Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. We will open the Fort Pierce Planning Board meeting Monday, 09/08/2025. If you would please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, Thank you. A friendly reminder to each to, please silence your mobile devices. Alicia, would you please call the roll?

Miss Carter? Present. Mister Johnson?

Present.

Mister Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mister Edwards?

Present.

Ms. Clemons? Present. Mr. Whiting?

Present.

Chair Kreisel? Present. We have a full board today. No absences to consider. We will move on to approval of the minutes from our August 11 meeting. Is there any discussion regarding the minutes?

So moved.

Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

So moved. Second.

All right. So, we have a motion to approve the minutes by Mr. Whiting, second by Mr. Collins. Please call the roll.

Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Edwards? Yes. Ms. Clemens? Yes. Mr. Whiting? Yes. Ms. Carter? Yes. Mr. Johnson? Yes. Chair Kreisel?

Yes. All right. Before we move on to new business, we were made aware that there is a meeting planned after later this evening, correct?

Yes. At Okay. Five zero

So, we have been asked to be completed and adjourned by 04:30. Challenge accepted. We have a fairly light agenda this month, so I think we can handle it. Let's get right into it. Item 6A, annexation.

Alright. Good afternoon, chairman and board members. I'm Carrie Driver, senior planner. On behalf of the planning department, I bring before you an annexation for sixteen o Goose Development Fund LLC.

The applicant is Sebastian Rina of Keith Team, property owners, Goose Development Fund LLC. Parcel ID is 243450100040005. In summary, a request to review a voluntary application for annexation of one parcel of land located at or near the intersection of East Market Avenue in South US Highway 1. The site location is 2.3 acres, give or take.

Here is a map outlining the city boundaries. As we can see, the parcel in question has the star on it. To the West, we have C 3, which is general commercial. To the East, we have R 2, residential intermediate. To the South and North is general commercial C 3.

Pursuant to the comprehensive policy plan one point eleven point five, properties annexed shall receive a land use designation compatible with the county land use designation unless otherwise approved by the city commission. Staff has confirmed that the property is located in an unincorporated St. Lucie County and is contiguous to the Fort Pierce City municipality boundary and within the FPUA service area. Furthermore, pursuant to chapter 171.046 subsection one of the Florida statute, whereas the legislation recognizes that enclaves can create significant problems in planning, growth management, and service delivery, and therefore, declares that it is the policy of the state to eliminate enclaves. The current taxable value of the property is $34,991.

The existing future land use in the county is commercial, COM, highlighted right here. With approved of the annexation, the proposed future land use will be modified to RL residential low. The existing zoning is CG commercial general. With the proposed zoning being modified, we go to r two, single family intermediate density. I do wanna take a moment just to pause as we see here this is r two.

Just wanna highlight that these these parcels right here are part of the same applicant. They own these parcels as well. So these R2 parcels will eventually be connected to this parcel right here. So I just wanted to take your time and just point that out. Okay.

So the future land use comparison chart. So again, the site area is 2.03 acres, which comes to over 88,000 square feet. The existing future land use, with it being commercial in the county, If residential was being proposed to be developed on that land, there are no residential units that would be offered under the St. Lucie County current future land use. However, with the proposed future land use being modified to low density residential RL, the max units that the applicant can develop on the land would be three units.

Again, staff has confirmed that the property is located within the unincorporated St. Lucie County and is contiguous to the Fort Pierce City municipality boundary and within the FPUA service area. Therefore, staff recommendation is for planning board to move application for approval to the City Commission with the proposed future land use and zoning designation. Alternate recommendations will be to recommend, one, recommend approval with conditions, or two, recommend disapproval. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ever. Any questions for staff? I have one question in relation to the proposed zoning. That the that according to the chart, the current county zoning does not permit any residential units.

That is correct.

The proposed zoning does allow for residential units.

Well, okay. So the county future land use doesn't allow for residential.

Okay.

With the city, it will. Right.

I'm gonna make an assumption at this point, and hopefully, we'll hear from the developer. I'd like them to elaborate on this. I'm assuming because of the adjacent properties under the same ownership, there's probably a plan for something moving forward, but I'm going to take this moment to express express my complete lack of desire of having any kind of residential units directly on US One within the city boundaries moving forward. So at this time, if there's no other questions for staff, I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward and talk about the plan.

Yes.

So please sign on and state your name. Mhmm.

Good afternoon, Chairman and Board members. My name is Sebastian. I'm with the Keith team representing Goose Development Fund for this annexation. I believe the presentation that Carrie made reflects correctly our desire to annex the property into Fort Pierce. If you have any questions, sort of the one you were addressing to before, if I could answer that one.

We currently are going to be proposing a residential community basically in that inverse L. The problem is that this parcel specifically is in St. Lucie County and since we want to develop it completely in Fort Pierce as the other parcels are, we would need it to be annexed in. Our intentions for this is really to then rezone it to a PUD to allow units to not be on US1. We would want that portion to basically be an entrance rather than having units directly facing US1.

Right now it's sort of a placeholder being R2 but in the future it might be upon this board to rezone it to PD just so that units are not facing US1 and we can allow for a more innovative configuration. But before you right now is the annexation for this parcel.

Right, understood. I had a feeling that that was probably the case just looking at the map. Okay. Do you any other questions for the applicant?

So there it'd be possible that there's commercial integrated with the final plan there and then just the entrance or it would just be the entrance?

At this time, our plan does not include any commercial. It would only be residential. And the entrance is going to be on US 1 with an ulterior on S Market Avenue, mostly for fire access, but the main entrance would be on US 1.

So my my my concern is if the annexation is approved. Right now, there's no unity of title going on or at least presently. There's no fixed plan in place that we're approving at the same time that's going to tie this annexation to the plan that you have moving forward. It's just gonna become in the city, and it's gonna become an R2 lot. And it could then be sold, it could be done something else.

And if we approve an R2 lot, then based on the Florida state statutes, you sell that property, we can't tell anybody that they can't build a house Mhmm. On that property. So my hesitation is simply due to that. I think you have a great plan, and I think that that area of planned development with a long driveway and entrance on US 1 makes a lot of sense. I'm trying to figure out some way that we can get you what you want without leaving an opportunity for something that we don't want to have happen, happen somewhere in the future. I'm not really sure how exactly to do that. Perhaps staff might have a suggestion.

Just sort of one thing. The plat for this area was done in 1925. You can imagine that US1 wasn't so heavily commercial at the time. Maybe with staff we can work on sort of a resolution of having it be the same zoning, so basically the lowest commercial in the city so that it's a match for match and in case this property doesn't get developed as a residential property we can still maintain it as commercial and have the desire that sort of address the concern that you have on keeping US1 commercial.

Mr. Freeman, do you have any suggestions?

An alternative, we've not really had time to fully act you know, research this. But to maintain a zoning of to guarantee a commercial element in this location, but also at the same time to allow some residential, would be potential to have a future land use of mixed use with an overlay of C 3. So the mixed use would allow commercial and residential. The c three would allow a certain proportion of the property to be residential up to 20% of that property. But they would need to be commercial on there as well.

Right. And for the applicant to move through in the future, do to to pursue a PUD, do all the properties need to be of a matching zone?

Not necessarily because the PD could be split into various phases and areas of development, and that would be notated in the PD as to the locations of various development, providing the underlying land use would allow that particular activity within that PD area.

Yeah. I'd I'd I think that would be my only suggestion is to, you know, find a more appropriate, you know, land use designation or or or zoning that still gives the applicant the ability to pursue what they've stated is their intention without creating unnecessary restrictions from them assuming their plan goes forward, but also give us some protection in the the event that they end up selling the property. So your recommendation would be?

Hearing your concerns, I think staff's recommendation would be mixed use future land use, which requires at least two different uses on that location Mhmm. With a zoning of c three, which does allow residential to be accommodated within that commercial piece.

Does that sound amenable to the applicant?

Yes? I have a question. So does that guarantee that if we do the mixed use with the c three overlay, does does it guarantee that no residential can be put on that property, or is was the plan to that's a little confused. Was the plan to put residential on that property with the star that we're seeing in the the picture now just not having it so close to the US one, or is it truly to make that entire lot an entrance into the adjacent lots?

Well, the current plan for the PD would only have the entrance probably maybe to a third a third of the way in, and then residential would commence from there eastern eastward.

And so then, to mister Freeman, does this see through overlay what does it prohibit as far as residential?

It's not an overlay. It'll be straight zoning. There's no restriction on where in that zoning the commercial or the residential would go. The only restriction is that the percentage of residential is, I think, limited to 20% of the floor space. So to answer your question, it does not restrict where on that property residential or commercial would go.

I also have concerns when I first saw this, reading through it, with the the possibility of residential being so close to commercial and surrounded by commercial on US 1, a very busy street. So I guess how do we guarantee that that nothing

The only yeah. The only way, chair, the only way that could be guaranteed would be with the approval of a plan development.

Mhmm. Mhmm.

Which would

Okay.

Maybe a master plan development would be able to show on that overall plan the location of residential and commercial if necessary.

Yeah. And I think, you know, for the applicant, you know, to to understand where we're coming from, you know, using the roadway entrance into your community to approximate what the current commercial properties on US 1 are also doing to buffer the residential neighborhoods. I mean, the lot directly to the north of the subject lot here is an entire, you know, commercial property. The East West dimension is identical to yours, and that's how far setback the commercial property is preventing the residential development from being at least that much closer to US 1. So, you know, I think that's what we would like to see achieved in a planned development plan moving forward is that your roadway entrance, bus loop, whatever you have at the front of entrance of your property be void of any residential until you get to at least as far back away from US 1 as the existing residential properties are.

If we were to annex this property, I would prefer to see that as a zone that prohibits any residential from being built on it at all.

It might be a little problematic just because it it would restrict the I mean, if you look at St. Lucie County's current zoning, I mean, allows commercial if we're not really contemplating at the moment anything other than residential in the PD. And just having a commercial only would, I guess, would be could be possible. But having a condition to basically maintain the property as is and only use it as an entrance might be a little bit complicated even for any type of development, residential mixed use or anything. I think the director's and staff's recommendation is sort of a good compromise between what we might envision and, again, assuming the PD does pass eventually, know, just in case that it doesn't, it still gives us flexibility in case we try to develop something else or if the property is sold later on.

Chair. Yes. I think if the applicant is amenable that we continue this to the the next planning board so staff can sit with the applicant and go through options rather than try and development on develop them on the floor here. I think there is a solution somewhere in this to meet where the planning board want to be with the applicant. Okay.

How does the board feel about this?

I just feel like they need more time, like you said, and figure out the timeline. Maybe coming for the annexation may not be the first move they make?

They have to.

Oh, okay. Well, that kills that notion.

It's a little sorry. It's a little complicated for us to propose the PD if all the parcels are not in Fort Pierce.

Well, mister Freeman's suggestion to table the this agenda item until next month to give the applicant and staff a chance to kind of find that sweet spot, I think, is a good idea. I think it's there. I think there's a solution to be had that will make both sides satisfied here. It's just figuring out, you know, where exactly that lies. So

We all like the the annexation to to close those gaps. That's what we're looking to do. I mean, crazier things have happened, but I don't see anybody developing this as residential. I could be wrong. But it is a possibility. So I think it's probably best to work through it and see what options are available.

Alright. So can we get a motion to table this until next month?

Move to to table.

Second. Okay.

We have a motion to table this item until next month by Mr. Whiting, second by Ms. Carter. Please call the roll.

Mr. Edwards?

Yes.

Ms. Clemens? Yes. Mr. Whiting?

Yes.

Ms. Carter? Yes. Mr. Johnson? Yes. Mr. Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Chair Kreisel? Yes.

All right. Moving on, item 6B, plan development updated proposal, Sunrise Lakes.

Thank you, chair. Let me get this. Planning board may recall that this application, Sunrise Lakes final PD site plan, was brought to the planning board previously. It's also been presented to the city commission. There are a number of comments from the neighborhood.

In front of you today, you have copies of emails that we received from the from the neighbors. I can go through those later in the presentation just to make sure that they've been put on record. The proposal, when it was initially submitted, was advertised as a change of use sorry, a rezoning. And even on this PowerPoint, there's a there's an error there, which should be r l. So the property was previously annexed into the city and zoned r one with future land use of RL, and RL provides a maximum density of 6.5 units per acre.

Around the property, you see the city limits in colored. The uncolored area are county areas. So the site is surrounded by essentially RS three zoning on the south and west. We have industrial to the north and east, some commercial further east. The site is 11.54 acres.

The commission heard the application and received a number of comments from the local the neighbors of the site. And we we did receive some emails which reinforced those comments. And as I say, those are in front of you right now. They relate to the resultant density. Staff calculate the proposed density to be 4.41 units per acres based on the property appraisers site area.

We know there are some mentions of 4.33 in the application and the submitted documents. Dealing with the property appraisers, site area, with 50 units proposed, we are seeing a density of 4.41, which is below the R1 future land use of maximum 6.5. The neighbors refer to flooding concerns and traffic concerns. And the size of the lots, the resultant lots. All one lot is larger at maximum well, minimum lot size is 12,000 square feet.

The proposed plan development proposes a lot size of just below 5,000 square feet. So the existing future land use is not requested to change, remains as low density residential. And we see when we look at the general area that it's it's act this property is acting almost like a buffer between low density residential and industrial and commercial in this neighborhood. To the north, we do have more industrial. To the South, we a mixture of industrial and residential in the county.

The site plan proposes 50 units, 50 lots, apologies, with certain amenities in there. There is a school bus shelter, an increased landscape buffer to the south, which is separating the development from the neighboring r s three zoning. The architectural details of the properties to be proposed, these are not regulated by the city. They are single family units and are exempt from regulation under state statute. So this did appear at the planning board in May.

The recommended recommendation approval recommended approval was based on the zoning change from r one to plan development, maintaining the existing future land use of low density residential. There were 10 conditions attached, and when this went to city commission, city commission heard that and listened to the comments by the neighborhood. We were due to present this to the city commission on September 15, noting that the site plan has incorporated some changes and there are additional explanation of what the public benefits are and improvements to the amenities of this property. Staff re advertised this to go through the system again. Also, we like to clear up the the fact that the existing zoning is r one and not confused with the r s three of the county, which was seemed to be the case in the previous advertisement.

And so we rereviewed this project and looked at the comprehensive plan and that the project is in compliance with that plan. We also believe that it promotes the public health, safety, and general worth welfare of the city as it increases the provision and the extent of the city utilities along this roadway, which allows other properties to connect to that should they wish to. We looked at section one hundred twenty five point two one two and one hundred twenty five point three one four and see that the application meets those standards. So staff recommend the planning board move forward the application subject to there are now 12 conditions with a recommendation approval to the city commission. I'll go through those conditions.

So the infrastructure includes a private lift station, force main along Sunrise Boulevard, a school district bus stop, and storm water system shall be completed prior to the issuance of a first certificate of occupancy for a residential building. A plat will be required. There's an open space requirement minimum.

Yes. As you go through these 12, would you point out if there's any differences from what we looked at a month ago?

So, the first one, in condition one, there is a a condition which looks at the force main along Sunrise Boulevard. And I think this district bus stop is also noted in there as well. So development shall comply with a permitted density, intensity, and residential lot and building heights as approved in Sunrise Lakes development agreement and final PD. There is storm water and drainage plan will be required at time of building permit. This, I think, commission condition six is a new one regarding the existing drainage ditched on the south property line shall be regraded, and a 20 foot drainage easement shall be recorded over the ditch prior to completion of site work.

The easement shall include maintenance responsibilities for the homeowners association and access for the city of Fort Pierce and South Florida Water Management District. This is to ensure that the storm water control and dealing with that storm water is maintained and provided through this development. Condition seven. Now think it was in there before, but in a masonry wall, minimum height of six feet shall be installed along the eastern property line as part of the landscape buffer to the industrial use. That's to prevent the disturbance from the industrial use affecting any potential future residents of their development.

These are typical conditions, stream mitigation calculation, issuance of site before issuance of site clearing or vegetation removal. The applicant is here today, I think they're going to do a presentation which will demonstrate the amount of trees being maintained on-site or being transferred or transplanted through on the site through the development. These will be placed under a landscape maintenance agreement, and that is between the city and the applicant or and then owner to maintain all the landscape in perpetuity as approved. A revised sign of a final site plan, architectural elevations, and landscaping plan shall be submitted for the proposed amenity center. So once that is fleshed out, the applicant will be returning with a final site plan for those architectural and landscaping details for the proposed amenity center.

And again, a standard note condition requirement that all applicable state or federal permits shall be obtained before commencement of the development. There are external agencies that will need to issue permits prior to building permit here. Those will be required at building permit. Don't, due to state law, we can't require that they're done at this stage. So we are recommending this be moved to city commission with a recommendation of approval.

The emails that you have in front of you were from Deborah Johns of 909 West Willoughby Road. And Judy Beigling. I don't have the address for Judy. But essentially, as I said earlier, the concerns relate to the overall density, the lot size, the impact on traffic, the impact on storm water, the really inappropriateness of this form of development within the neighborhood and looking at the how the properties are designed out low and laid out within this neighborhood. So that chair sum sum.

Okay. Thank you, mister Freeman. Just a couple of clerical questions here. So the current zoning of the property is r one, you said? Yes. And the future land use designation is? Low density residential,

which gives a provision which allows a provision of up to 6.5 units per acre. Do

you have that charted out as to how many units that would approximate out for this acreage?

Do you a quick calculation?

75, I believe. 75. And the total number of units proposed under the PD, I believe, is 50? 50. Yes.

Do you know when this property was annexed into the city?

Fairly recently. I think within the last twelve months. I think it was around August 2024, I believe.

And the prior land use designation under the county was? I think it

was under County R S 3. I don't recall the future land use, probably residential future land use of some sort. Mhmm.

I think it's safe to assume it was probably fairly analogous Yes. Density Yeah. Residential. I'm just, for reference, just charting the path of the, you know, the destiny of this property

Yes.

Going from county to city to now potentially PD, you know, understanding for myself what current property owner is entitled to without us having to be involved at all. To me, that's always where I start in trying to gauge perspective on what we're looking at here.

I should point out, which has been pointed out by the residents that the lot size, if it was developed under r one, the lot size would be 12,000. Minimum lot size would be 12,000 square feet, which would reduce the potential number of lots available if it was done under straight zoning. The PD is obviously a methodology of increasing the density or a form of development to better lay out the property, increase the buffers, provide amenities, ensure better buffer treatments to the industrial and so forth amenities, but does also allow a potential to develop up to the maximum 6.5 units per acre.

Seems like a more of an unintended clerical incongruity between the density and lot size restrictions. They don't

necessarily line up. No. There's an there's, you know, an issue with the zoning code that doesn't properly reflect the underlying future land use for that lot size.

Alright. Any other questions for staff?

There was 10 proposed changes before. Conditions.

Yes, sir.

And this moved to 12. What were the specifically, what were the two?

Let me just go through these now.

Yeah. Excuse me. Number

six was a new condition. The existing drainage ditch, regraded and the 20 feet drainage easement shall be recorded. And the I think it's a masonry wall, Minimum height of six feet. I believe that that has been put in there.

With the date the date on the two communications that that you all received and we now received, Moving from the 10 to the 12, have those people that sent the emails, were they ahead of time? Do they know that those two changes happened?

They're on the agenda. They're part of the item. A letter notifying people all this application was mailed out.

And there's there's as many questions as as statements, I'll say, in the two communications that we received. Going through the trying to break out the questions or thoughts or suggestions versus trying to just do the drill down to fact, do you think that the the these two communications even come close to addressing the concerns of that community? The 12 conditions that are suggested here? I

from from a a staff point of view, I don't think the conditions actually increase the impact of this proposal. I think they address and decrease the impact of this proposal. There are improvements to an existing drainage ditch, improvements to a buffer wall, essentially requiring the force main and school district bus stop to be installed before first certificate of occupancy. Those are all improvements to the conditions that were previously proposed. I think the this is a reinforcement of the requirements of this development should it go for approval.

This does not provide any greater allowances than were previously proposed.

Is the current open space at 23%?

I think it's slightly more than 23%, but we rounded down to ensure there was a bit of flexibility in there.

Any more questions for Steph? Alright. Any discussion with the board before we hear from the applicant? All right. Hearing none, I would invite the applicant at this time to come forward. Please state your name and sign in.

Good afternoon. My name is Blaine Berkshire with KMA Engineering Serving representing the applicant.

Right.

Perfect. So as Kevin stated, I believe excuse me, I believe it was two months ago that we came in front of this board. We had five-zero approval. So then we went to City Council. At City Council, we received some feedback from some neighbors as well from City Council.

Two of those main items that we've now addressed and talked to the Planning Department about have to do with really two items. Typically, when we do a final PD, we do not get into full tree mitigation calculations. That's usually something that's handled during the building permit application. So what we did is we went back there to see, hey, which trees can we save that are currently on-site and incorporate more into our site plan? So we sent our landscape architect out there to basically do a new study and look at it.

So as part of that, our new plan that we're proposing is when you look at the site, the main focus is you have a cemetery to the north and you have an industrial FDOT yard to the east. So the biggest areas that we want to focus on buffering are going to be any residential components. So in that case, it's the neighbor to the south. And then even though you have sunrise to the West, you still have a neighborhood a little further to the west. So focusing on that, we're now proposing to save 26 sable palms along the frontage of our property, as well as 28 existing oak trees and five existing pine trees.

So utilizing that as well as adding to the proposed 10 foot landscape buffer, our goal is to create a more opaque landscape buffer when you're driving through on Sunrise. Because as you've as you've probably seen, when you drive through a new development, the new landscaping that gets installed looks nice, but it's not full and mature. Right? So as part of this, we're utilizing existing oaks that are there, existing sables, existing pines. It'll provide a much better buffer between us and Sunrise Boulevard.

Going off of that, we were able to determine that there's 228, excuse me, sable palms that are existing on-site. We're gonna take those sable palms, and we're gonna relocate them along the buffer. So those are actually mature trees that we'll be saving. The main goal with those sable palms is, like I said, the south buffer. So we're gonna put clusters of six sable palms along that buffer.

So if you look on this landscape plan that Kevin's showing, we have that 10 foot landscape strip. Actually, we're going to have a 20 foot drainage easement right there as well as the 10 foot landscape strip and then another additional 16 feet between us and the next lot. So when you do that, that'll have about and then you that'll have 36 feet between those houses, Lots 18 Through 27, and our south property line. You add 15 feet in for what the rear yard setback is for these homes. So we push the houses as far north, so the closest house will be 51 feet from that neighbor to the south.

So our goal is to really create as much of a buffer as we can with space, relocating existing sable palms, and then enhancing that with the 10 foot landscape buffer. Another item that city council brought up is typically during the final PD, we don't go into detail on our amenities. We list them on there. We've now provided callouts on the site plan showing that can you go to the other? Correct.

Right here. In between Lots 35 And 50, we're going to be proposing a pool area with a small clubhouse and bathrooms that'll be utilized by the residents. Just to the left of here on Lot 35, we'll have a excuse me, a fenced enclosed, in tot lot, which will basically consist of a playground for the children of the neighborhood as well as like a turf green area for residents to utilize. And then the last amenity area is to the left of Lot 1. That's just going to be a gazebo and barbecue area for the residents.

We've had discussions with staff. They also recommended that we try to utilize the middle bioswale as part of an amenity. So a bioswale, typically when you go to a neighborhood, you see a dry pond, it's just sodded grass. It's just a big open hole. As part of our landscape plan, this will be planted with different tall grasses, different trees, as well as different rocks.

Kind of in the design you see here, more of an aesthetic. So we're proposing a mulch pathway that will wrap around that dry pond that would kind of be a walking path for the residents. So those are two of the items that we discussed. And then the other one that was just brought up is that it's been made a condition that, as part of this project, we're going to be extending a force main along Sunrise Boulevard. So we've actually been permitted and approved by Fort Pierce Utility Authority for this.

So we'll be running it all along Sunrise Boulevard to our southernmost property corner. That allows our site to connect to it as well as a future expansion of sewer to this area. The neighbors that are on the West Side Of Sunrise are currently all on septic. All the neighbors to the south are currently on septic. Florida law, by 2030, everyone's supposed to connect to either a public sanitary system or there's other more expensive options that they can utilize.

But this will allow FPUA to continue this force main further along Sunrise Boulevard to the south to any other neighbors that might need it as well. So those are some of the main items, and I'm open to questions the board might have.

Can you remind me where where we landed on our discussion with the the school bus access?

Yes. So last time we had spoke to the board, we had stated that we were going provide a sheltered bus stop just to the north of our entrance right there that could be shared. You had previously asked about getting like a pull off lane. So we talked to the school board about that in Saint Lucie County. And due to some drainage improvements that we're doing for Sunrise Boulevard, we can't get just a a pull off on the right hand side for it.

So basically, what we say to the school board is we're not going to be a gated community. So the school district can pull in, and they could use our neighborhood to loop back out, or they could only or they could stop on Sunrise, not have the kids cross the street, but have it, I guess, on the northbound lane for them to utilize it.

I'll tell you why I don't like that plan. One, I don't I don't mind the bus looping through your property, but it's gonna it's gonna take time. And they have a schedule to keep. My my assumption is over time, even if the plan initially is to loop to your property over time out of out of efficiency, they're just gonna start stopping on Sunrise. The buses already do that in several places.

It's not safe. It's a problem. It's a problem for the people in the community, the commuters. It's a it's an unnecessary hazard for the for the kids, and we really wanna try to avoid that as much as possible. And I understand the school board's position if they think they, you know, it's not gated, so yeah, they can loop through your property.

And we've, you know, heard that from other developments being proposed, but I think it's it's it's pretty apparent to me what will just eventually end up happening is that to keep their schedules, the buses without a place to pull over and quickly loop back onto the street will just start stopping on on these more used, heavily used roadways.

Right. And typically on these smaller neighborhoods, sometimes what we'll propose is like a turnaround that's right there. But I mean, most of the time, on on a neighborhood this small, typically, you'd see the buses probably just stopping on sunrise and without stopping right there.

How's everyone feel?

I'm not comfortable with the bus stop as as it in in the current location, and I think it's causing more issues than it is addressing the concerns for the for students. I mean, there's always a solution of of adding a a turn in if you changed your layout. So that's what I would like to see is a is a change because it's not safe for the it's not safe for the students. It's gonna cause traffic issues in the morning and afternoons. I I have high concerns for that bus stop issue.

Definitely. And my my secondary concern is how close these houses on Lots 28 Through 34 are to the road as well. You have some buffers listed in. I'm just always wary of of houses being built so close, especially when there's no other housing that's similar in that area to this layout with having the the house that's so close to a busy road. And and the density is is is high as well for this parcel.

I agree as well. Everything you said, especially the the density, I mean, it just doesn't match anything that's currently in that neighborhood in that area. Sunrise Boulevard is already pretty strained. And, I mean, I you know, we just we keep going through this where we look to approve this high density when it just doesn't match the area. The property is transferred in the last couple of years, so, you know, they they knew what they were getting into.

I mean, I can certainly appreciate, you know, wanting to maximize profits, but at the cost of existing residents, I just it's something that's hard for me to get behind.

Can can I address that? I I apologize. Go ahead, ma'am.

For me, it's always about the bus stop for the kids. I commuted up and down this road for about three years. During that time of the day, when they're getting on and off the bus, you have to deal with fog a lot of times because of that lake that's there

Mhmm.

As well as it's close to that four way stop sign, which always cause additional congestion during the time that the kids are getting on and off the bus in the morning. It's not the afternoon that's a problem. It's the morning. With that being out outside the development, I can foresee that being a just a continuous issue every morning.

Anyone else? Mister Johnson, you feel like like you wanna say something?

When this went to the commission, they had mentioned, I believe, an innovative part to this. I wanted to see if that was addressed within the plan.

Yeah. So the wording was imaginative. Okay. So, yeah, innovative is when you're going for density bonuses, I believe, on affordable or, I guess, just density bonuses in general. So so how the code reads was is is imaginative, which is very open to interpretation. So so as part of that, it was the focusing, like I said, on the neighbors who weren't industrial. Keep in mind that this is, like Kevin stated, a transition zone. You do have different residential uses to the West that are part of St. Lucie County and to the South. But like I said, we have industrial zoning on both sides of us.

So that was really was was focusing on enhanced landscape buffering on the West and the South as well as one of the commissioners had brought up the architectural components of it, even though there's no code requirements for that. So we produced some enhanced architectural features, like stonework and other items to present to the city council. And like I stated, the previous plan we showed did not show any of the amenities. So it should be noted that if this was just conventional zoning, there's no code requirement to provide 10 foot landscape buffers along the perimeter. There's no code requirement to provide amenities.

So the enhanced amenities in a centralized area for the use of the residents is part of the plan.

All right. So I'm just going to go through some of the things that we've discussed that are in the proposal for your development. The roadway improvements, obviously. Right? Sidewalk improvements. There was mention of the four Spain extension. Right?

Correct.

Yes. And that's gonna extend the length of your frontage or or beyond that?

To our Southwest property corner.

And at your south property, there was also the proposed stormwater management improvements, right, the drainage ditch?

Correct, yes. There's an existing ditch right there that drains properties to the east. It's full of pepper trees and whatnot, so we would clean it up, reshape it, and put a easement over it that we would maintain it.

Okay. The reason why I'm doing this is, you know, from where I sit, the whole PD process is a negotiation between the developer and the surrounding community. You want something, we want something. And the question is, is that a balanced negotiation? So, you know, density aside, we can clearly see from the numbers that, you know, if you were to build on straight zoning, you would be significantly limited limited in the number of units you'd be able to fit on this property while keeping your lot lines and all other restrictions that are currently in the code.

So the surrounding residents and the community at large is getting you know, is is is is seeing more homes on this property than they would otherwise. Right? That's what you're getting. That's what the developer is getting. That's what the, you know that's what the value of this development is. What the community is getting in exchange for allowing you to

do

that. Right? This list of things. So to me, the debate is just clearly on whether or not that's a balanced equation. And I think that's the discussion that we have to have, and I think that's the decision that the commission needs to make. And I thank you for your time, and we're gonna I assume we're gonna hear from some members of the public on this. So, appreciate it. Thank you.

All Thank you.

At this time, I'm going to open it up for public comment. Please do keep in mind we have to be done here by 04:30 today. So if there's any members from the community that would like to speak on this, please come forward and state your name. And just for efficiency purposes, if there's one amongst you that can speak for multiples of you, in sharing the same ideas, thoughts, and concerns that will help speed things along. But you're all entitled to speak. It's our obligation.

Hello. My name is Ronna Perry, and I live at 5080 West Virginia Drive. I cannot speak for my whole group because they know the numbers, and I just talk about other stuff. A lot of what has been done for this property really isn't going to benefit the residents surrounding it or Sunrise Boulevard. Somebody who was supposed to be here to speak, she's home sick, so she just sent a message.

And she said the wall is great, but the DOT doesn't really need it. So she felt that the wall was to benefit the developers. Also, the bus stop is very, very concerning. I grew up at Midway and Sunrise. And so I take Sunrise a lot now.

The tailgating, the passing is just treacherous there. And I would like to say that for the county as a whole, not just the South County, the beach area, the North County, I think we all need to really think about what we're doing to our county. Because I don't know if you read social media, but we have become a laughing stock. They are comparing us to down south that were worse because we're just throwing in all these developments. We're having accidents, treacherous accidents every single day.

And for the planning and zoning and the commissioners for the city and the county, we need y'all's input and help because I know there's all these laws out there that you guys have to follow. But when are we going to change them? Because we are overpopulating our area and causing a lot of problems. The schools cannot like all these houses right here that are going to have children, how are they going to get to the school? Are there going to be sidewalks leading all the way there?

Can the schools really take on all these extra children? And another question, are these going to be ownerships or are these going to be rentals for this community? The community that was put up behind me was supposed to be ownership. And after everything was changed and rezoned, they turned it into rentals. And as far as the bus stop goes, by Midway Road they did make a circle.

The school bus doesn't take the circle. They go completely through the neighborhood. So I don't know if that helps you guys with your bus stop situation. But no, I think it's very dangerous. We feel the density for this and several other of the communities in our county is too high. That particular area would be beautiful if you could do half acre lots, or two houses per acre. Why do we have to keep allowing all these huge amounts of developments for people to move into that can't afford it. So other than that, I don't think there's anything else that I can say. But thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Good afternoon. My name is Christa Story. And Mr. Freeman, I provided an email related to this project. And I know that you mentioned it when you were indicating that the commission had received copies of that. I heard you reference a couple other names.

Yeah, you're correct. Was presented to City Commission.

Right. Oh, so this was just I'm sorry. He's not going to answer questions. I apologize. Anyway, just you. I didn't provide something specifically to this commission. My name is Krista Storr, as I said. Wear a couple hats. I'm a longtime resident of the White City area. And I actually am a land use and zoning attorney.

I'm not representing anyone. But I have that background. One of the things that's concerned me about this application in the past, which the staff has addressed, it's the applicant's obligation to demonstrate that they should receive a change. And so I'm still not sure I've heard a justification for the significant reduction in the lot size. And I think that's important.

And the character of the neighborhood. I've heard a couple of the commissioners here mention that. I think that's very important. It's a bit disingenuous to simply compare to look at the area of a piece of property and calculate the number of units per acre that are allowable. Because that doesn't take into account all of the required infrastructure.

So the idea that there could be 75 units on this piece of property, I'm not sure that that has been demonstrated. And I think it's important to look at the character of the neighborhood, the impact on enjoining properties. White City is very special. And it's kind of an enclave and the protection of that area. You have a cemetery the other side.

You have large lots. You have a very historic community that's been very protective of its trees and that neighborhood. And I'm not sure that this applicant has demonstrated that they're entitled to this change. I certainly understand the law. And I certainly understand property rights. But zonings are not automatic. And they're criteria that need to be considered. And I'm still I was at the city commission meeting. I've looked at the project. I've listened today.

I'm still not hearing a justification for the change. So I just ask you to consider that as you're deliberating. Thank you.

Can you please sign in, Ms. Story?

Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I didn't no. Yes.

Is there anybody else from the public that would wish to speak on this application? Thank you, miss Dori.

Hi.

I'm Deborah Johns. And I just wanted to say you have my letter, and I agree with everything everyone said. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? All right. Hearing none, Mr. Freeman.

Just for clarification, the DOT did request that wall along the boundary. That was a request made to staff, and staff then required that from the applicant.

That's at the south boundary? Correct?

That's the east boundary. Alright.

I'll send it back to the board. Any further discussion?

I haven't addressed the school

bus. Actually, don't we why don't we let the applicant come back up to the podium if just to address any specific things that you heard in the comments from the public.

Yes, of course. So there were similar remarks that were made at City Council. And I just wanted to read what the plan development section states in the code. So it states this is section 125 dash two one two. It says, the intent is to establish a resilient living and working environment through the application of enlightened and imaginative approaches to community planning, stormwater infrastructure, and property design.

A PD should provide a variety of natural features in scenic areas, efficient and economical land use, improved amenities, orderly and economic development, and the protection of adjacent existing and future development. So when I read that and I understand we're trying you know, obviously we want to provide benefits to the public. But as we look at the code, some of the items that we tried to address as we look at each one of those items was variety of natural and scenic areas, incorporating a bioswells into all of our dry ponds instead of a typical grass area, enhanced landscape buffers, saving natural existing trees that are on-site, efficient and economic land use. We purposely located our driveway to the north so we could push our units to the North and try to provide as much of a buffer to the people as the South. Improved amenities, I I previously went over those and just like to reiterate that the conventional zoning for this area requires no amenities.

In my mind, one of the ideas of what makes a the the point of a PD is that instead of people having amenities in their backyards, you have a smaller lot size, and you push that into common areas that now the residents aren't personally responsible for taking care of. It's part of the HOA. So I think part of a PD is really about the excuse me, improved amenities that we stated out. And then I think the biggest one, like I said, is protection of adjacent and existing development. So kind of going off that besides, like I said, that we're trying to protect the West Side and the South Side.

Another thing that got brought up is the traffic. Just want to reiterate that as part of this PD approval, we do a traffic study that looks at not just our driveway, looks at intersections along Sunrise to the north and south of us. That gets submitted to St. Lucie County, who has a third party review it. So they have to approve that we're not gonna have a lower level of service on Sunrise Boulevard due to the addition of this project.

That was approved by Saint Lucie County. So and then sorry. I just wanted to comment on that real quick. And then the item on on the on the bus stop, I'm open to ideas. Like I said, you know, if I would rather have a turn off on, like, almost like a right turn lane that the bus could pull off on, and that's something I could draw up and try to provide to the to the school district, maybe with some help from the board, maybe some emails stating how they also believe that would be good for the area, could help push that along.

But but besides that, like I said, that's one of the only ideas I can think of for improved bus stop for this area.

All right. Thank you. Mhmm. Okay. Back to the board. Final discussion. Why don't we why don't we start with you, mister Collins?

Like I say, I you know, to me, it's it's the the density, the lot size is just not it it's it's the the last line of the the conditions that he read off to to benefit the surrounding property areas and stuff, and I just don't see any any benefit to it. I think there's other ways these prop these projects could be done that fit more in line with what the current zoning is. So I just that's that's my concerns. I mean, I grew up right down the street from here. I know it's growing.

I know we're gonna see the changes, but I always have to go back to the impact that it has on the people to hear and the benefits and the lack thereof. So I I don't believe I'll be supporting this project.

Anything else?

So I I still have the same issues also with density. I commend the builder for having the items like the bioswales, the saving the trees, having those, you know, the playgrounds and amenities for the, you know, possible future residents. I I don't think that this is the right location for this site plan and then also the the bus concern. I mean, even though the the city, may approve it, us as citizens have to do what's best for for our children. So I'm not sure that that the things that you suggested are are are good enough for me to recommend approval.

There hasn't really been a lot, I think, balance in the discussion as far as willingness to change things. So

miss Jones?

Just looking back on the May meeting, I know that the bus stop was a issue then, and we did move it forward with the five members that were here. But we also were were requesting information from the school board, and we still haven't had anyone say directly what the school board suggestion was. And for me, that kind of puts me in a position of my concern still exists. It hasn't been addressed. And I don't feel like the applicant has taken the time to address it, and I don't know if that's because it wasn't taken seriously enough or we just did not get that input from the school board.

I'm gonna always lean on the side of safety, especially for our kids. For me, it hits home because I know a family lost a child just on the adjacent street on Oleander just less than a quarter mile from this location in the same simple situation. And I don't wanna see that happen again here in our city. So at this point, I don't feel comfortable with this suggestion unless then I can get some reiteration from the school board that this is absolutely the only thing that they will accept.

How about you down there?

The conditions help frame this a little bit better. But I have the same the biggest two concerns still are the density and and I I have the same reservation with getting the kids on and off a bus and knowing that we're doing the right thing. So I I I still struggle with it. We're getting we're getting closer. But

Mister Johnson?

I'm gonna say I'm in the I'm in the same boat to a degree, more so on the bus stop than anything. Mhmm.

Mister Edwards, you've been very quiet today.

Yeah. Well, I I I think I'm I might have missed this one, but last time it came through. But, yeah, I'm kinda in the same boat. I mean, there's a lot of houses for this area. I go through there. I have some family that lives off of Midway, so I go through here every now and then. And I don't know. When you think about 50 units, that's at least a 100 people, you're thinking Mhmm. This is gonna add to that area. So I don't know. Kinda not feeling good about it.

Yeah. I I I think it informs us of a broader discussion about, you know, PDs in general and, you know, the the the benefits and drawbacks to the community. We've we've we've been approving a lot of PD development in the last couple of years. We've seen a lot of applications. We don't approve all of them, but, you know, a lot of them do go through.

And, you know, it's just always a matter of, you know, whether or not, like I like I keep coming back to, that it's a it's a balanced equation. And I think the community is starting to to get a sense of this, that, you know, the older mentality of, you know, oh, cool. Someone wants to build in our community. It might not necessarily always be the best mentality to have. So I think the scrutiny is very important.

I think there's logistic things about this plan that I can accept in its current form. And, you know, and and I think, you know, ultimately, I would need to see a willingness from the developer to lose units in order to apply the kinds of things that the community wants to see. And that seems to be the rigid position of the developers with these plans, is they will give you anything you want, but they will not pull units out of their development. And if that ends up becoming the negotiation that or the the element that makes the negotiation break down, I don't know if there's a way forward. So I think we've discussed this enough.

We do have to be out of here in an hour. At this time, I would entertain a motion.

Make a motion to deny the project.

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

Ms. Clemens? Yes. Mr. Whiting?

To disapprove, yes.

Miss Carter? Yes. Mister Johnson? Yes. Mister Collins?

Yes, ma'am.

Mister Edwards? Yes. Chair Kreisel?

No.

Motion passed for disapproval.

All right. Thank you very much.

Chair, if I may. What staff are taking away from this are the issues of school bus stop and density for denial. Correct. Thank you.

All right. We have item 6c, conditional use with new construction.

Okay. I'll get out of it. Alright. Good afternoon, chairman and board members. Again, on behalf of the, planning department, I bring before you a conditional use with new construction application for 1606 Surfside Drive, where the applicant is Jay Conroy LLC.

Property owners are Damian and Don Martinez. Parcel ID is 241250101310006. In summary, a conditional use with new construction application has been submitted for approval proposing to construct a multistory single family residence to the height of 35 feet. Here is the site location of the area. The site area is approximately point 54 acres.

The future land use of the property is HIR, Hutchinson Island Residential. The zoning of the parcel is r one single family low density. With an educational background, according to city code article five, section 125 dash three twenty five, the purpose of a conditional use process is to allow when desirable uses that would not be appropriate appropriate generally or without restriction throughout the particular zoning district, but which, if controlled as to member area location or relation to the neighborhood, would not adversely affect the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, and the general welfare. Again, the property is located in r one single family low density zoning according to section one twenty five dash one ninety one b four, building heights, no building shall exceed a height of 28 feet above grade except the conditional uses with buildings that have a maximum height of 35 feet above grade may be approved. Site plan details.

So the proposed multifamily single family resident proposes to have four bedrooms, four full bathrooms, four half bathrooms, a square footage total of 4,259, the Ground Floor being 3,151 square feet. The 1st Floor, 2644. Second, 1616. Proposing an elevator from ground to top floor with stairwells. The first and second floor rear area will have decks.

The 2nd Floor front will have a balcony on the 2nd Floor front of the home, which faces some Surfside Drive. Excuse me. Proposed office and a catwalk inside the home, an elevated pool, eight marker lights, and six path lights, and 20 trees planted plus 300 plus, 300 over 300 ground covers and shrubs. Here is the rendering and then color board of the proposed development. Take note that it is a flat roof with black and dark brown window and door frames.

China white being a primary color with stones in build, white, chopped, flat. Over here. Staff recommendation is approval of the application with the following three conditions. Number one, driveway construction shall comply with the City Of Fort Pierce code of ordinances, standard driveway detail, and be comprised of concrete brick pavers or concrete per section 32 dash nine. Number two, prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, the city issued landscape maintenance agreement shall be notarized and submitted for filing.

And number three, the proposed landscape plan has improvements including trees within the city's right away. Acknowledgment of the applicant that any capital improvements deemed necessary by the city, homeowners landscape other than site will be removed without placement of the city. Alternate recommendations will be to, one, recommend approval with additional or modified conditions, or two, recommend disapproval. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Trevor.

You're welcome, Chairman.

So I remember not that long ago another conditional use for months in that area. And the thing from that discussion that I remember being somewhat convoluted is where we measure that height from. Has that been clearly established at this time that you can elaborate on that for us, mister Freeman?

There's a differential between what the zoning code says and what a building height is assessed through the building regulations. The zoning code says above grade. The building regulations refer to the flood plain elevation. Which you're all aware that if you put the elevation up again, if we've got the applicant here, yeah, may be able to explain the rationale for requesting this is probably, and I've not heard this directly from the applicant. Mister Trevor might have, that the lower floor was probably located within the floodplain elevation and has to be the residential living area would need to be higher than that.

So there's a differential between where the zoning says the heights measured from and where the building regulations actually require the first floor elevation to be.

Right. So but this is a conditional use under our ordinance. So the 35 foot height that we are discussing today is measured from grade.

I believe that's the case. Yes. Okay.

And from this elevation that we're looking at, would you say the current grass is current grade? The grass in this picture?

There or thereabouts. Yes.

And how tall is this building?

35 feet.

35 feet. 35?

Max. Yes.

There's the architecture is interesting, and I will say that there's a building virtually across the street that likes looks like a sister. Nothing like any of what those four pictures.

Right. Yeah.

And it

just and there's two of them being built virtually across the street on the same drive.

Down the street farther.

And they're both if it 30 fives the ceiling, they're 30 fives.

There are other residences that are over 25 feet in the area. Correct?

This will become more prevalent as the requirements for building permits are in place. The floodplain elevation has obviously been raised in respect of the floodplains being increased due to sea level rise and incursion. We have applications in just recently approved, have added an additional story, actually moved the residents up a story and maintained the lower floor as almost a breakaway flood area.

That's basically what this plan is.

If you look at the floor plan and the uses, they're not really they're used as part of residence, but they're not really habitable in terms of being required there.

Garage spaces. Garage and storage. No. I I do remember that coming up before, you know, us discussing almost a necessity to perhaps permanently address the high restriction on the island due to the need for so many of these properties to be built above the floodplain. There were a lot of differences between that applicant and this one. Yes. But we won't get into that now. I think yeah. Is there are are there

any other questions for staff regarding this? Are there any plans to address this issue in the future?

Staff will be reviewing the the code as a whole. We're working closely with the building department and other departments in terms of resiliency, specifically with properties that are located close to the waterfront.

The suggestion I'd have is of current grade. It's the grade and the current grade may not be the same.

That's that's a good point.

It's one of them. They also base off a crown of road. With this, so if you do have something that's put in place, is it some is it something that could be matched year over year or in a time period with floodplains as they are readjusted?

That's where I think when when speaking with engineering and building, we will ultimately be basing it on the floodplain elevation show. So if that if that rises, the height would be measured from that location. Believe it or not, there are flood plain elevations in the city that have decreased close to the water. So there's a

Moving target.

I don't know if the whole place is sort of pivoting on something, but

So the reason why I asked is the one next door as well to this property has stem walls built into it. So their their finished floor elevations are all over the map in that one. So that wouldn't map any or match anything that potentially we're even talking about depending on what the style of home built is. Correct.

The most essential thing, I think, with all of this is that we do recognize and establish that in terms of resiliency that we need a standard conforming measure. And, you know, measuring from grade is, can be manipulated. Mhmm.

That's a very good point. Okay. Does the board feel like we need to hear from the applicant? Future. I think we've got time. Is the applicant here today? Please sign in and state your name.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am Joe McCarty. I'm the architect for Mr. And Mrs. Martinez. Mrs. Martinez is here with us today trying to build a house, and we've got two things working against us. One is we're in the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems which pushes the floor up and one is we have your height restriction which pulls the roof down. And I was the architect for 1607, which is across the street, was built to a 45 foot height. We are fighting to do 35, we're at 3,410.

Existing grade is six because of the piling. The coastal engineers requested our finished grade be 6.9 so we're not removing sand from the lot. And we are proposing to be 34.83 feet above that. And our 1st Floor has to be at 18.4 in AVD. So we're kind of squeezed.

There are other buildings around that are taller than us. There's a four story condo going on immediately north of us, I'm told. House across the street is 45 feet tall. There's a house on the beach at 1812. There was a picture of that. It's clearly higher than 28 feet. So we're just trying to be in line with what else is going on there.

What are your proposed ceiling heights for the 2nd And 3rd Floor?

I'm sorry?

What are your proposed ceiling heights for the 2nd And 3rd Floor? 10

I wasn't expecting that question. I have new glasses, and I'm having trouble with them. I can can I bring this to you? Sure.

I might have the same problem. Looks like Level 2 is 11. Level 3 is 10.

We went with the flat ceilings to keep the roof height out of the picture.

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

Okay.

And

I'll leave this up here for you afterwards. Are there any other members of the public wishing to speak on this application? So please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will head it send it back to the board for any further discussion.

Do you wanna come up?

Oh. The

the 2nd Floor stone is on for two of them.

Can you please come to the microphone?

Yeah. It's

And state your name.

Sorry. It's a public meeting, so everything's official record. Sorry. That's okay. What was your name, sir?

It's Jim Conroy. Sorry about that. I always forget. The

ceiling heights. Yeah?

Yeah. The first one, I think, is ten four approximately and the second one is nine foot four in the ceiling. We had the same issue done in Martin County and they kept raising the bottom and then the county kept shrinking the top and it was making people not be able to build, like they're spending millions of dollars for a piece of property and they can't build a two story home. So it's kind of forcing everybody to, it's crunching it out. Because what's gonna happen is like we said in Martin, the people, they'll just quit but they won't buy the lots. It doesn't make sense to get a one story house on a, you know, $2,000,000 lot. I don't know what Dawn's was but the majority of them. So, it puts restraints, that's all.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you.

You can come forward if you need to speak.

Good afternoon, I'm Dawn Martinez, I'm the property owner. Thank you for having us. We bought this property and then once we purchased it, we found out that we have to have the knockdown walls on the very first ground Level. So that is unusable space, only to be used for parking and storage. And then our 1st Floor is very open because the ceilings are the 1st Floor is all we have.

So we have to go up to a second story, which is now the height is restricting us And that's why we're asking for this use, just so we can have a normal two story home, which is above the non usable area. That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Alright. Any other comments from the board? Further discussion?

I guess my only issue is that well, my only concern is the grade issue. Like, how does that how does that flesh out? Not with maybe not maybe not with this conversation, but in the future. I know they're gonna address it, but does it matter at all for this discussion? And if it doesn't, we can move forward.

Yeah. I mean, the only thing I could think to do would be to illustrate the perspective of what the what the finished height of the ceiling from maybe the existing roadway or the the what's what the final height of the roof will be from the existing roadway, which is the only, like, static unit that we can measure from now. I don't know if there's an elevation that shows that.

There's nothing to say that roadway won't need to be raised in future.

It's also true. Jesus. But, yeah, I mean, I you know, the the height restriction is, you know, clearly intended to, you know, create a limit for making the neighborhood uniform and making sure that buildings, you know, fifty, sixty feet tall don't don't get built and block people's view of the beach. But with your what you're up against with the floodplain, it's clearly an aspect of the ordinance that I think needs to be revisited, especially for these specific areas. All right.

Other discussion? At this time, I would entertain a motion.

I move for approval with three conditions.

Second.

Mr. Edwards got in there first. Alright. We have a motion for approval with three conditions by Ms. Clemens, second by Mr. Edwards. Please call the roll.

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

Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Edwards? Yes. Ms. Clemens? Yes. Chair Kreisel?

Yes. All right. That concludes our new business. At this time, if there's anybody from the public who would wish to speak about matters generally relating to planning, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, we will move on to number eight, director's report.

I think the big news already happened. I think you've already been introduced to the new assistant That is planning director, which is a big relief to the department. Chris brings some really serious experience with him, and he's going to be a great asset, you'll see that coming forward. Other than that, we have lots of projects in still, which will be coming forward. I don't really have any big updates on the projects that we have in.

The Causeway Cove project that's being reviewed at the moment under the Live Local, the recent there's been a recent agreement between the applicant, the FDOT, and the TPO regarding the methodology of the transportation and traffic analysis. So that's not been done yet, but we have the agreement. I think it's almost in place. That's being run through Saint Lucie County through the same methodology that we use for any application. Although, this is a very unique development and that has involved some as you can tell from the timeline, some discussions about how those users, combination of uses, are measured.

If you recall, there are proposed almost 1,000 units, two hotels incorporating a conference center and a marina. So that is being that's being calculated based on an agreed formula now. The port ordinance overlay, I'm going to be making a presentation on that, I think, to city commission in October, just to talk about where we are with that. So it's just a general position. We are looking at the landscape code and Chris has got a lot of experience in landscaping code and I think he I don't know if he's a registered landscape architect now or he was.

So some very good experience there. What we had what we are having to go through is taking account of latest state statutes. State bill one eight zero has it within it, a provision where any changes to zoning code cannot be more restrictive than what we already have. So we have to be very, very careful about what we propose changes in the zoning code. And that does really affect what we would want to be doing with a landscape code and other pieces of code.

So we're trying to navigate that right now with various proposals that we're working through. Kings Highway jobs corridor, that was recently approved by city commission, and that's something that we're working on in encouraging more commercial activity down Kings Highway with also support of residential for workforce housing and to increase that option there. Without housing, you don't attract employers, and without employers, you don't attract housing. It's a catch 22. It's all part of the same economic development piece.

And people sometimes separate that and think that it's all okay to do just commercial or all okay to do residential, depending on the economy and the political situation. But there is a a ratio between the floor space of commercial and the floor space of residential that you you should try and work to as part of a city development. The staff will be also bringing forward a discussion to city commission regarding the annexation strategy. And that will be looking at what our priorities would be, working with the utilities authority to determine where they are with their service area and creating an annexation strategy which would take us to that area. Again, there's going to be a discussion between the annexation of residential and the annexation of commercial.

And that will be ongoing. So having said, I've got nothing more to say. There was a bit, but I think that's it. Yeah.

Alright. Well, we're very happy that you're getting some help in the department. I know you've been struggling with staffing recently and appreciate all the the long hours and hard work. Are there any other comments from the board?

Made it. Made it.

Made four bells.

Yeah. With time to spare. Alright. Well, thank you everyone. Meeting adjourned.