[1. CALL TO ORDER] [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] [a. Future Land Use Map Amendment - Pulte Homes - 2721 South Jenkins Road] [b. Future Land Use Map Amendment - Becker Preserve - 3398 Selvitz Road] [00:22:41] >> HEARING NONE, WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD IF [00:22:43] THEY ARE AVAILABLE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. [00:22:47] >> I'M EMILY GRIFFIN WITH THE -- LET ME SIGN IN. I CANNOT [00:22:55] TALK AND SIGN IN AT THE SAME TIME. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR [00:23:02] THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS APPLICATION BEFORE YOU PICK I WOULD LIKE TO THINK OF IT AS GOOD NEWS, GOOD NEWS STORY WHERE WE ARE PUTTING LAND INTO CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC RECREATION. THIS IS A 34.4 ACRE PARCEL, TWO PARCELS ADDED TOGETHER. IT WAS PURCHASED BACK IN 2011 WITH ST. LUCIE COUNTY'S ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT LAND BOND. THAT WAS A REFERENDUM THAT WAS ON THE BALLOT WAY BACK IN 1994 TO PUT ASIDE $20 MILLION FOR THE COUNTY TO PURCHASE LANDS JUST LIKE THIS AND THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND ABUTS TEN MILE CREEK AND THAT WAS ALWAYS ONE OF OUR PRIMARY TARGETS FOR PRESERVING LAND ALONG TEN MILE CREEK AND THE NORTH FORK, AS YOU ALREADY CAN IMAGINE. LAND ALONG THE RIVER NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED FOR WATER QUALITY PURPOSES, STORMWATER ATTENUATION, AND TO REDUCE GROWTH UP TO THE EDGE OF THE RIVER. SINCE WE HAVE OWNED IT IN 2011, WE WROTE A GRANT FROM THE STATE FOR 50% OF THE PURCHASE PRICE AND ONE OF THE OBLIGATIONS FOR THAT GRANT IS TO RE-ZONE , AND SO THEY ONLY TOOK US A GOOD DECADE OR SO TO GET TO REZONE IT. WE HAVE BEEN VERY BUSY DOING OTHER THINGS LIKE RESTORING THE SHORELINE AND THE OXBOW YOU SEE, THE OLD, SLOW TURN IN THE RIVER. SO, WE RECENTLY COMPLETED THAT WITH A MILLION-DOLLAR GRANT THROUGH THE STATE TO DIG OUT THE OXBOW, TO RESTORE THE FLOW. WE ARE CURRENTLY -- BESIDES PRESENTATION AND MANAGING THE LAND FOR NATURAL RESOURCES, THE SECONDARY PURPOSE OF ALL THESE LANDS IS PUBLIC PASSIVE RECREATION. IT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANYONE TO GO AND ENJOY NATURE RIGHT NOW AND SO WITH THAT RESTORATION TO THE OXBOW, WE CUT OFF THAT SMALL [00:25:03] ISLAND FOR PEDESTRIAN USE. WE HAVE ANOTHER GRANT THROUGH THE STATE, FLORIDA RECREATION TRAILS PROGRAM, THAT IS ALLOWING US TO BUILD A BRIDGE OVER THE OXBOW. WE JUST RECENTLY CONTRACTED WITH SUMMER BLENDS. THEY ARE BEGINNING THE PROCESS TO BUILD A BRIDGE TO RECONNECT PEDESTRIAN AND THE ULTIMATE OVERALL GROUP GOAL IS TO HAVE GREENWAYS AND TRAILS CONNECTED ALL ALONG THE NORTH FORK FOR PEOPLE TO GO OUT AND HIKE AND CONNECTS PLACES LIKE THESE PRESERVES TO THE OXBOW CENTER TO DOWNTOWN COMMUNITIES AND ALL OF THAT. SO, WE FEEL THIS PROJECT IS VERY VALUABLE TO YOUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COMMUNITY. LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT, IF THERE IS ANYBODY ELSE HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND CONCERNS. ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE? >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. CARTER AND SECONDED BY MR. AND 34. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> [a. Annexation - 3302 Avenue B] >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO OTHER NEW BUSINESS, WE HAVE ITEM 7A, AVENUE B. AND HERE IS THE PRESENTATION. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIRMAN AND THE BOARD PEOPLE FOR YOU, WE HAVE AN ANNEXATION AT 3302 AVENUE B . THE APPLICANT IS FRANCIS KASTNER, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PARCEL I.D. IS -- IN SUMMARY, WE REQUEST TO REVIEW THE VOLUNTARY APPLICATION FOR ONE PARCEL OF LAND AT 3302 AVENUE B . THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION. THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A ST. LUCIE COUNTY DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL AND THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF COMMERCIAL GENERAL. THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION IS RESIDENTIAL AND THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF SINGLE-FAMILY MODERATE ARE THREE -- R 3. THERE IS AN AREA VIEW OF THE SITE LOCATION. THE SITE ITSELF IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW AND IS APPROXIMATELY 0.30 ACRES, GIVE OR TAKE. THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROPERTIES SHALL RECEIVE THE LAND-USE -- UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THAT THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE INCORPORATED ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND IS -- MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AND WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA. THE CURRENT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS 58,266. HERE IS A MAP SHOWING THE EXISTING FEATURE LAND-USE IN THE COUNTY AND WHAT SURROUNDS IT. IF YOU LOOK TO THE RIGHT, WHAT THE PROPERTY OUTLINES IN RED TO THE RIGHT IS RESIDENTIAL ROADS AND THE CITY. GIVEN THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION BEING APPROVED, THE FUTURE LAND-USE WOULD CHANGE TO RL. WE WANT TO POINT OUT REAL QUICK, TO THE RIGHT OF THE PROPERTY, THIS IS ALSO A PROPERTY OWNED BY THE APPLICANT AS WELL THAT IS IN THE CITY, SO SHE IS ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO ANNEX THE REMAINING PART OF HER PROPERTY. THE EXISTING ZONING IN THE COUNTY IS COMMERCIAL GENERAL. GIVEN THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AS APPROVED, THE ZONING WOULD CHANGE TO R CAPITAL THROUGH TO ALIGN WITH THE REMAINING PROPERTIES ON THE STREET. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR PLANNING BOARD TO MOVE THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. ULTIMATE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE TO RECOMMEND WITH CONDITIONS OR TO [00:30:02] RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS DRIVER. I AM AWARE THAT MOST OF THE COMMERCIAL, GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONINGS TYPICALLY ALLOW FOR RESIDENCES AS WELL. WHAT IS THE CURRENT USE OF THE PROPERTY? IS IT A RESIDENCE? >> YES, THE RESIDENT THERE IS A HOME ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY IN THE COUNTY. FOR CORRECTIONS WITHIN A CITY, IF IT IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND THE ZONING DISTRICT -- I BELIEVE RESIDENTS ARE CONDITIONALLY BASED, SO NOT OUTRIGHT PERMITTED, BUT WITH CHANGING THE CODE, IT WOULD BE FINE. >> ALL RIGHT, IT WOULD ADD AN A NECESSARY STEP TO THE PROCESS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, I WOULD -- IF THE APPLICANT HAS ANYTHING TO ADD TO THE PRESENTATION -- OTHERWISE, I DO NOT KNOW IF WE NECESSARILY NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU. HOWEVER, I WILL OPEN THIS UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NONE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS. HEARING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE ANNEXATION? >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. CARTER AND SECONDED BY MR. EDWARDS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> [b. Annexation - Tall Pines Parcel IDs: 1433-210-0003-000-9 and 1433-310-0002-000-9] >> VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON. ITEM 7B, ANNEXATION OF TALL PINES. I WILL LET MR. GILMORE READ THE PARCEL NUMBERS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. WE HAVE AN AND AS AGENT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT OR NEAR 314 SOUTH YOUREE DRIVE, PARCEL I.D.S AVENUE B -- 1433-210-0003-000-9 AND 1433-310-0002-000-9 . THE APPLICANTS AND REPRESENTATIVES ARE -- JARED PURSER OF WGCI INCORPORATED AND RODNEY OF GALLAGHER AND KENNEDY AND THE OWNER, JONATHAN MARTIN, FOR GRANITE TALL PINES. THE ANNEXATION REQUEST IS FOR TWO PARCELS. THEY WILL ADD IT TO THE CITY. THEY HAVE LAND-USE OF RM, WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM, AND A CLASSIFICATION OF RM 8-H. THEY WANT TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH POLICY. 1.11 POINT FIVE. THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY AND WITH A ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF R1 SINGLE DENSITY. IT IS $10,607,000 OF WORTH. SHOULD THEY ANNEX THE CITY AND BE APPROVED , THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND OCCURS ANY PARTS OF THE LAND OCCURS AND IT COULD CREATE A NEW SOURCE OF AVENUE, TAX REVENUE, ADDING TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE DEPENDING ON THE VILLAGE RATE PER YEAR, WHICH IS SCARILY -- CURRENTLY 6.9. IF THIS IS THE EXISTING LOCATION, APPROXIMATELY 41.63 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS, THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND-USE MAP , IT IS RM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM. THE CITY IS PROPOSING RM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE SOUTH. THE CURRENT CITY OF FORT PIERCE FOR GENERAL USE MAP, AS YOU CAN SEE, HAS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RL TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST. THE ZONING MAP -- AGAIN, IT IS RM-H-FIVE AND THE PROPOSED IS R1 SINGLE DENSITY. THIS IS THE ZONING MAP, WHICH WOULD ALIGN WITH THE CURRENT R1 SINGLE DENSITY FAMILY ZONE. BEFORE YOU IS A FUTURE LAND-USE COMPARISON, MAXIMUM BUILDOUT [00:35:03] POTENTIAL. AGAIN, IT WOULD BE CURRENTLY WHICH IS NINE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ON THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH IS 6.5, WHICH WOULD CREATE AN DECREASE IN THE MAXIMUM UNITS ALLOWED OF 104. NO COMMERCIAL IS ALLOWED IN EITHER OF THE FUTURE LAND USES. ALL AFFECTED DEPARTMENTS HAVE ANNEXATION WITH REGARDS TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE BONUSES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE AND PLAN. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION BECAUSE OF ITS CONSISTENCY WITH SECTION 125-36 OF THE PLAN AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE. POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD -- THEY ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER GILMORE? >> WAS THIS PROPERTY ALREADY WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA? >> YES, IT IS. IT IS. IT IS CURRENTLY IN THE SERVICE AREA. >> OKAY. >> NOT FOR ELECTRICITY THOUGH. >> OKAY. AND DO YOU HAVE A MAP THAT KIND OF ILLUSTRATES THE CONTRAST OF COUNTY VERSUS CITY PROPERTIES IN THE AREA? >> I CAN PULL ONE UP. >> I'M TRYING TO VISUALIZE KIND OF WHERE -- >> THIS IS ONE I CAN PULL UP. I CAN PULL UP A LARGER ONE THAT SHOWS YOU WHERE THE CITY'S LIMITS ON THE NORTHERN END TERMINATES. SO, THIS CITY FURTHEST PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE HERE. THE YELLOW, THAT IS ALSO PART OF THE CITY. THIS IS THE CITY, THE SCATTERED AREA. >> SO ANY GRAYED OUT AREAS? >> SO, THIS IS SOMEWHA UNRELATED TO THIS APPLICATION, BUT JUST FOR CLARITY, AMONGST ALL OF THE YELLOW SHADED CITY PROPERTY, ALL OF THE GAPS IN BETWEEN, THEY ARE NOT ANNEXED? >> CORRECT. >> WE ARE PUSHING THE ISSUE FORWARD SOMEWHAT, I THINK, BY PROPOSING THIS ANNEXATION, WHICH I'M NOT OPPOSED TO, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, ALL OF THE COUNTY PROPERTIES THAT ARE STILL BUBBLING UP WITHIN THESE BOUNDARIES. I LIKE THE IDEA HERE OF CLEANING UP THAT BOUNDARY A LITTLE BIT. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE -- O? ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? >> NO, I AM A RESIDENT. >> WE WILL OPEN UP -- EXCUSE ME. WE WILL OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT -- ARE YOU THE APPLICANT OR -- >> NO, HE IS NOT. SO, LET'S -- WE WILL HEAR FROM APPLICANT FIRST AND THEN WE WILL LET YOU SPEAK. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN. WE CAN EXPAND A LITTLE BIT. >> MR. CHAIR, FOR YOUR RECORD, THE NAME IS ROD JARVIS AND MY ADDRESS IS 2575 EAST -- SUITE 1100 IN PHOENIX, ARIZONA, REPRESENTING COMMUNITIES, THE OWNER OF TALL PINES. AS I BELIEVE WE ARE HEARING FROM ONE OF THE RESIDENTS, THERE ARE TWO ITEMS BEFORE YOU RELATING TO TALL PINES. ANNEXATION IS THE FIRST ONE YOU NEED TO LOOK AT. THE NEXT ONE IS REZONING TO APD. I CAN PUT ALL THOSE COMMENTS TOGETHER IN ONE AND I CAN COME BACK UP THE SECOND TIME IF WE WERE TO KEEP A TRULY SEPARATE, THEN MY COMMENTS WILL BE VERY BRIEF RIFT REGARD TO THE ANNEXATION. >> WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. IF THIS IS AN YOU DEAR ISOM WE CAN MOVE THROUGH IT. >> WITH REGARDS OF ANNEXATION, LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY, IF I MAY, INSPIRED COMMITTEES PURCHASED TALL PINES IN, I THINK IT WAS 2011. IF I AM CORRECT. 2021 -- 2021. I AM SORRY. 2021. AND IT BEGAN [00:40:03] IMPROVING IT. AND THEY WANTED TO IMPROVE IT FURTHER IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THEY NEEDED MORE REVENUE. THEY BEGAN TALKING WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT AN EXPANSION FOR RVS AND FOR SOME ADDITIONAL MH UNITS. THE COUNTY'S REGULATORY STRUCTURE WAS UNWIELDY AND THE COUNTY SAID YOU REALLY NEED TO GO INTO THE CITY TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. THAT PRECIPITATED CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. FREEMAN AND HIS STAFF. I BECAME INVOLVED WITH THOSE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. DURING THE COURSE OF THOSE TWO YEARS, BUT A NUMBER OF MEETINGS WITH STAFF AND ALSO WITH ALL OF YOUR CITY COMMISSIONERS EXCEPT THE MAYOR. IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE CITY WAS INTERESTED IN THE ANNEXATION. SO, WE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THAT. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE FOR YOU TODAY. I WILL NOT GO INTO ANY MORE DETAILS AS TO THE PROJECT ITSELF BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ANNEXATION PART OF IT, BUT THAT IS JUST THE HISTORY. THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO GET TO THIS POINT. I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ANNEXATION, CAN YOU BRING UP THE DENSITY? I BELIEVE IT IS THE DENSITY CHANGE CALCULATIONS. YEAH, THERE. THIS LOOKS AT A DECREASE IN ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. IS THAT NUMBER IN ANY CONFLICT WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING ON THE SITE? >> I AM NOT HEARING THE QUESTION. I'M SORRY. >> SINCE WE ARE REDUCING THE DENSITY, RIGHT, THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY , IS THAT ALLOWABLE DENSITY IN CONFLICT WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BILLED ON THE SITE? >> NO. >> THE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THE SIDE RIGHT NOW IS ITEM 54. >> IN REGARDS THE ANNEXATION, I THINK THAT IS MY ONLY SPECIFIC QUESTION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> IT IS THE SPACE, NOT THE NUMBER OF UNITS. IT IS THE NUMBER OF SPACES ON THE SITE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I MADE, IF NECESSARY, GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE SAID BY THE PUBLIC ON THIS ISSUE , BUT YOU WILL BE HERE. I WILL CALL YOU A PICK >> I APPRECIATE THAT. A LOT OF THAT MAY REZONE -- RELATE TO THE ZONING ITSELF. >> AT THIS TIME, WILL OPEN UP FOR COMMENT PUBLIC. ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE ANNEXATION ITEM BEFORE US, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM, SIGN IN, AND STATE YOUR NAME. >> MY NAME IS PETER AND I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF HOA OF TALL PINES. I DO NOT WANT TO GO AGAINST MY THREE MINUTES. THIS IS JUST A STATEMENT I NEED CLARIFICATION ON. LET ME -- THIS KIND OF CAME SUDDENLY FOR ME. I WANT SOME CLARIFICATION. I HAD THE BOUNDARIES. WE HAVE A MAP. DO WE HAVE A MAP OF THE PROPERTY? >> THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY, OKAY, ALONG THE CANAL. YOU HAVE THE CANAL, WHICH BELONGS TO THE FARMERS ASSOCIATION. THEIR ROAD,, THEN THE YELLOW LINE IS US. MY QUESTION WAS, THERE IS A CONFLICT IN SURVEY. THE SURVEY I GOT FROM THE WATER MANAGEMENT PEOPLE IN A STATEMENT I GOT FROM THE ENGINEER. MY QUESTION TO HIM WAS, DOES THE FARMERS HAVE AN EASEMENT RIGHT TO USE ANY OF THE TALL PINES, KIND OF LIKE A BUFFER. IT WOULD IN CASE SOMETHING. HIS ANSWER WAS BASED ON THE PLANS AND PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE, THE PROPERTY LINE IS MUCH CLOSER TO THE CLUBHOUSE FAN SHOWN IN THE PICTURE. THE BUFF REQUIREMENT WOULD BE A CITY OR COUNTY CODE ISSUE. I WOULD EXPECT THE CITY OR COUNTY TO REQUIRE AT LEAST A 10 FOOT BUFFER FROM THE BUILDING AND THE PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS WHAT IS UNCERTAIN RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE A DISCREPANCY IN THE SURVEY AND NO CLEAR ANSWER [00:45:06] OF A BUFFER AND THIS IS KIND OF IMPORTANT GOING FORWARD FOR US BECAUSE IT SETS UP A LOT OF MEASUREMENTS. I WAS WONDERING IF WE COULD GET AN ANSWER OR JUDGMENT HERE. >> MR. FREEMAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE TO THAT? >> THAT BECOMES MORE OF A SITE PLANNING ISSUE AND WE WOULD -- IT BECOMES A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER. WE WILL ASSESS THE CORRECT LOCATION OF THE BOUNDARY. IT APPEARS THAT FROM WHAT I HAVE JUST HEARD, THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IS RELYING ON AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SITE, WHICH WE KNOW IS NOT ACCURATE IN A LOT OF RESPECTS. SO, WE WOULD ULTIMATELY DEPEND ON THE SURVEY ARE THAT SUBMITTED A SIGNED AND SEALED SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY TO WHEN WE REVIEW THE ZONING ASPECT OF THIS AND THE PLANNED DEVELOP AN ASPECT OF THIS. IN RELATION TO BUFFERS, THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A SITE PLANNING ISSUE AND BECAUSE WE WOULD BE MOVING, THE APPLICATION IS TO CONSIDER PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THEN I DO NOT THINK WE WOULD HAVE BUFFERS IN ANY CASE ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT OF WAYS AND WATERWAYS . WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT AS AN INDEPENDENT REQUIREMENT BASED ON THE SITE PLAN ISSUES REGARDING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. SO, THE ACTUAL BOUNDARY LINE IS, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF THAT IS ASSERTED AND NOT SHOWN IN THE RIGHT LOCATION. >> ANY DISCREPANCY -- I WOULD EXPECTED TO BE RESOLVED THROUGH THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL ONCE WE GO INTO ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT PHASE. I WOULD NOT EXPECT THIS TO BE ANYTHING THAT WORD BE ANY DIFFERENT HAD THEY PURSUED DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE COUNTY. >> CORRECT. >> AS IT RELATES TO THE ANNEXATION SPECIFICALLY, I AM NOT SURE THAT IT IS AN ISSUE OF CONCERN FOR ANNEXATION, BUT IN THIS ISSUE OF CONCERN THAT WOULD NEED TO GET RESOLVED THROUGH ANY KIND OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE CAN ADDRESS. I DO NOT EVEN KNOW IF WE WILL -- MAYBE WHEN WE GET TO ITEM C, BUT THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AT A LATER TIME. >> MY CONCERN ARE THESE TWO ITEMS ARE JUST VERY INTERTWINED, THE ANNEXATION. MR. JARVIS STATED IF HE DOES NOT GET APPROVAL FOR THE RV PARK, HE IS NOT INTERESTED IN THE ANNEX EITHER. >> I UNDERSTAND. FOR CLARIFICATION FOR ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, THIS IS AN ADVISORY BOARD. OUR VOTES ARE NOT BINDING. THE CITY COMMISSION WILL MAKE THE DECISION ULTIMATELY AND WHEN THEY REVIEW THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING OR WATCH OR LISTEN TO THE RECORDINGS, THEY WILL LIKELY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE CONVERSATION FOR BOTH THIS ITEM AND ALSO 7C , TO WHETHER THEY WANT TO APPROVE THE ANNEXATION, SO ALL THOSE CONVERSATIONS WILL BE RELEVANT. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME AND SPEAK ON THE ANNEXATION SPECIFICALLY? KEEP IN MIND WE WILL ALSO HAVE ITEM 7C TO TALK ABOUT THE REZONING SPECIFICALLY. >> MIKE, A RESIDENT AT TALL PINES. I HAVE A HANDOUT. MAY I GIVE IT TO YOU? >> SURE. YOU CAN GIVE IT TO MELISSA. >> OKAY, ABOUT THE ANNEXING. WHAT I AM HANDING OUT HERE ARE THE CITY ORDINANCES THAT 12 PINTS CURRENT PLAN IS GOING AGAINST. THIS IS JUST A PARTIAL LIST. THE PEOPLE OF 12 PINTS ARE GUESSES ANNEXATION AND AGAINST HAVING A TRAILER PARK NEXT TO OUR PLACE. ALSO TAKING STORAGE AWAY. YOU SEE WE HAVE NINE ITEMS ON [00:53:58] >> WITH ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THE ANNEXATION? >> A GROUP OF US ARE GATHERED TO TRY TO PRESENT TODAY -- WE DECIDED TO DEVELOP A VERY UNOFFICIAL SURVEY OF ALL THE RESIDENTS IN OUR PARK. IT IS AT THEIR DOORSTEP. I RECEIVED 86 RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY. AGAIN, UNOFFICIAL, BUT 86 RESPONSES, NOT ONE SINGLE YES OF RESIDENTS -- THAT IS A PRETTY RESOUNDING NUMBER, I PICKED 86 OF 86 RETURNS ON THE SURVEY. WE ARE RESIDENTS AND WE PAY OUR TAXES AND WE DESERVE THE PEACE THAT WE CHOSE TO LIVE OUT HERE IN THIS PLACE IN FLORIDA. WE HAVE A VOICE AND WE NEED TO BE HEARD AND THAT IS JUST PART OF WHAT WE HAVE DISCOVERED BY GATHERING [00:55:06] TOGETHER AND LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE. THAT IS IT. THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? >> HELLO, MY NAME IS KATHY. I AM A RESIDENT OF TOLL FINES.? MAKE SURE YOU SIGN IN. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE DENSITY ISSUE, WHICH THIS IS A MEDIUM DENSITY ISSUE. IF YOU ADD IN THE 33 RV SITES TO THIS, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 220 UNOCCUPIED SITES AND I UNDERSTAND INSPIRE IS A BUSINESS AND IF I WAS THEM, I WOULD WANT EVERY SITE PAYING RENT BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS BILLS. IF YOU PUT 254 AND AT 33 TO THAT, IT PUTS US AT A HIGH DENSITY. THIS IS IN THE CODE. THIS IS ABOUT DENSITY AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO, I BELIEVE I FIGURED IT OUT AND IT IS 6.4 SOMETHING PER ACRE, WHICH IS OVER YOUR DENSITY ZONE. SO, I GUESS MY LAST THING IS HOW CAN YOU APPROVE THIS PLAN TODAY WHEN THE CODES ARE NOT BEING MET ON INSPIRE? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TAMMY WILLIAMS. I AM NOT A RESIDENT OF THE MOBILE HOME, BUT I AM A NEIGHBOR. I LIVE ON SENECA AVENUE AND I AGREE WITH THEM . IT IS A NICE, QUIET AREA. WE DO NOT NEED THOSE RVS AND IT OUT. WE HAVE A NARROW ROAD THAT CHILDREN -- I WALK MY DOG ALL THE TIME. I HAVE A BIG GERMAN SHEPHERD AND AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE DO NOT HAVE ROOM TO MOVE OVER. WE DO NOT NEED THIS ANNEXATION. WE DO NOT EVEN NEED WHAT YOU'RE PLANNING ON DOING. IT IS NOT ENOUGH ROOM. IT IS VERY PEACEFUL. IT IS VERY PEACEFUL AND IT WOULD BRING SO MUCH COMMOTION. IT WOULD BE TOO MUCH. THERE WOULD BE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC. WE DO NOT HAVE THE ROOM FOR ALL OF IT. SO, I AM STANDING WITH MY NEIGHBOR, STANDING WITH MY NEIGHBORS. I AM IN A COUNTY. THE STREET I LIVE ON ITS COUNTY, BUT IT WOULD ALSO AFFECT ME, BUT THESE ARE MY NEIGHBORS AND I AM STANDING WITH THEM. SO, PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS. >> DID YOU SIGN IN? >> I AM KURT. >> SIR, YOU CANNOT TALK FROM THERE IN THE AUDIENCE. >> MEISTER REED WILL BE THE ENTRY THEY COME DOWN. IT IS A NARROW ROAD AND WE DO HAVE CHILDREN PLAYING. LIKE I SAID, I WALK MY DOG AND RIGHT NOW THE CARS COME OVER AND WE HAVE TO GET OFF THE ROAD BECAUSE THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS. IF YOU HAVE RVS COMING THROUGH , WE WILL HAVE PROBLEMS. A LOT OF PROBLEMS. >> I UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANNEXATION? >> I AM PETER, THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA. HAVE ANY OF YOU ALL EVER BEEN DOWN IN OUR AREA, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YOU HAVE? WHAT DO YOU THINK I'M A WHAT IS YOUR OPINION? YOU THINK IT IS A NICE AND QUIET LITTLE PLACE? IT IS. IT IS A SMALL MOBILE HOME PARK , JUST STUCK IN THIS NICE LITTLE QUIET ENCLAVE BEHIND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, RESIDENTIAL, FAMILY, LARGE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL THOSE HOUSES ARE MOSTLY FAMILY. WE ARE ALL HERE -- WE HAVE A LARGE MAJORITY OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE AND WE HAVE A GOOD QUANTITY OF CANADIANS THAT COME DOWN IN THE WINTER. WE ARE ALL BASICALLY RETIRED PEOPLE. WE CHOSE THIS PLACE. EVERYONE THAT CAME DOWN THERE FELL IN LOVE. IT IS REALLY QUIET AND REAL PEACEFUL. GOOD AMENITIES AND A LOT OF SPACE. A NICE PLACE TO RELAX. THIS IS WHERE WE BASE TOWER RETIREMENT FOR THE REST OF OUR LIFE. I AM 73, OKAY? I PLAN ON SPENDING THE REST OF MY LIFE THERE. THIS PROJECT, WE HAVE A GOOD QUALITY AND WE HAVE A LIFESTYLE. SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN HERE FROM SIX MONTHS TO 40 YEARS, SAME THING IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE A LIFESTYLE. WE HAVE A CULTURE, WE HAVE A QUALITY OF LIFE, BOTH IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND US. THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO SERIOUSLY DISRUPT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THEIR CHILDREN [01:00:06] PLAYING, JUST THE GENERAL CROWDED AREA. IT WILL DESTROY OURS. IT WILL TOTALLY DESTROY OUR ENVIRONMENT AND OUR QUALITY-OF-LIFE, OKAY? WE -- THIS IS SOMETHING WE DO NOT NEED AND SOMETHING WE DO NOT WANT, NOBODY WANTS IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE MOBILE HOME PARK. THIS IS OUR LIFE. THIS IS OUR RETIREMENT. THIS IS -- A BIT OF COMPASSION AND THINK ABOUT THIS. WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD OR YOUR PARENT'S NEIGHBORHOOD OR YOUR GRANDPARENT'S NEIGHBORHOOD OR YOUR CHILD'S NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW WOULD YOU FEEL? I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION AND WE, LIKE I SAID, ONE THING IS THE OTHER. IF THEY DO NOT GET THE ANNEXATION, THEY DO NOT GET THE RV PARK. WE DO NOT WANT THE RV PARK. ALL WE WILL SEE FROM ANNEXATION -- WE ARE GETTING NOTHING OUT OF IT. WE GET HIGHER TAXES AND POSSIBLY HIGHER GARBAGE COLLECTION AND OVERCROWDING. AND I JUST HOPE YOU WILL BE COMPASSIONATE AND NOT PASS THIS. THANK YOU. >> I THINK I SAW ONE MORE? PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME. >> I AM THE PRESIDENT -- ON THIS, THE MAP SHOWS TWO PARCELS THAT ARE BEING ANNEXED. ON THE SURVEY, THEY DID. DO YOU HAVE THE PICTURES THERE? THE SURVEYS? THERE IS THE SURVEY. >> THAT MIGHT BE PART OF THE OTHER PRESENTATION. >> NO, IT SHOULD BE ON THIS ONE. THIS IS THE ANNEX. THAT IS WHERE I GOT IT FROM. OKAY, IT SAYS ON HERE, ABOUT THE TWO PARCELS AND THE CODES, THE NUMBERS FOR THEM. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE, THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY, THERE IS A LITTLE OUTCROP. IT IS -- WE SAY THAT IS NOT PART OF PUBLIC MINDS. THAT IS A DUPLEX THAT THEY OWN. IT IS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE FOR TALL PINES. AND WE WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE FIGURED OUT AND IF IT WILL BE PART OF THE ANNEXATION OR NOT. THE WAY IT IS, THEY SAY IT IS PART OF THE PARK AND WE ARE PAYING TAXES ON THAT PROPERTY. AND WE HOPE YOU DO NOT ANNEX IT. BECAUSE THEY KEEP ON ADDING STUFF TO US AND OUR RENT AND TAXES HAVE GONE UP $237 IN FOUR YEARS. WE ARE RETIRED. IT AIN'T GOING TO GET NO BETTER WITH THEM. BUT THIS SURVEY SHOWS THAT IT IS NOT EVEN PART OF TALL PINES. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY FOR RIGHT NOW. I DO HAVE THAT PARCEL AND IT IS NOT WITH ME. I CAN GIVE IT TO VENNIS. IF YOU NEED IT. I AM DONE. THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE ANNEXATION? NO? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME. >> MY NAME IS ALAN KENNEY AND I AM A RESIDENT OF TALL PINES. YOU WILL HAVE TO EXCUSE ME IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT I MISUNDERSTOOD. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THIS COMMITTEE IS TO HELP BENEFIT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. YOU WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING TO HARM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. THIS PROPOSAL, I AM LOST AT WHAT WOULD BE THE BENEFIT FOR FORT PIERCE OTHER THAN TAXES. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT [01:05:03] WOULD BE A NEGATIVE SIDE, YOU'RE TAKING US FROM CITY, FROM COUNTY SERVICES AND PUTTING US IN CITY SERVICES. LET'S JUST SAY I NEEDED A COP. HE HAS TO DO ALL THIS TO COME AROUND TO GET INSIDE. HE IS LITERALLY TRAVELING THROUGH COUNTY JURISDICTION TO GET TO ME. I DO NOT SEE A BENEFIT OF US BEING IN THE CITY . IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL. WE WOULD BE PAYING MORE IN TAXES. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE RIGHT NOW IS NOT EXACTLY IN THE BEST POSITION TO WANT TO TURN AROUND AND SPEND MORE MONEY TO SERVICE US WHEN WE ARE THIS FAR AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL CITY ITSELF. IF THE ACCESSIBILITY OF TALL PINES WAS A MATTER OF CROSSING THE STREET AND GETTING THERE, GREAT. BUT YOU HAVE TO GO AROUND TAYLOR CREEK COME UP TO ST. LUCIE BOULEVARD, AND THEN DOWN TO GET TO US. THAT IS MORE MONEY, MORE TIME, MORE EXPENSES AND WHAT IS THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE OTHER THAN MONEY? THE ISSUES I READ IN THE PAPER ABOUT POLICE AND FIRE ARE NOT GOING TO BECOME OUR ISSUE. DOES THAT HELP US OR DOES THAT HELP FORT PIERCE? SO, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO ANNEX US? CAN ANYBODY ANSWER THAT? >> I THINK YOU ARE CORRECT IN YOUR ASSESSMENT. >> THE TAX DOLLARS IS THE BENEFIT? >> YES, SO, WHEN WE EVALUATE ANNEXATION, WE TYPICALLY DO NOT LOOK AT IT FROM THAT DIRECTION. HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, IT IS A BALANCE. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL CONTINUE TO LET MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC SPEAK. IT IS OUR OBLIGATION TO DO SO. IF THERE IS ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> I AM A RESIDENT OF TALL PINES. FIRST OF ALL, I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE THAT THIS GENTLEMAN WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, BUT WE DO NOT SEE THEM. WE HAVE WATER PIPE PROBLEMS ALWAYS BREAKING FOR HOURS, UP TO A DAY OR DAY AND A HALF. OUR STREETS ARE NARROW. WE WILL GET OVERFLOW FROM THOSE RVS. THEY BRING CHILDREN INTO OUR AREA. THEY ARE IN TROUBLE. THEY WILL GO OVER THE SPEED LIMIT. THEY'RE DOING 35, 45 IN A 15 MILE PER HOUR ZONE. IT IS DANGEROUS. PLUS, LIGHTING IS VERY INADEQUATE. IT IS LIKE YOU ARE WALKING IN A TUNNEL IN SOME AREAS OF THIS PART. WE DO NOT HAVE LIGHTING AND THEY WANT TO BRING IN MORE PEOPLE, MORE HOMES INTO OUR AREA, AND IT WAS VERY DISAPPOINTING. THEY BROUGHT IN NEW HOMES AND THEY LOOK -- THEY ARE PATHETIC LOOKING. THEY HAVE HOMES THAT FACE THE STREET WITHOUT A WINDOW. THE EASEMENT IS BARELY ENOUGH TO DO ANY LANDSCAPING. THEY WANT TO PUT MORE IN? I THINK THIS ANNEXATION IS NOTHING BUT TO MAKE US PAY MORE MONEY BECAUSE LIKE THE VICE PRESIDENT SAID, WE ARE ALL RETIRED. WE ARE ON A FIXED INCOME, YOU KNOW? WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE RACES AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN HAVING EVERYTHING ELSE INCREASED. I DO NOT KNOW WHY, BUT -- I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANNEXATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE ANNEXATION ISSUE? SEEING NONE, I WILL ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK AND ADDRESS ANY OF THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD EARLIER. >> CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, REALLY QUICK, THE SURVEY THAT THE GENTLEMAN MENTIONED, THIS APPLICATION WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TWO MONTHS AGO, THREE MONTHS AGO. THE ORIGINAL SURVEY THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS THAT ONE. I NOTICED THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A DIFFERENT SURVEY . I CAN PULL THAT UP IF YOU WOULD LIKE, REMOVING THE TOP ONE, BECAUSE I WAS LIKE, YOU SAY IT IS TWO. WHY IS THIS ONE INCLUDED? WE NEED THAT FOR THE ORDINANCE AND THE TITLE BLOCK, SO THEY HAVE SUBMITTED A CORRECTED ONE. >> YOU HAVE THAT AVAILABLE? >> I CAN BRING IT UP. OUR APPLICANT IS -- >> THANK YOU. THAT WAS ONE CLARIFICATION I WAS GOING TO MAKE, THAT THE DUPLEX HAS BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE SURVEY. THERE WAS ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE SURVEY THAT WAS RAISED ABOUT SOME SORT OF PROPERTY LINE CONCERN. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH CONCERN. WE HAVE HAD A SURVEY RUN. WE ARE CLEAR WHERE THE WATER PROPERLY LINE IS. WE WILL MEET ALL CITY CODES AND I CAN TALK -- THERE WERE A LOT OF COMMENTS, AS YOU [01:10:03] KNOW, THAT WERE RELATED TO THE ZONING QUESTION. I AM NOT GOING THERE UNLESS YOU WANT ME TO. THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF COMMENTS I WILL RESPOND TO WHEN WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT ZONING, BUT JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT TO ANNEXATION, THE QUESTION WAS RAISED, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT FROM ANNEXING? WELL, I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT IT IS AT LEAST TWOFOLD AS FAR AS THE CITY IS CONCERNED. IT IS NOT JUST ADDITIONAL REVENUE, AS IF THAT IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE TO ANY CITY. IT IS A REVENUE INCREASE TO THE CITY, BUT THAT IS NOT THE ONLY BENEFIT. WHEN I WAS TALKING WITH YOUR STAFF AND WITH YOUR CITY COMMISSIONERS, LOOKING AT ANNEXING, A COMMON THEME I HEARD WAS THE DESIRE OF THE CITY TO FILL IN THE CHECKERBOARD THAT IS THE COUNTY AND CITY IN THIS AREA OF THE CITY. AND HOW DO YOU FEEL IF YOU DO NOT DO SOME ANNEXATION? YOU HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. THAT DESIRE TO FILL IN THE CHECKERBOARD IS INTENDED, I BELIEVE, AND I AM SPEAKING FOR STAFF AND MAYBE THEY CAN ANSWER IT BETTER, BUT THE MORE SOLID YOUR CITY BOUNDARY BECOMES, THE MORE YOU FILL IN THE CHECKERBOARD OF COUNTY ACCEPTANCE, COUNTY ISLANDS, THE MORE EFFICIENT YOU BECOME IN IT MINISTERING YOUR CITY SERVICES. SO, IF WE ARE TALKING BENEFIT TO THE CITY, THERE ARE DEFINITE BENEFITS. AS FAR AS BENEFITS TO THE RESIDENTS, I WILL GO INTO THAT IN GREATER DETAIL AND A GREAT DEAL OF DETAIL IN THE ZONING DISCUSSIONS. AS TO ANNEXATION, I THINK THAT IS THE RESPONSES TO THE ANNEXATION ISSUES. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD? SIR, YOU HAD YOUR TIME AT THE PODIUM WITH THE PUBLIC. I CANNOT HAVE DISCUSSION FROM THE AUDIENCE AT THIS TIME. WHEN WE GET TO THE NEXT ITEM, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK AT THAT POINT, WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS AND CONCERNS AND CONVERSATION. >> SO, FROM WHAT WE SEE IN THE SURVEY NOW, HAS THE ISSUE BEEN RESOLVED? >> CORRECT. >> IT WAS THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. >> IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME FROM HEARING WHAT WE HAVE FOR TODAY THAT THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE OWNER AND THE RESIDENTS AND THE HOA HAS THE ULTIMATE FATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. I FEEL VERY CONFLICTED AT THE IDEA OF THE CITY INHERITING THAT ARGUMENT. AND THE POTENTIAL WORKLOAD THAT WOULD PUT ON STAFF, TRYING TO HELP NAVIGATE THAT THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. I DO WANT TO HEAR FROM STAFF IF WE HAD ANY SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS IN REVIEW FROM PD OR FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT IN REGARDS TO THE CURRENT STATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CITY ORDINANCES. >> NONE. AND I THINK THE REASON IS PROBABLY BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY NOT IN THE CITY. WE DID NOT GET ANY COMMENTS FROM EITHER ONE OF THEM. >> THEY WOULD ONLY BE EVALUATING FOR ANY CURRENT DEFICIENCIES WITHIN THE COUNTY ORDINANCES? >> MAYBE NOT BECAUSE I THINK THEY WOULD ONLY BE LOOKING AT OUR CODE. ONLY IF THEY REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY WHERE THEY PROBABLY FIND IT OUT. I DO NOT THINK THEY DID. >> WE ARE AT A BIT OF A DISADVANTAGE APPROACHING IT THAT WAY AS SOME OF -- ONE OF THE RESIDENTS HAS BROUGHT UP, I AM NOT SURE SPECIFICALLY WHICH ORDINANCE THIS IS FROM AS IT IS NOT PRINTED HERE, ASSUMING IT IS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED ZONING UNDER THE CITY. THIS COULD POTENTIALLY BE AN ISSUE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT. I ALSO DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR POLICY IS UNDER ANNEXATION FOR GRANDFATHERING IN DEFICIENCIES. >> THIS IS A SEGUE INTO THE PLAN. LET'S JUST PREFACE THAT WITH THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, WE HAVE ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT AND REPRESENTATIVES TO GET OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND TO TALK ABOUT THIS BEFORE IT ARRIVES AT A PUBLIC MEETING. [01:15:07] AND THE APPLICANT HAS SUPPLIED DATES AND TIMES WHERE OUTREACH EFFORTS HAVE -- THEY ARE FULLY INVOLVED IN THIS. SO, WE HAVE HEARD IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS NOT BEEN FULLY RESOLVED. I THINK THAT IS WHAT WE FIND THIS MORNING. THIS AFTERNOON, SORRY. SO, NOW WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ANNEXATION AND THE CRITERIA FOR VOLUNTARY, ASKING FOR AN ANNEXATION IS QUITE SLIM. IT IS BASED ON STATE STATUTE, WHAT THE CITY -- HOW THEY SAID HE SHOULD JUDGE OR REVEAL AN ANNEXATION AND THE COMPONENTS ARE IS IT CONTINUOUS? IT HAS CONTINUOUSLY WITH CITY LIMITS. DOES IT -- IS IT AN ENCLAVE? DOES IT CREATE ONE? NO, IT DOES NOT. IS THE FUTURE USE THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED AS PART OF THE ANNEXATION, IS IT COMPARABLE WITH WHAT IS REQUESTED AND WHAT WOULD BE ISSUED? YES, IT IS. IT IS LOW DENSITY. DOES IT CREATE ANY NONCONFORMITY IF IT IS ANNEXED IN? THAT COMES INTO PLAY AND WE ARE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN ISSUES. AND THE WAY IT IS AT THE MOMENT, WITHOUT THE SITE PLAN, IT MAY INCLUDE SOME NONCONFORMITIES. THE SITE PLAN, WHEN IT COMES IN, AND THIS IS A REASON WHY PLAN DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN USED AS A VEHICLE FOR REZONING AND THE SITE PLAN, IS THAT IF ANY NONCONFORMITIES ARE REVEALED, THEN THOSE ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND THE AGREEMENT FOR THAT PLANT DEVELOPMENT. SO, WE HAVE HEARD THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME ISSUES WITH PROXIMITY TO BOUNDARIES. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE. >> IF THERE ARE ANY CONCERNS -- >> I WOULD RATHER NOT DISCUSS THIS. YOU CAN -- >> SIR -- >> EXCUSE ME, SIR, THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING. WE CANNOT HAVE CONVERSATIONS OFF THE MICROPHONE. I AM GOING TO ASK YOU TO SIT DOWN AND YOU CAN COME BACK AND SPEAK AGAIN WHEN WE GET -- THAT IS ALL RIGHT. YOU WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT LEAST TWO MORE TIMES WHEN WE GET TO SEVEN SEED. -- 7C. YOU WILL HAVE A TIME TO SPEAK AGAIN AND I WILL MAKE A NOTE OF THE, THAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, TO GIVE YOU TIME TO ADDRESS THAT. MR. FREEMAN, IF YOU WOULD CONTINUE? >> SOMEWHAT DERAILED. I THINK MOST OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE HEARD OUT THIS AFTERNOON ARE DISCUSSION POINTS FOR THE SITE PLAN, BUT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE ANNEXATION OBVIOUSLY PLAYS INTO THE FACT OF HOW YOUR REVIEW THE SITE PLAN. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR STAFF TO SAY WE WOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL BASED ON AN ASPECT OF WHAT WE WOULD BE REVIEWING, NOT WITHSTANDING THE ITEMS WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE REVIEW OF THE ANNEXATION THAT HAVE BEEN REVEALED WITHIN THIS HEARING. >> THAT IS WHY WE ARE UP HERE, TO NAVIGATE THIS ENVIRONMENT, RIGHT? SO, WE HAVE A NARROW CONCEPT OF WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED ANNEXATION, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO REALLY GET BACKWARDS ON THIS BECAUSE IRREGARDLESS OF WHAT WE RECOMMEND, THE COMMISSION IS ABLE TO EVALUATE BOTH DISCUSSION AND THE DISCUSSION THAT WILL PRECEDE THIS ITEM IN THEIR ULTIMATE DECISIONS. SO, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO VOTE WITH THEIR CONSCIENCE AND KNOW THAT VOTING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WILL NOT NEGATE OR NECESSARILY MAKE A RELEVANT THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM THAT WE HAVE. >> IF I COULD JUST ADD WHATEVER THE DETERMINATION HERE OF THE PLANNING BOARD, IT DOES NOT REMOVE ANY OF THE OPTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND WHAT THEY MIGHT HAVE TO SAY, I WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE DEFERRED OR THE NEXT ITEM TO BE DEFERRED. >> CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, ANY OTHER [01:20:07] DISCUSSION? >> I DO HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CURRENT CODE VERSUS WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING IN TALL PINES. DO WE HAVE INFORMATION IF WHAT WAS PRESENTED IS ACCURATE AS FAR AS THE DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTS, THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN COMMUNITY? >> THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY BOTH PARTIES AND WE TAKE WHAT IS BEING PROVIDED ON THE APPLICATION AND FROM THAT, IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE DENSITY FITS INTO THE PROPOSED FUTURE -- ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. >> YES? >> IN THE BACK OF THE DOCUMENTATION, THERE IS A MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 19TH AND WE HAVE THE MEMO FROM AN OFFICER INDICATING THAT IN LIGHT OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION, THEY WOULD EITHER -- THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD NEED ALMOST 2 ADDITIONAL OFFICERS. SO, THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. >> MR. EDWARDS? MR. JOHNSON? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> ALL RIGHT. >> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ANNEXATION HERE. SO, AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY. >> PLEASE, DO NOT INTERRUPT THE PROCEEDING. >> SIR, YOU CANNOT TALK FROM THE AUDIENCE. >> I HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THIS HEARING SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHETHER THERE ARE -- >> THIS IS A LITTLE UNPRECEDENTED. I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO COME TO THE PODIUM -- >> YOU GET TO GET UP TWICE AND YOU ALLOW PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT ZONING ISSUES AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT ANNEXATION ONLY. >> EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE ME. >> PLEASE STOP SPEAKING. PLEASE STOP SPEAKING. I'VE MADE A DECISION FOR CLARITY. THIS IS POTENTIALLY GOING TO HELP EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM. IT MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT MY DECISION, BUT PLEASE, JUST STATE YOUR NAME ONCE MORE. >> THE SAME ADDRESS AS BEFORE. ALL I WAS GOING TO OFFER YOU IS THAT WE WOULD BE WILLING TO CONTINUE. THIS IS THE FIRST I HAVE EVER HEARD OF ANY ALLEGATION THAT YOU WOULD BE ADOPTING SOMETHING THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF ANYTHING. WE INTEND TO BE IN COMPLETE COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR CODE AND IF WE NEED MORE TIME IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT, I AM HAPPY TO DO IT. IF THAT IS THE CONCERN ABOUT ANNEXATION THAT YOU'RE BUYING INTO A VIOLATION, AN EXISTING VIOLATION, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO CLARIFY THAT WE WOULD TAKE TIME, CONTINUE WITH FOR TWO MONTHS, CONTINUE IT FOR A MONTH, WHATEVER YOU NEED, AND WE CAN WORK WITH STAFF AND CLARIFY THAT. THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO OFFER. >> THANK YOU. YOU CAN TAKE A SEAT. I WILL POINT OUT THAT MIRROR IS WHAT MR. FREEMAN SAID. AT THE RESULT OF WHAT THIS BOARD IS ABOUT TO DECIDE TO RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSION, IT MAY INSPIRE THE APPLICANT TO DEFER ANY FURTHER ACTION ON THIS TO A LATER TIME. THE PURPOSES OF WHICH WOULD BE TO POSSIBLY AMEND THEIR PLANS, MAKE BETTER OUTREACH TO THE COMMUNITY, WHATEVER THAT DECISION MAY BE, OKAY? THAT IS ALL HE IS SAYING. I HAD A FEELING THAT IS WHAT HE WAS GOING TO SAY AND THAT IS WHY I LET HIM SPEAK. AT THIS TIME, OH -- >> SO, WITH APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION, IS THERE A CONCERN FROM THE CITY AS FAR AS ACCESSING OR BEING ABLE TO HAVE UTILITIES ON THESE SITES? FROM COUNTY TO CITY? EXCUSE ME. >> I THINK IT COMES INTO THE INDISCERNIBLE ] SERVICE AREA. THAT WILL BE WORKED OUT WITH THEM. THAT WOULD BE DONE DURING THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. FROM WHAT STAFF HAS HEARD TODAY HIM AND WE ARE REITERATING WHAT HAS BEEN SAID AT THE PODIUM, I THINK ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD BE TO CONTINUE THIS TO A DIFFERENT DATE AND TO HAVE MORE ANSWERS COMING FORWARD AT THAT TIME. I THINK THAT IS WHERE THE STAFF WOULD BE RECOMMENDING. >> TO DEFER? >> YES. >> SO, OPTIONS ARE, FOR CLARITY, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, [01:25:04] RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL, OR RECOMMEND DEFERRED TO A LATER DATE, TO ALLOW MORE TIME FOR THE APPLICANT IN THE COMMUNITY AND STAFF TO REVIEW. ONCE AGAIN, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVED TO DEFER THIS ANNEXATION. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER AND A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> WE NEED A DATE. >> CAN WE SET THIS FOR -- >> THE FEBRUARY PLANNING BOARD MEETING? >> OKAY. SO, DEFER TO FEBRUARY FOR A PLANNING BOARD MEETING. >> SORRY -- >> I THINK THE GLORIFICATION IS FINE. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> [c. Rezoning - Master Plan Development - Tall Pines Parcel ID's: 1433-210-0003-000-9 and 1433-310-0002-000-9] MASTER REZONING TO TALL PINES. >> THIS BECOMES A MOOT , CHAIR, BECAUSE OF -- >> OKAY. SO, THESE TWO ITEMS WILL PIGGYBACK TOGETHER AND WE WILL, BY DEFAULT, DEFER THIS ITEM AS WELL TO THE FEBRUARY PLANNING BOARD MEETING? >> YES. >> DO WE NEED ANY OFFICIAL -- >> THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT ONE, YEAH. >> ALICIA, DO YOU NEED US TO MAKE A MOTION? >> WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION IF YOU WANT TO DEFER. >> I BELIEVE SO. GIVEN MR. FREEMAN'S POINT AND THAT THESE TWO ITEMS ARE BOUND TOGETHER, WE WILL NEED A MOTION TO ALSO DIFFER ITEM 7C TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING. >> A MOTION TO DEFER. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON, ITEM 70 -- SEVEN D. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR COMING. >> IT IS DEFERRED, SO THAT WILL ALSO GET DEFERRED. >> OH NO PUBLIC COMMENT? >> NO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THEY CAN SEND IT TO US. >> THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY NEED A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AFTER THAT? [d. Rezoning - Becker Preserve - 3398 Selvitz Road] >> ALL RIGHT, WE WILL SOLDIER ON, CONTINUING WITH ITEM 7D, REZONING BECKER RESERVE. >> THIS IS REZONING OF PRADO PLACE, 1038 SOUTH 37TH STREET . >> MR. FREEMAN, THAT IS THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, FOR BECKER PRESERVE. >> OKAY. >> YOU SET ME UP NICELY. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON. PLANNING CHAIRMAN PLANNING BOARD, BEFORE YOU IS A ZONING ATLAS REZONING AT APPROXIMATELY 3398 SELVITZ ROAD WITH TWO PARCEL I.D.S . THE [01:30:10] APPLICANT IS JENNIFER MCGEE FOR MENTAL RESOURCES -- THE PARCEL I.D. WAS MENTIONED EARLIER. THE REZONING IS FOR THE TWO PARCELS TO BE CHANGED FROM ARE ONE SINGLE DENSITY TO CONSERVATION OPEN SPACE. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO MAKE THIS AMENDMENT FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA COMMUNITY'S TRUST GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 12.357 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES. ALL AFFECTED DEPARTMENTS HAVE PROPOSED REZONING REGARDS TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE ESTABLISHED ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE AND COMP PLAN. THIS IS A MAP OF THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH IS R1 RESIDENTIAL FROM THE EARLIER AGENDA. APPLICANT PROPOSED AMENDING A FUTURE LAND-USE TO CO, CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE. AND THE EXISTING ZONING IS THE R1 AND THEY ARE PROPOSING OS-2. THEY WANT TO DO WITH CONSISTENT WITH -- DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE. I HAVE ALTERNATIVE ACTIVES, APPROVAL WITH CHANGES, OR RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER? ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, WE HAVE HEARD -- IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND COMING UP, I DO -- I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR BRIEFLY FROM YOU, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT YOUR VISION FOR THIS PROPERTY MOVING FORWARD AND WHAT, IF ANY, DEVELOPMENT YOU MIGHT HAVE PLANNED. >> AGAIN, AMY GRIFFIN FOR THE RECORD. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS BRIEFLY IN MY REPERTOIRE. NO, I AM KIDDING. SO, AGAIN, THIS IS A KEY PIECE OF PROPERTY FOR GREENWAYS AND TRAILS, A HUB. THERE IS AN OLD RESIDENTS HOME THAT IS ON THE SITE. WE WANT TO OPEN THAT UP WITH A VOLUNTEER, OR IF WE COULD EVER GET STAFF TO WORK OUT THERE. AS A NATURE CENTER -- NOTHING LARGE LIKE -- SOMETHING THAT WHEN FOLKS WANT TO GO HIKING OR KAYAKING ON TEN MILE CREEK, THEY CAN STOP IN AND GET A BIRD GUIDE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND BE ON THEIR HIKE. WE DO HAVE SIX SITES FOR CAMPING THAT WE ARE WORKING ON , CREATING OUT THERE. RIGHT NOW, THAT HAS JUST BEEN A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE BOY SCOUTS. YES, THERE IS A BOY SCOUT CAMP, BUT THERE ARE MANY SCOUTS GROUPS THAT, YOU KNOW, ONE A LARGER VARIETY OF PLACES TO GO CAMPING, SO WE HAVE THIS GREAT PARTNERSHIP WITH THE SCOUTS, WHERE THEY CAN THERE FOR FREE AND THEY WORK ON THE TRAILS AND DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO, THERE IS SOME CAMPING . EVENTUALLY, LONG TERM, WE WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC, BUT THEY ARE NOT THERE YET. IT WILL TAKE SOME CONCESSION OR SOMETHING. I THINK OUR COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR AND, YOU KNOW, LEADERS WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THIS TO BE SOMETHING MORE LIKE AN EVENT , YOU KNOW, ATTRACTION. SO, FOR A WEDDING OR A GRADUATION OR A BABY SHOWER OR SOMETHING. WHAT -- THE HOUSE IS NOT LENDING ITSELF TO THAT. BUT WE WANT TO DO, AGAIN, TO SUPPORT THAT LONGER-TERM LOOK IS TO BUILD AN OUTDOOR PAVILION, KIND OF LIKE THE ONE AT THE BOTANICAL GARDENS THAT CAN HOST THOSE TYPES OF EVENTS AND, AGAIN, THERE WILL BE PARKING AND ALL OF THAT AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FOR BUILDING. -- IT HAS BEEN A VERY STEP BY STEP BY STEP SLOW PROCESS. WE ARE NOT RUNNING TO THE FINISH LINE. THE FIRST STEP HAS BEEN TO WORK ON THE HABITAT AND RESTORE THE RIVER PORTIONS. THE SECOND STEP IS TO PROVIDE SOME PASSIVE RECREATION EXPERIENCES. YOU CAN GO THERE RIGHT NOW AND WALK AROUND THE GROUNDS. YOU CAN GO INTO THE OBSERVATION DECK AND FISH. THE BRIDGE IS GOING TO BE BUILT BY, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE FINISHED BY THE END OF JANUARY, I [01:35:06] BELIEVE THE TIME FRAME WAS. MAYBE IT WAS FEBRUARY. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO WALK OVER TO THE NATURE CENTER. THE LONGER-TERM IS TO CONNECT ALL OF THESE PIECES AND THAT COULD TAKE, YOU KNOW, UP TO A DECADE. THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE BOY SCOUT PIECE OF PROPERTY TO THE DEP PROPERTY COME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO GO OXBOW EAGLE CENTER INTO THE SCREEN WAY BEING BUILT. IT IS A BIG PUZZLE THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT COUNTYWIDE AND, YOU KNOW, WE ARE WORKING ON IT PIECE BY PIECE. SHORT-TERM, JUST, YOU KNOW, THOSE USES. LONG-TERM, THERE IS SOME EXCITING THINGS HAPPENING. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. >> YES, VERY MUCH. >> IT IS VERY HARD TO -- >> ALL RIGHT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7D. I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR CONCERNS. HEARING NONE, I WILL PROPOSE -- I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I AM HAPPY TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> VERY GOOD. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> [e. Rezoning - Master Plan Development - Prado Place 1038 S. 37th Street - Parcel ID: 2417-213-0001-000-7] ON TO 7E OF 7E FOR >> THIS IS A REZONING OF PRADO PLACE AT 1038 SOUTH 37TH STREET. THE APPLICANT IS MARTIN AND FRANCO PRADO . THE ADDRESS IS 1038 SOUTH 37TH STREET AND THE PARCEL I.D. NUMBER IS 2417-213-0001-000-7 . SO, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT OF ONE PARCEL OF LAND FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY E3 TO UPLAND DEVELOPMENT. THEY REQUESTED CHANGE THE ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING 60 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT A DENSITY OF 11.4 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH INCLUDES A FIVE DENSITY BONUS AS ALLOWED BY THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO, SHOULD THIS APPLICATION BE GRANTED, AN APPLICATION FOR A FINAL PD WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMITS. THAT MEANS A LOT OF DETAIL OF THIS WILL BE SETTLED OUT DURING A FINAL SITE PLAN AND THAT INCLUDES TRAFFIC, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, ALL THE LITTLE PIECES THAT NORMALLY MAKE UP A SITE PLAN. THEY WILL ALL BE COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ULTIMATELY TO THE CITY COMMISSION IF IT GOES UP. IN ESSENCE, WE HAVE A MASTER PD, WHICH SETS OUT ALMOST A HIGHER-LEVEL CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS LOCATION. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON 37TH STREET. YOU CAN SEE HARTMAN ROAD TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH, WE HAVE DELAWARE AND TO THE SOUTH, OKEECHOBEE ROAD. THE SITE ITSELF IS JUST ABOUT FIVE .25 ACRES IN SIZE. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CITY LIMITS, THIS IS A PATCHWORK AREA AROUND THIS LOCATION, THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY ALREADY IN THE CITY LIMITS AND THEY SURROUND MOST SIDES NYE COUNTY PROPERTY. FOR THE MOMENT, IT IS DESIGNATED AS E3. AGAIN, WE HAVE A MIXTURE OF CITY AND RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AROUND IT. ALSO, IN THE COUNTY, WE HAVE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS. THERE ARE UTILITIES IN THE COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. I DO NOT KNOW ACTUALLY WHAT THAT IS. FUTURE LAND USE -- CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. NOT PROPOSING FOR THAT TO CHANGE. IT WILL MAINTAIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ON THERE. [01:40:06] WHATEVER WAS ALLOWED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WILL BE MAINTAINED AND WILL NOT BE INCREASED. THAT DENSITY, OTHER THAN UTILIZING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY -- THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN ONE QUARTER MILE OF A TRANSPORTATION STOP, SO IT CAN CLAIM THE FIVE UNITS PER ACRE IN TERMS OF DENSITY BONUS. SO, THE INTENT OF THE POND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS TO PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR EVALUATION OF AN INDIVIDUALLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT STAFF ARE ASKING FOR WITH THESE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS IS TO BE, IS TO PROVIDE SOMETHING THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WOULD NORMALLY BE SEEN IN A ZONING DISTRICT. THAT COULD INCLUDE BETTER LANDSCAPING OR COULD INCLUDE BETTER STORMWATER TREATMENT, A BETTER DESIGN OF THE HOMES OR THE PROPERTIES IN THERE . ALL THE LITTLE PIECES THAT WE HAVE VERY LITTLE CONTROL OVER IF IT COMES IN AS STRAIGHT ZONING. IT IS FAIRLY SIMPLE ZONING PARAMETERS FOR A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, WHICH ARE SETBACKS IN SIZES AND SO FORTH. THIS ALLOWS A DIFFERENTIAL TO BE ASKED FOR AND PROVIDED FOR IN THE PD AGREEMENT. PART OF THIS MASTER-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE AN INITIAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THEN THE FINAL LEVEL, WE WOULD HAVE A FINAL SITE PLAN, AGAIN, SECURED BY A FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD BE SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER AND THE CITY. SO, THIS IS THE PROPOSED MASTER PLAN. YOU CAN SEE IF THAT IS CAME THROUGH REVIEW AND YOU MAY HAVE SEEN, RECALLED SOMETHING THAT CAME THROUGH THIS PROPERTY A WHILE AGO, WHICH PROPOSED MULTIPLE LOTS AND WAS A VERY HIGH LEVEL CONCEPTUAL PLAN, WHICH WAS PRIMARILY JUST LOOKING AT THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE PLACED ON THE PROPERTY. IT WENT THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE CITY COMMISSION REALLY WANTED MORE INFORMATION AND WE FIGURED OUT AT THAT TIME THAT IT DID NOT MEET THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT WOULD BE EXPECTED AT THAT TIME. IT WOULD BE CALLED A CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST APPLICATIONS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH THE NEW PROCESS FOR A MASTER SITE PLAN. PART OF THAT IS TO INDICATE TOGETHER WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHAT IS GOING TO BE PUT ON THIS SITE AND WHAT WILL BE ASKED FOR. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 60 IN ALL, AND WE HAVE A DESIGN REVIEW OF THOSE LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. THIS IS A SECOND RENDITION THAT CAME THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE INITIALLY. THEY ARE THE FIRST REVIEWS THAT THE STORMWATER IS LOCATED ON THE FRONT AND THERE IS A SINGLE ACCESS, SO BOTH OF THOSE CAUSE ISSUES WITH THE CITY CODES THAT ARE IN PLACE AND ALSO THE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION AROUND THE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF FIRE SAFETY AND UTILITIES AND SO FORTH. SO, THIS IS THE REVISED MASTER SITE PLAN AND STORMWATER IS LOOKING TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE SITE WITH PLAYGROUNDS AND AMENITIES AND SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING. THERE IS, YOU KNOW, QUITE A LARGE AMOUNT, 51%, WHICH IS QUITE HIGH FOR A DEVELOPMENT. THIS PRIMARILY IS LOOKING TO BE A TWO-STORY TOWNHOME OR A TOWNHOME OR DUPLEX TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. SO, THIS IS THE INITIAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS. THIS IS FOR THE PROPERTIES, WHICH ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND IT WILL TIE INTO THE RECENT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, PUTTING IT IN PLACE FOR REVIEW. THESE ARE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS. , ENSURING THAT IF THIS CAME [01:45:08] FORWARD, THEY WOULD REFER TO THOSE AS A GUIDELINE AT THAT POINT AND YOU CAN SAFELY SAY THAT THESE ACTUALLY MEET THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WORK -- THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IT TO INCORPORATE INTERESTING AND DIFFERENT DESIGNS TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN FORT PIERCE, TO ACTUALLY CREATE THE IMAGE OF FORT PIERCE WITH A NICE VARIETY OF DESIGNS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN. SO, THEY ARE A CONFIGURATION AND THIS IS A FOUR-HOME CONFIGURATION. THEY ARE MORE LIKE TOWNHOMES AND IT IS A TWO-STORY DUPLEX. SO, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE MASTER-PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU WILL BE SEEING IN THE FUTURE A FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION COMING THROUGH AND TO SECURE WHAT COMES THROUGH ON THAT FINAL , WE ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE USING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO SECURE THIS AND THEN THE CONDITIONS WHICH WE HAVE 14 OF. I THINK AT THE MOMENT -- TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE FINAL. SO, NOTHING CAN HAPPEN ON THIS PROPERTY. NO DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITH THE MASTER SITE PLAN. WE HAVE REFERENCED THAT NUMBER AND IT CAN BE CARRIED OUT ON SITE PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD BE 35% MINIMUM -- 50% OF THE FINAL PD. THE FINAL PD SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE ORDINANCE AND SUBJECTED TO THE STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL FOR PLANT DEVELOPMENTS ZONING.. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING. WE ARE LOOKING FOR CONFIRMATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL, IF THERE ARE ANYTHING THAT SHOULD BE INDICATED -- THEY SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT. STORM WATERING AND DRAINAGE PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF FINAL PD. WHEN WE SAY IT IS MORE LIKE WHERE IS THE WATER BEING HELD AND HOW IS IT BEING MOVED AROUND THE SITE, HOW IS IT BEING RETAINED, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, A DEMONSTRATION THAT THE SITE AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE DOES NOT CAUSE DRAINAGE ISSUES TO THE NEIGHBORS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SO, WE ARE LOOKING FOR UNIFIED CONTROL AND THEN LEGAL CONTROL OF THE APPLICANTS, SO EVERYTHING IS A PACKAGE. THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING AND STREETSCAPES. WE HAVE SEEN SOME INITIAL DRAWINGS FOR THE ARCHITECTURE THAT IS LIKELY TO MOVE FORWARD. WE WOULD WANT TO SECURE THAT WITH FULL DETAILS. THAT WOULD BE AN ELEVATIONAL COLOR BOARD OR WHATEVER THAT WOULD BE. LOOKING AT THE STREET, HOW DOES IT WORK? HOW DOES THE DRAINAGE WORK? ALL THE PARKING FOR DRIVEWAYS AND SO FORTH. WE NEED TO PROPOSE NOT COVERAGE -- PARCEL SIZES, OPEN SPACE THAT IS SECURED BY DEVIOUS CONDITIONS. ANY AGREMENTS -- THEY AFFECT THE USE OR MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. SO, IF PARCELS ARE SOLD OUT INDIVIDUALLY AS A PLATTE, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THEY WOULD NEED A COMMON AGREEMENT FOR COMMON AREAS THROUGH PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THESE ARE COMING FROM THE CODE , LOOKING FOR LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY, SO WE WOULD NEED NOT ONLY LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION PLANS, WHICH SHOWS HOW THINGS ARE GOING TO BE LOCATED, BUT WHAT ARE THE SPECIES AND TYPES AND HEIGHTS AND SO FORTH THAT WOULD BE PLANTED WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT. WHAT IS THE MINIMUM THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR PLANTING. OUTLINES CONFIRMED, AGAIN. WE WANT TO SEE SOME PRECISE LOCATIONS ON THE LOTS PROPOSED FOR WHERE THE [01:50:01] BUILDINGS ARE BEING LOCATED ON THE LOTS. WHERE THEY ARE CONFIRMING THE OFFSTREET PARKING AND LOADING AREAS AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SYSTEM AND UTILITY SYSTEMS, ALL THE DETAILS OF THAT ET CETERA. THE FINAL PD, WE WILL BE LOOKING FOR CONFIRMATION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY REGARDING ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO 37TH STREET THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THAT. ONCE WE HAVE THE FINAL SITE PLAN, THAT IS BETTER DETERMINED AT THAT POINT AND THE SIDEWALK WOULD NEED TO BE SHOWN AND BUILT ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY ON 37TH STREET. AGAIN, THE PROPERTY SHALL BE PLANTED -- THAT MEANS SITE CLEARING AND INITIAL WORK ON THE SITE AS PART OF THE FINAL PD APPROVAL COULD BE CARRIED OUT, BUT IF IT WAS TO MOVE TO AN INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMIT FOR PROPERTIES, THEN THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO BE PLATTED AND PERSONAL I.D.S FOR THOSE, PROVIDED PRIOR TO ANY VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. SO, WITH ALL THAT, WE LOOK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHATEVER REMAINS OF THE CITY CODE, PARTICULAR IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS AND WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY BASED AROUND POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE HAPPY TO RECOMMEND THE PLANNING BOARD MOVE THIS TO CITY COMMISSION, WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE 14 CONDITIONS ATTACHED. >> THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN. NOW, JUST TO CLARIFY, SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT REZONING. WE BROUGHT THIS UP BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS CLEAR. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REZONING THE PD, IT IS A UNIQUE STANDALONE ZONING THAT IS BOUND TO THIS PROPERTY AND THIS PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE INTENSE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING THIS PD. SO, SHOULD THEY DECIDE NOT TO BUILD IT OR SELL THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY REVERT BACK TO THE CURRENT ZONING? >> WE WILL BE DEVELOPING THAT INTO THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, WHICH WE DID NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY. THAT WOULD PROVIDE SOME TIMELINES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR, VARIOUS STAGES TO OCCUR. IF THAT DID NOT HAPPEN, THEN I BELIEVE IN THAT AGREEMENT, THERE IS A CLAUSE TO A PARTICULAR ZONING OR IT MAY BE THAT THE PD REMAINS, BUT HAS TO START FROM ZERO AGAIN WITH THE SITE PLAN. I THINK THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY OF THE BEST WAY TO RUN THAT, WHETHER TO -- WHETHER IT IS VIOLATED IN TERMS OF REMOVING THAT ZONING. OTHER THAN GOING THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS TO CHANGE THE ZONING BACK TO WHATEVER IT SHOULD BE. IT MIGHT BE BEST TO LEAVE IT AS PD WITH THE PROVISION OF ANYTHING. IT COULD NOT BE REACTIVATED WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE SYSTEM AGAIN BECAUSE IF THIS IS NOT COMMENCED DURING A CERTAIN TIMELINE, THEN WE HAVE ALL THE DIFFERENT ANALYSIS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CARRIED OUT. WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE STREET SYSTEM? WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM? HAVE THE STORM WATERED CHANTERS -- STORMWATER SYSTEMS AND STANDARDS CHANGED? WE HOPE TO HAVE SOMETHING CODED, WHICH WOULD BE FAR BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE. WE MIGHT HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT COMPONENTS THAT WOULD BE TOTALLY REVISITED IF THIS DID NOT GET MOVED ON. >> VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> THIS IS THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS? >> THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL. THIS WILL BE FULLY FLESHED OUT DURING THE FINAL, BUT WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR HERE IS AN ALLOCATION OF A POTENTIAL OF 60 UNITS OF THE PROPERTY. >> AND WHERE IS THE NEARBY BEST TRANSPORTATION STOP? IS THAT -- >> I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT. I DO NOT HAVE [01:55:01] THE BUS ROUTES, BUT I THINK IT IS ACROSS TO THE EAST SOMEWHERE. >> THAT IS FINE. ALL RIGHT, IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT, WE WOULD LIKE TO COME AND GIVE US MORE OF THE BACKGROUND. PLEASE INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND SIGN IN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS FRANCO PRADO . THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE REGARDING THE BUS STOP. IT IS RIGHT ON 33RD, PART OF THE TRANSIT SYSTEM. IT IS AROUND MEADOW LANE AND 33RD RIGHT THERE. >> THAT IS VERY CLOSE. >> I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE ARE REALLY EXCITED. THE APPLICATION AND THE PD TAKES ADVANTAGE OF A LOT OF REALLY GREAT POLICIES INSIDE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW FOR THE PD, FOR THE DENSITY BONUSES AND OUR INTENTION WAS REALLY TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY, WHICH IS WHY WE ARE NOT AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE, SO EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE DOING IS WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE REMAINING INTACT AND THEN WE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE POLICIES, PUTTING OURSELVES IN A PLACE TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS BY UTILIZING THE POLICIES. >> OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I SEE IN -- IN THE ACTUAL CONCEPTION ALL PLANNED, THE PLAYGROUND, IS THAT USUALLY SO CLOSE TO THE WATER, WITH THE STORM WATER ? >> THAT HAS A FENCE AROUND IT. THAT DOTTED LINE IS A FENCE. >> POTENTIAL FLOODING -- WHERE WOULD YOU PLACE IT COME OUT OF CURIOSITY? >> I WOULD ASSUME ANY SORT OF DETAIL LIKE THAT, AS FAR AS GRADING OR FLOOD CONTROL, THE MASTER SITE PLAN, IT WILL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IF WE HAVE TO DO ANY SORT OF -- >> I JUST WANTED TO LOOK AT IT. >> TO REDESIGN THE PLAYGROUND AND PUT IT AGAINST THE PROPERTY. LIKE THEY SAID, THIS IS -- THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE 60 UNITS TO SCALE OF THE FLOOR PLAN AND THE MODELS THAT ARE PART OF THE APPLICATION. SO, IT IS WITH A GARAGE AND THAT FITS TOTALLY WITHIN THIS SITE PLAN WITH THE RIGHT DIMENSIONS. SO, WE MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. >> THAT IS NICE. >> THANK YOU. >> I DO NOT REMEMBER WHAT THE QUESTION WAS. I FORGOT. I AM SORRY. THAT IS OKAY. >> ANYONE ELSE? QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> GO AHEAD. >> I AM SORRY. MY QUESTION WAS AS FAR AS -- I DO NOT THINK THIS IS REZONING BUT AS FAR AS THE PLANS -- MEETING INCOME, HIGH INCOME? >> WE ARE FOCUSED. PART OF MY APPLICATION , WE ARE FOCUSED -- WERE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE PD, WHERE WE CAN PROVIDE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE OPTIONS THAT ARE NOT OUTPACING THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. SO, WE ARE HOPING THAT A FLOOR PAN FOR THIS LOT IS GOING TO BE AT THE MEETING PLACE OR LOWER. THAT IS OUR INTENTION, TO CAPTURE UP TO THE MEETING, WHERE I HAVE A LOT OF SUPPORT THAT IS AT AN ALL-TIME HIGH. WE WANT TO BE ON THE AFFORDABLE SIDE, OR THE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE SIDE. THAT IS THE WORD. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE WELCOME. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, WE WILL OPEN UP THIS FOR DISCUSSION FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IF THERE IS ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. SEEING NONE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, WE WILL CONCLUDE THIS AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION REMINDING YOU THAT WE HAVE 14 CONDITIONS AS STATED BY STAFF. >> THEY MOVED TO APPROVE THE 14 CONDITIONS. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND MISS CARTER, A SECOND TIME MR. EDWARDS. PLEASE [02:00:01] CALL THE ROLL. >> >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, AT THIS TIME WE HAVE GENERAL COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ABOUT ANY PLANNING RELATED ISSUES? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE [9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT] DIRECTOR'S REPORT. WHAT YOU HAVE FOR US TODAY? >> MR. CHAIR, SO, THE UPCOMING -- WHAT TO EXPECT COMING UP IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD WITH THE PORT DISTRICT AND THE OVERLAY FOR THAT. THIS HAS BEEN REQUESTED SINCE 2020. THAT IS BEFORE MY TIME. THIS HAS BEEN A PRIORITY FOR ME TO GET MOVING ON AND WE HAVE GOT SOME GOOD RESPONSES FROM PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE BOARD JUST RECENTLY, SO I AM HOPING TO MOVE THAT FORWARD AND WE WILL SEE HOW THAT GOES. WE DID -- WE DID SECURE A NEW STAFF MEMBER AND SENIOR PLANNER. YOU'LL BE SEEING A NEW SENIOR PLANNER. SHE HAS SOME BACKGROUND AND SOME ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST, SO I THINK THAT IS A GREAT ADDITION TO THE PLANNING TEAM. WE ARE LOOKING TO GET THAT. ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH AN ADVISORY SORT OF COMBINATION OF CONSULTANTS AND CITY DEPARTMENTS. WE SPOKE ABOUT SOME OF -- THERE WAS THE DEFINITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THERE WAS A BIT OF CONFUSION ABOUT THE MEANINGS OF CERTAIN PARAMETERS OF THOSE. WE WILL BE CLARIFYING SOME OF THOSE ESSENTIALLY. WHAT IS REQUIRED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT CHANGE. MAYBE SOME OF THE NOMENCLATURE OR THE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE BEING USED TO CLARIFY WHAT IS GOING ON. THAT IS AFFECTING -- IT SOUNDS MUCH MORE DETAILED THAN THEY NEED TO BE FOR THE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT PART OF THE PROCESS. SO, WE ARE GOING TO BE REVIEWING THAT . WE ARE WORKING ON -- I THINK THE NEW MEMBER MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THIS. WE ARE WORKING ON A NEW LANDSCAPE CODE. I THINK IT IS SOMETHING. IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN UNDERLYING THE DEPARTMENTS STRATEGIC MOVEMENTS, TO GET A FAR BETTER OPTION FOR TREE SPECIES AND SIZES AND ALTERNATIVES, TO GET MORE VARIETY OF PLANTING WITHIN THE CITY, TO GET IT LESS ORGANIZED, IF YOU LIKE. RATHER THAN HAVING A REQUIREMENT FOR ONE TREE EVERY 30 FEET, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE CLUSTERING ON THE STORY PLANTING, DIFFERENT SHRUBS, DIFFERENT GROUNDCOVERS. DIFFERENT TREE HEIGHTS AND SPECIES, SO WE GET MORE VARIETY OF THAT. IT IS ONE THING IF YOU DO EXPERIENCE, I THINK, WHEN YOU COME INTO THE CITY, THERE IS SOMETHING MISSING WITH THE LANDSCAPE. YOU COME FROM ANOTHER CITY AND YOU COME INTO FORT PIERCE AND THERE IS SOMETHING NOT WORKING WITH THE LANDSCAPE. SO, COMBINING THE NEW LANDSCAPE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL, WITH THE INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY DESIGN THAT WE ARE PROMOTING, THEY ARE ALL INTENDED TO GENERATE A REAL DIFFERENT IMAGE BUT CONSISTENT TO THE HISTORY OF FORT PIERCE, WITHIN FORT PIERCE, AND THAT IS, WE ARE HOPING, WE ARE SEEING SOME MOVEMENT, GETTING APPLICATIONS COMING IN NOW OF PEOPLE RESPONDING TO THAT. EVEN WHERE, BEFORE YOU NOW, BEING ABLE TO -- IT BECOMES QUITE IMPORTANT TO HOW A PROJECT IMPACTS PEOPLE AND THAT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS THAT I [02:05:02] WOULD LIKE TO SEE, MORE VISUAL IMPROVEMENT TO THE CITY AND BETTER QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME, MAINTAINING THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF PROPERTY, TO BE ABLE TO SUPPLY HOUSING ACCOMMODATION FOR WORKERS WITHIN THE CITY , TO ALL THE INDUSTRY THAT IS COMING AROUND THE CITY. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE FALLING APART AT THE MOMENT. WE ARE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE AMOUNT OF HOUSING WE NEED FOR EMPLOYERS. WE ARE COMING UP TO A NEW STRATEGIC PLAN AND THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED IN JANUARY. I WILL BE PRESENTING AN UPDATE TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE DURING THIS YEAR IN JANUARY WHEN WE ARE OUT OF THE YEAR, BUT IT IS QUITE REMARKABLE WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS BEEN ABLE TO ADVISE ON COACH CHANGES, BEING ABLE TO SIT PORT THE MOVEMENT. WE HAVE DONE SOME REALLY GOOD THINGS AND IT HAS BEEN A LOT OF COACH CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH OVERDUE. PART OF THIS, AND I TELL THIS TO MY STAFF, IS WHEN WE CHANGE SOMETHING, IT IS PART OFANOTHER STEP OF THE FOUNDATION THAT LINKS TOGETHER, SO WE ARE BRINGING TOGETHER A WIDE RANGING BIT BY BIT CHANGE OF THE CODE THAT INCREASES THE VALUE OF WHAT WE CAN DO FROM THE STAFF AND THE PLANNING BOARD IN TERMS OF HOW WE BENEFIT THE CITY. SO, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO IT NEXT YEAR. HOPEFULLY SOME MORE IMPROVEMENTS, GETTING SOME REAL QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS COMING THROUGH. I WANT TO THANK THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THIS YEAR AND WHAT YOU HAVE ALL DONE AND BEEN A PART OF. I THINK IT HAS BEEN QUITE EXCITING AND VERY GOOD TO BE SITTING IN FRONT OF A BOARD THAT TALKS AND DISCUSSES AND ASKS THE CORRECT QUESTIONS. IT HAS BEEN GOOD FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW THAT WE GUESS THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. WE APPRECIATE THAT. >> ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER 10, [10. BOARD COMMENTS] BOARD COMMENTS. GENERAL COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DISCUSS OR TALK ABOUT? >> THE ACCOMPLISHMENT WE HAD EARLIER , SO MUCH IS GOING ON, IT APPEARS. WE SEE A SIDE CLAIM, REZONING, ANNEXATION, WHATEVER IT IS. IT IS EASIER TO MAKE THAT DECISION ON THAT PARCEL OR THOSE PARCELS, BUT WITHOUT SEEING THE TOTALITY OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE CITY, I FEEL LIKE I DO NOT KNOW IT WELL ENOUGH AS BEING ABLE TO GIVE ADVICE AND TO VOTE PROPERLY. IN THE FUTURE, ARE WE ABLE TO HAVE THAT BETTER VIEWPOINT? >> I THINK THAT IS A VALID POINT. IT WOULD BE WORTH HAVING ONE PRESENT, A PRESENTATION AT THE START , SAYING THIS IS WHAT THE SITUATION OF THE CITY IS IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE LIKELY TO BE COMING ONLINE, WHERE THOSE ARE. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO REASSURE THE PLANNING BOARD AS MUCH AS I CAN THAT WHEN WE GET A DEVELOPMENT, A WIDER ASPECT IS CONSIDERED BY THE REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE COUNTY AND IN TERMS OF TRANSPORTATION, THERE IS ALWAYS QUITE -- IT IS A WELL NAVIGATED PART OF THE PROCESS. THE SURROUNDING IMPACTS OF THE STUFF THAT IS GOING ON IN THE CITY AND COUNTY. THEY ARE IN A POSITION TO PUT THAT TOGETHER. WE ARE RELYING MORE ON THE ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLAN TO [02:10:06] COMMENT ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING MORE REGIONALLY. AND ALSO , THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARE ALWAYS COMMENTING ON THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING CLOSE TO INTERSECTIONS. THAT HELPS THEM BUILD THEIR PROGRAM IN TERMS OF BUILDING INTO AREAS. I THINKI WOULD COMMIT TO THAT , GIVEN THE UPDATE OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WIDER PICTURE. LONG TERM, YOU KNOW , WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET A GOOD PICTURE OF WHAT IS HAPPENING. >> WE SAW A LITTLE BIT OF THAT TODAY , WITH THE PARCEL ON JENKINS ROAD , WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS APPLICATIONS COME THROUGH IN THE PAST YEAR OR GET UPDATED IN THE PAST YEAR THAT MR. JOHNSON IS NOT AWARE OF AND IT IS UP TO OUR MEMORY TO SAY , YOU KNOW, WE ARE DOING THIS DOWN HERE AND SO , YOU KNOW, THOSE IMPACTS THAT MIGHT , YOU DON'T TRIGGER MORE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS, IT IS , I DON'T WANT TO MAKE MORE WORK, BUT WHEN WE GET THE MAP THAT SHOWS ZONING. OR MAYBE SPECIFICALLY THE SATELLITE IMAGE MAPS, WE ARE THINKING, OKAY, WE ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT. BUT THAT IS ALSO IN DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW AND THAT IS SUPPOSED TO COME ON WITHIN THE NEXT TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS, THAT COULD CERTAINLY HELP SHAPE THE CONVERSATION. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, SOME SORT OF COLOR CODING SYSTEM THAT MIGHT COME UP THAT MIGHT INDICATE SOME OF THAT. >> I LIKE THE WAY THE APPLICANT PRESENTED THAT IMPACT ASPECT IN TERMS OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AND SHOWED THE VARIOUS THINGS HAPPENING AROUND THE AREA. WE ALSO, YOU KNOW, DO HAVE THINGS COMING OUT OF THE GROUND. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN THINGS APPROVED BUT NOTHING HAPPENING. NOW THINGS ARE COMING OUT OF THE GROUND IN THAT LOCATION. THERE ARE ALL SORTS OF DEVELOPMENTS COMING THAT YOU SEE NOW. YOU HAVE PROBABLY VISITED. SO, GOING BACK TWO YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW? A LOT OF THAT MAY BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND THAT WAS THERE. ONE LAST THING, CHAIR . WE WILL BE GETTING A PRESENTATION TO CITY COMMISSION FROM THE CONSORT , WHO IS WORKING ON THE LOWER ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE. WHAT WE ARE GETTING AT THE MOMENT , WE ARE GETTING COMMENTS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE RESOURCES THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NUMBER OF HOMES BEING DEVELOPED , AND THE NUMBER OF FLOOR SPACE THAT THEY NEED TO COVER. CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT COLLECT IMPACT FEES . SO, THE LAST SIX MONTHS , OR PROBABLY EIGHT MONTHS, WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION WITH A CONSULTANT WHO HAS DONE A REVIEW AND THEY WILL BE PROPOSING A LOWER ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE CRITERIA, WHICH WILL BE GOING TO COMMISSION IN JANUARY. THAT WILL BE THE DEADLINE, SOMETIME. THAT WILL BE ADOPTED, I THINK, AFTER A PERIOD OF PUBLIC NOTICE. BUT THAT WOULD ADDRESS A LOT OF THE CONCERNS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT GETTING THE RESOURCES, YOU KNOW FROM 200 NEW HOMES COMING ONLINE , AND THEN HAVING THE IMPACT OF WHAT THAT MEANS ON THE DEPARTMENT, BEING COVERED BY AN IMPACT FEE. UNFORTUNATELY A CONSEQUENCE IS THE COST OF BUILDING A HOME GOES UP. AND YOU ARE PAYING MORE IMPACT FEES. BUT THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT THE MOMENT. AT THE MOMENT, WE HAVE NO MECHANISM TO SAY, OKAY, THE ESTIMATE IS TO INCREASE THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE NO MECHANISM TO SAY , THAT IS X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS . [02:15:08] >> WELL, THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT IS IT. IF THERE * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.