Jul 13, 2026 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:08]

>> THE REGULAR MEETING OF MONDAY, JULY 134TH, 2026.

WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.

>> (IN UNISON): 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. >> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU.

BEFORE WE BEGIN, A FRIENDLY REMINDER: WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE SILENCE YOUR MOBILE DEVICES.

>> MR. CHAIR? IT'S ME.

>> THE CHAIR: OH, SORRY. >> APOLOGIES.

SPEAKING WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, WE SUSPECT THAT MOST AUDIENCE MEMBERS MAY BE HERE FOR 6. D AND WE WANTED TO PROPOSE TO THE BOARD, DID YOU WANT TO MOVE THAT ITEM UP SO THAT IT MAYBE COULD BE ADDRESSED FIRST AND MAYBE CLEAR THE CHAMBERS A

LITTLE BIT? >> THE CHAIR: POSSIBLY.

BOARD, DO WE HAVE -- WELL, LET'S CALL THE ROLE AND GET THROUGH 3 AND 4 BEFORE WE TAKE ON THAT ITEM.

ALICIA, COULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

[4. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]

>> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE CHAIR: WE'LL EXPECT HIM TO ARRIVE SHORTLY. BEFORE WE GET ON TO THE ORDER OF

[a. Minutes from the May 11, 2026 meeting]

HAS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST

PLANNING BOARD MEETING? >> YES.

>> THE CHAIR: OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I HAVE A COUPLE, MAYBE, CORRECTIONS/JUST MINOR THINGS, PLEASE. JUST MINOR.

SO, WITHIN THE MINUTES ON ITEM -- IT'S ITEM 7. A, THE VOLUNTEERING ANNEXATION. WITHIN THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO L.O.S. IT SAYS "LOSS THE SERVICE," AND THAT ACTUALLY SHOULD BE, I BELIEVE "LEVEL OF SERVICE "ESERVICE," EFFICIENCIES, WHAT I BELIEVE IS WHAT L.O.S. STANDS FOR, AND THEN UNDER "BOARD COMMENTS" ON THE LAST PAGE, IT INDICATES THAT -- I HAD SAID THAT EDITORIAL COMMENTS ON THE NEW STATE STATUTES ARE BEING MADE.

MAYBE I USED THAT USE, BUT WHAT'S STATED THERE IS CHANGES WERE MADE TO STATUTES WITHOUT ACTUALLY THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK. AND I SAID A DIFFERENT WORD -- BUT I THINK THAT'S THE CONTEXT OF THAT.

AND IF -- I'D APPRECIATE IT IF WE COULD EDIT THAT ACCORDINGLY.

>> THE CHAIR: ALICIA, YOU HAVE YOUR EDITS?

>> YES. >> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.

>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THE CORRECTION.

>> THE CHAIR: WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH CORRECTIONS.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

>> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON.

BEFORE WE GET INTO NEW BUSINESS, LET'S DISCUSS THE SUGGESTION BEFORE US FROM PLANNING STAFF. WE HAVE A FAIRLY CROWDED ROOM TODAY. THAT'S NOT NORMAL FOR US, SO IN THE INTEREST OF EVERYBODY'S TIME, WE WOULD CONSIDER MOVING ITEM 6. D UP TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.

>> I'M FINE WITH THAT. >> OKAY.

>> THE CHAIR: LET'S DO AN OFFICIAL MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE AN MOTION TO ADJUST THE AGENDA ACCORDINGLY TO MOVE

UP THE ITEM 3-D.? >> THE CHAIR: 6-D.

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. STOREY.

SECONDED BY MR. JOHNSON. PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

[d. PZAH2025-00001 STAFF UPDATE Causeway Cove 601 Seaway Drive]

MR. FREEMAN, THIS IS A VERY SPECIAL PRESENTATION.

[00:05:02]

I DO YES, YOU COULD SAY THAT. >> THE CHAIR: AN UNPRECEDENTED

PRESENTATION FOR OUR CITY. >> A FIRST-OF-ITS-KIND IN THE

CITY. >> THE CHAIR: SO I WOULD LIKE YOU TO GO THROUGH THE DETAIL OF WHAT THIS PRESENTATION IS AND ALSO ISN'T FOR THE INFORMATION OF -- INFORMATIVE PURPOSES OF

THE PUBLIC HERE. >> I WILL, THANK YOU, CHAIR.

PLANNING BOARD. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SCREEN,

THIS PRESENTATION -- >> MADAM CLERK?

>> IF WE CAN SWITCH THE SCREEN? >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SCREEN, THIS PRESENTATION UPDATE IS IN RELATION TO CAUSEWAY COVE.

IT WAS APPLIED UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL APPLICATION PROCESS, AND THAT'S COVERED BY STATE STATUTE AND THE SECTION IS 166.04151.

THAT SECTION AND THE FOLLOWING VERBIAGE MANDATES THAT PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE NOT PART OF THE PROCESS.

THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVELY REVIEWED BY AGENCIES.

THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND STAFF.

IT'S REVIEWED AGAINST CITY CODE, AND PROVIDING THOSE AGEN AGENCIES/CITY STAFF FIND THAT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE, THEN WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO APPROVE IT.

>> POINT OF INFORMATION? THE LIVE LOCAL -- EXCUSE ME. WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY COMMENT

FROM THE PUBLIC AT THIS TIME. >> THIS IS A POINT OF

INFORMATION. >> THE CHAIR: IS THIS SOMEBODY

WITH THE CITY? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO.

>> THE CHAIR: OKAY. SO WE'RE HAVING A PRESENTATION FROM THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AT THIS TIME.

WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

PLEASE REMAIN SILENT IN THE AUDIENCE AS WE CONTINUE WITH

THIS PRESENTATION. >> SO, THE LOCATION OF THE

PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN? I'M SORRY TO -- CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION BEFORE MR. FREEMAN GETS TO THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER?

>> THE CHAIR: CERTAINLY. >> SO, THE CONTEXT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TODAY IS -- I'VE REVIEWED IT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, I THINK, 31 CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL. >> THE CHAIR: MM-HMM.

>> SO WHAT IS THE FUNCTION, THE ROLE OF A PLANNING BOARD TODAY? AND I KNOW THAT THE ITEM IS CONSIDERED AN UPDATE.

>> THE CHAIR: YES. >> BUT IS THERE -- WILL THERE BE A MOTION BY THE PLANNING BOARD? THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME COMMENTS? BUT IT'S NOT ANY -- BECAUSE, AS YOU'VE INDICATED, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT'S AN

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. >> THE CHAIR: YEP.

>> THERE IS MORE INFORMATIONAL. IS THAT DER FROM A LEGAL

PERSPECTIVE RIGHT NOW? >> CORRECT.

FOR THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS STAFF UPDATING THE PLANNING BOARD ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY, AS FAR AS WE CAN.

THE STATE MANDATES THAT THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD EITHER BY THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE CITY COMMISSION ON THIS TYPE OF APPLICATION. STAFF HAS FOLLOWED THOSE REQUIREMENTS, AND TOGETHER WITH OTHER AGENCIES, HAVE CREATED THOSE 31 CONDITIONS. EITHER DEVELOPED IN-HOUSE OR BY EXTERNAL AGENCIES. AND I'M PARTICULARLY TALKING ABOUT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, WHO CONTROL THE ROADWAY IN THIS LOCATION. SO THERE ARE CONDITIONS WHICH RELATE TO IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT ROADWAY WHICH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAVE REQUESTED.

THE APPLICANT HAS GONE TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, HAD A PREAPPLICATION DISCUSSION, AND THOSE CONDITIONS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO THAT AND OTHER MATTERS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER. SO, THIS IS ENTIRELY AND PURELY INFORMATIONAL. THERE'S NOTHING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE A VOTE TO CAST.

NEITHER DO THE CITY COMMISSION. THIS IS ENTIRELY CONTROLLED BY THE STATE STATUTE LEGISLATION AROUND THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.

>> THE CHAIR: SO WE WILL NOT BE HAVING A VOTE TODAY.

WE WILL NOT BE VOTING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF ANYTHING. YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS.

>> YES. >> THE CHAIR: ARE WE PERMITTED UNDER THE STATE STATUTE IN THIS FORUM TO ISSUE ANY COMMENT ON

[00:10:01]

>> I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT YOU TURN THIS INTO A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM PUBLIC. YOU CAN MAKE COMMENTS YOURSELF.

STAFF CANNOT TAKE ACTION BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK.

>> THE CHAIR: THAT IS AN ELEMENT THAT IS CONTROLLED TIGHTLY BY THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE THAT APPLIES HERE.

>> IT STATES THAT WE CAN'T HAVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE PUBLIC

HEARINGS. >> THE CHAIR: OKAY.

SOY SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE ANY R TO EVERYONE ON THE BOARD AND EVERYONE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS INCREDIBLY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS LAW, AND I DO NOT WANT TO BE PUTTING OUR STAFF, OUR CITY, THIS BOARD IN A POSITION OF VIOLATING ANY ANY FLORIDA STATE STATUTES.

I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING TOGETHER THIS PRESENTATION AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC WITNESS, BUT AS HE STATED, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. WE WILL NOT HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM.

WE'RE HERE TO LISTEN, AND AT THIS POINT, THAT IS ALL WE CAN

DO. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU JUST

INDULGE ME ONE MORE...? >> THE CHAIR: YES.

>> AND PART OF THIS IS MY EFFORT TO TRY TO HELP OR HAVE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND BETTER, AND I HOPE YOU'VE TAKEN THESE

QUESTIONS THAT WAY. >> THE CHAIR: YES.

>> AND ALSO, I GUESS I'D ALSO LIKE TO HAVE SOME INPUT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AS WELL, BECAUSE SO -- I TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT.

YOU'RE NOT THE LEGAL COUNSEL. >> I UNDERSTAND, YEAH.

>> AND I RESPECT YOU. AND SO THE OTHER THING IS, THOUGH, ALSO, THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD BE IN THE SAME

POSTURE? >> MM-HMM.

>> JUST INFORMATIONAL? >> YES.

>> ONCE CERTAIN CODE -- TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS ARE

COMPLIED WITH, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> AND, MS. HODGES, THAT'S YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS WELL?

>> MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD: THAT IS CORRECT. UNFORTUNATELY, BASED ON THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS PASSED -- NOT BY THIS CITY -- THIS COMES FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THE CITY'S HANDS -- THIS APPLIES TO COUNTIES AS WELL, SO IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY.

IT IS ALSO THE COUNTY. WHEN SOMEONE SUBMITS AN APPLICATION UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, AS W WE ALL KNOW IT, STAFF REVIEWS THIS FOR THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS.

WHAT WE SEE NORMALLY IN A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THERE'S A DISCUSSION, IF SOMETHING IS LIKED, NOT LIKED, IF THERE ARE WAYS TO IMPROVE IT OR NOT IMPROVE IT, CONCERNS...

THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENS UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.

STAFF IS TIED BY THE STATE LAW. THEY ARE TIED BY THE CITY'S CODE, AND THEY REVIEW THAT APPLICATION BASED ON ONLY WHAT IS IN THE CODE AND ONLY WHAT IS IN THE STATE STATUTE.

THE LIVE LOCAL ACT DOES NOT ALLOW PUBLIC HEARINGS AS WE NORMALLY UNDERSTAND THEM TO WHERE THIS BOARD OR THE CITY COMMISSION COULD MAKE CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION, REQUEST OR NEGOTIATE DIFFERENT -- DIFFERENCES IN THE APPLICATION.

SO, WHAT WE NORMALLY SEE IN A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOT ALLOWED TO HAPPEN UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS NOT AT THE CITY'S DOING.

THE CITY STRICTLY HAS TO FOLLOW% THE LAW, AND WHEN THE LEGISLATURE CREATES THAT LAW, WE ARE ALL STUCK FOLLOWING THAT LAW. SO, WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SEE FROM PLANNING STAFF IS IS AN UPDATE ON THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEEN RECEIVED AND WHERE THIS STANDS BASED ON THE STATE LAW THAT THE CITY MUST FOLLOW. THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WE ARE USED TO SEEING WHERE STAFF WILL PRESENT, THE OTHER SIDE WILL PRESENT AND THEN THE BOARD WILL OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS WILL NOT OCCUR. THERE IS A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AT THE VERY END OF THE MEETING, BUT, GENERALLY, PEOPLE COULD SPEAK ON, BUT IT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT AS A NORMAL

PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE. >> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU, MS.

HODGES. >> BUT THIS BOARD MAY SPEAK.

>> CERTAINLY, DID YOU PLEASE DO NOT BE OFFENDED IF MR. FREEMAN DOES NOT ACT ON YOUR SPEAKING, AND THAT IS NOT A SLIGHT TO YOU.

>> THE CHAIR: ANYONE ELSE BEFORE WE CONTINUE?

>> NO THANK YOU. >> THE CHAIR: MR. FREEMAN,

YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR.

THANK YOU, CITY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

THANK YOU, MEMBERS, FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.

SO, THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF SEAWAY DRIVE.

[00:15:02]

I KNOW A LOT OF CONCERN HAS BEEN RAISED.

STAFF HAD SIMILAR ISSUES, REGARDING HOW THE TRAFFIC WOULD FLOW AROUND THIS DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF ITS IMPACT ON THAT ROADWAY: THE DETERMINATION ARRIVED THROUGH TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS NEGOTIATING WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THE STE-LUCIE TPO -- TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION, WERE ALSO IN FLOW WITH THAT, AND WE HAD AN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT LOOK AT THAT THROUGH A DIFFERENT SCOPE. SO IT WAS REVIEW IN DEPTH.

SO THAT'S HOW WE DEVELOPED A LOT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE ATTACHED TO THIS APPLICATION. SO, IN GENERAL -- I'LL JUST GO THROUGH THIS, BECAUSE IT SHOWS YOU THE RESTRICTIONS OR THE ALLOWANCES THAT STAFF HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE GET AN APPLICATION OF THIS TYPE COMING THROUGH THE DOOR.

IT'S STATE-MANDATED, AND IT LOOKS AT ENTITLEMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, AND THOSE CAN INCLUDE ZONING WITHIN COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND MIXED-USE. THE ELIGIBILITY -- AND YOU MUST SET ASIDE AT LEAST 40% OF TOTAL UNITS AT SET AFFORDABILITY RATES, AND THOSE ARE ALSO SET BY THE STATE.

THESE ARE NOT SET LOCALLY. THEY'RE SET BY THE STATE AND INCLUDED IN A SEPARATE PART OF THE STATE STATUTES.

THAT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 30 YEARS.

FROM A STAFF POINT OF VIEW, THERE'S NO INSTRUCTION NOR NO METHODOLOGY INCLUDED IN.STATE STATUTE OF HOW THAT IS DONE OR HOW THAT IS MEASURED OR WHATEVER.

SO CONDITIONS WITHIN THE APPROVAL ACTUALLY CALLED OUT THE METHODOLOGY THAT WE'RE EXPECTING THE APPLICANT UNDERTAKE WITH THAT. WE ARE REQUIRED TO ALLOW MULTI-FAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL AS ALLOWABLE USES IN ANY AREA ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR MIXED-USE.

THERE'S ALSO ON TOP OF ALL OF THAT -- SO THERE'S MORE THAN JUST ALLOWING DEVELOPMENTS TO COME IN ON THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS, WHICH MIGHT HAVE ENTIRELY REQUIREMENTS UNDER THAT PARTICULAR ZONING AREA. THE STATE ALSO MANDATES PARAMETERS REGARDING DENSITY, HEIGHT, FLOOR AREA RATIO, ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. SO THAT TAKES OUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. AND ALSO LOOKS AT PARKING AND THAT THE MUNICIPALITY AND THE REVIEW HAS TO INCORPORATE PARKING REDUCTIONS IF THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THOSE.

SO, WHEN SOMETHING COMES IN, IT CAN BE MULTI-FAMILY OR MIXED-USE IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. THE DENSITY OF A PROJECT IS SET AT THE HIGHEST DENSITY ALLOWED ON ANY LAND IN THE CITY OR COUNTY, WHEREVER THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED. IN THIS CASE, IT'S THE HIGHEST DENSITY IN THE CITY. IF YOU LOOK AT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THERE ARE CERTAIN FUTURE LAND USES WHICH ALLOW A DENSITY OF 30 UNITS PER ACRE. SO, AN APPLICANT CAN CLAIM A DENSITY OF UP TO 30 UNITS PER ACRE.

THE STATE STATUTE ALSO MENTIONED THAT DENSITY BONUSES ARE NOT ALLOWED. SO, THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE, IF THINGS ARE DONE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENTLY UNDER STATE CODE, THAT DENSITY BONUSES MAY BE APPLIED, BUT NOT IN RESPECT OF THE LIVE LOCAL APPLICATION. AND OF COURSE, IF IT'S NOT A LIVE LOCAL APPLICATION, THEN THOSE DENSITY BONUSES WOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE HEIGHT IS DETERMINED BIP THE HIGHEST CURRENTLY-ALLOWED HEIGHT FOR COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ONE MILE OF

[00:20:01]

WE ACTUALLY CONTROL HEIGHT TO A LARGE EXTENT BY THE FLOOR AREA RATIO. NOW, THAT DETERMINES THE AMOUNT OF BUILT FLOOR SPACE A DEVELOPMENT CAN ACTUALLY USE ON A PROPERTY. AND THAT, TOGETHER WITH PARKING, IS A SIGNIFICANT WAY OF HOW DEVELOPMENTS FIND IT VERY DIFFICULT TO REACH THAT HEIGHT LIMIT, BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT THAT PUTS ON A SITE FLOOR AND THE CONSTRAINTS OF HOW THEY ARRANGE THAT FLOOR AREA RATIO.

HOWEVER, BOTH PARKING AND FLOOR AREA RATIO ARE CONSIDERED BY THE STATE AND EITHER REDUCED OR EXCEEDED THE EXISTING LIMITATION BY 150% OF THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND, AGAIN, THE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS THE HIGHEST THAT WE ALLOW IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS 3.0. A WAY OF LOOKING AT FLOOR AREA RATIO IS THAT IT'S CALCULATED BY THE AREA OF THE PROPERTY, AND THAT'S MULTIPLIED BY THAT NUMBER, SO IF IT'S 3, YOU MULTIPLY THE AREA OF THE SITE BY 3 TO GET THE MAX FLOOR SPACE YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE ON THAT PROPERTY.

THE STATE HAS SAID THAT THAT SHOULD BE RAISED BY 150%, WHICH MEANS THAT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THE CITY, IF IT'S IN AN APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT, IS 150%, IS MULTIPLIED UNDER THE CODE THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CODE.

THE APPROVAL PROCEDURE IS VERY WELL SET OUT IN THE STATE STATUTE, AND IT IS REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICATION IS ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED. IT NEEDS TO SATISFY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION THAT WE HAVE AND IS OTHERWISE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, EXCEPTING THOSE LIMITATIONS ON DENSITY, F.A.R. HEIGHT USE, AND IN CERTAIN RESPECTS, PARKING.

THE STATE STATUTE MANDATES THAT THERE ARE NO PUBLIC HEARINGS INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS. SO, THEREFORE, TODAY, STAFF ARE PRESENTING AN UPDATE ON THE APPLICATION, WHAT IT SIFTS OF, AND WHAT JUST -- JUST HOW IT IS. SO WHEN WE RECEIVED THE APPLICATION, WE DID RUN THE 1-MILE RADII TO ASCERTAIN THE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THAT RADII AND APPLY THE STATE STATUTE REQUIREMENTS OF THE HEIGHT, DENSITY, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT IS REGULATED UNDER THE 1-MILE RADII. SO THE DEVELOPMENT IS -- CONSISTS OF 930 UNITS. 365, 366 RESIDENTIAL HOUSING UNITS. THE FLOOR AREA IS OVER A MILLION. COMMERCIAL FLOOR AREA IS ALMOST 300,000. THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS 1.3 MILLION. THE DENSITY IS WORKED OUT BY THE GROSS AREA OF THE PROPERTY AND WORKS OUT AT 22 UNITS PER ACRE.

THERE'S A HOTEL INCLUDED -- OR TWO HOTELS INCLUDED.

ONE OF 204 ROOMS. ONE OF 203 ROOMS. THERE'S A RETAILING COMPONENT INCLUDED OF JUST OVER 72,000 SQUARE FEET. A MARINA IS ALSO INCLUDED AT 218 SLIPS. SO WE LOOKED AFTER THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL AND FOUND A NUMBER OF REQUIREMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT REGULATION.

[00:25:01]

IN ASSOCIATION, THE ACTUAL ACCESS MANAGEMENT FOR THE DRIVEWAY TO THE CAUSEWAY COVE APPLICATION WILL ALSO REQUIRE AT FINAL ACCESS APPROVAL FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THAT INCLUDES A POTENTIAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE SITE DRIVEWAY, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE -- OR NOT -- APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. IF THAT TRAFFIC LIGHT IS NOT APPROVED, THEN THERE'LL BE AN ALTERNATIVE DIRECTIONAL ACCESS PLAN, AND THAT WOULD RESTRICT OUT-BOUND LEFT TURN MOVEMENTS.

THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO COORDINATE WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PRECIPITATION AND THE ST. LUCIE DEPARTMENT APPLICATION REGARDING OTHER CORRIDOR AND IMPROVEMENTS.

THERE ARE ALSO -- THEY ARE ALSO AGREED AND REQUIRED TO COMPLETE OR FINANCIALLY SECURE TRANSPORTATION AND MULTI-MODAL IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE APPROVED TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS BEFORE THE FIRST CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE APPLICABLE PHASE. NOW, THOSE MULTI-MODAL COMMITMENTS INCLUDE IMPLEMENTING A WATER TAXI CONNECTION BETWEEN THE SITE AND DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE, IMPLEMENTING A TRANSIT STOP IMPLEMENTATION TO PROVIDE FUTURE TRANSIT CONNECTIVITY, SHUTTLE BETWEEN THE BEACH AND INCLUDE A WORKFORCE HOUSING COMPONENT WHICH, WITH ITS LOCATION AND POTENTIAL USE BY EMPLOYEES AT THE MARINA, IS CALCULATED TO REDUCE THE EMPLOYEE COMMUTE TRAFFIC AND CONSOLIDATE IT AROUND THAT DEVELOPMENT. SO, WE WENT THROUGH THE APPLICATION AND REACHED THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE PROPOSED CAUSEWAY COVE DEVELOPMENT SATISFIES THE THRESHOLD ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. A SHARE OF APPROXIMATELY 77.9%, WHICH EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED BY STATE LAW. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED ON PROPERTY DESI DESI DESIGNATED A. WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE IDENTIFIED MITIGATION MEASURES AND ACCESS APPROVALS.

THE PROJECT CAN COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE FIRE DISTRICT STANDARDS SUBJECT TO CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW AND PERMITTING. THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHERWISE APPLICABLE AS WE HAVE CONDITIONED.

THERE ARE NO 3D GLASSES AVAILABLE FOR THIS PRESENTATION.

THE APPLICANT'S RENDITION OF SOME GRAPHICS ATTACHED TO THE APPLICATION. THERE ARE, IN ESSENCE, FIVE -- YOU CAN SEE THE FIVE BUILDINGS. THEY ARE VARIOUS HEIGHTS, AND I'LL GO THROUGH THOSE IN A MOMENT.

VARIOUS USES, AND I'LL ALSO GO THROUGH THOSE IN A MOMENT.

[00:30:02]

TWO HOTELS. COMMERCIAL AREA, WHICH INCLUDES RESTAURANTS AND RETAIL, AND OTHER AMENITIES AROUND THE SITE.

THERE'S ALSO A MARINA ATTACHED TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

I CAN GO THROUGH THE BUILDINGS. VARIOUS HEIGHTS.

BUILDING A. IS 17 STOREYS. LET ME HAVE A LOOK...

SO THAT'S THE CENTRAL BUILDING IS 17 STOREYS.

BUILDING B IS 15 STOREYS. BILLING C. IS 14 STOREYS.

BUILDING E. IS PROPOSED AT 11 STOREYS.

AND BUILDING D. AT 14 STOREYS. THAT BREAKS DOWN THE VARIOUS USES IN EACH BUILDING. BUILDING A. HAS A HOTEL AND SOME COMMERCIAL. THE OTHER HOTEL, I THINK, IS IN BUILDING E. WE HAVE MAINLY, THEN, ANOTHER HOTEL -- YEAH, IN E. WE HAVE COMMERCIAL IN D., TOGETHER WITH RESIDENTIAL. SO WE HAVE MIXED-USE AROUND THE PROPERTY. AND I'M GOING TO END THE PRESENTATION WITH SOME RENDITIONS AGAIN THAT CAME IN FROM THE APPLICANT. AND THAT ENDS THE UPDATE, ABOUT.

CHAIR CHAIR I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.

IF THERE'S ANYONE ON THE BOARD THAT HAS QUESTIONS, PLEASE ASK THEM. ACTUALLY, DO YOU HAVE A SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE CONDITIONS? DID YOU INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR

PRESENTATION? >> I CAN GO TO THE -- I THINK.

>> THE CHAIR: SO I'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE, BUT JUST GOING THROUGH THE PRESENTATION, IS THERE CURRENTLY A TRANSIT STOP WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY?

>> NO, IT IS THE APPLICANT'S INTENT TO PUT ONE IN.

>> THE CHAIR: ADD A TRANSIT STOP.

>> YES. >> THE CHAIR: I WOULD ASSUME THE END GOAL THERE IS TO REDUCE THE PARKING?

>> THERE'S DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES.

ACTUALLY, YES, WE DID ALLOW A REDUCTION IN PARKING, BUT THERE IS A SECTION OF CITY CODE WHERE THEY USED THE CALCULATION TO REDUCE THE PARKING. THEY DIDN'T ESSENTIALLY USE THE LIVE LOCAL ACT TO DO THAT. THERE IS A PART OF THE CITY CODE THAT, IF YOU -- BECAUSE IT'S MULTIPLE-USE, SHARED PARKING, THERE'S A CALCULATION THAT'S AVAILABLE TO DO THAT.

>> THE CHAIR: UNDERSTOOD. YOU MADE MENTION IN THE PRESENTATION: ONE OF THE ELEMENTS IN DESIGN WAS A WORKFORCE HOUSING COMPONENT.

THAT IS INTENDED TO BE ON THE SUBJECT SITE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> THE CHAIR: NOW, IN REVIEWING YOUR CONDITIONS, YOU GET TO KIND OF OUTLINE THE METHODOLOGY OF REVIEW FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE AFFORDABLE

HOUSING COMPONENT. >> YES.

>> THE CHAIR: SO, YOUR -- COULD YOU MAYBE JUST SPEAK ON THAT CONDITION A LITTLE BIT SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN UNDERSTAND

WHAT WE'RE DOING THERE? >> TO THE NUMBER THAT YOU --

>> THE CHAIR: I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IT WAS.

>> NUMBER 8? >> THE CHAIR: 8.

>> OKAY. YEAH.

SO THE DEVELOPER -- THIS IS A CONDITION, AND THE DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN RECORDS IN A COMPLIANCE MONITORING SYSTEM OR PLATFORM AVAILABLE TO THE CITY. NOW, WE ARE AWARE THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR PLATFORMS WHICH ARE USED TO MONITOR HOW THE UNITS ARE LEASED, THE NUMBER OF UNITS LEASED, AND THE -- THE AMOUNT OF THOSE IN TERMS OF THE RENTAL OR WHATEVER LEASE IS ON THOSE UNITS. AND THAT SOFTWARE, THE APPLICANT HAS TOLD US THEY ARE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING IN PLACE, AND THEY DO HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE.

WE'VE NOT SEEN THAT OR ACCEPTED THAT YET, BUT THERE IS A CONDITION THAT WE DO. THAT DOES COME TO THE CITY.

[00:35:01]

-- OF EACH YEAR.

OR IF IT FITS IN BETTER WITH THE TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT, THEY CAN REQUEST A DIFFERENT ANNUAL MONITORING DATE FROM THE CITY.

BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WITH THAT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A SYSTEM THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY, AND THE CITY WILL BE CONSULTING THE STATE IN THAT. AND IT'S ONE OF THE AREAS OF THE STATE REQUIREMENTS THAT IS NOT FULLY FLUSHED OUT BY THE STATE, SO IT DOESN'T GIVE US ANY METHODOLOGY TO DO THAT.

SO, THAT'S WHY IT IS A CONDITION, AND IT WILL BE REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT.

>> THE CHAIR: SO THEY PROVIDE A REPORT EVERY YEAR BY THE 31ST OF JANUARY, AND THAT'S REVIEWED BY YOUR STAFF?

>> REVIEWED BY STAFF, BUT ALSO IT WILL BE COMING FORWARD AS AN UPDATE TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> THE CHAIR: FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.

>> YES. >> THE CHAIR: 30 YEARS STARTING FROM THE TIME OF OCCUPANCY?

>> YES. >> THE CHAIR: SO -- I MEAN, NUMBER 9 TOUCHES ON THIS BRIEFLY.

MAYBE MS. HEDGES HAS MORE INFORMATION.

IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR TO ME WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, SAY, TEN YEARS FROM NOW. THE BUILDING IS OPERATIONAL.

PEOPLE LIVE THERE. IT'S BUILT.

IT'S PERMITTED. IT'S CO-ED.

IF THEY FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION THAT'S MANDATED FOR

AFFORDABILITY, WHAT HAPPENS? >> WELL, IN MY MIND, THEY BECOME ILLEGAL IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY'RE APPROVED TO DO THAT, AND THEN THE CITY HAS -- TO DO THERE, AND THEN THE CITY HAS OPTIONS TO TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION. THE RESOLUTION OF THAT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT HAS TO BE REMOVED, OR...

APPLYAPPLIES FOR AN ALTERNATIVEM OF PLANNING APPROVAL, WHICH THEN DOES GET APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY

COMMISSION. >> THE CHAIR: YEAH.

THIS -- I BRING IT UP, BECAUSE THIS APPEARS TO ME TO BE AN ELEMENT OF THE STATUTE THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT IT. IT'S -- WE'RE -- THIS IS EXPERIMENTAL. WE'RE, YOU KNOW -- I'M NOT AWARE THAT THIS IS THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT THAT'S COME TO THIS LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE STATUTE, BUT I'M SURE THIS, YOU KNOW -- THIS IS HAPPENING ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE.

BUT THIS IS REALLY NEW, AND I'M VERY NERVOUS ABOUT THAT ASPECT OF IT. WELL, I'M NERVOUS ABOUT QUITE A FEW ASPECTS OF IT, BUT THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY GIVES ME A LOT OF CONCERN, SO... I DON'T KNOW.

I'M -- I'M GOING TO WANT TO TRY TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT, JUST FOR MYSELF, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT VERY CAREFULLY AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

BUT THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? >> YES.

I HAVE -- I'VE LOOKED AT THE CONDITIONS, AND I MAYBE MISSED IT. WHAT IS THE --

>> I CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> I APOLOGIZE.

I'LL MOVE IT CLOSER. IN TERMS OF LIFE SAFETY ISSUES AND EVACUATION...

I COULDN'T SEE IT ONE PARTICULARLY.

>> I THINK CONDITION 12 MIGHT ADDRESS THAT.

>> OKAY. >> CONDITION 12 SAYS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS ..." LET ME MAKE A DISTINCTION HERE. SO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT IS GRANTED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS A PLANNING APPROVAL. THEY DO SOUND SAME, BUT THEY'RE NOT. THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS APPLIED AND GRANTED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. SO THERE'S MORE STEPS TO THIS.

THE DEVELOPMENT STILL HAS TO MEET BUILDING CODE.

IT STILL HAS TO MEET EXTERNAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE STATE ALSO MANDATED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CANNOT GET INVOLVED WITH IN THEIR APPROVALS UNDER -- UNDER A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE STATE STATUTE, WHICH HAS BEEN IN PLACE LONGER THAN THIS, IS THAT WE CAN'T HOLD UP A DEVELOPMENT PLANNING APPROVAL BASED ON EXTERNAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS OR PERMITS. SO...

THOSE COME INTO EFFECT AT BUILDING PERMIT.

SO AT BUILDING PERMITS, APPLICANTS HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEY'VE MET STATE REQUIREMENTS. THIS CONDITION ACTUALLY

[00:40:06]

PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OR BUILDING PERMITS OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, AS APPLICABLE, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACCESS ASSESS APPROVALS, AND SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THE EXTENDED AMRC, HOW THAT FORMS INTO A REQUIREMENT. CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR THAT STATE OF DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING ANY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, TIMING, OR TRAFFIC VOLUME TRIGGERS." SO AS THIS IS MONITORED BY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THEY WILL LOOK AT TRAFFIC VOLUME IN THIS LOCATION AND MAY APPLY ADDITIONAL EVACUATION ROUTE OR OTHER EMERGENCY ACCESS MEASURES, WHICH THE APPLICATION --

>> THE CHAIR: ORDER, PLEASE! >> THE APPLICANT OR THE DEVELOPER WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH THOSE.

>> I HAVE A COUPLE OTHERS, BUT PLEASE GO AHEAD.

>> GO AHEAD. GET THROUGH YOUR QUESTIONS, AND

WE'LL MOVE ON. >> LET ME CONTINUE WITH THAT -- ON THE SAME THOUGHT: THAT THIS STUDY HAS AVERAGE -- THE NET AVERAGE INCREASE WAS -- WHAT? 6700 TRIPS A DAY. AND THAT WAS THE -- THE COUNTY STUDY HAD A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCREASE OVER 50%, ON AVERAGE, SO THAT'S NOT EVEN IN SEASON. SO I STILL QUESTION -- AND THESE ARE JUST COMMENTS, BUT -- FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, I THINK IT IS ITS HANDS TIED, BUT IT STILL HAS A CONNECTION PERMIT THAT IT CAN

ACCEPT OR TURN DOWN. >> THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

>> THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY, TOO, IS THAT THE U.S. CENSUS TRACT, MOST RECENT ONE FROM THE ISLAND INLET TO HERON DRIVE -- HERON BOULEVARD, EXCUSE ME, THAT POPULATION -- THE PERMANENT POPULATION, IT WAS INTERESTING. IT WAS ABOUT 3426.

AND THIS PROJECT IS SUGGESTING AN INCREASE, ON AVERAGE, A POPULATION OF 2657, WHICH IS A 77% INCREASE IN AVERAGE POPULATION. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT STAFF COMING IN AND OUT. I'M NOT SURE ALL THE NUMBERS INCLUDE -- IF THEY'VE GOT PERMANENT RESIDENTS VERSUS USE OF THE MARINA, USE OF SHOPPING, USE OF RESTAURANTS.

IT'S JUST -- THE NUMBERS ARE MASSIVE, SO...

I'LL STOP WITH THAT AND GO BACK TO YOUR NEXT QUESTION.

>> SO, JUST TO KIND OF FOLLOW UP ON THE EVACUATION: SO -- AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS MAYBE STEP 1 AND THERE ARE SOME OTHER STEPS. WHETHER IT'S STEP 1, OR SOME OTHER NUMBER. SO THE PROJECT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE SOME KIND OF A PLAN FOR EVACUATION OF RESIDENTS AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. I FORGET THE TECHNICAL TERM BEHIND THAT AT THE MOMENT, BUT -- AND THAT'S ONE OF THE CONDITIONS. OR JUST A STANDARD REQUIREMENT?

>> WELL, IT IS -- THAT IS, IN EFFECT, A STANDARD REQUIREENT THAT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WILL NEED TO SEE AS THIS GOES THROUGH THEIR PROCESS.

THEIR PROCESS IS EXTERNAL TO THE CITY'S PROCESS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME. WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT.

WE HAVE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. THEY'VE REASSURED US OR CONFIRMED WITH US THAT THAT WILL BE THE CASE.

THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND THEY'RE HAPPY WITH THOSE.

SO THEIR ACCESS MANAGEMENT STAFF ARE AWARE OF THESE AND ALSO

[00:45:12]

>> SO, I NO NOTICED THAT THERE E SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS THAT ADDRESS OR SEEM TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, AGAIN -- AND MAYBE I'M SAYING THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF OTHERS -- THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME OTHER

STEPS IN THE PROCESS. >> YES.

>> BUT THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DO TALK ABOUT CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. IF THERE'S DEVELOPMENT --

>> YES. >> REQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL APPROVALS IN TERMS OF WHETHER SOVEREIGNTY SUBMERGED LANDS ARE

GOING TO BE UTILIZED. >> YES.

>> THERE'S A CONDITION THAT TALKS ABOUT 21 DEMONSTRATION WITH APPLICABLE WETLAND PROTECTION STANDARDS.

IF THERE ARE ANY TOU TORTOISES T LIVE OUT THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE KIND OF HABITAT THAT TORTOISES GO FOR. I DON'T KNOW.

TREE SURVEYS, THESE KIND OF THINGS.

SO THESE ARE THE KIND OF THINGS THAT MAYBE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND REQUIRE OTHER STEPS IN THE PROCESS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OR AT SOME POINT? CORRECT?

>> YES, THERE'S A COMBINATION OF WHAT HAPPENS DURING THE BUILDING PERMITS, SITE PERMIT REVIEW AND OTHER PERMITS THAT ARE GOING TO COME THROUGH THE CITY AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF EXTERNAL ARMY AGENCIES. SO YOU HAVE, LIKE, THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

THE FIRE DISTRICT. ALL THOSE AGENCIES HAVE THEIR OWN PERMITS AND REQUIREMENTS, WHICH, UNDER H OUR REMIT AND AVAILABLE OPTIONS, WE CAN'T CONTROL.

BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER THOSE STATE AGENCIES OR OTHER EXTERNAL AGENCIES REQUIRE.

>> AND ANOTHER... SO THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT -- ALSO OF THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS COULD HAVE A ROLE IN THIS BECAUSE OF THE NATURE AND THE PROJECT AND CERTAIN

THRESHOLDS? >> YES.

>> THERE'S A SERIES OF THOSE STEPS AS WELL?

>> YEAH. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED, WHEN THEY SUBMIT A BUILDING PERMIT, TO ASSURE AND PROVE THAT THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED PERMITS, EXTERNAL AGENCY PERMITS IN HAND WHEN THEY -- PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.

>> THE CHAIR: ANYTHING ELSE? SORRY?

>> 31 CONDITIONS, AND EACH CONDITION -- THE DEMANDS ON THE -- WELL-PUT-TOGETHER PRESENTATION, I'LL SAY.

A LOT OF HURDLES TO GET OVER. BUT THE -- THE BIGGEST OVERRIDING CONCERN, I THINK, FOR ALL OF US, IS I PERSONALLY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE LIVE LOCAL ACT WAS DESIGNED FOR THIS AT ALL.

JUST GO OVER FPUA. THE IMPACT THERE ON UTILITIES IN GENERAL. THE ABILITY -- AGAIN, IF WE HAD A POPULATION ON THE CITY - EXCUSE ME, ON THE ISLAND, THAT'S GOING TO GO UP 80% AND TRAFFIC IS GOING UP 50%, JUST THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEED AND THE MAINTENANCE NEEDS.

I'M SURE THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL, STEP-BY-STEP, STAY WITH THIS DEVELOPER. BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THE QUESTION IS, EVEN THOUGH THAT'S ITS OWN ENTITY, THE FPUA, THE IMPACT ON THEM TO DELIVER HAS TO BE ENORMOUS.

IT'S JUST -- IT'S JUST A MASSIVE INCREASE ON ALL LEVELS.

IT'S -- IT'S -- I THINK THE -- THIS FIRST PRESENTATION IS JU JUST -- BY THIS DEVELOPER IS INGENUOUS.

IT'S JUST REALLY ROUGH TO SWALLOW, BUT I'LL PASS IT ON TO THE NEXT. .I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT WHAT MR. WHITING WAS JUST SPEAKING ON.

THAT FPUA IS INVOLVED IN THE TRC PROCESS.

THEY DID PROVIDE SOME COMMENTS. WAS THERE ANY OCCASION IN THEIR REVIEW COMMENTS OF SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS PROJECT?

>> NOT THAT THEY -- THEY ISSUED COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT AND

[00:50:04]

>> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. MR. JOHNSON?

>> LET ME GET THIS CORRECT. SO WHEN THEY INTERACT WITH THESE EXTERNAL AGENCIES, YOU DON'T GET THE REPORTS OF WHAT THEY'RE DISCUSSING? AM I CORRECT?

>> IT WILL GO TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

WE DON'T GET TO SEE THOSE OR SIGN OFF ON THOSE OR APPROVE THOSE, NO. WE CAN'T.

>> I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN'T SIGN OFF ON 'EM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT DO YOU ACTUALLY GET TO SEE THEM?

THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> IF THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE IN THEPACKET FOR THE BUILDING P. YES.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE JUST DISMISS THEM THAT THEY'VE BEEN OBTAINED. THE PROCESSES WHEN WE GET A BUILDING PERMIT COMING THROUGH, WHATEVER THAT BUILDING PERMIT IS, IT'S ROUTED THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THEMSELVES.

SO EACH OF THOSE ENTITIES REVIEW THAT.

IF WE GET A BUILDING PERMIT THAT COMES THROUGH ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WILL BE LOOKING AT ARE THERE ANY CONDITIONS IN HERE WHICH AFFECT THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING PERMIT? BECAUSE THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS OF ORDER. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS OF DOES IT M MEET THE REQUIRED SUBMITTAL DAT? HAVE THEY DONE THINGS PRIOR TO THAT? SO THERE'S A STEP PROCESS. DO THEY HAVE EXTERNAL AGENCIES APPROVALS? A LOT OF THOSE ARE CHECKED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, BUT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT A DEP PERMIT IS OR WHAT A -- A DIFFERENT EXTERNAL AGENCY PERMIT IS.

SO WE WOULD BE WORKING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON ALL OF THESE EXTERNAL AGENCY PERMITS.

BUT IF A PERMIT COMES IN WITH A COVER LETTER THAT SAYS IT'S APPROVED BY AN AGENCY, THAT'S THE LIMIT OF HOW WE CAN LOOK AT

THAT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, SO JUST AS I'M LISTENING TO YOU, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT BUILDING PERMITS, AND THAT'S BECAUSE -- I THINK I'M SEEING THAT A SITE PLAN HAS ALREADY BEEN PROFFERED, AND IT'S ALREADY PART OF THIS.

>> YES. >> SO THERE WILL BE NO

INDEPENDENT SITE PLAN PROCESS. >> THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

SO, THIS IS THE PLANNING PART OF THAT.

AFTER THE SITE PLAN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BUILDING PERMITS THAT NEED TO BE OBTAINED. ONE OF THOSE IS CALLED THE SITE PLAN OR SITE WORK PLAN. AND THAT IS THAT ENGINEERING PART OF WHAT HAPPENS ON-SITE AS THE FIRST STEP.

IS THERE ANY LAND WORK? IS THERE ANY SITE CLEARING? IS THERE ANY INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRED? ALL THOSE DETAILS GO THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

A LOT OF THAT IS REVIEWED SPECIFICALLY BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE IT'S MAINLY ENGINEERING WORK THAT'S GOING IN IN THE INITIAL PROCESS. THAT HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE APPROVED LAYOUT OF THE SITE PLAN.

SO THEY CAN'T GO IN THERE AND PUT ANOTHER BUILDING IN OR MOVE THE BUILDINGS AROUND OR USE AN ALTERNATIVE STORE WATER SYSTEM WITHOUT COMING BACK THROUGH AND SAYING, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING. EXTERNAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS, SPECIFICALLY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER DISTRICT, CONFIRM HOW THEY TREAT THE STORM WATER ON THAT FACILITY.

SO THAT'S A BIG PERMIT TO GET, AND THAT'S PART OF THE ENGINEERING REVIEW. SO THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT PERMIT TO GET, AND THAT'S PART OF THE ENGINEERING REVIEW.

>> HOW DO THEY QUANTIFY THE LIFE SPAN OF, SAY, THE BRIDGE AND THE

SURROUNDING AREA TO IT? >> I'VE NOT SEEN THOSE.

HOW DO I PUT THIS? >> PUT A TOLL ON IT?

>> THERE'S GOING TO BE A POINT -- I'VE GOT TO SAY I DON'T KNOW THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT.

I'VE NOT BEEN INFORMED OF THE LIFE SPAN, AND I'M SURE THIS FDOT AND THE STATE HAVE THEIR OWN QUANTIFICATION OF THAT.

AND THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO PUT IT IN SORT OF A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR SOME DATE IN THE FUTURE.

[00:55:03]

HOW THEY -- SO HOW ALL THIS WORKS FROM THE STATE'S POINT OF VIEW IS IF THE VOLUME INCREASES, THEN THAT'S THE POINT THAT MIGHT TRIGGER AN ADDITIONAL STUDY FROM THE STATE'S POINT OF VIEW.

IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR AN EVENT UNTIL YOU GET A SOLUTION FOR THAT EVENT. AND THE STATE HAS STEPPED AWAY FROM DIRECT STAFF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATIONS ON THESE MATTERS.

SO WE HAVE HAD TO RELY ON THE STATE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION INTERNAL SYSTEMS REPORTING BACK TO US.

THEY DON'T ENGAGE DIRECTLY WITH US.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE TRY AND KEEP THEM INFORMED, BUT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY RESPOND ON THAT INFORMATION.

>> WHEN YOU ENTER IN TO DO A STUDY, SUCH AS A TRAFFIC STUDY, IF THERE ARE OTHER ONES GOING ON AT THE SAME TIME, WOULD THAT COMPANY OR AGENCY BE PRIVY TO OTHER OPEN STUDIES THAT ARE

TAKING PLACE? >> AND THAT'S WHY WE RUN THESE STUDIES THROUGH A CONSULTANT. THERE ARE CERTAIN LEVELS OF CONSIDERATION WITH -- I'M NOT A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER OR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE CERTAIN LEVELS OF CONSIDERATION WHEN CONSULTANTS AND ENGINEERS AND THE OTHER TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES REVIEW THESE.

YOU HAVE WHAT'S CALLED THE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC.

THAT'S THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING IN A LOCATION. AND THAT SOMETIMES IS -- AND THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU MENTIONED THERE'S X AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC NOW AND THEN IT'S GOING TO GO UP BY THAT.

SOME OF THE FAILURES THAT ARE CREATED BY THE EXISTING LEVELS OF TRAFFIC CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY A NEW APPLICANTS.

AGAIN, THAT'S IN STATE STATUTE. SO, THERE'S A METHODOLOGY THAT TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERS USE TO -- THEY ASSESS BACKGROUND TRAFFIC AND THEN THEY LOOK AT THE NEW TRAFFIC.

WHEN THESE THINGS GO ON, ESPECIALLY -- SPECIFICALLY THE ST. LUCIE TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION DO COMPILE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION. SO THEY'RE AWARE OF IT AND THEY REPORT TO THE STATE. SO I'M NOT A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER. I CAN SAY THAT THE IMPACT OF THIS AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL THE TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES THAT WE WOULD RELY ON TO REVIEW THOSE. AND IT'S NOT NORMALLY THE CASE, AND I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU THIS: IT'S NOT NORMALLY THE CASE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GO OUT TO ST. LUCIE COUNTY, BUT THEY DID OFFER TO ASSIST IN THE REVIEW OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS.

AND I WANTED TO KEEP SOME CONSISTENCY, BECAUSE THIS IS A -- IT'S NOT A COUNTY ROAD. THIS IS A STATE ROAD.

BUT I WANTED TO KEEP SOME CONSISTENCY IN HOW THINGS ARE REVIEWED. ALL OUR PROJECTS OR NORMALLY REVIEWED OR HANDLED BY IN, IN SOME RESPECT, BY ASSISTANTS FROM THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY, AND THAT WAS OFFERED.

I ACCEPTED THAT OFFER. I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND ANY OUTCOME OF THAT, AND I THINK IF WE USE THE SAME METHODOLOGY THAT IS BEING USED FOR ALL OF THE CITY IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION, THEN THAT WOULD BE MORE EASILY DEFENDABLE BY USING THE CONSISTENT CONSULTANT AND THE ENTITIES THAT REVIEW

THOSE TYPE OF APPLICATIONS. >> ON THE WORKFORCE HOUSING WITHIN IT, IS THAT ABLE TO BE UTILIZED BY EMPLOYEES ON-POLICE REPORT, AND CAN IT BE UTILIZED AS A PASS-THROUGH, POTENTIALLY?

>> I THINK IT CAN BE UTILIZED BY EITHER.

THE -- OBVIOUSLY THE TRIP CAPTURE THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IN HERE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING TO ENGAGE WITH BOAT CREWS, MAINTENANCE FOLKS, AND ANYBODY WHO WORKED IN THAT INDUSTRY TO ALLOW THEM TO LIVE AND WORK IN THE SAME LOCATION WITHIN THAT MARINA AREA. SO THAT WAS THE IDEA.

[01:00:02]

THEY ARE SUBJECT TO PROVIDING CERTAIN LEVELS OF ACCOMMODATION IN TERMS OF RENTAL LEVELS. THAT IS MANDATED BY THE STATE.

AND THERE ARE NUMBERS FOR WORK-FORCE HOUSING WITHIN THOSE

TABULAR REQUIREMENTS. >> BACK TO AFFORDABILITY AND WORKFORCE. I KNOW THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHICH ONE IS HIGHER?

>> WELL, THE STATE'S -- THE STATE'S CRITERIA FOR AFFORDABILITY IF YOU PULL UP THOSE NUMBERS OR FORT PIERCE, WHICH SITS IN THE ST. LUCIE'S METROPOLITAN AREA.

THEY'RE VERY HIGH. THEY'RE ALMOST AT MARKET RATE FOR WHAT YOU MIGHT GO AND RENT A PROPERTY OUT.

THE WORKPLACE CRITERIA IS USUALLY LOWER THAN THE MAXIMUM.

THAT'S JUST ACTUALLY BEEN RAISED AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE MARKET

SITUATION. >> AND THE 40%, IS THAT AFFORDABLE? IS THAT THE CRITERIA?

>> AFFORDABLE, YES. >> AND NOT WORKFORCE.

>> CORRECT. >> THE CHAIR: ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I DON'T HAVE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO -- I'D LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE.

I DON'T KNOW. IT'S UP TO --

>> THE CHAIR: YEAH, THIS IS OUR TIME FOR COMMENT AS THE

BOARD. >> OKAY.

I'M JUST CONSCIENCE OF THIS IS ONLY MY SECOND MEETIN, BUT...

ANYWAY, I -- SO, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A -- THERE'S A LEVEL OF FRUSTRATION -- -- I THINK IS TO PUT IT MILD, ABOUT THE PREDICAMENT, FROM THE STAFF AND THE PEOPLE THAT SIT UP HERE.

ALSO OUR CITY RESIDENTS. AND I GET IT.

I'M WEAVING -- I'M GOING TO WEAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A FINE LINE, BUT THE CONTEXT OF MY COMMENTS IS THAT I HAVE A BACKGROUND IN PLANNING, AND I'M -- YOU KNOW, I -- I'M A -- I HAVE A FORMER GOVERNMENT SEMIRETIRED ATTORNEY.

I STILL RETAIN MY LAW LICENSE, AND SOME OF THE STUFF IS -- SOME OF MY QUESTIONS WERE GENERATED BECAUSE OF BACKGROUND, AND I ACCEPTED THIS APPOINTMENT BECAUSE I FELT LIKE I COULD BRING SOMETHING TO IT. AND SO SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ARE INTENTIONALLY TO HELP THE STAFF OR THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THAT UNTIL YOU GO THROUGH THIS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

AND IT'S FRUSTRATING, AND THERE ARE WORDS AND TERMINOLOGY -- AND IT IS ALL VERY CONFUSING. AND THEN ON TOP OF IT -- AND I WILL -- THE CITY ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH STOP ME IF I'M GOING TOO FAR, BECAUSE SHE'S THE LAWYER, AND I'M NOT -- THE CONSEQUENCES THAT WE HAVE SEEN WHEN WE'RE AT THIS POINT IN TIME BECAUSE, OVER TIME, THE LEGISLATURE HAS PREEMPTED LOCAL -- LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, PARTICULARLY ON DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH, CONCURRENCECY MANAGEMENT AND ALL THOSE THINGS. AND I THINK -- AND THIS ACT, IN MY OPINION, SOMEBODY WHO'S DONE THIS WORK FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE LEGISLATION THAT'S WRITTEN BY PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS. THEY'RE NOT PLANNERS.

THEY'RE NOT LAND USE ATTORNEYS. THEY'RE NOT TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS. THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE SUGGESTED A CONCEPT, AND THE CONCEPT WAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THAT THIS WILL SOMEHOW SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

BUT THERE'S MUCH THAT'S NOT CLEARLY SET OUT.

FOR EXAMPLE, HOW DO YOU GUARANTEE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A PERIOD OF TIME? IN MY PRIOR POSITION, I WORKED FOR THE MARTIN COUNTY FOR A LONG TIME, AND WE CONFRONTED THAT AS WELL, AS HOW DO YOU -- WHAT DO YOU DO TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STAYS AFFORDABLE? YOU KNOW, AND MONITOR IT.

AND IT'S A BIG -- IT'S A BIG BURDEN.

I UNDERSTAND AND I APPRECIATE, AND I'M KIND OF WALKING A FINE LINE, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE TO THE POINT THAT FORT PIECE HAS, IN FLYING TO WORK THROUGH THIS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BOX THAT WE HAVE TO OPERATE IN.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHERS HAVE GONE -- GOTTEN TO THIS POINT. AND I APPRECIATE ALSO THE PIECE

[01:05:01]

AND YOU HAVE YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT IS BEING CAUTIOUS, AND THAT'S THEIR JOB; TO BE CAUTIOUS.

AND I THINK THAT, THOUGH, KIND OF STATE-WIDE, IS, LIKE, EXACTLY WHERE THIS BOX IS AND WHAT ABILITY TO CHALLENGE OR GO BEYOND HAVING TO ACCEPT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, I DON'T KNOW. BECAUSE I RETIRED FROM FULL-TIME WORK BEFORE THIS LAW -- BEFORE I SAW THE IMPACT ON MY.

>> LESLEY: . BUT I'M PROBABLY TALKING A LOT.

BUT I FEEL VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT AND I'M CONCERNED FOR MY COMMUNITY AND OTHER COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA THAT ARE DEALING WITH THIS. I GET IT.

IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT A GOOD POSTURE TO BE IN.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS NEXT, MAYBE.

AND I ALSO APPRECIATE THE RIGHTS OF A PROPERTY OWNER AND AGREE THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY UNDER THE LAW TO MOVE FORWARD.

IT'S A BALANCE. IT'S MAYBE NOT A BALANCE THAT WE WANTED TO ACHIEVE. PIECE, BECAUSE I GAVE ME THE MIC, SO...

>> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU, MS. STOREY.

ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, IS THERE ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION

FROM THE BOARD? >> OBVIOUSLY, THE DEVELOPER IS NOT GOING TO PRESENT ANYTHING TODAY.

MR. FREEMAN, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S ALL WE'VE GOT FOR YOU.

>> AND THE ONLY ADDITION I WOULD MAKE -- AND THE WORD "PREEMPTED" WAS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE, AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THIS ACT WAS DESIGNED FOR THE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST TO ANYONE AND EVERYONE THAT YOU CONTACT YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVE, BECAUSE THIS THING WAS DEVELOPED IN TALLAHASSEE, SO...

WIDING. YOU'RE 100% CORRECT.

THAT IS ALL WE HAVE FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM.

SO THERE'LL BE NO PUBLIC COMMENT, AS MS. HEDGES POINTED OUT. ONCE WE ARE DONE WITH OUR NEW BUSINESS, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO STICK AROUND.

THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA. BUT WE HAVE SOME OTHER ITEMS TO GET THROUGH FIRST, SO... IF THAT'S ALL, MR. FREEMAN, WE WILL CLOSE THIS AGENDA ITEM AND MOVE ON TO 6. A.

[01:10:12]

>> THE CHAIR: LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE, SO IF YOU INTEND TO REMAIN, PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS AND SETTLE DOWN. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. I DIDN'T CALL FOR AN OFFICIAL RECESS, SO WE'LL JUST KEEP ROLLING.

[a. PZSITE2025-00029 Minor Site Plan with Conditional Use  New Tank Farm 3700 Okeechobee Road]

>> ALL RIGHT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIRMAN AND BOARD. ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE BRING YOU A MINOR SITE PLAN FOR NEW TANK FORM. THE APPLICANT IS REPRESENTED BY LEO GIO GRANDI. THE PARCEL I.D. IS (241)731-1106. ALSO 3700 OKEECHOBEE ROAD.

AND 1903 SOUTH 37TH STREET. IN SUMMARY, A MINOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO DEVELOP A 9800-SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. THE PROPOSED BUILDING WOULD BE USED TO STORE 8,000 TO 10,000-GALLON TANKS.

THE OVERALL SITE AREA FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS APPROXIMATELY 2.36 ACRES, WITH THE NORTH PARCEL BEING .063 ACHE, AND SOUTH PARCEL BEING 1.73 ACRES.

FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PARCELS IS GC, GENERAL COMMERCIAL.

WHILE THE ZONING IS C-3 GENERALLY COMMERCIAL.

OH, EXCUSE ME. SITE PLAN DETAILS ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE OVERALL BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE 9600 SQUARE FEET, WHICH 9,000 SQUARE FEET IS FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND 600 SQUARE FEET WILL BE USED FOR OFFICE.

IN THE C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING BUILDING, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT THAT A BUILDING CAN BE IS 50 FEET.

THIS BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE 30 FEET IN HEIGHT.

OKAY. THE BUILDING WILL BE PROVIDING THREE UNITS FOR BIKE RACKS. EACH UNIT WILL BE ABLE TO HOUSE TWO BIKES PER UNIT, WHICH WILL PROVIDE A TOTAL OF SIX SPACES FOR BIKES. THEY WILL PROVIDE AN ENTRANCE OFF OF OKEECHOBEE ROAD, AS WELL AS 37TH STREET.

SIDEWALK CONNECTORS THAT ARE MEETING CODE.

DELIVERIES AND PICKUPS FOR THE GALLON TANK WILL BE THROUGH THE BOY DOORS PROVIDED ON THE BUILDING.

ON THE NORTH SIDES WITH THE ENTRY FOR THE BUILDING AND DELIVERY TRUCKS WITH THE EXIT COMING OUT ON THE SOUTH END.

WE ALSO HAVE THE WATERHOUSE ENTRANCE LOCATED HERE ON THE SOUTH END OF THE BUILDING THAT FACES OKEECHOBEE ROAD, AS WELL AS THE STOREFRONT ENTRANCE FACING OKEECHOBEE ROAD.

SO INITIALLY WHEN DISCUSSING THE INDUSTRIAL USE BUILDING, WE DID HAVE DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT.

IT IS OKEECHOBEE ROAD, SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE BUILDING REPRESENTED A DESIGN REVIEW AS IT LEADS INTO THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. SO THAT WAS THE INITIAL BUILDING THAT THE APPLICANT HAD PROVIDED, WITH DISCUSSION AND PROVIDING EXAMPLES. WHERE HAPPY WITH THE DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED MORE DESIGN AS WELL AS

[01:15:04]

LANDSCAPING DETAILS. TA PERIMETER BUFFER.

OVER ALL 93 TREES, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE EXISTING TREES.

AND INTERRUPTING GROUND COVERS, ABOUT 382 WILL BE PLANTED ON THE SITE. STAFFER RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN WITH THE FOLLOWING 10 LISTED CONDITIONS: 1, A LAND CLEARING PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

2, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT WITH MITIGATION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. 3, ALL SIGN PERMITS SHALL BE FILED SEPARATELY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

4, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CITY APPROVED LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT MUST BE NOTARIZED AND SUBMITTED.

5, DEMOLITION PERMITS ARE REQUIRED.

6, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 18 GENERAL CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WHICH IS LISTED ON PAGES 9-11. IN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS.

NUMBER 7, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 8 SPECIAL CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. NUMBER 8, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 12 PERMIT CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY NORTH ST. LUCIE RIVER WATER CONTROL DISTRICT.

9, ANY SITE PLAN OR ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS MUST BE APPROVED BY CITY OF FORT PIERCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS AND, 10, APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR A UNITY OF TITLE OR LOT COMBINATION WITH ST. LUCIE PROPERTY APPRAISALS AND IT MUST BE SIGNED OFF AND APPROVED PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED CONDITIONS OR TO RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.

>> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU. I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION.

CURRENTLY, THERE'S A WALK ON OKEECHOBEE SIDE OF THE SITE.

IS THAT PART OF THE SITE PLAN INTENTION, TO ADD SIDEWALKS ON

37TH STREET? >> YES, SIR.

YES, CHAIRMAN. >> THE CHAIR: THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I HAVE KIND OF A BACKGROUND QUESTION.

SO WHAT TRIGGERED THE REQUIREMENT THAT THIS BE BROUGHT FORWARD AS A CONDITIONING USE? I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE? >> IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE, AND THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. SO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LOCATED IN THE C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIALENING SO DISTRICT.

PER THE CITY'S ALLOWABLE USE TABLE, THIS USE IS CLASSIFIED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. LIGHT INDUSTRIAL IS CONDITIONAL

BASED IN C-3. >> OKAY.

AND JUST MAYBE ANOTHER GENERAL QUESTION: SO I'VE SEEN IN THE CODE WHERE THERE'S A CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, AND IT REFERENCES IT COMES -- THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THAT CITY MISSION?

COMMISSION? >> YES.

CODE-BASED THAT THESE ARE HEARD BY THE PLANNING BOARD? I MAY HAVE HEARD SOMETHING, AGAIN, I'M NEW.

I'M GOING TO CLAIM TO BE NEW FOR A LITTLE WHILE.

>> THE CHAIR: YOU HAVE TWO MORE WEEKS.

-- DO MORE MINUTES.

>> IF IT IS NOT REQUIRED, WE PREFER ITEMS TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING BOARD.

>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST DIDN'T IT, I'M A LITTLE BIT CODE-BASED/FOCUSED. SO...

OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> THE CHAIR: ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I NOTICED IN THE FIRST RENDERING. THEY SAID IT WAS THREE ENTRANCES TO THE PROPERTY, AND NOW THERE'S TWO? THOUGH ARE THEY REMOVING AN ENTRANCE?

>> SO, YEAH. SO THIS IS THE MORE UPDATED RENDERING FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING WHERE THERE WILL BE TWO. WELL, IF YOU -- I GUESS IF YOU COUNT THE NORTH END OF THE BUILDING WHERE THERE'S

[01:20:03]

>> OKAY. >> THE CHAIR: IF THERE'S NO

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF -- OH? >> WHAT TRIGGERS ALL THE CONDITIONS FROM SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT AND S ST. LUCIE

RIVER WATER? >> WHAT TRIGGER?

>> CORRECT. >> I'M ASSUMING THE LAYOUT OF THE PARCEL ITSELF. THERE'S A LOT OF TREES THERE.

THE PROPOSED USE. STORING THE GALLON TANKS, SO I BELIEVE THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WATER MAINTENANCE ON THE PROPERTY IS MAINTAINED AND UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SHOWING WETLANDS AND STORM WATERS.

>> IS IT SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE TANKS THEMSELVES OR NO, OR

WHAT THE USAGE IS OF THEM? >> PER MY READING, IT'S BASED ON THE OVERALL USE. SO IT'S NOT THAT THE TANKS ARE GOING TO BE PRODUCING ANYTHING THAT'S HAZARDOUS.

BUT I THINK, AGAIN, THE REPORT, FROM WHAT I'VE READ AND UNDERSTOOD ENTER FROM WHAT THEY SUBMITTED IS JUST BASED OFF OF THE USE; MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT WILL IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT IN A NEGATIVE WAY, BEING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. BUT, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT CAN EXPOUND MORE SO ON THEIR CONDITIONS AND WHAT TRIGGERED

IT. >> THE CHAIR: OKAY.

IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND INVITE THE APPLICANT FORWAR. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES.

PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. SIGN IN.

STATE YOUR NAME, AND IF YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION, YOU CAN PRESENT, OR WE CAN JUST ASK YOU QUESTIONS.

>> LEO GIO GRANDI. I THINK THE PRESENTATION SHE PUT ON WAS PLENTY GOOD FOR ANYBODY. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

THAT THE HAD BOARD MAY HAVE. >> THE CHAIR: DO YOU WANT TO ELABORATE ON THE QUESTION MR. JOHNSON JUST POSED ABOUT THE

INITIAL REGULATION? >> YEAH, YOU HEARD ME WHISPERING

OVER HERE? >> THE CHAIR: I FIGURED YOU

HAVE SOME EXPLANATION FOR US. >> OUR STORM WATER SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AN UNDERYOUR WATER CHAMBER SYSTEM.

THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING OUR GROUNDWATER WELL, AND THEY FUNCTION PROPERLY AND DO NOT HAVE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORS. SO THAT'S THE THINGS THAT A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN YOUR TYPICAL SITE DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT. >> WHAT TYPE OF OIL WILL THEY HAVE IN THE TANKS? WHAT TYPE OF OIL?

>> , LIKE, BABY OIL? >> I'M CURIOUS.

>> THEY'RE AN AGGREGATE FIRM. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A -- I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW THEIR BUSINESS RATHER, RARE WELL FROM ROCK PIT.

SO THEY DO SELL ASPHALT, SO THEY COULD BE USING THE OIL, BRINGING IT TO ANOTHER SITE WHERE THEY ACTUALLY MIX AND MAKE THE ASPHALT. I'M NOT UP TO SPEED ON EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF OIL. EXCUSE MY BABY OIL JOKE.

I DON'T KNOW. 10W30.

I'M ASSUMING IT'S OIL USED FOR AGGREGATES, WHICH IS MOST LIKELY INSTALLMENTS. BECAUSE THERE'S A GOOD AMOUNT -- ASPHALTS -- BECAUSE THERE'S A GOOD AMOUNT OF OIL IN ASPHALT.

>> THE CHAIR: AND THE FACILITY IS NOT GOING TO BE OPERATING ANY MANUFACTURING PROCESS? IT'S JUST A STORAGE AND

DISPENSING FACILITY? >> BASICALLY, THAT'S ALL IT IS.

AND EVEN THE FRONT, THAT'S JUST AN OFFICE FOR ONE PERSON THAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE THERE, SHOULD ANYTHING BE NEEDED.

THE NICE PART IS THEY'VE HAD LESSONS LEARNED ON HOW TO DELIVER THE MATERIALS, PICK THE MATERIALS UP, THE TYPES OF TANKS, ABOVE-GROUND TANKS, DOUBLE-WALL TANKS ENCLOSED WITH ALL KINDS OF SAFETY MECHANISMS. IT SHOULD PROBABLY -- HAVE I LITTLE ACTION, I HAPPENED EXPECT THERE, OTHER THAN TRANSFERRING THINGS THROUGH. SO IF WE NEEDED OIL TO BRING IT TO THE OTHER SITE WHERE THEY'RE ACTUALLY MANUFACTURING THE ASPHALT, THEY WOULD HAVE A TRUCK PICK IT UP, FILL IT UP, AND WHEN THAT TANK WAS EMPTY, IT WOULD GET REFILLED.

>> THE CHAIR: UNDERSTOOD. NOT REALLY A QUESTION.

JUST A GENERAL COMMENT. I APPRECIATE THE -- YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT'S COMPLYING WITH THE REQUESTS FROM PLANNING STAFF TO WORK ON THE OVERALL LOOK OF THE BUILDING.

DEFINITELY MORE HAPPY WITH THIS THAN THE PREVIOUS ALTERNATIVE WE SAW. AND, ALSO, I APPRECIATE THE SITE PLAN LAYOUT, THE WAY THAT THE TRUCK ENTRANCE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED OFF OF OWE KEETCH BEE ROAD.

WE DON'T AFTERNON SEE THAT FORETHOUGHT, SO I'M GLAD YOU LOOK ADVANTAGE OF HAVING THE ACCESS ON 37TH STREET.

>> I TOOK MY WORDS, RIGHT. >> THE CHAIR: WHOEVER CAME UP

WITH THAT IDEA WAS THINKING. >> I'VE GOT A GREAT STAFF.

[01:25:03]

>> THE CHAIR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? HEARING NONE... I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR

YOUR TIME. >> THE CHAIR: AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEM ONLY, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON ITEM 6-A, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE... I WOULD SEND IT BACK TO STAFF FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPLICATION WITH THE 10 CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE PLANNING

DEPARTMENT HAS PUT IN PLACE. >> SECOND.

>> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, WITH 10 CONDITIONS, BY MR. WIDING.

A SECOND BY MS. CLEMONS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

[b. PZSITE2026-00016 Conditional Use with New Construction Anderson Residence 1840 Surfside Drive]

WHEN YOU'RE READY. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE THE ANDERSON RESIDENCE. A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION LOCATED AT 1840 SURFSIDE DRIVE.

THE OWNER'S LISA ANDERSON, APPLICANT MIKE ZEAL OF ARREST TECTONIC INCORPORATED. SUBJECT SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.54 ACRES, PLUS OR MINUS. AND THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL FOR CONDITIONAL USE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STOREY THREE-BEDROOM, FIVE-BATHROOM SINGLE FAMILY HOME. IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 1 125-37191 AND 237 OF THE CITY CODE, THE APPLICANT IS PRESENTING TO THIS APPLICATION TO YOU.

BUILDING HEIGHTS: NO BUILDING SHALL EXCEED A HEIGHT OF 28 FEET ABOVE GRADE, EXCEPT CONDITIONAL USES WITH BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A MAXIMUM FEET OF 35 FEET ABOVE GRADE MAY BE APPROVED. THIS IS THE REASON FOR THIS APPLICATION BEFORE YOU. SIMPLY THE HEIGHT.

NOT THE SITE PLAN. NOT THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. JUST FOR REFERENCE, THIS IS AN EXHIBIT OF THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY DISTRICTS, HOW HEIGHT IS CALCULATED, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS CALCULATED FROM THE FEMA BASED FLOOD ELEVATION.

CONDITIONAL USE PROCEDURES. THIS IS SECTION 125.237, WHICH REQUIRES THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF SURFSIDE DRIVE, AS SHOWN IN THIS AERIAL.

FUTURE LAND USE IS NO DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

AND PRETTY MUCH SURROUNDED BY THAT IN THE ENTIRE AREA OF SOUTH BEACH. TO THE WEST IS R-2, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY INTERMEDIATE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND ALSO FOR REFERENCE, BOTH OF THESE ZONING DISTRICTS HAVE THE SAME MAXIMUM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH IS 28 FEET, WITH THE ABILITY OF A CONDITIONAL USE AT 35 FEET.

THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES A THREE-STOREY STRUCTURE.

GROUND-LEVEL GARAGE. PARKING.

APPROXIMATELY 388 SQUARE FEET. THE COVERED, UNCOVERED PATIOS, GALLERY, DINING ROOM, KITCHEN, ET CETERA.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A LANDSCAPE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES A TOTAL OF TEN TREES, 15 PALMS, 216 SHRUBS.

THESE ARE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE.

IT'S A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY, AS YOU CAN SEE.

[01:30:03]

THESE ARE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH INCREASED HEIGHTS ON 204 SURFSIDE, 35 FEET, 1812 SURFSIDE, 34.4. 1830, 32.7 FEET.

AND 1912, 34 FEET. AGAIN, THIS IS THE EXHIBIT FOR THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH STATES HOW WE CALCULATE THE HEIGHT. HERE IS A WEST ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THE 35 FEET IN HEIGHT. AN EAST ELEVATION.

NORTH ELEVATION. SOUTH ELEVATION.

HERE'S A FRONT VIEW RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

SOUTHEAST VIEW RENDERING. NORTHEAST VIEW RENDERING.

ALL BE AFFECTED DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REGARDS TO CONSISTENCY, ESTABLISHED ORDINANCES AND COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING CODE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS MODIFIED APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.

THANK YOU. >> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU, MR. GILMORE. SO, IF YOU -- A FEW TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. FOR THIS CURRENT ZONING, WHAT IS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT?

>> 7 FEET. >> THE CHAIR: 7 FEET?

>> YES. >> THE CHAIR: SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAD -- WE HAD ANOTHER ONE OF THESE NOT LONG AGO.

SLIGHTLY MORE COMPLICATED THAN THIS ONE.

A MUCH BIGGER LOT. THAT WAS ATTAINED BY A UNITY OF

TITLE. >> YES.

>> THE CHAIR: THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE.

I BELIEVE WE HAD A SPLIT VOTE ON THAT ONE.

THIS ONE SEEMS A LITTLE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD, A LITTLE MORE OF A CONGRUENT-SIZED BUILDING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE -- THE SIZE OF THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS A MAJOR POINT OF CONTENTION.

I THINK, FOR ME, THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ELEMENT OF IT WAS THE FACT THAT YOU HAD TWO SINGLE LOTS THAT WERE JOINED THROUGH UNITY OF TITLE AND EFFECTIVELY LOST 14 FEET OF SETBACKS TO THE COMMUNITY. WE DON'T HAVE THAT CONDITION HERE. I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCESS, BUT I DO WANT TO TAKE THIS MOMENT AS A LITTLE BIT OF A PLATFORM TO SUGGEST TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THIS HEIGHT REQUIREMENT ON THE BEACH. I DON'T THINK THAT THESE APPLICATIONS ARE GOING TO STOP COMING.

IF PEOPLE CAN AFFORD TO BUY AND BUILD ON THESE LOTS, AND 35 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN IS PRETTY REASONABLE FOR A HOUSE ON THE BEACH. IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD POSSIBLY SAVE EVERYBODY A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT AND ENERGY IF WE JUST MADE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT 35 FEET, SO...

THAT'S MY TWO CENTS ON IT. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE REST OF

THE BOARD. >> SO, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO, WHAT IS THE CRITERIA THAT STAFF USES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS KIND OF REQUEST?

>> WELL, WE -- THERE'S NO CRITERIA IN THE CODE.

SO, WE -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD BE USING, I GUESS, THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT'S WHY I SHOWED THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED HEIGHT INCREASES, WHICH HAS PRETTY MUCH SET A PRECEDENT, SO WE DON'T SEE WHERE THIS IS CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE'S ALREADY FOUR OTHER ONES, AND THAT'S JUST ON SURFSIDE, WHERE WE'VE APPROVED HEIGHT

INCREASES, SO... >> THE CHAIR: A AND THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT. I'VE NERVE REALLY LIKED HOW SUBJECTIVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS IS.

I'M AN ENGINEERING. I LIKE CODE.

I LIKE TARGETS, AND THEN HITTING THOSE TARGETS.

IT DOES BECOME MORE OF A SUBJECTIVE PROCESS HERE.

[01:35:04]

OBVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT HAS TO COME DOWN HERE AND GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS. SO IF IT IS EFFECTIVELY JUST GOING TO BECOME A PRECEDENT, AS MR. GILMORE STATED, YOU KNOW, MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION WOULD BE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT WE MAKE THE 35 FEET THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT

ALLOWABLE. >> SOME COMMUNITIES NO LONGER HAVE CONDITIONAL USES OR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, BECAUSE FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE AND THE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR THAT, IT MAKES IT A BIT PROBLEMATIC, AND SOMETIMES SUBJECTIVE.

>> MM-HMM. >> AND YOU KNOW, SOCIETY IS A LOT MORE LITIGIOUS THAN IT USED TO BE, AND IT'S KIND OF A -- ANYWAY... SO I SEE THAT IN THE CODE.

IT JUST TALKS ABOUT THE -- THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AND THE CITY.

IT'S KIND OF GENERIC. BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS AS TO THE BACKGROUND OF THIS. AND I ALSO APPRECIATE ONE OF THE THINGS IS TO NOT REQUIRE PEOPLE TO NECESSARILY COME THROUGH A MULTI-STEP PROCESS FOR SOME THINGS IF IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS OR CITY SERVICES OR THINGS LIKE THAT; A BALANCE OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS.

I APPRECIATE THAT. >> OR ALTERNATIVELY, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING SPECIFIC THAT THE CITY HOPED TO ACHIEVE IN ALLOWING THAT CONDITIONAL USE, THEN DEFINE IT, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT THAT WE WANT AN APPLICANT TO SATISFY IN ORDER TO GAIN ACCESS TO THAT? YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT? SEVEN MORE FEET THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET? YOU KNOW, ONE OR THE OTHER. BUT AT THIS POINT, IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE WE'RE DELIBERATELY WASTING PEOPLES' TIME.

I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT.

>> WELL, AS SOMEBODY WHO'S BEEN HERE A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN YOU ALL, I CAN SAY THAT GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS WITH BUILDING IN THAT AREA, THE GRADE HAS CHANGED DURING MY TENURE, SO THE ELEVATION HEIGHTS HAVE INCREASED.

EVEN SOME OF THOSE THAT I'M LOOKING AT ON HERE, THE ELEVATION HEIGHTS AT THAT TIME WERE MUCH LOWER.

>> THE CHAIR: RIGHT. WELL, THE FLOOD PLAIN CHANGED.

>> FEMA STANDARDS CHANGED. IS ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT AS THEY INCREASE THOSE NUMBERS, SO THOSE NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND COMPARING THEM TO, THEY'RE ACTUALLY OUTDATED. THEY'RE NOT RELEVANT.

THEY'RE NOT EQUAL. APPLES AND ORANGES.

>> THE CHAIR: RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? MR. WIDING? MR. JOHNSON?

>> IS IT ONLY BASED UPON LIVABLE SPACE? LIKE, THIS HAS A GARAGE AS THE WHOLE FIRST AREA?

>> IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE DIAGRAM --

>> -- THE LEVEL ITSELF. BUT DOES -- IT SAID THERE WAS AN AREA FOR UP TO 20% FOR STEEPLES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

>> RIGHT. >> IS THERE ANY PERCENTAGE OR OFFSET DUE TO NOT HAVING LIVABLE SPACE FOR THE FIRST FLOOR?

OR THAT DOESN'T -- >> NO, I KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT. IT'S NOT REALLY RELATED TO LIVABLE SPACE. WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS, BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION IS GRADUALLY YEAR BY YEAR GETTING HIGHER AND HIGHER, WE'RE SEEING THE COMPRESSION OF POTENTIAL LIVABLE SPACE WITHIN THAT -- WITHIN THAT AREA.

SO THE HEIGHT IS CONTINUALLY HITTING THAT -- YOU KNOW, THAT MOMENT FOR IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, BUILDING WITHIN THAT BELOW OR WITHIN THE FLOOD PLAIN ELEVATION, IT'S USUALLY A STRUCTURE THAT CAN BLOWOUT IN A FLOOD.

WE SEE THOSE TYPES OF HOUSING ALL ALONG THE OCEAN FRONT RIGHT AWAY DOWN THE EAST COAST, WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE FLOOD LAIN PLAIN ELEVATION IS GOING UP AND UP AND UP AND TO GET LIVING ACCOMMODATION OF DECENT CEILING HEIGHTS, YOU'RE GONNA BE PUSHING AGAINST THAT OVERALL LIMIT. SO, THERE'S -- YEAH, THERE'S --

>> THAT'S WHY IN THE OVERLAY, THE STARTING POINT IS THE FLOOD PLAIN, RIGHT? IT'S ALWAYS 35 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN. SO THAT FLOOD PLAIN CAN CHANGE, AND THEREFORE THE TOP LIMIT WOULD CHANGE WITH IT.

>> IF THE FLOOD PLAIN GOES TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT, YOU'RE PUSHING YOUR FIRST POINT OF LIVING ACCOMMODATION HIGHER.

>> RIGHT. BECAUSE THE LIVING ACCOMMODATION HAS TO ALSO BE ABOVE THE FLOOD PLAIN.

>> YES. >> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT.

[01:40:01]

IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, THEY CAN COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO. YOU'RE CERTAINLY INVITED TO, IF YOU WANT. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE

APPLICANT? >> THE PUBLIC MIGHT.

>> THE CHAIR: THE PUBLIC'S NOT GOING TO DIRECTLY ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS. WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT

QUESTIONS. >> MAYBE, I THINK THE -- I THINK AN APPLICANT SHOULD -- IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, SHOULD APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THEIR PROJECT, AND SO, YOU KNOW...

SHARE, SINCE IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE.

SO MAYBE JUST SHARE -- I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE, JUST SO -- I WANT TO -- YOU KNOW, WE JUST NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS APPROPRIATELY, I THINK. SO, PLEASE...

EXPLAIN. SO, ARE YOU THE OWNER OR THE

ARCHITECT? >> I AM THE ARCHITECT.

MY NAME IS MIKE SEAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> I CAN ADD ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS BASED ON THE HEIGHT AND THE LIVABLE SPACE RESTRICTIONS. ALL OF THAT IS VALID AND ACCURATE, AND WE DO RUN INTO CONSTRAINTS WITH TRYING TO DESIGN BEACH FRONT HOMES, ESPECIALLY ON THIS STREET.

THE DUNE IS AT A CERTAIN LEVEL, SO IF YOU ARE TRYING TO LIVE ON THE BEACH, YOU WANT TO SEE THE OCEAN FROM ONE OF YOUR LIVABLE FLOORS. SO THEN TYPICALLY YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST TWO FLOORS UP THERE.

SO YOU'LL NOTICE THE LIVABLE FLOOR IS AT THE DUNE HEIGHT SO THEY CAN SEE THE OCEAN FROM THEIR HEIGHT.

SO THAT'S A CONSTRAINT WE RUN INTO ON THIS STREET,

PARTICULARLY. >> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WELL, THANK YOU FOR COMING FORWARD.

APPRECIATE THAT. AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY ON ITEM 6-B, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SO PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR

NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> MY NAME IS JAMERIKR MORRELL.

SPEAKING ON THIS, I AM GRATEFUL THAT YOU GUYS ALLOWED ME TO COME UP. KEEPING FORT PIERCE BEAUTIFUL I BELIEVE SHOULD BE A CONCERN NOT JUST FOR THIS PROPERTY, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS ONE; HAVING THAT VIEW OF THE BEACH AND THE WATERS, RIGHT? IS IMPORTANT.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT MAKES THAT LIVING ARRANGEMENTS WHAT IT IS, AND, YOU KNOW, I JUST -- I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, LIKE, YOU KNOW, GARBAGE AND THINGS AROUND THE AREA DOES DETERIORATE FROM THAT EXPERIENCE AND THAT CONVENIENCE WHEN IT COMES TO THESE TYPES OF PROPERTIES AND THINGS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NICE TO BE AROUND AND CONVENIENT.

SO THAT'S -- THAT'S IT FROM ME. THANK YOU GUYS FOR LETTING ME

SPEAK. >> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU.

>> MM-HMM. >> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT.

IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN

A MOTION AT THIS TIME. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. >> SECOND.

>> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MS. STOREY, SECONDED BY MS. CLEMONS.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> MR. WIDING.

>> YES. >> MFAST STOREY.

>> YES. >> MR. JOHNSON,.

>> YES. >> MS. CLEMONS?

[c. PZSITE2026-00020 Major Site Plan with Conditional Use GraceWay Village 1780 Hartman Road]

>> YES. >> THE

>> THE CHAIR: CH YES. WE HAVE ITEM 6-C, I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS ITEM DUE TO A PERCEIVED CONFLICT WITH THE APPLICANT. I'M GOING TO PASS THE GAVEL TO

MS. CLEMONS. >> IF YOU WILL HAND IT TO MADAM CLERK, SHE WILL KEEP THAT FOR YOU.

THANK YOU. >> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU.

[01:45:01]

>> OKAY. SO WE HAVE NEXT UP ITEM C.

MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH CONDITIONAL USE GRACEWAY VILLAGE AT 1780

HARTMANN ROAD. >> THANK YOU, MADAM VICE-CHAIR.

THIS IS A MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR GRACEWAY VILLAGE, LOCATED AT 1780 H1780 HARTMANROAD.

AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR MAJOR SITE PLAN, DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WITH CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES BY THE OWNER, GRACEWAY VILLAGE INC., REPRESENTED BY HALEY WARD, TO CONSTRUCT A FAMILY SHELTER COMMUNITY CENTERED ON TEMPORARY HOUSING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON 7.84 ACRES. AGAIN, LOCATED AT 1780 HARTMAN ROAD. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE LOCATION MAP, WE ARE JUST SOUTH OF WHITE DERRY ROAD, WHICH KIND OF DOES A JOG HERE, AND WE HAVE A CANAL TO THE NORTH, AND THEN HARTMAN ROAD TO THE WEST. LEADING INTO THAT -- AND AGAIN, ALL OF THAT IS LOCATED NORTH OF OKEECHOBEE.

THE FUTURE LAND USE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND THE ZONING IS G-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE PROPERTY CURRENLY CONTAINS TWO BUILDINGS, CONTAINING A COMBINED 7,563 CONVEYOR FEET THAT HOUSES THE APPLICANT'S CAFE PROGRAM, CLOTHING BOUTIQUE AND OFFICES. THE FACILITIES WERE RECENTLY REMODELED IN 2009. THEY HAD SOME ROOFING DONE IN 2024, I BELIEVE. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN COMES INTO PLAY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

AGAIN, THE FUTURE LAND USE FROM THE PLAN IS GENERALLY COMMERCIAL FROM THE PARCEL, AND WE HAVE THREE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT UNDER POLICY 1.16B WHEN LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL.

THE FIRST IS FLOOR AREA RATIO. THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ALLOWS UP TO A RATIO OF 1, AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS WELL BELOW THIS. FINALLY, THE POLICY FURTHER ALLOWS A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 15 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE PROPOSAL PROVIDES 4.59 ACRES. OVERALL, STAFF FINDS THAT THIS IS COMPLIANT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

WITH REGARD TO ZONING, A FAMILY SHELTER COMMUNITY CENTERED ON TEMPORARY HOUSING -- CALLED AN ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITY CONDITIONAL USE IN THE DISTRICT. WHEN IT COMES TO CONDITIONAL USES, THERE ARE SEVERAL -- FOR ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES, THERE'S SOME BASIC USE STANDARDS OUTLINED IN THE CODE THAT THE PROPOSAL HAS TO MEET, AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE IS THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, WHICH MAY NOT EXCEED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LIMITS, AND AGAIN, THAT WAS AT 15 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND WITH 36 PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS, THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A DENSITY OF 4.59.

HERE YOU HAVE THE SITE PLAN. THE SITE COMPROMISES APPROXIMATELY 7.48 ACRES AND EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS WILL COVER 12.26% OF THE LAND AREA AT ULTIMATE BUILD-OUT.

PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, CIRCULATION, PAVING AND PARKING AREAS WILL COVER 12.76 OF THE LAND USE -- OR LAND AREA.

AND THAT RESULTS IN 73.72% OPEN SPACE, WELL ABOVE OUR CODE-REQUIRED MINIMUMS. BUT THAT WILL INCLUDE OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPE BURST, AND STORM WATER RETENTION FACILITIES. SO THE PLAN WITH THIS IS THE APPLICANT WILL BE PHASING THIS PROJECT IN OVER TIME.

THE FIRST PORTION WILL BE PHASE 1, WHICH IS AN EXPANSION -- NEW

[01:50:02]

THAT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT 10,200 SQUARE FEET AND CONTAIN TEN DWELLING UNITS AND SUPPORT FACILITIES.

PHASE 2 CONTEMPLATES BUILDING COTTAGES.

THESE WILL BE TRIPLEXES. SIX TRIPLEXES.

EACH UNIT WILL BE ABOUT 990 SQUARE FEET, AND ALL OF THAT WILL BE -- ALL THOSE BUILDINGS COMBINED WILL BE ABOUT 17,800 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN, ULTIMATELY, IN PHASE 3 OF THE PROJECT, IT IS AN EXTENSION OF THE BUILDING FROM PHASE 1, WHICH WOULD EXPAND THE FACILITY BY 6,300 SQUARE FEET, WITH ADDITIONAL -- EIGHT ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS AND ADDITIONAL SPORT FACILITIES. THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE -- IT REALLY IS AN EXTENSION OF WHAT EXISTS ON-SITE NOW.

THE EXISTING BUILDINGS DEMONSTRATE A YELLOW STUCCO WITH A GREY METAL ROOF, AND THIS IS BEING DESCRIBED AS FLORIDA VERNACULAR. I'M SORRY.

-- YES, PHASE 1 AND 3 BUILDINGS THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WITH THESE ELEVATIONS WILL FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT COLOR SCHEME AND MATERIAL SCHEME. IN ADDITION, COVERED WALKWAYS ON THE SITE WILL BE EXPANDED FROM THE PHASE 1 BUILDING TO THE CLOTHING BOUTIQUE AND CAFE. SOME OF THE -- THAT BOTTOM ELEVATION IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM HARTMAN ROAD.

RIGHT THERE. AND YOU CAN SEE THE BREAK-OUT OF PHASE 1 TO THE LEFT AND PHASE 3 TO THE RIGHT.

THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN COORDINATED WITH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. ALL DEPARTMENTS HAVE SUPPORTED THE APPLICATION. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH CONDITIONAL USE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

EXTENDED TO PHASE 1, 2 AND 3 AS SHOWN BEEN THE SITE PLAN.

PHASE 2 OF THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, ARCHITECTURAL, DUE TO THE SIZE OF EXPANSION AND NUMBER OF UNITS. NO BUILDING PERMITS FOR PHASE 2 MAY BE ISSUED UNTIL MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR PHASE 2 HAS BEEN APPROVED. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF LAND CLEARING PERMIT.

A LAND CLEARING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A LAND LAND DEVELOPMENT SURVEY.

ST. LUCI COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMPLIANCE REVIEW.

NUMBER 6, ALL REQUIRED FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY PERMITS WILL BE REQUIRED AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN -- DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMPLIANCE REVIEW. ALL SIGNS SHOULD BE PERMITTED UNDER SEPARATE BUILDING PERMITS, AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT MUST BE SIGNED, NOTARIZED AND SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND FINALLY, NUMBER 9, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A MAINTENANCE PLAN AND AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE OWNER AND/OR OPERATING ENTITY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEERING.

THE AGREEMENT SHALL INCLUDE THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL STORM WATER FACILITIES AND SHALL ENSURE THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM HAS A PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF NUANCE AND INVASIVE EXOTICS AND OTHER VEGETATION TO ENSURE NO REGROWTH OF THE SAME. ALTERNATIVELY, THE BOARD COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OR RECOMMEND DENIAL. MADAM VICE-CHAIR, THAT IS MY PRESENTATION, AND I AM OPEN TO OMMENTS -- OR QUESTIONS FROM

THE BOARD. >> THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> JUST A COMMENT. SO I APPRECIATED THE THOROUGHNESS OF THE STAFF REPORT.

THAT WAS HELPFUL, GIVEN THE CONTEXT.

>> THANK YOU FOR READING IT. >> INITIALLY IT GAVE ME SOME PAUSE, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL THAT I SEE WITHIN THE -- ALTHOUGH I ACTUALLY NOTICED IT FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN YOU WERE READING IT TODAY.

IS THAT THERE'S A COMPONENT OF RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THAT -- THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, SO...

[01:55:03]

>> PRECISELY. >> BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE LAND USE AUTHORIZES IT, IT'S JUST THE NEXT STEP.

SO IT STILL GIVES ME A LITTLE PAUSE TO PUT RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THIS. SO I'M ANXIOUS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND IF THERE'S ANY COMMENTS FROM, YOU KNOW, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR SOMETHING. BUT YOUR STAFF REPORT WAS EXTREMELY HELPFUL TO ME PERSONALLY.

THANK YOU. >> I -- THROUGHOUT -- THIS HAS BEEN A CONFUSING ONE TO PUT INTO A BUCKET FOR ME, FROM A PROFESSIONAL POINT OF VIEW. BUT REALLY, WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE COMPONENTS AND THE FUNCTIONS OF EACH OF THE BUILDINGS, THIS REALLY -- AND I THINK I KIND OF MENTIONED IT IN APPLY STAFF REPORT, THIS SORT OF FUNCTIONS AS A COLLEGE CAMPUS, IF YOU WILL, THAT YOU HAVE LIVING FACILITIES OR, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A FULL KITCHEN IN THOSE DORMS, RIGHT? BUT YOU DO HAVE ACCESS TO BATHROOM FACILITIES, WHETHER THEY'RE PRIVATE OR COMMUNITY BATHROOMS. THESE WILL HAVE INDIVIDUAL BATHROOMS FOR EACH OF THE LIVING UNITS, BUT THAT CAFE REALLY SERVES AS KIND OF A CENTRAL HUB, OF THE CAFETERIA, AND YOU CAN THINK OF THE BOUTIQUE WITH THE OFFICES KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THE SCHOOL STORE OR, YOU KNOW, THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING.

AND SO FROM A VERY CONCEPTUAL POINT OF VIEW, IT REALLY STARTS TO LOOK MORE LIKE A RESIDENTIAL FACILITY TO ME THAN, YOU KNOW, A BIG CORPORATE OFFICE TYPE THING THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY SEE IN

C-3S. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THIS PORTION.

IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS MARK LANTSMAN. I AM ENGINEERING THE PROJECT FOR THE CLIENT, AND THE CLIENT IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OH, RIGHT BEHIND ME.

I THOUGHT STAFF DID A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU, CHRIS, AND I'M JUST HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> MAYBE FOR THE APPLICANT: OTHER THAN THE ENGINEER, YEAH. I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR KIND OF THE PERSPECTIVE. I AM FAMILIAR WITH GRACEWAY VILLAGE, AND I APPRECIATE THE -- I JUST NEED -- NEED TO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE THAT IT'S THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR PEOPLE LIVING HERE.

I -- MAYBE JUST TO ADD A LITTLE EXPLANATION MORE ABOUT THAT,

PLEASE. >> TO EXPLAIN MORE ON WHAT CHRIS IS TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS NOT A PERMANENT RESIDENCE. THESE ARE TEMPORARY RESIDENCES TO HELP OUT THE COMMUNITY AND REALLY TO HELP PEOPLE GET BACK ON TO THEIR FEET AND TO ASSIST THEM SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A LONG-TERM RESIDENT. IT IS MORE OF A TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE OR LIKE A DORMITORY, LIKE HE WAS SAYING.

SO, THIS IS NOT -- LIKE I SAY, RESIDENTIAL IN THAT NATURE.

IT'S TEMPORARY. >> SO, WHAT DOES "TEMPORARY" MEAN?

>> I'M SORRY. IT'S PROBABLY BEST FOR YOU.

>> MY NAME IS CRYSTAL HEATHERINGTON, FOURTH-GENERATION FORT PIECE RESIDENT, RAISING THE FIFTH AND THE SIXTH.

SO I ABSOLUTELY LOVE OUR CITY AND THE PEOPLE IN OUR CITY.

EVERYBODY HAS A STORY, RIGHT? AND UNFORTUNATELY RIGHT NOW IN OUR CAFE LINE WHERE OUR KITCHEN OPERATION IS GOING ON, WE ARE SERVING NEARLY 8,000 MEALS A MONTH.

SO THESE ARE FAMILIES THAT WE ARE SEEING COMING TO US THAT NEED THAT SUPPORT, NEED THAT HELP FOR A TEMPORARY TIME.

MANY OF THESE FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET, WORKING HARD, BUT THEY'RE JUST NOTE ABNOT ABLE TO DO IT ON THEN TO RAISE THAT FIRST, LAST AND SECURITY THAT THEY IMMEDIATE TO GO AND GET THAT HOUSING. SO, REALLY, THIS IS NOT A PLACE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LANDING.

THIS IS COMFORTABLE, BUT NOT TOO COMFORTABLE.

THE FIRST DAY OF COMING TO GRACEWAY VILLAGE, WHERE TALKING ABOUT YOUR EXIT STRATEGY TO GET INTO YOUR OWN PERMANENT HOUSING.

WHAT THIS IS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS FAMILY TO BE ABLE TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT, TO LEARN THE SKILLS.

MANY OF 'EM MIGHT ONLY NEED A THREE-MONTH STAY WITH US, BECAUSE WE THEY HAVE THE EMPLOYMENT.

YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE THEIR DUCKS IN A ROW, PER SE, BUT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THAT INCOME TO GET THE FIRST, LAST, AND SECURITY SAVED UP. SO IT'S VERY TEMPORARY.

[02:00:01]

REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON THE EDUCATIONAL PIECE.

THEY'RE REQUIRED TO, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE COURSES NECESSARY TO LEARN HOW TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT, BECAUSE MANY OF THE SKILLS THAT WE ALL POSSESS, YOU KNOW -- MANY FAMILIES DON'T POSSESS THOSE SKILLS. SO UNTIL THEY LEARN THOSE, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY REALLY CAN'T DO IT ON THEIR OWN.

SO THAT'S WHAT GRACEWAY VILLAGE IS REALLY ABOUT, AND FOCUSING THE SHIFT ON REALLY STARTING AN INDEPENDENT CYCLE, AND THE GENERATIONS TO COME ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS FACILITY, IF IT CAN GET THROUGH. THIS HAS BEEN SUCH A LONG TIME COMING. WE'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 2009 OPERATING OUR CAFE AND OUR CLOTHING BOUTIQUE, SERVING COUNTLESS FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS.

SO, ALLOWING THIS TO TAKE PLACE WOULD NOT ONLY BE A SUCCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY, BUT ALSO FOR THE GENERATIONS TO COME.

THE KIDS IN THIS FACILITY WILL GOING TO BE SEEING THEIR PARENTS' SUCCESS. AND THEN THAT IS GOING TO TRICKLE ON TO THE NEXT GENERATIONS.

>> MA'AM, SO MY COMMENTS AREN'T RELATED TO THE INTENT.

WE'RE THE PLANNING BOARD. AND SO I GUESS I JUST WANT TO FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THIS -- THIS TYPE -- AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, HERE 24/7, AND THIS IS IN A COMMERCIAL AREA. I DON'T -- AND MAYBE I NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT SURROUNDS IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT IT. I'M NOT -- I'M NOT, YOU KNOW -- I DON'T DOUBT THE MISSION AND I DON'T DOUBT THE NEED AND ALL THOSE THINGS, BUT THAT'S NOT THE HAT I'M WEARING.

I JUST WANT TO TRY TO LOOK AT HOW IT FITS AND LONG-TERM AND WHAT'S AROUND IT. AND ALSO MAYBE SOME OF THE SAFETY AND THE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE FAMILIES THAT ARE OUT THERE.

THAT'S -- >> SURE, SO, IN MY OPINION, HARTMAN ROAD IS LONG-TIME ROADS HERE IN FORT PIERCE.

I WAS ACTUALLY TWO YEARS OLD WHENEVER I MOVED FROM HARTMAN ROAD. SO THIS IS A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND HOUSES AND EVEN -- I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF IT.

HELP ME OUT, COMMUNITY. >> BENT CREEK.

>> BENT CREEK, THANK YOU. SO BENT CREEK IS NOT TOO FAR.

YOU COULD PROBABLY THROW A ROCK TO IT.

SO IT'S A VERY RESIDENTIAL-FEELING, HARTMANN HN ROAD. BUT, AGAIN, I SAY THAT THIS -- YES, THEY MAY BE SLEEPING THERE FOR TEMPORARY, BUT IT'S NOT THEIR RESIDENCE. SO BEINGS THAT IT IS COMMERCIAL, YOU KNOW, AT OKEECHOBEE AND HARTMAN, WE HAVE THE DOLLAR TREE, AND THERE'S THE FACILITY THAT HELPS WITH DIALYSIS, SO IT THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY TWO BUSINESSES THAT I KNOW OF THAT OPERATE THERE. OTHER THAN THAT, IT IS ALL RESIDENTIAL. I'M SORRY?

>> I'M SAYING THERE WAS ANOTHER BUSINESS THAT JUST BUILT BETWEEN DOLLAR TREE AND THE DIALYSIS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

>> I'M UNCONCER UNCERTAIN WHAT . I STILL ARGUE THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT RESIDENTIAL, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE THEIR FINAL RESTING PLACE. THIS IS A PLACE TO REALLY INSTITUTIONALIZE SUCCESS. SO THAT'S WHY I BRING THE MISSION INTO IT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE IMPORTANT ASPECT OF IT, THAT THIS IS NOT A HOME FOR THEM. THIS IS A WAY TO GAIN THE SKILLS, TO GO OUT, TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT IN THAT HOME

THAT THEY'RE GOING TO OBTAIN. >> MADAM VICE-CHAIR, MAY I TAKE A WHACK AT MAKING MS. STOREY COMFORTABLE? MS. STOREY, I WANT YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE LOCATION PLAN. IMMEDIATE TO THE EAST, THESE WILL FPOA FACILITIES. THIS IS A CONTRACTOR YARD.

CONTRACTOR OFFICE, I SHOULD SAY. THIS IS A LAYDOWN AREA FOR FPUA, AND THIS IS AN AREA, THIS IS A SUBSTATION FOR FPUA.

SO THE NORTH, SEPARATED BY A CANAL AS WELL AS WHITE WAY, DERRY ROAD, YOU HAVE RELATIVELY LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

I'M GOING TO FLIP JUST REAL QUICK TO THE LAND USE PLANS, BUT YOU HAVE -- I'M SORRY. ONE MORE.

TO THE ZONING. YOU HAVE RS-3 COUNTY, WHICH IS A LOW DENSITY. THREE UNITS TO THE ACRE.

YOU HAVE R-4 WITHIN THE CITY TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE SITE.

[02:05:02]

IT'S NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. SO I WOULD POSIT THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD PROJECT FOR A TRANSITION BETWEEN LOWER DENSITY AND THOSE MORE, LET'S SAY, INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST AND THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMERCIAL ACROSS THE STREET TO

THE WEST. >> THAT WAS HELPFUL.

THANK YOU. >> THE SITE, THE 7.84 ACRES, YOU

CURRENTLY OWN THAT PROPERTY? >> YES.

PURCHASE IT AND WAY IT OFF IN FULL IN 2021.

>> AND PHASE 1, IF YOU'RE ABLE TO, WHEN COULD THAT COMMENCE?

>> ASAP. SO WE'RE HOPEFULLY STICKING TO OUR SCHEDULE OF NOVEMBER, BREAKING GROUND.

AND, AGAIN, THIS IS THE FIRST AND ONLY SHELTER FOR FAMILIES IN FORT PIERCE OR ST. LUCIE COUNTY AS A WHOLE.

THERE IS NOWHERE FOR THESE FAMILIES TO GO, AND I DEFINITELY BRING THE MISSION IN, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IN EVERY ASPECT OF WHAT GRACEWAY VILLAGE DOES, JUST BECAUSE IT IS SO NEEDED FOR FORT PIERCE. WHEN YOU HAVE A COMMUNITY WHERE YOU HAVE MANY FAMILIES STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET AND THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THEM TO GO...

YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A PLACE. AND GRACEWAY VILLAGE IS A NON-PROFIT WHO'S STEPPING UP TO DO IT, SO I HOPE THAT FORT PIERCE SEES THE NEED AND ALSO DEFINITELY STANDS BESIDE US AND WALKS ALONG US -- WITH US IN THIS JOURNEY.

>> I WANT TO COMMEND YOU ALL FOR THE THINGS THAT YOU BRING TO FORT PIECE WITH THIS. I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS PROJECT.

WHEN YOU MENTION THAT THIS IS THE FIRST FAMILY SHELTER THAT WE WILL HAVE IN THE COUNTY, THAT IS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE. IT IS GREATLY NEEDED.

HOMELESSNESS IS A BIG THING THAT WE HAVE HERE IN THIS AREA.

THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THEM TO GO. AND IT'S INCREASING AS OUR ECONOMY GOES UP MORE AND MORE. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS

THAT ARE MORE TECHNICAL. >> SURE.

>> I NOTICE PHASE 1 IS ALL ENCUMBERED IN ONE BUILDING.

SO WOULD THE COTTAGES LOOK LIKE THE ORIGINAL BUILDING OR WOULD

THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT LOOK? >> I'VE BEEN AT GRACEWAY VILLAGE FOR 13 YEARS. STARTED AS A VOLUNTEER, AND THANKFULLY THE LORD SAW FIT THREE YEARS AGO THAT I'M WORKING ON MY FOURTH YEAR AS CEO, SO THIS PROJECT HASAS BEEN A BEAST, TO SAY THE LEAST, TO GET THROUGH.

I WANTED -- IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR ME TO PUT THE ENTIRE VISION ON THE SITE PLAN SO THAT YOU GUYS COULD SEE THAT, WALK ALONG IT WITH ME. I DON'T HAVE THE DESIGN FOR YOU YET, SO... I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK LIKE. I JUST KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO, I GUESS, PROGRAM ATICALLY -- THEY'RE GOING TO OFFER A LESS-REMOVED PROGRAM. SO IN OUR CURRENT FACILITY, PHASE 1, THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INTENSE PROGRAM ABOUT EDUCATION, GETTING TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT. PHASE 2 IS A MORE REMOVED PROGRAM. DEFINITELY UNDER CASE MANAGEMENT STILL. DEFINITELY UNDER REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW, FOR EDUCATION. BUT NOT AS INTENSE AS PHASE 1, WHERE YOU'RE ACTUALLY LIVING IN A FACILITY LIKE THIS.

SO MAYBE WEEKLY CHECK-INS VERSUS DAILY CHECK-INS.

YOU KNOW THAT PROGRAM DESIGN IS NOT FULLY COMPLETED.

JUST LIKE THE OUTSIDE DESIGN IS NOT AS WELL.

BUT I DO LOVE THE CAMPUS-STYLE FEEL.

WE'VE BEEN THERE -- OH, DON'T QUOTE ME.

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN THESE BUILDINGS -- THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS WERE BUILT, BUT IT'S A LONG HISTORY, LEVEL WITH THE ARCHITECTS THAT WORKED ON THOSE ORIGINAL TWO BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, AND THE DESIGNERS THAT DID THAT.

SO I'D LIKE TO KEEP THE SAME FEEL, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

NOT BEING TOO MODERN, IF, YOU KNOW -- LIKE, WE'RE NOT ON THE

BEACH. >> I DON'T WANT THE --

>> WE'RE NOT ON THE BEACH. >> I GUESS MY CONCERN WAS USING

> SURE? Select to skip to this part of the video">THE TERMINOLOGY OF "COTTAGE." >> SURE?

>> AND IN MY MIND, BASED ON WHAT YOU STATED, IT'S MORE -- GIVE IT A MORE HOMELY LOOK, WHEREAS THIS LOOKS VERY INSTITUTIONAL.

>> WHOA. OKAY.

>> SO THAT IS MY CONCERN, WHEN YOU'RE MOVING AWAY TO THOSE, IS THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT INSTITUTIONAL LOOK.

>> UNDERSTOOD, AND JUST TO THAT POINT, TOO, YOU KNOW, I CAN EVEN TALK ABOUT IN OUR FLOOR PLAN DESIGN, WHICH I DON'T HAVE THE

[02:10:01]

IN THE HALLWAY, I WANTED THE SCONCES ON THE WALLS INSTEAD OF THE OVERHEAD LIGHTING, SQUARE LIGHTING, BECAUSE I DO WANT IT TO FEEL AS COMFORT FOR A MOMENT, TEMPORARY, YOU KNOW.

YOU'RE STILL GOIN' OUT. COMFORTABLE, BUT NOT TOO COMFORTABLE. SO THAT INTENT IS DEFINITELY ON THE FOREFRONT OF MY MIND. AND THERE IT'S -- IT'S

UNDERSTOOD. >> THANK YOU.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> ANYONE ELSE? NO ONE ELSE? AND I WILL THANK YOU, AND WE WILL OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN.

>> SURE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

JEREMIAH JOHNSON, FOR THE RECORD.

AND OUR SHEET IS FULL. EVER HAD THAT? ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS.

MADAM VICE-CHAIR. JEREMIAH JOHNSON, LIFE-LONG RESIDENT IN FORT PIERCE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.

BEEN A VOLUNTEER AT GRACEWAY VILLAGE FOR MANY YEARS.

WITH CRYSTAL'S LOVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY, IT IS JUST A TRIBUTE TO THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING. OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, OUR SITE CIVIL ENGINEERS WITH HALEY WARD, THAT'S GETTING AFTER THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE FOR IMPORTANTO THEIR OPERATION.

SO I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THAT. I ALSO OWN PROPERTY NOT TOO FAR AWAY FROM THIS PARCEL, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE EXPLANATION FROM CITY STAFF -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHOWING AND TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSITIONAL ZONING AND HOW THAT ADAPTS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE'S NOT A RESIDENCE ON THE PARCEL THAT I KNOW.

IT'S JUST A VACANT PIECE, BUT I KNOW ALL ABOUT IT, BECAUSE I GO BY AND VISIT AND TAKE A LOOK AND, OF COURSE, DO SOME MAINTENANCE EVERY NOW AND THEN. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR THIS PROJECT, NOT JUST INCLUDING THIS PARCEL FOR GRACEWAY, IS JUST LOOKING AND TALKING TO ST. LUCIE COUNTY ABOUT CONNECTING SIDEWALKS. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT FACTOR, AND IT'S A COUNTY ROAD. SO WE DO HAVE TO HAVE A COMMUNICATION EFFORT BETWEEN OUR ENGINEERING GROUPS AND OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS TO MAKE THOSE CONNECTIONS TO REALLY BOLSTER THIS TYPE OF PROJECT HERE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

OF COURSE, THE VEGETATIVE BUFFER TO THE NORTH WAS TALKED ABOUT.

WHITE WAY DERRY. THE CANAL AND THE BUFFERS, AND EVEN THE BUFFER ON THE EAST SIDE.

SO, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO THAT TRANSITIONAL ZONING WHERE YOU'RE GOING FROM RESIDENTIAL -- OR A RURAL FEELING TO MORE URBAN.

TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> MY NAME IS TIM RUTHERFORD. 1402 HARTMAN ROAD.

TWO PROPERTIES JUST NORTH OF THIS GRACEWAY VILLAGE.

WE ARE IN VERY BIG SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT.

LIVING ON THAT ROAD FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, I'VE BEEN ABLE TO DIVE IN WITH CRYSTAL ON HER DESIGN AND HER INTENT ON THIS PROJECT, WHICH HAS BROUGHT ME TO BE IN SUPPORT AND THEREFORE JOINING THE BOARD. WE DO THINK THIS IS NEEDED FOR OUR AREA. AS A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF FORT PIERCE, THE HOMELESSNESS IS A BIG ISSUE.

GRACEWAY VILLAGE IS THE ONLY ONE STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE TO PROVIDE SOMETHING FOR OUR COMMUNITY OF THIS NATURE, AND I'D LIKE IT TO REMAIN IN THAT LOCATION.

>> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC? PLEASE COME UP. STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE.

>> MY NAME IS JAMERICK MUNRO. IT'S JUST NICE TO HEAR THE CONVERSATIONS LIKE THIS, JUST TO HEAR A PITCH.

I'M NOT A LONG-TIME RESIDENT OF FORT PIERCE.

I'VE ONLY MOVED DOWN HERE BECAUSE THERE ARE OBVIOUS ECONOMICAL HOUSING ISSUES GOING ON NATION-WIDE.

SO I DO BELIEVE -- I HAVE COME DOWN HERE -- SORRY, I HAVE COME DOWN HERE A FEW TIMES, AND WHEN I FIRST INITIALLY CAME DOWN HERE IN 2016, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS TOO MUCH TALK ABOUT SHELTERS BEING PROVIDED. YOU KNOW, AMONGST THE FORT PIERCE RESIDENTS. AND SO -- SO, AGAIN, IT'S JUST NICE TO HEAR THIS AS AN IDEA THAT'S EVEN BEING CONSIDERED IN THE TIMES WE ARE IN NOW, AND I DO HOPE IT LEADS TO THE RIGHT DIRECTION. WHETHER OR NOT TEMPORARY OR, YOU

[02:15:01]

SO THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NONE.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS

FOR THE -- >> I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I'LL MAKE A COMMENT THAT IT IS SUENSON? I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT SURROUNDING AREA.

IF YOU SAID THAT ORIGINALLY, I DIDN'T FOCUS ON IT, AND THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO ME, SO I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT.

>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU.

>> I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY.

ARE WE HAVING INPUT IN SIDEWALKS AT THIS LOCATION?

>> THE COUNTY HAS -- FIRST OFF, LET ME BACK UP.

HARTMAN ROAD IS COUNTY FACILITY, AND AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS, THE COUNTY HAS REQUIRED SIDEWALK INSTALLATION.

I THINK THEY'RE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH IT, BECAUSE THERE'S A FEW EXISTING TREES THAT THEY'RE WEAVING THAT SIDEWALK AROUND. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICED THAT ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT... I LIKE TREES, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. SO, YEAH, SIDEWALK IS BEING INSTALLED. I THINK MR. JOHNSON'S COMMENT IS APROPOS. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT KIND OF THE MIDDLE OF HARTMAN ROAD, AND WHAT DOES IT CONNECT TO? THOSE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNTY, MORE THAN THE CITY, BUT I BELIEVE THAT, AS WE HAVE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE ROAD, YOU'LL SEE THE REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK BEING IMPLEMENTED. EITHER FROM THE CITY OR THE

COUNTY. >> I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT.

I TRAVEL THAT ROAD, AND I'VE SEEN -- ONE I ASSUME WAS PROBABLY A RESIDENT THAT HAS A MOTORIZED WHEELCHAIR THAT HOLDS THAT ROAD UP BECAUSE TRAVELING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD.

>> ONE OTHER POINT TO MENTION IS THAT THE COUNTY HAS ASKED FOR RIGHT OF WAY IDENTIFICATION AS WELL.

I THINK ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH HARTMAN ROAD IS THE PROXIMITY OF THE DRAINAGE CANAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD.

IT DOESN'T REALLY PROVIDE A LOT OF AREA FOR INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS TO GET PEOPLE OFF OF THE STREET.

SO I THINK -- I THINK THE COUNTY'S LONGER-TERM VISION IS TO EXPAND THE RIGHT OF WAY EAST EASTWARD IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT

CONNECTION MORE READILY DONE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? SEEING NONE.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO ACCEPT THE GRACEWAY VILLAGE APPLICATION, THAT THE PLANNING BILLION -- WITH THE NINE

CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.

>> IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOVED AND SECONDED BY MR. WIDING AND SECONDED BY MR. JOHNSON. I THINK...?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

I'M NOT USUALLY IN THIS POSITION.

>> MS. STOREY? >> YES.

>> MR. JOHNSON? >> YES.

>> MR. WIDING? >> YES.

>> AND VICE-CHAIR CLEMONS? >> YES.

WELCOME BACK. >> IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK.

THANK YOU, MS. CLEMONS. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S -- LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WRAP THIS UP.

[7. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Chair, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The Planning Board will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Board and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

IN THE INTERESTS OF TIME, WE'RE GOING TO PUT A THREE-MINUTE CAP ON ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS. PLEASE ADHERE TO THE CAP.

>> KEVIN KEANE. 5255 PALMETTO AVENUE.

AND THIS IS REGARDING THE LITTLE STRETCH OF BEACH BETWEEN CHUCK SEAFOOD AND THE RAMPS, OR THE MUSEUM, RIGHT THROWN THE OTHER -- RIGHT THERE ONTHE OTHER SID. PLANNING DOESN'T REALLY END AT THE PROPERTY LINE. RESPONSIBLE PLANNING ALSO CONSIDERS THE IMPACT OF ANY DEVELOPMENT MAY HAVE ON ADJACENT PUBLIC LANDS. THIS IS A LEASE -- I HOPE DOESN'T COME AS A PRICE TO YOU. IT'S 1937, WHERE THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT FUND LEASED THAT PROPERTY TO THE PORT AUTHORITY OF FORT PIERCE FOR 99 YEARS. IN THIS LEASE, THE LESSEE WILL

[02:20:04]

FOR 50 YEARS, LOCAL FAMILIES HAVE BEEN GOING TO THAT BEACH DIRECTLY ACROSS SEAWAY DRIVE. SWIMMING.

FISHING. ENJOY THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON.

I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME WORK THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD DO, SOME QUESTIONS TO FIND OUT WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH GROWTH IN THAT AREA. ONE, HAS THE CITY EVALUATED THE CAPACITY OF THAT PUBLIC BEACH? WILL ADDITIONAL PARKING, RESTROOMS, TRASH COLLECTION, PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES BE NEEDED? AS ANYONE STUDIED HOW A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF NEW USE WILL AFFECT THAT BEACH ACCESS FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENTS? ND WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. IS IT GOING TO BE A DEVELOPER, OR IS IT GOING TO BE THE CITY? GROWTH BRINGS OPPORTUNITIES, BUT IT ALSO BRINGS RESPONSIBILITY. AND PLANNING FOR THE IMPACTS OF OUR PUBLIC SPACES SHOULD BE JUST AS IMPORTANT AS PLANNING FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND THE IMPACT ON THOSE PUBLIC SPACES.

I'M FINISHED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THE CHAIR: YES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> HI. I'M MARTHAESTENSON, AND I'M WANTING TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THE -- ON THE 70 -- THE UNITS BEING BUILT ON THE BEACH. AND SO YOU HAVE 407 HOTEL UNITS, 366 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, AND THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.

SO THERE'S 366 UNITS. I'M WANTING TO KNOW ABOUT THE FUNDING OF THESE. WHAT I COULD FIND IS YOU RENTED IT FOR $3,000 A MONTH, BUT THE LIVE LOCAL ACT WOULD PAY $1,800, IF YOU DO THE 1200 MONTH DIFFERENCE, THAT COMES UP TO TO $5,$270,000, 400 A YEAR, SO WHO PAYS FOR THIS SUBSIDIZED? WHAT IS -- DOES THE CITY, THE COUNTY AND THE STATE PAY FOR THIS? FOR SUBSIDIZING 366 UNITS? THERE'S NO ONE TALKING.

>> MR. CHAIR, I COULD PROVIDE SOME CLARITY.

THIS ISN'T A Q&A. THEY WON'T RESPOND TO YOU.

THIS IS JUST YOUR TIME TO SPEAK TO THEM.

>> OKAY. YES, MA'AM.

I WOULD HOPE THAT SOMEHOW YOU COULD TELL ALL THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AND THE STATE, LET THEM KNOW WHAT THIS COST WILL BE AND HOW MUCH IT WILL COST EACH ONE OF US FOR THIS. BECAUSE THE CITY OF.FORT PIERCEE APPROVES THE 45-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT WITH ABOUT THREE STOREYS.

THAT'S WHAT IT IS, AND WITH THIS LIVE LOCAL ACT, THAT'S WHAT IT HAS DONE TO THIS. AND I JUST -- I HOPE THAT YOU CAN TELL ALL OF US, OF THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AND THE STATE WHAT THAT IS COSTING US. I COULDN'T FIND ANY INFORMATION ON THAT. THANK YOU.

>> MY ONLY SUGGESTION IS TOUCH BASE WITH YOUR REPRESENTATIVE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE SIGN IN? >> YEAH.

I DID. >> ANYONE ELSE?

KEEP THIS MOVING. >> MM-HMM.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

[02:25:01]

MY NAME IS REBECCA GALLIGA, AND I LIVE AT 1176 BAYSHORE DRIVE.

THANK YOU TO THE IT BOARD FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

I JUST FIND IT VERY EGREGIOUS THAT THE BOARD IS GAGGED ON THIS MATTER, AND IS SO THE PUBLIC. HOW CAN THIS BE SO? HOW CAN THERE BE A STATUTE THAT'S MEANT TO PROTECT AND GIVE LOCALS THE ABILITY TO ENJOY THEIR ENVIRONMENT AND THE CHARM OF THIS PLACE, HOW COULD THAT BE SO VIOLATED BY THE STATUTE? IT SURELY WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THAT STATUTE.

AND SO I KNOW IT WAS EXPLAINED TO US HOW WE HAD TO NOT VIOLATE THE STATUTE AND HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT HOW CAN THAT BE POSSIBLE WHEN WE PLEDGED ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE VERY 1ST AMENDMENT IS FREEDOM OF SPEECH? HOW CAN IT BE THAT WE HAVE SUDDENLY LOST OUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK ON THIS PUBLICLY AND TO HAVE AN OPEN FORUM ABOUT IT? BECAUSE IF THE LOCAL PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY WERE ASKED IF THEY WANTED THIS PROJECT TO GO AHEAD, I HAVE NOT ENCOUNTERED ONE SINGLE PERSON THAT WANTS THIS TO HAPPEN.

SO WE MIGHT NOT BE VIOLATING THE STATUTES OF THE STATE, BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY VIOLATING THE WILL AND THE DESIRE OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY. I MEAN, WE ALL MOVED IN BECAUSE WE LOVE THE SLEEPY CHARM. WE LOVE THE LAID BACK LIFE.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO LIVE IN MIAMI. THAT'S WHY WE CHOOSE TO LIVE HERE. SO HOW COULD WE BE SO OVERRULED SO SOMEBODY COULD STEAMROLLER INTO THIS COMMUNITY WHO'S NOT EVEN A LOCAL AND BE ALLOWED TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAWS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS CITY WITH HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND DENSITY RESTRICTIONS AND BE ALLOWED TO PROCEED WITH THIS? IT'S ASININE. IT'S CERTAINLY MORALLY WRONG AND ENVIRONMENTALLY WRONG FOR THIS COMMUNITY TO ALLOW THE PROJECT TO GO AHEAD. IT DOESN'T TAKE AN IMPACT STUDY ON TRAFFIC TO REALIZE THAT 6,000 EXTRA CARS DON'T SEAWAY DRIVE IS GOING TO CAUSE AN ABSOLUTE NIGHTMARE.

IT WILL DESTROY THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND IT WILL DESTROY THE COMMUNITY LIFE THAT WE ALL LOVE HERE.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW. YOU OBVIOUSLY CAN'T ME, BUT I JUST THINK THING NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE VERY HIGHEST LEVEL TO BRING BACK THE INTENT OF WHAT LIVE LOCAL MEANT, BECAUSE WE ALL WANT TO LIVE LOCAL. WE DON'T WANT GREAT BIG HIGHRISES ALL AROUND US AND 6,000 EXTRA CARS AND BEACHES SO OVERCROWDED THAT NOBODY CAN ENJOY ANYTHING.

ANYWAY, THAT'S MY OPINION, AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S SUCH A ONE-OFF OPINION. I BELIEVE EVERYBODY I'VE SPOKEN TO FEELS THE SAME WAY ABOUT THIS.

WE'RE BEING VIOLATED AND RAPED BY WHOEVER THIS PERSON IS THAT'S COMING IN AND I BELIEVE THEY REMEMBERED BE STO -- I BELIEVE Y SHOULD BE STOPPED AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL FROM PROCEEDING.

THANK YOU.

>> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? IF YOU DO INTEND TO S DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND QUEUE UP IN THE FRONT ROW SO THAT WE CAN

KEEP THINGS MOVING. >> MY QUESTION IS, HOW ARE THEY CALCULATING THE DENSITY SQUARE? HOW ARE THEY GETTING AROUND HAL? A 42-ACRE OR WHATEVER PROPERTY. HALF OF IT -- MORE THAN HALF OR A LITTLE IN THERE IS UNDER WATER.

SO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY THAT -- IF YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING AT 17 TO 20 ACRES OF LAND, YOU'RE USING ALL THIS LARGE DENSITY AMOUNT TO CALCULATE THE DENSITY, THE HEIGHT, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT -- I --ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE -- THE MARINA, THE RESTAURANT, THE HOTEL. IS THAT ALL SUPPOSED TO BE FOR THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY OR IS THAT GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? LIVE LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

IT CAN GO IN THE COUNTY. WE'VE GOT PLENTY PLACES IN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT TO TAKE THAT PROPERTY AND TO PUT IT ON -- IN THAT AREA -- I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW CAN WE JUST LAY DOWN AND NO DOING AND ACCEPT -- YES, THE STATE MANDATES THAT WE DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT HOW -- HOW CAN THEY MANDATE IT THAT IT BE THERE? THAT'S MY -- MY WHOLE THING.

>> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE?

>> I'VE ALREADY SIGNED IN. EDEY HARRISON.

HARBOUR ISLE. PREEMPTS THE BOARD FROM VOTING DOWN LOCAL DENSITY. IT DOESN'T STRIP YOU FROM THE

[02:30:04]

AN ADDITIONAL OFF -- IT HAS TON OFF -- IT HASTO BE AN ADDITIONR RESIDENTIAL. DOWN TO 11.

11 ACRES FOR 9 913 PEOPLE TO LIE ON AND 72,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THAT SHOULD BE A QUESTION.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE.

ADDITIONALLY, WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO. AS WELL, THERE'S A BIT OF DOUBLE DIPPING ON THAT, RIGHT? THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE FULL USE OF THE -- FULL USE, BUT THEY'VE GOT IT COMPOUNDED WITH RESIDENTIAL ON TOP OF HOTEL, ON TOP OF ALL OF THIS OTHER SPACE.

THEY'RE NOT COUNTING FOR WHAT IS ACTUALLY LIVING.

IT REMIND ME OF GOING INTO ORLANDO AND SHOVING MYSELF IN ONE OF THOSE -- YOU KNOW, INTO THE -- INTO THE TRAILER DIN INTO THE TRAINS TRYING TO GET TO THE AIRPORT, RIGHT? THERE'S NOWHERE TO LIVE, AND IT'S NOT REALISTIC.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD CHALLENGE -- CHALLENGE THE STATE ON THAT ACT AND ASK THEM, CAN WE NON-BUILDABLE LAND FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE ON? THE OTHER CHALLENGE THAT I WOULD HAVE AS WELL IS THAT NOBODY'S BOTHERED TO DO A SOIL -- SOIL CONTAMINATION. THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY STATE DISCOVERY. WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR RECORDS, BECAUSE THE ATTACHMENT IS AN EIGHT-PAGE THAT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING THAT FDOT OR ANYBODY ELSE HAS GIVEN FULL APPROVAL FOR THAT YET. SO IT'S BASICALLY BUILD AS YOU GO. THE APPROVAL PROCESS, I FEEL, HAS BEEN RUSHED BY A THIRD PARTY CONSULTING VIEW THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY LEGAL LEGAL RIGHT TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT. AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY EVIDENCE TO DATE TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE.

THIS LAND WENT FROM A TRAILER PARK TO AN ACTIVE BOAT YARD AND IS ADJACENT TO A WATER TREATMENT PLANT, SO IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME RECLAIMING AS WELL ON THE SOIL.

JUST LIKE IN KINGSLANDING. BUT NOBODY'S BOTHERED TO ASK, HOW FAR CAN YOU DREDGE DOWN BEFORE YOU IMPACT THE SURROUNDING AREAS? WHICH INCLUDES THE BRIDGE, WHICH IS ANCHORED ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY.

AS WELL AS THE ENVIRONMENTAL OF SMITHSONIAN AND THEN THE SHORELINE AS WELL. THERE'S ALSO CONFLICTS IN THAT -- IN THAT ASSESSMENT BECAUSE YOU HAVE LONG-STANDING -- YOU HAVE ALONG-STANDING SEA GRASS, GO ON TOP OF THAT, ON ANOTHER PLAT, YOU HAVE A -- THAT'S SUPPOSED TO GO ON TOP OF IT, SO THERE HAS TO BE SOME OVERSIGHT SOMEWHERE, AND THERE SHOULD BE SOME CHALLENGES THAT WE CAN DO.

SO WHAT I WOULD ASK -- AND ADDITION, WHAT I HEARD AS WELL IS THAT WE DECLINED HELP FROM THE COUNTY.

>> MR. CHAIR? >> THE BEEPING IS --

>> THE CHAIR: YEAH, YOUR TIME IS UP.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

>> NO PROBLEM.

>> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE.

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

MR. FREEMAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TODAY?

>> WHERE POSSIBLE. I'VE GOT NOTES OF WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, AND I WILL TRY TO REACH OUT WITH EMAIL TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE BEING MADE AND HOW WE BASED

OUR ANALYSIS. >> THE CHAIR: OKAY.

>> I'LL TRY AND DO THAT. >> CAN YOU COPY US ON THE

EMAIL? >> I WILL DO THAT.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO GENERALIZE THE ANSWER AND THEN GET IT OUT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND MAYBE THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE CITY MANAGER. I HOPE THAT -- I'LL TRY AND ANSWER AS FAR AS I CAN WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

>> INCLUDING THIS -- THE LAST COMMENT ABOUT THE SUBMERGED LAND

ISSUE? >> YES.

EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD JUST NOW AND DURING -- I'VE GOT OTHER EMAILS IN MY BOX, SO I'LL TRY AND GENERALIZE AN OVERALL RESPONSE SO IT CAN GO OUT TO EVERYBODY.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

YES. SO, WE DO HAVE ANOTHER APPLICATION ON THE BOOKS, WHICH AT THE MOMENT IS NOT A LIVE LOCAL APPLICATION, BUT IT DOES INVOLVE SEAWAY DRIVE WHICH INVOLVES A CONFERENCE CENTER AND SOME CONDOS OUT THERE.

PARKING GARAGE, AND SOME RESTAURANT RETAIL STUFF GOING.

[02:35:03]

IT WILL BE GOING TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE I THINK IT'S NEXT WEEK -- OR IS IT THIS WEEK?

>> NEXT WEEK. >> NEXT WEEK.

AND SO THERE'S A REVIEW GOING ON ON THAT.

AFTER THAT -- THOSE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN HEARD BY THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER, THEN THERE'LL BE A TIME PERIOD FOR THEM TO REVIEW, OR OTHERWISE AMEND, THEIR APPLICATION.

AND THEN IT WILL ULTIMATELY COME FORWARD THE PLANNING BOARD.

AS I SAY, IT'S NOT LIVE LOCAL, SO THE PLANNING BOARD WILL HAVE AT THE MOMENT IN TIME THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT AND REVIEW THAT APPLICATION. WE SEEM TO BE RECEIVING A LOT OF APPLICATIONS RECENTLY ON SOME LARGE TRACTS OF PROPERTY.

ONE INVOLVES THE LOCATION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE SURF PARK, AND SO WE'RE DEALING WITH THAT.

IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A SURF PARK.

>> SURF PARK? >> SURF PARK.

IT WAS AN APPLICATION THAT CAME IN AND WAS APPROVED AROUND 2013... 2023.

2023. TEN YEARS OUT.

>> I KNOW. YEAH.

SO IT CAME IN JUST BEFORE I ARRIVED HERE, AND IT WAS AN APPROVAL BASED ON A SURF PARK WHICH WAS AN ARTIFICIALLY-GENERATED WAVE MACHINE, LARGE LAKE, HOTEL, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. THAT'S PROVEN TO BE NOT FEASIBLE TO DEVELOP, ACCORDING TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

SO WE'RE NOW DEALING WITH AN APPLICATION WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE THE SURF PARK. IT'S A CHANGE OF USE, MIXED-USE, A SPLIT BETWEEN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ON THAT SAME PROPERTY. ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY, WE DO HAVE AN APPLICATION THAT'S -- WELL, WE WERE AWARE OF AN APPLICATION THAT'S LIKELY TO COME IN IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS, WHICH IS FOR A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT'S AN AREA ABOVE MIDWAY, WEST OF THE INTERSTATE.

LOTS OF APPLICATIONS COMING FORWARD.

YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THOSE COMING THROUGH.

AND WE'RE VERY BUSY. WE HEARD THE BUDGET THIS MORNING. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MANAGED TO CATCH THAT. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE CITY.

THE COMMISSION DID MENTION THAT -- VERY STRONGLY THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT INCREASING THEIR REVENUE BASE IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES AND LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN GET THAT ANNEXATION AREAS ROUNDED OUT.

THAT WAS A -- THAT WAS A CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AT THEIR JOINT MEETING RECENTLY.

I THINK THEY SHOULD BE MEETING FURTHER ON THAT, BUT WE HAVE DIRECTION THAT THEY'RE COMING FORWARD WITH SOME INFORMATION TO CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE PROPERTIES THAT COULD BE SUBJECT TO ANNEXATION MOVING FORWARD COULD -- ONCE I'VE DONE THAT, A DAY MEETING WITH THE CITY COMMISSION, I WILL LIKELY BRING THAT TO PLANNING BOARD TO GIVE YOU INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE STRATEGY IS MOVING TOWARDS SO WEYOU'RE AWARE OF THAT.

WE WORKED OUT SOME BULLET POINTS IN TERMS OF WHAT OUR OVERALL STRATEGY IS LEADING TO. IT'S NOT BEEN FULLY ADOPTED YET BY CITY COMMISSION, BUT THAT IS GOING TO BE, AGAIN, PART OF THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY AND PROBABLY, MORE LIKELY, INCORPORATED INTO THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR 2026-'27.

SO, KEEP AN EYE OUT ON THAT. LOTS OF THINGS MOVING IN THE CITY WITH WHAT THE STATE'S DOING.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP AHEAD OF THAT.

YOU'LL ALL BE GETTING -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF PLANNING BOARD WILL BE SEEING THIS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEE SCHEDULE. THE STATE HAS REQUIRED US TO DO THAT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT IN PLACE ALTERNATIVE METHOD METHODOLOGIES -- I. EXTERNAL --L

[02:40:12]

SO WE'RE WORKING THAT OUT. NOT SURE HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. WE DO HAVE A MODULE NOW FOR OUR TYLER ELECTRONIC PERMITTING SYSTEM.

WE'RE HOPING TO PUT INTO PLACE VERY SOON WHERE FOLKS, DEVELOPERS, PROPERTY OWNERS CAN ACTUALLY REQUEST AN ONLINE PRE-APPLICATION AND WILL RECEIVE COMMENTS BACK THAT WAY.

AT THE MOMENT, WE'VE BEEN OFFERING SIT-DOWN PRE-APPLICATIONS WITH APPLICANTS, BUT WE -- I THINK WE NEED TO START TO RECOVER SOME COSTS OF DOING THAT.

THERE'S A LOT OF STAFF TIME AND A LOT OF RESEARCH INVOLVED IN DOING THOSE THINGS. SSO, YEAH, A LOT OF MOVEMENT BEHIND THE SCENES. TRYING TO PUT THE CITY IN A GOOD PLACE FOR FUTURE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, AND I THINK -- WELL, OBVIOUSLY YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THAT COMING FORWARD.

IF THE CITY DECIDE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH INITIATING ANNEXATIONS ON PROPERTIES THAT HAVE A UTILITY AGREEMENT, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE, PROPERTIES THAT SIGN A UTILITY AGREEMENT WITH FORT

PIERCE UTILITY AGENCY SIGN. >> AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT ANYTIME THAT THEY BECOME CONTIGUOUS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY ARE ABLE TO ANNEX THEM INTO THE CITY.

SO PART OF OUR RESEARCH IS TO DISCOVER WHO SIGNED THOSE AGREEMENTS, WHERE THEY ARE, AND THEN LOOK AT A METHODOLOGY OF -- IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A DOMINO SITUATION WHERE ONE CONTIGUOUS CONNECTION NEEDS TO ANOTHER CONTIGUOUS CONNECTION.

WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST ON A SMALLER SCALE, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE STRATEGIES THAT THE COMMISSION MENTIONED THIS

MORNING. >> THE CHAIR: INTERESTING.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN.

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

>> THANK YOU. >> THE CHAIR: WE WILL CLOSE ONBONBOARD COMMENTS. I HAVE SOMETHING I WANT TO SHARE, BUT I'LL SEND IT TO YOU GUYS FIRST.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY GENERAL COMMENTS?

>> >> I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT SOMETHING VERY UNPRECEDENTED IN OUR CITY HAPPENED TODAY.

THIS WAS OUR FIRST EXPERIENCE WITH A LIVE LOCAL ACT PRESENTATION, AND I THINK IT'S MORE THAN OBVIOUS HOW FRUSTRATED AND DISAPPOINTED THE PUBLIC IS IN WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE AS A RESULT OF IT. THIS IS -- THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED. I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT PEOPLE WITH CONNECTIONS TO THE LEGISLATURE, OUR STATE LEGISLATURE, STATE REPRESENTATIVES WILL WATCH WHAT HAPPENS HERE TODAY, OR AT LEAST READ THE MINUTES, LISTEN TO THESE PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE: MR. WIDING SAID IT BEST: REACH OUT TO YOUR STATE LEGISLATORS. THIS IS WHY THIS HAPPEND.

I WILL DISAGREE WITH HIM ON ONE POINT, AND THAT IS ON MY OPINION OF THE DESIGN AND INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION.

I THINK IT STARTED OFF WITH A MISSION, BUT CLEARLY WHAT IT HAS TURNED INTO FUNCTIONALLY IS A DEGRADATION OF HOME RULE FOR MUNICIPALITIES LIKE FORT PIERCE. THE REASON THE LAW IS WRITTEN AS WELL AS IT IS IS TO SPECIFICALLY STRIP OUR MUNICIPALITY FROM THE ABILITY TO NOT GROW IN WAYS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO GROW, AND THAT IS A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE TO PUT US IN.

WE'RE -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA HAVE NO CONTROL OVER HOW QUICKLY A SINGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY CAN MASSIVELY INCREASE OUR POPULATION, AND IT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN WAYS THAT WE WILL HAVE NO MECHANISM, NO ABILITY TO REINFORCE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT IT IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME.

GROWTH HAPPENS, BUT IT TYPICALLY HAPPENS SLOWLY, AND IT HAPPENS IN A WAY THAT IS MEASURED AND DELIBERATE AND CONSIDERED.

AND A PROJECT LIKE THIS MOVING FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS IT CAN, THERE'S NO WAY FOR THE STATE AND THE COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS LEVEL OF GROWTH WITH INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S NECESSARY FOR IT NOT TO BECOME A COMPLETE PROBLEM FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

SO THAT IS WHAT I FEEL IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW.

[02:45:02]

THIS. >> WELL SAID.

>> THE CHAIR: SO... THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS

FROM THE BOARD, WE WILL ADJOURN. >> CHAIRMAN, WE DO NEED TO DO

CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES. >> MR. EDWARDS INITIALLY STATED HE WAS NOT GOING TO ATTEND TODAY, AND THEN I RECEIVED AN EMAIL THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE LATE, SO...

>> THE CHAIR: AND HE DID NOT ATTEND.

>> CORRECT. >> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT.

SO, WE HAVE TO DOCUMENT HIS UNEXCUSED ABSENCE.

>> YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON IT. >> THE CHAIR: OKAY.

I'VE NEVER DONE THIS ONE BEFORE. >> A MOTION AND --

>> THE CHAIR: SO I WILL CALL FOR A MOTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE UNEXCUSED ABSENCE OF MR. EDWARDS.

SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RETAIN THE OPTION TO DO IT LATER.

SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHY HE'S LATE.

I DON'T WANT TO MARK HIM AS UNEXCUSED OR DING HIM.

WE DON'T KNOW. HE MAY HAVE HAD A FLIGHT OR HE MAY HAVE HAD A CAR ACCIDENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS OPTIONS

ARE AS FAR AS IT'S CONCERNED. >> THAT'S FINE.

IT'S UP TO THE BOARD. >> THE CHAIR: SO WE'LL TABLE

IT UNTIL NEXT MONTH. >> NEXT MEETING.

>> THE CHAIR: OKAY. LET'S TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.

MOTION TO TABLE? >> WE NEED A SECOND.

>> THE CHAIR: WE NEED A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> THE CHAIR: OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE BY MS. CLEMONS.

SECONDED BY MR. WIDING: PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MR. JOHNSON,. >> YES.

>> MS. CLEMONS. >> YES.

>> MR. WIDING. >> YES.

>> MS. STOREY. >> YES.

>> THE CHAIR: CHAIR KREITL? YES.

YOU'D BETTER HAVE A GOOD REASON. >> WE DON'T KNOW.

>> THE CHAIR: ALL RIGHT. WE WILL ADJOURN.

THANK YOU, ALL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.