Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.16.2026 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Regular Meeting April 16, 2026 Convened: 6pm Adjourned: 8:43pm 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM, by Chair Binner. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 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 Darren Guettler, Board Member Joshua Bradley Excused Ex-Officio Nicole Fogarty, Vice-chair Lawrence Slay 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 6. DISCLOSURE(S) None. 7. MINUTES A. St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for the meeting of March 19, 2026 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 2 | P a g e RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Ed Lounds SECONDER: Board Member Billy O'Dell AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley NAYS: None EXCUSED: None 8. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pitstop Mini Market - Conditional Use Permit for packaged alcohol sales within the Commercial Neighborhood Zoning District. - THIS ITEM IS QUASI-JUDICIAL STAFF PRESENTATION: Morgan Phelps, AICP Candidate and Associate Planner for St. Lucie County, presented the staff report for the Pit Stop Mini Market Conditional Use Permit request to allow packaged beer and wine sales for off-site consumption at a 4,481-square-foot suite on Turnpike Feeder Road near Palomar and Pandora. Ms. Phelps reviewed the site layout, including parking, loading areas, and the dumpster location. Ms. Phelps explained the public notification process, including the newspaper advertisement, posted site signage, and 43 mailed notices sent within 500 feet of the property. Staff received no public comments or objections. Ms. Phelps also reviewed the surrounding zoning, noting nearby Commercial Neighborhood zoning, Residential Single Family-4 to the west, Residential Mobile Home-5 to the north, and Commercial General to the south. Ms. Phelps stated staff found the request consistent with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval with seven conditions. Conditions included compliance with County and State alcohol sale hours, off-site consumption only, maintaining a valid state alcohol license, employee training and ID verification procedures, compliant signage, a survey requirement for future exterior expansion, and installation of dumpster screening within 60 days of approval. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 3 | P a g e William Fagan, the applicant, 7803 Lakeside Way Fort Pierce, Florida, spoke in support of the request, stating he has operated a neighboring store for 13 years and has become a staple within the community. Mr. Fagan explained that local residents regularly rely on his business and stated that alcohol sales are an important part of his business plan. Ms. Phelps added that the business previously operated across the street for 13 years without any code violations. She also noted that a neighborhood meeting held on March 27th, which was attended by more than 20 people who strongly supported the request. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner O’Dell asked the applicant if he agreed with all the conditions of approval. Applicant stated yes. Motion: Approved with staff recommendations. Motioner –– O’Dell - Second – Bradley RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Joshua Bradley AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley NAYS: None EXCUSED: None B. Project Orchid - Future Land Use Map Amendment (Small-Scale) STAFF PRESENTATION: Kori Benton, AICP, Planning and Zoning Manager, with Planning and Development Services. Mr. Benton stated that all public notification requirements were met per St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 11.00.03. Mr. Benton presented Agenda Items 9B, 9C, and 9D collectively for Project Orchid, a targeted industry proposal in St. Lucie County. The requests included a small-scale Future Land Use Map Amendment for 20.85 acres to create a subarea within the Lucie Rock Mixed Use Activity Area allowing building heights up to 80 feet, a rezoning of 20.25 acres from Industrial Light to Industrial Heavy, and a Conditional Use Permit for a 76,200-square-foot aluminum foundry as part of a larger manufacturing facility. He explained that the overall project proposed approximately 1.4 million square feet of high- Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 4 | P a g e technology manufacturing space focused on impact glass, windows, doors, and related construction products, with an estimated workforce of up to 1,000 employees. Mr. Benton stated the site was located west of North Rock Road near Orange Avenue and the St. Lucie County Correctional Facility and noted the project had been properly noticed and included a neighborhood meeting. He reviewed surrounding land uses, existing zoning, transportation improvements, and concurrency considerations, including proposed upgrades to Rock Road and the Orange Avenue intersection with a new traffic signal and turn lanes. Staff found the applications consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code and recommended approval of Items 9B and 9C, as well as approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Item 9D, with conditions related to air quality and odor controls, downcast lighting, and enhanced western buffering with an earth berm and opaque wall or fence. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Withheld until after applicant presentation. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Ms. Patti Tobin with HJA Design Studio, Palm City, presented Agenda Items 9B, 9C, and 9D together in one presentation for Project Orchid, a proposed targeted industry project on approximately 72 acres north of the St. Lucie County Correctional Facility. Ms. Tobin explained the project consisted of a state-of-the-art, fully enclosed 1.4 million square-foot window manufacturing and office facility serving the southeastern US market, with all operations occurring indoors and no outdoor manufacturing, exposed production, noticeable odors, or visible emissions. Ms. Tobin stated the requests included a Future Land Use Map Amendment for approximately 20.85 acres to allow increased building height within the Lucie Rock Mixed Use Activity Area, a rezoning of approximately 20.25 acres from Industrial Light to Industrial Heavy to permit portions of the building up to 80 feet in height, and a Conditional Use Permit for the aluminum foundry component, which comprised approximately 5.5% of the overall building. Ms. Tobin explained the additional height needed for manufacturing operations and product storage. Ms. Tobin stated the foundry would operate under EPA and FDEP air permitting requirements with annual testing and semi-annual reporting, and that the facility would include enclosed air systems, filtered emissions, and a closed-loop water recycling system. She also highlighted buffering along the western property line, traffic and roadway improvements to Rock Road and Orange Avenue, community outreach efforts, and the project’s anticipated creation of more than 1,000 jobs above the county median wage. Ms. Tobin concluded by requesting approval of Items 9B, 9C, and 9D. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner O’Dell asked Ms. Tobin about the project construction timeline and whether operations would begin before construction was complete. Ms. Tobin explained that the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 5 | P a g e building would be fully constructed before operations began and clarified that employment ramp-up would occur in phases over less than five years. Mr. Benton further clarified that construction was expected to last approximately 18–24 months, while hiring and production growth would continue afterward. Commissioner O’Dell expressed concerns regarding traffic impacts during both construction and operational phases, particularly at the intersection of Rock Road and Orange Avenue. Commissioner O’Dell questioned whether construction traffic, including truck traffic and delivery of components, could exceed operational traffic volumes and whether peak season correction factors had been applied in the traffic analysis. Ms. Tobin stated that construction traffic data was not currently available but acknowledged the existing truck activity in the area and agreed the issue could be further evaluated. Ms. Yanique Virgo, Development Manager for the applicant, explained that construction traffic counts were not typically included in the Traffic Impact Analysis, but stated the applicant could provide additional information and analysis regarding anticipated construction traffic and truck volumes. Chair Binner asked whether the foundry would utilize electric induction heating or natural gas furnaces. Ms. Tobin responded that utility infrastructure, including water and sewer, would be available. Chair Binner then opened the public hearing for agenda item 9B. No public comments were received. Before the vote, Commissioner O’Dell asked staff whether any opposition had been received during public noticing. Mr. Benton stated staff had received two responses in favor of the petition and no written objections, although some concerns had been raised regarding buffering, design, and compatibility with nearby developments. Mr. Benton noted staff and the applicant had addressed those concerns through project design and site layout considerations. Motion: Approved with staff recommendations. Motioner –– Guettler - Second – Lounds RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Darren Guettler SECONDER: Board Member Ed Lounds AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley NAYS: None EXCUSED: None Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 6 | P a g e C. Project Orchid - Rezoning +/-20.25 Acres from IL, Industrial Light to IH, Industrial Heavy - THIS ITEM IS QUASI-JUDICIAL STAFF PRESENTATION: Kori Benton, AICP, Planning & Zoning Manager, with Planning and Development Services. See 9B. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: See 9B. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: See 9B Motion: Approved with staff recommendations. Motioner –– Bradley - Second – Guettler RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Joshua Bradley SECONDER: Board Member Darren Guettler AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley NAYS: None EXCUSED: None D. Project Orchid Metal Foundry — Conditional Use Permit - THIS ITEM IS QUASI-JUDICIAL STAFF PRESENTATION: Kori Benton, AICP, Planning & Zoning Manager, with Planning and Development Services. See 9B. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: See 9B. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 7 | P a g e PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Chair Binner opened and closed the public hearing for item 9D, after no public comments were received. Commissioner O’Dell asked staff whether the conditional use permit included a sunset provision. Mr. Benton explained that the Land Development Code required permits to be obtained within one year and stated that if operations ceased for 12 months or more, the conditional use permit would be forfeited unless renewed. He also noted that complaints or violations could result in review or revocation by the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner O’Dell stated he wanted to ensure the applicant understood those conditions. Commissioner Bradley asked whether the project workforce would primarily come from the local community. Ms. Tobin stated the project selected St. Lucie County partly because of the available workforce and confirmed the goal was to hire locally. Commissioner Bradley also discussed concerns regarding traffic and construction impacts near Orange Avenue and Kings Highway, suggesting consideration of a temporary turn lane during construction to help accommodate large equipment and prevent congestion. Commissioner Bradley stated the project would benefit the community through job creation and acknowledged the applicant’s efforts to address roadway concerns and future adjacent development. Ms. Tobin agreed the temporary turn lane could be considered and noted the intersection would present challenges because of the canal and culvert. Chair Binner then called for a motion. A motion to approve By Commissioner O’Dell was made, seconded by Commissioner Lounds, and approved by unanimous 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, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley NAYS: None EXCUSED: None Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 8 | P a g e E. 11000 Okeechobee Road PUD: Zoning Atlas Amendment for a 96.32 acre site from the AG-2.5 (Agricultural-2.5) Zoning District to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District and a Preliminary Site Plan. - THIS ITEM IS QUASI-JUDICIAL STAFF PRESENTATION: Thomas Reetz, Planner II, with Planning and Development Services. Mr. Reetz, stated that all public notification requirements were met per St. Lucie County Land Development Code Section 11.00.03. Mr. Reetz presented the request to rezone approximately 96 acres from AG- 2.5 Agricultural to PUD with a preliminary development plan for 96 single-family homes located along Okeechobee Road. Mr. Reetz stated public notice requirements had been completed, including mailed notices, newspaper advertisements, on-site signage, and a neighborhood meeting, and noted staff had received two letters of opposition. Mr. Reetz explained the surrounding zoning, land uses, and project design, stating the PUD proposed clustered residential development with 58.61% open space, preservation of natural features, buffering, underground utilities, and recreational areas. Mr. Reetz described traffic assumptions, roadway limitations, and proposed turn lane configurations along Okeechobee Road. Mr. Reetz reviewed the proposed site layout, lot sizes, setbacks, landscaping, buffering, roadway improvements, and staff recommendations, including enhanced buffering and berms along Okeechobee Road, concentrating smaller lots toward the center of the project, school bus routing requirements, gated access standards, and right-of-way dedications for future roadway improvements. Mr. Reetz concluded by stating staff recommended approval of the zoning amendment and preliminary development plan subject to the proposed conditions and opened the floor for questions from the board. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Commissioner O’Dell asked staff whether the property was located within the TVC overlay. Mr. Benton confirmed that it was not within the TVC overlay. Commissioner O’Dell then requested a map showing the proximity of the urban service boundary (USB) to the property. Mr. Reetz displayed the map and explained that the area in red denoted the USB and the yellow line marked the boundary separating the urban service area from the western properties. Commissioner O’Dell confirmed that the USB followed the yellow line. Commissioner Lounds requested a better aerial image of the property, and Mr. Reetz enlarged the exhibit and identified the former Thomas Feed and Hay nursery site. Mr. Reetz also confirmed that no one currently lived on the property. Commissioner Lounds questioned whether approving smaller-lot PUD developments north of Okeechobee Road would encourage additional development in the surrounding rural agricultural area. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 9 | P a g e Chair Binner directed that questions and comments from the public in the audience remain orderly for the record. Mr. Benton explained that the request involved a rezoning from Agricultural 2.5 to a PUD with smaller lot dimensions, while the comprehensive plan land use designation allowing one dwelling unit per acre would remain unchanged. He stated that each rezoning and PUD application must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for compatibility, infrastructure, orderly development patterns, and compliance with review standards. He also explained that the proposal included central water, wastewater, paved roads, open space, and buffering, and that the Board could determine whether the proposed lot sizes were appropriate. Commissioner Lounds asked what comparable developments existed nearby. Mr. Benton referenced the Indian Reservation south of Okeechobee Road, Creekside PUD, the previously proposed Windward Landing project, Lonesome Pine, and Sunnier Palms as examples of nearby developments with varying densities and land use patterns. Commissioner Lounds stated that he did not support PUDs infiltrating rural agricultural areas north of Okeechobee Road and believed development in the area should remain in a rural estate pattern with 2.5-acre lots. He stated that he did not believe the project followed that pattern and could not support it. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mr. Brad Currie, with Haley Ward, presented the proposed 96-lot subdivision on 96 acres, describing it as a large-lot development with a maximum density of one unit per acre, consistent with the existing Residential Estate future land use designation. He emphasized the project was not increasing density, was not comparable to Creekside, and complied with the Comprehensive Plan and County code requirements. Mr. Currie explained that the property could not realistically be developed as 2.5-acre or one-acre lots due to modern requirements for central water and sewer, privately maintained roads, stormwater systems, sidewalks, tree mitigation, and the required 35% open space, all of which increased development costs and required a more compact layout. He stated that any development with more than eight units required approval as a PUD under the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Currie described the site as a former orange grove with cattle operations and noted the project included three lot sizes ranging from 75 by 125 feet to 100 by 150 feet, a 363-foot northern buffer, wetland preservation, internal open space, school bus facilities, sidewalks, and emergency-only secondary access. He also stated the project would preserve significant buffering along Okeechobee Road and would not connect FFA Road to Okeechobee Road. Mr. Currie stated the applicant agreed with staff’s recommended conditions of approval, referenced a neighborhood meeting held in February 2025, and concluded by offering to answer questions and respond to public comments. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT & STAFF: Chair Binner asked Mr. Currie about the public response at the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Currie stated that some residents appeared relieved by the large northern buffer, preservation Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 10 | P a g e of trees, and the decision not to connect to FFA Road. He emphasized that the project maintained the existing one-unit-per-acre land use designation, represented the lowest- density PUD he had presented, and used compact development to reduce infrastructure and tree mitigation costs while buffering neighboring properties. Chair Binner asked whether the PUD code established minimum lot sizes or widths. Mr. Currie explained that the PUD itself did not establish those standards and that the rezoning was required because the project exceeded eight units. He stated that requirements for stormwater systems, private roads, and infrastructure came from other development regulations and agencies. Chair Binner confirmed with staff that standard zoning districts contained minimum lot size requirements. Commissioner O’Dell questioned the projected five-year buildout and whether homes would be occupied before the entire development was completed. Mr. Currie explained that the infrastructure, including roads and utilities, would be constructed at one time through the platting process before homes were developed or sold. Commissioner O’Dell then questioned the proposed traffic pattern and expressed concern about requiring residents to exit right onto Okeechobee Road and perform U-turns. Mr. Currie stated that the configuration had received preliminary approval from FDOT and that FDOT generally preferred U-turn configurations over median openings for safety purposes. Commissioner O’Dell noted concerns about the safety of the roadway and the projected traffic volumes associated with the development. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Robin Kimmelman, 10610 Pine Needle Drive, yielded her time to George Emerson and stated she appreciated the opportunity to voice concerns. Tom Richmond, 10630 Pine Needle Drive, yielded his time to George Emerson. Pete McLeod, 10642 Pine Needle Drive, yielded his time to George Emerson. Paula Beaton, 10680 Schwab Road, yielded her time to George Emerson. Stephanie Kimmelman, 10619 Pine Needle Drive, stated she and others canvassed Pine Hollow and found no neighborhood support for the project among the residents they contacted. She also yielded her remaining time to George Emerson. George Emerson, 2375 Jernigan Road, stated he represented 178 property owners owning 116 properties in Pine Hollow and Fort Pierce Gardens who opposed the project. He argued the proposed PUD conflicted with the Comprehensive Plan, the rural agricultural character of the area, and the intent of the AG-2.5 zoning and Residential Estate future land use designation. He stated the project would introduce incompatible compact development outside the Urban Services Boundary, remove an important agricultural buffer, encourage leapfrog development and urban sprawl, and create precedent for additional PUDs along Okeechobee Road. He referenced Comprehensive Plan policies discouraging urban sprawl and Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 11 | P a g e argued that extending centralized water and sewer service outside the Urban Services Boundary violated those policies. He also stated the project prioritized profitability over compatibility and maintained that the property could still be developed under its existing zoning and land use regulations. Brett McCain, 10700 Schwab Road, stated the applicant’s justification for rezoning centered on development costs rather than valid planning reasons. He argued the project conflicted with staff findings and promoted illogical leapfrog development. He also stated that smaller lot developments underperformed compared to larger rural lots and expressed concern that the project would negatively affect nearby property values and conflict with the rural agricultural character of the surrounding area. Chris Jones, 8433 Lonesome Pine Trail, stated residents were tired of continued development and wanted the rural character of the area preserved. He expressed concern about increasing subdivisions along Okeechobee Road and urged the Board to require more responsible development and maintain the existing zoning pattern. Applicant & staff rebuttal: Mr. Currie responded to public comments by stating he had been informed that two separate petitions were circulated in the neighborhood, one opposing the connection of FFA Road to Okeechobee Road and another opposing the project itself. He then questioned staff about whether the County had previously discussed expanding the Urban Services Boundary (USB) in the area. Mr. Benton explained that during the County’s 2022 USB amendment process, there had been discussion about extending the boundary northward toward Indian River County. He stated that the current Comprehensive Plan established the existing USB lines and identified areas north of the boundary as part of a future study area for possible expansion. Mr. Benton stated staff had determined there was currently sufficient land within the existing USB to meet future development demand and that no active initiative existed to expand the boundary in the project area, although pre-application inquiries had been received. Mr. Currie argued that the area was likely to become part of the USB in the future and asked whether the County had the ability to expand the USB now if desired. Mr. Benton explained that the County could consider a Comprehensive Plan amendment to expand the USB or could allow a one-time extension of up to 1,500 feet under existing Comprehensive Plan provisions for properties adjacent to the boundary. He stated the provision was intended to create cohesive development patterns for properties partially affected by the boundary line. Mr. Currie responded that the USB discussion was not directly relevant to the application because the project was not requesting an increase in density or a change to the future land use designation. He maintained the project fully complied with the Comprehensive Plan by developing at the existing one-unit-per-acre Residential Estate designation and stated the PUD Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 12 | P a g e rezoning was required solely because developments exceeding eight units must proceed through the PUD process. Mr. Currie said that the project would not encourage urban sprawl or alter development patterns because water and sewer service already existed adjacent to the property and was not being extended. He stated comparisons to Creekside were inaccurate because Creekside was significantly denser. He also emphasized that Florida property owners retained the right to develop consistent with existing future land use designations and concluded that the proposal represented the best possible development for the property under current regulations. Outburst from the public present occurred and Chair Binner reminded everyone that public comment had been closed. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner Bradley asked whether recent efforts to expand the USB had primarily come from developers or speculative landowners. Mr. Benton stated most requests involved speculative land development interests and explained that any formal USB expansion would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners, state agencies, and regional planning entities. He also explained that some active North County applications involved requests for limited 1,500-foot USB extensions. Chair Binner asked staff about the reasoning behind requiring developments with more than eight units to proceed as PUDs. Mr. Benton explained the PUD process allowed greater review of infrastructure, environmental impacts, septic systems, roadways, utilities, and development layout for larger residential projects. Mr. Benton stated the Residential Estate future land use category referenced “large lot” residential development but did not establish a minimum lot size within the PUD process. Mr. Benton noted that outside of a PUD, the comparable RS-2 zoning district required a minimum 15,000-square-foot lot size and stated that threshold was relevant when evaluating compatibility and consistency with the surrounding area. Chair Binner questioned whether estate-style development logically implied lot sizes larger than 15,000 square feet. Mr. Benton stated the Comprehensive Plan language suggested larger lots, while also noting the PUD process allowed trade-offs such as open space preservation, centralized utilities, and environmental protections in exchange for smaller lot configurations. He further explained that developments outside the Urban Services Boundary could still utilize septic systems if they met Health Department standards. Chair Binner also questioned whether environmental constraints, such as powerline easements and wetlands, could reduce the maximum achievable density on a property. Mr. Benton agreed that engineering, environmental, and infrastructure limitations could justify development below the maximum permitted density and stated that the PUD process allowed the Board to evaluate the overall site design and layout. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 13 | P a g e Commissioner Bradley asked whether the applicant had alternative design options available. Mr. Benton stated the applicant could have proposed different lot sizes, layouts, and configurations within the PUD process, including larger lots and different infrastructure arrangements. Mr. Benton explained that preserving open space and native vegetation represented one of the trade-offs of the compact development design. Commissioner O’Dell questioned the speed limit along Okeechobee Road and expressed concern about the proposed traffic pattern requiring residents to make right turns followed by U-turns on a high-speed roadway. Mr. Benton stated the speed limit was approximately 55 miles per hour. Commissioner O’Dell expressed concern about the projected traffic volumes and overall roadway safety. Chair Binner stated that while the applicant had not requested an increase in density, the proposed 10,000- to 15,000-square-foot lots did not maintain the rural estate character north of Okeechobee Road. Chair Binner stated that lot size compatibility mattered in addition to density and that infrastructure costs and development profitability should not justify smaller lots inconsistent with the surrounding area. Chair Binner concluded he could not support the project. Commissioner Bradley agreed with many of Chair Binner’s comments and stated residents’ participation was important in preserving neighborhood character. Commissioner Bradley acknowledged the applicant had proposed larger lots than many recent developments but stated he remained concerned about introducing compact development into agricultural and acreage areas west of the Urban Services Boundary. Chair Binner stated he would have supported the project had it been located within the Urban Services Boundary rather than adjacent to acreage properties. Commissioner O’Dell stated the project lacked a safe traffic pattern and continuity with the surrounding neighborhood and moved to deny the application based on concerns related to traffic safety and quality of life. Chair Binner announced the motion to deny had been seconded. Motion: Denied. Motioner –– O’Dell - Second – Neese RESULT: DENY MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Larry Neese AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley NAYS: None EXCUSED: None Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 14 | P a g e F. 322 & 340 Kitterman Rd PUD - Rezoning from RM-5 and RM-9 to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Preliminary Site Plan. - THIS ITEM IS QUASI-JUDICIAL 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. Mr. Arellano presented the applicant’s request to rezone a 19.65-acre site on Kitterman Road to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with approval of a preliminary site plan for 117 townhome units. He stated the property was within the Urban Services Boundary and served by central water, sewer, electric, and natural gas utilities. Mr. Arellano explained the project included 18 townhome buildings, four stormwater detention areas, a 0.55-acre neighborhood park, wetland preservation areas, landscape buffers, sidewalks, and a raised boardwalk within the wetland buffer. He noted the proposed PUD reduced allowable lot coverage and building height below what existing zoning permitted. Mr. Arellano also discussed traffic and pedestrian improvements, including a westbound left-turn lane on Kitterman Road and recommendations for additional sidewalks and crosswalks. Mr. Arellano stated the project complied with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and that staff recommended approval to subject conditions related to landscaping, tree mitigation, wetland protection, environmental permitting, invasive species removal, right-of-way dedication, lighting, and site development permitting. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: None. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mr. Purser, with WGI, presented the applicant’s proposal for fee-simple ownership townhomes on Kitterman Road site. He stated the applicant believed the location was appropriate for townhomes due to its proximity to commercial uses along US-1 and referenced the County’s findings regarding population growth and the need for a mix of housing types and reasonably priced housing options. He also thanked staff for their assistance throughout the review process and opened the floor for questions from the Commission. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT & STAFF: Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 15 | P a g e Chair Binner opened by confirming the applicant agreed to all staff conditions, and Mr. Purser confirmed agreement. Commissioner Bradley questioned whether traffic studies included nearby developments and noted Kitterman Road’s constraints. Mr. Purser stated the study used existing traffic conditions, and did not find significant additional impact, but the applicant agreed to extend the left-turn lane improvement. Chair Binner questioned whether the site layout had flexibility for less rigid building placement and more variation. Mr. Purser responded they had already gone through multiple redesigns over a year with staff input, increased open space to about 58% (above the 35% requirement), added a neighborhood park, and had limited remaining flexibility, though minor roadway meandering might be possible. Commissioner Bradley noted nearby residential patterns and referenced a rental community to the west, suggesting limited homeowner opposition. Mr. Benton clarified the traffic study included approved nearby projects (Eden Oaks and Prima Vista Commons) but did not include Silver Oaks PUD; he noted methodology could be updated if directed. He also explained school traffic was generally embedded in peak-hour modeling rather than explicitly separated by school schedules. Commissioner Bradley expressed concern about cumulative traffic impacts, especially near a nearby school and existing congestion, noting roughly 700+ trips plus additional nearby developments would heavily burden the corridor. Commissioner Bradley then stated he believed the current zoning was more appropriate given traffic conditions and motioned to deny, which was seconded. Conversation continued regarding the project progressing to the BOCC. Motion: Denied. Motioner –– Bradley - Second – O’Dell RESULT: DENY MOVER: Board Member Joshua Bradley SECONDER: Board Member Billy O'Dell AYES: Ed Lounds, Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley NAYS: None EXCUSED: None 10. WORKSHOPS None. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, April 16, 2026 6:00 PM 16 | P a g e 11. OTHER BUSINESS None. 12. ADJOURN There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:43pm.