Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

>> THIS IS THE OPENING OF FEBRUARY 11 ERIC IF YOU WOULD FIRST TURN YOUR CELL PHONES OFF. THANK YOU FOR COMING.

WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >>> THANK YOU.

>> WHEN SHE CALLED THE ROBLES. >> MR. LEE.

MR. BRODERICK. MR. O'CONNELL.

MYTH DF. MR. PARKER.

-- MR. PARKER. >> AND MRS. PARKER.

>> MS. PARKER IS NOT WITH US ANY LONGER.

I JUST LISTED EVERYONE I APOLOGIZE.

>> CHAIRMAN RALPH MILLER. >> I AM HERE TOO EVEN THOUGH YOU

MAY NOT WANT ME. >> AND MR. LEE GAVE YOU A REASON FOR NOT BEING HERE AND IT WAS ACCEPTABLE.

>> WE MET WITH HIM EARLIER AND HE HAD PRIOR OBLIGATIONS.

HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS BUT HE COULD NOT.

>> SO WE WILL ACCEPT THAT. THERE IS NO ACTION FOR US.

>>> MS. ROSENTHAL HAS BEEN OUT LAST MONTH AND THIS MONTH AGAIN WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE A REPLACEMENT.

AS A RESULT WE DO NOT HAVE MINUTES FOR HOURGLASS MEETINGS BECAUSE THIS IS ROSENTHAL HASN'T BEEN HERE TO DO THAT.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO TABLE THE MINUTES UNTIL NEXT

MONTH. >> I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A

MOTION WE WILL MOVE FORWARD. >> I THINK I HAVE MY DECK

STACKED CORRECTLY. >>, THE TAXPAYER.

>> WE HAVE PULLED THE HARRIS APPLICATION TONIGHT SO WE WILL

NOT BE HEARING THAT. >> OKAY.

[a. Text Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element for the Central Business District definition. ]

TEXT AMENDMENT. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE. FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS

DISTRICT DEFINITION. >> IF I MAY.

WE WILL BE DOING THE% PRESENTATION TOGETHER ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT AND MAP AMENDMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OTHER. SHE WILL BEGIN WITH THE TEXT AMENDMENT AND I WILL FOLLOW WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE ZONING COMES UNDER THE REGULAR AGENDA.

THIS IS UNDER YOUR REVIEW AS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY.

>> VERY GOOD. >> SO WE HAVE YOU TWO LOVELY

LADIES ENTERTAINING US. >> HE HAS.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS ARE RELATED. CHAPTER 163 IN THE FLORIDA STATUTE. WE ARE ALLOWED TO BRING SMALL-SCALE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL WHEN THE TEXT AMENDMENT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT OR EIGHT ZONING AMENDMENT OR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT THAT THE TEXT AMENDMENT IS RELATED TO.

IF IT FOLLOWS AND THAT ORDER AND THEY ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO EACH OTHER INSTEAD OF HOW IT WOULD NORMALLY BE TREATED AND GO OUT FOR COMMENT, BECAUSE ALL ARE RELATED WE CAN BRING THEM TOGETHER AND TREAT THEM AS A SMALL-SCALE AND DIRECTLY FROM THE PLANNING BOARD BRING YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE NEXT CITY COMMISSION MEETING. SO GIVEN THAT, GIVEN THAT ABILITY THROUGH 163 WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST OF FOUR.

WE HAVE A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND IT IS FOUND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE

PLAN. >> SO HERE IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT. ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT DOES IT ALLOWS FOR THE ABILITY OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS TO HAVE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WHICH MAY INCLUDE A MIX THAT WE HAVE HERE.

[00:05:05]

THAT MAKES IS OFF TO SCOTT COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL. IT ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED BEFORE IT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED.

IT ALSO INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO A FURTHER DEFINITION OF WHAT COULD BE FOUND WITHIN OFFICE USE ITSELF.

IN ESSENCE IT CLARIFIES CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT AND DELINEATES WHAT USES ARE ALLOWED AND IT ADDS USAGES AND CLARIFIES HOW IT MAY BE INTERPRETED THROUGH ZONING DESIGNATIONS WITHIN CHAPTER 22. IN A NUTSHELL THAT IS WHAT YOU WILL SEE AS PART OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

>> THIS MALL. NOT LIKING ME.

>> THE SECOND COMPONENT OF THE TEXT AMENDMENT TALKS ABOUT THE SINGLE FAMILY WHICH WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DESIGNATION.

SO SINGLE-FAMILY USES SHOULD ONLY BE PERMITTED AS PART OF AN OVERALL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT WHICH INCLUDES ARTISTS AND RETAIL. IN ORDER FOR SOMEONE WHO IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT, IF THEY HAVE THAT DESIGNATION, AND THEY WON'T TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, THE ONLY WAY FOR THEM TO DO SO IS FOR THEM TO HAVE IT AS A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT WAY WE ARE ASSURED THAT NO ONE WILL PUT IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN DOWNTOWN KOPP PRETTY MUCH DOING AWAY WITH THE WHOLE COMPONENT AND THE ENTIRE ESSENCE OF WHAT THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT SHOULD BE. IN ESSENCE THAT IS THE SECOND

COMPONENT. >> THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED THESE TEXT AMENDMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CITY COMMISSION.

I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAPPIER.

>> YES MRS. BERG. >> DON'T WE CURRENTLY HAVE THIS

TYPE OF ZONING ALREADY? >> THIS IS NOT ZONING.

>> GO AHEAD. >> YOU TELL ME WHAT IT IS.

>> SO I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE TEXT SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT TIME IT'S RIGHT WHAT WE ARE ADDING. I HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU VERBATIM.

THERE IS NOTHING MISSING THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE PLANT THAT I AM NOT SHOWING YOU. THE STRIKETHROUGH IS WHAT WE ARE DELETING. WHAT'S UNDERLINED IS WHAT WE ARE ADDING. TODAY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT DOESN'T IDENTIFY SINGLE-FAMILY AS AN ALLOWED USE. SO THE FOLLOWING PROJECT THAT YOU WILL HEAR WILL INCLUDE A SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

THEY CAN'T HAVE THAT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT IF THEY DON'T IDENTIFY IT. WE ARE ALLOWING THAT, THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT TO HAPPEN AS LONG AS IT IS PART OF A MIXED

USE DEVELOPMENT. >> BUT CURRENTLY WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE APARTMENTS AND CONDOMINIUMS.

>> SR, BUT THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED SINGLE-FAMILY.

SINGLE-FAMILY IS A HOUSE DETACHED OR ATTACHED LIKE A TOWNHOME. THAT IS WHAT SINGLE-FAMILY IS DEFINED. TODAY YOU CAN'T EVEN CONTEMPLATE THAT IN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT.

>> IF I MAY ADD TO THAT CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER.

THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICTS AND THE TYPES OF USES. TEN OR 15 YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE CREATING THIS NEW URBANISM DOWNTOWN LIVING FOR FLORIDA BECAUSE WE DEVELOPED THIS SUBURBIA.

WE WERE LIMITED DOWNTOWN. EVERYTHING WAS CONSIDERED TO MAKE IT WORKABLE AS THE FIRST LEVEL WAS RETAIL WITH APARTMENT LIVING ON TOP. DURING THE RECESSION, WHEN NOTHING WAS OCCUPIED SAFE, PLANNERS REEVALUATED HOW DOWNTOWN OPERATED. WE LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES THAT DID THIS AND THERE WERE OTHER FORMS OF RESIDENTIAL LIVING ASIDE FROM HIGH-RISES. THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE INCORPORATED IN THEIR DESIGN FOR DOWNTOWN IN IT SEEMS TO WORK.

A GOOD EXAMPLE IS DELRAY WHERE THEY ALLOW FOR BROWNSTONES.

IT IS PART OF A MIXED-USE AREA THAT IS NOT JUST VERTICALLY MIXING BUT DOING IT HORIZONTALLY AS WELL.

WE HAVE A MORE CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD FOR DOWNTOWN LIVING. WHICH WE WOULD ALL LIKE TO SEE HERE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE T THAT, LET'S TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW.

WE NEED THIS TO FIT IN THE KING'S LANDING PROJECT BUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS LOOK AT DOWNTOWN AND SEE WHY THINGS ARE WORKING AND WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AS OTHER COMMUNITIES IN OUR SOUTH AND CENTRAL FLORIDA AREAS ARE

[00:10:02]

DEVELOPING. >>> QUESTION.

>> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. >> WILL EITHER ONE OF YOU CLEARLY DEFINED THE PARAMETERS OF THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DIS

DISTRICT. >> I WILL SHOW YOU THAT MAP WHEN WE GET TO THE MAP AMENDMENT. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW.

>> I HOPE IT IS NOT THE SAME ONE IN THE PACKET.

IT IS TOO SMALL. >> WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PACKET IS SIMPLY A CHANGE. A CHANGE THAT WE ARE PRESENTING.

A PORTION OF THE OVERALL AREA. THE CBD RUNS TO U.S. 101 AND THE MARINA. IT IS A LARGER GEOGRAPHICAL AREA. WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO CBD.

THAT IS ALL THE MAP IS SHOWING YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BOUNDARIES.

>> WE COULD PULL IT. >> I WILL TRY TO PULL IT UP.

>> IT'S INTERESTING YOU STATE THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THE PLANNING EXERCISE WE HAVE HAD, THEY HAVE SPEARHEADED AND MAKE US TAKE A LOOK AT THE BOUNDARIES.

SO FORTHCOMING IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WE ARE GOING TO BE PROPOSING EXPANDING ON THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WHERE IT WOULD BE A PORTION WOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. 12 CONNECT. BUT WITH RIGHT NOW REBECCA WILL

ATTEMPT TO FIND THE MAP. >> I DON'T WANT TO STOP AS SHE

IS GOING TO HER ITEMS. >> RIGHT NOW OUR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WILL BE THE WESTERN BOUNDARY AND THAT IS U.S. ONE AND IT GOES TO THE RIVER AND A LITTLE BIT SOUTH I BELIEVE OF CITRUS OR DELAWARE. AND I THINK IT IS JUST NORTH.

WE WILL SHOW YOU. WE ARE REEVALUATING THAT

BOUNDARY. >> THE FUTURE CONCEPT COULD POSSIBLY BE THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CAUGHT LET'S SAY THAT THREE TIMES, COULD EXTEND WEST OF U.S. ONE AS AN EXAMPLE FROM DELAWARE TO D STREET AND CONTINUE WEST FOR SOME DISTANCE.

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ON BOTH SIDES OF U.S. ONE.

WE HAVEN'T SOLIDIFIED THAT BOUNDARY.

BUT AS STAFF WE MEET REGULARLY AND TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT PLANNING TOPICS. THIS IS OUR PRIORITY AND WE ARE LOOKING AT A BOUNDARY WESTWARD OF SEVENTH.

>> I'M BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT THIS HAS ANY IMPACT ON OR THE PROPERTY HAS IMPACT ON THIS

WOULD BE THE KING PROPERTY. >> THERE'S A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE FUTURE LAND THINK DESIGNATIONS OF FUTURE

BUSINESSES. >> THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR

BUILDING? >> YES WE HAVE A LOT OF HAVE A LOT OF VACANCIES. WE HAVE REDEVELOPMENT

OPPORTUNITIES. >> OKAY.

>> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY KOK KINGS LANDINGS HAS SIX SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> S. MANCHILD WAS THOSE FITTED?

>> THAT WILL BE PART OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

THERE WILL BE ON THE NORTH SIDE THE MOST NORTHERN TIP OF THE PROJECT. THAT IS WHY WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT OUR DEFINITION OF CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR

THAT RESIDENTIAL TYPE OF USE. >> ONE ABOUT WHERE THE CITY PARKING LOT IS RIGHT NOW. THAT VACANT LAND JUST EAST OF THE SEVEN GABLES HOUSE. THAT FIVE OR 6 ACRES RIGHT THERE. WHAT WOULD THAT BE DESIGNATED AS QUICKSAND I THINK THAT IS CBD RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS EAST OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE.

>> NO COP WEST OF INDIAN RIVER DRIVE.

>> WHATEVER IS IN KING'S LANDING, WILL BE CBD AS FUTURE LAND USE. RIGHT NOW IT IS LIGHT

INDUSTRIAL. >> NO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OR

TOWNHOMES? >> RIGHT NOW THERE IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WERE APPROVED ON THE AGREEMENT WHICH

I WILL GET TO IN THE NEXT ITEM. >>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> SO THE MAP I PROVIDED YOU CAN SEE THE DARK MAROON COLORED AREA, IS WHAT IS CONSIDERED THE CBD TODAY.

>> AND THE -- FIRST OFF I THINK THE UPDATING OF THE DISTRICT IS OVERDUE. SO I APPLAUD YOU FOR BRINGING IT FORWARD AT THIS TIME. I NOTE IT IS LINKED.

[00:15:02]

I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. I HOPE I AM NOT MISINTERPRETING AND THE USE IS BROAD ENOUGH IT HAS TO DO WITH USES WITHIN THE CBD SHOULD INCLUDE SINGLE-FAMILY, APARTMENTS GOT THE TRASH AND ATTACHED IN NOT LIMITED TO, THAT IS THE KEY PROVISION. ARTISTS WORK AND SALE SPACE AND RETAIL INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO.

MY CONCERN IS IT ISN'T BROAD ENOUGH.

IS IT BEING DEFINED FOR OFFICE USE AS ARTISTS WORK AND SALE SPACE EXCLUSIVELY AND ANY OTHER WOULD REQUIRE -- MI MISINTERPRETING THAT QUICKSAND IS OPENING THE DOOR IF YOU WILL FOR OFFICE TYPES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING.

WHEN WE GET TO CHAPTER 22, TO THE ZONING CODE CAUGHT THAT

ACTUALLY HAS THE USED TABLE -- >> IT MOVES BACK.

>> IT REFERS TO CHAPTER 22. THIS OPENS THE DOOR FOR THE POSSIBILITY FOR YOU TO CONTEMPLATE.

>> IF I MAY, THE WAY THAT IT DID READ BEFORE WE TOUCH ON THIS WAS OFFICE INCLUDING, IT DID NOT SAY BUT LIMITED TO.

THAT IS WHERE WE PUT THE LANGUAGE IN THEIR.

WE THOUGHT AT THAT POINT IT WAS A LITTLE TOO RESTRICTIVE BECAUSE IT ONLY LISTED TWO TYPES OF OFFICE USAGES.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO LIST EVERY SINGLE OFFICE USE.

>> A BROADER DEFINITION OF OFFICE USE.

>> YES OPENING THE DOOR. >> THANK YOU YOU CLEARED IT UP

FOR ME. >>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS DARK AREA RIGHT HERE QUICKSAND YES BUT DARK MAROON AREA.

>> WHY IS SOUTH BEACH ALSO INCLUDED.

>> THE CENTRAL -- THE FUTURE LAND USE.

>> IT SHOULD NOT BE PART OF IT. >> MAYBE THE WRONG COLOR.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE I HAVE ALREADY MESSED IT UP.

>> LET'S SEE. >> IF IT IS NOT APPROVED ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT IN A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE

AREA? >> CORRECT.

>> IT DOESN'T CALL IT OUT. THE WAY THE LANGUAGE READ PRIOR TO US WAS THAT IT LIMITED THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

CHANGE IT WAS VAGUE. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THEY REFER TO SINGLE USE, WHAT DID THAT MEAN.

WE DON'T SEE IT AS WE JUST SEE IT AS IT WASN'T CONSISTENT.

>> SO THIS IS EAST OF U.S. 1. >> NOW I UNDERSTAND.

>> >> I WILL REITERATE.

APPROVAL FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT. THE ONES WE ARE PROPOSING TO

CITY COMMISSION. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS.

>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE THE PLAN. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

>> DO WE NEED A SECOND PERIOD. >> I WILL SECOND IT.

>> ESTHER BRODERICK PROVIDE A SECOND.

CALL TO ROLL. >> MR. O'CONNELL.

MS. DIAZ. MR. BURGE.

MR. CREYAUFMILLER. IT CARRIES.

>> MOTION CARRIES. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS FUTURE LAND

[b. Future Land Use Map for property located at 322 North 2nd Street (aka King's Landing)]

[00:20:04]

USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 322 NORTH SECOND STREET ALSO KNOWN AS KING'S LANDING.

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT FOR KING'S LANDING. I WILL DO THE FULL PRESENTATION.

AS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO VOTE ON THE

FUTURE ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT. >> THIS WILL GIVE EVERYONE SOME BACKGROUND AND A REFRESHER OF HOW WE CAME TO PLACE TODAY.

IN NOVEMBER 2018, THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE ON THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR FORT PIERCE ISSUED A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS BEAR FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF SEVERAL PARCELS WHICH COMPRISE THE FORMER KINGS SITE. IN DECEMBER OF 2019, THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT, A DEVELOPER SELECTED WHICH WAS REFERRED TO AS AUTOBAHN. THEY ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT. IN THAT AGREEMENT WHICH I ATTACHED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO YOUR ITEM HERE BECAUSE THE CITY WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR A NUMBER OF THINGS AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER.

WE ARE FULFILLING OUR OBLIGATIONS TONIGHT.

WE HAVE ONE MORE THAT WILL BE COMING FORWARD AND THE NEXT MEETING AND THAT IS THE ABANDONMENT.

THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROCESSING FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT AND ABANDONING A PORTION OF AVENUE B THAT RUNS AGAINST THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT IT IS ONE COMPREHENSIVE SITE.

THE REASON FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE REZONING IS THAT THE CURRENT SITE IS LIGHT INDU INDUSTRIAL.

WHICH WAS APPROPRIATE AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS A POWER PLANT RUN AND OPERATED BY FORT PIERCE UTILITY AUTHORITY.

AND ALL OF THESE OBLIGATIONS ARE CONDITIONS OF OUR CLOSING WITH AUTOBAHN AND FROM THE DATE OF SIGNING ON DECEMBER 2019 WE HAVE TO 90 DAYS IN WHICH TO FULFILL THOSE OBLIGATIONS.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS OF WHY KING'S LANDING PROPERTY PROPOSAL WILL BE AS WITNESS HERE.

JUST CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS RIGHT NOW.

AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THERE WERE SPECIFIC LAND USES THAT WERE AGREED UPON INCLUDING A HOTEL, RETAIL, HOUSING FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP AND RENTAL AND A FREESTANDING

RESTAURANT. >> SO WE WILL BEGIN WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT. RIGHT NOW AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SITE HAS INDUSTRIAL FUTURE LAND USE AND THAT WILL NOT ALLOW FOR THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS AGREED UPON.

MOST OF THE SURROUNDING AREA OF USES IS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. THERE ARE SOME ANOMALIES THAT WE WILL CORRECT AS WE GO THROUGH A MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF ALL OF THAT. BUT THEY ARE, FOR THE MOST PART CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. ALL OF THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE AREA SHOULD BE CONSISTENT.

THAT IS WHAT WE WILL BE ADDRESSING AT A LATER DATE.

>>> OKAY. I'M JUST GOING TO TOUCH UPON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE MUST HAVE A ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT.

GIVEN THAT WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED THEY AGREED UPON A MASTER PLAN, UP DEVELOP MASTER PLAN.

THEREFORE WE ARE REZONING IT BUT WHEN WE WERE PREPARED THAT ORDINANCE WE ARE GOING TO BE STATING THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT IS IS CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BECAUSE IT WILL BE A PLANNING EXERCISE THAT WE WILL BE DOING AT A LATER DATE. WHEN ANYONE COMES INTO DEVELOP OR REDEVELOP, THEY WILL NEW -- KNOW WHAT IT IS FAIR THAT IS WHAT WE WILL BE GOING THROUGH BECAUSE RIGHT NOW AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS WAS DRAFTED IN A STAFF REPORT AND WITNESSED ON THE SCREEN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN DOWNTOWN. THAT IS WHERE SOME OF OUR

[00:25:01]

INCONSISTENCIES AND INABILITY TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT TYPE OF ZONE COULD BE THERE WITHOUT CREATING ITS OWN SPECIFIC PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT AND NOT EVERYONE KNOWING WHAT THEY CAN DEVELOP YOUR WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT AT A LATER DATE.

>>> SO HERE WE HAVE THE REQUEST AS STATED UNDER THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY. YOU WILL BE LOOKING THAT WE WILL BE REQUESTING A FUTURE ZONING ATLAS MAP AND THE COMPATIBLE ZONING FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME ON THAT PROPERTY AS WITNESSED IN THE MAP HERE. THERE ARE SOME HERE THAT ALREADY HAVE THIS. THIS WILL BECOME THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT WITH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ON TOP OF IT.

>> STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH REQUESTS BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY CODE AND THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE.

IT IS WITHIN THE PROXIMITY TO KEY COMMERCIAL AMENITIES.

>> SO THE ACTIONS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAY TAKE IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT WITH NO CHANGES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AND I WILL GET TO THE REZONING AT A LATER TIME IN THE NEXT ITEM WHEN IT COMES UNDER GENERAL NEW BUSINESS.

AND APPROVAL OF THE APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR WITHOUT APPROVAL. TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS WILL BE

NEEDED. >> SOME TIME AGO WE HANDLED AN AMENDMENT CHANGE CONCERNING THE KING PROPERTY.

AT THE TIME I THINK WHAT WE WERE DOING WITH CAR WE WERE PUTTING THREE PARCELS OF PROPERTY TOGETHER TO BE CONSIDERED ONE@P.

WE HAD THE MAIN KING PROPERTY WHICH WAS NORTH OF D STREET SITTING BETWEEN SECOND STREET AND INDIAN RIVER DRIVE.

WE HAD A SECOND PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WAS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET AND I THINK IN THAT MAP IT SHOWS THIS SP

SPIRIT. >> WAS THIS BETWEEN A AND B.

THIS WAS A SECOND PIECE OF PROPERTY AND A THIRD PIECE WAS OF SECTION NEAR SECOND STREET BY THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S LISTED THAT WAY ON THE MAP.

>> THIS BRINGS THE PROPERTIES TOGETHER.

AM I DREAMING THIS SPIRIT. >> THE WAY IT STANDS TODAY.

HAD THOSE PARCELS BEEN REZONED IT WOULD REFLECT ON THE MAP.

THERE ARE TWO THAT ARE IDENTIFIED AS THE KING'S LANDING SITE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

AS A RESULT BUT TODAY WENG TO CF YOU WILL.

TO HAVE A CONSISTENT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION.

SO THAT WHEN THIS SITE DEVELOPS IT WILL BE EVENLY IDENTIFIED IN

BOTH WAYS. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENTS QUICK STANCH JUST A COMMENT.

>> THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE INFORMATION THIS EVENING, I JUST WANT TO GET ON THE RECORD QUESTION HAVE BEEN ASKED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION WILL HAVE IN THE VETTING PROCESS. WHEN THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE, I

[00:30:03]

JUST WANT TO GET IT ON RECORD BECAUSE IT HAS COME ON THE AGENDA AND EVERYONE IS CURIOUS. CASE.

>> IF I MAY CHAIRMAN. BOARD MEMBER.

>> AS PART OF THE CITY'S OBLIGATION, AS I STATED EARLIER, FOR CHANGING FUTURE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPER TO COME FORWARD WITH THIS SITE PLAN AND GO THROUGH THE PROCESS

FOR APPROVAL. >> IT WILL GO THROUGH ALL OF THE

APPROPRIATE BOARDS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> NOT HEARING ANY SHOULD I OPEN THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND PERHAPS I DIDN'T DO THAT ON THE FORMER. WE WILL OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

NOT SEEN ANY. WE WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. NOT SEEN ANY I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> JUST TO REITERATE IT WILL BE THE FIRST REQUEST. IT WILL BE WITH YOU WILL BE MAKING YOUR MOTIONS ON AT THIS POINT.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION DO YOU WANT ME TOO READ --

>> YOU CAN READ IT HOW YOU WANT BUT THAT IS HOW YOU WILL BE

MAKING A. >> FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND AMENDMENTS FOR PROPERTIES AT THIS DISTRICT ARE MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND PERIOD. >> MR. BRODERICK MADE THE MOTION TO APPROVE MR. O'CONNELL MADE THE MOTION FOR SECOND PERIOD

CALL TO ROLL. >> JOHNSON SCOTT.

>> YES. >> MR. O'CONNELL.

>> YES. >> MR. BURGE.

>> MR. BRODERICK. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. >> YES.

>> THE MOTION CARRIES. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS

[c. Text Amendment - Chapter 22 - Allowed Uses / Home Occupation]

UNDER NEW BUSINESS. TEXT AMENDMENT CHAPTER 22 ALLOWS

USE OF HOME OCCUPATION. >> THANK YOU SIR.

SO NOW WE HAVE THE TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 22 WHICH DEALS PRIMARILY WITH CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

THE HOME OCCUPATION USE AS DESIGNATED AND IDENTIFIED WITHIN CHAPTER 22 AS WELL AS WHAT MAY BE SATISFIED AS PART OF THE DESIGNATION WITHIN THE ZONING CODE.

LET ME GO THROUGH IT AND IT WILL MAKE MORE SENSE.

>> THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DOES ESSENTIALLY OR THINGS.

THE FIRST IS SCOTT IT ALLOWS FOR DETACHED HOUSES, DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES AS A CONDITIONAL USE. REMEMBER OUR WE TALKED ABOUT IT NEVER IDENTIFIED. WHAT WE HAVE DONE, IS THE FURTHER EXPLANATION, WE OPENED THE DOOR WITH THE FIRST TEXT AMENDMENT NOW WE WILL DEFINE WHAT YOU NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY. THIS WILL BE A DETACHED HOME CAUGHT DUPLEXES AND TOWNHOMES, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE QUALIFYING AS A SINGLE-FAMILY OR A TYPE OF SINGLE-FAMILY.

THEY WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE DISTRICT WITH ONLY CONDITIONAL USE. IT NEEDS TO GO BEFORE YOUR BOARD

BEFORE PROCEEDING. >> THE SECOND PROPOSED CHANGE WILL BE STRIKING THE WORD VERTICAL FROM THE MIXED USE CATEGORY. SHE TOUCHED UPON THAT WHEN SHE WAS TALKING TO ABOUT THE DESIGN. SINCE THE ECONOMY.

WHAT WE FOUND WAS THIS VERY STRICT INTERPRETATION OF HAVING TO HAVE THE BOTTOM FLOOR. IT REALLY STAGNATED GROWTH.

IT DID NOT ALLOW FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HORIZONTAL TYPES OF MIX USE. IT NEVER CONTEMPLATED THAT.

PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE LOCKED INTO A SITUATION WITHIN A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING WHERE THEY HAVE TO LIVE ON TOP OF COMMERCIAL. SOME PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO COMMERCIAL. THEY WANT THE OPTION TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DESIGN THESE IN A MANNER THAT THE MIXED USE OCCURS IN EITHER A HORIZONTAL OR VERTICAL OR BOTH.

THIS ALLOWS FOR THAT. THE THIRD CHANGE WE ARE MAKING IS TO IDENTIFY HOME OCCUPATIONS WHERE TO DATE THIS WAS NOT EVEN

[00:35:06]

CONTEMPLATED TO ALLOW IT TO PROCEED WITH CONDITIONAL USE BEFORE THIS BOARD. THE LAST PROPOSED CHANGE THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING IS PART OF THE DISTRICT MAKE SCOTT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

IT SHOULD BE A MIXED USE. IT SHOULD BE REFLECTIVE OF WORK ON LIVE PLAY ENVIRONMENT. NOW THAT WE ARE OPENING THE DOOR TO ALLOW FOR HOME OCCUPATION TO OCCUR WITHIN THE DISTRICT, IF SOMEONE IS ALLOWED TO USE THEIR HOME AND MEET THAT WE THINK IT DISPUTES THE PURPOSE. SO WHILE WE WILL ALLOW HOMEOWNER TO UPHOLD OCCUPATION, THE DEVELOPER OF THE SITE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A TROOP MIXED-USE COMPONENT WITHIN HIS DEVELOPMENT AND NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

SIMPLY BY ALLOWING HIS RESIDENCE IF YOU WILL TO HAVE A HOME

OCCUPATION. >> DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING QUICK STANCH SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL TO THOSE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. CHAPTER 22.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. >> I JUST HAVE ONE.

SO TECHNICALLY AS IT EXISTS NOW NO HOME OCCUPATIONS ARE ALLOWED

IN ITS ENTIRETY MEET. >> IN THE SEAPORT DISTRICT.

>> WE ARE CHANGING THAT TO SOFTEN THE PROVISION TO A CONDITIONAL USE. SO TECHNICALLY ANY HOME OCCUPATION NEEDS TO COME IN FOR CONDITIONAL USE.

THERE IS NO SEPARATE LIST OF PREAPPROVED HOME OCCUPATIONS.

>> WE HAVE A BLISS WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

YOU CAN'T MANUFACTURE ITEMS WITHIN A HOME OCCUPATION.

SO WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE USED TABLE YOU SEE HOW THE USES FUNCTION. YOU CAN MAKE UP OR SURMISED THROUGH THOSE THAT ARE IDENTIFIED WHAT IS MANUFACTURED AND WHAT REQUIRES CUSTOMERS. YOU CAN SEE THIS AND PASTE HOW IT IS WRITTEN YOU CAN KNOW WHAT USES ARE APPROPRIATE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY EVEN IF STAFF IDENTIFIES IT AS A POTENTIAL, IT IS A POTENTIALLY ACCEPTED USE IT STILL HAS TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD TO DETERMINE ITS TRUE APPROPRIATENESS WITHIN THIS AREA.

>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE PROCESS BECAUSE WE ARE EXCLUDING ALL AND IT IS A FUZZY BOUNDARY THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET AN INTERPRETATION ON. I ASSUME YOU GUYS PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO THAT. YOU WOULDN'T SET A STANDARD SAY

THIS IS CONDITIONAL. >> IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIST THAT COULD OCCUR. OCCUPATION- QUITE FRANKLY GOT THIS TENDS TO BE SPECIFIC AND BECOMES OUTDATED.

WE WANT -- I KNOW IT HAS BEEN AN IMPORTANT DIRECTIVE TO MAKE SURE IT IS RE-EXAMINED PERIODICALLY TO MAKE SURE IT IS NOT TOO RESTRICTIVE NOR SO GENERAL THAT WE ARE MAKING SUBJECTIVE CALLS WHEN LOOKING AT BTR'S OR PEOPLE ASKING, CAN I HAVE THIS ON THIS

PIECE OF PROPERTY. >> YOU ARE LOOKING TO SIMPLIFY THE PROCESS SO THEY COULD SPEED FORWARD WITH THEIR ACQUISITION AND TURNING THINGS INTO A HOME OFFICE.

>> IF I MAY ADD CHAIRMAN, IT ALSO IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW FOR HOME OCCUPATIONS.

THEY ARE ALLOWED AS CONDITIONAL USES.

SO WE ARE JUST BEING CONSISTENT CAP WE ARE NOT FAVORING ONE OR THE OTHER. THEY'LL GO THROUGH THE

CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. >> VERY GOOD.

>> COMMENTS GOT ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS QUICK STANCH SUPPOSE THERE ARE HOME OCCUPANTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING BUSINESSES. ARE THEY GRANDFATHERED IN OR DO THEY HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR

HOME OCCUPATION. >> THE ONLY WAY THEY WOULD'VE BEEN GRANDFATHERED AND IF THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE ZONING CHANGE TO C4. UNDER CHAPTER 22 THERE IS A SECTION CALLED THE LEGAL CONFORMING USE THEY ARE COVERED AS LONG AS THE USE CONTINUES AND DOES NOT FEES FOR MORE THAN 365 DAYS. THAT IS A LONG WAY OF SAYING YES. LAUGHTER.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD.

>> THAT WAS BASICALLY MY CON CONCERN.

>> WE HAD SOMETHING COME BEFORE THE BOARD RECENTLY.

[00:40:03]

WE WERE WRESTLING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAD BROUGHT PROPERTY UNDER ONE ZONING WITHIN THE ZONING CHANGE AND ANOTHER BUSINESS CAME IN AND YOU HAVE THIS UP AND DOWN, WHO DO YOU VOTE FOR OR HOW DO YOU FIX THIS. IT WAS A BIG PROBLEM FOR US.

I WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN AGAIN WITH THE CHANGE IN ZONING AND YOU HAVE PEOPLE PURCHASE PROPERTY FOR CERTAIN REASON AND THERE IS CHANGES AND THEY CAN'T DO WITH THEY BROUGHT THE SUSPECT

BOUGHT THE PROPERTY FOUR. >> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OR

OPPOSE. >> NOT SEEN ANYONE WE WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

NOT HEARING ANY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MR. MARKET -- MR. CHAIRMAN I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE APPROVAL FOR THE CHANGED AMENDMENTS FOR CHAPTER 22 AS SET

FORTH. >> SECOND PERIOD.

>> WE HAVE OF MOTION AND IT IS SECOND PERIOD.

>> ONE QUESTION. IT IS A DESIRE TO HAVE THIS

LANGUAGE INCORPORATED. >> WE DID.

>> IT WAS FLASHING ON THE SCREEN FOR A WHILE.

>> WE HAVE A FEW PAGES UP THERE. >> I WILL CALL TO ROLL.

>> MR. O'CONNELL. >> YES.

>> ROLL CALL IS AFFIRMATIVE. >> ITEM 7B.

[d. Zoning Atlas Map Amendment for property located at 322 North 2nd Street (aka King's Landing)]

ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 322 NORTH SECOND STREET ALSO KNOWN AS KING'S LANDING.

>> AS I INDICATED PRIOR WE NEED TO HAVE TWO VOTES.

SEPARATELY ONE FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE AND ONE FOR THE ZONING ATLAS RELATED TO KINGS LANDING. I HAVE BEFORE YOU THE SLIDE BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT.

AS I STATED EARLIER WHEN WE WERE DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE FOR THAT WE WILL STATE THE UNDERLINING ZONING DISTRICT IS C4 FOR FUTURE CONSISTENCY WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS.

>> I THINK WE VENTED THIS DISCUSSION SO I WILL GO DIRECTLY BACK TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY COMMENTS.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THIS, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. NOT SEEING ANYONE WE WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I AM HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION. >> THANK YOU.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT AT

DISTRICT C4 TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT. >> SECOND PERIOD.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODERICK.

A SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. ANY COMMENTS?

CALL TO ROLL. >> MR. DIAZ, MR. BRODERICK, MS. JOHNSON SCOTT, MR. O'CONNELL, CHAIRMAN

CREYAUFMILLER. >> YES.

[e. Impact Fee Moratorium ]

>> THE NEXT ITEM IS 7C. THAT IS IMPACT FEE MORATORIUM.

WE HAVE A GUEST SPEAKER. >> WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

I LOOKED UP AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF. >> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.

MY NAME IS SHYAM HELMS AND I AM THE COMMUNICATIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPER FOR THE CITY. THAT IS A MOUTHFUL.

I AM HAPPY TO BE HERE BEFORE YOU IN THE REALM OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WHAT I AM PRESENTING IS AN IMPACT FEE MORATORIUM FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT.

FOR 12 MONTHS. I WANT TO GO THROUGH HOW WE GOT HERE. WE ARE WORKING TO REVITALIZE ALL OF OUR DISTRICTS. YOU SEE THESE THINGS COME BEFORE YOU OFTEN. OF COURSE OUR DOWNTOWN LINKIN PARK GOT THE FISHERMAN'S WHARF PARK AREA AND SOUTH BEACH ARE THE DISTRICTS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES.

CRA, URBAN AREAS ARE ALL INTERCHANGEABLE WHICH DESCRIBE OUR URBAN CORE. THESE AREAS ARE IN NEED OF CONTINUOUS REVITALIZATION. SOME ARE DOING BETTER THAN

[00:45:01]

OTHERS. ALL SEE SOME SORT OF GROWTH.

WE WANT SOME SOLUTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL GROWTH AND ENTICE NEW DEVELOPMENTS. YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE THIS COMING ALONG NICELY. THERE IS A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE THAT WAS JUST CONSTRUCTED. WE ARE SEEING SOME NEW CONSTRUCTION. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP WHICH IS VERY HARD TO SEEK OUT WE TRIED TO GET EVERYTHING ONTO ONE PAGE.

THIS LIGHT YELLOWISH COLOR IS THE OPRA BOUNDARIES THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AREAS. THERE ARE SOME RED DOTS THAT INDICATE NEW CONSTRUCTION OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS.

I AM LOOKING AT DATES NOVEMBER 1, 2016 THROUGH 2019.

OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS WE HAVE SEEN THINGS POP UP A VIEWS SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND OTHER BUSINESSES.

IT IS REALLY HARD TO SEE. $1.1 MILLION OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS WAS COLLECTED IN IMPACT FEE CITY WISE.

THAT IS THE ENTIRE CITY. ONLY $40,000 WERE WITHIN THIS REDEVELOPMENT AREA. THAT IS TELLING.

THAT IS A REAL INDICATOR WE ARE NOT SEEN A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION.

PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE IT IS A HISTORIC DOWNTOWN.

THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORIC AREAS THAT ARE ALREADY DEVELOPED BUT A LOT OF AREAS THAT COULD USE SOME SPRUCING UP AND DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO SUSPEND THE COLLECTION OF THESE IMPACT FEES FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS TO ENCOURAGE NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THESE BOUNDARIES.

THIS WILL APPLY TO ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDINANCE PASSING.

SO ANYONE WHO COMES IN WITH GETTING A BUILDING PERMIT NOT JUST APPLYING, THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITHIN THIS REDEVELOPMENT AREA CAP THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO HAVE THEIR

IMPACT FEES WAIVED. >> WE WILL CONTINUE FOR ONE YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE UNLESS THE CITY DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THIS ANYMORE. AND JUST A QUICK NOTE AND I'M SURE YOU GUYS WHO HAVE HAD EXPERIENCE WITH THIS, WE KNOW THAT SOME OF OUR EIDER CORE LAISSEZ CAMPING WORLD AS AN EXAMPLE OR IF TARGET WANTED TO COME, WE WILL NEED FUNDING TO TAKE PICTURES. IN AN URBAN AREA WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS WELL SET, IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE SOME SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUT WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT.

FOR THE MOST PART THE INFRASTRUCTURES HERE THE IMPACT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. HOW CAN WE ADDRESS SOME OF THE COST THAT DEVELOPERS EXPERIENCE WHEN COMING TO OUR CITY.

AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS CRAPPIES. THE CITY PAID THE IMPACT FEES.

WE COULD HAVE HELPED THEM GET STARTED.

WE WILL STILL BE COLLECTING IMPACT FEES WHICH ARE SIGNIFICANT. I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS AND THEY ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE THAT MOVING FORWARD.

THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT SET UP OVER THERE.

THEY ARE LOOKING AT HELPING US WITH THIS REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND THEY UNDERSTAND OUR CONCERNS. I'M HAPPY TO UNDERSTAND AND

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> YOU SAID THE CITY PAID FOR

CRAPPIES? >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THEY JUST FORGAVE IT. >> NO, IT IS OUR PROPERTY.

>> IT WAS BECAUSE WE PAID BECAUSE IT WAS OUR PROPERTY.

>> SO WE PAID THE IMPACT FEE. >>

>> I DON'T KNOW WHO DID. DO YOU REMEMBER?

>> I DON'T REMEMBER DID. BUT IT WAS PAID FOR BY THE CITY.

>> I'M BACKPEDALING NOW. BUT REGARDLESS.

>> IT COULD HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED.

>> OR ITS $10,000 THAT COULD HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AND USED FOR THE PURPOSE PARENTAGE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ALLEVIATE.

THAT IS A GOOD POINT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT $10,000 WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING. I'M LOOKING TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL STUDY ON THAT. WHERE DID THE $40,000 GO.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT KINGS THEM AND NOW OF COURSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT. WHAT WAS IT TOO MILLION DOLLARS TOTAL. THAT WAS BEFORE THEY DID ANYTHING. IT'S AN IDEA.

[00:50:01]

IT'S KIND OF A PILOT. IF IT DOESN'T WORK IT DOESN'T WORK. HAT IS WHY WE HAVE THIS SHORT

TIMEFRAME TO SEE IF IT WILL. >> THIS WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT PERMITS ARE ISSUED ON.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> FOR EXAMPLE CAUGHT THE KINGS LANDING PROPERTY, THERE'S A STRONG POSSIBILITY, PROBABILITY THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE 12 MORE.

GOD THERE WON'T BE ANY PERMITS ISSUED ON THE PROJECT.

THEY WILL STILL BE PUTTING INK ON PAPER.

THIS MAY NOT EVEN APPLY. >> THAT'S UNIQUE BECAUSE IT WAS A POWER PLANT BEFORE. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THEY COULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR. THERE ARE SOME CREDITS AVAILABLE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COULD SPEAK OF THAT IN GREATER DETAIL.

THIS IS AN ACROSS-THE-BOARD THING.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT IMPORTING AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO COLLECT IMPACT FEES ON YOU IF YOU COME HERE.

IT MAY WORK IT MAY NOT. I'M BEING HONEST.

IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY THAT WE CAN PUT FORT PIERCE OUT THERE AND SAY WE WANT YOU HERE IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA.

>> A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND A QUESTION BUT I THINK YOU ANSWERED IT. THIS IS THE GREATEST REVIVAL IN MY LENGTHY REAL ESTATE CAREER WHERE THE CITY HAS BEEN BYPASSED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE MASSIVE INFIELD AVAILABLE.

THERE IS MASSIVE INFIELD. >> IT IS SHOCKINGLY IN LARGE QUANTITIES. I HAVE BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR A FEW YEARS NOW. I WAS ON THE PRESERVATION BOARD FOR MUCH LONGER. I WOULD CHALLENGE ANYONE TO COMMENT ON THIS AND LIST THREE PROJECTS IN ALL OF THE YEARS THAT MANY OF YOU BEEN ON THE BOARD.

CLEARLY CRAPPY. WE HAVE YET TO COME OUT OF THE GROUND. ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MOTIVAE THIS AS WE GET TO THE END OF THE REAL ESTATE CYCLE AT LEAST BY THE EXPERT PROJECTIONS ESPECIALLY WITH THE ACTIVITY IN THE PORTE. THAT SITE IS A CORNERSTONE TO TYING ALL OF THAT IN. MY QUESTION HAS THE CITY -- DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY CONTEMPLATION AS TO THE POSITIVE IMPACT THIS MAY HAVE OR JUST SAYING THIS IS A GOOD IDEA.

IT CERTAINLY CAN'T HURT A REDEVELOPMENT.

AS THERE BEEN AND SAYING IF YOU GAVE US A HAND, WE MAY CONSIDER MORE STRONGLY REDEVELOPMENT SPIRIT HAS THERE BEEN AN INITIATIVE OR SUPPORT FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT?

>> THANK YOU MR. BRODERICK. NOT DIRECTLY REGARDING THIS.

HOWEVER THAT HAS BEEN A ROADBLOCK FOR SO MANY DEVELOPMENTS. YOU HEAR ALL OF THESE UPFRONT COSTS. NO ONE HAS DIRECTLY SAID VIEW THAT'S RIGHT IF YOU WAIVE THE FEES I WILL PUT THE SHOVEL IN THE GROUND TOMORROW. I KNOW THERE ARE PROJECTS OUT THERE. I KNOW SOME ARE READY TO BE PULLED. I WAS TRYING TO GET THE NUMBERS BUT IT'S HARD TO GET THE SPREADSHEETS TO PULL DIFFERENT THINGS. I WANTED TO SEE WHAT WAS OUT THERE AND HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN OUT THERE.

I KNOW THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT THIS COULD BENEFIT RIGHT NOW THAT WERE ALREADY APPLIED YEARS AGO THAT WOULD BENEFIT.

>> IF I MAY, WE HAVE HAD HEARD IT FIRSTHAND.

[00:55:06]

WE HAVE WALK-INS ALL OF THE TIME.

A LOT OF THEM ARE SMALL FOR MAY BE DUPLEXES A LOT IN LINKIN PARK. THESE IMPACT FEES ARE SUBSTANTIAL. WE HAVE BUILT A RISK -- RELATIONSHIP WHERE IF WE CAN DEMONSTRATE IF THERE WAS A FOUNDATION OR A DEMOLITION PROJECT.

THEY WILL WAIVE THEIR IMPACT FEES.

THEY WILL TAKE A CREDIT. THAT FURTHER REDUCES.

I WILL NEVER FORGET TWO WEEKS AGO WE WERE IN A MEETING WITH A GENTLEMAN WHO WANTED TO DO A PROJECT AND MET WITH THE COUNTY AND WE HELD HIS HAND. SO THERE IS A DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE IMPACT FOR THESE PROJECTS IN OUR AREA.

>> I DO WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING YOU SAID.

YOU SAID THE MARKET BEING HOT RIGHT NOW.

WE ARE STILL NOT SEEING THAT. I THINK WHEN YOU COUPLE THIS IT CAN BE LIKE THIS. CITIES WILL THROW IN INCENTIVES AND DEVELOPMENTS WHEN THE MARKET IS DOWN.

BUT NOW WE HAVE MONEY TO SPEND AND OPPORTUNITIES AND CAUSING PEOPLE TO SAY WE ARE ON THE MAP AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT US.

AND ABOUT THE CREDIT SKY WHEN SOMEONE COMES TO THE TABLE AND WE CAN HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS, THEY ARE ALREADY HERE.

WHAT ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LOOKING AT US.

THIS IS ACROSS-THE-BOARD. THIS CAN REALLY BE HELPFUL.

>> WHERE DO THE IMPACT FEES GO WHEN THEY ARE PAID?

>> I THINK THEY GO INTO RESTRICTIVE REVENUE ACCOUNTS.

STORM WATER OR ROADS. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING ANYONE SPEAKING IN FA FAVOR? NOT SEEN ANYONE WE WILL COME

BACK TO BOARD COMMENTS. >> NOT HEARING ANY I WILL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> NOBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION

I WILL STEP UP. >> I AM NOT A SPIFFY PLANNING

PERSON, SORRY. >> I WILL BRING IT.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED IMPACT THE

MORATORIUM AS OUTLINED. >> SECOND PERIOD.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BROCK RICK SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. ANY COMMENTS?

CALL TO ROLL. >> MR. BRODERICK.

MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. MR. O'CONNELL.

MS. DIAZ. CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER.

>> ALL YES. >> MOTION CARRIES.

>> WE DID AN EXCELLENT JOB WITH THE PRESENTATION OF THE WORK YOU

PUT INTO THIS. >> THANK YOU.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE THE STAFF AT CITY HALL THAT WE HAVE HEE IN FORT PIERCE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE CITIZENS SITTING HERE WAITING TO HEAR YOUR CASES. THIS EVENING WE FOUND OURSELVES IN A POSITION THAT WE HAD NO CHOICE THAN TO HANDLE THE CITY BUSINESS PRIOR TO APPLICATIONS BY CITIZENS.

NORMALLY I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO MOVE CITIZEN CASES FORWARD AND HEAR THOSE FIRST. BUT WE HAD NO CHOICE THIS EVENING. SO I APOLOGIZE.

>> AND WE HAVE MR. GILMORE PRESENTING.

>> GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.

>> I NEED TO ANNOUNCE THIS. >> SORRY.

[f. Site Plan & Design Review - Cowboys Redevelopment - 5000 Okeechobee Road]

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE LIST IS THE NEW BUSINESS ITEM 7D.

SITE PLAN AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR COWBOYS REDEVELOPMENT 5,000 AND

OKEECHOBEE ROAD. >> GOOD EVENING CHAIR AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND DESIGN REVIEW.

[01:00:03]

IT IS OF THE COWBOYS RESTAURANTS SITE AT 5,000 OKEECHOBEE ROAD.

IT IS ON 1.5 ACRES AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MCNEIL ROAD AND OKEECHOBEE ROAD. THE PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF GC WITH CURRENT ZONING OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3.

THE PROPOSED BUILDING THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WILL BE 10,700 SQUARE FEET. CURRENTLY THE EXISTING BUILDING WHICH IS THE COWBOYS RESTAURANT IS 6300 SQUARE FEET.

THE PROPOSED PARKING WILL CONSIST OF 88 SPACES FOR BEING THERE. CURRENTLY THERE ARE 85805 TOTAL SPACES. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ADD.

CITY CODE THE APPLICANT WILL ONLY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE 50 SPACES BUT THEY ARE PROVIDING 88.

>> AS FAR AS DESIGN REVIEW, THE BUILDING WILL CONSIST OF A ONE-STORY BUILDING FOR THE MODULAR.

A BRICK VENEER WALL EXTERIOR WHICH WILL INCLUDE BROWN COLOR FOR THE ROOM FLYING TRAINING IT WILL BE BONE WHITE COLOR.

FOR THE BUILDING BASED TRIM IT WILL BE SIENA AND LIMESTONE.

AND THE AWNINGS WILL BE THE COLOR OF BLUE OR POLO BLUE.

FOR LANDSCAPING THE TREES AND SHRUBS THE TOTAL TREES WILL BE 60 TREES. 245 SHRUBS.

THERE WILL BE 19 LIVE OAK TREES AND PUT METAL TREES.

AS FAR AS THE SHRUBS 133 SHRUBS. AND 14 SPIDER LILIES.

>> THIS IS A CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS WE REVIEWED THE APPLICATION. IT IS TO CONSTRUCT A 10,750 SQUARE-FOOT COMMERCIAL PLAZA WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER COLLECTION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE CONDITIONS.

POSSIBLE ACTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD, RECOMMENDING THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION AND NO CHANGES.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN APPLICATION WITH CHANGES OR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS TO

CONSTRUCT IT. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH FOUR CONDITIONS. THE FOUR CONDITIONS ARE, ONE, A COMPLETE CERTIFICATION BY A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

AND A BOND PURSUANT TO THE CITY CODE SECTION 22 -- 180 SHALL BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS APPROVED. NUMBER TWO PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PSYCH PERMITS THE APPLICANT SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FOR THE REQUIRED MITIGATION OF THE CITY REGULATED TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS A RESULT OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT. NUMBER THREE.

CITY CODE SUBMIT A COLOR BOARD WHICH WOULD INCLUDE AN 11 BY 17 MAXIMUM CONTAIN THE ACTUAL COLOR SAMPLES OF ALL EXTERIOR FINISHES KEEP TO THE ELEVATION SCOTT INDICATING THE MANUFACTURER'S NAME AND COLOR DESIGNATION PRIOR TO CITY COMMISSION.

>> NUMBER FOUR ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THERE ARE TWO LIVE OAKS THAT ARE IN VERY BAD CONDITION.

REPLACE BOTH TREES WITH A SHORT A SPECIES OF TREE FOR CONTINUOUS LANDSCAPE SCREEN. THIS SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO

FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. >> THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION CONCERNING BONDS IN PLACE OF LANDSCAPING ON THIS PROPERTY HAS

THEIR? >> A BOND IN PLACE?

>> LANDSCAPE IN LIEU OF LANDSCAPE.

>> KNOW WE ALWAYS REQUIRE, ANYTIME THERE'S A PLAN IT IS A

BOND REQUIRED. >>> BUT THERE HAS BEEN TIMES WHERE WE HAVE HAD IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WE HAVE HAD REQUESTS COME IN, APPLICATIONS COMMAND THAT THE LANDSCAPE WAS RELIEVED IN SOME WAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS THROUGH BOND?

>> NOTE THAT IS TOO BASIC. THAT'S LIKE A SECURITY MEASURE TO MAKE SURE THE LANDSCAPING WILL LAST.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT BUT ARE THEY GOING TO TEAR DOWN THE CURRENT COWBOYS.

[01:05:01]

WOULD THERE BE AN IMPACT FEE CHARGE IN ORDER TO TURN THE

BUILDING DOWN? >> THE IMPACT FEES COME INTO EFFECT DURING BUILDING PERMIT. I'M SURE THEY WILL RECEIVE A

CREDIT. >> THEY WILL RECEIVE A CREDIT.

FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE IMPACT FEES WILL BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY A RESTAURANT.

THEY WILL BE BUILDING A MEDICAL OFFICE OF THE IMPACT FEES WILL BE DIFFERENT. WE WILL CREDIT THEM THE IMPACT FEES AND IF THEY WERE BUILT AFTER 2009 IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, THEY WILL BE CREDITED THOSE FEES ALSO.

WE DIDN'T IMPACT THE FEES UNTIL 2019 -- 2009.

>> BUT THERE WILL BE IMPACT FEES?

>> CORRECT. >> AT THE CURRENT LEVEL?

>> CORRECT. >> SO THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ALMOST READY TO GO IN A SENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING IN THIS EVENING WITH PLANS. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY AN

IMPACT FEE? >> YES.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> JUST ONE.

THE PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED. THERE ARE SOME NOTATIONS REGARDING DEMOLITION. IN ESSENCE IT'S ALL OF THE

LANDSCAPING BEING REDONE? >> NOT ALL OF IT.

>> ALL OF THE LOWER STUFF? SANCHEZ.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING REGARDING THIS PROJECT PLEASE STEP FORWARD. NOT SEEING ANYONE.

WE WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IS WE HAVE A LOSS OF EXISTING BUSINESS OUT BUT LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY PRELEASED. SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GET TO THE CITY COMMISSION SO THEY CAN GET IT TAKEN CARE OF.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MR. CHAIR I MOVE THAT WE FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION OF

APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. >> I SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT.

A SECOND BY MR. BRODERICK. ANY COMMENTS?

CALL TO ROLL. PLEASE. >> THE ROLL IS CALLED.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. GILMORE.

I SEE YOU ARE STILL IN THE HOT SEAT.

[g. Conditional Use - Reyda Dwelling Rental - 3034 Windward Drive, Unit 1305]

>> OUR NEXT ITEM IS CONDITIONAL USE.

HOW DO WE SAY THIS REYDA DWELLING RENTAL AT 3034 WINDWARD DRIVE UNIT 1305. I BELIEVE THAT IS IN THE OCEAN VILLAGE COMPLEX. THAT HAD A PRE-AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

THEY DID NOT? >> NOT THIS CLUSTER.

THIS IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE GRANDFATHERED AREA.

>> SO THIS IS ONE OF THE NEWER CLUSTERS?

>> YES. >>

>> THANK YOU CHAIR AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION FOR THE APPLICANT THE REYDA FAMILY.

THEY ARE SEEKING TO OPERATE A DWELLING RENTAL WITH A MINIMUM 31 DAYS WITH LESS THAN 30 DAYS. THE SUBJECT PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE CONDOMINIUMS OF OCEAN VILLAGE CONDOMINIUMS. AND IT IS LOCATED TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH ORSON DRIVE AND AS A ZONING OF OUR 48 WHICH IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE OF HR WHICH IS THIS.

THIS IS A CONSIDERATION ONCE AGAIN WE CONDITIONAL USE OFFERING LODGING FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT WITH SIX CONDITIONS. THE FIRST SYNOPSIS IS FLORIDA LEGISLATURE 2011 FOR THE CITY DENYING SHORT-TERM RENTALS.

CONDITIONAL USES ARE ALLOWED BECAUSE LIKE JUDICIAL HEARING AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE.

THE CITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE NO CURRENT VIOLATIONS. THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE BEING ADDED TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS RECOMMEND THE BOARD WITH CONDITIONS AND RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL WITHIN THE REQUIRED

[01:10:07]

VOTE. THE STAFF HAS THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION. WITH SIX CONDITIONS.

NUMBER ONE THE PROPERTY MANAGER FOR THE DWELLING SHOULD BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES TO RESOLVE COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS. THE MANAGER SHALL RESIDE IN THE COUNTY AND REGISTER WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

THE GUIDE BOOKLET SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TO RENTALS REGARDING CONFLICT.

NUMBER THREE, THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE FOR AND OBTAIN BUSINESS TAX LICENSES WITHIN 30 DAYS OF CONDITIONAL USE OF APPROVAL. NUMBER FOUR THERE SHALL BE A LIMITATION OF NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES AT THE SITE.

NUMBER FIVE THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUSINESS TAX NUMBER SHOULD BE INCLUDED ON ALL ADVERTISING.

>> NUMBER SIX THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY SHOULD BE IN

GUIDELINES WITH THE CITY CODE. >>> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM

THE BOARD? >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY MR. GILMORE, THIS UNIT IS LOCATED IN THE OCEAN HOUSE

CONDOMINIUM? >> YES.

>> THINK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS? >> NOT HEARING ANY I WILL MOVE TO THE PUBLIC MEETING. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. YOU JUST SIT THERE AND SMILE.

YOU ARE QUIET IN YOU TAKE NOTES. I WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

DISCUSSION? >> JUST READING THROUGH THE PACKET, IN THE CONDOMINIUM AREA, THEY ARE ALREADY TAKING

SHORT-TERM LEASES. >> IT IS IN THEIR DOCUMENTS.

>> I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

WITH THE PROPOSED SIX CONDITIONS.

>> I SECOND PERIOD. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY M MS. THAT'S RIGHT BRODERICK SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT.

COMMENTS. CALLED THE ROLE OF POLICE?

>> THE ROLE IS CALLED. >> THE MOTION IS CARRIED.

AS I ANNOUNCED EARLIER THE HARRIS DWELLING WINCHELL HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.

THE LAST ITEM ON THE LIST IS COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.

I WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY AGAIN.

WHEN DID YOU DO TO YOUR HEAD? LAUGHTER.

>> YOU NEED TO GET A TABLET. >> NOT SEEING OR HEARING ANY.

THE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. >> I DON'T HAVE WON THIS

EVENING. >> YOU HAVE NO REPORT.

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

>> BOARD COMMENTS. I WILL MAKE A COMMENT HERE CONCERNING CONDITIONAL USE RENTALS SHORT-TERM.

I SEE THAT WE ARE NOW LISTING THE FLORIDA STATE CODE THAT WAS INTRODUCED IN 2011 AND WE HAD A CONSULTANT THAT CAME IN AND DID A VERY NICE PRESENTATION PRIOR TO YOU ARRIVING IN FORT PIERCE AND YOUR ARRIVAL. THEY PROVIDED US WITH A COPY OF A SLIDE AND SO ON. I KNOW SOME THINGS HAVE CHANGED HERE IN REGARDS TO OUR SHORT-TERM ORDINANCE.

THE CHANGES MAY HAVE COME INTO EFFECT FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND PRESSURES FROM THE OUTSIDE IN. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M REFERRING TO HERE. I CHOOSE NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT.

IT MAY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON THE 2011 LEGISLATION.

I ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE RIGHT NOW, AND I BELIEVE ONE OF THE FOUR BILLS SUBMITTED IN 2070 -- 2017 THAT COULD POSSIBLY IMPACT SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

I BELIEVE ONE OF THEM HAS WORKED THEIR WAY THROUGH COMMITTEES.

THAT MEANS IT MAY BE HEARD IN THIS SESSION.

IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT WILL BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT IT MAY.

[01:15:04]

I CLEARLY UNDERSTAND IF THAT IS HURT, IT COULD HAVE A VERY LARGE IMPACT ON WHAT WE DO HERE ON THIS BOARD.

I GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT TO SUGGEST AND REQUEST THAT IF THAT PASSES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US BRING IN SOMEONE FOR A BRIEF TRAINING SESSION AGAIN AS TO HOW THAT POTENTIAL I'M GOING TO CALL IT POTENTIAL LEGISLATION HOW IT COULD IMPACT US HERE IN THIS CITY AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS IN THAT CONVERSATION THIS 2011 BILL AND HOW IT IS IMPACTING US NOW VERSUS WHAT WE WERE LED TO BELIEVE TWO YEARS AGO.

TIME GOES BY SO FAST. THE RESIDENT.

IT IS AMAZING. BECAUSE WE ARE BEING LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE BILL HAS A LARGE IMPACT ON US.

AT THE TIME THAT WE SAT WITH OUR CONSULTANT IT DID NOT.

AT LEAST NOT THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT.

IT DID NOT IMPACT US BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE WAS IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE SPECIFIC DATE, I THINK IT WAS JUNE 2011.

OUR ORDINANCES WERE ALREADY IN PLACE AND OPERATING SO THE LEGISLATION WAS PASSED IN 2011 AND IT DIDN'T IMPACT US

DIRECTLY. >> I BRING THAT ALL UP BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON WHAT WE DO HERE WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THE DECISIONS THAT WE CAN MAKE MOVING FORWARD.

>> THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER FOR THE FUTURE, ESPECIALLY ONCE WE KNOW ANY OF THESE BILLS THAT HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED SLEET --

BACKSEAT LEGISLATION. >> I HAVE WATCHED THAT PRESENTATION THAT WAS STUNNED BY THE CONSULTANT A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK AND I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THEM.

THERE IS LEGISLATION THAT IS GOING FORWARD THAT WILL PREEMPT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND WE ARE WATCHING IT.

WE ARE AWARE THERE ARE SOME SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES THAT MAY TAKE PLACE. RIGHT NOW WE DO HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT REGULATES HOW WE LOOK AT OUR VACATION RENTALS WHETHER IT BE 31 DAYS AND UNDER OR MORE THAN THAT.

ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT RIGHT NOW IS STATUS QUO BUT DEPENDING ON THE OUTCOME, WE WILL ADDRESS IT THEN AND DEFINITELY IF IT IS THE BOARDS PLEASURE WE CAN HAVE SOMEONE COME IN AND DO A WORKSHOP. TO TEACH US HOW WE LOOK AT THESE

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. AND ANY WORKSHOPS THAT YOU CAN THINK OF, AND THERE ARE ASSOCIATIONS FOR PLANNERS.

I DO KNOW IN WEST PALM BEACH I HAVE ATTENDED SOME OF THE SESSIONS OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

MR. BERG USED TO SPEAK AT SOME OF THE SESSIONS I DON'T KNOW IF HE STILL DOES. HE HAS SAT ON SEVERAL PANELS.

IF ANY OF THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO THIS BOARD IF SOME OF OUR MEMBERS COULD

ATTEND. >> AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM PAYING FOR THAT PERSONALLY. OTHER MEMBERS MAY NEED

ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY. >> ANY COMMENTS?

>> DID WIN HIS MR. CREEK AND COMING BACK?

>> HE HAS ARRIVED BACK FROM CHINA.

>> DID WE PUT THEM IN A 14 DAY QUARANTINE?

>> WE DID. >> I EXPECT THAT THAT.

>> HE ALWAYS WEARS HIS MASK AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> HE VOLUNTEERED. >> HE IS NOT IN ONE OF THE OFFICES UPSTAIRS? SHE'S WATCHING US RIGHT NOW.

>> WAS HE ON ONE OF THE LIGHTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SPONSORED OR

SOMETHING CLICKS. >> THE LAST AMERICAN AIRLINES

FLIGHT. >> I'M GLAD HE'S BACK IN THE

[01:20:03]

U.S. LET'S HOPE HE IS ALL RIGHT.

>> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. >> I NOTICED IN MR. GILMORE'S PRESENTATION, THAT WE STILL HAD THE MAJORITY REQUIREMENT I

THOUGHT THAT WAS GONE. >> IS NOT THROUGH THE COMMISSION

CLICKS. >> ONE OF THE QUICK QUESTION, ANY UPDATE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CRACKS.

>> OUR CONSULTANTS WILL BE BRINGING IT FORWARD.

>> >> WE ARE WATCHING.

>> I HAD HEARD ABOUT IN A WHILE. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> WE THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.

AND WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SITTING IN FOR MR. SWEENEY.

>> ARE YOU PERMIT? >> YES.

>> WILL BE PERMANENT. >> YOU WILL BE PERMANENTLY

ASSIGNED TO US? >> YES.

>> THAT'S GREAT. >> WE WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH

SOMETHING FOR YOU TO DO. >> I HAVE THE BOOK IN MY OFFICE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.