Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

.

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the City of Port St. Lucie Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026. Call the meeting to order. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Chair Norton.

Here.

Vice Chair Pettibon. Here. Chair Pro Tem Rakenis. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Privett. Here. Mr. Spiterra.

Here.

Ms. Morishino. Here. Mr. Rosen.

Here.

Thank you.

Okay, we do have a quorum. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

OK. Next agenda item is approval of the minutes. I'll entertain a motion. I make a motion to approve the minutes for May 5, 2026. Second. We got a motion and a second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All right. Nothing under consent. Item seven is a public hearings, non-quasi-judicial. Open up this public hearing. And we have staff.

Yes. Good evening, Chair, members of the board. Bridget Keene with the Planning and Zoning Department. This application is a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment. It's for Founders Crossing. The property owner is Frounders Crossing LLC. The applicant is Lucido and Associates. Steve Garrett with Lucido and Associates is here. The Shubbeck property, it's generally located, it's on the south side of McCarty Road. It's approximately 2.5 miles west of I-95, and it's also on the east and west sides of McCarty Road. And it's an application to change the land use for approximately 60 acres of property. So this shows you the property location. Mid-Ray Road is to the north, and this is McCarty down through here. So the request will amend the land use for approximately 60 acres of land within the Founders Crossing PUD, and the purpose of this amendment is to provide for a proposed fourth amendment to the PUD. Founders Crossing PUD and that project number is P25113. It is currently under review. And the purpose of the amendment is really just to shift the location of 18 acres of commercial land use that's located at the southeast corner of Midway Road and McCarty Road to shift it over to the southwest corner of Midway and McCarty, and then it's also to relocate 12 acres of ROI land use that is located approximately one-half mile south of Midway Road on the east side of McCarty. This will shift it to the west side of McCarty directly under the CG. And so basically, the technical term is what it does. It amends the land use for approximately 30 acres of land that's on the west side of McCarty Road from RL, low density residential, to 18 acres of CG, general commercial, 12 acres of ROI for residential office and institutional. And then on the east side, it then amends those uses from 18 acres of CG, general commercial, and 12 acres of ROI to 30 acres of RL, low-density residential. And this here shows you this is the existing uses. Right up here is your CG. Down here is the ROI. The next map you see is the proposed. And now you have CG on this side, ROI on this side, and these two portions of the land become RL. So basically, to give you a bit of background, the Founders Crossing PUD, it's approximately 386 acres in size. It was annexed into the city in 2004. It is subject to an annexation agreement that provides for 875 residential dwelling units, commercial office and institutional entitlements, and then it also requires the infrastructure improvements to serve the property. A large-scale comp plan amendment was approved in 2004, and that changed the land use from St. Lucie Agricultural to 342.6 acres of RL, low-density residential, the 18 acres of CG, general commercial, 12 acres of ROI, and 13.4 acres of open space conservation. And the PUD was approved in 2004, and it has been amended three times. So when this future land use amendment was approved in July of 2004, it did include conditions of approval in the ordinance that related to the development of the property, including the required roadway improvements that were required to support the future PUD rezoning of the project. It did require the construction of McCarty Road from Midway Road to Newell Road, pedestrian access, and a proposed school site. The annexation agreement that was also approved required the developer to participate in the funding of improvements to Midway Road from I-95 west to McCarty Road, as well as improvements to McCarty Road to serve the property.

And not to interrupt you, but they stay in place, correct? Correct.

Yes, there were some changes they say in place, yes. So this large-scale comprehensive plan amendment and related ordinances revise the, ordinance revisions relocates the commercial and ROI land uses that I mentioned before. It also revises the proposed PUD, revises the development plan, the primary access and road commitments and other changes. And the applicant has also submitted an amendment to the annexation agreement to align with the proposed amendment to the PUD. So as I mentioned, in addition to this comp plan, they do have a PUD amendment in as well as an annexation agreement amendment. Okay, so staff's analysis, policy 1171 of the future land use element does state that the city shall review future land use map amendments based on the amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth, the character of the undeveloped land, the availability of water supplies, public facilities, services, NEED FOR JOB CREATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS TO SATISFY A DEFICIENCY OF MIX OF USES IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. SO THIS APPLICATION BASICALLY MAINTAINS THE EXISTING 342.6 ACRES OF RL, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. IT'S MAINTAINING THE 18 ACRES OF CG. IT'S MAINTAINING THE 12 ACRES OF ROI AND IT'S MAINTAINING THE 13.4 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE land use that were approved in 2004 as i mentioned it's really just an application to move the land from the cg and the roi from the east side of mccarty to the west and no changes are proposed to those 13.4 acres of open space conservation and that's already an established and it is protecting a segment of the um 12 mile creek or 11 mile creek okay So the existing annexation agreement includes requirements for sewer, water, stormwater improvements necessary to serve the property and other requirements required to serve the property. So the proposed amendment to the annexation agreement, it does maintain the requirement for the property owner to install or cause to be installed at its sole cost and expense the onsite water and wastewater transmission facilities to serve the property as well as requirements for offsite improvements. The existing annexation agreement also requires the property owner to participate in the financing of improvements to Midway Road and McCarty Road. And in 2008, the developer did enter into a contribution agreement with St. Lucie County that includes a monetary contribution for Midway Road improvements and requirements for the construction of McCarty Road for Midway Road to Newell Road as a two-lane roadway. So with this proposed amendment, city staff is also recommending certain conditions of approval and that is required to accommodate the proposed land use amendment as well as the future PUD amendment. And staff's recommended conditions of approval, we do recognize the developer's obligations with regard to the county and include additional city requirements for utility easements and the timing of the improvements. These proposed conditions of approval address requirements for the conveyance, construction, and completion for Newell Road from the east boundary of the property to Wilder Parkway. Wilder Parkway is to the east, and the proposed conditions are attached as Exhibit C. And the properties that are subject to this application are they are within flood zone 80 and that is a designated designated by FEMA that is considered a high risk flood category. The applicant has applied to FEMA for a map revision that would allow for the developer to fill the property to where the finished floor elevation of any structure structure would be raised above the base flood elevation. And there is also an existing agreement with the St. Lucie County School Board that addresses the conveyance of a school site for the Founders Crossing property or project. And the Planning and Zoning Department staff does find the petition to be consistent with the intent and direction of the city's comprehensive plan. Staff does recommend approval, but subject to the conditions listed in Exhibit C, and Exhibit C is provided in your packet. And that concludes my presentation. Happy to answer any questions. The applicant is also here to provide any questions.

Thank you, Bridget. Any members wish to ask Bridget a question?

No.

Seeing no questions, thank you, Bridget. Is the applicant here? Let me just...

I'M JUST GOING TO GET STEVE'S GOING. NO PROBLEM.

WELCOME BACK, MR. GARRETT.

OOPS, I CLICKED IT WRONG. SORRY, STEVE.

OKAY.

THERE YOU GO.

THANK YOU, MS. KEENE. I APPRECIATE THAT. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, PLANNING ATTORNEY BOARD MEMBERS, AND MS. FOGARTY. STEVE GARRETT WITH LUCIDO & ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND MY CLIENT. I'm happy to be before you tonight. Ms. Keene did a very thorough presentation, so I will try and be as brief as possible. Essentially, what is before you tonight is just a moving of two land uses. There's no increase or decrease. The existing land use plan, most of the east and west properties are RL. There is an 18-acre shown in red, general commercial CG land use, and there is a 12-acre ROI in yellow. We are simply moving those from the east parcel to the west parcel. Pretty straightforward. Again, no changes, no increase in intensity or density. All that stays in place. And again, simply moving them. I DID WANT TO HIGHLIGHT, THOUGH, VERY PROUD TO REPRESENT OUR CLIENT, GREENPOINT. THIS IS ANOTHER PROJECT AND A DEVELOPER WHO'S COMMITTED TO DOING MORE WITHIN THE CITY AND ELEVATING IT TO SOME DEGREE. FROM A ROADWAY PERSPECTIVE, AND AS MS. KEENE HIGHLIGHTED, YOU HAVE BOTH THE EAST AND WEST PARCELS THERE. MCCARTY RUNS BETWEEN BOTH OF THEM AND NEWELL ROAD IN BLUE. THOSE ARE THE ROADS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OBLIGATED RELATIVE TO IMPROVEMENTS. We are choosing to approach development and access from Wilder Parkway. And so what's shown in red from Wilder Parkway, which is to the right or east of the property to Founders Crossing southeast corner, that is east west to or Newell Road. Wilder is obligated to dedicate and convey the right of way. but not construct that road, that first two lanes of that road will be constructed with this property and this project. So, again, new roads and additional roads being brought online with development. Appreciate your time, consideration. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Garrett. Any questions for the applicant? No questions. Just one, Mr. Garrett. Yes, sir. The applicant's okay with the... Yes.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, close the public hearing, and we will entertain a motion. And remember, if you make a motion to approve, please include the conditions in Exhibit C.

Motion to approve P25-113, inclusive of the exhibits as stated by the chair. Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Good luck. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We are at item 8A through... F, correct? Carly? A through F are public hearings are quasi-judicial in nature. We'll have the city attorney explain the rules.

When a matter is quasi-judicial, the Board is applying existing rules, standards, and policies to a factual situation and is therefore acting in a judicial capacity rather than a legislative capacity. In deciding whether the application does or does not meet the standards, the Board must base its decision on competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence means legally relevant and sufficient evidence and that the evidence is in the purview of the knowledge of the person providing it and not based on speculation. the initial burden is on the applicant to prove that its application meets the applicable standards by competent substantial evidence, and if that burden is met, the burden shifts to the opposing party to provide competent substantial evidence that it does not meet those standards. Before each quasi-judicial item, the board members must disclose any ex parte communications concerning each item. Anyone that wishes to speak on any of the quasi-judicial items will need to be sworn in. So anyone who is preparing to be sworn in, please stand, and I will now ask the city clerk to administer the oath.

Anyone speaking on any of the items eight, please stand. If you're speaking, ma'am. Yeah. All right.

Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm the testimony offered today is the truth and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Attorney. Okay, we will move forward with Item 8A, opening the public hearing. And left to right, any... None. None. None. None. None.

None.

Okay. Marissa.

Good evening, Board. Marisa Dabry, Alachman Planning and Zoning Department. I have been sworn in, and the official file packet was provided to the clerk's office at least five days prior to this meeting. Madam Clerk, please enter the file into the record. The matter before you tonight is P16-04283. It's a Tradition Master Sign Program, Amendment No. 8. The owner of the property is Madam A. Palm Beach. The applicant is Steve Garrett Lucido and Associates. The location is west of I-95, east of Range Line Road, and south of Crosstown Parkway. This is the eighth amendment to the master sign program. Here's a location map with the existing uses, future land use, and zoning showed. project summary, the tradition master sign program provides the signage regulations for all of the development within tradition southern and western groves SOUTHERN AND WESTERN GROWTH DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT. THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS THE ADDED DEFINITION FOR THE JOBS CORRIDOR AND THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND A TABLE SPECIFYING THE LOCATIONS, NUMBER OF SIGNS AND THE SIGN AREA ALLOWED IN THIS DISTRICT. OTHER PROPOSED CHANGES INCLUDE ADDING REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL OF SIGNS WITHIN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RIGHT OF WAYS, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF NON-RESIDENTIAL INFORMATIONAL DIRECTIONAL SIGNS FROM 4 TO 24 AND OTHER MINOR CHANGES. THE SITE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE MASTER SIGN PROGRAM AMENDMENT ON FEBRUARY 25, 2026. STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 15503H, THE CITY'S SIGN CODE, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THIS IS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY STAFF? None. Applicant is here. Welcome back, Mr. Garrett.

Thank you, Chair, Vice Chair, Planning and Planning Board members.

Let's see. I do. Bear with us. Thank you.

So Eighth Amendment, Tradition Master Sign Program. This was really a partnership between the city and Mattamy. Each had a need of amendment. From the city standpoint, it was to provide for the jobs corridor in Economic Development District. As we know, that jobs corridor, that 1,200 acres bordered between Village and I-95 and from Discovery all the way down to becker is the jobs quarter and the uses that have been brought online and approved through the council are primarily warehouse distribution facilities so extremely large buildings that the original master sign program didn't really account for so we're addressing that a new district and standards relative to that and we're revising the master sign program map And then from a master developer and tradition design review committee standpoint, we wanted to adjust clarity on how allowable sign area was calculated. And so the job score order table that's in the amendment basically highlights a couple areas. One, it addresses the need for signage at additional entrances for those large distribution facilities. They often have multiple entry points, not just a main entrance and a secondary entrance. So we're taking care of that. And then in addition to it, the previous or the current master sign program, as far as building facade signage, goes up to 100,000 square feet and then stops. The majority of those distribution warehouse buildings in the jobs corridor start around 150,000 square feet and go up from there. So we wanted to be very mindful of what the needs of those larger buildings were and addressing them here. And then relative to the calculation of sign area, the new language, let me go back. THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED AND WORKED THROUGH WITH STAFF, AND IT'S BASICALLY CALCULATION OF SIGN AREA USING A MAXIMUM OF TWO GEOMETRIC, IF YOU HAVE A BASIC RECTANGLE, IT WOULD BE THAT ONE SHAPE. BUT IF YOU HAVE AN ARTISTICALLY DESIGNED SIGN AND IT HAD SOME SPACE SHOWN LIKE WITH THE YELLOW TRIANGLE, WE MAX IT AT TWO GEOMETRIC SHAPES AND YOU WOULD CALCULATE IT BASED ON THE YELLOW AND THE BLUE COMBINED. THE EXISTING CALCULATION, IF APPLIED, WOULD BE THIS. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE EXISTING CALCULATION METHOD, THAT RED DASH BOX, COUNTS SOME OF THE ACTUAL SIGN ITSELF AND AIR SPACE SURROUNDING IT. SO THIS ADDRESSES A REAL ISSUE THAT TDRC HAS BEEN DEALING WITH LATELY. APPRECIATE THE CONSIDERATION. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS?

I know this question might be a little crazy, but looking at that sign that you just had there, you've got the rectangle with the triangle on top. Theoretically, that triangle could be pretty doggone high, and because you're not counting the space on the outsides, it would still be accepted. Is there a maximum height or anything like that, or can they build it as high as they'd prefer?

The master sign program for the various sign types maximizes the amount of allowable square footage. So the allowable square footage, right, that's what controls ultimately the size of it. What we were finding is that the existing calculation method, the red rectangle, basically limited creativity. You know, you would get individuals, commercial developments in particular, they would want to max if they were allowed 36 square feet or 100 or whatever, and they'd want to maximize that square footage, that available sign area. And so you'd get a rectangle after a rectangle. Anybody who is creative, like Amore, it has a very scriptive A. They were getting all that dead space, unused space counted against them. So this allows a little bit more creative and more aesthetic signage while maintaining the maximums. That makes sense. Thank you. You're welcome.

Any other questions from members of the board?

JUST ONE THING, MR. GARRETT, IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, RIGHT? YES. WE DID MAKE A FEW MINOR ADJUSTMENTS IN SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A FEW OF THE CATEGORIES, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.

ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. GARRETT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. SEEING NONE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WISH TO MAKE A MOTION OR COMMENTS?

I would put forward a motion. Go ahead.

I'll make a motion for P16 of 42A3, the master, traditional master science program to approve.

I'll second. Okay, any other discussion? Joe?

I just don't feel comfortable saying yes to something that has no limit on the height.

Well, it does. It has a limit.

I thought I understood you as saying no, there's only a limitation on the total square footage. No, let me be clear. Sorry about that.

Marissa, the height, when you calculate the square footage, it includes the height, correct?

Okay, is that the 16 feet here on the second line?

Yeah, this is an example. I mean, obviously this is one table in the master sign program, but... All of the tables relative to monument signage and so forth have these similar categories. So the location, number of signs allowed, allowable sign area, and maximum height for each of those. The maximum height does vary depending on the sign type, but the maximum height has remained constant throughout the document, and we're not changing what's currently allowed.

What's the maximum allowed height on a primary monument sign?

Well... Oh, we did do NA. I don't have a copy of the master sign program with me. Yeah, for the jobs corridor, we included both the monuments and the facade signs in one table.

I may be misunderstanding this, but the only one of the four that I see that has a maximum height is the secondary monument sign of 16 feet. The rest say NA.

The one night I don't bring my glasses. Let's see. This is residential. Hold on one second. Non-residential. If you wouldn't mind, Marissa, helping me. Monument signs, right? Right here.

And maximum height is, what is that? 9.5.

yeah so for instance like if you had a commercial development and you had a monument sign you know your main entrance um and none of those maximum heights have changed it's nine and a half feet so you're not going to exceed nine and a half feet correct correct for that sign type and i don't believe we do um is that consistent throughout yeah yes sir for that category we aren't affecting any of the currently approved maximum heights for any of the signage

Just to reiterate, just so I fully understand this, not the secondary monument sign, I see that one has a limit, but the primary monument, the non-residential building mounted facade sign, and the non-residential building mounted facade sign for larger square footages, all of those have a 9.5 foot maximum height? Right. I agree.

Well, I'll let you say it out loud. Go ahead. Didn't catch the entirety of that question. Can you repeat it for me, please?

Yeah. So I'm seeing on three of these four there is no limit. But I heard you just say there's nine point five. So what you're saying and what I'm seeing are two different things. I'm just wondering if you could explain the differences on those.

So looking at this table what I would suggest possibly for for the board consideration is the under. So this is for the jobs corridor at this table combines two sign types of basically monument signs which are those that are free standing ground up you know, your traditional entrance or secondary entry sign. And then below those are all the building facades, so the signage that gets mounted to the building. For monument signs, ground-based freestanding signs, typical, I don't think our intent was to have an A on the first one, the primary monument sign. And I think that should maintain its height at 9 and 1 half feet, consistent with the balance of commercial development in tradition. OK. And Joe.

And then I think the other one. Mr. Garrett, I think I can satisfy Mr. Rogan's concern. Where it says N.A., it means it's not applicable because the sign is actually on a building. It's not on the ground. It's not a monument sign. But all monument signs must comply with the code, which is 9 1⁄2 feet.

Basically, the monument, the building amount of science obviously wouldn't be nine and a half feet. They have their their maximums established on this table, though. Specifically, though, the primary monument sign does not currently have a maximum height. It has in a that's inaccurate. It should have the same maximum height that other commercial development does, which is the nine and a half foot height.

And that's the code? It's in the current tradition master sign. So if you came back with a site plan with a 20-foot height, they wouldn't approve it, correct?

Correct.

It would need to be consistent.

On all four of these green highlighted areas, if it came back with anything over 9 1⁄2 feet, it would not be accepted, correct? Correct.

No. So if I may, just to clarify, so a couple of things. For the primary monument sign, what I'm hearing from the applicant is that N.A. is a Scribner's error. That should say nine and a half feet. If the board is inclined to advance this and the applicant agrees, we could advance it with the condition that we correct that prior to council. So that's one thing. So, Mr. Rosen, for your question, the bottom two items, those are non-residential building-mounted facade signs.

So up on the side of the building.

So those get measured by square footage, not by height, because obviously they're plastered on the facade of the building. So that's why when you look at those, it has an allowable area not to exceed 1,000 square feet. And then for sign max height, it says NA, because we don't look at the height when it's on a building.

Yeah, so there's nothing that stops Amore from having something three inches wide and a million feet tall as long as it hits that total square footage, correct? I know I'm being crazy, but I'm just... For a facade sign?

Because they have facade signs out there.

I'm not specifically talking about Amore. I'm just any business that wants to...

Yeah, this is for the jobs corridor, which is our economic development area.

Okay, so if somebody wants to put a sign up like that, and it's this wide, it can be... On the building or on the monument sign? Literally any.

What I want to know is whether any of them that are not... You have to separate the question. One's a building, one's a monument. Sure, both. Because the building may be 35 feet high.

And we're okay with a 35-foot high sign.

Only on the facade, only on the buildings.

So if I may, if you think about, say, a Home Depot, when we're talking about the facade sign, it's like above the doors on the side of the building. So just from a practicality nature, there's not endless height there between the top of the building doors... the roof line right that's typically where they fit it and we identify a maximum square footage area so they are limited we don't need to say height because obviously most of them are on the facade they don't project over the roof line for the monument signs we do have a maximum height for the signage

So let me ask you, this might clear it up for me. So there is a limitation on height at the roof line, correct or not correct?

So in practicality, there's limiting factors. But in our master sign program for facade mounted signs, we just say you can have a thousand foot square foot sign. You can have a square or you can have a rectangle. You can decide if you've got five bays and you want to have a one long skinny rectangle, you can, 1,000 square feet. You've got two bays and you want to have a square, 1,000 square feet. It's a square footage measurement, and that's how, I'm not sure, Steve, if you could.

And generally not extending the height of the building.

Correct. And there's two approvals here, essentially. One is the city issues the sign permit. And obviously, the city adopts the master sign permit. This is the Eighth Amendment, so it's been a living document for 20 years. But the city issues the permit, so they approve it. And there is also a Tradition Design Review Committee. And the Tradition Design Review Committee obviously lives and breathes this document, but they review every application based on the aesthetics and how it's consistent with the whole. We are not, just for clarity, we're not changing ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE JOBS CORRIDOR, THE BALANCE OF TRADITION, WESTERN GROVE AND SOUTHERN GROVE IS NOT BEING AFFECTED HERE. SO THOSE SAME HEIGHTS AND LIMITS AND SO FORTH AND THE SIGN THAT YOU SEE WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH TRADITION AND THOSE AREAS, WE'RE MAINTAINING THAT CONSISTENCY. THIS WAS REALLY TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC NEEDS OF THOSE JOB CORRIDOR PROJECTS. AND ONE THING I WOULD ADD. to Mary's comments is that it is a total square footage for your facade signage, but what we find often, especially along I-95, is the need, we saw it with the landings, with Target and so forth, is you get 1,000 square feet, or depending on the final calculation, it may be 980 or whatever it is, right? It doesn't necessarily mean if the maximum is 1,000 because of the calculation stuff, they necessarily get the entirety of that. But then they distribute that along their front, Sometimes their rear facade because they have I-95 frontage. And it gets broken up, not just the big low sign, but service, garden center, all the other miscellaneous signs all go into that square footage.

But I understand Mr. Rosen's concern. He doesn't want something aesthetically unappealing projecting 90 feet in the air, right?

I just know anything crazy that can happen will happen eventually.

And Mr. Rosen, I completely agree with that. I wrote the original master sign program, not to date myself. I think I've done just about every amendment as well. Also wrote St. Lucie West way back in the day and various other master sign programs. And I have yet to come across that instance. Valid concern, though, Mr. Rosen. But the guardrails are there with the design review committee as well. That TDRC is not going to –

And that committee has the legal right to tell somebody no just because they don't like it? Correct.

Okay. Yeah. And the city has its rules and regulations as well. Okay.

We have a section in our code that says that the roof cannot go above the sign. So, I mean, there's multiple safety factors built in.

That makes me feel comfortable.

But as a rule in tradition, the TDRC reviews these matters, and typically they don't even get to us. unless they're copacetic.

Quite honestly, and not to belabor the point, but that was really the genesis of this Eighth Amendment. It was TDRC and the city as commercial developments, if they didn't know they had to go to TDRC and they were coming into the city first and they were proposing things inconsistent with the master sign program, the city would catch it, they'd reach out to TDRC. So that active communication really developed, hey, There's a need for both the city and TDRC or tradition to amend this, and that was a catalyst. I appreciate that.

I'm good. Thank you. Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Do I have to change the motion? No.

No, no need to change the motion. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Hold on. I'm sorry. We do have a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Okay, seeing none, close the public hearing, and I will entertain a motion. Mr. Spiterra? Do you want me to repeat? Please repeat, yeah. Okay.

I make a motion that P16042A3, Tradition Master Sign Program, be approved. Second.

With the condition that the primary monument sign height be revised to nine and a half feet prior to City Council.

Mr. Spiterra? No.

Would you amend your motion?

Yeah, to amend my motion. With the condition? That there be a condition that it won't be over 9 and 1 half feet high.

And the exhibit will be amended by city council meeting. OK, we have a motion with conditions. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? OK, good luck. All right, item 8B. Any ex parte communication, left or right?

None.

None. None.

None. None. None.

OK. Staff? Good evening, Chair. Good evening, Vice Chair, members of the board. I've been met in court with the Planning and Zoning Department. I have been sworn in, and the official file was submitted to the city clerk's office five days prior to this hearing. Madam Clerk, will you please enter the file into the record? The item before you is a special exception use application for a project known as St. Lucie West Diamond Elite Academy, LLC. The request is to allow 10,350 square feet of enclosed assembly recreational space without an alcoholic beverage license. The property is located east of Northwest Peacock Boulevard and south of Northwest University Boulevard. The applicant is Tiffany Romero, and the property owner is PSL Business Center Partnership. The applicant intends to operate as a baseball training facility, which will occupy an existing building on the developed site. The proposed facility exceeds 3,000 square feet of enclosed assembly area, which requires approval of a special exception use in the service commercial zoning district. This is an area of the property. The surrounding uses are recreational field to the east, baseball stadium to the north, self-storage facility to the west, and commercial business center to the south. The property zone serves commercial, which is compatible with the land use and zoning destinations surrounding the site. This is the approved site plan depicting the space to be occupied by the proposed use. This is the proposed floor plan showing the location of the enclosed assembly space. With our special exception use applications, we evaluate them against criteria as outlined under Section 158.260. No changes to site access are proposed. The property will continue to utilize its two existing access points. The proposed use requires 52 parking spaces and the overall site provides 509. This is sufficient to accommodate the proposed use. There are adequate utilities on site that are serviced by St. Lucie West Services District. No additional screening or buffering are required. The approved landscape plan provides adequate landscaping. All signage and lighting shall be required to conform to the city code. And the facility is in an area designated for commercial development, which is not expected to adversely impact surrounding properties. You as a board have the option to make a motion to recommend approval to the city council, amend the recommendation and recommend approval, motion to recommend denial, or a motion to table. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION AS WELL.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR STAFF? SEEING NONE, OKAY. THE APPLICANT?

Good evening, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to be here. I'm Tiffany Romero. I'm the owner of Diamond Elite Academy. Diamond Elite Academy Sports Performance Gym is designed specifically for the development, health, and safety of student athletes. Unlike a traditional commercial gym, this facility will operate as a structured and supervised athletic training environment focused on improving strength, agility, mobility, injury prevention, conditioning, and overall wellness for middle and high school students. Diamond Elite Academy's indoor batting cages are designed to provide a safe, structured, and climate-controlled athletic training environment for baseball and softball student athletes. The batting cage area will be utilized for skill development athletic instruction, team training, and supervised recreation athletic activity. During school hours, the batting cages will primarily be used by enrolled student athletes as part of the academy's sports performance and athletic development program. Activities may include baseball and softball hitting instruction, pitching and catching development, strength and conditioning integration, team practices and drills, sports performance training, skill development, and supervised athletic recreation. The indoor nature of the facility allows students to train year-round in a controlled environment while minimizing outdoor noise and weather-related interruptions. After school hours approximately between 5 and 8 p.m., portions of the batting cage facility may be made available for structured rentals and supervised use by local travel teams. local travel baseball and softball teams, parents and student athletes, small group athletic instruction, and team practices and lessons. These after-hour activities are intended to provide additional safe indoor recreation opportunities for the local community while supporting youth athletes within Port St. Lucie. This is our Legends Cafe. The healthy cafe and student commons provide students with access to nutritious catered lunches, protein smoothies, healthy beverages, and snack options throughout the day. No cooking occurs on site. The space serves as a comfortable environment where students can relax, socialize, study, and recharge between academic and athletic activities. Food and beverage options will also be available during supervised after hours training and facility rental periods. This is our Performance and Innovation Commons, which is designed as a supervised educational, recreational, and wellness-focused environment that supports student development through athletics, health, nutrition, leadership, technology, and community engagement. The facility provides year-round indoor recreational opportunities while promoting safe, structured activities for both enrolled students and the greater Port St. Lucie community. strength and conditioning instruction, baseball and softball skill development, sports performance training, recovery and mobility sessions, nutrition and wellness education, leadership development workshops, guest speaker presentations, team meetings and collaboration, academic study and group project work, and technology-based athletic performance analysis. The Diamond Elite Academy lobby is designed as a welcoming, professionally managed reception area that balances hospitality with student safety. The space incorporates controlled access points, visitor management procedures, and security monitoring systems while providing a comfortable environment for students, family, staff, and visitors. The lobby serves as the primary access and supervision point for the facility, ensuring secure and organized movement throughout the academy. That's my presentation. If you have any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant from any members?

I'm a little concerned about parking. I'm a little concerned about parking. I mean, there is quite a bit of parking in that parking lot. Yeah, there's almost 500 spots. Oh, okay. So there's not an assignment of parking. You can use all the parking spots at the parking lot? Correct, correct.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr. Spataro.

Am I not understanding something with this alcoholic beverage thing?

Yeah, there's no alcoholic beverage being served on the property, correct? Correct.

No alcoholic beverages.

It's just a vert.

I was going to say a virgin with a bat in her hand.

It could be fun. Well, not for the students. You might be able to see better. No, I'm just kidding. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions for the applicant or staff? This is a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on the item? Seeing none, close the public hearing. And we'll call for a motion and discussion.

Motion to approve P25-220. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? OK. We are on item 8C. Any ex parte communications, left or right?

None.

None. None. None.

None. None.

OK, open public hearing. And we have staff. Marissa?

Good evening again, Board. Marissa Dabry, Alaskan Planning and Zoning Department. I have been sworn in and the efficient file packet was provided to the clerk's office at least five days prior to this meeting. Madam Clerk, please enter the file into the record. THIS IS THE FIRST OF THREE APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR IS A LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION REQUEST, P26059. THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS THE APPLICANT OF STORYBOOK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SALTON DRIVE AND SOUTHWEST BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF THE C-24 CANAL. THE REQUEST IS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING IN LIEU OF AN ARCHITECTURAL BUFFER WALL ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER SECTION 154.12. SO THIS IS THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES, THE SIX PARCELS SHOWN HERE. AND THIS IS ALSO ILLUSTRATING THE EXISTING LAND USE, FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING. To the north of the site, we have a church and a daycare. To the south is the C-24 canal, and across which we have a single-family residential and a daycare. We have vacant property across Port St. Lucie Boulevard. Here's the aerial. And to the west, we have a residential. Project summary. The subject property is 1.41 acres in size and is proposed to be developed with a 10,400 square foot retail building and associated parking. This is a site plan P26006. The site is adjacent to the C24 canal and abuts property with residential zoning to the west and the south. As such, an architectural buffer wall is required. There is a 10 foot utility and drainage easement along the rear of the property and a wall is not allowed. And here we see the three applications that are before you tonight. P26006 is a site plan, which is not before you. It's P26003, the LMD rezoning for the concept plan. And P26004, the special exception use application. The landscape modification requests an enhanced landscaping within the 10-foot rear of the southern perimeter landscape buffer in lieu of a wall. Just to point out, there is a wall along the western property because there's a residential right adjacent, so that wall will remain. The enhanced landscaping will include a continuous six-foot Kalusha hedge at the time of planting, and the hedge will be maintained at a minimum of six feet. A total of 26 trees are provided where only six are required by code. This is the overall landscape plan. And this is where the modification will apply. This is a close-up of the property line. I'll use the pointer. So this is a southern property line, but the C-24 canal runs on this way. There's a residential property on this side of the property, and the wall will remain.

If I could, ma'am, I'm sorry to interrupt the presentation. Just while you have this graphic, you mentioned that there was a 10-foot utility and drainage has been in the back, correct?

Yes.

Is that reflected in this section detail? I'm curious if that was the space between the dash line and what appears to be the property line?

Yes. Okay.

Yes.

And it's also the landscape buffer. They're both the same.

Thank you.

So this is where we see the six foot high plants that are intended to be installed in the buffer. That's the hedge. So your options tonight, the board may choose to approve or deny or table the proposed landscape, the proposed landscape modification. If the board finds that the application is consistent with the criteria as listed in section 154.12 of the city code, then the board may approve motion to approve a motion to approve a condition IF THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION APPLICATION IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA, THE BOARD MAY MOTION TO DENY. AND THE BOARD MAY ALSO MOTION TO TABLE OR CONTINUE THE HEARING TO A FUTURE MEETING. THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

THANKS, MARISSA. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MARISSA?

MR. CHAIR, I HAVE A QUESTION. MARISSA, YOU SAID THAT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, The wall will remain. You mean the wall requirement will remain?

Right.

Okay. Because that's the only residential property that is adjacent, correct?

Yes. So along this side of the property, the wall will remain.

The requirement of the wall. The wall requirement. There's no wall there now, right?

It is on the map. It is there.

Oh, it is there.

Okay. Yeah. There is a wall here. It will remain.

The wall is already built.

No, there's a fence there on the the residential property, but this property will have to right.

So the requirement of the wall will remain in that location in that location. So they have to put this up and has to put a wall there.

Yes.

Okay. So that will buffer the resident neighbor. Yes, they're there. We you can't put a wall because of South Florida water management. Correct along the sea 24 canals that what's being stated.

No, the city has a 10-foot drainage and utility easement. Oh, so that's why. And it cannot be abandoned.

But they could recess the wall 10 feet interior to the property line, correct? Yes.

That is an option. So just to clarify, there's a 10-foot easement and the walls proposed right on the edge of the 10-foot easement, which isn't allowed.

It's not allowed.

If there was a desire to have the wall, the wall would have to be at like 11 feet, right? Or 11 and a half feet or whatever. The plan would need a minor redesign.

So this is a typical request to forego a wall for landscape buffer typically because of cost right. I mean you can speculate but that's I mean if the board decides to not allow that then there's room to put the wall outside of the easement.

So the applicant would need to revise their plans, but it's your determination. But if you didn't allow it, they'd need to do a redesign.

Right. And then if you look at the consideration of security, I mean, the C-24 is accessible by anyone essentially anyway, right? There's no – you can just walk down the C-24 canal, correct?

Yeah.

Yes. I believe that to be the case. I haven't tried.

And across from the canal are – Across from the canal are homes, correct?

There are homes directly across the canal, which you can see in the aerial photo.

Is it residential to the south? Yes. Or is it commercial?

It looked like residential and daycare.

There it is. Yeah, right there.

To the south, across Port St. Lucie Boulevard, yes.

And then you've got the canal, and then you've got the residence homes.

Right. So we have residential from here back. There's a daycare along Port St. Lucie Boulevard.

Right. Yes. Ms. Grace, do you have a question? Mr. Rosen?

From the city's perspective, does this wall, if the board agrees on this, does this in any way impede on or hurt or anything the easement that we've got there? Are there any concerns on the city's behalf?

I don't understand the question.

like something okay um I'm probably not I think what you're asking is if they put a wall up is that a problem at all for the city regarding the easement if they can't put it in the easement it's it's not not allowed so they'd have to redesign and move the wall back

The current plans propose the wall right at the 10 foot. So if the modification is not granted, the applicant's going to have to revise the plans to shift the wall to make sure that it's not in the easement.

Yeah.

Right? And depending on the construction, it might be a foot or two because there's footers for walls.

Right. I get it. Thank you. Does that satisfy your questions? Yep, it makes sense.

All right. Any other questions from members of the board? Members of the board? Reasoning for a wall is, I believe, twofold. One, to avoid a sight nuisance and a sound nuisance. Is that correct?

Correct. It's to act as a buffer between commercial and residential.

And generally speaking, this is going to be where the landscaping and where the wall would be is to the rear of the retail center.

Correct.

Where they have a lot of... things put in the back there, people go in the back, garbage cans, things like that, right?

The site plan does not show anything in the back. It currently has drainage retention and doors.

But the part of the retail center is the back of the retail center.

Yes.

The back of the retail center is typically used for stuff.

Right. And we also have parking spaces. ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE DUMPSTER AS WELL.

I THINK WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO IS IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THAT LANDSCAPING DETAIL, IT LOOKED AS IF THERE WAS A STRUCTURE AT THE REAR THAT MAY BE LIKE A GARBAGE DUMPSTER. I MIGHT HAVE IMAGINED THAT. I CAN GO BACK TO THERE WAS A LITTLE. THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING. THAT'S THE DUMPSTER? DUMPSTAIN CLOSURE, YES.

SO TO THE CHAIRMAN'S QUESTION, REAR OF THE BUILDING APPEARS TO FACE THE CANAL. AND AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, THERE ARE DOORS, EXITS FROM THOSE SPACES, AND THERE'S A WALKWAY THAT LEADS DOWN ALONG THE CANAL TO WHERE THE DUMPSTER IS, IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO HAVE.

ALSO, THE WALL REQUIREMENT IS 10-FOOT, CORRECT? What's the wall requirement? Six foot?

Six.

Okay. And they're proposing a six-foot... Hedge. Colusa.

Yes, with trees.

Is that from the get-go, or is that to grow to?

Add install.

Add installation.

Yes. If I may, Mary, I think you clarified a good point that I do think is important, but... At the rear of this building, it looks as if there's, say, a six to eight foot walkway along the back of those. So I'm assuming that employees and emergency exit access would be from the rears. It doesn't look like it's something that would be like the standard rear of a commercial building where you'd have deliveries and you'd have HVAC systems and you'd have other things. It looks more pedestrian, not pedestrian from the public perspective, but from a user perspective. operator perspective. I just wanted to kind of clarify that point because I don't see any alleyway or anything along those lines.

So the applicant is here, and so I believe they could probably answer some of these questions for you. Okay. Eric?

Quick question. South Florida Water Management District, do they have an easement back there? Is there some sort of easement there for the management of that canal?

Yes, there is along the bank of the canal.

Is there a bank or is there an actual road? Because I know along those canals, vehicles traverse that along those canal levees and usually that's South Florida Water Management District so that realistically almost anybody can walk up and down those easements anytime they want.

So there is currently a fence, if I could get my pointer to work, right there.

Chain link fence?

I AM NOT SURE WHAT TYPE OF FENCE IT IS, BUT YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE AREA.

THAT DEMISES FROM THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PROPERTY TO THE CITY PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT?

NO. THE CITY PROPERTY IS ALONG THE REAR OF THE PARCELS. IT'S PUBLIC WORKS DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT.

SO FROM THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE DELIBERATING OVER To the canal, goes the property owner, city of Port St. Lucie, South Florida Water Management District to the canal, is that correct?

Yes. Yeah, it's South Florida's canal. So we don't have any easement on the canal. It's all inside the subject property.

How far out does that, do we have any idea how far out the South Florida Water Management District easement goes?

I measured the width is 350 feet from bank to bank. 350 feet? From bank to bank, yes.

From bank to bank?

Well, from property line to property line, north and south.

I think from canal right-of-way to canal right-of-way, the outside.

That's what I measured, yes.

Does that answer your question?

We're getting there.

Okay. You want to hear from the applicant?

Yeah, let's do that.

The applicant, come on forward. Thank you.

Good evening Planning and Zoning Board members. Jose Chavez, Storybook Development Services. So I guess first just to clarify a couple points that we talked about. Right now the existing site plan does not have a wall along the rear. So that wall was initially proposed. We had a site plan that was approved at the site plan review committee back in March 11th, where we showed the 10-foot drainage and utility easement across the rear of the property. We showed a six-foot fence five feet off the property line with landscaping outside of that wall. um in speaking with public works staff they advised us that right now in the city code encroachments into that easement are only permitted if it was a 20-foot easement the code doesn't explicitly prohibit encroachments into a 10-foot easement that we found but it doesn't it only discusses permitting encroachment into a 20-foot easement So going down that path and understanding that we couldn't have a wall within that 10 feet, then we discussed with staff alternative options, which led to this application that is in front of you here today. The site is really restrained in width. So we've already squeezed the building to be a very narrow shape. We have an access driveway meeting the minimum requirements and parking along the front of the building. The rear does have a five foot access for the rear of those units, mostly for access. There's not expected to be a lot of or any really deliveries that are happening along the back. We also do have a small surface retention system that's behind that building that is between the building and the landscape buffer that now exists in that 10 foot area. That 10-foot area does have a 6-foot hedge at planting, so it is a pretty robust and dense screening. And the parking field that is to the west of the building, none of the parking spots are facing across the canal. So they're all either facing one direction or the other. You would have only a limited area where cars are driving with spotlights pointing across the canal. The other point that was brought up was regarding that dumpster enclosure. So that dumpster enclosure does have a six-foot block wall around the dumpster enclosure. So from the back of it across the canal, the dumpster enclosure will pretty much look just like a wall that would have similar finishes to the building. i don't know if you guys are familiar with the gatlin point project or the harbor village project that's on southwest gallon boulevard or the one that's currently under construction on greco but those are projects by the same developer and the dumpster enclosures that were constructed for those projects have similar finishes to the buildings so it's not you know an ugly feature in the back they would just see you know the rear of the wall of the dumpster enclosure which would be buffered and screened by the landscaping We are happy to move forward. I think staff did a really good job in presenting our request. So we're happy to move forward with the presence with the project as presented. We're happy to go back to the site plan review committee approved site plan from March 11th that showed a six foot wall that was located five feet off of the rear property line. we just are requesting a little bit of consideration for the timeline we've been working with staff through this process a lot and the owner the developer does have a limited timeline to kind of get these things resolved during his contract due diligence so that would be my only request as you guys consider this and I'm here to open to answer any questions any questions for the applicant all right thank you at this time

Again, this is a public hearing. I do have a card for this item, I believe. Ms. Pimentel?

MS. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Councilmembers, and staff. My name is Madge Brathwaite Pimentel, and I live directly adjacent across the canal, and it will be behind this proposed project.

And you did send in a comment as well, correct? Yes. And everyone received it, just so you know.

What is your address? 833 Southwest Abingdon Ave. and I'm here on behalf of myself and all of the other residents that live along the strip, which will be adjacent to this proposed project.

Across the canal.

Yes, yes. Thank you so much for this opportunity to speak regarding the applicant's request to provide the enhanced landscape in lieu of the required architectural buffering wall. along the southern perimeter of the proposed commercial development pursuant to section 154.12 of the landscape and land clearing code. I respectfully ask the council to deny this waiver request and require compliance with the architectural buffer wall requirements established by the city code. The City of Port St. Lucie specifically requires architectural buffer walls where commercial development abuts residential property. Section 154.03 subsection C paragraph 5 states the wall is required in a landscape buffer strip where commercial industrial institutional office or public facility uses abut property to the side or rear which is designated with a residential or open space land use or which has a residential use such as an assisted living facility. A wall is required in a landscape buffer strip where multifamily development abuts property to the side rear which is designated in a single family zoning. The city site plans requirements states that a landscape buffer wall is required. A wall must be at least six feet high above finished floor elevation and may be up to eight feet high. In fact, the city code defines a landscape buffer strip as consisting of both landscaping and architectural wall. This demonstrates that the City views these elements as complementary protection rather than interchangeable substitutes. If landscape alone provides the same benefit as a wall, there would be no need for separate requirements. Our homes directly adjoin this proposed development. Our backyards, our pools, the bedroom, kitchens, and family living areas are not public spaces. Homeowners reasonably expect a level of privacy, screening, and protection that the city's buffering requirements were specifically designed to provide. Landscaping alone is not equivalent to an architectural buffer wall. Trees and shrubs require years to mature and will never provide the same level of screening landscaping can also die, be removed, become damaged. There was a freeze recently where... Thank you. You have time.

You have time. I'm sorry?

Oh, it's been way, way past.

Can we just go ahead and wrap it up?

We have your statement.

Why don't you make your last comment?

I'm respectfully asking that the council to uphold the intent of the city's development code, deny the waiver request under the section, and require compliance with the architectural buffer wall required established by the section. Existing homeowners should not lose important protection because of the self-created design constraints. The required architectural buffer wall exists to protect adjacent residents' property from the impact of new development, and that protection should remain in place. Lastly, again, the City of Port St. Lucie Code requires the wall, and I am asking, and the residents of the area is begging the Council to please deny this request.

um it is imposing on all privacy and again landscaping does deteriorate we just had a freeze and I have crucial plans along my property and it's gone thank you Mr pimentel thank you I appreciate it respectfully we're the planning and zoning board we uh make the recommendations to Council Council does have the final word uh on sure no no Chair Norton go ahead

FOR THIS LANDSCAPE MODIFICATION, THE BOARD DOES HAVE THE DECISION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT CARDS. OKAY. WITH THAT, CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTION?

MR. CHAIR, SO MY MAIN CONCERN WAS THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE, I don't know if we have a residential comment for so that is not changing. So the wall will be there. I'm not actually concerned about the the canal side. As a matter of fact, I think this commercial area is going to be better for the residents on the other side of the canal because there will be no one behind the building. So I'm actually in favor of this and having landscape there. I don't know if a wall is necessary, especially with the issue with the easement. I think the landscaping will look a lot better and without residents there. And if having commercial, you're going to have less activity in those backyard. There's not going to be any backyards. Are you going to see a back of a building?

Actually, you won't even see it because you're going to have landscaping.

So I'm in favor of this as long as there's a wall on the west side next to that residence. Mr. Angus.

So I'm seeing that I pulled the property up on the property appraiser website and I've got the particular property behind these lots is owned by South Florida Water Management District from one parcel line across the canal away to the other side. So from quarter acre property line to South quarter acre property line, it's all owned by South Florida Water Management District.

CORRECT.

CORRECT? YES. SO IT DOESN'T SAY THE LENGTH OF, DO WE HAVE, AND YOU SAID THERE'S 135 FEET, IS THAT CORRECT, FROM ONE END OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE OTHER, IS THAT CORRECT?

350, YOU SAID.

350 FEET, EXCUSE ME. ACROSS THE GANAL. YES, MA'AM. YES. SO THE WIDTH OF THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT RUNS ALONG IS 350 FEET WIDE, CORRECT?

Yes, the canal, yes.

So it's over a full football field away. Okay. And the other question I had was about the landscaping requirement. Required to be six foot in installation, is that correct?

Yes, sir.

And what was the density of that again? Is there a specification on how dense that landscaping has to be?

Right, so they won't be able to put them in at the two feet that we require because I think the specification is seven gallon pots, which would make them quite large.

Seven gallon pots, does that have an equal, some sort of ratio to?

42 feet on center.

42 feet.

Inches. 42 inches.

42 inches, okay, I was going to say 42 feet. We're going to need to increase that. Sorry.

So 42 inches on center, but it's because they're much taller from the get-go.

Yes. And is there, I understood, is there other requirements to make the landscaping buffer a little bit more dense?

No, that's all that the landscape, yes, at the rear.

And the trees.

And the added trees, yes.

And the trees. Yes. Is it unreasonable to request that the landscape buffer be a tad bit more robust to address the citizens' concerns?

That's actually where I was going to try to go as well. Particularly, if I may, to supplement that, if not for the entire length, I think it would be a relatively easy concession for the western portion where you have parking lot areas where you may have vehicle lights coming across. The other portion of the building, the back of the building, given that it's not necessarily a service use, would somewhat serve the purpose of the wall of sorts. But I think my real concern is that westernmost, call it maybe 20%, 25%, where we don't have the building.

Just out of curiosity, we're starting to wander out of the purview of this particular agenda item application.

So if, if the board is discussing, if I understand, you're talking about the six foot Clusia shrubs are proposed 42 inches on center. And I think one member of the board is questioning if they should be closer together on that portion of the site where there is no building.

So, yes, that was on the canal side.

Yeah. So what I was saying is that, you know, I'm in support of many of the things that we've spoken about relative to this accommodation. But, you know, to Mr. McInnis' comments about the spacing of the plantings, I would definitely support that if we had a requirement for a more robust buffer, particularly at that portion of the building and the property where there is no building. So you don't have any light across the street and you actually, you could probably look across from the canal and you could actually be able to see into the property more than the portion that has the building. Call it that western 20, 25% from the western plane of the building to the western property line with the remaining wall constraint or requirement.

And do you have a recommendation for the on-center spacing for the plants?

I would think that we have what looks like It looks like there's one tier of shrubs, right, that are Colussus. I'm just wondering if it was something that, you know, that six foot high Colussus at that location stays and maybe there's a smaller tier that's fitted in between it of another species. I think that's a fairly common condition.

We could work with our, if you'd like to place a condition to require supplemental shrubs be planted, in addition to the clusia hedge on the portion of the site where there's no building yes ma'am you know no commercial building for a taller tree correct what i'm hearing is shrubs yeah shrubs and trees yeah we could work with our landscape um architect and ask him for a recommendation because We don't want to just pick something here that would waste money and not survive.

Absolutely.

The goal is to make sure that we provide a denser screening. Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am. I'd be in support of that.

So if there was such a condition, we could certainly work that out with our landscape architect. So how do we list that type of condition in the motion?

If you make a motion, you make a motion with the condition that the applicant will have supplemental shrubs in addition to the mature collusus WITH STAFF APPROVAL.

SEEMS VEG. AT THE LOCATION FROM THE WEST BUILDING PLAIN TO THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.

I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO SUPPORT THIS AS PROPOSED WITH THE ADDITION OF SUPPLEMENTAL PLANT MATERIAL SHRUBS TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATE TO THE KALUSHA HEDGE ON THE WESTERN Mr. Chair, I would be in a position to put forward a motion if there's no other board discussion.

Any other discussion? Great.

Do you have a question, Rose? Go ahead. Applicant? Okay, come on.

Who's going to maintain this? Is it the property management company? Is it going to be you? Who's going to take care of this to make sure it stays properly, you know, intact?

I mean, the property owner always hires a property management company that maintains all the landscaping on site. I mean, there's other landscaping requirements throughout the site and the landscape islands and things of that nature that require maintenance as well. So that's codified? Well, the site plan and the landscape plan, once approved by the city council, serve as a code enforcement issue. So if at any point the landscape didn't meet the requirements that are shown in the approved plan, it can be held as a code enforcement issue.

So, for example, if the plants all died, code enforcement would come out, cite them, they'd have to replace it.

Exactly. I would add that I think that the 42-inch center dimension was included because the size of the plant makes it such that when planted at a six-foot, they're touching, right?

But there are supplemental plants to plant in between them that could serve the same purpose of density.

Like a tier of in-between and centered between that 42.

Right, I think maybe even a slightly offset or something to cover the gaps. And you're okay with that?

Yes. So does the current landscape plan have trees at that particular property line? Yeah. What is it supposed to be?

Yeah, they're doing 19 trees versus 12 required, correct? Exactly. There's excess trees than the minimum. Perfect.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay. Can I ask, Mr. Chair? Yeah. So, Mary, can I ask staff, so what happens with collusia that were damaged with the freeze? I have an awesome hedge, or it used to be awesome. Now I can see right through it. But it's coming back.

So most of them are coming back. I mean, now we're getting into June. What our guidance has been is that if it's not back by mid-June, then you should probably start cutting the wood off. But most of them are coming back now.

So it's, hey, this happens. It's nature. we got to allow it to grow back.

It typically takes a, about two, two and a half months. We adopted a policy in the planning department for our developers to say, we're going to hold off on code enforcement until like June.

But June to see what growth for this relative to this current freeze. Okay.

We adopted a policy that said, you know, We're going to wait until June and let there be some rain and let the plants come back. If it doesn't come back by mid-June, it probably needs to be replaced.

So the definition of come back is I'm inspecting it and I see growth, and that's coming back. Because my hedge in my backyard is going to take a year before it goes back to where it was. But they're all growing. There's growth on all of them. I'm not going to pull them out and replace them. They will eventually be the way they were, but it will take a full year. So that's what I'm just trying to understand. If you go and the owner says, Well, look, all of my plants are coming back. I'm sorry. I'm not going to pull them. You'd have to literally dig them out and then put new ones in.

So this is a little speculative and off topic, I would say.

Yeah, Mary, if I can interject. I believe that, as we had mentioned, because it's on the site plan, this would become more of a code issue. And if someone is cited because of this, something related to a freeze, and this was something that would be discussed and then worked out relative to the code citation. Right. Again, if someone's dealing with agricultural issues outside of their control, that's probably taken into consideration during the code proceedings.

If the board asks for who maintains it, it's a code enforcement issue. It's approved by the board, here's what the landscape plan is, it's installed, and then if sometime in the future it's not maintained, it's a code enforcement issue.

Correct, and it would be the property owner. And by virtue of the site plan, they're held to the site plan.

Correct, thank you.

Got it. No, it was a good question. At the end of the day, the property owner is going to be responsible, period.

Yep.

All right. And the code is a code, and the code will be enforced. When the anomalies come.

Sorry, I got off track.

There's going to be some flexibility, I think, on the city's part, but as a general rule, the rule is the rule, the code is the code, follow the code.

So, Mr. Chair, I'm really sorry I got off track because I'm really annoyed that my closure plans are completely gone.

Well, you better get them replaced or I'm going to cite you. All right. Any other questions? Okay.

I would put forward a motion to approve P26-059 as presented with the requirement for a additional tier of landscaping hedges to be installed from the western plane of the building to the western property line adjoining the wall approximately as best be able to fit with the landscape architect and that ideally those would be a complementary smaller hedge to provide extra depth to that that hedge to be determined and worked out by staff with the architect and landscape architect Second.

Carly, does that suffice?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any other further discussion? Hearing none, call the question. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, thank you. Okay, then we'll move on to the companion item 8D. And we have any ex parte communication left or right?

None.

None.

None. None. None. None.

None.

Okay, we'll open the public hearing, and Marissa.

Good evening again, Board. Marissa W. Lesman, Planning and Zoning Department. I have been sworn in, and the efficient file was provided to the Clerk's Office at least five days prior to this meeting. Madam Clerk, please enter the file into the record. This is the second of three items pertaining to this property, Riverview Plaza. This is the LMD Rezoning, the Conceptual Plan Amendment, P26003. Again, the applicant, Jose Chavez of Storybook Development. The property owner is Roselle LLC. The location, southwest corner of southwest Salton Drive and southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard and north of the C-24 Canal. This is a special exception use application to allow retail and personal service uses that exceed 50% of the building's close-for area and any use that exceeds 5,000 square feet. Here again is the aerial of the property showing the existing uses, future land use, and the surrounding zoning. So we have commercial to the north COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH, SOME COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH AND RESIDENTIAL, AND WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST. AND THIS IS THE EXISTING ZONING MATCH AND THE PROPERTY IS LMD, LIMITED MIXED USE ZONING. SO THE PROPOSED ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH POLICY 1.1.4.13. of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan, which establishes the compatible future land use and zoning categories. Delimited mixed use zoning district is listed as a compatible zoning district under the ROI, future land use classification is highlighted in the table. So this is the previous conceptual plan approved for the property. And this is the current plan. showing an exit from Southwest Sultan. No road improvements are proposed along Port St. Lucie Boulevard. This is the landscape plan as previously presented. These are the proposed elevations. The existing zone is consistent with policy 1.1.4.13. of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. The applicant's proposal to reconfigure the subject's property conceptual plan is consistent with section 1.58.155P and any changes to the conceptual plan or any changes to the proposed uses is subject to the hearing requirements for rezoning as designated in the zoning code. The proposed commercial use is permitted within the LMD zoning district as stated in section 158.155C2. Your voting options tonight, a motion to recommend approval to city council, motion to amend the recommendation and recommend approval, motion to recommend denial to city council, and you may motion to table the board should you need further clarification or information. And this is the end of the presentation. Thank you.

Any questions by members of the board for staff? Okay. Thank you, Marissa. The applicant is here. Mr. Chavez, you have a presentation.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the board. I have no further comments. I think staff explained the project well. I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Okay, members of the board have any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none. This is a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, close the public hearing. I'll call for a motion and discussion.

I'll motion to approve P26-003. I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Next item, 8E. Any members of the board have any ex parte communication? None.

None.

None. None.

None.

Okay, open public hearing. Marissa.

This is my fourth and last item pertaining to the Riverview Plaza P24006. And I forgot, I have been swooning. And the official files were provided to the clerk's office at least five days prior to this meeting. Madam Clerk, please enter the files into the record. So this is the special exception use application P24006. Again, the applicant is Jose Savas of Storybook Development and the property owner, Roselle LLC, and the location, southwest corner of Southwest Salton Drive and Port St. Lucie Boulevard. And the request is for a special exception application to allow retail and personal service use that exceeds 50% of the building's gross area and any use that exceeds 5,000 square feet. Here again is the aerial, the future land use map. and the existing zoning map. This is the site plan as proposed. The building elevations. So the proposed project is anticipated to generate, excuse me, 669 average daily trips with 56 a.m. peak hour and 78 PM peak hour trips. The Public Works Department reviewed the traffic analysis and concluded that the transportation elements of the project are in compliance with the adopted level of service and requirements of Chapter 156 of the City Code and Public Works Policy 19.01 PWD. So evaluation of the SCU criteria. The ingress and egress will be provided at one location along Southwest Salton Drive for this development. Traffic at the intersection of Salton and Port St. Lucie Boulevard will be right turn in, right turn out as a grass median is located in Port St. Lucie Boulevard and no improvements are proposed to that grass median. The concept plan provides for 53 parking stalls including three ADA. The City of Port St. Lucie is the utility provider. Screening an 8-foot masonry wall is proposed along the western property boundary to buffer the residential property located immediately adjacent. The Landscape Modification Application P26059 is being requested to provide an enhanced buffer along the rear of the subject property and was previously approved. All exterior lighting shall be in conformance with section 158.221. And I cannot see the rest of my presentation. Your board auctions tonight a motion to recommend approval to city council. Make a motion to amend the recommendation and recommend approval. Motion to recommend denial to city council or motion to table should require further clarification and information. This is the end of the presentation. Do you have any questions?

Any members of the board have questions for staff? All right. Thank you, Marissa. And the applicant, Mr. Chavez.

This is also my last presentation. Members of the board, we have no further comments, but we are here to answer any questions.

Any questions for the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, thank you again. This is a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, close the public hearing. I will entertain a motion and discussion.

I motion to recommend approval for P26-004. Second.

P20. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Hearing none, all in favor say aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Good luck. All right. 8F. 8F is quasi-judicial. Any members of the board have any ex parte communication? None. None.

None.

None. None.

None.

None. Okay, we open public hearing. Cody.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Board members. Cody Sisk with the Planning and Zoning Department. I've been sworn in and the official file has been submitted at least five days before today's hearing. Madam Clerk, please enter that into the record. Today's application is for Darwin Square, Puyo Tropical. It's a variance for parking. The property owner is PSL Darwin LLC. The agent is with Corporate Property Services. It's located at 3201 Southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard. It's at the southeast corner of Darwin and Port St. Lucie Boulevard and the existing use right now is a bank. The subject parcel is about approximately 0.69 acres. Again, it's located on the southeast corner of Southwest Darwin Boulevard and Southwest Port St. Lucie Boulevard with a bank. It's currently zoned general commercial, and the applicant is proposing a redevelopment to have a standalone drive-thru restaurant. The parking variance is for a reduction of a total of 18 spaces. The site requires 38 spaces, but the applicant is proposing 20 spaces. The request is to grant, again, the variance of 18 spaces in accordance to section 158.221-C-15 of the zoning code. The zoning code requires one space per 75 square feet of gross floor area for the standalone restaurant use. And the standalone restaurant encompasses 2,841 total square feet. There was a parking demand analysis submitted to support the variance by the applicant. The parking analysis compares the highest parking demand data midday for three other Pollo Tropical restaurants within the area. And again, the applicant's analysis states that 20 parking spaces would be sufficient for this user. This is a proposed site plan, and it shows the 20 parking spaces that are abutting Port St. Lucie Boulevard. Though this isn't part of the requirement tonight or the application tonight, there is a proposed drive-thru, but again, that is not part of this application you're being told about tonight. You as a board have the option to make a motion to approve, approve with conditions, make a motion to deny, or make a motion to table. That concludes my presentation. I'm here to answer any questions. And the applicant is also here.

Any questions, Mr. Rankin?

I just have a question. It seems we're 18 spaces. That's a, pardon my math skills, but it's about a 50% reduction.

Correct.

In the amount of required parking. And... what could potentially be the, uh, rationale? Well, what could, but I can, I understand the rationale because you want to put a drive through in here and I guess it makes sense, but there's a reason for the code being the way it is. It seems like a large reduction in parking spaces and what's the detriment to that overall situation there where the old PNC bank, the public's on Darwin square, this Darwin square, right?

Yes.

This is Darwin square. So how would that, Let's say in 20 years, if Puea Tropical doesn't stick around, and I know they do, but in the unlikely event that for some reason one day there's not a Puea Tropical there, does that revert? And should we talk about putting a condition on where, and is it even an option to put a condition on to say if the Puea Tropical ever leaves, we'd have to revert back to the required parking?

Would this be part of the special exception used to put a condition on it?

You can condition that this relief is, you could condition the variance that the variance extinguishes if the use leaves. We've done that before for other things. So if you want that to say, okay, we support this for this user. And if someone else comes in, they start over and we have a new conversation.

In the interim, does city staff agree that this is not going to be a dramatically detrimental situation to the overall ecosystem of this parking lot?

So if I may, that's for the board to consider the material and the record and make your own determination. Thank you.

Yeah, so from my standpoint, if this... Request came in and this was a locked in property with no, not part of shopping center. I wouldn't approve this because you'd have cars all over the place. Potentially. I'm not so concerned about this because if there is a need for more than 20, there are spots around. I've been over there a lot. um if poyo tropical is saying that 20 is the max that they really need i i at the mcdonald's there there's very rarely full it's all drive-through nowadays so i'm not super concerned about it um only because it's it is as mr rakenna says it's a huge reduction from the normal requirement but because it's part of a larger shopping center probably won't be detrimental.

Mr. Arcanist, do you have a question? I do. I'm looking at the aerial, and it is right next to an ingress-egress into the parking lot, correct? Sure it is.

I'm going to go back to the aerial so we can see here. So, yes, there is an ingress-egress to the south. And that drive-through is going to be? It's going to be blocked off. I'll go back to the proposed site plan.

No, Carly, this is not the proposed drive through is not part of this application. So should we be considering it?

I was just parking, correct? Yeah, this is just strictly parking with special exception use or any drive through like that is not associated to this request.

I'm just getting a little, you know, okay. I'm just wondering as if there's a failure in the traffic flow period, where is that failure going to present itself? And I'm just concerned that, you know, it might present itself right in the middle of that ingress, egress.

And the applicant's also here to...

So if I may, so concerns about the drive-through, there'll be a future SEU. So that's not on this agenda, but that would be the conversation I have with the SEU. Staff can certainly orient you to the site where everything is, of course. But concerns about how that will function or not function, that's the SEU. This is, will you grant relief on the number of parking spaces?

And the applicant's also here to answer the questions in relation to parking.

Any other questions? I have one question. And I share Mr. Pivotal's comments about his concerns that this was a stand-alone. There'll be some advantage of overflow, people parking next door and walking. It'll work, I think, eventually. It's a redevelopment of a bank. So the bank will be demoed. It will be removed. My question is an infrastructure question. As it would be a redevelopment of a site, does it have sufficient drainage? Would drainage need to be modified? Does the site plan afford sufficient drainage?

Again, that would be further down when we do the review for either the SCU or during the site plan review. This is, again, strictly just for the reduction of the number of parking spaces.

Thank you. Any applicant is here? I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

The questions on the queue will be.

We're going to have a special exception for the drive-through, and that's when you would ask your questions about the queuing and stacking and interaction with the entrants. Right. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Of course. Okay. As the applicant's coming up, though, Carly, I can ask about the applicant's business model and how

up and down the very you know the the difference between drive-thru and walk-in can I ask that at least so long as it is just a part of the business allowing to discuss the parking correct yeah okay yep good evening chairman vice chair planning board members Craig McDonald with corporate property services on behalf of Puea Tropical I've got Stephanie Gros she's our with Kim Lee Horn she's our traffic engineer conducted the studies here we've got Eduardo Kirkachi who's our civil engineer also if y'all have any questions related to that

OK. Did you bring chicken?

I wish I did. I'm hungry, too.

Yeah.

This one took a little longer. But probably to answer your question here, I mean, I can run through the great presentation. About 70% plus is done through the drive-thru today. But it's a little over 75, to be honest with you. And I was before y'all not too long ago for McDonald's. It's the same thing. They do so much of the drive-thru. There's not a need for all the parking that's required today on there. So I don't know if that answers your question on that.

That's a site right there.

You can see the bank to the north is McDonald's. And on each side of that, there is parking. But we slid that building up a little bit. And you'll see it if we come back before you, a special exception. So we could have additional queuing in our drive-thru lane right there. This is the site plan again. I know there's a question about the queuing, which will come up later. But it's a right in, right out. And we have the studies for the queuing as well as the parking that you'll see later on. Later on. I just want to show you so you understand what's happening here real quick. Here's the Pueblo Tropical, the rendering of the front non-drive-through elevations. There's the other rendering of the drive-through in the front again. Just run through the elevations real quick. And then we'll just get to the traffic. If I may interrupt one question again.

And I understand the scope of what we're seeing. It's just I won't allow the answer to influence how I cast my vote. It looked as if from the elevation that you showed that it had a two-lane drive-through. And again, I know it's outside of the scope. I just do want to clarify that for my own edification. It does.

It has two lanes that kind of merge back into one, two ordering points somewhere.

We're not addressing that tonight.

Yeah, I understand. But that's your question. You are correct. And here we'll get to the... nitty-gritty of the studies that we did. All right, so we went over to Port St. Lucie, the closest one here, those 3506 square feet. The highest observed parking demand for the number of spaces occupied was 16, and that parking demand basically equates to 4.563 per thousand square feet of square footage for that restaurant. We went to Stewart, And that was another close one. It's got 3,375 square feet. The highest observed parking demand was 17 spaces, which came out to be 5.037 per 1,000 square feet. And we used the highest for our calculation to try to come to a determination. And then Jupiter was a little bit less. It was 3,334. Highest observed parking was 12. The rate was 3.599. So you can see with the building we have is smaller than the older buildings. It's 2,841 square feet. The proposed use in that rate of 5.037 per 1,000 square feet comes out to be 14 spaces. If you average those three, it'd be 13 spaces. Poyle is very comfortable that we far exceed the demand necessary for this based upon the amount of drive that goes into it.

What's the methodology that is used to determine the highest observed? Lunchtime, evening time.

Yes, we use the peak hour. We work with staff. We use peak hour from 11 to 2 p.m. That's their busiest time would be the lunchtime. Okay.

Is it done just one day? Is it done three days for one week? What is? I'm just trying to understand.

I'll invite Stephanie up. She's our traffic engineer. She did the study. She can probably answer that better.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, members of the board. Stephanie Guerra with Kimley Horn. We chose a, it was collected for one day. So we specifically chose a typical Thursday. We did the data collection in January. It was January 15th to ensure that we were collecting data during peak season. Specifically, the reason that we chose that day was because we worked with Pollo Tropical to understand what their typical business model was and when they were experiencing the highest sales. And a Thursday from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. during that lunchtime period was determined to be the highest demand.

Thank you. I have a question. How many employees or where are they going to park?

I can speak to the... I mean, the employees are parking on site in the counts that we did collect. We found that in addition to... to patrons who are utilizing the drive-thru, the majority of patrons who are walking into the site, they're parking, they're picking up, and they're taking the food back with them. There's not a tremendous amount of dine-in, so the employees are parking on site, but we were communicated with that.

Let me ask the question a different way. The observed parking includes staff?

Yes.

Does that answer your question?

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Rose?

Is that analysis you did was at lunchtime? Was there one done at dinnertime?

We did not because the dinnertime demand tends to be lower based on what we've observed. Okay.

Any other questions for the applicant? Any other questions? No. Thank you.

Thank you.

Public hearing. Members of the public. Any members of the public wish to speak on the item? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing. And again, our scope here tonight is parking only. And I will just mention my understanding of the code is typically for a freestanding restaurant, for lack of a better example, like Amore, where you don't have a drive-through and people have to park, where McDonald's, Burger King, Pollo Tropical, they have 75% drive-through, people aren't parking. so there is not an issue of stacking or lack of parking.

Yeah, not as much of a need anymore.

Plus, Darwin Shopping Center, I was there just today looking at that former bank and the public shopping center, hundreds of parking spots over there.

My next question will be saved for the queue. Bingo.

All right, so with that, I will entertain a motion and a discussion.

A motion to approve P26-023 Darwin Square Pueblo Tropical Porking Variants. I'd like to add the condition, though, that if for some reason the lease for Pueblo Tropical should terminate, that the special exception use should be terminated as well.

The variance stays with the use. If the applicant or the user vacates, then

And we're fine with that condition. A lot more size variances run with the specific use, too. Are we good with that, Carly?

So it would be the variance would extinguish if this, it's for this proposed development.

Correct.

Right? If the development leaves or substantially changes, the variance would extinguish.

That's the condition I'd like to add, yes.

Okay. So we have a motion with conditions. Second. And seconded. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye.

Chicken on the grill.

Thank you. All right. New business. Mayor, we got a couple of things for a new business.

Yes, sir. The first item is would the board entertain moving the November 3rd meeting to November 2nd? If so, we would need a vote on that.

I'll make a motion to reschedule the November 2026 meeting from November 3rd to November 2nd.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Anything else, Mayor?

Yes, Chair. This is just a reminder to everyone on the board that the Statement of Financial Interest, also known as Form 1, is due by July 1st. So if you have not had a chance to complete it, make sure that you do that ASAP.

Okay. Everybody, you should have received an email by now.

You know, they have my wrong e-mail. I never received it. It happened last year. I'll do research on it. Mr.

If I could clarify, it's one Form F even if you're on multiple multiple boards or agencies that you wouldn't typically, I just wanted to reconfirm that.

I actually can't answer that. Um, I'm not sure. Um, that would be a question that would probably be better to the ethics commission. Um, but I would imagine the form would be the same.

So can the clerk answer that? That would be a question for Sally. That's a good question. Carly, can you ask Sally?

I will follow up, and then we can disperse that information to everyone.

Disperse an e-mail to everyone saying if only one Form 1 is required, which, okay, I won't speak out of turn, but I believe that is the case.

That's my assumption, but I will double-check, and then I will have the clerk's office send a confirmation e-mail to everyone.

Can she attach the form as well?

Did you get the e-mail? You didn't get one? Probably, but I don't have the email.

We can also resend it when we send the response.

Yeah, because you're doing the Form 1 online. You're not actually writing it. It's online. I don't recall ever seeing it, but I could be wrong. We'll send the link. All right, with that, we're adjourned.