Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the city of Port St. Lucie planning and zoning board meeting for Tuesday, 02/03/2026. Madam clerk, please call the roll.

Chair Norton.

Here.

Vice chair. Mister Previp.

Here.

Mister Bisbutera.

Here.

Miss Morrisino? Here. And mister Rosen?

Here. We do have a quorum. Please stand for the pledge.

Pledge allegiance to the flag of

The United

States Of America and to the republic for which it stands,

Okay.

First item is the approval of the minutes. We don't have any. Nothing on the consent. And we are going to move up item 9A to first position. So let's call staff.

9A is review of Torino Park Trail proposed in recreational trails program grant.

Welcome. Hi, everyone. I'm Zach Sherman, executive project manager with Parks and Recreation. I'm sorry, you controlling? There's a phantom controlling the screen. Zach Sherman, executive project manager with Parks and Rec. Thanks for having us today. We're here to talk about a trail grant opportunity. We're coming before you today to get your support for this grant application. As you may know, we're designing Torino Regional Park right now.

We're 90% through design. In fact, we're pretty much at 100%. We received site plan approval the other day, and we're working on finalizing our construction plans. We got the site plan approval the other day and we're just about finished with our construction plans to get those turned in as well so we can get those reviewed, get the compliance, get our stamped approved plans, get this project kicked off in May for construction for this park, which we're expected to be completed by the 2027. As part of this design, we had to value engineer some amenities out of phase one.

One of the items that we value engineered out was certain segments and additional loops of trail and additional connections to a future kayak launch fishing pier. So with this grant, which is a matching grant, and we would be applying for $350,000 and then the city would chip in 350,000 for a total of 700,000 This would allow us to add back in those portions or segments of trail, those loops that we had to value engineer out, Possibly do some sidewalk, and in one of the concepts, there was a bridge, that was in one of the renderings connecting the, bottom middle portion of the parcel that we're developing with the phase two parcel directly south. So we'll be able to use that full $700,000 which is gonna go in next year's CIP. I'll get to the good part here. This was our conceptual master plan for the phase one that's currently pretty much through site plan review.

And on the right side of this rendering If

you push this button and you point it there, you should get a red dot.

Okay, cool. Okay, so you can see my little red dot. There was some additional loops of trail throughout this preserve area here that we can add back. Over here on the left, in the future, we'll do a fishing pier kayak, and so there'll be a connection there. And then of course, there's opportunities to do walkways along this canal and probably somewhere is in here.

It's not identified on here, but we can have a bridge that we could drive at least a utility cart across to phase two, the parcel directly south of this parcel, which is where all the future sports fields will go in a phase two. So we just ask your support of this RTP grant application for $350,000 and the city would provide a matching. I believe the grant application is due March 2. If you have any questions about the project or

Do members of the board have any questions?

Yes. What kind of material is on the path?

A lot what we did value engineer out was unpaved, stabilized. There was probably a little sidewalk connection over to the kayak. And the bridge, we never designed the bridge because that was gonna be in phase two. I'm sure it'll be something like it'll be a little bit bigger than a pedestrian bridge like the one we have going from the Rivergate Boat Ramp to the promenade. It'll be big enough to get a utility cart across, so we'll have to design that. But it will be a mix, I'm sure, if concrete or stabilized, that will put back.

Any other questions from members of the board? Mayor, we just need to motion an approval. Okay. So I entertain a motion to support the grant application. Any members?

Motion is stated.

Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Ayes have it. Good luck. Congratulations. Appreciate it. Okay. Now we'll move on to the public hearings, non quasi judicial. We have item seven a is p two five two one five requesting to be tabled to March 3. Mr.

Chair, I move that we table p two five two one five to the March 3 meeting. Second.

I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Items tabled. Okay. We're now moving on to the quasi judicial portion of the public hearings. Both 8A and 8B are quasi judicial in nature. Please, mister city attorney, explain the rules.

Thank you, mister Norton. At the a quasi judicial hearing, the board acting like a judge applies existing policy and law to a set of facts to determine an outcome. In a quasi judicial hearing, the question is whether the application at issue complies with existing requirements, not whether the board likes the project proposed in the application. The board must base their decision on competent substantial evidence presented at the hearing. The board is to consider the criteria set forth in the applicable code section at issue and determine if the application meets or fails to meet the criteria.

Accordingly, anyone who wishes to speak before the board on a quasi judicial item should focus their testimony on how a proposal either meets or fails to meet the criteria of the code rather than on general support or opposition. As for more nuts and bolts procedure, section 32.8 of the city code establishes procedures for quasi judicial hearings in the city. In each hearing, the board must disclose any ex parte communications before final action on the matter. First, city staff and the applicant will make presentations. Next, the public may present testimony and evidence in support or opposition to the application.

Then rebuttal and closing statements may be allowed followed by deliberations and decisions by the board. Once a motion has been made, the floor is closed to comments by the public. The board members may continue to ask questions, but no one has a right to address the board during their deliberations. With that, I hand everything back over to the chair.

Thank you. Anybody wishing to speak on items eight a or eight b, please stand and be sworn in. If you wish to speak on these two any of these two items, please stand and be sworn in now. Madam clerk, please swear in.

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

I say it. Thank you.

Okay. Before we begin, from left to right, any ex parte communications? None. None. None. Okay. Open a public hearing. Sophia, please.

Good evening, chair, vice chair, and board members. Sophia Trail with the planning and zoning department. I have been sworn in. The official packet was submitted five days prior to this public hearing. Madam clerk, would you please submit the packet into the record?

Project p twenty five one six nine is a landscape modification application known as Southern Grove SGA commercial buffer wall. This application was submitted by Derek Phillips with Lecido and Associates on behalf of the property owner, Banyan SGA. The property is located on the Northwest corner of Southwest Becker Road and Southwest Village Parkway, and the request is to provide a lit an enhanced landscaping buffer in lieu of an architectural buffer wall along the northern property line per section five f of the Southern Grove SGA MPUD. This is an aerial image of the subject property. Again, it's on the Northwest corner of Becker Road and Village.

The property has a NCD future land use designation and is surrounded by NCD. The zoning is MPUD and surrounded by MPUD and St. Lucie County Ag 5. To the North is vacant land. To the South is America Walks.

To the East vacant land, and to the West vacant land, which is a future park in the FPL substation. The subject property does have an approved site plan for a 134,000 square foot home improvement store, Lowe's, and is currently under construction. Per section five f of the Southern Grove SGA MPUD, a six foot high wall or fence is required in their landscape buffer where commercial, industrial, institutional, office, and public facility uses above the front, side, and or rear of existing or proposed residential uses. The perimeter landscape buffer is required to be a minimum of 10 feet wide. The landscape modification request is to provide enhanced landscaping within the 10 foot northern perimeter landscape buffer in lieu of a wall or fence.

The enhanced landscaping will include a continuous six foot high Calusa hedge at time of planting and assorted canopy trees, and the hedge will be required to be maintained at a minimum height of six feet. The board may recall that a similar application was submitted in 2025. The applicant had submitted a landscape modification for the western landscape buffer in the North. The western landscape buffer was 40 foot wide with a six foot hedge and assorted canopy trees, and the northern landscape buffer was 10 feet with the six foot hedge and assorted canopy trees. The request for the landscape buffer the landscape modification on the western buffer was approved by the planning and zoning board.

However, the one for the northern buffer was denied. The board had expressed concerns about allowing landscape modification when there is no official site plan for the northern parcel. At this time, we do have an application in for a multifamily site plan for that northern parcel, which has they've proposed 312 multifamily units. And Matamee Palm Beach, which is the owner of the parcel and the NRP group, which is their contract purchase purchaser for the multifamily parcel, have submitted letters of support for the landscape modification request. This is the landscape plan for the Lowe's, and this is a zoomed in image showing the six foot high minimum height of the continuous Colusia with assorted canopy trees along the northern property line.

As a board, you may choose to approve, deny, or table the proposed landscape modification. If the board finds the application as consistent with the criteria as listed in section one five four twelve b of the city code, then the board may motion to approve, motion to approve with the condition that the property owner maintain the hedge and the landscape buffer at a minimum height of six feet. If the board finds a landscape modification application is inconsistent with the criteria, they can motion to deny. Should the board need further clarification or information from either applicant or staff, the board may motion to table or continue the hearing for review to a future meeting. That concludes my presentation. If you have any questions.

Thank you. Any questions for

I have a brief question. If you could go back, I think it was probably that second or third slide from the end and it showed the actual landscape and perimeter like cross section. It might have been a cross section, but it's an aerial plan that showed how that buffer laid out. Just had a few quick questions. I wanted to orient myself correctly with that. That's it precisely. Thank you. Alright. So is there a roadway along the north property line of the commercial site?

There is. There's a driveway access into the commercial property that is right south directly south of the landscape buffer.

Okay. So then briefly, I'm I'm just gonna kinda orient myself. So there's a note that actually leads itself in with say, note perimeter occlusal hedge. So that note is actually on the it's positioned on this graphic that's within the residential property.

No. That's so that's the okay. So the on the image, I don't know if it's my apologies. So here is the buffer on the northern property. The note is pointing specifically to the continuous hedge. So the hedge continues all the way to both corners. When we approved the one for the western buffer, they have the exact note for the western buffer showing the 40 foot landscape buffer with the continuous hedge, and there's also a note there stating that they have to maintain it at the six foot high minimum, but it's only a one spot.

Okay. But then on the western buffer, if I recall correctly, wasn't there a large FPL easement?

Yes. So that has a 40 foot landscape buffer. Their MPUD calls for a minimum 10 foot landscape buffer when they're abutting the residential property. So that's why that one is at 10 feet.

Okay. And then just to help me understand on the north, from the location of this green, you know, living wall, which which I I do like those in in you know, I wanna understand how this lays out roughly approximately adjacent to any residential units that fall on that north property line.

So I don't have a the proposed site plan for the multifamily. It's currently being reviewed. It hasn't been recommended for approval by SPRC yet, the site plan review committee. But it does show if you can

We could see probably ask the applicant that when he comes up.

Yes. That can be a question for him as well if you'd like him to answer it.

Any other questions for staff? I do have one question. I don't if it's Sofia or Mary. What's the rationale for having the code be a wall versus a landscape buffer? What's the rationale behind that?

I mean, in some instances, a wall does a better job of mitigating the impact of noise, light, debris. And in fact, which is better, a wall or landscaping over my career? The common opinions changed, right, over time. So it's a case by case scenario. The intent of the requirement though is to protect residential development from any potential impacts from commercial development. There are instances where the wall would be less advantageous than landscaping. And that's why we have the relief which you're seeing tonight.

Right. And so, Sofia, as you're answering Greg's question, the landscape buffer would be to the north of what would be a roadway. Correct?

Correct.

So a driveway or and then parking to the south of that. Correct?

So I'll go to this image here. So this is the driveway

Right.

Going in here. The buffer is along Right.

But in south of that is parked.

Correct? It turns in here. There's another larger parking island.

Yeah. My my point to is there's no building there that would be be able to be seen because the buildings looks like it's further away.

If I could just clarify for a second. It's this is the site plan for actually the the landscape plan for the Lowe's.

Lowe's. Right.

So on the Lowe's northern driveway is a shared access easement that provides access both to the multifamily to the north and to the Lowe's. It's it's due to the city's limitations on driveways. So that's why they are share you having a shared access.

Okay. But that that buffer is gonna be on which side of

the On the Lowe's property, but to the north of the driveway. North. The north side of their driveway, the south side of the multifamily

Got it.

Parcel line.

It. Okay. That makes sense. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? The applicant is here.

You got it, Bridget? Okay.

And you can have that question.

Good evening. Derek Phillips of Associate's agent for the applicant. Sofia, thank you. Oh, got me set up. Your time.

Oh, okay. Yes. We can just do it that way. You're gonna have to scroll.

Let me just go to this. Just

pull up this graphic to help us out. I'll start over. Derek Phillips of Associates, authorized agent for the applicant.

Darren Phillips? Derek Phillips, yes.

Just wanna thank the planning staff for such a detailed review and staff report. I'd like to start with this image. I just want to note, once we were referencing the 10 foot landscape buffer, it will exist on the south southern property and the northern property. It is a shared access easement. The request we're proposing today, we do have three letters approving justifying that, hey, to our residents to the south, which you see here, it's about a good 100 or so feet away with a proposed lake on that, what would be the southern buffer of the northern property.

But we're focusing today on P 25169. That's gonna be the commercial to the south.

Mhmm. You're also representing the I'll I'll applicant to the north.

Applicant is v.

The applicant to the north is also is Mattamy. Correct?

That's gonna be Mattamy as the property owner.

Mattamy is the property owner of this one. Lowe's is the tenant. Got

it. NRP is a contract purchaser. I got you. Just wanted to understand your question fully. But yes, they have provided letters of support. As Bridget mentioned, this is a shared access easement. For aesthetics within the Southern Grove community, the Southern Grove DRI, it is fairly consistent with the makeup, the landscaping that exists in that area. We just wanted to provide a suitable site plan that both tenants would like moving forward. As Sofia mentioned, this project is familiar. It did come before you last year to focus on the northern and western buffer.

Like she said, you did approve the western side. At the time, we did not have a site plan. P 25210 is in. They've been working very, very closely with the southern tenant, going back and forth with design to see how this site would coexist together. At this point, I think Sofia did a great job of highlighting everything. If you have any additional questions about positioning, how we were gonna move forward, I'm here to answer any questions for you.

Can you just bring back your slide up? Any questions from

I do. I I remember when this came before us and I remember specifically, and I think a lot of us are familiar with this particular area. I think it's an easier approval concession on the West Side because you've got the FPL easements significant distance. I'm what I'm looking at here, you know, leading into the community, you have the better part of 80% of that shared frontage where between the closest residential units, you've got probably several 100 feet across the Lake. And then you have the one I'm guessing that's a building complex there in the the Southwest corner of that with adjacent parking that is to the west of the main entry coming into the multifamily.

And again, I wanna be careful how I suggest this. I'm very supportive of what you're pursuing in this instance, I would say east of that main entrance. And I don't know if you're prepared to, you know, I would prefer to see a wall west of that entrance where you have presumably, I would imagine trucks coming into the back of that facility. You're gonna turn there. You're gonna have some noise there. I do think that that might be a better location for a wall. I don't know if I'm in a position to try to condition that door, but it is a suggestion and a quality of life item. But is any I'm assuming no opposition.

Well, that's you know?

Well, I do understand your concern, but we were focusing well, as we were working with Mattamy and Loews to keep the residents in mind. As you know, new purchaser purchases of a home, they aren't too keen of walls within their viewing space. So I think that in mind, when designing this site, we wanted to keep all factors up front. Do we want to put a wall if someone purchases these townhomes or multifamily lots looking over the lake or to see a big box retail? Would you like to see them natural landscaping that's consistent throughout the area?

So providing that enhanced landscape buffer in lieu of the wall, we're gonna provide 10 feet to the south, 10 feet on the northern property. I think noise reduction is going to get taken care of as well as the property sit back. I do understand your concern for that piece of property to the easternmost part, I believe you said.

West

question. I'm sorry. Getting it confused here. I do understand that and that is something we could potentially look at.

Any

other questions for the applicant? Okay. I just do want to reiterate, the applicant is the for the Lowe's shopping center.

Yes. We are coming in for the commercial shopping center.

And the applicant is also the owner of the multifamily homes to the north?

No. Matamy the Matamy is controls unified for both sides. So both the northern and northern part parcel and the southern parcel.

But Matami is Matami is the owner of both sides?

No. Is the owner of the northern parcel. They sold the southern part.

Got it. Got

it. But but it sounded as if they were also either under contract to a multifamily party. So they, you know

The NRP group.

Yep. Okay.

Yeah. And originally, we when we looked at this, we didn't see a site plan. We were under the assumption that homes or townhomes might be abutting where your lake is now. So again, I'm a little bit more apt to, you know, move this forward. I do also like member Petaban's suggestion, if that's something that we can do that the be a a Western Wall, for lack of a better phrase, by the parking lot where that unit is gonna be for those townhomes to the west where there is no lake.

What mister chair, so what is that distance from the driveway?

And there's a parking lot that also South.

Well, that's a shared entrance.

There's parking lot there too, right? I see parking spaces.

Yep, so if you look at the highlighted, that's the enhanced landscape. It's a driveway, still highlighted. You have another, excuse me, I'm sorry Mary, where

were you talking?

It's about 100 feet.

So I just got confirmation from Mary, about 100 feet.

Okay.

But I'll keep going with the description. That parking island, that has landscaping as well. So you have about three or four sets of enhanced landscape buffering before you see if you're looking from orientation from the southern parcel to the north or if you're coming out that driveway to the north to the south. It's continuous landscaping.

You're gonna end up having like a floating wall section there that's all by itself. I'm personally inclined to approve this with the condition of just occlusion.

Well, there will be a mix of canopy treatment.

Right, but without the law, with the condition of that's stated in the application.

Can I ask one?

Yes, sir.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead. I'm sorry.

Let's say, in almost any instance, I would be supportive of this, and I think I probably will be, but I am curious and I don't know if staff knows this, you know, one of my favorite things to do is go to Lowe's or Home Depot, right? And you know, it's like my toy store as an adult. I am very aware that a lot of times, whether it's Home Depot or Lowe's, the parking lot becomes an extension of the actual store for, you know, stockpiling of of pallets of everything from sod to mulch to, you know, other materials and building materials. Seasonally they can actually be, you know, Christmas tree yards and things like that. That's kind of where I was going to with this is that, you know, on one hand, even though I do love the concept of the green wall and I think that's the superior option in almost every instance.

My my question really is, is there any limitation upon that user, that Lowe's user with what they can do along that boundary for they couldn't put a Christmas tree tent operation there or stockpile the mulch. Is there an I don't know if there's a mechanism for that to be controlled because that would somewhat become obnoxious to those residential users.

That review took place during the site plan review. There are dedicated areas for big box retails, the Home Depots, Lowe's of the world. We provided adequate space to the rear of the property. We've oriented the building a little bit south to provide that additional buffer that you're speaking of. With their hours of operation, that will get submitted as well. But we've went through typical day to days with the planning department and how that would look, and they felt safe moving forward and approving that site plan, and it is now under construction.

Bridget, you were going to comment?

Gonna reiterate what I don't believe there are any of them on the North side. I think they're on the South and the in front of the

So they're they're not gonna be permitted to do ancillary business?

On that area, no. And we will look at that. And I'm sure they will understand that now

too. Thank you. Okay. No other questions.

Any other questions? Members of Thank you very much. Mr. Phillips, any other questions for staff or the applicant? Alright. This is a public hearing. Any members of public wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, close to public hearing. And we will call for a motion and discussion.

I'd be comfortable putting forward a motion to approve as presented.

We have a motion to approve P25Dash169.

Second.

I have a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Ayes, Harriet. Welcome, Lowe's. Next item, eight b p 25Dash197. Any ex parte communications left

or right? None. Okay.

Open the public hearing, and we have

City union chair, vice chair, members of the board. I have been sworn in, and the official file was submitted to the city clerk five days prior to this hearing. Madam clerk, will you please enter it into the record? P25Dash197 is a special exception use for a project known as Andrews David Joanne Margaret Children's Gym. The applicant is known as Mary Rogers, authorized by the property owners David D Andrews, Joanne Andrews and Margaret D.

Andrews and Cara of CBS. Their property is located West Of South U. S. Highway 1 and North of Southeast Veterans Memorial Parkway. The request is a special exception used to allow 7,114.78 square feet of enclosed assembly space for a proposed recreational facility for children.

Section 158.124 of the zoning code requires enclosed assembly areas over 3,000 square feet to apply for a special exception use. A special exception use was granted to the property in 2003 to allow pharmacy with a drive through window for the site which previously operated as a CVS and is now currently vacant. The proposed facility consists of 5,801.78 square foot open activity area along with several partitioned rooms, bringing the total to 7,114.78 square feet enclosed assembly space. These additional rooms are included in the enclosed assembly calculation due to the use of half height walls. This is an aerial view of the property.

To the North, there's a medical office. To the South, multifamily residences. To the East, there's a shopping center. And to the West, there are single family homes. The future land use is general commercial with general commercial to the North, low density residential to the South and to the West, and ROI and general commercial to the East.

The existing zoning is general commercial with general commercial to the North, multifamily residential to the South, single family residential to the West and general commercial to the East. This is the approved site plan showing the existing standalone building with the existing two access points and cross access to the North. The proposed floor plan depicts the open area along with the additional rooms utilizing half height walls. With our special exception use applications, we evaluate them against criteria outlined under section 158.26. There are no proposed changes to the existing ingress and egress.

The property will continue to utilize its two existing access points along with the cross access to the north. The proposed use requires 60 parking spaces and the property provides 86, which allows sufficient parking to serve the proposed use. There are adequate utilities on-site that are serviced by the City of Port St. Lucie utility systems department. There is no proposed additional screening or buffering.

The site's approved landscape plan provides adequate perimeter landscaping. All signage and lighting shall be required to conform to the city code. Any additional signage will require a separate building permit or separate permits submittal to a building department. The facility is in an area designated for commercial development and is not expected to adversely impact surrounding properties. So you as a board have the options to make a motion to recommend approval to the city council, motion to amend their recommendation and recommend approval, Motion to recommend denial or to a motion to table. That concludes my presentation. And I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Ivan. Any questions from members of the board? No questions? Thank you. Ivan, is the applicant here?

Yes, yes. Mary Rogers.

Do you like to make a presentation?

Thank you so much for reviewing our application, and thank you for having us. If you can just give me a couple of minutes, I can read something I wrote, a statement. So basically, we are an all inclusive children's gym. It's to include neurodivergent and neurotypical children, but we really, really are for autistic children. And we know that this is very, very prominent here in The U.

S. And we have a lot of other children out door playground, indoor playground, but we don't really have one that is specific for neurodivergent children. So that's why we really would like to have a place here in Port St. Lucie area. So definitely, we thank you so much for reviewing this. We are very exciting. The place it's called, we work the spectrum. We don't have you up here. We have one in Palm Beach. You probably heard about them.

They are growing nationally and internationally, actually. And we truly believe that we will benefit the community here in Port St. Lucie. We would like to have our facility in that particular location. We are very, like I said, inclusive.

We welcome all children, all abilities, all age. And we would like to include a lot of therapies for them because not only for playground, but we want to have the place for them to receive therapies, speech therapy, OT, occupational therapy, physical therapy, so they can have all this when they come and the parents can bring them, the therapist can be there as well. So this is many dream come true that if we will be able to have this granted our application, so we can bring that facility here and we'll take that for San Jose area we really enjoy this.

Thank you. What was your name again?

We walk the spectrum.

No, you're

Oh, Marie Roger. There's no S at the end actually. Marie Roger.

Okay, Ms. Roger. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant from members of the board?

Mister chair, how long has the Palm Beach facility been running?

Over fifteen years. There was one in Boca, Boca West. Now there's one in Boca East in Federal Highway. And they have one in Jupiter, Royal Palm Beach, I think four.

This like a franchise?

It is a franchise.

Okay, great.

They are in Broward, they are in Miami as well.

Great. Is that building suitable? I mean, looks like you have a good design. Is it it's working out for what you're looking to do?

It will be perfect.

It will

be perfect?

Okay. Great.

We'll have our playground inside indoor playground and rooms for the therapies. It looks really perfect for that.

And it's for all children regardless of

Correct. Great. Any other questions, members of the board? Thank you, Ms. Roger. Any other questions for staff, members of the board, or the applicant? Seeing none, this is a public hearing. Open up the public hearing to the public. Anyone have anything to speak on this item? Seeing none, close the public hearing. And I'll call for a motion in discussion.

Mister chair, I move to approve P25Dash197. Second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, mister Roger. Good luck. Okay. We already did nine a. Any old business, mayor? Any public to be heard? Anyone wishing to speak? If not, we're adjourned.