Jun 09, 2020 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:12]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. FORT PIERCE PLANNING MEETING.

IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE WE'VE HAD ONE OF THESE. FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR YOUR CASE,, WE APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I THINK OUR HANDS WERE TIED. THERE WAS NOT MUCH WE COULD DO ABOUT IT. JUNE 6 WE CELEBRATED THE 76TH ANNIVERSARY OF D DAY. I WANT TO TRY TO REFLECT ON THAT AS WE SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAGC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> IF YOU WOULD ANYONE THAT HAPPENS TO HAVE A CELL PHONE, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE TURN THEM OFF OR TURN THE RINGER OFF SO THAT IT DOESN'T DISRUPT THE MEETING, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S FOR THE BOARD TOO.

I REMEMBERED TO TURN MINE OFF JUST A MOMENT AGO.

IT'S SO EASY TO FORGET. WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE IS THIS

FOR THOSE NOT HERE? >> YES.

>> MAYBE MR. LEE WILL SHOW UP. IF NOT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT

LATER. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD WE HAVE SUFFICIENT NUMBERS FOR QUORUM CORRECT?

>> YES, WE HAVE FOUR. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE

[a. Minutes from the March 10, 2020 meeting]

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND.

>> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> ON THE NEW BUSINESS.

[a. Annexation - Osipchuk Residence - 4114 Poinsetta Avenue]

ANNEXATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

>> THE SPIN CHUCK PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

BEFORE YOU TODAY WE HAVE A VOLUNTARY APPLICATION FOR A PROPERTY AT 4114 POINSETTIA AVENUE.

THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY HAS A COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE OF M R, M MEDIUM DENSITY USE. ONCE ANNEXED IT WOULD BE GIVEN DESIGNATION OF RM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL.

THE COUNTY ZONING IS RM5 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY FIVE DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE. ONCE ANNEXED IT WOULD BE R4.

AS YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED ON MOST SIDES BY R4 AND RM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THERE IS PROPERTY TO THE WEST THAT IS R1.

BUT THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP ARE ALL R4 MEDIUM DENSITY FUTURE LAND USE.

AS PROPOSED THE ANNEXATION MEETS THE CITY'S PLAN 1.11 REGARDING

[00:05:03]

STAFF IS RECOMMEND AGO APPROVAL OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I GOT A COUPLE. THE ANNEXATION, THE ZONING COMING IN IS THE CLOSEST MATCHING ZONING TO THE CITY

AVAILABLE ZONING? >> YES.

>> CURRENTLY THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.

>> THERE IS A STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY, YES.

>> DO YOU KNOW IF THERE IS INTENTION ON KNOCKING THAT DOWN TO DEVELOP INTO THE MEDIUM OR MORE DENSE USE?

>> MY UNDERSTANDING THEY CAME IN FOR BUILDING PERMITS TO IMPROVE THE STRUCTURE CURRENTLY ON THE SITE.

BECAUSE HALF OF THEIR PROPERTY WAS IN THE CITY LIMITS AND OTHER HALF IS IN THE COUNTY THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE THE

PERMITS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT?

>> NOT SEEING ANYONE. @ANYONE SPEAK OPPOSED? NOT SEEING ANYONE. COMING BACK TO THE BOARD, ANY

COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> REMEMBER.

[b. Conditional Use - Dreamchaser Preschool - 505 N. 7th Street]

>> NEXT ITEM WILL BE PRESENTED BY MR. GILMORE AND CONDITIONAL

USE? >> I OWN PROPERTY THAT IS ABOUT A BLOCK AND A HALF FROM THAT. I SPOKE WITH COUNCIL BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONFLICTING IN ANY WAY I SHOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE ON

THIS. >> VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIRMAN.

PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE FOR NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 505 NORTH SEVENTH STREET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CEDAR PLACE AND NORTH SEVENTH STREET.

HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF RM WHICH W A ZONING OF R4 WHICH IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE PRESCHOOL WILL CONSIST OF NINE CLASSROOMS, THREE RESTROOMS, OFFICE SPACE, KITCHEN WITH FOOD PREP AND ALSO INCLUDES AN OUTDOOR FENCE AREA FOR PLAYGROUND. THE SCHOOL IS APPROXIMATELY 7,126 SQUARE FEET. STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO TWO CONDITIONS. HERE IS A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF OUR RECOMMENDATION. CITY COMMISSION APPROVED RESOLUTION NUMBER 18-R57 AUTHORIZING THE SALE WITH INTENT OF A PRESCHOOL. HEARINGS THERE IS NO VALIDATED EVIDENCE IT'S CONSISTENT THE CODE.

THERE IS NO CITY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE BEING ADDED TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF MEND APPROVAL WITH TWO CONDITIONS. THE FIRST ONE I MUST SAY IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WILL BE TAKING CARE OF THIS ONE.

WE WERE NOTIFIED BY THE CITY MANAGEMENTER PER CODE ON STREET PARKING AND LOADING. PLEASE PROVIDE A LIGHTING PLAN OR CERTIFIED LETTER TO ENSURE MINIMUM OF TWO FOOT-CANDLES.

AND PROVIDE CONTINUAL ACCESS. WE ASK THAT PLANS ARE SUBMITTED TO INSTALL A SIDEWALK ALONG AVENUE EARTHQUAKE AND CEDAR PLACE CONNECTING SEVENTH STREET EXISTING SIDEWALK WITHIN 70 DAYS OF CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. PLANNING BOARD HAS THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE ACTIONS. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES. OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE

[00:10:01]

PROPOSAL CONDITIONAL USE. >> THANK YOU.

DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO BE TO THE RESOLVE ANY POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH SIDEWALKS AND LIGHTING?

>> NO, JUST THE LIGHTING. >> ARE THERE ANY ISSUES WITH THE

SIDEWALKS? >> NO.

BECAUSE IT A CONDITIONAL USE. ANYTIME THERE IS A CONDITIONAL USE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO EITHER INSTALL OR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF FOR SIDEWALK CONNECTIVITY.

>> WHAT WAS IN THAT BUILDING PREVIOUSLY?

>> PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS A SCHOOL OR COMMUNITY TYPE CENTER THERE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILL SNORE.

>> REGARDING THE SIDEWALKS , THE SITE SITUATED THERE ARE SIDEWALKS ON EITHER SIDE THAT NEED TO BE CONNECTED W. THE CITY STILL CONSIDER THE PAYMENT IN LIEU VERSUS HAVING THE SIDEWALKS

INSTALLED? >> YES.

>> EVEN WITH PRESCHOOL? >> IT'S UP TO THE ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT. >> MY POINT IS YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF KID I'M ASSUMING AND SIDEWALKS WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE THING VERSUS PAYMENT IN LIEU.

THAT'S NOT OUR DECISION I'M GOING TO SPECULATE.

>> IT'S NOT. THAT IS HOW OUR CODE REEDS.

MORE THAN LIKELY THE APPLICANT SHOWED CON TACKS TO GO THE

PAYMENT IN LIEU OPTION. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS?

>> I MOVE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT PLEASE STEP FORWARD. ARE YOU STEPPING FORWARD? IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

MY NAME IS CLAWED. AND SHE'S THE OWNER FOR DREAM CHASERS. I WASN'T TOO CLEAR ON THE RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE.

IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THAT. >> THESE ARE JUST SHOWING THE OPTIONS. WE'RE JUST LETTING THEM KNOW THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS EITHER THEY CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE TWO SUBJECT CONDITIONS OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES TO WHAT CONDITIONS THAT WE PROVIDED OR THEY CAN RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. IT'S JUST SHOWING WHICH WAY THEY

COULD GO. >> ARE YOU SAYING YOU THINK YOU ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SIDWALKS?

>> I THINK WE ARE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT.

>> >> THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION.

>> IS THAT ALL SIR? >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? NOT SEEING ONE. ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK OPPOSED? NOT SEEING ANYONE. I'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR

FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >> I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PACKAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND I THINK THAT THE PACKAGE WAS EXTREMELY WELL DONE.

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY THEY PRODUCED AND THE PROJECTION ON COSTS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO UNDERUTILIZED PIECE OF REAL ESTATE IN THE CITY AND PROJECTED USE I THINK IS COMPLETELY IN LINE AND THEIR BUSINESS PLAN SEEMED TO SPEAK TO THAT.

IT WAS AN IMPRESSIVE DOCUMENT FOLKS.

YOU DID A NICE JOB IT. I APPLAUD YOU FOR UNDERTAKING THIS PROJECT. I WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK WITH IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> TO PIGGY BACK ON HIS STATEMENT, DAYCARE CENTER IS NEEDED IN THAT AREA. I TRIED TO PROVIDE THAT MYSELF

NOT TOO LONG AGO. >> YES YOU DID.

>> THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE BALL.

>> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD PROJECT FOR THE CITY.

IT'S ANOTHER STEP FORWARD IN LIKE DIRECTION IN THIS CITY.

THANK YOU. I ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF THERE

[00:15:02]

ARE NO FURTHER COMMENTS. >> MOVE TO APPROVE WITH TWO

CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AN A SECOND. WITH CONDITIONS.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU.

YOU ARE ONE STEP CLOSER. >> ONE QUESTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON. I DID NOTE THAT THEY MAY HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE PRESERVATION BOARD.

HAVE THEY SUBMITTED ANY RENDERINGS AT THAT POINT WE CAN MOVE THIS ALONG QUICKLY FOR THEM?

>> I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE APPROVED BY MARIA.

[c. Conditional Use - Wood Vacation Rental - 1123 Hernando Street, Apt. B]

>> TECHNOLOGY AT ITS BEST. >> HOW ARE YOU?

>> THIS IS THE FORT PIERCE PLANNING BOARD.

AND WE ARE PREPARING TO HEAR YOUR CASE.

ARE YOU PREPARED? >> I AM PREPARED.

>> VERY GOOD. WE WILL MOVE FORWARD THEN.

WOOD VACATION RENTAL AT 1123 HER NANDO STREET APARTMENT B.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 1123 HER NANDO STRIGHT STREET BY TIFFANY WOOD.

THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SEEKING TO OFFER LODGING FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS WAY MINIMUM STAY OF ONE DAY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE AND 100 FEET NORTH OF MARINER BAY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF HIGH TOUCH SON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL WITH ZONING OF HUDSON MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4A.

THIS IS FOR A CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE NOTE CONSTRUCTION. MINIMUM RENTAL PERIOD IS ONE DAY FOR TYPE OF PLANNING STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH SIX CONDITIONS. I'D LIKE TO MENTION BEFORE I GO OVER THE SYNOPSIS THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO OPERATE DWELLING UNIT B FOR OVER 31 DAYS ON FEBRUARY 21, 2017 BY CITY COMMISSION.

THE APPLICANT ALSO CAME BEFORE PLANNING BOARD IN NOVEMBER 2019.

THE CURRENT APPLICATION IS FOR RENTING UNIT B FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS WITH A MINIMUM STAY OF ONE DAY.

HERE IS A BRIEF SYNOPSIS. ORDINANCE K-114 PASSED IN 2001 ESTABLISHING DWELLING UNITS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE ZONING CODE. FLORIDA LEGISLATURE FROM 2011 PROHIBITS CITIES FROM DENYING SHORT TERM RENTAL RIGHTS.

CONDITIONAL USES ARE ALLOWED. QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

THERE NO VALIDATED EVIDENCE ABOUT THIS SUBJECT SITE AND CONSISTENT THE CODE. THERE IS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT CURRENT VIOLATIONS.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ARE BEING ADDED TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS. THE PROPERTY MANAGER FOR THE VACATION RENTAL SALE BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES TO RESOLVE COMPLAINTS OR VIOLATIONS OF CITY CODE.

SHALL RESIDE IN THE CITY AND BE REGISTERED WITH FORT PIERCE.

[00:20:01]

THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE FOR BUSINESS TAX LICENSES WITHIN 30 DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF A LICENSE FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION.

NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES. CITY OF FORT PIERCE TAX LICENSE NUMBER INCLUDED ON ALL ADVERTISING.

AND SIX, PER CITY CODE SECTION SIDEWALKS WE ASK FOR SIDEWALK INSTALLATION IF THIS IS NOT ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THEIR PREVIOUS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FROM 2017 IF THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE WE ASK IT'S FINALLY DONE WITH THIS ONE.

THAT'S IT. YOUR POSSIBLE ACTIONS ARE APPROVAL WITH THE SIX CONDITIONS, APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.

>> WOULD AWE DRESS THE SIDEWALK ISSUE AGAIN PLEASE?

>> SO THE PROPERTY OWNER OR PERMIT APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE WITHIN 31 DAYS OF CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL A PERMIT FOR INSTALLATION OF THE SIDEWALK ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE THAT ABUTS HER NANDO STREET IF ONE OF THESE ITEMS HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED WITH THE LAST CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FROM FEBRUARY 2017 FOR THE DWELLING RENTAL OF 31 DAYS OR MORE.

I WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND THAT WAS DONE.

BUT WE'RE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF LOOKING.

IT'S REQUIREMENT. >> A SIDEWALK HAS NOT BEEN INSTALLED SO IT WILL NEED TO BE INSTALLED OR PAY THE PAYMENT IN

LIEU. >> QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILMER?

>> THE BUILDINGITE S THIS ADIEU LEX?

>> IT IS. >> DOES THE OWNER RESIDE IN THE

DUPLEX? >> NO.

>> WHO OWNS THE OTHER? >> SHE OWNS THE WHOLE BUILDING.

>> SHE'S ONLY RENTING OUT -- THERE NO CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE A UNIT. THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS FOR B BUT IT WAS NOT SPECIFIED. THAT'S WHERE THE FOUR BEDROOMS

ARE AND THREE BATHS. >> SOMEONE THERE EVERY OTHER

DAY. >> POSSIBLY, YEAH.

>> WAS THE SIGNAL RELATION OF THE SIDEWALK PART OF THE

PREVIOUS AGREEMENT? >> CORRECT.

>> AND THAT WAS NOT DONE? >> FROM WHAT WE KNOW, NO.

BUT -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.

>> WE HAVE THE APPLICANT ON THE PHONE, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN A

MOMENT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> GOING BACK TO THE TRC DOCUMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN WHEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THEY WILL MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. OUR ROLE WILL ADDRESS OUR PLANNING CONDITIONS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO OPINE ON THE

BILLING DEPARTMENT. >> OK.

MY NEXT QUESTION RELATIVE TO PARKING.

WE HAVE A FOUR BEDROOM PARKING SUBJECT TO RENTAL.

[00:25:37]

>> I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT MATH WORKS AND WHAT THEY DO WITH THE OVERFLOW OF VEHICLES. THERE NO ON STREET PARKING THERE. HOW IS THAT ADDRESSED?

>> THERE WAS A DETERMINATION RULING BY OUR CITY COMMISSION IN ORDER TO THERE WAS CONCERN BY THE PUBLIC AND AS YOU CAN -- I WAS NOT HERE AT THE TIME. THAT PARKING AND TOO MUCH PARKING FOR THESE VACATION RENTALS JUST IN THAT VERY SENSE TOO MANY CARS THERE CREATE ANEW SANS AND INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE WAS A GENERAL STATEMENT FOR THESE VACATION RENTALS MAXIMUM OF TWO CARS ARE WHAT IS ALLOWED FOR VACATION RENTALS. SO SHOULD THEY -- WITH THE FOUR BEDROOM, THESE VACATION RENTALS ARE ASSUMED TO BE THE SAME FAMILY COMING TOGETHER. IF THEY HAVE MORE VEHICLES, THEY WILL HAVE TO FIND SOMEWHERE TO BARK PARK WHETHER IT BE A N A PARKING LOT SOMEWHERE. THE WAY WE WERE DIRECTED WAS FOR VACATION RENTALS A MAXIMUM TWO CARS PER UNIT.

>> IF THERE IS NO ON STREET PARKING AND IN EXCESS OF TWO VEHICLES, THIS BECOMES SOME TYPE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUE.

IF IT'S BLOCKING ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ETC. THEN

IT'S A POLICE ISSUE. >> A CODE OR POLICE DEPENDING ON

THE TIME OF DAY, YES, SIR. >> ARE THERE QUESTIONS OR

INCIDENT. >> I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC

MEETING. >> ARE YOU STILL ON THE PHONE

WITH US? >> I AM.

>> I'LL LET YOU START AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A COUPLE OF

QUESTIONS CONCERNING SIDEWALK. >> THAT IS HOW I ENDED UP GETTING THE BTR. IF WE CAN'T -- [INDISCERNIBLE] SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO. IF NOT I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO PAY IT, WHATEVER IT IS, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

THAT'S FINE. >> DO YOU HAVE YOUR LICENSE FROM

THE LAST APPLICATION? >> YES, I DO.

>> THAT IS STILL SUITABLE FOR THIS APPLICATION?

>> YES. >> OK.

>> I'M GETTING A NOD OF THE HEAD FROM THE PRESENTER.

>> OK. >> THAT'S QUITE ALL RIGHT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE OPERATING BY TELEPHONE.

AND ARE PROBABLY NOT VIEWING THIS MEETING IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I AM TRYING TO BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT DELAYED.

[00:30:12]

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE APPLICANT?

>> [INDISCERNIBLE] IT'S GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY

WELL. >> WHAT I COULD SEE OF THE APPLICATION, IT LOOKED FAIRLY THOROUGH.

WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. >> OK.

>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION RELATIVE TO YOUR OCCUPANCY LOAD AND HOW YOU ARE GOING TO MANAGE THE PARKING THERE.

THE CITY IS STATING IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TWO VEHICLES ALLOWED. YOUR RENTAL AGREEMENT INDICATES YOU CAN HAVE A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT RESIDENT.

HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE MANAGED FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF PARK? WE ALL KNOW THE ON STREET PARKING ISSUES IN THAT

PARTICULAR AREA OF TOWN. >> WE'VE BEEN RENTING THIS HOME FOR NINE YEARS NOW. AND IT'S ONE FAMILY, MAYBE TWO WILL COME. THEY DON'T USUALLY HAVE ANYMORE THAN TWO CARS. WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE OR COMPLAINT OR A ON OUR GRASS OR STREET.

MY SISTER IS RIGHT BEHIND THE HOUSE SO SHE KEEPS A CLOSE EYE ON IT N. NINE YEARS WE'VE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE.

>> THANK YOU. >> I THINK YOU HAD A QUESTION

CONCERNING THE TWO UNITS. >> I WANTED TO CLARIFY THERE

WERE TWO UNITS. >> YES, THERE ARE TWO UNITS.

>> DOUBLE THE GARBAGE CANCEL AND WATER.

THAT IS ONE OF THE UNITS THERE. USE IT FOR STORAGE AT THIS POINT

OF OUR PERSONAL BELONGINGS. >> IS THERE A POTENTIAL TO USE THAT AS A DWELLING RENTAL ALSO DOWN ROAD?

>> NO, NOT AT ALL. >> AS AN OWNER YOU DON'T LIVE

THERE? >>

>> I DO NOT. WE TRY NOT TO BOTH TER GUESTS WE HAVE. DO I HAVE PERSONAL BELONGINGS IN

THERE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> SEEING NONE I THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IF YOU'LL STAY ON THE LINE HOWEVER IN CASE WE HAVE

SOMETHING THAT COMES UP. >> I WILL BE HERE.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? ANYONE SPEAKING OPPOSED? NOT SEEING ANYONE. I'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR

FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >> I WOULD THINK THAT IT'S PROBABLY WARRANTED TO GET SOME INPUT FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOLKS RELATIVE TO THIS RECENT RULING.

YOU THINK THAT HAS IMPLICATIONS HERE AND OTHER APPLICATIONS MOVING FORWARD THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD BE AWARE OF OR YOU WANT TO TAKE IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS?

>> WHAT YOU WILL NOTICE WE HAVE THREE HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

THE CONDITIONS WILL ALL BE ALMOST IDENTICAL.

THERE MAYBE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THAT UNIT.

WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IS THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OUR ROLE HERE IS TO REVIEW THESE RENTALS AS THEY PERTAIN TO OUR CITY CODE VERY MUCH AWE USE TABLE THAT ALLOWS VACATION RENTALS AS A CONDITIONAL USE W. THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO PUT CONDITIONS ON IT.

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE

[00:35:03]

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND DO AS PLANNERS.

OUR ENFORCEMENT ARM IS CODE ENFORCEMENT.

WHEN IT COMES TO ENTIRE , THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE UNITS, ANYTHING INSIDE HOME THAT WILL BE INITIALLY LOOKED AT FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, BUT THE ANNUAL UPDATES, INSPECTIONS ARE DONE BY THE STATE. THROUGH BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS. THEY HAVE TO BE LICENSED AND THAT AGENCY, THEY ARE ONES THAT DO THE INSPECTIONS ON AN ANNEWEL BASIS. OUR ROLE IS TO ENFORCE THE CODE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE MEETING THEIR CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL. >> IN THAT SAME REGARD, SO THE ACTUAL LET'S ASSUME THIS BOARD WERE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THIS THAT THE ACTUAL BTR IS NOT ISSUED FOR THE SHORTER TERM RENTAL CAPABILITY UNTIL ALL OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN MET. >> CORRECT.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THAT THE BTR APPLICATION WILL COME TO PLANNING AND WE WILL LOOK AT IT AND REVIEW IT BASED ON THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. THEY WILL ALL HAVE TO BE MET AND THEN WE SIGN OFF ON IT AND BUILD THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES

THEIR REVIEW. >> THEN GOES TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AFTER THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

PLANNING, BUILDING, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.

>> RIGHT. >> I THINK THAT CLARIFIES IT.

THIS HAS BEEN A RATHER SIGNIFICANT SHIFT.

>> AND IF I MIGHT ADD OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT, WE DO MONITOR, WE HAVE A LIST OF ALL OF OUR SHORT TERM RENTALS ON A CITY WIDE BASIS. WE CHECK HOW THEY ARE ADVERTISING, MAKING SURE THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH HOW THEY WERE APPROVED AND THE BTR PROCESS IS ANNUAL REVIEW WHICH ALLOWS MAN PLANET FITNESSING TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT EVERY

YEAR. >> HAS THE LOCAL NEIGHBORS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE PLANNED FOR THIS?

HAVE NOTIFICATIONS GONE OUT? >> THEY WERE POSTED.

WE HAVE A PUBLIC NOTICE POSTING. BUT THE INDIVIDUAL LETTERS THAT GO TO RESIDENTS, THAT DOES NOT OCCUR AT PLANNING.

IT OCCURS ONLY AT CITY COMMISSION.

>> THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT AWARE OF THIS.

>> JUST POSTING F. THEY DRIVE BY AND SEE IT.

>> WHAT ARE THE HOURS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT?

DO THEY WORK ON THE WEEKEND? >> THEY DO NOT.

>> IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM ON THE WEEKENDS IS NEIGHBORS HAVE NO

RECOURSE BUT TO CALL POLICE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BECAUSE IT'S A TWO DAY RENTAL WE'LL GOAL CONTINUOUSLY CALLING

THE POLICE OR WHATEVER. >> THERE IS A CONTINUOUS PROBLEM THEN WE WOULD ALL BE NOTIFIED. IT MAY HAPPEN ON A SATURDAY OR SUNDAY. BUT THEN THE POLICE INFORM CODE AND WE'LL ALL BE TALKING. THIS WAS A CONDITIONAL USE AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOU REMIND THEM OF THE LAW.

THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THIS PROCESS.

>> YES. CONDITIONAL USES ARE THE PROTECTION SO IT COULD ALWAYS BE VOIDED.

>> I RODE THROUGH ANEIGHBORHOOD. >> SHORTER THAN 31 DAYS.

>> WE HAD A FEW. >> THE EXPERT ON RENTALS.

>> OUR ONLY CONSIDERATION AND CONCERN HERE IS ITEM 22 OF OUR CITY ORDINANCES. BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION, I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY AT THIS POINT.

I'D LIKE OUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT IS PRESENT TO MAKE COMMENTS CONCERNING SHOULD A MOTION BE MADE OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION, WHAT SHOULD THAT LITMUS TEST BE FOR THAT MOTION.

[00:40:04]

>> WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS. YOU CAN CONSIDER ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PLACED BEFORE YOU.

WHAT I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS IF A MOTION TO DENY IS PLACED UP FOR A VOTE THAT THERE BE SUFFICIENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY THE BOARD SO THAT SOMEONE LATER ON LOOKING AT YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION CAN DETERMINE THE BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO DISCUSS YOUR CONCERNS AND FLUSH THOSE OUT SO WE CAN HAVE A RECORD TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE FOR THE BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION.

IT CAN'T BE ARBITRARY OR BASED ON OPINION.

YOU HAVE TO TIE IT BACK TO SOMETHING THAT HAS COME BEFORE

YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

>> AND I WOULD SAY PROBABLY THAT THE REASONABLE INFERENCES THAT CAN BE MADE FROM THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PUT BEFORE YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> SOCIAL DISTANCING MAKES SOMETIMES OUR ACTIVITY HERE A LITTLE MORE STRAINED AS YOU SEE OUR ATTORNEY IS SITTING OUT HERE IN THE SEATS.

SHE WAS TUCKED WAY BACK THERE IN THE CORNER AND WE COULDN'T EVEN SEE HER. I'M HAPPY YOU MOVED UP FRONT.

IT'S HELPFUL TO US. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> ANOTHER COMMENT. IT'S MY OBSERVATION AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BASED ON COMMENTARY FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT YOU START AT THE TOP AND WORK DOWN THAT FEDERAL ADA REQUIREMENTS NO LONGER APPLY IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS AND IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW, THAT FIRE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS THAT WERE NEEDED SIX MONTHS AGO NO LONG AREA PLY IN THE REVIEW BASED ON THE OCCUPANCY OR PERCENTAGE OF OCCUPANCY LOAD.

THE DISCUSSION OF THIS BECOMING A COMMERCIAL ADAPTATION OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH FOUR BEDROOMS WITH TWO PARKING SPACES NO LONGER APPLIES BECAUSE THIS PARKING ANALYSIS IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT BASIS AS TO WHY THESE MATTERS ARE EVEN COMING IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD CANDIDLY. IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVALS RUBBER STAMP THEM.

THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS NO SAY.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO SAY.

THE DPA -- THAT'S IT GUYS. AS FAR AS MY INTERPRETATION IS CONCERNED. IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING.

>> WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRE AND ACCESSIBILITY CODE, THEY STILL APPLY. AND THEY COMMENT DURING OUR TRC AND THEY WILL REVIEW THAT WHEN THEY ARE GOING THROUGH TRC.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRE SPRINKLERS, THAT WAS A DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE BY THE COMMISSION BUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN OUR TRC THOSE CONDITIONS MAY APPLY, MAY WHEN THOSE ARE THEN REVIEWED. BUT THE ACCESSIBILITY CODE WILL ALWAYS BE THERE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED EVEN BY THE BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BY THE STATE, THERE ARE MINIMUM DESIGN CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE MADE BY AN APPLICANT FOR A VACATION RENTAL TO GET A LICENSE. THERE IS AN OVERLAPPING OF AGENCY REVIEW. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO PLANNING WE'RE LOOKING AT I FOR ZONING. BUILDING WILL ALWAYS LOOK AT I THROUGH ACCESSIBILITY CODE. WHEN THEY ARE COMING IN FOR BTR THAT'S WHAT THEY DO. IS THERE A DISPROPORTIONAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH ANY IMPROVEMENTS FOR ACCESSIBILITY.

THAT IS NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE.

THAT IS OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT LOOKS AT THAT. THOSE WILL STILL APPLY.

IT JUST NOT AT THE PLANNING STAGE.

>> I GOT TO SEGUE TO ONE OTHER QUESTION.

THIS NEEDS TO BE DRILLED INTO SO THERE IS SOME QUALIFICATION PROCESS WE UNDERSTAND MOVING FORWARD I BELIEVE.

BTR FOR THIS PROPERTY IS ISSUED FOR RENTAL OF 31 DAYS OR MORE.

BUT THE CONDITIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MET THAT WERE ONLINE IN THAT APPROVAL. THAT HAS TO DO WITH ITEM 6.

I'M ASSUMING THAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

>> HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT? >> TWO YEARS AGO.

HERE WE ARE IN 2020 AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH BUT YET THE

[00:45:03]

>> THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. THE SCRUTINY WHEN IT COMES TO THE REVIEW OF BTR'S IS MORE INTENSE TODAY THAN THREE YEARS AGO. ALL EYES ARE ON DECK NOW THERE.

IS A COORDINATED EFFORT BETWEEN THE THREE DEPARTMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO BTR'S. I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST BUT WE WILL MAKE SURE THESE CONDITIONS ARE

MET GOING FORWARD. >> IF THAT'S THE CASE.

TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADING WITH THIS. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PROCESS, CAN LANGUAGE BE INCITED THE BTR WON'T BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL STAFF

RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN MET? >> WE CAN ABSOLUTELY.

>> I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE AT THAT POINT.

DIFFERING QUALIFICATION PROCESS AS THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND IS CONTINUALLY CHANGING, I THINK THE CATCH POINT BECOMES THE BTR. AND THE BTR CAN'T BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN MET OR IT NEEDS TO COME BACK WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

THAT IS SOMETHING I WOULD WANT TO LOOK INTO BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO ADVISE THE BOARD OR HAVE THE BOARD MAKE A DECISION TODAY THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE SUPPORTED BY OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. YOU CAN ACCEPT SOME, ALL OR NONE OF THE CONDITIONS. YOU CAN ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT YOU FEEL APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND BASED ON WHAT YOU THINK WOULD BE NECESSARY. SO I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. WHAT IS YOUR SUGGESTION THEN AS TO HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH THIS. I'M NOT PICKING ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, I'M LOOKING AT THIS FROM A JOEL PERSPECTIVE TO SAY IF WE HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WEREN'T MET WITH THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE , WHAT SECURITY DO WE HAVE. RESETTING THIS MATTER SO YOU CAN LOOK INTO WHAT HAS OCCURRED SOUND LIKE CONFUSION WITH THAT.

RESUBSEQUENTLY MAKE A MOTION AND A SECOND WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS -- WE HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM THAN ONE PARTICULAR APPLICATION MIND YOU. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE ANSWER IS TO THAT. BUT I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SAY TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INVESTIGATE IT TO SEE IF THIS CAN BE EXPANDED UPON TO BE A MORE FORMALIZED.

>> IS -- ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR ME WHILE I'M AT THE PODIUM?

>> IF YOU COULD FOLLOW UP ON THE ISSUE.

[00:50:02]

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> I'D BE HAPPY TO DO SO.

>> I HOPE THAT YOU ALL DON'T LEAVE HERE TODAY THINKING ALL THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL YOU PUT ON EVERY SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE IN THE CITY HAVE NOT BEEN MET THERE.

IS A DISCREPANCY WITH THIS ONE ON WHETHER THE PAYMENT IN LIEU WAS PAID. IT WAS BASED ON A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PREVIOUS PLANNER FOR THIS PROJECT.

WE WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT AND IF AS THE APPLICANT STATED IF SHE'S NOT PAID IT IT WILL BE PAID.

I WANT TO YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT YOU ARE NOT PUTTING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON PROJECTS AND THEY ARE NOT BEING MADE BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

>> I THINK IN MOST CASES WHERE I'VE DONE FOLLOWUP OCCASIONALLY, I FIND THAT IN MOST CASES, IN FACT I HAVEN'T FOUND ANY THAT HAD NOT BEEN MET. AND I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED WITH THIS. CITY EMPLOYEES TRY TO WORK THROUGH THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE CONCERNING THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF SIDEWALKS. AND IT WAS NEVER FINALIZED WITH

THE CITY IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES CORRECT.

2017 THIS HOME IT WAS FIRST HOME THAT GOT APPROVED FOR GREATER THAN 30 DAYS. IT WAS THE FIRST ONE.

WE DIDN'T HAVE AFTER THE APPROVAL WHERE WE WERE WORKING THROUGH BTR, [INDISCERNIBLE] DO I HAVE THOSE EMAILS.

>> THE PEOPLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ONLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY ADDRESS THIS WHEN IT GOES BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT HAVING THAT INPUT.

I THINK IT'S SPOKANE ZO IMPORTANT.

I HAVE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR ANSWER WHY WE CAN'T HAVE THAT TYPE OF INPUT AT THIS POINT. IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE.

I THINK HERE IN THE FUTURE WILL BE IN THE NEAR FUTURE HOPEFULLY.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. BEFORE I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR OR AGAINST APPROVAL. LET ME ASK A QUESTION BECAUSE I

[00:55:05]

>> NO. >> PART OF THIS APPLICATION THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED WILL HAVE TO BE MET BEFORE SHE GETS BTR FOR THIS PARTICULAR CONDITIONAL USE.

>> SO THERE IS NO ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN LEFT OVER.

I GOT THE OPINION OR FEELING THERE WERE THINGS OUT THERE

LINGERING. >> SIDEWALK ISSUE UNKNOWN AT

THIS POINT. >> THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ON THE SIDEWALK ISSUE. I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION. I THINK AT THE CITY LEVEL FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. WHATEVER PAYMENT WENT HAD F THE PAYMENT WAS MADE IN LIEU OF THE SIDEWALKS.

BUT THE APPLICANT IS FULLY PREPARED TO MAKE PAYMENT IF THAT ISSUE IS STILL OPEN AND NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED WITH THIS APPLICATION. I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT IS PREPARED TO UP HOLD THE SIX CONDITIONS INVOLVED HERE.

>> I THINK ALL THE OTHER THINGS ON THIS LIST OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN MET OR WILL BE MET.

>> YES. >> NUMBER SIX IS BASICALLY

RECORDKEEPING ISSUE. >> THE ONLY REASON I BRING THIS UP IS I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO THE NEXT MEETING IS SO ALL THESE MATTERS CAN BE CLEARED.

>> SOME CONDITIONS I MIGHT AGREE WE MIGHT DO THAT.

UNDER THE CONDITION THIS IS A NEW CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION.

AND I'M NOT SURE THAT WE SHOULD BE HOLDING A PROJECT UP.

I'M GOING TO ASK LEGAL THIS. SHOULD WE BE HOLDING A PROJECT UP BECAUSE OF A POTENTIAL GLITCH IN THE LAST APPLICATION, PARTICULARLY BEING THAT ALL LICENSES AND WHAT HAVE YOU WERE

ISSUED. >> IN LIGHT OF THAT, SHE'S IN BUSINESS TO DO SOMETHING BUT NOT TO DO SOMETHING UNDER THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE BEING ASKED TODAY.

SHE IS USING THIS PROPERTY FOR THE CONDITION IN THE PAST THAT SHE WAS APPROVED FOR. BUT NOW SHE'S ASKING FOR A VARIATION THAT GIVES HER A SHORTER PERIOD OF TIME TO RENT

THE PROPERTY. >> TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS AGO AND STILL MANY LIMBO. THAT IS THE REASON WHY I THOUGHT MAYBE A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT THE LADY IT CAN APPLICANT CAN COME IN AND TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING FROM 2017 AND THEN IT WOULD BE A SLAM, BAM, THANK YOU MA'AM SITUATION AT THE NEXT MEETING VERSUS IT HASN'T BEEN PAID.

DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK HER TO PAY IT.

SHE SAYS SHE'S GOING TO PAY IT AND THEN WE APPROVE.

THIS IT GOES TO CITY COMMISSION. IT IS PAID, IT ISN'T PAID, WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE PAID. IF WE POSTPONE IT FOR THE NEXT MEETING SHE'S GOING TO COME IN AND PAY IT AND CLEAR UP ALL THE MATTERS. IT COMES BACK TO US WITH A CLEAN

BILL OF HEALTH. >> AND IF I MAY, SYLVIA U.S. TO ADD ON TO THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS MIGHT PUT THE BOARD AT EASE AT 58, AT THE END OF THE DAY , THE BTR WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SIGNS OFF.

SO THEY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT.

WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE SIGNING OFTEN ON AT THAT POINT IS WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION DECIDES.

SO -- >> THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THAT. YOU COULD BEFORE THIS GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION, THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS RESOLVED.

YOU GO WITH A YES OR NO THAT'S BEEN MET FROM THE 2017 APPROVAL.

THAT'S ONE WAY TO GET IT OFF THE PLANNING BOARD AND NOT BURDENNEN THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MOVE THE THING ALONG.

BUT GET IT LEGITIMIZED. >> THAT'S A FAIR STATEMENT.

>> THAT'S THE BOARD'S PLEASURE. I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE SO THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT AGAIN AT THE END OF THE DAY THE BTR DOESN'T GET ISSUED UNTIL THE PLANNING

[01:00:02]

DEPARTMENT SIGNS OFF. >> GIVING ME SENSE OF RELIEF THEN. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.

IF THIS IS A NEW PROCESS JUST SO I GET IT CLEAR IN MY HEAD.

THE BTR ISSUES COMES FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

PREVIOUSLY I DON'T BELIEVE THIS HAD TO GO BACK TO PLANNING FOR APPROVAL. IS THIS A NEW STEP MANY.

>> PLANNING HAS ALWAYS LOOKED AT IT.

WE'RE MORE COORDINATED TODAY. AND SO WE ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO THESE CONDITIONS. THERE WAS A CASE THAT WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEY GO IF THEY DON'T MEET THE CONDITIONS. I WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT.

HE FIXED UP HIS SITE AND HE WAS ABLE TO GET HIS BTR.

PLEASE HAVE CONFIDENCE THIS CONDITION WILL BE MET.

>> I THINK THIS IS JUST ONE SCIENCE.

IT'S RECORDKEEPING ON OUR END AND THE APPLICANT.

DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE THE APPLICANT IF THIS IS A PAPERWORK STAFF FOO AT THE CITY LEVEL. JUST NEEDS CLARIFICATION PRIOR TO THE CITY COMMISSION IF THE REST OF THE BOARD WERE TO BE

INCLINED TO GO ALONG WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION. IT TOOK ME BY BIT OF SURPRISE IT'S BEEN KICKING AROUND FOR THREE YEARS AND YET TO BE

RESOLVED AND IS STILL HERE. >> IT DID NOT COME TO OUR ATTENTION UNTIL THIS APPLICATION.

>> I SEE NO REASON IT SHOULD HAVE.

>> STAFF TURNOVER. >> I GET IT.

>> THAT'S WHERE WE CAUGHT THIS. WE'VE PUT THIS ON HERE.

>> THE SYSTEM WORKED. >> IT ACTUALLY WORKED.

>> IT DID. >> WE'VE HAD PEOPLE PAY SIDEWALK

PAYMENT THIS LIEU OF. >> I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A

MOTION. >> I'LL ENTERTAIN.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO ALL THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE CAVEAT THAT RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 6 IS CLARIFIED AND INFORMATION BROUGHT FORWARD TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE CITY COMMISSION MEET SING THAT INFORMATION CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR

FINALIZATION OF THAT. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> NO. >> NO.

>> YES. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> PASSED.

>> 3-2 MOTION CARRIES. MRS. WOOD YOU ARE ON YOUR WAY TO

THE COMMISSION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU.

[d. Conditional Use - Wright-Ofeimu Vacation Rental -715 S. Ocean Drive, Unit E]

>> MOVING ON TO ITEM D. 15 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE.

AND MR. GYM MOTHER AGAIN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION BY THE PROPERTY OWNER TIFFANY WRIGHT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE UNIT B. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE BOARD WALK CONDOMINIUMS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE AND GULF STREAM AVENUE.

AND CONSISTS OF A ONE BEDROOM ONE BATH UNIT WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 680 SQUARE FEET. SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A FUTURE LAND USE OF HIR WHICH IS HITCHSON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL WITH R4A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF VACATION RENTAL OFFERING LODGING LESS THAN SIX MONTHS WITH MINIMUM RENTAL OF TWO DAYS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT MAT WE ARE FIVE CONDITIONS.

HERE IS A BRIEF SYNOPSIS. ALL THE SAME THINGS APPLY TO THIS APPLICATION AS WELL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE SUBJECT FIVE CONDITIONS. THE PROPERTY MANAGER FOR VACATION RENT SYSTEM AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES.

SAID MANAGER SHALL PROVIDE IN THE COUNTY.

REGISTER WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

PROVIDE GUIDE BOOKLETS OF CODE ENFORCEMENT PROVIDED.

[01:05:04]

FIVE CONDITIONS NO CHANGES. >> WASN'T THERE A STACHE RECOMMENDATION THEN, A LIMITATION OF NUMBER OF

OCCUPANTS. >> THAT IS OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW. IT'S THAT A BUILDING DEPARTMENT MATTER. WALK ME THROUGH IT.

THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD PUT A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY LOAD ON

THIS. >> CORRECT.

THE DAY THEY APPROVE IT. >> I SEEM TO RECOLLECT I REVIEWED THE ASSOCIATION'S OPERATING DOCUMENTS THAT EACH UNIT WAS ASSIGNED ONE PARKING SPACE.

>> CORRECT. >> THE REQUIREMENT FROM PLANNING

IS THAT THEY HAVE TWO. >> WE KEEP THAT CONDITION BECAUSE COMMENTS WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING BETWEEN ANY OF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS. THEY DO HAVE GUEST PARKING.

AT THIS LEVEL IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE HOA THAT WILL ENFORCE THAT IF PEOPLE ARE PARKING IN SOMEONE ELSE'S SPACE BECAUSE THERE IS DESIGNATED SPACE FOR EACH OF THE UNITS.

YOU CAN HAVE YOUR SPACE AND A GUEST BUT IT'S UP TO THE HOA TO

REGULATE THAT. >> I GET THAT.

THAT'S NOT THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.

I FIGURED I WOULD MENTION IT BECAUSE I RECOLLECT THAT.

THE THIRD QUESTION I HAVE IS RELATIVE TO THE CHANGE OF USE PROVISION AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STATE INTERPRETATION IS THAT ONCE THE PROPERTY HITS 25% CHANGE OF USE, THEN LET'S ASSUME CHANGE OF USE IS TRANSIENT HOUSING THAT THEY THEN HAVE TO MEET THE CURRENT CODE FOR TRANSIENT AND HOUSING.

>> IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? >> IT IS FAIR.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> THERE WAS A DISCUSSION CONCERNING HOW THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD FIND A SITE MANAGER OF THE PROPERTY WITH CONDITIONAL USE. AND I BELIEVE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT A LOOP COULD BE ADDED TO THE CITY SITE --

>> IT'S MY SUGGESTION, WE HAVE AWE LIST OF PROPERTY MANAGERS FOR ALL THE ADDRESSES OF ALL THE CONDITIONAL USE FACILITIES.

OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS HOURS FOR EXAMPLE AT MIDNIGHT HOW WOULD THE PUBLIC -- SHOULD THERE BE A PROBLEM THAT A CONDITIONAL USE RENTED SITE, HOW WOULD THE PUBLIC FIND OUT WHO TO CALL.

AND THIS WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE , THE UNIT THAT PROBLEM COULD EXIST BECAUSE THE OWNER IS GOING TO BE AN ABSENTEE OWNER OBVIOUSLY. SO HAS THAT BEEN DONE?

DO WE KNOW? >> THAT HAS NOT.

THAT'S THE FIRST I'VE HEARD OF IT.

THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION AND WE CAN IMPLEMENT THAT.

>> I THINK PERHAPS SOME DISCUSSION BECAUSE I WOULD TRUST

[01:10:02]

AND I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS EVER DONE. THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO QUESTION THAT. NOT THAT I THINK IT SHOULD HOLD THIS UP WHATSOEVER. BUT WE NEED TO LOOK INTO IT.

BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC CAN DETERMINE WHO TO CALL SHOULD THERE BE A PROBLEM.

AND CALL THEM AT ANY HOUR. >> CHEERILY POLICE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN DEAL WITH PARKING ON A SATURDAY NIGHT AT 10:00 WHEN THERE IS RESIDENTIAL CARS ON A STREET WITH NO PARKING. IT'S A GREAT POSITION TO SAY THAT IS WHO THIS FALLS TO. THIS IS NOT LOCAL PLANNING OR THE CITY COMMISSION. THE STATE HAS REMOVED HOME RULE PERIOD. THE REASON THEY ARE DOING IT IN MY SOLE OPINION IS NOW 4%, 5% OF THE STATE'S REVENUE IS COMING FROM SHORT TERM RENTALS BELIEVE IT OR NOT.

THAT'S WHERE THE BASIS OF THIS ENTIRE PROBLEM LIES.

I SEE FOLKS OUT HERE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WERE PUT THROUGH QUESTION AND ANSWER REGARDING WHO IS GOING TO BE MONITORING THE OPERATION OF THEIR PARTICULAR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT IN. I WANT TO POINT THEM OUT.

MIND YOU HERE WE ARE CREATING -- WE'RE NOT CREATING IT, JUST FACILITATING IT GETTING TO THE APPROVAL PROCESS OF THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM TIMES DOZENS WHEN ALL OF THIS IS SAID AND DONE.

YOU TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER. ONE STREET OVER FROM ME, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT. I COUNT 42 HOUSES ON THAT STREET, 25 HAVE BECOME SHORT TERM RENT UNLESS ONE DAY.

YOU TELL ME THAT'S A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ANY LONGER.

IS IT R1, R4? NO IT'S COMMERCIAL.

BUT THE STATE GUTTED THE ABILITY OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH US AND GUTTED THE ABILITY OF TO US MANAGE THIS. IT'S UNFORTUNATE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES THE STATE HAS PUT US IN.

IN MY OPINION IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORTS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY BEING GENERATED IS MASSIVE. IT'S JUST AN UNMANAGEABLE SITUATION. I KNOW FAIR FACT THAT YOU ARE SETTING US UP FOR FAILURE. YOU ARE GOING PUSH THE BURDEN OF THIS ON TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS. IT'S GOING TO BE UGLY WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE. I'LL GET OFF MY SOAP BOX.

>> PERHAPS WE CAN MODIFY THAT LANGUAGE TO WHERE WE GET THAT CONTACT INFORMATION AND MAKE IT PART OF THE RECORD FOR US.

THEIR BUSINESS TAX AND ADVERTISING, MAYBE THERE COULD

BE SOME KIND OF NOTIFICATION. >> THE DISCUSSION CAME UP OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS HOURS, HOW DOES ANYBODY HAVING SOME PLACE TO POST THAT WHERE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS IT.

>> IT WAS TO THE POINT OF SAYING SUGGESTING MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.

IT'S JUST THE ENTIRE SCENARIO IS COMPLETELY UNWORKABLE TO THE POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FLASH POINTS ABOUT STUFF LIKE THIS.

>> JUST TO ADD TO THAT. >> I LIKE TO HEAR THAT.

[01:15:21]

>> THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

ANYONE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS PARTICULAR CASE PLEASE STEP FORWARD. STATED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND

SIGN IN. >> TIME OWNER, MY ADDRESS IS

3122 WINCHESTER ROAD. >> TO ADDRESS AUTOPSIER A COUPLE OF YOUR CONCERNS. FIRST I'D LIKE TO SAY I DID IDENTIFY A PROPERTY MANAGER ALREADY AND IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH MY APPLICATION. I HAD I SECOND PERSON ON SITE WHO IS THERE AVAILABLE TO DO THINGS FOR US.

HE'S A RETIRED CONTRACTOR. AS AN OWNER A SHOWER HEAD CAME OFF AND I CALLED HIM AND FIXED I.

I OWN OTHER PROPERTY IN MICHIGAN THAT I MANAGE MYSELF.

AND ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN WHETHER IT'S LONG TERM OR SHORT TERM WHERE YOU HAVE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.

FOR INSTANCE I HAD IRRESPONSIBLE TENANTS IN ONE OF MY HOMES THAT SOMETIMES PARK A LITTLE BIT TOO FAR AND I CALL THEM UP AND TELL THEM MOVE. PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN EVERYWHERE.

I DON'T WANT THAT HAPPENING. VACATION RENTAL, IT'S ALL ABOUT YOUR REPUTATION. IF YOU ARE GOING THROUGH VRBO OR WHATEVER AND YOU HAVE COMPLAINTS ON THERE, THAT IS GOING TO KILL YOUR BUSINESS. I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY WITH THE INTENTIONS OF USING IT FOR VACATION RENTAL.

I HAVE THREE SONS AND I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A WONDERFUL PLACE FOR TO US SPEND TIME. I HAD BEEN TO FORT PIERCE ONCE BEFORE. MY DAD USED TO HAVE A BUSINESS HERE. ALSO I KNEW THAT I HAD TO SUSTAIN IT SOMEHOW. SITTING EMPTY IS NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS. IT'S NOT GOOD FOR SAFETY WISE.

AND JUST IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY AARON US, I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO I'M ARE NOT GOING THE LIKE EVERYTHING.

WHETHER IT'S ONE DAYS OR TWO DAYS.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MANY ONE DAY RENTALS.

OUR HOA BROUGHT UP FOR VOTE, IT'S ONLY 13 UNITS.

BROUGHT IT UP TO CHANGE OUR DOCUMENTS THIS PAST FEBRUARY IN OUR MEETING. OUR FOLKS IN OUR COMMUNITY HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM WITH IT. IT'S NOT OUR INTENTION TO BRING DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK ME AND MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR HAVE TRIED TO BEAUTIFY IT SINCE WE'VE BOUGHT IN.

JUST TRYING TO CLEAN IT UP A LITTLE BIT.

SO I HAVE FRIENDS 234 MICHIGAN WHO RENT FOR A LONG WEEKEND.

IT'S A REASONABLE LOCATION. IN TERMS OF ONE I HAVE NO

[01:20:03]

HOW MANY CARS ARE GOING TO COME WITH A ONE BEDROOM UNIT.

I'VE RENTED VACATION UNITS. THE ABILITY TO COOK FOR SKIDS GREAT. A QUICK THING OF MAC AND CHEESE IS CONVENIENT COMPARED TO THE HOTELS.

I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU CONSIDER THOSE THINGS.

I'M INVESTING A LOT OF MONEY INTO THIS AND DON'T WANT TO SEE IT TORN APART EITHER. YOUR CONCERNS ARE MY CONCERNS AS

WELL. >> THANK YOU.

>> YOU TOUCHED ON YOUR ASSOCIATION.

WHAT IS YOUR ASSOCIATION'S POSITION WHEN IT COMES TO THIS? YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS A MEETING.

COULD YOU ELABORATE ON THAT? >> WE HAVE NO RENTAL RESTRICTION IN OUR HOA. WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE INFORMATION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE THERE.

THEY DO NOT SPECIFY A TIME. THERE WAS ONE GENTLEMAN WHO CAME FORWARD AT THE TIME OF THE APPLICATION AND HE'S THE ONE WHO PROPOSED A MINIMUM OF 31 DAYS TO BE AMENDED TO OUR HOA DOCUMENTS IN FEBRUARY. AND IT WAS VOTED ON BY THE MEMBERS AND NOT APPROVED. THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE THE DOCUMENTS AND DIDN'T PASS.

>> IS IT RENTAL UNITS? >> IT'S ABOUT -- PROBABLY ABOUT 75% RENTAL LONG TERM RENTAL. AND THEN MICHELLE HAS SHORT TERM. IN THE PAST SOME OF THE OWNERS I

THINK DID SEASONAL RENTALS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE SPOKING OPPOSED? NOT SEEING ANYONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NOT HEARING OR SEEING ANY, I

WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS SET FORTH BY THE STAFF.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> WE HAVE A PHONE CALL. >> THAT'S GOING TO BE COVERED.

WE HAVE A PHONE CALL WE NEED TO MAKE.

[e. Conditional Use - Robbins Vacation Rental - 1014 S. 7th Street]

AND WE ARE CALLING. >> THIS IS FRANK.

[01:25:27]

I'M GOING TO HAVE THE PRESENTER TODAY AND WE'LL BEGIN.

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A VACATION RENTAL 101414 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

GENERALLY SITUATED NORTH OF SUNRISE AND SOUTH OF PARKWAY.

THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO THE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST AND WEST. THE PROPERTY HAS DESIGNATION OF RL AND HAS A COMPATIBLE ZONING DISTRICT OF R2 WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY INTERMEDIATE DENSITY. I NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP THE R2 ZONING IS SURROUNDED THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY R2 ZONING. THE APPROVAL IS TO OPERATE A VACATION RENTAL FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS FOR A PERIOD OF A MINIMUM OF TWO DAYS. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PROPERTY OF THIS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WITH SIX CONDITIONS. THE REASON FOR THE SYNOPSIS FOR THE RECOMMENDATION SIMILAR TO THE LAST TWO VACATION RENTALS.

I WILL GO OVER THEM. ORDINANCE K114, IT WAS AN ORDINANCE PASSED BY THE CITY WHICH MADE DWELLING UNITS A CONDITIONAL USE IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.

ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL WITH EXCEPTION OF R1.

THIS IS WE ARE FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE AND LAWS THEY PASSED IN 2011. WHICH PROHIBIT CITIES FROM DENYING SORT HERM RENTALS. PART OF A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WILL HAVE TO BE FORMULATED IN THE FINDINGS IF YOU RECOMMEND DENIAL. THERE IS NO CODE ENFORCEMENT OR POLICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATIONS. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON PETITION ARE THERE TO PROTECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH SIX CONDITIONS. THE FIRST FIVE OF WHICH AGAIN WE'VE GONE OVER. FOR THE BENEFIT OF MICHELLE I'LL HIGHLIGHT. SHE DOES KNOW THEM.

PROPERTY MANAGER WILL HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE ON SITE.

HAS TO BE REGISTERED. GUIDE BOOKS HAS SHALL BE RO PRO PROVIDED TO THE RENTERS THAT PROVIDE THE RULES TO RENTERS.

THE APPLICANT HAS TO FILE AND OBTAIN CITY AND COUNTY SALES TAX LICENSE. NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES ON THE SITE. AND BUSINESS TAX NUMBER HAS TO BE INCLUDED ON ADVERTISEMENTS. STAFF HAS IMPOSED ONE MORE CONDITION WHICH PERTAINS TO BEING THIS COMPLIANCE WITH 2260C6 WHICH SPEAKS TO SURFACE MATERIAL OF THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY. REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, ACCESS DRIVES AND LOADING AREAS MUST BE PAVED AND MAINTAINED WITH SIMILAR MATERIAL OF ENOUGH THICKNESS TO SUPPORT TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND WEIGHT. ALTERNATIVE PAVING MATERIALS RAILROAD PARKING SERVICES MAY BE APPROVED BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE BY AND FOR APPROVAL OF OUR CITY ENGINEER.

TO DEMONSTRATE THE SURFACE MATERIALS WEAR RESISTANCE AN LOW BEARING CHARACTERISTICS OF CONCRETE OR ASPHALT.

POSSIBLE ACTION BUSINESS BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY STAFF. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE WITH CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

OR RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE.

>> BEFORE WE START THAT I'D LIKE TO BRING TO THE BOARD'S

[01:30:05]

IS THE TIME. >> IS THIS THE SAME OWN SENATOR.

>> SAME OWNER SIR. >> AND I DID SIT THROUGH AND WATCH THOSE VIDEOS. MY STAFF ALSO WAS PRESENT AT THIS TIME IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> I WOULD THINK SO.

>> I THINK THIS WHOLE MATTER IS LITERALLY PROGRESSING IN FRONT OF OUR EYES. THERE IS GOING TO BE DISCUSSION AT THE END OF THE MEETING I'VE MADE NOTES ABOUT.

IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION I'M LOOKING AT THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 20, 2020 THAT IN IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION THE REQUIREMENT ENFORCEMENT BY THE FIRE MARTIAL, THEY ARE INDICATING THIS IS GOING TO BE

REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY? >> NO.

THIS IS JUST A -- >> THIS IS JUST A SINGLE FAMILY HOME GOING TO BE USED FOR A VACATION RENTAL.

AGAIN, LIKE WITH EVERY PROJECT THIS ONE COMES IN FOR A BTR.

BUILDING DEPARTMENT WILL LOOK AT IT.

THAT'S WHY I'VE ATTACHED THE TRC COMMENTS.

AND THEIR STANDARD BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO THESE AND THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE TRC.

I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUT THEY WILL HAVE THEIR CHANCE OF REVIEWING THIS WHEN IT COMES IN FOR THEIR BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT. SAME OWNER BUT MICHELLE IS

ACTING AS THE AGENT. >> I BELIEVE SOME OF THE CONCERNS RAISEND TO APPLICATION PREVIOUSLY HAD TO DO WITH LIFE SAFETY ISSUES. FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES IS THAT THE POSITION THAT WE'RE TAKING JOINTLY HERE IS THAT PLANNING BOARD'S POSITION IS NOT TO GET INTO OR START DICTATING POLICY ON LIFE SAFETY ISSUES. THAT NEED TO BE DEALT WITH BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, NOT BY THIS BODY.

>> CORRECT. IT IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DUTY. NOT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S.

HOWEVER THE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES WILL BE COMPLIED WITH AND THEY STILL LOOK AT THAT. IF THERE IS SOMETHING -- I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT.

>> I'M STILL FUZZY ON ALL THE ADA COMPLIANCE ISSUE.

IS IT APPLICABLE HERE? OR AT THE POINT OF TIME THERE IS A COMPLAINT FILED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUIRED TO BRING THE PROPERTY OR REQUIRE THE OWN TORE BRING IT TO CURRENT ADA CODE?

>> IT'S HARD FOR ME TO REALLY EXPLAIN COMPLETELY.

I THINK THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD REQUEST THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING TO THE BOARD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS BASED ON A DISPROPORTIONATE COST.

IT IS A BENEFIT TO ANYONE RENTING THE PROPERTY IF THEY WANT TO REACH A POPULATION , THE ENTIRE POPULATION, YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ACCESSIBLE. AND IF THERE IS ISSUES THROUGH A COMPLAINT THAT WOULD BE A CIVIL MATTER.

THE CITY WOULD NOT BE GETTING INVOLVED WITH.

THAT WE'RE MEETING OUR RESPONSIBILITY AT THE TIME OF

BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEW. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

INCIDENTS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO GET THAT CLARIFICATION FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

IT'S A CONCERN OBVIOUSLY. I THINK IT WOULD BE HELP TO FEEL

GET THAT. >> OK.

IF IT'S THE BOARD'S PLEASURE I'LL REQUEST THAT OF HIM.

[01:35:02]

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR TO US CONTINUE TO FOLLOW UP. THE MORE INFORMATION I THINK THIS BOARD HAS, THE SMOOTHER THESE PROJECTS WILL MOVE THROUGH BOARD. PARTICULARLY AS WE MOVE FORWARD NOW. SOMETIMES THIS BECOMES PAINFUL.

>> QUESTIONS OR INCIDENT. >> MY HAND ARE TIED.

WE'RE PUTTING A HOTEL IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> AGREED. >> WHAT DO THE NEIGHBORS SAY?

>> WE HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF EMAILS THAT ALICIA WILL BE READ

INTO THE RECORD. >> I'M GOING ASK HER TO READ THOSE IN WHEN WE GO TO THE PUBLIC MEETING AND WHEN I CALL FOR COMMENTS OPPOSED. I BELIEVE ALL THESE COMMENTS

WERE OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> IF I MAY CHAIRMAN, IT IS A DIFFICULT POSITION.

THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR FIRST ONE IN SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. WE'RE CHARGED TO MAKE SURE THIS HOME CONTINUES TO LOOK LIKE A HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, HENCE THE DRIVEWAY IMPROVEMENTS. LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CARS SO THAE TODAY, THERE ARE THREE CARS THERE.

NOW THEY ARE GOING TO BE LIMITED TO TWO.

ALTHOUGH WHAT IS HAPPENING INSIDE MAY BE A VACATION HOME, WE WANT IT TO LOOK AND FEEL LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH OUR CONDITIONS.

>> THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO NOW. >> MY SYMPATHIES GO TO THE NEIGHBORS. THEY PURCHASED A HOME ANYWAY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. NOW THEY ARE NEXT TO A HOTEL.

SEEMS LIKE WE'RE PUTTING THE NEEDS OF THAT ONE PERSON AHEAD OF THE NEEDS OF THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY ARE NOT HEAR. I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO HEAR

THEIR STATEMENTS SOON. >> I WANT TO HEAR THEM.

BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. YOU BUY A HOUSE, YOU SAVE YOUR MONEY. NEXT THING YOU KNOW YOU ARE NEXT TO A HOE IT WILL. HOTEL.IT'S A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M GOING TO GET OFF MY SOAP

BOX. >> IT'S WORSE THAN A HOTEL.

A HOTEL OR BED AND BREAKFAST, THERE IS SOMEBODY THERE THAT CAN CONTROL THE ACTIONS OF THE OCCUPANT.

WHEN WE HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BEING RENTED OUT AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, THERE IS NO CONTROL.

I HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME WITH THIS.

I WISH THERE WAS SOME WAY THAT WE HAD SOME WAY TO JUST DENY

THEM. >> THERE IS A REGULATORY AGENCY AND THERE IS A PROCESS THAT PEOPLE GO THROUGH TO RENT A VACATION RENTAL. THAT PROCESS IS A VETTING PROCESS. SENATES WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD.

THEY ARE HUGHLY SCRUTINIZED. THEY ARE NOT CHEAP.

WE'RE HOPING THAT THAT IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.

EVERY YEAR OUR DEPARTMENT BUSINESS PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DOES INSPECT. THERE ARE LIFE SAFETY CHECKLIST THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT. CLEANLINESS.

EVERYTHING WITHIN THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER. THERE ARE A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE NOT REGULATED AND THEY ARE BRINGING DOWN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M JUST TRYING TO HELP YOU LOOK AT HOW WE'RE LOOKING AT IT AS A PLANNING FUNCTION.

WANT TO KEEP IT AS MUCH AS WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

THIS BOARD HAS BEEN IN POSITION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE IT MORE MANAGEABLE. DISTAX RECEIPT NEED TO BE ON YOUR ADVERTISING. STAFF RECOMMENDATION NUMBER ONE.

[01:40:03]

HOW IS THAT DONE? THERE IS NO AVAILABILITY AT ALL TIMES. IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

THE RESPONSIBILITY COMES BACK. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WE TAKE A COUPLE OF MINUTES AND TALK ABOUT THESE SUGGESTIONS TO ADD MORE CREDIT OCTOBER THESE STATEMENTS. WE NEED TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO TIGHTEN THIS UP. YOU CAN TAKE 'HOME AND MAKE A

PROFIT OUT TO OF IT. >> WE'RE GETTING OUTSIDE OF THE

AREA WE'RE ADDRESSING TODAY. >> I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS. I'M FRUSTRATED ABOUT IT TOO.

I HAPPEN TO BE ANYWAY GOOD POSITION THIS TERMS OF.

THIS I LIVE IN A HOMEOWNER CONTROLLED NEIGHBORHOOD AND I MADE AMENDMENT CHANGES TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT OUR HOMEOWNERS FROM THIS KIND OF THING. FOR THOSE OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE AND PUCK LICK WATCHING OR LISTENING TO THIS MEETING WHEN I SAID PROTECT I DON'T MEAN THE STEP ON YOUR TOES.

IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF SHORT TERM RENTALS, AS A HOMEOWNER LIVING IN MY HOME I'D RATHER WORK NEXT DOOR TO ME.

THE STATE LEGISLATURE NEED TO HEAR ABOUT THIS.

FOR THOSE OF YOU UNHAPPY ABOUT THIS THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO START. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE, I CAN PROVIDE WITH YOU LETTERS I'VE BEEN END IS OUT FOR THE LAST NINE YEARS. I'LL UP OPEN UP THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING AND TAKE ANYONE SPEAKING IN FAVOR FIRST OF THIS ISSUE. AND MICHELLE ARE YOU STILL ON

THE PHONE? >> YES.

>> I BELIEVE YOU GAVE ME PERMISSION TO CALL YOU MICHELLE.

>> YES, EVERYBODY MAY CALL ME MICHELLE.

I'M FINE WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT KNOW WAIT ON MY COMMENT OR SPEAK AS A POSITIVE INFLUENCE ON IT AND THEN SPEAK -- YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT ME TO DO.

>> I SUGGEST YOU STAY AS POSITIVE AS YOU CAN.

BECAUSE I DON'T THINK NEGATIVITY IS GOING TO HELP.

I MEAN DO YOU WANT KNOW SPEAK AS A RESIDENT AND THEN GIVE MY

SPEECH AS THE APPLICANT? >> YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE

APPLICANT. >> I'M ALSO A RESIDENT TOO.

>> OK. >> LET'S STICK TO THE

APPLICATION. >> I HIGHLY DISAGREE WITH THE COMMENTS MADE ON THIS. AS ARGUE WARE ACTION I HAVE GONE ALL THE WAY TO THE TOP. I'VE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT.

I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND OTHER RESIDENTS.

WE ALSO TOO HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS AS YOU KNOW.

AND I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR JENNIFER.

SHE DID A GREAT PRESENTATION AND TIME IN REGULAR CONTACT WITH PAUL THOMAS AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

IN ORDER TO KEEP THINGS IN COMPLIANCE.

FIRST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

AS A PROPERTY RIGHT YOU HAVE TO RIGHT TO EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM

[01:45:02]

THE RIGHT TO JUST CONFRONTATION BE TAKEN FOR A PUBLIC PURPOSE.

RIGHT TO LEASE -- [INDISCERNIBLE] IN ADDITION CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS SUPERSEDE ORDINANCES WHEN IT COMES TO HEAL VERSUS HANKLE FROM 108 WHICH IS A STRONG LAW.

IN ADDITION I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THEY SPOKE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. I HAVE BEEN IN REGULAR CONTACT WITH CAPTAIN LINGLE. VERY HELPFUL.

HE HAS SENT ME AN EMAIL AND I'VE FORWARDED IT ON TO JENNIFER IN DUE DILIGENCE. AND I QUOTE BY PAUL LINGLE IN REVIEWING THE 1218 SOUTH 11TH STREET PREAPP COMMENTS FOR MAY 6, 2020 CONFERENCE CALL ACCORDING TO THE FORT PIERCE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THIRD COMMENT STATES THE REQUIREMENT FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS WILL BE ENFORCED BY THE FIRE MARTIAL PER CHAPTER 633 OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PREVENTION CODE.

ALL VACATION RENTAL PROPERTY SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOUND IN THE DPBRHR525 -- 753.

HE HAS IN BOLD AND UNDER LINED CURRENT FLORIDA FROM STATUTE 633.208 NON-WITHSTANDING SUBSECTION 8.

A PROPERTY OWNER MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL FIRE SPRINKLERS IN ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BASED UPON THE USE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS A RENTAL PROPERTY OR ANY CHANGES IN RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY'S PRIMARY USE TO A RENTAL. CHAPTER 633 OF FLORIDA STATE STATUTE IS VERY CLEAR IN THAT FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE NOT REQUIRED. I HOPE THIS THIS HELPS CLARIFY YOUR ISSUES FOR THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.

BEST REGARD CAPTAIN LINGLE. PUT THAT ON THE RECORD PLEASE.

IN ADDITION I WANT YOU TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THE DBPR UNDER INFORMAL INTERPRETATION NUMBER 8027 ALSO STATES THAT FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE NOT NEEDED IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO READ IT, I CAN PROVIDE IT FOR YOU.

AS YOU ARE ALSO AWARE, WE FOUGHT THE CITY AND WON 8-0 UNANIMOUS IN OUR FAVOR WITH REGARDS TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE BINDING INTERNATION REPORT 179. IN THIS IT STATES WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE VACATION RENTAL AND THUSES THE LAWS HAVE BEEN DEFINED AND CHANGED IN FORT PIERCE.

INSTEAD OF INFLAMING THE SITUATION I SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD EMBRACES THE CHANGE, UNDERSTAND HA OUR TOURISM BRINGS MONEY TO OUR AREA WHICH IN TURN DOES NOT REQUIRE A STATE TAX I'M GOING ADDRESS THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT.

I'M A PROPERTY MANAGER. I'M ON CALL.

I GET UP OUT OF BED AND GO ATTEND THE CLIENT.

WHEN IT COMES TO GOOD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT YOU WILL HAVE SOMEBODY ON CALL 24 HOURS A DAY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND UNDERSTAND YOU AS A BOARD SPEAK WITH CAPTAIN LINGLE WITH REGARDS TO THIS AND GET EDUCATED ON THAT.

SPEAK TO THE DBPR AND WITH OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL WHO HAS EMBRACED THIS INTERPRETATION WHICH IS A FORMAL INTERPRETATION. IF MR. THOMAS DID NOT FOLLOW

[01:50:03]

HE'S GOING TO FOLLOW WITH THE DBPR HAS SET FORTH.

I DISAGREE WITH ALL OF THIS FEAR THAT IS OUT THROUGH COMMUNITY BECAUSE I HAVE ONE. I RUN ONE PERSONALLY AND HAVE OTHERS THAT I RUN. THOSE PROPERTIES ARE KEPT BETTER THAN LONG TERM RENTER. YOU GET A LONG TERM RENTER IN THERE AND THINGS ACCUMULATE. THING OUT FRONT, GARBAGE, COMPLACENCY. WHEN YOU HAVE A VACATION RENTAL THAT HAS TO BE CLEANED UP AND IN PERFECT CONDITION IN ORDER FOR THE NEW CLIENT TO COME IN. WITH GOOD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, THAT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT VETS THE CLIENTS, FIND OUT WHY THEY ARE COMING, ASSISTS IN THEIR VACATION AND MAKES THEMSELVES AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES FOR ISSUES.

I DEALT WITH A CLIENT THIS MORNING THAT COULDN'T TURN ON A CERTAIN THING. I'M AVAILABLE ALL THE TIME.

I THINK IF YOU GUYS WERE TO POSSIBLY EMBRACE OR EVEN STAY IN A VACATION RENTAL YOURSELF, YOU WOULD SEE THAT THIS FEAR IS NOT

FOUNDED. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

ANY QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD FOR MICHELLE?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MICHELLE. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT PLEASE STEP FORWARD. NOT SEEING ANYONE.

I WILL TOP PORTION FOR ANYONE OPPOSED AND I WILL ASK THAT THE THREE DOCUMENTS WE RECEIVED TO READ THEM INTO THE RECORD.

DUE TO MY AGE I'M CONTINUING SELF-ISOLATION AND CAN'T ATTEND MANY PERSON. THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT EFFECT THAT THE PRIOR ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND CITY COMMISSION IN HOLDING TOO TOWNSHIP DIRECTORS PLANNING BOARD AND ONE CITY COMMISSION HEARING.

TO CONSIDER AN APPLICATION WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR HEARINGS AND SUBSEQUENT DENIAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE SAME REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL DERELICTION OF DUTY BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE REFERENCE TO BOTH PRIOR PLANNING BOARD HEARINGS AND MINUTES OF THE HEARING WHERE THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ANY NEW HEARING.

THE RENTERS ACTIVITIES CAN'T BE MONITORED OR RESTRICTED.

THE ITEMS BELOW CONCERN ME UNLESS I'VE INDICATED OTHERWISE.

OVER THE. B NOISE.

UNFAMILIAR ARTY WITH LOCAL ORDINANCES MAY LEAD TO EXCESSIVE NOISE AND OR NOISE, WILD PARTIES ANTED HONKING HORNS.

TRAFFIC. UNFAMILIARITY OF RESIDENTIAL SPEED LIMITS, PARKING AND OTHER SAFETY CONCERNS SUCH AS SCHOOL BUS STOP NEARBY. D INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT.

INCREASED ACTIVITY ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH RENT BILLION STRESS RETAIL AND PUBLIC SAFETY. SANITATION, GARBAGE NOT PROPERLY CONTAINED. INDIFFERENCE.

LACK OF LONG TERM CONCERN FOR LOCAL AREA AND RESIDENTS.

ADA COMPLIANCE NEEDED, DRIVEWAYS, WALKWAYS, PARKING AND LIGHTING. NEXT ONE IS FROM CLAY YATES AT 719ING GEORGIA AVENUE. I WRITE AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND AS THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE HIBISCUS PARK CRIME WATCH AND NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT AT 1:00 THIS AFTERNOON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE WILL BE CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE TO OPERATE A SHORT TERM RENTAL BUSINESS AT 1014

[01:55:01]

I'M ALSO AWARE THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND DENIED BY BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

ALMOST EXACTLY A YEAR AGO THE PLANNING BOARD HEARD COMMENTS FROM NEIGHBORS AND MADE FINDINGS IN RECOMMENDING THE APPLICATION BE DENIED. ON JUNE 11, 2019 IN REVIEWING THE APPLICATION I BELIEVE IT WAS DETERMINED OF THE 14 PROPS THAT SURROUND THE APPLICANT, OVER 50% TO R HOMESTEADED.

THE LAST PURCHASED HOME IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA WAS FOUR YEARS AGO. MOST WERE PURCHASED IN THE EARLY 90'S. THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY WELL ESTABLISHED STABLE COMMUNITY. MANY STUDENTS WALK TO THE IMMEDIATE CORNER TO THE BUS STOP.

AND PERHAPS MOST SIGNIFICANTLY NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN DESIGNATED USE MEANING LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES ARE INTEND TOED TO EVERYBODY IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. A SHORT TERM RENTAL WOULD NOT EVERYBODY IS THE COMMUNITY WITH THIS DESIGNATION.

IF THIS OFFICE DAYCARE CENTER OR SOMETHING OF THAT SORT THEN IT WOULD QUALIFY AS CONDITIONAL USE TO EVERYBODY IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO STRANGERS WITH A MONTHLY TURNOVER.

THE ESSENCE OF THE TESTIMONY TO THE PLANNING BOARD THEN ESTABLISHED THAT PERMITTING SHORT TERM RENTALS WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBOR'S COMFORT, APPEARANCE, GOOD ORDER AND CONVENIENCE. AT ITS AUGUST 5, 201 MEETING THE CITY COMMISSION VOTED TO DENY THE APPLICATION.

COMMENTS BY THE COMMISSIONERS INCLUDED NO SHORT TERM RENTALS HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THE R2 ZONE.

TYPICALLY THEY ARE APPROVED IN R4 ZONING.

THE APPLICANTS WINDOWS DID NOT MEET COMMERCIAL CODE FOR ADEQUATE EGRESS. THE DRIVEWAY DID NOT MEET ADA CODES. NOT A DRIVEWAY THE W HARD SURFACE. THE COMMISSIONERS INDICATED THED FOLLOWING EVIDENCE TO DENY APPLICATION.

LIKELY OVERCAPACITY. PARKING OF VEHICLES, INSUFFICIENT MANAGEMENT FOR CHALLENGES PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY BY SHORT TERM RENTALS. NONCONFORMING USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN R2 DISTRICT. STUDENT SAFETY CONCERN WITH NEARLY 100 STUDENTS LIVING WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS.

FAILURE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS. INCONSISTENCY WITH PRIOR RECORDS AND BUILDING PERPS, APPLICANT ADVERTISING INCONSISTENT THE APPLICATION PROCESS. I'M AT A LOSS AS TO HOW CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED TO THE EXTENT THESE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ARE NOT STILL VALID REASONS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE USE THE APPLICANT IS SEEK. I ASK THE COMMITTEE PLEASE CONSIDER THESE COMMENTS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO

THIS MATTER. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT PLEASE STEP FORWARD. NOT SEEING ANYONE.

MY SELL I'LL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL.

>> WITH REGARDS TO THE ARE YOU BUTLE.

I'M GOING TO STATE ON THE RECORD THAT THAT FORMER DENIAL WAS NOT HELD QUASI JUDICIAL. THE FACTS THAT WERE GIVEN BY THE BOARD AT THAT TIME ARE NO LONGER RELEVANT.

IT IS VERY CLEAR THE BPR HAS MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR TO THE NINETY FORT PIERCE CITY HALL HAD A MEETING REGARDING THE CHANGE OF SHORT TERM RENTALS WITH REGARDS SPECIFICALLY TO THE PROPERTY EACH PERSON'S PROPERTY RIGHTS AND NOT ABLE TO BE ABLE TO DENY ANY MORE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

I STILL BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT THE FEARS FROM THESE THREE PEOPLE THAT STATED ON THE RECORD THEIR FEELINGS, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THEIR FEELINGS AREN'T VALID. CLAY YATES IS A LAWYER.

AND SO HIS LETTER THAT HE IS STATING ON THE RECORD IS OF SOME FORM OF LEGAL LETTER. IN ADDITION TO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT MIKE ROBINS HAS NOT WAIVED QUASI JUDICIAL. NEONS HEARING MUST BE WAIVED QUASI JUDICIAL. UNDERSTAND ADDITION TO THE COMMISSIONER'S REVIEW, WE'LL ALSO BE HELD QUASI JUDICIAL AS WELL. THERE IS NO BASIS OF ANYTHING REGARD TO SAFETY. MR. ROB SEASONS NOT REQUIRED TO

[02:00:06]

AND AGAIN YOU CAN'T FORCE ON A VACATION RENTAL ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO WHAT CAN BE BUILT IN A CURRENT SITUATION FOR THE RESIDENT. IF THE RESIDENT -- NO RESIDENCE IS FORCED TO BE ADA COMPLIANT. I'VE WORKED IN A DESIGN FORUM.

WHEN THEY PURCHASE A HOME AND THEY NEED ADA COMPLAINS COMPLIANCE, IT'S RETROFITTED. A KIPPAL HOME IN AMERICA IS GOING TO OFFER THE HOME NONADA COMPLIANT.

THEREFORE IT IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MR. ROB TONS CONFORM TO ANY ADA COMPLIANCE WHATSOEVER.

IT IS UP TO HIM. IT IS UP TO ME AS THE OWNER OF A VACATION RENT TOLL OFFER ADA ASSISTANCE IF IT'S AVAILABLE.

I'M GOING TO LEAVE MY COMMENT AT THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS HERE. ONE, THIS BOARD DOES NOT OPERATE UNDER QUASI JUDICIAL RESPONSIBILITY.

WE'RE AN ADVISORY BOARD ONLY. WE MAKE NO FINAL APPROVALS SO THEREFORE THESE HEARINGS ARE NOT QUALIFICATION SI JUDICIAL NOR CAN THEY BE. NUMBER TWO, TO ADD TO MICHELLE'S COMMENTS, I DID A QUICK CHECK ON THE SEVENTH OF JUNE AND LOOKED AT TWO PROPERTIES EACH EAST, WEST, NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY WHICH IS A TOTAL OF EIGHT.

AND NONE OF THEM WERE HOMESTEADED.

AND I'M MAKING THAT COMMENT IN REGARD TO THE LAST ITEM THAT HAD BEEN READ INTO THE RECORD CONCERNING HOMESTEADING AND NON-RENTAL AREA. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT AS WELL. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING NOW AND COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF THE PRESENTER. NOT HEARING ANY.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> IF I MAY, I THINK THAT I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS. I AM OF COUNCIL WITH YATES.

SINCE MR. YATES HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER IN OPPOSITION AND HE'S IN FACT MY LEGAL COLLEAGUE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE

FOR ME TO VOTE ON THIS MATTER. >> I TURN TO LEGAL COUNCIL FOR

THAT. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE

APPROPRIATE. >> QUESTION TO LEGAL COUNCIL.

IF WE ARE GOING TO MINIMIZE THE BOARD TO A THREE MEMBER BOARD --

>> WE'RE STILL GOOD. >> OK.

>> CAN YOU FLIP TO THE SECOND ONE?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

>> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> NO.

>> [INAUDIBLE] .

>> YES, MA'AM. >> MOTION PASSED.

>> MOTION IS PASSED. MICHELLE, NEXT STEP WILL BE CITY

[02:05:03]

YOU ARE AWARE. >> THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE IT. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO JENNIFER FOR ALL OF HER HARD WORK.

>> HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON. >> BYE.

>> NEXT ITEM IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED BY MRS. GORIER ARERA.

[f. Preliminary Plat - Culverhouse - Thumbpoint Subdivision - Block 1, Portion of Lot 28 and all of Lots 29 and 30]

>> YOU GET ONE THING WRONG IN A STAFF REPORT AND THIS

DIRECTOR -- NO. >> SHE'S A TOUGH GAL, I CAN SEE

THIS. >> INJURY ON MY LEFT KNEE.

>> SHE'S STRICT ABOUT THOSE. >> I HOPE SHE'S KEEPING A FINGER ON YOU OR A THUMB. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM F.

PRIMARY PLAT FOR CULLIVER HOUSE THUMB POINT SUBDIVISION BLOCK ONE. A PORTION OF LOT 28.

AND. GO.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THE NEXT CASE BEFORE YOU IS THE THUMB POINT SUBDIVISION. BLOCK ONE PORTION OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF PORTIONS 29 AND 30. HERE IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTIES AROUND IT IS RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.

YOU CAN SEE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY ON THIS SIDE OF THUMB POINT DRIVE THAT IS THE EAST SIDE OF THUMB POINT DRIVE IS R1. MOST OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE R2. IF I CAN DIRECT TO YOU THIS ZONING MAP, YOU CAN SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SITE OF THE HOUSE THAT IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

YOU CAN SEE IMMEDIATELY TO THE LEFT ARE THE PLATTED LOTS WHICH HAVE BEEN COMBINED SO IT'S TWO AND A HALF LOTS CONVERTED INTO THREE LOTS WHICH MEET THE MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT. THIS WILL GIVE YOU A PICTURE OF THE COMBINATION OF LOT AND THE SUBDIVISION OF THEM INTO THREE DISTINCT LOTS THAT MEET THE MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE

R1 ZONING DISTRICT. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>> I'D RATHER SHE COMPLETE THE PRESENTATION BEFORE WE START ASKING QUESTIONS IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>> NO PROBLEM. >> HERE IS THAT OVERALL PLAT.

THE REASON WHY I BROUGHT IT TO YOUR ATTENTION IS I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD CONTEXT WHEN YOU LOOKED THAT THE PLAT THAT SHOWS WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THERE IS A BUILDING PERMIT.

AND THAT PROPOSED LOT TWO AND THREE.

AND HOW THEY ARE CONFIGURED OUT OF THE TWO AND A HALF LOTS.

I'VE BROKEN UP EACH ONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS SO WE HAVE COPIES OF WHAT EACH ONE OF THE LOTS WILL LOOK LIKE.

THAT IS LOT ONE WHERE THE HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS.

LOT TWO. AND LOT THREE.

AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY EACH LOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT IN TERMS OF LOT WIDTH, DEPTH AND

LOT SIZE. >> STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE QUESTION STOUT ONE CONDITION.

RECOMMEND APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMEND AGO APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

YOU MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES BUT YOU MUST BE AWARE THAT ANY CHANGES OR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU MAKE MUST MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS OF THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT.

YOU CAN'T LIMIT OR REQUIRE USES. OR IMPOSE TIMEFRAMES.

THIS IS A SUBDIVISION. SUBDIVISION BY STATE STATUTE AND BY ORDINANCE CAN'T HAVE USES IMPOSED UPON THEM AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE RELATED SOLELY THE TO THE SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. YOU MAY RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF WHICH CASE YOU MAY HAVE ATO THE GIVE A REASON FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION. THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> THIS IS ONE. >> AS ARGUE WARE.

WE DON'T GET THE FULL SIZE PRINTS AND I HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME READING THIS STUFF ON THE COMPUTER.

I'M JUST TRYING TO VERIFY THAT AS YOU HAD STATED THAT FIRST OFF THAT THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET UNDER THE R1 ZONING

[02:10:02]

CLASSIFICATION. >> INDEED.

WHEN YOU TAKE HA MEASUREMENT, IT'S NOT LITERALLY MEASURED FROM THE IT'S JANES SI TO THE RIGHT OF WAY.

YOU MEASURE BACK UNTIL IT MEETS THAT WIDTH AND IF THE ENTIRE LOT HAS THE MINIMUM LOT AREA AND THE DEPOSITION OF THE LOT MEETS THE MINIMUM AREA, THAT MEETS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

AND THIS IS LOCATED WITHIN CHAPTER 22 ON HOW TO MEASURE LOT

WIDTH. >> I RECOLLECTTA LANGUAGE.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING. WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT? IS IT 75 SUBSTANCE.

>> I HAPPEN TO HAVE THAT. >> WE HAVE A 7075-FOOT WIDE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. 110 WIDTH FOR THE DEPTH AMOUNTND

12 NO SQUARE FEET FOR THE AREA. >> WHAT DO WE HAVE IN THIS LOT?

>> FOR EACH ONE OF THE LOT -- I DON'T HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL NUMBERS FOR EACH ONE. LET'S SEE IF THE PREVIOUS ONE HAS THE WRITTEN IN. PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN GIVE THAT YOU. THEY CAN PROVIDE VERIFICATION THAT EACH OF THOSE HAVE BEEN MET THROUGH SURVEYOR.

WE ASKED THAT QUESTION AND ASKED FOR VERIFICATION THAT WAS MET.

>> LOT SIZE AND FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN

SATISFIED? >> THEY HAVE AS NOTED BY THEIR SURVEYOR. WE GOT VERIFICATION.

>> I'M GOING TO ASSUME SIGN BID SURVEYOR.

>> YES. >> IS THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY, YOU MENTION THERE HAD IS A BUILDING PERMIT PENDING FOR THAT. THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, DOES IT MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? THERE IS NOTHING THAT --

>> THAT WAS ANOTHER QUESTION WE ASKED AND WE MADE SURE THE SURVEYING MADE THAT VERIFICATION.

>> WE'LL VERIFY THE NUMBERS. THERE IS A 25-FOOT FRONT SETBACK. A 7-FOOT SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND 25 REAR SETBACK BECAUSE IT'S JANE TO THE WATER.

>> ALL OF THAT IS VERIFIED? >> I'VE LOOKED PERSONAL THROWN BUILDING PERMIT AND THIS WILL VERIFY THESE AMS. THAT IS STILL IN PLACE FOR THE HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THIS PROPOSED STRUCTURE MEETS ALL THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE SPOT ON.

YOU WERE READY TO GO. >> FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

DOES THIS MEET THE 30% REQUIREMENT FOR UNDER ROOF

CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT. >> IT DOES.

MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR ANY BUILDING.

THAT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS IMPERVIOUS ONLY STRUCTURES AND

IT DOES SIR. >> DOES THAT INCLUDE THE POOL

DECK AREA? >> THE POOL DECK AREA DOES NOT GET COUNTED TOWARDS THAT PERCENT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> YOU'VE BEEN AWFUL QUIET TODAY MR. BIRCH. YOU MUST BE HUNGRY SINCE THEY

THREW YOU OUT OF THE RESTAURANT. >> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY.

>> OK. >> I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN.

I THINK YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE. >> I HAVE.

MY NAME IS WILLIAM TOED ADDER. I'M THE AGENT WORKING FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME UP. AND THE LEGAL COUNSEL IS HERE AS

WELL IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> DON'T SEE ANY SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> THE COLDER IT GETS THE SLOWER I MOVE.

I'M GLAD I'M IN SOUTH FLORIDA. EXCEPT IN HERE.

IT'S A REFRIGERATOR IN THIS ROOM ALWAYS.

>> WHILE HE'S SIGNING IN, MIGHT BY PERMITTED TO INQUIRE OF HIM.

THERE IS ONE MATTER I WANTED TO PLACE OF HIM ON THE RECORD.

MAY I PROCEED? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAD A CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AT SOME POINT REGARDING SOME PENDING LITIGATION.

[02:15:07]

>> YES. >> CAN YOU PLEASE JUST BRING THE BOARD UP TO SPEED ON THAT SO WE'RE CLEAR.

>> MY NAME IS FRANK FEE. I'M A LAWYER.

I REPRESENT THE FATHER SON DUO THAT IS SEEKING TO HAVE THIS PROPERTY REPLATED. MY OFFICE IS 426 AVENUE A.

YOU MIGHT -- MRS. PATTY YOU MIGHT SAY YOUR SPEECH AGAIN.

>> I'M GOING TO NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF THERE THIS ONE SAME

REASONS. >> THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN LITIGATION FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME GOING BACK TO MORTGAGE MADE WHEN I WAS GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE BANK TO MR. CULLIVER HOUSE. LIKE MANY PEOPLE HE LEVERAGED UP DURING THE RUNUP IN THE ECONOMY PUTTING TWO MORTGAGES ON HIS HOME. THESE DUE ■TOBANKMERGERS ARE OWNED BY PNC BANK AND PNC BANK IS VERY ATTENTIVE TO AND RECEPTIVE OF THIS APPLICATION. BECAUSE IT WILL PROVIDE THE WHERE WITH ALL THROUGH SALES TO PAYOFF THE MORTGAGE AND BRING THE PROPERTY OUT OF LITIGATION. THEY HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THE PLAT

CONSENTED. >> WE HAVE THE PROPER DOCUMENTATION FROM THE MORTGAGE HOLDER IN REGARD TO THIS.

>> THEY HAVE SIGNED THE HIGH ALREADY PLATTS.

THEY'VE NOT BEEN BROUGHT OVER TO THE CITY.

IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE WHEN WE GO BEFORE THE COMMISSION.

>> I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THAT. I WAS PLANNING ON DOING SO.

>> THANK YOU SIR. >> I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AS WELL. IT'S BEEN WELL PRESENTED BY STAFF. AND WELL EXPLAINED.

AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF COURSE IS GRATIFYING.

I WILL ASK FOR AN OPPORTUNITY RESPOND TO ANYONE OPPOSITION.

>> SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE INCORPORATED ALL ISSUES AT THIS TIME INTO THE SURVEY AND PLATTING.

IT'S ALL BEEN SIGNED OFF SO THEY'VE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK.

>> THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH WITHIN THE CITY CONCERNING CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES?

>> ISSUES WITH THIS PROPERTY FOR 16 YEARS.

DAMAGE DURING THE 2004 HURRICANES.

AS I SAY THE PROPERTY HAVING BEEN LEVERAGED UP DURING THE RUNUP THAT BURST. GOT UNDER WATER, MANY PROBLEMS. THIS GENTLEMAN IS A GOOD CAPABLE LAWYER.

THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THE STAINED SO FORTH.

ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN RESOLVED ! INCLUDING ALL THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES AND DEMAND FOR A TEAR DOWN.

>> PROPERTY SUNDAY ROOF AND SCHEDULED TO BE COMPLETED.

>> I'VE BEEN OVER THERE AND LOOKED AT IT.

I GO OUT AND VISIT ALL THE SITES.

>> EVERYTHING IS SATISFIED CONCERNING THE CITY'S CONCERNS AND THE BANK'S CONCERNS AND IT'S READY TO ROCK AND ROLL.

>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> OK SIR.

NO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? ANYONE SPEAKING OPPOSED? NOT SEEING ANYONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. COME BACK TO THE BOARD.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> NOT HEARING OR SEEING ANY, I

WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH STAFF

>> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A

SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU. LOOKS LIKE YOUR CLIENT IS ONE STEP CLOSER. I IMAGINE HE'S PROBABLY GLAD TO

GET THIS TAKEN CARE OF. >> YOU ARE RIGHT.

>> MR. CHAIR, CAN I REQUEST A THREE MINUTE BREAK.

>> I WAS WORRIED THERE FOR A MOMENT.

[g. Preliminary Plat - Granada Street Cottages - Portion of Block 7 & 8 (Palm Haven Subdivision)]

AGREE NAKED DA STREET COTTAGES PORTION OF BLOCK 7 AND 8.

[02:20:05]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. WE HAVE BEFORE YOU THE PLAT PART OF THE EXISTING PALM HAVEN SUBDIVISION.

IT'S PORTION OF BLOCK 7 AND 8 BEING REPLATED.

YOU CAN SEE ONE OF THE PARCELS. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS HUTCHSON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL. IT IS FOUR EXISTING LOTS WHICH ARE GOING TO BE REPLATED INTO FIVE LOTS WHICH MEET THE MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE R4A ZONING DISTRICT AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE MAP BEFORE YOU. THEY MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD OF THE R4A ZONING DISTRICT. NO USES ARE ATTACHED TO THESE.

IN THIS CASE TYPICALLY BECAUSE A PLAT DOES NOT HAVE USE ISOTACHED TO IT. FOR TO US DETERMINE WHAT THE PROBABLE SETBACKS WOULD BE AND MINUTE MUM LOT SIZES WOULD BE WE HAD TO ASK WHAT THE USE WAS. THEY ARE GOING TO BE DUPLEXES.

THEY ARE CALLING THEM COTTAGES. YOU MAY KNOW THEM AS COTTAGE HOMES WHERE THEY SHARE A WALL, A FIREWALL.

AND THEY SIT ON ONE LOT. IT'S BEST DEPICTED BY THE PLAT YOU WILL SEE BEFORE YOU. THOSE ARE THE FIVE LOTS.

AGAIN THEY MEET THE MINIMUM WIDTH.

MINIMUM DEPTH AND MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT FOR A DUPLEX. THROUGH THE APPRAISAL DISTRICK AS OFTEN HAPPENS WHEN PROPERTIES ARE SOLD FEE SIMPLE, THE LOTS WILL HAVE IF YOU CAN IMAGINE A DOTTED LINE DRAWN BETWEEN THEM SO THAT ONE SIDE OF THAT DUPLEX OR THE COTTAGES WILL BE OWNED FEW SIMPLE BY ONE OWN AROUND THE SECOND BY A SECOND OWNER.

THEY WILL BE GIVEN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL NUMBERS SO THE DOTTED LINE WILL BE THE OWNERSHIP LINE BUT THE PLATTED LOT WILL MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. STAFF REX MENDS APPROVAL.

YOU MAY APPROVE THE PLAT SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION WITH THE ONE CONDITION OF APPROVAL. RECOMMEND CHANGES.

THE OWNER HAS TO MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD IN THE DISTRICT. IT CAN'T LIMIT OR REQUIRE THE USES. YOU HAVE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE THEY ARE PROPOSING DUPLEXES. THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINE THE ACTUAL SATISFACTION OF THE MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS.

YOU CAN IMPOSE TIMEFRAMES. YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF

RECOMMENDING DENIAL. >> I'D LIKE TO GET A CLARIFICATION. I BELIEVE THAT AT ONE TIME THE DISCUSSION CAME ABOUT THAT THESE PLATTS WERE UNDERSIZED.

COULD YOU CONFIRM OR DENY THAT? >> WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT THAT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH TO CITY COMMISSION SHOWED YOU REMEMBER HOW I TALKED ABOUT THAT DOTTED LINE BY SECTING EACH LOT. THEY PLATTED IT WITH TEN LOTS AND SO WHAT THE STATE REQUIRES AND WHAT OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES IS THAT THE SUBSEQUENT PLATTED LOTS MUST MEET THE MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT. THAT PLEASE PLAT DID NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARD. SO THE PLAT ITSELF MUST MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS N. THIS CASE OF THE R4A ZONING DISTRICT IS 7.

90 FEET IN DEPTH AND 5,000 SQUARE FEET AREA FOR EACH UNIT.

SO THAT -- THE SMALLEST LOT YOU ARE SEEING BEFORE YOU TODAY ACTUALLY FEET. SO EVERYTHING MEETS WHAT OUR

SUBDIVISION -- >> THE CONFUSION WAS THE DOTTED LINE THAT DEPICTED TWO UNITS OR DUPLEX ON A LEGAL LOT.

>> THE CONFUSION WAS THEY SUBDIVIDED TEN LOTS AS OPPOSED TO FIVE. THAT FURTHER SUBDIVISION BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OWNERSHIP LINES COULD BE REMEDIED THROUGH APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS OFTEN HAPPENS WITH DUPLEXES N. THIS CASE THE STATE REQUIRES IT MEET THE MINIMUM DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. THIS SATISFIES THE STATE REQUIREMENT AND OUR CODE FOR ORDINANCES.

>> I'LL OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD.

ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

[02:25:03]

5,000 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT N. THIS INSTANCE YOU ARE CREATING A 10,000 QUALIFICATION FOOT LOT BUT DEEDING IT FEE SIMPLE TO A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.

IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? >> THEY ARE CREATING A OWNERSHIP LINE WHICH WOULD BE DEEDED OVER TO BY FEE SIMPLE TO THE PURCHASER OF THAT SIDE OF THE DUPLEX.

THAT IS WHY THE CODE IS WRITTEN IN SUCH A MANNER WHICH A DUPLEX MUST HAVE THOSE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR WIDTH AND DEPTH AND LOT SIZE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP WILL BE HANDLED THROUGH A DIFFERENT ENTITY IN THIS CASE THE PROPERTY ARAZOR. THAT'S WHY THE CODE IS WRITTEN

THAT WAY. >> I'VE NEVER HEARD OF THAT

BEFORE. >> SO BACK TO THE DIMENSION OF THE THE LOT. YOU ARE INDICATING THAT WIDTH

AND DEPTH, MEET THE REQUIREMENT. >> FOR A DUPLEX YES.

>> FOR THE FULL LOT. >> FOR THE FULL LOT YOU SEE

BEFORE YOU. >> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS EACH UNIT CAN BE INDIVIDUALLY SOLD. THEY MAY BE ATTACHED BUT THEY CAN BE SOLD AS INDIVIDUAL HOUSING UNITS.

>> THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN FOR R4A.

IT INCLUDES THE R4 AND R5. WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT MINIMUMS FOR THE LOTS THAT ARE CREATED, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT TOWN HOMES, WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT DUPLEXES, THEY TALK ABOUT THE THINGS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY COULD EITHER BE SOLD OFF FEE SIMPLE OR RETAINED AS A CONDO WHERE YOU CAN LEASE OUT THE UNITS. BUT THE WAY THAT THE CODE IS WRITTEN IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESULTING LOTS HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. AND THE OVERALL LOTS THAT ARE CREATED THROUGH THE PLAT HAVE AN OVERALL MINIMUM.

THE CONFUSING PART IS WHY IS ONE SMALLER THAN THE OTHER WHEN THE WIDTH BY THE DEPTH WHEN YOU MULTIPLY IT DOESN'T COME UP THAT WAY. IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT SHOULD A PROPERTY OWNER WISH TO SELL THAT FEE SIMPLE.

>> MY SPECULATION IS FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT THEY ARE UTILIZING 10,000 QUALIFICATION FOOT LOT BUT OWNERSHIP IT'S GOING TO BE A CONDO OR TOWN HOME OR SOME OTHER MULTIOWNED

BUILDING. >> IT CONTEMPLATES THE

POSSIBILITY FOR THAT. >> THAT CLARIFIES THAT.

THANK YOU. ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION IS THAT

ON FRANCIS COURT. >> AGREE NAKED DA.GRENADED.

>> THIS IS UNPAVED ROAD. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT PRIOR TO A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NATURE THAT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ARE GOING TO BE HAVE TO BE COMPLETED ZO IT'S NO LONGER A DIRT ROAD. IT'S GOING TO BE A PAVED AND PROPER DRAINAGE AND THAT TYPE OF THING.

CAN YOU GIVE SOME BACK STORY ON THAT AS WHERE THAT IS GOING?

>> I CAN. THIS ROAD IS WHAT WE CALL A PLATTED ROAD. IT IS DEPICTED WITHIN THAT OVERALL SUBDIVISION THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BELONGING TO.

BECAUSE IT'S A PLATTED ROAD, WE HAVE SPOKEN TO OUR CITY ENGINEER AND HE'S INDICATED THAT NOT ONLY IS THIS A PLATTED ROAD BUT IT'S ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR IMPROVEMENT.

IT IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY THEREFORE TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THIS DESIGNATION OF A RIGHT OF WAY. AS A RESULT THE CITY HAS MOVED WILL BE MOVING UP ON ITS LIST FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THE IMPROVEMENT OF THIS ROAD SO DEVELOPMENT CAN COMMENCE.

IF THE DEVELOPER SEEKS TO HAVE AN EXPEDITED TIME FRAME , THE CITY ENGINEER IS WILLING TO SPEAK TO THE DEVELOPER SO THAT SOME SORT OF ARRANGEMENT CAN BE MADE WHERE THEY CAN PAY FOR IT AND BE COMPENSATED AFTERWARDS. THE CITY'S ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE TO MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS

PLATTED RIGHT OF WAY. >> THEY NEED TO HAPPEN

SIMULTANEOUSLY. >> IT CAN HAPPEN SIMULTANEOUSLY OR BEFOREHAND. IN ORDER FOR THIS PROJECT TO BE CONSTRUCTED IT MUST FRONT ON IMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY.

>> IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THE ROAD BE PAVED AND ALL THE FINISHING REQUIREMENTS ARE DEALT WITH BY THE TIME CO ARE ISSUED

FOR THESE? >> BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND CHAPTER TWO OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE IT HAS TO HAVE A

[02:30:03]

THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH SECTIONS.

>> SO THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN REGARDLESS.

ONE OTHER IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, I MIGHT BE MISTAKEN, FURTHER ERE SOUTH FROM THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, THERE IS A TOWN HOME I BELIEVE A TOWN HOME STYLE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALSO UNPAVED ROAD CURRENTLY OR IS THAT SECTION PAVED IS THIS WILL THAT ENTIRE STRETCH BE PAVED? JUST NOT FROM N FRONT OF THESE

FIVE LOTS? >> SO THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED FROM OUR CITY ENGINEER IS THAT THE IMPROVEMENT OF GRANADA HAS TO BE IMPROVED THE MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.

THEY ARE NOT GOING TO IMPROVE ONE SECTION AND LEAVE THE REST UNDONE. THE SEGMENT DOES THANKSGIVING DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.

THERE IS A LOCAL STREET. WHATEVER MINIMUM IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE FOR THAT ROADWAY WILL BE DONE BY THE CITY.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT BY INCREMENT.

IT'S NOT COST EFFECTIVE. >> I HAPPEN TO THINK THERE IS A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT DOWN THE STREET FOR THIS THAT IS ON AN UNPAVED PORTION OF ROAD BUT IT'S BEEN THERE A LONG TIME.

>> WHAT IS OUR ARRANGEMENT FOR IMPACT FEES ON THESE LOTS?

DO WE KNOW? >> THE ASSUMPTION THIS IS WITHIN

THE CRA? >> I'M JUST ASKING THISTH QUESTION. BECAUSE THIS IS FOUND ON OUR CIP WE'VE IDENTIFIED THIS IS A STREET NEEDS IMPROVEMENT.

WE HAVE MULTIPLE FUNDING SOURCES TO MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS NOT

JUST THROUGH IMPACT FEES. >> CAN I GET A CLARIFICATION ON THIS. THIS WAS ASKED OF ME.

I'M TRYING TO FAKE MAKE SURE WE GET THIS CORRECT.

THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT , THE CONCERN TO ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS THERE WAS RELATIVE TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS SITE AND THE THANKSGIVING THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS WERE COMPLETED PRIOR TO THAT CONSTRUCTION TAKING PLACE BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, DUST AND DUMP TRUCKS AND ALL OF THAT TYPE OF THING. ON THE TIME LINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE ROAD IT IS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNITS PRIOR TO CO BUT CAN BE HAPPENING SIMULTANEOUSLY WHILE CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNITS IS TAKING PLACE.

>> YES. >> I BELIEVE THAT THIS STATEMENT REALLY HAVE TO SPEAK FOR THE CITY ENGINEER.

AND THE PETITIONER. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ACCORD

NATEED EFFORT FOR THIS. >> I THINK IS ACCESS IS ONLY

FROM GRANADA TO THE LOT. >> THIS DISCUSSION JUST OCCURRED. WE'RE GOING THROUGH BUDGETING RIGHT NOW. AND THIS WAS IDENTIFIED AS

SOMETHING IN NEED. >> I'M GOING ASSUME IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. IT'S A REQUIREMENT THE ROAD BE PAVED FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUILD.

THANK YOU. >> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT PLEASE STEP FORWARD. NOT SEEING ANYONE.

ANYONE SPEAK OPPOSED? NOT SEEING ANYONE.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. COME BACK FOR THE BOARD.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL ASK FOR A MOTION.

>> I MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> I WILL NOW GO BACK TO ITEM 4. AND WE HAVE A CONSIDERATION OF ABSENTEE WITH MR. LEE. I BELIEVE HE CALLED IN OR SENT AN EMAIL IN STATING HE WAS GOING TO BE HERE AND HAS NOT YET SHOWED UP. IT'S GETTING CLOSE TO THE END OF

[02:35:01]

MY CONCERN IS THIS. MR. LEE WAS JUST APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. HE MISSED HIS FIRST MEETING.

WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET TOUCH WITH.

MISSED HIS FIRST MEETING. HE MANAGED TO GET HERE FOR A MEETING. WE'VE BEEN CLOSED DOWN FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS. WE HAVE A MEETING TODAY HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO BE HERE AND HE'S NOT.

I'M OPEN FOR ANY DISCUSSION. >> HONESTLY UNDER OUR CURRENT CONDITIONS I WOULD PROVIDE THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT.

HE COULD HAVE BEEN UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THIS ENVIRONMENT AND ETC.

I MOTION TO EXCUSE UNDER OUR CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

OBVIOUSLY IF IT'S AN ONGOING PATTERN IT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. UNDER THE CURRENT CONDITIONS I

WOULD EXTEND COURTESY. >> I SECOND THAT.

>> >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> YES I AGREE. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> DO WE KEEP A RECORD OF THIS?

>> YES WE DO. >> THANK YOU.

AND YOU WILL GIVE NOTIFICATION THAT THE QUESTION CAME UP.

>> YES. >> I THINK I GOT THE CLEANING FOR TODAY SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.

DIRECTOR'S REPORT. >> DON'T HAVE A DIRECTOR'S

REPORT. >> JUST A MINUTE.

I'M SORRY. WE HAVE NUMBER 7.

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND SIGN IN PLEASE. NO SOM ONE IS COMING FORWARD.

>> I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING BUT I'M HAPPY TO SEE YOU ALL.

>> HAPPY TO SEE YOU. IT'S REALLY GOOD TO BE HERE.

[9. BOARD COMMENTS]

AND THE DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CONCERNING THE PANDEMIC. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK OUR POLICE DEPARTMENTS FOR THE JOB AND HOW THEY'VE BEEN RESPONDING TO THE MOST RECENT OUTBREAKS OF PROTESTS AND SO ON THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY. AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR THE WAY THAT THEY'VE HAND THIS WOULD VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION THAT WE HAVE FOUND OURSELVES IN HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WITH THE PROTESTS AND OUTBREAKS OF VIOLENCE CONCERNING THE WAY THAT SOME OF POLICE OFFICERS ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE BEEN HANDLING THEMSELVES. I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB AS A WHOLE. AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

WE CERTAINLY DON'T NEED THE KIND OF PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN OTHER CITIES HERE IN FORT PIERCE.

THAT IS ALL I'VE GOT. I'M GOING MOVE TO THE REST OF THE BOARD AND LET'S FIRST ASK SOMETHING SHORT TO DISCUSS FIRST AND LET THEM DO THAT AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK.

ANYONE HAVE ANY INCIDENTS. >> I'LL GIVE THE LEAD IN TO HIS SUBJECT. WHILE I APPRECIATED MICHELLE'S LECTURE OR ATTEMPT TO EDUCATE THIS BOARD, SHE IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT ABOUT THE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS. I JUST WISH THE SAME LAWS THAT CONFERRED PROPERTY RIGHTS ALSO CONFERRED SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> THAT'S TEEING IT RIGHT UP.

THANK YOU FOR THE SOFT PITCH THERE.

>> ANYTHING? >> NO.

[02:40:05]

>> MR. BIRCH? OK.

>> JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK ITEMS JUST FOR HOUSE TENDING MATTERS.

MRS. DIAZ BROUGHT UP WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A REALLY IMPORTANT MATTER. THE WHOLE NOTIFICATION PRIOR TO PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. I BELIEVE IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE CRITICAL AS THIS HOME RULE ISSUE IS GOING TO BE DISSEMINATED THROUGH THE COMMUNITY.

IT'S GO GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC. AND THE CITY COMMISSION I THINK HAS SEEN THE LIGHT TO SAY WE NEED TO GET THE COMMENTS.

THIS HAPPENED WITH AN APPLICATION WE HAD ON THE ISLAND BEFORE. THAT WHERE DO WE STAND ON THAT AND IS THERE KIND OF A MOVE TO GET THAT GOING GUARD AGAIN? I KNOW EVERYTHING HAS BEEN IN A HIGH ATE US THE.

>> RIGHT NOW STAFF IS TAKING APART OUR CODE BY SECTIONS AND WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING REVISIONS TO OUR LANDSCAPE CODE, PLAN DEVELOPMENT, CREATING A NEW ZONING DISTRICT FOR MIXED USE.

WE'RE LOOKING -- UNFORTUNATELY WE ARE PROPOSING REDUCTIONS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS. DUE TO THE PANDEMIC.

WHICH IMPACTS OUR ABILITY LET'S SAY THAT A LOT OF OUR FEES GO TO PUBLICATION, PUBLIC NOTICE THAT WE CARRY.

AND WITH THIS WILL COME AN ADDITIONAL COST.

AND WE'RE FURTHER REDUCING OUR BUDGET.

THERE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME DISCUSSION ON PUTTING THAT BURDEN ON THE PETITIONER. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL HAVE 20 TO THE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IT IS A CRITICAL -- IT'S A MISSING PART OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR PLANNING BOARD IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION. I DO THINK THAT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES, A LOT OF ISSUES CAN BE VETTED WITH YOU ALL AND THAT IS YOUR JOB IS TO HELP MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE COMMISSION TO MAKE DECISIONS. SO THAT IS YES PART OF OUR REVIEW. GOING TO HAVE TO GO A LITTLE DIFFERENT TWIST THAT WE ARE REDUCING SOME OF OUR COST TO THE PETITION TORE HELP KEEP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOING DURING THIS

TIME. >> I SUGGEST MOVING IT TO THE PETITIONER CLEARLY. THAT IS JUST MY OPINION.

THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE THE APPLICATION AND THIS IS A PROFIT MAKING VENTURE MIND YOU, THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN COSTS INVOLVED THAT ARE NOT THE TAXPAYER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO INHERIT.

I SUGGEST THAT'S THE PERFECT PLACE FOR THE BURDEN TO BE

SHIFTED TO. >> I AGREE THAT.

>> I HAVE A MEMO THAT WAS SENT TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONS -- COMMISSIONERS DATED NOVEMBER 27, 2017.

AND IT TALKS ABOUT THE FOLLOWUP DEALING WITH SITE PLAN REDEVELOPMENT NOTIFICATION. AND IN THAT LETTERS FROM OUR PREVIOUS DIRECTOR SHE INDICATED THAT AND I REALLY THINK IN SOME INSTANCES YOU KNOW I DISAGREE, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE WITH WHAT SHE SAYS. IT SAYS THAT FROM THIS IS FROM REBECCA GROW HAUL TO NICK MINIMUMS. IT'S THE CITY COMMISSION ASKED THAT QUESTION.

WHY IT COULD OR NOT BE. SHE BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE SUBJECT HAS BEEN DEBATED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST AND THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE PAST WAS DO NOT SEND THE MAIL NOTICES FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. I THINK THE DECISION DECIDING FACTOR IT WAS ADDITIONAL COST TO THE APPLICANT AND MAYBE DUE TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PREVIOUS LEGAL TEAM AND I'M NOT SURE THAT OUR LEGAL TEAM WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT ON THIS ONE IN REGARDS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. THAT WE DO NOT HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ONLY THE CITY COMMISSION HOLDS PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH IS NOTICED IS HELD DURING CITY COMMISSION.

A DISTINCTION IN THE PAST MADE THAT THE PUBLIC THAT THE PLANNING BOARD INVITED PUBLIC TO SPEAK.

WE INVITE PUBLIC TO SPEAK NOT AS A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE ASK THEM TO SPEAK ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE.

UNLESS THIS BOARD IS ELEVATED UP IN SOME WAY TO HOLD PUBLIC HEARINGS I HAVE TO GO WITH WHAT WAS WRITTEN BACK THEN EVEN THOUGH I SOMEWHAT DISAGREE. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MORE

[02:45:01]

WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO COME AND SPEAK. AND THEY ARE NOTICED THAT.

IT GOES ON IN THIS PARTICULAR MEMO TO DESCRIBE THE NEW SIGNS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY USING. AND THOSE SIGNS ARE BEING CURRENTLY USED. CITY COMMISSION IS TAKEN NOTICE ON THIS AND THE PREVIOUS PLANNING DIRECTOR HAS TAKEN NOTICE ON THIS. AND I GUESS THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TAKEN NOTICE TO THE ASPECT IN THE CRA AREA THEY ARE NOT TAKING IMPACT FEES OR COST OF INCREASING THE FEES FOR THE BODY TO HAVE NOTICE SENT OUT 500 FEET.

AS MUCH AS WE MAY LIKE IT, AS MUCH AS I DON'T CARE FOR THE ASPECT OF THE NOTICES NOT BEING SENT OUT, I THINK THERE IS PROBABLY A LEGAL REASON THEY DON'T NEED TO BE SENT OUT.

WE NOTICE BY PLACING THE PLACARD IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE ONLY NOTICE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS REQUIRED TO

HAVE. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> UNLESS WE'RE ELEVATING TO A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF A BOARD.

THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT. >> MORE SO THAN AN ADVISORY

BOARD. >> THE PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD ALWAYS INCLUDE THE PUBLIC.

>> I UNDERSTAND AND I'M WITH YOU.

I THINK THERE SHOULD BE MORE TYPES OF NOTIFICATION THESE PROPERTIES ARE GOING TO BE CONDITIONAL USE OR CHANGE IN ZONING OR WHATEVER ELSE. AS AN ADVISORY BOARD THEY DON'T NEED TO DO. THAT I SAY THEY MEANING THE CITY

DOESN'T NEED TO DO THAT. >> I THINK THE COMMISSION INFORMS FAVOR OF EXTENDING THE NOTIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC FOR THE PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS FROM THE MEET THAT IS I'VE OBSERVED AT THE COMMISSION. BUT THERE IS COST TO INCUR IN THAT AND THIS YEAR IS GOING TO BE A TIGHT YEAR.

TAX BASE HAS GONE DOWN CONSIDERABLY IN THE LAST

QUARTER. >> AGENDAS ARE POSTED ON THE WEB. YOU CAN ACCESS THAT FROM A SMARTPHONE. MAYBE WE CAN DO SOMETHING MORE

WITH OUR WEB PAGE. >> THE LANGUAGE IS THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED, THAT THE CITY COMMISSION IS NOT REQUIRED TO LET US GIVE NOTICE OR WE'RE ALLOWED TO INVITE BUT NOT REQUIRE. IT SEEMS TO ME THERE IS LEEWAY THERE TO OPEN IT TO MORE INVITATION FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN -- THEY'VE BEEN RECEPTIVE OF EXTENDING THAT NOTIFICATION. HERE WE ARE WHEN THAT CONVERSATION WAS BEING HAD BY THE COMMISSION, IT WAS PREPANDEMIC. AND TAXES WERE ROLLING IN.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT PERSPECTIVE GOT TURNED OFF.

>> I'M STILL PAYING MINE. >> LAST TIME I CHECKED --

>> SALES TAXES GOT TURNED OFF. ANY FURTHER?

>> YES. I WOULD LIKE TO TOUCH ON THIS ISSUE OF THE SHORT TERM RENTALS. THIS MANAGEMENT COMPONENT.

EVERY APPLICATION WE HAVE COME IN SPEAKS ABOUT THE INSTANTOUS CONTACT OF PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PEOPLE THAT RESOLVE PROBLEMS. HOW IS THATTED? DO WE HEAR CRICKETS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SYSTEMIC WAY OF DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE.

PROPERTY OWNER A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL RENTING THEIR PROPERTY.

THERE IS A KEG PARTY SATURDAY NIGHT WITH 20 CARS PARKND TO STREET. I'M THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.

I'M AT A LOSS. HOW DO I GET AHOLD OF THIS

PROPERTY MANAGER. >> ACCESS TO BELIEVE WHO? THEY DON'T HAVE TO RESPOND. THEY JUST HAVE TO BE ACCESSIBLE.

[02:50:02]

CALL THE POLICE. >> THOUSAND FIND THE UNIT FOR RENT AND HOPEFULLY FIND OR GO TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE MONDAY MORNING AT 8:00 OR 9:00 WHEN THIS IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE TO FIND THE PROPERTY MANAGER. THE LACK OF PROCESS HERE IS ALMOST SHOCKING FROM THE PERSPECTIVE.

PROPERTY MANAGER GOT TO BE ON CALL 24 HOURS A DAY GREAT.

WHO IS GOING TO CALL. THAT IS THE CHALLENGE I'M BRINGING TO THIS BOARD. I'M GOING TO SUGGEST WITH FOLKS IN PLANNING AND OURSELVES THAT WE MAKE A LINE ITEM ON OUR NEXT AJAPAN TO ADDRESS THIS IN MORE DETAIL BECAUSE THERE HAS TO BE LINKAGE CREATED HERE OR THIS IS GOING TO GET WORSE.

WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THIS BODY'S ONLY FUNCTION IS TO WALK IT THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS. HAVING SAID THAT, FINE, WE HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY THAT WE'RE PUTTING CONDITIONS IN PLACE THAT THE CONDITION HAS SOME CAPABILITY OF WORKING.

THAT'S THE CHALLENGE AND I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT.

TRUST ME, I PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS.

I CAME ONE IDEAS SUCH AS THE PROPERTY MANAGER CONTACT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE LISTED UNDER THE BTR NUMBER ON THE PROPERTY WEBSITE. I STILL THINK THAT IS RATHER COMERSOME. MANAGEMENT IDENTIFICATION PLAQUE CARDS THEY ARE USING IN THE KEYS I THINK IS A GOOD IDEA.

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SOLUTION OTHER COUNTIES AND CITIES ADOPTED THAT CREATES A FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM BECAUSE CERTAINLY THIS IS NOT. IT'S JUST CLEARLY I'VE BEEN IN THE MANAGEMENT BUSINESS MY ENTIRE CAREER.

OUR NUMBERS ARE ON OUR SIGNS. ALL OF OUR ADVERTISING ET.

WHY AREN'T WE REQUIRING THAT THRESHOLD FOR THESE FOLKS AS

WELL. >> IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ALSO.

AND WHEREVER WE WENT, WE DID HAVE FIRST SERVICE RESIDENTIAL , THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, YOU KNEW WHEN YOU DROVE INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD YOU KNOW WHO THE PROPERTY MANAGER IS FOR THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. AND NOT ALL OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS HAD A PROPERTY MANAGER'S OFFICE ON SITE.

IT COULD BE SOMEWHERE ELSE MANAGING THE PORTFOLIO TYPE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. PERHAPS WE IDENTIFY SOMETHING, AT LEAST HAVE CONTACT, MAYBE WITH A PLAT, SOMETHING.

LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.

>> I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD NEED TO NOTICE THEM.

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND WE'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH SAME PROCESS WE GO THROUGH FOR THIS BOARD.

STAFF, WE CAN LOOK TO SEE CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE DOING.

IT MIGHT BE NICE TO GET THE INPUT OF THOSE EIGHT PEOPLE WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER TO COME ONE SOLUTIONS.

[02:55:08]

KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE START TO LOOK AT ADDING AGENDA SUCH AS THIS TO GET INTO A DEEPER DISCUSSION.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO.

I THINK IT WILL BE GOOD TO HAPPEN.

>> THE COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROPERTY MANAGER, I THINK THAT'S MORE FOR THE PEOPLE RENTING UP THERE. THAT IS THE PART THAT IS MISSING. ONE IDEA IS MAYBE HAVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE A LIST OF THE PROPERTY MANAGERS OR IF THEY GET A CALL TO A PROPERTY, THEY CAN CROSS REFERENCE IT.

>> THAT REQUEST WAS MADE. THAT IS PART OF THE ORIGINAL DECISION MAKE PROGRESS SAYS WITH THE BTR.

THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WAS MAINTAINING A LIST AND THAT WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HAPPENED. THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AS FAR AS THE MANAGEMENT CONNECTION GOES, I'LL DO ADDITIONAL RESEARCH ON THAT AS WELL WITH TRADE GROUPS AND SEE -- IT'S GOT TO HAVE SOME WAY OF WORK. WE SIMPLY CAN'T -- ARE UNAWARE

AT THIS POINT. >> I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WE CAN'T HAVE A WORKSHOP. THE MAJORITY OF OUR AJAPAN

MOVING FORWARD. >> I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW. I'M VERY UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THINGS. I DON'T LIKE RUCKER STAMPING

THEM. >> WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK.

IT GIVES US ACE LITTLE BIT OF TEETH.

ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT WE'RE APPROVING RENTALS WITH FOUR BEDROOMS AND PARK FORKING TWO VEHICLES. THE MATH DOESN'T WORK.

WE ALL KNOW THAT. ONE OF THE ASPECT THAT WAS WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET SOME CONTROL SON THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WILL PUT A MAXIMUM OKALOOA UPON MAX MAXIMUM OCCUPANCYLOAD.

MANDATE HAD BE PUT IN RIGHT INTO THE ADVERTISING.

IF WE HAVE A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY LOAD OF 8 AND THERE IS 12 PEOPLE, WHATEVER. IT COMES BACK TO THE ADVERTISING THAT IS ACCURATE AND TIES INTO WHAT THE OCCUPANCY LOAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

>> I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON YOUR AGENDA TO DO.

HOW WOULD YOU GO, YOU HAVE AN OPEN SCHEDULE.

>> FUR UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HOW THE CONDITIONS ARE RIGHT NOW THEN WE NEED TO TWEAK THEM AND WE NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE.

[03:00:06]

>> I LIKE DAYTIME BUT I DON'T WORK.

>> HAVE WORKSHOP IN THE EVENING OR DURING THE DAY.

>> YOUR STAFF IS AVAILABLE DURING THE DAY SO THAT WOULD BE MORE ACCOMMODATING TO THEIR NEEDS.

WE HAVE THE NIGHTLY PLANNING BOARD MEETING ONCE A MONTH.

IF WE COULD DO AN AFTERNOON MEETING.

>> WE COULD DO A WORKSHOP IN THE AFTERNOON.

THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

>> I'M AVAILABLE ANYTIME. >> I CAN GET LIST FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, PROPERTY MANAGERS AND DO A COURTESY INVITATION SO THEY ARE AWARE WE'RE DOING THIS.

>> I'D LIKE THAT. >> I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM PEOPLE.

SEE WHAT THEIR IDEAS ARE. >> WE'VE GOT A REALTOR ACTIVE IN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OUT IN OCEAN VILLAGE.

IT WOULD BE GOOD TO SHOOT AN INVITATION OUT TO THEM TO

ATTEND. >> THEY'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR

YEARS. >> THEY'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN THIS BUSINESS. ANYONE THAT YOU MIGHT KNOW IN

REAL ESTATE. >> THAT'S ONE OF THE PROBLEMS. THERE IS NO LICENSURE REQUIRED FOR.

THIS THEY ARE BEING TERMED PROPERTY MANAGER.

IT'S MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR JOE. WHICH.

>> I'LL SAVE IT FOR THE WORKSHOP.

>> IF WE CAN THINK ABOUT HOW THE SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP THAT WOULD BE GOOD. I WANT TO CAUTION THE BOARD.

WE'VE GOT TO BE SENSITIVE TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S SCHEDULE.

PARTICULARLY RIGHT NOW JUST REALLY STARTING TO OPEN BACK UP.

I DON'T WANT TO IGNORE YOUR SCHEDULE.

YOU'VE GOT TWO YOUNG SONS TO GO HOME TO.

>> ONE OF THEM GRADUATED. >> CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU TOO.

ONE STEP CLOSER. >> HE WAS IN THE TOP 20 SO THE PRINCIPAL CAME AND THEY HAD THE WHOLE ENTOURAGE SO WE GOT A

LITTLE TASTE OF GRADUATION. >> ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY ELSE

HAS? >> ONE MORE THING.

LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IN THE AGE OF ELECTRONICS IN TERMS OF OUR PACKETS. I KNOW WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION A YEARLONGER THAN A YEAR AGO, ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO PROBABLY.

AND WE RESISTED AS A BOARD AT THAT TIME.

WE RESISTED AS A BOARD GOING ELECTRONIC.

AND I'M NOT PARTICULARLY A FAN OF IT.

BUT I BEND. AND I COME TO TECHNOLOGY KICKING AND SCREAMING. I GOT TECHNICAL HELP.

LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE NOW.

IN ORDER FOR YOU TO GUEST PACKAGE.

GATHER INFORMATION IS PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA.

WITH THAT SAID HOWEVER STEALING A PHRASE.

IS THERE A WAY THAT POSSIBLY ON MORE COMPLEX ISSUES WE WOULD HAVE A PACKAGE OF DRAWINGS AVAILABLE.

I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE LARGER PROJECTS FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY

SCRUTINIZING. >> SOMEONE SAID I'M NOT ABLE TO

LOOK AT THIS ON MY COMPUTER. >> A LOT OF THESE PACKETS WE GET, THERE IS ENGINEERING DRAWINGS THIS BOARD DOESN'T NEED. THE MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD CAN'T

READ THEM ANY WAY. >> SUCH A HOT SPOT IN FORT

[03:05:12]

>> >> I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME KIND OF IDEA MOVING FORWARD. BE PREPARED YOU HAVE TO GO TO COMPUTERS AND GET THIS INFORMATION OFF THE COMPUTER.

>> CAN I RECEIVE HARD COPY IFS I ASK FOR CERTAIN PARTS IN HARD

COPY FORM? >> THE CITY MANAGER HAS AGREED THIS BOARD BACK DURING THE TIME I WAS CHAIRMAN AND I HAVE A MEMORANDUM FROM THE CITY MANAGE THEY'RE THE DIGITAL AGENDA POLICY FOR THE PLANNING BOARD WAS RESCINDED BY THE CITY MANAGER. I THINK THAT OUR CURRENT BOARD -- CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER EXTENDED THAT TO MEMBERS THAT IF THEY WOULD PREFER TO HAVE COPIES THAT SHE'S WILLING TO MAKE THE COPIES. I THINK MR. BRODRICK INDICATED HE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE COPIES MADE BUT I'M NOT GOING SPEAK FOR

HIM BUT I WOULD. >> I THINK IT'S FAIR.

FOR THE MOST PART WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE DIGITAL.

I'M NOT NECESSARILY PLEASED IT TO.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. MEETING IS

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.