVE UP THEIR HORSES. AND THE OWNER HIRED AN ATTORNEY AND THE ATTORNEY TRIED TO SELL TO ME FROM THE PODIUM THAT WE WERE BEING HASTY IN EXERCISING THE ANNEXATION. AND I LET HIM SPEAK AND I LOOKED AT HIM AND SAID, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE ARE IN A HURRY 17 YEARS LATER? WE HAVE HAD 17 YEARS TO DISCUSS THIS. THE POINT IS, IT BECAME A STUMBLING BLOCK IN THE CITY TRYING TO DO WHAT IT WAS TRYING TO DO AT THE TIME AND THAT WAS TO EXERCISE THE ANNEXATIONS ESTABLISHED THROUGH -- AND WE HAD TO SEND IT TO THE COMMISSION WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DID NOT ANNEX BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION OF AGRICULTURAL. I PUT IT OUT OF MY MIND AND I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO THERE.

THIS IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE. SO, THIS IS THE KIND OF THING WITH THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT, THE WAY IT IS, THAT IT HAS A TENDENCY TO CREATE THESE STUMBLING BLOCKS. AT TIMES WHEN YOU TRY TO WORK THROUGH AN APPLICATION. ANYTHING FURTHER? CHANGED, REMOVED, IT IS ALREADY IN ZONING REGULATIONS? PLACE. IT IS A COMPLICATED MECHANISM THAT WE HAVE FIGURED OUT. WE ARE CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS OF SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS, AS OF YET, MAYBE ARE NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN CODE.

WE ARE PREPARING A WHOLE SECTION. THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE EVERY TIME THAT WE CAME TO AMEND A SECTION OF CODE WE WOULD HAVE TO OPEN UP THE DEFINITION SECTION AGAIN, GO BACK INTO THAT, AND WE WOULD HAVE TWO ITEMS RATHER THAN JUST A CODE AND STAFF BEING ABLE TO SAY, THESE REGULATIONS CAN BE ENFORCED THE WAY THEY AR WRITTEN WITHOUT ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE. PART OF THAT IS ALSO THAT WE DON'T PUT DEFINITIONS IN THAT CAUSE CONFLICT IN THE CODE THAT WE HAVE NOW SO WE HAVE BEEN VERY CAREFUL AND ENSURE THAT ONLY THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE CHANGE -- THAT WE ARE CHANGING NOW ARE NOT CONFLICTING WITH ANY EXISTING CODE. THEY MAYBE CURING THINGS IN THE EXISTING CODE BUT THEY ARE NOT CONFLICTING IT. YOU MAY SEE ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS REQUIRED IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE ARE IMPLEMENTING DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CODE BUT AS FAR AS WE CAN, WE HAVE TAKEN SOME TIME AND TRIED TO ORGANIZE THESE SO THAT THEY ARE LESS COMPLICATED AS WE CAN MAKE THEM IN THE CONCENTRATION WILL BE ON PARTICULAR SECTIONS OF THE CODE. RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE CODE. I THINK THAT IS WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST AND PEOPLE GET LOST IN THAT. IT IS A SPIDER

WEB. >> DO THE CHANGES MADE BY THESE DEFINITIONS CAUSE ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ON WHAT IS

GOING ON RIGHT NOW? >> IT IS TO CURE WHAT WE ARE FINDING WITH THE INCONSISTENCIES NOW THAT CAUSE HUGE DIFFICULTIES, BUREAUCRATIC FACULTIES FOR STAFF AND PEOPLE THAT WANT TO COME IN AND DO SOMETHING. WE ARE VERY SENSITIVE AS STAFF TO DISSUADE A PROPERTY OWNER WHO COULD AND

[01:05:06]

>> ANYTHING ELSE ? NOT HEARING ANYTHING I OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS? IF YES, THE

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MY NAME IS CHAD INGRAM AND I REPRESENT A NONPROFIT IN LINCOLN PARK. OUR OFFICE IS AT 11 ORANGE AVENUE. SUITE 306. I JUST WANTED TO STAND UP AND SUPPORT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN MAKING SOME OF THESE CHANGES. I MYSELF AND AT LEAST FIVE OTHER RELATIVELY YOUNG PEOPLE THAT OWN PROPERTY IN LINCOLN PARK HAVE BEEN STUCK NOW. MY PROJECT IS GOING ON AND IT IS IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF TRYING TO DEVELOP AND ONE OF THE LARGEST THING STOPPING US DEVELOPING IS THE 25% RESTRICTION ON A SECOND STRUCTURE. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I DID NOT FIND IN THE DEFINITIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT THERE BE A DEFINITION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKFORCE HOUSING AND THAT THE AGRICULTURAL DEFINITION, THAT IT ALSO INCLUDES URBAN FARMING BECAUSE THERE IS NO STRUCTURE TO SET UP SOMETHING IN THE CITY. ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT REGULATIONS OF THE AGRICULTURE AND I WANT TO REMIND THEM THERE IS A RIGHT TO FARM IN FLORIDA SO A LOT OF IT IS SUPERSEDED UP THE STATE LEVEL WHERE COUNTIES AND CITIES ARE NOT GOING OUT AND DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE NORMAL PROCESSES WITH CODE COMPLIANCE. THERE WAS ANOTHER PLACE IN THE DEFINITIONS WHERE IN A DWELLING UNIT , YOU MENTIONED THE FACILITY WOULD HAVE , THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO COOK IN IT AND I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD USE THE FULLER DEFINITION OF THERE BEING A KITCHEN. SO IF YOU ARE CALLING STRUCTURES THAT DON'T HAVE FULL KITCHENS DWELLING UNITS THAT MY TAKE AWAY FROM THE ABILITY SOMEBODY HAS TO BE FLEXIBLE WITH THEIR PROPERTY INSTEAD OF SAYING LIVING QUARTERS WITH COOKING IT SHOULD SAY LIVING QUARTERS WITH FULL KITCHEN. THE TRANSIT STOPS THAT INCREASE OUR ABILITY TO INCREASE DENSITY, I AM HOPING THAT CAN ALSO INCLUDE THE AREA WHERE WE ARE NOW PROVIDING --. SO ANYTHING IN THE FREEBIE AREAS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ADOPT THAT TRANSIT STOP DENSITY INCREASE FOR PROJECTS THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY WOULD GO THROUGH AND APPROVE. IF THERE COULD BE SOME KIND OF A DEFINITION OR SEPARATION OF A BOARDINGHOUSE AND WHAT IS NOW BEING CALLED CO-LIVING FACILITIES WHERE PEOPLE GET TOGETHER AND THEY LIVED TOGETHER BUT THEY MEET SOME OF THE STRUCTURE OF BOARDING HOUSES, IT CAN BE A MINIMUM OF A COUPLE OF DAYS THAT THESE PEOPLE COULD BE THERE FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS WHERE IT IS A SHARED COMMUNAL FEEL TO IT WHERE IT WOULD NOT BE A BOARDINGHOUSE BUT THERE

[01:10:04]

EVERYTHING? >> CAN YOU REPEAT THE NAME OF

YOUR ORGANIZATION? >> BECAUSE WE LOVE LINCOLN

PARK. >> YOU ARE NOT IN A HURRY TO

LEAVE, ARE YOU? >> NO .

>> I AM GOING TO HAVE SOME COMMENTS OF MY OWN BUT I MIGHT LIKE TO HAVE YOUR FEEDBACK ON. YOU DID BRING UP A COUPLE OF

VERY GOOD POINTS. >> I HAVE BEEN STUDYING THIS

FOR A WHILE. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE IT. VERY GOOD. WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND OPEN IT BACK UP FOR FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD. NOT HEARING ANY, THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF ITEM D . I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> BEFORE YOU DO SO, WE JUST HAD SOME VERY IMPORTANT COMMENTS FROM CHAD THAT MAYBE STAFF SHOULD WORK ON INCORPORATING DEFINITIONS FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING, URBAN FARMING, AND LOOKING AT THE FULL KITCHEN THING. AND, SURE LIVING. I THINK THIS SHOULD BE DEFINITIONS WE SHOULD BE INCORPORATED.

>> SO SHOULD WE SEND IT BACK TO YOU FOR FURTHER WORK?

>> THAT WOULD BE THE WAY OR YOU COULD INSTRUCT STAFF TO INCORPORATE THINGS AND THEN TAKE IT TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

COME BACK WITH. ON THOSE ADDITIONS.

>> YES. I HATE BLIND APPROVALS.

>> STAFF WILL RETURN WITH THIS ITEM.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A MOTION TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT SO IT IS COMPLETELY OFFICIAL.

>> SHALL WE TALK THAT ONTO THE APPROVAL FOR ITEM D?

>> WE ARE NOT APPROVING IT. >> YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION FOR STAFF TO BRING BACK THIS ITEM. AND CONSIDER ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS AS RAISED. FOR DETERMINATION.

>> FOR THE NOTED ITEMS? >> YES.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD WITH THE NEW DEFINITIONS DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING TODAY.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO BRING THIS BACK. AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. CLEMONS. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> RECOMMENDATIONS. VERY GOOD. AND I AM GLAD THAT YOU SPOKE UP

[e. Zoning Text Amendment - Sec.125-322 - Fences, Walls and Hedges; Installation, Replacement and Maintenance Allowing Higher Fences Adjacent to the Railroad Right of Way (ROW)]

WITH THIS. >> SO, THIS DEALS WITH A SIMPLE AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE COME ACROSS WHERE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING TO SECURE THEIR PROPERTY AGAINST RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AREAS AND PROTECT FROM TRESPASS ONTO THOSE

[01:15:01]

JUST ALLOWING PROPERTIES TO SECURE THEIR REAR AND SIDE AREAS IF THEY ARE ADJACENT TO A RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> IN THIS SITUATION YOU COULD HAVE TWO PROPERTIES SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE RAILROAD BEHIND THEM AND SOMEBODY COULD BUILD

A FENCE IN BETWEEN? >> YES.

>> IN BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES?

>> YES. >> BUT ONLY ACROSS THE REAR SECTION? NOW, WE COULD RESTRICT IT TO REAR ONLY.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE INTENT IS IF YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR ON ONE SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY THAT IS RAILROAD PROPERTY YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A FENCE ON THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BUT WHEN I READ THIS IT SOUNDED LIKE , THE RAILROAD BEHIND ME, I CAN BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE BACK AND ON THE SIDES.

IS THAT THE INTENT OF WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO?

>> THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED. THERE IS TRESPASSING DANGEROUSLY ONTO PEOPLES PROPERTIES TO GET OVER

THE RAILROAD. >> SO IF THEY COME INTO YOUR PROPERTY, AND YOU HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE AT THE BACK OF YOUR PROPERTY LINE , I COULD WALK AROUND THE PROPERTY TO THE NEIGHBOR ON THE RIGHT OR THE LEFT AND STILL ACCESS THE RAILROAD SO, THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT I CAN PUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE PROPERTY ON THE SIDES SO I JUST CREATED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE BETWEEN MY PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OF MY NEIGHBOR ON THE SIDE WITH NO DEFINITION AS TO WHAT THAT FENCE SHOULD LOOK LIKE. SO, I WANT TO PUT A PRIVACY FENCE UP THAT IS EIGHT FOOT TALL. I'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT THAT. I CAN SEE THE REQUIREMENT, I AM NOT A FAN OF SIGHT LINE AND EVERYBODY IN THE CITY PROBABLY KNOWS THAT IF THEY HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ME. WHAT I AM JOSH THERE IS NO CONSIDERATION ON HOW BRIGHT LINE WAS GOING TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS ALONG THE COAST. WE ARE PUTTING A HIGH SPEED TRAIN ON A RAILROAD TRACK WHERE WE HAD GENERALLY HAD LOW SPEED RAIL TRAFFIC AND WE ARE SURPRISED THAT PEOPLE THAT MAYBE ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF THEIR MENTAL FEKETE FACULTIES ARE STEPPING IN FRONT OF THE TRAIN. SO CITIZENS WANT TO CLOSE THAT OFF SO THEY CAN BE FOUND LIABLE SHOULD MR. SMITH WALK ACROSS MY LAND AND GET HIT BY A TRAIN. COULD HE GET HIT BY A 45 MILES PER HOUR TRAIN? I THINK THERE IS

[01:20:04]

KNOW. >> IS IT SOUND THAT IS AN

ISSUE? >> I THINK IT IS ABOUT AND ACCESS TO THE RAILROAD AND FROM THE RAILROAD.

>> THE ONLY TIME I HAVE HEARD SOMEBODY COMPLAIN ABOUT SOUND IS WHEN THERE IS A RAILROAD CROSSING AND, THERE ARE MANY

ALONG THE BRIGHT LINE. >> OFFENSE IS A FENCE SO TO MAKE IT EIGHT FOOT FOR PRIVACY AND SOUND BLOCKING MAKES SENSE BUT TO KEEP SOMEBODY OFF YOUR PROPERTY, WHY DO WE HAVE TO GO TO EIGHT FOOT BETWEEN EVERYBODY'S PROPERTY? IT'S LIKE MAKING A FORTRESS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

>> THIS COULD STRIKE OUT THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES AND JUST

SAY , REAR OR ADJACENT TO --. >> HOW DOES IT WORK AS FAR AS IF THE HOUSE IS FACING THE RAILROAD? WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THERE ? AND WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO BUILD A FENCE TO

PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY THEN? >> THAT WOULD NOT BE CLASSED AS A FRONT YARD AREA. BUT YOU WOULD BE RATHER UNFORTUNATE IF YOUR HOUSE FACED THE ROAD. BUT, YOU WOULD BE ACCESSING FROM A STREET OR A ROADWAY AND THAT WOULD BE AT THE FRONT

PROPERTY LINE. >> HOWEVER, IT CAN BE THE SIDE

OF YOUR HOUSE, THE RAILROAD? >> YES.

>> WE CAN CHANGE IT TO BE DEFINED AS RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH IS ADJACENT TO A PROPERTY LINE.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE WORDING.

>> AND IT REALLY IS JUST AFFECTING THE RAILROAD.

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION WHEN IT CAME UP. I THOUGHT, IF THEY REMOVE THE SIDE AND IT IS THE SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE COVERAGE THERE.

>> OTHER THAN WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING THERE IS THE MAXIMUM

HEIGHT IS 6 FEET? >> USUALLY IN RESIDENTIAL

ZONING DISTRICTS, YES. >> SO, 6 FEET OR 8 FEET . IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO GO THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY THEY WOULD CLIMB

A SIX FOOT FENCE? >> 6 FEET I WOULD TRY BUT 8

FEET I WOULD NOT. >> I'D PAY FIVE DOLLARS TO SEE THAT! MAKING IT CASE BY CASE BASIS?

>> IT WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE.

>> SO YOU DON'T WANT THAT. >> SO IT WOULD START TO LOOK LIKE VACATION RENTALS EDITION.

>> OBVIOUSLY HAVE HAD ENOUGH INPUT FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITH THIS CONDITION TO SEE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT NEED FOR

THIS? >> IT HAS NOT BEEN A SIGNIFICANT INTERACTION WITH PROPERTY OWNERS BUT WE SEE THAT THIS IS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GET MORE INQUIRIES AND REQUESTS AND I HAVE BEEN ON THE END OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE DEAL WITH THESE CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS SO, THIS IS A PRODUCT OF THAT BUT I CAN VERY WELL SEE THAT AND I THINK RESTRICTING THE 8 FEET TO ONLY PART OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT IS ADJACENT TO A RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD BE MORE

SENSIBLE. >> IT MAY STILL LOOK PRETTY BAD WHEN EVERY FEW HOUSES PUTS UP ONE.

>> THAT WE CAN'T DEFEND THAT. >> I KNOW. I'M JUST TRYING TO DEFEND THE IDEA OF NOT GOING TO THE EIGHT FOOT. IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO PUT UP A PRIVACY FENCE, A SIX FOOT FENCE,

[01:25:04]

>> I HAVE BEEN VOTED AGAINST WITH YOU ALL BEFORE.

>> BUT I CAN SEE THIS. EVEN IF YOU DO OR DON'T, WE MAY HAVE THEM DO IT AND SOME MAY NOT. OR WE ALL DO IT AND THEY ARE

ALL DIFFERENT. >> THAT IS THE CAN OF WORMS WE ARE TRYING TO OPEN, IN MY OPINION.

>> MAYBE THE ORDINANCE AUTO SAY -- OUGHT TO SAY THAT BRIGHT LINE MUST INSTALL THAT SECTION OF FENCE.

>> WE HAVE OTHER TRAINS THAT COME THROUGH.

>> IT IS THE TRACKS THAT ALREADY EXIST.

>> A HOW MUCH IS THIS HAPPENING WHERE SOMEONE IS GOING INTO A YARD AND ONTO THE TRACKS TO GET KILLED? THEY CAN WALK AROUND THE FENCE. BUT WE MAY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT SOME MORE. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE OPINIONS ON THIS?

>> YOU ARE BY YOURSELF. I AGREE WITH THE AESTHETIC ISSUE BUT THE QUESTION IS, A PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO PUT UP A FENCE. IT WILL STILL BE THE CHAIN-LINK OR THE WOOD OR WHATEVER. AS OF NOW THEY ARE ASKING FOR TWO MORE FEET . IT KIND OF IS WHAT IT IS. DO WE GIVE THEM TWO MORE FEET AND SAY ADJACENT TO VERSUS REAR AND SIDE.

>> BASED ON WHAT SHE IS SAYING IT IS MORE, DO WE HELP THEM PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY BY ALLOWING THOSE EXTRA 2 FEET BECAUSE THE AESTHETICS IS ALREADY THERE.

>> AND MY QUESTION IS HOW MUCH THE 6 FEET COMPARED TO 8 FEET? A SIX FOOT NOT AN EIGHT FOOT.

INTIMIDATE ME BUT THAT 8 FEET, I COULD HURT MYSELF.

>> I WANT TO SEE THIS! >> THAT IS A NO FROM ME.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> DOES THIS HAVE TO GO BACK? OR ARE WE JUST GOING TO AGREE TO THE ADJACENT --?

>> AGAIN, IT IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO DECIDE.

>> WE CAN --. >> SO, MS. CLEMONS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A DISCUSSION -- A MOTION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IT FROM REAR AND SIDE TO ADJACENT

. FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND .

>> ADJACENT TO. >> YES.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. CLEMONS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

>> NO . >> MS. CLEMONS .

>> YES. >> MS. CARTER .

>> YES. >> MR. KREISEL .

>> YES. >> CHAIR CREYAUFMILLER .

>> YES. >> THANK YOU. ITEM 7F. AND

[f. Zoning Text Amendment - Sec. 123-6 - Required Landscape Bond Replacing Landscape Bond Requirement with a Landscape Maintenance Agreement; Sec.123-7- Enforcement Inspections and Violation of Landscape Maintenance]

[01:30:10]

NOBODY IN THE CITY WANTS TO PULL A LANDSCAPE BOND AND THAT IS ANOTHER PROCESS. SO, WE UNDERPIN THIS NO MAN'S LAND OF TRYING TO ENFORCE SOMETHING AND NOT REALLY WANTING TO TAKE ACTION. SO, I AM SUGGESTING AGAIN, TALKING WITH STAFF AND WITH DEVELOPERS ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IS AN ENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY HAS AND IS CONNECTED WITH A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ATTACHED TO THAT DEVELOPMENT AND SITE APPROVALS SO IT IS ATTACHED TO THE DEVELOPMENT BEFORE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THE DEVELOPER IS ALWAYS THEN AND NOW REQUIRED TO PUT IN ALL OF THE LANDSCAPE THAT IS APPROVED ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THAT HAS NOT CHANGED AND IF THAT LANDSCAPE IS NOT THERE WE DON'T ISSUE A CO AND THEN THAT DIES OR DISAPPEARS. THEN, WE CAN GO IN AND ENFORCE WITH THE OWNER THAT THEY HAVE TO REPLACE THAT LANDSCAPE. THAT ENFORCEMENT PROCESS IS ENFORCED AS LONG AS THAT SITE RETAINS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. THERE IS NOTHING TO SAY THAT THE APPLICANT CAN COME IN AND CHANGE THE SITE PLAN THROUGH THE COMMISSION AND THE ME WOULD HAVE ANOTHER REPLACEMENT LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT BASED ON THE NEW SITE PLAN. SO, WE HAVE PROPOSED THE REMOVAL OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPE AND TO REPLACE IT WITH A LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT AND THAT AGREEMENT WILL NOTATE VERY STRICTLY WHAT HAPPENS. AND, WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THE DEVELOPER OR THE SITE OWNER WHEN THEY PUT THAT LANDSCAPE IN. IF YOU DRIVE ALONG ANY MAJOR ROADWAY IN THE CITY YOU WILL OBSERVE PARKING LOT WITH NOT A TREE IN THEM. YOU WILL OBSERVE FRONT YARD AREAS WITH NO LANDSCAPING AND I AM TALKING MAINLY ABOUT COMMERCAL PROPERTIES HERE. THAT, IF THE BOND SYSTEM WAS SO EFFECTIVE, WHY ARE WE LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS LET LANDSCAPING DIE WITHOUT ANY URGENCY FROM THE CITY TO ENFORCE THIS. I AM WILLING TO REPLACE THE LANDSCAPE BOND WITH MONITORING THAT IS CARRIED OUT BY THE PLANNING

[01:35:05]

I DON'T WANT ALL OF THE BACK-AND-FORTH ABOUT WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO PULL A LANDSCAPE BOND. IT IS TOO BUREAUCRATIC.

HOW MUCH DOES IT REALLY COST? IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER . IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO BRING

INTO FORCE HERE. >> I FULLY AGREE WITH THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BONDS. IN FACT, WE -- PAST BOARDS HAVE GOTTEN INTO DISCUSSION ON THESE LANDSCAPE BONDS AND THE USEFULNESS , AT SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE YEARS. BUT WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ACTUALLY DOING THE INVESTIGATIVE WORK AHEAD OF ANYTHING THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT

MIGHT DO? >> IT WOULD BE OUR JOB. TO PUT TOGETHER A CASE AND PRESENT THAT CASE TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEN FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO RUN THAT ACTION AND THAT IS PRIMARILY WHAT HAPPENS NOW IF WE HAVE A CASE. AND IT IS RELATED TO PLANNING CODE WE ARE USUALLY ASKED TO PUT TOGETHER THAT CASE , WHATEVER CODE SECTION IT IS AND CONFIRM IT DOES OR DOES NOT MEET MEET CODE SECTION OFTEN, I AM ASKED TO APPEAR AT THE MAGISTRATE AND CONFIRM VARIOUS PIECES OF THE

CODE ARE IN VIOLATION. >> SO, IT IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN

SO IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS. >> BUT, IT IS NOT HAPPENING

NOW. >> I CAN ATTEST TO THAT AND THAT WAS ANOTHER DISCUSSION THAT EVEN THIS BOARD HAS BEEN IN. WHO IS WATCHING OVER THE LANDSCAPE? WHO IS WATCHING FOR

IT? >> UNDER A LANDSCAPE BOND SCENARIO, THEY HAVE TO POST THAT BOND IN ORDER TO GET THE SITE PLAN APPROVED. HOW MUCH DOES THAT TYPICALLY COST THE

DEVELOPER? >> ALL I HAVE HEARD, THERE'S PROBABLY A BETTER WORD FOR IT BUT WHINING. AND THE COMPLICATION OF TRYING TO GET A LANDSCAPE BOND. DEVELOPERS IN THE INDUSTRY , WE UNDERSTAND THAT PROJECT MANAGEMENT, THEY , OR ANY OTHER PIECE OF -- THEY WOULD LEAVE THAT TO THE LAST MOMENT AND WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT THE ARRIVAL OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS WHEN THEY START TO GET PEOPLE ALL IN AND THEY WANT TO START BUSINESS AND THEN THEY COME TO GET THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND FIGURE OUT THEY SHOULD HAVE READ THAT CONDITION AND REQUIRED A BOND AND THEN THEY COME AND THERE IS A BIG MESS IN TRYING TO HELP AND THERE IS A LOT OF TIME PUT IN FROM STAFF TO RECOVER THE SITUATION AND CALM THEM DOWN AND GET THEM TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE AND SORT OF LEAD THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS OR ALMOST ENTIRELY THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THEM ANDA LOT OF STAFF

[01:40:01]

>> SO, IT HAS THE ADDED POTENTIAL OF MOVING THAT PROCESS TO CO MORE EFFICIENTLY.

>> YES. >> YOU BROUGHT THIS TO US BEFORE. WE WERE ALL PRETTY RECEPTIVE AND I PERSONALLY THINK THIS IS A FANTASTIC IDEA. MY ONLY CONCERN THEN AND NOW IS ON THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE. I AM ALWAYS VERY CONCERNED WITH BEING A COMPLAINT BASED OPERATION. I DON'T THINK IT IS EFFICIENT OR GOOD COMMUNITY PRODUCT DOES BUT IT ENDS UP BEING WHAT HAPPENS A LOT OF THE TIME. MY ONLY CONCERN WOULD BE MAKING SURE THAT A PLANNED SCHEDULED REGIMENTED INSPECTION PROCESS IS TIED TO THIS THAT WILL MAKE WHAT YOU END UP DOING SOMETHING THAT WILL HAPPEN SO THAT THESE THINGS ARE BEING REGULARLY LOOKED AT BECAUSE, THEY MAY NOT CARE AND THEY MAYBE DON'T WANT TO BE A BAD NEIGHBORS SO, AS LONG AS YOU ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT AND YOUR STAFF KNOWS WHAT YOU ARE GETTING YOURSELVES INTO AND YOU HAVE THE RESOURCES FOR IT, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.

>> I WOULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD IN THIS FORM UNLESS I SAW THE LONG-TERM BENEFIT OF THAT NOT ONLY TO THE WAY THAT WE ARE -- FOR THE DEPARTMENT BUT WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO HERE IS FOR STAFF TO TAKE MORE OWNERSHIP OF WHAT THEY BRING FORWARD IN TERMS OF DESIGN AND CONCEPT. DOES IT REFLECT -- WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD A AN IDENTITY OF FORT PIERCE AND WE WANT TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD WITH THE QUALITY OF THE THINGS THAT WE SEE AND THAT RELATES TO ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPING, SITE DESIGN, THE TYPE OF USES THAT ECHO IN CERTAIN AREAS AND IT IS PART OF MY JOB FULFILLMENT AND I HOPE I AM PASSING THAT ON TO MY STAFF THAT YOU HAVE A PRIDE OF YOU ARE NOT BUILDING A THING OR FINANCING A THING BUT YOU CAN MAKE SOMETHING BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY. SO, IT IS PART OF THE PLANNER JOB TO BE CONNECTED WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT AS IT MOVES FORWARD . SO, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THAT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IN THIS RESPECT WE HAVE TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE COMPLAINT BASE. IT WOULD BE A COMPLAINT BASED SYSTEM LED BY PLANNING. THERE WILL BE A MAINTENANCE

AGREEMENT. SO, -- . >> IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE CURRENT BONDS THAT EXIST? HOW

WOULD YOU ENFORCE THEM? >> MY THOUGHT WOULD BE IS THAT WE WOULD OFFER THE DEVELOPER TO COME IN WITH A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND RUN THAT THROUGH AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN TO GET THAT RECORDED. THEY WOULD NEED TO BE INSPECTION AND CONFIRMATION THAT EVERYTHING THEY GOT TO WAS PART OF A LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT. SO, THAT WOULD BE A MECHANISM WHERE, IF YOU WANT A BOND IN PLACE AT THE MOMENT YOU WOULD NEED TO TURN -- AND BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION TO GET

YOU TO THE SYSTEM. >> IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD VOLUNTEER FOR OR WOULD YOU AS AN OFFICE DECIDE?

>> I'M NOT GOING TO BE GOING OUT THERE AND GRABBING BOMBS OFF OF POPLE BUT IF THEY WANT TO DO IT, I WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT SITUATION. WE ARE NOT GOING TO ADVERTISE IT BUT IT

[01:45:08]

TO DO. >> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF A WAY TO CLEAN UP WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

>> I THINK WE CONCENTRATE -- IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GO BACK IN TIME AND I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO SHOW SOME MOVEMENT FORWARD AND I THINK JUST TO MAKE PEOPLE -- IT IS AN EDUCATION THING AS WELL AS ANYTHING ELSE. SO JUST TO EDUCATE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOW INVESTING IN THE CITY AND THERE IS -- THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS MORE THAN JUST YOU MAKING THE BUSINESS SUCCESSFUL. SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO PRIDE OF OWNERSHIP OR AUTHORSHIP IN THIS BUT I DO THINK WE NEED SOMETHING TO REPLACE THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE AND I ALWAYS LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD FROM WHERE WE ARE AND SEEING IF WE CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENTS RATHER THAN TRYING TO GO BACK AND RECOVER THINGS. I WOULD NEED SIX MORE STAFF TO DO THAT PIECE.

>> I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN A HANDFUL OR MULTIPLE ARCHITECTS AND CONSULTING ENGINEERING GROUPS THAT WE SEE ON A REGULAR BASIS ON MANY OF THE PROJECTS THE COME FORWARD IN APPLICATIONS AND IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT VERY QUICKLY THEY WILL PROBABLY BE COMING BACK TO YOU WITH TELEPHONE CALLS SAYING, YOU HAVE CHANGED THIS PROCESS. HOW DOES THAT IMPACT ARE WHAT CAN WE DO TO CLEAN UP ON AISLE FOR. I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A VOLUNTARY CALL. THOSE THAT ARE IN HERE ON A ONE OR TWO BASES, IT WOULD TAKE MUCH LONGER FOR THEM TO

GET THE MESSAGE. >> WE HAVE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY, -- AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTIES THAT THEY ARE GOING THROUGH. IF THERE IS ANYTHING WE CAN DO AS A DEPARTMENT TO HELP OURSELVES, THAT WE WILL NOT END UP WITH CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY AND WE CAN SMITH GOT OVER BY TAKING ACTION. THIS IS ONE ASPECT THAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING TO. I TALK WITH SITE OWNERS AS WE COME THROUGH THE PROCESS AND I THINK ACTUALLY THIS IS THE MOST -- AND THERE ARE OTHER THINGS I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THIS IS THE MOST SPOKEN ABOUT PEACE THAT I ENCOUNTER BETWEEN ME OR MY STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER COMING INTO THE PROCESS.

>> IT IS AN OPEN-ENDED BOND ISSUE. WHEN I WAS AN -- IN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, I HATED BOMBS BUT OPEN-ENDED BOND DISCUSSIONS ARE SOMETHING THAT I TRIED TO STAY AWAY FROM.

I TURNED AN ORDER DOWN ONCE BECAUSE OF A BOND ISSUE BECAUSE OF TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE BOND TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE I DID NOT GET A NASTY PHONE CALL. I CAN ALWAYS SEE WHERE THE BOND THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR, FOR OF ALL THINGS, LANDSCAPE, HAD TO HAVE BEEN TROUBLESOME FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPERS COMING IN THE DOOR. IT IS NOT GOOD FOR EITHER PARTY, FRANKLY. I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. BY MR. HEANING.

>> SECOND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY MS. CLEMONS. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[g. Zoning Text Amendment - Sec 125-313 - Major and Minor Site Plans Increasing Administrative Thresholds for Residential and Commercial Development]

[01:50:06]

AND, THIS IS MY FAVORITE. >> I THINK THIS HAS BEEN ON THE TABLE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

>> YES. MANY YEARS AND MANY DISCUSSIONS. AT THE MOMENT WE HAVE THRESHOLDS FOR THE MAJOR AND MINOR SITE PLANS AND THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN A MAJOR AND A MINOR SITE PLAN IS THE AMOUNT OF PROCESS IT TAKES TO GET THROUGH THE SYSTEM. THE LEVEL OF REVIEW FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW IS THE SAME. IT STILL GOES THROUGH TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD, EXTERNAL AGENCIES, THE COUNTY, THE FIRE DISTRICT, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THEY ALL STILL REVIEW A MINOR SITE PLAN. THE ISSUE IS, WHERE ARE THE THRESHOLDS TO THOSE THINGS.

THE DEVELOPMENT CAME IN TODAY, I THINK IT WAS 600 SQUARE FEET OVER THE MINOR PROJECT THRESHOLD, WHICH IS NOW 4000 SQUARE FEET. I DID A BIT OF ANALYSIS ON WHAT SORT OF BUILDOUT IS A 4000 SQUARE FEET COMMERCIAL . WE TALK ABOUT LIKE A STARBUCKS MAY NOT FALL UNDER THE 4000 BUT WOULD FALL UNDER THE 10,000. DOES A STARBUCKS WARRANT A MAJOR SITE PLAN? THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE , I'M GOING BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN 2023 BUT I KNOW THAT THEY WERE ACTING ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF 2022 OR EVEN EARLIER THAN THAT. WE DID A REVIEW OF NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES , THE COUNTY, PORT ST. LUCIE AND WE LOOKED AT WHAT THEY WERE ALLOWING THE COUNTY AS A HIGHER THRESHOLD AND WE CAME TO A PROPOSAL AND WE LOOKED AT A 50 DWELLING UNIT PROJECT OR A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT MIXED-USE OR NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECT. THAT WOULD BE THE THRESHOLD BETWEEN MAJOR AND MINOR. SO, THAT IS WHAT WE BRING TO YOU TODAY TO RAISE THE THRESHOLD. AND I'M OPEN TO ANY INPUT.

>> I WILL TELL YOU THE SAME THAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING SINCE VERY EARLY. IN MY TIME ON THIS BOARD ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL. SINCE I CAME TO THE CITY AND ASKED FOR A MULTITUDE OF CHANGES IN PROCEDURES AND THE THEN LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THAT WAS THE FIRST IN THE CITY AND TOOK ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LOOKING AT HOW THE BOARDS OPERATE IN PROCEDURES AND QUITE FRANKLY, THEY'RE WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THAT WAS KIND OF A HODGEPODGE IN THE BACK END OF IT. BUT, THIS QUESTION CAME UP AND THE NUMBERS WERE EVEN A LITTLE MORE AT THE TIME AND MY SUGGESTION STILL TODAY, ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE SAID TO MANY COMMISSIONERS, AND I HAVE SAID IT TO THE MAYOR MANY TIMES, THAT I FELT LIKE OUR COMMISSION IS VERY FOCUSED ON MICROMANAGEMENT AND THIS FALLS INTO THE MICROMANAGEMENT DISCUSSION. AND WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO SEE, AND THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE HAD ALL ALONG IN THIS DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC, FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PARTICULARLY FOR YOU SITTING IN YOUR CHAIR, IS THAT YOU WOULD BE TAKING ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FINAL DECISION ON UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT. AND UP TO , IN THIS CASE, 50 UNITS. SOME TIME AGO THAT 50 UNITS WAS A LARGER

[01:55:04]

SO, WE ARE HELPING YOU, AS A BOARD, MAKE THE DECISION AND OFFER THAT NEXT SET OF EYES TO REVIEW IT AND OFFER THE COMMUNITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN AND VOICE THEIR OPINIONS AND THAT REALLY IS THE KEY BUT IT GIVES THE ABILITY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS. IT KEEPS THE PROCESS MORE STREAMLINED THAN IT IS TODAY . THE ITEM THAT WE JUST HEARD WAS 306 SQUARE FEET OVER THE LIMIT, WHICH MEANS IT NOW HAS TO GO TO TWO MEETINGS AT THE COMMISSION AND IF THIS BOARD WERE QUALIFIED JUDICIAL AND MADE THE FINAL APPROVAL WITH YOUR SUGGESTION THAT IT SHOULD BE APPROVED, THE EXTRA SET OF EYES ON IT, THAT ITEM WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE TODAY , HERE, FINISHED. IT WOULD NOT OF HAD TO GO TO COMMISSION AND I THINK THAT IS THE STREAMLINED THAT WE SHOULD REALLY BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT , THE TIME THAT IT TAKES, THE TIME THAT IT TAKES AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD GIVES A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT GOES TO THE CITY FOR TWO ADDITIONAL VIEWS. THAT IS THE BOTTLENECK. THAT WE SHOULD BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT WITH PROJECTS OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS. OR 50 UNITS OR LESS. I DON'T THINK THAT THE PLANNING BOARD BECOMES THE BOTTLENECK. IT IS AN EXTRA LEVEL OF SUPPORT FOR MAKING THAT FINAL DECISION AND , IN A CITY OUR SIZE, IF WE WERE WEST PALM BEACH, THERE IS NO QUESTION LET THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAKE THAT DECISION AND GO. THAT 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT ITEM, IF SIX CITIZENS ARE ANNOYED ABOUT IT, THE PERCENTAGE THERE IS NOT WORTH ARGUING ABOUT BUT IN FORT PIERCE IT IS A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. IF I HAD A JOSH ACROSS THE CANAL FROM ME, IF 10,000 FEET GOT APPROVED WITHOUT IT BEING LOOKED AT, AND NOT HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IT, I WOULD BE KIND OF ANNOYED. AND YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH ME. SO, MY THOUGHT IS, THIS IS NOT A BAD IDEA BUT IT NEEDS TO MEET A LEVEL OF APPROVAL. I HAVE BEEN ARGUING FOR THE ABILITY OF THIS BOARD TO DO THAT FOR MANY YEARS ON THIS TOPIC AS WELL AS A FEW OTHERS. I THINK YOU ARE

[02:00:01]

QUASIJUDICIAL. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THIS. DOES THIS BOARD CURRENTLY HAVE ANY

QUASIJUDICIAL? >> NO. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH -- LEGAL WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE COMMISSION HAS TO VOTE ON IT. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO IN THIS ACTION. IT IS MUCH DEEPER THAN THAT.

>> I GUESS MY CONCERN WOULD BE, WE CANNOT APPROVE THIS AT ALL

WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATION. >> WE COULD . WE COULD.

>> RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL WITH SUGGESTIONS.

>> IF YOU ARE GOING DOWN THAT LINE I WOULD REALLY, I WOULD SAY, LEAVE THE EXISTING LIMITS AS THEY ARE AND HAVE A TEAR BETWEEN THE 20-50 AND BETWEEN 4000 AND 10,000 THAT REDUCES THE LEVEL OF COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT AND FROM EXTERNAL ENTITIES AND JUST PUTTING MORE REVIEW , I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOING TO GET ANYWHERE.

>> A CITY OF OUR SIZE, I JUST THINK THIS IS A QUANTUM LEAP THAT WE ARE TAKING THE ABILITY FOR OUR CITIZENS TO BE ALERTED THAT THE PROJECT. I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR TO THE CITIZENS OF FORT PIERCE TO DO THAT. STRICTLY SO THAT THE COMMISSION CAN BE -- CAN HAVE LESS OF A MICROMANAGEMENT OF THESE SMALLER PROJECT. I UNDERSTAND THE DISCUSSION AND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO AND I AM ALL FOR IT. BUT I DON'T THINK PUTTING THE ENTIRE BURDEN ON YOU AS THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO DO THIS IS NECESSARY. AND I DON'T THINK IN A IS CITY THE SIZE OF OUR POPULATION IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO ELIMINATE THE ABILITY FOR THE CITIZENS TO BE ALERTED THAT A 10,000 SQUARE-FOOT BUILDING . AGAIN, IF WE WERE WEST PALM BEACH, AND A 10,000 SQUARE FEET BUILDING WAS GOING UP AND SIX PEOPLE ARE UPSET, IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL BUT IN FORT PIERCE, IT'S DIFFERENT. WE ARE GROWING BUT IT IS JUST NOT THAT GREAT AND I DON'T THINK IT IS MICROMANAGEMENT TO SUGGEST THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD COME BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. I DON'T THINK THERE IS MICROMANAGING IN THAT. I THINK MICROMANAGEMENT IS WHEN IT GETS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEY HAVE A TWO-HOUR MEETING ONTHE SAME THING THAT WE COVERED AND THEN THEY NOT ONLY DO IT ONCE BUT THEY DO IT TWICE AND THEY HAVE A TWO-HOUR

MEETING BOTH TIMES. >> I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM. MY RELUCTANCE TO JUST SAY EVERYTHING BE BETWEEN ZERO OR ONE OR ZERO AND 10,000 IS , IT HAS TO COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD WHERE AT THE MOMENT YOU HAVE THAT DIVISION OF 20 AND 4000 BEING AT THE DISTRAUGHT OF. -- ADMINISTRATIVE. THESE SITE PLANS ARE NOT REALLY DETERMINED BY ME OR PLANNING. YES, WE SIGN OFF ON THE APPROVAL BUT THE REVIEW IS THAT THE MEAT CITY CODE AND WE HAVE A WHOLE RANGE OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO MAKE SURE IT MEETS THEIR

PART OF THE CITY CODE. >> LET'S BACK UP ON THAT DISCUSSION. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE THROWN OUT SEVERAL TIMES. EVERYTHING MEETS CITY CODE. THERE IS NO HICCUPS IN

[02:05:02]

IF THERE IS ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE TYPICAL CODE THAT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED , AS A PLANNING BOARD CHAIR, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THAT DECISION IF IT IS OUTSIDE OF CODE. THAT IS WHAT THE COMMISSION IS THEREFORE IS TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. FOR THEM TO REVIEW IT AND SAY, IT DOESN'T QUITE MEET CODE AND HERE ARE THE REASONS WHY BUT IT IS -- IT IS NOT A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR THE CITY. I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE CITY BUT, TO TAKE OUT OF THE LOOP THE ABILITY FOR THIS GENTLEMAN TO SEE THE AGENDA AND SEE A 3406 FOOT SQUARE BUILDING GOING UP AND HE HAS THE ABILITY TO SHARE COMMENTS, SOMETHING THAT COULD CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THE CONVERSATION, I THINK THAT IS NECESSARY. I WILL LEAVE IT TO THE REST OF THE BOARD TO TALK.

WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IT COULD THROW A MONKEYWRENCH IN THIS BUT IT IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I HAVE DONE THIS. THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE THE BOARD SEVERAL TIMES AND EVERY TIME IT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD, A MONKEYWRENCH IS THROWN INTO IT AND WE GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION BUT EVERY TIME WE GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE DISCUSSION WE GET BACK HERE TO THE SAME PLACE. I HAVE SEEN THESE NUMBERS SEVERAL TIMES. I THINK IF YOU GO BACK IN HISTORY AND LOOK AT THE FILE, THAT IS MAYBE WHERE THESE NUMBERS CAME FROM.

>> YOU KNOW, IT IS NOT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE YET.

>> NO, IT IS NOT. >> AND I HAVE NOT HAD TO GIVE UP THAT FIVE DOLLARS YET EITHER.

>> YOU MIGHT FIND THIS HARD TO BELIEVE BUT I AM AGREEING WITH YOU. I THINK WE SHOULD STAY WITH THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE AND NOT MAKE THAT ANYMORE FREEWHEELING THAN IT IS

ALREADY. >> I AGREE. I'M NOT SURE THAT THE TIERED APPROACH WOULD HELP. I GUESS I NEED SOME RATIONALE AS TO WHY YOU WOULD WANT A TIERED PROGRAM VERSUS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE CITY.

>> I AM NOT SUGGESTING OR RECOMMENDING THAT TO YOU. I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO BE CAREFUL OF WHAT WE HAVE AS THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OF PEOPLE AND THIS WOULD BE REMOVING SOME OF THE GOVERNMENT RIGHTS AND TURNS OF THE PROCESS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT FITS IN. THAT IF YOU MOVED EVERYTHING THAT IS ALLOWED NOW INTO A PROCESS WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD AS PART OF THAT BUREAUCRACY, I THINK YOU COULD GET A BIG BACKLASH. IF YOU SAID, OKAY, THAT IS WORKING NOW AS IT IS, BUT WE SEE THERE IS POTENTIALLY ANOTHER ALLOWANCE THAT WE COULD BE PART OF AS A PLANNING BOARD BY LOOKING AT EVERYTHING BETWEEN 21 AND 50 UNITS OR ANYTHING BETWEEN 4001 AND 10,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT WOULD COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD. THE EXISTING SYSTEM STAYS IN PLACE AND THERE IS NO ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT. WE ARE REDUCING SOME OF THE REVIEW STEPS BY TAKING OUT CITY COMMISSION FROM THE FINAL REVIEW OF THAT BUT ANYTHING OVER THAT WOULD STILL REMAIN IN THE CITY COMMISSION PURVIEW.

>> THAT IS ONLY IN A SCENARIO WHERE THIS BOARD IS EMBOLDENED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY PROCEED. WHICH, I DON'T THINK IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. YOU KNOW, 4000 SQUARE FEET, 20 UNITS. I

[02:10:09]

WITH THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE. >> LET'S SAY WE DON'T APPROVE THIS. IT STILL GOES TO THE COMMISSION AND THEY CAN APPROVE THIS. IS THAT CORRECT ?

>> I HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO BRING IT BACK TO THE CITY COMMISSION. WE HAD A CONFERENCE MEETING WHERE STAFF PRESENTED THIS AND THEY SAID RING IT BACK.

>> BASED ON YOUR CONVERSATION WITH THE CURRENT COMMISSIONERS, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS?

>> I THINK YOU HAVE MADE SOME INTERESTING POINTS. I THINK THERE IS MORE AWARENESS OF WHAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION BRINGS TO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANY COMMISSION OR ABOUT QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. I MENTIONED IT TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING ON THAT.

>> IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO HEAR WHAT THEY SAY.

>> I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS SO MANY TIMES AND I HAVE GONE AND WORKED THE COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES. AND I HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH LEGAL. THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS TODAY THAT HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PROVIDING THE ABILITY FOR CITIZENRY BOARDS TO OPERATE UNDER QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITY. WE DO HAVE A CITIZENS BOARD OPERATING IN THE COMMUNITY TODAY. MAYBE THREE, THAT HAVE QUASI-JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

THE NEXT ARGUMENT THAT CAME OUT IS WELL, IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE QUASI-JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY, YOUR AUTHORITY ON THIS PROJECT, THIS ONE, AND THIS ONE , HOW DO YOU SWITCH ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER? FROM NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL TO QUASI-JUDICIAL. WE DO IT THE SAME WAY THE COMMISSION DOES IT. BECAUSE THEY SWITCH SHOULD NON QUASI-JUDICIAL TO QUASI-JUDICIAL . ONE OF OUR ITEMS TODAY WAS A SEPARATE FUNCTION AND I MADE THAT STATEMENT THAT WE ARE OPERATING SEPARATELY AS THE CASH WHAT DO WE CALL OURSELVES?

>> SO, WE ARE ALREADY SWITCHING HATS ON THIS BOARD AND WE DO IT VERY EFFECTIVELY AND SMOOTHLY. SO, THE QUESTION IS WHAT WITH THE COMMISSION DO IF WE SET IT THAT WAY? WE HAVE SAID IT TO THEM FROM THIS BOARD. EVERY TIME THAT IT HAS COME UP. WE HAVE A SUGGESTION OF LEAVING THE NUMBERS THE WAY THAT THEY ARE NOW FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO TAKE AND HANDLE

[02:15:03]

NORMALLY WHEN THIS COMES UP I GO FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OFFICE TO COMMISSIONERS OFFICE TO COMMISSIONERS OFFICE AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH EACH COMMISSIONER AND I ALWAYS RECOMMEND TO MY BOARDS THAT YOU DO THE SAME IF YOU AGREE WITH ME. YOU CAN'T MEET WITH THEM COLLECTIVELY AND YOU CAN'T MEET WITH TWO AT A TIME. THEY HAVE TO BE SEPARATE. SUNSHINE LAWS. BUT, I ARGUE ALSO, I AM NOT SURE THAT YOU REALLY WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY . IF I WERE YOU I WOULD --.

>> I DO MY JOB AND I AM COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT MY RESPONSIBILITIES ARE. I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I AM HEARING, THERE IS NO HARM IN MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS MOVE ON, IF I COULD GET A RECOMMENDATION IN THE FORM AS YOU ARE THINKING. I THINK I WOULD HAVE NO HESITATION IN MOVING THAT ONTO THE CITY COMMISSION. AND GETTING SOME FEEDBACK FROM LEGAL AND PRESENTING THAT TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THIS HAS BEEN IN ORBIT TOO LONG. AND, I THINK JUST GETTING IT TO A POINT WHERE THERE IS A DECISION

MADE -- >> THIS CAME TO US PRE-17 AND I KNOW WHY THAT IS. MR. BOB BURGE WAS THE CHAIR AT THE TIME AND HE ARGUED AGAINST A AND IT WAS MORE THE REQUEST OF GIVING UP AUTHORITY FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. AND, HE DID NOT LIKE THAT AND I THINK THAT IS REALLY WHAT WAS IN THE BACK OF HIS MIND. IF I AM WRONG I AM SURE I WILL GET A TELEPHONE CALL, WHICH IS FINE. BUT, HE ARGUED AND OPPOSED THIS ALSO BUT THIS HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE PRE-17. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME. IT COMES UP EVERY 18 OR 24 MONTHS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT THE BOARD HAS? NOT HEARING ANY I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

I AM GLAD YOU STAYED BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT YOU SPOKE TO. I WOULD LIKE YOUR INPUT BUT YOU HAVE TO SAY

YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN. >> MY NAME IS CHAD INGRAM, 111 ORANGE AVENUE. I CANNOT DISAGREE WITH YOU GUYS MORE.

EVERYTHING THAT GOES THROUGH THAT QUASI-JUDICIAL REVIEW COSTS $4000. IT IS A 45 DAY PUBLIC NOTICE AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DRUGGING PROJECTS OUT EVEN LONGER AND THE NUMBERS YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE NOT JUST ARBITRARY. ST. LUCIE COUNTY IS 40,000 SQUARE FEET AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS. ALL OF THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU ARE SAYING COME TO US. THESE ARE NOT LARGE FACILITIES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT THE CITY DESPERATELY NEEDS. WE HAVE PEOPLE AND COMPANIES COMING SAYING I WOULD LOVE TO COME HERE BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A PLACE FOR MY PEOPLE TO LIVE.

THESE MIXED-USE FACILITIES AND MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE WHAT WE NEED TO BE A MORE WALKABLE CITY AND SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN ENJOY. RIGHT NOW THERE ARE SIX BLOCKS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND PEOPLE WALK IN AND EVERYBODY THEN TURNS AROUND AND COMES BACK BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE. YOU DON'T ALLOW ANYTHING -- AND YOU ARE ADDING TO THE COST IF YOU KEEP THESE THINGS LOW COMPARED TO OTHER PLACES. IT LEAVES US AT A DISADVANTAGE. WITHOUT BEING OPEN ABOUT IT , WHAT I HEARD WAS ALL OF THE PROFESSIONALS HERE STILL NEED YOU TO LOOK OUT FOR THEM AND WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT EVERY LOT. WE ARE

[02:20:01]

YOU HAD TO HAVE SEEN PEOPLE LIKE I HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THEY SET UP EVERYTHING AND THEY PAY A LOT OF MONEY FOR PICTURES AND DRAWINGS AND MAPS AND PEOPLE , PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE COLOR OF THE PAINT ON THIS AND IT HAS SO LITTLE TO DO WITH WHAT SHOULD BE RISING TO THE LEVEL OF BOARD ENGAGEMENT. THIS IS YOUR STAFF TELLING YOU THAT THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO GO AND FOR YOU TO SAY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I LOOK AT EVERYTHING, THAT IS THE PROBLEM. ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE CITY IS THAT EVERY SINGLE STEP HAS BEEN MICROMANAGED AND THE CODE HAS BEEN SET UP THAT IF YOU MEET EVERYTHING ON THIS SIDE, SO, YOU HAVE GOT TO SEE PEOPLE COMING IN FRONT OF YOU AND THEY HAVE TO COME BACK. IF YOU NAAVA SITE PLAN, HE COULDN'T EVEN SET UP FOR THE ZONING CHANGE. THIS WAS LOOKED AT AGAIN BY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE. AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THEY ALL AGREE THAT THESE NUMBERS WORK WELL AND IT IS ONLY THE GROUP -- YOU ARE THE ONES WHO WOULD BE DIMINISHING YOUR INFLUENCE , WHO HAVE THE ISSUE WITH IT. I WOULD HOPE THAT INSTEAD OF CHANGING WHAT IT IS THAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR RESEARCH WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE STATE BECAUSE THESE NUMBERS ARE NOT OUTRAGEOUS AND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING FOR IS TO SLOW THINGS DOWN EVEN FURTHER IN A A PACE THAT IS ALREADY SLOW. I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THESE FOR YEARS AND I HAVE JUST GOTTEN TO THE PLAN WHERE OUR SITE PLAN HAS BEEN LAID UP AGAIN FOR ANOTHER DRAWING SO EVERY BIT OF REGULATION THAT YOU CAN STRIP OUT OF THIS PROCESS IS WELCOME AND ADDING NEW LAYERS INTO IT, WHERE IT IS A $4000 APPLICATION FEE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR PUBLIC NOTICE -- IT IS TOO MUCH. IT IS AN ATTEMPT TO LOWER THE REGULATIONS AND GET MORE BUSINESS. WHAT WE HEAR IS, WHAT YOU WERE THINKING OF IS GOING TO MAKE THE CITY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS EASIER AND QUICKER TO GET THROUGH AND MORE CONCISE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE THEY EVEN

START. THANK YOU. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION WITH YOU JUST A BIT. SO, PRESENTLY, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ANYTHING THAT IS 20 UNITS , UP TO 20 UNITS, CAN MAKE THE DECISION IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ANYTHING UP TO 4000 SQUARE FEET, THEY MAKE THE DECISION IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO NOTICE TO ANYBODY AND THERE IS NO ABILITY FOR YOU AS A CITIZEN TO COME VOICE YOUR OPINION. WHAT IS BEING ASKED FOR AND HAS BEEN MANY TIMES IS THE 30 UNITS ABOVE, UP TO 30 UNITS ABOVE WOULD ALSO THEN BE TREATED THE SAME WAY FOR AN ADDITIONAL 30 HOUSES. THE ONLY THING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD SEE THEN, IS IF IT WAS ABOVE 50 UNITS, WHICH IS 51 OR ABOVE. SO, YOU KEEP REFERRING TO SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE WORKING ON. IS THAT

RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL? >> WE WANTED TO BE LIKE EVERY OTHER DYNAMIC PLACE. YOU HAVE NEVER BEEN TO A CITY WHERE YOU THOUGHT TO YOURSELF LOOKING AROUND, I WANT TO LIVE HERE AND IT IS FANTASTIC AND IT IS ONLY SINGLE USE ZONING. SOMETIMES

[02:25:05]

OR EXPLOITED. THE FEARS ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE AND WE CAN ALWAYS DRAW THIS BACK IS SOMETHING HAPPENS BUT THERE IS NO BOGEYMAN OUT THERE. THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS ARE THOSE THAT WANT TO BUILD HERE AND IT IS TOUGH TO BUILD HERE. YOUR INNOVATIVE CODE, 10 LINES DOWN SAYS, NOTHING CAN CONTRADICT ANYTHING ELSE IN ZONING SO YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT SAYS, BRING US STUFF AND BRING US IDEAS AND WE WANT TO HELP BUT WE SAY, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME. NOW YOU SAY WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER LEVEL OF REVIEW OVER THE PROFESSIONALS HIRED TO RUN THIS PROGRAM AND ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

>> INTERESTING. >> YOU MUST KNOW MR. ALBURY

. >> THIS ACTUALLY CAME FROM TRYING TO BUILD A CONTAINER HOME ON MY PROPERTY AND EVERY STEP THAT I WENT THROUGH WAS MORE MONEY AND A LOT THAT COST ME $5800 NOW HAS A LIEN ON IT. THE IDEA OF STRIPPING OUT EVERYTHING THAT DOES NOT DESTROY THE CITY IN 30 DAYS IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD AT LEAST ATTEMPT OR HAVE A LITTLE SATELLITE AREA WERE RETRIES STUFF. THERE IS NOT AN INCUBATOR HERE. EVERYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE YOU , THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT DOES NOT COME BEFORE YOU. THERE IS ONLY AT TINY NUMBER OF THINGS THAT DON'T COME BEFORE YOU SO ALL INGENUITY AND CREATIVITY HAS BEEN STRIPPED OUT OF IT AND NOTHING CAN BE DONE. IT IS LIKE TELLING ME TO DESIGN A BLACK DRESS. BUT WE NEED TO SHIFT SOME THINGS AROUND A BIT. I BELIEVE IN IT DEREGULATING EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE DEREGULATED WITHOUT CAUSING PEOPLE INJURY AND SETTING UP A FUTURE DISASTER AND ALLOWING THESE NUMBERS WILL DESTROY IT.

YOU STILL HAVE THE POWER TO RECOMMEND IF YOU SEE THAT THIS IS CRAZY AND WE NEED TO GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BUT TO SAY EVERYTHING IS ON HOLD UNTIL WE LOOK AT IT MEANS THAT OUR CITY

IS GOING TO BE LEFT BEHIND. >> COMPARE FOR A MOMENT THE FORT PIERCE. IS PORT ST. O LUCIE ANY MORE WALKABLE?

>> I HAVE NEVER LIVED THERE. MY WHOLE IDEA WHEN I MOVED HERE,

[02:30:03]

AN AMENDMENT CHANGE OR WHATEVER, IT IS $4000. SO YOU MAY NOT HEAR A LOT OF BACKLASH BECAUSE PEOPLE LOOK AT THE FEE SCHEDULE, ROLL THEIR EYES, AND SAY I AM NOT GOING TO DO IT AND I WILL NOT PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES ON THAT AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO BUILD IS A PLACE WHERE WE ARE BUILDING AND WORKING TO MAKE LIVES BETTER. WE PLUCK THEM OUT AND TAKE THEM TO PORT ST. LUCIE. THAT PEOPLE MIGHT WANT TO BUY SOMETHING IN LINCOLN PARK BECAUSE OVER THE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS, THEY PUT IT SO FAR BACK AWAY FROM THE STREET THAT YOU CAN'T WAIVE TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. THERE ARE ISSUES, IF YOU WANT TO WALK TO THE REALLY TRASHY GROCERY STORE THAT IS RIGHT THERE HE YOU CAN WALK THERE BUT YOU WILL SWELTER IN THE HEAT. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP IS AN AREA WHERE IT THRIVES. IT NOT ONLY THRIVES BECAUSE RICH PEOPLE HAVE PUSHED US OUT AND MOVED IN AND NOW THEY CAN DRIVE THEIR LEXUS TO THE SHOP AT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVED THERE CAN TRULY PICK THEMSELVES UP, BUILD SMALL STRUCTURES TO BEGIN WITH AND ADD ON TO THEM OVER TIME AND PUT THEIR BUSINESSES SOMEWHERE UP FRONT ON THE SIDEWALK AND WELCOME PEOPLE IN. WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS CONTINUING PRESSURE OR DOWNWARD PRESSURE ON PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE UPWARDLY MOBILE AND TO WANT TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN SMALL PROJECTS. YOU CAN CHANGE THAT TO SMALL SITE PLAN AS OPPOSED TO MINOR BUT IT IS JUST THAT.

IF I WANT TO BUILD TWO HOUSES AND PUT THE PORCH ON THE SIDEWALK, SO WHEN PEOPLE COME UP I CAN ENGAGE THEM IN A PUBLIC AND PRIVATE KIND OF SPACE, I HAVE TO COME TO HIM AND PAY HIM AT LEAST $8000 JUST TO ASK. AND THIS IS JUST MORE

-- TO GET THROUGH. >> INTERESTING. VERY ENLIGHTENING. SUSPECT THERE IS SOMETHING I WOULD RECOMMEND TO YOU AND IT IS CALLED LIEN URBANISM THAT IS TRYING TO GET THINGS LIKE LEAN CERTIFICATION TO ACTUALLY ACTUALLY LEAD TO BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE IT SO THAT A HUMAN FEELS HAPPIEST IN THIS SPACE. IT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DO WORKING THROUGH THE CODE AND HAVING TO DO ALL OF THIS AND MAINTAINING SOME TYPE OF INNOVATIVE LEVEL OF DESIGN AND DO IT ALL IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY MAKE MONEY AND ARE PAYING LOWER

RENT. >> THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP THE INTERMINGLING OF COMMERCIAL USE WITH

RESIDENTIAL USE. >> WHAT THIS WILL DO, IF YOU EXTEND THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, IT MEANS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IF THERE COULD BE BUSINESSES UNDERNEATH RESIDENTIAL, IT DOES BRING MORE PEOPLE TO THE AREA.

>> THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS WOULD DO.

>> IT WOULD. IF YOU INCREASED THE SIZE SO THAT PEOPLE COULD, INSTEAD OF HAVING TO STAY UNDER 4000 SQUARE FEET, IF I

[02:35:03]

EVERYBODY THAT GOT THOSE HOUSES AT THE BEGINNING IS NOW GONE AND THEY HAVE MOVED IN ANOTHER ROUND OF PEOPLE AND THEY ARE DOING THE SAME THING AGAIN. EVERYBODY THAT LIVES AROUND MORRIS CREEK, THE RENT IS GOING TO GO UP IMMEDIATELY 20 OR 30%.

THESE THINGS ARE INTERCONNECTED AND YOU CAN'T DO ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET PEOPLE EXCITED ABOUT BEING ABLE TO COME IN HERE BECAUSE OF LOWER FEES OR DIFFERENT STRUCTURES IN THE CODE IF WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT IS EVERY TIME I BUILD ANYTHING I HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THESE PEOPLE BUT OVER HERE ACROSS THE STREET I DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. UP IN A ZERO ERA RULES THAT THEY HAVE SET UP WHERE THEY TRIED TO STRIP AWAY ALL OF THIS STUFF.

ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MIAMI-DADE THE TRY TO STRIP AWAY THESE THINGS. IT IS NOT JUST THIS BOARD. YOU'RE CONNECTED TO

EVERYTHING AROUND YOU. >> YOU HAVE MY ATTENTION. THIS WOULD BE A LEAD-IN POSSIBLY TO MAKE CHANGES TO OTHER ORDINANCES THAT WOULD ALLOW POSSIBLY A COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL COMBINATION SO , AUTOMOTIVE RELATED OR PERHAPS AN ALLEGED VERSION THAT ONCE A 4000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE OR SHOP AND HE WANTS TO PUT A 2000 FOOT SQUARE FOOT RESIDENTIAL ABOVE IT, COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT.

>> SOMETHING EVEN SIMPLER, YOU HAVE YOUR HOUSE AND MAYBE YOU WANT TO BUILD A LITTLE SHOP IN THE BACK. IF YOU HAVE A 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, IT CAN'T BE BIGGER THAN 400 SQUARE FEET AND IF YOU DID THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME AND SPEND A TON OF MONEY AND THEY WOULD SAY, YOU ARE THIS CLOSE TO YOUR NEIGHBOR OR THE SETBACK. THIS SETBACK NEEDS TO BE 25 BUT NOBODY CAN TELL YOU WHY. THE WAY THAT IT IS SET UP RIGHT NOW, A PERSON COULD NOT SELL THEIR PAINTINGS ON THEIR FRONT PORCH. YOU CANNOT TEACH A WRITING CLASS IN YOUR HOUSE.

YOU CAN'T HAVE A BUSINESS. >> YOU CAN'T BE A PIANO

TEACHER. >> EXACTLY. SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THAT. YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE IN A SPACE AND BE ECONOMICALLY PROTECTED AGAINST SETBACKS IF YOU HAVE EXTRA ROOM

[02:40:02]

IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO IT. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU ARE WELCOME. SO, NOW WHAT DO I DO? BROUGHT UP SOME GREAT POINTS. THANK YOU FOR THIS WEALTH OF INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED. SOME THINGS ARE RELEVANT TO THIS AMENDMENT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW. MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, YOU SAID, WITH THINGS LIKE THIS MAKE THIS A PSO? I THINK THAT IS MY FEAR OR MY CONCERN WITH NOT BEING ABLE TO --. I DON'T WANT TO INHIBIT GROWTH OR PROGRESS BUT I ALSO DON'T KNOW WHERE WE SHOULD PLACE THESE THINGS .

SHOULD THERE BE A CERTAIN PLACE FOR THESE THINGS OR A CERTAIN LOCATION? LIKE IN OTHER AREAS. I CAN SAY FOR THE MAJORITY OF FORT PIERCE THE LOTS ARE NOT GOING TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE A CONCERN

FOR US. >> YOU ARE REALLY ONLY GOING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS WITH EXPANSION OUT WEST BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE WE HAVE TO DEVELOP LAND AND IF WE ANNEX

ADDITIONAL --. >> FOR INSTANCE, THE PERSON THAT CAME EARLIER FOR THE ANNEXATION OF MOUNT OKEECHOBEE

AND THE BARN. >> BUT THOSE LOTS ARE NOT EGG ENOUGH . IT WOULDN'T ACCOMMODATE. -- BIG ENOUGH .

IT WOULDN'T ACCOMMODATE . BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE

CONJOINING THE LOTS . >> I'M JUST TRYING TO

UNDERSTAND MORE. >> THE IDEA OF RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS A LARGE SHARE OF THIS CONVERSATION, THE ONLY AREA OF THE CITY THAT WE HAVE THAT AVAILABLE NOW IS

IN A BAKER TOWN, RIGHT? >> NOT NECESSARILY. YOU HAVE VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW MIXED-USE.

>> I THINK THE STATE PRETTY MUCH SOLVED THAT IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION WHEN THEY OPENED THE DOOR FOR RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS TO OPERATE SIDE-BY-SIDE .

>> THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON THAT BIKE CUSTOMER VISITS AND ADDITIONAL PARKING . THERE IS A LIMIT TO DOING THAT . BUT I DON'T THINK THIS NECESSARILY -- THE PIECES THAT YOU ARE TALKING TO, SPECIFICALLY, WHERE DO THESE THINGS HAPPENED IS CONTROLLED BY ZONING. SO, THE ZONING THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY IS RESTRICT THING, TOO A LARGER EXTENT, THESE THINGS HAPPENING. ONE ITEM THAT I AM BRINGING FORWARD THAT HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH A FIRST DRAFT IS THE INNOVATIVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PIECE OF THE CODE WHICH DOES NOT REALLY DO WHAT IT SAYS ON THE CAN. WHEN YOU OPEN IT UP, IT IS -- THERE ARE WORMS IN THERE THAT YOU WERE NOT EXPECTING. I HAVE REALLY A VERY SIMILAR OUTLOOK ON WHAT PLANNING SHOULD BE AND WHAT THE CITY SHOULD BE AND WHAT YOU HAVE

JUST HEARD FROM MR. INGRAM. >> YOU AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT WAYS OF LOOKING AT TRYING TO INCORPORATES THOUGHT INTO RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND BROADENING THE IDEA OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND POSSIBLY TWO UNITS ON ONE LOT.

[02:45:06]

>> PRECISELY. IF YOU GO BACK TO A THREE OR FOUR ITEMS TODAY, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE DEFINITIONS, WE SAW THAT ONE PIECE IN THE DEFINITIONS ABOUT ACCESSORY USES THAT IS SUCH A BIG BLOCK TO WHATEVER WE TRY TO DO. A LOT OF WHAT IS COMING FORWARD -- THE ONLY WAY TO GET AROUND IT, IS TO GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM. THAT IS REVISITING SITE PLANS AND GOING BEFORE THE BOARD AND THEN YOU GET A SITE PLAN APPROVED AS PART OF A LIEN REDUCTION AND THEN YOU FIND OUT WHEN YOU GO FOR THE REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, THAT IT DOES NOT WORK. SO, THE COMMISSION HAVE SUPPORTED THIS IDEA BUT, WHEN YOU COME THROUGH, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AND ENFORCE AND REGULATE , WHAT OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE TO DO, WE ARE STUCK. YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE WITH MR. INGRAM AND OTHERS, THERE ARE SIMILAR SITUATIONS WHERE WE HIT THESE WALLS AND THESE PROCESSES THAT WE ARE MOVING THROUGH NOW, IT IS A GRADUAL RESOLUTION TO ALL OF THOSE ISSUES THAT WE ARE PICKING UP. IT IS SO COMPLEX THAT WE CANNOT DO THIS ALL IN ONE GO. YOU HAVE GOT TO DO IT STEP-BY-STEP AND IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING. AND WHEN THESE THINGS ARE WORDED AND PUT IN CERTAIN WAYS IT IS TO ADDRESS THINGS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED. LIKE WE HEARD WITH THE DEFINITIONS, THERE ARE THINGS IN THERE THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD BE INCORPORATING. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT ENABLE WHAT YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT TODAY.

>> SO, HOW MUCH MORE SPEED -- OR HOW MUCH MORE EFFICIENT WOULD IT BE FOR YOUR DEPARTMENT IF THIS WERE APPROVED.

>> LET ME EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MINOR AND MAJOR IN THE REVIEW PROCESS. A MINOR SITE PLAN COMES IN WITH THE DRAWINGS. ALL OF THE DRAWINGS ARE FINAL DRAWINGS SO YOU HAVE FINAL ENGINEERING. FINALS SITE PLAN AND FINAL LANDSCAPING . ALL OF THOSE ARE ON THE TABLE AND THEY GET SENT TO INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL DEPARTMENTS. THEN, THEY ARE PUT INTO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WHERE WE SIT AROUND AND EACH DEPARTMENT RELAYS COMMENTS BACK TO THE APPLICANT.

AND, THOSE COMMENTS ARE THEN TAKEN AWAY BY THE APPLICANT, IF THERE IS AMENDMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE PLAN, TO MAKE THEM COMPLY WITH CITY CODE, THAT GOES OUT AND THE APPLICANT COMES BACK WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS AND THEN THEY ARE ROUTED OUT TO THE DEPARTMENTS AGAIN AND ANYBODY WHO HAS MADE A COMMENT TO ENSURE THAT IT NOW MEETS THE CITY CODE OR THE COUNTY CODE OR THE DISTRICT. THEN, IT COMES BACK IN AND EVERYBODY SIGNS OFF AND STAFF , PLANNING DEVELOPMENT , SIGN OFTEN SAY, THAT IS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL. IF IT IS MAJOR IT GOES THROUGH THAT INITIAL PROCESS. THIS MEETS THE CODE OR THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE SIGNED OFF. THEN THE MAJOR WE NEED TO TAKE TO THE PLANNING BOARD SO IT GETS ADVERTISED AND NOTICED.

THERE IS A LEGAL REVIEW AND THAT MIGHT HOLD THINGS UP.

WHEN THAT IS DONE, IT GOES THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD AND YOU MAKE A DECISION OR DETERMINATION AND IF IT IS POSITIVE IT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION. ANOTHER LEGAL REVIEW AND ANOTHER SET OF ADVERTISING AND THEN THE CITY CAN HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO, I THINK SITE PLANS --.

>> IT IS ONLY ONE PUBLIC READING.

>> IF IT IS MAJOR IT IS ONLY ONE SITE PLAN. BUT WE TELL APPLICANTS, THE DIFFERENTIAL AND THE TIMEFRAME BETWEEN MINOR IT DEPENDS ON THEM DOING THEIR JOB. IT CAN BE BETWEEN 45 AND

[02:50:06]

IF IT COMES IN CLEAN THEN YOU CAN HAVE THAT OUT VERY QUICKLY.

NOT REALLY VERY OFTEN BUT LESS THAN 45 DAYS. BECAUSE YOU GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND EVERYBODY SAYS, THIS IS GREAT.

AND IT'S ALL GOOD. IF YOU GO TO A MAJOR THEN WE ARE TALKING BETWEEN 90 AND 180 DAYS BECAUSE OF THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS AND BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS AND BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL REVIEW AND MAKING SURE EVERYTHING IS RIGHT AND THAT THE ORDINANCES FORMATTED CORRECTLY. IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES IT GOES BACK AND YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT REVIEW AGAIN SO THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROCESSING AND THE TIMELINE WITH DEVELOPERS AND APPLICANTS AND OWNERS WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF FEAR COMING IN FOR A MINOR

RATHER THAN A MAJOR. >> THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED WITH 306 SQUARE FEET. THEY WENT OVER THE MINOR OF 4000 SQUARE FEET. BY 306 SQUARE FEET AND IT JUMPED FROM 30-45 DAYS AND NOW UP TO 90-100 20 AND REQUIRED ALL OF THE EXTERIOR.

THIS CAME IN, FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, THIS CAME IN CLEAN WITH ALL OF THE RIGHT REPORTS UPFRONT.

>> IT WASN'T CLEAN BUT IT TO GET THERE.

>> IT WAS VERY CLOSE TO THAT.

>> I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO THE QUESTION OF SCALE. RIGHT?

>> RIGHT . >> SO WHY 20, WIFE 50, WHY 4000, WHY 10,000? THOSE NUMBERS ARE CLEARLY SUBJECTIVE.

BUT, ARE THEY SUBJECTIVELY HIGH ? OR SUBJECTIVELY LOW? AND, IF WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SCALE, DO THOSE NUMBERS MAKE SENSE FOR THE SIZE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE SIZE OF THE POPULATION. THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPABLE GROWTH. WHILE I MIGHT DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT WILL BE GOOD FOR HIS COMMUNITY I DON'T KNOW THAT I TRUST AN OUTSIDE DEVELOPER WITH THE SAME CONCEPT. SO, WE ARE AT THAT CONFLICT OF HOW DO WE MAKE THINGS AS EASY FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WE KNOW WANT TO DO GOOD IN THE CITY TO DO THE THING THAT THEY WANT TO DO WHILE ALSO LEAVING IN SOME KIND OF REASONABLE AMOUNT OF OVERSIGHT FOR THE THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT GO AS PLANNED. I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT PROBLEM. BUT, YOU KNOW, UNLESS WE START MAKING DIFFERENT SETS OF RULES FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE, AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO.

>> I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS AND I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS SUBJECTIVITY OF THE NUMBERS SO MY WAY OF, FIRST OF ALL THERE ARE WAYS OF ADDRESSING EVERYTHING THAT YOU JUST SAID.

THE NUMBERS THEMSELVES, LETS THINK ABOUT THIS. 50 RESIDENTIAL UNITS , AND I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THIS TO CITY COMMISSION, TO SAY, 50 UNITS ON A SITE , LET'S TALK ABOUT THE DENSITY AND AREA OF THE SITE REQUIRED TO PUT 50 UNITS ON THEIR. SO, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT AREAS IN EXCESS OF TWO ACRES. TO DO 50 UNITS. WHEN YOU DO THE ANALYSIS OF WHERE THOSE TWO ACRES WOULD BE , THEY ARE NOT REALLY WITHIN THE BUILT AREA OF THE CITY. THAT WAS THE REASONING . I CAN SEE WHY THE MINNIS APOLOGIES OF DONE THAT. THEY HAVE LOOKED AT THE DENSITY AND SAID, THAT IS GOING TO BE LIKE 2 1/2 OR THREE ACRES OF PROPERTY. WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN? FOR 10,000 SQUARE

[02:55:04]

THERE IS NO GUARANTEE OF WHAT THE STYLE OR ARCHITECTURE OR WHAT ANY OF THESE THINGS WILL BE. WE ARE DOING A LOT OF WORK BEHIND THE SCENES IN TERMS OF SITE DESIGN , ARCHITECTURE, LANDSCAPING . WE HAVE SOME REALLY IN-DEPTH REVIEWS GOING ON INTERNALLY WITH THE LANDSCAPING CODE AND HOW WE BETTER SET OUT SITES TO BE ATTRACTIVE , ECONOMICAL , FLEXIBLE . WORK WITH STORM WATER AND BE RESILIENT . BE EASILY MAINTAINED. ALL OF THE THINGS THAT CAUSE PROBLEMS. WE WANT TO GIVE A RANGE OF LANDSCAPE OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE NOT FIXED TO A NUMBER OF TREE TYPES WERE NOW WE UNDERSTAND ONE OF THE BIGGEST INQUIRIES OR REQUESTS THAT WE GET AS WE CAN'T BUY THESE TREES BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE IS AND THEY ARE OUT OF STOCK SO CAN I REPLACE IT WITH THIS TREE BUT IT IS NOT ON YOUR LIST., WHAT DO I DO ABOUT THAT? IT IS A SUBJECTIVE DECISION. I NEED AN OPINION FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND SO ONE. IT IS NOT -- IF IT IS A TREE. IF YOU GET A TREE AND IT'S GOING TO GROW AND DOES ITS THING, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SPECIES IT IS? CAN WE GET LANDSCAPE TO COOPERATE WITH THE STORM WATER SYSTEM TO DO THE WATER ABSORPTION AND RETENTION AND CLEANING THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING WHEN WE DESIGN A SITE. THAT SHOULD BE IN THE LANDSCAPE CODE AS WELL. ARCHITECTURALLY, THE STATE HAS STRIPPED OUT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR, ESPECIALLY IN SINGLE-FAMILY , AND DUPLEX HOUSING FOR THE CITY OR CITIES, TO LOOK AT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN. BUT WE HAVE A LARGE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA . IF WE HAVE REGULATIONS, WE CAN LOOK AT SINGLE-FAMILY AND DUPLEX PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT AREA SO, WE ARE DESIGNING ARCHITECTURAL TO ALLOW FLEXIBILITY THIS IS THE ABILITY FOR PEOPLE THAT INCLUDES ANOTHER PIECE OF CODE THAT IS THE AMENDMENTS THAT WILL RESTRICT THAT PIECE OF CODE FROM DOING WHAT IT SAYS IN THE TITLE IT SHOULD BE DOING.

THEN IT GETS REVIEWED AND ALL OF THE OTHER IDEAS THERE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THINGS WE APPROVE MEET CODE. I AM VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT.

>> THE COMMISSIONERS ARE TRYING TO SLIDE MORE RESPONSIBILITY INTO THAT SHOEBOX.

[03:00:02]

>> I AM UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT AND I THINK THAT ANYBODY THAT WORKS IN PLANNING OR HAS TO MEET ZONING DETERMINATIONS ARE ONLY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT IF THE CODE DOES NOT SUPPORT WHERE THE CITY WANTS TO HEAD AND YOU ARE ALWAYS IN CONFLICT WITH A POLITICAL POINT OF VIEW AGAINST THE REGULATORY POINT OF VIEW AND THE DESIRES OF THE ACTUAL CITIZENS OF THE TOWN, IF THEY ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE CODE.

THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. PARTICIPATION FROM THE CITIZENS OF FORT PIERCE IS TO HELP US SET OUT WHAT TO THE ZONING DISTRICTS MATTER AND WHAT TO THE ARCHITECTURAL LANDSCAPING LOOK LIKE AND WHAT DOES THE STORM WATER LOOK LIKE? HOW DO COMMUNITIES WORK? THAT IS THE ESSENTIAL PIECE OF WHERE

COMMUNITIES NEED TO BE. >> I THINK YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT. I AM THINKING ABOUT THE PROCESS NOW AND MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY HERE -- BECAUSE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT A NUMBER OF TIMES. OUR OBLIGATION IS TO REVIEW THINGS FOR EFFICACY OF THE CODE. AND TO NOT RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE THE GUY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE COMMISSION IS NOT NECESSARILY FOUND TO THAT SAME RESTRICTION.

YOU ARE AS THE PLANNING AGENCY. THE COMMISSION, ULTIMATELY, CAN DECIDE THAT EVEN THOUGH IT IS 100% COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE THAT A DEVELOPMENT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA FOR THE CITY FOR WHATEVER SUBJECTIVE REASON.

>> OR VICE VERSA. >> AND, IF WE APPROVE THIS DO IT BUT THE COMMISSION CAN. AND THAT COULD MAKE AN EXTRAJUDICIAL RULING ON A PROJECT BEYOND WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS. IN THIS MEETING ALONE WE ARE STILL TRYING TO GET A CODE TO BE WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE. I THINK WE ARE HEADED HERE BUT WE ARE NOT THERE YET. WE ARE CLEANING HOUSE. SINCE I JOINED A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF THAT . I LOVE EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE DOING WITH GETTING THE CODE CLEANED UP AND MAKING DEFINITIONS MAKE MORE SENSE BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE CODE TO THE POINT WHERE IT HAS SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU KNOW THAT IT NEEDS AND THAT WILL THEN GIVE YOU THE ABILITY TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE OVERSIGHT IN THOSE THINGS. I THINK IF WE WERE THERE AND I FELT LIKE THE CODE WAS BETTER ARMING YOU TO PROTECT THAT, I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THESE -- WITH THIS RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT. I JUST THINK , IT IS A SLOW PROCESS. WE ARE DIGGING OUT OF A HOLE AND I WENT THROUGH A VERY SIMILAR PROCESS TRYING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON MY PROPERTY . LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MR. INGRAM EXPLAINED. IT WAS INFURIATING . AND IT DID NOT SEEM LIKE IT WAS HELPING ANYBODY , THE HOOPS THAT WE HAD TO JUMP THROUGH . SO, I GET IT. I REALLY DO BUT I THINK WE ARE POINTED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BUT WE ARE NOT THERE YET.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY ENLIGHTENING WHAT HE SAID AND THEN WHAT YOU JUST EXPLAINED ABOUT MAJOR AND MINOR AND KNOWING THAT THEY ARE STILL GOING THROUGH ALL OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS AND LOOKING AT STUFF. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH SHOWING TRUST IN WHAT THE PROCESS IS. A LOT OF TIMES, I GO BACK TO HERE WE ARE SITTING FOR AN HOUR TO DECIDE ON A PINK COLOR. BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF HIS -- IT IS, THAT AUTO SHOP, IF WE DIDN'T BRING THAT UP, IT MIGHT NOT -- THEY MAY NOT HAVE DONE THE THINGS THAT MADE IT LOOK MORE PRETTY. AT THE SAME TIME, I HAVE MIXED EMOTIONS BECAUSE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS GOING THROUGH IT AND THERE ARE SO MANY STEPS GOING THROUGH IT ALREADY. DO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY ON THE NUMBERS? MAYBE I WOULD THINK YOU ARE

[03:05:08]

>> WHEN I LOOK AT THE SCENARIO THAT MR. INGRAM LAID OUT, HE WAS ABLE TO WORK THROUGH OVER A LENGTHY TIME OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAD LEANS AGAINST IT AND TO GET THE LIENS FORGIVEN AND MOVED IN, GOT WORK DONE ON THE COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION SAYS YOU CAN BUILD WHAT YOU WANT TO BUILD ON THAT AND THEN HE COMES BACK TO PLANNING WITH THIS AGREEMENT AND EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE IT IS DONE AND THEN PLANNING LOOKS AT IT BASED ON ORDINANCES AND GOES, I CAN'T APPROVE THAT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE ORDINANCE. THIS DOES NOT FIX THAT. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO FIXING THAT. YOU HAVE RUN INTO ISSUES IN THE SAME RESPECT. YOU DIDN'T GET AS FAR INTO THE SYSTEM BUT YOU RAN INTO ISSUES OF TRYING TO DO SOME THINGS AND THE ORDINANCES ARE BLOCKED AND GET IN THE WAY. SOME OF THE ORDINANCES DO AND THAT IS WHY YOU ARE GOING THROUGH THE EXERCISE YOU ARE GOING THROUGH IS TO TRY TO CLEAN THE ORDINANCE IS UP AND GET DEFINITIONS RETURNED SO THAT IT IS MORE DECISIVE . SO THAT THERE IS NOT AS MUCH POTENTIAL IN HAVING TO MAKE A DECISION LATER RUN. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S LIKE, OH SHOOT. WE STEPPED IN A BIG ONE. MY OBJECTIVE IS TO TRY TO SUGGEST AND SEND SOMETHING TO THE COMMISSION THAT WHAT WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IS THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY. I ENTERED INTO THIS DISCUSSION WITH ONE THOUGHT. AND HAVE BEEN OF THAT THOUGHT FOR YEARS. I AM COMING OUT OF THAT DISCUSSION WITH IT BEING MODIFIED DRASTICALLY. I DON'T KNOW THAT I AM COMPLETELY ON THE ON BOARD WITH THE IDEA THAT WE SHOULD SEND IT TO THE COMMISSION THE WAY IT IS BUT, THERE CERTAINLY ARE THAT IS GOOD AND THAT IS WHAT THE CONVERSATION IS SUPPOSED TO DO. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE. WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT BEFORE AND NO MATTER WHAT YOU MAY HAVE TO SAY, OR WHAT QUESTIONS HE MAY HAVE, DON'T EVER NOT THROW IT OUT THERE BECAUSE IT COULD BE THE ONE THING THAT CHANGES THE DIRECTION OF THE WHOLE CONVERSATION AND THAT CERTAINLY HAS HAPPENED HERE TODAY.

>> I HAVE A COMMENT. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HAVE COME IN WITH THE SAME THOUGHT PROCESS AND MAINTAINED IT. WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS OVER 30 MINUTES NOW AND I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION, WHETHER IT PASSES OR FAILS. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE

THE MOTION AS STATED. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. BY MR. JOHN. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>>

>> THE MOTION PASSES. I THINK, I AM GOING TO DO THIS. I AM

[03:10:02]

DISCUSSION. >> I WILL BE SURE TO PARAPHRASE THIS. AND ATTACH THAT TO THE MINUTES.

>> VERY GOOD. >> WHY DON'T WE TAKE A COUPLE MINUTE BREAK.

[8. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR]

DEPARTMENT. THE CITY CLERK. >> EXCEPT US.

>> EXCEPT YOU. OVER A SIX MONTH PERIOD WAS VERY TRYING DECISION. IT DIDN'T COME LIGHTLY. IT'S VERY BITTERSWEET. I SPENT EIGHT YEARS ON THIS BOARD. I HAVE WORKED WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS AT THE DAIS. BUT, I HAD TO MAKE A DECISION. AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT. SO, THIS WILL BE MY LAST BOARD MEETING. I PURPOSELY DID NOT ANNOUNCE IT LAST MONTH, BECAUSE I WANTED TO ALLOW MYSELF A POTENTIAL OUT. IF YOU WILL. I WAS ASSURED BY EVERYONE I SPOKE TO. MR. MINTZ SAID TO ME, NO YOU CAN'T. YOU KNOW? TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. SO, I ALWAYS FELT LIKE PROBABLY IF I HAD CHANGED MY MIND EVERYBODY WOULD ACCEPT MY WITHDRAWAL OF RESIGNATION. BUT, I JUST CAN'T GET THERE FROM WHERE I'M AT. SO, THIS IS MY LAST MEETING. WE ARE HERE TO CHOOSE A NEW CHAIR, AND VICE CHAIR. AND I PURPOSELY RESIGNED AT THIS TIME. SO, THAT I WOULDN'T FIND MYSELF IN A POSITION THAT YOU MAY HAVE GIVEN ME YOUR -- CHOSEN ME AS YOUR CHAIR FOR THIS YEAR, AND I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE IN MIDTERM. SO, WE ARE AT A STAGE NOW WHERE WE NEED TO ELECT A CHAIR. AND I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT I'M PERMITTED TO DO, AND I HAVE NEVER DONE IN THE PAST. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. AND I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION THAT MR. CRIES ALL .

TO BE APPOINTED AS THE NEXT CHAIR .

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF, AND A SECOND BY MS. CLEMENS. CONVERSATION? NOT HEARING ANY CONVERSATION. I WOULD ASK FOR A ROLL CALL.

>> MR. KREISL? MISS CLEMENTS? MISS CARTER? MR. EDWARDS?

>> FOR VICE CHAIR I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT MS. CLEMONS REMAINS AS THE VICE CHAIR FOR

[03:15:03]

THIS BOARD. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF SECONDED BY MR. KREISL.

PLEASE, ANY CONVERSATION? I'M NOT HEARING CONVERSATION.

>> MR. HEANING? MISS CLEMENTS? MISS CARTER? MR. EDWARDS? MR. KREISL? CHAIR CREYAUFMILLER?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS

[10. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

>> THANK YOU CHAIR OR X CHAIR. AS I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GIVE

YOU THE TITLE NOW. >> I KNEW THIS WAS COMING.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAD INFORMED ME. SO, I'D HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT STUFF. AND I THINK I'VE TOLD YOU THIS STORY BEFORE, AND SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE HEARD THIS.

BUT, WHEN I WAS -- I WAS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND I WAS REALLY NOT ENJOYING IT. BUT, I THOUGHT I'M GOING TO GET OUT OF HERE. I'M GOING TO GO INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE, AND I'M GOING TO PUT MY FEET ON THE DECK CHAIR SOMEWHERE, AND GET OUT OF THIS POLITICS STUFF. ONE OF MY WORK COLLEAGUES CAME TO ME, AND SAID DO YOU KNOW THIS GUY IN FORT PIERCE? I SAID, WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? SHE HAD JUST COME BACK FROM AN APA PLANNING CONFERENCE, AND WHO IS THIS? BOARD PRESENTATION ABOUT.

WHAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES? I THINK IT'S AN APA CONFERENCE. SHE SAID, THERE'S THIS GUY THERE FROM FORT PIERCE. AND I'D NEVER SEEN ANYBODY GET UP, AND TALK ABOUT PLANNING . AND THE ROLE OF THE PLANNING BOARD IN THE PROCESS.

AND HOW THEY SAW THAT PROCESS INTERLINKING WITH THE COMMUNITY , AND WITH STAFF. AND BEING ALL ON ONE PAGE, AND BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE. AND WORKING HAND IN HAND, AND NOT HAVING ANY SURPRISES COME UP AT THE MEETINGS AS FAR AS POSSIBLE.

WERE ALWAYS GOING TO GET SURPRISES.

>> THAT SOUNDS -- I'VE NEVER HEARD THAT, AND I'VE BEEN ON BOARDS FOR MY 20 SOMETHING YEARS HERE. WE REALLY, VERY RARELY HAVE SOMEBODY COME BACK, AND SAY THAT A PERSON WHO I HEARD WAS SAYING EVERYTHING THAT WE SAY INTERNALLY. WHY CAN'T WE WORK TOGETHER BETTER? WHY IS ALL THIS CONFLICT BROUGHT UP DURING BOARD MEETINGS? WHY DO PEOPLE TAKE PLEASURE IN CATCHING STUFF OR DOING SOMETHING? WHY DOES STAFF NOT COMMUNICATE BETTER WITH THE MEMBERS OR THAT SORT OF THING THAT WE KNEW MADE SENSE. BUT, NOBODY WAS EVER TO BE IN A POSITION TO RELAY THAT. AS I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS TURMOIL. SO, I THOUGHT I'LL HAVE A LOOK AT THIS PLANNING BOARD AT FORT PIERCE , AND SEE WHAT GOES ON THERE. BECAUSE ONE OF MY OTHER FRIENDS SAID , WELL THERE'S A POSITION COMING UP IN FORT PIERCE. YOU SHOULD APPLY FOR IT, AND IT'S YOURS.

EVERYTHING YOU THINK OF, AND HOW YOU THINK OF PLANNING ANYOU SHOULD BE DOING THERE. BECAUSE THAT'S THE CITY THAT REALLY WANTS TO DO SOMETHING. I THOUGHT, WELL I'VE HEARD ALL THIS BEFORE. SO, I LOOKED AND I PULLED UP THE PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. I THOUGHT, YEAH. THIS IS REASONABLE COMMENTS.

THIS IS ACTUALLY MAKING SENSE IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN STAFF, AND THE BOARD, AND THE CHAIR. THAT TIME IT WAS MR. CREYAUFMILLER. AND I THOUGHT, THIS IS -- IF I'M GOING TO DO SOMETHING, AND I'VE GOT A BOARD THAT IS THIS RESPONSIVE , AND COMMUNICATIVE WITH STAFF. THAT IS THE PLACE I SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. THAT IS WHY I APPLIED HERE. SOON AFTER I APPLIED I WAS IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. MAYBE NOT SOME OF YOU. I THINK YOU JOINED SINCE. BUT, I WAS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. AND BEFORE THE FIRST MEETING I THINK I MANAGED TO TALK WITH FRANK. AND WE'VE DEVELOPED THIS REALLY GOOD COMMUNICATION. I THINK THERE'S TIMES WHERE I GET SO

[03:20:05]

BUT, I'VE ALWAYS TRIED TO SET TIME AS BOTH OF US ARE BUSY COMMAND STUFF. WE CAN SIT DOWN, AND TALK ABOUT STUFF. SO, THAT'S MY ENJOYMENT OF KNOWING YOU AS CHAIR. AND I THINK I'VE GOT A TEAM WHO REALLY ARE SEEING THAT. AND HOW WE SHOULD INTERACT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING THAT CHAIR. YOU KNOW, BRINGING ALL THAT -- YOU GOT ME EXCITED AGAIN AND ABOUT PLANNING. YOU GOT ME DESIRING THAT I SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING HERE. THAT'S MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE TO ME. AND I THINK EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE CITY. SO, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND AS PART OF YOUR DEPARTURE WE'VE SORT OF WANT TO GIVE YOU A FORT PIERCE IN THE ROARING 20S. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S YOUR TEENAGE YEARS. JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT AS A KEEPSAKE.

>> WELL, THANK YOU. >> IT'S VERY INTERESTING.

IT'S BY JEAN ALLEN WILSON. I THINK SHE'S A LOCAL HISTORIAN HERE. SO, WE'VE ALL SIGNED THAT. AND WE'D LIKE TO GIVE

THAT TO YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

THANK YOU VERY KINDLY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND WORDS.

>> I WOULD HOPE THE NEW CHAIR WOULD BE OPEN TO

COMMUNICATION. >> OF COURSE.

>> MISS CARTER MENTIONED HERE PROBABLY WITHIN THE LAST TWO MONTHS ABOUT WHAT IS MY ROLE? HOW DO I GO ABOUT FINDING OUT WHAT I SHOULD BE DOING, AND SO ON? YOU JUST MENTION ONE ASSOCIATION, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF ASSOCIATIONS LOCALLY THAT ARE GEARED TOWARD PLANNING. NOT NECESSARILY A PLANNING BOARD. BUT, TOWARD PLANNING. BUT, EACH OF THESE ASSOCIATIONS. AND I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO TWO OF THEM. ONE GENERALLY HAS THEIR MEETINGS IN WEST PALM BEACH. AT THE CONVENTION CENTER. I HAVE SAT ON A COUPLE OF BOARD -- IN THOSE MEETINGS. QUESTION AND ANSWER BOARDS. AND YOU MAY REFERENCE TO ONE HERE. ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE ALWAYS TRY TO PROMOTE HERE ON THIS DAIS WAS THAT LET'S NOT LOOK AT A PROJECT. FIND SOMETHING IN IT, AND THEN COME IN AND THROW THAT WHOLE QUESTION OUT THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET YOU.

NOBODY WINS WITH THAT KIND OF NONSENSE. I LOOK AT -- I WATCH VARIOUS BOARD MEETINGS ON THE VIDEO. I'M NOT GOING TO NAME ANY OF THEM. AND I SEE THAT ON A REGULAR BASIS. AND IT'S NOT HEALTHY. WE'VE HAD IT ON THIS BOARD. OCCASIONALLY , AND THE INDIVIDUALS HAVE RUN THROUGH THE BOARD. THEY'RE GONE, AND DOING WHATEVER THEY ARE DOING TODAY. IT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR THE CITY. IT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR THE INDIVIDUALS ON THE BOARD.

NOBODY WINS IN THAT. WORKING TOGETHER IS NECESSARY. AND IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT MOST OF IT NOW AS ELECTRONIC. AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION , CALL THEM. THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE DAY WINDOW THENESS DAYS. BUT, CALL A PLANNER. AND IF YOU CAN'T GET THEM BEFORE THE DATE OF THE MEETING, GO GET THEM BEFORE THE MEETING. I WILL BRING IT UP HERE VERY OFTEN WHERE -- A LOT WITH VENICE. WHERE I HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THEM. EVEN WITH YOURSELF. HEY, THIS IS WHAT I SEE. THIS IS THE QUESTION I'M GOING TO ASK. BE PREPARED FOR IT. I'VE DONE THAT WITH YOU. AND THAT'S

[03:25:04]

AND GO, AND ATTEND THE MEETINGS. IT'S AMAZING, THE CONTACTS THAT YOU MEET, AND THE NETWORK YOU CAN DEVELOP WITH OTHER BOARD MEETINGS, AND OTHER CITIES. SOME CITIES TO BOARDS ARE ACTUALLY PAID. THEY ARE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY. THIS BOARD IS NOT. BUT, IT FUNCTIONS VERY WELL. YOU KNOW, I -- I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THE DEPARTMENT HAS DONE IN HELPING ME ALONG THROUGH THE PROCESS OF EIGHT YEARS OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING AS A BOARD MEMBER. AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE COME ACROSS THE DAIS WHILE I HAVE CHAIRED THIS BOARD, AND WHAT I LEARNED FROM EACH OF YOU. ON A REGULAR BASIS. TONIGHT WAS -- TODAY WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

TONIGHT, ALMOST. TODAY WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE WHERE I CAME IN WITH A VERY FOCUSED VIEWPOINT ON THIS LAST DISCUSSION WE HAD.

AND I'D BEEN FOCUSED GOING BACK TO 2017, AS I MENTIONED.

THROUGH THAT DISCUSSION I STARTED TO WONDER IS THIS REALLY THE WAY IT OUGHT TO BE? MAYBE THERE'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT VIEWPOINT. BUT, NOBODY -- PUT IT INTO WORDS THE WAY MR. ENGLAND DID. HE DID A GOOD JOB. I STARTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, AND GO IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION IN MY VIEWPOINT. SO, NEVER HOLD UP. ALWAYS ASK THE QUESTION OR MAKE THE COMMENT. I'VE HAD TO OCCASIONALLY RAIN A BOARD MEMBER IN FROM THE DAIS. NOT BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY. NOT THAT I DIDN'T REALLY WANT THEM TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT PART OF THE DISCUSSION , BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING INTO A DIRECTION THAT I VIEWED AS A DIRECTION THAT COULD BE A LIGHTNING ROD FOR ILLEGAL DISCUSSION LATER.

AND WE DON'T HAVE AN ATTORNEY ON THIS BOARD. BY AN ATTORNEY ON THE BOARD, THERE IS NO ATTORNEY SITTING THERE IN THAT LITTLE BOX TO KEEP US OUT OF THAT POTENTIAL LEGAL PROBLEM.

AND THAT ROLE FALLS ON KEVIN, AND MYSELF. AND RATHER THAN TO LET IT GO SO FAR THAT IT FALLS ONTO KEVIN AS A PAID EMPLOYEE .

I JUST REIN IT IN, AND I STOPPED THE CONVERSATION WHERE IT IS. AND I'VE BEEN CHASTISE , AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS FOR IT. BUT, THAT'S OKAY. I PUT MY HEAD OUT ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. BUT, I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE PARTICIPATION IN THE BOARD. AND THE DEDICATION THAT YOU'VE SHOWN IN BEING HERE EVERY WEEK. NEARLY, EVERY WEEK. IT'S RARE THAT WE HAVE PEOPLE ABSENT. AND I ONLY KNOW OF ONE TIME THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CALL FOR A MEETING. AND IT WAS A MEETING THAT -- WAS IT A MEETING WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE A CALL FOR IT? WE CALLED FOR SOME SPECIAL TIME BECAUSE OF SOME ISSUE? OR, WAS IT SOME

ACTUAL NEED? >> I THINK IT WAS THE TIME YOU

WERE OUT FOR SURGERY. >> NO.

>> IT HASN'T HAPPENED SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

>> I CAN'T REMEMBER. YEAH, I THINK IT DID.

>> WE'VE NEVER CANCELED A MEETING , BECAUSE WE DIDN'T

HAVE A -- >> I THINK IT WAS A MEETING THAT WE WERE TRYING TO RESCHEDULE. AND WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO RESCHEDULE IT WE COULDN'T GET A QUORUM. IT WAS RIGHT AROUND THE TIME I HAD MY SURGERY. I MAY HAVE BEEN PART

OF THAT. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS A SPECIAL

MEETING. >> YEAH. IT MAY HAVE BEEN A

SPECIAL MEETING. >> TO SAY HERE, AND SAY IN EIGHT YEARS THERE WAS ONLY ONE EVENT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A

[03:30:04]

I DON'T HAVE ANYMORE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.