[a. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 23-057 - An ordinance amending the code of ordinances of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida; amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan to change the designation of property generally located at the northeast corner of Selvitz Road and Devine road and west of Christensen road, from low density residential, RL, to mixed use development, MXD. Parcel ID's: 2432-211-0006-000-3, 2432-211-0005-000-6, and 2432-343-0001-000-4 - SECOND READING]

MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WE WILL HAVE ALL THE REGISTERED HEARINGS TONIGHT. THE FIRST ONE IS ORDINANCE 23.05 AND ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSIONS OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA OF THE MAP OF THE COVER THE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF REVERSALS GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE NORTH IS CORNER OF THE SOVIETS ROAD AND DIVINE ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET NORTH OF THE DIVINE ROAD FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. -- PROVIDING FOR THE CLAUSE REPEALING ALL ORDINANCE ARE PART THEREOF AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE . THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

>> THIS IS THE SECOND READING. STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO

PRESENT? >> YES.

>> OKAY. PROCEED. >> AT EVENING, MADAME MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE THE ADOPTION HEARING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SELVAGE AND DIVINE ROAD. ADVOCATE DAN, CORPORATE OF HEARING. FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER SELVITZ ONE LLC, SELVITZ TWO LLC, SELVITZ THREE LLC. THE ANIMA REQUEST TO REVIEW AND ADOPTION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR 23-03 ESR OF THE THREE PARCELS OF LAND TO CHANGE THE FUTURE DESIGNATION FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. FOR THE SUBJECT POVERTY, IS APPROXIMATELY 122.8+ OR MINUS ACRES.

PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AT THEIR JULY 1220 23 MEETING . CITY COMMISSION APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSMITTAL AT THE UPPER COOPER 16TH, 2023'S CITY COMMISSION MEETING. THE PATIENT IS ADMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, NOT TITLE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 163-31 OR -- 31843 ON OCTOBER 27, 2023. THIS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY REVIEWED APPLICATION UNDER THE EXPEDITED STATE REVIEW PROCESS FOR AMENDMENT NUMBER 23-03 ESR .

THE CITY WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE DEL HAD NO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT ON THE 21ST, 2023 OTHER STATE AGENCIES RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION . SOME INCLUDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS. THESE ARE SOME OF THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE.

[00:20:29]

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENT NUMBER TWO AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE .

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE.

>> THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED IN THE BACK UP TO THIS AGENDA ITEM, BECAUSE I READ IT OVER THE WEEKEND.

>> SALT FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT . THE COMMENTS FROM THAT AGENCY AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE.

ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES , COMMENTS, AND APPLICANT'S RESPONSE.

CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE. >> NO COMMENT.

>> AND THE KITTELSON ASSOCIATES WHICH IS THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT. AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE.

ADDITIONAL KITTELSON AND ASSOCIATES . COMMENTS?

>> I THINK SOMEONE REQUESTED YOU READ THAT VENICE, PLEASE.

>> NUMBER ONE, AND THE TRIP GENERATION IN TABLE 2 WAS REVIEWED AND FOUND ACCEPTABLE FOR EVALUATING THE HIGHEST AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR THE CURRENT DESTINATIONS.

APPLICANT RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGED. NUMBER TWO, TABLE 5 SHOWS THE REDUCED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES 1842 MULTIPLE THINNING UNITS. 535 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND 535 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL. RESULTING IN TURN TO CAPTURE 24.9% INCLUDING 3.8% INTERNAL CAPTURE FOR THE MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT. THIS ABILITY STREAM HIGH. SUPPORT WOULD BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT NEARLY HALF OF THE TRIPS BY THE MULTIFAMILY LAND USE WILL STAY TO THE SITE. APPLICANT RESPONSE, MULTI FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT IS TAILORED TO MEET THE WORKFORCE NEED OF THE OFFICE AND RETAIL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES . THE INTERNAL CAPTURE RATE IS BASED ON MARKETING ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT.

NUMBER THREE, THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AND TRIP GENERATION TABLE 7 FOR THE REZONING WAS A REVIEWED AND VERIFIED TO USE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USES OF INTENSITIES. THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE ACKNOWLEDGED TABLE 4 -- I MEAN ITEM NUMBER FOUR TABLES, THE RATES, FORMULAS FOR LU C THE FOR THE WAREHOUSE. -- WAS REVIEWED AND THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE.

AS MAC GENERATES MORE TRIPS THAN THE LU C1 50 WAREHOUSE.

THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWS SHOWING A FORMULA WAREHOUSE ITE CODE 1/5 HE DOES -- WAS NOT USED IN THE TRIP GENERATION CALCULATION AND CAN BE IGNORED. BEFORE YOU HAD THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL. NO ADVERSE AFFECT ON REGIONAL RESOURCES OR FACILITIES AND EXTRA JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. HOWEVER, PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, COUNSEL WOULD SUGGEST THE CITY OBTAIN CONFIRMATION OF THE AVAILABILITY OF ALL SERVICES INCLUDING POTABLE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER TRANSPORTATION POLICE AND FIRE SCHOOLS , PARKS,/RECREATION TO THE SITE. IF NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TIMELINE . THE APPLICANT RESPONSE LU C7 10 OFFICE . IT GENERATES MORE TRIPS TO THE LU C 150 WAREHOUSE. SHOWING THE ROAD, SHOWING THE FORMULNOT US THE CALCULATION AND CAN BE IGNORED. THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE . THE FLORIDA

[00:25:01]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AMENDMENT NUMBER 23-03 ESR RECEIVED ON OCTOBER 27, 2023.

THE REVIEW WAS COMPLETED UNDER EXPEDITED STATE REVIEW PROCESS.

WE HAVE NO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND APPLICANT KNOWS NO COMMENTS. THIS IS A MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE COLLEGES LOW DENSITY AND THE PROPOSAL WHICH IS MIXED USE DENSITY -- I MEAN MEANTS USE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE COMPARISON FOR THE SOLVENTS PLAN DEVELOPMENT. WHICH WOULD BE AN APPROXIMATE INCREASE OF 1044 . STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE CITY COMMISSION A.THE PROPOSALS AND AUTHORIZED PLAN TO NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ACTION. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO EXISTING FUTURE DESIGNATIONS INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONAL AND LOADING RESIDENTIAL. CAN -- OF THE CODE AND CONFERENCE A PLAN AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE GENERAL WELFARE. POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ADOPTED THE CHANGES OR NOT ADOPTED . ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS, I MEAN.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER BRODERICK ?

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE PERTAINING TO COMMENTARY FOR ST. LUCIE COUNTY. IN THAT SLIDE, I BELIEVE . CLEAR BROOK CAN YOU SHARE SOME LIGHT ON WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY SUGGESTING? I'M READING THIS, AND MY INTERPRETATION IS THE COMPANY THE PLAN SEEKS OF AN INTERNAL STREET DESIGN, NOT USING THE EXISTING COUNTY RIGHT OF WAYS, WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY UNIMPROVED ROADS. IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COUNTY THAT WE WANT TO SEE ACCESS FROM INTERNAL SITES TO THE HOMELESS TO FACE THE UNAPPROVED ROAD ? THAT'S COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE COUNTY. AM I DETERMINING THAT CORRECTLY?

>> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> CAN YOU GO OVER TO THE NEXT SLIDE? KEEP GOING, PLEASE. THE ONE WITH THE CHARTS AND NUMBERS. SO, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MAKES USE HERE.

BRINGS UP THAT INTENSITY TO 1800, RIGHT? IT'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT LOW-DENSITY IS NOW IN THE CHANGE FOR THE MIXED-USE, NOW . THERE WAS A TRAFFIC STUDY, TRYING TO REMEMBER EXACTLY WHICH ENTITY DID IT. CAN YOU PULL THE TRAFFIC STUDY UP ? I THOUGHT I READ SOMETHING THERE.

SO, THEY ACTUALLY MUST BE IN MY BACK UP ON THE TABLE. THEY WERE

REFERRING TO TABLE 2 HERE. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PULL IT UP?

[00:30:26]

JUST REINFORCE WE HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS AND TWO AGENDA ITEMS TODAY BEFORE THIS FIRST ONE DEALS WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY LOOKS AT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE SCENARIO. THAT'S WHAT THE STATE OF AGENTS HAVE BEEN ASKED TO CONSIDER. THE LAY APPLICATION IS ACTUALLY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM , WHICH IS THE ZONING. SO, SOME OF THEM, AS YOU WILL SEE HERE ON THE ANALYSIS WILL LOOK SCARY. BUT THEY ARE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE THAT IS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE, IF YOU COULD BUILD OUT TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IN THE CONFERENCE A PLAN. WE BARELY RARELY SEE , IT AT ALL, TO THE MAXIMUM AVAILABLE DENSITY AND FUTURE AND FULL AREA RATIO. SO, THAT'S THE FIRST PART.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE NEXT ONE IS ZONING. WHICH IS MORE DETAILED AND CRITICAL. 3 THE COMMENT I MADE REGARDING THE UNIMPROVED ROLE , IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE ZONING AREA OF THIS APPLICATION?

>> IT'S MORE RELEVANT TO THE ZONING ASPECT OF THIS. THESE ARE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS. THEY CAN BE MORE BROAD THAN JUST FUTURE LAND-USE COMMENTS.

>> THAT'S WHAT I FIND INTERESTING. THEY BROUGHT IT UP HERE. THE OUTSET , INSTEAD OF WAITING TO MAKE THE CHANGE. YOU NEED TO ADDRESS THIS NOW. THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS WAS. BUT THIS STICKS OUT TO ME LIE A RED FLAG, HERE TO SAY. WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. I FOUND IT ACTUALLY TO BE NOT IN THE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. THAT'S JUST MY LAYPERSON'S ANALYSIS . I EXPECTED IT IN THE SECONDARY. IT'S ADDRESSED THERE AS WELL. WHY WAS IT BROUGHT HERE . THAT REALLY BROUGHT MY ATTENTION. YOU GUYS NEED TO FOCUS ON THIS. IS YOUR INTERPRETATION THE SAME OF THAT?

>> IS NOT THE SAME AS THIS APPLICATION, BUT IT'S BEEN

MADE. >> IS THE AND IRREGULAR?

>> WE SEE ALL SORTS OF COMMENTS COME FORWARD AS IT IS , JUST LOOK AT THIS. YOU WILL SEE SOME COMMENTS FOR THE TECHNICL ASSISTANCE COMMENTS RELATE TO FUTURE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WILL BE COMING FORWARD. THEY RECOMMEND THAT TO BE AS WE DO TO THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL TERMS. SO, THEY GIVE YOU A HEADS UP ABOUT HOW THEY ARE THINKING. I THINK THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK IS PICKING UP HERE. AS A PART PROCESS IN THE TECHNICAL

ASSISTANCE. >> I THINK IT WAS KIND OF WACKY UPSIDE THE HEAD WITH A THAT. I DON'T THINK IT WAS A NEW ONE.

STUDY. IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN REFERENCE ON THAT PARTICULAR

COMMENT. >> IS THAT RIGHT?

>> BY THE KINSEY ENGINEERING AND INCORPORATED. IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENT FROM COMMISSIONER BRODERICK IN WHAT PERHAPS MAY BE COMING LATER . THIS TRAFFIC STUDY WAS AND CONFERENCE OF OF EVERYTHING IN THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT OR JUST THE MIXED-USE PART. WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSES FACING THE BACK?

THAT'S INCLUDING HERE? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. GO BACK TO THE FINDING ONE MORE TIME ON THE COMMENTS.

[00:35:01]

THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WELCOME.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME . HE HAD THREE

MINUTES. AND WELCOME. >> THREE MINUTES FOR THE

APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO ADD TO MR. GOMEZ PRESENTATION. THIS WAS REVIEWED BY YOUR TRC STAFF IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, WHICH, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THIS. THIS WAS SENT TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AS A SECONDARY LEVEL OF GUIDANCE AND A SECONDARY MEANS OF REVIEW BEYOND THE LOCAL JURISDICTION. SO THEY PRODUCE SOMETHING CALLED AN ORC REPORT . OBJECTIONS, LIMITATIONS, AND COMMENTS. CELLULAR AT THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ALL THE SURROUNDING AGENCIES IN THE TREASURE COAST AREA. AND, I THINK WHAT'S NOTABLE IS THAT A LOT OF TIMES, WE SUBMIT THAT TRANSMITTAL, WHICH, THIS BOARD RECOMMENDED TO SUBMIT TO DEL, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE CAME BACK WITH ZERO COMMENTS.

FEW MINOR TECHNICAL -- I GUESS, OBSERVATIONS THAT THEY MADE THAT STANDARD WITH ANY APPLICATION. ANY APPLICATION OVER 50 ACRE SITE IS 122 ACRES. IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THIS NORMAL PROCESS. IT MAKES THE LAND-USE IS THE APPROPRIATE LAND-USE PRESENTATION FOR THE SITE. WE HAVE THE SENIOR PLANT TO THE NORTH. HE HAVE PUBLIC FACILITIES. HE HAD THE TREATMENT. PLANNING THAT -- WEST OF OUR SITE, WE'VE GOT SOME LARGE SINGLE-FAMILY ESTATE HOMES. EAST OF CHRISTIANSEN ROLE. THE MSD LAND-USE FOR THIS ENTIRE SITE ALLOWS YOU TO -- YOU CAN TRANSITION, BUFFER, AND APPLY THE RIGHT DENSITY AND INTENSITY FOR THE WHOLE SITE. AND THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM BEFORE YOU . OUTLINE, SPECIFICALLY THOSE PARTICULAR USES WITHIN EACH POD. STARTING FROM THE TOP LEFT OVER HERE.

MARSH MEYER IS FOR THE BOAT STORAGE AND RV STORAGE AND THE INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, TRANSITIONING TO GARDEN STYLE APARTMENT COMMUNITY END INTO THE SINGLE-FAMILY ESTATE COMMUNITY . AND LASTLY, THE 12 LOTS ALONG CHRISTIANSEN ROAD.

THIS IS THE RIGHT LAND USAGE, JUST THE NORMAL PROCESS WITHIN ALL THE TREASURE COAST THAT GETS THE LOCAL REVIEW, GETS TRANSMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FOR ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY REVIEW. I THINK, SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS POINTS, THEY DO LOOK AT THE MOST INTENSE LAND USES. THEY WILL LOOK AT THE 15 USEFUL PER ACRE FOR RESIDENTIAL, THEY LOOK AT THE MOST INTENSE COMMERCIAL, THE MOST INTENSE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. WE PAIR THAT WITH A PEATY SUBMITTAL SO THAT IT'S NOT SO SCARY AND YOU CAN SEE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE ACTUALLY PROPOSING NEXT IS IN LINE WITH THIS.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

JANE RILEY , 430 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, 34981. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. AND COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL. THIS IS LOGICAL. CHRISTIANSEN ROAD IS ONLY SURE PACK . IT'S A NARROW ROAD. SOMETIMES, YOU HAVE TO PULL OVER TO ANOTHER CARGO BY. BECAUSE, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S THE COUNTY OR THE CITY, BUT THE MEDIAN STRIP ON SUBLETS ROAD, JUST OUT OF DIVINE ROAD -- WE HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC THAT MAKES OTHER ON TRENTON ROAD. IT'S NOT A ROAD, IS ONLY A RIGHT OF WAY TO CLEAR THE ROADWAYS. THESE BIG TRUCKS COME DOWN THE LINE AND MAKE A RIGHT ON CHRISTIANSEN TO MIDWAY , MAKE A RIGHT AND GO TO THE COMMERCIAL DIESEL SPOT. IT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET THERE. OUR ROAD IS FULL OF POTHOLES. IT IS A SURE PACK ROAD. ALSO, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE OWNER KNOWS IT OR NOT, BUT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, P&L JUST DID A SURVEY UNDERNEATH THEIR LINES, RIGHT BY HIS PROPERTY. AND THEY HAVE

[00:40:03]

35 POLES IN THE GROUND WITH FLAGS ON THEM FOR TURTLES.

THESE TURTLES COST THE ROAD ALL THE TIME AND THEY OVER ON THEIR PROPERTY. THERE IS ALSO MEDIATION . THERE IS A DUMP, 50 OR 60 YEARS AGO, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIS PROPERTY , THEY WERE DUMPING A LOT OF CONTAMINANTS AND EASELS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT . THAT SHOULD HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT AND CLEANED UP AND TAKING CARE OF IF HE'S GOING TO BUILD THEIR.

ALSO, IF IT COMES TO THE FACTOR OF MY FRIEND PREPACKED MOST OF US , YOU CANNOT LEAVE YOUR CAR OUT IN THE DRIVEWAY OVERNIGHT , A GETS COVERED WITH DUST. WHEN IT RAINS, THE WATER THAT GOES INTO YOUR SWELL LINER NOW HAS A CROSS OF WHITE CONCRETE ON IT. THE SIDES OF THE ROAD DOWN CHRISTIANSEN, HALFWAY DOWN TO DEVINE HAVE CONCRETE ALL OVER THE SIDES OF THE ROAD. WHAT'S IN CONCRETE? SILICA. SILICA IS A CARCINOGENIC . I WOULD NOT LIVE THERE IF IT WAS NOT FOR THE FACT THAT I'M IN MY MID-80S. I WOULD BE OUT OF HERE. BUT I CANNOT GET THE MONEY FOR MY HOUSE WITH THIS PLACE CLOSE BY. THEY START AT 6:00 IN THE MORNING WORKING . THIS TIME OF THE YEAR, THEY WORK SOMETIMES UNTIL EIGHT OR 9:00 AT NIGHT CLINGING AND BANGING. YOU CANNOT SIT ON YOUR PATIO AND HAVE A CUP OF COFFEE WITH THE NOISE. AND WE DO NOT NEED 12 MORE DRIVEWAYS ON OUR STREET TO CREATE MORE PROBLEMS . THE ROAD CANNOT TAKE IT. IT'S TOO NARROW. IT'S A COUNTRY ROAD.

I GUESS THAT'S ABOUT IT. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE 12.

THERE'S GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY. THANK YOU.

>> AS I SAID, IT'S NOT PERSONAL, IT'S LOGICAL.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

LIVE ON 4795 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. THE 12 DRIVEWAYS PROPOSAL ON OUR ROAD IS GOING TO JUST MESS UP EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY ON OUR ROAD HAS BROUGHT INTO AN BUILT AND LIVED IN ABOUT DYING THERE. IF THIS PASSES, I WILL BE SELLING THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY. BECAUSE, THE PROPERTY VALUE WILL DROP BECAUSE IT'S VERY OBVIOUS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AFTERWARDS. IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. IF THE 12 DRIVEWAYS GO IN, I'M OUT OF HERE. I WILL BE GONE. I AM LEAVING FORT PIERCE. IT'S JUST WHAT HAS TO BE DONE. NOBODY SEEMS TO CARE WHEN IT COMES TO THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. WHAT CAN WE GIVE AWAY, WHAT CAN WE GIVE THE OUT-OF-TOWNERS, WHAT CAN THEY DO? IT'S NOT MY FAULT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED AND NOW NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED INTO SMALLER UNITS TO MAKE THE MONEY BACK . IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE 12 DRIVERS MY PROBLEM EITHER. I WILL LEAVE FORT PIERCE . WHEN THIS IS PASSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? PLEASE

COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? >> THAT EVENING, MY NAME IS JOE. I LIVE AT 4640 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM I HAVE, WE WERE TOLD BY THIS COMMISSION YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RECOMMEND ANY VEHICLES COMING OUT UNDER CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. NOW, IT APPEARS THEY'VE GOT APPROVAL FOR 12 DRIVEWAYS.

MY CONCERN IS WHAT'S ON THOSE DRIVEWAYS. ORIGINALLY, THEY HAD QUADS AND TRIPLEX IS. THAT IS A BIG CONSIDERATION FOR US , AS OPPOSED TO A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH 12 NEW HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT IF THEY START PUTTING IN QUAD LEXIS AS AN ORIGINAL THING, IT COULD ACCUMULATE TO HUNDRED 70 EXTRA VEHICLES. MOST PEOPLE HAVE TWO CARS. PEOPLE WITH CHILDREN HAVE 34 CARS WITH THEIR CHILDREN GOING IN AND OUT. I DID A ROUGH ESTIMATE TODAY. I CAN BE ANYWHERE FROM TWO TO 300 EXTRA VEHICLES ON OUR ROAD, BUT YOU ALL KNOW IS SUBSTANDARD. I'M REALLY OPPOSED, OR I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF THOSE 11 DRIVEWAYS. WHETHER IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, WHETHER IT'S DUPLEXES , THAT'S OUR MAIN CONCERN IS THE VOLUME

[00:45:01]

THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING OUT OF THOSE 12 DRIVEWAYS. THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS GABRIELLA CLAYSON, MET 3286 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD AND 4284. MY BROTHER LIVES NEXT DOOR. MY BIG CONCERN, AS OF COURSE THE DEVELOPMENT ACCESS TO CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. ST. LUCIE COUNTY , YOU GUYS ARE FORT PIERCE, BUT ST. LUCIE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THE ROAD EASEMENT ACCESS. THEY ONLY OWN CHRISTIANSEN ROAD FROM MIDWAY -- I MEAN FROM DEVINE AVENUE NORTH TO THE DEAD END . THEY DO NOT OWN CHRISTIANSEN. THEY HAVE THE EXCESS FROM DEVINE SOUTH TO MIDWAY ROAD. IT STILL OWNED PRIVATELY BY THE RESIDENCE. THE DEVELOPER FROM THE DIVINE TO THE DEAD AND AS MUCH AS YOU WANT. YOU STILL DON'T HAVE THE ACCESS FROM DEVINE TO MIDWAY . IT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF TRYING TO DEVELOP THE ROAD, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL ANYWAYS.

SO, IF YOU LET THE PEOPLE ACCESS ROAD ON CHRISTIAN AND ROAD, IT'S STILL GOING TO DEFEAT THE PURPOSE . YOU HAVE 122.8 ACRES . YOU HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM. THEY NEED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO MAKE EVERYONE GO OUT TO SOLVE ITS ROAD. BOTH PLENTY DESIGN FACTORS, THEY HAVE THE MONEY AND DEVELOPMENT AND THE KNOWLEDGE. DEVELOP THE PROPERTY . AS YOUR WEBSITE STATES ON YOUR WEBSITE HERE, IT SAYS YOU HAVE -- YOUR WEBSITE SPEAKS ABOUT, YOU HAVE A HISTORIC SMALL TOWN LIFESTYLE AND PICTURESQUE SLICE OF PARADISE WITH MOUNDS OF UNSPOILED CHORES WHILE WE DON'T HAVE THE SHORES, BUT WE HAVE FLORIDA'S BEST-KEPT SECRET , THAT OUR ROAD. THAT'S WHERE WE LIVE. THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO KEEP.

WHEN YOU HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST THE GENTLEMAN AND THE DEVELOPERS WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. WE WANT TO KEEP OUR PRISTINE AREA WHERE WE LIVE . WE ARE ASKING HIM NOT TO DEVELOP. WE ARE SKING YOU TO KEEP OUR STREET, ARE A DEAD END STREET FOR THE REASON WE HAVE PURCHASED THEIR. MY PARENTS BROUGHT IN 65. I'VE BEEN THERE MY ENTIRE LIFE. THAT ROAD DOES NOT BELONG TO THE COUNTY. WE ARE ASKING TO KEEP THAT DEVELOPMENT. LET THEM DEVELOP IT HOWEVER THEY LIKE, BUT MAKE IT ALL GO OVER THERE. DEVELOP IT, SO IT ALL ENTERS AND EXITS ONTO SELVITZ ROAD. THEY CAN DO THAT. THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DESIGN IT. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THIS TRAFFIC ACCESS. THAT THE BIGGEST THING. THAT'S ALL YOU WANT. WE WERE AT THE WHITE CITY IMPROVEMENT CLUB, I HAVE TURNED THEM INTO THEM. I DID TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THEM AND I HANDED IT TO MR. SHORT. NOT TO HIM, BUT TO THE GENTLEMAN HERE. I FORGOT YOUR NAME, SIR. BUT I TURNED IN MY OWN STUDY FOR THEM AND I HANDED IT TO THEM.

THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC -- THERE WOULD BE MORE TRAFFIC ON THAT ROAD THAN WHAT WE HAVE ON THE ENTIRE ROAD RIGHT NOW FOR CHRISTIANSEN ROAD IF THAT HAPPENS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT I STATED AND WHAT'S ON YOUR

WEBSITE. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE? WE GOING TO COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONERS? REINFORCE MY COMMENTATOR. HE HAD A 122 ACRE. MAKE SURE IT'S DEVELOPING HERE. I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE FOR CREATING BUFFERS WITH THE CHANGE IN THE USE AND INDUSTRIAL. WE UNDERSTAND THE USE OF THE CONCEPT OF INDUSTRIAL MULTI FAMILY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, F TO LOWER THE INCIDENT THE TO GET INTO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. UNFORTUNATELY, IN MANY AREAS OF THE CITY, WHEN THAT PLAN WAS PUT TOGETHER, THAT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED. SO, WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.

BASICALLY, COMPETING AND THEY SIMPLY DON'T COMPETE WELL , FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. I DON'T CONSIDER THE ZONING TO BE THE ISSUE, HERE. AND I'M NOT SURE WHERE THIS REALLY COMES INTO PLAY. FOR THE HUNDRED 22 ACRE DEVELOPMENT , I FIND IT CHALLENGING TO BELIEVE THAT YOU CANNOT ADDRESS THESE CONCERNS ABOUT PUTTING 12 DRIVEWAY CUTS ON CHRISTIANSEN ROAD AND SPENDING THESE PROPERTIES AROUND TO ACCESS THEM FROM THE PROPERTY THAT THEY OWNED. I'VE BEEN ON THIS SECTION OF ROAD . IT'S A FIRE ROAD. FOR LACK OF BETTER

[00:50:03]

DESCRIPTION, IT'S WHAT MILLINGS MATERIAL, ET CETERA.

AND, IF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, $700,000 ARE GOING TO BE SOLD HERE , THE DAY AFTER CLOSING, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BE GETTING COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE ROAD. THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO IMPROVE THIS. I GET IT. IT'S NOT OUR ROLE. BUT STILL, I FEEL WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT ONLY THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE, BUT TO OUR COUNTY COUNTERPARTS.

THEY HAVE PICKED UP ON THIS AS AN ISSUE. F COME BACK TO THE FACT -- I AM CHALLENGED BY THE FACT WITH HUNDRED 22 ACRES OF DEVELOPMENT. YOU CANNOT TELL ME, YOU CANNOT CREATE SUFFICIENT AREA TO PUT PROPER ROAD ACCESS TO THESE PARTICULAR 12 HOMES. I AM REALLY CHALLENGED BY THAT. IT'S NOT THE MIXED-USE COMPONENT OF THIS THAT CONCERNS ME, IT'S THAT ELEMENT . I'M NOT SURE IF THAT COMES INTO THE VOTE IN THIS APPLICATION OR THE NEXT APPLICATION. BUT THAT IS A VERY SERIOUS CONCERN TO ME. IF THIS WAS A DEVELOPMENT A FEW ACRES OR A HANDFUL OF ACRES AND LAND AND IT WAS COMPLETELY CONTAINED AND THEY HAD NO ACCESS, THEY JUST DID NOT HAVE THE LANDMASS TO DO IT. YOU HAVE 122 ACRES HERE. THAT'S A LARGE TRACT OF LAND TO BE ABLE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. AND I SHARE THE RESIDENCE CONCERNS AND THAT'S JUST NOT THE ONLY CONCERN. THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE ON THIS AFTER THE FACT, IF WE WERE TO GO ON WITH THE PLAN AS PROPOSED. I UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER CUP THAT. THE NUMBER OF UNITS. I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S WARRANTED IN THIS PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION. I JUST WANT MY SENTIMENTS TO BE HEARD RIGHT AT THE OUTSET HERE. THE MIXED-USE PORTION OF THIS, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. THE

SITE PLAN , I HAVE PROBLEMS. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, FOLLOWING UP ON THAT. I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE REALLY QUIET.

I WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT CAME UP BEFORE AND I ASKED ABOUT WHO OWNED THE ROAD AND THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT ROAD . I THINK IT WAS EITHER COMMISSIONER JEH JOHNSON OR CURTIS JOHNSON ASKED ABOUT OTHER WAYS OTHER THEN THAT ROAD. I'VE DRIVEN THAT ROAD AFTER THE LAST MEETING AND I READ EVERYTHING MY PACKAGE AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW ANYBODY THAT DOES THE TRAFFIC STUDY CAN SAY THE INCREASE OF 1000 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THEIR ROAD. I AM A COMMON SENSE TYPE PERSON. I DON'T WANT TO SIT BACK AND SAY TELL THEM TO SHOW ME, BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE IT. BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT MANY CARS ARE GOING TO BE ON THE ROAD. MOST PEOPLE, NOW, FORT PIERCE THAT ARE IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. WE TOOK OUR AMENDMENT. I DON'T KNOW WE GET THAT FROM , BECAUSE YOU DRIVE ON FORT PIERCE NOW. WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST MEETING .

REMEMBER, I LOST MY MIND ABOUT THE PARKING SITUATION AND YOU CANNOT PARK ON THE GRASS AND THEY GOT TWO OR THREE CARS AND EVERYONE NEEDS A CAR TO GO TO WORK. YOU TAKE 12 AND YOU DO THREE CARS AND FOUR CARS, ANOTHER'S 48 MORE PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT ROAD CAN WITHSTAND THAT TRAFFIC. I AGREE WITH YOU WITH THE MIXED-USE. I UNDERSTAND WE ARE TRYING TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR THE WORKERS. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

HOWEVER, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT ROAD CAN HANDLE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT THIS IS TRYING TO PUT ON AIR. I JUST DON'T GET IT. I'M NOT SOLD ON ANY SURVEY THAT SAYS IT WANTS, I BELIEVE IT WILL. THAT'S JUST BY ME DRIVING DOWN THE ROADS THE RESIDENT WAS RIGHT. WHEN I WAS DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD, I YOU AND I GOT OVER SO THE OTHER PARKER GO WHERE THEY WERE GOING. I GOT OVER THE HOUSE THERE WAS A BIG TRUCK. I GOT OVER TO LET THE CARGO. SEE HOW THAT WOULD LIKE YOU SAID, I KNOW IT'S GOING TO COME BACK ON THIS DOWN THE ROAD OR COUNTY DOWN THE ROAD AND WE HAVE THESE BIG HOUSES AND ALL THESE HOUSES AND SPEND ALL THIS MONEY IN LOOK AT THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WITH THESE POOR ROADS. AND WE HAVE A CHANCE NOW TO ADDRESS THAT NOW.

>> MADAME MAYOR ? THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND TO THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT'S FOR WORKING THROUGH THIS AND COMMUNICATING. YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB AND WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THE QUESTIONS I'VE ASKED. APPRECIATE IT. I AM CHALLENGED BY THE APPLICATION FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. NUMBER ONE IS WHEN

[00:55:01]

WE LOOK AT THIS, WE'LL TALK ABOUT A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CHANGE .

FROM WHATEVER IT WAS PREVIOUSLY OR WHATEVER IT IS TODAY. THE TILLAGE, FOR ME IS WHAT I TALKED ABOUT IN THE GROVER CITY. AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT , AS IT SITS TODAY MOVING INTO A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT SO SURE THAT THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST CASE SCENARIO OR SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. BUT I'M CHALLENGED WITH THE COMMON THAT I'VE READ AND COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, IF YOU ARE GOING TO TOUCH ON THEM FOR, ST. LOUIS COUNTY. IN OUR PACKET TONIGHT, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PACKET, THERE IS SOME INFORMATION. I WANT TO MAKE SURE. THE STAFF REPORT OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS . THAT'S WHAT I'M READING FROM. IT'S THE LETTERHEAD FROM THE PLANNING AGENCIES AND THE APPLICANTS. EXCUSE ME. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED WITHIN THE DOCUMENT. TALKING ABOUT THE ROADS IN THE TRAVEL WAYS AND THE USE OF THE ROAD.

WE PARKED SOME TESTIMONY TONIGHT THAT ALSO BEEN HIGHLIGHTED IN MY NOTE. ABOUT THE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTIES ALONG CHRISTIANSEN ROAD THAT ARE OPPOSING SOME ISSUES FOR ME. BECAUSE, IF YOU HAVE PROPOSED PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT, THEY ARE GOING TO FRONT SOME RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT LEADS YOU TO KNOW WHERE, THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM. STRUGGLING WITH THAT, BECAUSE IN THE APPLICATION, AND THE BACK OF DOCUMENTATION, THE QUESTION WAS SPECIFIC ABOUT . I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET TO THE CORRECT SECTION. -- BORDERING THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY ON THIS SITE CONTAINS THE TRAVEL WAY. AND THE RESPONSE WAS THE PROPOSED SOLID MIXED-USE PROJECT NOT UTILIZE DIVINE. WHILE I FIND THAT TO BE TRUE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACCURATEANALYSIS OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME PERCENTAGE OF TRAFFIC COMING FROM ANYTHING THAT'S ON CHRISTIANSEN ROAD THAT IS GOING TO TRY TO USE WHATEVER MEANS THIS IS VERY TO GET TO THEIR DESTINATION. AND LOOK AT 10,000 TRAFFIC AND THAT'S THE CASE EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT WOULD HOLD UP IN ANY SITUATION IN THE CONVERSATION. ON A COMMON APPROACH BASIS.

SO, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THOSE ELEMENTS . I STRUGGLED WITH IT ON THE LAST APPLICATION. I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT HERE TODAY.

IT WAS MY ISSUE BEFORE . IT'S MY SHOOT TODAY. THERE ARE SOME OTHER ELEMENTS OF PATIENT AND CONNECTIVITY THAT ARE OF VALID CONCERN WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE YOU ARE LOOKING AT OTHER MEANS AND METHODS TO CHANGE. FROM ONE FUTURE LADIES TO ANOTHER AND IT HAS CONNECTIVITY WHETHER IT'S TRANSPORTATION, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY, STUDENT CAN THE, PARKS AND AMENITIES, WATER RESOURCES, WATER AND SEWER , AND ALL THOSE BECOME A FACT.

AND IT'S PART OF THIS PACKAGE. I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE PART OF THE PACKAGE. I READ THROUGH THE PACKAGE. I WAS NOT SUPPORTIVE IN THE FIRST VOTE AND I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE SUPPORTIVE YET BECAUSE THE AREA, THE NEIGHBORHOOD , THE PROJECT NEEDS ADDITIONAL WORK. THAT'S WHERE I STAND. THANK

YOU. >> YOU FORGOT ABOUT THE ROAD.

>> I CALLED IT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

TOO. SO, IF THE FUTURE LAND USE IS NOT PASSED , MR. FREEMAN, WHAT HAPPENS TO DO WE NOT CONSIDER THE NEXT ITEM?

>> YEAH, THE NEXT ITEM DISAPPEARS BY DEFAULT, BECAUSE OF THE INABILITY TO OVERLY SITE PLAN.

>> AND IF THIS STAYS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR WHAT IT IS, THEN WHAT IS -- WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES FOR THIS?

>> THIS I CAN BE DEVELOPED FOR LOW DENSITY. THE MAXIMUM GIVES YOU 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE. SO, THERE STILL COULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL ON THEIR. MOST ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL WOULD NEED AN

ALTERNATIVE FUTURE PROPOSED. >> I'VE BEEN ON THOSE ROADS

[01:00:04]

TOO. ONE IS A DIRT ROAD AND ONE IS A BARELY FINISHED ROAD.

THEY ARE BOTH COUNTY ROADS, IS THAT RIGHT? SO, WHAT'S TRYING TO HAPPEN I HEAR IS -- WE ARE TRYING TO PUT A LOT OF LIVING IN A SITUATION THAT'S GOING TO BE SURROUNDED BY SOME BARELY PASSABLE ROADS.

>> YES . >> SO, WHEN I REMEMBER, WE PASS THIS BEFORE AND GAVE DIRECTION IN TERMS OF THE ZONING. THE NEXT ONE, WE GAVE DIRECTION . BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE THAT. WE SAID, YOU NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES HERE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE LIVING LIVABLE FOR EVERYBODY. NOT JUST THE NEW PEOPLE THAT WERE COMING, BUT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE

ALREADY THERE. >> I THINK THE COMMISSION WERE QUITE SPECIFIC IN THAT RECOMMENDATION THAT CHRISTIANSEN AND DEVINE SHOULD NOT BE USED TO ACCESS ANYTHING ON THE DEVELOPMENT. YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT WHICH HAS NOT SPOKEN ON THAT YET HAS PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES. YOU PROBABLY SEEN THOSE IN YOUR PACKET. WHAT I CAN SAY IS COMMISSIONER ADDED A CONDITION TO THAT EFFECT DURING THE FIRST HEARING OF THE PLANT DEVELOPMENT. WHICH SPECIFICALLY SET OUT THAT. THE FUTURE LAND USE WAS APPROVED AS THE MIXED-USE. WE OBVIOUSLY TRANSMITTED THAT TO THE STATE AND AGENCIES . THAT CAME BACK AS THEY DO. BUT THERE ARE WIDER CONCERNS THE COMMISSIONER RAISES ESSENTIALLY. WIDER ISSUES BOTH CONNECTED TO THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE , AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM THAT'S PROPOSING THE PLANT DEVELOPMENT.

>> I'M CONCERNED THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A NUMBER OF UNHAPPY RESIDENTS , NEW ONES AND OLD ONES. I'M CONCERNED THAT IT'S A BIT PREMATURE FOR EVERY SINGLE ROAD THAT IS INVOLVED. IT'S A BIT PREMATURE. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS ?

>> I THINK A COUPLE OF POINTS HAVE BEEN REITERATED. WE HAVE A CHALLENGE IN OUR CITY COUNTY . I WAS HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH THE RESIDENT THE OTHER DAY. EVEN OFTENTIMES, AS COMMISSIONER, I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE AT LEAST FOR FOUR YEARS. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M CITY OR COUNTY ROAD. THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE SITTING OUT HERE LISTENING HAVE NO IDEA SO MANY ROADS WE'VE BEEN TRAVELING FOR MANY YEARS, PART OF THE CONCERN THAT STICKS OUT TO ME, COMMISSIONER GAINES BROUGHT THIS UP. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILD GOING IN OUT THERE . THAT'S A CONCERN. I'VE TRAVELED THOSE ROADS JUST RECENTLY A PAST COUPLE OF DAYS BACK OF OUT THERE, TOOK A FEW DETOURS. WHAT I LEARNED TODAY IS I GUESS THE SOUTHERN PART OF CHRISTIANSEN THE ROAD IS NOT ON BY THE CITY OR COUNTY. IS THAT RIGHT? IT WAS PUT IN A TESTIMONY. RIGHT? LAST THING I NEED TO SEE IS A RESIDENT THE HAS A COUNTY OR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ATTEMPTING TO BLOCK THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR RIGHT-OF-WAY. DUCHESS DILUTES THE WHOLE SITUATION OF RESIDENTS PUSHING BACK , PEOPLE WANTING ACCESS , NEW HOUSES , AND TRYING TO GET 1800 MAX UNITS OUT ONTO SALVAGE ROAD.

TO TRAVERSE THAT. BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IT MAKES USE OF DEVELOPMENT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INDUSTRIAL COMING OUT OF THERE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SCHOOL BUSES COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENCE HOMES. IF THEY WERE TO FLIP THOSE AROUND SO THAT THEY COULD USE THAT. I THINK THESE ARE ALL VALID CONCERNS AND WHAT HAS TROUBLED ME THE MOST HERE IS , THIS PROCESS GOES THROUGH, AND WE PUT NEW RESIDENCE THERE AND THEY COME IN LINE THIS CHAMBER AND ALL ABOUT THE ROAD THAT WE DON'T EVEN OWN. NONE OF THEM.

SELVITZ ROAD IS NOT A CITY OF FORT PIERCE ROAD. CHRISTIANSEN IS NOT A CITY OF FORT PIERCE ROAD. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING

[01:05:07]

AT THIS AND THAT'S CONCERNING. WE JUST FACED THIS THE OTHER DAY. WE HAD A GREAT CONVERSATION BY JENKINS ROAD, WHICH IS NOT A CITY ROAD. I'M SAYING THIS TO TRY TO HELP EDUCATE THE RESIDENTS TOO. A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK IT'S OUR ROAD, AND IT'S NOT. SO, IT'S JUST CONCERN. THIS PROJECT HAS GOT, I THINK POTENTIAL. WE WANT TO SEE SOMETHING . AND IF I UNDERSTAND THIS RIGHT, TO GET TO THE NEXT PART TO EVEN LISTEN TO WHAT MAY BE PRESENTED, WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE USE OF THE LAND, WHICH IS WHAT THEY'RE ASKING US TO DO NOW.

>> OTHERWISE, THE NEXT SECTION IS MUTE.

>> AM I CHANGING INTO A FUTURE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AND THEN THAT DESIGNATION WILL BE ON THAT PROPERTY AND THEN BATTLE , IF IT WERE TO GO THROUGH, THE BATTLE AND HAGGLING GOES BACK BEFORE BUT WHAT CAN BE BUILT AND WHERE DOES IT GO WHAT IS THE TRAFFIC ON WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE, SIZE, SCOPE, SCALE, ET CETERA. ALL OF THE PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROCESS WE HAVE. WE OTHER QUAGMIRES. EITHER WE SAY YAY OR NAY ON THE CHANGE OF THE LAND WE DON'T MAKE GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND KIND OF FIGURE THIS OUT. THAT'S IT ME.

>> ARE PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER, SIR.

>> MATTA MAYOR, IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA TO ASK THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO REVIEW WITH YOU THE ALTERNATIVES BASED UPON A DENIAL AT THIS POINT, OR AN APPROVAL AT THIS POINT WHAT ALTERNATIVES THE ACTUAL DEVELOPER HAS TO COME BACK TO

REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. >> HELP US OUT WITH THAT.

THE OPTIONS ON THE CITY COMMISSION MOVES AHEAD WITH THE CHANGE OF FUTURE LAND USE AS IT'S BEING FORWARDED TO THE STATE AS IT'S BEEN VIEWED BY AGENCIES AND THE COUNTY AND THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS IS TO MOVE ON THAT AND ACCEPT THAT.

IF THAT IS MOVED ON, THEN THAT GOES BACK TO THE STATE AS A CONFIRMATION THAT THE CITY HAS ADOPTED IT. THEY WILL GIVE IT A QUICK OVERVIEW TO MAKE SURE NO OUTSTANDING COMMENT HAVE BEEN MISSED. WHICH, I'M SURE THEY MAY HAVE NOT. AND WE HAVE ADVISORY AND WE ADVISED THE STATE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO ABOUT THOSE ADVISORY COMMENTS AND THEN THAT WILL BE RETURNED TO THE CITY AND I'M SURE THAT WOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE STATE.

ALTERNATIVELY , THE CITY HAS THE OPTION TO LEAVE THE FUTURE LAND USE AS IS A LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THAT WOULD REQUIRE NO CHANGES 'S WAS DENIED , THE DESMET -- I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS HAPPEN , AT THIS STAGE, BUT THE CITY COMMISSION GOOD SUGGEST AN ALTERNATIVE FUTURE LAND USE TO BE ADOPTED . BUT THAT WOULD ALSO AFFECT THE NEXT STAGE AND THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR PLAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH MAY NOT COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF FUTURE LAND USE. IS -- DETERMINED APPROPRIATE BY CITY COMMISSION . IF THE CITY CHOOSES TO DENY, A GOOD AGES A STRAIGHTFORWARD DENIAL AND THAT WOULD MUTE EVERY . THE CITY COULD DENY IT WITH AN EXPLANATION OF THIS MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE LAND-USE. AND MAYBE SUGGEST SOME ALTERNATIVES THAT THE APPLICANT COULD REVISIT. BUT THAT WOULD MEAN THAT MOST OF THESE ALTERNATIVES WOULD MEET A TOTALLY NEW APPLICATION FOR A FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE. WE WOULD GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN. I SURE LIKE THE COMMISSION THAT I AM AWARE OF A PIECE OF STATE LEGISLATURE THAT IS PROPOSED. I THINK IT'S STILL GOING THROUGH, TO UPDATE THE LARGE-SCALE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTS FROM 50 ACRES TO MAKE 150 ACRES. SO, THAT AND GOES OUTSIDE OF THE STATE PURVIEW GETS ADOPTED. AND LAYS ENTIRELY ON THE CITY COMMISSION. DEPENDING ON THE TIMELINE THAT THESE

[01:10:03]

THINGS GO, THAT COULD OCCUR. ESSENTIALLY, IF IT IS DENIED TODAY, THE APPLICANT WOULD FACE REVISITING THE WHOLE PROJECT.

>> YES SIR. >> QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER JEH JOHNSON. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, YOU BROUGHT UP -- MY CONCERNS ARE PRETTY MUCH STRAIGHT LINE AS TO THE CHRISTIAN CENTER . YOU BROUGHT UP THAT HE HAD CONCERNS WITH MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN THE ENTIRETY . COULD YOU JUST ADD A LITTLE MORE COMMENT ON THAT AS TO WHAT YOUR CONCERNS WERE THERE? BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT. MY THOUGHT ON IT WAS THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THEORY ADDRESSED A LOT OF ISSUES WE GOT IN BUFFERING IN ZONING CLASSES AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE. CAN YOU JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMENTARY? I THOUGHT THE MIXED-USE ADDRESS CERTAIN PROBLEMS . CREATES OTHERS, BUT ADDRESSES CERTAIN .

WHERE WERE YOU GOING WITH THAT COMMENTARY?

>> YOU ARE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER. WHEN YOU LOOK AT MIXED-USE OVERALL AND HAVING CONVERSATION WITH THAT OR JUST EXPERIENCE IN PART OF THE CODE. IT DOES ALLOW SOME FLEXIBILITY. AND IF YOU WERE TO PULL MR. FREEMAN RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT GOING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I WOULD SAY HE WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THERE'S A FLEXIBILITY THERE. IN ADDITION TO THAT , THE LINE OF THINKING AND THEN LOOKING AT THE OVERALL USE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF OUR CITY , WHICH WE ARE GROWING IN THAT DIRECTION, IT IS A HIGHER DENSITY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SPECIFICS OF THE CODE AND FOR PETERSON. I THINK EVEN THE CHART , THE COLOR CHART , IF YOU BRING THAT BACK

UP RIGHT THERE. >> SO YOU GO FROM SIX AND HAVE

TO 15. >> I HAVE EMPATHY FOR THE IDEA OF THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT AND THE LOOKING ON THE PROJECT TO MAXIMIZE THE USE OF 122 ACRES. THOSE ARE MY CHALLENGES . IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHETHER YOU HAVE INTERACTED OR ANY OF US HAVE INTERACTED WITH THE RESIDENTS , WHAT FUTURE RESIDENTS MIGHT BE LOOKING INTO IN ADDITION TO THAT . THE COMMENTARY WITH HER TONIGHT AND THE TESTIMONY WE HEARD TONIGHT ABOUT COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC. SO, WHEN YOU HAVE THE OVERLAY OF THE USE AND COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL AND A MIXED ENVIRONMENT OF THE SOVIETS MIDWAY REGION, WE ARE CHALLENGED BY ALL OF THESE FACTORS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING WITH THAT. SPECIFIC TO DENSITIES AND THE COMMERCIAL ASPECT AND OF COURSE THE ROADS THAT ARE BEING UTILIZED FOR PEOPLE TO CONNECT TO TO GO TO

WORK EVERY DAY. >> IS YOUR COMFORT LEVEL STAYING WITH LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL?

>> AT THIS POINT. NONE OF US ARE DESIGNING FOR A LANDOWNER.

AND TO ADD TO THAT, I JUST GOT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I ALWAYS WANT TO CHECK MYSELF TOO BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THE PUBLIC AND NAYSAYERS AND SOCIAL MEDIA LIKE THAT GET OUT THERE ON FACEBOOK OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE AND THAT COMMENTARY ABOUT HOW THE GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THE HEAVY DOLLAR. THIS PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY SITE IS EXEMPT. THE CITY IS NOT REQUIRING AN EXTRA 25 OR $30,000 A YEAR IN TAX REVENUE BECAUSE IS TAX-EXEMPT. AND I SHOVE THAT TO THE SIDE RIGHT NOW , WE HAVE TO PLAN A GOOD PROJECT AND PLAN A GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OUR RESIDENTS , SPECIFICALLY IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, SPECIFICALLY IN THE SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF OUR CITY AND WE HAVE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT THAT WE ARE OUTPACING . THE GROWTH OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. SO, RIGHT THERE, ALL OF THAT LAYERED ANSWER IS WHAT I PROPOSE TO YOU.

>> I'M GLAD YOU SHED SOME LIGHT ON THAT BECAUSE I WAS CURIOUS WHAT YOUR ENTIRE THOUGHT PROCESS WAS . YOU GIVEN ME THE NECESSARY COMMENTARY ON THIS. I AGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSIONS. AS MUCH AS I AM PROBE MIXED-USE FOR THE SITE FOR THIS NUMBER OF REASONS, I THINK THAT YOUR SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT CARRIES MORE SUBSTANCE. AT LEAST, THIS

JUNCTION BEING PROPOSED. >> SO, IS THERE EMOTION?

[01:15:21]

FOCUSING OVER THERE. >> I DID HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

SINCE EVERYBODY IS HERE AND SENSE WE ARE HERE THINKING, ON THE APPLICANT HAS TWO ASK A QUESTION . WE HAVE CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT I WOULD RATHER HEAR SOMETHING NOW THEN HAVE TO WAIT TO HEAR SOMETHING LATER TO HEAR ANYONE OF US INDIVIDUALLY. IF THERE'S A MINUTE OR A MINUTE AND A HALF, NOT IS OPEN IT UP THREE MINUTES AND A MINUTE AND A HALF JUST TO SAY -- I SWISHED THE WHOLE PROJECT AROUND. AND THAT WILL GIVE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT TO WHY HE'S HERE. I DON'T HAVE TO GIVE THEM THREE MINUTES, ABOUT 30 SECONDS OR A MINUTE, HE MIGHT SAY SOMETHING TO MAKE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. HE MIGHT NOT. I DON'T KNOW. I GOT SAID, TO BE FAIR, HE'S GOT 30 SECONDS AND SOMEBODY WANT TO SAY 30 SECONDS, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR. IN THAT OF WAITING UNTIL WE CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER AND IT COMES TO INDIVIDUALS AND WE CANNOT TALK TO EACH OTHER AND THEN WE MAKE A DECISION THAT WAY. I'M JUST CURIOUS. I UNDERSTAND THE RULES. THEY WERE IN PLACE BEFORE ME. SOMETIMES, DURING THESE HEARINGS AND WHATEVER , I THINK WE NEED TO JUST BE ABLE TO SAY NO BUT, HERE IS YOUR -- YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS, GO. LET ME HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY AND SIT BACK DOWN. 45 MINUTES OR WHATEVER. JUST CURIOUS. THAT'S

MY THOUGHT. >> COMMISSIONERS, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IT? IF WE DO THAT, WE HAVE TO LET EVERYONE ELSE

TALK TOO. >> WE HERE DOING THE HEARING

NOW. >> ARE USING EVERYBODY ELSE TALK, I TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC AS WELL?

>> TO BE FAIR. >> JUST TO BE FAIR. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT HE WANTS TO SAY. AND I WOULD RATHER HEAR IT NOW IN FRONT OF ALL OF US I CAN ASK YOU GUYS QUESTIONS, WHEREAS IF HE COMES TO ME NEXT WEEK OR A WEEK AFTER COMES TO THE OFFICE AND THIS IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY . I CANNOT GO TO JEREMIAH'S OFFICE AND SAY THIS IS WHAT HE JUST SAID. I CANNOT DO THAT. BUT NOW, I CAN LOOK AT JEREMIAH AND SAY WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS? AND WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. IF IT'S OUT OF ORDER, THAT'S FINE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW ME. I LIKE TO HEAR EVERYTHING BEFORE MAKING A DECISION. IF NOT, I'M GOOD.

>> I THINK YOU HAVE A VALID POINT IN THAT. THERE'S THE OTHER AVENUES OF TABLING THIS ISSUE , IF THEY WANT TO REVISE DENSITY DOWNWARD AND ASK THE AXIS PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD IF THEY ARE WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT AT THEIR OWN RISK, MIND YOU. COMMISSIONER JEH JOHNSON'S COMMENTS ARE RESONATING WITH ME , BUT I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND THE PUBLIC WANTS TO ADD TO THAT CONVERSATION, I THINK THEIR INPUT IS VALUABLE AS WELL. WE WOULD WANT TO HEAR. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY.

>> DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD?

>> AS AN ESSAY THAT HAS TO BE IN AGREEMENT. BUT I DO AGREE, THE MAYOR WITH YOU, LET'S BACK UP, THE SAME OPPORTUNITY NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. NO MATTER WHAT AMOUNT OF TIME YOU SO CHOOSE. I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE A MOTION TO REOPEN PUBLIC COMMENT WITH THE GRAMMARS BY WHICH YOU WILL BE

UP GRADING. >> I AM AT THE TIME OF ONE

MINUTE. >> IS THERE EMOTION?

>> MOTION TO REOPEN PUBLIC COMMENT . MAKE THE TIME A MINUTE AND WE WILL GO ON FROM THERE.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

YOU HAVE A MINUTE. GO FOR IT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. MY NAME IS DAN WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FROM THE HEARING. EVERYTHING BUSINESS HERE IN THE SUNRISE CITY IN TREASURE COAST FOR OVER 30 YEARS. LET'S GET TO THAT NEXT AGENDA ITEM . WE'RE FINE WITH NO UNITS ON CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. WE'LL TAKE THEM OFF. WE WANT TO BRING TO YOU A GREAT PROJECT. WE'VE GOT AN ALTERNATIVE CONDITION PROPOSED ON THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM FOR THE PUD FOR YOU TO CONSIDER A PARK, A CUL-DE-SAC, SOME ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS ALONG CHRISTIANSEN ROAD AND CONSIDERATION OF THOSE 12 YOU .

BUT IF THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANT, TAKE THEM OFF THE TABLE.

[01:20:01]

WE DON'T NEED ANY UNITS ON CHRISTIANSEN ROAD WHAT WE DO NEED TO BRING ARE SOME DRUGS TO FORT PIERCE, WITH THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING FACILITY. WE NEED TO BRING SOME NEW GARDEN STYLE APPOINTMENT TO SELL THE THROW, HAVE -- MY TRAFFIC ENGINEER IS IN THE AUDIENCE. HE'S GOING TO COME UP AND BEAK TOO. ALL THE TRAFFIC IS GOING ON SALVAGE.

WE'VE GOT A PLAN COMMUNITY , THE NATIONAL HOMEBUILDER IS GOING TO DEVELOP ALL THEIR TRAFFIC IS ON SALVAGE. NO

ACCESS . >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

CLAYSON, 4386. I JUST WANT TO MENTION WE DON'T NEED A CUL-DE-SAC, THAT'S WHEN HE MENTIONED. DEVINE WROTE, I DID NOT MENTION THIS IF I FORGOT. DEVINE ROAD IS ACTUALLY NOT A ROAST. IT IS PART OF THE CANAL EASEMENT BANK THAT BELONGS TO SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THAT'S WHY IT'S STILL A DIRT ROAD IN CASE YOU GUYS DID NOT KNOW THAT PART.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE ?

>> GOOD EVENING. SEAN MCKENZIE WITH MCKINSEY ENGINEERING AND PLANNING. I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND THE ARMING TRAFFIC STUDY YOU SAW BEFORE HE WAS REALLY LOOKING AT SOME WORST-CASE SCENARIOS. THIS IS HOW THE STUDIES ARE PERFORMED.

THE FIRST BEFORE HE DOES NOT GRANT ANY KIND OF ACCESS TO THE PROJECT. IT'S MERELY THERE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OVERALL INTENSITY OF THE PROJECT COULD BE. I BELIEVE THE NEXT IN AN ITEM OF ARE YOU WILL BE TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY., PERSONAL DOES NOT EVEN GRANT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY. SECONDLY, THIS IS TYING IN VERY WELL WITH THE OVERALL GROWTH IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, THE COUNTY TOMORROW NIGHT IS AMENDING THEIR CONFERENCE OF PLAN TO SHOW THAT THE ULTIMATE NEED AND WIDENING OF SOLVENTS ROAD WILL BE FOUR LANES. MIDWAY ROAD, WHICH IS APPROVED FOR AN INTERCHANGE, WITH THE TURNPIKE AS WELL AS FOR LEANING IMMEDIATELY JUST TO THE WEST . IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HERE IF YOU NEED ME.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. AND WHAT ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SORT -- I FORGOT TO SAY 4699 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD ALSO. I ONLY HAVE 24 ACRES. I DON'T HAVE THE 122. I DON'T ACT LIKE I DO . I DON'T HAVE THE PERSONNEL THAT REPRESENT ME FOR ALL THOSE ACRES. BUT I DO HAVE MY CATTLE THERE. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KEEP THERE. THEY LIKE THE ROAD THE WAY IT IS. THEY SHOULD HAVE A VOTE TOO. I'M GOING TO HELP THEM OUT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE?

>> ALL ABOUT THE CATTLE. >> I AM ASSIGNED TO SEVEN ORANGE AVENUE. I FEEL HIS PAIN AND BEEN THROUGH THIS. YOU START GOING DOWN THIS ROAD . EVEN IF YOU ALLOW THE LAND-USE TO BE APPROVED AND THEN WORK ON THE PDF TO JUST BECAUSE OF YOUR APPROVING THIS DOES NOT MEAN THE SITE PLAN IS GOING ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THE PD IS GOING TO GO THROUGH, BUT IF YOU LET THEM APPROVE THIS PART, THEN YOU CAN MOVE ON AND WORK ON A SITE PLAN TOGETHER. HE SEEMS TO BE WANTING TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND CHANGING HIS PLANS. HE ALREADY REDUCED THE HOUSES BY QUITE A LOT AND JUST GOT UP AND SPOKE AGAIN. AND, HE'S BEEN STARTING THIS PROCESS, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG AGO, BUT HE WENT ON THE OCTOBER COMMISSIONERS MEETING WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GO. AND IT JUST SEEMS TO AT LEAST GET THIS PART THROUGH AND WORK ON THE NEXT PART AFTER.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE?

>> AT EVENING, GUYS. JUST A FOLLOW-UP WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER. THIS WAS FOR THE LAND-USE APPLICATION.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR NAME? >> MARIANNE. THIS IS FOR THE LAND-USE APPLICATION, WHICH DOES NOT REALLY HAVE TO DO WITH ACCESS ON OR OFF CHRISTIANSEN, WHICH DAN SPOKE ABOUT HOW THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IN THE LATER APPLICATION. MIXED USE IS THE BEST USE FOR THIS PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT IS SURROUNDED BY A MIX OF USES AND IT'S THE PROPER WAY TO CREATE A PROPER TRANSITION ON THIS SITE. IT IS THE BIGGEST INFO DEVELOPMENT IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY NOW. WE ALL KNOW AND FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR SUSTAINABILITY. THOSE ARE GREAT PRINCIPLES TO FOLLOW AND PURSUE. SO, I JUST REALLY WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS CONSIDER THAT THIS IS THE FUTURE OF AND THE, THE PUD OR THE C.A.S.A. PLANNER ACCESS POINTS. THIS IS FOR THE PROPER USE IS THAT SHOULD GO ON THIS PROPERTY, NOT LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL. THANK YOU. >> HI, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME

[01:25:05]

IS DONALD STEPHENS. ON THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE THING. THIS IS SORT OF NEW TO ME. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FULL PROCESS HERE. WHAT I DO THINK, THERE'S A TOTAL CONSENSUS ON FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS I SPOKE TO AND RESIDENTS I MET IS THE REAL CORE ISSUE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A HANDLE ON WAS NOT THE MIXED USE OF IT , WAS NOT THE DEVELOPMENT OF IT. IT HAD TO DO WITH TRAFFIC ON CHRISTIANSEN ROAD. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS PROCESS THIS EVENING WAS THAT THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE TO APPROVE A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY , WHICH WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT IS CLEARLY LOGICAL. I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE RESIDENCE, THEY CAN TELL ME OTHERWISE, ARE OBJECTING TO THAT. THE NEXT PHASE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING WE INITIALLY WERE GOING TO PROPOSE A SMALL AMOUNT OF HOUSES WITH SOME ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF THESE CONCESSIONS, ONE OF BEING A TURNAROUND IN THE PART OF CHRISTIANSEN'S BASED ON THE RESPONSE OF RESIDENTS OF CHRISTIANSEN. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH SAYING THERE WILL BE NO ACCESS ON CHRISTIANSEN. WE CAN DIRECT ALL THE TRAFFIC THROUGH TO SELVITZ. I JUST WANTED

RESIDENTS TO HEAR WE ARE AT. >> ANYONE ELSE? AT 4310 CHRISTIANSEN ROAD . I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON WHAT MR. JOHNSON SAID. TODAY, WITH ALL DEVELOPMENT THAT IS GOING ON , IF YOU DON'T APPLY THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THESE HOUSES AND ALL THESE APARTMENTS AT ALL THESE COMMERCIALS , THEN YOU ARE REALLY PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. IT'S WISE TO LOOK AT THE AIR QUALITY AND WATER QUALITY AND THE ROAD WHERE SELVITZ IS, IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC TO GO ON THEIR AND I THINK YOU ARE VERY WISE TO KEEP IN MIND YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE YOU ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE

TO GO FURTHER. >> THANK YOU, MAN. ANYONE ELSE

? >> AMY EQUATES. 2737 OAK ALLEY DRIVE. I HOPE THAT YOU DO NOT ADOPT THIS. I FEEL THAT EVERYBODY, IT'S NOT MY JOB. THIS IS YOUR JOB. THIS IS YOUR JOB TO PROTECT THIS TOWN AND THINK CREATIVELY ABOUT THE BEST IT CAN BE. AND WHEN YOU SAY BEST AND HIGHEST, THIS IS BROUGHT ABOUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A PROPOSAL, NOT BECAUSE YOU DECIDED WHAT IS THE BEST AND HIGHEST COST OF THIS PROPOSAL CREATES A SENSE OF URGENCY THAT YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WISH TO ACCEPT. IT WAS NOT YOUR IDEA , AND IT IS YOUR JOB TO THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS TOWN . I DON'T SUPPORT IT, BECAUSE IS NOT ONLY CHRISTIANSEN ROAD, SELVITZ CONNECTS TO MIDWAY, WHICH, ACCORDING TO WHAT WE HEAR IS GOING TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE FOR QUITE A NUMBER OF YEARS. ENTER EDWARDS ROAD . IF YOU'VE BEEN ON SELVITZ, YOU'VE BEEN ON EDWARDS. HOW DO ALL THESE CARDS GO? MY NEIGHBOR WAS GOING TO COME AND HE'S A DEVELOPMENT LAWYER. AND HE HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE CITY'S LIABILITY.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION.

>> HAVE A QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR FREEMAN. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE , THAT SLIDE, IN PARTICULAR. THIS IS -- THIS QUESTION, CANDIDLY FRAMES THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION, I MIGHT RESPECT. AS ARTICULATED, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE SITE LAND AS IT CURRENTLY THIS. I AM PRO-MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE BUFFERING AND THE EXISTING AREAS OF ALL THE INDUSTRIAL USERS, ET CETERA. THIS IS ONE WAY TO FIX THE ZONING AT THEIR DEVELOPMENT. BUT, THIS IS THE BIG QUESTION I HAVE HERE. IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE FUTURE LAND USE, CHANGING FROM THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT , DOES THAT THEN REQUIRE THIS BODY TO APPROVE TO WHATEVER LIES IN THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME TO SAY, YES, WE ARE APPLYING FOR A MAXIMUM USE DENSITY AND THIS BODY HAS NO CONTROL OF IT. YES WE ARE APPLYING FOR THIS INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY SQUARE FOOTAGE LIES IN THIS BODY HAS NO CONTROL OVER. YES, WE ARE REQUESTING 1800 -- SORRY 1842 UNITS. ARE WE THEN STIPULATED THAT THAT'S THE BASIS OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS? EITHER YES OR

[01:30:05]

NO. >> NO.

>> OKAY. SO YOU HAVE LATITUDE TO HAVE INPUT TO SAY WE THINK 1842 UNITS IS TOO MUCH DENSITY. REDUCE IT. MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING AREA . THE MIXED-USE CONCEPT OF THIS, WE BELIEVE TO BE WORKABLE TO PROTECT A VARIETY OF THINGS. WE JUST NEED THE DENSITY, IT MIGHT BE TOO HIGH.

WE DON'T TO DRIVE THE AXIS OF CHRISTIANSEN , ET CETERA ET CETERA ET CETERA. YOUR ANSWER IS --

>> THE COMMISSION HAS ULTIMATE CONTROL AND AUTHORITY OF DECISION-MAKING WHATEVER GOES ON THIS PROPERTY.

>> UNDERLYING ZONING. THE MAXIMUM USE OF THIS AND YOU HAVE NO CONTROL OVER IT. I JUST WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT WAS THE CASE. ONCE AGAIN, ADVOCATE THE MIXED-USE PORTION OF THIS.

IF THAT PORTION OF THIS APPLICATION WERE TO BE APPROVED TONIGHT, THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO GO BACK TO THE STATE AND START THIS PROCESS ALL OVER THAT THE SITE PLAN NOW BECOMES

THE CORE ISSUE? >> CORRECT . MY SUGGESTION, I'M JUST THINKING. WITH THE LINK CHAIR. THE APPLICANTS ALSO HEARD WHAT ARE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS. THEY'VE HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND COMMISSION. I THINK THEY GOT IT AS TO WHAT THE ISSUES ARE. AND THE DENSITY IS AN ISSUE.

COMMISSIONER JEH JOHNSON DROVE INTO THE DETAILS. THE MIXTURE OF THIS CAN BE BENEFICIAL TO EVERYBODY IN THAT AREA. MY SUGGESTION IS I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IS THEY WOULD RECEIVE THE APPROVAL FOR THE MIXED-USE PORTION OF THIS. I DON'T WANT TO VISIT THE SITE. BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE REWORKED . COMMISSIONER JEH JOHNSON HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. WHEN I WENT TO SEE HIM BE THE CONSULTANT ON THIS PROJECT TO MAKE IT WORK. HE HEARD THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSION AND THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS. WOULD HAVE TO BE DELAYED FOR THEM TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD BUT NOT HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE STATE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A VERY EXPENSIVE AND VERY TIME-CONSUMING PORTION OF PROCESS. I'M ADVOCATING THE SITE PLANNING THEY COME BACK AND IS GOING TO BE MET WITH A POSITIVE RESPONSE. I'M JUST SUGGESTING IT GETTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO SALVAGE WHAT THEY'VE DONE SO FAR. ADDRESSED THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS AND THE COMMISSION CONCERNS . WE STILL HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT TYPE COMES BACK TO US. THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER GAINES IS ABOUT TO

MISS ME FOR THIS , I BELIEVE. >> I THINK WE ARE SAYING, TO CLARIFY THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SPECIAL WITH THE NEXT USE. WE HAVE TOTAL CONTROL?

>> REQUIREMENTS, DENSITY IS RESTRICTED BY THE NUMBER OF TRAFFIC CHIPS DISTRICT ABOUT SERVICES . IT'S RESTRICTED BY ADJACENT USES. THE CITY, WITH IT BEING A PD HAS REALLY TREMENDOUS CONTROL OVER HOW THE THING IS LAID OUT.

>> WAS MY CONCERN, CLEARLY. I WOULD ADVOCATE GOING WITH THAT. IT'S ALMOST LIKE A MIXED DECISION TO DO IT IN THAT FASHION. BUT I FEEL MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE MIXED USE ZONING KNOWINGLY CONTROL OVER THE SITE PLAN WHEN IT COMES BACK IN. THESE CONCERNS ARE NOT ADDRESSED, THEN YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER, GAINES, ARE YOU DYING TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> I'M READY. >> I'M GOING TO BE GOOD DOWN HERE. ALL I'M SAYING IS EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID , WE SPENT AN HOUR ON WHAT EVERYBODY AGREES , MIXED-USE IS THE BEST USE FOR THAT AREA . EVERYBODY AGREES ON THAT. FROM WHAT I'M HEARING. WHAT I')M HEARING IS EVERYBODY AGREES THAT WE DON'T WANT ANY TRAFFIC ON DEVINE OR CHRISTIANSEN. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. IF YOU LOOK ON OUR AGENDA AND READ ON OUR AGENDA, THE PACKAGE, EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR THE LAST 45 MINUTES IS GOING TO BE UNDER BEAT. THAT'S WHERE YOU GET TO THE NITTY-GRITTY. THAT'S WHERE YOU GET TO THE NITTY-GRITTY TO SEE AND THAT'S WHERE HE HAS A CONTROL . IF YOU DON'T HAVE ONE, 1842 WHATEVER NUMBER REFILL CONFIDENT. THAT'S WHEN YOU GET THIS THE WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD AN APPLICANT COME BEFORE US WITH BACK TO BACK AGENDA ITEMS AND ASK FOR THE PROCESS TO BE FLOCKED. WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER SELVITZ ROAD. WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER DEVINE OR CHRISTIANSEN . HOWEVER, WE CAN AT LEAST SEE, EVERYONE IS HERE, WHAT THEY ARE THINKING, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO B. WHEN IT COMES TO B, WE GET THE FINAL SAY SO. WE GET THE FINAL SAY SO TO SAY NOT US. I UNDERSTAND YOUR PROJECT IS STILL NOT GOING TO WORK FOR ME.

THAT'S THE PROJECT. RIGHT NOW , I KNOW WHAT THIS IS, BECAUSE

[01:35:04]

I READ MY PACKAGE. PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, THEY DO NOT READ THEIR PACKAGE, GOAL OF THE WEBSITE AND READ THE PACKAGE, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. I HAVE NOT HEARD -- LET ME TAKE THAT BACK. I THINK JEREMIAH MIGHT HAVE SAID COMMISSIONER JOHNSON MIGHT'VE SAID, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT IT BECAUSE OF THE ROSE OUT THERE. BUT WERE YOU AGAINST THE WHOLE CLASSIFICATION OR MIXED-USE SINCE EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE IT'S MIXED-USE IN THAT AREA? I DON'T DOES EVERYBODY. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU SAID. MY CONSENT IS IS THE MIXED-USE IS FINE.

MIXED-USE, THAT EVEN ALLOWS FOR THE CATALYST TO COME IN. YOU SAID THE COWS . THEY ALLOW THE COWS TO COME IN. I'M NOT BEING FUNNY, BUT I AM LISTENING. MIXED-USE. THAT'S ALL IN. IT'S MIXED USE. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. WE GOT A GROWING PROBLEM IN OUR CITY. WE GOT A GROWING PROBLEM IN OUR CITY.

YES, WE NEED DEVELOPERS COMING IN AND BUILDING MIXED-USE HOUSES AND EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT WE ALSO GOT TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORS AND THE ORIGINAL FORT PIERCE PEOPLE, LIKE MYSELF WHO'S BEEN HERE AND THE OF THE CMA THE CITY . WHAT WE LOVE ABOUT IT, WE HAVE TO LISTEN TO THEM AND PROTECT THEM ALSO. ME, PERSONALLY, MIXED-USE OUT THERE . I THINK I SAID THIS LAST TIME. WE ALREADY KNOW THERE'S A CONCRETE FACTORY OUT THERE AND SOME OTHER STUFF OUT THERE. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO GO BUILD AND THEY CAN SELL THE HOUSE TO SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO BE NEXT TO A CONCRETE FACTORY, THAT'S NOT MY JOB.

THAT'S THEIR JOB. THAT'S NOT MY JOB, BUT IT'S MY JOB TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I DON'T MIND IT. I LIKE THE LIGHT IS OVER MY CARS. I LIKE THAT. THIS IS WHERE I WANT TO LIVE. THAT'S THE APPLICANT AND WHOEVER BUYS THEIR PRODUCT JOB . MY JOB IS TO MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING THE LAW. LIKE YOU SAID, WHEN I DON'T WANT TO DO TONIGHT IS MAKE AN APPLICANT, WHO'S DONE EVERYTHING WITH OUR BYLAWS AND RULES SAY . START OVER BY GOING BACK TO THE STATE BECAUSE WE DID NOT LET THEM GET TO BE TO SEE WHAT THE PUBLIC, EVERYBODY REALLY WANTS TO SEE. BECAUSE, THE MIXED-USE, I COULD CARE LESS, I WILL BE HONEST WITH YOU, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S OUT THERE. BUT UNTIL I SEE NO CARS COMING ON THESE ROADS OR HOW THIS TRAFFIC IS GOING TO GO OR WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. I WAS TOLD THAT THEY TALK TO THE RESIDENCE, THEY WERE GOING TO TALK TO THE RESIDENCE. I ASKED HIM TO TALK TO THE RESIDENCE AND SEE WHAT'S WHAT.

HE TURNED AROUND. YOU SAW THE APPLICANT. HE TURNED AROUND AND I SAW PEOPLE AGREEING. TO ME, IT LOOKED LIKE HE MUST'VE SAID SOMETHING TO SOME OF THESE APPLICANTS BECAUSE THEY KNEW WHO HE WAS. WE DON'T GET THAT THAT OFTEN. SOME APPLICANTS COME IN AND THAT'S WHO IT IS. THAT'S WHO IT IS. I'M SAYING, GUYS , LET'S SIT BACK REALLY QUICK . THE MID-ZONING IS FINE WITH ME. I DON'T WANT ANYTHING ON THOSE TWO ROADS. LET'S SEE WHAT THEY PRESENT AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE. YOU GOT YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED. YOU DON'T LOSE ANY CONTROL. YOUR CONCERN WAS IF WE GOT TO BE, DO YOU LOSE CONTROL OR NOT. AM I STUCK WITH WHAT I SEE ON THIS PICTURE? WE ARE NEVER STUCK WITH THIS PICTURE, FROM UNDERSTANDING. THE ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME. BECAUSE I DON'T EVER GO BY THIS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE THE FINAL SAY SO WITH THESE NUMBERS. AND IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO PLAY IN YOUR GAME, BECAUSE YOU CHANGE THE NUMBERS. THAT'S WHAT I ALWAYS THOUGHT. I THINK MR. FREEMAN JUST CORRECTED ME AND SAID THAT. IT'S OUR FINAL DECISION. I'M READY TO MOVE ON. I'M GOING TO SIT BACK AND I'M READY TO MOVE ON AND SEE SO EVERYBODY CAN THE WHAT B HAS TO SAY AND THEN WE WILL GO ON

FROM THERE. >> WE JUST WANT YOUR RESPONSE HERE. THE ONLY THING I WOULD IS THE MISUSE PORTION OF THIS.

I'M AN ADVOCATE OF THAT. I WANT THEM TO CLEAN UP THEIR SITE PLAN I START GETTING IN HERE AND PICKING AND CHOOSING OPTIONS ABC ND. I DON'T WANT TO DESIGN THEIR PROJECT.

THAT'S WHAT WERE GOING TO BE ASKED TO IF WE SEE HERE . THE SITE PLAN RIGHT NOW, FOR 14 UNITS ON CHRISTIANS . WE'RE GOING TO GET A RED MARK OR ON THE CROSS THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT A CUL-DE-SAC POTENTIALLY. I DON'T WANT TO GET ON THAT PATH. I WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THIS CONSCIOUSLY THROUGH PROPER SUBMISSION. THEY KEEP THEIR MIXED-USE PORTION OF THIS , BUT THEY HAVE THE PROPER PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO REVIEW IT PRIOR TO. THAT, OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE

[01:40:01]

RESIDENCE TO SAY WE PUT A CONSCIOUS DECISION INTO THIS.

OR PICK OPTION ONE OPTION TWO. I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. MY

VOTE IS GOING TO BE NO. -- >> I GOT WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. BUT I HAVE TO REFER TO MADAME ATTORNEY ON THIS ONE.

BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. IF WE MAKE A MOTION FOR A, CAN WE CONCLUDE WHAT YOU ARE JUST SAYING IN OUR MOTION TO DELAY OR NOT DELAY OR CONTINUE OR POSTPONE B. THAT'S MY CONCERN.

I DON'T KNOW. >> MATTA MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU LOOK AT EACH ONE

INDIVIDUALLY ON ITS OWN. >> WE CAN.

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION? I'M SORRY.

>> WE CAN TAKE IT OFF THE AGENDA TONIGHT AND REVISIT AT A

TIME -- >> YES.

>> ONE COMMENT, IF I COULD. >> I THINK THAT'S HAPPENING SOON, IF I COULD. YOU HAVE ASKED US TO DO THAT. SO WE ARE WORKING HARD FOR YOU. WE ARE WORKING HARD FOR YOU TOO. SO, WHEN I DIGEST AND I DIG DEEP INTO THE ELEMENTS OF OUR CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND OUR CODE. I BROUGHT UP MANY CODE AGAIN AND I BROUGHT UP FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT GOALS OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE SECTION. RIGHT? RIGHT ON TOP, GOAL NUMBER ONE. CITY OF FORT PIERCE RECOMMEND LAND-USE TO MAINTAIN ITS PROFESSIONAL -- BY EMBRACING ITS RICH HERITAGE, DIVERSE CULTURAL AND COMMUNITY ASSETS AND NATURAL RESOURCES THROUGH THE 2030 PLANNING HORIZON. THAT SENTENCE ALONE, WHICH WE ALL EMBRACE AS A COMMUNITY 48,000 STRONG RESIDENCE HERE IN OUR CITY. I TAKE THAT AS PART OF EVERYTHING I'M LOOKING AT ON THE SCREEN AND EVERYTHING STAFF BROUGHT US. I'M NOT SAYING I DISAGREE WITH STAFF ANALYSIS EVERY TIME WHEN THEY BRING FORTH A RECOMMENDATION. IN THIS CASE, I DO. IT'S BASED ON GOAL NUMBER ONE FROM OUR CODE TALKING ABOUT FUTURE LAND USE. IT'S VERY SPECIFIC IN ITS FIRST CIVIC ABOUT 2030. WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE ELEMENTS, AND I APPRECIATE MY FELLOW PROFESSIONALS FOR THE PLANNING AGENCIES FROM THE ENGINEERING WORLD AND TRAFFIC STUDIES . THERE ARE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS AND DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE. THERE'S CURRENTLY FUTURE LAND USE ZONING OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. COMMISSIONER GAINES, I BELIEVE THAT THERE CAN BE PRODUCTS OUT THERE THAT INCORPORATE A VERY GOOD APPLICATION WITH SINGLE-FAMILY OR LOAD INTO RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS IN ADDITION TO MIXED USE. SO, YOU ASKED ME ABOUT MIXED-USE ? I THINK THEY ARE VERY GOOD APPLICATION ELEMENTS THAT CAN BE BROUGHT FORWARD TO OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY THAT INCORPORATE A DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE MEANT ON THE MAP AMENDMENT. BUT I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE PORTIONS OF THE GOALS. AND I SAID ALL THE OTHER THINGS IN TROUBLE WITH. I'VE STRUGGLED WITH GOAL NUMBER ONE AND I THINK THAT AT THIS POINT , AS IT SITS AND AS THE APPLICATION STANDS, THAT I DON'T EVEN MEET THE ELEMENTS OF MY GOALS THAT WE ESTABLISHED, THAT I ESTABLISHED AS A COMMISSIONER . SO, I STILL CAN'T BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

THAT'S WHERE I STAND. I APPRECIATE, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> MATTA MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. I APOLOGIZE.

FOR YOU MAKE YOUR MOTION, TO CLARIFY WHAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK'S QUESTION RELATED TO THE SECOND ITEM FOR THIS RAPIDLY. IF YOU ARE GOING TO BE DOING SOMETHING TO THAT SECOND ITEM THAT HAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM THE FIRST READ TO THE SECOND, THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO START OVER WITH THE FIRST READ. IF WE ALL ARE THINKING THAT WE WILL THE NEXT ITEM AND SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE WHAT WAS PRESENTED ON FIRST READ, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW FIRST READ BECAUSE OF THE

SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. >> IT WOULD BE JUDICIAL AGAIN

FOR THE FIRST READ. >> YOU'RE TALKING NOW ABOUT B.

ANYONE'S THOUGHT PROCESS. >> WE WERE NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW THAT AFFECT ANYTHING ELSE BUT A.

>> CORRECT. >> DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND

THAT? >> ONE QUESTION FOR MISS HODGES. IF THE APPLICANT VOLUNTARILY WITH TRUE ITEM B

[01:45:05]

TO A DATE IN THE FUTURE SPECIFIC, DOES THAT STILL

TRIGGER THE FIRST READ AGAIN? >> IF THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES BETWEEN THE FIRST READ AND WHAT WOULD BE THE SECOND

READ? YES . >> I THINK WHAT WE DISCUSSED HERE TONIGHT QUANTIFIES AS SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES.

>> IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT THEY WISH TO DO. THEY CAN PROCEED

WITH IT AS IT IS. >> THAT DETERMINATION WILL BE MADE BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT?

>> IN THE APPLICANT. >> AS FAR AS IT CONSTITUTES A

SIGNIFICANT CHANGE? >> WE WILL ANALYZE IT AND CONSIDER THE RESUBMITTAL AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE A

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE OR NOT, YES. >> JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP. SO YOU HAVE A MEASURABILITY POINT OF WHAT'S SUBSTANTIAL AND WHAT'S NOT WHEN IT CHANGES TO THIS.

>> WE USUALLY APPLY THE 5% RULE.

>> 5% ? >> IF IT CHANGES BY MORE THAN 5% IN THE LAND AREA OR UNIT COUNT, THEN IT WOULD BE A

SUBSTANTIAL . >> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. I THINK THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO HEAR THAT SO WE UNDERSTAND IT'S A 5% CHANGE WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT. OKAY?

>> YOU WANT ME TO TAKE A WHACK AT MAKING A MOTION. MS. HEDGES

BE READY TO JUMP IN HERE. >> YES SIR.

>> I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINATE 235 PAST SEVEN AND -- OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION THAT -- OKAY. I'M GOING TO STOP. THE SITE PLAN REQUIRES REVISION OR POSTPONING OR CONTINUING ITEM B, THE SITE PLAN REVEALED UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT REVISIONS ARE MADE CARRIES EMITTED INTO PLANNING, ET CETERA.

>> MATTA MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. I WOULD ADDRESS THIS ONE ON ITS OWN AND THEN LOOK AT THE NEXT ON ITS OWN. I WOULD NOT CONDITION THIS APPROVAL OR DENIAL BASED ON

THE NEXT APPLICATION. >> OKAY.

>> IT'S JUST A SIMPLE MOTION.

>> YES OR NO ON A. I KNOW JEREMIAH COMMISSIONER JEH JOHNSON IS NOT. IS THERE A COMFORT LEVEL WITH THE

SUGGESTIONS? >> MAKE THE MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION. >> YOU WILL FIND OUT.

>> MATTA MAYOR, FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE, I MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE ORDINANCE 23-057. >> IS THERE A SECOND EXIT

>> SECOND. >>

[b. Legislativel Hearing - Ordinance 23-058 - An ordinance by the City Commission of the City of Fort Pierce amending the city’s zoning atlas and establishing a zoning designation of planned development (PD) for three (3) parcels containing approximately 122.8 acres and being generally located at or near the northeast corner of Selvitz Road and Devine road and west of Christensen road in Fort Pierce, Florida; Subject property: Parcel ID(s): 2432-211-0006-000-3, 2432-211-0005-000-6, 2432-343-0001-000-4 - SECOND READING]

>> NOW WE GET TO GO TO B. >> WE WILL MOVE ON TO ORDINANCE 23-058 , AND ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF CITY FORT PIERCE AMENDING THE CITIES ON ATLAS FOR R1 THE FAMILY LOW-DENSITY ZONE AND ESTABLISHING A ZONING DESIGNATION OF PD , PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THREE PARCELS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 122.8 ACRES AND BEING LOCATED AT OR NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SELVITZ ROAD AND TRENTON ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY 1600 FEET NORTH OF TRENTON ROAD IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. REPEALING ORDINANCE THIS IMPRESSIVE OR IN CONFLICT TO AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS IS

THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

STAFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO PRESENT?

>> BEFORE WE GO TO STAFF, AND IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE HAVE JUST GONE THROUGH HERE , I THINK WE ARE AT THE POINT THAT WE PROBABLY NEED -- I'M IN A POSITION TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONSIDER HIS HEARING. AND BRING IT BACK AT SOME POINT HE HAS AN APPLICATION FOR THIS SITE . WE HEARD A NUMBER THINGS IN OUR CHAMBER TONIGHT. I DON'T WANT ANY CONFUSION AS TO WHAT CLEARLY IS BEING PRESENTED. AND I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT A FRESH LOOK WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. AND OBVIOUSLY, ALLOW FOR AN APPLICANT TO MEET WITH PEOPLE FROM THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH COMMISSIONERS AND PRESENT THEIR UPDATED LAND. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST LETTING COMMISSIONERS KNOW THAT'S WHERE

I MET RIGHT NOW. >> ARE YOU MAKING EMOTION? 2 I'M IN POSITION TO DO THAT. MATTA MAYOR , I MOVE THAT WE CONTINUE THE LEGISLATIVE HEARING ORDINANCE 23-058 FOUR TIME PERIOD CERTAIN OF 60 DAYS FROM THIS DAY FORTH AS THE

FIRST READING. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> JUST SO I'M CLEAR , WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REALLY CONTINUOUS, BECAUSE IT'S

STARTING OVER AGAIN. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

[01:50:02]

SECOND READING THE? >> MATTA MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS. THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSION.

>> I WITHDRAW MY MOTION. >> IN THE MEANTIME, IF THEY MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, IT WILL BECOME THE FIRST READING.

IS IF WE HEAR THIS TONIGHT ON THE SECOND READING. AGAIN, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE HEARING RIGHT NOW. I MOVE THAT WE DO NOT

TAKE UP ITEM 12 B . >> SECOND.

>> FOR CLARIFICATION. JUST TELL ME WHERE --

>> THE SECOND READING NOW, BEFORE US. I'M NOT WILLING TO HEAR THAT ON THE SECOND READING TONIGHT IN LIGHT OF WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM THIS CHAMBER. SO, IF MAYBE I SHOULD PUT A CONDITION ON IT TO GO TO STAFF TO HAVE FOR THE REVEAL.

>> WE WANT TO GO TO STEP ANYWHERE UNLESS THERE'S NO CHANGES. IF THERE IS NO CHANGES, IT'S GOING TO COME BACK WHATEVER DAVE SAID. IF THERE'S A CHANGE OR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OR PERCENTAGE THRESHOLD THAT IS SIGNIFICANT, THEN IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO RESTART ANYWAY.

>> SO WE WILL GO TO TIME CERTAIN FOR THE DAYS FOR STAFF TO REVIEW. AND WE WILL ALSO -- THAT WILL BE IT. SO WE DON'T TAKE THIS UP FOR THE NEXT 60 DAYS TO ALLOW STAFF TO COMMUNICATE BACK WITH THE APPLICANT. AND FOR STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION ON HOW WE PROCEED FORWARD WITH

THIS DEVELOPMENT. >> ANOTHER QUESTION.

>> SAYS THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO COME BACK 30 DAYS BECAUSE THEY WORKED IT ALL OUT AND REDESIGNED AND LEFT AS IS AND HE CAN BE A TIME SHORTER THAN THAT , IS THAT OKAY? SHOULD WE

ALLOW THAT STIPULATION? >> I DON'T KNOW THE STAFF WORKLOAD. I WAS GIVEN ENOUGH TIME FOR STAFF. SO I WILL TAKE

THE RECOGNITION FROM STAFF. >> TO 60 DAYS. I THINK BECAUSE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE AMENDMENTS AS NEEDED. I THINK IF IT REMAINS A MINIMAL , THEN STUFF WILL BE

ABLE TO REVIEW THE EAKLY. YES. >> I'M FINE WITH CHANGING THAT TO 60 DAYS. THAT GIVES THEM LEEWAY.

>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS? CALL ROLE , PLEASE.

[c. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-001, Amending Chapter 103, Division I, Section 103-24, Subsection (a), providing Local Administrative Amendments to the 8th Ed. Florida Building Code with regard to Scope and Administration. SECOND READING]

SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ORDINANCE 24-001 , AND ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THIS AREA FORT PIERCE , FLORIDA.

AMENDING CHAPTER ONE OF THREE, DIVISION ONE, SECTION 103-24 SUBSECTION A TO PROVIDE FOR LOCAL ADMINISTERED FEMINIST OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE , SBC, EIGHTH EDITION 2023 IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCE IS REPEALING ORDINANCE DOES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES AND CONFLICT TO IT . AND PROVIDING FOR SEPARABILITY CAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

>> THIS IS THE SECOND READING. ANYONE INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION FOR THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, TO COMMISSION FOR A

MOTION. >> EMOTION. BE MEXICAN.

>> IS A MOTION AND SECOND. CALL ROLE PLEASE.

[d. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-004 providing for a Zoning Atlas Map Amendment by owner Ubilla-Duque Holdings, LLC., of one (1) parcel of land to change "Area 1" zoning classification from Commercial, General CG, to General Commercial, C-3, and "Area 2" zoning classification from Residential Multi-Familu (RM-11), to Residential High (R-5) generally located at 3307 S US Hwy 1 Fort Pierce, FL 34982. Parcel IDs: 2427-601-0050-000-7. SECOND READING]

>> THEN WE HAVE ORDINANCE 24-004, AND ORDINANCE OF CITY COMMISSION AND CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA FOR A TOTAL OF PLUS OR -3.72 ACRES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 3307 SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY ONE IN ORDER TO REZONE PLUS OR MINUS TWO .66 ACRES AREA ONE OF THE PROPERTY FROM COUNTIES ON GENERAL OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL GC TO CITY ZONING -- INTO REZONE PLUS OR MINUS -- RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY RML OF INTO RESIDENTIAL HIGH ARE FIVE. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE FOR ORDINANCES AND PARTS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE .

THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING.

ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COMPORT. PLEASE COMPORT BACK TO COMMISSION FOR MOTION.

>> MOTION A SECOND. CALL ROLE PLEASE.

>> ]

[01:55:09]

NOT GETTING OUT OF ORDER HERE. NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 24- , WE

[e. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-005: Review and approval of a voluntary annexation by Owner, Harry Blue, to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include four (4) parcels at or near the southwest intersection of South 7th Street and Kanner Drive on Duban Terrace. The proposed Future Land Use for the proposed properties is RH, High Density Residential, with a proposed zoning of R-4, Medium Density Residential. Parcel IDs: 2427-603-0135-000-3, 2427-603-0136-000-0, 2427-603-0104-000-7 and 2427-603-0134-000-6. SECOND READING]

DID 004 RIGHT? >> YOU ARE ON ITEM E.

>> 24-005. ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO INCLUDE FOUR PARCELS AT OR NEAR THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF S. 7TH ST. AND CANTOR DRIVE AND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A DIRECTING PROPERTY APPRAISER TO ASSESS PROPERTY OF VISIT TAX ROLES AS OF JANUARY 1, 2024. STATE TAXI -- COUNTY COLLECTOR TO COLLECT TAXES ZONING DESIGNATION ESTABLISHED IN LAND USE DESIGNATION DIRECTING FILING OF ORDINANCE CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT AND CHIEF ADMINISTERED OF OFFICER OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY DIRECTING REVISION OF THE CHARTER BOUNDARY ARTICLE TO BE FILED WITH DEPARTMENT OF STATE SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF ACADEMIC PROPERTY RESEARCH PROVIDING SEVERABILITY CLAUSE REPELLING ORDINANCES OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HERE WITH AND PROVIDIG EFFECTIVE DATE

SECOND READING. >> THIS IS SECOND READING ANYONE INTERESTED IN ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE COME FORWARD, SEEING NO ONE BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A

MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND WITH DISCUSSION. FOR THE RECORD THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THIS AREA TO KNOW WE ARE ANNEXING PROPERTY WITH A LONG DISCUSSION AMONGST THIS COMMISSION ABOUT MAKING SURE STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT THEY INTERACT WITH COUNTY STAFF OR ABUTTING RIGHT-OF-WAY JURISDICTIONS OR AGENCIES WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE THEY ARE A PRIORITY, THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[f. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-003 Establishing the Sunrise Community Development District. FIRST READING]

ORDINANCE 24- 003. WHICH IS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA ESTABLISHING SUNRISE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PURSUING CHAPTER 190 STATUTE PROVIDING FOR NAME, POWERS AND DUTIES RUNNING FOR DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARIES DESIGNATING FIVE PERSONS TO SERVE AS THE INITIAL MEMBERS OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PROVIDING OF NOTICE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDING FOR IN CONFLICT WITH AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE

THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >> THIS IS A FIRST READING MR. MIMS , THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS A PRESENTATION?

>> MME. MAYOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION THIS WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE CITY CLERK

AND CITY ATTORNEY. >> ALL RIGHT. THIS APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO OUR OFFICE, REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND REVIEWED BY MISS HEDGES. WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING SUNRISE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IN THE AUDIENCE WITH A PRESENTATION READY TO MAKE THAT

PRESENTATION FOR YOUR. >> OKAY THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND I WOULD LIKE THAT PERSON TO COME FORWARD PLEASE.

MY NAME IS I AM WITH AND I HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE YOU ALL BEFORE SO I AM HAPPY TO ADDRESS THE PETITION IN DETAIL OR GIVE YOU KIND OF A BRIEF SUMMARY. I THINK YOU KNOW FROM YOUR PETITION MATERIALS THIS IS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD PROJECT IN MY MIND IN THE SWEET SPOT WHEN YOU WANT TO HAVE A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE PROJECT IS PLANNED FOR 1500 UNITS ALREADY ZONED AND APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT. NOT TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT PER SE, BUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO MANAGE AND FINANCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THIS IS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION THAT CAN DO MORE THINGS. FOR PROJECT WITH OVER $50 MILLION IN PUBLIC IF RESEARCHER THIS IS THE KIND OF THING YOU WANT IT TO DO, IT ALLOWS US TO PUT IN INFRASTRUCTURE AT LESS COST SO WE HAVE A BETTER QUALITY PROJECT AND CAN STILL MAINTAIN COMPETITIVE HOME PRICING EVEN AFTER THE PROJECT IS IN OR IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT STARTING TO MAINTAIN AND IT HAS FEMA FUNDING, CAN COLLECT ON THE TAX ROLL AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS HOA DOES NOT HAVE THAT THE CITY DOES HAVE. I THINK I'VE RUN THROUGH THESE BENEFITS IN THE PAST, HAPPY TO

GO TO THE FULL PRESENTATION. >> I READ THE BACKUP MYSELF. I

READ THE PRESENTATION. >> QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? RECORD. BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DID NOT READ THE BACK OF DOCUMENTS.

THIS DEVELOPMENT, TELL ME WHERE THIS IS AND THE EXTENT

[02:00:02]

FOR HOW LONG THIS WILL BE IN BEFORE IT SUNSETS?

>> JUST OFF 95 AND NORTH OF MIDWAY. THE CDD LIKE A HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IS PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE. IT WILL BE THERE AND I CAN FINANCE IF RESEARCHER ON THE FRONT END COME A WHEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AGES RESIDENTS DECIDE THEY WANT TO REFURBISH AND ACCESS AGAIN, ALL THE WHILE MAINTAINING THROUGH THE CDD AGAIN COLLECTING ON THE TAX ROLL, GETTING FEMA FUNDING AND PROTECTION IT IS A MORE TRANSPARENT THING WITH A LOT OF GOOD ADVANTAGES TO HAVE CDD FOR

THIS. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, THANK YOU. I WILL ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

>> I'M OF APPROVAL ORDINANCE 24-003.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND CALL THE

ROLL PLEASE. >>

[g. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-006 Amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Pierce, Chapter 125 - Zoning, Article VII - Supplementary Regulations, Division 1 - Generally, Section 125-322, Fences, Walls, and Hedges; Installation, Replacement and Maintenance, to allow fences greater than 6ft in height to be erected adjacent to Railroad or Railroad Right-of-Way. FIRST READING.]

THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 24 -006 AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CHAPTER 125 ZONING ARTICLE 8 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS DIVISION I, GENERALLY SECTION 125-322 FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES, INSTALLATION REPLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE TO ALLOW FENCES GREATER THAN 6 FEET IN HEIGHT TO BE ERECTED EDGES INTO RAILROAD OR RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE ORDINANCES PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>> YES OR. >> THANK YOU CHAIR. VERY QUICK PRESENTATION. THIS IS TO DO WITH REALLY THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT WE SEE ON THE RAILROADS AND SOME REQUESTED BY RESIDENTS WHO ABOUT THE RAILROAD WHO ARE HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH TRESPASSING WERE PEOPLE ACCESSING TO GET OVER TO THE RAILROAD AND BACK AND FORTH AND THE DANGERS THEREIN. WE HAVE A REQUEST TO ERECT FENCES OF 8 FEET. THOSE ARE NOT PERMITTED IN CODE AT THE MOMENT OTHER THAN BY A VARIANCE. SO, TO REMOVE THE , TO REMOVE THE ENCUMBRANCE OF HAVING SOMEBODY COME IN TO REQUEST A VARIANCE EVERY TIME THEY WANT A 8 FEET FENCE AND HAVING TO JUSTIFY , IT WOULD BE SIMPLER TO AMEND THE CODE TO DO THE SAME. WE TOOK THIS TO THE PLANNING BOARD ON MARCH 11. THERE WAS A VOTE WITH DISCUSSION AND INITIALLY WE PROPOSED THE SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINES , A PROPERTY THAT ABUTTED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE RAILROAD. TO BE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 8 FEET. THE PLANNING BOARD WANTS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE REAR BOUNDARY ONLY SO THE CODE WAS AMENDED TO DO THAT. NOW WE SAY THAT UNLESS OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY OVERLAY DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, PROPERTIES ARE PUTTING A RAILWAY LINE OR RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ERECTING A FENCE OF UP TO 8 FEET IN HEIGHT ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE ONLY, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR FENCE ON THE SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK SHALL REMAIN PROVIDED WITHIN THE SECTION AND THAT IS NORMALLY 6 FEET MAXIMUM IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

RAILWAY? >> YES THAT'S CORRECT.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> ONE QUESTION TO THE FENCE THING THAT BROUGHT SOMETHING TO MY ATTENTION. DID WE EVER ADDRESS THAT ONE GENTLEMAN WHO KEPT COMING IN HERE TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME ASKING ABOUT A FENCE ON HIS VACANT PROPERTY?

IT. >> OKAY I CAN'T REMEMBER. I DON'T WANT HIM TO READ THIS AND TO HEAR THIS. WE DID NOT DO IT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN WE DO NOT DO IT AND HE COMES BACK IN THE NEXT MEETING. I HAD ASKED THE QUESTION.

>> WE GET LONELY, THE CHAMBER IS EMPTY. WE WANTED TO COME BACK IN HERE. A QUICK QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND THE FENCE. IS THERE ANY SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TYPE OF FENCE? CHAIN-LINK AND/OR VINYL? MY CONCERN IS SCALABILITY. IF YOU WANT TO YOU CAN SCALE A CHAIN-LINK FENCE IF YOU'RE MOTIVATED AND/OR CUT IT AS OPPOSED TO THE VINYL, WAS THERE

CONSIDERATION OR THOUGHT? >> WE DID CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD APPLY DESIGN REGULATIONS. AS SUGGESTING TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WE DID NOT SET ANY PARTICULAR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE CODE AT THE MOMENT WHICH DOES ALLOW CHAIN-LINK OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF

[02:05:02]

FENCE. >> THAT IS MY CONCERN. THE LEVEL OF VANDALISM FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TRESPASSING .

THEY CUT THROUGH CHAIN-LINK FENCE AND I AM ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE ON THE OWNER TO THEN REPAIR ET CETERA AND THEN DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO PUT IN SOMETHING ELSE OKAY ALL RIGHT.

JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE. I HOPE THEY WOULD FIND SOMETHING ELSE NOT SO SCALABLE AND EASY TO PENETRATE.

>> YES. OKAY. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

>> MME. MAYOR I MOVE THAT WE APPROVAL ORDINANCE 24-006.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND, CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[h. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-007 - Amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Pierce at Chapter 123 - Vegetation, Section 123-6 - Required Bond, to remove the requirement for a Landscape Bond and to require the approval of a Landscape Maintenance Agreement; and to amend section 123-7, - Enforcement, to require an annual landscape inspection. FIRST READING.]

ORDINANCE AMENDING CODE OF ORDINANCES CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA CHAPTER 123 VEGETATION SECTION 123-6 REQUIRED BOND TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPE BOND AND TO REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. TO AMEND SECTION 23-7 ENFORCEMENT TO REQUIRE ANNUAL LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE REPEALING ORDINANCES OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>> THANK YOU MANAGER. THIS CAME AROUND BECAUSE OF SOME INTERNAL BUREAUCRATIC INSTANCES THAT WE WERE FINDING. AT THE END OF DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES WHERE APPLICANTS , WHETHER THEY FORGOT OR WERE NOT PROPERLY INFORMED TO FACE WITH THE LANDSCAPE BOND AND THE EXPENSE OF DOING THAT. IT ALSO THEN LED TO ADDITIONAL STAFF TIME AND WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND FINANCE. THE COST OF DOING THAT FROM THE APPLICANT AND STAFF, SO WE INVESTIGATED WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A SIMPLER WAY TO DO THIS. WE CONSULTED WITH LOCAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND WE RAN THIS THROUGH TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. WE HAD SOME GOOD COMMENTS BACK, WE INCORPORATED EVERY THING WE COULD WITHIN THIS. IN ESSENCE, WE WANT TO PUT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. IN PERPETUITY. SO AS THE SITE PLAN MATURES , THEN THEN LANDSCAPE MATURES AND THE LANDSCAPE SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY REPROVED -- APPROVED. IF THE SITE PLAN CHANGED, THEN WE WOULD HAVE A NEW LANDSCAPE PLAN AND THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO A NEW LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SCREENING. SO I HAVE COMMITTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WOULD BE THE ONES WHO WOULD UNDERTAKE THE ANNUAL INSPECTION OF LANDSCAPE ON THE SITE PLAN AS WE WOULD INSPECT IT , VERY QUICKLY, IN A COMPONENT WITH THE OTHER DEPARTMENT WHO LOOKS AT THESE FOR APPROVAL AS IT CAME THROUGH . IT REMOVES THE BUREAUCRACY THE APPLICANT FACES AND COST OF THE APPLICANT FACE IN MAINTAINING A BOND AND THEN THE CITY RECORDING THE BOND IN THE ARCHIVES AND WHEN IT IS PULLED EVENTUALLY TRYING TO FIND THAT, IT ALSO GIVES US THE ENFORCEMENT ABILITY TO TAKE ACTION AND THAT WOULD BE INSTRUCTED THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AND WE WOULD HAVE SOME AMMUNITION TO THEN ENGAGE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE PROCESS FOR THIS WOULD BE DURING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. ALL DOCUMENTS WOULD BE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WOULD BE REVIEWED AND ACCOMPANYING THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN WOULD BE A LAND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BE SEEN BY THE COMMISSION. WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND COMMISSION. IF IT WAS AN ACTION ITEM THAT CAME THROUGH THE COMMISSION. IT WOULD APPLY TO ALL SITE PLANS REQUIRE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. SO MAJOR AND MINOR THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WOULD BE APPLIED TO EVERYTHING. I THINK IT JUST , WHEN I GO AROUND THE CITY AND MY FIRST IMPRESSION OF THE CITY WHEN I CAME HERE WAS WHERE IS THE LANDSCAPE, WHERE'S THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LANDSCAPE AND WE, IN THE CITY WE WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. THE

[02:10:03]

REINSTALLATION OF PLANTS. JUST DON'T WANT TO BE TO THAT POINT, YOU WANT TO HAVE A MECHANISM THAT PUTS THE ONUS ON PROPERTY EARNERS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS. BUT IT ALSO TAKES WILLINGNESS FROM CITY STAFF TO BE ABLE TO MONITOR THESE THINGS ANNUALLY. ANTAKING ACTION ADVISE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT THEY ARE IN THE SITUATION AND WE NEED THEM TO TAKE SOME ACTION. SO I THINK IN LONG-TERM, WE ARE LOOKING AT , YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENT IN MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPE PLANS. THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY SPENT BY APPLICANTS DESIGNING LANDSCAPE PLANTS. AND I THINK IT'S JUST A SHAME THAT WE SOMETIMES , JUST IGNORE THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING MAINTAINED TO THIS SUFFICIENT LEVEL. AND THE BOND AUCTION I DON'T THINK IS WORKING. AND I THINK THIS REMOVES A LOT OF BUREAUCRACY FROM THE PROCESS.

AND ALLOWS US TO TAKE ACTION IF WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION.

EVERYBODY IS AWARE OF THIS ON THE FRONT END. IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SURPRISES AT FINA CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPATION WHEN EVERYBODY IS RUNNING AROUND SCRAMBLING TO FIND OUT WHAT THEY MISSED AND IT'S USUALLY A LANDSCAPE BOND. AND WE USUALLY ARE PRESSURED AND PRIORITIES ARE USUALLY GIVEN TO GET THIS THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND IS NOT ONLY PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT HAS TO DEAL WITH THIS. ITS OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY. SO WE GOT GOOD RECEPTION FROM LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND DEVELOPERS AND ANYBODY WE HAVE CONSULTED WITH THIS ESSENTIALLY.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS TO US . WHEN I READ THIS AND TRIED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS BEHIND THIS, YOUR EXPLANATION IS EXCELLENT. NOW I UNDERSTAND IT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO BE INSPECTING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE ANNUALLY?

>> EVERY ONE THAT COMES FORWARD WITH LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WILL BE MONITORED. IT IS NOT THAT WE WILL GET 15 LANDSCAPE AGREEMENTS IN ONE DAY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL THESE WILL BE SPREAD ACROSS.

>> IT WILL BE A ROLLING KIND OF THING. STILL I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE COMMITTED TO THAT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. IF WE ARE MOVING TOWARD TAKING PRIDE IN OUR CITY, AND WE HAVE HEARD THIS IT IS STAFF SPOTS ABILITY TO TAKE OWNERSHIP ABOUT WHAT THEY APPROVE, WHAT THEY ARE RECOMMENDING AND THEN ENFORCING WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE. WE HAVE THE RESOURCES, I THINK, TO DO THIS. WE ARE ALL VISITING SITES OUT AND ABOUT. SO'S JUST ANOTHER CALL ON THE LIST AND SOMETIMES WE DRIVE ALONG AND WE SEE SOMETHING ANYWAY THAT WE POINT OUT TO PEOPLE. AT THE MOMENT YOU KNOW YOU'RE NOT MAINTAINING LANDSCAPING. I'VE GOT A BOND FOR IT. MORE

BUREAUCRACY. >> I APPRECIATE IT. ANYBODY

ELSE, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I APPRECIATE IT, TOO. THERE IS A LOT OF FOCUS ON THE INITIAL APPLICATION. THERE IS A LOT OF EMPHASIS FROM STAFF AND JUST TIME SPENT THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR AS WE SIT AND EVALUATE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE COMING FORWARD. IN ADDITION TO THAT DEVELOPERS, LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WHAT AM I MISSING TO GET ACROSS THE LAST HURDLE AT THE END OF THE DAY TO GET THIS DONE BECAUSE NOW I'M LOSING MONEY ON MY PROJECT. IF WE CAN DO THAT UP FRONT SO MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, UNDERSTAND AND I'M LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE, APPLICATION ATTACHED TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND DOES IT EVER COME BACK TO THIS COMMISSION FOR ANY OTHER EVALUATION? I NOTICED SOME LANGUAGE TALKS ABOUT A MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. DO THEY WANT TO CHANGE SOMETHING OR CHANGE THE AGREEMENT? WHAT

TRIGGERS? >> USING THE THRESHOLDS WE TALK ABOUT , IF ANYTHING CHANGES SUBSTANTIALLY, AGAIN 5% WHATEVER THAT IS THEN IT WOULD COME BACK TO COMMISSION.

AS ANY SITE PLAN WOULD. IF IT MET THE THRESHOLD OTHERWISE IT IS ON STAFF TO SAY THIS DOES MEET INTENT OF THE CODE, WE STILL APPLY THE CODE. IF IT IS AN AMENDMENT TO A SITE PLAN ALREADY APPROVED THE SITE PLAN IS DEEMED TO HAVE MET THE CODE

[02:15:03]

AND THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS MET THE CODE. SO THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE, AT THAT STANDARD. HOPEFULLY. IT GROWS. IT IS MAINTAINED, IT IS WATERED. IT IS WEEDED AND IT BECOMES A PART OF THE SITE THAT PEOPLE EXPECT ANYTHING CHANGES WILL GET CALLED. IF THINGS CHANGE IF WE START DOING THIS WE WILL GET CALLS THAT WOULD ADVISE IF SOMETHING IS GOING ON. BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD BE EXPECTING A BIT OF A HIGHER STANDARD WITH AN EXPECTATION

OF WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE HAVE HAD CHALLENGES OF THE YEAR I CAN RECALL A FEW DEVELOPMENTS MAYBE ONE OR TWO ON ORANGE AVENUE WHERE THE LANDSCAPING FELL APART AND IT WAS GONE. THERE WERE TREES , NICE LIVE OAKS THAT WERE PLANTED THAT ARE NOT THERE TODAY. THAT'S ME BEING A GUY DRIVING AROUND TOWN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WHILE I APPRECIATE PLANNING STAFF TAKING THIS ON I'M SURE THE LANGUAGE IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND/OR ALL EMPLOYEES OR WHOMEVER THE CITY MANAGER DESIGNATES CAN EVALUATE SUCH , LIKE CODE ENFORCEMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO THIS ALSO. THAT'S MY POINT.

IT CAN CROSS DEPARTMENTS DO WE HAVE THAT?

>> MY COMPUTER IS FREAKING OUT ON ME AT THE MOMENT, IF I

CAN HAVE ONE SECOND. >> I THINK I'VE GOT THE

ORDINANCE. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED THAT WE'VE GOT THAT FLEXIBILITY.

WILL INSPECT. SO IN ESSENCE WHOEVER WANTS TO CLAIM IT AND I AM CLAIMING IT FOR THE MOMENT.

>> IF YOU READ DOWN THE SECOND TO LAST SENTENCE. IT TALKS ABOUT VIOLATIONS GOING BEFORE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> COMMENT REAISSUE CANDIDLY AS POINTED OUT IS SIMPLY A PAPER CHASE. THIS HAS SOME PRACTICALITY AND I LIKE THE SOLUTION. I THINK IT'S A GREAT MOVE.

>> GREAT EFFICIENCY WITHIN THE PRIVATE COMMUNITY FOR THIS.

>> I AM WITH YOU. I REMEMBER PEOPLE COMING IN SAYING THEY DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE LANDSCAPE. WE HAVE HAD THOSE COMPLAINTS OKAY THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE WITH THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING KNOW WHEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

>> I MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 24-007.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND CALL THE

[i. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-008 Amending the Code of Ordinances of the City of Fort Pierce, Chapter 125 - Zoning, Article VII - Supplementary Regulations, Division 1 - Generally, Section 125-313 - Major and Minor Site Plan Application, to increase the threshold for Minor Site Plan. FIRST READING.]

ROLL PLEASE. >>

>> OKAY WE HAVE ORDINANCE 24-008 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA CHAPTER 125 ZONING ARTICLE 7. SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS , DIVISION I , GENERALLY SECTION 125 DASH 313 A AND MINOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD FOR MINOR SITE PLANS. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE REQUIRING CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR SECOND DATE OR ACTIVE DATE THIS

IS THE FIRST READING. >> YES OR.

>> THANK YOU. THIS GOES BACK A LONG TIME. THIS PROPOSAL GOES BACK A LONG TIME WITH A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS THAT EVENT HAD THROUGH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS. WE HAD A CITY CONFERENCE MEETING ON THIS AND AGAIN IT WAS URGED STAFF MOVE AHEAD WITH THESE THRESHOLD ADJUSTMENTS . STAFF HAVE COME FORWARD AND AND REVISED A PROPOSED REVISION TO THAT PART OF THE CODE WHICH THEN DEALS WITH THE BREAKOUT BETWEEN MAJOR AND MINOR SITE PLANS AND THE MAJOR BREAKOUT AT THE MOMENT IS 20 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE PROPOSAL IS TO MOVE TO 50 AND THEN FOR COMMERCIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS , EXISTING IS 4000 FT.÷ AND IT IS PROPOSED TO MOVE UP TO 10,000

[02:20:02]

FT.÷. WE CONSULTED WITH THE REVIEW TASK FORCE, THE TRC AND VARIOUS OTHER AGENCIES AND AGENTS AND DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY AND AGAIN WE HAVE INCORPORATED WHAT WE HAVE SAID AND PRIMARILY THEY WERE HAPPY WITH IT. AMENDMENTS , WE DO TAKE THIS TO THE PLANNING BOARD WHICH GOT MORE DISCUSSION AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT MORE OR LESS WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD BE A JUDICIAL ENTITY AND I THINK THAT WAS THE MAIN REASON WHY THE VOTES WENT FORWARD RATHER THAN FOR THE THRESHOLD THEMSELVES. THE PLANNING BOARD WANTED TO SEE EVERYTHING THAT WAS COMING THROUGH.

>> QUESTIONS? THIRD TIME BASED ON MY YEARS ON THE PLANNING BOARD AND CANDIDLY IT DID I VOTED NO. NOW I HAVE A CONFIDENCE LEVEL IN OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND DIRECTOR AS SUCH THAT I BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD MOVE TWO . AT THE TIME OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT WAS IN A SENSE OF DISARRAY WITH MULTIPLE DIRECTORS OVER A FEW SHORT YEARS AND I THOUGHT THE CONTROL NEEDED TO BE MAINTAINED AT THE PLANNING BOARD AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CITY COMMISSION. NOW I BELIEVE WITH THE TEAM IN PLACE, I HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE THIS WOULD BE ADMINISTERED TO CORRECTLY AND FULLY ENDORSE THIS IDEA , WHEN PREVIOUSLY I HAD NOT. AM COMPLETELY ON BOARD.

>> THANK YOU. >> JUST TO SHARE I HAD A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THIS ALSO. JUST KNOWING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS BUSINESS AND COMING IN FRONT OF OR NOT COMING IN FRONT OF AN AGENCY OR MUNICIPALITY, YOU KNOW WITH THE OTHER LAYERS OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND INTERDEPARTMENT CONVERSATION YOU GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT HAS BEEN UP LAMENTED THIS AGAIN IS CREATING ANOTHER EFFICIENCY. WITHIN THE PROCESS WHILE ALLOWING THE CODE TO BE THE PROTECTION. THAT'S THE WAY I SEE THIS. I REALLY SEE IT AS IT IS NOT LOST IN THE WEEDS OF YOU NEED TO COME SEE ME FOR EVERY TIME YOU WANT TO DIG DIRT ON THIS CITY. I DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT EITHER. I WILL GIVE YOU FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE. WITHIN PART OF THE STATE STATUTE THAT TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS WHICH ARE DEEMED IN ALL SENSE OF THE WORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND THEY ARE STILL COMING OUT I WILL USE WORDS THAT WE PROBABLY DON'T USE MUCH ANYMORE BUT I DON'T EVEN KNOW. LIKE TRAFFIC OR CONCURRENCY OR HOW THE MUNICIPALITY OR THE AGENCY WORKS WITHIN ONE ANOTHER. SO, SCHOOLS ARE EXEMPT FROM ALL OF THOSE THINGS, NO MATTER HOW BIG IT IS. MY POINT IS YOU STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LAYERS OF WHAT IS COMMON SENSE. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT TONIGHT. WHAT MAKES SENSE, WHAT DOES THE TRAFFIC LOOK LIKE AND WHAT DO THE ROADWAYS LOOK LIKE? ALL OF THOSE FACTORS. YOU WILL STILL HAVE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT AND I THINK IT'S TIME TO

ADJUST THE THRESHOLD. >> YEAH. WE HAVE BEEN EASING INTO THIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND I THINK FORT PIERCE IS READY.

WE WERE NOT READY WHEN IT FIRST CAME AND THERE WERE BIGGER NUMBERS AT FIRST WITH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE, MUCH BIGGER NUMBERS. SO I THINK IT IS ALL PART OF THE GROWTH IN US TRYING TO BE SMART AND BUSINESS FRIENDLY, BUT NOT TOTALLY HAVE NO CONTROL. I THINK IT IS A NICE BALANCE. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE THESE COME FORWARD. SEE NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 24-008.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND CALL THE

ROLL PLEASE. >>

[j. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 24-009 - Final Budget Amendment of the FY 2022-23 General Fund Budget. FIRST READING]

>> OKAY. NEXT, WE HAVE ORDINANCE 24-009 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 2022-23 BUDGET CITY OF FORT PIERCE BY INSERTING SCHEDULE ATTACHED AN FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT. SET SCHEDULE PROVIDES FOR INCREASE AND/OR DECREASE IN REVENUE AND APPROPRIATIONS OF THE GENERAL FUND PROVIDED FOR SEVERABILITY

[02:25:03]

PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCE AND CONFLICT HEREWITH PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS IS THE

FIRST READING. >> MISS MORSE.

>> GOOD EVENING, I AM HERE TO PRESENT OUR FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 22-23. WE WILL START WITH THE APPROVED BUDGET $52,412,646. WE ARE AMENDING IT TO $55,381,472. THEY SLIDE THAT IS BEFORE YOU SHOWS OUR REVENUE. SO YOU CAN SEE IN WHICH ITEM OR WHICH LINES WE HAD INCREASES AND DECREASES, ALL INCREASES AND I WILL MAKE A NOTE THE INTERFUND TRANSFER THE 1.6 MILLION , IT IS SHOWN AS A DECREASE, BUT IT REALLY WAS NOT A PORTION OF THE FINAL TRANSFER, IT WAS NOT DONE AND IT WAS BOOKED AS DUE TO ON THE BOOKS AFTER THE FACT. SO HAD IT BEEN DONE TIMELY, WE WOULD NOT HAVE HAD THE INCREASE THERE AS WELL. SO WE DID HAVE THE INCREASE IN ALL LINE ITEMS, TAXES, LICENSE, THE INTERFUND REVENUE WERE ALL INCREASES. SO, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE EXPLANATION OF EXPENDITURES I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.

>> YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. >> THE SAME YOU'LL SEE WITH EXPENDITURES. THE INCREASES AND DECREASES IN THE PERSPECTIVE DEPARTMENTS OR DIVISIONS. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT THE INCREASES , MOST OF THEM WERE AND I WILL DO CITY COMMISSION FIRST. IT WAS A CHANGE IN MAINLY THE INSURANCE COST. WE HAD A TRANSFER OF COMMISSIONERS AND WHEN ONE WENT OUT THE OTHER CAME IN AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE INSURANCE. SO IT WAS AN INCREASE IN WHAT WAS BUDGETED BECAUSE WE WERE BUDGETED FOR THE PRIOR INSURANCE COST. SO THAT IS MAINLY INSURANCE COST FOR THAT ONE. AND THEN SOME OF THE OTHERS. IT IS MAINLY SOME OF THE STAFFING ISSUES . WE MAY HAVE BUDGETED FOR A STAFF PERSON AND THAT PERSON DID NOT COME IN UNTIL THE LATTER PART OF THE FISCAL YEAR AS OPPOSED TO THE FIRST PART OR A POSITION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FILLED UNTIL AND LEFT A PORTION OF EXPENDITURES OR IN SOME INSTANCES, IT IS STILL ACCRUAL THE CITY MANAGER RETIRED AND THE ACCRUAL WAS PAID OUT. ONCE THEY TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THAT. THAT'S MAJOR THINGS , MOST OF

IT IS STAFFING. >> PUBLIC WORKS, THERE ARE TWO

BIG ONES IN PUBLIC WORKS. >> MAINLY IT HAS TO DO WITH SOME STAFFING AND CONTRACTUAL SERVICES. THERE WERE PROJECTS THAT CAME ABOUT MID YEAR DURING THE YEAR THAT WERE NOT BUDGETED, BUT THEY WERE EMERGENCY PROJECTS WE HAD TO ADDRESS. AND REPAIRS AND THINGS LIKE THAT SO THAT'S WHAT

THOSE WERE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYTHING YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HERE?

>> ACTUALLY WE HAD A GOOD YEAR. WE REALLY DID HAVE A GOOD YEAR. WE DID. AUDITORS WILL BE HERE AT THE NEXT MEETING TO PRESENT OUR AUDIT. SO WE WILL SEE.

>> WE ARE GOING TO GET A GOOD LETTER.

>> WE WILL GET A GOOD LETTER.

>> ALL RIGHT. IS THAT IT? >> THAT IS IT IF THERE ARE NOT

ANY OF THE QUESTIONS? >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND CALL THE

ROLL PLEASE. >>

[a. Resolution 24-R12 authorizing the execution of the sale and development agreement for 706 N. 20th Street ]

>> OKAY MOVING ON TO OUR RESOLUTIONS. FIRST WE HAVE RESOLUTION 24- R 12 RESOLUTION CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA DETERMINING TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 706 N. 20 STREET FORT PIERCE PREVIOUSLY DECLARED SURPLUS PROPERTY TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC DETERMINING A BID FOR THE REAL PROPERTY FROM THIRD-PARTY PURCHASER FOR VALUE TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE OFFICERS , ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT TRANSACTIONS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY REPEALING ALL ORDINANCE WITH I SHOULD SAY ALL RESOLUTIONS AND CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS THERE A MOTION?

[02:30:04]

>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[b. Resolution 24-R13 authorizing the execution of the sale agreement for 1204 Avenue E.]

24-R13 RESOLUTION DETERMINING TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1204 AVENUE E PREVIOUSLY DECLARED SURPLUS PROPERTY TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC.

DETERMINING A BID FOR THE REAL PROPERTY FROM THIRD-PARTY PURCHASER FOR VALUE TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING OFFICERS AND ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO TAKE ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT TRANSACTIONS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF IS THERE EMOTION?

>> APPROVAL. SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND.

CALL VOTE ]

[c. Resolution 24-R14 authorizing the execution of the sale agreement of 1620 Avenue E.]

24-R14 RESOLUTION CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA DETERMINING TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1620 AVENUE PREVIOUSLY DECLARED SURPLUS PROPERTY TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC DETERMINING A BID FOR THE REAL PROPERTY FROM THIRD-PARTY PURCHASER FOR VALUE TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OR IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING TO TAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT TRANSACTIONS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR

EFFECTIVE DATE. >> ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTION?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[d. Resolution 24R-15 authorizing the execution of the sale and development agreement for 604 S. 6th Street.]

. RESOLUTION CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA DETERMINING TRANSFER OF REAL PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 604 SOUTH 60 FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA DECLARED SURPLUS PROPERTY TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF PUBLIC DETERMINING A BID FOR THE REAL PROPERTY FROM THIRD-PARTY PURCHASER FOR VALUE TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING OFFICER ATTORNEYS AND AGENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO TAKE ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT TRANSACTIONS PROVIDING FOR SEVERAL BUT CLAUSE REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> IS THERE EMOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION AND SECOND. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> I'M SORRY I DID THAT OUT OF ORDER.

[e. Resolution 24-R17 appointing a member to the Keep Fort Pierce Beautiful Board to fill an at-large vacancy.]

RESOLUTION CITY COMMISSION CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA CERTIFYING APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO KEEP FORT PIERCE BEAUTIFUL ADVISORY BOARD PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WE HAVE THREE APPLICATIONS FOR ONE AT-LARGE SEAT. I'M GOING TO PASS DOWN SOME BALLOTS AND HAVE YOU COMPLETE THOSE.

[02:35:01]

VOTED FOR JOHNSON VOTED FOR I'M GOING TO MAKE COME I BELIEVE THIS IS JOHNSON VOTED FOR GOING TO FIX THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO TO THE KEEP FORT PIERCE BEAUTIFUL.

>> I'M OVER THE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL.

[f. Resolution 24-R20 addressing a request for an extension to comply with the terms of the Quit Claim Deed for 133 N 10th Street.]

24-R20 RESOLUTION CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA MAKING DETERMINATION REGARDING REQUEST OF SMITH FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH TERMS OF QUICK CLAIM DEED 143 N. 143 N. 10TH ST., FORT PIERCE PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CAUSED REPEALING RESOLUTION CONFLICT HEREWITH AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.

TALKING ABOUT TODAY WAS SOLD BACK ON MARCH 29, 2022. HAD A DEED RESTRICTION THAT THE GRANTEE WAS REQUIRED TO COMMENCE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN 24 MONTHS AND AS OF THAT TIME AS OF THIS TIME THE TIME HAS LAPSED. THE GRANTEES WERE NOT ABLE TO MEET THE DEADLINE, BUT THEY'RE REQUESTING 120 DAY EXTENSION TO ALLOW FOR THEM TO MEET THE DEED REQUIREMENT. WE DO HAVE WITH US QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS WE HAVE REDEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AS WELL.

INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM THE REQUEST?

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. IS THIS THE FIRST REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION? >> LET'S CALL HER UP TO THE

PODIUM. >> SHE HAS BEEN HERE.

>> IT IS YOUR CHANCE TO SHINE.

>> THANK YOU , GOOD EVENING. THIS IS THE FIRST REQUEST

RECEIVED FOR THIS PROPERTY. >> LOOKING AT MY BACKUP THERE HAS BEEN QUITE A BIT OF PROGRESS.

>> YES HE DID GIVE US A DETAILED TIMELINE OF HIS PROGRESS UP TO TODAY UP TO WHEN WE HAD THE AGENDA DEADLINE

A FEW WEEKS AGO. >> QUESTIONS?

>> THE ONLY REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE WE SHOULD APPEAR AND I'VE SEEN PEOPLE COME TWO OR THREE TIMES AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE NOT IN THAT SITUATION. IS THE FIRST TIME AND I READ AND I SAW WHAT THEY'RE DOING SO I'M READY TO MOVE ON AND GRANT THE EXTENSION SO THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY HAVE

TO DO. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> GREEN FIRST WHAT COMMISSIONER GAINES SAID WITH PROPER MESSAGING ON THIS POINT PUT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND OTHERS ACQUIRING PROPERTY THAT THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT ON THIS TO GET IT GOING. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEY I HAVE OWNED THIS FOR TWO YEARS AND I'M THINING ABOUT HAVING A DESIGN DONE VERSUS SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS BEING MADE, PROCESSING AND MOVING FORWARD.

I WANT TO COME INDICATE THAT BECAUSE YOUR POINT IS CORRECT.

WE DON'T WANT EXTENSION THREE AND FOUR WHEN YOU HAVE A BIRD

SEXUALLY THERE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SEND THE MESSAGE OUT LIKE THIS IS MY FIRST REQUEST THAT WILL GRANT IT. YOU NEED TO SHOW ME YOU ARE WILLING TO WORK AND DO WHAT YOU SAY AND WE SEE THAT WITH THIS RESOLUTION. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

>> I AGREE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION MISS GARCIA, IS THIS A TRANSFER OF DEED? WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO

SETTLE EXACTLY? >> IT WAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED TWO YEARS AGO, CORRECT. THEY OWN IT NOW, BUT THEY HAD THE DEED RESTRICTION COMMENCEMENT CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 24 MONTHS.

THEY DID NOT MEET IT AS OF MARCH 29 SO THAT'S WHY THEY ARE HERE BEFORE US. OTHERWISE WE HAVE THE REVERTING CLAUSE.

[02:40:03]

WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT TO SEE WHERE WE ARE IN THE STAGES OF THIS THING. I THINK THAT IT WILL HELP THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND AND I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS SO I WOULD LIKE

TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> YEAH. THEY HAVE STAYED ALL EVENING, THEY OUGHT TO HAVE THEIR CHANCE.

>> PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS

AWARDEES. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD I AM A

FORT PIERCE NATIVE. >> THANK YOU.

>> AS YOU KNOW WE RECEIVED THIS ARE THE SPECIAL PROGRAM.

WE RECEIVED THE GRANT AND WHAT WE DID WAS WE STARTED IMMEDIATELY. WE LOOKED INTO WHATEVER STRUCTURE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BUILD ON IT AND WHETHER IT WOULD BE A STICK HOME OR MARGINAL AND FINALLY WE WERE CONVINCED IT WAS A STILL HOME. THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE HURRICANE RESTRICTIONS AND WE THOUGHT THE HOUSE WOULD STAND LONGER IF IT WAS PUT

TOGETHER WITH STILTS. >> IT HAS A WIND VELOCITY OF 175. AND SO WE DID THAT AND IMMEDIATELY WHEN WE IDENTIFIED STILL DON'T WE GIVE THEM A SUBSTANTIAL DEPOSIT AND THE COMPANY RECOMMENDED A CONTRACTOR. WE HIRED AN AGENT TO WORK WITH A CONTRACTOR. WE HAD A SURVEY COMPLETED. WE MOVED FORWARD, WE HAD A MEETING WITH MR. FREEMAN. HE LIKED THE PROJECT SO WE MOVED FORWARD. EVERYTHING WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE CONTRACTOR TRIED TO TAKE SOME SHORTCUTS ON A DESIGNER ARCHITECT AND THE ARCHITECT, STILL THE HOMES WHEN YOU GET THE PACKAGE , TO GIVE YOU A PACKAGE FOR ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND THEY ARE PRETTY CUP LOCATED AT SOPHISTICATED. THAT PERSON SUBMITTED THE PACKAGE WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BASICALLY SAID WHAT IS THIS? I AM THANKFUL FOR THAT BECAUSE IT HAD ALL KINDS OF OPTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE WENT BACK AND TRY TO GET THE INFORMATION AND GET THE UPGRADES FROM THE ARCHITECT. WE ENDED UP FIRING THE ARCHITECT AND THE CLOCK WAS TICKING. WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE RETAINED ANOTHER ENGINEERING COMPANY HERE. I SPOKE WITH THEM THIS MORNING, HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR THREE WEEKS IN THE HOPE THAT THE PLANS TOGETHER FOR THAT IN THE FINAL STAGES. THEY WERE PLANNING THE DRAINAGE PLAN, FOUNDATION PLANS AND A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WANTED US TO DO. WE ARE PREPARED TO DO THAT, BUT THE PACKAGE TOGETHER IN THE NEXT WEEK OR TWO. WE ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND WE EXPRESSED A, THEY'RE GETTING READY TO TAKE OUR STUFF AND WE NEED TO GET SOMEONE ON THE GROUND. HE SAID WHEN WE GET THE PERMIT AND I SAID THE ONLY THING STOPPING HIM , WE CAN START TO LAY THE FOUNDATION WITHIN ONE WEEK. AND COMMITTING TO THAT THREE WEEKS AGO THIS IS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR, BUT HE KNOWS HE IS ON THE HOOK IN A NUMBER OF WAYS TO GET THAT DONE. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR

120 DAYS. WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TONIGHT AND FOR INVESTING IN FORT PIERCE. ANY

QUESTIONS? >> ONE QUICK ONE. THANK YOU FOR PRESENTING THIS AND SHOWING DOCUMENTATION AND THE EFFORT. SOMETIMES IT DOES NOT ALWAYS HAPPEN THAT WAY SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. WE KNOW AND UNDERSTAND YOU ARE WORKING TO GET THIS. MY SIMPLE QUESTION IS, YOU ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY, IN THE CITIES AND AND YOU HAVE ACQUIRED IT ARE THE TAXES UP-TO-DATE? DID YOU GET A TAX BILL LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE?

>> PAID THE TAXES THE DAY AFTER. THAT AFTER I GOT IT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SOMETHING WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND NEVER REALLY BROUGHT FORWARD BECAUSE SOMETIMES

[02:45:01]

FOLKS DO NOT DO THAT, THEY REALLY DON'T. THEY DON'T REALIZE, OR IT IS A CHANGE OF ADDRESS OR IT HAPPENS THAT WAY SO I FIGURED WHY NOT ASK TONIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,

WE ARE EXCITED TO SEE THIS. >> IT WOULD'VE BEEN STRANGE FOR US NOT TO, GIVEN THAT WE OBTAINED THE PROPERTY BECAUSE SOMEBODY DID NOT PAY THEIR TAXES.

>> SO YOU LEARN. >> I KNOW. WE SEE SOME FUNNY THINGS HERE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THAT BEING SAID I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION 24-R20 TO EXTEND UP TO 120

DAYS FOR THIS APPLICANT. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR STAYING ALL

NIGHT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD A THREE-MINUTE BUZZER AND THANK YOU FOR APPROVING THIS. AND THE FORT PIERCE HEARINGS ARE GREAT SO WE HOPE NOT TO HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THIS MATTER. THEY ARE MEMORABLE. I WAS WONDERING IF I CAN SOLICIT TO TAKE OUR PICTURE TO GET THE SUNRISE DESIGN. I PROMISE IT WON'T SHOW UP ON TIKTOK.

>> YOU WANT A PICTURE? >> IF YOU'RE WILLING TO GIVE THE WHOLE STUFF THAT'S FINE.

>> YOU WANT TO BE IN IT? >> LET'S GET THIS OVER WITH.

WE HAVE A LATE NIGHT. COME ON.

>> OVER THERE? >> YOU WANT US IN THE PICTURE?

WE WILL STAND BY IT. >> MY GOODNESS FIRST TIME.

PICTURE? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. WE LOOK FORWARD. WE WANT, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOU SERVING ON SOME BOARDS AND COMMITTEES.

[g. Resolution 24-R21 approving the FY 2023 Final Budget Amendment for Grant Funds.]

>> DOES THAT HAPPEN AFTER EVERY VOTE NOW? WE TAKE A PICTURE?

>> OKAY MOVING ON WE HAVE RESOLUTION 24-R21 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA APPROVING FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE GRANT FUNDS FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2022 ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2023

FIGHTING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. >> MISS MORRIS ANYTHING TO ADD TO WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE PACKET? ANY QUESTIONS OF MISS

MORRIS? IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION

24-R21. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

[h. Resolution 24-R23 appointing members to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC)]

NEXT WE HAVE RESOLUTION 24-R23 RESOLUTION CITY COMMISSION AND CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA CERTIFYING APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS TO THE FORTIVA HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE. PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. YOU DO NOT NEED TO VOTE ON THIS ONE. OR ON THE INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS BECAUSE WE ONLY HAD TWO APPLICATIONS FOR THE OPEN SPOTS.

>> TWO OPEN SPOTS. >> WE HAD AN ADVOCATE FOR LOW INCOME PERSONS WHICH IS THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF BEING FILLED BY TREVOR BANKS JUNIOR AND WE HAD AN ESSENTIAL SERVICES PERSONNEL REPRESENTATIVE FILLING THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF

>> IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOVE APPROVAL AND SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND, CALL THE ROLL.

[14. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Mayor, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The City Commission will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Mayor, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

>> DOING A BETTER JOB THAN ANY OF US COULD. NEXT COMMENTS FROM

THE PUBLIC. >> ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD.

[02:50:01]

I DID NOT HEAR ANYTHING YOU SAID.

>> DOWNTOWN WHAT WE CAN DO IN REGARDS TO RESIDENTIAL PARKING, USING FOR RESIDENTIAL PARKING SEIKO 3433 CONTINUOUS PARKING UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO PERMIT VEHICLE TO REMAIN IN ANY PARKING SPACE MORE THAN 24 HOURS IN ANY NONRESIDENTIAL ZONE UNLESS DISPLAYING VALID CREDENTIAL. DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE TOUTED TO BE LIVE WORK LEARN PLAY AREA ESSENTIALLY WITH NO LEGAL CONTINUOUS PARKING AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED IN MIXED-USE BUILDINGS INCLUDING MINE. I HAVE TWO UNITS WITH NO PARKING AVAILABLE. HAS NOT BEEN A BIG DEAL UNTIL THE PARKING GARAGE WAS CLOSING , AT THE LAST MOMENT AND THEN IT DREW ATTENTION TO BEING ABLE TO CONTINUOUSLY BE ABLE TO PARK. WE ASKED WHEN THEY REDID THE CODE TO NOT FORGET ABOUT US OR PUT SOMETHING FOR RESIDENTIAL AND WE HAVE NOTHING. TECHNICALLY WE CAN GET FINED A COUPLE TIMES WITH VIOLATIONS INCLUDING GETTING A BOOT PUT ON THE CAR. 'S WE ARE ASKING TO FIGURE OUT, WE DON'T NEED GUARANTEED PARKING, BUT WE WOULD LIKE SOMETHING SO WE CAN CONTINUOUSLY PARK LEGALLY MORE THAN 24 HOURS. WE WROTE INTO THE CITY MANAGER AND HE CHECKED WITH CODE AND THERE IS LITERALLY NOTHING THEY CAN DO UNLESS WE REWRITE THE CODE. THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE HOW CAN YOU BE LIVE WORK AND PLAY WITH NO PARKING? ADA PARKING HERE WE GO AGAIN. THERE IS ONE ON ORANGE AVENUE, ONE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE ABUSING IT. HANGING A PLACARD IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR AND I WENT TO CODE IT HAS BEEN THERE SIX DAYS. IT MOVED TODAY NOT PER CODE AND PER STATE STATUTE THAT DOES NOT GET YOU PAST A TIMED SPOT. JUST BECAUSE YOU HANG THE PLACARD DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN PARK MORE THAN TWO HOURS IN THE ORANGE AVENUE AREA. THEY WERE PARKED OVER THE LINE MAKING IT EVEN HARDER FOR THE OTHER CARS TO PARK AND THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. AND THE STORE WAS CLOSED TWO DAYS OVER THE WEEKEND AND COMMERCIAL PARKING VEHICLES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK ON THE DRIVE AND I'M SURE YOU KNOW WHO I'M TALKING ABOUT AND EVERYTHING THERE ARE THREE VEHICLES TIED UP MULTIPLE SPOTS. TAKING AWAY FROM PEOPLE THAT DO NEED IT.