Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 06.18.2026 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA ST. LUCIE COUNTY Regular Meeting Thursday, June 18, 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 239 Regular Meeting Thursday, June 18, 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 239 Regular Meeting Thursday, June 18, 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 April 16, 2026, No Meeting minutes for May 21, 2026 - Meeting Canceled 8. PUBLIC COMMENT 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Indrio Town Center - Seeking Rezoning from AG-1 (Agricultural -1) to PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) and Approval of a Preliminary Site Plan - THIS ITEM IS QUASI-JUDICIAL 10. WORKSHOPS 11. OTHER BUSINESS 12. ADJOURN Page 3 of 239 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 Page 4 of 239 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: Page 5 of 239 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- Page 6 of 239 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 Page 7 of 239 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 Page 8 of 239 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. Page 9 of 239 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 Page 10 of 239 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. Page 11 of 239 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 Page 12 of 239 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 Page 13 of 239 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 Page 14 of 239 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. Page 15 of 239 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 Page 16 of 239 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: Page 17 of 239 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. Page 18 of 239 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. Page 19 of 239 ITEM NO. (ID # 2026-766) DATE: 6/18/2026 AGENDA REQUEST TO: Planning and Zoning Commission PRESENTED BY: Don Arellano, Planner II SUBMITTED BY: Planning & Development Services SUBJECT: Indrio Town Center - Seeking Rezoning from AG-1 (Agricultural -1) to PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) and Approval of a Preliminary Site Plan - THIS ITEM IS QUASI- JUDICIAL BACKGROUND: The proposed Indrio Town Center, petitioned by Leah Heinzelman, PLA, ASLA, of Cotleur & Hearing, Inc, on behalf of Glassman Holdings, LLC, is located between Emerson Avenue and Russakis Road, north of Indrio Road. The requests include a change in zoning for a +/-85.29-acre site from AG-1 (Agricultural– 1) to Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) and the approval of a Preliminary Development Plan for a phased mixed-use PRW consisting of 8 parcels, with a total potential of 447,250 sq. ft. commercial space, and designating a 16.03-acre portion of the site with a maximum of density of one (1) stand-alone residential unit or 5 mixed-use units per acre within an 18.4 acre segment. The Preliminary PRW Site Plan includes community amenities (private recreation area and 26.33-acre neighborhood park), preserves wetlands, and modifies an existing lake while creating two (2) additional lakes that will act as stormwater retention ponds. PREVIOUS ACTION: N/A FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission evaluate the proposed PRW Rezoning and Preliminary Site Plan which includes a request for a one-time 1,500 ft. extension of the Urban Services Boundary in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.6.1, including consideration of the project’s scale (max. building sq. ft. and height) and forward a recommendation for approval, subject to the conditions with the Draft Resolution. COMMISSION ACTION: RESULT: MOVER: None Page 20 of 239 SECONDER: None AYES: None NAYS: None EXCUSED: None Coordination/Signatures Date: June 12, 2026 Benjamin Balcer, Planning & Development Services Director Page 21 of 239 Planning and Development Services Department Planning Division M E M O R A N D U M TO: Planning & Zoning Commission THROUGH: Benjamin Balcer, AICP, Planning and Development Services Director Kori Benton, AICP, Planning & Zoning Manager FROM: Don Arellano, Planner II DATE: June 11, 2026 SUBJECT: Indrio Town Center Planned Retail/Workplace Rezoning from Agricultural-1 (AG-1) to Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) and Preliminary PRW Site Plan within the TVC (Towns, Villages, and Countryside) GENERAL INFORMATION Property Owner/Applicant: Glassman Holdings, LLC 1000 S Federal HWY Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Agent: Leah Heinzelmen, PLA, ASLA Cotleur and Hearing 1934 Commerce Lane, Suite 1 Jupiter, FL 33458 Location: North side of Indrio Road, approximately 1.7 miles east of Interstate-95 Parcel ID Numbers: 1315-131-0001-000-0 & 1315-121-0001-000-9 Petition Site Acreage: +/- 85.29 acres Proposal: Maximum 447,500 square feet of Commercial Retail within a Mixed-Use Town Center, 16 stand-alone residential or 85 Retail Office Current Zoning District: AG-1 (Agricultural-1) Proposed Zoning District: PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) Future Land Use: TVC (Towns, Villages, and Countryside) Wetlands: Impacts to Wetlands A & B on the western perimeter, Preserving Wetland C Urban Service Boundary: Proposed one-time 1,500ft. expansion of the Urban Service Boundary Utilities: Water & Wastewater via SLCU Concurrency Document Required: Concurrency Deferral Affidavit Page 22 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 2 Figure 1: Site Aerial Page 23 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 3 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The proposed Indrio Town Center Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW), petitioned by Leah Heinzelman, PLA, ASLA, of Cotleur & Hearing, Inc, on behalf of Glassman Holdings, LLC, is located between Emerson Avenue and Russakis Road, north of Indrio Road. The requests include a change in zoning for a +/-85.29-acre site from AG-1 (Agricultural– 1) to Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) and the approval of a Preliminary Development Plan for a phased mixed-use PRW consisting of 8 parcels, with a total potential of 447,250 sq. ft. of commercial space, and designating a 16.03-acre portion of the site with a maximum of density of one (1) stand-alone residential unit or 5 mixed-use units per acre (within a specified 18.4-acre central boundary). The Preliminary PRW Site Plan includes community amenities (private recreation area to be associated with townhome development, and 26.33-acre neighborhood park), preserves, wetlands, and modifies an existing lake while creating two (2) additional lakes that will function as stormwater retention ponds. Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.1.3. identifies 13 zoning districts that are compatible with the TVC Future Land Use designation. However, if re-zoning is required to support the desired development, the new zoning district must be one of St. Lucie County’s planned zoning districts—PTV (Planned Town or Village), PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace), PCS (Planned Country Subdivision), or PUD (Planned Unit Development), and after public hearings found to be consistent with applicable Standards of Review established in Land Development Code (LDC) Sections 11.06.03 and 11.02.07. Use The current AG-1 Zoning District allows single-family homes, agricultural production uses and services, family day cares and group homes, forestry, hunting, kennels, non-commercial research facilities, riding stables and solar generation stations. As provided in the TVC LDC, uses that are permitted, conditional and accessory in the CO (Commercial Office), CN (Commercial Neighborhood) and CG (Commercial General) Zoning Districts are permitted, conditional and accessory uses in the PRW Zoning District. The proposed Indrio Town Center also seeks to permit small-scale institutional uses and religious facilities. The preliminary plan provides for a +/-26.33-acre Countryside Tract to include a publicly accessible park with ample walking paths throughout and surrounding a 6.72-acre lake. The park is meant to offset the commercial intensity and provide common space for leisure in nature, easily accessible for the existing nearby residents, thereby advancing a key design intent of the TVC. Figure 2: Proposed Lot Types Page 24 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 4 Figure 3: Site Plan Graphic The TVC Future Land Use designation is intended to “accommodate future growth within the Special Area Plan for North St. Lucie County in the existing, undeveloped rural areas with a planning strategy that will ensure a settlement pattern that is sustainable, predictable, protects and enhances the rural environment and improves the citizens’ quality of life. The TVC requires a sustainable settlement pattern characterized by a mix of uses, building types and income levels within a compact pedestrian friendly environment that accommodates multiple modes of transportation and preserves open space.” The preliminary plan proposes an east-west through-road from Emerson Avenue to Russakis Road, via a 60’ right-of-way (ROW), along with future ROW connections that align with the previously approved Publix Site Plan to the south. The two direct connections proposed with the approved Publix Site Plan adjacent to the south seek to capture and reduce southern trips directly to Indrio from Emerson. (While the proposed connections to the Publix property are highly desirable, it must be noted that the approved Publix Site Plan does not provide Page 25 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 5 for them and no commitment to these connections has been obtained from Publix at this point in time.) The site provides an ingress/egress access off Indrio Road, it intersects internally at the primary roundabout with the 60’ east-west ROW, and continues north towards the 26.33 acre park. To accommodate the required improvements to Russakis Road a dedication of 50’ of ROW is required and further screening will be provided within a 50’ wide landscape buffer. Table 1: Site Breakdown of Proposed Development Data, by Parcel Site Data Acreage Density Intensity Lot Coverage Open Space Parcel 1 3.53 5 du/ac MU** 11,750 sq. ft. 80% 20% (0.71 ac) Parcel 2 2.54 5 du/ac MU** 22,250 sq. ft. 80% 20% (0.51 ac) Parcel 3 4.69 5 du/ac MU** 50,000 sq. ft. 80% 20% (0.98 ac) Parcel 4 6.99 5 du/ac MU** 47,750 sq. ft. 80% 20% (1.4 ac) Parcel 5 3.59 5 du/ac MU** 42,500 sq. ft. 80% 20% (0.72 ac) Parcel 6 12.64 5 du/ac MU** 168,000 sq. ft. 80% 20% (2.53 ac) Parcel 7 16.03 5 du/ac MU** Or 16 townhomes 85 retail lots Or 105,000 sq. ft. 80% 20% (3.2 ac) Parcel 8 Passive Park 26.33 0 du/ac F.A.R. 0.1 (+/-114,693 sq. ft.) 10% 90% Total 76.34 1 du/acre (TH) 16 90 Retail Lots Retail: 342,750 sq. ft. (W/TH)* 447,250 sq. ft. (no TH) Limited Rec./Civic: 114,693 sq. ft. *W/TH: Total Commercial Square Footage with 16 Townhomes Developed ** MU: Mixed-Use Buildings can achieve a maximum density of 5 dwelling units per acre This form of development, appropriately adapted through site design and scaling parameters, may represent a transition between traditional single-family residential and agricultural uses, and the Indrio Road corridor, where found consistent with TVC’s General Retail / Workplace Plan(s), with consideration to the range of residential types eligible within the TVC Future Land Use designation. Urban-to-Rural Transect. Towns and Villages have physical forms that vary in character and intensity. An urban-to-rural transect that describes these characteristics in existing communities is also ideal for use as the organizing principle for new communities. New Towns, Villages and Planned Unit Developments on land designated TVC are to be planned using the "transect zones" shown on Figure 4-11. These transect zones must be delineated on a regulating plan prepared by a developer and submitted to St. Lucie County for consideration as part of rezoning to the PTV (Planned Town or Village - see Section 3.01.03.EE) or PUD (Planned Unit Development - see Section 4.04.04.E(1)(b)) zoning district. The Land Development Code anticipates that all land within the PRW Zoning District will be located within the Core, Center or Fringe Transect Zones. LDC 3.01.03.GG.2.b. provides as follows: Each proposed regulating plan must clearly indicate the allocation of transect zones within the entire PRW district to define the character of various portions of the district. The following general guidelines shall be followed when proposing transect zones: (1) A PRW district should generally have less intensity where it adjoins existing or planned development with less intensity. Where adjacent to a busy street or highway, or adjacent to an established urban area, the transect zones with greater intensity may adjoin that highway or urban area. Page 26 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 6 (2) Similar uses should face across streets; changes in transect zones should generally occur along rear or side lot lines rather than along streets. (3) When a PRW will adjoin an existing or approved neighborhood, the PRW should establish similar transect conditions (such as Center aligning with Center, and Fringe aligning with Fringe). Transect juxtapositions may be approved by St. Lucie County where natural conditions warrant them or where alignment of similar transect conditions would be inappropriate due to existing or proposed uses on adjacent properties. The Core, Center and Fringe transect zones are described as follows: Development is most intense in the Core, the most urban of the transect zones. Buildings are normally attached and built along the front property line, creating a continuous street facade to increase walk -ability. Commercial and civic uses are anticipated in the Core; a mix of apartments and live/work buildings constitute the residential component. Core zones must be within walking distance of surrounding residential areas. A wide range of uses is expected and encouraged in the Center, which should be compact and contain both attached and detached buildings. Multi-story buildings accommodate a mix of uses such as apartments or offices over shops. Lofts (flexible spaces that can be used for either living or working space) and buildings designed for changing uses over time are also appropriate for the Center. Center zones must be within walking distance of surrounding residential areas. The Fringe zone is the first layer of the Countryside that provides a harmonious transition between neighborhoods and the Rural transect zone. The resulting landscape is typically more manicured and includes uses that are compatible with adjoining neighborhoods such as open spaces, recreational uses, and limited agricultural uses. Staff acknowledges that the transect zones are more readily implemented on large parcels of hundreds of acres and can be difficult to apply to relatively small tracts. Nonetheless, the proposed plan does not appear to identify the proposed transect zones. Staff suggests that the Fringe Transect Zone may be most appropriate for the proposed Countryside, with the Center Transect Zone for the remainder of the property. Table 2: Vertical Mixed-Use Boundary Acreage Density Intensity Lot Coverage Open Space 18.4 5 du/ac MU Determined by parcel. 80% (Development Parcels to meet 20%) Staff’s recommendation to limit the eligibility of Mixed-Use Residential has been addressed through the addition of a defined 18.4-acre central area within the site displayed in Figure 4. This boundary establishes a predictable pattern of development for Vertical Mixed-Use lot types, allowing for a maximum density of 5 units per acre and a total potential of approximately 92 Vertical Mixed-Use units. It is worth noting that a mixed- use building need not include a residential use. A building with retail on the first floor and office on the second floor also constitutes a mixed-use building. Page 27 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 7 Figure 4: Vertical Mixed-Used Eligibility Boundary Density The PRW Zoning District permits residential development in free-standing buildings on portions of the site and/or in mixed-use buildings. When residential development is provided in freestanding buildings, the density is limited to the density of the future land use designation existing prior to the adoption of the TVC, for the portion of the site to be developed for residential. The pre-TVC residential density is provided in Comp. Plan Figure 11-3, which is this case is 1 du/a. If residential development occurs in the form of mixed-use buildings or live-work buildings, the maximum density is 5 du/a. See LDC Section 3.01.03.GG.2.f. Figure 5: Transferable Development Map Page 28 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 8 The plan proposes eligibility of mixed-use buildings on approximately 18.4 acres (Parcels 3, 4, 5 and part of Parcel 7). If developed to the maximum residential capacity pursuant to the PRW Zoning District, mixed use development on these 18.4 acres could accommodate up 92 dwellings, unless otherwise limited in establishing this PRW. If townhomes are developed on Parcel 7, to the east, those 16 acres would be limited to 16 dwellings (1 du/a). Design Figure 6: Town Center Layout The Town Center is required to promote connectivity from east to west with ease of access. The plaza located at the southeast corner of the roundabout provides a public gathering area with outdoor vendor space, which is within north portion of the 18.4-acre Vertical Mixed-Use Boundary. Page 29 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 9 Townhome buildings, if constructed, will be required to have rear-loaded parking, amenities, and internal drive aisles as a form of limited access to avoid congestion because of potential traffic from patrons of neighboring commercial uses. Sidewalks are provided on both sides of the streets, and the compact street design includes rear-loaded access or on-street parking. Three proposed onsite lakes provide wet retention stormwater areas and treatment swales within parking medians are designed to treat pavement runoff. The existing lake will be modified to increase its size to approximately 2.66-acres, which will enhance drainage and aesthetics for the residential portion of the site, and an existing wetland southeast of the lake will not be impacted. The applicant proposes a 1.00-acre lake within the center of the site and a 6.72-acre lake as a major feature of the 26.3-acre passive park that will allow for limited civic uses with a maximum 10% lot coverage. Figure 7: Modified Existing Lake and Preserved Wetland Table 3: Proposed Minimum Lot Types and Setbacks Page 30 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 10 Table 3 displays the permissible lot types and setbacks, while Figure 8 demonstrates the building configuration permitted within a Planned Retail/Workplace and *Proposed Townhome Building Lot type. Figure 8: Typical Lot Exhibit Page 31 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 11 The TVC LDC provides eight different street sections, ranging from a Boulevard with 100-ft. of ROW to a rural road with a 45-ft. ROW, as well as two alley sections. All TVC street sections provide for street trees on both sides. Pursuant to the TVC LDC, the sidewalk widths vary depending on the surrounding context. Town Center type environments would typically have a minimum sidewalk width of 8 feet, ranging up to 15 feet. On wider sidewalks, the street trees would be provided within a tree well rather than a separate landscaping strip outside of the sidewalk. The Indrio Town Center preliminary plan proposes three typical street sections and an alley section, as provided below: Page 32 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 12 Figure 8: Street Sections The proposed Main Street allocates 66 feet of ROW to provide 6-ft sidewalks, a 6-ft. landscape strip, 8-ft. on- street parking, and 13-ft. travel lanes on both sides. This street section is proposed as the principal north-south road within the development, providing access to and from Indrio Road—Spinewood Avenue. The 60-ft. ROW is proposed for the principal east-west street, connecting Russakis Rd. to Emerson Avenue—Inkwood Avenue, as well as Pond Apple Ave. It provides a 6-ft. sidewalk, 6-ft landscape strip and 10-ft travel lanes on both sides. Page 33 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 13 The 50-ft ROW street section is proposed for the shortest street—Limbo Drive. It provides a 6-ft. sidewalk, 6- ft. on-street parking and 10-ft travel lanes on both sides. This proposed street section does not provide for street trees, which is inconsistent with TVC street sections. The 6-ft. on-street parking spaces are also inconsistent with the TVC Street Sections, which require a width of 8 feet for on-street parallel parking. Page 34 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 14 The applicant proposes 10-foot-wide utility easements on each side of the streets to accommodate the intent of a 60- or 70-foot-wide right-of-way, which has been accepted by the Public Works Department. 60’ and 66’ right of ways are also proposed for the primary access. Pedestrian traffic is served by internal sidewalks on both sides of the proposed ROW and interconnected to the required 12’ wide multimodal path to be extended along Indrio Road. Impervious Surface Ratio Impervious surface for the site will consist of right-of-way (ROW), retail and mixed-use buildings, sidewalks, and all required parking areas within each development parcel. Height The preliminary site plan proposes maximum building heights for each lot type; 56’ for mixed use, 50’ for retail and highway service, 45’ for townhomes, and 20’ for civic uses. Transportation & Access The applicant’s Traffic Study states that the proposed development will generate the following 10,980 daily, net new external, trips at build out, including 465 AM peak hour trips and 1,102 PM peak hour trips. Further, the proposed development is anticipated to generate 14,203 daily driveway trips at build out, with 631 AM peak hour trips and 1,405 PM peak hour trips. The development will be served by two (2) full-access connections to Russakis Road, one (1) full-access connection to Indrio Road, and a connection from Emerson Avenue via the proposed Mulberry Avenue, which will function as the primary east-west roadway through the site. The proposed access from Indrio Road intersects with Mulberry Avenue via a roundabout. Additional connections are proposed to the commercial center (Previously Approved Publix) at the immediate NW corner of Emerson Ave. and Indrio Road. Figure 9: Pedestrian and Traffic Circulation Page 35 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 15 Buffering & Landscaping Comp. Plan Policy 11.1.5.7 - Greenway Corridors, provides as follows: To support the desired ecological system and the community’s desire to preserve the rural character of the area, certain roadways, corridors and vistas shall be encouraged to maintain and/or improve the existing surrounding landscape or to create links between existing natural areas, public preserves, and passive parks and to support recreational, educational and ecotourism trails. 1. Indrio Road. New developments located outside of the USB, directly north and south of Indrio Road, between Johnston Road and Emerson Avenue are required to position a substantial amount of the Countryside component along the property line adjoining the Indrio Road right of way. Active farms or restored natural habitat is the preferred Countryside landscape. Along with the requested one-time 1,500 ft. extension to the USB, to implement this policy, the proposed plan provides a 70-ft landscape buffer along Indrio Road. Along the 1,250 shared boundary with a +/-9.62 acre, investor-owned, single-family lot in the AG-1 Zoning District, a 30-ft. landscape buffer is proposed as displayed in Figure 10, below. The proposed 70-ft landscape buffer along the eastern side of the flowway includes a 6- ft path. The proposed landscape buffers are summarized in Table 4, with a location map exhibited in Figure 11. Figure 10. 30-ft. landscape buffer typical Table 4: Project Landscape Buffers Buffer Provided Adjacent Use West 50’ Vacant, Agricultural South 70’ Indrio Road Northeast 30’ Single Family Residence North 50’ Single Family Residence East 50’ / 75’ Single Family Residence / Emerson Avenue ROW Southeast 25’ FDOT Retention/Undeveloped Commercial (Publix Site) Page 36 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 16 Buffer canopy tree planting meets the LDC-required one tree per 30 linear feet, along with continuous hedges. The western landscape buffer abuts a 50 ft. wide, 1.16-acre dry detention tract. Street trees are a valuable element of neighborhood infrastructure and are recommended within the development, between the sidewalk and street. Figure 11: Landscape Buffer Map The PNRD (Planned Non-Residential Development) Zoning District (for projects 10 acres or larger) and the PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development) Zoning District each require 25% minimum common open space. The PTV (Planned Towns & Villages) Zoning District requires 40% to 50% open space and the PUD (Planned Unit Development) Zoning District requires no less than 35% common open space. However, the PRW Zoning District specifies no minimum open space requirement. Nonetheless, the proposed Indrio Town Center provides a +/- 26.33-acre passive park, which includes a 6.9-acre lake, representing over 30.8% of the 85.29-acre site. Additionally, as noted previously, each development parcel in the Indrio Town Center is committing to 20% open space per lot type. Staff’s recommendation is that each development parcel provide 20% open space, except the countryside development parcel, which will provide a minimum 90% open space. Cumulative open space acreage for the site would be provided at approximately 35 acres (41.6% of the overall site). The existing lake will be modified and enlarged to approximately 2.66 acres to enhance drainage and aesthetics while preserving a wetland located just southeast of the lake, which also contributes to open space for the proposed development parcel (#7). A third 1.07-acre lake within the core of the development adds to the aesthetics and interconnected drainage features onsite. Flow Way Page 37 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 17 Development within the PRW Zoning District is required to implement the flow way. The design standards for integrating a Flow Way System into the subject site focus heavily on ecological connectivity, buffer dimensions, and community amenities. As noted in staff’s recommended conditions, the final site design must maximize functional connectivity between all proposed lakes to establish a continuous, efficient water management system. To achieve this, the final plan must explicitly depict and label dedicated upland buffers around the lakes, ensuring they also provide the required 40-foot-wide perimeter buffers. Ecologically, the system design demands a minimum of 20 square feet of edge habitat for every linear foot of shoreline. Upland habitat must be strategically distributed so that at least 50% of the total lake shoreline is protected by an upland buffer that is at least 20 feet wide. Finally, the system must serve as a community amenity by incorporating a pedestrian and bicycle trail system along at least one side of the flow way, as provided by their preliminary plan which links back to their town center core. ********************************************** ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.06.03 Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code establishes the standards for reviewing Zoning Atlas Amendments. In reviewing an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment, the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following: A. Whether the proposed rezoning is in conflict with any applicable portions of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code; The request seeks to amend the Zoning Atlas for the subject property from the AG-1 (Agricultural– 1) to the PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) Zoning District. Zoning designations in the vicinity reflect the drop-off in intensity moving away from the US 1 corridor, with much of the existing development in North County concentrated in Lakewood Park, to the east, and north of Indrio Road, within the established Urban Service Boundary. Figure 12: St. Lucie County’s Land Use Viewer (Zoning Layer) Page 38 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 18 Figure 13: Town Center Concept – TVC Diagram Figure 11-9 within the Comprehensive Plan’s TVC Element demonstrates the orderly and logical configuration of where a town center would be located, dependent on the surrounding character. LDC Section 3.01.03.GG. describes the intent of the PRW Zoning District to provide “a specialized zoning district to accommodate . . . retail or workplace land uses outside a Town or Village in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the TVC Element.” LDC Section 3.01.03.GG. further requires PRW proposals to “meet the retail standards under Objective 3.1.8 and/or the workplace standards under Objective 3.1.10 of the . . . Comprehensive Plan, in addition to the TVC Overlay Zone requirements in Section 4.04 of this Code.” Pursuant to LDC Section 3.01.03.GG.1.c., the Planned Retail/Workplace Zoning District may “only be used for one of these primary purposes: (1) Local Retail: Local stores, convenience centers, neighborhood centers, village centers, town centers (or portions thereof) that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Retail Development Plan . (2) Interstate Retail: Highway service/warehouse uses along Indrio Road immediately west and east of Interstate 95 that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Retail Development Plan . (3) Mixed-Use Business District: Mixed-use business districts between Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Workplace Plan . Page 39 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 19 (4) Transitional Retail: Retail, workplace, and residential uses in the Transitional Areas near St. Lucie Boulevard and Kings Highway that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Workplace Plan . . ..” As depicted in Figure 13, above, and reflected in many regional Town Center examples, lands adjacent to large scale retail centers often experience development pressures to co-locate density residential communities, institutional uses, etc. To the site’s northeast lies Lakewood Park, which with limited exception, contains an expansive network of interconnected residential streets linked to the Turnpike Feeder Road and Emerson Avenue. Introduction of a Town Center at this location will affirm the need for adjacent roadway links, both parallel to Indrio Road and north/south such as Russakis Road, as generally depicted in Figure 14 below. Figure 14, below, demonstrates the TVC’s General Retail Development Plan, which is to be used as guidance for future proposals for commercial retail developments such as Indrio Town Center, with attention to scale. Figure 14: General Retail Development Plan The PRW zoning district provides a crafted zoning district to accommodate landowners who choose to place retail or workplace land uses outside a Town or Village in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the TVC Element. With the recommended conditions, staff finds the requested deviations can be accommodated while remaining generally consistent with the intent of the PRW framework. Indrio Town Center is proposed approximately +/-1 mile from the intersection of Indrio Rd. and Koblegard Rd., which is designated by the Comprehensive Plan as a location for a Town Center. The proposal offsets Page 40 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 20 the travel distance for residences to be constructed at Bedner Farms, by locating a commercial Town Center closer to existing residents within Lakewood Park. Figure 11-13 planned for a more modest Neighborhood Center at the nearby intersection, largely fulfilled by the previously approved but unbuilt Publix. The proposed Town Center increases the scale of retail development away from I-95. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The Future Land Use for the subject property is Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVC), as described below: Areas designated Towns, Villages, and Countryside (TVC) must follow the policies of the TVC Element in this Comprehensive Plan and the TVC Overlay Zone requirements in the Land Development Code. The purpose of the TVC land use designation is to accommodate future growth within the Special Area Plan for North St. Lucie County in the existing, undeveloped rural areas with a planning strategy that will ensure a settlement pattern that is sustainable, predictable, protects and enhances the rural environment and improves the citizens’ quality of life. The TVC requires a sustainable settlement pattern characterized by a mix of uses, building types and income levels within a compact pedestrian friendly environment that accommodates multiple modes of transportation and preserves open space. This land use category is appropriate for areas that have been analyzed in a Special Area Plan, created with a high degree of citizen participation. Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan applicable to this application include the following: Future Land Use Element Objective 1.1.5 In coordination with the other elements of this plan, future development within the Urban Service Area shall be directed to areas where urban and community services/facilities can be provided in the most efficient and compact manner so as to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl. Policy 1.1.5.4 All new subdivision and site plan development projects that are proposed to take place within the unincorporated area of the County for which water/sanitary sewer service can be provided to the project as identified in the Infrastructure Element, the project shall be required to provide a dry- line water/sanitary sewer distribution/collection system, and provide for connection to such available water/sanitary sewer service as such service becomes available. The standard for construction of these systems shall be included as a part of the County's Land Development Code or Utility Extension Policy Regulations. Policy 1.1.5.8 - St. Lucie County shall continue to implement the greenway and trail conceptual plans, in coordination with the federal, state and the adjacent jurisdictions, to provide connectivity between land uses, provide for recreational uses, provide for alternative modes of transportation, and encourage energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction. Policy 1.1.6.1 - Urban development activities shall be restricted to that area identified as the Urban Service Boundary in the Future Land Use Map series or to special area plans adopted within the Towns, Villages and Countryside Element. Urban development activities are defined, for the purpose of this Policy, as any residential development activity in excess of two units to the gross acre, any non- agricultural commercial activity or any non- extractive/non-agriculturally related industrial activity. The Urban Service Boundary is not intended to be a static line of development. Using the adopted urban service boundary line as a base, an individual segment of this line may be extended or contracted only once for a distance up to 1,500 feet from that which is indicated in the Future Land Use Map series Page 41 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 21 without necessitating an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan provided that the urban service area lies contiguous to an existing residential commercial or industrial land use classification; the owner of the contiguous property can ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure and services, and the resulting change does not detrimentally impact the established character of the area surrounding the area to be included in the urban service boundary. St. Lucie County shall be responsible for maintaining an updated map indicating the location of the 1990 Urban Service Boundary, including any alterations to it and once every two years include as a part of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment process, the latest Urban Service Area Map. Any modification of the Urban Service Boundary beyond 1,500 feet will require a formal amendment through the Comprehensive Plan amendment process and shall include an analysis of available capacity inside the Urban Service Boundary; anticipated growth; compatibility of adjacent land uses; availability of public facilities and services; analysis of the need for job creation, capital improvement, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the economy; and local, regional and international influences. Policy 1.1.8.1 All new subdivisions planned unit developments and site development plans shall be designed to include an efficient system of internal traffic circulation that does not require internal trips or trips of short duration to be forced onto the major roadway network. Connections to new and existing subdivision shall be encouraged. Policy 1.1.11.4 - Enforce Land Development Code to provide that existing on-site native upland habitat be incorporated into required site plans as a part of open space areas, required landscaping or as a part of minimum yard areas so that as much of the identified habitat as is practicable is maintained. Objective 1.1.12 Pursuant to the Land Development Code, all development orders and permits for future development and redevelopment activities shall be issued only if public facilities necessary to meet level of service standards (which are adopted as part of the Capital Improvements Element of this plan) are available concurrent with the impacts of the development. Policy 1.1.12.2 Time the development of residential, commercial, and industrial land concurrently with provision of supporting community facilities, such as streets, utilities, police and fire protection service, emergency medical service, and public schools. Housing Element Goal 3.2 To provide an adequate mix of safe and sanitary housing that meets the needs of existing and future St. Lucie County residents. TVC Element Goal 11.1: Establish a development framework that encourages a sustainable settlement pattern that preserves the rural character of St. Lucie County, protects and enhances the natural environment and increases the quality of life of the citizens. Objective 11.1.1: To ensure that new development in the existing agriculture areas is predictable and responds to the vision of the citizens of St. Lucie County. Policy 11.1.1.1, 7. & 8. Objective 11.1.8 Policy 11.1.8.1 / 2 (Table 11-8) Policy 11.1.9.1 (somewhere in the report depict the nearby ART Transit Route) Policy 11.1.10.2 Page 42 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 22 Consideration of Policy 11.1.10.9 and its implementation, of whether the proposal for a Town Center of this scale, nearly a mile east of the depiction on Fig. 11-13) warrants a parallel Comp Plan Amendment. In appropriate locations, staff is supportive of townhomes as a denser form of housing that can provide for more affordable alternative to detached single-family homes while also allowing for clustered development that preserves environmental assets, where public facilities are readily available and compatibility can be achieved through density. Additionally, the site’s proximity to commercial retail uses, schools, transit, and an established roadway network makes it well-suited for a higher-density townhome community. Policy 11.1.8.2 - Accommodation of Retail Uses. Retail uses shall be accommodated and located appropriately based on the approved Special Area Plan. 1. North St. Lucie County General Retail Development Plan. b. Location of Retail Uses. The General Retail Development Plan (Figure 11-13) depicts the desired general locations identified for new retail establishments and the corresponding retail type including: v. A Town Center is recommended on Indrio Road, between I-95 and Johnston Road; C. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is inconsistent with existing and proposed land uses; While the proposed town center development is more intense than what is currently located at the intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue, commercial development at this intersection has been preceded by a 48,387 sq. ft. Publix, which was approved (August 1, 2019 Resolution 2019-170) on the northwest corner of the intersection, along with various outparcels. The Indrio Town Center proposal it is not entirely consistent with the agricultural character of the large-lot residential uses located to the north, which are zoned AG-1 (Agricultural - 1), or the small-lot residential uses located across Emerson Avenue. The transition in intensity is partially mitigated by a 75-foot landscape buffer to the east along Emerson Avenue, avoiding impacts to existing wetlands, enhancement and addition of wet retention for drainage, and an expansive Countryside Tract to contain a passive park separating many of the existing single-family residences from the subject site. The proposed density of five (5) mixed-use dwelling units per acre is five times the maximum density allowed under the Agricultural-1 Future Land Use designation, which was the density assigned prior to the adoption of the TVC designation. The PRW proposes a blend of density that will be accomplished via the core 18.4 acres dedicated to vertical mixed use, which encompasses a potion of Development Parcel 7. Development Parcel 7 proposes a total of 16 stand-alone townhome units or a maximum of 85 retail lots/105,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. The proposed development is located approximately 1.7 miles east of Interstate-95, a major north–south highway in St. Lucie County. Near the intersection of Indrio Road and Interstate-95, there are several development approvals within a 2 mile radius for supporting uses, including a grocery store, gas station, restaurants, a self-storage facility, and a family doctor’s office, among other commercial services that are consistent with the proposed uses. The intersection of Indrio Road and Emerson Avenue would host the nearest grocery store, Publix, which can also be accessed via these roads and from the internal street network within the Indrio Town Center, providing for alternative routes that avoid funneling internal traffic onto Emerson Avenue. D. Whether there have been changed conditions that require an amendment; The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) estimates the County Population on April 1, 2025, to be 394,074, an increase of 19.7% (64,848 people) in just 5 years. Page 43 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 23 The University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) Projections of Florida Population by County for 2030–2050 projects a total population of St. Lucie County between 422,700 and 658,100 by 2050. BEBR believes the medium series is the most likely to provide accurate forecasts in most circumstances, which would place the St. Lucie County population at 540,400 by 2050. See Table 5 below. Table 5. St. Lucie County & Municipal Census Data – 2010 to 2020 Changes County & City Census April 1, 2020 April 1, 2010 Total Change Percent Change Total St. Lucie County 329,226 277,789 51,437 18.5 Fort Pierce 47,297 41,590 5,707 13.7 Port St. Lucie 204,851 164,603 40,248 24.5 St. Lucie Village 613 590 23 3.9 UNINCORPORATED COUNTY 76,465 71,006 5,459 7.7 Table 6. BEBR Population Projections for St. Lucie County (April 1, 2025) 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Low 407,000 420,000 425,300 425,300 422,700 Medium 438,200 472,500 499,700 521,500 540,400 High 469,300 525,100 574,200 617,800 658,100 Source: Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research Pursuant to Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, the comprehensive plan is intended to provide “the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements;” and requires that the comprehensive plan “be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR) for at least a 10-year planning period.” It may be obvious, but it is important to remember that St. Lucie County is not alone in experiencing remarkable growth. Florida Population and Employment Growth (March 2023) provides statewide and regional context within which to consider St. Lucie County. Table 7: Approved and Pending Projects Nearby Project Name Project Type Project Details Project Status 1 Publix at Indrio Commons Major Site Plan Retail Center including 48,387 sq. ft. supermarket, 10,800 sq. ft. other retail, & 4,500 sq. ft. fast food. Approved in August 2019 2 Indrio & I-95 PTV (Planned Town or Village) Rezoning to PTV and Preliminary Development Plan Planned Village with 1,878 SF dwellings, 805 multi- family dwellings, 1,000,000 sq. ft. of commercial including 88,000 sq. ft. of retail, school, fire station, gas station, other civic sites, with Approved Page 44 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 24 associated amenities and infrastructure 3 Indrio Woods Rezoning to PUD 274 apartments with associated amenities and infrastructure Approved 4 Indrio Woods Final Site Plan 229 multi-family units on 35.58 acres Approved 5 4540 N. Kings Hwy. Rezoning to PUD and Preliminary Development Plan 191 dwellings (detached single-family, townhouses and apartments) on 36.65 acres Approved 6 4540 N. Kings Hwy Final Site Plan 165 dwellings on 36.65 acres Under review 7 Bedner Farms Rezoning to PRW, Preliminary Development Plan & LDC Text Amendment Up to 1,090 single-family, townhouses and apartments, and 420,000 sq. ft. of commercial space Approved 8 Bedner Farms Commercial PRW Site Plan 420,000 SF of commercial Under review 9 Bedner Farms Northwest PRW Site Plan 305 single-family dwellings on 67 acres Approved 10 Bedner Farms East, Phase 1 PRW Site Plan 157 single-family and 154 townhouses on +/-45.15 acres Approved 11 2098 Johnston Rezoning to PUD 74 single-family lots on 41.18 acres Approved 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; Transportation & Sidewalks: According to the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared by MacKenzie Engineering & Planning, Inc., on behalf of Cotleur & Hearing, Inc., the proposed Town Center development is expected to generate: 10,980 daily trips, 465 (322 entering / 143 exiting) AM peak hour trips, and 1,102 (495 entering / 607 exiting) PM peak hour trips. The study uses trip generation rates for Shopping Plaza (ITE Land Use 820), General Office Building (ITE Land Use 710), and Gas Station with Convenience Store (ITE Land Use 945) published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual, Trip Generation Manual (12th Edition). Russakis Rd. is unpaved, Indrio Road is limited to two (2) lanes east of Emerson Ave. to Kings Hwy., and environmentally sensitive areas and homesteads may limit the ability to realize the planned E/W roadway to the north (generally at Waterstone’s Entrance). However, as evaluated further in the Site Plan Review section below, the development would require improvements to Russakis Road, and the establishment of an E/W street between Russakis Rd. and Emerson Ave. Page 45 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 25 Based on the Traffic Impact Analysis, the County’s third-party traffic consultant, Kimley-Horn, expressed concerns with the proposed trip distribution methodology, noting that it did not account for non-residential land uses or longer-distance trips originating outside the immediate area and county boundaries (nearby Indian River County). The applicant was amenable to these concerns and agreed to revise the manual trip distribution assumptions to incorporate additional considerations and address the consultant's comments. Transportation impacts are evaluated with a Planned Development rezoning and preliminary site plan, to consider capacity impacts, effects on adjacent property, and any negative effects of the development pattern, however, concurrency is reserved until a Final PRW Site Plan. Utility Facilities: The property may be served, with capacity available for the proposed development, by electric power (FPL), central water and sewer (SLCU), and natural gas (FPUA). Transit: The property is close to Interstate-95 and convenient transit utilization, with I-95 linking Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie. The nearest transit stop is approximately 1.15 miles east of the project location at Indrio Crossings Plaza. Fire District Station #7 at 4900 Fort Pierce Blvd, Fort Pierce, FL 34951, is approximately 2.1 miles travel distance east. The Station’s capacity is under consideration, with exploration of replcement or expanded station(s) potential to the east at Taylor Dairy Road or west closed to Johnston Road (Indrio & I-95 PTV). At the time a Final Site Plan is received by the County, the St. Lucie School Board will review the site plan documents and an updated Traffic Impact Analysis provided with each submittal to determine concurrency. Rezoning Standards of Review Section C provides the maximum proposed density for the site, which includes the potential for a blended configuration of up to 92 vertical mixed-use and 16 stand-alone townhome units. The proposed Conceptual Drainage Plan, displayed below, provides an interconnected network of wet stormwater retention which includes 3 lakes, and median treatment swales, that direct outfall to the site’s stormwater management system. Page 46 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 26 Summary F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significant adverse impacts on the natural environment; The applicant proposes to impact two isolated wetlands located in the western portion of the site while avoiding impacts to existing wetlands in the east. The wetlands to remain will enhance the overall character of the community by incorporating additional drainage and stormwater retention areas. These features will not only support stormwater management but also provide passive recreational opportunities and aesthetic benefits for residents. G. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would adversely affect the property values in the area; With Staff recommendations in place, the proposed zoning change is not anticipated to create adverse impacts to property values in the area. Page 47 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 27 H. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in an orderly and logical development pattern, specifically identifying any negative effects on such pattern; As shown in Figures 8 and 9, the surrounding area contains a mix of land uses, including commercial development along the I-95 corridor and Koblegard Road, as well as small-lot single-family homes, townhomes, and undeveloped properties located east and northeast of the subject site. Consistent with the intent of the PRW rezoning process to promote an orderly and logical development pattern, the proposed development represents a compatible transition among these existing and planned land uses. The proposed uses contribute to the continued orderly and logical development of the area. Table 3: Land Use and Zoning Snapshot Future Land Use Zoning Existing Use(s) Petition Site TVC (Towns, Villages, and Countryside) AG-1 (Agricultural – 1) Undeveloped Su r r o u n d i n g North & Northeast TVC (Towns, Villages, and Countryside) AG-1 (Agricultural – 1) Single Family Residences South & Southeast TVC (Towns, Villages, and Countryside) AG-1 (Agricultural – 1), CG (Commercial General) Undeveloped (Approved/Expired October 13, 2025, Publix Site Plan) East RU (Residential Urban) PUD (Planned Unit Development Waterstone (FKA Emerson Estates) West TVC (Towns, Villages, and Countryside) AG-1 (Agricultural – 1) Single Family Residence, Undeveloped I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and interest of this Code; and The proposed amendment would not conflict with the public interest and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the St. Lucie County Land Development 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 this proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas. Rezoning Criteria Summary Based upon staff analysis contained in this memorandum, and with recommended conditions, the proposed rezoning from AG-1 (Agricultural-1) to PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) is consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code. ********************************************** Page 48 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 28 SITE PLAN STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.02.07 Section 11.02.07 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code (LDC) establishes the Standards of Review for Site Plans. In reviewing an application for a Planned Retail/Workplace and Preliminary Development Plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following: A. Consistency with Local Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan With staff’s recommendations, the proposed PRW site plan is generally consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, furthering the following goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan detailed in the response to LDC rezoning criteria A and B. Pursuant to LDC Section 3.01.03.GG., the PRW (Planned Retail Workplace) Zoning District is “a specialized zoning district to accommodate . . .retail or workplace land uses outside a Town or Village, in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the TVC Element.”: A. The PRW district may only be used on land designated TVC on the Future Land Use Map of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. B. PRW proposals must meet the retail standards under Objective 3.1.8 and/or the workplace standards under Objective 3.1.10 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, in addition to the TVC Overlay Zone requirements in Section 4.04 of this Code. Such requirements and standards shall be applied consistently with Policies 3.1.2.5 and 3.1.3.1(4) of the TVC Element. C. The PRW district can be used only for one (1) of the following primary purposes: (1) Local Retail: Local stores, convenience centers, neighborhood centers, village centers, town centers (or portions thereof) that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Retail Development Plan (Figure 3-13 and Objective 3.1.8 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). (2) Interstate Retail: Highway service/warehouse uses along Indrio Road immediately west and east of Interstate 95 that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Retail Development Plan (Figure 3-13 and Objective 3.1.8 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). (3) Mixed-Use Business District: Mixed-use business districts between Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Workplace Plan (Figure 3-16 and Objective 3.1.10 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). (4) Transitional Retail: Retail, workplace, and residential uses in the Transitional Areas near St. Lucie Boulevard and Kings Highway that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Workplace Plan (Figure 3-16 and Objective 3.1.10 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). i. PRW zoning is required for new retail and mixed-use developments and for most new workplace developments. ii. PRW zoning is not required for land indicated on the Transferable Development Value Map (Figure 3-3) as suitable for industrial uses. Land so indicated may also qualify for light or heavy industrial zoning districts provided the zoned lands comply with St. Lucie County standards for the Future Land Use category of Industrial. D. PRW proposals are encouraged to include mixed-use buildings. The maximum number of residential units is established by the transferable development value of the land pursuant to the Transferable Development Value Map (Figure 3-3 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan), by TDR credits Page 49 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 29 obtained, or by the approval of the Board of County Commissioners for the provision of workforce or affordable housing. E. For purposes of interpreting compliance of a PRW application with the designations of land on Figures 3-13 and 3-16 (see Figure 3-17 below), the Board of County Commissioners may approve retail or workplace development as far as one-quarter-mile beyond the precise designations provided such uses are integrated with and accessible through the designated land and are not incompatible with surrounding uses. The USB was first depicted on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map in 1990 to distinguish the area where urban development may occur from areas where it should not occur. At the time of the establishment of the USB, the total population of St. Lucie County was 150,171 (1990 Census). The 2020 Census total population count for St. Lucie County was 329,226, reflecting a 119% increase in thirty years. Between 2010 and 2020, the population grew 18.5%, as displayed in Table 4 below. In 2022, the County expanded the Urban Services Boundary by 31,510 acres, 18,135 acres of such expansion are within the City of Port St. Lucie, and 13,375 acres are in the unincorporated County. As part of that expansion, the Board also adopted Comp. Plan Policy 1.1.6.13 requiring an examination of the need to further expand the USB as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The EAR amendment to the Comp. Plan was recently adopted and the Urban Services Boundary was not expanded. The data and analysis concluded that the existing Urban Services Boundary was sufficient to accommodate the projected residential population increase through 2050. Nonetheless, Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.6.1 expressly provides that the USB is not intended to be a “static line of development” and provides for a one-time extension of the USB, up to 1,500 feet without necessitating a Comp. Plan Amendment, provided the subject property is “contiguous to a residential, commercial or industrial land use classification, the property owner can ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure and services, and the resulting change does not detrimentally impact the established character of the area surrounding the area to be included in the urban service boundary.” Comprehensive Plan Figure 11-13 identifies the land immediately west of Emerson Avenue as appropriate for a Neighborhood Center. Pursuant to Comprehensive Plan Table 11-19, a Neighborhood Center is expected to have 80,000 to 150,000 sq. ft. and serve 4,000 to 5,000 households. Figure 16: Retail Program Matrix One difference between the review and approval process applicable to PUDs, PNRDs and PMUDs and the process applicable to PTVs and PRWs is that review and approval of the Final Site Plan for PTVs and PRWs is administrative, whereas for PUDs, PNRDs and PMUDs, approval by the Board of County Commissioners at a public meeting (not a public hearing) is required for projects of this scale that amount to a Major Site Plan. Additionally, the LDC governing PTVs and PRWs expressly provides opportunities for the Applicant to request minor modifications to the applicable PTV or PRW standards. Those requested Page 50 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 30 modifications are required to be identified and the Board is required to respond to them, otherwise, the LDC standards shall apply. The PRW zoning district can be achieved outside of the the Urban Service Boundary, however, given the scale and intensity of the proposal, the applicant is requesting consideration to extend the Urban Service Boundary 1,500 feet east. The property is located close to transportation facilities and central utilities, and therefore provides for development efficiency. The presence of the wetland on the eastern portion of the site and the abundance of quality upland habitat would support a clustering approach to residential development that directs denser development within the central portion of the site, while preserving existing environmental features. Of the three proposed lakes onsite, one existing lake will be modified to support drainage and enhances the sites aesthetics, while the proposed development avoids impacts to an existing wetland. The two proposed lakes provide opportunities for passive and active recreation, one in the central portion of the site are proposed for the enjoyment of patrons of the proposed retail, and surrounding residences, while the 6.7 acre lake is entirely surrounded by walking trails that are interconected to the sites interior sidewalks. The proposed project includes a 26.3-acre neighborhood park located in the northern portion of the site. The park will provide open space for both residents and nearby neighbors, helping to create a sense of place along Russakis Rd. Figure 9 displays the proposed development’s pedestrian circulation and access from the east, west, and south of the site, ensuring safe and convenient access to the development’s interconnected interior sidewalk network. The development also proposes exterior pathways in the form of a sidewalk along Russakis Rd. that connects at its southern terminus to the required 12’ wide concrete multimodal pathway to be implemented by this plan. B. Effect on Adjacent Properties All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize adverse effects on the immediate vicinity through landscaping, screening, and site design, and all buildings will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as not to adversely impact adjacent properties. The Waterstone development to the east is buffered by Emerson Avenue and an approximately 75’-wide landscape buffer. The properties to the north and northeast are predominantly Single-Family Residential properties that will be buffered by a minimum 30 to 50 ft. landscaped area. The landscape buffer from the residential properties to the northeast of the site will be amplified by the passive park proposed for Development Parcel 8. Those properties will remain outside of the USB, at this time, as the proposed 1,500’ extension of the Urban Services Boundary only includes a portion of the petitioned Indrio Town Center site. C. Adequacy of Public Facilities All public facilities are expected to operate within the adopted Level of Service Standards as set forth by the St. Lucie County Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan, with anticipated infrastructure investment in concert with the proposed Town Center. Utilities The project will be served by electric power (FPL), central water and sewer (SLCU), and natural gas (FPUA). Page 51 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 31 Traffic The anticipated trip generation was presented and discussed previously in the context of the standards of review for rezoning. The Traffic Impact Report has not yet been accepted by the County. The County’s third-party traffic consultant, Kimley-Horn, expressed concerns with the proposed trip distribution methodology, noting that it did not account for non-residential land uses or longer-distance trips originating outside the immediate area and county boundaries. The applicant has agreed to revise the manual trip distribution assumptions to incorporate additional considerations and address the consultant's comments. While Indrio Road between Kings Highway and I-95, is mostly 4 lanes (2 lanes each direction), west of Kings Highway and east of Emerson Avenue, it is important to recognize that the proposed Town Center is very near a segment of approximately 1,400 to 2,500 feet, depending on how tapering lanes are considered and where the eastbound and westbound lanes differ. It is staff’s understanding that this segment remained two lanes in response to citizen advocacy against widening. Therefore, the need to vigorously implement the North St. Lucie County Future Street Network Plan, Comprehensive Plan Figure 11-15, is highlighted by this proposed development. A robust network of north-south streets and east-west streets is needed in this area to provide travel alternatives so traffic is not directed solely onto this narrow road, that is already presumed to be deficient. Proposed developments must be designed to enable access between adjacent development without requiring travel on the few arterials. Additionally, a robust network of inviting, safe and comfortable pedestrian and bicycle facilities are needed. If these roadway improvements are not accomplished by the developers, it will become a responsibility of the public and the taxpayers. Stormwater Management South Florida Water Management District and County stormwater permits are required to demonstrate compliance with water quality requirements. The plan proposes 3 lakes as wet retention ponds totaling approximately 10.43 acres for stormwater. Solid Waste Solid waste disposal service will be provided by St. Lucie County and addressed prior to the approval of final development. Parks and Recreation The Comprehensive Plan Recreation Element strives to support an adequate and equitable distribution of parks, recreation, and open spaces throughout the county to provide a range of activities for all citizens and visitors. The Comprehensive Plan Level of Service (LOS) standards for parks and recreation are as follows: • Community parks: 5 acres/1,000 residents in the unincorporated area; • Regional parks: 2.5 acres/1,000 population county-wide; and • Resource-based Parks: 21.2 acres/1,000 population county-wide. The project proposes a 26.3-acre passive park in the northern portion of the site, accessible to residents of the community and the surrounding neighborhoods. This proposed park is within a 2.5 mile travel distance proximate of the Lakewood Park Regional Park as the roadways are currently configured. This travel distance will be similar when the ROW improvements are constructed. At this time, Indrio Road (CR/SR 614) from North US #1 (SR 5) to Emerson Avenue will maintain an ultimate ROW width of 130 feet. Page 52 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 32 D. Adequacy of Fire Protection Fire District Station #7 at 4900 Fort Pierce Blvd, Fort Pierce, FL 34951, is approximately 2.1 miles travel distance east. E. Adequacy of School Facilities At the time a Final Site Plan is received by the County, the St. Lucie School Board will review the site plan documents and an updated Traffic Impact Analysis provided with each submittal to determine concurrency. Table 4: Nearby Schools School Distance from Properties Lakewood Park Elementary 2.0 miles (east) Sam Gaines K-8 9.1 miles (southeast) Lincoln Park Academy 8.6 miles (southeast) Westwood Academy 7.1 miles (southeast) F. Environmental Impact The Environmental Resources Department (ERD) is in receipt of the May 7, 2026, date-stamped submittal transmitted May 7, 2026, from Planning and Development Services with comments due May 28, 2026. The applicant is seeking approval of a preliminary development plan to rezone the subject parcels to a Planned Retail Workplace (PRW) to construct a mixture of commercial and residential developments within three (3) pods, as well as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to shift the urban service boundary (USB) 1,500 feet westward to include the project site. The conceptual plan is organized into three distinct areas: a 40-acre commercial core (Pod 1), a 17-acre residential zone (Pod 2), and a 30-acre preservation area and passive open space (Pod 3). The project site consists of two (2) parcels (131512100010009, 131513100010000) zoned Agricultural-1 (AG-1) with a future land use of Towns, Villages, Countryside (TVC), collectively measuring approximately ±87.27 acres. Pod 1 (commercial) is envisioned as a high- intensity economic hub comprised of a mix of retail, workplace, and civic uses, and is located adjacent to the existing Publix-anchored Neighborhood Center. The residential area proposes low density, townhome housing. The subject site is bordered by Russakis Road to the west; Indrio Road to the south; four (4) single- family residential parcels to the northeast followed by Emerson Avenue to the east, and a single-family residence to the north. Findings While an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required and shall be provided prior to final site plan approval, a Wetland and Wildlife Assessment Report (WWA) dated December 2025 prepared by Hobe Sound Environmental Consultants, Inc. was provided. The WWA includes identifying onsite habitats within the project boundaries, i.e., wetland and upland habitats, methodology and results of wildlife assessments for the site, including but not limited to protected/listed species, observed wildlife, vegetative communities, soils and topography, etc. Vegetation associations present onsite were identified and mapped using the Florida Land Cover Classification System (FLCCS) and compared to the Cooperative Land Cover Classification System (CLC). Vegetative communities located onsite include: three (3) jurisdictional freshwater wetlands (recognized as Wetland A, ±0.37 acres; Wetland B, ±0.09 acres, Wetland C, ±0.49 acres), all identified as Freshwater Marsh (FLCCS 2120, totaling ±0.95 acres; six (6) anthropogenically created other surface waters (OSWs) recognized as OSW A, Artificial/Farm Pond (FLCCS 3210) totaling ±2.48 acres; OSW B, (artesian-fed?) Ditch/Artificial Intermittent Stream (FLCCS 4220) totaling ±0.06 acres, OSW C, (artesian-fed?) Ditch/Artificial Intermittent Stream (FLCCS 4220) totaling ±0.32 acres, OSW D, confirmed artesian-fed Ditch/Artificial Intermittent Stream (FLCCS 4220) totaling ±0.30 acres, OSW E, confirmed artesian-fed Page 53 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 33 Ditch/Artificial Intermittent Stream (FLCCS 4220) totaling ±0.30 acres, OSW F, confirmed artesian-fed Canal (FLCCS 4210) totaling ±1.70 acres; Rural Buildings (FLCCS 1832) totaling ±0.50 acres, and Improved Pasture (FLCCS 183313) totaling ±80.99 acres. While no native upland habitat was identified onsite, protected vegetation in the form of sporadic native understory specimens and native trees meeting tree mitigation threshold as outlined in LDC 6.00.05.D. Prior to final site plan approval, a native vegetative/tree survey and tree mitigation plan shall be provided to ERD for review and approval to ensure the proposed project avoids and minimizes its impacts to native flora to the greatest extent feasible. A systematic survey for fauna was conducted per state and federal protocol and found no listed species occur within the perimeter of the project site. A final bubble preliminary landscape plan within the 2/27/2026 date-stamped Indrio Town Center PRW Regulating Plan prepared by Cotleur & Hearing was reviewed and found to comply with the St. Lucie County Land Development Code (LDC). A more detailed landscape plan shall be provided prior to final site plan approval. NOTICE Neighborhood Meeting The Applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 27, 2026, from 5:30-7:30 p.m. at the Lakewood Park Village Hall, located at 7508 Jennings Way, Fort Pierce, Florida 34951, with staff attending. Thirty-two (32) notices were mailed and nearly a dozen members of the public attended. Intergovernmental Coordination & Community Planning Agencies including FDOT were notified of the proposed petitions and received notification of development review progress in accordance with the following objectives and policies. No other jurisdictions were notified as the location of the subject properties is not proximate to a municipality or adjacent county. Objective 1.1.13 The County shall continue to improve coordination with affected and appropriate governments and agencies to include their input into the development process and to mitigate potential adverse impacts of future development and redevelopment activities. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission evaluate the proposed PRW Rezoning and Preliminary Site Plan which includes a request for a one-time 1,500 ft. extension of the Urban Services Boundary in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.6.1, and consideration of the project’s scale (max. building sq. ft. and height) and forward a recommendation for approval, subject to the following conditions: Conditions of Approval 1) Prior to final site plan approval, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be provided in lieu of the supplied Environmental Assessment (EA) per Land Development Code (LDC) 11.02.10.A.3.p. In addition to the information provided in the EA, the EIR shall include: a. A formal wetland jurisdictional determination from South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). b. The categorization of the wetlands in accordance with Comprehensive Plan (CP) Policies 6.1.14.1, 6.1.14.5, and 6.1.14.6. Page 54 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 34 c. Provide justification for impacts to the onsite Wetland A & Wetland B, i.e., why no other reasonable alternatives exist and how avoidance and minimization of impacts are being met per CP Policy 6.1.14.3 or 6.1.14.4. d. An assessment of impacts upon onsite vegetation and wildlife, and onsite and off-site natural resources per LDC 11.02.09.A.5.b. e. Listed species surveys or written correspondence stating any potential impacts have been resolved from the appropriate jurisdictional agencies may be accepted in lieu of a formal survey. f. Specify the proposed method of tree mitigation (i.e., fee-in-lieu, onsite preservation, onsite planting, a combination thereof, etc.) within the EIR. 2) Prior to final site plan approval, a Wetland Waiver Application will be required for the proposed impacts to Wetland A & Wetland B and their associated buffers per CP Policy 6.1.14.3. 3) Prior to final site plan approval, depict the limits of the wetland(s) and associated buffer(s) on the boundary survey, along with the wetland category in accordance with CP Policies 6.1.14.1 and 6.1.14.6, and reference the agency(s) claiming jurisdiction. If outside regulatory agency information has yet to be confirmed, include the wetland line as determined by the environmental consultant. However, the outside regulatory agency note shall be included prior to commencement of development. 4) Prior to final site plan approval, a tree mitigation plan shall be approved by the Environmental Resources Department per LDC 6.00.05.D: a. Provide the raw data of the tree mitigation calculations from the tree mitigation inventory (i.e., the Excel sheets, unlocked) so that ERD staff can easily quantify and verify the data submitted. b. The LDC requires all native canopy tree mitigation to be quantified at the 2:1 ratio (2” diameter at breast height (DBH) shall be replaced for every 1” DBH impacted). Examples of the following tree mitigation ratios: i. Native tree onsite relocation receives 1.5:1 relocation/preservation credit, which is deficient of the required mitigation of 2:1 tree mitigation requirement. Using a 30” DBH native tree as an example, there is a relocation credit at 1.5:1 ratio results with 30 x 1.5 = 45” DBH, leaving 15” DBH of required tree mitigation to be made up from the required 60” DBH. ii. Native tree preserved in place receives 2:1 preservation credit. c. For relocated trees, monitoring reports from a certified arborist shall be provided following each root pruning event and following each relocation event to ensure best management practices (BMPs) are followed. 5) Prior to final site plan approval, update the tree survey. Several of the trees measure 2”- 4” less than were measured during a site visit on 01/18/2023. Specifically, tree #’s 223, 238, 370, 371, 422, & 434 from the review sample are listed less than were measured. Additionally, one (1) tree measuring 14.5” from the field sampling was not listed on the tree survey. 6) Prior to final site plan approval, a detailed landscape plan shall be provided consistent with LDC 7.09.00: a. The proposed method of tree mitigation (i.e., onsite preservation, onsite planting, a combination thereof, etc.) shall be included on the detailed landscape plan when submitted with the site plan application. b. A Flow Way System adhering to the standards outlined in LDC 3.01.03.EE.2.p shall be incorporated into the site design, including but not limited to: i. Provide greater connectivity between the proposed lakes per LDC 3.01.03.EE.2.p.2. ii. Depict/label the upland buffer for the proposed lakes on the conceptual plan to ensure there is sufficient space to accommodate within the site in accordance with Flow Way standards outlined in LDC 3.01.03.EE.2.p.4.iii. Currently, the upland buffer would conflict with the depicted 40’ wide perimeter buffers. As a minimum, twenty (20) square feet of edge habitat shall be provided for each linear foot of shoreline. This upland edge habitat shall be located such that no less than fifty percent (50%) of the total shoreline is buffered by a minimum width of twenty (20) feet of upland habitat. iii. Provide a pedestrian and bicycle trail system along at least one (1) side of the system per LDC 3.01.03.EE.2.p.3.i. In neighborhoods, the trail may take the form of paved sidewalks that runs adjacent to the system. c. Where applicable, depict the planting space for all commercial building foundations. Page 55 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 35 d. Revise the following within the provided planting typicals located on page 2 of the conceptual site plan: i. Ensure that the planting typical widths are consistent with the depicted landscape buffers on the conceptual site plan. ii. All landscaping specifications shall comply with LDC 7.09.00. (e.g., native tree specs, native shrub specs, Florida No.1 Grade material, automatic irrigation, 3” non-cypress mulch, etc.) iii. Specify that 50% of the required trees shall be species other than palm trees per LDC 7.09.03.E.2.g and a mix of species shall be provided in accordance with LDC 7.09.03.E.2.h. e. Revise calculations and clearly label the open space areas on the site plan and all other associated plans and documents in accordance with LDC 11.02.10.g. and LDC 11.02.10.j. 7) Prior to final site plan approval, the document titled “Indrio Town Center PRW Supplimental Document_02- 27-26_v1” shall be updated to include all associated approved plans and exhibits, and shall comply with the LDC and CP Objective & Policies. 8) Prior to commencement of development, including, but not limited to clearing, filling, excavation, grading, or planting of vegetation, as defined in LDC 2.00.00, if applicable, monitoring reports from a certified arborist shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of completion/occupancy, following twelve (12) months after the last round of native canopy trees have been relocated, and at the 18-month follow up inspection. Should any relocated trees die within these timeframes or beyond, the applicant shall provide another method of tree mitigation, or a combination of methods as outlined in LDC 6.00.05.D, as tree mitigation shall be in perpetuity. 9) Prior to commencement of development, including, but not limited to clearing, filling, excavation, grading, or planting of vegetation, as defined in LDC 2.00.00, if applicable, the proposed fee-in-lieu for the outstanding tree mitigation balance shall be provided to the SLC Tree Fine and Mitigation Fund. 10) Prior to commencement of development, including, but not limited to clearing, filling, excavation, grading, or planting of vegetation, as defined in LDC 2.00.00, updated listed species surveys or written correspondence shall be provided per state and/or federal survey protocol. Should any listed species be found as a result of these surveys, appropriate permits from state and federal agencies shall be required. 11) Prior to final plat approval, all landscaping (terrestrial plantings, littoral plantings, transitional upland buffer plantings, etc.) irrigation, sod, mulch, labor for installation, etc., shall be included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 12) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all Category I listed invasive plants shall be eradicated from the site. 13) Prior to Final Site Plan approval an updated Traffic Impact Analysis will be required to be provided, reviewed, and approved by the Planning and Development Services Department. a. Final Site Plan must be consistent LDC Section 11.02.09. - Submittals for Minor and Major Site Plans. b. Final Site Plan must demonstrate a detailed Phasing Plan and schedule of off-site and internal roadway improvements. 14) For plat approval prior to completion of required improvements, a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and appropriate bonding is required. 15) A Site Development Permit is required prior to performing site improvement activities. In accordance with the permit and Land Development Regulations, the applicant shall retain the EOR for site inspections and final certification. 16) Paved access is required for projects requiring Site Plan Approval. Russakis Road is a substandard roadway. The applicant will be required to pave the roadway from Indrio Road to the northernmost access point. 17) A Road Improvement Agreement and appropriate bond will be required for all permanent improvements within the County's Right-of-Way. 18) A 6 FT sidewalk is required along adjacent Russakis Road and Emerson Avenue. 19) Within 90 days of developmental (Final Site Plan) approval, the applicant, property owner, developer, successors, or assigns, shall convey to St. Lucie County, in a manner or form acceptable to the County Attorney, 50’ right-of-way along the frontage of Russakis Road, as determined by the Public Works Department. Page 56 of 239 Indrio Town Center PRW Project No. RZ-2510-000048 Page 36 20) Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the site plan shall depict sidewalks along Spinewood Avenue and Inkwood Avenue with a minimum width of eight (8) feet. Page 57 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 1 File No.: PD-2510-000048 RESOLUTION 2026-XX File Number: PD-2510-000048 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS FOR A +/- 85.29 ACRE SITE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL-1 (AG-1) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED RETAIL/WORKPLACE (PRW) ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR A PHASED MIXED-USE TOWN CENTER WITH UP TO 447,250 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, AND LIMITED STAND-ALONE RESIDENTIAL OR LIVE/WORK UNITS, WHICH INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.1.6.1 DETERMINATION FOR A 1,500-FT. EXTENSION OF THE URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY, TO BE KNOWN AS INDRIO TOWN CENTER LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida, based upon acceptable evidence, including but not limited to the staff report, has made the following determinations: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT 1) Leah Heinzelman, PLA, ASLA, of Cotleur & Hearing, Inc., on behalf of Glassman Holdings, LLC, presented a petition for an Amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas from Agricultural-1 (AG-1) to Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW), for certain property in St. Lucie County, Florida, located east of Russakis Road, west of Emerson Ave, and north of Indrio Road, as depicted on the attached map as Exhibit A and described in Part A below. 2) This petition includes a request for a determination to extend the Urban Service Boundary by no more than 1,500 feet, as part of a proposed Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) and Preliminary Site Plan, in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.6.1. 3) The St. Lucie County Development Review Committee reviewed the petition to re-zone the property and found it to meet the technical requirements and to be consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions set forth in Part C of this Resolution. 4) On June 18, 2026, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this petition after notice was published in the St. Lucie News Tribune at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, a community participation meeting was held at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing, a sign was installed on the property and notice was sent by mail all owners of property within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property, and voted Page 58 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 2 File No.: PD-2510-000048 unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval/denial to the Board of County Commissioners. 5) On _________, 2026, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on this petition after notice was published in the St. Lucie News Tribune at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, installing a sign on the property and notifying by mail all owners of property within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property, and voted to Approve/Deny the Amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas from Agricultural-1 (AG-1) to Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW). PRELIMINARY PRW SITE PLAN 6) Leah Heinzelman, PSA, ASLA, of Cotleur & Hearing, Inc, on behalf of Glassman Holdings, LLC, submitted a Preliminary PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) Site Plan for a phased mixed-use PRW consisting of 8 parcels, with a total of 447,250 sq. ft. commercial space, with the 16.03 acre parcel designated with maximum of total density of one (1) stand-alone residential unit per acre or five (5) Mixed-Use units per acre on up to 18.4 acres, and max intensity of 85 retail lots or 105,000 square feet of retail. The Preliminary PRW Site Plan includes community amenities (private recreation area and a 26.33-acre neighborhood park), preserving wetlands, and modifying an existing lake while creating two (2) additional lakes that will act as stormwater retention ponds on the property depicted in the attached map as Exhibit “A” and described in Part A below. 7) This petition includes a request for a determination to extend the Urban Service Boundary by no more than 1,500 feet, as part of a proposed Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) and Preliminary Site Plan, in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.6.1. 8) The St. Lucie County Development Review Committee reviewed the Preliminary PRW Site Plan for the project and found it to meet the technical requirements and to be consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, subject to the conditions set forth in Part C of this Resolution. 9) On June 18, 2026, the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on this petition after notice was published in the St. Lucie News Tribune at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, a community participation meeting was held at least twenty (20) days prior to the hearing, a sign was installed on the property and notice was sent by mail all owners of property within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property, and voted Page 59 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 3 File No.: PD-2510-000048 unanimously to forward a recommendation of approval/denial to the Board of County Commissioners. 10) On ________, 2026, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on this petition after notice was published in the St. Lucie News Tribune at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, installing a sign on the property and notifying by mail all owners of property within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property, and voted to Approve/Deny the Preliminary PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) Site Plan for development of a phased mixed-use PRW consisting of 8 parcels, with a total of 447,250 sq. ft. commercial space, with the 16.03 acre parcel designated with maximum of total density of one (1) stand-alone residential unit per acre or five (5) Mixed- Use units per acre, and max intensity of 85 retail lots or 105,000 square feet of retail. 11) The proposed project, with conditions of approval, will not have an undue adverse effect on adjacent property, the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions, parking, utility facilities or other matters affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare. 12) All reasonable steps have been taken to minimize any adverse effect of the proposed project on the immediate vicinity through building design, site design, landscaping, and screening. 13) The proposed project will be constructed, arranged, and operated so as not to interfere with the development and use of neighboring property, in accordance with all applicable regulations. 14) The proposed project, including the requested Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.6.1 determination for a one-time extension of the Urban Service Boundary by no more than 1,500 feet, is eligible to be served by St. Lucie County Utilities for water and wastewater service. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of St. Lucie County, Florida: ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT A. The properties on which the Zoning Atlas Amendment, or change in zoning, from Agricultural-1 (AG-1) to Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) is being granted is described as follows: Page 60 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 4 File No.: PD-2510-000048 Legal Description(s): NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DRAINAGE DITCHES, CANALS OR PUBLIC ROADS, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE EAST 80 FEET, THE WEST 60 FEET AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE CANAL RIGHT-OF- WAY, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT: THE SOUTH 830.00 FEET OF THE EAST 1,550.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE EAST 80 FEET AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND LESS AND EXCEPT: A PORTION OF PLAT OF FORT PIERCE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN THE NORTHEAST ONE- QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE- QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 00°33'17" WEST, 2,614.52 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR ITEM/SEGMENT NO. 2303384, SECTION 94004-2501; THENCE SOUTH 89°25'38" EAST, 60.00 FEET TO A POINT INTERSECTING THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AND THE EAST EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RUSSAKIS ROAD, ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°33'17" EAST, 90.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RUSSAKIS ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 44°26'11" EAST, 35.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°25'38" EAST, 1,022.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°37'49" WEST, 65.00 FEET TO SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD); THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 1,047.51 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: Page 61 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 5 File No.: PD-2510-000048 A PORTION OF PLAT OF FORT PIERCE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN THE NORTHEAST ONE- QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT A FOUND 1/2" IRON ROD WITH NO CAP MARKING THE EAST ONE-QUARTER (E 1/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE NORTH 00°37'49" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 15, 60.00 FEET TO THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR ITEM/SEGMENT NO. 2303384, SECTION 94004-2501; THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 80.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 6; THENCE NORTH 00°37'49" EAST, 770.00 FEET ALONG SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 19.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03°35'07" EAST, 384.70 FEET TO SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 00°37'49" WEST, 384.17 FEET ALONG SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel ID Numbers: 1315-121-0001-000-9 and 1315-131-0001-000-0 B. The St. Lucie County Planning and Development Services Director shall be authorized to amend the Official Zoning Map to change the zoning of the property herein described, from Agricultural-1 (AG-1) to Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) and to make notation of the reference to the date of adoption of this Resolution. PRELIMINARY PRW SITE PLAN C. Pursuant to 11.02.05(A) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, the Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) Preliminary Site Plan for the project known as Indrio Town Center PRW is hereby approved, for the subject property described in Part “A” above, as shown on the Preliminary PRW Site Plan for the project as attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, and subject to the following conditions: 1) Prior to final site plan approval, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall be provided in lieu of the supplied Environmental Assessment (EA) per Land Development Code (LDC) 11.02.10.A.3.p. In addition to the information provided in the EA, the EIR shall include: a. A formal wetland jurisdictional determination from South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). Page 62 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 6 File No.: PD-2510-000048 b. The categorization of the wetlands in accordance with Comprehensive Plan (CP) Policies 6.1.14.1, 6.1.14.5, and 6.1.14.6. c. Provide justification for impacts to the onsite Wetland A & Wetland B, i.e., why no other reasonable alternatives exist and how avoidance and minimization of impacts are being met per CP Policy 6.1.14.3 or 6.1.14.4. d. An assessment of impacts upon onsite vegetation and wildlife, and onsite and off-site natural resources per LDC 11.02.09.A.5.b. e. Listed species surveys or written correspondence stating any potential impacts have been resolved from the appropriate jurisdictional agencies may be accepted in lieu of a formal survey. f. Specify the proposed method of tree mitigation (i.e., fee-in-lieu, onsite preservation, onsite planting, a combination thereof, etc.) within the EIR. 2) Prior to final site plan approval, a Wetland Waiver Application will be required for the proposed impacts to Wetland A & Wetland B and their associated buffers per CP Policy 6.1.14.3. 3) Prior to final site plan approval, depict the limits of the wetland(s) and associated buffer(s) on the boundary survey, along with the wetland category in accordance with CP Policies 6.1.14.1 and 6.1.14.6, and reference the agency(s) claiming jurisdiction. If outside regulatory agency information has yet to be confirmed, include the wetland line as determined by the environmental consultant. However, the outside regulatory agency note shall be included prior to commencement of development. 4) Prior to final site plan approval, a tree mitigation plan shall be approved by the Environmental Resources Department per LDC 6.00.05.D: a. Provide the raw data of the tree mitigation calculations from the tree mitigation inventory (i.e., the Excel sheets, unlocked) so that ERD staff can easily quantify and verify the data submitted. b. The LDC requires all native canopy tree mitigation to be quantified at the 2:1 ratio (2” diameter at breast height (DBH) shall be replaced for every 1” DBH impacted). Examples of the following tree mitigation ratios: Page 63 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 7 File No.: PD-2510-000048 i. Native tree onsite relocation receives 1.5:1 relocation/preservation credit, which is deficient of the required mitigation of 2:1 tree mitigation requirement. Using a 30” DBH native tree as an example, there is a relocation credit at 1.5:1 ratio results with 30 x 1.5 = 45” DBH, leaving 15” DBH of required tree mitigation to be made up from the required 60” DBH. ii. Native tree preserved in place receives 2:1 preservation credit. c. For relocated trees, monitoring reports from a certified arborist shall be provided following each root pruning event and following each relocation event to ensure best management practices (BMPs) are followed. 5) Prior to final site plan approval, update the tree survey. Several of the trees measure 2”- 4” less than were measured during a site visit on 01/18/2023. Specifically, tree #’s 223, 238, 370, 371, 422, & 434 from the review sample are listed less than were measured. Additionally, one (1) tree measuring 14.5” from the field sampling was not listed on the tree survey. 6) Prior to final site plan approval, a detailed landscape plan shall be provided consistent with LDC 7.09.00: a. The proposed method of tree mitigation (i.e., onsite preservation, onsite planting, a combination thereof, etc.) shall be included on the detailed landscape plan when submitted with the site plan application. b. A Flow Way System adhering to the standards outlined in LDC 3.01.03.EE.2.p shall be incorporated into the site design, including but not limited to: i. Provide greater connectivity between the proposed lakes per LDC 3.01.03.EE.2.p.2. ii. Depict/label the upland buffer for the proposed lakes on the conceptual plan to ensure there is sufficient space to accommodate within the site in accordance with Flow Way standards outlined in LDC 3.01.03.EE.2.p.4.iii. Currently, the upland buffer would conflict with the depicted 40’ wide Page 64 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 8 File No.: PD-2510-000048 perimeter buffers. As a minimum, twenty (20) square feet of edge habitat shall be provided for each linear foot of shoreline. This upland edge habitat shall be located such that no less than fifty percent (50%) of the total shoreline is buffered by a minimum width of twenty (20) feet of upland habitat. iii. Provide a pedestrian and bicycle trail system along at least one (1) side of the system per LDC 3.01.03.EE.2.p.3.i. In neighborhoods, the trail may take the form of paved sidewalks that runs adjacent to the system. c. Where applicable, depict the planting space for all commercial building foundations. d. Revise the following within the provided planting typicals located on page 2 of the conceptual site plan: i. Ensure that the planting typical widths are consistent with the depicted landscape buffers on the conceptual site plan. ii. All landscaping specifications shall comply with LDC 7.09.00. (e.g., native tree specs, native shrub specs, Florida No.1 Grade material, automatic irrigation, 3” non-cypress mulch, etc.) iii. Specify that 50% of the required trees shall be species other than palm trees per LDC 7.09.03.E.2.g and a mix of species shall be provided in accordance with LDC 7.09.03.E.2.h. e. Revise calculations and clearly label the open space areas on the site plan and all other associated plans and documents in accordance with LDC 11.02.10.g. and LDC 11.02.10.j. 7) Prior to final site plan approval, the document titled “Indrio Town Center PRW Supplemental Document_02-27-26_v1” shall be updated to include all associated approved plans and exhibits, and shall comply with the LDC and CP Objective & Policies. 8) Prior to commencement of development, including, but not limited to clearing, filling, excavation, grading, or planting of vegetation, as defined in LDC 2.00.00, if applicable, monitoring reports from a certified arborist shall be provided prior to issuance of a certificate of completion/occupancy, following twelve (12) months after the last round of native canopy trees have been relocated, and at the 18-month follow Page 65 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 9 File No.: PD-2510-000048 up inspection. Should any relocated trees die within these timeframes or beyond, the applicant shall provide another method of tree mitigation, or a combination of methods as outlined in LDC 6.00.05.D, as tree mitigation shall be in perpetuity. 9) Prior to commencement of development, including, but not limited to clearing, filling, excavation, grading, or planting of vegetation, as defined in LDC 2.00.00, if applicable, the proposed fee-in-lieu for the outstanding tree mitigation balance shall be provided to the SLC Tree Fine and Mitigation Fund. 10) Prior to commencement of development, including, but not limited to clearing, filling, excavation, grading, or planting of vegetation, as defined in LDC 2.00.00, updated listed species surveys or written correspondence shall be provided per state and/or federal survey protocol. Should any listed species be found as a result of these surveys, appropriate permits from state and federal agencies shall be required. 11) Prior to final plat approval, all landscaping (terrestrial plantings, littoral plantings, transitional upland buffer plantings, etc.) irrigation, sod, mulch, labor for installation, etc., shall be included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 12) Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, all Category I listed invasive plants shall be eradicated from the site. 13) Prior to Final Site Plan approval an updated Traffic Impact Analysis will be required to be provided, reviewed, and approved by the Planning and Development Services Department. a. Final Site Plan must be consistent LDC Section 11.02.09. - Submittals for Minor and Major Site Plans. b. Final Site Plan must demonstrate a detailed Phasing Plan and schedule of off-site and internal roadway improvements 14) For plat approval prior to completion of required improvements, a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and appropriate bonding is required. 15) A Site Development Permit is required prior to performing site improvement activities. In accordance with the permit and Land Page 66 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 10 File No.: PD-2510-000048 Development Regulations, the applicant shall retain the EOR for site inspections and final certification. 16) Paved access is required for projects requiring Site Plan Approval. Russakis Road is a substandard roadway. The applicant will be required to pave the roadway from Indrio Road to the northernmost access point. 17) A Road Improvement Agreement and appropriate bond will be required for all permanent improvements within the County's Right-of-Way. 18) A six (6) foot wide sidewalk is required along adjacent Russakis Road and Emerson Avenue. 19) Within 90 days of developmental approval, the applicant, property owner, developer, successors, or assigns, shall convey to St. Lucie County, in a manner or form acceptable to the County Attorney, 50’ right- of-way along the frontage of Russakis Road, as determined by the Public Works Department. 20) Prior to Final Site Plan approval, the site plan shall depict sidewalks along Spinewood Avenue and Inkwood Avenue with a minimum width of eight (8) feet. D. The Preliminary PRW Site Plan approval granted by this Resolution shall expire on______________, 2028 (two years from approval) unless a Final Site Plan is obtained, or an extension is granted in accordance with Section 11.02.06.(A.)(2.) of the Land Development Code. E. The developer is advised as part of this approval that the property owner(s), developer, etc., including any successors in interest, shall obtain all applicable development permits and construction authorizations from the appropriate State and Federal and local regulatory agencies including, but not limited to, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Department of Transportation, South Florida Water Management District, and the St. Lucie County Environmental Resources, Public Works, and Building Departments prior to the commencement of any development activities on the property described in Part A. Issuance of this authorization or permit by the County does not in any way create any rights on the part of the developer to obtain a permit from a State or Federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the County for issuance of this permit if the developer fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a State or Federal agency or undertake actions Page 67 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 11 File No.: PD-2510-000048 that may result in a violation of State or Federal law. F. The conditions set forth in Part C above are an integral non-severable part of the Preliminary Site Plan approval granted by this Resolution. If any condition set forth in Part C above is determined to be invalid or unenforceable for any reason and the developer declines to comply voluntarily with that condition, the Preliminary Site Plan approval granted by this Resolution shall become null and void. G. A Concurrency Deferral Affidavit, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof the Resolution, was signed by the applicant on October 6, 2025. H. A copy of this Resolution shall be provided to the owner of record as identified on the application. I. This Resolution shall be recorded in the Public Records. J. ADOPTION After motion and second, the vote on this Resolution was as follows: Jamie Fowler, Chair X Larry Leet, Vice-Chair X James Clasby, Commissioner X Erin Lowry, Commissioner X Cathy Townsend, Commissioner X PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED this ________ day of ___________, 2026. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ______________________________ CHAIR Page 68 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 12 File No.: PD-2510-000048 ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: ___________________ BY: ______________________________ DEPUTY CLERK COUNTY ATTORNEY Page 69 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 13 File No.: PD-2510-000048 EXHIBIT A (LOCATION MAP) Page 70 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 14 File No.: PD-2510-000048 EXHIBIT B (PRELIMINARY PRW SITE PLAN) Page 71 of 239 Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 15 File No.: PD-2510-000048 Exhibit C (CONCURRENCY DEFERRAL AFFIDAVIT) Page 72 of 239 SUGGESTED MOTIONS: Indrio Town Center PRW Suggested motion to recommend approval/denial of this requested change in zoning. MOTION TO APPROVE: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GRANT APPROVAL FOR THE PETITION OF PAUL FREEMAN FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL - 1) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED RETAIL/WORKPLACE (PRW) ZONING DISTRICT AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TO DEVELOP A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TOWN CENTER, BECAUSE..... [CITE REASON(S) WHY – PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] MOTION TO DENY: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY FOR THE PETITION OF PAUL FREEMAN FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS FROM THE AG-1 (AGRICULTURAL - 1) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED RETAIL/WORKPLACE (PRW) ZONING DISTRICT AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TO DEVELOP A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TOWN CENTER, BECAUSE..... [CITE REASON(S) WHY – PLEASE BE SPECIFIC] Page 73 of 239 Page 1 of 4 December 19, 2025 St. Lucie County Planning Department 2300 Virginia Ave Fort Pierce, 34982 Indrio Town Center Economic Viability and Planning Rationale The Indrio Town Center is planned in response to new residential development anticipated to come online within the surrounding area over the coming development cycle, reflecting the County’s adopted growth pattern and settlement strategy (TVC Goal 11.1; Objective 11.1.2). Within this Market Influence Area, an estimated total of approximately 6,831 residential units are planned or approved and are reasonably expected to be constructed over time based on existing entitlements and proposed projects. Our team has prepared a development map that depicts this area and projects. This analysis does not assume that all residential units are built today. Instead, it focuses on projected residential delivery, recognizing that population growth will occur incrementally as communities are constructed and occupied, consistent with the phased growth model contemplated by the TVC Element (Objective 11.1.2; Policy 11.1.4.19). Applying a factor of 2.4 residents per dwelling unit, which is consistent with the County’s Park and Recreation level-of- service methodology, the anticipated residential development equates to approximately 16,400 new residents over time. This projected population represents future incremental demand layered onto an existing residential base that already experiences limited access to nearby retail, services, and employment-supporting uses. This analysis is intentionally conservative in that it does not include existing built residential neighborhoods within and around the Market Influence Area. Many of these established communities currently rely on dispersed or distant commercial centers to meet daily needs. As a result, demand generated by new residential development should be viewed as additive to an already underserved condition, reinforcing the need for timely delivery of nonresidential support uses (Objective 11.1.8; Policy 11.1.4.1). Project Timing A common development pattern in St. Lucie County and similar growth areas is that residential construction typically occurs well in advance of commercial development. Housing is usually delivered first, while commercial or mixed-use components included in residential projects are deferred to later phases. Based on past experience, these commercial components are rarely constructed concurrently with housing, often lag residential occupancy by several years, and in some cases are significantly delayed or never built. As a result, newly occupied neighborhoods Page 74 of 239 frequently lack nearby access to everyday services during the early years of development, even though demand from new residents is already present. Because of this market delivery pattern, it is not uncommon for regulators to include timing or phasing provisions in development orders to help ensure that commercial square footage is delivered in a reasonably coordinated manner with residential occupancy. These provisions are intended to address the imbalance that can occur when housing is delivered well in advance of supporting commercial and service uses and are consistent with the TVC Element’s emphasis on orderly, phased growth (Objective 11.1.2; Policy 11.1.9.19). Indrio Town Center Role In contrast, Indrio Town Center is planned primarily as a commercial and retail-focused development and is intended to come online earlier than many surrounding residential projects. While nearby developments are appropriately focused on delivering housing, Indrio Town Center is designed to provide retail, dining, services, and employment opportunities that serve new residents as they move into the area, as well as existing households that currently lack convenient access to these uses (Policy 11.1.4.1; Objective 11.1.8). By concentrating nonresidential uses in a single, planned center, the project meets community needs as residential growth occurs and functions in a complementary manner to surrounding residential development rather than competing with it (Goal 11.1; Objective 11.1.4). Commercial Program and Phasing The Indrio Town Center commercial program is composed of multiple smaller-format buildings distributed across the site rather than a few large or single-tenant structures. This configuration allows commercial space to be delivered incrementally as demand increases rather than all at once. As nearby residential development occurs, individual buildings can be brought online in phases, ensuring that commercial space aligns with actual market demand (Objective 11.1.8; Policy 11.1.4.19). This approach provides flexibility over time, supports stable tenant absorption, and reduces the likelihood of prolonged vacancy or underutilized space, consistent with the TVC Element’s emphasis on economically viable, market-supported development (Objective 11.1.8). Economic Viability, Fiscal Neutrality, and Infrastructure Efficiency The Indrio Town Center is structured to support long-term economic viability while delivering measurable public benefit. The anticipated increase in population provides a stable and growing consumer base capable of supporting neighborhood- and community-serving retail, dining, services, and employment uses consistent with the Town Center category under the TVC retail framework (Objective 11.1.8; Table 11-8). The project is located in close proximity to the County’s Urban Service Boundary, supporting efficient infrastructure provision and eligibility for administrative adjustment. While the TVC Element contemplates the provision of urban services outside the Urban Service Boundary under Page 75 of 239 certain circumstances (Policy 11.1.2.3), locating a Town Center near the boundary minimizes utility extension distances and associated public costs. From a fiscal perspective, this location represents a more efficient and sustainable alternative to accommodating similar development farther from existing service areas (Objective 11.1.2; Policy 11.1.4.1). The Indrio Town Center is located in close proximity to the County’s established Urban Service Boundary, positioning the project in an area where urban and community services can be provided in a compact and efficient manner (Objective 1.1.6; Policy 1.1.6.1). The Urban Service Boundary is intended to discourage the fiscal inefficiencies associated with extending infrastructure over long distances and to prioritize development in locations where services can be delivered cost-effectively. The Comprehensive Plan recognizes that the Urban Service Boundary is not a fixed line and allows for administrative adjustments of up to 1,500 feet where development is contiguous to existing urban uses and can be adequately served without detriment to surrounding areas (Policy 1.1.6.1). Indrio Town Center falls within this proximity range, reinforcing its suitability for urban services without requiring a Comprehensive Plan amendment or an expansion of the Urban Service Boundary. In addition, the Towns, Villages, and the Countryside Element expressly allows development that is consistent with its Goals, Objectives, and Policies to receive urban services even when located outside the Urban Service Boundary, provided that the development advances the County’s settlement strategy and does not promote sprawl (Policy 11.1.2.3). Providing services to Indrio Town Center under this framework does not constitute an expansion of the Urban Service Boundary, but rather an efficient application of adopted growth management policy. From an economic and fiscal perspective, locating a Town Center-scale development near the Urban Service Boundary reduces infrastructure extension distances, minimizes long-term public service costs, and supports fiscal neutrality. Compared to more remote TVC locations, the Indrio Town Center represents a lower-cost, higher-efficiency opportunity to deliver needed commercial services in direct support of existing and anticipated residential development, consistent with the County’s objectives for orderly growth and infrastructure efficiency (Policy 11.1.4.1). Indrio Town Center also contributes to improved jobs–housing balance by introducing employment opportunities near existing and anticipated residential development. Providing jobs closer to where residents live helps reduce commute distances, supports internal capture of trips, and advances the TVC Element’s objective of creating more balanced, self-supporting communities (Policy 11.1.9.22). Importantly, the project expands the County’s commercial tax base without reliance on public subsidy or extraordinary infrastructure investment, supporting fiscal neutrality and long-term sustainability as residential growth occurs. Page 76 of 239 Town Center Classification and General Retail Development Plan Indrio Town Center is intentionally planned and scaled to function as a Town Center, as contemplated by the Towns, Villages, and the Countryside Element. The size, mix, and configuration of proposed commercial uses are consistent with the Town Center category identified in the TVC retail framework and are calibrated to serve multiple surrounding neighborhoods rather than a regional market (Objective 11.1.8; Table 11-8). The TVC Element’s General Retail Development Plan (Figure 11-13) identifies a Town Center location along Indrio Road between Interstate 95 and Johnston Road. While this figure provides policy guidance rather than a site-specific mandate, it reflects the County’s intent to locate Town Center-scale development within this corridor to support anticipated residential growth. Indrio Town Center is located on Indrio Road between Russakis Road and Emerson Avenue, less than one-half mile from the location shown on Figure 11-13. From a planning perspective, this proximity represents an effective and practical implementation of the General Retail Development Plan, recognizing that actual development locations are influenced by land ownership, infrastructure availability, and market feasibility (Objective 11.1.8; Policy 11.1.4.1). Conclusion Taken together, anticipated residential growth, an existing underserved population, the documented timing mismatch between residential and commercial development, the project’s Town Center scale, and its proximity to existing urban services establish a strong planning and economic rationale for the Indrio Town Center. The project is not premature or speculative; rather, it is economically viable, fiscally responsible, and strategically positioned to meet demand as it materializes while advancing orderly growth, infrastructure efficiency, and balanced land use patterns consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and the Towns, Villages, and the Countryside Element. Please feel free to contact me if any additional information or clarification is needed. Sincerely, Peter Hofheinz Senior Manager of Land Planning & Development Cotleur & Hearing 561-406-1012 phofheinz@cotleur-hearing.com Page 77 of 239 MJSP-2208-000102 St. Lucie County Development Map Indrio Town Center December 19, 2025 Indrio Groves Ph I 3,081 residential units Propsoed Alco Groves Mine Sexton Place Site Plan 505 residential units SWC Indrio Rd & Kings Hwy The Club at Indrio Creek PUD 408 residential units 4540 N Kings Hwy 191 residential units Proposed Aircraft Turbine Works Indrio Lakes Single- Family 107 residential units Proposed Indrio SHG Proposed Wawa Kings & US-1 Proposed Seagrove and Coconut Grove Proposed Self- Storage Ft. Pierce Ski Lago Residential Subdivision 21 residential units Meadowwood Phase II 690 residential units Bedner Farms PUD Site Plan 336 residential units Proposed Buccee’s Emerson Avenue 97 residential units Bedner Farms Plat 1090 residential units Proposed Lake Shore Plat Site Plan Proposed Massa- Hammond Rd Lot Proposed Chips Custom Painting Proposed Meyer Logistics Inc. Indrio Town Center Subject Site Page 78 of 239 Page 79 of 239 Page 80 of 239 Page 81 of 239 Page 82 of 239 Page 83 of 239 Page 84 of 239 Page 85 of 239 LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1 LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC INDRIO ROAD 86' ROW (WIDTH VARIES) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC EXISTING FDOT LAKE 3.2 AC (NOT IN PROJECT) PUBLIX AT INDRIO COMMONS(NOT IN PROJECT) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 RU S S A K I S R D FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 INDRIO ROAD EM E R S O N A V E . RU S S A K I S R D POND FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 EM E R S O N A V E . TO B TOB T O B TOB TOB EO W EO W EOW EOW EOW EOW EO W EOW EOW EO W EO W EO W EO W EOW 1,500' URBANSERVICE BOUNDARY OFFSET A V E APPL E PARCEL 4MIXED-USE ORRETAIL BUILDING LOT 6.99 AC 47,750 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 7MIXED-USE OR RESIDENTIALBUILDING LOT 16.03 AC*85 MAX RETAIL LOTS OR 105,000 MAX SF*16 TOWNHOME LOTS80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE LAKE 6.72 AC PARCEL 2RETAIL BUILDING LOT 2.54 AC 22,250 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20%MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 1 HIGHWAY SERVICE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 3.53 AC11,750 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 3MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 4.69 AC 50,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20%MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 4 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT6.99 AC47,750 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 5 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 3.59 AC42,500 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 6RETAIL BUILDING LOT 12.64 AC 168,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 8LIMITED CIVIC USES &PASSIVE COUNTRYSIDE LOT 26.33 AC 10% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 90% MIN. OPEN SPACE6.9 AC LAKE PARCEL 6 RETAIL BUILDING LOT 12.64 AC168,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE EXISTING / PROPOSED LAKE 2.66 AC WETLAND TO REMAIN PARCEL 1 HIGHWAY SERVICE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT3.53 AC11,750 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE SP I N E W O O D A V E INKWOOD AVE INKWOOD AVE LIMBO DRIVE by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediately report any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC. These drawings are the property of the architect and are not to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape Architects Land Planners Environmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce Lane Suite 1 Jupiter, Florida 33458 561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH/PRP PRP LAH 23-0317 06-09-26 11 INDRIO RD RU S S A K I S R D EM E R S O N A V E SITE JO H N S T O N R D KO B L E G A R D R D VICINITY MAP NTS ENVIRONMENTAL: HOBE SOUND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 9512 SE DUNCAN ST HOBE SOUND, FL 33455 772.545.3676 PROJECT TEAM AGENT/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/PLANNER: COTLEUR & HEARING, INC. 1934 COMMERCE LANE, SUITE 1 JUPITER, FL 33458 561.515.4450 LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOCATION MAP NTS SHEET LIST TABLE INDRIO TOWN CENTER INDRIO ROAD ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL 34951 1315-131-0001-000-0, 1315-121-0001-000-9 SITE PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 S, RANGE 39 E ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DRAINAGE DITCHES, CANALS OR PUBLIC ROADS, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE EAST 80 FEET, THE WEST 60 FEET AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT: THE SOUTH 830.00 FEET OF THE EAST 1,550.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE EAST 80 FEET AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND LESS AND EXCEPT: A PORTION OF PLAT OF FORT PIERCE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 00°33'17" WEST, 2,614.52 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR ITEM/SEGMENT NO. 2303384, SECTION 94004-2501; THENCE SOUTH 89°25'38" EAST, 60.00 FEET TO A POINT INTERSECTING THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AND THE EAST EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RUSSAKIS ROAD, ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°33'17" EAST, 90.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RUSSAKIS ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 44 °26'1 L" EAST, 35.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°25'38" EAST, 1,022.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°37'49" WEST, 65.00 FEET TO SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD); THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 1,047.51 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: A PORTION OF PLAT OF FORT PIERCE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION I 5, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT A FOUND 1 /2" IRON ROD WITH NO CAP MARKING THE EAST ONE-QUARTER (E I /4) COMER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE NORTH 00°37'49" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 15, 60.00 FEET TO THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR ITEM/SEGMENT NO. 2303384, SECTION 94004-2501; THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 80.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 6; THENCE NORTH 00°37'49" EAST, 770.00 FEET ALONG SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 19.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03°35'07" EAST, 384.70 FEET TO SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 00°37'49" WEST, 384.17 FEET ALONG SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 85.29 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (NOT INCLUDED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION. ACREAGE ADDED AT COUNTY'S REQUEST) INDRIO RD SITE SPANISH LAKES BLVD RU S S A K I S R D EM E R S O N A V E HIBISCUS RDRUSSOS RD HIBISCUS RDRUSSOS RD LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC TRAFFIC: MACKENZIE ENGINEERING 1172 SW 30TH ST PALM CITY, FL 34990 772.286.8030 ENGINEER/SURVEYOR: CULPEPPER AND TERPENING, INC. 2980 SOUTH 25TH STREET FT. PIERCE, FL 34981 772.464.3537 Page 86 of 239 AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 5 3 10 1010 10 10 7 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 6 7 10 10 3 4 10 10 10 7 5 3 5 8 10 6 6 4 7 3 4 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 10 7 2 10 5 3 6 9 5 4 8 8 7 7 6 75 6 66 5 7 7 10 10 5 55 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 55 3 3 3 3 5 5 8 8 8 8 10657 7 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 8 3 3 366 66 5 5 4 5 6 6 6 5 U 13,380 SF(RESTAURANT) 1500' URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY ST. LUCIE COUNTY URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY 60' FUTURE ROW 556' 757.1' 498.5' 1022.6' 1064.8' 705' 1338.7' 1249.6' 1450.3' 804.8' 1719.8' 70' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 60' FUTURE ROW 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 60' FUTURE ROW 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO B TOB T O B TOB TOB NOTE: AREA LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE 1,500' EXTENSION SHALL NOT INCLUDE ANY DEVELOPMENT PERMITTEDEXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE USB EO W E O W EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W EOW EOW E O W EO W EO W EO W EOW 1,500' URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY OFFSET 473.3' 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 50' ROW DEDICATION 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 60' FUTURE ROW 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 75' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 66' FUTURE ROW 50' FUTURE ROW PARCEL 7 MIXED-USE OR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOT 16.03 AC *85 MAX RETAIL LOTS OR 105,000 MAX SF *16 TOWNHOME LOTS 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 2 RETAIL BUILDING LOT 2.54 AC 22,250 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 1 HIGHWAY SERVICE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 3.53 AC 11,750 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 3 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 4.69 AC 50,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 4 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 6.99 AC 47,750 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 5 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 3.59 AC 42,500 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 6 RETAIL BUILDING LOT 12.64 AC 168,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE EXISTING / PROPOSED LAKE 2.66 AC WETLAND TO REMAIN66' FUTURE ROW PARCEL 4 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 6.99 AC 47,750 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC INDRIO ROAD 86' ROW (WIDTH VARIES) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC EM E S O N A V E . EXISTING FDOT LAKE 3.2 AC (NOT IN PROJECT) PUBLIX AT INDRIO COMMONS(NOT IN PROJECT) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 RU S S A K I S R D FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 INDRIO ROAD EM E R S O N A V E . RU S S A K I S R D SP I N E W O O D A V E SP I N E W O O D A V E SP I N E W O O D A V E INKWOOD AVEINKWOOD AVE POND A P P L E A V E POND APPLE AVE LIMBO DR 50' ROW DEDICATION 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER LAKE 6.72 AC PARCEL 8 LIMITED CIVIC USES & PASSIVE COUNTRYSIDE LOT 26.33 AC 10% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 90% MIN. OPEN SPACE 6.9 AC LAKE 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER VERTICAL MIXED USE ELIGIBILITY BOUNDARY 18.4 AC PARCEL 6 RETAIL BUILDING LOT 12.64 AC 168,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediately report any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC. These drawings are the property of the architect and are not to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape Architects Land Planners Environmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce Lane Suite 1 Jupiter, Florida 33458 561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH/PRP PRP LAH 23-0317 06-09-26 11 North 75' Scale: 1" = 150' 0'150'450'300'600' KEY MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D PRW REGULATING PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DRAINAGE DITCHES, CANALS OR PUBLIC ROADS, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE EAST 80 FEET, THE WEST 60 FEET AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT: THE SOUTH 830.00 FEET OF THE EAST 1,550.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE EAST 80 FEET AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND LESS AND EXCEPT: A PORTION OF PLAT OF FORT PIERCE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 00°33'17" WEST, 2,614.52 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR ITEM/SEGMENT NO. 2303384, SECTION 94004-2501; THENCE SOUTH 89°25'38" EAST, 60.00 FEET TO A POINT INTERSECTING THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AND THE EAST EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RUSSAKIS ROAD, ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°33'17" EAST, 90.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RUSSAKIS ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 44 °26'1 L" EAST, 35.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°25'38" EAST, 1,022.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°37'49" WEST, 65.00 FEET TO SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD); THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 1,047.51 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: A PORTION OF PLAT OF FORT PIERCE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION I 5, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT A FOUND 1 /2" IRON ROD WITH NO CAP MARKING THE EAST ONE-QUARTER (E I /4) COMER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE NORTH 00°37'49" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 15, 60.00 FEET TO THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR ITEM/SEGMENT NO. 2303384, SECTION 94004-2501; THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 80.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 6; THENCE NORTH 00°37'49" EAST, 770.00 FEET ALONG SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 19.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03°35'07" EAST, 384.70 FEET TO SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 00°37'49" WEST, 384.17 FEET ALONG SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 85.29 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. (NOT INCLUDED IN LEGAL DESCRIPTION. ACREAGE ADDED AT COUNTY'S REQUEST) SITE DATA 1.AT TIME OF FINAL SITE PLAN, THE DEVELOPER SHALL REFER BACK TO THE INDRIO TOWN CENTER SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATING PLAN TO ENSURE EAH PARCEL MEETS THE STANDARDS OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY TVC PRW CODE AND INTENT OF THE TOWN CENTER. 2.20% MINIMUM OPEN SPACE IS REQUIRED PER PARCEL. GENERAL NOTES Page 87 of 239 V156,376 SF ~SHARED PARKING~305 SPACES LAKE6.72 AC LAKEOVERLOOK PICNICPLAZA SHADEAREASHELTER 1500' URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY LAKE6.72 AC LAKE6.72 AC LAKE1.07 AC U13,380 SF(RESTAURANT) TO B TOB T O B TOB TOB ST. LUCIE COUNTY URBANSERVICE BOUNDARY ~WETLAND~TO REMAIN EO W E O W EOW EOW EOW EOW EO W EOW EOW E O W EO W EO W EO W EOW 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 8' ' F M 8'' F M WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WMWM WM WM EXISTING /PROPOSED LAKE2.66 AC LAND USE: AG-1 LAND USE: AG-1 LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC INDRIO ROAD86' ROW (WIDTH VARIES) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC EXISTINGFDOTLAKE3.2 AC(NOT INPROJECT) PUBLIX AT INDRIO COMMONS(NOT IN PROJECT) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 RU S S A K I S R D FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 INDRIO ROAD EM E R S O N A V E . RU S S A K I S R D SP I N E W O O D A V E POND APPLE AVE INKWOOD AVE INKWOOD AVE PARCEL 8RETAIL BUILDING LOT12.64 AC168,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 EM E R S O N A V E . 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 70' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER LIMBO DRIVE P17,110 SF R6,000 SF T6,307 SF S4,520 SF H3,867 SF J7,891 SF I7,750 SF G10,193 SF D9,092 SF E10,551 SF F7,891 SF ~SHARED PARKING~174 SPACES Q8,365 SF A6,190 SF B5,507 SF L15,915 SFK6,190 SF M16,367 SF N11,650 SF ~SHARED PARKING~348 SPACES 7,462 SFLAWN/VENDORAREA ART ~SHARED PARKING~116 SPACES (GASSTATION /CAR WASHEQUIPMENTAREA) --- SFLAWN/VENDORAREA OFFICE5,400 SF OFFICE8,000 SF OFFICE6,000 SF OFFICE8,000 SF OFFICE7,050 SF ~SHARED PARKING~111 SPACES OFFICE5,000 SF OFFICE6,000 SF OFFICE5,000 SF OFFICE5,000 SF OFFICE8,000 SF OFFICE4,000 SF OFFICE4,000 SF ~SHARED PARKING~240 SPACES OFFICE5,000 SF OFFICE6,200 SF OFFICE7,100 SF OFFICE5,500 SF OFFICE6,700 SF 40,000 SF24 HR OFFICE 62,500 SF9AM-5PM OFFICE 705' 1338.7' 1270.7' 1249.6' 1450.3' 1022.6' 804.8' 1719.8' 60' FUTURE ROW 556' 473.3' 757.1' 50' ROW DEDICATION 50' ROWDEDICATION 50'LB 66' FUTURE ROW 60' FUTURE ROW 66' FUTURE ROW 498.6' 50' LB 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER NOTE: AREA LOCATED OUTSIDEOF THE 1,500' EXTENSIONSHALL NOT INCLUDE ANYDEVELOPMENT PERMITTEDEXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THEUSB 1,500' URBANSERVICEBOUNDARYOFFSET PARCEL 8RETAIL BUILDING LOT12.64 AC168,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PRW REGULATING PLAN CONCEPTUAL MASTER SITE PLAN A by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH/PRP PRP LAH 23-0317 06-09-26 11 North 75' Scale: 1" = 150' 0'150'450'300'600' KEY MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA:85.29 AC (3,715,420.54 SF) COMMERCIAL 50.03 AC PASSIVE PARK 26.33 AC ROW 8.94 AC OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS REQUIRED 20% MINIMUM (PER PARCEL) LAKES 10.47 AC LANDSCAPE AREA 8.10 AC OTHER 36.69 AC *OTHER OPEN SPACES INCLUDED AT THE TIME OF FINAL SITE PLANS: CIVIC AREAS, LAKE MAINTENANCE AREAS, LANDSCAPE AREAS, BUFFERS, ETC. THIS MAP IS AN ARTISTS ILLUSTRATION OF THE GENERALIZED CONCEPT WHICH IS ONE OF MANY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS WHICH SHARE A COMMON UNDERLYING DESIGN BASIS TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK WHICH RECOGNIZES THE SCALE AND ENDEAVOR TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH CRITERIA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW ANDBALANCED DESIGN IMPERATIVES TO PROVIDE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND MARKET SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COSTUMERS AND THE COMMUNITY. THE POD SITE PLANS MAY VARY AS THE NATURAL EVOLUTION OF THE SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS ARE PROCESSED THROUGH THE VARIOUS DESIGN AND JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES TO FINAL APPROVAL. NOTWITHSTANDING VARIATIONS IN DESIGN AS THE DETAILED SITE PLANS BECOME MORE REFINED, PRIOR APPROVALS SHALL ENTITLE THE APPLICANT WITHOUT RETURNING FOR REVISION REVIEW BYPRIOR AUTHORITY, TO CONTINUE SUBSEQUENT MORE LOCALIZED DECISIONS AS FUNCTIONAL DETAILS BECOME EVIDENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR DEVELOPERS RESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THESE FUNCTIONAL DESIGN ACCOMMODATIONS. NOTE Page 88 of 239 LAKE6.72 AC LAKEOVERLOOK PICNICPLAZA SHADEAREASHELTER 1500' URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY LAKE6.72 AC LAKE6.72 AC LAKE1.07 AC U13,380 SF(RESTAURANT) TO B TOB T O B TOB TOB ST. LUCIE COUNTY URBANSERVICE BOUNDARY ~WETLAND~TO REMAIN EO W E O W EOW EOW EOW EOW EO W EOW EOW E O W EO W EO W EO W EOW 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 12'' FM 8' ' F M 8' ' F M WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WMWMWMWMWM WMWM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WM WMWM WM WM ~SHARED PARKING~305 SPACES EXISTING /PROPOSED LAKE2.66 AC LAND USE: AG-1 LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC INDRIO ROAD86' ROW (WIDTH VARIES) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC EXISTINGFDOTLAKE3.2 AC(NOT INPROJECT) PUBLIX AT INDRIO COMMONS(NOT IN PROJECT) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 RU S S A K I S R D FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 EM E R S O N A V E . RU S S A K I S R D POND APPLE AVE FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 EM E R S O N A V E . 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 70' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER BARKPARK TOWNHOMEBUILDING 12 UNITS TOWNHOMEBUILDING 22 UNITS THBLDG 32 DU THBLDG 42 DU THBLDG 52 DU THBLDG 62 DU THBLDG 72 DU THBLDG 82 DU PICKLEBALLCOURTS AMENITY ~OPEN SPACE~ ~OPEN SPACE~ ~OPEN SPACE~ ~OPEN SPACE~P17,110 SF R6,000 SF T6,307 SF S4,520 SF H3,867 SF J7,891 SF I7,750 SF G10,193 SF D9,092 SF E10,551 SF F7,891 SF ~SHARED PARKING~174 SPACES Q8,365 SF A6,190 SF B5,507 SF L15,915 SFK6,190 SF M16,367 SF N11,650 SF ~SHARED PARKING~348 SPACES 7,462 SFLAWN/VENDORAREA ART ~SHARED PARKING~116 SPACES (GASSTATION /CAR WASHEQUIPMENTAREA) --- SFLAWN/VENDORAREA V156,376 SF OFFICE5,400 SF OFFICE8,000 SF OFFICE6,000 SF OFFICE8,000 SF OFFICE7,050 SF ~SHARED PARKING~111 SPACES OFFICE5,000 SF 40,000 SF24 HR OFFICE 705' 1338.7' 1270.7' 1249.6' 1450.3' 1022.6' 804.8' 1719.8' 60' FUTURE ROW 556' 473.3' 757.1' 50' ROW DEDICATION 50' ROW DEDICATION 50' LB 66'FUTUREROW 60' FUTURE ROW 66' FUTURE ROW 498.6' 50' LB INDRIO ROAD SP I N E W O O D A V E INKWOOD AVE INKWOOD AVE LIMBO DRIVE 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 20' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 1,500' URBANSERVICEBOUNDARYOFFSET PARCEL 8RETAIL BUILDING LOT12.64 AC168,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE NOTE: AREA LOCATED OUTSIDEOF THE 1,500' EXTENSIONSHALL NOT INCLUDE ANYDEVELOPMENT PERMITTEDEXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THEUSB PARCEL 8RETAIL BUILDING LOT12.64 AC168,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH/PRP PRP LAH 23-0317 06-09-26 11 North 75' Scale: 1" = 150' 0'150'450'300'600' KEY MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D PRW REGULATING PLAN CONCEPTUAL MASTER SITE PLAN B SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA:85.29 AC (3,715,420.54 SF) COMMERCIAL 33.99 AC MIXED USE / RESIDENTIAL 16.03 AC PASSIVE PARK 26.33 AC ROW 8.94 AC OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS REQUIRED 20% MINIMUM (PER PARCEL) LAKES 10.47 AC LANDSCAPE AREA 8.10 AC OTHER 36.69 AC *OTHER OPEN SPACES INCLUDED AT THE TIME OF FINAL SITE PLANS: CIVIC AREAS, LAKE MAINTENANCE AREAS, LANDSCAPE AREAS, BUFFERS, ETC. THIS MAP IS AN ARTISTS ILLUSTRATION OF THE GENERALIZED CONCEPT WHICH IS ONE OF MANY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS WHICH SHARE A COMMON UNDERLYING DESIGN BASIS TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK WHICH RECOGNIZES THE SCALE AND ENDEAVOR TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH CRITERIA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW ANDBALANCED DESIGN IMPERATIVES TO PROVIDE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND MARKET SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COSTUMERS AND THE COMMUNITY. THE POD SITE PLANS MAY VARY AS THE NATURAL EVOLUTION OF THE SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS ARE PROCESSED THROUGH THE VARIOUS DESIGN AND JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES TO FINAL APPROVAL. NOTWITHSTANDING VARIATIONS IN DESIGN AS THE DETAILED SITE PLANS BECOME MORE REFINED, PRIOR APPROVALS SHALL ENTITLE THE APPLICANT WITHOUT RETURNING FOR REVISION REVIEW BYPRIOR AUTHORITY, TO CONTINUE SUBSEQUENT MORE LOCALIZED DECISIONS AS FUNCTIONAL DETAILS BECOME EVIDENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR DEVELOPERS RESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THESE FUNCTIONAL DESIGN ACCOMMODATIONS. NOTE Page 89 of 239 Page 90 of 239 Page 91 of 239 AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130)AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) AeccDbCogoPoint (AeccLand130) 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 5 3 10 1010 10 10 7 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 6 7 10 10 3 4 10 10 10 7 5 3 5 8 10 6 6 4 7 3 4 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 10 7 2 10 5 3 6 9 5 4 8 8 7 7 6 75 6 66 5 7 7 10 10 5 55 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 55 3 3 3 3 5 5 8 8 8 8 10657 7 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 8 3 3 366 66 5 5 4 5 6 6 6 5 U13,380 SF(RESTAURANT) 1500' URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY ST. LUCIE COUNTY URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY 556' 757.1' 498.5' 1022.6' 1064.8' 705' 1338.7' 1270.7' 1249.6' 1450.3' 804.8' 1719.8' 60' FUTURE ROW 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO B TOB T O B TOB TOB LAKE 6.9 AC WETLAND TO REMAIN EXISTING / PROPOSED LAKE 2.66 AC PARCEL 7 MIXED-USE OR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOT 16.03 AC *85 MAX RETAIL LOTS OR 105,000 MAX SF *16 TOWNHOME LOTS80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 2 RETAIL BUILDING LOT 2.54 AC 22,250 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 1 HIGHWAY SERVICE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 3.53 AC 11,750 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 3 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 4.69 AC 50,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 4 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 6.99 AC 47,750 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 5MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 3.59 AC 42,500 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 6 RETAIL BUILDING LOT 12.64 AC 168,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 8 LIMITED CIVIC USES & PASSIVE COUNTRYSIDE LOT 26.33 AC 10% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 90% MIN. OPEN SPACE 6.9 AC LAKE PARCEL 4 MIXED-USE OR RETAIL BUILDING LOT 6.99 AC47,750 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE NOTE: AREA LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE1,500' EXTENSION SHALL NOT INCLUDEANY DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED EXCLUSIVELY WITHIN THE USB EO W E O W EOW EOW EOW EOW EO W EOW EOW E O W EO W EO W EO W EOW 1,500' URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY OFFSET 473.3' LAND USE: AG-1 LAND USE: AG-1 LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC INDRIO ROAD 86' ROW (WIDTH VARIES) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC EM E S O N A V E . EXISTING FDOT LAKE 3.2 AC (NOT IN PROJECT) PUBLIX AT INDRIO COMMONS(NOT IN PROJECT) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 RU S S A K I S R D FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 INDRIO ROAD EM E R S O N A V E . RU S S A K I S R D SP I N E W O O D A V E SP I N E W O O D A V E SP I N E W O O D A V E INKWOOD AVEINKWOOD AVE POND A P P L E A V E POND APPLE AVE LIMBO DR PARCEL 6 RETAIL BUILDING LOT 12.64 AC 168,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE /20% MIN. OPEN SPACE by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediately report any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC. These drawings are the property of the architect and are not to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape Architects Land Planners Environmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce Lane Suite 1 Jupiter, Florida 33458 561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH/PRP PRP LAH 23-0317 06-09-26 11 North 75' Scale: 1" = 150' 0'150'450'300'600' KEY MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D PRW REGULATING PLAN MASTER PHASING EXHIBIT LEGEND SITE DATA NOTES THIS PHASING PLAN OUTLINES THE ANTICIPATED PROGRESSION OF DEVELOPMENT FOR INDRIO TOWN CENTER. THE ORDER AND TIMELINE OF INDIVIDUAL POD PHASES ARE SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS AT THE TIME EACH POD'S SITE PLAN IS DEVELOPED. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR DEVELOPERS RETAIN THE RIGHT TO MODIFY THESE PHASES AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE FUNCTIONAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND ENSURE THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT. PHASE 1: PARCEL 1, PARCEL 2, PARCEL 7, PARCEL 8, RIGHT OF WAYS PHASE 2: PARCEL 3, PARCEL 5 PHASE 3: PARCEL 4 PHASE 4: PARCEL 6 North Page 92 of 239 100' MIN LOT WIDTH FRONT HIGHWAY 100' MINLOT DEPTH ~PARKING IN REAR~ OR SIDE 75' MAX FRONT SETBACK 10' MIN FRONT SETBACK 15' MIN REAR SETBACK LOT LINE 0' MIN SIDE SETBACK BUILDABLE AREA UP TO 85% LOT COVERAGE 50' MIN LOT WIDTH 50' MIN LOT DEPTH LOT LINE *BUILDABLE AREA UP TO 10% LOT COVERAGE0' MIN FRONT SETBACK 15' MIN REAR SETBACK 0' MIN SIDESETBACK 16' MIN / 60' MAXLOT WIDTH 30' MIN / 450' MAX LOT DEPTH LOT LINE 0' MIN FRONT SETBACK 15' MIN REAR SETBACK 0' MIN SIDESETBACK 10' MAX FRONT SETBACK BUILDABLE AREA UP TO 80% LOT COVERAGE 24' MIN LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH TO BEDETERMINED BASEDUPON LOT WIDTH MATRIX FOR MINIMUM 2,400 SF LOT SIZE LOT LINE 0' MIN FRONT SETBACK 15' MIN REAR SETBACK 0' MIN SIDESETBACK 5' MAX FRONT SETBACK BUILDABLE AREA UP TO 80% LOT COVERAGE 24' MIN / 60' MAXLOT WIDTH 40' MIN LOTDEPTH LOT LINE 0' MIN FRONT SETBACK 15' MIN REAR SETBACK 0' MIN SIDESETBACK 5' MAX FRONT SETBACK BUILDABLE AREA UP TO 80% LOT COVERAGE 24' MIN / 300' MAXLOT WIDTH 40' MIN LOTDEPTH LOT LINE 0' MIN FRONT SETBACK 10' MIN REAR SETBACK*0' IF ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE 20' OR LARGER 5' MAX FRONT SETBACK BUILDABLE AREA UP TO 80% LOT COVERAGE 10' SIDE SETBACK 10' SIDE SETBACK 24' MIN / 200' MAXLOT WIDTH 40' MIN LOT DEPTH LOT LINE 0' MIN FRONT SETBACK 15' MIN REAR SETBACK*0' IF ADJACENT TO OPENSPACE 20' OR LARGER 5' MAX FRONT SETBACK BUILDABLE AREA UP TO 80% LOT COVERAGE 10' SIDE SETBACK 10' SIDE SETBACKBUILDABLE AREA 44' TYP.LOT WIDTH 110' TYP. LOTDEPTH LOT LINE 22'REARSETBACK 22' 10'FRONTSETBACK by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH/PRP PRP LAH 23-0317 06-09-26 11 PRW REGULATING PLAN TYPICAL LOT EXHIBIT Notes: 1. 15' MIN. SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS. 2. THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF A ONE CAR DRIVEWAY IS 9' FOR A TWO CAR GARAGE THE MINIMUM WIDTH IS 16' 3. MINIMUM LOT AREA IS 1,800 SF. 4. AC IN REAR IS PERMITTED. 5. AC MUST BE SCREENED FROM RIGHT OF WAY WITH LANDSCAPE. 24 HOUR OFFICE LOT MIXED USE BUILDING LOT LIVE/WORK BUILDING LOT CIVIC BUILDING LOT RETAIL BUILDING LOT HIGHWAY SERVICE LOT 1" = 20' SCALE 1" = 30' SCALE 1" = 30' SCALE 1" = 30' SCALE1" = 20' SCALE 1" = 20' SCALE1" = 20' SCALE 9AM-5PM HOUR OFFICE LOT NOTE: 1. 24-HOUR OFFICE USE IS NOT PERMITTED WITHIN 1,200' OF EMERSON AVENUE. 2 UNIT ALLEY TOWNHOME 1" = 40' SCALE Page 93 of 239 66' R/W 6'17'13'13' 6'8' 33'33' 6' 8'6' 34'32' 12' 2' MIN 2'2' 2' MIN 1' 1' 5' MINIMUM DISTANCE R/ W L I N E CONC. SW R/ W L I N E LANDSCAPELANDSCAPE RO A D 2%2% 2% MAX.2% APPROXIMATE FINISHED GRADEAPPROXIMATE FINISHED GRADE VALLEY GUTTER (TYP.) VALLEYGUTTER (TYP.) ASPHALTPAVEMENT 6" COQUINA BASE PGL CONC.SW 2% F.P.L./ BELLSOUTH/ CABLE 2%MAX. 12" SUBGRADE 8" WM R/ W F.P.L./ BELLSOUTH/ CABLE GRAVITYSANITARY SEWER 66' RIGHT-OF-WAY TYPICAL SECTION POSTED SPEED 25 MPH CL CL TYPICAL LOCATION OF WATER METER OR SEWER CLEANOUT TYPICAL LOCATION OF WATER METEROR SEWERCLEANOUT FIBER OPTICS 10' UTILITYEASEMENT (U.E.) 10' UTILITY EASEMENT (U.E.) 17' ON STREETPARKING ON STREET PARKING D CURB 60' R/W 6'14'10'10' 6'8' 30'30' 6' 10' 8'6' 31'29' 12' 9' 2' 24.1'MIN 2'2' 59.8'MIN 1' 1' 5' MINIMUMDISTANCE R/ W L I N E CONC. SW R/ W L I N E LANDSCAPELANDSCAPE RO A D 2%2% 2%MAX.2% APPROXIMATEFINISHED GRADEAPPROXIMATEFINISHED GRADE VALLEY GUTTER(TYP.) VALLEY GUTTER(TYP.) ASPHALT PAVEMENT 6" COQUINA BASE PGL CONC. SW 2% F.P.L./ BELLSOUTH/CABLE 2%MAX. 12" SUBGRADE 8" WM R/ W F.P.L./BELLSOUTH/ CABLE GRAVITYSANITARY SEWER 60' RIGHT-OF-WAY TYPICAL SECTION POSTED SPEED 25 MPH CL CL TYPICAL LOCATION OF WATER METER OR SEWERCLEANOUT TYPICAL LOCATION OF WATER METEROR SEWERCLEANOUT FIBEROPTICS 10' UTILITY EASEMENT (U.E.) 10' UTILITYEASEMENT (U.E.) 14' ON STREET PARKING ON STREETPARKING D CURB 25' ALLEY 10'-6" RO A D 2%2%2% APPROXIMATE FINISHED GRADEAPPROXIMATE FINISHED GRADE VALLEY GUTTER(TYP.) VALLEY GUTTER (TYP.) ASPHALT PAVEMENT COQUINA BASE 12'-6" PGL 2% 10' UTILITY EASEMENT (U.E.) 10' UTILITY EASEMENT (U.E.) SUBGRADE WM F.P.L./ BELLSOUTH/ CABLE GRAVITYSANITARY SEWER 25' ALLEY TYPICAL SECTION POSTED SPEED 25 MPH CL 2' 24.1'MIN 2' 1'5' MINIMUM DISTANCE TYPICAL LOCATION OF WATERMETER OR SEWER CLEANOUT TYPICAL LOCATIONOF WATER METEROR SEWERCLEANOUT F.P.L./ BELLSOUTH/CABLE 2' MIN 10'-6"2' 12'-6" 50' R/W 6'10'10' 25' 2'2' 2'MIN R/ W L I N E CONC.SW R/ W L I N E 2%2% 2% MAX.2% APPROXIMATE FINISHED GRADEAPPROXIMATE FINISHED GRADE VALLEY GUTTER (TYP.) VALLEYGUTTER (TYP.) ASPHALTPAVEMENT 6" COQUINABASE PGL2% F.P.L./BELLSOUTH/ CABLE 2%MAX. 12" SUBGRADE 8" WM GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY TYPICAL SECTION POSTED SPEED 25 MPH CL TYPICAL LOCATION OF WATER METER OR SEWER CLEANOUT TYPICAL LOCATION OF WATER METEROR SEWERCLEANOUT FIBER OPTICS 10'UTILITYEASEMENT (U.E.) 10' UTILITY EASEMENT (U.E.) ON STREET PARKING ON STREET PARKING D CURB 6' CONC.SW F.P.L./ BELLSOUTH/ CABLE 24.1'24.1'MIN 1'5' MINIMUMDISTANCE 6'6' 25' PRW REGULATING PLAN ROW EXHIBIT by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH/PRP PRP/VEJ LAH 23-0317 05-06-26 11 66' TYPICAL MAIN STREET ROW 60' TYPICAL ROW25' ALLEY TYPICAL 50' TYPICAL ROW Page 94 of 239 Page 95 of 239 CANOPY LAYER DOUBLE HEDGE ROW SMALL SHRUBCLUSTERS PROPERTY LINE RIGHT OF WAY 25' RIGHT OF WAYDEDICATION 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 6'PATH EXISTINGNATIVE TREES TO REMAIN ASSHOWN ON PLAN 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES 50'BUFFER 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES CLUSTER OF 3SABAL PALMS MAY COUNTAS 1 LARGE TREE LARGE PALM TREESMAY COUNT AS 1 LARGE TREE HEDGE MAINTAINED AT 4' HT HEDGE MAINTAINED AT 4' HT ACCESS & IMPROVEMENTS; DE &UE TO BE DETERMINED AT TIMEOF FINAL SITE PLAN PROPERTY LINE CLUSTERS OF SMALL SHRUBS 6' PATH EXISTING NATIVETREES TO REMAIN 25' ROWDEDICATION 50' BUFFER 4' - 5' BERM CANOPY LAYER SHRUB LAYER PROPERTY LINE OR ROW DOUBLE HEDGE 8' OPAQUE MASONRY WALL OR PVC FENCE 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES 50'BUFFER ON 4'-5' BERM 30' BETWEEN LARGE TREES CLUSTER OF 3 SABAL PALMS MAY COUNTAS 1 LARGE TREE LARGE PALM TREES MAY COUNTAS 1 LARGE TREE UNDERSTORY &SMALL SHRUBS UNDERSTORY & SMALL SHRUBS HEDGE TO BE MIN. 4' TALL HEDGE TO BE MIN. 4' TALL ACCESS &IMPROVEMENTS; DE & UE TO BEDETERMINED AT TIMEOF FINAL SITEPLAN 8' OPAQUE MASONRY WALL OR PVC FENCE 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES 24'BUFFERON 2-3' BERM 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES CLUSTER OF 3SABAL PALMS MAY COUNT AS 1 LARGE TREE LARGE PALM TREES MAY COUNTAS 1 LARGE TREE UNDERSTORY &SMALL SHRUBS UNDERSTORY & SMALL SHRUBS HEDGE TO BE MIN. 4' TALL ACCESS & IMPROVEMENTS; DE &UE TO BEDETERMINED AT TIMEOF FINAL SITEPLAN 8' OPAQUE MASONRYWALL OR PVC FENCE 24' BUFFER 2'-3' BERM CANOPY LAYER SHRUB LAYER PROPERTY LINE DOUBLE HEDGE 8' PVC FENCE CANOPY LAYER MEANDERING LANDSCAPE MATERIAL AROUNDEXISTING TREES NATIVE SHRUBCLUSTERS PROPERTY LINE RIGHT OF WAY 70' LANDSCAPE BUFFER COMMERCIAL AREA 6'MEANERINGPATH INDRIO ROAD EXISTINGNATIVE TREES TO REMAIN ASSHOWN ON PLAN 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES 70'BUFFER 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES CLUSTER OF 3SABAL PALMS MAY COUNTAS 1 LARGE TREE PROPERTYLINE CLUSTERS OFSHRUBS 6' PATH INDRIO ROAD EXISTING NATIVE TREES TO REMAIN CLUSTERS OF SHRUBS 24' BUFFER 2'-3' BERM CANOPY LAYER SHRUB LAYER PROPERTY LINE DOUBLE HEDGE 8' PVC FENCE 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES 24'BUFFERON 2-3' BERM 30' BETWEENLARGE TREES CLUSTER OF 3SABAL PALMS MAY COUNT AS 1 LARGE TREE LARGE PALM TREES MAY COUNTAS 1 LARGE TREE UNDERSTORY &SMALL SHRUBS UNDERSTORY &SMALL SHRUBS HEDGE TO BE MIN. 4' TALL ACCESS &IMPROVEMENTS; DE &UE TO BEDETERMINED AT TIMEOF FINAL SITEPLAN 8' OPAQUE MASONRYWALL OR PVC FENCE 4 7 TYPICAL COMMERCIAL BUILDING A TYPICALCOMMERCIALBUILDING B 16.2' LANDSCAPE 1 TREE OR PALM EVERY 30' LANDSCAPECUTOUT CONTINUOUSBUILDING PERIMETERHEDGE, 2' HEIGHT 10'16' 2' VEHICLEOVERHANG PRW REGULATING PLAN LANDSCAPE BUFFER EXHIBIT by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o C r o s s i n g s GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/VEJ LAH 23-0317 02-27-26 11 North BUFFER MAP 50' RUSSAKIS LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE '2' 50' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE '3' 30' Scale: 1" = 60' 0'60'180'120'240' INDRIO RD EM E R S O N A V E . RU S S A K I S R D . 25' PUBLIX LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE '4' 70' INDRIO LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE '1' BUFFER KEY TYPE 1 BUFFER TYPE 2 BUFFER TYPE 3 BUFFER TYPE 4 BUFFER FOUNDATION LANDSCAPE TYPE 5 BUFFER 30' LANDSCAPE BUFFER TYPE '5' TYPICAL COMMERCIAL BUILDING 1 2 5 3 4 4 3 3 Page 96 of 239 12" 28" 18" LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC PUBLIX AT INDRIO COMMONS(NOT IN PROJECT) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC INDRIO ROAD RU S S A K I S R O A D EM E R S O N A V E PRW REGULATING PLAN OVERALL TREE MITIGATION by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 6 02-27-26 1 North 75' Scale: 1" = 150' 0'150'450'300'600' LOCATION MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D MITIGATION LEGEND OAK TO BE PRESERVED OAK TO BE RELOCATED OAK TO BE REMOVED SABAL PALM TO BE PRESERVED SABAL PALM TO BE RELOCATED PINE TO BE PRESERVED PINE TO BE REMOVED OTHER TREE TO BE PRESERVED OTHER TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ORANGE PLASTICCONSTRUCTION FENCING STEEL BARFINISHED GRADE FENCE LOCATIONS TO BEAPPROVED IN FIELDTO DRIP LINE 4'-0" CONSTRUCTION STANDARD: DURING PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, THE AREAS WITHIN THE DRIP-LINE OF PRESERVEDTREES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THEIR ORIGINAL GRADE WITH PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. WITHINTHESE AREAS, THERE SHALL BE NO TRENCHING OR CUTTING OF ROOTS; NO FILL, COMPACTION OR REMOVALOF SOIL; AND, NO USE OF CONCRETE, PAINT, CHEMICALS OR OTHER FOREIGN SUBSTANCES. BARRICADE MUST BE CONSTRUCTEDAROUND THE CRITICAL PROTECTIONZONE Of EACH TREE OR CLUSTERS OFTREES NOTE: ALL BARRICADES MUST BE MAINTAINED INTACT FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. TREE CREDIT CALCULATIONS NOTES THIS TREE MITIGATION PLAN OUTLINES THE ANTICIPATED TREE PRESERVATION, RELOCATION, AND REMOVAL FOR INDRIO TOWN CENTER. THE FINAL TREE MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED PER EACH PARCEL THAT COMES FORWARD FOR THEIR FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL. THE PROJECTED PRESERVED TREES HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON THIS PLAN, HOWEVER MAY CHANGE DUE TO THE FINAL CONFIGURATION OF BUILDINGS, ROADWAYS, AND OPEN SPACE AREAS. Page 97 of 239 STMSTMSTM EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W #39716' #39419'#39012'#43114" #43214" #42812" #42515'#42616' #42716' #42413' #40728" #39922" #40015' #39814" #92318' #92220'#92120' #91820' #91715' #92014" #91612" #91512' #91214" #91111' #91311' #91016' #90912" #90816' #90732" #90615' #90413" #40618" #40512" #40415' #40215' #40115' #40314' #39325' #39218" #39128" #40822" #40913" TWIN#42313"#42218' #42112" #42015' #41912' #46322' #46228' #46512' #46422'#46717' #46825' #46926" #47136"#47030' #48421" #48525' #48615' #50315' #50422' #50520' #50222' #50122' #50020' #48722' #48324" #47314' #44231" #44311' #46030" #45921' #45724' #45520" #45423' #44114" #44611' #44925" #44815"#43713" #68515" #68827' #68914' #69013" #68617' #68422' #68322' #68222' #67911' #89918' #90118' #90017' #90218' #90318' #41818' #41718' #41017'#41115" #41220"#41320" #41620" #41519"#41410' #90518' #89816' #89710' #89633"#91428" #89325' #89425' #89212" #89012" #88920" #88510'#88735" #88616" #88410'#87612" #87520" #81912' #82014' #82215' #82311' #82411'#82620' #82518' #82815" 12"#827 #83413" #83315" #83520" #83620" #83810' #83715" #85112" #85335' #85415" #85525" #85613" #85019' #84918' #84820' #84718' #84622' #65214'#65310' #65115" #67111' #67217'#67315' #67415' #67518' #67618' #67018' #66920' #68122' #68022' #67812' #67722' #64812' #64912'#64725' #64615' #64420' #64318' #64212' #64116' #63922' #63723' #63823' #63618'#63514' #63330" #63018"#63215" #62724" #62624"#62514' #62936" #62836" #62425' #62120" #62024' #66130" #65726"#65513' #65419" #66218' #66320'#66415'#66518' #66618' #66712' #66822' #70013' #70222'#70314' #70111' #70420' #70513' #69915' #69815' #69720' #69616' #69212' #69118'#69313' #69413' #69510' #87418' #87212" #87114" #86020" #85910' #86212" #86112" #85816" #85717" #86318' #87018' #86818"#86912'#86712' #86615' #86515' #86418" #76521' #76122' #76210'#76432" #76014' #75918' #75818' #75718' #76820'#76915'#77018' #75622'#75518' #75414' #77320' #77218' #78416' #78516' #78330" #78114"#78230" #78624' #78720' #79020' #78920' #79120' #78817' #77117'#79420'#79520' #79611' #79712'#79815' #79918' #82918" #83015" #83113" #80130' #80616"#80714" #80813" #80518' #80411' #80320' #80211' #76626' #76710' #79318' #79218' #80918' #81032" #81116" #81228' #81322' #82122' #78014' #55120' #55323' #55222'#55420" #55825' #55928"#56010' #77730' #77810' #77913' #77415'#77518' #74725' #74611' #74515' #74413'#74913' #75218' #75314' #70722' #70818' #70620' #72720' #72818' #73430' #72918' #73018' #74220' #74322" #75020'#75118' #74120' #74020' #73720'#73820'#73910' #73622' #73520' #71612' #71516' #71417'#71012' #70914' #71120'#71210'#71312'#61620'#61032' #60730' #60824" #60913"#60428" #60325'#60035' #60112" #59822' #59924" #59415" #59618" #59520" #59728" #59322" #60211' #59220" #60628' #57222'#57318' #61325' #61215'#72615'#71725" #71820' #71913' #72416' #72322' #61422' #61522" #61122' #56818'#56923' #56622" #56522' #56728' #56323" #56227" #73124"#73214' #73313' #55718' #55620'#55518' #57918' #57722' #57510' #57430" #57614' #58930' #58821' #58420' #58519' #58622' #58213" #58120" #58022'#58322" #52918' #52812' #52614' #52714' #52520' #52010' #53016' #53122' #53224' #53610' #53723' #51813' #51715'#51620' #51425' #50912" #50819' #50615' #51320'#51225' #51110' #17930" #18032" #18130" #18436"#18536" #47833" #47736" #47636" #18722" #19836" #19736"#19636" #19332" #19436" #19236"#19122" #18830" #18626" #20530" #20630" #21046" #20916" #21130" #21228"#21334" #38622' #38718' #38230' #38328' #38418' #38520' #38012' #37918' #37822' #37717' #37612" #37411'#37512' #21430" #20724" #20324" #20124" #24214" #24312" #24130" #22730" #22322" #22222" #22117" #21511' #21610' #21717" #37018' #23917" #49315' #49020' #48918' #48818' #45130" #45227" #88837" #88128"#88028" #87938" #88214' #88328" #87725' #87826" #84422' #84512' #84326' #84214' #84122' #83919' #84020' #81830' #81422' #81513"#81712" #52119" #52224" #52319' #52430"#53318' #53418'#53518' #54922' #54822'#55018" #53840" #53922" #54012' #54323' #54120" #54225'#54411'#54535' #54630" #54717" #49714' #49614" #49519' #49410' #49214' #49119' #51915' #51513" #49813' #49920" #19530" #68712" #89524" #89140" #83212" #85213" #65014" #63424" #63126" #62246" #62346" #66016" #65946" #65818"#65623" #87331" #76325" #80040" #81620" #56130" #77620" #74840" #72112"#72033" #72223" #61926" #61826" #61724" #60546" #59148" #59016"#57148" #57032" #72520" #56427"#57840" #58740" #50736" #51048" #38914"#38833" #43522" #43436" #43331" #43020" #42920" #43640" #46612" #47948"#48033"#48116" #47236" #45019" #44526" #44412" #45330" #45824" TWIN #46124" #45666" #44717" #44022"#43924" #43840" #64530"#64018" #18260" #18322" #47460" #47520" #18942" #19942" #20020"#19042" #20833" #20432"#20236" #24416" #22420" #22515" #22620" #48248" #38118" INDRIO ROAD RU S S A K I S R O A D 24" EO W EO W EOW EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W E O W EO W EO W EOW EOW EOWEOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOWEOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W EO W EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOWEOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOWEOWEOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W E O W EO W EOW EOW EO W EOW EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W EO W #23424" #23610'#23524" #23728" #27718" #27928"#27628" #122' #215' #14516'#14628' #14724'#14823' #14930' #15023'#15225' #15315'#15436" #16930' 15"#170 #17118'#17230' #17330' #17432'#17530' 12"#176#17732' #17844" #16235' #16325' #16132' #15932' #16032' #15835'#15735'#15632' #15528' #15135' #16635' #16735' #16835' #16535'#16435' #25213' #25735' #25614'12"#255#25315'#25415' #14219" #14334" #14418" #525'#320'#33 12" #3220' #3120' #3018' #2819'#2919' #2116'#2022' #1913" #1830" #1715' #1615' #1516' #625' #14110' #14043"#13920" #13840" #24515" #13633" #12436" #12514' #7112" #7225' #7020' #6918"#7325' #7425'#7520'#7620' #7712" #6314"#6212' #6112' #6011' #5920" #5825'#5216" #5718' #5516' #5616' #5118' #5318' #5418' #5025' #4918'#4815'#4712" #4618' #4518'#4115' #4015'#3915' #3830" #37 11' #36 11' #35 15' #34 19'#6518' #6411'#6611'#6715' #6810' #7815" #8012' #7912" #8113" #8218' #8320' #8420' #8518' #8636" #8712' #8822'#8920" #9220' #9019"#9120' #9319' #9614"#9520' #9416' #9728' #9824" #9922' #10013"#10125' #10212" #28122' #28230" #28320' #28518' #28412" #28624" #28724" #28812"#28912"#29012" #29125' #29214" #29315" #29524" #29422' #244 #27836"#28030" #27533" #420" #840" #918" #1021"#1130" #1324' #1232" #2238" #2412" #2524"#2712" #1410' #710' #10628" #10811'#1091' #11023"#11115' #11248" #113 36" #11443" #11526" #11716' #118 30" #12012" #11931" #4418" #4326" #2318" #12131" #12250" #11611' #12328"#10718" #4210' #10512' #10432"#10336" #2623" #25912" #25812" #26020" #26115"#26220"#26318" #25122" #25013"#24912"#24814" #24612"#24724" #23820" #27217"#27112" #27020" #26820" #26515" #26430" #13223" #13427" #12916" #12818" #13024" #27414" #13712' #13311' #13114' #27336" #26938" #26630" #26730" #13537" #12733" #12633" by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 6 02-27-26 2 North 40' Scale: 1" = 80' 0'80'240'160'320' KEY MAP SITE POD 1COMMERCIAL POD 3PARK THIS SHEET MATCHLINE - SEE THIS SHEET MATCHLINE - SEE THIS SHEET MA T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T 3 MA T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T 3 LOCATION MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ORANGE PLASTICCONSTRUCTION FENCING STEEL BARFINISHED GRADE FENCE LOCATIONS TO BEAPPROVED IN FIELDTO DRIP LINE 4'-0" CONSTRUCTION STANDARD: DURING PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, THE AREAS WITHIN THE DRIP-LINE OF PRESERVEDTREES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THEIR ORIGINAL GRADE WITH PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. WITHINTHESE AREAS, THERE SHALL BE NO TRENCHING OR CUTTING OF ROOTS; NO FILL, COMPACTION OR REMOVALOF SOIL; AND, NO USE OF CONCRETE, PAINT, CHEMICALS OR OTHER FOREIGN SUBSTANCES. BARRICADE MUST BE CONSTRUCTEDAROUND THE CRITICAL PROTECTIONZONE Of EACH TREE OR CLUSTERS OFTREES NOTE: ALL BARRICADES MUST BE MAINTAINED INTACT FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. MITIGATION LEGEND OAK TO BE PRESERVED OAK TO BE RELOCATED OAK TO BE REMOVED SABAL PALM TO BE PRESERVED SABAL PALM TO BE RELOCATED PINE TO BE PRESERVED PINE TO BE REMOVED OTHER TREE TO BE PRESERVED OTHER TREE TO BE REMOVED POD 1COMMERCIAL PRW REGULATING PLAN TREE MITIGATION Page 98 of 239 TO B TOB TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TOB TOB TOB TOBTOBTOBTOBTOB TO B TOB TO B TO B TO B TOB TO B TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EOW EO W EO W EO W EOW EOW EOW EO W EOW EO W EO W #106812" #10677' #10668' #103815"#103918' #104018' #104115" #104216"#104324' #104416" #104517' #104612" #104714"#104812"#104912" #105020" #105118'#105224" #105312"#105415' #105520"#105614" #105724" #105813' #106012" #105912" #106211' #106314' #106113"#106415" #106515"#106928" #107222' #107112"#107014" #107322' #107412" #107712" #107520' #107616" #10369' #10359.5' #103411' #103313' #103213' #103115' #103010' #102910' #102813' #101436" LAYED OVER ALIVE 12"#1015 #101318' #101210'#100211' #98016' #97816' #97912" #97712" #97512"#976'20 #974'20#972'20#97112" #97318' #96912"#97013" #96810' #96712"#96618' #96516"#96413" #96014" #35515' #98221"#98322"#98422"#98512"#101716" #101615" #101831" #101912" #102012" #102216" #102313"#102415"#102511' #102616"#103713"#95715' #95816' #95916'#95616' #95514" #95415' #95015' #93213' #93113' #92914' #93015' #93315' #93410' #93813' #92715' #92815' #94319' #94412' #94514' #94614' #94719' #39512' #39616'#39716' #39419'#39012'#43114" #43214" #40728" #39922" #40015' #39814" #94816'#94910' #92518'#9269.5' #92415"#92318' #92220'#92120' #91820' #91715' #92014" #91612" #91512' #91214" #91111' #91311' #91016' #90912" #90816' #90732" #90615' #90413" #40618" #40512" #40415' #40215' #40115' #40314' #39325' #39218" #39128" #40822" #40913" TWIN#42313" #682 #67911' #89918' #90118' #90017' #90218' #90318' #41818' #41718' #41017'#41115" #41220"#41320" #41620" #41519"#41410' #90518' #89816' #89710' #89633"#91428" #893 #89425' #681 #678 #206 #213 #38622' #38718' #38230' #38328' #38418' #38520' #38012' #37918' #37822' #37717' #37612" #37411'#37512' #21430" #20724" #24214" #24312" #24130" #22730" #22322" #22222" #22117" #22026" #21511' #21610' #21717"#21814" #36923" #37018'#37120' #37222' #36416' #36824'#36522'#36625' #36715'#34318" #32312" #32114" #23116' #22918' #23028"#22822" #23228" #23316' #24015"#23917" #35313"#35415' #35622' #35713" #36319'#36220'#37315' #34212" #33513" #33619" #33324"#33415' #32818' #32714" #32612" #30512" #30312" #30212' 24" #29622' #29720' #29820'#29918"#30027' #30120' #30418" #30618" #30716"#30816" #35215" #35115" #35020' #34912" #34712" #34812" #34612"#34512"#34418' #34112" #34012' #33912" #33812" #33712" #32920' #33214" #33112" #33012" #32510' #32412' #32216" #31818' #31712"#31612" #31912" #32020' #31516' #31312"#31422" #31112"#31212" #31014"#30918' #98912' #98814'#98714' #9819.5' #89524" #102712" #102132" #38914"#38833" #43522" #43436" #43331" #43020" #429 #20833" #20432" #24416" #22420" #22515" #22620" #38118" LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC EM E R S O N A V E #99610' #9989.5' #99910' #100011' #99711' #100110' #99520' #99330' #99411' #99114' #99012' #95214' #95111' #94210' #94112' #94011' #93518' #93618' #93714' #93916' #21924" #36123" #36025' #35920'#35812" 24" #101011' #101114' #100813' #100914' #100415'#100311' #100515'#100615'#100715' #96112' #96214'#96312'#98613' by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 6 02-27-26 3 North 40' Scale: 1" = 80' 0'80'240'160'320' KEY MAP SITE POD 1COMMERCIAL POD 2PARK THIS SHEET LOCATION MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ORANGE PLASTICCONSTRUCTION FENCING STEEL BARFINISHED GRADE FENCE LOCATIONS TO BEAPPROVED IN FIELDTO DRIP LINE 4'-0" CONSTRUCTION STANDARD: DURING PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, THE AREAS WITHIN THE DRIP-LINE OF PRESERVEDTREES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THEIR ORIGINAL GRADE WITH PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. WITHINTHESE AREAS, THERE SHALL BE NO TRENCHING OR CUTTING OF ROOTS; NO FILL, COMPACTION OR REMOVALOF SOIL; AND, NO USE OF CONCRETE, PAINT, CHEMICALS OR OTHER FOREIGN SUBSTANCES. BARRICADE MUST BE CONSTRUCTEDAROUND THE CRITICAL PROTECTIONZONE Of EACH TREE OR CLUSTERS OFTREES NOTE: ALL BARRICADES MUST BE MAINTAINED INTACT FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T 2 MA T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T 2 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2 MITIGATION LEGEND OAK TO BE PRESERVED OAK TO BE RELOCATED OAK TO BE REMOVED SABAL PALM TO BE PRESERVED SABAL PALM TO BE RELOCATED PINE TO BE PRESERVED PINE TO BE REMOVED OTHER TREE TO BE PRESERVED OTHER TREE TO BE REMOVED POD 1COMMERCIAL PRW REGULATING PLAN TREE MITIGATION Page 99 of 239 by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 6 02-27-26 4PRW REGULATING PLAN TREE MITIGATION INVENTORY Page 100 of 239 by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 6 02-27-26 5PRW REGULATING PLAN TREE MITIGATION INVENTORY Page 101 of 239 by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 6 02-27-26 6PRW REGULATING PLAN TREE MITIGATION INVENTORY Page 102 of 239 Page 103 of 239 Page 104 of 239 Page 105 of 239 May 5, 2026 St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Ave. Ft. Pierce, Florida 34982 RE: Indrio Town Center Urban Service Boundary (USB) Shift Justification Statement To whom it may concern, On behalf of the owner, Glassman Holdings, LLC, this memorandum is submitted in support of the proposed 1,500-foot Urban Service Boundary (USB) shift affecting the northwest portion of the Indrio Town Center project site. The requested adjustment represents a limited and intentional modification necessary to allow the project to function as a Town Center, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The proposed USB shift facilitates compact, mixed-use development in an area contiguous to existing urban uses and supports the coordinated and fiscally responsible provision of public infrastructure and services. As discussed with St. Lucie County Planning Staff, the proposed 1,500-foot USB extension does not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, further confirming that the request is modest in scope and consistent with established County policy direction. Project Overview The proposed Indrio Town Center project encompasses approximately 85.29 acres and is envisioned as an integrated mixed-use development. The plan includes approximately 58.26 acres designated for commercial uses and 27.03 acres devoted to passive park and open space. Within the commercial component, a 15.83-acre area is proposed to accommodate residential, live-work, or mixed-use development. Residential densities are proposed at one dwelling unit per acre, or up to five dwelling units per acre where live-work or mixed-use development is provided. Overall, the development concept is intended to create a cohesive Town Center that seamlessly integrates employment, housing, services, and recreation within a walkable, well-connected environment. Consistency with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan As stated in Policy 1.1.6.1 of the Future Land Use Element, the USB “is not intended to be a static line of development.” For that reason, Policy 1.1.6.1 of the Future Land Use Element allows for minor USB extensions when properties are contiguous to established urban land uses, without the need for a Future Land Use Map Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Indrio Town Center site directly abuts property designated for General Commercial use and is anchored by an existing Publix-centered commercial development. This adjacency demonstrates that the site is already influenced by urban activity and infrastructure and represents a logical continuation of the County’s planned urban development pattern. The adjustment will enhance the established character of the area and advances Comprehensive Plan objectives by directing development to a location capable of supporting urban services while promoting a compact land use pattern that encourages walkability, supports internal trip capture, and reduces reliance on longer vehicular trips for daily needs. Allowing the site to function as a Town Center reduces pressure for inefficient extension of Page 106 of 239 development into peripheral areas and supports preservation of rural character and agricultural lands outside the USB. Infrastructure Availability and Level of Service Considerations Including the Indrio Town Center within the USB allows infrastructure planning to occur proactively and in coordination with anticipated development demand. Centralized water and sewer services can be extended efficiently, transportation improvements can be evaluated comprehensively, and public facilities such as emergency services, schools, and parks can be planned within an urban service delivery framework. This coordinated approach supports adopted Level of Service standards, minimizes long-term public costs, and avoids inefficiencies associated with rural or septic-dependent development patterns. The proposed USB shift further aligns land use decisions with the County’s Capital Improvements planning efforts, ensuring that growth occurs where public facilities are available or can be provided in a fiscally responsible and timely manner. Purpose and Justification of the Urban Service Boundary (USB) Shift A strategic adjustment to the USB is necessary to accommodate the planned Town Center development pattern and to support the intended mix and intensity of uses for the Indrio Town Center. Expanding the USB to include the northwest portion of the site allows essential urban services—such as centralized water and sewer, transportation infrastructure, and emergency services—to be planned and provided efficiently in coordination with development. Without this adjustment, the site would be constrained to a development form that does not fully reflect its surrounding urban context or its appropriate role within the County’s long-range land use framework. As confirmed through coordination with County Planning Staff, the approximately 1,500-foot USB extension does not require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, underscoring that the request represents a minor, policy-consistent adjustment within the existing Comprehensive Plan framework. The USB shift enables the Indrio Town Center to develop as a compact, mixed-use activity center that supports an efficient and sustainable growth pattern by concentrating commercial, employment, recreational, and limited residential uses within a single, well-planned location. The Indrio Town Center is designed to function as a centralized hub for goods, services, employment, and recreational amenities, strengthening the surrounding area and enhancing overall community function. The inclusion of passive park space contributes to quality of life and provides an appropriate balance between development and open space. The Town Center framework reinforces compatibility with adjacent commercial uses while establishing a logical transition between existing urban development and planned growth areas. Overall, the project’s scale and intensity are appropriate given the surrounding land use context and are consistent with County policies encouraging orderly, connected, and infrastructure-supported development patterns. Conclusion The proposed 1,500-foot Urban Service Boundary (USB) shift for the northwest portion of the Indrio Town Center site represents a measured and policy-supported adjustment that advances the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan’s growth management objectives. The shift enables development in a location suitable for urban services, supports coordinated infrastructure planning, promotes smart growth principles, and delivers meaningful Page 107 of 239 benefits to the surrounding area. For these reasons, the proposed USB shift is appropriate, necessary, and in the public interest, and favorable consideration is respectfully requested. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to continued coordination with St. Lucie County staff regarding the USB shift and Indrio Town Center project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 561-406-1007 or Lheinzelmann@cotleur-hearing.com. Sincerely, Leah Heinzelmann, PLA, ASLA Cotleur & Hearing 1934 Commerce Lane, Suite 1 Jupiter, Florida 33458 Page 108 of 239 Page 109 of 239 INDRIO TOWN CENTER GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, INC. RUSSAKIS RD. AND INDRIO RD. WETLAND AND WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT REPORT (WWA) December 2025 Prepared for: Glassman Holdings, LLC 1000 S Federal Highway Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Via E-mail: Steveflassmanflorida@aol.COM Prepared by: Hobe Sound Environmental Consultants, Inc. 9512 SE Duncan St. Hobe Sound, FL 33455 (772) 545-3676 E-Mail: bobhsenv@gmail.com NOTE: This Report, together with the concepts and design presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and Client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this Report without written authorization and adaptation by Hobe Sound Environmental Consultants, Inc. shall be without liability to Hobe Sound Environmental Consultants, Inc. Page 110 of 239 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Description Page 1.00 INTRODUCTION...............................................1 2.00 METHODOLOGY ..............................................1 2.01 Protected Species/Wildlife Survey .............................1 2.01.1 Objective ........................................1 2.01.2 Methodology ......................................2 2.02 Gopher Tortoise and Other Burrow Commensals..................2 2.02.1 Objective ........................................2 2.02.2 Methodology ......................................2 2.03 FWC Cooperative Land Cover (CLC)..........................3 2.03.1 Objective ........................................3 2.03.2 Methodology ......................................3 2.04 Jurisdictional Wetlands......................................4 2.04.1 Objective ........................................4 2.04.2 Methodology ......................................4 2.05 Soils ........................................4 2.05.1 Objective ........................................4 2.05.2 Methodology ......................................4 2.06 Topography ........................................5 2.06.1 Objective ........................................5 2.06.2 Methodology ......................................5 3.00 RESULTS ........................................5 3.01 Protected Species/Wildlife Survey .............................5 3.01.1 Gopher Tortoise and Other Burrow Commensals ......... 5 3.01.2 Eastern Indigo Snake Determination Key ................6 3.01.3 Other Protected Fauna ...............................7 3.01.4 Wood Stork Key for South Florida .....................14 3.02 FWC Cooperative Land Cover (CLC)..........................18 1832 - Rural Buildingd ....................................18 2120 - Fresh Water Marsh.................................. 18 3210 - Artificial / Farm pond ...............................19 4210 - Canal ..........................................19 4220 -Ditch / Artificial Intermittent Stream....................19 183313 - Improved Pasture ...................................20 3.02.1 Tree Protection.....................................20 3.03 Jurisdictional Wetlands......................................21 3.04 Soils ..........................................21 3.05 Topography ..........................................21 4.00 CONCLUSIONS ..........................................24 -i-HSE 25 - 028.01 29 December 2025 Page 111 of 239 LIST OF TABLES Table #Description Page 1 Wildlife Observed on the Project Site .............................8 2 Federal/State Listed Fauna and Flora Potentially Found in the St. Lucie County, FL ..........................................10 3 Soil Descriptions ..........................................22 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Description Page A Project Figures ..........................................A Figure #Description 1 of 17 Project Vicinity Map .........................A-1 2 of 17 Project Location Map ........................A-2 3 of 17 2024 Aerial Photograph ......................A-3 4 of 17 Pedestrian Transect Map......................A-4 5 of 17 Gopher Tortoise Burrow Location Map ..........A-5 6 of 17 Florida Pine Snake Distribution Map ............A-6 7 of 17 Wood Stork Nesting & Core Foraging Areas Map..A-7 8 of 17 American Bald Eagle Nests Locations Map .......A-8 9 of 17 Everglade Snail Kite Nests & Habitat Map .......A-9 10 of 17 Red-cockaded Woodpecker Nests Locations Map ..A-10 11 of 17 Florida Scrub-Jay Observations Map ............A-11 12 of 17 Crested Caracara Nests and Observations Map ....A-12 13 of 17 Burrowing Owl Locations Map ................A-13 14 of 17 CLC (Vegetation) Map .......................A-14 15 of 17 Wetland and OSW Map ......................A-15 16 of 17 NRCS Soils Map............................A-16 17 of 17 USGS Topographic Map......................A-17 B Site Photographs ..........................................B NOTE: This Report, together with the concepts and design presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and Client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this Report without written authorization and adaptation by Hobe Sound Environmental Consultants, Inc. shall be without liability to Hobe Sound Environmental Consultants, Inc. -ii-HSE 25 - 028.01 29 December 2025 Page 112 of 239 INDRIO CROSSINGS GLASSMAN HOLDINGS, INC. RUSSAKIS RD. AND INDRIO RD. WETLAND AND WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT REPORT (WWA) 1.00 INTRODUCTION The following Wetland and Wildlife Assessment Report (WWA) of the Indrio Crossings project site has been prepared by Hobe Sound Environmental Consultants, Inc. (HSE). The purpose of this report is to provide the methodology and results of a scientific wetland and wildlife assessment for the site. This report addresses the following environmental issues: protected species, observed wildlife, vegetative communities, wetlands, soils, and topography. The report is based on field data collected from 10 to 23 September 2025. The project site consists of approximately 87 acres of land positioned east of Russakis Rd, west of Emerson Ave, north of Indrio Rd, and south of Russos Rd. The site is located in Section 15, Township 34S, Range 39E in St. Lucie County, Florida. The center of the project can be found at (27°31'29.338", -80°25'15.945") (Appendix A: Figures 1-3 of 17). 2.00 METHODOLOGY 2.01 Protected Species/Wildlife Survey 2.01.1 Objective Conduct a systematic survey for flora and fauna that may occur within the project site and note the presence of any protected species listed in Florida’s Official Endangered and Threatened Species List (Updated July 2025), by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). The state lists of animals are maintained by the FFWCC and categorized as threatened in accordance with rule 68A-27.003 of the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The state lists of plants are categorized into endangered, threatened, and Page 1 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 113 of 239 commercially exploited, and are maintained by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DOACS) via Chapter 5B-40, F.A.C. The federal agencies that share the authority to list species as Endangered and Threatened are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA-NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The NOAA-NMFS is responsible for listing most marine species. The federal list of animals and plants is administered by the USFWS, and is published in 50 CFR 17 (animals) and 50 CFR 23 (plants). 2.01.2 Methodology The methodology used by HSE biologists to conduct the wildlife/protected species survey is detailed below. • Biologists conducted pedestrian transects throughout the project site. • Transects crossed through areas of suitable habitat within the entire project area. • Biologists recorded any signs of wildlife, including sightings, tracks, scat, tree markings, nests, cavities, and burrows. 2.02 Gopher Tortoise and Other Burrow Commensals 2.02.1 Objective Conduct a 100% systematic survey within and around the boundaries of the project site to locate any gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows and signs of the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi). 2.02.2 Methodology Biologists followed the survey protocol as recommended in Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Page 2 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 114 of 239 Found on Lands Slated for Large-scale Development in Florida Non-game Wildlife Program, Technical Report #4, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC), now known as FFWCC, Tallahassee, Florida, December 1987, and Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines, FFWCC, Tallahassee, Florida April 2008 (Updated April 2023). • Biologists conducted pedestrian transects from 10 to 12 September 2025 (Appendix A: Figure 4 of 17); • All gopher tortoise burrows located were flagged as either abandoned or potentially occupied, if appropriate; • All gopher tortoise burrows located were assigned an identification number and recorded, if appropriate; • Biologists in the field recorded the locations of all gopher tortoise burrows on an aerial photograph, if appropriate (Appendix A: Figure 5 of 17); • Biologists collected additional data regarding the presence of the eastern indigo snake. 2.03 FWC Florida Land Cover Classification System (FLCCS) 2.03.1 Objective To map vegetation within the boundaries of the project site according to the Florida Land Cover Classification System (FLCCS) and compare it to the Cooperative Land Cover Classification System (CLC) map. 2.03.2 Methodology The methodology used by HSE biologists to map on-site vegetation is detailed below. • Biologists used the Cooperative Land Cover Classification System (CLC). • Biologists based vegetative community descriptions on field surveys, data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps, and aerial photograph interpretations. • Numerical community designations were carried to Levels III or IV, Page 3 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 115 of 239 as appropriate, according to the CLC. 2.04 Jurisdictional Wetlands 2.04.1 Objective To identify and locate State of Florida (South Florida Water Management District; SFWMD) and Federal (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers; COE) jurisdictional wetlands that may occur within the boundaries of the project site. 2.04.2 Methodology The methodology used by HSE biologists to locate State and Federal jurisdictional wetlands on-site is detailed below. • Biologists delineated wetlands according to the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 62-340, as appropriate. • Biologists delineated wetlands according to the COE Wetland Delineation Manual, January 1987, Technical Report Y-87-1, as appropriate (Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Version 2.0). • Biologists flagged the wetlands with consecutively numbered flagging tape labeled “Wetland Delineation,” as appropriate. • Biologists marked the approximate wetland locations on a 2024 FDOT aerial photograph, as appropriate. 2.05 Soils 2.05.1 Objective To identify soil types present on the project site, according to the NRCS. 2.05.2 Methodology The methodology used by HSE biologists to identify on-site soil types is detailed below. • On-site soils were mapped according to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Page 4 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 116 of 239 Agriculture (USDA), Survey, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov 2.06 Topography 2.06.1 Objective To identify the topography present on the project site. 2.06.2 Methodology The methodology used by HSE biologists to identify on-site topography is detailed below. • Biologists used the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map 2024, FLA. Oslo Quadrangle to determine on-site topography. 3.00 RESULTS 3.01 Protected Species/Wildlife Survey 3.01.1 Gopher Tortoise and Other Burrow Commensals The gopher tortoise is designated as threatened (T) by the State of Florida. The Eastern indigo snake is designated as threatened (T) by the State of Florida and the USFWS. These species are protected under regulations established in the Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) of the State of Florida, Chapter 68 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission., Rule 68A-3.001 and 68A-25.002, as well as Chapter 68A-27. No (0) potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows were located by biologists during the gopher tortoise and commensal species survey (Appendix A: Figure 5 of 17). The estimated gopher tortoise population is zero (0). Commensal species such as the eastern indigo snake were not observed on-site, although suitable habitat does exist. HSE biologists applied an Eastern Indigo Snake Determination key as follows, per USFWS memo dated 25 January 2010, updated 13 August 2013, and revised 01 August 2017. Page 5 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 117 of 239 3.01.2 Eastern Indigo Snake Determination Key A.Project is not located in open water or salt marsh.............................go to B Project is located solely in open water or salt marsh....................“no effect” B. Permit will be conditioned for use of the Service’s Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake during site preparation and project construction..................................................................................... go to C Permit will not be conditioned as above for the Eastern indigo snake, or it is not known whether an applicant intends to use these measures and consultation with the Service is requested2................................“may effect” C. The project will impact less than 25 acres of eastern indigo snake habitat (eg., sandhill, scrub, pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, scrubby flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, coastal prairie, mangrove swamps, tropical hardwood hammocks, hydric hammocks, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields [including sugar cane fields and active, inactive or abandoned citrus groves], and coastal dunes)..................................................................go to D The project will impact more than 25 acres of xeric habitat (eg., sandhill, scrub, pine flatwoods, pine rocklands, scrubby flatwoods, high pine, dry prairie, coastal prairie, mangrove swamps, tropical hardwood hammocks, hydric hammocks, edges of freshwater marshes, agricultural fields [including sugar cane fields and active, inactive or abandoned citrus groves], and coastal dunes).........................................................................................“may affect” D. The project has no known holes, cavities, active or inactive gopher tortoise burrows, or other underground refugia where a snake could be buried, trapped and/or injured......................................................................... NLAA The project has holes, cavities, active or inactive gopher tortoise burrows, or other underground refugia where a snake could be buried, trapped and/or injured............................................................................................... go to E E. Any permit will be conditioned such that all gopher tortoise burrows, active and inactive, will be evacuated prior to site manipulation in the vicinity of the burrow1. If an eastern indigo snake is encountered, the snake must be allowed to vacate the area prior to additional site manipulation in the vicinity. Any permit will also be conditioned such that holes, cavities, and snake refugia other than gopher tortoise burrows will be inspected each morning before planned site manipulation of a particular area, and, if occupied by an Eastern indigo snake, no work will commence until the snake has vacated the vicinity Page 6 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 118 of 239 of proposed work...............................................................................NLAA2 Permit will not be conditioned as outlined above.........................may affect End Key 1 If excavating potentially occupied burrows, active or inactive, individuals must first obtain state authorization via Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent permit. The excavation method selected should also minimize the potential for injury of an indigo snake. Applicants should follow the excavation guidance provided within the most current Gopher Tortoise Permitting Guidelines found at http://myfwc.com/gophertortoise 2Please note, if the proposed project will impact less than 25 acres of vegetated eastern indigo snake habitat (not urban/human-altered) completely surrounded by urban development, and an eastern indigo snake has been observed on site, NLAA is not the appropriate conclusion. The Service recommends formal consultation for this situation because of the expected increased value of the vegetated habitat within the individual’s home range. No signs of the Eastern indigo snake or possible refugia were observed on- site by HSE biologists, but due to the extent of xeric habitat (agricultural fields) present, the key has determined that the proposed project may affect this species. Given these results, consultation with USFWS will be necessary. HSE recommends that contractors follow USFWS Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern Indigo Snake at all times during construction activities. Educational posters will be placed at the truck entry points to the site, and pamphlets will be handed out to all on-site personnel during a pre-construction educational meeting explaining that all possible refugia shall be checked daily prior to initiation of construction activities. Additionally, if an indigo snake is spotted, all activities will cease and it will be allowed to vacate the site of its own accord. 3.01.3 Other Protected Fauna Various species of fauna were observed on-site during the pedestrian transect survey and are listed in Table 1. Protected species that potentially occur in St. Lucie County are listed in Table 2. The likelihood of these species’ occurrence within the project site according to the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) Biodiversity Matrix is also listed in Table 2. The project site is within the distribution area of the state protected Florida Page 7 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 119 of 239 pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus) (Appendix A: Figure 6 of 17). These snakes occupy a variety of upland habitats around the state, but they prefer dry habitats with moderate to open canopy cover and sandy, well-drained soils, mostly Table 1: Wildlife Observed on Indrio Crossings Project Site A. Fish & Aquatic Macro-invertebrates Common Name Scientific Name Protected Species State Federal Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides --- --- Mayan cichlid Cichlasoma urophthalma --- --- B. Reptiles & Amphibians Common Name Scientific Name Protected Species State Federal Peter’s rock agama Agama picticauda --- --- Brown anole Anolis sagrei --- --- C. Birds Common Name Scientific Name Protected Species State Federal Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus --- --- Osprey Pandion haliaetus --- --- Anhinga Anhinga anhinga --- --- Little blue heron Egretta caerulea --- T Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos --- --- Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata --- --- Great blue heron Ardea herodias --- --- Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis --- --- Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus --- --- Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus --- --- Boat-tailed grackle Quiscalus major --- --- Page 8 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 120 of 239 Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea --- --- Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas --- --- Killdeer Charadrius vociferus --- --- Limpkin Aramus guarauna --- --- Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus N N Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum --- --- Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus --- --- Carolina wren Thryothorus ludovicianus --- --- D. Mammals Common Name Scientific Name Protected Species State Federal Gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis --- --- *T = Threatened (State or Federal), C = Candidate for Endangered and/or Threatened, SAT = Threatened due to similarity of appearance Page 9 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 121 of 239 Table 2: Indrio Crossings: 2022 Federal/State Listed Fauna and Flora Potentially Found in St. Lucie County, FL A. Fish/ Aquatic Macroinvertebrates COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATUS+ STATE STATUS++ (FLORIDA ) EXISTING HABITAT ON-SITE LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE NOTES Opossum pipefish Oostethus brachyurus SC N No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects B. Reptiles and Amphibians COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATUS+ STATE STATUS++ (FLORIDA ) EXISTING HABITAT ON-SITE LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE NOTES American alligator Alligator mississipiensis SAT FT(S/A) Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T FT No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T FT No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E FE No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi T FT No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata E FE No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus C ST Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Kemp's Ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E FE No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus --- ST No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Page 10 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 122 of 239 Table 2, continued C. Birds COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATUS+ STATE STATUS++ (FLORIDA ) EXISTING HABITAT ON-SITE LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE NOTES Florida scrub-jay Aphelocoma coerulescens T FT No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Florida burrowing owl Athene cunicularia floridana ---ST No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Crested caracara Caracara cheriway T FT Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Little blue heron Egretta caerulea ---ST Yes likely observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Bald eagle*Haliaeetus leucocephalus --N Yes likely observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Tri-colored heron Egretta tricolor ---ST Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects American oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus ---ST No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Wood stork Mycteria americana T FT Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus E FE Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Black skimmer Rynchops niger -- ST No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Roseate spoonbill Ajaia ajaja -- ST Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Least tern Sterna antillarum N ST No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects D. Mammals COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATUS+ STATE STATUS++ (FLORIDA ) EXISTING HABITAT ON-SITE LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE NOTES Southeastern beach mouse Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris T FT No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus T FT No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Page 11 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 123 of 239 Table 2, continued Southeastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger shermani -- N No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects E. Plants and Lichens COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FEDERAL STATUS+ STATE STATUS++ (FLORIDA ) EXISTING HABITAT ON-SITE LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE NOTES Sand-dune spurge Chamaesyce cumulicola -- E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Piedmont jointgrass Coelorachis tuberculosa -- T Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Many-flowered grass-pink Calopogon multiflorus -- T No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Perforated reindeer lichen Cladonia perforata E E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Large-flowered rosemary Conradina grandiflora -- T No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Lakela’s mint Dicerandra immaculata E E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Coastal vervain Glandularia maritima -- E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii DL E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Sea rosemary Heliotropium gnaphalodes -- E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Burrowing four-o’clock Okenia hypogaea -- E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Hand fern Ophioglossum palmatum -- E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Terrestrial peperomia Peperomia humilis -- E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Blunt-leaved peperomia Peperomia obtusifolia -- E Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Tiny polygala Polygala smallii E E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Giant orchid Pteroglossaspis ecristata -- T Yes not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Coastal hoary-pea Tephrosia angustissima var. curtissii -- T No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Savanna balm Dicerandra immaculata var. savannarum E E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Fragrant prickly apple Harrisia fragrans E E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects Page 12 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 124 of 239 Scrub bluestem Schizachyrium niveum -- E No not likely not observed during preliminary pedestrian transects +Federal Status: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)++State of Florida Status: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) E - Endangered Animals:Plants: PE - Proposed for Endangered E - Endangered E- Endangered T - Threatened T - Threatened T- Threatened PT - Proposed for Threatened SSC - Species of Special Concern N- Not currently listed C - Candidate for Endangered and/or Threatened N - Not currently listed E (S/A)- Endangered due to similarity of appearance FT - Federally threatened T (S/A)- Threatened due to similarity of appearance ET - Federally endangered * Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Page 13 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 125 of 239 pines and scrubby oaks. They prefer a reduced midstory and understory and healthy groundcover. Although Southeastern pocket gophers provide their favorite prey and refugia, Florida pine snakes will also utilize gopher tortoise burrows, nine- banded armadillo holes, and stump holes as refugia, in the absence of pocket gophers. It is HSE’s professional opinion that no suitable habitat exists on-site for the Florida pine snake. The site is within the core foraging area (CFA) of four (4) wood stork (Mycteria americana) colonies (Appendix A: Figure 7 of 17). The CFA consists of an 18.6-mile radius around all known wood stork colonies. Wood storks nest in colonies in Floridian mixed hardwood swamps, sloughs, mangroves, and cypress domes/strands. They forage in a variety of wetlands including both freshwater and estuarine marshes, though these foraging areas are limited to water depths of less than 10-12 inches. No wood storks were observed flying over or on the project site. The wood stork key was utilized below on page 14 to determine if the project would affect the species. 3.01.4 Wood Stork Key for South Florida A. Project within 0.76 km (0.47 miles)² of an active colony site³..........may affect4 Project impacts Suitable Foraging Habitat (SFH) more than 0.76 km (0.47 miles) from a colony site...................................................................“go to B” Project does not affect SFH 5...................................................... “no effect.1" B.Project impact to SFH is less than 0.20 hectares (0.5 acres)6.............“NLAA1" Project impact to SFH is more than 0.20 hectares (0.5 acres)............“go to C” C.Project impacts to SFH not within the CFA (29.9 km, 18.6 miles) of a colony site ................................................................................................. “go to D” Project impacts to SFH within the CFA of a colony site....................“go to E” D. Project impacts to SFH have been avoided and minimized to the extent practicable, and compensation (Service approved mitigation bank or as Page 14 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 126 of 239 provided in accordance with Mitigation Rule 33 CFR Part 6 332) for unavoidable impacts is proposed in accordance with the CWA section 404(b)(1) guidelines and habitat compensation replaces the foraging value matching the hydroperiod7 of the wetlands affected and provides foraging value similar to, or higher than, that of impacted wetlands. See Appendix 3 for a detailed discussion of the hydroperiod foraging values, an example, and further guidance8..............................................................................“NLAA” Project impacts have not been avoided, minimized, or mitigated for as detailed above................................................................................“may affect4" E. Project provides SFH compensation in accordance with the CWA section 404(b)(1) guidelines and is not contrary to the HMG; habitat compensation is within the appropriate CFA or within the service area of a Service- approved mitigation bank; and habitat compensation replaces foraging value, consisting of wetland enhancement or restoration matching the hydroperiod6 of the wetlands affected, and provides foraging value similar to, or higher than, that of impacted wetlands. See Appendix 3 for a detailed discussion of the hydroperiod foraging values and further guidance8....................... “NLAA” Project does not satisfy these requirements.................................. “may affect” End Key * This Wood Stork Key does not apply to Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan projects, as they will require project- specific consultations with the Service. 1 With an outcome of “no effect” or “NLAA” as outlined in this key, and the project has less than 20.2 hectares (50 acres) of wetland impacts, the requirements of section 7 of the Act are fulfilled for the wood stork and no further action is required. For projects with greater than 20.2 hectares (50 acres) of wetland impacts, written concurrence of NLAA from the Service is necessary. 2 Within the secondary zone (the average distance from the border of a colony to the limits of the secondary zone is 0.76 km (2,500 feet, or 0.47 mi). 3 An active colony is defined as a colony that is currently being used for nesting by wood storks or has historically over the last 10 years been used for nesting by wood storks. 4 Consultation may be concluded informally or formally depending on project impacts. 5 Suitable foraging habitat (SFH) are wetland that typically have shallow-open water areas that are relatively calm and having a permanent or seasonal water depth between 5 to 38 cm (2 to 15 inches) deep. Other shallow non-wetland water bodies are also SFH. SFH supports and concentrates, or is capable of supporting and concentrating small fish, frogs, and other aquatic prey. Examples of SFH include, but are not limited to freshwater marshes, small ponds, shallow, seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches, seasonally flooded pastures, narrow tidal creek or shallow tidal pools, managed impoundments, and depressions in cypress heads and swamp sloughs. 6 On an individual basis, SFH impacts to wetlands less than 0.20 hectares (one-half acre) generally will not have a measurable effect on wood storks, although we request that the Corps require mitigation for these losses when appropriate. Weed storks are a wide ranging species, and individually, habitat change form impacts to SFH less than one-half acre are not likely to adversely affect wood storks. However, collectively they may have an effect and therefore regular monitoring and reporting of these effects are important. 7 Several researchers (Fleming et al. 1994; Ceilley and Bortone 2000) believe that the short hydroperiod wetlands provide a more important pre-nesting foraging food source and a greater early nestling survivor value for wood storks than the foraging base (grams of fish per square meter) that short hydroperiod wetlands provide. Although the short hydroperiod wetlands may provide less fish, these prey bases historically were more extensive and met the foraging needs of the pre- nesting storks and the early-age nestlings. Nest productivity may suffer as a result of the loss of short hydroperiod wetlands. We believe that most wetland fill and excavation impacts permitted in south Florida are in short hydroperiod Page 15 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 127 of 239 wetlands. Therefore, we believe that it is especially important that impacts to these shore hydroperiod wetlands within CFAs are avoided, minimized, and compensated fro by enhancement/restoration of short hydroperiod wetlands. 8 For this Key, the Service requires an analysis of foraging prey base losses and enhancements from the proposed action as shown in the examples in Appendix 3 for projects with greater that 2.02 hectares (5 acres) of wetland impacts. For projects with less that 2.02 hectares (5 acres) of wetland impacts, an individual foraging prey base analysis is not necessary although type for type wetland compensation is still a requirement of the Key. This key was completed under the presumption that all impacts to Suitable Foraging Habitat (SFH) on-site will be mitigated through the creation of additional SFH, in which case, a determination of not likely to adversely affect (“NLAA”) is made concerning the wood stork for this project. If the proposed project does not result in a net gain of SFH, the key will need to be reassessed and additional compensatory mitigation may be required. There are zero (0) known bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nests within one (1) mile of the project site (Appendix A: Figure 8 of 17). The bald eagle was removed from the USFWS endangered species list and the FWC imperiled species list in 2007 and 2008, respectively. The bald eagle continues to be federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, along with the state bald eagle rule (68A-16.002, F.A.C.). Bald eagle calls were heard on-site, but HSE observed no physical confirmation of their presence. There is limited foraging habitat available, but no suitable nesting trees were observed on-site. Therefore, it is HSE’s opinion that the proposed project will not adversely affect the bald eagle. The site is not within any nesting areas or critical habitat for the Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis). The Everglade snail kite feeds almost exclusively on apple snails, a freshwater mollusk that occurs in Central and South Florida wetlands, including the Everglades. It is listed as Endangered under the Endangered Species Act ( ESA). While it is possible that some of the wetlands do provide apple snail habitat, no apple snails or indications of their presence were observed on-site, and HSE biologists also found no evidence of snail kite presence on-site. Considering Page 16 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 128 of 239 these factors, it is HSE’s opinion that the project is unlikely to adversely affect the snail kite (Appendix A: Figure 9 of 17). The site is not within any known locations of the red-cockaded woodpecker (Dryobates borealis) (Appendix A: Figure 10 of 17), a species listed as Endangered under the ESA. The red-cockaded woodpecker prefers open, ideally mature pine woods (trees 80-100 or more years old), with open understory maintained by frequent fires. No habitat that fits this description was present on-site, and no red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed or calls heard by HSE biologists. Therefore, it is HSE’s opinion that the project will not adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker. The site is not within any known locations of the Florida scrub-jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) and does not contain suitable habitat (Appendix A: Figure 11 of 17). Florida scrub-jays are listed as Threatened under the ESA. They are associated with scrub communities, but will also utilize adjacent non-scrub ecosystems. They require more than one species of scrub oak to maintain their family populations, as well as open, white sandy areas in which to bury their acorn cache for the winter months. Historically, they thrived in fire-maintained scrub habitat. No scrub-jays were observed on-site, and no suitable habitat exists on-site. Therefore a Florida scrub-jay survey is not recommended. The site is not within 1,500 meters of any crested caracara (Caracara cheriway) nests (Appendix A: Figure 12 of 17), but is within 1,500 meters of previous crested caracara observations. Audubon’s crested caracara prefers dry or wet prairies with scattered cabbage palms and lightly wooded areas. This species also utilizes improved or semi-improved pasture land, possibly due to the presence of seasonal wetlands in these areas. They prefer to nest in cabbage palms that are surrounded by open areas of low vegetation, such as improved pasture, with little shrubby or tall vegetation. These birds are listed as Threatened under the ESA. While no crested caracara were observed on-site by HSE biologists, the project is Page 17 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 129 of 239 within 1,500 meters of previous observations, and suitable habitat exists on-site. Therefore a crested caracara survey is recommended. The project site is not within the vicinity of any observed burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) (Appendix A: Figure 13 of 17). Burrowing owls are among the smallest owls, reaching a maximum height of nine inches. They tend to inhabit treeless ecosystems, such as open prairies, agriculture fields and airports, where they feed primarily on insects and small lizards. Based on the observed ecosystems on-site and other survey findings, it is HSE’s opinion that the proposed project will not impact the burrowing owl. 3.02 FWC Florida Land Cover Classification System (FLCCS) Vegetation associations present on-site were mapped using the Florida Land Cover Classification System and by comparing it to the Cooperative Land Cover (CLC) map. The classifications are used to represent the closest facsimile possible to the natural community present. The vegetation map is depicted in Appendix A: Figure 14 of 17. 1832 - Rural Buildings (±0.50 acres) An abandoned, deteriorating rural building is located on-site. While vegetation in the area is sparse, the structure’s neglected condition has allowed some species to propagate in the immediate area, including muscadine grape vine (Vitis rotundifolia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and shield fern (Polystichum sp.). 2120 - Freshwater Marsh (±0.95 acres) Three (3) freshwater wetlands are located within the project boundaries. Each appear to experience enough annual inundation to support hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation. Observed species include, but are not limited to swamp flatsedge Page 18 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 130 of 239 (Cyperus ligularis), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), lanceleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), Mexican primrose-willow (Ludwigia octovalvis), seaside primrose-willow (Ludwigia maritima), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), road-grass (Eleocharis baldwinii), jointed spike-rush (Eleocharis equisetoides), Southern wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium). 3210 - Artificial / Farm Pond (±2.48 acres) One cow pond supporting hydrophytic vegetation and aquatic wildlife is located on-site. Vegetative species observed within the associated acreage include pickerelweed, lanceleaf arrowhead, jointed spike-rush, marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris), climbing hempweed (Mikania scandens), smartweed, duckweed (Lemna sp.), Southern wax myrtle, Brazilian pepper, shrubby false buttonweed (Spermacoce verticillata), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), bulrush (Schoenoplectus sp.), and dog fennel. 4210 - Canal (±1.70 acres) One OSW on-site is included under this designation, running northwest to southeast across the north parcel of the property. Vegetation observed included Brazilian pepper, saw palmetto cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), Southern wax myrtle, smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), marsh pennywort (Hydrocotyle vulgaris), smartweed, and road-grass. 4220 - Ditch / Artificial Intermittent Stream (±0.38 acres) Two OSWs in the project’s south parcel fit this description. Vegetation observed within and surrounding these OSWs include swamp flatsedge, marsh pennywort, road-grass, and pickerelweed. Page 19 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 131 of 239 183313 - Improved Pasture (±80.99 acres) The majority of the site’s area can be described as improved pasture. Vegetation observed included smutgrass, yellow bristlegrass (Setaria parviflora), Caesarweed (Urena lobata), cabbage palm, fanpetal (Sida sp.), John Charles (Condea verticillata), dogfennel, bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), taro (Colocasia esculenta), turkey tangle frogfruit (Phyla nodiflora), wavyleaf basketgrass (Oplismenus undulatifolius), rosary pea (Abrus precatorius), American beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), giant leather fern (Acrostichum danaeifolium), Brazilian pepper, Southern live oak (Quercus virginiana), saw palmetto and strangler fig (Ficus aurea). 3.02.1 Tree Protection The St. Lucie County Land Development Code (SLCLDC), Chapter VI, Section 6.00.03, states that no person shall remove or alter protected vegetation from or on any lot or parcel of land in the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County without first obtaining a Vegetation Removal Permit. Protected vegetation includes all native vegetation. Section 6.00.05(D) states that mitigation will be required for native trees that meet the minimum threshold of Table 1 of the Code. This minimum threshold is based on the diameter of the tree at breast height (DBH) and varies according to the species of tree. It is HSE’s opinion that protected trees, including live oak with a DBH of 12" or greater and cabbage palm with 10' or more clear trunk, exist on the project site. Mitigation for all trees, except cabbage palm, shall be at a 2:1 ratio. Cabbage palm ratio is 1:1 for clear trunk. The SLCLDC, Chapter XI, Section 11.05.06 (B)(3) states that all trees that meet the above requirements and are located either within areas of proposed improvement or within twenty (20) feet of all proposed improvement areas shall be mapped on an illustrative plan. This plan will superimpose the existing vegetation onto the proposed site plan, identifying areas which will be potentially impacted by Page 20 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 132 of 239 development activity and areas which will be set aside for protection, relocation or preservation. A tree survey will likely be necessary for development of this site. 3.03 Jurisdictional Wetlands It is HSE’s professional opinion that there are three (3) jurisdictional wetlands on the project site (Appendix A: Figure 15 of 17). Wetland A is ±0.37 acres, Wetland B is ±0.09 acres, and Wetland C is ±0.49 acres. Permits are required if these wetlands will be impacted. Additionally, there are six (6) man-made “Other Surface Waters” (OSWs) on the project site. OSW A is ±2.48 acres, OSW B is ± 0.06 acres, OSW C is ±0.32 acres, OSW D is ±0.30 acres, OSW E is 0.30 acres and OSW F is ±1.70 acres. The wetlands and OSWs have not yet been verified by State or Federal agencies. 3.04 Soils NRCS soil types are mapped in Appendix A: Figure 16 of 17 and Table 3 below. The USDA (NRCS) has mapped the surficial soil types within the project site. The resulting soil delineations were published in the Soil Survey of St. Lucie County, Florida, 25 August 2021. Detailed and complete descriptions of each of these soil communities are presented in the St. Lucie County Soil Survey, and are therefore not included herein. However, a general description of the soils are included in Table 3. This table also lists associated plants as excerpted from the NRCS published data. Soil types mapped by the NRCS are generally limited to the upper 60 to 72 inches of the soil profile and are distinguished by several factors. These factors include soil drainage, topography, presence or absence of restrictive or clayey hardpan type soils, and the depth and range in fluctuation of the groundwater table associated with each soil type. 3.05 Topography According to the United States Geographical Survey (USGS) website (https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/topoview/ ) site elevation is approximately 20' NGVD across the entire site. Appendix A: Figure 17 of 17 depicts the USGS Topographic Map for the project site. Page 21 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 133 of 239 Table 3. Soil Descriptions Map Unit # Map Unit Name Order Suborder Drainage Hydric Rating Hydric Group Associated Plants Scientific Name Common Name 04 Arents, 0 to 5 percent slopes Entisols Arents Somewhat poorly drained No A N/A N/A 11 Chobee loamy sand, frequently ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes Mollisols Aquolls Very poorly drained Yes C/D Pinus elliottii slash pine Panicum hemitomon maidencane Amphicarpum muehlenbergianum blue maidencane Panicum tenerum bluejoint panicum Carex sedge 15 Brynwood sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Entisols Aquents Poorly drained No A/D Pinus elliottii slash pine Paspalum spp. crowngrasses Panicum hemitomon blue maidencane Schizachyrium spp. bluestem Serenoa repens saw palmetto 16 Hilolo loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Alfisols Aqualfs Poorly drained Yes B/D Sabal palmetto cabbage palm Myrica cerifera wax myrtle Serenoa repens saw palmetto Ilex glabra inkberry Quercus nigra water oak 31 Pepper and Eugallie sands Spodosols Aquods Poorly drained No D Pinus elliottii slash pine Lyonia lucida fetterbush Serenoa repens saw palmetto Ilex glabra inkberry Myrica cerifera wax myrtle 32 Pineda sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Alfisols Aqualfs Poorly drained Yes C/D Pinus elliottii slash pine Sabal palmetto cabbage palm Quercus nigra water oak Panicum hemitomon maidencane Aristida stricta pineland threeawn 38 Riviera fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Alfisols Aqualfs Poorly drained Yes A/D Pinus elliottii slash pine Sabal palmetto cabbage palm Serenoa repens saw palmetto Panicum hemitomon maidencane Page 22 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 134 of 239 Map Unit # Map Unit Name Order Suborder Drainage Hydric Rating Hydric Group Associated Plants Scientific Name Common Name Aristida stricta pineland threeawn 48 Wabasso sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Spodosols Aquods Poorly drained Yes A/D Pinus elliottii slash pine Sabal palmetto cabbage palm Quercus virginiana live oak Myrica cerifera wax myrtle Andropogon virginicus chalky bluestem 55 Winder loamy sand Alifsols Aqualfs Poorly drained No C/D Sabal palmetto cabbage palm Serenoa repens saw palmetto Spartina spp. cordgrass Panicum hemitomon maidencane Aristida stricta pineland threeawn Page 23 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 135 of 239 4.00 CONCLUSIONS • There were zero (0) potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows located during the pedestrian transects. The estimated gopher tortoise population is zero (0). • There were zero (0) potentially occupied gopher tortoise burrows located during the pedestrian transects. The estimated gopher tortoise population is zero (0). • No eastern indigo snakes were observed on-site by HSE biologists, but the key has determined that the proposed project ‘may affect’ this species. The project will need formal consultation with USFWS for this species. EIS educational posters will be installed at all entryways to the construction site and contractor sensitivity training will be required for all personnel prior to onset of construction activities. • The project site is within the core foraging area of four (4) wood stork colonies, and there is suitable foraging habitat on the project site. This conclusion was made under the presumption that all impacts to Suitable Foraging Habitat (SFH) on-site will be mitigated through the creation of additional SFH, in which case, a determination of not likely to adversely affect (“NLAA”) is made concerning the wood stork for this project. If the proposed project does not result in a net gain of SFH, the key will need to be reassessed and additional compensatory mitigation may be required. • The project site is within 1,500 meters of previous observations of the crested caracara, and suitable nesting and foraging habitat exists on-site. Therefore, a crested caracara survey is recommended for the project. • HSE biologists observed multiple trees on-site which met the requirements for tree mitigation in St. Lucie County. Therefore, it is likely a tree survey will be needed prior to development on the project site. • Three (3) jurisdictional wetlands and six (6) OSWs were observed on the project site, though none have yet been verified by state or federal agencies. Impacts to wetlands will require mitigation. • The surficial soils within the project site were mapped according to the NRCS. Nine (9) different soil types were located on the project site. • Site elevation is approximately 20' NGVD across the entire site, according to the USGS. Page 24 of 24HSE 25-028.01 29 September 2025 Page 136 of 239 APPENDIX A PROJECT FIGURES -A-HSE 25-028.01 3 October 2025 Page 137 of 239 Page 138 of 239 Page 139 of 239 Page 140 of 239 Page 141 of 239 Page 142 of 239 Page 143 of 239 Page 144 of 239 Page 145 of 239 Page 146 of 239 Page 147 of 239 Page 148 of 239 Page 149 of 239 Page 150 of 239 Page 151 of 239 Page 152 of 239 48 4855 48 31 48 16 16 16 16 LEGEND:04 - ARENTS, 0 TO 5 PERCENT SLOPES (±4.145 ACRES)11 - CHOBEE LOAMY SAND, FREQUENTLY PONDED, 0 TO 1 PERCENT SLOPES (±4.9 ACRES) TOTAL: ±87.00 ACRES 15 - BRYNWOOD SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES (±7.7 ACRES)16 - HILOLO LOAMY SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES (±8.84 ACRES)31 - PEPPER AND EAUGALLIE SANDS (±5.00 ACRES)32 - PINEDA SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES (±9.00 ACRES)38 - RIVIERA FINE SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES (±4.83 ACRES) 48 - WABASSO SAND, 0 TO 2 PERCENT SLOPES (±36.53 ACRES)55 - WINDER LOAMY SAND (±7.51 ACRES)99 - WATER (±2.79 ACRES) DRAWN BY: DRW 2,400'1,200'300'600'0' SCALE: 1" = 600'NORTH CHECKED BY: FRPDESIGNED BY: RLW TH I S D R A W I N G , T O G E T H E R W I T H T H E C O N C E P T S A N D D E S I G N P R E S E N T E D H E R E I N , A S A N I N S T R U M E N T O F S E R V I C E , I S I N T E N D E D O N L Y F O R T H E S P E C I F I C P U R P O S E A N D C L I E N T F O R W H I C H I T W A S P R E P A R E D . R E U S E 0 F A N D I M P R O P E R RE L I A N C E O N T H I S D R A W I N G W I T H O U T W R I T T E N A U T H O R I Z A T I O N A N D A D A P T A T I O N B Y H O B E S O U N D E N V I R O N M E N T A L C O N S U L T A N T S , I N C . S H A L L B E W I T H O U T L I A B I L I T Y T O H O B E S O U N D E N V I R O N M E N T A L C O N S U L T A N T S , I N C . SOURCE: USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE. (772) 545-3676, E-mail: bobhsenv@gmail.com Hobe Sound, FL. 33455 Hobe Sound Environmental Consultants Inc. ESH 9512 SE Duncan Street ST. LUCIE COUNTY SEC.TWP.R. FLORIDA 15 34S 39E 25 - 028.01 16 - SOIL.DWG DRAWING NAME:HSE JOB NO.:DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2025 PARCEL ID #: 1313-131-0001-0 AND 1315- 121-0001-000-9 LONGITUDE: -80°31'29.338"LATITUDE: 27°31'29.338" 16 OF 17FIGURE:APPENDIX A GLASSMAN HOLDINGS INC. RUSSAKIS RD. AND INDRIO RD. WETLAND AND WILDLIFE ASSESSMENT REPORT (WWA) NRCS PROJECT SOIL MAP NOT A LAND BOUNDARY SURVEY ENGINEERS AUTHORIZATION NO. 4286STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONALwww.ct-eng.comFAX 772-464-9497PHONE 772-464-3537 FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 349812980 SOUTH 25TH STREET INDRIO CROSSINGS Page 153 of 239 Page 154 of 239 APPENDIX B SITE PHOTOGRAPHS -B-HSE 25-028.01 03 October 2025 Page 155 of 239 Page 156 of 239 Page 157 of 239 BACK CURB BACK CURB STOP BACK CURB G BACK CURB BACK CURB BACK CURB BACK CURB 18IN HDPE18IN HDPE SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 S BACK CURB BACK CURB SET 5/8IN IR/C LB 4286 3 U13,380 SF(RESTAURANT) 10 1010 10 10 7 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 6 7 10 10 3 4 10 10 10 7 5 3 BACK CURB BACK CURB STOP BACK CURB G BACK CURB BACK CURB BACK CURB BACK CURB 18IN HDPE18IN HDPE SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 S BACK CURB BACK CURB SET 5/8IN IR/C LB 4286 BACK CURB BACK CURB STOP BACK CURB G BACK CURB BACK CURB BACK CURB BACK CURB 18IN HDPE18IN HDPE SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 S BACK CURB BACK CURB SET 5/8IN IR/C LB 4286 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 5 8 10 6 6 4 7 3 4 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 10 7 2 10 5 3 6 9 5 4 8 8 7 7 6 75 6 66 5 7 7 10 10 5 55 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 55 3 3 3 3 5 5 8 8 8 8 10657 7 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 8 3 3 366 66 5 5 4 5 5 6 4 4 4 3 3443 3 6 6 5 COMMERCIALPARCEL 53.01 AC12,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE COMMERCIALPARCEL 34.88 AC50,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE COMMERCIALPARCEL 42.24 AC28,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE COMMERCIALPARCEL 63.78 AC42,500 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE COMMERCIALPARCEL 812.64 AC168,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE COMMERCIALPARCEL 812.64 AC168,000 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE COMMERCIALPARCEL 72.51 AC7,750 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE1.03 AC LAKE COMMERCIALPARCEL 22.8 AC22,250 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE COMMERCIALPARCEL 13.53 AC11,750 MAX RETAIL SF80% MAX LOT COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE EXISTING/PROPOSED LAKE2.66 AC RESIDENTIAL PARCEL18.74 AC85 MAX RETAIL LOTS80% MAX LOT BUILDING COVERAGE/ 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE2.66 AC LAKE PASSIVE PARK PARCEL1,146,775 AC60% MAX LOT COVERAGE /40% MIN. OPEN SPACE6.9 AC LAKE LAKE6.9 AC 12" 28" 18" LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC PUBLIX AT INDRIO COMMONS(NOT IN PROJECT) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC INDRIO ROAD RU S S A K I S R O A D EM E R S O N A V E OVERALL TREE MITIGATION PLAN by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 10-08-25 6 12-19-25 1 North 75' Scale: 1" = 150' 0'150'450'300'600' LOCATION MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D MITIGATION LEGEND OAK TO BE PRESERVED OAK TO BE RELOCATED OAK TO BE REMOVED SABAL PALM TO BE PRESERVED SABAL PALM TO BE RELOCATED PINE TO BE PRESERVED PINE TO BE REMOVED OTHER TREE TO BE PRESERVED OTHER TREE TO BE REMOVED TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ORANGE PLASTICCONSTRUCTION FENCING STEEL BARFINISHED GRADE FENCE LOCATIONS TO BEAPPROVED IN FIELDTO DRIP LINE 4'-0" CONSTRUCTION STANDARD: DURING PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, THE AREAS WITHIN THE DRIP-LINE OF PRESERVEDTREES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THEIR ORIGINAL GRADE WITH PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. WITHINTHESE AREAS, THERE SHALL BE NO TRENCHING OR CUTTING OF ROOTS; NO FILL, COMPACTION OR REMOVALOF SOIL; AND, NO USE OF CONCRETE, PAINT, CHEMICALS OR OTHER FOREIGN SUBSTANCES. BARRICADE MUST BE CONSTRUCTEDAROUND THE CRITICAL PROTECTIONZONE Of EACH TREE OR CLUSTERS OFTREES NOTE: ALL BARRICADES MUST BE MAINTAINED INTACT FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. TREE CREDIT CALCULATIONS NOTES THIS TREE MITIGATION PLAN OUTLINES THE ANTICIPATED TREE PRESERVATION, RELOCATION, AND REMOVAL FORINDRIO TOWN CENTER. THE FINAL TREE MITIGATION PLAN WILL BE REQUIRED PER EACH PARCEL THAT COMES FORWARD FOR THEIR FINAL SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL. THE PROJECTED PRESERVED TREES HAS BEEN PRESENTED ON THIS PLAN, HOWEVER MAY CHANGE DUE TO THE FINAL CONFIGURATION OF BUILDINGS, ROADWAYS, AND OPEN SPACE AREAS. Page 158 of 239 301 371 301 371 301 311 END F301 312 END F301 312 END F301 311 END F 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 314 F TO V BACK CURB BACK CURB 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 F 301 312 F 331 312 PI EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALKBACK CURB G BACK WALK EDGE WALK 301 312 F BACK WALKBACK WALK BACK CURB BACK CURB301 223301 223 18IN HDPE18IN HDPE S BACK WALK EDGE WALK 301 312 F BACK WALKBACK WALK 301 223301 223BACK CURB BACK CURB EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALK 301 312 F EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALK W STM SET 5/8IN IR/C LB 4286 3 U 13,380 SF(RESTAURANT) 10 1010 10 10 7 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 2 6 7 10 10 3 4 10 10 10 7 5 3 301 371 301 371 301 311 END F301 312 END F301 312 END F301 311 END F 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 314 F TO V BACK CURB BACK CURB 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 F 301 312 F 331 312 PI EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALKBACK CURB G BACK WALK EDGE WALK 301 312 F BACK WALKBACK WALK BACK CURB BACK CURB301 223301 223 18IN HDPE18IN HDPE S BACK WALK EDGE WALK 301 312 F BACK WALKBACK WALK 301 223301 223BACK CURB BACK CURB EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALK 301 312 F EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALK W STM SET 5/8IN IR/C LB 4286 301 371 301 371 301 311 END F301 312 END F301 312 END F301 311 END F 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 314 F TO V BACK CURB BACK CURB 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 314 F TO V 301 312 F 301 312 F 331 312 PI EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALKBACK CURB G BACK WALK EDGE WALK 301 312 F BACK WALKBACK WALK BACK CURB BACK CURB301 223301 223 18IN HDPE18IN HDPE S BACK WALK EDGE WALK 301 312 F BACK WALKBACK WALK 301 223301 223BACK CURB BACK CURB EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALK 301 312 F EDGE WALK BACK WALKBACK WALK W STM SET 5/8IN IR/C LB 4286 5 8 10 6 6 4 7 3 4 4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 9 10 7 2 10 5 3 6 9 5 4 8 8 7 7 6 75 6 66 5 7 7 10 10 5 55 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 55 3 3 3 3 5 5 8 8 8 8 10657 7 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 8 3 3 366 66 5 5 4 5 5 6 6 5 EO W EO W EO W EO W EOW EO W #39716' #39419'#39012'#43114" #43214" #42812" #42515'#42616' #42716' #42413' #40728" #39922" #40015' #39814" #92318' #92220'#92120' #91820' #91715' #92014" #91612" #91512' #91214" #91111' #91311' #91016' #90912" #90816' #90732" #90615' #90413" #40618" #40512" #40415' #40215' #40115' #40314' #39325' #39218" #39128" #40822" #40913" TWIN#42313"#42218' #42112" #42015' #41912' #46322' #46228' #46512' #46422'#46717' #46825' #46926" #47136"#47030' #48421" #48525' #48615' #50315' #50422' #50520' #50222' #50122' #50020' #48722' #48324" #47314' #44231" #44311' #46030" #45921' #45724' #45520" #45423' #44114" #44611' #44925" #44815"#43713" #68515" #68827' #68914' #69013" #68617' #68422' #68322' #68222' #67911' #89918' #90118' #90017' #90218' #90318' #41818' #41718' #41017'#41115" #41220"#41320" #41620" #41519"#41410' #90518' #89816' #89710' #89633"#91428" #89325' #89425' #89212" #89012" #88920" #88510'#88735" #88616" #88410'#87612" #87520" #81912' #82014' #82215' #82311' #82411'#82620' #82518' #82815" 12"#827 #83413" #83315" #83520" #83620" #83810' #83715" #85112" #85335' #85415" #85525" #85613" #85019' #84918' #84820' #84718' #84622' #65214'#65310' #65115" #67111' #67217'#67315' #67415' #67518' #67618' #67018' #66920' #68122' #68022' #67812' #67722' #64812' #64912'#64725' #64615' #64420' #64318' #64212' #64116' #63922' #63723' #63823' #63618'#63514' #63330" #63018"#63215" #62724" #62624"#62514' #62936" #62836" #62425' #62120" #62024' #66130" #65726"#65513' #65419" #66218' #66320'#66415'#66518' #66618' #66712' #66822' #70013' #70222'#70314' #70111' #70420' #70513' #69915' #69815' #69720' #69616' #69212' #69118'#69313' #69413' #69510' #87418' #87212" #87114" #86020" #85910' #86212" #86112" #85816" #85717" #86318' #87018' #86818"#86912'#86712' #86615' #86515' #86418" #76521' #76122' #76210'#76432" #76014' #75918' #75818' #75718' #76820'#76915'#77018' #75622'#75518' #75414' #77320' #77218' #78416' #78516' #78330" #78114"#78230" #78624' #78720' #79020' #78920' #79120' #78817' #77117'#79420'#79520' #79611' #79712'#79815' #79918' #82918" #83015" #83113" #80130' #80616"#80714" #80813" #80518' #80411' #80320' #80211' #76626' #76710' #79318' #79218' #80918' #81032" #81116" #81228' #81322' #82122' #78014' #55120' #55323' #55222'#55420" #55825' #55928"#56010' #77730' #77810' #77913' #77415'#77518' #74725' #74611' #74515' #74413'#74913' #75218' #75314' #70722' #70818' #70620' #72720' #72818' #73430' #72918' #73018' #74220' #74322" #75020'#75118' #74120' #74020' #73720'#73820'#73910' #73622' #73520' #71612' #71516' #71417'#71012' #70914' #71120'#71210'#71312'#61620'#61032' #60730' #60824" #60913"#60428" #60325'#60035' #60112" #59822' #59924" #59415" #59618" #59520" #59728" #59322" #60211' #59220" #60628' #57222'#57318' #61325' #61215'#72615'#71725" #71820' #71913' #72416' #72322' #61422' #61522" #61122' #56818'#56923' #56622" #56522' #56728' #56323" #56227" #73124"#73214' #73313' #55718' #55620'#55518' #57918' #57722' #57510' #57430" #57614' #58930' #58821' #58420' #58519' #58622' #58213" #58120" #58022'#58322" #52918' #52812' #52614' #52714' #52520' #52010' #53016' #53122' #53224' #53610' #53723' #51813' #51715'#51620' #51425' #50912" #50819' #50615' #51320'#51225' #51110' #17930" #18032" #18130" #18436"#18536" #47833" #47736" #47636" #18722" #19836" #19736"#19636" #19332" #19436" #19236"#19122" #18830" #18626" #20530" #20630" #21046" #20916" #21130" #21228"#21334" #38622' #38718' #38230' #38328' #38418' #38520' #38012' #37918' #37822' #37717' #37612" #37411'#37512' #21430" #20724" #20324" #20124" #24214" #24312" #24130" #22730" #22322" #22222" #22117" #21511' #21610' #21717" #37018' #23917" #49315' #49020' #48918' #48818' #45130" #45227" #88837" #88128"#88028" #87938" #88214' #88328" #87725' #87826" #84422' #84512' #84326' #84214' #84122' #83919' #84020' #81830' #81422' #81513"#81712" #52119" #52224" #52319' #52430"#53318' #53418'#53518' #54922' #54822'#55018" #53840" #53922" #54012' #54323' #54120" #54225'#54411'#54535' #54630" #54717" #49714' #49614" #49519' #49410' #49214' #49119' #51915' #51513" #49813' #49920" #19530" #68712" #89524" #89140" #83212" #85213" #65014" #63424" #63126" #62246" #62346" #66016" #65946" #65818"#65623" #87331" #76325" #80040" #81620" #56130" #77620" #74840" #72112"#72033" #72223" #61926" #61826" #61724" #60546" #59148" #59016"#57148" #57032" #72520" #56427"#57840" #58740" #50736" #51048" #38914"#38833" #43522" #43436" #43331" #43020" #42920" #43640" #46612" #47948"#48033"#48116" #47236" #45019" #44526" #44412" #45330" #45824" TWIN #46124" #45666" #44717" #44022"#43924" #43840" #64530"#64018" #18260" #18322" #47460" #47520" #18942" #19942" #20020"#19042" #20833" #20432"#20236" #24416" #22420" #22515" #22620" #48248" #38118" INDRIO ROAD RU S S A K I S R O A D 24" 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 EO W EO W EOW EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W E O W EO W EO W EOW EOW EOWEOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOWEOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W E O W EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOWEOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EOWEOWEOW EOW EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W E O W EO W EOW EOW EO W EOW EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W EO W#23424" #23610'#23524" #23728" #27718" #27928"#27628" #122' #215' #14516'#14628' #14724'#14823' #14930' #15023'#15225' #15315'#15436" #16930' 15"#170 #17118'#17230'#17330' #17432'#17530' 12"#176#17732' #17844" #16235' #16325' #16132' #15932' #16032' #15835'#15735'#15632' #15528' #15135' #16635' #16735' #16835' #16535'#16435' #25213' #25735' #25614'12"#255#25315'#25415' #14219" #14334" #14418" #525'#320'#33 12" #3220' #3120' #3018' #2819'#2919' #2116'#2022' #1913" #1830" #1715' #1615' #1516' #625' #14110' #14043"#13920" #13840" #24515" #13633" #12436" #12514' #7112" #7225' #7020' #6918"#7325' #7425'#7520'#7620' #7712" #6314"#6212' #6112' #6011' #5920" #5825'#5216" #5718' #5516' #5616' #5118' #5318' #5418' #5025' #4918'#4815'#4712" #4618' #4518'#4115' #4015'#3915' #3830" #37 11' #36 11' #35 15' #34 19'#6518' #6411'#6611'#6715' #6810' #7815" #8012' #7912" #8113" #8218' #8320' #8420' #8518' #8636" #8712' #8822'#8920" #9220' #9019"#9120' #9319' #9614"#9520' #9416' #9728' #9824" #9922' #10013"#10125' #10212" #28122' #28230" #28320' #28518' #28412" #28624" #28724" #28812"#28912"#29012" #29125' #29214" #29315" #29524" #29422' #244 #27836"#28030" #27533" #420" #840" #918" #1021"#1130" #1324' #1232" #2238" #2412" #2524"#2712" #1410' #710' #10628" #10811'#1091' #11023"#11115' #11248" #113 36" #11443" #11526" #11716' #118 30" #12012" #11931" #4418" #4326" #2318" #12131" #12250" #11611' #12328"#10718" #4210' #10512' #10432"#10336" #2623" #25912" #25812" #26020" #26115"#26220"#26318" #25122" #25013"#24912"#24814" #24612"#24724" #23820" #27217" #27112" #27020" #26820" #26515" #26430" #13223" #13427" #12916" #12818" #13024" #27414" #13712' #13311' #13114' #27336" #26938" #26630" #26730" #13537" #12733" #12633" by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 10-08-25 6 12-19-25 2 North 40' Scale: 1" = 80' 0'80'240'160'320' KEY MAP SITE POD 1 - COMMERCIAL & POD 3 - FUTURE PARK TREE MITIGATION PLAN POD 1COMMERCIAL POD 2 RESIDENTIAL POD 3PARK THIS SHEET MATCHLINE - SEE THIS SHEET MATCHLINE - SEE THIS SHEET MA T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T 3 MA T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T 3 LOCATION MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ORANGE PLASTICCONSTRUCTION FENCING STEEL BARFINISHED GRADE FENCE LOCATIONS TO BEAPPROVED IN FIELDTO DRIP LINE 4'-0" CONSTRUCTION STANDARD: DURING PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, THE AREAS WITHIN THE DRIP-LINE OF PRESERVEDTREES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THEIR ORIGINAL GRADE WITH PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. WITHINTHESE AREAS, THERE SHALL BE NO TRENCHING OR CUTTING OF ROOTS; NO FILL, COMPACTION OR REMOVALOF SOIL; AND, NO USE OF CONCRETE, PAINT, CHEMICALS OR OTHER FOREIGN SUBSTANCES. BARRICADE MUST BE CONSTRUCTEDAROUND THE CRITICAL PROTECTIONZONE Of EACH TREE OR CLUSTERS OFTREES NOTE: ALL BARRICADES MUST BE MAINTAINED INTACT FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. MITIGATION LEGEND OAK TO BE PRESERVED OAK TO BE RELOCATED OAK TO BE REMOVED SABAL PALM TO BE PRESERVED SABAL PALM TO BE RELOCATED PINE TO BE PRESERVED PINE TO BE REMOVED OTHER TREE TO BE PRESERVED OTHER TREE TO BE REMOVED Page 159 of 239 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 5 6 4 4 4 3 3443 3 6 TO B TOB TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TOB TOB TOB TOBTOBTOBTOBTOB TO B TOB TO B TO B TOB TOB TO B TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EOW EO W EOW EOW EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W EO W E O W EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W EOW EO W EO W #106812" #10677' #10668' #103815"#103918' #104018' #104115" #104216"#104324' #104416" #104517' #104612" #104714"#104812"#104912" #105020" #105118'#105224" #105312"#105415' #105520"#105614" #105724" #105813' #106012" #105912" #106211' #106314' #106113"#106415" #106515"#106928" #107222' #107112"#107014" #107322' #107412" #107712" #107520' #107616" #10369' #10359.5' #103411' #103313' #103213' #103115' #103010' #102910' #102813' #101436" LAYED OVER ALIVE 12"#1015 #101318' #101210'#100211' #98613' #98016' #97816' #97912" #97712" #97512"#976'20 #974'20#972'20#97112" #97318' #96912"#97013" #96810' #96712"#96618' #96516"#96413" #96014" #35515' #98221"#98322"#98422"#98512"#101716" #101615" #101831" #101912" #102012" #102216" #102313"#102415"#102511' #102616"#103713"#95715' #95816' #95916'#95616' #95514" #95415' #95015' #93213' #93113' #92914'#93015' #93315' #93410' #93813' #92715' #92815' #94319' #94412' #94514' #94614' #94719' #39512' #39616'#39716' #39419'#39012'#43114" #43214" #40728" #39922" #40015' #39814" #94816'#94910' #92518'#9269.5' #92415"#92318' #92220'#92120' #91820' #91715' #92014" #91612" #91512' #91214" #91111' #91311' #91016' #90912" #90816' #90732" #90615' #90413" #40618" #40512" #40415' #40215' #40115' #40314' #39325' #39218" #39128" #40822" #40913" TWIN#42313" #682 #67911' #89918' #90118' #90017' #90218' #90318' #41818' #41718' #41017'#41115" #41220"#41320" #41620" #41519"#41410' #90518' #89816' #89710' #89633"#91428" #893 #89425' #681 #678 #206 #213 #38622' #38718' #38230' #38328' #38418' #38520' #38012' #37918' #37822' #37717' #37612" #37411'#37512' #21430" #20724" #24214" #24312" #24130" #22730" #22322" #22222" #22117" #22026" #21511' #21610' #21717"#21814" #36923" #37018'#37120' #37222' #36416' #36824'#36522'#36625' #36715'#34318" #32312" #32114" #23116' #22918' #23028"#22822" #23228" #23316' #24015"#23917" #35313"#35415' #35622' #35713" #36319'#36220'#37315' #34212" #33513" #33619" #33324"#33415' #32818' #32714" #32612" #30512" #30312" #30212' 24" #29622' #29720' #29820'#29918"#30027' #30120' #30418" #30618" #30716"#30816" #35215" #35115" #35020' #34912" #34712" #34812" #34612"#34512"#34418' #34112" #34012' #33912" #33812" #33712" #32920' #33214" #33112" #33012" #32510' #32412' #32216" #31818' #31712"#31612" #31912" #32020' #31516' #31312"#31422" #31112"#31212" #31014"#30918' #98912' #98814'#98714' #9819.5' #96112' #96214'#96312' #89524" #102712" #102132" #38914"#38833" #43522" #43436" #43331" #43020" #429 #20833" #20432" #24416" #22420" #22515" #22620" #38118" LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC EM E R S O N A V E #99610' #9989.5' #99910' #100011' #99711' #100110' #99520' #99330' #99411' #99114' #99012' #95214' #95111' #94210' #94112' #94011' #93518' #93618' #93714' #93916' #21924" #36123" #36025' #35920'#35812" 24" #101011' #101114' #100813' #100914' #100415'#100311' #100515'#100615'#100715' by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 10-08-25 6 12-19-25 3 North 40' Scale: 1" = 80' 0'80'240'160'320' KEY MAP SITE POD 2 - RESIDENTIAL TREE MITIGATION PLAN POD 1COMMERCIAL POD 2 RESIDENTIAL POD 3PARK THIS SHEET LOCATION MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D TREE PROTECTION DETAIL ORANGE PLASTICCONSTRUCTION FENCING STEEL BARFINISHED GRADE FENCE LOCATIONS TO BEAPPROVED IN FIELDTO DRIP LINE 4'-0" CONSTRUCTION STANDARD: DURING PERIODS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, THE AREAS WITHIN THE DRIP-LINE OF PRESERVEDTREES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT THEIR ORIGINAL GRADE WITH PERVIOUS LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. WITHINTHESE AREAS, THERE SHALL BE NO TRENCHING OR CUTTING OF ROOTS; NO FILL, COMPACTION OR REMOVALOF SOIL; AND, NO USE OF CONCRETE, PAINT, CHEMICALS OR OTHER FOREIGN SUBSTANCES. BARRICADE MUST BE CONSTRUCTEDAROUND THE CRITICAL PROTECTIONZONE Of EACH TREE OR CLUSTERS OFTREES NOTE: ALL BARRICADES MUST BE MAINTAINED INTACT FOR THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. MA T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T 2 MA T C H L I N E - S E E S H E E T 2 MATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 2 MITIGATION LEGEND OAK TO BE PRESERVED OAK TO BE RELOCATED OAK TO BE REMOVED SABAL PALM TO BE PRESERVED SABAL PALM TO BE RELOCATED PINE TO BE PRESERVED PINE TO BE REMOVED OTHER TREE TO BE PRESERVED OTHER TREE TO BE REMOVED Page 160 of 239 by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 10-08-25 6 12-19-25 4TREE MITIGATION PLAN Page 161 of 239 by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 10-08-25 6 12-19-25 5TREE MITIGATION PLAN Page 162 of 239 by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediatelyreport any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC.These drawings are the property of the architect and arenot to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape ArchitectsLand PlannersEnvironmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce LaneSuite 1Jupiter, Florida 33458561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH PRP/JLD LAH 23-0317 10-08-25 6 12-19-25 6TREE MITIGATION PLAN Page 163 of 239 INDRIO ROAD EM E R S O N A V E EM E R S O N A V E RU S S A K I S R O A D JO H N S T O N R O A D KI N G S H W Y LEE B. REUMANN PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR & MAPPER FLORIDA CERTIFICATE NO. 7222 FILE NAME: 25-115.001 GLASSMAN - TOPO SURVEY.dwg 2980 SOUTH 25th STREET FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 34981 www.ct-eng.com PHONE 772-464-3537 | FAX 772-464-9497 STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AUTHORIZATION NO. 4286 CONSULTING ENGINEERS | LAND SURVEYORS SURVEYORS NOTES 1.THE LAST DATE OF DATA ACQUISITION WAS 9-8-25. 2.THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE "STANDARDS OF PRACTICE", AS SET FORTH BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS IN RULE 5J-17.050 THROUGH 5J-17.053, OF THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. 3.THIS SURVEY MAP AND/OR REPORT OR THE COPIES THEREOF ARE NOT VALID WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND THE SEAL OR DIGITAL SIGNATURE OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER. 4.ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO SURVEY MAPS OR REPORTS BY OTHER THAN THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SIGNING PARTY OR PARTIES. 5.THE BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON GRID NORTH, AND ARE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983(2011). THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 15, AS SHOWN, HAVING A BEARING OF SOUTH 89°33'05" EAST AND ALL OTHER BEARINGS ARE RELATIVE THERETO. 6.ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE REFERENCED TO THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988, AS ESTABLISHED BY SLC BENCHMARK "EMERSON 1985 RESET", HAVING A PUBLISHED ELEVATION OF 19.95'. 7.THE FEATURES SHOWN HEREON ARE REFERENCED TO THE FLORIDA STATE PLAN COORDINATE SYSTEM, EAST ZONE, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983(2011 ADJUSTMENT), AS ESTABLISHED USING FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FPRN. 8.ALL DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON ARE IN U.S. SURVEY FEET. 9.OVERALL PARCEL CONTAINS 85.29± ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 10.FOUNDATIONS AND UNDERGROUND IMPROVEMENTS, IF ANY, WERE NOT LOCATED EXCEPT AS SHOWN. 11.SYMBOLS SHOWN HEREON ARE NOT TO SCALE. 12.THIS SURVEY HAS THE BENEFIT OF TITLE COMMITMENT # GLASSMAN TO PULTE BY OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF 12/27/2024 @ 8:00 AM (NO REVISION). 13.THE DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND CONTAINED IN THIS BOUNDARY SURVEY WAS PROVIDED BY THE CLIENT OR THE CLIENTS REPRESENTATIVE. 14.THIS SURVEY DELINEATES THE BOUNDARY LOCATION ACCORDING TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BUT DOES NOT DETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR PROPERTY RIGHTS. 15.THE FEATURES SHOWN HEREON WERE ACQUIRED USING RTK GPS; TRIGONOMETRIC METHODS; LASER SCANNING; AERIAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY AND WERE VERIFIED THROUGH A REDUNDANCY OF MEASUREMENTS FOR AN EXPECTED HORIZONTAL ACCURACY OF 0.10'. 16.AERIAL IMAGERY SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY WAS CAPTURED VIA UAV ON 9-3-2025, AS PART OF THE PROJECT SCOPE TO SUPPORT MAPPING AND SITE ANALYSIS. THIS IMAGERY IS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR FIELD-VERIFIED SURVEY DATA. THE IMAGERY REFLECTS CONDITIONS AT THE TIME OF CAPTURE AND MAY NOT REPRESENT CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS. 17.NO JURISDICTIONAL OR WETLANDS WERE DETERMINED OR LOCATED AS PART OF THIS SURVEY. 18.THE PROPERTY SHOWN HEREON IS LOCATED WITHIN AREAS HAVING FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATIONS OF "X" AS SHOWN ON FLOOD RATE MAP NUMBER 12111C0070 J, MAP REVISED 2/16/2012, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA, WHICH IS THE CURRENT FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS FOR THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH SAID PREMISES IS SITUATED. 19.SUBMITTAL TO A JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FIELD AND/OR OFFICE WORK. 20.THERE ARE NO GAPS, GORES OR HIATUSES. 21.THE TREES SHOWN HEREON WERE NOT PREPARED WITH THE BENEFIT OF AN ARBORIST. TREE SPECIMEN NOMENCLATURE IS GENERALLY COMMON (OAK, PALM, PINE, ETC.) CONSULT WITH AN ARBORIST FOR FURTHER CLASSIFICATION. SHEET OFC&T PROJECT NO.25-115.001 1 3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PREPARED FOR LYING IN SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHIC & TREE LOCATION SURVEY PROJECT VICINITY VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE LOCATION MAP (INTENDED DISPLAY SCALE: 1"=2500') GLASSMAN HOLDINGS LLC NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF DRAINAGE DITCHES, CANALS OR PUBLIC ROADS, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE EAST 80 FEET, THE WEST 60 FEET AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT: THE SOUTH 830.00 FEET OF THE EAST 1,550.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS THE EAST 80 FEET AND THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY, ALL LYING AND BEING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND LESS AND EXCEPT: A PORTION OF PLAT OF FORT PIERCE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15; THENCE SOUTH 00°33'17" WEST, 2,614.52 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15 TO A POINT ON THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR ITEM/SEGMENT NO. 2303384, SECTION 94004-2501; THENCE SOUTH 89°25'38" EAST, 60.00 FEET TO A POINT INTERSECTING THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AND THE EAST EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RUSSAKIS ROAD, ALSO BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00°33'17" EAST, 90.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF RUSSAKIS ROAD; THENCE SOUTH 44°26'11" EAST, 35.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°25'38" EAST, 1,022.60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°37'49" WEST, 65.00 FEET TO SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD); THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 1,047.51 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. AND ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT: A PORTION OF PLAT OF FORT PIERCE FARMS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 7 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, LYING IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 34 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT A FOUND 1/2" IRON ROD WITH NO CAP MARKING THE EAST ONE-QUARTER (E 1/4) CORNER OF SAID SECTION 15; THENCE NORTH 00°37'49" EAST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF SAID SECTION 15, 60.00 FEET TO THE NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 614 (INDRIO ROAD) AS SHOWN ON THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY MAP FOR ITEM/SEGMENT NO. 2303384, SECTION 94004-2501; THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 80.00 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF FORT PIERCE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT CANAL NO. 6; THENCE NORTH 00°37'49" EAST, 770.00 FEET ALONG SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89°25'38" WEST, 19.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03°35'07" EAST, 384.70 FEET TO SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH 00°37'49" WEST, 384.17 FEET ALONG SAID WEST EXISTING CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNIN Page 164 of 239 STOP SL G 1.3X2FT SLC INTERCONNECT HH W HYD SL FND 1/2IN RC RLS 2391 6.0'W. FND 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 SSL 1.3X2FT SLC INTERCONNECT HH SL 1.3X2FT SLC INTERCONNECT HH SL FND 5/8IN IR/C BOWMAN LB8030 FND 1/2IN IR/C ILLEG. T O B T O B T O B TOB TOB TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TOBTOB TO B T O B T O B T O B TOB TO B W TOB TO B TO B F. P . F . W . C . D . C A N A L N O . 6 EM E R S O N A V E . ( S . R . 6 0 7 ) F. P . F . W . C . D . C A N A L N O . 7 RU S S A K I S R O A D 60 ' R / W E A S E M E N T P E R OR B 1 0 3 , P G 1 5 4 TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXX 74 . 4 3 ' 85 . 4 4 ' 92 . 6 7 ' 10 4 . 8 8 ' 201.71' CBS GARAGE (POOR CONDITION) CONCRETE WOOD SHED METAL BUILDING (POOR CONDITION) METAL BARN (POOR CONDITION) ARTESIAN WELL LAKE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 15 4' BARB WIRE FENCE (TYPICAL) 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 8.5'W. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 8.2'N. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE ON PL 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 15.9'S. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 0.6'E. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 1.8'W. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 2.4'E., 19.7'S.4' BARB WIRE FENCE 27'S. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 14.2'S. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 0.1'E. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 2.6'E. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 3.0'N. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 4.0'N., 6.9'W. PARCEL ID: 1315-131-0001-000-0 46.28± ACRES (85.29± TOTAL ACRES) THE S 1/2 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 15 PARCEL ID: 1315-121-0001-000-9 39.01± ACRES (85.29± TOTAL ACRES) NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 15 PARCEL ID: 1315-113-0020-000-3 PARCEL ID: 1315-131-0002-010-0 FDOT PARCEL ID: 1315-131-0002-000-7 NORTH R/W LINE WE S T E R L Y R / W L I N E INDRIO ROAD (S.R. 614) R/W VARIES - R/W PER FDOT R/W MAP SECTION NO. 230338-4 (94004-2501) 12' CONC. SIDEWALK 2' CURB (TYPICAL) GRASS MEDIAN SOUTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 15 EA S T L I N E O F T H E N E 1 / 4 O F S E C T I O N 1 5 WE S T L I N E O F T H E N E 1 / 4 O F S E C T I O N 1 5 95 ' R / W R/ W V A R I E S 80.00'95.00' 95.00' 60.00' 70.00' CANAL R/W 50.00' ROAD R/W 60.00' 70.00' CANAL R/W 50.00' ROAD R/W PARCEL ID: 1315-113-0001-010-7 18" HDPE WE S T C A N A L R / W L I N E EA S T R O A D R / W L I N E D I T C H DITCH 12 5 . 0 0 ' 12 5 . 0 0 ' 60 . 0 0 ' 20 . 0 0 ' 65 . 0 0 ' 99.83' 20 . 0 0 ' 60 . 0 0 ' 65 . 0 0 ' SOUTH R/W LINE PARCEL ID: 1315-131-0002-010-0 FDOT CENTER OF SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 34 S., RANGE 39 E. PER FDOT R/W MAP # 230338-4 E 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 34 S., RANGE 39 E. PER CCR# 57991 DIT C H DIT C H N89°25'38"W 1450.17' (M.) S0 ° 3 7 ' 4 9 " W 7 0 5 . 0 0 ' ( M . ) S89°29'22"E 1249.60' (C.) S3 ° 3 5 ' 0 7 " W 3 8 4 . 6 2 ' ( C . ) N0 ° 3 3 ' 1 7 " E 2 5 2 4 . 6 4 ' S0°35'33"W 1338.70' N89°25'38"W 1022.60' N44°26'11"W 35.36' N89°29'22"W 1269.60' ASPHALT ROAD VARIES 19'± DIRT ROAD 19'± DIRT ROAD EA S T R / W L I N E SO U T H 8 3 0 . 0 0 ' EAST 1550.00' LESS AND EXCEPT PORTION S89°25'38"E 60.00' N89°25'38"W 1047.51' LESS AND EXCEPT PORTION N0 ° 3 3 ' 1 7 " E 90 . 0 0 ' S0°37'49"W 65.00' S0 ° 3 3 ' 1 7 " W 2 6 1 4 . 5 1 ' ( C . ) 26 1 4 . 5 2 ' ( D . ) N0 ° 3 7 ' 4 9 " E 7 7 0 . 0 0 ' N89°25'38"W 80.00' N0 ° 3 7 ' 4 9 " E 60 . 0 0 ' N89°25'38"W 19.83' N3 ° 3 5 ' 0 7 " E 3 8 4 . 7 0 ' ( D . ) 8'± DIRT ROAD S0°37'49"W 384.09' (C.) 384.17' (D.)LESS AND EXCEPT PORTION FND 5/8IN RC BOWMAN LB8030 FND BENT 5/8IN IR 0.37'N. SET 5/8IN IR/C LB 4286 FND 5/8IN RC BOWMAN LB8030 FND 5/8IN IR/C BOWMAN LB8030 S0°37'49"W 125.97' (C.) SET 5/8IN IR/C C&T LB4286 FND SLC BM EMERSON 1985 RESET BENCHMARK EL.=19.95' NAVD SET 2IN ALUM. DISK & ROD CONTROL POINT LB4286 BENCHMARK EL.=20.04' NAVD SET 2IN ALUM. DISK & ROD CONTROL POINT LB4286 BENCHMARK EL.=21.65' NAVD 20 . 4 12" 15" 7' 17" 8' 20.0 15" 12" 18' 15" 18' 15" 16"14" 24' 16" 13" 17' 12" 14"12" 12" 20" 12" 18' 24"12"12" 15' 20"14" 24" 13" 13' 12" 12" 12" 11' 13" 14' 13"15"15" 28"14" 22' 12" 14" 14" 22' 12"12"14" 20'16" 16" 9' 16" 9.5' 15" 11' 15" 13' 16" 13' 16" 15' 16" 10' 17" 10' 15" 13' 12" 36" LAYED OVER ALIVE 12" FIG 15" 18' 15" 10' 15" 11'13" 14' 16" 13' 16" 14' 15" 15"15" 11'13" 15' 16" 15'15" 15" 15" 10' 14" 9.5' 15" 10'15" 11' 15" 11' 14" 10' 15" 11' 15" 20' 15" 30' 13" 11' 14" 14' 13" 12' 12" 12'14" 14' 13" 13' 14" 14' 12" 9.5' 15" 16' 15" 16' 12" 12" 12" 14" 20' 12" 20' 12" 20' 12"13" 18' 12"13" 13" 10' 12" 12" 18' 16" 13" 14" 13" 15' 21" 18 . 7 22" 22"12"19 . 4 16" 15" 19.4 31" 12" 12" 32" 20 . 0 16"13" 15"12" 11'16"13" 14" 12' 14" 14' 14" 12' 14" 15' 13" 16' 13" 16' 12" 16' 14" 14" 15' 12" 15' 16" 14'14" 11' 15" 10' 13" 12' 12" 11' 13" 13'13" 13' 10" 14' 12" 15' 11" 15' 12" 10' 12" 18'12" 18' 12" 14' 12" 13'12" 16' 12" 15' 12" 15' 12" 19' 12" 12' 12" 14'11" 14'13" 19' 13" 12' 12" 16' 13" 16' 12" 19' 12" 12' 14"33" 22" 36"14" 14" 31" 20" 19 . 5 20" 40" 12" 15" 15" 13" 16' 14" 16' 13" 13'28"22"16" 15' 14" 13" 16'16" 10' 13" 18'13" 9.5' 15" 12" 18' 13" 20'13" 20' 14" 20' 13" 15' 14" 12" 13" 12' 14" 15" 11' 15" 11' 12" 16'12" 11" 16' 32" 14" 15' 13" 18" 12" 12" 15' 12" 15' 13" 15' 13" 14' 14" 25' 18" 28" 22" TWIN 13"13"14" 18' 12" 20 . 2 15" 12" 12' 12" 22' 18" 28' 13" 12' 12" 11" 22'15" 17'14" 25' 26" 36"16" 30' 21" 13" 25' 14" 15' 13" 15' 13" 22' 12" 20'13" 22' 13" 22' 13" 20' 13" 15' 12" 20' 13" 18' 12" 18' 15" 22' 48"33"16" 48" 24" 36"14" 14' 30" 19"31" 12" 11' 26"12" 27"30" 30" 12" 21' 12" 24'TWIN 24" 24" 66"20" 12" 23' 14" 17"13" 11' 25" 15" 22"24" 40" 13" 15" 13" 27'13" 14'13" 12"13" 17' 15" 22' 12" 22' 13" 22' 13" 11' 18" 18' 13" 18'12" 17' 12" 18' 12" 18' 13" 18' 12" 18' 13" 17'15" 20"20" 20" 19"15" 10' 14" 18' 13" 16' 14" 10' 33"28" 24" 12" 25' 14" 25' 12" 12"40" 20" 37" 20 . 0 28" 28" 38"12" 14' 28" 16" 10'35" 16" 13" 10' 12"20" 12" 25' 26" 12" 22' 12" 12' 13" 26' 12" 14' 12" 22' 12" 19' 12" 20' 12" 30' 13" 12' 13" 14' 12" 15' 13" 11' 14" 11'15" 20'12" 18' 15" 12" TAMARIND LEANING 12"13"15" 20" 20"12" 10' 15" 12"13"18" 35' 15" 25" 13"13" 19'13" 18' 14" 20' 12" 18' 13" 22' 12" 14'13" 10'15" 15" 11' 14" 17' 14" 15' 13" 15' 12" 18' 12" 18' 14" 18' 13" 20' 13" 22' 14" 22' 14" 12' 14" 22' 14" 18" 12' 18" 12'16" 25'12" 15' 30" 15" 20' 15" 18'13" 12' 16" 16"18" 15" 22' 15" 23'15" 23'12" 18' 24"13" 14' 30" 18"26"15" 24"24"14" 14' 36" 36" 46" 46"12" 25' 20"17" 24' 16"30" 46"18"26"23"14" 13' 19" 15" 18' 15" 20'15" 15" 13" 18'13" 18'13" 12' 12" 22' 13" 13' 16" 22'15" 14' 14" 11' 14" 20' 12" 13' 12" 15'12" 15' 14" 20' 17" 16' 12" 12'14" 18' 14" 13' 13" 13'12" 10' 14" 18' 31"12" 14" 20"16" 10' 12"12" 16" 17" 12" 18' 12" 18' 18"13" 12' 12" 12' 14" 15' 14" 15' 18" 16" 21' 25"16" 22'15" 10'32" 15" 14' 12" 18' 13" 18' 14" 18' 16" 20'14" 15'14" 18' 14" 22' 14" 18' 12" 14' 12" 20'13" 18' 13" 16' 14" 16' 30" 14" 30"POSSIBLE ABANDONED SEPTIC TANK 17" 24' 12" 20' 13" 20'13" 20' 13" 20' 12" 17' 12" 17' 12" 20'12" 20' 15" 11' 12" 12'12" 15' 15" 18'40" 18"15"13" 12" 30' 16"14"13" 12" 18'13" 11' 14" 20'14" 11' 13" 26'15" 10' 15" 18' 13" 18' 15" 18' 32" 16" 13" 28' 15" 22' 15" 22' 20IN FIG13" 20" 13" 22' 12" 12" 14' 15" 20' 17" 23' 14" 22' 20" 18" 25' 28" 16" 10' 30" 16" 30'20" 15" 10' 13" 13' 13" 15' 14" 18' 16" 25' 15" 11' 40"12" 15' 15" 13' 13" 13'15" 18' 12" 14' 12" 22'13" 18'12" 20' 13" 20'13" 18' 16" 30'12" 18'12" 18' 16" 20' 22" 14" 20'12" 18' 15" 20'14" 20' 14" 20'13" 20'12" 10' 14" 22' 12" 20' 13" 12' 13" 16'13" 17'13" 12' 14" 14' 16" 20' 13" 10' 12" 12' 12" 33" 23" 26" 26" 24" 14" 20' W FLOWING UP ARTESIAN WELL 14" 32' 14" 30' 24"13" 28" 16" 25' 16" 35' 12" 13" 22'24" 15" 18" 20" 28"22" 13" 11' 20" 46" 48" 14" 28' 16" 15" 22' 12" 18' 48"32" 12" 25'13" 15'12" 15'25" 13" 20' 12" 13'20" 14" 16' 15" 22' 15" 22' 22" 14" 22' 12" 18' 15" 23' 22" 14" 22' 14" 28' 28"27" 27" 24"13" 14' 15" 13' 18" 18' 12" 20'16" 18" 13" 18' 40" 16" 22' 14" 10' 30" 12" 14' 14" 30'16" 21' 40" 14" 20' 14" 19' 12" 22' 13"20" 12" 22' 22" 13" 18' 16" 12' 15" 14' 15" 14' 13" 20' 14" 10' 19" 24" 12" 19' 30" 12" 16' 13" 22' 16" 24' 12" 18' 13" 18'12" 18' 15" 22'14" 22'19 . 6 18"18" 20 . 5 40"13" 10' 16" 23' 22" 12" 12' 12" 23' 20"12" 25' 12" 11' 13" 35' 30" 17" 19 . 6 20.0 20 . 0 19 . 9 20.0 12" 14' 14" 14" 19' 13" 10' 13" 14' 15" 19' 13" 15' 15" 13' 15" 15"15" 20' 15" 25' 13" 12" 12" 19' 12" 13' 20" 15" 15" 36" 12" 20'12" 25' 48" 15" 10' 30" 32"30" 60" 22" 36"36" 33" 36" 36"60" 20" 22" 42" 42"20" 36" 36"36" 30"19 . 3 32" 36"22" 42" 30" 26" 30" 30" 46"16" 30" 28"34" 15" 22' 14" 18' 18"12" 30' 12" 28' 12" 18'12" 20' 12" 12' 13" 18' 13" 22' 12" 17'12" 13" 11'12" 12' 30" 33"24" 32"24"36" 24" 30" 30" 20"15" 20" 22" 22" 17"26" 13" 11' 13" 10'17"14"24" 28" 13" 18' 13" 20'18" 22' 13" 16' 24" 12" 22' 15" 25'13" 15' 12" 18" 13" 19" 24" 13" 15' 13" 18' 14"12" 12" 14" 12" 12" 12" 12' 16" 16" 14" 18' 28"22" 18" 12" 27'13" 20' 18" 18" 16"16" 13" 15" 15" 12" 15' 12" 20' 13" 22' 13" 12" 19'13" 20' 23" 13" 25' 12" 20' 12"14" 15' 12" 12" 12" 12" 12"12" 18' 12" 12" 12'12" 12"12" 12" 20'14" 12" 12" 14" 10' 13" 12' 16" 12" 18' 12"12" 12" 12" 20' 13" 16'12" 22" 12"12" 14" 12" 18' DELAPIDATED CBS REMAINS 19 . 5 20.8 20.5 19 . 7 20.1 20.7 21.2 21.1 20.9 21.3 21.9 22 . 1 21 . 5 20.9 21 . 1 21 . 1 20.8 21 . 2 21.6 21.9 21.7 21.3 21.5 21.9 22 . 3 22 . 5 18 . 0 18 . 5 18 . 6 18 . 9 19 . 0 19 . 0 20 . 1 18.8 19.7 20 . 1 19.6 16 . 1 18 . 3 18 . 5 18 . 9 18 . 8 19 . 2 19 . 3 20 . 1 19.9 19.6 19.7 20.0 16 . 1 18 . 6 18 . 7 18 . 9 19 . 0 19 . 4 19 . 6 19.8 20 . 0 20 . 3 20 . 0 20.1 16 . 1 19 . 3 18 . 8 19 . 0 19 . 1 19 . 4 19 . 8 20 . 3 20 . 2 20 . 2 20 . 7 20.7 16 . 1 17 . 9 18 . 7 19 . 3 19 . 4 19 . 7 20 . 0 20 . 0 20 . 1 20 . 0 19.9 20.1 16 . 1 19 . 0 18 . 9 19 . 3 19 . 8 19 . 2 19 . 7 20 . 5 20 . 1 20 . 2 20 . 1 20.3 16 . 1 19 . 0 19 . 6 19 . 4 19 . 7 19 . 6 20 . 0 20 . 5 20 . 0 20 . 7 20 . 5 19.8 16 . 7 16 . 7 18 . 3 17 . 9 18 . 4 16 . 4 18 . 6 16 . 9 17 . 7 18 . 4 20 . 5 20 . 7 20 . 5 20 . 9 21.2 23 . 8 19 . 1 19 . 4 19 . 5 19 . 7 19 . 6 19 . 9 20 . 3 20 . 5 20 . 2 20 . 1 18.5 18 . 5 18 . 2 16 . 8 16 . 1 17 . 4 15 . 9 17 . 3 16 . 5 17 . 1 18 . 8 19 . 9 20 . 0 19 . 9 19 . 9 21 . 3 24 . 3 19 . 0 19 . 4 19 . 5 19 . 7 19 . 7 19 . 5 19.8 20 . 1 20 . 1 19.2 18.3 18 . 5 17 . 9 17 . 1 15 . 9 15 . 9 17 . 6 17 . 8 19 . 7 20 . 0 20 . 3 20 . 4 20 . 3 20 . 4 21 . 1 24 . 8 18 . 2 19 . 0 19 . 3 19 . 7 19 . 6 19 . 7 20 . 9 20 . 0 20 . 0 19.4 18.4 18 . 6 18 . 2 17 . 0 15 . 9 15 . 9 18 . 6 19 . 7 19 . 9 20 . 1 20 . 2 20 . 3 20 . 6 20 . 2 21 . 0 24 . 8 17 . 9 18 . 0 19 . 0 19 . 9 19 . 8 19 . 9 20 . 0 20 . 1 20 . 4 19.5 18.4 18 . 2 17 . 8 16 . 8 15 . 9 15 . 9 19 . 1 19 . 8 20 . 0 20 . 1 20 . 1 20 . 1 20 . 4 20 . 0 20 . 4 24 . 5 17 . 9 18 . 2 19 . 2 19 . 6 20 . 0 20 . 0 20 . 3 20 . 0 20 . 1 18.8 18.1 18 . 4 18 . 0 17 . 2 17 . 9 18 . 1 18 . 4 19 . 3 19 . 7 19 . 9 20 . 0 20 . 4 20 . 2 20 . 4 20 . 2 20 . 6 18 . 9 19 . 9 19 . 7 20 . 1 19 . 9 20 . 4 20 . 3 20 . 6 20 . 4 20 . 4 19.1 17 . 2 19 . 1 18 . 3 18 . 9 18 . 8 19 . 5 19 . 6 19 . 4 20 . 0 20 . 4 20 . 4 20 . 0 19.9 16.7 19 . 1 20.3 18 . 5 19 . 5 19 . 5 20 . 1 20 . 0 20 . 9 20 . 6 21 . 3 20 . 6 20 . 5 20 . 7 19.7 19 . 4 19 . 9 18 . 9 20 . 4 19 . 7 20 . 0 20 . 1 20 . 1 20 . 2 20 . 5 20 . 0 19.9 16.9 19.7 20.2 20.1 19 . 2 20 . 2 19 . 8 19 . 6 19 . 4 19 . 3 19 . 8 20 . 3 20 . 0 20 . 7 18.9 19.6 19 . 6 20.5 19 . 4 ● ● ● 2980 SOUTH 25th STREET FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 34981 www.ct-eng.comFAX 772-464-9497PHONE 772-464-3537 STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AUTHORIZATION NO. 4286 ABBREVIATIONS DENOTES BENCHMARKBM LEGEND DENOTES BEARING BASIS DENOTES P.K. NAIL AND DISK DENOTES 5/8" IRON ROD & CAP DENOTES NORTH AMERICAN DENOTES PROFESSIONAL LAND DENOTES TYPICAL DENOTES FOUND DENOTES LICENSED BUSINESS DENOTES IRON ROD DENOTES CONCRETE MONUMENT DENOTES CONCRETE DENOTES PLUS OR MINUS TYP. FND. L.B. I.R. C.M. CONC. ± B.B. IR / C N.A.V.D. P.L.S. PK&D DENOTES SET 5/8" IRON ROD DENOTES OVERHEAD ELECTRICOE DENOTES CENTERLINEC/L EH DENOTES ELECTRICAL HANDHOLE DENOTES IRRIGATION CONTROL DENOTES GUY ANCHOR W DENOTES WATER METER DENOTES SIGN FO DENOTES FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE W DENOTES WATER VALVE DENOTES INVERTINV. DENOTES SANITARYSAN. DENOTES WOOD POWER POLE DENOTES CONCRETE POWER POLE 25-115 Boundary Survey.dwg DENOTES IRON PIPEI.P. I VERTICAL DATUM SURVEYOR & CAP (LB 4286) BOX SL DENOTES STREET LIGHT HANDHOLE DENOTES SANITARY VALVE S DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE DENOTES POLE LIGHT DENOTES TOP OF BANKTOB G DENOTES GAS WARNING POST DENOTES RIGHT OF WAYR/W SEE SHEET 3 DENOTES PINE TREE DENOTES PALM TREE DENOTES OAK TREE AND ## ## ## ##DENOTES AS NOTED AND DIAMETER AT 4 FT HIGH DIAMETER AT 4 FT HIGH Page 165 of 239 FND 3/4IN PIPE (NO ID) 6.05'W. FND 5/8IN IR BUSTED CAP 0.16'E., 0.78'N. W ARTESIAN WELL T O B T O B T O B T O B T O B T O B T O B TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB T O B T O B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TOBTOB T O B T O B T O B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B TO B X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XTOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB TOB S89°33'05"E 1330.49' PARCEL ID: PARCEL ID: 1315-121-0001-000-9 39.01± ACRES (85.29± TOTAL ACRES) NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SEC 15 PARCEL ID: 1315-113-0001-010-7 PARCEL ID: 1315-111-0021-000-4 PARCEL ID: 1315-111-0002-000-5 PARCEL ID: 1310-443-0021-000-9 PARCEL ID: 1310-433-0003-000-6 60.00' 70.00' CANAL R/W 50.00' ROAD R/W 60.00' 70.00' CANAL R/W 50.00' ROAD R/W F. P . F . W . C . D . C A N A L N O . 7 RU S S A K I S R O A D 60 ' R / W E A S E M E N T P E R OR B 1 0 3 , P G 1 5 4 WE S T L I N E O F T H E N E 1 / 4 O F S E C T I O N 1 5 PARCEL ID: 1315-113-0001-010-7 WE S T C A N A L R / W L I N E EA S T R O A D R / W L I N E 10' WIDE FPL EASEMENT PER ORB 1362, PG 101 ABANDONED IRRIGATION PUMP ON CONC. PAD ISLAND WOOD BRIDGE (AREA OVERGROWN) D I T C H D I T C H DITCH DITCH DITCH F. P . F . W . C . D . C A N A L N O . 6 EM E R S O N A V E . ( S . R . 6 0 7 ) EA S T L I N E O F T H E N E 1 / 4 O F S E C T I O N 1 5 95 ' R / W 80 ' R / W NW CORNER OF SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 34 S., RANGE 39 E. PER CCR# 57989 N 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 15 TOWNSHIP 34 S., RANGE 39 E. PER CCR# 57994 WE S T R / W L I N E EA S T R / W L I N E 80.00'95.00' S0 ° 3 5 ' 3 3 " W 1 3 3 8 . 7 0 ' N0 ° 3 3 ' 1 7 " E 2 5 2 4 . 6 4 ' S89°33'05"E 1270.49' S0°35'33"W 1338.70' 19'± DIRT ROAD 19'± DIRT ROAD (BEARING BASIS) ARTESIAN WELL /OUTFALL PIPE 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 7.2'W. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE (TYPICAL) 4' BARB WIRE FENCE (TYPICAL) 4' BARB WIRE FENCE (TYPICAL) 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 65.8'S. 4' BARB WIRE FENCE 31.5'W. NORTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 15 S0 ° 3 3 ' 1 8 " W 2 6 1 4 . 5 1 ' ( C . ) 26 1 4 . 5 2 ' ( D . ) BOX CULVERT FND 4X4 CM SET 5/8IN IR/C WITNESS LB4286 CONTROL POINT BENCHMARK EL.=21.03' NAVD 13" 22' 15" 15" 16" 16" 15" 28'15" 24' 13" 23'15" 30'15" 23' 14" 25'15" 15"36" 9" 30'15" MAGNOLIA12" 18'12" 30' 12" 30'12" 32' 13" 30'12" BOTTLEBRUSH12" 32' 44" SET 60D TEMP TRAV NAIL 15" 35'12" 25' 12" 32' 12" 32' 12" 32' 12" 35'12" 35'13" 32' 13" 28' 12" 35' 12" 35' 12" 35'12" 35' 13" 35'13" 35' 30" 32"30" 60" 22"42" 42"20" 36" 36"36" 30"19 . 3 32" 36" 36"22" 42" 30" 30" 30" 33"24" 32"24"36" 24" 17" 13' W FLOWING UP ARTESIAN WELL 13" 35' 12" 14' 12" BANYAN 15" 15"13" 15' 19" 34" 18" 20" 19 . 1 13" 25' 18 . 8 13" 20' 40" 18" 21"30" 16" 24' 32" 38" 12"24"23"12" 19 . 2 12" 19.1 13" 20' 19.2 12" 20' 12" 18'19 . 2 12" 19'12" 19' 18 . 8 19 . 8 12" 16'13" 22'19 . 3 13" 30" 19 . 6 13" 15' 13" 15' 13" 10' 13" 16' 12" 10' 12" 25' 15" 10' 48"20" 40" 12" 12" 20" 15"20"18" 22" 13" 12"14" 15"12" 24" 16" 14" 12" 30" 30" 20"15" 20" 22" 22" 17"26" 12" 14" 12" 12" 12" 12' 16" 16" 14" 18' 28"22" 28" 16" 16" 24" 13" 10'24" 28" 20" 15"17" 17"12" 20" 36" 38" 20" 30" 30"15" 30" 13" 12' 33"28" 12" 11'27" 37"16" 14'16"18" 24" 18"36"30" 28"28" 33" 14" 33" 33" 17" 12' 28" 32"36" 15" 11'15" 1' 28" 13" 15' 48" 36"48" 26" 16" 16"30" 12" 31" 20 . 0 18"26" 18" 19 . 6 31" 50" 16" 11' 28" 19 . 0 36" 16" 14' 18" FND 1/2IN RC RLS 2391 0.20'E. FND 4X4 CM 0.95'W. 12" 12" 25' 15" 20' 18" 12" 25'12" 25' 13" 20' 13" 20' 12" 14" 13" 12' 13" 12' 15" 11' 20" 13" 25' 16" 13" 18'13" 16' 13" 16' 12" 18' 12" 18'14" 18' 12" 25' 12" 18'13" 15' 12" 13" 18'13" 18' 12" 10' 13" 15'13" 15' 13" 15' 30" 14" 11' 14" 11' 12" 15' 12" 19' 21 . 6 12" 18' 12" 11' 12" 11' 13" 15'12" 10' 15" 12" 12' 12" 13" 12" 18'14" 20' 13" 20' 12" 18' 36" 12" 12'12" 22' 20" 14" 20' 19"12" 20' 15" 19' 14"13" 20'13" 16' 12" 28'24" 12" 22' 13" 13" 25' 12" 12" 22' 30" 12" 20' 12" 18' 12" 24" 24"12" 12"12" 12" 25' 14" 15" 24" 13" 22' 12" 22' 13" 20'12" 20' 18" 12" 27'13" 20' 18" 18" 16"16" AUST. PINES CANT GET ACCESS TOO 13" 12' 16" 12" 18' 12"12" 12" 12" 20' 13" 16'12" 22" 12"12"14" 12" 18' 19.5 19.5 20 . 1 20 . 0 20 . 9 20 . 6 21 . 3 20 . 6 20 . 5 20 . 7 19.7 19.4 19.9 18.9 20 . 4 19.7 20 . 0 20 . 1 20 . 1 20 . 2 20 . 5 20 . 0 19.9 16.9 19.7 20 . 2 20 . 1 19.2 20 . 2 19.8 19.6 19.4 19.3 19.8 20 . 3 20 . 0 20 . 7 18.9 19.6 19.6 20 . 5 19.4 20 . 0 19.8 20 . 6 19.8 21 . 5 21 . 4 20 . 8 20 . 0 18.5 19.7 20 . 1 20 . 2 20 . 3 19.6 20.1 20.1 19.9 20.5 20.9 20.3 18.7 16.6 18.5 19.8 19.4 19.8 20.1 19.8 20.9 20.1 20.2 19.5 19.7 20.6 20.0 19.2 20.0 19.4 19.9 19.9 19.5 20.4 19 . 6 19 . 7 19 . 4 19 . 2 20.1 19 . 9 17 . 5 19 . 5 20.2 19 . 7 19 . 8 20.1 20.4 20.2 19 . 8 19 . 9 19 . 6 20.2 19 . 6 19 . 7 19 . 6 20.0 19 . 6 19 . 4 19 . 6 19 . 5 19 . 7 20.3 19 . 4 19 . 7 19 . 7 19 . 6 19 . 2 16 . 6 19 . 5 20.0 20.5 19 . 7 20.0 20.3 20.2 20.7 19 . 3 19 . 0 19 . 3 19 . 5 19 . 2 19 . 1 19 . 6 19 . 6 19 . 4 19 . 8 19 . 7 19 . 5 20.1 20.7 19 . 3 19 . 3 19 . 2 19 . 2 16 . 0 20.1 20.0 19 . 9 19 . 6 20.0 20.4 20.5 21.0 20.9 19 . 5 19 . 3 19 . 0 19 . 5 19 . 6 19 . 6 20.0 20.0 19 . 7 20.2 20.2 20.4 20.0 20.0 ● ● ● 2980 SOUTH 25th STREET FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 34981 www.ct-eng.comFAX 772-464-9497PHONE 772-464-3537 STATE OF FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AUTHORIZATION NO. 4286 ABBREVIATIONS DENOTES BENCHMARKBM I LEGEND DENOTES BEARING BASIS DENOTES P.K. NAIL AND DISK DENOTES 5/8" IRON ROD & CAP DENOTES NORTH AMERICAN DENOTES PROFESSIONAL LAND DENOTES TYPICAL DENOTES FOUND DENOTES LICENSED BUSINESS DENOTES IRON ROD DENOTES CONCRETE MONUMENT DENOTES CONCRETE DENOTES PLUS OR MINUS TYP. FND. L.B. I.R. C.M. CONC. ± B.B. IR / C N.A.V.D. P.L.S. PK&D DENOTES SET 5/8" IRON ROD DENOTES OVERHEAD ELECTRICOE DENOTES CENTERLINEC/L EH DENOTES ELECTRICAL HANDHOLE DENOTES IRRIGATION CONTROL DENOTES GUY ANCHOR W DENOTES WATER METER DENOTES SIGN FO DENOTES FIBER OPTIC HANDHOLE W DENOTES WATER VALVE DENOTES INVERTINV. DENOTES SANITARYSAN. DENOTES WOOD POWER POLE DENOTES CONCRETE POWER POLE SEE SHEET 2 25-115 Boundary Survey.dwg DENOTES IRON PIPEI.P. VERTICAL DATUM SURVEYOR & CAP (LB 4286) BOX SL DENOTES STREET LIGHT HANDHOLE DENOTES SANITARY VALVE S DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE DENOTES POLE LIGHT DENOTES TOP OF BANKTOB G DENOTES GAS WARNING POST DENOTES RIGHT OF WAYR/W DENOTES PINE TREE DENOTES PALM TREE DENOTES OAK TREE AND DIAMETER AT 4 FT HIGH ## ## ## ##DENOTES AS NOTED AND DIAMETER AT 4 FT HIGH Page 166 of 239 Neighborhood Meeting Indrio Town Center PRW Rezoning St. Lucie County, Florida Dear Property Owner: As a property owner within 1,500 feet of the property identified in the below description and Location Map of Development, please be advised that a neighborhood meeting will occur to discuss the proposed Rezoning application for the proposed Indrio Town Center development. The purpose of this meeting is to provide nearby residents with an opportunity to review the project, ask questions, and offer feedback prior to formal submittals and public hearings. All interested persons are invited to attend and participate in this meeting. Location and Context The project site is located on Indrio Road in St. Lucie County, Florida. Glassman Holdings, LLC is considering the submission of a Rezoning application for a proposed development, that incorporates commercial, recreational, and residential, mixed-use, or live work uses. Documents and plans discussed are conceptual and may be subject to change as we progress with the development. Neighborhood Meeting Information Meeting Date: May 27, 2026 Meeting Time: 5:30pm to 7:00pm Meeting Location: The Lakewood Park Village Hall 7508 Jennings Way, Fort Pierce, Florida 34951 Location Map of Development Indrio Road, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34951 We value your input and encourage your participation. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 561-406-1027 or Lheinzelmann@cotleur-hearing.com. Sincerely, Leah Heinzelmann Cotleur & Hearing 1934 Commerce Lane, Suite 1 Jupiter, Florida 34984 Page 167 of 239 TR-44138498 ST. LUCIE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA June 18, 2026 NOTICE OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED RETAIL/WORKPLACE (PRW) SITE PLAN The St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission is scheduled to review and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding the following proposed Resolution: RESOLUTION: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS FOR A +/- 85.29 ACRE SITE FROM THE AGRICULTURAL-1 (AG-1) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED RETAIL/WORKPLACE (PRW) ZONING DISTRICT AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR A PHASED MIXED-USE TOWN CENTER WITH UP TO 447,250 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE, AND LIMITED STAND-ALONE RESIDENTIAL OR LIVE/WORK UNITS, WHICH INCLUDES A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.1.6.1 DETERMINATION FOR A 1,500-FT. EXTENSION OF THE URBAN SERVICES BOUNDARY, TO BE KNOWN AS INDRIO TOWN CENTER LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FL. Applicant: Leah Heinzelman, PLA, ASLA, Cotleur & Hearing, Inc. Property Owner: Glassman Holdings, LLC. Petition File Numbers: RZ-2510-000048 Parcel Number(s): 1315-121-0001-000-9 and 1315-131-0001-000-0 Location: North side of Indrio Road, approximately 1.7 miles east of Interstate-95 (see map below). Purpose: This petition proposes an amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas for a +/- 85.29-acre site fromAgricultural-1 (AG-1) to Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) and the approval of a Preliminary Site Plan for a phased mixed-use PRW consisting of 8 development parcels and street network, to provide for up to 447,250 sq. ft. of commercial space. The Preliminary Plan provides for a variety of lot types, including mixed use, retail, apartment, townhome, civic, highway service, warehouse, and countryside, including a +/-16.03-acre parcel designated with a maximum total density of one stand-alone residential unit per acre or up to five Mixed-Use units per acre, and/or 85 retail (office) lots or 105,000 square feet of retail (office). The Preliminary Site Plan includes community amenities (private recreation area and a + / - 26.33-acre neighborhood park), wetland preservation, stormwater, and access to Emerson Ave. and Russakis Rd. The proposal includes a request, in accordance with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.1.6.1, for a 1,500 ft. extension of the Urban Services Boundary. The map below depicts the parcels proposed for rezoning and preliminary site plan approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s PUBLIC HEARING to review the proposed Rezoning and Preliminary Plan will be held in the Commission Chambers, Roger Poitras Annex, 3rd Floor, St. Lucie County Administration Building, 2300 Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida on Thursday, June 18, 2026, beginning at 6:00 pm or as soon thereafter as possible. All interested persons will be given an opportunity to be heard. Written comments received in advance of the public hearing will also be considered. Written comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission should be received by the Planning and Development Services Department - Planning Division at least 3 days prior to the scheduled hearing. The petition file is available for review at the Planning and Development Services Department offices located at 2300 Virginia Avenue, 2nd Floor, Fort Pierce, Florida, during regular business hours. Please call (772) 462-2822 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428 if you have any questions or require additional information about this petition. The Planning and Zoning Commission has the power to review and make a recommendation of approval or disapproval to the Board of County Commissioners on all matters within its jurisdiction. The proceedings are electronically recorded. PURSUANT TO SECTION 286.0105, FLORIDA STATUTES, if a person decides to appeal any final decision made with respect to a matter considered for approval at a meeting or hearing, he or she will need a record of the proceedings. For such purpose, he or she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. Upon the request of any party to the proceeding, individuals testifying during a hearing will be sworn in. Any party to the proceeding will be granted an opportunity to cross-examine any individual testifying during a hearing upon request. If it becomes necessary, a public hearing may be continued to a date certain. Anyone with a disability requiring accommodation to attend this meeting should contact the St. Lucie County Risk Manager at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to the meeting at (772) 462-1546 or T.D.D. (772) 462-1428. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA RYAN BINNER, CHAIR PUBLISH DATE: June 5, 2026 Page 168 of 239 Page 169 of 239 Page 170 of 239 Page 171 of 239 Emerson Avenue Indrio Road and Russakis Road Russakis Road Page 172 of 239 1172 SW 30th Street, Suite 500 • Palm City • Florida • 34990 (772) 286-8030• www.mackenzieengineeringinc.com Memorandum To: St. Lucie County Public Works Department From: Shaun G. Mackenzie, P.E. Date: March 16, 2025 October 6, 2025 Re: Indrio Town Center - Traffic Study Methodology St. Lucie County Acceptance Indrio Town Center Traffic Study Methodology was Approved on ______________________, 20 by __________________________________________ INTRODUCTION MacKenzie Engineering and Planning, Inc. (MEP) was retained by Engineering Design & Construction, Inc. to perform a traffic analysis for Indrio Town Center in St. Lucie County, FL. The proposed project is located at the west side of Emerson Avenue and south of Indian River County Line, St. Lucie County, FL (Parcel ID: 1315-131-0001-000-0, 1315-121-0001-000-9). Figure 1 illustrates the site location. The buildout year is 2035. The applicant proposes to construct the following uses at buildout: 1. 335,760 SF Retail 2. 113,400 SF of General Office Building 3. 8 pump Gas Station with 5,507 SF Convenience Store The methodology was prepared in accordance with the Standardized Transportation Impact Studies (TIS) Methodology and procedures (STIP) (Updated August 2023). We are submitting the information to the St. Lucie County Public Works department for review and upon approval will continue with the traffic analysis. Figure 1 illustrates the proposed development location. Page 173 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 2 of 17 Figure 1: Proposed Site Location TRIP GENERATION Trip Generation The study uses trip generation rates for Shopping Plaza (ITE Land Use 820), General Office Building (ITE Land Use 710), and Gas Station with Convenience Store (ITE Land Use 945) published in the Institute of Transportation Engineering’s (ITE) manual, Trip Generation Manual (12th Edition). The proposed development will generate the following net new external trips: • 10,980 daily, 465 AM peak hour (322 in/143 out), and 1,102 PM peak hour (495 in/607 out) trips. The proposed development will generate the following driveway trips: • 14,203 daily, 631 AM peak hour (412 in/219 out), and 1,405 PM peak hour (643 in/762 out) trips. Internal Capture Rate Internal capture for the proposed land use is conservatively estimated at 6.0% for the AM peak hour, 5.5% for the PM peak hour, based on the initial internal capture estimates. Internal capture rates between uses are based on rates contained within the ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook (3rd Edition). PROJECTSITE EM E R S O N A V E INDRIO RD JO H N S T O N R D IRC SLC Page 174 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 3 of 17 Pass-by Rate Factor The existing, approved, and proposed pass-by capture of 19 percent is in accordance with the ITE pass-by rates for the land-use Shopping Plaza. The proposed AM and PM pass-by capture is 60% & 56% Gas Station with Convenience Store, respectively. The pass-by capture will be limited to 10% of the adjacent street 2035 background traffic. INVENTORY & PLANNING DATA Availability / Use of County & State Data MEP will obtain count data, use FDOT’s Florida Traffic Online traffic counts and supplement from the St. Lucie County TPO Traffic Counts and Level of Service Report (2025) for current traffic counts. Procedures for Intersection Analysis MEP will utilize the software identified in the STIP. Traffic Data for intersection turning counts for the AM & PM peak will be collected within the 2024 calendar year (1 year) or more current. MEP will use truck counts or FDOT traffic online data for the truck percentage. MEP will use existing signal timings from St. Lucie County, FDOT, and Indian River County. STUDY AREA Traffic Distribution / Assignment Technique and Approach Traffic distribution and assignment were developed based on an estimation of dwelling units within a 2- mile radius. Traffic distribution and assignment were adjusted based on the roadway network. Radius of Impact (ROI) Based on the STIP, Appendix B, the area of influence for transportation concurrency is 4.0 miles. St. Lucie County LDC evaluates concurrency based on the new external daily trips on the surrounding roads. AM & PM peak hour analyses will be performed. Figure 2 illustrates the four-mile radius. In addition, the study will analyze impacted roadways, which are any Major Road Segment on which the peak-hour project traffic consumes 5 (five) percent or more of the existing or committed peak-hour peak direction service capacity (consistent with the STIP). Page 175 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 4 of 17 Figure 2. Four (4) Miles Radius Map The study roadways shall include Indrio Road, Koblegard Road, Johston Road (43rd Avenue) from Angle Road to Oslo Road, Emerson Avenue (27th Avenue) from Angle Road to Oslo Road), Kings Highway from St. Lucie Boulevard to US 1, and Oslo Road from 66th Avenue to 27th Avenue. Study Intersections The project will study the following intersections: 1. Indrio Road & I-95 SB Ramp 2. Indrio Road & I-95 NB Ramp 3. Indrio Road & Johnston Road 4. Indrio Road & Emerson Avenue 5. Indrio Road & Kings Highway 6. Indrio Road & Koblegard Road 7. Proposed Driveway & Emerson Avenue 8. Oslo Road & 43rd Avenue SW will be included only for PM peak hour 9. Oslo Road & 27th Avenue SW will be included only for PM peak hour Em e r s o n A v e Ko b l e g a r d R d Indrio Rd Ki n g s H wy 4-Mile Radius Jo h n s t o n R d Oslo Rd 43 rd Av e 27 th Av e 58 th Av e Page 176 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 5 of 17 ROADWAY ANALYSIS Roadway Analysis MEP will utilize AM & PM peak-hour traffic data for each roadway segment within the study area. The traffic data for each segment will be compared with the service volumes for each respective segment to determine if adequate capacity is available on each roadway segment. MEP will utilize the MMQLOS Handbook to establish generalized service volumes on state roads. MEP will use FDOT's preliminary context class on state roads. In the case of a C2 designation, MEP will adjust the context classification to C3C or C3R based on the anticipated future suburban context classification at buildout. Historical Growth Rate Historic growth rates were developed based on available FDOT Traffic Online data. The historic annual growth in the surrounding facilities between 2020 and 2024 is 3.8%. FDOT Data showing the growth calculations are contained in Exhibit 4A. Historic growth rates were also developed based on the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Model (TCRPM) 5.1. Model. The model-generated growth rate on the surrounding facilities between 2015 and 2045 is 2.6%. The model-generated growth calculations are contained in Exhibit 4B. A 3.8 percent growth rate will be utilized to provide a conservative analysis. The existing peak hour traffic volumes will be increased based on the greater of the annual compound growth or one percent (1%) growth plus approved site plan traffic to develop the background traffic volumes. Service Volume MEP will utilize the FDOT Multimodal Quality/Level of Service Handbook (2023) on state roads based on FDOT preliminary context class and the TPO service volumes on non-state roads. In the case of a C2 designation, MEP will adjust the context classification to C3C or C3R based on the anticipated future suburban context classification at buildout. Background Traffic Background traffic identifies how the study area’s transportation system is forecast to operate in the buildout year 2035. This includes traffic growth that is associated with the general (historic) growth in the area and the growth due to the development of unbuilt portions of approved major developments. The existing peak hour traffic volumes will be increased based on the greater of the annual compound growth rate or a 1% growth rate plus approved site plan traffic to develop the projected year 2035 background traffic volumes. It is anticipated that the study will include diversion of traffic to Oslo Road. The committed project traffic will be calculated by 2 scenarios: • Scenario A: 25% Preliminary Projects + 100% Buc-ee’s + 100% Approved Projects • Scenario B: 75% Preliminary Projects + 100% Buc-ee’s + 100% Approved Projects + 100% Pre- Application Projects The following approved or nearly approved projects and their traffic were included in the analysis: Page 177 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 6 of 17 • Bedner Farms (Preliminary) • Indrio & I-95 Development (Preliminary PUD Approved) • Buc-ee’s (Preliminary) • Publix at Indrio • Indrio Woods • Sabal Palm Grove • Cabo Rio RV • Indrio Groves (PUD Application) • Eagle Bend (Preliminary) • 2098 Johnston Road (Preliminary) • NVR Fort Pierce (Serenoa) • Pineapple Grove • 4540 North Kings Highway (Preliminary) • Indrio Townhomes • Club at Indrio (Pre-Application) • Sea Grove • Tripson Estates/Lakeside West (Indian River County) • Indrio Point (Indian River County) • Isram Realty Residential Segment Analysis Should an arterial analysis become necessary, an arterial analysis will be performed using the most current version of ARTPLAN. The green times, cycle lengths, and volumes will be provided by St. Lucie County Traffic Timing Data or Field obtained signal timing results. DRIVEWAY ANALYSIS Site Access The proposed conceptual site plan has been provided by the owner and is located in the Appendix. The type of project access is to be determined. COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS Based on review of FDOT’s 5-Year Work Program and the St. Lucie TPO’s Transportation Improvement Program, which includes St. Lucie County’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan. The following improvements are identified in the plans to add capacity within the study area: • Kings Highway (SR 713) – St. Lucie Boulevard to Indrio Road – 4-Laning – ROW 2027 • SR-68/Orange Avenue from SR-713/Kings Highway to E of SR-9/I-95 SB Ramp – Interchange Improvements – 2029 • Oslo Road - 82nd Ave to 58th Ave – 4-Laning – Under Construction • Oslo Road & I-95 Interchange – Under Construction • Koblegard Road & Spanish Lakes Boulevard – 2 Lane Roundabout under construction • Koblegard Road & Russos Road – Roundabout under construction • Buc-ees Committed Improvements: Page 178 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 7 of 17 1. Construct a 2nd northbound right-turn lane and urbanize the northbound right-turn off ramp at the intersection of the I-95 northbound Ramp. Urbanizing the turn lane includes signalizing the movement, reducing the turning radius, and removing the free-flow condition. 2. Coordinate the I-95 northbound and southbound ramp signals with the intersection of Indrio Road & Koblegard Road. 3. Construct approximately 1,250 feet of Koblegard Road as a 4-lane facility south of Indrio Road and construct the northbound approach at the intersection of Indrio Road & Koblegard Road with the following: a. Two northbound left turn lanes b. One northbound through lane c. One northbound right turn lane 4. Make additional improvements at the intersection of Indrio & Koblegard Road, including a. Construct one eastbound right turn lane b. Extend the westbound left turn lane 5. Construct an ingress-only driveway approximately 440 feet west of the intersection of Indrio Road & Koblegard Road, outside of FDOT limited access right-of-way (ROW). Page 179 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 8 of 17 APPENDIX 1. Trip Generation a. Trip Generation b. Trip Generation - AM Internal Capture c. Trip Generation - PM Internal Capture 2. Driveway Distribution 3. a. Assignment Map (Based on Existing and Planned Dwelling Units) b. Distribution Map (Based on Existing and Planned Dwelling Units) c. Significance Analysis 4. Growth Rate Calculation a. FDOT Historical Growth Rate Calculation b. Model Growth Rate Calculation 5. FDOT’s Traffic Data a. Annual Average Daily Traffic Report (2024) b. FDOT’s Q/LOS Manual 2023 6. St. Lucie TPO’s Traffic Counts and Level of Service Report (2025) 7. Conceptual Site Plan Page 180 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 9 of 17 Exhibit 1A: Trip Generation ITE Land Use Intensity Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trips Total In Out Total In Out Proposed Traffic Gen. Commercial 335.760 1000 SF 12,218 338 210 128 1,175 576 599 General Office Building 113.400 1000 SF 909 147 129 18 143 23 120 Gas Station w/ Conv. Store (5.5-10k)8 VFP 1,627 186 93 93 169 85 84 Subtotal 14,754 671 432 239 1,487 684 803 Internal Capture AM PM/DAILY Gen. Commercial 5.5%2.8%337 19 9 9 37 26 11 General Office Building 6.8%21.7%197 10 5 5 31 7 24 Gas Station w/ Conv. Store (5.5-10k)3.3%1.0%17 11 6 6 14 8 6 Subtotal 6.0%5.5%551 40 20 20 82 41 41 Pass-By Traffic AM PM/DAILY Gen. Commercial 19%2,257 61 38 23 216 105 111 General Office Building 0%0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Gas Station w/ Conv. Store (5.5-10k)60%966 105 52 53 87 43 44 Subtotal 3,223 166 90 76 303 148 155 10,980 465 322 143 1,102 495 607 14,203 631 412 219 1,405 643 762 Note: Trip generation was calculated using the following data: Pass-by PM Peak Hour Land Use ITE Code Unit Daily Rate Rate in/out in/out Equation 820 1000 SF 19%62/38 49/51 710 1000 SF 0%88/12 16/84 945 VFP 60%50/50 50/50 ITE 12th Edition Copyright ©2026 , MacKenzie Engineering and Planning, Inc. T = 0.61(X) + 132.89 AM Peak Hour 36.39 19% 0% 56% General Office Building T = 6.18(X) + 207.96 Gen. Commercial Gas Station w/ Conv. Store (5.5-203.35 NET PROPOSED TRIPS Total Proposed Driveway Volumes Rate Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 3.23 T = 0.99(X) + 31.14T = 1.12(X) + 19.95 23.21 21.08 Page 181 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 10 of 17 Exhibit 1B: Trip Generation – AM Internal Capture Analysis Period:PM , Midday , AM X .Project Number:093030 Analyst:MEP Project Name:Indrio Town Center Date:3/16/2026 Scenario:AM Peak Hour Gen. Commercial& Gas Station w/ Conv. Store (5.5-10k)Land Use B:General Office Building ITE LUC:820b & 945 1 Balanced ITE LUC:710 2 Size:344 1000 SF 32.0%97 5 28.0%5 Size:113 1000 SF Enter from External:Total Internal External Total Internal External Enter from External: 298 Enter 303 5 298 29.0%64 5 4.0%5 Enter 129 5 124 124Exit to External:Exit 221 5 216 Balanced Exit 18 5 13 Exit to External: 216 Total 524 10 514 Total 147 10 137 13%100%2%98%Demand 0.0%0 %100%7%93% Balanced Balanced 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 Balanced External Enter 298 124 0 0 0 0 422 Balanced Trips Exit 216 13 0 0 0 0 229 Total 514 137 0 0 0 0 651 Internal Enter 5 5 0 0 0 0 10TripsExit55000010 Print Date = 03/16/26 Total 10 10 0 0 0 0 20 File Name = Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 524 147 0 0 0 0 671 1.91%6.80%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Internal Capture = 2.98% \\Mackserver\s\DATA\JOBS - SHARE DRIVE\023 - Cotleur & Hearing\015 - Indrio Crossings (Glassman)\methodology\[Indrio Crossings Trip Gen 3-13-26.xlsx]IC_AM_P(1) Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Demand Land Use Demand Demand Category Gen. Commerc General Office 0 & 0 0 0 0 NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Task Number: Land Use A: Demand Demand Demand Demand Page 182 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 11 of 17 Exhibit 1C: Trip Generation – PM Internal Capture Analysis Period:PM X , AM .Project Number:093030 Analyst:MEP Project Name:Indrio Town Center Date:Scenario:PM Peak Hour Gen. Commercial& Gas Station w/ Conv. Store (5.5-10k)Land Use B:General Office Building ITE LUC:820b & 945 1 Balanced ITE LUC:710 2 Size:344 1000 SF 8.0%53 24 20.0%24 Size:113 1000 SFEnter from External:Total Internal External Total Internal External Enter from External: 637 Enter 661 24 637 2.0%14 7 31.0%7 Enter 23 7 16 16Exit to External:Exit 683 7 676 Balanced Exit 120 24 96 Exit to External: 676 Total 1,344 31 1,313 Total 143 31 112 96 %100%2%98%Demand 0.0%0 %100%22%78% Balanced Demand Balanced Demand 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0 0.0%0 Balanced External Enter 637 16 0 0 0 0 653 Demand Balanced DemandTripsExit676960000772 Total 1,313 112 0 0 0 0 1,425 Internal Enter 24 7 0 0 0 0 31 Trips Exit 7 24 0 0 0 0 31 Print Date = 03/16/26 Total 31 31 0 0 0 0 62 File Name = Single Use Trip Gen Estimate 1,344 143 0 0 0 0 1,487 2.31%21.68%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% Internal Capture = 4.17% \\Mackserver\s\DATA\JOBS - SHARE DRIVE\023 - Cotleur & Hearing\015 - Indrio Crossings (Glassman)\methodology\[Indrio Crossings Trip Gen 3-13-26.xlsx]IC_PM_P(1) 0000 & 0 General Office Gen. CommercDemandDemand Demand Demand Land Use Category NET EXTERNAL TRIPS FOR MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT Task Number: Land Use A: Demand Demand Demand Demand 3/16/2026 Page 183 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 12 of 17 Exhibit 2: Driveway Trips (out)(in) 0%66% 0 (424) 0 272 88 (305)40%(out) 22 (76)10%(out) (In)40%(305)88 (In)31%(236)68 57 21 88 0 68 0 (198)(32)(305)0 (236)0 26%5%40%0%31%0% (OUT)(in)(out)(out)(out)(out) (out) 10%0 0 (64) 41 0 57 (199)26%(out)0 0 0 0%(out)0% 21 42 (32)(64) 5%10% (In)(in) In Out In Out 0.0%412 219 643 762 (out)(out) 11%13% (84)(100)0 25 29 0 54 (84)13%(IN) 0 0 0% (In)6%(46)14 0%0 0 Total daily driveway trips PM peak hour driveway trips AM peak hour directional driveway trips ### ### ### ### PROPOSED PROJECT DRIVEWAY TRAFFIC 631 Indrio Town Center 14,203 (1,405) In d r i o Ro a d PROJECT DRIVEWAY TRIPS Daily 14,203 AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Total 631 1,405 2,659 (263) 99 DW 1 122 (314) 3,174 Emerson Avenue DW 2 DW 4 DW 5 Russakis Road DW 3 8,461 (837) 403 Page 184 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 13 of 17 Exhibit 3A: Trip Assignment Indrio & I-95 3% 1% Jo h n s t o n R d Em e r s o n A v e Indrio Rd Oslo Rd IRC SLC 25th St SW Fo r t P i e r c e B l v d St. Lucie Blvd Ki n g s H w y 0% 43 rd Av e S W 58 th Av e S W 13th St SW 27 th Av e S W 20 th Av e S W Highland Dr SW 17th St SW 13 % 14 % 20% 3% 9% 4% 5% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 17% 10 % 7% 4% 5% 66% Club at Indrio 1% Project Isram 14 % Indrio Groves Ko b l e g a r d R d Bedner Farms 38% 13% Buc-ees 1,2,3 1 – Cabo Rio RV 2 - Indrio Woods 3 – 4540 North Kings Highway 4 – Indrio Townhomes 4 Page 185 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 14 of 17 Exhibit 3B: Project Traffic Distribution Page 186 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 15 of 17 Exhibit 3C: Significance Analysis NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB NB/EB SB/WB 5th St SW to Oslo Road 2 C2 1,070 2%12 10 1.12%0.93%NO NO Oslo Road to 25th St SW 2 C2 1,070 5%30 25 2.80%2.34%YES YES 25th St SW to Russos Road 2 C2 1,070 5%30 25 2.80%2.34%YES YES Russos Road to Indrio Road 2 C2 1,070 14%85 69 7.94%6.45%YES YES Indrio Rd to Old Johnston Rd 2 C2 1,070 14%69 85 6.45%7.94%YES YES Old Johnston Rd to Meadowood Dr 2 C2 1,070 9%45 55 4.21%5.14%YES YES Meadowood Dr to Angle Rd 2 C2 1,070 2%10 12 0.93%1.12%NO YES 5th St SW to Oslo Road 2 C2 1,070 1%6 5 0.56%0.47%NO NO Oslo Road to 25th St SW 2 C2 1,070 4%24 20 2.24%1.87%YES YES 25th St SW to Russos Road 2 C2 760 10%61 50 8.03%6.58%YES YES Russos Road to Driveway*2 C3R 1,110 13%79 64 7.12%5.77%YES YES Driveway to Indrio Road*2 C3R 1,110 6% / 11%30 54 2.70%4.86%YES YES South of Indrio Road*2 C3C 1,070 1%6 5 0.56%0.47%NO NO Deland Ave to Hibiscus Road*2 C2 584 0%0 0 0.00%0.00%NO NO Hibiscus Road to Miramar Ave*2 C2 584 5%30 25 5.14%4.28%YES YES Miramar Ave to Indrio Road*2 C2 584 5%30 25 5.14%4.28%YES YES US 1 to Spanish Lakes Blvd 2 C3R 1,110 1%6 5 0.54%0.45%NO NO Spanish Lakes Blvd to Indrio Road*2 C3R 1,110 12%73 59 6.58%5.32%YES YES Indrio Rd to St. Lucie Blvd*2 C3C 1,070 3%15 18 1.40%1.68%YES YES St. Lucie Blvd Angle Road*2 C3C 1,070 1%5 6 0.47%0.56%NO NO Private Rd 2 to Private Rd1 2 C2 1,080 1.0%5 6 0.46%0.56%NO NO Private Rd 1 to I-95 2 C2 1,080 3.0%15 18 1.39%1.67%YES YES I-95 to Koblegard Rd*4 C3C 1,810 13.0%64 79 3.54%4.36%NO NO Koblegard Road to Johnston Road*4 C3C 1,810 38.0%188 231 10.39%12.76%YES YES Johnston Road to Project Driveway 4 C3R 1,850 66%327 401 17.68%21.68%YES YES Project Driveway to Emerson Ave 4 C3R 1,850 10%50 61 2.70%3.30%YES YES Emerson Ave to Seminole Rd*2 C3R 1,110 20%121 99 10.90%8.92%YES YES Seminole Rd to Kings Hwy*2 C3R 1,110 17%103 84 9.28%7.57%YES YES Kings Hwy to Slash Pine Trl*2 C3R 1,110 4%24 20 2.16%1.80%YES YES Slash Pine Trl to US 1*2 C3R 1,110 1%6 5 0.54%0.45%NO NO Koblegard Road Indrio Road to 25th St SW*2 C3R 1,110 20%121 99 10.90%8.92%YES YES * Roadway Capacity based on FDOT Area Type ** Roadway Capacity based on LOS D standard for local road with no left turn lanes - 2023 FDOT Q/LOS handbook = 730*0.8 = 584 Significant Impact? (Y/N) Fort Pierce Blvd Capacity Assign Project Traffic ImpactRoadwaySegmentsE + C Lanes Area Type Johnston Road Emerson Ave Kings Hwy Indrio Road ** ** ** Page 187 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 16 of 17 Exhibit 4A: Growth Rate – FDOT Station Description 2020*2021 2022 2023 2024 94-0038 Indrio Rd, E of I-95 12,400 14,400 15,100 13,100 280 2.1% 94-0281 Indrio Rd, W of Kings Hwy 11,000 13,900 14,700 14,200 1040 7.3% 94-7012 Indrio Rd, E of Kings Hwy 7,400 94-7029 Johnston Rd, N of Indrio Rd 94-0085 Johnston Rd, N of Meadowoods Dr 2,200 94-7004 Emerson Ave, N of Indrio Rd 5,600 6,700 367 5.5% 88-0175 Emerson Ave, S of CR 606/Olso Rd 9,400 94-0006 Kings Hwy, S of Indrio Rd 14,200 13,500 15,300 16,400 840 5.1% 94-0745 Kings Hwy, N of Indrio Rd 14,900 13,600 15,100 14,100 -90 -0.6% 3.8% 3.8% * 2020 Data were excluded due to COVID Average Daily Traffic Annual Absolute Growth Growth Rate Weighted Average Growth Rate Used Page 188 of 239 Indrio Town Center, 023015 Traffic Analysis / Methodology Page 17 of 17 Exhibit 4B: Growth Rate – Model AADT Average AADT Average 400 3,516 7.5% I-95 WB I-95 EB 3,850 15,457 4.7% I-95 EB Koblegard Rd 10,400 24,880 3.0% Koblegard Rd Johnston Rd 11,800 25,524 2.6% Johnston Rd Emerson Ave 4,750 13,160 3.5% Emerson Ave Fort Pierce Blvd 6,000 14,325 2.9% Fort Pierce Blvd Kings Hwy 8,200 17,525 2.6% Kings Hwy US 1 4,450 11,255 3.1% Koblegard Rd Indrio Rd 25th St SW 100 1,154 8.5% 25th St SW Indrio Rd 9,767 15,425 1.5% Indrio Rd Angle Rd 1,533 5,308 4.2% Emerson Ave Indrio Rd 25th St SW 4,783 8,885 2.1% Fort Pierce Blvd Indrio Rd 25th St SW 2,663 4,492 1.8% Kings Hwy 25th St SW Indrio Rd 15,900 30,360 2.2% Turnpike Feeder Rd Indrio Rd US 1 13,950 21,711 1.5% 98,546 212,976 2.6%Model Growth Rate Growth Rate W of I-95 WB Indrio Rd Johnston Rd 2045 ModelRoadwayFromTo2015 Model Page 189 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 88 - INDIAN RIVER SITE: 0175 - SR 607 / EMERSON AVE - S OF CR 606/OLSO RD AT C/L YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 9400 F N 4700 S 4700 9.00 51.10 7.20 2023 9400 C N 4700 S 4700 9.00 53.10 7.20 2022 10200 S N 5300 S 4900 9.00 52.80 5.90 2021 10200 F N 5300 S 4900 9.00 50.90 5.90 2020 10400 C N 5400 S 5000 9.00 51.30 5.90 2019 10600 S N 5400 S 5200 9.00 51.00 5.30 2018 10600 F N 5400 S 5200 9.00 52.30 5.30 2017 10600 C N 5400 S 5200 9.00 50.90 5.30 2016 9200 S N 4700 S 4500 9.00 51.80 9.50 2015 9000 F N 4600 S 4400 9.00 51.80 9.50 2014 9000 C N 4600 S 4400 9.00 51.70 9.50 2013 7400 C N 3600 S 3800 9.00 50.80 5.50 2012 9200 C N 4700 S 4500 9.00 55.20 7.70 2011 9000 C N 4500 S 4500 9.00 55.70 7.70 2010 9200 C N 4600 S 4600 10.00 54.79 7.70 2009 8700 F N 4400 S 4300 9.97 55.49 11.40 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES EXHIBIT 5A Page 190 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 0006 - SR 713/KINGS HWY - S OF SR 614/INDRIO RD (COUNTY 6) YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 16400 C N 7900 S 8500 9.00 51.10 7.30 2023 15300 C N 7400 S 7900 9.00 51.60 7.30 2022 13500 C N 6500 S 7000 9.00 51.40 7.30 2021 14200 C N 7000 S 7200 9.00 50.90 21.90 2020 13200 C N 6400 S 6800 9.00 51.30 6.20 2019 14900 F N 7300 S 7600 9.00 51.00 9.70 2018 15000 C N 7300 S 7700 9.00 51.30 7.60 2017 15300 C N 7300 S 8000 9.00 50.90 7.60 2016 14700 C N 7000 S 7700 9.00 50.90 7.60 2015 13000 C N 6100 S 6900 9.00 51.00 19.20 2014 13200 C N 6100 S 7100 9.00 50.80 7.30 2013 11800 C N 5800 S 6000 9.00 50.80 7.30 2012 13700 C N 6500 S 7200 9.00 56.80 7.30 2011 13600 C N 6500 S 7100 9.00 57.20 9.60 2010 14100 C N 6800 S 7300 10.32 55.40 9.60 2009 14700 C N 7100 S 7600 10.27 57.35 9.60 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 191 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 0038 - SR 614/INDRIO RD - E OF SR 9/I-95 (COUNTY 38) YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 13100 C E 6800 W 6300 9.50 51.10 13.70 2023 15100 C E 7800 W 7300 9.50 51.60 13.70 2022 14400 C E 7900 W 6500 9.50 51.40 13.70 2021 12400 C E 6300 W 6100 9.50 50.90 32.00 2020 9800 F E 5200 W 4600 9.50 51.30 32.00 2019 10200 C E 5400 W 4800 9.50 51.00 32.00 2018 8100 C E 4300 W 3800 9.50 51.30 7.60 2017 11700 C E 6100 W 5600 9.50 50.90 7.60 2016 9600 C E 5200 W 4400 9.00 50.90 7.60 2015 9400 C E 5100 W 4300 9.00 51.00 17.30 2014 9300 C E 4800 W 4500 9.00 50.80 11.00 2013 8600 C E 4500 W 4100 9.00 50.80 18.70 2012 9600 C E 5000 W 4600 9.00 56.80 9.70 2011 8200 C E 4300 W 3900 9.00 57.20 9.70 2010 10700 C E 5500 W 5200 10.32 55.40 9.70 2009 8300 C E 4200 W 4100 10.27 57.35 13.10 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 192 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 0085 - JOHNSTON RD- NORTH OFMEADOWOODS DR YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 2200 C N 1000 S 1200 9.50 51.10 15.70 2023 2200 V N 1100 S 1100 9.50 51.60 20.70 2022 2200 R N 1100 S 1100 9.50 51.40 23.80 2021 2200 T N 1100 S 1100 9.50 50.90 27.90 2020 2200 S N 1100 S 1100 9.50 51.30 23.30 2019 2300 F N 1100 S 1200 9.50 51.00 21.30 2018 2300 C N 1100 S 1200 9.50 51.30 20.00 2017 1400 V 0 0 9.50 50.90 20.00 2016 1400 R 0 0 9.50 50.90 19.60 2015 1400 T 0 0 9.50 51.00 41.80 2014 1400 S 9.50 50.80 49.50 2013 1400 F 0 0 9.00 50.80 11.90 2012 1400 C N 0 S 0 9.00 56.80 7.10 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 193 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 0128 - SR 614/INDRIO RD-W OF SR 9/I-95 YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 2100 C E 1000 W 1100 9.50 54.90 82.40 2023 1200 C E 600 W 600 9.50 53.50 72.30 2022 2050 C E 1100 W 950 9.50 53.00 72.30 2021 800 C E 400 W 400 9.50 53.10 72.30 2020 850 C E 400 W 450 9.50 54.30 57.80 2019 1850 C E 900 W 950 9.50 54.30 71.00 2018 1600 C E 800 W 800 9.50 55.20 71.00 2017 1600 C E 850 W 750 9.50 56.20 70.30 2016 1350 C E 850 W 500 9.00 57.10 70.30 2015 1200 C E 550 W 650 9.00 56.30 70.30 2014 900 C E 450 W 450 9.00 54.70 49.50 2013 1250 C E 650 W 600 9.00 57.20 18.90 2012 750 C E 350 W 400 9.00 57.00 18.90 2011 950 C E 500 W 450 9.00 56.50 14.50 2010 1650 C E 900 W 750 11.51 57.07 14.50 2009 1200 C E 600 W 600 11.11 58.68 14.50 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 194 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 0281 - SR 614 / INDRIO RD - W OF SR 713/KINGS HWY (COUNTY 281) YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 14200 C E 7000 W 7200 9.00 51.10 10.80 2023 14700 C E 7300 W 7400 9.00 51.60 8.70 2022 13900 C E 6800 W 7100 9.00 51.40 10.10 2021 11000 C E 5000 W 6000 9.00 50.90 13.00 2020 8600 C E 4400 W 4200 9.00 51.30 11.30 2019 11200 F E 5500 W 5700 9.00 51.00 12.70 2018 11200 C E 5500 W 5700 9.00 51.30 12.70 2017 10500 C E 5600 W 4900 9.00 50.90 12.70 2016 11300 C E 5800 W 5500 9.00 50.90 7.90 2015 10100 C E 5200 W 4900 9.00 51.00 7.90 2014 10900 C E 5400 W 5500 9.00 50.80 7.90 2013 9800 C E 4900 W 4900 9.00 50.80 4.50 2012 8600 C E 4400 W 4200 9.00 56.80 4.50 2011 8800 C E 4500 W 4300 9.00 57.20 6.40 2010 10600 C E 5700 W 4900 10.32 55.40 10.30 2009 11100 C E 5600 W 5500 10.27 57.35 10.30 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 195 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 0745 - SR 713/KINGS HWY - N OF SR 614/INDRIO RD (COUNTY 745) YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 14100 C N 7500 S 6600 9.00 51.10 7.20 2023 15100 C N 7600 S 7500 9.00 51.60 20.50 2022 13600 C N 7000 S 6600 9.00 51.40 20.50 2021 14900 C N 7600 S 7300 9.00 50.90 20.50 2020 12400 C N 6500 S 5900 9.00 51.30 8.90 2019 13200 F N 6900 S 6300 9.00 51.00 8.90 2018 13200 C N 6900 S 6300 9.00 51.30 8.90 2017 14500 C N 7400 S 7100 9.00 50.90 11.60 2016 13900 C N 6700 S 7200 9.00 50.90 11.60 2015 12900 C N 6200 S 6700 9.00 51.00 11.60 2014 12100 C N 6400 S 5700 9.00 50.80 8.00 2013 11800 C N 6100 S 5700 9.00 50.80 22.50 2012 12300 C N 6300 S 6000 9.00 56.80 8.80 2011 14400 C N 7600 S 6800 9.00 57.20 8.80 2010 12900 C N 6700 S 6200 10.32 55.40 8.80 2009 13700 C N 6900 S 6800 10.27 57.35 11.20 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 196 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 7004 - EMERSON AVE - N OF INDRIO RD (COUNTY 105) YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 6700 C N 3100 S 3600 9.00 51.10 14.10 2023 5800 S N 2900 S 2900 9.00 51.60 17.80 2022 5600 F N 2800 S 2800 9.00 51.40 17.80 2021 5600 C N 2800 S 2800 9.00 50.90 17.80 2020 5100 S N 2600 S 2500 9.00 51.30 7.10 2019 5300 F N 2700 S 2600 9.00 51.00 7.10 2018 5300 C N 2700 S 2600 9.00 51.30 7.10 2017 5200 S N 2700 S 2500 9.00 50.90 8.40 2016 5200 F N 2700 S 2500 9.00 50.90 8.40 2015 5200 C N 2700 S 2500 9.00 51.00 8.40 2014 4300 S N 2200 S 2100 9.00 50.80 9.40 2013 4300 F N 2200 S 2100 9.00 50.80 18.70 2012 4300 C N 2200 S 2100 9.00 56.80 4.50 2011 4600 S N 2300 S 2300 9.00 57.20 7.90 2010 4600 F N 2300 S 2300 10.32 55.40 7.90 2009 4600 C N 2300 S 2300 10.27 57.35 7.90 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 197 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 7012 - INDRIO RD - E. OF KINGS HWY (COUNTY 114) YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 7600 S E 3500 W 4100 9.00 51.10 8.20 2023 7600 F E 3500 W 4100 9.00 51.60 7.10 2022 7400 C E 3400 W 4000 9.00 51.40 5.00 2021 5200 V E 2500 W 2700 9.00 50.90 7.20 2020 5200 R E 2500 W 2700 9.00 51.30 31.50 2019 5400 T E 2600 W 2800 9.00 51.00 7.80 2018 5400 S E 2600 W 2800 9.00 51.30 7.60 2017 5400 F E 2600 W 2800 9.00 50.90 7.60 2016 5400 C E 2600 W 2800 9.00 50.90 7.60 2015 5100 S E 2500 W 2600 9.00 51.00 41.80 2014 5100 F E 2500 W 2600 9.00 50.80 49.50 2013 5100 C E 2500 W 2600 9.00 50.80 11.90 2012 5000 F E 2500 W 2500 9.00 56.80 7.10 2011 5000 C E 2500 W 2500 9.00 57.20 7.60 2010 5500 S E 2700 W 2800 10.32 55.40 7.70 2009 5500 F E 2700 W 2800 10.27 57.35 7.70 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 198 of 239 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS OFFICE 2024 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 94 - ST.LUCIE SITE: 7029 - JOHNSTON RD - N OF INDRIO RD (COUNTY 135) YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR D FACTOR T FACTOR ---- ---------- ------------ ------------ --------- -------- -------- 2024 6900 V N 3500 S 3400 9.50 51.10 15.70 2023 6900 R N 3500 S 3400 9.50 51.60 20.70 2022 6700 T N 3400 S 3300 9.50 51.40 23.80 2021 6700 S N 3400 S 3300 9.50 50.90 27.90 2020 6700 F N 3400 S 3300 9.50 51.30 23.30 2019 7000 C N 3600 S 3400 9.50 51.00 21.30 2018 7000 V N 3600 S 3400 9.50 51.30 20.00 2017 7000 R N 3600 S 3400 9.50 50.90 20.00 2016 6800 T N 3500 S 3300 9.50 50.90 19.60 2015 6800 S N 3500 S 3300 9.50 51.00 41.80 2014 6800 F N 3500 S 3300 9.50 50.80 49.50 2013 6800 C N 3500 S 3300 9.00 50.80 11.90 2012 6000 C N 3100 S 2900 9.00 56.80 7.10 2011 6000 C N 3100 S 2900 9.00 57.20 8.70 2010 6200 F N 3100 S 3100 10.32 55.40 8.70 2009 6200 C N 3100 S 3100 10.27 57.35 8.70 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = MANUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR ESTIMATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; R = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STANDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Page 199 of 239 Exhibit 5B Page 200 of 239 Page 201 of 239 Roadway Name Location 2025 AADT * Volume LOS V/C PM Pk Hr Pk Dir Pk Hr Service Capacity AM Pk Hr Pk Dir V/C LOS Volume STATION ID Last Physical Count Year Traffic Counts and Level of Service Report 2025 7,201 US 1 to BUCHANAN DREASY ST 750 399 106 D 0.53 505 D 0.67 2021 7,201 BUCHANAN DR to YUCCA DREASY ST 540 399 106 D 0.74 505 D 0.94 2021 11,836 JENKINS RD to MCNEIL RDEDWARDS RD 630 627 174 D 1.00 607 D 0.96 2024 11,836 MCNEIL RD to SELVITZ RDEDWARDS RD 700 627 174 C 0.90 607 C 0.87 2024 15,105 SELVITZ RD to 25TH STEDWARDS RD 880 796 110 C 0.90 786 C 0.89 2024 16,580 25TH ST to SUNRISE BLVDEDWARDS RD 1,630 826 108 D 0.51 826 D 0.51 2024 13,835 SUNRISE BLVD to OLEANDER AVEEDWARDS RD 1,630 698 502 C 0.43 680 C 0.42 2024 7,600 OLEANDER AVE to US 1EDWARDS RD 1,630 394 173 C 0.24 356 C 0.22 2025 6,494 INDRIO RD to RUSSOS RDEMERSON AVE 1,070 480 105 C 0.45 474 C 0.44 2023 6,494 RUSSOS RD to FT PIERCE BLVDEMERSON AVE 760 480 105 C 0.63 474 C 0.62 2023 1,633 OLEANDER AVE to US 1FARMER'S MARKET RD 750 85 112 C 0.11 99 C 0.13 2023 15,500 OAKLYN ST to PORT ST LUCIE BLVDFLORESTA DR 920 1,043 317 F 1.13 917 D 1.00 2025 10,000 THORNHILL DR to CROSSTOWN PKWYFLORESTA DR 880 701 315 C 0.80 621 C 0.71 2025 10,000 PORT ST LUCIE BLVD to THORNHILL DRFLORESTA DR 880 701 315 C 0.80 621 C 0.71 2025 9,400 CROSSTOWN PKWY to PRIMA VISTA BLVDFLORESTA DR 920 515 109 C 0.56 552 C 0.60 2025 9,000 PRIMA VISTA BLVD to AIROSO BLVDFLORESTA DR 920 470 107 C 0.51 515 C 0.56 2025 4,929 SELVITZ RD to BAYSHORE BLVDFLORESTA DR 630 354 313 C 0.56 377 C 0.60 2021 4,929 AIROSO BLVD to SELVITZ RDFLORESTA DR 880 354 313 C 0.40 377 C 0.43 2021 64,338 BECKER RD to PORT ST LUCIE BLVDFLORIDA'S TURNPIKE 979913 2024 66,500 MARTIN C.L. to BECKER RDFLORIDA'S TURNPIKE 971958 2024 55,450 PORT ST LUCIE BLVD to OKEECHOBEE RDFLORIDA'S TURNPIKE 971964 2024 42,350 OKEECHOBEE RD to INDIAN RIVER C.L.FLORIDA'S TURNPIKE 971968 2024 3,375 INDRIO RD to EMERSON AVEFT PIERCE BLVD 540 229 226 C 0.42 235 C 0.44 2023 2,511 OLEANDER AVE to US 1GARDENIA AVE 750 194 666 C 0.26 184 C 0.25 2022 53,466 W OF I-95 to E OF I-95GATLIN BLVD 3,170 2,620 945075 C 0.83 2,620 C 0.83 2024 53,466 E OF I-95 to SAVAGE BLVDGATLIN BLVD 3,170 2,620 945075 C 0.83 2,620 C 0.83 2024 47,500 SAVAGE BLVD to ROSSER BLVDGATLIN BLVD 3,170 2,111 740 C 0.67 2,481 C 0.78 2025 40,500 ROSSER BLVD to SAVONA BLVDGATLIN BLVD 3,170 1,781 741 C 0.56 2,068 C 0.65 2025 34,500 SAVONA BLVD to PORT ST LUCIE BLVDGATLIN BLVD 3,170 1,472 742 C 0.46 1,498 C 0.47 2025 4,054 25TH ST to OKEECHOBEE RDGEORGIA AVE 600 236 667 C 0.39 226 C 0.38 2023 4,054 OKEECHOBEE RD to 17TH STGEORGIA AVE 750 236 667 C 0.31 226 C 0.30 2023 4,817 17TH ST to 13TH STGEORGIA AVE 600 245 508 C 0.41 247 C 0.41 2023 6 * Volumes shown were adjusted using FDOT Seasonal Factors * AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (volumes for both directions where applicable) * NOTE: If the Last Count Year is older than the year of the report, the AADT is projected from historical traffic count data. * NOTE: A six digit number in the "STATION ID" column identifies segment counted by FDOT. Peak hour data is not available for locations on State roads due to differences in data availability, LOS Methodologies, and service level thresholds. Please refer to FDOT sources for detailed data on FDOT traffic counts. Exhibit 6 Page 202 of 239 Roadway Name Location 2025 AADT * Volume LOS V/C PM Pk Hr Pk Dir Pk Hr Service Capacity AM Pk Hr Pk Dir V/C LOS Volume STATION ID Last Physical Count Year Traffic Counts and Level of Service Report 2025 12,642 I-95 E RAMP to KOBLEGARD RDINDRIO RD 940038 2024 12,642 KOBLEGARD RD to JOHNSTON RDINDRIO RD 940038 2024 12,642 JOHNSTON RD to EMERSON AVEINDRIO RD 940038 2024 11,944 EMERSON RD to SEMINOLE RDINDRIO RD 940281 2024 11,944 SEMINOLE RD to KINGS HWYINDRIO RD 940281 2024 5,763 KINGS HWY to SLASH PINE TRLINDRIO RD 790 364 114 C 0.46 358 C 0.45 2023 5,763 SLASH PINE TRL to US 1INDRIO RD 920 364 114 C 0.40 358 C 0.39 2023 1,070 US 1 to OLD DIXIE HWYINDRIO RD 750 93 672 C 0.12 98 C 0.13 2022 10,986 EDWARDS RD to OKEECHOBEE RDJENKINS RD 880 668 133 C 0.76 678 C 0.77 2024 11,143 OKEECHOBEE RD to GRAHAM RDJENKINS RD 920 593 131 C 0.64 595 C 0.65 2024 6,500 GRAHAM RD to PETERSON RDJENKINS RD 630 357 739 C 0.57 352 C 0.56 2024 6,500 PETERSON RD to ORANGE AVEJENKINS RD 920 357 739 C 0.39 352 C 0.38 2024 4,691 US 1 to LENNARD RDJENNINGS RD 2,100 246 673 C 0.12 234 C 0.11 2022 2,766 ANGLE RD to L20JOHNSTON RD 1,070 217 674 B 0.20 190 B 0.18 2022 2,477 L20 to MEADOWOOD DRJOHNSTON RD 1,070 164 675 B 0.15 155 B 0.14 2022 2,477 MEADOWOOD DR to OLD JOHNSTON RDJOHNSTON RD 1,070 164 675 B 0.15 155 B 0.14 2022 2,477 OLD JOHNSTON RD to INDRIO RDJOHNSTON RD 1,070 164 675 B 0.15 155 B 0.14 2022 9,303 INDRIO RD to RUSSOS RDJOHNSTON RD 1,070 539 135 C 0.50 509 C 0.48 2023 9,303 RUSSOS RD to INDIAN RIVER C.L.JOHNSTON RD 1,070 539 135 C 0.50 509 C 0.48 2023 1,369 53RD ST to 25TH STJUANITA AVE 750 87 122 C 0.12 72 C 0.10 2022 3,445 25TH ST to US 1JUANITA AVE 750 176 120 C 0.23 192 C 0.26 2022 3,109 ANGLE RD to JUANITA AVEKEEN RD 630 227 129 C 0.36 246 C 0.39 2023 3,109 JUANITA AVE to ST LUCIE BLVDKEEN RD 630 227 129 C 0.36 246 C 0.39 2023 9,986 OKEECHOBEE RD to CROSSROADS PKWYKINGS HWY 940757 2024 9,986 CROSSROADS PKWY to GRAHAM RDKINGS HWY 940757 2024 7,196 GRAHAM RD to PICOS RDKINGS HWY 940076 2024 7,196 PICOS RD to ORANGE AVEKINGS HWY 940076 2024 15,122 ORANGE AVE to ANGLE RDKINGS HWY 940077 2024 11,634 ANGLE RD to ST LUCIE BLVDKINGS HWY 940751 2024 14,415 ST LUCIE BLVD to INDRIO RDKINGS HWY 940006 2024 2,369 EDWARDS RD to 35TH STKIRBY LOOP RD 630 137 677 C 0.22 127 C 0.20 2021 3,241 OLEANDER AVE to US 1KITTERMAN RD 750 209 124 C 0.28 170 C 0.23 2023 8 * Volumes shown were adjusted using FDOT Seasonal Factors * AADT = Annual Average Daily Traffic (volumes for both directions where applicable) * NOTE: If the Last Count Year is older than the year of the report, the AADT is projected from historical traffic count data. * NOTE: A six digit number in the "STATION ID" column identifies segment counted by FDOT. Peak hour data is not available for locations on State roads due to differences in data availability, LOS Methodologies, and service level thresholds. Please refer to FDOT sources for detailed data on FDOT traffic counts. Page 203 of 239 705' 1338.7' 1270.7' 1249.6' 1450.3' 1022.6' 804.8' 1719.8' LAKE 6.9 AC LAKEOVERLOOK PICNICPLAZA SHADE AREASHELTER 1500' URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY LAKE 6.9 AC LAKE6.9 AC LAKE 1.07 AC LAND USE: AG-1 LAND USE: AG-1 LAND USE: IZONING: H LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC LAND USE: AG-1ZONING: TVC INDRIO ROAD 86' ROW (WIDTH VARIES) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC EXISTING FDOT LAKE 3.2 AC (NOT IN PROJECT) PUBLIX AT INDRIO COMMONS(NOT IN PROJECT) LAND USE: CGZONING: TVC FP F W C A N A L N O . 6 FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 RU S S A K I S R D FP F W C A N A L N O . 7 INDRIO ROAD EM E R S O N A V E . RU S S A K I S R D 60' FUTURE ROW 556' 473.3' 757.1' 50' ROW DEDICATION 50' ROW DEDICATION 50' LB U 13,380 SF (RESTAURANT) TO B TOB T O B TOB TOB EO W E O W EOW EOW EOW EO W EO W EOW EOW E O W EO W EO W EO W EO W EOW ST. LUCIE COUNTY URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY RE D B A Y A V E POND APPLE AVE MULBERRY AVE MULBERRY AVE 66' FUTURE ROW 60' FUTURE ROW 66' FUTURE ROW 498.6' 50' LB P 17,110 SF R 6,000 SF T 6,307 SF S 4,520 SF H 3,867 SF J 7,891 SF I 7,750 SF G10,193 SF D 9,092 SF E10,551 SF F 7,891 SF ~SHARED PARKING~ 174 SPACES Q8,365 SF A 6,190 SF B 5,507 SF L 15,915 SFK 6,190 SF M 16,367 SF N 11,650 SF ~SHARED PARKING~ 348 SPACES O 11,911 SF 7,462 SFLAWN/VENDOR AREA ART ~SHARED PARKING~116 SPACES (GASSTATION / CAR WASH EQUIPMENTAREA) --- SFLAWN/VENDOR AREA V 156,376 SF ~SHARED PARKING~ 305 SPACES OFFICE5,000 SF OFFICE8,000 SF OFFICE5,000 SF OFFICE5,000 SF OFFICE5,000 SF OFFICE 5,000 SF OFFICE 8,000 SF OFFICE8,000 SF OFFICE 4,000 SF OFFICE 4,000 SF OFFICE 7,800 SF OFFICE4,000 SF OFFICE 7,800 SF OFFICE 8,000 SF OFFICE 6,000 SF OFFICE 8,000 SF OFFICE6,800 SF ~SHARED PARKING~240 SPACES 64,800 SF OFFICE ~SHARED PARKING~111 SPACES 40,600 SF OFFICE 1,500' URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY OFFSET PARCEL 8WAREHOUSE RETAIL LOT 12.64 AC 168,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE PARCEL 8 WAREHOUSE RETAIL LOT 12.64 AC168,000 MAX RETAIL SF 80% MAX LOT COVERAGE / 20% MIN. OPEN SPACE ~WETLAND~ PRW REGULATING PLAN CONCEPTUAL MASTER SITE PLAN by agreement in writing with the architect. Immediately report any discrepancies to the architect. SHEET COTLEUR & HEARING, INC. These drawings are the property of the architect and are not to be used for extensions or on other projects except OF DESIGNED DRAWN APPROVED JOB NUMBER REVISIONS DATE In d r i o T o w n C e n t e r GL A S S M A N H O L D I N G S I N C . St . L u c i e C o u n t y , F l o r i d a Landscape Architects Land Planners Environmental Consultants www.cotleurhearing.com 1934 Commerce Lane Suite 1 Jupiter, Florida 33458 561.747.6336 · Fax 747.1377 Lic# LC-26000535 LAH/PRP PRP LAH 23-0317 02-25-26 11 North 75' Scale: 1" = 150' 0'150'450'300'600' KEY MAP MIDWAY RD JO R G E N S E N R D 25 T H S T R E E T SE L V I T Z R O A D SITE CH R I S T E N S E N R D DU N N R D SITE DATA TOTAL SITE AREA:85.29 AC (3,715,420.54 SF) COMMERCIAL 58.26 AC PASSIVE PARK 27.03 AC OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS REQUIRED 20% MINIMUM (PER PARCEL) OVERALL SITE OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS PROVIDED ON MASTER PARCEL PLAN: LAKES 10.65 AC LANDSCAPE AREA 8.10 AC OTHER 36.69 AC *OTHER OPEN SPACES INCLUDED AT THE TIME OF FINAL SITE PLANS: CIVIC AREAS, LAKE MAINTENANCE AREAS, LANDSCAPE AREAS, BUFFERS, ETC. THIS MAP IS AN ARTISTS ILLUSTRATION OF THE GENERALIZED CONCEPT WHICH IS ONE OF MANY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS WHICH SHARE A COMMON UNDERLYING DESIGN BASIS TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK WHICH RECOGNIZES THE SCALE AND ENDEAVOR TO ACCOMMODATE SUCH CRITERIA WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE LAW AND BALANCED DESIGN IMPERATIVES TO PROVIDE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND MARKET SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OUR COSTUMERS AND THE COMMUNITY. THE POD SITE PLANS MAY VARY AS THE NATURAL EVOLUTION OF THE SPECIFIC SOLUTIONS ARE PROCESSED THROUGH THE VARIOUS DESIGN AND JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITIES TO FINAL APPROVAL. NOTWITHSTANDING VARIATIONS IN DESIGN AS THE DETAILED SITE PLANS BECOME MORE REFINED, PRIOR APPROVALS SHALL ENTITLE THE APPLICANT WITHOUT RETURNING FOR REVISION REVIEW BY PRIOR AUTHORITY, TO CONTINUE SUBSEQUENT MORE LOCALIZED DECISIONS AS FUNCTIONAL DETAILS BECOME EVIDENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR DEVELOPERS RESERVE ALL RIGHTS TO MAKE SUCH ADJUSTMENTS AS NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THESE FUNCTIONAL DESIGN ACCOMMODATIONS. NOTE Page 204 of 239 Outlook RE: Traffic Methodology Review for RZ-2510-000048(5100 Russakis Rd Fort Pierce, FL 34951) From Núñez, Jacob <Jacob.Nunez@kimley-horn.com> Date Fri 5/29/2026 12:20 PM To Don Arellano <Don.Arellano@stlucieco.gov> Cc Kori Benton <Kori.Benton@stlucieco.gov> SECURITY WARNING: This email originated from outside the County systems. Please show caution when clicking links or opening attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Page 205 of 239 Good morning Don, I had a constructive conversation with Shaun Mackenzie yesterday regarding our most recent comment response on this project. Essentially, they are requesting to use a manual distribution method in lieu of the TCRPM model for determining trip distribution within the Indrio Town Center TIA. Their initial TIA did not provide much detail on the manual model, and after we provided a comment, they provided more detail for their analysis, which included looking at the ratio of existing and planned single-family residences within the area. My reservations with this method were that it did not include any non-residential uses or factor in any longer-range trips coming from outside the immediate area/county boundaries. Shaun mentioned on our call that they are willing to add more considerations to their manual distribution and I told him that I would discuss with you (and any other County staff as appropriate) to see if this method would be acceptable. Any input would be appreciated. My thoughts are that if they are able to include the planned projects within the Indrio Road area and account for multiple land uses, I am agreeable with their methodology. Sincerely, Jacob Núñez, P.E. Kimley-Horn | 6876 Marwick Lane, Suite 350, Orlando, FL 32827 Direct: 689 244 5499 | Mobile: 801 660 9448 | Office: 407 602 0423 From: Don Arellano <Don.Arellano@stlucieco.gov> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 11:12 AM To: Frank Watanabe <Frank.Watanabe@stlucieco.gov>; Yi Ding <Yi.Ding@stlucieco.gov>; Núñez, Jacob <Jacob.Nunez@kimley-horn.com>; Hymowitz, Larry <Larry.Hymowitz@dot.state.fl.us> Cc: Kori Benton <Kori.Benton@stlucieco.gov> Subject: Traffic Methodology Review for RZ-2510-000048(5100 Russakis Rd Fort Pierce, FL 34951) Good morning, All We have received an updated Traffic Methodology from Cotleur & Hearing for Indrio Town Center (RZ-2510-00048) Comments for this item are due by Thursday, May 28th. Thank you for your attention to this matter! Best Page 206 of 239 Don Arellano, MSP | Planner II | Planning & Development Services Ph: 772-462-1582 | | 2300 Virginia Ave. Fort Pierce 34982 [facebook.com/stluciegov]facebook.com/stluciegov | [twitter.com/stluciegov]twitter.com/stluciegov | [instagram.com/stluciegov]instagram.com/stluciegov | [youtube.com/stluciegov]youtube.com/stluciegov Please Note: Florida has very broad public records laws. Most written communications to or from County officials regarding County business are public records available to the public and media upon request. It is the policy of St. Lucie County that all County records shall be open for personal inspection, examination and / or copying. Your e-mail communications will be subject to public disclosure unless an exemption applies to the communication. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete all materials from all computers. Page 207 of 239 Agricultural - 1 A. AG-1 AGRICULTURAL - 1. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this district is to provide and protect an environment suitable for productive commercial agriculture, together with such other uses as may be necessary to and compatible with productive agricultural surroundings. Residential densities are restricted to a maximum of one (1) dwelling unit per gross acre. 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. Agricultural production - crops. (01) b. Agricultural production - livestock and animal specialties. (02) c. Agricultural services. (07) d. Family day care homes. (999) e. 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 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) f. Fishing, hunting and trapping. (09) g. Forestry. (08) h. Kennels. (0752) i. Research facilities, non-commercial. (8733) j. Riding stables. (7999) k. Single-family detached dwellings. (999) l. Solar generation station, subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.28. (999) 3. Lot Size Requirements. Lot size requirements shall be in accordance with Table 7-10 in Section 7.04.00. 4. Dimensional Regulations. Dimensional requirements shall be in accordance with Table 7-10 in Section 7.04.00. 5. Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements. Off-street parking and loading requirements are subject to Section 7.06.00. 6. Landscaping Requirements. Landscaping requirements are subject to Section 7.09.00. 7. Conditional Uses. a. Agricultural labor housing. (999) b. Aircraft storage and equipment maintenance. (4581) c. Airports and flying, landing, and takeoff fields. (4581) d. Family residential homes located within a radius of one thousand (1,000) feet of another such family residential home. (999) e. Farm products warehousing and storage. (4221/4222) f. Farmers' markets - subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.37. (999) g. Gasoline service stations. (5541) Page 208 of 239 h. Industrial wastewater disposal. (999) i. Manufacturing: (1) Agricultural chemicals. (287) (2) Food and kindred products. (20) (3) Lumber and wood products, except furniture. (24) j. Mining and quarrying of nonmetallic minerals, except fuels. (14) k. Retail trade: (1) Farm equipment and related accessories. (999) (2) Apparel and accessory stores. (56) l. Sewage disposal subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.13. (999) m. Telecommunication towers - subject to the standards of Section 7.10.23. (999) n. Camps - sporting and recreational. (7032) 8. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses are subject to the requirements of Section 8.00.00, and include the following: a. Mobile homes subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.05. b. Retail trade and wholesale trade - subordinate to the primary authorized use or activity. c. Guest house subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.04. (999) d. Solar energy system subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.28. (999) e. Cargo containers subject to the requirements of Section 7.10.35. Planned Retail/Workplace GG. PRW (PLANNED RETAIL/WORKPLACE). 1. Purpose. The Planned Retail/Workplace (PRW) district provides a specialized zoning district to accommodate landowners who choose to place retail or workplace land uses outside a Town or Village in a manner consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the TVC Element. a. The PRW district may only be used on land designated TVC on the Future Land Use Map of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. b. PRW proposals must meet the retail standards under Objective 3.1.8 and/or the workplace standards under Objective 3.1.10 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, in addition to the TVC Overlay Zone requirements in Section 4.04 of this Code. Such requirements and standards shall be applied consistently with Policies 3.1.2.5 and 3.1.3.1(4) of the TVC Element. c. The PRW district can be used only for one (1) of the following primary purposes: (1) Local Retail: Local stores, convenience centers, neighborhood centers, village centers, town centers (or portions thereof) that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Retail Development Plan (Figure 3-13 and Objective 3.1.8 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). Page 209 of 239 (2) Interstate Retail: Highway service/warehouse uses along Indrio Road immediately west and east of Interstate 95 that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Retail Development Plan (Figure 3-13 and Objective 3.1.8 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). (3) Mixed-Use Business District: Mixed-use business districts between Interstate 95 and the Florida Turnpike that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Workplace Plan (Figure 3-16 and Objective 3.1.10 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). (4) Transitional Retail: Retail, workplace, and residential uses in the Transitional Areas near St. Lucie Boulevard and Kings Highway that comply with the North St. Lucie County General Workplace Plan (Figure 3-16 and Objective 3.1.10 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). i. PRW zoning is required for new retail and mixed-use developments and for most new workplace developments. ii. PRW zoning is not required for land indicated on the Transferable Development Value Map (Figure 3-3) as suitable for industrial uses. Land so indicated may also qualify for light or heavy industrial zoning districts provided the zoned lands comply with St. Lucie County standards for the Future Land Use category of Industrial. d. PRW proposals are encouraged to include mixed-use buildings. The maximum number of residential units is established by the transferable development value of the land pursuant to the Transferable Development Value Map (Figure 3-3 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan), by TDR credits obtained, or by the approval of the Board of County Commissioners for the provision of workforce or affordable housing. e. For purposes of interpreting compliance of a PRW application with the designations of land on Figures 3- 13 and 3-16 (see Figure 3-17 below), the Board of County Commissioners may approve retail or workplace development as far as one-quarter-mile beyond the precise designations provided such uses are integrated with and accessible through the designated land and are not incompatible with surrounding uses. Page 210 of 239 St . L u c i e C o u n t y 11- 35 Ad o p t e d _u p d a t e d 1 2 . 2 0 2 2 Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n TV C E l e m e n t G O P s Page 211 of 239 St . L u c i e C o u n t y 11- 38 Ad o p t e d _u p d a t e d 1 2 . 2 0 2 2 Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n TV C E l e m e n t G O P s To p : C o n v e n t i o n a l P a t t e r n o f D e v e lo p m e n t : U s e s a r e s t r i c t l y s e p a r a t e d , ro a d s d o n ’ t c o n n e c t ex c e p t t h r o u g h a m a j o r a r t e r i a l . B o t t o m : Tr a d i t i o n a l P a t t e r n o f D e v e l o p m e n t : U s e s c o e x i s t a n d fo r m m u l t i -in c o m e , mu l t i -us e n e i g h b o r h o o d s . A l l r o a d s c o n n e c t . Page 212 of 239 St. Lucie County 11- 39 Adopted_updated 12.2022 Comprehensive Plan TVC Element GOPs Table 11-9 North St. Lucie County Future Road Capital Improvements – 2030 Roadway / Segment Existing + Committed Network Number of Lanes Year 2030* Minimum Number of Lanes Interstate 95 Indian River County Line to SR 614 (Indrio Road) 6 6 SR 614 (Indrio Road) to SR 68 (Orange Avenue) 6 6 CR 603 (Johnston Road) 25th St. SW to SR 614 (Indrio Road) 2 4 SR 614 (Indrio Road) to W Angle Road 2 4 CR 607 (Emerson Avenue) 25th St. SW to SR 614 (Indrio Road) 2 2 SR 614 (Indrio Road) to Immokolee Road 2 2 SR 713 (Turnpike Feeder Rd/Kings Hwy) US1 to SR 614 (Indrio Road) 2 4 SR 614 (Indrio Road) to CR 608 (St. Lucie Blvd.) 2 4 CR 608 (St. Lucie Blvd.) to W. Angle Road 2 4 SR 614 (Indrio Road) I-95 to CR 603 (Johnston Road) 2 4 CR 603 (Johnston Road) to CR 607 (Emerson Avenue) 2 4 CR 607 (Emerson Avenue to SR 713 (N. Kings Hwy) 2 2 SR 713 (N. Kings Hwy) to US 1 2 2 Immokolee Road Emerson Avenue to SR 713 (N Kings Hwy) 2 4 SR 608 (St. Lucie Boulevard) SR 713 (N Kings Hwy) to CR 611 (Keen Rd) 2 4 *Based on maximum build-out identified in Table 3-1 of the TVC Element. Policy 11.1.9.4 - Rights-of-Way. St. Lucie County shall identify right-of-way needs in the FSN Plan and shall reserve and protect existing and future rights-of-way to provide for an efficient multi-modal transportation system. Policy 11.1.9.5 - New Development and the FSN Plan. New development shall provide the appropriate links of the FSN Plan that run through their properties at the time of development. The alignment of the regional roadway network outlined in the FSN Plan is adaptable provided the intent of the links is maintained. Final alignments shall be subject to approval by St Lucie County. Roadway capacity necessary to support proposed development shall exist or be built concurrently with the proposed development to ameliorate the impact created by new growth. Policy 11.1.9.6 - Internal Street Network. Neighborhoods shall construct interconnected networks of public streets in a predictable block pattern that encourages walking, reduces the number and length of automobile trips, provides multiple circulation routes, and conserves energy. Policy 11.1.9.7 - Interconnected Neighborhoods. The transportation system shall be designed so that multiple streets, bicycle paths and sidewalks continue into adjacent neighborhoods and developments to facilitate convenient movement and disperse traffic throughout the local network. Connections to existing or future collectors shall be provided at approximately one-quarter mile intervals. Dead-end streets are prohibited, except when Page 213 of 239 St . L u c i e C o u n t y 11- 45 Ad o p t e d _u p d a t e d 1 2 . 2 0 2 2 Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n TV C E l e m e n t G O P s Page 214 of 239 St . L u c i e C o u n t y 11- 46 Ad o p t e d _u p d a t e d 1 2 . 2 0 2 2 Co m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n TV C E l e m e n t G O P s Page 215 of 239 CHAPTER IV - SPECIAL DISTRICTS 4.04.00. TVC—OVERLAY ZONE (TOWNS, VILLAGES, COUNTRYSIDE) St. Lucie County, Florida, Land Development Code Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 1 of 24 4.04.00. TVC—OVERLAY ZONE (TOWNS, VILLAGES, COUNTRYSIDE) 4.04.01. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of Section 4.04.00 of this Code is to: A. Guide the creation of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, protected Countryside, and other permitted uses and development patterns on land designated TVC on the Future Land Use Map of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. B. Ensure that all development of land designated TVC takes place in accordance with the settlement principles set forth in the TVC Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Where this overlay zone directly conflicts with other portions of this Code, this overlay zone will prevail; however, no development may be approved that conflicts with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. C. Provide procedures for transferring development rights using TDR credits. Such transfers will allow continued rural uses of land that is designated TVC by transferring some or all of its development rights to Towns or Villages or to land within the Urban Service Boundary. (Ord. No. 2024-28, § Pt. B(Exh. A), 8-6-2024) 4.04.02. Essential TVC Concepts. Four (4) essential concepts for the regulation of land designated TVC are highlighted here: A. TVC Overlay Zone. This section of the code establishes a TVC Overlay Zone whose boundaries are identical to the TVC designation on the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan as initially adopted in May 2006. This overlay zone provides general guidance and specific standards that, in conjunction with the remainder of this Code, will carry out the goals, objectives, and policies of the TVC Element. The TVC Overlay Zone contains two (2) sub-zones whose boundary is the Urban Service Boundary in the Comprehensive Plan as it existed in May 2006. The location and approximate boundaries of the TVC Overlay Zone and its sub-zones are shown on Figure 4-10. Comprehensive Plan amendments that make more than incidental adjustments to these boundaries will necessitate changes to this Code. Page 216 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 2 of 24 B. Urban-to-Rural Transect. Towns and Villages have physical forms that vary in character and intensity. An urban-to-rural transect that describes these characteristics in existing communities is also ideal for use as the organizing principle for new communities. New Towns, Villages and Planned Unit Developments on land designated TVC are to be planned using the "transect zones" shown on Figure 4- 11. These transect zones must be delineated on a regulating plan prepared by a developer and submitted to St. Lucie County for consideration as part of rezoning to the PTV (Planned Town or Village - see Section 3.01.03.EE) or PUD (Planned Unit Development - see Section 4.04.04.E(1)(b)) zoning district. C. Urban Service Boundary. The St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan establishes an Urban Service Boundary (USB) which limits the geographic area where the county will provide certain services. The purpose is to restrict the negative impacts of a sprawling low-density development pattern including the fiscal burden placed on service providers by that pattern. About sixty-three percent (63%) of the land designated TVC is outside this boundary and the remainder is inside. The TVC Element provides incentives for moving potential development to new Towns and Villages or to certain locations inside the USB. Under certain circumstances the TVC Element allows new development to qualify for urban Page 217 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 3 of 24 services even if located outside the USB (see policies under Objective 3.1.2 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). D. Transferable Development Rights. The development rights attached to a parcel of land can sometimes be transferred to other parcels. The TVC Element encourages the transfer of density for several purposes: to move potential development to certain locations inside the USB; To encourage continued use of land for rural and open space purposes by transferring potential density off the land; and to allow the accumulation of sufficient development rights to create Towns or Villages. Transferable development values are set in Figure 3-3 of the TVC Element and may be increased by using the multipliers in the TDR Credit Matrix in Table 3-4 of the TVC Element. See Section 4.04.05. (Ord. No. 11-002, § 4, 12-6-2011) 4.04.03. Overview of TVC Approval Processes. Development approvals for land designated TVC differ in several aspects from approvals in the remainder of unincorporated St. Lucie County. These processes can be summarized as follows: A. Owners of five hundred (500) or more acres of land located outside the USB and owners of one hundred ten (110) acres or more of land located inside the USB may seek approval of a new Town or Village by applying to rezone the land to the PTV (Planned Town or Village) zoning district. See Section 3.01.03.EE. Owners of five hundred (500) acres or more located outside the USB may also seek approval of a Hamlet by applying to rezone the land to the Hamlet PUD zoning district, pursuant to Sections 7.01.02 and 7.01.04. Any Hamlet proposed on land fronting Indrio Road must demonstrate consistency with Comprehensive Plan Policy 11.1.5.7. B. Owners of less than five hundred (500) acres of land outside the USB may take any of the following actions: 1. Maintain the land in its natural state or with agricultural uses consistent with its agricultural zoning district and utilize the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to move at least ninety percent (90%) of the unused transferable development value from the land to an eligible receiving site. See Section 4.04.05. 2. Subdivide the land into individual home sites using the transferable development value assigned to that land by applying to rezone the land to the PCS (Planned Country Subdivision) zoning district. See Section 3.01.03.FF. Upon approval, the TDR program may not be used to transfer density to or from the land. 3. Utilize the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to move or permanently set aside at least ninety percent (90%) of the transferable development value from the land and subdivide the land into individual home sites using the remaining development rights. See Section 4.04.04.D.3. 4. When consistent with the retail standards under Objective 3.1.8 of the TVC Element or the workplace standards under Objective 3.1.10 of the TVC Element, apply to rezone the land to the PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) zoning district. See Section 3.01.06.GG. C. Owners of less than one hundred ten (110) acres of land inside the USB may take any of the following actions: 1. Develop or use the land for residential purposes in accordance with the TVC Overlay Zone requirements in Sections 4.04.01—4.04.06 of this Code. Page 218 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 4 of 24 2. Residential development is limited to the maximum residential densities on the Transferable Development Value Map (Figure 3-3 of the TVC Element), except that. a. Density may be increased as a county incentive for providing affordable housing, workforce housing, or mixed-use development. b. For development built in the form of a Town or Village, density may be increased through acquisition of TDR credits from eligible sending sites. See Sections 3.01.03.EE and 4.04.05. D. Owners of land of any size inside the USB (Urban Service Boundary) may place retail or workplace land uses outside a Town or Village by taking either of the following actions: 1. Seek rezoning of the land to the PRW (Planned Retail/Workplace) zoning district (Section 3.01.06.GG) if the proposed uses are fully consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the TVC Element, and in particular with the retail standards under Objective 3.1.8 and/or the workplace standards under Objective 3.1.10. Such proposals must also conform to the TVC Overlay Zone requirements of Section 4.04 of this Code. 2. Owners of property with existing commercial zoning (CO, CN, or CG) as of August 28, 2009, are not required to rezone to PRW, but must follow the development standards contained in Section 3.01.03.GG.2 for that zoning district and must otherwise be consistent with the TVC Element. All such proposals, except as necessary to achieve underlying nonresidential use intensity pursuant to Land Use Element Policies 3.1.2.5 and 3.1.3.1(4), must meet the retail standards under Objective 3.1.8 and/or the workplace standards under Objective 3.1.10, in addition to the TVC Overlay Zone requirements in Section 4.04 of this Code. E. Owners of land of any size may initiate, continue, or expand agricultural uses (including forestry and equestrian uses) in accordance with the requirements of the agricultural zoning district that applies to the land. This option is available both inside and outside the USB. See Section 3.01.03 for lists of permitted and conditional agricultural uses in each agricultural zoning district. (Ord. No. 11-002, § 4, 12-6-2011; Ord. No. 2024-28, § Pt. B(Exh. A), 8-6-2024) 4.04.04. TVC Specific Standards. A. Applicability of TVC Specific Standards. 1. The standards in Section 4.04.00 apply to land use and land development within the TVC Overlay Zone regardless of zoning designations, except as specifically provided. 2. The provisions of the remainder of this Code apply except where modified by this TVC Overlay Zone, by the PTV, PCS, PRW, or PUD zoning districts, or by the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. B. Regional Street Network. 1. The TVC Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan established in May 2006 a Future Street Network Plan that includes street improvements and new streets to be completed by the year 2030, as depicted on Figure 4-12. Page 219 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 5 of 24 2. St. Lucie County will not approve any construction or development of land that would interfere with the creation of or improvements to the streets identified on the Future Street Network Plan. 3. Development of land must accommodate and incorporate appropriate links of the Future Street Network Plan. Final alignments will be determined by St. Lucie County. Roadway capacity to support the proposed development must exist or be provided concurrently. Appropriate connectivity of new development to these streets and their integration with adjoining development must be demonstrated prior to development approvals. 4. Streets in the Future Street Network that connect rural areas to urban areas must provide transitions from higher design speeds in rural areas to lower design speeds for neighborhoods and other developed areas. Lower design speeds can be achieved by reducing the widths of travel lanes, clear zones, and medians. Lower design speeds can also be achieved by adding curbs, regularly spaced street trees, and on-street parking. C. Agricultural Uses. Owners of land are encouraged to initiate, continue, or expand agricultural uses (including forestry and equestrian uses) in accordance with the requirements of the agricultural zoning district that applies to the land; Section 3.01.03 for lists of permitted and conditional agricultural uses in each agricultural zoning district. This option is available to all land regardless of size both inside and outside the USB. At a Page 220 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 6 of 24 minimum, nothing in the TVC Overlay or other implementing regulations may be construed to supersede or interfere with agricultural rights protected under Florida's Right to Farm Act. Participation is optional in the Transfer of Development Rights program which allows unused transferable development value to be moved to an eligible receiving site (see Section 4.04.05). D. Residential Subdivisions Outside the Urban Service Boundary. Residential subdivisions may be created outside the Urban Service Boundary (USB) on land designated TVC only by following one (1) of these four (4) approaches: 1. As part of a new Town or Village, using the PTV zoning district (see Section 3.01.03.EE). 2. Outside a Town or Village through the use of the existing transferable development value assigned to a parcel of land, using the PCS zoning district (see Section 3.01.03.FF). 3. Outside a Town or Village after moving or permanently setting aside at least ninety percent (90%) of the transferable development value from the land to an eligible receiving site in accordance with Section 4.04.05: a. Transferable development value remaining on the land may be used to create residential lots in accordance with the standards of this Code including all TVC Overlay Zone standards. (1) There is no requirement to rezone from an existing AG-1 zoning district if the residential lots will comply with all AG-1 requirements. Such a development would be approved using the site plan approval process found in Chapter XI of this Code. (2) If the landowner wishes to allocate the remaining transferable development value in a more clustered manner, rezoning may be requested to PCS or other suitable zoning district. The rezoning application and subsequent site plan approval applications must be accompanied by a regulating plan that meets the standards of Section 3.01.03.EE.3.b(4) and that identifies appropriate transect zones (either Edge, General, or Center), lot types, and street types and that includes at least one (1) civic space in order to achieve development forms consistent with the TVC Element. b. Upon approval of this option, urban services may be extended at the property owners' expense to lots that use the remaining transferable development value despite being located outside the USB. c. The new residential lots must be placed on one (1) contiguous portion of the land and to the extent possible must provide an interconnected street network as described in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.k and water management in the form of an interconnected system consistent with and connected to the Flow Way System as described in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.p. 4. Outside a Town or Village, as a Hamlet Planned Unit Development (PUD), pursuant Sections 7.01.02 and 7.01.04. The Hamlet PUD shall consist of compact, pedestrian-friendly residential settlement with a variety of housing types. Home sites within a Hamlet PUD are eligible to receive urban services at the developer's expense. Development of a Hamlet PUD must ensure compatibility with existing or planned nearby development and provide connectivity of roadways, trails, open space, and a flow way. E. Residential Subdivisions Inside the Urban Service Boundary. 1. Residential subdivisions may be created inside the Urban Service Boundary (USB) on land designated TVC only by following one (1) of these two approaches: a. As part of a new Town or Village, using the PTV zoning district (see Section 3.01.03.EE). Planned Towns or Villages inside the USB require less acreage and a lower percentage of land to be designated as Countryside than for a Town or Village outside the USB (see Section 3.01.03.EE.2.b). Page 221 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 7 of 24 b. Outside a Town or Village but still inside the USB, using the transferable development value assigned to a parcel of land, plus any TDR credits acquired and/or any density bonuses that St. Lucie County may provide for affordable housing, workforce housing, or mixed uses. (1) If the land is not currently zoned to allow the desired density, the land must be rezoned to a suitable planned zoning district (for instance, see Sections 3.01.03.BB and 7.01.00, the standard planned unit development category and associated PUD regulations). The rezoning application and subsequent site plan approval applications must be accompanied by a regulating plan that includes the information required by Section 3.01.03.EE.3.b(4) and that identifies appropriate transect zones, lot types, and street types to achieve development forms consistent with the TVC Element. The required Center, General, and Edge transect zone percentages set forth in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.c(3) for Villages would apply to such land, unless the parcel is less than thirty-two (32) acres. The five-acre minimum parcel size for the standard PUD category would not apply to such an application. (2) Such residential subdivisions must provide an interconnected street network as described in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.k and water management in the form of an interconnected system consistent with and connected, if possible, to the Flow Way System as described in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.p. 2. Residential development on land designated TVC that is inside the Urban Service Boundary (USB) is afforded the following special allowances: a. Density may be increased in all proposed development inside the USB through acquisition of TDR credits from eligible sending sites (see Section 4.04.05). b. Transferable development rights are awarded higher multipliers when the receiving site is located inside the USB. F. Residential Driveways and Garages. 1. Intent. TVC Settlement Principles include public streets designed to meet the needs of all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. In residential neighborhoods, an important walkability consideration is whether driveways, cars and on-street parking dominate the streetscape or continuous, wide, uninterrupted sidewalks and healthy street trees are provided. The intent of this sub-section is to ensure that residential garages and driveways do not compromise the walkability and intended pedestrian character of a neighborhood. 2. Applicability. The standards in this sub-section apply to new dwellings built in new subdivisions in the PTV, PCS, or PRW Zoning Districts and to new dwellings in new subdivisions approved pursuant to 4.04.04.D. and 4.04.04.E. Residential development on existing parcels and residential development in new subdivisions created pursuant to LDC sub-section 4.04.04.D.3. (after transfer of development rights) are exempt from these garage and driveway standards. 3. Garage and Driveway Standards. a. Front-loaded garage doors shall not comprise more than fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front elevation of the house (including the garage). b. Notwithstanding the previous provision, up to twenty percent (20%) of dwellings within a neighborhood can include garage doors which measure up to sixty percent (60%) of the width of the front elevation of the house. c. Different house types and lot widths must be dispersed throughout the neighborhood to provide variety to the streetscape. Page 222 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 8 of 24 d. Driveway width should be limited at the property line to protect the priority of the sidewalk and to enable on-street parking. In no case shall the driveway width exceed fifty percent (50%) of the lot width or twenty (20) feet, whichever is narrower, where the driveway meets the property line. Where measured elsewhere, single-family residential driveway widths shall not exceed twenty-two (22) feet. e. Front-loaded garages on residential lots greater than forty-five (45) feet in width shall be recessed from the main façade no less than ten (10) feet. The garage recess may be measured from a front porch so long as the porch is at least six (6) feet deep and the width is at least thirty percent (30%) of the front elevation. (Front porches meeting this standard may encroach into the front setback.) f. Front-loaded garages on residential lots less than forty-five (45) feet in width must meet this standard unless modifications are granted, pursuant to paragraph 4 below. g. The width of a side-loaded garage shall not be limited relative to the width of the lot or dwelling, if the wall of the garage facing a street includes at least two (2) windows and other features to resemble living space. The width of a driveway serving a side-loaded garage shall be limited to twenty (20) feet where it meets the property line. Side-loaded garages may also have reduced setbacks from the front property line. h. The width of a garage or driveway accessed from a rear alley shall not be limited relative to the width of the lot or dwelling. 4. Design Flexibility. a. Deviations from these standards may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners upon demonstration that other proposed design features adequately mitigate the impacts of larger garages and driveways on the neighborhood streetscape. At time of approval of a Regulating Plan and Preliminary Development Plan, the Board of County Commissioners may delegate to the Planning and Development Services Director authority to approve deviation from the standards in paragraph 3 if the Director, in his or her professional judgment, determines that the proposed alternative design is consistent with the intent to provide safe and inviting streetscapes that encourage walking and that the impact of larger driveways or garages has been adequately mitigated. b. Such alternative design options include but are not limited to: i. Commitment to provide a minimum percentage of dwellings within the neighborhood that have a one-car garage and/or a driveway that does not exceed twelve (12) feet in width; ii. Provision of structured soils or a modular suspended pavement system designed to meet the needs for water, soil and oxygen for the roots of mature street trees, while still supporting the weight of heavy vehicles. iii. Additional shade trees on individual residential lots, beyond what is required by code. iv. Wider sidewalks than what is required by code. v. Providing a Boulevard street section with shade trees and pedestrian pathways in the center median that is at least thirty (30) feet wide. vi. Second floor living space over the garage with windows overlooking the street and including Accessory Dwelling Units. vii. Brick pavers or other improved hardscape materials on the driveway. Page 223 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:02 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 9 of 24 viii. Providing two (2) separate garage doors for two-car garages rather than one (1) larger door. ix. Providing a minimum percentage of dwellings where the front-loaded garage is located in the rear of the lot and accessed by a narrow driveway. x. Providing a minimum percentage of dwellings where the garage parking is accessed from a rear alley. xi. Provide a minimum number or percentage of wider lots. G. Other Non-Residential Uses. 1. Retail and workplace land uses may be placed in a Town or Village through approval of PTV zoning (see Section 3.01.03.EE). 2. Retail and workplace land uses may also be placed outside a Town or Village when consistent with the retail standards under Objective 3.1.8 of the TVC Element or the workplace standards under Objective 3.1.10 of the TVC Element, or as necessary to achieve underlying nonresidential use intensity pursuant to Land Use Element Policies 3.1.2.5 and 3.1.3.1(4). PRW zoning (see Section 3.01.06.GG) is required except on land indicated on the Transferable Development Value Map (Figure 3-3) as suitable for industrial uses; land so indicated may also qualify for light or heavy industrial zoning districts as if the land were designated Industrial on the Future Land Use Map of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. PRW zoning is also not required for property with existing commercial zoning (CO, CN, or CG) as of August 28, 2009, but commercial development on such property must follow the development standards contained in Section 3.01.03.GG.2 and be consistent with the TVC Element. If the owner of any such existing commercially-zoned property elects to seek approval for commercial development without PRW rezoning, then the development application shall follow the submittal requirements, review procedures, and approval standards as provided for Major Site Plans under Chapter XI of this Code. (Ord. No. 11-002, § 4, 12-6-2011; Ord. No. 2020-28, Pt. A, 10-20-2020; Ord. No. 2024-014, § 2, 4-2-2024; Ord. No. 2024-28, § Pt. B(Exh. A), 8-6-2024) 4.04.05. Transferable Development Rights. A. Applicability. Section 4.04.05 establishes procedures for the Transfer of Development Rights Program for the North St. Lucie County Special Area Plan (SAP). This section establishes procedures by which transferable development rights are calculated, applied, conveyed, and recorded, for the purpose of the preservation of the County's valuable agricultural land, open space, and environmental quality, and in promoting well- designed communities, social diversity, and economic growth. Paragraph C describes how transferable development rights are assigned to land within the North St. Lucie County SAP. Paragraph D explains that landowners are under no obligation to exercise their transferable development rights and how Transferable Development Rights Credits (TDR credits) are created. The description of the qualifying sending and receiving areas are set out in paragraphs E and F herein. The use of transferable development rights, including calculation of the number of TDR credits that may be transferred is established in paragraph F. Procedures for approval of use of TDR credits are set out in paragraph G. B. Findings. St. Lucie County finds that the planning approach outlined in the Towns, Villages and Countryside (TVC) Comprehensive Plan Element promotes more efficient, predictable, and sustainable patterns of development, by encouraging new development in mixed-use Towns and Villages that reduce automobile dependency and provide greater opportunities for transit use, walking, and biking. The Town and Village developments also protect and enhance the natural environment, maintain agricultural land, and improve the citizens' quality of life. In furtherance of the Element, this section preserves and enhances existing Page 224 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 10 of 24 private property rights of small and large landowners while providing incentive-based options to landowners for new development consistent with the TVC Comprehensive Plan Element. C. Allocation of Transferable Development Rights Within the North St. Lucie County Special Area Plan (SAP). 1. Transferable development rights are afforded only to properties with residential densities consistent with Figure 3-3 of the TVC Element. Except as noted below, every parcel within the TVC Overlay Zone which is also outside of the USB, on the effective date of the TVC Element, is allocated one (1) transferable development right for each gross acre contained therein, excepting one (1) acre of the curtilage around any existing house that is designated to remain on the property. Except as noted below, every parcel within the TVC Overlay Zone which is inside the USB is allocated transferable development rights equal to the number of dwelling units allowed per acre as depicted on the Transferable Development Value Map (figure 3-3 of the TVC Comprehensive Plan Element) for each gross acre contained therein, excepting one (1) acre of the curtilage around any existing house that is designated to remain on the property. Except as noted below, parcels within the North St. Lucie SAP which are both inside the USB and designated by the County as Environmentally Significant are allocated transferable development rights equal to the number of dwelling units allowed per acre in the Future Land Use Element for each gross acre contained therein, excepting one (1) acre of the curtilage around any existing house that is designated to remain on the property. 2. Allocations for the Future Street Network. Parcels within the TVC Overlay Zone that provide right-of- way for the Future Street Network, shall not have the gross transferable development rights reduced by the accommodation of the roadway. For parcels located outside the USB less than five hundred (500) acres in size, the area donated for the right-of-way is afforded the multiplier offered in Table F-2. D. Obligation to Convey Transferable Development Rights; TDR Credits. 1. The conveyance of transferable development rights from a sending area to a receiving area is intended to occur solely on a voluntary basis between consenting landowners. Landowners are not compelled by this section to convey their transferable development rights; but if they are conveyed, the conveyance shall occur pursuant to the procedures and standards of paragraphs F and G. Transferable development rights may be severed from the sending area and conveyed by sale, donation or bequest. 2. Transferable Development Rights Credits (TDR credits) are created when a multiplier (Table F-2) is applied to the transferable development rights of a property. Each TDR credit secures one (1) additional residential dwelling unit when applied to an eligible receiving site. 3. Once transferred, TDR credits may be used to construct residential development within that receiving site without a time limitation; however, TDR credits that are not applied to that receiving area within twenty (20) years of their initial transfer shall no longer be available for transfer to another receiving area. Planned Towns or Villages (PTV) that do not use the TDR Credits generated by the Open Space and Countryside requirement within twenty (20) years of approval shall not be eligible to transfer the unused TDR Credits to another receiving site; however such credits may be used to construct residential development within the PTV without time limitation. E. The TDR Sending Area. 1. The area from which transferable development rights may be transferred is designated as the sending area, and is identified as those properties within the North St. Lucie County SAP and which are identified as desirable for conservation based on the existing natural habitat, agricultural use, location, or historic status. Sending Sites are either designated by the County as Environmentally Significant or shown on the Transferable Development Value Map (figure 3-3 of the TVC Comprehensive Plan Element, excepting one (1) acre of the curtilage around any existing house that is designated to remain after TDR transfer. The following areas may participate in the TDR Program as sending sites: Page 225 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 11 of 24 a. Areas permanently designated for the Open Space and Countryside (See Subsection H, Conditions of Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction) including land used for the following uses: i. Agricultural uses, ii. Restored or Preserved Native habitat; or Environmentally Significant Land; iii. Flow Way System; iv. Community Parks, trails, or recreation areas; v. Golf course (limited to eighteen (18) holes within a Planned Town or Village); vi. Civic Spaces within a Planned Town or Village (PTV) including neighborhood parks, greens, squares, plazas, and playgrounds provided they are publicly accessible in perpetuity; b. The following areas may also participate as sending sites (See Subsection H, Conditions of Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction): i. Parcels designated for higher education; ii. Parcels designated for targeted industry; iii Additional Building Lots designated for workforce housing above the requirement for eight percent (8%) of the proposed number dwellings in a PTV (See Section 3.01.03.EE.2.q); iv. Civic Building Lots including schools, police stations, houses of worship; v. Parcels containing sites of archaeological or historical significance (See Subsection I, Conditions of Deed Restriction); vi. For parcels less than five hundred (500) acres, land donated as right-of-way for the Regional Street Network. Parcels greater than five hundred (500) acres may not count land used as right-of-way for the Future Street Network as Open Space and Countryside or use a multiplier on the underlying transferable development rights. 2. The properties within the North St. Lucie County SAP include two (2) distinct areas: (a) lands outside of the Urban Service Boundary, and (b) lands within the Urban Service Boundary. a. Outside of the USB, TDR credits may be sent from any one (1) property to another providing the receiving site is a minimum of five hundred (500) acres in size. b. Outside the USB, TDR credits may be sent from any one (1) property, to any property within the USB providing the receiving site is within the TVC Overlay Zone or is designated on the North St. Lucie County Preferred TDR Receiving Site Map (Figure 3-12 of the TVC Comprehensive Plan Element). c. Inside the USB, within the TVC Overlay Zone, TDR credits may be sent from any one (1) property to another. d. TDR Credits may not be sent from a property within the USB to a property outside of the USB, except if (1) the sending property is both within the North St. Lucie County SAP and is designated by the County as Environmentally Significant or (2) the property is contiguous (parcels are adjoining for a minimum of ¼ mile) and partially located both inside the USB and outside USB but wholly located within the TVC Overlay Zone. 3. In addition, the following limitations apply for parcelsof less than five hundred (500) acres located outside of the USB: a. A parcel of less than five hundred (500) acres located outside the Urban Service Boundary may not be developed at a higher density, including by the use of TDR Credits generated on-site or Page 226 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 12 of 24 acquired from off-site locations, than that allowed by the density permitted by the Transferable Development Value Map (figure 3-3 of the TVC Element), unless a landowner of less than five hundred (500) acres enters into an agreement with one (1) or more adjoining landowners to develop five hundred (500) or more acres into a Town or Village pursuant to these land development regulations. b. Properties of less than five hundred (500) acres located outside of the USB may be subdivided into individual home sites equal to or less than the number of lots permitted by the Transferable Development Value Map (figure 3-3 of the TVC Element), however, any unused transferable development rights are not eligible for participation in the TDR Program. c. Transferable development rights on properties of less than five hundred (500) acres located outside of the USB may be transferred but only (i) in a minimum amount of ninety percent (90%) of the total transferable development rights on the property; and (ii) to an eligible receiving site within the North St. Lucie County SAP. Once a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of the transferable development rights is transferred or designated for future transfer pursuant to the process outlined in Subsection H, the sending property may then be subdivided into individual home sites up to the number of lots permitted by the remaining development rights. Such home sites are eligible to receive urban services only at the property owner's expense. Parcels of at least 1.5 acres and under ten (10) acres may transfer development rights provided only one (1) transferable development right remains on the parcel and all others are transferred or designated for future transfer. 4. Parcels of five hundred (500) or more acres located outside of USB and parcels of one hundred ten (110) or more acres located inside the USB may use the TDR Program to increase density to create a Village or Town, pursuant to these land development regulations. Landowners may act as both transferor and transferee of the TDR Credits and may apply TDR credits generated on site to developing the Net Developable Area of the Town or Village. In addition, the following limitations apply: a. Landowners who own five hundred (500) or more contiguous acres outside the USB in the TVC Overlay Zone may not subdivide the property into individual home sites according to the underlying base zone. b. Subdividing parcels of five hundred (500) or more acres located outside the USB for the express purpose of avoiding the regulations of the TVC Overlay Zone is prohibited. 5. Parcels inside the USB that opt to develop in accordance with a planned zoning district other than a PTV (See Section 4.04.04.E(1)(b)) may not participate in the TDR Program as sending sites for either internal or off-site transferable development right transfers. F. The Use of Transferable Development Rights Within the Receiving Area. 1. The area to which TDR credits may be transferred is the receiving area. Eligible receiving sites must be located within the North St. Lucie County SAP and include the following: a. Sites inside the Urban Service Boundary that are (i) designated on the North St. Lucie County Preferred TDR Receiving Sites Map (Comprehensive Plan Figure 11-12 of the TVC Element) or (ii) located within the TVC Overlay Zone; or b. Sites located outside the Urban Service Boundary, of five hundred (500) or more acres in size, on which there is County approval to build a Town or a Village or a Hamlet PUD. In such case, however, TDR credits sent from inside the USB may only be from lands designated as Environmentally Significant by the County, unless the land is contiguous. In addition, the transferable development rights assigned to properties of five hundred (500) or more acres may be used to develop the site as a Town or Village or a Hamlet PUD pursuant to this Section. Page 227 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 13 of 24 2. Consolidation of Property. A parcel of five hundred (500) or more acres outside the USB or one hundred ten (110) acres or more inside the USB in the TVC Overlay Zone may be developed as a Town or Village through the use of transferable development rights. Land area of five hundred (500) acres or more outside the USB may be developed as a Hamlet using transferable development rights. If a landowner completes a Town, Village and owns remaining land not associated with the Town or Village, the transferable development rights from that remaining land may be sold to another landowner or the land may be consolidated with other properties to form the minimum size required to create another Town, Village using transferable development rights pursuant to this Section. Separately owned, noncontiguous parcels of less than the minimum size of a Town or Village in the TVC Overlay Zone may be consolidated to create a Town or Village. Noncontiguous parcels may be consolidated to form a Hamlet, provided, at least one (1) of the parcels is at least two hundred fifty (250) acres and all parcels proposed for inclusion in a Hamlet are located within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet of the primary development parcel. Hamlets utilizing noncontiguous parcels shall prioritize countryside (preservation or restoration of native habitat, perpetual agricultural uses, other open space) on the outlying parcels while ensuring compatibility of density, design and transition with surrounding land uses. 3. Calculation of Transferable Development Rights Credits. The number of TDR credits that can be transferred from an eligible sending site to an eligible receiving site is calculated by (a) on the sending site, multiplying the acreage and the dwelling units per acre allowed on the Transferable Development Value Map (figure 3-3 of the TVC Element), then subtracting the number of existing dwellings designated to remain on the site and (b) multiplying the resulting sum by the applicable multiplier on Table F-2 to yield the total number of TDR credits. (See Table F-1 as an example). Table F-1. Example A: Outside the Urban Service Boundary - Transferable Development Rights Credits Sent From a Parcel Outside the Urban Service Boundary of Less than five hundred (500) Acres to Another Parcel Parcel Size 20 acres Transferable Development Rights (Base Zone) from TDV 1 dwelling unit per acre Number of Existing Dwellings 1 Total Transferable Development Rights From Sending Site 20 acres x 1 du/ac = 20 dwelling units 20 dwellings - 1 dwelling = 19 dwelling units Multiplier from Table F-2 2 Calculation of TDR Credits for Use on Receiving Site 19 dwelling units x 2 = 38 TDR Credits Table F-2 indicates the multiplier that is applicable to the appropriate transfer condition, and used to multiply the allowable base zone density of the sending area. For parcels that have more than one (1) transfer condition as described in Table F-2, the multipliers for the corresponding portions of the site shall be applied. The resulting sums shall be added together to compute the total TDR Credits for the sending site (see the example in Table F-3). Table F-2. TVC Transferable Development Right Credit Multipliers Transfer Condition Multiplier From Countryside in a Village located Outside the Urban Service Boundary to an Eligible Receiving Site located Outside the Urban Service Boundary. 1.25 From Countryside in a Town located Outside the Urban Service Boundary to an Eligible Receiving Site located Outside the Urban Service Boundary. 1.5 Page 228 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 14 of 24 From Countryside in a Town or Village located Inside the Urban Service Boundary to an Eligible Receiving Site located Inside the Urban Service Boundary. 1.75 From Countryside of a Town located on Contiguous Property both Inside and Outside of the Urban Service Boundary to the Net Developable Area. 1.75 From Countryside located Outside the Urban Service Boundary to an Eligible Receiving Site Inside the Urban Service Boundary. 2 From a Parcel Less than 500 acres in size Outside the Urban Service Boundary to an Eligible Receiving Site Inside or Outside the Urban Service Boundary. 2 From Targeted Industry Site to an Eligible Receiving Site. 2.5 From Higher Education Site to an Eligible Receiving Site. 2.5 From Agricultural Research and Education Facilities to an Eligible Receiving Site. 2.5 From Created or Preserved Native Habitat in the Countryside to an Eligible Receiving Site. 2.5 From Environmentally Significant Land to an Eligible Receiving Site. 2.5 From Countryside to a Workforce Housing Unit 2.5 4. The number of dwelling units available in the Net Developable area of a PTV is established by (1) multiplying the gross acres in the net developable area by the density permitted by the Transferable Development Value Map (figure 3-3 of the TVC Element) then, (2) adding TDR Credits available from both internal and external sending sites. The total number of dwelling units available in the proposed Town or Village, is the sum of the number of TDR credits (as established in Subsection 3. above) and the number of dwelling units permitted in the Net Developable Area. Example B. The owner of a five-hundred-acre parcel located outside of the Urban Service Boundary proposes to build a new Village development. At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the site must be set aside as Open Space and Countryside. The net development density must result in at least six hundred twenty-five (625) dwelling units, and at least fifty (50) units (eight percent (8%)) must be Workforce Housing units. Transferable development rights moved from the Countryside for use as Workforce Housing receives a multiplier of 2.5. The remaining land set aside for Countryside receives a multiplier of 1.25. The TDR credits and total dwelling units for the Village are shown in Table F-3. Table F-3. Parcel Size 500 acres Net Developable Area 125 acres Minimum Number of Units Required 625 dwelling units Open Space and Countryside Provided 375 acres Minimum Workforce Units Required Workforce Dwelling Units Proposed 50 dwelling units 53 dwelling units Density permitted by the Transferable Development Value Map 1 dwelling unit per acre Transferable Development Rights 375 acres x 1 dwelling unit per acre = 375 dwelling units Multiplier for Workforce Dwelling Units 2.5 Multiplier for Open Space and Countryside 1.25 Calculation of TDR Credits for Workforce Units 53 dwelling units x 2.5 = 132.5 or 133 TDR credits Calculation of TDR Credits for Countryside 375 dwelling units-53 Workforce dwelling units = 322 dwelling units 322 dwelling units x 1.25 = 402.5 or 403 TDR credits Page 229 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 15 of 24 Dwelling units available in the Net Developable Area 125 acres at 1 dwelling unit per acre = 125 dwelling units Total Dwelling Units Generated for Village 125 dwelling units + 133 TDR credits + 403 TDR credits = 661 dwelling units Example C. The owner of a one-thousand-acre parcel located outside of the Urban Service Boundary proposes to build a new Town development. At least sixty percent (60%) of the site must be set aside as Open Space and Countryside. The net development density must result in at least two thousand (2,000) dwelling units, and at least one hundred sixty (160) units (eight percent (8%)) must be Workforce Housing units. Transferable development rights moved from the Countryside for use as Workforce Housing receives a multiplier of 2.5. The remaining land set aside for Countryside receives a multiplier of 1.5. The TDR credits and total dwelling units for the Town are shown in Table F-4. Table F-4. Example C: Transferable Development Rights Transferred within a Parcel of one thousand (1,000) acres Outside of the Urban Service Boundary Parcel Size 1,000 acres Net Developable Area 400 acres Minimum Number of Units Required 2,000 dwelling units Minimum Open Space and Countryside Required 600 acres Workforce Dwelling Units Proposed 160 dwelling units Density of Underlying Base Zone 1 dwelling unit per acre Transferable Development Rights 600 acres x 1 dwelling unit per acre = 600 dwelling units Multiplier for Workforce Dwelling Units 2.5 Multiplier for Open Space and Countryside 1.5 Calculation of TDR Credits for Workforce Units 160 du x 2.5 = 400 credits Calculation of TDR Credits for Countryside 600 du - 160 du = 440 du 440 du x 1.5 = 660 credits Total TDR Credits 1060 credits Dwelling units in base zone of Net Developable Area 400 ac x 1 du/ac = 400 du Total Dwelling Units Generated for Town 1,060 transferable development credits + 400 du = 1,460 du This is less than the 2,000 units required. Note for Example C: Five hundred forty (540) additional TDR credits are needed to meet the minimum density required to build a town. Credits can be acquired or generated through various methods in the TDR Program. G. Procedures for Use of Transferable Development Rights Credits. The use of TDR credits must comply with the following procedures. 1. The owner of the sending site (the "transferor") and the owner of the receiving site (the "transferee") shall submit a signed application on a form provided by the St. Lucie County Planning Department. Along with the application form, the following shall be submitted: a. A legal description of the sending site. b. A plot plan or survey, showing total acreage of the sending site, and that property within the sending site that is subject to any easement or restrictions against development, and one (1) acre of the curtilage around any existing house that is intended to remain. Page 230 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 16 of 24 c. For parcels proposing to build a Town or Village, in addition to the requirements for the PTV, a plan that clearly indicates the total acreage of the parcel, the amount of acreage in each category of the Transferable Development Value Map (figure 3-3 of the TVC Element), the portion of the parcel from which development rights are to be transferred, the multiplier identified for each transferable development right, the appropriate conservation easement or deed restriction for the sending area; the total TDR credits and number of dwelling units. d. For those parcels less than five hundred (500) acres located outside of the USB that seek to transfer a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of the transferable development rights from the property, a plan that (1) notes the transferable development rights attributed to the entire parcel, (2) identifies the number of transferable development rights proposed to remain on the site, (3) identifies the proposed multiplier, (4) calculates the number of TDR credits available for transfer. e. A title search of the sending site sufficient to determine all owners of the site and all lien holders. Title insurance shall be required for any sending site on which a Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction is recorded. f. A copy of the proposed Deed of Transferable Development Rights Credits and a copy of the proposed Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction. g. An Agreement of Conveyance for the development rights between the owner of the development rights to be transferred and the purchaser of the transferable development rights. The agreement may be contingent upon approval of a final subdivision plan for the receiving property. h. Proof of previously severed transferable development rights, if the transferee proposes to use transferable development rights which were previously severed from a tract in the sending area. 2. The Growth Management Director shall review the application and determine if it is complete. If the application is complete, the Director shall issue a Certificate of Filing to the applicants. 3. Review and Approval for Conveyance of Transferable Development Rights. a. Upon receiving a complete application, as required above, the Growth Management Director shall determine the number of transferable development rights which can be conveyed from the sending tract. The Growth Management Director shall also determine, with the advice of the County Attorney and County Engineer, the sufficiency of (1) the Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction, and (2) the Deed of Transferable Development Rights. The Growth Management Director's determination shall be provided to the applicants in a written Preliminary Certification of Transferable Development Rights Credits. A final Certification of Transferable Development Rights Credits shall be approved by the County Commissioners and recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court along with the approved Conservation Easement. b. Any appeals of the Preliminary Certification of Transferable Development Rights Credits shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 11.11.00 of this Code. c. For proposed developments that rely upon transferable development rights to increase permitted dwelling units per acre beyond that of the base permitted density, no building permit shall be issued until the County has been presented with a copy of the recorded Deed of Transferable Development Rights and a copy of the recorded Conservation Easement. The entity responsible for the administration, management, and maintenance of the land set aside for the Open Space and Countryside of each new Town or Village shall be identified as part of the subdivision approval. Page 231 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 17 of 24 d. St. Lucie County shall not approve the Deed of Transferable Development Rights Credits or issue a Final Certification of Transferable Development Rights Credits until the County has received evidence that the Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction has been duly signed by all relevant parties and recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. e. A transferee acquiring transferable development rights may donate or sell all or part of the required Open Space and Countryside associated with a Town or Village to St. Lucie County or to either a duly qualified conservancy or land trust that has received a 501(c)(3) designation from the Internal Revenue Service. The conservancy or land trust must be approved by the County. H. Conditions of the Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction. 1. The owner conveying transferable development rights shall perpetually restrict the use of the sending site by a Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction. The Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction shall be in a form approved by the St. Lucie County Attorney. The Conservation Easement shall be used to restrict future use of the Open Space and Countryside to the following: a. Agricultural uses; b. Restored or Preserved Native habitat; or Environmentally Significant Land; c. Flow Way System; d. Community Parks, trails, or recreation areas; e. Golf course (limited to eighteen (18) holes within a Town or Village); f. Civic Spaces within a PTV including neighborhood parks, greens, squares, plazas, and playgrounds provided they are publicly accessible in perpetuity. The Deed Restriction shall be used to restrict the use of the parcel to the following: a. A limited number of dwelling units; b. Higher education; c. Targeted industry; d. Building Lots designated for workforce housing; e. Civic Building Lots including schools, police stations, houses of worship; f. Parcels containing sites of archaeological or historical significance. 2. The Conservation Easement shall also reference and include a land and water management plan. 3. Any Conservation Easement shall designate, as a third party beneficiary of the restrictions imposed upon the sending property, St. Lucie County, a Conservancy approved by St. Lucie County, or a land trust that has received a designation of 501(c)(3) status from the Internal Revenue Service and approved by St. Lucie County. Such restrictions shall be enforceable by the County as a third party beneficiary. 4. If less than all of the transferable development rights are to be conveyed from the parcel, the remaining number of transferable development rights shall be recorded by Deed Restriction acceptable to the County Attorney. All owners of the tracts from which transferable development rights are conveyed shall execute the Deed Restriction or Conservation Easement. All lien holders of the tract from which transferable development rights are conveyed shall execute a Subordination Agreement to the Conservation Easement. The Subordination Agreement shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court. All owners of the sending site shall also provide title insurance. Page 232 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 18 of 24 I. Requirements of Open Space and Countryside Associated with Towns or Villages Created through the Transfer of Development Rights. 1. The owner applying transferable development rights to the development of a Town or Village shall perpetually restrict the associated Open Space and Countryside by a Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction. The Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction shall be in a form approved by the St. Lucie County Attorney. The Conservation Easement shall be used to restrict future use of the Open Space and Countryside to the following: a. Agricultural uses; b. Restored or Preserved Native habitat; or Environmentally Significant Land; c. Flow Way System; d. Community Parks, trails, or recreation areas; e. Golf course (limited to eighteen (18) holes within a Town or Village); f. Civic Spaces within a PTV including neighborhood parks, greens, squares, plazas, and playgrounds provided they are publicly accessible in perpetuity. The Deed Restriction shall be used to restrict future use of the parcel to the following: a. Higher education; b. Targeted industry; c. Building Lots designated for workforce housing; d. Civic Building Lots including schools, police stations, houses of worship; e. Parcels containing sites of archaeological or historical significance. 2. The Conservation Easement shall also reference and include a land and water management plan for the Open Space and Countryside portion of the Town or Village. J. Value of Transferable Development Rights. The monetary value of Transferable Development Rights is determined between buyer and seller. K. Public Acquisition of Transferable Development Rights. The County Commission may purchase development rights and may accept ownership of transferable development rights through gift. Any such purchase or gift shall be accompanied by a Conservation Easement or Deed Restriction, as specified in Subsection H of this Ordinance. The County may re-sell, subject to the time limitation in Subsection D, or retire any transferable development rights credits it has acquired. L. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this Section 4.04.05. Agricultural Research and Education Facilities: The agricultural uses and the associated facilities including green houses, laboratories and field offices related to agricultural research activities such as, but not limited to USDA, the Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences (IFAS), the St. Lucie Agricultural Research and Education Park and Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute. Certificate of Filing: A document issued by the St. Lucie County to an applicant for a development project indicating that a full and complete application has been submitted. Conservation Easement: A legal document filed in the County's official property records, placing limits on the use of a property. A deed restriction within the TVC extinguishes the right to build homes on or subdivide residential lots from a sending property but allows other uses, such as agriculture, drainage, low intensity recreation, and those described in the TVC element as possible uses for the countryside and open space. Page 233 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 19 of 24 Deed Restriction: A legal document filed in the County's official property records, placing limits on the use of a property. A deed restriction within the TVC required by this Section reduces the right to build homes on or subdivide residential lots from a sending property or may restrict the property to specific uses such as higher education, workforce housing, and those uses described in the TVC Element as possible uses for the countryside and open space. Density: The number of dwellings that can be placed on a unit of land. Density is expressed as the number of dwelling units per acre of land. Development Rights: The maximum amount of residential development that would be permitted on a parcel of land under the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. Development rights are expressed as the maximum number of dwelling units per acre. Dwelling Unit: A dwelling unit as defined in the TVC Overlay Zoning District may consist of a single-family detached house, a single-family attached house, a condominium, or an apartment. Encumber: The act of burdening a transferable development right with a financial liability, such as pledging a transferable development right as security or collateral for a loan. Receiving site: A parcel of land located within the Special Area Plan, to which development rights may be transferred. Redeem: The act of using transferable development rights to obtain density bonuses on receiving properties. Once redeemed, transferable development rights can never be used again. Sending site: A parcel of land located within the Special Area Plan (SAP) from which development rights may be transferred. Severed: The act of officially separating and retiring transferable development rights from sending properties. This occurs after a conservation easement or deed restriction is recorded. Title Search: A report issued by a title insurance or abstract company. In the Transfer of Development Rights program, it ensures that landowners have a legal right to place a deed restriction on their properties. Transferable Development Rights Certificate: A document issued by St. Lucie County which attests to the fact that transferable development rights are available for sale or use. It identifies the number of transferable development rights, the current owner, and the originating parcel of land from which the transferable development rights were severed. The certificate also includes sections that must be completed whenever the transferable development rights are sold, transferred, encumbered, or redeemed. (Ord. No. 2024-28, § Pt. B(Exh. A), 8-6-2024) 4.04.06. Definitions. When used in Section 4.04 and Sections 3.01.03.EE through GG of this Code, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them. Terms defined in Chapter II of this Code shall those same meanings. Accessory Dwelling: One (1) ancillary building that may contain an independent dwelling unit, limited in size, sharing ownership and utility connections with a principal building on the same lot, typically located in the rear of the lot. Affordable: Monthly rents or mortgage payments, including taxes, insurance, and utilities do not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the monthly income of the family. Affordable Housing: Rental or for-sale housing that is affordable to people earning fifty percent (50%) to eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income. Agriculture: Farming: the cultivation of soil, production of crops, or raising of livestock. Page 234 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 20 of 24 Arcade: A series of piers topped by arches that support a permanent roof over a sidewalk. Average Density: The average number of dwelling units per acre within the Net Developable Area. This number is an average to allow denser development in the Core and Center transect zones with development becoming less dense through the General and Edge zones. Balcony: An open portion of an upper floor extending beyond a building's exterior wall that is not supported from below by vertical columns or piers. Building Frontage: The percentage of the total width of a lot which is required to be building wall, measured where the front yard ends and the front of the building begins. Center: One (1) of the four (4) neighborhood zones that make up a cross-section or transect of a Town or Village. The Center transect zone is the second most intensely occupied zone in a neighborhood, with a wide range of uses in detached and attached buildings. See Section 4.04.02.B. Civic Building: Civic buildings contain uses of special public importance. Civic buildings include, but are not limited to, municipal buildings, churches, libraries, schools, day care centers, recreation facilities, and places of assembly. Civic buildings do not include retail buildings, residential buildings, or buildings with private offices. Civic Space: Civic spaces are open areas dedicated for public use. Typical civic spaces include neighborhood parks, greens, squares, plazas, and playgrounds. Civic Use: The use of land or buildings by not-for-profit organizations primarily for governmental, educational, artistic, cultural, social, or religious purposes. Civic uses may be outdoors (in civic spaces), in civic buildings, or in buildings with other uses. Close: A small green area surrounded by a driveway that provides vehicular access to several buildings and performs the same function as a cul-de-sac. Colonnade: Similar to an arcade except that it is supported by vertical columns without arches. Community Development District (CDD): A unit of the government classified as an independent special district governed by a board composed of landowners within the district. A CDD is created pursuant to Florida Statutes and has the power to assess ad valorem taxes upon the lands in the district and special assessments in order to provide services required to develop the land, such as road building, water and sewer facilities, drainage, conservation and mitigation areas, parks, and other recreational facilities. Community Stewardship Organization (CSO): Not-for-profit organization dedicated to education and conservation efforts that benefit both development and the community. Convenience Center: A collection of small stores servicing a range of daily needs from dry cleaning to baked goods, ranging between three thousand (3,000) and eighty thousand (80,000) square feet in size, located along an important thoroughfare, between two (2) neighborhoods, serving the daily needs of two (2) to three (3) neighborhoods. Core: One (1) of the four (4) neighborhood zones that make up a cross-section or transect of a Town or Village. The Core transect zone is the most intensely occupied zone in a neighborhood, with mostly attached buildings that create a continuous street facade within walking distance of surrounding residential areas. See Section 4.04.02.B. Countryside: Land, including natural habitat, agriculture, community recreation areas and similar uses, required to be set aside as open and unobstructed to the sky in perpetuity, but not including rights-of-way dedicated for streets, roads, or alleys. For purposes of this Code, the Countryside is divided into two (2) transect zones, the Fringe zone which adjoins neighborhoods or other public spaces and Rural zone which does not adjoin neighborhoods. Page 235 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 21 of 24 Countryside Uses: Land in the Countryside as defined in this Code may be used only for purposes described in Section 3.01.03.EE.2.o. Edge: One (1) of the four (4) neighborhood zones that make up a cross-section or transect of a Town or Village. The Edge transect zone has larger lots for detached homes and provides a physical change between the remainder of the neighborhood and the adjoining countryside. See Section 4.04.02.B. Environmentally Significant Land: Land identified as Environmentally Significant and/or ranked as A, B or C on the County's Native Habitat Inventory Map, as those may change from time to time. Flow Way System: The land and water areas that together will comprise a continuous water management system for the TVC area. This system will provide water storage and attenuation to manage stormwater before it discharges into the Indian River Lagoon. This regional system will be created incrementally as it expands, supplements, or modifies the existing canal network in order to restore more natural discharge patterns. Fringe: One (1) of the two (2) countryside zones that make up a cross-section or transect of a Town or Village. The Fringe transect zone is the first layer of the Countryside that provides a harmonious transition between neighborhoods and the Rural transect zone. See Section 4.04.02.B. General: One (1) of the four (4) neighborhood zones that make up a cross-section or transect of a Town or Village. The General transect zone is usually the largest part of a neighborhood with a mix of detached homes and some multifamily buildings, typically separated from the street with front yards. See Section 4.04.02.B. Greenway: A narrow or wide corridor of open space managed for natural resource conservation and/or recreation. Higher Education: Education institutions operated by the state university system, state department of education, or private accredited institutions providing post-secondary, vocational, or other specialized forms of learning. Highway Service Retail: Vehicular-oriented retail such as gas stations, motels, and fast food restaurants. Lane: A right-of-way for service access to the back of properties, similar to an alley but less urban in character. Liner Building: A building or portion of a building constructed in front of a parking garage, cinema, supermarket etc., to conceal large expanses of blank wall area and to face the street space with a facade that has ample doors and windows opening onto the sidewalk. Live/Work Building: An attached building that can accommodate residential use, business use, or a combination of the two (2) within individually occupied units. These uses may occur on any story of a live/work building. Local Store: Typically a single proprietor establishment, the average size is five hundred (500) to two thousand (2,000) square feet. Local stores are located in either the within or along the edge of a neighborhood and typically serve one (1) neighborhood. Either residential or office uses are appropriate above the ground level retail. Local stores are not expected to expand in size over time. Mixed-Use: Combining two (2) or more of the following uses: retail, commercial, and residential within the same building or on the same site. Mixed-Use Business District: An area that due to its location has the development potential to specialize in terms of accommodating significant business functions. A Mixed-Use Business District should include a variety of uses and is encouraged to provide a place for office complexes that would not be compatible in neighborhoods. Land located within the Mixed-Use Business District may also develop pursuant to the density and intensity established by the Transferable Development Value Map (Figure 3-3 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan) and otherwise in accordance with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the TVC Element. Mixed-Use Business Page 236 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 22 of 24 Districts are depicted on the North St. Lucie County General Workplace Plan (Figure 3-16 and Objective 3.1.10 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). Neighborhood: The basic building block of all new development within the TVC, generally ranging in size from eighty (80) to one hundred fifty (150) acres (not including land set aside for the Countryside component), scaled upon a radius of approximately one-quarter-mile and containing a mix of uses that include residential, retail, office, civic and recreation spaces to support the daily needs of its residents within walking/bicycling/wheelchair distance. Neighborhood Center: Larger than a Convenience Center, the Neighborhood Center averages one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet in size and is anchored with a grocery store. The Neighborhood Center is located at the intersection of two (2) important roads and serves the daily needs of three (3) to four (4) neighborhoods. Net Developable Area: The land area remaining for neighborhood development once the acreage requirement for Countryside has been achieved (see Section 3.01.03.EE.2.b). Open Space: Land that is dedicated to Countryside including natural habitat, agriculture, and recreational parks, or used to fulfill other county objectives (see TVC Element Policy 3.1.5.4). Planting Strip: Grassy strip of land that accommodates rows of street trees, usually located between the edge of a travel lane and the sidewalk. In urban areas, the planting strip often consists of trees planted in tree wells recessed into the sidewalk rather than planted on a grassy strip. Porch: An elevated, roofed, and unwalled platform on the facade of a building. Porches are supported from below by vertical columns or piers, and have sufficient depth to allow outdoor seating without interfering with any entry functions of the porch. Porte Cochere: A roofed porch or portico-like structure extending from the side entrance of a building over an adjacent driveway to shelter those getting in or out of vehicles. A porte cochere differs from a carport in that it is not used to cover parked vehicles. Regulating Plan: A type of site plan or a supplement to a site plan for a proposed development in the TVC Overlay that must be submitted to St. Lucie County under certain conditions. A regulating plan identifies proposed transect zones, lot types, and street types. A regulating plan defines the character of the proposed development and, if approved, becomes an integral part of the development approval. See Section 3.01.03.EE.3. Rural: One (1) of the two (2) countryside zones that make up a cross-section or transect of a Town or Village. The Rural transect zone is further from neighborhoods and contains the full range of permitted agricultural, recreational, and open space uses. See Section 4.04.02.B. Settlement Principles: The guidelines for development established in Policy 3.1.4.2 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Specialized District: A transect zone that accommodates development types or forms that are not fully integrated with adjoining neighborhoods. See Section 3.01.03.GG. Stoop: A staircase on the facade of a building, usually constructed of concrete or stone, that leads either to a small unwalled entrance platform or directly to the main entry door. Story: That portion of a building or structure included between the upper surface of a floor and the lower surface of the ceiling or exposed roof next above. Each mezzanine that exceeds the percentage of floor area for a mezzanine defined in the Florida Building Code is counted as a story for the purposes of measuring height. Each story used exclusively for parking vehicles is also counted as a story. Space within a roofline that is entirely non- habitable shall not be considered to be a story. Targeted Industry: Businesses identified by the St. Lucie County Growth Management Department in conjunction with the Economic Development Council as desirable to promote job growth in the County. Such businesses are set forth every two (2) years as eligible for the Job Growth Investment Grant Program and include a Page 237 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 23 of 24 wide range of commerce; approval by the Board of County Commissioners is required when proposed in the TVC area. See Section 3.01.03.EE.2.r. TDR Credits: Credits that are created when the unused transferable development rights of a property receive a multiplier. One (1) credit may be eligible to secure one (1) additional dwelling unit of density when applied to a qualified development. Town: Two (2) or more neighborhoods in the Countryside. Town Center: Town Centers are an open-air collection of core retailers, typically a minimum of two hundred thousand (200,000) square feet, serving approximately twenty-five thousand (25,000) persons with a primary trade area of six (6) to ten (10) miles. Tenants include multiple anchors, shops, movie theaters, a grocery store, department store, bookseller, restaurants, boutiques, residential units and possibly a hotel. A Town Center distinguishes itself from conventional open-air centers by including a variety of residential types, office and civic uses. The Town Center could ultimately evolve into areas served by mass transit with higher densities. Appropriate locations are along major thoroughfares close to an interstate interchange or within downtown areas. Transect Zone: A distinct category of physical form ranging from the most urban to the most rural of human habitats. This code defines four (4) neighborhood transect zones: Core, Center, General, and Edge; two (2) Countryside transect zones: Fringe and Rural; and a Specialized District transect zone. See Sections 4.04.02.B and 3.01.03.GG. Transferable Development Value: The density and intensity designated on a property by the Transferable Development Value Map. Transitional Areas: A defined area near St. Lucie Boulevard and Kings Highway as shown on the North St. Lucie County General Workplace Plan (Figure 3-16 and Objective 3.1.10 of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan). TVC Element: The Towns, Villages and Countryside Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. TVC Overlay Zone: See Section 4.04.02. Urban Services: Potable water supply and distribution; sanitary sewer collection, treatment, and disposal. Village: One (1) neighborhood in the Countryside. Village Center: A Village Center is eighty thousand (80,000) to one hundred forty thousand (140,000) square feet and has tenants similar to those in a Neighborhood Center and may include hotels or motels. Village Centers are located at an intersection of two (2) important thoroughfares and serve four (4) to five (5) adjacent neighborhoods. Warehouse Type: Often associated with discount or home improvement retail, typically located along heavily traveled roads or rail corridors. Workforce Housing: Housing that is affordable to families earning from eighty percent (80%) to one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the Area Median Income. Area Median Income is based on the most recent figures for the Port St. Lucie-Fort Pierce Metropolitan Statistical Area as reported annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Area Median Income data is available from the St. Lucie County Department of Growth Management. 4.04.07 Performance Monitoring. St. Lucie County will monitor and evaluate the performance of the TVC Element of the Comprehensive Plan, including the performance of these implementing regulations, to include at least the following performance measures: A. Development Plans in TVC Overlay: Page 238 of 239 Created: 2026-05-01 13:25:03 [EST] (Supp. No. 35) Page 24 of 24 1. Acres of land rezoned to PTV, PCS, and PRW 2. Acres of land rezoned to other zoning districts 3. Net developable area of each approved Town and Village 4. Number of proposed residential units in each approved Town and Village 5. Number of proposed residential units that were approved as workforce housing B. Open Space and Countryside: 1. Acres of land designated as Countryside 2. Mapping of Countryside acreage to illustrate its size and contiguity 3. Acres of land credited as Open Space components through PTV zoning 4. Acres of land designated for the Flow Way System through PTV zoning 5. Mapping of Flow Way System acreage to illustrate its contiguity and its relationship to existing drainage canals C. Transferable Development Credits: 1. Acres of land from which residential development rights have been transferred; 2. Number of TDR credits that have been created; 3. Number of TDR credits that have been applied to construct residential units. D. Future Street Network: 1. Mapping of street network overlaid on conceptual TVC Street Network for 2030 (see Figure 4-12) Page 239 of 239