Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:05]

>> GOOD EVENING. WE'LL BE OPENING OUR FORT PIERCE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF TUESDAY MARCH 10TH. I ALWAYS HAVE TO LOOK DOWN AND SEE WHAT DAY IT IS.

AND WHAT THE DATE IS. I RETIRED AS I'M REMINDED ON A REGULAR BASIS.

FIRST OFF IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN ANY CELL PHONES OFF INCLUDING OUR BOARD.

PLEASE STAND AND CITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> MR. BROADDRICK.

>> HERE. MISS DIAZ. >> HERE.

>> MR. O'CONNELL. CHAIRMAN MILLER. >> PRESENT.

>> MR. OCONO IS ABSENT THIS EVENING. I'D LIKE TO KEEP HIM ON OUR MINDS. HIS FATHER HAS PASSED AWAY THIS WEEK.

HE'S REALLY BEEN STRUGGLING. IT'S BEEN HARD ON HIM. AND PLEASE KEEP HIM IN OUR MINDS. I THINK MOST EVERYBODY HERE, EVERYBODY HERE ON THE BOARD KNOWS HIM. SO SOME OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE KNOW HIM AS WELL.

I'D LIKE TO, BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

FIRST OFF, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME ALISHA BACK. SHE'S BEEN GONE FOR TWO MONTHS.

SHE TOOK AN EXTENDED VACATION. SHE LOT OF TIME ON THE BEACH. SHE LOOKS LIKE SHE'S TANNED.

WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE YOU BACK. SHE DIDN'T TAKE A VACATION.

I'D LIKE TO THANK LINDA COX, OUR CITY CLERK, FOR SITTING IN FOR ALISHA.

SHE KEPT ME OUT OF TROUBLE. I DEPEND ON ALISHA TO DO THAT. LINDA WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO STEP IN AND SPEND AN ADDITIONAL NIGHT OF HER TIME HERE AT CITY HALL.

I DON'T KNOW, SHE JUST DOESN'T SEE HER HUSBAND VERY MUCH. HE COMPLAINS TO ME ABOUT THAT.

THERE'S NOTHING I CAN DO, SHE WORKS FOR THE MAYOR. HE STOPS ME ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET ON A REGULAR BASIS. I'D LIKE TO THANK OUR TEMP THAT CAME IN.

MARCY MANDOODLE. >> SHE HAS HELPED US OUT TREMENDOUSLY.

SHE HELPED WITH A LOT OF THE WALK INS. >> SHE DID HELP A LOT.

[a. Minutes from the January 14, 2020 meeting]

SHE HELPED ME A LOT. WITH THAT WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE MINUTES.

WE HAVE TWO DRAFTS TO APPROVE THIS EVENING. WHEN ALISHA WAS OUT THAT JOB WASN'T BEING DONE EFFICIENTLY. WE HAVE A JANUARY 14TH MINUTES TO APPROVE.

I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY MR. BRODERICK AND SECONDED BY MISS JOHNSON SCOTT.

>> MISS JOHNSON SCOTT. >> YES. >> MISS DIAZ.

>> YES. >> MR. LEE. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN MILLER. >> YES, MA'AM. >> WE ALSO HAVE THE FEBRUARY

[b. Minutes from the February 11, 2020 meeting]

11TH MEETING MINUTES. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> MR. BURDGE.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> MR. BRODERICK. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER -- >> JUST A MINUTE, PLEASE. WE HAVE PULLED ITEM D, THE

[00:05:11]

CULVERHOUSE PROJECT, HAS BEEN PULLED OFF THE AGENDA THIS EVENING.

IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY? >> NO, SIR.

>> GO AHEAD. >> WONDER IF WE COULD HAVE OUR NEW MEMBER INTRODUCE HIMSELF.

>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> I TOLD YOU I WAS GOING TO DO

THAT. >> SOLOMON LEE LIFE TIME RESIDENT OF FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA.

MY DEGREE IS IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION. I OWN, CO-OWN, ME AND MY BROTHERS LARRY LEE JR., THE VILLAGE VENUE. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON THE

BOARD. >> YOU MAY KNOW LARRY LEE JR.'S NAME VERY WELL SOME OF US.

MOST OF US. VERY GOOD. WE APPRECIATE YOUR SITTING ON THE BOARD WITH US. ONE ITEM I'D LIKE TO BRING UP, MR. LEE'S NAME IS MISSPELLED.

NOT LEE. SOLOMON. I'M SURE WE'LL GET THAT TAKEN

CARE OF BY THE NEXT MEETING. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> THANK YOU, MR. BURDGE.

[a. Conditional Use with New Construction - Seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line - 324 South Ocean Drive]

MOVING ON CONDITIONAL USE BY NEW CONSTRUCTION COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE AT 324 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. AND MR. CREAGAN IS GOING TO PRE

PRESENT. >> GOOD EVENING. BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 324 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THIS PROJECT PREVIOUSLY CAME TO THE PLANNING BOARD IN 2016 AND IT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THIS BOARD AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE ONLY CHANGES TONIGHT BASED ON THIS APPLICATION AND THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION IS THEY HAVE DROPPED DOWN THEIR HEIGHT UNDERNEATH THE 45 FOOT MARK AND CHANGED THE DESIGN A LITTLE BIT.

DUE TO THE APPLICATION LAPSING, THEY HAD TO REFILE THE APPLICATION AGAIN.

SO NORMALLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WOULD NOT REQUIRE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE, CITY CODE MANDATES THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION BE REVIEWED BY BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION AND DEP BEFORE CONSTRUCTION MAY COMMENCE. THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IS R4A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A FUTURE LAND USE OF HIR, HUTCHISON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL.

THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE AND AS PROPOSED WILL NOT CAUSE ANNED ED NED A SRER -- ADVERSE TO THE DUNE SYSTEM. 3B SPECIFIES THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE R4A ZONING DISTRICT IS 45 FEET. HEIGHT IN THAT DISTRICT IS MEASURED FROM FEMA BASE ELEVATION AND NOT FROM EXISTING GRADE LIKE IT WOULD BE HERE ON THE MAINLAND. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE HOUSE IS WELL BELOW THE 45 FOOT MARK FROM THE FEMA BASED FLOOD ELEVATION. THIS IS JUST RENDERING OF WHAT THE BUILDING WILL LOOK LIKE UPON COMPLETION. THE PREVIOUS DESIGN THAT THEY HAD, HAD A FLAT ROOF AND THIS IS NOW A THREE STORY BUILDING INSTEAD OF A FOUR STORY BUILDING AND HAS A DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURAL STYLE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH FOUR CONDITIONS. ONE THE RELOCATION OF THE ROYAL PALM THAT WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED AS IT IS WITHIN THE DRIVE WAY AREA. SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH CITY OF PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BEFORE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY CAN COMMENCE.

THEY WILL BE MOVING THAT ROYAL PALM TO AN ALTERNATE LOCATION. TWO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE NO DRAINAGE ISSUES DURING CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUR.

THIS SHALL BE COORDINATED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE CONSTRUCTION DEPARTMENT.

THREE, OBTAIN THE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACT TEUFRTIES C WORD OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE BEFORE ACTIVITIES CAN COMMENCE. AND, FOUR, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT IS PROVIDE AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE SIGNED AND SEALED BY A REGISTERED FLORIDA LAND ARCHITECT. SO POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD ARE YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN REVIEW WITH NO CHANGES, AS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH

[00:10:01]

FOUR CONDITION. YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OR YOU CAN RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR

MR. CREAGAN? >> I HAVE A COUPLE. THIS IS JUST REALLY FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. THE CURRENT CODE REQUIRES A 60 FOOT FRONTAGE ON THIS LOT TODAY, CORRECT? BUT THIS LOT IS CONFORMING BASED ON THE DATE THAT IT WAS PLATTED BACK IN MAY OF 1947, REDUCED SIZE FRONTAGE. JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THIS, THAT THE SECTION SPECIFIES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CAN BE BUILT IN THE FOLLOWING INSTANCES AND ENUMERATES FOUR DIFFERENT REASONS WHY IT CAN BE BUILT.

BASED UPON MY REVIEW, THIS APPLICATION MEETS ALL FOUR OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

IS THAT YOUR ASSESSMENT AS WELL? >> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? NOT SEEING ANY FURTHER COMMENTS I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS PROJECT?

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND SIGN IN, PLEASE. >> MY NAME IS WILLIAM STODDARD.

I AM THE ENGINEER/AGENT FOR THIS PROJECT. SO AS MR. CREAGAN SAID, WE WERE HERE A COUPLE YEARS AGO IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND IT WAS APPROVED BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE FOOTPRINT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED. THE DEP PERMIT IS STILL EFFECTIVE.

IT'S STILL ABOUT TEUFRB AND WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING UNDER THAT.

THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGES TO THE SITE. THE OVERALL HEIGHTH OF THE BUILDING I KNOW THERE WAS SOME CONCERN LAST TIME REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.

THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER, WE'RE REDUCING THE HEIGHT FROM 45 FEET DOWN TO 36.33 FEET AND IT WENT FROM FOUR FLOORS DOWN TO THREE FLOORS. IT'S REALLY BEEN A REDUCTION IN

THE IMPACT. >> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS, IT WAS AN ELEVATOR SHAFT THAT WENT UP TO THE TOP OF THE BUILDING AND THE ELEVATOR SHAFT WAS THE HEIGHT

ISSUE. >> RIGHT. >> IT WAS NOT SO MUCH THE ROOF

OF THE BUILDING BUT THE HEIGHT OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. >> RIGHT.

THEN THEY HAD THAT LIVING DECK ON THE ROOF. WE DON'T HAVE THAT ANY MORE.

>> THAT'S GONE AND WE'VE GOT A ROOF. LOOKING AT THIS --

>> IT'S MORE LIKE THE OTHER PROJECTS YOU SEE. >> THIS LOOKS GREAT.

LOOKS LIKE IT WILL FIT IN VERY WELL ALONG THE OCEAN BOULEVARD. YOU HAD A QUESTION?

>> NO. AS SOON AS HE MENTIONED THE HEIGHT ISSUE, I RECALL THE APPLICATION NOW. THAT WAS THE QUESTION AT THE TIME.

SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED. >> I THINK THE FOUR CONDITIONS THAT WE SEE HERE ON THIS REPORT ARE THE SAME FOUR CONDITIONS THAT WERE EXISTING IN THE ORIGINAL DRAFT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> LAST TIME THERE WEREN'T ANY CONDITIONS ON THE PROJECT, BUT WE REVIEW EVERY PROJECT THAT COMES IN ON ITS OWN MERIT. SO THIS TIME AROUND, WE ELECTED TO PUT FOUR CONDITIONS ON THE

PROJECT. >> I RECALL A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PALM TREE OUT FRONT.

>> YEAH. >> MAYBE IT WASN'T PART OF THE CONDITIONS, BUT WE DISCUSSED IT

AT LENGTH. ARE YOU HAPPY WITH EVERYTHING? >> I THINK ITEM THREE EARLIER THIS WEEK WE FORWARDED TO BRANDON A COPY OF THE DEP PERMIT AND A COPY OF THE OWNER CHANGE.

THE PERMIT IS NOW IN THE NEW PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME. IF ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COME UP

-- >> DOES ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE PRESENTER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? PLEASE SIGN IN, STATE YOUR NAME

AND ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS BOB ZASE.

I OWN THE PROPERTY 351 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. AS BACKGROUND, I HAVE A 45-YEAR CAREER IN THE ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. I'M A LICENSED CIVIL ENGINEER. I PREVIOUSLY HELD A GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND I LED ONE OF THE LARGEST ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES IN THE UNITED STATES. I HAVE OWNED PROPERTY IN FT.

PIERCE SINCE 1971. I SPOKE A NUMBER OF TIMES ABOUT THIS PROJECT, OBJECTING TO THIS

[00:15:03]

PROJECT THREE YEARS AGO. AND THE REAL ISSUE, AS M MR. STODDARD INKINDICATED, WAS THAT THE NEIGHBORS OBJECTED TO THE HEIGHT. THERE WAS A PETITION PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT HAD SOMETHING IN EXCESS OF 60 SIGNATURES FROM A 500 FOOT RADIUS. I THINK SPEAKING JUST FOR MYSELF TONIGHT, I THINK THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WOULD AGREE THAT WE'RE GLAD THE HEIGHT HAS COME DOWN SOMEWHAT.

I WOULD POINT OUT THE OVER ALL BUILDING, IT DOES STILL APPROACH 45 FEET.

THE TRUSS STARTING POINT IS, I BELIEVE, 36 FEET. THEN WHEN YOU ADD THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF, IT GETS YOU RIGHT UP TO CLOSE TO 45 FEET. SO DON'T BE MISLED BY THAT COMMENT, PLEASE. LOOK, THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT SITE TO BUILD ON.

HAS A VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT. HAS A DEPTH OF ABOUT 27 FEET. THERE'S 28 FEET FOR A FOOTPRINT.

42 FEET WIDE. IT'S GONNA START AT NINE FEET. SO THAT BUILDING, AS PROPOSED TODAY IS BASICALLY GONNA BE 50 FEET ABOVE THE GRADE OF THE SIDEWALK.

SO IT IS STILL A SUBSTANTIAL MONUMENT, IF YOU WILL, ALONG THE BEACH.

AND THEREIN STILL LIES THE OBJECTION. WHAT I WOULD ASK THIS BOARD TO CONSIDER IS -- RIGHT NOW THIS IS PROPOSED TO HAVE 12 FOOT CEILINGS AT EACH LEVEL.

IF THE BUILDING WERE TO HAVE TEN FEET CEILINGS AT EACH LEVEL, THAT WOULD MATERIALLY FURTHER REDUCE THIS HEIGHT AND GET IT MORE IN LINE WITH THE ALIGNMENT ALONG THAT BEACH AND I THINK WOULD BE MUCH MORE WELCOME WITHOUT LOSING THE ARCHITECTURAL VOLUME CONCEPT THAT IS BEING SOUGHT WITH THIS DESIGN. I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE COMPROMISE.

I'D LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT. SECONDLY, I UNDERSTAND THE DEP PERMIT IS STILL APPLICABLE.

I WOULD REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS A CRITICALLY RATED BEACH BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

YOU KNOW WHAT THE EROSION LOOKS LIKE OUT THERE. WHEN WE HAD THE RECENT HIGH TIDES AROUND THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, THE KING TIDES, AT HIGH TIDE LEVEL, THE WAVE OVERFLOW WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE BACK LINE OF PROPOSED FOR THIS BUILDING. NOW, IF THE GOVERNMENT FUNDING IS LOST FOR BEACH RESTORATION, THIS BUILDING IS GONNA BE THREATENED.

AND I'D LIKE YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU DELIBERATE ON THIS PROPOSAL.

THIRDLY, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES RAISING THE EXISTING GRADE THREE TO FIVE FEET ABOVE WHERE IT IS TODAY. WHICH IS AN ATTEMPT TO COMPLY WITH USING ALL OF THE EXCAVATING MATERIAL THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE DEP. THIS ADVANTAGES THE ADJOIN PROPERTY BECAUSE BY BUILDING THAT UP ABOVE THE EXISTING DUNE, IF WE HAVE A SURGE OR A HIGH TIDE, THAT WATER IS GONNA BE DEFLECTED TO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY, PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE, WHICH I THINK IS UNFAIR TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. FOURTHLY, THE PLANS AS PRESENTED ON SHEET 16 OF 26 INDICATE THAT AS A MATERIAL IS EXCAVATED, IT WILL BE RELOCATED AND PLACED BY LOADERS DOWN IN THE 400 BLOCK OF SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THAT MAY BE A TYPO.

I'D LIKE TO GET THAT CLARIFIED. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GONNA MOVE 100 YARD OF MATERIAL WITH FRONT END LOADERS UP AND DOWN THE STREET, I THINK THAT'S A SAFETY ISSUE FOR PEDESTRIANS, FOR TRAFFIC.

I THINK THAT'S AN INAPPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION PLAN. ALSO, THERE'S GOING TO BE SPILLAGE ON THAT STREET IF YOU MOVE IT IN THAT MANNER. I'M ASSUMING THAT MATERIAL STORAGE, LABOR PARKING, EQUIPMENT PARKING, IS GOING TO BE ON THE NOTED 415 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THERE IS NO ROOM FOR PARKING AT THIS CONSTRUCTION SITE.

THERE IS NO PARK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE STREET. I DON'T WANT THEM PARKING IN MY DRIVE WAY WHEN I'M NOT HERE. SO THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT I'D LIKE TO GET CONFIRMED.

IF YOU DO APPROVE THIS ULTIMATELY, I AM CONCERNED AND I THINK THE NEIGHBORS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE EXCAVATION OF THAT DUNE DURING THE HURRICANE SEASON.

[00:20:03]

THERE WILL BE A DEGRADATION OF THE DUNE AT THE BUILDING SITE, AT THE FOOTPRINT.

THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE HIGHEST POINT ON THE DUNE, WHERE THAT BUILDING IS BEING SITED.

IT'S THE WAY THAT AREA HAS NATURALLY BUILT UP. AND IF IT IS DEGRADED FOR FOUNDATION EXCAVATION AND INSTALLATION OF PILING AND THE CAP THEME, WHICH IS THE DESIGN, THAT CREATES A VULNERABILITY TO MY PROPERTY AND ADJOINING PROPERTIES IF IT'S DEGRADED AND WE GET A HURRICANE WHILE IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO EITHER BE A RESTRICTION THAT THAT EXCAVATION OF THAT DUNE DOES NOT HAPPEN DURING HURRICANE SEASON OR THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MITIGATION STEPS TAKEN SO THAT IN THE EVENT THAT WE DO GET A STORM WHILE IT'S EXCAVATED, ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT IMPACTED ADVERSELY.

AND LASTLY, LOOK, THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE SITE COUPLED WITH BOTH THE CITY CODE AN DEP REQUIREMENTS AND POTENTIAL IMPACT TO NEIGHBORS, I WOULD REQUEST THAT ONE CONDITION BE APPLIED TO THIS APPLICATION WOULD BE PERFORMANCE BOND BE POSTED.

IT'S ALLOWED FOR IN SECTION 22-77. I THINK THAT'S NOT AN UNREASONABLE REQUIREMENT, GIVEN THE DIFFICULTY THAT IT'S GONNA TAKE TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION ON THIS BUILD. YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS ON THE SIDES WITHOUT GOING OUT ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY. THERE IS NO LAY DOWN ROOM ON THIS SITE.

AND IF WE GET AN EXCAVATION THAT'S NOT TAKEN CARE OF DURING A STORM PERIOD, I THINK IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE TO HAVE THAT PERFORMANCE BOND POSTED SO WE GET TIMELY COMPLETION AND TIMELY ADHERENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEP AND THE CITY. SO IN SUMMARY, WITHOUT INCORPORATING THOSE COMMENTS IN SOME MANNER, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO NOT APPROVE THIS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS

PROJECT? I WOULD ALLOW YOU TO ABUT. >> THANK YOU.

THE FIRST POINT ABOUT REDUCING THE HEIGHT FROM 10 FEET TO 12 FEET.

WE'VE MADE CONCESSIONS. WE'VE REDUCED THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING OVERALL.

IT FALLS WELL WITHIN THE LIMITS FOR THE CODE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO START FORCING THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO BE

REDUCED. >> CAN YOU COMMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT?

THEY'RE SAYING IT'S TO TRUSS. >> IF YOU WANT TO DEFINE HOW BUILDING HEIGHT IS DEFINED.

>> IT'S MEASURED, FEMA BASED PLAT ELEVATION AND NOT FROM THE GRADE.

>> TOP ELEVATION IS MEASURED TO THE MEAN ROOF HEIGHT. IT'S THE MEAN ROOF HEIGHT IS

WHERE THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM. >> SO WHAT IS THE OVERALL

HEIGHT? >> THE OVERALL HEIGHT, I DON'T HAVE THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, BUT PROBABLY THREE FEET BELOW 45. PROBABLY 42 FEET.

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE ACTUAL 45 FOOT HEIGHT IS TO THE TRUSS.

>> YES. >> NOT TO THE PEAK OF THE ROOF. >> RIGHT.

>> THE MEAN ROOF HEIGHT. >> YOU COULD TECHNICALLY TAKE THAT BUILDING AND TAKE THE MEAN OF THAT ROOF AND SLIDE IT UP SO IT'S RIGHT ON THE DASH LINE. HE COULD GAIN ANOTHER TEN FEET IN HEIGHT ON THE BUILDING. BEFORE WE HAD A FLAT ROOF, WE WERE MAXIMIZING THE HEIGHT.

AS FAR AS FDOT CONTROLLING TRAFFIC, CONSTRUCTION, IT'S A DOT ROAD WAY.

ANY KIND OF VARIATION FROM THEIR STANDARDS, THEY'RE GONNA SHUT THE PROJECT DOWN OR HAVE ISSUES WITH THE CONTRACTOR UP THERE. I DON'T SEE THERE BEING A PROBLEM, AS FAR AS MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD WAY. BECAUSE THE DOT GOES UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD ALL THE TIME.

IF THERE IS A PROBLEM, I'M SURE WE'LL BE NOTIFIED. AS FAR AS THE CONCERN ABOUT BUILDING DURING HURRICANE SEASON, LIKE WE SAID BEFORE, WE HAVE THE DEP PERMIT IN PLACE.

THAT'S USUALLY THE PERMIT THAT TAKES THE LONGEST TIME FRAME. THAT'S USUALLY A FOUR MONTH PROCESS TO GET THE PERMIT. WE HAVE THAT IN PLACE RIGHT NOW. ONCE WE CAN GET APPROVAL FROM PLANNING AND ZONING AND COMMISSION, WE CAN GO INTO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THEN

[00:25:01]

START CONSTRUCTION HOPEFULLY BY MAY 1ST HAVE THE FOUNDATION IN THE GROUND AND COMING UP AND ALL THE SAND PLACED BACK BY THE BEGINNING OF JULY. I REALLY THINK THE TIMING IS NOT GOING TO BE CRITICAL WITH THE HURRICANE SEASON. WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET THAT

DONE. >> DO YOU HAVE A DUNE CROSSOVER THAT'S BEING INSTALLED? THAT CANNOT BE INSTALLED DURING TURTLE NESTING SEASON, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT GETS DELAYED UNTIL -- >> NOVEMBER 1ST.

>> YOU KNOW IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE, IT CAN'T BE DONE UNTIL

THE FALL. >> THAT IS WRITTEN INTO THE SPECIAL PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT IT CAN ONLY BE CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 1 AND FEBRUARY 20.

>> ON THE MATERIALS STORAGE, IT'S INDICATING THAT'S GOING TO BE STORED OFF SITE, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S FOR PARKING --

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DISTANCE IN BETWEEN THE SITES AND HOW THAT'S BEING MANAGED?

>> WE'VE GOT A TEMPORARY USE APPLICATION THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED FOR USE OF THAT VACANT LOT, AND WE HAVE A LAYOUT OF HOW THAT LOT'S GOING TO BE SITUATED FOR THE STORAGE OF THE MATERIAL, STORAGE OF THE SAND AND A CONSTRUCTION TRAILER AND FOR PARKING OF THE EMPLOYEE.

WE'RE GOING TO ESSENTIALLY IN THE BEGINNING WE'LL HAVE TEMPORARY EXCAVATION.

WE'LL HAVE TO MOVE THE MATERIAL DOWN, THEN BRING IT BACK OVER ONCE THE FOUNDATION IS CONSTRUCTED. WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP ALL OF THE ESSENTIAL TRAFFIC OFF OF THE SITE SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY DISRUPTION IN THE ROAD WAY THERE.

>> WHAT'S THE LENGTH, DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO SITES, DO YOU KNOW OFFHAND?

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY ESTIMATE OF THAT? PROBABLY 600, 700 FEET.

>> IT'S NOT THAT FAR. >> HOW IS THE MATERIAL ACTUALLY BEING MOVED, AS INDICATED BY THE GENTLE MAN THAT SPOKE PREVIOUSLY? HE'S SAYING IT'S BE MOVED BY FRONT END LOADER. THAT IS A CONCERN. IS IT BEING LOADED INTO TRUCKS

AND THEN BEING BROUGHT DOWN? >> I'D ONLY BE GUESSING AT THIS POINT.

I'M JUST THE ENGINEER ON THIS. I'M NOT THE CONTRACTOR ON THIS PROJECT.

I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS ABOUT SPILLAGE AND TRAFFIC DELAYS IF WE'RE RUNNING FRONT END LOADERS UP AND DOWN THE STREET. CERTAINLY WE COULD USE DUMP TRUCKS TO TRANSPORT THE MATERIAL AND AVOID ANY CONCERNS ON THE ROAD WAY. I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR SURE HOW

THEY PLAN ON DOING IT. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WAS THE RAISING OF THE GRADE SO THAT IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER THAN THE PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF IT, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THE EXISTING GRADE OUT THERE AT THE TOP OF THE DUNE IS 1393, 1353.

WE'RE GOING UP TO ELEVATION 15 IN THE CENTER ON SHEET B2. THE REQUIREMENT WITH THE DEP IS WE CANNOT HAVE ANY LOST OF THE ■ FILL CONTROL LINE. ANY MATERIAL BEING MISPLACED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUNDATION IS GOING TO BE PLACED ON SITE.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAYBE A FOOT AND A HALF ELEVATION CHANGE IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.

>> WHEN HE SAID THREE TO FIVE FEET, THAT WAS INCORRECT? >> I DON'T SEE THAT.

I'M LOOKING AT TELL -- THE ELEVATIONS ON THE PLAN. >> THE GENTLE MAN SAID BY USING THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL, IT WOULD RAISE THE GRADE THREE TO FIVE FEET AND HE WAS CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD DEFLECT THE WATER WHEN THE HIGH TIDE COMES IN AND AFFECT PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE

OF THAT. >> I'M SEEING THE CREST OF THE DUNE HERE AS 1353 AND WE'RE

RAISING IT TO 15, A FOOT AND A HALF. >> IS THAT HIGHER THAN THE

PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF IT? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THE SURVEY DATA ON THE PROPERTIES

ADJA ADJACENT. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

MR. BURDGE, YOU'RE VERY QUIET. >> NOW THAT I HAVE BEEN ASKED, I WILL TALK.

DR. STODDARD, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME, IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL CAREER, HAVE YOU EVER BEEN REQUESTED TO

HAVE A PERFORMANCE BOND THAT THE GENTLEMAN IS TALKING ABOUT? >> NOT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A

SINGLE FAMILY YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS

[00:30:16]

ELEVATION MYSELF. THE ELEVATION -- EXCUSE ME, SIR. WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY AT THE PODIUM. THE ELEVATION ON MOST OF THOSE LOTS ALONG THE OCEAN DRIVE IS OBVIOUSLY HIGHER IN THE BACK THAN IT IS IN THE FRONT. ARE YOU GOING TO DISTRIBUTE THE EXCAVATED MATERIAL THAT YOU'RE TAKING OUT OF THE FOUNDATION AREAS AND SO ON AND YOU'RE GOING

TO REDISTRIBUTE IT BACK AROUND THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY? >> THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY AREA

THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE. >> CAN YOU START AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND WORK YOUR WAY

BACK WITH IT AND TAPER IT OFF? >> THAT'S THE DRIVE WAY IN THE FRONT.

NOW, THE OPTION HERE IS TO RAISE THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE GARAGE UP HIGHER AND THEN WE CAN PLACE THE FILL BACK UNDER. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, IF THAT'S A CONCERN.

>> THAT'S ALSO RAISING THE STRUCTURE. >> YES, IT WOULD BE RAISING THE STRUCTURE, BUT WE WOULD STILL BE WITHIN THE BUILDING HEIGHT. WE'RE TRYING TO BALANCE IT TO BE

THE LEAST IMPACT. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.

ACTUALLY, I THINK WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, IN TERMS OF WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING. I THINK WE ALL APPRECIATE THAT.

ANY TIME WE BUILD A PROPERTY LIKE THIS, ALONG OCEAN DRIVE NORTH OF THE CONDOMINIUMS, AS YOU GO A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH. AND WE HAVE A LOT OF CONDOMINIUMS. ANY TIME THERE'S ELEVATION DISCUSSIONS NORTH OF THE CONDOMINIUM PROJECTS, BECAUSE THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN DRIVE, THIS DISCUSSION COMES UP.

IT EVEN COMES UP IF YOU'RE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM SOME OF THE CONDOS, WHICH I THINK YOU ARE, ON THAT SAME BLOCK. IT'S ALWAYS A DISCUSSION.

IT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN OF THIS BOARD'S AND THE COMMISSION'S WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, BECAUSE EVERYONE ON THE ISLAND WANTS TO ENJOY THE BEACH AND THE OCEAN. SO IT'S A STRUGGLE.

IT'S A BALANCING ACT. AND YOU'RE PART OF THAT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> NORMALLY I DON'T TAKE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS AFTER WE HAVE A REBUTTAL. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, I'LL

ALLOW YOU TO SPEAK. >> I'M SORRY. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> MY NAME IS ED HIGHER. >> WOULD YOU SIGN IN AS WELL, PLEASE.

>> SURE. I'M THE OWNER OF THE LOT THAT WE'RE BUILDING ON, 324.

WE ORIGINALLY WERE GOING TO BUILD THE SAME HOUSE THAT WAS APPROVED BEFORE AND MY WIFE AND I ARE VERY CONSERVATIVE. IT WAS FOUR STORIES. IT HAD A PARTY ROOF ON TOP.

IT WASN'T OUR STYLE. WE WENT TO A LOT OF EFFORT TO GET THIS TO MATCH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TO FIT IN. WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE A FT. LAUDERDALE HOUSE.

WE REALLY LOVE IT HERE. WE TRIED TO KEEP IT LIKE THIS. THE HEIGHT IS BASICALLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF WHICH ARE ALREADY APPROVED. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING EXCESSIVE. THE HOUSE MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DIRT, THEY'RE TAKING THE DIRT, MOVING IT OVER TO A LOT.

WE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DIRT THAT'S THERE AND WE HAVE TO CALCULATE HOW MUCH THE CONCRETE WAS THERE, THEN WE CAN PUT THAT DIRT BACK WITHOUT THE DIRT WHERE THE CONCRETE WAS.

THERE REALLY SHOULDN'T BE DIFFERENCES IN LEVELS. I BELIEVE THAT'S PART OF THE STATE REQUIREMENT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO A CONSERVATIVE THING.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE'D LIKE TO DO IS GET THIS APPROVED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT WE'RE NOT DOING SOMETHING IN THE HURRICANE SEASON. REALLY THAT'S ALL WE'RE TRYING

TO DO. >> WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO LOWERING THE CEILING HEIGHT OF

THE PROPERTY? >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. IT'S DEPENDING ON THE ARCHITECT

[00:35:02]

ON WHAT THEY WERE DOING. PART OF THE REASONS FOR THE FLOOR IS PUTTING STUFF IN THE CEILINGS SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE -- IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS HOUSE, IF YOU CAN TELL ME THAT IT'S 20 FEET HIGH OR 22 FEET HIGH WHEN YOU'RE LOOK AT IT, I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY IF ANYBODY COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE. HERE WE'RE TALKING 42 OR 44 FEET. I MEAN, SERIOUSLY, LOOKING AT IT IT'S INSIGNIFICANT.

AGAIN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES. ALL WE'RE ASKING TO DO IS GET A CHANCE TO BUILD THE HOUSE. THERE HASN'T BEEN A HOUSE BUILT HERE IN 30 YEARS ON THE BEACH, I BELIEVE. IT'S BUT A IT'S DIFFICULT. IT'S EXPENSIVE.

TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT, PERMITS. WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, YOU KNOW, GETTING READY TO BUILD THIS. WE'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS TO MR. CREAGAN? >> I DO HAVE A COMMENT, MR. CHAIR.

NOW THAT WE'VE BEEN SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, I NOW RECALL THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN GREAT DETAIL. THE COMMENTARY THAT WAS MADE AT THE TIME, OR CRITICISMS THAT WERE MADE AT THE TIME, WERE DUE TO HEIGHT, WERE DUE TO A TYPE OF ROOFING MATERIAL. THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TYPE OF ROOF, METAL ROOFING, AND THAT THIS PARTICULAR -- THAT THE PARTICULAR DESIGN AT THE TIME WAS REALLY NOT IN -- NOT UNIFORMITY, BUT THE STYLE OF SOUTH BEACH DEVELOPMENT.

I BELIEVE THIS REVISION BRINGS THIS PROPERTY INTO, A, A LOWER HEIGHT PROFILE.

B, METAL ROOFS VERSUS FLAT ROOFS AN MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT WE SEE ON THE BEACH CURRENTLY.

THE PRIOR APPLICATION WAS APPROVED. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE PRIOR APPLICATION AND, THEREFORE, SUGGEST THAT WE WOULD STRONGLY -- I WOULD PERSONALLY CONSIDER SUPPORTING IT. I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS RELOCATION OF MATERIAL. THIS IS SOMETHING -- AND POSSIBLY YOU COULD ANSWER THIS QUESTION RELATIVE TO, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE PUT INTO A MOTION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. I'M GONNA TELL YOU, PHONES ARE GONNA LIGHT UP IF THERE'S FRONT END LOADERS MOVING MATERIAL UP AND DOWN THE STREET. ONE'S DOWN AND ONE'S BACK OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL MONTHS. HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE ADDRESSED? IS THAT ADDRESSED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR AT PLANING?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S ADDRESSED HERE AT PLANNING. IT WOULD BE DONE AT BUILDING PERMIT. ENGINEER WOULD HAVE TO WEIGH IN. ALL, AS THE APPLICANT STATED, THIS IS A COUNTY ROAD WAY. THERE'S MAINTENANCE, TRAFFIC REQUIREMENTS.

I WILL ABIDE BY IT. IF THEY DON'T, WE WILL BE OUT THERE TO ENFORCE IT.

THE COUNTY WILL AS WELL. >> CLEARLY, SO THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD WANT TO SEE ADDRESSED.

THIS IS NOT THE VENUE FOR THAT, WE WOULD LET OTHER PARTIES ADDRESS THAT.

>> IT WOULD BE BUILDING PERMIT. >> I WOULD THINK A CONTRACTOR WOULD WANT TO MOVE THAT MATERIAL IN THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY POSSIBLE. OBVIOUSLY, FRONT END LOADERS ARE

NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT THING. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.

>> OKAY. >> THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT. THANK YOU.

>> ONE LAST COMMENT. WHO SAID WE WERE MOVING THE DIRT BY FRONT END LOADERS?

>> THAT WAS A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE A WHILE AGO. >> EXCUSE ME.

>> EXCUSE ME. I DON'T ALLOW -- >> I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE ECONOMICAL OR FEASIBLE OR SENSIBLE. BUT WE'LL CHECK.

>> I THINK WHEN I WENT INTO -- WHEN I PULLED UP SOME OF THIS MATERIAL ON MY COMPUTER, I MADE A NOTE TO MYSELF ABOUT SOME OF THAT. I DID SEE IT, BUT IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT HAD POSSIBLY BEEN USED ON ANOTHER PROJECT.

>> I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. >> THAT'S NOT THE EFFICIENT WAY TO DO IT OR THE PROPER WAY TO DO IT ON OCEAN DRIVE. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING AGAIN.

[00:40:08]

ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THIS PROJECT MEETS ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS PER SECTION 22 OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. THAT'S THE CODE OF ORDINANCES THIS BOARD OPERATES UNDER. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION WITH THAT.

>> MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE FOUR

CONDITIONS. >> DO YOU HAVE A MOTION BY MISS JOHNSON SCOTT FOR APPROVAL WITH FOUR CONDITIONS, SECONDED BY MR. BRODERICK. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> MISS DIAZ. >> YES. >> MR. LEE.

>> YES. >> MR. BRODERICK. >> YES.

>> MISS JOHNSON SCOTT. >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER?

>> YES, MA'AM. I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS.

I KNOW SOME OF US ARE GOING TO LEAVE HERE THIS EVENING AND MAY NOT BE VERY HAPPY AND OTHERS WILL BE HAPPY. I APOLOGIZE IF YOU'RE LEAVING UNHAPPY.

[b. Conditional Use - Harris Dwelling Rental - 722 Granada Street, Unit A]

OUR NEXT ITEM UNDER NEW BUSINESS IS ITEM B. WOULD BE CONDITIONAL USE HARRIS

DWELLING RENTAL 722 GRENADA STREET, UNIT A. >> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 722 GRENADA STREET APARTMENT A. SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A ZONE OF ARE R4A WITH A FUTURE LAND USE OF HIR WHICH IS HUTCHISON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL.

THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING APPROVAL TO OFFER LODGING FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS.

THE MINIMUM RENTAL PERIOD IS IDENTIFIED AS 31 DAY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS. HERE'S A BRIEF SYNOPSIS FOR OUR RECOMMENDATION.

FLORIDA LEGISLATURE IN 2011 PROHIBITED CITIES FROM DENYING SHORT TERM RENTAL RIGHTS, CONDITIONAL USES ARE ALLOWED, QASI JUDICIAL HEARING THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE, NO CITY OF FT. PIERCE CODE ENFORCEMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT CURRENT VIOLATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE BEING ADDED TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE SUBJECT TO THE SEVEN CONDITIONS AND NO CHANGES. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SEVEN CONDITIONS. ONE PROPERTY MANAGER SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES TO ADDRESS ALL COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE.

CITY MANAGER SHALL RESIDE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY. 2, GUIDE BOOKLET AVAILABLE FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT SHALL BE GIVEN TO RENTERS TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS.

3, THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE FOR AND OBTAIN ST. LUCIE BUSINESS AND TAX LICENSES WITHIN 30 DAYS OF CONDITIONED A APPROVAL. THERE SHALL BE NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES AT THE SITE.

THEIR LICENSE TAX MEMBER SHALL BE INCLUDED ON ALL ADVERTISE. SIX THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE OF THE HOME, REQUIRE SPACE IN DWELLING UNITS BASED UPON THE SIZE OF EACH UNIT.

7, TO PAVE THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES PER THE CITY CODE, SURFACE MATERIAL, A, REQUIRE PARKING SPACES, ACCESS DRIVES AND BUILDING AREAS MUST BE PAVED AND MAINTAINED WITH CONCRETE OR SIMILAR MATERIAL OF ENOUGH THICKNESS AND CONSISTENCY TO SUPPORT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND WEIGHT. B, ALTERNATIVE PAVING MATERIALS OR PARKING SURFACES MAY BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER IF SUCH MATERIALS OR SURFACES ARE DEMONSTRATED TO EXHIBIT EQUIVALENT WEAR RESISTANCE AND LOAD BEARING CHARACTERISTICS AS CONCRETE OR ASPHALT.

THANK YOU. >> THAT'S EASY FOR SOME PEOPLE TO SAY, ISN'T IT?

>> YEAH. >> MR. GILMORE, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE RECORD.

MR. GILMORE PRESENTED THIS CASE. I WAS DISTRACTED BY SOME DISCUSSION THAT WAS TAKING PLACE

IN THE BACK OF THE CHAMBER. >> MR. CHAIR, MR. GILMORE, I'M ASSUMING BASED ON THE

RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PARKING IS CURRENTLY NOT PAVED. >> NO.

[00:45:04]

>> CRUSHED STONE OR SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE? >> RIGHT.

>> WE'RE REQUIRING 1.6 PARKING SPACES FOR THIS PARTICULAR SHORT TERM RENTAL.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH PARKING THERE IS ON THE SITE OR OFF? >> IT' NOT DELINEATED AT ALL.

THERE'S NO PARKING STOPS OR ANYTHING. >> CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONER,

THAT'S WHY WE MADE THAT, SO THEY CAN DELINEATE THE PARKING. >> 1.6 PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, THAT THERE'S PROBABLY TWO SPACES AND THE APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THAT.

>> I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT. >> PRESENTLY THE AREA IN FRONT OF THIS UNIT IS APPROXIMATELY THREE SPACES WIDE. I WAS OUT THERE AND MEASURED IT PRIOR TO OUR LAST MEETING. THIS WAS PULLED LAST MONTH. I DON'T HAVE MY NOTES FROM MY LAST MEETING WITH ME. I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THOSE. BUT WHEN I MEASURED THAT OUT, THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY THREE SPACES WIDE AT THE TIME. I THINK BASED ON A NINE FOOT

WIDE SPACE. >> NINE AND A HALF. >> SO IT'S APPROXIMATELY THREE SPACES WIDE. THERE ARE TWO UNITS INVOLVED IN THIS BUILDING SO I WOULD SUSPECT THAT THE AREA NEEDS TO BE BROADENED. RIGHT NOW THERE IS LANDSCAPE TIMBER OUTLINING THE CRUSHED STONE MATERIAL THAT'S BEING PARKED ON.

SO IT COULD VERY EASILY BE BROADENED FOR A FOUR SPACE AREA IF NEED BE.

>> THAT WAS MY CONCERN. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT, PLEASE STEP FORWARD, STATE YOUR

NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN, PLEASE. >> JOANNE MCCURDY.

MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS 171 MELODY LANE, FT. PIERCE HERE. THEY ARE NOT LOCAL AND IN TOWN SO THEY JUST WANTED ME TO COME REPRESENT THEM. THEIR CONCERNS ARE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT GRAVEL PAVING. THEY WILL UPGRADE THE PAVING AND MAYBE WIDEN IT, IF NECESSARY, BUT THEY DID NOT WANT TO HAVE TO CONCRETE PAVE MOST EVERYTHING THERE, ESPECIALLY ON THAT STREET AND AROUND, IS GRAVEL STONE PAVING.

THEY ARE NOT SHORT TERM RENTAL. THEY ARE AN ANNUAL RENTAL. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS. BUT THEY DID WANT ME TO SPEAK TO

THAT. >> WHAT -- EXCUSE ME. >> THEIR APPLICATION IS FOR SIX

MONTHS OR LESS. >> CORRECT. SHORT TERM.

>> THAT FITS INTO SHORT TERM. THAT'S WHY IT'S HERE UNDER CONDITION USE.

>> I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT BECAUSE IT IS AN ANNUAL RENTAL. IT'S NOT A SHORT TERM RENTAL.

>> PERHAPS THEY'RE CONSIDERING SHORT TERM RENTAL IN THE FUTURE. >> YEAH.

>> THAT'S SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO ADDRESS WITH YOUR CLIENT.

>> WHAT THEY WANTED ME TO REPRESENT TO THEM MAINLY WAS THE GRAVEL VERSUS HAVING TO DO A CONCRETE DRIVE WAY. THEY'RE CONCERNED THERE WOULD BE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WITH THAT.

THEY FEEL IT'S BETTER TO HAVE THE STONE THERE. >> PERMITS WATER A LOT BETTER.

>> I GUESS SO. >> THIS DOES NOT NEED TO GO TO BUILDING FOR ANY PURPOSE AS IT

IS NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE DRIVE WAY WOULD. >> THE DRIVE WAY WILL.

THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WOULD LOOK AT THAT DRIVE WAY MATERIAL. >> IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO

BUILDING FOR A REVIEW. >> FOR THE DRIVE WAY. IT WOULD REQUIRE A PERMIT WHICH

ENGINEERING AND PLANNING WILL BE LOOK AT. >> THEY GOT AN APPROVAL FROM

TRACY TELLE THAT DID NOT HAVE TO BE CONCRETE DRIVE WAY. >> IS THAT PART OF THIS PROCESS,

MAN? >> IT WAS ON FEBRUARY 20TH. SHE DID APPROVE THAT BUT I THINK

JENNIFER WOULD MAKE THAT DECISION. >> I THINK THE ISSUE YOU HAVE HERE IS IF IT'S A LONG TERM RENTAL, THIS APPLICATION DOESN'T EVEN COME IN FRONT OF ANYBODY.

YOU COULD RENT. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO MODIFY YOUR PARKING.

IT'S A SHORT TERM RENTAL APPLICATION WHICH TRIGGERS THESE THING.

ARE THESE TWO BEDROOM UNITS? >> YES. DUPLEX.

>> THEORY, IF IT'S A SHORT TERM RENTAL APPLICATION TWO OF THOSE NEED TO BE DESIGNATED TO ONE RENTAL UNIT THAT'S IN FRONT OF US NOW. THEN YOU HAVE ONE PARKING SPOT

[00:50:03]

FOR A TWO BEDROOM UNIT LEFT REMAINING. IS THAT A FAIR PRESENTATION?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU JUST READ 1 1/2, 1 1/2. >> YOU HAVE TO ROUND IT UP TO TWO. SO IF THERE'S THREE SPACES, IS THERE A SHORTAGE OF PARKING?

YOU MANAGE THE PARKING NOW. IS THAT GOING TO CONSTITUTE? >> THEY EACH HAVE ONE CAR, SO NO. EITHER THEY WOULD AGREE TO EXTEND IT IF THEY NEEDED TO.

THEY JUST WERE ASKING TO KEEP IT THE GRAVEL. >> SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS

THIS -- YOU SURE THIS IS WHAT YOUR CLIENT IS LOOKING TO DO? >> WELL, YEAH.

IF THAT'S WHAT THEY DID, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO. THEY JUST DIDN'T EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THEY WERE DOING IT. THEY JUST WANTED ME TO REPRESENT THEM HERE FOR THAT.

>> CLEARLY, THEY FILLED OUT AN APPLICATION. >> THEN THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE

WANTING TO DO. >> FOR CONDITIONAL USE. >> THIS WAS A SHORT NOTICE FOR ME, SO I APOLOGY. WHAT THEY EXPRESSED TO ME WAS THE GRAVEL VERSUS HAVING

CONCRETE DRIVE. >> IF I MAY, CHAIRMAN, I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE OWNER OF THE UNIT AND SHE IS AWARE. SHE CALLED ME WHEN WE PULLED IT. I EXPLAINED HOW THE CODE SECTION READS AND THAT ALTERNATIVE TYPE OF PAVEMENT THAT IT IS IN HERE AND THE OPTION IS AVAILABLE, BUT IT WILL REQUIRE ENGINEERING TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THAT. SHE WAS OKAY WITH THAT.

>> OKAY. >> THAT MAY REQUIRE PERMITABLE PAVERS OR SOMETHING OF THAT

NATURE, NOT CRUSHED STONE. >> IT WILL HAVE TO MEET TODAY'S STANDARDS.

>> IT'S EITHER A OR B, THEN IT'S GOING TO GO BACK. IT'S EITHER A OR B.

>> CORRECT. >> GET THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THEY'D HAVE TO

SATISFY THAT. >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NOT SEEING ANY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ANYONE, WE'LL MOVE BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILMORE? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL ENTERTAIN

A MOTION. >> CHAIR, I MOVE TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE HARRIS DWELLING UNIT 722 GRENADA STREET UNIT A SUBJECT TO THE ALL SEVEN OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY M MR. BRODERICK AND SECOND BY MISS

JOHNSON SCOTT. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> MR. LEE.

>> YES. >> MR. BRODERICK. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER. >> YES, MA'AM. MR. GILMORE IS GOING TO STAY WITH US. OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE LIST IS ITEM C.

[c. Conditional Use with New Construction - Veterans Assisted Living Facility - 1600 N. Lawnwood Circle]

AND THAT IS CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION VETERANS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AT 1600

NORTH LAWNWOOD CIRCLE. >> GOOD EVENING PLANNING CHAIR, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.

AS THE CHAIRMEN SHUNNED THIS IS A CONDITIONED A USE APPLICATION WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF 1600 NORTH LAWNWOOD CIRCLE FOR A 56 UNIT VETERANS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 2.21 ACRES AND IS JUST NORTH OF NORTH LAWNWOOD CIRCLE AND JUST SOUTH OF JERSEY AVENUE AND SOUTH 17TH CIRCLE.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH A CURRENT ZONING OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHICH IS R4. THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL CONSIST OF 59,362 SQUARE FEET. THE PER CITY CODE SECTION 22-60 THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED 28 PARKING SPACES WITH TWO ADA. APPLICANT PROVIDED 39 SPACES WITH THREE BEING ADA COMPLIANT.

AS FAR AS DESIGN REVIEW, THE DESIGN WILL INCLUDE A TWO STORY BUILDING, SMOOTH STUCCO SIDING, METAL ROOF. THE WALL EXTERIOR WILL CONSIST OF POLAR WHITE COLOR AND THE PAINTED TRIM WILL BE AN ALMOND COLOR. PROVIDED TREES TOTAL OF 71 TREES AND 70 PALMS. THERE ARE 15 SILVER RED MAPLES, 14 SILVER BUTTON WOODS, SIX

[00:55:03]

GARDENIA STANDARDS, NINE LIVE OAKS, ONE HIBISCUS AND 24 HOLLIES AND TWO PINE.

FOR THE PALM TREES THERE'S 13 ALEXANDER PALMS, TWO SYLVESTER PALMS AND SEVEN FLORIDA THATCH PALMS. THE APPLICANT SEEKING APPROVAL OF NEW CONSTRUCTION TO CONSTRUCT THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, DRIVE UP, LANDSCAPING.

STAFF REMEMBCOMMENDS APPROVAL W FIVE CONDITION. POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS AND NO CHANGE. RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES.

RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION APPLICATION.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITION. ONE, PROVIDE A SEPARATE GATED ENTRANCE FOR THE REF FEWS COLLECTION AREA AND EMPLOYEE ACCESS.

TWO, SIDEWALKS D1 SIDEWALKS AND SIDEWALK LINKS SHALL WITH INSTALLED RIGHT AWAY THE FULL LENGTH OF ANY AND ALL STREETS ABUTTING THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY AND PARALLEL TO THE STREET.

THREE, PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALK LINKAGE NEAR THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY OR CENTRALLY LOCATE THE PROVIDED SIDEWALK LINKAGE. FOUR, SUBMIT A LANDSCAPE PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY AND FIVE, OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING JAY LIGHTING PLEASE ADHERE TO YOUR LIGHTING PLAN TO ENSURE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF TWO FOOT CANDLES.

THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILMORE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

MR. GILMORE, YOU INDICATED THERE WILL BE A NEEDING OF 28 PARKING SPACES.

THOSE 28 PARKING SPACES ARE DESIGNATED OR DESIGNED FOR THE 56 UNITS THAT ARE WITHIN THE

PROPERTY ITSELF? >> NO. THE REQUIREMENT -- THAT'S NOT -- I FORGET WHAT THE CALCULATION IS. I THINK IT'S .5 SPACES PER

DWELLING UNIT. THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT. >> THAT'S STRICTLY FOR THE USE

OF THE DWELLING UNIT ITSELF, FOR EACH ONE OF THE APARTMENTS? >> RIGHT.

>> UNITS. >> SOME MAY NOT BE DRIVING. THAT'S JUST A REQUIREMENT PER

CITY CODE SECTION 22. >> THE QUESTION THAT I'M REALLY GETTING TO, DO THEY EVER GIVE YOU ANY INDICATION OF WHAT THE ANTICIPATED STAFFING WILL BE AT THE BUILDING?

>> NO. >> BECAUSE WHILE THERE'S A REQUIREMENT OF HALF A PARKING SPACE PER UNIT, WHICH WOULD BE THE 28 THAT'S BEING REQUIRED, IF THERE ARE 28 EMPLOYEES, I BET

THOSE 28 ARE GOING TO BE DRIVING THERE. >> THEY'RE PROVIDING 39 PARKING

SPACES. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE

REQUIRED FOR THE EMPLOYEES? >> WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN OUR PARKING CODE.

>> OKAY. BASICALLY YOU HAVE IT JUST FOR THE RESIDENTS AND NOT ANTICIPATED EMPLOYEES. SO THERE COULD BE AN OVER FLOW OF USE AS FAR AS THE PARKING SPACES ARE CONCERNED? DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF STAFF.

>> DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF STAFF. >> WHEN YOU GET INTO ACLS OR YOU GET INTO THESE SITUATIONS, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY PER UNIT. IT'S HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ACTUALLY SUPPORT THAT, EACH ONE OF THOSE UNITS. AN ALSO VISITOR PARKING.

>> CHAIRMAN BOARD MEMBER BURDGE, THIS IS OUR CODE REQUIREMENT FOR ADULT LIVING FACILITIES.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AFTER MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, THIS IS NOT HIS FIRST TIME BUILDING ONE OF THESE. PERHAPS IT'S BEST THAT WE ASK HIM BECAUSE HE -- ANY APPLICANT WANTS THEIR PROJECT TO BE SUCCESSFUL. IF OUR CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYTHING FOR THE EMPLOYEES, BUT THEY ARE PROVIDING A SURPLUS ALREADY WITHIN THIS PROPOSAL, PERHAPS WE CAN ASK HIM TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE PARKING.

IF IT'S THE BOARD'S PLEASURE -- >> EXCUSE ME, SIR. I HAVE NOT OPENED THE PUBLIC

MEETING. >> IF THAT'S SOMETHING FOR STAFF TO EVALUATE AS PART OF OUR

[01:00:02]

OVERALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WE CAN DO THAT. BUT RIGHT NOW THIS IS WHAT OUR

CODE REQUIRES FOR ADULT LIVING FACILITIES AND PARKING. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST SERVED FOR THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. MR. BURDGE, WOULD YOU BE OKAY

WITH WAITING FOR THAT? >> SURE. I'LL HAVE THE DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TO STAFF FROM OUR BOARD?

>> THERE'S JUST ONE. I NOTICED IN THE TRC COMMENTARY THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION REGARDING EXISTING LANDSCAPING OR POSSIBLE LANDSCAPING THAT HAD BEEN PLANTED ON THE SITE TO MITIGATE DEVELOPMENT AND INCUR AROUND THE SITE. ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF

THAT? >> TO MITIGATE, IT'S PRETTY VACANT.

>> PRETTY SPARCE. >> OKAY. >> THERE'S BEEN A LAND CLEARING

ALREADY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ALONG THE BACK NORTH -- IT WOULD CIRCLE. BEAR WITH ME IF I'M NOT FACING THE RIGHT DIRECTION HERE. I'M GONNA CALL IT NORTH. THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, BEHIND THIS PROPERTY. LOOKS LIKE APPROXIMATELY A SIX FOOT TALL POURED CONCRETE BLOCK DIVIDER FENCE, IF YOU WILL, BETWEEN THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA AND THIS PART OF PROPERTY. I THINK WHERE MR. BRODERICK IS PICKING THIS DISCUSSION UP FROM IS THE REPORT THAT CAME DATED FEBRUARY 19TH. HE COVERED THREE PROJECTS AND DISCUSSED A COUPLE OF ITEMS CONCERNING THIS PROJECT IN THIS SAME REPORT.

THE REPORT WAS INCLUDED IN THE MATERIAL THAT WAS GIVEN FOR THE OCEAN BOULEVARD PROJECT IS WHERE THIS REPORT WAS LOCATED. A COPY OF THIS MIGHT HAVE BEEN BETTER SERVED IF IT HAD BEEN COPIED AND INCLUDED WITH THIS DOCUMENTATION AS WELL. BUT IN THIS, HE DISCUSSES THE MITIGATION FOR NOISE AND SIGHT LINES USING VEGETATION ALONG THAT BACK WALL.

I DID NOT TAKE THE TIME THIS AFTERNOON WHEN I REALIZED THIS WAS PART OF THIS AND SO I DID NOT HAVE TIME TO PULL UP SECTION 22 TO LOOK AT WHAT WE REQUIRE AS MITIGATION, WHETHER OR NOT THAT SIX FOOT TALL FENCE IN ITSELF IS SUITABLE FOR THIS PROJECT. THE OTHER ITEM THAT WAS HELD OVER ON HERE THAT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO MY EYE WAS THE DISCUSSION OF TRAFFIC.

AND THERE IS NO TRAFFIC REPORT INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS PACKAGE.

WHEN WE STOP AND WE CONSIDER THAT WE'VE GOT, RIGHT NOW WE'RE UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE SITE NEXT DOOR, A SMALL ADDITIONAL THAT'S GOING ON, WITH ADDITION THAT'S PLANNED, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE HEARD YET FOR LONGWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, WHICH IS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IF I'M TRULY FACING NORTH WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE FENCE, IT WOULD BE TO OUR WEST OF THIS PROPERTY.

AND THERE'S CONSIDERABLE TRAFFIC THAT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED THERE. SHOULD THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH AT ONE TIME WAS PART OF THE LAWNWOOD DEVELOPMENT THAT IS NOW, I BELIEVE, STILL OWNED BY THE BANK. THEY CAME BEFORE US TO BUILD THAT PROPERTY OUT IN APARTMENTS THAT WE SENT TO THE COMMISSION WITH A MOTION OF A DENIAL.

AND THE COMMISSION WORKED ON THAT AND THROUGH THE EFFORTS OF THE COMMISSION AND WHAT THEY REQUESTED TO HAVE DONE, THE BANK DECIDED NOT TO BUILD THAT PROPERTY OUT.

BUT IF THAT PROPERTY WERE TO BE BUILT OUT AS IT WAS DESCRIBED AT THE TIME, THAT WOULD REQUIRE ANOTHER, IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I'M LOOK AT THE RIGHT NUMBER, SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ANOTHER 266 MOTIONS OF TRAFFIC ON LONGWOOD CIRCLE.

SO IF WE ASSUME THAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT OUT AT SOME POINT IN OUR LIFE TIME, MAYBE NOT MY LIFE TIME, BUT HOPEFULLY IN YOUR LIFE TIME, I THINK THAT TRAFFIC FLOW NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PROJECTS LIKE THIS AS WELL. I THINK HERE IN A MOMENT WHEN THE APPLICANT CAN COME UP,

[01:05:04]

PERHAPS HE CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THIS. I'M GIVING IT ALL TO YOU AT ONE

TIME SO WE GET IT ALL DONE AT ONE TIME. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

YOU WERE THINKING OF A DEVELOPMENT YOU SAID THAT IS NEXT DOOR TO IT?

WHICH ONE? >> PROJECT DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE STREET.

>> WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED TALKING. >> NEXT DOOR TO LAWNWOOD, WHAT

DO THEY CALL THAT ANNEX MEDICAL CENTER. >> PAVILION.

>> THAT'S A REHAB CENTER TO THE WEST. TO THE EAST THERE'S AN EXISTED

LIVING FACILITY. >> LENMORE IS TO THE EAST, PAVILION TO THE WEST.

>> IT'S A WESTERN DEVELOPMENT. >> WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THAT. IT'S ALL RIGHT BUILT AND ALREADY

IN USAGE. IT'S BEEN CO'D AND EVERYTHING. >> THERE'S CONSIDERABLE TRAFFIC FLOW IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, AS WELL WITH THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ACROSS THE STREET.

I THINK THAT ALSO, MR. BENTON, WHICH I ALSO DISCOVERED LATE THIS AFTERNOON AND GOT A COPY OF IT JUST BEFORE I CAME DOWNSTAIRS, ON JANUARY 16TH, WROTE A REPORT EXCLUSIVELY TO THIS PROJECT. AND IN THIS REPORT, HE ALSO QUESTIONS VEGETATION ALONG THAT BACK FENCE LINE, AS WELL AS TRAFFIC AND WHAT THE IMPACT MIGHT BE.

I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T FULLY UNDERSTAND REPORTS COMING OUT OF COUNTY OFFICE.

GENERALLY WHEN MR. BENTON SENDS A REPORT DOWN, I STUDY IT. ONLY BECAUSE OF WHOM MR. BENTON IS. AT ONE POINT HE WAS A MAJOR PLAYER IN OUR PLANNING COMMISSION. I READ HIS REPORTS CLOSE. THAT'S WHAT SPARKED MY COMMENTS

AND MY QUESTION CONCERNING TRAFFIC >> THERE WAS A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY. THEY HAD TO DELIVER AN IMPACT STATEMENT.

DUE TO THAT, IT WAS MINOR. THAT WAS SUMMARIZED HERE BY MR. GILMORE.

WITH REGARD TO THE LONGWOOD HOSPITAL OR MEDICAL CENTER THAT'S COMING FORWARD, THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN SUBMIT. IT'S ALL A MATTER OF WHO GETS SUBMITTED FIRST.

EVERYTHING IS BACKGROUND TRAFFIC. THE BACKGROUND TRAFFIC FOR ALL THESE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN THE MEDICAL CENTER COMES FORWARD. WE HAVE CONSULTANTS THROUGH OUR ENGINEERING IN-HOUSE CONSULTING -- WELL, THEY'RE NOT IN-HOUSE BUT WE HAVE CONSULTANTS HELPING US WITH THIRD PARTY REVIEW. SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE LONGWOOD MEDIAL CENTER, WE WILL HAVE A

GROUP AND THEY ARE RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY PROVIDING THAT STUDY. >> WILL WE SEE THOSE REPORTS?

>> ABSOLUTELY. THEY WILL BE COMING IN FOR THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS THEIR MASTER PLAN, WHICH GOES OUT TO PHASE EIGHT. WE'VE ASKED THEM FOR THE OVERALL MASTER PLAN TO PROVIDE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IN THE LONG RANGE PLANNING HORIZON SO WE CAN HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT WILL BE FOR THAT WHOLE AREA.

BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, WHAT IT IS, THE USE, AND WE REQUIRED THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT AND THE PETITIONER CAN ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, IT WAS MINOR IN NATURE AND PROBABLY BY THE VERY FACT THAT IT'S AN ADULT LIVING FACILITY.

>> FIRST COME, FIRST SERVED. >> YES, SIR. >> THE TRAFFIC WAS 540 TRIPS TO 900 TRIPS A DAY. THAT WAS THE EXTENT OF IT. VERY MINOR.

>> OVER TIME THEY HAVE BEEN EVALUATED AND THEY'RE IN ITE. THIS IS THE TYPE OF TRIP

GENERATION THEY BRING FORWARD. IT'S JUST BASED ON THEIR USE. >> I JUST WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN THAT WE'RE REALLY VETTING THIS. I SAW THE REPORT THAT WAS GIVEN

BY OUR NOW CONSULTANT CONCERNING THE PROJECT OUT ON THE ISLAND. >> ABSOLUTELY.

MM-HMM. >> HAS THAT BEEN AVAILABLE TO US, I THINK OUR CONVERSATION

WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AS WELL. >> RIGHT, BECAUSE WE HAVE ASKED THAT OF THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME. WE WERE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. DISCUSSION WAS JUST GOING AROUND THE TABLE THAT WE NEEDED A

[01:10:03]

PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC ENGINEER TO EVALUATE THAT. SO, WHEN WE DID THAT, THAT INCLUDED TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AS PART OF THE OVERALL SCOPE. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO RELY ON THE COUNTY'S THIRD PARTY OR THEIR TRAFFIC ENGINEER. WE WILL HAVE OUR OWN.

THERE ARE SIX FIRMS WE GET TO SELECT FROM. >> WHEN I SAW THAT REPORT THAT I REFER REFERRED TO WAS A LOT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND AND READ THAN WHAT WE'VE BEEN GETTING IN THE PAST. TRUST ME ON THIS. I AM A FAN OF THIS PROJECT.

SO ANY COMMENTS THAT I HAVE MADE OR QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ASKED IS NOT BECAUSE I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE PROJECT. I'M A FAN OF IT. I LOOK FORWARD TO IT.

I ALSO NEED TO KNOW IN MY MIND AND OUR BOARD'S MINDS THAT IT'S COMPLETELY CORRECT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC.

JUST A MINUTE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION UNDER THE STAFF ANALYSIS REQUEST AS TO THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IN REFERENCE TO FT. PIERCE CENTRAL HIGH AND PALM LAKE SUBDIVISION.

THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE LAWNWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AREA, CORRECT?

>> YES. THAT WAS MY FAULT. >> THE REQUEST DESCRIPTION INDICATES THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION TO CONSTRUCT A IT TWO STORIES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH THE MEMORY PROGRAM. DO YOU SEE WHERE I AM? 1.4 ACRES PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH 25TH STREET BETWEEN FT. PIERCE CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL AND THE PALM LAKE

SUBDI SUBDIVISION. >>THAT'S INCORRECT.

>> THAT WAS A TYPO. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> GOOD CATCH.

>> GOOD CATCH. >> THAT WILL BE CORRECTED BEFORE IT GOES TO CITY COMMISSION.

THAT WILL BE CORRECTED.

ANYONE ELSE? I WILL OPEN IT TO THE PUBLIC MEETING.

PLEASE SIGN IN AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING, I AM WESLEY MILLS. OUR ADDRESS IS 100 SOUTH 2ND STREET FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA.

AS WELL AS 722ND PLACE. THANK YOU FOR HEARING US. THIS HAS BEEN A PROJECT LONG TIME COMING. IT STARTED WITH COREY BENTON, WHOM YOU REFERENCED EARLIER, HOPEFULLY FINISHING HERE. COUPLE THINGS I WANTED TO CLARIFY WITH YOUR QUESTIONS YOU HAD AND CONCERNS. AS FAR AS THE PARKING SPACES GO, WE LOOKED AT IT TWO DIFFERENT WAYS BECAUSE THE CODE HAS TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE APPLICABLE TO THE TYPE OF USE OF OUR BUILDING. ONE WAS ON A PER BED BASIS. THEN THE OTHER WAS ON A HALF SPACE PER UNIT LIVING UNIT OF THE ALS. SO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING BASED ON THE BEDS WOULD HAVE BEEN 32 SPACES. REGARDLESS, THESE RATES ARE DERIVED FROM ITE WHICH IS AN INDUSTRY STANDARD AS FAR AS PARKING RANGE, TRAFFIC VOLUMES LIKE YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER. THESE AREN'T NUMBERS THAT ARE JUST MADE UP.

THEY'RE INDUSTRY STANDARDS THAT ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND REALLY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. WHAT THEY DO, THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, THEY'RE BLENDED RATE.

SO A BANK HAS A CERTAIN RATE OF PARKING, A RESTAURANT HAS A CERTAIN RATE OF PARKING.

THEY TAKE, IT'S A STUDY OVER MANY DIFFERENT SITES. IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT NOT ONLY THE TYPICAL AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT FACILITY, BUT ALSO THE TRAFFIC VOLUME AND TRIPS THAT THEY TEND TO SEE IN THE PARKING NEED. SO WE FEEL LIKE NOT ONLY DO WE MEET THIS, WE EXCEED IT. SO WE FEEL VERY CONFIDENT IN THE NUMBER OF SPACES AND THAT WE'RE MEETING ALL THE CODES THAT NOT ONLY ARE REQUIRED BUT ALSO WE'RE EXCEEDING THOSE CODES.

WE FEEL CONFIDENT IN THE NUMBERS THAT WE USED. THAT'S WHERE THE PARKING RATES

[01:15:02]

CAME FROM. AS FAR AS I HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT EXISTING LANDSCAPING AND MITIGATION. REALLY, THERE'S ONLY ONE TREE ON SITE.

I BELIEVE THE PROJECT ORIGINALLY WAS UNDERDEVELOPED, MAYBE BACK IN 2004 OR 2005 AND WAS ABANDONED. THE SITE HAS NO PROTECTED TREES OTHER THAN ONE ON THE WEST END OF THE PROPERTY AND WE'RE KEEPING THAT TREE. THAT'S INCLUDED IN OUR LANDSCAPING. AS FAR AS THE REAR FENCE I THINK THAT WAS REFERENCED THAT FENCE ISN'T ON OUR PROPERTY BUT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF LANDSCAPING AT THE EAR OF OUR SITE WHICH JUST BY THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED AND OPERATIONED IS KIND OF THE QUIET SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY.

SO WE WILL HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH HEDGES AND CANOPY TREES AND OTHER TREES TO BUFFER.

BUT TO GIVE YOU REFERENCE AS FAR AS THE EXISTING FENCE GOES, THAT'S PROBABLY TEN FEET ON THE OTHER PROPERTY. JUST NORTH OF US. AS FAR AS THE TRAFFIC VOLUME GOES, AGAIN, WE WENT BACK TO ITE. WE LOOKED AT IT IN PROBABLY FIVE OR TEN DIFFERENT WAYS THAT ITE SPELLS THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT IT.

WE TAKE THE HIGHEST VOLUME WHICH IS THE 105 DAILY TRIPS WE INCLUDED IN OUR TRAFFIC STATEMENT. TYPICALLY YOU WOULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER A TRAFFIC REPORT WITH ANYTHING LESS THAN 500 TRIPS PER DAY. SO WE'RE WELL UNDER THAT.

>> I'M A LITTLE SENSITIVE TO TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA BECAUSE THAT IS NOT ONLY IS IT OPERATING HOSPITAL, VERY LARGE HOSPITAL, IT'S THE HEART OF FT. PIERCE. LOT OF OTHER MEDICAL FACILITIES AROUND THE HOSPITAL, AS THERE ARE AROUND MANY HOSPITALS. BUT ALSO, THAT'S AN EMERGENCY ROOM THAT, FOR TRAUMA, EMERGENCY ROOM. IT'S VERY, VERY BUSY.

VERY ACTIVE. 24 HOURS A DAY, SEVEN DAYS A WEEK IT'S ACTIVE.

I GO AND SEE A DOCTOR THERE THAT'S IN THAT EXACT NEIGHBORHOOD AND I SEE HIM, UNFORTUNATELY, I SEE HIM TWICE A MONTH. HE'S VERY HAPPY ABOUT IT.

IT'S ALWAYS BUSY THROUGH THAT AREA. SO I'M A LITTLE OVERSENSITIVE

PERHAPS WITH TRAFFIC. >> THE NICE THING IS YOU KNOW THERE'S REALLY NO OUT PATIENT SERVICES. IF YOU TAKE A TYPICAL DOCTOR'S OFFICE FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK, AND THIS IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 AND 60 TRIPS PER DAY PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE. JUST A TOTALLY DIFFERENT NOT ONLY MODEL IN GENERAL FROM A VOLUME AND INTENSITY, IT'S REALLY A LOW INTENSITY USE.

>> THIS IS AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. I WOULD THINK SOME OF THESE PATIENTS MAY NOT EVEN BE LOCAL TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY'RE DRIVING.

>> CORRECT, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. >> MR. BURDGE HAD ASKED A QUESTION. I'M GOING TO JUMP IN HERE A LITTLE.

THE LEVEL OF EMPLOYEES THAT YOU'RE EXPECTING AT THIS FACILITY, THE NUMBERS?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. MR. RICHARD PALMEIRI IS HERE.

HE IS THE OPERATOR AND OWNER SO HE CAN SPEAK BETTER TO THE NUMBERS AS FAR AS THE EMPLOYEES

AT ANY GIVEN TIME. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME FORWARD?

>> SURE. >> SINCE THERE'S NO ONE ELSE HERE TONIGHT, I'LL ALLOW BOTH OF

YOU AT THE PODIUM AT THE SAME TIME. >> DO YOU WANT ME TO DO

SOMETHING HERE? >> SIGN IN IF YOU WOULD, SIR, AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADD ADDRESS. >> RICHARD PALMEIRI, NORTH PALM

BEACH, FLORIDA. GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, SIR.

>> WHAT CAN I TELL YOU? >> HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WOULD YOU SEE IN THIS FACILITY?

>> WE HAVE 12 ON THE DAY SHIFT, 12 TO 14 ON THE DAY SHIFT AND THEN THE NIGHT SHIFT IS PROBABLY

SIX. >> ARE THESE MEDICAL STAFF PRIMARILY?

>> YES. >> OR TECHNICIANS. MEDICAL TECHNICIANS.

HOW MANY OF THESE FACILITIES DO YOU HAVE? >> WE JOINT VENTURE -- HOW MANY

HAVE I BUILT? ABOUT 1200. >> 1200.

DESIGNED AND BUILT. HOW MANY DO WE OPERATE NOW? THE OPERATIONS TEAM OPERATES 20.

>> 20. >> NONE OF OUR RESIDENTS HAVE CARS.

[01:20:01]

IF YOU COME INTO AN ASSISTED LIVING, YOU'RE REALLY NOT IN THE DRIVING MODE ANYMORE.

OUR TRIPS FOR OUR PEOPLE ARE VERY SPARCE, QUITE FRANKLY. WE'RE ONLY DEALING DURING THE DAY WITH -- THEY COME IN THE MORNING SHIFT, 8:00, 7:30 TO 8:00.

YOU'VE GOT 12 TO 16 CARS. THOSE CARS DON'T MOVE UNTIL 4 P.M.

AND THEN THE SIX TO EIGHT MAN SHIFT COMES ON 4 TO 1 OR 12, DEPENDING ON HOW WE STAGGER.

THEN THE LATE NIGHT SHIFT IS FOUR TO SIX. IT CAN BE EVEN LESS.

OUR NUMBER OF TRIPS ARE INSIGNIFICANT, REALLY, AS TO IMPACT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE GENERATE VERY LITTLE TRAFFIC. WAS THE LANDSCAPING ADEQUATE? >> I WAS JUST COMING OFF OF A REPORT AND QUESTIONS THAT THE COUNTY HAD CONCERNING THE FACILITY.

WHAT I SAW, YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS NOT ACCESSIBLE AT THE TIME. >> OH, OH.

I DIDN'T KNOW THAT. >> THERE WAS JUST SOME DISCUSSION THAT CAME ABOUT.

>> OH, OKAY. >> I LOOKED AT YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN.

PERSONALLY, WHAT I LOOKED AT, LOOKED LIKE IT WAS ADEQUATE. OVER ADEQUATE.

>> I THOUGHT WE HAD TOO MANY TREES MYSELF. >> WE HAVE A TENDENCY IN FT.

PIERCE SOMETIMES TO ASK FOR MORE -- THAT'S POLITICAL. >> THANK YOU.

>> VERY GOOD. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THE FACILITY ITSELF. IT'S BEING LABELED AS A VETERANS ALF, OKAY? WHEN YOU PUT THE WORD VETERANS IN FRONT OF IT, THAT'S WHAT IT

WILL ALWAYS BE? >> IT WILL ALWAYS BE AMERICAN VETERAN HOMES AS LONG AS I OWN

IT. >> ONLY VETERANS WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE USE OF IT?

>> OH, NO, I CAN'T SAY OTHER PEOPLE CAN'T BE THERE. I WOULD SUGGEST WE'RE PROBABLY 60% VETERANS AND THE BALANCE IS POLICE AND FIRE. THAT'S WHO WE SERVE.

WE HAVE A FOUNDATION THAT ALSO PICKS UP THE SLACK FOR THOSE THAT CAN'T AFFORD IT.

THAT'S OUR POPULATION.

PEOPLE OR ARE THEY PEOPLE WHO MAY DECIDE TO MOVE HERE IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS

FACILITY? >> I'M SORRY. WHAT'S YOUR POINT?

>> WILL THESE BE LOCAL PEOPLE OR WILL THEY BE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT MOVE HERE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF

THE FACILITY? >> THERE'S A LOT OF RETIRED MILITARY FROM OUR -- IN THE 30-MILE AREA. WE FOUND THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF RETIRED MILITARY.

AND FIRST RESPONDERS. AS A TOWN, YOU'RE DRAWING 40, 50 MILES AWAY NOW FOR CARE.

THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE ASSISTED CARE BUSINESS. PEOPLE SEEK OUT THE FACILITY THAT THEY WANT AND SOMETIMES THE FAMILY IS WILLING TO DRIVE FARTHER THAN THEY USED TO.

>> AS AMERICANS WE HAVE A TENDENCY TO JUST JUMP IN THE CAR AND GO.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? >> JUST ONE COMMENT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT USE OF THE SITE. I APPLAUD YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE UNDER TAKING HERE.

>> THANK YOU. >> IT'S CERTAINLY A NEED IN THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S WELCOME. >> GREAT. YEAH, WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE.

>> JUST PHENOMENAL. VERY NICE LOOK BUILDING, TOO. > THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE LIKE IT. >> WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> PLEASURE TO BE HERE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> BACK TO ADDRESS OUR PRESENTER.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? >> I JUST HAVE ONE, MR. GILMORE. THIS IS JUST FOR MY EDUCATION ON THIS. WHAT'S TRIGGERING THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT HERE? I KNOW IT'S IN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

THIS SEEMS TO BE MULTITENANTED HOUSING. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT IS

TRIGGERING IT? I'M JUST CURIOUS. >> WITHIN CITY CODE SECTION 22-22, WHICH IS OUR USE TABLE, GROUP LIVING OR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES ARE CATEGORIZED AS

CONDITIONAL USE. >> THE DENSITY IS NOT AN ISSUE? >> R4, YEAH, CONDITIONAL USE.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES. >> VENNIS, ONCE THIS IS

[01:25:07]

DESIGNATED AS AN ADULT LIVING FACILITY, THE USE OF THE FACILITY ITSELF CANNOT CHANGE.

>> CORRECT. >> IN OTHER WORDS, IT COULDN'T BE PERMITTED UNDER THE CONDITIONAL USE AS AN ADULT LIVING FACILITY AND THEN MAYBE FIVE OR SIX YEARS FROM NOW IT'S DECIDED, NO, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, WE WANT TO CHANGE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE.

>> NO. >> IT WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN -- OR THE OWNER WOULD HAVE TO COME

BEFORE US. >> CORRECT. >> FOR THE DIFFERENCE OF USE.

>> CORRECT. >> CHANGE OF USE. >> CHANGE OF USE.

>> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FURTHER? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY VENNIS.

>> I SECOND IT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS DIAZ, SECONDED BY MR. LEE.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> MR. BRODERICK. >> YES.

>> MR. BURDGE. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MISS JOHNSON SCOTT.

>> YES. >> MISS DIAZ. >> YES.

>> MR. LEE. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MR. CREYAUFMILLER.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> CONGRATULATIONS. YOU ARE ONE STEP CLOSER TO CONSTRUCTION. WE DO APPROVE APPRECIATE YOU COMING TO FT. PIERCE.

>> WE DO OUR BEST. THANK YOU. >> COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY? ANYONE? NOT SEEING ANYONE. NEXT ITEM IS DIRECTOR'S REPORT.

[8. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

>> I DID NOT HAVE IS A REPORT. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO REPORT ON ONE ITEM.

WE ARE GOING TO BE HOLDING A STAFF, FEW OF US WILL BE HOLDING A SECOND COMMUNITY MEETING AS A FOLLOW-UP TO OUR DESIGN THREAD WE HAD BACK IN DECEMBER. THAT WILL BE ON APRIL 9TH AND FLYERS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED. WELCOME ANYONE WHO WANTS TO ATTEND.

IT WILL BE OVER AT THE RIVERWALK CENTER, AS THE FIRST MEETING WAS.

IT'S OUR EFFORT. WE'RE GOING TO BE SLOWLY DOING THIS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, ORGANIZING OUR ANYWAY NEIGHBORHOODS, GETTING MORE ESTABLISHED FORMALLY IN AN

INFORMAL NEIGHBORHOOD. >> KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. BOARD COMMENTS?

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

I'M GONNA START THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK VERY MUCH STAFF, WHO HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN PREPARING OUR PACKETS RECENTLY. ALWAYS DID A GOOD JOB BUT THEY'RE GETTING BETTER AND BETTER ALL THE TIME. THERE'S MORE INFORMATION COMING INTO THAEPL THEM, THINGS ARE BEING CLARIFIED BETTER THAN IN THE PAST.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR ALL THE VERY POSITIVE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE HEARD PERSONALLY AND THROUGH OTHERS AROUND CITY HALL WHEN TALKING ABOUT THE PLANNING BOARD.

THE MAYOR THE OTHER NIGHT IN THE COMMISSIONER MEETING, PRAISED THE PLANNING BOARD ONCE AGAIN ON THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING. THAT'S ALL OF YOU ALL THAT HAS DESERVED THAT PRAISE.

SHE THINKS VERY HIGHLY. HER COMMENTS WERE THAT SHE DEPENDS GREATLY IN PREPARING FOR COMMISSIONER MEETINGS, IN VIEWING THE VIDEO OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE VENT OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE DO FOR THEM. THAT WAS ALSO COMMENTED ALSO BY A COUPLE OF OTHER COMMISSIONERS OVER THE WEEK. THIS BOARD'S DOING SOMETHING RIGHT. ALL WE NEED TO DO IS KEEP DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING.

ONE OF THE BEST THINGS WE CAN DO IS VENT, VENT, VENT. EVEN IF YOU THINK YOU'VE GOT AN ANSWER FOR A QUESTION, IF YOU'VE GOT THE QUESTION, ASK IT. BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT COMES OUT IN THE VIDEO AND IT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT THE COMMISSION KNOWS WHAT'S ON OUR MINDS.

THAT'S OUR JOB. TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT WE'RE THINKING.

SO KEEP DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ANYONE ELSE?

>> CHAIR, I HAVE GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. ONE, I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN ON GOING DISCUSSION, THIS WAS DISCUSSED A THE LAST CITY COMMISSION MEETING BY MISS

[01:30:03]

GUERRA RELATIVE TO THE IDEA OF PUBLIC NOTICE PRIOR PLANNING BOARD MEETING.

I HAVE REFLECTED ON THIS ISSUE AND I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A RATHER CRITICAL COMPONENT OF DEALING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD'S FUNCTION AND BEING ABLE TO ASSIST THE CITY COMMISSION FURTHER AND THEM RENDERING DECISIONS. IS THAT STILL MOVING FORWARD AS TO A THOUGHT PROCESS AND A POSSIBLE CONCLUSION AT SOME POINT?

>> I DO BELIEVE STAFF HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO LOOK INTO THAT. I'M NOT SURE WHEN IT'S GOING TO

COME BACK FORWARD. EVEN LOOKING AT THE CHAMBER -- >> PEOPLE DON'T SHOW UP.

>> I DO AGREE. I THINK A LOT OF THINGS CAN BE VETTED WITH THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE PLANNING BOARD, RATHER THAN HAVING IT AT THE COMMISSION.

THEN THEY'RE MORE EDUCATED ON THE PUBLIC'S POSITION AS WELL. IT

>> WOULD BE HELPFUL TO EVERYBODY. THE OTHER THING, WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT WAS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA TONIGHT RELATIVE TO THE CULVERHOUSE PRELIMINARY FLAT.

THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO RAISE THAT WE MAY WANT TO ADDRESS PRIOR TO THIS COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. THERE WAS A STRUCTURE ON THAT PROPERTY CURRENTLY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEYS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO REPLAT THE PROPERTY, THERE'S NO INDICATION AS TO WHERE THIS PROPERTY, OR WHERE THIS STRUCTURE IS. I THINK IT REALLY SHOULD BE DELINEATED ON THE SURVEY AS FAR AS SETBACKS AND THINGS OF THIS NATURE ARE CONCERNED.

IT WAS THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. MAYBE SUGGEST TO THEM IF THEY

WANT TO INCORPORATE THAT. >> CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBER THAT IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT HAS BEEN FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT, IS THAT LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE, PUTTING IT ON THE SURVEY. IT'S NOT ON THE PLAT. SO WE CAN VERIFY AND CONFIRM

WHAT THE FACTS ARE. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.