Nov 10, 2025 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:17]

>> WE NEED TO DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE FIRST.

>> ALL RIGHT. 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.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?

>> MR. WIDING? >> HERE.

>> >> MR. EDWARDS?

[4. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]

>> PRESENT. >> MR. COLLINS?

>> PRESENT. >> MR. JOHNSON?

>> PRESENT. >> ANY REASON FOR THE ABSENCES?

[a. Minutes from the October 13, 2025 meeting]

>> MR. EDWARDS AND CHAIR KREISL CALLED IN. MS. CARTER IS

EXPECTED TO BE HERE. >> CAN WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

APPROVE THE MINUTES? >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

[a. PD2024-00007 Master Planned Development (2nd Updated Proposal) Pulte-Cornerstone 2721 S. Jenkins Road]

>> MOTION PASSES. PD2024-00007, MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, SECOND UPDATED PROPOSAL FROM PULTE-CORNERSTONE. WE HAVE MR. FREEMAN I THINK? OR NOT?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I AM THE ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY. I AM HERE IN THE ABSENCE OF VENNIS, WHO IS ON A WELL-DESERVED VACATION. WE ARE DISCUSSING PULTE-CORNERSTONE, A MASTER PLANNING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 2721 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD ON PARCELS 2324-413-0000-00 0-9 AND 2324-431-0001-000-2. THE APPLICANT IS LESLIE OLSON OF DISTRICT PLANNING GROUP. THE OWNER IS CASSIE MCCRANE OF CORNERSTONE FORT PIERCE DEVELOPMENT LLC. WE WILL DISCUSS THE PARCELS. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT OF TWO PARCELS OF LAND TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3, TO PULTE-CORNERSTONE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD WITH AN ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. HER ARTICLE V, SECTIONS 125-212 AND 125-314 OF THE CITY CODE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. IT PROPOSES A 250 UNIT FEE SIMPLE SIMPLE FAMILY MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WITH A RANGE OF HOME SIZES, A RANGE OF AMENITIES SUCH AS A PARK CONNECTING THE RECREATIONAL AREA TO A POCKET PARK PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER FOR THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD FROM I-95. SOME HISTORY ON THE PROJECT. ON NOVEMBER 3, 2008, THE CITY COMMISSIONED A SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT A 383,605 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF EIGHT BUILDINGS BY THE NAME OF NEWBERRY FIELDS. THE PROPOSED TENANT WAS TARGET RETAIL STORE.

ON DECEMBER 9, 2024, THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CONCURRENT APPLICATION FOR FUTURE USE -- LAND USE AMENDMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE FROM GC, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, RN, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. ON AUGUST

[00:05:19]

THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE PLANNING BOARD. THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE PROVIDED A NEW PHASING PLAN, THE ONE PROPOSED AT THE OCTOBER 10 MEETING, INCLUDING THE AMENITY CENTER IN PHASE 1, AN UPDATED DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, AND AN FDOT KNOW IT IS -- NOISE ATTENUATION GUIDELINES. THESE ARE THE PARCELS IN QUESTION ON TODAY'S DOCKET. TO THE RED, THERE IS OKEECHOBEE. THE GREEN IS I-95. WE ARE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION. THE SITE AREA IS ABOUT 49.92 ACRES. BOTH PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY ZONED C-3. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THIS IS THE PROPOSED MASTER SITE PLAN, THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS IS PROBABLY A BETTER VIEW OF THAT WITH AN ILLUSTRATIVE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE LOT DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. THESE ARE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR TWO TYPES OF LIENS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES WITHIN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE HAD A LITTLE BIT, A FEW DIFFERENT ITERATIONS OF THE PHASING PLAN.

WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WHERE PHASE 1 IS IN THE RED AND PHASE 2 IS IN THE BLUE WITH A BUS STOP LOCATION AT THE BIG GREEN DOT. THE BOARD HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION OF THE BUS STOP BEING LOCATED IN PHASE 2 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND HOW THAT PROCEEDED WITH SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE BOARD WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE SCHOOL BUS STOP LOCATION. THIS IS FROM THE AUGUST 11 MEETING. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT APPROVES OF A MORE EASTERN LOCATION AND ENCOURAGES THE BUS STOP LOCATIONS FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS NOT TO WRITE THROUGH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. NOT REAL DEEP INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, OR RATHER CLOSE TO THE PRINCIPAL ROADWAYS THOSE DEVELOPMENTS SERVED FOR THE BOARD REQUESTED THAT THE ORIGINAL BUS STOP LOCATION AND CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT BE INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED PHASE 1 OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A NEW PHASING PLAN WITH A NEW BUS STOP LOCATION. SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE WAS PRESENTED , I BELIEVE, AT THE OCTOBER 13 MEETING, WHERE THAT BUS STOP LOCATION WAS SHIFTED TO MORE INWARD TO THE PHASE 1 OF THE DEVELOPMENT , BUT LARGELY KEPT THE PHASING LINES IN PLACE. YEAH, SO YOU CAN SEE IN THE RED DASH ON THIS EXHIBIT THAT THIS IS BASICALLY THE CHANGE IN PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2 FROM YOUR AUGUST 11 MEETING TO YOUR OCTOBER 13 MEETING. THE BUS STOP LOCATION, THE NEW BUS STOP LOCATION IN THIS PLAN WAS SHOWN IN GREEN, WHERE THE ORIGINAL LOCATION WAS SHOWN IN LIGHT BLUE. IT ALSO PROVIDES THE CROSS ACCESS TO THE PARCEL TO THE NORTH WITH AN ORANGE DOUBLE ARROW THERE. SINCE THEN , I THINK THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ILLUSTRATION OF HOW THE ORIGINAL BUS STOP LOCATION WAS INTENDED TO FUNCTION. WITH THE RELOCATION, IT HAS SHIFTED A BIT. A REQUIRED MORE DEPTH OF

[00:10:09]

THE NEW PHASING PLAN IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN , WHERE PHASE 1 IS MORE CENTRAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND PHASE 2 WOULD BE ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION, WHICH WOULD BE THE LEFT-HAND SIDE OF YOUR SCREEN, AS WELL AS TO THE NORTH, TO THE TOP OF YOUR SCREEN AND OUTLINED IN BLUE. THE YELLOW ARROWS THERE INDICATE HOW BUSES COULD CIRCULATE IN ORDER TO PICK UP AND DROP OFF KIDS AT THAT NEW SCHOOL BUS LOCATION. THE PD BENEFITS, A LINEAR PARK LEVERAGES A CREATIVE USE OF STORMWATER FACILITIES BY TRANSFORMING THEM INTO BIO SOILS AND RAIN GARDENS, TO WHICH A WALKING PAST WINES WITH RESTING SOPS OVERLOOK NATURALIZED AND LIGHT VISTAS. THEN THERE IS A POCKET PART WHERE AN INSTALLATION IS PROPOSED THIS WILL BE VISIBLE TO THE TRAVELING PUBLIC ON I-95 AND IS INTENDED TO CREATE A BEAUTIFUL SENSE OF ARRIVAL TO THE TRANSIT. THIS IS DESIGNED WITH A NETWORK OF STREETS THAT HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE LIENS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO I-95. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT OVERALL, THERE IS A DECREASE FROM WHAT COMMERCIAL WOULD GENERATE BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WITH PEAK WEEKDAY HOURS IN THE EVENING AT 147 ENTERING. A LARGE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVOLVES AROUND LANDSCAPING IN THE STREETSCAPE. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED TWO SESSIONS OF A 70 AND 60 FOOT RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THE TWO ENTRANCE BOULEVARDS WITH STREET TREES. A TYPICAL SECTION FOR A 40 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH STREET TREES AND A TYPICAL SECTION FOR A 40 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE COMMERCIAL ACCESS ROAD TRACK IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY IS ALSO THERE. ALL AFFECTED DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSED ZONING OUT LIST DEVELOPMENT WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN. WITH REGARDS TO CONSISTENCY WITH ESTABLISHED ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THE SUGGESTION BY THE ST.

LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOLS OF THE BUS STOP LOCATION. I HAVE CORRESPONDENCE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD AFTER THIS REPORT. AS FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, THESE LARGELY STAND FROM WHAT YOU SAW LAST MONTH. ONE, A FINAL PD SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO ANY DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES WITH THE MASTER SITE PLAN BY HJA DESIGN STUDIO, JOB NUMBER 2024-31, DATED FEBRUARY 14, 2025. THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE SHALL BE 20% OF THE FINAL PD SITE AREA. THE MAXIMUM DENSITY SHALL BE FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OF THE FINAL PD SITE AREA. THE FINAL PD PLAN SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES UNLESS ALTERNATE STANDARDS ARE APPROVED THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. NUMBER FIVE, A GOPHER TORTOISE SURVEY SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF LAND CLEARING. NUMBER SIX, AFTER APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN, A DETAILED STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE PLAN AND STATEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT. NUMBER SEVEN, 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. NUMBER EIGHT, THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDINGS AND STREETSCAPES INCLUDING STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT, BUILDING COVERAGE, PARKING AREAS, AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

NUMBER NINE, PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN, THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A PROPOSED DECLARATION OF COVENANTS GOVERNING THE USE, MAINTENANCE, AND CONTINUED PROTECTION OF THE COMMON OPEN SPACE OR OTHER SHARED AREAS

[00:15:02]

NUMBER 10, PHASING OF THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING AT THE TIME OF FINAL PD: THE APPROXIMATE DATE WHEN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT CAN BE EXPECTED TO BEGIN. THE NUMBER OF PHASES IN WHICH THE PROJECT WILL BE BUILT AND THE APPROXIMATE DATE WHEN CONSTRUCTION OF EACH PHASE CAN BE EXPECTED TO BEGIN AND COMPLETED. A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDINGS AND STREETSCAPES INCLUDING STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT, BUILDING COVERAGE, PARKING AREAS, AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED FOR EACH PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. NUMBER 11, THE FINAL PD SITE PLAN SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION, AT MINIMUM: A. A LANDSCAPE PLAN PER SECTION 123-4 OF THE CITY ORDINANCE; B. PROPOSED LOT LINES AND OTHER DIVISIONS OF LAND FOR MANAGEMENT, USE OR ALLOCATION PURPOSES; C. THE HEIGHTS OF PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES; D. THE LOCATION AND SIZE OF ALL AREAS PROPOSED TO BE CONVEYED, DEDICATED, OR RESERVED FOR STREETS, PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND SIMILAR USES; E.

THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING OFF-STREET PARKING, AND LOADING AREAS; F. THE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING ITS INTERRELATIONSHIPS WITH THE VEHICULAR CIRCULATION SYSTEM, WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT TO ADJACENT STREETS, SHOWING ALL CURB CUTS AND SIDEWALKS; G. THE PROPOSED BUFFERING TREATMENT OF THE PERIMETER OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, REFUSE STATIONS, STORAGE AREAS, OR LOADING AREAS, INCLUDING MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES USED SUCH AS SCREENS, FENCES, AND WALLS. NUMBER 12, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE EASY ONES, THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BE SUBDIVIDED INTO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS UNLESS THE APPLICANT OBTAINS A SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS. 13, PRIOR TO PLAT APPROVAL, DEVELOPER SHALL OBTAIN A SOUND STUDY TO DETERMINE IF THE NOISE WITHIN THE PROPERTY FROM THE I-95 OFF-RAMP EXCEEDS FDOT NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, WHICH IS 66 DECIBLES, AS SET FORTH IN FIGURE 18-1 OF PART 2, CHAPTER 18, HIGHWAY TRAFFIC NOISE, FROM THE FDOT PD&E MANUAL, AND SHALL DELIVER A COPY OF THE STUDY TO THE CITY. IF THE FOREGOING FDOT NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA IS EXCEEDED AT THE LOCATION OF ANY PROPOSED HOMES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, THEN THE DEVELOPER SHALL COMMIT TO IMPLEMENT NOISE REDUCTION MEASURES FOR SUCH HOMES CALCULATED TO MEET THE HUD INTERIOR NOISE GOAL SET FORTH IN 24 CFR SUBPART B, 51.101(A)(9), I.E. NOT TO EXCEED A DAY-NIGHT AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL OF 45 DECIBELS. SUCH NOISE REDUCTION MEASURES MAY INCLUDE THE MEASURES SET FORTH IN THE FDOT PD&E MANUAL, PART 2, CHAPTER 18, FIGURE 18-3 BUILDING NOISE REDUCTION FACTORS, AND THE CITY WILL ACCEPT FDOT'S CALCULATIONS OF NOISE REDUCTION AS SET FORTH IN FIGURE 18-3. PRIOR TO PLAT APPROVAL, THE CITY SHALL REVIEW THE SOUND STUDY AND DEVELOPER'S PROPOSED NOISE REDUCTION MEASURES IF SUCH MEASURES ARE REQUIRED, TO CONFIRM THIS CONDITION HAS BEEN SATISFIED.

JUST AS A POINT OF REFERENCE, THESE ARE THE CRITERIA UNDER WHICH THESE NOISE LEVELS WOULD BE MEASURED. JUST FOR A POINT OF REFERENCE, 45 DECIBELS IS NOT MUCH. THAT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE GOAL FOR THE FIRST PART OF THE NOISE STUDY, I BELIEVE. IT IS BASICALLY HAVING A CONVERSATION. IT WOULD BE LIKE US HAVING A CONVERSATION LIKE THIS AND YOU BEING ABLE TO MAYBE HERE IT BUT NOT QUITE UNDERSTAND ALL OF IT . SORRY, I MADE A MISTAKE. 45 DECIBELS IS THE HUD STANDARD FOR MATERIAL NOISE. NUMBER 14, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, THE PROJECT SITE IS PARTY TO AN ACCESS EASEMENT RECORDED AT ORB 3093, PG 2587 IN FAVOR OF THE OWNER OF THE 1.51-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED 2627 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD, PARCEL ID

[00:20:05]

STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED A RECORDED COPY OF IT AS YET. WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THAT. WE WOULD LIKE IT TO CONTINUE TO BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED ZONING OUT LIST MAP AMENDMENT WITH THE NEW 14 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THAT IS LARGELY DUE TO ITS CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE. THE ALTERNATIVE, YOU MAY ALSO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLANS WITH CHANGES OR ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS, OR YOU MAY RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR CO-THAT IS OUR PRESENTATION. WE ARE OPEN TO ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

>> FOR THE RECORD, I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT MS. CARTER

INJURED THE MEETING AT 2:09 P.M. >> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS TO ASK? >> I HAVE A COUPLE. FIRST ONE IS , THE BUS STOP MOVED THREE TIMES. I AM CONFIRMING THAT THAT IS REALLY WHERE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT , THE COUNTY SYSTEM WANTED THAT, CLOSE TO THE AMENITY CENTER.

>> I AM GLAD THAT YOU ASKED, MR. WIDING. LET ME READ FOR THE RECORD A LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT STAFF IT ADDRESSES THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. NOVEMBER 5, 2025, YOUR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, DUE TO A MEDICAL CONDITION, I AM UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR TODAY. ON BEHALF OF THE ST.

LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOLS, I'M SUBMITTING A WRITTEN STATEMENT REGARDING THE UPDATED PROPOSAL OF THE PULTE-CORNERSTONE MASTER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AFTER REVIEWING THE NEW SITE PLAN, ST.

LUCIE SCHOOLS APPROVES THE LOCATION OF THE NEW BUS STOP AS DEPICTED IN THE REVISED PROPOSAL, WHICH PLACES THE BUS STOP AT THE AMENITY CENTER IN PHASE 1 OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS LOCATION ALIGNS WITH THE PREFERENCE OF THE SCHOOL BOARD, AS PREVIOUSLY STATED DURING THE OCTOBER 13, 2025 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. SINCERELY, NICOLE FOGARTY .

>> THAT IS THE FINAL AND THE PD SITE PLAN, THAT WILL BE WHERE IT

IS. >> EXACTLY AS SHOWN IN THIS

>> GREAT. I THINK MY OTHER QUESTION IS , IN 14 , DID THE CITY IN FACT RECEIVE A COPY OF THE RECORDED EASEMENT

NEGOTIATED? >> WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A RECORDED COPY OF IT. I UNDERSTAND FROM BOTH THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, THEY ARE THIS CLOSE TO HAVING IT COMPLETED. AS YOU MAY UNDERSTAND, THINGS KIND OF HAPPEN WITH THIS PROJECT. WE ARE WILLING AS A STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE MET AT ANY TIME. IF THAT EASEMENT BECOMES OF RECORD FOR THE PROPERTY , WE WOULD BE REMOVING THIS PARTICULAR CONDITION AS IT PROCEEDS TO CITY

COMMISSION >> SO YOU WILL BE SATISFIED WITH

THAT BEFORE THIS MOVES FORWARD? >> YES, SIR.

>> ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I JUST HAVE ONE. JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. I'M KIND OF NEW HERE, BUT ON THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, WE TYPICALLY SEE THIS MANY CONDITIONS AND THIS DETAILED OF

CONDITIONS? >> I THINK I WILL DEFER THAT.

>> KEV FREEMAN, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HERE. EACH PROPOSAL CAN

[00:25:04]

I THINK OVERALL THE STAFF HAVE GOTTEN BETTER IN TERMS OF THE RANGE OF CONDITIONS REGARDING SOMETHING BEING BUILT AS APPROVED. IN THE PAST, AND WHILE AGO, DEVELOPMENTS WERE APPROVED WITH MINIMAL CONDITIONS. WE ARE TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSURE THAT WHATEVER THE PLANNING BOARD SEES AND WHATEVER THE CITY COMMISSION ULTIMATELY APPROVES IS MAINTAINED AS WAS PROPOSED.

THESE CONDITIONS ALLOW THE CITY STAFF TO MONITOR AND HOLD THE DEVELOPMENT AT ANY TIME. IT GIVES THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION MORE POWER OVER WHAT IS BEING APPROVED. THE CONDITIONS HERE ARE VERY DETAILED PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY BEHIND GETTING THIS RESOLVED. AND HAVING THIS CONDITION IN PLACE DOES OFFER INCENTIVE FOR ALL PARTIES TO SOLVE THESE THINGS BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OR TO BE AWARE THAT HE NEEDS TO BE SOLVED BEFORE A PLAT IS APPROVED.

>> OKAY. SOME OF THESE, THIS THREE PAGE ARE HERE, YOU MAY NOT SEE THAT ON ALL PROJECTS. I THINK THIS CONDITION IS PARTICULARLY POIGNANT BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING DEVELOPED INTERIOR TO THE CITY, BUT NOT ADJACENT TO 95, WE MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME NOISE CONCERNS AS WE DO WITH

THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. >> SPEAKING OF THE NOISE CONCERNS, WILL THAT BE A PART OF THE REGULAR , I GUESS, CONSIDERATIONS THAT WE PUT INTO THE CODE IN THE FUTURE?

>> WE ALREADY HAVE CONDITIONS IN THE CODE THAT REGULATE CERTAIN NOISE LEVELS. THIS WAS PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE AS CHRIS HAS JUST STATED. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS PARTICULARLY CLOSE TO AN INTERSTATE ROADWAY , OFFRAMP. WE WANTED TO ENSURE THAT FUTURE RESIDENTS WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTED BY THAT. ALSO, HAVING A CONDITION LIKE THAT IN THIS LOCATION REDUCES THE LIKELY COMPLAINT OF RESIDENCE -- RESIDENTS COMPLAINING OF NOISE AND STARTING CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES. IT IS VERY PARTICULAR TO THIS LOCATION. THERE MAY BE OTHER LOCATIONS THAT COME OUT WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR. EACH APPLICANT HAS ITS OWN SITUATIONS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED . THIS IS A LOT OF NEGOTIATION AND CONSIDERATION WITH FDOT AND CITY STAFF. WE ARE HAPPY WITH THE OUTCOME. CHRIS DID A GREAT JOB IN PULLING THIS TOGETHER IN SUCH A WAY THAT ALL PARTIES ARE ABLE TO SIGN OFF ON IT.

>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS IN FORT PIERCE OFF OF 95 OR ANY INTERSTATE FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE? RESIDENTIAL?

>> I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY YEAH. YES, MA'AM.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO STEP FORWARD. PLEASE SIGN IN AND

STATE YOUR NAME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, ACTING CHAIR COLLINS. SINCE YOU PROBABLY

[00:30:10]

TO THE SOUTH OF US IS A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN BUILT YET. THAT ONE IS ALSO FRONTING I-95. THAT IS JUST TO THE SOUTH. YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL, SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT LOOKS LIKE. THIS REQUIRES A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT AS WAS ALLUDED TO. THIS BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THAT IN DECEMBER 2024 THE ACTING CITY MANAGER AT THE TIME ASKED US TO HOLD THAT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION WE DID THAT AND ARE WAITING ON THAT HEARING. THIS PROCESS IS TWO STEPS, MASTER AND FINAL. THIS IS THE MASTER. WE CAME BEFORE YOU ON AUGUST AND OCTOBER. THE BUS STOP WAS A BIG ISSUE. THAT WAS WHEN WE CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 10. ALL CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL HAVE BEEN AGREED UPON BY BOTH THE APPLICANT AND STAFF. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL BUS STOP. NOW WE ARE HERE. SO THIS PROJECT LEVERAGES THIS HIGH VISIBILITY SITE TO ESTABLISH A WELCOME FEATURE WHILE PROVIDING NEEDED HOUSING AND TURNPIKE ACCESS AND THE KINGS HIGHWAY JOBS CORRIDOR THAT THE COMMISSION IS REALLY FOCUSED ON. THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE IS PROJECTED TO GENERATE ROUGHLY 88% LESS TRAFFIC THAN THE PREVIOUS FUTURE LAND USE, WHICH IS COMMERCIAL. IT IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE ACTIVE USE OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY WITH TREE LINES, STREETS, AND LIKE THIS DOES. THE CROSS ACCESS ALLOWS THE COMMERCIAL SITE TO THE NORTH TO BE DEVELOPED. THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR SITE IS CRITICAL FOR THIS OTHER SITE TO BE DEVELOPED. THE COUNTY REQUIRES A SECONDARY ACCESS FOR THAT SITE SINCE IT IS SO CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION.

THIS IS A HIGH QUALITY SITE DESIGN WITH A LINEAR PARK AND NICE STORM WATER FEATURES THAT WILL TURN INTO RAIN GARDENS AND WILL BE BEAUTIFULLY LANDSCAPED, NOT JUST SOIL. WE HAVE FEATURES WE HAVE DISCUSSED, A STRUCTURAL FEATURE VIEWABLE FROM I-95, ACRES OF COMMUNITY PARK , AND IT WELCOMES TRAVELERS TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. I AM GOING TO SKIP THIS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE PROBABLY HEARD IT SO MANY TIMES. AN EXAMPLE OF A RAIN GARDEN. IT IS SHADED, WALKABLE, AND GREEN. THESE ARE INTERNAL ROADWAYS THAT ENHANCE THE COMFORT, SHADE, AND BEAUTY WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TREE FOR EVERY 50 FEET WITH ACCESSIBLE, SAFE WALKING PATHS AND AN INTERNAL GRID PATTERN WITH TREE-LINED STREETS THAT CREATES TRAFFIC COMING AND LIMITS SPEEDS NATURALLY. THIS IS THE NORTH MAIN ENTRANCE DESIGN. YOU CAN SEE THE COMMERCIAL ACCESS COMES OFF OF THAT. THAT IS IN PHASE 1. THE SOUTH ENTRANCE THAT ALIGNS WITH INDEPENDENCE CLASSICAL ACADEMY IS ALSO IN PHASE 1. THIS IS THE NEW PHASING PLAN, HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING IN PHASE 1. YOU WILL NOTICE THE STORM WATER, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE STORM WATER AND THE WALKING PATHS AND THE ENTRANCE FEATURE IS ALL INCLUDED IN PHASE 1. SO THE HIGHLIGHTS FOR TRAFFIC ARE THAT WE HAVE A REDUCTION OF APPROXIMATELY 42,000 TRIPS PER DAY ON JENKINS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF IT BEING POTENTIALLY COMMERCIAL. IT WILL PROVIDE A FAIR SHARE TOWARDS THE SOUTH ENTRANCE THAT ALIGNS WITH INDEPENDENCE CLASSICAL ACADEMY. INDEPENDENCE CLASSICAL ACADEMY, BY THE WAY, NEARLY TRIPS THE NEED TO SIGNAL ANYWAY. OUR ALIGNMENT WITH THAT HELPS THAT SIGNAL GET PHIL KIKO THAT IS ACTUALLY ANOTHER BENEFIT. WE WILL PROVIDE NORTH AND SOUTHBOUND TURNING LANES AT BOTH ENTRANCES. AGAIN, ALL CONDITIONS

[00:35:05]

>> THANK YOU. >> HOW CLOSE ARE YOU ON THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH YOUR COMMERCIAL PARTNER? I SHOULDN'T SAY PARTNER, BUT NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR.

>> THEY PRACTICALLY ARE. >> VERY CLOSE. JUST GOT SOME ADDITIONAL REVISIONS ON THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT THIS MORNING FROM THEIR ATTORNEY. WE ARE WAITING FOR FINAL APPROVAL. I THINK WE ARE THERE. I ALSO JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN, IT IS NOT LIKE WE HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING ON THIS. CARLSON IS PUSHING ON THIS TO GET DONE BEFORE I WAS EVEN INVOLVED IN THE EASEMENT , DURING THE SUMMER. IT IS NOT JUST AN EASEMENT TO RELOCATE IT FROM HERE TO HERE . IF THAT WAS IT, WE COULD GET THAT DONE IN A WEEK. THEY HAD ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT THEY WANTED SUCH AS A MONUMENT SIGN ON THEIR PROPERTY, THE ABILITY TO PUT A TEMPORARY EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY IN CASE THE PROJECT DOES NOT MOVE FORWARD FAST ENOUGH. ANYTIME YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE BUILDING ON YOUR PROPERTY, THAT GETS MORE COMPLICATED. YOU HAVE TO HAVE PROTECTIONS IN THEIR THEY NEED TO SEE THE DESIGN AND SIGN OFF ON IT. YOU HAVE TO GET CITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL THAT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR THAT. WE HAVE TO AND THEN THE FIVE. WE HAVE TO POST A BOND OR AN ESCROW FOR THE TEMPORARY ROAD AND BE READY TO BUILD OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. WE HAVE HAD ISSUES LIKE THAT. THERE IS SOME COMPLEXITY TO IT. THAT IS WHY IT HAS TAKEN A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. WE ARE CERTAINLY NOT DRAGGING OUR FEET ON IT.

>> MR. DOBBINS, CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?

>> LEE DOBBINS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. REGARDING THE NOISE ABATEMENT, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONTENTION ON THAT IN PRIOR MEETINGS. IS THERE ANY UPDATE ON THAT?

>> THAT WAS A NEGOTIATED PROVISION.

STAFF INDICATED THAT THEY WANTED SOME OBJECTIVE STANDARDS IN TERMS OF NOISE. WE NEEDED TO DO SOME RESEARCH TO FIND WHAT STANDARDS THERE ARE OUT THERE. HUD DOES HAVE THE INDOOR STANDARD OF 45 DECIBELS. THERE ARE ALSO SOME THINGS IN THE FDOT PORTION. REGARDING THE ABATEMENT OF NOISE, WE WILL HAVE A NOISE STUDY DONE TO IT IN THE FIGHT IF THERE IS AN ISSUE TO MEET THAT STANDARD. IT IS A COMPLICATED CONDITION. LIKE I SAID, WE ARE NEGOTIATING WITH STAFF. WE ARE OKAY WITH THE CONDITION. WE FEEL LIKE IT IS A CONDITION THAT WE CAN WORK WITH AND CERTAINLY SATISFY. THE INTENT ALL ALONG WAS TO PROVIDE -- BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HAVE A GOOD PRODUCT FOR THEIR RESIDENTS. THEY WANT THEIR RESIDENTS TO HAVE IT. I DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE A PROBLEM MEETING THE STANDARD IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE HUD.

>> I SURMISE THAT TO MEAN THAT THE LOWER DECIBELS NUMBER, YOU

[00:40:03]

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC. IF THERE IS ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS MATTER, PLEASE SIGN IN, STEP FORWARD, AND STATE YOUR NAME. SEEING NONE, I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? NO RESPONSES ? I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> DO WE WANT TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? I'M SORRY. JUST GOING BACK TO YOUR, IT STUCK OUT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THERE BEING NO OTHER COMMUNITIES ALONG THE HIGHWAYS COMING INTO FORT PIERCE. THAT SORT OF SITS WITH WHAT I WAS THINKING. AS WE ARE TRYING TO IMPROVE THE IDENTITY, IS THIS THE IDENTITY WE WANT TO HAVE COMING INTO THE CITY? THESE ARE THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE SELLING, BUT THESE ARE THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE GETTING APPROVED AND AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO BUY. THAT HAS REALLY STUCK WITH ME, THAT WE CAME FROM OUR LAST MEETING WITH. THOSE ARE TWO OF THE CONCERNS. THE OTHER CONCERN I VOICED ORIGINALLY , I DID NOT HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED ON CITY COMMISSION WITH THIS.

ZONING IS STILL COMMERCIAL. I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL, SINCE IT IS ZONED AS SUCH. I DON'T SEE MANY OTHER OPTIONS ALONG THERE FOR DOING SO.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> I SEE YOUR CONCERN AS WELL WITH IT BEING SO CLOSE TO THE HIGHWAY AS FAR AS NOISE. NOISE ALWAYS BOTHERS ME PERSONALLY. I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN. AND I DO FEEL LIKE PULTE-CORNERSTONE IS DOING THE RIGHT THING WITH THE CITY AS FAR AS NEGOTIATING THAT DECIBEL LEVEL. I THINK THE QUESTION IS, LIKE YOU ARE SAYING, WHAT IS OUR IDENTITY .

IS IT FOR? WE DON'T DISCUSS THAT ENOUGH, I THINK, ON THIS

BOARD. >> A LOT OF THIS IS SET IN STONE. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS A GOOD DEVELOPMENT AND ALL OF THAT. WITH THE GUIDELINES WE LOOK AT, DOES THIS ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY? THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, I THINK, ARE

VALID. >> IT HAS BEEN A PROCESS. IT HAS BEEN A PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPER. IT HAS BEEN A PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY. IT IS POSITIVE.

JUST COLLECTIVELY, EVERYBODY MOVED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WE ARE TRYING TO PULL THIS THING TOGETHER. IT IS UNIQUE IN HOW CLOSE IT IS. THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS , THE HURDLES , IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN UNLESS ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE MET TO START WITH. EVERYBODY INVOLVED , THANKS.

>> I'M SORRY, MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT -- I THINK I ASKED THIS BEFORE -- THERE ARE NO DOG PARKS. I KNOW I ASKED THAT ALL THE TIME. THERE ARE NO DOG PARKS IN A LOT OF THESE NEW COMPLEXES.

THERE ARE NOT MANY DOG PARKS IN FORT PIERCE. AT ALL. IS THAT A CONCERN THAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS? THAT IS MY PERSONAL CONCERN. THERE ARE MULTIPLE PATHS. AS PETS INCREASE IN NUMBER , AS WE CONTINUE TO HAVE THEM INTO OUR HOMES AND OUR FAMILIES, THERE IS NO REAL SPACE FOR THEM. COULD THAT BE ADDED INTO PLANS? I WILL JUST KEEP BRINGING IT UP AS WELL. BESIDES

[00:45:04]

>> PERSONALLY, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROPERTY HAS SET UNOCCUPIED, SIGNS POSTED FOR SALE FOR YEARS. I KNOW WE HAVE A HOUSING SHORTAGE WITH THE PROJECTED NUMBER OF WAREHOUSES AND JOBS AND THINGS THAT WILL BE COMING TO THE AREA. WE NEED HOMES FOR THESE INDIVIDUALS TO LIVE AND WORK IN FORT PIERCE SO THEIR MONEY REMAINS IN FORT PIERCE. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT ITEM. IT WILL BE CLOSE TO THOSE JOBS AND MAKE IT MORE CONVENIENT FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS, WHEN THEY MOVED TO THE AREA, TO HAVE DECENT HOUSING. SO I WILL SAY THANK YOU.

>> NO OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> THIS IS A LONG MOTION. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE FORWARD TO THE COMMISSIONERS THE PD SECOND UPDATED PROPOSAL WITH 14

CONDITIONS . >> SECOND.

>> IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >> MS. CARTER?

>> YES. >> MR. COLLINS? NO MEM .

>> -- NO MA'AM . >>

[b. PZSITE2025-00015 Major Site Plan Red Hawk Rebar II 4201 Bandy Boulevard]

>> MOTION PASSES. >> MOVING ON TO 6B. MS. DRIVER?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. TODAY, WE HAVE A MAJOR SITE PLAN BROUGHT TO YOU FROM THE RED HAWK REBAR MANUFACTURING PLANT. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RED HAWK REBAR HOLDINGS LLC. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS EMERSON PERAZA. THE ADDRESS IS 4201 BANDY BOULEVARD. IN SUMMARY, A MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. RED HAWK REBAR WAS SEEKING TO DEVELOP AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING USED TO MANUFACTURE METAL REBARS FOR MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. THE SITE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 2.9 ACRES. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ALSO HELLO. THE ZONING IS I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, SURROUNDED BY OTHER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS APD. SITE PLAN DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS. IT WOULD BE TWO LEVELS, APPROXIMATELY 24,534 SQUARE FEET. THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS 35 FEET TALL. IT WILL PROVIDE 41 PARKING SPACES. THERE WILL BE A DRY POND AS WELL ON THE PROPERTY. HERE IS THE BUILDING DESIGN. WE HAVE THE SOUTHWEST ELEVATION ALONG WITH THE NORTHWEST ELEVATIONS. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE EAST AND WEST ELEVATIONS. THE BUILDING WILL BE STUCCO. YOU SEE THE COLOR OF BOARD PROVIDED. LANDSCAPE DETAILS, THERE WILL BE A TOTAL OF 65 TREES PLANTED THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY AND A TOTAL OF 754 SHRUBS PLANTED. STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL FOR THE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING FOUR CONDITIONS. NUMBER ONE, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SHALL BE APPROVED ACKNOWLEDGING THE FOLLOWING. NUMBER TWO, THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SHALL BE REQUIRED PRIOR

[00:50:01]

NUMBER FOUR, A FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK IS REQUIRED ALONG BANDY BOULEVARD. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED CONDITIONS OR TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

>> GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS? >> NUMBER FOUR, ARE THERE SIDEWALKS CURRENTLY? ARE THEY ON BANDY BOULEVARD?

>> NO, SIR, NOT WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS BEING PROPOSED.

>> ANYONE ELSE? AT THIS TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE THE APPLICANT TO SET FORWARD. PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME.

>> I AM THE ENGINEER ON RECORD REPRESENTING RED HAWK REBAR II.

KERRY DID A GREAT JOB PRESENTING THE PROJECT. I AM HERE TO ANSWER

ANY QUESTIONS. >> I NOTICED THAT THERE WERE A LOT OF WHAT APPEARS TO BE VEHICLES ON THE PROPERTY. ARE THOSE GOING TO BE ELIMINATED ONCE THE BUILDING IS BUILT? HOW

IS THAT GOING TO MOVE FORWARD? >> WHEN THE PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, ALL OF THOSE CARS WILL BE GONE. I AM NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT THEIR RELATIONSHIP IS. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE LEASING IT. THAT OPERATION WILL CEASE. IT WILL BE REPLACED WITH

THIS DEVELOPMENT. >> ANY QUESTION ?

>> IF THE OPERATION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE CRYSTAL CLEAN? THAT IS WHAT COMES UP AS ON THE PROPERTY.

>> I AM NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THE NAME IS. I HAVE VISITED THE PROPERTY MANY TIMES. IT IS JUST A VEHICLE STORAGE. IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE , I AM JUST SPECULATING, BUT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE WHERE CARS ARE TOWED . I REALLY DON'T KNOW. THERE ARE NO REPAIRS BEING DONE THAT I CAN SEE. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS STORAGE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NAME OF IT IS.

>> SO THIS COMPANY THAT IS COMING IN DOES NOT CURRENTLY MANUFACTURE AND PROCESS ANYTHING ON THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT?

>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?

>> THE COMPANY, RED HAWK, THEY DO NOT OPERATE ON THIS PROPERTY?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THEY ARE ACROSS THE STREET, SAME OPERATION , SAME PROCESS , FABRICATING REBAR FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> YES, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC. SEEING NONE, COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS?

>> IMPROVEMENT TO A PROPERTY AND RAISING PROPERTY VALUE , IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE --

>> REQUIREMENT. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE COMFORTABLE

WITH, THE SIDEWALK? >> I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED IT. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND HAVE NO

OBJECTIONS. THANK YOU. >> IF THEY ARE GOOD WITH IT, SO AM I. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE FOUR CONDITIONS

LISTED. >> SECOND.

>> SO PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>>

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

[00:55:03]

>> THANK YOU. MS. CLEMONS, THIS MORNING AT CITY COMMISSION , WE HELD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE ANNEXATION STRATEGY OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. THIS WILL HOPEFULLY SET OUT A BETTER FRAMEWORK TO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED TO TODAY , SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH TODAY. THE CITY DOES NOT REALLY HAVE A STRATEGY IN PLACE FOR WHEN DEVELOPMENTS COME IN AND ANNEX INTO THE CITY. WE HAVE A LOT OF ENCLAVE AREAS. WE HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS OUT WEST OR PROPERTIES OUT WEST THAT HAVE SERVICE AGREEMENTS, BUT ARE NOT YET IN THE CITY. MY QUESTION TO CITY COMMISSION THIS MORNING, ONE OF MULTIPLE QUESTIONS, WAS WHERE THEY WANT US TO GO WITH ANNEXATION IN THE FUTURE. IT HAS AN IMPLICATION ON THE LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR THE CITY TO PROVIDE . IT HAS IMPLICATION FOR PROPERTY TAX VALUES. AND THE TAX BASE. AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION, THE CITY DIRECTED STAFF TO COME UP WITH A STRATEGY WHICH HAD A NUMBER OF POINTS. I WILL GO THROUGH THE FIVE MAIN AREAS THAT WE WILL BE CONCENTRATING ON. THEY WANT THE CITY ANNEXATION STRATEGY TO PRIORITIZE INCREASING THE CITY TAX BASE AND INCREASING JOBS.

THAT HAS REALLY BEEN INFLUENCED A LOT BY WHAT IS GOING ON IN STATE STATUTE AT THE MOMENT IN THE STATE IN THE LEGISLATIVE DETERMINATIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO RESIDENTIAL AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX. IF THAT IS REMOVED OR REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY, THAT AFFECTS THE TAX BASE OF THE CITY. VERY MUCH. AS PART OF THE ANNEXATION STRATEGY, THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD LIKE US TO CONCENTRATE ON COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND RETAIL IN THE AREAS NORTH AND WEST OF THE CITY. SO WE HAVE JENKINS ROAD JOBS CORRIDOR, AN AREA THAT HAS A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRY USES GOING ON THERE. A LOT OF THOSE ALREADY HAVE ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS WITH THE FPUA. WE WANT TO SEE IF THEY ARE CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CITY SO WE CAN ENGAGE WITH THOSE ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS AND BRING THAT TAX BASE INTO THE CITY. THAT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THOSE JOBS COMING INTO THE CITY. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON WITH THE CITY AND INCIDENTALLY TO THE ANNEXATION STRATEGY IS THE FPUA SERVICE AREA AND THEIR PLANS FOR EXTENDING THEIR SERVICES WITHIN THAT AREA. WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO THERE IS TO COORDINATE WITH THE FPUA , EXAMINE WHERE THEIR PRIOR T INSPECTION AREAS ARE, AND RUN AN ANNEXATION STRATEGY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE THINGS.

SO IF WE ARE GOING OUT INTO AN AREA THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, WHATEVER THAT IS, THAT WE SHOULD BE PRIORITIZING THOSE AREAS TO COME INTO THE CITY. ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS MORNING WAS THE IMPACT ON THE COST OF PROVIDING CITY SERVICES. THAT HAS A WHOLE RANGE OF IMPACTS, NOT ONLY EXTERNAL, BUT INTERNAL IF WE THINK ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH TODAY. WE THINK ABOUT THE TIME THE STAFF TAKES TO CONSIDER THOSE APPLICATIONS. IF THOSE BECOME MORE AND MORE AND MORE, IT IMPACTS STAFF. IT IMPACTS ENGINEERING STAFF. IT IMPACTS ALL INTERIOR DEPARTMENTS AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS. THE BIGGER IMPACT IS ON SERVICE PROVISION. IT IS ON UTILITIES. IT IS ON LAW-ENFORCEMENT. IT IS ON ROADWAY MAINTENANCE , BOTH FOR THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.

[01:00:07]

DEVELOPMENT IS PROCESSING IN OTHER MATTERS A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS. WE HAVE SEEN A DROP-OFF IN THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS COMING FORWARD IN THE LAST MONTH OR SO. BUT WE HAVE ALSO SEEN AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF INQUIRIES COMING IN REGARDING FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY. WE RUN PRE-APPLICATION PROJECT MEETINGS WITH APPLICANTS AND DEVELOPERS.

THOSE ARE BOOKED OUT UNTIL JANUARY NOW, I THINK IT IS.

PEOPLE ARE ASKING. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THOSE EACH MONTH MOVING FORWARD. WE ARE STILL GETTING INQUIRIES. THE ACTUAL APPLICATION NUMBERS HAVE DROPPED OFF SLIGHTLY. I HAVE HEARD FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT THEIR PERMIT NUMBERS HAVE DECREASED SUBSTANTIALLY OVER THE LAST MONTH OR SO , WHICH IS NOT UNUSUAL. BUT IT IS MORE EXTREME THAN NORMAL. IT COULD BE THE RESULT OF WORKFORCE TARIFFS, INCREASED GOOD COSTS, SUPPLY, AND THOSE THINGS. WE ARE WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THAT. IT HAS GIVEN US THE OPPORTUNITY TO CATCH UP AS FAR AS WE CAN WITH A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE BACKGROUND. WE DO HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO CATCH UP ON. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT THE MOMENT.

THAT IS MY LATEST REPORT. THANK YOU.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. FREEMAN?

>> I HAVE ONE. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE ANNEXATION AND THE COST TO BRING THINGS IN, IN REGARDS TO, SAY, YOUR EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AGO, WE LOOKED AT A LARGE WAREHOUSE PARCEL WEST OF TOWN THAT WOULD BE TURNED OVER DURING THE FINAL PHASE TO US. IS THERE DISCUSSION OR A DIVISION OF IMPACT FEES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE COMING INTO THE PROJECT TO WHERE WE UTILIZE -- DOES IT ALL GO TO THE COUNTY POTENTIALLY FOR ALL IMPACT FEES AND PERMITTING? OR DO YOU POTENTIALLY NEGOTIATE WITH THEM TO GET A PERCENTAGE OF THAT FOR THE IMPACT OR THE GROWTH FOR

YOUR SERVICES? >> THIS MOMENT IN TIME, THE WHOLE PROCESS, THE APPROVAL AND PERMIT PROCESS WILL BE HANDLED BY THE COUNTY. THAT WAS PART OF THE AGREEMENT SET OUT. IMPACT FEES, THEIR PROCESSING TIME, THEIR TIME IN FRONT OF THE

[01:05:05]

ONCE THAT PROPERTY IS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THAT CITY WILL GET PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FROM THAT. IT IS ALSO -- ALMOST IMMEDIATE THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE BUILT AT THAT POINT WHEN IT IS ANNEXED IN, THAT WILL GO ON THE TAX BASE OF THE CITY. WE DO NOT GET THE IMPACT FEES AT THAT POINT.

>> SO DO YOU ESSENTIALLY OPERATING DEFICIT AT THAT POINT UNTIL YOU HAVE A TIPPING POINT THAT YOU COME TO?

>> THIS IS AN UNUSUAL CASE BECAUSE IT IS BEING HANDLED BY THE COUNTY AT ONE POINT AND THE CITY IS BEING LEFT OUT OF IT.

THE IMPLICATION IS THAT THE IMPACT FEES WILL BE SPENT ON COUNTY ROADWAYS , INFRASTRUCTURE, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT LOCATION. THAT WOULD HAPPEN ANYWAY. IN THAT LOCATION, MOST OF THE ROADWAYS ARE COUNTY . I THINK THAT IS GOING TO REMAIN AS IT IS ANNEXED INTO THE FUTURE.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE WOULD BE GETTING IN IMPACT FEES ARE NOT GREAT FOR THE CITY, EVEN IF IT WERE IN THE CITY. WE ARE BENEFITING TREMENDOUSLY ON IS THE IMMEDIACY OF THE PROPERTY TAX. WHEN IT COMES IN, IT WILL BE OPERATIONAL. IT WILL BE BUILT IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED. THAT VALUE WILL COME ON THE TAX ROLLS. ONCE IT IS ANNEXED IN, IT WILL BE ON THE TAX ROLLS OF THE CITY, NOT THE COUNTY. THE BALANCE IS THAT THE CITY BENEFITS FROM THAT TAXATION. THE DOWNSIDE IS YOU ESSENTIALLY DON'T GET TO OVERVIEW THAT DEVELOPMENT AS IT MOVES THROUGH THE PROCESS, BECAUSE THAT IS BEING DONE BY THE COUNTY. IT IS AN UNUSUAL ARRANGEMENT. FUTURE ANALYSIS , I DON'T FORESEE SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT COMING ON THE PROPERTIES. FUTURE ANNEXATIONS WILL BE ENTIRELY HANDLED BY THE CITY, SO THE IMPACT FEES AND TAX BASE WILL COME TO THE CITY EVENTUALLY. WE CAN BETTER

ANALYZE THAT . >> QUESTIONS?

>> WITH ALL THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE BEING BUILT ALONG JENKINS ROAD AND KINGS HIGHWAY , ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS FITS THE NEED FOR ADEQUATE HOUSING FOR JOBS IN THESE COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS? I AM THINKING ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF THE CITY AND WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE FOR THE CITY. IS THIS SUFFICIENT , WHAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW SUCH AS THE PULTE-CORNERSTONE? DO WE HAVE ENOUGH? OR IS THERE STILL A NEED FOR MORE ESTIMATED IN THAT

AREA? >> I THINK WHAT I DID THIS MORNING, PRIOR TO THIS MORNING I DID A QUICK ANALYSIS OF THE BALANCE BETWEEN RESIDENIAL AND COMMERCIAL IN THE CITY. I COMPARED THAT TO OTHER SIMILAR SIZED CITIES IN FLORIDA. IT CAME OUT THAT WE ARE VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER CITIES IN FLORIDA IN TERMS OF THAT BALANCE BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. IT RANGES FROM 70% TO 75% RESIDENTIAL TO 20% TO 25% COMMERCIAL. WHEN I SAY COMMERCIAL, I MEAN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, INDUSTRIAL, RETAIL, ALL THE AREAS THAT HAVE JOBS ATTACHED TO THEM. WE ARE AT ABOUT THAT MARK NOW. AS WE GET NEW DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN, AND THAT DOESN'T REALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT VACANT PROPERTY. WE HAVE A LOT OF VACANT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE PERCENTAGE OF ACTUAL OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS LOWER THAN THAT RATIO. WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO DO IS TO FURTHER ANALYSIS . I KNOW WE HAVE THE VOLUME OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN TERMS OF LAND AREA THAT WE DON'T MAKE FULL USE OF. I THINK THE PLACE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS STILL THERE. IT IS LIKE A CHICKEN AND EGG SITUATION. WE

[01:10:01]

>> ARE YOU ABLE TO PRESENT THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING?

>> I DEFINITELY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN TIME FOR THE NEXT MEETING. BUT IT IS GOING ON. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS SORT OF THING BEFORE. I HAVE SOME TEMPLATE IDEAS THAT I THINK I CAN BRING TO THE CITY THAT WOULD PROVIDE A MORE SIMPLE EXPLANATION AND GIVE YOU A CONSISTENCY OF WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU EVERY TIME YOU GET AN APPLICATION COMING IN. YOU WILL BE LOOKING FOR CERTAIN THINGS. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL GIVE YOU MORE CONFIDENCE IN GOING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THAT, I THINK, IS WHAT THE CITY NEEDS AT THE MOMENT , A CONSISTENCY, A DIRECTION . THE ANNEXATION STRATEGY IS AT THE HEART OF THAT, WHERE WE GO AS A CITY IN THE FUTURE. HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR TAX BASE IF THE LEGISLATIVE BODIES ARE REMOVING CERTAIN TAX BANDS FROM OUR REVENUE STREAM? HOW DO WE REPLACE THAT WE WHAT DO WE DO TO MAINTAIN OUR BUDGET , MAINTAIN OUR SERVICES? WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE A YEAR TO A YEAR AND A HALF BEHIND BECAUSE SOME OF THESE THINGS WILL NOT COME ONLINE UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED AND SO FORTH. I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD START. WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS, HOPEFULLY QUITE SOON, AS WE GO THROUGH AND DISCOVER WHERE THE UTILITY AGREEMENTS ARE FOR ANNEXATION FOR THESE COMMERCIAL JOB-HEAVY USES , THAT WE CAN COME FORWARD WITH SOME OF THOSE TO GET THOSE ANNEXED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND THEN YOU CAN MOVE THEM ON AND GET THEM GOING FOR THE TAX BASE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR THAT THEY WOULD FALL INTO.

>> ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN.

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

>> THANK YOU. >> AT THIS TIME, DO WE HAVE ANY

COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? >> THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION.

I APPRECIATE US NOT ALWAYS JUST APPROVING EVERYTHING. WE ARE CITIZENS OF THE CITY. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER HOW IT WOULD BE TO LIVE AND WORK IN THESE COMMUNITIES. LET'S MAKE SURE WE CONTINUE TO

CONSIDER THAT. THANK YOU. >> SAME HERE. I ENJOY SPEAKING WITH YOU ALL AND LOOK FORWARD TO MORE DISCUSSIONS.

>> ALL GOOD. YOU MAY HAVE A NEW JOB IF YOU KEEP THE MEETINGS

THIS SHORT. >> YOU GOT LUCKY.

>> THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. >> CAN WE TAKE CONSIDERATION OF

THAT CONSENSUS? >> MR. KREISL AND MR. EDWARDS BOTH HAD REASONABLE EXPLANATIONS TO BE EXCUSED.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> CAN WE HAVE A CALL THE ROLL? >>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.