Special Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting (2025-08-20)

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA Regular Meeting August 20, 2025 Convened: 6:00pm Adjourned: 7:36pm 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM, by Chair Binner. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Binner 3. INVOCATION Commissioner O'Dell. 4. ROLL CALL Present Board Member Ed Lounds, Board Member Billy O'Dell, Board Member Ryan Binner, Board Member Larry Neese, Board Member Darren Guettler, Board Member Joshua Bradley Excused Ex-Officio Nicole Fogarty, Board Member Lawrence Slay 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 6. DISCLOSURE(S) Chair Binner stated he spoke to one of the BOCC Commissioners regarding agenda item 9A. 7. MINUTES A. St. Lucie County Planning & Zoning Commission minutes: Special Meeting. There are no prior minutes. None, this was a special P&Z meeting.

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 2 | P a g e 8. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Review and Recommendation on the Proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) Comprehensive Plan Amendments STAFF PRESENTATION: Benjamin Balcer, Planning & Development Services Director. Mr. Balcer started by thanking the board for coming to the Special P&Z meeting on a Wednesday. Mr. Balcer stated that all public notification requirements were met per St Lucie County Development Code Section 11.00.03. Mr. Balcer explained to the board what the special meeting was regarding, stating that every seven years, the County was required to review its Comprehensive Plan through the Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) process, a key part of the State’s growth management system. The review determined whether amendments were needed to keep the Plan consistent with State statutory changes. This effort involved multiple county departments, and several directors and staff were present to address questions following the presentation. The County’s planning consultants, Amy Dinter and David Dixon of Calvin Giordano and Associates, were introduced to present the review. They focused on each element of the Comprehensive Plan, highlighting the most significant proposed changes. Amy Dinter, a planner with Calvin Giordano and Associates, thanked the commissioners for holding the special meeting to discuss the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) amendments. Ms. Dinter explained that comprehensive plans were required under the Community Planning Act, which directed local governments to create and update plans that guided land development in a manner respectful of private property rights. Florida law required every local government to adopt a comprehensive plan with ten elements: future land use, transportation, infrastructure, capital improvements, conservation, recreation and open space, housing, coastal management, intergovernmental coordination, and property rights. Ms. Dinter emphasized that the comprehensive plan served as a community’s vision for development, providing a policy framework to guide land use and infrastructure decisions. The plan consisted of two parts:

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 3 | P a g e • Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs): setting the vision for future development and identifying infrastructure needs such as roads, utilities, schools, recreation, and drainage. • Data and Analysis (DIAs): supporting the GOPs with studies, demographic and housing data, and trends from sources such as the U.S. Census and Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Ms. Dinter noted that every seven years, local governments were required to review their comprehensive plan to determine if updates were needed. If so, a letter had to be sent to the Florida Department of Commerce, and amendments submitted within one year. Failure to meet this deadline barred the County from initiating amendments, though residents or developers could still propose changes. Ms. Dinter outlined the approval process: after the first reading by the Board of County Commissioners, amendments were transmitted to the Department of Commerce, which returned an “Objections, Recommendations, and Comments” report. The County then had 180 days to address the report before sending revisions back to the state for final approval and a second reading for adoption. David Dixon, a planner with Calvin Giordano and Associates, addressed the commission. He emphasized that the Comprehensive Plan, particularly its Goals, Objectives, and Policies (GOPs), formed the policy framework on which planning and zoning decisions must be based. Both staff and commissioners were required to ensure all findings and recommendations were consistent with these adopted policies. Mr. Dixon noted that the State had made several statutory changes this year, including Senate Bill 180, which was adopted in response to recent hurricane emergencies. SB 180 prohibited local governments from enacting land use codes or comprehensive plan policies that were more restrictive than state requirements. He explained that this update was primarily intended to bring the County’s plan into compliance with state law and to modernize outdated terminology across all ten required elements. The meeting itself, he added, had been properly noticed under applicable statutes. Mr. Dixon reiterated Amy Dinter’s earlier explanation that GOPs must be supported by updated Data, Inventory, and Analysis (DIAs). This ensured that new or revised policies were directly tied to current data, particularly demographic and growth projections. The plan operated on a 10- and 20-year planning horizon, with the 10-year window being especially critical. Dixon noted that the DIA had been kept consistent throughout to maintain accuracy. In addition to the ten state-mandated elements, the County also included elements identified by residents as important, such as the port, reflecting unique community priorities. Mr. Dixon then focused on the Future Land Use Element, which was based on population projections that guided growth and infrastructure planning. A major component of this element was the urban service boundary, analyzed for both 10- and 20-year growth

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 4 | P a g e capacity. The analysis concluded that lands within the existing boundary could accommodate more than ten years of growth, while previously designated expansion areas could absorb twenty years of growth or more. He highlighted several notable policy updates: • Policies 1.1.1.5 and 1.1.1.6 ensured that property owners retained their density rights if structures were lost through mandatory inspections or storm damage. • Policy 1.1.1.8 provided a mixed-use development (MXD) bonus. Projects qualified by meeting specific criteria, including offering 10% of units at or below 100% of area median income, being located within three miles of a major employment center, and maintaining deed restrictions for 50 years. • Policy 1.1.6.11 addressed protections for natural gas facilities. Mr. Dixon closed by stressing that the updates were intended to ensure statutory compliance while tailoring policies to support the County’s long-term growth vision. Amy Dinter continued her presentation, beginning with transportation updates. Most revisions incorporated data from the SmartMoves 2045 Long-Range Transportation Plan and the Multimodal Transportation System Plan. She noted that the County was transitioning from traditional impact fees to multimodal impact fees, with policies aimed at protecting rights-of-way and addressing flood risks. For example, Policy 2.1.2.3 requires the County to designate and protect transportation corridors through a right-of-way protection plan to help mitigate congestion. Ms. Dinter then discussed the Port sub-element, unique to the County. Updates tasked the Port Director with monitoring state plans and coordinating with the Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, U.S. Coast Guard, and other agencies. New policies also addressed derelict vessels. Turning to housing, Dinter explained that updates reflected the County’s Housing Needs Assessment and Implementation Plan completed in June 2024. Policies focused on expanding the housing supply, diversifying unit types, and improving affordability. Policy 3.2.1.1 outlined goals and strategies to achieve these outcomes. The infrastructure element was updated to maintain or improve service levels for water, sewer, stormwater, and roads, all tied to population projections and land use demands. For coastal management, the County’s recent vulnerability assessment was incorporated, along with required state statutory changes. Two new policies were highlighted: • Policy 5.1.7.11, supporting public boat ramps and parking facilities. • Policy 5.1.7.13, outlining considerations for establishing a mooring field. Conservation updates primarily revised existing policies, including Policy 6.1.4.2(D), which allowed a wetland waiver for up to a quarter-acre of access impact. The recreation and open space element were updated to refine level-of-service standards and prioritize sensitive land acquisition for conservation. On intergovernmental coordination, new policies reinforced partnerships with agencies including FDOT, the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO), the Cities of Fort Pierce and Port St. Lucie, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the South Florida

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 5 | P a g e Water Management District. For capital improvements, updates aligned the Comprehensive Plan with the County’s Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2025–2029. These changes included service levels and resiliency assessments for new development. The economic development element was strengthened with policies designed to enhance the County’s competitiveness, attract corporations, support existing businesses, and expand the port. Policy 10.2.2.4 established performance-based incentives tied to clear metrics. The Towns, Villages and Countryside (TVC) element, also unique to the County, was updated with revised text and maps. Changes included updates to the street network and general retail development plan. One notable revision adjusted the North Flyover alignment on the updated map to accurately reflect existing conditions. For public school facilities, updates ensured consistency with the existing interlocal agreement. No changes were made to the Rural Land Stewardship Area or Property Rights elements. Ms. Dinter concluded by noting that the Comprehensive Plan Map Series contains 26 maps, all updated with the latest available data. Examples included new FEMA flood zone maps (2025), the Urban Service Plan, and future roadway lane projections for 2045. The elements with the most mapping requirements were future land use, transportation, infrastructure, and coastal management. Finally, Ms. Dinter recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission support transmitting the EAR amendments to state planning agency and state and regional reviewers for their review. Mr. Balcer provided a recap for the commissioners, emphasizing that the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) was a statutory requirement that had to be completed every seven years. He explained that in September of the previous year, the County formally notified the Florida Department of Commerce that it was undertaking the EAR, updating data and analysis, and revising policies to align with state statute changes. Mr. Balcer noted that the Board was required to transmit the updated plan to the Department of Commerce by September 30th. Once transmitted, the Department will review the plan, issue a report with any required changes, and return it to the County for further action before final adoption. Mr. Balcer cautioned that failure to meet the September 30 deadline would restrict the County’s ability to initiate amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. While private developers could still propose amendments, the County itself would be limited in making any changes until the transmittal was completed. Mr. Balcer concluded by inviting commissioners to ask questions about specific policies, noting that all items were available on their desktops and staff could explain the reasons for additions or deletions. BOARD DISCUSSION WITH STAFF: Chair Binner thanked staff and asked if the board had any questions. Commissioner Lounds remarked that the board would need to absorb the information presented.

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 6 | P a g e Mr. Balcer explained that the special meeting was scheduled for this reason. He stated that most changes resulted from statutory updates to bring the Comprehensive Plan in line with state law. Some revisions added policies reflecting initiatives the County was already pursuing, such as addressing derelict vessels, improving water quality, and expanding stormwater treatment areas. He emphasized that the EAR required a comprehensive review of all elements every seven years to incorporate statutory changes. Commissioner Lounds asked if this meant the County was already ahead of some state provisions. Mr. Balcer replied that in some cases the County had been proactive, but the EAR still required updates to match state law. Commissioner Lounds then asked whether prior board requests regarding open space allocations for lakes and ponds were part of this review. Mr. Balcer clarified that such details fell under the Land Development Code, which implemented—but was separate from—the Comprehensive Plan’s broad policy framework. Chair Binner questioned how the community’s vision was established, noting differences in population densities compared with neighboring counties. Mr. Benton responded that the Comprehensive Plan originated in 1990 after an extensive public process that set land use categories and growth policies. Over three decades, the plan had been refined through amendments such as the Towns, Villages and Countryside (TVC), the urban service boundary, and responses to growth in Port St. Lucie. He stressed that the current EAR did not alter the County’s core vision but refined policies to align with state requirements on issues such as resiliency, property rights, and infrastructure. Chair Binner asked if, in effect, the County was still operating from the 1990 plan with incremental changes. Benton acknowledged that substantial revisions had been made over time, including the TVC and urban service boundary, but the current update focused on clarifications and refinements rather than major shifts in land use patterns. Chair Binner then raised questions about Policy 1.1.1.8, which offered density bonuses for mixed-use developments (MXD). Mr. Balcer explained this was a county-level initiative designed to encourage affordable housing. The bonus was discretionary, subject to approval by the Board of County Commissioners, and intended as a tool to expand housing options. Chair Binner further asked how affordability was assessed, given rising home prices and limited supply. Mr. Benton replied that affordability was addressed through both economic development policies—such as attracting targeted industries and higher-wage jobs—and through housing initiatives offering incentives for income-restricted units in strategic areas with infrastructure and services. Chair Binner asked whether the plan defined what qualified as “affordable,” noting that many households could not afford current home prices and that income-based rental projects often expired after limited terms, leaving residents vulnerable. Commissioner Bradley stated that affordability remained elusive despite repeated promises.

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 7 | P a g e He argued that granting density bonuses to developers would not guarantee affordable housing and suggested that instead of adding units, the County should consider stricter requirements. He concluded that somewhere along the way the County had “gone wrong” in its approach. Ms. Jennifer Hance, St. Lucie County Community Services Director, explained that density bonuses incentivize developers to include affordable or workforce housing, with deed restrictions requiring sales to income-eligible households. No such units have been delivered yet, though Oak Ridge Ranch has committed to 400 units. Chair Binner asked whether this results in lower home prices and if data supports that outcome. He noted Oak Ridge Ranch will be the county’s first test case. Commissioner Bradley argued that 400 units out of 6,000 is far too few to meet workforce needs, questioned whether developers are truly providing affordable options, and pointed out that no affordable communities have been built in the county in the past five years. Mr. Balcer responded that the policy is a tool to promote affordable housing, not a requirement for private, for-profit developers, and stressed that mixed-use affordable projects are structured differently from standard market-rate developments. Commissioner Guettler cautioned that affordability must be verified through lenders, noting the risk that developers could structure financing themselves in ways that don’t guarantee true affordability. Ms. Santamaria, Deputy County Administrator, explained that affordable housing units come with deed restrictions, recorded in property files and verified through title searches, lending documents, and reporting requirements. These checks ensure units remain affordable, typically for 10–30 years, but the county’s policy proposes 50 years. She noted that enforcement is easier for rentals, which are checked annually, while ownership is monitored at resale. Chair Binner confirmed affordability is based on household income, raising concerns about potential abuse if income rises after purchase. Ms. Santamaria acknowledged that ongoing checks are limited for ownership units. Mr. Benton emphasized that the county’s proposed density bonuses are modest compared to other jurisdictions, describing them as an incentive rather than a guarantee. Commissioner Bradley questioned whether the 10% bonus was strong enough to motivate developers, noting the lack of affordable projects in recent years. Mr. Balcer clarified that the policy only gives the board authority to grant bonuses, not a mandate, and is intended as a tool. Ms. Santamaria added that density bonuses are commonly used because affordability requires economies of scale, stressing that without incentives, developers are unlikely to build workforce housing. Commissioner Bradley agreed on the need for incentives but doubted whether a 10% bonus would be enough to shift developers away from higher-profit projects. Commissioner Neese suggested that any incentive approval require a unanimous Board of County Commission vote. Commissioner Guettler asked if stronger provisions could be added, and Ms. Santamaria noted other jurisdictions use higher density bonuses, waived impact fees, infrastructure incentives, and longer deed restrictions (up to 99 years). She also described policies requiring mixed income levels and explained that incentives, including tax credits and expedited permitting, are typically needed to shift developers toward affordable

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 8 | P a g e housing. Chair Binner and Commissioner Bradley questioned whether a 10% density bonus is sufficient, suggesting tiered incentives tied to longer deed restrictions or project size. Mr. Benton clarified that bonuses would be limited to MXD areas within the urban service boundary, near employment centers, and subject to deed restrictions for 50 years, with existing compatibility standards preventing abuse in rural neighborhoods. Mr. Balcer confirmed the policy only allows discretionary bonuses, not mandates, and deed restrictions would lock affordability. Commissioner Lounds raised concerns about the relationship between affordable housing, density, and impact fees, stressing the need for realistic fees to balance costs. Mr. Balcer and Mr. Benton noted staff had already pared down the proposal due to recent state law changes (SB 180), leaving only statutory updates, housing and vulnerability assessments, and modest incentive options. Commissioner Bradley asked about property tax treatment of deed-restricted units, and staff confirmed valuations would account for restrictions unless specific abatements were adopted. Discussion concluded with zoning and TVC updates, where staff explained adjustments were primarily technical refinements, alignment corrections, and consistency updates with utilities, thoroughfare planning, and existing land use policies. Commissioner Neese suggested requiring a unanimous vote from county commissioners to approve density bonuses. Commissioner Guettler asked if stronger provisions could be added. Ms. Santamaria explained that other jurisdictions use higher density bonuses, waived impact fees, infrastructure incentives, longer deed restrictions, mixed-income requirements, tax abatements, and expedited permitting. Chair Binner asked about possible additional provisions and raised concerns that bonuses could be abused in rural areas. Commissioner Bradley questioned whether a 10% bonus was enough to attract developers and suggested tiered incentives tied to longer deed restrictions or project size. Mr. Benton clarified that the policy is limited to MXD areas within the urban service boundary, near employment centers, with available services, and subject to 50-year deed restrictions. He also explained the quarter-mile compatibility rule, the urban service boundary remaining unchanged, and property tax considerations for deed-restricted units. Mr. Balcer confirmed compatibility protections are in place and explained that recommendations were pared down due to state law (SB 180), leaving only statutory updates and board priorities like the housing needs and vulnerability assessments. Commissioner Lounds tied the discussion to impact fees, stressing realistic fees and expressing concern about balancing density, affordability, and county revenue. The board briefly discussed the possible elimination of property tax. Mr. Balcer said the county is considering impacts, but nothing concrete has filtered down yet. Chair Binner asked about the TVC flow way requirement. Mr. Balcer explained the original goal of linking stormwater ponds between developments was aspirational but not feasible with permitting; now connections will occur only when possible. Commissioner Guettler confirmed the shift toward linking to canal systems instead. Mr. Benton clarified that large master-planned projects might interconnect stormwater, but in most cases, connectivity will be through engineered structures, not open flow. Commissioner Lounds added that

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 9 | P a g e pumping makes natural flow impractical, so removing the requirement makes sense. On transportation, Chair Binner questioned why level of service “D” is the standard rather than “C.” Mr. Benton noted no changes were being proposed. Ms. Santamaria explained state law (SB 180) prevents stricter standards, though staff hopes to revisit this after 2027 if the law sunsets. She cautioned stricter standards would also create higher costs for the county. Chair Binner then raised concerns about the City of Port St. Lucie’s frequent objections to county housing projects and asked if intergovernmental cooperation could be expanded. Ms. Santamaria said the county already shares information immediately through review emails, meetings, and calls, but PSL may not always acknowledge it. She noted the city also uses different math in mobility studies, which complicates coordination. Patrick Dayan, St Lucie County’s Public Works Director, explained that both the city and county follow a consistent traffic analysis methodology adopted through the TPO, but differences arise because the city uses a different mobility plan approach than the county’s multimodal system. Chair Binner asked if the comprehensive plan could improve cooperation between the city and county to reduce conflicts. He also asked whether the plan addresses notice distances for developments. Ms. Santamaria clarified that staff consistently shares information and holds regular meetings with the city, but the document cannot enforce collaboration—both sides must participate. She added that noticing requirements are handled in the Land Development Code, not the comprehensive plan, and Senate Bill 180 could retroactively allow challenges to updated notice standards. Commissioner Bradley asked what happens if the city disagrees with the county’s traffic study and whether the state gets involved. Ms. Santamaria explained there is no state requirement; disputes usually go through mediation with the regional planning council and may lead to litigation. Commissioner Guettler asked when LDRs and engineering standards would be updated to align with the comprehensive plan. Ms. Santamaria responded that updates typically occur about a year after the comp plan updates, and if no inconsistencies exist, updates aren’t required; otherwise, state law mandates updating within a year. Chair Binner then opened the public hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. BOARD DISCUSSION: Commissioner O’Dell moved to approve the item with all staff and board recommendations as discussed. Commissioner Lounds clarified that this should reflect Mr. Neese’s intent for unanimous approval, meaning all voting members present (quorum) would need to agree. Chair Binner confirmed that quorum constitutes unanimous. Mr. Balcer reminded the board about the prior discussion on a tiered bonus option. Chair Binner directed staff to present a tiered option for higher percentages, while keeping the base up to 10% for 15 years. Commissioner Bradley sought clarification on whether the tiered system replaces or supplements the 10%; Chair Binner explained staff would present

Planning & Zoning Commission MeetingWednesday, August 20, 2025 6:00 PM 10 | P a g e options for commissioners to review, allowing them to consider higher bonuses for longer terms. The motion to approve, including staff research on tiered options, was seconded by Commissioner Lounds, and the roll call resulted in four votes in favor, passing unanimously. Motion: Approve: Motion to approve with all the staff and board recommendations as we discussed. 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 10. WORKSHOPS None. 11. OTHER BUSINESS None. 12. ADJOURN There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 7:36pm.