[00:00:08]
>> MONDAY AUGUST 10, 2026. IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND FOR
[1. CALL TO ORDER]
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY ANDJUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU.
FRIENDLY REMINDER, TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR MOBILE DEVICES AND WE WILL GET STARTED. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
[4. CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES]
ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR CONSIDERATION OF ABSENCES. WE HAVE MR. WIDING AND MR. EDWARDS ABSENT TODAY. DID EITHER OF THEM CALL IN WITH
AN EXCUSE? >> MR. EDWARDS DID HAVE A REASONABLE EXCUSE OF NOT BEING HERE TODAY.
>> AND I SEE MR. WIDING WALKING IN RIGHT NOW.
NOW BEFORE WE MOVE ON, WE DID HAVE AN ABSENCE LAST MONTH.
MR. IT WAS MR. EDWARDS. CORRECT?
>> CORRECT >> DID WE RECEIVE AN EXPLANATION TO WHY HE DID NOT ATTEND LAST MONTH'S MEETING? DOE WOO NEED DISCUSSION ON THIS? IS THERE A NUMBER OF EXCUSED
ABSENCES. >> IF THEY HAVE MORE THAN TWO IN ONE YEAR, THEY WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE BOARD
>> THIS IS THE FIRST UNEXCUSED ABSENCE FOR MR. EDWARDS.
WE WILL DOCUMENT THAT AS UNEXCUSED AND NOTE THAT MOVING FORWARD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD? ALL RIGHT.
>> DID YOU WANT TO DO A MOTION? >> YES, LET'S DO A MOTION TO DOCUMENT THE INEXCUSED ABSENCE. I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT
THIS TIME >> MR. CHAIR FOR CLARIFICATION, IS THE ONE FOR THIS MONTH EXCUSED? RIGHT BECAUSE I THOUGHT I HEARD HE CALLED IN WITH A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR THIS MONTH BUT PREVIOUS MONTH NO.
>> WE DO NOT HAVE A REASON FOR HIS ABSENCE LAST MONTH.
>> ARE WE APPROVING THIS AS APPROVED THIS MONTH?
>> CLARIFICATION, HE DID CALL FOR TODAY.
>> DID NOT CALL FOR LAST MONTH >> THAT WOULD BE TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS. THAT WOULD BE ONE MOTION FOR LAST MONTH, THIS MONTH HE HAS BEEN EXCUSED.
>> LET'S DO THEM IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
>> I MOVE FOR MOTION OF UNEXCUSED ABSENCE FOR MR.
EDWARDS FOR LAST MONTH. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
I WILL SECOND. >> MOTION BY MS. CLEMMONS.
>> AND NOW A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABSENCE FOR TODAY.
>> WE DON'T NORMALLY DO THAT. IT'S ONLY THE UNEXCUSED THAT WE NORMALLY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HAVING A MOTION WHETHER OR NOT WE APPROVE IT. BECAUSE WE DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT EXCUSE THEY GAVE. SO AS TO HOW CAN WE MAKE THE JUDGMENT. WE DON'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF KNOWING WHAT EXCUSE THEY GAVE.
>> SO, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT SO THERE'S NO QUESTION. EVEN AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL, IF YOU LOOK USUALLY, THE CLERK WILL SAY THEY CALLED IN WITH A REASONABLE EXCUSE. SO I THINK IT IS BETTER TO DOCUMENT WHETHER IT IS APPROVED VERSUS NOT APPROVED.
IF YOU WANTED TO AGAIN WAIT UNTIL HE'S BACK, IF YOU WANTED FURTHER EXPLANATION, YOU COULD BUT GENERALLY EVEN AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL. IT'S KEPT THAT GENERAL FROM THE CLERK AND THEY WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABSENCE.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.
I AGREE WITH MS. HEDGES FOR PROPER RECORDKEEPING PURPOSES.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND UNLESS THERE'S ANY DISCUSSION.
WE HAVE ONE UNEXCUSED ABSENCE ON THE BOOKS.
DO WE WANT TO WEIGH IT AND DISCUSS IT WITH MR. EDWARDS WHETHER HE RETURNS OR SHOULD WE JUST GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE
[00:05:02]
ABSENCE >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE LETTER. THE COMMENT OF ACCEPTING HIS
ABSENCE. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ABSENCE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
WE HAVE MOTION TO, APPROVE BY CLEMMONS AND SECOND.
PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> MS. GROMEK.
[a. Minutes from the July 13, 2026 meeting]
MOVING ON TO ITEM FIVE, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING. I ASSUME YOU ALL HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK THROUGH THEM A LITTLE BIT. ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENT ON OUR MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH. HEARING NONE.I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING.
>> SECOND. > WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
ALL RIGHT. NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO LOCAL
[a. PZTXA2026-00001 2026 Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Review Transmittal]
PLANNING AGENCY. THIS BOARD DOES SERVE AS LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AND WILL PROCEED WITH ITEM 6 A.THE 2026 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW
TRANSMITTAL. >> HARD ENOUGH TO SEE IT FROM
GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE HEIGHT, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL.
WE WERE HIRED BY THE CITY TO DO YOUR EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW OF YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DO THE AMENDMENTS.
IT'S BEEN A JOURNEY TO SAY THE LEAST BUT ALL IS GOOD.
WE WILL MOVE ON. IF YOU REMEMBER I WAS HERE IN JANUARY, AND WE WILL JUST, LET ME JUST DO A QUICK OVERVIEW OF EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS.
YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS 12 ELEMENTS WITH THREE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND. WERE THERE LOCAL ISSUES THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED WITHIN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? WAS THERE ANY LEGISLATIVE THINGS THAT HAPPENED SINCE IT WAS LAST UPDATED THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE COMMUNITY'S VISION. SO THE COMMUNITY BEING THE CITIZENS BUT THEN ALSO BOARDS SUCH AS YOURSELF AND THE CITY COMMISSION. SO YOU KNOW, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ISN'T JUST ABOUT PLANNING. IT'S ABOUT HOW ALL THESE ELEMENTS WORK TOGETHER TO GET THE CITY'S BUSINESS DONE.
LOCAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS. WE HAD TWO PUBLIC WORKSHOPS.
WE HAD MEETINGS WITH YOU AS WELL AS MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE WE STARTED LOOKING AND DIVING INTO GETTING AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU WANTED US TO LOOK AT AND EVALUATE.
SO, THROUGH THAT, WE ALSO DID A PUBLIC SURVEY.
SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE BIG ISSUES THAT CAME UP.
HAVING A RATIONAL BOUNDARY. YOU KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF LITTLE POCKETS. SOMEBODY SAID IT LOOKED LIKE OMEONE SHOT WITH A SHOTGUN AND THAT'S WHERE THE CITY BOUNDARIES ARE. DOING STRATEGIC ANNEXATION.
AND CONSIDERING INFRASTRUCTURE IN THOSE.
ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WITH THAT IS CONSIDERING WHAT SERVICES ARE YOU PROVIDING ESPECIALLY YOUR SEWER AND WATER AND HOW DO YOU DO THAT STRATEGICALLY ANNEX PEOPLE INTO THE CITY THAT MAKES SENSE AND DOESN'T COST MONEY. ZONING AND LAND USE.
MAKING SURE THE TWO THINGS WERE CONSISTENT.
SUPPORTING SMALL BUSINESSES WAS A BIG THING.
ESPECIALLY WHY YOUR CITY MANAGER.
ADDRESSING HOUSING NEEDS. WE NEED THAT EVERYWHERE AND HAVE FOREVER. UPDATED OUR TRANSPORTATION GAME WAS A QUOTE AND ALSO PROTECT THE COASTAL AREAS.
RESILIENCY AND MITIGATING ANYTHING THAT MIGHT NEED TO BE DONE. THESE ARE JUST A FEW OF THE THINGS. THESE ARE A LOT MORE AND THESE ARE THE ONES THAT REALLY STOOD OUT.
WE WENT THROUGH EACH ELEMENT AND CREATED A NARRATIVE FOR THE ELEMENT AND DID A DATA ANALYSIS. WE CREATED TABLES WITHIN EACH OF
[00:10:01]
THE ELEMENTS. UPDATING POPULATION FIGURES.LAND VACANT LAND. WE CREATED THE TABLE FOR ZONING AND LAND USE CONSISTENCY. SO HOUSING WE DID A LOT OF DIFFERENT TABLES AND PUT THAT INFORMATION IN THERE SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT, YOU CAN MAKE IMPORTANT DECISIONS.
THINGS ABOUT RENTER AND OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING COSTS.
WHAT HOUSES MAY BE NEED TO BE FIXED.
OR BROUGHT UP TO CODE. RECREATION.
AND OPEN SPACE. WE LOOKED AT THAT AND TO PROJECT WHAT ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEEDS GOING TO BE AS DEVELOPMENT COMES IN. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO REQUIRE THAT LEVEL OF SERVICE TO BE AND FACILITIES MANAGEMENT.
WE UPDATED A LOT OF THE LEVEL SERVICES AND CREATED APPENDICE.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A 10-YEAR PLANNING PERIOD AND 20-YEAR PERIOD. WE RECEIVED BACK WE DO NOT DO 2025 BECAUSE YOU WERE ADOPTING 2026.
YOUR PLANNING PERIODS WERE 2036. WE HAD TO DO A LINEAR INTERPOLATION. THEY GIVE YOU FIVE YEARS.
THAT WAS A FUN. MY BOSS HAD FUN DOING THAT.
HE LOVES ALGEBRA. THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OLD ONE TO COMPARE TO SO THEY'RE NOT SURE IF WE CREATED SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE OR BURDEN SOME.
WE DID A LEVEL OF SERVICES NOW, 10 YEARS AND 20 YEARS.
THAT'S JUST FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
NOBODY WILL BE HELD TO THE STANDARD WHEN LOOKING AT A DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S JUST FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING.
AS I SAID JANUARY WE SENT IT OFF TO FLORIDA COMMERCE.
IT CAME BACK MARCH 27TH THEY SENT A LETTER.
IN THE TIME BETWEEN JANUARY AND MARCH, ALL THE OTHER FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS, ALL OF THIS DATA REVIEW AGENCIES WERE DOING THEIR REVIEW AS WELL. THEY WERE GIVING BACK COMMENTS.
SO DID COME BACK IT WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE OR BURDENSOME MAKING THEM MORE NULL AND VOID, CHAPTER 28 THE LAWS OF FLORIDA.
JUST THE PLANNING TIMELINE WE CHANGED.
MORE RESTRICTIVE AND BURDENSOME. LAND USE AND INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT AND THOUGHT THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION MIGHT BE THEY WEREN'T SURE. THAT WAS A POTENTIALLY MORE RESTRICTIVE AND BURDENSOME. SO, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT JUST TO REVIEW, A LOT OF WHAT WE DID IS UPDATED LEVELS OF SERVICES.
PUT IN ANNEXATION POLICIES, BECAUSE THAT WAS IMPORTANT.
CREATED THE TABLE TO CROSS REFERENCE FUTURE LAND USE WITH ZONING. POLICIES TO PROVIDE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WE UPDATED TO SHOW THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARIES WHAT FPUA USES AS SERVICE BOUNDARY.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY DEFINED AT THAT TIME.
FLORIDA COMMERCE COMMENTED IT WAS BURDEN SOME.
PROPERTIES SHALL SHARE DRIVEWAYS.
THEY SAID THAT WAS CREATING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE MORE BURDENSOME FOR SOMEBODY PROPOSING A DEVELOPMENT.
WE MADE IT A LITTLE SOFTER AND WILL NOW READ, THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE PROPERTIES TO SHARE DRIVEWAYS AND INTERCONNECTIONS FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS THROUGH INCENTIVES THROUGH ACROSS ACCESS AGREEMENTS, FEE REDUCTIONS AND OTHER APPROPRIATE MANNERS. ACTUALLY LAYOUT WHAT SOME OF THE INCENTIVES MIGHT BE. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT.
THERE WAS NOTHING IN THERE. WHAT WE HAD DONE IN THE INITIAL REVIEW. THERE WAS A MOBILITY METHODOLOGY STUDY THAT WAS OUTDATED AND A LOT OF POLICIES THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE CITIES SEAL. ADDED A POLICY TO SAY THE CITY WILL COOPERATE WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR STRATEGIC INTERMODAL FREEWAYS AND IMPLEMENT A BICYCLE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT PLAN. INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT, SO WE ADDED POLICIES TO BRING THEM UP TO 2023 LEGISLATIVE THINGS.
[00:15:01]
THE SEPTIC TO SEWER BILL. REVISED OUT DATED LANGUAGE AND PLANS AND REPORTS AND REVISED THE POLICY TO SAY YOU'RE ADOPTING YOUR 2025 WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORK PLAN BY REFERENCE AND DID THAT IN A SEPARATE AMENDMENT IN 2025.MORE RESTRICTIVE AND BURDENSOME. WHEN WE READ THE LEGISLATION, THIS WAS ON US. WE DIDN'T READ ALL OF IT.
SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND REALLY READ THE INTRODUCTION. ONE OF THE THINGS FOR THAT SEPTIC TO SEWER WAS ABOUT THEY HAD SOMETHING SAYING THAT YOU KNOW FOR LOTS OF ACRE OR LESS TO REACH A SEWAGE SYSTEM.
GOING BACK TO LOOK AT THE LEGISLATION, THE POLICY ACTUALLY DEALT IN THE BASIC MANAGEMENT ACTION PLAN FOR FLORIDA OUTSTANDING SPRINGS. YOU'RE IN A BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN BUT THE FLORIDA SPRINGS DID NOT APPLY TO THE CITY AND WE WOULD WE REMOVE THAT AND THAT WAS FINE WITH FLORIDA COMMERCE.
IN OUR RESUBMISSION DOCUMENTS, POLICY 326 WILL NOT BE THERE.
COASTAL, MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION, A LOT OF GREAT POLICIES. REALLY NOT A LOT TO DO IN THERE.
THE CITY ALREADY HAS THAT. WE DID NEED TO PUT POLICIES IN RELATED TO NEGLECTED AND DERELICT VESSELS.
ADDED A POLICY ABOUT MAINTAINING, RESTORING AND ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF THE COASTAL ZONE ENVIRONMENT AND THEN ADDED A POLICY RELATED TO INSURING FLOOD RESISTANT REQUIREMENTS GOING BACK TO THE FLOOD LEGISLATION.
HOUSING ELEMENT. WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE ON OUR FIRST SUBMITTAL.
BUT THINGS WE DID. WE ADDED A LOT OF TABLES IN THERE AS I POINTED OUT BEFORE TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE INVENTORY LOOKS LIKE. WE REMOVED A POLICY RELATED TO THE HOUSING NEEDS STUDY WHICH AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING I GAVE A PRESENTATION THE COUNTY DID WITH FORT PIERCE AND PORT ST. LUCIE.
AND WHEN THERE'S A RESELL OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OR TENANT CHANGE. ADDED POLICIES TO HELPING, ALLOWING THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO HELP CREATE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDED WITHIN THE CITY. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE.
AGAIN WE JUST UPDATED YOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS.
ADDED A POLICY TO STATE THE CITY WILL COMPLETE AN INVENTORY OF AND OPEN SPACE LAND AREAS.ION - THERE'S A MISTAKE ON MY SLIDE.
SHOULD SAY JULY 2027. THIS IS THAT COPY AND PASTE THING YOU DO. YOU HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THAT BEING TOO QUICKLY TOO AND SO DID THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE SUBMITTED IT AS JULY OF 2027 TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE TIME.
JUST TALKED ABOUT POLICY TO STATE, MAINTAIN AN UPDATED PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN. REQUIRING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS OF 100 OR MORE TO PROVIDE A HURRICANE HARDENED BUILDING FOR RESIDENTS TO GO TO DURING A STORM AND THE CITY WILL REFRAME FROM SELLING OF RECREATION LANDS WITHIN CITY LIMITS AND ADDED A POLICY RELATED TO PRIVATE RECREATION AMENITIES MADE TO MAINTAIN IN PERPETUITY.
THEY COULD REMAIN ACCESSIBLE. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION.
WE UPDATED POLICY RELATED TO THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS.
UPDATED SPECIFIC REFERENCES TO PASSENGER RAIL.
THERE WAS A LOT OF AMTRAK IN THERE.
WE MADE IT MORE GENERIC TO BE MORE REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL AND CREATED A TABLE ABOUT THE DIFFERENT COORDINATING AGENCIES.
WHAT THEY DO AND THEN WHAT DEPARTMENT THEY WOULD INTERACT WITH WITHIN THE CITY. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, WE ADDED IN THE CURRENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PLAN.
REVISED THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS THAT RESIDES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ELEMENT.
AGAIN THERE WAS SOME JUST STATEMENTS SO WE MADE THEM INTO POLICIES BY ADDING THE CITY SHALL AND ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STORMWATER POLLUTION GOALS WITHIN THE BASIN MANAGEMENT PLAN. PUBLIC FACILITIES.
WE WERE CONFUSED WHY YOU HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PUBLIC UTILITIES. THEY MAKE SENSE FOR THIS CITY AND EACH ELEMENT AS THEIR OWN, THIS ELEMENT TALKS ABOUT HOW YOU DO YOUR COORDINATE YOUR FACILITIES WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND WITH OTHER AGENCIES.
LET'S SEE. SO WE DID UPDATE THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DATES AND ADDED A POLICY TO STATE THE INCREMENTAL
[00:20:05]
IMPACT OF PUBLIC FACILITIES WILL BE ASSESSED AS PART OF THE FUTURE LAND USE. PUBLIC SCHOOLS FACILITIES.THIS IS A REQUIRED ELEMENT WITH YOUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
IT WAS PRETTY STANDARD. WE JUST HAD TO GO IN AND LIST SCHOOLS WITHIN THE CITY AND SPELLEDOW THE ACRONYMS WHERE APPROPRIATE. PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT.
AS WE DID IS JUST ADD A HEADING TO SAY WHAT IT IS.
IT WAS 2021 LEGISLATION AND YOU PRETTY MUCH JUST COPY AND PASTE WHAT THEY TOLD YOU IN THE LEGISLATION TO JUST CONSIDER PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHIN ALL LOCAL DECISIONMAKING.
SO, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A BREAK DOWN.
THIS IS WHAT OUR AUGUST, OOPS. OUR RESUBMITTAL WILL BE.
THESE ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT JUST KIND OF SPELLED OUT OF WHAT THEY CAME BACK WITH. FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE.
I WENT THROUGH THOSE WHEN WE WERE IN THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS.
AND THEN FOR THE NEW MAPS THAT WERE CREATED, THEY ASKED WE ADDED A NOTE INTO THE INTRODUCTION THAT STATE THESE MAPS DEPICT THE ONE MAP, THE 2026 LEVEL OF SERVICE MAP WILL DEPICT CURRENT LEVEL OF CONDITIONS FOR SIGNIFICANT ROADWAYS AND WE GOT THAT INFORMATION FROM THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING ORGANIZATION FROM F DOT AND MAPS FOR 2036 AND MAPS FOR 2046 ARE DEPICTING PROJECTED LEVEL OF SERVICE CONDITIONS FOR THE SAME ROADWAYS.
FOR THAT, IT WILL JUST BE USED FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.
SO THE NEXT STEP IS WE WILL BRING TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
TRANSMIT IT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THAT TRANSMITTAL HEARING.
WE WILL GET COMMENTS BACK AGAIN FROM THE STATE AND FROM THE STATE REVIEW AGENCIES WHICH WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STATE AND THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE REVIEW AGENCIES AND HOPEFULLY ALL OF THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE. IF THERE ARE NECESSARY CHANGES WE NEED TO MAKE AND THE CITY WILL HOLD THE ADOPTION HEARING AND YOU WILL HAVE A SOMEWHAT NEW COMP PLAN.
SO ANY QUESTIONS? >> SO GIVEN WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT IN THE PROCESS, IS THE, SO, THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THAT DOCUMENT IS GOING TO STILL REMAIN 2026.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S GOING TO BE -- >> YES, AS LONG AS WE GET ADOPTED IN 2026. WE HAD SOMETHING SCHEDULED IN AUGUST. WE MIGHT BE GOING TO THE CITY IN SEPTEMBER. A LOT OF STUFF IS COMING UP ON THE AGENDA. IT WILL BE ADOPTED IN 2026.
>> YOU MENTIONED -- >> STILL ENOUGH TIME LEFT IN THE
YEAR. >> YOU MENTIONED A FEW OTHER REVIEWING AGENCIES THAT HAD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
>> FDOT ON THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS.
I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANYTHING FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. I MENTION THAT BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE PROCESS WHEN A LARGE SCALE AMENDMENT THIS IS CONSIDERED. THERE'S REVIEW AGENCIES AROUND THE STATE THAT LOOK AT IT. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IS IN CHARGE OF THAT. THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS DEP, AND DOT. WE'RE PROHIBITED BY LAW FROM REVIEWING OUR OWN WORK. THERE ARE OTHER AGENCIES THAT WILL MAKE COMMENTS. THE ONLY COMMENT WAS FROM F DOT.
>> SO WE'RE NOT EXPECTING ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> WE NEVER KNOW. SOMETIMES THINGS WILL COME UP.
I THINK WE WILL BE CLEAN THIS TIME.
I WON'T GUARANTEE BUT I BELIEVE WE WILL.
>> I JUST HAVE THE PROCESS. IS THIS JUST PROVIDING AN UPDATE OR ACTING AS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND AFTER WE HEAR PUBLIC COMMENTS WE WILL EITHER
RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR -- >> RIGHT, YOU'RE JUST BASICALLY
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE >> CONSIDER
>> WE WILL CONSIDER RECOMMENDING.
>> YOU WILL CONSIDER. >> AFTER HEARING FROM THE
PUBLIC. >> AND MOVING IT ON TO THE
COUNCIL. >> WE DON'T WANT TO THINK IT'S A
FOREGONE CONCLUSION. >> THIS IS YOUR TIME AS WELL TO MAKE CHANGES YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO BRING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AND WE WOULD OF COURSE, PRESENT THAT AFTER THIS PRESENTATION, THE PLANNING BOARD WANTS AND THAT HAPPENED LAST TIME.
THEY WERE A FEW THINGS WE DID ADD IN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> SO IF YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE STATE, DO THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO US
AND THEN THE COMMISSION? >> USUALLY IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE OF SB 180, IT CHANGED THE WAY THINGS HAPPEN.
USUALLY THE STATE WOULD SEND BACK AND THEN THE CITY
[00:25:04]
COMMISSION. THEY DECIDE WELL, YEAH, WE DO WANT TO CHANGE THOSE OR NO. WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT THE WAY WE WANT TO ADOPT AND THEY WOULD ADOPT IT.SB 180, BASICALLY BECAUSE THEY SENT US A LETTER THAT IT SAID IT WAS NULL AND VOID, BASICALLY MEANS IT REALLY WAS NEVER TRANSMITTED. IT WAS NEVER DONE.
IT MEANS THE MINUTE IT GOT THERE, IT WASN'T --
>> THE MINUTE WE INITIATED SENDING TO THEM.
IT WAS NULL AND VOID. IT'S KIND OF LIKE IT NEVER HAPPENED THIS LAST WHOLE PROCESS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE STARTING AGAIN WITH YOU AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE COUNCIL BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE PROPER PROCESS AND MAKE SURE WE DO IT CORRECTLY.
RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I DO. THIS CITY WAS TASKED IF I'M UNDERSTANDING RIGHT, IN 2018. WITH PERFORMING AN EIR.
>> THAT'S THE PRIOR ONE. >> AND I FOOLISHLY PRINTED MOST ALL OF THIS. THERE'S PROBABLY 100 PAGES THERE. I MAY BE SENDING A BILL TO THE CITY FOR MY PRINTER AND MY REAM OF PAPER.
BUT MAYBE YOU CAN CLARIFY TOO, THERE WAS SOME OTHER PLANNING CONSULTANTS INVOLVED AND I'M SEEING TIMELINES OF TASKED FEBRUARY 1ST, 2018, AND THEN THERE WAS A DEADLINE IN JANUARY OF 2019. ANOTHER CONSULTING GROUP, MARCH 2020. THERE WAS APPROVAL FOR TRANSMITTAL OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL AND WE GOT, VIRTUALLY THERE WAS A GAP OF FIVE YEARS IN 2025.
SO, THIS PIECE THAT WE HAVE VIRTUALLY, EVERY PAGE YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH AND THERE'S, YOU CAN SEE THE RED MARKS.
AND THERE'S LITERALLY 100 PAGES PROBABLY BEEN ADDRESSED WHICH, I TAKE MY HAT OFF BECAUSE IT'S IMPRESSIVE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT THERE. BUT ARE YOU SAYING THIS IS STILL, WE'RE STILL IN THE DRAFT STAGE AND THIS IS ALL GOING TO
COME BACK AGAIN? >> YES, EVERY SEVEN YEARS WE ARE REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE TO DO THIS EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL.
THE ONE DONE IN 2018, 2019, THAT WAS THE LAST TIME IT WAS DONE.
SO, HERE WE ARE AGAIN IN 2026 HAVING TO DO IT AGAIN.
>> OKAY. >> THEY WILL LET YOU KNOW.
YOU HAVE TO SEND A YEAR BEFORE IT'S DUE.
YOU SEND A LETTER OFF TO THE STATE AND SAY WE FOUND SOME THINGS. WE DO WANT TO MAKE CHANGES.
WE HAVE TO DO LEGISLATIVE UPDATES AND SAY GREAT, YOU HAVE A YEAR TO DO IT. THAT'S WHEN IN JANUARY 2024, 2025, THAT WENT TO THE STATE AND SAID YOU HAVE UNTIL JANUARY 2027 TO DO IT. IF YOU DON'T DO IT AND YOU'RE A COUPLE YEARS LATER. DOESN'T MATTER.
THE SEVEN YEARS IS SEVEN TO THEM.
IF YOU DO IT HALFWAY THROUGH THAT.
DOESN'T MATTER AT THAT SEVEN YEAR MARK.
THAT NEVER MOVES. >> SO IF YOU NEVER DID IT FOR 20 YEARS AND DID IT, THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER WINDOW FROM THE NEXT
REPORT FOR ANOTHER SEVEN YEARS? >> NO.
IT'S DUE WHETHER YOU DO IT OR NOT.
IF YOU DON'T DO THE APPRAISAL. YOU CANNOT DO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS. YOU CAN'T PENALIZE THE PUBLIC FOR NOT DOING WHAT THE CITY SHOULD HAVE DONE.
IT'S A SET DATE AND WILL COME AROUND EVERY SEVEN YEARS AND TELL YOU IT'S TIME TO DO IT AGAIN OR YOU'RE GOING TO TELL THEM YOU WILL. THE CITY HAS BEEN VERY GOOD.
LAST AND THIS TIME. WE'RE RIGHT ON TRACK.
>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> JUST TO HELP ME REMEMBER. SO, THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. AND IT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSMITTAL HEARING.
GOES UP TO THE STATE. THEY MAKE WHATEVER COMMENTS OR SAY THANK YOU WE LIKE THIS. COMES BACK FOR ADOPTION HEARING AND AT THAT TIME, THE CHANGES WILL BE MADE AND THE PLAN WILL BE ACTUALLY ADOPTED WITH THE CHANGES.
>> YES. ALL THOSE PIECES AND PARTS, SECTIONS OF THE PLAN THOSE WILL BE AVAILABLE WITH THE REVISED LANGUAGE OR WHATEVER. AND THE PUBLIC THEN HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE DOCUMENT AT THAT TIME.
[00:30:04]
LIKE MY COLLEAGUE DIDN'T PULL UP EVERYTHING AND MAKE COPIES OF THE ENTIRE PLAN AT THIS POINT. BUT ANYWAY.OKAY. >> YES, WE WILL ONCE THE CITY ADOPTS IT AND SENDS IT BACK UP, WE ADOPTED, THE STATE WILL SAY OKAY YOU'RE GOOD TO GO AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> SO YOU'RE SHOWING THE STRIKE THROUGH AND UNDERLINES AFTER THE ADOPTION HEARING THAT GOES UP TO THE STATE.
THAT'S STILL THE SAME PROCESS? I REMEMBER THE PROCESS WHEN IT WAS A DIFFERENT STATE AGENCY. ANYWAY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND THAT.
HEARING NONE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, STEPHANIE.
AT THIS TIME WE WOULD OPEN THE FLOOR TO THE PUBLIC.
IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DRAFT.
PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME.
SEEING NONE, I WOULD SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT.
HEARING NONE, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH A MOTION.
>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION
APPRAISAL REVIEW TRANSMITTAL. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> MR. WIDING BEAT YOU.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION OF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY MS.
CLEMMONS AND SECONDED BY >> JOHNSON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVING ON TO ITEM 6 B, WE HAVE A
[b. PZANN2026-00003 Voluntary Annexation Juanita Avenue Annexation Parcel ID: 1433-701-0335-000-2]
VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION APPLICATION.MR. FREEMAN. YOU HAVE BEEN IN THIS ROOM A LOT
YOU MIGHT HAVE THE PHRASE. GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR.
GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD. LET ME GET RID OF THIS.
AND PULL UP AN APPLICATION FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.
AND IN THE SAME ITEM WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING. SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THREE SEPARATE MOTIONS ON THIS TO KEEP THE ANNEXATION FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING SEPARATE. AND ADOPTED SEPARATELY.
THEY ARE COMPANION ORDINANCES AND EACH ONE DEPENDS ON THE
PROCEEDING ORDINANCE. >> SO WE'RE STARTING WITH
ANNEXATION? >> WHAT I WILL DO WITH THIS, I WILL GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING. I WILL TALK ABOUT THE ANNEXATION. I WILL TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE. AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THE ZONING AND FINALLY SUMMARIZE THE ITEMS IN THE ORDER THEY SHOULD BE VOTED UPON. IF THIS MAKES SENSE.
SO, THE APPLICATION INVOLVES A SINGLE PROPERTY .19 ACRES, IT'S ON JUANITA AVENUE. THE LOT IS VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED AND HAS CURRENT COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE OF RESIDENTIAL URBAN. AND A CURRENT ZONING OF SINGLE FAMILY RS 4. THAT'S IN THE COUNTY.
YOU WILL SEE THAT THE PROPOSED CITY FUTURE LAND USE IS REFLECTIVE OF THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL LAND USE THAT WE CAN DO IN THE CITY. IT'S QUITE CLOSE TO WHERE THE COUNTY SITS WITH FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ON TOP OF THAT, HAS A PROPOSED CITY ZONING VERY SIMILAR TO THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY 4 IN THE COUNTY, THEY BOTH PROVIDE FOR THE SAME DENSITIES. THE FUTURE LAND USE HOWEVER ALLOWS A SLIGHTLY HIGHER DENSITY AND ZONING CONTROLS THAT.
SO AS I SAY, THERE ARE THREE COMPANION ORDINANCES HERE.
2616, 2617 AND 2618 ALL DEALING WITH THE SEPARATE PARTS OF THE WHOLE. SO WE ARE CONSIDERING THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, THE FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION OF THE
[00:35:03]
ZONING DISTRICT. HERE'S THE PROPERTY LOCATION.IT'S IN ONE OF THOSE LOCATIONS WHERE IT'S THE SHOTGUN APPROACH TO WHAT LIES IN THE COUNTY AND WHAT LIES IN THE CITY.
THE DARKER LOTS ARE THE ONES WITHIN THE CITY.
THE LIGHTER LOTS ARE THE ONES THAT REMAIN IN THE COUNTY.
SO, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN THIS AREA IS SUPPORT THE INFILL OF ALL THESE LOTS TO COME INTO THE CITY.
SO WE GET A MORE UNIFIED SERVICE AREA.
AND WE GET A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PATERN.
SO THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION GOES BY FLORIDA STATUTES, CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACCOUNTIVE 1.11.
AND THE CITY OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ANNEXATION CONSISTENCY REQUIREMENTS. SO, WE LOOKED AT THE STATUTORY COMPLIANCE FOR CONTIGUITY. YOU SEE FROM THE PLAN.
THE SITE IS CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY BOUNDARY.
COMPACTNESS AND ITS, ALTHOUGH AROUND IT IT'S IRREGULAR IN TERMS OF PATTERN OF LOTS. THE LOT IS A REGULAR LOT.
IT'S A STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT AND DOES IT CREATE AN ENCLAVE? AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S TRYING TO ELIMINATE AN ENCLAVE RATHER THAN CREATE ONE.
LOOKED AT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY ON OBJECTIVE 1.11.
SO, ADDRESS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FOUR POINTS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LIKES US TO LOOK AT.
WE LOOK AT PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY.
AND WE CAN SEE THAT PUTTING ANOTHER LOT INTO THE CITY CONSOLIDATES SERVICE DELIVERY ALONG THE CITY, HOPEFULLY IN THE FUTURE WE WILL BE ABLE TO GENERATE A WHOLE STREET ONE SERVICE PROVIDER RATHER THAN THE COUNTY PROVIDED SERVICES TO ONE PART AND THE CITY TO ANOTHER. IT PROVIDES PUBLIC SERVICES AT CITY'S ADOPTED LEVELS. THIS ANNEXATION IS A RESULT OF THE APPLICANT OBTAINING A ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE WATER AND SEWER.
SO THEY CAN BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
PART OF THIS ORIGINATES FROM THAT INITIATIVE BY THE CITY AND THE FPUA TO START THE PROCESS OF GETTING LOTS IN LINE FOR ANNEXATION BASED ON YOU PROVIDING UTILITIES TO THOSE LOTS. SO, DOES IT ELIMINATE AN INCORPORATED ISLAND? IT'S PART OF AN UNINCORPORATED ISLAND AND REDUCES THAT AND BRINGS THE PATTERN OF PROPERTIES MORE IN LINE WITH THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF THE CITY.
AGAIN, THE QUESTION ABOUT ENCLAVES.
THIS IS AN INFILL PROPERTY. IT'S LOOKING TO ELIMINATE ALL THESE WELL PART OF THE LIGHTER COLORED ST. LUCIE COUNTY PROPERTIES. SO WE LOOKED AT THAT IN TERMS OF THE ANNEXATION. IN TERMS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WE LOOK AROUND THE CITY. BOTH FOR THE CITY'S LAND USE AND THE COUNTY'S FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN.
THE MAJORITY IF NOT ALL OF THE PROPERTIES AROUND THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE LOCATED WITHIN, IF THEY'RE IN THE CITY, THEY ARE IN THE LOW DENSITY FUTURE LAND USE.
IF THEY'RE IN THE COUNTY, THEY'RE IN THE R U RESIDENTIAL URBAN FUTURE LAND USE. THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE TWO, THE COUNTY ALLOWS FIVE UNITS PER ACRE WHEREAS THE CITY LOW DENSITY'S RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE.
THAT IS THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY. THAT'S WHERE THE SIMILARITY IS ATTEMPTED TO BE COORDINATED AS POSSIBLE.
SO FROM THE TERMS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION, WE
[00:40:07]
LOOK AT WHAT DOES THE COUNTY LAND USE MAP ALLOW? IN FACT IS THE PREDOMINANT RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IN THE COUNTY. IT PROVIDES A MAXIMUM DENSITY FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER GROSS ACRE.WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW COULD WE GET AS CLOSE TO THAT AS POSSIBLE? AND THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL LOW CITY DESIGNATION IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR A PLATTED SINGLE FAMILY LOT. WHICH WOULD PRESERVE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE CITY LAND USE CATEGORY IS SUITABLE FOR DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY ELEMENT AND PROVIDES CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROPOSED AS YOU WILL SEE THE R 1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND FACILITATES AN INCORPORATION OF THE PARCELS INTO THE CITY'S LAND USE FRAMEWORK.
IN TERMS OF THE ZONING SIMILAR PATTERN OBVIOUSLY.
IN THE COUNTY, WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL RS 4 ZONING DESIGNATION. AND THERE'S A PROPOSED CITY ZONING IS A SINGLE FAMILY LOW RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
AGAIN, VERY SIMILAR IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY ALLOW AND DON'T ALLOW.
THEY BOTH ALLOW UP TO FOUR UNITS FOR ACRE.
IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU'RE GOING TO GET ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT ON THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED TO CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 4, RS 4 ZONING CLARIFICATION TO THE FORT PIERCE R 1 ZONING CLASSIFICATION AND THE REASON THE STAFF SUPPORT THIS, IT PRESERVES THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY. ESTABLISHES CITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. PROVIDES COMPATIBLE WITH PROPOSED FUTURE RL LAND USE DESIGNATION TO ADEQUATELY SIT ON THE FUTURE LAND USE. DOES NOT AUTHORIZE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT OR NONRESIDENTIAL USE. THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN EACH ARE VERY SIMILAR. AND IN FACT, PROMOTE THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. AND IT FITS IN WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE LOCALITY PRIMARILY LOW DENSITY. SO, THE REMAINING COUNTY FUTURE LAND USES ARE ESSENTIALLY RS 4. THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTIES IN THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY OF FORT PIERCE OF ESSENTIALLY MAJORITY R 1. EVERYTHING ON THE MAP IS R 1 AND IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE LOOKED AT PUBLIC FACILITIES AND LEVEL OF SERVICE. STAFF REVIEW TRANSPORTATION DRAINAGE AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. AND A LOT OF THESE ISSUES WILL BE FORMULATED OUT DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AT THAT POINT. IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND REVIEWED BY THE APPLICABLE CITY DEPARTMENTS AND UTILITIES ENGINEERING, COMPLETED ITS REVIEW AND RECOMMENDED ANNEXATION APPROVAL.
THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS AND COMMENTED ON WASTEWATER AND APPROVED THE APPLICATION.
NO UTILITY-RELATED OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION AND IN FACT, IT'S PART OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FPOA.
AND IT WAS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD GOING THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. SO IN TERMS OF STAFF FINDINGS FOR THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION, SO IT WAS A PETITION BY THE OWNER.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED ST. LUCIE COUNTY.
IT'S SUBJECT TO ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FPOA.
IT DOESN'T CREATE AN ENCLAVE OR DETACHED MUNICIPAL AREA.
[00:45:01]
IT DOES REDUCE A JURISDICTIONAL IRREGULARITY WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.AND THE PROPERTY IS VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED.
THE ACTIONS HAVE BEEN ANALYZED AND WILL NOT CREATE A NON-CONFORMING EXISTING USE OR STRUCTURE.
IN TERMS OF ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE, THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE OF RL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING COUNTY URBAN RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION. AND THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE AREA. THE PROPOSED R 1 ZONING DESIGNATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED RL CITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION. SO, THE REQUEST NOT EXPECTED OR CONSIDERED TO FORM A MATERIAL ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC FACILITIES OR ADOPTED LEVELS OF SERVICE.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL REMAIN ON THIS LOT SUBJECT TO ALL APPLICABLE CITY DEVELOPMENT UTILITY DRAINAGE ACCESS PERMITS.
AND THE ORDINANCES ARE INTERNALLY CONSISTENT AND PROVIDE FOR THE THE COORDINATION OF THE PROPERTY INTO THE CITY.
SO BASED ON THAT, WE HAVE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO THE PLANNING BOARD WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVE EACH OF THE ANNEXATIONS AND MOVE TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. I DON'T KNOW SHOULD WE TAKE QUESTIONS NOW OR WE'LL GO THROUGH THE ANNEXATION IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS ON THE ANNEXATION DEAL WITH THAT
CONSIDERATION? >> I MEAN I FEEL LIKE FROM THE BOARD'S PERSPECTIVE, WE COULD HANDLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FOR ALL THREE ITEMS SIMULTANEOUSLY. I DON'T REALLY THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE THAT MUCH COMMENT ALTHOUGH I COULD BE WRONG.
WHEN WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT WE WILL GO IN SEQUENCE.
WHY DON'T WE DO THAT TO MOVE THINGS ALONG.
UNLESS YOU HAVE OBJECTION. >> SORRY, I WAS TRYING TO KNOCK THE MICROPHONE OVER. NO.
>> YEAH. IF THERE'S NO PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS TO THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND DO OUR DISCUSSION.
OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ALL THREE INDIVIDUAL LINE ITEMS AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD AND DO OUR FINAL MOTIONS. SO, I'LL START WITH MY ONE COMMENT OR QUESTION WAS, THE LOT SIZE SPECIFICALLY.
I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING IN THE REPORT ABOUT THE LOT SIZE.
DOES THE LOT SIZE CONFORM TO THE CURRENT ORDINANCE?
>> IT'S .19 ACRES WHICH FORMS AN ACCEPTABLE SIZE FOR THAT ZONING
>> THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF IN THE --
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS.
AREN'T THERE MINIMUM SETBACKS FOR THE LOT?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER, EXCUSE ME, THE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT AROUND HERE. IT'S A LARGER LOT THAN SOME OF THE ONES THAT ALREADY IN EXISTENCE.
IT FITS INTO THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOT WIDTH
SO, DOES THIS PROPERTY OWNER ONLY OWN THIS LOT? NO OTHER LOTS SURROUNDING OR IS THAT NOT PART?
>> I HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER AND MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.
>> WE OWN MORE LOTS BUT NOT IN THAT AREA.
>> WHY DON'T YOU COME TO THE PODIUM SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR
NAME. >> WE DO OWN MORE LOTS AND NOT
IN THE AREA. >> MY NAME IS DRAR TRIGAR.
SINCE HE'S UP THERE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? LET HIM SIGN IN. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM THE BOARD? OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> WE DO COMPLY WITH BOTH SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. IN BACK AND FRONT.
SO WE HAVE THE RIGHT DESIGN FOR THE LOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
AT THIS POINT, I WOULD TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION. PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME
[00:50:01]
AND INCLUDE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH THE ANNEXATION, FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE. SEEING NONE, I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FINAL DISCUSSION.>> ALL RIGHT. I AM JUST GOING TO, I WILL JUST SAY BRIEFLY THIS IS LIKE A TEXTBOOK ANNEXATION.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO SEE.
IT'S IN OUR BOTH IN OUR CURRENT COMP PLAN AND IN OUR FUTURE COMP PLAN. IT'S RIGHT IN OUR WHEEL HOUSE.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, REDUCE THE IRREGULAR BOUNDARIES AND BORDERS. I AM HAPPY WE'RE SEEING PROGRESS BUT WISH IT WAS MOVING QUICKER. ONE DOWN AND MIGHT BE 500 DOWN TO GO. WE WILL GO IN ORDER HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT ANNEXATION FIRST.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL?
>> DO WE NEED, ARE WE GOING TO MAKE THREE? WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THREE MOTIONS AND VOTE FOR EACH ONE.
SO WE'RE STARTING WITH ANNEXATION.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-016 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY .19 ACRES 1433-701-0335-002 INTO THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS AND THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN
WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. WIDING AND A SECOND BY MS. CLEMMONS.
NOW FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE. DO YOU WANT TO BRING THAT UP AGAIN MR. FREEMAN. WE ARE ESTABLISHING THE FUTURE LAND USE AS WHAT IS R 1? RL.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-017 ASSIGNING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY A CITY OF FORT PIERCE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF LOAD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. RL BASED UPON THE FINDINGS
CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. STOREY, SECOND BY CLEMMONS.
>> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I AM HAPPY TO DO IT.
OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 26-01 ZONING RELIGION OF R 1 BASED UPON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS.
STOREY, SECOND BY MS. CLEMMONS. >>
ALL THREE ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
>> ALL RIGHT. NOW, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER NEW BUSINESS UNDER ITEM 7. OTHER THAN COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. SO, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THAT.
IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE TODAY WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THIS BOARD ON ITEMS OF GENERAL PLANNING, PLEASE COME
[9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]
FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE.WE WILL MOVE TO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
CHAIR. AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED, THE CAUSEWAY COVE APPLICATION HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED.
SO, AS FAR AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED, THAT'S MOVED THROUGH THAT PART OF THE PROCESS.
[00:55:01]
THERE ARE EXTERNAL AGENCIES STILL TO WEIGH IN WHEN THE APPLICATION IF IT DOES COME FORWARD TO BAY SITE PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMITS THAT THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS TO BE RESOLVED FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES. ON THE NOTE OF ANNEXATIONS, THERE IS A MEETING AND THE CITY MANAGER HAS BEEN VERY PROACTIVE IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT ANNEXATIONS AND THE STRATEGY OF THAT. SO WE DO HAVE AN UPCOMING MEETING BETWEEN STAFF, THE CITY MANAGER AND THE FPUA.FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY AGENCY.
TO TALK ABOUT THEIR SERVICE AREA AND DISCUSS A PRIORITIZATION OF ANNEXATIONS. THERE ARE PROPERTIES OUT THERE SIMILAR TO THIS THAT HAVE ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS WITH THE FPUA. THOSE BECOME ACTIVE UPON CONTIGUITY IN THE CITY LIMITS. WE DO HAVE PROPERTIES OUT THERE THAT ARE READY TO FALL LIKE A DOMINO IF YOU LIKE.
THE PRIORIY SET BY THE CITY COMMISSION IS TO LOOK AT VALUE OF THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE CITY IN TERMS OF THEIR IMPACT NOT ONLY ON THE TAX ROLE BUT THEIR IMPACT ON THE CITY SERVICES.
THERE'S A PROAND A NEGATIVE TO ANNEXATION, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THOSE PROPERTIES AND THAT IS A COST.
PART OF THE PRIORITY THAT WE HEARD FROM CITY COMMISSION IT TO LOOK AT KINGS HIGHWAY CORRIDOR WHICH IS DESIGNATED TO BECOME A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR TO SUPPORT INDUSTRIES, HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES EMPLOYMENT AND SO FORTH. WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S ON THE BORDER OF WHERE THE FPOA SERVICE EXPANDS TO.
AND SO, WE'RE ASSESSING WHICH PROPERTIES DO HAVE THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS IN PLACE. WHERE THEY ARE.
IF THEY ARE CONTIGUOUS. WE DEVELOPED A MAP INTERNALLY WHICH AT SOME POINT, I WILL BRING FORWARD THE PLANNING BOARD JUST SO THEY CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING.
SO WE'RE WAITING FOR THE OUTCOME OF THIS MEETING.
I THINK THE MEETING WILL BE REINFORCED BY THE COMMISSION'S OVERALL STRATEGY. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD TOOL TO HAVE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THAT BEING DISCUSSED AT THE STRATEGIC PLAN MEETING. WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF QUITE LARGE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS AROUND THE CITY THAT ARE STILL BEING DISCUSSED. SOME ARE ACTUALLY IN AND BEING REVIEWED. AND WILL BE COMING TO THE THERE'S BEEN AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE GOT A DISTANCE BEFORE BUT NOW ARE RETURNING AND I HAVE DIRECTED THEY SHOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD BEFORE THEY RETURN TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF NEIGHBOR ESPECIALLY IN CASES WHERE WE HAVE A LOT OF NEIGHBOR INTERACTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S CHANGED ENOUGH FROM MY ANALYSIS TO WARRANT IT COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A REANALYSIS OF THAT.
SO, WE'RE, I'M WORKING ON 1 EDWARDS ROAD AREA WHICH SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST. I KNOW THERE WAS COMMUNITY MEETING OUT THERE RECENTLY. I'M WAITING TO HEAR BACK ABOUT HOW THAT WENT. AND WHETHER THAT IS MOVING FORWARD IN THE FORM THAT WAS PLANNED OR AMENDED.
SO, THAT WILL BE COMING BACK TO PLANNING BOARD AT SOME POINT.
IT WAS DUE TO COME BACK TO THIS MEETING, BUT THERE WASN'T SUFFICIENT BACK UP FROM PLANNING STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW TO ALLOW IT TO COME BACK TO CITY COMMISSION AT THIS POINT.
SOME VERY YES, POTENTIALLY CONTROVERSIAL APPLICATIONS
[01:00:02]
COMING FORWARD AND BEING REVIEWED RIGHT NOW.SO THAT'S, WE OUR HANDS FULL. >> I WILL PACK A LUNCH.
>> NEED A WEEK SUPPLY OF SOMETHING.
>> IS THAT ALL? >> THAT IS ALL I
YOU KNOW, TO PIGGYBACK ON YOUR COMMENTS.
I JUST, I WANTED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
I LISTENED TO MOST OF THE MEETING THIS MORNING ON THE LIVE STREAM. AND WE HAD JUST, WE SAW IT HERE IN THE BOARD. THE EXCEPTIONAL AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION REVOLVED AROUND THIS CAUSEWAY COVE PROJECT.
AND I WAS ACTUALLY WONDERING WHAT KIND OF, I MEAN I'M NOT SURE IF I WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
BUT, I WOULD BE VERY CURIOUS TO KNOW THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND RESOURCES YOUR DEPARTMENT SPECIFICALLY HAVE SPENT ON THIS APPLICATION SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT IS A LIVE LOCAL ACT APPLICATION. BECAUSE I HAVE NEVER IN MY FOUR PLUS YEARS ON THE BOARD, NEVER SEEN YOUR BOARD WORK HARDER ON A SINGLE APPLICATION. THAT'S AN EXCEPTIONAL AMOUNT OF TIME AND I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A CASUALTIES OF THE LEGISLATION.
WE DIDN'T EVEN DO A PUBLIC HEARING WHICH NORMALLY TAKES UP A GOOD AMOUNT OF YOUR TIME. YOU'RE STILL PREPARING THE POINTS AND ANSWERING I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW MANY E-MAILS AND CALLS AND INQUIRIES. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW, IT'S AN ELEMENT TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS GETTING RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMUNITY AND RECOGNIZED BY THE CITY AND JUST RECOGNIZED BY PEOPLE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THESE APPLICATIONS PUT A BIG BURDEN ON OUR STAFF AND THAT'S TIME AND MONEY THAT THE CITY HAS TO ACCOUNT FOR.
SO. I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE SO FAR.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LOT. AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TAKING A LOT OF HEAT. EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW, IT'S REALLY NONE OF YOUR DOING. HOPEFULLY THE COMMUNITY IS COMING AROUND TO UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS LAW IS WORKING AND HOW TIED OUR HANDS ARE. AND HOPEFULLY THEY CAN APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE.
YOU KNOW, YOU AND ALL OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW AGENCIES HAVE BEEN WORKING A LOT ON THIS PROJECT TO LOOK OUT FOR THE CITY AS MUCH AS WE CAN AND I SEE IT. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. IF I COULD ADD ON TO THAT.
YOU'VE SEEN THE FULL IMPACT OF WHAT A REVIEW ENTAILS WITH LIVE LOCAL. PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION. IN A LARGE AMOUNT OF CASES, YOU DON'T SEE THE WORK PUT INTO A STAFF REVIEW OF A MAJOR SITE REVIEW. IT'S VERY SIMILAR.
THE DIFFERENTIAL HERE, A LOT IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC VIEW.
THAT IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S ACCEPTED IT MEETS ZONING REGULATIONS AND WE REVIEWED THAT.
IF THERE ARE PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE HANDLED THOSE.
NOT, THIS IS UNUSUAL IF IT'S MORE PUBLIC VIEW AND MORE PUBLIC CONTROVERSIAL IN TERMS OF ITS IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT THE CITY IS ABLE TO DO ABOUT THAT.
BUT BEHIND THE SCENES AND THIS IS WHAT PEOPLE SOMETIMES DON'T RECOGNIZE, A NORMAL MAJOR SITE PLAN THAT MAYBE DOESN'T HAVE THE VIEW OF EVERYBODY, IS REVIEWED TO THE SAME EXTENT THAT WE HAVE REVIEW THE CAUSEWAY COVE. AND THERE IS A LOT OF STAFF TIME ON THAT. THIS IS JUST UNUSUAL IN IT BECOMES MORE PUBLICIZED. SO I WANT TO THANK MY STAFF FOR ALL THE STUFF THEY DO BEHIND THE SCENES THAT'S NOT REALLY SEEN
>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER AREAS IMPACTED BY THE LIVE LOCAL ACT CURRENTLY? CAN YOU STATE THEM?
>> IT'S ALL OVER THE STATE. THERE'S SIMILAR CONTROVERSIES
[01:05:01]
BEING HANDLED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENTS AND GOVERNING BODIESALL OVER THE STATE. >> DO YOU KNOW ANY SIMILAR TO
OURS? >> YES, THERE'S ONE DOWN SOUTH AND I DON'T RECALL THE NAME OF IT.
IT'S GOING THROUGH DIFFICULTIES. WHEN I OVERVIEWED IT MYSELF, AND THIS IS JUST A CURSORY OVERVIEW, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE MET THE RATIOS REQUIRED AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
THEY NEED TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT A PERCENTAGE OF THE FLOOR SPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL. JUST LOOKING AT THE USES AND THE BUILDINGS PROPOSED, I COULDN'T SEE HOW THEY WERE GOING TO MANAGE TO MEET THOSE PERCENTAGES.
I DON'T KNOW THE ISSUE WITH IT. I'M NOT REALLY RESEARCHED THAT ONE. WE TRY AND KEEP OUR EYE OUT ON OTHER THINGS DISCUSSED AND CHALLENGED AROUND THE STATE.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE SAME SITUATION.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING BEING ANALYZED OR AGREED ON IN A DIFFERENT APPLICATION, WE WILL USE THAT TO GIVE US A GOOD FOUNDATION TO HOW WE LOOK AT IT. THE DIFFICULTY IS, THESE ARE VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. EVERY TIME ONE COMES UP, THERE'S A DIFFERENT CALCULATION. A DIFFERENT ZONING.
A DIFFERENT LOCATION. SOME ARE IN DENSE BUILT UP AREAS. SOME ARE PRIMARILY ALL RESIDENTIAL AND THEY'RE NOT MIXED USE.
SO, YOU KNOW THE STATE WIDENED THE APPLICATION OF THIS TO FAR BEYOND WHAT INITIALLY WAS SET OUT.
I MEAN THEY EXTENDED TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
ANY, ANYTHING THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
CAN POTENTIALLY GO TO A LIVE LOCAL.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CURRENT APPLICATIONS OR CURRENT
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. >> ANYTHING THAT HAS RECEIVED OF ZONING OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND YOU LOOK THROUGH THE CITY AND THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE RECEIVED THAT.
I HAVE NOT DONE THE FULL ANALYSIS.
THAT TO ME IS, I MEAN, THE IMPACT OF THAT.
SO AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE HOW YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS OF GETTING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, MOVING A PROJECT INTO AN APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, IF THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NEVER GETS BUILT, AND YOU KNOW, A NEW PLAN COMES IN, IT STARTS THE CLOCK OVER AGAIN. THEY HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AND WE GET A LOOK AT WHAT THE NEW PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING HERE. ONCE THEY GET THAT PD DESIGNATION, THEY CAN JUST HANG ON TO THAT AND POTENTIALLY USE THAT TO CHANGE THEIR PLAN AND NOT HAVE TO GO THROUGH US AND
THE COMMISSION. >> I NEED TO DO MORE ANALYSIS.
IT REALLY SPECIFICALLY ANNOUNCES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS ONE OF ZONING DISTRICTS THIS AFFECTS. WHETHER THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO HAVE COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN THAT TO QUALIFY IT.
I'M NOT SURE. THAT NEEDS FURTHER ANALYSIS.
>> THAT WOULD BE A CONCERN. >> WHO RECEIVES THE BURDEN FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS TO FOR THE LOW-INCOME SIDE.
OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING SIDE. >> THAT'S THE APPLICANT.
>> WELL THE APPLICANT, THE STATE REALLY DOESN'T MANDATE METHODOLOGY TO MEASURE IT OR RECORD IT.
>> IT HAS TO BE RECORDED. >> IT HAS TO BE RECORDED.
SO, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN THERE MAYBE A COMBINATION OF CONDITIONS IS FOR THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT OPERATOR TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY TO RECORD THESE PERCENTAGES ANNUALLY AND REPORT THEM TO THE CITY.
BUT THE BURDEN OF NOT ANALYZING THOSE COMES BACK TO THE CITY TO ENSURE. THERE ARE STATE APPROVED METHODOLOGIES BUT THEY'RE NOT MENTIONED IN THE LIVE LOCAL ACT
[01:10:02]
THAT I KNOW FOLKS ARE USING AS A TEMPLATE FOR UNDER TAKING LEASE OR RENTAL AGREEMENTS WITH PEOPLE.SO, WE'RE WAITING TO SEE WHAT THE APPLICANT COMES UP WITH.
WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THEY ANALYZED THREE DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES
AND ONE WILLING UTILIZED. >> CAN WE BRUSH OUT A LITTLE LAST MONTH. WHAT IS THE PENALTY IF THEY
DON'T COMPLY? >> I WOULD SAY THAT THEY'RE IN DEFAULT OF THEIR APPROVAL. AND THE NORMAL CRITERIA OF ENFORCING THAT WOULD BE UPON THEM I THINK.
IF YOU GET A PD, THAT DOESN'T MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS, YOU CAN TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THEM.
>> BUT IS THERE A MANDATE THEY HAVE TO COMPLY OR POTENTIALLY
JUST A FINANCIAL BURDEN? >> THE REASON THEY HAVE THE APPROVAL THEY HAVE SAID THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH THAT STATUTORY ALLOWANCE. SO IF THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT, THEY CAN'T SAY THAT THEY'RE LIVE LOCAL.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IF IT ONLY COMES BACK TO A FINE,
THEN -- >> WELL, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL FINE. IF THEY GET A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY IS ANOTHER QUESTION. >> AFTER YEAR THREE OR SO, IF THEY GET TO THE POINT AND IT'S NO MORE THAN A FINE, THAT'S BEEN MY QUESTION THE WHOLE TIME, ARE THERE LOOPHOLES TO THAT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A METHODOLOGY PUT INTO THE STATE COMPLIANCE OR WHAT HAPPENS WITH NONCOMPLIANCE.
>> REVOKING THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WOULD BE A DISASTER.
>> WHAT THE APPLICATION FEE? >> IT'S BASED ON FLOOR SPACE AND SOMETHING THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL BE COMING BACK TO THE BOARD OR THE CITY COMMISSION SPECIFICALLY TO LOOK AT OUR FEES. IT'S A HUGE DEVELOPMENT.
THE CITY FEES AREN'T REALLY SET UP TO, AND THE CITY FEES RIGHT NOW ARE SO LOW THAT IN COMPARISON WITH NEIGHBORING AUTHORITIES IN SOME CASES, WE'RE A 10TH.
I THINK I'M RIGHT IN THE THIS FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS FOR THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, I THINK IT'S
SO EVEN I WAS EXAGGERATING. $10 FOR STAFF TIME, REVIEW, POTENTIALLY EXTERNAL AGENCY REVIEW.
>> THIS BOARD? >> HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD? YEAH. COULD ROLL RIGHT THROUGH THE PROCESS. CERTAINLY NOT DISPARAGE DEVELOPMENT. THIS TYPE OF CONSUMPTION OF STAFF RESOURCES TAKES AWAY THE ABILITY OF STAFF TO DO OTHER THINGS THAT MEMBERS OF GENERAL PUBLIC ARE EXPECTING WHEREAS THIS IS AN ENTITY. A PRIVATE ENTITY OR SOMETHING THAT'S COME FORWARD AND REQUESTING THIS.
I KNOW OTHER JURISDICTIONS YOU KNOW HAVE COME TO THOSE SAME CONCLUSIONS THAT THE TIME, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID SHOULD BE MORE COMPARABLE TO THE TIME SPENT AND THE LARGER THE PROJECT, THE MORE COMPLICATED, I KNOW THAT.
MARTIN COUNTY WENT THROUGH THAT A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO.
I WILL SHARE AFTER WE TALKED MARTIN COUNTY DID APPROVE A PROJECT UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.
I FOLLOWED UP BUT IT WAS THE PROJECT ALONG KANTER HIGHWAY.
SO IT WAS, ALTHOUGH IT WAS UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, THAT IS A VERY COMMERCIAL ALTHOUGH THERE WAS RESIDENTIAL.
IT'S STILL THAT CRITERIA. IT WASN'T CONTROVERSIAL.
I DON'T BELIEVE AFTER TALKING TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THERE BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION. AND THAT'S A SIX-LANE HIGHWAY AT THIS POINT AND VERY DIFFERENT TYPE OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
I BELIEVE MR. SHILLING TOLD ME THERE'S ANOTHER ONE IN PROGRESS.
>> I BELIEVE. >> SOMEWHERE SOUTH IN MARTIN COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS OF IT.
THE OTHER QUESTION, THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU MADE TO THE CITY COMMISSION THIS MORNING.
IS THAT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT CAUSEWAY
[01:15:04]
COVE? >> FROM A PLANNING DEPARTMENT
POINT OF VIEW, YES. >> I'M NOT SURE HOW THE CITY COMMISSION WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD.
THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE TO DO THAT.
OBVIOUSLY, STAFF AND I'M GOING TO TALK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY A CONCERN THAT WE DON'T EXPOSE OURSELVES TO CHALLENGE ON THIS.
IT IS WAY. >> FROM THE DEVELOPER SIDE.
>> YEAH. I MEAN, NOT TO BELABOR IT, WE HAD, THERE WAS A PRESENTATION LAST MONDAY NIGHT BY REPRESENTATIVE TERBOLSI WHO PROFFERED THEY WERE SOME INCONSISTENCIES REGARDING THE APPROVAL THAT IT WAS HER OPINION, THAT THERE WAS AND ROOM FOR FURTHER REVIEW.
I WILL JUST PUT IT THAT WAY. I'M GOING TO PUT THAT IN QUOTES.
FOR THE MOMENT. AND THAT CERTAINLY HAS GENERATED
COMMENTS IN THE PUBLIC. >> YES.
>> AND WHETHER THAT, NOT TO DISPARAGE ANYONE, BUT LAND PLANNING, LAND USE LAW. ENGINEERING, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, ALL THOSE THING ARE PROFESSIONS AND SPECIALTIES.
SO, WE CAN ALL HAVE OPINIONS ABOUT IT.
AND THAT'S JUST I THINK UNFORTUNATELY ADDED TO FERVOR OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE WHOLE PROJECT.
>> I WANT TO REASSURE EVERYBODY WHO IS LISTENING AND HEARD THOSE THING THAT WE DID ANALYZE THOSE COMMENTS VERY CAREFULLY.
AND THOSE COMMENTS WERE ANSWERED I THINK IN THE PRESENTATION THIS MORNING AND THERE WAS NOTHING THAT WE FOUND THAT WOULD DIVERT
FROM OUR DECISION. >> THANK YOU.
I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT OR BELABOR IT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS THE CASE. I APPRECIATE THE POSITION YOU'RE IN AND THE ENTIRE STAFF WITH THIS WHOLE THING.
WE WERE FELT THE STING OF THAT LAST MONTH TOO.
>> UH-HUH. BUT, AND I'LL JUST SAY ONE THING. I THINK IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO REMEMBER GOING FORWARD ABOUT HOW LOCAL GOVERNMENT GOT INTO IN PREDICAMENT AND I THINK YOU KNOW, YEAH, MOVING FORWARD THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS WE ENTER THE ELECTION PERIOD.
I WILL JUST PROBABLY SHOULD STOP THERE.
I FEEL COMPELLED TO SAY THAT. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? HAS THERE BEEN ANY SUCCESSFUL PUSH BACK TO THE LIVE LOCAL ACT? AND RECISIONS OF APPROVALS? HAS ANYONE MANAGED TO DO THAT
ANYMORE? >> THE ONES I HEARD ARE IN LITIGATION AT THE MOMENT. I HAVE NOT HEARD OF A SUCCESS OR A LACK OF SUCCESS ON THAT. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG COMPLEX PROCESS TO GET THROUGH THE LITIGATION TO SEE WHERE THESE SIT. I KNOW THERE'S A ONE IN ORLANDO
IN LITIGATION. >> BREVARD JUST DENIED ONE THAT
MAY END UP IN LITIGATION. >> I THINK THE, WAS THAT THE ONE WHERE THE PLANNING DIRECTOR MADE QUITE CORRECT ME I BELIEVE, THE INTERPRETATION THAT A CERTAIN ZONING CODE DID NOT INCLUDE
COMMERCIAL USE? >> WHAT WAS THE JURISDICTION?
>> BREVARD COUNTY. >> HILLSBORO COUNTY WHEN I LAST CHECKED ALSO FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE STATE.
I WAS ABOUT TO PULL THAT UP AND SEE WHAT HAPPENED.
LAST TIME I CHECKED THE STATE FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. I HAVEN'T LOOKED IF THEY RESOLVED THAT MOTION. SO THERE ARE THINGS POPPING UP AROUND THE STATE WHERE DIFFERENT PROJECTS BEING APPROVED, DENIED, SOME TAKING A SWING AT LITIGATION.
SO, I'LL FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE HILLSBORO COUNTY ONE
AND GET YOU AN UPDATE NEXT TIME. >> AND ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE MERIT ISLAND ONE? THE BREVARD COUNTY? THERE'S A MERIT ISLAND I WAS RESEARCHING THIS.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHICH CITY IT WAS IN.
I'M PRETTY SURE IT WAS THE COUNTY AND NOT A MUNICIPALITY.
I WATCHED THE WHOLE HEARING. IT'S QUITE INTERESTING.
IT'S ON YOUTUBE. >> YOU'RE JUST A POLITICAL
SCIENCE NERD. >> THERE'S THAT AFFLICTION.
[01:20:01]
>> I DO WATCH A LOT OF THAT TOO. I DON'T SLEEP A LOT.
THEIRS OF WEIRD. THEIRS WAS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR HAD DENIED THE APPLICATION AND THEY, THE DEVELOPER WAS APPEALING THAT DECISION TO THE COMMISSION.
SO THERE WAS A COMMISSION HEARING BUT IT'S BECAUSE IT WAS THAT DENIAL AND THE APPEAL OF THAT.
AND CANDIDLY, THE LIVE LOCAL ACT DOESN'T REALLY ADDRESS THAT SCENARIO. HAVING NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE UP THERE, I SUSPECT FROM LOOKING AT IT FROM A DUE PROCESS ISSUE, THEY ALLOWED THE APPEAL BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR IF YOU HAVE AN APPELLANT RIGHT TO THE COMMISSION.
I'M GUESSING THAYERED -- THEY ERED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.
WE GOT QUESTIONS WHY WAS THAT HAPPENING THERE.
IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN WHAT WE
WERE DEALING WITH HERE. >> MR. CHAIR.
JUST ONE OTHER COMMENT. ONE OF THE OTHER DILEMMAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT FACED, OVER TIME THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN CHANGED AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE AWARDED ATTORNEY FEES OR NOT IF ONE IS NOT SUCCESSFUL AND MAYBE YOU CAN COMMENT ON THAT.
THAT IS DEFINITELY CHANGED THE LANDSCAPE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
>> ABSOLUTELY. AND NOT ONLY LOOKING AT AWARDING ATTORNEYS FEES, YOU HAVE TO GET TO THE END OF LITIGATION TO HAVE THAT QUESTION. YOU'RE TALKING YEARS.
THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD BE LITIGATED.
AND MOST CITIES ARE NOT LARGE TO HAVE THOSE TYPE OF RESOURCES TO LITIGATE FOR YEARS. SO IF YOU'RE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE SOMEBODY INTERNAL, GREAT. IF NOT, THAT GOES EXTERNAL AND GETS QUITE EXPENSIVE. LAND USE ATTORNEYS ARE NOT CHEAP. THEY ARE USUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN YOUR IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS ARE PAID.
LET'S SAY YOU HAVE YOUR IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY COVERING IT, YOU'RE TAKING UP A LOT OF TIME AND RESOURCES WHERE THEY'RE NOT ADDRESSING YOUR EVERYDAY MUNICIPAL NEEDS.
SO BEFORE YOU EVEN GET THERE, YOU'RE SPENDING TIME, RESOURCES
AND MONEY IN THE LITIGATION. >> AND CHAIR.
LET ME JUST MAKE THIS COMMENT. WE HAVE RECEIVED INQUIRIES FROM DEVELOPERS TO LOOK AT OTHER ZONING CATEGORIES WHICH STAFF HAVE DETERMINED THAT THEY DO NOT COMPLY OR CONFORM WITH LIVE LOCAL REQUIREMENTS AS INCLUDING A COMMERCIAL USE BY RIGHT.
SO WE UNDERSTAND PEOPLE ARE PUSHING AROUND TO TRY AND GET SOME INDICATION OF HOW THEIR PROPERTY, WHETHER RESIDENTIAL WAS NOT A PERMITTED COMMERCIAL USE ON THAT.
IS ONE OF BIGGEST TARGETS TO THE MOMENT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED AT A HIGHER LEVEL. BUT AT THE MOMENT, THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT HAS A PERMITTED BY RIGHT COMMERCIAL USE ON THE ZONING NOT WITH STANDING WHAT THE ZONING IS TITLED AS IS SOMETHING THAT WE KNOW THAT DEVELOPERS ARE EXPLORING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
MR. FREEMAN. AND THANK YOU MS. HEDGES FOR THAT COMMENTARY. APPRECIATE IT.
[10. BOARD COMMENTS]
THAT'S IT FOR THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT, WE CAN MOVE ON TO BOARD COMMENTS. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, A SLIGHT BREECH OF PROTOCOL. TYPICALLY WHEN WE HAVE A NEW BOARD MEMBER, I TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY AT THE TOP OF THE MEETING TO PUT THEM ON THE SPOT AND LET THEM INTRODUCE THEMSELVES. I FAILED TO DO THAT TODAY.AT THIS TIME, MS. GOMEK. WHY DON'T YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF
TO THE CITY OFFICIALLY. >> HI, I JUST GOT APPOINTED AS YOU GUYS KNOW. I'M A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF FORT PIERCE. I LOVE MY CITY.
I DO. I'M VERY VESTED IN DOING ANYTHING I CAN INCLUDING BEING ON THE BOARD.
EDUCATING MYSELF DAILY. LISTENING TO INCREDIBLE, I HAVE LISTENED TO MANY, MANY MEETINGS AND I LEARNED SOMETHING EVERY TIME I DO. I APPRECIATE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU DO. I WANT TO DO MY PART.
[01:25:03]
WE REALLY DO AND CAUSEWAY IS I GUESS IS WAKING UP A TIGER IN A LOT OF PEOPLE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE KNOW.2 O'CLOCK I WILL BE HERE. I'M NOT PLANNING ON BEING SICK.
AND EVEN IF I DO, I WILL WEAR A MASK.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MS. GROMEK.
WELCOME. I ALSO WANT TO MAKE A MOMENT TO EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR REAPPOINTING ME TO ANOTHER TERM ON THIS BOARD.
I WAS ALSO ENCOURAGED TO SEE YET AGAIN, THEY WERE UPWARDS OF 12 DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS. SO WHICH YOU KNOW, I DON'T MIND A LITTLE COMPETITION. ALSO, JUST THE ENCOURAGING TURN OUT FROM THE PUBLIC. THERE ARE A LOT OF CITY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES THAT NEED MEMBERS AND YOU KNOW, WE DON'T GET PAID TO BE HERE. IT DOESN'T TAKE UP A LITTLE TIME BUT DOESN'T TAKE UP ZERO TIME. SOMETIMES IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME BUT IT'S SOMETHING THE CITY NEEDS.
HOPEFULLY THE OTHER APPLICANTS WILL FIND A HOME.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? HEARING NONE, WE CAN ADJOURN. THANK YOU EVERYO
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.