Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will open the planning board meeting of Monday, May 12th, 2025. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

Friendly reminder, please silence your cell phones. And we will get going. Item three, please call the roll.

Ms. Clemens. Present. Mr. Collins. Mr. Edwards.

Present.

Mr. Whiting. Here. Mr. Johnson.

Present.

Ms. Carter. Chairman Kreisel.

Present. We have two absences today. Did they call ahead?

Yes, Ms. Carter and Mr. Collins called in with reasonable excuses for not attending today.

Thank you. We do have a quorum, so we will continue. At this time, I would entertain a motion for approval of last month's minutes.

Move for approval.

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

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Chairman Kreisel?

Yes.

And Ms. Clemens? Yes.

all right moving on to new business item 6a master plan development sunset gardens

Thank you, Chair. It's great to be here. Good to see you. Thank you. So today, we're presenting a master plan development. Master plan development is what some of you may have already come across as named a conceptual or a preliminary or something. In the past, we have changed the code to be able to accept master site plans as part of PD agreements. they're not as comprehensive, if you like, in terms of their proposals as a final master plan development will be, final plan development will be. So bear that in mind when you're reviewing master PDs, that they will come back to you to resolve any issues that you might find during the master plan, but also any issues that will be required to be addressed under code. So this one is Sunset Gardens. The applicant is Leslie Olsen, District Planning Group. The address is 4945 Edwards Road. This application proposes 20 townhouse buildings that allow for a mix of four to eight townhouse units in each building. The ultimate density is 6.37 units per acre. It does include amenities within the site plan. lakes, retention of and preservation of onsite wetlands, recreational facilities, private patios, et cetera, and also a sidewalk network that interconnects the community. Here's the site location. The purple or mauve or whatever you want to call it color, it denotes the properties that are already within the city boundaries. Edwards Road, the property connects in essence through a strip from Edwards Road and then into a larger area in the rear. That gives a better perspective of where the site sits. Its existing zoning is planned development. The future land use is low density residential. And that is the site plan. And that is a different orientation. So north is actually to the right of the screen. Edward Road access there. And then the internal development, the wetland, it's actually to the south. On the slide, it's to the left. The site plan sets out the setbacks which will be applied to the development and gives some readout of how much open space and wetland are going to be retained on site, which is over 41.7%. The setbacks will be included in any plan development agreement. And so in essence, the staff recommend the planning board move the proposed sunset gardens plan development master site plan to city commission with a recommendation of approval subject to the 14 conditions of development. Do you wish me to go through those chair?

You can go through them quickly. There's a lot of them. I think we should. Yeah.

So as I mentioned during the introduction to the presentation, a final site plan shall be required prior to any development activities associated with the master's plan. The final PD plan shall conform to the requirements of the city code of ordinance and be subject to the general standards for approval of planned development zoning. The final site plan submittal shall include wetland jurisdictional survey. Prior to submittal of a final site plan, a gopher tortoise survey shall be carried out on site. A detailed stormwater and drainage plan and statement shall be submitted at the time of final PD site plan application. The final PD site plan shall be in unified control and property ownership. All land intended to be included in the plan development shall be under the legal control of the applicant. The final PD site plan shall include a general description of the buildings and streetscapes, including standards for height, building coverage, parking areas and public improvements proposed for the development. The final PD site plan shall include quantitative data for the parcel sizes, proposed lot coverage of buildings and structures and total amount of open space. The final PD site plan shall include all agreements, provisions and covenants which govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the planned development and any of its common open space or other shared areas. This material shall include material which binds successors entitled to any commitments concerning the completion of the project and its maintenance operation. The final PD site plan shall contain the following information at minimum, and this lists out the requirements in code that are required for consideration of a final PD site plan. So a landscape and irrigation plan, proposed lot lines, Location, size and height of present or proposed buildings, existing and proposed vehicular circulation system. Pedestrian circulation system includes interrelationships with vehicle circulations and adjacent streets. The existing and proposed utility systems, including sanitary sewers, storm sewers and water and electric gas lines. Now this information would also include at that time how solid waste will be taken care of and more detailed conversations with the school district about how and if they need a school pickup organizing within the property or on Edwards Road. Any required sidewalk or roadway improvements shall be identified through the final PD site plan process. The property shall be plaited prior to any vertical construction activities. That's if it's required to be plaited. All other applicable state and federal permits shall be obtained before the commencement of the development. Now, the city under state provisions does not create any right on the part of applicant to obtain a permit from the state or federal agency. That's done outside of this process, but they will need to do that prior to going forward for building permits. So we put a condition there, which is in essence a note and a confirmation of that. So seeing that, we're recommending approval subject to those conditions and noting that there will be much more information required at final plan development and the planning board will get to see that as it moves forward, if it moves forward.

Thank you, Mr. Freeman.

Thank you. Questions for staff from the board? I just had a few. Could you go back to the next page, Conditions 7 and 8? So the language here about standards for heightened building coverage and also the... proposed lot coverage and building structures. Are those elements not clearly defined and established in the applicable ordinances at this time?

Well, I know what we'd be looking for in the final plan development site plan is reiteration of those.

Okay.

NOT ALL MASTER PLANS WOULD INCLUDE THAT TO OUTSET. AND THEY MAY BE AMENDMENTS REQUIRED DURING THE PROCESS BETWEEN MASTER AND FINAL WHERE DISCUSSIONS ON OTHER ISSUES MAY COME OUT AND THE PLAN IS AMENDED SLIGHTLY. SO WE'D LIKE THOSE REITERATING, CONFIRMING OR ADJUSTING WHERE APPLICABLE IN THAT APPLICATION.

At this stage in the application process, is the density of the proposed plan fairly set in stone at this point, or is that also kind of a moving target?

Well, I think the applicant proposes 6.37, 20 units per acre, where the future land use maximum on this type of plan would be 6.5. So there's very little adjustment there. But yes, what we are approving here is the final density. and use of the property but there's nothing to say that in future before the final site plan that could change it won't change by much obviously with the future land use being restricted up to 6.5 But in essence, what we're doing now is confirming that the plan development is limited to 6.37. And if that changes, that would need to be noted in the final plan development.

Where did it say that the 6.37 number? I mean, I saw the six to eight. It's based on the proposed number of units.

And that comes out to 6.37, which is within the future land use. Got it. Understood.

So Kev, is that 6.37 number if there was eight townhouses per building? Is that the max number?

It's limited to the number of townhouse units overall. So there are a mix. Some units will have four. Some buildings will have four in. Some buildings will have eight in. And that comes out to be 6.37. Okay.

So we would just be noting any variation from this number as it's presented here when we get to the next stage.

Staff and other departments would be noting those things as they came through and pulling those out for further negotiation or notification of the planning board. So any variation to anything that's on the master now, EITHER THEY PRESENT THE MASTER AS THE FINAL WITH CERTAIN ELEMENTS INCLUDED OR IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES TO THAT, THAT COMES FORWARD AS A FINAL, BUT THE PLANNING BOARD AND TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND OTHER AGENCIES WOULD HAVE A VIEW OF THAT BEFORE IT CAME FORWARD.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I BELIEVE THIS IS KIND OF A NEW ARC OF THE plan development application process that you've been working on, right?

It's now split into, because we know from the development side of a property, the actual expense to prepare final drawings early on in a project is quite expensive. So what we're trying to do here is provide a methodology and a framework for some of those documents to be prepared after the applicant has a good idea that, as presented, the application would move forward. Obviously, if it has to change, then the cost of doing the changes is reduced because We're not going through final engineering or final landscape plans at this moment, but they will need to be provided subsequently.

Understood. Yeah, I'm not sure how many of these we've seen at this stage at this point. This is fairly new, right? So we're kind of still testing the waters, but so far it looks like this is working as intended. Yes. I'd be curious to hear the applicant's input.

We are going through, it is a bit of a teething project in process in terms of a legal review of these. and an understanding from the development community exactly what they're getting at each stage. Ultimately, the final plan development will be subject to not only an ordinance which sets that out, but also a development agreement which locks in a lot of the parameters that you would be potentially putting conditions on. That would be a formal agreement that is signed by the city and the applicant. The applicant do have choice in that they don't have to go through the master plan development first. It's more of an expense and essentially a risk for an applicant to go to a final, but we are seeing some of those coming through. And I think the one, the next agenda item is a final that's coming through.

So,

they've moved forward and actually prepared a final plan and produced engineering calculations and all sorts of information for them.

All right. Any other questions for staff?

Okay.

Well, at this time, I would invite the applicant to come forward if they're prepared to make a brief presentation. You state your name and sign in.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Board. My name is Leslie Olson. I'm principal with District Planning Group, located here in downtown Fort Pierce. I can present, and I have a presentation if you'd like to see it. However, I don't know if you need it. So would you like the presentation?

Yes. Okay, I would say yes. I would say yes.

So, Kev, it is on?

Yeah, yeah. It's on the desktop upper right-hand side. Oh, that's fairly sleek.

Here we go.

Thank you. So this is Sunset Gardens, and as you can see from the map here, it is located in the southwest area of the city. To kind of get you a sense of where we are, we're located pretty close to both the Okeechobee I-95 on-ramp and the Turnpike on-ramp. So it's located pretty nicely for the people who are maybe moving to Fort Pierce and are living in one of the areas to the south or to the north, wanting to take advantage of the beautiful Fort Pierce lifestyle. It's located just off of Edwards Road and just to the east of Jenkins Road, where Jenkins and Edwards intersects. you'll see that Ten Mile Creek runs along to the south. So you see some of the preservation lands, the George Lestrange Park. So there's a lot of really beautiful natural areas around this area as well. It's also located very in close proximity to the industrial node with lots of jobs available at Selvitz and Glades Cut-Off. And you'll also see that lying between I-95 and the turnpike Kings Highway is identified as a future growth jobs corridor area that the Economic Development Council is working on with the city of Fort Pierce to identify how that can become a real locus for jobs as well. So when you have jobs, you need housing. And this project provides that in an interesting adding to the mix of housing available in Fort Pierce. There's not a lot of townhouse options available in Fort Pierce, so we're happy to provide that option with this. Zooming in a little bit, you get a better sense of what's around us, and you'll see that To the west of this property is probably a 1970s-era duplex subdivision that runs alongside. That's actually a residential high future land use on that side. On the east, it's a larger lot, unincorporated St. Lucie County neighborhoods. And so we've taken a look at both of these sides to make sure that we are adequately buffering ourselves from our neighbors. And we're pretty happy with the way that's turning out.

So we'll get into that in a little bit.

You'll see here that from the aerial, you'll see that area that we have in preservation is there because it's actually a part of the floodplain to capture the water from Tamale Creek in flooding situations. And we are not touching any of that. We are not touching any of the floodplain area. It will all be retained as an environmentally sensitive and protected wetland. So it serves that dual purpose of creating, protected environmentally sensitive land in perpetuity, and also creating that ability for the land to absorb floodwaters, which is so important.

Again,

We've switched it because we're on landscape, not portrait view here, so you can see it better. And you can see that three and a half acre wetland over there on the left-hand side, and that'll be the south. That little strip of land next to it is a wetland buffer so that you have space between your developed area as kind of a space where Any fertilizers can get absorbed so it doesn't go straight into the wetlands. And then... It is organized around a centralized lake that has been amenitized by putting the views on it. It will have a fountain in it and also the recreational center is also on the lake. One of the things I like about the way that this site has been designed is it turns the kind of weird little access road into a fun amenity where there's a wide sidewalk on one side and a lot of landscaping on both sides it'll be tree lined it'll feel like a nice winding entrance into this community back here so talking a little bit about the buffering that we focused on here this is on the east side so those larger lots that are in unincorporated st lucie county here you'll see that we've added 53 53 trees, including live oaks, dahoon hollies, and slash pines. So you can see how closely those are planted there. Those are going to grow up to be a very dense vegetative buffer. And then in addition to that, we have 234 shrubs just on this side, all native Simpson stopper. And then to the west, where that duplex subdivision is, we have 61 trees of the same kind of species mix, live oaks, dahoon holly, and slash pines, and 268 Simpson's stopper shrubs. Again, we'll create a living wall between us and our neighbors there. You'll see here is that wetland, three and a half acres in preservation. And you'll see in the center of this, I'm pointing it out with my cursor. This is a small community park that is accessible by the interconnected walkways around the community. Also really heavily vegetated and it includes an observation platform where you can see the wetland but you're not actually in the protected wetland. One of the things that not everyone knows about these types of wetlands especially that are within the floodplain is that you really can't put anything in it. If you add so much as a tablespoon of dirt to one of these areas, it becomes a real issue. So you want people to be able to see it, but you really shouldn't be putting like boardwalks and things like that into it because it it creates some real issues with that floodplain management so we have our community amenities area focused on this curvilinear lake with a pool a cabana a large open space that we purposefully leave to be unprogrammed so that people can do whatever they want, whether it's a pickup game of Ultimate Frisbee, or the kids can bring out some soccer equipment. That is the goal, is to leave this unprogrammed as a community green. That is my presentation, but if you have any questions for me, I'm happy to answer them.

Thank you very much, Ms. Olsen. Any questions for the applicant from the board?

Leslie, I do. If we could back up a couple slides where you had the wetlands. Sure. And I see, it's kind of hard to read, but I see the association's line that's on the south side, and then we've got, tell me about that neutral area that's

Zigzagging on the way down Okay, so when I mentioned that there's the protected wetland, right? This is an offset to to give you some space for any fertilizers or any other kinds of issues to basically Work themselves out before they get to the wetland. So this is a buffer in addition to the wetland It's a buffer to the wetland And it's good for water quality issues. That's especially what it's great for. And to keep the wetland healthy.

When you say wetland, what does that look like? I mean, you say it's a buffer. Will it be like a ridge? Will it be planted with vegetation?

It has existing tree canopy in it. And so it's going to look just like the wetland. It just won't be wet.

Okay.

So it'll just have a different kind of vegetation in it. Okay. Yep. Good question.

they won't have any onsite office building or anything like that to manage the property? I see they have a pool, so I'm questioning who's gonna manage that.

Yeah, so because this is a townhome community, it will be the homeowners association. So the developer will manage the homeowners association until sales hit a certain threshold, and at which point it is turned over to the homeowners themselves to manage themselves. Okay, thank you. Mm-hmm.

Um, has there been any discussion of, uh, traffic, uh, coming out of there, like a light or anything like that?

Yes, sir. The traffic has been reviewed and we actually have our traffic engineer here. So if you would like to ask any detailed questions about traffic, we are available. What we have proposed is to use the access road as it is proposed here. The county has asked us to create an emergency access stub out here in case in the future there's enough right-of-way here to use this as a secondary access. However, there's not enough right of way. So at this point, it wouldn't be possible, but we have stubbed this out just in case it's needed as a reliever. But if you have any particular questions regarding traffic, and the short answer is we haven't tripped any thresholds for making the road fail. But we do have our traffic engineer here if you'd like to ask any questions.

any other questions for the applicant hearing none thank you very much for your time thank you all right at this time we would open it up to public comment if there's anybody from the public who wishes to speak on this item please come forward seeing none I will send it back to the board for any additional questions comments concerns Hearing none. At this time, I would entertain a motion. Please keep in mind we have a total of 14 conditions recommended by staff.

I move for approval with the 14 conditions.

Second.

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

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clements? Yes. Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. Thank you. Moving on to item 6B, final plan development, Sunrise Lakes.

Yeah. Thank you, Chair, Planning Board. This is actually a final plan development site plan. And the differential being that there's been much more information and more detailed information provided during the review. And the conditions reflect that. And so do the documents presented with that application. So this application is called Sunrise Lakes Final Site Plan Development. It's located on Sunrise Boulevard. The applicant is Blaine Bergstresser representing KMA Engineering and Surveying for DT Ventures 1 LLC. The address is 3804 Sunrise Boulevard. The parcel number is 243312300010001. So this application is proposing a rezoning to a final plan development of 50 single family residences on a 11.54 acre lot. And that's a density of 4.41 units per acre. The properties zoned are three with a future land use of RM, which is residential medium density. And it was recently annexed into the city. The site is boarded by single-family RS3 zoning on the south and west. To the north is a cemetery, and the east is a Florida Department of Transportation building, both of those with industrial zoning. Here we are in terms of site location. Oleander Avenue runs to the east, Bell Avenue to the north, Sunrise Boulevard to the west, The shaded areas are existing city limits. You can see this property lies within a tract, which is not within the city at the moment. Some parts may never be coming into the city, but they're right for infill and you would expect that in future you might get some more applications coming in those areas. The site area is 11.54 acres and that's location. So at the moment it's zoned R1. A low density residential. I'm just going back to that. which says R3 and residential medium. I'm not sure why that is showing us that. Maybe the site plan's not been, maybe the GIS has not been updated. The site plan shows 50 lots for single family residential. We did have some comment from the operator of the FDOT in terms of their operations going on to the east and their concern about noise and disturbance coming in through that side, through their operation. And we, as a result of that, recommended that a masonry retaining will be provided down that boundary and that is shown on the site plan through the applicant there are some PD standard set with this now this is a final PD so these will be the final dimensions and areas associated with this PD so any differential of that in terms of amendment prior to actual building on that on this property they would be requiring either administrative or other amendment through the Planning Board and City Commission the applicant has provided a landscape plan but We did note that the measuring wall had not been noted on that and what we would be requesting prior to presentation to the City Commission is that note to be changed there. Just go back here. I know the applicant has been in discussion with the school district on this in terms of a bus stop or bus facilities and has provided a standing area for occupants of the property to wait for a bus. And that's been incorporated on that. So in general, We've looked at this property and we're recommending approval subject to the following 11 conditions. All infrastructure, I've got 11 conditions, all infrastructure, including the private lift station, school district, bus stop and stormwater system shall be completed prior to the issuance of a first certificate of occupancy for a residential building on this site. A plat of the property shall be required prior to application for a building permit for residential building. The minimum open space shall be maintained at a minimum of 23% of the final planned development site area. The development shall comply with the permitted density, intensity and residential lot and building heights as outlined within the approved Sunrise Lakes Development Agreement. and final PD site plan. You'll see that development agreement attached to the agenda item. That's been reviewed through the legal department and that will be going forward to city commission as part of this application for signature. A detailed stormwater and drainage plan and statement shall be submitted at the time of building permit. The final plan development plan shall be governed by all agreements, provisions and covenants which govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the plan development and any of its common open space or other shared areas. The approval shall include the binding of successes in title to any commitments concerning completion of the project and its maintenance and operation. As part of site development, condition number eight deals with tree mitigation and we would be requiring a calculation to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a site clearing or vegetation removal permit that is undertaken during an application for site works through the building department and that is routed back to city engineering and planning. A landscape maintenance agreement shall be required prior to final certificate of occupation. A revised final site plan, architectural elevations and landscaping plan shall be submitted for the proposed amenity centre. So within the site plan, there is, where are we? somewhere in a proposed amenity center. There we go. So there they're proposing an amenity area and potential building to go in there. So that would require a plan to come back to staff and probably as a minor amendment to the plan development that we would be waiting on that for it to come through. And again, all applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. And I would be recommending the addition of the note that we've been advised to apply that this approval does not stand for any of the required state or federal permits that would be required outside of this process.

but not necessary to state that in an official condition?

I would recommend that we put that in as a condition. It's something that we'll be adding now to development approvals through planning board and city commission to make that clear. It's a state recommended wording that we're using. Okay.

So this specific language is...

established well enough at least at this point for staff to yes it's been recommended through the state on various and correspondence that we've had that we should be putting that on staff on this do recommend approval subject to the 11 conditions as noted

COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT PAGE RIGHT THERE? I JUST WANTED TO HANG ON THIS FOR A SECOND AND SEE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF FROM THE BOARD?

I HAVE A COUPLE. Kev, in condition three, minimum open space, tell me the general parameters that you use. How did you come up with 23%?

We based that, well, that's what the applicant proposes, and we look at whether that exceeds what we would be asking for a plan development in any case, which is 20%.

Any kind of property like this? I guess I'm A question would be just how tight and how broad can that range be?

Well, the applicant has committed to that number. As they come in and develop property, I think that number would increase in terms of percentage. But we are saying that to start the start point for this agreement is that minimum, and it should not be reduced below that minimum.

And the the other question you've got ten conditions here and the if we flip that I have a page flips But to quote number 11 actually you do have 11 I Think this this was what I know this was added.

Yeah, you added a preparation of what you have Now go one more page

Okay back it up a second, but what what you did have on the piece that I copied was the issuance of the development permit Does not create a right So yeah standard language. Yes. Is that somewhere in here?

That's what I've recommended should be put in there For whatever reason well my reason I didn't add it to the presentation.

Well in the the previous Consideration that we had you actually had that as a line item. That was the fourth.

It's been it's been on me Just asking yeah, it's not deliberate.

It was omitted because I Was just hurrying through the presentation If can you go back to the that page we were looking at before with the yeah, so When I see the table at the on the right here looking at the minimum lot size minimum lot width these are the individual these are the individual parcel requirements 45 foot building height yeah um where is that in relation to explain to me you know what where 45 feet is in relation to the standard maximum height allowable for what are we in r1

I believe this was annexed in and maybe annexed in as R3. I don't think it was adjusted on the property appraiser's map.

I think that's what's happened here.

I'd have to get the applicant to confirm that, but I believed it was R3, but that would be in relation to R3. R1, I think, is 35 feet.

Am I right with that?

45 so it's it's applicable to r1 anyway and that is the maximum that we're seeing so what we're seeing with these standards are a um it's in effect a new zoning district that's what a plan development is and the final plan development are putting in place the the development parameters for that plan development um The applicant may reduce some of those, but not the lot size or the lot width, lot depth, road frontage, lot coverage. The building height cannot be increased. The density cannot be increased. The setbacks will need to be maintained as we're seeing on screen. In essence, it is its own zoning district.

And then the only other question I had was, I believe in the first page of the presentation, you mentioned 4.41 units per acre, but here it's listed as 3.81. And I just wanted to make sure that wasn't a discrepancy in error. So it seems like that table is actually shooting for less.

Let me just do the calculation. Yeah, it should be 3.41, I believe. Okay.

That's 3.8.

I get it, 3.5.

We're in the ballpark.

No, I just wanted to hang on this for a bit. Considering the finality of this method, I wanted to make sure that we were all digesting this information here on the table. This is really important stuff, so thank you. Any other questions?

I do have one question. What would be the height of the wall?

We'd look for details to be provided on that. That would be incorporated into the landscape plan. I would take recommendations from the planning board of what they would be looking for with that. But we would normally say six feet. I need to be higher than I can jump.

You jump six feet? Enough aggression.

If the recommendation is from the planning board for a higher than six feet, between six and eight feet or whatever that would be, eight, seven feet.

How does the board feel about that height? What are the operations? What is FDOT doing on that site today?

It's sort of a yard where they maybe have trucks coming in and out. So there's times of day where there is noise there. But essentially it's just a depot type operation.

they're not like filling dump trucks with gravel or anything like that it's just it's just traffic like an operation center okay i mean i i would think a six foot wall with you know some amount of landscape and trees would probably be sufficient for that i mean if the neighboring property was like a you know, manufacturing plant, you know, concrete or something outside, you know, that might not be enough, but considering the use, I think six feet is appropriate. How does everybody else feel about that?

I just need to have an idea.

Mr.

Chair, you may want to put it as a minimum of six feet so that you know that the starting point is six feet.

Do we have a condition on this listed already?

No, it was a discussion point to be raised during the hearing. The applicant may also have some suggestions about what they're going to do on that boundary.

I would say vertical vegetation.

Right.

Is that what they're currently showing? I see the, well, that's a six-foot chain link fence, right? So that's already part of the discussion point is to do masonry wall, and it looks like they have.

On the site plan, they notate a masonry retaining wall, no height specified. Okay. I'd like those to be conforming with each other before we move on to city commissions.

All right. Any other questions for staff at this time?

Well, I guess I could introduce this before the presentation come up about the bus loading information. Do we have anything on that from the school board?

Yes, Mr. Chair, Kev Freeman is pointing to that location, and we have been in discussions with him. Currently, right now, we have a bus stop that's located at Bell, and we are more than welcome to put in another... No, no, no, this... Yeah, I'm just saying where Bell is. I'm just telling you currently right now, there is a bus location at Bell Avenue, and then we would put another bus location at this one. at this area, and what we asked for, of course, is a sidewalk to provide a waiting area that's safe. Unfortunately, we did indicate that maybe a waiting area too, because as you know, a lot of the parents in this area may want to drive their kid to the front and wait with them, make sure they get on the bus safely, and then sometimes, more than anything, parents like to wait in the afternoon for them to get off and then get into the car, go to the grocery store, or even drive to the back of this, development to their home so that their child is not. Another thing that we had indicated was like a bike ramp, a bike rack area there too, so that if the kids want to ride their bike to the bus stop and then wait for the bus. So we have been in discussions with them and we provided an email. We had email exchange with them on this.

That's great. I traveled that road for two and a half years and it was the worst thing to see the students walking and stuff up and down that area. So it's kind of scary. There's ditches on both sides and a little bit of nothing.

We did one of our major requests here was a sidewalk because there isn't one on that location area.

Thank you. So we're seeing sidewalk road improvement on Sunrise for the entire frontage of this property. Is there any existing sidewalk to the north? I don't believe so.

That links to the cemetery and that just turns into a swale ditch.

That's all county property to the north, correct? Okay. I think the only comment that I would have on this, you know, which is a, you know, general comment for these specifically these types of neighborhoods but you know on the roadway systems that we have in the city in general um considering anecdotally at least how much sunrise boulevard specifically becomes a traffic thoroughfare in the mornings and in the evenings i'm not a fan of the buses pulling off the side of the road for pickups on sunrise boulevard at all I know that's how we're doing it. I live not far to the north from here. And I don't mind the disruption, but I know a lot of people do. And I don't mind 35 miles an hour, but I know a lot of people do. And I'm really kind of shocked and appalled, actually, at how brazenly some people drive north and south on that road sometimes. I take it personally because I live there, but also at that time in the morning when there's a lot of bus traffic, it seems... really reckless. My suggestion would be that provisions for having the buses pull off of Sunrise and into the neighborhood with a turnaround be provided, although I'm well aware that that requires a lot more space. But maybe we can have some discussion with the applicant about that when they when they come up. So if there's no other questions for staff at this time, I think we'll go ahead and invite the applicant to come forward. Please come to the podium, state your name, sign in.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Blaine Berkshesser with KMA Engineering and Surveying, representing the applicant. All right, perfect. So first of all, I want to thank everyone for their time today. And Kevin, can you pull up the site plan? Right there, perfect. So just a quick synopsis of this. This project's very similar to the Oleander Oaks project that the board approved last year. That's about directly to the southeast of this project on Oleander. It's similar lot sizes, houses. That project is actually... a rental community while this one will be a for sale community so if you guys ever are curious what the product would look like half of those houses are already done in there so be very similar architecture and layout of the community As you can see here, we're proposing the 50 lots with the main amenity area being between lots 35 and 50. We would have a small park next to lot 35 that would just consist of maybe some benches and some enhanced landscaping. And then as you come into the entrance, we'll have another small pocket park just to, as he's showing there to the left of lot one. Going off of that, the main stormwater system in this is going to be that pond in the middle. As you can see how it's skinny in between those two lots, that's because we're proposing a bioswale system. So that's kind of like a rock bottom with some enhanced landscaping for water quality. And then that would go into a larger, yeah, as Kevin's showing right here, it'd be planted with different trees and different tall grasses and different rocks. And then that would... then filter into the larger dry retention ponds on the north and south sides of the site. Ultimately, those ponds will then drain into we actually have, as you can see, there's a large open area on the south side of our property. One of the reasons is because there's an existing drainage ditch right there that properties to the east now drain through. it's currently filled with, you know, Australian pepper trees, excuse me, Australian pines and Brazilian pepper trees. So we're going to clean that up, create a, um, a 20 foot drainage easement there. It's also our South neighbors, the only what I'll say residential neighbor that we have. So we've kind of done an enhanced setback of the lots from him to try to create as much of a landscape buffer as we can from him. Um, As Kevin stated, we have agreed to put a wall along the eastern property line. That's been because of some discussions we've had with FDOT and the noise they create. The only thing I'd ask on the condition is that we list it as a six foot minimum wall slash sound barrier, as we might want to do either a CMU wall or a precast wall. Going off of that, As Kevin was stated, this is a final PD. So we have been coordinating with outside agencies, one of them being St. Lucie County. So they have approved our traffic report. And as part of our coordination with them, we have done a 10-foot right-of-way dedication along Sunrise Boulevard there. So we'll be giving them a 10-foot strip of land, and we'll be also providing an established swale along Sunrise there for the existing roadway drainage, as well as a sidewalk along our whole western frontage. I'm going off of that. As stated, we have been coordinating with the school district on this and the school bus drop-off. Kind of our plan is this will not be a gated community. So as you can see, we're providing on the proposed sidewalk, a concrete pad bus stop area. So our plan is the hope is that the bus will not stop along Sunrise. Our hope would be that it would come onto the property because there'd be no gate, be able to loop around and then pick the kids safely up before exiting the property. Going off that, I wrote down a couple of the questions that you guys presented. One of them was about the minimum open space. So what we did on that is we took, this is the zoning on the rights, what's gonna be in the developer's agreement. So this is what every single house that gets built in there will be held to. So what we take is we take the, if you're gonna have the minimum setbacks on the lot and we put a house on there, whatever green space is left open on that, that's gonna be the minimum open space that we're gonna provide for the whole development. So most likely the houses won't all be built to the maximum setbacks. So that minimum open space number will probably be, will most likely, not most likely, will be met and would be even more increase of green open space. As stated in here, you could also see that the building height is listed as 45 feet. We just keep that because that's what existing zoning calls for. But as you can see here on the zoning table next to building height, we list it as one story. So theoretically, we're not gonna be able to do a 45 foot tall, one story building. So it's gonna be typical as you'd see of 15 foot, 20 foot roof lines for all the products out there.

Sorry, I'm just looking through my notes in your guys comments.

Going off that, we've also been coordinating with Fort Pierce Utilities on existing capacity that they have out there and our design. So we're halfway through our permitting with them out there, as well as South Florida Water Management District, who we've been coordinating with on our drainage. So as I said, once we get those permits, we're okay with the condition that stated in there that all of those permits are required in order for us to commence development. So I'm here for any questions that the board might have. Yes.

Do you have city water and sewage?

All water and sewer is provided by Fort Pierce Utilities. And I think currently we'll be doing a force main extension along Sunrise that will allow other people to be able to tie into in the future.

So just going back to the bus drop off, I want to make sure I understand. The intention is that the bus would be able to pull off the side of the road at the entrance point enough to pick up the kids, or would the bus have to enter and go through the entire loop and then exit back out?

That'd be up to the school district. I would like to see how we designed it was that since there won't be a gate that if they would like to, they'd be able to pull in come all the way through, loop around, and then stop here so that it would be the safest option. As you can see, like on the Oleander Oaks project, we had it where the bus could pull off and then do a U-turn there. As you can imagine, that's a very hard movement to do. We have to keep our driveway up here on the north. And as you can see how we're kind of pointed there. Right. It makes it kind of difficult to achieve that same motion here. That's kind of why we went with the no gate.

So given this plan, Ms. Fogarty, do you feel like the school bus operators would be able to accomplish pickup and drop off without stopping on Sunrise or I mean, I'm not going to assume that you're going to want your bus drivers for every one of these types of developments to be taking the whole loop through the community, adding to the time of the operation for pickup and drop off.

To answer your question, yes, it does add time to our pickup and drop off, pulling into the community and doing a full loop through. We tend to not want to come all the way into the community and do a loop, Chair. We prefer either a roundabout at the very front entrance or, unfortunately in this area, the amenity area at the front. So it can allow parking as well as the location for the children to safely wait. Here, my option would be to actually have the bus stop on Sunrise Boulevard and pick up the children from that pad.

Understood. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant?

No.

Hearing none, I thank you for your time. Thank you. I'll open it up to public comments. If there's any members of the public that would like to come forward and speak on this item, please do so at this time. Seeing none, I will send it back to the board for further discussion.

I'd like to just go on the record. This would be one of the instances where I would like to have seen this in a preliminary plan. so we can go through that process of kind of addressing that prior to them being at the final stage. For me, this is a big issue to have the kids out there in this particular area of the city waiting for the school buses. Not only is it a dangerous area just because it's such a narrow road, the water aspect is right across the street, so there's a lot of fog there all the time. The kids do not have to cross the street because there's a county property or city property that's right across the street, so they're not doing that. But the kids do walk back and forth because they have two schools on each end that the kids walk to school in that area, as well as there's a four-way stop sign. So the traffic is always backed up at that particular time of the morning. For me, this is alarming, and I would like to see something different. I just know that we're not, we kind of have hands are tied as to what we can make them do or suggest that they do at this point in time in development.

I would be curious to see if there was any opportunity to speak with the county about utilizing the right-of-way buffer that's been established to allow sufficient enough space at least for a bus to pull off of the main roadway. Although, you know, I think even in that situation, we would still be under the condition that the buses would still put out the lights and signs to be stopping traffic, which I don't object to. You know, I just, again, my preference would be that the pickup and drop off is happening off the roadway completely. So I'm not really sure how to proceed with this. I don't want to tie up the development too much over this issue. But, you know, from my perspective, we can't change the past, but as we go through forth in more developments, you know, this should be considered a priority in some way to make sure that these designs are being done in consideration, especially when they're built on, I know Sunrise is, It isn't US 1, but it gets used in the morning and in the afternoons, being a pretty highly utilized north and south thoroughfare. We really need to be taking more looks at better ways to keep these bus stops off of the roadways for these types of conditions. That's how I feel about it. Any other discussion?

Ms. Clemmons, are you thinking of adding in addition to this?

No, I'm not. I'm just torn.

I think you make a good point, though. I think, you know, with the... There might have been a better opportunity to address this at an earlier stage. and Kind of let it more be known Mr.

Chair if I may please I Can definitely provide a direction to our transportation department in this instance because we are in the final site plan and there's only certain things that are offered to you and this stage of it I can provide a direction that in this instance that we do our and I can't guarantee you but I can definitely tell you that I can provide direction and that we are strongly encouraged to move into this development when it comes up so if we have children in this location who are on the bus then we can pull into this establishment and provide that pickup off of Sunset. Sorry, Sunrise. I'm thinking of the other one, Sunrise Boulevard. So I can provide that direction to the Department of Transportation. Actually going forward, I mean, I have been engaged in reviewing these in an earlier stage. Unfortunately, this one's at a later stage. But we do have stop arms. We do have stop signs that pull out. And unfortunately, there are people who are, I am 10 minutes late to work, I'm driving around this. But I can tell you that we have cameras on our buses. We see that this person is doing that. Their tag is taken. So just to let everybody know, don't drive around a bus if the lights are up. But that is the law. So when those lights are up, all traffic needs to stop. That's one thing we need to talk about. And we do our best to pull these bus stops off of major fairways. So Okeechobee Road, US 1, we do our best to make sure that those are not located on there. But unfortunately, sometimes like a major development that's on US 1, that really is the only location that we can put it. But it's just strongly encouraging those people to follow the law. And I will provide a direction to our department, to our transportation department to strongly encourage to pull these bus stops off of the road. I mean, that's what I can give to you as an assurance that I can provide that direction, but I can't guarantee it because sometimes we're on a crunch and we need to get these kids to school, and that's our primary to make sure that they have as much teaching and learning time as possible provided to them because that's our thing is getting them there safely and providing them the education they deserve.

Thank you. Noted and appreciated. Let's make a quick comment.

Absolutely. Okay, perfect. Thank you. So I just want to say, so we've been exchanging emails back and forth on this project. So we have been in communication. Our next step after city council would be, I have to submit a DPCR for my civil plans. It's part of that planning and engineering has to approve it. We can work with staff that in the school district that we can all look at this bus stop situation and Kevin can say he's not gonna improve the plans unless he's satisfied and the school district is satisfied with the bus stop location.

Understood. Thank you. All right. Any further discussion? FROM THE BOARD, I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH IT HERE. WE HAVE THE 11 CONDITIONS STATED BY STAFF. I'M GOING TO SAY A 12TH CONDITION WHICH IS NOT LISTED IN THE PRESENTATION BUT WAS STATED BY THE DIRECTOR REGARDING THE LIMITATIONS OF THE FINAL PD IN REFERENCE TO PERMITTING. We also discussed a 13th condition potentially for a six-foot minimum solid construction, which the applicant would then reserve the right to determine the final building materials. So at this time, I would entertain a motion.

I move for approval with the 13... stated and presented conditions.

Second.

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

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clemmons? Yes. Mr. Collins? Oops, he's out. Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Chairman Kreisel?

Yes.

Thank you.

Moving on now, item 6C, conditional use with no new construction.

This conditional use is in respect of Atlantic recycling. It's an unusual request. It's a reestablishment of an existing use they have on the property. If the applicants here, I'd let them explain exactly why that's been recommended or requested. I think it's been requested as part of the new business licensing requirements of the city, but we'll have to get more update on that one. In essence, it's been requested to complete a new conditional use review And that's a conditional use without improvements and established operation. It's the same use that's gonna be in place as been for the last 20 years. It has been reviewed under city requirements. So there's been no changes in use on the property that would otherwise require reconsideration of this previously recognized property status. The applicant is Dennis Murphy of Kotlier Hearing. And that's been made on behalf of the property owners, Atlantic Recycling. The address is 3301 Avenue D. The parcel ID is 2408 214 0001 0002. The Atlantic recycling is located off Avenue D, to the south of Avenue D, and to the east of Angle Road. That's an overview, a close-up. You can see that the majority of city property lies to the east of the property. That's a photograph of the existing location. Staff considered the extensive landscaping on front and the access location. It's a zoned I1 industrial and future land use of industrial. That's the site plan that was approved for the initial conditional use. And staff recommend that the planning board forward the application of this conditional use with no new construction to the city commission with a recommendation of approval. And the conditional use is established as already.

Thank you. I didn't have any questions about this one other than what you stated at the top. Is the applicant here today? It doesn't look like they are. I was just more curious operationally and why they were having to go through this process.

It's nothing to do with planning and zoning and the operation that's being active now for a number of years. it's a need I was hoping the applicant would be here to fully understand why they'd applied for this but through the technical review committee there was statements made that it's part of a requirement for the business licensing to update the conditional use to come under the new system okay so this isn't a city requirement that conditional uses need to be renewed every I don't understand why this one's come forward with this It's not a city requirement. It's not under zoning. I don't think it's part of the agreement that it renews after 20 years. It's not changed. The operation is the same. There was some other requirement outside of the planning and zoning department.

There were no code enforcement issues or reports on this property?

We went through TRC. No comments came forward other than comments to approve it. It was reviewed by St. Lucie County in terms of their highway impacts. It was reviewed by the city engineer again as part of the whole operation that's going on in there. And there was no comments that were coming forward with that.

Understood.

I do have some questions since it's been brought before us. I think it's an eyesore. So how do we address the landscaping issue?

Well, it's an industrial zoning. I think what they have on site at the moment actually exceeds what we would be requiring in terms of landscaping for an industrial property. We don't have substantial landscaping requirements for industrial properties. It's mainly about fencing.

And the conditional use application process for existing properties does not trigger any requirement for...

The planning board could recommend anything to do with site planning on this. It is a conditional use.

Right.

the way that staff and other departmental reviewers have taken this is it's an existing use that was approved and there was no significant requirement from planning or anybody else that they came into conditional use again and I think we would have suggested some additional landscaping on front, but as an industrial, they've got a substantial hedge along the majority of the frontage that they have there. You've got to bear in mind it is an industrial use and it's zoned appropriately for an industrial use. um you know you might you could make comment that you wanted something done in this area it looks like it's used as a access no that part is closed off yes the access in between the hedges in that pole right there yeah but there and at the other end is still some um Boundaries that are not covered by hedges the planning board can request additional landscaping along that frontage if they so desire It is a conditional use Thank you for guidance I Think the only thing that I might

suggesting consideration i'm not reck and i'm not recommending this i'm just bringing it up for discussion is you know uh a request for a review by code enforce an active review by code enforcement of the property i don't know that that falls within our authority to do so. But I think that would be the only thing that could potentially trigger addressing your concern about the visual appearance of the property. It doesn't sound from what Mr. Freeman is describing that they're not in compliance with the existing regulations or requirements for landscaping. But if you feel like that's important enough to you, we can certainly add conditions. Discussion from anyone else? I do need to open this up for public comment. If there's anybody from the public that would wish to speak on this item, please come forward. Seeing none at this time, I would send it back to the board for any final considerations.

I would like to see the landscaping issue addressed. This has been a long-term eyesore. for me as a person growing up here in Fort Pierce. And I've always felt like it was an eyesore in a area that's mostly residential.

It kind of stands out. You see most of that block is industrial.

I know how it's tagged and on the map and everything. And I understand that's how we are held too. But visually, as a resident of this area, we do not see that as an industrial area because it's not utilized, mostly just residential, pretty much unutilized. Yes. I know that's how it's labeled and everything, but that's not how we see it.

So could I just ask, Chair, if staff recommended that the applicant looked at additional landscaping, specifically in this location, the front and maybe a bit of the side there? and came forward with maybe a similar landscaping as you see here, which is quite dense. And we looked at that. There may be a requirement to maintain this as an open emergency access, potentially. I'd have to look at that more detail. But essentially, we could encourage the property owner to do a length of that and to, do as much as we can down there and then across the frontage. Perfect. Yep.

All right. Any further discussion?

Kev, is that at the encouragement level or can you go higher than that?

You could put a condition on the conditional use that states, you know, you could add a condition that the property owner shall install landscaping appropriate along the frontage with Avenue D and maybe a length of 20 feet or so down the where that would be eastern boundary yes all right if there's no further discussion we have a conditional use application

up for recommendation with a additional condition discussed here today as stated by Mr. Freeman. I would entertain a motion at this time.

I move for approval with the one stated condition.

Second.

We have a motion for recommendation of approval. by Ms. Clemmons, second by Mr. Whiting. Please call the roll.

Ms. Clemmons? Yes. Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. Thank you. Moving on to item 6D. Mr. Gilmore, it's good to see you. Good to see you all as well.

Okay.

Good afternoon. Planning chair, planning board members. Before you, we have a minor site plan for an innovative development for a duplex to be located at 209 North 18th Street. The applicant is Andre Baxum. property owner AOK Construction, parcel ID 2401-606-0041-000-0. The applicant is proposing to develop a single storey duplex with enhanced landscaping, architectural designs, and an outdoor common area for its residents. THE PARCEL IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 0.31 ACRES WITH A FUTURE LAND USE OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY MODERATE DENSITY R3 ZONING. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE. THIS IS AN AREA OF THE SUBJECT SITE LOCATED IN A PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL AREA. This is another area or aerial site which also shows the location. The future land use once again is RL low density residential. Zoning R3. And this is the site plan and details. The proposed structure is 3,300 plus or minus total square footage of the building, four bedrooms, three bathrooms per unit, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances, washer and dryers included, residential cookout area in the rear, and garbage cans will be provided. The landscaping details include two coconut palm trees, three palm trees, two potter carpus trees, one Japanese plum tree, live evergreen shrubs, bougainvillea shrubs, and cordyline plants, and one existing oak tree. These are the architectural elevation details, including South Florida design style. Lighting provided every four feet around the property. Also shows the community outdoor common area with landscaping surrounding it and the enhanced landscaping also surrounding the entire building. Colors to be used include pure white, sea salt, agreeable gray, smoky blue, and sleepy blue. This is the floor plan. Each unit will be approximately 1,600 square feet, with the rear porch 42 square feet, front porch 42 square feet, totaling approximately 1,693 square feet each. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan with One condition prior to instance of a final certificate of occupancy, a landscape maintenance agreement shall be approved and shall acknowledge the following. All approved landscaping shall be installed, irrigated and maintained in perpetuity in accordance with the Section 123-7 of the City Code of Ordinances in order that it continues to present a healthy, neat and orderly appearance free of refuse and debris and conformity with the following requirements. Vegetation required by this article shall be replaced with equivalent or better vegetation if it is not living. All trees of which credit is awarded and which subsequently die shall be replaced by the same or greater number of living trees according to the standards established in this article. and maintenance shall include sufficient weeding, watering, fertilizing, pruning, mowing, edging, mulching, and other horticultural practices to ensure that the landscaping continues to maintain a healthy, neat, and orderly appearance. Alternative recommendations include recommend approval with additional or modified conditions or recommend disapproval. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. Earlier at the beginning of the presentation, I heard you mention a conditional use.

Yes, it's a conditional use. So can you elaborate on that specifically? So in innovative community developments, they're primarily creative and imaginative housing makes use in community-oriented development. But in order to receive certain variances such as setbacks and possibly height or maybe even density by our allowed use table, it requires a conditional use. So this is why it's a conditional use.

So what triggered the conditional use other than utilizing the innovative? What things do they require, request?

For the innovative? So basically an increase in landscaping, an increase in siting and design. And with this project, is complementing the surrounding community, which exists currently. This is predominantly an older area, and I believe this is also included in the Lincoln Park community. It's just north of Orange Avenue, and it will be, I feel like, a great addition to that neighborhood.

So was it the density specifically that increased that

The density is what triggered it and also the use because in R3 you have to have a innovative community development in order to do a duplex.

Thank you.

Tell us what's north of the property.

single family, it should be a single family home, but it's probably just junk in the yard, to be honest with you, because most of those are like single family homes surrounding it.

It's actually a couple different.

Yeah, because it's zoned R3. A lot of structures. It shouldn't be a business at all.

It's definitely residential, but I'm not sure if they're utilizing it for people to live in it or if they have cars stored in it or what, but It is definitely residential.

Yeah. Do you have the use map? Yeah. Yeah. Because it looked like it was what, all R3?

Yeah. Yeah. It's definitely residential. Yeah.

So the initiative behind the innovative community development program is to do just what you're seeing now, is to enable a redevelopment of a property which would otherwise be... unable to be redeveloped in terms of the market values that we see in terms of allowing a duplex or some other unit there it does give flexibility on essentially setbacks and other features landscaping and stormwater design and those four things the density is always maintained at whatever the future land use is set so essentially they can't increase the density but they can utilize the full density under the innovative community development. There are other options within the comprehensive plan which allow additional units if they are aimed at affordable. income and so that in essence the innovative community development does permit accessory dwellings and all those other things that have been missing from the city's code and is essentially missing from the city's code in in application to these historic lots which we have found you know a number has remained vacant and unable to be developed efficiently because of the setbacks that are required within those.

And this property is currently R3?

It's R3. It will be retained as R3. The site plan that's approved is in effect a conditional use. So those parameters will be overlaid onto that R3. But underneath all this, it's still R3. It's still, is it low density residential here? Low density. Yeah. So... You can go up to 6.5 units per acre. This is just a third of an acre, so you could get two units on there under the comprehensive plan.

And R3 is higher density, where R1 and R2 are low density.

They're even lower, correct. Well, essentially, the density, if it's low density residential, the density is the same on all of these lots. The benefit of being, if you want to say benefit, the differential with R3 to R1, R2 or whatever, are the size of the lots. And maybe in terms of the setbacks in certain cases are different. But the biggest issue that we had found with redevelopment and getting some decent development going, and when I say decent, I mean architectural styles, improvement to the neighborhood, trying to bring up the level of appearance of communities. And you see just to the north of this, it would be interesting to see whether or not when this gets developed, what happens in this area. When people realize, when property owners realize what they can actually do with their property, I think it would increase the opportunities for redevelopment and understanding of what can be done in these areas.

Well, there's a snowball effect, too, with that. Because the triggering of the new development also brings up the standard for the new landscaping code. Yes. And if I'm not mistaken, this specific opportunity for the developer is a relatively new aspect of our code. So it's good to see that that's being utilized and taken advantage of.

I think this may be the first one. No.

I think we've seen a few. Yeah. But I'll be, yeah, I'm very curious to see how this project moves forward. I think this is a very good opportunity for both the developers, the city, and the citizens. All right. Any other questions for staff? Does the staff feel it's necessary to have the applicant come and present? I feel like we've seen everything we need to see here. If they're here, we want to give them opportunity.

Okay.

Well, if the applicant is here and they wish to come forth and speak, they can certainly do so.

But at your leisure.

Please sign in and state your name.

My name is Andre Baxum with ALK Construction. And I just want to say thank you for taking the opportunity to looking at what I have to offer. This will be my second property that I'll be building here in the city of Fort Pierce. I just did one on 19th Street, 150 South 19th Street, very beautiful three bedroom, two bath home, nice family moved in. So I would like to continue doing this and utilizing the programs that you have to offer here.

Okay.

Very good. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?

Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. At this time, we would open it up for public comment. If there's any members of the public who would wish to speak on this item, please come forward. Seeing none, I will send it back to the board for any final discussion, comments, questions, concerns.

Hearing none.

Hearing none, at this time I will entertain a motion.

Move to approve.

Oh, we do have one condition stated by staff. So that's a move to approve.

Move to approve of one condition.

Second. All right, we have a motion for approval with the one stated condition by Ms. Clemmons, second by Mr. Johnson. Please call the roll.

Ms. Clements? Yes. Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. Thank you. Now moving on to Item 6E, Site Plan, Wood Spring Suites Hotel.

Good afternoon, planning chairman, planning board members. Before you, we have a major site plan for development in design review for the subject property located at 2480 South Jenkins Road, parcel ID 2419232-0003-0006. The owner is Mahul Patel, representative PHMIWS Fort Pierce, LLC. The applicant is requesting approval of this application to construct a four-story, 122-hotel room, grossing approximately 48,100 square feet in associated site improvements. The property is currently vacant. On October 24, 2024, the subject property was approved to be subdivided and create the adjacent property to the south as an out parcel as well. The out parcel was created for the potential use of an additional hotel to be constructed. Wood Spring Suites development is primarily surrounded by residential uses, all single family homes, and one commercial parcel. Immediately to the north and east, there are single-family residences. To the west and across South Jenkins Road consists of single-family homes. The property to the south of Wood Springs Development is currently occupied by an extra space storage facility, which is a commercial use. Properties to the west and east have San Jose County jurisdiction, future land use, and zoning. This is an aerial of this subject property. It's 3.39 plus or minus acres. ALL AFFECTED DEPARTMENTS HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WITH REGARDS TO CONSISTENCY WITH ESTABLISHED ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE IS GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH THE CURRENT ZONING OF C3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS SURROUNDED BY CITY AND SOME RESIDENTIAL USES AND THEN YOU HAVE THE COUNTY WHICH IS COMMERCIAL USES. Okay, the site plan consists of approximately 48,100 gross square footage total. Each floor would consist of approximately 12,025 square feet, 135 parking spaces, six of those being handicapped. This is an extended stay hotel, which will include suites, rooms for days, weeks, months, or longer. Suites will all be under 500 square feet, in-room kitchens, desk workspace, and 24-7 laundry. The landscape plan consists of 117 proposed trees, including palms. 100 of those trees are 100% native. Of the palms proposed, 100% are also native, 51%. The total shrubs proposed are 575. 339 of those are native shrubs. This is the landscaping detail. There is a total of 74 native trees on the subject parcel that meets the City of Fort Pierce requirements for mitigation to break down by species as follows. Lower oak, CABBAGE PALM, SLASH PINE, CABBAGE PALMS, AND THE LOWER OAKS, THE TOTALS ARE 38, 33, AND 13. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTED DESIGN THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED, AND THROUGH OUR DESIGN REVIEW AS A DEPARTMENT, WE WERE ABLE TO get the applicant to add some architectural embellishments. This is the final design, a temporary style that mirrors current trends in many hospitality and lodging projects. The horizontal articulation allowing the building mass to be broken up. Features and materials including aluminum framing, vinyl siding, multicolor siding, cultured stone, asphalt pitch roof with variation in structured venestration. The contemporary color palette consists of drifts of mist, gray clouds, and let it rain. Um, planning staff has seven conditions. Um, one, A landscape maintenance agreement will be required and approved by the planning department prior to certificate of occupancy. Two, a landscape inspection will be required and approved by the planning department prior to final certificate of occupancy. Three, prior to issuance of any site clearing permits, the applicant shall provide a tree mitigation survey, which they have, and coordinated with the City of Fort Pierce Arborist for the required mitigation of the city regulated trees proposed to be removed as a result of the site's development. or construction activity. Four, install a landscaped area around the proposed monument sign base, which exceeds a minimum of three feet in all directions. Such landscaped areas shall be completely covered by ground cover and shrubs, hedges, or similar Vegetative materials. Five, update the dumpster enclosure to the current standards by the Solid Waste Department, which includes a pedestrian entrance. Six, include a concrete, wood, or vinyl fence to buffer from residential uses to the north and the east. And seven, install a streetscape improvement such as tables or benches around or near the stormwater pond or an outdoor recreational area. Staff is recommending approval with seven conditions. Alternative recommendation is recommended with modified approval or recommend disapproval.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. You're welcome. Any questions for staff?

I have a quick question. In the beginning, you said that there was an additional out parcel for future hotel. Yes.

Can you show us where they were?

This one. That area. Isn't that the open space where they're supposed to put the pond?

No. No, that's in this area. That's on that side? Yeah. Okay. This is the cutout out parcel that was created. Okay. Well, they haven't presented us any site plan for this. And who knows? They may sell it. I don't know. But if they do, I'm pretty sure we would encourage them to use this one access road and maybe have an entrance from the rear so they won't increase traffic along Jenkins Road.

Right. Yep. And this proposed site plan, it appears, includes sidewalk improvement along the entire frontage of both? Correct. Okay. Yep. We're getting there.

We're going to have a whole road of sidewalks.

Both sides.

It may not be a hotel. Actually, it could be something else. You never know. I just wanted to get an idea of what that looked like.

We've had the sidewalk improvements on at least two other parcels just within this past year have come forward. So that's good to see that this is filling in. All right. Did you have a question for that?

Can we back up a slide? Get the area around.

The area?

Same question. So we've got three sides with residential, and the south side is storage?

Yes, commercial, yeah.

So it's commercial.

So we've added a condition for a wall along the north and east.

So this site, it appears that the planning department is comfortable with four stories there. Virtually all the conditions are, well, virtually all of them have to do with buffering, landscaping, and fencing.

Yeah.

The storage location, isn't it three stories?

It's like four.

Okay, so there's already a four-story building next to it. Yeah.

Can you go back to the use map or the zone map? I think it's, yeah. So we've got a very enclosed enclave of county property.

Yeah, commercial zoning. On the map, it looks like single-family homes. But it's zoned commercial. So eventually, if those homes are ever sold, they're going to end up being all commercial uses, including where the house to the north is. Because it's zoned C1, which is neighborhood commercial. Right.

Which I think is probably more appropriate for the frontage on Jenkins Road. I'm just kind of curious about those properties to the county properties to the east there. Okay. All right, good. Any other questions for staff? At this time, I would invite the applicant to come forward if the applicant is here.

Good afternoon. I'm Nelson Mohanian, the civil engineer that's involved with this project. I thank you for your time and just recognize the comments and we went ahead and revised the plans accordingly with coordinating with landscape and everything. So definitely moving forward with this and hope to work with the city.

Um, yeah, good. And how would you, um, how do you plan to approach the, um, the recommendation for fencing?

I believe we are, I'm moving with the, coordinating with the architectural to pull up some details as far as whether or not we're using a specific, I think we're looking into like wood fencing of some sort. But I think they bounce around like either masonry or wood fence for screening. We adopted also the details for the dumpster screening and such.

Do we have a height recommendation on the fencing?

I would honestly say eight. Is that clarified in the condition at this time? Do we want to add a condition or amend the existing condition? Absolutely. All right. Any other questions for the applicant from the board?

Ms. Clement, you're going to add a condition?

I think we can just specify in the condition that's already there that it's a minimum of eight feet.

Which is number six.

I think that's easy enough to deal with. All right. There's nothing else for the applicant. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. At this time, I'd open it up to the public. If there's any members of the public who wish to discuss or speak on this item, please come forward. Seeing none, I'd send it back to the board for any additional discussion. Hearing none, we have a site plan before us with seven stated conditions and an eighth added recommendation condition to set a minimum of eight feet for the fencing referenced in condition six. At this time, I would entertain a motion.

I move for approval with the seven conditions with the amendment of eight Of number six. Number six being at eight feet minimum.

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

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clemens?

Yes.

Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. Thank you. And last up for six, we have item 6F, preliminary plat, Kings Highway Commerce Park.

Thank you, Chair. A simple preliminary plat will need to be followed up with a final plat at some point. I think we already have an application in process for that right now. This is at the Kings Highway Commerce Park. The applicant is Jeff Aravani representing Scanall Properties LLC 553 LLC. Address is 2300 South Kings Highway parcel 2324 210 0000 0006. So the request is to subdivide an existing 107.41 acre parcel of the Kings Highway Commerce Park into three lots. The site is zoned CP1 with a commercial general, mixed use, future land use. There are three parcels parcel one Would be divided into twenty six point eight two acres parcel two into twenty one point one eight acres and the remaining Property would be retained in parcel three And which is the same as a previously approved as Kings Highway Commerce Park phase two There's a location between The Kings Highway, South Kings Highway, Peters Road and White Road. That's an overview. Zoning CP1. Commercial general. Primarily in a commercial general location. SO IT'S BEEN THROUGH REVIEW OF TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND WE WERE ADVISED THERE BY ST. LUCY COUNTY RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION TEAM THAT THERE IS A DISCUSSION GOING ON PROPOSED DEDICATIONS TO GO TO THE COUNTY And they would want to see that prior to the approval of the preliminary plat and that won't be done until it gets to city commission. So we're moving this on with that condition in mind. And also that the applicant shall address all the city of Fort Pierce engineering comments prior to approval of the preliminary plat. uh that's going through um and i think it's almost finalized the full review by the city's um consultant actually that would be done more in detail at final plat uh so we're recommending approval subject to the following conditions which are those upon um application for the final plat process um we will have confirmation from engineering and anybody else it's at that point when they do a more detailed review of the plat and then those are incorporated into that approval both to the planning board and to the city commission This preliminary is just getting the structure of the plat in place, resolving major issues. And the issue that we obviously see here is the dedication to the county's right-of-way team being incorporated on the plat. And staff will not be moving that to all city commission until that is resolved. Okay.

So not a whole lot to look at at this point then.

No. Just two lines.

Yeah, we don't even know what's happening with that right away. Okay. Is the issue with the western boundary along King's Highway?

I think the applicant can explain the negotiations that he's in at the moment with that.

I mean, it's kind of a moot point for us to get too much in the weeds, I think. By the time it gets to commission, that'll be flushed out. Okay. Any questions for staff? Hearing none, the applicant's here. I invite you to come forward. I'm not sure there's a whole lot to discuss, but if you want to share with us what you're... Chairman, commissioners, good afternoon.

Jeff here of Bonnevue JHR Consulting Engineers. The 107-acre parcel is going to be divided into three parcels. The southeast corner is going to be a general RV. We have submitted for a site plan approval already to the city. It's going through the process. We are speaking with the county about dedicating right-of-way on Peters and White Road. We have already submitted all the required documents to county right-of-way acquisition, and they have told us that they should hopefully get our approval by the end of this month.

All right. Any questions for the applicant? Hearing none. Thank you very much for your time. Appreciate it. All right. At this time, I would open it up to comments from the public. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item, please come forward. Seeing none, send it back to the board for any further discussion. SEEING NONE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. TO RECAP, WE HAVE TWO STATED CONDITIONS BY STAFF.

I'LL RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD THE APPLICATION OF THE KINGS HIGHWAY COMMERCE PARK AS A PRELIMINARY PLOT TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RECOMMENDATIONS OF THOSE TWO CONSIDERATIONS.

SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR Recommendation approval by Mr. Whiting, second by Ms. Clemmons. Please call the roll.

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Clemmons? Yes. Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. Thank you very much. All right. At this time, we would open up the floor to comments from the public. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on issues of planning and zoning generally, please come forward. Seeing none, we will move on to the director's report. How are you doing, Mr. Freeman?

Still trying to get to the surface here. And I want to apologize, I think a lot of the presentations you saw today have all been hurried, and there have been a number of typographical errors in there, and I think it's just the workload that we're under at the moment. I know it's that. As an update, Causeway Cove. You may have heard of this. And this is an application that's come forward under the Live Local Act, substantial application. There are a number of requirements that any application of this nature needs to meet. And there are a number of obligations that the city and its reviewers also need to meet. It's a part of state statute. There are a number of requirements and regulations and things that the city can and cannot do. One of the things that the city can't do is hold public hearings and make determinations at public hearings on these type of applications. I brought this for you today for informational only to give you, if you're ever asked, which I'm sure you might be in the community about what this is all about, that you'll have a better idea of how to answer and what the parameters of the city are under when they're reviewing this. So that's the location of the property. It's a long seaway, Arbor Isle, the city's wastewater treatment plant, which is soon to be repatriated to the west. There are parks and other beach-type environments to the north. And this is where we stand. So the Live Local Act is a state mandated obligation or entitlement, if you like. And it provides land use entitlements for eligible affordable housing developments in areas zoned for commercial, industrial and mixed use. In this case, the property is a zoned commercial and also has a mixed use future land use. So it becomes eligible for this type of application. As part of that obligation that applicants need to fulfill is that at least 40% of the total units that are built within the development are affordable rental units. And that's based on 120% or below the annual median income. And the median income is based on the St. Lucie metropolitan service area. And so they would need to demonstrate that they're going to be renting eligible units for a period of at least 30 years under that criteria. So that's part of the information the applicant would need to supply and confirm to the city. So the city is required to allow multifamily and mixed use residential as allowable uses in any areas zoned for the commercial, industrial and mixed use. So we have statutory then parameters regarding density, height, floor area ratio and requirement for administrative approval and obligations to maybe look at the parking standards applied to these developments. So we've established that the use is acceptable in terms of the state mandated overview of this. The density, now the density is set at the highest density allowed on any land in the city or county. where residential development is allowed the current maximum is 30 units per acre density bonuses are not allowed so it sticks at the 30 units per acre and that comes from the city's future land use of high density essentially and the downtown development area The height is set at the highest currently allowed height for commercial, it's actually residential development within one mile of the proposed development or three stories, whichever is the higher. Now the property is located in the South Beach overlay, which normally would limit height to four stories. In the city, the highest available is 200 feet, and that occurs in high density residential and downtown locations. And I'll show you in a minute whether or not the proposal becomes subject to that because it's within one mile of the proposed development. There are exceptions to this, and that occurs if the proposal is contacted on two or more sides, contacting single family zoned property within that. and that single family zoned property must have 25 contiguous single family homes, then we would be subject to not being able to, well, applicant would not be able to claim the maximum height limits. And then the city must consider reducing parking requirements for eligible proposed projects that would be located within a quarter mile of a transit stop. I don't think that occurs here. The floor area ratio, we have to set the floor area ratio, which is the amount of floor space available on a property to 150% of the existing floor area ratio maximum in the comprehensive plan, which is three. So if we apply the 150%, that goes to 4.5, which in essence is 4.5 times the overall site area. So you can see how developments can get big. Now the approval procedure is limited to be administratively approved. So in terms of the city, that means the technical review committee would review the application and each entity would need to sign off that it meets their codes as far as a zoning application would be approved in the city. To satisfy that would be running this project under a typical multifamily project under the R5 zoning district. It needs to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. And then accepting density, FAR, height, and use. So the live local state mandated entitlements just really dispense with a lot of the criteria that we would be applying to a site plan. So we applied the one mile radii to the development and the most important overlap is in this area to the west, which contains high density residential C5 and also downtown development, which all allows that height limit to be placed at the 200 feet mark. This is the proposed site plan, which has five buildings, over 2,300 parking spaces, 204 hotel rooms, and I'm told that there are two hotels in this location, proposed. Number of units, that's residential units, is over 1,000, and we know from state statute that a minimum 40% of those are required to be affordable and maintained affordable for 30 years. It is a mix of commercial and residential. There are additional boat slips and moorings also associated with the development. And that's a render of the proposed site plan looking from Seaway. It doesn't show the bridge, but we see the massing of the proposal and some of the architectural details of the properties. So it's a substantial proposed development. AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST HEARING AT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD BE THURSDAY THIS WEEK AND FROM THAT WE WOULD GET INPUT FROM CITY DEPARTMENTS AS TO WHAT THEY SEE AND WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OUTSTANDING ITEMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED THAT THE PROJECT WOULD NEED TO MEET AND THEY WOULD BE RELATED TO the project team at Technical Review Committee.

I'm going to express my preemptive condolences for you. how many times you're going to have to explain this to people that this is out of our hands and out of the commission's hands because I've already heard it and I can't imagine how many times you're going to hear it. I have a few questions that I'd just like to clarify about the Live Local Act. When establishing the AMI, What is the methodology used? Who is tallied? And how does the government track that information and how often do they update it?

The foundation of the AMI comes from the Metropolitan Service Area of St. Lucie County. Those numbers are published as part of the state housing initiative program and there are tables with that in. I should make the board aware that those numbers are higher than we would be looking at for Fort Pierce because it includes the whole of Port St. Lucie. and that means the average median earning income is higher because it includes that whole area. Now in terms of how is that monitored after a live local project may get approval is through and we would need a mechanism applied to that approval that would monitor that the number of units and how they're maintained and monitored from the applicant to guarantee the 30-year program. I believe there are state agencies that would be interested in receiving that, but there's no mandate of how that's done at the moment. And who's responsible for doing that? I think the responsibility would probably lie with the municipality. So we would want to secure that mechanism with the applicant so that is done as efficiently as possible and is secured legally. but that is the parameter, is the numbers for that are generated by the state where the foundation of that is.

Okay, and is the, over the life of 30 years, I imagine that number would,

naturally rise or does it get locked in at the initiation of this application i think in general it's year on year they would need to meet that whatever that requirement was so anything below 120 ami would need to be met every year so i would you know in essence the the number would riff would rise as it normally does anyway year on year through inflation and um earnings potential

Well, I mean, I know you didn't write this legislation. Since we've started talking about this, I have a few observations, which I'm only going to state here for the fact of the matter that I'm assuming people will be watching this specific presentation, which you've gotten here. If you go back to the page that you had where you listed the kind of the bullet points of the legislation. The fact that there were no percentage increases in relation to the existing requirements considered in this legislation to me seems like a really glaring oversight. in reference to the density and the height restrictions. So, I mean, by just going all the way to the highest density, by going all the way to the highest height and not as a percentage allowable from where the underlying zoning may have currently sat, I think was a big miss by the state in drafting this legislation. My biggest concern with this specific development is density. because it's an island and there's one way in and one way out. So the only thing that I can say is that in technical review, and this is not to cast aspersions on any member of the technical review process, but it is incredibly important in reviewing this specific development that when looking at all of the things that density impacts, specifically traffic, that we are not missing anything. The state can pass this law and force us to comply with it, but they're not necessarily obligated to build us a new bridge. So we have a lot of things as a city that we have to worry about and in order to maintain good planning that we will not be able to participate at all that we normally would in a situation like this. So I just hope that the community is patient and understanding with what we can and cannot do, that they continue to pay attention to this development as this is very new uncharted territory.

I CAN REASSURE THE PLANNING BOARD THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED SHORTCOMINGS WITH THE APPLICATION IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED AND THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT'S SUBMITTED IS IN THE CORRECT ORDER AND IT ultimately is signed off by any entity, internal and external, that would be required to be signed off.

I have lots of questions.

Jump in. So you named a couple of them. Traffic is one of the largest for me. And something that you always bring up in regards to school board busing things. On any given nice day at the beach, you're parked on top of the bridge or even farther back. How are you going to get on the island? The traffic's just not going to work.

I'm very, very curious to see how the TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY IS GOING TO DEVELOP WITH THIS. AND I KNOW AFTER THIS PRESENTATION, I MEAN, WE'RE BASICALLY OUT OF THE CONVERSATION, BUT I DO HOPE THAT YOU CONTINUE TO BRING US UPDATES ON THIS AS PART OF YOUR DIRECTOR'S REPORT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HEAR IT. largely because this isn't the only developable property on the island, and we're gonna have to stay very cued into what's going on here as we look at other applications that come forward.

Being that this comes off the one mile from downtown, and this is also in the Port Overlay District, can things from that district also be brought into this? Because all of those qualify, which are on the list that you gave us at the last of your master plan. Yep.

Now, with... There is a complication when it comes to industrial zoned properties in the city because it may be that industrial zoned properties in the city do not qualify for live local because of the designation that the city has for a working waterfront. But that is to say that we have a majority of property in the port area is not zoned industrial. It is zoned commercial. And that would in itself give it the same criteria as we have with this property. I will say, though, that further east on Seaway, the mile radius drops out of that option.

Within this Live Local Act, now if you come to here, they've set a new precedence or something. Can this be piggybacked beyond this point?

So live local could apply, well, live local does apply to any commercial property.

Correct, but now that this has been set a mile from downtown, can it go a mile in the other direction? No.

There is a specific paragraph in the state statute that this does not set the highest property height. It's not a new benchmark? No.

Okay.

Kevin, maybe it's already in the site, and I've seen several of these, but can you send us the... These are obviously public and out there. Send all of us these. The quick math, and I just looked up St. Lucie County annual median income, $75,149. 120% is $90,000 and change, 30%. ABOUT $27,000 INTO 12 MONTHS IS $2,255 A MONTH RENT.

I THINK THERE'S A TABLE THERE. YOU NEED TO GO TO THE STATE HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM TABLE WHICH WILL GIVE YOU, IT'S A BREAKDOWN OF THE RENT PER BEDROOM. So that is the criteria that sets that table out. However, there are different rentals and I don't think it's that low. So let me try and pull that up if you could allow me that.

Don't want that. And the last slide, there's a lot of numbers. Is the 3,075,000 square feet, is that the total units of 1,063? Does it also have the hotel rooms or is that all inclusive?

It's all the floor space, I believe. So it's the hotel space, it's the restaurants and the residential. As I say, I've been informed that there are two hotels going in there.

I was going to say, from what I read, they're going to be a convention center in there as well?

Yes. Yes. Oh, yeah. Rent limits 2025. So these are the tables they release every year. I think it's around April each year. All the metropolitan MSAs. We will have one for St. Lucie somewhere. St. Lucie. Let me pull that up. So you can see that number of persons, it's set by income limit by number of persons. So you can only earn up to a certain amount. And then the rent limit by number of bedrooms is set. So it's not very easy to get to see all of this at the same time.

So whichever is lower. Yeah.

So at 120%, let's take an example of a two-bedroom unit occupied by two or three people. So if you had three people in there, they would be limited to an income limit of 102,000 per annum. which is well above what you would think appropriate for St. Lucie. And a number of bedrooms, if you had two bedrooms at 120%, that's $2,559 per month, maximum rent. 80% of four peers can live in those.

Yeah. Yeah.

And what I had was 2023 numbers. That's why it's 75. And on the bottom left in the St. Lucie box, the median is 89.3. So that's why the numbers, my quick math was 23 and Kevin's is 25. Yeah.

You've used the right methodology.

Does that sound affordable? Does that sound like the intent of the law?

It's a very good question. I think the sliding scale of the concept on affordability is going to be, you know, it's a moving target county to county. And again, you know, my concerns with this are less about the legislation globally. I think it's clear what the intent of the legislation is, and it's not unneeded to address a lot of the issues that we've been seeing in the state of Florida. My concern over this specific application is really just on the location. And for me, the greatest thing, the greatest concern is the density I mean, that's just an incredible volume increase of people, traffic needs, services, and everything to come into that area. And I mean, without this legislation, I don't think anybody on this board or the commission, I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I find it hard to believe that any of us would be like, yeah, green light, go. without a lot of concerns over that. So, you know, and not just because we don't want people to build big things in Fort Pierce. They just, they have to work. They have to work. We live here, right? That's, we just, we want, I don't care if people build big buildings and add hotels and add amenities. And, you know, I don't care if our population increases. I just, everything has to work. So I'll just, I'm, I'm, I really want to make sure that you're continuing to bring these to us and keep us updated on the TRC's progress through this and what they're finding and what they're seeing and what they're recommending so that at least the public through those reports has an opportunity to stay kind of updated on how this progresses.

Once it goes through a technical review, well, it's public knowledge now, it's public information. All those reviews will become public information. I will be updating the planning board monthly, bringing forward, and that would include maybe a packet of the technical review committee comments and where this is for informational use only. And as I say, staff will be reviewing this against the code. And that is our limitation.

So with this now out there, should we start to look back into the downtown code and then look at designations and codes that are there and curtail it to potentially forecast what could be coming?

and or make changes to know it could be coming that's say they've already thought of that and it it the the legislation puts in place whatever zoning was in place at the time of adoption of the live local correct but if one of these goes into play it might not mean that there's not another one that's going to come out no but you Whatever zoning you have now, you can't, even if you said, well, this is the reason why this occurred here is because of these certain zoning allowances. So even if you went and amended those zoning allowances, so maybe they wouldn't get the height, the state has said, you're too late. You would have to go back to whatever was in place in 2023.

So it's not even just when the application goes in, it's when that legislation was adopted. Correct. We're frozen at those parameters.

It's designed to avoid municipalities and counties taking proactive adjustments to code to you know negate these type of developments I would also be concerned that you know the city would be considering downgrading the potential for downtown development because of these type of, we're supposed to be really encouraging downtown development. And I think one of the consequences of, one of the reasons behind this type of code coming forward from the state is because this type of development is not permitted in the appropriate locations. And there's a lot of difficulty getting through the process to get this type of development where it should be. or if there's a place for this type of development. So one of the consequences of having a code that is disjointed and is difficult to meet for typical downtown developments, and you can see the issues that the, for instance, the King's Landing development, have we seen any major development within the downtown? And we have to really look and say, well, why is that not occurring? And a lot of it is we don't have the code in place to allow this sort of development to go into the right place. It's something that we're facing. And if we are under real planning, of how we should be planning the city is encouraging development in the downtown to have that activity down here and not on the outskirts of the city. So a lot of, I would say most municipalities are fearing this because of the impact it would have on these peripheral locations.

so the entire time of their build is regularly within the 2023 timeline or if you bring things if you do amendments to your district do if they go in for revision or things do they have to come up to that no it's whatever whatever whatever

Whatever the zoning regulations, we've not really amended any of our baseline zoning regulations for the city. We've done definition amendments. We've done where certain uses are allowed and not allowed. This overrides all of that, providing it's in a zoning district which falls into live local. Then the uses... providing it's a mixed use, providing they have 40% affordable rental properties. In essence, a developer could propose whatever fit on that property based on the sum of the existing zoning. The sum of the existing zoning is negated by the allowances. but we do have the essential pieces as the chair has already spoken about the traffic impact. There are other impacts that we would need to see resolved through the code. It still needs to meet engineering, stormwater. I think we would be, I know we would be looking at how school district would work with this.

Capacity for emergency services.

All of the same things that we do with the site plan right now. Fire, all that sort of stuff.

I mean, and, you know, we've... I think that's a, you know, a very important thing to look at specifically. We've just been through this whole ordeal in the past year with the police department. And, you know, my observation and my time in the board is that, you know, and it's improved now, but that, you know, we've seen a lot of applications come through with very little input or, you know, review from know on the impact emergency services and uh in my in my opinion not a aggressive enough kind of statement of how these developments impact the you know pd's ability to to to fulfill their obligation and and and do the job that we need them to do um and i'm i'm encouraged now with what we've gone through in the last year that in looking at potential applications like this that will do a much better job of understanding what those needs are and how they're going to be impacted, making sure that we are prepared. And again, I'm just going to go on the record, I'm not a I personally do not have an objection to development. But my greatest concern is that we are still making sure that everything works. And my fear with this legislation is that it's going to allow development that is going to cause fundamental breakdown of our infrastructure and to be able to operate as a city and as neighbors well the way we should without having to put an undue burden on the city to fill in those gaps and fix those problems retroactively. So anyway, are there any other questions?

Any other discussion on this? Quick, what's the timeline on decommissioning that water treatment plant as far as this development? How does that look? Because I can't imagine staying in that community.

That is in process. I'll get, for my next update, I'll get a real update from FPUA. But the dates that I am aware of, mid-2026, for most of the decommissioning of that, the new process, wastewater treatment plant in the West is under construction now. And I think that was the initial timeline was set at around mid-2026. I'll get an update from FPUA to see how that's working.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you for the report. Look forward to hearing from you again next month. At this time, there's any general comments from the board?

I think the only thing I'll say back to this first transition, I'll put it that way, Again, I think we've said that, but the intent of the legislation, I believe, was to produce affordable housing. Affordable housing. And I'm not so sure what I'm seeing is if that's the intent.

The applicant will have to justify that. We're set criteria by the state. They will need to justify that they meet that criteria. Whether that criteria is appropriate or not, we can't get into. We will just, if they beat that, then we have to approve it or move forward with it.

Well, we have our local state representatives, and this may not be the first that came out of that legislation, but seeing this type of project, housing project, again, does it really, really match what the intent of the legislation was? And I have to believe that all over the state, all 67 counties, does it really, really meet what we're trying to accomplish?

So 2023, right, was the adoption and then amended last year?

It was enacted, yes.

So I know you're very busy, but in preparation for next month or possibly a subsequent report, I would be very curious to hear of any other developments under the Live Local Act that have been brought forth in the state that you're aware of to see how things are getting done. Just a little bit of research for context I think would be helpful for us. That's all I have. If there's nothing else, I think we can adjourn for today. Thank you all. Thank you.