Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Call to order the planning board meeting, Monday, 06/09/2025. If you would all please stand for the pledge of allegiance. Thank you. Friendly reminder to everyone in the audience, please silence your cell phones. And let's do the roll call, please.

Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Clemons? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Carter? Present. Mr. Whiting?

Present.

Mr. Edwards? Chairman Kreisel?

Present. Did Mr. Edwards call in?

Mr. Edwards stated he would be in attendance today.

Okay. We will look out for him to slide in as we get moving forward here. We will move on to item five, approval of the minutes from our May 12 meeting. Any discussion?

Yes. I have one change and it was under board comments. And it was next it was the second reference point, Alicia. It was mister Whiting said he is not sure Causeway Cove met the intent of the state's affordable housing Live Local Act.

Alright. Correction noted. At this time, if there's no other discussion, I will entertain a motion.

I move for approval with the correction. Second.

We have a motion of approval with correction by Ms. Clemens, second by Mr. Johnson. Please call the roll.

Mr. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Carter? Yes. Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Clemens? Yes. Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. All right. Moving on to item six. This board also performs duties as the local planning agency. We have before us item 6A. Mr. Freeman, you have the presentation.

Yes. Thank you, Chair. Planning Board. Have Kev Freeman, Planning Director here.

I'm going to interrupt for a second. Just for

the record, Mr. Edwards entered the meeting.

Thank Thank you.

I had my head down there. So this application relates to an area of property for parcels in particular adjacent to Moores Creek. I'll give you the summary first. So in in April 2023, the city of Fort Pierce, the Fort Pierce redevelopment agency, and Saint Lucie County entered into a local interlocal agreement to collaboratively develop a number of plots on Avenue D between 7th And 8th Street, between Avenue D and Avenue C. And subsequent to that, they set out the responsibilities in doing that.

That led to a request for proposals that was out there. So we did have a bidder who won that. And as part of that proposal was to use that property for affordable housing in respect of the Fort Pierce redevelopment agency's ideas for a model block plan. So the application today, we have two things in one. We have a future land use map amendment and also a zoning reclassification.

Now the purpose of the zoning land use map amendment and zoning reclassification is to enable the properties to be, classed as commercial so they could use the live local act in developing these properties. Unusually, in terms of the live local application here, the city and the county and the redevelopment agency have overall control over what gets built there. So even though they're allowed to use the parameters of the live local in terms of the density and the height and so forth, the intent of the city of Fort Pierce Fort Pierce redevelopment agency, Saint Lucie County, all are landowners in this, and they have the ultimate, veto, if you like, on whatever is proposed on this property. The RFP did propose a development, a mixed use of some small commercial, I believe, veterans housing, and some apartments. But that's still being worked on, and it's not part of this application.

And that will be brought back to the planning board, even though it's a live local application, to get some planning board comments on that. So we have four parcels, as I say. Here are the four parcels. They are all at the moment within Saint Lucie County ownership, and they're all designated residential medium future land use and a zoning of r four. And the proposal here is to amend those to become commercial future land use and commercial zoning.

And you can see that the site that is subject to the RFP actually extends northwards and includes the property here, the properties within the Morse Creek area, and the properties both to the east and west east and west of Browns Court. We're still awaiting the final site plan proposal, which is to be approved by the three parties involved. And but you can see most of the property within this block is already designated as commercial. We have a church in the middle of all this, and I believe that the church has been approached to become part of the solution of the development of this property. You know, future land use, primarily commercial, some open space, and which we're not changing, and the institutional.

So it's a fairly simple request. It's asking the planning board to move the proposed small scale amendment of the future land use map forward as the local planning agency. And not only that, but to look for a rezoning approval to the city commission, both with a recommendation of approval. And I will be needing two separate motions on one on the future land use and one on the rezoning. Thank you, Jeff.

Thank you, mister Freeman. Alright. Let's start off with any questions from the board for staff.

I have one.

I know you said this will be under the governing of the planning board in the city of Fort Pierce, but what do we have in place to mandate that they stay within those guidelines as opposed to going to the live local?

They can go to the live local. They do not have control over the property. The city, Saint Lucie County, and the redevelopment agency have control over the property, so they will be determining what gets approved on this on this site. So it's not like we have elsewhere in the city where a developer has control over the property and utilizes the live local to max out the development. That's not the intent, and it's not going to be possible with this property.

All right. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, normally at this time we would invite the applicant to come forward. Don't A different I going to say I think we've pretty much already heard that. But I will open up the floor to the public. If there are any members of the public at this time that wish to speak or comment on this item 6A, do so now.

Seeing no one, I will send it back to the board for any additional questions, comments, concerns. And I I would only comment that this is, you know, largely a a housekeeping item, somewhat the the county being the property owner for the four parcels in question. Just looking to align the zoning with the other properties along with the tri agency group. I think this is a fairly easy decision for us to move forward with. If there are no other comments, we can move on to motions. But please be reminded, we do need two separate motions, one for the future land use and one for the zoning.

I move for approval for the future land use.

Second. We have a motion to recommend approval in the future land use change by Ms. Clemens, second by Ms. Carter. Please call the roll.

Ms. Carter? Yes. Mr. Whiting? Yes. Mr. Edwards? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Clemons? Yes. Mr. Johnson? Yes. Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. And on the zoning Atlas map amendment, do we have a motion?

I move for approval for the zoning atlas map amendment.

Second.

For zoning, we have a motion to recommend approval by Ms. Clemens, second by Ms. Carter. Please call the roll.

Mr. Whiting? Yes. Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Clemens? Yes. Mr. Johnson?

Yes.

Ms. Carter? Yes. Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. We will move on to new business. Up first we have item 7A, Tall Pines. Mr. Gilmore has the presentation.

Good afternoon, chairman and planning board. Before you, we have an annexation, for the subject property located at 314 South Erie Drive, which exists of two parcels, 1433 Dash 210 Dash 0003 Dash 000 Dash 9 And 1433 Dash 310 Dash 0002 Dash 000 Dash 9. The applicant's representatives are Raquel Samaru and Jared Purser of WGI Incorporated. Agent, Rodney Jarvis, Gallagher and Kennedy. Owner, Jonathan mold Mauldin of Granite Tall Pines LLC.

The two parcels are seeking annexation, and the proposed future land use designation is RL, residential low density, with the zoning classification of r one single family low density. The current taxable value is approximately 10,600,000.0. This is an aerial view of the subject site. The parcels in purple consist of the city of Fort Pierce. The parcels in the kind of light red are Saint Lucie Village. And the parcels highlighted in yellow are the Tall Pines two parcels.

Okay.

Okay. And also, it's approximately 41.63 plus or minus acres. Okay. The current zoning is RH five, r m RMH five for Saint Lucie County, which is five dwelling units per acre. And the current future land use is r m medium medium residential.

The proposed future land use is r l, low density. At first, the zoning will be r one single family, low density. However, the applicant also has a plan development application, which you which is the next agenda item. Okay. This is the existing future land use, which is RM residential medium.

The proposed is RL, low density residential. Maximum build out potential for this site, currently under the Saint Lucie County future land use, they could do a maximum of 374 units With the city of Fort Pierce's relative low density residential, maximum density of 6.5, there's a decrease of a 104 units. All affected departments have reviewed the annexation with regards to consistency with established ordinances and requirements of the city code and comprehensive plan. Staff is recommending that planning board recommend approval of the proposed annexation. It is consistent with section one twenty five dash three one three six of the city code and comp plan and does not affect firstly affect the health, safety, convenience, general welfare.

Alternative actions of the planning board are recommend approval with changes or recommend disapproval.

Thank you. Thank you, mister Gilmore. Questions for staff? I have a few. Looking at the comprehensive plan in the packet we received listing a number of objectives about annexations.

Item three, whether the annexation would eliminate an unincorporated island or could be expanded to eliminate an unincorporated island. I I don't see anything about this annexation that would address item three. Don't we don't we have we don't see an unincorporated island or or an what what's the word that we use?

Enclave. Enclave. Enclave. Yeah.

Yep. That would be resolved Mhmm. By this annexation. Also, four, whether the annexation would eliminate an irregularity or irregularities in the city's boundaries, there thereby improving service delivery. Again, this doesn't this annexation does not appear to address that or accomplish that in any meaningful way. We still have quite a bit of issues to the south

Mhmm.

That

that are not addressed in dealing with the city's boundaries as you can clearly see from the map. I guess it wasn't really a question, just more of a clarification that I was interpreting these correctly.

Chair? Yes. Yes, I think you are reading those correctly. I think the issue the larger issue in the city is we we don't have a consolidated annexation strategy or have set out clearly what the future city limits will be. And that has caused this patchwork sort of result in properties.

And you can see the properties to the south of this being probably the best example in the city, where this patchwork has been enabled by current policies and connections to utilities and so forth. The larger question and the reason why staff looked at this and said, okay. Ultimately, does the city boundaries extend further than this? Does it does it go to a point where the city will be looking to go even further? I can't tell you that that's the case.

Mhmm. Because we don't have that strategy in hand. There is a a discussion being scheduled regarding that through the city manager's office. And in fact, I'll be meeting at the end of this month to discuss that process in more depth and actually how the city goes around about setting out those boundaries and where do those lines end. So I can't say that I have that consolidated from a staff point of view, and I think your reading of the comprehensive plan as it stands is valid.

Well, it would be my evaluation that in in the absence of a specific policy, the subjective nature of the review of this board and the commission are very vital. Is there a is there an FPUA service agreement existing for this property?

They do currently receive water wastewater from the city, from the FPUA.

Okay. What and was that done through a service agreement That would force annexation under

That is usually I'm not sure.

The case. I haven't we haven't seen the agreement, but that's usually the case. In order to receive those services, you have to sign an annexation agreement.

Understood. Yeah. Okay.

Any other questions for staff?

Are you thinking you would like to see some kind of condition of annexation in place? Well, think my

point of bringing up the FPUA service agreement was just that the service agreements are typically written such so that an unincorporated or outside the city property could receive FPA services in the agreement that if they ever if the conditions ever became correct with the development around them, they would essentially be forced to come into the city. Yes. But that would typically be because the neighbors all surrounding them have come into the city or other annexations creating an enclave, which we don't really have here. But not to say that that could not get created again in the future. And that may be very dependent on not only what we do here today, but also what happens with the further discussion with the city on a more comprehensive plan for defining the city's boundaries.

So I just was interested to see if there was a service agreement in place. But from my perspective, talking about annexations in general, I think, you know, my focus is on annexations within the more contiguous parts of the city, which are very largely unresolved. And pushing the boundaries to the North and to the South and to the West don't really help us solve that problem. And it is something that we've identified as a problem. City staff has identified that it's a problem, and it's something that we can and should address.

But in the meantime, I think we just need to be mindful of whether or not we're helping ourselves or making it more difficult to solve that problem in the future, which is why I wanted to bring it up. Any other discussion before we hear from the applicant? Hearing none, I would invite the applicant to come forward if they're here today and prepared to present. Please come to the podium, state your name, sign in.

Good afternoon. I'm Erin Lees with WGI. The PowerPoint presentation that I am presenting today covers both the master plan preliminary master plan and the annexation. Would you like to hear from staff relating that second application first? Or would you like me to proceed with my PowerPoint presentation first?

I think we can go ahead and hear your entire presentation as you've prepared it.

Yes, it was emailed. We're just waiting on Dennis. Thank you. Okay.

Oh, beautiful.

Okay, good afternoon. My name is Erin Lees with WGI, and I am representing the Tall Pines Annexation and Master Planned Development Zoning Applications. The subject site is located near 314 South Erie Drive in the St. Lucie County Municipality currently. The site is West Of US Highway 1, East Of North 25th Street, and South Of St. Lucie Boulevard. Subject site is outlined in red. The subject site is currently an RV park. The surrounding uses include single family homes to the South, vacant land, and a mobile home park to the East. Mobile homes, single family homes, and duplex homes to the North, and single family and duplex homes to the West.

Our application is requesting an annexation from St. Lucie County into the city of Fort Pierce, and a master plan development zoning application rezoning from residential Mobile Home five to planned development. The master PD zoning application includes a 33 lot recreational vehicle park and an additional eight manufactured homes on-site. A master plan development is a preliminary application that presents a conceptual proposal. A final plan development application is required to finalize the site plan.

The subject site received major site plan approval in 1990 and a minor site plan revision in 1994. The existing future land use within St. Lucie County is residential medium. The proposed future land use is low density residential within the city of Fort Pierce. The subject site is currently zoned residential mobile home five.

And the proposed zoning on the subject site is planned development within the city of Fort Pierce. The subject site abuts the city of Fort Pierce to the south. And we are within the FPUA service area. The application meets the Florida statutes and policies for annexation into the city of Fort Pierce. And this is for the voluntary annexation.

So, the site plan currently consists of approximately two fourteen manufactured homes, 40 unoccupied manufactured home lots, a clubhouse, and amenities on 41.38 acres. Access to the site is available off of Bryant Road on the west of the subject property and Cherokee Avenue on the north of the subject property. The proposed development includes the addition of 33 long term recreational vehicle spaces in the southeast corner of the site, replacing an existing outdoor storage area. Access to the RV park will exclusively be through the gated access from Bryant Road, which is over here. Eight additional manufactured homes are proposed in the center of the development, along with updating several amenities within the park, including a new pool and cabana building with restrooms and showers.

The existing pickleball and bocce courts are being relocated and reoriented to better serve the residents. So, as previously stated, the access to the RV park will be through this gated entrance on Bryant Road. The parking lot to the east of the entrance is proposed to be improved, as well as the addition of a pool and cabana. You can see here. Well, pickleball courts and bocce courts that are currently on-site will be relocated.

So here and here. Okay. Records request to St. Lucie County revealed there are no code enforcement violations on-site currently. So, the perimeter setback that we are providing is 20 feet from the front yard.

Code section 120 five-193B2A requires 25 feet. However, this is not a nonconformity. Setbacks at the perimeter of the development shall be determined by the City Commission. The minimum PD perimeter setback required by this section cannot be achieved due to exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape, and topographic conditions, or physical or environmental features uniquely affecting the subject area. So, we are not requesting any variances at this time.

The proposed master plan development is consistent with the master plan development criteria outlined in the code. We've done quite a bit of community outreach for this project. Four meetings with the residents were held, and several changes or conditions were identified as a result of these meetings, including RVs using the west gate only, using a keypad. A new access road and new sidewalk will be installed. An additional swimming pool and restrooms will be constructed.

Water sewer and power infrastructure will be upgraded over time. Bocce courts will be preserved, and the 55 age restriction will also be maintained. Several improvements to the site have already been done, including a new entrance sign, improving the fishing pier. An outdoor kitchen has been added for residents to enjoy. And the clubhouse interior was renovated, with further improvements forthcoming.

The pool deck was renovated with a fence added here. And the pickleball courts were resurfaced. Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation and master plan development zoning. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Questions for the applicant?

Go

ahead.

Miss Carter.

In regards to that setback, you said that there were unique issues that caused that setback not to happen. Mhmm. What specifically are you referring to in your plan? Are you I can. General statement?

Let me go back here.

A lot of different

Nope, sorry. So, the perimeter setback was set at 20 feet and it's because of, and then because of the unique shape of the property, we're not just able to extend it to the 25 feet the way that it is now.

Is it just too narrow and not enough space?

Correct.

And this is in reference to the minimum setback for each individual unit on the property?

No, this is the perimeter setback. Yes.

Understood.

Yes. I noticed that when you had your meeting with your residents, it was in 2023, which was two years ago. Are you all having updated meetings? I'm sure your residents may have transitioned.

Absolutely. That's a word, you know?

Yes. I believe those four meetings were specific to the application that we're looking at. There is an HOA, and the property owners and the HOA do meet regularly as well and to discuss the potential annexation. So yes, there have been, in addition, meetings as well. Thank you.

How would you characterize the necessity for annexation into the city as it pertains to this site plan development?

The necessity? Yes. Sorry, I'm just trying to make sure everybody can hear me. I think it's twofold. I think we're also we're trying to be proactive. You know, the surrounding area is being annexed in. If you guys are looking to kind of fill the gaps and fill the holes, we're not going to be the furthest north. There's already properties to our west that are further north. So we want to make sure that we have kind of a say in how the annexation goes and be proactive in that regard. And annexing in allows us to add the recreational vehicle aspect to this property that will allow that recreational vehicle use on-site and also create some revenue that can help further enhance and improve this development.

So the recreational vehicle use is not permitted within the county jurisdiction?

At the current zoning and future land use, no.

Understood.

Are there any other elements of the site plan that are would otherwise be prohibited by the regulations set forth by the county?

That we're asking for? No. All

right. Any other questions for the applicant? Hearing none, I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All

right. At this time, we will open it up to public comment. If there's anybody

Chairman Kreisel, I believe we need to do the staff presentation for the plan development.

Well, we're technically still on item seven A, which is the annexation.

Oh, okay.

I think we're going to we'll deal with that first and then move on to staff's presentation if necessary for item 7B. But speaking about annexation specifically, item 7A is what we are on right now. I would open the podium to any members of the public that are here today who would like to speak on the annexation portion. If you would like to, come forward at this time. When you come to the podium, please state your name and sign in. They get two minutes? Three. Three. Three minutes.

My name is Stanley Sepeal, and I'm the president of top of Bedrock Top Pines HOA. Now on this, we went through this in December. And on the annexation, they say two parcels of land. And we brought up, they're showing three. Now on the Internet, when I looked up, they have an exhibit a which shows three parcels.

And on the map, it's on the Internet, it's show showing that third property, which is a duplex on Cherokee in Hugo. Which is it? Is it two or three? Next thing is on your plan, not that one. It's this one.

About the roads, your annexation, and it says, public works has no comments, but advisory. The city should consider taking over ownership and maintenance responsibilities for Cherokee and Seneca. Those rows Seneca is only 18 feet nine inches wide. And you won't be bringing motor coaches down there, motor homes, and their whatnot. Me with my trailer fifth wheel in my truck, which is an f three fifty, from mirror to mirror is nine feet wide.

So if I got nine feet and nine feet, that's 18. That gives us nine inches clearance to pass each other. Ain't good. Another thing, there's another road involved in this. Bryant Road goes from Seneca to the back gate of the mobile home park. That's not mentioned on here. That road is torn up, and we got pictures of it showing the deep potholes. Who's gonna be responsible for that? And like I said, it says on the application for annexation, it only listed two properties, not three, that they have on their amendment. And that's about all I got to say for right now.

But I oh, yeah. Take that back. There is one other thing. Now the easement. We have a d here that South Florida Water Management got.

They have a 10 foot easement off the south property line going north For Inspire to put their road in to 16 feet wide and as mentioned on things that had to be done, engineering conditions of approval. It says provide a 10 foot landscape buffer as measured from the southern property line to the proposed 16 foot roadway. From the property line to the building that's along the canal, it's only 22 feet. You turn around, subtract 10, that leaves 12. And that's not counting the overhang on the roof.

So they can't put a road there, in our opinion. Another thing, they're supposed to give the dimensions of the parking stalls and excess aisles. Now there is a easement coming off the creek where and I don't what it is because I haven't been able to find it. But I know there is one. And they can't put a road there or whatever. And that's the other two things I had. And that's it. Thank you for hearing me. Thank you very much.

Anyone else? Please come forward.

My name is Mike Befalka. I'm a resident of Tall Pines. Thank you for seeing us. We appreciate it. I have a handout. There's a lot of ordinances that are not being followed. I also have a cover page that all the residents are against, overwhelmingly, are against sanitation. Haven't talked to all of them, but everyone I talked to. On the front page is a cover page. The second page is actually the ordinances that don't match up to the city of Fort Pierce.

On the cover page, I basically have who is Inspire, who is their parent company Apollo. On Better Business Bureau, they're both f rated. That's 13 ratings lower. On Better Business Bureau, why choose accredited company? Hallmark of trust and reliability.

I know I only have two minutes, but there's Better Business Bureau ratings. 13 of them, they're the lowest, both companies. On your thing, it basically also says I hear the R1, RL. They're way off of that. Actually, on WGI's documents. Have courts are going to be moved. Now 50% are going be removed. We have six. Their plans, which is the last page on there, have three. I mean, we are a low to very low income.

What benefits do we get? If you see on the second page, and you can obviously leave it up for you to read the first page. And I know my time is limited. But I pointed out every single ordinance and a question. It's not that, hey, you know what? If you're going to annex this, what are you going do about these items that are required by you? Are they going to be grandfathered in? Are they not? I mean, for one thing, just like Mr. Stanley, the president of the HOA said, is we need that 10 foot buffer.

Your engineering department said 10 foot buffer. I have a picture of it here. The Seneca Roadway also is 18.9 feet and recommended by the county of Fort Pierce, also have a picture, 18.9 feet measured, that they recommend and advise that the city of Fort Pierce takes over this road. This is not an ordinance. Two Way Street should be 30, not 18.9 feet like Mr.

Our HOA president said also. Now if you see that second page, it's all the ordinances and the numbers. And there's questions on it. I don't expect you to answer them right now. But I'd love for you to look at them and see what our concerns are. There's a lot of them. I mean garbage, right now, they have no plan. So where is the garbage going to be? City of Port Pierce says, if you're individual for electric and individual for water, which we are, we're metered for both. Individual pickup.

Our roads can handle it. Our roads, my road, matter of fact, that I live on is 18 feet. And they just patched it up. Think I there's other people have pictures of the puddles after they patched it on the road. There's a lot of improvements we need. This, I know your plan, your document actually states, well, we can get some, could get some taxes from this. A $10,000,000 property. Or it could be a drain for you guys too. This could cost you a lot of money. Because if they're saying everybody's coming through Seneca Avenue, it's 18.9, there's no sidewalks.

There's kids. There are deaf kids signs. There are weight limits of no trucks over 6,000 pounds. I'm sorry. RVs can be up to 30,000 pounds. Now it's going to be regular on that street.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll continue with public comment, but just a reminder to everyone, silence your devices if you could.

My name is Peter Macomber. I'm the director of the HOA of Tall Pines. Good to see everybody, and here we are again. And as you see, our position hasn't changed. My analogy for this project is like trying to put a size ten foot in a nine and a half shoe. It's impractical. It's gonna be tight and it's gonna hurt. Now, in her previous presentation, all the improvements that WGI showed, they haven't been done recently. Those have already been I've been there two years. They've already been there.

There's nothing really new and they've done very little new. Some of the proposed stuff is not even done, you know, in the works yet. So my personal experience as a two year resident in Tall Pines, my experience with Inspire has been this, as well as mister Jarvis' behavior in the last meeting has been disrespectful, belligerent, and these people are unscrupulous to do business with. We they're we they own us. So we either like it or leave.

That's kind of their attitude about it. You have a choice and that and that choice would require some compassion and some conscience. Tall Pines has been in existence for about forty six years. It's a very quiet, peaceful, and comfortable place. Mostly all the people that come down, fall in love with and say, oh, we'd love to live here. Many of them, including myself, do. We have people who are second generation. We have people who have been there twenty years, thirty years. My neighbor who just passed away was forty two years there. Over time, it's established a really comfortable culture and lifestyle.

We have excuse me a second. We have like I said, people of all we have second generation people living there. We're just asking for, you know, we're we're all retired people. Income varies. And this is the place we've chosen to retire and spend the rest of our lives.

This project can totally destroy that culture and that lifestyle. You might as well dig me a hole in the backyard and plant me or I'll have to move, which financially I can't do, so I'm kinda trapped with this. We just ask that you give us all folks a break and vote with compassion and vote your conscience. This is just not a practical fit for us. If you ever come down to see it and kinda look at the scope, you'll see it's just awkward at best. And it's not gonna be it's gonna make our life pretty much miserable. That's what we would have for the rest of our life. Thank you very much and I appreciate your your considerations here.

Thank you very much, sir.

Hello. I will make this short and sweet. My name is Alan Kinney. I'm a two year resident at Tall Vines. My wife and I decided to move in Tall Vines because of what we saw. We looked extensively all up and down in Saint Lucie, all the the different Spanish lakes that they have. You name a community, we spent time. We spent over three months traveling from Pennsylvania down here. We chose Tall Pines because of the way we felt when we were there. We liked the way the people talked to us. We liked the home layout, the security we felt. Personally, me and my wife, we're not against this RV park. Progress is progress. It happens. We just don't wanna lose quality.

Our biggest concern on loss of quality is the Fort Pierce Police Department. As you all know, in May, that scathing report was issued. The city commissioner turned around and said, we've got serious problems here. We need to address it. A week or so later, the police chief resigned. Now they've got a new one in. That's what my concern is. My concern is I'm afraid that the city of Fort Pierce can't handle these this new piece of property being brought in. I'm afraid my services, my whole lifestyle is going down. Everything I own is invested in that property. Please do the right thing and keep my value where it needs to be. Thank you.

Sir, please make sure you sign in before you leave. I wanna make sure we have your name

on record.

Thank you.

Some photographs of the park and everything distributed to you folks.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Wall. I'm a resident of Charles Pines. And my main emphasis is that I don't believe based on a number of numerous factors that you would want to partner with the company that owns our park. And I have plenty of examples to show you.

They cannot maintain their current park where we live. It is in disrepair. We have light switches in our bathrooms, which you put your hand through, but when you tell them to fix it, they tape it with Scotch tape. We have holes in our roads after it's been repaired, supposedly. We have huge puddles like lakes after it rains.

We have a variety of unmanaged pieces of the property and no response or a put off, which ends up nothing happening. I have some handouts that you could if you would pass them along for each of you. When you enter our park, there's a lovely sign that says, Your Dream Home Awaits.

Please make sure you stay close to the microphone. Thank you.

There's a sign at the beginning of our park that says, Your dream home awaits. And I want to show you some pictures that they use for their marketing and what the reality is. They're marketing heavy, online and print. And what you'll see is something that looks quite beautiful. The reality is that they have put in trailers that look like construction trailers that were put in backwards. They've since fixed, but they were put in backwards. They have fake windows in the front. They just put windows with shutters, but they're fake. They're plastic. You can see the vapor.

It doesn't go all the way through. So where fire personnel might go is a crapshoot. So they may be trying to break into an actual house as opposed to a window.

Here,

by law in the mobile home parks, we're supposed to have covered carports. We're supposed to have sheds attached. You'll see the pictures that I provided for the most recent installs of 10 homes do not have any of those, and they said that they're not going to get them. We have a total occupancy load of two fifty eight people for our current pool. It's a beautiful pool.

With the current population and an additional what they're proposing for additional homes as well as an RV camper park, that would be seven twenty one people. We have a limit of 22 or 27 depending on which sign you look at per pool. That leaves about 600 people out of being able to go into the pool. What they're recommending is not even sufficient for what we have, never mind an additional 33 units. I have included a picture of our kitchen which has a sign that says please do not shut the kitchen lights off because they're broken and we can't turn them off because then we can't turn them back on.

So their maintenance is very poor. This has been going on for I don't know how long, over a year at least, as far as I know. We have a kitchen that is very, very small to accommodate seven twenty one people if everybody's there. Is kind of ridiculous when you look at it, that we could actually be expected to prepare in a very small area with poor lighting.

I need you to conclude your comments at this time. Time is up. Thank you very much. We appreciate your time and appreciate the visual aids. It's very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Afternoon. Karen Ellsworth, 428 East Erie Dye, Fort Pierce. I only have one very short thing to add because they when they were talking about the entrance to get into the park on the back way via Seneca, I when I come back up North 25th to go back home after shopping, I often behind a school bus on Saint Lucie. And so I decide always to take a shortcut. If you go down Seneca, if you take a ride down Seneca on the weekend, you cannot get through.

I have a small car. I can just barely fit because they have tons of company. They have their parties, and it's always busy. That can happen at any time after work. I mean, are duplexes with lots of people having cars and parking there. And I thought it was just really important to bring that up. And I would suggest driving down that road because you would not be able to get those big vehicles nor the work trucks coming in to do the labor, which no one else has mentioned. How many times construction trucks are gonna come in to do everything that they need to do. Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

My name is Christy Wicks. I'm the president of the social club. I didn't think I was gonna get involved in HOA because a lot of stuff ticks me off. I wanna paint my door red. I'm gonna paint it red. So I'm not an HOA person. But when I moved in there, the manager told me that they would not be building. They would not be doing anything. And I live, my view is the big grass circle where they're planning on putting eight trailers, Macomb trailers. And when I moved in, I was informed by the people who owned it before and before that there was a hurricane, and they took all the houses, they dug a hole, and they buried them in there, and covered it with dirt.

Well, they're rotting now, and so the land is like this. You are opening up a can of worms, have no idea what you're getting into. My little grandson's out there playing sometimes. I have to look because it's a dip. So good luck to that. And every time I'm I've been there three years. They told me the rent was not gonna raise. I was there one month it raised, and it's raised every year. And now they're having problems with back taxes that don't involve me, but they're gonna try to nail us for their back tax stuff. They're crooked.

So I I'm I'm not happy there. And the sad thing is the Canadians are so scared that they're selling their houses for a third or a fourth of what their value is. So our like us that moved there, think we're gonna live there the rest of our lives, I just lost $40,000. So I'm kinda in a bind there, stuck there with the prices going up. And I moved into the county on purpose. I've lived in cities and counties and I don't want to pay the extra taxes for the school districts and all the stuff that you all are gonna have to do. So that's my 2¢.

Thank you.

I'm Dan Teroni. I'm a resident of Tall Pines. One thing that should be considered is the impact on law enforcement. The Fort Pierce Police Department right now is currently understaffed. It's under great pressure at the moment. They they project they would need to hire 2.9 more officers. Let's call it three, at thousands of dollars cost to train and hire them, probably over 200,000 to satisfy the needs of the annexation. They're already under stress right now, and this is gonna create more for them. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Chris Cono. I'm one of those second generation folks at Tall Pines. My parents lived there for twenty five years. And, upon their passing, I took their home and moved in and made it my own. And, I agree with this gentleman behind me.

For all these years, people were attracted to Tall Pines because of the nice, quiet community that it was, the friendly community that it was. Even the, you know, the winter folks that come down, it's community. The gentleman that said he doesn't have a problem with the RV park, I think I can say that he's the exception and not the rule. I think that's the biggest thing probably for a lot of folks is the RV park. Like the gentleman behind me said, we like our nice quiet community.

And that's what attracted people there and that's what's going to keep people there. And so I respectfully request that you deny the request for annexation. And I thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Sue Davidson. I've been a resident at Tall Pines for thirteen years.

Finally made it up here.

Former property manager at one point.

Good. Good.

And, yes, one concern, like one lady said about the eight additional homes they wanna put in the center. I think when they what they did when they constructed originally constructed the park, they dug holes and cut down trees, pine trees, and everything else. And then all that is now rotting more and more. So the ground is sinking in that area. Yeah, big mistake if they would have put eight homes

for

sure. The other thing is the trash. Question is if it's a complaint with a Fort Pierce with Fort Pierce regulations, trash pickup at individual homes is what they're telling us. Can our roads that were supposedly improved? In 2024.

Looks like they could actually handle the wear and tear of the garbage trucks. I don't think so. Our drainage right now in the road is you go over it with a car, and you almost feel like it's gonna cave in in some places. Never mind the big, big puddles with the supposed improvements they did. So a lot of things we think you people should consider for sure.

Thank you very much.

The soil testing was done different parts of the park with the trees decomposing and everything. Soil testing was done, not by inspired by a former owner. Thank you. Thank you.

Helen Rich Schlicki. Third, second generation. I've lived in the park twenty three years and I love it there. But all that noise from this RV park is not good. And it was stated that the entrance for the RV vehicles would be from the West Gate. The West Gate enters into our park where there are many residents. So I don't understand where that came from. How are they going to get in if they're not coming in from another way? And actually, I'm one of the ones, we don't want this. It's just going to be a nightmare.

And then as quiet as it is, and we've got those RV parks, you know, these people are partying. They're partying on vacation. We're living here, trying to enjoy ourselves. And that's it. Thank you.

Hi. I'm Sharon Minster. I've lived at the park for three years. I, like the others, every single year, the rent is raised. Pickleball Court, as the lady said in the beginning, it is not repaired. Fools in the parking lot. There are three huge piles of asphalt out and back. They could fix it. They'd refuse. They won't even listen to any of the residents. So that's it. Thank you.

All right. You've already come to the podium to speak, so if there's anybody else that would like to come forward, please do so. In the interest of time, you can come forward. I just would like to point out, if you feel like your concerns have been voiced by a previous comment, you can choose to abstain. You're the public, we're here to listen to you, so we'll be here as long as it takes. But just in the interest of moving everything along. And to the applicant, I will point out that once everybody is done, I will give you the podium for a time to mount any rebuttals that you'd pushed out.

Hi. My name is Michael Gway. I'm bringing a little bit of experience. I I can understand you. I was superintendent of mechanical services at a university in Connecticut, Quinnipiac University, for sixteen years. I know mechanical. I've mentioned to the owners, the workers, when you see settling around a storm hole, it means there's a leak on the ground and the ground is washing away. It's been like that for three years and it's getting worse. Alright? That's just one item.

The other thing is they haven't their idea of the beautiful picture of the pool, they removed about half the lounge chairs that we used to be able to use and they put them in a storage closet, Alright? They've removed about half the tables and chairs that we used to have because it made it look more open. If you look good at the pictures of that beautiful grill area, you'll see locks on them. Alright? We can't use them at our leisure.

That's the type of things they're putting up. Like the lady said earlier, I would I couldn't believe when they put mobile homes in and the doorway was halfway down the driveway that they had poured. A car can't get by the stairs. So that means that a driveway that's supposed to park two cars has only got one. They drive around the grass to get the other. And there's a rule, no driving on the grass. Alright? But now, planning is very poor. Very, very poor. Now the other thing I'd like to mention is if they didn't follow the county rules, do you really think they're going to follow city rules?

Consider that because they have not followed county rules. They tried to put up a new shed. They poured the cement for the new shed. They didn't get a permit for it. The county shut them down. Alright? They installed three trailers too close to the road. Finally, the county said, Hey, move them back. We tell them as they're doing it, Guys, you can't do that. Just throw a line of sight on the homes and see how far back they're supposed to be. It's not rocket science. They do what they want because they have big dollars. Yes, they'll bring dollars to the to the city. I can see that too. But they're also gonna bring you big problems because they don't care.

They're big bucks. They're owned by a corporation, and they'll do what they want. That's my thing. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. All right. If there's no one else from the public wishing to speak on the annexation issue, I would invite the applicant to come back up. Excuse me. Oh, I'm sorry.

Hi, my name is Susan Dulik. I just wanted to hand out the pictures of the repairs that they did on the roads.

That

probably upped our price for everything. And the water quality, I believe, is poor. I had it tested and the water quality is bad. I have to look into that further. I mentioned that there's no progress done. I put water in my dish pan. It's brown. Nobody's mentioned that yet. So there is a lot of work that needs to be done that they aren't doing. I wouldn't want to give them any more to try to take care of if they can't even take care of what they're already, what they have.

And the people that they have and the nice community that they have, they need to take good care of it. And they're not. And that is all I have to say. Thank you.

Is there anybody else from the public that wishes to speak?

I'd like to see a

All right, thank you.

Hello there. My name is Janice Scales. I've been here at Tall Pines for about three years. A lot of us in the park have dogs. And we have nowhere to bring the dogs except for in the back where they want to put the RV parks. So if they put the RV park there, all of us that have dogs, they say, okay walk them on the sidewalks. Where are they? We don't have any. Okay? And in the summertime we all know the cement gets very, very hot. So now with all the RVs and all the traffic, we'll be walking our dogs in the roads basically. I know, you know, it doesn't matter to maybe a lot of people, but the dogs are our babies. Know, we're all older now. We don't really have some of us don't have kids. We have dogs.

So you know my concern is what do we do with our animals after that? There is no space for dogs. Know they say, oh go around the corner. You have like maybe a little patch of grass there. So that's my only concern is will we be walking our dogs with the trailer parks and letting them poop all over the place? Sorry about that. And I do have waterfront property now because of the way they fix the streets.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Is that

everyone? They

don't listen to us, so you're stuck.

How about this? If there's anybody else that intends to come up and speak after this gentleman, why don't you make your way to the front row now, just

so

I know where we're at?

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Brian Nolan. I am a five year resident at Tall Pines. I scoped that place out for a while before I bought, and I came up with a sound decision that this was a nice place to live, okay? I thought I was moving into a neighborhood and they want to turn it into a resort. Two different things. One thing that I'd like to say is, we've been waiting for a front gate. They wanted to gated us. Well, that's been going on for a little while.

Okay, there's a couple of survey flags, but that's old history by now. Secondly, we have a sign that is out on St. Lucie Boulevard that is basically turned into an eyesore, okay? With the sun damage and just weather in general, it doesn't reflect who we are as a neighborhood, okay? And like someone else mentioned before, we are a neighborhood.

Everybody knows each other, okay? If we don't go to the events in the clubhouse, we meet each other at the pool, okay? Or we meet each other walking dogs or on our golf carts. Our whole lifestyle is going to change if this happens, okay? And it's not something that I was led to believe would happen in this. You know, like I said, I scoped it out, I talked to people and yeah, it's a lot of empty promises and

a

lot of future headaches because they just don't stick to their word, basically, you know. And that's it. Most everybody covered. Anything else I wanted to say, especially about the eight units in the center? Not a good idea. We're not even allowed to walk on that, okay? Because they're afraid somebody's going to fall in. But it's true, we're not allowed to walk on that. And they want to put eight homes on that? Not good, not good.

But anyway, thank you for your time. Okay, I love Fort Pierce. I've been coming here. My parents were snowbirds starting back in 1999. So I've seen all the improvements over the years over on the jetty and everything else in town that's going on between the Peacock Arts District.

And you're just not, right, blending or mixing with who's there. Work with us, you know. Like get the dollar signs out of your head and think about who's there, okay. And like they said, they pulled in like 10 inferior trailers, okay? People can't even park in their driveway because like, I believe it was Mike said, so now there's people up parking on the streets. Our streets aren't wide enough for people to park on. So anyway, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay. I believe we are done with the public comment. At this time I would invite the applicant to come forward. Please remember to be civil and quiet during this presentation time. The board will consider all comments in our discussion afterwards. Thank you.

Thank you for letting me speak again. Just in response to some of the comments from the residents, and also something to begin that I wanted to start out with. Under the St. Lucie County future land use, the way that it is currently right now, if the parcel were to remain in Saint Lucie County, the future land use does allow up to nine dwelling units per acre. The zoning is currently set at five, but potentially within Saint Lucie County, this development could rezone up to nine dwelling units per acre, which would allow for roughly three sixty nine units in this development.

So they're taking what is nine dwelling units per acre by rezoning and annexing into the city of Fort Pierce, that number goes down to 6.5 dwelling units per acre. So for the residents that are talking about an increased number, we're certainly not looking at only the dollar signs. We're not looking at maxing out this site to the absolute maximum that we could be. And there are a lot of factors that contribute to the overall finances of a development and the decisions that go into an annexation. So, and just to reiterate, someone said that we're not following the rules in the county.

We made call to the St. Lucie County Code Enforcement. There are no code enforcement violations on this property. That was as of three ish weeks ago. And as far as the RVs not being able to fit going down Bryant, not being able to fit in the back of the property, My understanding is that RVs are currently being stored in that open storage space now by the residents that are on-site.

So this would simply be taking RV storage and turning it into a long term RV park. We're looking at a minimum of three month stay with an average stay of six to twelve months. So, these are not people that are coming in on the way to Key West to party. These are not somebody that's going to come in for one night or three nights or five nights in and out, and it's not going to be a constant stream of RVs. You are looking for people that are staying a minimum of three months, an average of six to twelve months.

Dollars 64,000 in improvements are allocated for this development this year, including streetlights, improvements to the clubhouse and to the pool bathrooms. So the developer is not, again, not looking at dollar signs. They're looking at ways that they can improve the development. It can't be all done overnight, but they are making changes to the development after listening to feedback through the HOA meetings to ensure that they're meeting the needs of the residents on-site. Somebody mentioned that they're putting up RV park, or RV, I'm sorry, homes without carports and sheds, which is against the law.

Carports and sheds are not required by law, so they're not breaking the law in that regard. As far as the eight units in the middle, all of those units will have be fully permitted and meet code. So if there is something that's underground that is rotting, or if the land is uneven as we speak, that will be addressed during the permitting phase of each of these units. I think that was everything that I took notes on that I wanted to address. Were there any other questions from the Board that I'm happy to answer?

I do. Yes. Reviewing everything you've said either before or now, what are the current number of units?

Said Correct. It

Yep. I believe it's two forty current units. Let me just go to my page here. Sorry. Oh, I apologize. The site currently has two fourteen units with 40 unoccupied home lots.

So that's 40 open lots?

Correct. And that's an approximation.

So currently, if it was fully developed, I'm going say two fourteen plus 40.

Two fifty four.

Okay. Yep. The developer, has this been the same developer for years and years?

No, it was recently acquired. I believe it's been a couple of years.

How many?

I believe it's been two. Four, I apologize, four.

I missed the dollar number on the improvements.

Yep, it is 64,000 in improvements this year.

How much?

64.

Already done?

No. That's what's budgeted for the full year.

The HOA, I'm curious about just the structure that it sounds like the developer still is the developer, still controls or runs this thing. It has not been turned over to the owners.

It's not a condominium, sorry.

Never would be turned over.

Yeah. Hang on a second. Sir, we can't have comments from the audience because the mics won't pick them up and we won't have it on the record. So if you could please explain the structure of the HOA.

Of course. So the land is owned by Inspire, and then there's an HOA on top of that. So it's a collaboration between the homeowners and the landowner.

And the mention of Stanley had the mention of two parcels versus three parcels. Right on the top, the very first

Oh, yes, I apologize. So we're only looking to annex in the two parcels that we're speaking of now. We don't own that third parcel. So that might be a property appraiser error. I'd have to go I'd have to look. That's not something that we own. I believe it's a duplex lot. So we'd have to look at the Fort Pierce GIS to see why. I mean, property appraiser and GIS, unfortunately, is not 100% accurate.

Okay. Thanks.

You're welcome.

Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I apologize. I didn't sign in when I first was up here. Was a Yeah, little it's full.

Right. Well, while we're waiting for Alicia to get that going, thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Board, this is our time to discuss amongst ourselves in front of the public how we feel about all this. I would just, off the top, state that, you know, this does not appear to be too far removed from where we were in December when we heard this application come before us before. It was a pretty unanimous statement of representatives from the community that were asking us not to recommend annexation at that time. For the newer members, that issue was tabled essentially because it was in well, we were told the intention was that there would be further reconciliation between the developer and the residents to try and resolve some of the issues that we were hearing complaints of in December. I have my notes from that meeting, and I'm hearing a lot of the same complaints.

It does not sound like between the developer and the HOA, at least the representatives that are here today from the community, feel like most of those have been addressed, if at all. And just going back to the larger point about annexation, one thing that really stood out for me last time we were discussing this application was one of the residents asked us during their public comment why we annex properties, you know? And we didn't have an answer for I didn't have an answer for them. But, you know, I think it's important that we understand what our role is as a board in recommending these annexations. You know, not to sound callous, but, you know, we're not obligated to the residents of the county to really do anything for them.

We represent the city, and we need to make the best decision for the city. Irregardless of the unreconciled issues that we've heard today, I feel that there is not enough to be potentially gained for the city to embark on an annexation of this property. That's how I feel.

Mister chair, can I ask a question to staff? Absolutely. Is there projections on tax revenues for the city of Fort Pierce if this is annexed?

We just have the taxable value. Let me see.

I'm just trying to weigh that and and if you have any estimated cost of maintaining roads of improving it. Do do improvements need to be done?

If you'll recall, one of the comments that the county made is that they would advise the city, you know, to take ownership of the roadways. They're maintained at the moment by the county.

So you would

extrapolate from that that they don't want to be responsible for maintenance of these streets in the future because of the loads that will be placed on them. It's also part of this more larger scale discussion that I'm having with the city manager's office and ultimately with city commissioners about what are we doing in terms of annexation. This is within the FPUA service area. So the discussion is, do we annex to that area? Is there a policy that sets that out?

Is there a a policy that sets out certain criteria for properties to be annexed? And the burden on police, solid waste, other city services needs to be more fully taken into account. And I don't I don't know if we received any projections on future revenues. That is usually provided by applicants to aid their application.

So if this annex was approved and the planned development, would the city be responsible for improvements to the road financially?

At this point, no. But you can see from the county comments that if the city moved ahead with an annexation agreement wide widespread, that there would be a list of roadways that would be handed over to the city. And I would say at the moment, the city are not equipped to take that load of streets on. Yeah. Thank you.

Mr. Collins brings up a good point. I don't know to what extent we could compel applicants to provide the kind of analytical data financially as I mean, we see the taxable value of the property, but it's kind of a there's several steps in that process to go from that to understanding the value of the actual tax revenue to the city in any given year.

It can be done. I've seen it done elsewhere. And it can be requested of applicants to do that, to do a cost benefit analysis of how an an annexation would work with the city. We don't have that at the moment, and I'd like to see that done more. And then but I also would like to see some cost developed by the city of what it what it takes to service these.

We're getting at the moment sort of a preliminary estimate by the police department of what that means on their manpower. And we've seen that that, you know, they're saying with this being annexed, it could create demand for, you know, three officers based on population to officer ratios. And I you know, that would depend again on does that fall in the police department? Is there an arrangement with the sheriff's department? I don't know that. I don't know how the police Fort Pierce police handle that additional demand.

And since this is a a site that's already substantially developed, the imposition of impact fees, I imagine, would be very minimal with the site plan as described. Thank

you.

Mr. Chair. Yes. I I I'm just thinking of it from that point of investment point of view. You know, if you purchase something, how much are you paying for it? How much are you gonna get revenue from it? So it just seems that this isn't gonna equal out to a to a good deal for the city.

We don't know, I guess, is the question. Right.

Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.

Don't have enough information to make

that conclusion

Right.

Considering the utility authority, the police, the road maintenance, and trash and recycling. It's like we are in the same place as we were last time, and we haven't, like, moved forward as far as having that information at hand nor has, to me, this property manager had meetings with their residents either. Those are two concerning things that don't give me comfort or that doesn't make rational sense with all these outstanding items to give a positive recommendation, in my opinion.

Miss Clemons?

Well, I wasn't here for December meeting, so the feelings were a little different for me. But just listening to everything that has been said, I'm I'm still one of those people that weighs, as my local, I say, make it make sense. It's not balancing the sheets. We are taking on a lot more burden as far as the city is concerned and as far as cost is concerned, and we're not gonna get that back in return when you look at just the taxes. There may be may be other benefits, but I'm not seeing it.

This particular property only utilizes FPUA sewer and water. They're not using the garbage. They're not utilizing electricity. So that's very limited in that aspect as well. As well as we also don't have a say in those aspects as well. You know, they brought the comment about the garbage cans and things like that. Only thing we have is the statute and the ordinance as to what we can regulate in in that particular area. So we can't even help the residents that's there. So we can't even help you in that aspect. So I'm leaning towards not feeling very comfortable with what's being presented as far as taking on the burden for the city of Fort Pierce.

Excuse me.

Could you

all speak a little louder?

It's very difficult for us to hear out here in some

of our grandparents here.

I'm sorry. Thank you.

Alright. How about this side of the desk? Mister Edwards, any comments?

Like everyone else has stated besides miss Clemons, you know, the ones that were that were here in December, when we heard this the first time, seems like the same thing. We're kinda in the same same spot we were before. You know, we try to give the applicant a chance to go back and correct some of these issues, but HOA and the developer don't seem to be on the same page for whatever reason. So I'm kinda in the same spot as before.

Mister Johnson? You know, we're gonna have to talk about you opening up a little bit. Now you're new.

You want repetition.

Mr. Whiting.

I am extremely uncomfortable. And it gets back to I think we've this room has and it may have only been June but this is the first time this room is full And I counted 15 speakers and we had a representative, but we didn't have the owners step forward four years to make improvements. And I wanted to hear it was a really, really new developer and I'm not hearing that. Between the is there any benefit to the city? Two parcels versus three parcels or we're not sure of that.

Mean, whole thing, I'm really, really uncomfortable. Thank you. Alright.

Well, if there's no other discussion at this time, I will entertain a motion.

I recommend disapproval.

I'll second.

We have a motion to recommend disapproval by Ms. Carter, second by Mr. Collins. Please call the roll.

Mr. Edwards? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Ms. Clemons?

Yes.

Mr. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Carter? Yes. Mr. Whiting? Yes. Chairman Kreisel?

Yes. And Alicia, can you please I said Ms. Carter. It was Ms. Clemens, I believe. That made the motion?

Made the motion, yes.

Okay. Thanks. All right.

So, since we have recommended disapproval for item 7A, I believe that makes item 7B a moot point.

That is correct, yes. Okay.

Well, concludes our portion of the meeting discussing tall pines. You're all welcome to stay. It's a very exciting process. But I thank you all for your time today. And we will hold for a moment and kind of let the traffic clear out here before we move on.

I'm just glad that other guy wasn't here. I don't yeah. I don't know if he I remember him. Mhmm.

Yeah. End.

It goes to the commission following this. We'll go

to the commission.

Yeah. As a public meeting, that will be a public meeting. They are not obligated to follow our recommendation. So I recommend that you have some representation for

the community. I'm on this process. Yes.

If you speak with Alicia, she may be able to tell you what agenda it's

gonna have.

The city took it because

it's probably going in. I

don't know the date at this time. If you wanna check the city website under agenda and minutes for city commission, it would be the soonest it would be would be July. Probably the second meeting in July. Yes. Or maybe August.

So I

don't know.

To be the actual city commit.

Thank you. Thank you.

We'll just wait a few moments for miss Clements to return before we continue. Alright. We are ready.

Test. What

was that? Okay. We

are

ready to move on. We have item seven c, Symphony Lakes PD.

We're ready. Thank you, chair.

I'm not a ventriloquist, so it doesn't

help me.

So today, this item is looking at a final site plan in respect to the Symphony Lakes planned development. Those of you who are here may recall the previous application on this property as a whole as a, in effect, a master site plan. It came in at a time when the city was transitioning to the master PD, but the previous plan development was done as a conceptual under the old code. So this application is proposing a final PD site plan. It's at four three zero zero Salvage Road.

The applicant is calling on hearing, and on behalf of the property owners of that property, there are three parcel IDs involved, 24322110006, 00032432, 21100050006, and 243234300010004. So the master PD site plan proposed a number of pods. Those were revised through city commission, and a master site plan was approved. Of that, pod one consists of about 88 acres. And in this rendition, it's proposing 286 single family residential units at a 3.2 dwelling unit per acre density.

The master plan as a whole requires a minimum of 20% open space. In part one, this final PD plan of part one gives us 43% as open space. Now here is the master site plan that was approved in 06/03/2024. You can see a number of pods. The largest residential pod, including access to Salvits, was approved as one of those phases.

The remaining phases are multi family residential and some light industrial type uses and self storage. We have a Canal to the North and Selwit to the West, Christensen to the East, and Divine to the South. At the public hearings, the master site plan, there were a lot of discussion with the residential property owners on Christensen, and the plan was amended to take account of those concerns, which now the plan is laid out to incur only an emergency access from Christensen and remove all access, other access that was proposed during the initial master site plan. So the site location is shown here. The city limits are shown shaded.

And you can see again the jigsaw. That is the city of Fort Pierce. Now we have the aerial, and at the moment the property is vacant. There are residential single family on Christensen. The canal is separates the heavy industrial from the property by 85 feet.

To the west is Energy Lane. That's the new relocated wastewater treatment plant from the city that's being developed right now. And some light and medium and heavy industrial going on, proposed on Energy Lane. The existing zoning is planned development. We have a mix of both city and county zonings around the property.

Primarily to the north and west are industrial and heavy industrial uses, and primarily to the East and south are agricultural zoning and residential. The future land use in April 20 in April 2024, the future land use mixed use development was adopted, and that's the property entirely within mixed use development. And so Symphony Lakes final planned development site plan for Pod 1 is a reflection of what was approved during the master PD site plan originally. So it's really kept in entirety the layout that was proposed at that point, a access only for emergency use of Christiansen, the majority and main access coming from a roadway through the other proposed pods from Solvitz into Pod 1. So the overall site data for Pod 1286 dwelling units, 3.2 dwelling units per acre.

We have required 20% open space is 17.61 acres. We saw that that is far exceeded in the proposed master plan right now. I'll go through the landscape plan, which because it's such a large site, there are 10 slides looking at landscape plan. You can see on most of the roadways, we have one side of the roadway lined with street trees. The other side of the roadway incorporates a sidewalk and some sort of low access areas into the into the lots.

There's a conservation easement that's incorporated, which incorporates 3.8 acres and will be retained. The buffers have their own unique design for this PD, which the applicant, I think, will demonstrate in more detail in their presentation, that there is a raised berm with shrubs, understory planting, and trees incorporated along those boundaries to give a better visual shield. A lot of attention, we requested a lot of attention to be made on Christchurchson Road, in terms of where the proposed development interacts with existing residential to the east. And again, a similar sort of layout, street trees, sidewalk, and berms around the perimeter. The number of lakes included throughout the development site and recreational tract to the west of Pod 1.

Now the landscape buffers, as described in the landscape plan, which the staff have really encouraged a density to be achieved in these landscape buffers. And again, the applicant, I think, can explain these in more detail. But in essence, we encouraged a raised berm with landscaping on both sides of the berm, trees, understory, which really fill out that usual visual openness of a buffer when we usually just see shrubs and trees. And then there's that visual unimpaired view at that understory level. So we've encouraged the applicant to incorporate that within their buffers.

There's a traffic generation. So you can see the the daily trips are fairly high for this amount of development in this location, that is being, assessed by the county at the moment. And you'll see from, I do have a number of different recommendations at the end of this, which, it'll be up to the planning board of how they want to handle some outstanding information that staff are still awaiting. So my first recommendation, and there's more than one, is that I looked through the application and that we didn't have information, full information or confirmation. We know it's being reviewed by Saint Lucie Public Works, but we don't have that information back with us at the moment.

We also understand that there are roadway improvements to solve. It's being discussed with the county. We don't have full details of that at the moment. I'd like confirmation of the design of this buffer to Christianson Road, confirmation of the requirements of the school district, and just a general confirmation that the conditions of the conceptual PD are being met. A number of conditions, when you look through the application, you could say they have been met, but I'd like the applicant to actually confirm those, that they've understood and they have complied with those.

Now the alternative for the planning board is to move approval with the following outstanding issues being met prior to presentation to city commission. So that's addressing all those issues that I've just spoken about. And that would be getting input from St. Lucie County, just confirmation, something in writing that they have reviewed the traffic impact analysis and they approve the findings. And then that the roadway improvements on salvage actually align with those findings.

I think that's one of the most important pieces of this application that is defined both within the plan development, but also in the development agreement. And I did receive today a revised development agreement from the applicant, which incorporates these issues as we've defined. So I'm more happy now with what the development agreement is looking at. I'd like confirmation from the solid waste service. It's it's been difficult in getting solid waste public works department to have time to get on this and actually make a comment on that.

So we are actually we're chasing that. And also looking at the requirements of the city engineering department, they've they've been met or addressed. Now those those outstanding issues would need to be submitted to staff in a format that actually answers those questions. And then together with those, we would add the following conditions to the development agreement. And my understanding, well, I've seen the development agreement, and these are incorporated in the revised development agreement right now.

So I can let the applicant speak more to those, but essentially it's putting back on the applicant that they get these things, these issues in the alternative recommendation in with staff, with written approvals from all these agencies that go in the packet to city commission. If those don't are not supplied or are not addressed, then we will not be moving this to city commission. Having those two recommendations,

there

are another two that I could give you. So if you look at those and you might have additional alternative conditions that you want to apply, you could recommend approval, or you could deny it. So there are four different recommendations that staff are putting in front of you today to table it, to come back to the planning board with those items, to move it with approval with the condition of those items being provided prior to city commission, to approve it with additional alternative conditions, or to deny it.

Can you go back to the conditions page just for a minute so we can kind of hang the next one?

So the conditions. Yes,

your actual six conditions.

Yes. So bear in mind that the new final PD requirements involve a development agreement. And within that development agreement, there are many different factors that you would normally see as conditions to a PD. These are in addition to those. So not only will we all set out in that development agreement, the timeline, the life of the PD, what happens at various points when the roadway improvements are undertaken.

So one of the issues that staff would be really putting at the forefront is that all the the roadway improvements, the traffic improvements, the school district improvements, the public works circulation agreements, all those are done before a first final certificate of occupation was issued to any, vertical construction on part one. So it's essential that those things get in place before the first home is occupied in part one.

So if we were to do this with the agreement that they would complete these items before they went to the commissioner, It also leaves the fact that we don't have a second look at what we are proving.

And that is that's a complication. Yes.

Okay.

Thank you. I think that's where option one comes in.

Right. I understand. Yeah.

Just want

to make sure I'm clear as to what I'm giving up and what I'm receiving. All

right.

In the page before, had, beyond these conditions, you had confirmations?

Yes. We would. There may be more confirm confirmations that the planning board might want to add to this. But if we were going to go from this planning board to the city commission, we would want these things addressed to be able to recommend what the planning board recommends. If they're not supplied or they're outstanding, then, you know, the comments that the camp planning board make get reported to the city commission.

I want and staff would want to say these were demanded by the planning board and we have settled those as we've come forward to you to the city commission. That's the only way I could see that that would be acceptable to city commission.

So to the members of the board, what I would say is if when you look through look at A through F here, if there's anything that is not currently submitted that is on that list that you would foresee wanting to make comment on, then that would be we would need option one. If we go with option two, and moving it forward with a recommendation without seeing this stuff, then we just kind of agree that we will waive our rights to make any additional comments on on this stuff here. That being said, I think I am prepared to kind of preemptively comment on some of these now, but just not specifically on what they would present in writing to us. Any other questions for staff?

I don't have a question, but

I do have a comment. I mean, previously, I've always been a stickler about the school board district and designation of the bus stop inside these larger developments. And if we approve this today with the with it it you know, going straight to the city commissioner with them agreeing that they're gonna take care of it, they're not addressing my concern because I don't know what they're gonna decide to do. And we don't have miss Fogarty here to to respond from the school board today as well. So currently, I'm not comfortable with that decision based on just that one particular item.

I also have discomfort about some of the others because I'm not aware of what they're presenting. So I can't make a comment as to whether or I agree or disagree. I can't say it's for the benefit of the city of Fort Pierce because it's just a to me, it looks like a blank check, And I don't write blank checks.

Thank

you. Any other questions, comments for

staff?

I've said before and I'll say it again. I do not like a lot of open items, a lot of conditional considerations. This feels like there's a whole lot of work that ought to be done that it ought to already be completed and presented to us before we move forward.

Well, I'm taking the temperature of the board here and I'm wondering if in the interest of time we might want to move directly to a motion for option one just to save the applicant time to come up and present if they're just going to have to come back here and do it again. Is that I mean, I don't want to cut off, you know, I don't want to jump procedure. You know, we'll allow them to come up if they want to. But right now it sounds like the board is interested in getting this stuff resolved in a way that we will see it again and make comments. So in the interest of keeping procedure, I will allow the applicant to come forward.

I would like to

see their presentations so that we can see what they have, at least. I don't, like I said, I don't like to make prejudgments based on ambiguous items.

I appreciate that. Thank you. I just clicked alright. Alright. Good afternoon, Planning and Zoning Board Commissioners, Chair Kreisel. My name is Leah Heinzelman with Kotler and Hearing here on behalf of the applicant, Dawn Stevenson, for our project Symphony Lakes. I want to start off by thanking Kev for his presentation and working with us to bring this site plan before you today. And hopefully answer a lot of the questions you all might have.

There we go.

I'd like to highlight our great team. Again, Dawn Stevenson as the applicant, Kotler and Herring as the planners and landscape architects, Mills Short and Associates as our civil engineers, McKenzie Engineering and Planning as our traffic engineers, and Advanced Restoration Ecology as our environmental consultants. Our team is here this afternoon to answer any of these extra questions you all may have. So as Kev mentioned, the PD for this mixed use development was approved by the city commissioners on 06/03/2024. Leading up to the approval was extensive collaboration with the city staff, and a community meeting was held in August '23 to discuss the project with its neighbors.

Today, we come before you with the proposed site plan for phase one that adheres to the design criteria approved on June 3. As shown earlier by staff, Symphony Lakes is located East Of I 95 in the Turnpike, North Of Midway Road, and off Selvitz And Divine Road where development will thrive within the city. The 122 acre site is located within the urban service boundary, and the approved PD plan allows for lows at low density residential, high density residential, and light industrial. Today, we'll be focusing on phase one, which encompasses the low density residential portion of the site. Here we can see a closer look of the site boundary with the main access into the site off Selvitz Road.

To the North are Precast Specialties and Mashmeyer Concrete, Concrete Plants and Services, as well as other industrial uses, office buildings, and specialized retailers. To the East, there are low density residences and a little further than these residences is the Fort Pierce Central High School. To the South, there are also low density residences and agricultural uses such as the Plant Haven Nursery. Other uses to the South include Wavecrest Youth Shelter and the Dogs and Cats Forever Animal Shelter. And then to the West is a future transportation hub site for Saint Lucie County and the existing FPMA thermal power plant.

Since the approval of the PD, the future land use designation is MXD allowing the uses previously mentioned. And again, the zoning has also changed to be PD matching what was approved last year on June 3. Here's a look at the phasing for the 122 acre property. As mentioned, the first portion of the site plan we're bringing forward is phase one, including the main entry into Symphony Lakes along with low density residential, the construction of five lakes, an amenity center, and existing conservation area. Phases two, three, and four will come forward at a later date outlined within the development agreement, including the high density multifamily and the light industrial design.

Taking a look at the site, the phase one area is roughly 88 acres with elongated gated entry off Selvitz Road lined with lush vegetation with a large 80 foot right of way giving room for canopy growth over the years. The entry is for both phase one and the future multifamily development. This plan locates 286 single family residences at 3.2 dwelling units an acre and provides walkability and multiple green spaces for the neighborhood. This phase provides five lakes, one of which is viewed as you enter into the community along with a large rec track and amenity center. All residential lots are either located along one of the 25 foot enhanced vegetated buffers adjacent to one of the large lakes provided or abutting the existing conservation area to the north of the property.

The future homes will be designated with various architectural elements to avoid monotonous view as you drive through each home as you drive through, and each home will have their own landscape features in the front and rear yards. Trees will line the side of the street with the large landscape lawn to ensure proper root growth while also providing a lush canopy for shade as residents walk the loops of sidewalks in their new community. We'll be coordinating with solid waste surfaces to ensure they have no issues with the street design, and the streets will be lined with lights located at proper intervals to ensure safety and visibility at late hours. To give further clarity on the large 25 foot buffers surrounding the site, we've provided section views. The first one reflects the buffer along Christensen Road, which is with a roughly 20 foot wide street within a 50 foot right of way.

The berm is two to three feet in height, including large canopy trees with palms, understory trees, a large shrub hedge on top of the berm with swaths of ground cover vegetation to enhance the view. There is no entry onto Christensen Road other than EMS which will be gated with an ox box. To give a natural view for the residents across the street, the berm is heavily landscaped to screen from their new neighbors at Symphony Lakes. The next section reflects the berm and design from the back of homes to Divine Road along the southern portion of the site. Not only is there a 25 foot heavily buffered berm, but there is a 55 foot FPL easement to give extra room from the roadway.

Lastly, here's a section view of the northern residents along the canal. Again, there's a 25 foot heavily buffered landscape that is adjacent to a 20 foot service drive giving roughly 80 feet overall with the canal from the adjacent user. One of the items we wanted to confirm before moving to the city commissioners with the site plan is the location for the school bus pickup. Ideally, the stop will be before the gates allowing the bus ease as it turns back onto Selvitz Road. A seating area will be provided and a pedestrian path will loop to the amenity parking for parents who wish to drop their kids off and pick them up from the bus.

This hopefully addresses the location of where that we plan to have and will coordinate with the school district moving forward. Per our development order, off-site improvements will be made to Selvitz Road. Our civil team has been coordinating with St. Lucie County and prior to receiving a permit, the full set of construction drawings will be reviewed, which will be submitted this week with a turnaround review time of around three weeks. This will include the turn lanes, medians, improved sidewalks, and any other infrastructure updates that need to be made for this site plan phase.

Our traffic team has also been coordinating with the county and updating the full traffic report per their comments to ensure we are meeting their requirements. Both of these items will be finalized and approved by the county prior to moving forward at City Commission. The development agreement has already been updated as Kev mentioned prior to this meeting and we will continue to work with staff as necessary to finalize these administrative documents. We don't have an issue finally finalizing anything and providing them to Kev as we move forward. The requested phase one site plan not only aligns with the approved future land use and approved zoning, but is consistent with the surrounding uses to give Fort Pierce a new neighborhood with residents invested in the city's growth.

We appreciate staff support as we move forward with the conditions to present the site plan to the city commissioners. This development has been in the works since 2005 and Don is excited to continue the forward motion with the site plan. The whole team is here to provide updates on the communication with the county for the conditions that Kev has brought forward. What we've brought before you today will not be changing and we'll be addressing what has already been addressed and submitted to the county with their approval. So I thank you for your time and listening. And as I mentioned, the team is here to take any questions you may have if you want to ask.

Thank you. All right. Questions for the applicant?

Actually, my questions are not for the applicant. For me, they're more about making sure that what she's presented is taken care of prior to it going to the commissioner. Because there's this break between what's actually put inside of the planning department, what you're presenting, and what's moving forward. So I wanna make sure we get that kinda cleared up for me. Kev? Right.

So whatever the applicant puts in writing, puts on plan, or presents to the planning board will be presented to the city commission. So what we've heard today is that a school bus stop will be provided at the turn entrance, which looks to meet the radii that the school district would normally put in place. Together with a bus stop, the applicant has just committed to putting parking for residents to pick up and drop off. So from a staff point of view, that would be sufficient, providing it was put on a site plan and diagrammed. And we had the confirmation from the school district.

Unfortunately, they're not here today. That that would be acceptable. Yeah.

And I anticipate they will want to comment on, obviously, the radius, the distance from selvits. You know, operationally, their concern is safety, but also time. So, you know, those are all things that I want to make sure are considered for them. And, you know, just for the applicant's sake, this is a concern that seems to be a little higher on the priority list for this board than necessarily the school board. Not that we feel that they're derelict, but they have their basic minimum requirements.

We like to see things, you know, maybe a little bit more, you know, accessible from where they would set their bare minimums in regards to school bus drop off and pick up for these types of planned developments.

So if I can, is it alright if Absolutely. So Tyson Waters from the law firm of Fox McCluskey representing the applicant. And I appreciate the concerns and comments of both Mr. Freeman as well as this board to make sure that when we leave here, you know what you're getting. And I think there's a difference between confirmation and conditions. Staff's presented both. They're looking for confirmation from some other governmental agencies that we've checked the boxes and I think you heard staff say those are pending with those agencies. And then you've also heard conditions that staff wants to be part of our development agreement. As it relates to those conditions, we've agreed with them. We accepted those conditions and we've already started to work with Mr.

Freeman on updating the development agreement to incorporate his comments. So that leaves really the confirmation. And it's the confirmation that we're waiting on that for this board doesn't really change what either staff or our presentation would be now or in the future. It's simply saying that yes, these agencies have confirmed that we've checked these boxes. As it relates to the bus stop, think that's a very valid concern.

I think as part of our presentation that mister Freeman's noted is now incorporated into what will move forward to the the city commission is the proposed location of a bus stop, which is the appropriate location right around that gate, so make sure everyone's protected and there's an easy turnaround for the bus stop, safety for the kids, easy place for the parents to drop off. Again, another condition that I believe we've addressed here today that is now of record that I think this board, based on these representations, should feel comfortable moving forward to the city commission that that's what they're gonna hear. So now what we're really waiting waiting on is the is the confirmation from those other agencies that, yes, what we've submitted is appropriate and they've checked the boxes. If they don't check the boxes, we're not moving forward. But once staff gets that confirmation, then that allows us to move forward with the representations we made today that these are the conditions that staff has asked, that this board has asked, that we're agreeing with on the record.

And so with that, it's been a very long process for that. I think what's outstanding is not something that this board would normally consider. Again, just these confirmations that staff looks toward before before moving forward. So with that, I'd ask that you approve staff's ultimate record alternate recommendation that has the a through e or f as the confirmations together with those development conditions that, again, we're putting on record that we agree with and we've already started to work into our development agreement. Again, as Leah noted, you've got a lot of representatives here to answer any questions, but in the essence of time, we'd ask that you you move forward this with that alternate recommendation to the city commission to allow us to progress this project. Thank you very much. Thank you.

I have one question just about the site plan in general. If you could go back to your slide where you had the section views of the buffers and looking at the north buffer.

North buffer.

So I remember when you guys were here before, the east property line was kind of the hot topic dealing with the neighbors on Christianson, which you've obviously settled that. You've completely redone your site plan. I still have some concerns about your northern property line, just considering the use of your neighbors to the north. And I want to, you know and I and I I wanna understand, you know, how comfortable you guys are in this plan with that north buffer considering the heavy industrial use going on to the north as it would potentially impact your residents, specifically at the northern end of your development.

Sure, and we appreciate that. And really, again, it is an 85 foot canal between ourselves and that existing use to the north. And the 25 foot buffer, again, is a two to three foot berm along with heavily vegetated. A lot of times, trees and natural environment actually do a better job of screening for sound and sight than a wall would or something else. So as far as the distance, really, the houses are still about 20 to 25 foot back from the roadway.

There's a large space between, you know, their edge of the house and the backyard to where that 25 foot buffer is. So we really feel that this is a quality and a a nice enough space to really screen from that use while also providing vegetation and a lovely backyard for those future residents.

What type of outreach have you had with the concrete operations? Have you talked to them? Do they know about your development? I I just I I foresee this being a communication between neighbors that it this is very atypical. We don't typically go from that heavy industrial use right to residential without any kind of commercial buffer. So I think I I just foresee the interface between these two uses having a lot of conversations in the future. So, I mean, you engaged that property owner? Are they aware of your development? Have you guys had communications with them yet?

We've had communications when the first PD came forward. So there has been a conversation with them. And, you know, I'll look to Don. I don't believe there was any negative discussion between the northern property owner. So, you know, I I don't think they have any issue with what's coming in on on our side.

I guess I have a question. In addition to that, you have the new wastewater management system being placed to the West. Correct? I mean, are you concerned with that? I mean, you have heavy industrial sort of north, waste management to the West. You know, a lot of noise, debris, construction clouds, possible smells to your west. I mean, why did you choose this site to be a be such a heavily residential community? It's not seem to me ideal, for a place for residents to live. But

The design of this site and the the vision for it, as I mentioned, has been since 2005 before some of the other areas have popped up. It is a transition from that very low density as you can tell to the east to that industrial. As far as a single family homes, they still have quite a large gap between Selvitz Road and where the entrance is over there. As far as the multifamily, we'll be providing an extra extremely heavy buffer. Again, it it might be a lot taller also than the one that's provided around the other sides for the single family. So it's not that we haven't thought about it. It's just, you know, we're looking at other ways to mitigate some of those issues as well.

Firstly, you just wanna move forward because you've had this since 2005 even though there's other considerations that have come up since then.

There are. And that's why we've we've had many iterations of this design as well. It's not just this is what was designed back then and we're moving forward with it. So we have had thoughtful design process with thinking about other uses that are adjacent to our site.

Also, just a question about the plan and just general. We discussed, like, school bus turnarounds. Are there, like is there a clubhouse? Is there dog parks? Are there playgrounds in this large community?

So there's right here is the future amenity rec site. So it's a large, I believe, around five acre area for an amenity clubhouse that'll come at a later date, as well as pedestrian pathways. As I mentioned, there's that existing conservation area that can be utilized too for pedestrian access and access around the other lakes too. So there's a lot of green space in this site for the residents.

And to clarify, the amenity build out is not included in Pod 1, right?

It's not. It'll come at it'll be within Pod 1. It'll just come at a later date. We don't have the full design yet of what the look and everything will be for that.

And then my last comment, I think, as miss Clemens has stated, like,

the point of the board

is to approve things, to see things, to discuss them together as a board. And and having all these, we will do them. I'm I'm sure it's a lot of good faith to have them potentially be done. But then what is the point of us Us meeting as a board then to discuss these things for this plan development site and for additional, you know, future ones as well. Like, that's the point one of the points of us coming together as a board to discuss. And if we don't do that, then why are we here?

Any other comments, questions for the applicant?

I have a question. I don't know if it's for the applicant or Kevin. There was an emphasis or an option c on your items was an emphasis on the buffer on Christianson. Was it there as much compared to Divine because there's a few more residents? Or why specifically that roadway?

Christensen became the biggest talking point during the the master development. And that is really and this this site plan went through a number of iterations. There was a an idea that there would be a another pod which ran down the length of Christiansen with larger scale residential units that would be accessed from Christiansen. So we had a large representation made from residents on Christiansen. And so the site plan was approved in the preliminary form that you see now with the basis that that would be a shielded buffer down that roadway.

The buffers otherwise around the site to Divine. The major issue with Divine at that time was the access, like vehicles coming down Divine and accessing Christians from that point. But now we see the only reason that vehicles would come down that location would be for emergency services. So that the issue of Divine and Christiansen with this plan has essentially been resolved. That's not to say that we shouldn't have buffers there, and the applicant has provided large buffers to help resolve those situations.

The buffer to the north, again, from the as I saw from the presentation, there's around 200 feet from the rear of the residential properties within this property to the precast concrete. Not related to this application, but we do have an application in for a re a new site plan for precast, where staff are discussing landscaping buffer between them and this development to the south. We're also discussing repositioning of their major activities to be more east sorry, or more west of their site. So moving away west and north. So moving away from that area where we have numerous complications with, you know, the adjacent property owners that we've had over the last few years complaining about activities there.

The and again, not related to this development, but we are talking about the noise, the dust, the activities, the hours of operation, which were not fully settled at that time that that precast came in, which we're now really enjoying a a good discussion with that applicant to resolve a lot of the issues that the city had been facing with this. In terms of this proposal, it's the buffer is what the city staff requested. We requested a berm. We requested a full variety of landscaping, especially as I mentioned in my presentation, the heights, the variation of heights within that buffer are essential to create that visual barrier. So way, I don't have any issue with that.

I just wanted clarification, and we see that in this presentation now of what that would be. We also saw in the presentation from the applicant exactly what they're talking about with the county in terms of roadway improvements on Salvage, which is what we're saying we would want to see that before this move to city commission. Accompanying that, we would want to see the county say, yes. Those are coming through us. We are signing off on them, and there's a separate agreement usually with that that city staff don't have any involvement with.

We get a comment from the county saying, yes. It meets our standards. We're working with the applicant. They're improving the roadway. And, really, that's what we get to see.

And that is incorporated into the development agreement that the applicant has to comply with. So a lot of these things would not normally be in your face as much as they are today because we would have been happy saying, okay. Behind the scenes, we have those agreements in place. It's unfortunate that the pressure that we're all under in terms of review timelines, we have difference of response timelines. And the county are under the same pressure as the city.

They use external consultants to do their reviews. We have our legal team doing our reviews. We have our all the different parties. And it's become very, very difficult to get these alignments all in place when we come forward, even though we've been working very hard on all of these things and know exactly what needs to be done. It's And then we're in the state statute timelines of how we move these things forward.

And I'd rather have these things discussed, even in the way that we're discussing them now, rather than fall out that timeline and get into an issue with applicants that we're not processing these in a timely fashion.

I guess that's my question. This seems like a rush to push this forward, because we don't typically see all these approvals that will happen in the future in good faith. So is there a timeline consideration that we're butting up against as far as having this approved? And if we're out and and, also, if we are waiting for those approvals, I mean, talking about a month until next, hopefully, next planning meeting for us to approve this, what it I guess the question is why? Why are you rushing to have this approved now versus a month of delay? Is there a reason for that?

I would say, behind me, have a tidal wave of applications. If I can, I don't want to be sitting on these on my desk? Each applicant is, quite rightly demanding that we move these things forward. I can't control external agencies. It's placing tremendous pressure on the planning department and planning staff to deal with the number of applications that we have on our desks at the moment.

So I understand that, but then are you setting a precedent for then that this is the way it will be in the future as far as all of these? It seems to be a a very thorough plan. It's like, this is, like, the beginning then of opening the doors and saying, oh, we're gonna do this in the future all the time. We did it once. Let's do it again and again and again and again.

Well, it's not staff's intent to do this. When we put something on the agenda, we know what's outstanding. As I say, I can't control the, other agencies' timeline, but we do it without everything crossed to say by the time it gets to the planning board, we would have this information. This has been an instance that we've not had the information brought forward to us between setting the date for the advertisement in the newspaper and coming forward to the planning board. Mhmm.

It's rare. It's happened today. I was I was writing these alternative conditions at 11:30 on Sunday evening.

And if I could just interject, I'm sorry, one more time. You know, we do, we go back to this issue. So again, we had master plan approval almost just a little over a year ago. So what we hear today is simply the final site plan for pod one, which allows us to move forward with the development of Pod 1. To answer some of your questions about these conditions and the good faith that we'll follow through, that's the purpose of the development agreement that we've worked with Kev on.

And we've he set forth additional conditions that he wants in there, we've agreed to those. So the conditions, the good faith, they're documented in this this mutual agreement between the city and the applicant that we will do these and we will do these by these dates, first CO, first building permit prior to the approval of this. And if we don't do it, we don't move forward. So we've addressed all of the comments that staff in front of you controls and can do. So I we've we've addressed I believe we've addressed growth management planning department's conditions and comments.

What we're simply waiting on is the confirmation, as mister Freeman said. There are other agencies we don't have control over, but all they simply do are behind the scenes where they say, yes. They've they've they've met our requirements. Staff puts it away in a file. It becomes part of the record, and that's it. It's not something that if you say, okay. Come back in a month and tell us you have the confirmation, any presentation changes. It's the same thing. Mister Freeman simply steps steps up there and says, yep. We received confirmation from these departments.

End of story. So what mister Freeman's done instead is if they have to satisfy my conditions, which we've done on the record, we've addressed those, And then those other agencies have to give that have to check off that box of we confirm they've met our requirements, and then we move forward with the city. That's it. We're simply waiting on confirmation now from other agencies that we don't control. We're doing our best to push them, but we're working with mister Freeman here to come in front of this board so we can continue to move this project along.

We're hoping we get it soon and we can be in front of the city commission as quickly as possible. But we're asking this board is to look at your staff here today and say, have have has the applicant met your conditions? And if that's a yes and all we're waiting on are these age other agencies' confirmations to move us forward, conditioned upon before we're standing in front of the city commission that we get the confirmation from those other agencies. That's all we're asking for as part of this approval process. So you're not gonna miss anything if the site plan has to change or we have to move things around.

We're gonna have to be back here because the plan's gonna change and we'll have to get your blessing for that. But what we're simply talking about are just these third party agencies' confirmation that everything's been submitted, check the box, file it away, and move forward. So with that, again, we'd ask that you proceed with staff's ultimate recommendation with those certifications, confirmations, and the conditions that we've agreed to and allow us to move forward with this to the city commission. Thank you.

Alright. Is are there any other questions for the applicant? Mhmm. Thank you very much.

I actually had one more in regards to the buffer that I was asking. Now the reason I was asking about Divine is because there's a kennel that backs right up to it. Has there been heavy consideration not only for that but for dogs and cats, which is just to the west of where that parcel is going to open up.

So let me go back to that buffer really quick here.

And I can kind of see it, but it's difficult on the plane that I'm looking at.

Sure. Hopefully, this gives you a better representation. There is 55 feet from the back of those lots to our 25 foot buffer where there will be a berm with another 24 feet roughly up to the swale where a Divine Road is. So there's a quite extensive buffer and area between the back of those houses to Divine and potentially where that new kennel is gonna be.

Are you talking about the you're talking about the animal shelter that's on Selvitz?

Well, no. There's actual the first parcel that is directly to the west of where Lot Number 25 Through 17 are is a dog kennel. I think it's called Divine Doggy Inn.

It's in that property there.

And then that's actually the next comment that I was gonna give. I don't necessarily know if I have to recuse myself because we sold this parcel to the applicant for the parcel on Divine And Christianson.

I don't

want it anymore.

It was twenty years ago. That's why I don't think it's necessarily rushed because this has been in fruition for twenty years.

Twenty years ago.

Right. But I think to Mr. Johnson's question is that that northern boundary there

Right here?

Well Is my Or sorry. Sorry. The the yes. That that boundary, I believe. That one and yeah. The

Sure. That is another 25 foot heavily buffered raised raised berm, so there will be screening.

Just making sure. I didn't know if the buffers are as much for noise or dust. Mhmm. I have a very good understanding of that area and they both are gonna be a contention.

We will have some some tall large trees over there.

I okay to vote on this. I'd It was twenty years ago.

So

The 18 acres that they bought on Christians And Vine was from my parents. Oh. And myself through the company.

Got it.

Do you have any interest in that property now?

No. It was literally forty years ago.

Is there any benefit to you or any of your relations to if this gets approved or denied?

Not at all.

There you go.

I at least wanted to be clear about it.

Check, check.

Okay. Transparency is appreciated. Okay. So as we go to our final round of discussion, Kev, if you could go back to your presentation, I think it would be helpful to look at your page of conditions and the outstanding items one more time because that seems to be the hot item left to discuss here.

Are we talking about the alternative?

Yeah. So on the next page, the conditions, I believe we've addressed those. The applicant has made it clear that they are accepting all of those conditions. I don't think we need any further discussion on that. If so, going back to your outstanding issues, we'll go through these one by one. Approval from St. Lucie County of the traffic impact analysis. So that is going to encompass both the roadway improvements agreed by this project, but also a review of the traffic impact, right?

So one is like a catch 22. One leads to the other. So whatever the traffic impact analysis comes out with determines, in effect, what sort of roadway improvements are required. Okay. So you saw from the applicant just now the improvements that they are proposing.

And I think there's a representative of the applicant here. But they are proposing to the county to address the issues that may be coming up through their analysis of their traffic impacts. So they've got turn lanes, additional lanes, all on Selvit. So I think the applicant can talk much cleanly.

Yeah. Why don't you go ahead and speak on this? Because this was really the only one for me on that list that I think was a sticking point because it is kind of a chasing a tail situation. So go ahead, state your name and sign in. If you could just speak a little bit about the traffic analysis and what potential impact could come from any county comments in response to that.

Great. Sean McKenzie with the McKenzie Engineering and Planning. I'm a professional engineer. The county requires a standardized methodology. It's used throughout the entire county, Fort Pierce, Fort St.

Lucie, and the city requires us to get approval of the county. So what we've done so far is we've submitted a, I guess now two different revisions to the county. They've had some relatively minor comments. They wanted to make sure we're looking at the industrial park that's coming in a little bit northwest of this property and make sure we look at all the improvements, but there are quite a bit of road improvements going on around here. You've got the new Midway Road widening, a new interchange to the turnpike, salvage to the north is getting widened, and then in front of our frontage we're proposing turn lanes in front of the site, which will help for safety to get cars out of the road, those left turn cars out of the road so the through cars can proceed through, and we essentially think that's currently the limit of the improvements that are really needed to support this neighborhood.

As each additional phase comes in, you talked we heard about the multifamily and potentially some industrial to the north, those will get evaluated separately to make sure that the infrastructure is in place that's needed to support those, you know, that development level. Does that make sense?

Yes. Okay. So, Kevin, back to the sorry. Did anybody else have any questions about traffic or the traffic engineer? So, Kev, could you go back to the outstanding items? Yep.

So I would say a and b go together, that the result of the traffic impact analysis determines what roadway improvements to solve it would be required. And those both lay with the Saint Lucie County. Usually, and without usually, any, dispute between the city or county, we accept what the county recommend with those. It is a county roadway. So we we saw with the, as I say, with the applicant's presentation that those additional lanes and lane movements are taken account.

And that's as a result of that discussion.

And for item c, we had the buffer wall elevations in the plan presentation. Yes. Well, we had the buffer elevations. Those buffer elevations do not include a wall. I

think they have a fence in there.

Okay. So you're just looking for a Yeah. Further clarification with the construction type I

just want to yeah. From the applicant, I just wanted to see about a section which they provided now in their presentation. And what we will be asking for is that to be detailed as part of the landscape plan that's taken to City Commission.

Okay. We've spoken a bit about item d. I think the applicant is very clear on what we're looking for. The specifics and or specifications of what they would need to accommodate the school bus would come from the district.

The planning board could iterate what sort of things they would be looking for with this school. Stop. Do they want parking spaces, as the applicant says, to accommodate parents as they're picking up and dropping off. Is there a shelter there?

Exactly. Is there a turnaround?

Yeah.

Is it whatever their footage is on straightaway versus having this on a corner? Yes. Each one of these kind of goes on and on. All of it's got to go back to somebody. If we did approve it, there's just so many open questions that need closed. And and that's just one of them, just with Dee alone.

And again, we would we'd be looking at the school district comments and the planning board requirements that we've heard and ensuring that those were accommodated. I don't you know, we would do that.

I would like to make one comment back to the school bus stop. I noticed that she stated that there will be a bench there for the students. In the past, we've been requesting that they have some covering. We live in Florida. That is a big issue.

Might wanna consider that as well.

Absolutely. We'll take that into consideration.

Any further discussion? Well, so as we wrap this up, I just, you know, looking at what we have before us here is, you know, a number of items which are not resolved, which if we proceed with the alternate recommendation would have to be resolved in order to even get on the agenda for a potential commission meeting. Is that my understanding?

That's the way it's set out at the moment, yes.

So the question for the board then is if the necessity to get any of these items a through f resolved in order for us to review and make additional comment is important enough for us to potentially delay progress on this project conceivably another month. So that's the decision that we have to make.

Is this really a a a delay? I mean, if if things are in the works, is there truly a delay? Because we have to wait for all those things to come to pass. Anyway, is there I mean, kind of just thanking you.

Well, I mean, is there Doctor. Well, procedurally, yeah, we, you know, we go from here to the commission meeting. And if we go with this if we go with the first recommendation to essentially table the item, it hits pause on it, and it will not move forward to the commission until it comes back to us.

However,

we have no control, as Kev mentioned, of what these other agencies are gonna take for their timeline. So there's there's delays meeting this applicant from the various municipal agencies involved no matter what at this point. I'm not inclined to add to that process for the applicant.

If if we if we did put it off, you have to assume, like, some things are dangerous, that a lot of these would be resolved in the next thirty days also. And I think another concern is even though it's a confirmation, you know, we talk about a checkoff, if the checkoff doesn't happen and there's renegotiations how to work through that line item, it's back to the drawing board for the developer too that we're assuming they're all going to get checked off. You know?

That's a big that's a big assumption, I guess, you can say. You know, we I guess most likely, yes. It it we can move forward. We can we could approve all these things. Everything could just be a okay. Nothing no no issues. But then what if there is a re

Right.

Replan, like, of the site? Like, what happens then? We already said thumbs up. Go to commissioner. The commissioner, is that okay for them to approve it as is? Have we done our job here? And I get it. It's a big site. It's a lot for the city of Fort Pierce. I don't want to add to, you know, your workload, Kevin, but I'm just questioning, are we doing the right thing? Yes.

I I can address that. So we are expecting these agencies to confirm what we've submitted is acceptable, whether it be the traffic side or whatever it may be, and allows us to move forward. If any of those agencies come back and say, hey, we don't like this or we don't like that, so you need to modify your plan, well, that's not what you approved. You're approving a plan right now. So if they tell us we have to modify our plan, we will have to come back here.

So you do have safeguards in place that if they don't, like what I've said a couple times, confirm what we've submitted is accurate and gives it to staff and staff can file it away and allow us to move forward. If they don't do that and they require us to come back to staff, work with them, modify our plan, well, we will be back in front of you in that circumstance so that you approve the revised plan. So again, so you have with this alternative recommendation, because we've accepted staff's current conditions, you have safeguards in place that that there, the expectation is there's only gonna be confirmation.

And if

not, and we have to modify the plan, we'll be back in front of you to explain what those modifications would be so that the plan that you approve is what moves forward to the city commission. So I I I do think you have those safeguards in place with

this I guess, current do we have I'm sorry. Do we truly have those safeguards in place? And then could and then could we, if not I guess the question is do we? And then if not, can we put that as far as if you wanna put that in the approval process that if anything does change, that that this definitely comes back to this board. Maybe I'm belaboring this because this is a long long meeting. But just wanted to make sure everyone's comfortable with and it makes it makes rational sense to move forward with this as having unresolved items.

And this gets reviewed each time you go in? I think it was roughly every five to ten years for each phase coming into the multifamily and the commercial?