Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting Monday, August 10th, 2026. If you would 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 mobile devices and we will get started. Please call the roll.

Mr. Whiting. Ms. Gomeck. Here. Ms. Storey. Here. Mr. Edwards. Mr. Johnson.

Here.

Ms. Clements. Here. Chair Crystal.

Present. All right, let's move on to our consideration of absences. We have Mr. Whiting and Mr. Edwards absent today. Did either of them call in with an excuse?

Mr. Edwards did have a reasonable excuse of not being here today.

And I see Mr. Whiting walking in right now. Now before we move on we did have an absence last month. Mister was it was Mister Edwards correct yes. Did we receive an explanation as to why he did not attend last month's meeting. Or do we need to have any discussion about this I didn't have a chance to review are.

It's either excused or unexcused.

Right, okay. Is there a sequence or a number of inexcused absences? If they have more than two in one year, then they'll be removed from the board. Okay, so this is the first unexcused absence for Mr. Edwards. All right, so we'll just document that as an unexcused, and we will note that moving forward. Any other discussion from the board?

All right.

Did you want to do a motion? Yes, let's do a motion to document the inexcused absence. I will entertain a motion at this time.

Mr. Chair, for clarification, is the one for this month excused, right? Because I thought I heard that he called in with a reasonable excuse for this month, but previous month, no.

Yes, we do not have a reason for his absence last month.

But are we approving this one as an approved absence for today? Or do you want to address it later?

Clarification. He called for today? He did call for today. He didn't call for last month.

He did not.

So then that would be two different motions. That would be one motion for last month, but this month he's already been excused.

You could do them as two. Yes, ma'am.

Let's go in chronological order then. We deal with last month first. Okay. Can we get a motion?

I move for a motion of unexcused absence of Mr. Edwards for last month.

We have a second?

I'll second it.

All right, we have a motion from Ms. Clemmons, second by Ms. Storey, to document an excused absence. Mr. Edwards, please call the roll. Ms. Gromick?

Here. Yes. Sorry. Ms. Storey? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clemmons?

Yes.

Mr. Wilding?

Yes.

Chair Crystal?

Yes. And now a motion to approve the absence for today. We don't normally do that.

I was going to say that's- It's only the unexcused that we normally go through the process of having a motion rather than not be approved or unapproved. All right. Because we don't actually know what excuse they gave. So as to how can we make that judgment?

So you all have not been doing them?

No, we have not. Okay. Because we don't go through the process of knowing what excuse they gave.

Yeah, so I would recommend that you go ahead and approve it so there's no question. Even at the commission level, if you look, usually the clerk will say they called in with a reasonable excuse. So I think it is better to document whether it is approved versus not approved If you wanted to again wait until he's back if you wanted further Explanation you could but generally even at the Commission level it is kept that general from the clerk And they will make a motion to approve the absence All right Let's go ahead and do that I agree with miss Hedges I

for proper record keeping purposes. Let's go ahead and, unless there's any discussion, I mean, we have one unexcused absence on the books. Do we want to wait and discuss it with Mr. Edwards when he returns, or should we just go ahead and approve the absence?

I move that we approve the acceptance letter, the comment of acceptance of his absence.

Okay. So we have a motion to approve the absence. Do we have a second?

Second. Second.

All right. We have a motion to approve by Ms. Clemmons, second by, was that Gromick that seconded? Yes. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gromick? Yes. Ms. Story? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clemmons?

Yes.

Mr. Wilding?

Yes.

Chair Crystal?

Yes. All right. Um, Moving on to item 5, approval of the minutes from last month's meeting. I assume you've all had a chance to look through them a little bit. Is there any discussion, any comment on our minutes from last month? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes. I move to approve the minutes from last meeting. Second. We have a motion approved by Ms. Clemmons, second by Mr. Whiting. Please call the roll.

Ms. Storey? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clemmons?

Yes.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Ms. Gormick? Yes. Cheryl Crystal?

Yes. All right. Now we can move on to Local planning agency, so this board does serve as the local planning agency, so we will be proceed with item 6 a This is the 2026 comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal review transmittal My screener oh We can switch.

It's hard enough for me to see it from there. Across.

Oh, there it is. OK, we're good.

Good afternoon, I my name is Stephanie height, I'm the deputy executive director for the treasure coast regional planning Council. We were hired by the city to do your evaluation appraisal review of your comprehensive plan and do this amendment since been a journey to say the least. But, so we'll move on. If you remember, I was here in January, and we'll just, let me just do a quick overview of everybody knows what a comprehensive plan is. So your comprehensive plan does have 12 elements. We went through each of those elements with three considerations in mind. Were there any local issues that needed to be addressed within your comprehensive plan? Was there any legislative things that have happened since it was last updated that would need to be addressed? And then also considering the community's vision. So the community being the citizens, but then also being boards such as yourself and the city commission. So the comprehensive plan isn't just about planning, it's about how all these elements work together to get the city's business done. So local issues and concerns, now we had two public workshops, we had meetings with you as well as we had meetings with the City Council, before we started looking and diving in to get an idea of what it is we were looking, you wanted us to look at what did you want us to evaluate. So through that, we also did a public survey. So these are some of the big issues that came up. Having a rational boundary. You know, there's a lot of little pockets. Somebody said to me, it looks like somebody just shot with a shotgun and that was where the city boundaries are. Doing strategic annexation and considering infrastructure in those. One of the big things with that is considering what services you're providing, especially your sewer and water, providing that and how do you do that strategically, annex people into the city that makes sense and doesn't cost money, right? Zoning and land use, just making sure those two things were consistent. Supporting small businesses was a very big thing, especially for your city manager. That was one of the things we received from him. Addressing housing needs. We need that everywhere. We've needed that forever, it seems like. Update our transportation game was a quote. And then also protect the coastal areas. So resiliency and mitigating anything that might need to be done, that was important too. So these are just a few of the things. There are a lot more, but these are the ones that really stood out. So what we did is we went into each element, we created a narrative for those elements, and then did a data and analysis. So we created tables within each of the elements, updating population figures, Land, vacant land. We created the table for zoning and land use consistency. So housing, we did a lot of different tables and put that information in there so that when you're looking at it and you can make some very informed decisions, things about renter and owner occupied, housing costs, what houses maybe need to be fixed. or are bought up to code. Recreation and open space, we looked at that to project what are the neighborhood needs going to be as development comes in, what are you going to require that level of service to be. And then facilities management, we updated a lot of the level of services and then created some appendices. So the comprehensive plan needs to have two planning periods, a 10-year planning period and a 20-year planning. One of the things that we received back from Florida Commerce is that We couldn't do 2025 because you were actually adopting 2026. So your planning periods then became 2036 and 2046. So in order to do that and get all the population numbers and all of that, we actually had to do a linear interpolation to actually say, because they give you the five years. So we had to figure out, well, what are those going to be? So that was a fun. My boss had fun doing that. He loves algebra. was on something that we had to do as well in this this current update the map series of course there are certain require maps one of the things that came back from Florida Commerce is the functional classification we didn't have the old one to compare it to so they're not sure if we created something that was more restrictive or burdensome And then what we did is you have a level of service conditions. We did for now 10 years and 20 years so that you can kind of use that. And that is just for planning purposes only. Nobody is going to be held to that standard when looking at a developer or anything. That's just for planning purposes only. So there's something. So as I said, in January, we sent it off to Florida Commerce. It came back March 27th, they sent a letter. And in that time between January and March, all the other Florida Department of Commerce, Environmental Protection, the Water Management Districts, all of the state review agencies were doing their review as well. So they were giving back comments. So it did come back though that it was more restrictive for burdensome, making them null and void ab initio, which basically means day they got there, they were null and void because they were more restrictive pursuant to Chapter 28 of the laws of Florida. So that's also known as SB 180, right? So they were worn a lot. It was just the planning timeline we did have to change. More restrictive and burdensome. They had a future land use element, which I'll go over, and an infrastructure element. And then again, they thought that the functional classification might be, they weren't sure. That was potentially more restrictive and burdensome. So future land use element, just to review, a lot of what we did is we updated levels of services. We put in some annexation policies because that was important. Created that table to cross-reference the future land use categories with zoning, policies to promote economic development. We updated the future land use advisory map to show the urban service boundaries, which is actually just co-terminus with what FPUA uses as a boundary. But you didn't really have a, urban service boundary defined at that time so Florida accomplishes comment that it was more restrictive of burdensome so you can see the policy we did to the maximum extent feasible property shall share driveways and include interconnections among properties for vehicles and pedestrians. they said that that was creating you know something that might be more burdensome for somebody for you know proposing the development so we made it a little softer and it will now read the city shall encourage properties to share driveways and include interconnections among properties for vehicles and pedestrians through incentives such as standardized cross-access agreements driveway connection permit fee reductions or or other appropriate measures. Yourself felt it was important to not just say that we're going to encourage it and there could be incentives, but actually lay out what some of those incentives might be. transportation element there was nothing in there so what we had had done in our initial review we outdated you know there was a mobility fee methodology study that was outdated so we removed that there are a lot of policies that didn't have the city shall and them so we put that in there added a policy to see that the city will cooperate with the Florida Department of Transportation for strategic intermodal system roadways, which is what FDOT is responsible for. And then we added a policy to implement a bicycle facilities improvement plan. Infrastructure element. So we added some policies to bring them up to 2023 legislative things, the septic to sewer bill. We revised some outdated language and references, reports, plans like that. And then we also revised the policy to say that you are adopting your 2025 water supply facilities work plan by reference. And you had done that in a separate amendment in 2025. So more restrictive or burdensome. Okay, we had, when we read the legislation, this was on us, we just didn't read all of it. You know, sometimes you have to go back and really read the introduction. One of the things for that septic to sewer was about, they had something in there saying that, you know, for lots of an acre or less and having to hook into a sewage system. We didn't read after discussing with them and I'm going back and looking at the legislation is the policy. Actually dealt with in the base of management action plan for Florida outstanding Springs so you're in a base of management action plan, but the Florida outstanding Springs did not apply to the city. So we just said we will remove that and that was fine with Florida commerce. So in our recent mission documents policy 3 to 6 will not be there. Coastal management and conservation a lot of great policies and there's really not a lot to do in there the city already has that We did need to put some policies in related to neglected deteriorated and derelict vessels added a policy about maintaining restoring enhancing the quality of the coastal and Zone environment and then added a policy related to ensuring flood resistant construction requirements and those Probably go back to the 2015 parallel flood legislation housing element. Again, we didn't hear anything from Florida Commerce on our first submittal, but things we did, we added a lot of tables in there, as I pointed out before, to talk about, to give you an idea of what the inventory looks out. We removed a policy related to the housing needs study, which was completed. which at the last planning board meeting, I gave a presentation on that. That's the study that the County did with Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. Revised policies related inspection codes and fire safety for when there's a resale of a residential building or a change of a tenant for a rental unit. Added policies related to helping, allowing the private sector to help create some of that affordable housing that's needed within the city. Recreation open space again, we just updated your level of service standards Added a policy to state that the city will complete an inventory of public and private recreation open space and land areas There's a mistake on my slide here. It should say July of 2027. That's what this was supposed This is that copy and paste thing you do. You had concerns about that being too quickly, too, and so did the city council. So we've submitted it as July of 2027 to just give a little more time. Just talked about policy to state you're going to maintain and update a parks recreation master plan. requiring residential developments of 100 dwelling units or more to provide hurricane hardened building for their residents to go into during a storm. Revise a policy to state the city will refrain from selling and are otherwise disposing of recreation lands within city limits in the annexation areas. And then added a policy related to private recreational amenities being made so and maintained in perpetuity. So they could be remained remain accessible. Intergovernmental coordination, we just updated policy related to the dispute resolution process, updated specific references to passenger rail, there was a lot of Amtrak in there, so we just kind of made it more generic to be just regional passenger rail, and then created a table about the different coordinating agencies, what they do, and then what department they would interact with within the city. capital improvements we added in the current capital improvement projects plan revise the level of service standards that also is it resides in the public facilities management element again there were some just statements so we made them into policies by adding the city show and then a new policy to ensure consistency with stormwater pollution reduction goals in the base of manager action plan. Public facilities management, we were kind of confused when we first started, like, why do you have an infrastructure and public facilities? But they really do make sense for the city, and each element has their own. This element kind of talks about how you do your, coordinate your facilities with other departments and with other agencies. Let's see. So we did update the level of service. We updated the dates in this, and then added a policy to state the incremental additional impact of public facilities will be assessed as part of the future land use map amendments and zoning changes. Public full schools facilities, this is a required element with your interlocal agreement with the St. Lucie County Public Schools. It was pretty standard, we just had to go in and we listed some schools that are located within Sydney and then we spelled out some of the acronyms where appropriate. Property rights element all we did before this one is just add a heading to it like a little introduction to say what it is it was 2021 legislation and you pretty much just copy and paste of what they told you in the legislation to just consider, you know all Consider property rights within all local decision-making. I So again, this is just a breakdown. This is what our August, oops, our resubmittal will be. These are the different things that just kind of spelled out of what they came back with from Florida Commerce. I went through those when we were in the different elements. And then for the new maps that were created, we actually, they asked that we add a note into the introduction that just say that these maps depict, The one map, the 2026 level of service map, will depict current level of conditions for significant roadways. And we got that information from the St. Lucie County Transportation Planning Organization at FDOT. And then maps for 2036 and maps for 2046 are depicting projected level of service conditions for those same roadways. And for that, it will just be used for planning purposes only. So the next step is we'll bring it to city council, transmit it within 10 days of that transmittal hearing. We'll get comments back again from the state and from the state review agencies, which we've been working with the state and they've been working with the review agencies for hopefully all of that will be taken care of. Then if there are any necessary changes we need to make and then the city will hold the adoption hearing after that point, so. then you will have a somewhat new complaint. So any questions?

So given where we are at this point in the process, is the, so the effective date of this document is going to still remain 2026, even though it's going to be

Yes, as long as we get it adopted in 2026. And I think we had something scheduled in August. I think we might be going to the city in September now. I know there's a lot of stuff that's coming up on the agenda there. So it will be adopted in 2026.

And you mentioned a few other reviewing agencies that had additional comments.

FDOT had on the functional classifications. And I don't think we had anything from the South Florida Water Management District. It's just, I mentioned that because that's part of the process when a large scale amendment, which this is considered, goes up, there's review agencies around the state that look at it. Department of Commerce, of course, is in charge of that. But the water management districts, DEP, DOT, usually regional planning councils do, but we're prohibited from law from reviewing our own work. So, you know, I guess they figure we've already done that. So, but there are other agencies that will make comments. And I don't think, I think really the only comment we heard back was from FDOT.

So we're not expecting any additional review comments?

Yeah, we never know. You know, sometimes things will come up, but I think we'll be clean this time. I won't guarantee it, but I believe we will.

I just have the process. So is this just providing an update or acting as a local planning agency? This is a public hearing, and then after we hear any public comments, we'll either recommend approval or

Right, you're just basically recommending approval to the board to move ahead.

Or we'll consider recommending approval, right? Yeah, I'm sorry? We'll consider recommending approval.

You will consider recommending approval. After we hear from the public, correct? Moving this on to, moving it on to the council.

You don't want to think that it's a foregone conclusion since it is a public hearing.

And this is your time as well to, you know, make any changes you'd like for us to bring to the city council that you feel would be appropriate. And we would, of course, present that at the, you know, after this presentation, I represent the planning board now once. And that happened last time. There were a few things that we did add in.

Any other questions?

So if you do have any recommendations or any updates from the state, do they have to come back to us and then back to the commission?

usually in the process because of SB 180 it kind of changed the way things happen it used to be the state would send back changes then the City Commission wouldn't come back to the LP it would go back to the City Commission they decide well yeah we do want to change those or no we're gonna adopt it the way we want to adopt it and then they would adopt it SB 180 basically because they sent us a letter that it said it was null and void ab initio basically means it really was never transmitted. It was never done. In ab initio means the minute it got there, it wasn't. The minute we initiated sending that to them, it was null and void. So it's kind of like it never happened, this last whole process. That's why we're starting again with you and then moving on to the council because we believe that that is the proper process and we need to make sure that we do it correctly.

All right, any other questions for staff?

I do. The city was tasked, if I'm understanding right, in 2018 with performing an EAR. And I foolishly printed most all of this. There's probably 100 pages there. I may be sending a bill to the city for my printer and my ream of paper. But maybe you can clarify too, there are some other planning consultants involved, and I'm seeing timelines of tasks February 1st, 2018, and then there's a deadline in January of 2019. another consulting group, March of 2020, there was approval for transmittal of the evaluation and appraisal, and then we got into, virtually there was a gap of five years again in 2025. So this piece that we have, virtually every page you've gone through, and there's, you can see the red marks, and there's literally 100 pages And every single line item has probably been addressed, which I take my hat off because it's impressive because there's a lot there. But are you saying we're still in the draft stage and this is all going to come back again?

Yeah, and the reason you have that 20, every seven years we're required by state statute, a city is required to do this evaluation and appraisal. I believe the one done in 2018-2019, that was... the last time it was done so here we are again in 2026 having to do it again okay so and they will let you know you know you have to send a year before it's due and you send a letter off to the state and say yeah you know we found some things we do want to make some changes we have to do some legislative updates and they say okay great you've got a year to do it so that's when in january of 2024 that went 2025 that went to the state and they said okay you have till january 27th 2026 that you have to do it And that doesn't, if you don't do it, let's say you're a couple years late, it doesn't matter. That seven years is seven years to them. So if you do it halfway through that, it doesn't mark, and that never moves.

So if you never did it for 20 years, and you did it, then you've got another window from the next report for another seven years?

No, it's due, whether you do it or not. Now, if you don't do your evaluation appraisal report, you cannot do any city-initiated amendments. Comprehensive plan amendments. Okay, you have to do privately initiated ones because you can't penalize, you know the public for not doing what the city should have done in the evaluation appraisal, but Yeah that it's a set date and it's gonna come around every seven years and they're gonna tell you it's time to do it again or You know, you're gonna tell them you you will so but I think the city's been very good the last and then this time We're right on track.

Right Thank you

any other questions just numb to help me remember so the local planning agency makes a recommendation on this And it goes to the city commission for the transmittal hearing. Goes up to the state. They make whatever comments or they say, thank you, we like this. Comes back for an adoption hearing. And at that time, the changes will be made and the plan will be actually adopted with the changes. And then all those pieces and parts, sections of the plan, those will be available with the revised language or whatever. And the public then has an opportunity to look at the whole document at that time. So unlike my colleague, I didn't pull up everything and make copies of the entire plan at this point. So that's, you know, but anyway, okay.

Yes, we will once the city adopts it and then sends it back up. We've adopted it. The state will say, okay, you're good to go. And then we'll go in and we'll take out all that strikeout and underline that will become your new comprehensive plan.

So you're showing the strikethrough and underlines after the adoption here, and that goes up to the state. That's still the same process. I mean, I remember the process when it was a different state agency. So anyway, I'm just trying to wrap my brain around that. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you.

Anything else? All right, hearing none, thank you very much, Stephanie. At this time, we would open the floor to the public. If there's any members of the public who would like to comment on this comprehensive plan draft, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I would send it back to the board for any further discussion. All right, hearing none, we can go ahead and proceed with a motion.

I move for approval for the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Review Transmittal.

Do we have a second? Second.

Mr. Whiting beat you.

All right, so we have a motion to recommend approval by Ms. Clemmons, second by Mr. Whiting. Please call the roll.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clemmons?

Yes.

Mr. Wilding?

Yes.

Ms. Gomeck? Yes. Ms. Story? Yes. Chair Kressel?

Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Moving on to Item 6B, we have a voluntary annexation application. Mr. Freeman, you've been in this room a lot today.

Too much, I think. You might hear the phrase. Good afternoon chair, good afternoon board. Let me get rid of this and pull up an application for voluntary annexation. And in the same item, we're going to be looking at the future land use and the zoning. And so we're going to take three separate motions on this to keep the annexation future land use and zoning separate and adopted separately, but they are their companion ordinances and each one in effect depends on the preceding ordinance.

So we're starting with annexation?

So what I'll do with this is I will go through the whole thing. I will talk about the annexation. I'LL TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THE ZONING AND FINALLY SUMMARIZE THE ITEMS IN THE ORDER THAT THEY SHOULD BE VOTED UPON.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

So the application involves a single property, 0.19 acres. It's on Juanita Avenue, just west of 19th Street. The existing use of the lot is vacant. It's undeveloped and has current county future land use of residential urban. and a current zoning of single family RS4, that's in the county. And you'll see that the proposed city future land use is reflective of the lowest residential land use really that we can do in the city. It's quite close to where the county sits with its future land use designation. And then on top of that, it's proposed to have a city zoning, which is very similar to the proposal residential single family four in the county. They both provide for the same densities. The future land use, however, allows a slightly higher density, but the zoning controls that. So as I say, there are three companion ordinances here, 2616, 2617, and 2618, all dealing with the separate parts of the whole So we're considering the voluntary annexation, the allocation of future land use and then the designation of the zoning district. Here's the property location and you can see it's in one of those locations where it is the shotgun approach to what lies in the county and what lies in the city. The darker lots are the ones within the city, the lighter lots are the ones that remain in the county. So what we're trying to do in this area is support the infill of all these lots to come into the city so we get a more unified service area and we get a unified development pattern. So the voluntary annexation is governed by Florida statutes 171.044, city of Fort Pierce comprehensive plan, future land use element objective 1.11, and the city land development code annexation and zoning consistency requirements. So we looked at the statutory compliance for contiguity. Obviously, you see from the plan that the site is contiguous to the city boundary. Compactness, and although around it, it's irregular in terms of the pattern of lots. The lot in itself is a regular lot. It's a standard residential single-family lot. And does it create an enclave? And obviously, it's trying to eliminate an enclave rather than creating one. Looked at the comprehensive plan consistency on objective 1.11. So we had to address the consideration of the four points that the comprehensive plan has to look at. We look at public service delivery and we can see that putting another lot into the city, consolidate service delivery along this section. Hopefully in the future, we will be able to generate a whole street where one service provided rather than the county providing services to one part and the city providing services to another. the ability of city to provide public services at the city's adopted level. So this annexation, in fact, is a result of the applicant obtaining a annexation agreement with the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority to provide water and sewer there so they can build a single family home. So part of this originates from that initiative the city and the FPUA to start the process of getting lots in line for annexation based on providing utilities to those lots. So does it eliminate an unincorporated island? In effect, it is part of an unincorporated island. So it reduces that and brings the pattern of properties more into line with the municipal limits of the city. Again, the question about enclaves, this is an infill property. It's looking to eliminate all these, well, part of the lighter colored St. Lucie County properties. So we looked at that in terms of the annexation. In terms of the future land use map, we look around the site, both for the city's future land use and the county's future land use patterns. The majority, if not all of the properties around the property that we're talking about are located within, if they're in the city, they're in the low density residential future land use. If they're in the county, they're in the RU, residential urban, future land use. The differential between the two is the county's future land use allows up to five units per acre, whereas the city's low density residential allows up to 6.5 units per acre. That is the lowest residential future land use that we have in the city. So that's where the similarity is attempted to be as coordinated as possible. So from a terms of the future land use map amendment designation, we look at what does the county future land use allow? The RU classification in the St. Lucie future land use, in fact, is the predominant residential land use in the county. It provides, as I said earlier, maximum density of 5 dwelling units per gross acre. So we're looking at how could we get as close to that as possible. And we proposed our residential low city designation is the most appropriate for a platted single family lot, which would preserve the residential character of the property and the surrounding area. The city land use category is suitable for a detached single family development. It provides consistency with the proposed, as you'll see, the R1 zoning classification, and it facilitates an orderly incorporation of the parcel into the city's land use framework. In terms of the zoning, similar pattern, obviously. In the county, we have a residential RS4 zoning designation, and this proposed city zoning is a single family residential zoning district. Again, very similar in terms of what they allow and don't allow. They both allow up to four units per acre. In this instance, you're going to get one single family unit on the property. The applicant proposes to change the property, as I say, from the single family four RS4 zoning clarification to the Fort Pierce single family low density residential R1 zoning classification. And the reason that the staff support this is it preserves the single family residential character of the property, establishes city development standards following an annexation for a single single family residential property. Provides compatibility with the proposed RL, future land use designation, so it can adequately sit on top of the future land use without causing a issue of conformity. Does not authorize a materially different or non-residential use. The uses that are allowed in each are very similar. And in fact, promote the single family development And it fits in with the single family residential development in the locality, primarily low density. So the remaining. County, future land uses are essentially RS4. The municipal properties in the municipal boundary of Fort Pierce are essentially majority R1. Everything on the map is R1 and in this neighborhood. So we've looked at public facilities and level of service. staff review transportation drainage and development review and a lot of these issues will be formulated out during the building permit and other city requirements at that point. It was presented to the technical review committee and reviewed by applicable city departments and utilities. Engineering completed its review and recommended annexation approval. There was no additional engineering comments. FPUA provided no comment on the water wastewater and FPUA electric and gas and approve the application. No utility related objection to the proposed annexation. And in fact, the owner of the property does have an annexation agreement with the FPUA. And it was fairly straightforward going through the technical review committee. So in terms of staff findings for the voluntary annexation, so it was a petition by the owner. The property is located on Incorporated St Lucie County. It's 0.19 acres. It is subject to an annexation agreement with the FPUA. It doesn't create an enclave or detached municipal area. It does reduce a jurisdictional irregularity within an established residential neighborhood and the property is vacant and undeveloped. The actions have been analyzed and will not create a non-conforming existing use or structure. In terms of zoning and future land use, the proposed future land use of RL is compatible with the existing county residential urban designation and the residential character of the area. The proposed R1 zoning designation is compatible with the proposed RL, city, future land use designation. So the requests are not expected or considered to form a material adverse impact on public facilities or adopted levels of service. Future development will remain on this lot, will remain subject to all applicable city development, utility, drainage, access and permitting requirements. And so the three companion ordinances are internally consistent and provide for the orderly incorporation of the property into the city. So based on that, we have three recommendations. So the planning board, we are recommending approve each of the annexations and move to the city commission with the recommendation of approval. I don't know, should we take questions now or we'll go through the annexation? If there is any questions on the annexation, deal with that consideration.

I mean, I kind of feel like we could, from the board's perspective, I think we could handle any questions for staff for all three items simultaneously. I don't really think there's going to be that much comment, although I could be wrong. And then when we get to the public comment, we'll just go in sequence.

Okay, that's fine.

I think that works. Why don't we do that just to move things along unless you have an objection.

Sorry, I was just trying to knock the microphone over. Okay.

Yeah, if there's no procedural objections to that, we'll just go ahead and... our discussion we'll open up for public comment for all three individual line items and then we'll bring it back to the board and do our final motions so I'll start with my my one comment or question was the lot size specifically I did not see anything in the report about the lot size does the lot size conform to the current ordinance

0.19 acres, which forms an acceptable lot size for that zoning, yes.

Are there width and depth?

That will be taken care of in the...

I'm not talking about setbacks, but aren't there minimum width and depth requirements for those lots?

If you look at the pattern of development around here, it's a larger lot than some of the ones that are already in existence. It fits into the lot size requirements and the lot width and depth.

Fantastic. Any other questions for staff?

Yes, please. So does this property owner only own this lot, no other lots surrounding, or is that not part of the...

I have the property owner here right now, and he might be able to answer that better than I am.

We own more lots, but not in that area.

Why don't you come to the podium and just sign in and state your name.

We do own more lots, but not in that area.

And what was your name, sir, for the record?

My name is Dror Trigar.

Since he's up here, are there any other questions for the applicant?

Sign in.

Let him sign in. Any other questions for the applicant from the board?

Okay. Thank you very much. We do comply with all the setback requirement with and back and front. Yes. So we have the right design for that lot. Very good.

Thank you. Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

At this point, I would turn it over to the public. If there's any members of the public wishing to speak on this application, please come forward at this time. And I would include that opportunity for both the annexation, future land use, and zoning change. Seeing none, I will send it back to the board for any final discussion. All right. I'm just going to, you know, I'll just say briefly, this is like a textbook annexation. You know, this is exactly what we want to see. It's both in our current comp plan and in our future comp plan. It's right in our wheelhouse. This is exactly what we're trying to do is reduce these irregular boundaries and borders. So I'm very happy to see that we're making progress I just wish it was moving a little quicker so it's one down and maybe 500 plus to go so we'll go in order here we're going to look at annexation first do we have a motion to recommend approval or disapproval do we need are we gonna make three we're gonna make three motions and we're gonna vote for each one

so we're starting with annexation i'll make a motion that we recommend approval to the city commission for the ordinance number 26-016 annexing approximately 0.19 acres identified as parcel number 1433-701-0335-000-2 into the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce based upon the findings contained in the staff report.

Second.

Okay.

We have a motion from Mr. Whiting and a second by Ms. Clemmons. Please call the roll.

Mr. Whiting.

Yes.

Ms. Gromick. Yes. Ms. Storey? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clements? Yes. Chair Kreisel?

Yes. All right. Now for the future land use. Do you want to bring that up again, Mr. Freeman? We are establishing the future land use as what is ours? R1?

RL. RL.

RL. All right. I would entertain a motion at this time.

I'll make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 26-017, assigning the subject property a city of Fort Pierce future land use designation of low density residential RL based upon the findings contained in the staff report.

Second. We have a motion by Ms. Story, a second by Ms. Clemens. Please call the roll.

Ms. Clements? Yes. Mr. Wilding?

Yes.

Ms. Gromick? Yes. Ms. Dory? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Chair Kreisel?

Yes. And finally to the zoning. For the record, let's bring that one up again. That's the R1, correct? Yes. All right. I would entertain a motion at this time.

I'm happy to do it. Okay. I make a motion to recommend approval of ordinance number 26-018, assigning the subject property, a city of Fort Pierce, zoning designation of single family low residential R1, based upon the findings contained in the staff report.

Second. We have a motion by Ms. Story, second by Ms. Clemons. Please call the roll.

Ms. Gromick? Yes. Ms. Story? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clements? Yes. Mr. Wilding?

Yes.

Chair Chrysler?

Yes. All right. All three items recommend for approval to the City Commission. You're one step closer. All right. Now, we don't have any other new business under Item 7 other than comments from the public, so... We will move on to that. If there's any members of the public here today who wish to address this board on items of general planning, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, we will move on to the director's report. Mr. Freeman.

Thank you, Chair. As you may have noticed, the Causeway Cove application has been thoroughly discussed. So as far as the planning department is concerned, that's moved through that part of the process. There are external agencies still to weigh in when the application, if it does come forward to a site permit or building permits, that there's lots of things to be resolved from external agencies. On the note of annexations, there is a meeting and the city manager has been very proactive in terms of looking at annexations and the strategy of that. So we do have an upcoming meeting between staff, the city manager and the FPUA, Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Agency, to talk about their service area and discuss a prioritization of annexations. There are properties out there similar to this that have annexation agreements with those become active upon contiguity with the city limits. So we do have properties out there that are ready to fall like a domino, if you like. And the priority set by the city commission is to look at the value of those properties to the city in terms of their impact, not only on the tax roll, but their impact on city services. There's a pro and a negative to annexation is you have to provide services to those properties and that is a cost. Part of the priority that we've heard from City Commission is to look at the King's Highway corridor, which is designated to become a commercial corridor to support industries, high-tech industries, employment and so forth. And we understand that It's on the border of where the FPUA service area expands to. And so we're assessing which properties do have the annexation agreements in place. where they are, if they are contiguous. We've developed a map internally, which at some point I will bring to a planning board just so they can see what we're doing. So we're waiting for the outcome of this meeting. I think the meeting will be ultimately reinforced by the commission overall strategy. And I think it's a good tool to have in place prior to that being discussed at the strategic plan meeting. We do have a number of quite large development proposals around the city that are still being discussed. Some are actually in, some are being reviewed, and some will be coming to the planning board. There's been amendments to certain applications that have got a distance before, but now are returning, and I've directed that they should come back to the planning board before they return. to the city commission. We've had a lot of neighbor, especially in cases where we've got a lot of neighbor interaction with a development that's changed enough from my analysis to warrant it coming back to the planning board for a reanalysis of that. I'm working on one Edwards Road area, which some of you have already seen in the past. And I know there was some committee meetings, community meetings out there recently. So I'm waiting to hear back about how that went and whether that is moving forward in the future. form that was planned or amended. So that will be coming back to planning board at some point. It was due to come back to this meeting, but there wasn't sufficient backup from planning staff's point of view to allow it to come back to city commission at this point. Some very, yes, potentially controversial applications coming forward and being reviewed right now. So that's, we've got our hands full. I'll pack a lunch. Need more than a lunch. I need a week's supply of something.

Is that all?

That is all I have for the moment. For now. Thank you.

Okay. You know, to piggyback on your comments, I just... I wanted to... ASK YOU A QUESTION. I LISTENED TO MOST OF THE MEETING THIS MORNING ON THE LIVE STREAM. WE SAW IT HERE IN THE BOARD LAST MONTH. THE EXCEPTIONAL AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION REVOLVED AROUND THIS. a Causeway Cove project. And I was actually wondering what kind of, I mean, I'm not sure if you'd be able to answer this question, but I would be very curious to know the amount of time and resources your department specifically have spent on this application, specifically because it is a Live Local Act application. because I've never in my four plus years on the board, I don't think I've ever seen your department work harder on a single application. That's an exceptional amount of time. And I feel like this is probably one of those casualties of the legislation that is going to get summarily ignored is how much weight this puts on the city's staff to go through these processes, even though we didn't even do a public hearing, which is normally something that takes up a good amount of your time. You're still preparing the reports, you're answering, I can't even imagine how many emails and calls and inquiries and everything else. So, this is something that, It's an element to what you're doing that I want to make sure is getting recognized by the community and recognized by the city and just recognized by people in the state of Florida. These applications put a big burden on our staff, and that's time and money that the city has to account for. So I just want to thank you and your staff for everything you've done so far. I know it's been a lot. And you're taking a lot of heat, even though it's really none of your doing. Hopefully, the community is coming around to understanding how this law is working and how tied our hands are. um and hopefully they can appreciate the work that you guys have done um you know you and all of the technical review agencies um have been working a lot on this project to look out for the city as much as we can and um i see it and i appreciate it thank you chair if i could add on to that

You're seeing the full impact of what a review entails with Live Local, primarily because it's been brought forward for discussion. In a large amount of cases, you don't see the amount of work that's put into a staff review of a major site plan. It's very similar. The differential here is that a lot of it's not in the public view. that it's accepted, that it meets zoning regulations and we've reviewed that. And if there are public comments, we've handled those. But this is unusual in that it's had more public view, it's had more public controversy in terms of its impact on the community and what the city is able to do about it. But behind the scenes, And this is what people sometimes don't recognize. A normal major site plan that maybe doesn't have the view of everybody is reviewed to the same extent that we review the Causeway Cove. And there is a lot of staff time on that. This is just unusual in that it becomes more publicized. So I want to thank my staff for all the stuff they do behind the scenes that's not really seen.

Do you know of any other areas that are being impacted by the Live Local Act currently? Can you state them?

It's all over the state. And there's a similar type of controversies that are being handled by planning departments and governing bodies and politics all over the state.

You know, any of that are similar to ours?

Yes, there's one down south and I don't recall the name of it, but it is going through some difficulties. And when I overviewed it myself, and this is just a cursory overview, they might not have met the ratios required. And I think that's what the issue is. They need to provide a certain amount, a percentage of the floor space for residential. And just looking at the... the uses and the the buildings proposed i couldn't see how they were going to manage to meet those percentages i don't know the the issue with it i've not really researched that one um we try and keep our eye out on other things that are being discussed and challenged around the state because we don't want to be in the same situation. So if there's something being analyzed or agreed on in a different application, then we'll use that to give us a good foundation to how we look at it, the difficulty is. These are very different things. Every time one comes up, there's a different calculation, a different zoning, a different location. Some are in dense, built-up areas. Some are primarily all residential, and they're not mixed-use. So, you know, the state widened the application of this to far beyond what initially was set out. I mean, they extended it now to planned development. So anything that's been approved as a planned development can potentially go to a live local.

You're talking about current applications or current development projects?

Anything that has received a zoning of planned development and you look through the city and there's a lot of properties throughout the city that have had a planned development zoning on them. can essentially qualify under live local. And I've not done the full analysis of that, but that to me is, I mean, the impact of that.

Yeah, that's significant. So, and we've talked about that before how, you know, when we go through the review and approval process of getting a plan developed, you know, moving a project into an approved plan development, If that plan development never gets built and a new plan comes in, it starts the clock over again. They have to go back through the whole process and we get a whole another look at whatever this new plan development is. But that's not what you're describing here. Once they get that PD designation, they can just hang on to that and potentially use that to change their plan and not have to go through us or the commission again?

I need to do more analysis. It really specifically announces planned development as one of the zoning districts that this affects. Whether the planned development needs to have some commercial use within that to qualify it, I'm not sure. That needs further analysis.

That would be a concern.

Who oversees the burden for the next 30 years for the low-income side? You said that – or affordable housing side. That is – That's the applicant. You were through the state themselves. Yeah.

Well, the applicant – the state really doesn't mandate a methodology to measure it or record it.

It has to be recorded.

It has to be recorded. So one of the conditions that we have in there, maybe a combination of conditions, is for the developer applicant operator to have a system that's approved by the city to record these percentages annually and then report them to the city. But the burden of analyzing those then comes back to the city. to ensure there are state-approved methodologies, but they're not mentioned in the Live Local Act that I know folks are using as a template for undertaking lease or rental agreements with people. We're waiting to see what the applicant comes up with. We've been told they've analyzed three different methodologies and one of those will be utilized.

And we brushed out a little last month. What is the penalty if they don't comply?

I would say that they're in default of their approval and the normal sort of criteria of enforcing that would be upon them. I think, you know, if you get a PD that doesn't meet its obligations, then you can take enforcement action against them.

But is it a mandate where they have to comply or is there potentially just a financial burden?

The reason why they've got their approval is that they have said they're going to comply with that statutory allowance. So if they're not doing that, then they can't say that they're a live local.

That's correct. But if it only comes back to a fine, then...

Well, I think that would be substantial fine hope anyway. Whether they get a certificate of occupancy is another question.

Once they have that, let's just say after year three or so, if they get to that point, if it's something no more than a fine, that's been my question the whole time. Is there loopholes to that?

Well, I'd like to see a methodology put in the state statute, yes. And compliance and what happens with compliance or non-compliance.

Right. Yeah, abruptly revoking the certificate of occupancy of an occupied building would be a disaster. Okay.

I have a couple. So what is the application fee for something?

It's based on the floor space. And that is something that we're going to be coming back to the board, well, the city commission specifically, to look at our fees. I mean, it's a huge development. The city fees aren't really set up to, and the city fees right now are so low. that in comparison with neighboring authorities, in some cases were about a 10th of what the... A 10th? To apply, I think I'm writing this, for a certificate of appropriateness for the Historic Preservation Board, I think is $25. 10. Oh, sorry, 10. So even I was exaggerating, $10 for staff time review potentially external agency review, technical. This board? Historic Preservation Board. And yeah, they could roll right through the process.

And certainly not in a disparage development or anything, but there's a thought process that this type of consumption of staff resources then takes away the ability of staff to do other things that members of the general public are expecting, whereas this is a private entity or something that has come forward and requesting this. I know other jurisdictions have come to those same conclusions that the amount of money paid should be more comparable to the time spent. And the larger the project, the more complicated. I know that Martin County went through that a number of years ago. I will share with you that after we talked, Martin County did approve a project under the Live Local Act. I followed up, but it was the project along Cantor Highway.

The Gulf World.

yes and so it was very although it was under the live local act that is a very commercial although there was residential I mean it's it's still that criteria but it wasn't controversial I don't believe after talking to the planning director there because of the location and that's a six-lane highway at this point and very different type of circumstances and I believe Mr. Schilling told me there's another one in progress. I believe. Somewhere south in Martin County.

Yeah.

I don't know the details of it. Yeah, I've heard that. But I was curious about that. So. Yeah. The other question, the presentation that you made to the city commission this morning, is that the, Is that the end of the conversation about Causeway Cove?

From a planning department point of view, yes.

Or the city commission?

I'm not sure how the city commission want to move forward with anything further than that. That's their prerogative to do that. Well, obviously staff, and I'm going to talk to the city attorney, are concerned that we don't expose ourselves to challenge on this the way we've been.

From the developer side?

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, and not to belabor it, but, you know, we had a, there was a presentation last Monday night by Representative Trabulsi, who among other things proffered that there were some inconsistencies regarding the approval that it was her opinion, that there was some room for further review. I'll just put it that way. I'm going to put that in quotes for the moment. And that certainly has generated comments in the public. Yes. And whether that, you know, not to disparage anyone, but, you know, land planning, land use law, engineering, transportation planning, all those things are professions and specialties. And so we can all have opinions about it. And that's just, I think, unfortunately added to fervor or whatever you wanna say about the whole project.

I want to reassure everybody who's listening and heard those things that we did analyze those comments very carefully. And those comments were answered, I think, in the presentation this morning. And there was nothing that we found that would divert from our decision.

Thank you. I'm not trying to put you on the spot or belabor it, but I understand that was the case. And I appreciate the position you're in and the entire staff with this whole thing. And we felt the sting of that last month, too, from the public about that. And I'll just say one thing. I think it's just something to remember going forward about how local governments got into this predicament. And I think, you know... Yeah, moving forward, that's something to consider as we enter the election period. And I'll just, I probably should stop there. Stop there, but I feel compelled to say that.

Can I ask a question? Sure. Has there been any successful pushback to the Live Local Act and rescissions of approvals and all that? Has anyone managed to do that anywhere?

The ones that I've heard are in litigation at the moment. I've not heard of a success or a lack of success on that. I think it's going to be a long, complex process to get through the litigation to see where these sit. I know there's one in Orlando that's in litigation.

Or just denied one that may end up in litigation.

Yes. that I think the, was that the one where the planning director made quite correctly, I believe, the interpretation that a certain zoning code did not include commercial use?

And what was the jurisdiction? Brevard County. Hillsborough County, when I last checked, also had filed a lawsuit against the state. I was about to pull that up and see what had happened. Last time I checked it, The state had filed a motion to dismiss. That was a couple weeks ago, so I haven't looked if they'd resolved that motion. So there are things popping up around the state with different projects being approved, denied, some taking a swing at litigation. So I'll find out what's going on with that Hillsborough County one, and we can get you all an update next time.

And the Merritt, are you talking about the Merritt Island one, the Brevard County? There's a Merritt Island that, I was researching this.

I don't remember which city it was in, but I'm pretty sure it was the county and not a municipality. I watched the whole hearing. It was quite interesting. It's on YouTube if you're just bored and want to watch.

Or you're just a political science nerd. There is Netflix, you know.

I do watch a lot of that too. I don't sleep a lot.

But theirs was weird. The planning director had denied the application and the developer was appealing that decision to the commission. So there was a commission hearing, but it's because it was that denial and the appeal of that. And candidly, the Live Local Act doesn't really address that scenario. Having not spoken to anyone up there, I suspect folks. From looking at it as a due process issue, they allowed the appeal because it's not clear if you have an appellate right to your commission. So I'm guessing they erred on the side of caution of giving the developer the ability to appeal to the commission. So I think we got some questions about whether, why was that happening there? And it's because it was a different scenario than what we were dealing with here.

Mr. Chair, just one other comment. One of the other dilemmas that local governments face is because over time the legislation has been changed, so the opportunity to be awarded attorney's fees or not, if one's not successful, and maybe you can comment on that, that has definitely changed the landscape in the last few years.

Absolutely. And not only looking at Awarding attorney's fees, you've got to get to the end of litigation to have that question, right? And you're talking years that something like this could be litigated. And most cities are not large. to have those type of resources to litigate for years. And so if you are lucky enough to have somebody internal that can do it, great. But if not, it's going external, and that gets quite expensive. Land use attorneys are not cheap. They are usually significantly more expensive than your in-house attorneys are being paid. But let's say you have your in-house attorney covering it, you're taking up a lot of time and resources where they're not addressing your everyday municipal needs. So before you even get there, you're spending a lot of time, resources, and money in that litigation.

And chair, let me just make this comment. We have received inquiries from developers to look at other zoning categories, which staff have determined that they do not comply or conform with the live local requirements as including a commercial use by right. So, we understand that people are pushing around to try and get some indication of how their property, whether it's residential, whether not a permitted commercial use on that, is one of the biggest targets at the moment. I don't know if that's something that will be discussed at a higher level. But at the moment, the requirement that it has a permitted by right commercial use on the zoning, notwithstanding what the zoning is titled as, is something that we know that developers are exploring.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Freeman. And thank you, Ms. Hedges, for that commentary. We appreciate it. That's it for the director's report. We can move on to board comments. I do want to point out a slight breach of protocol in my half. Typically, when we have a new board member, I take the opportunity at the top of the meeting. to put them on the spot and let them introduce themselves. I failed to do that today. So at this time, Ms. Gromek, why don't you introduce yourself to the city officially?

Hi, I just got appointed. As you guys will know, I'm a longtime resident of Fort Pierce. I love my city. I do. I'm very vested in doing anything I can including being on the board, educating myself daily, listening to incredible, I have listened to you over many, many meetings, and I learn something every time I do. I appreciate the amount of work that you do. I want to do my part, and so I'm here. We need a voice, we really do, and Causeway is, I guess, is waking up a tiger in a lot of people. Because we don't know until we know. And that's just so. Yep, two o'clock I will be here. I'm not planning on being sick. And even if I do, I'll wear a mask.

All right. Well, thank you, Ms. Gromick. Welcome. And I also want to take a moment to express my appreciation to the city commission for reappointing me to another term on this board. I was also encouraged to see that yet again, there were, I think, upwards of 12 different applications. So which, you know, I don't mind a little competition, but also just the encouraging turnout from the public. There are a lot of city boards and. Committees that need Members and you know, we don't get paid to be here It doesn't take up a lot of time, but it doesn't take up zero time. Sometimes it takes a lot of time but it's something the city needs and so Hopefully those other applicants will will find a home somewhere at the city level and Any other comments from the board? Hearing none. I think we can adjourn. Thank you everyone. Thank you. I