Minutes from the August 11, 2025 meeting

PZANN2025-0004
Annexation
Goose Development
Parcel ID: 2434-501-0004-000-5

Ms. Driver stated the annexation is for one (1) parcel of land at or near the intersection of E. Market Avenue and S. US Highway 1.  The site area is approximately 2.03 acres with a taxable value of $34,991. The existing Future Land Use in St. Lucie County is Commercial (COM) and the existing zoning in St. Lucie County is Commercial General (CG). The proposed city Future Land Use is Low Density Residential (RL) and the proposed city zoning is Single-Family Intermediate Density, (R-2). Ms. Driver noted the six (6) vacant R-2 zoned parcels to the east and north-east are owned by Goose Development, and they will be combined at a later date.

Chair Kreisl asked if there were plans for something moving forward, and he expressed his lack of desire to have any residential units on US Highway 1.

Sebastian Reina, applicant representative, from the Keith Team, said they are proposing a residential community in an inverse "L" shape. He said the annexation is needed because the other properties they own are in the City of Fort Pierce.  Mr. Reina said they want to rezone to Planned Development (PD) so the units are not facing US Highway 1; only the entrance to the development.

Mr. Collins asked the applicant if commercial businesses would be integrated onto US Highway 1. 

Chair Kreisl said he was concerned that the annexation could be approved with no unity of title or fixed plan in place that will tie all the parcels together.  He noted if the lot is changed to R2 and sold, anyone can develop the lot as residential, and he doesn't want that to happen in the future.

Mr. Freeman said to guarantee a commercial element in the location and also allow some residential development, there would need to be a potential future land use of mixed use with an overlay of C-3.  The mixed use would allow commercial and residential.  The C-3 zoning would allow 20% portion of the property to be residential.

Chair Kreisl asked if all the properties have to have a matching zoning to pursue a Planned Development.  Mr. Freeman said not necessarily because the PD can be split into various phases of development providing the underlying future land use would allow that. Chair Kreisl suggested finding a more appropriate land use designation or zoning that gives the applicant an opportunity to pursue their intent and also gives the city protection if the property is sold.

Mr. Freeman said based on the chair's concerns, the staff recommendation would be a mixed-use future land use, which would require two uses on the property and a zoning of C-3 which allows residential to be accommodated.

Ms. Carter asked the applicant if the plan was to include residential on the lot or to use the entire lot as an entrance to the adjacent lots. Mr. Reina said the current plan for the PD was to have the entrance 1/3 of the way in and then residential would commence from there. Mr. Freeman explained that there is no restriction on where the commercial or residential space can go; the only restriction is the residential use can only be 20% of the floor space. Ms. Carter voiced her concerns about residential use surrounded by commercial use on a busy street, and she asked how to guarantee no residential on US Highway 1. Mr. Freeman said the only way to guarantee that would be the approval of a Planned Development showing the location of the residential use and commercial use, if necessary.

Chair Kreisl said he would like to see the roadway entrance and bus loop be void of any residential use and the residential use start as far back as the existing residential use lots are currently located. He stated if the property is to be rezoned, he would like the zoning to prohibit any residential use.  The applicant said he felt that the C-3 zoning is a good compromise.

Mr. Freeman suggested that if the applicant is amendable that the project be moved to the next Planning Board meeting, so staff can sit with the applicant and go through the options.  The Board agreed with Mr. Freeman.

PD2024-00002
Final Planned Development (Updated Proposal)
Sunrise Lakes 
Parcel ID: 2433-123-0001-000-1

Mr. Freeman stated the Sunrise Lakes Planned Development (PD) was brought to the Planning Board previously and has also been presented to the City Commission.  He said there were a number of comments from the neighborhood and copies of the e-mails were given to Board members. 

Mr. Freeman stated the application is proposing a rezoning to a Final Planned Development (PD) of 50 single-family residences on 11.54 acres (4.41 units per acre) at 3804 Sunrise Boulevard. The property is zoned R-1 with a future land use of RL (6.5 units per acre). The site was recently annexed into the City of Ft. Pierce. The site is bordered by St. Lucie County single-family RS-3 zoning on the south and west. To the north is a cemetery and to the east is a Florida Department of Transportation building, both with industrial zoning. Mr. Freeman showed the Planned Development data, landscape plan and architectural details.  Mr. Freeman noted that on May 12, 2025, the Planning Board recommended approval of the rezoning from R1 to PD for Sunrise Lakes by a vote of 5-0, subject to 10 conditions.

Mr. Freeman said the City Commission heard and received a number of comments from the neighbors of the site and e-mails were received from some of the neighbors reinforcing the comments relating to the resultant density.  Staff calculated the proposed density at 4.41 acres based on the property appraiser's site area.  He stated there is some mention of 4.33 units per acre in the application. Based on the property appraiser's site area, with 50 units proposed, the density is 4.41 which is below the R-1 Future Land Use of 6.5 units per acre. The neighbors had concerns about flooding, traffic and the lot size.

Mr. Freeman stated the existing future land use will not change.  He said the site plan proposes 50 lots, with a school bus shelter and increased landscape buffer to the south.  Mr. Freeman noted the architectural details are not regulated by the city and are exempt from regulation by state statute.

Mr. Freeman explained the City Commission listened to the comments from the neighborhood and the second reading was scheduled for the City Commission on September 15, 2025. Mr. Freeman noted the site plan incorporated some changes, including additional explanation of what the public benefits are and improvements to the amenities of the property.  He said staff re-advertised the meeting to go through the process again and also to clear up the existing zoning of R1 and not be confused with the counties RS-3 zoning which was listed in the previous advertisement.  Mr. Freeman said the project has been re-reviewed, and he went over the 12 conditions of approval with the Board.

Mr. Freeman answered questions from the Board about the number of units allowed with the current zoning, when the property was annexed into the city and what the current property owner is entitled to do. He noted the minimum lot size would be 12,000 square feet, which would reduce the number of lots.  He said the PD will increase density, increase buffers, provide amenities, add better buffer treatments and allow them to potentially develop up to 6.5 units per acre. Mr. Freeman said there is an issue with the zoning code that does not properly reflect the future land use for the lot size.

Mr. Widing asked if the additional two (2) conditions come close to addressing the neighbors' concerns. Mr. Freeman said the conditions decrease the impact of the proposal and the additional conditions are improvements to the previously proposed conditions. He said the improvements include a drainage ditch, a buffer wall, a force main and a school district bus stop installed before the Certificate of Occupancy. 

Blaine Bergstressor, KMA Engineering, applicant representative, stated he came to the Planning Board a few months ago and had a 5-0 approval, and then they went to the City Commission and received some feedback from neighbors and the City Commission. He said two of the main items have been addressed.  They looked at which trees could be incorporated on site, incorporating a more opaque landscape buffer, and adding a drainage easement.  Mr. Bergstressor also provided call-outs on the site plan showing the amenities, which will include a pool and clubhouse, gazebo and bbq area, and a fenced-in tot lot.   He noted they would also be utilizing a bioswale with tall grass, trees, rocks and a mulch walking path. Mr. Bergstreesor highlighted that they will be extending a force main along Sunrise Boulevard which will allow FPUA to extend the service to the south for all the neighbors on a septic system.

Mr. Bergstressor inquired about a pull-off lane for the bus stop and, due to the drainage improvements they are doing on Sunrise Boulevard, they are unable to get a pull-off on the right-hand side of the road. He said the bus will have to pull into the development and loop back out or the bus could stop on Sunrise Boulevard.  

Chair Kreisl said it would take time for the bus to move through the property. He said, over time to stay on schedule, the bus will start stopping on Sunrise Boulevard. Chair Kreisl concluded it is not safe and is also a problem for people in the community. 

Ms. Carter said she is not comfortable with the bus stop in its current location. She said it is causing more issues, and does not address the concerns of students and traffic. She suggested changing the layout, so there would be a turnout for the school bus.  Ms. Carter said her other concerns is how close lots 28-34 are to a busy road and the high density on the parcel. 

Mr. Collins agreed with all of Ms. Carter's concerns, especially the density, and he said it does not match anything in the area.

Ms. Clemons stated she has concerns about the bus stop, outside the development, being a continuous issue every morning.

Mr. Johnson asked if innovation was addressed when the project was heard at the City Commission.

Mr. Bergstressor said that 'imaginative' was mentioned.  He said they focused on the neighbors that were not industrial by adding enhanced landscape buffering, enhanced architectural features and enhanced amenities.

Chair Kreisl listed items that would be included in the proposal for the development: roadway improvements, sidewalk improvements, force main extension, stormwater management drainage ditch and easement.  He questioned whether the Planned Development project is a balanced negotiation. Chair Kreisl noted that if straight zoning was used, the number of units that could be built would be severely limited on the property.  He said the surrounding residents are seeing more homes than they would otherwise see, the developer is getting more homes and the community is getting the improvements listed above.

Rhonda Perry, resident, said the project is not going to benefit the surrounding residents or the traffic on Sunrise Boulevard. She said she was concerned about the treacherous tailgating and passing on Sunrise Boulevard, and she also feels the density is too high for that area.

Krista Storey, resident, said she is a long-term resident of White City and a land use attorney.  She said she is concerned about not seeing a justification for the change in zoning and the applicant has not shown why they are entitled to a PD.  Ms. Storey said there is a significant reduction in the lot size. She said you cannot compare an area and number of units because it doesn't take into account the infrastructure. She said the character of the neighborhood and the impact on adjoining properties needs to be considered. 

Debra Johns, applicant, stated the Board members have her letter that was e-mailed, and she agrees with what everyone else has said.

Mr. Bergstressor read the PD section of the city's zoning code as part of final comments. He highlighted that they pushed the units to the north to create a bigger buffer to the south. Mr. Bergstressor said, instead of people having amenities in their backyard with a small lot size, the amenities have been pushed to a common area and residents will not be responsible for taking care of the amenity. Mr. Bergstressor noted a traffic study was approved by St. Lucie County stating there will not be a lower level of service on Sunrise Boulevard.  He said he is open to suggestions on improving the bus stop by adding a bus turn off.  

The Board members provided final comments. 

Mr. Collins said the density and lot size do not benefit the surrounding area.  

Ms. Carter said she has problems with the density, and she said this is not the right location for the site plan.  She also stated she has bus stop concerns.  Ms. Cater concluded that there is not a balance in the discussion of willingness to change things.

Ms. Clemons said she is not comfortable that the Board has not heard directly from the School Board on the  suggestion for the bus stop location. 

Mr. Widing has concerns about the density and kids getting on and off the school bus. 

Mr. Johnson said the bus stop is mostly an issue.

Mr. Edwards said there are a lot of houses and at least 100 people will be added to the area.

Chair Kreisl said there are logistic things about the plan that he cannot accept in its current form.  He said, ultimately, we need to see willingness from the developer to lose units in order to apply the kinds of things the community wants to see.  

Mr. Freeman reiterated that the reasons for denial from the Board are the issues with the school bus stop and the density.

PZCON2025-00005
Conditional Use with New Construction
Martinez Single-Family Residence
1606 Surfside Drive

Ms. Driver stated the applicant is proposing to construct a multi-story single-family residence, to the height of 35 feet. The property is in the R-1, Single-family Low density zoning district and has a future land use designation of HIR, Hutchinson Island Residential. The site is approximately .54 acres. Ms. Driver provided the site plan details and color renderings.

Chair Kreisl asked if it had been established where the height is being measured from. He said in the application, the 35-foot height is being measured from grade.

Mr. Freeman stated there is a differential in the zoning code and the building regulations.  The zoning code says above grade and the building regulations refer to the flood plain elevation. Mr. Feeman noted the flood plain elevation is being raised due to sea level rise.

Mr. Widing asked if the grass was at current grade.

Mr. Collins noted there are more residents with homes over 25 feet in the area and the bottom floor of this proposal is not being used for habitable space.

Board discussion ensued on flood plain elevation needing to be addressed for resiliency.

Joe McCarty, architect, stated there are two things working against the applicant.  The beaches are pushing the houses up and the height restriction is pulling the houses down.  He said the home is in line with other houses in the area.  The height is 34.10 feet and the existing grade is 6 feet and the finished grade is 6.9 feet. The first floor is at 18.4 feet. 

Mr. McCarty answered questions from the Board about the proposed building heights for the 2nd and 3rd floors.

Jim Conroy, contractor, confirmed that the ceiling height on the 2nd floor is 10.4 feet and the 3rd floor is 9.4 feet. He said they are having the same height issue in Martin County, where a 2-story home was unable to be built.  He noted that people do not want to buy lots because the house ends up being crunched.

Dawn Martinez, the property owner, stated she bought the property and found out that she would need to knock down walls on the first ground level. She said the unusable space could be used for parking and storage. Ms. Martinez said the first floor is very open because the ceilings have to go up to the 2nd story in order to have a normal 2-story home.

The Board commented on revisiting the ordinance for specific flood plain elevation areas.