Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will call to order the Fort Pierce City Planning Board meeting Monday, January 12th, 2026. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. A friendly reminder to please silence your cell phones. And Alicia, would you call the roll?

Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Whiting? Here. Ms. Carter? Mr. Johnson?

Here.

Mr. Edwards? Ms. Clemmons?

Here.

Chair Kreisel?

Present. All right. We have two absences today. Were those called in?

Ms. Carter called in with a reasonable excuse for not attending, and Mr. Edwards did contact me this morning and said that he would be here. Okay.

We will keep an eye out for him in case he shows up a little late. Approval of minutes. We did not have a meeting last month. We have... Meeting minutes from our November meeting. Is there any discussion on the meeting minutes? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion.

I move for approval.

Second.

We have a motion for approval of the minutes by Ms. Clemens, second by Mr. Johnson.

Please call the roll.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clemens? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Whiting? Yes. Chair Kreisel?

Yes. All right. Moving on to item 6A, we have, as part of the local planning agency, the appraisal review transmittal 2026 comprehensive plan evaluation.

Good afternoon, planning chair and planning board members. We have the evaluation and appraisal review of the city's comprehensive plan for the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. The proposed amendments to the elements in the comp plan include updating the data, goals, objectives, and policies, address local issues, provide legislative consistency, and consider the community's vision. THESE ARE THE CHAPTERS ON YOUR RIGHT, 1 THROUGH 12. LOCAL ISSUES AND VISION, IDENTIFY THROUGH STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWS, PUBLIC SURVEY AND WORKSHOPS, RATIONAL BOUNDARIES, STRATEGIC ANNEXATION, CONSIDER INFRASTRUCTURE IN ALL DECISIONS, ENSURE ZONING AND LAND USE IS CONSISTENT, SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES, ADDRESS HOUSING NEEDS, UP OUR TRANSPORTATION GAME AND PROTECT COASTAL AREAS FOR RESILIENCY AND MITIGATION. NARRATIVES, DATA AND ANALYSIS, WE HAVE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE, HOUSING, RECREATIONAL AND OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT. THERE ARE TWO PLANNING PERIODS, A 10 YEAR AND A 20 YEAR.

All right.

For the map series, we have the following of future land use, existing land use, zoning, a land use advisory map with urban service boundary, functional classification, mass transit, bicycle facilities and multi-use trails, pedestrian facilities, natural resources and land cover, soils, flood hazard zones, coastal high hazard areas. The future land use element We're adding new tables 1-1 through 1-4, which quantify land use and population data, and adding a new table to cross-reference future land use categories with zoning districts, adding a new policy to encourage preservation of recreational and working waterfronts, revising the policies related to level of service standards, revised annexation policies, revised policies to remote economic development, updating the future land use advisory map, which shows urban service boundaries, adding a new policy that defines future annexation areas and prohibits annexation outside the urban service boundary, same as the Fort Pierce utility water sewer area boundary, as you can see on the map. Transportation element, the removal of an outdated policy related to a mobility fee methodology study, adding that the city shall to policies for consistency, adding a policy to the states to state that the city shall consult with the FDOT on proposed plan amendments and develop projects that may affect the state strategic intermodal system and add a policy to implement a bicycle facilities improvement plan. The infrastructure element adds policies related to sewage treatment and disposal systems. Florida State Statute 163-3177, Florida State Statute also known as HB 1379 from 2023, Septic to Sewer Bill, revise outdated language, remove outdated references to reports and plans, and revise a policy to adopt the 2025 WSFWP. The conservation and coastal elements, conservation corrects scrivener's errors and spell out and use acronyms where appropriate. Coastal management revised policies to include language related to at-risk, neglected, deteriorating and or derelict vessel. Add a policy related to maintaining, restoring and enhancing the overall quality of the coastal zone environment. And add a policy related to ensuring flood resistant construction requirements. Housing element, we're adding several tables to assist with accessing and addressing the lack of affordable housing and include data related to housing inventory and cost of housing for individuals. Revised policies to indicate housing needs study was completed and revised policy related to inspections for the building code and fire safety requirements when there is a sale of a residential building or a change of a tenant in a rental unit. In addition, adding a policy related to working with for-profit and nonprofit builders to provide infill housing and adding a new policy related to funding programs supported by the private sector resources. For recreation and open space element, update the level of service standards for neighborhood and community parks, add a policy to state city will complete an inventory of public and private recreation and open space land and amenities by January, 2027, revise a policy to state the city will maintain and update the parks and recreation master plan and revise a policy to include a requirement for residential development and access of a hundred dwelling units, provide communal hurricane hardened buildings, Revise a policy to state that the city will refrain from selling and or otherwise disposing of recreational lands within the city limits and annexation areas. Add a policy related to private recreation amenities, be maintained in perpetuity, remain accessible, and not be sold or discontinued. Intergovernmental coordination element. Update policy related to dispute resolutions process. Florida State Statute 186 that 186.509, an update specific references regional passenger rail service, an updated Table 8.1, coordinating agencies to be included as an appendix. We have the Fort Pierce Utilities, Andover State College, St. Lucie County, South Florida Water Management District, St. Lucie Public Schools, Port St. Lucie, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Transportation, and St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization. Capital improvements elements include current fiscal year 2025-2026 five-year capital improvement projects plan as an appendix, revise the goal to indicate level of service standards reside in public facilities management element, add the city shall to policies for consistency and add a new policy to ensure consistency with stormwater pollution, reduction goals and the B map. Public facilities management element updated LOS standards for public facilities, add a policy to state that the incremental additional impact to public facilities will be assessed as a part of the FLUMA and zoning changes. public school facilities element add a list of public schools located in the city spell out or use acronyms where appropriate property rights element add purpose of the element and add local decision making next steps to planning board to review the proposed amendments as of today PLANNING BOARD PROVIDES RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE JANUARY 20TH, 2026 TRANSMITTAL HEARING. WE WOULD TRANSMIT TO THE FLORIDA COMMERCE FOR THE STATE AGENCY REVIEW. THAT REQUIRES 30 DAYS. COMMENTS BACK TO THE CITY FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE AND STATE AGENCIES. NECESSARY CHANGES SHALL BE MADE BY THE CITY IF NEEDED. AND CITY COMMISSION HOLDS THE ADOPTION HEARING. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. GILLMORE. Any comments, anything jumping out at you in review of that presentation? I think really the one major item for me that I'm the most interested in is in the trying to remember how you specifically worded in the presentation, but the city boundary goals. Can you, you know, I know there was a presentation at a meeting that I missed a couple months ago, but, you know, can you kind of speak a little more specifically on what, you know, what exactly we're proposing going forward with this comprehensive plan as far as the city boundaries?

So currently in the city's land development code, it states that any properties that are within the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority's water waste water treatment, I guess, service boundary, that if they receive FPOA services, they have to sign an annexation agreement. And with that being said, these are the boundaries. So this is the possible final boundaries of the city of Fort Pierce. That's pretty much all it's saying. So when we're looking at annexations, we should not be looking at things pretty much outside of that, even though you see it has happened. But yeah, these are the possible final boundaries of the city of Fort Pierce.

Understood.

Yeah.

Any other comments?

I have one. So as we move further out west and they're requesting to be annexed in, is that something we are just arbitrarily looking at, case by case?

That should be looked at. If we will be able to provide the level of service that's needed by going outside of that boundary. It should be discouraged, but... that we should be looking at it a case-by-case basis, you know, so.

Chair Kreisel, for the record, Mr. Edwards entered the meeting.

I noticed that, thank you. Yeah, well, and I'm just kind of curious on how moving forward this would really differ at all from what we're currently operating under. I mean, you know, we have somewhat of a loose guideline operating at this point, but not necessarily a hard rule. It seems to me more appropriate that we would be establishing a specific, or at least a much higher standard for accepting annexation applications for properties that are existing outside of our target goal. And so, you know, Like right now ever since I've been on the board it there really has not been a lot of guidance You know, it's it's been very subjective and trying to determine I mean we have so much infill properties. So when we get these annexation requests that are you know either within a There you know, you know within an enclave or something like it's very obvious but when we start pushing those boundaries to the north or to the west and I mean, it seems like it's just going to fall on the feelings of the board at the time. which I don't know how appropriate that is. I would much rather see a really strict guideline and policy that's very clearly defined that staff and the board can follow. This doesn't sound to me like that much of a jump forward. And I'm also curious is what kind of plan can possibly, are we considering putting in place for moving the ball forward to deal with all of the un-annexed infill properties? Are we just going to rely on compliance and encouragement or do we have something that can actually move forward with a plan over time?

Yeah, there's criteria that Stephanie just pointed out, one through five. One is the ability of the city to provide public services at a level equal to or better than available for the current service providers. The ability of the city to provide public services at the city's adopted level of service at the time of annexation. Three, whether the annexation would eliminate an unincorporated island or create or could be expanded to eliminate an unincorporated island. Four, whether the annexation would eliminate irregularity or irregularities in the city's boundaries, therefore improving service delivery. And five, whether the area to be annexed meets statutory requirements for contiguity and compactness. So those are the things that should be looked at when reviewing annexations, proposed annexations.

Okay. I see Mr. Freeman is at the podium.

Thank you, Chair, Planning Board. Just a note on that. I did make a presentation to the City Commission to try and get some feedback on the future plan and the annexation and the city limits that we're trying to aim for. It was left open. But there was discussion about extending beyond the urban service boundary that we have defined here. We already have done in the past. There was detailed discussion about how far north we should be looking going. With the state's view on property taxes at the moment, there is a discussion about how that affects the city and should we be prioritizing commercial uses and future land uses as potential annexation targets. We will be discussing this in further detail with the city commission whether we want a specific prohibition of annexation beyond the urban service boundary, I think is the question based on what sort of discussions I'm hearing back from the city commission, whether it's more criteria based rather than a absolute prohibition on that. So that might need to be discussed further.

And what vision are we proposing moving forward when it comes to properties within that area that are not currently incorporated within the city, but could or possibly should be? Are we going to perpetually just rely on voluntary annexation applications, or is there something more deliberate that we can put forward?

There are many options. Obviously, under the annexation provisions in the state statute, there are many options to look at. The city has made it clear that we want to eliminate the enclaves. The priority that is being set informally at the moment is to, let's look at the commercially, as I said, commercial or industrial parcels and look to get those, and then do a more detailed analysis of what incorporating the enclaves would mean for the city in terms of service efficiencies, return on that, the effect also on the county, whether or not both entities would benefit from consolidation of services within certain areas. So we don't have services provided on the same street by different entities. The cost savings, I think the efficiencies need to be looked at further with that. And we're looking at how we do that, how we present that to city commission in a form that encapsulates a prioritization of certain areas within those enclave areas. What also was discussed at city commission was the movement north to look at the airport and its environs, not the airport itself, because there is an annexation agreement with the county not to annex the airport, but there are a large amount of properties around the airport, which are industrial commercial uses, which the commission has said let's look at going that far north. And I'm not sure whether or not the FPUA service area extends. Is it shown on this map?

It somewhat, because the airport is situated in this area. So we do the southern border, and I would say like the east side of the airport, we surround it.

So although we're constraining the city to this boundary at the moment, I think there are maybe some provisions and some criteria that if they were met would allow annexations beyond that. And I think we need to be cognizant of that and not restrict the city's expansion in areas that would contribute to the city's financial base and viability. But it is a very... difficult calculation to be making at the moment. We're trying to get the city as a whole, trying to get the head around the impact, potential impact of changes in the property tax and how that affects revenue and how that affects services and the provision of services. And creating additional demand on those services obviously is not what we would want to ultimately doing in any case.

So it would appear to me from what we're seeing here that at least in the short term for this board moving forward with potential annexations, we will annexation applications within the established current FPUA boundary would not propose any kind of conflict with this larger goal that's moving forward. Yes. Which, you know, I'm assuming is going to take a very long time. And I think that was kind of one of my main concerns is just to make sure that we're very aware of that so that we don't, you know, we're not trying to hit a moving target, basically. Yeah.

I understand.

Thank you. Please, yes.

Okay, so in here as, I'm sorry, Stephanie High, Deputy Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. We are the consultant helping staff do these. We are recommending policies in here that do say that that that this is establishing the future annexation area and that the land outside future annexation areas are prohibited. So do we want to- I think we've got to build in- We've got to reword that or build in something else that says, you know, future, something about future goals of the city will be to establish.

Yes.

I don't know how we, maybe that's something we need to do though before it goes to council is to reword and there's something that doesn't just restrict it to the, to this annexation area or to the urban service boundary.

Right. Well, it sounds like you're tying it to the FPUA service boundary, which, you know, can shift as well. Yes. Yeah.

We also, you know, we have existing applications coming in, which are outside the area now.

So I'm on the agenda today. No, no.

Today, no, not today. West.

I was going to say, that's why I asked the question earlier about going out west. I know most of the applications that we've had for annexation outside of that area have been out west. And what are the, do you all have any idea what are the future plans predictions as far as expanding FPUA service outside?

I think they have an agreement with FPL, Florida Power and Light, which, and the county to some extent, depending on which utilities you're looking at, that restricts them going outside certain areas. So they have an agreement, service provision agreements in place. That is always going to be difficult. In places, I don't think the FPUA can go much further west in certain areas, but we do have properties that are in the city limits already outside that area. Some of those properties, for instance, the water park could, when it comes in, and encourage other developments around that, which may be beneficial for the city and how that area works. So I think we have to have a number of criteria or flexibilities within that policy of how applicant justify their applications and their requests, but also something allows the city to form up its boundaries We are going through this analysis right now, very early stages. We're trying to figure out the components of that analysis and how we quantify the impact on the city. So service provision, service cost is a big part of that. how that affects other service provision within the city and the cost of doing that we know that the budget for the next year is going to be very difficult and this annexation strategy policy will have a big play on that also

Do we want to not put that? I don't think we want to revise anything right now. There's a few things in there.

I think we need to take something else. Either we need to have flexibility built into this or remove it for now and place it in with a comprehensive plan amendment in the future.

We're proposing to talk about that urban service bounding being referred to as a future annexation area. I think that's fine, but take out the last sentence of annexation outside of that area is prohibited.

Yes.

You should not have that in there. I don't think it ties you to anything to say that this is our future annexation area because that's what you're considering. Yeah, so we're prioritizing within the U.S. Yeah, it would prevent you at this point from annexing any of these other properties that are maybe coming along that aren't in that urban. If you were to leave that in there, it's prohibited, then it would be against your comp plan. So we need to take at least that.

Then in future, as the annexation policy and strategy is fleshed out, we would go and add a policy within the comprehensive plan to reflect whatever that policy... Just as an amendment. As an amendment. The biggest... The reason why we're looking at this year right now is to update it, to reflect recent changes... in the last plan period that the state has implemented, is to tidy up the language, is to look at what the state's amended, which they've made quite a few amendments over the last few years, and to ensure that our comprehensive plan is in compliance with the state statutes.

All right. So just for my clarification, Is staff looking for a vote from this board today on an official recommendation to the commission?

Yes, please. We're under a very tight timeline, as we always are on the comprehensive plan, it seems. But, you know, the Treasury Coast Regional Planning Council have done an excellent job getting it to this point, reviewing the whole thing against updates in state statute, incorporating those things, looking at the existing language, resolving conflicts in that language and making it clearer. There's not been any big amendments to the comprehensive plan as such. we're confident that it aligns with the state statute. And so we would recommend the board with the recommendation of removing that line from the policy, moving on to city commission.

Okay, thank you. Well, considering this is a public meeting, if there's no other questions for staff, I'll turn it over to the public. If there's any members here would like to speak on this presentation specifically, please come forward at this time.

seeing none i will send it back to the board for any further discussion i think the term that hit me the most that kept going through the presentation along with stephanie is the is the term and i think that's where you were coming from annexation policy flushed out which is framing it and i i think that's what our chair was trying to get to that are there really really priorities or the next agenda item comes up and it's totally foreign from what we're talking about. It's that these things just keep coming at us versus is it really the commission's direct, do we really have firm or tight direction or is it just piecemeal? Sounds like we're getting there.

We'll be a little bit, you know, as these annexations come in, you know, we will be getting closer and closer to having a more defined plan. So I think it's just important for us to make sure that we're checking in with staff as annexation applications come in to make sure that we're caught up and, you know, aware of what the current plan is. Again, we just don't want to be creating any kind of impediment to the overall plan. And they'll still continue to be somewhat subjective, flexible application reviews. But at least things are improving. The plan is starting to take shape, which is moving in the right direction. All right. Any other comments, discussion? Hearing none, at this time I would entertain a motion. I move for approval with the one change. Second. We have a motion for approval with the stated change by Ms. Clements, second by Mr. Whiting. Please call the roll.

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clements? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Chair Kreisel?

Yes. All right, moving on to new business. Speaking of annexations, we have a few of them on the docket today, starting with item 6A, annexation Tony Acera property. Yes, we'll hear from staff on the presentation and if necessary, we can call you for it.

Mr. Chair, Board, Chris Edison, Assistant Planning Director. The next four items on the agenda, the four annexations, are generally located in the same area and are generally gonna have the same information in each of the presentations, but each covers a separate property. So I will give separate presentations, but I'll skip over a lot of it after this first one. So I won't bore you too much. Understood. I hope. Our first item is PZ Annexation 2025-0006, represented by Tony Acera. It is property he owns under voluntary annexation at or near 2528 South Ocean Drive, and we have the affected parcel number there. As you can see from the site location map, this is generally considered a single-family property immediately adjacent to the city boundary. If you're getting your bearings, this is out on the barrier island. This is Piehole Pizza. That's the landmark for me. But if you're familiar with the area, this is Blue Heron Drive. I believe it's Drive. Blue Heron Boulevard, I apologize. And then A1A kind of goes down the middle of the map there. So if you were driving by, you'd probably miss it, to be honest with you. So the subject parcel contains 0.1 name acres. And as I kind of got you oriented on the last slide, it is at the southern end of the city limits on Hutchison Island. Currently, with St. Lucie County, the future land use is residential suburban, two dwelling units per acre, and it is zoned Hutchinson Island Residential District. The parcel is currently vacant and contains natural mangroves. The current taxable property value is approximately $27,860. So I'm glad you all are really thinking about annexations today, because that's what I have a lot to talk about. First, before we even get into our comprehensive plan, we have statutory requirements that we need to look at in order to determine whether an annexation is actually eligible to come into the city. There's really three tests that the statute that I referenced there, 171.44, for voluntary annexations provides. It's gotta be compact, reasonably compact, it must be contiguous to the municipal boundary, and it may not create an enclave. In this instance, staff believes each of these tests are met because the lot is a single lot of 1.9 acres, I'm sorry, 0.19 acres. It's immediately adjacent to the boundary, the municipal boundary, and there are no enclaves created. Next, we start to look at the comprehensive plan policies that we have in place. The first and foremost is that under objective 1.1, annex properties within the FPUA boundary in an orderly manner to promote efficiency and public service provision and economic vitality to the city. So that's our first test under the Comprehensive Plan. If it's not in the FPUA boundary, then we really need to take a look at whether we need to annex this or not. Second, in the Comprehensive Plan, IS A POLICY OF 1.11.5 THAT ANNEX PROPERTIES SHALL RECEIVE A LAND USE DESIGNATION COMPATIBLE WITH LAND USE, THE COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATION UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION. THAT SORT OF LEADS ME INTO THE LAND USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE COUNTY LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, TWO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, AND AS WE MOVE INTO THE city land use you'll see that that is immediately adjacent to it as residential low so we are as a staff recommending that future land use be categories categorized as low density residential that rl category to ensure compliance with the comprehensive plan which sort of leads to zoning currently again as i mentioned the the property is zoned hutchinson island residential district And for us, that equivalent would be recommended to be the single family low density zone, R1. And again, the city zoning map you see here really is, this is what's immediately adjacent, exception across the street. We'll get into those a little bit later. So staff again is recommending that the single family R1 low density zone be the proposed zoning district for this property of annexed. Just as a comparison for future land use comparisons, both of these land use categories would allow a maximum of one unit on this lot. So there's no increase or decrease in density that would be allowed. In review of the zoning, the bulk area regulations for the R1 district would be considered non-conforming for this lot. If you see the chart to your right, the R1 requires 12,000 square feet of land area for lot size, but the subject parcel is just underneath that at 83, 33 square feet. And again, for lot width, it would be considered non-conforming. R1 requires 75 feet and the subject parcel is 60 feet wide. However, we have a section of the Land Development Code, 125-70, provides that the continued use of non-conforming lots and the owner would be allowed to construct a single family residence on this property. So, as we look at review criteria for annexations, again, our Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy 1.11.1 provides four criteria. THE FIRST IS THE CITY CAN PROVIDE SERVICES AT EQUAL OR BETTER LEVELS THAN CURRENT SERVICE PROVIDERS. STAFF'S EVALUATION OF THIS IS YES. THE CITY CAN PROVIDE SERVICES AT ADOPTED LEVELS OF SERVICE. YES. ANNEXATION ELIMINATES OR COULD BE EXPANDED TO ELIMINATE AN ENCLAVE. IN THIS INSTANCE, ENCLAVES ARE NEITHER CREATED NOR ELIMINATED. SO IT'S KIND OF A NEUTRAL RATING ON THAT. And again, annexations eliminate irregularity and service boundary improves service deliveries. I would say neither eliminates or creates irregularities, but I do believe that the services can be improved through this annexation. This application has been completed. has been coordinated with the Technical Review Committee. All departments have supported the annexation given the property is not allowed to construct a septic system on the property and is required to connect to water and sewer services provided by FPUA, which would be regulated by building permitting. Staff recommends approval of this annexation. One, it's consistent with Florida Statute 171.4. It's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Policies Outline. IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY CONVENIENCE IN GENERAL WELFARE. ALTERNATELY THE BOARD MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL. AND THAT IS MY PRESENTATION AND I AM OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE. NEW SPEAKER P. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

NEW SPEAKER P. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME PROPERTIES WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY?

That's a great question to which I do not have the answer. I might rely on my fellows.

I think if I remember correctly, we had at least one in that immediate area in the past year, if not more than that. Probably just to the north, I imagine.

Feels like maybe, maybe not 10 years ago, but west of Blue Heron, there's a home actually built. But again, all these R1s are, it's just green. There is no second home.

Did you have a follow-up to that question?

I was just more curious than anything, like what he alluded to. There's only been one house built.

Yeah. I would like you to speak a little bit more on the elements of the non-conforming lot. Sure. from my understanding you know obviously there's a there's a mechanism within um the regulations to allow for annexation of non-conforming lots um obviously if this was a larger piece of property being plotted out under the current code right they would have to plot those lots at different different sizes to meet these r1 requirements is it is there is it not more appropriate to assign a different zoning that they could conform to? Or what is the benefit of maintaining the R1 zoning as opposed to finding a different zone that the lot in its existing form would conform to? One, we want to be consistent with density.

Second, I think you're going to find that The R1 district is actually one of the smaller, if not the smallest lot size that we would be allowing. So even if there was a search, we wouldn't be able to find one that this particular parcel fits. And that goes with size and width, the nonconformities that have been identified. Does that answer your question, sir?

I think so. And obviously any construction would still have to maintain the setbacks in all directions. So, I mean, they're just going to be able to build less house maybe than they would otherwise. That's what I was going to say, Chair.

Yeah.

Okay.

Does the Hutchinson Island residency district fall under the overlay district for the rest of South Beach or is it an independent?

I think I'm going to segregate those. There's an overlay district. that is the Hutchinson Island Overlay District. What our code says is that anytime that there is an annexation in this area, that boundary is automatically extended. In order to cover ourselves, I've included language to extend that Hutchinson Island Overlay District boundary in the accepting ordinance. And I don't know the other side of the question though.

I just didn't know how it tied in with the Hutchinson Island district and will it be attached or congruent with the overlay district for the remaining of South beach?

Right, so one of the things that you'll find is that the Hutchison Island Overlay District actually has more regulations with regard to height as opposed to lot areas. So given as small as it is, the construction will be constrained. They may be able to go two stories or so, but the R1 regulations and the Hutchison Island regulations with regard to height

exactly the same so I don't know that there's a whole lot that would that the overlay district would affect on this particular parcel but that's a good clarification to make I was not aware of that that the that the overlay district is automatically assigned to any annexations that are approved by the Commission on on the island yeah okay

You said on all of these they're similar on the next four items. Right. Three of them are residential and one's commercial.

They're similar.

Okay, so that is going to be the outlier.

Yeah, there's a reason why of the particular order of these petitions, because without this particular one, the next one could not, considered because it's not immediately adjacent to the city boundary and much like the third residential lot because the commercial on the east side of the street which is um in this area i have better maps on other presentations but if this is not accepted then that that outlier to the south here it's a little hard to see and i am I have a hard time, but this would not be able to be considered without this being considered and accepted first. So there's a method to the madness. And I promise you the next time that the applicant brings in applications, staff will be working with him more directly to have one annexation as opposed to four.

So is it that they all follow the commercial to be able to have services?

Services, no. As I understand it, there is existing water out along A1A. As part of the consideration of these applications, FPOA has reviewed. The application has indicated you're gonna have to have sewer. There is a plan in the works, and I'll let the applicant describe that, to extend sewer. for all of these lots. So that is why the first criteria that we discussed, providing services at equal or better levels, is actually true. When we have water and sewer that otherwise, and if this was in the county perhaps, and it were allowed, they would have to build a septic system, which is not exactly what we want in the barrier island in wetland conditions. So extending sewer is almost necessary, is absolutely necessary, one of two ways. Either we annex it and they have to attach to sewer and water, or they agree to attach to water and sewer and they get annexed. It's kind of the cart and the horse. But regardless, we've been assured by FPUA that There is a plan to provide sewer service to these lots, regardless if they're annexed or not, but we would rather see them in the city. Does that answer your question?

Yes. Good. Can the usage on the residential side ever be changed or utilized for commercial? Is there any options for variances on the western side? I will speak specifically to this particular lot.

I do not want to speak more broadly to the larger area west. I would say this. First, there's always the opportunity to rezone. However, based on the land use, you're going to be collared on what you can increase. I'd also tell you that just because of the size of the lot, you're gonna have physical limitations on what can be built out there. Frankly, it's gonna be an interesting building permit to see a house on this particular lot with that small an area. And it'd be even more interesting if it was a septic system, but that's not in the cards. So I think, yes, there's an opportunity for anybody to file a petition to rezone, WHETHER IT'S WISE OR NOT WILL DEPEND LARGELY ON OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND THE VOTES OF BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

I HAVE AN OLDER VERSION OF THE USAGE TABLE IN HERE AND I'M LOOKING AT R1. THERE'S FAMILY DAY CARE HOME PERMITTED IN R1 AND THEN A BUNCH OF CONDITIONAL USES AND THEN JUST STANDARD RESIDENTIAL This might be out of date, though. All right.

Any other questions or comments for staff? Not currently. Okay.

Fair enough. All right. We have the applicant here. If you would like to come forward, please, I think... The applicant for this one is here. Yeah, if you could come forward to the podium, state your name and sign in. Yeah, and maybe you could just give us some background on what your communications with FPUA have been. Okay.

IS ON? YES, I GUESS IT IS. MY NAME IS TONY OCHERA. I AM CURRENTLY, AS YOU KNOW, TRYING TO ANNEX MY PROPERTIES INTO THE CITY OF FORT PEARCE AND IT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE A BUILDABLE LOT, CONFORMING LOT AND I HAVE SPOKEN TO BO HUTCHISON, LUKE DAWSON, Louis Doss has just sent me a email at 1.32 p.m. Our arrangement is that he's going to set up a funding mechanism for us. He's going to hold our money in an escrow account, and we have an estimate for a sewer line, which I believe is going to be about like one-fourth the cost of a septic tank, which nobody wants anyway, right? And I got approval from Patricia Kelly at Florida Fish and Wildlife. Her words, quote, of course, I'll approve her sewer line. It's a no brainer, you know, but only the lots fronting A1A, okay? I had two previous MSBUs with the, with the county, but they were asking me to annex, I mean, to have the people behind us. I said, well, I was always told those lots weren't buildable. So basically the way it stands now, we can only have permission to build on A1A, according to Fish and Wildlife. And she also said, Originally, the confusion was it can't be federal money because FPUA is funded partially with federal money. She said it has to be private money, which it is. That is why we are setting up an escrow account. with FPUA, as you said, I guess his attorney is gonna send something out which we send the money to them. So the cost really for each of us, now mind you, it's gonna be hard to get everybody to donate, you know? If not, I'm just gonna put the money in myself, whatever difference this is. But it should be as little as $5,000 or $6,000 a piece. And I think that's a bargain because, and it's, like I said, it's good for the environment. We don't, I mean, I originally, I did all my mitigation already with Laurie Heisterman at the Bear Point Mitigation Bank. I DID MY DEP WORK APPROVAL WITH DAVID WHITE AT THE DEP. I STARTED WITH MY STATE 404 PERMIT, A GENTLEMAN NAMED LOU, WHICH THEN I FOUND OUT THAT AFTER YEARS OF WORKING ON IT, LITERALLY ONE-THIRD OF MY LIFE I WORKED ON THIS ON AND OFF, THAT IT WAS A NON-CONFORMING LOT IN THE COUNTY. AND THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE A BUILDABLE LOT IS TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY OF FORT PEARCE. And so that is why I'm here today. All right. So is there any questions or anything that is an issue? I hope not.

Any questions for the applicant?

We need to look at all four individually. But, Chris, I don't know if there's any value. NOT EXACTLY LOOKING AT NUMBER TWO, NUMBER THREE, NUMBER FOUR, AND I SEE YOU COMING BACK UP WITH THE FOURTH ITEM ON THE AGENDA, I BELIEVE. ARE YOU ON THE AGENDA AGAIN TODAY? MR. ASSERRA REPRESENTS ALL FOUR APPLICATIONS.

I'M REPRESENTING ALL FOUR. TWO ARE MINE, LOT NUMBER 10. And 14 is mine, not lot number 11. It's a friend of mine, John Albertis. And I literally, to make this work, I paid over $2,900 for the lot across the street from my lot 14, Fowler and Murray lot. Because to be honest with you, a lot of people are kind of leery of spending any more money over there. They just don't know what's going on. And I'm pretty much the guinea pig, you know, trying to make things happen over there. And I am determined because I... I mean, I think we can make something happen. This property, I think it's a little gold mine, you know? So either we have zero or we have something worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I've been coming to Fort Pierce since... I've been coming to Florida since I was a kid. I was a steward area since 1989 in St. Lucie. And when I first found this lot in 2008, three i bought it and i just i really like the town of fort pierce and i i really see all the improvements since then and i i just i would i would like to be a part of of your city thank you any other questions for the applicant all right thank you very much

AT THIS TIME, I WOULD TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION, PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE, I'LL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

NEW SPEAKER, ONCE UTILITY SERVICES ARE HERE, DOES THIS NOW ALLOW OR OPEN ALL OF THE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE AT LEAST ALONG A1A TO START TO ANNEX IN? and utilize the services that are provided.

I understand, and I really wish I had a better map, but if you can see my cursor, that little lot is the last lot under consideration. My understanding is that the sewer would be extended to that point. and would be open for anybody to tap onto once it's built. So what you'll see, I'm going to try and get a better map because you're asking questions about, so we're looking at down to here, right? And then we're looking at this corner lot. So we've got two in between that would potentially have sewer service once this sewer line is built. so yes that would allow them to be an extent um i'm not sure if mr acera is working with those individuals or not but all of these lots that are on the west side of a1a that are already within the city would be allowed to tap onto that line and have some some form of sewer service based on fpua policies now how about the county parcels that sit

checkerboard within the right-of-ways here. Because there's multiple that back right against these that we're currently looking at.

Are you speaking to these over here?

You have those, and I'm assuming just to the left of your cursor is a right-of-way, and then that's the next grouping of parcels.

So first off, got to understand that the history of this goes back to the Lambo. THIS SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE NONCONFORMITIES, RIGHT? FOR WHATEVER REASON, ROADS HAVE NOT BEEN BUILT OUT THERE, RIGHT? SO DOES IT CHECKERBOARD? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO EXTEND SERVICE UNLESS FPY GOT AN EASEMENT THROUGH ONE OF THESE LOTS AS PART OF THEIR AGREEMENT. to be able to service these lots. Second, these lots would need to build a road in order to provide access, which is cost prohibitive. Did I mention that this was all mangroves? So there's some permitting that Mr. Acera alerted to that individuals who are not quite as ambitious probably would say, I'm not going to do that. So there's possibility, but as far as what I see right now, there's some permitting hurdles and some cost prohibitions to being able to open up anything beyond A1A.

Anything else, Mr. Johnson?

Why is there only a DEP letter for one of the lots and not potentially all of them?

Well, great question. That particular property has DEP approval. The other lots would need to obtain that in order to obtain a building permit. And if Mr. Acera has more to add, Mr. Johnson asked why the other lots don't have DEP approval to construct on them yet.

Why are the other lots? Yes, sir. Because... I'll give an example. First of all, all these lots are already Fort Pierce annexed into the city of Fort Pierce, including lot number nine, which I spoke to the gentleman. Out of all these lots, now front of the A1A, mind you, there's only 10 lots that are county lots. All the rest, all the way up to Blue Heron Boulevard, are all Fort Pierce lots. By annexing R4, that only leaves six county lots remaining. So the eventual thing, people wanna see that it is possible, number one, that I can actually, we can actually get this annexed. We can have conforming lots and they will move on to annex theirs. So after, if I'm approved R4 lots, that would only leave six more lots in this whole subdivision. Surfside Harbor subdivision to Bannock's. And I would make, I think, conform the whole subdivision into all. Because I was at a... a meeting here, border adjustment meetings. And it's funny, a builder was building apartment buildings somewhere in town. And he was having the same problem with you have lots, some county lots, some city lots. And the gentleman, I don't know his name, an older gentleman with gray hair, He said this has been an ongoing issue. We have lots, some are county, some are city, different ordinance, it's all different rulings. So this was trying to conform the whole subdivision and it would make it a lot easier for everybody to build. Like lot number nine, the one I'm annexing to, he annexed in 2007 with actually it's a city ordinance K438, which allowed him to do that. He said, I mean, sad story. I mean, he actually, a lot of people have a lot of money invested in this land. He paid $200,000 for his lot. And he originally bought it for his son. It's gonna be a gift for his son to get started in life. He sold his lot for $11,000. because he didn't want to burden his son. His words, I didn't want to burden my son with the bureaucracy and red tape. So this is, it is a very confusing thing to get done, you know, but it's possible. I did my DEP work. No, no, I don't think anybody else did. Because these lots have been literally there since, for 75 years. The grandson of the guy who did the original plot plan owns one of those lots. He has his grandfather's original plot plans from the 50s, 1950. So it has been, I don't know, it's been very confusing. And like for me when I started, I originally tried to get the sewer line from the county. But the cost went from, and it's a mile and a half down the road, it's not like right up at, it was right up at Blue Heron at the time, was 1.5 million. By the time I went through a two year, I waited for two years with MSBU, the price went up to 4.5 million. And they said, our land is not worth enough to do that. So I was always told that we were never allowed to bring the sewer line south from Blue Heron because it was installed with federal money. But then Piehole Pizza, Otis, I know him, he was able to do it. So I said, and it's pretty much a stone's throw right up the road. I only have to go 800 feet to my lot 14. So he was able, and so I talked to FPUA. I said, well, it can't be federal money, which again, which is not what we're doing. We're doing all private money. We're just going to raise like $5,000 or $6,000 a piece and And FPUA is going to hold it in escrow. And it shouldn't be a problem.

Thank you.

Johnson, just to follow up. Our annexation applications do not require DEP submittals. Mr. Acera provided that to show his intent on how serious he is.

Anything else? All right. Well, hearing no other comments, I would entertain a motion at this time for item 7A, annexation.

Make a motion to approve. Second.

We have a motion for approval by Mr. Collins, second by Mr. Edwards. Please call the roll.

Ms. Clements? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

No.

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Chair Kreisel?

Yes.

Motion passed.

All right. Let's move on to number 7B. How, since we have, you're saying we basically have the same applicant representative for items B, C, and D? Is that correct?

Yes, sir. Okay.

So let's see what you got. Okay.

Very quickly, PZ Annexation 2025-00008. This is an Alberti property voluntary annexation at or near 2825 South Ocean Drive. You will see from our location map that this immediately adjoins the parcel that we just discussed at length that is owned by Mr. Acera. Our applicant today is John Alberti, represented by Tony Acera, represented by the parcel ID there. Quickly, same size, same property value, same statutory eligibility, same reasoning, minus the fact that before I give this, or before, well, when I made this presentation, the recommendation hadn't been made to... ANNEX OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. SO THIS IS SUBJECT TO THE TEST IS MET FOR ADJACENCY TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ASSERA PROPERTY WE JUST DISCUSSED. I WILL QUICKLY GO THROUGH THE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN TWO UNITS TWO BILLION UNITS PER ACRE AND THE PROPOSED IS RESIDENTIAL LOW. As you see, the west side of the A1A is all residential low currently that's inside the city limits, and so that is staff's recommendation on the land use designation. Currently, the zoning for the property is Hutchinson Island Residential District, and again, staff is recommending our one single-family low-density zone. As you see there on the existing zoning map, THOSE PROPERTIES WEST OF A1A CONTINUE TO BE R1. AGAIN, THE LAND USE ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT A MAXIMUM OF ONE DWELLING UNIT MAY BE PERMITTED REGARDLESS OF THE LAND USE FROM THE COUNTY OR THE CITY, SO THERE'S NO INCREASE OR DECREASE IN DENSITY. The same non-conformities would be subject to, or would be, or have been identified for this parcel. Again, they're relatively the same size. However, they would still be able to be, would still be able to construct a single family residence on the lot due to Section 125.70 of the Land Development Code. Again, we do meet the criteria for the annexation review. And again, it neither creates or eliminates enclaves or irregularities and does improve service deliveries. again the technical review committee or have supported the annexation petition given the property is not allowed to construct a septic system and is required to connect to water and sewer services provided by FPA which would be regulated by building permitting staff is recommending annex approval of the WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION BECAUSE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATUTE 171.44. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN POLICIES IDENTIFIED AND IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR GENERAL WELFARE. ALTERNATIVELY, THE BOARD COULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DISAPPROVAL.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

Alicia for the record mr. Edwards had to leave citing a personal reason I do not expect him to return We should still have a quorum. I think we can continue. Yes. Thank you All right I'm gonna assume we don't have any additional questions or comments for staff that weren't present in the last application I've got one At or near

All four of these applications, they're using the same at or near 2528 South Ocean Drive.

We're about, obviously it's about where these parcels are, but... Do you see this little scar of land that I'm hovering over?

Uh-huh.

That is the last address point we have. I see. So that's 2825.

Yeah. And that was my next point, that the west side is, I think those are even numbers in the Excuse me, the east side is even numbers and the west side is odd numbers.

Yeah, that is our last.

You explained it, Chris.

That's the closest. That is the last address point that we have on record for this area. That's approximately. Hey, I was describing it from Blue Heron. Venice said, don't do that. So I followed his advice, so.

Just for reference, do you have or can you bring up something that shows where the FPUA service boundary does extend to? I assume it's somewhat south of this property.

It's somewhat south of this. I guess the best reference I have right off would be the BLAST presentation from Venice. Does the zoning map show it?

Does the interactive zoning map? I think it goes to the counterline.

Well, let me get this a little bit bigger for you guys. Yeah, so we're currently up in this area. And the boundary goes well beyond the power plant all the way down to the county line here on South Hutchinson Island. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Well, we already heard from the applicant. There's nothing for me that I think I need to hear from the applicant unless anybody else has thought of any questions in the last five minutes. So at this time, I will open it up to the general public. If there is anyone from the public that would like to speak on item 7B, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will send it back to the board for any further discussion. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion.

I move for approval.

I'll second. We have a motion for approval by Ms. Clemons, a second by Mr. Collins. Please call the roll.

Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

No.

Ms. Clemmons? Yes. Chair Kreisel?

Yes.

Motion passed.

All right. Item 7C, annexation. Let's go again.

All right. Today's our next item is PZ annexation 2025-0007. This is not correct. This is the Alberti one or Fowler. Nope, this is the wrong one. Sorry. I got to get you 09. Truly, the application under consideration on item C is PZ annexation 2025-00009. This is a Fowler-Murray property. VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AT OUR NEAR 2528 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THIS IS A MUCH LARGER PARCEL THAN HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF A1A. THE PARCEL CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 1.42 ACRES AND OUR LAND USE AND ZONING IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT ON THIS. The statutory eligibilities, now this is where cards start to fall as far as proximity and where things can cross, but this parcel is immediately adjacent to the city boundary. It's reasonably compact at 1.42 acres of land area, and annexing would not create an enclave. WITH REGARD TO LAND USE PLAN POLICIES. THERE IS KIND OF A MIXED LAND USE AND ZONING ON THIS BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT HAS BEEN CONSOLIDATED OVER TIME. SO THE EASTERN PORTION NORTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE Property is considered residential urban at five dwelling units per acre and commercial for that property kind of south and west along A1A. We are proposing general commercial GC to be consistent with the future land use plan. With regard to zoning, Again, split zoning from the county. This north and east portion, half, if you will, of the parcel is Hutchison Island Residential District, and then that portion that's Westward and towards A1A is general commercial. And again, staff is recommending the proposed zoning to be general commercial, C3. And again, that is to be consistent with policy 1.11.5 of the city's comprehensive plan. That said, we have a little more calculus on this one. BY ANNEXING INTO THE CITY WE'RE ACTUALLY DECREASING THE ENTITLEMENTS UNDER THE LAND USE PLAN FROM THE COUNTY. CURRENTLY IT IS ALLOWED MAXIMUM DENSITY OF FIVE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. 0.71 acres. That would allow three units to be built. With the commercial portion of the property, again, 0.71 acres and a floor area ratio of 2.5 under the county's comprehensive plan. you would be allowed to build about 77,500 square feet. By annexing into the city and placing this property entirely in general commercial, you'd be limited to 61,855 square feet, which represents a decrease of about 15,500 square feet, or a decrease of three residential units as well. Again, staff's analysis on the review criteria laid out in the comp plan have not really changed. And again, this would improve service delivery as well. Everybody has reviewed this in technical review, have supported it, given that the property is not allowed to construct a septic system on the property and is required to connect to water and sewer services provided by FPUA, which would be regulated by building permitting. And staff recommends the planning board recommend approval of the proposed annexation because of its consistency with Florida statute 171.44, consistency with the comp plan policies identified, and because it does not adversely affect the public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare. Alternatively, the board may recommend approval with changes or recommend disapproval. And I am at your service with questions.

Any new questions for staff? Just up the road, Piehole, is that a CG?

Do you know what? So Piehole is approximately here. And as you can see from, oh, that's the land use, excuse me. And as you can see, Piehole is just about here and is C3. Okay.

So when you describe the current county zoning as split zoning, is that kind of a dual zoning that applies the entire property or do they actually split it in half?

I think what has occurred over time is that in the past, there have been a number of these smaller lots that have been assembled and for tax purposes have just generally created one large lot. And so I think FROM THE COUNTY'S END, YOU KNOW, THAT INWARD PORTION, I SAY INWARD, THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, WHEREAS SOMETHING ALONG A1A WAS MORE COMMERCIAL IN NATURE, AND I DON'T, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THEY GOT AROUND A CHANGE IN THE LAND USE PLAN OR THE ZONING MAP BECAUSE OF THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE LOTS. just interested i've i've not seen that before we've we're actually we've actually come across a couple of these in the city where we've had split zoning like this or split land use and we're trying to try trying to address it okay um now this will not be under the hutchinson island residential district because it's commercial am i correct uh no ma'am actually the overlay district doesn't distinguish between residential and commercial It is an overlay district for the whole island. The city's overlay district.

Okay, the city's.

South Beach.

Would this one still be subject to the same height restrictions?

It would. However, it would be commercial height as opposed to residential height.

Can you tell me what those numbers are?

I can look it up for you real quick. Give me just a sec. Thank you.

RESIDENTIAL IS LIKE 28.

THE HEIGHT IN THE C3 DISTRICT, THE HEIGHT LIMITATION IS 65 FEET.

OKAY.

THIS PARCEL HAS TO BE BROUGHT IN TO DO THE SERVICES, CORRECT?

Yeah, this would be, again, the service extension of the sewer, as I understand it, would come to about here. So this would be really the southeasterly most extension of the city's boundary. But I believe it... I believe that it is on the west side of A1A, and this represents the last parcel that it would affect on the west side.

So in order for the last property to be annexed in, this one has to be annexed in? That's correct, yes ma'am. Because it's across the street? Exactly. Okay.

Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, I would turn it over to the public. If there are any members of the public who would like to speak on this application, item 7C, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will send it back to the board for any additional comments, questions, discussion. Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. We seem hesitant on this one. Are we sure we don't have any more discussion?

I have a question for you. So this opens up 65 feet building capability for at least two parcels.

That's incorrect. The height is 45 feet. Three stories? Maximum height is four stories, 45 feet. There are a number, because it's a commercial, there are a number of architectural standards also applied to that.

yeah that's it can a map be extended to show what else is commercial in this area

This is our subject parcel. This is Pie Hole Pizza. What else is commercial in this area? So. Commercial extends from the subject parcel all the way up to Pie Hole Pizza and then is Open Space. i will yes sir uh let's get the st lucie county zoning um under the county's map um south of here would also be commercial extending out more broadly this is a commercial enclave this is largely residential as we go further north you really have to get way far north in order again the subject parcel is here way far north to get massing of commercial land use so upon bringing this site in now they can offer to bring in the next county site

which is adjacent to it to the cell? That's correct.

Is there anything else, Mr. Johnson?

Lots of questions.

Ask them.

What do we gain from bringing these into the city? That's one of the biggest ones that I want to understand.

I think from a residential point of view. the ones across the street, they gain the ability to actually construct a house. I understand, and Mr. Acera would probably be able to tell you better, but as I understand it, the county is not allowing construction of residential homes in this area, in these particular lots. So they gain the ability to actually use the property they've invested a lot of money in.

so similar to previous items we've had come up because they're a non-conforming lot or they don't meet the requirements is why we're potentially doing this in the regards of why i asked about the dep that cut off 20 of that lot to not be able to build on are you going to potentially have this on all of these and are they going to start adjoining lots you had talked about how it's mangroves behind it is this going to be With giving a right away, now you're opening up building to go to that because being that it is along the water, this is where money is going to be spent for these items.

Several questions.

I have lots of questions.

What I'm hearing is that you have concerns with regard to further development, to which I do not have a crystal ball and am I'm really not qualified to answer. I can speculate, but you've heard my responses with regard to further development on the residential applications. First and foremost, the constructability of a road through a mangrove on hydric soils is just difficult and expensive. And one that in, I believe we heard 75 years of platting has not been accomplished. So there must be some reason that didn't happen. I can't speak to what that exactly is. The roads haven't been built out here except for a one a right. Um, And again, a less ambitious person than Mr. Ursera may not want to go through the permitting required with the DEP and the Corps of Engineers and the mitigation of the wetlands in order to construct a home in these particular areas. So I think that there are many inherent barriers to one, development of the lots under consideration, but also further development beyond those under consideration. I don't know if I've completely answered your question or laid your concerns, but I hope I've given you more information than you had before.

As this potentially occurs, there's lots within the city that are along A1A. Does this open up the services for everything from here north to, say, Coconut? I would tell you that... The south side of Coconut, which hasn't been built for the last 75 years.

I would tell you this. These R1 lots that don't currently have sewer service are being opened up to be developed because sewer is going to be there when they decide how they're going to fund it, right? I think you would also find that Because as I understand it, there's federal money that paid for a sewer line down to here at Blue Heron. And somebody who wanted to develop Pie Hole Pizza has extended it further. So I think you're concerned about further development of the properties along A1A. That can already occur right now with the water in the sewer being there.

Chris just out of curiosity scroll up to coconut just a little bit a little bit more a Little bit more right there. There you go And if you could scroll back down to the subject and The first, all of that, I'll call it pink, the C3s all the way down. The first two, if I'm right, those are Piehole, both of those?

Piehole actually goes a little bit further because I don't know why, but they're in this right-of-way, and then they're on this adjacent lot as well because that's all their parking lot.

Okay. I guess I'll say a couple things. Number one is Piehole used to be a service station, a gas station, literally in the 70s, early 80s. And then it finally shut down. It's been probably shut down for 35 years. And it's very popular. It's interesting. That's a side issue. But the other thing, going further south, I see... two lots deep. No, not any further south, just with the eye, just below Pie Hole. The C3s are too deep. So I guess I'm personally less concerned with the fact that this is now split and we're gonna move, if we vote positively, to move that to commercial because it appears that it's already existing in a lot of other spots.

Well, from my perspective, the rationalization to annex My primary concern, as we talked about before with the comprehensive plan, is that we're executing some sort of congruent plan. But I do see an advantage. I share Mr. Johnson's apprehension with development going on on the island, but what I am seeing here is a lot of properties that we don't have any kind of say in what happens with them. I mean, I understand that, you know, there's probably impediments in place with the county that's just making it so difficult or impossible to develop, but there's no guarantee that those rules won't change. When I see the prospect of development that I'm weary of, I'd rather keep it closer to, you know, I don't want to say our control, but our input. And, you know, I'm And so for that reason, I'm not apprehensive about annexation because at least then we know that if something gets built, it'll be built in a way that, you know, we're part of the conversation. You know, we have, you know, this board has no control of what they do at the county level. So, you know, seeing this patchwork of, this hopscotch game of city and county properties along A1A, specifically on the West, it's clear what the trend is. And either there's a master plan or not, something's being teed up. And at some point we could very easily see homes popping up on every single one of these yellow properties. 90% of that is already set in stone. And, you know, I'm not really sure that there's much reason for us to be apprehensive about closing the loop of what's already there. I see the applicant back at the podium. I would like to give you an opportunity to speak specifically about any, comments that you've heard from the board in regards to this specific application item 7c here if there's it I can I can tell there's obviously you're up at the podium so there's something you want to say but if you want to if you pardon me I am hard of hearing too many years of hard labor I can see you're at the podium so if you want to speak we'll let you speak but if you want to just address any specific comments or A lot of concerns that you've heard from the board.

What is the main?

Mr. Sarah, excuse me. Can you please state your name again for the record?

Tony Achara. Sorry. What is like, are you talking about the lot across, my lot 14?

Yeah, so the item we're still discussing right now is the commercial property on the east side of A1A.

Yeah, and what is the issue with that? What is the concern?

I think Mr. Johnson voiced some concerns.

So a number of questions are, how are the commercial properties adjoining?

How are they adjoined? Correct. Well, the commercial properties, okay, we established that the residential is on the west side of A1A and the commercial or on the east side, right? Well, now, when you say commercial, I know when I was searching, it always says like multifamily. Are you considering that the same thing, multifamily and commercial the same thing?

Everything from Piehole South is commercial.

Huh?

Everything from Piehole South is commercial.

Okay. Now, again... When it says multifamily, are you considering that commercial or is that two different things?

Two different things.

Two different things. Yeah, because I thought the Fowler lot was considered a multifamily. There's, I think it was like RS4, I think, or RS11, because we're residential RS1, right, on the west side. Because I know when I was looking up those properties, I thought there was multifamily.

What was the proposed zoning? Was it C3, correct?

C3. Okay, there we go. If we scroll down, scroll down.

Again, looking at my usage table, group living, community residential home, our conditional uses. C3, multi-dwelling building. That would be a conditional use. Again, this is a table from 2023.

adjustments in that area though.

So you know So for example, like in a C-1, you could do a detached house, a duplex or a townhouse, but those would be all conditional uses. So even a multi-dwelling building would still be a conditional use. It would still come back before this board, as opposed to a permitted use, like a mixed use or a typical commercial property.

These are vacant lands, so any development of this particular parcel would come back before the board. Completely vacant, definitely. It would be a major site plan that the board would have authority over.

Any other questions for the applicant?

All right, no. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, we're getting a little in the weeds on this one. Is there any other discussion? Again, we're still on item 7C.

I think we've all seen virtually no development for I can't say how many decades that somebody that wants to step forward and try to do some development I think is encouraging.

And I'm not against development. I mean, that's my profession with the same token. This is 90% mangroves. Are we going to implement potentially to put in more landscape to go back to offset the burden or the loss?

That is regulated under state and federal regulations as opposed to local regulations. There is whenever a wetland is disturbed, mitigation is required. but I'm not expert on that, so yes. Further removal of mangroves are regulated by DEP as well, and so As I mentioned, there's a lot of permitting that has probably precluded a lot of development because people started seeing numbers, dollars.

And are you more concerned about the stuff behind it being developed? Is that what your thought is? It starts from there. Piehole is sitting on mangroves.

It is literally in every one of these locations. That's why a portion of coconut hasn't been done. It's mangroves from there all the way to this parcel.

Right. Mr. Collins, can I just say that you said you're concerned about the lots behind us being developed?

I was asking Mr. Johnson if that was part of his concern.

I don't know. Like I said before, we have permission from Florida Fish and Wildlife to only develop the lots fronting A1A, so the lots behind us should never be a concern. My lot 14 is on a paper street called... God, it just slipped my mind. The Paper Street, which I was paying for a corner lot, but they took that away. They said, oh, you're not being charged for a corner lot anymore because no one's ever going to be developing behind you. And according to Patricia Kelly at the Fish and Wildlife, she won't allow it anyway. Only the sewer line is only for our lots, and we have agreement with FPUA that only the lots fronting A1A will be developed.

All right. I'm just going to ask a question in regard to that. If they have services and there are right-of-ways, if someone has the money, they can build anything they want back there, correct? They would have to get approval for the roads. If there is right-of-way and right-of-way for services, these items are options.

There are many state permits that would be required, and we know how mangroves are very well protected. The reason why there's nothing been happening again for 70 years or more on these is purely environmental impacts. And I've just done a bit of research on what could be done on the counties. a commercial general now it could be built up to 60 feet the the list of uses um that could be put on this for from a commercial point for you in the county a far more extensive and higher impact than what we would have in the in the city So as the chair said earlier, there's much more control that the city could put on this. A conditional use allows anything and everything to be looked at. If there is a conditional use that goes on here. If it's not by right, then the planning board has the option to look at anything and everything. If they're not happy with the development there, then that could be regulated. I think... From a staff point of view, we see the benefit in being greater control of what happens in that area. The property becoming part of the city's tax roll for commercial use. A lesser intensity being permitted by right between the city and the county zoning and land use. And on top of all that, there are the state and federal regulations that, you know, preclude a lot of the development of these areas. I don't see that changing.

Is there anything else? All right, if there's no further discussion from the board, I believe we've heard from the applicant. We gave an opportunity to the public. So at this time, I would entertain a motion.

I'll make the motion to approve 2025-0009 to the city commission for this annexation. Second. Second.

We have a motion to recommend approval by Mr. Whiting, second by Ms. Clemens. Please call the roll.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson? No. Ms. Clemens? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Chair Kreisel?

Yes.

Motion passed.

All right. And item 7D. Let's bring it home.

All right. We are moving along. PZ Annexation 2025-00007. Again, a new Acera property voluntary annexation located at or near 2825 South Ocean Drive. The subject parcel is represented by Tony Acera, who is also the owner. The major difference in this and the previous annexations for residential properties is the land area of 0.21 acres as opposed to smaller lots. As you can see, that is a corner lot. I think we're all familiar with the area by now. This parcel currently has a taxable value of $31,726. Okay. ALL THE TESTS FOR STATUTORY ELIGIBILITY UNDER STATUTE 171.44 ARE MET, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FOWLER-MURRAY ANNEXATION, WHICH IS LOCATED JUST ACROSS THE STREET THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED. RUNNING THROUGH THE LAND USE, AGAIN, THESE ARE THE MORE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE, SO THE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE IS RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN TO DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. Staff is proposing residential low, low density residential under our future land use plan in conformance with policy 1.11.5 of the comprehensive plan. Current zoning is Hutchinson Island Residential District from the county. Staff is recommending R1 single family low density zone. TO BE COMPLIANT WITH POLICY 1.11.5 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE REALLY IS NO NET INCREASE OR DECREASE AS BOTH FUTURE LAND USES FROM THE COUNTY AND THE CITY WOULD ALLOW MAXIMUM OF ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT OR DWELLING UNIT ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL. AGAIN, IDENTIFYING NONCONFORMITIES THIS LOT IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER WITH REGARD TO NONCONFORMITIES BECAUSE OF ITS INCREASED SIZE BUT STILL DOESN'T MEET THE R1 REQUIREMENTS, ZONE REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, DUE TO SECTION 12570 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR NONCONFORMED LOTS, THE OWNER WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ALL OF THE ANNEXATION REVIEW CRITERIA ARE MET. UNDER LAND USE POLICY 1.11.1. ALL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE STAFF HAVE REVIEWED AND SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION GIVEN THE PROPERTY IS NOT ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT A SEPTIC SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY AND IS REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO WATER AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY FPUA WHICH WOULD BE REGULATED BY BUILDING PERMITTING. staff is recommending that the board recommend approval to the Commission on the annexation because of its consistency with Florida statute 171 44 consistency with the identified comprehensive plan policies and because it does not adversely affect the public health safety convenience and general welfare alternately the board could recommend approval with changes or recommend disapproval

that is my presentation and I'm available for further questions all right any discussion the property is the first three properties that we addressed the first one and then the second one they're contiguous to that that are one sir that's yellow this one's a gap is this is this now continues because of the commercial across the street that would be correct that's exactly right

I was going to ask if we're approaching interpretation of establishing an enclave because we know that the properties to the West are, I mean, basically undevelopable, but I guess given the fact that they are plotted kind of gives them that reasonable opening, um, as unlikely as it would be that a right away ever gets built and that they even have access to them. I did notice that we have a couple R1 properties that, are in the city that are on that west right away, that unbuilt right away. I was curious about those. I'm going to have to look into how that was done. Just to the left of your cursor there, there's a few parcels there that looks like they're, I said, no, go further down.

Where am I at? They potentially be joined to the lots in front of them.

I mean, possibly, if they did a unity of title. It's just odd. You see those two right there. Okay.

Just to, as a point of clarity, Enclave, as described in state statute is actually an area that's completely surrounded by city boundaries, but not annexed in. So that creating an enclave with these annexations, I don't believe would be possible just because of the definition that the statute provides.

So even a natural border like a body of water wouldn't consider?

body of water, highway or railroad or canal is taken as being contiguous, not counted.

That's interesting. Okay. All right. Is there any other questions for staff? Hearing none. I don't, BELIEVE WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ANY FURTHER UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD AT THIS TIME. OTHERWISE I'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IF THERE'S ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM APPLICATION 7D PLEASE COME FORWARD AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE I WILL SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? we got four cracks at it so i'd like to think we got it all out of our systems by now um thank you very much this has been informative and i think you know a a very good set of um agenda items to discuss after what we were talking about with annexations uh earlier with the comp plan um if there's no other discussion for the board at this time i would entertain a motion

MOVE FOR APPROVAL?

SECOND. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY MS. CLEMENTS, SECOND APPROVAL BY MS. CLEMENTS, SECOND BY MR. WIDING. BY MR. WIDING. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MR. JOHNSON?

MR. JOHNSON? NO. NO. MS. CLEMENTS? MS. CLEMENTS?

YES. YES.

MR. COLLINS? MR. COLLINS?

YES, MA'AM.

YES, MA'AM.

MR. WIDING?

MR. WIDING? YES. YES.

CHAIR CRYSAL? CHAIR CRYSAL? YES. YES. MOTION PASSED. MOTION PASSED. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON, ITEM 7E. MOVING ON, ITEM 7E. MAJ A major site plan application, okay. Mr. Gilmore has the presentation.

Okay. Good afternoon. Planning chair, planning board members. Before you, we have HCA Florida Longwood Hospital parking garage, major site plan for development AND DESIGN REVIEW AT SUBJECT PROPERTY 1700 SOUTH 23RD STREET, PARCEL ID 2416-504-0200-000-2, PROJECT NUMBER PZ SITE 2025-00025. THE OWNERS LONDONWOOD MEDICAL CENTER, REPRESENTATIVE VANESSA MAHONEY AND MICHAEL SCHWARTZ OF KIMLEY HORN. This major site plan the applicant is requesting constructed five floor parking garage with surface parking parking garage grossing approximately fifty thousand four hundred and thirty two square feet and the surface parking grossing approximately thirty four thousand eight hundred and sixty six square feet with associated improvements Of the parking garage, it's 591 parking spaces, and that includes four area-compliant surface parking spaces, 10 dedicated electric vehicle charging surface parking spaces, aligning with stability goals and anticipated growth demand. Additionally, the project includes the construction of 109 new surface parking spaces, which will supplement the structured parking and improve access across the Medical Center campus. The total gross area for the surface parking is 34,866 square feet. The subject site is 3.44 plus minus acres of the larger 22.36 acres. The existing future land use is institutional. The current zoning is PD plan development zone. This was the original phase one concept plan that was approved previously. applicant has done phases one through four already through building permit and have been constructed um the first phase was a construction of a three-story medical tower that's been completed phase two a third floor shell build out of the medical tower with an emergency department addition to the northern portion of the hospital that's been completed phase three a fourth floor addition to the medical tower that's been completed phase four a fifth floor addition to the medical tower that's been completed now they are at the last stage which is a parking structure BEFORE YOU IS THE FINAL, THE SITE PLAN FOR THE APPLICANT, THE OVERALL WHAT WILL BE COMPLETED WHEN THIS IS CONSTRUCTED. IT'S A ONE STORY STRUCTURE BUILDING, 50,000 FOOTPRINT OF 50,432 SQUARE FEET, TOTAL GROSS 243, 238 GROSS TOTAL, 591 SPACES, SURFACE PARKING AGAIN, 109 PARKING SPACES, 10 dedicated electrical vehicle parking spaces and 4 ADA compliant surface parking. And that's in this area. So elevations of the proposed parking garage. Design review renderings of the proposed parking garage. This first one. Okay, the parking garage will be, of course, the five levels constructed primarily of architectural precast concrete. The total height will be 58.6 feet in height, plus or minus. The maximum building height for the parcel is 50 feet for the parapet. The elevators and stairs will go to the 58.6. The aesthetics will match the newer patient tower located on the campus. The garage will contain three traction elevators to be machine roomless. The elevator lobby will be constructed for adding an additional elevator in the future. Nine of the EV standard parking spaces are standard and one will be an accessible EV parking space. The entire garage will be dedicated to staff and contain security gates at the ground floor entries and exits of the garage and updated topography survey, geotechnical report and underground utility also will be supplied. This is the landscape plan for this portion of the overall site plan. The plant schedule before you includes gumbo limbo, dahoon holly, and southern live oaks, with also the addition of red-tipped coco plum, small-leaf calusa, and podocarpus shrubs, and ground-mound dewdrops, green island ficus, and blue plumbago. And for sod, they will be utilizing St. Augustine grass. All affected departments have reviewed the major site plan with regards to consistency with established ordinances and requirements of the city code and comprehensive plan. The following site plan is recommending approval with three conditions. One, a landscape maintenance agreement will be required and approved by the planning department prior to final certificate of occupancy. Two, a landscape inspection will be required and approved by the planning department prior to the final certificate of occupancy. And three, prior to issues of any site clearing permits, which I think it's pretty minor, the applicant shall provide a tree mitigation survey and coordinate with the City of Fort Pierce arborists for required mitigation of city regulated trees proposed to be removed as a result of the site's development slash construction activity. Okay, staff is recommending approval with three conditions. Planning board alternative recommendations could be a modified approval or recommend disapproval. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore.

Any questions for staff?

So there's going to be five handicapped parking spaces, am I correct? Four. Why is it such a low number when they put 591 parking spaces?

because they have additional handicap parking spaces. This is just a portion of the overall site.

They do it based on the total for the institution. Total, correct.

Correct. That number jumped off the page for me too. Ford is-

I misunderstood the drawing and renderings that I was looking at, whether or not they were removing the current handicapped parking spaces. But I know in that front row, there's already six. So I was like, how are we reducing the numbers? Yeah, there's some right here.

Yeah, there's some right here.

Okay, so those on the outside will be there as well?

Correct. Okay.

How tall is the hospital?

Good question. I think it's

It's five or six. It's five stores.

Is it 58 and a half feet? Just curious.

It's a big structure. We can get that from the applicant when they come forward. Any other questions for Steph?

All right.

Let's hear from the applicant. When you're ready, just please state your name and send it.

Michael Schwartz with Kimley Horne & Associates. To answer your question about the hospital, the hospital is 72 feet high. Staff has done a great job working with us. We have no further items to present to you with regards to the submittal and or open to any questions you may have.

So this, what's currently there now is, mostly surface parking, is there an implementation plan in place for providing additional offsite parking during the construction process?

Yes, that's currently ongoing. The intent is to provide offsite parking in a temporary lot. We're in a process of preparing a temporary use permit to use that area for employee and construction parking during construction. Thank you.

The parking garage is just east of that. How tall is it?

The parking garage is... What's the number? The new parking garage that's proposed?

No, the one that's already been built.

There's not a parking garage. There's no parking garage on site.

What's the last structure you built?

That would have been the bed tower, which is 72 feet. Okay.

Okay.

be had me thrown there for yeah solves a lot of problems mr. Schwartz can you please sign in yes ma'am thank you all right any other questions for the applicant

All right, hearing none, thank you very much. I will turn it over to the general public. If there's any members of the public that would like to speak on this application, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will turn it back to the board for any further discussion. Thank you all.

I do have one question for staff. You said one of the EV parking spaces will be for handicapped accessible?

Correct.

Okay, so that's not including the other four

No, so it's one of the four.

It's one of the four?

Yes. Yeah.

They actually down to three.

Yeah. It jumped out. Oh, I mean, no, I'm sorry. It's one of the 10. I'm sorry. I was just looking at that. It's one of the 10 because it even said that in there. So one of the, so there's nine standard and one EV. And one accessible EV. Yeah.

Right. But I'm just trying to make sure that that's not included in there. Oh, no, no, no. So it's actually five. OK. Yeah. OK. Thank you.

All right. Any further discussion? Hearing none at this time, I would entertain a motion.

Make a motion to approve item 7E. Second.

With conditions. Yes, we have three conditions.

Oh, yes. With staff conditions applied.

Okay. We have a recommendation for approval with the three staff conditions by Mr. Collins, second by Ms. Clemmons. Please call the roll.

Ms. Clemmons? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Chair Kreisel?

Yes. Thank you. At this time, we have item number eight, comments from the public. If there are any members of the public that would wish to address this board on general subject of planning, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will turn it over to you, Mr. Freeman for the director's report.

Thank you chair. Happy new year. We're well into it already, but happy new year. So we're yet to go through the city commission strategic plan discussion. So once we do that, I think that's going out to RFP to establish a facilitator for that. As soon as that happens, I'm sure we'll have a number of workloads coming forward. But in the interim, we are working on getting our codes, our ordinances up to speed with what the state's doing last year. So we're going to be changing the ordinances for platting, especially internally. Also, we're going to be looking at our plan development. ordinance to try and simplify that between the master and final, making that more straightforward and more understandable for both the board, commission, staff and applicants. We are going to be looking at the landscaping plan and we're We've delayed that slightly to look at what the state are doing with their restrictive ordinances on code changes and that there are some proposals on the table to lessen those restrictions for municipalities to be able to change the code. So we're waiting on that and we want to be prepared if that does change to be moving. quickly before any of the changes are made which maybe reverse that again um and also we we um i can i had a uh a meeting out in uh lincoln park with some of the neighborhood out there and there were very encouraged by the movement of the city and city staff to look at this architectural catalog idea. So we want to, again, move in that. We want to be holding some meetings out in the community to get feedback on that. I think Lincoln Park will be one of the first areas that we would want to look at. Community are very excited by that and we don't want to lose that momentum. So that's one of the things that we want to be moving on. We do have a lot of applications still in the pipeline, as the city attorney can attest to. And those will be coming forward once we get to a point that we can finalize reviews internally and come forward with that. The Causeway Cove application is nearing the final part of its review where... we've just received um comments from our engineering department which are being addressed by the applicant i think they've already submitted their responses to that we're waiting for the florida department of transportation to finalize their comments it sounds like it's it's very close from a sign-off from all reviewing agencies. So I will report as soon as that application is signed off. And that will be, I think, by the next meeting, by the look of it.

Wow. That's going to come to us?

It doesn't get reviewed by any boards. Right. But what I will do is report that it's gone through to let you all know that I'll be doing the same for the city commission. They have reduced the number of residential units in there, but essentially it's the same.

Are the comments that come out of the agencies during technical review, are those available to the public?

I can bundle them up and make them available and put them online.

I'll get them out to the planning board as well. I'd be very interested to look through those. the comments, are the applicant's responses also available, or is that privileged information?

I'll put the whole packet together for transparency, yes. And that's all I have, Chair. When I say all, you know, there's a weight on my shoulders. All right.

Well, I don't have anything else. Does anyone on the board have any comments they'd like to add into the record?

Happy New Year. Just have one quick, maybe my last meeting up here. I just want to say I enjoyed, I have enjoyed and am enjoying working with you guys. I think you all have your strengths and things to look out for. And, you know, I think it's good to have a different backgrounds and sort of ideas of what to look out for. So I think Kevin and Chris have done a great job. Appreciate you guys. I know Fort Pierce is going to go through a lot of growing pains here, and I don't envy some of the decisions that you guys will make or, you know, will come across. But I think everybody's on the right track. And, you know, I just always look at it, you know, try to see, like, I've been in Fort Pierce my whole life. And, you know, is it going to benefit the people that are here and benefit the city? You know, not just revenue wise, but growing and developing our city into something even more special than it is. So glad to be a part of it.

Thank you, Mr. Collins. And with that, I believe we can adjourn.

Thank you.