At the heart of the discussion was a proposal to amend the existing Tranquility Development Agreement to allow for increased building heights from 100 to 150 feet. This sparked considerable debate among board members and staff, who questioned the necessity and implications of such a change in a city where tall buildings are not the norm. The applicant argued that the taller structures would be situated along the waterfront and would include amenities, fulfilling the mixed-use development criteria. However, board members were concerned about whether these conditions were adequately met, particularly in the absence of a public walkway along the waterfront of the Indian River, which was deemed necessary for the maximum height allowance.

The applicant’s interpretation of mixed-use development further fueled the debate. They contended that mixed-use should allow for different uses distributed across the development, not confined to a single building. This was in contrast to the staff’s and comprehensive plan’s definitions, which require at least two different uses within a building. The ambiguity in the city’s code regarding mixed-use developments was highlighted as a potential source of conflict and confusion.

The proposed variance also included requests to allow accessory structures within a 50-foot road right-of-way building setback and to reduce landscape buffers. Concerns were raised about the sufficiency of these buffers and the potential impact on community aesthetics and safety. The applicant suggested that enhanced landscaping standards, offering 125% more than the standard regulations, could compensate for the reduced buffer sizes. However, board members questioned the practicality of this solution, particularly in smaller areas where increased plant density might not be sustainable.

Stormwater management emerged as another significant issue, with the applicant proposing a joint managed stormwater system rather than independent systems for each lot. This approach was met with apprehension, as it did not align with existing requirements and raised concerns about unmitigated stormwater runoff affecting adjacent properties. The board stressed the importance of adhering to the St. John’s Water Management District’s regulations and ensuring comprehensive stormwater management plans were in place before proceeding.

The board’s discussion also touched on the procedural aspects of the development agreement, emphasizing the importance of having a clear and definitive contract. Members expressed frustration over the timing of staff comments, which were received just days before the meeting, leaving insufficient time for thorough consideration. The need for clarity in the development agreements was highlighted, with a focus on avoiding conditional approvals that could lead to ambiguity.

Ultimately, the board recommended denying the proposed amendments to the development agreement, citing concerns over the interpretation of mixed-use criteria, building heights, and the adequacy of the proposed variances. They emphasized the need for clear communication with the city council regarding their decision and the individual grounds for denying each aspect of the proposal.