Nov 10, 2020 Planning Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:11]

WILL OPEN OUR MEETING TODAY. TODAY IS NOVEMBER 10. I ALWAYS HAVE TO O LOOK.

THE FIRST THING AS IF YOU WOULD ELECTRONIC DEVICES PLEASE TURN THEM OFF.

I WILL MAKE SURE MINE IS OFF. IF YOU WOULD STAND WITH US FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO ABSENTEES ROLLCALL

PLEASE. >>. >> HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE?

[a. Minutes from the October 13, 2020 meeting]

MOTION AND SECONDED. SCOTT PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> BEFORE I OPEN FOR OUR BUSINESS I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT MS. PATRICIA DIAZ. SHE FOUND HERSELF IN A PERSONAL SITUATION THAT SHE HAD TO RESIGN FROM OUR BOARD. SHE HAS SENT IN A NOTE TO US AND I BELIEVE WE RECEIVED THAT ON OCTOBER SHE SAYS IT HAS BEEN MY HONOR TO SERVE ON THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE PAST YEAR. THE EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN BOTH ENLIGHTENING AND EDUCATIONAL. I HAVE CERTAINLY LEARNED A LOT AND HAVE ENJOYED LISTENING TO EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS AND DISCUSS NEW IDEAS AS I MENTIONED AT THE OCTOBER MEETING WE ARE PLANNING TO AWAY PEERS IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

ACCORDINGLY I AM SUBMITTING MY RESIGNATION FOR THE BOARD EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.

THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE COURTESY AND SUPPORT DURING THE PAST YEAR.

WARM REGARDS PATRICIA LDS. MISTER R DIAZ CAME TO S AND LEARNED A GREAT DEAL VERY RY QUICKLY. SHE WAS SPOTTED AND WAS VERY ACTIVE ND THE MEETINGS.

WE ARE GOING TO ESS YOU PATRICIA IF YOU ARE LISTENING. >> WE WILL NOW MOVE INTO THE PAIRING OF LOCAL PLANNING AGENCIES AND MISTER BECCA CARRERA WELL SUBMIT THE

[a. Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Policy 3.12.7 - Ten Year Water Supply Facilities Plan]

FACILITIES PLAN. I WILL LET YOU GO. >> WOMAN: THANK YOU MISTER CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON MISTER CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

TODAY WE HAVE THE FIRST OF TWO ITEMS ON THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY DECISIONS AND ACTIONS THAT YOU WILL BE MAKING AT THIS POINT WILL BE WEARING THE HAT OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SO HERE WE GO. AMENDMENT WITH THE GOAL OF 3.4 FOR THE PORTABLE WATER SECTION.

2.12 OBJECTIVES WITH 3.12 SEVEN POLICIES. PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTE THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS REQUIRED TO UPDATE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORKPLAN. THIS WORKPLAN REVISES THE CITY'S WATER DEMAND PROTECTION FOR A PLANNING PERIOD OF 10 YEARS. IT IDENTIFIES TRADITIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS AND CONSERVATION AND REUSE ACTIVITIES TO MEET THE PROJECTED FUTURE DEMANDS. THE LAST TIME THIS WAS DONE WAS MAY 4, 2012 WHO IN FACT WAS THE ONE THAT CREATED THIS WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES WORKPLAN. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IN PARTICULAR RECOMMENDED THAT SECTION 5 RECLAIMED WATER BE AMENDED TO NEVER REFERENCE TO THE CONSTRICTION OF THE PLASMA CLASSIFICATION FACILITY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS SIMPLY SO NASTY ABOUT IT. THE CITY COMMISSION DID INDEED VOTE TO TERMINATE NEGOTIATIONS

[00:05:03]

IT'S LITERALLY A STRIKETHROUGH UNDERLINE REPLACING 2012 AT 2020.

THE WATER SUPPLY PLAN WAS INCLUDED AS PART OF YOUR BACKUP AND IS AVAILABLE ONLINE SO FUNNY WITH WOULD LIKE TO READ IT THEY MAY. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY FOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONFERENCE OF PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION. HE MAY DIRECT STAFF AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION YOU SHOULD CHOOSE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THEY CONTACT THE FPO AND BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN REMISS THAT SECTION FROM THE WATER SUPPLY PARENT.

THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD OF STAFF? >> MAN: JUST A QUICK QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION. ONE, I DID START READING THE PLAN.

IT'S NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE. THE ONLY MODIFICATION HERE IS THE DATE AS I CORRECT?

>> WOMAN: THEY HAVE UPDATED THE DATE. I HAVE UPDATED THE PLAN ITSELF FOR ANY PRODUCTIONS AND NEW INFORMATION. THE LITERAL TEXT AND LIMIT THAT

WE ARE MAKING IS JUST A DAY. >> ASSUMING THAT IS THE CASE THE MODIFICATION OR ADDITIONAL MODIFICATION YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS THAT THIS BE COMMUNICATED TO FPO A TO BASICALLY MATCH THE

TWO SECTIONS OF LANGUAGE UP. >> BASICALLY IT'S YOU TELLING STAFF THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO COMMUNITY WITH FPO A TO LET THEM DISCUSS THE FACT THAT THE CITY COMMISSION REMOVED THIS FACILITY FROM THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF IT FURTHER OR BEEN CREATED TO MOVE TO THE

WORK PLAN ACCORDINGLY. >> I GUESS IT'S A RECOMMENDATION WITH CITY COMMISSION ARE YOU DOING THIS SO SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.

>> TODAY YOU ARE LITERALLY ONLY GOING TO RECOMMEND FOR THE TEXT CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT TO TELL US WHY IS THERE AN INCREASE IN THE RATE AS YOU USE MORE THAN 10,000 GALLONS. WHY IS IT A FLAT RATE FOR $3.75 PER 10,000 GALLON.

>> THE RATES AS YOU KNOW ARE DETERMINED BY THE FPO A. I CAN'T ANSWER WHY BUT MY GUESTMY GUT TELLS ME IT'S INCREASE BY CERTAIN NT OF THE ONLY FP WE CAN GIVE OU A DEFINITIVE ANSWER

AS TO WHY THOSE NUMBERS ARE WHERE THEY ARE. >> BOARD MEMBER WE CAN DO A STAFF AND GET THAT ANSWER TO YOU AND PROVIDED IN WRITING. WE CAN READ THAT TO YOU AT THE

NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING. >> THAT WILL BE FINE. I WAS JUST WONDERING BECAUSE I NOTICED IT GOES FROM THREE DOLLARS AND 75 CENTS TO $4.69 FOR THE 5000 GALLONS DIFFERENCE. THEN IF YOU USE OVER 15,000 GALLONS EVERY GALLON OVER 15,000 GOES TO FIVE 62. YOU START OFF THE 375 AND IT SEEMS LIKE LIKE YOU SAY THE MORE YOU USE THE MORE YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. THE HEADINGS OF CONSERVATION RATE STRUCTURE AND MAYBE TO TRY TO JUST ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO USE WATER IF THEY WANTED A NEED WATER. LARGER FAMILIES THAT WE HAVE MAYBE IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BECAUSE I KNOW MY NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR HAS FOUR CHILDREN.

FOR TEENAGE GIRL CHILDREN AND HE'S TELLING ME IS WATER BILLS HUNDRED DOLLARS OR MORE AND I COULD EASILY SEE HOW IT COULD GET TO BE THAT WITH TH $5.62. THAT ALSO INDICATES THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE YOUR WATER FOR IRRIGATION THAT JETS JUMPS TO $7.THOUSAND LLONS.

I CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY HE WOULD WANT TO DISCOURAGE TRYING TO CITY WATER FOR IRRIGATION I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RATE STRUCTURE AS FAR AS THE WATER IS CONCERNED.

[00:10:01]

WE HAVE A USE CHARGE FOR IT. >> I KNOW IN SOME INSTANCES THERE ARE BECAUSE FOR THE FEES AND BILLING DEPARTMENT AND ALSO FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE IT DONE. NOTHING IS FREE TO PEERS OR

EVEN SOMETIMES REASONABLE. THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR. >> ANYONE ELSE?

>> I MOVE APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE TO DO A PUBLIC MEETING.

WE'RE KIND OF JUMPING THE GUN A LITTLE. >> THE MOTION IS JUMPING THE GUN. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

I THINK ONE WOULD LIKE TO THIS PLEASE STEP FORWARD. >> I MOVE WITH THE

RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU REQUEST THAT THEY CLEAN UP THE STUFF. >> I SECOND THE MOTION WITH

THAT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM A SPEAKER AND SECULAR BY MISTER

BRADLEY. CALL THE ROLE-PLAYS. >> MISTER BURCH.

>> MISS JOHNSON SCOTT. >> MISTER BRODERICK. >> MISTER LEE.

>> THE. >> CHAIRMAN CRAFT. >> WE WILL CLEAN UP THAT

STUFF.>>> THE NEXT ITEM AGAIN IS ON THE HEARING THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCIES ITEM B. WE

[b. Future Land Use Map Amendment - Jenkins Point - 2107 Swain Road]

[a. Zoning Atlas Map Amendment - Jenkins Point - 2107 Swain Road]

WHAT THAT MISTER CRAIG IN YOUR OWN. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE ON MOST

OF THE DAY. >> YES I AM GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

AS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY YOU WILL BE REVIEWING A FUTURE LAND MAP AMENDMENT AND AS A PLANNING REPORT YOU WILL BE REVIEWING AND I WAS NOT AMENDMENT. AS YOU NOTICE THIS WILL BE ONE PRESENTATION WITH TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS. THIS IS FOR THREE SEPARATE PARCELS LOCATED AT 2107 SWAIN ROAD. THE FUTURE LAND USE ON THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THEY ARE REQUESTING A FUTURE LAND USE CHANGE THE HEIGHT INSURGENCY RESIDENTIAL OUR AGE AND AS YOU CAN SEE THEIR MULTIPLE PROPERTIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THIS PROPERTY THAT ALSO HAVE HIGH DENTS DENSITY.

THE ZONING FROM THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

JUST TO REITERATE THE REQUEST IS FOR FUTURE LANDRY'S CHANGE FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THERE IS A REQUEST FOR ZONING CHANGES FOR THREE PARCELS FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 125 AND 136 OF THE CITY CODE AND CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE.

THE POSSIBLE ACTION IS THAT YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FUTURE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR YOU CAN RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL AND I WILL STOP

HERE AND WE WILL DO THIS ONE FIRST. >> ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS

BY THE BOARD? >>> WOMAN: WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY REZONED TO

[00:15:05]

CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE TO ALLEVIATE THAT? WITH THE NEW ZONING CLASSIFICATION IT WILL RAISE ISE THAT NUMBER TO 584.

ONCE AGAIN MY NUMBERS COULD BE OFF TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS NOT NECESSARILY THE DENSITY BUT WE ARE BACK TO THE SAME AREA OF TOWN THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH TRAFFIC ISSUES FOR A WHILE. I KNOW THIS IS A TRAFFIC STUDY HERE AND I ALSO KNOW THAT IT IS AN AMENDED TRAFFIC STUDY WHERE WE COME IN AT THE TIME OF INVOLVEMENT. HAVING SAID THAT HOWEVER I DO RECOLLECT THAT WE HAD SOME TYPE OF ACTIVITY TAKING PLACE WITH THE COUNTY INVOLVED TO COME UP WITH A BETTER SITUATION AS FAR AS TRAFFIC FLOW. ADDING INTO THE MIX OF HOW MANY OTHER HUNDREDS OF UNITS WE'VE APPROVED. IS THERE AN UPDATE ON THAT? IS THERE ANY STATUS THAT SAYS

YES THIS IS MOVING TO IMPROVEMENT? >> CITY STAFF MORE SPECIFICALLY JENNIFER AND MYSELF TO MEET WITH THE COUNTY A FEW MONTHS AGO.

I DO KNOW THAT JENKINS ROAD IS ALSO TALKED ABOUT AT THE TPO AS WELL.

IT'S A TRAFFIC PLANNING AND ORGANIZATION. IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS ON THE RADAR AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND WE ARE STARTING TO GET THE BALL ROLLING TO HAVE MORE CONVENIENCE TO FIND OUT WHAT WE WILL DO WITH THIS. WHEN JOCK COUNTIES COME ALONG THEY DO ASK FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND DEDICATION. THERE IS A FUTURE PLAN TO WIDEN THAT ROAD. THE INTENSITY FACTOR IS GOING TO GO STRAIGHT UP.

LET ME BACK INTO THE QUESTION. UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE REQUIRED WHEN THIS COMES IN.

LET'S ASSUME THIS IS MAXED OUT AT THE 500 UNITS APPROXIMATELY. TRAFFIC STUDIES WOULD HAVE TO BE INTRODUCED TO REFLECT THE INTENSITY OF DEVELOPMENT. THAT WOULD ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING THAT'S ON THE BOOK SALREADY. THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO SIGN OFF THAT AND THE CITY WILL HAVE TO, AND SOUND OFF ON THAT. IS MY ASSESSMENT ACCURATE AS

FAR AS THE BALL WILL MOVE FORWARD? >> YES THAT IS CORRECT SPEED IF I WILL CHAIRMAN, WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND EVEN THIS WHOLE AREA ON JENKINS ROAD. JENKINS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC SO WE CAN AND ME MOVING THAT UP IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMMING FOR THAT ROAD.

THE WHOLE AREAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND AS WE SEE DEVELOPERS ARE COMING IN AND IT'S CHANGING TO RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED AND DOMINATING AREA. OUR ROADS DO NOT SUPPORT THAT SO WE WANT TO CREATE MORE OF A GREAT PATTERN. IT'S ON TO MAJOR COURT ORDERS TO LEAVE THE COMMUNITY. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT WITH THE COUNTY AND THAT IS WHAT BRANDON AND I ARE PART OF THAT TEAM. WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AT HIS IS A CHANGE TO THE FUTURE WITH LAND-USE WE'RE LOOKING INTO DIFFERENT WAYS. WE LOOK AT IT LONG RANGE WHICH IS WHAT THE MAXIMUM DENSITY

[00:20:02]

LOOK AT THE MAXIMUM DENSITY THAT THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING. >> THERE IS NO CONCERN OF WHAT THIS POINT RELATIVE TO THIS AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN ITS IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS AS FAR AS GOING AHEAD AND IMPROVING THIS BECAUSE WE HAVE A SECOND BITE OF THE APPLE WHEN THE

DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMES IN. >> CORRECT YES SIR. >> I WILL ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THE CITY HAS A TRAFFIC REVIEWER LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC AND STUDY AND THEY DID NOT SEE

ANY STUDIES WITH THAT AT THIS TIME. >> THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT'S

TAKING PLACE. >> MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS SIMPLY FROM THE PLANNING BOARD OF FORT PIERCE. THIS IS A LARGER ISSUE POTENTIALLY THAT IS INVOLVING SEVERAL OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS. THEY ARE AWARE THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE COMING DOWN THE

PIKE AT THE SAME TIME. >> OUR TRC GROUP OF REVIEW AGENTS HAS INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS. WE KNOW EVEN HAVE DOT REVIEWING PROJECTS AT THE PREOP STAGE. THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AND ARE PUT ON A MAP

COLLECTIVELY. >> JACK IS NOT HERE SO I'M ASSUMING THAT IT'S NOT AN ISSUE

FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD. >> LET ME INTERJECT THE THOUGHTS ON THIS WHEN WE THAT THIS PROJECT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO. INDEED IT HAS BEEN AN AREA KNOWN TO FLAG. I THINK THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT WAS CITY/COUNTY / SOUTH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. IT WAS A LARGE DISCUSSION DISCUSSING THE WATER. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE GOT INVOLVED WITH THAT CANAL BUT IT'S ALONG THE CREEK IN TERMS OF VEGETATION HANGING DOWN TO THE WATER AND IF SO MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT I THINK WE'RE STILL DOING A GOOD JOB AT KEEPING THAT CLEAR.

>> THE WATER PROBLEM HAS DIMINISHE AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE FENCE CREEK DEVELOPMENT IN ITSELF I THINK THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AND NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO LEVEL THAT

WE ONCE HAD. HAS THAT MOSTLY GONE AWAY? >> YES IT'S MOSTLY GONE AWAY.

I CAN ADD NOT TO GET TOO MUCH OFF TRACK THAT I'M PART OF THE LOCAL STRATEGY COMMITTEE TO AND

WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES AS WELL AS A COMMITTE. >> THE TRAFFIC AND WATER CONCERNS ARE KIND OF LINKED TOGETHER. IT'S HELPING LOOKED AT AND HANDLED PRETTY WELL. WHETHER YOU ARE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL REQUIRES PERMITTING.

WHETHER THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CITY WE WORK COLLABORATIVELY WITH THE DISTRICT AND COUNTY ON THAT. IT'S INTERESTING YOU MENTION NOT BECAUSE I WAS IN ONE OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT RECENTLY AND IT WAS RAINING PRETTY WELL. THE PLACE UNDERWATER SO IT'S A CONCERN OUT THERE. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF IT.

HAVING SAID THAT I KNOW THAT THE CITY COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSED A CONCERN RELATIVE TO THE TRAFFIC ISSUE. I WOULD SUGGEST BEING AS PREPARED AS POSSIBLE TO HAVE TIMELINES AS TO WHAT YOU THINK MAY BE HAPPENING WHEN IT COMES UP AGAIN.

>> OUR NEXT MEETING WITH THE COUNTY WILL BE IN DECEMBER. >> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

IS THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROPERTY AT 2107 WAYNE ROAD THE SAME AS ANY OF THE OTHER CURRENT DEVELOPERS OUT THERE? OR IS IT A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITY?

[00:25:08]

>> IT IS EDC. THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK WITH THE CITY.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. IS THERE ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT PLEASE COME FORWARD. ARE YOU THE APPLICANTS ARE?>

YES SIR I AM. >> IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> MAN: GOOD AFTERNOON, FOR THE RECORD I'M BRAD CURRY WITH HEARING AND DESIGN CONSTRUCTION. WE ARE LOCATED AT 1250 IN PORT LUCY FLORIDA.

TODAY REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF 32 ACRES ON THE EAST SIDE OF JENKINS AND THE INTERSECTION OF JENKINS AND GRAHAM.OR TWO LOCATIONS WITH AN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION AND THE RESULT AS WELL.HIS AFTERNOON THE JOB PRESENTING THE PROJECT AND I'VE LISTENED TO THE DISCUSSIONS AND I THINK EVERYTHING THAT WAS CITED AS APPROPRIATE AND CORRECT.

THIS AREA HAS BEEN INTENSIFIED OVER THE LAST 12 MONTHS WITH THE OPENING OF DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS PROPERTY AS WELL AS RECENT APPROVAL OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MANY ZONE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY ADJACENT TO IT. THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S BEEN TARGETED WITH JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE INTENSE. IT'S GOING FOR THE NORTH TO JENKINS SO DOES MAKE SENSE FROM A LAND-USE ZONING STANDPOINT. MY COMPANY IS NOT A DEVELOPER.

WE ARE JUST CIVIL ENGINEERS IN THE OVERALL APPROVALS FOR THE PROJECT.

THE GENTLEMAN THAT OWNS THAT PROJECT GOES BY JOHN SLEEP IN HIS HERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS TODAY. HE'S NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY OF THE DEVELOPERS IN THE AREA SO WITH THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU

HAVE. >> IS THE BOARD HAVE ANY APPLICANT QUESTIONS?

>> WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO BRINGING IN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN?

IS THIS ON THE IMMEDIATE HORIZON? >> THE PROPERTY DOES GET A LOT OF ATTENTION. WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THEM IS THEY NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE DENSITY AND I EXPECT THAT ONCE WE GET THIS ZONING STRAIGHT WE WILL PROBABLY BE BRINGING IN

SOMETHING WITHIN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS MAYBE SOONER. >> JOHN PROBABLY WON'T BE THE ONE BRINGING THAT IN. PIT WILL BE A CONTRACT PERSON NOT PIECING.

>> WE EXPECT A COUPLE DEVELOPMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY. IT WOULD NOT BE JUST ONE

DEVELOPMENT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> THINK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? >> NOT SEEN ANYONE WE WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD?

>> MISTER CHERRY JUST WANT TO REREAD THE ISSUE ON THIS TRAFFIC.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS LITERALLY ON THE IMMEDIATE HORIZON AND IT WILL BE PROBLEMATIC. I SEEM TO RECOMMEND AND RECOLLECT THE DISCUSSION THAT THERE WAS SOME TYPE OF ATTEMPT TO COMPILE THESE RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY ON THE ROAD. IS MY RECOLLECTION CORRECT? THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO THAT

AS OF YET? >> IS A GOOD DEVELOP AN APPLICATION THE COUNTY HAS BEEN SLOWLY ACQUIRING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND THE ROAD SO AT THIS POINT THEY SHOULD HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY UP UNTIL GRAND ROAD FROM OKEECHOBEE. THE SAME THING IS HAPPENING SOUTH OF OKEECHOBEE AS WELL.

>> THIS IS CONSIDERABLE WITH CONSTRUCTION GOING ON. THE IT'S SERVICE TO PROPERTIES THAT WE ARTY APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT. TWO OF THEM ARE UNDER DEVELOPMENT. TO SERVE BIGGER DEVELOPMENTS TO SOMETIMES DURING THE TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEW IT WILL BE REQUIRED THAT THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY MAKE THE ROADWAY

IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE COUNTY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> WOMAN: I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH RODERICK CONCERNING THE TRAFFIC. IT'S BUSY OUT THERE NOW AND NESCHOOL AND THE HOME DEPOT WITH THE CAMPING SITES. IT DOES GET VERY BUSY.

THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS GOING TO BE CRITICAL. >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> DO YOU WANT THIS IN TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS? >> WILL HANDLE THE LOCAL PLAN

AGENCY FIRST AND THEN SWITCH THE PLANNING BOARD AFTER. >> SO I WOULD MOTION TO

[00:30:02]

APPROVE THE AMENDMENT JENKINS ROAD 2107 SWAIN ROAD. >> A SECOND IT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND PAYMENT MISTER LEE. ALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

AMENDMENT. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> I HAVE NONE.

>> WE'RE NOT SEEING ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING ON THE ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT. WE'RE NOT SINGING COMMENTS I

WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD. >> AND WE TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC AT, ONLY KIDDING.

>> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAP AMENDMENT AND JENKINS

POINT WITH 2107 SWAIN ROAD. >> I SECOND. >> LIVE A MOTION BY MISTER RODERICK AND SECONDED BY MISTER JOHN MISS JOHNSON COTT. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

.

[b. Planned Development, Development Review, & Design Review - Lawnwood Regional Medical Center - 1700 South 23rd Street]

>> THE NEXT ITEM ON THE LIST IS ITEM BE UNDER NEW BUSINESS. LAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND DESIGN REVIEW. LONGWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER AT 1700 S. 23RD STREET.

MISTER CRAIG AND AS PRESENTING. >> YES SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE WE HAVE A ZONING ATLAS MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE LONGWOOD REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER LOCATED AT 1700 S. 23RD STREET. THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE CONCERNING THE MAIN HOSPITAL COMPLEX ON THE NORTHERN PARKING LOT. THE FUTURE LAND USE AND THE MAIN HOSPITAL COMPLEX IS INSTITUTIONAL AND THE FUTURE LAND USE IS FOR OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. THE ZONING ON BOTH PROPERTIES IS C1 OFFICE COMMERCIAL.

THE REQUEST IS FOR THE ANIMATE TO CHANGE TWO PARCELS FROM OFFICE COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH AN UNDERLINING ZONING OF C1. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING AND IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 135 AND ONE 36 OF THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN.T DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE. ON THE SCREEN IS A COPY OF THE SITE N.

THE SITE PLAN OR MASTER PLAN WILL BE INSTITUTED IN FIVE DIFFERENT PHASES.

THE FIRST PHASE WILL BE CENTERED AROUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-STORY MEDICAL TOWER. PHASE 2 WILL BE A THIRD-FLOOR SHELF OF THAT MEDICAL TIRE WITH AN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT ADDITION TO THIS NORTHERN PART OF THE HOSPITAL.

PHASE 3 WILL BE A FOURTH FLOOR ADDITION TO THE MEDICAL TOWER FILLED IN PHASE 1. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT PHASE I WILL BEGIN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS BY THE COMMISSION AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE PROJECT.

JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHAT THE MEDICAL TIRE WILL LOOK LIKE UPON ITS COMPLETION.

WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT WITH CHANGES. YOU CAN REND APPROVALS WITH CHANGES OR CONDITIONS AND YOU CAN RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IF YOU RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL IT WILL REQUIRE A CONCURRING VOTE BY THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> AND OPENNESS. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE OVERALL PLAN AND I WAS LOOKING AT IT ON MY COMPUTER SO THE SCREEN IS RATHER CONDENSED AND I HAVE VERY OLD EYES.

I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY CONSIDERABLE WATER MITIGATION ON THIS SITE.

I MISSING SOMETHING? >> I DON'T SEE ANY RETENTION PONDS HOWEVER I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS A MASTER RETENTION POND SYSTEM WITHIN THIS AREA AND I THINK LONGWOOD IS

UTILIZING FOR THEIR RETENTION. >> WE HAVE THIS PROJECT ON THE DRAWING BOARD FOR SOME TIME NOW. I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE DRAINAGE BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PARKING AREA HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO WHERE IT IS PERVIOUS PARKING AND I'D LIKE FOR THEM TO EXPLAIN IT IN FURTHER DETAIL.

>> I LIKE TO TALK LITTLE BIT ABOUT DRAINAGE. IT IS OUT OF OUR SPECTRUM HERE IN THIS BOARD BUT IT IS A CONCERN TO ME PARTICULARLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE AGAIN THAT LONGWOOD AREA IS ANOTHER AREA THAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED FLOODING ON A REGULAR BASIS.

[00:35:13]

SECTION? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. IT FLOWS FAIRLY WELL QUICK SILLY TIME WE TALKED ABOUT DRAIN ISSUES WAS WHEN WE ARE CONSIDERING THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE TO THE EAST OF THIS. THEIR RETENTION PONDS FOR THOSE NEW PROJECTS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT AS OF YET THERE WAS A CONSIDERABLE TALK ABOUT DRAINAGE AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT BUT THAT WAS ONLY BECAUSE OF WHO WAS GOING TO USE WHOSE RETENTION POND.

I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE RETENTION POND THAT LONGWOOD USES.

>> IS AT THE NINTH STREET CANAL THAT RUNS? IT'S 19 STREET CANAL THAT RUNS THROUGH THERE. I STILL HAVE SOME CONCERNS AND DRAINAGE IN THE AREA BECAUSE WE KEEP BUILDING AND BUILDING TO COVER UP PROPERTY AND EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TOO MUCH OF IT COVERED UP. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ASK ME A QUESTION CONCERNING TRAFFIC ON NEBRASKA AVENUE. THAT IS BASICALLY ONE OF THE MAIN ENTRANCES TO THE HOSPITAL ITSELF. THERE APPEARS TO BE COMING OFF OF 25TH STREET WITH NEBRASKA AVENUE COMING IN ON FIRST STREET.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE FIRST TO MAJOR ROADS AND ALSO NEBRASKA COMING FROM 13TH STREET.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE AMBULANCES RUN FREQUENTLY DOWN NEBRASKA AVENUE FROM 13TH STREET TO THE EMERGENCY STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE. CONSIDERATION HAS THERE BEEN AS FAR AS TRAFFIC CONCERNS? THE IMPROVEMENT OF NEBRASKA AVENUE ITSELF EVEN THOUGH IT IS DIVIDED BUT IT IS DETERIORATING. THE RATED THE ROAD ITSELF IS NOT WHAT IT ONCE WAS. IF WE LOOK AT THIS ONE STUDY THAT WE WITH THE COMMUNITY ADDED VALUE IMPACT THERE ARE 79,000 ER VISITS AS WELL AS 98,000 PATIENTS TREATED THERE.

WITH THESE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT ARE ON THIS PARTICULAR CHART ITSELF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE RUNNING UP AND DOWN NOT ONLY NEBRASKA AVENUE BUT ALSO COMING IN ON 23RD STREET FROM VIRGINIA AVENUE. CAN YOU JUST HELP ME WITH A LITTLE BIT ON THAT?

I KNOW KIMBERLY HORN WAS INVOLVED WITH THIS PROBABLY. >> I'M GONNA LET THE APPLICANT GET INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY PURCHASE FROM THE STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE WE DID LOOK AT TRAFFIC FIRST. THAT WAS ONE OF OUR BIG THINGS AND WE WANTED THEM TO LOOK AT WITH THE COUNTY COMING OUT. THEY STUDIED THE REPORT AND THEY WERE OF THE OPINION OR THE MIND THAT DUE TO THE TRAFFIC REPORT THEY CONCURRED WITH WHAT THE TRAFFIC REPORT SAID THAT THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO DO ON THE

SITE. >> DOES THE STAFF KNOW WHAT THE CITY WANTS TO DO A NEBRASKA AVENUE AS FAR AS THE IMPROVEMENT OF ITSELF FOR THE RESURFACING? DO YOU KNOW IF IT IS PART OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LIST?

>> I'M NOT SURE BUT IF I MAY DETERMINE THE CITY HAS OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUESTS IT RIGHT AWAY ON THE 23RD AT THE TURNING INTO THE HOSPITAL. ABOUT HOW MANY BEDS ARE GOING?

>> 32 FOR PHASE 1. >> SO IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WILL BE A REEVALUATION OF THAT WITH INCREASE AFTER PHASE I? EACH PHASE WILL BE LOOKED AT INDEPENDENTLY FOR PARKING AND TRAFFIC. THIS IS NOT OUR LAST TIME

LOOKING AT TRAFFIC AND PARKING FROM THIS PROJECT. >> THE GOOD THING ABOUT A PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS EVERY TIME THEY BUILD SOMETHING ELSE HAS TO COME THROUGH OUR PROCESS TO BE

BASICALLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. >> WE HAVE REQUESTED OF THE APPLICANT IN WHICH THEY HAVE A CONCURRED IS THAT WITH EACH PHASE IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST A LOCAL HOSPITAL IT'S A REGIONAL ONE OF GREAT SIGNIFICANCE.

PARKING BE IMPROVED TO PROVIDE FOR MORE LANDSCAPING WHICH ENHANCES THE DRAINAGE RATHER

THAN DOING IT AT ONCE TO WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE NO PARKING. >>.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THIS IS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE ZONING MAP? THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS CURRENTLY ZONED C-1. THEY'RE MOVING INTO PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND OF COURSE THE STAGING OR PLANNED EXPANSION OF OBVIOUSLY MAKES SENSE SO AS PART OF THE PROCESS IT GOES

[00:40:12]

AS A HELPLESS PHASES GO?> YES. IF I AM CORRECT OR INCORRECT PLEASE TELL ME. I THINK THE ONLY REASON THAT YOU ARE HERE IS BECAUSE OF

THEIR RESTRICTIONS IN THE. >> YES WHICH IS 65 FEET. >> AND THEY WANT TO GO TO 75

FEET. >> YES THAT'S CORRECT.> THE IS MY COMMENT WITH IT BEING A CRITICAL FACILITY FOR THIS COMMUNITY.T MUST BE WARRANTED THROUGH USAGE NUMBERS AND USE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH

THAT AS LONG AS THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD FOR CONTINUED GROWTH. >> A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR THE FOLKS FOR THE HOSPITAL BUT THAT WAS REALLY MY ONLY QUESTION ABOUT MOVING FROM C1 TO PD IN

THE FAIRLY MINOR. >> CHAIRMAN AND ALSO ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO LOOK AT NOT JUST THIS PROPERTY BUT THEIR PROPERTY WE ALSO HAVE AS PART OF OUR FILES AND EXHIBITS THE AREA THAT IS UNDER HCA'S PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. IT'S WARRANTED TO EXAMINE THESE PROPERTIES AS PART OF THE OVERALL PD AND THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.

WE UNDERSTAND THE CRITICAL NATURE OF WHAT THEY PROVIDE FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THERE WAS A DELAY LIKE I HAD MENTIONED DUE TO THE PANDEMIC WHERE THEY PUT A HOLD ON THIS BUT NOW THEY ARE READY TO GO. WE ARE VERY MUCH SUPPORTIVE OF THEM BEING ABLE TO CONSIDER

GROWTH. >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A COMPARABLE TO CREATE ON THE

LANDSCAPE PLAN. >> DO NOT THINK DONE AND INCOMPARABLE TRUTH WITHIN THIS

AREA? >> IT HASN'T GOT THAT FAR YET. >> IF I MAY WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING COLLECTIVELY TOGETHER ON THE BEING THAT THERE IS AN AREA WHERE THEY ARE DOING ADDITIONAL PARKING WITH THE PINES WHICH ARE NATIVE TREES THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. THEY WILL BE HAVING DIFFERENT TREES ON THE OTHER PHASE LANDSCAPE WITH PREMATURE LANDSCAPE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT AND WERE

WORKING TREAT HER BREASTS AS WELL IN DEVELOPING. >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE

BOARD? >> WE WILL DO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

>> ANYONE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND TAKE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION AS I UNDERSTAND? >> I'M GOING TO DEVIATE FROM IT BASED ON THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE ASKED. MY NAME IS ANDREW SWARTS.

I'M IN WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

TO UNDERSTAND ME AGAIN OR WOULD YOU PREFER TO MOVE. >> I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU.

IS EVERYTHING OKAY FOR EVERYBODY ELSE? >> WE'RE BRINGING A

[00:45:04]

>> TO HAVE CONTROL OF THIS? >> WE HAVE CONTROL. >> THE QUESTION REGARDING DRAINAGE IS A BASE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER TODAY. THAT WILL BE FILLED IN AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THERE WILL BE A SERIES OF UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT WILL BE INSTALLED.

I WILL EITHER BE A VARIETY OF WHAT'S CALLED STORM TRAP OR OLDCASTLE BUT IN SOME FORM OR FASHION IT WILL BE AN UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THAT SYSTEM WILL MEET THE WATER QUALITY AND REQUIREMENTS AS DICTATED BY THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS.

PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO THE 19 STREET CANAL. RIGHT NOW ON CAMPUS THERE IS SOME MINOR FLOODING THAT DOES OCCUR IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER GENERALLY BY WHERE THE PLANT IS GOING AND WE'RE FIXING NOT MORE AS A RESULT OF SHEET FLOW. THE CAMPUS AS A WHOLE DRAINS FAIRLY WELL FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND. THE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY UNDERGROUND AND WILL MAINTAIN AND CAPTURE THE SAME AMOUNT OF STORAGE IS BEING CAPTURED TODAY PLUS WHATEVER IS NEEDED FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.

>> THE SYSTEM THAT WE ARE INSTALLING HAS WATER QUALITY MEASURES THAT ARE PART OF DIFFERENT BASINS THAT ARE PUT IN. OR MODULES.

CERTAIN MODULES HAVE HAVE STRUCTURES INSTALLED IN IT TO ACCOMMODATE THE WATER QUALITY THAT IS NECESSARY. PRIOR TO DISCHARGE INTO THE NEIGHBORING COMMIT CANAL WHICH

IS ABOVE AND BEYOND NORMAL REQUIREMENTS. >> THE NEXT QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED WAS BY MISTER BIRDS REGARDING TRAFFIC. WE HAVE COMPLETED TRAFFIC EVALUATION RESPECTED FOR PHASE 1. IN THAT PHASE 1 TRAFFIC EVALUATION IT WAS DETERMINED THAT NONE OF THE INTERSECTIONS OR STREETS THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED WERE IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT. THEY ACCOMMODATE FUTURE EXPANSION ABOUT THE NEW PAINT.

>> THE 23RD TO THE SIDE OF THE COMPLEX, THE SCHOOL ALSO IN THE SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO CHURCH. CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC?

>> FROM TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE WHAT WE'VE DETERMINED TO BE EVALUATION IS THOUGHT THE TRAFFIC IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE SCHOOL TRAFFIC HOWEVER WE ARE INSTALLING A SIDEWALK ON OUR SIDE OF THE PROJECT. IT'S NEAR THE SCHOOL ALONG QUINCY.

>> THE TRAFFIC IMPACT IS GOING TO BE A SERVICE NOT AN EMERGENCY.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THEORETICALLY THERE WILL BE SOME GROWTH IN EMERGENCY

TRAFFIC COMING AND GOING TO THE HOSPITAL. >> IN FUTURE PHASES.

THERE IS NO EMERGENCY COMPONENT FOR THIS. THIS IS ACTUALLY HELPING OFFLOAD THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT MORE BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PET SPACE WITHIN THE FACILITY WHICH IS DESPERATELY NEEDED AS WELL AS ENHANCING THE DEPARTMENT THAT'S THERE.

>> IF THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT YOU MIGHT SEE THAT IS STRICTLY VISITATION TRAFFIC.

[00:50:03]

>> THAT'S CORRECT FOR THE MOST PART. >> THAT'S THE WAY OUR

EVALUATION IS. >> OKAY VERY GOOD. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS MISTER

BRODERICK THAT ASKED ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING. >> THAT'S MISTER BURCH AND.

>> FROM A TREASONOUS PERSPECTIVE THE ENTRANCE TO LONGWOOD WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE COMING OFF 25TH IS NOT CHANGING. THAT IS NOT CHANGING.

WHAT IS CHANGING IS THE IMPACT TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROJECT SITE AS A RESULT OF THE PINES THAT WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT. WE ARE MITIGATING FOR THESE PINES AND ACCORDING WITH THE REQUIREMENTS BY THE CITY. WE ARE ALSO ENHANCING BUFFERS ON QUINCY AND SIX STREET. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

I'M HAPPY TO RUN TO THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION BUT OUT OF RESPECT FOR TIME AND FOR YOU AS

WELL AND HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> I WILL LET THE BOARD MAKE THAT DECISION.> FOR ME JUST ASK ONE QUESTION BECAUSE I FOUND THIS MAP OF THE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT. IT'S THE TRAFFIC INBOUND ASSIGNMENT AND THOSE ARE THE PERCENTAGES FOR EACH OF THE ROADS. IS THIS ANTICIPATED OR IS THIS

CORRECT? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT. >> IT SOMETHING THAT YOU

DEVELOPED. >> I NOTICE OFFICE NEBRASKA IT STARTS AT 22 PERCENTAGE OF THE

TRAFFIC. >> WE CAN DISCUSS THIS LATER POSSIBLY.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT TO SOME DEGREE FROM NEBRASKA AND 13TH TO 19 STREET IT'S POTHOLE CITY.

IF YOU ARE REPAIRING POTHOLES YOU'RE GOING TO START HAVING SUBSTRUCTURE DETERIORATING AWAY

AND MAYBE NEED TO HAVE SOME NEW ASPHALT ON TOP OF IT. >> MORE THAN LIKELY THAT WOULD

BE THE CASE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ONLY BE A PART OF THAT BECAUSE OF WHAT I'M SEEING HERE. UNFORTUNATELY YOU ARE HERE SO I HAVE TO TALK TO SOMEBODY ABOUT

IT. >> I'M HAPPY TO HAVE MY ENGINEER DISCUSS THAT FURTHER

WITH YOU IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. >> ONLY IF YOU CAN GET THE CITY TO MOVE THAT UP UNDER

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IS THAT THEY OVERLAY IT. >> THINK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I JUST NEED MORE CLARIFICATION ON THE ADJUSTMENT TO POP AND ONCE YOU GET STARTED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION.

>> WOULD YOU MIND GOING A COUPLE FIGSLIDES DOWN. AND THE SITE IN FRONT OF YOU YOU SEE IN EXISTING STANDPOINT WITH 791 PARKING SPACES. WE ARE INSTALLING 116.

WE ARE INSTALLING 221 WITH THE TOTAL PROVIDED PARKING BEING 896 SPACES WHICH IS GREATER THAN WHAT'S OUT THERE TODAY. IN TERMS OF WHAT IS REQUIRED IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER GREATER THAN THE REQUIRED PARKING OF 516. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING FOR PHASE 1. AS WE DEVELOP FUTURE PHASES WE WILL EITHER INCREASE THE PARKING WITH SLIGHT DECREASES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE LANDSCAPE AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PD THAT WE ARE

PROVIDING. >> YOU WILL INCREASE PARKING I SEE THAT.

WHILE YOU ARE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE PARKING IS VERY DIFFICULT.

WHAT ADJUSTMENTS ARE BEING MADE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS ENOUGH PARKING WHILE THE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON AND BEFORE YOU ARE ABLE TO BUILD THESE OTHER PARKING SPACES?

>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WITH DISCUSSIONS IN THE HOSPITAL IS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO PARK THEIR EMPLOYEES OFF-SITE AND BUZZ THEM IN. AS WELL AS THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE PROVIDED GETTING OFF-SITE PARKING SO AS TO NOT IMPACT THE PARKING THAT IS ON CAMPUS.

OUR CONSTRUCTION AREA OBVIOUSLY WILL IMPACT THE PARKING FIELD BECAUSE THE HOSPITAL IS GOING TO OFFLOAD THE EMPLOYEES TO OFFSET LOTS AND PARKING WILL BE PRIMARILY DEDICATED TO PATIENTS

AND VISITORS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY DURING CONSTRUCTION. >> THINK YOU.

[00:55:08]

>> YOU ARE WELCOME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?WE'RE NOT SEEING ANYONE THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT?

FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> NOT SEEING ANYONE ALASKA , I WILL ASK FOR A

MOTION. >> MOVE FOR RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVAL FOR THE PLANNING

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. >> I WILL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISTER BURCH AND A SECOND BY MISTER BRODERICK. PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.

[c. Conditional Use - Sunshine Arcade - 2202 N. US Highway 1]

MISTER CRAIG AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE ON DECK AGAIN AYS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.THERE'S AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE CENTROID ARCADE LOCATED AT 202 NORTH HIGHWAY ONE AT THE NORTH CAUSEWAY DRIVE AND US1 ACROSS FROM THE TAYLOR CREEK PLAZA WHERE THE NEW PUBLICS IS. THE FUTURE LAND USE ON THE ROPERTY IS GENERAL AND COMMERCIAL. THE REQUEST TODAY IS FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL TO OPERATE A 66 MACHINE ARCADE AMUSEMENT CENTER.

THERE'S A TOTAL OF 47 UNITS WITH THE MOST PLAZA. CURRENTLY ONLY 12 UNITS ARE OCCUPIED BY BUSINESSES IN THE ARCADE ITSELF WILL OCCUPIED FOUR UNITS.

THERE ARE 50 PARKING SPACES. THE CURRENT TENANTS WILL HAVE 81 PARKING SPACES THAT WILL BE IN USE OR BE REQUIRED TO BEING USED ON THIS PROPERTY OUT OF THE TOTAL 120 PARKING SPACES.

AT THIS TIME THE PROPERTY DOESN'T MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

>> WHAT CONSIDERATION, I'LL LET YOU FINISH. >> THIS IS THE FOUR PLAN OF WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE INSIDE. THIS IS GOING TO BE OFFICE SPACE, TWO MEN'S BATHROOMS AND TO WOMEN'S BATHROOMS AND THE ARCADE WILL BE ON THE MAIN GAMING FLOOR.

>> STAFF IS APPROVING WITH TWO CONDITIONS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE 125 325 TWO EITHER DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE CODE AND 120 337.

IT SHALL BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT AND ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY CODE. THE INSULATION OF THE SIDEWALK WITH THE EASTERN BOUNDARY BY DIXIE HIGHWAY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUSINESS TAX ESS TAX RECEIPT.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE PLANNIN BOARD SHOWS USE WITH NO USE.

YOU CAN DISAPPROVE THE. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> NOW I'LL ASK MY QUESTION.N. LET'S GO BACK TO HOW MANY UNITS ARE AVAILABLE FOR LEASE IN THE

BUILDING. TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS. >> 47 UNITS.

>> HOW MANY ARE ALREADY LEASED? >> 12 UNITS.

>> SYSTEM THAT WILL BE LOSING FOR. >> THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF 16

IF MY MATH IS T. >> IS GOOD TO BE 81 PARKING SPACES IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT.RIGHT. SHOULD THIS THE BALANCE OF THOSE UNITS IT WILL BE THE BUSINESS DECISION OF THE OWNER AND THE COMPLEX. IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN

[01:00:03]

>> THAT WAS STAFF'S QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL. IT WAS DECIDED THAT THE TRC STAGE WOULD SHOW THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE ANY FUTURE PARKING WHETHER IT BE A PAYMENT IN LIEU OR WHETHER IT BE OFF-SITE PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE FOR ANY FUTURE TENANTS BECAUSE AT THIS CURRENT TIME THE PROPERTY WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH PARKING

REQUIREMENTS BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW. >> OF OUR ECONOMY CONTINUES TO DO IT IT'S BEEN DOING WE CAN SEE THAT THERE IS A POTENTIAL THAT THIS COULD BECOME AN ISSUE. A PAYMENT ON THE ON THE SITE. PERSONALLY I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD TO EVEN CONSIDER BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER PARKING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY

COULD GO AND BORROW FROM. >> IF I MAY DETERMINE WHAT THE STANDARD PRACTICES FOR THE SHOPPING CENTERS IS YOU CAN'T ANTICIPATE OR HOLD BACK DEVELOPMENT IF IT WANTS TO COME IN. THIS BUSINESS PLAN IS CALLING FOR FOUR BAYS TO OCCUPY.

IF YOU DEVELOPMENT COMES IN AND THEY NEED MORE PARKING, OFTEN THEY GO INTO A SHARED PARKING ARRANGEMENT. PERHAPS ONE OPERATES IN THE EVENING WHERE THE OTHER BUSINESSES COME IN AND THEY OPERATE DURING THE DAY. THIS WILL BE THE ONUS OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT THOSE BUSINESSES THAT COME IN AND THE OWNERS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER

IS WELL AWARE OF WHAT THAT ENTAILS. >> WE HAVE COMING ON AS HERE SOMEDAY A NEW BRIDGE. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE DISCUSSION AND SOMEWHAT OF A LEGAL DISCUSSION CONCERNING WHERE THAT BRIDGE IS GOING TO COME IN WITH THE EMINENT DOMAIN OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY CONCERNING A FISH WAREHOUSE OR WHATEVER WE CALL THAT.

HOW DOES THAT NEW BRIDGE ENTRY AND EXIT GOING TO AFFECT THIS PROPERTY?

DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA OF THAT? >> TRIM AND IF I MAY, THE PROPERTY OF THE SOUTH AND THE OTHER AREAS IN THE BRIDGE DESIGNERS ARE TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON THE FIRST READING OF I DO KNOW THAT THE GAS STATION TO THE SOUTH WILL BE TAKING TOWARDS THE SOUTH AND THEY MUST HAVE ARTIE TAKEN AND SENT TO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN UNDER DISCUSSIONS

NOW WITH DESIGNS AND PLANS. >> WE ARE NOT AWARE THAT THAT BRIDGE RIGHT OF WAYS CAN HAVE

ANY EFFECT ON THIS PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. >> WE HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF THAT. WHAT I KNOW IS THAT AGAIN THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

>> THEY ARE ALREADY TAKING AND COME FORWARD WITH MODIFICATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE COMING IN FOR

IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTY. >> MOVING THIS ALONG, SHOULD WE MOVE THIS ALONG AS AN APPROVED WAY THAT WE CAN ENTER INTO SOME OF THAT DISCUSSION AND TAKE A LOOK AT TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE STPROPERTY NOT BEING AFFECTED IN A NEGATIVE WAY CONCERNING RKING?

>> WHAT I COULD DO IS ASK OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND CONSULTANTS THAT ARE WORKING ON THAT BRIDGE DESIGN IF WE COULD SHARE WITH THE BOARD. I GUESS THAT SORT OF DOT RUNNING THE PROJECT. WE TOOK A LOOK AT HOW IT'S AFFECTING THE ENGINEERS IN THE CITY. IT'S KIND OF GOTTEN MONEY IN MY MIND SO I'M NOT CLEAR ON WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO BE CERTAIN THAT WE ARE NOT SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR BIGGER ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO BE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR.

>> HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. THE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS FOR THIS SUNSHINE ARCADE WOULD BE

INTO THE EVENING I PRESUME? >> SO SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 12:00 A.M..

FRIDAY AND SATURDAY FROM 8:00 A.M. TO 2:00 A.M.. >> FOR THE ADDITIONAL PARKING,

[01:05:03]

>> THIS IS THE PLAZA ACROSS FROM THE PUBLIX PLAZA. >> I NOTICED THAT THEY'RE

TALKING ABOUT ADDITIONAL PARKING IF IT'S NEEDED. >> NOT AT THIS CURRENT TIME.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO RECTIFY THEIR PARKING SITUATION ON THIS CURRENT PARCEL.

THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE PUBLIX PARKING PLAZA.

IT'S TOO FAR AWAY. >> PEOPLE WHO GO TO PUBLIX HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING WOULD BE WALKING ACROSS THE STREET TO GO TO THE ARCADE IF THEY WISH TO.

>> IF THEY WISH TO THEY COULD CROSS THE STREET IF THERE'S A CROSSING THERE.

>> SINCE THESE ARE CASE TO YOU WITH DEAL WITH A LOT OF SENIOR CITIZENS WHO ARE IN MOTORIZED WHEELCHAIRS WHICH I WILL GET TO PRETTY SOON MYSELF. THIS IS A VERY BUSY CROSSING.

YOU HAVE THE TRAFFIC COMING OVER TO GO ACROSS THE BRIDGE NOW.

YOU HAVE AN INCOMPREHENSIBLE SET OF TURN LANES IN TERMS OF LIGHTS AND SO FORTH BECAUSE I'M THERE VERY FREQUENTLY. WHEN THE COLLEGE IS TO BE ON THE PROPERTY THEY HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH PEOPLE GETTING IN AND OUT OF IT AND WERE COMING FROM WALKING DISTANCE.

A LOT OF PROBLEMS. THERE WERE A LOT OF ACCIDENTS. I WAS VERY CONCERNED NOT ONLY ABOUT THE NEW BRIDGE COMING OVER BUT ABOUT PUTTING A FACILITY THAT CATERS MOSTLY TO SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE MIDDLE OF WHAT IS POTENTIALLY A VERY DANGEROUS AREA FOR PEDESTRIANS.

>> FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> ON THE SAME TOPIC I SURE BOTH THE CONCERNS RAISED SO FAR BUT I HAVE A QUESTION THAT DIFFERENT THAN NOT. THIS PROPERTY IS 29,515 FT.B2 O BUILDING HUNDRED AND 21 SPACES ON SITE CURRENTLY. THAT EQUATES TO 244 FT.B2 PER SPACE. IF THIS WAS TO COME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TODAY

WITH PARKING REQUIREMENTS HIGHER THAN THAT? >> THE DEVELOPMENT CAME IN PARKING REQUIREMENT BEING - HIGHER THAN ONE SPACE FOR 244 SQUARE FEET.

>> DEPENDING ON THE NEWS IT WOULD EITHER BE ONE SPACE PER 200 OR ONE 250.

IT'S KIND OF ABOUT WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE. >> ANDERSON THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS HAD CHALLENGES FROM MAINTAINING A TENANT BASE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

I SHARE WITH THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS CONCERNS ABOUT PARKING. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS THAT THE CHAIRMAN PROVIDED THE ARCADE IS OBSERVING 50 SPACES WITH 3121 ON-SITE WITH A NET OF 40 FOR THE BALANCE OF PROPERTY. CAN YOU WALK ME THROUGH MIKE'S CONVENIENCE STORE WANTING TO BE LOCATED IN THIS PROPERTY. I HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENT AND I'M GONNA TAKE 10,000 FT.B2 OR THE LEFT OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? YOU TALK ABOUT SHIPWRECK PARKING FACILITIES AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT CONTINGENT. QUICKLY THROUGH HEAVY APPLICATION PROCESS WORKS.

>> TO ANALYZE THE PARKING AND THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A PARKING ANALYSIS.

BASICALLY WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE PROPERTY FOR DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING AND STAFF WOULD TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSION WITH HIM ABOUT HOW

LITTLE RECTIFY THAT SITUATION. >> IF IT'S LESS INTENSIVE PROPHECIES WHICH I WILL ASSUME IS LESS THAN RETAIL FROM THE PARKING CLIMATE STANDPOINT THEY WOULD HAVE THE FUNCTIONALITY TO RELEASE THAT SPACE TO LOWER INTENSITY WHICH WILL NOT TRIGGER THIS PARKING REQUIREMENT YOU RUN INTO A BRICK WALL AT SOME POINT IN TIME.

IS A FAIRLY ACCURATE? AS I THINK YOU HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR

[01:10:01]

SOME TYPE OF CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL? >> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR PARKING. AT LEAST IN THIS THE OTHER WAY.

IF THIS PROPERTY LET'S SAY THE MAJORITY OF THE TENANTS WERE ALREADY WITHIN THE UNITS AND THE KIDS COMING IN, WE MAY BE HAVING A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION WHERE WE MIGHT NOT BE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BECAUSE OF PARKING WE WOULD HAVE TO TRY TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION WITH THE APPLICANT TO LOWER THE MACHINE COUNT. I DO KNOW THAT YOU REITERATED THAT WE CAN ALSO DO SOMETHING WITH THE ARCADE CAN BE WITH THIS AMOUNT OF MACHINES DURING THE DAY AND BEAUTIFUL CAPACITY AT NIGHT ONE OF THE BUSINESS ARE CLOSED ON 5:00.

WELL YES IT IS A 47 UNIT ONLY 12 UNITS ARE GETTING UTILIZE. RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR BOTH THE ARCADE AND BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE.

WE HAVE NO REASON FOR US TO BE RECOMMENDED IN DENIAL TO KNOW BASIS WITHIN CODE.

>> IT DOESN'T PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING. IT CAN ULTIMATELY AFFECT THE

NEXT TENET POTENTIALLY COMING FORWARD. >> IT COULD BE RESTAURANT OR AN OFFICE. IT COULD BE A MEDICAL USE FOR A LIFE THAT HAS A PARKING COUNT.

THE MULTITUDE OF USES BECAUSE IT'S GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHICH HAVE MULTIPLE

USES. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES FOR MY OWN INFORMATION . WHAT IS A TECHNICALITY IT'S ACTUALLY TRIGGERING THE CONDITION? IS IT BECAUSE IT'S IN ARCADE? THE USE PROVISION PARKING

SCENARIO. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> JUST ONE FOR CLARITY. THE HUNDRED AND 16 SPACES, ARE THOSE THE SPACES TO THE WEST OF THE BUILDING ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THE BUILDING?

>> HUNDRED AND 29 SPACES ARE BASICALLY THE SPACES THAT YOU SEE ON THIS SITE PLAN RIGHT

NOW. >> THAT INCLUDES THE BACK. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

I WILL OPEN TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. >> YOU KNOW THE ROUTINE.

>> I'M MIKE AND FORT PIERCE FLORIDA. TO HELP CLARIFY OR NOT CLARIFY THE LANDLORD HAS PUT IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE TENANT 50 PARKING SPACES IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT. THE LANDLORD IS VERY WELL AWARE OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS USE. I'M SURE MOST OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE BUILDING HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A VERY LONG TIME AND SPACE THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE OCCUPYING AS WHERE WAS A FORMER INDIAN RESTAURANT AT ONE POINT IN TIME. THE LAST OCCUPANCY WAS ANOTHER RESTAURANT AS WELL. RESTAURANT AND BAR THAT DID NOT HANGOUT VERY LONG.

TO UTILIZE THE BUILDING FOR WHAT ITS POTENTIAL IS OR GET SOMETHING IN THERE THAT AT LEAST BRINGS AND GENERATES TRAFFIC TO THAT BUILDING TO BRING IN COME IN FOR THE LANDLORD, IT'S A GOOD THING IN THE LANDLORD IS WELL AWARE OF THE ISSUE WITH THE PARKING.

IF HE GETS THE FULL CAPACITY THAN HE WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN HERE I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE PLACE REALLY FULL EXCEPT FOR WHEN IT

WAS IN COLLEGE. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE COMMENT AND I THINK THAT OUR LEVEL OF CONCERN FOR THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING IS TO TRY TO GET OCCUPANTS IN IT AND IT'S HIGH. AT THE SAME TIME THERE IS A SEQUENCE HERE THAT WE HAVE TO PLOOK AT AND THAT IS THE PARKIN ISSUE. IT APPEARS AT THIS POINT TO BE PRETTY MUCH RESOLVED BECAUSE MOST OF THE BUILDING IS EMPTY. ALSO IT'S THE EGRESS IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING LOT. PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THE AREA WOULD BE AS THE

[01:15:02]

DO IS MAKE A U-TURN AT THE LIGHT. >> THEY MAKE YOU TURN TO THE LIGHT. I WILL DRIVE A MILE OUT OF MY WAY.

THE POINT IS I'VE SEEN AN AWFUL LOT OF ACCIDENTS FROM U-TURNS AND RED LIGHTS.

COMING ACROSS THE BRIDGE FROM THE EAST YOU CAN GET INTO THE PARKING LOT IF YOU WANTED TO GO WEST TO CROSS THE BRIDGE YOU HAVE TO GO NORTH ON US ONE AND MAKE A U-TURN ON US1 SOMEWHERE TO COME BACK. IT'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S NOT AN IDEAL PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I BELIEVE THAT'S PROBABLY WHY IT'S BEEN SITTING EMPTY FOR SO LONG.

BACK WHEN THE COLLEGE WAS IN THAT YOU HAD STUDENTS COMING AND GOING.

THEY SPENT MOST OF THE DAY THERE WITH MORE HOURS OF THE DAY THERE.

THEY LEFT AND THE EGRESS IN AND OUT WASN'T AS CRITICAL IN THE PARKING WASN'T AS CRITICAL EITHER. TODAY IT'S BEING USED AS A STRIP CENTER FOR COMMERCIAL USE. THE EGRESS IS AT THIS FACTOR TOO.

AS WE START THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THAT IDGE THAT IS AN ISSUE FOR DOT TO BE CONCERNED WITH.

IT'S NOT REALLY AN ISSUE ON THIS BOARD ALTHOUGH WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT AND BRING IT OUT TO

MAKE RECORD OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT IT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THE SCENARIO WOULD NOT BE COMING UP IF IT WAS A RESTAURANT BECAUSE THE OCCUPANT LOAD FOR A RESTAURANT WITH THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE TECHNICALLY THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD HAVE MORE OCCUPANT LOAD CAPACITY THEN WE ARE HAVING IN THAT SPACE THEREFORE GENERATES MORE

TRAFFIC AND MORE CARS. >> WE HAD THE SAME DISCUSSION NOT LONG AGO WHEN THE RESTAURANT/BAR THAT WAS IN AND OUT OF THERE SO FAST ENOUGH EVEN RECOGNIZE THAT IT WAS THERE. WE HAD THE SAME DISCUSSION THROUGH THAT ACTIVITY.

I DON'T THINK THAT YOU ARE HANDLING THAT ONE. THEY CAME IN AND REPRESENTED THEMSELVES. WE HAD THIS SAME DISCUSSION. I'M NOT PICKING ON ME ARCADE.

NOBODY SPEAKING ON THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING. IT IS AN INADEQUATE SITE FOR WHAT WE ARE USING FOR. THAT STILL FALLS TO THE CITY AND IT'S NO FAULT OF THE OWNER.

IT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. THAT IS MY HUMBLE PERSONAL OPINION AND MAYBE I SHOULDN'T STATED AT THAT WAY BUT I WILL AND I WILL TAKE THE BLUNT OF WHATEVER COMES AT ME FROM IT.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> THIS IS JUST ON THE SAME TOPIC.

THE FORMULATIONS ARE FLIPPED. TWO THIRDS PARKING IS AVAILABLE ON SITE AND GOES FOR ONE THIRD OF THE BUILDING USE. IF YOU LOOK AT IT BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS BUT I'M ALSO EMPATHETIC TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ISSUE OF NOT HAVING A VACANT BUILDING WHICH WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SEE JUST GO FOLLOW. IT NEEDS TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR THEM TO CARRY THE EXPENSES THAT ARE BEING OPERATED. YOU INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS STATED IN HIS LEASE CLEARLY THAT THEY HAVE NONEXCLUSIVE USE OF 50 PARKING SPACES ON SITE. HAVING SAID THAT THEY MUST HAVE SOME TYPE OF CONCEPT OF WHERE THEY ARE GOING WITH THE REST OF THE BUILDING. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PLAN MOVING FORWARD FOR POTENTIAL LOWER DENSITY OR LOWER PARKING REQUIREMENTS?

>> I'M SURE JUST LIKE YOURSELF FOR ME THAT THE RENTAL PROPERTY WHATEVER GETS IN THERE TO DO IT IF YOU HAVE TO LEAVE THE THIRD OF THE BUIDING VACANT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A QUICK PARKING

AND YOU CAN LEASE THE REST OF IT SO BE IT. >> THAT'S THE DIRECTION WAS GOING IN THERE. ULTIMATELY THAT COULD BE WITH THE BURDEN IS HERE.

THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. >> SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING.

>> KNOW MY POSITION ON IT. THEY HAD TO GENERATE REVENUE WITH CHALLENGING POSITIONS.

>>. >> IT'S THE CONCEPT. >> IT'S DIFFICULT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? NOTHING ANYONE I WILL COME BACK TO THE BOYS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> SOMETHING ANY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> ON THE PROMOTION OF THEIR

[01:20:03]

I FEEL THAT THERE IS A LAUNDRY LIST OF MITIGATING FACTORS HERE THAT NEED TO BE BALANCED.

THIS IS NOT A CLEAN ANALYSIS JUST BASED ON THE PARKING RATIO.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOVE TO IMPROVE THE CONDITION OF THE SUNSHINE ARCADE 2202 NORTH HIGHWAY ONE. WE MAY OR MAY NOT GET A SECOND TO MOVE FORWARD TO ADDITIONAL

DISCUSSION. THAT'S MY MOTION. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> WITH A MOTION TO SECOND ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> NOTHING ANYONE PLEASE CALL

THE ROLE. >>.

>> THE MOTION PASSED. >> NEXT ITEM ON THE LIST, ITEM 2. CONDITIONAL USE AND

[d. Conditional Use - Single Family Home - Parcel ID: 2412-501-0125-000-1]

2412 Ã501 Ã0125 Ã00 01. MISTER CREEK AND YOU ARE STILL ON .

I'M FASTER THAN YOU ON THIS ONE? YOU ARE SLIPPING.

>> BEFORE YOU THIS AFTERNOON WE HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG SURFSIDE DRIVE. THIS IS THE DUQUETTE RESIDENCE.

AS THIS PROPERTY IS SEAWARD OR EAST OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL AND IT IS REQUIRED TO GO TO THE CITY'S CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY IS OUR ONE RESIDENTIAL WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE. THE REQUEST IS FOR CONDITIONAL USE AND REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY YEARS AND FOR THE STRUCTURE TO BE FILLED UP TO 34.40 FEET FROM THE ELEVATION. STOCK IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CODING CONFERENCE OF PLAN. IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND AS PROPOSED WILL NOT CAUSE AN ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE SYSTEM.

THE CITY CODE SECTION 125 AND 157 TESTIFIES THAT THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IN THE DISTRICT IS 35 FEET WITH CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL.

THE DISTRICT IS MEASURED FROM FLOOD ELEVATION AND NOT FROM EXISTING GRADE.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN THIS HOME IS GOING TO BE 4 FEET OFF OF PROPOSED GRADE SO BE APPROXIMATELY 34.40 FEET FROM THE ELEVATION. THIS IS JUST A SITE PLAN TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED. THIS CAN BE TWO DRIVEWAYS AND THEIR 40 FEET APART WHICH MEETS THE MINIMUM OF CITY CODE. THEY ALSO COMPLY WITH THE SETBACK LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. THIS JUST GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT THE HOME LOOK LIKE UPON COMPLETION. STAFF IS ARE COMMITTING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ONE CONDITION TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITH THE COASTAL CONSTRUCT LINE BEFORE ACTIVITIS CAN COMMENCE. POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL A STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL YOU CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR YOU CAN REMIT RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. MIMIC QUESTIONS FOR MISTER CREEK AND BY THE BOARD?

>> NO QUESTIONS. >> JUST CLARIFICATION AGAIN. THIS IS UPON THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL THAT GIVES THEM THE IN ABILITY TO GO TO WHAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT?

35 AND THEY'RE ONLY ASKING FOR 34.4. >> I SEEM TO RECOMMEND FROM THE LAST MEETING BEFORE. WE HAVE THE DEFINITION OF THAT BASE ELEVATION WITH NONEXISTING GRADE. I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION IS A FEMA BASED FLOOD ALLOCATION WHICH INCREASE IN HEIGHT OR DOES THE STILL NO MEAT THE FORMULATION NOT CHANGING PLEXUS USUALLY BASED ON WHATEVER THE FLOOD ZONE IS SO FOR INSTANCE FROM THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION SINCE THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 4 FEET FROM THE BASE THE ACTUAL MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE HOME

WOULD BE AROUND 30.4 FEET. >> THAT INNOCENT THEN DOES ANSWER THE QUESTION.

IT'S ACTUALLY THE BASELINE BEING UTILIZED. >> AS OF TODAY YES.

>> THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY. WHAT A SECOND PLAY ON THIS DISCUSSION?

[01:25:18]

>> IF IT'S MEASURING FROM THE GREAT. >> OF THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY

IN THE CONDITIONAL USE GETS UP TO 35 FEET. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS? >> NOTHING IN FOR TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE MISTER MINARD IS COMING BACK UP TO US. >> IS WHEN I HAVE PLENTY OF

PARKING GUARANTEED. >> WE ARE VERY WELL AWARE OF THE DEP REQUIREMENT.

AS SOON AS WE GET THROUGH THIS STAGE WE CAN GET A LETTER FROM THE PLANNING MEETING THAT WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL ORDINANCE. WITH A MOTION BY MS. BAKER THE

SECOND BY MISTER LEE. >> I'M GUESSING THE MOTION INCLUDES THE ONE CONDITION OF

STAFF. >> PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >> MISTER BYRD?

>> YES LET'S TAKE A TWO MINUTE BREAK.

[e. Conditional Use - Dwelling Rental -1132 Granada Street]

WHEN STAFF REVIEWS WE LOOK TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO CODER ENFORCEMENTS OR POLICE DEPARTMENT VIOLATIONS. SUBSEQUENT TO OUR ORDINANCE K114, THE STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED FLORIDA STATUTES BACK IN 2011 WHICH CALLS LOCAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS BASED ON THE

[01:30:05]

STOPPING THE PROPERTY MANAGER FOR THE DWELLING RENTALS SHALL BE AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES AND MUST RESIDE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND BE REGISTERED IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.

GUIDEBOOKS SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO THE RENTERS AND THESE GUIDEBOOKS ARE AVAILABLE TO OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION. THE APPLICANT MUST OFFER ST. LUCIE COUNTY FOR THE TAX LICENSE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF LICENSES FROM THE STATE.

POSSIBLE ACTIONS OF THE BOARD IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS. THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES TO THOSE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS OF MISS

HOFMEISTER? >> YES I HAVE SEVERAL. FIRST, HOW DOES THE SIDEWALK REGULATION FOR BUSINESS USE OF A PROPERTY EFFECT THIS APPLICATION?

>> AND WHAT REGARD I'M SORRY? >> AREN'T SIDEWALKS REQUIRED OR PAYMENT IN LIEU OF?

>> THE WAY THAT THIS IS A TRICKY SITUATION COMES TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ANY

SIDEWALKS. >> IS BEING USE OF THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS?

>> I MAY HAVE OVERLOOKED THAT. CAN YOU GO BACK? WE ARE SPEAKING ON THE

SIDEWALKS. >> THERE AREN'T ANY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> THIS IS AS PLAYING DIRECTOR. THAT HAS BEEN A DISCUSSION OF PAST APPROVALS OF VACATION RENTALS WHERE THEY ARE AND SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT IS THE BOARDS PLEASURE THAT I IMPOSE A SIDEWALK AND LOU AND NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WE

DISCUSS. >> MY SECOND QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT. HE REPEATED SOME OF IT. IT STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE IS TO ALLOW UNDESIRABLES, USES THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT AND IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE STOCK RECOMMENDATIONS SAY THAT THE GENERAL CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT IT REPRESENTS NO DAMAGE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT LANGUAGE WORD FOR WORD SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED IN EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION FOR VACATION RENTALS.

WHETHER IT'S IN OUR FOUR, R2 OR R1. IS IT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS POSITION THAT ZONING HAS NO EFFECT ON THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD?

>> THE REASON WHY THIS CODE SECTION IS USED ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EVERY DWELLING UNIT

AND UNIT RENTAL PROPOSAL IT'S REGARD TO CONDITIONAL USES. >> WE HAVE STATED LAWS BACK IN 2001 AND 2001 THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER DWELLING RENTALS AS A PERMITTED USE AND CONDITIONAL USE AND SPRIT OF PACIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS. IF THERE WAS SOME BASIS FOR ME TO DETERMINE THAT THIS PARTICULAR DWELLING RENTAL WERE TO AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH HEALTH, SAFETY AND GOOD ORDER APPEARANCE I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO JUSTIFY A DETERMINATION THAT THAT HAS OR WILL BE. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE IMPOSED THESE FIVE CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO HAVE PROPERTY MANAGERS ON SITE AND AVAILABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE APPLYING AND MAINTAINING THE BUSINESS TAX. IF THERE ARE NO CLOTHES WITH

[01:35:03]

WHAT WE HAVE. >> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.

MY QUESTION IS VERY SIMPLE. YOUR PHRASING SAYS THAT IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE CHARACTER OR WELL-BEING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. USE THAT EXACT SAME PHRASE IN EVERY SINGLE ZONING IN EVERY SINGLE APPLICATION NO MATTER WHAT THE ZONE IS. WHAT I'M ASKING IS TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BETWEEN OUR FOUR NEIGHBOR HAD AN R1 OR AN

R2 NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY ARE AND SINGLE-FAMILY IS AS WELL. >> THEN YOU DO BELIEVE THAT

THE CHARACTER OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE DIFFERENT. >> AS WELL AS I BELIEVE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS ARE DIFFERENT AND THEIR CONDITIONAL USES THERE AS WELL.

>> LADIES THE SAME EXACT PHRASE IN TERMS OF PCOMPATIBILITY NO MATTER WHERE

THE ZONE IS ON THE APPLICATION? >> BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT OUR CONDITIONAL USE AND WITHIN OUR CODE SECTION. I'M FACING BASED ON WHAT THE CODE SECTION IS A WITTY RUNNING APPLICATION. IT'S THE SAME FOR ANY TYPE OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

I WOULD GO BY THE REGULATIONS AND WHAT IT STATES THERE. >> THINK YOU.

>> YOU ARE WELCOME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

>> SO I RECOLLECT THE PROCESS THAT THIS GOES ON TODAY THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS NOT CAN HAVE ANY JURISDICTION IN BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS ANY FURTHER.

>> PLANNING IS ONLY ABLE TO REGULATE THE SPACE ON ADDITIONAL USE.

>> THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS ARE WHOLESALE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DPR WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHERE DB PR IS DOING AS FAR AS ACTIONS. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE IS ON THE LIMITATION OF NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES PER YEAR.

THERE COULD BE PARKING FOR ADDITIONAL VEHICLES. >> IF I MAY DETERMINE THAT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE CONFERENCE AGENDA WAS POSTPONED YESTERDAY BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A RESOLUTION FOR THESE VACATION RENTALS AS YOU CAN SEE MOST OF THE AUDIENCE BEHIND ME IS HERE BECAUSE OF THEM. THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH I CAN DO AS A PLANNING DIRECTOR AND A PLANNING STAFF TO HELP EASE THE MINDS OF THOSE THAT ARE FOR OR AGAINST THESE VACATION RENTALS OR DWELLING RENTALS RATHER AS WE REFER TO THEM IN OUR CODE. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE INPUT AND SAY. I KNOW THAT MISTER BRODERICK IS GOING TO BE LEADING THE CHARGE ON THAT BUT WE DID CANCEL OUR CONFERENCE AGENDA WHERE THAT WAS GOING TO BE A TOPIC AND HOPEFULLY GET TO SOME SENSE OF RESOLUTION BY THE COMMUNITY BUT THAT WILL BE POSTPONED TO DECEMBER. RIGHT NOW I AM TREATING THIS ITEM LIKE I WOULD TREAT ANY OTHER THAT COMES FORWARD FOR DWELLING RETRO IN THE CITY. .

>> I THINK THE ISSUE ON THESE NARROW STREETS TO HAVE POLICE AD AMBULANCE AND FIRE BE ABLE TO RESPOND, YOU COULDN'T ACCOMMODAE ON STREET PARKING. CHAIRMAN, IN THIS PART OF TOWN, ON-STREET PARKING WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. THERE IS NO PARKING SPACE ALLOWD

TO ALLOW FOR A CAR TO BE PARKED. THAT WOULD BE TICKET. >> SO THERE -- IN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO ADD IN A PROVISION, NO ON STREET PARKING.

>> YES. >> BUT THIS PARTICULAR CONDITIO, NUMBER FOUR, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS -- MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IMPOSED OVER A YEAR AGO BY THE COMMISSION TO HELP IN KEEPING

[01:40:03]

WAS WHY THAT CONDITION WAS IMPOSED. >> THANK YOU.

NOW, I DO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING IN THE BOARD COMMENTS SECTION OF TE MEETING, THE PRESENTATION FROM YESTERDAY SO WE CAN UPDATE THE BOARD ON THAT, BUT I THINK YOU'E ADDRESSED MY QUESTIONS SO I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH FROM THE CONDITIONL

USE PROCESS. >> SO IF I HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL THROW THEM OUT.

YOU ADDRESSED MINE. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT TO THE PUBLIC THAT'S HERE TODAY, ONLY BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION HAS BRIEFLY BEEN BROUGHT UP CONCERNING THE ACTIVITY THAT THE BOARD IS INVOLVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMMISSION MOVING FORWARD, WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER A COMMITTEE, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUS SOME OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IN AND I'M GOING TO USE A TERM FOR LACK OF ANY OTHER, REGULATIN OF VACATION RENTALS SEPARATE FRM THE CODES.

AND WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THATA LITTLE BIT HERE AT THE END OF TE MEETING AND IF ANY OF YOU ARE INTERESTED THAT ARE HERE POSSIBY TO DISCUSS THESE TWO VACATION RENTALS THAT WE HAVE ON THE DOCKET YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO STAY AND LISTEN INTO THAT BRIEF DISCUSSION.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DETAILED, I'LL TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY BRIEF, BUT

IT MAY GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND MOVING FORWARD. >> WE'LL GET BACK TO THIS

PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE HEARING. >> A QUICK QUESTION.

>> YOU HAVE FIVE RECOMMENDATION, THE STAFF HAS FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS.

IN A COMMUNICATION YOU HAD RECOMMENDED SEVEN FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

IS THERE ANY REASON WHY TWO HAVE BEEN DELETED? >> I DON'T SEE THE -- I'M SORRY.

DID I -- IS THERE A TYPO? >> YOU'RE RECOMMENDING FIVE, BUT IN A LETTER THAT YOU SENT TO HE, YOU RECOMMENDED SEVEN. YOU INCLUDED THIRD PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE.

>> RIGHT. THAT WAS PRIOR TO -- IF I MAY, CHAIRMAN, EXPLAIN THAT.

>> AT THAT TIME WE HAD PLACED A CONDITION SIX FOR THIRD PARTY LIABILITY THAT WAS REQUESTED BY MISS BAKER AT A MEETING MAYBE THREE MONTHS AGO. SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THAT CONDITION WAS TAKEN OFF TO HAVE THAT PART OF THE CONSIDERATION Y THIS WORKING COMMITTEE THAT WE LIKE TO ESTABLISH, THE LAST CONDITION WAS JUST THE FEES THAT WE PUT ON, TRC COMMENTS, BUT THOSE HAVE TO BE PAID PRIOR TO GETTING TO THIS POINT. SO THOSE WERE PAID, SO THAT

CONDITION WAS NOT -- WAS REMOVED. >> AND SO THE INSURANCE IS NOT GOING TO BE REQUIRED THEN, AT LEAST THE THIRD PARTY LIABILITY INSURANCE.

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. THERE WILL BE FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THAT MATTER WHEN IT COMES TO

THE COMMISSION. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING ME UP TO DATE ON THAT.

>> NO PROBLEM. >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD? >> JUST ONE QUESTION.

IS IT IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICATION WHOM THE LOCAL PROPERTY MANAGER IS GOING TO BE?

>> THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT S GIVEN TO OUR CITY CLERK AT THE TIME THAT THEY SUBMIT FOR A BTR AND THEN WE WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THAT. THAT IS ALSO ON THE WEBSITE, THE

CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. >> ASK THE APPLICANT IF THAT HAS BEEN SECURED.

>> WE'RE OPENING TO THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETING. THE APPLICANT IS HERE ON THE

PHONE, I BELIEVE, STILL. >> I AM. >> OKAY.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTERJECT ANYTHING CONCERNING THE DISCUSSION THAT YOU'VE

OVERHEARD? >> I THINK JENNIFER IS DOING A WONDERFUL JOB.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS?

NO? >> OKAY. >> I'LL MOVE BACK TO THE BOARD

FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. >> MAY WE ASK THE APPLICANT A

QUESTION? >> CERTAINLY. >> THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY FILED FOR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. IF THIS IS APPROVED AND SHE IS ALLOWED TO USE THE PROPERTY AS A VACATION RENTAL, WHAT PORTION OF THE YEAR WOULD SHE BE IN RESIDENCE?

>> THAT QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO THE APPLICANT. >> YES.

>> I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THAT. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THAT WORKS.

[01:45:05]

>> THE WAY IT WORKS IS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE A PERMANENT ARE RESIDENT, FULL TIME RESIDENT FOR SIX MONTHS I BELIEVE IT IS TO QUALIFY FOR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION SO THAT IF YOU WERE RENTING THE PROPERTY OUT FOR MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR ON ANY BASIS, YOU WOULD LOSE YOUR QUALIFICATIN

FOR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. >> CORRECT. I'M NOT ANTICIPATING HAVING -- YOU KNOW, HAVING THIS VACATION RENTAL UP AND RUNNING FOR -- AT LEAST NOT UNTIL NEXT SUMMER.

>> OKAY. I THINK THAT'S MORE DIRECTED FOR PERSONAL INFORMATION TO YOU FOR YOUR ACTION BETWEEN YOU AND THE COUNTY. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS

BOARD WOULD TYPICALLY GET INVOLVED? >> I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THE

APPLICANT IS AWARE OF THE RAMIFICATIONS -- >> ABSOLUTELY I AM.

>> OF OUR RESPONSIBILITIES FOR VACATION RENTALS AND ALTHOUGH TE QUALIFICATION FOR THIRD PARTY INSURANCE, I WAS WONDERING IF SE HAS FOUND OUT WHETHER OR NOT HER HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE WOULD BE ABLE TO ADD A BUSINESS USE OR WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAS INVESTIGATED ANY OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WOULD MAKE -- IF SHE HERSELF IS NOT GOING TO BE N RESIDENCE OR NEARBY AS A MANAGER AND HAS NOT AS YET OBTAINED A MANAGER, YOU KNOW, IF WE APPROVE THIS, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS FULLY AWAE OF ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

>> YES, I AM. MANAGED ANOTHER PROPERTY CLOSE Y TO THIS PROPERTY, AND I AM AWARE

OF THE HOMESTEAD RULE AND THE LIABILITY WITH THE INSURANCE. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. >> I'LL COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ARE THERE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS?

>> NOT SEEING ANY, I'LL ENTERTAN A MOTION. >> MR. CHAIR --

>> I WAS LOOKING AT CONDITIONS. >> I'LL GO BACK TO THE PUBLIC FR A MOMENT.

ANYBODY SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT? >> I'LL RECLOSE THE PUBLIC

MEETING. >> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> IN LOOKING AT CONDITION 4, I WILL MAKE A MOTION, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE OUT ONE OF THESE NO'S.

>> TAKE OUT ONE OF THESE NO'S. >> YES. YOU'RE VERY -- WELL, YOU WERE IN

EDUCATION, DARN IT, THAT'S NOT FAIR. >> THAT'S NOT FAIR.

>> OKAY. MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE FIVE

CONDITIONS. >> MS. JOHNSON, THE MOTION, WOUD YOU BE INCLINED TO ADD INTO THE

PARKING REQUIREMENT, NO ON STRET PARKING? >> SURE.

>> I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION BASED ON THE INCLUSION OF NO ON STREET PARKING.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS JOHNSON SCOTT. A SECOND BY MR. BRADERICK.

>> MR. LEE? >> YES, MA'AM. >> MISS BAKER?

>> NO. >> CHAIRMAN CRAFT MILLER? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> THAT MOTION PASSED WITH THE EXCLUSION OF ONE NO AND THE INCLUSION OF NO ON STREET PARKING. SO I GUESS WE'RE PUTTING IT BACK IN, BUT WE'RE MOVING IT.

>> OKAY. >> NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS, ITEM , CONDITIONAL USE, DWELLING RENTA,

[f. Conditional Use - Dwelling Rental -1507 Faber Court]

1507 FIBER COURT, AND PRESENTING THIS AS WELL. >> ALL RIGHT.

LET'S JUST -- EVERYBODY HAVE IT ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW? >> THE SCREEN IS TRYING TO.

>> COME ALIVE HERE. >> IT'S NO SIGNAL. >> I CAN SEE IT IN THE MIRROR,

THOUGH. >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT, WELL --

>> WE'VE GOT IT. >> CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS IS OUR SECOND CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WITH NO CONSTRUCTION FOR A DWELLING RENTAL.

THIS DWELLING RENTAL IS PROPOSED AT 1507 FOR A MINIMUM OF TWO NIGHTS.

THE FUTURE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, ZONING DISTRICT OF SINGLE FAMILY INTERMEDIATE

[01:50:07]

>> STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WIH FIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PROVIDED ABOVE.

AND THE BOARD, POSSIBLE ACTIONS, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS, RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES TO THOSE CONDITIONS, OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED

CONDITIONAL USE. >> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD TO MISS HOFFMEISTER. NEED LIKE TO REPEAT MY COMMENT, QUESTION FROM THE LAST ONE.

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A SINGE FAMILY OR ONE NEIGHBORHOOD IS TE SAME AS A R-4 NEIGHBORHOOD OR EVEN AN R-2 NEIGHBORHOOD AND THT THE RECOMMENDATION IS THEREFORE FLAWED BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD

IS OBVIOUSLY NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE INTENDED USE. >> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?

>> MR. CHAIR, I GUESS WE'LL SAVE THAT PORTION FOR THE OTHER SECTION OF THE MEETING, BUT I DO SHARE MISS BAKER'S CONCERNS ON THIS. HOWEVER, SEEING THE HAND WE'VE BEEN DEALT THROUGH THE STATE LEGISLATURE ON THIS MATTER, WE'E HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OVERALL PROCESS IN A VERY NEAR TERM, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST, AGAIN, HERE THT THIS STREET, WHICH I'M ALSO FAMILIAR WITH NEEDS TO BE LIMITD TO NO ON-STREET PARKING, SO I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT IF IT WERE TO MOVE FOR APPROVAL THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE INCLUDED.

>> CAN YOU TELL ME JUST FROM THE APPLICATION HOW MANY BEDROOMS IS THIS RESIDENCE?

>> THREE BEDROOMS. >> THIS IS THREE BEDROOMS. >> A LIMITATION OF TWO VEHICLES?

>> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> FURTHER COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS? >> NOT SEEING ANY, I'LL MOVE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

OPENING THE PUBLIC PORTION OF TE MEETING. >> IF YOU WOULD, STATE YOUR NAME

AND ADDRESS AND SIGN IN, PLEASE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD, RESIDENTS, I'M AN APPLICANT FOR THIS DWELLING. I APPRECIATE THE PLANNING STAFFS ASSISTANCE GETTING THIS HERE TODAY. ME AND MY WIFE HAVE REVIEWED ALL THE CONDITIONS AND ARE MORE OR LESS IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT CONDITIONS. WE HAVE A PROPERTY MANAGER LOCAL. WE'RE VERY RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS. THIS IS NOT MY FIRST PROPERTY THAT I OWN REMOTE. I DO HAVE PROPERTY IN TEXAS. MOST OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS HEE WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING, THE LIMITATION OF THE TWO VEHICLES PER UNIT WERE IN LINE WITH, THERE'S NO QUESTION I THIK AS PART OF MY APPLICATION, I KID OF ALREADY ADDED NO STREET PARKING PER THE RESIDENTS. WE DON'T WANT TO BE THAT PERSON THAT CAUSES A BAD TASTE FOR

EVERYONE. >> WE ENJOY THIS PROPERTY. I COME UP HERE WITH MY FAMILY EVERY WEEKEND. IT BRINGS A PEACE OF MIND TO US. ONCE I CROSS THE BRIDGE, IT'S A DIFFERENT WORLD TO ME. I'M A COMBAT VET, I SUFFER FROM PTSD.

I SHARE EXPERIENCE WITH SOME OTHER FELLOW VETS AND WE DECIDED TO OPEN THIS UP AS WELL AND WE ARE TREATING THIS AS A FAMILY HOME, AND PART OF THE REVENUE FROM THIS WILL HELP US GIVE TO A CHARITABLE CAUSE WHICH IS VACATIONS FOR WARRIORS. I HAD A SIMILAR BRIEF AND ONE OF THE CONCERNED RESIDENTS REACHED OUT TO HIM, I MADE SURE THAT FOT PIERCE IS GOVERNING THIS.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A PARTY HOUSE. THIS IS GOING TO BE A SPOT FOR

PEOPLE TO COME AND ENJOY FORT PIERCE. >> FIRST, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. AND YOU DO UNDERSTAND IN THAT ITEM 4 THAT WE'VE ALREADY, WE'VE ALREADY REQUESTED AN INCLUSION. IT'S EASY FOR SOME PEOPLE TO SA,

[01:55:10]

WELL. >> CORRECT. >> VERY GOOD.

>> OKAY. I WOULD TURN TO THE BOARD. ANY QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT?

AND. >> I HAVE A FEW. >> SIR, YOU STATED THAT YOUR RESIDENCE THAT YOU LIVE AT IN BOYNTON BEACH, 12 COUNTRY LAKE ROAD.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> YOU BROUGHT THIS PROPERTY HEE AT SOME POINT LAST AUGUST, I

BELIEVE. >>USC-JJSC1029

>> SO YOU HAVE HAD HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ON YOUR PROPERTY COUNTRY LAKE ROAD WHICH IS ALSO THE ADDRESS OF YOUR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, WHICH IS YOUR COMPANY.

YOUR NEW MORTGAGE SAYS UNDER CLAUSE 6, BORROWERS SHALL OCCUPY, ESTABLISH AND USE THE PROPERTY AS PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE EXECUTION OF THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT AND SHALL CONTINUE TO OCCUPY THE PROPERTY AS BORROWER'S PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE 4 AT LEAST ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF OCCUPANCY. UNLESS THE LENDER AGREES IN WRITING. HAVE YOU OBTAINED YOUR LENDER'S AGREEMENT IN WRITING FOR YOU TO

USE THIS FOR BUSINESS PROPERTY? >> NOT AT THIS TIME. STILL IN THE PROCESS.

I AM NOT PULLED THE TRIGGER ON ANY LICENSING. >> FROM YOUR ANSWERS YOU HAVE FILED FOR HOMESTEAD ON TWO PROPERTIES AND BEEN IN VIOLATION OF YOUR NEW MORTGAGE.

>> WE HAVE NOT AT THIS TIME. GOING UP THERE. >> YOU HAVEN'T BEEN USING IT AS

A HOMESTEAD? >> WE HAVE A PART TIME. >> YOU WILL HAVE TO TAKE THAT UP WITH HER MORTGAGE COMPANY. AT THIS POINT IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

>> ARE YOU STILL HERE SOMEWHERE? THERE YOU GO.

>> MAY I APPROACH? >> YES. MS. NOT LOOKING OVER, NOT THAT

I DON'T LIKE SEEING THIS. MISS YOU SITTING OVER THERE. >> SIT HERE FOR SECOND.

>> I WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS SOME OF THIS. >> HERE IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, MR. SCHER. I WANT TO BE CAREFUL THAT THE BOARD IS TAKING TO THE FACTORS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE AS SET FORTH IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. CAREFUL THAT AS A BOARD MEMBER TO GIVE LEGAL ADVICE TO APPLICANTS OR TO NECESSARILY QUESTION THEM ABOUT CERTAIN LEGAL STATUSES JUST AS IF WE WERE IN A COURTROOM. A JUDGE WILL NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE TO ANY OF THE LITIGANTS. THAT COME BEFORE THEM. SO IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION AS COUNSEL FOR THIS BOARD TO REFOCUS BACK TO THE ISSUE THAT ARE BEFORE YOU

AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE A RULING FROM OUR ATTORNEY, AS SUGGESTED I FULLY ACCEPT HER SUGGESTION TO REFOCUS.

STAY ON TARGET ABOUT OUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO THIS COMMUNITY.

AND MOVE FORWARD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>> ADVICE OF COURSE IS SPOT ON AS USUAL. HOWEVER, ONE CAVEAT TO THAT IS THAT IF YOU ARE HOMESTEADING, PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USE SOLELY. YOU CAN'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL ADAPTATION OF A PROPERTY THAT IS HOMESTEAD. SUGGESTING THE APPLICANT COULD FIX THESE ISSUES. MIGHT SUGGEST YOU WOULD WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE SOLELY I AM NOT DISPENSING LEGAL ADVICE. PRIMARY PROPERTY THAT IS

[02:00:06]

CONVERTING THE PROPERTY, I SEE PROBLEMATIC AND I CANNOT SUPPORT THAT POSITION AT THIS TIME CLEARLY. IT IS CONTRADICTORY IN MY OPINION SOLELY.

NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD JUST MYSELF. SUGGESTING YOU MAY WANT TO

CLEAN THAT UP AND FIX THAT. IN MY MIND A BIG CONTRADICTION. >> ANYTHING FURTHER?

>> YES. >> VERY GOOD. >> THANK YOU.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING TO THIS PROJECT TODAY? IF YOU WOULD AS THE SPEAKER, PLEASE BE PREPARED TO STEP FORWARD SO WE CAN KEEP THIS MOVING ALONG.

I WILL ALLOW THIS. >> IF A COPY OF THAT DOCUMENT IS GIVEN TO A CLERK?

>> YES. >> IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND SIGN IN

PLEASE. >> I LIVE AT 1503 COURT. I AM THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THIS PROPERTY IN DISCUSSION. I HAVE GIVEN YOU GUYS HANDOUT THAT SHOWS MY PROPERTY MARKED HERE IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS MARKED WITH THE BANK.

FIRST THING IS THE SIZE OF THE STREETS.IF YOU NOTICE, A VERY NARROW STREET.

IT HAS NO SIDEWALKS. COMPARE THAT TO THE DRIVE WHICH YOU WILL SEE AROUND THE EXTERIOR. THAT IS ABOUT DOUBLE THE SIZE. SO WE HAVE A SAFETY ISSUE.

WHICH IS WHY ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS THAT YOU SHOULD NOT PERMIT THIS.

NO SIDEWALKS. WE HAVE A CUL-DE-SAC. WE HAVE A PAST EXPERIENCE IN THIS HOUSE WITH THE RENTERS. THAT EXPERIENCE, IT WAS A DRUG HOUSE.

USED ON THE WEEKENDS BY OUT-OF-TOWN VISITORS. WE HAD A YEAR-ROUND RENTAL BUT HE HAD A ROOMMATE AND THAT ROOMMATE HAD PARTIES EVERY WEEKEND.

WE HAVE ALREADY HAD A HISTORY WITH THAT. THIS IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY YOU HAVE VERY NARROW STREET, IF YOU LOOK ON THE NEXT PAGE, LAWN SERVICE PARKS BLOCKING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOCATED AT 1506 COURT.

THAT I TOOK THIS WEEKEND. ALSO LOOK BACK TO THE FIRST PAGE YOU WILL SEE MY HOUSE HAS 1503 COURT, 40 FEET OF EGRESS. THAT IS FROM THE APPRAISER'S WEBSITE.1502 CORT, 40 FEET OF EGRESS. 1506 COURT, 90.6 FEET. THAT IS THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE PROPERTY. 1507 FAVOR COURT 95 FEET. SO YOU HAVE NO PLACE TO PARK.

ON FAVOR COURT. YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO COME ON THE WEEKENDS MORE THAN TWO CARS, WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS US HAVING NO EGRESS. I GOT TO THE POINT, THE LAST PEOPLE THAT HAD THIS GOING ON THAT I TOLD THEM, MOVE YOUR CAR SO I CAN GET OUT OR I AM CALLING THE POLICE. THIS IS THE PROBLEM. THERE IS NO WAY THAT THEY CAN HAVE RENTALS IN THEIR AND HAVE IT JUST ON A WEEKEND TYPE RENTAL WHERE THERE WILL BE MORE THAN TWO CARS IN A SQUARE FOOT OUT WITH THREE BEDROOMS, A COMPANY'S TWO LIVING ROOMS. SO WE HAVE EASILY 10 ADULTS CAN STAY IN THERE. SO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT IS GOING TO BE SAFE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THAT STREET. WITH LITTLE CHILDREN.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS YOU CAN GIVE PLEASE? I AM SORRY. IF YOU WOULD STEP FORWARD.

[02:05:13]

STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND SIGN IN PLEASE. >> HELLO, I LIVE AT 1502 FAVOR COURT. IN THE NARRATIVE PRESENTED IN STATES TO PROVIDE FREE USE TO VACATIONS TO WARRIORS, NONPROFIT CORPORATION, I TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY LAST NIGHT TO CALL MR. BOB WHO RUNS THAT ORGANIZATION. THE APPLICANTS HAVE CALLED HIM TWO MONTHS AGO AND ASKED IF THEY GOT THIS PROPERTY THAT THEY MAY DONATE ONE WEEK OR TWO WEEKS A YEAR TO HIM AND THAT IS ADMIRABLE. BUT IT SEEMS ON THE NARRATIVE TO ME VETERANS IS ALL I SAW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. HE ADVISED THAT THAT TWO MONTHS THAT HE HAD CALLED TWO MONTHS AGO, THAT HE IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ORGANIZATION IN ANY WAY.UT WOULD LOVE OF COURSE THAT TWO WEEKS DONATION. IT SEEMS IN THE NARRATIVE THAT HE IS AFFILIATED WITH THE SENSATION OR THAT IS THE WAY I READ IT.

WE HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE 1985. WE RAISED TWO GIRLS. THEY PLAYED IN THE CUL-DE-SAC.

THEY RODE THEIR BIKES. WE NOW HAVE GRANDCHILDREN THAT RIDE THEIR BIKES.

THIS IS A TINY CUL-DE-SAC. WE CANNOT EVEN GET OUR LAWN WORKERS, OUR GARBAGEMAN, WE CANNOT GET EVERYBODY IN THERE AT ONE TIME. WE HAVE LIVED IN A SAFE, QUALITY ENVIRONMENT SINCE 1985. WE HAVE HAD TWO INSTANCES. AT THE END OF OUR STREET A FEW YEARS BACK WE AS RESIDENTS NOTICED THERE WERE A LOT OF CARS THERE, MOTORCYCLES LATE AT NIGHT. WE CALLED THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND THERE WAS PROSTITUTION AND DRUGS TAKING PLACE IN THE SOUTH. THEY SHUT IT DOWN.

PRIVATE DUTY PEOPLE, THEY SHUT THIS DOWN. ONE OTHER INSTANCE, WHAT GLENDA MENTIONED. THE SAME HOUSE HAD TWO RENTALS, TWO MEN RENTING.

THE PARTIES ON THE WEEKEND WERE SEVERE. WE ARE IGNORANT BUT THE DRUG USE WAS BAD, THE NOISE WAS BAD IN THE AMOUNT OF CARS RIDICULOUS.

AS SOON THE OWNER FOUND OUT, SHE SHUT THIS COMPLETELY DOWN. WE HAVE A WONDERFUL NEIGHBORHOOD, ESTABLISHED IN THE 50S. IT IS A LOW DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT IS WHY WE BOUGHT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE FROM ANNA WHO BUILT THE HOUSE THAT YOU HAVE A BOT. WE ACTUALLY BOUGHT THAT ON A HANDSHAKE. WE HAVE A TIGHT AND CLOSE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN THE OUTER BANKS OF NORTH CAROLINA WHERE WE ALSO LIVE, IN THE SUMMERTIME, WE HAVE A LOT OF AIR B&BS. A LOT OF PROBLEMS. I KNOW THE STATE HAS MANDATED THIS AND IT PUTS YOU IN A BAD POSITION. BUT WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE WE ARE OPENING A BAG OF WORMS, I LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL SECTION.

I DO NOT WANT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY NEXT TO ME BECAUSE IT DOES THREATEN MY SAFETY.T THREATENS THE SAFETY OF MY GRANDCHILDREN, OF THOSE BEAUTIFUL BOYS THAT LIVE AT THE END OF THE STREET. IT THREATENS THE QUALITY OF MY LIFE, MY WONDERFUL QUIET LIFE ON THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC IN SOME POINT THAT WE HAVE LOVED SINCE 85.

I BEG YOU AS YOU MAKE THIS COMMITTEE BE CAREFUL. THIS IS A BIG BAG OF WORMS FOR OUR BEAUTIFUL TOWN. BE CAREFUL. WE DO NOT WANT THIS BECAUSE WE DO FEEL IT THREATENS OUR SAFETY OF OUR CHILDREN AND OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND WE BEG YOU TO NOT GRANT THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. >> RECOMMEND THAT YOU START WRITING LETTERS TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES AT THE STATE LEVEL. TWO LAWS SITTING NOW IN

[02:10:01]

THAT WOULD PRETTY MUCH TAKE ALL HOMETOWN RULE OUT OF THIS EQUATION COMPLETELY.

SO IN A VERY ÃTHE CITY IN A BETTER POSITION THAN MOST CITIES ALONG THE EAST COAST OF FLORIDA. BECAUSE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO SOMEONE HERE WAS WISE ENOUGH TO WRITE THE ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE WORKING UNDER. AS LOOSE AS THAT ORDINANCE IS IN WRITING HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THAT ORDINANCE WE WILL NOT BE HERE TODAY DISCUSSING THE ISSUE. THE ISSUE IS GOING TO GET MORE DIFFICULT AS TIME GOES BY.

AS WE COMMENTED EARLIER, THIS BOARD AND THE COMMISSION IS PREPARED TO TAKE ACTION THAT

MIGHT HELP, NOT GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM BUT IT MIGHT HELP. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE. >> A SIMPLE EQUATION. THE STATE OF FLORIDA GENERATES IN EXCESS OF 20 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR IN DIRECT REVENUE AND IN DIRECT ON VACATION RENTALS.

FOLLOW THE MONEY. WHERE DO YOU THINK IT GOES? WHY DO YOU THINK WE GET HANDED THIS LAW? GENERATES REVENUE TO THE STATE, EQUAL TO FIVE PERCENT OF THE

STATE'S ANNUAL BUDGET. VERY SIMPLE EQUATION. >> WE ALWAYS DO FOLLOW THAT MONEY. AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN WE FOLLOW THE MONEY WE ALSO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE VOTERS, THOSE THAT PAY TAXES IN THE STATE. THIS WONDERFUL COUNTY.

WE HAVE HAD GOOD PEOPLE LIKE YOU THAT SIT ON BOARDS IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, USED COMMON SENSE TO KEEP OUR TOWN A GREAT PLACE. WE ARE A LITTLE SLEEPY HERE.

THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE, WE WANT THEM TO ENJOY WHAT WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENJOY.

>> I AGREE. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> YES, YOU MAY.

>> FIRST, SIR, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND SIGN IN. I KNOW YOU ARE EXCITED TO

SPEAK. >> I AM ENTHUSIASTIC. >> OKAY.

>> GOOD ANSWER. >> THANK YOU TO MRS. BAKER AND PROTECTING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

>> MY NAME IS CHIP SCHAEFER, THE HUSBAND OF TERRY WHO JUST SPOKE AND I RESIDE 1502 FAVOR

COURT. >> HELLO AND THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

MY NAME IS CHIP, MY WIFE TERRI. OUR HOUSE IS 75 YARDS FROM THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE, END OF OUR DRIVEWAY IS 20 YARDS APART. OUR CUL-DE-SAC CONFIGURATION PUTS US ALL CLOSE TOGETHER.

WE PURCHASED THIS HOUSE 1985 WITH A HANDSHAKE FROM ANNA, WHO WAS LIVING IN THE PRESENT HOUSE. WE HAVE LIVED IN THIS HOUSE FOR 35 YEARS RAISING TWO DAUGHTERS WHO HAVE GIVEN US GRANDCHILDREN. THAT NOW RIDE BIKES IN THE SAME CUL-DE-SAC. IN THE PETITION THAT A POINT WAS MADE THE HOUSE WAS GOING TO PROVIDE FOR USE TO NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION CALLED VACATIONS FOR WARRIORS.

AS A MARINE CORPS COMBAT WOUNDED VETERAN OF THE VIETNAM WAR AND TAKE GREAT INTEREST IN VETERANS. LAST NIGHT WE CALLED BOB, THE FOUNDER OFFICER OF VACATION FOR WARRIORS. HE STATED THAT ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO HE RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE PETITIONER THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO DONATE A WEEK OR TWO TO THIS ORGANIZATION.

THE PETITIONER IN NO WAY AFFILIATED WITH VACATION FOR WARRIORS ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THE PETITION GIVES THE IMPLICATION OF SOMETHING MORE. I BELIEVE THIS IS A DECEPTIVE MOVE BY THE PETITIONER TO USE AN ORGANIZATION TO LEGITIMATIZE OUR SHORT-TERM OPERATION FOR PERSONAL GAIN. I CANNOT COMPREHEND SOMEONE WITH HIS INTENT FOR PROPERTY TO

[02:15:01]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. >> NO QUESTIONS?

>> NO QUESTIONS. ANY PHONE CALLS MADE TO 9-1-1 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR TO COME OUT IN THE PAST SIX OR SEVEN MONTHS OR THE LAST YEARS, IF WE MAKE A DECISION ON THIS,

WE HAVE, SOMETHING OTHER THAN ¦ >> I BELIEVE YOUR WIFE

COMMENTED IT WAS A PARTY HOUSE. >> THESE WERE RENTAL HOUSES. NOT SHORT TERM RENTALS.

>> LONG TERM RENTALS, A FACT OF LIFE FOR ALL OF US. SHORT TERM, LIKE RUSSIAN ROULETTE. NEXT CHAMBER GOOD, THIRD CHAMBER.

>> ANY CALLS FOR SERVICE? >> NOT THAT I KNOW OF. ONCE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS WANDERING AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BROKEN INTO A VEHICLE.

POLICE TOOK CARE OF IT IMMEDIATELY. WE WERE SUSPICIOUS ABOUT THE INCIDENT OF THE RENTAL HOUSE, TWO HOUSES DOWN WHERE WE WERE SEEING SO MUCH COMING AND GOING, SEEMED LIKE REALLY NICE PEOPLE. BUT THE POLICE WERE INTERESTED IN WHAT WE WERE SEEING. IT WAS AN OBSERVATION OPERATION.

ENDED UP IN THE GIRLS CONVICTED OF PROSTITUTION AND DRUGS. >> BEFORE THE CURRENT OWNER?

>> GOING BACK SEVERAL YEARS. >> YOU ASKED ME WHAT INVOLVEMENT.

>> JUST A MINUTE PLEASE. I THINK IN THE REPORT, INDICATES THERE ARE NO POLICE OR CODE ACTIVITIES ON THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> AS PART OF OUR REVIEW, EVERY ITEM GOES BEFORE OUR DEPARTMENT TO FIND OUT WHETHER THERE ARE VIOLATIONS OR POLICE ACTIVITY. UNDER THIS PARTICULAR OWNERSHIP, NOT BEEN ANYTHING.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? >> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME,

ADDRESS AND SIGN IN. >> 1506, DIRECTLY ACROSS THE RESIDENCE IN QUESTION.

I AM A REGISTERED NURSE AND I HAVE TO GO TO WORK SOON. RUSHING THROUGH THIS.

I LIVED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE HOUSE, THE PICTURE THAT GLENDA GAVE TO YOU IS MY HOUSE WITH THE GARBAGE TRUCK BLOCKING MY RESIDENCE. OCCASIONS WHERE I HAVE TRIED TO PULLOUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, MY HUSBAND AND I BACK INTO FOR SAFETY REASONS.

WHEN I HAVE TRIED TO PULLOUT OF MY DRIVEWAY, THE VEHICLE BLOCKS MY VIEW AND I AM UNABLE TO SEE PEOPLE COMING. ALMOST BEEN HIT A NUMBER OF TIMES.

IF YOU ARE HAVING A MINIMUM TWO DAY RENTAL, SOMEBODY NEW DRIVING AND SPEEDING IN THIS NARROW BLOCK. VERY UNSAFE. FOR OUR CHILDREN, ANIMALS.

UNSAFE FOR ALL OF US. AS A SHIFT WORKER YOU DON'T KNOW THE RESIDENCE COMING INTO THAT HOUSE. YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS.

A LITTLE SCARY NOT TO KNOW WHO YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE. THE ONLY OTHER THING, ONLY CERTAIN DAYS WHERE WE HAD THE GARBAGE TRUCK AND LAWN MAINTENANCE, HARD TO GET IN AND OUT AT ALL. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO WAIT. THE GARBAGE TRUCK HAS A VERY HARD TIME. HE HAS TO MAKE A 3-POINT TURN TO TRY TO GET OUT.

[02:20:07]

THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS IS AN ISSUE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? >> MY NAME IS ROSS. I LIVE AT THE HEAD OF THIS CUL-DE-SAC. I HAVE LOADED THERE FOR 25 YEARS, WHEN I FIRST MOVED THERE I MOVED BECAUSE IT WAS A SINGLE RESIDENCE, VERY LOW-KEY, VERY NICE, VERY QUIET NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHEN I FIRST MOVED THERE MY KIDS WERE OF SCHOOL AGE, MY KIDS COULD RIDE THEIR BIKES, WE WERE HAPPY. OUR DOG WAS HAPPY. WE WERE ALL HAPPY.

THE INCIDENCES YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT ABOUT THOSE SHORT TERM RENTALS, I HAD TO KEEP THE KIDS AT HOME. NOW I HAVE GRANDCHILDREN THAT COME THERE.

IT IS A NICE LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD. FORT PIERCE NEEDS NICE NEIGHBORHOODS. I THINK THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE AN ASSET TO FORT PIERCE.IF WE TURN THEMSELVES INTO A RENTAL, NEXT HOUSE INTO A RENTAL, BYE-BYE FORT PIERCE.

I WILL MOVE. I WILL MOVE SOMEWHERE WHERE I DON'T HAVE TO WORRY EVERY DAY WHO WAS DOWN THE STREET FROM ME, WHO IS OVER HERE. I WANT MY GRANDKIDS TO BE ABLE TO RIDE THEIR BIKES. WE LIVE IN AN AREA, I BOUGHT BECAUSE IT WAS SINGLE RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE LOVED BEING THERE AND PLEASE UNDERSTAND I HAVE PAID MY TAXES IN FORT PIERCE FOR MANY YEARS. I PAID MY SALES TAX.

PROPERTY TAX AND I WANT MY HOME TO BE A SAFE PLACE FOR ME. I AM AN OLD MAN AND YOU WANT IT TO BE SAFE FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN. BEAUTIFUL AREA.

LET'S KEEP FORT PIERCE NICE. LET'S NOT LET IT GO DOWN THE TUBES.

PLEASE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE IN FAVOR? >> GOOD EVENING.510 COURT. OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SEE WHERE I LIVE, THE TWO YOUNG BOYS. ME AND MY WIFE LIVED THERE. WORRIED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY.

WE PLAY BASKETBALL, EVERYTHING IN THE CUL-DE-SAC. PEOPLE COME THAT YOU DON'T KNOW, IT'LL MAKE EVERYTHING CRAZY. I BOUGHT THAT HOUSE 10 YEARS AGO HOPING EVERYTHING WOULD BE RIGHT FOR MY KIDS. WHEN I DEPLOY I DON'T WANT TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. I DO NOT DESERVE THAT. YOU KNOW I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST THE APPLICANT, I AM SURE HE IS A GREAT PERSON. I AM STILL ACTIVE DUTY.

WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. NO WAY HE CAN PROMISE HE IS GOING TO HAVE SAFE PEOPLE THERE YOU NEVER KNOW WHO YOUR RENTERS ARE GOING TO BE. UNLESS THEY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS. I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING. I AM SURE HE MEANS WELL.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PROMISE ANYBODY THAT. I WANT THE SAFETY OF MY KIDS.

CARS FLYING IN AND OUT. ON THE LITTLE STREET THAT HE LIVES ON.

I CANNOT IMAGINE HOW BAD IT IS GOING TO BE. IF WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE THERE.

THAT IS IT.HANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

>> AFTER THIS YOUNG LADY, HOW MANY MORE PEOPLE? WE ARE AT THE END OF THE LINE.

[02:25:01]

>> MY NAME IS JULIE. PONE OF THE GRANDMOTHERS OF THE TWO BOYS THAT TERRY WAS TALKING ABOUT.ELATED TO DAVID. GREETINGS TO ALL OF YOU. VOICE AND OPPOSE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE HOUSE 1507 FAVOR COURT. THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE INCONSISTENT AND COMPARABLE WITH THE ORDINANCE. DISCOVERED THE USE FOUR DAYS AGO. WE DO NOT RECEIVE NOTIFICATION BY MAIL OF ANY ZONING CHANGE.

THIS PROPERTY IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD MANY RESIDENTS DID NOT SEE THE NOTICE SIGN AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. MANY RESIDENTS WERE NOT AWARE OR RECEIVED NOTIFICATION BY MAIL. I ASK THAT THE REQUEST BE DENIED SINCE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WERE NOT MET. LOCATED IN A QUIET SMALL CUL-DE-SAC. RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WHY WOULD ANYBODY WANT TO GO WITH NO ACCESS TO WATER, AND VACATION UNLESS IT IS YOUR OWN HOME IN A CUL-DE-SAC WITH ALL OF THE OTHERS. ONLY THREE HOUSES ON THE END OF THIS CUL-DE-SAC.

CHOOSING TO LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DESIGNED FOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING. NOT HOMES FOR PROFIT. CHANGING THE ZONING TO CONDITIONAL USE WILL CHANGE THE ATMOSPHERE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE COMMUNITY AND STREET IS STILL ASSIGNED. THE APPLICANT IS NOT A RESIDENT OF OUR AREA. THIS MAKES HIM HAVE MORE RIGHTS THAN WE DO.

CONCERNS AS TO WHO WILL MANAGE AND OVERSEE THIS PROPERTY. PRODUCE POSSIBLE SAFETY CONCERNS FOR THE CHILDREN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? THE CHILDREN THEY PLAY WITH AND THEIR GRANDCHILDREN? WHO WILL BE VENTING THEM? WE DO NOT KNOW THE BACKGROUND OF THE RENTERS. WILL THIS BE A NUISANCE TO OUR PROPERTY RIGHTS? PRODUCE NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OUR EVERYDAY LIVING, SAFETY AND LIFE? THIS PROPOSED REQUEST IS OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.

I HOPE THAT YOU WILL DENY THE CONDITIONAL USE AND KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOODS SAFE.

LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. AND THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU.

I HOPE THAT YOU PUT YOURSELF IN OUR PLACE. THINK ABOUT IF IT WAS ON YOUR

STREET OR BEHIND YOU. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE DO HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE? HOW MANY MORE NOW? >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> LINDA GODFREY. 64. THE OTHER GRANDMOTHER.

I WANT TO POINT OUT, I HAVE RENTED QUITE A FEW HOMES THROUGH AIR B&B.

THE GENTLEMAN STATED THAT YOU KNOW THIS WOULD NOT BE A PARTY HOUSE.

NOTHING LIKE THAT WOULD HAPPEN, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH AIR B&B, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LIKE. I COULD BE A BIG PARTIER WHEN I

GO TO TO THEIR HOUSES. I WANTED TO STATE THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE? >> LAST PERSON IN THE ROOM. >> DAVID HICKS.

1502 DOME POINT DRIVE. YOU CAN LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CARS 22 RIGHT? CAN YOU LIMIT THE OCCUPANCY? WHAT IS THE LIMITATION? WHAT IS REASONABLE THAT YOU CAN IMPOSE? NO MORE THAN SIX? THERE SHOULD BE SOME LIMIT.

>> TO THE EMOTIVE CRAZINESS. >> ADDING UP QUESTIONS. TRY TO ADDRESS ALL THESE AT ONE TIME. I SEE ONE MORE. I AM GOING TO ALLOW ONE MORE AND THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC MEETING. EVERYBODY THAT MIGHT WANT TO

[02:30:02]

SPEAK HAS PRETTY MUCH THE SAM CONCERNS. >> MY NAME IS JAMES LONG STREET. 614 FAVOR AVENUE. IN THAT LOCATION SINCE EARLY 80S. WE WERE UP OVER ON THE BEACH WHEN NOBODY LIVED OVER THERE.

WOULD NEVER EVEN THINK OF DOING SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

MUCH LESS TO TAKE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE HAVE HAD AND TO BE ABLE TO LET PEOPLE COME IN FOR A WEEKEND AT A TIME, WHEN THEY ARE ON VACATION.

YOU KNOW MAKES NO SENSE IF YOU RELIVING NEXT DOOR, WHEN THESE PEOPLE COME IN, THEY ARE THEY ARE 24/7. HAVE NO IDEA OF OUR LOCAL KIDS, WHAT PEOPLE, LIKE THIS OTHER YOUNG LADY WHO WAS A NURSE COMING AND GOING. WHEN THE PEOPLE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COME AND GO. OPENING UP TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS GOING TO SET A PRESIDENT TO DO IT ON ANOTHER STREET. AND HAVE SOMEONE ELSE COME IN THERE, THEY TALK ABOUT YOU KNOW, THEY WILL NOT DO THIS OR WE WILL NOT PARK IN THE ROAD.

THERE IS NO GUARANTEES ABOUT ANY OF THIS. CANNOT GUARANTEE TO ME AFTER WHAT I AM SEEING HERE TODAY, NOT EVEN A RESIDENT HERE. HE IS A NEWCOMER AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED. YOU NOTE DOESN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON IN OUR AREA.

TO COME IN HERE, NEVER EVEN ASK ANYBODY. I HEARD OF THIS SIGN IN THE YARD TWO DAYS AGO. I HAVE NEVER RECEIVED ANY NOTIFICATION.

WE HAVE SEEN THEM DOWN THERE. I LIVE WHERE I CAN SEE EVERYBODY THAT COMES AND GOES ON THAT CUL-DE-SAC.HESE KIDS PLAYING IN THE ROAD, HAVING A GOOD TIME.

WOULD COME TO AN END WITH PEOPLE COMING AND GOING THAT ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ENDANGERING ANYBODY WHO IS THERE.

COMING AND GOING AT ALL TIMES OF THE DAY AND NIGHT. WHEN WE HAVE KIDS, I HAVE GRANDKIDS COMING TO PLAY. MY KIDS GREW UP ON THE STREET PLAYING.

HAVING KIDS OVER, WE USED TO PUT THE CONE IN THE ROAD AND PLAY BALL.

DO WHATEVER. EVERYBODY KNEW, THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO KNOW AND DO NOT KNOW ANYBODY. I HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 30 YEARS.

I NEVER EVEN MET THIS GUY. THEY COME ON THE WEEKENDS. I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT IS A GOOD IDEA. YOU KNOW? I MEAN THAT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I DON'T THINK IT IS A GOOD THING TO START THIS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE UPSCALE NEIGHBORHOODS AND SOONER OR LATER THE SAME RESIDENCE WILL BE A REHAB CENTER. IT WILL BE USED AS SOME OTHER TYPE OF THING. I BELIEVE THIS IS A DECEITFUL WAY TO GET IN AND RUIN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS BY BRINGING IN WHATEVER THEY CAN. THEY ARE BRINGING IN WHOEVER.

WHOEVER CAN GET IN THIS PLACE. >> THANK YOU. >> GOING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY FOR REBUTTAL. BEFORE I DO, MANY OF YOUR COMMENTS AND CONCERNS, EXPRESSION OF CONCERNS HAS BEEN EXPRESSED FROM THIS BOARD. OVER THE PAST FOUR OR FIVE YEARS THAT I HAVE SAT ON THIS BOARD AND LISTENED TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPLICATIONS COME BEFORE US. WE HAVE TO WORK, AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS BOARD HAS TO WORK WITHIN THE ORDINANCES AS THEY ARE DRAFTED IN THE CITY. AND STATE LAWS AND FEDERAL LAWS. A LOT OF THINGS THAT COME INTO PLAY.

[02:35:01]

ANYTHING THAT HE HAS HEARD HERE TODAY. >> I DON'T THINK IT IS

NECESSARY. >> SO I GET THE ANGST OF THIS BEING DONE.

UNDERSTAND IT IS A SMALL AREA. EVEN WHEN ME AND MY FAMILY GO UP THERE, I GET IT.

THE CITY IS TAKING THOSE MEASURES AND I THOUGHT, REDUCING THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES DOWN TO TWO. THREE BEDROOM, NOT PUSHING THE POINT.

TRYING TO REDUCE THAT. REDUCTION OF PEOPLE. SAFETY TO CHILDREN, I AM THERE AS AN OWNER. I THINK WITH THE CONDITIONS OF WHAT IS PUT HERE, MORE TO WHAT I CAN DO. I UNDERSTAND WHY, THERE IS A SAFETY TO THE FELLOW RESIDENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS ARE MITIGATED AND THINGS ARE CONTROLLED.

SAFETY TO GOES IN THERE, WITH AIR B&B HAS HISTORY, THEY ALREADY HAVE A PROCESS.

TO KICK PEOPLE OUT, THEY DO BACKGROUND CHECKS. OUT OF CURIOSITY I WENT ON THE OTHER DAY AND HE LOOKED AT A BACKGROUND CHECK OF OFFENDERS IN THE AREA.

I WAS ASTONISHED AT WHAT I SAW. THERE IS THINGS IN PLACE THAT ME AND MY WIFE DISCUSSED.

WE GET IT. WE WANT TO DO THINGS RIGHT. WE ARE DOING ADDED MEASURES.

ADDITIONAL CAMERAS SO WE CAN MONITOR FROM AFAR. LOCAL PROPERTY MANAGER.

MONITORED SYSTEMS FOR ANY OTHER SAFETY. TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX BECAUSE WE GET THAT THE RESIDENTS ARE BIG ON SAFETY AND WHO IS COMING IN TO THE PROPERTY. REGARDS TO THE ORGANIZATION, WANT TO MAKE SURE, NEVER STATED I AM ASSOCIATED WITH THE VETERANS FOR WARRIORS. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> SEVERAL QUESTIONS I DID NOT WRITE THEM ALL DOWN.

I THINK WE ARE BOTH ON THE SAME THOUGHT PROCESS. WOULD YOU PLEASE ANSWER FOR A COUPLE QUESTIONS? A QUESTION CONCERNING HOW RESIDENTS ARE NOTIFIED.

WE HAVE HAD THIS CONVERSATION SINCE I STARTED. THE NOTICE OF A 500 FOOT RADIUS MAP WHICH LETTERS WILL GO TO THE OWNERS WITHIN THAT, ALL RESIDENTS WILL BE GETTING NOTICES. YOU KNOW, I WANT TO SAY I UNDERSTAND EVERYONE'S FEELING WITH THIS MATTER. IT IS A DIFFICULT ONE BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT IS IN A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A MORE, ALLOWS CONSIDERATION OF DWELLING RENTALS AS A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

YOU KNOW, WE ARE TRYING TO PUT CONDITIONS, OR WE HAVE BEEN. TO TRY AND MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL PROBLEM, I LISTENED TO WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE CELLS OVER THE YEARS AND IT IS UNFORTUNATE. I DON'T THINK IT STARTED OUT THAT WAY WITH THE ORIGINAL OWNER. BUT IT WENT INTO A LONG TERM RENTAL AND THERE WAS A LOT OF HAPPENINGS AT THAT HOUSE. THAT WERE NOT CONDUCIVE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY.

[02:40:08]

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO REGULATE FROM THE DEPARTMENT.

HOWEVER, WITH THIS PROCESS, ABLE TO SET UP STANDARDS THAT WE ARE HOPING WOULD MAKE THAT FEEL OF THAT HOME, LOOK AND FEEL THE SAME AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

THIS IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. ONLY TWO DISTRICTS IN THE CITY THAT PROHIBIT DWELLING RENTALS.

THIS IS A USE THAT IS PERMITTED RIGHT NOW AS CONDITIONAL USE. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY.

>> THANK YOU BEFORE I COME BACK TO THE BOARD, COME OUT AGAIN. CLARIFY.

>> YES, SIR. >> FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION WILL HOLD THE HEARING. AT WHICH POINT EVIDENCE MUST BE PRESENTED.

AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL, IF THEY WERE TO ISSUE A DENIAL, HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE. WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO POINT TO SPECIFIC EVIDENCE AS TO WHY A DENIAL IS ENTERED. ONE LEVEL BELOW THAT AS AN ADVISORY BOARD, HOWEVER IN MAKING YOUR DECISION AS COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU ALSO ARTICULATE SPECIFIC REASONS IN SUPPORT OF THE DENIAL. THOSE ARE NOT REASONS SUPPORTED BY SPECULATION, REASONS SUPPORTED BY INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED.

YOU ARE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO QUESTION THE APPLICANT AS TO ANYTHING THAT YOU SEE IN THE APPLICATION. I CAUTION YOU AGAIN, WHETHER OR NOT APPLICANT MIGHT BE IN COMPLIANCE, CAUTION YOU INTO SAYING AN OPINION ON THAT. CERTAINLY MORE THAN CAPABLE OF QUESTIONING THE APPLICANT IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID THIS AFTERNOON BY ANY OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO SPOKE. BUT AGAIN, YOUR ROLE IS TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE CODE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED AND TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE COMMISSION. TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU CAN DEVELOP THAT RECORD FOR THEM.

THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE HERE FOR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THIS IS TO EITHER OF YOU.

CAN THIS BOARD DETERMINE THAT A USE MIGHT DEVALUE THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE AREA IF THIS USE

WAS TO BE ALLOWED. >> THAT COULD BE SOMETHING, I WILL GIVE HER A CHANCE TO ANSWER. IN A SECOND. I WOULD SAY THAT IS SOMETHING YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT IT IS NOT A SPECIFIC FACTOR

FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. IT IS POSSIBLE YOU COULD. >> ANY STUDIES ON WHEN THESE

[02:45:09]

VERSUS EVEN THOUGH RENTAL PROPERTIES ARE ALLOWED, DIFFERENT TYPES OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. ON A SHORT TERM BASIS VERSUS LONG-TERM.

WHETHER OR NOT THESE TYPES OF PROPERTIES WHEN THEY ARE ALLOWED IN A COMMUNITY DEVALUE SURROUNDING AREAS. DEVALUE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

THAT TO BE, THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. THE WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THIS GOES IN, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY BECAUSE THE USE, DEVALUES THE AREA. IN DEVALUE THE PROPERTY VALUES OF THE AREA.

YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY ARE THE SALES OR THE ASSESSED VALUE. I SAY THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, I KNOW THERE HAVE BEEN PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BECAUSE, OWNERS HAVE GONE IN AND SAID BECAUSE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE ACTIONS. USING OUR PROPERTIES BASICALLY A SHOPPING CENTER THAT CAME IN TO ASK FOR A REDUCTION IN THE EVALUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE TRANSIT ACTIONS OF PEOPLE THAT CAUSED IN HIS MIND, THE PROPERTY ISN'T WORTH AS MUCH. TRYING TO PROTECT SOME OF THE FOLKS, AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I LOOK AT IT AS PROTECTING THE PROPERTY VALUES. WHETHER OR NOT THIS TYPE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CHANGES THE INTENT OF THE ZONING WHICH MS. BAKER WAS TRYING TO TALK ABOUT.

>> ASKING IF THERE WAS A STUDY DONE. >> I DO UNDERSTAND.

>> LEGACY BEFORE WITH THE OTHER GENTLEMEN. TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING TO PUT TEETH IN. GIVEN HER EVIDENCE FROM THE PUBLIC OR FROM WHAT YOU COULD DEDUCE FROM UNDERSTANDING THE PROPERTY VALUES COULD BE DECREASED BECAUSE OF THIS

PROPERTY. BECOMING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. >> WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT STUDY.

WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE DONE THAT ARE SUCCESSFUL OR MORE SUCCESSFUL, BEING ABLE TO ZONE THESE AREAS, PRIOR TO 2011. THEY CREATED AREAS WHERE THIS WAS PERMITTED. FOR THOSE CITIES THAT DO NOT HAVE THAT THOUGHT, WE HAVE SOME. SOME BECAUSE WE PASSED THIS ORDER AND SPIRIT ACTUALLY BECAUSE WE ALLOW RESIDENTIAL TO FUNCTION AS A COMMERCIAL USE, FOR ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF USE IF APPROVED AS A CONDITIONAL USE. GIVEN IT MORE USE POTENTIAL THAN A TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD HOLD THAT ARGUMENT. IF WE WERE TO REMOVE IT. SOMETHING THAT WE ARE REDUCING? BECAUSE WE IMPOSE, ALLOWED THIS TYPE OF ABUSE TO BE GRANTED AS A CONDITIONAL USE 2001.

SO I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER. >> THAT IS THE PROBLEM. >> I UNDERSTAND THE PASSION OF THE PEOPLE IN THESE AREAS. I DO. ALL I CAN DO IS WHAT THE CODE IS TELLING ME TO DO. YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID IF WE TAKE THIS, REALLY WHERE WE GET INTO THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION. WHEN IT IS AFFECTING OUR SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.

MORE MULTI FAMILY, CONDOMINIUMS. SEEMS MORE IN LINE WITH THAT.

THE WAY WE TREAT THESE UNITS RIGHT NOW, THAT WE DO TREAT THEM AS A CONDITIONAL USE THE SAME. GOING TO HAVE TO BE ON WHETHER THERE IS CODE OR POLICE OR ANYTHING THAT YOU COULD SAY OKAY, BASED ON THESE INCIDENCES, WE ARE RECOMMENDING

DENIAL. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT. >> THE PROBLEM AS I UNDERSTND IT. POTENTIALLY EXISTS. THAT IF WE ATTEMPTED TO CHANGE OUR TABLES, NOW, AFTER 2011. THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH OUR 2001 ORDINANCE IN PLACE.

[02:50:13]

CHANGING THE TABLES I BELIEVE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THROUGH WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS BEEN THIS ADMINISTRATION OF OUR CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. THAT IF HE WENT IN AND STARTED TO CHANGE THOSE TABLES REGARDING SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THAT IT WOULD INTERRUPT THE ABILITY TO UTILIZE 2001 CITY OF

FORT PIERCE ORDINANCE. >> OKAY. I THINK WE HAVE BEAT THIS HORSE TO DEATH. ANYTHING FURTHER THAT THIS BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE

COMMENTS ON? >> HOLDING MY COMMENTARY, BACK TO THE BOARD.

>> YOU CAN'T HAVE MULTIPLE LICENSED USES. FOR THAT SPECIFIC CLASSIFICATION. LET ME ELABORATE.

>>>WHICH MEANS IT'S A PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USE. THOSE TWO ITEMS IN MY OPINION ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT OF ONE ANOTHER. YOU CAN'T HAVE A PROPERTY THAT IS HOMESTEADED AS A PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE HOMESTEAD COMPENSATORY DAMAGES EXEMPTION IS DESIGNED FOR BUT STILL RENT IT OUT AS A COMMERCIAL RENTAL.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IS WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE INTOORD GOING TO AGREE WITH BUT I SEE A DIRECT CON FRICTION AND CAUSE OF ACTION TO DENY THE OOPLY CASE DUE TO TWO USES.

I CAN'T GET AROUND THAT. YOU HOMESTEAD THE PROPERTY AS YOUR PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USE AND TAKE THE DISCOUNT AFFORDED BY THE COUNTY. YET STILL LOOK TO GENERATE INCOME OFF RUNNING IT AS A COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE UNDER A DDPR LICENSE.

THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING UP SHORT ON THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE RESIDENTS. I'VE MADE THE ARGUMENTS AD NAUSEAM FOR YEARS.

BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE I SEE A DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO.

THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING DOWN ON THIS. >>>YOU LIKE TO COMMENT ON

THAT? >> MR. BRODRICK YOU'RE ENTITLED TO MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON YOUR VIEW OF THE FACTS AND BASED ON YOUR VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND BASED ON YOUR COMMON SENSE. I JUST WOULD URGE THE THE BOARD TO CONNECT EVERYTHING BACK TO HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO DECIDE OR WE WANT TO FOCUS ON WHEN IT COMES TO A CONDITIONAL USE. BUT I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE MAKING AND YOU'RE CERTAINLY ENTITLED TO LIST THAT AS A FACTOR.

AGAIN, WE'RE AT THE LEVEL OF ADVISORY BOARD HERE BUT IF WE WERE BEFORE THE COMMISSION I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE WANTING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT GOES TO THOSE FACTORS; HEALTH,

SAFETY, WELFARE. >>>OKAY. VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>>>I HAVE A QUESTION. I'M KIND OF CONFLICTED HERE. IT GOES BACK TO MR. BRODRICK AND

[02:55:03]

VALID APPLICATION OR DOES THAT NULLIFY THE APPLICATION? >>>I VIEW IT AS TWO SEPARATE ISSUES. THE APPLICATION HAS FILED A REQUEST FOR A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION. IT IS INCUMBENT ON THEM TO GIVE ACCURATE INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THAT REQUEST. AS MR. BRODRICK NOTED CERTAINLY THE FACT THAT SUCH AN APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED OR MAY HAVE BEEN FILED IN MORE THAN ONE LOCATION FOR MORE THAN ONE PROPERTY, HE HAS FOUND CERTAINLY HAS FOUND ISSUE WITH THAT. AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING YOU MAYBE COULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION BUT THAT'S NOT IT'S NOT -- IT'S NOT THE CENTRAL FOCUS OF TODAY'S HEARING. IT'S A COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROCEEDING AND A COMPLETELY SEPARATE APPLICATION PROCESS. WHATEVER IS HAPPENING ON THAT END WOULD NOT NECESSARILY NULLIFY OR MAKE NULL AND VOID THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.

BUT TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE DISCREPANCY YOU ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT'S PERHAPS SOMETHING YOU CAN CONSIDER. I WOULD ALSO, AGAIN, ADVISE THE BOARD TO ALSO BRING YOUR COMMENTS BACK TO YOUR CONCERNS REGARDING HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE.

>>>THE ACTION CONCERNING HOMESTEAD IS BETWEEN AN APPLICANT AND THE COUNTY NOT THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY. THERE IN LIES THE LEGAL ISSUE THAT INTERRUPTS THE ABILITY FOR

US TO USE THAT AS PART OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. >> MR. CHAIR, IT IS A SEPARATE APPLICATION PROCESS. SO WHATEVER HAPPENED WITH THAT APPLICATION PROCESS DOES NOT

NULLIFY THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY. >> OKAY.

>> JUST LIKE YOU MAY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, FOR EXAMPLE, THE FACT THAT SOMEONE HAD VIOLATED SOME ASPECT OF THE CODE AT THAT PROPERTY. LET'S SAY THIS IS NOT THE CASE HERE, BUT LET'S SAY AN APPLICANT HAD HAD SIMILAR CODE VIOLATIONS OR CONCERNS.

THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCEEDING BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE YOU COULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.

IN THIS CASE, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANYTHING, WE DON'T HAVE AN ADJUDICATION ON THAT ISSUE.

WE HAVE SOME EVIDENCE THERE MAYBE INCONSISTENT INFORMATION PRESENTED IN A SEPARATE APPLICATION PROCESS. SO THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER BUT I WOULD NOT MAKE THAT THE SOLE FACTOR. I WOULD, AGAIN, BRING IT BACK TO

THE SPRAL DECIDING FACTORS. >> OKAY. I THINK WE'VE VENTED THIS

PROJECT FULLY ENOUGH. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >>>MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS NOT COMPLETELY THAT IS NOT ACCURATELY DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED USE.

THAT PROPOSED USE WOULD BE VERY INAPPROPRIATE IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS IN A DEAD END CUL-DE-SAC AREA. IT WOULD CAUSE GREAT DETRIMENT TO THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, COMFORT, GOOD ORDER, APPEARANCE, CONVENIENCE AND GENERALLY WELFARE.

IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC VIOLATION FOUND IN TERMS OF THE CODE ORDNANCES ON THE BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY, THE FACT THAT THE OWNER ILLEGALLY APPLIED FOR HOMESTEAD

[03:00:09]

>>>MS. HURLEY. >>>MR. CHAIR, A MOTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED.

IT'S, I BELIEVE THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO SEE IF THERE IS A SECOND.

>> IT FITS THE DESCRIPTION OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. FOR THIS BOARD.

>> FOR, WELL, I WON'T PREJUDGE ANYTHING. I WILL JUST SAY THAT THERE IS TL HAS BEEN AN ARTICULATION AS TO WHY A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL HAS BEEN ENTERED.

>> SATISFIES ME. >>>SECOND THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS BAKER. SECONDED BY MR. BURGE. CALL THE ROLE.

(ROLE CALL) >>>THIS MOTION WAS A MOTION TO FORWARD THIS APPLICATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL COMMISSIONERS WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL. IT WAS RATIFIED BY THE BOARD AND PASSED. I'LL ASK YOU NOT TO APPLAUD. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SIT AGAIN THROUGH THE BALANCE OF THE MEETING AND SEE WHAT IT IS THAT WE'RE WORKING ONTO TRY TO HELP

PROTECT FUTURE AREAS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO. >>>MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> YES. >> I'M WONDERING IF COUNCIL COULD SORT OF LET THE AUDIENCE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NOW IN THIS PROCEEDING BECAUSE OF THIS DENIAL.

BECAUSE THIS ISN'T OVER BY ANY MEANS BUT I WANT HER TO SORT OF LET THE STEPS BE TOLD.

>> SO MR. CHAIR, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE THAT THIS WILL GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION AND AT THAT TIME THEY WILL CONDUCT A FORMAL JUDICIAL HEARING. WITNESSES WILL HAVE TO BE SWORN.

THE COMMISSION WILL RECEIVE EVIDENCE AND AT THAT TIME THE COMMISSION WILL MAKE ITS DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THE APPLICATION OR TO DENY THE APPLICATION.

AGAIN, AS I STATED, THAT DECISION WILL HAVE TO BE BASED ON COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL

EVIDENCE. >>>WHAT WILL THE VOTE HAVE TO BE AT THE CITY COMMISSION LEVEL

BECAUSE WE'VE ASKED FOR DENIAL? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE SUPERMAJORITY, I BELIEVE THE SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT WAS PREVIOUSLY REMOVED BY ORDNANCE SO IT WILL BE A STANDARD VOTE

MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION. >> I WANTED THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S NEXT VLT

THEY'LL BE HERE. WE'LL BE SOMEWHERE ELSE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>>>YES, SIR. >>>I DO RECOMMEND ON CONTROVERSIAL CASES LIKE THIS TURNED INTO CONTROVERSIAL CASES LIKE THIS, THAT YOU ATTEND THE COUNTY OR THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING AND BE ORGANIZED. BE ORGANIZED IN YOUR THOUGHTS, WORK TOGETHER AS A TEAM AND GO IN AND PRESENT A CASE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU CHOOSE TO DO. NOT THAT YOU AREN'T TOTALLY DISORGANIZED TODAY BUT THE COMMISSION DOES NOT WANT TO SIT THERE FOR AN HOUR AND LISTEN TO 30 PEOPLE COME UP AND TELL THEM THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

SO SELECT YOUR SPOKESPERSONS, ORGANIZE YOURSELF AND GO TO THE COMMISSION MEETING ORGANIZED.

I OFFER THAT SUGGESTION, AS WELL, TO THE APPLICANT. >> THEY'LL ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES. THE PUBLIC WILL ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE MUCH LONGER. >>>IF I MAY, CHAIRMAN, JUST REITERATING THAT THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC NOTICE MAILED TO EVERYBODY WITHIN FIVE HUNDRED FEET SO THEY WILL KNOW OF THE DATE AND TIME OF THE UPCOMING CITY COMMISSION MEETING.

>>>YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED BY MAIL. ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

THANK YOU. >>>OKAY. MOVING ON.

MY GOODNESS. MOVING ON. ITEM G.

[g. Annexation - 2564 S. Kings Highway]

WE'LL HAVE ORDER IN HERE, PLEASE. IT'S ON THE VERBAL RECORD

[03:05:24]

ISN'T IT? >> YEAH. I JUST DIDN'T HAVE IT.

>> WE'LL GET IT. OKAY. YOU'RE ON.

>>>ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD.

WE HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION FOR A PROPERTY AT 2564 SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.

CAR FUTURE LAND USE IS COUNTY MIXED USE. ONE AN EXED FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IT WILL BE GIVEN FUTURE LAND USE OF MIXED USE. CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY TWO DWELLING UNITS IN ACRE. RS2. ONE AN EXED IT WILL BE GIVEN OUR COMPATIBLE DISTRICT E2. I ALSO LIKE TO NOTE UPON SUCCESSFUL ANNEXATION THE APPLICANTS WILL COME FORWARD WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND DEVELOPING USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. AS PROPOSED THE ANNEXATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE CITIES PLAN 1.11 REGARDING ANNEXATION POSSIBLE ACTIONS ARE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS

YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. >>>QUESTIONS MR. CRAIGEN.

BY THE BOARD. NOT SEEING ANY I'LL GO TO PUBLIC.

>>>GOOD AFTERNOON BOARD MEMBERS, MR. CHAIRMAN. FOR THE RECORD BRAD CURRY WITH EDC REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT IN THIS REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION. AS STATED WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGE AFTER THIS GETS AN EXED WITH A DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATION. WE ARE PROPOSING AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE DEVELOPMENT WITH SOME STORAGE. SO IT'LL BE A GOOD ADDITION TO THE CITY TO BRING JOBS TO THE CITY. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT. MY CLIENT IS IN THE AUDIENCE, AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR EITHER OF US.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD USE ALONG THAT CORRIDOR.

>> WE DO, TOO. >> I WAS SITTING HERE LOOKING AT THAT, STUDYING THAT YESTERDAY. I SAID I WONDER WHAT THEY ARE KING RUN IS HERE.

BUT VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS TO APPLICANT? >>>JUST ONE COMMENT.

I BET YOU HE WISHES HE WAS ONE AGENDA ITEM BEFORE THE LAST ONE. >> I BET HE DOES.

>>>I DON'T HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT. WHO DO I TALK TO ABOUT THIS

AGENDA ORDER. >> THAT I CAN'T ANSWER FOR YOU.

>>>OKAY. ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE MEETH. COME BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>>>MR. CHAIR I MOVE TO APPROVE ANNEXATION 2564 SOUTH KINGS HIGHWAY.

>> SECOND. >>>WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRODRICK AND SECOND BY MS. BAKER. CALL THE ROLE. (CALL ROLE)

[h. Disposal of Surplus Property - Lots 4 and 17 of FEE and MAY's RE-S/D BLK K on Avenue E]

>>>ALL RIGHT. I WILL APOLOGIZE TO MISWELLS. SHE'S BEEN SITTING HERE PATIENTLY AS A CITY EMPLOYEE TO SPEAK WITH US. THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING AND

THANK YOU FOR BEING SO PATIENT. >>>NO PROBLEM. >>>I DIDN'T THINK I WOULD SEE YOU THIS WEEK. WE HAD TWO MEETINGS CANCELED WE WERE BOTH GOING TO BE IN

ATTENDANCE AT THAT OTHER MEETINGS. >> WHAT'S GOING ON HERE?

>> WE'RE GOOD. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS. I STARTED THIS POSITION IN

JANUARY AND THIS WAS ONE OF MY FIRST PROJECTS. >> OKAY.

>>>WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS WE ARE BRINGING THIS BEFORE YOU TODAY TO ASK FOR YOU TO APPROVE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SURPLUS PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY IS BASICALLY, A PARKING LOT THAT IS ADJACENT TO A PRESCHOOL. DREAM CHASERS.

I HIGHLIGHTED THIS MAP JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE YELLOW BLOCK IS THE PRESCHOOL. THE PARKING LOT IS ADJACENT TO IT.

IN 2018, THIS IS ALSO THE FACILITY, WHEN THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WAS PUT OUT FOR THIS

[03:10:05]

>> SURPRISE. >> SHE HAS DONE AN AMAZING JOB WITH UPGRADING AND MAKING RENOVATIONS. THE ABSENCE OF THIS PARKING LOT IS A PART OF KIND OF WHAT'S HELD HER UP. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY ASKING YOUR APPROVAL.

SHE MADE A BID OF A DOLLAR AND WE ACCEPT IT BUT THAT'S UP TO YOU TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION OF WHETHER WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROPERTY OR NOT AND DECLARING IT SURPLUS AND GIVING IT TO THE OWNER OR SELLING IT TO THE OWNER. THERE YOU ARE.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS? >> SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> I WANT TO KNOW, DOES THE CITY OWN IT OR DOES CRA OWN IT? >> THE CITY OWNS IT.

>> THE CITY OWNS IT. IF IT WERE CRA WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.

THANK YOU. >>>IF I RECOLLECT WASN'T DREAM CHASER IN FRONT OF THE

BOARD FOR EXPANSION NOT TOO LONG AGO? >> AND JUST SO THERE'S SOME CLARIFICATION ALSO. WHEN WE PUT THIS OUT TO BID AND THERE WERE TWO PARCELS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. WE ONLY ADVERTISED ONE. DREAM CHASER DID PAY FOR THAT.

IT WAS ABOUT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. >> I RECOLLECT THAT AND IT WAS PART OF THEIR EXPANSION PLAN. THIS LAND WAS INCORPORATED IN THAT. IT APPEARS THIS FIXES A BUNCH OF ISSUES.

>> YES. >>>IT WAS TWO DIFFERENT PARCEL IDS BUT WE THOUGHT IT WAS

ONLY UNDER ONE. THIS WILL CLEAN THAT UP. >> GREAT.

>>>AND HOPEFULLY HELP HER TO MOVE IN SOON. >>>THERE'S STILL NOT A USE

THERE? THEY ARE NOT UP AND RUNNING? >> IT'S NOT IN USE YET.

THEY ARE DOING RENOVATIONS BUT AS FAR AS MOVING IN AND USING THE BUILDING AS A PRESCHOOL THAT

HAS NOT OCCURRED YET. >>>THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE SLEEPER BUSINESSES IN OUR

COMMUNITY THAT MORE PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT. >>>YES, SIR.

>>>IT REALLY IS. THIS IS, ACTUALLY, WE'VE GOT TWO DAY CARE FACILITIES IN FORT PIERCE THAT JUST KNOCKED THE BALL OUT OF THE PARK. THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

I MEAN THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING NEAR FORT PIERCE FOR SOME TIME IN MULTIPLE BUILDINGS.

THEY ARE TRYING TO PULL IT ALL TOGETHER. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?

>>>LET ME ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THIS. ON THE BACK OF THE ORDNANCE OR THE RESOLUTION, THERE WERE OTHER PROPERTIES THE CITY MADE SURPLUS.

ARE WE GOING TO RECEIVE THOSE? FOR OUR OPINION. >> IF THEY ARE WITHIN THE

CITIES JURISDICTION, YES, IT WILL COME BEFORE THE BOARD. >> OKAY.

THERE'S THREE OTHER ONES. >> RIGHT. THE REASON WHY THAT IS IS BECAUSE WE DECIDED TO BUNDLE THE PROPERTIES SO THAT WE CAN GO ON THAT ONE RESOLUTION SO THAT WE CAN GET THIS MOVING AHEAD! I UNDERSTAND THAT PART. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE DOING THIS ONE PROPERTY. BUT THE OTHER THREE WILL BE COMING BEFORE US ALSO?

>> YES, SIR. THAT'S ORDNANCE. SO THEY WILL BE BEFORE THE

BOARD. >> THIS MOTION IS -- >> I APPRECIATE IT.

YOU BROUGHT THAT TO OUR ATTENTION! THIS MOTION IS MORE

HOUSEKEEPING. >> YES, SIR. >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. CLEANING UP SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE DIDN'T LOOK INTO FAR ENOUGH

INITIALLY. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> WE'RE FIXING IT.

ANY OTHER COMMENT ORS QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN -- THERE'S NO PUBLIC.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >>>MOTION TO APPROVE. >>>SECOND.

>>>MOTION BY MR. BRODRICK TO APPROVE. SECOND BY MR. LEE.

CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. (ROLL CALL) >>>COMMENTS TO THE PUBLIC.

THERE ARE NO PUBLIC. DIRECTORS REPORT. >>>LIKE I SAID, DISAPPOINTED

[9. DIRECTOR'S REPORT]

HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE SOME ESTABLISHMENT OF A WORKING COMMITTEE THAT WOULD INVOLVE

[03:15:04]

BEST HANDLE DWELLING RENTALS IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. >>>MS. MOREWELLS THANK YOU

FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. >> HAVE A GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> YOU, TOO. >> EVENING. >>>LET'S GO HOME.

[10. BOARD COMMENTS]

>>>DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING. >>>BRIEFLY.

WE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE A BRIEF PRESENTATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION OUTLINING WHAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE THE BEST PARTICIPANTS IN THIS TASK FORCE FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION AT THIS TIME. WE'RE LOOKING TO KEEP THIS AS A TIMED DURATION.

THIS ISN'T A SITTING BOARD THAT'S GOING TO BE HANGING AROUND FOREVER, I DON'T BELIEVE.

BUT I THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR ASSIGNMENT, THIS CREW IS GOING TO HAVE THEIR WORK CUT OUT FOR THEM. WE CAN SEE FROM TONIGHTS DISCUSSIONS AS TO THE REASON WHY AND I KEEP COMING BACK TO ONE PIECE OF INFORMATION I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU.

IT'S BRIEF MR. CHAIRMAN. THE STATE, THE DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS DEFINES A VACATION RENTAL ARE A TYPE OF TRANSIENT PUBLIC LODGING ESTABLISHMENT RENTED TO GUESTS MORE THAN THREE TIMES IN A CALENDAR YEAR FOR PERIODS LESS THAN THIRTY DAYS OR ONE CALENDAR MONTH, WHICHEVER IS LESS OR WHICH IS ADVERTISED TO THE PUBLIC AS A PLACE REGULARLY RENTED TO GUESTS. THAT'S THE SQUARE PEG WE'RE TRYING TO STICK IN THE TRIANGULAR HOLE AS MS. BAKER WAS POINTING OUT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

I THINK THIS WORKING GROUP IS GOING TO BE CHALLENGED TO COME UP WITH SOME PROCEDURES THAT ARE GOING TO ASSIST IN THIS PROCESS. WE HAVE HAD THE TOUNT REVIEW APPLICATIONS FROM CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE, FROM THE FLORIDA KEY, FROM THE WEST COAST OF FLORIDA, FROM A HAVE A VARIETY OF JURISDICTIONS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY THAT ARE ENLIGHTING TO READ.

WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO MAKING THIS PRESENTATION AND GETTING THE CITY COMMISSIONS DIRECTION AS TO WHERE THEY WANT GO WITH & THIS AND HOPEFULLY DO THAT SOON. LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

>>>I HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE. I READ THE, YOUR PROPOSED PRESENTATION FROM THE CANCELED MEETING. ONE OF THE ITEMS, ONE OF THE POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS WAS TO REMOVE CONDITIONAL USE. THAT WOULD, IN EFFECT, NEGATE OUR GRANDFATHERING.

>> MS. BAKER I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS PROCESS MAY NOT BE WORKING ALL THAT WELL. SOME OTHER CITIES HAVE CREATED PROGRAMS SIMILAR TO, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THAT PROGRAM MAYBE LIKE. MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE GETTING HANDLE THROUGH THE CITY CLERKS OFFICE THROUGH GETTING A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT, GETTING A VACATION RENTAL BASED ON THE CRITERIA THIS WORKING GROUP OR TASK FORCE COMES UP WITH.

THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING WE ALL CAN AGREE TO. >> AS LONG AS YOU DON'T

THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER. >> THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE THING WE ARE THINKING ABOUT. RIGHT NOW IT'S ABOUT A FOUR-MONTH PROCESS AND AS YOU HAVE ALSO MENTIONED, EACH ONE IS TREATED THE SAME BECAUSE THAT'S HOW OUR CONDITIONAL USE WORKS

AND OUR CODE. MAYBE THAT ISN'T WORK. >>>THE POINT ON THAT, AS WELL. YOU RAISE A VERY VALID POINT. I THINK THAT THE PARTICIPANTS THAT ARE BEING SUGGESTED FOR THIS WORKING GROUP ALL HAVE A PIECE OF THIS PROCESS.

THAT'S THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY CLERKS OFFICE, CODE ENFORCEMENT, ET CETERA.

BY GETTING THEM ALL IN THE SAME ROOM AND GETTING EVERYBODY IN A DISCUSSION FORMAT.

REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE INDUSTRY ITSELF. I THINK IT'LL BE VERY PRODUCTIVE TO COME UP WITH A MUCH BETTER PROCESS THAN WE CURRENTLY HAVE. THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING FOR.

>>>IF WE CAN HAVE HER PRESENT. >>>THIS IS AS CLOSE AS WE'VE EVER BEEN IN THE FIVE YEARS I SAT ON THIS BOARD TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN A MORE CONCLUSIVE WAY. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO GIVE CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY. TWO NUMEROUS TO MENTION.

BUT IN PARTICULAR FOR OUR CITY GOVERNMENT MAYOR HUDSON WAS REELECTED.

COMMISSIONER JEREMIAH JOHNSON. I'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL NOW. ALL OF US DO WHEN WE REFER TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. JEREMIAH JOHNSON WAS REELECTED AND WE HAVE COMMISSIONER ELECT KURTIS JOHNSON. THERE IN LIES WHAT COULD BECOME SOME CONFUSION IF WE JUST REFER

[03:20:06]

I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK COMMISSIONER SESSIONS FOR ALL OF THE WORK THAT HE'S DONE FOR OUR CITY. WISH HIM SUCCESS IN ANY FUTURE ENDEAVORS HE MAY CHOOSE TO TAKE ON. I'D ALSO LIKE TO COMMENT TO OUR BOARD THAT WE, I ASKED OUR ATTORNEY TO COME OUT AND SPEAK TO US FOR A MOMENT BECAUSE I FELT PERSONALLY THAT WE WERE BEGINNING TO THE STEP OUT ON SOME THIN ICE. IT'S EASY TO DO WHEN WE'RE IN A DISCUSSION PERIOD LIKE WE WERE IN PARTICULARLY ON THIS VACATION RENTAL ISSUES.

BUT WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL AS A BOARD THAT WE DON'T GET OURSELVES OUTSIDE, TAKE OURSELVES OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS BOARD IS TO BE AND THAT WE DON'T OFFER WHAT COULD BE MISUNDERSTOOD AS LEGAL ADVICE TO APPLICANTS OR THE PUBLIC.

I'D LIKE US ALWAYS TO BE VERY CAREFUL AND TO THINK ABOUT THAT, IN PARTICULAR, AS WE START TO ENTER INTO A CONVERSATION. I DID IT MYSELF TONIGHT. I KIND OF LAID MY HEAD OUT HERE ON THIS CHOPPING BLOCK AND SAID GO AHEAD AND CHOP IT OFF. I MADE A COMMENT I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE. IT'S EASY TO DO. IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AT TIMES. WE NEED TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE APPROACH SOME OF THESE THINGS. WE ARE ALL PASSIONATE IN OUR THOUGHT AND CONCERNS AND I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO YOU BECAUSE I TOOK A LITTLE LONGER THAN PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED TO TAKE ON THE LAST CONDITIONAL USE. WE HAVE A LOT OF ACTIVITY FROM CITIZEN TRI AND MY FEELING IS PART OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS SHOW OUR EMPATHY TO THE CITIZENS WHEN THEY TAKE THEIR TIME TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD. NOT ALL DECISIONS ARE EASY.

NOT ALL DECISIONS ARE POPULAR. FORTUNATELY, WE'RE NOT ELECTED. WE'RE APPOINTED TO THIS BOARD SO WE'RE NOT ELECTED. WE DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER TO THOSE FOLKS OUT THERE.

BUT WE SHOULD SHOW THEM AS MUCH EMPATHY AS CAN AS THOUGH WE ARE ELECTED.

WITH THAT I'M DONE. IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING. >> MOTIO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.