[00:00:10]
>>> ALL RIGHT WE WILL OPEN THE FORT PIERCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2025. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
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. THANK YOU.
FRIENDLY REMINDER TO EACH TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR MOBILE DEVICES. ALICIA, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE?
[4. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
>> CHAIR KREISL. >> PRESENT. WE HAVE A FULL BOARD TODAY, NO ABSENCES TO CONSIDER. WE WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OUR AUGUST 11TH MEETING. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION
REGARDING THE MINUTES. >> SO MOVED.
>> SEEING NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. WIDING. SECOND BY COLLINS.
>> PLEASE CALL ROLL. >> EDWARDS?
>> BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO NEW BUSINESS, WE WERE MADE AWARE THERE IS A MEETING PLANNED AFTER LATER THIS EVENING, CORRECT?
>> YES AT 5:05. >> SO WE HAVE ASKED TO BE COMPLETED AND ADJOURNED BY 4:30. CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.
[a. PZANN2025-0004 Annexation Goose Development Parcel ID: 2434-501-0004-000-5]
WE HAVE A FAIRLY LIGHT AGENDA THIS MONTH, SO I THINK WE CAN HANDLE IT. LET'S GET RIGHT INTO IT. ITEM 6A ANNEXATION.>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS.
KERRY DRIVER ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, I BRING BEFORE YOU THE ANNEXATION OF GOOSE DEVELOPMENT FUND LLC. THE APPLICANT IS SEBASTIAN RINA, 1, PARCEL ID: 2434-501-0004-000-5 GOOSE DEVELOPMENT FUND LLC. IN SUMMARY A REQUEST TO REVIEW ONE PARCEL AT EAST MARKET AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 1. THE SITE LOCATION IS 2.3 ACRES, GIVE OR TAKE. HERE IS A MAP OUTLINING THE CITY BOUNDARIES. AS WE CAN SEE, THE PARCEL IN QUESTION HAS THE STAR ON IT. TO THE WEST WE HAVE C3, WHICH IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. TO THE EAST, WE HAVE R2 RESIDENTIAL INTERMEDIATE. TO THE SOUTH AND NORTH IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3. PURSUIT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1.11.15, PROPERTIES ANNEXES SHOULD RECEIVE A LAND USE DESTINATION COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND USE DESTINATION. STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THE PROPERTY IS IN UNINCORPORATED WITHIN FPUA SERVICE AREA. PURSUIT TO CHAPTER 171.046 SUBSECTION OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE WHEREAS THE LEGISLATURE RECOGNIZES CAN CREATE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS IN PLANNING, GROWTH, AND DELIVERY, ASK THEREFORE DECLARES IT'S THE POLICY OF THE STATE TO ELIMINATE ENCLAVES. THE CURRENT VALUE IS $34,991. THE EXISTING FEATURE LAND USE IN THE COUNTY IS COMMERCIAL C.O.M. HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT HERE. WITH APPROVED ANNEXATION, THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE WOULD BE MODIFIED TO RL, RESIDENTIAL LOW. THE EXISTING ZONING IS CG, COMMERCIAL GENERAL. WITH THE
[00:05:09]
PROPOSED ZONE BEING MODIFIED, WE GO TO R2 SINGLE FAMILY INTERMEDIATE DENSITY. I DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT JUST TO PAUSE.WE SEE THIS IS R2. JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THESE PARCELS RIGHT HERE ARE PART OF THE SAME APPLICANT. THEY OWN THESE PARCELS AS WELL. SO THESE ARE TWO PAR TELLS THAT WILL EVENTUALLY BE CONNECTED TO THIS PARCEL RIGHT HERE. JUST WANTED TO TAKE THE TIME TO POINT THAT OUT. OKAY, SO THE FUTURE LAND USE COMPARISON CHART. AGAIN THE SITE AREA IS 2.03 ACRES, WHICH COMES TO OVER 88,000 SQUARE FEET. THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE WITH IT BEING COMMERCIAL IN THE COUNTY, IF RESIDENTIAL WAS BEING PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED ON THAT LAND, THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WILL BE OFFERED UNDER THE ST. LUCY CURRENT LAND USE. WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE BEING MODIFIED TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RL, THE MAX UNITS THE APPLICANT CAN DEVELOP ON THE LAND WOULD BE THREE UNITS. AGAIN STAFF HAS CONFIRMED THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE UNINCORPORATED ST.
LUCY COUNTY AND WITHIN THE FPUA SERVICE AREA. THEREFORE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO REMOVE THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION PLAN TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION. ALTERNATE DESIGNATIONS, ONE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS OR TWO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MS. DRIVER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED ZONING.
THAT THE -- ACCORDING TO THE CHART, THE CURRENT COUNTY ZONING DOES NOT PERMIT ANY RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> PROPOSED ZONING DOES ALLOW
FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS? >> THE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL. WITH THE CITY IT WILL.
>> RIGHT. I'M GOING TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION AT THIS POINT AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER. I'D LIKE FOR THEM TO ELABORATE ON THIS. I'M ASSUMING BECAUSE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP, THERE'S PROBABLY A PLAN FOR SOMETHING MOVING FORWARD? BUT I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO EXPRESS MY COMPLETE LACK OF DESIRE OF HAVING ANY KIND OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS DIRECTLY ON U.S. 1 WITHIN THE CITY BOUNDARIES MOVING FORWARD. SO AT THIS TIME, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD AND TALK ABOUT THE PLAN. PLEASE SIGN
IN AND STATE YOUR NAME. >> UH-UH.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M SEBASTIAN WITH THE KEITH TEAM REPRESENTING GOOSE DEVELOPMENT FUND FOR THIS ANNEXATION. I BELIEVE THE PRESENTATION THAT KERRY MADE REFLECTS COLLECTLY OUR DESIRES TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY IN FORT PIERCE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, SORT OF THE ONE YOU WERE ADDRESSING TO BEFORE, IF I COULD ADDRESS THAT ONE. WE CURRENTLY ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSING A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, BASICALLY IN THAT INVERSE L. THE PROBLEM IS THAT THIS PARCEL SPECIFICALLY IS IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY. SINCE WE WANT TO DEVELOP IT COMPLETELY IN FORT PIERCE, WE WOULD NEED IT TO BE ANNEXED IN. OUR INTENTIONS FOR THIS IS REALLY THEN TO REZONE IT TO A P.U.D. TO ALLOW UNITS TO NOT BE ON U.S. 1. WE WOULD WANT THAT PORTION TO BASICALLY BE AN ENTRANCE RATHER THAN HAVING UNITS DIRECTLY FACING U.S. 1.
RIGHT NOW IT'S SORT OF A PLACE HOLDER BEING R2, BUT IN THE FUTURE, IT MIGHT BE UPON THIS BOARD TO REZONE IT TO PD, JUST SO THAT UNITS ARE NOT FACING U.S. 1, AND WE CAN ALLOW FOR A MORE INNOVATIVE CONFIGURATION, BUT BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW IS THE
ANNEXATION FOR THIS PARCEL. >> I HAD A FEELING THAT WAS PROBABLY THE CASE JUST LOOKING AT THE MAP. OKAY. DO YOU -- ANY
[00:10:11]
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?>> SO IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE THERE'S COMMERCIAL INTEGRATED WITH THE FINAL PLAN THERE, AND THEN JUST THE ENTRANCE? OR IT
WOULD JUST BE THE ENTRANCE? >> AT THIS TIME OUR PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY COMMERCIAL. IT WOULD ONLY BE RESIDENTIAL. THE ENTRANCE IS GOING TO BE ON U.S. 1 WITH AN ULTERIOR ON SOUTH MARKET FOR FIRE ACCESS. THE MAIN ENTRANCE WOULD BE ON U.S. 1.
>> SO MY CONCERN IS IF THE ANNEXATION IS APPROVED, RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO UNITY OF TITLE GOING ON, OR AT LEAST PRESENTLY THERE'S NO FIXED PLAN IN PLACE THAT WE'RE APPROVING AT THE SAME TIME THAT IS GOING TO TIE THIS ANNEXATION TO THE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE MOVING FORWARD. IT'S JUST GOING TO BECOME IN THE CITY, AND IT'S GOING TO BECOME AN R2 LOT. IT CAN THEN BE SOLD OR DONE SOMETHING ELSE. IF WE APPROVE AN R2 LOT, THEN BASED ON THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTES, YOU SELL THAT PROPERTY, WE CAN'T TELL ANYBODY THEY CAN'T BUILD A HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY. SO MY HESITATION IS SIMPLY DUE TO THAT. I THINK YOU HAVE A GREAT PLAN, AND I THINK THAT THAT AREA, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH A LONG DRIVEWAY, ENTRANCE ON U.S. 1 MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY WE CAN GET YOU WHAT YOU WANT WITHOUT LEAVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN HAPPEN SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW TO DO THAT. PERHAPS STAFF MAY HAVE A
SUGGESTION. >> JUST SORT OF ONE THING. THE PLAN FOR THIS AREA WAS DONE IN 1925. YOU CAN IMAGINE U.S. 1 WAS NOT SO HEAVILY COMMERCIAL AT THE TIME. MAYBE WITH STAFF WE CAN WORK ON SORT OF A RESOLUTION OF HAVING IT BE THE SAME ZONING, BASICALLY THE LOWEST COMMERCIAL IN THE CITY, SO THAT IT'S A MATCH FOR MATCH, AND IN CASE THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T GET DEVELOPED, AS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, WE CAN STILL MAINTAIN IT AS COMMERCIAL AND HAVE THE DESIRE, SORT OF ADDRESSING THE CONCERN YOU HAVE ON KEEPING U.S. 1 COMMERCIAL.
>> UH-UH. MR.FREEMAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS?
>> AN ALTERNATIVE WE HAVE NOT REALLY HAD TIME TO FULLY, YOU KNOW, RESEARCH THIS, BUT TO MAINTAIN A ZONING OF -- TO GUARANTEE A COMMERCIAL ELEMENT IN THIS LOCATION BUT ALSO AT THE SAME TIME TO ALLOW SOME RESIDENTIAL, WOULD BE TO HAVE A POTENTIAL MIXED USE WITH OVERLAY OF C3. MIXED USE WOULD ALLOW COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. THE C3 WOULD ALLOW A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE RESIDENTIAL UP TO 20%% OF THAT PROPERTY. BUT THERE WOULD NEED TO BE COMMERCIAL IN THERE AS
WELL. >> RIGHT, AND FOR THE APPLICANT, TO MOVE THROUGH IN THE FUTURE, DO PURSUE A P.U.D., DO ALL OF THE PROPERTIES NEED TO BE OF A MATCHING ZONE?
>> NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THE P.D. COULD BE SPLIT INTO VARIOUS PHASES AND AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT WOULD BE NOTATED IN THE P.D. AS TO THE LOCATIONS OF VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROVIDING THE UNDERLYING LAND USE WOULD ALLOW THAT PARTICULAR ACTIVIT
WITHIN THAT P.D. AREA. >> YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY SUGGESTION, FIND A MORE APPROPRIATE LAND USE DESIGNATION OR ZONING THAT STILL GIVES THE APPLICANT THE ABILITY TO PURSUE WHAT THEY HAVE STATED AS THEIR INTENTION WITHOUT CREATING UNNECESSARY RESTRICTIONS FROM THEM, ASSUMING THEIR PLAN GOES
[00:15:03]
FORWARD, BUT ALSO GIVE US SOME PROTECTION IN THE EVENT THAT THEY END UP SELLING THE PROPERTY. SO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONWOULD BE? >> HEARING YOUR CONCERNS, I THINK STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE MIXED USE FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH REQUIRES AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT USES ON THAT LOCATION WITH A ZONING OF C3, WHICH DOES ALLOW RESIDENTIAL TO BE ACCOMMODATED WITHIN THAT COMMERCIAL PIECE.
>> DOES THAT SOUND AMENABLE TO THE APPLICANT?
>> YES. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. SO DOES THAT GUARANTEE THAT IF WE DO THE MIXED USE WITH THE C3, DOES IT GUARANTEE THAT NO RESIDENTIAL CAN BE PUT ON THAT PROPERTY? OR WAS THE PLAN TO -- I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. WAS THE PLAN TO PUT RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE STAR IN THE PICTURE WE ARE SEEING NOW, BUT NOT HAVING IT SO CLOSE TO U.S. 1, OR IS IT TRULY TO MAKE THAT ENTIRE LOT AN ENTRANCE INTO THE ADJACENT LOTS.
>> WELL THE CURRENTPLAN FOR THE P.D. WOULD ONLY HAVE THE ENTRANCE PROBABLY MAYBE TO A THIRD OF THE WAY IN, AND THEN RESIDENTIAL WOULD COMMENCE FROM THERE, EASTERN, EASTWARD.
>> AND SO THEN, TO MR. FREEMAN, DOES THIS C3 OVERLAY, WHAT DOES IT PROHIBIT AS FAR AS RESIDENTIAL?
>> IT'S NOT AN OVERLAY. IT WOULD BE STRAIGHT ZONING.
THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON WHERE IN THAT ZONING THE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL WOULD GO. THE ONLY RESTRICTION IS THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL, THINK I, IS LIMITED TO 20% OF THE FLOOR SPACE. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT DOES NOT RESTRICT ON THAT PROPERTY WHERE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL WOULD GO.
>> I ALSO HAD CONCERNS WHEN I FIRST SAW THIS, READING THROUGH IT WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF RESIDENTIAL BEING SO CLOSE TO COMMERCIAL, SURROUNDED BY COMMERCIAL ON U.S. 1, A VERY BUSY STREET. I GUESS HOW DO WE GUARANTEE THAT?
>> THE ONLY WAY, CHAIR, THE ONLY WAY THAT COULD BE GUARANTEED WOULD BE WITH THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
>> UH-UH. >> WHICH WOULD -- MAYBE A MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW ON THAT OVERALL PLAN THE LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, IF NECESSARY.
>> YEAH, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM, YOU KNOW, USING THE ROADWAY ENTRANCE INTO YOUR COMMUNITY TO APPROXIMATE WHAT THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ON U.S. 1 ARE ALSO DOING TO BUFFER THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. I MEAN THE LOT DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT LOT HERE IS AN ENTIRE, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THE EAST-WEST DIMENSION IS IDENTICAL TO YOURS, AND THAT'S HOW FAR THE SETBACK IS, PREVENTING THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM BEING THAT MUCH CLOSER TO U.S. 1. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE ACHIEVED IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN MOVING FORWARD, IS THAT YOUR ROADWAY ENTRANCE, BUS LOOP, WHATEVER YOU HAVE AT THE FRONT ENTRANCEOF YOUR PROPERTY, BE VOID OF ANY RESIDENTIAL UNTIL YOU GET TO AT LEAST AS FAR BACK AWAY FROM U.S.
ONE AS THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE.
>> IF WE WERE TO ANNEX THIS PROPERTY, I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THAT AS A ZONE THAT PROHIBITS ANY RESIDENTIAL FROM BEING BUILT
ON IT AT ALL. >> IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC JUST BECAUSE IT WOULD RESTRICT -- I MEAN IF YOU LOOK AT ST. LUCIE COUNTY'S CURRENT ZONING, I MEAN IT ALLOWS COMMREALLY CONTEMPLATING AT THE MOMENT ANYTHING OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL IN THE P.D. AND JUST HAVING A COMMERCIAL ONLY WOULD, I GUESS, COULD BE POSSIBLE, BUT HAVING A CONDITION TO BASICALLY MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY AS IS AND ONLY USE
[00:20:03]
IT AS AN ENTRANCE, MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED FOR ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, RESIDENTIAL, MIXED USE, OR ANYTHING. I THINK THE DIRECTOR'S AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS SORT OF A GOOD COMPROMISE BETWEEN WHAT WE MIGHT ENVISION, AND AGAIN, ASSUMING THE P.D. DOES PASS. EVENTUALLY, JUST IN CASE IT DOESN'T, IT GIVES US FLEXIBILITY IN CASE WE TRY TO DEVELOP SOMETHING ELSE OR IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD LATER ON.>> I THINK IF THE APPLICANT IS AMENABLE, WE CONTINUE THIS TO THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD, SO STAFF CAN SIT WITH THE APPLICANT AND GO THROUGH OPTIONS RATHER THAN TRY DEVELOP THEM ON THE FLOOR HERE. I THINK THERE IS A SOLUTION SOMEWHERE IN THIS TO MEET WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD WANTS TO BE WITH THE APPLICANT.
>> OKAY. >> HOW DOES THE BOARD FEEL ABOUT
THIS? >> I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY NEED MORE TIME, LIKE YOU SAID, AND FIGURE OUT A TIMELINE. MAYBE COMING FOR THE ANNEXATION MAY NOT BE THE FIRST MOVE THEY MAKE.
>> THEY HAVE TO. >> OH, OKAY. WELL, I REPEAL THAT
NOTION. >> IT'S A LITTLE -- I'M SORRY.
IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED FOR US TO PROPOSE A P.D. IF ALL OF THE PARCELS ARE NOT IN FORT PIERCE.
>> RIGHT. WELL. MR.FREEMAN'S SUGGESTION TO TABLE THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL NEXT MONTH TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AND STAFF A CHANCE TO KIND OF FIND THAT SWEET SPOT, I THINK, IS A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT'S THERE. I THINK THERE'S A SOLUTION TO BE HAD THAT WILL MAKE BOTH SIDES SATISFIED HERE. IT'S JUST FIGURING OUT WHERE
EXACTLY THAT LIES, SO -- >> I THINK WE ALL LIKE THE ANNEXATION TO THE CLOSEST GAP, SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO. CRAZIER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYBODY DEVELOPING THIS AS RESIDENTIAL. COULD BE WRONG, BUT IT IS A POSSIBILITY. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY BEST TO WORK THROUGH IT AND SEE WHAT OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE.
>> ALL RIGHT, SO CAN WE GET A MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL NEXT
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL NEXT MONTH BY MR. WIDING SECOND BY CARTER. PLEASE CALL ROLL.
[b. PD2024-00002 Final Planned Development (Updated Proposal) Sunrise Lakes Parcel ID: 2433-123-0001-000-1]
>> YES, MA'AM. >> CHAIR KREISL?
>> YES. ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON ITEM 6B. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
UPDATED PROPOSAL SUNRISE LAKES. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR. LET ME GET THIS. PLANNING BOARD MAY RECALL THAT THIS APPLICATION, SUNRISE LAKES FINAL P.D. SITE PLAN WAS BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING BOARD PREVIOUSLY. IT'S ALSO BEEN PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, YOU HAVE COPIES OF E-MAILS WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORS. I CAN GO THROUGH THOSE LATER IN THE PRESENTATION, JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE BEEN PUT ON RECORD. THE PROPOSAL WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY SUBMITTED WAS ADVERTISED AS A CHANGE OF USE, SORRY, A REZONING. EVEN ON THIS POWERPOINT THERE'S AN ERROR THERE WHICH SHOULD BE RL. THE
[00:25:02]
PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY ANNEXED INTO THE CITY AND ZONED R1 WITH FUTURE LAND USE OF RL. AND RL PROVIDES A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE. AROUND THE PROPERTY, YOU SEE THE CITY LIMITS IN COLORED. THE UNCOLORED AREA ARE COUNTY AREAS. SO THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY ESSENTIALLY RS-3 ZONING ON THE SOUTH AND WEST. WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL TO THE NORTH AND EAST AND SOME COMMERCIAL FURTHER EAST. THE SITE IS 11.54 ACRES.THE COMMISSION HEARD THE APPLICATION AND RECEIVED A NUMBER OF COMMENTS FROM THE LOCAL NEIGHBORS OF THE SITE, AND WE DID RECEIVE SOME E-MAILS, WHICH REINFORCED THOSE COMMENTS, AND AS I SAY, THOSE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW. THEY RELATE TO THE RESULTED DENSITY. STAFF CALCULATE THE PROPOSED DENSITY TO BE 4.41 UNITS PER ACRES, BASED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL SITE AREA. WE KNOW THERE'S SOME IN THE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS, BUT DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SITE AREA WITH THE 50 UNITS PROPOSED, WE ARE SEEING A DENSITY OF 4.41, WHICH IS BELOW THE R1 FUTURE LAND USE MAXIMUM OF 6.5. THE NEIGHBORS REFERRED TO FLOODING CONCERNS AND TRAFFIC CONCERNS. AND THE SIZE OF THE LOT. THE R1 LOT IS LARGER AT MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET. THE PROPOSED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES A LOT SIZE OF JUST BELOW 5,000 SQUARE FEET. SO THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE IS NOT REQUESTED TO CHANGE. REMAINS AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND WE SEE WHEN WE LOOK AT THE GENERAL AREA THAT IT'S -- THIS PROPERTY IS ACTING ALMOST LIKE A BUFFER BETWEEN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL.
TO THE NORTH, WE DO HAVE MORE INDUSTRIAL. TO THE SOUTH, WE HAVE A MIXTURE OF INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL IN THE COUNTY. THE SITE PLAN PROPOSES 50 UNITS, 50 LOTS, MY APOLOGIES, WITH CERTAIN AMENITIES IN THERE. THERE IS A SCHOOL BUS SHELTER, AN INCREASED LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IS SEPARATING THE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORING RS-3 ZONING. THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE PROPOSED. THESE ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE CITY. THEY ARE SINGLE FAMILY UNITS AND ARE EXEMPT FROM REGULATION UNDER STATE STATUTE. SO THIS DID APPEAR AT THE PLANNING BOARD IN MAY. THE RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATION -- RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WAS BASED ON THE ZONING CHANGE FROM R1 TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT, MAINTAINING THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THERE WERE TEN CONDITIONS ATTACHED. AND WHEN THIS WENT TO CITY COMMISSION, CITY COMMISSION HEARD THAT AND LISTENED TO THE COMMENTS BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WERE DUE TO PRESENT THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 15TH , NOTING THE SITE PLAN HAS INCORPORATED SOME CHANGES, AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL EXPLANATION
[00:30:05]
OF WHAT THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ARE AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AMENITIES OF THIS PROPERTY. STAFF HAVE READVERTISED THIS TO GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM AGAIN. ALSO, WE WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP THE FACT THAT THE EXISTING ZONING IS R1 AND NOT CONFUSED WITH THE RS-3 OF THE COUNTY, WHICH WOULD SEEM TO BE THE CASE IN THE PREVIOUS ADVERTISEMENT. AND SO WE REREVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND LOOKED AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT PLAN. WE ALSO BELIEVE THAT IT PROMOTES THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY AS IT INCREASES THE PROVISION AND EXTENT OF THE CITY UTILITIES ALONG THIS ROADWAY, WHICH ALLOWS THE PROPERTIES TO CONNECT TO THAT, SHOULD THEY WISH TO. WE LOOK AT THE SECTION 125-212 AND 125-314. THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING BOARD MOVE FORWARD THE APPLICATION SUBJECTS TO THE 12 SEASONS AS NOTED. I WILL GO THROUGH THOSE. THERE'S A SCHOOL DISTRICT BUS STOP AND STORM WATER SYSTEM SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE TO THE COMPLETION OF FIRST RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.THERE'S AN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT MINIMUM --
>> AS YOU GO THROUGH THESE 12? >> YES.
>> WILL YOU POINT OUT IF THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCES?
>> THE FIRST ONE, CONDITION ONE, THERE IS A NOW A CONDITION WHICH LOOKS AT THE FORCED MAIN ALONG SUNRISE BOULEVARD, AND I THINK THIS DISTRICT BUS STOP IS ALSO NOTED IN THERE AS WELL. SO DEVELOPMENT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE DENSITY AND RESIDENTIAL LOT AND BUILDING HEIGHTS, AS APPROVED IN THE SUNRISE DEVELOPMENTS LAKES AGREEMENT AND FINAL P.D. STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE PLAN REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. I THINK CONDITION SIX IS A NEW ONE REGARDING THE EXISTING DRAINAGE ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE REGRADED AND 20-FOOT DRAINING EASEMENT SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF SIDE WORK. IT SHALL INCLUDE ACCESS FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THE STORM WATER CONTROL AND DEALING WITH THAT STORM WATER IS MAINTAINED AND PROVIDED THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT. CONDITION SEVEN, NOW I THINK IT WAS IN THERE BEFORE, BUT A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF SIX FEET SHALL BE INSTALLED ON THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE AS PART OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO THE INDUSTRIAL USE. THAT'S TO PREVENT THE DISTURBANCE FROM THE INDUSTRIAL USE AFFECTING ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THESE ARE TYPICAL CONDITIONS, MITIGATION CALCULATION. ISSUANCE OF SITE BEFORE SITE CLEARING OR VEGETATION REMOVAL. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WILL DO A PRESENTATION DEMONSTRATING THE TREES MAINTAINED ON SITE OR BEING TRANSFERRED ON THE SITE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. THESE WILL BE PLACED IN THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AND THAT IS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE APPLICANT AND THEN OWNER TO MAINTAIN ALL OF THE LANDSCAPE IN PERPETUITY AS APPROVED. A REVISED FINAL SITE PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR THE PROPOSED LAND CENTER. ONCE THAT IS FLUSHED OUT, THE APPLICANT WILL BE RETURNING WITH A FINAL SITE PLAN FOR THOSE ARCHITECTURAL AND
[00:35:03]
LANDSCAPING DETAILS FOR THE PROPOSED AMENITIES CENTER. AND AGAIN, A STANDARD NOTE, CONDITION, REQUIREMENT, THAT ALL APPLICABLE STATE OR FEDERAL PERMITS SHALL BE MAINTAINED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE'S EXTERNAL AGENCIES THAT WILL NEED TO ISSUE PERMITS PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT HERE. THOSE WILL BE REQUIRED AT BUILDING PERMIT. WE DON'T -- DUE TO STATE LAW, WE CAN'T REQUIRE THEY ARE DONE AT THIS STAGE. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING THIS BE MOVED TO CITY COMMISSION WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THE E-MAILS THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WERE FROM DEBORAH JONES OF 909 WEST WILLABY ROAD AND JUDY BEAGLING. I DON'T HAVE THE ADDRESS FOR JUDY, BUT ESSENTIALLY AS I SAID EARLIER, THE CONCERNS RELATE TO THE OVERALL DENSITY, THE LOT SIZE, THE IMPACT ON TRAFFIC. THE IMPACT ON STORM WATER, THE -- WELL REALLY INAPPROPRIATENESS OF THIS FORM OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND LOOKING AT THE -- HOW THE PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNED AND LAID OUT WITHINTHIS NEIGHBORHOOD. CHAIR? >> OKAY. THANK YOU MR. FREEMAN.
JUST A COUPLE OF CLERICAL QUESTIONS HERE. THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE PROPERTY IS R1 YOU SAID?
>> YES. >> AND THE FUTURE LAND USE
DESIGNATION IS? >> LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH GIVES A PRO VISION, WHICH ALLOWS A PROVISION OF UP TO 6.5
UNITS PER ACRE. >> DO YOU HAVE THAT CHARTED OUT TO HOW MANY UNITS THAT APPROXIMATES OUT FOR THIS
ACREAGE? >> I CAN DO A QUICK CALCULATION.
75, I BELIEVE. >> 75? AND THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSED UNDER THE P.D. I BELIEVE IS 50?
>> 50, YES. >> DO YOU KNOW WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY?
>> FAIRLY RECENTLY. I THINK WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS. I THINK IT WAS AROUND AUGUST 2024 I BELIEVE.
>> AND THE PRIOR LAND USE DESIGNATION UNDER THE COUNTY?
>> I THINK IT WAS UNDER COUNTY RS-3. I DON'T RECALL THE FUTURE LAND USE, PROBABLY RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE OF SOME SORT.
>> I THINK IT WAS FAIRLY SAFE TO ASSUME IT WAS A DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. FOR REFERENCE, I'M JUST CHARTING THE PATH, THE DESTINY OF THIS PROPERTY GOING FROM COUNTY TO CITY TO NOW POTENTIALLY P.D., UNDERSTANDING FOR MYSELF WHAT THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER IS ENTITLED TO WITHOUT US HAVING TO BE INVOLVED AT ALL. TO ME, THAT'S ALWAYS WHERE I START AND TRY TO GAUGE PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE.
>> I SHOULD POINT OUT, WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE RESIDENTS THAT THE LOT SIZE, IF IT WAS DEVELOPED UNDER R1, THE LOT SIZE WOULD BE 12,000 -- MINIMUM LOT SIZE 12,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF POTENTIAL LOTS AVAILABLE IF IT WAS DONE UNDER STRAIGHT ZONING. THE P.D. IS OBVIOUSLY A METHODOLOGY OF INCREASING THE DENSITY OR FORM OF DEVELOPMENT TO BETTER LAY OUT THE PROPERTY, INCREASE THE BUFFERS, PROVIDE AMENITIES, ENSURE BETTER BUFFER TREATMENTS TO THE INDUSTRY AND SO FORTH, AMENITIES, AND DOES ALSO ALLOW THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP UP TO THE MAXIMUM 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE.
[00:40:11]
>> UH-UH. SEEMS LIKE AN UNINTENDED CONGRUITY. THEY
DON'T LINE UP. >> THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH THE ZONING CODE THAT DOESN'T PROPERLY REFLECT THE UNDERLYING
LAND USE FOR THAT LOT SIZE. >> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> THERE WAS TEN PROPOSED
CHANGES BEFORE. >> CONDITIONS, YES, SIR.
>> AND THIS MOVED TO 12. SPECIFICALLY WHAT WERE THE TWO?
>> LET ME JUST GO THROUGH THESE NOW.
>> YEAH, EXCUSE ME, CONDITIONS. >> NUMBER SIX WAS A NEW CONDITION. THE EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH REGRADED AND THE 20 FEET DRAINING EASEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED. AND I THINK IT'S THE MASONRY WALL OF MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 6 FEET. I BELIEVE THAT'S
BEEN PUT IN THERE. >> WHAT WOULD THE DATE ON THE TWO COMMUNICATIONS YOU ALL RECEIVED AND NOW WE RECEIVED, MOVING FROM THE 10 TO THE 12, HAVE THOSE PEOPLE WHO SENT THE E-MAILS, WERE THEY AHEAD OF TIME? DO THEY KNOW THOSE TWO
CHANGES HAPPENED? >> THEY ARE ON THE AGENDA. THEY ARE PART OF THE ITEM. A LETTER NOTIFYING PEOPLE OF THIS
APPLICATION WAS MAILED OUT. >> AND THERE'S AS MANY QUESTIONS AS STATEMENTS I'LL SAY IN THE TWO COMMUNICATIONS WE RECEIVED. AND GOING THROUGH THE -- TRYING TO BREAK OUT THE QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS OR SUGGESTIONS VERSES TRYING TO JUST DO THE DRILLDOWN TO FACT, YOU TAKE THESE TWO COMMUNICATIONS EVEN COME CLOSE TO ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS OF THAT COMMUNITY BE IT THE 12 CONDITIONS THAT ARE SUGGESTED
HERE? >> I FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW DON'T THINK THE CONDITIONS ACTUALLY INCREASE THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSAL. I THINK THEY ADDRESS AND DECREASE THE IMPACT OF THIS PROPOSAL. THEY'RE IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING DRAINAGE DITCH. IMPROVEMENTS TO A BUFFER WALL ARE ESSENTIALLY REQUIRING THE FORCED MAIN AND SCHOOL DISTRICT BUS STOP TO BE INSTALLED BEFORE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THOSE ARE ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED. I THINK THE -- THIS IS A REINFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, SHOULD IT GO FOR APPROVAL. THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY GREATER ALLOWANCES THAN WERE
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED. >> IS THE CURRENT OPEN SPACE AT
23%? >> I THINK IT'S SLIGHTLY MORE THAN 23, BUT WE ROUNDED DOWN TO ENSURE THERE WAS A BIT OF
FLEXIBILITY IN THERE. >> ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE, I WOULD INVITE THE
[00:45:01]
APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGNIN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS BLAINE BIRKCHIRE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. ALL RIGHT.
PERFECT. SO AS KEVIN STATED, I BELIEVE -- EXCUSE ME. I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO MONTHS AGO WE CAME IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD WITH 5-0 APPROVAL. THEN WE WENT TO CITY COUNCIL. AT CITY COUNCIL WE RECEIVED SOME FEEDBACK FROM SOME NEIGHBORS AS WELL FROM CITY COUNCIL. TWO OF THOSE MAIN ITEMS THAT WE'VE NOW ADDRESSED AND TALKED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ABOUT HAVE TO DO WITH REALLY TWO ITEMS. TYPICALLY WHEN WE DO A FINAL P.D. WE DO NOT GET INTO FULL TREE MITIGATION CALCULATIONS. THAT'S USUALLY SOMETHING HANDLED DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. SO WHAT WE DID, WE WENT BACK THERE TO SEE, HEY, WHICH TREES CAN WE SAVE THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON SITE AND INCORPORATE MORE INTO OUR SITE PLAN? WE SENT OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OUT THERE TO BASICALLY DO A NEW STUDY AND LOOK AT IT. AS PART OF THAT, OUR NEW PLAN THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS -- WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE, THE MAIN FOCUS IS -- YOU HAVE A CEMETERY TO THE NORTH, AND YOU HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL FDOT YARD TO THE EAST. SO THE BIGGEST AREA THAT WE WANT TO FOCUS ON BUFFERING ARE ANY RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS.
IN THAT CASE, THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE SUNRISE TO THE WEST, YOU STILL HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD A LITTLE FURTHER TO THE WEST. SO FOCUSING ON THAT, WE ARE NOW PROPOSING TO SAVE 26 PALMS ALONG THE FRONT EDGE OF OUR PROPERTY AS WELL AS 28 EXISTING OAK TREES AND FIVE EXISTING PINE TREES. SO UTILIZING THAT AS WELL AS ADDING TO THE PROPOSED 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, OUR GOAL IS TO CREATE A MORE OPAQUE LANDSCAPE SUFFER AS YOU DRIVE THROUGH ON SUNRISE. AS YOU HAVE PROBABLY SEEN, WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH A NEW DEVELOPMENT, THE LANDSCAPING LOOKS NICE, BUT IT'S NOT MATURE. AS PART OF THIS, WE ARE UTILIZING THE EXISTING OAKS AND PINES IT WILL PROVIDE A MUCH BETTER BUFFER BETWEEN US AND SUNRISE BOULEVARD. GOING OFF OF THAT, WE ARE ABLE TO DETERMINE THAT THERE WAS 228 -- EXCUSE ME, SABLE PALMS EXISTING ON SITE. WE WILL TAKE THOSE PALMS AND RELOCATE THEM ALONG THE BUFFER, SO THOSE ARE ACTUALLY MATURE TREES WE WILL BE SAVING. THE MAIN GOAL WITH THE PALMS IS, LIKE I SAID, THE SOUTH BUFFER, SO WE ARE GOING TO PUT CLUSTERS OF SIX PALMS ALONG THAT BUFFER. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT KEVIN IS SHOWING, WE HAVE THAT TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP. ACTUALLY WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A 20-FOOT DRAIN EASEMENT THERE AND A 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE STRIP, AND THEN ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 16 FEET BETWEEN US AND THE NEXT LOT. SO WHEN YOU DO THAT, THAT WILL HAVE ABOUT -- AND THEN THAT WILL HAVE 36 FEET BETWEEN HOUSE LOTS 18 AND 27 AND OUR SOUTH PROPERTY LINE. YOU ADD 15 FEET IN FOR WHAT THE REAR YARD SETBACK IS FOR THESE HOMES, SO WE PUSH THE HOUSES AS FAR NORTH. THE CLOSEST HOUSE WILL BE 51 FEET FROM THAT NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH. SO OUR GOAL IS TO REALLY CREATE AS MUCH OF A BUFFER AS WE CAN WITH SPACE, PLANTING -- RELOCATING EXISTING PALMS, AND THEN ENHANCING THAT WITH THE TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER. ANOTHER ITEM THAT CITY COUNCIL BROUGHT UP IS TYPICALLY DURING THE FINAL P.D. WE DON'T GO INTO DETAIL ON OUR AMENITIES. WE LIST THEM ON THERE. WE'VE NOW PROVIDED CALLOUTS ON THE SITE PLAN, SHOWING THAT -- CAN HE GO TO THE OTHER -- CORRECT, RIGHT HERE. IN BETWEEN LOTS 35 AND 50, WE ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSING A POOL AREA WITH A SMALL CLUBHOUSE AND BATHROOMS THAT WILL BE UTILIZED BY THE RESIDENTS. JUST TO THE LEFT OF HERE, ON LOT 35, WE'LL HAVE AN ENCLOSED OR EXCUSE ME, A FENCED IN TOT LOT CONSISTING BASICALLY OF A PLAYGROUND FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS A
[00:50:01]
TURF GREEN AREA FOR RESIDENTS TO UTILIZE. THE LAST AMENITY AREA IS TO THE LEFT OF LOT ONE. THAT'S GOING TO BE A GAZEBO AND BARBECUE AREA FOR THE RESIDENTS. WE HAVE IT DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF. THEY ALSO RECOMMENDED WE TRY TO UTILIZE THE MIDDLE BIOSOIL AS PART OF AN AMENITY. A BIOSOIL, TYPICALLY WHEN YOU GO TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU SEE A DRY POND THAT IS JUST SODDED GRASS AS A BIG OPEN WHOLE. AS PART OF OUR LANDSCAPING PLAN, THIS WILL BE PLANTED WITH DIFFERENT TALL GRASSES, DIFFERENT TREES AS WELL AS DIFFERENT ROCKS, KIND OF IN THE DESIGN YOU SEE HERE, MORE OF ANESTHETIC. PROPOSING A MULCH PATHWAY THAT WILL WRAP AROUND THAT DRY POND THAT WILL KIND OF BE A WALKING PATH FOR THE RESIDENTS. SO THOSE ARE TWO OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE THAT WAS JUST BROUGHT UP IS THAT IT'S BEEN MADE A CONDITION THAT AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, WE ARE GOING TO BE EXTENDING ENFORCEMENT ALONG SUNRISE BOULEVARD, SO WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN PERMITTED AND APPROVED BY FORT PIERCE UTILITY AUTHORITY FOR THIS. WE WILL BE RUNNING IT ALL ALONG SUNRISE BOULEVARD TO OUR SOUTHERN MOST PROPERTY CORNER. THAT ALLOWS OUR SITE TO CONNECT TO IT AS WELL AS A FUTURE EXPANSION OF SEWER TO THIS AREA. THE NEIGHBORS ON THE WEST SIDE OF SUNRISE ARE CURRENTLY ALL ON SEPTIC. ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH ARE CURRENTLY ON SEPTIC. FLORIDA LAW, BY 2030, EVERYONE IS SUPPOSED TO CONNECT TO EITHER A PUBLIC SANITARY SYSTEM OR THERE'S OTHER, MORE EXPENSIVE OPTIONS THEY CAN UTILIZE, BUT THIS WILL ALLOW FPU TO CONTINUE THIS ENFORCEMENT FURTHER ALONG SUNRISE BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH TO ANY OTHER NEIGHBORS THAT MIGHT NEED IT AS WELL. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE MAIN ITEMS, AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS THAT THEBOARD MIGHT HAVE. >> CAN YOU REMIND ME WHERE, WHERE WE LANDED ON OUR DISCUSSION WITH THE SCHOOL BUS
ACCESS? >> YES. SO LAST TIME WE HAD SPOKE TO THE BOARD, WE STATED THAT WE WERE GOING TO PROVIDE A SHELTERED BUS STOP, JUST TO THE NORTH OF OUR ENTRANCE RIGHT THERE. THAT COULD BE SHARED. YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY ASKED ABOUT GETTING LIKE A PULLOFF LANE, SO WE TALKED TO THE SCHOOL BOARD ABOUT THAT AND ST. LUCIE COUNTY, AND DUE TO SOME DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WE ARE DOING FOR SUNRISE BOULEVARD, WE CAN'T GET JUST A PULLOFF ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE FOR IT, SO BASICALLY WHAT WE STATED WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE A GATED COMMUNITY, SO THEY CAN PULL IN AND USE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO LOOP BACK OUT, OR THEY COULD STOP ON SUNRISE, NOT HAVE THE KIDS CROSS THE STREET, BUT HAVE IT I GUESS ON THE NORTHBOUND LANE FOR THEM
TO UTILIZE IT. >> I'LL TELL YOU WHY I DON'T
>> ONE, I DON'T -- I DON'T MIND THE BUS LOOPING THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME, AND THEY HAVE A SCHEDULE TO KEEP. MY ASSUMPTION IS OVER TIME, EVEN IF THE PLAN IS INITIALLY TO LOOP THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY OVER TIME, OUT OF EFFICIENCY, THEY ARE JUST GOING TO START STOPPING ON SUNRISE.
THE BUSES ALREADY DO THAT IN SEVERAL PLACES. IT'S NOT SAFE.
IT'S A PROBLEM. IT'S A PROBLEM FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, THE COMMUTERS. IT'S AN UNNECESSARY HAZARD FOR THE KIDS.
AND WE REALLY WANT TO TRY TO AVOID THAT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
AND I UNDERSTAND THE SCHOOL BOARD'S POSITION IF THEY THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT GATED, SO THEY CAN LOOP THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY, AND WE HAVE HEARD THAT FROM OTHER DEVELOPMENTS BEING PROPOSED, BUT I THINK IT'S PRETTY APPARENT TO ME WHAT WILL JUST EVENTUALLY END UP HAPPENING IS THAT, TO KEEP THEIR SCHEDULES, THE BUSES WITHOUT A PLACE TO PULL OVER AND QUICKLY LOOP BACK ON TO THE STREET WILL JUST START STOPPING ON THESE
MORE HEAVILY USED ROADWAYS. >> RIGHT, AND TYPICALLY ON THESE SMALLER NEIGHBORHOODS, SOMETIMES WE WILL PROPOSE A TURNAROUND
[00:55:03]
THAT IS RIGHT THERE, BUT I MEAN, MOST OF THE TIME, ON A NEIGHBORHOOD THIS SMALL, TYPICALLY, YOU'D SEE THE BUSES PROBABLY JUST STOPPING ON SUNRISE, AND STOPPING RIGHT THERE.>> HOW DOES EVERYONE FEEL? >> I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE BUS STOP IN THE CURRENT LOCATION, AND I THINK IT'S CAUSING MORE ISSUES THAN IT IS ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS FOR THE STUDENTS. I MEAN, THERE'S ALWAYS THE SOLUTION OF ADDING A TURN-IN IF YOU CHANGED YOUR LAYOUT. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS A CHANGE. IT'S NOT SAFE FOR THE STUDENTS. IT'S GOING TO CAUSE TRAFFIC ISSUES IN THE MORNING AND AFTERNOONS. I HAVE HIGH CONCERNS FOR THAT BUS STOP ISSUE. DEFINITELY. AND MY SECONDARY CONCERN IS HOW CLOSE THESE HOUSES ON LOTS 28 THROUGH 34 ARE TO THE ROAD AS WELL. YOU HAVE SOME BUFFERS LISTED IN.
I'M JUST ALWAYS WEARY OF HOUSES BEING BUILT SO CLOSE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S NO OTHER HOUSING THAT'S SIMILAR IN THAT AREA TO THIS LAYOUT, HAVING THE HOUSES SO CLOSE TO A BUSY ROAD. AND THE DENSITY IS HIGH AS WELL FOR THIS PARCEL.
>> I AGREE AS WELL. EVERYTHING YOU SAID, ESPECIALLY THE DENSITY. I MEAN IT JUST DOESN'T MATCH ANYTHING THAT'S CURRENTLY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN THAT AREA. SUNRISE BOULEVARD IS ALREADY PRETTY STRAINED, AND I MEAN WE KEEP GOING THROUGH THIS, WHERE WE LOOK TO APPROVE THIS HIGH DENSITY WHEN IT JUST DOESN'T MATCH THE AREA, THE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. SO THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING INTO. I CAN CERTAINLY APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, WANTING TO MAXIMIZE PROFITS, BUT AT THE COST OF EXISTING RESIDENTS, I JUST -- IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S HARD FOR ME TO GET BEHIND.
>> CAN I ADDRESS THAT? I APOLOGIZE? GO AHEAD, MA'AM.
>> FOR ME IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT THE BUS STOPS FOR THE KIDS. I COMMUTED UP AND DOWN THIS ROAD FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS. DURING THAT TIME OF THE DAY WHEN THEY ARE GETTING ON AND OFF OF THE BUS, YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH FOG A LOT OF TIMES BECAUSE OF THAT
>> AS WELL AS CLOSE TO THE FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN, WHICH ALWAYS CAUSES ADDITIONAL CONGESTION DURING THE TIME THE KIDS ARE GETTING ON AND OFF THE BUS IN THE MORNING. IT'S NOT THE AFTERNOON THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IT'S THE MORNING. WITH THAT BEING OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, I COULD FORSEE THAT BEING JUST A CONTINUOUS ISSUE EVERY MORNING.
>> ANYONE ELSE? MR.JOHNSON, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU WANT TO SAY
SOMETHING. >> WHEN THIS WENT TO THE COMMISSION, THEY HAD MENTIONED I BELIEVE AN INNOVATIVE PART TO THIS. I WANTED TO SEE IF THAT WAS ADDRESSED WITHIN THE PLAN.
>> YEAH, THE WORDING WAS IMAGINATIVE. INNOVATIVE IS WHEN YOU'RE GOING FOR BONUSES DENSITY BONUS IN GENERAL. IT'S OPEN TO INTERPRETATION. FOCUSING ON THE NEIGHBORS THAT WEREN'T INDUSTRIAL. KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS, LIKE KEVIN STATED, A TRANSITION ZONE. YOU DO HAVE DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL USES TO THE WEST, PART OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND TO THE SOUTH. WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL ZONING ON BOTH SIDES OF US. THAT WAS REALLY FOCUSING ON ENHANCED ON THE WEST AND THE SOUTH AS WELL AS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAD BROUGHT UP THE ARCHITECTURAL COMPONENTS OF IT, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S -- THERE'S NO CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT. SO, WE PRODUCED SOME ENHANCED ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, LIKE STONE WORK AND OTHER ITEMS TO PRESENT TO THE AMENITIES. SO, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT
[01:00:05]
IF THIS WAS JUST CONVENTIONAL ZONING, THERE'S NO CODE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE 10- FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ALONG THE BARRIER.THERE'S NO CODE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AMENITIES. SO, THE ENHANCED AMENITIES IN A CENTRALIZED AREA ARE FOR THE USE OF THE RESIDENTS IS PART OF THE PLAN.
SO, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT ARE IN THE PROPOSAL FOR YOUR DEVELOPMENT. THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS OBVIOUSLY, RIGHT? SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, MENTIONED OF THE -- EXTENSION, CORRECT?
>> AND THAT'S GOING TO EXTEND THE LENGTH OF YOUR FRONTAGE OR BEYOND THAT?
CORNER. >> AND AT YOUR SOUTH PROPERTY, THERE WAS ALSO THE PROPOSED STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS, RIGHT, THE DRAINAGE DITCH?
>> CORRECT, YES. THERE'S AN EXISTING DITCH RIGHT THERE THAT DRAINS PROPERTIES TO THE EAST.
IT'S FULL OF PEPPER TREES AND WHATNOT SO WE WOULD CLEAN IT UP AND RESHAPE IT AND PUT AN EASEMENT OVER IT. AND WE WOULD MAINTAIN IT.
>> OKAY. THE REASON WHY I'M DOING THIS IS, YOU KNOW, FROM WHERE I SIT, THE WHOLE PD PROCESS IS A NEGOTIATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. YOU WANT SOMETHING.
WE WANT SOMETHING. AND THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT A BALANCE TO NEGOTIATION? SO, YOU KNOW, DENSITY ASIDE, WE CAN CLEARLY SEE FROM THE NUMBERS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO BUILD ON STRAIGHT ZONING, IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO FIT ON THIS PROPERTY WHILE KEEP YOUR LOT LINES AND ALL THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THE CODE.
SO, THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE IS GETTING, YOU KNOW -- IS SEEING MORE HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY THAN THEY WOULD OTHERWISE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GETTING.
THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS GETTING.
THAT'S WHAT THE -- THAT'S WHAT THE VALUE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS. WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS GETTING IN EXCHANGE FOR ALLOWING YOU TO DO THAT, RIGHT, THIS LIST OF THINGS. SO, TO ME, THE DEBATE IS JUST CLEARLY ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S BALANCED EQUATION.
AND I THINK THAT'S THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE, AND I THINK THAT'S THE DECISION THAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO MAKE. AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND I ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM SOME MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON THIS. SO, APPRECIATE IT.
>> AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. PLEASE DO KEEP IN MIND WE HAVE TO BE DONE HERE BY 4:30 TODAY. SO, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME. AND JUST FOR EFFICIENCY PURPOSES, IF THERE'S ONE AMONGST YOU THAT CAN SPEAK FOR MULTIPLES OF YOU IN SHARING THE SAME IDEAS, THOUGHTS, AND CONCERNS, THAT WILL HELP SPEED THINGS ALONG. BUT YOU'RE ALL ENTITLED TO SPEAK. IT'S OUR OBLIGATION.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS RONNA PERRY, AND I LIVE AT 5080 WEST VIRGINIA DRIVE. I CANNOT SPEAK FOR MY WHOLE GROUP BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE NUMBERS, AND I JUST TALK ABOUT OTHER STUFF. A LOT OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE FOR THIS PROPERTY REALLY ISN'T GOING TO BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS SURROUNDING IT OR SUNRISE BOULEVARD. SOMEBODY WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE TO SPEAK, SHE'S HOME SICK.
SO, SHE JUST SENT A MESSAGE. AND SHE SAID, THE WALL IS GREAT, BUT THE D.O.T. DOESN'T REALLY NEED IT. SO, SHE FELT THAT THE WALL WAS TO BENEFIT THE DEVELOPERS. ALSO THE BUS STOP IS VERY, VERY CONCERNING. I GREW UP AT MIDWAY AND SUNRISE.
SO, I TAKE SUNRISE A LOT NOW. THE TAILGATING, THE PASSING, IS JUST TREACHEROUS THERE.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, FOR THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST THE SOUTH COUNTY, THE BEACH
[01:05:03]
AREA, THE NORTH COUNTY, I THINK WE ALL NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING TO OUR COUNTY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU READ SOCIAL MEDIA.BUT WE HAVE BECOME A LAUGHING STOCK. THEY ARE COMPARING US TO DOWN SOUTH, THAT WE'RE WORSE BECAUSE WE'RE JUST THROWING IN ALL THESE DEVELOPMENTS.
WE'RE HAVING ACCIDENTS, TREACHEROUS ACCIDENTS, EVERY SINGLE DAY.
AND FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE COMMISSIONERS FOR THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, WE NEED Y'ALL'S, LIKE, INPUT AND HELP. BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S ALL THESE LAWS OUT THERE THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO FOLLOW, BUT WHEN ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE THEM? BECAUSE WE ARE OVERPOPULATING OUR AREA AND CAUSING A LOT OF PROBLEMS. THE SCHOOLS CANNOT -- LIKE, ALL THESE HOUSES RIGHT HERE THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE CHILDREN, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET TO THE SCHOOL? ARE THERE GOING TO BE SIDEWALKS, LIKE, LEADING ALL THE WAY THERE? CAN THE SCHOOLS REALLY TAKE ON ALL THESE EXTRA CHILDREN? AND ANOTHER QUESTION, ARE THESE GOING TO BE OWNERSHIPS, OR ARE THESE GOING TO BE RENTALS FOR THIS COMMUNITY? THE COMMUNITY THAT WAS PUT UP BEHIND ME WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OWNERSHIP. AND AFTER EVERYTHING WAS CHANGED AND REZONED, THEY TURNED IT INTO RENTALS. AND AS FAR AS THE BUS STOP GOES, BY MIDWAY ROAD, THEY DID MAKE A ESSENTIAL WORKERAL. CIRCLE. THE SCHOOL BUS DOESN'T TAKE THE CIRCLE. THEY GO COMPLETELY THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T THINK THAT HELPS WITH THE BUS STOP SITUATION, BUT, NO, I THINK IT'S VERY DANGEROUS.
WE FEEL THE DENSITY FOR THIS AND SEVERAL OF THE OTHER COMMUNITIES IN OUR COUNTY IS TOO HIGH.
THAT PARTICULAR AREA WOULD BE BEAUTIFUL IF YOU COULD DO HALF- ACRE LOTS OR TWO HOUSES PER ACRE. WHY DO WE HAVE TO KEEP ALLOWING ALL THESE HUGE AMOUNTS OF DEVELOPMENTS FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO THAT CAN'T AFFORD IT? SO, OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT I CAN SAY. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KRISTA STORY.
AND MR. FREEMAN, I PROVIDED AN EMAIL RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, AND I KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU MENTIONED IT WHEN YOU WERE INDICATING THAT THE COMMISSION HAD RECEIVED COPIES OF THAT.
I HEARD YOU REFERENCE A COUPLE OTHER
THAT WAS PRESENTED TO CITY COMMISSION.
>> RIGHT. OH. SO, THIS WAS JUST -- I'M SORRY.
HE'S NOT GOING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. I APOLOGIZE.
ANYWAY. I DID PROVIDE SOMETHING SPECIFICALLY TO THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS KRISTA STORY, AS I SAID. I'M A LONGTIME RESIDENT OF THE WHITE CITY AREA. AND I ACTUALLY AM A LAND USE AND ZONING ATTORNEY. I'M NOT REPRESENTING ANYONE.
BUT I HAVE THAT BACKGROUND. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S CONCERNED ME ABOUT THIS APPLICATION IN THE PAST, WHICH THE STAFF HAS ADDRESSED, IT'S THE APPLICANT'S OBLIGATION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY SHOULD RECEIVE A CHANGE. AND SO I'M STILL NOT SURE I'VE HEARD A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION IN THE LOT SIZE.
AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF THE COMMISSIONERS HERE MENTION THAT.
I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. IT'S A BIT DISINGENUOUS TO SIMPLY COMPARE, TO LOOK AT THE LOT -- THE AREA OF A PIECE OF PROPERTY -- AND CALCULATE THE NUMBER OF UNITS PER ACRE THAT ARE ALLOWABLE BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE. SO, THE IDEA THAT THERE COULD BE 75 UNITS ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT -- TO LOOK AT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE IMPACT ON ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
WHITE CITY IS VERY SPECIAL, AND IT'S, KIND OF, AN ENCLAVE.
AND THE PROTECTION OF THAT AREA, YOU HAVE A CEMETERY TO THE OTHER SIDE. YOU HAVE LARGE LOTS.
YOU HAVE A VERY HISTORIC COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN VERY PROTECTIVE OF ITS TREES AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY'RE ENTITLED TOTO CHANGE.
[01:10:08]
I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE LAW, AND I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND PROPERTY RIGHTS. BUT ZONINGS ARE NOT AUTOMATIC. AND THERE ARE CRITERIA THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. AND I -- I'M STILL -- I WAS AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING.I'VE LOOKED AT THE PROJECT. I'VE LISTENED TODAY.
I'M STILL NOT HEARING A JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CHANGE.
SO, I JUST ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT, AS YOU'RE DELIBERATING. THANK YOU.
>> WILL YOU SIGN IN, MS. STORY?
>> OH, THANK YOU. I DIDN'T KNOW. YES.
>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? THANK YOU, MS. STORY.
>> I'M DEBRA JOHNS, AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY, YOU HAVE MY LETTER, AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING EVERYONE SAID.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE D.O.T. DID REQUEST THAT WALL ALONG THE BOUNDARY. THAT WAS A REQUEST MADE TO STAFF, AND STAFF THEN REQUIRED THAT FROM THE APPLICANT.
>> THAT'S AT THE SOUTHBOUND RI, CORRECT?
>> THAT'S THE EAST BOUNDARY. YEAH.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE'LL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?
>> I HAVEN'T ADDRESSED THE SCHOOL BUS.
>> ACTUALLY WHY DON'T WE LET THE APPLICANT COME BACK UP TO THE PODIUM.
JUST TO ADDRESS ANY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU HEARD IN THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
>> YES, OF COURSE. SO, THERE WERE SIMILAR REMARKS THAT WERE MADE AT CITY COUNCIL.
AND I JUST WANTED TO READ WHAT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT SECTION STATES IN THE CODE. SO, IT STATES -- THIS IS SECTION 125-212. IT SAYS THE TENANT NEEDS TO ESTABLISH A RESILIENT LIVING AND WORKING ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF ENLIGHTENED AND IMAGINATIVE APPROACHES TO COMMUNITY PLANNING, STORM WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, AND PROPERTY DESIGN. A PD SHOULD PROVIDE A VARIETY OF NATURAL FEATURES AND SCENIC AREAS, ECONOMIC LAND USE, APPROVED AMENITIES, ORDERLY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND PROTECTION OF ADJACENT AND FUTURE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. SO, WHEN I READ THAT -- AND UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING -- YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WANT TO PROVIDE BENEFITS TO THE PUBLIC. BUT AS WE LOOK AT THE CODE, SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WE TRIED TO ADDRESS AS WE LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WAS VARIETY OF NATURAL AND SCENIC AREAS, INCORPORATING A BIOSWELLS INTO ALL OF OUR DRY PONDS INSTEAD OF A TYPICAL GRASS AREA, ENHANCED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, SAVING NATURAL EXISTING TREES THAT ARE ON-SITE, EFFICIENT AND ECONOMIC LAND USE. WE PURPOSELY LOCATED OUR DRIVEWAY TO THE NORTH SO WE COULD PUSH OUR UNITS TO THE NORTH AND TRY TO PROVIDE AS MUCH OF A BUFFER TO THE PEOPLE AS THE SOUTH.
IMPROVED AMENITIES. I PREVIOUSLY WENT OVER THOSE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REITERATE THAT THE CONVENTIONAL ZONING FOR THIS AREA REQUIRES NO AMENITIES.
IN MY MIND, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT -- THE POINT OF A PD IS INSTEAD OF PEOPLE HAVING AMENITIES IN THEIR BACKYARDS, YOU HAVE SMALLER LOT SIZE AND YOU PUSH THAT INTO COMMON AREAS.
NOW THE RESIDENTS AREN'T PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE OF TAKING CARE OF.
IT'S PART OF THE HOA. WE THINK PART OF THE PD IS REALLY ABOUT THE IMPROVED AMENITIES THAT WE SET UP. AND I THINK THE BIGGEST ONE, LIKE I SAID, IS PROTECTION OF ADJACENT AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. SO, KIND OF GOING OFF THAT, BESIDES, LIKE I SAID, THAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE WEST SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE. ANOTHER THING THAT GOT BROUGHT UP IS THE TRAFFIC. JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT IS PART OF THIS PD APPROVAL. WE DO A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT LOOKS
[01:15:05]
NOT JUST AS OUR DRIVEWAY, LOOKS AT INTERSECTIONS ON SUNRISE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF US. THAT GETS SUBMITTED TO ST. LUCIE COUNTY, WHO HAS A THIRD PARTY REVIEW IT.SO, THEY HAVE TO APPROVE WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A LOWER LEVEL SERVICE ON SUNRISE BOULEVARD DUE TO THE ADDITION OF THIS PROJECT. THAT WAS APPROVED BY ST.
LUCIE COUNTY. I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT REAL QUICK. AND THEN THE ITEM ON THE BUS STOP, I'M OPEN TO IDEAS.
LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, I WOULD RATHER HAVE A TURN- OFF ON ALMOST LIKE A RIGHT TURN LANE THAT THE BUS COULD PULL OFF ON. AND THAT'S SOMETHING I COULD DRAW UP AND TRY TO PROVIDE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MAYBE WITH SOME HELP FROM THE BOARD, MAYBE SOME EMAILS STATING HOW THEY ALSO BELIEVED THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE AREA, COULD HELP PUSH THAT÷÷THAT ALONG.
BUT BESIDES THAT, LIKE I SAID, THAT'S ONE OF THE ONLY IDEAS I CAN THINK OF FOR IMPROVED BUS STOP FOR THIS AREA.
FINAL DISCUSSION? WHY DON'T WE START WITH YOU, MR. COLLINS?
>> LIKE I SAY, I -- YOU KNOW, TO ME, IT'S THE DENSITY, THE LOT SIZE. IT'S JUST NOT -- IT'S THE LAST LINE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT HE READ OFF TO BENEFIT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AREAS AND STUFF.
AND I JUST DON'T SEE ANY BENEFIT TO IT.
I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS THESE PROJECTS COULD BE DONE THAT FIT MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS. SO, I JUST -- THAT'S MY CONCERNS. I MEAN, I GREW UP RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM HERE.
I KNOW IT'S GROWING. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE CHANGES. BUT I ALWAYS HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS ON THE PEOPLE HERE AND THE BENEFITS AND THE LACK THEREOF. SO, I DON'T BELIEVE I'LL BE SUPPORTING THIS PROJECT.
>> SO, I STILL HAVE THE ISSUES ALSO WITH DENSITY.
I COMMEND THE BUILDER FOR HAVING THE BIOSWELLS, THE SAVING THE TREES, HAVING THOSE PLAYGROUNDS AND AMENITIES FOR THE POSSIBLE FUTURE RESIDENTS. I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR THIS SITE PLAN.
AND THEN ALSO THE BUS CONCERN. I MEAN, EVEN THOUGH THE CITY MAY APPROVE IT, US CITIZENS HAVE TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR CHILDREN. SO, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT -- THE THINGS THAT YOU SUGGESTED ARE GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
THERE HASN'T REALLY BEEN A LOT, I THINK, BALANCE IN THE DISCUSSION AS FAR AS WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE THINGS.
>> JUST LOOKING BACK ON THE MAY MEETING, I KNOW THAT THE BUS STOP WAS AN ISSUE THEN. AND WE DID MOVE IT FORWARD WITH THE FIVE MEMBERS THAT WERE HERE.
BUT WE ALSO WERE REQUESTING INFORMATION FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD. AND WE STILL HAVEN'T HAD ANYONE SAY DIRECTLY WHAT THE SCHOOL BOARD'S SUGGESTION WAS. AND FOR ME, THAT KIND OF PUTS ME IN A POSITION OF MY CONCERN STILL EXISTS.
IT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED. AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS KEN THE TIME TO AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BECAUSE IT WASN'T TAKEN SERIOUSLY ENOUGH OR WE JUST DID NOT GET THAT INPUT FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD.
I'M GOING TO ALWAYS LEAN ON THE SIDE OF SAFETY, ESPECIALLY FOR OUR KIDS. FOR ME, IT HITS HOME BECAUSE I KNOW A FAMILY LOST A CHILD JUST ON THE ADJACENT STREET, JUST LESS THAN A QUARTER MILE FROM THIS LOCATION IN THIS SAME SITUATION.
AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN AGAIN HERE IN OUR CITY. SO, AT THIS POINT, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS SUGGESTION, UNLESS I CAN GET SOME REITERATION FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD THAT THIS IS ABSOLUTELY THE ONLY THING THAT THEY WILL ACCEPT.
>> THE CONDITIONS HELP FRAME THIS A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
BUT I HAVE THE SAME -- THE BIGGEST TWO CONCERNS STILL ARE THE DENSITY AND -- I HAVE THE SAME RESERVATION WITH
[01:20:05]
GETTING THE KIDS ON AND OFF A BUS AND KNOWING THAT WE'RE DOING THE RIGHT THING.SO, I STILL STRUGGLE WITH IT. WE'RE GETTING CLOSER. BUT --
>> I'M GOING TO SAY I'M IN THE -- I'M IN THE SAME BOAT TO A DEGREE, MORE SO ON THE BUS STOP THAN ANYTHING.
>> YEAH, WELL, I THINK I MIGHT MISS HAVE MISSED THIS ONE LAST TIME IT CAME THROUGH.
BUT YEAH, I'M KIND OF IN THE SAME BOAT.
I MEAN, IT'S A LOT OF HOUSES FOR THIS AREA.
I GO THROUGH THAT. I HAVE SOME FAMILY THAT LIVES UP THAT WAY. SO, I GO THROUGH THERE EVERY NOW AND THEN. WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT 50 UNITS, THAT'S AT LEAST 100 PEOPLE YOU'RE THINKING IT'S GOING TO ADD TO THAT AREA.
SO, I DON'T KNOW. NOT FEELING GOOD ABOUT IT.
>> YEAH. I THINK IT INFORMS US OF A BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PDS IN GENERAL AND THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS TO THE COMMUNITY. WE WE'VE BEEN APPROVING A LOT OF PD DEVELOPMENT THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF APPLICATIONS. WE DON'T APPROVE ALL OF THEM.
BUT A LOT OF THEM DO GO THROUGH. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST ALWAYS A MATTER OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT, LIKE I KEEP COMING BACK TO, IT'S A BALANCED EQUATION. AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY IS STARTING TO GET A SENSE OF THIS, THAT, YOU KNOW, THE OLDER MENTALITY OF, OH, COOL, SOMEONE WANTS TO BUILD IN OUR COMMUNITY, MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY ALWAYS BE THE BEST MENTALITY TO HAVE.
SO, I THINK THE SCRUTINY IS VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK THERE'S LOGISTIC THINGS ABOUT THIS PLANPLAN I CAN'T ACCEPT IN ITS CURRENT FORM. AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK ULTIMATELY I WOULD NEED TO SEE A WILLINGNESS FROM THE DEVELOPER TO LOSE UNITS IN ORDER TO APPLY THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE.
AND THAT SEEMS TO BE THE RIGID POSITION OF THE DEVELOPERS WITH THESE PLANS IS THEY WILL GIVE YOU ANYTHING YOU WANT, BUT THEY WILL NOT PULL UNITS OUT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
AND IF THAT ENDS UP BECOMING THE NEGOTIATION -- OR THE ELEMENT THAT MAKES THE NEGOTIATION BREAK DOWN, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY FORWARD.
SO, I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS ENOUGH. WE DO HAVE TO BE OUT OF HERE IN AN HOUR. AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE PROJECT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL BY MR. COLLINS, THE SECOND BY MS. CARTER. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> CHAIR, IF I MAY, WHAT STAFF ARE TAKING AWAY FROM THIS ARE THE ISSUES OF SCHOOL BUS STOP AND DENSITY.
[c. PZCON2025-00005 Conditional Use with New Construction Martinez Single-Family Residence 1606 Surfside Drive]
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ITEM 6C, CONDITIONAL USE
ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. AGAIN, ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, I BRING BEFORE YOU A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION FOR 1606 SURFSIDE DRIVE, WHERE THE APPLICANT IS J.
CONROY LLC. PROPERTY OWNERS ARE DAMIAN ANDAND MARTINEZ. PARCEL I.D. IS -- 0006. IN SUMMARY, A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW
[01:25:03]
CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL, PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO THE HEIGHT OF 35 FEET.HERE IS THE SITE LOCATION OF THE AREA. THIS SITE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY .54 ACRES.
THE FEATURED LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY IS HIR, HUTCHISON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL. THE ZONING OF THE PARCEL IS R-1, SINGLE FAMILY, LOW DENSITY. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND.
ACCORDING TO CITY CODE ARTICLE 5 SECTION 125-325, THE PURPOSE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IS TO ALLOW, WHEN DESIRABLE USES WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE GENERALLY OR WITHOUT RESTRICTION THROUGHOUT THE PARTICULAR ZONE OR DISTRICT, BUT WHICH IF CONTROLLED -- LOCATIONAL RELATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT, GOOD ORDER, APPEARANCE, CONVENIENCE, AND THE GENERAL WELFARE. AGAIN, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN R-1. ACCORDING TO SECTION 125-191, BEFORE BUILDING HEIGHTS, NO BUILDING SHALL EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 28 FEET ABOVE GRADE EXCEPT THE CONDITIONAL USES WITH BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET ABOVE GRADE MAY BE APPROVED. SITE PLAN DETAILS.
SO, THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT PROPOSES TO HAVE FOUR BEDROOMS, FOUR FULL BATHROOMS, FOUR HALF BATHROOMS, A SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL OF 4,259.
THE GROUND FLOOR BEING 3,151 SQUARE FEET.
THE FIRST FLOOR, 2,644. SECOND, 1,616.
PROPOSING AN ELEVATOR FROM GROUND TO TOP FLOOR WITH STAIRWELLS. THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR REAR AREA WILL HAVE DECKS. THE SECOND FLOOR FRONT WILL HAVE A BALCONY ON THE SECOND FLOOR FRONT OF THE HOME, WHICH FACES SURFSIDE DRIVE. PROPOSED OFFICE AND A CATWALK INSIDE THE HOME, AN ELEVATED POOL, EIGHT MARKET LIGHTS AND SIX PATH LIGHTS, AND 20 TREES PLANTED, PLUS 300 -- OVER 300 GROUND COVERS AND SHRUBS.
HERE IS THE RENDERING AND -- OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
TAKE NOTE THAT IS A FLAT ROOF WITH BLACK AND DARK BROWN WINDOW AND DOOR FRAMES, CHINA WHITE BEING A PRIMARY COLOR -- WHITE FLAT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS.
NUMBER ONE, DRIVEWAY CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CODE OF ORDINANCES. STANDARD -- BE COMPRISED OF CONCRETE BRICK PAVERS OR CONCRETE PER SECTION 32-9.
PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY, THE CITY LANDSCAPE DISAGREEMENT SHALL BE NOTARIZED AND SUBMITTED FOR FILING. AND NUMBER THREE, THE PROPROSED LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS -- ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE APPLICANT THAT ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE CITY, HOMEOWNERS LANDSCAPE, WILL BE REMOVED WITHOUT PLACEMENT OF THE CITY. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE TO ONE, RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED CONDITIONS, OR TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.
>> SO, I REMEMBER NOT THAT LONG AGO ANOTHER CONDITIONAL USEUSE HEIGHT ALLOWANCE IN THAT AREA, AND THE THING FROM THAT DISCUSSION THAT I REMEMBER BEING SOMEWHAT CONVOLUTED IS WHERE WE MEASURE THAT HEIGHT FROM. HAS THAT BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED AT THIS TIME? YOU CAN ELABORATE ON THAT FOR
US. >> THERE'S A DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN WHAT THE ZONING CODE SAYS AND WHAT THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS ASSESSED THROUGH THE BUILDING REGULATIONS.
[01:30:01]
THE ZONING CODE SAYS ABOVE GRADE.THE BUILDING REGULATIONS REFER TO THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION. YOU'RE ALL AWARE IF YOU PUT THE ELEVATION UP AGAIN, IF WE'VE GOT THE APPLICANT HERE -- YEAH.
MAY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE FOR REQUESTING THIS IS PROBABLY -- AND I'VE NOT HEARD THIS DIRECT FROM THE APPLICANT -- THAT THE LOWER FLOOR WAS PROBABLY LOCATED WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AND HAS TO BE THE RESIDENTIAL LIVING AREA WOULD NEED TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT. SO, THERE'S A DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN WHERE THE ZONING SAYSSAYS THE HEIGHT'S MEASURED FROM AND WHERE THE BUILDING REGULATIONS ACTUALLY REQUIRE.
BUT THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE UNDER OUR ORDINANCE.
SO, THE 35- FOOT HEIGHT THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY IS MEASURED FROM GRADE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE, YES.
>> AND FROM THIS ELEVATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WOULD YOU SAY THE CURRENT GRASS IS CURRENT GRADE, THE GRASS IN THE PICTURE?
>> THE ARCHITECTURE IS INTERESTING, AND I WILL SAY THAT THERE'S A BUILDING VIRTUALLY ACROSS THE STREET THAT LOOKS LIKE A SISTER. NOTHING LIKE ANY OF WHAT THOSE FOUR PICTURES.
YEAH. >> THERE'S TWO OF THEM BEING BUILT VIRTUALLY ACROSS THE STREET, ON THE SAME DRIVE.
>> AND THEY'RE BOTH -- IF 35 IS THE CEILING, THEY'RE 35S.
>> THERE ARE OTHER RESIDENCES THAT ARE OVER 25 FEET IN THE AREA.
>> IS IT BECAUSE THIS WILL BECOME MORE PREVALENT AS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMITS ARE IN PLACE. THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION IS OBVIOUSLY BEING RAISED IN RESPECT OF THE FLOODPLAINS BEING INCREASED DUE TO SEA LEVEL RISE AND COERCION.
WE HAVE APPLICATIONS IN JUST RECENTLY APPROVED WHICH HAVE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL STORY, ACTUALLY MOVED THE RESIDENTS UP A STORY AND MAINTAINED THE LOWER FLOOR AS ALMOST A BREAK AWAY FLOOD AREA.
>> AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THIS --
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE FLOOR PLAN AND THE USES, THEY'RE NOT REALLY -- THEY'RE USED AS PART OF RESIDENCE, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY HABITABLE IN TERMS OF BEING REQUIRED THERE.
>> I DO REMEMBER THAT COMING UP BEFORE, YOU KNOW, US DISCUSSING ALMOST A NECESSITY TO PERHAPS PERMANENTLY ADDRESS THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON THE ISLAND DUE TO THE NEED FOR SO MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES TO BE BUILT ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN. THERE WERE A LOT OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THAT APPLICANT AND THIS
>> BUT WE WON'T GET INTO THAT NOW.
I THINK -- YEAH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF REGARDING THIS?
>> ARE THERE ANY PLANS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN THE
FUTURE? >> STAFF WILL BE REVIEWING THE CODE AS A WHOLE. WE'RE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE WITH DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENTS IN TERMS OF RESILIENCY, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED CLOSE TO THE WATERFRONT.
>> AN OBJECTION I HAVE IS CURRENT GRADE, THE GRADE AND THE CURRENT GRADE MAY NOT BE THE SAME.
>> THAT'S -- THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
>> WITH THIS, IF YOU DO HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S PUT IN PLACE, IS IT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE MATCHED YEAR OVER YEAR OR IN A TIME PERIOD WITH FLOODPLAINS, AS THEY ARE READJUSTED?
[01:35:03]
>> THAT'S WHAT -- I THINK WHEN I'M SPEAKING WITH ENGINEERING AND BUILDING, WE WILL ULTIMATELY BE BASING IT ON THE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION.
SO, IF THAT RISES, THE HEIGHT WILL BE MEASURED FROM THAT LOCATION.
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THERE ARE FLOODPLAIN ELEVATIONS IN THE CITY THAT HAVE DECREASED CLOSE TO THE WATER.
>> THE WHOLE PLACE IS, SORT OF, PIVOTING ON SOMETHING.
>> SO, THE REASON WHY I ASKED IS THE ONE NEXT DOOR, AS WELL, TO THIS PROPERTY HAS STEM WALLS BUILT INTO IT. SO, THEIR FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS ARE ALL OVER THE MAP IN THAT ONE. SO, THAT WOULDN'T MATCH ANYTHING THAT POTENTIALLY -- OR EVEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE STYLE OF HOME BUILT IS.
>> CORRECT. THE MOST ESSENTIAL THING I THINK WITH ALL OF THIS IS THAT WE DO RECOGNIZE AND ESTABLISH THAT IN TERMS OF RESILIENCY THAT WE NEED A STANDARD CONFORMING MEASURE.
AND, YOU KNOW, MEASURING FROM GRADE IS -- CAN BE MANIPULATED.
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. OKAY.
DOES THE BOARD FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? I THINK WE'VE GOT TIME. IS THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY? PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
I AM JOE MCCARTY. I'M THE ARCHITECT FOR MR. AND MRS. MARTINEZ. MRS. MARTINEZ IS HERE WITH US TODAY. TRYING TO BUILD A HOUSE. AND WE'VE GOT TWO THINGS WORKING AGAINST US. ONE IS WE'RE IN THE BUREAU OF BEACHES AND COASTAL SYSTEMS, WHICH PUSHES THE FLOOR UP. AND ONE IS WE HAVE YOUR HEIGHT RESTRICTION, WHICH PULLS THE ROOF DOWN. AND I WAS THE ARCHITECT FOR 1607, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH WAS BUILT TO A 45- FOOT HEIGHT.
WE ARE FIGHTING TO DO 35. WE'RE AT 34.10.
EXISTING GRADE IS SIX. BECAUSE OF THE PILING, COASTAL ENGINEERS REQUESTED WE -- GRADE 6.9. SO, WE'RE NOT REMOVING SAND FROM THE LOT. AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO BE 34.
83 FEET ABOVE THAT. AND OUR FIRST FLOOR HAS TO BE AT 18. 4 MABD. SO, WE'RE KIND OF SQUEEZED. THERE AREN'T ANY BUILDINGS AROUND THAT ARE TALLER THAN US. THERE'S A FOUR STORY CONDO GOING ON NORTH OF US, WE WERE TOLD. THERE'S A HOUSE ON THE BEACH AT 1812. THERE WAS A PICTURE OF THAT.
IT'S CLEARLY HIGHER THAN 28 FEET.
SO, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE IN LINE WITH WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON THERE.
>> WHAT ARE YOUR PROPOSED CEILING HEIGHTS FOR THE SECOND --
>> WHAT ARE YOUR PROPOSED CEILING HEIGHTS FOR THE SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR?
>> 10 -- I WASN'T EXPECTING THAT QUESTION.
I HAVE NEW GLASSES, AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THEM.
I MIGHT HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. LOOKS LIKE LEVEL TWO IS 11, LEVEL THREE IS 10.
>> WE WENT WITH THE FLAT CEILINGS TO KEEP THE ROOF HEIGHT OUT OF THE PICTURE.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
[01:40:01]
>> AND I'LL LEAVE THIS UP HERE FOR YOU.
YOU CAN GET IT AFTERWARDS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
SEEING NONE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
>> CAN YOU PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME.
>> SORRY. IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING, SO EVERYTHING IS OFFICIAL RECORD.
>> THAT'S OKAY. WHAT WAS YOUR NAME, SIR?
>> IT'S JIM CONWAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> YEAH, THE FIRST ONE, I THINK, IS 10'4" APPROXIMATELY, AND THE SECOND ONE IS 9'4" IN THE CEILING. WE HAD THE SAME ISSUE DOWN IN MARTIN COUNTY, AND THEY KEPT RAISING THE BOTTOM. AND THEN THE COUNTY KEPT SHRINKING THE TOP. AND IT WAS MAKING PEOPLE NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD. THEY'RE SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THEY CAN'T BUILD A TWO- STORY HOME.
SO, IT'S KIND OF FORCING EVERYBODY TO -- IT'S CRUNCHING IT OUT BECAUSE WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, LIKE WE SAID IN MARTIN, THEY'LL JUST QUIT -- THEY WON'T BUY THE LOTS.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A ONE STORY HOUSE ON A $2 MILLION LOT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT DAWNE'S WAS, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THEM.
SO, IT PUTS RESTRAINTS. THAT'S
>> YOU CAN COME FORWARD IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M DAWNE MARTINEZ.
I'M THE PROPERTY OWNER. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.
WE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, AND THEN ONCE WE PURCHASED IT, WE FOUND OUT THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE KNOCKDOWN WALLS ON THE FIRST GROUND LEVEL. SO, THAT IS UNUSABLE SPACE, ONLY TO BE USED FOR PARKING AND STORAGE. AND THEN OUR FIRST FLOOR IS VERY OPEN BECAUSE THE CEILINGS ARE -- WE -- THE FIRST FLOOR IS ALL WE HAVE. SO, WE HAVE TO GO UP TO A SECOND STORY, WHICH IS NOW THE HEIGHT IS RESTRICTING US. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS USE JUST SO WE CAN HAVE A NORMAL TWO- STORY HOME, WHICH IS ABOVE THE NON- USABLE AREA.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?
>> I GUESS MY ONLY ISSUE IS THAT -- MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT THE GRADE ISSUE. HOW DOES THAT FLUSH OUT? MAYBE NOT WITH THIS CONVERSATION, BUT IN THE FUTURE. I KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IT. BUT DOES IT MATTER AT ALL FOR THIS DISCUSSION? IF IT DOESN'T, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
>> I MEAN, THE ONLY THING I COULD THINK TO DO WOULD BE TO ILLUSTRATE THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THE FINISHED HEIGHT OF THE CEILING FROM MAYBE THE EXISTING ROADWAY OR WHAT THE FINAL HEIGHT OF THE ROOF WILL BE FROM THE EXISTING ROADWAY, WHICH IS THE ONLY, LIKE, STATIC UNIT THAT WE CAN MEASURE FROM NOW.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN ELEVATION THAT SHOWS
THAT. >> THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY THE ROADWAY WON'T NEED TO BE RAISED IN THE
BUT YEAH, I MEAN, THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IS, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY INTENDED TO, YOU KNOW, CREATE A LIMIT FOR MAKING THE NEIGHBORHOOD UNIFORM AND MAKING SURE THAT BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, 50, 60 FEET TALL THAT DON'T GET BUILT AND BLOCK PEOPLE'S VIEW OF THE BEACH.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE UP AGAINST WITH THE FLOODPLAIN, IT'S CLEARLY AN ASPECT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE REVISITED, ESPECIALLY FOR THESE SPECIFIC AREAS.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSION? AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THREE
>> MR. EDWARDS GOT THERE FIRST. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. CLEMONS, SECOND BY MR. EDWARDS.
[01:45:06]
ALL RIGHT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR NEW BUSINESS.AT THIS TIME, IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD WISH TO SPEAK OF MATTERS
[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]
GENERALLY RELATING TO PLANNING, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO NUMBER 8, DIRECTOR'SDIRECTOR 'S REPORT.
>> I THINK THE BIG NEWS ALREADY HAPPENED.
I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN INTRODUCED TO THE NEW ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR, WHICH IS A BIG RELIEF TO THE DEPARTMENT.
-- BRINGS SOME REALLY SERIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH HIM, AND HE'S GOING TO BE A GREAT ASSET. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT COMING FORWARD. OTHER THAN THAT, WE HAVE LOTS OF PROJECTS IN STILL, WHICH WILL BE COMING FORWARD.
I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY BIG UPDATES ON THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE IN. THE -- COVE PROJECT THAT'S BEING REVIEWED UNDER THE LOCAL, THERE'S BEEN A RECENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT, THE FDOT, AND THE TPO REGARDING THE METHODOLOGY OF THEIR TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. SO, THAT'S NOT BEEN DONE YET.
BUT WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT. I THINK IT'S ALMOST IN PLACE. THAT'S BEING RUN THROUGH ST.
LUCIE COUNTY, THROUGH THE SAME METHODOLOGY THAT WE USE FOR ANY APPLICATION. ALTHOUGH THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT AND THAT INVOLVED SOME -- AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE TIMELINE, SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW THOSE USES, COMBINATION OF USES ARE MEASURED. IF YOU RECALL, THERE ARE PROPOSED ALMOST 1,000 UNITS, TWO HOTELS INCORPORATING A CONFERENCE CENTER AND A MARINA. SO, THAT'S BEING CALCULATED BASED ON AN AGREED FORMULA NOW. THE -- ORDINANCE OVERLAY, I'M GOING TO BE MAKING A PRESENTATION ON THAT I THINK TO CITY COMMISSION IN OCTOBER JUST TO TALK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT.
SO, THAT'S JUST A GENERAL POSITION. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPE CODE. AND CHRIS HAS GOT A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN LANDSCAPING CODE. AND I THINK HE -- HE'S A REGISTERED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT NOW OR HE WAS. SO, SOME VERY GOOD EXPERIENCE THERE.
WHAT WE ARE HAVING TO GO THROUGH IS TAKING ACCOUNT OF LATEST STATE STATUTES. STATE BILL 180 HAS IT WITHIN IT A PROVISION WHERE ANY CHANGES TO ZONING CODE CANNOT BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN WHAT WEWE HAVE.
SO, WE HAVE TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE PROPOSE CHANGES IN THE ZONING CODE. AND THAT DOES REALLY AFFECT WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO BE DOING WITH THE LANDSCAPE CODE AND OTHER PIECES OF THE CODE. SO, WE'RE TRYING TO NAVIGATE THAT RIGHT NOW WITH VARIOUS PROPOSALS THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH.
KING'S HIGHWAY, JOBS CORRIDOR. THAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED BY CITY COMMISSION, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IN ENCOURAGING MORE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY DOWN KINGS HIGHWAY WITH ALSO SUPPORT OF RESIDENTIAL FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING AND TO INCREASE THAT OPTION THERE. WITHOUT HOUSING, YOU DON'T ATTRACT EMPLOYERS AND WITHOUT EMPLOYERS, YOU DON'T ATTRACT HOUSING.
IT'S A CATCH 22. IT'S ALL PART OF THE SAME ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PIECE. AND PEOPLE SOMETIMES SEPARATE THAT AND THINK THAT IT'S ALL OKAY TO DO JUST COMMERCIAL OR ALL OKAY TO DO RESIDENTIAL, DEPENDING ON THE ECONOMY AND THE POLITICAL SITUATION. BUT THERE IS A RATIO BETWEEN THE FLOOR SPACE OF COMMERCIAL AND THE FLOOR SPACE OF RESIDENTIAL THAT YOU SHOULD TRY
[01:50:06]
AND WORK TO AS PART OF A CITY DEVELOPMENT. THE STAFF WILL BE ALSO BRINGING FORWARD A DISCUSSION TO CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE ANNEXATION STRATEGY. AND THAT WOULD BE LOOKING AT WHAT OUR PRIORITIES WOULD BE. WORKING WITH THE UTILITIES AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHERE THEY ARE WITH THEIR SERVICE AREA AND CREATING A STRATEGY, AN ANNEXATION STRATEGY, WHICH WOULD TAKE US TO THAT AREA.AGAIN, THERE'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE ANNEXATION OF RESIDENTIAL AND THE ANNEXATION OF COMMERCIAL. AND THAT WILL BE ONGOING.
SO, HAVING SAID THAT, I'VE GOT NOTHING MORE TO SAY.
THERE WAS A BIT. BUT I THINK THAT'S IT, CHAIR.
>> ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'RE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU'RE GETTING SOMEMEME HE IN THE DEPARTMENT. I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH STAFFING RECENTLY AND APPRECIATE ALL OF THE LONG HOURS AND HARD WORK.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?
>> MADE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.