Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and happy New Year. Welcome to the City of Port St. Lucie planning and zoning board meeting, Tuesday, 01/06/2026. It is 6PM. I call the meeting to order. Please call the roll.

Jim Norton. Here. Peter Prevot. Here. Gregory Petavon. Here. Peter Spatara.

Yes.

Eric McCanis. Ma'am. Rose Masserino. Here.

Okay. We do have a quorum. Before we move forward, first, like to recognize that mister Jack Downey has resigned, but we do want to extend our deepest appreciation for all the work he's done over the years for our community here, specifically in Port St. Lucie. His service to our city was exemplary and as a board member of the planning and zoning board was very efficient and effective in helping us get our work done. Also congratulations to miss Rose Masserino now member of the board. And we're going to congratulate Joe Rosen in a minute as his appointment is coming forward as well.

Pete? Do you want to do a pledge first?

No, we want to make a motion.

Make a motion first?

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to move nine C oath of office for members up to now.

Okay, great. So if our members, mister Harvey, mister Rosen, if you could please come forward. Stan, is there a second?

I'll second the motion. Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye. Alright.

It's approved. Please come forward and all the members will please take the oath of office. Madam Clerk? All members, right? Madam Clerk? All of us?

I believe it's everyone except for Mr. Prevot and Mr. Spatara.

Okay.

Okay. If everyone can please raise their right hands. I do solemnly swear that I will support, protect and defend the constitution and government of The United States and the state of Florida, and that I will bear true faith, loyalty and allegiance to the same, and that I am entitled to hold office under the constitution and laws of the state of Florida, and that I will faithfully perform all of the duties of a member of the planning and zoning board.

I will. I will. I do.

Thank you.

Thank you. Welcome aboard.

I understand mister Rosen will be acting as an alternate. So please, mister Rosen, take a seat to my right. Okay. And we do have a quorum.

Chair, just a I'm sorry. Just a quick clarification. Is he serving he's he's now been sworn in as an alternate, but is he sitting in as a voting member today?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Taking over mister dough Dougherty's

Perfect. Okay. So just let the record show that you today, even though he's an alternate today, he is a full voting member.

Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Everyone, please stand for the pledge. Great. Alright. Need a motion to approve the minutes from 12/02/2025.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the planning and zoning board meeting for December 2, I believe, 2025.

Second.

We have a motion and second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Minutes are approved. We're moving on to the public hearing non quasi judicial. Seven a is the Sandpiper Bay Resort. Item is being requested to be tabled to date certain January 20.

Make a motion to table item seven a p two five one five seven Sandpiper Bay Resort small scale comprehensive plan to date certain January 20.

There's a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Before we move forward, is there any public who wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. And we have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We have a supplemental item to this on August is also going to be moved.

I think it's 8b.

8b, my apologies. 8b, thank you.

Make a motion to

We're going to get to that one. Just wanted to make sure public knew that that's also going to be moved when we get to that point. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to 7B. I'm going to open the public hearing. And I'll ask the planner and staff.

Sophia? Good evening, chair, vice chair and board members. Sophia Trail with the planning and zoning department. Project P25174 is a zoning text amendment to the land use conversion manual. The conversion manual was originally adopted in the mid 1980s to provide property owners and developers with a guide to rezoning properties in the city's conversion areas, which were located along major roadways within the city.

The conversion process allows for single family platted lots to be rezoned to a zoning district that's consistent with the property's future land use designation and policy 100 fourteen-thirteen of the future land use element of the city's comprehensive plan. The last amendment to the conversion manual was in 2018 which added the Becker Road conversion area to it. The conversion manual addresses requirements for land assembly, rezoning requirements, and related site plan and design considerations. It explains the land use conversion process, available conversion options, and implementation policies. This is the conversion area map that is included within the manual.

So many of most of our conversion areas are along Bayshore Boulevard, Port St. Lucie Boulevard, Gatlin Boulevard, and Fecker Road. This application is a city initiated text amendment to the conversion manual. At present, the conversion manual requires a recorded unity of title for all land included within site developments or for I'm sorry. Within site plans for development of multifamily or nonresidential uses within the land use conversion areas.

A unity of title requires properties to be owned by the same person or entity through unified ownership. With this amendment, we would now allow unified control as adequate legal documentation for these conversion areas. Unified control is a legal agreement between different property owners that allows separate parcels to be treated as one. For building, zoning, and development regulations, owners agree to develop the properties together as a single unified project even though they're owned and often financed separately.

So just to clarify that, if there are two entities, they can only work on one project, not two separate projects on the same

So if you had lots one through five and the property owners of lots one and two, and the property owners of three through five agreed to do one project together, they would be under a unified control agreement. So they would be working as business partners.

But they couldn't do two separate projects, correct?

No, sir. The agreement would be that they are both owners of let me clarify. Owner of lots one and two, owners of lots three through five are coming together to create one project.

But not multiple?

No, sir.

What qualifies as unified control? What was that fancy term you used a second ago? The the

The legal agreement.

The legal agreement is

Yes.

Just so plans such that all agreed upon.

Correct. So unity of title, right, if one property owner has acquired five lots, which met the frontage and depth requirements of a certain number of parcels within the conversion area, they submit for a unity of title stating that they're agreeing to develop all five of those lots as one project. This would just allow more flexibility for the customer or the developer to come together as business partners to develop more than one lot as one project.

Does the agreement have to be approved by the city?

It it does get sent through the city attorney's office, same as the unity of title. Both documents go through the city attorney's office.

So in essence, we're just trying to keep the same control or idea for the property?

We're providing more flexibility to the customer versus having one having to have all lots being owned by one property owner, one entity. The project can now be owned by multiple entities.

So is that the main change and what it is we're updating tonight is that there can be multiple property owners across multiple plats, but as long as they've agreed upon a business plan and have a and that's gone through attorney and approved by legal, that they can get approval for the project?

Correct. So this the main change to the conversion manual is to add the unified control as adequate legal documentation for these conversion areas. We are making some updates to it to make it more consistent with today's standards. There's some language missing since we've updated the city's comprehensive plan, as well as, for example, the cover page has the old city's logo. But this is the main amendment that we're doing to the conversion manual.

Thank you. As

I mentioned, we are updating the cover page, various sections, and maps of the manual. One of the things we are also doing is there's a table right after the it's either before or after the map. We're removing the institutional zoning district from the list of compatible zoning districts to provide consistency with the comp plan amendment that did this in 2021. So as I mentioned, ordinance twenty one thirty six is a comprehensive plan amendment that was passed. It did amend policy one one four thirteen of the future land use element.

It removed the institutional zoning district as a compatible zoning district for the medium density residential and residential office institutional future land use classification. So since that was done in 2021, we're just updating the manual to be consistent with that. We're the proposed tax amendment is consistent with goal one one of the city's comprehensive plan to provide an appropriate mix of land uses, which meets the needs of current and future residents. And it does align with goal two, strategic growth for a resilient future, and goal four, diverse economy and employment opportunities of the city's strategic plan. The planning and zoning department staff do find the petition to be consistent with the intent and direction of the city's comprehensive plan and recommend approval.

You as the board have the option to make a motion to recommend approval to the city council, motion to recommend approval to the city council as amended, motion to recommend denial to the city council, or motion to table. And I'm happy to answer any other additional questions you may have on this.

You may have any questions from members of the board? The applicant is the city? Correct. So we'll move forward. This is a public hearing. Is there anybody from the public who wishes to speak on this item? Hearing none, any other questions from the board? Right. I'll close the public hearing and call for a motion.

Make a motion to approve item P25-one 100 70 four City Of Port St. Lucie zoning text amendment. Second.

Motion and a second. Any other questions or discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Move on to the public hearing, the quasi judicial portion. The attorney will now outline the quasi judicial procedures and provide for the swearing in of all those who in attendance that desire to speak on any of the items eight a through eight gs. Anyone wishing to speak on those items?

Anyone who is going to speak on any of the items found in Section eight of the agenda, please stand and prepare to be sorted.

Okay. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

This is a quasi judicial. We're gonna go left or right.

Oh, let me just explain the quasi judicial really quickly. So what a matter is quasi judicial, the board is applying existing rules and policies to a factual situation and is therefore acting in a judicial capacity rather than a legislative capacity. For each item, we do ask the chair to ask if there's any ex parte communications.

Thank you. And we'll go from left to right. Any ex parte communication? None. None. Okay. This is a public hearing. We'll open the public hearing and ask staff to make their presentation.

Good evening, board. Daniel Robinson, planning and zoning. I have been sworn in. Official city file has been submitted to the city clerk more than five days prior to the hearing. Madam Clerk, please enter the file into the record.

The project before you is a master sign program application for Towne Place. The request provides a comprehensive regulation for all commercial and residential facade and monument signs within Towne Place development. The property's future land use is general commercial and high density residential, and the property has a PUD zoning designation. The property is located at the Southeast corner of the interstate of Highway US 1 and Savannah Club Boulevard. And Towne Place consists of 18.51 acres of mixed use development.

The program provides regulations for monument signs along US 1 for the retail and residential development, a monument sign for the residential development along Savannah Club Boulevard and or Savannah Club Drive, sorry, at their entrance, and an internal directional sign and the retail facade signs along with some temporary sign regulations. The Site Plan Review Committee recommended approval of the master sign program at their meeting of 08/27/2025, and staff finds the proposed master sign program to be consistent with the city's land development regulations and requirements of section one fifty five point three h of the city code and recommends approval. Any

questions? Questions for staff members?

Did you grow a beard? Yes.

That is all.

That is all. Okay. Thank you, Daniel. Throw me off Is the applicant here? Happy to come forward.

Good evening. Good evening board.

My name is Richard Lundy. I'm the applicant and I'm here to answer any questions you might have.

Okay. Any questions for Mr. Lundy? Okay. Seeing none, any other questions for the staff or Mr. Lundy? Thank you. Okay. Any members of the public? This is a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, close the public hearing. And I'll call for a motion.

Mr. Chair, I'll move to approve P25-ninety one TownePlace Master Sign Program application.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Approved. Okay. 8B, as with 7A, this has been requested to be tabled to date certain 01/20/2026. I need a motion.

Mister Chair, I move to table p two five one five eight Sandpiper Bay Resort PUD amendment number two to January 20 at 6PM.

I'll second.

We have a motion to second. Any discussion? Second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Ayes carry. Move to the twentieth. Okay. 8C. Before we move forward, any ex parte communication members of the board, Pete?

None.

Okay, I'll open the public hearing and staff. Before you move forward, Mary, correct me if I'm wrong. And the next three items are similar in nature, but will be heard separately, correct?

Correct. The next three items are very similar and they're on the same property, but they're variances. So you have to evaluate each one individually. But after the first one, the next two should seem very familiar.

Correct. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Board members. My name is Cody Sisk with the planning and zoning department. I've been sworn in, and the official packet has been submitted at least five days before today's hearing. Madam clerk, please enter that into the record. Today's application is for 500 seating property, and it's a parking variance.

The project number is B25Dash192. This is a request for variance to allow reduction in the required parking for recreational use for jump start boutique fitness studio. The request is to grant variance for three parking spaces to section one fifty eight point two two one c dash 17 of the zoning code. The zoning code indicates there's one space is required for each 200 square foot of gross floor area for recreational uses. The proposed use jump start will lease one unit out of Building 1 for a total of 1,120 square feet.

The subject property is 3.36 acres total and is located on the Northwest corner of Northwest Stadium Drive and Northwest Peacock Boulevard. The property is on service commercial and consists of two buildings, both being office and warehouse use as per the site plan. Building 1 has 15,344 square feet of warehouse space and 3,264 of office space for a total of 17 warehouse space. And Building 2 has 13,376 square feet of warehouse space and 3,072 of office space with 16 warehouse space. The site is parked at a ratio of one point five hundred or one space per 500 square feet of warehouse use and one space per 200 square feet of office space for a total of 90 required parking spaces on-site while 96 spaces are provided.

This equates to a ratio of one space per 365 square feet of building space for provided parking. The property owner has lease agreements with the tenants who exceed the the amount of parking provided on-site. The other two applications are shown here, and I'll go more in-depth when we get to those applications that are following. But they are parking variances as well for another recreational use, and then the other one is a parking variance for a physical therapy office. A parking demand analysis was submitted to support the variance request.

It includes a shared parking analysis that compares the time of day for the operation of each of the uses based on the ITE parking generation manual sixth edition. Based on the findings and the analysis, the site can accommodate the uses that require additional parking since the hours of operation are not during the daytime demand. The proposed jump start is limited by appointment only, and hours of operation are mainly early in the morning and late afternoon. This is the location. The property owner is 500 Stadium Property.

It's located at 510 Northwest Peacock, and per the site plan, there are warehouse and accessory office uses. This is the site plan, and at the bottom in yellow bordered in red is the location of the use. And the Planning and Zoning Board options are to motion to approve. If the Board is proposing to approve, Planning and Zoning would recommend the condition as follows: This variance shall be granted exclusively to applicant and shall terminate automatically upon cessation of the approved business operation by the current applicant. Any changes in ownership, business entity or discontinuation of the approved use shall render this variance null and void.

The Board may make a motion to deny. The Board may also make a motion to table. That concludes my presentation and I'm here to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any questions from the Board?

I have a question, Chair.

There are

three separate businesses, is it?

So this is one of three businesses. So there's a business that will be going here with the mouse in yellow and red right now. There will be a different business that would be going as a separate variance up here, the top two bays. And there would be another business for a medical office for physical therapy. I believe it's these two bays where my mouse is located.

Yes. They're similar. Yeah.

Is right. We're just talking about this one. So I'll have two more presentations for each one of the other.

But they'll be similar in nature asking for the same similar type of variance.

There'll be all

Specific to which business?

This one is specific to Jumpstart. Jumpstart.

And the research is done to support that this isn't gonna cause any kind of over parking?

Yeah. Per their parking generation manual, it shows that it could work.

Because they're using the other parking spaces.

And they're using they're operating at times where it's not as busy on-site per their analysis.

How do we know that? Because I mean, is a so commercial retail?

It's service commercial. This type plan is for warehouse and office type uses where what it was parked at. And that's the reason for the variance.

So what you're saying is the time differential is creating open parking spots that if they were all on the same schedule, they wouldn't they probably wouldn't have as many parking spots.

Okay. Well, we can defer to the applicant. Great.

One more question for staff, if you don't mind, sir. This is for jump start. Appointment only trampoline fitness studio hours of operation are mainly early morning and late afternoon. Mainly is a fluid term. Is that open to can ask what happens

if

the applicant that? Yeah, we can ask the applicant.

I have a couple of questions too. They're Hi, somewhat similar. Is there a way to quantify how tight this assessment is? Like are there two extra spots available at peak hours? Are there 15 available at peak hours? Do we know that?

That's it. Okay. And

then my second question is, have the other two businesses, are they here? Are we able to hear what their thoughts on this are as well?

Well, I contacted the applicant, so everyone should be here tonight to discuss each one of the separate uses.

Everybody supports us? Or do we not know that

yet? We're discussing that.

Okay. Got you.

Cody and Mary, just to confirm, if the applicants are not here, we cannot hear that item, correct?

It's been our practice to not hear the item. If the applicant is not present, we would continue it. And just to remind you, there's three separate variance applications.

The applicant should be jumpstart, correct?

Yeah. Should be, yes.

Okay. Can we ask those applicant those questions? Go ahead, Rose.

Does that eliminate regular parking spaces and handicap stays exactly the way it is? Because I know there's an ADA compliance that they have to abide by.

This will just be parking for three parking spaces or variance for three parking spaces on-site because right now all of their parking is being utilized by all the other uses per code.

So my question before I saw your slide about change of ownership and usage was going to be if something changed, then it stated that the variance would be void essentially, Well,

that could be one of our options that we would condition that if we chose to.

Right, but that's what you said in there. I mean that's what's

To approve with the condition, this would be what staff is recommending as a condition. But again, you as a board have the option to do one of the four.

Which if we move that way, then if that business jumpstart left, this variance is null and void.

It would be null and void, right. My question is, what's the requirement of the ownership to notify the city? Like how would the city know, Right, so how does that work?

Yeah, use an occupancy at time of business tax staff would be reviewing that.

Okay.

And we would catch it at that time. Got it. Well, what has been changed or what's existing.

That's helpful, thank you.

If I may also just to clarify, and I'll ask specifically to this particular business. This particular businesses has signed a lease and has occupied the property or they're pending.

I'll defer to the applicant for that to that, but from my knowledge, they have signed a lease.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to the applicant. Is the applicant here? Please come forward.

You have a presentation you'd like to make?

Good afternoon, Board or good evening. My name is Vanya Castro, and I am the applicant for this particular item.

And my name is Luke Lambert with Traffic and Mobility Consultants who conducted the parking analysis.

Do you have a presentation or anything?

No, I have a presentation, but we'd be happy to answer any questions regarding the Let's parking

go to that. Start with Joe, you want to answer some of questions?

Yes, I'd like to know how tight was that analysis? Obviously, you said that it would fit, it would work. Was it really tight or were there a lot of spaces left over after that?

So our analysis based on the ITE six edition of the Parking Generation Manual, it was published in November 2023. So it's the most recent national parking data available to use. In the parking analysis, we demonstrate that the parking requirements of the site as proposed for our uses would be 94 spaces. That's under what was built with the development, which I believe has 96 spaces. So with that data, we're showing that, hey, we're underparked by two spaces.

Furthermore, when we get into a shared parking analysis, that goes into an hourly temporal distribution of parking rates. That's where you could clearly see in table two that at the maximum peak hourly rates, we are expecting to see about 74 parking spaces needed for demand, so that would leave in excess of like 22 spaces at that time of day. So that's shown in the parking now.

At the peak?

Yes, at the peak.

Eric, you had a question?

How much square footage are you leasing at the building?

As in the unit, what's the square footage of the unit? It's eleven twenty square feet.

1,100 square feet. And my question about hours of operation, Limited by appointment only, trampoline fitness studio, correct?

Correct.

And mainly early morning and late afternoon. Why is that?

So the way that the classes work, you're only going to want people to come in before work and then after work. So the last morning class of the day ends at 9AM before the rush of the office building or the warehouse really takes place. And then the first class of the day starts at 05:45 as everyone's starting to leave. Because as a fitness studio, most people are at their nine to fives and they aren't coming to the gym at that time.

I have a question for you, sir. Do you have any other data on any of the other tenants that are in the building? What are the tenants are you sharing the parking lot with?

So that's a great question because our analysis uses land use codes that are identified nationwide, and so that's a big generality, right? Jumpstart is a particular business that has their hours of operation curtailed to this market. So in essence, we believe that Jumpstart Fitness would actually utilize less than what's in the study. Does that make sense?

I'll take your word for it.

Pete, you have any questions? Greg? I got one more question. This

is the perception question, but do you have the perception that it's possible that any one of these three businesses grow in the future and they would need more spots or are they all kind of where they're probably gonna be over the coming years?

So our analysis shows that, hey, with the square footages of the buildings that we're leasing, right, we're not gonna expand the buildings. We would like to not expand the parking lots. I mean, all the calculations for storm water and all that was already taken care of. So with business operations changing, we believe that this study demonstrates that, hey, site is over parked a little bit by two spaces. And then when you break down that hourly breakdown of parking demand that the site has adequate parking.

But I imagine if they are super, super successful, they'll probably need a bigger space and have to move out of this space, right?

Yes. They would have to move out of the space. We would not be able to accommodate them and that's actually a very great problem to have.

Thus if we move to make a motion, I would recommend we definitely do it with the condition. Anyway, Roche, you have any questions? Okay. Any other questions members of the Board, applicant? Any other thing to present? Okay. It's a public hearing, open to public hearing. Anyone want to speak on this item? Seeing none, close the public hearing. And I'll entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the variances with the conditions as stated on the staff presentation.

P25-one92.

Yes, sir.

I'll second.

With the conditions. With the conditions. Any other questions, discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Approved. Good luck. Okay. Next item 8E. Cody. Remember, just a point of clarification, remember this is a similar situation, but it is a different item. So we need to listen to to listen to the items separately. Thank you.

Good evening, chair, vice chair, board members. My name is Cody Sisk. I'm with the Planning and Zoning Department. I've been sworn in, and the official file has been submitted at least five days before Teddy's hearing. Madam Clerk, please enter that into the record. Teddy's application is 500 Stadium Property LLC Units 101 And 102. This is a variance for P 25 Dash 193. This is a request to grant a variance to allow reduction in parking for recreational use slash your private fitness coach for gold standard fitness. The request is to grant a variance of five parking spaces to section 158.221 C Dash 14 of the zoning code. The zoning code indicates one space is required for each 200 square feet of gross floor area for recreational uses.

The proposed use gold standard will lease two units out of Building 1 for a total of 2,240 square feet. The subject property is 3.36 acres and, again, is located Northwest corner of Northwest Staging Drive and Northwest Peacock Boulevard. The proposed the property is owned, serviced commercial, and consists of two warehouse office buildings. Building 1 is 15,344 square feet of warehouse space and 3,264 square feet of office space and has a total of 17 warehouse space. Building 2 has 13,376 warehouse space and 3,072 square feet of office space with a total of 16 warehouse space.

The parking the site is parked at a ratio of one space per 500 square feet of warehouse space and one space per 200 square feet of office space for a total of 90 required parking spaces, and 96 spaces were provided on-site. It provides a ratio for provided parking of one space per 365 of building space. The property owner, again, has lease agreements with tenants who exceed the amount of parking provided on-site per code, and the other two applications are shown here. We just talked about the p 25 dash one nine two, and the other application is for the physical therapy office, which would appear in another application. A parking demand analysis was submitted to support the variance request.

It includes a shared parking analysis that compares time of day for operation of each of the uses based on the ITE parking generation manual sixth edition. Based on the findings and the analysis, the site can accommodate the uses that require additional parking since the hours of operation are not during the peak daytime demand. The gold standard is limited by appointment only with the owner. This takes on clients one on one and one hour increments and has classes limited classes Monday through Friday between seven and eight. The property owner is 500 Stadium Property and is located at 510 Northwest Peacock Boulevard, and the site plan indicates that there are warehouse and office uses.

The future land use to the North and to the South is light light industrial and service commercial. To the East is open space recreational, and to the West is light industrial, open space recreational, and institutional. The zoning to the North and south is service commercial, to the East is general use, and to the West is warehouse industrial. This is a site plan that shows the location of the two bays for the proposed use. And the board has the options to make a motion to approve, approve with the following condition and the variance, the condition reads that this variance shall be granted exclusively to the current applicant and shall terminate automatically upon cessation of the approved business operation by the current applicant.

Any change in ownership, business entity or discontinuation of the approved use shall render this variance null and void. The board may also make a motion to deny and also make a motion to table. That concludes my presentation.

Thank you Cody. Before we move forward, did forget to ask any ex parte communication left or right?

None.

Great. Thank you Cody. The applicant is here.

Once again.

Hi, Bonnie.

Vanya.

Vanya.

Vanya.

Vanya. Vanya. Vanya. And Luke Lambert. Any presentation?

We have no presentation for this. We'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, great. Any members of the board wish to ask any questions of the applicant? Okay. Seeing none, this is a public hearing. Open up the public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak? Seeing none, we're gonna close the public hearing and call for a motion.

I would put forward a motion to approve. Believe, correct me if I'm wrong, we are on it eight d? Just

eight d. Okay.

So that would be P25Dash193 SLW. I would put forward a motion to approve as stated with the proposed conditions. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Congratulations, you've been approved. Okay, 8E now. Before we move forward, any ex parte communication left or right? None.

Cody? This is a public hearing. We're open.

Good evening, Chair. Hello

again.

Vice chair, board members. My name is Cody Sisk, and I'm with the planning and zoning department. I've been sworn in an app or the official file has been submitted at least five days before case hearing. Madam clerk, please enter that into the record. Today's application is 500 Seating Property LLC Units 103104.

It's P 25194 is the application number. This is a request for a variance to allow reduction in the parking required for recreation use for a medical use for physical therapy office. The request is to grant a variance for four parking spaces to Section 158.221C-fourteen of the zoning code. The zoning code indicates that one space is required for each 200 square feet of gross floor area of medical use. The proposed use physical medical will lease two units in Building 2 for a total of 2,080 square feet.

The subject property is 3.36 acres and is located on the Northwest corner of Northwest Stadium Drive and Northwest Peacock Boulevard. The property is on service commercial and consists of two warehouse buildings warehouse and office buildings. Building 1 is 15,344 square feet of warehouse office, 3,264 of office space, and a total of 17 warehouse space. Building 2 is 13,376 square feet of warehouse space and 3,072 of office space with a total of 16 warehouse bays. The site is parked at a ratio of one per 500 of warehouse space and one per 200 of office space for a total of nine year required parking spaces while 96 were constructed.

This provides a ratio of one for 365 of building space. Property has the property owner has lease agreements with the tenants, and you've heard these other two applications before. Parking demand analysis was submitted to support the variance request and includes a shared parking analysis that compares the time of day for the operation of each use based on the IT parking generation manual, sixth edition. The property owner is 500 Stadium Property. This is located at 510 Northwest Peacock Boulevard, and the existing use is warehouse and office spaces.

This is the location of the proposed use. Again, the board has the options to make a motion to approve, make the motion to approve with a condition as follows. This variance shall be granted exclusively to the current applicant and shall terminate automatically upon cessation of the approved business operation by the current applicant. Any changes in ownership, business entity, or discontinuation of the approved use shall render this variance null and void. Make a motion to deny or make a motion to table.

Thank you. Any members of the board wish to a question?

Cody, that conditional language is pretty standard for any fairly standard for any time there's

I've seen it in one other application that I've seen it once that I can think of.

I would think for any kind of a parking variance like this, that would be included all the time, right?

So that's a great point. We have used this condition for other like shared parking, like site plans where they're sharing parking off-site. And we just modified it a little bit for this situation. So yes, correct.

Thank

you. Thank you, Pete. Any other questions members? Okay, Cena, thank you, Cody. Is the applicant here?

Thank you.

That's a little easier.

Know, Luke. Alright. Presentation or just here to answer questions?

Here to answer any questions.

Okay. Any members of the board have questions for?

Sure. Have a question.

Go right ahead.

You're the owner of all three businesses?

My bank account wishes I was the owner of all three businesses.

Sure.

No, I am here representing the landlord, the property owner, but we do have Marvin here who is the owner and operator of FISCO.

Because this one is a little bit different. Physical therapy clinic is going to be operating a tablet differently than the other ones.

Is Marvin here?

Yes.

Marvin, can you step forward? Marvin, you've been sworn in? Okay. This might be a question for you.

It's 2,080 square feet that you're leasing. Are you the PT?

We will have a PT. Yes. I'm not the PT. Okay.

Do you intend to have more than one PT? How many clinical staff?

So the way this physical model works is it's spelled differently on purpose. It's kind of a whole picture. And it's a different model. It goes against the traditional physical model of 25 patients per day per clinician and all that. So the purpose of physical and one of the focuses they have is on balance, for instance. Balance therapy takes a long time. It takes like an hour. So we can't have multiple therapists running at this exact same time. So we're not going to have a high, you know, there may be two clinicians, and I mean staff, altogether at any given time. It's not, a lot of it can be done like remote, for instance, a lot the work that I'll be doing will be answering calls through some remote services that we have and things like that.

So I won't even be in the building all the time. So it's a relatively low count to begin with on the staff end. And then from the patient load, it's really low. In fact, I'm not sure why we're called medical in a lot of other instances with of other owners. They've been fit into a retail business or even retail office space. That's kind of the classification. We're not a medical office per se.

What's your position with physical

I'm one of the owners of the franchise.

Franchise like this specific location?

This one, yes, sir.

Okay. But you're not a clinician?

I am not, no.

And so the reason I'm just asking so many questions, I'm a PTA as well, And so

I, you

know, I understand how these outpatient clinics can work. Is it an outpatient clinic?

It will be.

Yes. Yes. Okay. And so, you know, is it a nine to five? Because I do know that some of these outpatient clinics operate from seven to seven.

So we will not operate that way. We're going to have to just use an appointment schedule is really what we're trying to focus on. We really do not want to have a crowded clinic, and we're trying to make it so that it's more on appointment basis. I was looking at some other models from some folks and some of the other franchise models that are throughout the state and even throughout the country. That is a very possible model to have with this and it's something that we're actually targeting. We do not want to have like an open door where it's like, oh, back to back patients and that sort of thing. That's not how this model is going work at all.

So is there something in your business plan that will guarantee that there's not going to be mill type of PT clinic? How many mats do you intend to have evaluating therapists, PTAs? Are there athletic trainers, occupational therapists, coders, anything like that?

So initially, we'll start out with just the one PT. We won't move into a PTA until we there's actually it's going to be a while before we can reach that. They have models that suggest that we should be hiring a PTA at 75 patients per week. That's way off from our model.

Per week.

Per week. That's, you know, so in a traditional model, if you go to like a Premier or anything like that, or a Cora, they're putting 25 per clinician with four or five clinicians plus PTAs. And you know how the billing cycle works with this. The PT can only work on certain parts of that session, the PTA can only work on another part of it. So you understand, like, they can actually double up on we won't have the staff to be able to double up on that.

I see based on my math, if you're operating five days a week, that's 15 patients a day.

So that's to get to the PTA. That's when we have to hire a PTA. We're not necessarily looking to get to that person right away. Again, it's a quality thing. It's not a and I know you're a PTA, you understand this business. There's the mill scenario is what basically is quite frankly, is why people don't like going to PT. So, we're trying to stay away from that. We are trying to rub against that kind of dynamic that's already been there.

Yes. My only concern about this is that it's out of the three businesses presented, my opinion is that this is the only one that might and of course I am all about practice, Fair enough.

But

I would hate to see and be felt responsible as a board member for the Planning and Zoning Board to be driving down Peacock Boulevard, one of the main thoroughfares on our and and to see people parked on the grass because your your patients, you

know. Right.

So I'm that's just my concern. And and I don't know if there's some way that if the board has any any input, that's my concern. And so I'm just trying to ask questions to understand.

No. That's that's a

Hours of operation, what's the model?

It'll probably be nine to five just because we have to have an hours of operation. But that's really we're probably going to start using Saturdays as our kind of as a backup because a lot of patients that we have will not be able to you know deal. They can't come on, a lot of times they can't come during the weekday, so we're trying to do nine to five. But here's the big but on that, is our intention with this is to evaluate based on our patient load. So, if we have to have nontraditional hours, say seven to seven, but stretching out the patients towards the kind of the non working hours, the non nine to five hours, that's what we're going to have to do.

Yeah, mean, there's no shortage of demand for physical therapy services in Port St. A lot of the PT clinics I'm aware of operate at least eight to five, if not seven, three days a week or eight to six, five days a week. What is in 2,080 square feet, what is your maximum patient caseload on a weekly or monthly basis?

It's hard to say. If I just used the generic model that try to stick to, which is 12 per day per provider, I would have to say again, that's really hard to predict because let's just say I had three providers. Again, you as a PTA understand the billing cycles. Like they cannot touch you know, there's certain parts where the PTA can be involved with the patient and has to be the PT on some of the other billable hours. So, it's hard to say. If we won't have three PTs, I can't afford that, That's for sure.

Your billing will provide for your practitioners.

Right.

So in a square footage of 2,080, it's not a huge space.

No, it isn't. So that's why I doubt we would, I mean, I think if we were looking at three PTs, not just PTIs, but PTs, okay? So we're building under their codes and everything. I mean, if we were at that point, we wouldn't want to be in that building because we're probably pushed ourselves out. And that provision here that, you know, I don't want to be there, because I don't want my patients parking on the grass and having to park all the way down. Again, these are, you understand, a lot of them have ambulatory issues, so making them walk across a parking lot is not going to be good for business. You understand this. So I don't want to have to have a golf cart grabbing people and bringing them in ice.

The thing is also is that we're are we impeding on the parking capabilities of other businesses in the plaza? That's all.

That's a fair question. And again, they did a parking analysis that supported our presence there with a patient load that's even above what I'm speaking to. So, again, this is one of the things We came into this opportunity in '21, had gotten laid off, looking around for an opportunity. I really wanted a non pharmaceutical intervention. We came into the physical therapy franchise. We were all excited about it. The good thing is that Port St. Lucie benefited from one of the largest growth in the entire country. Florida became a very nice place to move to. And so, part of the problem is the zip codes that we bought our licensing in experienced some of the largest growth.

So, there are no tip in a traditional situation. You buy a, you go into a second gen building where the rent factors are much lower. I'm paying rent for the, you know, I'm using this as an example, but the two by four that was $2 is now $8 and That's what I'm paying rent on. So, we found a place that worked for us that was able to get approved by a corporate and it has the right amount of space. Allows us the fluidity of having space with the patient load that we want. Realistically, we probably should be in a 4,000 square foot place, but we cannot afford that, nor is that available at our rates. And so, this was one of the best options for us. Yes,

One question. You just stated that you should probably be in a 4,000 square foot space. Why is that?

Cause we can't afford it. Because there's no avail Well, there's no availability. That's the primary thing.

You should be. Why?

Well, just because they If we really wanted to grow into a place and not have to move again, that's why you would want that. The idea is you stay You wanna become a brand recognized entity in the community. You don't want to keep moving around a bunch of times. So if you had 4,000 square feet, you grow into it and you're there for a while. Sure.

Thank What was your name again? Marvin. Marvin, so it's your testimony tonight that at this particular point your model will not take up additional parking spot which would cause an issue based on your business model and Luke your consultants studies. Is that correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay. And that's because you have a different model where it's more finite in the type of service you're providing as a quality issue versus a quantity issue.

Yes,

sir. So in 12 or 15 per day you think you're getting is going to take up during the course of a day divided by eight, two parking spots? Yes, exactly. Plus two for staff?

If there's a second staff. So yes, sir.

Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Yeah.

I have one more. How long did you sign? How long was your lease that you signed?

We signed in the summer, I want to say July.

For how long?

Five years. There's also another point you're bringing up something I just kind of thought came to mind. The ramp up model for this to get to even like the 75, they look at this and they're saying they're thinking close to three years because of the way the referrals work and building up the community and the relationships and that sort of thing. It's not a common physical the brand itself is not very well known and especially here in this part of Florida anyway. So they give us they build in time for us to ramp up to a true, like even second PT and third PT, if that's even if you even get to that point.

So we would know if this was even going to be a problem, we would know well, very close to the end of our lease anyway. So, we're not talking about if we even had an issue, like, God willing, my problem is I have to move out. Wish it was that good because everybody would buy into it, but it's not.

Sounds great, and I know medical tenants can be very sticky. They want to stay in one place. You have a lot of equipment that you put in place. Make it a good place. Medical tenants are historically known for wanting to stay. Your patients know where you are and where to Exactly. Kind of thing. So very good. Thank you so much for entertaining my questions.

Problem. Do you have a question?

Yeah. I've got one question for you, sir. What was your first name again?

I'm sorry. Luke.

What was your last name?

Lambert.

Lambert, okay. Just jog my memory here. You had said at peak, you imagine that we would be using 74 of the 96 spaces leaving 22, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay. So if my math is correct, even if he had the four that he was talking about and he grew to 75 and had those four, let's just say five or six because he just goes out of the park, we would still have two thirds or three quarters of those empty spots remaining, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

Is that the entirety of the parking lot?

So yes, that takes into account the entire parking lot and the uses that were identified in the study. And I think we've touched on some great aspects of specific business operations per unit. I don't know your business, sir, but your goal is to have 100 booking, right? This parking demand analysis goes through and covers all of that. And I just would like to point out, more and more nowadays, there's also ride sharing. A lot of patients get dropped off. If you're going to PT and you're Which driving like

is not as great example of ride sharing, don't think, or maybe being dropped off. But my question about tenants, the other tenants in the building, think is incredibly important because we need to know what type of businesses also. Are they going to be the same types of businesses? Because I understand about the fitness model, the other workout gym where there's primarily traffic early in the morning and late in the evening. And then the other business makes sense.

But this one, in my opinion, and in my professional experience, there's a demand for physical therapy. There really is. There's a shortage of clinicians, and a practice like this can grow very quickly. And like I said, I just don't want to be part of the board that approved a business that's just going to squeeze all the other collateral businesses in that retail center or that professional center out of their parking spot.

I hope you do.

I really do. I hope you're successful, but I just want to make sure we're planning correctly.

Any other questions from members of the Board? Seeing none, thank you. This is a public hearing.

Member of

the public wish to speak, please move forward. Mr. Harvey.

Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you.

Sorry, just before per of the resolution for the boards and committees, we do allow alternates to speak on the record. So for quasi judicial however, alternates are speaking not as their role as alternates, but as members of the public, so should be treated as such.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Doug Harvey speaking as a member of the public. While the board did not include hours of operation in any of the previous variances, I think this one is a little bit different.

And I appreciate the Board's concern and discussion about this. One of the things that I would like to bring to the Board's attention as you deliberate on this is that this truly is a different type of an operation. And while this building was never actually constructed to be used for this purpose, I think reuse of buildings is one of the most important things we can do in in our society today in the built environment, and it's an important part of what we do. But I also think that we have to ask ourselves what is truly appropriate for the use that the building was designed for. In this particular case, we have a building that was designed as a warehouse with a small office in the front, such as for a contractor's operation or perhaps someone that warehouses products that may once in a while have people coming into their office for discussion.

This business is intended to operate at the same times as all of the other businesses in this building. And the one thing that I would like to make sure that the Board is aware of is that, under the Florida Building Code, the Florida Accessibility Code, section two zero eight dot two dot two, actually does require for a physical therapy facility that 20% of the parking spaces are accessible. And I I think that might be a problem for this. Now it could be that they may need a variance to that, but, I believe that that would have to go through the Florida Building Commission. I don't think that this board would have the authority to issue a variance to that under Florida statute five fifty three.

But it's just something I wanted to bring out that it was never the intent of the original design of this building to be used for this purpose. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, if I may, the comments are duly noted. I will tell you that staff has counseled the property manager. They own three of these sites that although the relief is their way forward now, they have three different buildings. And we've encouraged them to look to lease these sites to the uses the buildings were designed for because you can't park on the grass, right?

Sites cannot be expanded to add more parking, and they were developed specifically as office warehouse. So it's we're here to support, but they have finite parking. So hopefully, they move forward and find other tenants for their other buildings, they'll also be mindful of how they're marketing it. So you don't find yourself in this position for 30 more units.

Pete, do have a question?

No, think Mary, that's a good point is the tenants need to fit what the building purposes. So that's all.

Okay, Eric.

I'm sorry. I'm full of questions.

Eric, you're good.

Mary, am I off base here being concerned about the parking issues that these one of the three businesses might stimulate?

So the board has testimony in front of you. You have a parking study that indicates that there's an availability of parking. So you need to evaluate that. We're suggesting a condition that if the use changes, that the variance will be null and void. If the uses approved on a site end up cannibalizing each other's parking, it's going be a problem for the parking for the property If they start parking on the grass or on the road, that's going to become a code enforcement issue. So I mean, I think at a certain point, if they outgrow the site

Yeah. Okay. So there's some natural stops in place.

Ideally. I mean, that's why the conditions

Their business grows.

Right. If somebody we hope that they're successful and they outgrow the site.

Yeah. Same here, of course. And if, for instance, you'd mentioned there's no parking on the grass, it would be a code enforcement issue, right? If there's conflict from one tenant to the next, that's going to be a problem for the property manager. So there's some natural and the gentleman's public remarks made sense to me where this is a mixed use type of building where it's warehouse and office. But I mean, we do a lot

of That's what it was intended for. It was intended for someone who wanted to have a warehouse in a small office area. And it was developed like that and parked like that. However, these other uses can go in there. And so that's the challenge that we have.

Okay, thank you. I have one question. The gal who spoke earlier and I'm sorry, you've said your name seven times now, I'm already feeling here. Lavanya, thank you. Did you say that you're here representing all three businesses?

I'm representing the property owner. I am the property manager for the site. And I was the applicant for all three of the businesses.

Okay. Do we have any way of knowing how the other two businesses feel about this one getting approved?

Yes. So we did receive so one of the conditions that staff had asked me was to go to all the businesses that are currently on-site and get their written approval. And in that letter, I did get all of them to approve the three different businesses that were going to be coming into the Plaza Center.

Mayor, is that part of the record? It's in the application? If it is, then it's part of the record. Correct, Carly. Am I correct with that statement, Carly?

Yes, and I'm just checking to see

if it is in the It's

in the record, but I don't think it's in your legislator item.

Okay.

It's actual in file.

Is that acceptable for us to accept that testimony?

Yes, as long as it's part of the record.

Thank you. You.

Perfect. To your question, Joe?

Yep, I appreciate it. Thank you.

And to your point, as the property manager, I would I work on-site at 500 Stadium, and I would not allow any type of parking on the grass. We want to make sure that the plaza itself is managed accordingly. As a resident of Port St. Lucie, I also want my city to look beautiful, and I don't want to be getting calls from really angry tenants at, you know, 08:00 at night.

Just a point clarification, Carly, again, code enforcement could, if there were parking, could up to and including towing of the vehicle. Correct?

I couldn't answer that off the top of my head. I'm not sure exactly what resources are available to code, but if it is in violation of our code, they would be able to at the bare minimum cite them, cite the property owner.

Thank you. Mr.

Chair, so Mary, while we're supposed to consider variances individually, isn't this a case where you almost have to consider them together?

So that's a great question. You have a parking study that evaluated the site as a whole. So you do have the entirety of the documentation.

But Vanya, just a quick question I have. What's the occupancy rate right now of that specific?

We're 75% occupied.

Okay. So it's not 100% yet?

No. And our brokers do have clear directive that the only tenants they can bring us, the only prospects are office warehouse. So anything in the service industry, such as a GC or an HVAC company, tenants that are actually within the intended use of the plaza.

And what's the square footage that is unoccupied or unrented?

I don't know that off

the top of my How

many units are not rented?

I have 14 units that are not rented.

That's 14 units.

Let's say a thousand let's average them at 1,100 square feet.

Guess the point I'm looking at right now, you know, I want you to be 100% occupied. But in the near future, there's 14 units that aren't occupying the parking spaces.

Currently, yes. But I do believe that the parking study and Luke correct me if I'm wrong took into account if the whole plaza was at 100%.

It was at 100%. Correct. That's what I understood too. Thank you. Joe?

Well, I'm sorry. You go ahead first. Okay. So when you're talking about that 74 at peak, are you assuming that all 14 of those are filled or are you assuming it's at the current 75 occupancy?

Yes. So as part of the study, we listed out the current tenants in the square footages associated with those. So the vacancies, it's about 18,000 or 19,000 square feet, I believe really quick.

Of vacancy?

Yes, of vacancy. And so when you look at the shared parking use analysis, there are assumptions for those existing uses. If those would change, we would do another study to do any demonstration that would be necessary.

Okay, so those 14, you've made assumptions for those and that's calculated into that 74 a peak?

Yes. And those are for the proposed use of the warehouse.

Beautiful.

Thank you.

As the property manager, can never the tenants, it may be a stupid question to ask, but they can never do like assigned parking for any specific tenant.

No, we do not allow assigned parking within our leases.

Thank you.

You could theoretically rent to a pest control company that has 20 trucks, correct? And those trucks would sit there?

No. So we wouldn't allow that type of use because of their parking requirement. And they do require their trucks to be there overnight, and we don't allow any overnight parking in the plaza.

Okay. So you would just you would make sure that your tenant fits?

Correct. They fit within what we're looking for within the plaza.

Great. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions? Members? Okay. This is a public hearing. I open the public hearing to the public. Anyone else have any questions or comments? Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing. I call for a motion and discussion.

I make a motion unless there's any other discussion. I'll make a motion to approve P25-one Hundred 94 SLW 500 Stadium Property LLC Suites 103 To 104. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Condition.

With the condition, excuse me. With the condition.

Can you restate that again?

Yes, will. Let's make a motion to approve P25-one Hundred 94 SLW 500, Property LLC, Suites 103 To 104, variance with conditions stated on the agenda. Second.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Good luck. Okay. 8F. Before we move on with staff, left or right, any ex parte communication? None? None. None. Okay. P25-one95. Sonia? Good

evening, Chair, Vice Chair and Board members. Sofia Trail with the Planning and Zoning Department. I have been sworn in and the official packet was submitted to the city clerk's office five days prior to this public hearing. Madam clerk, would you please submit the packet into the record? P25195 is a special exception use application known as sixty five hundred Salvatz Incorporated.

The applicant is Manuel Leonor on behalf of with Nana's House Academy on behalf of the property owner, sixty five hundred Salvatz Inc. The location of the property is at the Northwest Intersection of North Mesito Boulevard and South and Northwest Salvatz Road. This is a special exception use application to add 957 square feet of enclosed assembly area to an existing 2,821 square feet of enclosed assembly area, which is operating as a day care center for a total of 3,778 square feet. Section one five eight one two four c, general commercial zoning district of our code requires enclosed assembly areas over 3,000 square feet without an alcoholic beverage license for on premises consumption to apply for a special exception use. A special exception use was granted to the property in 2006 to allow a day care center within the existing shopping plaza.

The day care is currently operating in Unit 6550 and is requesting to expand into Unit 6554 to add a classroom, kitchen, and restrooms. As a current enclosed assembly area the within the Unit 6550 is 2,821 square feet, the applicant is requesting to add 957 of enclosed assembly area for the resulting 3,778, which requires a new special exception use. And the site is located within the Parkway Shopping Plaza. This is an aerial image of the property. Again, it's on the Northwest Corner of Salvatz And Mesito.

To the north is a drainage area, and it's surrounded by single family homes. The future land use is general commercial. To the north is open space conservation. To the south, low density residential, and to the east and west, open space conservation and low density residential. And the zoning is general commercial surrounded by single family residential.

So in the red to the left is the existing day care center in Unit 6550 that's been operating. They're requesting to go to the unit right next to them which is currently vacant in blue. This is their proposed floor plan. Again, this is all existing, and this is what they're proposing to add. So they're requesting to add a classroom, an existing kitchen area, and then the two restrooms which are already in there.

The public works department reviewed the traffic analysis and determined that the transportation elements were found to be in compliance with the adopted level of service and requirements of chapter one fifty six of city code and public works policy nineteen-one. The proposed project is anticipated to generate two twelve average daily seventy eight a. M. Peak hour and eighty two p. M. Peak hour driveway trips. This represents a reduction of 35 average daily trips from the current use. The proposed use will increase the a. Peak hour and p. M.

Peak hour trips by three and one, respectively, and is not anticipated to have any significant impact to the adjacent roads. With our special exception use applications, we evaluate them against criteria as outlined in section 158,260. There are no proposed changes to the ingress and egress with this application. The site has two access points on Selvitz and two on North Mesito Boulevard. The day care center requires a parking ratio of one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area.

The existing day care has 3,427 square feet, and the expansion in total is 2,217 square feet for a total of 5,644 square feet. This would require 19 parking spaces. The overall shopping center is parked at a rate of one space per 200 square feet with a total of three zero five parking spaces. This request reduces the parking demand, and as a result, the site contains sufficient parking capacity to support the special exception request. There are adequate utilities on-site that are serviced by the Port St.

Lucie Utilities Systems Department. There's no additional screening or buffering required and no proposed changes to the existing yard and open space. The site's approved site plan and landscape plan provides adequate perimeter landscaping and buffering. The northern and western property lines are abutting drainage tracks with an open space conservation future land use designation. Both sides of the property have a 10 foot landscape buffer and a six foot high architectural wall.

And additionally, there is a point three one acre dry retention area behind the shopping plaza along the northern property line. Any signage and lighting is required to conform to the city code if the tenant intends to have any additional signage with the expansion, they would have to submit a separate building permit application. The day care center was approved with an SAU in 2006 and has been operating. The hours of operation will remain Monday through Friday, 06:30 to six. The current license capacity of the day care center is 82 students.

The proposed expansion will increase the licensable capacity to 100 students. As a board, have the option to make a motion to recommend approval to the city council, motion to amend the recommendation to recommend approval, motion to recommend denial, or a motion to table. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Members, any questions?

I have one question. If you can bring those slides back up, there was a slide right before the blue slides. I think I get it, but I just want to ask for clarification. It was the second bullet. So it says that there's a reduction of 35 average daily trips from current use, but it's going to increase AM peak hours and PM peak hours three to one respectively. I'm not understanding.

I understand. So it's a great question. The unit that they're asking to expand to was originally retail. So that use from changing from retail to enclosed assembly is reducing well, the day care, I'm sorry, is reducing the average daily trips. But because it's a day care, they're increasing the AM and PM peak hour

trips for pickup and drop off. And drop off.

Perfect. Alright. Thank you.

Glad to see they're successful. Any other questions for staff?

All

right. Seeing none is the applicant here. Please come forward. Do you have a presentation?

No, sir. My name is Manuel Leonor representing the house academy.

You're the representative?

Yes, sir.

Here to answer questions? I am. Any questions for the applicant? I guess your business is doing well and Yes, sir. Glad to hear that.

Thank you.

Okay. And if no other questions, this is a public hearing. I'm going to open any questions or comments from the public. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and ask for a motion. I make a motion to approve B25195. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Congratulations and good luck. Okay. Moving on to item G, eight gs. And any ex parte communications left or right? Pete, ex parte? None. Open a public hearing. Marissa.

Good evening, Board, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair. Marisa Davia Leshman, Planning and Zoning Department. I have been sworn in, and the official file package was provided to the clerk's office at least five days prior to this meeting. Madam Clerk, please enter the file into the record.

P twenty five zero, two zero six is a request for a sign variance. A variance of 58.07 square feet from section one fifty five point zero eight e two a one of the land development code to allow an additional facade sign totaling 75.63 square feet. The property is allowed 152 square feet of signage based on the linear linear frontage of the structure and one hundred one hundred feet along Gatlin Boulevard. Currently, there is 134.44 square feet of facade signage on the north and western sides of the building. A total of 17.56 square feet of additional signage is allowed currently.

The occupant is, Mid Florida Credit Union, Virginia Penny, is the agent. The location is the Southeast Corner of Southwest Gatlin and Waukesell Boulevard.

This is the location of the property. Here we have the zoning map. So on the North along Garland Boulevard, it's commercial. We have commercial PUD on the West, which is the Sam's Shopping Plaza area. And to the east and south, we have low density residential.

This is a future land use map. Again, have commercial and ROI along Gathlin Boulevard, service commercial and highway commercial on the West and residential low density on the East and the South. So this is the location of the current signage on the building and a picture of the two signs. So this visual of Rossa Boulevard heading north, and we also have a visual from Rossa Boulevard showing the location of the proposed sign. So on Rossa Boulevard, you would see all hindrances and the constraints that they have.

We have the wall, which is required by code. We have trees. We have utility poles, utility lines, parking, landscaping.

So this is the proposed signage and the proposed location on the south, it will face residential. It can afford it.

Thank you. Do do you mind going back to the the last slide with the elevation? And just to clarify, so this would be on the back or what I believe to be the south side of that property. Correct? Correct. And then there are existing signs along the northwest and west Northwest side of the the tower that's shown on left side of the south elevation. Yes. K. So there'll be a total of three signs. Correct. K.

So staff findings. The property is allowed 152 square feet of facade signage based on the linear functions of the structure along Gatlin Boulevard. There is currently 134.44 square feet of existing signage on the north and western sides. The total of 17.56 of additional signage is allowed, and the request is for a variance of 58.07 square feet to allow 75.63 square feet of the facade signage on the southern side of the structure. So your holding actions tonight, motion to approve the variance, motion to approve the variants with conditions, make a motion to deny, or make a motion to

take it.

That's the end of the presentation. Do have

any questions? Marissa, you stated earlier, do have the they're entitled to put two monument signs up. Correct?

They are.

Why don't they do that?

Because the site on Rossa Boulevard is hindered, by landscaping, utilities, power lines.

So they'd have to pull up the landscaping to

put They a monument sign would also lose some parking because a 10 foot setback is required.

So the solution is put it on the building that's already empty?

Yes.

All right. Any other questions, members? Seeing none, thank you, Marissa. Is the applicant here?

Good evening.

Good evening.

I do have a presentation. I'm Gina Penny with Atlas Signs, and I'm representing Mibb, Florida. We're seeking relief from code section 15508E2A, less than 10,000 square foot building, which allows 32 square feet plus 1.5 square feet for each additional linear foot of frontage. Granting approval of this request would capture the attention of vehicular traffic traveling northbound on Rosser Avenue prior to passing the back entrance. I put in a little bit of history.

They were founded in 1954 with just 10 members and a shoebox. The Florida Credit Union was built on the belief that people deserve a better banking experience. What began with a teacher's vision has grown into a statewide credit union serving more than 480,000 members through nearly 65 branches. Today, we combine the strength of an 8,000,000,000 institution with a personal service that puts members first. MIP Florida also gives back to the community.

They have year round commitment to giving back through charitable initiative and hands on volunteerism, guided by the credit union's philosophy of people helping people. Their employees actively support uplift communities they serve. They also gift reading books to kindergarteners in their area. They launched this in 2006, and they continue to create a joyful moment while giving back. On to what I'm asking for.

The proposed bank parcel, the parcel is on 1.65 acres with a total business space of 5,270 square feet. These are the existing signs. It's very similar to what you all have seen already. The wall sign on the north elevation is 62 or 67.22 square feet, similar wall sign on the west elevation or exactly the same. And then the ground sign that they do have is 32 square feet and that's visible from Gatlin.

Just a quick quick, the ground sign on right side of the slide, the 32 square feet, that's a single sided, there's no sign

on No, it's double faced. But it's

Okay, there's four signs. There's four total signs, correct?

Yeah. No. There's currently three total signs.

But I mean, if if the one on the right, the ground sign is a sign on both sides. Correct?

It's double faced. Yes.

Okay. Double faced. Okay. So that's that'd be four four logos. Correct?

Yes.

How long has this branch been there?

Honestly, I don't know that off the top of my head.

I'm just curious the impetus of doing it now. Mean, I can't imagine.

They're not getting that service from Rosser. There's been complaints that they are not seeing the building.

So customers have actually come in and said, didn't know Mid Florida branch was here?

That's what I've been told. Yes.

I can't imagine.

I'm sure that

they know once they pass it, but they were complaining about the visibility of

So just

the entrance is before the sign. So you can't see when you're heading down Rosser, you can't see the sign.

Yeah. I mean, don't particularly have a problem with this. It's just kinda to me, it's kinda strange that it's coming up now that that's been there forever. Yeah. I just can't imagine that Probably because

Fort St. Lucie is growing and Yeah.

Maybe. People need to see it. I just can't see it's going to make a difference, but I guess it's certainly within the right to ask for the variance.

Any more questions before I continue? Continue. This is the wall sign that we're proposing on the south elevation. While this site is permitted an additional ground sign on the west elevation, the lot configuration limits its effectiveness. Due to the location and orientation of the entrance, a ground sign in this area would not be visible to motorists until after they have passed the property entrance reducing its value for wayfighting for customer safety.

But you have to pull up the landscaping?

Yeah. There's a lot. Right. And I don't

We don't want you to

can because it's required by code.

Right.

So that would be a different variance. Request for exception for sign area. Mid Florida Credit Union is requesting an exception to the allowable aggregate sign area. The existing allowed aggregate sign area is 152 square feet. The proposed non illuminated sign measures 75.63 square feet, and the two existing signs total 134.44 square feet, resulting in a combined proposed sign area of 210.07 square feet.

This exceeds the maximum permitted sign area by 58.07 square feet. The requested variance is consistent with the intent of the sign code by promoting public safety, improving wayfinding and supporting efficient traffic and parking circulation. The proposed signage is consistent with establishment Florida branding standards and is appropriately scaled to the building facade, maintaining a cohesive and compatible appearance. Strict application of sign regulations will limit allowable sign area and reduce visibility for this site depriving the business of reasonable signage exposure. Separate identification signs are necessary to clearly identify the business and to provide effective wayfinding for customers approaching from multiple directions.

The requested variance represents the minimum relief necessary to maintain adequate visibility, allow the Mid Florida Identification Sign to function as intended and support the continued successful operations of this site. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

And I'm here if you have any questions.

Miss Penny. Any questions for the applicant? Any other questions for the applicant? And just to confirm, this sign will not have any lighting?

It will be non illuminated.

Okay, great.

I made sure of that. I would not want to be the resident having to look at that.

We'd be concerned about that. Yes. Okay, no other questions? Is there this is a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak or comment on this item? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. And before we make a motion, not that I think Mid Florida is going anywhere, should we condition this on this business and use?

You have the right to add a condition if you would like, that's your discretion.

Just go into the I

mean I think one thing I would ask the board to think about is if a different business goes in there, if they use the same building, they could potentially have the same constraint with the wall and the landscaping on Rosser. They're allowed to have another monument sign, they just can't fit one in.

Okay.

So, but you as a board, if you wanna place a condition, go ahead.