Jan 12, 2026 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

>>> WE WILL CALL TO ORDER THE FT. PIERCE CITY PLANNING BOARD MEETING, MONDAY, JANUARY 12TH, 2026. 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. A FRIENDLY REMINDER TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES AND ALICIA, WOULD

YOU CALL THE ROLL? >> MR. COLLINS.

>> YES-MAN. >> MR. WHITING.

>> HERE. >> MS. CARTER? MR. JOHNSON?

[4. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]

>> HERE. >> MR. EDWARDS? MS. CLEMENTS .

>> HERE. >> CHAIR CHRYSLER.

>> PRESENT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TWO ABSENCES TODAY . LET'S CALL

THEM. >> MS. CARTER CALLED IN WITH A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING AND MR. EDWARDS DID CONTACT ME THIS MORNING AND SAID THAT HE WOULD BE HERE.

>> WE WILL KEEP AN EYE OUT FOR HIM IN CASE HE SHOWS UP A LITTLE

[a. Minutes from the November 11, 2025 meeting]

WOULD OBTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES BY MS. CLEMENTS, SECOND BY MR. JOHNSON. PLEASE

[a. 2026 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Review Transmittal]

CALL THE ROLL. >> MR. JOHNSON.

>> YES. >> MS. CLEMENTS.

>> YES. >> MR. COLLINS.

>> YES-MAN. >> MR. WHITING.

>> YES. >> CHAIR CHRYSLER.

>> YES . ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO ITEM 6, WE HAVE AS PART OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, A APPRAISAL REVIEW TRANSMITTAL 2026 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON , PLANNING CHAIR AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. WE HAVE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. I PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE ELEMENTS AND THE COMP PLAN INCLUDE THE UPDATING THE DATA GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES, ADDRESS LOCAL ISSUES, PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE CONSISTENCY, CONSIDER THE COMMUNITY'S VISION. THESE OTHER CHAPTERS ON YOUR RIGHTS, ONE THROUGH 12. LOCAL ISSUES OF VISION IDENTIFIED THE STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWS, PUBLIC SURVEY AND WORKSHOPS, RATIONAL BOUNDARIES, STRATEGIC ANNEXATION, CONSIDERED INFRASTRUCTURE IN ALL DECISIONS, AND SURE ZONING AND LAND USE IS CONSISTENT, SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES, ADDRESS HOUSING NEEDS, OF OUR TRANSPORTATION GAME AND PROTECT COASTAL AREAS FOR RESILIENCY AND MITIGATION. NARRATIVES, DATA AND ANALYSIS.

WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE. HOUSING, RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE. PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT.

THERE ARE TWO PLANNING PERIODS, A 10 YEAR AND A 20 YEAR. ALL RIGHT. FOR THE MAPS SERIES WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING, FUTURE LAND USE, EXISTING LAND USE, ZONING, LAND USE ADVISORY MAP WITH URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION, MASS TRANSIT, BICYCLE FACILITIES AND MULTIUSE TRAILS, RESTROOM FACILITIES, NATURAL RESOURCES AND LAND COVER, SOILS, FLOOD HAZARD ZONES, COASTAL HIGH ASSET AREAS. THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, ADDING NEW TABLES 1-1 THROUGH 1-4, WHICH QUANTIFY LAND USE AND POPULATION DATA, AND ADDING ON A NEW TABLE TO CROSS REFERENCE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES WITH ZONING DISTRICTS, ADDING A NEW POLICY TO ENCOURAGE WATERFRONTS, REVISING THE POLICIES RELATED TO LEVEL OF

[00:05:01]

FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 16 3-3 717, ALSO FLORIDA STATE STATUTE ALSO KNOWN AS HB 1379 FROM 2023. SEPTIC TO SEWER BILL. REVISE OUTDATED LANGUAGE. REMOVE OUTDATED REFERENCES TO REPORTS AND PLANS AND REVISE A POLICY TO ADOPT THE 2025 WSF WP. THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL ELEMENT ELEMENTS, CONSERVATION CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERRORS AND SPELL OUT ACRONYMS WHERE APPROPRIATE, COASTAL MANAGEMENT REVISE POLICIES TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE RELATED TO AT RISK AND NEGLECTED, DETERIORATING AND/OR DERELICT VESSEL, AT A POLICY RELATED TO MAINTAINING, RESTORING AND ENHANCING THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE COASTAL ZONE ENVIRONMENT AND ADD A POLICY ENSURING FLOOD RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. HOUSING ELEMENT, WE ARE ADDING SEVERAL TABLES TO ASSIST WITH ACCESSING AND ADDRESSING THE LACK OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND INCLUDE DATA RELATED TO HOUSING INVENTORY AND COST OF HOUSING FOR INDIVIDUALS, REVISE POLICIES TO INDICATE HOUSING NEED STUDY WAS COMPLETED AND REVISE A POLICY RELATED TO INSPECTIONS FOR BUILDING CODE AND FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS WHEN THERE'S A SALE OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OR A CHANGE OF A POLICY RELATED TO WORKING WITH FOR-PROFIT AND NONPROFIT BUILDERS TO PROVIDE INFILL HOUSING AND ADDING A NEW POLICY RELATED TO FUNDING PROGRAMS SUPPORTED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES. FOR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, UPDATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY PARKS, ADD A POLICY TO STATE, CITY WILL COMPLETE AN INVENTORY OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RECREATION OPEN SPACE LAND AND AMENITIES BY JANUARY 2027, REVISE A POLICY TO STATE THE CITY WILL MAINTAIN AND UPDATE THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTERPLAN AND REVISE A POLICY TO INCLUDE A REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT IN EXCESS OF 100 MILLION UNITS, PROVIDE COMMUNAL HURRICANE HARDENED HOLDINGS, REVISE A POLICY TO STATE THAT THE CITY WILL REFRAIN FROM SELLING AND/OR OTHERWISE DISPOSING OF RECREATIONAL LANDS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND ANNEXATION AREAS. NOW THE POLICY RELATED TO PRIVATE RECREATION AMENITIES BE MAINTAINED IN PERPETUITY, REMAIN ACCESSIBLE AND NOT BE SOLD OR DISCONTINUED.

AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT, UPDATE POLICY RELATED TO DISPUTE RESOLUTIONS PROCESS. FLORIDA STATE STATUTE 81816 -- 509 AND UPDATE SPECIFIC REFERENCES, REGIONAL, PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE AND UP DATED TABLE 8.1 COORDINATING ADG TO BE APPENDIX. WE HAVE A FT. PIERCE UTILITIES COLLEAGUES, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, SELF LAURA TERRELL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, SAINT THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PORT ST. LUCIE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENTS INCLUDE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026, FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PLAN AS AN APPENDIX, REVISE A GOAL TO INDICATE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS, RESIDE IN PUBLIC AUTHORITIES MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, ADD THE CITY CONSISTENCY AND ADD A NEW POLICY TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STORMWATER POLLUTION, REDUCTION GOALS AND THE MAP. PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT UPDATED LOS STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES, ADD A POLICY TO STATE THAT THE INCREMENTAL ADDITIONAL IMPACT TO PUBLIC FACILITIES WILL BE ASSESSED AS A PART OF , AND ZONING CHANGES. PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES ELEMENT, AT A LIST OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS LOCATED IN THE CITY, SPELL OUT OR USE ACRONYMS WHERE APPROPRIATE. PROPERTY RIGHTS

[00:10:02]

>> THANK YOU MR. GILMORE. ANY COMMENTS, ANYTHING JUMPING OUT AT YOU WHEN YOU HEAR THAT PRESENTATION?

>> I THINK REALLY THE ONE MAJOR ITEM FOR ME THAT I'M THE MOST INTERESTED IN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE -- I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER HOW YOU SPECIFICALLY WORDED IT IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT THE CITY BOUNDARY GOALS. CAN YOU -- I KNOW THERE WAS A PRESENTATION AT A MEETING THAT I MISSED A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, BUT CAN YOU KIND OF SPEAK A LITTLE MORE SPECIFICALLY ON WHAT EXACTLY WE ARE PROPOSING GOING FORWARD WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS FAR AS THE CITY BOUNDARIES?

>> SO CURRENTLY IN THE CITIES, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT STATES THAT ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE WITHIN THE FT. PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITIES WATERWAYS, WATERWAYS, WATER TREATMENT, I GUESS SERVICE BOUNDARY, THAT THEY, IF THEY RECEIVE INAUDIBLE ] SERVICES THEY HAVE TO SIGN AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT.

AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THESE ARE THE BOUNDARIES, SO THIS IS THE POSSIBLE FINAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT I WAS SAYING. WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT ANNEXATIONS WE SHOULD NOT BE LOOKING AT IS PRETTY MUCH OUTSIDE OF THAT, EVEN THOUGH YOU SEE IT HAS HAPPENED BUT THESE ARE THE POSSIBLE FINAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF FORT

PIERCE. >> UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER

COMMENTS? >> I HAVE ONE. SO AS WE MOVE FURTHER OUT WEST AND THEY'RE REQUESTING TO BE ANNEXED IN, IS THAT SOMETHING WE ARE JUST ARBITRARILY LOOKING AT,

CASE-BY-CASE. CO. >> THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT. IF WE HAVE A LEVEL OF -- IF WE WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT'S NEEDED BY GOING OUTSIDE OF THAT BOUNDARY, IT SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED BUT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IT ON A

CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. >> CHAIR KREISL, FOR THE RECORD, MR.

>> I NOTICED THAT, THANK YOU. YEAH. AND I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS HOWL, MOVING FORWARD, THIS WOULD DIFFER FROM WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY OPERATING UNDER. WE HAVE SOMEWHAT OF A LOOSE GUIDELINE OPERATING AT THIS POINT BUT NOT NECESSARILY A HARD RULE. IT SEEMS TO BE MORE APPROPRIATE THAT WE WOULD BE ESTABLISHING A -- OR AT LEAST A MUCH HIGHER STANDARD FOR ACCEPTING ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXISTING OUTSIDE OF OUR TARGET GOAL AND SO, LIKE RIGHT NOW, SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD, THERE REALLY HAS NOT BEEN A LOT OF GUIDANCE. IT'S BEEN VERY SUBJECTIVE AND TRYING TO DETERMINE -- I MEAN WE HAVE SO MUCH INFILL PROPERTIES SO WHEN WE GET THESE ANNEXATION REQUEST THAT OUR EITHER WITHIN A -- WITHIN AN ENCLAVE OR SOMETHING THAT'S VERY OBVIOUS, BUT WHEN WE START PUSHING THOSE BOUNDARIES TO THE NORTH OR TO THE WEST, I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S JUST GOING TO FALL ON THE FEELINGS OF THE BOARD AT THE TIME, WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW APPROPRIATE THAT IS. I WOULD MUCH RATHER SEE A REALLY STRICT GUIDELINE OF POLICY THAT'S VERY CLEARLY DEFINED, THAT STAFF AND THE BOARD CAN FOLLOW. THIS DOESN'T SOUND TO ME LIKE THAT

[00:15:02]

>> THERE'S CRITERIA. THAT STEPHANIE JUST POINTED OUT , 13 5, WHEN IS THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES AT A LEVEL EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN AVAILABLE FOR THE CURRENT SERVICE PROVIDERS, THE ABILITY OF THE CITY TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SERVICES THAT THE CITY HAS ADOPTED LEVEL OF SERVICE AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, THREE, WHETHER THE ANNEXATION WOULD ELIMINATE AN UNINCORPORATED ISLAND OR COULD BE EXPANDED TO ELIMINATE AN UNINCORPORATED ISLAND , 4, WHETHER THE ANNEXATION WOULD ELIMINATE IRREGULARITY OR IRREGULARITIES IN THE CITY'S BOUNDARIES, THEREFORE IMPROVING SERVICE DELIVERY, AND 5, WHETHER THE AREA TO BE ANNEXED MEETS STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTIGUITY AND COMPACTNESS. SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE LOOKED AT WHEN REVIEWING ANNEXATIONS, PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS.

>> OKAY. I SEE MR. FREEMAN IS AT THE PODIUM.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR FOR THE PLANNING BOARD, JUST A NOTE ON THAT. I DID MAKE A NOTE ON A PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO TRY AND GET SOME FEED BACK ON THE FUTURE PLAN AND THE ANNEXATION IN THE CITY LIMITS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO AIM FOR. IT WAS LEFT OPEN BUT THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT EXTENDING BEYOND THE OPEN SERVICE BOUNDARY THAT WE HAVE DEFINED HERE. WE ALREADY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. THERE WAS A DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW FAR NORTH WE SHOULD BE LOOKING GOING WITH STATES VIEW ON PROPERTY TAXES AT THE MOMENT. THERE IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW THAT AFFECTS THE CITY AND SHOULD WE BE PRIORITIZING COMMERCIAL USES AND FUTURE LAND USES AS POTENTIAL ANNEXATION TARGETS. WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS IN FURTHER DETAIL WITH THE CITY COMMISSION. WHETHER WE WANT A SPECIFIC PROHIBIT PATIENT OF ANNEXATION BEYOND THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY I THINK IS A QUESTION BASED ON WHAT SORT OF DISCUSSIONS I'M HEARING BACK FROM THE CITY COMMISSION, WHETHER IT'S MORE CRITERIA BASED, RATHER THAN AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION ON THAT. SO THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER. AND --

>> WHAT VISION ARE WE PROPOSING MOVING FORWARD WHEN IT COMES TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT AREA THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY INCORPORATED WITHIN THE CITY, BUT COULD OR POSSIBLY SHOULD BE? ARE WE GOING TO PERPETUALLY JUST RELY ON VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS, OR IS THERE SOMETHING MORE DELIBERATE THAT

WE CAN PUT FORWARD. >> THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS.

OBVIOUSLY UNDER THE ANNEXATION PROVISIONS IN THE STATE STATUTE, THERE ARE MANY OPTIONS TO LOOK AT. THE CITY HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT WE WANT TO ELIMINATE THE ENCLAVES. THE PRIORITY IS BEING SET INFORMALLY AT THE MOMENT, IS TO, LET'S LOOK AT THE COMMERCIALLY -- AS I SAID, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PARCELS, AND NOT TO GET THOSE, AND THEN DO A MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF WHAT INCORPORATING THE ENCLAVES WOULD MEAN FOR THE CITY IN TERMS OF SERVICE EFFICIENCIES, RETURN ON THAT.

THE EFFECT ALSO ON THE COUNTY, WHETHER OR NOT -- BOTH ENTITIES WOULD BENEFIT FROM CONSOLIDATION OF SERVICES WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS, SO WE DON'T HAVE SERVICES PROVIDED ON THE SAME STREET BY DIFFERENT ENTITIES. THE COST SAVINGS, I THINK THE EFFICIENCIES NEED TO BE LOOKED AT FURTHER WITH THAT AND WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW WE DO THAT, HOW WE PRESENT THAT CITY COMMISSION IN THE FORM THAT ENCAPSULATES A PRIORITIZING OF CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THOSE ENCLAVE AREAS. WHAT ALSO WAS DISCUSSED AT CITY

[00:20:05]

THIS MAP NOW? >> SOMEWHAT. THE AIRPORT IS SITUATED IN THIS AREA, SO WE DO THE SOUTHERN BORDER AND I WOULD SAY LIKE THE EAST SIDE OF THE AIRPORT, WE SURROUND IT.

>> WE ARE CONSTRAINING THE CITY TO THIS BOUNDARY AT THE MOMENT, THERE ARE MAYBE SOME PROVISIONS OR CRITERIA, THAT IF THEY WERE MET WOULD ALLOW ANNEXATIONS BEYOND THAT, AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT AND NOT RESTRICT THE CITY'S EXPANSION IN AREAS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE CITY'S FINANCIAL BASE AND VIABILITY, BUT IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT CALCULATION TO BE MAKING AT THE MOMENT. WE ARE TRYING TO GET -- THE CITY AS A WHOLE ARE TRYING TO GET THEIR HEAD AROUND THE IMPACT, POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CHANGES IN THE PROPERTY TAX AND HOW THAT AFFECTS REVENUE, AND HOW THAT AFFECTS SERVICES AND THE PROVISION OF SERVICES, AND CREATING ADDITIONAL DEMAND ON THOSE SERVICES OBVIOUSLY IS NOT WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO ULTIMATELY

BE DOING IN ANY CASE. >> IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE THAT AT LEAST IN THE SHORT TERM, FOR THIS BOARD MOVING FORWARD WITH POTENTIAL ANNEXATIONS, WE WILL -- ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE ESTABLISHED CURRENT FPUA BOUNDARY WOULD NOT PROPOSE ANY KIND OF CONFLICT WITH THIS LARGER GOAL THAT'S MOVING FORWARD .

>> YES. >> WHICH I'M ASSUMING IS GOING TO TAKE A VERY LONG TIME, AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY MAIN CONCERNS, WAS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE VERY AWARE OF THAT, SO WE DON'T -- WE ARE NOT TRYING TO HIT A MOVING TARGET.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> THANK YOU.

>> METAL >> PLEASE.

>> IN HERE, AS I'M SORRY, STEPHANIE HITE, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL. WEIRD CONSULTANT HELPING STAFF TO THESE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING POLICIES IN HERE THAT DO SAY THAT, THAT THIS IS ESTABLISHING THE FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA AND THAT THE LAND OUTSIDE FUTURE ANNEXATION AREAS PROHIBITED. SO DO WE WANT TO DO BUT I

>> I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BUILD IN --

>> WE GOT TO REWORD THAT OR BUILDING SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S IS FUTURES, SOMETHING ABOUT FUTURE GOALS OF THE CITY WILL BE

TO ESTABLISH -- >> YES --

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW WE -- MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO BEFORE IT GOES TO COUNSEL, SOMETHING IN THERE SO IT DOESN'T JUST RESTRICT IT TO THIS ANNEXATION AREA OR TO THE URBAN SERVICE

BOUNDARY. >> RIGHT. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE TYING IT TO THE FPUA SERVICE BOUNDARY, WHICH , YOU KNOW, CAN

SHIFT AS WELL. >> ALSO YOU KNOW WE HAVE EXISTING APPLICATIONS COMING IN WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE AREA NOW.

>> SOME ON THE AGENDA TODAY? >> NO.

>> TODAY, NO. NOT TODAY. WEST. >> THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT GOING OUT WEST I KNOW MOST OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR ANNEXATION OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA HAVE BEEN OUT WEST, AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT ARE THE FUTURE PREDICTIONS AS FAR AS EXPANDING FPUA SERVICE ?

>> I THINK THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH FPL, FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT, AND THE COUNTY, TO SOME EXTENT, DEPENDING ON WHICH UTILITIES YOU ARE LOOKING AT, THAT RESTRICTS THEM GOING OUTSIDE CERTAIN AREAS. SO THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT, SERVICE PROVISION AGREEMENT IN PLACE, SO THAT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT. SO IN PLACES, I DON'T THINK THE FPUA CAN GO MUCH FURTHER WEST IN CERTAIN AREAS, THOUGH WE DO HAVE ROBERT HE THAT ARE IN THE CITY LIMITS, ALREADY OUTSIDE THAT AREA, AND SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES, FOR INSTANCE, THE WATERPARK COULD,

[00:25:03]

>> I MEAN, DO WE WANT TO NOT PUT THAT --

>>

THERE -- >> WE NEED TO TAKE SOMETHING OUT .WE NEED TO TAKE -- EITHER WE NEED TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY BUILT INTO THIS OR REMOVE IT FOR NOW AND PLACE IT IN WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE.

>> WE CAN -- WE ARE PROPOSING TO TALK ABOUT THAT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY BEING REFERRED TO AS A FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA. IT'S FINE. BUT TAKE OUT THE LAST SENTENCE OF ANNEXATION OUTSIDE

THAT AREA. >> YES.

>> WE SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT IN THEIR AND I DON'T THINK IT TIES INTO ANYTHING TO SAY THAT THIS IS OUR FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING.

>> YES, WE ARE PRIORITIZING -- >> ANNEXING ANY OF THE PROERTIES MAYBE COMING ALONG THAT AREN'T IN THAT URBAN -- IF YOU WERE TO LEAVE THAT IN THERE PROHIBITED WOULD BE

BACK PROHIBITION. >> THEN IN FUTURE AS THE ANNEXATION POLICY AND STRATEGY IS FLESHED OUT, WE WOULD GO AND ADD A POLICY WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REFLECT

WHATEVER THAT POLICY. >> JUST AS AN AMENDMENT?

>> AS AN AMENDMENT. THE BIGGEST -- THE REASON WHY WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS HERE RIGHT NOW IS TO UPDATE IT TO REFLECT RECENT CHANGES IN THE LAST PLAN PERIOD THAT THE STATE IS IMPLEMENTED, IS TO TIDY UP THE LANGUAGE, IS TO LOOK AT WHAT THE STATE'S AMENDED, WHICH THEY'VE MADE QUITE A FEW AMENDMENTS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND TO ENSURE THAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE STATUTES.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO JUST FOR MY CLARIFICATION, IS STAFF LOOKING FOR A VOTE FROM THIS COURT TODAY ON AN OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION TO

THE COMMISSION? >> YES PLEASE. WE ARE UNDER A VERY TIGHT TIMELINE, AS WE ALWAYS ARE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT SEEMS, BUT YOU KNOW THE PLANNING COUNCIL HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB GETTING TO THIS POINT, REVIEWING THE WHOLE THING AGAINST UPDATED STATE STATUTE, INCORPORATING THOSE THINGS, LANGUAGE, RESOLVING CONFLICTS AND THAT LANGUAGE AND MAKING IT CLEARER. THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY BIG AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS SUCH. WE ARE CONFIDENT THE ALLIANCE WITH THE STATE STATUTE AND SO WE WOULD RECOMMEND THE BOARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF REMOVING THAT LINE FROM THE POLICY, MOVING ON

TO CITY COMMISSION. >> THANK YOU.

>> CONSIDERING THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PRESENTATION SPECIFICALLY, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEE NONE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY

FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> I THINK THE TERM THAT HIT ME THE MOST THAT KEPT GOING THROUGH THE PRESENTATION ALONG WITH STEPHANIE IS THE TERM AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE COMING FROM, ANNEXATION POLICY FLUSHED OUT, WHICH IS FRAMING IT AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR CHAIR WAS TRYING TO GET TO, ARE THERE REALLY, REALLY PRIORITIES, OR THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM COMES UP AND IT'S TOTALLY FORMED FROM WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND

[00:30:02]

JUST PIECEMEAL? >> SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GETTING THERE. AS THESE ANNEXATIONS COME IN, WE WILL BE GETTING CLOSER AND CLOSER TO HAVING A MORE DEFINED PLAN SO I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CHECKING IN WITH STAFF AS ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS COME IN, MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE CAUGHT UP AND AWARE OF WHAT THE CURRENT PLAN IS.

AGAIN, WE JUST DON'T WANT TO BE CREATING ANY KIND OF IMPEDIMENT TO THE OVERALL PLAN, AND THEY'LL STILL CONTINUE TO BE SOMEWHAT SUBJECTIVE, FLEXIBLE APPLICATION REVIEWS, BUT AT LEAST THINGS ARE IMPROVING. WE HAVE -- THE PLAN IS STARTING TO TAKE SHAPE, WHICH IS MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, AT THIS TIME I WOULD ENTERTAIN A

MOTION . >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THE

ONE CHANGE. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE STATED CHANGE BY MS.

[a. PZANN2025-00006 Annexation Tony Acerra Property 2413-501-0154-000-6]

>> MR. EDWARDS. >> YES.

>> MR. JOHNSON. >> YES.

>> MS. CLEMENTS. >> YES.

>> MR. COLLINS. >> YES.

>> MR. WHITING. >> YES.

>> CHAIR KREISL. >> YES.

>> MOVING ONTO NEW BUSINESS, SPEAKING OF ANNEXATIONS, WE HAVE A FEW OF THEM ON THE DOCKET TODAY STARTING WITH ITEM 6A,

ANNEXATION TONY ACERRA PROPERTY. >> YES, WE'LL HEAR FROM STAFF ON THE PRESENTATION AND IF NECESSARY WE CAN GOING FORWARD.

>> MR. CHAIR, LORD, CHRIS EDISON, ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR. THE NEXT FOUR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, THE FOUR ANNEXATIONS ARE GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SAME AREA AND ARE GENERALLY GOING TO HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION IN EACH OF THE PRESENTATIONS BUT EACH COVERS A SEPARATE PROPERTY SO I WILL GIVE SEPARATE PRESENTATIONS BUT I'LL SKIP OVER A LOT OF IT AFTER THIS FIRST ONE, SO I WON'T BORE YOU TOO MUCH, I HOPE. OUR FIRST ITEM IS EASY ANNEXATION 2025-0006, REPRESENTED BY TONY ACERRA, THIS PROPERTY HE OWNS UNDER VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AT OR NEAR 2528 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE AND WE HAVE THE AFFECTED PARCEL NUMBER THERE. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SITE LOCATION MAP, THIS IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED A SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CITY BOUNDARY. IF YOU'RE GETTING YOUR BEARINGS, THIS IS OUT ON THE BARRIER ISLAND. THIS IS PI WHOLE PIZZA. THAT'S THE LANDMARK FOR ME BUT IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, THIS IS BLUE HERON DRIVE. I BELIEVE IT'S A DRIVE. BLUE HERON BOULEVARD, I APOLOGIZE, AND THEN A1 A KIND OF GOES DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE MAP THERE. SO IF YOU ARE DRIVING BY PROBABLY MISS IT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. SO THE PARCEL CONTAINS 0.1 ACRES AND AS I KIND OF GOT YOU ORIENTED ON THE LAST SLIDE, IT IS AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE CITY LIMITS ON HUTCHISON ISLAND.

CURRENTLY WITH ST. LUCIE COUNTY, THE FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN. TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND IT IS ZONED HUTCHISON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THE PARCEL IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND CONTAINS NATURAL MANGROVES AND CURRENT TAXABLE PROPERTY VALUE IS APPROXIMATELY $27,860. SO I'M GLAD YOU ALL ARE REALLY THINKING ABOUT ANNEXATIONS TODAY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I HAVE A LOT TO TALK ABOUT. FIRST, BEFORE WE EVEN GET INTO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE HAVE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ANNEXATION IS ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE TO COME INTO THE CITY. THERE'S REALLY THREE TESTS THAT THE STATUTE, THAT I REFERENCED THERE, 171.44 FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS PROVIDES -- IT'S GOT TO BE COMPACT, REASONABLY COMPACT. IT MUST BE CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY AND IT MAY NOT CREATE AN ENCLAVE. IN THIS INSTANCE, STAFF BELIEVES EACH OF THESE TESTS ARE MET BECAUSE THE LOT IS A SINGLE LOT OF 1.9 ACRE -- I'M SORRY, .19 ACRES. IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BOUNDARY, THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY, AND THERE ARE NO

[00:35:02]

I WOULD SAY NEITHER ELIMINATES OR CREATES IRREGULARITIES. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE SERVICES COULD BE -- CAN BE IMPROVED THROUGH THIS ANNEXATION. THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. ALL DEPARTMENTS HAVE SUPPORTED THE ANNEXATION, GIVEN THE PROPERTY IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A SUBJECT SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY AND IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT WATER AND SEWER SERVICES PROVIDED BY FPUA, WHICH WOULD BE REGULATED BY BUILDING PERMITTING. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS ANNEXATION. ONE, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 171 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES OUTLINED AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. ALTERNATELY, THE BOARD MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. AND THAT IS MY

[00:40:06]

HAVE. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME PROPERTIES AROUND THERE WERE

ANNEXED INTO THE CITY? >> THAT'S A GREAT REST INTO

WHICH I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER. >> I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WE HAD AT LEAST ONE IN THAT IMMEDIATE AREA IN THE PAST YEAR, IF NOT MORE THAN THAT. PROBABLY JUST TO THE

NORTH, I IMAGINE. >> FEELS LIKE MAYBE, MAYBE NOT 10 YEARS AGO, BUT WEST OF BLUE HERON THERE'S A HOME ACTUALLY BUILT, BUT AGAIN, ALL THESE R 1S ARE -- IT'S JUST GREEN AND

THERE IS NO SECOND HOME. >> DID YOU HAVE A FOLLOW-UP TO

THAT QUESTION? >> I WAS JUST MORE CURIOUS THAN ANYTHING, LIKE WHAT YOU ALLUDED TO, THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE HOUSE

BUILT. >> YEAH.

>> I WOULD LIKE YOU TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE ELEMENTS

OF THE NONCONFORMING LOT. >> SURE.

>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A MECHANISM WITHIN THE REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR ANNEXATION OF NONCONFORMING LOTS. OBVIOUSLY IF THIS WAS A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY BEING PLATTED OUT UNDER THE CURRENT CODE, THEY WOULD HAVE TWO PLAT THOSE LOTS OUT TO MEET THESE R1 REQUIREMENTS. IS THERE -- IS IT NOT MORE APPROPRIATE TO ASSIGN IT DIFFERENT ZONING THAT THEY COULD CONFORM TO? WHAT IS THE BENEFIT OF MAINTAINING THE R1 ZONING AS OPPOSED TO FINDING DIFFERENT ZONES THAN THE LOT IN ITS EXISTING FORM WOULD CONFORM TO?

>> WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH DENSITY, OKAY? SECOND, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT THE R1 DISTRICT IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE SMALLER IF NOT THE SMALLEST LOT SIZE THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWING SO EVEN IF THERE WAS A SEARCH, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FIND ONE THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL FITS AND THAT GOES WITH SIZE AND WIDTH, THE NONCONFORMITIES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. DOES THAT

ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SIR? >> I THINK SO.

>> OBVIOUSLY ANY CONSTRUCTION WOULD STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE SETBACKS IN ALL DIRECTIONS SO THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD LESS HOUSE MAYBE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, CHAIR. >> DOES THE HUTCHISON ISLAND RESIDENCY DISTRICT FALL UNDER THE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE REST OF SOUTH BEACH OR IS IT INDEPENDENT?

>> I THINK I'M GOING TO SURROGATE THOSE. THERE'S AN OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT IS HUTCHISON ISLAND OVERLAY DISTRICT. WHAT OUR CODE SAYS IS THAT ANY TIME THAT THERE IS AN ANNEXATION IN THIS AREA, THAT BOUNDARY IS AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED. IN ORDER TO COVER OURSELVES, I'VE INCLUDED LANGUAGE TO EXTEND THAT HUTCHISON ISLAND DISTRICT BOUNDARY AND THE ACCEPTING ORDINANCE, AND I DON'T KNOW THE OTHER SIDE OF THE QUESTION, THOUGH.

>> I JUST DIDN'T KNOW HOW IT TIED IN WITH THE HUTCHISON ISLAND DISTRICT AND WILL IT BE ATTACHED OR CONGRUENT WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR THE REMAINING OF SOUTH BEACH?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'LL FIND IS THAT THE HUTCHISON ISLAND OVERLAY DISTRICT ACTUALLY HAS MORE REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT AS OPPOSED TO LOT AREAS. SO GIVEN AS SMALL AS IT IS, THE CONSTRUCTION WILL BE CONSTRAINED. THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GO TWO STORIES OR SO BUT THE R1 REGULATIONS AND THE HUTCHISON ISLAND REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A WHOLE LOT THAT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT WOULD AFFECT ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

>> THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION TO MAKE. I WAS NOT AWARE OF THAT, THAT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT IS AUTOMATICALLY ASSIGNED TO ANY ANNEXATIONS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.

>> ON THE ISLAND? YEAH. >> YOU SAID ON ALL OF THESE THAT ARE SIMILAR, ON THE NEXT FOUR ITEMS. THREE OF THEM ARE

[00:45:04]

>> THEY'RE SIMILAR. >> SAME OUTLIER.

>> THERE'S A REASON WHY THE PARTICULAR OF THE PARTICULAR ORDER OF THESE PETITIONS, BECAUSE WITHOUT THIS PARTICULAR ONE, THE NEXT ONE COULD NOT CONSIDERED, BECAUSE IT'S NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CITY BOUNDARY AND MUCH LIKE THE THIRD RESIDENTIAL LOT, BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE STREET, WHICH IS IN THIS AREA, I HAVE BETTER MAPS ON OTHER PRESENTATIONS BUT IF THIS IS NOT ACCEPTED THEN THAT OUTLIER TO THE SOUTH HERE, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE AND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME BUT THIS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE CONSIDERED WITHOUT THIS BEING CONSIDERED AND ACCEPTED FIRST. SO THERE'S A METHOD TO THE MADNESS AND I PROMISE YOU THE NEXT TIME THAT THE APPLICANT BRINGS IN APPLICATIONS, STAFF WILL BE WORKING WITH THEM MORE DIRECTLY TO HAVE ONE ANNEXATION AS

OPPOSED TO FOUR POINT >> SO IS IT -- DID THEY ALL FOLLOW THE COMMERCIAL TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SERVICES?

>> SERVICES, NO. THE -- AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE IS EXISTING WATER OUT ALONG A1A AS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE APPLICATIONS . FPUA HAS REVIEWED . THE APPLICATION HAS INDICATED YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SEWER. THERE'S A PLAN IN THE WORKS. I'LL LET THE APPLICANT DESCRIBED THAT TO EXTEND SEWER FOR ALL OF THESE LOTS SO THAT IS WHY IN THE FIRST CRITERIA THAT WE DISCUSSED, PROVIDING SERVICES AT EQUAL OR BETTER LEVELS IS ACTUALLY TRUE. WHEN WE HAVE WATER AND SEWER THAT OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WAS IN THE COUNTY PERHAPS AND IT WERE ALLOWED THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A SEPTIC SYSTEM, WHICH IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT ON A BARRIER ISLAND IN WETLAND CONDITIONS PURPOSE OF EXTENDING SEWER IS ALMOST NECESSARY. IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, ONE OF TWO WAYS. EITHER WE ANNEX IT AND THEY HAVE TO ATTACH TO SEWER AND WATER, OR THEY AGREE TO ATTACH TO WATER AND SEWER AND THEY GET ANNEXED. IT'S KIND OF THE CART AND THE HORSE BUT REGARDLESS, WE'VE BEEN ASSURED BY FPUA THAT THERE IS A PLAN TO PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE TO THESE LOTS.

REGARDLESS IF THEY'RE ANNEXED OR NOT, BUT WE WOULD RATHER SEE THEM IN

>> YES. >> AND THE USAGE ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE EVER BE CHANGED FOR UTILIZED FOR COMMERCIAL? IS THERE ANY OPTIONS FOR VARIANCES ON THE WESTERN SIDE?

>> I WILL SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THIS PARTICULAR LOT. I DO NOT WANT TO SPEAK MORE BROADLY TO THE LARGER AREA WEST . FIRST THERE'S ALWAYS THE OPPORTUNITY TO REZONE. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE LAND USE, YOU'RE GOING TO BE COLLARED ON WHAT YOU CAN INCREASE. I WOULD ALSO TELL YOU THAT JUST BECAUSE OF THE SIDE OF THE LOT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PHYSICAL LIMITATIONS ON WHAT CAN BE BUILT OUT THERE. FRANKLY IT'S GOING TO BE AN INTERESTING BUILDING PERMIT TO SEE A HOUSE ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT WITH THAT SMALL AN AREA . AND IT WOULD BE EVEN MORE INTERESTING IF IT WAS THE SEPTIC SYSTEM. THAT'S NOT IN THE CARDS. SO I THINK, YES, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY TO FILE A PETITION TO REZONE. WHETHER IT'S WISE OR NOT WILL DEPEND LARGELY ON OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND THE VOTES OF BOTH THE PLANNING

BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION. >> I HAVE AN OLDER VERSION OF THE USAGE TABLE IN HERE AND I'M LOOKING AT R1 . THERE'S A FAMILY DAY CARE HOME PERMITTED IN R1 AND THEN A BUNCH OF CONDITIONAL USES AND JUST STANDARD RESIDENTIAL. THIS MIGHT BE OUT OF DATE, THOUGH.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF?

>> NOT CURRENTLY. >> THERE ENOUGH. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD PLEASE, THE

APPLICANT FOR THIS IS HERE. >> IF YOU COULD COME FORWARD TO

[00:50:05]

HAVE BEEN . >> OKAY.

>> MY NAME IS TONY ACERRA. I AM CURRENTLY, AS YOU KNOW, TRYING TO ANNEX MY PROPERTIES INTO THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE AND IT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE A BUILDABLE LOT, CONFORMING LOT, AND I HAVE SPOKEN TO BO HUTCHISON , LOUIS DELLIS JUST SENT ME AN EMAIL AT 1:32 P.M. OUR ARRANGEMENT IS THAT HE'S GOING TO SET UP A FUNDING MECHANISM FOR US. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE -- HE'S GOING TO HOLD OUR MONEY IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT AND WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE FOR SHORELINE WHICH I BELIEVE IS GOING TO BE ABOUT LIKE ONE FOURTH THE COST OF A SEPTIC TANK, WHICH NOBODY WANTS ANYWAY, RIGHT? AND I GOT APPROVAL FROM PATRICIA KELLY AT FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE. HER WORDS,, QUOTE, OF COURSE I'LL APPROVE A SEWER LINE. IT'S A NO-BRAINER. BUT ONLY THE LOTS FRONTING A1A , OKAY? I HAD TWO PREVIOUS NSD YOUS WITH THE COUNTY BUT THEY WERE ASKING ME TO ANNEX -- I MEAN TO HAVE THE PEOPLE BEHIND US, YOU KNOW? I SAID I WAS ALWAYS TOLD THOSE LOTS WEREN'T BUILDABLE. SO BASICALLY THE WAY IT STANDS NOW, WE CAN ONLY HAVE PERMISSION TO BUILD ON A1A, ACCORDING TO FISH AND WILDLIFE, AND SHE ALSO SAID, ORIGINALLY THE CONFUSION WAS IT CAN'T BE FEDERAL MONEY, THIS FPUA, IT'S FUNDED PARTIALLY WITH FEDERAL MONEY. SHE SAID IT HAS TO BE PRIVATE MONEY, WHICH IT IS. THAT IS WHERE WE ARE SETTING UP AN ESCROW ACCOUNT WITH FPUA . THIS ATTORNEY IS GOING TO SEND SOMETHING OUT, WHICH WE SEND THE MONEY TO THEM, SO THE COST REALLY FOR EACH OF US, NOW MIND YOU, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO GET EVERYBODY TO DONATE, YOU KNOW ? IF NOT, I'M JUST GOING TO PUT THE MONEY IN MYSELF, WHATEVER DIFFERENCE IT IS. BUT IT SHOULD BE AS LITTLE AS $5000 OR $6000 A PIECE. I THINK THAT'S A BARGAIN, BECAUSE -- AND IT'S LIKE I SAID, IT'S GOOD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. WE DON'T -- I ORIGINALLY -- I DID ALL MY MITIGATION ALREADY WITH LORI HEISTER MEN AT THEIR POINT MITIGATION BANK I DID MY DEP WORK APPROVAL WITH DAVID WHITE AT THE DEP. I STARTED WITH MY STATE FOR FOUR PERMITS, A GENTLEMAN NAMED LOU, WHICH THEN I FOUND OUT THAT, AFTER YEARS OF WORKING ON LITERALLY ONE THIRD OF MY LIFE I WORKED ON THIS, ON AND OFF, THAT IT WAS A NONCONFORMING LOT IN THE COUNTY AND THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE A BUILDABLE LOT IS TO ANNEX IT TO THE CITY OF FT. PIERCE. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. SO

-- >> SO IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING THAT IS AN ISSUE? I HOPE NOT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL FOUR INDIVIDUALLY BUT CHRIS, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY VALUE IN -- KNOWING EXACTLY, LOOKING AT NUMBER TWO, NUMBER THREE, NUMBER FOUR, AND I SEE YOU COMING BACK UP ENOUGH WITH THE FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA, I BELIEVE. ARE YOU ON THE AGENDA AGAIN? TODAY?

>> MR. ACERRA REPRESENTS ALL FOUR APPLICATIONS.

>> I'M REPRESENTING ALL FOUR. I TOOK LOT NUMBER 10 AND 14 IS MINE, ON LOT NUMBER 11 IS A FRIEND OF MINE, JOHN ALBERTI'S, AND I LITERALLY, TO MAKE THIS WORK, I PAID OVER $2900 FOR THE LOT ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY LOT 14, FOWLER AND MURRAY LOT

[00:55:03]

CITY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AT THIS TIME I WOULD TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEE NONE, I'LL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> ONCE UTILITY SERVICES ARE HERE, DOES THIS NOW ALLOW OR OPEN UP ALL OF THE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE AT LEAST ALONG A1A TO START TO ANNEX THEM AND UTILIZE THE SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED?

>> I UNDERSTAND AND I REALLY WISH I HAD A BETTER MAP, BUT IF YOU COULD SEE MY CURSOR, THAT LITTLE LOT IS THE LAST LOT UNDER CONSIDERATION. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE SEWER WOULD BE EXTENDED TO THAT POINT AND WOULD BE OPEN FOR ANYBODY TO HAVE INAUDIBLE ] TO ONCE IT'S BUILT. SO WHAT YOU'LL SEE -- I'M GOING TO TRY AND GET A BETTER MAP BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT DOWN TO HERE, RIGHT? AND THEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS CORNER LOT, SO WE'VE GOT TWO IN BETWEEN THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE SEWER SERVICE ONCE THIS SEWER LINE IS BUILT. SO YES, THAT WILL ALLOW THEM TO BE ANNEXED IN. I'M NOT SURE IF MR. ACERRA IS WORKING WITH THOSE INDIVIDUALS OR NOT, BUT ALL THESE LOTS THAT ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF A1A THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE CITY, WOULD BE ALLOWED TO TAP ON TO THAT LINE AND HAVE SOME FORM OF SEWER

SERVICE BASED ON FPUA POLICIES. >> NOW HOW ABOUT THE COUNTY PARCELS THAT SIT CHECKERBOARD WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAYS HERE? BECAUSE THERE'S MULTIPLE BACK RIGHT AGAINST THESE THAT WE ARE

CURRENTLY LOOKING AT. >> ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THESE

OVER HERE? >> I'M ASSUMING JUST TO THE LEFT OF YOUR CURSOR IS A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THAT'S THE NEXT UNDERSTAND THAT THE HISTORY OF THIS GOES BACK TO THE LANDFILL.

THIS SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE NONCONFORMANCE, RIGHT? FOR WHATEVER REASON, ROADS HAVE NOT BEEN BUILT OUT THERE, RIGHT? SO DOES THE CHECKERBOARD -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO EXTEND SERVICE UNLESS FPUA GOT AN EASEMENT THROUGH ONE OF THESE LOTS AS PART OF THEIR AGREEMENT, TO BE ABLE TO SERVICE THESE LOTS. SECOND, THESE LOTS WOULD NEED TO BUILD A ROAD IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCESS, WHICH IS COST PROHIBITIVE. DID I MENTION THAT THIS WAS ALL MANGROVES? SO THERE'S SOME PERMITTING THAT MR. ACERRA ALERTED TO, THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT WHITE AS AMBITIOUS, PROBABLY WOULD SAY I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. SO THERE'S POSSIBILITY, BUT AS FAR AS WHAT I SEE RIGHT NOW, THERE'S SOME PERMITTING HURDLES AND SOME COST PROHIBITIONS TO BEING ABLE TO

OPEN UP ANYTHING BEYOND A1A. >> ANYTHING ELSE, MR. JOHNSON?

>> WHY IS THERE ONLY A DEP LETTER FOR ONE OF THE LOT AND

NOT POTENTIALLY ALL OF THEM? >> GREAT QUESTION. THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS DEP APPROVAL. THE OTHER LOTS WOULD NEED TO OBTAIN THAT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A BUILDING PERMIT, AND IF

[01:00:03]

>> THE OTHER LOTS? >> YES OR.

>> I'M GOING TO -- FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S ALL THESE LOTS ARE ALREADY FT. PIERCE AND PIERCE WHICH NUMBER NINE, I SPOKE TO THE GENTLEMAN, IS OUT OF ALL THESE LOTS, NOW FRONTING A1A , MIND YOU, THERE'S ONLY 10 LOTS THAT ARE COUNTY LOTS. ALL THE REST ALL THE WAY UP TO BLUE HERON BOULEVARD ARE ALL FOR PIERCE LOTS SO BY ANNEXING R 4, THAT ONLY LEAVES SIX COUNTY LOTS REMAINING. SO THE EVENTUAL THING PEOPLE WANT TO SEE, THAT IT IS POSSIBLE, NUMBER ONE, THAT I CAN ACTUALLY, WE CAN ACTUALLY GET THIS ANNEXED. WE CAN HAVE CONFORMING LOTS AND THEY WILL MOVE ON TO ANNEX THEIRS. SO AFTER -- IF APPROVED FOUR LOTS, THAT WOULD ONLY LEAVE SIX MORE LOTS IN THIS WHOLE SUBDIVISION, SURFSIDE HARBOR SUBDIVISION TO BE ANNEXED AND I WOULD MAKE, I THINK, CONFORM THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION INTO ALL BECAUSE I WAS AT A MEETING HERE, WATER ADJUSTMENT MEETING AND IT'S FUNNY, A BUILDER WAS BUILDING APARTMENT BUILDINGS SOMEWHERE IN TOWN AND HE WAS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM WHEN WE HAVE LOTS, SOME COUNTY LOTS, SOME CITY LOTS, AND THE GENTLEMAN, I DON'T KNOW HIS NAME, OLDER GENTLEMAN WITH GRAY HAIR, HE SAID THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING ISSUE, WE HAVE LOTS, SOME ARE COUNTY, SOME ARE CITY, DIFFERENT ORDINANCE, SO DIFFERENT RULINGS. SO THIS WOULD -- WAS TRYING TO CONFORM THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION AND IT WOULD MAKE IT A LOT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY TO BUILD. LIKE LOT NUMBER NINE, THE WHEN I'M ANNEXING TO, HE ANNEXED IN 2007 WITH ACTUALLY IT'S A CITY ORDINANCE K438 ALLOWED HIM TO DO THAT AND HE SAID -- HE ACTUALLY -- A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF MONEY INVESTED IN THIS LAND. HE PAID $200,000 FOR HIS LOT AND HE ORIGINALLY BOUGHT HERE FOR HIS SON . IT'S GOING TO BE A GIFT FOR HIS SON TO GET STARTED IN LIFE. HE SOLD HIS LOT FOR $11,000 BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WANT TO BURDEN HIS SON, HIS WORDS, I DIDN'T WANT TO BURDEN MY SON WITH THE BUREAUCRACY AND RED TAPE .SO IT IS A VERY CONFUSING THING TO GET DONE BUT IT'S POSSIBLE. I DID MY DEP WORK, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ELSE DID. BECAUSE THESE LOTS HAVE BEEN LITERALLY THERE FOR 75 YEARS. THE GRANDSON OF THE GUY WHO DID THE ORIGINAL PLOT PLAN OWNS ONE OF THOSE LOTS. HE HAS HIS GRANDFATHER'S ORIGINAL PLOT PLANS FROM THE '50S, 1950. SO IT HAS BEEN -- IT'S BEEN VERY CONFUSING AND FOR ME, WHEN I STARTED, I ORIGINALLY TRIED TO GET THE SEWER LINE FROM THE COUNTY BUT THE COST WENT FROM -- AND IT'S A MILE AND A HALF DOWN THE ROAD, RIGHT UP BLUE HERON AT THE TIME, WAS 1.5 MILLION. BY THE TIME I WENT THROUGH A TWO-YEAR -- WAITING FOR TWO YEARS WITH MSB YOU, THE PRICE WENT UP TO $4.5 MILLION AND THEY SAID OUR LAND IS NOT WORTH ENOUGH TO DO THAT. SO I WAS ALWAYS TOLD THAT WE WERE NEVER ALLOWED TO BRING THE SEWER LINE SOUTH FROM BLUE HERON. THOSE ARE INSTALLED WITH FEDERAL MONEY.

BUT THEN PIE HOLE PIZZA, OTIS, I KNOW HIM, HE WAS ABLE TO DO IT.

IT'S PRETTY MUCH A STONES THROW RIGHT UP THE ROAD. WE ONLY HAVE TO GO 800 FEET TO MY LOT 14 SO -- I TALKED TO FPUA, THEY SAID WELL IT CAN'T BE FEDERAL MONEY, WHICH AGAIN, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'RE DOING ALL PRIVATE MONEY. WE ARE JUST GOING TO RAISE $5000 OR $6000 A PIECE AND THEN FPUA IS GOING TO HOLD IT IN ESCROW. AND IT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.

>> THANK YOU. >> JUST TO FOLLOW-UP, OUR ANNEXATION APPLICATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE DEP SUBMITTALS. MR. ACERRA PROVIDED THAT TO SHOW HIS INTENT WHEN ASKED TO SEE US.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> ALL RIGHT, WELL HEARING THE WEATHER COMMENTS, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME

FOR ITEM 78, ANNEXATION. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

[01:05:07]

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MR. COLLINS, SECOND BY MR. EDWARDS . PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MS. CLEMENTS. >> YES.

[b. PZANN2025-00008 Annexation Alberti Property Parcel ID: 2413-501-0155-000-3]

>> MR. COLLINS. >> YES MA'AM.

>> MR. WHITING. >> YES.

>> MR. JOHNSON. >> NO.

>> MR. EDWARDS. >> YES.

>> CHAIR KREISL. >> YES .

>> MOTION PASSES. >> ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO NUMBER 7 B. SINCE WE HAVE -- YOU'RE SAYING WE BASICALLY HAVE THE SAME APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE FOR ITEMS B, C

AND D, IS THAT CORRECT >>

>> YES SIR. >> OKAY, SO LET'S SEE WHAT YOU

GOT. >> OKAY. VERY QUICKLY, PC ANNEXATION 2025-0008. THIS IS ALBERTI PROPERTY VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AT OR NEAR 2825 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE . YOU WILL SEE FROM OUR LOCATION MAP THAT THIS IMMEDIATELY ADJOINS THE PARCEL THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED THAT IS OWNED BY MR. ACERRA. OUR APPLICANT TODAY IS JOHN ALBERTI, REPRESENTED BY TONY ACERRA, REPRESENTED BY PARCEL I.D. THERE. QUICKLY, SAME SIZE, SAME PROPERTY VALUE. SAME STATUTORY ELIGIBILITY. SAME REASON MINUS THE FACT THAT BEFORE I GIVE THIS -- OR BEFORE -- WHEN I MADE THIS PRESENTATION, THE RECOMMENDATION HADN'T BEEN MADE TO ANNEX OR PREVENT APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. SO THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE TEST IS MET FOR ADJACENCY TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ACERRA PROPERTY WE JUST DISCUSSED . I WILL QUICKLY GO THROUGH THE LAND-USE. IT IS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND THE PROPOSED IS RESIDENTIAL LOW. AS YOU SEE, THE WEST SIDE OF A1A IS ALL RESIDENTIAL LOW. CURRENTLY THAT'S INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS SO THAT HIS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON THE LAND-USE DESIGNATION. CURRENTLY THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS AND AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING R1 SINGLE-FAMILY LOW-DENSITY ZONE. YOU SEE THERE ON THE EXISTING ZONING MAP , THOSE PROPERTIES WEST OF A1A CONTINUE TO BE R1 . AGAIN, THE LAND-USE ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT A MAXIMUM OF ONE DWELLING UNIT MAY BE PERMITTED REGARDLESS OF THE LAND-USE FROM THE COUNTY FOR THE CITY SO THERE'S NO INCREASE OR DECREASE IN DENSITY. THE SAME NONCONFORMITIES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO -- WOULD BE -- OR HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR THIS PARCEL AND THEY'RE RELATIVELY THE SAME SIZE. HOWEVER, THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO BE -- WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE LOT DUE TO THE SECTION 125.70 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AGAIN, WE DO MEET -- WE MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE ANNEXATION REVIEW AND AGAIN, IT NEITHER CREATES OR ELIMINATES ENCLAVES OR IRREGULARITIES AND DOESN'T IMPROVE SERVICE DELIVERY IT.

AGAIN, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ANNEXATION PETITION, GIVEN THE PROPERTY IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A SEPTIC SYSTEM, IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO WATER AND SEWER SERVICES PROVIDED BY FPUA, WHICH WOULD BE REGULATED BY BUILDING PERMIT . STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE -- WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION BECAUSE IT CONSISTENT WITH STATUTE 171.44. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN POLICIES IDENTIFIED. THIS DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR GENERAL WELFARE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE BOARD TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND

DISAPPROVAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALICIA, FOR THE RECORD, MR. EDWARDS I BELIEVE, IS THAT A PERSONAL? I DO NOT EXPECT HIM TO RETURN. WE SHOULD STILL HAVE A QUORUM. I THINK WE CAN CONTINUE.

>> YES, THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO ASSUME WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS

[01:10:04]

>> I GOT ONE. AT OR NEAR ALL FOUR OF THESE APPLICATIONS, THEY'RE USING THE SAME AT OR NEAR 2528 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE.

WHERE ABOUT -- OBVIOUSLY IT'S ABOUT WHERE THESE PARCELS ARE BUT YOU SEE THIS LITTLE SCAR OF LAND THAT I'M HOVERING OVER? THAT IS THE LAST ADDRESS POINT WE HAVE SO THAT'S 28 25.

>> AND THAT WAS MY NEXT POINT, THAT THE WESTSIDE IS -- I THINK THOSE ARE EVEN NUMBERS AND EXCUSE ME, THE EASTSIDE IS EVEN NUMBERS IN THE WESTSIDE IS ODD NUMBERS.

>> YOU EXPLAINED IT, CHRIS. THAT'S THE CLOSEST.

>> IT IS THE LAST ADDRESS POINT THAT WE HAVE ON RECORD FOR THIS

AREA. IT'S APPROXIMATELY -- >> IT WAS DESCRIBED FROM BLUE HERON. DENNIS SAID DON'T DO THAT SO I FOLLOWED HIS ADVICE.

>> JUST FOR REFERENCE, DO YOU HAVE OR CAN YOU BRING UP SOMETHING THAT SHOWS WHERE THE FPUA SERVICE BOUNDARY DOES EXTEND TO? I ASSUME THAT'S SOMEWHAT SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY.

>> SOMEWHAT SOUTH OF THIS. THE REFERENCE I HAVE RIGHT OFF WOULD

BE THE LAST PRESENTATION. >> DOES THE ZONING MAP SHOW IT?

THE INTERACTIVE ZONING MAP? >>

>> LET ME GET THIS A LITTLE BIT FOR YOU GUYS.

>> YET, SO WE ARE CURRENTLY UP IN THIS AREA. OH YEAH. AND THE BOUNDARY GOES WELL BEYOND THE POWER PLANT, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE COUNTY LINE ON SOUTH HUTCHISON ISLAND.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. WE ALREADY HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT. THERE'S NOTHING FOR ME THAT I THINK I NEED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS THOUGHT OF ANY QUESTIONS IN THE LAST COUPLE MINUTES. SO AT THIS TIME I WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IF THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 7 B, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SIMON, I'LL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN

A MOTION. >> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. CLEMENTS, SECOND BY MR. COLLINS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. COLLINS. >> YES MA'AM.

>> MR. WHITING. >> YES.

>> MR. JOHNSON. >> NO .

[c. PZANN2025-00009 Annexation Fowler/Murray Property Parcel ID: 2413-501-0102-000-7]

>> MS. CLEMENTS. >> YES.

>> CHAIR KREISL. >> YES .

>> MOTION PASSES. >> ALL RIGHT. ITEM 7 C,

ANNEXATION. LET'S GO AGAIN. >> ALL RIGHT. TODAY OUR NEXT ITEM IS PC ANNEXATION 2025-0007. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. THIS IS THE ALBERTI ONE POINT THIS IS THE WRONG ONE, SORRY. I'VE GOT TO GET YOU ON THAT. TRULY THE APPLICATION UNDER CONSIDERATION ON ITEM C IS PC ANNEXATION 2025 0009. IT'S THE FOWLER MARIE PROPERTY, VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AT OR NEAR 2528 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THIS IS A MUCH LARGER PARCEL THEN HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF A1A . THE PARCEL CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 1.42 ACRES AND OUR LAND USE AND ZONING IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT ON THIS. THE STATUTORY ELIGIBILITY'S, NOW THIS IS WHERE CARDS STARTED TO FALL AS FAR AS PROXIMITY AND WHERE THINGS CAN CROSS BUT THIS PARCEL IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CITY BOUNDARY. IT'S REASONABLY COMPACT AT 1.42 ACRES OF LAND AREA AND ANNEXING WOULD NOT CREATE AN ENCLAVE. WITH REGARD TO LAND-USE PLAN POLICIES, THERE IS KIND OF A MIXED LAND USE AND ZONING ON THIS BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT HAS BEEN CONSOLIDATED OVER TIME. SO THE EASTERN PORTION, NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF

[01:15:05]

WITH REGARD TO ZONING, AGAIN, SPLIT ZONING FROM THE COUNTY, JUST NORTH AND EAST PORTION, HALF, IF YOU WILL, OF THE PARCEL IS HUTCHISON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND THEN THAT PORTION THAT'S WESTWARD AND TOWARDS A1A'S GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE PROPOSED ZONING TO BE GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3, AND AGAIN, THAT IS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 11.5 OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT SAID, WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE CALCULUS ON THIS ONE. BY ANNEXING INTO THE CITY, WE ARE ACTUALLY DECREASING THE ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE LAND-USE PLAN FROM THE COUNTY. CURRENTLY IT IS ALLOWED MAXIMUM DENSITY OF FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S ABOUT .71 ACRES. THAT WOULD ALLOW THREE UNITS TO BE BUILT WITH THE COMMERCIAL PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, .71 ACRES AND A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 2.5 UNDER THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD ABOUT 77,500 SQUARE FEET BY ANNEXING IN THE CITY AND PLACING THIS PROPERTY ENTIRELY IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

YOU WOULD BE LIMITED TO 61,855 SQUARE FEET, WHICH REPRESENTS A DECREASE OF ABOUT 15,500 SQUARE FEET, OR A DECREASE OF THREE POTENTIAL UNITS AS WELL. AGAIN, STAFF'S ANALYSIS ON THE REVIEW CRITERIA LAID OUT IN THE COMP PLAN HAVE NOT REALLY CHANGED, AND AGAIN THIS WOULD IMPROVE SERVICE DELIVERY AS WELL.

EVERYBODY HAS REVIEWED THIS IN TECHNICAL REVIEW, HAVE SUPPORTED IT, GIVEN THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOW ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY AND IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO WATER AND SEWER SERVICES PROVIDED BY FPUA, WHICH WOULD BE REGULATED BY BUILDING PERMITTING AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE BOARD ANNEXATION BECAUSE OF ITS CONSISTENCY WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 171.44, CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN POLICIES IDENTIFIED AND BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE BOARD MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. AND I AM AT YOUR SERVICE WITH QUESTIONS.

>> ANY NEW QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> JUST UP THE ROAD, HIGH WHOLE, IS THAT A CG? YOU KNOW --

>> PIE HOLE IS APPROXIMATELY HERE AND YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S THE LAND-USE, EXCUSE ME. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, PIE HOLE IS JUST

ABOUT HERE AND IS C-3. >> SO WHEN YOU DESCRIBE THE CURRENT COUNTY ZONING AS SPLIT ZONING, IS THAT KIND OF DUAL ZONING THAT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OR DO THEY

ACTUALLY SPLIT IT IN HALF? >> I THINK WHAT HAS OCCURRED OVER TIME IS THAT IN THE PAST THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF THESE SMALLER LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN A SYMBOL AND FOR TAX PURPOSES HAVE JUST GENERALLY CREATED ONE LARGE LOT. SO I THINK FROM THE COUNTY'S END, THAT INWARD PORTION, I SAY INWARD, THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE WHEREAS SOMETHING ALONG A1A IS MORE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE AND I JUST DON'T THINK THEY GOT AROUND TO CHANGING ANY USE PLAN ON THEIR ZONING MAP BECAUSE OF THEIR CONSOLIDATION OF THE LOTS.

>> JUST INTERESTED, I'VE NOT SEEN THAT BEFORE.

>> WE'VE ACTUALLY COME ACROSS A COUPLE OF THESE IN THE CITY WHERE WE'VE HAD SPLIT ZONING LIKE THIS OR SPLIT LAND-USE. WE

ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS THAT. >> OKAY.

>> NOW THIS WILL NOT BE OUT OF THE HUTCHISON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BECAUSE IT'S COMMERCIAL, AM I CORRECT?

>> NO MA'AM. ACTUALLY THE OVERLAY DISTRICT DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. IT IS AN OVERLAY

[01:20:02]

DISTRICT FOR THE WHOLE ISLAND. >> THE CITY ZONING?

>> THE CITY'S OVERLAY DISTRICT.

>> THE CITY. WOULD THIS ONE STILL BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME

HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS? >> IT WOULD, HOWEVER, IT WOULD BE COMMERCIAL HEIGHT AS OPPOSED TO RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT. AND I

DON'T KNOW -- >> I CAN GO FOR YOU REAL QUICK

IF YOU GIVE ME JUST A SEC. >> RESIDENTIAL SITE 28.

>> YEAH, SOMETHING -- >> THE HEIGHT IN THE C-3 DISTRICT, THE HEIGHT LIMITATION IS 65.

>> OKAY. >> THIS PARCEL HAS TO BE BROUGHT IN TO DO THE SERVICES, CORRECT?

>> THIS WOULD BE -- AGAIN, THE SERVICE EXTENSION OF THE SEWER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WOULD COME TO ABOUT HERE SO THIS IS -- THIS WOULD BE REALLY THE SOUTHEASTERLY MOST EXTENSION OF THE CITY'S BOUNDARY BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF A1 A AND THIS REPRESENTS THE LAST PARCEL THAT WOULD

AFFECT ON THE WESTSIDE. >> SO IN ORDER FOR THE LAST PROPERTY TO BE ANNEXED IN, THIS ONE HAS TO BE ANNEXED IN?

>> THAT'S CORRECT . >> BECAUSE IT'S ACROSS THE

STREET? >> EXACTLY.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC. IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION, ITEM 7 C, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEE NONE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN

A MOTION. >> YOU SEEM HESITANT ON THIS ONE. ARE WE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. THIS OPENS UP 65 FEET BUILDING

CAPABILITY FOR TWO PARCELS. >> THAT SEEMED CORRECT. THE HIGH

IS 45 FEET. >> THREE STORIES?

>> MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS FOUR STORIES, 45 FEET. THEY'RE A NUMBER BECAUSE IT'S A COMMERCIAL. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS ALSO APPLIED TO THAT. YEAH.

>> CAN A MAP BE EXTENDED TO SHOW WHAT ELSE IS COMMERCIAL IN THIS

AREA? >> THIS IS OUR SUBJECT PARCEL.

THIS IS PIE HOLE PETE'S. WHAT ELSE IS COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA? SO -- COMMERCIAL EXTENDS FROM THE SUBJECT PARCEL ALL THE WAY TO PIE HOLE PIZZA AND THEN IS OPEN SPACE.

>> LUCIE COUNTY ZONING. UNDER THE COUNTY'S MAP, SOUTH OF HERE WOULD ALSO BE COMMERCIAL. EXTENDING OUT MORE BROADLY, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL ENCLAVE. THIS IS LARGELY RESIDENTIAL, AS WE GO

[01:25:05]

MASSING OF COMMERCIAL LAND USE. >> SO UPON BRINGING THIS SITE IN, NOW THEY CAN OFFER TO BRING IN THE NEXT COUNTY SITE, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO IT, TO THE SOUTH?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, MR. JOHNSON?

>> LOTS OF QUESTIONS. >> ASK THEM.

>> WE GAIN FROM BRINGING THESE INTO THE CITY? THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST ONES THAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND.

>> I THINK FROM A RESIDENTIAL POINT OF VIEW, THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET, THEY GAIN THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT A HOUSE. I UNDERSTAND MR. ACERRA WOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO TELL YOU BETTER, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE COUNTY IS NOT ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOMES IN THIS AREA, IN THESE PARTICULAR LOTS. SO THEY GAIN THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY USE THE PROPERTY THEY INVESTED A LOT OF MONEY IN.

>> SO SIMILAR TO PREVIOUS ITEMS WE'VE HAD COME UP, BECAUSE THEY'RE A NONCONFORMING LOT WHERE THEY DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, IS WHY WE ARE POTENTIALLY DOING THIS, IN THE REGARDS OF WHY ASK ABOUT THE DEP, THAT CUT OFF 20% OF THAT LOT TO NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD ON. ARE YOU GOING TO POTENTIALLY HAVE THIS ON ALL OF THESE AND ARE THEY GOING TO START ADJOINING LOTS, EVEN TALKED ABOUT HOW IT'S MANGROVES BEHIND IT. IS THIS GOING TO BE WITH GIVEN RIGHT AWAY, NOW YOU ARE OPENING UP BUILDING TO GO TO THAT BECAUSE IT IS A LONG THE WATER. THIS IS WHERE MONEY IS GOING TO BE SPENT FOR THESE

ITEMS. >> THAT'S SEVERAL QUESTIONS.

>> I HAVE LOTS OF QUESTIONS. >> WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT, TO WHICH I DO NOT HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL AND I'M REALLY NOT QUALIFIED TO ANSWER. I CAN SPECULATE BUT YOU'VE HEARD MY RESPONSES WITH REGARD TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE RESIDENTIAL APPLICATIONS.

YOU KNOW, FIRST AND FOREMOST, JUST THE CONSTRUCTIBILITY OF A ROAD THROUGH A MANGROVE ON HYDRIC SOILS IS JUST DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE, AND ONE THAT, I BELIEVE WE HEARD 75 YEARS OF PLANNING, HAS NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. SO THERE MUST BE SOME REASON THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT EXACTLY THAT IS BUT ROADS HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT OUT HERE EXCEPT FOR A1A, RIGHT? AND AGAIN, A LESS AMBITIOUS PERSON THAN MR. ACERRA MAY NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING REQUIRED WITH THE DEP AND THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS, AND THE MITIGATION OF THE WETLAND'S, IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A HOME IN THESE PARTICULAR AREAS. SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY INHERENT BARRIERS TO ONE, DEVELOPMENT HIM THE LOTS UNDER CONSIDERATION, BUT ALSO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT UNDER THOSE UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE COMPLETELY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION OR ALLAYED YOUR CONCERNS BUT I HOPE I'VE GIVEN YOU MORE INFORMATION THAN

BEFORE. >> IS THIS POTENTIALLY OCCURS, THERE'S LOTS WITHIN THE CITY THAT ARE ALONG A1A . DOES THIS OPEN UP THE SERVICES FOR EVERYTHING FROM HERE NORTH TO

SAY, COCONUT? >> I WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE SOUTH SIDE OF COCONUT, WHICH HASN'T BEEN BUILT FOR THE LAST

75 YEARS -- >> I WOULD TELL YOU THIS -- THESE R1 LOTS THAT DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE SEWER SERVICE ARE BEING OPENED UP TO BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE SEWER IS GOING TO BE THERE WHEN THEY DECIDE HOW THEY'RE GOING TO FUND IT. I THINK YOU WOULD ALSO FIND THAT, BECAUSE AS I UNDERSTAND IT,

[01:30:02]

THERE. >> QUESTION, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, SCROLL UP TO COCONUT A LITTLE BIT. A LITTLE BIT MORE.

A LITTLE BIT MORE. RIGHT THERE. THERE YOU GO.

>> AND IF WE COULD SCROLL BACK DOWN TO THE SUBJECT. NOW THE FIRST -- ALL OF THAT, I'LL CALL IT PINK. THE C3 IS ALL THE WAY DOWN. THE FIRST TWO, IF I'M RIGHT, THOSE ARE PIE HOLE, BOTH

OF THOSE. >> PIE HOLE ACTUALLY GOES A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BECAUSE -- I DON'T KNOW WHY BUT THEY'RE IN THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THEY'RE ON THIS ADJACENT LOT AS WELL BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THERE PARKING LOT.

>> I GUESS I'LL SAY A COUPLE THINGS. NUMBER ONE IS PIE HOLE USED TO BE A SERVICE STATION, A GAS STATION, LITERALLY IN THE 70S, EARLY 80S, AND IT FINALLY SHUT DOWN AND PROBABLY SHUT DOWN FOR 35 YEARS'S. AND IT'S VERY POPULAR. IT'S INTERESTING.

IT'S A SIDE ISSUE BUT ANYTHING GOING FURTHER SOUTH, I SEE TWO LOTS DEEP. NOT ANY FURTHER SOUTH, JUST WITH THE EYE, JUST BELOW PIE HOLE, THE C3S ARE TOO DEEP SO I GUESS I'M PERSONALLY LESS CONCERND WITH THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOW SPLIT AND WE ARE GOING TO MOVE, IF WE VOTE POSITIVELY, TO MOVE THAT TO COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT IT'S ALREADY EXISTING IN A

LOT OF OTHER SPOTS. >> WELL FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE RATIONALIZATION TO ANNEX, YOU KNOW, MY PRIMARY CONCERN, AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IS THAT WE ARE EXECUTING SOME SORT OF CONGRUENT PLAN BUT , YOU KNOW, I DO SEE AN ADVANTAGE. I SHARE MR. JOHNSON'S APPREHENSION WITH DEVELOPMENT GOING ON ON THE ISLAND, BUT WHAT I AM SEEING HERE IS A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS WITH THEM AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S PROBABLY IMPEDIMENTS IN PLACE WITH THE COUNTY THAT'S JUST MAKING IT SO DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE THOSE RULES WON'T CHANGE. WHEN I SEE THE PROSPECT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT I'M LEERY OF, I'D RATHER KEEP IT CLOSER TO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SAY OUR CONTROL BUT OUR INPUT, AND YOU KNOW, FOR THAT REASON I'M NOT APPREHENSIVE ABOUT ANNEXATION BECAUSE AT LEAST THEN WE KNOW THAT IF SOMETHING GETS BUILT IT WILL BE BUILT IN A WAY THAT WILL BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION. YOU KNOW WE HAVE -- THIS BOARD HAS NO CONTROL OVER WHAT THEY DO AT THE COUNTY LEVEL. SO SEEING THIS PATCHWORK OF THIS HOPSCOTCH GAME OF CITY AND COUNTY PROPERTIES ALONG A1A, SPECIFICALLY ON THE WEST, IT'S CLEAR WHAT THE TREND IS AND EITHER THERE'S A MASTER PLAN OR NOT. SOMETHING IS BEING TEED UP AND AT SOME POINT WE COULD VERY EASILY SEE HOMES POPPING UP ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE YELLOW PROPERTIES. 90% OF THAT IS ALREADY SET IN STONE AND YOU KNOW I'M NOT REALLY SURE THAT THERE'S MUCH REASON FOR US TO BE APPREHENSIVE ABOUT CLOSING THE LOOP OF WHAT'S ALREADY THERE. I SEE THE

[01:35:14]

>> I AM HARD OF HEARING. TOO MANY YEARS OF HARD LABOR.

>> I CAN SEE YOU AT THE PODIUM SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK WE'LL LET YOU SPEAK BUT IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS ANY SPECIFIC COMMENTS OR CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE BOARD.

>> DOMAIN -- >> MR. ACERRA, EXCUSE ME, CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN FOR THE RECORD?

>> SURE, SORRY. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE LOT ACROSS, MY LOT 14?

>> THE ONE ITEM WE ARE STILL DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW IS THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ISLAND.

>> WHAT IS THE ISSUE WITH THAT? WHAT IS THE CONCERN?

>> I THINK MR. JOHNSON VOICED SOME CONCERNS.

>> SO A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ARE HOW ARE THE COMMERCIAL

PROPERTIES ADJOINING? >> HOW ARE THEY ADJOINING?

>> CORRECT. >> WILL BE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES -- WE ESTABLISHED THAT THE RESIDENTIAL IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF A1A . THE COMMERCIAL ON THE EAST SIDE, RIGHT? NOW WHEN YOU SAY COMMERCIAL, I KNOW WHEN I WAS SEARCHING IT ALWAYS SAID LIKE MULTI FAMILY. YOU CONSIDER THAT THE SAME THING, MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL, THE SAME THING?

>> EVERYTHING FROM FROM PIE HOLE SOUTH IS COMMERCIAL.

>> NOW AGAIN, WHEN IT SAYS MULTI FAMILY, ARE YOU CONSIDERING THAT COMMERCIAL OR IS THAT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?

>> TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. >> TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I THOUGHT THE FOWLER LOT WAS CONSIDERED A MULTI FAMILY.

THERE'S -- I THINK IT WAS RS 4 I THINK OR RS 11, BECAUSE WE ARE RESIDENTIAL, RS 1, ON THE WEST SIDE? BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN I WAS LOOKING UP THOSE PROPERTIES, I THOUGHT THERE WAS MULTIFAMILY.

>> WHAT WAS THE PROPOSED ZONING? WAS IT C3, CORRECT?

>> C3, THERE WE GO. >> LET ME SCROLL DOWN. SCROLL

DOWN. >> AGAIN LOOKING AT MY USAGE TABLE, GROUP LIVING, COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL HOME OR CONDITION USES. C3. MULTI DWELLING BUILDING. THAT WOULD BE A CONDITIONAL USE. AGAIN, THIS IS THE TABLE FROM 2023.

>>

>> SO YOU KNOW, SO FOR EXAMPLE LIKE IN A C1 YOU COULD DO A DETACHED HOUSE, A DUPLEX OR A TOWNHOUSE, BUT THOSE WOULD BE ALL CONDITIONAL USES. SO EVEN A MULTI DWELLING BUILDING WOULD STILL BE A CONDITIONAL USE. IT WOULD STILL COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD, AS OPPOSED TO A PERMITTED USE, LIKE A MIXED USE OR A TYPICAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

>> THESE ARE VERY GOOD LANDS SO ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WOULD COME BACK BEFORE THE BOARD. I BELIEVE THEY CAN DEFINITELY -- IT WOULD BE A MAJOR SITE PLAN THAT THE

BOARD WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY OVER. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE IN THE WEEDS ON THIS ONE. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? AGAIN, WE ARE STILL ON ITEM 7 C.

>> I THINK WE'VE ALL SEEN VIRTUALLY NO DEVELOPMENT FOR -- I CAN'T SAY HOW MANY DECADES THAT SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO STEP

[01:40:06]

ENCOURAGING. >> I'M NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S MY PROFESSION. BUT THE SAME TOKEN, THIS IS 90% MANGROVES. ARE WE GOING TO IMPLEMENT POTENTIALLY AND PUT IN MORE LANDSCAPING, GO BACK TO OFFSET THE BURDEN OR THE LOSS?

>> THAT IS REGULATED UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AS OPPOSED TO LOCAL REGULATIONS. THERE IS -- WHENEVER A WETLAND IS DISTURBED, MITIGATION IS REQUIRED BUT I'M NOT EXPERT ON THAT SO YES. FURTHER REMOVAL OF MANGROVES ARE REGULATED BY DEP AS WELL AND SO, AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S A LOT OF PERMITTING THAT'S PROBABLY PRECLUDED A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE PEOPLE STARTED SEEING NUMBERS, DOLLARS.

>> ARE YOU MORE CONCERNED ABOUT STUFF BEHIND IT BEING DEVELOPED?

IS THAT YOUR THOUGHTS? >> PIE HOLE IS SITTING ON

MANGROVES. IT IS LITERALLY -- >> EVERY ONE OF THESE LOCATIONS, THAT'S WHY A PORTION OF COCONUT HASN'T BEEN -- IT'S MANGROVES FROM THEIR ALL THE WAY TO THIS PARCEL.

>> RIGHT. >> MR. COLLINS, CAN I JUST SAY THAT YOU SAID YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOTS BEHIND US BEING

DEVELOPED? >> I WAS ASKING MR. JOHNSON IF THAT WAS PART OF HIS CONCERN ON IT.

>> I DON'T KNOW, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WE HAVE PERMISSION FROM FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE TO ONLY DEVELOP THE LOTS FRONTING A ONE A SO THE LOTS BEHIND US SHOULD NEVER BE A CONCERN. LIKE MY LOT 14 IS ON A PAPER STREET CALLED -- IT JUST SLIPPED MY MIND, IT'S A PAPER STREET WHICH I WAS PAYING FOR -- FOR A CORNER LOT, THEY TOOK THAT AWAY. THEY SAID YOU'RE NOT BEING CHARGED FOR A CORNER LOT ANYMORE BECAUSE NO ONE IS EVER GOING TO BE DEVELOPING BEHIND YOU AND ACCORDING TO PATRICIA KELLY AT FISH AND WILDLIFE, SHE WOULDN'T ALLOW IT ANYWAY. ONLY THE SEWER LINE IS ONLY FOR OUR LOTS AND WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH FPUA THAT ONLY THE LOTS FRONTING A1A WILL BE DEVELOPED .

>> ALL RIGHT. >> I'M JUST GOING TO ASK A QUESTION IN REGARD TO THAT. SERVICES, AND THERE ARE RIGHT OF WAYS. IF SOMEONE HAS THE MONEY THEY CAN BUILD ANYTHING THEY

WANT, CORRECT? >> THEY HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FOR

THE ROADS. >> THERE IS RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SERVICES, THESE ITEMS ARE OPTIONS.

>> THERE ARE MANY STATE PERMITS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AND WE KNOW HOW MANGROVES ARE VERY WELL PROTECTED SO THE REASON WHY THERE'S NOTHING BEEN HAPPENING AGAIN FOR 70 YEARS OR MORE ON THESE IS PURELY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND I'VE JUST DONE A BIT OF RESEARCH ON WHAT COULD BE DONE ON THE COUNTIES COMMERCIAL GENERAL NOW. IT COULD BE BUILT UP TO 60 FEET. THE LIST OF USES THAT COULD BE PUT ON THIS FROM A COMMERCIAL POINT FOR YOU AND THE COUNTY ARE FAR MORE EXTENSIVE AND HIGHER IMPACT THAN WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IN THE CITY. SO AS THE CHAIR SAID EARLIER, THERE'S MUCH MORE CONTROL BUT THE CITY COULD PUT ON THIS. ACCOMMODATION WILL USE ALLOWS ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING TO BE LOOKED AT. IF THERE IS A CONDITIONAL USE THAT GOES ON HERE, IF IT'S NOT BY RIGHT, THEN THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE OPTION TO LOOK AT ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING. IF THEY'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THERE, THEN THAT COULD BE REGULATED. I THINK FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW, WE SEE THE BENEFIT IN BEING GREATER CONTROL OF WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT AREA. THE PROPERTY BECOMING PART OF THE CITY'S TAX ROLL FOR COMMERCIAL USE, A LESSER INTENSITY BEING PERMITTED BY RIGHT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ZONING AND LAND-USE. AND ON TOP OF ALL OF THAT, THERE ARE THE STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS THAT , YOU KNOW, PRECLUDED A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT OF THESE AREAS. I DON'T SEE

THAT CHANGING. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? ALL

[01:45:06]

>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE 2025-00009 TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THIS ANNEXATION.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY MR. WHITING, SECOND BY MS. CLEMENS. PLEASE CALL THE

ROLL. >> MR. WHITING.

>> YES. >> MR. JOHNSON.

>> NO . >> MR. WILL GO HOME MS. CLEMENS.

>> YES. >> CHAIR KREISL.

[d. PZANN2025-00007 Annexation Acerra Property Parcel ID: 2413-501-158-000-4]

>> YES. >> MOTION PASSES.

>> ALL RIGHT.

AND ITEM 7 D, LET'S BRING IT HOME.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE ARE MOVING ALONG . PC ANNEXATION 2025-0007.

AGAIN A NEW ACERRA VOLUNTARY PROPERTY ANNEXATION LOCATED AT OR NEAR 2025 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS REPRESENTED BY TONY ACERRA, WHO IS ALSO THE OWNER. THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN THIS AND THE PREVIOUS ANNEXATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HIS LAND AREA, 0.21 ACRES AS OPPOSED TO SMALLER LOTS. AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT IS A CORNER LOT. I THINK WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA BY NOW . THIS PARCEL CURRENTLY HAS A TAXABLE VALUE OF $31,726. ALL OF THE TESTS FOR STATUTORY ELIGIBILITY UNDER STATUTE 171.44 ARE MET . SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FOWLER/MURRAY ANNEXATION, WHICH IS LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE STREET. WE JUST DISCUSSED RUNNING THROUGH THE LAND USE, AGAIN, THESE ARE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE SO THE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. STAFF IS PROPOSING RESIDENTIAL LOW, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNDER FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IN CONFORMANCE WITH POLICY 1.11.5 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

CURRENT ZONING IS HUTCHISON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT FOR THE COUNTY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING R1 SINGLE-FAMILY LOW-DENSITY ZONE AND TO BE COMPLIANT WITH POLICY 1.11.5 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE REALLY IS NO NET INCREASE OR DECREASE AS BOTH FUTURE LAND USES FROM THE COUNTY AND THE CITY WOULD ALLOW MAXIMUM OF ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON SUBJECT PARCEL. AGAIN IDENTIFYING NONCONFORMITIES, THIS LOT IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER WITH REGARD TO NONCONFORMITIES BECAUSE OF ITS INCREASED SIZE BUT STILL DOESN'T MEET R1 REQUIREMENTS, ZONE REQUIREMENTS , HOWEVER, DUE TO SECTION 125.70 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR NONCONFORMING LOTS, OWNER WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. ALL OF THE ANNEXATION REVIEW CRITERIA ARE MET UNDER LAND-USE POLICY 1.11.1. ALL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF HAVE REVIEWED AND SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION GIVEN THE PROPERTY IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY AND IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES PROVIDED BY FPUA, WHICH WILL BE REGULATED BY BUILDING PERMITS AND. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE COMMISSION ON THE ANNEXATION BECAUSE OF ITS CONSISTENCY WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 171.44, CONSISTENCY WITH THE IDENTIFIED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE BOARD COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THAT IS MY PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR YOUR BASTIONS.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? >> THE PROPERTIES, THE FIRST THREE PROPERTIES THAT WE ADDRESSED, THE FIRST ONE AND

[01:50:01]

>> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE ARE APPROACHING INTERPRETATION OF ESTABLISHING AN ENCLAVE WHERE AS WE KNOW THAT THE PROPERTIES TO THE WESTAR BASICALLY ON DEVELOPABLE. BUT I GUESS GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PLATTED AND THAT GIVES THEM THAT REASONABLE OPENING, AS UNLIKELY AS IT WOULD BE THAT A RIGHT-OF-WAY EVER GETS BUILT, THAT THEY EVEN HAVE ACCESS TO. I DID NOTICE THAT WE HAVE A COUPLE R1 PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE CITY, THAT ARE ON THAT WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY, THE UNBUILT RIGHT-OF-WAY. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THOSE. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK INTO HOW THAT WAS DONE, JUST TO THE LEFT OF YOUR CURSOR THERE, THERE'S A FEW PARCELS THERE THAT GO FURTHER DOWN.

>> WHERE AM I AT? THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY BE JOINED TO THE

LOTS IN FRONT OF THEM. >> THEY DID A UNITY OF TITLE.

IT'S JUST ODD WHEN YOU SEE THOSE TWO RIGHT THERE.

>> OKAY. >> JUST TO, AS A POINT OF CLARITY, ENCLAVE AS DESCRIBED IN STATE STATUTE IS ACTUALLY AN AREA THAT'S COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY CITY BOUNDARIES BUT NOT ANNEXED IN, SO THAT -- CREATING AN ENCLAVE WITH THESE ANNEXATIONS, I DON'T BELIEVE WOULD BE POSSIBLE, JUST BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITION THAT STATUTE PROVIDES.

>> SO EVEN A NATURAL BORDER LIKE

CONSIDER -- >> BODY OF WATER, HIGHWAY OR RAILROAD, OR CANAL, IS TAKEN AS BEING CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY

COUNTED. >> THAT'S INTERESTING. OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE, I DON'T BELIEVE WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ANY FURTHER UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD AT THIS TIME. OTHERWISE I'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, APPLICATION 7 D. PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEE NONE, I WOULD SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE'VE GOT FOUR CRACKS AT IT SO I LIKE THAT WE GOT IT ALL OUT OF OUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS HAS BEEN INFORMATIVE AND I THINK A VERY GOOD SET OF AGENDA ITEMS TO DISCUSS AFTER WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH ANNEXATIONS EARLIER WITH THE COMP PLAN. IF THERE IS NO OTHER DISCUSSION FOR THE BOARD AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL

[e. PZSITE2025-00025 Major Site Plan Lawnwood Hospital Parking Garage 1700 S. 23rd Street]

>> MR. JOHNSON? >> KNOW.

>> MS. CLEMENTS. >> YES.

>> MR. COLLINS. >> YES-MAN.

>> MR. WHITING. >> YES.

>> CHAIR KREISL. >> YES .

>> MOTION PASSES. >> MOVING ON, I 7 E, IS THIS A MAJOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? A MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION. MR. GILMORE HAS THE PRESENTATION.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. PLANNING CHAIR, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.

BEFORE YOU WE HAVE HCA FLORIDA LAWNWOOD HOSPITAL PARKING GARAGE, MAJOR SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW AT SUBJECT PROPERTY ON 1700 SOUTH 23RD STREET, PARCEL I.D.

2416-504-0200-000-2. PROJECT NUMBER PC SITE 2025 00 ZERO 25.

[01:55:02]

PHASE FOUR, A FIFTH FLOOR ADDITION TO THE MEDICAL TOWER THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED. NOW THERE AT THE LAST STAGE, WHICH IS A PARKING STRUCTURE. BEFORE YOU IS THE FINAL SITE PLAN FOR THE APPLICANT OVERALL, WHAT WILL BE COMPLETED WHEN THIS IS CONSTRUCTED. IT'S A ONE-STORY STRUCTURE BUILDING 50,000 FOOTPRINT OR 50,432 SQUARE FEET, TOTAL GROSS 238 GROSS TOTAL, 591 SPACES, SURFACE PARKING AGAIN, 109 PARKING SPACES, 10 DEDICATED ELECTRICAL VEHICLE PARKING SPACES AND FOUR A.D.A. COMPLIANT SURFACE PARKING UNITS IN THIS AREA. THE ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE. DESIGN REVIEW RENDERINGS OF THE PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE. FIRST ONE.

>> THE PARKING GARAGE WILL BE, OF COURSE, THE FIVE LEVEL CONSTRUCTED PRIMARILY OF ARCHITECTURAL PRECAST CONCRETE.

THE TOTAL HEIGHT WILL BE 58.6 FEET IN HEIGHT, PLUS OR MINUS.

THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR THE PARCEL IS 50 FEET FOR THE PAIR, THE ELEVATORS AND STAIRS WILL GO TO THE 58.6. AESTHETICS WILL MATCH THE NEWER PATIENT TOWER LOCATED ON THE CAMPUS.

INAUDIBLE ] WILL CONTAIN THREE TRACTION ELEVATORS TO BE MACHINE NOW. THE ELEVATOR LOBBY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED FOR ADDING ADDITIONAL ELEVATOR IN THE FUTURE. NINE OF THE EV STANDARD PARKING SPACES ARE STANDARD AND ONE WILL BE AN ACCESSIBLE EV PARKING SPACE. THE ENTIRE GARAGE WILL BE DEDICATED TO STAFF AND CONTAIN SECURITY GATES AT THE GROUND-FLOOR ENTRIES AND EXITS OF THE GARAGE AND UPDATED TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY, TECHNICAL REPORT AND UNDERGROUND UTILITY ALSO WILL BE SUPPLIED. THIS IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THIS PORTION OF THE OVERALL SITE PLAN. THE PLANT SCHEDULE BEFORE YOU INCLUDES GUMBO LIMBO, DYLAN HOLLY AND SEVEN LIVE OAKS WITH ALSO THE ADDITION OF RED TIP

[02:00:03]

PIERCE. ARBORIST REQUIRES A DEREGULATED TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE SITE'S DEVELOPMENT/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. OKAY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THREE CONDITIONS. PLANNING BOARD ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS COULD BE MODIFIED APPROVAL OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU MR. GILMORE. ANY

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> SO THERE'S GOING TO BE FIVE HANDICAP PARKING SPACES? FOUR? WHY IS IT SUCH A LOW NUMBER WHEN

THEY PUT 591 PARKING SPACES? >> BECAUSE THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES. THIS IS JUST A PORTION OF THE OVERALL

SITE. >> BASED ON THE TOTAL --

>> TOTAL, CORRECT. CORRECT. >> THAT NUMBER JUMPED OFF THE

PAGE FOR ME , TOO. FOUR IS -- >> WELL I MISUNDERSTOOD THE DRAWING OR RENDERINGS I WAS LOOKING AT, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE REMOVING THE CURRENT HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES, BUT I KNOW IN THAT FRONT ROW THERE'S ALREADY SIX, I WAS LIKE REDUCING THE NUMBERS

>> THERE'S SOMETHING -- >> THOSE ON THE OUTSIDE WILL BE

THERE AS WELL. >> CORRECT.

>> HOW TALL IS THE HOSPITAL? >> GOOD QUESTION. I THINK IT'S

FIVE OR SIX. >> IT'S FIVE STORIES.

>> IS THAT 58 1/2 FEET? JUST CURIOUS. THAT'S A BIG

STRUCTURE. >> WE CAN GET THAT FROM THE APPLICANT WHEN THEY COME FORWARD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. WHEN YOU'RE

READY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >> MICHAEL SCHWARTZ WITH KIMBERLY WARD AND ASSOCIATES. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT HOSPITAL, THE HOSPITAL WAS 72 FEET HIGH . THE STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB WORKING ON THIS. WE HAVE NO FURTHER ITEMS TO PRESENT TO YOU WITH REGARDS TO THE SUBMITTAL AND ARE OPEN TO ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> SO THIS -- WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE NOW IS MOSTLY SURFACE PARKING, IS THERE AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IN PLACE FOR PROVIDING ADDITIONAL ON-SITE PARKING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS?

>> YES, THAT'S CURRENTLY ONGOING. THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE OFF-SITE PARKING AND A TEMPORARY LOT. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO USE THAT AREA FOR EMPLOYEE AND CONSTRUCTION PARKING DURING CONSTRUCTION.

>> THE PARKING GARAGE IS JUST EAST OF THAT. HOW TALL IS IT?

>> THE PARKING GARAGE IS -- THE NEW PARKING GARAGE THAT'S

PROPOSED? >> KNOW, THE ONE THAT'S ALREADY

BEEN BUILT . >> THERE'S NOT A PARKING

GARAGE. >> THERE'S NO PARKING GARAGE --

>> WHAT'S THE LAST STRUCTURE YOU BUILT?

>> THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE BED TOWER WHICH IS 72 FEET. YOU HAD

ME THROWN THEIR. >>

>> IT SOLVES A LOT OF PROBLEMS.

>> MR. SCHWARTZ, CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN?

>> YES MA'AM. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEEM NONE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

>> THANK YOU ALL. >> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. YOU SAID ONE OF THE EV PARKING SPACES WILL BE FOR HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBLE. THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN NUMBER FOUR.

[02:05:06]

>> IT'S ONE OUT OF FOUR POINT >> IT'S ONE OF THE FOUR?

>> YES. THEY ACTUALLY DOWN TO THREE.

>> I'M SORRY, IT'S ONE OF THE 10. I'M SORRY, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THAT. IS ONE OF THE 10 YOU SAID THERE. SO ONE OF THE -- SO THERE'S NINE STANDARD AND ONE EV AND ONE ACCESSIBLE.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE --

>>

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHTS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, AT THIS TIME I WOULD ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM

7 P. >> SECOND. WITH CONDITIONS.

>> YES WE HAVE THREE CONDITIONS.

>> OH YES, WITH STAFF'S CONDITIONS APPLIED.

>> WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE THREE STAFF CONDITIONS BY MR. COLLINS, SECOND BY MS. CLEMENTS. PLEASE

CALL THE ROLL. >> MS. CLEMENTS.

>> YES. >> MR. COLLINS.

>> YES-MAN. >> MR. WHITING.

>> YES. >> MR. JOHNSON.

>> YES. >> CHAIR KREISL.

>> YES . >> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WE HAVE ITEM NUMBER 8, COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD WISH TO ADDRESS THIS BOARD

[9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. >> THANK YOU CHAIR. WE ARE WELL INTO IT ALREADY, BUT HAVING YOU. SO WE ARE YET TO GO THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION STRATEGIC PLAN, THIS QUESTION, SO ONCE WE DO THAT, I THINK THAT'S GOING OUT TO RFP TO ESTABLISH A FACILITATOR FOR THAT. AS SOON AS THAT HAPPENS I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE A NUMBER OF WORKLOADS COMING FORWARD. BUT IN THE INTERIM WE ARE WORKING ON GETTING OUR CODES, OUR ORDINANCES UP TO SPEED WITH WHAT THE STATE'S DOING LAST YEAR. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE CHANGING THE ORDINANCES FOR PLATTING ESPECIALLY, INTERNALLY ALSO WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE AND TO TRY AND SIMPLIFY THAT BETWEEN THE MASTER AND FINAL, MAKING THAT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND MORE UNDERSTANDABLE FOR BOTH THE BOARD, COMMISSION, STAFF AND APPLICANTS. AND WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AND WE'VE DELAYED THAT SLIGHTLY TO LOOK AT WHAT THE STATE ARE DOING WITH THEIR RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCES ON CODE CHANGES AND THAT. THERE'S SOME PROPOSALS ON THE TABLE TO LESSEN THOSE RESTRICTIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE CODE. SO WE ARE WAITING ON THAT AND WE WANT TO BE PREPARED IF THAT DOES CHANGE TO BE MOVING QUICKLY BEFORE ANY OF THE CHANGES ARE MADE, WHICH MAY BE REVERSED THAT AGAIN. AND ALSO WE -- I HAD A MEETING OUT IN LINCOLN PARK WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUT THERE AND THEY WERE VERY ENCOURAGED BY THE MOVEMENT OF THE CITY AND CITY STAFF TO LOOK AT THIS ARCHITECTURAL CATALOG IDEA. SO WE WANT TO -- AGAIN, MOVING THAT, WE WANT TO BE HOLDING SOME MEETINGS OUT IN THE COMMITTEE TO GET FEEDBACK ON THAT. I THINK LINCOLN PARK WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST AREAS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT. COMMUNITY ARE VERY EXCITED BY THAT AND WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT MOMENTUM. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO BE MOVING ON. WE DO HAVE A LOT OF APPLICATIONS STILL IN THE PIPELINE, AS THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN ATTEST TO, AND THOSE WILL BE COMING FORWARD ONCE WE GET TO A POINT THAT WE CAN FINALIZE REVIEWS INTERNALLY AND COME FORWARD WITH THAT. THE CAUSEWAY COVE APPLICATION IS NEARING THE FINAL PART OF ITS REVIEW WHERE WE JUST RECEIVED

[02:10:05]

>> IT DOESN'T GET REVIEWED BY ANY BOARDS BUT WHAT I WILL DO IS REPORT THAT IT'S GONE THROUGH TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT WILL BE THE SAME FOR THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> THEY HAVE REDUCED A NUMBER OF RESIDENT -- RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THERE. BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE SAME.

>> ARE THE COMMENTS THAT COME OUT OF THE AGENCIES DOING TECHNICAL REVIEW, OR THOSE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC?

>> I CAN BUNDLE THEM UP AND MAKE THEM AVAILABLE AND PUT THEM ONLINE. I'LL GET THEM OUT TO THE BOARD AS WELL.

>> I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED TO LOOK THROUGH THOSE. THE COMMENTS ARE THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSES ALSO AVAILABLE?

>> I'LL PUT THE WHOLE PACKET TOGETHER FOR TRANSPARENCY, YES.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE, CHAIR. WHEN I SAY ALL, THERE'S A

WEIGHT ON MY SHOULDERS. >> YEAH, ALL RIGHT, WELL I

[10. BOARD COMMENTS]

>> HAPPY NEW YEAR. >> I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK -- MAYBE MY LAST MEETING UP YOUR. I JUST WANT TO SAY I ENJOYED -- I HAVE ENJOYED, I AM ENJOYING WORKING WITH YOU GUYS. I THINK YOU ALL HAVE YOUR STRENGTH AND THINGS YOU LOOK OUT FOR AND I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND SORT OF IDEAS OF WHAT TO LOOK OUT FOR. SO I THINK KEVIN AND CHRIS HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB. APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. I KNOW FT.

PIERCE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF GROWING PAIN HERE AND I DON'T ENVY SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT YOU GUYS WILL MAKE OR COME ACROSS BUT I THINK EVERYBODY IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK AND I JUST ALWAYS LOOK AT IT, TRYING TO SEE LIKE I'VE BEEN IN FT. PIERCE MY WHOLE LIFE, AND IS IT GOING TO BENEFIT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE AND BENEFIT THE CITY NOT JUST REVENUE THAT'S WISE BUT GROWING AND DEVELOPING OUR CITY INTO SOMETHING EVEN MORE SPECIAL THAN IT IS. SO I'M GLAD TO BE A PART OF IT.

>> THANK YOU MR. COLLINS. >> AND WITH THAT I BELIEVE WE CAN ADJOURN.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.