Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.19.2026 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Regular Meeting March 19, 2026 Convened: 6PM Adjourned: 9:25PM 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM, by Chair Binner. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Chair Binner. 3. INVOCATION Commissioner O'Dell led the invocation. 4. ROLL CALL Present Board Member Ed Lounds, Board Member Billy O'Dell, Chair Ryan Binner, Board Member Larry Neese, Board Member Joshua Bradley, Vice Lawrence Slay Excused Ex-Officio Nicole Fogarty, Board Member Darren Guettler 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 6. DISCLOSURE(S) None. 7. MINUTES Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 2 | P a g e A. St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for the meeting of February 19, 2026 RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Ed Lounds SECONDER: Board Member Billy O'Dell AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Joshua Bradley, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None 8. PUBLIC COMMENT 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Scrap Gators, LLC Scrap and Waste Recycling - Conditional Use Permit STAFF PRESENTATION: Don Arellano, Planner II, with Planning and Development Services. Mr. Arellano stated that all public notification requirements were met per St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 11.00.03 and public outreach completed. Staff received two responses in support of the petition, and a community meeting was held. Mr. Arellano presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a scrap and non-ferrous waste recycling operation on an existing 1.22-acre industrial (IL) site on Industrial 31st Street. The site is within the urban services boundary and airport overlay and is surrounded by similar industrial uses. Operations primarily involve off-site collection and limited on-site processing, with no outdoor storage or reprocessing into new products. Staff conditions included restricting hours (7 a.m.–4 p.m.), prohibiting outdoor storage, and enhancing landscaping (including additional hedges). The site utilized the existing approved development with minor modifications to parking and screening. The request met Land Development Code standards and Comprehensive Plan policies. Staff recommended approval and forwarding the petition to the Board of County Commissioners. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Commissioner O’Dell asked if a Conditional Use Permit has a sunset. Mr. Benton, Planning Manager, explained that the Conditional Use Permit would not have a set expiration date, but would become void if the use ceased for 12 months. The Board of County Commissioners could also review and potentially revoke the permit if there were violations of the Land Development Code or approval conditions. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 3 | P a g e APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Brad Currie, AICP, with Haley Ward, Inc., 10250 Village Pkwy Unit: 201 Port Saint Lucie, FL. Mr. Currie and his client did not have a presentation but took questions from the Board. Mr. Currie stated that he is very excited about the reuse of an existing building. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT: Chair Binner asked are the clients good with the conditions that staff proposed. Mr. Currie replied yes, they are good with staff’s recommendations. Commissioner Lounds asked if a general explanation could be provided of what scrap and waste is. Mr. Currie deferred to his client. Mr. Walter Salvati, Owner of Scrap Gators, stated that Scrap Gators was a specialized recycling business owned by the applicant and his wife, Michelle, and differed from a typical public scrap yard. The business focuses on smaller, high- value materials, such as tungsten carbide and nickel alloys, rather than large volumes of common scrap. They primarily work with local electricians and air conditioning companies. Although zoned under “scrap and waste,” they preferred the term “recyclable materials” to better reflect their operations and the modern industry. Commissioner Lounds followed up with asking, do they do any smelting, Mr. Salvati responded, no, they sort and separate materials. Commissioner O’Dell inquired about the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Currie confirmed that there were no attendees and no opposition. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: None. Motion made to approve. Motion: Approved with staff recommendations. Motioner –– O’Dell - Second – Lounds RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Ed Lounds AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Joshua Bradley, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 4 | P a g e B. Alco Groves Mine Conditional Use Permit STAFF PRESENTATION: Irene Szedlmayer, AICP, Senior Planner, with Planning and Development Services. Ms. Szedlmayer, stated that all public notification requirements were met per St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 11.00.03 and public outreach completed and minimal public comment. Ms. Szedlmayer presented the Alco Groves Conditional Use Permit for a proposed mining operation on approximately 980 acres south of Indrio Road and west of I-95, with about 311 acres to be mined in phases. The project also requires a mining permit and major site plan approval by the Board of County Commissioners, with staff recommending approval of the CUP subject to those approvals and additional conditions. The operation would include five mining cells, dewatering with settling and recharge systems, and measures to control dust, noise, and vibration. The site is in a rural Agricultural-1 area, and staff found the use generally compatible with surrounding properties, with conditions for buffering, landscaping, and potential mitigation if nearby residential development occurs. Traffic is estimated at 644 daily trips, primarily trucks, with a proposed turn lane on Indrio Road. Environmental impacts were considered minimal due to previously farmed land. Key conditions include limits on operating hours, dust and noise control compliance, no blasting, reclamation requirements, and submission of a hydrological study to ensure no adverse impacts to groundwater or neighboring properties. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Commissioner O’Dell asked if staff has a recommendation for the maximum height on the stockpiles. Ms. Szedlmayer deferred to the applicant. Ms. Szedlmayer explained that dust control would primarily be complaint-driven at the County level, while groundwater monitoring would be determined during the mining permit review, with the operator responsible for monitoring and reporting if required. She confirmed the site location and noted that traffic impacts, including those from Buc-ee’s, were analyzed, with no additional turn lane warranted, though overall traffic in the area is a concern. Commissioner Lounds raised concerns about who monitors dust and traffic impacts, particularly the combination of mine truck traffic, Buc-ee’s, and other developments, expressing worry about safety and congestion. Ms. Aimee Cooper (Environmental Resources Department) clarified that air quality monitoring would be handled by the State through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which would determine whether an air permit is required. Chair Binner asked about roadway impact fees and whether the mine would contribute to road improvements, noting the high volume of truck traffic. Mr. Benton explained that mining operations may use alternative contributions instead of traditional impact fees, such as a voluntary per-ton payment to help offset road impacts, though this was not proposed by the current applicant. Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 5 | P a g e Commissioner O’Dell confirmed that a nearby mine to the west is no longer active but noted another active mine to the northwest. Commissioner Bradley questioned reclamation timelines and expressed concern that past voluntary contributions have not kept pace with rising infrastructure costs, emphasizing the growing burden on taxpayers due to increasing development and traffic. Chair Binner and Mr. Benton discussed that prior mining activity in the area would likely create similar traffic impacts, suggesting the proposed mine would be comparable to past conditions, rather than entirely new impacts. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Ms. Leslie Olson (District Planning Group, 130 S. Indian River Drive Ste.202 Fort Pierce, FL 34950) presented the application on behalf of the applicant, explaining the mine is part of a larger long-term plan as agricultural operations decline. She emphasized the need for coquina material for road construction, noting nearby mines no longer supply it, and stated the project would produce significant material to support local development. Ms. Olson highlighted the site’s remote location, large size, and distance from major roads and residences, stating the mine would have minimal visibility and reduced impacts compared to other mines, particularly due to its proximity to I-95, which limits wear on local roads. Ms. Olson acknowledged traffic volumes but noted mitigation measures, including a turn lane and landscaping, and stated the applicant agreed to most staff conditions, including limits on hours of operation, additional buffering, and no blasting. Ms. Olson also explained that dust, noise, and other impacts are regulated and can be addressed if complaints arise, with the County able to revisit the permit if needed. However, Ms. Olson requested removal of the conditions requiring compliance with the County noise ordinance, arguing that mining is typically exempt and that existing regulations and future oversight would adequately address any issues. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT: Commissioner O’Dell asked about the project timeline and equipment noise. Ms. Olson stated the project would last 10 years and explained that the BOCC could revisit and impose conditions if noise complaints arose, though no specific decibel limits were proposed. Chair Binner expressed concern about the lack of defined noise standards, warning it could create legal issues later. Vice Chair Slay and Commissioner Bradley questioned how existing ordinances and case law would apply, noting uncertainty without clear limits. Richard Carnell, Council with Bernard Egan and Company stated dewatering pumps would likely reach around 100 decibels at the source but diminish with distance and would be regulated by federal standards. Mr. Carnell confirmed the mining would be dry, not dredging. Commissioner Lounds asked about water management; Mr. Carnell explained water would be retained on-site, and Lounds concluded he was not concerned about noise or water but Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 6 | P a g e remained strongly concerned about traffic. Mr. Shaun McKenzie, PE, the applicants traffic engineer, stated the project would generate about 600 daily trips on Indrio Road, adding to existing traffic. Commissioner Lounds expressed discomfort with the traffic increase, but acknowledged the need for the material. Ms. Olson confirmed no plans to expand mining further north. Vice Chair Slay and Ms. Szedlmayer discussed haul hours, explaining the 10-hour limit was based on a traffic analysis, though flexibility might reduce impacts. Mr. Benton added that safety, lighting, and surrounding traffic patterns justified limiting haul hours. Commissioner O’Dell and others discussed stockpile height, with Ms. Olson proposing a 25- foot maximum. Mr. Benton, recommended establishing a reasonable noise standard despite surrounding agricultural uses, suggesting flexibility for higher limits. Ms. Olson agreed to accept a condition if required. Commissioner Lounds reiterated he was not concerned with noise or water but remained focused on traffic impacts. The board generally acknowledged future growth and demand for materials. Chair Binner closed the discussion to move forward with public comment. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chris Holland, representing Buc-ee’s Fort Pierce LLC, stated that their company owned property east of I-95 and requested that any approval of the project be conditioned on further evaluation of traffic impacts at the Indrio Road and I-95 interchange. Mr. Holland urged the County to require the applicant to complete an interchange modification report for review by the County and FDOT, emphasizing that the projected 644 daily trips—many from heavy trucks—could significantly impact the intersection. Mr. Holland noted that Buc-ee’s had been held to higher standards for traffic analysis and mitigation and requested the applicant be held to the same standard. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner Lounds made a motion to approve the project, contingent on reaching consensus on noise limits and further consideration of the traffic concerns raised, particularly at the I-95 and Indrio Road interchange. Mr. Benton explained that traffic had been reviewed as part of the application, but no additional analysis was required unless directed by the Board of County Commissioners. He noted potential operational issues at the I-95 off-ramp and explained that larger projects, like Buc-ee’s, were required to complete extensive interchange studies and improvements due to significantly higher traffic volumes. Commissioner Bradley questioned the comparison between the mine’s 600 trips and tens of thousands of trips from nearby developments, highlighting the scale difference. Mr. Benton confirmed that larger developments included phased improvements, while the mine’s traffic Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 7 | P a g e would begin more immediately. Chair Binner raised concerns about trucks queuing at the interchange and potential impacts on existing and future traffic, noting that improvements would likely involve FDOT and ongoing coordination. Vice Chair Slay suggested the P&Z Board could approve the project and allow the Board of County Commissioners to address remaining traffic concerns. Commissioner Bradley reiterated that the mine’s traffic was minimal compared to other developments. Commissioner Lounds clarified his motion to approve with a modification to the noise condition, proposing a 50% increase in allowable decibel levels rather than removing the condition. Chair Binner clarified that this change would raise the noise threshold (e.g., from 60 to 90 decibels), making it more lenient for the applicant. The board confirmed the motion and second with this adjustment. Motion: Approved with recommendation to increase the sound decimals by 50% & staff recommendations. Motioner –– Lounds - Second – O’Dell RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Ed Lounds SECONDER: Board Member Billy O'Dell AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Joshua Bradley, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 8 | P a g e C. Madden Commercial (Bedner Farms) PRW - Planned Retail/Workplace Rezoning & Preliminary Development Plan STAFF PRESENTATION: Irene Szedlmayer, AICP, Senior Planner, with Planning and Development Services. Ms. Szedlmayer, stated that all public notification requirements were met per St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 11.00.03 and public outreach completed and minimal public comment. Ms. Szedlmayer presented the Bednar Farms / Madden Commercial proposal to amend the zoning and preliminary regulating plan at the northeast corner of Indrio Road and I- 95. Ms. Szedlmayer explained that while the project had previously been approved in 2024 for up to 420,000 square feet of mixed commercial development with a walkable, small-lot, mixed-use design, the new proposal shifted toward larger warehouse retail, highway service, and outparcel lots surrounded by parking. Ms. Szedlmayer said the overall road network remained similar, but the building types and layout changed significantly away from the originally intended mixed-use, pedestrian-focused concept. Staff’s main concerns were reduced walkability, insufficient separation between pedestrians and vehicles, and weaker urban design elements compared to Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVC) standards. Ms. Szedlmayer recommended stronger pedestrian infrastructure, including sidewalks on both sides of streets, wider sidewalks near high-traffic areas, better-defined pedestrian crossings, and improved landscaping and buffering. Ms. Szedlmayer also noted concerns with reduced buffer widths, unclear civic space design, and loading areas potentially impacting public-facing areas. Ms. Szedlmayer further recommended restoring a larger southern buffer, adding enhanced screening walls, expanding sidewalk and multi-use trail connections, and requiring updated traffic analysis and clearer block and circulation measurements before final approval. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Deferred until after applicants’ presentation. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Bradley J. Currie, AICP, with Engineering, Design & Construction, Inc., Port St Lucie, presented the proposal on behalf of the applicant, explaining the request was to modify lot types and street types within the previously approved commercial portion of Bednar Farms. Mr. Currie stated the overall layout, access points, and square footage remained largely the same as the 2024 approval, describing the project as a typical commercial shopping center with some enhanced pedestrian features. Mr. Currie explained the changes were driven by market demands and the need for flexibility under the TVC code and emphasized that the differences from the original plan would be minimal in appearance once built. Mr. Currie outlined the applicant’s position on staff conditions, agreeing to some minor items but opposing others, particularly additional sidewalks, increased buffering along Indrio Road, extra landscaping, a widened sidewalk requirement, and a 10-foot wall. Mr. Currie argued these would reduce usable space, increase costs, or were better addressed at final site plan. Mr. Currie maintained that the proposed sidewalk network, buffering, and design were sufficient and that remaining details would be resolved later in the process. Commissioner Lounds questioned the width of buffers along Spanish Lakes Boulevard and Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 9 | P a g e asked about current and future traffic. Mr. Currie responded that buffers ranged from 30 to 50 feet and noted traffic was currently limited, but expected to increase with nearby development, including the Lennar project. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT & STAFF: Chair Binner opened the discussion by asking about the original site plan, confirming it included sidewalks on both sides and on-street parking. Chair Binner questioned whether reducing the sidewalks and buffers conflicted with the intent of the TVC, which emphasizes walkability and community-oriented design. He also raised concerns about the placement of civic spaces, noting that the proposed areas appeared to be pushed to the perimeter and were likely not functional. Chair Binner suggested that relocating retention areas could allow for more usable, centralized green space. Mr. Currie responded that, from his perspective, sidewalks on one side were sufficient for a commercial shopping center. Mr. Currie explained that staff was effectively combining multiple code requirements, which created unrealistic standards and argued that the internal roadways should be viewed as private drive aisles rather than true streets and noted that similar developments had not been required to meet such strict interpretations. Mr. Currie stated that the proposal could be adjusted—such as dedicating right-of-way or reconfiguring civic space—if the board provided that direction. Mr. Currie also clarified that traffic improvements and cost responsibilities would be determined later during final site plan approval. Ms. Szedlmayer clarified that the code requires both buffering between parking and the street and streetscape elements like sidewalks and street trees, which together create a wider overall buffer than what was being proposed. Ms. Szedlmayer emphasized that the intent of the TVC is to make these internal corridors function more like streets rather than typical parking lot drive aisles. Mr. Benton added that previous approvals already included provisions for right-of-way dedication if needed. He explained that staff’s recommendations were an attempt to balance the TVC’s design intent with the realities of the site. Mr. Benton noted that even outside of the TVC, similar concerns about layout, buffering, and building orientation would still apply. Vice Chair Slay expressed frustration with the TVC requirements, describing them as overly complicated and impractical. Vice Chair Slay argued that the number of sidewalks being proposed was excessive for a typical retail development and that most shopping centers function well without that level of pedestrian infrastructure. In his view, the design added unnecessary cost without clear benefit. Commissioner Bradley raised broader concerns about traffic and infrastructure, stating that unresolved issues would likely result in costs being passed on to taxpayers. Commissioner Bradley also felt the project did not reflect the intended vision of the TVC, which he associated with more cohesive, community-oriented spaces with meaningful green areas. Commissioner Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 10 | P a g e Bradley concluded that the project was not ready to move forward due to too many unanswered questions. Commissioner O’Dell asked about the timing of the traffic impact analysis and how it would influence cost-sharing for future improvements. After discussion, he expressed support for the proposal, stating that it appeared to provide adequate sidewalks, landscaping, and retention, and that it generally aligned with the expectations of the TVC. Commissioner Lounds reflected on the history of the TVC, explaining that it had evolved into something far more restrictive than originally intended and had ultimately slowed development in the area. He supported the applicant’s approach and some of the staff’s recommendations, stating that the project was reasonable and that certain TVC concepts— such as mixed-use buildings with residential above commercial—were not practical for the local area. As the discussion continued, the board acknowledged ongoing frustration with the TVC standards, noting that many projects require exceptions to function in a realistic way. While some members supported moving forward with adjustments, others felt the project needed further refinement or clearer direction before proceeding. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner O’Dell motioned to approve the project, with direction that consideration be given to pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as well as buffering, based on the concerns discussed by the applicant, staff, and the board. During discussion, some members expressed concern about adding too many recommendations, noting that excessive conditions could complicate the process and that broader issues should be resolved before projects reach the board. Others emphasized that the existing staff recommendations were sufficient to guide further review. The motion was seconded and moved forward to a vote. Motion: Approved with staff recommendations. Motioner –– O’Dell - Second – Lounds RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Ed Lounds AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Lawrence Slay NAYS: Joshua Bradley EXCUSED: None Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingThursday, March 19, 2026 6:00 PM 11 | P a g e 10. WORKSHOPS None. 11. OTHER BUSINESS Further discussion regarding the TVC took place. 12. ADJOURN There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:25pm.