The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet 02.19.2026 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA ST. LUCIE COUNTY Regular Meeting Thursday, February 19, 2026 6:00 PM St. Lucie County Commission Chambers 2300 Virginia Avenue 3rd Floor of Roger Poitras Building Fort Pierce, FL 34982 BOARD MEMBERS CHAIRMAN RYAN BINNER VICE-CHAIRMAN LAWRENCE “BEAU” SLAY BOARD MEMBER JOSHUA BRADLEY BOARD MEMBER DARREN GUETTLER BOARD MEMBER ED LOUNDS BOARD MEMBER WILLIAM O’DELL AT-LARGE BOARD MEMBER LARRY NEESE EX-OFFICIO BOARD MEMBER NICOLE FOGARTY Mission Statement Committed To Service, Focused On Our Future, Grounded By Tradition Page 1 of 32 Regular Meeting Thursday, February 19, 2026 6:00 PM 2 | P a g e WELCOME • Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers prior to entering the Commission Chambers. • Please note that the Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency serves in an advisory capacity to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners and has the power to review and make recommendations to the Board, for approval or disapproval, on any applications within their area of responsibility. • The Planning and Zoning Commission strongly encourages your input and comment at the public hearing. Please limit comments to three minutes if possible and be respectful of others’ opinions. • For public convenience, all meetings are televised and are provided with wireless internet access. NOTICE: All Proceedings before this Board are electronically recorded. Any person who decides to appeal any action taken by the Board at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made. Upon the request of any party to the proceedings, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceedings will be granted the opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the Human Resources Department at (772) 462-1546, HumanResources@stlucieco.org or TDD (772) 462-1428 at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting. Page 2 of 32 Regular Meeting Thursday, February 19, 2026 6:00 PM 3 | P a g e 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. INVOCATION 4. ROLL CALL 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS 6. DISCLOSURE(S) 7. MINUTES A. St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for the meeting of January 15, 2026 8. PUBLIC COMMENT 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. RS-2 Building Lot Coverage LDC Text Change (Noble Oaks) to the Land Development Code, Chapter VII, Development Design and Improvement Standards, Section 7.04.00 - Area, Yard, Height, and Open Space Requirements to increase the allowable lot coverage by buildings, within the RS-2, (Residential Single-Family-2) Zoning District. 10. WORKSHOPS 11. OTHER BUSINESS 12. ADJOURN Page 3 of 32 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Regular Meeting January 15, 2026 Convened: 6pm Adjourned: 7pm 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. 4. ROLL CALL Present Board Member Billy O'Dell, Board Member Ryan Binner, Board Member Larry Neese, Board Member Darren Guettler, Board Member Joshua Bradley, Board Member Lawrence Slay Excused Board Member Ed Lounds, Ex-Officio Nicole Fogarty 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 6. DISCLOSURE(S) None. 7. MINUTES A. St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission minutes for the meeting of December 18, 2025 Page 4 of 32 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, January 15, 2026 6:00 PM 2 | P a g e RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Darren Guettler SECONDER: Board Member Lawrence Slay AYES: Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None 8. ELECTION OF OFFICIALS 2026 A. Election of Planning & Zoning Commission Chair Election for Planning & Zoning Commission Chair Nominations for the Planning & Zoning Commission Chair were made for current Chair Binner by Commissioner Bradley & Vice-Chair Slay by Commissioner O’Dell. Chair Binner accepted the nomination to remain Chair. Vice-Chair Slay denied the nomination for Chair. The Chair votes for Commissioner Binner were: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RESULT: APPOINT MOVER: Board Member Joshua Bradley SECONDER: None AYES: Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None The Board elected Commissioner Binner to be the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission for 2026. B. Election of Planning & Zoning Commission Vice-Chair Page 5 of 32 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, January 15, 2026 6:00 PM 3 | P a g e Election for Planning & Zoning Commission Vice-Chair Nominations were made for current Vice-Chair Slay by Commissioner O’Dell Vice-Chair Slay accepted the nomination for Vice-Chair. The Vice-Chair votes for Commissioner Slay were: Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 RESULT: APPOINT MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: None AYES: Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None The Board elected Commissioner Slay to be the Vice Chair for 2026. 9. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Pruitt Commerce Center (AKA Project Vision) - Future Land Use Map Amendment (Large Scale) (Continued from Meeting of December 18, 2025) 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. One property owner supported the application; nearby residents were satisfied after receiving additional information. The site is south of Orange Avenue, along Kings Highway, near the City of Fort Pierce, and may be annexed into the city in the future. The current future land use is Residential Suburban and Special District; the request is to amend the future land use designation to MXD (Mixed-Use Development), consistent with surrounding development near the I-95/Orange Avenue interchange. Existing zoning is AR-1, and future rezoning would require Planned Non-Residential Development (PNRD) approval. Page 6 of 32 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, January 15, 2026 6:00 PM 4 | P a g e The amendment would result in an estimated 5,451 additional daily trips (about 11,000– 12,000 total), with most traffic using Kings Highway and local roads. A final certified traffic impact report is still in progress and will be completed before Board of County Commissioners review. Ms. Szedlmayer outlined surrounding approved and existing residential, commercial, and industrial developments and noted limited east-west and north-south roadway connectivity in the area. Proposed sub-area policies require high-quality employment-focused development, PNRD rezoning with public hearings, transportation concurrency compliance, mitigation for traffic impacts, potential roadway improvements, and coordination for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle connectivity. Development standards include a maximum 0.35 FAR, 35% building coverage, 25% open space, and buffers to protect nearby residential uses, particularly to the southwest. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Commissioner O’Dell asked staff to explain the source of the traffic figures shown, given that a fully certified Traffic Impact Report was still pending. Mr. Benton explained that the applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis that was reviewed by county staff and third-party consultants. The analysis reflects updated Institute of Transportation Engineers standards, refined assumptions tied to the MXD designation, and use of an industrial park land-use code. The data has been shared with FDOT and is consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan and state law. Commissioner O’Dell acknowledged the explanation. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Ms. Leslie Olson, AICP, with the District Planning Group, presented Project Vision as a County- initiated economic development partnership with Ashley Capital, selected through a public RFP process to redevelop the Treasure Coast Education, Research and Development Authority (TCERDA) property. The request for an MXD future land use amendment was described as necessary to implement the Kings Highway jobs corridor vision, align with surrounding industrial development, and allow for phased PNRD review with continued public oversight. Traffic analyses based on maximum buildout showed adequate roadway capacity, with more detailed reviews required at later stages. The County had fulfilled its obligations under the option agreement by removing TCERDA restrictions, and Ashley Capital was proceeding through the entitlement process before exercising its option to purchase and develop the site. Mr. Ryan Bloss, with Ashley Capital, described Ashley Capital as a long-established national industrial developer with a long-term ownership model, extensive experience in greenfield and brownfield projects, and a growing presence in Florida and the Treasure Coast. Ms. Jill Marasa, with Ashley Capital, outlined the history of the TCERDA property, including its origins as a county-owned research and education site, past investments, and the County’s efforts to spur economic development. She explained how Ashley Capital was selected through a public RFP process and how the project advanced to the current entitlement stage. Ms. Olson explained that the MXD designation was required to implement the County’s vision, citing changed conditions such as the RFP process, the designated jobs corridor, and improved transportation infrastructure. She stated the project was consistent with the Comprehensive Page 7 of 32 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, January 15, 2026 6:00 PM 5 | P a g e Plan and compatible with surrounding industrial and commercial uses. Ms. Stephanie Guerra, P.E., with Kimley Horn, summarized the applicants transportation analysis, noting that traffic studies for both short- and long-term buildout showed sufficient roadway capacity. She explained that the analysis assumed maximum development intensity to cap trips and that more detailed, site-specific traffic reviews would occur during the PNRD process, with full compliance with transportation concurrency requirements. Mr. Lee Dobbins, Esq., with The Dean Mead Law Firm, explained the option agreement between Ashley Capital and the County, noting that the County had satisfied its obligations by removing TCERDA restrictions and that Ashley Capital was now required to complete the entitlement process. He stated that the structure protected both parties and allowed the project to proceed once approvals were secured. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH APPLICANT: None. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Motion: Approved with staff recommendations. Motioner –– Guettler - Second – O’Dell RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Darren Guettler SECONDER: Board Member Billy O'Dell AYES: Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None B. County Initiated Land Development Code Text Amendment for Fencing 10B. County Initiated Land Development Code Text Amendment for Fencing STAFF PRESENTATION: Ben Balcer, AICP, Planning and Development Services Director. Mr. Balcer stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Mr. Balcer presented a county-initiated land development code text amendment to allow limited use of cattle wire, chicken wire, or similar fencing materials in specific residential zoning districts. He stated the item was properly advertised and intended to address concerns arising from prior fence material restrictions. Mr. Balcer explained the amendment applied Page 8 of 32 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, January 15, 2026 6:00 PM 6 | P a g e only to residential properties one acre or larger, with a permitted dwelling, located on unpaved, privately maintained roads, and within specified residential zoning districts. He reviewed prior Board actions that restricted these materials and noted this proposal was a narrow refinement, not a policy reversal, intended to reflect rural development patterns. Mr. Balcer emphasized that all other fence standards would remain unchanged, the criteria were narrowly tailored to avoid unintended impacts, and the amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended forwarding the amendment to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Commissioner O’Dell questioned why the proposed fence material exception excluded barbed wire, noting that cattle wire and barbed wire are often used together, and asked whether a single strand of barbed wire could be allowed for agricultural purposes. Mr. Balcer responded that the Planning and Zoning Commission could recommend allowing a limited amount of barbed wire, such as a single strand, as part of its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Guettler asked why the amendment applied only to properties on unpaved, privately maintained roads and whether similar large-lot properties on paved roads would be excluded. Mr. Balcer explained that the amendment was narrowly tailored to specific residential zoning districts within the urban service boundary and that most western county properties with paved frontage were zoned agricultural and already permitted those fence types. Commissioner Bradley supported adding limited barbed wire and asked about permitting and survey requirements for fences on privately maintained roads. Mr. Balcer confirmed that all fences would require permits, were not agriculturally exempt, and would require surveys when applicable to ensure road and easement access was not obstructed. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner O’Dell made a motion to approve the item with Board recommendations. Chair Binner asked about the dollar threshold that triggers a survey requirement, noting that some fences are inexpensive. Mr. Balcer explained that the current survey requirement threshold was $10,000. Commissioner Bradley expressed concern that the high threshold could create enforcement and safety issues on privately maintained roads, arguing that the lack of County involvement could lead to disputes. He suggested lowering the threshold or otherwise requiring surveys to avoid future conflicts. Chair Binner asked whether the Board could recommend a lower threshold or require surveys Page 9 of 32 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Thursday, January 15, 2026 6:00 PM 7 | P a g e specifically for this type of rural fencing. Mr. Balcer confirmed the Board could recommend either lowering the threshold or requiring a signed and sealed survey for this fencing in the applicable zoning districts. Commissioner Bradley reiterated concerns about private roads, lack of maintenance structures, and potential conflicts without clear survey requirements. Chair Binner asked Commissioner O’Dell whether he wished to amend his motion. Commissioner O’Dell amended the motion to require a survey and to allow a single strand of barbed wire where needed. Motion: A motion to approve the item was made by Commissioner O’Dell, amended to include a survey requirement and allowance of single-strand barbed wire, and seconded by Commissioner Bradley. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: Approved Motioner –– O’Dell - Second – Bradley RESULT: APPROVE MOVER: Board Member Billy O'Dell SECONDER: Board Member Joshua Bradley AYES: Billy O'Dell, Ryan Binner, Larry Neese, Darren Guettler, Joshua Bradley, Lawrence Slay NAYS: None EXCUSED: None 11. WORKSHOPS None. 12. OTHER BUSINESS None. 13. ADJOURN There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7pm. Page 10 of 32 ITEM NO. (ID # 2026-296) DATE: 2/19/2026 AGENDA REQUEST TO: Planning and Zoning Commission PRESENTED BY: Thad Crowe, Senior Planner SUBMITTED BY: Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: RS-2 Building Lot Coverage LDC Text Change (Noble Oaks) to the Land Development Code, Chapter VII, Development Design and Improvement Standards, Section 7.04.00 - Area, Yard, Height, and Open Space Requirements to increase the allowable lot coverage by buildings, within the RS-2, (Residential Single-Family-2) Zoning District. BACKGROUND: A privately initiated Text Amendment to the Land Development Code proposing to increase the allowable lot coverage by buildings, from 20 to 30 percent within the RS-2, (Residential Single-Family-2) Zoning District. PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the proposed Text Amendment to the Land Development Code be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. COMMISSION ACTION: RESULT: MOVER: None SECONDER: None AYES: None NAYS: None EXCUSED: None Coordination/Signatures Page 11 of 32 Date: February 13, 2026 Benjamin Balcer, Planning & Development Services Director Date: February 13, 2026 Jean Stasio, Assistant County Attorney III Page 12 of 32 Planning and Development Services Department Planning Division M E M O R A N D U M GENERAL INFORMATION: Applicant & Agent: Robert Dudley Noble Oaks Estates LLC 1425 SE Village Green Drive Port St. Lucie, FL 34952 Locations: RS-2 (Residential Single-Family-2) Zoning District in unincorporated County. BACKGROUND: Robert Dudley with Noble Oaks Estates LLC, submitted a petition to amend Land Development Code (LDC), Section 7.04.01, Table 7-10, to increase the maximum lot coverage by buildings from 20% to 30% in the RS-2 (Residential Single-Family-2) Zoning District, for properties that are served by a private road(s), central utilities, and a master stormwater system. The following outcomes support this amendment: • a private street takes the onus off the County (and taxpayers) for road maintenance that could be exacerbated by more impervious surface. • the presence of central utilities removes the need for onsite well and/or septic systems and allows for additional building space; • a master stormwater system in place reduces the need for stormwater storage on individual lots and the presence of such a system reduces flooding potential that could be posed by greater building coverage; and These actions collectively free up more space for larger building footprints while, at the same time, potentially allowing for more tree preservation due to the reduced need for onsite utilities and stormwater. While this is a text change that applies to multiple areas and properties in the RS-2 zoning, the Applicant is narrowly concerned with existing and planned homes in the Noble Oaks subdivision, on the east side of 25th Street south of Midway Road. Three of the sixteen Noble Oaks Estates lots have been developed with single-family homes, built in 2023 and as Table 1 shows, which exceed the 20% lot coverage standard (the permits were approved with this oversight). Two of these properties are anticipated to be brought into compliance with the proposed amendment. TO: Planning and Zoning Commission THROUGH: Benjamin Balcer, AICP, Planning & Development Services Director Kori Benton, AICP, Planning & Zoning Manager FROM: Thad Crowe, AICP, Senior Planner DATE: February 4, 2026 SUBJECT: RS-2, (Residential Single-Family-2) Lot Coverage Allowance Land Development Code Text Amendment (TLDC-2512-000044) Page 13 of 32 Project Name: Noble Oaks Lot Coverage LDC Text Amendment File No.: TLDC-2512-000044 Page 2 of 7 Table 1: Existing Homes – Noble Oaks Est. Raising the RS-2 lot coverage from 20% to 30%, where criteria are met, equates to a 50% increase in eligible first floor (and potentially upper floor) area, with Table 2 displaying application to the Noble Oaks Estates subdivision as a functional example, given their private street, central utilities, and master stormwater system. Table 2: Noble Oaks Snapshot (Example RS-2 Development, Meeting Proposed Criteria) ADDRESS LOT SIZE BUILDING SF ESTIMATED BLDG. LOT COVER. 2401 15,246 3,919 26% 2430 21,780 4,967 23% 2380 15,246 3,305 22% Hs. # Lot Acres 20% Max. Lot Coverage 30% Max. Lot Coverage Additional SF w/ 30% 2350 0.81 7,057 10,585 3,528 2360 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2360 0.9 7,841 11,761 3,920 2361 1.02 8,886 13,329 4,443 2370 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2371 0.44 3,833 5,750 1,917 2380 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2381 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2390 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2391 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2400 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2401 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2410 0.35 3,049 4,574 1,525 2411 0.38 3,311 4,966 1,655 2420 0.34 2,962 4,443 1,481 2430 0.5 4,356 6,534 2,178 2430 23% 2380 22% 2401 26% Figure 1: Noble Oaks Subdivision Page 14 of 32 Project Name: Noble Oaks Lot Coverage LDC Text Amendment File No.: TLDC-2512-000044 Page 3 of 7 ******************************************************************* LDC TEXT AMENDMENT STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Pursuant to LDC Section 11.06.03, the Development Review Committee (DRC) has reviewed the proposed Text Amendment and found it to meet the technical requirements and standards of review set forth for LDC amendments. In reviewing the proposed Amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following criteria. A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The LDC, Section 2.00.00, defines Lot Coverage as “the total horizontal ground area of a lot covered by all buildings or structures on the lot not open to the sky.” This applies to structures with a roof impervious to weather, not including driveways, sidewalks, pools and decks, patios or screened patios (with a screened roof). The table below presents current permitted and conditional uses of the RS-2 Zoning District. Table 3: RS-2 Permitted and Conditional Uses Permitted Uses: Conditional Uses: Family Day Care Homes State-Licensed Family Residential Homes (Group Homes), 7-14 residents, located outside 1,200-foot radius of similar facilities State-Licensed Family Residential Homes (Group Homes), Six or Fewer Residents, located outside 1,000-foot radius of similar facilities Single-Family Detached Dwellings Telecommunication Towers The purpose of the RS-2 zoning district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-family dwellings at a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per gross acre, together with such other uses as may be necessary for and compatible with low density residential surroundings. While the overall (gross) density must be at least two units per acre, the RS-2 minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet, which is roughly one- third of an acre. In recent years, the County has approved other amendments to LDC Section 7.04.00. (Area, Yard, Height, and Open Space Requirements), Table 7-10 (Lot Size and Dimensional Requirements) as noted in the following table. Ordinance 26-23 similarly raised maximum lot coverage to 20% for the AG-1 zoning district, to match the other one-acre lot size zoning districts (AR-1 and RE-1). Table 4: Recent Changes to LDC Dimensional Standards Ord. No. Summary of Changes to LDC Table 7-10 Dimensional Standards & Similar Ord. 2013-037 Revised PUD open space standards to include stormwater retention areas, with additional open space changes in Agricultural Land Use areas. Ord. 2016-23 Removed Area, Yard, and Height Requirements for PNRDs and allowed their determination at the time of Preliminary & Final Development Plan consideration. Ord. 2020-23 Increased Maximum Lot Coverage by Buildings in AG-1 zoning from 10% to 20% Table 5, further below, shows that the 20% maximum lot coverage standard applies to other one and ½ acre lot zoning districts. However, while RE-2 zoning typically applies to areas served by well and septic systems, RS-2 often applies to suburban areas that are served by central utilities though there are some RS-2 areas with Page 15 of 32 Project Name: Noble Oaks Lot Coverage LDC Text Amendment File No.: TLDC-2512-000044 Page 4 of 7 limited utilities. The elimination of wells and septic drain fields provides for additional building space, supporting the increased building coverage. The 30% building coverage would also serve as an incentive to utilize the RS-2 zoning instead of a PUD. Table 5: Zoning Districts Similar to RS-2 Zoning District Max. Lot Coverage by Buildings AG-1 (Agricultural – 1 du/ac) 20% AR-1 (Agricultural Residential, 1 du/ac) 20% RE-1 (Residential Estates – 1 du/ac) 20% RE-2 (Residential Estates – 2 du/ac) 20% RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family – 2 du/ac) 20% RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family – 3 du/ac) 30% RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family – 4 du/ac) 30% Aside from the proposed changes from current standards, there’s no direct conflict with other applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. Figures 2-4 show the location of most RS-2 zoning in the unincorporated County. Figure 2: RS-2 Zoning (White City) Page 16 of 32 Project Name: Noble Oaks Lot Coverage LDC Text Amendment File No.: TLDC-2512-000044 Page 5 of 7 Figure 3: RS-2 Zoning (Copenhaver/Jenkins/Peterson Roads Area) Figure 4: RS-2 Zoning (Indian River Estates) Page 17 of 32 Project Name: Noble Oaks Lot Coverage LDC Text Amendment File No.: TLDC-2512-000044 Page 6 of 7 B. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The amendment is in keeping with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1.4: Implementing Land Development Code. Review and amend, as required, the County's Land Development Code which support the implementation of the Future Land Use Element, and the other components of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendment, which provides criteria for eligibility, includes a master stormwater system which would need to account for the increased coverage, is not out of compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the existing and proposed land uses; The proposed text amendment does not propose any use changes to the RS-2 zoning district itself, but the applicable design standards for new homes supported by central utilities, a private street and master stormwater system. The proposed 30% lot coverage would be consistent with other single-family RS zoning districts. D. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; Staff is not aware of any specific changed conditions that require the amendment, aside from the high volume of PUD (Planned Unit Development) proposals for new residential, which often propose lot size, setback and lot coverage relief from the standard RS zoning districts. This amendment could provide an alternative for future infill or even provide an incentive for redevelopment in areas to include demand for utilities and improved stormwater systems. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities, and whether or to the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools, solid waste, mass transit, and emergency medical facilities; With the safeguards of the private street and stormwater system requirements, the proposed text amendment should not result in additional demands on public facilities. Site specific facility impacts are addressed at the time of development application. All development is required to adhere to adopted Level of Service (LOS) and concurrency standards. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; While allowing for a higher proportion of buildable area, the proposed text amendment should not result in adverse impacts on the natural environment. The proposed text amendment is not expected to increase development pressures on natural areas and does not modify or exempt improvements from any of the County’s natural resource protection standards. G. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affect the property values in the area; Area property values would generally be positively impacted with the ability to build larger homes. H. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern specifically identifying any negative effects of such patterns; Allowing larger homes would not represent a negative effect on the orderly and logical development pattern. As previously stated, the presence of central utilities removes the need for onsite well and/or septic systems and allows for additional building space. The requirment for a master stormwater system to be in place reduces the need for stormwater storage on individual lots and the presence of such a system redues flooding potential that could be posed by higher building coverage. Limiting the amendment to developments with private streets takes the onus off the County (and taxpayers) for road maintenance that could be exacerbated by more impervious surface. Page 18 of 32 Project Name: Noble Oaks Lot Coverage LDC Text Amendment File No.: TLDC-2512-000044 Page 7 of 7 I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this code; The proposed amendment is not in conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this code. J. Any other matters that may be deemed appropriate by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners, in review and consideration of the proposed amendment. The Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners may raise other matters regarding the proposed LDC Text Amendment. Analysis Summary: Based upon staff analysis contained in this memorandum, the proposed text amendment to the LDC is consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and LDC, meeting the text amendment review criteria found in Section 11.06.03. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds this LDC text amendment petition to meet the Standards of Review as set forth in LDC Section 11.06.03, and is not in conflict with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, for the amendment text presented below. Table 6: LDC Table 7-10 Excerpt with Proposed New Language Zoning District Maximum Gross Density (Du/Ac) Max. Lot Coverage by Buildings 20% RS-2 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 2 2 30%(o) RS-3 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 3 3 30% RS-4 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 4 4 30% NOTES: (a) – (n) no changes (o) With private street(s), central utilities, and a master stormwater plan/system. Page 19 of 32 ORDINANCE No. 2026-XX FILE NO.: TLDC-2512-000044 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER VII, DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS, SECTION 7.04.00 – AREA, YARD, HEIGHT, AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, TABLE 7-10 – LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE LOT COVERAGE, BY BUILDINGS, FROM 20 PERCENT TO 30 PERCENT WITHIN THE RS-2, (RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY-2) ZONING DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY; PROVIDING FOR FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, (Board) based on the testimony and evidence, including but not limited to the staff report, has made the following determinations: 1. On August 1, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, adopted the St. Lucie County Land Development Code. 2. This Board is authorized by Section 125.01(1)(h), Florida Statutes, to establish, coordinate and enforce zoning and such business regulations as are necessary for the protection of the public; and, 3. This Board is authorized by Section 125.01(1)(t), Florida Statutes, to adopt ordinances and resolutions necessary for the exercise of its powers and to prescribe fines and penalties for the violations of ordinances in accordance with law. 4. On February 19, 2026 the Local Planning Agency/Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance after publishing due notice in the St. Lucie News Tribune and recommended that the proposed ordinance be forwarded with a recommendation for approval. 5. On ___________, 2026, this Board held the first public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing due notice in the St. Lucie News Tribune. 6. On _______, 2026, this Board held its second public hearing on the proposed ordinance, after publishing due notice in the St. Lucie News Tribune. 7. The proposed amendments to the St. Lucie County Land Development Code are consistent with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, are internally consistent with the remainder of the Land Development Code and are in the best interest of the health, safety and public welfare of the citizens of St. Lucie County, Florida. Page 20 of 32 Ordinance No. 2026-XX RS-2 Lot Coverage File No.: TLDC-2512-000044 Page 2 Underline is for additions. Strikethrough is for deletion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: PART A. THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ARE TO READ AS FOLLOWS: A. 7.04.00. - AREA, YARD, HEIGHT, AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS 7.04.01. - Requirements. A. – D.: no changes TABLE 7-10 LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Minimum Yard Max Bldg. Ht. Max. Lot Coverage by Buildings Zoning District Maximum Gross Density (Du/Ac (a) Minimum Lot Size (sf) Minimum Lot Width Minimum Road Frontage Fr o n t Re a r Si d e Si d e @ co r n e r RS-2 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE- FAMILY-2 3 15,000 100 30 25 15 10 20 35 20% 30% (o) Notes: (a) – (n): no changes (o) With private street(s), central utilities, and master stormwater plan/system. PART B. CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. Special acts of the Florida legislature applicable only to unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County, County ordinances and County resolutions, or parts thereof, in conflict with this ordinance are hereby superseded by this ordinance to the extent of such conflict. PART C. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held or declared to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance. If this ordinance or any provision thereof shall be held to be inapplicable to any person, property, or circumstance, such holding shall not affect its applicability to any other person, property, or circumstance. Page 21 of 32 Ordinance No. 2026-XX RS-2 Lot Coverage File No.: TLDC-2512-000044 Page 3 Underline is for additions. Strikethrough is for deletion. PART D. APPLICABILITY OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be applicable in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. PART E. FILING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE. The Clerk is hereby directed forthwith to send a certified copy of this ordinance to the Bureau of Administrative Code and Laws, Department of State, The Capitol, Tallahassee, Florida 32304. PART F. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Department of State. PART G. ADOPTION. After motion and second, the vote on this ordinance was as follows: Jamie Fowler, Chair XXX Larry Leet, Vice-Chair XXX James Clasby, Commissioner XXX Erin Lowry, Commissioner XXX Cathy Townsend, Commissioner XXX PART H. CODIFICATION. Provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated in the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such intention; provided, however, that Parts B through H shall not be codified. PASSED AND DULY ENACTED this ___ day of _______________, 2026. Attest: Board of County Commissioners St. Lucie County, Florida By: Deputy Clerk Chair Approved As To Form and Correctness: By: County Attorney Page 22 of 32 Page 23 of 32 Created: 2025-12-17 13:33:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 33) Page 1 of 1 3.01.03. Zoning Districts. H. RS-2 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 2. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for single-family dwellings at a maximum density of two (2) dwelling units per gross acre, together with such other uses as may be necessary for and compatible with low density residential surroundings. The number in "( )" following each identified use corresponds to the SIC Code reference described in Section 3.01.02(B). The number 999 applies to a use not defined under the SIC Code but may be further defined in Section 2.00.00 of this Code. 2. Permitted Uses: a. Family day care homes. (999) b. Family residential homes provided that such homes shall not be located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another existing such family residential home with and provided that the sponsoring agency or Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) notifies the Board of County Commissioners at the time of home occupancy that the home is licensed by HRS. (999) c. Single-family detached dwellings. (999) 3. Lot Size Requirements. Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations. Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-Street Parking Requirements. Off-street parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 7.06.00. 6. Conditional Uses: a. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such family residential home. (999) b. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23. (999) 7. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00. a. Solar energy systems, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.28. Page 24 of 32 TABLE 7-10 LOT SIZE AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS Zoning District Maximum Gross Density (Du/Ac) (a) Minimum Lot Size (sf) Minimum Lot Width Minimum Road Frontage Minimum Yard Max. Bldg. Hgt. Max. Lot Coverage by Buildings Front Rear Side Side @ corner AR-1 AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 43,560 150 30 50 30 20 30 35 20% RE-1 RESIDENTIAL, ESTATE - 1 1 43,560 150 30 50 30(g)20 30 35 20% RE-2 RESIDENTIAL, ESTATE - 2 2 17,500 100 100 25(l)15(l)10(l)20(l)35 20% RS-2 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 2 2 15,000 100 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 10(l)20(l)35 20% RS-3 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 3 3 10,000 75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 10(l)20(l)35 30% 2/10/26, 5:12 PM St. Lucie County, FL Land Development Code about:blank 1/6Page 25 of 32 RS-4 RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY - 4 4 10,000 75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% 8,000(f)75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% RMH-5 RESIDENTIAL, MOBILE HOME - 5 5 10,000 75 30 25(l)15(l)10(l)20(l)35 35% RM-5 RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY - 5 5 10,000 100 60 25(b) (l) 15(b) (l) 10(b) (l) 20(b) (l) 35(b,i)40% SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOT 10,000 75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% 8,000(f)75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% RM-7 RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY - 7 7 10,000 100 60 25(b) (l) 15(b) (l) 10(b) (l) 20(b) (l) 35(b,i)40% 2/10/26, 5:12 PM St. Lucie County, FL Land Development Code about:blank 2/6Page 26 of 32 SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOT 10,000 75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% 8,000(f)75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% RM-9 RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY - 9 9 10,000 100 60 25(b) (l) 15(b) (l) 10(b) (l) 20(b) (l) 35(b,i)40% SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOT 10,000 75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% 8,000(f)75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% RM-11 RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY - 11 11 10,000 100 60 25(b) (l) 15(b) (l) 10(b) (l) 20(b) (l) 35(b,i)40% SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOT 10,000 75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% 8,000(f)75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% 2/10/26, 5:12 PM St. Lucie County, FL Land Development Code about:blank 3/6Page 27 of 32 RM-15 RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY - 15 15 10,000 100 60 25(b) (l) 15(b) (l) 10(b) (l) 20(b) (l) 35(b,i)40% SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOT 10,000 75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% 8,000(f)75 30 25(l)15(g) (l) 7.5(l)20(l)35 30% CN COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD 0 10,000 75 60 25 20 10 20 35 50% CO COMMERCIAL OFFICE 0 10,000 75 60 25 20 10 20 35 50% CG COMMERCIAL GENERAL (d)20,000 100 60 25(b)20(b)10(b)20(b)60(b,i)50% CR COMMERCIAL RESORT (m)217,800 100 60 25(b)20(b)10(b)20(b)60(b,i)30% IL INDUSTRIAL LIGHT 0 20,000 100 60 25 20 10 20 50(i)50% IH INDUSTRIAL HEAVY 0 43,560 200 60 50 40 30 50 80(i)50% 2/10/26, 5:12 PM St. Lucie County, FL Land Development Code about:blank 4/6Page 28 of 32 IX INDUSTRIAL EXTRACTION 0 435,600 (c)(c)(c)(c)(c)(c)(c,i)(c) U UTILITIES 0 43,560 200 60 40 30 20 20 40 30% AG-1 AGRICULTURAL - 1 1 43,560 150 60 (n)50 30 20 30 80(i)20% (j) AG-2.5 AGRICULTURAL - 2.5 0.4 108,900 150 60 (n)50 30 20 30 80(i)15% (j) AG-5 AGRICULTURAL - 5 0.2 217,800 150 60 (n)50 30 20 30 80(i)10% (j) R/C RESIDENTIAL/ CONSERVATION 0.2 217,800 150 60 50 30 20 30 80(i)2% Cpub CONSERVATION - Public 0 (k)(k)(k)50 30 20 30 (k)(k) I INSTITUTIONAL 0 20,000 100 60 25 20 20 20 40(e,i)30% RF RELIGIOUS FACILITIES 0 20,000 100 60 25 20 20 20 40(i)30% PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SEE SECTION 7.01.03 2/10/26, 5:12 PM St. Lucie County, FL Land Development Code about:blank 5/6Page 29 of 32 PNRD PLANNED NON- RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SEE SECTION 7.02.03 PMUD PLANNED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT SEE SECTION 7.03.03 HIRD HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SEE SECTION 3.01.03(AA) (b), (d), (i) 2/10/26, 5:12 PM St. Lucie County, FL Land Development Code about:blank 6/6Page 30 of 32 Environmental resources Final report TO: Irene Szedlmayer, Planning & Development Services THROUGH: Aimee L. Cooper, Environmental Regulations Manager Amy E. Griffin, Environmental Resources Director FROM: Brian Ingram, Senior Environmental Planner DATE: February 5th, 2026 SUBJECT: Noble Oaks Estates LLC – LDC Text Amendment - Section 3.01.03.H.6. TLDC-2512-000044 Background The Environmental Resources Department (ERD) is in receipt of the January 2nd, 2026, date-stamped submittal, transmitted on January 5th, 2026, from Planning and Development Services with comments due February 5th, 2026. The applicant is seeking approval of a Land Development Code Text Amendment (TLDC) to amend Section 3.01.03.H.6. to increase the individual lot coverage ratio of developments that provide a master drainage plan and system, municipal water and sewer, and private streets, from twenty percent (20%) to thirty percent (30%) as a Conditional Use within the Residential Single-Family, 2du/ac (RS-2) zoning district. Findings The proposed text amendment is not anticipated to result in adverse environmental impacts. Environmental impacts will continue to be addressed on a lot by lot basis at the time of development. Recommendation ERD has no objection to the proposed Land Development Code Text Amendment. Please contact Brian Ingram at 772-462-2393 if you have any questions. Page 31 of 32 Page 32 of 32