Planning and Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the City of Port St. Lucie Planning and Zoning Board meeting Tuesday, 05/05/2026. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Miss Marciano? Here. Mister Rosen?

Here.

Mister Reckenis?

Yes, ma'am.

Chair Norton?

Here.

Vice Chair Pettibon? Here. Mister Prevot? Here. Mister Spitarra?

Here. Okay. We do have a quorum. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. First item of business, the approval of the minutes from 04/07/2026. Anyone make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting 04/07/2026. Second.

The motion is second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Nothing under consent. Are at the public hearing, non quasi judicial. I'm just gonna remind everybody again, if you wish to speak on any of the items tonight, please fill out a public comment card on and give it to the clerk. Thank you very much. Item 7A, P26-forty two. Open a public hearing. And do we have a presentation? Marissa?

Good evening, Board, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair. Marissa Darby, Alachman, Planning and Zoning Department. P24.042 is a text amendment to Section 158.224225, sorry. It is the outdoor sales and special events section of the zoning code and the applicant is the City of Port St.

Lucie. A summary of the changes. The text amendment will retitle the section from outdoor sales and special events to temporary outdoor sales and events. It will include a definition for temporary outdoor sales and temporary outdoor events, remove the application and permitting process details from the section and allow for those details to be established in a separate policy. The primary goals of the proposed changes to establish a more agile framework for managing permits, to allow for a more frequent and efficient adjustment to the policies as the city's needs evolve to better accommodate the diverse requirements of local businesses and event organizers and streamlines the administrative workflow to ensure a more consistent and efficient enforcement process for staff.

And we are presenting this on behalf of Neighborhood Services, who administers this portion of the code. And here we have a definition for outdoor temporary sales in Section 15A-two 25, and it shall mean a short term outdoor display of sales of goods, services and merchandise by a single vendor. A permit is not required for the display of the merchandise. Proposed change number two, 158.225b, it's temporary outdoor events, and it shall mean an organized and planned gathering of persons having a common purpose, design or goal that is to occur in a private property. It will require street closing or detours are likely to attract substantial crowds.

Unlike the customary unusual activities generally associated with the property and require the use of city resources, financial or otherwise. Any additional criteria is deemed by the city manager or their designee. Proposed amendment 158,225 in Section C requires a permit and establishes the policy. No person shall conduct a temporary outdoor sales on events unless a permit has been obtained in accordance with the city's temporary outdoor sale policy and temporary outdoor event policy. Proposed amendment to 158, Section two twenty five, the city manager or designee are authorized to create additional policies, rules and regulations that are consistent with and further the provisions set forth in this section in accordance with Florida State's Special Act of Resolution of the City Council that pertain to the conduct and operation of an outdoor sale, an outdoor event.

The Planning and Zoning Department finds the proposed text amendment to be consistent with the intent and direction of the city's comprehensive plan and recommends approval. I'm here for any questions. We also have staff from Neighborhood Services available for questions.

Okay. And the applicant is also the city. So any questions from members of the Board? Okay. Seeing none, this is a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. And ask for a motion.

Make a motion to approve P26-forty two. Second.

We have a motion and second. Any other questions? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Items 8A through 8F are quasi judicial in nature. I'll ask our city attorney to please explain the procedures.

Good evening. All of the items listed under section eight of your agenda tonight are quasi judicial in nature. This is when the board steps outside of its legislative role where it will make code regulations and applies those regulations to specific different types of applications. In deciding whether an application meets those standards, the board must base its decision on competent substantial evidence. That means evidence is relevant and material and within the purview of the knowledge of the witness offering the evidence and not based on speculation.

The initial burden is on the applicant to prove that its particular application meets the standards for what it is requesting, I. E. If there's a special exception that it meets those standards, if it's a variance that the applicant meets those standards, etcetera. Ultimately, if there was an opposing party on an item, if the burden was proved by the applicant, then the burden would shift to somebody opposing it to prove that they did not meet the criteria, and any decision of the board must be based on competent substantial evidence that was provided at the quasi judicial hearing. Additionally, every board member will need to disclose whether they had any ex parte communications with anyone on each item prior to the item being heard, and any member of the public that wishes to speak on the items listed under section eight will need to be sworn in.

So at this time, anyone who desires to speak on those items, please stand and be sworn in by the clerk.

This is for all items eight a through eight f.

I also am not sure if anyone's on

Zoom. Okay.

Okay. If everyone can please raise their right hands. Do you swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you.

Okay. Let's move on to item 8A P24-one 179, McCarty Road Planned Unit Development amendment. First, are there any ex parte communications? None. Okay. So open up the public hearing and staff. Daniel.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Board members, Cody Sisk for the record. Today's application is McCarty Road, PUD. It's the First Amendment. Oh, and before I forget, the official file has been submitted at least five days before case hearing, and I've been sworn in. The owner for this property is McCarty Road LLC.

The applicant is with Lucido and Associates. The property is located East of McCarty Road and about approximately 1.25 miles south of Midway Road, and this is a request to amend the McCarty Road PUD. In yellow here is the location of the subject parcel. To the north and to the west are San Lucie County's own properties. To the south and to the east is a PUD.

It's LTC Ranch. The future land use for the north and the and the West is also San Luis County and then to the south and east are both ROI. The background for this, the PUD was originally approved in 2009 and included about 72 acres. The McCarty Road PUD is currently approved as a multifamily development. Per objective 1.1.4 future land use element, future growth, development and redevelopment should be directed to appropriate areas as depicted on the future land use map.

The land use map should be consistent with sound planning principles, including the prevention of sprawl, energy efficiency, natural limitations, the goals, objectives and policies contained within the comp plan and the desired community character and to ensure availability of land for future demand and utility facilities. And per Objective 1.1.6, future growth and development will be managed through preparation, adoption, implementation and enforcement of land development regulations, including the use of PUD's mixed use projects and to ensure coordination and consistency with an interagency hazard mitigation plans of resource planning and management plans pursuant to chapter three eighty. The subject property is located in the Northwest annexation area and is within the city's utility service area. For the annexation agreement, developers required to install or cost to be installed at its sole cost and expense the on-site water and wastewater transmission facilities to service a property. In addition, the proposed PUD expands the required water and sewer improvements to serve the property.

The PUD amendment also includes revised transportation improvements that are included in the amended annexation agreement. Here is a concept plan that's from the PUD. To the south is East West 5, and on the west side is McCarty Road. The traffic improvements that are associated to this would be to construct East West 5 from the terminus of Wilder Pod 9 extension west 300 foot beyond the Meadows PUD entrance. I do have another map on the next slide to kinda show more of this.

Dedicate to the city, 120 foot of right away along East West 5, extending along the southern boundary of the Meadows Beauty. The construct the construct McCarty Road as stabilized chip and seal surface road to connect the currently stabilized portion of the Road in the vicinity of the Meadows PUD Northern property line, just north of Williams Road to the proposed secondary emergency access, and dedicate to St. Lucie County 70 feet of right of way along McCarty Road, extending the entire Meadows Western property line. And this is actually in the applicant's presentation as well, but the area on the west is McCarty Road. The dedicated area on the south would be the 120 foot right away, and then the dedication to the west side would be the 70 foot right away as shown here.

As shown in oh, there's no color on the west side, but on the south side would be the green area. The recommendation from the site plan review committee recommended approval at the April 22 SPRC meeting, and staff finds that the request to be consistent with the direction and intent of the future land use map and policies of the comp plan and recommends approval with the following condition. The proposed amendment to the annexation agreement E26Dash046 shall be approved prior to the first reading of the ordinance proposed for the proposed PUD amendment, and the Public Works Department is also recommending a condition. All remaining comments from all departments, including our third party traffic consultant must be satisfactorily addressed prior to the PUD going forward to the City Council. And as the Planning Zoning Board, you have the recommended options to recommend approval to the City Council, recommend approval with conditions or recommend denial to the City Council.

That concludes my presentation, and I'm here to answer any questions. Yep.

Any questions for staff?

If I may, mister chair, briefly, I did not recognize the project initially, but I I will be having to recuse myself, and I will need to do a form eight on this project. So thank you.

Understood. Okay. All right. So noted we have a refusal for conflict. So any questions for city staff? Cody, just want one question. You talked about improvements. Those improvements are going to be paid for by the applicant, correct?

Correct. These improvements. Part of the annexation agreement

would Thank you. Okay.

The improvements are in the annexation agreement, and the annexation agreement will go to City Council with the first reading of the PUD ordinance. And one thing I think we wanted the first reading of the PUD ordinance, but I'm not sure if Cody mentioned it, It is approved for five thirty multifamily units. They're going down to three twenty one single family units. So they're basically changing the project, but it will have less density.

They're decreasing the density. Yes. Correct. But that's already entitled.

Yes, there was five thirty multifamily units and it's going down to three twenty one single family residential units.

Okay, great. Thank you, Cody. The applicant is here? Yep. Mr. Garrett?

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Planning and Zoning Board members and staff. Steve Garrett with Lucido and Associates representing the applicant. I have been sworn in. Let's see if I can do this real quick. I have a very brief presentation. There is a reason I bring my glasses, I guess. First, I'd like to thank Mr. Sisk and staff for their presentation stealing some of my thunder with the slide out of there. But I'll try and keep it brief. As staff said, this is an existing approved project.

It was annexed into the city in 2005. It obtained the medium density land use up to 11 units per acre. PUD zoning came in 2009. Currently, it is existing with an approved density of five thirty townhomes. And as staff has said in the Board question, we are actually reducing it by two zero nine dwelling units. And instead of a townhome project, it will be a single family home project. We've actually been working on this, I thought about one years, point probably closer to two years now. Staff has done a phenomenal job. City manager's office has working with us as well. I want to highlight a couple of things.

One, we do have concurrent applications running with this. What's before you tonight is amending the PUD, the zoning document, And the edits in that zoning document are taking an existing PUD that was based on townhome multifamily project and writing it, making it consistent with single family needs. And the project will consist of 30, 40s and 50 foot wide lots. Those were essentially the changes for the PD. But we are running an amendment to the annexation agreement.

We're running comp plan ordinance five-one 180, which was the original one concurrently. And all that is to make sure that those corresponding documents that exist are modified and consistent with the development program and the negotiated roadway improvements with the project. And so you've seen this already, but let me highlight a couple of things. One, let's see if I can get well, you can see the arrow, so McCarty Road exists to our West. Wilder Parkway to our east has been constructed and is in use and built.

The property itself, as shown here, was originally intended to have access, primary access off of McCarty and then construct a portion or construct East West 5, which is the road to our south here. It had no intended access to Wilder Parkway. In working with the city manager's office and staff, we realized that the Wilder project that is to our east and to our south only had the obligation of that red portion and a portion south of our site of dedicating that right of way and conveying it to the city. No obligation to construct the road. We pivoted with this project and are proposing our main entrance off of East West 5 here in the southeast corner of this project, and working with the city manager's office, a plan in place that we could start building the balance of East West 5 to Wilder Parkway.

One thing that Wilder is doing is they are building about 900 and some odd feet the first section in orange here because they plan their secondary access for Pod 9 at this location right here. So they are constructing a portion of it, but then the balance of this would not have been an obligation of Wilder. We are building almost half a mile, shown in blue, to about 300 feet past our main entrance with this project. And then the future extension would be by others, but that ultimately would get East West 5 in place. Again, two lanes of an interconnected road system for this area of the city all the way to McCarty.

And then to highlight some specific elements relative to that right of way. First, the blue area shown here to the left adjacent to McCarty is the 70 foot of additional right of way being provided to St. Lucie County and McCarty Road. And then I'd like to highlight the orange and the green down here along our southern boundary. The orange is actually off our property.

It's the original or current 60 foot right of way dedication for Wilder Park for Wilder, the project by Greenpoint, and the green is our current obligation of dedicating 60 feet. That in total would be 120 foot right of way and provide for East West 5 To McCarty. Early on in this project and working with the city manager's office, we realized that let me go back one, Pod 9 has a significant wetland here, and it actually extends up to about what would be the future centerline of East West 5. So we worked on seeing if we could accommodate the entirety of the 120 feet, so the green and the purple, on our property, thus allowing the entire construction of East West 5 To McCarty to happen much sooner, avoid significant mitigation costs, and get that road in place. Those are the highlights.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Garrett. Any questions from members of the board?

Sorry, Chair.

Go

ahead. And we are accepting other conditions, no issues with them.

Thank you. So there are conditions that if the motion is made, we'll approve it with conditions. Okay. Just remember that. All right. Anybody else have any questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Seeing none. It's public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item? Seeing none. Close the public hearing. And we'll ask for a motion to discussion.

Yeah. Would motion to approve item p 24 dash one seventy nine with the two conditions noted.

Second.

Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Good luck, mister Garrett.

Thank you.

Okay. We're on 8BP25Dash178WilsonGrove, Parcel A, Master Plan, unit development, amendment number two. And any ex parte communication?

None.

Okay. We'll open to public hearing. Daniel.

Good evening, board. Daniel Robinson, planning and zoning. I have been sworn in, and the official file has been submitted to the city clerk more than five days prior to this hearing. Madam clerk, please enter the file into the record. The project before you is the second amendment of the Wilson Grove's Parcel A MPUD.

The request by Sundance PSL One LLC for a major amendment to their MPUD zoning regulations book for Wilson Grove's Parcel A MPUD was submitted by Kotler and Herring. The property is generally located north of Becker Road, west of the future roadway North South B, East of future roadway North South a and south extension of Southwest Hegner Drive. The future land use is NCD, new community development, and the MPD is approximately 390.38 acres in size. The land is within the residential subdistrict of the Wilson Grove DRI. This application is to provide independent design standards and guidelines for the MPUD per the exceptions listed in the citywide design standards.

These design standards are guidelines are intended to apply for the overall Wilson Grove DRI in the future as the other MPUDs come in. Evidence of the building elevation approval for the architectural review committee will be provided during the site plan review board review process. The applicant has provided proof of their review board, and the Sundance Community Standards and Architectural Design Guidelines provides concurrency with Policy 1.17.2 that states large scale projects shall include architectural controls and Policy 1.17.3 seven three that encourages urban design standards. The site plan review committee recommended approval of the proposed MPUD documents and the concept plan at their 01/28/2026 site plan review committee meeting. And planning and zoning department staff finds the request to be consistent with the direction and intent of the future land use map and policies of the city's comprehensive plan and recommends approval.

The board may recommend to the city council to approve, approve with conditions or deny. If more information is required prior to making a recommendation, the board may choose to table the project to a future meeting. And does the board have any questions for me or would you like to hear from the applicant?

Any members of the board? Questions? Mr. Roberts, just one question. This is the Sundance development, Carolina Palms? Is that what this?

I don't know if it's also called Catalina Palms, but yes, Sundance.

Okay, it's Sundance. Okay, thank you. The applicant's here, right?

Yeah.

Right behind you.

Behind you.

State your name for the record.

Good evening. For the record, my name is George Missimer with Kotler and Hearing, and I have been sworn in. I don't have much more to add from what Daniel said. He did a great job. We appreciate staff's review through this process.

This amendment really does two things. It adopts a design guideline standard document for the DRI as well as it establishes the Architectural Review Committee within the Parcel APUD. So that committee will have authority to review the architecture within Parcel APUD. Just some basic information. Again, the area of Parcel APD is about three ninety acres.

The overall DRI is roughly 2,500 acres. And then the remainder of the information again is all consistent with staff's presentation. We appreciate their recommendation of approval and be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any members of the board have questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Thank you very much. Any other questions for staff or the applicant from the board? There's no conditions recommended here, Mary? No. Okay. All right. This is a public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on the item? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. And I'll entertain a motion and discussion.

Make a motion to approve P25-one78. Second.

Okay. Motion to second. Any discussion? All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Good luck. Thank you. We're on 8cP26. Heredo Realty Advisors Inc. For ovarian. Sophia.

Good evening, chair, vice chair, and board members. Sophia Trail with the plaintiffs.

One second, Sophia. Do we have any ex parte communication? Left or right, Peter? None. None. None.

None.

None.

Okay. Open a public hearing. Sorry.

Go right ahead.

My apologies, chair. Sofia Trello with the Planning and Zoning Board. I have been sworn in, and the official packet was submitted to the clerk's office five days prior to this public hearing. Madam clerk, would you please submit the packet into the record? Project p 26036 is a variance application known as Herrito Realty Advisors and John and Joan Ghani.

The applicant and agent is Edward McDonald with Thomas Engineering Group on behalf of the property owners of John Mohammad Ghani and Joan Davis Ghani Living Trust for Lot 6 and Harito Realty Advisors Incorporated for Lots 7 Through 10. The property is located on the Northwest corner of Southwest Bougainvillea Avenue and Southwest Gatlin Boulevard. This is a request to grant a variance to the building rear setback requirements and the landscaping requirements for a proposed retail development. This is an aerial image of the property. To the north is a drainage canal and right of way, additionally some single family homes.

To the south is Gatlin Boulevard, which has that pedestrian pathway pathway along with other single family homes. To the West, it is currently undeveloped, and to the East are some offices. The future land use for the property is residential office. To the north, it is low density residential. That is the future land use for the drainage right of way along with the single family homes.

To the South is open space recreation and low density residential. To the east and west, it is also residential office. Lots 6 Through 10 apologies. Lots 7 Through 10 are currently zoned r s two, and Lots 5 And 6 have a professional zoning district. To the West, the parcels are zoned RS two, and to the East, they are zoned professional.

To the North is RS two, and to the South, it is also RS two, which is single family. So there are two variance requests with this application. One is a variance of 14.6 feet from the building rear setback requirements. The second request is a variance to the requirement of landscaping along the outside of the architectural wall, which is proposed 10 feet from the rear property line, and a variance of two trees and a 154 shrubs of perimeter landscaping required along the northern boundary of the subject property. To make things easier, I've included the code to kinda understand where these are coming from.

Our code requires that there be a minimum rear building setback of 25 feet, that landscaping may encroach a maximum 10 feet into a 20 foot drainage easement, that landscape buffers adjacent to require an area outside of the wall for landscaping and maintenance, and that each landscape buffer strip shall have one tree planted for every 30 feet and one strip planted for every two feet.

So just to clarify, they're looking for a variance not to meet these code requirements. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

There are two concurrent applications with this one. P two five two one seven is a rezoning application to rezone the properties to limited mixed density. P two five two one nine is a request for a special exception use to allow retail use that exceeds 50% of the building's gross floor area and exceeds 5,000 square feet. The property owners, Horido Realty and the John and Joan Ghani Living Trust have entered into a unified control agreement. If you remember recently, we changed our conversion manual to allow for unity of control in addition to unity of title. The proposed conceptual plans indicate that there are currently no development plans for Lot 5, just Lot 6 Through 10.

And before you go on, just explain that unity of control.

So our conversion manual requires, previously it required that the property owners have a unity of title for all the lots within a development project for the conversion area. So unified control has recently been added which allows two which allows various property owners to enter into a development agreement, which they agree to develop the project as one project for all of the parcels. So for this example, the trust owns Lots 5 And 6, Haridah Realty owns Lots 7 Through 10, they've entered into an agreement that they're going to develop all of those parcels as one project, so they can't be separated. K. At time of site plan, the owners will need to submit an application to the city council to abandon 10 feet of the 20 foot drainage easement along the rear boundary of the subject property in Lot 5.

This is a image of the conceptual plan. There's no site plan right now because they've only submitted for SCU and rezoning, which requires conceptual plans. So I have highlighted with the red circle the corner of the building, which is approximately 10.4 feet from the rear building from the rear property line. It also shows the 10 foot landscape buffer along with the proposed wall at 10 feet. This is a preliminary conceptual landscape plan for the project.

The northern property line is 307 linear feet. Because of this length for the property line, it does require 10 trees and 154 shrubs. Because of their design of these sites, they are only able to provide eight trees and 26 shrubs. If the board does find that the variance applications are consistent with the criteria as listed in section 158.295(one) through seven of the city code, the board may motion to approve the variance, motion to approve the variance with the following condition, that the variance will expire one year after approval of 10 feet of the 20 foot drainage easement is not abandoned by the city council. If the board does find that it is inconsistent, they may deny or should the board need further clarification or information from either the applicant or staff, the board may motion to table or continue the hearing or review to a future meeting.

So should we move forward? You're asking for a motion with the condition, correct?

What staff is saying is if you determine that you're going to approve this, we would recommend that there be a condition on it. It looks like a word is missing. So it would be the variances will expire one year after from the approval if 10 feet of the 20 foot drainage easement is not abandoned by the city council. Apologies.

No worries. So we'll get that verbiage corrected, Elizabeth. All right. Okay, any questions from members of the board or staff? I do have a couple of quick questions. One, is this the only way to construct this project? They have to have the

mister chair, the applicant does have a presentation so they can further describe in detail their proposal for this site and what they want to see for it.

Okay.

So

And then but just for for you, staff, what would it mean if they didn't get the approval? What would that mean? What would be next?

I can jump in here. The next applications are contingent upon this variance because they have conceptual plans attached to them, the L and D rezoning and the special exception use. So I mean, from my perspective, the recommendation would be potentially to table those applications either to a date certain or not to allow the applicant time to speak with staff about how to proceed with their project. And that's only if you guys don't

But give the

that's kind of

But if we don't give the variance, they would be in order to do this, they'd have to give a different site plan, right?

Correct, they would have to redesign the

site. Okay, so they're looking for a variance or relief, so they don't have to live within the parameters of our code.

They are asking for relief and as the planner stated, they do have a presentation.

Okay.

So I'd let the applicant.

We'll ask those questions. Any other questions for Sophia? You, thank you. The applicant is here.

Hello. Edward McDonald. I'm with Thomas Engineering Group representing the property owners on behalf of the Dollar Tree project. Yeah. It's all in one, so I have, like, a break point for each one.

Okay. So the the first item that we're talking about is the variance specifically. The two variances are the rear setback specifically. It's required 25 feet. We would like to have a variance request of 15 or the four 14.6 is what staff put in there. That's a bare minimum. I would like to maybe see that rounded to 15 just for a

little wiggle

room. The landscaping in on the rear, north of the property is a required 10 feet buffer. We're seeking for that to be same buffer, but we can't plant within the buffer because there is a drainage easement there. So we're asking to be able to plant the trees outside of the buffer and on the south side of the wall where we're going be putting up a wall along that easement. I'll go into a little bit more detail for you.

These are the code requirements that staff just went over with you as far as what we're seeking relief from specifically, so this was outlined in the report. This is just kind of the aerial zoomed out because this is the variance is gonna build a little bit with the next request for the rezoning and special exception, But along this corridor, essentially, what you have is Gatlin, which I believe when it was originally platted with all single family, it's more shifted to a commercial retail environment. So I believe the idea of the LMD conversion area is to see those single family zoning properties come into this LMD and allow retail commercial. That way you don't have single family cars backing out into Gatlin and trying to pull in and back out. It's not really a single family neighborhood anymore along this corridor.

So the LMD conversion allows us to develop the corner here at Bougainville and Gatlin on lots, which would be Lots 6 Through 10, specifically for the Dollar Tree, that would give us the access, site layout that we need, meeting all other requirements of it, similar to the rest of the developments that you see to the West. Very similar to, I believe, it was a Seven Brews Coffee right there at the corner of Import And Gatlin. It's currently a a green parcel, but I believe that's being built now. So the idea of that is to get away from the single family, keep traffic from backing out on it. So this is the aerial with the lots, the current configuration.

What you see on the screen right now is Lots 5678910. The variance itself

the other side we we

control because Lots 5 And 6 are currently zoned as professional. So what we don't want to do is because Lots 5 And 6 are two separate owners, Lots 7 Through 10 are as separate owners, There's three owners. But for the variance, it's only the two owners. We don't want to take Lot 6 and then leave Lot 5 nonconforming, so it's brought in as a unit of the control. That way, only way Lot 5 can be developed in the future is if they're able to gather the remaining parcels under completely different ownership and cobble those together enough to meet the LMD conversion standards.

That touches on immunity control. If you have any questions on that, happy to answer them. Really what you want to see, and hopefully I can simplify for you, is the site plan. We have worked with staff probably just about a year trying to figure out this site plan and how to make it work, how to make it meet the standards of the city, meet the requirements of the code, and to come up with the bare minimum request that we're presenting to you in order to develop the site with the proposed Dollar Tree that you see. Dollar Tree stores are plusminus 10,000 square feet.

I think this one is 10,062 square feet. But what we're seeking to do here is we're seeking to get a variance on the corner that's touching the very northwest tip there from 20 foot to fifteen, fourteen point six feet, so from 25 to 15 or 14.6 feet, and to take the 10 foot buffer and in lieu of putting the landscape material in the buffer, to have it on the south side of the wall. So the single family on the north side of the canal, just like all the other development along the Gatlin Corridor, there's gonna be a wall constructed. Right? So you're gonna have the wall.

You're gonna have the 10 foot drainage easement. It's gonna be sodded. It's for maintenance. It's for care of the canal by public works. So you're gonna see canal, 10 foot strip, grass, wall, and then our landscape material in our building is gonna be above it, same as everything else that you see along that corridor.

To understand the site plan a little bit more and what we're reason that this is a good fit for the city really is that from Bulgabilia Avenue, we're gonna be providing the driveway connection. We're providing also a driveway connection on Gatlin. We're extending cross access through Lot 5, which will be stubbed out to the future parcels when they develop and do the LMD conversion scene that we're doing. So we're providing that cross access. We're providing a lift station on the site, which is going to serve the Dollar Tree, but also is going to be stubbed and put sanitary sewer to the west for future developments to then be able to connect into that city public utility.

It was a very difficult site to figure out and work with staff as far as how to make the layout work. We have the parking met. We have all the other landscape on-site met. Storm water is gonna be met. The cross access loading, we're extending sidewalk on Bogavilla. So we're checking all of the boxes. The variance request, which if we don't have the variance request approved and we can't build the site plan, there's no other site plan that we can fall back on because we've been doing this for a year. I think I got to concept a through z. Right? So we we laid it out a few different ways, and this is the bare minimum that we're asking for, and there's nothing else that we can do to make this work.

But the site plan itself is what you see here. And again, the cross access from Bogavilla, it will extend through Lot 5. It will be able to connect the Lot 6. The wall is going to run the full length of Lots 5 through 10, so you see the wall, the landscape variance. But to zoom in a little bit, this is specifically where the variance is being asked.

So the one corner here of the building, we're asking for a leave of 14.6 feet. I would like to see that rounded to 15, as I mentioned before, but this is so that we can make the building fit. The public utility easement on the back, this drainage drainage easement on the rear is 20 foot staff. Public works, we have worked with them. It's ready to be written up.

They have the legal descriptions to reduce it. They don't want to record it now in case this item isn't approved. It doesn't make sense to vacate it now, so obviously that would be a condition. But we're vacating 10 feet of that in order to not have our structure within an easement. So setback, reduction in landscape, 20 foot drainage easement, like I said, there will be a six foot masonry wall.

The landscape plan has been thought through, reviewed by staff, so we know exactly what we're going to be proposing. Variance requests, so with the landscape material being on the south side of the wall, there will be a relief of two trees and 154 shrubs that would be required in that buffer, which can't be provided on the north side of the buffer, and we can't fit it on the south side of the wall. So if I zoom in a little bit more, you can see what we're doing here. Slash, plines, magnolias. I am not a landscape architect, so please go easy on me if you do have questions.

So north side of the wall is gonna be the easement. The wall is gonna be just tight outside of the easement. We can't put the the landscape material in the buffer in the buffer because that's a drainage easement, so we're trying to put it on the south side, and we're gonna do a nice concrete masonry wall. So in summary, variance for lots six, seven, eight, nine, and 10 for the location of the landscape material, we're short on trees and shrubs, but really we can't put the shrubs in that drainage easement, and we don't have room to put it on the south side of the wall. Everything else is being met, parking, access, station loading, pedestrian, all that's thought through and nicely done.

So with that, I will stop here because the next item really is going to the rezoning and special exception.

Any members of the board have questions? Questions. Mr. Paterra?

Yes.

Will this affect the drainage canal at all? And will there be any drainage going from the lot into the canal?

Yes, it will affect the drainage canal. Currently, what you see on the screen, there's a pipe that runs right to the right of the driveway from Southwest Gatlin. There is currently a 24 inch pipe that runs due north, so it's at an angle. Picture it going right through the building essentially. So that has drainage that comes from Gatlin that is with an easement that would be relocated and vacated with public works when we go through that next step of the process.

So that discharge pipe for the existing drainage from Gatlin would be modified. Our stormwater discharge would be directly to the canal. So yes, I mean, but the flow and capacity of it is not going be modified in any way.

I don't quite understand. It said if city commission decides to abandon the canal, what's what's Abandon.

Abandon. So that's a great question. They do need to have an abandonment of 10 feet of the required 20 foot drainage easement. However, it was determined that if the project receives approval and moves forward, then they would go and ask the city council to abandon the drainage easement. We did not wanna have that abandonment done and final if the project wasn't advancing. And that's also why there's a condition if you choose to approve it that if they don't get that abandonment approved within a year, then the variance is extinguished. So basically if the project doesn't move forward.

I believe I understand what you're asking now. We are not touching the canals in its own separate right of way. The water that you see on the aerial and where it's flowing, that's in its own right of way. Along our property and along all the properties along this corridor, on the north side of the lots is a 20 foot drainage easement that's per plot. We're looking to vacate half of that 20 foot drainage easement on our property to 10 feet, and that's kind of like part of the canal maintenance strip a little bit.

So if I go all the way back to the aerials, like this whole corridor here, like everything that you see has, you know, that that drainage easement along along the backside of the lots. But the canal, the water, and everything within it, the the side slopes, the embankment, everything up, that's all in right away, and we're not touching that right away. It's still gonna be exactly the same. We're just looking for relief on our property instead of needing a 20 foot drainage easement. We're gonna reduce it down to 10. 25? Yeah. Well, that's a setback. The setback is being reduced from 25 to 14.6, but his his question was specifically about the drainage easement in the rear. And the drainage easement in the rear is 20, but we're gonna vacate and release 10 feet of that.

And that's part of the condition that says that within a year, if it's not approved, we're not or this release lease of easement isn't brought forth, and then it's just gonna stay. It doesn't make sense to go through and and vacate a portion of it until we have the business of tonight Mhmm. Voted on and approved by you. So

I just wanna know if it's gonna stop. It's gonna be a storm water problem.

Not at all. Not at I will ask Steph.

If if I can step in here that typically if there's gonna be a storm water problem because of an abandonment, Public Works will not approve the abandonment. So that's analyzed prior to any abandonment ever taking place.

That's that's on a site plan. Right? Right, Elizabeth?

It just happens in conjunction with the abandonment application.

Yeah, this is more a matter of title. I mean, this has nothing to do with the flow and capacity of that stormwater system.

Just to answer the question.

Diana Spurgs Public Works. Those easements are used more for access purposes for maintenance, So we would have less of an access space. Instead of having 20 feet, we'd have 10 feet if that were approved. But we have ways of accessing the canals in other ways, so that's why sometimes those can be approved.

Public works doesn't have any problem with it?

I I don't know that the actual abandonment has come through yet. It hasn't been analyzed.

So we

haven't looked at that?

It's it's been submitted through public works.

But that would be an issue for council. Correct, Mary?

Correct. They have several applications to get through before the abandonment is reviewed and acted on.

So I'm correct, mister Spaterra, if it doesn't meet our requirements, the city would not

approve. Correct. It would not get abandoned. That's a city council decision As

a city, not notice.

In the future. And it's it's really not relevant to this variance. Right. Your scope is on do you want to grant the relief as requested.

But to

give mister Sprotera some peace of mind, if there was any adverse

Flow of storm water

the council probably would not or public works Of would not approve course.

And I wouldn't design it because I don't want to get Okay.

Is that Mr. Spiterra, is that Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay. Any questions? Pete? Mr. Chair?

So the setback that you're requesting is 10 feet, not 14, because you're asking for a variance of 14.6 feet. So you just you misspoke.

I was speaking specifically about drainage easement and not the setback. The setback is required at twenty five and the minimum in the staff report and what's before you is 14.6, a deviation of 14.6, which would bring it to 10.

To ten.

Which I would like to have it at fifteen if you approve it, just that way there's

And more I'm gonna just jump in and say that it wasn't advertised for fifteen.

14.6 is fine. So

you could alter the design of the building, correct?

The building?

Right, you could still put that building there and just

Make it smaller.

Alter the corner to

Shop off a corner, chamfer it. You could do anything, but Dollar Tree will not develop here and this project will not happen if that is the case. If we don't get the variance working.

But there is a way to, if Dollar Tree wanted this really badly, they could just alter the building and they would be within the setback. So if their requirement is they have to have a square building, they don't care and they're not gonna develop there, that's fine, but there's certainly a remedy. If change the design of the building. You just said you could just

I'm saying you could do anything. I'm saying that no, that does not work for Dollar For Dollar

Tree, okay.

And this client and that they will walk away from this deal.

Got

it. They were very specific in that fact.

Okay. And then I just have some questions for staff. I just want to review the staff report. I'm just scrolling through here. So I'm looking at compatibility with variance criteria. So number one, staff findings. There are no unique conditions or circumstances present. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. So let's see. So number three, granting the variances requested by the applicant will confer special privileges that are denied by other parcels within the LMD zoning district. Is that correct?

It will confer special privileges.

Okay. Then there's number six, so I need to review this. So number six, it says, staff findings, granting the variances will not be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this chapter and will not be injurious to the area or detrimental to the public welfare, should that be a but? If it's not in harmony so can you just explain that statement?

Yes. Absolutely, mister Prevot. So not being in harmony with the intent. So the intent of these commercial uses that are abutting residential land uses is to provide a buffer between the residential uses and the commercial uses. And typically, being that this is a conversion area and it does require an architectural wall, not only does the six foot high masonry wall provide buffering, but the canopy trees that are supposed to be planted every 30 feet along that wall are supposed to provide additional buffering for the residential lots that are behind it.

Okay.

So But the applicant is asking for relief from that?

He's asking for relief from the amount of canopy trees that are to be planted. Additionally, based on the plate based on the based on how the parking is laid out, they're not able to provide those canopy trees within 30 feet of one another. It's supposed to be a continuous canopy.

Within this site plan.

Within this site plan based on how it is currently designed.

And to the north of the canal are homes. Correct.

Yeah, just let me finish. So it will not be in harmony, but it'll also not be injurious, or will be?

It will not be injurious. I'm sorry if that's not clear. It will not be injurious or detrimental to the public law.

It's just not in harmony.

It's not in harmony with the intent of the conversion area. Okay,

thank you.

Mr. Perla?

I was just gonna ask and make certain I understood it quickly, is that differential of canopy trees that's not being installed along that that canal right away because of space issues? Are they being installed elsewhere in the parcel? Or they just is there gonna be a a deficit for the property for the canopy trees that it should have had?

I'd have to look at the landscape plant, but I have a understanding that there's not additional trees placed elsewhere that you're meeting the requirements.

Mister McDonald, are you placing additional trees on the property to replace those 25 that you're not putting in?

I am I'm not certain, but I would say that if we needed to add in the two trees, we can do that. We have room to add those in elsewhere on the site to add that canopy in. But I don't know if that landscape plan does so or not.

If we go back to my presentation, it has

I saw chart

of trees that's required. Yeah.

But your presentation, if I recall, there were no the 25 is what they're gonna be given relief for, but they weren't replanting. Correct?

I I don't wanna answer that until I have looked at the landscape plan again.

Okay.

I know that they're not providing the required landscape trees along the rear property boundary that's required

Right.

For the for the buffering.

Can I ask?

Mister Bedwine, anything else?

That's fine.

Mister Rinkus?

So they're just deficient by two trees from the requirement?

For the rear property boundary, they're deficient by two trees and 154 shrubs.

I have a question, mister chair. Mister Rogan, my understanding of the intent of these shrubs and trees is to provide a visual buffer, a sound buffer to the residential properties on the other side, correct?

It's to add additional buffer to separate the commercial and the residential uses. And then Mr. McDonald just showed me that they are just meeting the requirement.

So am I correct in saying that even if you are putting the amount of trees that you're supposed to have on that lot, if they're not in that back area, they're not hitting the proposed intent, which is to provide that specific buffer on that side to those residential properties. I mean, the trees are on the front portion of the property Or

hedges.

Or hedges, it's not going to provide that intended buffer for those residential properties on the north, correct?

So I wanna clarify the code. So the code requires that you have the buffer wall at least 10 feet

Which they will have.

Which they will have. However, because it is within that 20 foot drainage easement, it does not allow the landscaping to encroach more than 10 feet in.

So no hedges or no trees?

There can be no hedges or trees on the outside of the wall. Therefore, they should be provided along the interior of the wall, and again, those canopy trees will provide that additional buffering along the wall. However, if the buffer wall was provided farther back, they would have that space to provide the buffering along the outside of the wall because it would not encroach 10 feet, more than 10 feet into that drainage easement.

And the properties to the north would just be looking at a wall?

How the site plan is currently laid out, that is correct. They'd be looking at the wall.

Which typically would be a wall hedges, yep, and trees. Alright. Thank you. I appreciate it. Correct? Am I correct with that, Sofia? Yes. Which would typically be required hedges and the trees.

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Can I ask a question?

Yes, Mr.

I'm just looking at the properties down the way on Gatlin Boulevard. Are they held to the same requirements as well?

The commercial properties you just talked

said it's

a six foot architectural wall or a 10 foot?

Six foot.

Six foot. Correct. Okay. And then landscaping outside of that wall.

So Which one's my note?

It's the one that says eight c through eight b.

And I'm gonna say what I always say, and just remember that we look at the facts at the application before us and not other properties. Yep.

Will Thank you, Elizabeth.

I can state that this is in conversion area two. So all of the lots within conversion area two are required to follow the code regulations

It's that are staff's findings that the actual request is not gonna be detrimental to the surrounding community?

It's staff's findings that the request will not be detrimental to the public safety and welfare. Okay.

And if I if I may add

Mister McDonald? I I I

do want to pull up the the properties to the west so you can see the corridor there. I I believe those are at 20 feet. I think they kept that rear 20 foot drainage easement. And what they have is the wall outside of that, but they really don't have a lot of land except for the property on the corner, which I don't think they did the wall. I think they did more of a of a buffer.

But everything else, it's very sparse as far as the landscape material. It's basically 20 foot wall, and then there's some there's some plant material. We're very consistent with everything else, and we're looking just to extend this retail commercial corridor via the LMD rezoning. But in order for us to take the steps with this particular user and for us to develop here, the first step is the approval of this variance for the setback in landscape anybody may say no.

Mayor, had a comment?

Mr. Chair, I would encourage you to focus on what's before you. Right. Because we don't know the other parcels may be deficient, they may

be code cases.

You know, we don't know the circumstances of other parcels. So we should focus that on the request at hand for the application materials and testimony.

And that's what I encourage our board to do. Mr. PedVA.

I'm gonna ask one last question. The distance and I'm gonna ask, so either from the property line or maybe from that tightest corner to the property line, what is the distance across the canal to the adjacent homes? Like, you know what you approximately know that is? I mean, it's a pretty good distance, so I don't want to discount it. It's not as if the neighbors are immediately next door, but I would be curious to know what that is.

I would have to do some approximating, because that's not a number I have off the top of my head. It's

And even if you just know the the the distance across the the canal, we don't necessarily need to know. It looks like it's little setback on the signal front. It looks like it's

it's it's well over that. I mean, it's it's pretty deep. I mean

But you think it's at least 80 feet?

Well over 80 feet. I mean, it's it's over a 100, I would imagine. Okay. Just don't

know Are

you talking

about the distance between the back and

the other property? Ideally, just to the adjacent home behind it, but I don't think they've calculated that we're set back to the adjacent home. So I was just going to say, just to settle on less than that to know what the distance is of that canal. But it seems significant, so.

Any members of the Board have questions? Just to clarify again, you spoke earlier when asked about modifying the site plan. What you're saying is the applicant is unwilling to modify their site plan?

Not unwilling, just that I already have multiple times to try to make make it work with the Dollar

But the Dollar Tree wouldn't move in, and they're unwilling to move in with a smaller property.

They they're they're a big company and they have their standards as far as what their stores look like and how they operate. And their hands are tied on that.

Any other questions for staff or the applicant, members of the Board? Open Okay, public hearing. Any members of the public wish to speak on the item? Please come forward. If you have not filled out a comment card, please do so afterwards. Also, when you come up, please state your name and if you've been sworn in for the record.

Chairman, vice chairman, board, my name is Duane Richard Boucher. I have been sworn in. I am the developer for the project, and Eddie did his best to try to answer some of your questions, but I did want to comment on the building size and shape. To cut a corner off a building, you drastically change the structural elements of the building. It's very difficult to do.

Dollar Tree uses a prototype building. They're the same building everywhere all across the country. They're already pre the structural elements are already predesigned. We have our architect here who could talk about that if you have more questions. Of course, we do dress the building up to meet your code from that perspective.

But I did wanna address the the shape of the building, why it is, the size it is. If you make an odd shaped building, you really reduce the functionality of the interior space. That one corner actually is where our delivery door is, so it would make it very difficult to deliver. Getting the truck in and off that site was quite a chore. And as Eddie has said, we've gone through so many iterations of that cycling.

We wanted to keep traffic flowing in two directions and not be one way anywhere on the site, which is what kind of forced the building to be pushed back to that corner to get the required parking spaces and the two way traffic in front of the building that automatically sets where the building has to be. So I didn't want anybody to think that Dollar Tree is being stubborn about the building's shape and size, but we've laid this site out. And really, the only way that we could come up with developing it is what we showed you today. We tried pushing the building up to the street. That didn't work.

I mean, we've been through the wringer on that one. And if you have any questions, I'm muting it.

Any questions, Member of the Board? Okay. Thank you. Sir? Please state your name for the record and whether or not you've been sworn in.

I have been sworn in, but I have not filled out a card,

so I will.

When you're done, fill out a card.

I'd be

happy What's

your name, sir?

My name is Hal Dodd. I'm Heredo Realty Advisors. I'm the sole member of that corporation. So I would just like to make one comment. We did work for about a year. We went through numerous site plans. Staff has been great. Not saying they were cooperative, but every time we came up with a proposal, they helped us through the code. So, we've looked at numerous alternatives. The second thing I would say is, we did hold a neighborhood meeting.

I got the mailing list, the required legal mailing list, the city cooperated with me on that. So we did advertise the project back on March 19. Now, we were unable to communicate all the issues that have come up tonight. I have to be honest about that. But we did advertise the project and we didn't get anybody to show up at the meeting.

And to my knowledge, there's been no neighborhood opposition to the project. So the other thing is Dollar Tree competes. There's a, I think, consumer benefit. Dollar Tree likes to be located near Walmart because they compete with Walmart. They're kind of mini Walmart.

So there's a convenience and traffic advantage to having this user in the corridor. I've worked in this corridor and in Port St. Lucie since 2002. I was project leader on the Walmart and Sam's project, did the Starbucks project, did the racetrack project. I was involved in all the entitlements for all of those land transactions, so definitely sensitive to the city's needs.

I've been a longtime resident here. I will be owner of that lot that can't be developed that we spoke about. We were careful to do cross access here. So I am working with the owner of the next four lots. So I can say in the future, I don't have any plans for there to be an eyesore there. There will be development there, but I can't sit here and tell you what it will be. But that's all I have to say and thank you very much for your Thank

you, Bat. Any questions for Mr. Bat? Seeing none, just Mayor just clarified, the or whoever, the mailing did go out to the residents within that, what is it seven fifty feet?

Yes, sir. We sent a notice out within seven fifty feet. You did get one public comment which should be in your backup.

It was. Okay. Thank you, Okay. Any other members of the public wish to speak on the item? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and I'll entertain a motion and discussion.

I'm not a fan of variances. So I'm probably vote no, but I mean, it doesn't have to be a Dollar Tree there.

Motion? I'm

ready to make a motion when

you guys

unless there's

I just want to make a motion and

then we'll have a discussion. Why we have a motion, second, and then we'll have a discussion.

Yes, sure. I'll make a motion to approve project number P26-thirty6.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Pete? Question? We'll Any other discussion on this item? Any other concerns? Probably should take Madam Clerk, roll call.

Ms. Masserina?

Yes. Point of order, is that motion with the condition as stated?

Yes. Okay. Let's go back and redo the motion. We're gonna we're going to

I'll make a motion to approve project number P2P26Dash036 with the condition stated variances will expire one year from approval if 10 feet of

the 20 foot drainage easement is

not abandoned by the city council.

Is there a second?

Second.

And a motion to second? Okay. And I believe we're doing a roll call. Yes. Thank you.

I'll start from the beginning again. Miss Mocerino? Yes. Mister Rosen? No. Mister Reykennis?

Yes.

Vice chair Norton I'm sorry. Chair Norton? No. Vice Chair Petavon?

Yes.

Mr. Prevot? No. Mr. Spatara?

No. Motion fails.

Okay. The motion has failed. So I what do we do with the next two items, madam attorney?

My recommendation would be that you would table them to a date certain or unless the applicant wants it to be tabled to a date uncertain to give the applicant time to discuss next steps.

McDonald, do you

have a what's your question? Is

there further I'm sorry, if you don't mind, I have a question.

I think discussion is over, correct?

The discussion is over, but relative to so this item is done. The motion failed.

We're we're gonna

The variance failed.

And we have the table eight d and eight e, correct, separately.

Individually. Can

we do it?

No. You should do it individually. Individually. And staff would recommend a table to date certain, which would be June 2, unless the applicant has a It had

a preference to a date uncertain.

They would prefer uncertain.

Is that correct, McDonald, Date uncertain? Okay. So we is that enough for the record or you'd like them to come up, Elizabeth?

That's fine. Just somebody needs to make a motion.

So we need to make a motion on 8D to table as a date uncertain.

So moved.

Second. We have a motion and a second to table 8DP25Dash217 to a date uncertain. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We got 8E2P25Dash219. Is there a motion to table this item to a date uncertain?

So moved. Second.

Motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay.

We are on 8F8FP26Dash026. This is a tradition MPUD amendment number 16 master plan unit development. I would ask our attorney to please reiterate our role. And also to the public, this is an item that regardless of which direction it goes tonight, the ultimate decision on this particular amendment would sit with the city council. Is that correct, madam attorney?

Yes, that is accurate. This item, the board is advisory on. You don't make the final decision like on a variance.

Okay. And before we start, any ex parte communications?

None. I had a conversation with Brad last month about Brazilian pepper trees.

Mr. Pederbo?

No. None.

I had a conversation with the commercial real estate broker that was in attendance last meeting over the phone.

None. None.

Okay. This is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing.

Bridget Keene with the Planning and Zoning Department. I have been sworn in, this file was sent to the clerk's office. This was a tabled item. So your options, I could give the presentation again or just kind of give a shortened presentation.

Okay. Just the pleasure of the board, can we, Madam Clerk and Madam Attorney, enter the staff presentation from the last meeting into the public record? Is that okay?

Yes.

Is that okay with everybody?

Yeah, that's fine.

Okay. So. Great. Thank you. Is the applicant here?

Mr. Chair, do you have any questions for staff? Me,

the board have question any questions for staff?

Just thought we might have clarification on the matrix.

Bridget? Sure.

The matrix that's in the DRI? Correct. Okay, so what a conversion matrix is, it's an equivalent trip. So if you're a residential dwelling, like what it is if you have, you want to go from one residential dwell, a residential use to a commercial use, there's a calculation in there based on the number of trips of each use. It's probably kind of hard to understand, I'm not a transportation planner, but basically it's just equivalency.

So let's say you have residential units, I think one residential unit is considered 9.5 trips, and so then that will be like what square footage of commercial would be equal to that. So it's a kind of a calculation that looks at square footage and just compares the number of trips. So you make changes as long as you have the same number of trips, if that makes sense. I think the person that's going to give the presentation for Haley Ward is an engineer and probably could do a better explanation.

You did a great job.

You. You, Bridget. Mr. Shah, I just I had one question Bridget. I'm sorry, Shah. Sorry. You, Mr. Shah. I just wanted to ask again because I asked this last month about the breakdown of the comprehensive plan of residential to commercial. What is the target ratio that we're looking for with the comprehensive plan and where are we today?

Well, I can tell you today we are definitely, we have way more commercial. Mary, I don't know the exact percentages off hand, but the city does have way more residential than it has of commercial use.

Right, so what I recall from last month is the target is eightytwenty. I'm

sorry, we had an infrastructure study that told us that we had a study by a consultant that said your best benefit for a city is to have 80% residential to 20% commercial.

Correct, if I can clarify, so the planning and infrastructure study is not in the comprehensive plan currently. Was a supplemental analysis that looked at the impact of development on the fiscal health of the city. And what it said was that if you want to have a project that's as close to revenue neutral as possible for the fiscal impact on the city, then it should be not more than 80% commercial. No, yeah, 80% residential, 20% commercial was the ratio for revenue neutral, right? If you get more residential than that amount of commercial and the city is by far not 20% commercial.

However, that study which you all have. Right. Basically explains that if there's more residential than the commercial, then you're not fiscally neutral.

And for those who are watching, what revenue neutral means and simplification, commercial pays more taxes than residential properties, correct?

I'm not a tax assessor, but I will tell you for economic development purposes, we do typically look for industrial and commercial to mitigate the impact of taxes on the residential property owner.

And that's what revenue neutral kind of means?

That's what it's speaking to the cost of providing services.

Thank you.

Let me make So So a comment on there is a lot of social media discussion about how high the taxes are in this city. So adding more commercial potentially could mitigate that somewhat. I just want

to make it revenue neutral.

Yes. Just want to make it clear that if the recommended from that study is eightytwenty and we're at 90 threeseven, if the board decides to move forward with more commercial, it's kind of in line with the study that

was done. Bridget, the applicant will talk to the traffic issue?

Yes, the applicant is prepared to do that.

And they have the study?

I will let them speak to that.

Great. Mr. Pruvina, anything else?

No, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Anybody else? Right. The applicant is here. Great.

I was not originally here for the initial swearing.

Please swear.

Please raise your right hand. You swear or affirm that the statements made today will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Thank you.

Thank you. And state your name for the record.

I am David Baggett with Haley Ward. I'm out of here in Port St. Lucie. Pleasure to be here tonight. I'm excited to be here The last meeting, there was a number of items raised and discussed. And while I wasn't called upon to present or have any information at that last meeting, I was chomping at the bit to provide some of the numbers, feedback, history, support. It's what we do as engineers. And so when I had the chance to put this together here tonight for you all, I was grateful for it. I first want to thank staff for helping us along the way here, providing their presentation. We have no questions, comments for what staff has presented.

As a personal introduction, I'm a professional engineer. I've been working in St. Lucie County for the greater part of about eleven years, professionally been working about sixteen years in all facets of land development, land planning, you name it. I first want to start by saying our team is receptive to everything that was discussed at the last meeting and supportive of all of it, whether that be things that need to be addressed, improved, and then for anything else that there's an improvement associated with it, hopefully provide some reasonable assurance around that. So I wanted to just on the nose about that, that our team is driven behind those solutions rather than not being a part of it.

Again, reiterating what is before you here tonight. What is not before you here tonight is a proposed site plan, proposed construction plans, development that's being proposed at this point in time. None of that's been discerned or submitted to the city for approval at this point in time. What has been submitted is a request for MPUD amendment number 16, which changes 9.48 acres of vacant land consisting of two parcels located at Southwest Crosstown Boulevard and West Southwest Fair Green Road. Currently those parcels are designated used for multifamily residential.

They're historically a part of what was called phase c of the Heritage Oaks development, so the adjacent residential community. The approval that we're seeking would move the 9.48 acres from what is currently shown in the MPUD as Parcel 10 and create an 11A. That 11A is more so to show consistency with 11, which is adjacent to it, immediately adjacent to it on Fair Green that is currently commercial use. This is just a map of the site location. It's on the Southwest Corner of Fair Green and Crosstown across from the Circle K and adjacent to Heritage Oaks.

This is just a screenshot of our MPD amendment map. Historically, every time there's an MPD amendment, this map gets updated in some form or fashion. So we did that as a part of our submittal. On the right hand side there you'll see what I was describing on my previous slide where 11A is really parsed out of what is historically been called Parcel 10 which consists mostly of heritage oaks today and becomes an 11A across and adjoining to the commercial use. It's really in a logical location in terms of looking at tradition as a whole.

It's not in the middle of residential. It's not in an off locations solely on a local road, it is at a major intersection on Arterial Road adjoining other commercial users. Some of the site history here, this goes back to the early years of tradition. What you see here is the proposed plan for what was known as Heritage Oaks Phase C, consists of 19 townhome buildings, 106 multifamily units. Just to put that into some perspective, that would be about 11 a little over 11 units per acre for that proposed site plan.

The connectivity to the site was the extension of Glenbrook Drive through the community and connecting to Fair Green. No connectivity proposed to Crosstown to distribute those trips otherwise. That proposed plan had no screening or berming or some of the landscape improvements that we're going be I'll review in later slides in this presentation. But I show this in context of what the current use suggests the site would be entitled to. 116 units, something over 11 units per acre, multifamily to get to that level of density, and total development of the entire 9.4 acre parcel.

Some site history going back to 2003. September 2003 is when Tradition DRI was originally approved. This was one of the early phases of work within the DRI. You can see starting back in 2003, it was originally some of the leftover agricultural property that was out there, but never really a native habitat. Over the years it was cleared, mass graded, disturbed and probably about fifteen, sixteen years ago, so the property ceased activity.

And today it's regenerated as what we mostly see as an exotic hardwood community. Our staff at our firm has conducted an environmental assessment report consistent with the means methodologies that we would submit for any project here in the city of Port St. Lucie. That analysis is done by our professional biologist, professional arborist that all day every day do these types of reports and investigations on sites. Their findings generally were that there's a considerable presence of nuisance and exotic vegetation.

You'll see on the right hand side there a significant coverage of Brazilian pepper tree, cogon grass, both nuisance exotic vegetation. It's very typical for sites that have been historically disturbed and then regenerated with that kind of vegetation. There was no gopher tortoises or burrows or habitat were observed on-site somewhere with sandhill cranes. It's not to suggest that at some point in time in the past there may have been activity or some point in the future gopher tortoise may make its way onto the property. I don't think our report suggests that, but at the time that we did the analysis they did not observe any.

And that's likely because again the anthropogenic disturbances on the site in the past. How we address that is once a final site plan does come before staff or otherwise when we submit a final site plan, that survey is updated even before we commence construction. Another gopher tortoise survey would be performed to make sure none have made their way into the site while we're working through permitting. Shielding light, there was discussion last time at the previous meeting of light spillover. While change of use doesn't necessarily change the fact that lighting would be proposed in a residential use or commercial use, we are prepared to support shielding the lights, making sure that there's limitations on spilling over the property line.

When we come in for a final site plan, we would be required to submit a photometric plan that would demonstrate that. So I just want to make sure that the board knows we're in full support of any kind of condition we need to add there to make sure we have shielded lighting. This was a big part of the discussion at the previous board meeting. I started the DRI level because most sites in the city we are demonstrating traffic impacts consistent with the city code, but here in the tradition DRI we have the additional layer of demonstrating consistency with the DRI. Going back to 2003, September 2003, development of tradition was set forth then.

Every so often housekeeping is necessary and so the master developer comes in for an amendment to either catch up on some conversions that have happened over the years or ones that are proposed. We happen to be a part of the later where the master developer and our team has been working in conjunction with them to look forward at this change of use becoming commercial. And so last month on April 13, actually kind of going before that, DRI was proposed and our team had provided interest of changing the use in this property to them. The master developer had submitted their DRI amendment in February 2026 of this year. Was recommended improvements across town of Fair Green as a part of the discussions of that DRI amendment, taking into consideration everything that I've just discussed.

And then on April 13, which came after our last month's meeting, so there was a little precedence that maybe we were ahead of when that was getting approved. But on April 13, City Council did unanimously approve the tradition DRI amendment. That was Resolution 25 R12. As a part of that, there was adjustments to the ledger of commercial uses within the DRI, taking into consideration potential change of use on our property. As a part of that, commercial space increased by 79 increased to allow commercial space by 79,000, a decrease in office space for a total of 353,348 square feet, and warehouse space was increased by 90,000 square feet to reflect some previous conversions of office space to warehouse space that occurred over the years.

So like I said, there's that house cleaning element. While I'm not representing the master developer or the DRI tonight, I do think it's important because we are under the umbrella of that tradition DRI always when you develop within it. So resolution 25 r 12 included a traffic analysis as a part of that application that considered the subject property utilizing a portion of that approved commercial space. So our change of use taking out of that ledger. The end result of all that summary that I just gave you is that from the previously approved DRI with those changes of use and us, our proposed change of use being a part of that, it results in a net reduction of 5.4% AM peak hour trips, reduction of 2.2 peak hour trips, and a reduction of 0.6 total daily trips compared to the previous DRI.

So again, we're here before eight night proposing that used to be consistent with these numbers. This is an excerpt from that report that was submitted just to show you the data that we're grabbing this.

Just to clarify for the public and the board, the four forty three trips means cars.

The which number? I'm sorry. Yes. Correct.

So there's 443 less cars on the road? Yes. Every day?

Yeah. It would be at it would be in total with of everything using the Right. In the DRI.

Every day. Correct.

So the current use in the comparison, this is what as he was saying, just to make sure I understand correctly that we're seeing a reduction in traffic overall.

There is to the DRI. I'm going to show you the specific change of use impacts here in a moment.

Okay. Great. Thanks.

Okay, so as a part of that DRI amendment, there a lot of discussion was had last time as well about intersection improvements at Fairground Crosstown. What I don't think was really hit on the head or hammered home with everybody who made clear at least is that those intersection improvements are happening. And what is maybe somewhat advantageous to seeing those happen sooner rather than later is how our subject property is tied to it. The condition in the DRI has a end date that those improvements have to be made by at least 12/31/2027. However, there's a caveat to that condition in there that says it would have to occur within six months of the pre construction meeting on our subject property.

So say this use change of use went forward and then a site plan followed subsequently. So long as we were having a preconstruction meeting on that site before say July 2027, six months maybe before that end date, All this is gonna do is expedite those because the the improvements at the intersection because we are a trigger for it.

These improvements are being paid for by the applicant?

Not solely not solely by by this applicant tonight.

But multiple applicants and not the city?

Not the city, master developer.

Okay. Thanks.

Correct.

Improvements proposed to improve the existing traffic. So while there's maybe some congestion there now, these improvements are being proposed to improve that condition. That goes back to suggestions made by council members at the workshops. So really a collective effort here. Improvements include, just for clarity, additional turn lane on Crosstown Parkway, extend the turn lanes on Crosstown Parkway to 400 feet, including additional receiving lane, that means turning onto Fair Green Road, a dedicated left turn through and right turn configuration for the northbound Fairgreen Road at Crosstown Parkway.

So this is where I might get into some of the impacts to the current level of service on the roads. Rather than looking at it, you you kind of go from the overarching DRI, conversion matrix now to what is to be expected from a commercial use on this property. So the means and methods that we use to determine that is the St. Lucie Transportation Planning Organization, what we call the TPO. They collect data, provide means and methodologies that we follow to analyze traffic here within St.

Lucie County, Pierce, City Of Fort St. Lucie, and that's a screenshot of the cover of that report on the right hand side there. What you see on the data table below in yellow is the service capacity of the adjacent roads to this property in yellow. The green columns are what the current AM and PM peak hour, at least with the latest studies from 2025. And then that red column is your volume to capacity. So how much of that current level of traffic is eating up the design capacity of that road? Well, nothing's over a 100%. If you saw a number that was greater than one, you're in real trouble. There are some that are elevated. So some of these proposed improvements that we're talking about here tonight are to improve those conditions.

I'll note there that they because Fair Green Road is a local road, the TPO does not have any traffic counts on that, but I'll touch a little bit on that here in a bit. So here's where some of the specific questions were asked last time. What's the change in use actually? What's the magnitude of that impact? So if we were to go back to a Phase C of Heritage Oaks at 106 multifamily units, what you see there is about a 0% to 1% impact.

Now what I may have glossed over on this slide that I very important point that I don't want to miss here is that the TPO suggested anything that has an impact of greater than 5% is something that we would call significant. So anything less than that is not deemed significant. Doesn't mean that there's never there's no traffic impact. It's just that is a threshold that we would we would gauge it by. So you can see the existing use would would have somewhere between 01% on the adjacent roadways.

Just doing some conceptual numbers. I think we wanted to see some more intensive uses. So if we had retail proposed on that site, you'd have anywhere from near zero to 5%. Still not tripping that threshold, seeing, you know, still under that 5% level of significance. Again, this is all using data from the St. Lucie TVO. Another, a mix of uses. So let's not call it just one use. Let's say it had, and these are just various intensities. Again, I'm clarifying, not proposed, just conceptual ones at this point.

Some within more intense trip generation rates. A fast food restaurant, retail, and a convenience and gas store on there. That would have about three twenty seven peak hour trips, still again approaching that 5% threshold but not exceeding it. Again, less than that 5% level of significance. So specific to Fair Green Road.

Fair Green Road is a local road, so new trips are primarily to come to a commercial use or using the adjacent arterial roads, collector roads, major roadways. There's not as much new trips being generated within a residential community that's already mostly fully built out to go to a commercial use. That's going to be mostly a pass by trip for them. And so with the DPO methodology I should suggest is that you analyze it at the intersection. That's appropriate because we're on the intersection.

The results of that, yes, there's improvements that need to be made. Those improvements as I touched on earlier, already in the course of being required to be done by no later than 12/31/2027 or within six months of any preconstruction meeting on our site. I want to make it another clear point here that access gets further analyzed once we do have a final site plan. So not only are those intersection improvements proposed and going to be done, if our site triggers some need for another improvement as under that site plan submittal, or we need to look closer at driveway spacing from the intersection, turn lanes, whatever it may be, that's going to be on us to be a part of our specific site plan application. Hard to really speak to at this point in time without a use proposed, but I just want to provide the assurance that that is a part of our site plan and our construction plan approval process once there is a use determined.

And traffic impact reports for specific development use will be provided at the site plan. So switching gears away from traffic, another item that we talked about last week was creating a buffer between the adjacent residential uses. The applicant's in full support to improve that buffer with a berm landscaping and a masonry wall. For some context here, if you were to go to the bottom right of that image, that's where the adjacent residential uses are, and then up to the top right there as well. That yellow line demarks where we would propose that screened buffer along that property.

There's a snapshot of it in the corner, and I'll provide more of a zoom in here. So what you have on the left hand side there is the existing Tradition Master System Lake. It's about 170 feet from the top of bank to top of bank across that lake. So our berm would be built up in addition to that with a six foot high masonry screening wall and landscaping on both sides. Just for a visual on maybe what that looks like across the lake, because that lake serves drainage for everything in that area within that drainage basin, the grading is going to be comparable.

When we design stormwater management systems in tradition, there is a conceptual permit that sets forth all the grading criteria that we have to satisfy. So what you end up with is finished floor elevations, road elevations, things of that nature, all at comparable elevations. So it's not like we're gonna be sitting way up on a bluff looking down into heritage oaks or vice versa them looking down into it. The finished floor elevations would be an eye level line of sight would be comparable. Just a more illustrative depiction of what we would be proposing is that masonry wall in the middle, tree spacing on both sides with hedging to make sure that we've got a double row of landscaping plus the masonry wall.

Heritage Oaks, the adjacent residential being up to the top side of that site or that picture. So re summarizing some of the slides here, the request is to amend the tradition MPD for two parcels from a residential use to commercial. Change of use subject property is not anticipated to result in adverse impacts of the tradition DRI and proposes consistency with the recent tradition DRI amendment resolution 25 R12. All commercial development on the site will be required to submit a final site plan and construction plan approval to the city required to demonstrate compliance with the city of Port St. Lucie code and the tradition DRI, including anything related to environmental, landscaping, lighting, drainage, utilities, access and traffic.

The applicant is in support of a condition that a wall with landscaping berm will be required in the western and southern property boundary adjacent to the residential uses. Applicants in support of a condition that access from the commercial development to Heritage Oaks will be eliminated. If you saw earlier on that slide that I showed the previous phase C, there was connectivity through that community. We would not propose that as a part of this site and be fine with a condition that would require that so that we can come back and propose it at a later date. We have no need to connect commercial traffic through there.

If we're gonna create that buffer, we certainly wanna separate that requirement and then work with the city for anything necessary for any easements or otherwise that were previously platted or recorded across the property just for good measure. The applicants in support of a condition that site lighting will be shielded and or oriented to minimize impacts to the adjacent residential properties. Properties. So with that, we are here for any questions that you all have.

Thank you. Before we move forward, Madam Attorney, are these conditions in the staff's recommendations?

Staff proposed a condition, future development of the property shall include the installation of an architectural wall and enhanced landscaping along the eastern and southern boundaries of the property. Staff does support a further condition relative to extinguishing commercial access to Heritage Oaks. And staff would also be supportive of a condition requiring the submittal of a photometric plan with the site plan showing that the lighting, any proposed lighting is shielded and or oriented to prevent light spillover off the parcel. And we could contemplate it at that time.

So if there were a motion to move forward this item, it would be with staff and applicant conditions. Is that correct, madam attorney?

If you make

Yes. It like

I'm not exactly sure what the staff conditions were word for word. So my question to staff is if their conditions are subsumed within this summary of conditions so that we don't have overlapping conditions, like just to clarify that before it's papered.

Okay. And staff can do that?

Staff satisfied with the wording of their conditions. We would just want a photometric plan submitted at the time of site plan to show the site lighting.

But that could be a site plan approval issue?

Correct. You could condition it now. When they apply for site plan, we'll review the lighting to make sure that it's not spilling over the property line.

Okay. Any members of the Board have any questions for the applicant? Chairman, I have a few questions.

You touched on this, but I want to make sure I fully understand it. Where Glenbrook comes through, you are saying that you're okay with a condition that states that you're not allowed to connect that road to the commercial area. I assume that if the HOA in the future said, well, we kind of want that for whatever reason, they would have the ability to do that, correct? They would not have the ability to Okay, do that would be squashed altogether.

Mayor? Okay.

Yes, the easements for clarity, the easements, there's no easements dedicated to the HOA on the property. It was previously owned by the developer of that property since it's changed hands a couple of times and there's no easements. The only easements there between property owner and

the city.

That Road Glenbrook is at least where their property line is wholly owned by the HOA, correct? That's a private road?

Yes.

Okay, got you. You had talked about that the turn lane would be extended to 400 feet. What is it currently at?

I believe we're at 285. I'm going off a little bit of memory there.

You can guess.

I'm going to speak incorrectly. It's shorter than 400. Think we're closer to 285.

Okay. All right. And when you're doing something like this, I haven't been a part of something like this yet. Where are you getting the ability to do that? Are you taking land from the north to create that lane? Are you making current lanes smaller? What do you

So a lot like everything in tradition, there's a lot of buffering out on some of the roads. So if you look out there, there's some gore striping in some of those lanes. That's been set so that that right of way, that lane width is already in place. Striping just needs to change for the extension of that. We would just have to do some median modifications to extend it.

Okay, I

got it.

Thank you. Then They would.

Should

say I appreciate that. I have one last thing I want to touch on. There was a slide that you had that talked about the increased percentages of, I believe, trips. And there were two different sections, the top and the bottom. One, I think, was if it was residential and another Yes, one, yes,

just exactly one right the uses.

I want make sure I fully understand this. So the 0.83, 0.91, 0.17 up top, that is the increase I'm asking two questions in one here. A, if we went from nothing on that land to 106 residential units and B, does that also include the improvements at the intersection or in its current state?

So the trip distribution doesn't necessarily an intersection analysis is more of a functionality of timing the signal, the turning movements, all of that. This is strictly a distribution of those trips, if those trips make it to those roads. And so when you do traffic calculations formulate a traffic report, there's distributions that are assigned to each of those links coming from the site. So what this says is if the residential use or a conceptual commercial use in this case was calculated with trips with those uses from IT, which is where we get our trip generation rates and assigned to those roads. That's the level of impact they have on the road from the assigned level of service.

Okay. So the increase if I understand this correctly, it's current vacant status compared to if we had 106 residential units on there, it's going to increase depending on the road anywhere from 0.17% to 0.91%? Right. I'm having a tough time believing this.

I'm sure it's What

I'm thinking is

I can redirect I the believe these numbers are based on what's the allowed use. Am I correct, Mary?

The traffic numbers?

Yes. Not from a nothing being built on there, but what's allowed to be built. These numbers are

based showing you both conditions because I

understand, but let's take one at a time. The top numbers are based on what's allowed to be built there. Yes. I want to have staff confirm that. Oh, I'm

sorry, Diana. Spriggs, Public Works. So to try to explain this a little bit better, so the 106 units would generate 60 trips. The percentages shown are based on so for instance, Crosstown Parkway, the first line, it has a capacity of 2,100 trips. So it's saying that it would only cause a 0.83% of the total capacity of the road increase.

Okay. So I want to tell you what I'm thinking, so you can correct me if that's okay. I'm thinking if we're looking at Village Parkway, for example, seventeen 10 is the peak hour capacity. So a 0.91, let's just say a 1% increase, that's roughly 17 trips. I'm supposed to assume that there's going to be roughly sixteen, seventeen additional trips when there's 106 units and probably roughly 106 to 150 vehicles and only 15% are gonna go to work every day, or am I misunderstanding this?

So multifamily, there's ITE trips generation manual. So based on what you're proposing, whether it's multifamily or commercial, it's going to tell you so many units. This is how many trips PM peak hour, AM peak hour, daily. It's it's generated in a standard manual, and that's where these numbers come from.

Okay. All right. That's all I have, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it.

Any other members of the board wish to have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none, any other questions for staff? And the applicant has continued presentation.

Just wanted to wrap up briefly if you're done with questions for Mr. Baggett. Just very briefly

Could you just state your name for the record?