Oct 12, 2026 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:09]

>> CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON, OCTOBER 12, 2026. IF YOU WOULD ALL PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

FRIENDLY REMINDER BEFORE WE BEGIN TO PLEASE SILENCE YOUR MOBILE DEVICES. WE WILL BEGIN WITH OUR ROLL

CALL. >> MS. STOREY.

>> YES. I'M CHEER.

>> MR. CLEMENS. >> YES.

>> MR. JOHNSON. >> YES.

>> MR. WIDING. >> HERE.

>> CHCHAIR KREISL? >> WE HAVE NO ABSENCES.

>> MR. EDWARDS IS NO LONGER ON THE PLANNING BOARD.

HE'S NOW A CITY EMPLOYEE. >> ALL RIGHT.

CONGRATULATIONS TO HIM. WE CAN -- ITEM 5.

HERE WE ARE CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM LAST WEEK.

I WILL JUST SAY I DON'T DO THIS ON PURPOSE, BUT THIS IS 2 FOR 2 WHEN I'VE BEEN OUT OF TOWN THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME KIND OF ABOVE-AVERAGE DIFFICULT MEETINGS TO RUN, SO I WANT TO JUST THANK MS. CLEMENS FOR STEPPING IN AND RUNNING THE MEETING.

IT WAS CERTAINLY CHALLENGING. I WATCHED MOST OF IT ONLINE, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WERE ALSO FEELING NOT SO GREAT THAT DAY AS WELL, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I CAN'T PROMISE THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. I USUALLY MISS, LIKE, ONE A YEAR, BUT IT ALWAYS ENDS UP BEING A FAIRLY PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT ONE. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING? HEARING NONE. I WOULD CONSIDER A MOTION.

>> SO MOVED. >> SECONDED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES BY MR. WIDING.

SECONDED BY MR. CLEMONS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> MR. JOHNSON. >> YES.

>> MR. WIDING. >> YES.

>> MS. STOREY? >> YES.

[a. PZSITE2026-00020 Major Site Plan with Conditional Use 2535 S. Kings Highway The Carlton]

>> CHAIR KREISL? >> YES.

MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS. WE HAVE A MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH

CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME CHRIS S SUNESON, I'M YOR CONSISTENT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE CARLTON LOCATED 3535 SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.

THE OWNER IS FARRELL COMMUNITIES OF FORT PIERCE OWNER LLC.

GREAT NAME W HALEY WARD REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

OR AS THE APPLICANT, REPRESENTING THE OWNER.

THE PARCEL IS 2323-051- 002-0. AGAIN, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REVIEW AND APPROVE AN APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BY THE OWNER, FARRELL COMMUNITIES OF FORT PIERCE OTHER THAN LLC, REPRESENTED BY HALEY WARD, TO CONSTRUCT A 488-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE AIMPROVEMENTS AND AMENITIES. AGAIN LOOKED AT 2530 SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY. AND THE LOCATION MAP, YOU SEE TO THE RIGHT. THERE'S THIS SITE OUTLINED IN DASHED LINES WITH KINGS HIGHWAY LOCATED TO THE EAST.

THE RESEARCH ROAD TO THE NORTH, AND YOU CAN KIND OF CATCH A LITTLE BIT OF THE TURNPIKE TO THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND SIDE OF THAT MAP. THE SUBJECT MARCEL IS GENERALLY LOCATED ALONG SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.

FURNITURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND ZONING.

THE LAND USE IS RM, MEDIUM USE RESIDENTIAL IN THE ZONE.

ZONING IS R-4. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND WAS PREVIOUSLY USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.

THE SUBJECT PARCEL WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY UNDER MARCH OF 2 2004 UNDER ORDINANCE K-218, AND THE SWEET WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR A SIMILAR REQUEST IN JANUARY OF 2024.

FOUR A FUTURE LAND USE, THE SITE AGAIN IS RM MEDIUM DENSITY

[00:05:03]

THE PROPOSAL IS COMPLIANT WITH THAT POLICY, PROPOSING 488 UNITS ON 40.77 ACRES, RESULTING IN AN 11.96 DEVELOPING UNITS PER ACRE.

AGAIN, FOLLOWING WITHIN THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY RANGE.

AS FOR ZONING, AGAIN, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-4, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WITH MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS, APARTMENTS, LIKE THE PROPOSED APARTMENTS, ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT. FROM -- FROM THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT GOING ON.

THE APPLICANT AGAIN PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 488 DWELLING UNITS ACROSS 15 MULTI-FAMILY THREE-STOREY APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITH EACH CONTAINING 32 TO 34 DWELLING UNITS.

THE BUILDINGS ARE PROGRAMMED WITH A VARIETY OF FOOTPRINTS TO ACCOMMODATE DIFFERENT DWELLING UNIT CONFIGURATIONS AND ADAPT TO SITE CONDITIONS. ALL BUILDING TYPES ARE PROGRAMMED TO HAVE A MAX HEIGHT OF 41 FEET, CONFORMING TO THE DISTRICT'S 45-FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION.

THE SITE AGAIN COMPROMISES 40.77 RAKE, AND THE BUILDINGS WILL COVER 13% OF THAT AREA AT FULL BUILD-OUT.

BED AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION WILL COVER ANOTHER 29.65% OF THE LAND AREA, AND THAT RESULTS IN 56.66% OF THE LAND AREA LEFT TO OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, AND STORMWATER RETENTION FACILITIES. AS PART OF THE REVIEW PROCESS, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTING A SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANE INTO THE SITE, SO ON YOUR SITE PLAN HERE, IT'S KINGS HIGHWAY. WE'RE KIND OF NORTH TO THE LEFT.

SO THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THE SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE INTO THE SITE. AND RECONSTRUCTING A PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG KINGS HIGHWAY.

AN EXISTING NORTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE ON KINGS HIGHWAY WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE SITE'S PRIMARY ENTRANCE WITH INTERIOR GATED ENTRIES. SO YOU SEE THE EXISTING LEFT TURN, FOLLOWING MY LITTLE CURSOR THERE, NOT IN THE OUT-BOUND, BUT THE IN-BOUND LANE INTO THE SITE. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICATION ANT WILL BE CONSTRUCTS CONSTRUCTING A PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK ACROSS PRUITT RESEARCH ROAD NEAR SECONDARY GATED ENTRY, AND THAT'S ON THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND CORNER OF THE SITE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS DESIGNED WITH AN INTERNAL BUS LOOP TO -- BUS STOP CLOSE TO THE ENTRANCE WITH SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.

AND, AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT COMES IN, CIRCLES AROUND: BUS STOP LOCATION, AND THE BUS CAN CIRCULATE OUT.

THE SITE IS HEAVILY PROGRAMMED WITH AMENITIES AS WELL, INCLUDING A LARGE CLUBHOUSE AND POOL FACILITY.

PROMINENT WHEN ENTERING FROM SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.

THE CLUBHOUSE WILL FEATURE A BUSINESS CENTER AND LOUNGE AREA WITH CO-WORKING SPACES AND A CONFERENCE ROOM, AN EVENT ROOM, A GAME ROOM, A LARGE FITNESS CENTER WITH KIDS' PLAYROOM.

OTHER AMENITIES INCLUDE OUTDOOR FITNESS PARK LOCATED ALONG THE TRAILS THAT YOU SEE INTERNALLY, PICKLEBALL COURTS, A FIRE PIT AREA, A FENCED PLAYGROUND, GRILL STATION WITH PICNIC AREAS LOCATED THROUGHOUT. THERE IS A SMALL AND LARGE DOG PARK FOR DIFFERENT-SIZED BREEDS, AND, AGAIN, I MENTIONED TO THE WINDING MULTI-USE TRAILS THAT CIRCULATE WITHIN THE INTERFERE F THE SITE. A CENTRAL FEATURE OF THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS ITS UTILIZATION OF STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AS AN AMENITIES, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SITE PLAN.

THERE ARE A LOT OF BODIES OF WATER.

THERE IS ONE THAT IS A RETENTION POND.

THE CENTRAL FEATURE HERE WILL BE A WET LAKE.

THIS WILL BE A WET LAKE, THIS WILL BE A WET LAKE, AND THEN TWO ADDITIONAL WET LAKES ALONG SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.

DIRECTS WATER TO ONE OF THE SIX STORMWATER LAKES OR RETENTION FACILITIES. ULTIMATELY DRAINING TO A CANAL ALONG NORTH-SOUTH ALONG KINGS HIGHWAY, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT AS YOU PASS ON SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY. AND THAT IS UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE NORTH ST. LUCIE RIVER WATER CONTROL DISTRICT. THE CENTRAL LAKES FEATURE OF U SHED TO THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS AND ARE COMPLEMENTED BY MULTI-USE TRAILS WHICH INTERCONNECT THE ENTIRE SITE,

[00:10:05]

BUILDING ELEVATIONS ARE COMPOSCOMPOSEDOF A VARIETY OF M.

TOGETHER THESE MATERIALS WORK TO PROVIDE A STRUCTURED AND TEXTURED FACADE FOR VISUAL HIGHLIGHTS, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED BY HIGHLIGHTS OF STONE VENEER, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT STONE VENEER BETTER HERE AROUND THOSE GARAGE DOORS.

EACH BUILDING IS CAPPED WITH A STANDING STEAM METAL ROOF AND IT FACADES ARE HE CAN SENT WAITED. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE COLOR PALLET CONSISTS OF A VARIETY OF NEUTRAL AND COOL COLORS.

THERE WE GO. WAIT...

DO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT? OH, YES.

NO, I DIDN'T. THE PROJECT HAS INTENTIONALLY PROVIDED FOR INCREASED LANDSCAPE BUFFERS, AND I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO READ, BUT KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS 40 ACRES OF INTENSE LANDSCAPING. THOSE BUFFERS RANGE FROM 15 TO 20 FEET WIDE ALL AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE, DEPENDING ON LOCATION. THE LARGE BUFFERS RELY ON NATIVE VEGETATION AND FEATURE A LARGE DOUBLE ROW OF SCREENING SHRUBS IN SOLID DIFFERING HEIGHTS. THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE AND ALL THE WAY AROUND, THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED AN 8-FOOT-TALL MASONRY WALL TO BE ADDED TO THE BUFFER TO SCREEN FROM AN INDUSTRIAL SITE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.

TREES HAVE BEEN PLACED STRATEGICALLY ALONG THE MULTI-PURPOSE, YOU'LL AT THIS USE PATHS AND SIDEWALKS TO PROVIDE SHADE IN THESE OPEN SPACES.

EACH BUILDING IS PROGRAMMED TO RECEIVE SENSITIVE SHRUBS PLANTINGS TO ENHANCE ITS APPEARANCE AND STORMWATER PONDS ALSO FEATURE PLANTINGS THAT HELP FILTER STORMWATER FLOWS AS IT MOVES THROUGH THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

SO, INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY DESIGN: WE ARE GOVERNED HERE BY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 125243, WHICH PROVIDES FOR A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS TO PROVIDE USE UNDER INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY DESIGN. NOT ALL OF THE FACTORS MUST BE MET UNDER THE CODE SECTION, AND I'LL GIVE YOU JUST A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF WHY I'M TELLING YOU THAT ALL THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET, YES, ON MY SLIDE HERE. AS TO CAPACITIABILITY WITH SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. THE KINGS HIGHWAY CORRIDOR IS QUICKLY BECOMING A HUB FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES THAT PROVIDE JOBS TO THE COMMUNITY.

PLACING HIGHER DENSITY WORKFORCE HOUSING WITHIN PROXIMITY TO THESE EMPLOYERS AND THOSE OPPORTUNITIES MAKE SENSE FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS AND THEIR ABILITY TO ATTAIN EMPLOYMENT.

AVAILABILITY OF UTILITIES. WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE EXISTS BOTH ALONG SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY AND PRUITT RESEARCH ROAD TO WHICH THE SITE WILL BE CONNECTED.

CANALS ARE LOCATED ON THE NORTH, EAST, AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE SITE, AND STORMWATER WILL OUT FLOW TO THE EASTERN CANAL ALONG SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY. THE SITE TAPS INTO THE EXISTING ROAD NETWORK ON SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY AND PRUITT RESEARCH ROAD. THE APPLICANT WILL BE IMPROVING SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY WITH A SOUND RIGHT TURN LANE INTO THE PROPOSED SITES. THESE ROADWAYS WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF SERVICE BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY, AND I CAN CONFIRM THAT THE S S ST. LUCIE COUNTY HAS ENDORSED THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED. THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A 15 TO 20-FOOT WIDE BUFFERS ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT SITE. WIDER BUFFERS ARE PROVIDED ALONG THE WEST SIDE ADJACENT TO LARGE LOT SINGLE FAMILY USES, SO THAT THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY IS MORE PROTECTED.

IN ADDITION. SITE WILL BE BUFFERED THROUGH AN

[00:15:02]

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD THE'SEN ITS THAT THIS PROJECT IS PROVIDING, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER HUGE FACTOR IN USING THESE EXISTING SITE FEATURES. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, BUILDING MATERIALS AND VARIATION OF BUILDING TYPES.

THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A VARIETY OF FOOTPRINTS AND UNIT TYPES. EACH BUILDING FEATURES A COMPLEMENTARY ARRAY OF MATERIALS IN COOL TO NEUTRAL COLOR PALLET.

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE, WORKFORCE, MULTI-GENERATIONAL AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AS MENTIONED UNDER COMPATIBILITY, THE PROJECT LOCATES HIGHER DENSITY WORKFORCE HOUSING IN AN AREA OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. THIS PROVIDES FUTURE RESIDENTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURSUE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN PROXIMITY TO WHERE THEY RESIDE. INCREASED STORMWATER PERCOLATION USE, CLEANING AND/OR SEQUESTRATION.

FOLLOWING -- ALLOWING WATER TO FILTER FROM THE ADJACENT SITES BEFORE ENTERING TO THE SITE'S STORMWATER SYSTEM.

USE OF LIT ORAL PLANTINGS WITHIN THE SITE'S LAKES FURTHER FILTERS THE STORMWATER FLOWS. PROXIMITY TO NEIGHBORS: AND I THINK THE FURTHER AWAY, THE BETTER, FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, BUT BOTTLE BUILDINGS ON THE ARE SET BACK CONSIDERABLY FROM THE NEIGHBORS. BUILDING HEIGHTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT.

THE COMMISSION MAY FURTHER LIMIT HEIGHTS.

THE BUILDING HEIGHTS PROPOSED AGAIN FOR THIS IS 14 FEET, AND THE DISTRICT'S LIMIT OF 45 FEET HAS NOT BEEN EXCEEDED.

AND THEN, FINALLY, JUST THE GREAT GRAPHICS.

THIS IS AN INTERIOR SHOT. I COULDN'T TELL YOU OF WHICH APARTMENTS, BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS THE CLUBHOUSE, AND THEN THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SITE.

BUT THE IDEA IS TO HAVE THIS LAKE FILLED MOST OF THE TIME.

THERE'S SEVERAL FOUNTAINS PROGRAMMED INTO EACH OF THE WATER FACILITIES, AND JUST AN OPPORTUNITY FOR NEIGHBORS TO GATHER AND TO EXERCISE AND DO THINGS IN THAT COMMON GREEN SPACE. AND THEN, AGAIN, NOT EXACTLY SURE, BUT CHECK OUT THAT SEATING AND THE DOGS WALKING.

I MEAN, WHO DOESN'T LOVE THAT? AND STRATEGICALLY, THEY HAVE USED TREES THAT WILL PROVIDE SHADE IN THESE AREAS, AS YOU CAN TELL FROM THE RENDERINGS. SO, FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, ALL DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH CONDITIONAL USE WITH REGARD TO CONSISTENCY WITH ESTABLISHED ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORTED THE APPLICATION.AVE- STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSED MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH CONDITIONAL USE, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: NUMBER 1, A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A LAND CLEARING PERMIT.

NUMBER 2, A LAND CLEARING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE LAND PERMIT DEVELOPMENT.

3, A SURVEY DATED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF LAND CLEANING ACTIVITY MUST BE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF LAND CLEARING PERMIT. 4, AUTO STORMWATER DESIGN HAS ONLY BEEN REVIEWED CONCEPTUAL. A FULL REVIEW IS REQUIRED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE PLAN.

NUMBER 5, A S S S SAINT LUCI PE. ALL REQUIRED STATE AND AGENCY PERMITS SHOULD BE REQUIRED. NUMBER 7, ALL SIGNS SHOULD BE PERMITTED SEPARATELY UNDER BUILDING PERPETRATES.

NUMBER 8, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT MUST BE SIGNED, NOTARIZED AND SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND NUMBER 9, ISSUANCE OF A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT OR DEVELOPMENT ORDER BY -- TRY THAT ONE MORE TIME -- BY A MUNICIPAL DOES NOT READ ANY RIGHT ON THE PART OF AN APPLICANT TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FROM A STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY AND DOES NOT CREATE ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF THE STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCY.

OR UNDERTAKES ACTIONS THAT RESULT IN A VIOLATION OF STATE OR FEDERAL LAW. A MUNICIPALITY SHALL ATTACH SUCH

[00:20:06]

THE BOARD MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MR. SUNESON.

SO WE SAW A VERY SIMILAR PROJECT APPLICATION ON THIS PROPERTY

BACK IN '24, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? >> THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN WAS

APPROVED IN JANUARY OF '24. >> YEAH.

IS THIS THE SAME OWNER AND APPLICANT, OR --

>> THIS IS A DIFFERENT OWNER/APPLICANT.

LET ME BACK UP. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE SAME OWNER. SAME DESIGN REPRESENTATIVES, BUT THERE'S A DIFFERENT ENTITY INVOLVED THAT ONCE THIS SITE PLAN IS APPROVED, WOULD CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY AND BECOME THE

OWNER OF RECORD. >> UNDERSTOOD.

I RECALL THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION WAS REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO THIS THIS. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD FILL US IN, FOR THOSE WHO WERE ON THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY, WHAT MAY HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY? OR MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE OWNER. WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES UP, WE CAN MAYBE GET INTO THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> YES. I HAVE A QUESTION: SO I DIDN'T QUITE -- MAYBE I MISSED IT.

WHAT IS THE REASON THAT A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION WAS REQUIRED? YOU WENT THROUGH THE STANDARDS, BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF IT.

>> THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN DENSITY. SO UNDER AN INNOVATIVE DESIGN CONDITIONAL USE, THE APPLICANT IS ALLOWED TO UTILIZE THE DENSITY ALLOWED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT 6.5 TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE RANGE.

UNDER CONVENTIONAL R-4 ZONING, THE APPLICANT WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TEN UNITS TO THE ACRE, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 80 UNITS,

ROUGHLY. >> JUST FOR KIND OF MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THE AGENDA ITEM OR THE STAFF REPORT WOULD LAY THAT OUT UP FRONT.

I KNOW I'M NEWER, AND I JUST MISSED -- THAT WAS A DISCONNECT FOR ME ABOUT THAT PROCESS. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS, IF I... ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED IS THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A TURN LANE REQUIRED.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BUT I DIDN'T SEE IT LISTED IN THE CONDITIONS. NOR THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY THAT

YOU MENTIONED. >> PRIMARILY BECAUSE THAT WOULD PLACE A CONDITION ON THE APPLICANT THAT THE CITY MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO IMPOSE. KINGS HIGHWAY IS A STATE

FACILITY. >> MM-HMM.

>> OPERATED AND MANAGED BY FDOF. THAT IS PERMITTING THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO SEEK OUTSIDE OF THE CITY APPROVAL, BUT AS YOU SAW IN MY CONDITIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL, THEY WOULD REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ANY OTHER STATE OR FEDERAL

PERMITS. >> JUST MANY CONCERNED THAT, WITHOUT SOME -- THAT BEING INCLUDED IN SOME FORM THAT THAT -- AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT FORMS PART OF THE BASIS FOR THE APPROVAL, THAT THAT GETS LOST SOMEWHERE.

I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, BUT I'M A LITTLE

BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. >> THE BOARD IS ALWAYS AT -- ABLE TO IMPOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS BEYOND THAT

RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. >> AND OBVIOUSLY IT CAN BE -- THE CONDITION CAN BE CONDITIONED UPON OR REFLECT THE FACT THAT THERE'S ANOTHER JURISDICTION INVOLVED.

BUT AT LEAST THAT -- FOR ME, THAT PUTS THAT ON THE RECORD, THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE STAFF HAS LOOKED AT OR IS CONSIDERING. THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM: SO RENDERINGS ARE NOT LEGALLY

BINDING ON THE APPLICANT, RIGHT? >> THEY ARE NOT.

>> THEY'RE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY? YES, THEY'RE HELPFUL, BUT IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE CRITERIA, THEY WERE OFFERED FOR JUST THAT BASIS? ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES? THE APPLICANT IS NOT BOUND TO

THOSE IN ANY WAY, CORRECT? >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> UNLESS THEY'D LIKE TO BE. >> WELL, SO, TO WHAT DEGREE IS THE SITE PLAN AS IT APPEARS HERE A RECORD OF OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL ON THIS APPLICATION?

>> I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS A CONSOLIDATION OF SEVERAL PLANS, INCLUDING THE SITE PLAN THAT'S PART OF THIS MAJOR SITE

[00:25:02]

THOSE BECOME PART OF THE RECORD. >> YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT OR YOU'RE TELLING US THAT THAT IS -- THE BENCHES ARE INCLUDED? I'M NOT TRYING TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. LET ME JUST GIVE YOU AN ASSURANCE. I ASKED FOR THE SITE BENCHES.

I'M LOOKING AT THE SITE BENCHES. THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE SITE

PLAN. >> THANK YOU.

THAT HELPED. >> AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN REFLECTS THOSE LARGER TREES THAT YOU SAW. IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO GROW TO IN A MATURITY, BUT THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN THE SITE PLAN.

>> WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WERE MODIFICATIONS, SAY, TO THE DECELERATION LANE OR THE ROUND-ABOUT, THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF SOME OFFICIAL SITE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS THAT WOULD EITHER GO THROUGH A REVIEW OR

SOMETHING -- >> WE USE 5%.

IF I COULD ADD. >> YES, PLEASE.

>> I THINK ALL OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE COULD WRAP UP IN A CONDITION THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE PLAN SUBMITTED BEING PART OF THE APPLICATION. PLANS HAVE REFERENCES AND THEY'VE BEEN PART OF THE DESIGN REVIEW.

THERE ARE REGULATIONS RELATING TO DESIGN REVIEW, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WOULD COVER ELEVATIONS, THE COLOR PALETE.

SO, YES, THE RENDERINGS MAY CHANGE IN TERMS OF HOW THEY LOOK. THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY 100% REFLECTIVE OF WHAT'S THERE. THEY DO GIVE A GREAT REPRESENTATION OF WHAT THE APPLICATION IS ALL ABOUT, BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED FAIRLY DETAILED ELEVATIONS, COLOR PALLETE, ALL THE AMENITIES NOTE AT A NOTNOTATED ON THE SITE PLAA SEPARATE CONDITION MAY BE LOOKING AT THE REQUIREMENTS FROM EXTERNAL ROEXTERNAL REQUIREMENTR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND SO FORTH.

>> TO HAVE EVERYTHING DOCUMENTED, SO THERE ARE NO

QUESTIONS. >> YES.

>> I'LL SHARE BEEN THERE/DONE THAT, SO THAT KIND OF REFLECTS

MY QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS. >> YES.

>> I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC FOR ALL

SIDES. >> YEP.

I THINK DIFFERENTIAL WITH THIS IS BEING CAUSED BY THE ROUTE OF THE CONDITION WE USE IN THAT SITE PLANS SUCH AS THIS WOULD NORMALLY POTENTIALLY BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY INCREASE GO THROUGH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU HAVE A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH NOTATES EVERYTHING VERY PRECISELY. WITH CONDITIONAL USE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT VEHICLE, SO WE WILL RELY ON THE CONDITIONS, AND I THINK BEEFING THOSE UP SLIGHTLY WOULD BE ANSWERING YOUR

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A STAB AE PROPOSING TWO ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC CONDITIONS?

>> I WOULD HAVE A STAB AT IT. THE FIRST CONDITION TO BE ADDED WOULD -- YOU KNOW, THIS PLAN IS APPROVED WITH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, DESIGN ELEVATIONS, ANY OF THE PLANS, AND WE WOULD LIST ALL THOSE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE PACKET THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, SO EVERYTHING WE'VE RECEIVED, WE WOULD NOTE ATE THE REFERENCE ON THE PLAN, THE DATE WAS THE PLAN WAS MADE AND THE AGENT OR THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT ACTUALLY CREATED THAT PLAN, SO THAT WOULD BE -- IN ONE CONDITION AND UNDERNEATH THAT CONDITION WOULD BE LISTING THE

WHOLE PACKET, IF YOU LIKE. >> AND THOSE ARE BROUGHT TO THE

PLANNING BOARD IN THEIR PACKET. >> THEY'RE IN THE PACKET RIGHT NOW. I THINK NOTE AGENT THOSE AS A BLOCK WOULD REASSURE THAT THEY'RE INCLUDED.

I THINK IN TERMS OF THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, THERE WOULD BE CONDITIONS SUCH AS THAT THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY

[00:30:02]

>> CAN I ADD? JUST A QUESTION.

SO DOES THAT INCLUDE THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY THIRD PARTY?

>> YES. YES.

>> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION PERTAINING TO THE SIDEWALKS.

YOU SAID THERE'S GOING TO BE A PARTIAL SIDEWALK ON KINGS

HIGHWAY? >> THERE'S GOING TO BE A PARTIAL RECONSTRUCTION OF A SIDEWALK. CURRENTLY IF YOU CAN FOLLOW MY CURSOR, THERE'S CURBS THAT GOES ALONG SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY, LIKE THIS ALREADY, WITH SIDEWALK OUT THERE.

SO AS THEY BUILD THIS SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE -- RIGHT TURN LANE, THERE'LL BE A NECESSARY RELOCATION OF THAT SIDEWALK SO THAT THEY WILL BE -- LET ME GET IT BACK -- RECONSTRUCTING SIDEWALK FROM APPROXIMATELY HERE TO APPROXIMATELY HERE.

>> OKAY. >> IT WILL JUST FOLLOW THE GEOMETRY OF WHAT THEY'RE CREATING OUT THERE WITH THE TURN

LANE. >> A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION WOULD BE WILL THERE BE SIDEWALKS ON PRUITT?

>> I BELIEVE -- THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ALONG PRUITT.

WE'LL HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT ON THAT ONE, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY PROPOSE A CROSSWALK ACROSS PRUITT TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD, SO... YEAH.

>> THEY WILL REQUIRE AS PART OF THEIR ENGINEERING COMMUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THEIR ROADWAY, THAT SITE DEVELOPMENT

PLAN THAT I MENTIONED. >> YOU HAVE SOMETHING, MR.

JOHNSON? >> I DO.

WITH THE 8-FOOT BERM, DO YOU SEE THAT AS SUFFICIENT WITH THE VERY LARGE COMMERCIAL BUILDING ACROSS THE WAY? IT I.T. IT DOESN'T SHOW AN ELEVATION, THAT THAT'S ALONG A

BERM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. >> LET ME GIVE YOU KIND OF A RUN-DOWN ON PLANTING OUT THERE. LIVE OFF, THAT EDGE IS PRIMARILY LIVE OAKS SO AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THOSE WILL REACH A MATURE HEIGHT SO THAT A LOT OF WHAT'S TO THE NORTHEAST THERE WILL BE SUFFICIENTLY COVERED. THE DOUBLE ROW OF SHRUBS, THERE'S GOING TO BE INSTALL HEIGHT OF 2 TO 3 FEET, AS WELL AS A 5-FOOT TYPE OF HEIGHT ON A VARIETY OF SHRUBS OUT THERE.

AND THEN AN 8-FOOT WALL, AS OPPOSED TO A BERM.

SO I WOULD SAY EIGHT FEET OF WALL IS PRETTY HARD TO SEE THROUGH. SO MAYBE FROM THE UPPER ELEVATIONS -- YOU KNOW, THE SECOND OR THIRD FLOOR -- YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO SEE THERE TO THE NORTHEAST FROM YOUR APARTMENT, BUT OVER TIME, THAT WILL FILL IN WITH TREES.

>> THE REASON I ASK THIS BECAUSE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING THE TURNING LANE FOR AMAZON,

CORRECT? >> NO, THAT TURN LANE IS ALREADY THERE. IT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THERE'S GOING AN ENTRY HERE TO UTILIZE THE SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN LANE INTO THAT SITE.

>> I WOULD -- IF I COULD -- SAY THAT THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE -- YOU K KNOW, THAT PART OF THE SITE AND THE KINGS HIGHWAY ITSELF, AND THEN THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE KINGS HIGHWAY AND THE ACTUAL AMAZON

BUILDING. >> YEAH, THE BUFFER ALONG -- OR, I'M SORRY, THE AMAZON SITE IN FRONT OF KINGS HIGHWAY, IF YOU RECALL, HAS SEVERAL PONDS LOCATED ALONG THE FRONTAGE, AS WELL AS SIGNIFICANT PLANTINGS BOTH AROUND AND WITHIN THE PARKING LOT OF THOSE PONDS, SO BEFORE YOU EVEN GET TO THE FACILITY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF SHRUB LAYER -- I'M SORRY, TREE LAYER SUFFERING THAT FACILITY.

EVEN AT THEIR -- I BELIEVE THEY'RE AT 31 FEET.

>> I'M NOT THINKING ABOUT THE FACILITY.

I'M THINKING ABOUT, LIKE, THE DECELERATION OF THE TRACTOR

[00:35:02]

>> WELL, I MEAN, AND I'M NO TRUCK DRIVER, BUT FIRST OFF, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONTROLLED INTERSECTION AT PRUITT RESEARCH-WHITE ROAD THAT'S GOING TO SLOW DOWN TRAFFIC. ONCE THAT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION IS BUILT. FURTHER, THOSE SOUTHBOUND TRUCKS ARE GOING TO BE GOING RELATIVELY SLOW AS THEY GO SOUTH IN ORDER TO GET INTO THIS TURN LANE. SO I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERE WON'T BE P SOME OF THAT, BUT I THINK IT'LL BE DAMPENED BY THE FACT OF THE CONTROLLED INTERSECTION WITH A TRAFFIC SIGNAL. AND JUST THE WAY SEMIS WORK.

IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME YOU WILL.

>> YEAH. I THINK MR. JOHNSON'S COMMENTS KIND OF BRING UP THE -- YOU KNOW, THE INTERESTING SUBJECT OF WHERE WE WERE THE LAST TIME WE SAW AN APPLICATION ON THIS PROJECT -- OR ON THIS SITE, VERSUS WHERE WE ARE NOW, AND IT'S A CONTINUING MOVING TARGET. THIS PART OF THE CITY, TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF ITSELF AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.

OBVIOUSLY BEFORE THE AMAZON WAREHOUSE APPLICATION CAME THROUGH, THINGS WERE VERY DIFFERENT OUT THERE, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS KIND OF UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS MAYBE A MORE HEAVILY COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR THAN OTHERS.

AND WE HAD -- I DO REMEMBER THAT BEING A SIGNIFICANT TOPIC OF CONVERSATION WITH WHEN THIS APPLICATION FIRST CAME.

YOU KNOW, BEING SUCH A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF SPECIFICALLY-DESIGNED AND TWO-STOREY UNITS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. WE'VE GOT SOME DEVELOPMENT, I BELIEVE, THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE ON THE NORTH THAT'S THE -- LIKE, THE REFRIGERATED WAREHOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- IT'S MAYBE NOT THE BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS TO BE NEIGHBORS, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- IT'S IN THE VICINITY. SO THERE'S -- THERE'S SOME HESITATION, I THINK, ON OUR PART TO BE, LIKE, IS THIS -- DOES THIS MAKE 100% SENSE HERE? BUT WHAT I'M SEEING THAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING TO ADDRESS THAT IS VERY SPECIFIC AND CONSIDERATE. YOU KNOW, THE WAY WIDER THAN REQUIRED BUFFERS, SETBACKS, ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, AND EVEN WITH THE DENSITY BEING WHAT IT IS, HOW OPEN AND SPREAD-OUT THE SITE IS, WHICH IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.

SO IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE THE APPLICANT DOING MORE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE THAN WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IN THIS DESIGN.

IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THIS PART OF THE CITY GOING TO BE LIKE WHEN IT'S ALL DONE BEING, YOU KNOW, FULLY GROWED UP? BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF VERY UNDEVELOPED LAND OUT THERE, SO -- WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WATCH THIS AS APPLICATIONS COME FORWARD, AND IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO CHANGE THE EQUATION, KIND OF THE REORDERING OF WHAT WE HAVE OUT IN THAT PART OF TOWN NOW.

>> WHEN I ASK THE QUESTIONS I DO, I THINK -- I LIKE EVERYTHING THAT'S IN HERE. I JUST THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMES UP IN TIME, WHERE THERE MIGHT BE -- EVEN THOUGH SOMETHING WAS THERE BEFORE THIS SHOWED UP, THERE MIGHT BE DISGRUNTLED ITEMS THAT ARISE.

I DON'T KNOW IF POTENTIALLY, LIKE, A BERM OR SOMETHING LIKE

THAT POTENTIALLY HELPS. >> I THINK -- ECHOING, CHAIR, IF I COULD... ECHOING THE CHAIR'S COMMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ATTEMPTED AND GONE THROUGH A LOT OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH STAFF AND VERY DETAILED STUFF BEING DISCUSSED HERE, THE FOUNDATION FOR ALL THIS IS THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-4, RESIDENTIAL. THEY COULD DO THINGS BY RIGHT, WHICH A LOT OF THE THINGS, ITEMS, FACILITIES, BUFFERS, WALLS, HOW THE BUILDINGS ARE LAID OUT MAY NOT BE UNDER STAFF'S PURVIEW IF IT'S -- IF AN APPLICATION CAME UNDER STRAIGHT ZONING, WHICH IS WHY WE INTRODUCED INNOVATIVE -- THIS INNOVATIVE THING, TO ALLOW US TO OFFER SOMETHING TO A DEVELOPER -- WHICH IN THIS CASE IS DENSITY -- IN RETURN FOR BUILDING OUT A SITE WITH FACILITIES, BETTER LANDSCAPING, BETTER STORMWATER, INCREASED BUFFERS.

WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH TRAFFIC.

IT'S KINGS HIGHWAY. IT IS CHANGING.

DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT FORM DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRAFFIC MOMENTS. MOVEMENTS.

SO IF YOU HAVE A 100% COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, IT'S A DIFFERENT

[00:40:01]

I THINK A LOT OF THE OFFERS THAT ARE BEING MADE WITH THIS SITE PLAN ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE A CONCERN WITH.

WHEREVER YOU STOP THOSE, YOU KNOW, IS IT ENOUGH? IS IT NOT ENOUGH? AND CHRIS HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB NEGOTIATING ALL OF THIS STUFF GOING THROUGH THIS.

SO I THINK WE GOT A GOOD PRODUCT OUT OF IT.

THEY FOLLOWED AS FAR AS THEY COULD WHAT WE WERE ASKING, AND I THINK DID MANIPULATE THE SITE PLAN FROM THEIR FIRST SUBMITTAL TO GET AT THE ISSUES AND RESOLVE ITEMS THAT WE KNEW WE WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS ON, AND YOU'VE HIT THE QUESTIONS THAT WE SUSPECTED WOULD BE THE ISSUES HERE. BUT ON THAT BASIS, YOU KNOW, WE'VE -- WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, AND I THINK IT'S A -- IT'S A NICE DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF WHAT IT IS ENTITLED TO BE.

IT'S MORE. WE'VE GOT MORE OUT OF THIS THAN

WHAT THE ENTITLEMENT ALLOWS. >> DID WE -- DID WE GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS FOR THE LAST APPLICATION, OR WAS IT ALREADY

R-4? >> IT WAS ALREADY R-4, SIR.

>> YEAH,IST JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

WE DON'T TYPICALLY SEE RESIDENCE PROPERTIES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY, OR IF WE DO, IT'S VERY

RARE. >> THERE ARE MANY.

THERE ARE MANY.

>> WELL, YEAH. AND ALWAYS KIND OF CURIOUS HOW WE GOT TO THAT SPOT. ANYWAY...

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. BECAUSE, YOU'RE RIGHT, THE IDEA FOR KINGS HIGHWAY IS COMMERCIAL, AND IT'S NOT JUST AMAZON.

THERE ARE CROSS DOCKS THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT THAT ARE NOT EVEN -- TRUCKS ARE NOT GOING UP AND DOWN YET, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LEASED-OUT. CROSS DOCKS SERVICE THOUSANDS OF TRUCKS, SO WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT BEARING, AND THAT'S -- GOING ALONG WITH WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING, IT CONCERNS ME, BECAUSE KINGS HIGHWAY HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED SINCE '21, I THINK, IS WHEN WE KIND OF STEERED PEOPLE -- THERMAL KING, WHICH I BELIEVE IS JUST ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY, AND ACTUALLY MADE THEM AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS ALREADY APPROVED. AND SO, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT BUFFERS THAT -- BUT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT PUTTING LITERALLY RESIDENTIAL IN THE MIDDLE OF NOTHING BUT HIGHWAY AND TRUCKS.

YOU HAVE UP AND DOWN KINGS HIGHWAY IS NOTHING BUT COMMERCIAL TES HEAVY TRUCKS. SO I'M HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS FITS INTO THAT AREA.

IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL, BUT MY CONCERN IS FOR THE KIND OF TRAFFIC THAT IS GOING TO BE GOING -- THAT IS CURRENTLY GOING, BUT MOVING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF QUALITY OF LIFE IS SOMEONE GOING TO HAVE LIVING THERE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AMAZON. THAT'S A COLD STORAGE.

THAT'S 24/7. SOUND.

NOISE. TRUCKS.

CONSTANT. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW WE CAN RECONCILE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BECAUSE THE BUFFERS ARE -- R-4, I BELIEVE, IS RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? NOT SURROUNDED BY HEAVY INDUSTRY.

WELL, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRY THAT DOESN'T SLEEP.

THERMAL KING DOESN'T STOP. IT'S 24/7.

AMAZON DOESN'T STOP. IT'S 24/7.

CROSS DOCKS DON'T STOP. THAT'S MY CONCERN, REALLY.

>> MAY I? SO -- BUT THE ISSUE HERE, THE LEGAL PARAMETER IS THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND A ZONING DESIGNATION.

>> RIGHT. >> AND THAT -- THAT HAS CERTAIN

ENTITLEMENTS WITH IT. >> YEAH.

>> SO I THINK MAYBE OUR JOB IS TO -- ALONG WITH THE STAFF -- TO MAKE THE BEST SITUATION THAT WOULD KIND OF MITIGATE OR PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH, YOU KNOW, THAT -- THE BETTER QUALITY. BUT OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY MOVING THERE IS GOING TO BE -- SHOULD BE COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT HOW THEY GET THERE, AND, YOU KNOW, NOT EVERYBODY IS -- HAS THE SAME ISSUES AND -- ABOUT WHERE THEY WANT TO LIVE, AND THE BALANCE HERE IS PROVIDING AND MAYBE MORE AFFORDABLE

[00:45:01]

THEY'RE JUST LOOKING FOR SOME PLACE TO POP IN AND OUT OF.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A MIX OF WHAF HOUSING THAT ALLOW PEOPLE SOME CHOICES, AND RECOGNIZING THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF DEVELOPERS, AND BALANCING THAT WITH THE COMMUNITY, SO...

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. 100%.

MY ONLY CONCERN IS MORE ABOUT THE INCREASE IN THE DENSITY AND HOW THAT TRANSLATES INTO MORE FROM WHERE IT WAS IN '23 TO TODAY. IT'S NOT THE SAME.

AND I MEAN, I -- I GUESS, YOU KNOW, BRINGING JOBS AND -- DON'T MISUNDERSTAND ME. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND ELEANOR HAS THE RIGHTS AND ALL THAT. THE ZONING AND I GET ALL THAT.

MY CONCERN IS MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE WE DON'T LOSE SIGHT OF THE IDEA OF BRINGING COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES INTO OUR CITY TO PROVIDE JOBS, LIKE THE KIND OF JOBS THAT THERMOKING PROVIDES. I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU CAN BALANCE THIS OUT, TO BE HONEST. HOW DO YOU GO BETWEEN HEAVY COMMERCIAL, LOUD TRUCKS, AND RESIDENTIAL? I'M NOT SURE. THOSE ARE JUST MY CONCERNS.

>> MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD QUALIFY SOMETHING.

THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY OF 2024 WAS PROPOSED AT 488 UNITS WITH INNOVATIVE CONDITIONAL USE, SO THERE REALLY IS NO REPRESENTATION OF AN INCREASE FROM THAT BASE DEVELOPMENT. THE KEY ISSUE HERE WITH REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE IS THE SITE -- OR THE SITE PLAN CHANGE, PRIMARILY. SECONDARILY, THE CUSTOM IN OWNERSHIP. IT'S A DIFFERENT ENTITY THAT'S COMING IN TO SEEK THAT CONDITIONAL USE.

SO IN THE PREVIOUS REVIEW, AS WELL AS THIS REVIEW, THE TRAFFIC GENERATED FROM THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE.

THEY TRIED TO SUBMIT AN OLD TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS, AND I SAID, NO, WE NEED AN UPDATED ONE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU'RE ACCOUNTING FOR AMAZON. TO YOUR POINT.

BUT EVEN STILL, WITH THE REVIEWS THAT THE PROJECT HAS GONE THROUGH, THOSE ROADS AS THEY ARE CONTINUE TO FUNCTION AS THEY ARE

WITH THE ADDED DEVELOPMENT. >> YEAH.

I NOTICED THAT YOU INCLUDED THE -- IN THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, AT LEAST, ON THE -- ONLINE THAT THE AMAZON TRAFFIC STUDY WAS INCLUDED IN THERE AS WELL FOR US TO REFERENCE BACK TO, WHICH WAS HELPFUL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

>> DIDN'T THE TRAFFIC GO UP, THOUGH? TO ALMOST -- DID I MISREAD THAT? I COULD HAVE SWORN THAT IT ACTUALLY STATED THAT IT INCREASES BY QUITE A BIT.

LIKE, 680, I THINK? THE NUMBERS THAT WERE IN THERE?

>> I'D HAVE TO REVIEW THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND WHERE YOU'RE

REFERRING TO. >> WELL...

IN THE DOCUMENTATION, DIDN'T I --

>> SURE, BUT -- >> IT ACTUALLY SAID THAT YOU'RE CHANGING THE PLAN, BUT THAT INCREASES THE TRAFFIC, BECAUSE I ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC REPORT FROM 2000 AND I THINK 4.

JANUARY, THERE'S AN INCREASE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S UNITS OR

WHAT IT'S CALLED, BUT -- >> I CAN CHECK THAT, BUT THERE'S REALLY NO INCREASE ON TO THE NET SERVICE FOR THE ROADS.

>> FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION.

>> FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME NUMBERS.

>> MAYBE I'M TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

HOLD ON. I'M GOING TO FIND IT.

>> IT'S IN THERE. IT'S 665 DAILY FOR NET CHANGE OF SITE USES. AND THEN NO EXTERNAL DRIVEWAY

TRIPS. >> THAT'S MORE FROM ZERO TO 600.

NOT FROM WHAT WE HAD IN 2024. >> IT'S ALMOST 3,000, YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT, TOO.

>> SO, IS THERE A DIFFERENT METRIC OF TRIPS A DAY THAT'S

VALUE ATED? >> APPARENTLY SO.

I THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THOSE QUESTIONS.

>> WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT.

BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION TO

THIS APPLICATION. >> SAME NUMBER.

488. >> THE SAME.

OKAY. >> I DIDN'T SEE IN THE CONDITIONS ST. LUCIE COUNTY SCHOOLS.

HAVE THEY BEEN APPROACHED AND APPROVED A BUS STOP LOCATION?

>> THE COUNTY HAS BEEN ASKED TO REVIEW IT.

[00:50:02]

ALTHOUGH I DO BELIEVE OUR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER IS HERE TO PROVID

ANY INPUT THAT THEY MAY HAVE. >> ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD THINK THAT -- >> YOU CAN COME FORWARD.

THANK YOU. >> CHAIR, BOARD...

NICOLE FOGHERTY WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

YES, WE DID REVIEW THE BUS STOP, AND IT WAS UP TO OUR STANDARDS, SO IT IS FINE. THE ROUND-ABOUT HAS PLENTY OF ROOM FOR THE BUS TO COME IN AND CIRCLE AROUND.

WE DO APPRECIATE THE GATES NOT BEING THERE.

THEY'RE LOCATED ON THE SIDE, SO -- AND THE PARKING, BECAUSE AS I HAVE MENTIONED, WE'VE BROUGHT THAT UP MANY TIMES, IS THAT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING NEAR THE BUS STOP FOR THE PARENTS, AND IF YOU SEE HERE, THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING RIGHT NEXT TO THAT BUS STOP, SO THE PARENTS WOULD NOT -- THE CARS WOULD NOT IMPEDE THE SCHOOL BUS FROM COMING IN AND OUT.

>> OKAY. IS THAT --

>> THANKS. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> IS THE BUS LOOP ROUTE INTENDED TO JUST GO THROUGH THE CIRCLE OR DOWN THROUGH THE PARKING LOT?

>> JUST THE CIRCLE, SIR. >> OH.

OKAY. WELL, YEAH, WE'LL -- BUT THE CIRCLE DOES MEET -- THE CIRCLE MEETS YOUR --

>> THE STANDARD FOR US TO BE ABLE TO COME IN AND OUT.

IF THERE IS ANOTHER ENTRANCE AND EXIT THROUGH THE PARKING LOT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO RUN AGAIN.

>> WE'LL CLARIFY THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> THAT WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF MY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO WE'LL GET THERE WHEN WE GET THERE. ANYTHING ELSE FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE.

LET'S MOVE ON TO COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT.

IF YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION, WE'LL HEAR THAT, AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

>> FOR THE RECORD, BRAD CURRIE WITH HALEY WARD.

WANTING TO JUMP UP HERE AND TALK IS ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS TO DO. SO FORGIVE ME FOR MY EXCITEMENT WHEN I JUMP UP HERE. I ALSO HATE IT WHEN I HAVE THIS BIG LONG SPEECH ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND ONE OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS STEALS THAT FROM ME, AND THAT AGAIN HAPPENED.

SO THANKS FOR THAT, KRISTA. I HAVE A QUICK POWER POINT PRESENTATION TO GO THROUGH. WE'LL EXPLAIN THE BUS STOP.

ALWAYS TRY TO START MY PRESENTATION OFF BY SAYING THE SAME THING, BY SAYING SOMETHING I'M GOING TO TELL YOU A COUPLE OF TIMES DURING THE PRESENTATION.

THIS SITE PLAN IS CURRENTLY APPROVED.

IT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR 488 UNITS.

IT'S VALID MILLION NARCOTIC THEE 23RD, 2028.

SO RESIDENTIAL IS ALREADY APPROVED ON THE PROPERTY.

IT'S APPROVED RIGHT NOW. THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ON THE SITE NOW AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THE NUMBER OF FLOORS OF THE UNITS, AND NOBODY MENTIONED THAT YET.

THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IS APPROVED WITH FOUR STOREYS, AND WE'RE GOING DOWN TO THREE STOREYS.

>> RIGHT. >> SO MY CLIENT, WHO'S LOOKING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY, DOESN'T WANT TO BUILD A FOUR-STOREY PRODUCT. WANTS TO BUILD A THREE-STOREY PRODUCT. THAT IS ALSO THE REASON FOR THE TRIPS, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. FOUR STOREY MULTI-FAMILY PRODUCES LESS TRIPS THAN A THREE-STOREY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT, BY MAKES NO SENSE, BUT YOU CAN THANK THE I.T. INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERS FOR THAT TIDBIT OF INFORMATION THERE.

SO, AGAIN, AN APPROVED SITE PLAN.

APPROVED 488 THREE-STOREY UNITS. AND WE'RE GOING IN WITH MOREOVER COMPONENTS OF THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED PLAN.

CHRIS FROM HAPPY HOMES IS HERE AS WELL.

HE WILL BE GETTING UP AND SPEAKING.

TELLING YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT MAHAFFEY AT THE END OF THIS PRODUCT SO THAT YOU GUYS CAN KNOW MORE ABOUT THE BUILDER AND POTENTIAL OWNER. I THINK A LOT OF PE THAT SEE ME PRESENT THINK I GOT UP THIS MORNING AND THOUGHT I WANTED TO DO AN APARTMENT PROPERTY. THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

A PRETTY HEAVY LIFT TO GO IN AND GET A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE JUST THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MORNING.

IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS NOW WITH A LOT OF FIRMS AND DESIGN PROFESSIONALS.

AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY DESIGN ALLOWS US TO INCREASE THE DENSITY, AS CHRIS STATED, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS US TO MIX IN DIFFERENCES FROM -- IF WE WERE BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE COULD DO A DIFFERENT RIGHT OF WAY SECTION.

WE COULD ADJUST THE SETBACKS. IT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY, AND WE ARE SEEING MORE OF THOSE INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY DESIGNS. YOU GUYS ARE GONNA -- THIS BOARD

[00:55:03]

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED IN JANUARY OF 2024, 488 AND WE ACTUALLY GOT A STATE EMERGENCY EXTENSION. 488 UNITS VALID UNTIL MARCH 23RD, 2028. STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF PRESENTING. JUST ON THE WEST SIDE OF KINGS HIGHWAY, BETWEEN THE TURNPIKE AND KINGS HIGHWAY.

PREVIOUSLY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION.

AGAIN, RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM. FUTURE LAND USE.

THE CURRENT ZONING IS R-4, AND THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO 488 FOR INNOVATIVE DESIGN. WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING. THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT INDUSTRIAL, AND I THINK AS A PLANNER, I CAN LOOK AT DIFFERENT LAND USES AND ZONINGS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THE INTENT IS.

SO IT REALLY ISN'T INDUSTRIAL TO THE NORTH OF US.

IT'S GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND I KNOW THAT THAT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH DOES APPEAR TO BE MORE INDUSTRIAL, THE TYPES OF USES THAT IT IS, BUT STANDARDS HAVE A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION, AS WELL AS ACROSS TO THE EAST AND THEN ALSO TO THE SOUTH.

SO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM FITS VERY WELL WITH COMMERCIAL GENERAL.

THE INTENT IS THAT PEOPLE WITH LIVE THERE.

GO GET THEIR GOODS AND SERVICES, SO I DID WANT TO MENTION, AS CHRISTA WAS SAYING, THE PERSON WHO LIVES HERE DOESN'T WANT TO LIVE IN THE COUNTRY. WANTS TO BE CLOSE TO TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, TO I-95.

THEY WANT TO BE CLOSE TO THEIR EMPLOYMENT.

WE ACTUALLY THINK THIS IS AN URBAN TYPE PROJECT.

YOU'RE GONNA REA GONNA HEAR T T. YOU'RE GONNA HEAR SOME TRUCKS, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET TO WORK QUICKLY, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE THOSE TRADE-OFFS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FOR PLACES TO STAY. THAT PIECE TO THE NORTH IS ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, I NOTE, BUT THIS IS -- EVEN IF IT WERE CONSIDERED TO BE INDUSTRIAL OR IF IT HAD AN INDUSTRIAL LAND USE OR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY, I ALWAYS THINK OF IT AS BEING A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

USUALLY USES THAT HAPPEN INSIDE OF A BUILDING.

DON'T PRODUCE A LOT OF NOISE, SMELLS, THOSE THINGS.

SO WHEN I THINK ABOUT CAPACITIACOMPATIBILITY WITH RES.

I TI THINK LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MAKS SENSE, AND WE SEE IT EVERYBODY IN THE PLANNING FIELD. THIS IS THAT CORRIDOR MAP THAT WE MENTIONED EARLIER. WE'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE CARLTON IN FORT PIERCE, AND IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE SINGLE FAMILY, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FUN WITH THAT IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, GUYS.

AND THE INTENT IS IS TO HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL THAT'S IN THE AREA.

SO WE MENTIONED AMAZON ACROSS THE STREET.

I BELIEVE THAT SOUTHERN BUILDINO SAY.

I'M SORRY THAT THE -- THE TEXT IS COVERING EVERYTHING, BUT THAT'S ABOUT 600,000 SQUARE FEET HERE AT THE SOUTHERN END.

OVER A MILLION SQUARE FEET HERE. THE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR JUST FINISHED FIRE STATION NUMBER 19.

YOU HAVE ASHLEY CAPITAL, WHICH I THINK IS ABOUT 2 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL. ABOUT ANOTHER MILLION SQUARE FEET HERE, AND AND THEN YOU HAVE SOUTH FLORIDA LOGISTICS, WHICH WAS BLOWN DOWN IN THE TORNADO, UNFORTUNATELY.

SO THERE IS A TON OF NON-COMMERCIAL, A TON OF EMPLOYMENT GENERATION THAT COULD BE DONE IN THIS CORRIDOR AND HAVING DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING IN PROXIMITY TO THE JOBS CORRIDOR I THINK MAKES A GOOD CITY, SO I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE PROPOSING SOME SORT OF HIGHER-DENSITY, MORE AFFORDABILITY RESIDENTIAL ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.

THIS IS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN.

IT'S HARD TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR SITE PLAN AND THIS SITE PLAN. LAKE IN THE MIDDLE.

THIS HAD A HAD A PARK ON SOUTH . THIS IS THE COLOR GRAPHIC THAT WAS SHOWN AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE OLD APPROVED PLAN.

IT SHOWS THE BUILDINGS ALONG THE PERIMETER, THE LAKE IN THE MIDDLE, THE AMENITIES AND THE CLUBHOUSE.

VERY SIMILAR TO THE PLAN THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TODAY.

THIS IS THE PREVIOUS FOUR-STOREY PRODUCT THAT WAS PROPOSED AND APPROVED. AGAIN, WE'RE GOING THREE STOREYS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHOW WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY

[01:00:02]

I ALMS L ALWAYS LIKE TO SHOW WHR SITE PLAN LOOKS LIKE.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE HERE.

THIS IS A GRAPHIC OF OUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN.

ACCESS OFF THE PRUITT RESEARCH, OFF THE KINGS HIGHWAY WITH THAT RIGHT TURN LANE, COMING INTO THE ROUND-ABOUT, THE CLUBHOUSE, AND THEN THE BUILDINGS SURROUNDING THE LAKES AND THEN AROUND THE PERIMETERS. WE DID MENTION THE NUMBER OF LAKES THAT WE HAD. THEY HAVE ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE GREEN SPACE, BUT NOW IT'S A LAKE.

I WILL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A TEASER ON THE BUS TONNE-ATURN-AROUNDSO THAT NICOLT ME.

COME DOWN HERE. PULL INTO THE PARKING LOT OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AREA, SO IT'S NOT BROCKING ANY TRAFFIC.

THIS IS THE MAIL KIOSKS, BUS STOP, IT HAS PLENTY OF PARKING FOR THE PARENTS. IT'S ACTUALLY -- IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LONGER ROUTE BUT IT GETS THE KIDS OUT OF ROUND-ABOUT. THERE'S A CONCERN WITH THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES THAT IF YOU'VE GOT THE BUS STOPPED IN THE ROUND-ABOUT, IT TYPICALLY BACKS UP TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE COMPLAIN, SO THE INTENT IS TO GET THE BUS OUT OF THE TRAFFIC LANES AND GET THE KIDS OUT OF THE RAIN AND HAVE A PLACE FOR FORTHE PARENTS TO PARK, SO THIS ACCOMPLISHES THAT ROUTE.

AGAIN ONLY THREE FLOORS, THREE STOREYS TALL.

MAHAFFEY BUILDS THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT ALL OVER THE STATE, AND CHRIS WILL TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN HE GETS UP HERE.

THE CLUBHOUSE FACILITY IS AGAIN WHEN YOU FIRST DRIVE IN.

24 WILL BE THE RENTAL AREA AND THE CLUBHOUSE.

REALLY GREAT GRAPHICS. THIS IS A SIMILAR CLUBHOUSE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S QUESTIONABLE WHETHER THIS AREA IN THE MIDDLE WILL BE CLOSED-IN OR NOT, BUT GENERALLY THE SAME TYPE OF FACILITY. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE FROM ANOTHER COMMUNITY THAT THEY'VE CONSTRUCTED.

INTERNAL. WE'LL HAVE YOUR NORMAL WORKOUT AREAS. MEETING SPACE.

WORKING SPACE. THAT SORT OF THING.

AND THEN AN ACTUAL CONFERENCE CENTER.

VERY ATTRACTIVE. POOL CENTER.

POOL AREA WITH FIRE PITS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

SO IT'S -- IT'S A REALLY -- WHAT I THINK OF AS A HIGH-END RENTAL COMMUNITY. MANY PLAYGROUNDS THROUGHOUT.

THERE'LL BE A TOT LOT FOR THE KIDS.

I LIKE THIS PLAN, I WAS GOING TO LABEL IT KIDS, DOGS, AND GROWN-UPS, SO THIS HAPPENED BE THE KID AREA.

THIS IS THE GROWN-UP AREA, WHERE YOU HAVE PICKLEBALL COURTS AS WELL AS SOME ADDITIONAL GREEN SPACE.

VERY SIMILAR. AND THEN THIS IS THE DOG AREA.

A LARGE DOG PARK AND THEN THE SMALL DOG PARK.

THIS IS THE BUS. SO THIS IS NEW.

WE'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE, SO I'M GOING TO CLICK THE BUTTON.

WATCH THE LITTLE BUS DO ITS THING...

>> WOW. >> SLOW DOWN!

>> YEAH, DIDN'T STOP FOR THE KIDS.

SORRY ABOUT THAT.

HOPEFULLY THE BUS DRIVERS AREN'T GOING THAT FAST, BUT, AGAIN, THE BUSES COME IN, THEY GO ROUND THE ROUND-ABOUT.

STAY OVER HERE. PARK.

LOAD THE KIDS AND GO OUT THE SAME WAY THEY CAME IN.

WE'VE DONE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES.

I THINK THIS ONE ACTUALLY FUNCTIONS THE BEST.

WE TALKED ABOUT THESE GRAPHICS. I THINK THE GRAPHICS ARE -- YOU KNOW, THEY SHOW THE RESIDENTIAL ELEVATION.

THE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED THAT'S BEEN APPROVED AS PART OF THE DESIGN REVIEW, SO THAT'S LOCKED IN.

THEY SHOW A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE LANDSCAPING, THE PLANTINGS AROUND, SO THAT'S FAIRLY LOCKED IN, AND THEN THE LAKE. THIS IS JUST TO GIVE YOU A FEEL FOR WHAT THIS WALKWAY LIKE LOOK AROUND THE PROPOSED LAKE WITH THE CLUBHOUSE BACK IN THE BACK, AND AGAIN, LOOKING ACROSS THE LAKE WITH THE BENCHES. CHRIS SAID HE MENTIONED THOSE ARE IN THE SITE PLAN. I DID WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT -- I USE THE TERM -- I'VE HEARD THE TERM, BELT AND SUSPENDERS.

WHICH MEANS A BELT IS NOT ENOUGH.

YOU NEED TO HAVE THE SUSPENDERS TOO.

A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE SIDEWALKS, THAT SHOWS THE BENCHES IS TYPICALLY ENOUGH TO ENFORCE AN APPROVAL, BUT IF THERE IS A DESIRE FROM THIS BOARD TO HAVE IT ON THE PLAN AS WELL AS IN THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL, WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

SO I THINK THAT WE DIDN'T CONDITION EVERY LITTLE THING HERE, BECAUSE FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THE SITE PLAN IS ENFORCEABLE JUST AS MUCH AS THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

MASS TRANSIT IS -- IS NOT THERE YET.

WE ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSING A STOP THERE, BUT IT'S NOT THERE YET. THE CLO CLOSEST PLACE IS DOWN ON PETERS IN THE YELLOW. BUS ROUTE NUMBER 3.

I KNOW PEOPLE DON'T LIKE TO WALK TOO MUCH IN FLORIDA, BUT THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE. DRAINAGE IS ALREADY APPROVED THROUGH SOUTH FLORIDA. WE HAVE AN EXISTING PERMIT THROUGH SOUTH FLORIDA. REALLY NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THAT. CANAL NUMBER 40.

WE HAVE THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL FROM DOT AS WELL AS THE COUNTY.

WE DID UPDATE THE TRAFFIC STUDY TO REFLECT THE THREE FLOORS, THE

[01:05:05]

IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY THE COUNTY AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY.

JUST THE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES. WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THAT.

THE PLAY AREAS. THE CHARGING STATIONS.

THE COMMUNITY PARK AREAS IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN THE CLUBHOUSE ITSELF. PRETTY EXCELLENCE LIST OFPRETTYF AMENITIES. WE TALKED ABOUT THE GAZEBOS AND PLAYING GAMES INSIDE OF THE CLUBHOUSE.

WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO BRING CRISPY AS A CHRIS PIAZZA FROM MO

COME UP. >> JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND OF WHO WE ARE. WE'RE AN OWNER/OPERATOR.

WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS SINCE THE 1960S.

FAMILY-OWNED AND OPERATED. YOU CAN SEE A NUMBER OF OUR COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE STATE THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED AND MANAGED SILL STILL TODAY SINCE THE 1960. 1960S.

I'LL GO THROUGH THAT. LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENTS.

AND WE'VE BEEN TENDING TO THOSE FOR DECADES NOW.

AGAIN, SINCE THE 1960S, WE'VE DEVELOPED O THOUSANDS OF PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STATE. HERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'VE DONE RECENTLY. AS OF 2020, THE CARLTON AND WEST MELBOURNE WAS ONE OF OUR NEWER PRODUCT LINES.

FROM THE CARLTON ARMS, WHICH WAS OUR LEGACY PRODUCT, AND THEN WE MOVED INTO THE CARLTON AT FORT MYERS.

THAT WAS COMPLETED IN 2022, AND THEN RECENTLY, CARLTON AT LAKE DEXTER, WHICH IS IN WINTER HAVEN, FLORIDA.

THAT WAS ONE WATCH OUR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, AT 561 UNITS THAT WE FINISHED IN 2024, AND JUST RECENTLY THIS YEAR, WE COMPLETED THE CARLTON AT ROBSON GATEWAY, WHICH IS IN PALMETTO, FLORIDA ON THE WEST COAST, A 610-UNIT DEVELOPMENT THERE.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THESE ARE OUR PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STATE.

AS THEY RELATE TO THE FORT PIERCE AREA.

AND, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO OUR LEGACY PRODUCTS.

WE HAD OUR TWO-STOREY BRICK STYLE TOWNHOME COMMUNITIES.

NOW WE'VE MOVED INTO CURRENT -- WHAT EVERYBODY'S LOOKING FOR TODAY, TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THE STYLE AND THE NEED FOR THE RESIDENTS, AND AMENITY-RICH, TOO, AS WELL.

AS YOU'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

NOT ONLY STAFF, BUT BRAD. YOU'RE HEARING IT FROM THE DEVELOPER THEMSELVES. WE TRY TO LISTEN TO OUR RESIDENTS AND PROVIDE THAT BACK TO THEM.

SO, ECONOMIC IMPACTS THAT WE SEE AS PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENTS WHEN WE COME INTO A COMMUNITY, WE'RE ROUGHLY LOOKING AT AROUND A THOUSAND TO 1200 JOBS THAT ARE CREATED AS PART OF THAT.

WE'RE PUTTING A DIRECT INVESTMENT OF ANYWHERE FROM 100 TO $150 MILLION WHEN WE COME IN AND DEVELOP.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE THAT LONG-TERM OPERATIONS, WHERE WE'RE SPENDING MILLIONS TO KEEP UP WITH THE PROPERTY AND ALSO PAYING THAT BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY AS PART OF OUR TAXES AND IMPACT FEES. WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF LONG-TERM JOBS THERE FROM OUR MANAGEMENT TO OUR RESIDENT SERVICES TO OUR MAINTENANCE CREWS. SO THERE'LL BE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES THERE ON-SITE, FROM AROUND 20 TO 30 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES THERE.

AND THEN ALSO LOCAL BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY ITSELF.

SO, WE TRY TO DO DIFFERENT THINGS FOR OUR RESIDENTS ON A MONTHLY BASIS. WE HOLD DIFFERENT EVENTS FOR THEM AS WELL. AND THEN WE TRY TO GIVE BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY, TOO. I KNOW A LOT OF PROPERTIES AND WHERE THEY'RE AT, THEY TRY TO GO TO JOB FAIRS, THINGS LIKE THAT, TO TRY TO GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE IN AND TRY TO SHOW THAT SUPPORT AS WELL. I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO BRAD, BUT, AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR US, WE'RE HAPPY TO

ANSWER 'EM. >> THANKS, CHRIS.

SO, THE -- AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS FOR 488-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT ON ABOUT 40 ACRES.

IT HAS A SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR INNOVATIVE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT.

THE RESULT REALLY DOESN'T INCREASE THE DENSITY OVER WHAT'S CURRENTLY APPROVED. THE MAJOR CHANGE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT IT'S GOING TO FOUR FLOORS TO THREE FLOORS, SO WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING THE PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ALL RIGHT. I'LL GO AHEAD.

I WROTE A COUPLE THINGS OUT. YOU ACTUALLY ANSWERED QUITE A FEW OF 'EM IN YOUR PRESENTATION. I APPRECIATE THAT.

IT MIGHT BE TOO EARLY FOR THIS QUESTION AT THIS POINT, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY PHASING CONSIDERED FOR CONSTRUCTION?

>> PHASES FOR CONSTRUCTION? >> PHASING OF CONSTRUCTION?

[01:10:03]

>> DO IT ALL AS ONE PHASE. >> IT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED ALL

IN ONE PHASE. >> OKAY.

FANTASTIC. LET'S SEE...

THERE WAS A COMMENT IN -- AND I MAYBE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP EARLIER, BUT I WANTED TO ASK YOU, THERE WAS A COMMENT IN ONE OF THE ST. LUCI COUNTY ECONOMICAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS

ABOUT A PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. >> IT WAS ACTUALLY ABOUT A PROPERTY TO THE WEST: ARE YOU BRINGING THAT UP, BRIAN?

YOU'VE GOT MY MOUSE. >> IT WAS THE LAST PAGE OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS. I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT THE SPECIFICS OF THAT WERE OR IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE

APPLICANT WAS . >> JUST REAL QUICKLY.

THERE'S AN EXISTING ACCESS DRIVE TO THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IN THIS LOCATION AT THE LOWER LEFT OF YOUR SCREEN.

THE COUNTY HAD A GOOD IDEA, BUT COULD NOT ENFORCE IT, BECAUSE WE'RE IN THE CITY CITY AS OPPOSED TO THE COUNTY, BUT THEY'RE WANTING TO CONSOLIDATE ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED PROPERTIES THROUGH THE PROPOSED SITE.

>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERED AT THIS TIME OR...?

>> I'M NOT A FAN OF SHARED ACCESS POINTS.

FROM A STANDPOINT OF THE UPKEEP. YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A POTHOLE THERE THAT'S CAUSED BY SOMEBODY SHARING IT, WHO PAYS FOR THAT? FROM A LIABILITY STANDPOINT, IT REQUIRES A TON OF AGREEMENTS.

AND IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF WE WERE ACCESSING KINGS HIGHWAY OR U.S. 1 OR A ROADWAY THAT HAD MORE TRIPS, BUT PRUITT RESEARCH IS CONSIDERED A LOCAL ROADWAY. AND US HAVING TO REACH OUT TO THE WEDLAND OWNER AND DOING THE WHOLE THING, AND IT'S JUST -- AND IT WASN'T APPROVED LIKE THAT BEFORE.

SO HOPEFULLY THE COUNTY IS NOT WILLISTENING, BUT IT'S A TYPICAL COUNTY COMMENT THAT WE OFTEN HAVE A LOT OF HEARTBURN OVER.

IT JUST DOESN'T NORMALLY WORK. IT BECOMES MORE OF AN ISSUE.

>> YEAH, I WAS CURIOUS IF THEY WERE REFERRING TO SOMETHING -- LIKE, I COULD SEE IF YOU HAD ONE OF THESE EYE JAY SENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT DEVELOPED INTO, SAY, LIKE A SHOPPING CENTER OR SOMETHING. THAT A SHARED ACCESS OR AN ACCESS FROM YOUR PROPERTY FOR YOUR RESIDENTS, THAT COULD MAKE

SENSE. >> WE'VE DONE IT IN ANOTHER AREA. NOT EVERYBODY.

THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DO IT, AND IT MAKES SENSE, BUT IF THIS IS THE ONLY ONE, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY EVEN

CONSIDER. >> UNDERSTOOD.

AND I REMEMBERED FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION -- AND I DID SEE SOMETHING THAT LOOKED LIKE IT IN A COUPLE OF THE RENDERINGS. IS THIS PLAN GOING TO INCLUDE THE STAND-ALONE GARAGE BUILDINGS AS WELL?

>> NO. SO OUR GARAGES ARE ACTUALLY INTEGRAL TO THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES.

SO WE DON'T DO THE SEPARATE STRUCTURES.

>> GOT IT. OKAY.

>> AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE ELEVATIONS, IF YOU GO THROUGH THE PACKET. WE HAVE THE GARAGES BUILT INTO

THE BUILDINGS. >> OKAY.

>> IT APPEARED IN -- ONE OF THE ELEVATIONS -- I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION -- THAT THE GRAPHIC WITH THE THREE-STOREY ON THE BACKSIDE OF IT, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE SINGLE-STOREY GARAGES. JUST IN WHAT YOU PRESENTED.

>> SO, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE, THIS IS THE -- THIS IS THE FRONT FACADE. IF I WAS TO SHOW YOU THE BACK, THEY WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY BALCONIES AND PORCHES THAT WOULD

BE ON THE BACKSIDE. >> WHEN I SAY "BACKSIDE," I'M STAYING STREET SIDE, WHATEVER. BUT IT WAS A GRAPHIC.

NO, IT WASN'T THIS KIND OF ELEVATION.

>> ONE OF THE RENDERINGS, MAYBE? >> IT WAS ONE.

PICTURES. WELL...

YEAH.

>> THAT'S ALSO SHOWING THE BACK. >> THIS WOULD BE SHOWING THE BACK AS THEY LINE THE STORMWATER.

>> YOU HAVE MORE THERE, CHRIS. >> HANG ON JUST A SECOND, SIR.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF OUR PREVIOUS COMMUNITIES.

THAT WAS IN WEST MELBOURNE. EACH ONE OF THESE IS AN ITERATION, AS WE LEARN MOVING FORWARD.

AS I SAID HERE, ALL THE GARAGES ARE INTEGRAL TO THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES. WE DON'T HAVE STAND-ALONE

FACILITIES. >> HOW PARKING? HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS DO YOU HAVE COLLECTIVELY?

>> IT'S FUNNY. I EXPECTED A PARKING QUESTION, AND I THOUGHT THE PARKING QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE HOW MANY GARAGES, SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 146 GARAGES, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

[01:15:01]

>> THERE'S OVER A THOUSAND PARKING SPACES.

>> SO OUR STANDARD IS TWO PER UNIT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IN THAT, SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A LITTLE OVER A THOUSAND. A THOUSAND PARKING SPOTS.

>> YEAH, IT LOOKED COMFORTABLE. >> INCLUDING GARAGES AS WELL.

>> OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT

THE SIDEWALKS ON PRUITT. >> YOU DID, AND I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO GET TO THAT IN MY PRESENTATION.

BUT I WAS TEXTING WITH MY STAFF AS YOU WERE TALKING, AND THE FIRE DISTRICT ON THE NORTH SIDE BUILT A SIDEWALK ALONG THEIR FRONTAGE ON PRUITT RESEARCH. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO BE -- WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING A CROSSWALK THAT GOES OVER ACROSS ACROSS -- HAVING A SIDEWALK THAT GOES OVER.

THERE IS A SIDEWALK AND WE'RE GOING TO BE TRYING INTO THAT.

I GUESS FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF THE FIRE DISTRICT COMES IN AND THEY'LL HAVE TO EXTEND THAT OUT TO KINGS HIGHWAY, BUT WE WILL BE TYING INTO AN EXISTING SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH

SIDE OF PRUITT RESEARCH. >> OKAY, AND THANK YOU FOR PUTTING IN EV STATIONS. THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY PET PEEVES, FOR SUCH A LARGE FACILITY.

>> WE ACTUALLY WIRE UP EACH ONE OF THOSE GARAGES TO ALLOW FOR EV CHARGERS IN THE GARAGE IF A RESIDENT WANTS TO GO AHEAD AND INSTALL THOSE, SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT CAPABILITY AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO JUST A QUESTION: SO, IT'S ONE PHASE, WHICH MEANS -- SAY -- AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT 15 BUILDINGS. SO, EACH BUILDING GETS A CO? AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO -- SO EXPLAIN THAT.

>> THAT'S HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO DO IT.

TYPICALLY WE TRY TO GO AFTER INDIVIDUAL COS PER BUILDING AND WE PARTIALLY OPEN IN STAGES. SO AS WE GET DONE WITH THE BUILDING, AS WE'RE PROGRESSING THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT, WE'LL HAVE IT PHASED IN THAT TERM, BU. AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.

>> SO HOW DOES THAT -- SO WHAT IS THE TIMING OF THE AMENITIES?

YOU'VE GOT A CLUBHOUSE -- >> AMENITIES WE LIKE TO TRY TO DO FIRST. CLUBHOUSE AND ALL THE AMENITIES, BECAUSE THAT HELPS US. WE CAN GET OUR LEASING TEAM INTO THE CLUBHOUSE. HAVE THAT OPEN EARLY.

GET THEM THIS FROM AND ALSO TO HAVE OUR MAINTENANCE TEAM AND MAINTENANCE CREW AVAILABLE. SO WE'LL TRY TO GET THOSE AMENITIES DONE FIRST BEFORE THE BUILDINGS, BECAUSE LOGISTICALLY,

THAT HELPS US. >> THAT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN WHEN PEOPLE MOVE IN AND AMENITIES COME OR --

>> WE LIKE TO HAVE ALL THAT DONE.

THE POOL AND EVERYTHING DONE PRIOR TO THE COS.

SOMETIMES IT DOESN'T WORK OUT THAT WAY.

WE'RE A FEW WEEKS BEHIND. IT DEPENDS ON HOW THINGS GO WITH INSPECTIONS AND LEAD TIME ON MATERIALS, BUT THAT IS WHAT WE

TRY TO DO. >> CHAIR, JUST TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT REALLY QUICK. THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN A DISCUSSION AMONGST STAFF AND IS DOCUMENTED ON THE SITE PLAN.

THERE'S, LIKE, 15 PHASES, I THINK.

>> EXCEPT YOU'RE NOT CALLING 'EM PHASES, RIGHT?

>> I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION OF THIS THAN MY STAFF AND I GUESS WHAT CHRIS HAS. THE REALITY IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO INSTALL THE MAJORITY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR A CO FOR THIS BUILDING ONCE IT'S COMPLETE.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CONSIDERED PHASING OR NOT. I THINK OF PHASING AS YOUR EQUIPMENT GOES TO THE SITE, BUILDS SOMETHING.

YOUR EQUIPMENT GOES, LEAVES, GOES TO ANOTHER SITE AND COMES BACK. WHEN I SAY THE EQUIPMENT, I MEAN THE BULLDOZERS, TRACTORS, IT ALL THE CONSTRUCTION.

I THINK OF PHASING AS WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING AND EVERYBODY LEAVES AND IT SITS VACANT FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME BEFORE THE NEXT PHASE IS STARTED. IN THIS CASE, YOU'RE GOING -- THEY'RE GONNA BUILD THE WHOLE THING THROUGH AT ONE TIME, AND THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR COS OF THEIR BUILDINGS AS THE BUILDINGS GET COMPLETED. I THINK WE TOOK THAT IN THIS.

CHRIS BRINGS BACK MY MEMORY, BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION ON ANOTHER PROJECT RIGHT NOW, AND I BELIEVE WE DID SHOW EACH BUILDING AS A DIFFERENT PHASE ON THIS PLAN.

WHICH I DON'T KNOW THAT I AGREE WITH IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

>> ALL OF THE PARKING LOTS, ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING, ALL OF THE VARIOUS THINGS THAT YOU'VE BEEN SHOWN IN THE PRESENTATION TODAY WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THAT FIRST CO IS ISSUED.

>> AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP: I THINK THAT THE ONE -- THE SECOND CONDITION THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT ADDING RELATED TO THE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WAS -- WAS RELATED TO THE FIRST CO? IS THASO THAT WOULD BE THE CO FE FIRST BUILDING?

>> YES. >> AND THIS GENERATED THAT CONVERSATION FOR ME. JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE WITH IT. THAT'S WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD TOO?

OKAY. >> THE CO FOR THE FIRST

BUILDING. >> WE'VE GOTTA GET THAT --

[01:20:02]

SO RIGHT FOR YOU, THERE IS NO DRIVEWAY THAT ACTUALLY CONNECTS FROM KINGS HIGHWAY TO THE SITE. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO US TO GET THAT DONE EARLY AND ONSET SO WE HAVE ANOTHER WAY IN, OTHER THAN TRYING TO ACCESS FROM PRUITT RESEARCH AND THAT SIDE,

TOO. >> IF I MAY...

WHERE'S -- I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAYOUT.

WHERE'S THERMOKING IN PROXIMITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT?

>> WHAT IS IT? >> THERMAL KING.

IS IT ADJACENT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT OR --

>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, IT'S THE TOP LEFT CORNER.

THAT'S WHERE THEIR PD. >> THERMAL KING ITSELF, THE BUILDING DOESN'T TOUCH THE PROPERTY.

>> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT -- BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THAT LITTL-

>> YOU'RE WAY SOUTH, CHRIS. >> YEAH, I DON'T KNOW WHY.

THANK YOU. I'M NOT THINKING OF MIAMI.

I'M JUST LETTING YOU ALL KNOW THAT.

>> OH, IT'S STILL -- OKAY. ALMOST.

>> CHRIS, GO SOUTH. >> THERE IT IS.

CAN YOU GET THE UPDATE ON THIS? >> YEAH.

RIGHT THERE. >> SO THERMAL KING IS IN THIS

FACILITY RIGHT HERE. >> SO THIS ENTIRE CORNER IS THEM. SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING OR CONNECTING TO PRUITT WITH THE SIDEWALK, THAT WOULD BE ON THIS SIDE -- OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO CONNECT TO THE ONE

THAT'S -- >> SO WHERE IT SAYS THE FIRE DISTRICT, THEY BUILT A SIDEWALK ALL THE WAY OUT TO WHERE THE SUNSHINE KITCHEN IS, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING ACROSS THE STREET AND TYING INTO THAT EXISTING SIDEWALK.

>> OKAY. AND BUSES ARE GOING TO BE ON

THIS SIDE, RIGHT? >> SCHOOL BUSES ARE GOING TO

COME IN OFF OF KINGS HIGHWAY. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> OKAY. WOULD -- I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE BUILDING IS POSITIONED FOR THERMAL KING, BUT I THINK THERE'S A POND RIGHT HERE, RIGHT?

>> YEAH, THAT'S THE POND. THE BUILDING IS WHERE THE DOT IS. THAT'S THE -- THERE'S A POND DIRECTLY BEHIND IT.

>> OKAY. >> THAT'S IN THAT CORNER.

>> AND SO YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS RIGHT EAST OF IT OR WEST OF IT,

RIGHT. >> IT'S A LITTLE FINGER OF PROPERTY THAT GOES OUT TO PRUITT RESEARCH.

>> AND THE 8-FOOT WALL? WHERE WOULD THAT BE?

WHAT WHOLE SOMETHING. >> AND THERE'D ALSO BE A POND

BUFFERING THAT AS WELL. >> AND THE OFFSET IS HOW FAR

AWAY FROM THE WALL? >> THE SET BACK FOR THE

BUILDING? >> THE SETBACK, I'M SORRY.

YES. SETBACK.

VERSUS OFFSET. THANK YOU.

>> I WAS TELLING CHRIS BEFOREHAND HOW MUCH I LOVE THESE

COMMENTS. >> ABOUT 95 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONE, AND THEN WHERE

THERMAL KING IS, IT IS. >> THERE WE GO.

>> THAT SETBACK -- >> -- THE OPPOSITE, OKAY.

PRUITT IS HERE. AND THEN THERE'S THE ADDITIONAL WALL AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL BUFFER FROM THE POND ITSELF,

TOO. >> THE POND IS ABOUT 430 FEET.

SO I DON'T HAVE A SETBACK TO THE BUILDING ALONG THAT, BUT THE

POND ITSELF IS 430. >> ALL RIGHT.

WELL, A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS: I THINK THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT YOU DID, THAT IS IN THE FILE, I'M ASSUMING THAT INVOLVES -- I KNOW -- I THINK IT IS INVOLVING OF THERMAL KING, RIGHT? IT'S PROJECTED FOR AMAZON? BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY PROJECTIONS FOR ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S NOT FULLY REACHED OUT, THAT'S ACTUALLY SPACED OUT EVERYWHERE HERE.

>> WHEN WE DO A TRAFFIC STUDY -- I DON'T DO IT, BUT WHEN THE TRAFFIC UNIT DOES A TRAFFIC STUDY, THERE'S A METHODOLOGY THAT'S PUT IN PLACE BY THE COUNTY, AND THEY MEET WITH THE COUNTY TO SAY THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER. SO IF THERE'S NOTHING CONSIDERED ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT FOR US TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

SO TYPICALLY THE ONLY THING IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY WOULD BE WHAT -- THE NEW STUFF WOULD BE WHAT WE KNOW IS COMING, AND THEN ANY HISTORICAL TRIPS THAT ARE THERE.

AND TYPICALLY THERE'S A GROWTH RATE APPLIED TO THAT AS WELL.

BUT IT'S DIFFICULT FOR US TO PUT TRIPS ON SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T

KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE YET. >> I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR THAT. OKAY.

BUT ONE LAST THING. AS FAR AS ONE OF THE COMMENTS COMING FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, I THINK, ABOUT THE INCREASE -- THE REQUIRED INCREASE OF STAFF, I GUESS, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THIS -- AND I DON'T THINK YOU'VE -- YOU SAID THAT ALL THE DEPARTMENTS APPROVED EVERYTHING, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THAT AS MENTIONED. IT WENT FROM 2.5 TO 4.1 TO

[01:25:06]

>> THOSE ARE FAIRLY STANDARD COMMENTS FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO PROJECT LEVELS OF SERVICE.

>> RIGHT. >> WE DON'T HAVE AN ACTUAL LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR POLICE SERVICE COMMITTEE COMMUNITY.

SEWSO THAT ISAN UNENFORCEABLE MT WE HAVE.

IT'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, CERTAINLY.

>> YOU SAID THAT ALL THE AGENCIES APPROVED, AND MAYBE I

MISSED IT SOMEWHERE THAT -- >> IT'S NOT THAT THEY DENIED IT.

THEY'RE POINTING OUT THE -- >> RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.

AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE POLICE CHIEF ON THIS CALCULATION.

IT'S NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF A NATIONAL CALCULATION THAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO APPLY. THE CITY ITSELF AT THE MOMENT DOES NOT HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEES, SO WE'RE TRYING TO WORK TOWARDS A CALCULATION THAT DOES DEMONSTRATE THE IMPACT ON POLICE SERVICES AND ASSOCIATE THAT WITH AN IMPACT FEE.

THE POLICE SE POLICE SERVICES TT IN THE FORM OF A MEMO IS BASED ON POPULATION. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE POLICE SERVICES REQUIRED FOR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES.

SHOPPING ACTIVITIES. OFFICE.

RETAIL. AND SO FORTH.

AND THAT'S WHY THE POLICE, THE CHIEF, IS LOOKING AT A MORE FUNDAMENTAL CALCULATION, WHICH INCLUDES ALL USES WITHIN THE CITY, AND NOT JUST PUTTING ALL THE COST ON RESIDENTIAL.

>> OKAY. >> AND JUST TO ADD ONE MORE THING: THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY AMENDMENT 3. SO TAXES WILL BE PAID ON THIS FULL PRICE. SO THERE'S NO -- NO THOUGHT OF THAT -- YOU'RE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE BRINGING IN TAXES TO THE CITY, BECAUSE THIS WILL GET TAXED, REGARDLESS OF AMENDMENT 3, WHICH SHOULD HELP FOR SOME OF THE

STAFF REQUIRED TO STAFF IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

APPRECIATE IT. YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO DERAIL THE APPLICATION INTO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CITY'S LACK OF A COMPETENT LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN UP FOR DISCUSSION FOR QUITE A WHILE AT THIS POINT.

SO AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD OPEN UP TO THE PUBLIC.

ANYBANYBODY WISHING TO COME AND SPEAK REGARDING THIS APPLICATION IS WELCOME TO DO SO AT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE. WE WILL CLOSE WITH ANY OTHER

DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD. >> ACTUALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. FOG EARTH I. FOGERTY.

>> YOU SHOULD HAVE PICKED A SEAT CLOSER TO THE PODIUM.

>> I'M GOING TO KIND OF PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

I KNOW THAT THEY CHANGED THE ROUTE FOR THE BUSES, AND I WANT TO KNOW YOUR ASPECT OF WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT.

>> I WILL TELL YOU I CAN'T GIVE YOU A PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RUN THE SYSTEM, BUT I WILL TELL YOU WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO AROUND ANO STRAIGHT AND THEN PICK UP IN FRONT OF THE CLUBHOUSE AND THEN EXIT TOWARDS THE MAIL KIOSK THAT HE POINTED THERE. THAT I SEE OUR -- SO, EVERY YEAR, WE RUN A SYSTEM AND THEN WE ACTUALLY INDIVIDUALLY GO ON THE BUSES AND RUN THE ROUTES AND TIME THEM SO THAT WE'RE HITTING ALL THREE OF OUR TIERS. SO IN THIS ONE, WE WOULD PUT IT INTO THE SYSTEM AND SEE THE TIME ON THAT AND HOW MUCH IT WOULD BE ADDING GOING INTO THE DIFFERENT ROUTES, INSIDE AND OUT.

SO FROM MY EXPERIENCE WITH THIS SYSTEM, I SEE US GOING STRAIGHT THROUGH THE ROUND-ABOUT AND THEN EXITING WHERE THE MAIL KIOSK IS,

YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.

WELL, JUST A REMINDER WHAT WE HAVE ON THE TABLE.

WE HAVE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

WE HAVE NINE CONDITIONS PREVIOUSLY FROM STAFF, AND ADDITIONAL TWO CONDITIONS THAT WE --

>> EIGHT CONDITIONS. >> NINE CONDITIONS.

RIGHT? >> EIGHT.

>> 11. >> IT WAS NINE.

>> OR NINE AND THEN THERE WERE TWO ADDITIONAL ONES.

>> NINE AND THE TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT WE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION

AT THIS TIME, I WOULD -- >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YES, PLEASE. >> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE BASICALLY JUST ADDING -- OR CHANGING, I SHOULD SAY, TO THE INNOVATIVE BUT LOWER, RIGHT? DENSITY, WHICH INCREASES

[01:30:03]

> YEAH. Select to skip to this part of the video">>> CORRECT ". >> YEAH.

>> I WAS LISTENING, TRYING TO GET A BEARING OF WHERE THIS IS AND ALL OF THAT. THE BUSINESS THAT WAS -- THERMAL KING ACTUALLY ENDED UP HAVING TO CHANGE THEIR BUFFERS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW -- BECAUSE RESIDENTIALS' ALREADY APPROVED, AND IN THIS CASE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE WENT FULL CIRCLE, BUT WE'RE STICKING TO THE 125-243 COMPATIBILITY, EVEN THOUGH AROUND THERE, IT'S NOT HOW IT WAS IN '24, BECAUSE THERMAL KING IS OPEN AND OPERATIONAL, RIGHT? THAT IS A BUSINESS THERE, RIGHT? AT THIS POINT. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE COMPATIBILITY. YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE LIGHT VENTILATION AND PRIVACY FOR A DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THAT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW -- HOW DO YOU -- WITH THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE, AMAZON COMING AND ALL OF THESE, HOW IS THAT -- HOW IS

THIS CHANGE COMPATIBLE? >> WELL, I THINK WHAT WE END UP DEALING WITH IS THAT THE VERY SLOW RATE OF PROGRESS AS THESE COMMUNITIES FILL IN AND THESE APPLICATIONS DO COME IN.

I DO REMEMBER WE HAD THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION AND THEN THE PROPERTY RIGHT TO THE NORTH -- FINAL DESIGNS AND MAKING SURE THAT NOBODY'S STEPPING ON ANYBODY'S TOES AND THAT THESE APPLICATIONS ARE KIND OF RESOLVING THEMSELVES OUT AND -- BUT, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR CONCERN, I DO AGREE WITH YOU. I BELIEVE THAT BY THE TIME WE SAW THIS FIRST APPLICATION, IT WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED IN R-4, AND YOU KNOW, SURROUNDED BY GENERAL COMMERCIAL, WHICH AT THAT POINT THEY'RE JUST RED BLOCKS ON A MAP.

THEY COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF THOSE THINGS FROM THE USAGE TABLES. SO AS THINGS DO START TO COME INTO PLAY AND YOU LOOK AT, LIKE, THE LARGER CORRIDOR, IT STARTS TO BECOME MORE OF A QUESTION. BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY, YOU KNOW.

YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T TURN BACK THE CLOCK TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WAS THIS LOT ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED AS R-4? YOU KNOW, ALL WE CAN DO IS, YOU KNOW, DO THE BEST WITH WHAT WE'VE BEEN HANDED AS A COMMUNITY.

YOU KNOW, WE GET INHERITED MAYBE A LOT OF THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE FROM A STRAIGHT PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, BUT WE DO THE BEST THAT WE CAN, AND I THINK OUR STAFF DOES A VERY GOOD JOB, AND LUCKY, WE'VE HAD SOME VERY, VERY GOOD, COOPERATIVE APPLICANTS, AT LEAST SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD, FOR THE MOST PART THAT HAVE BEEN VERY UNDERSTANDING OF THESE TYPES OF CONFLICTS AND MITIGATING THE PROBLEMS THAT CAN ARISE THROUGH THEIR OWN DESIGN PROCESS, AND IN MANY CASES, EVEN BY SACRIFICES THINGS THAT THEY WOULD MAYBE PREFER TO DO, WHICH I APPRECIATE.

SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE -- WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY RECOMMENDATION FOR -- TO APPROVE THIS ALTERED SITE PLAN.

YOU KNOW, WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE.

WE HAVE NINE CONDITIONS FROM STAFF.

WE HAVE THE TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS WHICH WE DISCUSSED TODAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> SO MOVED. >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> OKAY, GO AHEAD. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY MR. WIDING.

SECTIONED BY MR. CLEMONS, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

AND THAT'S FOR THE 11 CONDITIONS?

>> MR. WIDING? YEA.

>> >> MS. STOREY?

>> YES. >> MS. CLEMONS.

>> YES. >> MR. JOHNSON,.

>> YES. >> CHAIR KREISL, YES?

[b. PZTXA2026-00004 Zoning Text Amendment  Chapter 117 Signs – Billboards and Ground Signs]

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

MOVING ON TO ITEM 6 (B). WE HAVE A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.

[01:35:06]

>> MR. CHAIR, TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK?

>> YEAH. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY NOT.

>> AGREED. >> SECOND THAT BREAK.

>> ALL RIGHT. WHAT'S THAT?

>> I CAN DO THIS IN FIVE MINUTES.

>> I'M SURE YOU COULD. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A SHORT RECESS. FIVE MINUTES, EVERYONE.

>> WE WILL RESUME OUR MEETING HERE.

WHERE WE LEFT OFF WAS ITEM 6 (B), ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT.

MR. FREEMAN, YOU HAVE THE PRESENTATION.

>> THANK YOU, CHAIR. KEV FREEMAN, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

THIS ITEM IS A BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING, REALLY.

IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 117 SIGNS.

IT'S TO CLARIFY PIECES OF THE REGULATIONS THAT HAVE CAUSED ISSUE AND BEARING IN MIND THAT WE'RE RESTRICTED IN TERMS OF APPLYING ANY CODE CHANGES THAT MAY BE MORE RESTRICTIVE TO APPLICANTS. THIS ACTUALLY CLARIFIES SOMETHING WE MAKES IT IN A WAY MORE PERMISSIVE IN TERMS OF BILLBOARDS. SO, THE INTENT IS TO CLARIFY THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF BILLBOARD AS A GROUND SIGN DOES NOT SUBJECT IT TO THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR ON-PREMISE GROUND SIGNS. THERE WAS SOME CROSSOVER IN THE CORRODE THAT REALLY DIDN'T SEGREGATE OR SEPARATE THOSE DEFINITIONS, AND WHICH LIMITED THE HEIGHT OF CERTAIN BILLBOARDS AND GROUND SIGNS TO 10 FEET BASED ON THE AREA OF THAT -- THE LOT THAT THEY WERE ON. THIS RESULTED IN A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION THAT WAS DENIED, AND THE APPLICANT APPEALED TO THE CITY COMMISSION AGAINST THAT DECISION.

THAT APPEAL FAILED. HOWEVER, DURING THAT APPEAL AND AFTER THAT APPEAL, THE CITY COMMISSION ASKED STAFF TO -- WELL, THEY DIRECTED STAFF TO RESOLVE THE CONFLICTING CROSS REFERENCE IN THE CODE. AND IT WAS QUITE A SIMPLE CODE CHANGE TO MAKE. IT WAS REALLY SEPARATING OUT THE BILLBOARD REQUIREMENTS FROM THE GROUND SIGN REQUIREMENTS.

AND IT INVOLVED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEFINITIONS IN SECTION 117 (1) WHICH ADDED TO THE GROUND SIGN MEANS A -- A SIGN AFFIXED TO THE GROUND, EITHER FLUSH OR ON POLES, AND NOT ATTACHED TO ANY BUILDING FOR SUPPORT, WHICH MAY INCLUDE A READER BOARD, ALSO CALLED A DETACHED POLE OR FREE-STANDING SIGN.

THE TEXT ADDED THE TERM DESCRIBES THE PHYSICAL TYPE AND METHOD OF SUPPORT OF A SIGN AND DOES NOT BY ITSELF DETERMINE WHETHER A SIGN IS AN ON-PREMISE OR OFF-PREMISE SIGN.

THE SECOND DEFINITION THAT WE NEEDED TO CLEAN UP REGARDING -- IS REGARDING OFF-PREMISE SIGN MEANS ANY SIGN WHICH ADVERTISES A USE, ESTABLISHMENT, PRODUCT OR SERVICE THAT IS SOLD, PRODUCED, MANUFACTURED OR FURNISHED AT A PLACE OTHER THAN ON THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE SAID SIGN IS LOCATED.

ALSO CALLED AN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN OR BILLBOARD, AND WE ADDED THE LANGUAGE "ON OFF-PREMISE SIGN MAY BE CONSTRUCTED AS A GROUND SIGN OR OTHER SIGN TYPE.

HOWEVER, ITS CLASSIFICATION AND REGULATION AS AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN SHALL BE GOVERNED BY SUBSECTION 117-6 (C)." TO THIS IS A CODE AMENDMENT THAT AFFECTS THIS 117-6 AND IN SUBSECTION (B) (3), THE TEXTED T WAS ADDED, OFF-PREMISE SIGNS SHOULD BE REGULATED SUBJECT TO SECTION (C) OF THE SAME SECTION, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A SIGN IS CONSTRUCTED AS A GROUND OR FREE-STANDING SIGN. SO THAT AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN IS NOW CONSIDERED DIFFERENT TO AN ON-PREMISE SIGN, WHICH MOST BILLBOARDS ARE CONSTRUCTED. AND YOU SEE THAT THE -- THE AREA REQUIREMENTS RELATE TO THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE SIGN'S

[01:40:04]

AND WE DON'T NORMALLY SEE A PROPERTY OF MORE THAN 3 ACRES BEING USED AS A BILLBOARD LOCATION.

SO THE AMENDMENT TO 117-6 (C) (7) THAT DIRECTED THAT BILLBOARDS SHALL COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION (B) (3) THE SECTION WHERE THE OFF-PREMISE GR SIGN IS ALSO A GROUND SIGN.

SO ONCE WE HAVE THE CONFUSION BETWEEN THE GROUND SIGN AND ALSO AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN BEING CONNECTED, IT SORT OF FORMED A LOOP WHICH DIRECTED IT BACK TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT.

SO THE LANGUAGE CHANGE IS TO -- SO IT DESCRIBES AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN SHOULD BE REVIEWED AND PERMITTED PURSUANT TO THE STANDARDS OF THIS SUBSECTION, AND THE OTHERWISE APPLICABLE SIGN PERMIT PROCEDURES OF THIS CHAPTER.

THE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN AS A GROUND OR FREE-STANDING SIGN SHOULD NOT REQUIRE OPERATE APPROVAL UNDER SUBSECTION (B) (3). SO IT REMOVES THAT CIRCULAR CONNECTION. NOR SHALL IT BE SUBJECTED -- NOR SHALL IT SUBJECT THE SIGN TO THE DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS OF SUBSECTION (B) (3). SO IF YOU RECALL THAT SWINGS BACK AGAIN TO THE SIGN BEING RESTRICTED TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT DEPENDING OF THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY THAT IT'S LOCATED ON.

SO, THAT'S -- NOR SHALL IT BE SUBJECTED TO THE -- WHAT AM I DOING HERE? UNLESS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE SUBSECTION, SO, YES, IT DOESN'T PUSH IT BACK UP THERE.

OFF-PREMISE SIGNS SHALL BE ADEQUATELY CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, NOT PROVIDE NOT LESS THAN 9 FEET OVER ANY PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY OR 14 FEET OVER ANY SEEK ARE VEHICULAR DRIVEWAYS AND CONFORM TO A SEPARATE REGULATION WITHIN THE CODE THAT LOOKS AT SAFETY AT VISIBILITY TRIANGLES AND SO FORTH IN TERMS OF INTERSECTIONS.

THE CLEARANCE OVER PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY IS IN CASE THE SIGN IS LOCATED IN A LOCATION WHICH DOES PROJECT OVER A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY AND OVER A VEHICULAR DRIVEWAY, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING USUALLY INTERNAL TO THE SITE, THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET. SO THOSE WERE THE CHANGES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO REMOVE THIS CROSS POLL ANYW POLLINATION, IF, YOU OF THE BILLBOARD BEING AN OFF-PREMISE SIGNS.

>> SO, ARE OFF-PREMISE SIGNS DESIGNATED USES WITHIN THE USAGE TABLE? LIKE, WHERE YOU -- WHERE YOU ARE PERMITTED TO CONSTRUCT AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN, IS THAT DELEGATESSEDDELEGATES SOMEWHERE? IS THAT DELEGATED SOMEWHERE IN

OUR CODE? >> GOOD QUESTION.

>> AND THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION WOULD BE SO IF -- IF THERE WERE RESTRICTIONS UNDER THE GROUND SIGN ORDINANCE TO THE HEIGHT OF AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN THAT WAS KIND OF EXISTING IN THIS PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THE CODE AND THOSE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE TIED TO THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, IF WE UNBIND THE TWO, WHAT, IF ANY, HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE LEFT ON HOW HIGH THE OFF-PREMISE SIGNS CAN BE BUILT?

>> OFF-PREMISE SIGNS ARE LIMITED TO 25 FEET.

>> OKAY. SO THAT'S ALREADY EXISTENT.

AND IN THAT IN 117. >> IT'S ALL CONTAINED.

I'M JUST LOOKING THROUGH 117, CHAPTER 117.

CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS HAVE THE ALLOWANCE OF WHICH SIGNS CAN

BE PLACED IN THOSE DISTRICTS. >> MM-HMM.

>> SO WE SEPARATE OUT SOME RESIDENTIAL IN TERMS OF WHAT'S RESTRICTED IN THOSE USES, WHAT'S CONDITIONAL USES.

[01:45:06]

LOCATION, ZONING. >> AND AS THEY PERMITTED AS CONDITIONAL USES IN ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS?

OR RESIDENTIAL ZONES? >> I BELIEVE NOT.

I DON'T SEE ANY CONDITIONAL -- 178.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY ONE IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT, IF NEEDS BE, BUT PRIMARILY RESTRICTED TO (C)

(3) THROUGH THE INDUSTRIAL. >> AND 25 FEET YOU SAID WAS

THE -- >> 25 FEET.

>> I'M JUST GOING TO DOUBLE CHECK THOSE.

BECAUSE WE SEE THIS FAIRLY FREQUENTLY.

ESPECIALLY ALONG MAJOR THOROUGHFARES.

THERE'S VERY OFTEN THESE KIND OF SLIVER LOTS, THESE KIND OF, LIKE, ODDLY-SHAPED, YOU KNOW, LOTS.

>> YES. >> RIGHT ALONG THE MAJOR ROADWAYS THAT I COULD SEE BEING PERFECT APPLICATIONS FOR THESE TYPES OF INSTALLATIONS. SO IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO UNBIND IT FROM, SAY, LIKE, THE SIZE OF THE LOT SPECIFICALLY.

>> SO -- AND THEN THERE'S EXTERNAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR DISTANCE. YOU KNOW, LIKE ON U.S. 1.

THERE'S A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. I THINK IT'S A THOUSAND FEET

BETWEEN SIGNS. >> MM-HMM.

>> ALLOWED. BUT THAT'S AN EXTERNAL AGENCY.

THERE ARE -- FOR OFF-PREMISES SIGNS, THERE ARE AREA REQUIREMENTS, SIZE DIMENSION REQUIREMENTS.

25 FEET FROM GROUND LEVEL. 25 FEET FROM A RIGHT OF WAY.

NEEDS TO BE SET BACK INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY.

AND ACTUALLY WE HAVE SOME OWN -- OUR OWN REGULATIONS FOR DISTANCE BETWEEN ANY OF TWO OFF-PREMISE SIGNS, SO DEPENDING ON THEIR SIZE, IT CAN BE ANYTHING FROM 500 FEET TO 5,000 FEET SEPARATION FROM OFF-PREMISE SIGNS.

SO QUITE SUBSTANTIAL. >> YES?

>> I'VE GOT QUESTIONS. SORRY.

ACTUALLY. AND THIS IS PRETTY INTRICATE FOR MY BRAIN TO GRASP, BUT IN MY UNDERSTANDING -- CLEAR UP SOMETHING FOR ME, JUST SO I'M NOT INCORRECT.

DOES -- DOES THIS MEAN THAT OFF-PREMISE SIGNS, THEY'RE DISCONNECTED FROM -- WHAT IS IT? THE (C) (7), I THINK IT'S

CALLED, THE LOT SIZE ITSELF. >> YES.

>> SO WOULDN'T THAT -- SO, BASICALLY, IT COULD BE ANY -- WE'RE NO LONGER CONNECTING CHOSE TWO.

>> THE HEIGHT -- LET ME GET THIS IN A WIDER PERSPECTIVE.

THE HEIGHT IS SEPARATED FROM THE LOT SIZE,.

>> RIGHT. >> WHICH WAS CAUSING THE ISSUE, IN THAT WE HAD A SIGN ON -- I THINK IT WAS 25TH STREET THAT WAS APPROVED BASED ON THE EXISTING CODE.

WHICH LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF THAT SIGN TO 10 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. THEY ACTUALLY PUT IT -- THEY CONSTRUCTED IT. PUT IT IN THERE.

IT LOOKS RIDICULOUS. IT'S A DIGITAL SIGN, WHICH IS 1.

THEY APPEALED THAT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

WELL, THEY CAME IN AND SAID, WE WANT IT TO BE 25 FEET.

WE SAID, YOU NEED, YOU KNOW, A VARIANCE TO DOING THAT.

AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDED NOT TOO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, BECAUSE IT WAS -- THE HARDSHIP WAS NOT OF ANYBODY ELSE'S MAKING OTHER THAN THEIR OWN. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENIED THAT REQUEST, AND IT WENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND SO FORTH.

THAT'S WHEN WE REALLY ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS THIS CIRCULAR CONNECTION WITH THE CODE THAT RIGHT ALMOST AT THE LAST LINE OF IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT DOING AN OFF-PREMISE SIGN, THAT YOU GOT TO THAT, THAT IT LOOPS BACK TO THE AREA OF THE LOT. BUT IT ALSO SAID IN THE SAME

[01:50:01]

>> BUT THEN EVEN THOUGH IT WAS -- IT FAILED IN THE APPEALS, THIS WOULD ACTUALLY ALLOW THEM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED

TO DO? >> THIS WOULD ENABLE A BILLBOARD OFF-PREMISE SITE SIGN TO BE UP TO 25 FEET HIGH.

IT WOULD CURE THEIR ISSUE AT THE MOMENT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE 10-FOOT-HIGH SIGN TO 25 FEET.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN FOR AN APPLICATION TO DO THAT.

AND IT WOULD ALSO CURE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SIGN FURTHER DOWN U.S. 1, WHICH WAS APPROVED IN THE PAST AT 25 FEET AND BUILT AT 25 FEET. SO, THIS -- THIS CHANGE ACTUALLY CURES A NON-CONFORMING ISSUE THAT WE HAVE, AND ALSO ALLOWS A DIGITAL SIGN THAT'S EXISTING AT 10 FEET TO BE RAISED TO 25 FEET.

>> AND IT REMOVES THE ACRE RESTRICTIONS.

IT COMPLETELY REMOVES IT. SO ANY SIZE LOT CAN NOW 'CONNECT

25 FEET. >> OFF-PREMISE SIGN.

>> WITH LITERALLY -- IT'S GOOD TO GO.

>> YOU HAVE TO COME IN AND APPLY FOR IT.

>> NO, I KNOW. BUT NOT, LIKE -- HERE, IT TOPS -- LOOKS LIKE TOPPS OUT AT 20 FEET.

YOU WOULD NEED AN ACRE LOT. YOU WOULD NEED A LARGE PIECE OF

PROPERTY. >> LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> MY ONLY HESITATION WAS AND YOU ALLEVIATED IT, TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE CODE PEND. DOESN'T MEAN THIS IS GOING TO BE -- LIKE YOU CAN PUT A 25 FOOT BILLBOARD ON MY PROPERTY IN FORT PIERCE. WE HAVE OTHER ORDINANCES.

>> STILL THE SAME SECTION. STILL IN 11 -- CHAPTER 117.

THERE ARE PARTICULAR PARAGRAPHS AND WHOLE PLACES ON WHAT IS NOT PERMIT AND WHAT IS. ZONING DISTRICTS ARE NAMED WHERE THE THINGS CAN GO. THE ONLY PLEASE I CAN SEE OFF PREMISE SIGNS IN THE DISTRIBUTION ARE THE CC-3, C4,

I1, I2 ZONING DISTRICTS. >> JUST SOME COMMENTS.

I WAS IN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, COMMISSION MEETING WHEN THE APPEAL WENT AND HEARD ALL THAT.

BUT I GUESS -- CLARIFICATION IS ALWAYS GOOD.

I MEAN I'M LOOKING AT THIS -- I MEAN, THE GROUND SIGN, THERE WAS CLEAR DISTINCTION ALWAYS UNDER YOU HAVE 117-6-BS WHICH IS ON PREMISE SIGN AND TALKS ABOUT WALL SIGN, PROJECTING SIGN, GROUND SIGN. THE HEAVINESS ON GROUND SIGNS SOION THAT THERE IS ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE ADDED LANGUAGE BUT IT -- AS YOU INTERPRET STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, IT IS UNDER THE HEAD OF ON PREMISE SIDE.

>> THAT WAS THE ISSUE. SO THE ISSUE IT WAS ON PREMISE, TOOK IT INTO FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE LATER PARAGRAPH.

TOOK IT BACK UP TO THE AREA RESTRICTIONS.

>> I GUESS MAYBE I'M NOT SEEING ANYWAY BUT KIND OF STRUCTURALLY, I MEAN, THERE WAS A DEFINITION THAT WAS CLARIFIED FOR GROUND SIGNS. BUT THE OFF PREMISE SIGN DEFINITION INCLUDES A REGULATORY PROVISION AS OPPOSED TO A DEFINITION AND I GUESS I'M CONCERNED THAT DEFINITIONS ARE NOT REGULATORY. THEY -- SO THE SENTENCE YOU ADD AND OFF PREMISE SIGN MAYBE CONSTRUCTED.

WHETHER THAT BELONGS IN THE DEFINITION OR SHOULD BE FURTHER

DOWN. >> YEAH.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN ENFORCE A DEFINITION IN THE SAME WAY YOU CAN ENFORCE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE CODE.

[01:55:02]

>> WE CAN LOOK AT AND THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION.

>> PUT THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE. THIS IS ACTUALLY -- I LISTEN TO THE SAME MEETING TO THAT APPEAL. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE SIMPLE CLEAR EXPLANATION. YOU CAN'T -- IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, YOU CAN ERECT 25 FEET WHERE EVER YOU WANT, NO ISSUES. THAT PARTICULAR APPEAL, THIS SIGN IS LOW. YES, IT IS GOOFY LOOKING BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE RESIDENCES THERE AND THIS IS A DIGITAL SIGN AND IT'S -- IT WAKES ME UP.

WHETHER THAT WOULD BE GOOD AT 25 FEET OR 10 FEET, I JUST -- I DON'T KNOW KNOW ABOUT JUST DISE DISCONNECTING ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIONS TO PROPERTY.

IF THAT IS NOT GOING TO PUT US IN A BIGGER PICKLE THAN WE CAN

BE. >> WE WERE INSTRUCTED BY CITY

COMMISSION TO CURE IT. >> SO DISCONNECTION RESTRICTION OF THE SIZE OF THE LOTS CURES IT?

>> YES,ING THAT IS WHERE THE LOOP -- YES, THAT IS WHERE THE

LOOP OCCURS. >> OK.

WITHOUT MAKING A REGULATION THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE, AND

BURDENSOME. >> I'M KIND OF AM GIVE LEAPT

WHETHER THIS FIXES THE PROBLEM. >> IF YOU DEFINE THE PROBLEM AS HAVING A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS TWO CONTRADICTIONER TO THINGS IN ONE SECTION OF THE CODE.

UNDER THE EXISTING SECTION WE HAVE A REFERENCE TO A SIZE TABLE BUT THEN WE ALSO SAY, IT IS PER MISABLE TO BE BUILT TO 25 FEET AND THOSE TWO THINGS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.

SO WE HAVE TO PICK ONE. TO THE -- IT'S CLEAR THAT THE INTENT OF THE SCOOT -- INTENDED TO BE PERMISSIBLE UP TO 25 FEET.

THAT IS CLEARLY THE INTENT OF THE CODE.

SO WE NEED TO UNBIND ANY ASPECT OF THE CODE THAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM ALLOWING SOMEONE TO DO THAT.

SO WE DISCONNECT IT FROM THIS SIZING TABLE.

>> BUT THEN YOU KNOW, CREATING A DIFFERENT LOOPHOLE, OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE REMOVE ANYTHING KIND OF RESTRICTIONS ON THE LOT SIZE TO HEIGHT.

LIKE JUST BASICALLY DISCONNECTING THESE TWO.

>> WHICH IS A COMPLETELY REASONABLE THING TO DO.

AND MY POINT IS IF YOU -- LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP, YOU WILL SEE A LOT OF SPECIALLY ALONG MAJOR THOROUGH FARES, A LOT OF ODD SIZED LOTS. ODDLY SHAPED LOTS.

AND THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY PLACE PL PLACES WHERE BILLBOARDS CAN BE INSTALLED. THEY ARE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE ALONG MAJOR ROADWAYS.

SO IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO BUILD A BILLBOARD, IT SHOULD BE 25 FEET IN THE AIR, THAT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING AREAS I AREAS VISUAL IMPACT. AT LEAST IF IT IS 25 FEET IN THE AIR YOU CAN STILL SEE PAST IT OR UNDERNEATH.

BUT IF WE ARE -- WE DO HAVE A -- D MR. FREEMAN STATED, REGULATIONS WHERE YOU CAN AND CANNOT PUT THE THINGS. THEY ARE EXCLUSIVELY NOT PERMITTED ON ANY KIND OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

SO THE ONLY SIGNS THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES WOULD BE NOT BILLBOARDS.

>> THERE IS FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THE TYPE OF SIGNS ON

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. >> BUT THIS CODE AMENDMENT IS NOT DEALING WITH THE USE WHERE THEY ARE PERMITTED.

[02:00:01]

WHAT IS A GROUND SIGN? >> RIGHT.

>> YEAH. >> REMOVING THE SO WHATEVER BILLBOARD IS, IT IS SUBJECTED TO ITS OWN PEIECE AND WHATEVER A

GROUND SIGN IS. >> THE ONLY THING I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THIS HERE, YOU ARE ADDED PORTION OF TEXT HERE, AND OFF PREMISE SIGN MAY BE CONSTRUCTED AS A GROUND SIGN OR OTHER SIGN TYPE. WHAT EXACTLY IS MEANT TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THAT SENTENCE? IS THAT JUST IN REFERENCE? IS THAT REFERENCE WHAT CAN BE PHYSICALLY ON THE SIGN?

OR JUST HOW IT IS BUILT. >> HOW IT IS MADE?

. >> COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES.

RIGHT? >> WHAT DO YOU MEAN?

>> WELL, DOES IT CHANGE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WHAT THE SIGNS ARE IF IT'S YOURS OR IF YOU ARE ALLOWING TO LET SOMEONE UTILIZE IT FOR FOR HIRE INSTANCE OR ALL COMMERCIAL SO -- OR I GUESS, IT IS CONSIDERED SUB -- THE PROCESS OF LETTING SOMEONE RENT THE UTILIZATION OF A SIGN, DOES THAT VERBIAGE HAVE TO BE IN HERE FOR

ANYTHING? >> I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T THINK SO. I MEAN I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT HERE. AT LEAST IN THE DEFINITIONS.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF -- IS THERE ANY PORTION THAT HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING WITH THAT, WITH THE DEFINITION FOR ANY OF THESE CLASS XI FIECATIONS OR DOESN'T MATTER?

. >> CLASSIFICATIONS OR DOESN'T

MATTER? >> I HAD AN IDEA.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME HONESTLY.

GROUND SIGN ELECTED ON THE GROUND.

MAJORITY OF SIGNS, BILLBOARDS ARE GROUND SIGN, WHETHER ON ONE POLE OR 30 POLES THEY ARE ATTACHED.

OFFICE PREMISE, BUSINESS IS THERE, SIGN IS SOMEWHERE ELSE.

RIGHT? >> UH-HUH.

>> SO IF I WANTED TO CROWD CONSTRUCT A GROUND SIGN ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY,ING WHERE GROUND SIGNS ARE PERMITTED.

BUT I WANTED IT TO BE 25 FEET IN THE AIR --

>> YOU CAN DO IT ANYWHERE. >> THE ONLY THING THAT CAN BE ON THAT SIGN WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT ADVERTISES A USE ESTABLISHTH PROSUGGEST OR % SERVICE THAT IS SOLD, PRODUCED MANUFACTURE, OTHER THAN THAT PROPERTY.

LIKE I COULD NOT BUILD A SIGN 25 FEET THAT ADVERTISES WHAT I'M DOING THAT PROPERTY. IS -- AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT

CORRECTLY? >> DOESN'T SAY FOR HIRE OR SMUG

LIKE THAT. >> SO I OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I WANT -- I WANT TO INSTALL A GROUND SIGN.

SO IT'S -- >> IS THIS YOU HAVE AN OPERATION GOING ON, ON THAT PROPERTY? OR JUST VACANT?

>> NO. I HAVE AN OPERATION ON THAT PROPERTY. SO I WANT TO INSTALL A SIGN AND I WANT IT TO BE 25 FEET HIGH. I CAN'T ADVERTISE MY BUSINESS, WHAT I'M DOING ON THAT PROPERTY OK THAT SIGN? THE ONLY WAY TO GO 25 FEET IS IF IT'S ADVERTISING SOMETHING THAT

IS OFF PREMISES. >> OR THE OTHER WAY OF ASKING TO WHERE IS THIS FOR COMMERCIAL USE ONLY TO RENT OR LEASE TO

SOMEONE? >> I MEAN I THINK THAT'S INHERENT TO -- I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT MOST BILLBOARD, ARE.

>> I WAS TRIPYING TO UNDERSTAND. >> WHAT IS THE LIMITATION ON

SITE? >> 20 FEET.

>> SO YOU ARE CAPPING ME AT MY PROPERTY.

>> IF I'M ADVERTISING WHAT I'M DOING ON MY PROPERTY, WITH THE SIGN, THEN I MAXED OUT AT 25 FE FEET -- 20 FEET AND BASED ON HOW BIG MY PROPERTY IS.

>> IF YOU ARE IN MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, YOU GO 25 FEET UP.

>> IF I'M ON 925 CORE /* 95 IF HE WAS PUTS UP A 20 FOOT SIGN AND A 25 FOOT SIGN NEXT TO IT.

>> COMMERCIAL OR LEASE OR SALE OR COMPARED IT FOR YOURSELF.

>> WE NEED TO WORK ON THIS. >> I WOULD SUGGEST I WILL TAKE THIS AWAY. IN MY HEAD.

>> FIVE MINUTES, RIGHT? >> I THINK IT IS CO-MINGMENTING OF ON PREMISE, OFF PREMISE. THEN THE TYPE OF SIGN.

[02:05:11]

>> THE ONLY WAY WE COULD SETTLE THIS WITHOUT GOING IN TO STATE LAW AND ALL THAT IS TO MAKE THEM EQUIVALENT WITHOUT BEING RESTRICTIVE THAN ONE OR THE OTHER.

>> IF YOU WANT -- SOUNDS LIKE THE SOLUTION IS TO MAKE THEM EQUIVALENT. YOU TAKE AWAY THE AREA

REQUIREMENTS. >> I NOT ADVOCATING FOR THAT.

I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DESTINATION BETWEEN THE TWO.

IF THE SIGN IS ADVERTISING OPERATIONS THAT ARE THERE ON SITES, THEN YOU'RE BOUND TO A HEIGHT THAT IS TIED TO YOUR PROPERTY SIZE. IF THE SIGN IS ADVERTISING SOMETHING OFF PREMISES, THEN DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG IT IS.

YOU GO TO 250 FEET 52 -- 25 FEET AND S AND TO SUBJECT TO OTHER REGULATIONS.

THAT WILL BREAK THE LOOP WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY IF YOU HAVE A LOT WHERE IS IT PER MISABLE TO HAVE AN OFF PROPLAST PREMISE SIGN, BILLBOARD AND SHOULDN'T MATTER HOW BIG THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IS.

YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IT UP IN THE AIR HIGH ENOUGH THAT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A VISUAL OBSTRUCTION FOR ANYTHING THAT IS

GOING ON BELOW IT. >> SO I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THIS. IT IS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE LIKE SOMETHING CAN BE AN OFFICE PREMISE SIGN AND GROUND SIGN. RIGHT? GROUND SIGN IS REFERRING TO HOW IT IS CONSTRUCTED.

OFF PREMISE IS WHAT IS -- >> WHAT IS ON THE TABLE.

>> WHAT IS ON THE SIGN. >> YEAH.

>> LISTEN, MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST THINK ABOUT THIS.

FOR A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN JUST --

>> I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE I UNDERSTAND IT.

AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT HERE.

I FEEL LIKE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ORIGINAL DRAFTERS OF WHO WROTE THIS UP WERE TRYING TO DO BUT THEY CREATE CANNED ADD ERROR THEY DIDN'T REALIZE WAS THERE. -- CREATED AN ERROR THEY DIDN'T

REALIZE THERE WAS THERE. >> THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AN OFFICE PREMISE SIGN USING A SMALL SIGN --% AREA.

>> RIGHT. >> IS THAT THE NORM WITH THESE? LIKE ONCE YOU REMOVE THIS CONNECTION, THEN YOU LITERALLY HAVE OPENED UP ANOTHER LOOP WHERE YOU CAN HAVE 40 OF THEM ON

25TH BY NEXT YEAR. >> NO.

>> WELL, FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM THE APPEAL, I THINK IT WAS ONE OF THE COMMISSIONER DOLLARS OPPOSED THAT SIGN, TOO.

THE COMMITTEE OPPOSED THAT. EVERYBODY WAS SAYING THEY DIDN'T WANT IT BUT IT IS STILL THERE. WOULDN'T THIS JUST GIVE MORE, I GUESS, OF THE ABILITY TO SOMEONE TO -- ANYONE TO MAKE 25 FOOT SIGN AS SOON AS THEY OWN THE PROPERTY? BECAUSE WHAT OTHER RESTRICTIONS DO SO YOU?

>> ZONING, DISTANCE. ALL RIGHT.

YOU DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE -- I JUST -- IF YOU CAN'T HAVE A SIGN WITHIN 5,000 FEET OF AN ANOTHER SIGN,

THAT IS QUITE RESTRICTIVE. >> YEAH.

YOU WON'T BE HAVING NEIGHBORS. WON'T HAVE THE A ROW OF BILLBOARD DOWN A STREET. YOU'RE NOT.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT GOING DOWN THE ROAD I BELIEVE THERE IS A PROPERTY I'M TRAVELLING THAT ROAD QUITE A BIT. I THINK FOUR IN A ROW THAT ARE BILL BOARD, ALL VERY TALL, AND ALL GROUND SIGNS, BECAUSE THE LEASE -- THE PROPERTY IS NOT OWNED WHERE THE SIGN IS SITTING.

I REMEMBER THE COMPANY, GANNETT OR GARRETTE OR WHATEVER, LEASES JUST THAT SPACE. THE LITTLE SPACE THAT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE THEIR POLE UP AND I GUESS, ME, IN-- I WOULD THINK ABOUT THIS A BIT MORE JUST SO WE TIGHTEN UP JUST BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS CAN OPEN UP. I LISTENED TO THE APPEAL.

I REALLY DID LISTEN TO IT. WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY OVER HERE

SWEATING. >> I THINK AM JUST THINKING.

I UNDERSTAND THE DILEMMA. I'M LOOKING AT MR. FREEMAN'S

[02:10:02]

FACE. >> IT'S NOT ABOUT ONE COMMISSIONER. IT'S ABOUT THE CITY COMMISSION.

WE HAVE INSTRUCTION TO FIX I. IT WAS FOUR TO ONE.

GOT TO FIX IT. >> DO WE THINK THE DOES FIX IT?

>> YES. >> FIXES IT OR AND, YOU KNOW?

>> GREAT THING IS THAT WE WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE ON IT OR MAKE A DECISION. THIS IS JUST INFORMATION.

>> NEED TO. >> NO.

IT IS AN ORDINANCE CHANGE. >> OOH, DARN.

>> THAT IS PART OF OUR ROLE. >> SO DOES THIS VOTE THEN GO

BACK TO THE COMMISSION. >> IF IT IS MOVED TO THE COMMISSION, YEAH. SO ARE WE VOTING FOR A RECOMMENDATION OR JUST TO APPROVE THIS TEXT AMENDMENT

CHANGE? >> FOR A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OR OTHERWISE TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

>> CAN WE TAKE A MOMENT THEN AND GO BACK AND PREPARE FOR THIS

QUESTION? >> I MEAN IF YOU FEEL YOU NEED MORE TIMES, I DO NOT. IM READY TO MAKE A VOTE ON

THIS. >> TO ME, WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING TWO THINGS INTO ONE, GROUND SIGNS VERSES OFFICE P PREMISE I

DIFFERENT THINGS. >> THEY ARE CAT GOIRPS THERE IS ON PREMISE SIGNS AND THEY CAN BE WALL SIGNS, CAN BE WHATEVER, AND GROUND SIGNS. THERE IS ANOTHER CATEGORY IN THERE AND THEN OFF PREMISE SIGNS HAS ITS OWN REGULATIONS.

AND I THINK THEY ARE JUST KIND OF GOT CO-MINGLED IN AN ODD WAY SOMEHOW IS WHAT HAPPENED. CORRECT? THAT IS WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING. IT IS JUSTING TO DISCONNECT

THAT. >> DO HAVE ONE QUESTION.

BACK TO THE ON PREMISE, OFF PREMISE LIMITATION OF 20 FEET, VERSES 25 FEET. DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO GOING TO THE

COMMISSION? >> MAYBE.

THAT MIGHT BE THE POINT HERE. IF EVERYTHING IS EQUAL, THEN THE HEIGHTS, MAXIMUM HEIGHTS SHOULD BE EQUAL.

IF THAT'S THE CONCERN. >> I CAN SEE THAT BEING A PROBLEM. IF SOMEONE REALLY KIND OF GO BACK AND LOOK AT DIFFERENT ORDINANCE AND STATUTES.

I THINK THAT WE ARE BASICALLY PENALIZING THE PERSON WHO WANTS TO PUT A SIGN ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.

WE ARE LIMITING THEM BASED ON OWNERSHIP.

>> THAT WOULD -- SO IT'S THESE MAXIMUM HEIGHTS HERE SO IN EITHER DIRECTION. YOU COULD FIX THE ISSUE OF ON SITE/OFF SITE BY REMOVING ALL TE LOT ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS.

>> A.1, 2, 3, 4. >> HANG ON.

SO WE ARE GOING TO CREATE ANOTHER PROBLEM IF WE DO THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE ALL OF THE REGULATIONS THAT DO WITH OFF PREMISE SIGNS AND THEIR J ADJACENCY.

>> THE GUY THAT IS -- THE NECK PROPERTY OWNER ALREADY BUILT ONE AND THAT COULD BECAUSE A HUGE FOR ADJACENT CITIZENS BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T BE ABLE TO BUILD A SIGN AT ALL BECAUSE WE CAN'T HAVE THEM SERVED UNDER ONE ORDINANCE BUT THEN HAVE THEM NOT HAVE THOSE SAME RESTRICTIONS APPLY.

>> AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING YOUR COMMENT.

THIS IS UNDERGROUND SIGN. IF YOU REMOVE A-1, 2, 3, 4, THAT ALONE, I DON'T SEE HOUR YOUR POINT ABOUT -- I DON'T SEE THE NEXT -- WHAT? YOUR NEXT POINT.

BECAUSE WE ARE -- YOU WEREN'T PROPOSING TO DO ANYTHING TO THE OFFSIDE SECTION. THAT WAS GOING TO STAY AS IT WAS. IS THAT WHAT I WAS HEARING?

I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. >> SO IF WE REMOVE THE RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT? THEN WE HAVE A SCENARIO WHERE

[02:15:02]

WE WOULD HAVE THIS ISSUE WHERE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SET OF REGULATIONS THAT ARE DEALING WITH SIGNS THAT ARE 25 FEET IN THE AIR, BASED ON WHAT IS ON THEM.

>> HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE.

>> RIGHT. >> NO.

NOT DISTANCE THAT RELATED TO OFFSIDE.

SIGNS. NOT GROUND SIGNS ON PREMISE GROUND SIGNS. OFF PREMISE SIGNS SHOULD BE REGULATED PURSUANT TO A DIFFERENT SESSION.

>> OK. >> DON'T CONNECT.

THEY DON'T CONNECT. THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS RELATE TO OFF SITE. SIGNS SO 25 FEET BILLBOARD ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY, REMOVING THIS -- SO FOR NOW, YOUR PROPERTY IS FIVE ACRE. ADJACENT TO A BILLBOARD, YOU CAN BUILD UP TO 25 FEET. THE PRESENCE OF IF THAT BILLBOARD ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY DOES NOT AFFECT THE FACT YOU CAN BUILD UP TO 25 FEET.

IF YOU REMOVE A ONE, TWO TLEEK FOUR, REPLACE IT WITH THE 25 FEET, TO MAKE EVERYTHING EQUAL, THEN YOUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 25

FEET. >> SO I MEAN, THEN THE QUESTION THE QUESTION THEN IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH? RIGHT NOW WE HAVE REGULATIONS THAT DEAL WITH THOSE SIGNS. BECAUSE OF HOW TALL THEY CAN BE.

IS A MAJOR PART OF IT. NOT THE CONTENT OF THE SIGN.

>> CAN'T RELATE THE CONSENT OF THE SIGN.

>> THAT IS MY POINT. WE HAVE REGULATIONS THAT SAY THAT TWO BILLBOARDS OFFICE PREMISE SIGN CANNOT BE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF EACH OTHER. I HAVE TO TO THE CODE IS TO PREVENT SCENARIOS WHERE YOU HAVE TWO SIGN, 25 FEET IN THE AIR THAT IS CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. IF REREMOVE THE RESTRICTIONS WE WILL GET THAT HAPPENING BECAUSE YOU HAVE BUSINESSES RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER THAT CAN BUILD TO 25 FEET AND WILL BE 2500 FEET IN BETWEEN THE SIGNS. DOES THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE CODE THAT WE HAVE THAT WE ARE LOOK AT ON THE SCREEN SERVE A PURPOSE WE WANT TO MAINTAIN OR NOT?

>> NO MAYBE.

I THINK THEY DO. MAYBE FREE STANDING AT THE ROPEDWA ROADWAY ENTRY AND NEXT ONE IS 10, 15 FEET IN THE AIR. THAT MAKE SENSE.

AND THAT IS NOT THE PART ABOUT THIS THAT ANYONE IS TO COME EXPLAINING ABOUT. NOT THE PART GNAT COMMISSION WANTED US TO CHANGE. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO DEAL WITH IS WILL BOARD THAT ADVERTISE THINGS TO OFF PREMISE, WHICH THERE ARE PLEHN PLENTY OF OTHER REGULAR TLAGSS THAT

SAFEGUARD THE COMMUNITY. >> WE ARE GETTING IN THE WEEDS.

GOING IN CIRCLES. THE DEFINITION OF GROUND SIGN MEAN PASS SIGN AFFECTED TO THE GROUND.

GROUND. IF YOU STOP THERE.

FLUSH ON POLES. BUT THEN YOU ALLOW GROUND SIGNS TO BE UP TO 20 FEET IN THE AIR AND THAT'S NOT AFFIXED TO THE GROUND. IF IT IS 20 FEET IN THE AIR.

>> A POLE WOULD BE AFFIXED. >> GROUND SIGN MEANS SIGN AFFIXED TO THE GROUND, EITHER AFLUSH OR ON GROUND.

>> NOT REALLY A GROUND SIGN. IT'S A BILLBOARD.

>> IT IS A GROUND SIGN. >> I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO WRAP THIS UP. I THINK WE HAVE A REASONABLE SOLUTION PROPOSED BY STAFF. MAYBE IT IS NOT PERFECT BUT I THINK IT IS GOING CERTAINLY BREAK THE LOOP THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO BREAK. AND I DON'T REALLY SEE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD BEING ANY CLOSE FORE A SOLUTION ON THIS. SO AT THIS TIMING TO I WOULD LIKE TO WRAP UP THE BOARD DISCUSSION, SINCE WE ARE VOTING

[02:20:04]

IF THERE IS ANY MEMBER FROM THE PUBLIC.

SEEING NONE. I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MOTION ON THIS. HOPE WE CAN COME CUP WITH

SOMETHING. >> ONE ALTERNATIVE SERVICE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE ITEM AND BRING IT BACK TO THE NEXT MONTH.

THAT -- I'M NOT COMFORTABLE VOTING ON YES OR NO RIGHT NOW.

THAT ONE ANY MOTION. TO CONTINUE IT TO THE NEXT MONTH. AT ONE POINT MR. FREEMAN ASKED US TO DO THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE MOVE ON TO

THAT. >> I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW THE TRACK. FOLLOW THE BOUNCING BALL.

>> THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT MEETING.

. >> I WOULD BE SECONDING THAT.

>> ARE YOU MAKING THAT MOTION? >> I MADE THE MOTION.

I MADE A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

>> I SECOND. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. STORY, SECONDED TO TABLE THE ITEM.

>> AND CONTINUE IT BECAUSE IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

TO THE NEXT MEETING. >> TABLING.

THERE A DISTINCTION? >> SETTING A DATE.

>> OK. YES, TO TAKE -- CONTINUE THIS OR TO PICK THIS UP AS AN AGENDA ITEM FOR THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING. WE HAVE MOTION AND SECOND.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

MOTION PASSED. >> NOW WE HAVE HOME WORK TO DO

TO GET IT RIGHT THE NEXT TIME. >> I WILL TAKE THE HOME WORK.

>> AREN'T WE GLAD WE TOOK45 MIN BACK UP TO 117-1, THAT SCREEN.

JUST QUICKLY. IF YOU GO TO SECTION 117 AND GO THROUGH IT. THERE IS A LOT MORE ELEMENTS.

THERE WERE THREE PAGES THAT WERE CHANGED.

THE ADDICTIONS WERE THE RED, CORRECT? GO TO THE NEXT SCREEN, PLEASE. WE HAD ADDITIONS AND NOTHING WAS CROSSED OUT ON THE SECOND SCREEN.

JUST GIVING CONFIRMATION WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO FOR NEXT MONTH.

THIRD SCREEN. THE FOURTH SENTENCE CROSSED OUT AND ALL THE REST OF IT IS NEW. JUST SO WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME

PAGE. >> I THINK THERE MAYBE SOME LANGUAGE THERE THAT SHOULD BE DELETED.

I HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK. WHETHER IT IS ALL TRANSFERRED INTO RED. I DON'T KNOW.

I WILL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK. >> WELL, FOR NEXT MONTH I EXPECT EVERYONE TO BE EXPERTSES ON 117-C AND HAVE A POLITE AND BRIEF CONVERSATION AS WE WRAP IT UP NEXT MONTH.

SO MOVING ON. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC?

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

WE CAN MOVE ONTO THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

MR. FREEMAN. >> MOVE ON TO [UNCLEAR] IF YOU WEREN'T HERE LAST TIME, CHAIR, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. WOULD THE RESULT OF WHICH WAS THAT STAFF WERE GOING TO GO AWAY AND COME UP WITH HOPEFULLY A DIRECTION FROM CITY COMMISSION. AND BRING IT BACK TO PLANNING BOARD. AND TO TEN ABLE THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS LOOKING AT VARIOUS POINT OF THE STATE'S STATUTE.

THERE ARE POTENTIAL CONFLICTS BETWEEN RESTRICTIVE AND THE STATE'S ORDINANCE REGULATIONS ON DATA CENTERS SO WE ARE TRAYING TO DISSECT THOSE BEFORE WE KM UP WITH AN PRESS.

ATION WE WILL MAKE TO CITY COMMISSION.

THAT IS GOING TO BE DONE AT A DAY MEETING PROBABLY.

AND SO WE WOULD BE EXPECTING A LARGE ATTENDANCE TO THAT AND AFTER, THAT ONCE WE GET SOME DETERMINATION, HOPEFULLY FROM THE CITY COMMISSION, ABOUT THE DIRECTION THEY WOULD LIKE STAFF

[02:25:04]

BECAUSE THAT WILL DETERMINE WHAT IF THERE IS GOING TO BE SUPPORTED THERE IN A WAY, IN TERMS OF WHAT SORT OF ZONING DISTRICT WOULD A DATA CENTER BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSIDERED.

ALLOWABLE IN, WISH THAT IS BY RIGHT OR BY CONDITIONAL USE.

THAT IT WAS AGAIN ANOTHER CONSIDERATION.

HOW WE CONSTRUCT THOSE REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF ENTITLEMENT OR CONDITION ORS YOU OR WHATEVER THAT IS.

WILL DETERMINE HOW WE SET OUT THE CODE.

AND ARE WE ALLOWED TO DO THAT UNDER STATE STATUTE.

SO WE ARE WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, TO DETERMINE WHAT WE -- HOW WE PRESENT THAN TO CITY COMMISSION, WHAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATIONS? AND GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THEM AS TO WHAT DISTRIBUTION THEY WOULD LIKE US TO MOVE IN. I THINK THAT WOULD THEN NEED OBVIOUSLY TO COME BACK TO PLANNING BOARD.

I'M GOING ROUND IN THE LOOP LIKE WITH THE SIGNS.

SO COME UP WITH A WAY FORWARD. AND IN THE BACKGROUND TO THIS WE DO HAVE AN APPLICANT WHO HAS BEEN ACTIVE.

AND WANTING TO PROGRESS THAT APPLICATION.

>> I MEAN, SO GIVEN WHAT HAPPENED LAST MONTH, AND HOW WE SEE THIS PROGRESSING FORWARD, WE ARE NOT GOING TO EXPECT TO SEE THIS -- THESE BACK-TO-BACK AGENDA ITEMS COME AT THE SAME

MEETING, ARE WE? >> I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO GET THE CODE FIXED AS THE ZONING DISTRICT FIX. EVERYBODY KNOWS IF THERE ARE ANY SORT OF CONDITIONS RELATING TO THAT ZONING.

IF WE ARE ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE PERIMETERS WE CAN WORK TO, WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN PUT THOSE PERIMETERS WITHIN THAT AS A SEASONAL USE. SORT OF MOVING ALONG THAT PREFERENCE, IF YOU LIKE. IS TO TRY TO GOVERN THESE THINGS IN A WAY THAT GIVES SOME CONFIDENCE TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT HOW IT IS REVIEWED. AND WHAT SORT OF PERIMETERS WE

WILL BE LOOKING AT. >> IT'S COMPLEX.

>> VERY. >> YEAH, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE SEQUENCE. SO THE NEXT BITE THE PUBLIC GETS THAT THE ISSUE WILL BE A COMMISSION DAY MEETING.

AS ASSUME THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY

FOR COMMENT. >> THERE CERTAINLY WILL BE.

>> ONE THING I'M SURPRISED AT FROM WATCHING THE MEETING FROM LAST MONTH IS WE DIDN'T AT THIS MEETING GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

BECAUSE OF THE DECISION YOU GUYS MADE.

WHICH I BELIEVE WAS THE RIGHT DECISION AT THE TIME.

SLOW THE PROCESS DOWN. AT SOME POINT, THE PUBLIC DESERVES THEIR 150 PEOPLE LINED UP AT THE PODIUM.

WLP THAT -- THAT WILL HAPPEN. THAT IS INEVITABLE SO STRAP IN.

I THINK MY HOPE IS THAT NO MATTER WHAT THAT IF WE DO GO DOWN SOME SORT OF CONDITIONAL USE ROAD, THAT WE TAKE NOTE OF SOME OF THE MORE EFFECTIVE CONDITIONAL TYPE USES THAT WE DO IN THE CITY, WHICH ARE VERY PRESCRIPTIVE OFTEN BUM PE BULLETED ITEM. IT WON'T BE DEALT WITH WELL BY

[02:30:02]

>> YEAH. BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE TO ADOPT

THOSE REGULATIONS INTO CODE. >> OK.

ALL RIGHT. THE SPEED OF GOVERNMENT.

[LAUGHTER] YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR US?

>> DIRECT'S REPORT IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ARE GETTING THROUGH THE DOOR IN TERMS OF KNOCKING OUT THE DOOR.

NOT ACTUALLY PRE-APPLICATIONS BUT WE ARE SEEING SOME -- SOME PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS REGARDING WHAT IS LIKELY TO COME IN THE AT PORT. AREA.

SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE GOT ANY APPLICATIONS IN FOR THOSE AT THE MOMENT BUT WE ARE AWARE THAT SOME SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS MAY BE COMING DOWN THE LINE FOR THE PORT AREA.

>> THAT IS ENOUGH FOR ME. YES, THANKS.

GOT HALF A BRAIN WITH SIGN CODE AND --

>> ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN.

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

FROM THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? >> ANYTHING YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT? OTHER THAN SIGN?

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I NEED TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING AS FAR AS THE AREA OF KINGS HIGHWAY.

I DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE THAT BECAUSE YOU GUYS KNOW I'M BRAND-NEW HERE. BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION WE ARE BUILDING A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR TO GIVE PEOPLE GOOD JOBS, THAT THERE IS A -- THERE IS A PLAN BEHIND IT.

AND I DID SPEND QUITE A BIT OF TIME LOOKING AND TALKING AND LISTENING TO YOU, AT PRIOR BOARD MEETINGS, AND I LISTENED TO SOMEBODIES WHO WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF FILING, GETTING -- AND THEY GOT GRILLED AND TOLD WE ARE JUST GOING TO -- IS THAT WHAT I ULTIMATELY, IS THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING? IS THAT THE WHOLE POINT? BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE -- I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW ARE WE MIX THING? YOU KNOW? THAT IS SUCH A PERFECT PLACE.

I ABSOLUTELY THINK, BUT THE ROAD -- WHAT WAS DONE NOT ROAD IS AMAZING. I HAVE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH THAT I REMEMBER WHAT KINGS HIGHWAY USED TO LOOK LIKE.

IT IS SUCH A PUSH TO KEEP IT THERE AND I HAVE -- I CAN'T WRAP MY HEAD AROUND LIKE THAT MIX -- SUCH AWE H/* -- SUCH A HUGE MIX.

YOU GUYS ARE MORE EXPERIENCED THAN I AM.

>> IT DOESN'T JUST HAPPEN. IT IS GENERATED FROM YEARS OF PREVIOUS ENTITLEMENTS BEING GRANTED TO VARIOUS PROPERTIES ALONG THAT CORRIDOR. LONG BEFORE IT WAS CONSIDERED TO

BE THE CITY'S TARGETED -- >> RIGHT, 2004.

>> SO LONG TIME BEFORE THAT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE ZONING REGULATION, GRANTED ENTITLEMENT TO FOLKS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND IF YOU THOUGHT TODAY, THERE WAS, YOU KNOW PEVENTUALLY -- EVENTUALLY FOLKS GOT INENTITLEMENTS FOR VARIOUS USES. THEY HAVE RESIDENTIAL, FUTURE LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ZONING. ONCE SOMEBODY GETS THAT AND UNLESS THEY WANT TO CHANGE THAT THEMSELVES, THE CITY ARE NOT GOING TO BE GONG OUT THERE AND ENFORCING ZONE CHANGE OR FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE ON FOLKS. THAT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE.

>> THAT IS UNDERSTANDABLE. >> IN TERMS OF THE CORRIDOR, THERE'S BEEN AND RECOGNITION THAT, YES, WE HAVE THIS MULTIFACETED DIFFERENT ZONINGS AND LAND USES ALONG THAT CORRIDOR BUT THROUGH IS MORE OF A RECOMMEND -- RECOGNITION THAT JUST PUTTING SOMETHING IN AS COMMERCIAL DOES NOT GRANT THAT SUCCESS AND THE WAY THAT TRAFFIC IS MOVING AROUND NOW, WHAT IS HAPPENING ELSEWHERE WHEN YOU SEE LARGE TRACKS OF COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL. YOU HAVE A TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, WHICH IS STRUGGLING. BECAUSE ALL THE TRAFFIC

[02:35:03]

AND THE MORE MIXED USE, THE MORE ACTIVITIES YOU CAN GET, THE CLOSER THAT PEOPLE CAN LIVE AND WORK AND THE CLOSER THAT EMPLOYEES CAN GRAB EMPLOYEES, ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES FOR -- FORT PIECE HAS WHO ISSUES. WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND TWO, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RESIDENT THE FOR NEW COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. IT IS A CASH CATCH -- IT IS A CATCH 22. WE DON'T WANT TO BE A BEDROOM COMMUNITY OR A COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY.

YOU INHERIT VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES WITH THAT TAX ISSUES WITH THAT. YOU NEED A BALANCED COMMUNITY THAT CAN SUPPLY JOBS AND HOMES FOR PEOPLE.

THOSE HOMES NEED TO BE A VARIETY OF HOMES.

SOME WILL BE SINGLE FAMILY. SOME WILL BE MULTI-FAMILY.

THE UPPER END OF THE MARKET, SOME OF THE LOWER END OF THE MARKET. EMPLOYERS WANT TO SEE WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT ANYWHERE THEY WANT TO GO IS TO -- IF I MOVE MY BUSINESS HERE, ONE, ARE THERE PEOPLE HERE? CLOSE ENOUGH THAT THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO WORK IN MY SHOP? AND TWO, ARE THOSE PEOPLE A SECTION OR A VARIETY OF

SKILL SETS THAT I CAN UTILIZE? >> I COMPLETELY AGREE.

MY QUESTION IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE CITY DID PUT THE BUSINESS -- IF WE ARE ALL ABOUT BRINGING IN BUSINESSES, THEY WERE. ALL ASKED TO DO SORTS OF STUFF.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO AGREE TO IT. BUT THEY DID.

AND THE WHOLE REASON WAS BECAUSE THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS OF THAT. THE FIRST APPROVAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DICTATED WHAT WAS EXPECTED OF THE BUSINESS.

I KIND OF LOOKED INTO THEM. THEY DO HAVE PHENOMENAL SALARY THAT THEY PAY TO PEOPLE. I WISH I COULD FILL UP HALF OF OUR CITY OF FORT PIERCE WITH THE MONEY THEY PAID TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. IT'S A FANTASTIC JOB.

AND YET. I HATE TO SAY THAT I DON'T WANT TO COME AS DISCOURAGING BUSINESSES.

WE SAY HEY, HERE'S THIS CORRIDOR.

YOU'VE GOT THE ROADS, ACCESS. THIS.

THAT. AMAZON COLD STORAGE.

AND THEN WE JUST DECIDED. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT'S THE BALANCE I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN EVEN APPROACH A BALANCE LIKE THAT. WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE LIKE

THERMO KING. >> AMAZON, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE OFFERING IN THE REGION OF 500 JOBS AT THAT LOCATION.

>> 724 TO BE EXACT. >> WHERE ARE THOSE 700 FOLKS GOING TO COME FROM? THAT'S JUST AN ORBITAL QUESTION.

>> I GET THAT. I DO.

WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A COLD STORAGE FACILITY.

LOW MINIMUM WAGE, NUMBER ONE. THE TURNOVER IS GIGANTIC.

IT'S A PRETTY DEMANDING JOB. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE LEVELS OF CAREERS. AUTOMATION, THE WAY THEY ARE GOING. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY JOBS THEY ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY HAVE. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THE PROXIMITY. I LOVE THAT.

I GUESS FOR ME IT'S MORE ABOUT ENCOURAGING GOOD COMPANIES TO COME HERE. TO ESTABLISH THEMSELVES HERE.

THAT'S MY CONCERN. I'M NOT SURE HOW I CAN OFFSET SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU TELL ME.

I'M LEARNING. I DON'T WANT TO ASK STUPID QUESTIONS BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND.

>> THE UNDERLYING ISSUE IS THE ENTITLEMENT OF PEOPLE CAN DO AND

GO WITH A -- DO WHAT THEY WANT. >> I AGREE AND THEY ARE.

BUT WOULDN'T WE HAVE TO BE EQUAL? WE LITERALLY HAD THE SAME SITUATION WITH THE COMMERCIAL PEOPLE THE PUPPY THERMO KING THAT THEY ALMOST GOT TABLED JUST BECAUSE WE WERE MAKING SPECIAL REQUESTS OF THEM WHICH THEY COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THEM. AM I MISUNDERSTANDING IT? IS IT ONE WAY? FOR THEM.

IT WAS DIFFERENT. >> THAT WAS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. THIS ONE WAS NOT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION. THIS IS MORE RELIANT ON THE

[02:40:03]

AS OPPOSED TO A GC WHICH IS EVERYTHING THAT'S RIGHT ON KINGS HIGHWAY THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION DURING THE APPLICATION.

I CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE DID ZONING.

WE DID IT. I SUSPECT IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND IN THOSE SITUATIONS, THERE IS VERY LITTLE THAT CAN BE DONE AT THAT FOUNDATIONAL LEVEL.

THERE'S LITERALLY NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE AT THE FOUNDATIONAL LEVEL BECAUSE THE ENTITLEMENTS --

>> IF I COULD PIGGYBACK ONTO THAT.

I HAVE LOOKED AT THAT APPLICATION AND AMAZON QUITE EARLY. ONE OF THE THINGS WE REALLY DIDN'T DISCUSS IN THE APPLICATION THIS AFTERNOON WAS THE FACT THAT THAT PROPERTY IS THE CITY LIMITS.

TO THE WEST OF IT AND THE NORTH OF IT IS ALL COUNTY AND IT'S VERY DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT TYPE. TO THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY YOU HAVE A BIG LOT, LOW DENSITY HOUSING.

IT'S AN AGRICULTURAL TYPE OF DENSITY.

I THINK IT'S A ONE UNIT PER ACRE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE LOOK AT AS PLANNERS IS, DOES THIS MAKE SENSE NEXT TO EVERYTHING AROUND IT? THAT'S A CONTEXT, RIGHT? I THINK YOU HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY AND I AGREE, BUTTER R4 NEXT TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. IT'S A HIGHER DENSITY BUT IT ISN'T THE HIGHEST DENSITY WE HAVE.

WHEN YOU START TO LOOK AT 1 ACRE OR ONE UNIT PER ACRE VERSUS 6.5 TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE, THAT'S A PRETTY BIG JUMP.

ONE OF THE THINGS WAS TO PUT SOME SORT OF EXTRA PROTECTION TO THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST. SO I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE KINGS HIGHWAY. BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE OTHER SIDES OF THE PROPERTY IN THAT PARTICULAR REGARD.

THAT'S WHY VOLUNTARILY, NOT EVEN ASKED BY STAFF, YOU HAD THE 8-FOOT TALL RETAINING -- I'M SORRY, SCREENING WALL BETWEEN THERMO KINGS PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT IS AROUND AND HOW TO MITIGATE MORE COMPLIMENT WHEN YOU DO DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

ALL IN ALL I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I MAY HAVE WANTED MORE OF IS MORE LANDSCAPE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

BECAUSE I THINK WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT AMAZON IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. YEAH.

IF YOU ARE IN A THIRD-STORY APARTMENT, YOU HAVE A PRETTY GOOD VIEW OF THE TOP OF THAT BUILDING WOULD BE MY GUESS.

OR EVEN OF THERMO KING. BUT AGAIN, GIVEN TIME AND THE GROWTH OF TREES, THAT HELPS OFFSET THAT.

I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. I'M NOT LOOKING TO LIVE THERE.

BUT THERE ARE FOLKS THAT WOULD BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY.

BECAUSE OF I GOT A JOB AT THERMO KING.

I GOT A JOB GOSH, THE GAS STATIONS DOWN THE STREET OR UP THE STREET. THE NEW FACILITY.

THE CAPITAL PROJECT. THE WAREHOUSE JUST OPENED UP AND I'VE GOT A JOB THERE. SO.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. MY VIEW OF THIS IS, YOU KNOW IN A WAY WE ARE KIND OF LITERALLY PAVING THE WAY.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S NOT JUST KINGS HIGHWAY.

IT'S ACTUALLY THE ENTIRE SECTION OF THAT.

WE ARE PUSHING, AS THE GUY FROM THERMO KING SAID, THAT THEY KEPT BEING DIRECTED TOWARDS THAT AREA BECAUSE THAT'S THE CITY VIEW IS THE PERFECT PLACE TO BE. I UNDERSTAND THAT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO GET I GUESS A GRASP OF WHICH IS IT? ARE WE ALL ABOUT HEY CAT BRING GREAT JOBS TO OUR CITY? OR ARE WE JUST BUILDING. JUST SO I KNOW.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

BELIEVE ME IT'S GREAT TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A JOB HERE AND I DO GET THAT. I GUESS, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE ABILITY TO TALK TO YOU GUYS IS AMAZING.

I'M SORRY IF I'M MAKING IT LONGER.

I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WHOLE POINT BEHIND IT IS.

BECAUSE WE JUST DID, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY WERE ALREADY PERMITTED. THEY GOT THE R4 BEFORE.

WE LET THEM KEEP IT AND THEN WE GAVE THEM THE EXTRA.

[02:45:07]

>> INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY. >> WE JUST GAVE THEM 600 AND WHATEVER. I LOOK AT ALL OF THIS BECAUSE

I'M TRYING TO LEARN IT. >> SO DOES STAFF.

>> RIGHT. WHEN I DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DO.

>> THIS IS ALL ABOUT PLANNING AND YOU UNFORTUNATELY THE IDEA THAT KINGS HIGHWAY IS GOING TO BE THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, YOU'VE GOT TO PLAN FOR IT. PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO BUY INTO IT. AND PEOPLE HAVE ENTITLEMENTS.

THERE'S A LOT OF IS IT A LEGAL BASIS.

MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES, CAN THEY REZONE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT? SURE, THEY CAN TRY TO BUT THAT'S VERY COSTLY SO DO YOU DO YOUR PLANNING AND ENCOURAGING.

BUT IT'S A TRANSITION AND THERE'S NO MAGIC WAND TO PLANNING OR ZONING OR DEVELOPMENT.

PEOPLE HAVE GOT TO BUY INTO THAT OVER TIME.

AND SO YOU ARE ENTICING PEOPLE TO JOIN THE DEVELOPMENT OF KINGS HIGHWAY IN A PARTICULAR WAY BUT YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY HAVE THEIR OWN PLANS BUT THEY'VE GOT PLANS. SOMEBODY HAS BEEN PLANNING TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY FOR APARTMENTS FOR HOW MANY YEARS.

THEY GET TO DO IT. >> THAT'S A GREAT POINT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THE BOARD LOOKED AT EARLIER IN THE YEAR TWICE NOW ACTUALLY IS OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

LISTEN, THAT'S NOT A TOMORROW DOCUMENT.

THAT'S A LONG RANGE PLANNING DOCUMENT.

20 YEAR TIME FRAME AND A 40 YEAR TIME FRAME AS FAR AS BUILD OUT PROJECTIONS, AS FAR AS POPULATION AND SEVERAL OTHER THINGS. LISTEN, I'VE HEARD THE DIRECTIONS. IT'S A JOBS CORRIDOR.

JOBS COME WITH A LOT OF THINGS. IT'S A VIRTUOUS CYCLE REALLY.

INDUSTRY COMES. PEOPLE FOLLOW THE JOBS.

PEOPLE EARN WAGES FROM THE JOBS. THEY SPEND IN THE LOCAL ECONOMY.

AND IT JUST KEEPS GOING LIKE THAT.

WE HAVE DISCUSSED BETWEEN US HOW THEY GO IN EBBS AND FLOWS.

IT'S GOING TO BE CAR WASHES ONE YEAR.

IT'S GOING TO BE MINI STORAGE THE NEXT.

IT'S GOING TO BE -- [INDISTINCT] THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SUBDIVISIONS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THE MULTIFAMILY BECAUSE THOSE ALL RUN ON THEIR OWN ECONOMICS AND CYCLE. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE THIS CONVERSATION OFFLINE SO THAT KEVIN AND I CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU. BECAUSE RESPECTFULLY, I THINK SOME OF THE OTHERS ARE READY TO GO.

>> I SEE THAT. FAIR ENOUGH.

>> MYSELF INCLUDED. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE CONVERSATION.

WE DO HAVE TO GET BACK TO OUR REGULAR LIVES.

AND I WOULDN'T EVEN BRING THIS UP BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYBODY WANTS TO GET OUT OF HERE.

THIS CAME UP IN OUR DISCUSSION TODAY.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE CITY'S ATTEMPT AT INSTITUTING A LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPACT FEE? WE'VE NOT HEARD AN UPDATE ON THAT IN QUITE A WHILE. IT'S CONCERNING TO ME THAT WE HAVEN'T MOVED THAT ALONG FURTHER AT THIS POINT.

>> IT REQUIRES AN IMPACT FEE STUDY.

WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING TO CARRY THAT OUT.

I DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE BUDGET CUTS, SEVERE.

AND I DON'T -- ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE

REQUESTED. >> THE INSTITUTION OF A POLICE IMPACT FEE FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF MORE RESTRICTIVE?

IS THERE A CONCERN? >> IT'S PRIMARILY FUNDING.

TO CARRY OUT AN IMPACT FEE ST STUDY.

WE HAVE TO DO THAT AND WE HAVE TO ACT ON THAT IF WE DO IT HERE WE HAVE TO ACT ON IT FAIRLY QUICKLY.

BUT WE HAVE NOT UPDATED OUR IMPACT FEES FOR A SIGNIFICANT

NUMBER OF YEARS. >> EVERY APPLICATION THAT GETS APPROVED IS A MISSED OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT DECADES OF SHORTFALL.

THE INABILITY FOR US TO EVEN FUND THIS OFF THE GROUND RIGHT NOW IS A SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY.

IT'S REALLY DISCOURAGING. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR THAT WONDERFUL NEWS. I THINK WE CAN ADJOURN, EVERYBODY. LET'S GET OUT OF HERE.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.