[0:08] >> I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMMISSION AND THIS IS MONDAY AUGUST 3RD OF 2026. STAND FOR THE OPENING PRAYER AND REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR INVITING ME TODAY. MAYOR AND COMMISSION. IT PLEASES THE FATHER WHEN WE OPEN IN PRAYER. I DIDN'T KNOW YOU DID THAT HERE. I LIVE IN THE COUNTY BUT I'M REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. FATHER, YOU SAID THAT IF YOUR PEOPLE THAT ARE CALLED BY YOUR NAME WOULD HUMBLE THEMSELVES AND PRAY AND SEEK YOUR FACE, AND TURN FROM THEIR WAYS, FATHER THAT YOU WOULD HEAR THEIR PRAYERS AND THAT YOU WOULD HEAL THEIR LAND SO WE LIFT THIS TIME UP TO YOU. THIS COMMISSION MEETING. I LIFT THESE FINE PEOPLE UP BEFORE YOU THAT SERVE YOU, THAT SERVE THIS COMMUNITY AND I ASK YOUR BLESSING WOULD BE UPON THEM AND I THANK YOU, LORD, THAT YOU WOULD GIVE THEM WISDOM AND GUIDANCE THAT THEY WOULD MAKE RIGHTEOUS DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY. FATHER I ALSO ASK THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THEM AND BLESS THEIR FAMILIES AND THAT YOU WOULD WATCH OVERALL THOSE IN OUR CITY GOVERNMENT THAT YOU WOULD WATCH OVER OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, LORD. THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THEM AND KEEP THEM. BUT HAVE YOUR WAY IN THIS PLACE TODAY. THAT YOU WOULD BE GLORIFIED BY THEIR DECISIONS. AND IT'S IN THAT PRECIOUS NAME OF JESUS THAT WE PRAY, AMEN. >> AMEN. 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. >> CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? >> >> COMMISSIONER HUDSON? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> HERE. >> COMMISSIONER GAINES? >> PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HUDSON I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO EXCUSE COMMISSIONER GAINESS. THERE A SECOND. >> >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> HERE. AND PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER HUDSON? >> YES. . >> FIRST ITEM IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM JULY 20, 26 REGULAR MEETING. >> MOTION AND SECOND. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER HUDSON? >> YES.. >> OKAY. NEXT WE HAVE ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AND MAYOR STAFF REQUESTS 12 E BE PULLED. >> IF THERE ARE NO CHANGES I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS AMENDED. JOE I IS MOVED. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ROLL PLEASE? >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER HUDSON? >> YES.. WE DID NOT HAVE ANYBODY SIGN UP FOR THE BEGINNING SO WE'LL MOVE RIGHT ON TO OUR LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FROM REPRESENTATIVE DANA TRABULSY. >> OUR REPRESENTATIVE FOR FORT PIERCE HAS BEEN SERVING SEVERAL TERMS. WELCOME DANA TRABULSY AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. IT IS A PLEASURE TO FINALLY PRESENT THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION TO YOU. I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE REACHED OUT A FEW TIMES AND EVERY TIME YOU DID I SAID WELL SESSION IS NOT OVER YET WE'RE STILL GOING, SO I'M GLAD WE'RE FINALLY FINISHED AND WE CAN CLOSE THAT CHAPTER AND MOVE ON. BUT WITH THAT I DO HAVE A LENGTHY UPDATE AND A FEW, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN MY COMMENTS TO THE CAUSE WAY COVE PROJECT BUT FIRST I'LL START WITH THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT WAS, HOW ARE YOU? GOOD TO SEE YOU. WHICH WAS AN EXTREMELY LONG SESSION BUT WE DID FINALLY GET THROUGH AND THE GOVERNOR SIGNED 117.6 BILLION BUDGET THIS YEAR. AGAIN ONE OF THE LARGEST EVER SIGN IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS IS EVEN AFTER AN $800 MILLION LINE ITEM VETO THAT HE TOOK PRIVILEGE OF. IT IS THE FOURTH CONSECUTIVE YEAR OF RESTRAINED STATE SPENDING UNDER HIS ADMINISTRATION AND A FEW OF THE HIGHLIGHTS INCLUDE WITH THE TAX PACKAGE IT DELIVERED AN ESTIMATED $290,000,000 IN TAXPAYER SAVINGS. MUCH OF IT NON-REOCCURRING AND LOCAL. KEY PIECES ARE A FOUR MONTH SALES TAX FOR HUNTING AND FISHING AND CAMPING SUPPLIES AND A PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT CAP FOR MOBILE HOMES. THE BUDGET PERMANENTLY REPEALS THE 2% COMMERCIAL LEASE RENT TAX AND MAKES THE BACK-TO-SCHOOL AND DISASTER PREPAREDNESS HOLIDAY
[5:05] PERMANENT FIXTURES TO FLORIDA LAW. A NEW SECOND AMENDMENT RUNS SEPTEMBER FIRST THROUGH DECEMBER 21ST OF 2026 AND SALES TAX REFUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUALIFYING HURRICANE RESISTANCE THROUGH 2029. CUMULATIVE TAX RELIEF DELIVERED SINCE 2019 TOTALLED NEARLY 9.7 MILLION DOLLARS. THE STATE IS PROJECTED TO CLOSE THE FISCAL YEAR WITH AT LEAST $18 BILLION IN TOTAL RESERVES INCLUDING A FULLY FUNDED $5 BILLION RAINY DAY FUND AND HAS RAPIDLY DECREASED OUR DEBT. THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE ONE, WE ARE A PENINSULA STATE AND WE NEVER KNOW HOW MOTHER NATURE WILL TREAT US SO HAVING THOSE RESERVES IN HAND ARE VERY IMPORTANT AND ALSO, WITH THE LONG RANGE ECONOMIC THREE YEAR FORECAST WE'VE SEEN WE'RE EXPECTING AN ECONOMIC DOWN TURN AROUND THOSE DOLLARS IN RESERVES WILL HELP TO FUND MEDICAID AND PBLIC SAFETY AND SCHOOLS WITHOUT AN EMERGENCY TAX HIKE. WE ALSO CONTINUED EVERGLADES RESTORATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ENERGY KRUT MEANT AND MORE THAN 10,000 NEW OFFICER BONUSES HAVE BEEN AWARDED TO DATE. LOCAL APPROPRIATIONS THAT I FILED AND THAT WERE FUNDED AND I'M REALLY PROUD TO BRING THESE HOME. BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND LINCOLN PARK CLUBHOUSE ON 25TH STREET. THIS IS THEIR SEED MONEY AND I'M EXCITED TO SEE THAT PROJECT GET UNDERWAY. THE NAVY SEAL MUSEUM AND THAT WAS FOR $995,000. THE NAVY SEAL MUSEUM AT $995,000 IS AWARE FAIR ARCHIVES INITIATIVE. NEW HORIZONS AT THE TREASURE COAST RECEIVED TWO APPROPRIATIONS. ONE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND ONE FOR A CENTRAL RECEIVING FACILITY. ALZHEIMER COMMUNITY CARE RECEIVED ONE MILLION DOLLARS. FORT PIERCE UTILITY REALLOCATING THE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. WE WERE ABLE TO GARNER 2.5 MILLION FOR THAT THIS YEAR. ST. LUCIE VILLAGE SEPTIC TO SEWER PHASE $2.00 DOLLAR 290 THOUSAND AND PHASE THREE $242000 WHICH I BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO TRY TO COMBINE INTO FINISHING ONE PHASE IF THEY CAN DO SO AND FORT PIERCE, SEA GRASS, RESTORATION PHASE FIVE WAS A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS SO THOSE ARE LOCAL PROJECTS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO FUND HERE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY. EDUCATION REMAINED ONE OF THE LARGEST AREAS OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY AND CONSTITUENT INTEREST OVER THE PAST YEAR. I WAS EXTREMELY PROUD TO BE ABLE TO CHAIR THE EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION SUBCOMMITTEE AND AT THE END OF SESSION I WAS ALSO APPOINTED AS THE PRE-K THROUGH 12 APPROPRIATIONS CHAIR SO THIS IS MY WHEELHOUSE. THE 26-27 BUDGET INCREASES THE PER STUDENT FUNDING BY $150 WHICH IS $9337 PER STUDENT. AN ADDITIONAL 2019 MILLION WAS ADDED FOR TEACHER PAY RAISES. A FEW YEARS AGO, WE RAISED THE FLOOR BY AWARDING HIGHER SALARIES TO INCOMING TEACHERS. THIS YEAR WE ADDRESSED TEACHERS THAT HAD BEEN IN THE SYSTEM TEN YEARS OR MORE THAT EACH OF THEM THAT QUALIFIED CAN RECEIVE UP TO A 3,000 DOLLAR SALARY INCREASE. 2,000,000 WAS INVESTED IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. PROGRAM CALLED MIG O TO HELP STUDENTS WITH READING AND MATH. WE CREATED A FAST TRACK PROCESS SO TEACHERS GET IMPROVED PAY INCREASES WITHOUT DELAY AND EXPANDED CRITERIA FOR EDUCATION EMERGENCY FOR LOW PERFORMING SCHOOLS SO THAT THEY CAN RECEIVE ASSISTANCE AND ASSIST WITH SALARY INCREASES WITHOUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. WE STREAMLINED THE TEACHER CERTIFICATION REINSTATING EXPIRED CERTIFICATES NO LONGER HAVE TO TAKE A SUBJECT AREA EXAM AND WE STRENGTHENED THE MENTOR PROGRAMS AND ALSO, ADDING PORTRAITS OF WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND SOMETHING I WORKED ON WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE TO THE NEIGHBOR. APPLYING STANDARDS FOR CURSIVE WRITING. SOMETHING THAT I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF INITIALLY THE FIRST YEAR IT RAN THROUGH BUT AFTER MY
[10:01] HUSBAND AND I WENT TO THE BANK AND STARTED TALKING TO THE PERSON WHO WAS SETTING UP AN ACCOUNT FOR US SHE TOLD US THAT A LOT OF THE YOUTH TODAY DON'T KNOW HOW TO SIGN THEIR OWN SIGNATURE AND THEY ARE JUST MARKING AN! OR PUTTING INITIALS AND THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE, AND YOUR SIGNATURE IS AS UNIQUE AS YOUR THUMBPRINT SO WE WENT FORWARD WITH THIS LEGISLATION AND IT SOUNDS SIMPLE BUT CAN'T EVEN READ THE CONSTITUTION OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ CURSIVE. PROPERTY TAXES WERE A DEFINING ISSUE FOR 2026. AS YOU ALL KNOW WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THE BALLOT COMING UP IN NOVEMBER. THIS POSTS A LOT OF QUESTIONS WITHOUT GOING INTO A LOT OF DETAIL WHICH I'M HAPPY TO DO IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I AM HOLDING A COMMUNITY FORUM ON AUGUST 25TH OPEN TO ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND. WE'LL HAVE A PANEL DISCUSSION AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE AMENDMENT MEANS ADDING WE'LL BREAK IT DOWN FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SURE HOW TO READ THEIR OWN TAX BILL OR WHAT THEIR TAXES EQUATE TO AS FAR AS SERVICES. I KNOW THIS WILL, IF IT PASSES IT'S GOING TO CREATE SOME EXTRA WORK FOR YOU ON A CITY LEVEL. ON A COUNTY LEVEL AND ON A STATE LEVEL, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO TIGHTEN OUR BELTS MORE BUT I ALSO WANT TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON WHAT SOME OF THE SHORTFALLS MIGHT BE SO I HOPE THAT YOU WILL ATTEND OR ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO AT ATTEND. BASED ON FLORIDA'S OFFICE OF INSURANCE REGULATION, AS OF NOW SINCE 2022, 20 PROPERTY INSURERS HAVE ENTERED FLORIDA MARKET SINCE STATE INSURANCE REFORMS. THIS IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE WE DO WANT COMPETITION IN THE MARKET AND IT SEEMS LIKE THE REFORMS THAT WE'VE MADE ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE. WE ALSO TACKLE DATA CENTERS THIS SESSION. WE DID A BILL OF RIGHTS IF YOU WILL FOR DATA CENTERS. IT WAS A HOT TOPIC. I KNOW THERE WAS A PROPOSE UNTIL THE COUNTY, MAYBE EVEN TWO FOR DATA CENTERS COMING AND THERE'S A LOT OF FEAR AROUND THAT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR CONSTITUENTS KNOW A FEW OF THE THINGS AND I'M GOING TO READ THIS BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE IMPORTANT. THIS PROTECTS RATEPAYERS SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS LOCAL A UTILITIES FROM PASSING DATA CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE ON TO RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL BUSINESS RATEPAYERS REQUIRING LARGE LOAD CUSTOMERS TO BEAR THE FULL COST OF THEIR OWN SERVICE AND IT PRESERVES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AUTHORITY TO REJECT DATA CENTER PROJECTS OR IMPOSE STRICTER PLANNING STANDARDS. IT RESTRICTS WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FROM ISSUING CONCEPTTIVE USE WATER PERMITS TO LARGE SCALE DATA %-PS WHILE ALLOWING RECLAIMED WATER TO COUNT TOWARDS APPROVAL AND IT ESTABLISH AS DEDICATED STATE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR MAJOR PROJECTS AND BARS UTILITIES FROM SERVING DATA CENTERS OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES INFLUENCE. FEW OF THE OTHER THINGS TOUCH ON THIS SESSION WE ENHANCED PENALTIES AND EXPANDED CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO CHILD ABUSE AND SEXUAL MATERIAL. EXPANDING MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES FOR ADULT OFFENDERS. EXPANDED THE SCHOOL GUARDIAN PROGRAM TO POST SECONDARY SOLUTIONS AN ANSWER TO THE SCHOOL SHOOTING THAT WE HAD AT FS U NOT THIS APRIL BUT LAST. WE ALSO ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF CONSERVATION OF LANDS AND INCREASING TRANSPARENCY BEFORE THE STATE SALES OR EXCHANGES STATE OWNED CONSERVATIVE LAND. WE SAW THAT ALMOST HAPPEN AT JONATHAN DICKENS STATE PARK AND SAW IT TO BE A PROBLEM. THAT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN. FOR THE SIXTH YEAR THE LEGISLATURE FUNDED THE HOUSING TRUST FUND SHIP AND SAIL AND ADDITIONALLY, WE MADE PROVISIONS IN BUILDING PERMITS WITH HOUSE BILL 803 WHICH WAS A BILL I WAS HAPPY TO CARRY RELATED TO PRIVATE PROVIDERS AND BUILDING INDUSTRY SO THAT I ALSO DID THAT WITH REPRESENTATIVE TO EXPEDITE PERMITTING AND ALLOW PRIVATE PROVIDERS THE ABILITY TO WORK WITHIN THE BUILDING SYSTEM AND
[15:01] ALSO, CHANGE FOUR PROJECTS UNDER $7,500 AS LONG AS THEY DON'T REQUIRE ELECTRICAL OR PLUMBING OR SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE HAVING A SPECIALITY LICENSE WHERE THEY CAN FORGO A PERMIT. ANOTHER BILL I WAS HAPPY TO WORK ON WAS HOUSE BILL 991 WHICH WAS THE ELECTION INTEGRITY BILL AND FOR EVERYTHING IN THERE I THINK THE ONE THING THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT WE REQUIRE A APPROVED DRIVER'S LICENSE IN ORDER TO VOTE. NO MORE ABLE TO VOTE WITH YOUR STUDENT I.D. OR YOUR ASSOCIATION I.D. OR ANY OTHER FORM OF I.D. OTHER THAN A REAL I.D. AND THAT ARE TAKE AFFECT NOT THIS ELECTION BUT NEXT ELECTION TO GIVE OUR SUPERVISORS TIME TO GET THAT WORD OUT AND ALSO, PEOPLE TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS IN HOW THEY'VE BEEN VOTING. FOR THE MOST PART, THAT IS A CONCLUSION OF SEVERAL OF THE THINGS THAT WE DID THIS SESSION AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS RELATED TO THAT AND ANYTHING ELSE YOU MIGHT HAVE OTHERWISE, I'LL MOVE ON TO THE ISSUE OF CAUSE WAY COVE. >> QUESTIONS? QUESTIONS? NOPE. >> OKAY. I'LL TAKE A SWIG OF WATER. YOU COVERED A LOT. >> CAN YOU TELL ME THE LOCATION AND THE TIME FOR YOUR FORUM? >> YES IT'S AUGUST 25TH AT MID FLORIDA EVENT CENTER AND IT STARTS AT 6:00 P.M. AND IT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. NO CHARGE. >> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. CAUSE WAY COVE. THIS BEEN ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT I'VE KNOWN ABOUT FOR A WHILE BUT HAS NOT REALLY RISEN TO THE TEMPERATURE THAT IT HAS UNTIL RECENTLY TO ME. AS YOU KNOW IN 2023 THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE PASSED HOUSE BILL 102 WHICH IS THE LIVE LOCAL ACT. THIS WAS A BIPARTISAN PIECE OF LEGISLATION. IT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY IN THE SENATE AND ONLY HAD SIX NO VOTES IN THE HOUSE. 11 PEOPLE WERE ABSENT OF THOSE 11, 10 VOTED YES AFTER ROLL CALL AND THEN ONE PERSON CHANGED THEIR VOTE FROM YES TO NO. SO IT WAS OVERWHELMING PASSED THE HOUSE AND IN THE SENATE. AS A CRY FOR HELP FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO PREFACE THAT, I DO BELIEVE THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WOULD BENEFIT FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. ESPECIALLY WITH THE IMPENDING TAX AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE ON THE BALLOT. THIS IS GOING TO BE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WILL BE A REALLY GOOD TAX BASE FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. THAT BEING SAID, AFTER MEETINGS WITH THE DEVELOPER, MANY OF YOU, MY CONSTITUENTS, AND LOOKING AT THE PROJECT THAT IS PROPOSED AS A WHOLE, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT IS A LOVELY PROJECT, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT IS A GOOD FIT FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. I RECENTLY VISITED PEER 66 IN FORT PIERCE WHICH I BELIEVE SOME OF THE PROJECT WAS MODELED AFTER. I HAD A GREAT TIME. I ENJOYED ALL THE AMENITIES. IT WAS WONDERFUL, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T THINK AT THE SCALE THAT IT IS, THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR FORT PIERCE. I ALSO DO NOT LIKE THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN ANY COMMUNITY BUY IN, INTO THIS PROJECT, KNOWING THAT 38 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE IN FORT PIERCE ACTUALLY APPROVE OF THIS PROJECT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY APPROVE OF IT TO THE SCALE BUT THEY DO APPROVE OF THE PATROLLING BUT OVERWHELMING, 62% DON'T. I DON'T THINK IT IS RIGHT NOT TO HAVE THE COMMUNITY'S BUY INTO SOMETHING OF THIS LARGE OF A SCALE AND I BELIEVE SOME OF THE BUY IN IS FROM RESIDENTS THAT PROBABLY HAVE NOT LIVED HERE BUT HAVE MOVED UP FROM THE SOUTHERN MOST COUNTIES WITH LARGER DEVELOPMENTS ANYWAY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE THIS CAN BRING A LOT OF AMENITY BUT SHOVING IT DOWN OUR THROAT WITHOUT HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR CITIZENS TO SPEAK IS INAPPROPRIATE. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT THAT CITIZENS MAY NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THEY DO NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND THAT IS A CHOICE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT, I'M NOT A PLANNER, I'M NOT A
[20:03] DEVELOPER. I'M NOT AN EXPERT BUT I'M A LEGISLATOR AND THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ARE MY CONSTITUENT, SO WHEN MY PHONE AND E-MAIL AND FACEBOOK MESSAGES AND ARE BLOWN UP THEN IT'S MY RESPONSIBILITY TO LOOK INTO THIS SITUATION. SO I'M ALSO GOING TO READ THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET IT WRONG AND I WANT TO GET IT INTO THE RECORD. I FEEL UPON REVIEW THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A POLITIC BUILT LIVE LOCAL ACT AND THE CAUSE WAY COVE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE. THE SITE IS A SITED TO CONTAIN APPROXIMATELY 42 ACRES INCLUDING PLUS, OR MINUS 18 ACRES OF UP LANDS AND 24 ACRES OF SUBMERGED LAND. THE CITY COMMISSION IN 2025 APPROVED ORDINANCE 15-51 IN ACTING A ZONE ATLAS AMENDMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM R 3 MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENT TO C 5, TOURIST COMMERCIAL SPECIFICALLY FOR THE 18 PLUS, OR MINUS ACRES OF UP LANDS. THE SUBMERGED LANDS ARE STILL IN THE A2 AN AQUATIC DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT CITY GIS MAP SHOWS COLOR CODING OF C 5 ON THE ENTIRE PARCEL INCLUDING SUBMERGED LANDS. THIS A SCRIBNER'S ERROR SO SB 102 IS ONLY A POLITIC TO BE ABLE THE 18 PLUS, OR MINUS ACRES ZONED C 5 AND WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A MAJOR OVERSIGHT. AT A LATER DATE THE CITY CHANGED ORDINANCE GLOBALLY THAT ALLOWS FOR DENSITY TO BE AN APPLIED TO SUBMERGED LANDS AND THAT'S WHERE IT WAS MENTIONED THE DEVELOPER CAN ASK FOR UP TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE IN SUBMERGED LANDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUT IF THE ZONING IS NOT COVERED UNDER LIVE LOCAL THAT WOULD LIMIT THEIR ABILITY TO NOT ASK FOR THE 30 UNITS PER ACRE. THAT'S THE DISTINCTION. THE AQUATIC AREA OR SUBMERGED LANDS WITHIN THE SITE ARE IN THE A2 AQUATIC DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND THEREFORE, NOT COVERED BY LIVE LOCAL ACT. IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD INSTRUCT THE CITY COMMISSION PLANNING DIRECTOR TO NOTIFY THE APPLICANT AND OWNER OF CAUSE WAY COVE THE PROJECT APPROVAL IS HERE BY ADMINISTRATIVELY RESCINDED OR THE CITY SHOULD BRING AN AN APPEAL UNDER 125-34 DUE TO THE DISCOVERY OF A SCRIBNER'S ERROR AS TO THE CITY GIS MAPPING AND IT IS ALSO MY RECOMMENDATION THE CITY COMMISSION SHOULD INSTRUCT STAFF TO ENGAGE SPECIAL OUTSIDE COUNCIL FOR EXAMPLE PER TEASE IN LAND-USE LAW AND LIVE LOCAL ACT ON BELL HALF OF THE CITY'S INTEREST IN THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ANY QUESTIONS OF REPRESENTATIVE DANA TRABULSY? >> I HAVE QUITE A FEW BUT WE'LL TALKING ABOUT THIS ANOTHER TIME. I ASK FOR TIME FOR YOU TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE STUFF I HAVE. IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE YOUR TIME TONIGHT BUT I THINK WHAT YOU SAID TONIGHT GIVES A LOT OF FOLKS HOPE AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED. PERSONALLY, I FELT THERE WAS SOME ERRORS THAT ACTUALLY YOU BROUGHT FORWARD AT LEAST ONE OF THEM AND THE INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE I THINK IS ALSO A LITTLE DIFFERENT. ONE SIZE FITS ALL IS NOT WHAT IT SHOULD BE. I UNDERSTAND WITH THE LIVE LOCAL TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH AND THOSE WERE PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH PORT ST. LUCIE AND FORT PIERCE AT THE TIME. I APPRECIATE YOU COMING FORWARD AND I HOPE THAT YOU ARE NOT GETTING AS MANY E-MAILS AS WE ARE BUT THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TO WORK ON TOGETHER AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMING FORWARD. >> ABSOLUTELY. I WILL END WITH THE FACT THAT SEVERAL OF US DID TRY TO BROACH THE CONVERSATION OF PASSING LEGISLATION OR MOVING LEGISLATION THIS PAST SESSION AS IT PERTAINS TO BARRIER ISLANDS AND THERE WAS NO APPETITE, HOWEVER WITH NEW LEADERSHIP COMING IN WE HAVE BEGUN TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS AGAIN AND I BELIEVE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ISSUES ON BARRIER ISLANDS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL AFFECT THIS PROJECT OR NOT, I'M NOT AGAINST THIS PROJECT I'M ONLY AGAINST THE SIZE OF THIS PROJECT. >> IS THIS SIMPLY SAYING THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU INDICATED THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
[25:03] PUBLIC TO SPEAK? I THINK THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THAT FROM OUR SIDE OF THE EQUATION AND ENSURE YOU IN MY OPINION, WHEN THIS COMES BACK AGAIN THROUGH HERE, I SUSPECT AND I EXPECT THAT WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC HAVE A SAY SO BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THEM TO VENT AND GET THEIR POINTS ACROSS SO THAT WE CAN DO BETTER FROM LOCAL LEVEL AND ALSO, PROVIDE THOSE COMMENTS TO YOU AND EVEN UP TO THE FEDERAL LEVEL WHEN ISSUES ARISE FOR THE CITIZENS. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR GRACE AND FOR ALLOWING ME TO TAKE SO LONG. >> OTHER COMMENTS? YES? >> I LIVE OUT ON THE ISLAND AS DOES THE MAYOR AND I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT IN ANY FASHION. HAVING SAID THAT, I BELIEVE THAT THE AFFORDABILITY IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE WE DO THE CALCULATIONS AND IT COMES OUT THE UNITS WILL BE RENTING FOR $3,000 A MONTH IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED AFFORDABLE. THAT'S HIGHER END RENTAL SO THE FORMULAS DON'T WORK CORRECTLY. BUT THE THING THAT'S REALLY DISTURBING HERE IS REMOVAL OF ROME HOME RULE. NOW WE HAVE DEVELOPMENTS ON THE ISLAND TEEING UP TO TRY TO PIGGY-BACK ON IT AND YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND IN VERY SHORT ORDER WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY AND I FIND THE TIMING OF THAT TO BE UNIQUE. THIS PROJECT IS COMING FOR PRESENTATION TO THE CITY. NO VOTE, FOLKS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY AT THAT POINT IN TIME BECAUSE HER SERVICES HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. SO I FIND THAT UNIQUE HOW THIS ALL STRUCTURED AT THE SAME TIMES A TWO OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS ON THE ISLAND ARE COMING BUT THE LIVE LOCAL ACT WAS NOT DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FIVE MILLION DOLLAR PENTHOUSES AND 40% OF THOSE UNITS WILL BE RENTED TO MODERATE HOUSING. THE EQUATION DOESN'T WORK FOR ME. YOU HAVE THE OIL PRINCE OF DUBAI, BUYING THIS 5 MILLION CONDO IN FORT PIERCE. SAY THAT'S THE CASE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REGULATION DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO SPECIFICALLY TARGET THE RENTAL UNITS IN THE 40% TO LESS DESIRABLE UNIT, SO I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WILL MIX WELL, SO I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF FLAWS IN THE SENATE BILL BUT NOBODY IS CALLING WILLING TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CHANGING IT AND I UNDERSTAND THE BARRIER ISLAND THING AND I ENDORSE THAT BUT I THINK THE BILL NEEDS A REWRITE. THERE IS 17 STORIES OF LUXURY CONDOS ON A VERY UNIQUELY SITUATED PIECE OF LANDED AN ADJACENT TO THE IN LET AND ALL THAT. IT'S JUST RIPE FOR PROBLEM AND THE SUBMERGED LANDS ISSUE. I WAS NOT AROUND FOR THAT. I'M JUST AGHAST BY THAT WHOLE FORMULATION BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT, AND ICHL I'VE TALKED TO THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM ON THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES AND I FIND THEY GOT THE STATE APPROVALS AND THOSE ARE GOOD BUT WE'RE REFERENCING COMP PLAN AND WHAT I'M TROUBLED BY IS DID THE STATE TAKE THAT PLAN INTO CONSIDERATION IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS? YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE I CAN ASK THAT TO? WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS MATTER PREVIOUSLY ON THE PHONE. IF THE CITY COMP PLAN IS A CLEARCOM., DID THE STATE JUST BY PASS THAT AND NO REGULATION TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING THE CODE, PLANNING REQUIREMENTS AND ET CETERA FOR THE STATE TO MAKE THEIR DECISION BASED OFF. IS THERE ANYTHING IN OUR CITY CODE THEY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION? >> THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. I AGREE WITH YOUR POINTS. THEY ARE WELL TAKEN. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY OR A PLANNER AND WHAT I PRESENTED TONIGHT IS JUST A GIRL DOING HER HOMEWORK. BUT I DO BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN SOME COMPONENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MISSED INCLUDING THE HEIGHT OF KINGS LANDING AND THERE'S ALSO, THERE ARE SEVERAL POINTS OTHER THAN THIS PARTICULAR ONE THOUGH I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY THE SMOKING GUN AND I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS THEM WITH YOU BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER POINT THAT'S HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION OR HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED THAT CAN HELP CURTAIL THE SIZE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. >> I'D LOVE TO MEET Y YOU AND DISCUSS IT FURTHER. >> I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> THE OTHER THING THAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS PROJECTS ON THE ISLAND THAT DON'T COME INTO THE ONE MILE RADIUS ARE TRYING TO SAY SINCE HE'S GOT ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THAT DENSITY HE NOW BECOMES THE ONE MILE MARKER WHICH IS NOT TRUE BUT THERE IS AN APPLICATION COMING IN ON THAT ASSUMPTION, AS WELL. WHAT I FEAR IS THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT AMONG OTHERS THAT WILL BE POSED COMING IN SOON TO THE CITY, THIS IS AN EXISTENTIAL
[30:06] THREAT TO THE LIFESTYLE AND THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE SOUTH BEACH. IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY YOU HAVE HOW MANY THOUSANDS OF UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GOING VERTICAL OUT THERE AND IN MY OPINION, SOON. NOT SURE HOW WE'LL HANDLE IT? STATE ROAD, YOU CAN'T EXPAND IT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE TRAFFIC WILL BE DEALT WITH. >> I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL HOW WE APPROACH OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN FORT PIERCE. I THINK WE DEFINITELY DO NEED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THAT TAX BASE, HISTORICALLY I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF PROJECTS IN FORT PIERCE THAT YOU CAN CALL THE BRIDGE TO KNOW WHERE WHICH HAS SET A BAD PRESIDENT AND I THINK WE HAVE WORK TO DO ON THAT AND I KNOW YOU WILL DISCUSS THE KINGS LANDING PROJECT TONIGHT AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR COMMUNITY GROW SMARTLY AND APPROPRIATELY AND I THINK THAT OUR WORK IS NOT DONE YET. >> MY COMMENT IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF A PROJECT LIKE THIS. IT PUMPS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS INTO THE ECONOMY WITH CONSTRUCTION JOBS AND MATERIALS PURCHASED AND ET CETERA, BUT I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT PROPER DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROPER LOCATION AND PROPER DENSITY IS KEY. THAT PROJECT DOES NOT MEET THE FORMULA IN MY OPINION. VERSES 1.4 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF AMAZON REFRIGERATOR CONSTRUCTION. PERFECT LOCATION. DOESN'T DISTURB ANYBODY OR THREATEN ANY LIFESTYLE OR SAFETY. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON. NOT THINGS LIKE THIS THAT I CONSIDER AN ABOMINATION. >> HOPEFULLY THEY WON'T BUILD THAT AND THEN LAY-OFF 400 EMPLOYEES LIKE THEY ARE DOING ON MIDWAY ROAD BUT THAT'S ANOTHER CONVERSATION. >> THAT'S ANOTHER DAY. I'LL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU TOO BUT THEY HAVE BROKEN GROUND-OUT THERE. I'M THRILLED TO HAVE THAT AND I KNOW EVERYONE IS THRILLED TO HAVE PROJECTS THAT ARE PROPERLY PLACED AND PROPERLY SIZED AND TRAFFIC IS DEALT WITH AND ALL THAT. THIS PROJECT DOESN'T CHECK ANY OF THOSE BOXES IN MY OPINION AND I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR ALMOST AFRAID TO ADMIT IT, 47 YEARS. AT THE TOP OF THE BRIDGE YOU ARE GOING TO LOOKING AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING. YOU ARE NOT CLOSE. YOU ARE FOUR SOS YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING. YOU'LL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE TOP. THE TOP FLOORS WILL BE IN THE CLOUDS. >> WELL I WOULD SAY WE'RE ALSO JUST IN THE PLANNING STAGES. WE TALKED THIS AFTERNOON AND THERE ARE MANY HURDLES THAT HAVE TO BE OVERCOME FOR THAT PROJECT TO ACTUALLY EXIST INCLUDING TRAFFIC AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY OF OUR LAGOON SO HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU GUYS ANYTIME. I'LL CONTINUE TO DO MY HOMEWORK. >> WAIT. YOU HAVE ANYTHING? >> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR DOING YOUR RESEARCH AND THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT TO US. AND ALSO WHAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK SAID ABOUT THE COMPARISON TO AARON TALL LEVEL, YOU KNOW, IN THE HEADLINES IN THE PAPER IS ST. LUCIE HAS ONE OF THE HIGHEST NOT ONLY IN FLORIDA BUT IN THE NATION AND YET IT'S INCLUDED IN THIS CALCULATION, AND SO THAT MAKES IT HARD TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE RENTS IN FORT PIERCE ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO THAT. AND I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE TRAFFIC AND I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BECAUSE THERE ARE 31 CONDITIONS AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS, THE ABILITY OF THIS COMMISSION TO TREAT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE'S A GOOD AS THEY WANT US TO TREAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME HERE BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE WANT TO PRESERVE FORT PIERCE, THE CHARM, SMALL TOWN, THE WHOLE AMBIANCE OF THIS. PEOPLE CHOSE FORT PIERCE FOR THAT REASON AND SO I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH YOU HELPING US WITH THIS ENDEAVOR BECAUSE THIS WILL NOT, THIS WILL NOT KEEP, THIS WILL TURN FORT PIERCE INTO SOMETHING THAT NONE OF US WANT. EXCEPT PERHAPS THE ONE PERSON. THAT OWNS THE PROPERTY C. >> NOW IS NOT TIME FOR SIT OKAY OUR LAURELS. >> THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK YOU DO FOR FORT PIERCE. >> I DIDN'T KNOW HOW LONG THIS WOULD GO BUT I DID A REPORT I WANTED TO SHARE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE AND I'LL GIVE THE CLERK ANOTHER COPY FOR THE
[35:02] RECORD. I DIDN'T KNOW HOW THIS WAS GOING TO UNFOLD. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS LET ME KNOW. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. >> OKAY. NEXT AGENDA IS THE KINGS LANDING UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF A SPECIAL MEETING. >> MR. CHESS? >> SHE'LL GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE KING'S LANDING PROPOSAL YOU CAN CALL IT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. MADAM MAYOR? DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I PUT TOGETHER ONE QUICK SLIDE TO KEEP US ON TRACK. AN IN BE RUM UPDATE. YOU WERE NOT AT THE MEETING SO I'LL CATCH YOU UP. WE HAD QUARTERLY UPDATE FROM LIVE OAK AS HE USUALLY DOES, PROVIDES HIS USUAL UPDATE ON THE KINGS LANDING DEVELOPMENT. WE DISCUSSED THE TIMEFRAMES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND WE WERE WORKING TOWARD A FOURTH AMENDMENT. SINCE THAT TIME HE CAME FORWARD REQUESTING A FINANCIAL COMMITMENT FROM THE CITY OR THE F PR A AND WE DISCUSSED THAT AT THE BOARD MEETING AND WHILE THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL VOTE TAKEN THERE WAS NO CONSENSUS TO SUPPORT OR PARTICIPATE IN THAT, SO AFTER THAT LONG DISCUSSION WE DISCUSSED GIVING THEM A REQUEST OF TWO WEEKS FOR DEVELOPER TO PROVIDE AN ESTIMATED TIMEFRAME TO SECURE PRIVATE EQUITY PARTNER OR COMMITMENT. HE'S SINCE E-MAILED IT TO US AND HE'S REQUESTING 180 DAYS TO SECURE THAT COMMITMENT AND I THINK HE SENT IT JULY 24TH SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL COUNT THAT AT THE DATE BUT IT WILL PUT IT AT THE EARLY FEBRUARY TIMEFRAME. AT THE LAST MEETING WE DISCUSSED SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING BECAUSE OF A COMPREHENSIVE KIND OF REVIEW. WE HAVE COMMISSIONERS THAT WERE NOT PRESENT DURING SOME OF THE AGREEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS AND WHERE ARE WE WITH THE TIME FRAMES AND FINANCIAL COMMITMENTS AND TAKE NEXT STEP AND DIRECTION AT THAT TIME. THAT IS THE INTERIM UPDATE. THE 180 DAY PERIOD HE REQUESTS AND DISCUSS SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING DEDICATED TO KINGS LANDING. >> I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY FOR THE PEOPLE LISTENING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A REQUEST FROM THE MARRIOTT NOT FROM MR. WARE BUT THE MARRIOTT FROM THE HOTEL PORTION OF THIS AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW. >> THANKS FOR CLARIFICATION, YES. >> I KNOW THAT MR. WARE IS OUT OF TOWN BUT I REPRESENT, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE COMPANY IS HERE. >> ALRIGHTY. THAT'S FINE. YES? SIR STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND YOUR ADDRESS AND AFFILIATION. >> PRESIDENT SOMETHING LIVE OAK. >> THANK YOU. >> YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN? >> BEARTOZI. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE WITH US? >> AS CHEYENNE SAID. WE'RE ALREADY IN THE PROCESS OF REACHING OUT TO PARTICIPATING PARTIES. I HAD A CALL WITH A PARTY TODAY WITH A PARTY WE'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH SO WE'RE ACTIVELY PURSUING THIS. EITHER WAY IT GOES, THE BALL IS IN MOTION FOR US SO I HAD CONVERSATIONS, AS WELL WITH MR. COLLIER TODAY JUST TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT HIS COMMITMENT TO THE PROJECT. HE IS COMMITTED AND BASICALLY BASED ON TODAY'S MEETING I TOLD HIM HE'LL BE STANDING HERE NEXT TO ME AT THE NEXT ONE SO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER WHAT I HAVE AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. QUESTIONS? >> YEAH. THANK YOU MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND WATCH THE LAST MEETING AND I GUESS I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STAFF OR YOU BUT THIS 60 DAY EXTENSION TO LINE-UP I GUESS FINANCES OR WHATEVER TO GET THINGS IN PLACE. WHAT DOES THAT DO TO OUR TIME-LINE HERE ULTIMATELY? WE HAVE UNDERSTOOD THE IMPACT OF THAT AND HOW FAR OFF WE'LL BE? >> WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE TIME-LINE AND IT WILL EXTEND THE LION LIME LION TIME-LINE FOR COMPLETION. WE TALKED WITH MAIN SAIL, AS WELL, AND IF APPROVED WE'LL PRESENT A SCHEDULE THAT'S CONCISE TO THEWE TALKED WITH MA WELL, AND IF APPROVED WE'LL PRESENT A SCHEDULE THAT'S CONCISE TO THE FUNDING IN PLACE AND THE REQUEST WAS FOR 180 DAYS AND YOU SAID 60. >> OKAY. SIX MONTHS. 180 DAYS. OK OKAY. >> QUESTIONS?
[40:01] >> I GUESS THE ISSUE I HAVE IS THE MATRIX THAT THE HOTEL INDUSTRY WORKS UNDER IS A 35 PERCENT DOWN, 65 PERCENT FINANCE. IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? >> ROUGHLY BASED ON BANK STRUCTURE RIGHT NOW. >> BILL AND I DISCUSSED THIS ON THE PHONE. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE HOTEL FOLKS KNEW THOSE PERCENTAGES FROM DAY ONE. I WORK IN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, AND IF I'M BUYING A PROPERTY I KNOW I'M INTO A 25% DOWN. THAT'S THE INDUSTRY STANDARD. I THINK THEY WERE AWARE OF THIS SO IN YOUR OPINION HOW CAN YOU ASSESS HOW DOES, WHY WAS THIS DEALT WITH CURRENTLY AS APPOSED TO THE BE GINING OF THIS? >> BUDGET INCREASES HAVE PLAYED A FACTOR IN THAT. OBVIOUSLY THE HOTEL KEY RATE DOES NOT CHANGE. IT'S FAIRLY STANDARD THAT THEY LOOK AT SO THE INCOME SIDE OF THE N OI OF THE PROGRAM CAN AFFORD TO PAY FOR THE LOAN VALUE AND BASICALLY THEY ARE PUTTING IN THE RETURN FOR THEIR EQUITY POSITION. AS THAT LOW VALUE GOES UP IT DEPLETES RETURN PROVISION SO IF A PROJECT STARTS AT $50 MILLION AND GOES TO $65 MILLION, NOW YOU HAVE A DELTA THERE THAT YOU CANNOT EARN OUT OF BECAUSE THE RATES ARE STILL THE SAME, SO AS WE HAVE SEEN CONSTRUCTION COSTS CONTINUE TO BALLOON, WE'VE HAD THOSE CHALLENGES ACROSS MULTIPLE INDUSTRIES BUT THAT IS A PORTION OF THE CAUSE OF THE DELTA THAT IS BEING CREATED, SO THE INITIAL BUDGET TO THE BUDGET NOW HAS CHANGED AND THEREFORE, IT LEAVES THAT DELTA WITHIN THE FINANCING THAT NOW, YES THE BANK CAN STILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE 65 PERCENT BUT THAT EQUITY CHECK GROWS TO A LARGER NUMBER, AS WELL AND THAT DELTA IS WHAT IS TRYING TO BE OVERCOME. >> OKAY. I GET THAT AND THERE'S A FEW TECHNICAL TERMS IN THERE. MY OPINION, JUST MY OPINION. I DON'T HAVE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THIS AT ALL. THE PRIMARY LENDER LOOK AT THE NUMBERS AND SAID WE'RE NOT BUYING YOUR NUMBERS OR PROJECTIONS ON THE ROOM RATES, THE GROSS INCOME, ET CETERA AND THEY SAID, WE'RE JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU A HAIRCUT AND WE'RE ONLY WILLING TO DO THIS AND IS THAT ACCEPTABLE AND THEY MUST'VE SAID YES KNOWING THEY HAD A $15 MILLION DELTA THEY HAD TO COVER. ANY RHYME OR REASON TO THAT? >> THERE'S RHYME AND REASON TO MAKE THAT ASSESSMENT. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THE RATES THAT ARE PRESENT, YOU KNOW, YOU ALWAYS WANT TO PUSH THOSE, YOU KNOW, TO BE AS GREAT AS POSSIBLE, AND IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT HISTORICAL DATA YOU MAY NOT GET TO THOSE NUMBERS, BUT WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, INFLATIONARY. YOU KNOW, INFLATION COSTS CONTINUE TO GO UP SO YOU GET TO THOSE NUMBERS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THIS IS NOT A PROJECT THAT SITS ON THE GROUND NEXT WEEK OR NEXT MONTH. OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS WILL THOSE RATES INCREASE? AND I'M SURE THAT, THAT WAS PART OF THE FACTOR. WE HAVE A 3 PERCENT GROWTH RATE OF THOSE RATES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO ESCALATE THAT DOLLAR VALUE AND TAKE IT TO THE FINANCING. THEY SAID, WHAT ARE RATES TODAY? WE DON'T CARE WHAT RATES ARE IN THE FUTURE WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT TODAY'S RATES ARE AND HOW DOES THAT STRUCTURE? WE DEAL WITH THAT ALONG MULTIPLE LEVELS OF CONSTRUCTION FINANCING. >> IDEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY ON A MUCH SMALLER SCALE OBVIOUSLY. HAVING SAID THAT, CAN YOU TOUCH ON HOW YOU ARE TRYING TO STRUCTURE THE FINANCING? THEY ARE REASONABLE FOR THEIR FIRST MORTGAGE AND YOU ARE LOOKING TO COME IN SECONDARILY TO THAT? >> YES. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT FRIENDS AND FAMILIES AND INVESTMENT AND PRIVATE EQUITY VERSES INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS. CURRENTLY INSTITUTIONAL INVESTORS THEIR IDEAL RATES ARE 18 TO 22% RETURN ON THEIR MONEY AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT THAT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. THAT'S A LARGE NUMBER OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. PRIVATE INVESTORS LOOKING AT INVESTING THEY WANT TO PUT THEIR MONEY IN THE STOCK MARKET THEY WILL GET FIVE TO EIGHT PERCENT IF. IF THEY WANT TO TAKE A RISK OKAY AND DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY THEY CAN LOOK AT THE 10 TO 14 RANGE SO THOSE DOLLARS THEN RETRACT OUT OF THE DEAL, OUT OF THE RETURN STRUCTURE TO THE
[45:02] INVESTORS AND YOU ARE ABLE TO BASICALLY LOWER WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS ON THE LONG-TERM TO COVER A NOTE THAT IS OUT THERE. >> I ALSO THINK ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS THAT YOU HAVE YOUR PRIMARY FINANCING ON YOUR FIRST MORTGAGE AND YOU ARE LOOKING TO PLACE SOMEONE IN A SECONDARY POSITION AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE FAVORABLE. IT'S UNTESTED. IF I WAS IN THE SECONDARY POSITION I WOULD QUESTION IF THIS IS AVAILABLE. >> HISTORICALLY MOST ALL DEALS HAVE LP. YOU HAVE AGP INVESTOR AND A LP THAT'S A GENERAL PARTNER, LIMITED PARTNER AND THEN YOUR BANK FINANCING. THE LP PARTNER KNOWS THEIR INVESTMENT IS, IT'S BASICALLY A THIRD TIER INVESTMENT IN A DEGREE BECAUSE THE BANK HAS TO GET PAID AND THEGP WILL PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THE LP IS THE ONE AT RISK SO YES THOSE ARE THE GROUPS THAT MAKE THOSE INVESTMENT BUT THEN THEY PUT PROTECTIONS IN WITH THEGP AND US ON THE DEAL THAT THERE IS WERE TEAR FALL STRUCTURES AS THE DEAL CONTINUES TO PRODUCE. THIS IS NOT A DEAL THAT WILL YOU KNOW, A HOTEL SHOULD NOT FAIL- THIS MARKET IN THIS LOCATION WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S COMING AROUND IT THAT WE'RE ALSO BRINGING IN, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT AND LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PACKAGE AND NOT JUST THE HOTEL, SO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE CERTAIN INVESTORS THAT LOOK FOR ASPECTS OF IT AND THE HOTEL IS AN ADDITIONAL BENEFIT TO THEM AND THEN ABOVE THE RESTAURANTS THERE. THE CONDO COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THERE. >> I'M DONE. >> MAYOR? THANK YOU FOR COMING. ACTUALLY IN BEING HERE. I'M NEW ON THE COMMISSION AND I'VE WATCHED IT FROM A FAR AND EXPRESSED MY SUPPORT WHEN MR. WARE CAME IN ORIGINALLY. I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY COMMISSION AND COUNCIL AND SUPPORTING THIS 100 PERCENT ALL THE WAY BUT YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT CONCERNS ME. WHILE THE HOTEL IS A PRIME PORTION OF THIS AND I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION MADE IT A PRIORITY, MY FEAR IS THAT, NOT THAT THS HOTEL CAN'T SUCCEED OR BE FUNDED, I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT LIVE OAK IS TRYING TO MAKE THIS THE SITUATION SO THE ENTIRE PROCESS CAN BE DONE AND THEY ARE UNDERFUNDED AND HAVE BEEN AND THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THIS REGARDLESS. IN MY OPINION I THINK THIS COMMISSION THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER COULD LISTEN TO A PRESENTATION TO THE HOTEL PRESENTATION IF YOU ARE TALKING FOR MAIN STAY I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY COMMISSION AND CITY MANAGER AND WALKING THROUGH THAT FOR THE HOTEL SPECIFIC. THE $15 MILLION ASK SHOOK EVERYONE UP, UP HERE. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? THE PROPERTY WENT FROM 2.5 MILLION VALUE WHEN FIRST PROVIDED AS INCENTIVE TO 8.5 TODAY. THE REQUEST FOR THE $15 ON TOP SO NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT $23,000,000 OF INVESTMENT FROM THE CITY AS PART OF THIS PROCESS AND LIVE OAK AND THE PRESENTATION WAS ONLY 6.5 MILLION ON THAT SIDE OF THE EQUATION SO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO PUT THE TAXPAYERS THROUGH THIS CONTINUOUSLY IF WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FINANCE IT FROM DAY ONE WHETHER THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS, NOW ASKING FOR AMENDMENT FOUR, ARE WE GOING TO GET THERE? MY PROCESS IS NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. FOR ME TONIGHT I'M NOT WILLING TO SUPPORT IT GOING TOWARDS A SPECIAL MEETING OR GOING FORWARD WITH ANY OTHER PROCESS EXCEPT THE FUTURE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE MAIN STAY SIDE OF THINGS TO SPEAK TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE MANAGER ABOUT HOW TO MOVE THAT HOTEL FORWARD. I THINK THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY. TO HAVE IT ALL LINED UP WITH LIVE OAK AND THE PREVIOUS INVESTOR BOTHERS ME EXTENSIVELY. THERE ARE TOO MANY ISSUES FOR TOO MANY YEARS AND THE CITIZENS DESERVE BETTER THAN THAT AND BETTER THAN THAT. THERE ARE SO MANY FOLK THAT'S WANT TO INVEST IN FORT PIERCE AND THIS IS BEING HELD UP AND FOR ME PERSONALLY AND I'M TO NOT SPEAKING FOR ANYONE ELSE UP HERE I'M NOT SUPPORTING THIS GOING ONE STEP FORWARD. IT'S BEEN THROUGH THREE AMENDMENTS AND THE FOURTH TAKES AWAY THE ABILITY TO BEING REVERTED BACK TO THE CITY SO AT THE END OF THE DAY I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANYTHING GOING
[50:02] FORWARD WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. IF IN THE FUTURE WE PUT A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS OUT AND THE COMMISSION AGREES TO THAT THROUGH THE F PRA THEN I'LL LISTEN TO WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD BUT I THINK IT'S TIME TO AS THEY SAY, CUT BAIT AND MOVE ON. I APPRECIATE YOU'RE BEING HERE TONIGHT BUT I'M SPEAKING FOR THE FRUSTRATION FOR THE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE SPOKEN TO ME ABOUT THIS ISSUE SINCE I WAS ELECTED SO I'M CURRENTLY TODAY SPEAKING FOR THE CITIZENS OF FORT PIERCE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT? >> NO, I DO NOT. >> ANYTHING ELSE? YES, COMMISSIONER? >> MR. JOHNSON? >> GO AN ED. >> WELL I'M AT A LOSS HERE OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM. MY CONCERN IS WHEN I CAME BACK TO THIS IS WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OF THIS MEETING, RIGHT? TO DISCUSS THIS IN GREATER DETAIL AND TO HEAR NOT ONLY FOR US BUT FOR THE PUBLIC, RIGHT SO I AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUE A CERTAIN EXTENT. I ANYWAY OVER THIS AND I SENT A MESSAGE I WAS NOT HERE AND I WAS CLEAR ON HOW I STAND ON THIS, SO I DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WITH THIS. >> WE'RE DISCUSSING SCHEDULING A SPECIAL MEETING >> WE CAN SCHEDULE A SPECIAL MEETING BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO HEAR FROM THIS. LET'S TALKING ABOUT SCHEDULING A MEETING WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AND SET UP THE PERIMETERS OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS AND THEN WE'LL MAKE A DECISION. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AND BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'M BEYOND FRUSTRATED. >> I CAN APPRECIATE THAT. >> THE THREE BULLET POINTS ON THE SCREEN IS WHAT YOU SEE AS THE DISCUSSION FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING? >> YES. MADAM MAYOR, WE OUTLINED THEM DURING THE MEETING. I THINK THERE IS MORE DETAIL ON THE AGENDA ITEM. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THAT FOURTH AMENDMENT WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE TIMEFRAME THAT WE'RE BEYOND SOME OF THE MILESTONES THAT WERE CLEAR IN TERMS OF THE START AND END DATE FOR EACH MILESTONE SO THAT'S SOME ISSUE WE NEED TO RESOLVE. THE FINANCING WAS PART OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT AND I THOUGHT THAT NEEDED TO BE SECURED. THE CLOSING BETWEEN LIVE OAK AND OUR TO BAN WAS A POINT OF THAT THIRD AMENDMENT WHICH IS NOW CONSIDERED A DEFAULT AND THEN OF COURSE MOVING FORWARD WITH WHAT ARE OUR NEXT STEPS AND OPTIONS MOVING FORWARD. CLEARLY HAVING THE TIME TO REALLY DIVE INTO ALL OF THAT AND HEARING FROM DEVELOPER IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WISH AND OUTLINING NEXT STEPS OF WHATEVER WAY WE GO, YES, THAT'S IN SUMMARY, IF ANYTHING ELSE COMES UP WE'LL BE PREPARED. YOU KNOW, HAVE ALL THE ATTACHMENTS AND WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SEE, WE CAN MEET PRIOR TO THAT. HAVING A COMPREHENSIVE PREVIEW OF THIS PROJECT NOT ONE ITEM ON MULTIPLE ITEMS ON A COMMISSION AGENDA. THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. >> MADAM MAYOR THAT'S WHAT I WAS INTERPRETING RIGHT? AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO HAVE COMMISSIONER GAINES HERE WITH US AND WE'LL HAVE THE PUBLIC HERE AND THAT'S THE PART I WANT TO BRING BACK INTO THIS. MAKING THE PUBLIC AWARE. WE'VE MADE PROMISES FROM THIS DAIS ON WHEN THIS HOTEL WAS COMING AND WE HAVE ASSURANCES AND THEN WE GET WHACKED. SO THE PUBLIC, I WANT TO HEAR FROM THEM ON HOW THEY ARE FEELING ABOUT THIS SO I'M ALL FOR SETTING A DATE, I GUESS AND HEARING IT, THE INFORMATION. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> I MENTIONED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING THIS WAS DISCUSSED AT REGARDING TIME-LINE FOR DIFFERENT CURES TO THIS SCENARIO. 180 DAY WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY TO SECURE THE FINANCING AND I FIND THAT A REASONABLE REQUEST TO GET THAT DONE. SHORT OF THAT, IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED ON CLAWING BACK THE PROPERTY OR REVERT CLAUSES. MY ANALYSIS OF THAT IS WE'RE BEING INVOLVED IN LITIGATION FOR FIVE YEARS BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS MONEY IN THE GAME HERE AND THEY ARE ALL LOOKING TO GET MONEY FROM OTHER PARTIES SO IT IS A FIVE YEAR LITIGATION SOMEWHERE IN THE VICINITY OF A HALF MILLION OF LITIGATION FEES THAT THE CITY WILL INCUR. AND THE OUTCOME OF THAT IS QUESTIONABLE. FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, KEEPING IN MIND WE DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY, THESE GUYS DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY. IT'S OWNED BY A THIRD PARTY NOT IN THIS ROOM TO HAVE THIS DISCU
[55:06] DISCUSSION. SO WHAT WE'RE CONFRONTED IS FIVE YEARS OF LITIGATION AND IT WILL EDUCATION FEES AND ANOTHER RFP THAT'S TWO YEARS AND THEN TWO OR THREE YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION TIME. WE'RE LOOKING AT TEN YEARS IF WE TERMINATE THIS NOW. AND I THINK THAT'S A FAIRLY REALISTIC TIME-LINE. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING BETTER AS FAR AS A TIME-LINE IS CONCERNED AND I'VE BEEN INVOLVD WITH ISSUES LIKE THIS PREVIOUSLY SO GIVING THEM 180 DAYS TO SECURE THE FINANCING TO COMPLETE THIS IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZEN OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE COMMISSION TO CONTINUE THIS ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS AND GIVE YOU GUY AS SHOT. THE MARK YOU ARE GOING AFTER THE FAMILY TRUST AND ALL THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY THE MARKET THIS NEEDS TO GO TO. WALL STREET MONEY IS NOT GOING TO BE INTERESTED. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE A SNIFF AT THIS. I ADVOCATE WE GIVE THEM 180 DAYS AND WE'LL HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING TO TALKING ABOUT IT BUT MY POSITION IS COUNTER THE OTHER OPINIONS HERE THAT I THINK IT'S VERY UNFORTUNATE SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND OURSELVES IN. WE FOUND OUT VERY LATE IN THE GAME THIS WAS TAKING PLACE AND THE ASK OF THE TIME WITH US A MUNICIPAL CONTRIBUTION OF $15 MILLION. THAT'S A GREAT PHRASE TO USE. THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY PUT UP THE $15 MILLION AND I COULD NOT ADVOCATE FOR THAT IN ANY CAPACITY BUT GIVING YOU THE TIME TO GET IT TO THE PRIVATE MARKET I THINK IS THE WAY TO GO. THE CITY IS OUT OF IT AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND IT GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO WRAP THIS UP AND BRING IT HOME. AS FAR AS I CAN TELL BASED ON THE SITE PLAN REVIEWS I'VE DONE AND MEETING WITH BILL AND TALKING TO BILL. TWO OR THREE TIMES A WEEK, TALKING TO BILL, IF THIS DELTA CAN BE SHRUNK YOU WILL FIND OTHER MONEY LOCALLY THAT WILL BE INTERESTED IN INVESTING. I TALKED TO MULTIPLE. WE CAN'T SOMEONE $15 MILLION BUT WE CAN COME UP WITH THIS. SO THERE IS ANOTHER POOL OF LOCAL MONEY THAT COULD BE INTEREST IN THIS, AS WELL SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE DOING YOUR THING. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON A SPECIAL MEETING. >> ARE YOU ASKING FOR A VOTE FOR THE SPECIAL MEETING? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED A VOTE BUT SOME CONSENSUS THAT'S WHAT YOU WISH TO DO. >> WE'RE NOT AGREEING ON ANYTHING ELSE EXCEPT THE SPECIAL MEETING. >> THERE'S NO ACTION TO BE TAKEN TONIGHT. >> SPECIAL MEETING IS TO TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS. YOU GET THE FACTS ON THE TABLE AND WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE YOUR REPRESENTATION THERE AND JOE COLLIER. WE NEED THE WHOLE TEAM HERE. THERE ARE GOING TO BE HARD QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERS AND I INTEND TO CUE UP BUNCH MYSELF SO I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FORMULATION THING. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE I DEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY SO THIS WHOLE THING COMING AT THE LAST MINUTE, COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, BASICALLY AND WE'RE 15 MILLION SHORT AND WANT A CONTRIBUTION, I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BUT THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BOND THE MONEY AND THAT'S NOT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. BUT GETTING THIS PROJECT OFF THE GROUND IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE ONLY AVENUE AVAILABLE TO SUCCEED AT THAT. SO WE NEED TO WORK ARM AND ARM TO GET IT DONE IN ANY CAPACITY WE CAN. THAT'S MY OPINION. >> ONE LAST QUESTION. MADAM ATTORNEY IS THIS A MATERIAL BREACH? YES OR NO? >> MADAM MAYOR? >> YES. IT IS CURRENTLY IN BREACH >> WE'RE GOING TO BE, IF I HEAR A CONSENSUS, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT YOU COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY. BUT THE THREE OF US ARE FOR A SPECIAL MEETING AND DO YOU HAVE A MEETING OF TIMEFRAME? >> WE HAVE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION ASSEMBLES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO MEET PRIOR TO THAT. >> WE HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME FOR NOTICE AND WE WANT THE PRINCIPLE PEOPLE HERE BECAUSE THIS SPECIAL MEETING IS GOING TO BE IT. >> RIGHT. MADAM MAYOR. MY EXPECTATION IS THAT WE'LL MAKE A DECISION ON WHICH WAY WE'RE GOING? >> YES. >> OKAY >> DO WE TAKE ADVICE FROM MS. COX ON WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT NOTICE AND EVERYTHING AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DO HERE. WE HAVE RECOMMENDATION? >> MADAM MAYOR? >> IF WE DO IT'S THE CITY COMMISSION WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC NOTICE REQUIREMENT LIKE WE DO IF WE DO IT AS THE F PRA. I CAN WORK WITH OUR MEETING ROOM CALENDAR I'M PRESUMING ON WHAT YOU SAID YOU WANT TO DO THIS AS AN EVENING MEETING? >> THAT WOULD BE MY
[1:00:01] RECOMMENDATION. >> FINE. >> START IT AT 5:00, AND IF I'M LOOKING AT THE CALENDAR NOW, AUGUST 24TH DOES THAT GIVE YOUR TEAM ENOUGH TIME TO GET TOGETHER? I KNOW THAT MIGHT BE TOO TIGHT OF A TURN AROUND. >> WHICH AGENCY OVERSEAS THIS? IT'S IN THE F PR A AND SO WHOEVER THE DECISION MAKERS ARE, WHATEVER HAT THIS GROUP WILL WEAR THAT PARTICULAR DAY SHOULD BE THE AGENCY WITH CONTROL. >> THREE PARTY AGREEMENT SO WILL IT HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, AS WELL AS THE F PRA BOARD THAT IS HOW WE STRUCTURE THE AMENDMENTS AND THE AGREEMENTS. YOU VOTE ON IT TWICE BASICALLY SINCE YOU ARE THE SAME BODY. WE CAN HAVE THE SPECIAL MEETING UNDER THE CITY COMMISSION UMBRELLA BUT WE NEED TO BRING IT TO THE F PRA BOARD >> COULD THE COMMISSION MEET, HEAR THE CASE, RECESS CONVENE AS THE F PRA BOARD, HEAR THE ISSUE, VOTE, AND THEN BOTH PARTIES VOTE ON THE SAME DAY? IT'S UNUSUAL OF COURSE. BUT THIS IS AN UNUSUAL SITUATION. >> MADAM MAYOR I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT. YOU'RE RUNNING INTO ISSUES WITH PROPERLY BEING ABLE TO TIME-OUT YOUR MEETINGS. HOW WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST IS REALLY THE BULK AND CONSIDERATION IS ONE OF THE MEETINGS WHICHEVER ENTITY WAS FIRST IN THE TIMELINE AND THEN IT WOULD COME BACK. OBVIOUSLY EACH VOTES ON IT'S OWN AND THAT HAS DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS AND THEY ARE THE SAME BOARD. IF YOU DISAGREED WITH YOURSELF ONE NIGHT FROM THE OTHER I WOULD FIND IT WEIRD BUT THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE. >> DEPENDS ON WHO SHOWS UP. >> WHICH PERSONALITY? THERE YOU GO. ULTIMATELY WHATEVER BODY. IT WILL BE THE FIRST BODY AND GENERALLY EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE IT WILL GO THE OTHER WAY SO IF YOU MEET AS THE CITY COMMISSION TO SPECIAL MEETING WE PUT IT ON THE NEXT F PRA MEETING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AND VICE VERSA. >> I HAVE A CHALLENGE ON THE 25TH. REPRESENTATIVE? >> 24TH WAS THE DATE. >> I'M GOING TO WITHDRAWAL THAT DATE. LOOKING AT EVERYONE'S CALENDARS IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK BUT SEPTEMBER 14TH WHICH IS A MONDAY. YOU HAVE A MEETING THAT MORNING WOULD ACTUALLY BE A BETTER DATE BECAUSE YOU ALL HAVE AN F PRA MEETING THE NEXT DAY AND YOU HAVE, I THINK WE HAVE A BUDGET MEETING OR SOMETHING SO SEPTEMBER 14TH WOULD BE A MONDAY MEETING. IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE ALL IN A TOWN AND THAT GIVES YOU A LOT OF EXTRA TIME? SEPTEMBER 14TH? >> I WILL MAKE IT WORK. >> OKAY. >> SHE SAID OUR CALENDARS DON'T WORK. >> 24TH? I'M WIDE OPEN. THAT WOULD WORK THAT DAY FOR ME. >> AUGUST 24TH? >> LET ME TAKE A LOOK. >> NO. SEPTEMBER 24TH. >> OKAY. FIRST YOU MENTIONED AUGUST 24TH. >> I DID. >> THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. >> YOU SAID IT WOULDN'T WORK FOR CALENDARS. >> I'M LOOKING AT SOME THAT HAVE VACATIONS SCHEDULED. >> THAT WOULD BE ME. >> OKAY THEN. >> ENJOY YOUR VACATION. >> I'M CLEAR ON THE 14TH. >> SEPTEMBER 14TH AND WE HAVE THE A MEETING THE FOLLOWING DAY. >> THAT WORKS. >> THAT WORKS FOR ME. ARE YOU LOOKING AT YOUR CALENDAR? ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT THAT? >> I'M GOING TO WORK THROUGH SOME SCHEDULING THAT'S GOING TO CONFLICT BUT I'LL MAKE IT WORK. >> APPRECIATE THAT. >> LET'S SHOOT FOR THAT. >> YOU LIKE SEPTEMBER 14TH EVERYBODY? >> 14TH AND THE 15TH. >> 14TH. >> THEN WE'LL COME BACK THE NEXT NIGHT FOR THE 15TH. >> YES. COMMISSIONERS? I'M SEEING IF COMMISSIONER GAINES IS TEXTING ME HERE. >> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE DONE. >> I THINK WE'RE DONE. EVERYBODY GOOD? THANKS FOR BEING WITH US. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US. LET'S GET THIS MEETING MOVING O ON. >> OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> ANY ITEM THAT NEEDS TO BE PULLED BY ANY COMMISSIONER? IF NOT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[1:05:06] >> MOTION CALLED AND SECONDED. >> >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER HUDSON? >> YES.. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST ITEM IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING TO CONSIDER A NOTICE OF APPEAL OF THE MAY 20TH, 2026 DECISION OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SUBMITTED BY OUTDOORS AND BONDING CUSTOM BUILDERS FOR ADDITIONAL BILLBOARD AT 1710 NORTH 25TH STREET. RESOLUTION 26-R 59 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA ORDER OF FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE DETERMINED AT AN APPEAL HELD ON AUGUST THIRD OF 2026 FOR THE APPEAL OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ON MAY 28TH FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1710 NORTH 25TH STREET FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA PROVIDING NOTICE FOR ALL PARTY AND REPEALING ALL RESOLUTIONS AND CONFLICT FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS RESOLUTION WILL BE THE TOOL THAT WE'LL USE TO PROVIDE YOUR FINDINGS. THAT WILL BE THE FINAL DOCUMENT PROVIDED TO ALL PARTIES >> THANK YOU AND MADAM CITY ATTORNEY WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE PROCEDURES FOR TO HEARING BEFORE US? EVERYBODY NEEDS TO LISTEN TO THIS. CAREFULLY. >> YES, MA'AM, MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS THESE PROCEDURES ARE LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE USED FOR A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING BECAUSE THIS IS AN APPEAL SO TO REITERATE. PAY CLOSE ATTENTION BUT YOU CAN ASK AND I CAN EXPLAIN ANSWERS. SO THE MAYOR SHALL CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAINTAIN ORDER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY SHALL RULE ON ALL EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND OBJECTIONS. FORMAL RULES OF PROCEDURES SHALL NOT APPLY HOWEVER FUNDAMENTAL DUE PROCESS SHALL BE RECORDED. BOTH THE APPELLANT AND APPLICANT WILL MAKE ARGUMENTS BASE ON WHAT'S SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK AND THE CITY IS THE APPELLEE. THAT IS TO BE BASED ON THE MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY CLERK WHICH WILL HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. THE APPELLANT WILL GO FIRST AND MAKE AN ORAL PRESENTATION AS TO WHY IT SHOULD WIN THE APPEAL. THE ORAL PRESENTATION IS 20 MINUTES AND THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, EXHIBITS OR EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE INTRODUCED. THE APPELLANT HAS THE OPTION TO RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL AFTER THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION. AFTER THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLETED IT'S ARGUMENT COMMISSIONERS MAY ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS DESIRED. QUESTIONS MUST BE ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ONLY AND NO NEW INFORMATION CAN BE SUBMIT AND THE QUESTIONS ARE LIMITED THE MATERIALS AND RECORD PROVIDED AND THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PRESENTER. AFTER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED STAFF WILL HAVE 20 MINUTES TO MAKE AN ORAL PRESENTATION AND THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL WITNESSES, EXHIBITS OR EVIDENCE INTRODUCED. AFTER STAFF HAS COMPLETED THE ORG ARGUMENT COMMISSIONERS CAN ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS DESIRED. NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CAN BE SUBMITTED AND THE WES ARE LIMITED THE RECORDS AND MATERIALS PROVIDED. AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL ARGUMENTS AND QUESTIONS THE CITY COMMISSION WILL CONDUCT OPEN DELIBERATIONS ON THE APPEAL. AFTER DELIBERATION AS VOTE SHALL BE TAKEN TO MODIFY OR REVERSE THE DESTOIFKS LOWER BOARD WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH SO. AT THIS TIME ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS SHOULD BE DISCLOSED BY EACH MEMBER. CALL THE ROLL. >> YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> WHAT IT WAS QUESTION? >> PARTE COMMUNICATION? >> NONE. COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> I HAVE REVIEWED THE STAFF'S REPORT AND DID MY BUSINESS AND I HAVE DRIVEN BY THE PROPERTY MULTIPLE TIMES IN MY COURSE OF MY OWN BUSINESS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> NONE FROM THE APPLICANT BUT I HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS AND I BACK UP AND READ THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING. I DID READ THAT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. COMMISSIONER HUDSON? >> YES, I'VE READ ALL OF THE BACK UP PROVIDED ON THIS WAS NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. SO NOW WE WILL PROCEED TO OPEN TO HEARING ON THIS MATTER. THE APPELLANT MAKES AN ORAL PRESENTATION AS TO WHY THEY SHOULD WIN THE APPEAL.
[1:10:03] AS A REMINDER TO THE COMMISSION AND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS PROCEDURE, SO THIS IS THE ONLY TIME THAT YOU HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY TO CALL THE PRESENTER BACK UP SO YOU HAVE TO DO IT WHEN THIS PRESENTER IS UP SO THE APPELLANT HAS A MAXIMUM OF 20 MINUTES EXCLUDING QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION AND THEY MAY RESERVE TIME FOR REBUTTAL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SO DOES THE APPELLANT PRESENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS I'M FRANK AND I'M HERE WITH ON BEHALF OF BONDY CUSTOM BUILDERS AND I WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE FIVE MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL ALTHOUGH GIVEN THE LENGTH OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA I'LL TRY TO KEEP COMMENTS BRIEF SO WE CAN KEEP THE MEETING GOING. >> YOUR LAST NAME IS LEMON? >> THANK YOU AND YOU MAY PROCEED. >> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE BEGIN I DID WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF WHICH SIGN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND I JUST BROUGHT A DEMONSTRATIVE. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE SIGN CURRENTLY EXISTS. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE SIGN IS BASICALLY YOU KNOW TEN FEET TALL FROM THE GROUND AND TEN FEET UP THE SIZE OF THE SIGN STRUCTURE. THE REASON MY CLIENT REQUESTS A VARIANCE IS BECAUSE JUST UNDER FOUR YEARS AGO, THE CITY UNDER THE SAME SIGN ORDINANCE WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE TODAY APPROVED A SIGN FOR ADVERTISING FOR A BILLBOARD AT 25 FEET IN HEIGHT AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS SIGN AT A DIFFERENT PARCEL IN TOWN. THIS SIGN IS LOCATED AT 532 U.S. HIGHWAY ONE IN FORT PIERCE. THIS ONE PERMITTED BY THE CITY AT 25 FEET IN HEIGHT PURSUANT TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE BUT WHEN MY CLIENT APPLIED FOR A BILLBOARD UNDER THE SAME SIGN ORDINANCE THEY WERE TOLD THEY COULDN'T HAVE 25 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THAT THEY COULD ONLY HAVE TEN FEET SO MY CLIENT BUILT THE SIGN AT THE TEN FEET THAT THE CITY SAID THAT HE COULD HAVE, AND WAS ADVISED THAT IF HE WANTED ADDITIONAL HEIGHT HE HAD TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD AND ASK FOR HEIGHT VARIANCE SO HE WENT BEFORE THE BOARD AND ASKED FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE AND WAS VOTED DOWN. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. MY CLIENT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER PURSUING AN APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF THAT VARIANCE. ALL MY CLIENT WANTS IS TO BE TREATED THE SAME WAY AS IT'S COMPETITOR GIVEN A 25-FOOT TALL SIGN IN 2022 UNDER THE SAME SIGN ORDINANCE AND NOW THEY ARE BEING TOLD EVEN THOUGH THE CODE HAS CHANGED WE'RE GOING TO TREAT YOU DIFFERENTIALLY THAN THE PRIOR APPLICANT AND IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT FAIR FROM A COMMON SENSE STANDPOINT BUT WE'RE HERE TO TALKING ABOUT THE VARIANCE THAT WAS DENIED AND RESPECTFULLY WITH ALL RESPECT FOR THE BOARD AND THEIR DECISION WE FEEL AN ERROR WAS MADE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIVE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE CODE, MY CLIENT SATISFIED THOSE CRITERIA AT THE BOARD MEETING AND YET THE BOARD VOTED TO DENY THE VARIANCE. THE FIRST CONDITION OR CRITERIA THAT IS APPLIED WHEN EVALUATING A VARIANCE IS THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. AND AS MY CLIENT INTRODUCED AT THE BOARD MEETING, THERE IS CERTAINLY UNIQUE CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY IS UNIQUELY SMALL IN AREA AND LOCATED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A TRAFFIC LIGHT WHICH OF COURSE MAKES IT AN APPEALING LOCATION FOR BILLBOARD BUT DOES NOT MAKE IT NECESSARILY AN APPEALING LOCATION FOR ANY OTHER TYPE OF EXTRA ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT YOU MIGHT SEE. THE PROPERTY IS TOO SMALL. AND YOU CAN'T DO A TRADITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON A PARCEL WHERE THE SIGN IS LOCATED.
[1:15:03] AND AN ADDITIONAL SPECIAL CONDITION AND CIRCUMSTANCE WE FEEL SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION TONIGHT IS THE CITY IS APPLYING THE ORDINANCE IN A DIFFERENT MANNER TOWARDS MY CLIENT THAN THEY DID WHEN LAMAR CAME IN FOUR YEARS AGO SO THOSE ARE ALL SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT EXIST WITH RESPECT TO THIS SITUATION AND ARE IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE. THE SECOND THING IS WHETHER ANY OF THOSE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE DUE TO THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. MY CLIENT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO CREATE THESE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE PROPERTY IS WHAT THE PROPERTY IS AND THE CITY'S PRIOR INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE AND PRIOR ON IBLYICATION OF THE ORDINANCE TO THE FORMER APPLICANT CERTAINLY WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT MY CLIENT DID. IT DIDN'T FOIST THE SITUATION TO UPON ITSELF SO THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT DUE TO ACTIONS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT. THE THIRD FACT IS WHETHER THE IT WILL CALL INTERPRETATION WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS. AS WE'VE SEEN AND BASED ON THE MATERIALS IN THE RECORD, LAMAR ADVERTISING IN 2022 APPLIED FOR A BILLBOARD WITH A DIGITAL FACE 25 FEET TALL. IT WAS APPROVED, PERMIT NUMBER 22-4085. THAT PERMIT IS IN THE RECORD AND THE AMENDMENT TO THAT PERMIT THAT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED LATER ON IS ALSO IN THE RECORD AND SO THE CITY APPROVED A SIMILAR SIZE SIGN AND SHAPE AND CONFIGURATION AND ZONING. ALL APPROVED BASED ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SIGNED ORDINANCE THAT IS STILL IN PLACE TODAY AND SO A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE SAYS MY CLIENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE VARIANCE FOR 25 FEET. ARGUABLY HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN THAT TO BEGIN WITH BUT THEY WERE TOLD ALL THEY COULD GET IS TEN AND AS FOR THE HEIGHT VARIANCE AND WE'RE DENIED. SOLELY SITUATED APPLICANTS CAME IN WERE PROVIDED THE 25 FEET SO WE FEEL IF YOU APPLY THAT PROVISIONS AT ISSUE TO WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, AGAIN THAT IS IN FAVOR OF IMPROVING THE VARIANCE. THE FOURTH CRITERIA IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM TO MAKE THE REASONABLE USE. NOW YOU KNOW, AGAIN, ALL MY CLIENT WANTS IS WHAT IT'S COMPETITOR HAS AND WHAT IT'S COMPETITOR WAS GIVEN AS OF RIGHT. 25-FOOT TALL SIGN FROM THE GROUND TO THE TOP OF THE SIGN, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WE'RE ASKING FOR A 15-FOOT VARIANCE BECAUSE CURRENTLY THE SIGN IS 15 FEET TALL AND WE WANT TO ELEVATE IT 15 FEET LIKE THE LAMAR SIGN THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN 2022. THE FIFTH CRITERIA IS WHETHER THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE AND AGAIN IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SIGN CODE, WHEN THE CITY LOOKED AT IT IN 2022 WHEN LAMAR CAME IN AND THEY SAID YOU CAN HAVE THIS AT 25 FEET TALL. SO GIVING MY CLIENT A VARIANCE TO ENJOY THE SAME RIGHTS AS LAMAR IS NOT SOMEHOW CONTRARY TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE BUT RATHER IT WOULD PUT MY CLIENT'S SIGN IN HARMONY WITH THE EXISTING SIGN THAT LAMAR HAS AT 532 U.S. HIGHWAY ONE. SO CERTAINLY THIS FIFTH CATEGORY OR CRITERIA ALSO FAVORS GRANTING MY CLIENT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. NOW A VARIANCE SHOULD ALSO BE RESPECTFULLY APPROVED FOR CERTAIN LEGAL REASONS, AS WELL. ALLOWING ONE SIGN COMPANY TO HAVE A SIGN, BUT NOT MY CLIENT, VIOLATES THE EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS UNDER STATE AND FEDERAL LAW. THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND THE 14TH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE MY CLIENT EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A SIGN APPLICANT IN 2022 BE ISSUED A PERMIT AND A SIGN APPLICANT IN 25-26 BE DENIED AND
[1:20:03] BE TOLD YOU HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THE SAME EXACT TYPE OF SIGN. AND WE SIGHT A CASE FROM 2011 FROM AN APPELLATE COURT WHERE A COURT FOUND THE ADMINISTRATOR CAN'T COME UP WITH A NEW INTERPRETATION FOR THE FIRST TIME AND DENY A SUBSEQUENT APPLICANT AND DOING SO IS A VIOLATION OF THAT APPLICANT'S EQUAL RIGHTS. ADDITIONALLY, UNDER THE RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, THE APPLICABLE CODE SECTION THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE IS 117-6C 3. WHICH STATES WITH RESPECT TO OFF PREMISE SIGNS THEY SHOULD NOT EXCEED ABOVE THE NATURAL GROUND LEVEL OF 25 FEET SO THERE IS A SPECIFIC PROVISION IN THE CITY SIGN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS OFF PREMISE SIGNS CAN BE 25 FEET IN HEIGHT AND THAT'S WHAT MY CLIENT REQUESTED BUT HE WAS TOLD YOU COULDN'T HAVE A SIGN 25 FEET IN HEIGHT ONLY TEN FEET. NOW DOING SO VIOLATES THE RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IN SEVERAL WAYS. FIRST, THERE'S A CASE THAT WE SITE IN OUR PAPERS. CITY VERSES NASSAU POINT. A MORE SPECIFIC STATUTE GOVERNING A PARTICULAR SUBJECT CONTROLS OVER A MORE GENERAL PROVISION. HERE WE HAVE A SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR OFF PREMISE SIGNS THAT SAYS THEY CAN BE 25 FEET IN HEIGHT. THERE IS A MORE GENERAL PROVISION FOR GROUND SIGNS THAT SAYS THAT THEY CAN BE TEN FEET IN HEIGHT. WHAT THE CITY IS DOING IS THEY ARE APPLYING THE GENERAL PROVISION TO GROUND SIGNS TO A SPECIFIC SUBSET OF SIGNS, OFF PREMISE SIGN BUT THE FLORIDA LAW SAYS THE MORE SPECIFIC STATUTE CONTROL, SO YOU MUST APPLY THE 25 FEET OF HEIGHT THAT APPLIES TO OFF PREMISE SIGNS. ADDITIONALLY, WHEN YOU HAVE AN A PRESENT INCONSISTENCY IN THE CODE AND ONE SAYS 25 AND ANOTHER PROVISION SAYS TEN FEET, IF THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES ANY DOUBTS AS TO THE POWERS BEING EXERCISED BY THE GOVERNMENT MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE MUNICIPALITIES AND IN FAVOR OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC. WE HAVE TO CONSTRUE THAT IN FAVOR OF THE MY CLIENT THE APPLICANT. FINALLY, FLORIDA LAW CAUTIONS AGAINST INTERPRETING STATUTES IN A FASHION THAT RENDERS PARTS MEANINGLESS, AND IF YOU SAY THAT ALL BILLBOARDS ARE SUBJECT TO THE GROUND SIGN HEIGHT OF TEN FEET THEN YOU'VE BASICALLY RENDERED THE 25-FOOT APPLIANCE I QUOTED FROM IN 117-6C 3 YOU HAVE RENDERED THAT MEANINGLESS TAKEN A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR 25 FEET AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO READ THAT OUT OF THE CODE BUT UNDER FLORIDA LAW YOU CAN'T DO THAT, SO FOR ALL OF THOSE REASONS WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE BOARD'S DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE BE REVERSED AND THAT MY CLIENT BE GIVEN A VARIANCE FOR A TOTAL OVERALL HEIGHT OF 25 FEET CONSISTENT WITH THE SIGNED ORDINANCE AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF I CAN'T ANSWER IT I'D BE HAPPY TO ATTEMPT TO HAVE MY CLIENLT ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS? QUES QUESTIONS? >> YES. REAL SIMPLE. AS I WAS READING THROUGH THIS I WANT TO MAKE SURE I READ CORRECTLY. THE INITIAL APPLICATION WAS FOR A 10-FOOT SIGN. WHAT WAS THE INITIAL APPLICATION FOR TO GET THIS WHOLE PROJECT STARTED? >> MY CLIENT WAS ADVISED THAT HE WOULD NOT BE APPROVED AT 25 FEET BUT WOULD AT 10 AND SO HE APPLIE AT TEN TO GET WHAT THE CITY WOULD GIVE HIM BUT HE WAS ADVISED IF HE WANTED TO GO FOR THE HEIGHT HE HAD TO SEEK A VARIANCE, AND SO AFTER BEING ISSUED THE PERMIT AT 10 FEET HE APPLIED FOR VARIANCE TO GET IT RAISED TO 25 FEET. >> TOTAL OF 25 FEET. SO AN ADDITIONAL 15 FEET. >> YES. >> SO RIGHT NOW THE CURRENT SIGN SITS AT TEN FEET? >> YES. THE CURRENT SIGN IS BASICALLY SITTING ON THE GROUND AS YOU CAN SEE. >> I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT. I LIVE AROUND THE CORNER AND SEE IT ALL THE TIME. RIGHT NOW IT'S TEN FEET? IT'S T THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN FACE ITSELF. >> GOT IT. ALRIGHT. THAT'S IT FOR NOW. I'M GOING TO COME BACK. >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY? >> I HAVE TO ASK ALL THE
[1:25:04] QUESTIONS NOW? >> RIGHT YOU DON'T GET ANOTHER SHOT AT HIM. >> DO YOU NEED TO FINISH THEN? >> I'M COMING AFTER YOU. >> YOU CAN ASK LATER IN THIS SESSION BUT ONCE HE SITS DOWN YOU CAN ANOINT ASK ANYMORE. >> OUR JOB IS NOT TO RELITIGATE THE CASE BY THE APPLICANT BUT TO REVIEW THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROVISIONS AS TO HOW THEY CAME TO THEIR CONCLUSION IS THAT CORRECT? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I STAY MY QUESTIONS TO THAT. >> COMMISSIONERS THAT IS CORRECT. YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHETHER THE LOWER BOARD MADE THE CORRECT DECISION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE END FOR AT THAT HEARING. THIS IS NOT FOR NEW MATERIAL AND NEW EVIDENCE. YOU ARE REVIEWING WHAT THEY DID BASED ON WHAT WAS PRESENTED THERE. >> MY QUESTIONS WILL BE TO THAT CORRECTLY. FIRST QUESTION IS, COULD YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY THE PRECISE EVIDENCE IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RECORDS SHOWING THE PHYSICAL CONDITION IS A 25-FOOT SIGN RATHER THAN THE PERMITTED 10-FOOT SIGN. >> AS I STATED THE MATERIALS THAT MY CLIENT INTRODUCED INTO THE RECORD AND DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD HEARING ESTABLISHED THOSE SAME FACTS THAT I SURMISED THAT THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUELY SMALL AND IN ORIENTATION AND THE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE TWO APPLICATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE CREATE THE HARDSHIP. >> OKAY. HOW DOES DIFFICULTY DEVELOPING PARCEL FOR ANOTHER COMMERCIAL USE ESTABLISH A HARDSHIP OF THE HEIGHT ALREADY PERMIT AND THE PARCEL? >> THAT INDIVIDUAL, THE QUESTION THAT YOU ARE ASKING PER SE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE HARDSHIP BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT IN RELATION TO THE INCONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE BETWEEN THE TWO APPLICATIONS COUPLED WITH THE UNIQUE NATURE AND SITUATION OF THE PROPERTY, THAT CREATES THE HARDSHIP BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE TO PUT THAT PROPERTY IN THE SAME SITUATION AS THE PROPERTY WHERE LAMAR ADVERTISING WAS APPROVED FOUR YEARS PRIOR. >> STAYING ON THAT PROPERTY YOU SAY THIS PROPERTY IS TOO SMALL TO DEVELOP BUT THE LAMAR SIGN PROPERTY IS MUCH SMALLER IN SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN WHERE THIS PARTICULAR SIGN IS? HAVE YOU SEEN THE PROPERTY THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, THAT LAMAR SIGN? >> I'VE BEEN BY AND SEEN BOTH, YES. >> SO FROM A LAND SIZE SQUARE FOOT SIZE THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE ONE WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED BY YOUR CLIENT? >> I THINK IF ANYTHING THAT SUPPORTS THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE 25 FEET AT THE PROPERTY WHERE MY CLIENT'S SIGN IS LOCATED BECAUSE MY CLIENT HAD ADVISED ME ONE OF THE REASONS THE CITY DID NOT WANT TO ALLOW THE 25 FEET THERE WAS THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY DIDN'T SUPPORT A SIGN AT THAT HEIGHT, BUT IF THEY ALLOWED A SIGN AT THAT HEIGHT AT A SMALLER PARCEL AS YOU INDICATE, THEN THAT CUTS AGAINST WHAT THE CITY IS USING AS A RATIONAL FOR NOT ALLOWING 25 FEET AT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BECAUSE THAT PARCEL IS ACTUALLY LARGER AND SO THERE IS A HARDSHIP BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ALLOWING A LARGER PARCEL TO HAVE A CONSISTENT HEIGHT WITH WHAT WAS ALLOWED UNDER SMALLER PARCEL. >> THANK YOU. SO YOU MENTIONED THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND THE, WHERE THE ROADWAY IS. WHERE IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PROXIMITY OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND THE NECESSITY FOR A 25-FOOT SIGN DOCUMENTED. I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE - >> I BELIEVE THE SIGN ORDINANCE ITSELF IS IN THE RECORD, AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT SECTION 117-6C 3 SAYS THE OFF PREMISE SIGN YOU ARE ALLOWED 25 FEET SO THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT ESTABLISHES THAT NOT APPLYING THAT PROVISION TO MY CLIENT AND AFFORDING IT THE SAME OPPORTUNITY THAT LAMAR WAS GIVEN ON THE PROPERTY ON U.S. 1 WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF FINDING A HARDSHIP IN GRANTING THE VARIANCE. >> JUST SO YOU KNOW I'M STAYING TO THE ORIGINAL INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THE RECORD OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SO MY QUESTIONS ARE STICKING TO THAT'S A POSTED TO ANY NEW EVIDENCE YOU
[1:30:03] MAY BE BRINGING FORWARD TONIGHT. JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. IS MINIMUM RELIEF AND REASONABLE USE YOU ARE INDICATING, WHAT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD ESTABLISH AS 25 FEET IS THE MINIMUM HEIGHT RATHER THAN 15, 18 OR 20 FEET? >> THE 25-FOOT HEIGHT THAT'S REQUESTED IS SIMPLY TO ESTABLISH A CONSISTENCY AND UNIFORMITY BETWEEN WHAT PRIOR APPLICANTS WERE ALLOWED UNDER THE SAME PROVISION OF THE SIGN CODE AND WHAT MY CLIENT IS SEEKING UNDER THE SAME PROVISION OF THE SIGN CODE THAT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED IN THE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN LAMAR SIGN BEING PROVED FOR 25 FEET AND MY CLIENT'S SIGN BEING APPROVED FOR 10 AND DENIED THE SAME RIGHT UNDER THE SAME PROVISION OF THE CODE. >> ALRIGHT. SO HOW IS THE PROPERTY DEPRIVED OF REASONABLE USE WHEN APPARENTLY IT CONTAINS A LEGALLY PERMITTED BILLBOARD. THE REVENUE STREAM WILL STILL CONTINUE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE REVENUE STREAM WILL CERTAINLY CONTINUE BUT FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT, HAVING A SIGN AT 25 FEET WHICH IS AGAIN WHAT'S ALLOWED UNDER THE CODE, FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT THAT SIGN IS MORE VALUABLE AND CAN GENERATE ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT A SIGN WITH LESS VISIBILITY CAN GENERATE >> SO THAT LEADS ME TO THE NEXT QUESTION. IS THE CLAIM OF HARDSHIP THE INABILITY TO USE THE COMMERCIAL PERFORMANCE OF THE APPLICANT'S PREFERRED SIGN? >> MY APOLOGIES I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOW THE QUESTION. >> I'M HEARING YOU SUGGEST THERE IS A HARDSHIP FOR THE INABILITY TO USE THE PROPERTY OR THE REDUCED VISIBILITY. YOU SAY IT NEEDS TO BE 25 FEET AND REDUCED VISIBILITY AND COMMERCIAL PERFORMANCE OF THE APPLICANTS PREFERRED SIGN MEANING THE HARDSHIP IS THE INABILITY TO HAVE THAT SIGN? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING? >> IT WOULD INCLUDE THE INABILITY TO HAVE THE SIGN AT THE HEIGHT ALLOWED UNDER THE SIGN CODE. THE ADDITIONAL HARDSHIP I'VE SPOKEN ABOUT IS THE INCONSISTENCY OR THE DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW BY APPLYING A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES OR INTERPRETATION FOR ONE APPLICANT VERSES ANOTHER AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PROVISION OF THE SIGN CODE THAT HASN'T CHANGED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME SO WE HAVE AN ESTABLISHED INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE BACK IN 2022 THAT IS NOW BEING ABANDONED TO THE DETRIMENT OF MY CLIENT FOR NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO CODE CHANGE. THERE'S BEEN NO ADOPTION OF AUGMENTED LANGUAGE TO SUGGEST WHAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST WAS NOT A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE SIGN CODE. >> OKAY. GO BACK TO THE PROPERTY ON U.S. 1. BEYOND THE PARCEL SIDE AND ZONING WHAT EVIDENCE IS RESPECT TO SURROUNDING USES. RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT AND APPLICABLE PERMIT HISTORY? >> AGAIN, THE FACT THAT THE ZONING IS THE SAME AND BOTH SIGNS QUALIFY FOR A PERMIT UNDER THE CODE ARE THE ONLY CONSIDERS THAT YOU NEED. THESE OTHER FACTORS THAT YOU ARE REFERENCING OR REFERRING TO ARE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH A PERMIT OR A USE THAT'S ALLOWED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. IF IT COMES DOWN TO WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS PROPERLY ZONED AND HAS THE PROPER SPACES ALL THESE OTHER ANCILLARY ISSUES YOU ARE REFERRING TO ARE IRRELEVANT UNDER THE APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE SO IF YOU HAVE GOT A SIMILAR SITUATED PROPERTY WITH THE SAME ZONING SATISFIES ALL THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS FROM VARIOUS OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS AND ET CETERA AND IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CODE THOSE OTHER THINGS ARE SIMPLY IRRELEVANT UNDER THE CONSIDERATION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE. >> I DON'T HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS. >> THERE WAS A POINT IN THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, SO I'M ASKING, WHAT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD SUPPORTS THE STATEMENTS CONCERNING VANDALISM OR POSSIBLE VEHICLE IMPACTS? THAT WAS CREATED IN THE BOARD OF
[1:35:04] ADJUSTMENTS PRESENTATION. >> RIGHT. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE REASONS MY CLIENT BROUGHT UP THOSE CONCERNS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUST ADJUSTMENTSISM MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRE SIGNS TO HAVE A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF CLEARANCE FROM THE GROUND LEVEL. SUCH THAT YOU KNOW YOUR TRADITIONAL BOX TRUCK THAT WOULD DELIVER GOODS COULD DRIVE UNDER THE SIGN AND NOT RUN INTO IT FROM A CLEARANCE STANDPOINT. MY CLIENT WAS REFERENCING THE FACT THAT NOT ALLOWING THE VARIANCE WOULD CREATE A SCENARIO IF SOMEONE WERE TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE ALONG THE ROAD IN QUESTION THERE'S NO CLEARANCE BECAUSE THE SIGN IS ESSENTIALLY ON THE GROUND SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY MY CLIENT FELT LIKE A VARIANCE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE WAS TO GET THAT PROPER AMOUNT OF HEIGHT CLEARANCE, AND IF THE SIGN ADDITIONALLY IS 12 OR 15 FEET ABOVE THE NATURAL GROUND WAY TO GET A TOTAL OF 25 FEET IN HEIGHT THE POTENTIAL FOR VANDALISM ON THE SIGN IS DECREASED BECAUSE THEN IN ORDER TO VANDALIZE THE SIGN SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO SCALE A POLE OR HAVE A LADDER OR DO SOME GYMNASTICS TO GET UP THERE AND TO DEFACE THE SIGN WHEREAS IT CURRENTLY IS SITUATED SOMEONE COULD WALK OUT THERE WITH A SPRAY CAN OR WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE AND VANDALIZE THE SIGN SO BY RAISING THE HEIGHT IN A FASHION CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE PRIOR APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED IT WOULD DETER AND DIMINISH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR VANDALISM CREATING OR REQUIRING A MUCH MORE ROBUST EFFORT TO VANDALIZE THE SIGN. >> DOES THE APPLICANT CONTEND THE COMPARABLE SIGN PERMIT COMPLIED WITH THE CODE OR THAT AN ERRONEOUS APPROVAL REQUIRES THE CITY TO HAVE ANOTHER INCONSISTENT APPROVAL? >> IT'S NOT OUR POSITION THAT THE PRIOR ORDINANCE OR THE PRIOR ISSUING OF A PERMIT WAS DONE ERRONEOUSLY. WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT SAYING THAT YOU KNOW IN THE EVENT AN ERROR IS MADE, NOT SOME POINT THE CITY IS TO OBLIGATEED THE ERROR IN PERPETUITY BUT IN 2022 THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED TO LAMAR AND THERE WAS NO QUESTION ABOUT THE VALIDITY AND THERE'S KNOW BEEN NO RETREAT FROM THAT SUGGESTING IT WAS DONE IN ERROR SO TO SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, CLAIM WELL THAT WAS DONE IN ERROR THEREFORE, WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE SAME RIGHT, THERE'S NOTHING THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THAT RESPECTFULLY. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK OR COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THE PRESENTATION. I HAVE STUDIED THE SIGN ORDINANCE EXTENSIVELY BECAUSE I'M INVOLVED IN THAT CURRENTLY AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE NATURE OF OUR SIGN ORDINANCES SO I'M GOING TO HOLD MY QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS UNTIL I HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM DIRECTOR FREE MAN. >> YOU CAN'T ASK THIS GENTLEMEN. >> I UNDERSTAND HIS CONCERNS AND UNDERSTAND IN GREAT DETAIL HAVING WORKED IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BUSINESS FOR DECADES, YOU WERE SELLING ROCK STRUCTURES BACK THEN. THE NATURE OF THE ORDINANCE IS TROUBLING FROM MY PERSPECTIVE BUT LIKE I SAID, I'M GOING TO HOLD THAT UNTIL, I'M GOOD WITH THIS COMMENTARY. THE VARIANCE LITMUS TEST THOUGH, I DO NOT PERSONALLY BELIEVE HAS BEEN MET AND WE'LL GET TO THAT SHORTLY. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? YOU HAVE MORE? >> I'M DONE. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. DID YOU SAY THAT YOUR CLIENT DIDN'T ASK FOR 25 FEET INITIALLY BECAUSE HE WAS TOLD BY SOMEONE, ON STAFF I ASSUME, NOT TO DO IT BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT GET APPROVAL? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THEN DID YOU ALSO STATE THAT IT IS YOUR READING OF THE ORDINANCE THAT 25 FEET IS A MATTER OF RIGHT?
[1:40:01] >> YES THAT'S WHAT'S ALLOWED UNDER 117-6C 3, 25 FEET ABOVE THE NATURAL LEVEL OF THE GROUND FOR OFF PREMISE SIGNS WHICH IS WHAT MY CLIENT IS APPLYING FOR. >> OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, AND IF EVERYONE ELSE GOOD, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. OKAY. AT THIS TIME, LET ME FOLLOW MY SCRIPT HERE. SO HE'S RESERVING FIVE MINUTES AT THE END SO IT IS NOW TIME FOR ST STAFF. I'M ASKING YOU TO COME FORWARD AND YOU ARE ALREADY HERE SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND SO AS A REMINDER THIS IS THE ONLY TIME FOR QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO CALL STAFF BACK UP. PLEASE PROCEED. >> THANK YOU. PLANNING BRICKER TO OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. I WANT TO REMIND THE COMMISSION IT'S BEEN MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE PROCEEDINGS ALREADY THE CITY COMMISSION IS REQUESTED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD BE AFFIRMED OR REVERSED BASED UPON THE RECORD APPLICABLE CODE PROVISIONS AND COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I'M GOING TO GO INTO THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY BEHIND HOW THIS GOT TO THE CITY COMMISSION. SO WE HAD A REQUESTED APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR 25-FOOT BILLBOARD. THIS EARLIER VARIANCE REQUEST WAS DENIED AT THE APRIL 3RD, 2025 HEARING. THE APPLICANT AFTER DISCUSSING WITH STAFF, WAS ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE BILLBOARD. THEY CAME IN AND APPLIED FOR A 10-FOOT HI-V-SHAPED BILLBOARD, 10-FOOT HIGH SIGN APPROVED BY PLANNING STAFF ON DECEMBER 2ND OF 2025. THERE AFTER THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THE PRESENT VARIANCE REQUEST ON JANUARY 29TH, 2026 SEEKING TO INCREASE THE BILLBOARD HEIGHT TO 25 FEET. IN THAT PERIOD THE APPLICANT HAD SPOKEN TO STAFF ABOUT POTENTIAL REMEDIAL ACTION THEY COULD DO OR PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR, FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO CONSIDER THAT APPLICATION FOR 25 FEET. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CONDUCT QUASI-JUDICIAL HERE AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDED DENIAL DUE TO THE CRITERIA NOT BEING MET AND THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DENIED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. SO THIS IS AN APPEAL THAT'S BEEN TIMELY LODGEED FOR THE DECISION TO BE VIEWED BY CITY COMMISSION. SO AT THE MAY 28, 2026 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING THE APPLICANT STATED THE SIGN SHOULD BE PEAR RAISED TO PERMIT LANDSCAPING AND REDUCE VANDALISM AND VEHICLES STRIKING THE SIGN, THE BOARD CONCLUDE THESE A SERTHSS DID NOT SATISFY THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND NOTHING MATERIAL HAD CHANGED SINCE THE EARLIER VARIANCE REQUEST. APART FROM NOW INSTALLATION OF THE PERMITTED 10-FOOT HIGH SIGN. SO UNDER THE CITY CODE THE CITY SIGN CODE DEFINES IT AS SIGN ADVERTISING A USE ESTABLISHMENT, SERVICE PROVIDE AT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED. THEREFORE, THE SIGN IS CONSIDERED OFF PREMISE SIGN. IN THE CITY CODE AN OFF PRECISE SIGN IS REFERRED TO AN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN OR BILLBOARD AND THE PROPOSED SIGN IS ALSO DEFINED IN THE CITY CODE AS A GROUND SIGN BECAUSE IT'S FIXED TO THE GROUND AND IS NOT ATTACHED TO A BUILDING FOR SUPPORT. THOSE DEFINITIONS LAY-IN THE CITY CODE. SO THE STAFF PRESENTATION AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IDENTIFY THE CODE PROVISIONS AND THAT THE OFF PREMISE SIGN WAS A GROUND SIGN UNDER THE CITY CODE. THE SIGN THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN IS CONSTRAINED WITHIN THE CODE DEPENDING UPON THE ACREAGE INSTALLED AND IN THIS CASE IS TEN FEET SO THE VARIANCE REQUIRED TO GET IT TO 25 IS A VARIANCE OF A 15 FEET.
[1:45:09] SO THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT STATES THE GROUND SIGNS IN THE ZONE THREE MAY NOT EXCEED 25 FEET ABOVE GRADE. THE STAFF DETERMINATION THROUGHOUT WAS THE APPROXIMATELY 24, 25 ACRES PARCEL IS SUBJECT TO A MAXIMUM GROUND HEIGHT OF 10 FEET IN GENERAL, THE 25 FEET IS AVAILABLE ON CERTAIN SIZE LOTS. SO NOW LOOKING AT THE VARIANCE STANDARDS AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SO AN APPLICANT NEEDS TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA. I.E., SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TO THE LAND AND SCRUBBINGURAL BUILDING ARE NOT POLITIC TO BE ABLE THE ONES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS WON'T DECLINE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN SAME DISTRICT AND WOULD RESULT IN AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP AND THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO DEMONSTRATE IT'S THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND, BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NEEDS TO ENSURE THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE AND NOT BE PROVIDING INJURY OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE AND TO DO THIS THE BOARD USES FIVE CRITERIA DEFINED IN THE CODE. UNDER SECTION 125-100. CRITERIA ONE RELATES TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND, STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED AND NOT POLITIC TO BE ABLE LAND STRUCTURES OR SO THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING AS SPECIAL CONDITIONS UNDER ITEM ONE. THAT THE PARCEL CONTAINS POINT 25 ACRES AND THE PARCEL IS UNDEVELOPED THE PROPERTY FRONT IS NORTH 25 NORTH 25TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH 25TH STREET AND AVENUE-Q. ACCESS MAY BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF SURROUNDING TRAFFIC AND THE PROPERTY HAS LIMITED DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. STAFF'S INTERPRETATION AND VIEW THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, DO NOT ESTABLISH A PHYSICAL CONDITION REQUIRING A 25-FOOT BILLBOARD. THE RECORD CENTER AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES NOT IDENTIFY UNUSUAL TOPOGRAPHY AND IRREGULAR OR CONSTRAINED PARCEL CONFIGURATIONS OR WETLANDS OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS, GRADE DIFFERENTIALS, EASEMENTS PREVENTING INSTALLATION OF A CONFORMING SIGN, UTILITY CONFLICTS, PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION AFFECTING THE FACE, SIGHT DISTANCE LIMITATION OR OTHER CONDITIONS THAT MISSES THE HEIGHT OF 25 FEET. THE PARCEL IS DEPICTED AS A GENERAL RECTANGLE PROPERTY AND THE CLIENT DID NOT DO LINE OF SIGHT ANALYSIS OR ENGINEERING REPORT DEMONSTRATING A CONFORMING 10 FOOT HIGH SIGN CANNOT PERFORM IT'S PERMITTED FUNCTION. THE PROPERTY APPARENTLY OBTAINS THE 10 FOOT BILLBOARD AND THE EXISTENCE DEMONSTRATES THE SITE CAN PHYSICALLY ACCOMMODATE A SIGN COMPLYING WITH THE APPLICABLE HEIGHT STANDARD AND TRAFFIC VALUE OR VOLUME, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE STATING THAT TRAFFIC VOLUME AT THE INTERSECTION PROXIMITY FOR VISIBILITY AND THESE ARE NOT PECULIAR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS TO ESTABLISH THE FIRST CRITERIA SO STAFF FOUND SECTION 125100 NOT BEING SATISFIED AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT RENDERED THEIR DECISION BASED ON THAT. SECTION 2, ITEM 2, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT ASSERTED THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT RAISED FROM THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED DESIGN AND PREFERRED OPERATION
[1:50:04] OF THE BILLBOARD AND THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY SOUGHT APPROVAL FOR A 25-FOOT SIGN AND WAS DENIED. THE APPLICANT THEN OBTAINED APPROVAL AND INSTALLED A 10-FOOT HIGH SIGN AND THE CURRENT REQUEST SEEKS TO ENLARGE THE HEIGHT OF THAT SIGN. THE APPLICANT STATED THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WOULD ALLOW LANDSCAPE TOGETHER BE INSTALLED AROUND THE SIGN. REDUCE VANDALISM AND REDUCE POSSIBILITY OF A VEHICLE STRIKING THE SIGN AND THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BILLBOARD. HOWEVER, THE RECORD CONTAINS NO LANDSCAPING PLAN, DEMONSTRATING THAT LANDSCAPE IS IN FEASIBLE AROUND THE SIGN. NO CRIME REPORT, SECURITY ANALYSIS OR HISTORY OF VANDALISM WAS SUBMITTED. NO TRAFFIC IN GUY NEAR OR OTHER QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ESTABLISHED THE SIGN CREATES A COALITION HAZARD OR THAT INCREASING THE HEIGHT WOULD RESOLVE SUCH A HAZARD. THESE CONCERNS ARISE FROM THE APPLICANTS SIGN CONFIGURATION AND BUSINESS OBJECTIVES RATHER THAN FROM CIRCUMSTANCES INHERENT TO THE LAND PROPERTY. STAFF FOUND SECTION TWO OF 125100 HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. SECTION THREE INVOLVES THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE ORDINANCE AND WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP OF THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN A SIGN. THE CODE COMPLIANT BILLBOARD HAS BEEN PERMITTED AND INSTALLED ON THE PROPERTY. EXCUSE ME. THE APPLICABLE REGULATION LIMITS THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN BUT DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE SIGN USE ITSELF THE RECORD DEMONSTRATES AN OFF PREMISE SIGN IS PERMIT AND THE PROPERTY AND THE APPLICANT HAS OBTAINED A PERMIT FOR THAT AND THE SIGN HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AT THE PERMITTED HEIGHT AND THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED FOR BILLBOARD PURPOSES WITHOUT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE AND THE CODE DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE PROPERTY OWNER OF ALL REASONABLE USE. THE APPLICANT ASSERTED HARDSHIP IS TO ADVERTISING EFFECTIVENESS AND POTENTIAL REVENUE OF VARIANCES INTENDED FOR HARDSHIPS TO A RISING PROPERTY CONDITIONS NOT TO GUARANTEE THE MOST COMMERCIALLY ADVANTAGEOUS USE OR DESIGN. THE APPLICANT ASSERTED ALSO THAT THE PROPERTY IS DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP BECAUSE OF SIZE AND ACCESS. EVEN ACCEPTING THAT THE SITE MIGHT PRESENT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS THE APPLICANT DID NOT ESTABLISH A 25-FOOT BILLBOARD IS NECESSARY TO AVOID AN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP. THE BILLBOARD PROVIDES AN ACTUAL REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, STAFF FOUND THAT SECTION 125100 AND SECTION THREE HAD NOT BEEN SATISFIED. SECTION 1251004 THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM THAT WOULD MAKE POSSIBLE THE MINIMUM USE OF THE STRUCTURE. THE IS A-FOOT VARIANCE INCREASED FROM TEN FEET TO 25 FEET, THE APPLICANT DID NOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING WHY A TOTAL HEIGHT OF PRECISELY 25 FEET IS NECESSARY FOR A REASONABLE USE. THE RECORD DOES NOT CONTAIN COMPARATIVE VISIBILITY ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT SIGN HEIGHTS, PHOTOGRAPHICAL SIMULATIONS COMPARING 10 TO 25-FOOT ALTERNATIVES AND LINE OF SIGHT PROFILE, ELEVATION SURVEY, LANDSCAPING PLAN REQUIRING CLEARANCE, STRUCTURAL OR SAFETY ANALYSIS, OR ADVERTISING FUNCTION STUDY. STATEMENT THAT THE 25-FOOT VARIANCE IS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT'S A 25-FOOT SIGN DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT 25 FEET IS THE MINIMUM RELIEF REQUIRED. THE EXISTING 10-FOOT SIGN DEMONSTRATES REASONABLE USE IS AVAILABLE WITHOUT A VARIANCE AT MOST THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THE APPLICANT PREFERS A TALLER SIGN. SO STAFF FINDING OF 125104. WE CONFIRM THAT HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. SECTION 125105 THE GRANT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE CODIFIED IN THIS SECTION AND NOT INJURING TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE, DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE. THE APPLICANT ARGUED THAT APPROVAL WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE BECAUSE OFF PREMISE SIGNS ARE PERMITTED THE
[1:55:01] C 3 DISTRICT. THE PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A PARTICULAR SIGN TYPE DOES NOT ILLUMINATE THE MENTION STANDARDS GIVEN THE SIGN. THE HEIGHT REGULATION IS IN ITSELF PART OF THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE. THE CODE DOES PERMIT AN OFF PREMISE SIGN AT THIS LOCATION. IT HAS TO BE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE STANDARDS. GRANTING A SUBSTANTIAL HEIGHT VARIANCE BASED SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT BILLBOARDS ARE PERMITTED WOULD EFFECTIVELY DISREGARD THE EXPRESS HEIGHT LIMITATION. THE REQUESTS SIGN WOULD ALSO BE LOCATED NEAR PROPERTY DESIGNATED AND ZONED R-3 IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT SITE. THE APPLICANT DID NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE ADDRESSING THE RELATIONSHIP OF A PROPOSED 25-FOOT DIGITAL BILLBOARD TO THOSE NEAR-BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON RECORD CONCERNING DIGITAL ILLUMINATION OR DIMMING OR HOURS OF OPERATION, MESSAGE OF DURATION, TRANSITION AFFECTS, LANDSCAPING SCREENING OR ANY MEASURES THAT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO EVALUATE A TALLER DIGITAL SIGN. STAFF DOES NOT AND CANNOT RELY UPON UNSUPPORTED CLAIM THAT'S DIGITAL SIGN WILL UNNECESSARILY REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES OR CREATE OTHER SPECIFIC THINGS RATHER IT BEARS THE BURDEN TO SATISFY THE CRITERIA AND IS THE NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUESTED HEIGHT WOULD BE HARMONIOUS WITH THE ORDINANCE AND NON-INJURY TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. ANOTHER CONSIDERATION IS A NOTE THAT THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE CITY'S COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND IN OUR EARLIER STAFF PRESENTATION, IT WAS STATED THAT PROPOSAL DID NOT ADVANCE THE CITY'S OBJECTIVES FOR ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AREA. IT'S SECOND TO THE CRITERIA THAT SUPPORTS CAREFUL APPLICATION OF THE CITY'S SIGN STANDARDS. SO LET'S LOOK IN THE POINTS WE DON'T SEE ANYTHING SATISFIED FROM A STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW. THE COMPARABLE BILLBOARD AND A LOFT DISCRETION HAS BEEN MADE ON THAT JUST TONIGHT AND IT WAS MENTIONED DURING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HEARING, AND THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE 10-FOOT STANDARD TO THIS PROPERTY IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL. IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE IS REFERENCE TO THE BUILDING PERMIT THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON JULY 8TH OF 2022 AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON AUGUST 24TH, 2022. IF WE LOOK AT HOW THE CODE RUNS, THE SIGN IS GROUND SIGN IS LOCATED ON SLIGHTLY SMALLER LOT. IS LOCATED IN THE C 3 ZONING AND THE FUTURE LAND-USE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL, HOWEVER THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON A BUSY HIGHWAY IN PRIMARILY COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREA WITHIN 160 FEET OF AN INDUSTRIAL ZONED RAIL YARD AND THE PROPERTY OF THIS AN APPEAL IS ON COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE GOALS ARE AT THE TIME ARE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. NO VARIANCE WAS REQUESTED. THE SIGN DID NOT MEET SIGN CODE WHEN IT CAME IN. BUT IT WAS APPROVED. HOWEVER, THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER 25-FOOT SIGN DOES NOT BY ITSELF ESTABLISH THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A RIGHT TO THE SAME HEIGHT. VARIANCE DECISION MUST BE BASED ON THE CONDITION OF THE SUBJECT SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE THE DECISION AT MAY 28, 2026 MEETING THE MINUTES REFLECT THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS AGREE THAT THE APPLY CAPITAL DID NOT SATISFY THE VARIANCE CRY TIER WHAT AND NO SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE HAD OCCURRED, OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF A TEN-FOOT BEILLBOARD. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF AN EXISTING
[2:00:02] COMPLIANCE SIGN PROVIDES FURTHER SUPPORT FOR THE BOARD'S FINDING THAT REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS AVAILABLE WITHOUT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. SO IN CONCLUSION, THAT WE ARE SAYING THAT THE FIVE MANDATORY VARIANCE CRITERIA WERE NOT MET IN PARTICULAR THAT NO SPECIAL PHYSICAL CONDITION, THAT REQUIRES A 25 FOOT HIGH BILLBOARD. THE ASSERTED HARDSHIP RISES FROM THE APPLY CAPITALS PREFERRED SIGN DECISION AND VISIBILITY. >> THE CHAIR: MR. FREEMAN YOUR TIME IS UP. >> READ IT FAST. >> I CAN'T BE AN AUCTIONEER! [LAUGHTER] TEN NOT BILLBOARD -- OK >> THE CHAIR: YOU WERE RECAPPING SOMETHING YOU ALREADY STATED, RIGHT? YOU ALREADY STATED, YES. OK. GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN. QUESTIONS OF MR. FREEMAN. >> I HAD SEVERAL BUT HE ANSWERED. IT WAS VERY COMPREHENSIVE. >> THE CHAIR: YEAH ANYBODY ELSE? >> MR. FREEMAN, THANK YOU FOR THAT. SO THIS ORIGINAL APPLICATION CAME IN AND WAS DEEMED A GROUND SIGN. DID I HEAR YOU SAY THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND UNDER THE GROUND SIGN AND CODE STATES A CERTAIN HEIGHT. >> IF I MAY, IT IS CONSIDERED BOTH. >> OK. >> CODE UNDER A SIGNED CODE. YOU CAN QUITE EASILY MISS THE LINK FROM ONE SECTION TO THE OTHER. >> OK. AND THEN I HEARD YOUR TESTIMONY SPEAK TO THE POINT OF THE -- DID THIS GO BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD? IT WAS APPROVED BY STAFF? >> THIS IT WAS AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE THAT WAS TAKEN TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THAT IS HEARD UNDER QUASI-JUDICIAL? >> NO, THE PROCESS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE CITY COMMISSIONER ANOTHER THAT POINT. >> SO ORIGINALLY JUST COMES IN, APPLICATION FOR A BILLBOARD, STAFF EVALUATES IT, MADE A DETERMINATION THAT KIND OF FIT BOTH THE GROUND AND THE OTHER SIGN WE CALL IT GROUND AND OFF PREMISE SIGNS? RIGHT? AND THEN THE DETERMINATION THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TEN FOOT SIGN. DID I HEAR IN YOUR TESTIMONY THAT NO TESTIMONY BACKGROUND OR ANYTHING ABILLUMINATION OR CANDLELIGHTING OR ANYTHING WAS CONSIDERED HERE WITH THIS, EVEN AT THE 10-FOOT LEVEL? >> THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE THE 10 FOOT LEVEL DID NOT REQUIRE A VARIOUSIAN OR PRESENTATION ANY FURTHER. >> OK. >> I SHOULD SAY THAT THE STAFF ENTERED INTO SOME PRE-APPLICATION DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDED A LOT OF THE INFORMATION BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> YES. >> AND YOU SEE THAT IT WAS NOT. >> OK. I MAY COME BACK AFTER MY COLLEAGUE. >> THE CHAIR: COMMISSIONER? >>  YEAH. >> SO IN READING THE CODE, THERE'S NO PARCEL SIDES THAT AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDE FOR A 25 FOOT SIGN. 20 ACRES 250 FOOT SIGN, THAT IS IN THE CODE. CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT? >> NOT SURE IF THAT IS CORRECT. >> 10 ACRE, 20 ACRE, 18 FOOT, FIVE ACRES TO 10 ACRE UP TO 15 FEET. UNDER CHAPTER 17 OF SIGNS. JUST READING IT IN THE CODE. >> IF THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS THERE. >> THE REASON WHY I AM ASKING IS BECAUSE THE APPELLANT POINTS TO 117-4-CS. STATES THAT AN OFF PREMISE SIGN SHALL NOT EXCEED 25 FEET. REFERRING TO THAT IN PARTICULAR APPEAL. SO WHERE I AM LOOKING THAT THE AND UNDERSTANDING YOU JUST SAID, GROUND SIGN AND OFF PREMISE SIGN -- MEANING IF YOU ARE MCDONALDS AND YOU WILL CORRECT ME BECAUSE I'M JUST READING THE LANGUAGE, SO IF IT IS AN MCDONALD'S, THE IDEA IS TO KEEP THAT SIGN NO GREATER THAN 10 FEET, RIGHT? >>  YES.
[2:05:01] >> BECAUSE IT IS ADVERTISING MCDONALD'S. >> YES. >> CORRECT. >> IF I'M IN A VACANT LOT AND I COME INTO THE CITY, AND I REQUEST A BILLBOARD, OFF PREMISE SIGN, IT IS NOT GOING TO ADVERTISE THE GRASS IT IS SITTING ON, NOT GOING TO ADVERTISE THE CORNER AT 25TH IN THE QUEUE OR WHATEVER THE EXACT LOCATION IS. IT IS GOING TO ADVERTISE A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. RIGHT? SO THAT WOULD BE A DEFINITION FOR AN OFF PREMISE SIGN. WOULD I BE CORRECT MANY SAYING THAT? >> CORRECT. >> SO THE CONFUSION THAT I'M HEARING OR AT LEAST WHAT THE APPELLATE STATED, IS THAT THE REQUEST WAS FOR A BILLBOARD, AND PUTTING IN ANYONE'S MOUTH. I THINK I HEARD THAT. AND THAT THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICATION PROCESS WAS THAT THEY WOULD NOT GET THAT. THEY WOULD GET A TEN FOOT SIGN. UNDERSTANDING HOW  APPLICANT CN SEE WHY IT IS CONFUSING. IF YOU ARE GOING BY THE CODE, 117-6S, PRINT "C" ABOUT OFF PREMISE BILLBOARDS, SO UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT MIGHT BE THE THOUGHT PROCESS COMING IN, THERE IS NO RESTAURANT THERE. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE VACANT LOT THAT IT'S GOING TO ADVERTISE. MAY OUR LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED SO THAT THAT IS NOT AS CONFUSING FOR APPLY CAPITALS BECAUSE YOU GET INTO A KNOT IN REGARD IS IT A BILLBOARD? OFF PREMISE? IS IT A GROUND SIGN? SO I THINK THAT THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH PRETTY WELL WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I THINK A DIFFICLTY LIES IN OUR CODE AND THAT NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED. AND SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH MY QUESTIONS BECAUSE I PUT THEM THROUGH THEIR PACE AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET ON THE RECORD -- U WANT TO START WITH THAT ONE. BECAUSE IT LEADS INTO THIS. SO I HAVE PREMISED IT BUT PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW THE OFF PREMISE SIGN PROVISIONS AND GROUND SIGN PROVISIONS OPERATE TOGETHER AND IDENTIFY WHY APPLICATION OF THE GROUND SIGN HEIGHT TABLE DOES NOT RENDER THE 25 FOOT MEANINGLESS. >> MR. FREEMAN? >> THANK YOU. >> THE CODE RUNS IN A CIRCLE. AND IT DEFINES IN BILLBOARDS AS GROUND SIGNS. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OFF PREMISE REQUIREMENTS, IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A GROUND SIGN. BECAUSE IT IS A BILLBOARD. AND THEN THAT LAYERS INTO THE AREAS FOR A GROUND SIGN. THAT ARE ALLOWED ON CERTAIN SITE AREAS. THE STATEMENT YOU MADE EARLIER THAT OUR CODE IS CONFUSING, YOU ARE CORRECT. IT HAS CONFUSED STAFF. IN THE PAST, AND UP UNTIL RECENTLY, WHEN WE REALLY TOOK THE CODE APART, AND THIS HAD BEEN ONE OF THE PROCESSES THAT HAS BROUGHT AN EYE ON THIS, IS THAT THE SITE SIGN CODE IN ITS PRESENT FORM LEADS US TO THE SITE AREA DEFINING THE HEIGHT BECAUSE OF THE DEFINITIONS IN THE SIGN CODE LEADING A BILLBOARD OFF TO AND OFF PREMISE SITE. THAT IS DEFINED AS GROUND SIGN. >> WELL, I WILL KEEP GOING THEN. BECAUSE WE -- DOES THE CODE ESTABLISH 25 FEET AS ENTITLEMENT OR MAXIMUM THAT REMAINS SUBJECT TO PARTIAL SIZE LIMITATION? >> IT'S A MAXIMUM SUBJECT TO. NOT THE 25 FEET. THE SITE AREA DEFINES THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT. >> WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY IS .24 WAS THE SIZE OF THE LOT IN WHICH THIS PARTICULAR SIGN IS CURRENTLY LOCATED. AS A GROUND SIGN. >> YEAH. >> THE PROPERTY THAT WAS THAT WAS MENTIONED AT LEMAR, I'M FAMILIAR WITH, 523 SOUTH U.S.-ONE. THAT LOT AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT, APPEARS TO BE MUCH SMALLER UNLESS THERE IS -- >> I THINK POINT 23. >> UH-HUH. YEAH. >> SO POINT-23, POINT-24. WE GET AGAIN BACK TO
[2:10:04] INTERPRETATION OF THE LOT SIZE. OK? SO AGAIN WE ARE GOING BACK TO OUR CODE, WHICH CLEARLY HAS SOME CHALLENGES. NOW THIS IS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. NOT ABOUT OUR CODE TONIGHT. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR. SO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT STAFF REPORT CONTAINS A SENTENCE SUGGESTING THE 25 FOOT MAXIMUM IN C3, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ERROR AND IDENTIFYING THE CONTROLS PROVISIONS PROVIDED THROUGHOUT THE REVIEW. >> SO THE ERROR WAS MENTIONED INCORRECTLY. THE CONTROLLING REVIEW WAS THE TEN-FEET HIGH, BASED ON THE AREA OF THE LOT. AND THE DEFINITIONS WITHIN OUR CODE. >> SO WE HEARD NOW AT LEAST TWICE TONIGHT. BOTH OF WHICH ARE VERY DISTURBING. SO OK. BACK TO THE COMPARING THE OTHER PERMIT. THE STAFF AGREE THAT THE 532 U.S.-ONE SOUTH FAILED TO MEET THE CODE WHEN IT WAS PERMITTED. >> YES. >> OK. >> THE QUESTION THAT COMES, WHO APPROVED IT? UNDER WHAT INTERPRETATION AND WHAT WAS ANY WRITTEN ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRET TAKE ISSUED? >> PROVED BY A STAFF MEMBER WHO IS NO LONGER WITH US. AND IT WENT THROUGH THE NORMAL REVIEW PROCESS THAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. >> SO THAT WAS A PERMITTING -- USE THE TERM PERMITTING ERROR? >> CORRECT. >> INTERPRETATION. >> YES. >> SO WHAT MATERIAL DISTINCTIONS EXIST BETWEEN THE COMPARATIVE PARCEL AND 1710 NORTH 25TH, APART FROM THE FACT THAT ONE PERMIT I WAS A PROVED AND THE OTHER ONE WAS DENIED. >> THE CONSIDERATIONS IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT LOCATION, ARE QUITE DISTINCT. THE LOCATION OF THE SITE SUBJECT TO THIS APPEAL IS ZONE C-3. HOWEVER, THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL. IT IS ON A STREET, WHICH IS FREQUENTED FAIRLY BUSILY. THE ONE SIGN THAT IS PERMITTED ON U.S.-1 IS LOCATED AGAIN IN A C-3 ZONING DISTRICT. SO WE HAVE AN EQUALITY OF THAT. THE SURROUNDING OF THAT SITE IS I WOULD SAY CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF ITS ON A U.S. ONE, WHICH IS SUBSTA SUBSTANTIALLY BUSIER HIGHWAY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND PARTICULARLY TO THE EAST IS TRANSITIONAL FROM C-3 TO INDUSTRIAL AND THE RAILROAD AND THE RAIL YARD. >> IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT THE COMPARATIVE PERMIT WAS ERRONEOUS? IF SO YOU SAID THAT AND WHAT HAS THE CITY DONE TO INSURE CONSISTENT ADMINISTRATION. HAS THERE BEEN ANY CORRECTIONS ALONG THE WAY? >> NOT AT THIS TIME. >> WOULD GRANTING THAT VARIANCE SOLELY BECAUSE OF THAT PRIOR PERMIT ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT CONTRARY TO SUBSECTION 125-100? SO THAT THE QUESTION IS, BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORIGINAL PERMIT, DOES THIS NOW -- IF GRANTING OF A VARIANCE IS CONSIDERED, WOULD THIS CREATE A PRECEDENT. >> NO. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD. >> OK. I HATE ASKING QUESTIONS THAT I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO. WHAT SPECK VARIANCE CRITERIA OR CRITERIA DID THE BOARD OF I AN ADJUSTMENT FIND UNSATISFIED? >> THEY ACCEPTED ALL. >> DID THEY? >> YES. >> OK. BUT THEY WERE FIVE? >> YES. >> OK. WHAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS FINDING THAT REASONABLE USE REMAINS AVAILABLE. >> THERE IS A SIGN ON THE SITE NOW. IT IS IN OPERATION. >> ALL RIGHT. AND YOU ANSWERED A QUESTION, STAFF RECOMMENDATION ADDRESS ALL FIVE CRITERIA THAT WAS RECOMMEND INCORPORATED INTO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CORRECT? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TONIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU. MR. FREEMAN, IS A HEIGHT OF THE SIGN 25 FEET, IS THAT BY RIGHT IN OUR CODE.
[2:15:01] >> IF IT MEETS THE -- DEPENDS AGAIN THE LOCATION WHETHER IT IS ON SITES, ON PREMISE, OFF PREMISE AND THEN THE AREA ANCHORAGE OF THE SITE THAT IT IS INSTALLED ON. >> AND THE ORIGINAL SIGN AT 532 WAS NOT A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE. THAT WAS PERMITTED OUT RIGHT? >> CAME IN AS A PERMIT AND WAS ERRONEOUSLY APPROVED. >> IF IT HAD BEEN DONE CORRECTLY, TELL ME HOW IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED? >> IT WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AT TEN FEET. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. AND AN EVIDENCE COULD BE PROVIDED THAT DEMONSTRATE THE CRITERIA AS WE HAVE HEARD TODAY. >> SO ALSO, 25TH STREET IS A BUSY STREET. >> YES. >> I WOULD SAY -- I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN SAY U.S.-ONE IS BUSIER THAN 25TH BUT THEY ARE BOTH MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, RIGHT? AND ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE EAST. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> IT IS COMMERCIAL. ALONG 25TH. ON BOTH SIDE. CORRECT? >> YES. >> RIGHT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, THIS IS WHAT I THINK I HEARD. IF CERTAIN EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRESIDED TO MEET SOME OF THESE ONE THROUGH FIVE, IF SOMETHING HAD BEEN PROVIDED, THIS POSSIBLY -- NOT SAYING IT WOULD, POSSIBLY IT COULD HAVE WITHIN A -- GONE A DIFFERENT WAY? >> I BELIEVE SO. I THINK IF CERTAIN EVIDENCE JUSTIFYING THAT LOCATION AND STAFF ADVISE BEFORE THE INITIAL APPLICATION, PROTECTING TO THE RESIDENTS OF THE EAST WOULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE. SPECIALLY TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF IT WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> AND THAT 25-FOOT SIGN WAS GOING TO BE AN L.E.D. SIGN? >> YES. I BELIEVE. YES. >> YEAH. SO I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. >> SO JUST COUPLE OF THINGS I THOUGHT I HEARD AND JUST WANT TO CLARIFY HERE. FOLLOWING WITH MY FELLOW COLLEAGUE AND I'M LOOKING AT THE CODE, PARTICULARLY SECTION FOR GROUND SIGNS, AND FOR THE RECORD, AS I READ IT, SAID THE HEIGHT SHOULD NOT EXCEED 25 FEET. DOES NOT -- SHOULD NOT EXCEED THAT. IS THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION OF YOUR CODE AND HOW YOU INTERPRETED THIS? >> IF IT SAID SHOULD NOT EXCEED, THEN THAT -- >> THAT IS WHAT IT SAID. ALSO GIVES PERIMETER AROUND GROUND SIGNS BASED ON THE ACREAGE. IF THERE'S A CERTAIN ACREAGE THERE YOU CAN GO UP TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT BASED ON THAT? >> YES. >> THAT WAS FACTORED IN ENWITH YOU COMPARED THAT ALONG WITH THE OFF PREMISE SIGNS TO COME UP WITH THE TEN FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT. DID I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT ORIGINALLY THIS CAME IN, IT WAS NOT A DIGITAL SIGN. WHEN IT WAS APPROVED FOR THE TEN FOOT, IT WAS NOT A DIGITAL SIGN IS WHAT I READ IN MY P DO. IS THAT YOUR RECOLLECTION? >> I DON'T RECALL THAT PIECE. SORRY. >> OK. >> THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE SIGN, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE KILOMETRES PER HOUR CONDITION OF -- ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CURRENT SIGN. IT IS DIGIT TALL. >> I BELIEVE SO YES. >> OK. IS ANYTHING IN YOUR UNTIL THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED. AS I READ IT, CAME IN AS A NON-DIGITAL BOARD. IT WAS APPROVED 10 FOOT BOARD, JUST BIG OLD SIGN, AND IT DIDN'T CHANGE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW IT CHANGES EVERY HOWEVER SECOND, ROTATES TO THE NEXT SLIDE. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THERE THAT IN OUR CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE WE ARE PERMITTED UNDER HARD DISH-- I WILL CALL A HARDY BUT NOW IT IS DIGITAL. >> IF SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A STATIC SIGN, WHETHER IT IS DIGITAL, STATIC OR DIGITAL JUST HARD FACE, THAT THEN IF IT TURNS DIGITAL OR IF IT NEEDS
[2:20:06] ELECTRICAL CONNECTION, THEN AND THAT TURNS INTO A BUILDING PERMIT. >> SO OBVIOUSLY THAT IT WAS DONE HERE BECAUSE IT HAS -- IT IS DIGITAL. IT HAS LIGHTS AND IT CHANGES EVERY SO MANY SECONDS. SO OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE COME IN AND GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS. >> THEY MUST HAVE. >> OK. IT HAS ELECTRICITY. IT MOVES OK. SO AGAIN, WHAT I HAVE HEARD AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH BUT THE APPLICANT IS PURSUING THAT BECAUSE THIS WAS PERMITTED IN SOME OTHER PLACE, IT IS ON RECORD NOW THAT THAT WAS PERMISSION IN ERROR. >> CORRECT. >> THAT PERSON IS NO LONGER WITH US, AT THE CITY. >> CORRECT. >> OK, THANK YOU. >> OK. DO YOU HAVE -- WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? >> DO WE SPEAK -- CAN WE SPEAK TO THE ATTORNEY? >> YES, YOU CAN ASK A QUESTION. >> YES, MA'AM. DO I DO THINK THE APPELLANT RESERVED FIVE MINUTES IF YOU WANTED TO HEAR FROM HIM IF HE HAS FIVE MINUTES REMAINING BUT I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS NOW. >> YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER HE SPEAKS? Ô> YOU PREFER MY QUESTION NOW OR AFTER? >> DEPENDS WHAT THE QUESTION IS, I GUESS. >> I WILL WAIT. >> PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. TO CLARIFY, IF YOU LOOK AT PERMIT APPLICATION, FROM THE JUMP THIS WAS FOR A NEW OFF PREMISE DIGITAL ADVERTISING SIGN. FROM THE BEGINNING MY CLIENT SOUGHT A DIGITAL ADVERTISING SIGN. THE PERMIT APPLICATION IS IN THE RECORD AND THAT IS WHAT THE PERMIT APPLICATION SAYS. NOW MY COLLEAGUE SAID THAT THE SIDE ORDINANCE DEFINES BILLBOARD AS A GROUND SIGN. BUT RESPECTFULLY, THAT IS NOT TRUE. IF WE LOOK AT THE CODE, SECTION 117-1 DEFINITION OF YOU LOOK AT BILLBOARD, IT SAYS "SEE OFF PREMISE SIGN." SO THEN YOU GO AND YOU LOOK AT OFF PREMISE SIGN, OFF PREMISE SIGN MEANS ANY CITIZEN WHICH ADVERTISES USE, ESTABLISHMENT OR SERVICE, PRODUCED MANUFACTURED OR FURNISHED AT A PLACE OTHER THAN THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE SIGN IS LOCATED AL CALLED ADD OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN OR BILLBOARD. SO THAT THE DEFINITION OF AN OFF PREMISE SIGN. THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO A GROUND SIGN. SO TO SAY THAT A BILLBOARD IS DEFINED AS OFFICE PREMISE SIGN IS NOT WHAT THE CODE SAYS. THE CODE SAYS WHAT ANOFTEN /* WHAT AN OFF PREMISE SIGN IS. 117-1 SUBSECTION "C" AND C-3, SHAM NOT EXCEED A NATURAL HEIGHT LEVEL ABOVE GROUND LEVEL OF 25 FEET. ALL MY CLIENT  /* /* IS WANTIN TO DO. TEN FEET ONLY COMES UP WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ON PREMISE SIGNS. AS THE COMMISSIONER POINTED OUT, ELOQUENTLY EARLIER, THIS IS NOT AN ON PREMISE SIGN. IT IS NOT ADVERTISING THE GRASS ON THE VACANT LOT WHERE IT IS LOCATED. IT IS ADVERTISING OTHER THINGS. SO IT IS NOT AN ON PREMISE SIGN. IF YOU LOOK AT 117-6 "B," THOSE REGULATIONS DEAL WITH ON PREMISE SIGN WHICH MY CLIENT IS NOT. IF YOU GONE A LOOK AT GROUND SIGNS UNDER THAT ARE SUBSECTION, IT IS SAYING THAT WITH RESPECT TO ON PREMISE GROUND SIGNS, YOU HAVE A LIMIT OF 10 FEET FOR LESS THAN THREE ACRES. YOU GET 12 FEET BETWEEN THREE AND FIVE ACRES. YOU GET 15 FEET IF YOU ARE BETWEEN FIVE AND TEN ACRES. IF YOU ARE GREATER THAN TEN EQUAL TO 20 GET 18. GREATER THAN 20, THEN YOU GET 20. SO THAT IS FOR ON PREMISE SIGN. NOT FOR AN OFF PREMISE SIGN. THE GROUND SIGN REGULATIONS FOR AN ON PREMISE SIGN SIMPLY DON'T APPLY TO MY CLIENT'S SIGN. THEY ARE COMING UP WITH AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WRITES OUT THE 25 FOOT ALLIANCE FOR OFF PREMISE SIGNS. E YOU HAD AN 20 ACRE PLIED -- TH BE ALLOWED TO HAVE UNDER THIS CODE IS 20 FEET. WHY DO WE HAVE 20 FEET IN ONE SECTION BUT 25 IN ANOTHER? YOU CAN'T INTERPRET AN ORDINANCE UNDER FLORIDA LAW IN A MANNER THAT RENDERED A
[2:25:03] PROVISION MEANINGLESS BUT THAT IS WHAT THE CITY IS ASKING YOU TO DO. THEY WANT YOU TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT YOU CAN HAVE 25 FEET AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. IN FAVOR OF THESE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO AN ON PREMISE SIGN WHICH THEY HAVE ADMITTED MY CLIENT SIGN IS NOT. NOW MY COLLEAGUE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL USES, AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT THERE. BUT NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN MAKING A DECISION ON AN OFF PREMISE APPLICATION. THIS IS NOT A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS NOT SPECIAL USE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ALLOWED AS OF RIGHT. SO IT IS NOT UPON MY CLIENT TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING BUT SHOWING THERE IS NOT A RESIDENTIAL IMPACT. THAT IS NOT A CRITERIA THAT IS APPLIEDED UNDER THE CODE. SEVERAL TIMES DURING THE PRESENTATION, MY CLIENT OR EXCUSE ME, MY COLLEAGUE ON THE OTHER SIDE, MADE REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT STAFF AND MY CLIENT HAD A CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT WHAT MY CLIENT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T INTRODUCE AT THE -- IN FRONT OF THE BOARD ZONING AJUSMENT. NONE OF THAT IS IN THE RECORD. I WOULD RESPECTABLY LIKE TO FORM AN OBJECTION TO THAT BEING PART OF THE RECORD. THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE NEW EVIDENCE. IT IS NOT PART OF THE RECORD. THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID, NEW EVIDENCE IS NOT ALLOWED. SO ANY DISCUSSIONS OR CONSIDERATION ABOUT WHAT STAFF AND MY CLIENT MAY HAVE TALKED TO ABOUT LEADING INTO THE AIR VARIANCE APPLICATION SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED. YOU DON'T NEED AN EXPERT TO TELL YOU WHETHER IT IS -- I'M OUT OF TIME. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. FREEMAN I FORGOT TO EXCUSE YOU FROM THE TABLE. SO YOU -- WE ARE NOT ASKING YOU ANYMORE QUESTION. YOU ARE NOT HERE, RIGHT? >> YEAH. >> SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE? AND IF THERE, YOU HAVE -- IS THAT THREE MINS? THREE MINUTES. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC. STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> MY NAME IS IS DON'T MUCH ABOUT BUSINESS OR SIGN OR ADVERTISING. BUT WITH THE CONVERSATION BEING CIRCULATED IN THE ROOM, I DO NOTICE THAT SOME OF THE SIGNS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES OR WHATEVER, THEY CAN BE -- THEY ARE OVERSTAY THEIR WELCOME IS WHAT I AM AWARE. SO ONCE THE BUSINESS IS LIKE STARTED UP, OR ONCE THE -- ONCE EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE BUSINESS, AND YOU KNOW, IT IS PRETTY GOOD, I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE PICK BACK UP. SO THAT, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER BUSINESS OR WHATNOT CAN PARTAKE OR, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATE -- CAN PARTAKE IN SIMILAR ACTIONS. THANKS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OK. I BELIEVE TIME FOR THE -- MS. HEDGE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK? AND SO I O.M.B. CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE ARE COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND I THINK COMMISSIONER WANTED TO CAN YOU A QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO HELP US OUT HERE? >> YES, MA'AM. THE REBUTTAL RESERVATION OF FIVE MINUTES IS SUPPOSED TO COME AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT. IN FAIRNESS IF THE APPELLANT HAS ANYTHING TO STATE BASED ON ONE PUBLIC COMMENT WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO RESPOND BASED ON THE COMMENT. >> WOULD THE APPELLANT LIKE TO MAKE ANY LAST BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. SORRY. FOR THE RECORD. >> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THAT YOUNG GENTLE MEMBER FOR COMING FORWA FORWARD AND SPEAKING AND BUT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING THAT HE SAID WEIGHS ONE WAY OR OTHER ON THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE THE BOARD. AND THE MAYOR BUT I THANK HIM FOR PARTICIPATING. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> OK. NOW WE WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AGAIN. AND YOU HAD A QUESTION? >> YES. MADAM ATTORNEY, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT
[2:30:02] THERE WAS SOME AMBIGUITY, LACK OF BETTER WORD IN OUR CODE AS REGARD TO IN GROUND OR GROUND SIGN AND OFF PREMISE SIGN. SO BECAUSE THIS WAS A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCEEDING -- MAKE SURE I STAY WITH THIS. THE PROVISIONS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT I BELIEVE WERE LARGELY MET. THE CHALLENGE THAT I THINK THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY HAVE HAD, WAS THE CONFLICT IN THE LANGUAGE BETWEEN A GROUND SIGN, A BILLBOARD, AND/OR AN OFF PREMISE SIGN. SO IF THIS COMMISSION CONCLUDE THAT THE ORDINANCE WAS AMBIGUOUS, WHAT PROVISIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMISSION GOING FORWARD WHILE TRYING TO STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCEEDINGS. >> MR. HEDGE? >> MADAM MAYOR, SO COMMISSIONER, TO YOUR QUESTION, I WILL SAY YOUR WORD IS AMBIGUOUS. I DON'T NOPE I AGREE THAT THE I THINK IT IS WRITTEN CLEARLY. WHAT YOU WILL BE MINDFUL OF IS THE STANDARD OF PROOF FOR THIS HEARING AND SO THAT COMES OUT OF RESOLUTION APPROVING THIS AND I WILL READ THAT TO YOU. SAYS DECISION OF THE CITY COMMISSION TO AFFIRM OR REVERSE A DECISION OF LOWERED BOARD SHALL BE BASED EVIDENCE CONTAINED IN RECORD PROVIDED IN THE OR REALLY, ARMENT OF APPELLANT AND STAFF. CONFIDENT EVIDENCE WHICH IS ESTABLISHED -- DEMOLISH WILL ESTABLISH A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS FROM WHICH THE FACT AT ISSUE CAN BE REASONABLE INFERRED INCLUDES FACT, OR OPINION EVIDENCE OFFERED BY AN EXPERT ON A MATTER. THAT REQUIRES SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED. IT IS EVIDENCE A REASONABLE MIND COULD ACCEPT AS HAVING PROHIBITIVE WEIGHTING AND ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT ILLEGAL CONCLUSION. HYPOTHETICAL SPECULATIVE, FEAR OR EMOTION BASED GENERALIZED STATEMENT THAT DO IN THE ADDRESS THE RELEVANT ISSUE AND CANNOT BE SAID TO SUPPORT THE ACTION ADVOCATED ARE NOT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SO WHAT YOU ALL ARE LOOKING AT CAN WHICH THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED BASED ON THAT RECORD THAT WAS PRESENTED AND THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TONIGHT. I GUESS, IF I AM UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION, ARE YOU ASKING IF WE ARE SAYING IF YOU AS A BOARD ARE SAYING YOU DISAGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE? >> COMMISSIONER? >> WHAT I AM SUPTHING IS SUGGEST /* -- WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IS THE -- THE ANSWER ARE THEY ARE IN CONFLICT AND THAT THE GROUND SIGN HAS ONE DEFINITION. AND THE OFF PREMISE SIGN WERE DIFFERENT. I MADE THE SUGGESTION THAT SIGN IN FRONT OF MCDONALD'S WOULD BE AN NON-PROMISE SIGN ADVERTISING LOCATION BEHIND THE SIGN. VACANT LOT THAT DOES NOT HAVE A BUSINESS IN FRONT OF IT, WOULD NOT BE ADVERTISING THAT PARTICULAR -- I USED THE TERM IT IS NOT GOING TO BE ADVERTISING THE GRASS IN WHICH IT SITS. IT COULD BE ADVERTISING THE FERTILIZER THAT PROVIDES FOR A GREEN GRASS BUT THE SIGN WILL BE NOT APPROPRIATE TO OR CONNECTED TO A BUSINESS. SO THE APPELLANT ATTORNEY STATED THAT PROVIDED THAT THE DEFINITION OF A GROUND SIGN WHICH WAS PRETTY CLEAR IN HIS STATEMENT, OF IT, BY COMPARISON TO THE ON -- THE GROUND SIGN. SO THOSE ARE VERY CONFLICTING. ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE ONE IN THE SAME, THE GROUND SIGN FOR MCDONALD'S MAY NOT BE 20 FEET OR 10 FEET OR 15 FEET. IT REMAINS AT 10 FEET RATHER I SHOULD SAY. SO I THINK THE SUGGESTION OF THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE, FOR ON GROUND SIGN, ON SITE SIGN, WAS FOR THE BUSINESS, NOT TO EXCEED TEN FEET. THAT IS HOW I'M READING THIS LANGUAGE. AND THAT -- OFF PREMISE SIGN IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO I'M PERSONALLY CONFLICTED WITH THE PRESENTATION OF BOTH. AND IF I'M CONFLICTED AND I HAVE READ THE THING OVER AND OVER FOR THE LAST FIVE DAYS TRYING TO PREPARE FOR IN, MAKING SURE I STAY WITHIN THE CONFINES OF BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. SO I'M WILLING TO LISTEN. >> MS. HEDGE. >> I'M NOT CERTAIN I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. WHAT I WOULD POINT YOU TO THOUGH HOWEVER IS SECTION 117-6
[2:35:01] C-7, REFERENCES OFF PREMISE SIGNS SAYS OFF PREMISE SHINE SHALL COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION B-3 OF THE SECTION, WHERE THE OFF PREMISE SIGN IS ALSO A GROUND SIGN. SO WHEN YOU GO UP TO B-3, B-3 IS GROUND SIGNS. SUBSECTION "A," SAYS SITE THAT ARE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO THREE ACRES SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF TEN FEET IN HEIGHT. IF YOU GO UP TO THE DEFINITION OF GROUND SIGNS, WHICH IS UNDER 117-1, GROUND SIGNS DEFINED AS IT MEAN ASSIGN OF AFFIXED TO GROUND PLUG EFLUSH OR ON HOLE POLANDS A NOT ATTACHED TO ANY BUILD -- FLUSH OR ON POLE, NOT ATTACHED TO ANY BUILDING. DETACHED OR FREE STANDING SIGN. THAT IS THE CODE SECTION THAT YOU ARE OPERATING UNDER THAT IS APPLICABLE TO BE THIS. AND I GUESS ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU FIND THAT IS APPLICABLE. YOU HAVE TO READ 117-6 IN ITS IONI ENTIRETY. >> THE LAST PART OF THE STATEMENT WAS APEX PUBLICABLE IN GROUND SIGN IS ATTACHED TO A BUILD BUILDING OR POLE. REFERS TO MCDONALD'S OR PUBLIC OR WHATEVER THE BUSINESS IS COLOKATED WITH THAT PARTICULAR SIGN. AGROUND SIGN IS THAT WHICH IS REPRESENTING THE BUSINESS IN FRONT OF IT, A BILLBOARD, IS THAT WHICH IS NOT ADVERTISING, THAT WHICH IN FRONT OF IT, AND YOU SAID THAT IT IS ATTACHED TO A POLE OR YOU CAN REREAD IT IF YOU LIKE. TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M ACCURATE TO LISTENING. >> SURE. SAYS, GROUND SIGN MEANS A SIGN AFFIXED TO THE GROUND, EITHER FLUSH ON POLES AND NOT ATTACHED TO ANY BUILDING FOR SUPPORT, WHICH MAY INCLUDE A READER BOARD, ALSO CALLED DETACHED POLE OR FREE STANDING SIGN. >> OK. WE ARE GOING TO -- AGREE TO DISAGREE. I'M LISTENING TO THE WORD INTENTLY. AND MY POSITION IS IN THAT PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION, IS THAT BILLBOARD IS NOT A GROUND SIGN IN THIS PARTICULAR SCENARIO. THE GROUND SIGN IS THAT WHICH IS AN ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUSINESS AND THAT WHICH IT ADVERTISES. AND BILLBOARD IS A DIFFERENT THING. BUT I'M ONLY ONE. I PROVIDED MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT WE HAVE SEEN RIGHT HERE TONIGHT AND THAT WHICH I READ IN THE CODE. >> OK. COMMISSIONERS? >> I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS. I THINK WE ALL UP HERE TRYING TO INTERPRET THIS AND READ LAW READ, ORDINANCES. MY INTERPRETATION IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT ON THAT LAST POLE BECAUSE IT CLEARLY STATES TO ME THAT GROUND SIGN SITS FLASH ON POLE OR SITTING ON SOMETHING. AND NOT ATTACHED TO ANY BUILDING FOR SUPPORT. SO THERE IS NO BUILDING THAT IS ATTACHED TO THIS PARTICULAR THING OUT THERE. SO IT IS A GROUND SIGN OFF PREMISE SIGN. BOTH. IT IS BOTH. IN MY INTERPRETATION. AS A RESULT OF THAT I HEARD EVIDENCE TONIGHT OF WHAT THE HEIGHT COULD BE OF THAT. UP TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT. I HAVE ALSO UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE APPLI APPLICATION CAME IN AND WHAT WAS GRANTED AND WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY. AND LOOKING AT THAT, TO SEE FURTHER, I WAS LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE TO SAY, TO ALLOW FOR FURTHER VARY YAVARIANCE. I'M IN LINE TO SUPPORTING WHERE WE ARE WITH THE BOARD. I THINK THEY INTERPRETED IT CORRECTLY BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT OBVIOUSLY I AM READING, THEY READ. THE ATTORNEY READ OVER. BUT YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE ADMISSION OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED OTHER DOES NOT FACTOR IN ON A PRECEDENT BECAUSE IT WAS DONE IN ERROR. SHAME ON US. WE HAVE DEALT WITH THAT AND THAT PERSON IS NO LONGER HERE. WE MUST GO FORWARD AND DO BETTER. SO I'M GOING TO BE STANDING WITH THE BOARD ON THIS ONE. >> YEAH. I WILL MAKE IT QUICK. I THINK I HAVE GOT THE SIGN ORDINA ORDINANCE MEMORIZED. I HAVE BEEN WORK ON THIS FOR MONTHS. WE RUN INTO SCENARIO THE APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY. I BELIEVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MADE THE CORRECT DECISION BASED ON THE CODE AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS. THAT CODE IS A CIRCUITOUS ROUTE. IT IS REMARKABLY BADLY PUTTING TO. WE NEED A REWRITE OF THAT TO BRING IT UP TO CURRENT STANDARDS AND MARKET PLACE
[2:40:04] CONDITIONS. BUT BASED ON THE CODE AS IT CURRENTLY EXIST I AGREE WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> ALL RIGHTIE. SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> SURE. I WILL FIND IT HERE APPROPRIATELY. WE DON'T HAVE AN APPLICATION. 12-A. >> MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR APPEAL. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. MADAM PAY YOUR? >> YES, MS. HEDGES. >> IN THE TERMINOLOGY WE USE ON APPEAL, JUST SO WE HAVE A CLEAN RECORD, COMMISSIONER, IS YOUR MOTION ALWAYS SAYING YOU LIKE TO AFFIRM THEIR DECISION, YOU UP HOLD IT AND STAND? >> DIDN'T SAY I JUST SAY THAT. THANK YOU WE CAN ADD THAT. >> I STILL SECOND THAT. AFFIRM IN THE DECISION. >> YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT BEFORE WE VOTE. SIMPLY STATING THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A -- I WILL USE THE TERM QUIRK IN OUR CODE AND WHEN WE DOCK I I WOULD LIKE TO POIN OUT TO GIVE THE STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY, DIRECTION, THAT WE CLEAN UP LANGUAGE THAT WHETHER YOU INTERPRET IT AS AMBIGUOUS OR DEFINITIONS ARE DIFFERENT, I THINK THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO IDENTIFY THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WITH HOW THIS WAS UNFOLDING. I THINK STAFF DID A FABULOUS JOB WORKING WITH WHAT THEY HAVE. AND I WOULD LIKE US TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HELPING THEM CREATE A CLEARER RECORD OR CLEARER PROCESS IN THE CODE. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS FOR THAT REASON. JUST SIMPLY SAYING THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DID THEIR JOB. I THINK THEY WERE KIND OF HAM STRUNG WITH THE DEFINITION BETWEEN A GROUND SIGN AND AN OFF PREMISE SIGN. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP AND THAT THERE IS TWO SEPARATE DEFINITIONS AND POSSIBLY TWO SEPARATE PARTS OF THE CODE. AND SO THEREFORE, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DID THEIR JOB BASED ON THE INFORMATION THEY HAD, I FELT -- I FEEL THAT MY NEGATIVE VOTE WILL MOVE THAT FORWARD THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIX SOMETHING THAT IS LIKELY BROKEN. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> >> MS. COX, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE? WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING WHICH IS THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW WITH CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW ADULT COGRE GATT LIVING FACILITIES BY OWNER GRACEWAY VILLAGE INC. REPRESENTED BY HEALY WARD INC. TO CONSTRUCT A FAMILY SHELTER COMMUNITY CENTERED ON TEMPORARY HOUSING WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON 7.84 ACRES LOCATED AT 1708 HART MAN ROAD IN FORT PIERCE FLORIDA, PROPERTY ZONED C-GENERAL MERCEDES BENZ BURLINGTON. >> SO MS. HEDGES SHOULD WE READ THE PROCEDURES AGAIN? THIS WAS A TRULY QUASI-JUDICIAL. >> YES ONE IS A LOT MORE FAMILIAR TO YOU ALL. FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING OR HEARINGS, WE HAVE MULTIPLES -- THE HEARING. >> THE CITY COMMISSION SEVENS A LEGISLATIVE AND QUEUE QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE. ENGAGES IN LAW MAKING ACTIVITY BY PASSING LAWS AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES. WHEN ACTING AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY COMMISSION APPLIES LAWS AND POLICIES AND IS HELD TO STRICTER PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT. YOU ZIE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE LESS FORMAL THAN PROCEEDING BEFORE CIRCUIT COURT. MUST FOLLOW BASIC STANDARD OF NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS AND DECISIONS MUST BE MADE BASED ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. COMMISSIONER HAVE A DUTY TO CONDUCT THE QUA CIVIL JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MORE LIKE JUDGES THAN LEGISLATORS. THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIFORM PROCEDURE FOR >> YAW ZIE JUDICIAL HEARING THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED THIS EVENING. NO WUNDT SHOULD APPROACH MAY MEMBER OF THE DIAZ, CITY ATTORNEY OR CLERK DURING THE HEARING. IF DOCUMENTED ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CLERK, GIVE THEM TO SERGEANT AT ARMS WHICH ARE ANY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CHAMBER. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> MADAM CLERK HAVE WE MET THE ADVERTISING NOTICE REQUIREMENT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT COMMUNICATION? >> YES I MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM. >> I >> I MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND DEVELOPMENT TEAM. YES.
[2:45:02] >> JUST THE APPLICANT. NOT THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM. >> I WATCHED THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING. >> THANK YOU. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSES? >> YES, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE HAND AND RAISE YOUR HAND. DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU. OK. PLEASE PROCEED. >> I GOT EXPERIENCE A LOT OF FREE TIME. MY WIFE IS BABYSITTING FARM ANIMALS FOR OUR CHILDREN THAT ARE IN CONNECTICUT AT THE MOMENT AND I CAME ACROSS A PHRASE THAT I FOUND VERY INTERESTING AND APPLICABLE TO BE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. IT IS A FRICTIONLESS LIFE. FRICTIONLESS. AND YOU KNOW, IT IS SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF US TAKE GRANTED THE ABILITY TO GO TO THE GROCERY STORE, BUY SOME MEAL, PREPARE AT HOME, APLACE TO GO HOME. AND A LARGE PORTION OF OUR SOCIETY, HAS THAT FREEDOM. THERE ARE OTHER PORTIONS OF OUR POPULATION, OUR SOCIETY, THAT ENCOUNTER A LOT MORE FRICTION. AND THAT IS WHY GRACEWAY IS HERE TONIGHT. I WAS FAMILIAR WITH GRACEWAY VILLAGE BEFORE I EVEN STARTED WITH THE CITY. IF I JUST HAPPEN TO COME ACROSS AN ARTICLE AS I WAS RESEARCHING THE AREA. BUT THEIR MISSION HAS BEEN TO HELP THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN -- HAVE HIT A ROUGH SPOT, THAT ENCOUNTERED THAT FRICTION. AND SO TONIGHT, I'M FLAD -- GLAD TO PROVIDE YOU CAN INFORMATION THAT GOES A LONG WAY TO HELPING THOSE THAT ENCOUNTER FRICTION IN THEIR LIVES. >> STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? >> MY NAME IS CHRIS SANSON. I AM THE ASSISTANT PLANNING DIRECTOR. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> I APOLOGIZE MADAM MAYOR. FOR GRACEWAY VILLAGE, 1708 HART MAN ROAD. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS GRACEWAY VILLAGE INC. THEIR REPRESENT RIFF, THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS TO 417-322-001-000-2. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REVIEW AND APPROVE A MAJOR SITE PLAN, APPLICATION FOR MAJOR SITE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW WITH USE TOY A LOT ADULT CON DPRE GATT FACILITIES BY THE OWNER GRACEWAY VILLAGE INC., REPRESENTED BY HAILEY WARD CONSTRUCT, FAMILY SHELTER COMMUNITY CENTERED ON TEMPORARY HOUSING, WITH ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENT ON 7.84 ACRES AT 1784 17808 HART MAN ROAD. SURROUNDED BY A CANAL ON THE WEST. FACILITIES, THE SOUTH HAS MORE F.P.U. FACILITIES AND CONTRACTOR YARD. TO THE NORTH, THERE IS A CANAL, WHITEWAY DERRY ROAD AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ALONG THAT ROAD. AND TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE VACANT LAND THAT IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN NATURE. AGAIN, THIS -- THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED ALONG HART MAN ROAD, SOUTH OF WHITEWAY DERRY ROAD. THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE DESTINATION AND ZONING ARE G.C., GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND C-3, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. SO THE SUBJECT PARCEL ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. AND MAY OF 1997 UNDER COORDINATES J-337, CONTAINS TWO BUILDINGS CONTAINED COMBINED 7 7563 SQUARE FEET AND FACILITIES WERE REMODELLED IN 2009. I THINK THEY GOT ROOFING PERMITS IN 2020, 21. CURRENTLY, AS I MENTIONED THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE SITE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE APPLICANT ADHERES TO THE PLANS POLICY 1.1.6-B 0.211. MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA OF 10.05%. AND MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 4.59 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE ZONING IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL FAMILY COMMUNITY SHELTER. SHELTER COMMUNITY. CENTERED ON TEMPORARY HOUSING, ADULT CONGREGATE LIVING
[2:50:05] FACILITY, ALLOWED BY CONDITIONAL USE IN THE DIST DISTRICT. DEVELOPMENT CODE, SET FOR SEVERAL BASIC USE STANDARD THAT ADULT EGRE GATT FACILITIES MUST MEET. MOST IMPORTANT IS THE SECOND ONE ON YOUR LIST. THAT MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY MAY IN THE EXSENDS THE LEVEL DETERMINED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. FOR THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION, THAT MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL TENSITY IS 15 UNIT OR DWELLING UNITS TO THE ACRE AND WHAT THE PROPOSED 36 DWELLING UNITS INTENSITY OF 4.5 UNITS TO THE ACRE. AS WE MENTIONED, THE SITE COMPRISES ABOUT 7.84 ACRES. AT FULL BUILD OUT, PROPOSED BUILDING COVER 12.26% OF THE LAND AREA. PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR, PAVING AND PARKING WILL COVER AN ADDITIONAL 12.76 PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA. RESULTING IN MOST OF THE SITES, OR 73.72%. LEFT TO OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND STORM WATER DETENTION FACILITIES. . THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT THE FACILITIES OVER TIME. WITH INITIAL CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING WITH PHASE ONE, WHICH IS THIS BUILDING. OCCUPIES 10,100 SQUARE FEET, CONTAINS 10 DWELLING UNIT AND SUPPORT FACILITIES. OVER TIME, PHASE TWO CONTEMPLATES THIS CLUSTER OF BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH, SIX ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS, COMPRISING 17,820 AREA FEET, WITH EACH BUILDING CONTAINING THREE DWELLING UNITS. AND THE FINAL PHASE, PHASE THREE, IS AN EXPANSION OF THE FIRST FACILITY, POST APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD BE -- WOULD EXPAND THE FAMILY SHELTER BUILDING BY 6,320 FEET. WITH ALSO PROVIDING EIGHT ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNIT AND ADDITIONAL SUPPORT FACILITIES. THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE OF THE FAMILY SHELTER BUILDING FACES ONE AND THREE, WILL INCORPORATE THE VERNACULAR STYLE WITH YELLOW STUCCO. COVERED WALKWAY, WILL EXPAND FROM THE PHASE ONE BUILDING TO THE CLOTHING BOUTIQUE AND CAFÈ. THIS IS THE ELEVATION YOU WILL SEE FROM HART MAN ROAD, THE ULTIMATE BUILD OUT. THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN E COORDINATED WITH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. CONDITIONAL USE WITH REGARD TO CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY CODE, ALL DOCUMENTS HAVE SUPPORTED THE APPLICATION. THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEWED MAJOR SITE PLAN AT THE JULY 13, 2026 MEETING BY A VOTE OF 4-1, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU ALL APPROVE THE PROPOSED MAJOR SITE PLAN WITH CONDITIONAL USE WITH A FEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. NUMBER ONE THE CONDITIONAL USE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL OR EXTENDED TO PHASE ONE, TWO AND THREE, SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. HOWEVER, PHASE TWO OF THE PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW ONARCHITECTURAL REARVIEW. NUMBER TWO A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED. NUMBER THREE, LAND CLEARING PERMIT IS REQUIRED PROVINCE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PER MMIT. FOUR, SUBMITTED REQUIRE TO THE LAND CLEARING BUILDING PERMIT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE REVIEW. NUMBER FIVE, ST. LUCIE COUNT OF RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT. NUMBER SIX, ALL REQUIRED STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCY PERMITS SHALL BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT COMPLIANCE REVIEW. NUMBER 7, SHALL BE PERMITTED SEPARATELY UNDER BUILDING PERMIT. NUMBER EIGHT, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND PRIOR TO THE I -- SIGNED BY THE OWNER AND/OR OPERATOR IT TIPTY SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ENGINEER. AGREEMENT SHALL INCLUDE THE OPERATION OF ALL STORM WATER FACILITY AND SHALLON SURE THE STORM A WATER SYSTEM HAS A PLAN FOR THE REMOVAL OF NUANCE AND INVASIVE EXOTICS OR OTHER VEGETATION TO ENSURE NO REGROWTH OF THE SAME.
[2:55:04] ALTERNATIVE, THE COMMISSION COULD WOULD APPROVAL WITH ALTERNATE CONDITIONS OR RECOMMEND DENIAL AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE OF STAFF. >> SO NOW IS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I WANT TO REIT TATE THIS IS THE ONLY TIME TO ASK QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AND WE WILL STICK TO THAT. I WAS REMINDED OF THAT EARLIER TODAY. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STICK TO THAT QUASI-JUDICIAL. SO QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> YES. I WILL TIGHT UP HERE. IF IT WAS OUR JOB TO JUST SIT HERE AND RATE THE APPLICATION BASED ON NEED IN THE COMMUNITY, THIS WOULD RECEIVE 110% APPROVAL. HOWEVER, THAN IS NOT WHAT WE ARE HERE TO DO. WE ARE HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING. AND DETERMINE FACTS. AND I REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION IN DETAIL. MY ONLY QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANY PORTION OF THE CODE, THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET? >> NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF, SIR. ASK FAIR ENOUGH. THAT IS RATHER EXPANSE ITCH QUESTION. I KNOW THAT. I THINK MR. CURRY, HE IS SMILE BECAUSE HE WILL ANSWER MY QUESTION WHEN HE COMES UP. >> DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> YEAH. DUE TO THE FEATURE USE OF THIS, CONGREGATE LIVING SO ON, SO FORTH, IS THERE ANY PROVISION FOR TRANSPORTATION, LOCATION, WHETHER TO PICK UP, WHETHER IT IS LOCAL BUS OR ETC., THAT SET ASIDE, FOR TRANSPORTATION? >> FIRST OFF I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ONLY A PUBLIC BUS ROUTE. SECOND, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN REQUIRED BY ST. LUCIE COUNTY TO PROVIDE SIDEWALK AND IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FROM NORTH TO SOUTH. THIRDLY TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE FACILITIES, THERE IS PLENTIFUL PARKING AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS AND ORDER TO PROVIDE THAT TYPE OF SERVICE IF IT IS CONTEMPLATED IN THE FUTURE BY THE APPLICANT. >> BECAUSE SAME AS COUNTY, TRANSIT, DOES DO VANS AND THAT TYPE OF THINGS. WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PICKED UP OR STAKEEN. AS I LOOK CLOSER NOW, I THINK THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. JUST LIKE PICKING SOMEBODY UP TO HOUSE. THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT IS ALL. >> OK. COMMISSIONER? >> NO QUESTIONS. >> ANY MORE COMMISSIONER? >> NO, GOOD, GOOD. THIS IS OUR CHANCE. ASK STAFF. OK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE EXCUSED. I WOULD WELCOME THE APPLICANT, MR. CURRY, STATE YOUR NAME. >> BRAD CURRY, HAILEY WARD. CAN YOU LOAD MY HOUR LONG PRESENTATION? I'M JUST JOKING. >> BEFORE HE LEAVES, ANY QUESTIONS? I DO NOT. TONIGHT I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO BE REPRESENTI REPRESENTING GRACEWAY VILLAGE. THEIR FACILITY ON HART MAN ROAD. THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD THINGS ABOUT THE PROJECT EXISTING AND IT WILL ONLY GET BETTER AS WE DO THE EXPANSION. WE ARE EXCITED THAT. THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW PROJECT I BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION I DIDN'T THINK YOU WOULD HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON AND YOU DID STILL. THAT IS THE REASON WHY I WAS SMILING. . >> WE USUALLY TEND TO HAVE A FRICTION POINT ON THIS. WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT. >> SO I AM NOT UNAWARE OF ANY SECTIONS OF CODE WE DO NOT MEET WITH THIS PROJECT. I THINK IS A GREAT LOCATION FOR THE PROJECT. THERE WERE DISCUSSION DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ABOUT THE LOCATION, COMMERCIAL LAND USE AND SOUTHERN ZONING AND I THINK IT IS A GOOD TRANSITIONAL USE. MORE INTENSE USE AND LESS INTENSE USES OF THE LOT RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH. I THINK IS A PERFECT USE FOR THE PROPERTY. STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB PRESENT PASSENGER I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. WITH ME HERE TONIGHT IS CRYSTAL NETHERLANDSTON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF GRACEWAY VILLAGE. HER AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE DID REVIEW THE CONDITIONS. CONDITIONS ARE STANDARDS. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS. CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION IN. >>  YES, OF MR. CURRY? >> NOTHING. >> OK. >> THIS IS CHANCE FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COME AND ADDRESS US ON THIS ISSUE. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC? ANYONE WHO IS SWORN IN OR WASN'T SWORN IN OK. I AM GOING TO -- ANYTHING MORE FROM THE APPLICANT BEFORE I CLOSE THIS OUT? OK. SO CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRINGING IT BACK TO THE BOARD. >> CHAIRMAN MOVE APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. >> SECOND. >> MOTION TO SECOND.
[3:00:01] SORRY YOU HAD TO WAIT SO LONG FOR THIS VOTE BUT CALL THE ROLL, SI-JUDICIAL CONGRATULATIONS. 1234R5 QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING, 35 FEET ABOVE THE FREE MA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION OF 4 FEET AT 1840 SURF SIZE DRIVE IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA. >> HAVE THE ADVERTISING AND NOTICE REQUIREMENT BEING MET? >> YES, MA'AM. >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAKING PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR HAND. >> DO YOU WEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING ABOUT THE TRUTH, THANK YOU. >> I SKIPPED THAT. >> OK. COMMISSION BRODERICK,? >> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> COMMISSIONER? >> READ THE AGENDA. BACK UP MATERIAL. >> MAYOR HUDSON? >> NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. >> WE WILL CHECK WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON WHEN WE COME BACK. YOU MAY PROCEED. >> MY NAME IS. CHRIS -- >> CA -- TONIGHT WE HAVE SITE 226-016, ANDERSON RESIDENTS. CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. AND IT IS LOCATED AT 1840 SURFSIDE DRIVE. THE OWNER IS LISA ANDERSON WITH MIKE SEAL FROM ARCHITECTONIC INC. THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 0.54 ACRE. AND THE REQUEST IS TO REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION TO CONSTRUCT A THREE STOREY FIVE BEDROOM, FIVE BATH SINGLE FAMILY HOME, EAST OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE WITH HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, ABOVE FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 125-37, 12.-191 AND 125.237 OF THE CITY CODE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION TO INSTRUCT THREE STOREY FIRE BEDROOM, FIVE BATH, SINGLE FAMILY HOME, EAST OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE, WITH HEIGHT OF 35 FEET BOVE THE FEMA-BASE FLOOD ELEVATION. CITISY CODE, 125-191 B-4, BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 28 FEET ABOVE GRADE, CONDITIONAL USES WITH BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 35 FEET, ABOVE GRADE, MAY BE APPROVED. PER SESSION CITY CODE SECTION 125-157 C-31, CALCULATION OF HEIGHT FOR THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY DISTRICT, FOR STATES THAT THE MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT SHALL BE CALCULATED FROM THE ESTABLISHED FEMA-BASED FLOOD ELEVATION TO THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE ROOF EXCLUDING NON-HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THE STRUCTURE. LET ME PUT THAT INTO A PICTURE FOR YOU. SO BASICALLY WHEN WE ARE DEALING WITH THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY, DISTRICT, WE HAVE WHERE THE LAND SITS, WHAT THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION FOR FEMA SAYS IS IN THAT AREA, AND THEN THAT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE IS 28 FEET. THE CODE DICTATED WITH THE SEASONAL USE THAT HEIGHT MAXIMUM CAN GO TO 35 FEET. AND THESE DECORATIVE ORNAMENTS NOT INHABITABLE SPACE, MAY BE ALLOWED TO EXCEED THAT HEIGHT LIMIT BY 20%. SO UNDER 125-237, SEASONAL FOR THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF SEASONAL SEASONAL USE, APPLICATION FOR SEASONAL USE FOR APPLICATION SITE PLAN REVIEW WHEN NOT EXEMPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT, 125-236, SHAM BE REVIEWED WITH REQUIREMENT OF 1 TO 5-13. LET ME BOIL THAT DOWN. WENT THROUGH SITE PLAN
[3:05:01] APPROVAL. BECAUSE IT HAS A CONDITIONAL USE HAS TO COME BEFORE YOU FOR DECISION. OF COURSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HEARING. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. PER SUBSECTION 1. AND PERMITTING CONDITIONAL USE OR THE MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE THE CITY COMMISSION MAY IMPOSE IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD AND REQUIREMENT EXPRESSLY SPECIFIED IN THE CHAPTER, ANY CONDITIONAL WHICH IT FIND NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF THIS SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. AND IF THAT IS THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION, I WOULD SUGGEST SUGGEST THOSE AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ON ANY APPROVAL THAT YOU MAY OR MAY IN THE PROVIDE. -- MAY NOT PROVIDE. SO SITE AREA, IS 0.54, ACRES. WE ARE OCEAN, BEACH, SUBJECT SITE. SAND -- SURF SIDE. A LITTLE SMALL AND THEN SOUTH OCEAN RIGHT THERE IS THE NORTH NORTH/SOUTH. THE FUTURE LAND USE, IS RESIDENTIAL LOW. WHICH PERMITS A DENSITY UP TOP 6.5 UNITS TO THE ACRE. ARE R-1 ZONING IS OUR SOVEREIGNING DISTRICT FOR THE PARTICULAR PARCEL. THIS IS A SITE PLAN, AGAIN THE SITE PLAN INCLUDES THREE STOREY STRUCTURE. GROUND LEVEL GARAGE FOR PARK AND COVEREDEN UNDER COPPERED PATIO, GALLERY, DINING ROOM, KITCHEN, UTILITY ROOM, LAUNDRY ROOM AND BALCONIES. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS A TOTAL OF 10 PROPOSED TREES, 15 PALMS. ND 216 SHRUBS. I WILL CONFIRM THAT A LOT OF THE LANDSCAPING IS CON SEUS I DEUCIVE OF -- CONDUCIVE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE BEING PLACED AND PROBABLY ADDITIONNAL REVIEW OF THE -- WITH THE DOCUMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WITH THE DUNE THAT IS ON THE SITE AS WELL. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE IS A STRUCTURE TO THE NORTH OF THE SITE, TO THE LEFT IN THIS PARTICULAR PHOTO. THERE IS A PRETTY GOOD TRACK RECORD OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD HEIGHT INCREASES. YOU CAN SEE THAT OVER THE YEARS, 2004, SURF SIDE, 1812 SURF SIDE, 1814, SURF SIDE AND 1 1914 HAVE BEEN APPROVED. SEASON KIND OF WENT THROUGH HOW HEIGHT THIS MEASURED AND SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND JUST FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES, IF THIS IS EXISTING GRADE, AND THIS IS FOUR FEET, THEN THE OVERALL HEIGHT FROM WHAT IS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, IS A TOTAL OF 39 # FEET BUT FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE, YOU TAKE THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION TO THAT HEIGHT LIMIT AND YOU MEASURE OUT AT 35 FEET, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TONIGHT. THIS IS THE EAST TO THE OCEAN. THIS WILL BE THE NORTH ELEVATION. NEXT TO THE EXISTING HOME THAT IS OUT THERE, THAT WAS POINTED OUT IN THE NEIGHBORING PHOTO. AND THE SOUTH ELEVATION, WHICH WOULD BE GO EMPTY PROPERTIES AT THE MOMENT. FRONT RENDERING. VIEW FROM THE SOUTHEAST. FROM THE SOUTHWEST. LOOKING NORTHEAST. THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH REARD TO CONSISTENCY IN ESTABLISHED ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE. THE PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR JULY 13, 2026 MEETING UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE WITH NOW NEW CONSTRUCTION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AND ALTERNATIVE, YOU MAY MODIFY THOSE CONDITIONAL OVER APPROVAL. OR YOU CAN DISAPROVE THE MOTION. THAT SURE PRESENTATION FOR THIS EVENING. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSION MAY HAVE. >> QUESTION OF STAFF? >> MAYOR? >> YES, SIR. >> ANOTHER PROVISION OF CITY CODE I THINK I MEMORIZED SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY AND SERVE ON PLANNING BOARD FOR EIGHT, NINE YEARS, AT MY ADVANCED AGE, MY OFFICE STAFF CRITICIZES MY MEMORY CAPABILITY CONSISTENTLY NOW. HOWEVER I REMEMBER FOUR APPLICATIONS IN SURF SIDE AND I
[3:10:02] HAD THE NUMBER RIGHT. SO I WILL MAKE SURE I POINT THAT OUT TO MY STAFF TOMORROW. >> IF YOU NEED VERIFICATION I WILL BE BACK. >> SPEED DIAL. OK. SO THE CONDITIONAL USE JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS BUT 28 FEET IS COMING TO GET YOUR PERMIT WALK AWAY. >> YES, SIR. >> THE CONDITIONAL USE GIVES YOU A MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET. >> THAT CORRECT. >> IF YOU WERE AND THE 36 THAT WOULDN'T FIT THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL? >> CORRECT. >> I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTION. THIS MODEL WE HAVE DONE MULTIPLE TIME ON SOUTH BEACH AND ON SURF SIDE. AT LEAST A DOZEN OF THESE. MY FADING MEMORY WILL ONLY REMEMBER TEN. THANK YOU, CHRIS. >> YES, SIR. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> WHILE THE HEIGHT IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE FOR THE SOUTH BEACH OVERLAY AROUND BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND GIVEN WHAT YOU JUST PROVIDED WITH THE NEIGHBORS NEXT TO IT, WITHIN TWO TO THREE FEET OF EACH OTHER, SEEMS TO BE CONSISTENT. CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS THAT BUILDING EAST OF THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE WE HAVE SEEN THAT CHALLENGE RECENTLY WITH THE EROSION AND THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE BUILT UP AGAINST THE DUNE, IN THAT LOCATION, ARE AT RISK FOR CONDITIONAL DAMAGE OR LOSING THEIR BUILDING COMPLETELY. IN THIS APPLICATION PROCESS, DOES THE APPLICANT KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE HISTORY OF THE EROSION ON SOUTH BEACH, IS PRETTY CONSISTENT OVER TIME. THAT THIS WOULD BE AT RISK FOR POSSIBLY DAMAGE WITH HIGH TIDE, NOT GOING TO USE THE TERM TSUNAMI BUT A HIGH SURF SCENARIO WITH THE WAY THE EAST WINDS WERE COMING WHEN WE SAW THE SIGNIFICANT IN ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES WAS OUT THERE EVERY DAY TRYING TO PUSH BACK THAT WATER. AND COMMENDABLE AT THAT. IS THERE ANY PROVISIONS IN THIS WITH WHERE IT IS BEING LOCATED, IS IT UP AGAINST THE DUNES? I CHOSE NOT TO GO OUT THERE TO LOOK FOR QUASI-YOU JUDICIAL PORTION OF THIS. THE DUNE LINE AND OTHER PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH HAVE BEEN IMPACTED BY SOME OF THE NEW BUILDING THAT ARE PLACED OUT THERE. THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN FOR ME, WITH ANY NEW BUILDINGS THAT ARE BEING BUILT EAST OF THE COASTAL CRONSTRUCTION LINE. IF SOMEBODY DOES THAT, THEY CAN DO THAT BUT IF THEY EXPECT THE CITY AND COUNTY TO SPEND TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS JUST TO PUT SAND ON THEIR FRONT DOOR, TO PROTECT THEIR BUILDING, I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO UNDERSTAND THAT TAXPAYER SHOULDN'T BE PAYING FOR SOMEBODY WHO CHOOSES TO PUT THEIR BUILDINGS AT RISK. SO IS THAT CONVERSATION BEEN -- HAD BEEN DONE? F.D.E.P. HAVE A CONVERSATION AND IF THERE'S A PART OF THIS THAT NEEDS TO BE RENURSED DOWN THE ROAD, IS THERE'S AN EASEMENT THAT IS IN PLACE OR BE RECOGNIZED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER THEY COULD HAVE PIPING THAT WOULD BE ON THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTY WITH THE RENOURISHMENT PROCESS? >>  I FAVE GAVE YOU A LOT. >> CAN WE TAKE THEM ONE-BY-ONE. >> DOES THE APPLICANT UNDERSTAND EAST OF THE CONSTRUCTION LINE AND THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE IMPACTED -- COULD BE IMPACTED WITH EROSION TO WHICH THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE, TO MANAGE TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY. FIRST AND FOREMOST. >> OK. THE APPLICANT HAS A BASE SURVEY THAT DOES DISPLAY THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE. AND AS THIS -- THIS IS THE DRAINAG DRAINAGE, PLAN BUT THE CIVIL ENGINEER PROVIDED CONSTRUCTION INTO A PORTION OF THE DOWNHILL SIDE OF THE DUNE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOPOGRAPHY AND SORRY THIS IS NOT -- THE TOP OF THE DUNE REALLY IS IN THE AREA. SO BETWEEN THESE LARGER GREY LINES. IT DESCEND SEA WARD. THERE WE GO. DESCENDS SEA WARD. AND THEN IT ALSO STARTS TO DESCEND BACK LAND WARD AS WELL. SO PEAK OF THE DUNE IS RIGHT THROUGH HERE. SO I DON'T NE THEY ARE BUILDING DIRECTLY INTO THE HEART OF THE DUNE BUT TO YOUR POINT, YES, I HAVE TO ASSUME IF THEY HAVE HIRED A CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT TO PUT THESE PLANS TOGETHER, THAT BOTH AND MAYBE SPEAKING FOR THE APPLICANT AND MAYBE DIRECTED BETTER TO THEM. I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY CONVERSATIONS OF ANY OF THE
[3:15:01] CONCERNS THAT YOU RAISED WITH EROSION. FROM WHAT WHATEVER WEATHER EVENT, BUT I HAVE TO ASSUME, THAT HIRING THE PROFESSIONALS HAS LED TO SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE RISKS AND BUILDING IN THE PARTICULAR -- >> THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THE GRADING THE DUNE ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, SHOULD NOT TAKE PLACE AT ALL. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS, IT AFFECTS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DUNE, WHEN EROSION COMES THAT DIRECTION. WE HAVE SEEN THAT WITH THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY I'M TALKING ABOUT IN WHICH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WORKED REALLY HARD TO PROTECT THAT HOUSE. AND THERE IS OTHER PROPERTIES ALONG THERE. SO FROM A CONDITION STANDPOINT I WOULD BE ASKING THEY DO NOT INTERRUPT THE DUNE FROM EITHER END, THAT COULD CHALLENGE THE INTEGRITY OF THE DUNE IN THE PROTECTION ASSETS. SO I WILL GO FROM THERE. THE OTHER IS, IS THERE A CROSS OLY -OVER. THERE IS ALREADY A DUNE CROSSOVER THERE? >> YES, SIR. >> IT LOOKS LIKE VACANT PROPERTY THERE NOW. >> I THINK IT IS A COW PATH. >> SO IT IS NOT DESIGNATED. NOT A PHYSICAL DUNE CROSS OVER? >> NOT THAT I AM AWARE OF SINCE THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY. >> THE REASON I AM ASKING IS BECAUSE WHEN WE DO HAVE THE EROSION ISSUE, THE IDEA IS TO CREATE THE CROSS OVER ON AN ANGLE SO THAT IT HITS THE BASIS. >> SO THE WIND DOESN'T BLOW THE SAND DOWN TO A TUNNEL EFFECT. YES I AM AWARE. >> IS THAT A CONDITION IN THIS? >> NO, SIR. YET SHOULD BE. SIMPLY BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BUILD ALONG HERE, FROM THE PROTECTION OF THE COUNTY TAXPAYER, CITY TAXPAYER IS THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROTECT THIS DUNE WITH MINOR ISSUE LIKE A CROSS OVER BEING CONSTRUCTED APPROPRIATELY. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD BE ASKING FOR AS A CONDITIONAL. >> OK. >> JUST GETTING BACK TO THAT. THAT IS IMPORTANT. SCALE, AND D.E.P. -- THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN IT YET. THEY WILL GET IT AFTER EARLY JUNE? >> THAT IS TYPICAL OF CONDITIONS YOU HAVE STATE AND FEDERAL PERMITTING IN PLACE SO AS THE APPLICANT MOVES FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, A LOT OF THE ISSUE YOU RAISE WITH REGARDING DUNE PROTECTION AND HOW THOSE -- THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE REGULATIONS FOR THAT. WE HAVE LARGELY RELY ON T D.E.P. WHO DOES HAVE REGULATION. TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THEY MAY HAVE TO DO SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN ORDER TO KEEP WHAT IS THERE OR MODIFY WHAT -- >> AND I RAISE -- >> SPECULATING ON THAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE MIND OF D.E.P. >> IN MY PREVIOUS LIFE, WE ALL HAVE EXPERIENCE, ONE OF THE BIGGERS BIGGERSHIPS ISSUE -- BIGGER ISSUES HAS BEEN THE DUNES. THE MORE CROSS OVER YOU HAVE THE MORE POTENTIAL FOR DUNE DESTRUCTION, SO I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT. OTHER THAN THAT, THE I THINK WILL BE DONE FOR NOW. JOB OK. YEAH, OK. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COME UP NOW AND TELL ME WHETHER YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> MIKE MENARD. THE APPLICANT IS ON VACATION WITH FAMILY BEFORE SCHOOL START. I HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I THOUGHT THEY DID AND EXCELLENT JOB. >> SO YOU ARE EXCUSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I CAN MAYBE ANSWER SOME OF COMMISSIONER'S THING OR CONCERNS AND THE DUNE. WE HAVE DONE SEVERAL PROJECT ON SURF SIDE. SPECIALLY THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT DOOR. ONE WE GOT APPROVED A COUPLE LOTS DOWN WHICH THEY NEVER BUILT AND ONE AT THE CORNER. WITH D.E.P. PROCESS WE CANNOT REALLY EFFECT THE EXISTING GRADE. I WISH BRAD CURRY WAS STILL HERE. HE WOULD GIVE YOU MORE SPECIFICS. WITH EROSION AND EVERYTHING WE ARE REQUIRED BY D.E.P. TO ONCE WE GET OUR SITE PLAN AND CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL, WE GO -- SUBMIT TO D.E.P. THEY THEN DO A SCOUR EROSION STUDY.
[3:20:04] AND LAST ONE WAS ROUGHLY NINE FEET, SO WE HAVE TO DESIGN OUR STRUCTURE FOUNDATION, WOODPILINGS AND EVERYONE TO APOLL DATE -- ACCOMMODATE FOR THAT. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REMOVE SOIL OR DIRT FROM THE SITE. ANY SITE WORK WE DO, WE ARE MAINTAINING EVERYTHING SITE. I HOPE THAT. WILLS CLARIFY. >> THE IDEA IS IN A PREVIOUS CONSTRUCTION HAD BEEN DONE, TO THE NORTH THEY DUG INTO THE DUNE WHICH TOOK ABOUT A THIRD OF THE DUNE. ON THE WESTERN SIDE. SO IT DEGRADED THE DUNE FOR PROTECTING ON THE OTHER SIDE. WE SAW THAT RESULT IN THIS RECENT -- >> I THINK D.E.P. CAUGHT ON BOARD WITH THAT. FROM ONE APPLICATION WE DID, LIKE SIX YEARS AGO, VERSES THE MOST RECENT ONE WE DID, THERE WAS A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE D.E.P. REQUIREMENTS AND OF SAVING I GUESS THE DUNES OR WHAT NOT. AND AS FAR AS CROSS -- DUNE CROSS OVERS, THE D.E.P. IS SPECIFIC ON THOSE AS WELL. . >> THAT WILL BE BUILT AS OPPOSED TO THE COW PATH? >>  I DON'T KNOW WE ARE DOING THAT. YOU BROUGHT UP THE DUNE CROSS OVERS AND CONCERN AND SO FORTH. AND WE HAVE DONE SOME OF THOSE IN THE PAST AND THEY ARE VERY SPECIFIC ON ORIENTATION, ANGLE, DIAMETER OF POST. WE DID ONE. THE CLIENT WANTED TO DO A SIX BY SIX POST. THEY SHOT IT DOWN. WE COULDN'T GO ANY LARGER THAN FOUR INCH DIAMETER POST AND HAD TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE OFF THE GRADE ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE DUNE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. >> OK. >> THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO I'M GOOD, THANK YOU. >> I WOULD LIKE -- MS. HEDGE. >> BEFORE MR. MENARD LEAVES YOU SAID YOU ARE NOT THE APPLICANT. CLEAN RECORD, YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. THEY KNOW YOU HERE AND AUTHORIZED YOU TO BE HERE? >> YES, HE IS MYBUSINESS /* /*Y BUSINESS PARTNER. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE LINE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD? ANYONE ELSE? SEEING NO MOVEMENT. UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, MR. MENARD WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION. >> I WOULD GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION. WERE THERE CONDITIONS? NO CONDITIONS. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> SECOND. ALL RIGHT. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> >> CONGRATULATIONS. THANKS FOR WAITING. NIGHT. THE NECK QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING IS FOR AN APPLICATION FOR MINOR SITE PLAN CONDITIONS USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, SUBMITTED BY PROPERTY OWNER CALIBER CONTRACTING, REPRESENTED GIANGRANDES ENGINEERING AND PLANNING TO DEVELOP A 9600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING FOR NEW TANG FARM, LOCATED IN 3700 OKEECHOBEE ROAD, AND 1903 SOUTH 37TH, ST. FORT PIERCE. >> HAVE WE MET THE REQUIREMENT FOR NOTICE AND ADVERTISEING? >>  YES, MA'AM. >> ASK ABOUT EX PARTE, PLEASE. >> YES, COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> NOTHING TO REPORT. >> JUST THE AGENDA ITEMS IS ALL I READ. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> NOTHING ON THIS OR THE PREVIOUS ONE AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. BACK TO YOU, I APPRECIATE YOU. >> NO PROBLEM. >> AND MAYOR HUDSON? >> NO. NO MA'AM. AND SO WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESSS? >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM. DO YOU AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES, I DO. >> THANK YOU. >> OK, PROCEED. >> YES. SAVE THE BEST FOR LAST. >> ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FOR THE RECORD, I PRESENT TO YOU A MINOR SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CRUX FOR NEW TANK FARM. LOCATED AT 3700 OKEECHOEVERBEE ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS GIAGRANDESYSTEMS ENGINEERING REPRESENTED BY LEO, PROPERTY OWNER, IS CALIBER CONTRACT AND INCORPORATED. PARCEL I.D. FOR 37 HUNK OKEECHOBEE ROAD. 1.73 ACRES AND FOR 1903 SOUTH 37TH STREET, PARREL I.D.
[3:25:14] .6 ACRES. SUMMARY, USE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO DEVELOPMENT A 9600 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. BUILDING WILL BE USED TO STORE 8,000 TO 10,000 GALLON TANKS. THE SITE AREA AS PROJECTED ON THE SCREEN. OVERALL IS 2.36 ACRES GIVE OR TAKE. >> FUTURE LAND USE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE ZONE C-3, GENERAL COMMERCIAL. SURROUNDED BY C-3 AS WELL. SIGH PLAN DETAILS. LITE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IS PROPOSED TO BE A ONE STOREY 96 HUNDRED SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. 9,000 SQUARE FEET, WILL BE FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS. AND REMAINING 6 HUNDRED SQUARE FEET WILL BE FOR OFFICE SPACE. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ALLOW IN GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE DISTRICT IS 50 FEET IN HEIGHT. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 30 FOOT HEIGHT BUILDING. DEVELOPMENT MEETS CITY CODE PARKING REQUIREMENT WITH 18 STALLS, 17 BEING REGULAR AND ONE A.D.STALL. THE SITE OFFERS TWO ACCESS AND EX EXIT. SIDEWALK CONNECTIONS CURRENTLY EXIST ON OKEECHOBEE ROAD. INSTALLED ON SOUTH 37TH STREET DURING THE DEVELOPMENT. THE MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE, EXCUSE ME, IF I CAN JUST LOWER THIS UP. NORTH BAY DOOR AND EXIST THROUGH THE SOUTH OF THE BUILDING ALLOWING FOR EXITING OF THE PROPERTY EITHER ON SOUTH 37TH STREET, OKEECHOBEE ROAD. THE OFFICE DOOR AT THE FRONT, PROVIDING FOR SIX BICYCLE. EACH UNIT CAN ACCOMMODATE TWO BI BIKES PER RACK. IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IT IS OUR JOB TO NOT ONLY ENFORCE THE CODE BUT TO INTO INTENTIONAL ABOUT OUR PART TO BEAUTIFY THE CITY. ONE OF THE A WAYS IS THROUGH BUILDING DESIGN FOR FEW DEVELOPED PROPOSED BUILDING ON WHAT WE IDENTIFIED AS GATEWAY ROADS. THE ON SCREEN BUILDING IS PROPOSED BUILDING SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. >> WE AREPLAY PLEARE -- ARE PLEASED WITH THE APPLICANT AND REVISED PRODUCT WAS SUBMITTED. THE NEW AND IMPROVED DESIGN OFFERED ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATION WITH COOL COLORS AND FEATURES. >> AWNINGS WILL BE PLACED OVER WINDOWS AND COMPLEMENT THE BUILDING FACADE. THE PATTERNS ARE INSPIRED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES AND HERE WE HAVE ELEVATION FOR ALL DIFFERENT ANGLES OF THE BUILDING SO HERE WE HAVE THE EAST. THIS WILL BE THE SOUTH FACING ROAD. THIS WILL BE THE WEST OF THE BUILDING. AND WITNESS HAVE THE NORTH. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED HEAVY VEGETATION, WITH 1,322 LINEAR SQUARE FEET OF PERIMETER BUFFER SURROUNDING ALL ENDS OF THE PROPERTY. 93 TREES WILL BE ON SITE. AND INCLUDING A GREAT PROPORTION OF THE TREES WILL BE PRESERVED. AFTER THE JULY 13, 2026 PLANNING BOARD MEETING IT WAS VOTED TO MOVE TO CONDITIONAL USE WITH NEW CRUX APPLICATION FOR CITY COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE, A LAND PERMIT MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, TWO, TREE REMOVAL
[3:30:02] PERMIT WITH MITT GATION IS REQUIRED WITH APPROVAL, PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. AND THREE, ALL SIGN PERMIT SHALL BE FILED SEPARATELY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT. FOUR, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY, LANDSCAPE AGREEMENT MUST BE NOTARIZED AND SUBMITTED. APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 18 GENERAL CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY SOUTH FLOOR WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THOSE CONDITIONS ARE LISTED ON THEIR DOCUMENT, PAGES NINE THROUGH 11. NUMBER 7 APPLY CANADA SHALL APPLY WITH THE 8 SPECIAL CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY SOUTH FLORIDA WATER, MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. PAGE 12. NUMBER 8, APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE 12 PERMIT CONDITIONS OUTLINED BY SAINT-LOUIS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT. NUMBER NINE, ANY SITE PLAN OR OKAY TECHTIAL NOD FIECATION MUST BE APPROVE BY CITY OF FORT PIERCE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PRIOR TO THE I POLICEMENCATION OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION AND TEN, APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR UNITY OF TITLE OR ALLOT COMBINATION WHICH ST. T. LUCIE. >> THEREFORE WITH THOSE TEN CONDITIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, WITH THE TEN CONDITIONS, OF THE MINOR SITE PLAN CONDITIONAL USE WHEN WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE TO RECOMMEND ADDITIONAL OR MODIFIED CONDITIONS OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> YES. MY FIRST COMMENT IS I SEE DIRECTOR FREE MAN'S HAND AT WORK HERE. OR YOU HAVE BEEN PASSING THAT INFORMATION ALONG. REASON I SAY THAT IS THE LINES OF THE BUILDING HAVE DRAMATICALLY CHANGED FROM THE INITIAL APPLICATION. WHICH IS JUST CREATING A VERY MORE PLEASING ARCHITECTURAL PRESENTATION AND I THINK YOUR FAVORITE IS AWNINGS ON THE WINDOW. I WAS WAITING FOR THAT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE, I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU KNOW THE QUESTION. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU ASK FOR THE APPLICANT THAT DID NOT PROVIDE? >> NO COMMISSIONER, BRODERICK. THE APPLICANT WAS RECEPTIVE OF THE CONVERSATION STAFF HAD WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE WE CAN PRODUCE OR BRING FORT THE PROJECT THAT YOU WILL BE PLEASED WITH. >> I THINK THIS IS IN THE PERFECT SPOT. PERFECTLY SIZED. AND AN ATTRACTIVE BUILDING SO I THINK YOU HIT IT OUT OF THE PARK. TO THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO GIVE SOME COMMENTARY AND WORK WITH THEM TO UPGRADE THE FACILITY. I WILL NOW SEE THE BUILDING PART OF THAT PROGRAM COMING OUT OF THE GROUND ALL OVER THE CITY AND THE CHANGE, IS REMARKABLE. SEE A BUILDING HERE. AND ACROSS THE STREET I SEE VINTAGE 1982 BUILDING THAT MY COMPANY MIGHT OWN AND LOOKS LIKE CRAP AND WE PUT THIS BEAUTIFUL THING ACROSS THE STREET AND I HAVE TO UPGRADE. IT WILL COST ME SOME MONEY BUT IT IS WORTH IT. THIS IS GOOD WORK. >> ANYONE ELSE? YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? >> I SAY THE 11 CONDITIONS FOR NORTH ST. LUCIE WATER. IS THAT IS DETENTION POND ON -- DETENTION AREA IN THE GREEN SPACE THAT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY? I THINK I SEE A DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE. IS THAT GOING TO MANAGE ALL OF THE STORM WATER? BACK BACK BACK. RIGHT THERE. SO LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT OF THE PICTURE. RIGHT WHERE YOUR CURSOR IS. COME TO THE LEFT. COME TO THE LEFT. >> NOW IT IS OVER HERE. IN THE CORNER. >> THERE YOU GO. >> RIGHT HERE. >> YES. OK. ANYWAY. LEAVE IT THERE. I SEE THE CURB MARKINGS. THE GREEDANE /* -- DRAINAGE. IS THAT GOING TO BE THE DETENTION AREA FOR ALL THE STORM WATER? THAT IS A LOT OF IM-- WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE ENOUGH PLACE TO MANAGE THE STORM WATER? >> I DO BELIEVE. >> I DIDN'T SEE ANY LAKE. I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING. >> SO WHAT I CAN -- WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS REFER THE QUESTION TO THE APPLICATION. >> FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU. >> IS THAT IT? >> THAT IS ALL. >> ALL RIGHT. SO >> THANK YOU. I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD PLEASE. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> NO, STAMP HAS BEEN FANTASTIC. WE WORK WELL TOGETHER.
[3:35:01] >> THANK YOU. YOU ARE EXCUSED. SO GO AHEAD. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER HIS QUESTION. >> YEAH, PLEASE. >> SO MOST OF THE DRAINAGE BEING COMPENSATED UNDERGROUND WITH STORM CHAMBERS. SO THAT THOSE ARE JUST FOR CONVEYANCE. JUST A MATTER OF MOVING THE WATER. >> WE HAVE A SISTERN SYSTEM? >> THEY ARE LIKE 32 INCHES DEEP. LIKE AN H.D.P.E. DOME STRUCTURE, THAT IS AGE 20 RATED. SO ENDS UP GETTING BETTER -- IT IS A LOT OF VOLUME TO HOLD WATER. >> AND THAT IS WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION. THERE IS A LOT. >> EVEN IF IT D-- YOU CAN'T LOK AT THAT SITE AND SAY WHERE IS THE WATER GOING TO GO. >> NORTH ST. LUCIE HAS PROBLEMS OVER THERE. >> THESE ARE OLD AREAS. THE EXAMPLE OF 1982, VERSES SOMETHING NOW, THAT IS THE SAME STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS AND I AM ALWAYS BEATING THE DRUMS. IF WE DO THE CHANGES NOW. IT IS BETTER FOR YOUR NEIGHBORS THAN WHAT YOU HAD BEFORE. AND REALLY ASSIST DURING THE EXTREME EVENTS. >> I APPRECIATE IT. THAT EVEN ADDING THAT IN IS EXCELLENT. >> I BRIEF WE WENT BEYOND THE MINIMUM. >> HOPE MORE DEVELOPMENTS AND FOLKS ARCHITECTS THINK LIKE THAT. >> APPRECIATE THAT. >> HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> NO, I COULDN'T COMPLIMENT STAFF. >> ONE FOLLOW-UP. THIS IS PERFECT EXAMPLE OF SUBMISSION MADE, PLANNING DEPARTMENT NEGOTIATING OR CHATTING WITH YOU FOLKS AND YOU'RE GOING ALONG WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO GIVE US A TRULY UPGRADED FACILITY HERE. I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE I'M HOPEFUL THAT OTHER OTHER APPLICANTS WILL VIEW THIS AND SAY WHAT DO WE NEED TO GET ALONG. THIS IS THE TYPE OF PRODUCT WE WANT TO SEE COME IN SO BE AWARE. WE WILL MAKE THE ASK AND WE WILL HOLD FIRM TO THAT. >> I WILL RESPOND TO THAT. THAT IS PART OF THE SOUTH. IT IS THE SAME BUILDING. DRESSING IT UP TO MAKE IT APPEAR BETTER. TRYING TO CREATE AN IMPRESSION. YOU SHOULD BE MEETING THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARD, A BIT ABOVE AND BEYOND. SO I RECOMMEND DOING AND THAT THE TOWN IS LOOKING BETTER. . >> YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR STANDARD METAL SIDED BUILDING, 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF MED METAL ON METAL. YOU CAN FIND A CZILLIONS OF TH. >> I KNOW. I OWN SOME OF THOSE. SO THANK YOU. >> I GET IT. >> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. SO WE ARE LOOKING AT BUILDING HERE AND I'M ASSUMING WHERE IT IS FASHION THE OKEECHOBEE ROAD. >> THAT VIEW IS FACING THE ROAD WITH THAT CROSSWALK GOING OUT. >> OK. QUESTION, ANY SIGNAGE, MAYBE I MISSED IT? ANY SIGNAGE AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? >> NO. >> NO. >> WE HAD A LOT OF DEBATE AND DISCUSSION OVER THAT. AND THIS IS HOW THE END USER CHOOSES TO GO. SO IF THEY MIGHT HAVE TYPICAL LIKE YOU HAD ON LIKE EVEN JUST THE GLASS DOOR, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO COME IN. WHICH MIGHSAY THE COMPANY NAME. IF THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON, THAT NEEDS TO BE REVISITED BY CITY STAFF. THAT IS WHAT I TOLD THEM. YOU JUST CAN'T COME IN LATER. IF WE RESERVE IT, NOW IT IS TIME TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. THAT CHANGES THE AESTHETICS. >> SO WE CAN'T TRICK YOU. >> IT DOES. YOU KNOW, THIS IS -- >> JUST WONDERING HOW THEY FIND THAT. >> HOW DO THEY FIND IT? >> YOU HAVE 37OKEECHOBEE. >> LOW LEVEL WOULDN'T. >> I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT KIND OF SIGN IT IS. >> THEY MIGHT NOT WANT TO DO THAT AT ALL SINCE THIS HAS NO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. >> THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. >> THE SITE CIRCULATION WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK OUT. >> THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC-FACING? >> NO, THE PUBLIC WENT IN, THEY WENT TO THE WRONG PLACE. >> VERY WELL, THANK YOU. I FEEL BETTER NOW. NOT HAVING PEOPLE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS THIS THE RIGHT PLACE? AM I COMING TO PICK UP A PRODUCT HERE AND FINDING TO NAVIGATE. >> THAT BECOMES DANGEROUS, TOO. INTERACTION WITH THE TRUCKS. EVEN WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE PARTICULAR. YOU WERE VELE. >> YOU ARE OK WITH THE CONDITIONS? >> I LOVE THEM. >> WOW. >> THAT IS WHAT I LIKE TO HEAR. WE WILL STOP RIGHT NOW. ANYONE ELSE IN THE CHAMBER WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? OK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE
[3:40:03] COMMISSION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> OUTSTANDING PRODUCT FOR THE CITY. THRILLED THEY ARE LOCATED HIRE. MOTION TO APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONAL. >> WALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> YES, MA'AM. >> THANKS FOR WAITING. GREAT NIGHT. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING YOUR PRODUCT TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. >> THANK YOU. AMENDING COURT OF ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 103. MODIFYING APPOINTMENT PROCEDURE OF THE MEMBER OF BOARD OF EXAMINER OF CONTRACTOR, REPEALING ORDINANCES AND CONFLICTS HERE WITH, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> SECOND READING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ISSUE? NO MOVEMENT. COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> GOT TO TIME IT JUST RIGHT. RIGHT? >> WE HAVE SEVERAL RESOLUTIONS TO GO THROUGH. SO WE HAVE RESOLUTION, 26-R45, ACCEPTING PROGRAM MARE MIRROR 2026, COMMISSIONMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING SUB MIX OF THE PLAN TO UNITED STATES HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DESIGNATELING AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO -- ACTIVITY TO DESCRIBED THERE IN AND PROVIDE FOR AN EFFECTIVE DAY. WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING LAST MEETING SO THIS IS SIMPLY THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING YOU TO ACCEPT. >> IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT? >> APPROVAL. SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND CALL THE ROLE, PLEASE. WE A RESOLUTION OF THUS CITY O FORT PIERCE ACCEPTING THAT 2026- 2030 PARTICIPATION PLAN AUTHORIZING THE SUBMISSION OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANE TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT. APPROVAL DESIGNATING TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS IN ANY CIRCUIT APPLICATIONS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT. >> MOTION AND SECOND TO CALL TH ROLL, PLEASE. RECEIVING AND ACCEPTING THAT 2026 THROUGH 2030 PLAN AND THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION UPDATE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE DOCUMENTS AND ANY CERTIFICATIONS. >> IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION 26R45. >> THERE'S A MOTION IN SECOND-PERIOD CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE PERIODS. WE HAVE RESOLUTION 26-R40 SAP BUTTON. A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF FOR PIERCE, FLORIDA, ENTERING A LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY O FORT PIERCE AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. PROVIDING FUN DAYS SEEING THE -- FUNDING FOR THE SUNRISE CENTER ELEVATOR PUBLIC ART IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND SUPPORT COORDINATIO PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS. PROVIDING PRICE -- PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> THIS IS ONE WE ALREADY VOTED FOR. ISN'T THIS ONE WE HAVE ALREADY VOTED FOR. >> I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. OR DOES THEIR MOTION. >> MOTION AND SECOND, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. NEXT WE HAVE RESOLUTION R48, RESOLUTION BETWEEN THIS CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, POLICE OFFICERS RETIREMENT FUND BOARD OF TRUSTEES. THIS RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTS CARLOS VILLA NUEVA TO THAT BOARD .
[3:45:01] >> MOTION AND SECOND, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. ENTERING INTO A LOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY FOR THE DEPLOYMENT OF TH MOBILE VISITOR CENTER, OPERATED OR MANAGED PROPERTIES PROVIDING AUTHORIZATION AND REPEAL OF RESOLUTIONS AND -- PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> MOTION. >> SECOND-PERIOD. >> CALL ROLL, PLEASE FAX. WE HAVE RESOLUTION 26-R50, RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, AND APPOINTING THE YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL. >> WE USUALLY DO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO SAY NO. >> WHY DON'T WE JUST APPOINT EVERYBODY. THAT'S GREAT. SHOULD WE JUST MOVE APPROVAL. >> MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. WE HAVE RESOLUTION 26-WATER ARE 51, CERTIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF A MEMBER TO THE FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY BOARD AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS RESOLUTION RE-APPOINTS BARBARA BENNETT TO THE BOARD. >> MOVE. SECOND-PERIOD CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. CERTIFYING THE APPOINTMENT OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. APPOINTS SANA ADALASHA. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. WE HAVE RESOLUTION 26-R FOR THE POOR, CERTIFYING THE APPOINTMEN AND REAPPOINTMENT OF THE ARTS AND CULTURE BUYS REPORT AND THI BOARD APPOINTS BENJAMIN TOMES A THE REPRESENTATIVE. >> APPROVED HIS SECOND. TO CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA . AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING T GET OFF LUCKY. I KNOW YOU HAVE A BALLOT. I LOOKED AT ALL THE NAMES PERIODS SO WE HAVE LOTS OF -- SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT. WE HAVE AN INCUMBENT SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT. >> SPEAK WITH -- ANTON KREISI IS THE ONE SEEKING APPOINTMENT. THIS RESOLUTION WILL BE APPOINTING JOHANNA GROMEK, WHO WILL BE COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S APPOINTMENT TO THE BOARD. >> WE ONLY VOTE FOR ONE. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON VOTED FOR ANTON KREISI. COMMISSIONER BRODRICK, ANTON KREISI. ANTON KREISI. AND MAYOR HUDSON, ANTON KREISI. OKAY. SO IS THERE A MOTION. >> MOTION PERIODS SECOND-PERIOD. >> CALL THE MOTION, PLEASE. RESOLUTIONS SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. >> AS THERE ARE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO COME FORWARD.
[3:50:01] SEE NO MOVEMENT,  I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL MOVE ON. WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER. >> NO COMMENTS TONIGHT. >> OKAY. WE ARE ON A ROLL HERE. SHELBY COAT -- MISS COX COME IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING. >> I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT TOMORROW IS THE MEETING WITH OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING CONSULTANT. I THINK WE START AT 8:00 TOMORROW MORNING WITH COMMISSIONER BRODRICK SO WE WIL HAVE THEM BACK-TO-BACK EFFECTS OF DON'T FORGET ABOUT THEM THEY'RE ALL ON YOUR CALENDAR. >> I WILL JUST STAY HERE TONIGHT . >> YOU CAN DO THAT, ABSOLUTELY. >> ALSO,  I WILL BE ON VACATION TOMORROW MORNING UNTIL THE FOLLOWING TUESDAY. I'M A HAPPY CAMPER IF YOU NEED ANYTHING. TINA IS UPSTAIRS. GRANDKIDS ARE COMING. >> YOU'RE COMING BACK TO WORK T REST. I WILL NOT BE CHECKING E-MAILS. JUST LET THE PHONE RING. NOTHING FOR ME. >> COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION. YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST. >> MAY I START. I'M PLAYING A LITTLE CATCH-UP HERE. IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE. I HAD SOMETHING TONIGHT THAT WA LITTLE CONCERNING TO ME AND THERE WAS AN ERROR THAT WAS PUT IN. AND SHE MADE SOME COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS AND SO I WAS TAKEN BACK BY THAT. BEFORE I MEET WITH HER I WANT T MEET WITH STAFF BECAUSE SHE POINTED OUT SOME THINGS THAT OBVIOUSLY I WAS NOT AWARE OF. AND THEN SHE BUNDLED THAT TOGETHER WITH THE OPPORTUNITY T CHALLENGE WHATEVER. SOUTH THAT IS A WHOLE PROCESS AND I REALLY NEED TO BE,  I WAN TO UNDERSTAND THAT. WE ABSOLUTELY WANT TO GIVE HOPE THAT WE CAN'T GIVE FALSE HOPE AND CERTAINLY I JUST GOT BLINDSIDED TONIGHT BY THAT. I DON'T LIKE BEING IN THAT POSITION. AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS COMING FROM, BUT I CERTAINLY WANT TO TALK WITH STAFF AND I WANT TO TALK WITH PLANNING TO UNDERSTAND THAT. SO AS A PART OF MY MEETING THIS WEEK, I -- WE WILL HAVE A BRIEF MEETING BU I WANT MR. FREEMAN IN THERE AND EVERYBODY ELSE TO TALK ABOUT COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY ON THE INFORMATION SHE SUGGESTED. I DON'T KNOW HOW MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS FEEL THAT I CAN APPRECIATE THE REPRESENTATIVE COMING TO SHARE. NOW, YOU KNOW, WE ARE STILL BEING ROPED INTO THIS THING AND I AM CONCERNED -- I FIGHT FOR IT EACH AND EVERY YEAR. BUT THEN AGAIN, THE BUCK STOPS WHERE IT STARTED. AND IT STARTED IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE PASSING THAT AND THEY PASSED A LAW THAT OBVIOUSL PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF AND FOUND? IN IT. AND NOW THOSE? HAVE PUT US IN A VERY PAINFUL POSITION THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE AFTERMATH OF THIS. THAT'S CONCERNING TO ME. AND SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING AN ADVERTISING FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO HER AND HAVING INTERACTIONS WIT HER AND QUESTION THAT BUT I AM LITTLE CONCERNED TO GO BACK AND LISTEN ABOUT THE COMMENTS ON WHAT I HEARD IN WHAT'S BEING ASKED OF US, AND WE HAVE VERY LITTLE CONTROL OF. PEOPLE NEED TO BE HEARD WE WANT TO HEAR THEM AND THEIR COMMENTS SHOULD BE DIRECTED AT THE PEOPL THAT PASS THIS LEGISLATION. THEY NEED TO FIX THIS. THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT CAN FIX THIS. THERE ARE? THAT ARE BEING EXPORTED. THAT IS NOT, WE CAN'T FIX THAT. AND BEFORE WE PUT THIS CITY IN LEGAL CHALLENGE WITH THIS, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THINGS THAT ARE COMING NOW WITH THE REFERENDUM ON PROPERTY TAXES, WHO KNOWS WHAT THAT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. THE BUCK NEEDS TO STOP WHERE IT STARTED AND THAT IS IN THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE. THAT IS ALL MY COMMENTS FOR TONIGHT. >> GO AHEAD. >> I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT SH HAD A DOCUMENT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO CIRCULATE TO US TO DOCUMENT THAT SHE HANDED TO YOU. >> WITH THE ZONING. >> YES, YES. >> THAT IS IMPORTANT TO READ BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW IT BUT I WOULD RATHER HAVE IT I WRITING. GREAT ON YOU.
[3:55:03] >> FOLLOWING UP ON COMMISSIONER BROTMAN'S COMMENT, SHE'S ASKED ME TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PANEL AND I WANT TO MAKE A VERY STERN ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT THIS WAS EXPECTED TO BE AND IS CERTAINLY NOT RIGHT BY THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. MAY BE IN THE MINORITY ON THAT BUT THAT IS OKAY. I WILL MAKE A VERY GOOD ARGUMENT . >> I'VE SEEN THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR IT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT LOCAL, YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO BRING IT UP YOURSELF. >> SHE INVITED ME BASED ON -- THEN THAT'S FINE. >> YOU ARE IN DEEP ON THIS THIN SO YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO MAKE A COUNTER ARGUMENT. >> OKAY, GOOD. THAT'S GREAT. THAT IS ALL YOU HAD. YOU HAVE ANYTHING? >> ALSO I WILL CHIME IN ON THE CONVERSATION. I'M GLAD THAT SHE CAME TO REPRESENT THEIR THAT SHE'S DONE A GOOD JOB FOR US TO BRING THE BACON BACK HOME. UNFORTUNATELY SOME OF HER STAFF GOT VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR BUT THEY DON'T ALWAYS GO THROUGH. WE LIKE THE FACT THAT SHE DID IT . SO SOME OF THE CONVERSATION IS IN HER PRESENTATION WAS THUS SUBMERGED LAND COMPONENT ON THE AQUATIC SIDE OF THAT AND HOW THAT IS CALCULATED IN THE DENSITY SIDE OF THINGS SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD BRING FORWARD OF MY REPORT . I HANDED IT TO THE CLERK TO GIV TO THE REPRESENTATIVE AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW HER PRESENTATION WAS GOING TO BE PRESENT IF AND IF WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO TALK BACK AND FORTH. THIS IS THE NEWEST VERSION. I'VE OUTLINED A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, QUESTIONING THE PROCESS. THE INTENT OF IT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING I THINK WE ALL AGREED W NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL. THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS THE MEDIAN INCOME CALCULATION. YOU RACE THAT EARLY. AND GIVEN THAT PORT ST. LUCIE ARE PART OF THE CALCULATION, FORT PIERCE IS NOTHING LIKE THAT . WERE TALKING ABOUT $2,600 IS TH MINIMUM AND GOES AS HIGH AS $3,000. FORT PIERCE IS ANYWHERE FROM 1200-1900 ON THE AVERAGE. SO I THINK THE INTENT OF A LANGUAGE AND LIVE LOCAL IS IT'S NOT MET FOR FORT PIERCE, BUT TO BE THE SENDING UNIT, THE SENDIN LOCATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING BASED ON THE AMI AND LIVE LOCAL PUTS US IN A POSITION TO SEND ALL YOUR STUFF HERE AND EVERYBODY ELSE GETS A BREAK. PUT IT IN PORT ST. LUCIE IF THA IS WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET OR PUT IT IN MARTIN COUNTY. THOSE ARE ISSUES AND I SUBMITTE IT AND THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT I I PUT UP A LAUNDRY LIST OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LIVE LOCAL. WE WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED ON HOW IT TOOK CONTROL AWAY FROM LOCAL AT I SET IT TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OUT THERE EARLIE TONIGHT, I SAID ONE SITE DOES NOT THAT ALTER THE FACT THAT THIS HAS LEFT PINPOINT COMING T A BRIDGE, IT IS RADIOLOGICAL EVACUATION ROUTE. ALL OF THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO PLAY, WHICH IS HOW WE GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT THOSE THINGS SO I APPRECIAT THAT SHE IS CONSIDERING THE POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING THAT GOING FORWARD AND I THINK WE CONTINUED TO BEAT THAT AROUND HERE AND I THINK OUR CITIZENS D THE SAME. THAT IS ALL I HAVE ON THAT. IN GOING TO SUBMIT THAT TO THE CLERK FOR PUBLIC RECORD AND ANOTHER THING, AND WE'VE BEEN HEARING AND TALKING ABOUT THE IDEA OF AN INTERIM ATTORNEY BEFORE SEPTEMBER. A NUMBER OF COUNTIES HAVE CONTACTED ME. WHO DO I SEND THEM TO. PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN WHETHER THE INTERIM OR ACTUAL POSITION BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL THAT HAVE CONTACTED US ED JUST WHO DO I DIRECT? >> I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU, ACTUALLY HAVE TWO THINGS BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEND IT UP TO HR AND HAVE IT SENT TO THE CITY CLERK SO WE CAN CIRCULATE THOSE NAMES. I IMAGINE ARE GOING TO FOLLOW U ON THOSE. >> I WOULD THINK FROM AN HR PERSPECTIVE, JUST RECEIVING INFORMATION. ANY CITY CLERK SUBMITTED WHO HE
[4:00:04] WANTS CONTACT UNLESS SHE WANTS TO CALL EVERYONE ON THE LIST INTERESTED BECAUSE ULTIMATELY I SOMEONE IS INTERESTED, WE HAVE TO SPEAK TO THEM AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO FORWARD SO I WANT TO BE IN A POSITION TO MAK THAT DECISION. THAT IS THE POSITION THAT I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION SHOULD B MAKING SO THE OUTREACH WITH HR REACHING OUT, WE WANT TO KNOW HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT. YOU WANT TO GET A LIST OF NAMES TO SUBMIT TO HR AND TURNED OVER TO THE CITY CLERK AND SUBMIT IT TO YOU AND I HAVE THESE THREE LEASE CALL EVERYONE AND THEN WE WILL FOLLOW UP AND MEET WITH THEM IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD ON AN INTERIM BASIS BUT THATS MY SUGGESTION. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE IS CONTROLLED FROM YOUR STANDPOINT. >> WE HAVE A RECRUITER. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS WE HAVE A PROFESSIONAL RECRUITER FOR A PERMANENT POSITION. NOTE ONE WILL -- AS SOON WE HIRE A TEMPORARY PERSON FOR THAT RECRUITER, THEN SOMEBODY GETS THE PERMANENT POSITION. I THINK THAT THAT IS CONFUSING BECAUSE IF I'M A RECRUITER AND I'M LOOKING FOR A PROFESSIONAL POSITION FOR THAT SAME CITY, TH APPLICATIONS ARE COMING IN AND WE SELECT THIS ONE PERSON AND THEY CAN BE CONFUSED WITH THAT' THE PERSON WANT TO HELP WITH. I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT. I THINK IT CONFUSES THE PROCESS BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, I WILL GO FOR MAYBE A DIFFERENT FIRM COMPLETELY BUT I WOULD NOT WANT TO USE THE SAME FIRM FOR RECRUITMENT. ITS CONFUSING. >> IS THAT UP TO YOU OR HR. >> THE FIRST QUESTION WAS YOU SAID YOU HAD NAMES PETE IF YOU HAVE NAMES, CERTAINLY SEND THEM TO HR AND A CHECK AND SEND THEM TO THE CITY CLERK AND SEND THEM ONTO ME. THAT'S ONE OPTION. THE OTHER IS TO GET A PROFESSIONAL FIRM THAT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BUT I WOULD NOT WANT THAT TO BE THE SAME FIRM THAT IS RECRUITING FO THE PERMANENT POSITION. THESE APPLICATIONS ARE COMING I AND THEY'RE GETTING CONFUSED. I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN BEFORE. WE SELECT SOMEONE AND THE SOME RECRUITERS ARE TEMPORARY. IF YOU WANT TO GO PROFESSIONAL RECRUITMENT, WE CAN DO THAT. >> JUST SEND THEM ON TO HR. WHO DO WE SEND THIS TO? >> OKAY. >> IS SOMEBODY IS INTERESTED, SEND THEM TO HR TO SUBMIT A RESUME. WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT CONTRACT. >> WE HAPPENED. GOOD EVENING PICKS OF THE CONTRACT WAS PUT THROUGH AN ROS BUT THEN I HAD A SUBSEQUENT CONFERENCE OR STATION WITH OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND WITHOUT IT WOULD BE BEST TO HAVE THE OUTSIDE ATTORNEY TAKE A LOOK AT IT SO I WILL SEND IT TO HIM. PART OF ANY CONTACT AND TALKED WITH HER AND ECHOED WHAT THEY WERE SAYING. SHE RECOMMENDED SHE NOT BE THE ONE TO DO THE INTERNAL PITTA CAUSES A LOT OF CONFUSION SUCH LIKE THAT. SO I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE THE NAMES. I CAN GET IT TO MISS COX AND FROM THERE GO FORWARD WITH -- JUST NEED SOME DIRECTION ON HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO. >> IF YOU WANT TO BRING EVERYON FORWARD, I COULD DO THAT. YOU CAN SEE THE LIST OF RESUMES OF WHO YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL. YOU SEE THE APPLICANT'S IN THE INTERIM. >> BUT WHAT I SEE RIGHT NOW IS STARTING AT SEPTEMBER WE HAVE N ATTORNEY, INTERIM OR OTHERWISE, UNTIL WE GOT TO THE PROCESS OF HIRING ONE. SO I THINK THIS COMMISSION FEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT WORK NEEDS T GO ON AND NONE OF US HAVE ANY IDEA THE WORK THAT GETS DONE AN THE VOLUME OF WORK THAT GETS DONE HELPING OTHER STAFF MEMBERS . SO THIS IS, TO ME, SOMETHING THAT WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH HERE EVER GOING TO BE THREE MONTHS WITH NOTHING GETTING DONE , I'M AFRAID. >> I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A DECISION THAT THE SEPTEMBER 8
[4:05:04] MEETING BECAUSE SEPTEMBER 10 IS HER LAST DAY, WHICH IS THURSDAY OR BEFORE. >> RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. >> WE WILL HAVE ONE MORE NIGHT MEETING BEFORE THAT SEPTEMBER 8 MEETING. >> I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR POSITION ON THIS AND WE HAVE TW OF THE MOST CHALLENGING APPLICATIONS EVER ENCOUNTERED I THE CITY COMING IN APPROXIMATEL AND WE HAVE ABILITY IN OUR LEGA DEPARTMENT. THAT'S ABOUT HIS THAT IS A GETS. THAT IS A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHE DAY PAID SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT NO LEGAL CAPABILITY -- PUTTING THE CITIZENS ON FORT PIERCE AT RISK BY HAVING THESE MASSIVE APPLICATIONS AND WE HAV NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION. IT DOESN'T EVEN GET APPROVED. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANYBODY TO HANDLE THE AGREEMENTS AND THAT' -- I'M NOT GOING TO GO ANY FURTHER BUT THAT. >> MR. SORENSEN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR HELP IS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. IF THE COMMISSIONER IS RECRUITING -- >> RIGHT, RIGHT. >> WE TALK TO ATTORNEYS ALL DAY LONG. >> YOU DO? ARE YOU IN TROUBLE? I HAVE A NAME FOR YOU TOO. >> I WILL TAKE THOSE AND I WILL GET THOSE TO MISS COX AND WE LOOK AT THE RESUMES AND EVERYTHING AND GIVE THEM BACK S THEY CAN BE REVIEWED AND THEN W CAN GO FROM THERE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE?