Uh good evening and welcome to the uh May 22nd, 2025 meeting of the Indian River County um uh planning and zoning commission. Uh we'll call this meeting to order and we'll begin with the pledge of allegiance,
please. Joint to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh, thank you. Are there any additions
or deletions to the agenda for staff? No. Uh, I do have one uh introduction. So, uh, for the record, Brandon Craig, chief of current development. I'd like to introduce our new senior planner, Sabel Bod, if she'd like to say a few words.
Okay. Nice to meet you. As Brandon said, my name is I am one of our new Welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Um there are no minutes to approve and the only agenda tonight is a public
hearing and it is um Floresta Gardens request for a conceptual plan development plan and reszoning approval and concurrent preliminary PD plat uh plan approval for a 44
uh lot single family residential development. Um, Cave Honen Southeast um, Florida Division LLC is the applicant. MBD MBV Engineering
Incorporated is the agent. The zoning is A1 agricultural one up to one unit per five acres. The land use designation is L1, low density residential one up to three units per acre. The proposed
density is 2.43 for three units per acre. Um any declarations of expartite communication on this? That's true. Uh none. Uh anyone who would like to speak on this, please stand uh and be sworn in.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Um staff presentation. All right. Thank you. Good evening, chair and members of the board. Before you today is the Floresa Gardens plan development. This is a PD resoning
conceptual PD plan along with a preliminary PD plan and plat as well. So just to give you an overview of of what the process is. So for a plan development, PD resoning, it's a twofold process. We have the PD resoning and conceptual plan development that comes
before you as a recommendation to the BCC. Um and then once they give their final determination uh then you know the applicant would be able to do the land development permit and final PD plan. Concurrent with this is also the preliminary PD plan um which
typically comes just to the plan and zoning board. However, the applicant has decided to do a congruent PD resoning conceptual and preliminary plan. So everything's going to run all together to the BCC. you will actually technically be approving or denying or approving with alternate conditions the
preliminary PD plan tonight pending the uh BCC's um final decision on the reasonzoning and the conceptual PD plan. So the project is located south of 8th Street, north of 4th Street, west of
43rd Avenue and east of 58th Avenue. The property is zoned A1 which is our agricultural one zoning district and they want to reszone to PD plan development. This is just to give you an idea of how the project is going to be overlaid with existing conditions on
site. So the proposed development is going to be approximately 18.08 acres. It's going to be a 44 single family unit development which is going to represent an overall density of 2.43 units to the acre. The maximum density that the future land use allows for this specific
property is three units to the acre. So it is going to be well under what the allowable density is. This PD is going to represent uh reductions in minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum lot building setbacks and maximum building coverage converse to the A1 agricultural
zoning district. It's also going to be providing some off-site improvements, some landscape buffers, and preservation of the natural environment on select areas of the property that we may otherwise not get with a conventional um zoning district. So, for the conceptual PD
plan, again, this is a 44 unit uh plan development. It's going to have a standard roadway pattern um and it's going to have varying lot sizes, which we'll get into just a little bit later in the presentation. There's going to be a storm water pond to the eastern most portion of the site that's going to uh
be linear line linear and it's going to cover most of the eastern half of the site. So, it's going to be it's going to actually provide some additional buffering uh for any residences that are also to the east. Traffic circulation plan is going to be a a standard internal roadway uh connection which is
basically going to act as a loop road. There's also going to be a full access driveway connection to 8th Street as well allowing movement in either direction. So, the dedications for this project, uh, the main dedications are the eighth street improvements, which are going to provide for a type F curb along the
north and south side of 8th Street from the east end of the Hampton Park PD project um to 45 uh feet east of this proposed project's driveway, which will intersect with the Glendale Elementary School. Uh the additional public benefit
is actually the the paving uh 45 ft east of the development to accommodate uh the Glendale School and then there's also going to be some milling and resurfacing of that same segment as well. So the required improvements are the improvements to Hampton Park and then the public benefit is going to be to the
school. Uh they're also going to be providing internal sidewalks and also street lighting as well. The landscape plan's going to call for a 31 foot wide type B landscape buffer with an opaque feature on the western edge of the property. There's also going to be some und undisturbed green space
on the western edge of the property as well that the applicant will not be touching except for um removing any um exotic plants like Brazilian peppers that by code must be removed. There's also going to be a varying 50- foot to 150 foot wide upland conservation
easement with a six-foot opaque feature that we that will be provided on the southern portion of the property. This is actually going to buffer um the southern homes from another single family development that's directly to the south. There's going to be a 25- foot wide type B landscape buffer with
six foot sixoot opaque feature on both the uh northern boundary of the property and also the eastern boundary of the property. So this is the PD waiver table uh that you should have received in your packets. I believe it was attachment number five. This just kind of provides what the A1 standards currently are if
we happen to reszone it to a conventional uh zoning district which would be the RS3. Um and then also what they are proposing for their PD standards. They're going to have two different lot widths. There's going to be a 70 foot watt lot width and a 62 foot watt lot width. And then they're
going to have the the varying um setbacks uh that you see on the table as well. Public benefits, as I said, are going to be additional eight street improvements. So those are going to be the improvements that are going uh east towards the Glendale Elementary School. They're going to have adv enhanced street preservation, enhanced access and
culbert crossing that will enable uh any school kids to cross safely across the street to reach the elementary school. Uh there's going to be increased open space. And then they're also dedicating a 10-ft pedestrian easement in the northwest portion of the property along 8th Street so that when the time comes
and the county may put a sidewalk on the south side of 8th Street, the county will have that access to be able to continue a sidewalk all the way from 58th and then continue going east. I want to note that we did have a town hall meeting on April 29th, 2025 at
6 PM. This town hall meeting was for this project and another project that you're going to see later on, but we're going to specifically talk about this project tonight. There were approximately 28 uh surrounding property owners in attendance. Uh both the applicant and county staff fielded uh
various questions from the group for this specific project foresta gardens. There were no design changes that were discussed or requested from the um public. And then uh staff also answered several operational questions as well. As part of uh the PD resoning, uh we're
also required to have a signposting which staff did. We mailed notices to property owners within 300 ft of the subject property and we also um advertised the required legal advertisement in the local newspaper. Staff recommends that the PCC grant
preliminary PD plan and plat approvals subject to the BCC also approving the PD resoning and conceptual PD plan request and recommend that the BCC grant PCC resoning and conceptual PD plan approval for the Floresa Gardens PD with the conditions listed in the staff report.
These conditions are generally related to final tree mitigation plan and the recording of the proposed conservation easement on the southern portion of the property. All final street lighting design, landscaping and buffer plans that will be approved part of the as part of the LDP. The final A Street improvements that will be completed post
LDP. And then finally, the construction installation of any and all other required improvements. I'm available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Brandon. Um any um uh commissioner questions to my left? Actually, I have quite a bit on this
particular project, sir. Um, some of the concerns that I have are the side setbacks on these 62 foot lots are six feet. Um, you have a 50ft product on a 62 foot lot. That gives you six feet between
your side set back. You have a two-ft overhang on your house, right? And then you have 6 in of a gutter. That gives me less than a sheet of plywood between gutters between these homes. And yet you're supposed to be able to get some kind of sunshine on that grass and you're supposed to get some kind of um
drainage easement going through there to drain properly. The other issue that that that causes is that now I got a three-foot uh concrete pad for my air conditioner unit and I got a place to put my garbage cans and that air conditioner unit is 3 feet wide and it's
12 in away from the home so that the air conditioner can breathe properly. So now that's four feet into a six feet thing. I got two feet for water to flow through there and how does that slope in there? And those are some technical questions that that just pop up immediately on this. I mean, if you you could solve it
very easily by putting a 40ft product on a 62 foot lot and and they're proposing a 50-ft product on that. And I understand that it's a limited space. It's a very tight uh it's only 18 acres. I understand the cost of land. I understand the cost of
the improvements that have to be done. I' I've got to get as big a house on there for square footage as I can to go forward. But, you know, I this was just discussed at the county commission meeting this week as to these tight right on top of each other things.
And and I just feel that that staff giving a six-foot side setback to this is is maybe getting right into what was called the county commission about putting these houses stacked right on top of each other. And that's a concern for me after knowing how the board the
commissioners responded to to that kind of thing and what was said, hey, this is this is what we need to have in our future and this is what we need our future to look like here in Vero Beach and uh this just seems to be the the typical project that they were just talking about not not wanting to have in
our community. So those are some of my concerns with this particular project. Um I think some of that might be a little drastic. I I know just the construction problems that a six foot side setback does. You you can't build the house unless you're on the other
person's property beside you. And so if that house is already sold to an individual and you've got people living there and I'm trying to build the house next door to it, how how do I keep that person happy and and go forward there? The other questions I have is the access
to the homes that are on that uh north west corner there, the the cutout where Yes. Yes, on that on that north corner there, uh it looks like their ingress and egress goes through this property
and into theirs. Uh I have concerns about how that's being handled. Um is it going to be deed? Is it going to be just HOA docs that say you can go through our property to get there? Um because all it takes is two neighbors here or somebody
in the HOA going, I don't like those people anymore. Next thing you know, they're building a gate across their driveway and these guys got no way to enter and exit their property. Um, so those are some concerns that I have that I wanted to bring up uh today as well. So, if we can get some answers to some of that, that would be great. So, I'll
tackle the access first to the home because I think that one's probably the easiest. So, my understanding is that the applicants had extensive discussions with those property owners and the property owners are actually going to be getting a uh better paved access to the property than what they currently have and there will be safeguards in place uh
so that their access cannot be taken and I don't think the county would let their access be taken either because it would be a grandfathered access. Um, so I think we're good on that, but the applicant is here tonight, so I I would love for the applicant to get up here and maybe make you feel a little bit
more comfortable, if that makes sense. Yes, sir. On that one. Um, and then also for the setback issue, um, staff, you know, enters into really intensive negotiations um, with the applicants and, um, this is for better or for worse becoming a kind of a national standard
with some of these homes, whether whether I like it or or you like it. Um, but we do get these PD public benefits that do help offset some of this stuff. Now, if they were to do a conventional subdivision, which most likely would fit within RS3 standards, yes, there would
be more stringent setbacks, but they would also get less homes um most, you know, in the property. Um, also, you know, we did try to get larger setbacks. Um, however, you know, it just
did not happen in the negotiations that we had. However, I will also let the applicant speak to that and speak to their product. Um, and then we'll Yeah. Is this going to be single story or two story? Do we know? Is there a limitation on either one of those? I think that I think this one is going to be single story only. I think that's what what was
discussed at the public meeting. Um, but I'll let the applicant answer that one as well. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Hey, I just want to touch on on what Robert was saying and I too listened to the county commission meeting on Tuesday and I think the word that came up the
most that I heard was density. And as I began to look into this and begin to do my homework and I go back and I look at Hampton Park, which I could tell you that's probably the most discussed subdivision with me
of how in the world can Indian River County allow something like that. Don't have a clue. Uh, I guess my next question would be was it Waterford Lakes, uh, Antilly's,
Milstone? I believe those were all agg PD because they were a big subdivision, right? As I'm looking at this piece of property here, and I don't know how many acres we have that we're going to be moving west to 58th. Looks like it's going to be a piggyback. I can't I don't have a crystal ball, but I
I I can truly tell you as I went back and did and pulled the reports of the old 2021 PNZ meeting for Hampton, it was a cookie cutter and nothing against staff. It was the same exact verbiage of what's coming up
before here than it was for Hampton. Uh, I think one thing that stuck out that stuck out to me was one commissioner up here who's not here anymore made the comment that yes, it's more density, but what's going to be nice, it's going to be an affordable
housing. I don't think $470,000 is affordable. I might be wrong. I again, I don't have a crystal ball. I can tell you right now, I'm not in favor of this. I think RS3 and I'm going old school. I think Indian River County is
better off if you go around and look at those subdivisions that went to RS3. Granted, they're not 44 homes, but it's not my job to make sure you get the most houses on the less amount of property. That's that's my two
cents. And I and and to go with you, Tom, I I agree. I understand that there's a profit margin that has to be here. If I'm going to put these millions of dollars out here to do all of this, I need I need enough lots that I can make a return on that that satisfies my investors and my stockholders and those kinds of things. And I am certainly a proponent of private property rights.
Absolutely. There's there's no question about that. Um the other setback that I had some some problem with is, you know, the the garage setback or at 20 feet from there. I know there's a sidewalk there, but you know, my truck sticks out 16 18 feet. to put a trailer hitch on
that and somebody's shin kicking it when they walk down the the sidewalk and so you end up with vehicles actually parked over sidewalks and I'm not sure that that's a good thing as as well. So, those were just some of the the few things that that I saw in this that that I'm not in favor of. And and I think
Brandon, you you mentioned this is becoming a national product or standard standard which Indian River County has never held themselves to anyone's standards except in county. And and unfortunately, I have to say being a former county commissioner, I don't want to hear that
stuff. But again, I'm not there anymore. I I completely understand. I I think even and help me Ryan you might know this Lexington Place out off of this street south or out off of Oslo Road in South County Park that was a PD as well if I'm not mistaken. Uh thank you Mr.
Fair for the record, Ryan Sweeney, assistant plane dwelling services director. Mo most of the anything that's relatively new in South County was a PD with the exception of Falcon Trace phase one, the north side of 17th Street Southwest was actually what was called a small lot subdivision, but then they
made the change to require small lot subdivisions to be affordable. So then they stopped doing those. But yeah, Falcon Trace, Milstone, uh Lexington, I'm not off the top of my head, I'm not sure, but my my guess is I think it's smaller subdivision. Yeah. Um some of the subdivisions that are further that
are west of 43rd and south of Oslo between 43rd and 58, those are conventionals. Um like the Grove and Four lakes, right? Um but how how many acres do we do we know how many acres are west of this piece of property? I know this is only 18, but there looks
like a large amount of property that Right. If you want to toggle to the aerial there, Brandon is vacant there. Um, so there's, uh, so the piece that's immediately west, uh, I believe is the Harris family farms. Okay. Um, they're
roughly almost the same size, about 20 acres, right? And then everything else is, uh, the Graves family. Uh, and that's 65 acres. Yeah. Because it's a a 40 and then a 20, right? But the the the applicants know it well because they
have that one under contract as well. So that's the other project that Brandon alluded to. Uh with regard to the sepex, just to clarify one thing, we have a 6ft side, but it's it's doubled, so it's actually a 12T alley. Um so and then I know you do have currently building
code, anything that's less than 10 ft, you have to fireproof the eve. So they're either going to do a 1 foot eve or they're going to have to fireproof it. Um the other thing if you can toggle just to the conceptual PD design. The the the one thing I will mention that we worked uh quite a bit with staff or with
the applicant is that we try to look at what we call compatibility with with the surrounding properties and and how that may or may not affect those folks. So again on the east side which north is pointing to the right so just east is at the bottom of your screen. There's a couple large acreage estate style homes
but we insisted that they put the stormwater pond on that side. So, they only have two homes backing up to them to the south, which is a a subdivision that was actually a PD, but they didn't they didn't get any reduced lots. They actually have like 80 and 90 foot wide
lots. We we asked that they do that tree preservation area. So they have a 50 to 100 foot wide buffer um between them and the folks to the to the south. And then to the west, which is undeveloped pasture land that will probably develop as something either conventional or PD,
they have a 30 foot wide b 31 foot wide buffer, but those are 70 foot wide lots, which is only 10 ft less than what RS3 conventional would be. So we did try to protect the edges. And then of course the home that's the enclave, you know, they're aware, but I think they were they were happy with the fact that
they're getting a brand new RCP culbert as opposed to an old uh metal pipe that's could fail at any time. So that was their their deal. And then the the additional paving for the school and the crosswalk. These are all things that, you know, it's give and take. I mean, 8th Street, if especially the further
east you get, it's it's super narrow. There's no shoulder whatsoever. You you saw what they did with Hampton. They're going to continue that same road profile all the way to the school. So, at least the west half of of ETH is going to be pretty well traveled traveled able to be
traveled. Well, is Hampton Park if you go back to the area? It's it's this would be a fingerprint of Hampton Park just smaller. The houses will be that close. Hampton's actually possibly bigger, bro. Yeah, Hampton's actually 10 or five foot
5 foot setbacks and 50 foot wide lots. So these are 62s and 70s. The lots are wider. The setbacks are slightly increased. On the 70s you have 7 and a half. So they will and again it's it's apples to oranges because the the issue with Hampton is that the 50 foots are
right along 8th Street and they're they're linear as opposed to this this project sites north south. So I think you know we learned our lesson with Hampton. Um and this is a considerably different design. Did I guess this might be a question of
the applicant. Did Did they ever come up with a concept of what it would look like in a regular RS3? I'm sure they're pro for their numbers didn't I mean they're only getting to 2.4 with with these lot size reductions in SEAX. And that that that doesn't mean anything. I mean it does but it doesn't. Uh my my
big deal is you know you're getting 55% maximum building coverage on a lot compared to a 30 in an RS3. I mean, if you if you put that standard up and you look at it. Oh, yeah. Wow. But it's all a variable. It's a it's a compounding effect, though, because when you reduce the lot, of course, you got to increase
the building setback. I mean, the building coverage, right? And and I I just again I I have people after people after people just hammer me about that subdivision. I have nothing. We get we get hammered on the other side. I mean, this to for what it's worth, almost a
year to the date is when this project started. So that tide is was already changing and I think it's going even stronger a different direction. But we gota we got to negotiate in good faith at the time of when we're doing it. I I just in my opinion I think we're setting a I think we're setting a precedence of
this is what it's going to look like right down the road if we keep keep making this happen. So yeah and I'll definitely let the applicant kind of make their case as well. But while I'm standing still uh Dr. Day are we going to ask on the right. So you guys good for now? Yeah. All right. Anything on
the right? Any questions on the right, Mark? Um, well, first of all, I share all the concerns of the left. Well, we're not necessarily the left, but you can say that. Yeah. Which I never thought I'd say, but
um I'm I'm concerned. I you know I think about roofs touching you know just like you guys mentioned but also the 20 foot I'm not sure how it works with the side sidewalk and if there's any
um right away uh on the on the lots I know uh my house it's is supposed to have a 25 foot front yard setback And uh if you
measure it from the edge of the road, it's 48 foot. And I had to get a V 2inch variance when I closed on the house. And and the county surveyor told me that he you know, if he knew it was should have been 25, he would have measured it at
25. But my point is I'm I'm at Park Shores a lot and uh those driveways and they don't have sidewalks. Those driveways are uh I don't know how long, but certainly less than 20 feet.
Uh and if you pull a car in there and you tap the garage door, it's still sticking out into the road uh by a fair amount. And I don't know whether that's gonna that's going to happen here. I looked up the average car length is like
18 to 20 feet. And uh so I think we're cutting it pretty close on the on the front yard set back and on the uh uh the lot width. For what it's worth. Yeah. Where's the
water source? Is this Wells? No, no, this is all this is all county water. And that's good. pretty much in John, just for your uh you know, for your reference, um almost every almost all new subdivisions inside the all new subdivisions inside the urban service
area have to connect to water and sewer. I just wasn't sure there. I was like, yeah. Um and um yeah, with with these setbacks and stuff, I mean, you mentioned the the drainage in between the houses is really concerning for foundations and everything else. Not to
mention if you think about the the scenario you brought up with air conditioners and you know guards can't or can people put uh would they put a fence in between homes because that's going to even cut down your egress there. Again, I'd be concerned about EMS
even be able to get to a backyard or something, you know. Yeah. And it if you flip to the conceptual PD uh Yeah, there you go. So I don't I don't have a cursor but you see um OB this is right here this dash line. Yep. All the all the
drainage is you know curb and gutter with storm water inlets and storm water pipes. Um so obviously the natural lot grading in between the lots. It's we don't have conveyance soils or anything like that. Everything is is goes to the road and then into storm water inlet. So that's a that's a drainage easement that
runs between those two lots and then down south to the pond. Um but everything else goes out to the roads and um you know so it's not like there's no conveyance in between the homes but again um Angie Vidder with MPV is here to the engineer of record so she'll be
able to explain that probably in greater detail. Anything else on the right? Um okay so I do go uh just one quick statement staff you did a wonderful job with the presentation. I would like to just state
that being a native of Indian River, one of the things like Mr. Lawler said that kind of struck home with me is national standard. Uh we have a quality of life in Indian River that the counties to the
south of us do not share. We want to maintain that. And when I look at the lot lines and I look at the fact that so many of these developments right across the street, they just got their CO three
weeks ago. Whatever traffic study has been done for 8th Street, it makes me question how old that was. Because when we talk about density, we're putting a heck of a lot
of residents in one congested two-lane area already. That's my say. Okay. Um, this is a a public hearing and so I'll open the public hearing, but
what I would like is the public to speak first and we'll finish the public hearing with the applicant speaking. So, anyone from the public will open the public hearing, state your name, uh, your address and your concerns.
My name is Norman Met, 5155 9inth Lane. I live in Laurel Oaks right across from the entrance. That's where our entrance is. And I would like to address what Calvin said.
That was the main thing that came up at theformational meeting was traffic, traffic, traffic. Next year they're going to put more kids into the Glendel Elementary because they're closing Rose Rosewood residents. Laurel Oaks agree
that the main concern of zoning changes is that this is a step in a seemingly unending group of approvals for planned developments. We understand there's county view is is to go ahead and use planned developments rather than
unplanned and that's okay. But it does not consider the need for infrastructure improvements that are promised but delayed and long delayed. and 8th Street is our big concern very much. So,
um I would urge a a no vote until but I had not thought of the RF3 that that sounds decent to us. But the traffic gets to be intolerable for us already. And for us to come out of our division and try to do either a left,
particularly a left turn onto 8th Street with the amount of traffic there is now. And Hampton Park only has 10 sold so far, but there's going to be another hundred. So, it's very concerning to us. We urge a no vote. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public like to speak? Is that a yes? You can go. Sure. Yeah, that's good. All right. Um Joe Rivera and um excuse
me, we get used to these things. Um and I'm at uh 75549th Avenue and we butt right up to the plan of them coming right. they'll be our
backyard. Okay? Because that's the way it looks like to be on the plan. And so my concern is um what are they going to do to make sure that between the houses, their house, and my property that there'll be uh an
exit for uh like for shrubs or whatever it is that's going to keep us from seeing the backyard of somebody's house right there. Okay. And obviously they're going to raise their land to put the houses and
things on there. They're going to have waterway to go to the canal on 8th Street because we're going to be building a house right right behind these. So that water, depending on how high it is, needs to go to the ditch to
that canal. So, I don't know what they have planned for it because I haven't heard anything, but we would like some type of not a wall, but um shrubs, whatever it is that they're going to do. Are they raising it and running to the
witch? And then my other concern is uh just for me, they we we don't have sewer on our 49th Avenue. Okay, we have running water, but we don't have sewer. Is there a possibility to hook up to
their sewer if we build the houses that we're going to build there at? Because I'm planning to build a house or two right at that corner of 8th Street and 49th Avenue. I mean, right there. We're right across
the street from the school and that property is going to butt right to us. So, I'm just inquiring of what, you know, possibilities that they're going to do. All right. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Thank you. Anyone else from the public like to speak? Um, so I know we got a ton of questions and we'll um hear from the applicant, I guess. Uh, I also have the engineer. My
name is Bo Barnavon. I'm the director of land for Khobnian representing the applicant. Uh Angie Vidder with MBV uh engineer and planner for the project. Uh Matt Nelson sitting in the audience, our our uh director of entitlements. And I did want to have an opportunity to address some
of these comments. Um for starters, you know, the county in its vision has a comprehensive plan and in it you identify areas that you want to be developed within an urban service boundary and areas that you don't want to be develop outside boundary. These areas, these properties are inside the
service boundary. The intent is that ultimately they will be developed one way or another. They're not intended to remain as agricultural. Whether it's us, whether you approve this, or whether two years from now somebody else comes before you, this property is going to get developed in one manner or another. The county code right now, what manner
could one go? One could explore RS3, but you know, RS3 is not really three units of the acre. RS3 with 12,000 foot lot size gets you maybe two units of the acre. We explored that, but we've spent a year working diligently with the county staff to come up with a better
plan using the PD process. In the PD process, yes, we get smaller lots and we get a little bit more density, but you get more open space. You get public benefits. You get buffers to from the other adjoining properties. If this were an RS3 straight zoning,
those lot lines go right to the boundary. No buffers, no no fences, no tree preservation unless there's understory or whatever. But basically through the PD process, the county gets more out of it. And that's why you have
a PD process. We've spent a year working with county staff on what the public benefits will be on the design on buffering from the neighbors and and this is what we ended up as a give and take give and take. Now, as far as setbacks, as uh as Ryan
mentioned, the setbacks on the smaller lots are 6T sides, but that's 6t each. So, that's 12 feet in between. But on the 70footers, it's 7 and 1/2. Now, you have 15 ft in between. Furthermore, we no longer put our ACs on the ground. We put them attached on a shelf to the wall
so that you no longer have any interference in that swale in between the two lots to get the drainage to flow from the back of the lot to the front of the lot. We recognize this. By the way, six feet is actually a large setback for us. Normally, five feet is the standard setback that we deal with in our new
project in um in Port St. Lucy. We have a uh we're in Wilder. We have a four seasons and master plan community where we're doing an age restricted project down there. Beautiful homes in the fives and 600s. 5 foot side setback. Water goes nicely to the road.
Um, the reason the reason we went with these lot sizes is our product is a 50 foot up to a 50 foot wide product because we want to offer three-car garages here. The next community, which you'll see hopefully in within a month on the Graves property, which is called Waterford Reserve, those are 52 foot
lots with 40 foot product. But here we wanted to go one-story larger, higher end, what we call our spec two. These are higher ceilings, higher doors, bigger bigger trim, better kitchens. This is this is this pro this stuff is going to be starting in the sixes to the
eights, threecar garage product, all one story. Um, so we're not looking at this is not affordable housing. We didn't do this because we wanted to maximize and get every penny out of the deal. Okay, this the reason we ended up with 44 is again that give and take. We didn't we
didn't make these lots as small as we could to get the most to get three lots of the three units of the acre out of this um drainage the the gentleman at the drainage per Florida law and per per county regulations and all the state
agencies the drainage situation has to be better after development than it was before development. We actually have to trap and contain and treat all the water that's on our site and treat it through the drainage system before it discharges out to the ditch. None of this water
goes off site out to the neighbors. As far as elevation, the preserve areas are intended to be kept in a natural preserved state. They're not being cleared. Those trees remain. That grade stays the same. We're not touching that area. Um what was some of the other
traffic? We engaged a traffic engineer and and back and forth worked with the county work and first you have to identify and agree on a methodology. Then once you do the methodology you do the testing and you get the verifications and you look at all the potential developments that go and you come up with a with a criteria and after
doing all that the roads are still at I believe a level C which is not anywhere near failure. So there's plenty of avail. Now granted, I know neighbors complain. You know, every neighbor complains about traffic whether there's two cars on the road or 200 cars on the road. Every
person I complain about traffic in my neighborhood when I walk my dogs and maybe there's one car an hour, but it's, you know, drives when I'm walking the dog. That's too much traffic for me. But the the reality is that no matter what gets built here, there is going to be some impact to traffic. But remember,
every one of these homes pays in addition to the improvements that we're making, every one of these homes pays towards a transportation impact fee. They pay whatever the number is 3,800 or 4,000, whatever, they pay towards improvements
countywide. Okay? So, this project with your permission, if you move it forward, as we hope you do, is intelligent negotiated design that we came here in in in good faith and have worked with the county and spent
$300,000 getting to this point. and to be denied for feelings that someone might have that it's too much traffic when that's not substantiated and not not substantial evidence or concerns that I can't I might be able to see through this 50ft natural vegetative buffer and
see that house that's not uncommon so I'm happy to address any other questions you may have and uh if you have any engineering questions and you'll be available commissioners um questions on the Commissioner's question on the left. No questions.
All right. I'll close the public hearing. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion if we could to to deny the reasonzoning from act one. uh agriculture up to one unit per five acres to the PD plan development and I
believe counselor you need to have a reason why we deny it. Is that correct for BCC? You need to the denial you can. So the decisions here are approve approve with conditions or deny. If you're looking to deny it needs to be
based on substantial competent evidence of any facts that was presented here today and it has to be consistent with the law that we have under our code. I I I would put into the minutes that I I truly believe
that going from a one to BPD doesn't substantiate this piece of property that RS3 would probably more relevant and a smaller step. And I'll just leave it at that. We have a motion on the floor. I'll
second. We have a second. And Mr. Chair, before we take the vote, can we also confirm that the motion is for both or the reasonzoning, the conceptual and the preliminary PD? What was that? What was that again, Brandon? Um, can we just confirm that the motions uh for the the reasonzoning, the conceptual plan
development, and the preliminary plan development because those are the three items that you're voting on tonight. We have a motion and we have a second. All in favor? I I oppose. No. Y.
So, what is it? One, two, three, four, five eyes and two nos. Can we have a Madame clerk, can you please do a roll call, please? Jonathan Day, no.
Jordan Stewart, no. Mark Moocher, no. Robert Vot. Yes. Calvin Reigns. That's yes for denial. Correct. Yes. Okay.
Tom Lawer. Yes. John Campbell. Yes. It's four to three. Four to three. What? Yes. Denial? No. Yes. Okay. All right. to be Mr. Sure. If I could
just for the record to clarify, this is this is a recommendation. So, it will still it will still automatically proceed to BCC. It doesn't require an appeal or anything of that nature. Thank you. That's correct. And I think the reason if I'm not mistaken, Ryan, is
Sus. It's that's why the BCC wants to know why it was denied from the standpoint of those scenarios. Correct. That is that is correct. Okay. So, staff will present that to the BCC of why they were denied. Okay. Yes.
Let me just clarify. So, the the recommendation will be put right into the the staff report for the BCC. All right. Moving forward. Any commissioner matters? No. Any planning matters? Uh, Mr. Chair,
just that we more than likely will have um the first meeting in June as well. We've got unfortunately we've got a couple here and there and they keep we try to get all of them on one meeting or the other but just the way the timing works. So we will most likely have the first meeting in June. What's that date?
I don't know if uh I believe it's the 12th. Believe it's the 12th. Yeah. I'll confirm. Uh yes. Yes. The 12th. Very good. Any attorney matters? Um just briefly um some of the discussion that
we had here today I think that I heard from the board today um with concerns about PDS and lot lines um one of the things and and in hearing the discussion from the board of county commissioners this past Tuesday um that dealt
specifically with the Oslo corridor um but in hearing the discussion here I consistently hear the um the roofs or the questions about the PDS um this board can make suggestions or things like that to sta to staff to bring up to the board of county commissioners. Um,
if that's a concern that this board has, that is something that you can make a suggestion on is to look into the PD process. So, um, because I'm hearing that issue come up over and over again, I just want to make sure that that's known to y'all. So, it's not um it's not
something that you you think is not being addressed, if you will. Thank you. Is there a formal uh avenue for making that suggestion or will that be implied in today's vote or um how do we how do
we make those suggestions? It would be something that you would bring under your commissioner's matters. I would highly suggest that um you all think about it and before our next meeting and think about how you know maybe take a look at our um our PD code. It's 913.
915 915. I'm sorry. I'm going at a regular platty 9:15. Um, and just kind of skim through there and see what your thoughts are. Um, so that way y'all can um, come back and with a suggestion that you think because and I'm just advising this
because I keep hearing those kinds of um, questions. Well, I can't speak for everyone. Obviously, my feelings are my feelings, but to be presented with a comparison to well, we do this in Port
St. Lucy, I'm sorry. It it just doesn't it does not gel with me. I I think is as is well too Calvin and Susan I believe I believe I might be right that we can definitely have a workshop put together with the BCC at some point in time to
discuss this if that was an issue as long as it's advertised to the public that's happening. So that can happen. Yes, you're all not going to want to have a former county commissioner up here. I know that. But uh that can happen as well. That that's correct. So long as it's formally noticed to the public and they have the ability to be
there. Yep. So, are we talking about restructuring a PD or is is that what you're saying? So, do what? Redoing the PD, the whole PD. Well, I I
don't know if it's necessarily redoing the PD, but what we're get I think what we're going to see in the future is they're going to jump from a one to PD and just bypass RS3 and and everything that's out there from the standpoint because they can get more bang for the buck. uh if this is what the BCC wants,
we need to know that because I don't want to sit here and waste our time and the staff's time saying, you know, we don't like this and it gives the BCC. So, no, we're going to do what we want to do. And we've had many workshops back in 2004 to 2005, actually formed the growth awareness committee, if you remember that. Formed 14 or 15 different
land development regulations. So, guys, I'm on it. Uh so, it can happen. I just don't want to start this process and we go through this and and it gets to them and it just they take an eraser to it and do what they want to do. So maybe a workshop, Mr. Chairman, would be the way
to go with what I'll do is I'll put under commissioners matters that um we'll have um yeah, under commissioners matter I'll put a blurb for just sort of a more open-ended discussion on how we want to move forward. Whether it be recommendation of a workshop, whether it
be just, hey, you guys consider we we'll we'll we'll figure that out for the next meeting. Yeah, that's a good formal path to so this doesn't die here. Understood. Yep. Yep. Good. And I want to say what Calvin said. You Brandon, y'all staff, you did a great job. Great job. Thank you. You did uh the presentations there
and I'm glad to see that the comparisons are there to to show the lot sizes and away you go. So, great job. I know that wasn't in front of us, but I was thinking about uh whether we should discuss at some point uh reszoning this
property to to RS3 and let them see what they could do with it, but that they haven't asked for that and I suppose there's a application process and all that kind of true can say just on what Calvin said too with
you know the comparison to other counties saying the same thing in different language. That that type construction and that type tightness just doesn't fit with what I've read on what the county plan and vision is. It
just it just doesn't. So, you know, it's not just an emotional decision. I mean, I think this is this is I think this is already written. I would imagine every one of y'all have heard about Hampton. I mean, I' i've had people just hammer me about that subdivision and it's just
like, wow. Well, and it would just Well, I think I think you were on the commission when they approved it. So, yeah, I I I think you were part of that going on with All right. Okay. So, we we have a path forward to continue this discussion in a formal way that will
involve the county commissioners at some point. And at that point, I think we're ajourned. Perfect. Thank you. Meeting. Good meeting.