[00:00:01] I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMMISSION AGENDA. THIS IS OUR REGULAR MEETING, AND IT IS JULY 21ST, 2025. PLEASE STAND FOR THE OPENING PRAYER BY PASTOR JIMMY LLOYD OF FAIRLAWN CHURCH AND REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. GOD, THANK YOU FOR THE GIFT OF THIS CITY AND FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT CALL FORT PIERCE HOME AS WE MEET HERE TODAY. GIVE US WISDOM, UNITY, AND A HEART TO SERVE OTHERS WELL. HELP EVERY DECISION MADE HERE. PROTECT. GUIDE. GIVE PEACE. PROGRESS. AND LEAD US WITH YOUR LOVE. LORD, BLESS OUR LEADERS, THIS COMMUNITY AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR GUIDANCE. AMEN. AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MAYOR HUDSON. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK PRESENT. COMMISSIONER GAINES PRESENT, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. PRESENT. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 7TH, [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] 2025 REGULAR MEETING. MOVE. APPROVE. SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. NEXT, WE HAVE ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [8. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA] ANY CHANGES TO THE AGENDA? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MADAM MAYOR. MOVE TO SET THE AGENDA. SECOND, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. NEXT, WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS. [9. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person who wishes to comment on an agenda item which is not under Public Hearings on the Agenda may be heard at this time and must sign up to speak in advance. 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.] OKAY. WE HAVE ONE PERSON WHO SIGNED UP. MICHAEL SILVA, YOU HAVE THREE, THREE MINUTES. AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. AND WELCOME TO FORT PIERCE. GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO. MY NAME IS MIKE SILVA. I'M THE CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER FOR VENUES. WE ARE A PRIVATE THEATER MANAGEMENT COMPANY BASED IN IOWA, WHERE I WANTED TO INTRODUCE MYSELF AND TELL YOU THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY THRILLED TO BE CONSIDERED TO TAKE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SUNRISE THEATER. WE SEE SUCH ENORMOUS POTENTIAL IN THAT THEATER, AND WE WOULD BE EXCITED TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET IN THERE AND INCREASE THE THE COMMERCIAL TOURING AND THE COMMUNITY PROGRAMING AND THE CHILDREN'S DAYTIME PROGRAMING AND OF COURSE, EXPAND THE BANQUET SERVICES. SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'LL STICK AROUND UNTIL AFTER THE MEETING AND TO MEET SOME FOLKS AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. WHO SIGNED UP? MISS COX? OKAY, SO NEXT WE HAVE UNDER MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, WE HAVE THE KING'S LANDING QUARTERLY UPDATE. [10. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS] AND WE HAVE WITH THIS BILL WARE OF LIVE OAKS HOLDINGS. MR. CHESS, DO YOU HAVE ANY LEADING. OH, NO I DON'T. OKAY. WELCOME, MR. WARE. WELCOME. THANK YOU. GOOD TO BE HERE. LET ME JUST GET MYSELF TOGETHER HERE. PLEASED TO BE HERE ONCE AGAIN. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. AND WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE. GROUP SAYING PLEASED TO BE HERE ONCE AGAIN. AND FURTHER PLEASED TO PROVIDE THE SECOND QUARTERLY REPORT. I THOUGHT THAT IT MIGHT BE SIMPLER FOR ME, IN THE ESSENCE OF TIME, TO JUST KIND OF SUMMARIZE THE MONTHLY REPORTS THAT HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE DURING THAT QUARTER. SO IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME TO REFRESH MEMORIES, INCLUDING MINE, THE THIRD AMENDMENT, THIS IS APRIL, THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF KING'S LANDING WAS PRESENTED FOR APPROVAL IN THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL 7TH, 2025. FOLLOWING A PERIOD OF CONTINUED OPEN AND TRANSPARENT DISCUSSION WITH ALL COMMISSIONERS. THE THIRD AMENDMENT RECEIVED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED. THIRD AMENDMENT WAS THEN PRESENTED TO THE BOARD ON APRIL 8TH, 2025, AND HAVING VETTED THIS DOCUMENT THE NIGHT BEFORE, THE PRA LIKEWISE UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED ITS APPROVAL. [00:05:10] WE ARE MOST GRATEFUL FOR THE TIME, INTEREST AND COURTESIES EXTENDED BY ALL PARTIES WORKING TO COME TO THE TERMS IN AN AGREEMENT THAT IS MUTUALLY FAIR AND EQUITABLE. THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF KING'S LANDING WAS RECORDED ON APRIL 10TH, 2025, AND IS NOW THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT PROCEEDING FORWARD. WE ARE FOCUSED ON FINALIZING AN AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICATION SUBMITTAL ON OR BEFORE MAY 31ST, 2025, IN KEEPING WITH THE TERMS OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT. ON THE MORNING OF APRIL 7TH, 2025, I SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL AN INITIAL PROGRESS SET OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, INCLUDING A MODIFIED SITE PLAN. THE MODIFIED SITE PLAN WAS THE PRODUCT OF SEVERAL PRIOR MEETINGS WITH MR. FREEMAN AND TEAM FROM ALL DEPARTMENTS AND THE FPA, WHEREIN WE DISCUSSED AND COLLABORATED ON MY DIRECTION AND PATH FORWARD. A MEETING WAS HELD WITH MR. FREEMAN AND TEAM AND FPA IN THE AFTERNOON ON APRIL 7TH, 2025 TO REVIEW THIS UPDATED SITE PLAN TO ENSURE THE DESIGN CAPTURED THE ITEMS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. THE MEETING WENT VERY WELL AND THE PLANNED DIRECTION WAS ENDORSED ON APRIL 28TH, 2025. I SUBMITTED VIA EMAIL AN UPDATED PROGRESS SET OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS. IN A SEPARATE EMAIL, I ALSO SUBMITTED AN AMENDED SITE PLAN FROM OUR CIVIL ENGINEER THAT, AS UPDATES CONTINUE, WILL ULTIMATELY SERVE AS THE AMENDED SITE PLAN DOCUMENT BEING SUBMITTED FOR FORMAL APPROVAL ON OR BEFORE MAY 31ST, 2025. MAINSAIL LODGING AND DEVELOPMENT CONTINUES TO MONITOR THE PROCESSING OF ITS SUBMITTED FRANCHISE APPLICATION AGREEMENT WITH MARRIOTT CORPORATION AND REVIEW THE PROGRESS SET OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND AMENDED SITE PLAN AS THEY DEVELOP. I HAVE A MEETING WITH MAINSAIL AND THEIR OFFICE IN TAMPA ON MAY 7TH, 2025 TO FURTHER OUR COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS AND PARTNERSHIP. AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY COMMISSION, I AM COORDINATING THE INSTALL OF MESH FENCING AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT SITE. THIS FENCING SHOULD BE INSTALLED IN MAY 2025. THAT WAS THE MONTH OF APRIL. YES. MAY. I AM PLEASED TO CONFIRM THAT PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH THREE OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT, WE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT ON TUESDAY, MAY 27TH, PRIOR TO THE STATED DEADLINE OF MAY 31ST. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE CITY THROUGHOUT THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS. IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST FROM THE CITY COMMISSION, WE INSTALLED MESH ON THE ON THE FENCING SURROUNDING OUR DEVELOPMENT SITE THIS WEEK. I HELD MEETINGS AND OR OTHERWISE CORRESPONDED WITH OUR ARCHITECT, CIVIL ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR AND FURTHERING OUR DESIGN EFFORTS. AND WITH BROOKE HARRIS ON OUR RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PROGRAMING, I HAD ENJOYABLE AND PRODUCTIVE VISITS WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMISSIONER CURTIS JOHNSON AT THE BLUEBIRD BISTRO AND THE PLEASURE OF MEETING AND VISITING WITH ITS OWNER, MR. DARRYL BAY, COMMISSIONER MIKE BRODERICK AT THE PELICAN YACHT CLUB, AND THE PLEASURE OF MEETING AND VISITING WITH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, JIM ALEXIOU, AND A COUPLE OF ITS BOARD MEMBERS. THE CITY MARINA MANAGER DEAN KUBITSCHEK AND MARINA OPERATIONS MANAGER KYLE KAUFMAN. AND LASTLY, DOCTOR TIM MOORE, PRESIDENT, AND MICHAEL HAGLER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF STRATEGIC INITIATIVES WITH INDIAN RIVER STATE COLLEGE. BRINGS US TO MAY. I'M PLEASED TO REPORT MY TEAM BEING ARCHITECT, CIVIL AND CONTRACTOR, AND I ATTENDED OUR SCHEDULED TRC MEETING ON JUNE 26TH. IT WAS A PRODUCTIVE AND ENCOURAGING MEETING WITH NO COMMENTS FROM PLANNING, EXCUSE ME, AND A FEW MINOR COMMENTS FROM ENGINEERING THAT WE WILL IMMEDIATELY ADDRESS. WE WILL RESUBMIT THE SITE PLAN WHEN UPDATED ACCORDINGLY. I SCHEDULED AND HAD THE PLEASURE OF MEETING WITH MR. CHESS IN HIS CONFERENCE ROOM LATER IN THE DAY, ON JUNE 26TH. IT LIKEWISE WAS PRODUCTIVE AND SUPPORTIVE. WE DISCUSSED KING'S LANDING, INCLUDING THE PROSPECT OF A COLLABORATION FOR A CONVENTION SLASH MEETING SPACE IN OUR PROPOSED TWO STOREY BUILDING ADJACENT THE HOTEL AND AMENITY SPACE ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. CONTINUED CONVERSATIONS WILL ENSUE ON THIS, AS WE BOTH ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS DEEMED MERIT WORTHY. ARCHITECTURAL AND CIVIL DESIGN CONTINUE THE MARRIOTT FRANCHISE APPLICATION PROCESS CONTINUES. IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT BOTH THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT AND THE MARRIOTT APPROVALS BE RECEIVED IN OR BEFORE THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2025. SO THAT BRINGS US CURRENT. I'D LIKE TO STATE FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT THAT OUR PURCHASE AND SALE [00:10:01] AGREEMENT WITH AUDUBON IS CURRENT AND IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT, SO ALL IS GOOD IN THAT RESPECT. FROM A TITLE STANDPOINT, WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE CITY IN CONNECTION WITH SOME EASEMENTS THAT ARE RECORDED. SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH POSSIBLY RELOCATING ONE OR MORE OF THOSE AND VACATING ONE. AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THOSE DETAILS WITH ME TODAY, BUT JUST KNOW THAT WE'RE IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE CITY AND ITS COUNCIL IN THAT RESPECT, AND ALL APPEARS TO BE FINE. FOR THE MONTH OF JULY, JULY 14TH. MY TEAM AND I MET WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. WE REVIEWED ALL THAT, THE, THE SITE PLAN AND ITS COMMENTS AND SO FORTH, AND WE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON JULY 14TH. I HAVE A SCHEDULED HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEETING ON JULY 28TH. I ALSO HAVE A FOLLOW UP MEETING SCHEDULED WITH MR. CHESS ON THE 28TH. FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, JUST TO CONTINUE OUR CONVERSATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH MEETING AND CONVENTION SPACE. I HAVE ASKED ON YOUR BEHALF. AN UPDATE SUMMARY FROM MY TEAM MEMBERS SO THAT YOU'RE NOT ONLY HEARING IT FROM ME, BUT YOU'RE HEARING IT DIRECTLY FROM THEM. ALTHOUGH I'M HAPPY TO CONVEY, AND I TRUST THAT YOU KNOW, THAT WHAT I CONVEY IS AS I KNOW IT. BUT LET ME, IF YOU DON'T MIND, PULL UP THE EMAILS AND THEY WON'T TAKE ABOUT A SECOND TO REVIEW THEM WITH YOU. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE FROM SEVILLE. HIS SUMMARY IS AS FOLLOWS. THE SITE PLAN WAS MOVED FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, SCHEDULING OF WHEN THAT WILL BE BEFORE THE BOARD IS PENDING. RIGHT NOW, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS AGAIN, WE'RE THINKING EITHER AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER, MORE LIKELY SEPTEMBER. THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL COMES WITH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS THAT ARE BEING ADDRESSED BEFORE BOARD MEETING. SOME CONDITIONS ARE RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL AND WILL BE ADDRESSED IN MORE DETAIL AT THAT TIME. NO ISSUES WITH COMMENTS BEING ADDRESSED OR FURTHER REFINING OF BUILDINGS. USES AND PROJECT DETAILS CONTINUE CONCURRENTLY WITH SITE PLAN APPROVAL SO THAT AN EXPEDITE IT'LL EXPEDITE ITS TURNAROUND. YOU CAN MENTION THAT FPGA HAS BEEN COMPLETING UTILITY UPGRADE INSTALLATIONS THAT WILL SERVE THE PROJECT. WE LIKEWISE HAVE BEEN COORDINATING WITH THEM AND AS WE HAVE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, YOU CAN ALSO MENTION THAT WE HAVE BEEN COORDINATING WITH THE CITY SO THAT THE NEW SITE PLAN WORKS WITH THE PROPOSED INDIAN RIVER DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS BY THE CITY, SUCH THAT BOTH PROJECT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED IN A TIMELY SEQUENCE. THAT'S FROM THE CIVIL ENGINEER. AND THEN MY LAST UPDATE. YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME HERE IS FROM MAINSAIL JOE COLLIER. I'M AT A LOSS HERE. HOLD ON ONE SECOND. I HAD THE WRONG ONE. OKAY, THIS IS TODAY. SAYS HI, BILL. THIS IS FROM JOE COLLIER. MAINSAIL LODGING AND DEVELOPMENT. HI, BILL. WE ARE SUBMITTING THE FINAL REVISED FRANCHISE PACKAGE IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS TO MARRIOTT. NOW THAT WE HAVE THE LATEST SITE PLANS AND RENDERINGS THAT BETTER ARTICULATE THE CURRENT PROJECT, IT WILL MOVE THINGS ALONG. THOSE WERE THE FINAL PIECES SO THAT WE GET ON THE AUGUST APPROVAL AGENDA. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, MARRIOTT HAS HELD THE TERRITORY FOR US SINCE WE EXECUTED THE TERM SHEET AND THE FINAL APP APPLICATION IS ROUTINE FOR US. THERE WAS NO SENSE IN USING THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN AND HAVING TO GO BACK AND CHANGE IT RIGHT AWAY. MARRIOTT IS EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT IN ITS CURRENT FORM, AS IS MAINSAIL. THANK YOU. JOE. SO ALL IS ACCORDING TO PLAN. ALL IS ACCORDING TO SCHEDULE. WE CONTINUE TO BE EXCITED. THE CITY CONTINUES TO BE A GREAT PARTNER. I CAN'T SAY ENOUGH ABOUT KEV AND HIS TEAM AND ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS. LINDA COX. SARAH, JUST EVERYONE HAS JUST BEEN A REAL PLEASURE. SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AS A RESULT OF THIS UPDATE. COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. BILL, THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE. [00:15:02] VERY COMPREHENSIVE. I DID READ YOUR MONTHLY REPORTS, OF COURSE. AND OF COURSE WE COMMUNICATE REGULARLY. IT'S KIND OF AN ODD QUESTION. EVERYTHING WE REPORTED IS VERY POSITIVE. MAINSAIL IS AT THE END OF THEIR PROCESS TO GET THEIR APPROVALS. SO IT APPEARS AS THOUGH EVERYTHING IS COMING TO A HEAD. AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. I ATTENDED THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, SO I WAS NOW PRIVY TO YOUR NEW CONCEPT PLAN. I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT. I THINK THE IMPROVEMENTS YOU MADE ARE REALLY QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OVERALL SITE. THANK YOU. MY QUESTION IS QUITE SIMPLE. WHAT DON'T WE KNOW THAT'S PROBLEMATIC HERE THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF AND WE CAN JUMP IN AND DEAL WITH? I DON'T HAVE ONE AT THE MOMENT. I MEAN NO MORE QUESTIONS. WE'RE REALLY I MEAN, WE'RE BLESSED THAT THINGS ARE THINGS ARE ON SCHEDULE AND MOVING, MOVING AHEAD AS WE HAD PLANNED. AND AS I SAID, THE CITY AND EVERYONE THAT WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS TO WORK WITH. SO CITY STAFF HAS CRUSHED THIS. THEY HAVE REALLY MASSIVELY GONE OUT OF THEIR WAY TO MOVE THIS ALONG AND FAST TRACK IT AS MUCH AS WE CAN WITH OUR INTERNAL REQUIREMENTS. SO MY CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR TEAM TO DATE TO TO GET IT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD WHEN IT COMES TO THE CITY COMMISSION, I'M EXCITED FOR BOTH OF THOSE TO BE DONE. SO VERY GOOD. AS ARE WE. THANK YOU BILL. THANK YOU COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU HAVE BROUGHT GOOD NEWS AND I YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, BUT IT LOOKS SO FAR. IT LOOKS GOOD, RIGHT? STAY THE COURSE. STAY THE COURSE. YES, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. [11. CONSENT AGENDA] THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS ANY COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO PULL? MADAM MAYOR, I'M JUST GOING TO PULL ONE ITEM A JUST FOR HIGHLIGHT ON SOMETHING I'M GOING TO BRING OUT. YES. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, I LIKE TO PULL ITEM E AND ITEM F. I HAD A FEELING YOU WERE GOING TO DO THAT. YOU KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, SO I WAS GOING TO DO SO THAT'S. YEP. YEP. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN TERMS OF APPROVING THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE BALANCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, PULLING THOSE THREE ITEMS. SECOND, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES, COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. MR. JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. ITEM A IS APPROVAL OF THE 2025 ANNUAL RESURFACING PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF [A. Approval of the 2025 Annual Resurfacing Program in the amount of $551,519.64 in accordance with the Paving Lady contract awarded in response to Bid No. 2023-044.] $551,519.64 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PAVING CONTRACT AWARDED IN RESPONSE TO BID NUMBER 2023 ZERO. 44. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. I SEE STAFF HAS MADE THEIR WAY TO THE PODIUM. I SIMPLY PULLED THIS ITEM OFF CONSENT AGENDA BECAUSE AS OUR CUSTOM STANDARD, IF WE WOULD. AND IT WAS JUST GONE THROUGH. BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THAT WE PAY A HALF CENT SALES TAX SURTAX WHEN IT COMES TO ROAD PAVING. AND THIS IS THE LATEST ADDITION HERE. YOU KNOW, WHEN I FIRST GOT THIS AND I SAW SOME OF THE, STREETS HERE AND SOME OF THE CONDITIONS I UNDERSTOOD. BUT I ALSO WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT FOR THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE WE'RE OFTEN GETTING COMMENTS ABOUT CERTAIN ROADS AND WHY AREN'T CERTAIN ROADS ADDRESSED. AND AFTER WE FIGURE OUT AND COMMUNICATE TO THE CITIZENS THAT CERTAIN ROADS, WHILE THEY MAY BE IN THE CITY LIMITS OF FORT PIERCE, ARE COUNTY OWNED AND MAINTAINED ROADS, SOME ARE STATE ROADS AND SOME ARE FEDERAL ROADS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, AFTER WE WE GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE, THEN THEY'RE THE ROADS, OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S LEFT WITHIN THE CITY THAT THE CITY MAINTAINS FROM A PAVING PERSPECTIVE. AND SO WITH THIS, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE APPROVING TONIGHT, OVER HALF $1 MILLION GETS US BASICALLY 1.54 MILES OF RESURFACING ROADWAY. AND I NEED THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THAT REAL CLEARLY. THAT'S THAT'S NOTHING THAT'S HERE. IT'S IT'S THIS STUFF IS EXPENSIVE. AND AND THESE PRICES ARE CONTINUING TO ESCALATE. BUT I'M I'M HAPPY TO SEE SOME OF THESE ROADS BEING ADDRESSED. THERE ARE A LOT MORE. I GET IT. AND I WANT TO THANK THE THE SURTAX COMMITTEE THAT ACTUALLY MEETS AND PRIORITIZE WHAT ROADS THAT WE WILL BE PAVING AND CONDITIONING AND, AND DEALING WITH. BUT THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO HEAR THAT A HALF $1 MILLION RIGHT NOW GETS YOU ABOUT 1.54 MILES. SOME OF YOU PROBABLY RUN FURTHER THAN THAT OR BIKE FURTHER THAN THAT RIGHT NOW. BUT WITH WITH THIS AND WE HAVE THE STAFF PERSON ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ELABORATE ON ON HOW WE ARE CONTINUING TO UTILIZE THIS SURTAX FUNDS AND WHAT'S NEXT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS? MISS GRIFFIN? SO I'M SELINA GRIFFIN. [00:20:03] I'M ONE OF THE PROJECT ENGINEERS. I MANAGE THE SURTAX FUNDS. I MEET WITH THE SURTAX COMMITTEE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS. WE PROVIDE REPORTS ON AN ANNUAL REPORT THAT IS PRESENTED TO YOU. YOU'RE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER, THAT WE'VE GOT ABOUT 1.5 MILES. A LITTLE OVER 1.5 MILES. RESURFACING FOR THIS YEAR TO DATE? FROM 2020. BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH THE SURTAX STARTED IN 2018. BY THE TIME WE GOT MONEY AND EVERYTHING, IT TOOK A LITTLE WHILE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE A CONTRACT. SO FROM 2020. AND INCLUDING THE 1.5 MILES THIS YEAR, WE WILL HAVE RESURFACED 13.97 TOTAL MILES. OUR LIST, AS YOU NOTED, HAS ABOUT EIGHT MILES LEFT ON IT. AND THE ESTIMATE IS ABOUT 4 MILLION. AND THE SALES TAX WILL GO THROUGH THESE FUNDS WILL GO THROUGH 2028. OKAY. SO WE HAVE THAT. AND AND SO WE'RE WE'RE EXCITED TO KEEP GOING. WE WOULD LIKE TO PRODUCE MORE INFORMATION TO THE RESIDENTS. MAYBE GET SOME STUFF WITH SOME MORE PRESS RELEASES, MORE INFORMATION, MAKE OUR STUFF MORE AVAILABLE. AND THIS IS IN CONCERT WITH THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S GOING ON IN OUR COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY AND PORT SAINT LUCIE TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THIS IS THIS COMES UP AGAIN AND IS SUCCESSFUL. YEAH. MISS GRIFFIN, I WOULD ADD THAT WHEN DOES THE SURTAX COMMITTEE MEET, IN CASE PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHEN THAT IS, BECAUSE THAT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, RIGHT? PEOPLE CAN COME AND THEY CAN VOICE THEIR CONCERNS, ETC.. I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO FIND A WAY TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU OR THE STAFF WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. I THINK THEY WHATEVER DATE IT IS, IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, THAT'S FINE. I KNOW IT'S LISTED ON THE WEBSITE. IT IS. AND AND WE JUST HAD ONE. OKAY. WE JUST HAD ONE LAST THURSDAY. OKAY. THE NEXT ONE WILL BE IT'S QUARTERLY. SO I BELIEVE IT'S IN OCTOBER. OKAY. AND IF THEY WANT MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION, I WELCOME THEM TO CALL THE ENGINEERING OFFICE. OKAY. JULIE, WHO ANSWERS OUR PHONE, SHE CAN TELL THEM WHAT IT IS BECAUSE SHE'S ON THE COMMITTEE WITH ME. OKAY? SHE CAN TELL THEM WHAT IS THE NEXT DATE. RIGHT. AND WE CAN, YOU KNOW. ADDITIONALLY, IF THEY ARE INTERESTED, WE CAN EMAIL THEM SOME OF THE MONTHLY OR THE QUARTERLY REPORTS WE PROVIDE. RIGHT. DIRECT THEM TO OUR CITY WEBSITE. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I REALLY WANT THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE OF THIS, BECAUSE WE'VE ALL FIELDED THOSE EMAILS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT ROADS, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE AND SOMEWHAT GIVEN DIRECTION OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING WHEN THOSE ROADS DON'T DO NOT BELONG TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE GREATLY APPRECIATE. AND IF WE DO SEND THOSE EMAILS TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY OR STATE OR WHATEVER THAT WE HAVE TO, BUT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE HEAR THAT. I KNOW 13TH STREET IS OUR ROAD AND WE ARE UNDERTAKING SOME THINGS. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT AND ANYTHING? WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THAT AND WHERE WE ARE WITH 13TH STREET. SO TO MY KNOWLEDGE, 13TH STREET IS NOT INCLUDED ON THE RESURFACING LIST. I BELIEVE IT'S A MORE COMPLEX PROJECT. RIGHT? RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 90% PLANS FOR THE SECTION FROM GEORGIA TO ORANGE, I BELIEVE. OKAY, GEORGIA. THEY NEED TO BE FINALIZED. A LOT OF THE STUFF, A LOT OF THE 13TH STREET DESIGN WAS DONE QUITE A WHILE AGO. SO UNFORTUNATELY, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING DONE TO BRING EVERYTHING UP TO DATE. AND THAT'S HOW WE'LL BE MOVING FORWARD AS WE GO. RIGHT. AND I THINK WE'VE GOT ACCORDING TO OUR BUDGET, I THINK 13TH STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION IS IN 2027. SOMEWHERE AROUND IN THERE, MAYBE 2026, I DON'T KNOW. YEAH. WE JUST HAD A STATE GRANT TO HELP US WITH SOME OF THAT. YES. BUT AGAIN, THE PUBLIC THAT'S ONE OF THE STREETS OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WILL BRING UP QUITE OFTEN. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT IT TAKES TIME. AND WHEN WE SAY DESIGN, WE LITERALLY YOU COULD YOU EXPLAIN IN WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS TO SO WE UNDERSTAND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE MEAN BY DESIGN BECAUSE YOU'RE FACTORING IN ALL OF THE UNDERGROUNDING AND THE RIGHT OF WAYS AND WHAT THE ROAD AND CURVE NEED TO LOOK LIKE. SO CAN YOU JUST TALK ABOUT THAT BRIEFLY? SURE. WHEN WE'RE DOING A RECONSTRUCTION DESIGN FOR A RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ROADWAY, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S UNDERNEATH THE PAVEMENT. SO UTILITIES MOSTLY THAT'S WATER AND SEWER. SO WITH FPA, IF THEY WANT ANYTHING REPAIRED, WE CAN EITHER INCLUDE IT AS WORK TO BE DONE ON OUR CONTRACT OR THEY'LL DO IT SEPARATELY. WE ALSO HAVE, YOU KNOW, OTHER UTILITIES UNDER THE ROADWAY. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW, ARE OKAY. AND THAT THERE ARE NOT ANY MAJOR CONFLICTS. WE'RE GOING TO ANALYZE OUR STORM DRAINAGE. AND A LOT OF TIMES OUR DRAINAGE PIPES ARE A LITTLE OLD. NEED TO BE REPLACED, NEED TO BE UPDATED. SO WE'LL REPLACE OUR DRAINAGE PIPES. [00:25:02] WE'LL REPLACE INLETS, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE CURBS AT ALL. WE CAN LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES IT'S JUST A STRAIGHT REDESIGN. WE'RE GOING TO PUT BACK IN WHAT WE'RE TAKING OUT JUST TO MAKE IT BETTER. BUT IN SOME CASES WE CAN LOOK AT SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AS WE'RE GOING. RIGHT? MAYBE IT'S A SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT WANT TO NARROW THE PAVEMENT A LITTLE BIT AND WIDEN OUT THE SIDEWALKS MORE. IF THERE ARE NOT SIDEWALKS, WE MAY LOOK TO SEE IF WE CAN GET SIDEWALKS IN THERE. WHAT CAN WE DO TO MAKE THE ROADWAY FUNCTION BETTER FOR EVERYBODY IN THE CITY? AND THOSE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS WE LOOK AT, AND WE'RE ASKING OUR CONSULTANTS TO DESIGN FOR US. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. AND I'LL CLOSE ON THIS, IS THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE SECTION FROM GEORGIA TO ORANGE, WHICH IS IN IT'S A COMPLETE FAIL. THE CURVES ARE GONE. BUT JUST AS IS TOUGH AS GEORGIA TO VIRGINIA AVENUE. AND I KNOW WE HAVE SOUGHT FUNDING, AND I'VE GOT GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT THAT OPEN CANAL AREA IN FRONT OF THAT, THAT SCHOOL THERE AND WHAT'S PERHAPS GOING TO TAKE PLACE WITH THE WHOLE BUILDING OF A NEW SCHOOL OVER IN THAT AREA. AND SO I'VE GOT GREAT CONCERNS THAT THAT WE'LL HAVE THAT FOLLOWING THIS AND WE BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE ROADWAY THERE BECAUSE IT'S COMPLETELY GONE AS WELL. AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S THE BIGGEST PART OF THE COORDINATION. AND THE DESIGN FOR THAT SECTION IS THAT CANAL. YEAH. AND I THINK THE PLAN IS WELL, I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR. I GOT TOO FAR AHEAD. BUT. RIGHT. BUT I JUST WANT TO KNOW IT'S BEING ADDRESSED. I HAVE A REAL CONCERN FROM SAFETY WITH THAT. SO, MADAM MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME PULL THAT. SURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MISS GRIFFITH? I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THE SURTAX HAS ENABLED US TO DO A LOT MORE THAN JUST RESURFACING MANY OTHER THINGS. AND YEAH, AND IT'S BEEN A REAL BOON TO HELP US WITH ROADS. WE'RE NOT NEARLY THERE YET, SO WE'LL BE COMING BACK TO THE PUBLIC SOMETIME SOON BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A REAL HELP TO OUR CITY. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ENLIGHTEN US, I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? YEAH. WITH THAT, MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA 11 A, PLEASE. SECOND, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. SECOND. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER. BRODERICK. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR. HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. I'M SORRY, MA'AM. IT'S NOT TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO TALK NOW. I'M SORRY. OKAY. ITEM E IS APPROVAL OF AWARD OF RFP 2025 [E. Approval of Award of RFP 2025-019 for the Indian River Drive Roadway Reconstruction project to the low bidder, Ferreira Construction Company, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $10,254,124.04.] 019 FOR THE INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. DRIVE ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT TO THE LOW BIDDER FOR AREA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., AND AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $10,254,124.04. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, I PULL THIS ITEM BECAUSE THIS OBVIOUSLY IS A BIG UNDERTAKING. I'D LIKE TO SEE IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY HERE THAT CAN GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE PROJECT ENTAILS, PRIMARILY, SO THE PUBLIC WILL UNDERSTAND THIS IS A PRIMARY THOROUGHFARE. IT'S GOING TO BE DISRUPTED FOR QUITE A WHILE. AND, MARK, IF YOU COULD ALSO GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF TIMELINES ON THIS. MARK, CITY ENGINEER. THIS ONE'S MOVING ALONG. WE'RE WE NEGOTIATED WITH THE CONTRACTOR TRYING TO GET THIS TO A POINT WHERE IT'S FEASIBLE. SO WE MODIFIED THE SCOPE. ESSENTIALLY TAKING OUT SOME OF THE BELLS AND WHISTLES THAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD IN THE PROJECT. IT'S STILL GOING TO LOOK GOOD. WE'RE STILL GETTING A NEW BRIDGE OUT OF THIS. WHICH WAS ONE OF THE CONCERNS WE HAD. THAT SEEMED LIKE AN EASY PLACE TO. LET'S JUST LEAVE THE BRIDGE ALONE BY THE MANATEE CENTER. BUT IT'S A 62 YEAR OLD BRIDGE. SO WE SAID, LET'S TRY TO KEEP THAT IN. BUT WE'RE MOVING ALONG. THE CONTRACTOR FOR ERROR WAS VERY RECEPTIVE TO THE CHANGES THEY WANT TO MAKE THIS PROJECT WORK TO. SO THEY WORKED WITH US ON THAT TO TO GET THE THE PRICE DOWN TO WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS FEASIBLE. SO WE'RE MOVING ALONG THERE. WE HAVE TO DO SOME REDESIGN BASED OFF OF THE CHANGES WE PROPOSED. SO THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT WE'RE PUSHING FORWARD THERE. WE'RE PUTTING IN. SO THE GIST OF IT IS ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION ALONG INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. THE WE'RE LEAVING IN WE'RE PUTTING IN A BIGGER SIDEWALK ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD. I THINK IT'S EIGHT FOOT. MIGHT BE TEN. I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. AND THEN THERE WILL BE A SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD TO LIGHTING UPGRADES. OBVIOUSLY THE NEW BRIDGE, THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE WILL GO AWAY. THERE'LL BE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ON THE BRIDGE. THAT'S THE THAT'S THE GIST OF IT. BUT, YEAH, IT SHOULD BE GREAT FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA. IT SHOULD BE ALLOW FOR PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT A LOT EASIER ALONG THAT SECTION OF THE ROAD. [00:30:04] SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY POSITIVE FOR THAT AREA. I THINK WE'RE SHOOTING FOR IN CHEYENNE MAY NEED TO HELP ME ON THAT SEPTEMBER, SEPTEMBER FOR CONSTRUCTION, I THINK IS WHAT WE'RE SHOOTING FOR. HOPEFULLY GET SHOVELS IN THE GROUND AND GET THE THING MOVING FOR THE PUBLIC'S INFORMATION. TELL THEM WHAT PART OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE IS GOING TO BE NOT USABLE OR GOING TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO THAT THEY KNOW ABOUT IT? YEAH, IT'S FROM FROM FROM THE ROUNDABOUT TO. YEAH. SEE? WAY TOO ORANGE. YEAH. LET'S SEE WHAT ORANGE AVENUE MAY HAVE ANYWAY. SO YEAH. THE ROUNDABOUT. YEAH. YEAH. THE ROUNDABOUT. SO YEAH. OKAY. SO ANY OTHER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE DID PULL OUT BACCHUS. THAT IT JUST WE COULDN'T GET THE COMP OR THE THE THE MONEY TO WORK. RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO PUSH THAT INTO PHASE TWO. WE'RE GOING TO CALL A PHASE TWO PROJECT FOR, FOR THIS. SO WE WANTED TO WE HAVE THE GRANT MONEY KIND OF SITTING THERE. SO WE WANTED TO MAKE THIS THING MOVE SO WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, SO WE CAN USE THAT GRANT MONEY. SO PART OF THAT IS ALL RIGHT, LET'S JUST PULL BACK. IT'S OUT FOR NOW. LET'S KEEP INDIAN RIVER DRIVE GOING. AND WE'LL COME BACK AND GET BACK US LATER. I ASSUME THIS HAS BEEN COORDINATED IN, IN EFFECT WITH FPGA AND THEIR IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE KING'S LANDING PROJECT. SO THIS IS ALL INTERTWINED, CORRECT? CORRECT. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT ANYTHING NEW DOWN AND THEN TEAR IT UP FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR KING'S LANDING. OKAY. WHAT DO YOU THINK THE DURATION TIME WOULD BE? I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. IT'S THERE'S SOME PHASING THAT FOR OUR WANTS TO DO. I THINK THE CONTRACT WAS. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE CONTRACT WAS? SO COULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND HELP HIM OUT HERE LONGER WITH THIS PROJECT THAN I AM? SORRY. ALL RIGHTY. CHEERS. IT'S CARNAGE. MADAM MAYOR, CITY COMMISSIONERS. SO, THE FLORIDA JOB GROWTH GRANT AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUND MONEY THAT WE GOT FROM GOVERNOR DESANTIS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THAT FUND THOSE FUNDS NEED TO BE EXPENDED BY JUNE OF 2026. SO WE ARE PHASING THE PROJECT TO MEET THE OBLIGATIONS OF THAT GRANT TO EXPEND THOSE DOLLARS BY JUNE OF 2026. HOWEVER, THE ENTIRE PROJECT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO BE COMPLETED BY THEN. SO THERE IS SOME PHASING, AND THAT'S WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO. I DON'T KNOW THE TOTAL CONTRACT DATE IT MIGHT BE ATTACHED TO THAT, BUT SO SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUNE OF 2026 IS ONE DATE. THAT'S CORRECT. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE DONE DATE. NOPE. NOT THE DONE DATE. AND WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? BUT AVENUE B, AVENUE B IS THAT. WAS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF THE PROJECT AND NOW IT ISN'T. IS THAT WHAT SHE SAID? STEP IN FOR JUST ONE SECOND TO GIVE YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND. SO THIS THIS GRANT WAS APPLIED FOR IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF SAINT LUCIE COUNTY. AND THAT WAS FOR YOU KNOW, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE KING'S LANDING PROJECT FOR OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT, NOT ONLY KING'S LANDING, BUT THAT ENTIRE AREA AND THE NUMBER OF JOBS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CREATED IN THIS, IN THIS DOWNTOWN SECTION. SO WHEN WE HAD THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATES WERE IN THE $7 MILLION RANGE, I WANT TO SAY THEY WERE LOW SEVEN, $8 MILLION WHEN THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH DESIGN. WE'VE SPENT ALMOST HALF OF THE MONEY, I BELIEVE, FROM THAT GRANT ON DESIGN WORK AND ALL THAT GOES INTO EVEN ISSUING THE BID. THE BID WENT OUT THROUGH ENGINEERING, CAME BACK. THE LOWEST BID WAS $13 MILLION. SO, YOU KNOW, THE FLORIDA COMMERCE IS KNOCKING ON THE DOOR. HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO SPEND THIS MONEY. WE'RE WHERE ARE WE WITH THE PROJECT? AND THEY'VE BEEN REALLY GRACIOUS AND WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH KNOWING THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. SO THEY DID SOME VALUE ENGINEERING AND WERE ABLE TO STAY WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE BID AND JUST TIGHTEN UP. SOME OF YOU KNOW, AS I THINK MARK REFERS TO AS BELLS AND WHISTLES. TIGHTEN SOME OF THAT UP. AND WE WERE ABLE TO TO COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR THE AWARD. SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE GOT HERE. IT WAS PART OF A GRANDER PROJECT. IT EVEN INCLUDED SOME OF THE SUN TRAIL CONNECTIVITY, BACCHUS AVENUE, WHICH WE STILL WANT TO DO, BUT IT'LL HAVE TO BE IN A FUTURE PHASE. SO IT ON STREET PARKING ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THIS. THAT WAS ACTUALLY A PROJECT THAT WAS IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE SALES TAX, YOU KNOW, MATERIAL. SO WE'LL BE USING SOME FUNDS TOWARD THAT FROM THAT FUNDING SOURCE, SOME FUNDING, SOME ROAD IMPACT FEE FUNDING. SO THIS IS A REALLY A GREAT JOINT EFFORT PROJECT. AND THE CONTRIBUTION WAS GOING TO BE 2 MILLION. WE'VE INCREASED IT TO 3 MILLION WHICH WILL COME BEFORE YOU. IT WAS IN THE CIP BUT IT WILL COME BEFORE YOU FOR THAT BUDGET APPROVAL AS WELL. AND SURTAX. THIS IS ANOTHER SURTAX. ONE IS HELPING ON THIS PROJECT TO. MAKE SURE. I KNOW IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, THIS IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENT, [00:35:04] BUT I HAVE BEEN ADVISED BY MAIN STREET THAT CONSTRUCTION WILL BE TAKING PLACE WHEN THE ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARADE IS SCHEDULED TO BE HAPPENING. THAT IS TRUE, AND THAT'S A VALID CONCERN. IT IS. AND PEOPLE LOVE THAT EVENT. AND THERE'S KIDS. THERE'S A ZILLION KIDS EVERYWHERE. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET SOMEBODY WORKING ON AN ALTERNATE ROUTE TO, TO DEAL WITH THIS. AND I'VE ALREADY MET WITH THEM. WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. SO, MARK, IF YOU'RE ON TOP OF IT, I'LL LEAVE IT THERE. I WAS JUST MENTIONED TO ME AS A COMPLICATION. I SAID, WELL, WE GOT ALL THE SURFACE STREETS WE CAN USE. WE'LL FIGURE OUT SOMETHING THAT'LL WORK. WE GAVE THEM SOME DIRECTION WITH THAT. THEY THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD. I FORGET WHAT HIS NAME WAS. ANTON. ANTON. THERE IT IS. WE MET WITH HIM AND GAVE HIM SOME IDEAS. KIND OF EXPLAINED TO HIM WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO BE AND HOW THEY COULD POSSIBLY STAGE AND WORK AROUND THAT. AND HE THOUGHT THEY HAD ENOUGH TO WORK ON TO TRY TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING. BUT WE, YOU KNOW, WE'LL STAND BY TO HELP THEM HOWEVER WE CAN. IT'S A BIG EVENT WHEN WE HAVE ENGINEERING WORKING ON THE ROUTE. WELL THAT'S GREAT. I APPRECIATE YOU LENDING A HAND WITH THEM BECAUSE IT'S A BIG EVENT FOR THE CITY. IT'S TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ATTEND THAT EVENT. SO THANK YOU. AND HOPEFULLY IT SHOULD ONLY BE WE TOLD THEM ONE YEAR OF DISRUPTIONS NEXT YEAR. THAT'S WHAT I'M I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE SO. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE HOPING FOR. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR. IF NOT, THAT CONVERSATION WOULD NOT GO WELL. ALL RIGHT. SO. RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO ECHO THAT BECAUSE THE BASICALLY ONE YEAR, I THINK WE GOT TO KEEP THE PUBLIC INFORMED BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONLY THAT STREET, BUT THAT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE THERE. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE HAVING EVENTS AT THE YACHT CLUB AND THE RIVERWALK AND THE MUSEUM. SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN BE GOOD PARTNERS IN THIS, RIGHT? WE WE NEED IT. THEY WANT IT. OUR PARKING LOTS ARE GOING TO PROBABLY BE ALL CRAZY OVER THERE. AND THERE ARE MANY, MANY EVENTS FROM VETERAN AFFAIRS AND ALL THIS STUFF THAT WE DO OVER THERE AT THE RIVERWALK. AND SO AS WE GO ALONG, WE'LL JUST KEEP THE PUBLIC INFORMED. BUT I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE NOW. IT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR DISRUPTION OVER THERE. YEAH. STARTING IN SEPTEMBER. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR. THIS IS JUST TO AWARD THE BID. IT'LL COME BACK BEFORE YOU FOR CONTRACTOR APPROVAL, WHERE WE'LL HAVE THE TERM AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND WE CAN WORK OUT THOSE DETAILS. BUT DURING THAT PRELIMINARY MEETING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE BID AMOUNT WITH THE LOW BIDDER, HE ALREADY WAS STARTING TO PLAN AHEAD TO, YOU KNOW, WHICH SIDES WERE WE GOING TO CLOSE AT WHAT POINT. AND JUST BEING REALLY COGNIZANT OF THAT. SO WE'LL KEEP THAT IN MIND AND WE'LL GET A CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FROM THEM AT SOME POINT TOO. SO WE'LL HAVE BETTER KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. ANYBODY ELSE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, SIR. I'LL JUST SAY I THINK WE GOT THE SAME PHONE CALL BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO BRING UP THE PARADE AS WELL FROM FOR MAIN STREET. AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT ANY AND ALL OPTIONS, BECAUSE WE ALREADY TOOK AWAY THAT PARKING LOT THAT THEY USED FOR STAGING ANYWAY. SO THEY'RE LOOKING AT COMPLETELY ALTERNATE ROUTES. I MEAN, THEY'RE DISCUSSING EVEN STAGING DOWN OFF OF CITRUS AND WHATEVER WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT WORK. BUT WOULD APPRECIATE A LOT OF COLLABORATION FROM THE CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR AS WELL. JUST COMMUNICATE SO WE CAN GET IT FIGURED OUT, MAKE IT ALL WORK, MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY. AND, MR. CHESS, I THINK WE ALL ARE GOING TO WANT THIS TO BE YOU KNOW, PRESS IN SOCIAL MEDIA SO WE CAN KEEP PEOPLE INFORMED. LOTS OF MESSAGING. YES. YEAH. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER. YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? MADAM MAYOR, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM E, SECOND MOTION AND SECOND CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MR. BRODERICK. YES, COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. ITEM F IS APPROVAL OF AWARD OF RFP 2025 017 FOR THE SUNRISE THEATER OPERATIONS CONCESSION TO THE HIGHEST RANKED [F. Approval of Award of RFP 2025-017 for Sunrise Theatre Operations Concessionnaire to the highest ranked respondent, VenuWorks, and to authorize staff to enter into contract negotiations.] RESPONDENT VENUE WORKS. AND TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I PULLED THIS ITEM AS THE COMMISSION'S LIAISON TO THE SUNRISE THEATER. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A BIG DEAL. YEAH. SO I WANTED CHEYENNE AS THIS YEAR. OKAY. I WANTED TO GET TO KIND OF THE WHOLE PICTURE HERE AS TO WHAT'S TRANSPIRED. THIS HAS BEEN IN PROCESS FOR A BIT, AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS. SO I REALLY AM CURIOUS TO HEAR THE BACK STORIES. AND WE HAVE AN AUDIENCE FULL, I THINK, OF PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY INTERESTED IN THIS TOO. THAT'S WONDERFUL. YES, MA'AM. YES, MADAM MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. YES. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG, ONGOING PROJECT FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THIS THIS RFP ACTUALLY WENT OUT IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, AND THE SUBMITTALS WERE DUE BACK IN MARCH. BUT JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND OF KIND OF HOW WE ENDED UP HERE. SO OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE SUNRISE THEATER, SHARON ENGEL, RETIRED, AND THIS KIND OF PROMPTED A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE THEATER AND THE OPERATIONS AND WHETHER IT WOULD REMAIN AN ENTERPRISE FUND STRUCTURE, WHICH IT EXISTS AS TODAY, AS A DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OR WHETHER WE WANTED TO SEEK, YOU KNOW, EXTERNAL ASSISTANCE FROM A CONSULTANT OF SOME SORT, [00:40:05] SOME TYPE OF OPERATOR. CONCESSIONAIRE IS THE THE LANGUAGE WE USED IN THE RFP. SO WE ISSUED THIS RFP, LIKE I SAID, BACK IN JANUARY, AND WE WERE LOOKING FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE. SO WE WORKED WITH ACTUALLY OUTSIDE COUNSEL THROUGH SARAH HEDGES OFFICE, A PURCHASING EXPERT, TO REALLY REFINE A LOT OF OUR RFP TEMPLATES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT WE PUT OUT UNDER THAT NEW TEMPLATE, AND WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO HANDLE THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS. THE CITY OR THE CRA, WHOEVER IT ENDS UP WITH WILL REMAIN THE OWNER OF THE THEATER, AND I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SELL THE THEATER OR TAKE AWAY CONTROL OF THE THEATER, JUST LOOKING FOR A DAY TO DAY OPERATOR TO TAKE CARE OF THINGS LIKE PROGRAMING, MARKETING, TICKETING AND CUSTOMER RELATIONS, MAINTENANCE, BACK OFFICE MANAGEMENT, AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE. SO AS I MENTIONED, WE WOULD REMAIN THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO WITH MAINTENANCE, YOU KNOW, CAPITAL SYSTEMS LIKE HVAC OR ROOF OR BUILDING ENVELOPE THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WE ANTICIPATE TO REMAIN THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY. BUT THAT WILL ALL BE DISCUSSED AND DEALT WITH THROUGHOUT THE NEGOTIATIONS. SO THE IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL, THE RFP THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA IS QUITE LENGTHY. BUT IN SUMMARY, THESE WERE THE THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR. SO YOUR COVER LETTER, WITH ALL OF THE REQUIRED FORMS THAT YOU HAVE A FIVE YEAR OPERATING BUDGET, A TRANSITION PLAN AND A TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION. A LOT OF COMPANY HISTORY, EXPERIENCE, THE PERSONNEL, THE ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, ALL OF THAT GOING INTO THIS. BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WE'RE REALLY NOT BUYING A PRODUCT. WE'RE BUYING A TEAM AND A A FIRM RELEVANT LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS AND FINANCIALS, DETAILED RESPONSE TO THAT PREVIOUS SLIDE OF ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE ASK FOR IN THE SCOPE OF SERVICES, ANY PAST LITIGATION OR CRIMINAL CHARGES AND REFERENCES. SO WE RECEIVED FIVE PROPOSALS IN SUMMARY, BOCA BLACK BOX ENTERPRISE PARTNERS, H. CIP, RYAN MANAGEMENT GROUP INC., AND VENUE WORKS. WE HAD AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE COMPRISED OF THREE MEMBERS CHARLOTTE BYERLY FROM SAINT LUCIE COUNTY. SHE'S THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM AND MARKETING. JOHN MOSES IS THE EXECUTIVE PRODUCER AND CEO OF RIVERSIDE THEATER IN VERO BEACH FOR THAT PERSPECTIVE. AND THEN WENDY, OUR ACCOUNTANT AT THE CITY. THE EVALUATION CRITERIA WAS MADE UP OF ALL OF THESE FIVE POINTS. SO LOOKING AGAIN, REALLY STRONG ON EXPERIENCE. WE ACTUALLY HAD TWO POINTS ON THIS. SO RELEVANT EXPERIENCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL HISTORY. HAVE YOU DONE THIS SOMEWHERE ELSE? HAVE YOU DEALT WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE? COMPARABLE EVENT VENUES AS WELL. TEAM QUALIFICATIONS PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUNDS OF YOUR PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS AND YOUR ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUCCESS OF OUR SUNRISE THEATER FINANCIAL PROJECTIONS AND ECONOMIC IMPACT. LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, REVENUE PROJECTIONS AND EXPECTATIONS FROM THAT ARENA WITH PROFITABILITY AND OVERALL ECONOMIC IMPACT, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS THEATER REALLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE ECONOMY OF THE DOWNTOWN AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND THE CULTURE IT BRINGS, BUT, YOU KNOW, PATRONS COMING TO RESTAURANTS AND OTHER ACTIVITIES IN OUR AREA. AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, WE DID A 30, 90 AND 120 DAY ROLLOUT PLAN. OF COURSE, THIS IS ALL DONE UNDER A CONE OF SILENCE. SO THERE'S NO COMMUNICATION HAPPENING WITH ANY OF THESE PROPOSALS DURING THIS TIME. SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY GIVE IT THEIR BEST EFFORT BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDE AND WHAT THEY CAN GATHER ON THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WILL GET TO A NEGOTIATION TABLE AND REALLY IRON OUT THESE TYPES OF DETAILS OF OF WHAT, IF ANY, TRANSITION WILL OCCUR, AND THEN ALIGNMENT WITH PREFERRED ELEMENTS WHICH WERE LISTED IN 1.3 OF THE RFP. SO THE EVALUATION MATRIX IS HERE. THIS IS THE COMBINED POINTS BY CHARLOTTE, JOHN AND WENDY, A BLACK BOX AT 140 5.5 AND PRICE PARTNERS AT 153 H0 AT 119 .25. RYAN MANAGEMENT GROUP AT 180 8.5 AND VENU WORKS AT 240 4.5. TOTAL POINTS POSSIBLE WAS 300. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT VENUE WORKS. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE THEIR PROPOSAL. IT'S ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA, BUT I JUST PULLED OUT A FEW QUOTES FROM THEIR COVER LETTER. JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA. THIS IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS A SNIP RIGHT FROM THEIR PROPOSAL. THESE ARE ALL THEATERS THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY MANAGING HISTORIC THEATERS. THEY ALSO DO A VARIETY OF OTHER VENUES, LIKE SPORTING FACILITIES AND ARENAS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THEY HAVE 50 PLUS VENUES THAT THEY'RE OPERATING, AND THEY DO SPECIALIZE IN HISTORIC THEATERS. THEY FOCUS ON PROGRAMING EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL SUCCESS. THEY THEY REALLY TALK A LOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW THEY THEY BLEND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION WITH MODERN OPERATIONS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AT OUR SUNRISE THEATER. [00:45:03] CURATES DIVERSE, COMMUNITY CENTERED PROGRAMING. YOU KNOW, REALLY THAT LOCAL FLAVOR OF FORT PIERCE? I THINK THAT THEY'LL PLAY INTO THAT MAXIMIZES THEATER USE WITH PRIVATE EVENTS ON LOW DEMAND DAYS. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A SECTION TALKING ABOUT WEDDINGS AND OTHER THINGS THAT THAT THEY MAY HOST ON DAYS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AN ACTUAL EVENT. THEY HAVE A PROVEN HISTORY, ACCORDING TO THEM, OF TURNING FINANCIAL DEFICITS INTO GAINS. AND FINALLY, THEY ARE INCLUSIVE AND VIBRANT. AND IN DOING THAT AT THE SUNRISE THEATER FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS. AND WITH ALL OF THAT SAID, IT IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD THE RFP TO THEM TO VENUE WORKS. THEY ARE THE HIGHEST RANKED RESPONDENT. THIS WILL ALLOW STAFF TO GET TO THE NEGOTIATION TABLE AND REALLY WORK OUT ALL OF THESE DETAILS. SORRY ABOUT THAT. AND HOW WE MOVE FORWARD IF WE MOVE FORWARD. SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT THIS. MR. BRODERICK, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? NO, MY QUESTIONS WERE ANSWERED. THANK YOU. I HAVE I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. IS THERE GOING TO BE CONTINUED INCLUSION OF VOLUNTEERS AND VOLUNTEER COMMITTEES? AND IS THERE AN I READ THE THE SUBMISSION, WHICH WAS QUITE DETAILED AND I. YEAH. AND SO SHARE WITH ME. YES, MADAM MAYOR, THAT WAS A PART OF OUR, OUR RFP. WE EVEN SPOKE ABOUT THE SUNRISE THEATER FOUNDATION AND OUR HOPES THAT THAT CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP WOULD OCCUR. AND AS WELL AS THE VOLUNTEERS, THE VOLUNTEERS ARE THE BACKBONE OF THE SUNRISE THEATER. YOU CAN ASK ANYONE. I THINK A LOT OF THEM ARE BEHIND ME RIGHT NOW, AND THAT'S WHAT KEEPS THE THEATER RUNNING. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THAT WOULD CONTINUE, BUT WE WILL CERTAINLY MAKE THAT A SUBJECT POINT FOR OUR NEGOTIATION, AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THEY SPECIALIZE IN HISTORIC THEATERS BECAUSE WE CONSIDER THIS. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE IN IOWA, MAYBE THIS ISN'T SO HISTORIC, BUT WE CONSIDER IT HISTORIC AND IT'S BEEN PRESERVED AND IT'S AN ASSET OF THE CITY THAT IS AN ECONOMIC ENGINE FOR DOWNTOWN AND NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED. SO AND WAS DID WE WHEN WE WHEN WE ARE, WHEN WE'RE GOING INTO BUSINESS, ARE WE EXPECTING THEM TO THIS OPERATOR TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT IN OPERATIONS OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO NEGOTIATE? WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO NEGOTIATE IT. YES, MADAM MAYOR, WE WE WENT INTO IT THINKING THAT THAT $500,000 CONTRIBUTION FROM THE FCRA WOULD REMAIN, AND I BELIEVE THAT THEY BUILT THAT INTO THEIR PROPOSAL AS WELL. THEIR COMPENSATION STRUCTURE. I THINK THEY HAVE LIKE A A COMMISSION FEE AND A MONTHLY MANAGEMENT FEE. AND WE'LL HAVE TO WORK OUT ALL THOSE DETAILS TO WHAT THAT REALLY LOOKS LIKE. OUR INTENT IN DOING THIS WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD NO LONGER BE, YOU KNOW, SUBSIDIZED BY THE CITY PER SE. WE WOULD HAVE THAT 500,000 JUST REALLY TO SUPPORT ART AND CULTURE AS A COMMUNITY THROUGH THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. BUT IT IS NOT OUR INTENT TO NECESSARILY SUBSIDIZE THEIR OPERATION, EXCEPT THAT WE TAKE CARE OF THE CAPITAL NEEDS. YES, MA'AM. THAT IS OUR BUILDING. WE WANT OUR BUILDING. RIGHT. AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S LOOKING GREAT AND MAINTAINED. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS? MADAM MAYOR? YES, SIR. THANK YOU FOR THE FOR THE UPDATE. I WAS GOING TO PULL THIS AS WELL. I READ THROUGH AT LEAST THE TOP THREE RANKED PROPOSALS AND I GUESS THE THE BUDGET NUMBERS, THE OPERATING BUDGET AND THE EXPENSES AND EVERYTHING FELT FAIRLY AGGRESSIVE. WHICH I'M, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE, BUT HOW REALISTIC DO YOU THINK THEY ACTUALLY ARE? BECAUSE SO I WOULD LOVE TO TO SHARE. WENDY, OUR ACCOUNTANT FROM THE CITY, SHE DUG IN DEEP, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR HER, BUT SHE HAS A VERY DETAILED ANALYSIS THAT SHE DID THAT SHE DID FOR ALL OF FIVE OF THE PROPOSALS. SHE DID, YOU KNOW, SHE RANKED THEM THE HIGHEST AS WELL, I THINK. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR HER, BUT I VAGUELY REMEMBER HER SAYING THAT IT WAS AGGRESSIVE AND AND OPTIMISTIC, LET'S SAY BUT THEY'RE WORKING WITH WHAT THEY HAVE. AND I THINK THAT ONCE WE GET TO THE TABLE AND WE REALLY DISCUSS THAT WE CAN SEE WHERE THAT GOES, I WILL POINT OUT THAT THEY WERE THEY WERE PLANNING I FORGET THE NUMBER NOW. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO INCREASE TO OVER WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, IT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER NUMBER OF EVENTS SO THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO IT AS WELL. BUT WENDY DUG IN DEEP FOR US AND THAT'S WHY SHE WAS ON THE COMMITTEE. WE REALLY TRIED TO HAVE DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ON THAT COMMITTEE. AND SO HERE WE ARE. OKAY. WILL THIS BE COMING BACK TO US AGAIN TO VOTE ON THE AGREEMENT? ABSOLUTELY. IS ALL THAT GOING TO. YES. SO, YES, THIS IS STEP ONE, JUST LIKE THE THE THE ITEM BEFORE THIS ONE. YES. THIS IS STEP ONE. TO AWARD IT, WE GET TO THE TABLE. LET'S SAY IT'S 90 DAYS 120 DAYS. YOU COULD PUT A TIME FRAME ON US IF YOU WANT TO. OR WE CAN TAKE OUR TIME TO GET IT RIGHT. WE DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT EMPLOYEES WHO ARE THERE. WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE MOVING FORWARD? YOU KNOW, REVENUE PROJECTIONS, OPERATIONS ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY [00:50:08] IN MUCH GREATER DETAIL. THE BENEFIT OF WORKING WITH A FIRM LIKE THIS IS THEY'VE DONE A LOT WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THEY HAVE A TON OF AGREEMENTS THAT THEY'VE ALREADY WORKED WITH THAT WE CAN REALLY, YOU KNOW, LOOK FORWARD TO AS WELL. SO WE'LL GET WITH OUR LEGAL TEAM AND, AND DRAFT SOMETHING AND REPORT BACK TO YOU FOR FINAL APPROVAL. YEAH, I THINK I JUST WANT TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING LIKE, CLEAR DELIVERABLES FROM THEM IN THE AGREEMENT, LIKE, I KNOW YOU KNOW, ALL THAT AND, AND JUST ENSURING THAT THESE THIS ISN'T AN OVERPROMISE AND UNDER DELIVER TYPE SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T WANT THAT. YES, SIR. WE'RE THEY'RE COMMITTED AS WE ARE TO MAKING THIS SUCCESSFUL AND AND NOT HAVING TO COME BACK HERE IN SIX MONTHS AND ASK FOR MORE MONEY FROM EPA. OBVIOUSLY, WE DON'T WANT THAT. I HAD ANOTHER AND THIS COULD I DON'T THINK IT WAS A SET THING, BUT IT WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO MOVE TO TICKETMASTER WAS IN THERE. I SAW SO THAT I JUST WANT TO WANT TO ALSO STRESS THAT WE AND I THINK OUR PREVIOUS DIRECTOR AT THE SUNRISE HAS ALWAYS PUT A BIG EMPHASIS ON KEEPING TICKET PRICES AFFORDABLE, COMMISERATE WITH OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR MEDIAN INCOME, AND MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO THE THEATER, AND I WOULD JUST BE CONCERNED ABOUT TICKETMASTER INCREASING THOSE, YOU KNOW, THE TICKET PRICE. SO I WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT OBVIOUSLY ONCE WE MOVE FORWARD. BUT IT'S NOT A DEAL BREAKER AT THIS POINT. WELL, MAYOR HUDSON, JUST A RECOMMENDATION, I THINK, IN THERE. YES, MAYOR. HUDSON. COMMISSIONER. SO THEY ACTUALLY REFERENCE AFFORDABILITY A LOT THROUGH THEIR PROPOSAL. THEY EVEN GAVE REFERENCE TO ANOTHER THEATER THAT THEY'RE OPERATING WHERE THEY DO. I THINK IT WAS $5 MOVIE DAYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, REALLY BREAKING DOWN THAT BARRIER AND ALLOWING OUR COMMUNITY TO, TO COME INTO THEIR THEATER. SO WE WILL CONTINUE TO STRESS THAT AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT FOR SURE. OKAY. OKAY. YEAH. I'M, I READ THROUGH AND I THINK VENUE VENUE WORKS IS DEFINITELY A DEFINITELY HAS THE RESOURCES AND CAPABILITIES TO GET THIS THEATER WHERE WE WANT IT TO BE. I KNOW WE WE ALL WANT IT TO BE SUCCESSFUL. I THINK WE SOMEBODY MENTIONED ABOUT MOVING THE THEATER OWNERSHIP. PROPERTY WISE. AND I JUST WANT TO WANT A VOICE THAT I WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT AT ALL. I THINK MOVING IT FROM THE CITY TO. YEAH, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'S. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST AN INTERNAL CHANGE, BUT I HEARD SOMETHING. OKAY. AND I THINK THAT THE IF I RECOLLECT THE BASIS OF THAT WAS CHEYENNE'S DESCRIBING MY BIGGEST CONCERN OR ONE OF MY BIGGEST CONCERNS RELATIVE TO THE, THE PHYSICAL, THE PHYSICAL ASSET THERE IS THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR. AND THIS IS SOMETHING I'M GOING TO TAKE A VERY, VERY HARD LOOK AT WHEN IT COMES TO IN THE AGREEMENTS. MY VISION OF THAT IS THAT SIMPLY WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STRUCTURE, THE EXTERIOR SHELL, HVAC EQUIPMENT, ALL THE HARDWARE STUFF. THE OPERATOR IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS. SO WE GET BACK TO THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF LIGHTING CONTRACTS AND SOUND EQUIPMENT AND ALL THAT. THAT BURDEN IS GOING TO BE PUSHED OFF ON THEM. BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE. SO THAT'S WHY WHEN THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP FROM THE CITY, FRA BECAUSE FRA IS MAKING THE DONATION TO FUND THE SHORTFALL. CURRENTLY, THE FRA WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF THAT ASSET, WHICH CANDIDLY, CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION. YOU'RE LOOKING AT CHILLER UNITS AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE THAT AREN'T INEXPENSIVE, SO THE UPR COULD ABSORB THAT MUCH, MUCH EASIER THAN THE CITY CAN. SO I WOULD ADVOCATE THAT WE WOULD DO THAT, BUT THAT KIND OF GOT PUSHED OFF WITH THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF BRINGING IN AN OUTSIDE MANAGEMENT COMPANY VERSUS MAINTAINING IT INTERNALLY. YEAH, I THINK THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO TAKE A VERY STRONG LOOK AT WHEN SHE COMES BACK WITH THE WITH THIS KIND OF MORE FINISHED PRODUCT. I THINK WE WOULD WE EXTEND THOSE CONTRACTS OUT UNTIL OCTOBER. I THINK THAT WE JUST DID A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THE SOUND, THE THE LEASES AND STUFF. I DON'T REMEMBER THE END DATE, BUT YOU DID IT. IT WAS LIKE THREE MONTHS. SO IT'S NOT A LOT OF TIME. SO. NO. SO LIKE MOVING. LET'S GET THIS MOVING QUICK. GET THEM IN THERE. GET IT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. IF I MAY, MR. CHESS, EXCITED AS WE ARE ABOUT TO PROPOSAL, I JUST WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND THANK OUR ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MARISSA QUIJANO, MR. SCHIANO AND HER STAFF. WE HAD A HEARTFELT DISCUSSION AFTER YOU MADE THE COMMENT, COMMISSIONER, ABOUT STAFF COMING FORWARD, PERHAPS TAKING OVER THE THE OPERATIONS. AND AND I EXPLAINED TO THE, TO MISS O'CONNELL AND MY POSITION THAT THAT DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE BEFORE I CAME ON BOARD. BUT THEY'VE DONE A VERY ADMIRABLE JOB. I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN COMMITTED EVEN IN OUR DEPARTMENT HEAD, THIS MEETING MISS DISCUSSED THE EVENTS THAT WE HAVE GOING FORWARD FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I RECOGNIZE THE HARD WORK YOU'VE DONE ON A VERY DIFFICULT TIMES. [00:55:04] I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ANYONE TO CONTINUE WORKING IN A COMMITTED WAY, KNOWING THAT THERE'S BEEN PROPOSALS TO OFFER TO TAKE YOUR JOB. SO I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I APPRECIATE THAT YOUR COMRADE BESIDE YOU AND YOU HAVE MY SUPPORT IN EVERY WAY AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS VERY EXCITING FOR US WITH NEW WORKS. WHEN WE HAVE NEGOTIATIONS TO DO, WE'LL DEFINITELY SHOW THAT WE ARE IN A GOOD PLACE OF NEGOTIATION. I'LL SAY LIKE THAT. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS, THE STAFF OF THE HARD WORK, BECAUSE IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT JOB TO DO AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING A GREAT JOB. SO THANK YOU, MISS QUIJANO. GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH. A QUESTION ON THAT. MADAM MAYOR. YES. MR. CHESS, I KNOW THAT IN THAT CONVERSATION WE HEARD REGARDING STAFF. THAT YOURSELF AND MR. SORENSEN, IS HE HERE SOMEWHERE? THERE. THERE IS BACK THERE. WE'RE GOING TO WORK DILIGENTLY TO ANY OF THE EMPLOYEES THAT IF WE WENT THIS ROUTE THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT WITH THE CITY, THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO OUR ABSOLUTE BEST TO FIND THEM PLACEMENT WITHIN THE CITY, IS THAT ABSOLUTELY ASSESSMENT? ABSOLUTELY. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ACTION PLAN MOVING FORWARD. YES, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. YES, SIR. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I WAS GOING TO BRING THAT UP AS WELL. I APPRECIATE THAT, BUT ARE WE DONE WITH THE CONE AFTER THIS? NOW THAT WE'VE RECOMMENDED A WORD. WE'RE STILL IN THE CONE. NO. WE HAD. LET'S GET TO THE CONTRACT. RIGHT? RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS, BUT. YEAH. MISS HEDGES, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH THE CONTRACT BEING EXECUTED. SO IT'LL STILL CONTINUE. OKAY. YEAH, I'M JUST THINKING. WELL, I GUESS WE WOULDN'T BE IN THE CONE. I WAS JUST I HAVEN'T GOT ANY PHONE CALLS FROM THE CHRIS'S, FROM THE FOUNDATION, SO I ASSUME THEY'RE OKAY WITH ALL OF THIS MOVING FORWARD. BUT I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE SURE THE FOUNDATION IS INVOLVED IN THE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S COMING FORWARD JUST TO GET THEIR THOUGHTS ON IT. I SENT ALL MY STUFF TO SHARRON ANGLE TO MAKE SURE I WAS ON THE RIGHT PAGE FOR EVERYTHING. MADAM MAYOR, HOW TO RUN A VENUE COMMISSIONERS THE CONE OF SILENCE APPLIES TO BIDDERS, PROSPECTIVE BIDDERS, PEOPLE ON THEIR BEHALF SO REGULAR CITIZENS CAN SPEAK WITH YOU, JUST NOT ON BEHALF OF SOMEBODY THAT'S BID IT, BID OR PROPOSAL, PROPOSE THAT TYPE OF THING. IT'S BASICALLY AN ANTI LOBBYING. PEOPLE CAN'T SOLICIT YOU FOR SOMEONE HAVE ANY SPECIAL ACCESS THAT SOMEBODY ELSE DOESN'T HAVE. EXACTLY. YES, MA'AM. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? CHRIS WHITING HERE FROM THE SUNRISE FOUNDATION. CHRIS, GET WITH THE FOUNDATION AND GIVE ME SOME FEEDBACK AS TO WHERE THEY STAND WITH ALL THIS, WOULD YOU, PLEASE? YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. GOOD IDEA. WELL, HE'S GOING TO COME UP AND MAKE A COMMENT. IS THAT OKAY, MADAM MAYOR? FOUNDATION'S BEEN INTEGRAL IN FUNDRAISING AND TAKING ON SPECIAL PROJECTS. SO THEIR CONTINUED PARTICIPATION HERE IS A STATE. YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE. CHRIS WHITING, AND I AM A BOARD MEMBER OF THE SUNRISE THEATER FOUNDATION, AND THIS PROCESS IS EXCITING, IN A WORD. GETTING SOME OF THAT BURDEN OFF THE CITY AND, AND AND I WILL SAY STAFF IS SOLID AND BUT GETTING A ORGANIZATION THAT ARE PROS THAT RUN THESE KIND OF THEATERS CAN ONLY BE A POSITIVE SUCCESS FOR THE CITY. AND I HAVE NOT BEEN PRIVILEGED TO SEE THE NUMBERS, BUT FROM WHAT MR. TAYLOR WAS JUST SAYING I'M A FINANCE GUY, SO THE BUZZ IS ALREADY ON IN MY HEAD WITH GOOD THINGS GOING ON. THE KEY WITH THE FOUNDATION IS TWOFOLD HISTORICALLY, WHICH I THINK YOU ALL KNOW, ONE IS EXPOSING OUR YOUTH, OUR KIDS, ESPECIALLY UNDERPRIVILEGED KIDS, TO LIVE THEATER. AND THE OTHER ELEMENT WAS IS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. AND IT WAS A LOT EASIER FOR A 501 C3 AT ARM'S LENGTH TO PICK UP A PROJECTOR THAT LITERALLY WAS $50,000 AND GIFT THAT TO VERSUS AN RFP AND THAT KIND OF PROCESS. SO WE DID THAT A YEAR AGO. TWO YEARS AGO LAST YEAR, WE BOTH WE I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE THEATER AND THE THOSE 4 OR 5 STEPS GOING UP INTO THE MAIN THEATER. THERE'S A WIDE EXPANSE ON THOSE TWO PAIRS OF STEPS. AND FOR YEARS, PATRONS HAVE SAID, WE NEED ANOTHER SET OF RAILS. SO WE WENT OUT AND RESEARCHED THAT, AND AGAIN, WITH OUR SPONSORSHIPS AND OUR ANNUAL EVENT THAT WAS THE FOCUS, AGAIN, EXPANDING THE KIDS PROGRAM HAS BEEN PARAMOUNT. AND THEN THESE CAPITAL PROJECTS. SO THERE'S ANOTHER SET OF RAILS YOU CAN GET IN AND OUT OF THE THEATER ABOUT TWICE AS FAST. [01:00:07] AND SOME OF US NEED A LITTLE MORE HELP IN THE AMBULATORY WAY. AND SO WE'VE DONE THAT, AND I'LL SHARE THAT. MY VISION IS THAT MARQUIS STAYS. BUT THE WHITE PLATES. THIS IS JUST CHRIS WHITING TALKING, IS THAT MAYBE THAT GOES DIGITAL. AND THERE'S EVEN MORE LIFE TO THE, THE, THE THE LIGHTS AND THE SOUNDS OF THE THEATER. SO WE ONLY SEE POSITIVE THINGS. AND I THINK YOU ALL KNOW WHERE THE FOUNDATION HAS GONE IN THE LAST 4 OR 5 YEARS. AND WE'VE BECOME YOU ALL HAVE BEEN GREAT PARTNERS. AND AND, FRANKLY, THE THEATER ITSELF HAS BEEN VERY RECEPTIVE OF, OF OUR USE OF IT FOR THOSE CORE MISSIONS. SO WE'RE EXCITED. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. READY? SO ANY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MISS HARNETT OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? READY? DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? SURE. MADAM MAYOR, I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM CONSENT AGENDA ITEM F. SECOND, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. MR. JOHNSON. YES. MR. TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. OKAY, WE MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND WE HAVE A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING FOR ORDINANCE 20 [A. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Ordinance 25-020 - Review and approval of an application to rezone a single parcel containing approximately 11.54 acres and being located at or near 3804 Sunrise Boulevard in Fort Pierce, from Single Family Moderate Density (R-3) zoning to Planned Development (PD) together with a Planned Development Final Site Plan for fifty (50) single-family residences. The application is submitted by applicant Blaine Bergstresser, KMA Engineering & Surveying, on behalf of owner DT VENTURES 1 LLC. More specifically at Parcel ID#: 2433-123-0001-000-1 - FIRST READING. ] 5-020, AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY'S ZONING ATLAS FOR ONE PARCEL CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 11.54 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, AND BEING LOCATED AT OR NEAR 3804 SUNRISE BOULEVARD IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, FROM R-3 SINGLE FAMILY MODERATE DENSITY ZONE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD ESTABLISHING THE SUNRISE LAKES PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONE, WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT. APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING. OKAY, WE HAVE TWO QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS, AND SO MISS HODGES WILL READ THE PROCEDURE FOR BOTH. YES, MA'AM. MADAM MAYOR THE CITY COMMISSION SERVES SERVES BOTH A LEGISLATIVE AND QUASI JUDICIAL ROLE. WHEN ACTING AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, THE COMMISSION ENGAGES IN LAWMAKING ACTIVITY BY PASSING LAWS AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES. WHEN ACTING AS A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY, THE COMMISSION APPLIES THOSE LAWS AND POLICIES AND IS HELD TO STRICTER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS. QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE LESS FORMAL THAN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT, BUT ARE MORE FORMAL THAN THE NORMAL COMMISSION MEETING. QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MUST FOLLOW BASIC STANDARDS OF NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS, AND DECISIONS MUST BE MADE BASED ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, COMMISSIONERS HAVE A DUTY TO CONDUCT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MORE LIKE JUDGES THAN LEGISLATORS. THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED THIS EVENING. FINALLY, NO ONE SHOULD APPROACH ANY MEMBER OF THE CITY COMMISSION ON THE DAIS, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY CLERK DURING THE HEARING. IF DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY CLERK, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO THE SERJEANT AT ARMS, WHICH ARE ANY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CHAMBER. MADAM CLERK, HAVE THE ADVERTISING AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET? YES, MA'AM. THE ADVERTISING AND NOTICE ITEM NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS ITEM HAVE BEEN MET. WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, ANY EX-PARTE. COMMUNICATIONS. COMMISSIONER GAINES. NO, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. NO, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. NO, MA'AM. MAYOR. HUDSON. TWO EMAILS TODAY ARRIVED FROM CITIZENS. AND, MADAM MAYOR, YES, I BELIEVE ALL OF THE COMMISSION EXCEPT ONE THAT I WAS ON. YOU MAY NOT HAVE ALL READ IT. BUT IT WAS SENT SUNDAY NIGHT LATE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE ALL SEEN THAT EMAIL, JUST AS A REMINDER. AND WE CAN MAKE THAT PART OF THE RECORD IF IT NEEDS TO BE. BUT IT DID GO TO THE ENTIRE DAIS. ONE EMAIL TO THE COMMISSIONERS. I GOT TWO, I GOT TWO. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NEEDED TO BE. I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT MY I DIDN'T ACTUALLY COMMUNICATE WITH ANYBODY. I JUST GOT THE ANY COMMUNICATION YOU RECEIVE. OKAY. SO THEN YES. YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO SWITCH EVERYBODY TO. YES. AND IT WAS THE TWO EMAILS THAT YOU RECEIVED. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES, PLEASE? YES, MA'AM. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, INCLUDING ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT PLANS ON SPEAKING ON THIS ITEM. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS WELL. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, NOW WE WILL PROCEED. [01:05:05] MR. FREEMAN. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. CITY COMMISSIONER KEVIN FREEMAN CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR. I TOO, WAS BECAME AWARE OF SOME EMAILS THAT WERE FORWARDED TO BOTH COMMISSIONERS AND CITY STAFF. WHAT I'VE DONE TONIGHT IS LOOK AT THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AND TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISED IN THOSE EMAILS. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THIS POWERPOINT AS PART OF THE RECORD OF THIS MEETING. IS IT AN UPDATED POWERPOINT. IT'S AN UPDATED. OKAY. SO I'LL JUST GET IT FROM YOU AFTERWARDS. MAKE SURE YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE MIC FOR US. KEVIN. THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN. SORRY, EITHER WAY, IT'S GOOD WITH ME. SO, YEAH, THIS IS A AN APPLICATION FOR A FINAL PLAN. DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN? SUNRISE LAKES OR SUNRISE BOULEVARD. IT'S PD 202400002. IT WAS SUBMITTED IN 2020 FOR THE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION TOOK PLACE EARLY 2024. SO IT'S BEEN IN THE SYSTEM QUITE A WHILE. AND SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT DISCUSSION POINTS, BOTH WITH THE APPLICANT AND WITH THE CITY COMMISSION. SO. STAFF HAVE HEARD WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. I WANT YOU TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THIS WAS IN DISCUSSION AS WE'VE MOVED THROUGH THOSE DISCUSSIONS AND PRESENTING ITEMS TO THE CITY COMMISSION. SO I DON'T WANT CITY COMMISSION TO FEEL THAT STAFF ARE THEREFORE IGNORING WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THIS HAS BEEN IN THE SYSTEM FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME. SO THE SUNRISE LAKES FINAL SITE PLAN, SUNRISE BOULEVARD. THE APPLICANT IS BLAINE BERGER. STRESSOR ENGINEERING AND SERVICING SURVEYING FOR PT VENTURES ONE LLC. THAT'S THE OWNER. THE ADDRESS IS 3804 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. PARCEL ID 243312300010001. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 50 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ON 11.54 ACRES OF SUNRISE BOULEVARD. THE SITE I'LL GO THROUGH, THIS IS WHERE THE SITE STANDS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. AND YOU SEE THAT THE DARKER PORTIONS OF THE CITY LIMITS HIGHLIGHT WHERE THE CITY LIMIT IS. AND YOU'LL NOTICE THIS, STRETCH, WHICH RUNS RIGHT DOWN SUNRISE BOULEVARD AND HIGHLIGHTS WHERE COUNTY PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED. AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE A A RIVER, IF YOU LIKE, THAT RUNS DOWN SUNRISE BOULEVARD BETWEEN TWO, TWO PARTS OF THE CITY, DOWN TO MIDWAY. MAYOR, IF I CAN INTERRUPT THIS REAL QUICKLY COMMISSIONER GAINES HAD TO STEP INTO THE HALLWAY, BUT HE. THE MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST OUT THERE, AND HE CAN HEAR. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE RECORD REFLECTED THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SORRY, KEV. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. THE SITE DOES CONTAIN A NUMBER OF TREES. IT'S LOCATED IN AN AREA WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. BUT THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTS ALL AROUND IT OF VARIOUS NATURE. AND I'LL GO INTO THOSE IN A MOMENT. PART OF THE ONE OF THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED WAS WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE TREES IN THIS LOCATION? IF THIS WAS TO BE APPROVED, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO A FULL TREE MITIGATION PROPOSAL TO THE CITY AS PART OF THAT APPROVAL. AT THE MOMENT, WE DO HAVE AN INVENTORY OF TREES ON THE SITE THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED. WE'VE NOT YET ANALYZED THAT IN TERMS OF TREE MITIGATING AND MITIGATION, AND THAT WILL BE DONE SUBSEQUENTLY TO ANY APPROVAL HERE TODAY AND MOVING FORWARD TO SITE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT'S A NORMAL PROCEDURE. SO THE THE PROPOSAL PROPOSED ZONING IS TO GO TO A FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AND YOU'LL SEE AROUND THE SITE A PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL TO THE EAST. WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH. THE FUTURE LAND USE. IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THERE'S NO CHANGE PROPOSED TO THAT. BUT YOU CAN SEE HOW THIS PROPERTY IS SANDWICHED BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO LOOKING AT THE THE PLANNING SITUATION OF THE PROPERTY IS QUITE [01:10:09] DIFFICULT IN TERMS OF IT'S THIS IT'S LIKE A TRANSITIONAL POINT BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT INTENSITY OF USES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID LOOK AT FROM THE COMMENTS RECEIVED WERE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE PROPERTY OR AROUND SUNRISE. AND LOOK AT THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF THOSE PROPERTIES. SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THOSE, WE DID NOTE THAT MOST OF THOSE WERE LOWER DENSITIES. ONE OF THOSE AT LEAST ARE IN THE COUNTY. AND THE LOTS ARE PRIMARILY BETWEEN A THIRD AND A HALF AN ACRE. LOTS. TO THE EAST, THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES WHICH ACTUALLY ABUT THE PROPERTY. AND WITH LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH, A LOT OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ARE IN THE COUNTY. AND SO WE WE LOOKED AT THE SITE PLAN, AND THIS CAME IN DURING A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE STAFF WERE DIRECTED, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, TO LOOK AT PROVIDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AS WE WERE UNDER PROVIDED FOR WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE CITY. SO THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD WITH THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY FIRST CAME IN AND SPOKE TO US. SO THEY PROPOSED 50 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ARRANGED AROUND A A SINGLE ROADWAY AND INCORPORATED SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA, WHICH WERE CONSIDERED TO BE ABOVE WHAT YOU WOULD GET WITH A ZONING APPLICATION. SO THE LAND USE BREAKDOWN HERE IS THAT WE HAVE 11.54 ACRES. THERE IS NO WETLANDS, WETLAND BUFFERS REQUIRED. SO MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE SOME EASEMENTS REQUIRED FOR STORMWATER AND THE PERVIOUS AREA IT PROPOSED IS LOOKING AT NEARLY 50%. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWS YOU SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROPOSED. BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND THE THE NEIGHBORING INDUSTRIAL SITE IS GOING TO BE PROPOSED A A WALL RATHER THAN A FENCE THERE. THERE IS A BIO SWALE AREA TO DEAL WITH, IMPROVED STORMWATER TREATMENT AND AMENITY LOCATION. SCHOOL BUS STOP IS GOING TO BE PROVIDED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES TO BE PROVIDED. A MINIMUM OF 60. I THINK THAT SAYS I FORGOT MY GLASSES TODAY. MY 80 YEAR. I SHOULD LOOK AT THAT SCREEN, MAYBE. AND TOTAL NUMBER OF SHRUBS. OVER A THOUSAND SHRUBS WITHIN THE SITE. THERE'S LIKELY TO BE MORE TREES PLANTED WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AS THEY'RE DEVELOPED. AND AGAIN, WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS THE APPLICANT AND THE DEVELOPER TO INCORPORATE, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, SOME EXISTING TREES THAT ALREADY ARE LOCATED ON SITE. THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS IS SOMETHING THAT IN THIS INSTANCE, THE CITY A VERY LIMITED CONTROL OVER THE STATE AS EXEMPTED ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS FROM THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. AS IT'S OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. BUT WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED IS SINGLE STORY. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES FOUR BEDROOM, TWO BATH, AND I'LL LEAVE THE APPLICANT TO DESCRIBE HOW THEY LOOK TO MARKET THESE AND WHAT SORT OF MARKET THEY'RE AIMING TO ACHIEVE THERE. THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR MAY THE 12TH MEETING, AND THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE SUNRISE. SUNRISE LAKES FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT FINAL SITE PLAN BY A VOTE OF FIVE ZERO. SUBJECT TO THE TEN CONDITIONS. AS WE MOVE FORWARD TO THIS ITEM SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON FINDINGS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS [01:15:05] IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE PROPOSED PROPOSAL PROMOTES THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE STAFF RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF THE SUNRISE LAKES FINAL PD, SUBJECT TO THE TEN CONDITIONS SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE RESULTANT DENSITY OF THE PROJECT IS JUST ABOVE 4.4 UNITS PER ACRE. THE FUTURE LAND USE UNDERLYING THIS IS 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE AROUND 7079 7679 UNITS BASED ON THE AREA. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 50 UNITS. THE CONDITIONS ARE READ THROUGH THE CONDITIONS. ALL INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE PRIVATE LIFT STATION, SCHOOL DISTRICT, BUS STOP AND STORMWATER SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, A PLAT OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. THE OPEN SPACE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT A MINIMUM OF 23% OF THE FINAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE AREA. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE PERMITTED DENSITY, INTENSITY AND RESIDENTIAL LOT AND BUILDING HEIGHTS AS OUTLINED WITHIN THE APPROVED SUNRISE LAKES DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN. A DETAILED STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE PLAN AND STATEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. THIS ESSENTIALLY IS HOW THE CITY CONTROL AND REGULATE THE OUTFALL AND DRAINAGE OF STORMWATER ON A SITE WHEN IT'S CLOSE TO OTHER PROPERTIES. AND THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT REQUIREMENTS THAT THE APPLICATION WILL NEED TO MEET. AND THOSE WILL BE INSPECTED AND REGULATED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THERE'S ALSO A REQUIREMENT TO FOR THE PD PLAN TO BE GOVERNED BY ALL AGREEMENTS, PROVISIONS AND COVENANTS WHICH GOVERN THE USE, MAINTENANCE AND CONTINUED PROTECTION OF THE PLAN, DEVELOPMENT ON ANY OF ITS COMMON OPEN SPACE OR OTHER SHARED AREAS. THIS SHALL INCLUDE THE BINDING OF SUCCESSORS ENTITLED TO ANY COMMITMENTS CONCERNING COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND ITS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION. CONDITION SEVEN DEALS WITH THE TREE MITIGATION AND THAT WILL NEED TO BE PRESENTED AS A CALCULATION SUBMITTED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A SITE CLEARING OR VEGETATION REMOVAL PERMIT. A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPATION, AND THAT ENTAILS THAT AN AGREEMENT IS IN PLACE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE OF WHATEVER LANDSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE IS PUT IN PLACE THERE, INCLUDING SPRINKLERS AND OTHER SYSTEMS. AND IN FUTURE, IF THERE IS A PROPOSED AMENITY CENTER TO BE BUILT, A REVISED SINGLE FINAL SITE PLAN, ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPING PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE PROPOSED AMENITY CENTER. ALL APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL PERMITS SHALL BE OBTAINED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE CITY CAN'T REQUIRE THAT THOSE ARE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW, BUT THEY WILL NEED TO BE IN PLACE AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. AND THAT'S IT. ALTERNATIVE IS APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATIVE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OR DISAPPROVAL. AND THAT'S STAFF PRESENTATION. QUESTIONS OF STAFF. MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT DENSITY FIRST. YES. UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING CLASSIFICATION, 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE. IS THAT. WELL, WE'RE LOOKING BECAUSE IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SETS, IN EFFECT, ITS OWN DENSITY IN THE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE WHICH UNDERLIES. AND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A ZONING THAT EXISTS NOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZES, WHICH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CAN AMEND, WHICH THIS PLANNING DEVELOPMENT HAS DONE, THAT YOU TALK ABOUT SETBACKS OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THAT PROPERTY. AND AS ONE COMMENTER EMAIL POINTED OUT, THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO GO ON WITHIN THE PROPERTY, SUCH AS ROADWAYS STORMWATER AREAS AND SO FORTH, WHICH DO LIMIT THE SIZES OF LOTS. [01:20:04] SO THE ACTUAL ZONING ON THIS PROPERTY WITH AN INITIAL OVERVIEW OF WHAT THAT COULD GIVE WOULD PROBABLY BE LESS THAN WHAT THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COULD DELIVER. SO WITHOUT THAT PLAN BEING IN FRONT OF ME, I COULDN'T TELL YOU THE ACTUAL NUMBER. BUT YOU VERY RARELY COULD GET 100% OF THE LOTS WITHIN THAT ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER THINGS THAT GO ON THAT PROPERTY. HAVING SAID THAT, THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED IS STILL UNDER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE. SO THE FUTURE LAND USE, AND I THINK I CALCULATED THE FUTURE LAND USE MAXIMUM DENSITY AT AROUND 76, WHEREAS THIS PROPOSAL IS AT 50. SO YES, USING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS POTENTIAL TO GAIN LOTS BECAUSE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THOSE LOTS. WE'RE UNDER THE WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING AND TAKE YOU CAN TAKE ACCOUNT OF IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE FACT THAT THOSE REDUCE LOTS CAN INCORPORATE THEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE ROADWAYS AND ALL THE OTHER COMPONENTS. AND YOU'RE WORKING TO THE DENSITY UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE. I'M TRYING TO CONTEMPLATE WHAT THE OBJECTIONS ARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA. AND HAVING SEEN DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS NATURE IN THAT AREA OF THE CITY PREVIOUSLY, I THINK I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR CONCERNS. HAVING SAID THAT, IF WE WERE OPERATING UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE PROVISION AT 70 SOME ODD UNITS VERSUS THE 50 UNITS THAT COULD BE CONFIGURED IN HIGH RISE? NO. WELL, WELL, THE APPLICANT COULD REQUEST THAT AND THEY'VE NOT, THEY'VE LOOKED AT THEY WANT TO DO SINGLE FAMILY HERE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT I WOULD WANT TO GO THAT ROUTE. I'M JUST. YES, I KNOW, BUT THERE ARE THERE ARE MANY PARAMETERS. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO LOOK AT THE HEIGHT. WE WOULD LOOK AT THE, YOU KNOW, THE ZONING THAT IS IN PLACE, WHICH MINIMUM? 28. WELL, 28 UP TO 35FT. AND I SHOULD SAY THAT STAFF WOULD SUPPORT THE THOSE NUMBERS GOING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RATHER THAN THE, THE HIGHER NUMBER THAT WE HAVE IN THERE AT THE MOMENT. I THINK IT'S 45FT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY IT'S NOT WARRANTED TO BE ALLOWING A 45FT HEIGHT. SO. AND IF THE IF THE APPLICANT AGREES. I WOULD BE RECOMMENDING THAT WE LOOK AT A HEIGHT OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 28FT, WHICH WOULD GET THEM THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND AND GIVE US MORE CONTROL OVER THAT. I GUESS MY MY POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS. EVERY PROPERTY OWNER HAS A RIGHT TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY. OKAY. THE DAYS OF SAYING WE DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT TO REMAIN A TRACK OF WOODLANDS. THAT ARGUMENT DOES NOT HOLD ANY WATER. YOU OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY. YOU HAVE RIGHTS AS A PROPERTY OWNER TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY WITHIN THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF THE MUNICIPALITY THAT YOU'RE LOCATED IN. SO IN THIS INSTANCE, LOOKING TO DO A LOWER DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY HOME SUBDIVISION VERSUS THE HIGHER DENSITY, THEY COULD BE LOOKING FOR A LOT MORE UNITS IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO PUSH THE ENVELOPE HERE. THEY COULD COME IN AND DO THAT. BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE A DETERMINATION BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WHETHER STAFF WOULD SUPPORT THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION. STAFF WHEN STAFF REVIEWED THIS WE'RE OBVIOUSLY CAUGHT BETWEEN TWO COMPARISONS HERE. WE HAVE THE, AS I SAY AT THE THE WEST SIDE, SORRY, THE EAST SIDE IS INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS QUITE, YOU KNOW, HEAVY USES. AND THEN PRIMARILY AS WE, YOU KNOW, WE MOVE TO THE EAST AND THIS TRACT OF PROPERTY WHICH RUNS NORTH SOUTH IN EFFECT. THERE ARE A LOT OF LOAD LOT SIZES. SO I CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHY RESIDENTS WHO LIVE IN THIS AREA WOULD WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT APPEARANCE. BUT WE WE I HAVE TO SORT OF LOOK AT, WELL, WHAT'S GOING ON TO THE EAST AND THERE'S SOME HEAVY USES THERE. AND WOULD WOULD A DEVELOPMENT OF HALF ACRE LOTS WORK IN THAT LOCATION BECAUSE OF [01:25:01] THE USES TO THE EAST? I GET THAT A COUPLE OF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. ONE ON THE SITE PLAN THERE IS A BUS STOP BEING INCORPORATED. YES. AND THAT'S BEING AGREED. AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANT CAN TALK OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THEY'RE HAVING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ON THAT, BUT THEY ARE LOOKING AT A PICK UP POINT ACTUALLY ON THE FRONTAGE HERE SOMEWHERE. AND THEN FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT IS. IS THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING DUMPSTER SERVICE OR ARE THEY LOOKING FOR CURBSIDE PICKUP FROM THE CITY? IT WOULD BE CURB CURBSIDE. I SPOKE TO PUBLIC WORKS JUST TODAY, AND THEY CONFIRMED THAT THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. NOT THRILLED ABOUT IT, BUT ACCEPTABLE. ROLLED OUT. WE, YOU KNOW, BINS. OKAY, THAT'S ALL I HAD. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MADAM MAYOR? YES, SIR. I'M. I'M HUNG UP ON THE THE DENSITY AS WELL. SO R3 IS LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY, SO THERE'S NO MULTIPLE MULTIFAMILY THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE IN R3. NO. NO, I'M NOS CORRECT. NO, THERE'S NO MULTIFAMILY. OKAY. NO. OKAY. SO YOU MENTIONED THE LIKE THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO GET TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY BASED ON THE LOT SIZES AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN R3 WHEN YOU START TO LAY OUT, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INTERNAL ROADWAY SYSTEMS STORMWATER AND LANDSCAPE, YOU'VE GOT LANDSCAPE STRIP EASEMENTS AND ALL THE OTHER GOOD STUFF. IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP AT THE FULL DENSITY FOR THAT STRAIGHT ZONING. SO IF I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LOT SIZES STAY THE SAME AS WHAT ARE ARE THREE IS IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION. WHAT DO YOU FORESEE IS HOW MANY UNITS WE COULD FIT IN THERE? GUESSTIMATE LESS. LESS THAN 50. I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE STRUGGLING TO GET 50 IN THERE. YES. YEAH. WELL YOU CAN SEE THE THE LENGTH OF THESE LOTS WOULD NOT BE AT ALL THE LENGTH OF THAT THE LOT REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING. SO. SO AS A WHITE CITY RESIDENT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A COUPLE OF THESE TYPE DEVELOPMENTS THAT I'M NOT HAPPY WITH TO SEE. THERE'S ONE A STONE'S THROW AWAY FROM MY HOUSE THAT YOU ALL APPROVED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THAT I REALLY DON'T LIKE, BUT AND I THINK WHITE CITY IS ONE OF THOSE ENCLAVES THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT. AND I'VE SAID THIS SEVERAL TIMES UP HERE, AND IT'S COMING FROM FORT PIERCE AND COMING FROM THE COUNTY AT ALL DIRECTIONS. I THINK THE IT'S A UNIQUE AREA BECAUSE OF THE INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT TO IT, BUT WE ALSO HAVE SOME LARGER, LARGER SIZE LOTS AROUND THERE. SO IT'S THERE REALLY IS NO TRANSITION PERIOD OR TRANSITION AREA AROUND THERE. I MEAN, I'VE GOT INDUSTRIAL ALL AROUND ME WHERE I'M AT, BUT I LIKE IT THAT WAY. I'D RATHER SEE SOME BUSINESSES OUT THERE THAT MORE FRICKING HOUSES. SO I, I HAVE SOME OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THE SITE PLAN THAT MAYBE I CAN ADDRESS WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT I WOULDN'T BE IN FAVOR OF ENTERTAINING ANY, ANY LOWERING OF THE MINIMUM LOT AREA OR WIDTH THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN RS3 TO BEGIN WITH. YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS OFFHAND? COMMISSIONER. IN THE R3 7200FT² MINIMUM LOT AREA, AND YOU CAN HAVE DUPLEXES 12,000FT². SO THE SINGLE FAMILY AT 7200, MINIMUM LOT WITH 65FT DEPTH, 120FT. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION FOR WHITE CITY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS RIGHTS AND THEY NEED TO DEVELOP, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF WHITE CITY IN OUR IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT BEING SAID, AND MAYBE THIS WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE WITH THE ONCE THE DEVELOPER GETS UP, BUT CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE ELEVATIONS ON THERE AND MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME WHAT TYPE OF I KNOW THIS IS A PD, SO WE CAN PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON THE TYPE OF THE TYPE OF FACADES WE'D LIKE TO SEE ON THESE HOUSES. UNFORTUNATELY NOT. THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THE STATE HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, IT DOESN'T. [01:30:05] IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE PARAMETERS THAT THE CITY CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNS FOR PROPERTIES. DOES THAT MEAN THIS IS. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M, I DON'T I DON'T WANT THE ATTORNEY TO YELL AT ME IF I SAY SOMETHING. BUT THIS IS AWFUL AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHITE CITY WHATSOEVER. I ALSO HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. I DIDN'T SEE ANY ANY TREES IN THE FRONT YARDS THAT WOULD BE DONE DURING THE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENT. OKAY. YEAH. IS THAT HOW WOULD THAT BE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR HOW OR IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN PUT IN TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WOULD BE DONE, OR THAT'S DONE AS PART OF THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMIT? YEAH. WHATEVER. YES. OKAY. YEAH, THAT. THAT WAS CONCERNING. I SAW BECAUSE THERE'S A COUPLE DEVELOPMENTS AT THE COUNTY PUT THROUGH THAT HAVE NO TREES IN THE IN THE FRONT YARD. IT'S JUST A LINE OF GARAGES. AND I MEAN, IT IS DEPRESSING DRIVING THROUGH THERE. I THINK I'LL WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER. SO WE CAN'T MAKE THAT A RECOMMENDATION. ANY TYPE OF ARCHITECTURAL IMPROVEMENTS, OR THAT'D BE UP TO THE DEVELOPER IF THEY WANTED TO COME FORWARD AND PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS. I'M JUST VERY CAREFUL IN, IN TRYING TO DIRECT THE ARCHITECTURE WHEN, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE USED AGAINST US. OKAY. I GUESS I'LL BE QUIET FOR NOW. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S A RECENT STATE LAW, TOO, ISN'T IT? IT'S PROBABLY BEEN A YEAR. YEAR AND A HALF, AT LEAST. YEAH, THAT DICTATED THAT. YEP, I REMEMBER THAT. WELL, ONE MORE QUESTION. YES, SURE. WHERE DID THAT HEIGHT CHANGE COME FROM? WHY WAS THAT IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH? THE 40, 28 TO 45, IF THEY'RE ALL SINGLE FAMILY. SOMETIMES YOU CAN GIVE TWO STORIES. 45 IS WHAT THE WHAT THE DOCUMENTS HAVE AT THE MOMENT. I'M SAYING THE CODE, I THINK, GOES TO 35, 35. OKAY. SO I WOULD SAY THAT A REDUCTION, IF THEY WANT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S GOING TO BE SINGLE FAMILY, THEN WE MAYBE, YOU KNOW, WANT TO TAKE THAT DOWN TO 28. SO NO BUILDING SHALL EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 28FT ABOVE GRADE. YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35FT. YEAH. AND THAT'S ONE ASPECT YOU CAN CONTROL UNDER THE STATE. SO THEY'VE ALLOWED HEIGHT. AND I'LL WAIT TO HEAR ALL THE OTHER INPUT AND WHATEVER. BUT I WOULDN'T BE I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF CHANGING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WITH WITH DEPTH OR ANY OF THAT THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH OUR THEORY. I THINK IT'S THAT WAY FOR A REASON. SO WHEN WE WHEN YOU WHEN SOMEONE GOES THROUGH THE PD PROCESS, THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIAL THAT THEY WANT AND SOMETHING INNOVATIVE, SOMETHING WHATEVER. SO TELL ME WHAT. WHY? THIS IS THE WAY IT IS. WHY WAS IT PROPOSED AS A PD INSTEAD OF GOING WITH THE OTHER THAN THE OBVIOUS, WHICH IS DENSITY, PERHAPS, AS I TRY, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING THAT THE DIRECTION AND INTERNAL INSTRUCTION TO STAFF WAS TO LOOK AT GETTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO HAVING THAT IN MIND, WHEN PEOPLE WERE COMING IN TO TALK TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT. WE WERE SAYING, HOW CAN WE GET MORE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL? AND THAT WAS THE PRIORITY. TOGETHER WITH THAT, WE WOULD WANT TO SEE BETTER STORM WATER. A LOT OF COMMENTS AT THAT TIME REGARDING STORM WATER AND FLOODING. AND SO OUR PRIORITY WITH ALL THESE DEVELOPMENTS IS LOOKING AT MAINTAINING STORMWATER ON SITE, LOOKING AT DIFFERENT WAYS OF DEALING WITH THAT, AND WORKING WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR THEM TO ACCEPT ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF DOING THAT THROUGH, LIKE WE HAVE A STORMWATER BIO SWALES. ENSURING THAT BOUNDARY TREATMENTS WERE ENHANCED ABOVE CODE. ESPECIALLY WITH BOTH FOR EXTERNAL OCCUPIER OCCUPIERS AND INTERNAL BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT BEING LOCATED CLOSE TO AN INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL AREA, WE WOULD WANT TO SEE A DECENT BOUNDARY TREATMENT. A WALL WOULD BE REQUIRED THERE. TO THE SOUTH, THERE IS A WIDER LANDSCAPE, [01:35:02] LANDSCAPE BUFFER, IF YOU LIKE. AGAINST THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. THERE'S, I THINK THE CEMETERY TO THE NORTH. AND TRY REALLY TO, IN A WAY, MAXIMIZE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE WITHOUT OVER DENSIFICATION OF A DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS AREA, WHICH IS ONE OF THE AREAS WHICH IS LANDMARKED FOR A EARMARKED, IF YOU LIKE, FOR FUTURE ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY, IS IS IT IT FORMS THIS PARTIAL ENCLAVE WHICH RUNS DOWN AND DIVIDES THE CITY INTO TWO. SO GREEN IS COUNTY, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES. IT'S PART OF THE AREA OF PROPERTIES THAT AT SOME POINT WILL BE GETTING WATER AND SEWER FROM THE CITY. AND AT THAT TIME THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY BECOME REQUIRED TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY IF THEY ARE CONTIGUOUS. AND A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES WILL BECOME CONTIGUOUS IF THEY OR DECIDE TO CONNECT TO CITY WATER. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS IN PLAY. AND AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS ON THE PRIMARILY THE EAST SIDE OF SUNRISE AGAINST WHAT HAPPENS ON THE WEST SIDE OF SUNRISE, WHICH ARE TWO DIFFERENT COMPONENTS. BUT WE'VE HAD RECENT AND I LOOK AT, YOU KNOW COMMISSIONER TAYLOR'S COMMENTS AND OTHER COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS RECENTLY, WHICH HAVE CHANGED DIRECTION IN THE WAY I THINK THE CITY ARE LOOKING AT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SO AND WE'VE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS IN THAT AS WELL. SO THAT'S WHERE PLANNING STAFF ARE STRUGGLING, BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE A LOT OF THESE APPLICATIONS CAME IN SOME TIME AGO. AND IN THAT INTERIM MOMENT, THERE HAS BEEN I THINK THERE'S A DEFINITE CHANGE IN HOW THE COMMISSIONERS ARE VIEWING PD'S AND HOW THE PD ORDINANCE ITSELF HAS CHANGED. SO THERE'S THERE'S DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS. THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A SIMPLE ONE QUESTION ON THIS. AND SO I GOT WHAT THE PLAN PD IS OFFERING HERE AS FAR AS 50W. CURRENTLY IT'S R3. RIGHT IN THE DENSITY OF OUR THREE. WOULD ALLOW FOR WHAT? JUST SORT OF UNCLEAR. AGAIN ON THE UNDERLYING DENSITY REMAINS THE SAME AT 6.5. IT'S WHAT WHAT CAN YOU FIT? I UNDERSTAND, YEAH. AND I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN FIT. I UNDERSTAND WITHOUT SOMEBODY LAYING OUT THE PROPERTY, INCORPORATING IT MAY BE A DIFFERENT ROADWAY SYSTEM THAT'S PUT IN THERE. IT MAY BE DIFFERENT STORMWATER USAGE OF THE PROPERTY. SO UNTIL SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A SITE PLAN, I UNDERSTAND, BUT BASICALLY A SIX UNITS PER DWELLING ACRE AT THAT. SIX AND A HALF, SIX AND A HALF. YEAH. OKAY. DEDUCT OUT ALL YOUR COMMON AREA IMPROVEMENTS AT ABOUT 25, 30%. YEAH. I GUESS WHAT I'M AND WE'LL DEAL WITH THIS. YOU KNOW WE HAVE A WE'RE ACTING AS A QUASI JUDICIAL AT THIS POINT. AND WE ARE AT A POINT WHERE WE'RE EVALUATING FACTS THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE US. WE CAN'T HINT I'M GETTING REAL NERVOUS UP HERE. WE'RE ABOUT SPECULATING ON WHAT CAN AND CANNOT FIT. THAT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. I HAVE SOMETHING IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW AND A QUASI JUDICIAL AND THAT'S DIFFERENT. AND SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND US AS A COMMISSION THAT WE ARE TO EVALUATE THE INFORMATION THAT'S GIVEN TO US FOR FACTUAL INFORMATION AND NOT SPECULATION. SO THAT'S I'M GETTING A LITTLE NERVOUS UP HERE. SO LET'S JUST BE CAREFUL. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? ANY OTHER STAFF QUESTIONS? YES, SIR. I'M I'M FOLLOWING UP ON SOMETHING THAT MY DIRECTOR IS SAYING BECAUSE I'M, I'M, I'M UP HERE GETTING I'M NOT GOING TO SAY NERVOUS, BUT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE DOING UP HERE. WE SIT AND REQUESTED THAT PLANNING BOARD GO BACK AND TRY TO CREATE AND VEHICLE FOR GROWTH. VEHICLE FOR HOME. VEHICLE FOR WAYS TO. FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO USE THEIR PROPERTY. AND FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF. LAST COUPLE OF PROJECTS IT HAS COME DOWN TO WHERE THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS. IF IT'S IN AN AREA WHERE I GUESS NO ONE CARES ABOUT OR IT'S NOT THERE CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD, [01:40:04] THEN IT'S A50 VOTE. BUT WHEN WE COME TO CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS, WHEN WE COME TO CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S, WELL, WE WANTED TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT, BUT JUST NOT HERE. SO ARE WE GOING TO DO PLAN DEVELOPMENT, OR ARE WE GOING TO STOP WASTING THE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S TIME BY GOING THROUGH ALL THIS STUFF, ASKING THE PEOPLE TO COME IN AND MEET WITH THEM AND PUT IT DOWN AS WHAT WE TOLD THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHAT WE WHAT WE ALL VOTED ON TO WHAT TO DO, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO THE REGULAR CODES AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT IT IS. THIS IS WHAT IT'S NOT. BECAUSE I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE FOR MEETING AND MEETING AND DEPENDING ON WHERE IT IS, DEPENDING ON WHERE IT IS. SAME THING. IT'S A 5 TO 0 VOTE. IT'S NO PROBLEM. MOVE ON. BUT IF IT GETS TO BE CERTAIN AREAS, CERTAIN AREAS, THEN WE GOT ALL THESE PROBLEMS WHERE I REMEMBER ONE NIGHT IT WAS THE SAME EXACT, ALMOST LIKE THE SAME EXACT PROJECT. WE WE RANT AND RAVE AND THEN 30 MINUTES LATER, WE VOTED FOR A SIMILAR PROJECT DOWN THE ROAD. SO? SO WHAT? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? ARE WE ARE WE GOING TO HAVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE COMING TO FORT PIERCE. DEVELOPERS ARE COMING TO FORT PIERCE, OR LANDOWNERS ARE COMING TO FORT PIERCE USING WHAT WE GAVE THEM TO USE AS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, USING THE TOOLS WE TOLD THEM TO USE SITTING DOWN WITH OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SPENDING MONEY, SPENDING TIME. AND THEN WE GET HERE AND WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, ESPECIALLY IN A QUASI. WE'RE USING OPINIONS. WE'RE NOT USING FACTS, WE'RE USING EVERYTHING. BUT WHAT A QUASI IS SUPPOSED TO BE. SO MY QUESTION TO DO THE PLANNING BOARD ARE WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO. THIS IS WHAT. AND I CAN SEE THE FRUSTRATION ON ON HIS FACE BECAUSE HE'S DONE WHAT EXACTLY WHAT WE TOLD HIM TO DO. AND NOW WE HAVE A THOUSAND QUESTIONS, NO EVIDENCE, BUT A THOUSAND QUESTIONS WITH ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WE SAID THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AND THAT WE WANTED TO DO IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, SO THAT THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M AT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I'M SITTING OVER HERE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE EVERY OTHER PLAN DEVELOPMENT, DEPENDING ON WHERE IT'S LOCATED INSIDE THE CITY, THERE IS A PROBLEM. AND THIS IS WHAT WE SAID HERE AND TOLD HIM THIS IS WHAT WE WANTED TO DO AND NOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM. SO WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PAN DEVELOPMENTS. I THINK WE NEED TO SCRATCH THEM AND GO BACK AND GO BACK, SCRATCH THEM AND THEN START ALL OVER. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD, THIS IS NOT WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS TOLD TO DO AND HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING. HAVING SPECULATION ABOUT SOMETHING IS NOT EVIDENT. THIS IS NOT A LEGISLATIVE HEARING. THIS IS A JUDICIAL HEARING. IT'S NOT EVIDENCE. SO THAT, MADAM MAYOR, THAT THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I AM. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION, MR. FREEMAN. I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION BECAUSE I'M FRUSTRATED NOW SITTING UP HERE ALSO BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING, ESPECIALLY IN A, IN A JUDICIAL HEARING. AND WE'RE NOT BEING PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE. WE'RE BEING PRESENTED WITH OPINIONS AND SPECULATION. MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR I RESPECT YOUR OPINION AND ABOUT THE PD PROCESS, BUT THE LOCATION OF THE PD HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT. BECAUSE NOT EVERY AREA OF FORT PIERCE IS THE SAME, AND SOME THINGS AREN'T APPROPRIATE FOR CERTAIN AREAS. AND OUR OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO THE CURRENT RESIDENTS, NOT SOME FUTURE PERSON THAT'S GOING TO BUY A HOUSE HERE THAT WHO KNOWS WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM. SO I'M HERE TO TO DEFEND THE NEIGHBORS AND MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS THAT ALREADY LIVE HERE. SO THAT'S WHERE MY. MY LOYALTY LIES, I GUESS. AND AND I DON'T I DON'T THINK I'VE SAID ANYTHING OPINION BASED. IF ASKED ABOUT WHAT WAS CURRENT ZONING, I ASKED KEVIN'S PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON WHAT HE THINKS COULD FIT THERE IF IT STAYED AT R3, WHICH IS NOT SPECULATIVE. IT'S JUST WE'RE SAYING IT'S LESS THAN 50, LESS THAN 50 UNITS. BUT I MEAN, THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS DEFINITELY MY OPINION, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. I WAS JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY WHETHER THAT WAS SOMETHING WE COULD HAVE AN OPINION ON AND OR INFLUENCE OVER, BUT SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT. IS THERE SOMETHING SPECIFIC THAT WE'RE SPECULATING THAT I FEEL LIKE I DID MOST OF THE TALKING, SO I DON'T WANT TO OVERSTEP. CAN WE HEAR FROM MISS HEDGES, PLEASE? YES, MA'AM. MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS. A FEW THINGS I WANT TO TOUCH ON. [01:45:02] SO THIS POINT, WE ARE AT THE POINT OF THE COMMISSION ASKING STAFF QUESTIONS. SO THIS SHOULD NOT BE A POINT FOR ARGUMENT DISCUSSION AMONGST THE DAIS. THIS SHOULD BE A POINT OF ASKING QUESTIONS AND RECEIVING ANSWERS. THE EVIDENCE THAT EXISTS IN THE HEARING IS WHAT COMES FROM THE WITNESS TESTIMONY. SO IF A COMMISSIONER HAS AN OPINION RELATED TO THE HEIGHT BEING INAPPROPRIATE OR IT NOT BEING COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING AREAS. THOSE QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ASKED OF THE WITNESS AND ELICITED FROM THE WITNESS. IS THAT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ACTUALLY COMING? THE DISCUSSION AMONGST THE DAIS WOULD BE, AFTER ALL, THE EVIDENCE IS CLOSED BETWEEN STAFF, THE APPLICANT. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT I'M ALSO HEARING A LOT OF CHATTER FROM THE COMMISSION CHAMBERS. I'M GOING TO ASK MADAM MAYOR IF YOU WOULD A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF MY LINE, BUT ASK THEM TO REMAIN QUIET AS WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE A PROPER RECORD. AND THE CHATTER IS NOT HELPFUL FOR KEEPING A CLEAN AND PROPER RECORD. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY ELSE I COULD HEAR IT, BUT. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, YEAH. MY QUESTION. OKAY. MR. DIRECTOR, DO YOU KNOW SITTING THERE, DO YOU KNOW, WITHOUT SAYING A PLAN? HOW MANY HOUSES OR RESIDENTS CAN BE PUT IN WITH 6.5 PER ACRE WITHOUT SEEING ANY DOCUMENTATION, CAN YOU GIVE THIS BOARD A CONCRETE ANSWER TO THE NUMBER OF HOMES THAT CAN BE PUT THERE? NO THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHTY. SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE TO THE APPLICANT. WE'RE GETTING IN A LITTLE FAR AFIELD HERE. SO IS THE APPLICANT. PLEASE COME FORWARD. AND I'D LIKE YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR AFFILIATION. AND THEN I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF. YES. OF COURSE. SO MY NAME IS BLAINE BURKS. I'M THE ENGINEER OF RECORD. I'M FROM KALAMA ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING, AND I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THE HISTORY ON HOW WE GOT HERE, AND THEN JUST BE OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE. THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU. SO WE STARTED THIS PROCESS WITH CITY STAFF. ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ANNEXING THIS PROPERTY INTO THE CITY. WHEN WE DID OUR FIRST PRE APP WITH THE CITY, WE WERE CONTEMPLATING A DUPLEX TOWNHOME TYPE OF COMMUNITY. NOW BASED OFF OF RS3 ZONING, THAT'S A LOT WIDTH OF 75FT AND 120FT DEPTH. SO THAT'S WOULD BE TWO UNITS ON THAT LOT SIZE. SO BASED OFF OF THAT, WE WERE ABLE TO FIT OVER 50 UNITS BASED ON DUPLEXES ON THE PROPERTY. BASED OFF OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF. THEY WERE REALLY PUSHING THAT THE CITY WAS LOOKING MORE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY TYPE COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY IN THAT AREA. SO WE WENT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, CAME UP WITH ANOTHER CONCEPT PLAN. NOW, THE CLOSEST CONCEPT THAT WE KIND OF IN THE AREA WAS A PREVIOUS PROJECT APPROVED CALLED OLEANDER OAKS. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER PD THAT'S JUST DOWN THE STREET. SO WE BASED OFF MOST OF OUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND DIFFERENT REQUESTS BASED OFF OF THE PD THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE CITY. SO WHEN YOU GUYS LOOK AT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. MOST OF THOSE CAME FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED AT OLEANDER OAKS. BUT A LOT OF OUR LOTS ARE EXCEEDING SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. SO FOR INSTANCE, THE LOT DEPTH WE PUT 70 ON THERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OLEANDER OAKS WAS SHOWING. BUT OUR SMALLEST LOT DEPTH IS ACTUALLY 82FT. WE ARE SHOWING SOME HUNDRED FEET DEEP. LOTS FURTHER TO THE EXCUSE ME, THE SOUTH WHERE THERE'S EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY. ONE OF THE STAFF'S EXCUSE ME, ONE OF THE COMMISSION'S QUESTIONS WAS ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF 45FT. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS LEFT OVER FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED ON OLEANDER OAKS. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD TO THAT HEIGHT. SO WE'RE COMPLETELY OPEN TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS AT 28FT. WE'D BE COMPLETELY OKAY WITH. SO GOING OFF OF THAT, WHEN WE STARTED DESIGNING THE SINGLE FAMILY CONCEPT PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT, WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE SURROUNDING AREA, RIGHT. SO BASED OFF OF THAT, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS MAP, TO THE NORTH IS THE EXISTING CEMETERY, TO THE EAST IS AN FDOT MAINTENANCE YARD. AND THEN TO THE SOUTH IS AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SO WHEN WE WENT TO DESIGN THAT, WE OBVIOUSLY LOOKED AT THAT. THE PERSON WHO'S GOING TO BE MOST IMPACTED BY THAT IS GOING TO BE THE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH. SO KNOWING THAT WE DESIGNED IT TO HAVE, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR KIM, YOU CAN PULL OUR SITE PLAN UP REAL QUICK. [01:50:01] IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN WE HAVE THE LOTS 18 THROUGH 27 ARE 100FT DEEP, BUT WE ALSO HAVE A 20 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT WE'VE ADDED ANOTHER 16FT OF JUST OPEN SPACE. SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 36FT UNTIL WE GET TO THE LOT THAT SEPARATES US FROM THE SOUTH. NOW, WE DID THAT FOR SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF TO TRY TO GET THE HOUSES AS FAR AWAY FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT THAT, YOU'LL HAVE THAT 36FT. THEN A 15 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. SO THE CLOSEST HOUSE TO THE SINGLE FAMILY WOULD BE 51FT. GOING OFF OF THAT. THERE WAS ALSO SOME COMMENTS ABOUT LANDSCAPING. SO IN OUR LANDSCAPE PLANS, WE TYPICALLY JUST SHOW THE BUFFER AND THE PLANTINGS THAT WILL BE IN THE STORMWATER AREAS. IF YOU LOOK RIGHT THERE ALONG SUNRISE ON THE WEST, WE'RE SHOWING A BUFFER. BUT AS WE MOVE ALONG TO THE NEXT STEP IN OUR PERMITTING, THERE IS A LOT OF EXISTING TREES. IF YOU DRIVE BY THE SITE, WE'LL BE INCORPORATING AND SAVING THOSE TREES ALONG THAT TEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. GOING OFF OF THAT, YOU KNOW, AS WE MOVE FURTHER WITH STAFF, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO RELOCATING AND ADDING SOME MORE LANDSCAPE INTO THE SOUTH BETWEEN US AND THE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE SOUTH. GOING OFF THAT, THE OTHER THING I CAN COMMENT ON IS THAT WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED TRAFFIC STUDIES TO SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, SINCE SUNRISE BOULEVARD IS A COUNTY ROAD THAT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THEIR THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT. WE'VE ALSO AGREED TO DO A TEN FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION TO SAINT LUCIE COUNTY FOR SUNRISE, IN CASE THERE'S FUTURE EXPANSION THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. WE'VE ALSO BEEN COORDINATING WITH FORT PIERCE UTILITY AUTHORITY. WITH OUR PERMITTING THROUGH THEM, WE'RE GOING TO BE EXTENDING A FORCE MAN ALONG SUNRISE BOULEVARD TO OUR SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. SO CURRENTLY, THERE'S NO SANITARY IN THE AREA. SO BY US EXTENDING THAT FOUR INCH FORCE MAIN AT OUR OWN COSTS, THAT WILL ALLOW OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE AREA TO POTENTIALLY HOOK UP TO THE SEWER. THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING WATER MAIN IN THE ROAD THAT WE'RE HOOKING UP TO. SO SO BESIDES THAT, I'M JUST OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE FOR ME. QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. MADAM MAYOR, I WANT TO START WITH THE FIRST PART OF TESTIMONY YOU GAVE AT YOUR FIRST ORIGINAL THOUGHT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND IF I HEARD YOU RIGHT, I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH. I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT YOU YOU CONTEMPLATED PUTTING IN DUPLEXES HERE. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. WHAT'S YOUR TESTIMONY ON WHAT THAT ACTUAL FOOTPRINT WOULD BE AS FAR AS THE NUMBER OF DUPLEXES AND IN POPULATION OR WHATEVER, WOULD THAT BE IF THAT WAS SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE PURSUED HERE? DO YOU HAVE THAT? I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE THAT WITH ME. WITH THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN WAS. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, LIKE WITH THE 75 FOOT WIDTH AND THE 120 FOOT DEPTH, WE CAN FIT A LARGER DENSITY IN THERE. OKAY, BUT I DO NOT HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME. BUT YOUR TESTIMONY IS THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING HERE. YOU DO KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? CORRECT? YES. WE COULD GET THE 50 LOTS OR MORE IN THERE WHEN IT COMES TO DUPLEX. DUPLEX? LOTS. OKAY. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. BUT YOU DON'T KNOW THE DUPLEX UNITS? YES. NO UNITS. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. SORRY. SORRY. AND SO. SO NOW OFFERING A SINGLE FAMILY OFFERING HERE. THESE ARE NOT. ARE THESE RENTALS, OR ARE THEY HOME OWNERS THAT YOU WILL BE SELLING TO AN INDIVIDUAL OWNERS? RIGHT NOW THERE ARE FOR SALE. WE ARE PLANNING ON PLATTING THE PROPERTY. SO IT WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY. LOTS FOR SALE. OKAY. BUT APPROXIMATE AREA. I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING AT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. IS THAT. ARE YOU THAT FAR DOWN TO KIND OF GIVE A GENERAL OVERALL OR WHAT TYPE OF SINGLE FAMILY HERE WE'RE LOOKING FOR? LIKE WHAT SIZE YOU GET, SIZE AND PRICE, SPECS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE. RIGHT. SO THIS CAN'T SEE ON HERE. BUT OUR LARGEST UNIT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A 42. THAT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 2600FT² OKAY OKAY. THIS ONE'S A 42. THAT'S 2400FT². BUT THE LARGEST ONE THAT WOULD FIT BASED OFF OUR SETBACKS WOULD BE 2600FT². OKAY. THERE IS SOME SMALLER MODELS THAT WE HAVE THAT ARE THREE TWOS THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE OLEANDER OAKS HAS. AND RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE THE HIGHEST PRICE POINT ON THOSE WOULD BE LESS THAN 400, PROBABLY AROUND 380. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? THESE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS IS THAT WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? SO THESE THESE AREN'T ACTUALLY THE SO THIS IS JUST ONE THAT WE PRESENTED TO STAFF PREVIOUSLY STAFF HAD ASKED US TO. [01:55:07] I GUESS ENHANCE THEM WOULD BE THE BEST POINT OF IT. SO WE DO HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION THAT HAS ONE DIFFERENT COLOR SCHEMES, BUT TWO, IT HAS LIKE I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT, BUT YOU KNOW, THE THE SHUTTERS, THEY'RE NOT THE REAL HURRICANE SHUTTERS, BUT THEY'RE THE SHUTTERS THAT GO ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOWS, THAT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE, AS WELL AS STONE STRIPPING ACROSS THE BOTTOM, YOU KNOW DIFFERENT TYPES OF ARCHITECTURAL STONE TO ENHANCE IT. BUT LIKE, I, LIKE I SAID I, WE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER COLOR SCHEMES AND THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO BE ALL WHITE, ANY, ANY VARIATION IN FACADE DEPTHS, LIKE WITH THE GARAGE MOVING FORWARD OR FRONT PORCH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. ARE THEY ALL BOX SHAPED? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIKE A RECESSED GARAGE OR A POPPED OUT GARAGE. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT AT THIS MOMENT. I KNOW WHEN THEY DID THE OLEANDER OAKS ONE, THERE WAS A GARAGE THAT STUCK OUT FURTHER AND THERE WAS DIFFERENT FEATURES ON IT. BUT I BELIEVE NONE OF THAT WILL BE FINALIZED UNTIL THEY GO IN FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMIT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE TOPIC THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON BROUGHT UP RELATIVE TO POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH DUPLEXES. YOUR ORIGINAL THOUGHT PROCESS WAS TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DUPLEXES. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT CALCULATION. I APOLOGIZE NOW. THAT'S OKAY. YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T EXPECT THAT QUESTION. I DID NOT KNOW. COMMISSIONER GAINES, TO MAKE YOUR HEAD NOT EXPLODE. I WON'T GO INTO MY CALCULATIONS AS TO HOW MANY DUPLEXES THEY COULD PUT IN THERE. I DID A QUICK NUMBER BASED ON COMMON AREA NORMAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME. I WON'T GO DOWN THAT PATH. SO SUFFICE IT TO SAY IS THAT THE NUMBER IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN THE 5050 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR DURING COMMENT. WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE DAIS HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR YOUR CONCEPT ON THE R-3 SCENARIO, LOT SIZES, ETC. I'M GOING TO DELVE INTO THAT IN MORE DETAIL, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER. I'M GOOD. ALL RIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST ONE MORE. JUST SO THAT WE CLEAR THE BASED ON THE RENDERING YOU'VE PUT HERE, WHERE WOULD THE BUS STOP BE? I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT BECAUSE I THOUGHT I HEARD SUNRISE OR IS IT INSIDE OFF OF SUNRISE THAT THE AMENITY FOR THE BUS STOP WOULD BE? DID WE KNOW THAT, OR IS THAT PART OF YOUR. YES. CAN YOU PULL UP THE SIGHTLINE, KEVIN OKAY. RIGHT HERE. SO. SEE WHERE THE ENTRANCE IS? IT'S JUST TO THE LEFT. THERE'S A CONCRETE PAD FURTHER. KEVIN ON THE MOUSE. THAT'S THE LIFT STATION. RIGHT UP RIGHT THERE. RIGHT THERE'S WHERE THE BUS STOP IS. SO WE COORDINATED THAT WITH MISS FOGARTY, WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BECAUSE THAT WAS A COMMENT THAT CAME UP WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. YEAH. SO AND WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSIONS WITH HER BECAUSE SHE'S THINKING ALSO MAYBE A JOINT BUS STOP BECAUSE THERE'S NOT I BELIEVE THE CLOSEST ONE IS NORTH OF BELL. SO THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING WE'RE STILL IN DISCUSSIONS WITH HER. IF, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT TO SOMEHOW DO A JOINT ONE, BUT THEY'RE STARTING TO WORK THROUGH THAT. BUT BUT THE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT BUS WILL PULL OFF OF SUNRISE INTO THE COMPLEX AND MAKE A TURN SO THAT IT'S LOADING STUDENTS INSIDE THIS AND NOT ON SUNRISE. CORRECT? YES. SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING A GATED COMMUNITY SO THAT THE BUS CAN COME IN AND THEN TURN AROUND INSIDE THERE. ALL RIGHT. JUST FOR SAFETY. IT'S A VERY NARROW ROAD. AND I GET THAT. AND RIGHT NOW, IN THE CURRENT CONDITION AND NO SIDEWALKS. RIGHT. AND THEN. SO I HEAR YOU TO UNDERSTAND, TOO, THAT YOU'VE GIVEN GRANTED SOME EASEMENT HERE FOR THE COUNTY FOR FUTURE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUNRISE IF THEY'RE WANTING TO WIDEN IT, ETC.. RIGHT. THAT'S ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR. CORRECT. YES. SO WE'RE ADDING A SIDEWALK ALONG OUR WHOLE FRONTAGE, AS WELL AS PUTTING A SWALE IN TO HELP WITH SOME OF THE DRAINAGE ON SUNRISE FOR OUR COORDINATION WITH THE COUNTY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE DAIS. THE RULES DO ALLOW ME TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS. I DON'T USUALLY, BUT I DO HAVE A FEW OF THE APPLICANT. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO ASK A QUESTION. HAVE AT IT. PLEASE DO NOT GET USED TO THIS. YES. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I KIND OF UNDERSTOOD SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAID CORRECTLY RELATED TO THE PD AGREEMENT AND CHANGES YOU'RE WILLING TO [02:00:02] MAKE THEREIN. YOU SAID THAT YOU WERE COMFORTABLE CHANGING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO 28FT. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. AND THEN THE LOT DEPTH TO 80FT. WAS THAT CORRECT? FOR THE MINIMUM. OH I MEAN 82 IS THE MINIMUM ON OUR PLAN. SO WE'RE FINE WITH CHANGING IT TO 82 82FT. AND THEN I DID SEE THE NOTICE FOR WHERE YOU WANT NOTICE TO GO. FOR YOU WAS NOT FILLED IN. WHAT ADDRESS FOR THE OWNER DO YOU WANT USED FOR YOUR NOTICES UNDER THE AGREEMENT. DO YOU HAVE THAT. CAN IT BE FOR THE APPLICANT OR DOES IT HAVE TO BE FOR THE LANDOWNER? IT NEEDS TO BE FOR THE DDT VENTURES ONE LLC. I DON'T HAVE THAT ADDRESS, BUT I CAN EMAIL YOU TONIGHT. OKAY. THAT ADDRESS. AND THEN IF YOU WANT THAT CD TO ANYONE, I WOULD NEED THAT INFORMATION TO LIKE THEIR ATTORNEY. YES, I'LL INCLUDE THAT IN MY EMAIL TO YOU. AND THEN YOU ALSO SAID THAT RELATED TO LANDSCAPING, YOU WILL BE INCORPORATING EXISTING TREES. DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO US, INCLUDING THAT YOU'LL, AS PART OF YOUR LANDSCAPING PLAN, WILL INCORPORATE AS MANY EXISTING TREES AS POSSIBLE ON THE SITE? YES. AS LONG AS IT'S STAYED IN THERE, IT'S AS POSSIBLE. THOSE ARE THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAD. MADAM MAYOR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THE APPLICANT DID OFFER ADDITIONAL MITIGATION ON THE SOUTH NEXT TO THAT SINGLE ADDITIONAL TREES OR COVERAGE THERE. ON THE SOUTH END RIGHT IN HERE. CORRECT? YES. WE DO HAVE A LARGE OPEN SPACE RIGHT WHERE THE MOUSE IS GOING. SO IF I HEAR YOU RIGHT, YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO ADDITIONAL DENSITY OF TREES THERE TO PROVIDE THAT BUFFER BETWEEN THE SINGLE FAMILY OWNERS AND THE RESIDENT THAT LIVES NEXT TO THAT. CORRECT. YES. SO THE NEXT PHASE IN THE NEXT APPLICATIONS, WE SUBMIT, THAT'S WHEN OUR TREE MITIGATION PLANS ARE REVIEWED BY STAFF AND DETAIL. SO THAT'S WHERE WE EITHER DO THE MITIGATION OF REPLACEMENT TREES OR THE COST TO REPLACE IT. SO DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM, WE WILL BE OPEN TO ADDING MORE TREES TO OFFSET ANYTHING IN THAT AREA. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE ACCOUNT FOR THAT, BUT WITH THAT STAFF, I GUESS WHEN WE COME BACK AND TALK TO STAFF OR I DON'T KNOW THAT MISS HEDGES HAS GOT THAT DOWN TO. OKAY, THAT'S I HEARD I HEARD YOU SAY THAT AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS IT. JUST FINALLY THIS THIS FENCE IN THE BACK IN THE COMMERCIAL PART. HOW HOW HOW TALL IS THAT CONCRETE FENCE THAT'S THERE? SO THAT WAS I BELIEVE SIX FEET TALL. AND THAT WAS, PER OUR CONVERSATION WITH FDOT WANTED THAT FOR NOISE ABATEMENT. WELL, IT'S BOTH NOISE AND DUST. I MEAN, WE WE'VE GONE DOWN THIS PATH AND WE'RE DEALING WITH STUFF NOW. AND SO I JUST KNOW IT'S A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA THERE. AND AND SO WE'VE GOT A CONCRETE FENCE. AND AND TREES RIGHT ON THAT BACK SIDE. CORRECT. SO THERE WILL STILL BE A TEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER PER CODE THERE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THAT'S NOT FOR HIM. YEAH. MADAM MAYOR. YES, SIR. JUST TO BE CLEAR, ON THE SCHOOL BUS LOOP, IT'S FRESH BECAUSE I WATCHED THE PLANNING MEETING THIS MORNING, SO I WAS WATCHED THE COMMENTARY ON IT. SO THE BUSSES ARE GOING TO BE PULLING IN AND TURNING AROUND. IT'S MORE OF LIKE A TURN OFF OF SUNRISE. KIND OF LIKE A PULLOVER KIND OF THING, I THINK IS WHAT I PULLED UP THE MINUTES IS WHAT I READ. MISS FOGARTY PREFERRED AND SHE WAS GOING TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT GETTING SOME RIGHT AWAY. IN ORDER TO DO THAT. RIGHT. SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT IS TO PULL OFF WHERE HIS MOUTH IS SHOWING. THEN THEY'D HAVE TO TURN AROUND INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OUR NEXT STEP IS WE HAVE TO GET A RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT WITH THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY FOR OUR DRIVEWAY. SO WE SPOKE TO MISS FOGARTY. WE DISCUSSED THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF WORKING WITH THEM TO ALLOW US TO HAVE THAT PULL OFF. RIGHT. OKAY. IS IT. YEAH. I JUST I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE SAFER FOR THEM TO PULL INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, TURN AROUND. BUT SHE SAID IT'S ACTUALLY A LOT QUICKER IF THEY CAN JUST PULL OFF. AND THEY KIND OF TRY TO EMPHASIZE THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE PICKING UP A LOT OF KIDS, SO THEY PULL OFF INTO THE LITTLE PULL OFF AREA AND THEN LOAD THE KIDS UP AND LEAVE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO IN AROUND THE LOOP AND ALL THAT STUFF. BUT JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. I GUESS SAFE AND QUICK WOULD BE GOOD. YEAH, YEAH. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYTHING ELSE OF THE APPLICANT? READY? I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP AT THE END. THAT'S ALL I ASK IS I'LL BE ABLE TO RESPOND AFTER YOU BAIL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. THIS IS A CHANCE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS US. IF YOU'VE BEEN SWORN IN, PLEASE COME FORWARD. [02:05:02] STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND TELL US WHETHER YOU HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. AND MISS COX WILL GIVE YOU A TEN SECOND WARNING AND SECOND WARNING. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KRISTA STOREY. I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN, AND I DID PROVIDE SOME EMAIL COMMENTS. MADAM MAYOR, THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU RECEIVED THOSE. I'M HERE BECAUSE I AM. I LIVE IN GATOR TRACE. I'VE LIVED IN THE WHITE CITY AREA THIS TIME SINCE 1998. AND PRIOR TO THAT, 1987 TO 1991. AND I'M HERE BECAUSE IT IS A SPECIAL COMMUNITY, AND IT NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED. I SENT THE EMAIL COMMENTS TO YOU BECAUSE THE OTHER HAT THAT I WEAR, I'VE SERVED AS A LAND USE ATTORNEY FOR ABOUT 40 YEARS. AND SO SOME OF MY COMMENTS. AND MR. FREEMAN HAS ADDRESSED SOME OF THEM. THE REASON I PROVIDED THEM TO YOU ALL, INCLUDING YOUR ATTORNEY, IS I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ABOUT WHETHER ALL OF YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN TERMS OF WHAT THE APPLICANTS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE, IN TERMS OF JUSTIFICATION, IN TERMS OF YOUR STAFF, IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH FINDINGS RELATED TO THERE'S A REQUEST FOR A CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE. THERE'S A CURRENT ZONING, AND NOT EVERY REQUEST FOR A ZONING IS NECESSARILY IT. YOU AREN'T REQUIRED TO APPROVE IT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ASKED. SO PD'S ARE ALSO, AS I THINK, MADAM MAYOR, YOU INDICATED THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE INNOVATIVE. CREATIVE? THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO. ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS TO PROTECT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND THE COMMUNITY. AND I WONDER HOW THAT'S BEING DONE. WHITE CITY IS A SPECIAL PLACE. I ALSO LISTEN TO THE APPLICANT TODAY. PREVIOUSLY, HE INDICATED THAT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT SCHEMES THAT THEY'VE ADVISED AS ONE IS A REDUCTION IN DENSITY AND TRAFFIC. WELL, IF YOU WERE LIMITED TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 50 UNITS IS WHAT YOU'VE SEEN ON THAT ON THAT SITE PLAN. THE ASSERTION THAT THERE COULD BE 69 OR SOME OTHER NUMBER, WHEN YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE ALL THE AMENITIES, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE ROADS, THE STORMWATER, ALL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. I QUESTION WHETHER 69 COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED THERE. AND ONE OF THE CRITERIA AND ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT THERE BE PUBLIC BENEFITS. AND I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT WHAT ARE THE PUBLIC BENEFITS THE APPLICANT FOCUSED ON ONE, REDUCTION IN DENSITY AND REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC. AND I'M NOT NECESSARILY SURE THAT YOU'VE YOU'VE HAD TESTIMONY. I APOLOGIZE AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. I'M SPEAKING ON MY OWN BEHALF, BUT I DON'T TAKE OFF MY HAT, THE OTHER HAT THAT I WEAR AND I APPRECIATE THIS, IS A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER, AND THIS IS MERELY PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT I THINK YOU'RE A BOUND. YOUR STAFF IS BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THEIR CODE. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS. I AM A CITY RESIDENT. I'VE BEEN A CITY RESIDENT FOR FIVE YEARS, AND I DO NOT WANT THE CITY TO BE IN JEOPARDY LEGALLY. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WHO'S NEXT? WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT? HELLO, MY NAME IS JUDY AND I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. I SAY YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN FOR ME. THANK YOU. I LIVE AT 3950 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. I HAVE LIVED IN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SINCE 1978. I LIVED IN PORT SAINT LUCIE FOR 18 OF THOSE YEARS. AND WHENEVER I DROVE TO FORT PIERCE, I WOULD ALWAYS GO THROUGH WHITE CITY AND DOWN SUNRISE BOULEVARD. IT'S ATMOSPHERE OF THE OLD LIVE OAKS, SPANISH MOSS, AND ALL THE HISTORIC HOMES AND ITS RICH HISTORY JUST FELT LIKE HOME. THERE'S NOTHING LIKE IT AROUND. AND THERE ISN'T WHITE CITY ALWAYS. THERE'S NOTHING LIKE IT AROUND. SO. IT'S SO DIFFERENT THAN PORT SAINT LUCIE, WHERE WE LIVED WITH ALL NEWER HOMES AND IMMATURE LANDSCAPING. SO IN 1997, WE WERE FINALLY ABLE TO REALIZE OUR DREAM OF LIVING IN WHITE CITY. AND WE PURCHASED SOME LAND ON SUNRISE BOULEVARD. WE BUILT OUR DREAM HOME, A TWO STORY HOME DESIGNED TO FIT INTO THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA, NOT STICK OUT. WE HAVE WORKED OUR BUTTS OFF TO PLANT AND MAINTAIN OUR PROPERTY. IT'S A HAVEN FOR THE AREA WILDLIFE. IT'S A LOT OF HARD WORK, BUT IT IS MY HUSBAND'S AND MY PASSION. [02:10:03] WE ARE EXPECTING TO ENJOY OUR RETIREMENT AND SPEND THE REST OF OUR LIVES HERE IF WE CAN AFFORD THE HOMEOWNER'S INSURANCE. I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT WHEN I HEARD WHAT WAS PROPOSED FOR THE 11 ACRES JUST TO THE NORTH NORTH OF US, NEXT TO THE HISTORIC WHITE CITY CEMETERY. THERE ARE SO MANY REASONS WHY THIS SHOULD NOT BE APPROVED, BUT I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. I MUST SAY ALSO, AFTER HEARING ALL THIS, I HAVE A LOT MORE TO SAY AND ADD, BUT I DON'T HAVE TIME. THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR ME IS BEING THE INCREASED TRAFFIC. MOST PEOPLE TODAY HAVE AT LEAST TWO VEHICLES MINIMUM. THAT MEANS AN ADDITIONAL 100 VEHICLES AND COUNTLESS SCHOOL BUSSES DAILY ON THAT ROAD. SCHOOL BUSSES. OKAY. ELEMENTARY, MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOLS. SO THINK OF THE BUSSES AND I. I FEEL SORRY FOR ANY SCHOOL BUS DRIVER THAT HAS TO MAKE THOSE LITTLE CURVES IN THAT COMMUNITY. ESPECIALLY WITH CARS PROBABLY PARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. OKAY. ANYWAY, SUNRISE BOULEVARD CAN BE A VERY DANGEROUS ROAD. PEOPLE TEND TO DRIVE VERY FAST, AND THERE'S BEEN COUNTLESS ACCIDENTS, INCLUDING THREE DEATHS IN THE PAST FEW YEARS ALONE. RIGHT CLOSE TO MY HOUSE. I LOOKED ON THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE. A GREAT WEBSITE, BY THE WAY, AND WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THAT IT WAS SOLD IN 2021 FOR $340,000, SUPPOSEDLY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. WHICH MADE SENSE TO ME BEING NEXT TO THE CEMETERY. BUT THEN IT WAS RESOLD IN 2023 FOR $915,000. WOW. I SEE NOW WHY THEY WANT TO OVER BUILD. I'M SURE THEY KNEW WHEN THEY SPENT ALL THAT MONEY WITH THE ZONING ALLOWED. AND YES, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ASK FOR A ZONING CHANGE BUT NOT ENTITLED TO GIVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NO, MA'AM. YOUR TIME IS UP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHO'S NEXT? GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS STEVE TIERNEY. I LIVE AT 3707 PROMENADE WAY AND I'VE BEEN SWORN IN. THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED VARIOUS CRITERIA FOR CONSTRAINING DENSITY IN SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. IN THIS CASE, THE ZONING ALLOWS A MINIMUM OF SIX UNITS PER ACRE BY ONE CRITERION, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS IRRELEVANT, AS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 7200FT² IS A MUCH MORE LIMITING CONDITION. THE SIX UNITS PER ACRE COULD ONLY BE MAXED OUT IN AN EXCEEDINGLY UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY. ALL THE LOTS WOULD HAVE TO ALREADY BE FRONTING ON AN EXISTING ROAD, AND THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ALREADY INFRASTRUCTURE IN TO DISPEL STORMWATER INTO ACCEPTING WATERWAYS. OR IN THIS PROJECT DOES NOT FIT THAT SCENARIO. A MINIMUM OF 7200FT² FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS SEEMS LOW TO ME. PORT SAINT LUCIE A TYPICAL PORT SAINT LUCIE LOT IS 10,000FT², USUALLY 80 BY 25. THE TYPICAL LOT SIZE IN MARAVILLA IS BETWEEN 9500 AND 2600FT². THIS REZONING REQUEST HAS A MINIMUM OF 4920FT² PER LOT, AND THAT IS NOT REALISTIC FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW I CAN UNDERSTAND THIS IS CITY ZONING IN A CITY IS LIKELY TO HAVE URBAN AREAS WHERE THE HOMES CAN BE A LITTLE MORE CRAMPED. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS NOT IN SUCH AN URBAN SPACE. A 7200 SQUARE FOOT LOT SHOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM FOR THIS AREA TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH ITS NEIGHBORS. THE PROPOSED LOTS WOULD HAVE TO BE 46% LARGER TO REACH THIS MINIMUM. I FEEL LIKE THE OWNERS OF THIS PARCEL ARE ALREADY GETTING A BREAK FROM THE REVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE LOTS AS SMALL AS 7200FT². AND THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE EVEN SMALLER LOTS, BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE A TINY PIECE OF PROPERTY AS AN AMENITY AREA IS, I THINK, LAUGHABLE. THE EXISTING ZONING ALLOWS THE OWNERS TO PUT IN A PROFITABLE DEVELOPMENT WHILE ADHERING TO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. NEIGHBORS SHOULD NOT BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED FROM AN EFFORT TO INCREASE PROFITS. TRAFFIC COMING AND GOING TO THE SUNRISE BELL AVENUE INTERSECTION IS EXTREMELY BUSY DURING BOTH MORNING AND AFTERNOON COMMUTES. ADDING THIS NUMBER OF UNITS WILL MAKE IT WORSE. THE CITY'S ZONING CODES ARE GENEROUS. THERE'S NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THEM. THEREFORE, REQUEST THAT THE REQUESTED CHANGE IN ZONING BE DENIED. [02:15:06] THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. WHO'S NEXT? ALL RIGHT. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. MY NAME IS PAUL HOUSE. RIGHT. I HAVE BEEN SWORN IN. I'VE BEEN IN THE IN THE MICROPHONE. I LIVE AT 3814 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. I'M THE ONE IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO THE PROPOSED AREA. AND I'M OPPOSED TO THIS, NOT FOR THAT REASON, BUT BECAUSE IT INDEED IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE SEE IN WHITE CITY WHATSOEVER. I WAS TREMENDOUSLY DISAPPOINTED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE ON JULY 7TH, DATED JULY 3RD FOR A JULY 21ST MEETING. IT'S TWO WEEKS TO DO ANY KIND OF PREPARATION WE MIGHT WANT TO DO. AND FURTHERMORE, THE SIGNAGE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS LITERALLY NO BIGGER THAN THAT SCREEN AND COVERED WITH WEEDS. IT WAS NOTHING LIKE WE'VE SEEN FOR OTHER HEARINGS IN THE AREA WHATSOEVER. I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD BE A STANDARD REQUIREMENT THAT YOU COULD AT LEAST SEE THAT THERE WAS A HEARING. I WAS ONE OF THE ONLY ONES TO RECEIVE AN ACTUAL LETTER. ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE HEARD. WORD OF MOUTH, I DON'T KNOW. YOU MUST NOT HAVE SENT VERY MANY LETTERS OUT AT ALL. AND. AND THEY ARE AFFECTED THERE. TWO DOORS DOWN. I'M IMMEDIATELY NEXT TO IT. AND THEN I GOT MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. DIDN'T EVEN GET A LETTER. SO PLEASE REALLY CONSIDER THIS THOROUGHLY. IT IS YOUR CITY, AND YOU'VE BEEN ELECTED TO TAKE CARE OF IT. IT'S OUR CITY TOGETHER. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL, A LOT OF TIMES THEY'LL SEND PEOPLE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD TO RESUBMIT WITH MAYBE A LITTLE MORE APPROPRIATE PLAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SIR. COULD YOU STATE YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN, PLEASE, SIR? SIR, I COULDN'T HEAR IT. HOUSE RIGHT H O U S E I G T. THANK YOU SIR. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT? ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. WE'RE. HELLO? I'M RONNA PERRY. I RESIDE AT 5080 WEST VIRGINIA DRIVE, FORT PIERCE. I HAD A LETTER BEEN SWORN IN. WERE YOU SWORN IN? I WAS, THANK YOU. YES. I DID NOT GET MY LETTER OFF IN TIME, SO I'M GOING TO READ IT REAL QUICK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WHILE HEARING AND DISCUSSING THE CONCERNS IMPOSED BY THE SUNRISE LAKES DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, 3804 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. SUNRISE BOULEVARD HAS LONG BEEN A QUAINT TWO LANE ROAD, WHICH UP UNTIL RECENTLY DID NOT HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC CONCERNS. MANY COMMUTERS USE SUNRISE BOULEVARD, NOW IN PLACE OF 25TH STREET OR OLEANDER AVENUE, AND UNFORTUNATELY USE IT AT A HIGH RATE OF SPEED. I PERSONALLY HAVE EXPERIENCED TAILGATERS SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE SUMMER, WHICH IS DANGEROUS AND QUITE ANNOYING. ONE OF MY MAIN CONCERNS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENTS BEING PROPOSED FOR OUR AREA IS THE TRAFFIC AND THE SPEEDERS. ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS WITHOUT INCREASED ROAD PATROL AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WILL ONLY EXASPERATE SAFETY CONCERNS AND HAZARDS. MY OTHER CONCERNS ARE MANY REPLACING NATURAL HABITAT WITH HIGH DENSITY HOUSING. DRAINAGE ISSUES AFFECTING ALL OF WHITE CITY AND THE EFFECT OF OUT OF CONTROL. BUILDING AND HOW IT WILL DIMINISH THE CHARACTER OF WHITE CITY AND ITS SURROUNDINGS. THE RAVENNA PROJECT, WHICH HAS GREATLY AFFECTED MY COMMUNITY, LOCATED OFF MIDWAY ROAD, IS WHAT WE CALL A BAIT AND SWITCH TACTIC. THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND NOW IS A RENTAL COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT RIGHT FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND FOR THOSE OF US WHO HAVE LIVED HERE AND LOVED OUR COMMUNITY FOR MANY GENERATIONS. DEVELOPMENT SHOULD ENHANCE, NOT ERODE, THE VALUE, SAFETY AND LIVABILITY OF OUR COMMUNITY. SINCERELY, RON PERRY. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT IN THE TREE SURVEY DISPOSITION, THERE'S 532 TREES ON THIS PROPERTY. 376 OF THOSE TREES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED. LIVE OAKS. THERE'S 410 ARE LAUREL OAKS. EIGHT ARE PINES AND 254 ARE PALMS. SO TO TOTALLY TAKE DOWN ALL THOSE TREES JUST LIKE THEY DID AT RAVINIA IS RIDICULOUS. ALSO THE OLEANDER OAKS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE EMULATING IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. THOSE RENTALS ARE 27, 50 TO 3000 PER MONTH. HOW MANY PEOPLE THAT NEED TO FIND HOUSES FOR THIS PD CAN AFFORD THAT? AND ALSO, I JUST WANT TO SAY TO MR. GAINES, IF A PD WAS IN A MA'AM, YOU DON'T ADDRESS TO A CERTAIN ADDRESS THE WHOLE COMMISSION. SORRY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. ANY PD THAT DIDN'T COINCIDE WITH A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I MAY BE LIVING IN, I WOULD BE STANDING UP HERE AND OPPOSING IT. SO IT'S NOT JUST WHITE CITY. [02:20:05] AND IF IT DOESN'T FIT WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE PUT TOGETHER FOR YOUR PD, THEN I PROPOSE THAT YOU GO BACK AND CHANGE IT. YOU SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO IN AND HAVE CERTAIN LOT SIZES IN AREAS. BESIDES CRAMMING ALL THESE HOUSES INTO LARGE AREAS THAT SHOULD INHABIT WILDLIFE AND TREES AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. THANK YOU MA'AM. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO. ANYONE ELSE? I HAVEN'T BEEN. OKAY. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. THANK YOU. THANKS. HI, I'M JANE WOODARD, 1640 BELL AVENUE. SO THIS IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM MY HOUSE. AND I DO WANT TO ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS ACCIDENTS AT THAT BLINKING LIGHT AT SUNRISE AND BELL, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING AROUND THAT'S ALREADY OUT OF CONTROL. SO THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP IS THAT STRETCH OF ROAD FROM BELL WHEN YOU GO PAST THIS PROPERTY TO. UNTIL YOU GET TO THAT CURVE. THAT'S A NO. THAT'S A PASSING ZONE. AND MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA DON'T PASS BECAUSE IT'S NOT SAFE. SO IF YOU DO UNFORTUNATELY GO FORWARD WITH THIS APPROVAL, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THERE'S SOME WAY THAT THE COUNTY, HOWEVER THAT WORKS CAN LOOK AT PERHAPS MAKING THAT A NO PASSING ZONE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ENTAILS, WHO I'D HAVE TO CONTACT TO PUT THAT IN SOMEBODY'S EAR OR IF YOU GUYS DO THAT. AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO I DON'T I WASN'T FAMILIAR WITH WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS GOING TO BE ON THAT AS FAR AS HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT TRAFFIC IF THEY DO GO FORWARD WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION. AND ALSO, AS YOU KNOW, FROM MY PRIOR TESTIMONY AT OTHER AND IN OTHER TIMES THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY AT OUR LOCAL HIGH SCHOOL RIGHT THERE THAT THESE KIDS POTENTIALLY FROM THIS COMMUNITY WOULD BE ATTENDING. SO AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE SCHOOL WISE. WE DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AS FAR AS THE ROAD CAPACITY WITH TRAFFIC. I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CITY HAS THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE FOR ALL THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING AND BEING APPROVED, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL, OR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOVING INTO THE COMMUNITIES TO NOT HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT THEY'RE EXPECTING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE. AND WHEN THEY GET HERE AND THEY REALIZE, YOU KNOW, OH, MY KIDS ARE GOING TO SCHOOL, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THEM. OH, LOOK AT ALL THIS TRAFFIC. IT'S JUST NOT I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO APPROVE THINGS JUST BECAUSE THEY ASK. AGAIN, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF SAYING NO. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT IF YOU JUST THINK ABOUT ALL THE DIFFERENT THINGS, AND ESPECIALLY THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND ARE ALREADY EXISTING IN THIS SMALL AREA ALREADY. AND I THINK THAT'S IT. SO. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER THING. SO I DID NOT SEE WHERE THIS WAS INNOVATIVE. AGAIN, THAT WAS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, I THOUGHT FOR THE REQUEST. BUT TO ME INNOVATIVE WOULD BE PERHAPS SOMETHING LIKE ADA ACCESSIBILITY, YOU KNOW, UNIVERSAL DESIGN. HOW ABOUT WE ASK FOR SOME INNOVATION THAT'S REALLY INNOVATIVE. WE WANT RESIDENTS TO BE ABLE TO AGE IN PLACE IF WE USE UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. YOU KNOW, LET'S ASK THESE BUILDERS, LET'S PUT THAT SOME OF SOME OF THOSE THINGS IN THEIR SITE PLANS WHEN THEY COME UP HERE WITH THESE GREAT IDEAS. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. WHO'S NEXT? WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT? OKAY. SO I'D LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK, AND YOU HAVE I THINK FIVE MINUTES. FIVE MINUTES TO RESPOND, FIVE MINUTES TO RESPOND TO. I GUESS I CAN RESPOND IF THERE'S ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE ME TO RESPOND TO. WELL, I THOUGHT MAYBE YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID. OKAY. THE FIRST ONE ABOUT TRAFFIC, LIKE I STATED, WE DID GET APPROVAL FROM SAINT LUCIE COUNTY. AND WHEN WE DO THOSE TRAFFIC REPORTS, WE DON'T JUST LOOK AT THE INTERSECTION RIGHT IN FRONT OF US. WE ARE FORCED TO LOOK AT INTERSECTIONS. WE LOOK AT OLEANDER OAKS OR EXCUSE ME, OLEANDER AVENUE AND BELLE. WE LOOK AT INTERSECTIONS AND WE DO TRAFFIC COUNTS AND EVERYTHING. AND THAT WAS ALL APPROVED BY THEIR THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT. A SECOND ITEM BROUGHT UP, I BELIEVE, WAS ABOUT THE TREE PRESERVATION, AND I BELIEVE THEY SAID SOMEWHERE AROUND 500 TREES AND WHAT WE'RE SAVING. AND LIKE I STATED TO THAT PREVIOUSLY, WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF ON THE TREE MITIGATION PLANS AND THE NEXT FORMAL STEP. [02:25:05] THAT'S ALL I HAVE. UNLESS YOU GUYS HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION. ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK A COUPLE OF TIMES YOU AND SOMEONE FROM THAT TALKED ABOUT INNOVATION AS FAR AS THIS PROJECT IS CONCERNED. ANY COMMENT ON THAT FROM YOU? TESTIMONY ON THAT FOR INNOVATION. I'M NOT SURE KEVIN MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER BETTER IF INNOVATION IS A PUBLIC IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A PD. I KNOW IT IS. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GET A DENSITY BONUS. YEAH, HE CAN'T ANSWER IT. BUT JUST IT IS IT'S PART OF IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. IT IS. IT'S A IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE SEVERAL THINGS IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO A PD. AND ONE OF THEM IS INNOVATION. YEAH I MEAN I'M LOOKING AT THE CODE RIGHT HERE. I DON'T SEE THAT. THAT'S THE CODE REQUIREMENT. I WILL SAY THAT ALL OF THE REQUESTS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR WHEN IT COMES TO SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING IS BASED OFF OF, LIKE I STATED PREVIOUS, FITTING THE SINGLE FAMILY COMMUNITY IN ON THIS LOT. ALRIGHTY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE CLOSE IT OUT? NO, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. NOW WE'RE COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND MR. CHESS. I WONDER IF SOMEBODY MIGHT BE ABLE TO TURN THE TEMPERATURE UP A LITTLE BIT. I, I, FOR ONE, AM FREEZING. I'LL SEE IF YOU COULD ASK SOMEBODY IF THEY COULD DO THAT. PLEASE. I TURNED IT UP TO 65 BEFORE WE STARTED FROM 63. KEEPING US AWAKE. WELL, IF YOU WANT TO STAY COLD. ALL RIGHT. I'LL SUFFER TOO FAST AND BLOWS ALL OVER IT. HE'S A MANY, MANY TALENTS. NOT TOO HIGH NOW. I'LL BE 67. I'LL DO IT IS USUALLY WHAT MAKES IT MORE COMFORTABLE. THE 63. SINCE WE WERE HERE FOR THREE HOURS EARLIER TODAY, I'M NOT FEELING ANY BLOOD CIRCULATING IN MY HANDS OR MY FEET. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? ANY EMOTION. ANY. MR. TAYLOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. COULD YOU ELABORATE ON YOUR COMMENTARY REGARDING THE LOT SIZE IN THE R-3 ZONING CLASSIFICATION? THAT WAS MAINLY BASED ON DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD AT PLANNING THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING. AND SEEING THE THE TABLE ON THE SETBACKS AND CHANGES TO THE LOT SIZES FROM WHAT WAS IN SA THREE, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY SAYING THAT THE DENSITY IS BEING LESSENED. SO I TOOK THAT AS INDICATION THAT HAD WE LEFT THE LOT SIZES WHERE THEY WOULD BE IN AN SES THREE, WHICH IS 65 AND THEN 75 FOR A DUPLEX. THAT IT WOULD CONSTITUTE A FEWER AMOUNT OF UNITS. I'VE DEFINITELY RECEIVED SOME CONFLICTING INFORMATION THIS EVENING ON WHETHER THAT WOULD BE THE CASE OR NOT. AND I TRUST THE APPLICANT IN HIS CALCULATIONS ON THAT THAT THEY HAD TRIED THAT TO BEGIN WITH. SO I'M TORN ON THAT. I'LL SAY BECAUSE I, I STILL DON'T FEEL THAT I'M SATISFIED WITH WHETHER THAT WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY OR NOT HAVING LESS UNITS. BECAUSE, I MEAN, EVEN THE 65 IS STILL PRETTY, PRETTY SMALL COMPARED TO SURROUNDING LOTS. THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST WAS LOOKING UP. I THINK THERE WERE ABOUT 100. I WAS LOOKING ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS WEBSITE. THERE WERE ABOUT 100. 100FT WIDE, 150FT DEEP. AND THAT AND THAT'S COUNTY ZONING, IF I RECALL. BUT ALSO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM. SO I'M TORN. I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE THAT THAT COULD BE A POSSIBILITY WITHOUT HAVING REAL FACTS IN FRONT OF ME. HOWEVER, I DON'T THINK THE CURRENT LOT SIZES IN THIS PROPOSAL ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. IT CERTAINLY HELPS. THANK YOU. KEVIN, COULD YOU PUT THE CONDITIONS UP THERE FIRST, PLEASE. [02:30:05] MADAM MAYOR. YES, MADAM. TURNING A QUESTION. YES. YOU MAY. THERE IS THERE IS SOME TESTIMONY. ABOUT WHAT? NOT TESTIMONY. YEAH, TESTIMONY. ABOUT SOME PARTS OF OUR CODE THAT HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. AND NO ONE FOLLOWED UP ON THAT TESTIMONY TO SEE IF THAT WAS TRUE OR NOT TRUE, OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT PARTS OF THE CODE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN FOLLOWED. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS COME ACROSS YOUR DESK OR COME ACROSS DIRECTOR FRIEDMAN'S DESK REGARDING THAT THOSE QUESTIONS, MISS? YES, MADAM. MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS. I AND MR. FREEMAN BOTH RECEIVED MISS STORY'S EMAIL THIS MORNING. I HAVE LOOKED THROUGH WHAT SHE SENT, AS WELL AS SAT THROUGH IT. LOOKED THROUGH IT AGAIN TODAY AS WE'VE BEEN SITTING HERE. THE ONE THING THAT SHE WROTE RELATED TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 120 3.1 36 NOT BEING MADE RELATED TO THE FINDINGS. THOSE ARE ACTUALLY INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU WOULD BE APPROVING IF YOU ARE TO APPROVE IT. THOSE WHERE IT'S IN THE WAREHOUSE CLAUSES IS IN ADDITION. SECTION ONE OF THE ORDINANCE THEN INCORPORATES THOSE WHEREAS CLAUSES MEANING THAT FINDING INTO YOUR ORDINANCE APPROVAL. SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS ACCURATE AS TO NOT BEING INCLUDED. SHE DID RAISE AN ISSUE RELATED TO WHETHER THE APPLICATION HAD BEEN SUBMITTED. I DON'T SEE IT ATTACHED, BUT I AM SURE MR. FREEMAN WOULD TELL YOU WE WOULDN'T BE HERE WITHOUT AN APPLICATION. SO THAT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE CODE THAT IT WOULD BE ATTACHED TO A MEETING AGENDA. THE NEXT CONCERN SHE RAISED IS MORE RELATES TO THE R3 STANDARDS, WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THIS IS CONTROLLED BY THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, NOT THE UNDERLYING ZONING OF THE R3. SO THOSE SETBACKS, THOSE THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. HER NEXT POINT WAS RELATED TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE. AND A QUESTION WAS RAISED RELATED TO THE INNOVATION. SHE IS CORRECT THAT THE SECTION 125 212, THE PURPOSE DOES IN PART STATE THAT THE INTENT IS TO ESTABLISH A RESILIENT LIVING AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF ENLIGHTENED AND IMAGINATIVE APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY PLANNING, STORMWATER WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROPERTY DESIGN. THAT IS ONE SENTENCE IN THAT PURPOSE. THE NEXT POINT SHE MAKES IS RELATED TO I BELIEVE THAT ACTUALLY MIGHT BE THE LAST POINT. COMMENTS. QUESTIONS? THERE'S A QUESTION RELATED TO THE PROJECT NARRATIVE, BUT THIS LOOKS, AS I'M SKIMMING TO BE MORE QUESTION COMMENTARY, NOT CODE SPECIFIC. SO IN THAT REVIEW AND I KNOW MISTER FREEMAN LOOKED AT THIS, TOO, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYTHING THAT LEGALLY HAS NOT BEEN MET. RELATED TO I WOULD LIKE MR. FREEMAN TO CONFIRM HE DID RECEIVE AN APPLICATION. THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE HERE. WE NOW HAVE AN ELECTRONIC SYSTEM WHERE THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY. AND THE ACTUAL APPLICATION, WHEN IT'S RECEIVED IS AN APPLICATION. AND SO THE QUESTION IS MORE WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE MEANS THAT THIS SHOULD BE APPROVED, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DENIED. YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT. YOU CAN RESET THIS FOR A DATE. CERTAIN. BUT THE LEGAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS TO GET IT TO YOU HAVE BEEN MET. THE QUESTION THEN, IS FOR YOU AS TO WHETHER A COMMISSION AS YOU WANT, WHETHER YOU WANT TO APPROVE IT OR NOT. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER TECHNICAL QUESTION FOR THAT. SO, MISS HEDGES, EARLIER YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE AGREED UPON. DOES THAT NEED TO GO UNDER THE CONDITIONS AS WELL? YES, SIR. SO HOW MANY DID YOU TALLY UP? BECAUSE THOSE ADDITIONAL AGREED UPON CONDITIONS NEED TO BE SPELLED OUT HERE, RIGHT? YES, SIR. IF I COULD HAVE MR. FREEMAN GO TO THE END OF THE CONDITION SO I CAN SEE HOW MANY HE HAS. I THINK IT WAS TEN. YES, SIR. SO CONDITION 11 WOULD BE BASICALLY PD. AMENDMENT. SORRY. PD AGREEMENT CHANGES TO INCLUDE THE HEIGHT MAXIMUM OF 28FT. [02:35:01] THE LOT DEPTH MINIMUM OF 82FT. THE NOTICE BEING FILLED IN AS WILL BE EMAILED BY THE APPLICANT. AND THAT THE LANDSCAPING TERMS WITHIN THE PD AGREEMENT WILL ALSO INCLUDE THAT THEY ARE TO INCORPORATE AS MANY OF THE EXISTING TREES AS POSSIBLE THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, AS WELL AS TO INCORPORATE AS MUCH OF A BUFFER TO THE SOUTH OF THEIR PROPERTY LINE AS POSSIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH. THAT'S A TOTAL OF 16 CONDITIONS. I WAS LUMPING THEM AS NUMBER 11 A THROUGH 11 EIGHT. OKAY. SO YOU GET A, B, C OKAY. IT'S 11 811 A THROUGH D ON CONDITIONS OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, LAST QUESTION FROM OVER HERE. YOU'RE LISTENING TO ALL THE COMMENTS. HAVE WE. AND THIS I GUESS IS HAVE WE COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF INNOVATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO USE GOING FORWARD BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF INNOVATION. AND IF INNOVATION IS PART OF THIS PD REQUIREMENT, I WANT SOME TYPE OF INNOVATION STANDARDS THAT WHEN WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN, WE CAN CLICK OFF A, B, C, D, THIS IS ONE OF THEM, OR I'M USING A, I'M USING B BECAUSE WHAT I HEARD TONIGHT, WHAT I'M HEARING FROM MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE TONIGHT IS THAT. AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE COLD AND WHAT WE CALLED INNOVATION. AND IN THAT INNOVATION SHEET, MADAM ATTORNEY, READ THAT ONE SENTENCE AND I'M LIKE, OKAY, WHAT I'M STILL SAYING. WHAT ARE WE LOOKING FOR AS PART OF INNOVATION? I ACTUALLY WAS ENLIGHTENED BY THE YOUNG LADY THAT SPOKE IN THE AUDIENCE WITH THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE ADA OR THE THE INNOVATIONS THAT PUT SOME HOMELESS PEOPLE NOT HOMELESS HANDICAPPED OR WHATEVER KIND OF PEOPLE IN THAT TYPE. SO THAT THAT STARTED THIS LITTLE MIND OF MINE GOING OVER HERE. SO WHAT IS I DON'T KNOW, I'LL LOOK EVERYBODY IN THE FACE AND SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF INNOVATION IS. MADAM MAYOR, MISS COMMISSIONERS. SO THE PHRASE IN THE CODE IN SECTION 125 212 IS ENLIGHTENED AND IMAGINATIVE. WE HAVE A SPECIFIC PART OF OUR CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES. THOSE ARE A COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROCESS THAT ARE COMPLETELY DEFINED. SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE WORD THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS IMAGINATIVE, NOT INNOVATIVE, JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, BECAUSE INNOVATIVE IS DEFINED IN AN ENTIRE SECTION WITHIN OUR CODE. I'M NOT TALKING I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE JUST READ THAT PART. SO THE WORD IS NOT INNOVATIVE. I'M LOOKING AT IMAGINATIVE. YES, SIR. OKAY. YOUR QUESTION STILL REMAINS JUST A DIFFERENT WORD. SOMEBODY ALL THE TIME I CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS NO. OKAY. WE DON'T. SERIOUSLY, THOUGH, I'M NOT. AND I'M NOT TRYING. LADIES AND GENTS, IT'S NOT. IT'S IN COLLEGE. IT'S NOT FUNNY. AND IT'S NOT. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT BECAUSE I GO BACK TO I GO BACK TO MY COMMENTS EARLIER. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE TOLD HIM TO DO. AND THEN WHEN THEY GET HERE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE ARE TAKING EVERYTHING DOWN THAT THEY'RE DOING MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS LIKE THIS PROJECT, 18 MONTHS, MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS TO GET US IN FRONT OF US. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A CLEAR VIEW OF WHAT WE REALLY WANT ANYMORE. AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION, CAN SOMEBODY GIVE ME THE DEFINITION OF WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR? IMAGINATIVE. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS. THAT'S NOT INNOVATION. IMAGINATIVE THAT ENLIGHTENED. WHAT WAS. I GUARANTEE YOU, IF MADAM ATTORNEY POSED ALL FIVE OF US, SHE WOULD GET PROBABLY TEN DIFFERENT ANSWERS FOR FROM THE FIVE OF US UP HERE TO TO WHAT THAT IS. SO WE GOT TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND LOOK AND PUT SOME MORE GIVE, GIVE OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THESE PEOPLE THAT'S WORKING HARD ON THIS, SOME MORE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE REALLY WANT, GUIDANCE. WE HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU. YEP. WE'VE GONE THROUGH MULTIPLE MANIFESTATIONS OF THIS PD SCENARIO. WHAT WAS THAT, KEV? WHAT WAS THAT ONE THAT WE DEALT WITH A WHILE A WHILE AGO? IT WAS COMPLICATED BY THE SIMPLICITY OF THE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, AND THERE WAS A TERM FOR THAT. [02:40:01] I FORGET WHAT THAT PARTICULAR PROCESS WAS CALLED. I'LL REFER TO IT AS THE BACK OF A NAPKIN, BUT THAT'S I DON'T WANT TO BE IMPOLITE ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHEN WE JETTISONED THAT WHOLE PROCEDURE. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO NEED MORE IN-DEPTH STUFF. CONCEPTUAL. COMMISSIONER GAINES, I AGREE WITH YOU. I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THESE PD ISSUES FOR TEN YEARS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD UP TO HERE, AND I'VE YET TO FIND A DEFINITION FOR INNOVATIVE, IMAGINARY OR VISIONARY. I THINK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, YOU ARE CORRECT, NEEDS A MUCH BETTER DEFINED PARAMETER IN WHICH TO WORK IN IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. CLEARLY, BECAUSE WE'RE UP HERE, I GUARANTEE YOU RIGHT NOW THERE'S MULTIPLE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THIS COMMISSION. IT'S RELATIVE TO THIS PROJECT AS FAR AS IMAGINATIVE AND INNOVATIVE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S THAT'S JUST TOO SUBJECTIVE. THEY HAVE NO GUIDANCE IN WHICH TO GO BY. I REMEMBER A PLAN THAT CAME IN RECENTLY. I THINK THEY PUT IN SOME GAZEBOS AND BARBECUE GRILL, SO IT WAS CONSIDERED INNOVATIVE. THAT'S A TOUGH THAT'S THAT'S A TOUGH HURDLE TO GET OVER FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. BUT MADAM MAYOR, SO I WOULD I WOULD ADD TO THAT TOO, BECAUSE WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY EVEN FROM COMMUNITY RESIDENTS, THAT SOMETIMES THAT IMAGINATIVE AND INNOVATIVE MAY NOT EVEN FIT THE CHARACTER OF WHAT'S THERE. CORRECT. SO SO YOU GET DOWN THE PATH OF IMAGINING AND ENVISIONING AND SOMETHING MAY BE MORE OF A NEWER FEEL OR MORE OF AN UPSCALE FEEL, AND THAT TOTALLY MISSES THE CHARACTER OF WHAT'S THERE. SO I THINK WE WORKED OURSELVES INTO A LITTLE BIT OF A CONUNDRUM HERE. BECAUSE IF YOU OVER IMAGINE AND GET REALLY INNOVATIVE, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE WHIPLASH ON THAT COMING BACK. SO I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL STRUGGLING UP HERE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THAT. AND AND SO MY SUMMATION OF THIS AND LOOKING AT IT IS THAT WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A BASIC ZONE CHANGE HERE, MISTER FREEMAN, TO GO FROM WHAT IS R3 RIGHT NOW TO THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT? AND I, I JUST KNOW WHAT I THINK I'VE DONE AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS AND LOOKING AT WHAT IF WE LEFT IT AT R3, WHAT IT COULD BE BASED ON THE DENSITY PER WHATEVER AND VERSUS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED TONIGHT. FOR HIS SKETCH ART. BUT THAT'S NOT THE FINAL PLAT. THAT STILL HAS TO COME BACK TO US FOR FINAL APPROVAL. WHEN THEY IF THEY GET THE APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. SO I GUESS OUR TASK HERE TONIGHT IS THAT LOOKING AT APPROVING THE ZONING CHANGE OR NOT, THAT'S REAL SIMPLE. I THINK WE CAN'T GET HERE AND GO SPLITTING HAIRS ON THIS OVER HERE. THAT WAY. TREES, WHATEVER. IT'S. CAN YOU HAVE IT? AND THEN WE GET A FINAL PLAT BACK. AM I CORRECT ON THAT, SIR? WELL, YOU WON'T NOW, BECAUSE OF THE STATE, YOU WON'T GET TO SEE A FINAL PLAT. WE WON'T. SO THIS IS IT? YEP. STATE? YEAH, STATE IS TAKING THAT FROM US. SO ALSO WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, AS LONG AS WE'RE TALKING GLOBALLY, WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS GROWTH. RIGHT? PEOPLE MOVING FROM PEOPLE MOVING HERE. AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE IS YOU'RE SAYING. AFFORDABLE HOUSING. YOU HAVE TO. YOU HAVE TO HOUSE THESE PEOPLE. HAVE TO. YOU. AND SO THERE'S BEEN A PUSH AND WE HAVE OUR CITY GROWING AND IT'S ENCROACHING ON AREAS WHERE THEY'VE USED TO HAD AN IDYLLIC LIFE, A DIFFERENT LIFESTYLE, ONE WITH LARGE, LARGE PROPERTIES AND LOTS OF LAND BETWEEN THEM AND THE NEIGHBORS. SO WE'RE WE'RE GOING WE'RE IT'S AN URBAN AREA ENCROACHING ON WHAT HAS BEEN KIND OF WHITE CITY HAS BEEN UNIQUE AND HAS HAS HAD A LOT OF SPACE AND A LOT OF THEY'RE USED TO THAT. AND AND IT'S IT'S PART OF THE NATURAL THING THAT THE GROWTH HAPPENS. AND MIDWAY ROAD GETTING WIDENED IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY STARTED SETTING THIS AREA ON FIRE. SO WHAT WOULD WE HAVE SAID NO. WHEN A WHEN A WHEN A PROPOSAL DOESN'T FIT THE AREA. DOESN'T FIT THE AREA. WE'VE SAID THAT AND, AND I THINK WHAT HAS EVEN MADE IT ENTERTAINING THAT FOR THIS AREA WAS THE INDUSTRIAL AREA TO THE EAST THE CEMETERY TO THE NORTH, AND THE SPARSE HOUSES TO, TO THE SOUTH, ALTHOUGH ACROSS THE WAY WEST ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. [02:45:05] SO I JUST THINK WHAT WE'RE FACING IS IN SO LIKE SO MANY OTHER INSTANCES ALONG SYLVAN ROAD ALONG 25TH IN SOME PARTS OF BETWEEN OKEECHOBEE AND ORANGE, WE HAVE RURAL AREAS THAT ARE PEOPLE ARE BUYING LARGE PIECES OF PROPERTY AND PUTTING A NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ON IT, AND THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE SAY, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO REMEMBER. WE HAD ONE NOT TOO LONG AGO, WHERE THE PEOPLE SAY, WE WE HAVE A DIRT ROAD AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT A DIRT ROAD. REMEMBER THAT WE DON'T WANT ANY PEOPLE MOVING IN HERE. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF A LOT OF PIONEERS, SHALL WE SAY. SO I THINK THAT'S I THINK THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF WHAT THIS IS, IS A A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT APPEARS TO BE DENSE IN AN AREA SURROUNDED BY PLACES THAT AREN'T. AND THAT'S WHAT IS TROUBLING NOT ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HERE, WHO LIVED THERE, BUT TROUBLING US. WELL, MADAM MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW IF WE, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WE'VE EXHAUSTED ALL OF THIS. WE'VE TALKED TO STAFF. HOPEFULLY THEY HAVE SOME DIRECTION. AND MAYBE IN ONE OF OUR WORKSHOP MEETINGS, WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND TRY TO GIVE MORE GUIDANCE TO THEM. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO TO BEGIN TO AT LEAST ACT ON THIS TONIGHT. THIS TONIGHT? YEAH. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WITH THAT I'VE HEARD EVIDENTIARY HEARING FROM BOTH SIDES. AND I'VE WEIGHED WHAT I'VE HEARD AND INTERPRETED WHAT I'VE HEARD AS FACTS. AND BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE HEARING TONIGHT. I'VE NOT HEARD ANYTHING THAT AT THIS POINT STOPS US FROM MOVING FORWARD ON THIS REQUEST. SO I WILL MAKE THE MOTION, AND YOU CAN WHOEVER'S SECOND. IF NOT, IT DIES AND GO FROM THERE. BUT I MOVE THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ORDINANCE 25 020, ALLOWING THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE CHANGE OF ZONING AND WITH THE CONDITIONS WITH WITH THE 11 CONDITIONS AND THE ALPHABETS A THROUGH D TO GO WITH IT. ALL 11 PLUS A THROUGH D. YES, SIR. UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT. E A THROUGH E A THROUGH E. YEAH. THERE WERE FIVE. YEP. IS THERE A SECOND? MADAM MAYOR. I WILL SECOND THIS, SO WE'LL GET A VOTE. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE MOTION TO DIE FOR LACK OF A NO VOTE. ALL RIGHT, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. NO. COMMISSIONER GAINES. NO, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. NO, MA'AM. MAYOR. HUDSON. NO, MA'AM. SO THIS ITEM WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD. WELL, I GUESS, DO WE NEED A VOTE IN THE THE I ANOTHER VOTE, OR IS THAT IT? MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS, THAT MOTION HAS FAILED. IF THERE, THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE ANOTHER MOTION, WHETHER THAT IS TO APPROVE TO CONTINUE. OTHERWISE WE WILL SIT HERE FOR QUITE A WHILE. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I'M SORRY. ABOUT THAT AGAIN, MADAM. MADAM, I APOLOGIZE. DENY. THE MOTION TO APPROVE IS FAILED. SO YOU'RE LEFT WITH A MOTION TO DENY A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS THAT MAY EXIST. A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS TO A DATE CERTAIN IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT YOU MAY DESIRE. OTHERWISE, IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG NIGHT WHILE WE SIT HERE WITHOUT A CONSENSUS. MADAM MAYOR, I WANT TO I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CONTINUE BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE WHAT? THE IMAGINARY. THE IMAGINARY. LET HIM GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND SEE WHAT IMAGINARY THAT HE CAN DO TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. AND WE WOULD NEED A DATE. CERTAIN. I WAS LOOKING. I THINK HE'S HIDDEN BY THE CHAIR. MADAM MAYOR, IF IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT COME UP SO HE COULD EXPRESS WHEN HE MIGHT BE WILLING TO COME BACK. AND IF HE WOULD LIKE TO WORK WITH STAFF ON BRINGING BACK MORE INFORMATION ON AN IMAGINATIVE APPROACH TO THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND ENLIGHTENED AND ENLIGHTENED AND IMAGINATIVE APPROACH TO COMMUNITY PLANNING, PLANNING, STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROPERTY DESIGN. SURE. YES. SO YOU WOULD BE LOOKING FOR US TO SUBMIT ANOTHER PLAN TO STAFF THAT THEN WOULD BE FORWARDED TO YOU BEFORE THE COMMISSION HEARING? [02:50:08] YES, SIR. PLAN AND OR INFORMATION. PLANNED OR INFORMATION. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY AT THIS TIME IT DEPENDS ON STAFF'S TIME AS WELL, BUT WE WITHIN A MONTH WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO, I BELIEVE, GET A PLAN TO STAFF DISCUSS IT WITH THEM AND GET FEEDBACK. BUT I WOULD LET KEVIN COMMENT ON THAT AS WELL. I, I I'M PRESUMING THIS WOULD BE REQUIRING ANOTHER NOTICE. SO THAT EXTENDS THE TIMELINE. I DON'T WANT TO COMPRESS IT TOO MUCH TO BE HURRYING THROUGH THIS. I THINK THERE'S A LOT TO BE DISCUSSED BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT BEFORE IT REAPPEARS IN FRONT OF CITY COMMISSION. I WOULD SAY MINIMUM TWO MONTHS, IF NOT THREE MONTHS. THREE MONTHS, I WOULD SAY, YEAH, I'M FINE WITH TWO MONTHS. I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE COMMISSIONERS REACH OUT TO STAFF AND GIVE THEIR INPUT AND THOUGHTS OF WHAT THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR. SO THAT WAY WE CAN INCORPORATE IT INTO OUR PLAN. CAN WE SAY THREE MONTHS? BUT YOUR INTENTION TO DO IT IN TWO MONTHS, SO YOU HAVE THE AMPLE TIME. CAN WE DO IT FOR TWO MONTHS FOR NOTICING? AND THEN IF WE DO NOT THINK TWO MONTHS AS POSSIBLE, WE COULD WE'LL PAY THE FEE TO DO THE NOTIFICATION AS THE APPLICANT. SORRY TO BE THE THE KINK, BUT, MADAM MAYOR, THE CODE AND OUR RULES REQUIRE A DATE CERTAIN ON A CONTINUANCE. RIGHT. SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE 2 TO 3 MONTH RANGE, LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE MEETINGS OCTOBER 6TH AND OCTOBER 20TH IN THE OCTOBER RANGE. IF YOU WANT TO GO BACKWARD INTO SEPTEMBER, YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT SEPTEMBER 15TH OR SEPTEMBER 2ND. SO MAYBE WE CAN REQUEST SEPTEMBER 15TH. AND WE CAN ALWAYS ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THAT IF NEEDED. CORRECT. YOU MAY ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE. WHETHER IT'S GRANTED IS UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION PER THE CODE. SO NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT HARD ON YOU. NO, I AGREE, I APPRECIATE IT ALL. I WOULD ASK FOR THE SEPTEMBER 15TH AND LIKE I SAID, IF I'M IN COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF AND THEY'RE IN COMMUNICATION WITH YOU, IF WE NEED TO DO ANOTHER CONTINUANCE, WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT. COMMISSIONER, DO YOU WANT TO PUT THAT IN MY MOTION TO ADD DATE? CERTAIN. SEPTEMBER 15TH. AND YOU SECONDED THAT? OKAY. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR. HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. MADAM. MAYOR. YES, SIR. JUST BECAUSE WE'RE ALL HERE IN THE SAME ROOM. BUT I WOULD I, FOR ONE, WOULD LIKE TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A MEETING WITH YOU. AND I'D ENCOURAGE YOU IF, IF TIME ALLOWS TO DO IT WITH EACH OF US, OR AT LEAST ONES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN. YES, I AGREE. SO WE CAN GET EVERYTHING IRONED OUT. UP. I APPRECIATE YOUR ENLIGHTENED AND IMAGINATIVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OH. OKAY. EASY ONE. IF YOU IF YOU HAVE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. PLEASE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING FOR ORDINANCE 20 5-021, AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, [B. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Ordinance 25-021 - Review and approval of an application to amend the Millcreek Planned Development (PD) zoning in respect of one (1) parcel containing approximately 62.51 acres, and generally located north of Orange Ave and West of 41st Street in Fort Pierce, with a Planned Development Final Site Plan for Pod 2 to construct a total of 439 dwelling units, distributed in 309 townhomes and 130 detached single-family homes at a density of 7.1 du/ac. The application submitted by applicant REDTAIL DG Tod Mowery on behalf of owner FM Millcreek Holding LLC. more specifically at Parcel ID #2407-124-0001-000-3 - FIRST READING.] FLORIDA, AMENDING THE MILL CREEK PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD ZONING IN RESPECT OF ONE PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 62.51 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, AND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF ORANGE AVENUE AND WEST OF 41ST STREET, APPROVING MILL CREEK PD POD TWO FINAL SITE PLAN THROUGH THE FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT PD ZONING PROCESS. APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING AGREEMENT. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS THEREOF, AND CONFLICT PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING. OKAY. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL. MADAM CLERK. HAVE OUR ADVERTISING AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET? YES, MA'AM. THE ADVERTISING AND NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? YES, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES. I MET WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPER'S CONSULTANTS. COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, I MET WITH THE DEVELOPER AND HIS CONSULTANTS. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES. SAME COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. SAME WITH THE DEVELOPER AND CONSULTANTS AND STAFF. AND MAYOR HUDSON. NO, MA'AM. AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES? YES. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PROCEED. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. CITY COMMISSIONER KEVIN FREEMAN PLANNING DIRECTOR THIS APPLICATION. [02:55:04] MILL CREEK PLAN DEVELOPMENT FINAL SITE PLAN FOR A POD WITHIN THAT PD. THIS IS A APPLICATION AMENDING THE MILL CREEK PLAN. DEVELOPMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING IN RESPECT TO ONE PARCEL OF APPROXIMATELY 62.51 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF ORANGE AVENUE AND WEST OF 41ST STREET, TO INCLUDE THE MILL CREEK PLAN DEVELOPMENT POD TWO FINAL SITE PLAN. NOW I'M GOING BACK TO 2023, WHERE THE MASTER MILL CREEK PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED AND SET OUT THE DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS FOR TWO PODS POD TWO SUBJECT TO A RESIDENTIAL FUTURE. LAND USE AND THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION IN ITSELF IS BROKEN INTO THREE PHASES AND POD PART ONE, OVERLAYING A MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE PART ONE IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS APPLICATION. THE PARCEL ID SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION IS 240712400010003. THE APPLICANT IS RED TAIL DESIGN GROUP TODD MURRAY REPRESENTING. SO THIS IS A SITE LOCATION. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S NORTH OF ORANGE AVENUE. AND THE WHOLE PD COMPRISES OF POD ONE AND POD TWO. THAT IS ONE PD. IT IS SEPARATED BOTH IN TERMS OF PODS AND IN TERMS OF OWNERSHIP INTO TWO AREAS. SO POD ONE, IF I GO TO POD ONE FIRST IS PART OF THE MILL CREEK PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IT'S NOT PART OF THIS FINAL PLANNED PD PLAN, BUT IT'S ALLOWED A DENSITY OF 15 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. AND THAT'S SET OUT IN THE ORIGINAL PD. WE DON'T HAVE WHAT WE NOW WOULD CALL A MASTER PD FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT WAS MOVED THROUGH BEFORE WE HAD THAT NOMENCLATURE AVAILABLE. IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AS A CONCEPTUAL PD, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST ONES OF OF THAT TYPE AS IT'S NOW COMING FORWARD AS A AMENDMENT TO THAT PD. WE ARE USING THE NEW PROCESS, THE REVISED PROCESS FOR PD, WHICH THIS THEN BECOMES A FINAL SITE PLAN. THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTUAL OR BUBBLE PD STILL REMAINS IN EFFECT. POD TWO, THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION, IS LOOKING TO BUILD 439 UNITS, A SPLIT BETWEEN 300 AND 9 TOWNHOMES AND 130 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE DENSITY PROPOSED IS 7.1 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE ALLOWED WITHIN THE I SAY CONCEPTUAL PD. THE APPROVED CONCEPTUAL PD IS 12 UNITS PER ACRE. THE UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE IS NO CHANGE BEING PROPOSED HERE. THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY COMPRISES OF POD TWO, A MIXED USE. FUTURE LAND USE IS A POD ONE. POD ONE COMPRISES A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PARCELS AT THE MOMENT. OKAY. THE APPLICANT FOR THE. SO THE APPLICATION INCLUDES BUT I'VE JUST BEEN THROUGH THIS. DENSITY IS 7.1 UNITS PER ACRE. AND THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT POD OF THAT PROJECT. THERE'S A FINAL SITE PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED AN ACCESS ROAD FROM ORANGE, A BUS STOP AND TURNING AREA LINK THROUGH TO THE NORTH. SHOULD THAT OCCUR? AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES SPREAD THROUGH THAT DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS ADDITIONALLY BROKEN INTO A PHASING THREE PHASES OF POD TWO. NO PHASING. DESCRIBED WITHIN THIS APPLICATION FOR THE POD ONE. THAT'S THE TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT PART OF THE PROJECT. GOING FROM CLEARING TO CLOSINGS FOR VARIOUS PHASES. [03:00:02] BETWEEN 2025, 2029. PHASE TWO 2027 TO 2031 AND PHASE THREE 2029 TO 2030. FOR. LANDSCAPING. BEEN PROVIDED. WE HAVE BUFFERS, WHICH NUMBER OF TREES IN EXCESS OF THOSE REQUIRED. SO THE TREES REQUIRED ACCORDING TO CODE ARE 378. THE TREES PROVIDED ON THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN. NUMBER 638. AN AMENITY CENTER IS ALSO PROPOSED. AND THAT COMES IN AT PART OF ONE OF THE PHASES. ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE APPLICANT. THE CITY AND FDOT, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY NEED TO BE UNDERTAKEN. AND THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED LATER IN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AS IT COMES THROUGH BUILDING PERMITS BY FDOT. AND THAT'S BEEN AGREED BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND FDOT EASTBOUND. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE QUEUE LENGTH FOR THE EXISTING EASTBOUND LEFT TURN LANE, AND THAT MORE LIKELY WILL BE DETERMINED TO BE REQUIRING IMPROVEMENT WESTBOUND. AGAIN, THE WESTBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE WILL BE BUILT ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA DESIGN MANUAL AND AS REQUIRED BY FDOT AND THEN IF WARRANTED. THIS WILL BE MONITORED AS THE CONSTRUCTION AND IT IS UNDERTAKEN. THE APPLICANT SHALL CONSTRUCT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL PRIOR TO I THINK I MISSED SOME WORDING OUT THERE PRIOR TO FINAL SEO AT THE INTERSECTION OF ORANGE AVENUE AND BRANT CREEK DRIVE AND IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF ORANGE AVENUE. WE HAVE SOME ARCHITECTURAL. AND AGAIN, THE STAFF ARE NOT ABLE TO MANDATE CERTAIN ARCHITECTURAL STYLES. SO THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN ARE QUITE VARIED. WE HAVE THE THREE BED, TWO BATH PROPERTY. FOUR BED, TWO AND A HALF BAD PROPERTY. THE FOUR BED, THREE BATH PROPERTY. AND THE, ONE SET OF TOWNHOMES VARIED ON THE FRONTAGES, VARIED COLORS AND MATERIALS. THREE BED, TWO AND A HALF BATHS. SO THE PLANNING BOARD HEARD THIS AT ITS MARCH 10TH, 2025 MEETING, AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY 6 TO 0 VOTES. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT WERE STATED AT THAT MEETING. THE PHASING OF THE PROJECTS ALL ADHERE TO CITY CODE, AND THE CITY CODE DOES CONTROL PHASING OF PROJECTS. EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT MUST BE SO PLANNED AND SO RELATED TO PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT, SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THE AVAILABLE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES. THAT FAILURE TO PROCEED WITH SUBSEQUENT PHASES WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, PARKING OR THE TRAFFIC FLOW OF THE COMPLETED PHASES. THE FINAL PD PLAN SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDNANCE AND BE SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING AT SECTION ONE, 25 TO 12 PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONE. THE PLANNING BOARD ALSO REITERATED A CONDITION THAT WAS A PART OF THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTUAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT, IN THAT A UNITY OF TITLE WITH THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS AND A PARCEL COMBINATION WITH THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. THIS IS THE CRUX OF THIS HEARING IN THAT SUBSEQUENTLY TO THAT INITIAL CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THAT THE THE DIFFERENT WAY OF PROGRESSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS HAS OBVIOUSLY MADE THIS QUITE A DIFFICULT THING TO IMPLEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT'S POINT OF VIEW BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN, OWNERSHIP AND THE DIFFERENCE IN PHASING. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO TO REACH OUT TO THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR FINAL DETERMINATION OF SCHOOL BUS STOP LOCATION THAT WAS AT THE PLANNING BOARD. SUBSEQUENTLY TO THAT, THE APPLICANT DID REACH OUT TO THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THEY HAVE IMPLEMENTED A SCHOOL BUS STOP LOCATION [03:05:07] WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT. THE EMERGENCY ACCESS DETAILS ARE TO BE SPELLED OUT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE CITY CODE REQUIRES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE AGREED AT THE TIME OF FINAL PD SITE PLAN. NOW, THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS RAISED A NUMBER OF ISSUES WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY RESOLVED. AND THERE'S A MEMO ATTACHED TO THAT IN THE ITEM IN THE AGENDA. AND ESSENTIALLY THESE ARE THE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED IN THE CITY ATTORNEY'S MEMO, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY NAMELY FM MILLCREEK HOLDING LLC, SHOULD BE THE LEGAL ENTITY TO ENTER INTO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND THAT THAT WAS OUTSTANDING AT THAT TIME. THE REQUIREMENT FOR UNIFIED CONTROL. AND WE LOOKED AT THAT. THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOOKED AT THAT ISSUE FOR UNIFIED CONTROL. AND A BIG ISSUE WITH THAT IS IF A PROPERTY IS NOT IN UNIFIED CONTROL AND IT'S NOT UNDER STRICT ALLOCATION OF DENSITY OR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR ENTITLEMENTS IN, IN THAT PROPERTY, THEN THAT COULD LEAD TO DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN PARTIES OF THAT PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE IN DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS. BUT IN THIS CASE, WE ALREADY MENTIONED IT WAS APPROVED PRIOR TO THE MASTER AND FINAL PD CODE. THAT WAS CONDITIONED AS PART OF THE APPROVAL, AND IT WAS REITERATED BY PLANNING BOARD AS IT CAME THROUGH. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THERE IS A NATURAL BIFURCATION OF THE PD INTO TWO PARTS. AND THAT'S ITERATED ON THAT CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND PD APPROVAL. EACH POD HAS ITS OWN DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS. AND YOU CAN SEE HOW THAT'S BROKEN DOWN. BETWEEN POD ONE AND POD TWO, THEY EACH HOLD THEIR OWN DENSITY ALLOCATIONS. THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN SPACE. WHAT USES ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THOSE? AND QUITE DEFINED IN TERMS OF THEIR AREAS. SO THIS APPLICATION IS LOOKING AT POD TWO. POD ONE REMAINS IN SEPARATE OWNERSHIP, BUT WITHIN THE OVERALL PD AND GOVERNED BY THOSE REQUIREMENTS FOR POD ONE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE BUILD OUT AND THE DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS THEY OF POD TWO, IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS CONTAINED WITH THE ORIGINAL CONTAINED WITHIN THE ORIGINAL PD IN TERMS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AND NUMBER OF UNITS. THE DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS OF POD ONE REMAIN ALSO AS ENTITLED IN THE CURRENT PD SITE PLAN. THE OPERATION, CONNECTION DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF THE PD AS A WHOLE REMAINS AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. NOW, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR A PD TO BE DEVELOPED IN PHASES. WHAT IS MORE UNUSUAL IS THAT THE PD IS OWNED BY VARIOUS DIFFERENT PARTIES. BUT WE DO HAVE EXAMPLES IN THE CITY WHERE THAT HAS OCCURRED AND STILL OCCURS. WE HAVE THE DATA TRACE PD, WHICH IS MANY DIFFERENT PHASES IN DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS AND CONTROL. SOME OF THOSE OR ALL OF THOSE ARE SUBJECT TO THEIR OWN DENSITY ALLOCATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS AS DICTATED BY THAT PD AND THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THAT PD. WE'RE ALSO DOING THE SAME THING WITH, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT WITH KING'S LANDING. THERE ARE THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHICH ARE IN, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT OWNERSHIPS. AND I SAID EARLIER THAT THAT DOES BECOME AN ISSUE AND PROBLEM. IF THE PD AT ITS BASE DOES NOT ALLOCATE DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS TO EACH PHASE. AND WHAT WE'RE FINDING HERE IS THAT THE MILL CREEK DEVELOPMENT DOES DO THAT. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE CONDITION REMAINS, THAT IT SHOULD BE UNITY OF TITLE AND SO FORTH. SO THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED TODAY. SO, YEAH. [03:10:08] SO I'VE GONE THROUGH THE YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL. THERE ARE SECTIONS IN THE CITY CODE THAT DOES ALLOW THAT. AND THE PHASING ALSO IS REQUIRED TO MEET CERTAIN SECTIONS OF CITY CODE. BUT WHAT I'M NOT HAPPY WITH IS THAT WE WE'RE NOT FULLY RESOLVED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND I THINK I WOULD NOT BE CORRECT IN WANTING TO ISSUE A DETERMINATION ON MY RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL, WITHOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY BEING ABLE TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INTO TERMS THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. SO TODAY I WOULD BE RECOMMENDING A CONSIDERATION OF A CONTINUATION OF THIS, UNLESS SOMETHING CAN BE RESOLVED DURING THIS HEARING. IS THAT YOUR IT'S YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. QUESTIONS? I DO. YEAH. GO AHEAD. YEAH. POD ONE AND POD TWO ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES THAT OWN THEM. YES. CAME IN ORIGINALLY UNDER THE SAME PLAN DEVELOPMENT SCHEME AND WERE APPROVED BACK IN 2023? YES. NOW WE'RE CARVING OUT POD ONE BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER INVOLVED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT SCHEME AS OF TODAY. IN TERMS OF WHAT'S COMING TODAY. NO, THEY'RE NOT INVOLVED. AND THE SITE PLAN WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT TONIGHT IS FOR POD TWO SOLELY. YES. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE THEN? MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN ADDRESS THIS. THIS UNITY OF TITLE AND CONDITION SEEMS TO ME TO BE IRRELEVANT IF WE HAVE A SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNER, A SEPARATE DEEDED LOT THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL PD, BUT HAS NOW DECIDED NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCESS, BUT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THESE CONDITIONS AT A FUTURE DATE. WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE TO THE CITY? THAT THERE BE A UNITY OF TITLE HERE. I GUESS I'M TAKING THE POSITION IS LIKE, I DON'T REALLY CARE IF THERE'S A UNITY OF TITLE. POD ONE IS STILL SUBJECTED TO THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS IN 2023. THEY CAN COME FORWARD AT ANY GIVEN POINT IN TIME TO SEEK THEIR SITE PLAN APPROVAL OUTSIDE OF POD TWO. THAT IS CORRECT. SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAS BEEN A CONTINUING ISSUE. I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT SOMEBODY ENLIGHTEN ME AS TO WHY THIS IS STILL HANGING OUT HERE, AND WE JUST CAN'T SEPARATE THE TWO AND LET POD ONE PROPERTY OWNERS MOVE ON WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY. POD TWO WANTS TO COME FORWARD AND DEVELOP, FINALLY APPROVE THEIR SITE PLAN. IF THAT WAS THE WHIM OF OF THE OF THE COMMISSION AND EVERYBODY MOVES ON IN LIFE, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS UNITY SCENARIO, BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE'S NO UNITY AMONGST THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO WHY ARE WE TRYING TO FORCE THIS ISSUE AND JUST NOT ALLOW THEM TO GO THEIR SEPARATE WAYS AND CONTINUE ON? I GUESS, MISS HEDGES, I'M DIRECTING THIS. I'M TOSSING THIS PORCUPINE INTO YOUR LAP BECAUSE I'M APPARENTLY I'M MISSING SOMETHING HERE. MISS HEDGES, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS. SO I WILL GLADLY TAKE THE PORCUPINE. BECAUSE I THINK THE THE BIG PICTURE THAT'S BEING MISSED HERE OVERALL IS WHEN YOU DECIDE TO MARRY YOURSELF TO ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER INSIDE OF A PD, YOU NO LONGER GET TO ACT SEPARATELY. SO WHEN THIS APPLICANT DECIDED TO GO INTO A PD WITH ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER, THEIR RIGHTS ARE NO LONGER. AS A SIMPLE SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER, YOU ARE NOW CONTROLLED BY ONE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SO RELATED TO THE UNITY OF TITLE. THAT ISSUE IS NOT NEW TODAY. THAT ISSUE WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR REZONING IN 23 .011. AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THEY CANNOT GET A FINAL SITE PLAN UNTIL THEY HAVE THE UNITY OF TITLE. SO THEY WERE VERY WELL AWARE OF THAT. SO THERE'S THREE CONDITIONS AT LEAST, THAT THEY HAVE FAILED TO MEET UNDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 23 011. CONDITION EIGHT REQUIRED THEM TO HAVE UNIFIED CONTROL AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. CONDITION 14 REQUIRED A UNITY OF TITLE WITH THE SAINT LUCY CLERK OF COURTS, AND A PARCEL COMBINATION WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. CONDITION 15 REQUIRED A UNITY OF TITLE AND A LOT COMBINATION, AND A GENERAL ADDRESS REQUEST FORM FOR THE NEWLY FORMED PARCEL ID, SO FORTH, SO ON. SO THERE'S AT LEAST THREE THAT THEY HAVE NOT MET THAT WAS REQUIRED TO BE REZONED. ALL RIGHT. SO ALL THAT ALL IS PREDICATED ON UNITY OF TITLE. ALL THREE OF THOSE ARE SPEAKING TO UNITY IN ONE FASHION OR ANOTHER. [03:15:02] SO THEY'RE ALL INTERLINKED. IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? OKAY. THAT IS FAIR. SO WHY WHAT PRECLUDES US FROM RELIEVING THAT OBLIGATION. THE IT IS THE SAME OPTION THAT WAS GIVEN TO THIS APPLICANT WHEN I SPOKE TO THEM, WHICH IS THE ANSWER IS TO GO BACK AND FIX THEIR REZONING INITIALLY IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEY NEEDED TO DO SO AHEAD OF A FINAL SITE PLAN BEING SUBMITTED TO THIS COMMISSION. THEY HAVE AN OPTION TO SEPARATE THESE PODS AND PROCEED AS SEPARATE PROPERTIES, BUT INSTEAD THERE. HERE IS ONE PROPERTY. SO I DO HAVE A SLEW OF QUESTIONS FOR KEV BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH SOME OF THE THINGS AS THEY WERE PHRASED, AND I WOULD LIKE HIM TO CLARIFY TOO. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AS WELL. I JUST, I GUESS. I'M NOT A FAN OF PRECLUDING, POTENTIALLY PRECLUDING A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL ISSUE. AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENTARY THAT IN THEORY, THEY'D HAVE TO RESUBMIT THE SITE PLAN START ALL OVER AGAIN, WHICH IS A RATHER LENGTHY AND COSTLY UNDERTAKING VERSUS US JUST BEING ABLE TO AS THE POWER OF THE COMMISSION TO SAY, FINE, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND NEGATE THE UNITY OF TITLE REQUIREMENTS AND ALL THREE OF THOSE PROVISIONS THAT YOU MENTIONED AND ALLOW THEM TO PROCEED ON DEVELOPMENT ON THEIR SITE, WHICH IS POD TWO, WITH SEPARATE OWNERSHIP OF POD ONE GOING OFF IN THEIR DIRECTION. SO YOU'RE SAYING WE DO NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO DO THAT? I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY IN THIS MANNER TO DO THAT. AND I WOULD STRONGLY ADVISE YOU AGAINST CREATING RULES AND REQUIREMENTS AND THEN JUST DOING AWAY WITH THEM, BECAUSE IT'S FOR THE EASE OF SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T WANT TO FOLLOW THEM. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT I'M NOT. SO LET ME QUALIFY THIS BY SAYING I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS ISSUE. I'M NOT TRYING TO GIVE ANYBODY A FREE RIDE BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. THAT'S NOT ME. YOU KNOW ME BETTER THAN THAT. IT'S SIMPLY IF WE HAVE A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THAT THIS BODY FEELS THAT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD, I WANT TO GIVE THEM A PATHWAY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. AND I'M NOT LOOKING TO TO CREATE ANY LAW HERE THAT I DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO CREATE TO BENEFIT A DEVELOPER. I'M NOT LOOKING TO DO THAT. YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS THAT I'M VERY CONFOUNDED BY THE FACT THAT WE'RE BEING HUNG UP ON WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A TECHNICALITY. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A FALLING OUT BETWEEN TWO PROPERTY OWNERS. THEY DON'T WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME. I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR. SO HOW AND I GUESS IT'S GOING TO BE FOR THIS PARTY TO DELIBERATE. WHAT IS THE BEST WAY FOR THEM TO EXPEDITE THIS AND FIX THIS IF WE DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY TO FIX IT AT THIS LEVEL? MADAM MAYOR, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I'M AT. IT'S WE'VE FACED THIS EVEN WITH THE KING'S LANDING DOWN THERE. WE WERE COUPLED WITH SOMETHING AND WE HAD TO UNCOUPLE IT. SO I'M INTERESTED MORE IN THESE. THE ACTUAL LAW PART OF THIS IS THIS FLORIDA IS THIS STATUE OR OR WHAT THAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THESE TWO PARTIES HAVE PARTED WAYS. THEY HAVE DIVORCED. RIGHT. AND SO NOW WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT SOMEONE THAT'S WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT. AND, AND SEE IF THERE'S A PATHWAY, WHATEVER THAT PATHWAY IS, THAT MOVES A PERSON ENTITY FORWARD, THAT HAS COME WITH AN APPLICATION TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY. THIS STANDS RIGHT. THIS PROPERTY IS NOT DEVELOPABLE. POSSIBLE FOREVER. TRUE. BECAUSE ONE PART ONE IS NOT WILLING TO SIGN. THAT'S THE TITLE OF UNITY TO THEIR PROPERTY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I'M GOING. SO THERE HAS TO BE A SOLUTION, A REASONABLE SOLUTION THAT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE A 12 MONTH TIMELINE TO GET GET DONE. I WANT TO BRING ANYBODY. ANYBODY ELSE. YOU GOT ANYTHING TO SAY? GOT THE SAME PAGE. OKAY. WELL, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IN IT. I MEAN, I'M INTERESTED IN FINDING A PATHWAY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN BECAUSE. BUT SO I'M. I'M WITH YOU THERE. BUT ISN'T THERE ISN'T THERE ALSO A PROBLEM, MISS HEDGES, WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THIS PROPERTY? DO I REMEMBER THAT CORRECTLY? MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO WHAT I WAS TOLD FROM THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER TEAM, WHICH IS THAT THE TWO OWNERS ARE NO LONGER ON SPEAKING TERMS AND ESSENTIALLY CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT. BUT HE WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. I MEAN, THE ACTUAL OWNERSHIP OF MILK MILL CREEK. SO THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE OWNER, RIGHT? THE APPLICANT IS A DEVELOPER LOOKING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. AND SO PART OF THE CONCERN AS WE'RE SITTING HERE IS IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE OWNER HAS SIGNED THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT. [03:20:01] SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TO KEV IS ABOUT THE ACTUAL OWNER AND WHETHER THAT ENTITY HAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF THE TERMS. THE WAY THAT THIS IS SET UP IS THAT THE OWNER IS THE PARTY IN CONTRACT WITH THE CITY BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPERTY. BUT THE APPLICANT SLASH DEVELOPER IS BASICALLY A COSIGNER, IF YOU WILL, TO THIS AGREEMENT, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE DONE THE APPLICATION AND NEGOTIATED MOST OF THE TERMS. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THEN RUNS WITH THE PROPERTY. SO ONCE IT'S SOLD FROM OWNER TO APPLICANT DEVELOPER, ALL OF THOSE TERMS WILL RUN WITH THE THE SALE IF IT IS TO CLOSE. RIGHT. BUT SO MY BASIC IT SEEMS FROM YOUR MEMO THAT ONE BASIC VERY BASIC PROBLEM IS IS THE OWNER ISN'T THE APPLICANT. IS THAT CORRECT? MADAM MAYOR, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. IT'S A CONCERN THAT HAD TO BE CORRECTED. WHAT I DON'T KNOW, AS I SIT HERE IS IF THE OWNER WHO IS WHO. WE NEED TO SIGN. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS AGREED TO ALL OF THE TERMS. I'M HOPING MR. FREEMAN CAN GIVE US THAT ANSWER. WELL, I MEAN, I'M IN TOTAL AGREEMENT THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE PARTY TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND THE APPLICANT WAS ADVISED OF THAT. AND I WOULD HOLD ANY VIEW OF THAT UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE I'VE NOT I'VE NOT PERSONALLY SEEN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDED TO SHOW THE MILL CREEK HOLDING LLC BEING THE THE SIGNER OR A PARTY TO THAT. I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN THAT. AND, MISS HEDGES, I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION TOO. YES, MA'AM. SO IT SEEMS TO ME SOMEWHERE IN CONVERSATION I HEARD THAT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WHERE THERE ARE TO SEVERAL OWNERS IN AN AGREEMENT AND AND THEN THAT THAT IF THIS UNITY OF TITLE WHICH SEEMS TO BE A TECHNICAL THING THAT WE KIND OF DO AS A STANDARD, IF WE DO THAT, THEN WE CREATE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE WHERE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER, TRYING TO BRING THE CITY INTO THEIR FIGHT. WHEN WE THOUGHT THAT WE DID A PRETTY, WE THOUGHT WE DID A CLEAR JOB OF MAKING SAYING THAT THIS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY. YES, MA'AM. MADAM MAYOR. RIGHT. SO IN RECENT MEMORY, WE'VE HAD THAT ISSUE COME UP WHEN WE DID THE CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THAT WAS PART OF WHAT WAS ADDRESSED WITHIN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT SECTION OF THE CODE, RELATED TO WHEN ONE OWNER CAN DO AN AMENDMENT AFTER YOU HAVE A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVED BASED ON BUILD OUT PERCENTAGES. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK EXACTLY WHAT ALL IS ENCOMPASSED. BUT WE DID ATTEMPT TO FIX THAT BASED ON SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD. I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS NECESSARILY DIRECTLY ON POINT BECAUSE WE'RE STILL AT A FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL. NOT TO THE POINT THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING BUILDABLE, THAT ONE WOULD COME IN AND TRY AND CHANGE AFTER THEY HAVE PERMISSIONS TO BUILD, BECAUSE THE CONCEPTUAL AND MR. FREEMAN CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THEY CAN'T GO OUT AND BUILD ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THEY STILL HAVE TO GET THEIR FINAL SITE PLAN. OKAY. OKAY. THOSE WERE MY QUESTIONS, MADAM MAYOR. OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO EVEN GO DOWN THIS THIS PLAN PD AND HEADACHE RIGHT NOW, BUT, MR. FREEMAN, CAN YOU GO BACK TO WHERE YOU BROKE DOWN THE PART ONE? PART TWO? WHAT WHAT WHAT THEY CAN BUILD AND WHAT THEY COULDN'T BUILD THAT WHATEVER THAT PHRASE OR WHATEVER THAT WE JUST SEE THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. YES, I DO. THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND A POINT. I GET IT. I UNDERSTAND COMMISSIONER BRODERICK'S POINT. MY QUESTION IS THIS. I DON'T CARE IF EITHER ONE OF THESE EACH OTHER TO THE END OF TIME BASED ON WHAT WE APPROVE. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN GO IN PART ONE IS WHAT I SEE HERE. RIGHT. AND THE ONLY THING THAT CAN GO IN PART TWO IS WHAT I SEE HERE. ANY DEVIATION FROM WHAT HAS BEEN PROVED TO GO IN PART ONE. IF IF HE COMES BACK AND WANTS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, THEY GOTTA COME BACK IN FRONT OF US AND AND WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'LL WILL PROVE IT? IS THIS WHAT THOSE ARE? [03:25:03] I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. THIS IS OUTSIDE OF MY AREA WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION. BUT BLACK AND WHITE. SO ONLY THING THE OWNER OF PART ONE CAN DO IS DO A MIXED USE. YOU GOT TO HAVE 20%. I'M SORRY. THEY HAVE TO HAVE 20% OPEN SPACE, 15% STORMWATER. AND THE DENSITY CAN ONLY BE 15 PER ACRE IF I READ IT. THAT'S CORRECT. SO I UNDERSTAND. TRUST ME, I PROBABLY UNDERSTAND WHAT UNITY TITLE MEANS BECAUSE THAT'S A LEGAL TERM. I GET IT, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. IF WE ALREADY HAVE THEM PENCILED IN PART ONE, BECAUSE PART ONE CAN'T COME IN AND TURN THIS INTO SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO RIGHT HERE. CORRECT. UNLESS THEY COME IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION. THE TO THE COMMISSION, AND THEN WE HAVE TO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH WHATEVER. SO YES, THAT THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. I GOT YOU, MADAM ATTORNEY. I UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL THING. I GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS. I GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS. THAT'S FINE. SO IF I'M, IF I'M IF I'M WRONG FOR LOOKING AT THAT WAY. MADAM ATTORNEY, PLEASE GIVE ME SOME, SOME, SOME LEEWAY, BECAUSE THIS IS HOW I'M READING THIS. I TRUST ME, I KNOW WHAT THE TITLE IS AND I KNOW, OKAY, I KNOW WHAT IT IS LEGALLY, AND I KNOW I HAVE CASES WHERE PEOPLE THAT DON'T TALK SUING EACH OTHER. AND, MADAM MAYOR, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WHATEVER WE DO TONIGHT, BOARD MEMBERS AND MADAM MAYOR, WHATEVER WE DECIDE TONIGHT, WE NEED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FIGHT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANY LAWSUIT COMING IN AND SAYING. AND THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR FIGHT. SO WHATEVER WE DECIDE. STOP? BUT, MADAM ATTORNEY, IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS NOT JUST THAT SIMPLE AND BREAK DOWN FROM WHAT I'M SEEING HERE I WOULD LOVE TO LISTEN TO THE ANSWERS TO YOUR QUESTIONS, MISS HEDGES. MADAM MAYOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH SOME QUESTIONS WITH MR. FREEMAN. ALRIGHTY. OKAY. SO, MR. FREEMAN, YOU WERE DISCUSSING THAT THE. I WANT TO CLARIFY BECAUSE THE TITLE ON THIS AGENDA SAYS POD ONE, BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT POD TWO. THAT'S A PICTURE. YEAH, THAT'S A TYPO. OKAY, SO WHERE DID THIS BREAKDOWN OF POD TWO TO POD ONE COME FROM? IT'S A THAT'S NOTATED ON THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT AND THE SITE PLAN OF THAT ORDINANCE. IN 23 ZERO 11. YES. IT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION. OKAY. BECAUSE WHEN I PULL THAT ORDINANCE UP. I DON'T SEE THAT BREAKDOWN. DO YOU HAVE THAT ORDINANCE HANDY? I DON'T HAVE THE ORDINANCE HANDY, BUT I KNOW IT WAS INCLUDED AS A PART OF THE SUBMITTAL. MADAM CLERK, DO YOU HAVE THE APPROVED 23 ZERO 11 THAT YOU COULD EMAIL IN A WAY THAT MR. FREEMAN CAN PULL IT UP ON THE COMPUTER FOR THE COMMISSION, OR THAT YOU COULD SHOW FOR THE COMMISSION? I CAN SEND IT TO. I THINK IT'S PART OF THE PACKET. AM I RIGHT? WHAT'S THE NUMBER AGAIN? 20 3-011. I DON'T KNOW IF HE CAN PULL IT UP ON EMAIL THAT THAT COMPUTER DOESN'T ATTACH TO THE NETWORK. YEAH. OKAY. IT WAS FEBRUARY THE 6TH, 2023. IT'S JUST FIGURING OUT HOW TO GET IT TO YOU THERE. YOU CAN GET IT FROM HERE. BECAUSE I LOOKED AT THAT AND WHEN WHEN I WAS. YOU CAN GO ON. WE CAN PULL IT OFFLINE. OKAY. THERE. ALL THE ORDINANCES ARE GOING TO BE ONLINE IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT. OH OKAY. YEP. THERE YOU GO. THAT'LL WORK FEBRUARY 6TH A LONG WAY. THERE IT IS. YEAH. YES. 23. 11. THERE YOU GO. YES. [03:30:08] GOSH! SO THE POD ONE POD TWO SITE PLAN IS NOT THERE. BUT I KNOW IT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE PACKET. YEAH. WHO'S GOT POD? ONE POD. TWO. POD. THREE. THREE. IS THAT THE LAST ONE? I DID NOT GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PACKET. THAT IS. I THINK THIS WAS AMENDED TO REMOVE THAT PARCEL HERE. THE. ORIGINALLY THERE WERE FOUR, I THINK, AND THEN THEY REDUCED IT TO THREE. SO I, MR. FREEMAN, THOUGH I THINK THE POINT OR THE CLARIFICATION I'M LOOKING FOR THOUGH, IS LET'S SAY IT WAS APPROVED EVEN AT POD ONE. POD TWO MATCHING EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. RIGHT. THAT'S AT A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL, RIGHT? YES. PRIOR TO OUR CODE AMENDMENT. CORRECT. NOW WE WOULD CALL IT A MASTER. YES. WE WOULD. OKAY. AT A CONCEPTUAL LEVEL UNDER THE OLD RULES TO A FINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT AN OWNER OR AN APPLICANT IS PROHIBITED FROM CHANGING THEIR POD LEVELS, THEIR POD BOUNDARY LINES FROM CONCEPTUAL TO FINAL. NOT NECESSARILY. THAT WOULD BE PART OF THAT ORDINANCE OR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ONE THAT WOULD BE APPROVED AS PART OF THAT ORDINANCE. RIGHT. OKAY. SO AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SLIDE SPECIFICALLY WITH POD ONE AND POD TWO. SO THE ORIGINAL CONCEPTUAL HAD POD ONE IS BEING MIXED USE. RIGHT. CORRECT. IS THAT A REQUIREMENT FOR A FINAL SITE PLAN THAT IT MUST BE MIXED USE, UNLESS IT CAME AS PART OF A FINAL SITE PLAN WITH A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THAT. BUT THEN YOU'RE REVIEWING THE WHOLE PD, RIGHT? YES. BUT WE DON'T HAVE POD ONE HERE FOR YOU TO KNOW IF POD ONE ACTUALLY WANTS TO STAY MIXED USE. WE DON'T SEE THAT NOW. NOW. SO IF POD ONE COMES BACK TO US AND SAYS I WANT TO BE RESIDENTIAL, IS THEIR DENSITY AFFECTED BY THE DENSITY YOU'VE GIVEN TO POD TWO TONIGHT? NO. IS THERE INTENSITY AFFECTED BY WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO POD TWO TONIGHT? NO. IS THERE OPEN SPACE PERCENTAGE AFFECTED BY WHAT YOU GIVE TO POD TWO TONIGHT? NO. HOW ABOUT THEIR STORMWATER PERCENTAGE? NO. OKAY. SO WHEN I THINK THERE WAS ANOTHER SLIDE THAT YOU HAD IN HERE, CAN YOU GO BACK UP A COUPLE? [03:35:19] IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE ONE YOU WERE ON, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. SO. AND IN NO WAY IS POD ONE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY POD TWO IN THIS APPROVAL. THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DEMONSTRATED AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR POD TWO. THAT'S WHEN THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR STORMWATER AND OTHER CROSS CONNECTIVITY WOULD BE LOOKED AT, DEPENDING ON THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR THAT POD TO DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER OR NOT PART OF THAT, WHETHER POD TWO COULD STAND ALONE WITH ITS STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE. I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT, BE KNOW ASKED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. WELL, AS YOU SIT HERE, CAN YOU SAY FOR CERTAIN THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY THAT THE PERMISSIONS OF POD ONE WILL BE AFFECTED IN ANY WAY BY GIVING THESE APPROVALS TO POD TWO TONIGHT? I CAN'T SAY THAT. OKAY. AND WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME THAT IT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC IF POD ONE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING THAT WE'VE NOW PROHIBITED THEM FROM DOING BECAUSE OF THE APPROVALS WE'VE GIVEN TO POD TWO TONIGHT? I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK PART ONE HAS A SET RANGE OF PARAMETERS. BASED ON WHAT? BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE WHICH IS UNDERLYING THEM. AND THE ALLOCATION OF OPEN SPACE, STORM WATER DENSITY TO THAT PARTICULAR 17.77 ACRES. I CAN'T SAY THAT WE WOULD BE RESTRICTING THEIR DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OVER THAT. WHEN THEY'RE COMBINED IN YOUR UNITY OF TITLE. YES. UNDER 23 011. WOULD THAT HAVE EFFECT IF THIS UNITY OF TITLE HAD BEEN DONE, WOULD THAT HAVE AFFECTED THEIR ABILITIES TO DEVELOP? KNOW THEIR PERMISSION LEVELS? NO. OKAY. THE PHASING ASPECT OF POD ONE. YOU DISCUSS THAT IT'S NOT UNUSUAL, RIGHT, FOR MULTIPLE PHASES TO BE DEVELOPED, RIGHT? CORRECT. BUT WE DON'T KNOW. POD ONE, WHAT A PHASING OR DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE WOULD LOOK FOR THEM AT THIS POINT IN TIME? THAT'S CORRECT. HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE POD ONE OWNERS SINCE THE MASTER OR SINCE THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN WAS APPROVED? I HAVE NOT. GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRED THE UNITY OF TITLE, WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE UNITY OF TITLE? PURPOSE OF UNITY OF TITLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A PD WITH MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PHASING OR AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT, IS TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THAT PD AND ENSURE. SPECIFICALLY IN CASES WHERE THE USES THE ALLOCATION OF DENSITY AND OTHER FACTORS ARE NOT DESCRIBED FULLY IN THAT BREAKDOWN. WOULD YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE THAT WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT POD ONE IS DOING, WE DON'T HAVE AN OVERALL PICTURE OF WHAT THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE AT A FINAL LEVEL? AT A FINAL LEVEL? NO WE DON'T. THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD ZONING ORDINANCE FROM 23 011 NOT BEING MET. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED, EITHER MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REZONING OR CORRECTING THE REZONING PRIOR TO APPROVING A FINAL SITE PLAN? CORRECT. THAT WOULD NEED TO BE CORRECTED. AND THAT WOULD BE DONE. BASED ON CITY ATTORNEY'S ADVICE. DID YOU HAVE COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT ABOUT NEEDING TO RESOLVE THOSE ISSUES? YES. HAVE THEY BEEN WILLING TO DO SO AT THIS POINT? NO, THEY'VE NOT BEEN RESOLVED. HOW MANY PARCELS ARE ACTUALLY IN POD TWO? IT'S NOW MADE UP OF. I THINK IT WAS. IT'S JUST ONE PARCEL. I THINK THERE ARE FOUR PARCELS IN PART ONE. [03:40:05] I WAS LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE ATTACHED FOR TONIGHT AND IT REFERENCED TWO. LET ME MAKE SURE I'M OPENING THE RIGHT ONE BECAUSE I HAVE MULTIPLE WINDOWS OPEN. IT REFERENCED TWO PARCEL. SORRY, I'VE GOT SUNRISE LAKES. I'VE GOT A PARCEL A AND A PARCEL B. JUST SEEKING CLARIFICATION. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. HANG ON. ZACH. IS THERE A PARTICULAR PAGE FOR? IF YOU SCROLL DOWN. THAT'S THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WHICH DESCRIBES ONE PARCEL. AS YOU KNOW, TWO PARCELS. I DON'T KNOW. THAT IS A FACTOR OF THE SURVEYING ACTIVITY THAT WAS DONE THERE. AND SO IT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE COMBINED INTO ONE PARCEL BEING INVOLVED IN THIS. YES. AND SO THEN ORIGINALLY THERE WERE FOUR THAT WERE REZONED TOGETHER. RIGHT. I BELIEVE SO. SO THEN THAT WOULD LEAVE THREE PARCELS FOR THE OTHER OWNER? YES, I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SORRY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ANY OTHER? I DO HAVE A QUESTION. THERE'S AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN RAISED RELATIVE TO REPRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT, WHO IS NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER. WOULD YOU CONSIDER IT NORMAL PROCESS THAT A POTENTIAL DEVELOPER IS GOING TO OPTION A PROPERTY BEFORE CLOSING ON IT TO GET THEIR APPROVALS AND THEN CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEY WILL OPERATE UNDER SOME TYPE OF AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE THEIR ABILITY OR HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPRESENT THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THESE PROCEEDINGS. THAT'S A NORMAL, NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS. YES. HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MADAM MAYOR? YES, SIR. TOTALLY SWITCHING GEARS. TRY NOT TO IGNORE THE REST OF THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN. WE'RE ALL FOCUSED ON ONE ONE SPECIFIC THING, BUT WAS THERE. THIS MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT WAS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION ABOUT INTERCONNECTIVITY WITH THE ROAD NETWORK AND ATTACHING TO AVENUE D AND THE OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTY? YES. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DISCUSSION ACTUALLY AT THE ORIGINAL LEVEL OF THE 23 DASH 11 ORDINANCE, BOTH WITH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. AND ULTIMATELY, THE APPLICANT DID LOOK AT CONNECTING NORTH OR ALLOWING A CONNECTION NORTH, BUT THE OTHER CONNECTIONS WERE DEEMED NOT APPROPRIATE. SO WE WERE WE WERE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY VERY EARLY ON WITH THEIR NETWORK PLAN, ONE SPECIFICALLY IN THIS AREA, AND THE DIFFICULTY OF GETTING CONNECTIONS THROUGH SEEM TO WARRANT THAT TOO MUCH EFFORT WOULD NOT GAIN ANY MORE BENEFIT. SO NODE INTERCONNECTIVITY WAS DECIDED. OR OUTSIDE OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE PD. THERE WAS A THERE IS A CANAL TO THE EAST. THERE WAS A CANAL TO THE EAST. I THINK THERE'S SOME OBSTRUCTION TO THE NORTH. BUT THERE IS AN AVAILABLE LINK THAT THE APPLICANT IS IS SETTING OUT ON THEIR SITE PLAN. IF I GET THE SITE PLAN, I THINK YEAH, I SAW THAT LIKE EMERGENCY. [03:45:04] YEAH. WHETHER THAT IS CONVERTED AT SOME LATER DATE INTO A CONNECTION AND THE OTHER EAST WEST THOROUGHFARES THAT THEY DO, THEY MATCH UP WITH ANY OTHER, ANY ROADS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CANAL. ARE THEY. NO. DO YOU RECALL THERE JUST. THERE'S NO CONNECTION. NO. OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. YES, SIR. I'M GOING TO INTERJECT SOMETHING COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC HERE. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S SOME SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURAL ISSUES HERE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO FIX. ARE WE BETTER OFF TABLING THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE WE CAN'T APPROVE THIS IN WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS SAYING? WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY BECAUSE THESE ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED IN ANY CAPACITY. ARE WE BETTER OFF TABLING THIS MATTER? GET THE PARTIES TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM NOW IS WELL AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OPINION IS THAT WE CANNOT APPROVE THIS SITE PLAN DUE TO A WHOLE HOST OF REASONS. AND INSTEAD OF DEBATING THESE RATHER TECHNICAL ISSUES, I ALSO KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS UNDER A TIME CONSTRAINT. AND TO SEND THEM AWAY, TO HAVE THEM START OVER ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ADDRESS WHAT HAPPENED IN 2023 AND THEN CHANGE IT IN 2025. IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THERE'S A THERE'S GOT TO BE A SIMPLER PATH TO RESOLVE ALL OF THIS THAN STARTING FROM SCRATCH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS GOING TO PUT THEIR PROJECT INTO FAILURE. YEAH. IS THERE. MISS HEDGES, IS THERE I MEAN, THAT THEY'VE SAT HERE TONIGHT AND THEY'RE READY TO THEY'VE GOT PROCEEDED TO GO THROUGH THIS. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK IS BRINGING UP AN INTERESTING POINT. DO YOU HAVE SOME ADVICE HERE? MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. SO I MET WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM BACK IN APRIL, AND THIS THESE DISCUSSIONS BEGAN THEN. SO TONIGHT JUST, CANDIDLY, IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THEY'RE HEARING THESE CONCERNS. SO THE RECOMMENDATION I GAVE TO THEM THEN WAS TO GET WITH PLANNING TO WORK ON CORRECTING THEIR REZONING ORDINANCE ISSUES, EITHER BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE OR CORRECT THAT ORDINANCE. AND SO THUS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY HAD BEEN WILLING TO DO SO UP UNTIL NOW. I CAN CONTINUE TO WORK WITH PLANNING AND THE DEVELOPER TO DO THAT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY WANTED TO BRING THIS FORWARD AS IS WITHOUT MAKING ANY CHANGES. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW FRUITFUL IT WOULD BE TO SAY CONTINUE THIS AND CONTINUE WORKING WITH THEM. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU HEAR FROM THEM TO SEE IF THAT IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANYBODY'S TIME WITH IT. YES, MA'AM. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER SIDE. I AM TOO, BUT I JUST HAVE TO BE CLEAR. SOMETHING HERE THAT I THOUGHT I HEARD EARLIER, AND IT WAS ABOUT IT STARTED DOWN THE PATH OF THE UNITY OF TITLE. AND WHO HERE? BUT THEN I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMETHING TO SAY, THAT THE DEVELOPER THAT'S AN OWNER OF PART TWO, THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT THAT NEEDED TO BE SOME TYPE OF TRANSFER BECAUSE IT ALL FELL UNDER THE OVERALL MILLCREEK PLAN. AND THAT WAS THE INITIAL WHEN THEY CAME TOGETHER. RIGHT? AT FIRST IT WAS THE OWNER AND ALL OF THESE, THEY WERE ALL IN THERE TOGETHER. AND THERE'S THERE'S BEEN NO BIFURCATION BETWEEN 1 AND 2, MEANING THAT THERE WASN'T A SALE OF THIS PART TWO PROPERTY TO THEM IS DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? MR. FREEMAN, TRANSFER OR GIVEN THEM? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE THIS 60 SOME ACRES OVER HERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO PAY US X AMOUNT OF MONEY, WHATEVER IT IS OR WHATEVER. DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? WHAT AM I HEARING STUFF UP HERE? I THINK WE'RE ALL HEARING STUFF. I THINK WE ARE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M HEARING THE RIGHT THING. RIGHT? THE SITUATION. IF I CAN JUST TRY AND WRAP IT UP, IS WE HAVE ONE PLANNED PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE. I GOT IT WITHIN THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND THE SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS. THERE WAS A DEMONSTRATED SPLIT BETWEEN TWO AREAS. YES. ONE AREA HAS A RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE. THE OTHER AREA HAS A MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE. YES. IT HAPPENS THAT THOSE AREAS ARE OWNED BY SEPARATE ENTITIES. GOT IT. WHAT WE SEE AT THE MOMENT IS ONE OF THOSE ENTITIES WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PIECE. GOT IT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE OTHER ENTITY AT THE MOMENT. AND THAT IS THE HOLDUP BECAUSE HE'S NOT GIVEN EITHER PERMISSION OR SIGNED OR AGREED TO. AND THAT COULD BE A HOLDUP. OKAY. THE WAY THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS, IS THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN BE BIFURCATED VERY EASILY AND [03:50:02] THEY BOTH OPERATE UNDER THEIR OWN DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS, RIGHT? THEN THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE FOR ONE OWNER TO MOVE AHEAD WITH PROVISIONS WITHIN THE CITY, ORDINANCES THAT SAY THEY HAVE TO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT AFFECTS DEVELOPMENT ON POD ONE OR HINDERS DEVELOPMENT ON POD ONE DUE TO THEIR PHASING OF INFRASTRUCTURE OR SO FORTH. THEY HAVE TO BE INDEPENDENTLY DESIGNED. YEAH, BUT WE RAN INTO OKAY, LET'S I WANT TO MOVE THIS ON AND HEAR FROM SOME OTHERS HERE JUST TO GET SOME INFORMATION OUT. I THINK WE AT LEAST OWE THAT TO OKAY, THE LAST CALL FOR QUESTIONS OF MISTER FREEMAN, AND IF THERE NONE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AT LAST. SOUNDS LIKE THE BEGINNING OF A SONG. WHAT A NIGHT. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS TODD MALLORY, AND I WANT TO JUST ASK YOU, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WE'LL GET INTO THAT. SO. OKAY. AGAIN, BEING A QUASI JUDICIAL AREA, I FEEL AS THOUGH WE HAVE TO NOW FOLLOW THAT PROCESS, SEEING IT'S BECOMING ONE WHERE THE CITY ATTORNEY IS TAKING A POSITION THAT'S PUSHING IT INTO THIS QUASI JUDICIAL MANNER. SO AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, TODD MOREY WITH REDTAIL HAVE 26 YEARS OF PLANNING EXPERIENCE. I'VE WRITTEN 17 ZONING ORDINANCES, NINE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS. SO IN DOING ALL THAT, I HAVE A NICE PRESENTATION WHICH WE CAN PROVIDE TO WALK THROUGH THESE ITEMS. AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN TACKLE A COUPLE OF THESE ITEMS THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT. BECAUSE THERE ARE, I THINK, SOME INTERESTING PERSPECTIVES THAT MAY ADD SOME LIGHT TO HOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. SO IF I CAN BORROW THE MAGIC YOU CAN HAVE YOU GOT THE PRESENTATION? IT'S ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. OH. I NEED TO THINK IT SHOULD STAY UPDATED. PRESENTATION. OKAY. WHOSE MASS IS THIS? OKAY. IF YOU GO BACK TO THE TOP OF THAT SCREEN, IT WAS RIGHT THERE, I THINK. WAS IT OR WAS THAT YOURS? YEAH. UPDATED APPLICANT. OH, THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO. YEAH. LET ME JUST GET THAT FULL SCREEN ANYWAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE THE SIMILAR BUTTONS ON YOUR BOTTOM RIGHT. TO GET THAT STARTED AS THE PRESENTATION, YOU HAVE TO DOWNLOAD IT IN ORDER TO DO IT IN PRESENTATION. I THINK IT'S PDF, TODD. SO YOU WON'T GET A POWERPOINT. OH, WE WON'T GET THE PART. REALLY? OH, SO ALL THE CLICKS ARE GONE. OH, NO. ALL RIGHT, WELL, LET'S ROLL THROUGH IT THIS WAY THEN. LET'S SEE EACH OF THOSE SCREENS, WHAT WE HAVE. AND I WANT TO STEP ON A COUPLE OF THESE THINGS BECAUSE PDFS ARE OBVIOUSLY A BIG DISCUSSION AND TO MAYBE EVEN BEGIN WITH, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ALREADY ASKING THE QUESTION, WHY ARE YOU ALL DOING PDFS? WHY ARE WE NOT? QUESTIONS CAME UP TONIGHT WITH THE PRIOR APPLICATION THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU. WHY DO WE AS DEVELOPERS ACTUALLY COME TO YOU WITH PDFS? FIRST OFF, THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, UNLIKE THE CITY OF PORT SAN LUCIE, UNLIKE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, YOU HAVE STANDARDS IN PLACE THAT MAKE IT SO THAT THE LOT SIZE WIDTH THAT YOU ARE REQUIRING IN YOUR STANDARD ZONING DISTRICTS DO NOT ALLOW MOST ANY OF YOUR DEVELOPERS TODAY TO WANT TO COME TO THE CITY. FORT PIERCE THE LOT WITH ARE TOO WIDE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE CITY OF PORT SAN JOSE COMING IN WITH 70 OR 75 FOOT WIDE LOTS. WE MAY LIKE THAT IF YOU WANT A BIG LOT, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S HAPPENING. AS A RESULT, YOU'RE GETTING 35, 40, 45, 50. THAT'S WHAT'S COMING IN ACROSS THE BOARD. SO THE ONLY MECHANISM THAT ANY DEVELOPER HAS IN COMING TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS TO DO WHAT? REQUEST A PD. THAT'S PLAIN AND SIMPLE, WHY YOU'RE GETTING ALL THE PD REQUESTS. BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER MECHANISM IN PLACE FOR AN APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD WITH THAT. WE HAVE THIS PROJECT. THIS WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BACK IN 2022. SO WHEN WE BEGAN THE PROCESS, WHAT I WANT TO NOTE ON HERE IS YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE PARTIES THAT CAME FORWARD. YOU HAVE THE PD ON THE LEFT, AND THAT ONE WAS WHAT WE CALLED WEST ORANGE. YOU MAY THINK ABOUT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WHOLE BRANDING CAMPAIGN, BANNERS ON THE FLAGPOLES ALONG ALONG ORANGE AVENUE, AS WELL AS HEADING UP ON JENKINS. AND THOSE BANNERS WOULD REFLECT AN IMAGE FOR THIS AREA, GOING AWAY FROM THE INDUSTRIAL BEGINNING TO MOVE MORE INTO THE [03:55:06] RESIDENTIAL WITH SOME COMMERCIAL MIXES IN IT. I WENT TO THE APPLICANTS FOR ALL THOSE ALL THOSE PARCELS OF LAND AND I SAID, GUYS, I DO NOT WANT YOU DOING ANYTHING INSIDE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY. I WANT YOU TO GO 100% INTO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. THEY'RE EASIER TO WORK WITH. WE KNOW THE STAFF. IT'S LESS BUREAUCRATIC. IT'S AN EASIER PROCESS TO GO THROUGH 100%. SO EVERY SINGLE ANNEXATION APPLICATION FOR ALL THE PARCELS FROM JOEY MILLER'S OFF OF JENKINS TO DEALING WITH THIS GROUP THAT'S OUT OF DETROIT, THAT HAS WHAT WE REFER TO AS THE F. ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE MY CURSOR? IS I MOVING IT? SO THIS IS KNOWN WE CALL THIS THE F PIECE. IT'S IN THE SHAPE OF AN F. THIS IS A SEPARATE LANDOWNER, JOEY MILLER, A SEPARATE LANDOWNER. THAT WAS ONE PIECE THAT CAME IN AS WEST ORANGE. THEN WE HAVE THE MILL CREEK PD. THE MILL CREEK PD ALSO HAS TWO PIECES WITH IT. SO THOSE WERE THE TWO THAT WE BROUGHT IN. WE PROVIDED YOU WITH A PLAN. AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE CREATED HERE ON THE CORNER WHERE THE 7-ELEVEN IS ANOTHER PROJECT, BUT THAT IS NOT IN THE CITY. WE WEREN'T ABLE TO CREATE ANY TYPE OF ANNEXATION FOR THAT, SO IT HAD TO REMAIN INSIDE THE CITY AS WE BEGAN PULLING TOGETHER THOSE COMMERCIAL PLANS. THIS IS WHAT ACTUALLY GOT APPROVED FOR MILL CREEK. THE SITE APPLICATION YOU'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, IN 2007, THIS WAS UNDER THE COUNTY. IT WAS FULLY APPROVED AS A PUD. AND IF YOU'LL NOTICE, IT LOOKS VIRTUALLY THE EXACT SAME AS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING TODAY, PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY BY OUR APPLICANT. THIS WAS THE COUNTY APPROVED PUD SITE PLAN. NOW, IF WE HAD CLICKS AND SOME OF THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU HERE FOR OWNERSHIP. WE HAVE TO HAVE WHENEVER WE REPRESENT AS AN APPLICANT, AS AN AGENT, WE HAVE TO HAVE OWNERSHIP AUTHORIZATION. WE HAD TO HAVE IT FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW, AND IT CLEARLY SHOWED THAT IT WAS FM MILLCREEK HOLDING LLC BEING PROVIDED, BRINGING THAT THROUGH. IN ADDITION, WE ALSO HAD TO PROVIDE A SIGN NOTARIZED FROM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, GIVING US REDTAIL FULL AUTHORIZATION TO DEAL WITH ALL APPLICATIONS. ALL REQUEST TO DEAL WITH ANYTHING RELATED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING WORLD. SO YES, AS THE AGENT, I HAVE THE ABILITY TO REPRESENT ON ALL THOSE AND I CANNOT SUBMIT AN APPLICATION. YOU ALL WERE NOT ABLE TO HEAR IN 2023 YOUR ACTUAL APPROVAL. YOU COULDN'T TAKE ACTION UNLESS YOU KNEW THAT YOU HAD THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION FOR THAT. AND THOSE ARE HOW THOSE THINGS BEGIN TO WORK. AND WE HAVE TO DO THAT WITH THE STAFF. SAME OWNER IN 2007 OWNED IT. SAME OWNER TODAY. STILL, F.M. MILL CREEK HOLDING HOLDS IT TODAY, AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME OWNER IN SHORT ORDER. AND THAT'S GOING TO BECOME DREAM FINDERS. WHO IS OUR APPLICANT AND TODAY. SO IN OUR PRESENTATION AGAIN THIS IS ON THE RECORD. THIS WAS FULLY A PART OF OUR PRESENTATION TO YOU IN FEBRUARY WHEN THIS ORDINANCE 23 011 WAS APPROVED. WE FULLY PRESENTED AS REQUIRED FULLY BY STAFF, THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN, THIS IS THE ACTUAL PLAN THAT WAS IN THE PRESENTATION. I HAVE THE FULL STAFF PRESENT POWERPOINT PRESENTATION, WHICH I KNOW THE CITY CLERK MAY BE ABLE TO PULL UP AS WELL. IF NOT, I CAN EASILY EMAIL IT EVEN NOW TO THE CITY CLERK, BUT THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S ON THE RECORD. THIS SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT WAS APPROVED, DEALING WITH BOTH POD ONE, POD TWO, AND ALL THE ELEMENTS APART THAT WERE A PART OF IT. THIS PROCESS BECAME WHAT WE CALL THE BUBBLE PLAN. IT'S NOT A TECHNICAL TERM, AND THOSE ARE SOME THINGS THAT AS WE TALKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH TECHNICALITIES. HOWEVER, YOU ALL WERE DEALING WITH THE WAVE PARK PROJECT WHEN YOU DEALT WITH THE WAVE PARK PROJECT. THIS WAS THE SAME CONCEPT THAT YOU PUT TOGETHER THE WAVE PARK PROJECT, AS YOU'RE VERY AWARE, IS MADE UP OF A LOT OF DIFFERENT ELEMENTS. THAT WAVE PARK PROJECT IS NOT GOING TO HAVE ONE SPECIFIC OWNER. IT HAS MULTIPLE OWNERS THAT WILL BE ALL A PART OF THOSE THINGS. WE'RE IN A SAME SITUATION, BUT FOR THIS POD TWO, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE REPRESENTING AND BRINGING BEFORE YOU IS ONE OWNER AND ONE LOT. IT'S CLEAR. AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT TOO AS WE TALK ABOUT TECHNICALITIES. POD ONE IS ONE OWNER AND THREE LOTS. THEY HAVE THAT. AND IF I WERE CLICKING YOU'D SEE POD ONE WOULD COME UP WITH THE FIRST PIECE. YOU CAN SEE TWO AND YOU CAN SEE THREE. IT IS A MIXED USE. IT'S SET UP WITH THAT. IT TALKS ABOUT BOTH THE ELEMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE PROVIDED, WHICH ARE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, AND THE FACT THAT THEY CAN GO UP TO 15 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO ON THIS SLIDE, YOU SEE WHAT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED. OURS WAS UP TO 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. SO IS THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOSS OF CERTAIN ENTITLEMENTS. NO, WE'RE ACTUALLY COMING IN AT 7.02.01, DEPENDING UPON THE CALCULATOR YOU APPEAR TO BE USING, BUT IT'S WHERE IT IS FOR FOR POD ONE. 18.17 ACRES. [04:00:04] THEY HAVE 15 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THAT'S WHAT'S PROVIDED. SO OUR SUBMITTAL SIX TWO ACRES, ONE OWNER, ONE POD. AND THAT IS WHAT WAS PRESENTED. SAME EXACT THING THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU WHEN WE BROUGHT IT BEFORE THE THE COMMISSION IN 2023 GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. THIS WAS ABOUT THE ACREAGES FOR THAT. THE ENTIRE PD, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS ALLUDED TO AND IS CORRECT, THE ENTIRE PD WAS ORIGINALLY THESE TWO SEPARATE PHASES, OR AS WE'VE BEEN CALLING PODS THAT CAME IN AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT WAS ESTABLISHED BRIEFLY TO GO OVER SOME OF THE ELEMENTS. OURS. WHY DO WE LOVE IT? WHY DO WE THINK IT'S SO NICE? BECAUSE ACTUALLY IT DOES IN FACT MATCH WHAT THE COUNTY DID ORIGINALLY APPROVE THEN BRINGING IN. IT HAS SOME DIFFERENCES AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. WE'VE ADDED A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SHOW YOU IN SOME OF THE OTHER STORMWATER ELEMENTS THAT COME THROUGH, AND THEN WE GET INTO SOME OF THE DETAILS AS WE DRILL DOWN INTO THE DETAILS. WE ACTUALLY HAD TO PROVIDE WE ACTUALLY HAD TO PROVIDE FOR NOT ONLY ACCESSIBILITY, BUT WE WORKED THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ACTUALLY DESIGN THIS ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, ROLLING BUS STOP WHERE THE BUSSES CAN ACTUALLY COME IN FULLY AND THEN EXIT BACK OUT. IT'S SEPARATE FROM THIS GATED COMMUNITY. THIS IS A PRIVATELY GATED COMMUNITY. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PROVIDING IN OUR OVERALL PROJECT. NOW COMING DOWN, TOUCHING ON A COUPLE OF THINGS, THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT TRAFFIC. YOU'LL SEE TODAY AT THE INTERSECTION OF BENT CREEK. WE HAVE A FULL ALIGNMENT WHERE YOU HAVE LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS. YOU HAVE RIGHT TURN MOVEMENTS GOING INTO BENT CREEK DECELERATION LANE THAT'S BEING PROVIDED, AND THEN IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE DONE BASED UPON DOT'S DIRECTION, SINCE IT'S A DOT CONTROLLED ROADWAY. QUICKLY, ELEMENTS OF THIS PROJECT 130 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THAT'S WHAT'S BEING PROVIDED FOR THAT FIRST FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY SIDE AND THEN 309 TOWNHOMES ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THAT PROJECT TO COMMISSIONER TAYLOR'S YOU KNOW, QUESTION WE ACTUALLY HAVE THERE'S A COUNTY WIDE ROADWAY MAP FOR THAT ENTIRE AREA. AND INTERESTINGLY, NONE OF THE ROADWAYS THAT THE COUNTY SHOWS REALLY ALIGN WITH ANYTHING THAT'S EVEN EXISTING. IT DOESN'T ALIGN WITH BENT CREEK. IT DOESN'T ALIGN. THEY SHOW A ROADWAY THAT COMES STRAIGHT DOWN THROUGH THIS PORTION HERE AND HAS A CONNECTION. SO WE WENT THROUGH THIS WHOLE ITERATION WITH AGAIN CITY STAFF. BUT AGAIN, THE CITY CONTROLS THE CITY. THE COUNTY CONTROLS THE COUNTY. AND I KNOW AT TIMES YOU DON'T WANT TO BE TOLD BY THE COUNTY TO DO ONE THING, AND THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO BE TOLD. SO BACK AND FORTH. SO IN THE END, THE CITY SAID, LISTEN, THIS IS OUR PROJECT THEY'RE ANNEXING INTO US, AND AS A RESULT, WE'RE GOING TO DO A PLAN THAT WORKS. WE DO SHOW COMMISSIONER TAYLOR HAVING EMERGENCY ACCESS THAT CONNECTS RIGHT HERE TO NORTH 43RD. SO WE'RE HAVING THE ACCESSIBILITY. HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT'S A GATED COMMUNITY, WE'RE NOT PROVIDING SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS THAT CONNECTIVITY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T OBVIOUSLY DO THAT. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT ANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE OCCURRING INSIDE OTHER PLACES WHERE THEY'RE GATED, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT CROSS THROUGH TRAFFIC THAT ACTUALLY CAN OCCUR. SO WHAT IT CAME DOWN TO IS THE QUESTION OF CAN YOU, FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT, MANAGE THE TRIPS THAT YOU HAVE WITHIN YOUR DEVELOPMENT, OR DO YOU NEED TO HAVE MULTIPLE POINTS OF ACCESS? THE ONLY OTHER POINT OF ACCESS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE FOR THE PROJECT. AND LET'S SEE IF I CAN SCROLL UP SINCE WE DON'T HAVE IT IS RIGHT HERE TO THE RIGHT. WE HAVE THIS ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORING PARCEL. THIS IS WHAT WE CALL A LITTLE BIT OF A DONUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT. THIS IS A THREE AND A HALF ACRE PIECE RIGHT HERE THAT ACTUALLY THE CITY STILL DOESN'T OWN. AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT DECIDED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO COME INTO THE PD, SO THEY'RE NOT EVEN A PART OF IT. SO IF YOU CAN LET ME SCROLL UP SO WE CAN MAYBE SEE THIS TO MAKE IT CLEAR. DO YOU SEE HERE YOU CAN SEE IN THE PD THERE IS A HOLE IN THAT HOWEVER BECAUSE THEY HAVE A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION. THE DOT IS WELL DIDN'T WANT TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN WHERE THEY TRY TO HAVE THEIR OWN ACCESS POINT. WE'RE PROVIDING THEM WITH ACCESS INTO THAT PROPERTY THROUGH OUR ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT. SCROLLING DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. 130 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT 309 TOWNHOMES. AS THAT COMES TOGETHER, YOU ALSO HAVE A CLUBHOUSE, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE POCKET PARKS AND AMENITIES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED WITH THAT. WHAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MAKING SURE THAT WHATEVER LANDSCAPING IS APPROVED, THAT IT DOES EXCEED WHATEVER WAS IN PLACE TODAY IN TERMS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING TEN FOOT, WE'VE GONE TO 20 FOOT BUFFERS, SOMETIMES AS MUCH AS 50 FOOT BUFFERS AROUND THE PROPERTY TO TRY AND INCREASE THOSE ELEMENTS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE FOCUS AGAIN. THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. THIS IS THE PLAN WE'RE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE. BOTH PLANS ARE VIRTUALLY THE EXACT SAME DENSITY. AND ALL OF THOSE ARE STILL WAY LESS THAN WHAT YOU APPROVED IN 2013. IN 23 011 STAFF MENTIONED ABOUT THESE THREE PHASES. [04:05:02] YOU CAN SEE THEM AGAIN HERE IN THIS PICTURE. A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO NOTE. WHO IS THE APPLICANT TONIGHT I HAVE WITH ME MR. MICHAEL CAPUTO. HE IS WITH DREAM FINDERS. AND DREAM FINDERS IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL COMPANY THAT'S COMING TO TOWN. IF YOU NOTICE, THEY WERE THIS YEAR'S 2025 NATIONAL BUILDER OF THE YEAR. THAT'S WHO YOU HAVE COMING TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. THIS IS WHO'S COMING. WANTED TO BE A PART OF THIS. THIS IS WHO'S BEEN IN THIS REVIEW PROCESS, WORKING WITH STAFF NOW SINCE 2023 TO TRY AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN. OFFICIAL BUILDER FOR THE PGA. THEY ARE A NASDAQ A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES SO THEY AS WELL. EVERYTHING THAT'S DONE HAS TO BE ABOVE BOARD AND HOW THEY APPROACH THIS. AND THEY ARE VERY, VERY CAUTIOUS IN WHAT HAPPENS. BUT THEY AT THE SAME TIME HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF EXPERIENCE IN WHAT THEY DO. AND YOU CAN SEE THEIR ACCOLADES BEING IN TEN STATES, 22 MARKETS, 225 COMMUNITIES. SCROLLING DOWN, STAFF DID A GREAT JOB TALKING ABOUT THE THE DESIGN. WE GO THROUGH A DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS, AND WE'VE DEVELOPED A COMPLEMENTARY RELATIONSHIP WITH STAFF WHERE WE KIND OF TALK ABOUT CERTAIN DESIRES AND GOALS. TO YOUR QUESTIONS TONIGHT, COMMISSIONER TAYLOR, REGARDING ANOTHER APPLICATION, WE MADE SURE THAT 100% OF OUR MODELS HAVE ARTICULATION. THAT'S THE TERM WE USE PUSH AND PULL. IT'S CALLED ARTICULATION. ALL THESE MODELS HAVE ARTICULATION FRONT SIDES. THEY ALL PUSH AND PULL THROUGHOUT THE DESIGN. BOTH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE TOWNHOMES ALL HAVE A VARIETY OF THAT. NOW, THE ONE THING THAT WE DO WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF IS THAT IN THESE MODELS, ALL THESE MODELS, YOU'LL SEE ALMOST ALL OF THESE NATIONAL BUILDERS EVERY YEAR OR EVERY TWO YEARS. THEIR MODELS DO IMPROVE. THEY KEEP CHANGING THE MODELS. THEY'VE THEY'VE ADDED SOME TWEAKS. THEY HAVE TO STAY FRESH WITH THE MARKET. SO WE'RE SHOWING YOU THIS ELEMENT AND WORKING AGAIN WITH STAFF ON EVERY SINGLE PLAN. THEY KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE SOMETIMES SOME MODIFICATIONS THAT COME IN. THE MODEL REMAINS THE SAME AS IN THE NAME, BUT THEY COME IN AND THEY PROVIDE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT VERSION OF THAT AS THEY'RE TRYING TO MEET THE DEMANDS AND NEEDS OF THOSE PARTICULAR OF THOSE THAT ARE LOOKING AT IT. NOW, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS SPEND A FEW MOMENTS IN THIS QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE COME OUT, AND I THINK IT'S VITALLY IMPORTANT TO THE PROCESS TO THINK ABOUT SOME THINGS, BECAUSE SEVERAL DIFFERENT TERMS KEEP BEING THROWN OUT. THE ONE TERM THAT WE KEEP SAYING OVER OR HEARING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN IS UNITY OF TITLE. SO UNITY OF TITLE KEEPS COMING UP. I THINK WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. AND IF THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE FINISHED READING THIS SECTION 14, IT SAYS A UNITY OF TITLE WITH THE SAINT LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS. THIS IS WHAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED, AND A PARCEL COMBINATION WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SHALL BE COMPLETED. AND MAYBE WE SHOULD ASK TO SEE WHAT THAT NEXT. THE REST OF THAT SENSE IS PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. SO WE'RE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITY OF TITLE. IT'S TO BE ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR BUILDING PERMITS. BUILDING PERMITS COME WELL AFTER THIS PROCESS. 15 WHICH WAS STATED THAT WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH IT SAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE UNIT OF TITLE, WHICH AGAIN, WE CAN'T DO NOW, AND THE LOCK COMBINATION, A GENERAL ADDRESS REQUEST FORM FOR THE NEWLY CREATED PARCEL ID AND FOR ANY AND EACH PROPOSED BUILDING AND RESIDENTIAL UNIT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO FOR BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS, WE WOULD HAVE TO SAY SO. NOTED. WHEN WE DO A STAFF RESPONSE, WE GO THROUGH IT AND WE'LL SAY WHETHER IT'S BEEN INCLUDED, INCLUDED, INCLUDED. AND ON THOSE TWO ITEMS, WE HAVE TO SAY SO. NOTED. SO LET'S GO BACK UP TO THE SAME EXHIBIT, EXHIBIT D, AND TALK ABOUT THIS ONE ITEM THAT SEEMS TO BE AN ITEM OF CONTENTION, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER EIGHT. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT I WANT TO MAKE ONE NOTE OF OF REFERENCE HERE. WHEN THIS PROCESS BEGAN AND WHEN WE WORKED WITH STAFF IN THIS ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT, IT WAS DECIDED THAT AS A PART OF THIS, WE WOULD USE A MECHANISM SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU DID WITH THE WAVE PARK PROJECT. 100% OF THE TIME, IT IS NEVER, EVER BEEN REPRESENTED THAT THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN WITH THE PLAN TONIGHT. NEVER. WE AREN'T PLAYING A SHELL GAME WHERE WE'RE SHOWING YOU ONE THING, AND THEN WE DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT PRIOR. THIS IS FROM THE BEGINNING. BENNETT. OUR 121 PAGE APPLICATION TO THE CITY INCLUDED A DETAILED PLAN OF THIS ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT, SHOWING HOW POD ONE AND POD TWO WOULD ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED, AND IT INCLUDED A BUBBLE PLAN THROUGH STAFF DISCUSSIONS. SINCE THE BUBBLE PLAN WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ADOPTED WITH THE ORDINANCE. AND SO THAT MAY BE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR SOME POINT. THAT BUBBLE PLAN WAS THEN MODIFIED THREE TIMES. [04:10:03] IT STARTED WITH A MORE DETAILED APPROACH ACTUALLY SHOWING STORMWATER PONDS, AND THEN IT FINALLY CAME DOWN TO THE ACTUAL PLAN THAT YOU SEE THAT WAS PRESENTED IN OUR FULL PUBLIC HEARING PRESENTATION, WHICH WAS THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. THAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT WAS WORKED AND DECIDED THAT WAS NEEDED TO BE PROVIDED. SO IN DOING THAT, THE COMMENT HERE ON ET EIGHT, SAYS THAT THE FINAL P-D SITE PLAN FROM THE BEGINNING WITH STAFF. THEY KNEW WE WERE GOING TO BE PRESENTING TWO SEPARATE SITE PLANS. THEY KNEW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A SITE PLAN FOR POD ONE. THEY KNEW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A SITE PLAN FOR POD TWO. THE LANGUAGE SAYS, AND TELL ME IF I'M WRONG. AS YOU HEAR THIS, THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN SHALL BE IN UNIFIED CONTROL. WE HAVE A UNIFIED CONTROL SITE PLAN. I HAVE ONE LOT, ONE OWNER. IT SAYS IT SHALL BE IN UNIFIED CONTROL AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. AGAIN. OUR FINAL PD SITE PLAN HAS ONE OWNER AND IT IS A UNIFIED UNIFIED CONTROL TWO TERMS UNITY OF TITLE AND UNIFIED CONTROL. THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT ITEMS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER, BECAUSE UNITY OF TITLE IS WHAT'S TO BE PROVIDED AT TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT, WHICH WE CANNOT DO. UNIFIED CONTROL IS WHAT WE MUST PROVE THAT WE HAVE IN ORDER TO PRESENT OUR FINAL PD SITE PLAN TO YOU? I THINK FOR THE RECORD, IT'S CLEAR THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED WE HAVE UNIFIED CONTROL. WE HAVE A LANDOWNER WHO'S GIVEN FULL PERMISSION TO THE CITY FOR YOU TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS. THAT LANDOWNER HAS ONE LOT, NOT TWO LOTS, NOT THREE LOTS, NOT FOUR. THEY HAVE ONE LOT, ONE LOT AND UNIFIED CONTROL. LET'S READ THE REST OF THIS. IT SAYS THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN SHALL BE IN UNIFIED CONTROL AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, WHICH IT IS. AND THEN ALL LAND INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PD SHALL BE UNDER THE LEGAL CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT. I'M THE APPLICANT AND AS A RESULT, WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO I THINK WHAT'S INTERESTING, AND THIS IS HOW THE PROCESS WOULD NORMALLY WORK IN ORDER FOR YOU TO GO THROUGH THIS, WHAT WE HAVE IS AN ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO REFER TO TWO. TONIGHT THE QUESTION CAME UP ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AS INNOVATIVE. SO WHAT WOULD WE ALWAYS SAY TO YOUR PLANNING DIRECTOR? HE HAS TO FOLLOW WHAT YOUR ORDINANCE STATES. AND INTERESTINGLY, HE AND ONLY KEV HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO FOLLOW YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND TO MAKE INTERPRETATIONS OF THAT ZONING ORDINANCE. HE IS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY ON THAT. AND IF ANYBODY DECIDES TO GO AGAINST IT, THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT TO THE APPEALS BOARD. SO IN DOING THAT, WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS, IS THERE A DEFINITION SECTION FOR UNITY OF OF TITLE? INTERESTINGLY, YOUR ORDINANCE IS SILENT IN THE ZONING CODE ON THIS. SO LET'S GO ABOUT UNIFIED CONTROL. THERE HAS TO BE A SECTION IF WE'RE GOING TO HANG OUR HAT ON IT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HANG OUR HEAD ON WHAT THIS LANGUAGE MEANT, BECAUSE HONESTLY, WHEN THIS LANGUAGE IS PUT TOGETHER, I KNOW HOW IT WENT BECAUSE KEV AND I WERE THE ONES THAT PUT THIS PROCESS TOGETHER. IS THIS 20 MINUTES UP? 20 MINUTES IS YOU WERE ON A ROLL. I THINK IT'S IT'S CLEAR TO SEE AT THIS POINT THAT WITH THAT, THERE IS NOTHING IN YOUR ORDINANCE THAT WOULD DETAIL THAT AT ALL TO DEFINE IT FOR YOU. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. BY THE WAY, OBVIOUSLY, AGAIN, IT'S QUASI JUDICIAL. SO YOU OBVIOUSLY REALIZE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE AGAIN AS IT RELATES TO STAFF. AND I THINK ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY I DO I DO REALIZE THAT. BUT THANK YOU. BUT BUT COMMISSIONERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS OF YOU. SO DON'T SIT DOWN. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. QUESTIONS OF MISTER MALLORY. I HAVE NONE. QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS. I HAVE QUESTIONS. OKAY. MISS HEDGES. YES, MA'AM. SO, MISTER MALLORY, WHERE AN ORDINANCE 23 .011. DO YOU SEE THAT? IT AUTHORIZES MULTIPLE SITE PLANS. FINAL SITE PLANS. SO, INTERESTINGLY, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT IT, DOESN'T IT? REFERENCES THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN REPEATEDLY, RIGHT? IT SAYS A FINAL SITE PLAN APPLICATION UP IN NUMBER TWO. SO IT DOES TALK ABOUT THOSE THINGS AND BE SINGULAR RIGHT. INTERESTINGLY, THE FINAL PLAN, WHICH COULD OBVIOUSLY BE REFERRED TO AS WHEN A PLAN IS BROUGHT, WHICH WE HAD TWO PODS THAT THAT FINAL PLAN WOULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT'S WHY WHAT'S SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS IS, IS THE REFERENCE OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED ON THE RECORD. MADAM MAYOR, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THAT YOU ASK HIM TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BEING ASKED OF HIM. THIS IS A TIME FOR HIM TO ASK ANSWER QUESTIONS, NOT PROVIDE HIS OWN TESTIMONY. WAIT A MINUTE. [04:15:01] SO MY QUESTION WAS, SIR, WOULD YOU AGREE THAT A FINAL SITE PLAN IS SINGULAR OR PLURAL? A FINAL SITE PLAN IS SINGULAR. WOULD YOU AGREE THAT THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN IS SINGULAR OR PLURAL? THE FINAL SITE PLAN COULD BE SINGULAR OR PLURAL, DEPENDING UPON WHAT IS PRESENTED AND WHERE IN PD OR THE REZONING ORDINANCE. 20 3-011. DO YOU SEE PLURAL REFERENCE TO THE FINAL PD SITE PLANS? SO WHAT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE RECORD IS THAT FROM OUR PRESENTATION AND WHAT WAS ADOPTED ON THE NIGHT OF FEBRUARY BACK IN 2023, IT WAS ALWAYS CLEARLY SHOWN THAT THERE WOULD BE SEPARATE SITE PLANS. IT'S NEVER, EVER NOT BEEN REFERENCED, WHICH IS WHY I'VE NEVER BEEN IN A PUBLIC HEARING, QUASI JUDICIAL, WHERE I'VE SEEN STAFF CONFRONTING AND GOING AT EACH OTHER BACK AND FORTH AND HAVING AN ISSUE LIKE THIS. THIS IS THE FIRST EXPERIENCE. SO IT'S INTERESTING, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR YOUR CANDOR IN THIS AREA. AND SO MY QUESTION AGAIN WAS WHERE DO YOU SEE IN THAT ORDINANCE A REFERENCE TO PLANS WITH A PLURAL? WHAT IS CLEAR IS WHAT IS ON THE RECORD. AND SO FOR THE RECORD. OKAY GOING BACK TO YOUR THE LITTLE ENCLAVE NOOK THAT EXISTED KIND OF BETWEEN POD ONE AND POD TWO. THAT LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY THERE? YEAH. THANK YOU FOR THAT. DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY THAT THEIR ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY WILL BE THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY? ONLY AT THIS POINT. THEIR ACCESS MAY BE AS IT RELATES TO THE DOT'S APPROVAL. SO CURRENTLY, HOW WOULD THEY ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY? CURRENTLY, THERE IS A JOINT EASEMENT THAT IS ACTUALLY AT THE ENTRANCE OF OUR PROPERTY. THAT ANY AND ALL PROPERTIES COULD ACCESS. EVERY LEGAL, EVERY PROPERTY HAS TECHNICALLY THE LEGAL ACCESS NORMALLY TO A PUBLIC OR A PRIVATE STREET IF IT WAS ESTABLISHED LEGALLY BY MOST MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES. SOME LOTS, AS WE'RE AWARE, DO NOT HAVE THAT ACCESS. AND SO THEY MAY NOT BE. THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED WITHOUT THAT CONSIDERATION. OKAY. SO DO YOU KNOW HOW THEY PHYSICALLY ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY AS IT SITS TODAY? TODAY THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT SO THERE'S NO PHYSICAL ACCESS. AND SO WHEN YOU BUILD YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WILL BE OFF OF YOUR PROPERTY THROUGH, I THINK YOU SAID A GATE THAT THEY WOULD BE ACCESSING THAT PROPERTY. NO, NO, IT'S A IT'S A NORMAL UN GATED ACCESS. GATED. OKAY. AND WAS THAT LITTLE ENCLAVE PART OF YOUR ORIGINAL PD. IT'S NEVER BEEN A PART OF THE PD. OKAY. POD ONE OWNER. WHAT IS YOUR ALL'S RELATIONSHIP TO POD ONE OWNER OR COMMUNICATION WITH POD ONE OWNER? POD ONE OWNER IS A GROUP OUT OF DETROIT, MICHIGAN, AND WE'VE HAD PERIODIC CONVERSATIONS OVER THE YEARS. CURRENTLY, ARE YOU IN COMMUNICATION WITH THEM? YES. OKAY. AND WHAT IS THE REASON THEY'RE NOT INVOLVED IN A FINAL SITE PLAN? BECAUSE AS WAS PRESENTED AT OUR PUBLIC HEARING BACK IN 2023, EACH OF THESE PODS WOULD BE BROUGHT AT SUCH TIME AS DEVELOPMENT WOULD, WOULD OCCUR, WHICH IS NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER CITY. ANYTHING THAT WE'VE EVER DONE, WHETHER IT'S IN TRADITION OR OTHER LARGE DEVELOPMENTS, ARE APPROVED AS A PD, AND SEPARATE DEVELOPERS START COMING IN. AS EACH DEVELOPER COMES IN, THEY WILL BRING THEIR PROJECT AND GO THROUGH THAT. THEY HAVE TO DO THEIR UNIT OF TITLE WHEN THEY DO THEIR PROJECT PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT. WE HAVE TO DO OUR UNIT OF TITLE PRIOR TO OUR BUILDING PERMITS. EACH SITE HAS TO PRESENT AND PROVIDE TO YOU UNIFIED CONTROL AND UNIFIED PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. WELL, MISS HEDGES, ARE YOU ABOUT TO. DO YOU HAVE MUCH MORE? ALMOST DONE. MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO CONDITION EIGHT. THE FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL BE IN UNIFIED CONTROL AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. ALL LAND INTEND TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLAN. DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE UNDER THE LEGAL CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT. YOU AGREE? THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS I DO. AND ARE YOU INTERPRETING THAT TO MEAN THAT YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT APPLICANTS AND MULTIPLE DIFFERENT LEGAL CONTROLS? I DO. AND THE FINAL THING RELATED TO THE PD AGREEMENT. THE OWNER'S NOTICE ADDRESS IS NOT THERE. DO YOU HAVE THE OWNER'S LEGAL NOTICE TO SEND NOTICE TO THEM THAT ADDRESS? YES. WE CAN PROVIDE AN INSPECTION ON THAT AGENT AUTHORIZATION AS WELL. OKAY. SAY I'M SORRY. CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? YES. IT'S ACTUALLY ON THE SLIDE SHOWS FOR THE AGENT AUTHORIZATION THAT WAS ON THERE. IS THAT THE ONE WITH THE ADDRESS THAT IT WOULD GO TO FOR A LEGAL NOTICE THERE? OKAY. AND MADAM MAYOR, AGAIN, AGAIN, QUASI JUDICIAL, OBVIOUSLY, FOR THE RECORD, NEED TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY. [04:20:05] SO IS IT CLEAR TO YOU THAT IN YOUR TESTIMONY TONIGHT THAT ITEMS 14 AND 15 DID NOT ACTUALLY APPLY TO US AT THIS POINT IN TIME. SO YOU DON'T GET TO QUESTION ME DURING THIS TIME. QUASI JUDICIAL. MA'AM, ACTUALLY WE CAN. ACTUALLY, IT'S IT'S LAW. THAT'S LAW. SO IT'S A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING. AND I WANT TO BE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR ON THIS. IN A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, WE'RE ABLE TO QUESTION BACK AND FORTH. I, AS THE APPLICANT, HAVE THAT FULL RIGHT AND ABILITY. AND I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS SO MANY TIMES. I, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, YOU HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO QUESTION THOSE THAT HAVE TESTIFIED. I'VE NOT BEEN SWORN IN. I'VE NOT PROVIDED TESTIMONY, I'VE ASKED QUESTIONS WHICH I'M LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO. I AM ALSO ALLOWED TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE TO THIS COUNSEL AS THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATION. AND AS YOU KNOW, MY LEGAL OPINION IS MY LEGAL OPINION. THEY CAN FOLLOW IT. THEY CAN NOT FOLLOW IT. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO QUESTION ME AS THE ATTORNEY WHEN I'M NOT PROVIDING TESTIMONY, WHICH IS WHY MY QUESTIONS WERE ASKED OF YOU AND OF STAFF. SO, MADAM MAYOR, AGAIN, THERE WERE THREE ITEMS THAT WERE NOTED THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE COMPLIANCE. AND I THINK TWO OF THOSE YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE, IF YOU WERE TO ASK YOUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT DO NOT RELATE. AND THE FIRST ONE, I THINK YOU CAN SEE FROM THE INTERPRETATION THAT WE ACTUALLY DO COMPLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LAST QUESTION FOR MADAM MAYOR, IS I JUST THE PD AGREEMENT IS NOT SIGNED BY THE OWNER. WHEN DO YOU INTEND TO HAVE THE OWNER SIGN THE PD APPLICATION OR SORRY PD AGREEMENT AND THE APPLICANT SIGN THE PD AGREEMENT? WE'D BE GLAD TO HAVE IT SIGNED AT ANY TIME. OKAY. AND YOU AGREE THOUGH, THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED, THE READ THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT, IT WOULDN'T BE EFFECTIVE UNTIL ALL OF THAT IS SIGNED. DO YOU AGREE? YES I DO. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO TALK ON THIS. YOU MAY COME FORWARD AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TELL ME IF YOU'VE BEEN SWORN IN. TO MADAM MAYOR AND THE BOARD. MY NAME IS LINDA TOMPKINS. I LIVE AT 213 NORTH 40TH STREET, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. I'VE BEEN IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA SINCE 1950, SOMETHING. THIS PROPOSAL OF THESE HOUSES. AND ARE THEY STILL PLANNING TO BE A 900 PLUS HOUSES THERE? IS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. SECONDLY, MY CONCERN IS STILL THE TRAFFIC FLOW. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN OVER IN THAT AREA. IT IS A NIGHTMARE NOW TRYING TO GET OUT OF 39TH AND ORANGE WITH THE PROPOSED HOUSING. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DANGEROUS AND A NIGHTMARE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO COME OUT ON TO URGE OFF OF 39, CROSS OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE TO GO EAST. THAT'S HOW YOU HAVE TO DO IT AND TRYING TO GET OUT OF THERE. I HAVE SAT THERE FOR TEN MINUTES TRYING TO GET OUT. SO HOW MANY EXITS ARE GOING TO BE OUT OF THAT COMMUNITY? WHERE ARE THEY COMING GOING TO? THERE'S A RED LIGHT THERE THAT STILL DOES NOT CONTROL THE TRAFFIC. THE RED LIGHT IS RIGHT THERE AT THE GAS STATION. ALSO, THERE'S A SIGN THAT THERE'S A PROPERTY FOR SALE BY REDTAIL. SO WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT EVERYTHING WAS PUT ON HOLD FOR THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE ARE NOT SURE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. ALSO, WILL THEY BE TYING THOSE HOUSES INTO THE CITY? BECAUSE WE'RE ON WELL WATER AND WE WANT TO KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT US. SO I THINK THE COMMISSIONERS NEED TO GO OUT THERE AND ACTUALLY SEE WHAT'S GOING ON AND TAKE A LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY, BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS NOT FEASIBLE FOR US. AND WE'VE BEEN THERE 40 OR 50 YEARS IN THAT SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BEFORE IT WAS ALLUDED TO THAT WE WERE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THE ENGINEER PROJECT, SO WE WERE INSULTED. I'M AN EDUCATOR, AND I'VE NEVER HAD THE DUMB LESSON DOWN FOR A [04:25:10] STUDENT TO LEARN. ALL I HAD TO DO WAS USE MY VERBIAGE. SO I WANT TO KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MA'AM. WHO'S NEXT? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELL ME IF YOU'VE BEEN SWORN IN. I THINK YOU WERE. MY NAME IS NANCY SPIERS YOUNG. I LIVE AT 207 NORTH 40TH STREET. I'VE BEEN. WERE YOU SWORN IN? YOU WERE SWORN IN, RIGHT? NO. OH, YES. RAISED. OH, YES. YOU WERE. YEAH. YOU WERE. I THOUGHT I SAW YOU. I JUST NEED YOU TO SAY IT ON THE RECORD. THAT'S ALL RIGHT, JONES. I'VE BEEN HERE SO LONG, I GUESS I WAS. YEAH. WE OKAY. SAY OKAY. OKAY. WELL, I'M REALLY A PRODUCT OF SAINT LOUIS COUNTY. I WAS BORN HERE. I WENT TO SCHOOL HERE. I WORKED HERE. I RETIRED FROM HERE, AND I'M STILL HERE. I RAISED ALL OF MY CHILDREN HERE. I'VE BEEN OVER ON 40TH STREET NOW FOR 44 YEARS, AND I CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN EDUCATED ABOUT THE MILL CREEK PROJECT TONIGHT. BETTER UNDERSTANDING. HOWEVER, I LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC I LOOKED AT. I LISTENED TO THE INCOMING TRAFFIC, THE OUTGOING TRAFFIC. I DON'T SEE MAKING THE ROAD ON HERE. I SAW 43RD STREET. IF THEY GO OUT NORTH, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO AVENUE D, WHICH IS VERY SMALL. OKAY. SO THAT WOULDN'T BE FEASIBLE. ALSO RIGHT NOW, AS MY NEIGHBOR STATED, IT'S A IT'S A, IT'S A NIGHTMARE GETTING FROM 39TH TO ORANGE AVENUE. ALSO THE NEW WESTWOOD HIGH SCHOOL. THE TRAFFIC THERE DURING THE MORNINGS, IT'S GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY A MADHOUSE WITH PEOPLE, WITH THE CHILDREN AND THE BUSSES AND THE CARS, PEOPLE GOING TO WORK AND THE PROSPECT OF PEOPLE COMING FROM WEST OF TOWN GOING TO EAST. THERE'S NO WAY. I MEAN, IT TOOK ME 30 MINUTES, OKAY, AT 9:00 IN THE MORNING JUST TO COME OFF OF 39TH STREET TO GO TO THE COLLEGE. ANOTHER THING I WAS REALLY WONDERING ABOUT IS HOW IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT US? I KNOW THAT EVERYTHING IS BEING TIED INTO THE CITY. HOWEVER, AS SHE STATED, WE'RE STILL ON WELL WATER. WE STILL HAVE SEWER, WE HAVE SEWERS. SO WE NEED TO KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TIE INTO THE CITY FOR HOURS. OUR SEWER AND WATER SERVICES. BECAUSE ACTUALLY, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE OVER HERE. I GUESS BACK IN THE 40S AND LIFE IS GOING ON, THE CITY IS GOING ON AND WE'RE WE'RE AT A STANDSTILL, SO WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE SOME SERVICES THERE. I KNOW WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING. SOUNDS GREAT. IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT. IT'LL BE BEAUTIFUL FOR US. CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO HAVE. ALSO, YOU GOTTA REMEMBER, THERE'S A CANAL THERE. WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THAT CANAL? THERE'S A DRAINAGE CANAL THERE. OKAY. SO ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. AND HOPEFULLY SOMEONE FROM THE ONE OF YOU COMMISSIONERS CAN COME OUT JUST RIGHT THROUGH AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND YOU'LL UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM AS PRESIDENT. THANK YOU. MA'AM. THANK YOU SO MUCH. WHO'S NEXT? OH GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS NANCY LOVE AND I LIVE AT 108 NORTH 40TH STREET. AND I WAS LOOKING AT MY PAPER TO MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T DO THE QUESTIONS AND THAT THEY'VE DONE SO. THE ONLY ONE THAT I HAVE LEFT WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT THEM COMING OUT OF THIS PROJECT AT BENT CREEK AND ORANGE AVENUE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE BUS. I'M THINKING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME OUT OF THERE AND TRY TO MAKE A LEFT, BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE THEM GOING DOWN TO MAKE A RIGHT TO MAKE TO MAKE THE LOOP, BECAUSE THEY ONLY HAVE. BUT WHAT IS IT? JENKINS ROAD, ACTUALLY. SO THAT'S TOO FAR. THEY'LL NEVER GET OUT OF THERE WITH A BUS GOING LEFT AND NEVER. [04:30:01] I CAN'T GET OUT OF THERE. MY SUV PLUMB SCARED. OKAY, SO THEY GOT THEY GOTTA FIGURE THAT PART OUT IN 39TH IS BEGINNING TO BE NOT AN OPTION ANYMORE. I'M JUST. IT'S BAD. IT'S REALLY BAD. REALLY BAD. OKAY. AND YOU WERE SWORN IN, WEREN'T YOU? MISLED? YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? SO MR. MALLORY, YOU WANT TO RESPOND, PLEASE? MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, I'M I'M HONESTLY A LITTLE BIT OF A LOSS. SOMEHOW I FEEL LIKE SOMETHING HAS GONE OFF. AND YOU EVER WONDER. LIKE, WHEN DID YOU LOSE TRACK OF SOMETHING? YOU KNOW THAT FEELING? BECAUSE I LOOK AT THIS AND SAY, WE FEEL AS THOUGH WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A PROCESS WITH STAFF FOR TWO. WELL, SINCE 2022, NOW, THREE YEARS OF WALKING HAND IN HAND ON SOMETHING TO BRING SOMETHING GOOD TO THE CITY. AT SOME POINT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH SOMETHING HAS GONE OFF AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY. BECAUSE I CAN'T PINPOINT A TIME WHERE ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WAS AN ISSUE OR A CONCERN OF SOMETHING WE DID, EXCEPT TO SAY WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE LANDOWNERS, AND THESE TWO SEPARATE LANDOWNERS ARE NOT DOING THINGS. BACK WHEN WE WORKED WITH TANYA EARLY ON THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, WITH THIS, WE WORKED WITH WITH KEV ON THIS. I KNOW WHERE THINGS STOOD. NOW WE'RE HEARING SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND I CAN'T EXPLAIN BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I RESPECT LEGAL OPINIONS AND I RESPECT LEGAL COMMENTS THAT ARE PROVIDED, AND YOU HAVE TO HEAR IT AS WELL. HOWEVER, WHAT I KNOW IS THIS. WE HAVE AN APPLICANT THAT WILL NOT BE HERE IN TWO MONTHS OR IN THREE MONTHS, AND THAT'S NOT MY THREAT. THAT'S THEM. THIS IS THEY. IT WAS PUT ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK. WE ALREADY PULLED IT OFF THE CHOPPING BLOCK A MONTH AND A HALF AGO. WE GAVE THEM THE WORD THAT WE WOULD GIVE IT OUR BEST EFFORT TO DO IT, BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY DON'T WANT TO REMAIN AND STAY IN A PLACE THAT DOESN'T SEEM AS THOUGH THEY WANT THEM. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE BEING WELCOMED AND BROUGHT THEM WITH OPEN ARMS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PUSH TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY CAN EASILY AND DEFINITELY ARE ALREADY ELSEWHERE. THEY'RE ALREADY IN PORT SAINT LUCIE, AND THEY'RE DOING ONE IN THE COUNTY, AND THEY'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF OF HOW THEY'RE COMING THROUGH. THEY'RE COMING THROUGH RESPECTFULLY. THEY'RE COMING THROUGH IN A VERY MEANINGFUL WAY FOR YOU. I FEEL AS THOUGH YOUR CITY ATTORNEY HAS PROVIDED YOU WITH SOME COMMENTS. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE WERE ONLY THREE ITEMS. AND OF THOSE THREE ITEMS THAT THAT WERE FELT, WE DIDN'T MEET. TWO OF THEM CLEARLY DON'T HAPPEN UNTIL BUILDING PERMIT. AND ONE IS A QUESTION OF DEFINITIONS. I WOULD STATE FOR THE RECORD AGAIN IT'S NOT DEFINED. SO ALL WE CAN GO ON IS HOW SOMEBODY WOULD INTERPRET IT. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WE GENERALLY SAY IS WHAT WAS THE INTENT? AND THE INTENT IS HARD BECAUSE INTENT DOESN'T HAVE THE TEETH. AND THAT'S OFTEN THE IMPORTANCE OF CHECKING AND DOUBLE CHECKING THINGS, WHICH IS WHY IT'S GREAT YOU HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY THAT IS DOING A GREAT JOB AT TRYING TO CHECK THINGS. THAT'S A GOOD THING. WE'VE ALL SEEN DIFFERENT STAFF IN THE PAST, AND YOU ALL KNOW AS WELL WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNING DIRECTORS. WE LOVE KEV AND WE LOVE THE JOB THAT HE'S DOING, AND WE KNOW THE CHALLENGES HE FACES. JUST AS THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU HAVE WITH CITY ATTORNEY. SHE'S SHORT STAFFED. SHE DOESN'T HAVE THE MONEY AS WELL THAT SHE LIKE IN HER DEPARTMENT. THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE AFFECTING HER ABILITY TO DO HER JOB. BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, I GO BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED THE INTENT, OUR HEART, AND WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED ACCURATELY AND APPROPRIATELY, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN LEFT OUT, PERHAPS BY DEFINITIONS NOT BEING DEFINED. I'M SORRY THAT THAT WASN'T A TERM THAT WAS DEFINED IN YOUR ORDINANCE, BUT I THINK IF THE COMMON PERSON, IF ANYBODY WERE TO READ IT, I THINK YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO EASILY INTERPRET IT, TO SEE THAT THAT INTENT IS MET. IS THIS SOMETHING THEN, THAT YOU, AS A COMMISSION WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE CAN SEE THAT GOOD FAITH AND GOOD EFFORTS WERE DONE ON THIS. AND AS A RESULT, THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS GIVEN YOU A MECHANISM TONIGHT. SHE'S ACTUALLY GIVEN YOU A MOTION THAT ALLOWS YOU TO BE ABLE TO PASS AND TO BE ABLE TO TO MOVE THIS TO SECOND HEARING. WE NEED TO GET THIS SIGNED BY THE OWNER. WE SEE THOSE THINGS EASILY. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE. THAT'S GOOD. BUT THEN AS YOU MOVE FORWARD FOR YOU TO SAY CITY STAFF, WE DO NEED A PAUSE BEFORE WE HAVE ANOTHER PD COME UP. AS A RESULT, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THIS ITEM IS ADDRESSED AND DEALT WITH. SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU DO THAT. THANK YOU. THAT'S IN IT. WAY UP. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES. YES. I'VE GOT A QUESTION. THERE WERE SOME THINGS RAISED HERE THAT I THOUGHT THE APPLICANT WOULD ADDRESS THAT WERE CONCERNS THAT I KNOW WE ALLOWED TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I WANT SOME THINGS CLEARED UP HERE. YEAH. THAT I THINK ARE LEGITIMATE. SO. SO THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK. MR. FRIEDEN, CAN YOU GO BACK TO, I GUESS, THE ENTRYWAY THAT TIES IN BENT CREEK AND THIS PLAN [04:35:06] OPPORTUNITY HERE, THERE WAS A SECTION THERE THAT KIND OF SHOWED WHERE BENT CREEK IS NOW. WHAT WILL BE PROPOSED HERE? I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. I THINK I CAN HELP CLARIFY SOME THINGS I HEARD EARLIER. FOR SOME CONCERNED CITIZENS, EITHER ONE OF THESE KIND OF HELPS. THIS. I THINK THIS IS THE BEST ONE. SO. SO TO THE APPLICANT, MR. MALLORY HERE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS WHAT YOU WOULD PROPOSE AS THE SINGLE GO ENTRYWAY FOR YOUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT ON IN THIS AREA. SO THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO GET IN OR OUT OF THIS BESIDES COMING HERE? 100%. OKAY. THE SECOND THING THIS IS DIRECTLY IS THIS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM WHAT I'M SEEING, BENT CREEK. IT IS. OKAY. WHAT'S THE PLAN HERE? BECAUSE FOR THIS TRAFFIC FLOW THAT EITHER HAS BEEN APPROVED OR IS IN THE WORKS RIGHT NOW. OKAY, SO THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS IS WE SUBMIT OUR PLANS TO THE CITY OR TO THE ESTATE. THE DOT REVIEWS THOSE PLANS, AND THEN THEY HAVE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED UPON THAT. IN ADDITION, THERE ARE IMPACT FEES THAT COME INTO PLAY. AND SO IF THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE, WHETHER IT'S TO THIS POINT OR TO OTHER INTERSECTIONS, THOSE FEES HAVE TO BE PAID AS A PART OF THE PROCESS. SO WHAT'S WHAT ARE YOU SUBMITTING FOR TO FDOT TO CONSIDER FOR THIS INTERSECTION RIGHT HERE? WHAT ARE YOU WHAT ARE YOU SUBMITTING? THEY SEE OUR ENTIRE POD TWO PLAN. THEY SEE EXACTLY WHAT WAS SHOWN TO YOU TONIGHT. THEY SEE THOSE 400 PLUS UNITS THAT WOULD BE GOING THERE. OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR THAT THEN? SO THE PLAN IS SET SO THAT AT EACH PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT THE DOT KEEPS RE REVIEWING. AND THAT'S WHERE THEY CAN SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT. WE WANT A FULL FLEDGED SIGNAL. YOU NEED TO PUT IT IN FOR BENT CREEK AND FOR THE ALIGNMENT OF THAT. AND SO ALL THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT FOR NOW. IT SHOWS THAT ANY IMPACT THAT'S THE THING. YOU KNOW FLORIDA MEANS GROWTH HAS TO PAY FOR ITSELF. SO IF THERE'S A PERCEIVED IMPACT AND THEY CAN DOCUMENT IT, TECHNICALLY THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE PROVIDED FOR. BUT WE CANNOT COME IN NEGATIVELY CAUSE IMPACTS WITHOUT MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE BEING. SO IF I HEAR YOU RIGHT, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DOCUMENT THE CASE FOR FINALIZATION OF THIS BASED ON THAT IMPACT, THAT THAT DOESN'T COME PRIOR TO THAT, KNOWING THAT THERE WILL BE 430 SOME RESIDENT HOUSES IN THIS PART. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO THE SIGNAL IZATION, MEANING TRAFFIC LIGHT, A STOP SO THAT TRAFFIC IN ALL DIRECTIONS EAST WEST. IN THIS CASE NORTH SOUTH. THERE WOULD BE A SIGNAL HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. WHAT? WHEN? WHEN DOES THAT COME INTO PLAY FOR THIS PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT. SO FOR EACH PHASE WE SUBMIT OUR MATERIAL TO THE STATE. THEY DO WHAT'S CALLED A WARRANT ANALYSIS. AND THAT WARRANT ANALYSIS ANALYZES THE TRIP SOUTH BEND CREEK, THE TRIPS NORTH, TRIPS EAST AND THE TRIPS WEST. AND AT A POINT THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A QUESTION OR CONCERN, THEY THEN GO TO DREAM FINDERS AND SAY DREAM FINDERS. AS A RESULT, WE BELIEVE IN OUR FINDINGS BASED UPON THIS DATA. THEY CAN NOT BASE IT ON PERCEPTION. THEY HAVE TO BASE IT ON DATA. AND BASED UPON THAT WARRANT ANALYSIS, THEY WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A44 LEGGED SIGNAL IS REQUIRED. THAT'S THE WAY IT GOT, YOU KNOW, TO EACH DIRECTION TO NORTH SOUTH. SO IT'S FOUR TOTAL. AND THEN THEY WOULD DETERMINE THAT, AND THEN THEY WOULD REQUIRE THAT A CIVIL ENGINEER WORK TOGETHER WITH THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER, COME UP WITH AN ACTUAL DESIGN OF THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS ALL THOSE STANDARDS FOR. SO SO IF I HEAR YOUR TESTIMONY RIGHT, IT'S OVER TWO PHASES. AND RIGHT NOW THERE ARE HOW MANY PHASES OF THIS? THREE. RIGHT. THREE PHASES IN OUR POD. IN YOUR POD. RIGHT. YES. AND AND SO OF THOSE THREE PHASES, THE FIRST PHASE WOULD BRING HOW MANY APPROXIMATELY HOUSES OR WHATEVER, BE ABOUT 120 TO 120. AND THEN THE NEXT PHASE BRINGS IT'S GOING TO BE A COMBINATION OF TOWNHOMES AND AND OTHERS. SO YOU CAN SEE IN THOSE. SO SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I PULL OUT HERE IS THAT 100. AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO ADD ON ANOTHER PHASE. AND THEN THERE'S A THIRD PHASE RIGHT. THAT GIVES YOU THE TOTAL BUILD OUT. AND WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, PART TWO WILL HAVE 152 IN PHASE ONE OKAY. 152 IN PHASE ONE AND THEN PHASE TWO AT THE TOP. WE'VE GOT 157. YES. AND THEN PHASE THREE WILL HAVE 130. YES. RIGHT. SO MY I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I HEARD YOU AND THAT WE HEAR YOU CORRECTLY. IS THAT ALONG THE WAY, THE FDOT WILL BE EVALUATING THE POTENTIAL FOR ANALYZING THAT INTERSECTION THAT DOES NOT COME. RIGHT NOW, IF YOU DECIDED THAT IT WAS APPROVED. THERE'S THERE'S NO APPROVAL AND THERE'S NO PROCESS GOING ON RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD PUT A SIGNAL THERE RIGHT NOW. [04:40:01] CORRECT. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH THE DOT. THEY'VE REVIEWED THE APPLICATIONS. AND AT THIS POINT THEY HAVE NOT DETERMINED THAT THE SIGNAL IS NECESSARY FOR PHASE ONE. BUT AS WE GO TO PHASE TWO THEY MAY MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THAT'S REQUIRED. SO THE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATES THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH WORKING WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PROCESS IS FOLLOWED THROUGH, SO THAT AT ANY SUCH TIME THAT IT'S REQUIRED THAT IT BE IMPLEMENTED. AT SOME POINT, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE TRIGGER POINT IS FOR SIGNAL IZATION. I HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE PRIOR TO THAT, YOU WILL HAVE RESIDENTS HERE THAT WILL BE ON THEIR OWN OF NAVIGATING ACROSS TO GO EAST, BUT THEY CAN EASILY TURN, I GUESS, RIGHT, AND GO WEST. OKAY. BUT THAT THAT'S A CONCERN. THE NEXT POINT AS FAR AS THE THE UTILITY OF THIS PARCEL AREA HERE THIS WOULD BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. SO I'M SORRY, WHICH THE THE ENTIRE PARCEL LOT. THIS POD, PART TWO. YOU'RE FULL. WE'RE FULLY, FULLY ANNEXED. SO? SO THE UTILITY AUTHORITY, MEANING WATER, ELECTRIC GAS, ETC.. WILL IS ALL A PART OF THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. SO TALK TO ME. I THINK WE SAW HERE 2 OR 3 PROPOSED STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES. SO. SO HOW DOES THESE FACILITIES HERE. ARE THEY DRAINING INTO ANYTHING, PARTICULARLY THE CANAL THAT RUNS HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA? GOOD QUESTION. SO THE WAY THE WORK IT WORKS, THEY HAVE TO APPLY AND MAKE A PERMIT REQUEST TO SOUTH SHORE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. WHEN THEY DO THAT REQUEST, THEY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS THEY WILL PROBABLY DEVELOP THE ENTIRE STORMWATER SYSTEM AT THE BEGINNING. THEY'LL DEVELOP THAT ENTIRE SYSTEM. THAT SYSTEM HAS TO BE DESIGNED TO BE ABLE TO CONTAIN AND CAPTURE ALL THE STORMWATER OFF OF THEIR PROJECT. IN THAT DEVELOPMENT, THEY CAN'T ALLOW IT TO GO IN IMPACT. ANYBODY ELSE? RIGHT NOW THEY DO HAVE TO HAVE AN OUTFALL SOURCE. THAT OUTFALL SOURCE WOULD BE THE CANAL. SO THAT ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF THAT, THAT PERIOD OF RAINFALL THAT THEY HAVE TO HOLD, IT COULD TECHNICALLY GO THERE, BUT GENERALLY YOU WOULDN'T SEE ANY OUTFALL RAIN EVER LEAVING THE SITE BECAUSE IT'S IT'S MEANT TO BE CONTAINED FULLY WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE SYSTEM. AND THAT'S WHAT ALL OF OUR STORMWATER PROJECTS IS THAT WE TRY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE STANDARD OF TREATING AND MAINTAINING ON OUR OWN PROPERTY WHAT WHAT TRIGGERS AN OUTFALL OF RELEASE OF THESE WATERS. OBVIOUSLY A ONCE IN A LIFETIME, I GUESS. RAINSTORM WE ARE. EVERYBODY IS FLOODED AT THAT POINT. THEY'LL HAVE A CONTROL ELEVATION SETUP. AND THEN IN THAT CONTROL ELEVATION, THEY'LL HAVE A STRUCTURE. AND SHOULD THE WATER EVER REACH THAT HEIGHT, IT THEN IS ABLE TO GO TO THAT STRUCTURE AND THEN DISCHARGE OUT INTO A POINT OF. AND THAT'S ALL PERMANENT THROUGH SOUTH SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. SOUTH FLORIDA CONTROLS THAT PROCESS 100%. AND THEY'RE VERY, VERY SERIOUS ABOUT THEIR JOB. I THINK I'VE KIND OF ADDRESSED SOME OF THAT. THEY'LL GIVE SOME ANSWERS TO SOME OF THEM ALSO. FBO IS GOING TO BE SERVICING THIS, AND THAT WILL PUT IT THAT MUCH CLOSER TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE, WELL WATER. RIGHT. SO SO SO THAT THAT YEAH, I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT. BUT I THINK THAT YEAH BRINGING THOSE SERVICES THERE, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE IN THE AREA. SO FROM THEM TO BE ABLE TO GO AND I THINK THAT BECOMES A WHOLE ISSUE. THAT THAT'S YEAH THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. BUT FPO WILL BE SERVICING IT. YEP. I'M DONE MADAM. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW I'M COMING BACK TO. YES, SIR. WELL, I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. OH, SORRY. APOLOGIZE. WE JUST CAME UP IN ANOTHER PD REVIEW. WHAT'S THE. I MEAN, SPECIFICALLY IN THE TOWNHOUSE IS THE WASTE PICKUP. IS THERE GOING TO BE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES OR. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE FOR THIS AT THIS TIME. WE DISCUSSED DOING EVERYTHING THAT WOULD BE SET SIMILAR TO RESIDENTIAL, SINCE ALL THESE UNITS ALL HAVE THEIR OWN GARAGE. SO THEY WOULD BE BRINGING THOSE OUT. WE TRIED TO DESIGN EACH OF THEM. SO IT HAS THE ABILITY TO HAVE TRASH UNITS BETWEEN DRIVEWAYS. SO IT'S NOT AS THOUGH THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE HITTING YOUR NEIGHBOR'S TRASH CAN AND WHATNOT AS YOU'RE COMING IN OUT OF THOSE. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT THE THERE'S PROBABLY A CARVE QUESTION. I GUESS THE AP WEIGHED. THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT DOOR WE'RE GETTING UTILITIES. ARE WE? WHERE ARE THEY CONNECTED TO? ANOTHER STAFF REPORT JUST SAYS. BUT WHERE'S THE NEAREST CONNECTIONS? I COULDN'T TELL YOU. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHICH NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M SORRY. THE JUST THE 40TH STREET. YEAH. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE. THE NORTH CONNECTION. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS CURRENTLY SERVICED BY WATER, AND. YEAH, IT'S IN THE COUNTY. I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE RIGHT THERE. SERVICE? YEAH, THEY'RE IN THE COUNTY. THEY'RE. THEY'RE ALL EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH. AND EVERYTHING TO THE EAST IS IN THE COUNTY. YEAH. OKAY. MAYBE WE SHOULD ANNEX THEM. YEAH. OKAY. NO MA'AM I'M. [04:45:02] NO, NO NO MA'AM. SO THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS ALREADY OVER THIS QUESTION ABOUT THE LPU EIGHT. I DON'T KNOW PNL. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WATER. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ELECTRICITY. YES, BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. WHERE ARE WE? WE'RE COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION. YES. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. CLOSING STATEMENT. DO WE DO CLOSING STATEMENTS? I THINK THAT WAS THE CLOSING. THAT WAS A CLOSING STATEMENT. OKAY. UNLESS I THINK WE DIDN'T GIVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CLOSING STATEMENTS. MR. FREEMAN, DO YOU HAVE A CLOSING STATEMENT? I AM HAPPY WHERE I STAND AT THE MOMENT, MA'AM. THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY WHERE YOU STAND ALSO. THANK YOU. ALREADY BACK TO THE COMMISSION. SO. I THINK I'M STILL CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT THE WAY FORWARD IS AND WHAT THE EASIEST WAY TO GET THERE WOULD BE, AND HOW WE CAN INCLUDE THAT IN ANY TYPE OF CONDITIONS THAT WE CAN IMPROVE THIS EVENING. ARE WE ABLE TO DO THAT? MISS HEDGES WAIVER OF WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO GET TO GET THERE? MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, TO REITERATE AND I SAID THIS IN THE LAST PD. MY QUESTIONS, NOT EVIDENCE, RIGHT. YOUR EVIDENCE IS WHAT STAFF IS TESTIFYING TO, WHAT? THEY'RE THE ANSWERS THAT ARE BEING GIVEN. AND MY OPINION IS MY OPINION AND MY RECOMMENDATION, MY LEGAL JOB IS TO POINT OUT TO YOU THE LEGAL CONCERNS THAT I SEE WITH THIS. ULTIMATELY, YOU ARE THE DECISION MAKERS IN THIS. IF YOU ARE TO GO FORWARD WITH AN APPROVAL THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WILL NEED TO ADD. KEV, DID YOU HAVE CONDITIONS TO THIS? ONLY THOSE THAT I THINK EXIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. DO WE HAVE THOSE AS ATTACHED? YES, AND I DID CHECK FOR CLARIFICATION. KEVIN, YOU HAD SAID THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT YOU HAD SEEN IT WITH THE OWNER. FM. NO, I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT THAT. I THINK THAT IS THE ONE THAT'S ATTACHED, THOUGH. IS IT? YES, SIR. I GAVE YOU TWO VERSIONS PREVIOUSLY, SO THERE WOULD THOUGH NEED TO BE CONDITIONS TO CLEAN UP THE PD AGREEMENT A LITTLE BIT TO ADD THE ADDRESS NOTICE FOR THE OWNER. YES. AS WELL AS THE DATE AND ORDINANCE NUMBER OF TODAY. SO JUST THE CLEANUP OF THOSE BLANKS, BASICALLY IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ADDITIONALLY, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU INCLUDE CONDITIONS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL 23 011 ORDINANCE, IF YOUR INTERPRETATION STATION. IS THAT THE APPLICANT SLASH OWNER CAN PROCEED WITH THE DIFFERENT POD APPROVALS. THEN I DO THINK YOU NEED TO PROVIDE CLARITY THAT YOUR UNIT OF TITLE IS PER POD, NOT PER THE PD. IT IS STILL MY RECOMMENDATION, HOWEVER, THAT THAT ORDINANCE BE FIXED PRIOR TO YOU APPROVING THIS. BUT IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE APPROVAL, I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD MAKE THAT CLARITY NOW SO THAT THERE ARE NO LEGAL ISSUES OR WE'VE CLEANED UP AS BEST WE CAN. THE LEGAL ISSUES RELATED TO WHAT UNITY OF TITLE NEEDS TO BE OBTAINED, AND WHAT UNIFIED CONTROL NEEDS TO EXIST FOR THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT. AND COMMISSIONER TAYLOR IS LOOKING AT ME LIKE I HAVE FIVE HEADS, SO I'M JUST HALF ASLEEP. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. THE WHAT? IT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE UNITY AND UNITY OF TITLE NOT BEING REQUIRED UNTIL BUILDING PERMIT TIME. SO WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THAT? SO CONDITION. SO CONDITION EIGHT SPECIFICALLY READS THAT THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN SHALL BE IN UNIFIED CONTROL AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. ALL LAND INTENDED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE UNDER THE LEGAL CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT. IT IS MY LEGAL OPINION THAT THAT IS TALKING ABOUT ONE FINAL PD SITE PLAN FOR THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, NOT THE PODS OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SHALL BE UNDER THE LEGAL CONTROL OF THE APPLICANT. SO IT'S MY OPINION THAT THAT'S NOT BEEN SATISFIED. HOWEVER, YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH MY OPINION AND MY INTERPRETATION. CONDITIONS 14 AND 15 ARE THEN PREMISED ON GETTING THAT UNIT OF TITLE. THEY HAVE TO HAVE IT TO GET THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED IN 14 AND 15. [04:50:02] THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE NATIVE TITLE AND THE LOCK COMBINATION TO GET A SINGLE PARCEL ID FOR ANY OF THE BUILDINGS AND RESIDENTIAL UNITS SUBMITTED IN THE TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO IT'S MY LEGAL OPINION THAT IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THIS UNIFIED CONTROL IN EIGHT THAT WE'VE REQUIRED, YOU CAN'T THEN GET TO 14 AND 15 FOR UNIFIED FOR A UNITY OF TITLE FOR YOUR ENTIRE PD. SO IF YOU ALL ARE INTERPRETING IT DIFFERENTLY THAT YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE OWNERS UNDER THIS, YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT YOU ARE ALLOWING A UNITY OF TITLE, WHICH THIS IS ONE PARCEL. SO THEY NO LONGER NEED A UNIVERSAL UNITY OF TITLE FOR POD TWO. AND THAT'S WHY I POINT OUT THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE WITH HOW THIS ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. BUT AGAIN, YOU ARE THE DECISION MAKERS. SO JUST MY THOUGHTS. WHEN THIS FIRST WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION WITH THE YOUTUBE TITLE AND ALL OF THAT, MY FIRST FEW QUESTIONS WERE IS THE DENSITY CALCULATION SHARED WITH THE OTHER PARCELS? IS THE STORMWATER CALCULATION SHARED WITH THE OTHER PARCELS? AND THE ANSWERS TO ALL THOSE QUESTIONS WERE NO. SO THAT WAS MY MAIN CONCERN WAS ARE WE USING POD. I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONES WHICH NOW. POD ONE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS TO GET MORE DENSITY IN POD TWO, WHICH IS NOT HAPPENING. SO I WAS KIND OF MY QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT IS WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE HERE IF IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH WHERE WE ARE TONIGHT AND OTHER THAN SOME I THINK PRECEDENCE I GUESS COULD BE WHATEVER, BUT I, I THINK THE DEVELOPER HAS DONE ABOVE AND BEYOND EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY HAS ASKED OF THEM TO DO. I THINK IF I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT MISS HEDGES SUGGESTED WITH ADDING THAT, CHANGING THAT. I THINK THE ORDER RECOMMENDING THE CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE SO WE CAN SEPARATE THE TWO AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS SITE PLAN, BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS AT THIS POINT. AND AND APPROVING ONE DOES NOT AFFECT THE OTHER, WHICH BOTH SIDES HAVE AGREED UPON THIS EVENING AND IS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE NOT WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANY RIGHTS AWAY FROM POD ONE. THE OWNER OF PART ONE IS THAT THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? COMMISSIONERS, I DON'T SEE HOW WE'RE DOING THAT. NO, I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M CLARIFYING. THAT'S THAT'S THAT IS A CONCERN THAT WE NEED TO PROTECT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT AT LEAST ONE THING MISS HEDGES IS TALKING ABOUT. AND YEAH, I ALSO LOOKED AT IT WHERE POD TWO TO LIKE. YOU LOOK AT THE LIKE. THEORETICALLY, LIKE POD TWO DOESN'T WORK WITHOUT POD ONE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE EITHER, BECAUSE THEY'RE SEPARATED, RIGHT? SO ITS POD TWO CAN EXIST ON IT'S OWN. POD ONE CAN KIND OF DO ITS OWN THING. YEAH. SO. SO, MADAM MAYOR, LET ME LET ME PICK UP ON THAT, BECAUSE THAT WAS MY CONCERN WAS ORIGINALLY WHEN THIS CAME IN, THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF ORANGE WEST TYING INTO THIS, THERE WERE SOME AGREEMENTS THAT CERTAIN PEOPLE NEEDED TO MOVE FROM ONE PARCEL NEXT, AND THEY HAD TO HAVE AGREEMENT. SO WHEN I MET WITH THE THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CROSS EITHER WAY TO ACCESS THAT. NOW WE'LL DEAL WITH POD ONE WHEN AND IF THEY EVER DECIDE TO COME FORWARD, BECAUSE I'VE GOT REAL CONCERNS WITH THAT. BUT PART TWO RIGHT NOW I'M I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT EXCEPT FOR THE CONDITION NUMBER THREE. AND THAT'S THE IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME THE PARAMETER AROUND THE SIGNAL IZATION. AND, AND WHEN I MET WITH WITH THE APPLICANT, THAT WAS MY CONCERN. IS I WANT SOMETHING HERE THAT GIVES A LITTLE MORE THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH PRESENTING THIS TO FDOT, BECAUSE WE DO KNOW THEY CAN BE A LITTLE TIME THEY CAN BE A LITTLE SLOW. AND, AND I WOULD WANT TO SEE THIS MOVING FORWARD YOU KNOW, TO, TO LET THEM KNOW AND SIGNAL THIS BECAUSE THAT WOULD PROVIDE TWO TRAFFIC BRAKES ON ORANGE AVENUE. IT WOULD GIVE ONE JUST WEST OF AS WE KNOW IT, AS OLD SKATE TOWN. IT'LL GIVE US THAT AREA THERE. AND THEN IT WOULD GIVE US ANOTHER SIGNAL AT THE CORNER OF HARTMAN AND AND ORANGE AVENUE. AND SO IF THOSE TWO WERE SYNCHRONIZED SOME KIND OF WAY, IT WOULD GIVE A BREAK OF TRAFFIC THERE SO PEOPLE CAN GET IN AND OUT OF 40TH. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY NO ONE'S GOING TO BE EVERYBODY. IF THEY'RE GOING WEST, THEY'LL JUST TURN RIGHT AND JUST GO WEST ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT. [04:55:01] BUT WHEN I MET WITH THE APPLICANT, THAT WAS A PART HERE THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT LANGUAGE WAS HERE, BECAUSE TO ME, 400 AND SOME HOUSING UNITS THERE, THIS HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF CIVILIZATION TO GET THOSE PEOPLE IN AND OUT AND TO GIVE THE RESIDENTS A BREAK. MOVING EAST AND WEST. WELL, AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, FDOT MARCHES TO A DIFFERENT DRUM. AND SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU CAN'T MAKE THEM DO THAT, BUT YOU HAVE TO BRING IT TO THEIR ATTENTION. I'M TRYING TO BRING IT TO THEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, SIMPLY BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS WE WOULD START A DEVELOPMENT AND AT SOME PHASE THERE, WE MAY HAVE 120 HOUSES IN THERE WITH NO CIVILIZATION, AND WE IT MAY NOT TRIGGER UNTIL WE GET TO 200 SOME HOUSES. AND THAT'S HALFWAY THERE, OBVIOUSLY. RIGHT. AND I'M WITH YOU. YOU JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR ATTENTION IS ON IT ALL THE TIME. ABSOLUTELY. AND I DON'T BESIDES, PUTTING IT IN HERE IS THIS. THAT APPLICATION HAS TO START NOW. I DON'T THINK I CAN MAKE IT CONDITIONAL TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF IT, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE IN THERE BECAUSE THIS IS OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S SEEKING HELP. I GUESS THAT'S WHY I'M PUTTING IT OUT TO YOU GUYS WITH THAT ONE. HOW DO WE DO THAT? THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK, COULD WE MAKE THAT A CONDITION? I KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE THE FINAL SAY SO BECAUSE THE STATE AND FDOT HAS THE FINAL SAY SO. BUT WHEN THEY'RE SUBMITTING THEIR PAPERWORK TO HAVE TO SAY, HEY, WE NEED A, A SIGNAL HERE IT NOT ONLY BENEFITS THE EXISTING NEIGHBORS AND GIVE THEM SOME RELIEF, BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO HELP THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO COME INTO THEIR THEIR DEVELOPMENT. BECAUSE LET'S NOT FORGET, GUYS, WHAT DO WE HAVE FORGOT TONIGHT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MILL CREEK. WE JUST US APPROVE PHASE THREE BACK AT PHASE THREE OF BENT CREEK, WHICH IS ON THE. YEP. SO ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE 400 SOME CARS COMING THIS WAY? 400. SOME. HOWEVER MANY HOUSES COMING OUT THAT SAME ROAD BUILT CREEK. SO IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO IT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR PROBLEM THERE BECAUSE WE JUST EARLIER THIS YEAR WASN'T IT. OR LATE LAST YEAR WE DID PHASE THREE A WELL YOU'RE ON THE TPO. YOU CAN PREVENT THAT. BUT I I'M GOING TO HAMMER IT. I'LL TAKE IT TO TPO I'LL DEAL WITH IT. BUT I AND WE'LL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN. BUT I NEED THE APPLICANT TO UNDERSTAND IN THIS CONDITIONING HERE THAT WE NEED, WE NEED VERY STRONG APPLICATIONS STARTING TODAY. AND WE WILL MAKE IT SURE THAT IT GETS ON THE RADAR. AT THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION. I WAS GOING TO ADD TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE. WE'RE COMING OUT. COMING OUT AND AND AND, MADAM MAYOR, JUST FOR THE THE AUDIENCE THAT SPOKE. I KNOW THAT AREA. I KNOW THAT AREA VERY WELL. BORN AND RAISED IN FORT PIERCE, I KNOW THAT AREA VERY WELL. AND THEY'RE ASKING THAT THEY'RE SITTING DOWN. YOU KNOW, I CAN ONLY SAY, COME ON IN TO COME ON INTO THE CITY IF YOU WANT TO. SO, YEAH, WE WE CAN LOOK INTO. SEE. I LOVE THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED HOW THE CONNECTIVITY WITH THE THE WATER AND ELECTRICITY AND EVERYTHING. SO JUST SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT. BUT RIGHT NOW, MY MAJOR CONCERN WITH THIS PROJECT IS I'M TRYING TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE COMING OUT MILL CREEK AT THE SAME TIME WHEN BENT CREEK IS BUILT OUT. WHAT? HOW THESE CARS ARE GOING TO GO ON. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SEE. YEP. YEP. THAT'S AND THAT'S A STATE ROAD AND THAT'S FDOT BABY. YEP YEP YEP I GOT IT I GOT IT. OKAY. SO ARE YOU READY TO MAKE A MOTION. WHO'S READY TO MAKE A MOTION? WE'VE GOT LOTS OF CONDITIONS, AND WE CLEANED UP THE CONDITION ON THREE FOR THE WHAT DID WE COME WITH THERE, MR. FREEMAN? SO WE HAVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS, NOTATED AND CONDITION. IT'S ACTUALLY CONDITION ONE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER FDOT REQUIRE A SIGNAL, AND THAT'S USUALLY A CASE OF WHETHER IT BECOMES WARRANTED, AS THE APPLICANT STATED. I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I FEEL LIKE I NEED MRS. HEDGES TO MISS HEDGES TO STATE IT FOR ME. I'VE TALKED ENOUGH TONIGHT, SO I GET IT CORRECT. KEV, COULD YOU PULL UP YOUR RECOMMENDATION? YES. RIGHT. LET ME JUST SIT DOWN WITH MY CONDITION BECAUSE I WANT TO START SOMETHING ON THERE. I'M SORRY. I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT IT SHOULD. I'M LOOKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION, BEGINNING NOW. [05:00:04] AND AT EVERY PHASE AND AT EVERY PHASE AND AT EVERY PHASE THAT THAT'S I. I WANT THAT CONDITION BEGINNING NOW AND THEN AT EVERY PHASE I WANT THEM PETITIONING FDOT FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION BETWEEN BENT AND THAT. AND I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE PARAMETERS OF THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN BENT BECAUSE THAT OBVIOUSLY THAT THAT JUSTIFIES THAT WHOLE SECTION. IT'S NOT JUST THE MILL CREEK. IT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING IN BENT CREEK. YES. OKAY. IT'S THE OVERALL UNDERLYING TRAFFIC VALUE AT THAT LOCATION. RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. SO THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS WHICH WERE APPROVED BY A PLANNING BOARD. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE THE PHASING OF THE PROJECT, NEEDING TO COMPLY WITH CITY CODE SECTIONS. AND THOSE RELATE TO ENSURING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CAN STAND ON ITS OWN AND DOES NOT AFFECT DEVELOPMENT OF NEIGHBOR PROPERTIES. ANY OTHER CONFIRMATION OR CONFORMITY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE ORDINANCE IN THE PARTICULAR SECTION AGAIN OF THE ORDINANCE. THE CONDITION THREE, WHICH I'VE HIGHLIGHTED, THERE IS PROBABLY ONE THAT WE NEED TO WORDSMITH OR ELIMINATE SOMEHOW. CONDITION FOUR HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH BETWEEN THE PLANNING BOARD AND AND NOW. CONDITION FIVE COULD BECOME CONDITION FOR WE WOULD NEED FULL DETAILS OF THE EMERGENCY ACCESS AT FIRST SITE PLAN BUILDING PERMIT. AND THOSE WERE THE CONDITIONS. IS IT AS SIMPLE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS? MINUS NUMBER THREE. WOULD THAT SATISFY? AND DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE. YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS IN MY PART. I THINK IT'S AND THEN JUST ONE OTHER CLARIFYING EMERGENCY ONLY ACCESS. RIGHT. BECAUSE I WANT THAT SPELLED OUT BECAUSE THAT BACK PART BACK THERE WOULD ONLY BE FOR EMERGENCY AND THAT THAT WOULD BE WITH FIRE KEY, WHATEVER. SO IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY, THE ENGINES RESPONSE CAN GET INTO THAT BACK AREA ONLY FOR EMERGENCIES, FIRE OR WHATEVER ELSE THAT MAY HAPPEN BACK THERE. THEY NEED TO GET IN THERE. MADAM MAYOR. YES, MA'AM. I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE MOTION INCLUDE THAT THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS TO BE AMENDED TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THE BASED ON THE MOTION TO APPROVE THAT THE PODS ARE BEING TREATED SEPARATELY FOR PURPOSES OF UNIFIED CONTROL AND UNITY OF TITLE. OH, NO. AND WE CAN ADD THAT WHEREAS CLAUSE INTO THE ORDINANCE PRIOR TO SIGNATURE, I WOULD ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE CONDITIONS INCLUDE THAT THE PD AGREEMENT FILL IN THE BLANKS AS TO DATE AND ORDINANCE NUMBER AS WELL AS NOTICE REQUIREMENTS, AND WE WILL FILL THOSE IN AGAIN PRIOR TO SIGNATURE. DO ANY OTHER STATE ALL THAT? OR IS THAT OR IS THAT SIX AND SEVEN THEN SAYING, YES, MA'AM, WE CAN SAY, I THINK IT IS FINE FOR COMMISSIONER TAYLOR TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS I JUST STATED. SO MOVED. HEY, EVERYBODY. SECOND. MOVED SECOND. THERE'S A SECOND. IS EVERYBODY CLEAR ON WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON? IN ESSENCE, MADAM MAYOR, WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT WITH CONDITIONS, PARAMETERS, DIVORCE IN ONE FROM TWO. PUTTING IN SOME LANGUAGE, STRONG LANGUAGE ABOUT FDOT AND FINALIZATION AND ACTION ON THAT, AS WELL AS EMERGENCY ONLY ACCESS OFF OF 40TH STREET WITH LOCK CODE OR WHATEVER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT USES FOR EMERGENCY ONLY. AND TWO ADDITIONAL TWO ADDITIONAL PARTS. RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I GOT PROPOSED BY MISS HEDGES. ARE YOU CLEAR ON THAT, MR. FREEMAN? AND IT'S ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. RIGHT. OKAY, I SHALL WORK ON THAT. ARE YOU CLEAR, MISS? THAT RED ONE? YEAH, I THINK I'M CLEAR. YES. AND THEN WHEN WE'LL HAVE THE FULL PACKAGE, IT'LL COME BACK TO YOU ON A SECOND READING. [05:05:02] AND WE'LL HAVE EVERYTHING COMPLETELY WORDSMITH BY THEN. YES, PLEASE. YES. OKAY. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND ARE WE READY TO VOTE? OKAY, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS. WELCOME. DREAM FINDERS. NOW YOU CAN GO DREAM FOR A NIGHTMARE. YES. OKAY. WE HAVE RESOLUTION 20 5-R 49, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA AND FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SAINT LUCIE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FOR THE [A. Resolution 25-R49 approving Interlocal Agreement between St. Lucie County and the City of Fort Pierce for the Creation of Anchoring Limitation Areas pursuant to Sections 327.4108 and 163.07, Florida Statutes. ] CREATION OF ANCHORING LIMITATION AREAS, PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MISTER CHESS, DO YOU HAVE A LEAD IN FOR THIS? ACTUALLY, I DO NOT FOR THIS. OKAY. AND I WONDER IF COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU WANT TO HEAR JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS? I THINK THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. I KNOW WE'RE TIRED. I THINK WE'RE TIRED. BUT THIS IS IMPORTANT, AND I WANT TO HEAR IT. AND THEY'VE WAITED ALL NIGHT LONG FOR SHOW AND TELL. COFFMAN AND JOSH RIVARD FROM CASEY COUNTY. MR. KAUFMAN. MR. KAUFMAN, WELCOME. YES, WE'RE WE'RE EXCITED TO BE HERE. THAT MEANS WE'RE ONE STEP CLOSER TO GOING HOME. AND I'M EXCITED FOR THIS TOO. SO SO BACK IN MAY, WE WERE WE WERE HERE WITH YOU GUYS JUST KIND OF GOING OVER ALL OF THE ALL THE THE CRITIQUE, THE TECHNICAL STUFF JUST KIND OF WENT THROUGH IT PRETTY IN-DEPTH. NOTHING'S CHANGED WITH THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. WE'RE JUST ESSENTIALLY READY TO GET STARTED. SO THE LAYOUT HASN'T CHANGED. NOTHING'S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING HAS CHANGED. YEAH. AND YOU'RE I WAS LOOKED AT THE WHAT THE CITY'S RESPONSIBLE FOR AND WHAT THE COUNTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AND READY TO DO THAT AND AND READY. ARE WE GOING TO DO ANY PROMOTION OF THIS? ARE WE GOING TO DO ANY KIND OF PRESS? YES, MA'AM. I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE KIND OF COMFORTABILITY BETWEEN THE CITY MARINA AND THE COUNTY, I MEAN, WE'VE WE'VE HAD ABSOLUTELY A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY AND THE PORTS AND BEACHES DISTRICT. WE'RE READY TO GO. WE HAVE, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, WE DO HAVE OUR VESSEL THAT IS READY TO DO OUR RETREAT OR OUR DAILY ROUTINE PATROLLING. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THE AREA JUST ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE INLET AS WELL AS THE NORTH SIDE, INCLUDING ALL AROUND WESLEY'S ISLAND. AND THEN ON THE COUNTY SIDE, WE WILL BE THEY'LL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE THE BOYS AND ALL THE PERMITTING AND ALL THE FUN STUFF. IF JOSH WANTS TO LOOT A LITTLE FURTHER, MISTER. MISTER RIVARD. YEAH. MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. REALLY EXCITED ABOUT YOUR NAME. SO, JOSHUA RIVER, PORT DIRECTOR. PORT OF FORT PIERCE. I REALLY WANT TO JUST REITERATE. THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE CITY TO COOPERATE. ONE OF OUR BIGGEST KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS HERE IS TO IDENTIFY A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO POLICING OUR WATERWAYS. IN TIMES PAST, WE'VE ALWAYS FOUND OUT WHEN VESSELS BECOME DERELICT FROM A RESIDENT. THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET BOOTS ON THE GROUND, AND THAT HOPE IS TO ALSO ALLOW FOR US TO MOVE THIS, THIS DISCUSSION TO LAW ENFORCEMENT, TO GIVE THEM THE THINGS THEY NEED SO THAT WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE IN A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, THEY CAN BE PROACTIVE AND RESPONSIBLE. SO I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THIS ANCHORING LIMITATION AREA ALLOWS FOR US TO JUST DISSUADE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BRING VESSELS WITHIN THIS MAJOR CORRIDOR AND LEAVE THEM AND NOT TEND TO THEM. THE MAIN PREMISE OF THIS IS TO JUST GET THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT TENDING TO THEIR VESSELS TO GET AWAY FROM THE MAIN CORRIDOR, SO THAT WE DON'T ENCUMBER ANY OF THE PORT ASSETS AND OR ANYONE USING THAT VITAL CORRIDOR. SO JUST AGAIN, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR WE'RE NOT PROMOTING THE AREA TO BE MOORED IN. WE'RE ACTUALLY JUST SAYING, HEY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO COME HERE, YOU HAVE A 45 DAY WINDOW WHERE YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, BUT YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU ARE MOBILE. YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE TENDING TO YOUR VESSEL SO THAT WE CAN START ABATING SOME OF THESE DERELICT VESSELS ISSUES. I ALSO WANTED TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THAT OUT OF THE 17 VESSELS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, JUST ABOUT TEN OF THEM HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. SO WE'RE MAKING SOME REALLY GOOD PROGRESS IN COOPERATION WITH YOUR CITY STAFF ON GETTING A HANDLE ON THE DERELICT VESSEL PROGRAM. AND OUR HOPE IS BY THE END OF THE YEAR TO HAVE ALMOST MOST OF THEM GONE. SO THANK YOU. YEAH. SO BUT I DID WANT TO SAY THAT AT ONE TIME WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CLOGGING THE INLET. AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE THE TOTAL MAGIC WAND TO DO THAT, BUT PEOPLE ARE ALSO VERY CONCERNED ABOUT [05:10:08] THE PUMP OUTS AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S NOT BEING DUMPED INTO THE LAGOON. SO PART OF THIS EFFORT IS FOR THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE WAY IT'LL WORK IS I BELIEVE CITY STAFF WILL BE OUT THERE DAY IN AND DAY OUT. THEY'LL BE TAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF WHAT VESSELS ARE IN THE AREAS, WHAT VESSELS ARE NOT. AND THROUGH THAT DAILY CONVERSATION, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHO'S LIVING ABOARD AND WHO'S NOT LIVING ABOARD. THAT'LL GIVE US INDICATORS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE NOT TENDING TO THEIR VESSEL OR THEY ARE. BUT I BELIEVE IT'S STAFF'S APPROACH THAT WHILE THEY'RE HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS, THEY'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH INPUT AS TO WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING. SO AGAIN, IT'S A MORE PROACTIVE APPROACH RIGHT NOW. NOBODY'S TELLING THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. AND THROUGH JUST JUST REASONABLE ENCOURAGEMENT, I THINK THAT WE'LL GET A REALLY GOOD RESPONSE FROM THE COMMUNITY. AND WITH THE STATE RULES CHANGING ON JANUARY 1ST, WHERE VESSELS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MOORED ANYWHERE FOR MORE THAN 14 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THAT HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT, THAT WILL ALLOW US EVEN ONE STEP FURTHER TO IDENTIFY WHO'S COMING IN AREAS OUTSIDE OF ALS, IF THEY'RE STAYING FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. WE CAN GET LAW ENFORCEMENT ENGAGED AND UNDERSTAND WHETHER THEY'RE FOLLOWING THOSE PROCEDURES OR NOT. THAT'S A NEW STATE LAW. YEAH. SO IT'S CHANGING. AND COME JANUARY 1ST, THERE'S GOING TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR VESSELS TO BE ANYWHERE OFF FLORIDA, ANYWHERE IN THE INTERCOASTAL. I BELIEVE IT'S 14 DAYS MORE THAN 14 DAYS. SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER MECHANISM FOR US TO JUST SAY, HEY, SOMEBODY OVER HERE, LET'S JUST CHECK OUT, MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE REGISTERED AND IN KNOWING WHO THEY ARE AND WHERE THEY'RE AT. THAT'S ONE LEG AHEAD OF THE GAME OF ABATING THE DERELICT VESSEL ISSUE. GOOD. GREAT. AND YEAH. SO JUST KIND OF BOUNCE BACK ON WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE PLAN ON. AS, AS HE WAS SAYING, HAVING THE PROACTIVE APPROACH THE MARINA ALREADY HAS PUMP OUT LOGS THAT WE DO PROVIDE FOR FREE. WE WILL HAVE A WHOLE STASH OF THOSE ON THE VESSEL. IS JUST TO. WHEN WE MAKE OUR FRIENDLY INTRODUCTION, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE A GOOD OLD WELCOME TO FORT PIERCE LETTER. AND HEY, BY THE WAY, LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE IN WE'RE IN ESSENTIALLY GOOD SITUATION. GOOD. YEAH. THAT'S GREAT. GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER? YEAH. MADAM MAYOR, I'D MOVE TO APPROVE SECOND MOTION AND SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. MR. BRODERICK. YES, COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, GUYS FOR. THANK YOU FOR WAITING. THANK YOU FOR WAITING. I HOPE YOU WENT AND HAD SOME DINNER. I DIDN'T GET A QUESTION THERE. HE WAS LIKE, OH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER GAINES, I KNOW YOU DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION, SO I DID NOT. TRUST ME. OKAY. WE HAVE RESOLUTION 2550, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, OF FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPROVING A STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT FOR THE KING'S LANDING VILLAS PLAT PROPERTY, [B. Resolution 25-R50 approving a Stormwater and Drainage Utilities Easement from the City of Fort Pierce for the use and benefit of the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority to Kings Landing FT Pierce LLC for the Villas at King's Landing. ] PROVIDING FOR OUR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DO. SO I ENTERTAIN A MOTION, MADAM MAYOR. MOVE. APPROVAL. SECOND MOTION AND SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. YES, COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. MR. JOHNSON. YES, MA'AM. MR. TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. OKAY, NEXT, WE HAVE RESOLUTION 2554, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, [C. Resolution 25-R54 approving the City of Fort Pierce Local Housing Assistance Program (LHAP) Amendment for the 2024-2027 report.] FLORIDA, APPROVING THE AMENDED LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE'S PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM ACT. SUBSECTIONS 420 .907 THROUGH FOUR, 20.9079 FLORIDA STATUTES AND RULE, CHAPTER 6737 FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS NEEDED BY THE STATE. AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF THE LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. ADD THE SECOND. THANK YOU, MR. BRODERICK. YES. COMMISSIONER GAINES. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER. JOHN. YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER TAYLOR. YES, MA'AM. MAYOR. HUDSON. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. NEXT, WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO MOVEMENT. LET'S MOVE ON. COMMENTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER, MR. CHESS. JUST ONE COMMENT. I MENTIONED TO YOU ALL EARLIER I MET WITH THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR LAST WEEK, [15. COMMENTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER] AND WE'RE WORKING ON PUTTING TOGETHER AN AGREEMENT TO BRING THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION AND THE CITY COMMISSION TOGETHER FOR MEETING. FOR A JOINT MEETING. OKAY. AND I'LL KEEP YOU. AND DO YOU. WE DID HAVE A LIST GOING. I THINK MISS COX WAS KEEPING. [05:15:05] I HAVE YOU SHARED SHARED IT WITH EVERYONE YET, BUT. YES. SO WILL AND AND WE WE. IF ANY COMMISSIONER WANTS TO ADD TO IT, MAYBE YOU CAN SHARE IT WITH US WHAT'S ON IT ALREADY SO WE CAN KNOW IT IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE WANT TO ADD. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. GREAT. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON. MISS COX, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING, MISS HEDGES? ABSOLUTELY NOT. OKAY. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION. OKAY. AND ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY? NO, NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, BUT I DID. [16. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION] MADAM MAYOR, ONE THING. I DID SEND AN EMAIL STARTING THE TPO PROCESS, SO I'LL BE FOLLOWING IT ALREADY. OH, YEAH. I'LL BE FOLLOWING UP, MR. BUCHWALD. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, I JUST HAVE TO TO THANK DEPUTY CHIEF NORRIS. YOU SAW ME WALK OUT? YEAH. THERE WAS AN INCIDENT AT AT MY PARENTS HOUSE, AND INSTEAD OF ME RUNNING TO BE ME, HE TOLD ME TO GO BACK INSIDE. SO THAT'S WHY HE LEFT TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING TO. I JUST WANT TO PERSONALLY THANK HIM FOR DOING THAT. OH, YEAH. YEAH. VERY GOOD. THANKS. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? OKAY. SHALL WE ADJOURN? WE'RE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.