HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07-17-2008
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 July 17, 2008 Regular Meeting
5 6:00 P.M.
6
7
A compact disc recording of this meeting, in its entirety, has been placed in the file along with these
8
minutes as part of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc,
9
the compact disc shall control.
10
11
I. CALL TO ORDER
12
13 Chairman Caron called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
14
A. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
15
16
B. ROLL CALL
17
18 Susan Caron..........................Chairman
19 Craig Mundt..........................Vice Chairman
20 Bryan Beaty..........................Board Member
21 Brad Culverhouse..................Board Member
22 Pamela Hammer....................Board Member
23 Edward Lounds.....................Board Member
24 Stephanie Morgan.................Board Member
25 Barry Schrader......................Board Member
26 (Mr. Schrader arrived at 6:25 p.m.)
27 Britt Reynolds.......................Board Member
28 Kathryn Hensley...................Ex-Officio
29
OTHERS PRESENT
30
31 Mark Satterlee.......................Growth Management Department Director
32 Heather Young......................Assistant County Attorney
33 Katherine Mackenzie-Smith..Assistant County Attorney
34 Tom Christopher...................Division of Emergency Management
35 Kristin Tetsworth..................Planning Manager
36 Linda Pendarvis.....................Planner
37
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS
38
39 None.
40
D. DISCLOSURES
41
42 Mr. Lounds disclosed that he met with the applicant of Provences DRI.
43 Mr. Culverhouse disclosed that he met with the applicant of Provences
44 DRI. Mr. Reynolds disclosed that he met with the applicant of Provences
45 DRI. Ms. Hammer noted that she received an e-mail request for a meeting
46 from an individual regarding an application (she does not remember the
1
1 name of the individual). She did not meet with anyone, but wanted it
2 known she received the request.
3
II. MINUTES
4
5 Review the minutes from the May 15, 2008 regular meeting, for approval.
6
7 Mr. Mundt questioned why the ordinance regarding the change to impact fees is
8 not on tonight’s agenda as it was continued to tonight’s meeting at the Planning
9 and Zoning Commission’s May 15, 2008 meeting.
10
11 Mr. Satterlee advised that staff is still working with the consultant on that item. It
12 may be a few more months before it comes back before this Board.
13
14 Ms. Hammer stated that on page 2, at the bottom of the page, the word amplified
15 does not seem correct.
16
17 **Secretary’s Note: That word was taken verbatim from Mr. Mundt’s
18 monologue.
19
20 Ms. Hammer requested that page 3, line 8 be revised to read “Approval to correct
21 …”
22
23 **Secretary’s Note: The minutes, on the above-mentioned line, reads verbatim
24 from the May 15, 2008 agenda.
25
Ms. Hammer motioned approval of the minutes as amended;
26
27
Ms. Morgan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
28
29
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
30
31
32 Ms. Caron advised that the applicant of item III.E, Provences DRI, requested that
33 the item be continued. Staff is in agreement noting that the item will be
34 readvertised.
35
36 Board members were in agreement to handle that matter next.
37
E. Provences DRI – DRI 06-01
38
39 The purpose of this hearing is to consider an application for a
40 Development Order for a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) to be
41 known as Provences. This development, if approved, will include the
42 following uses and intensities: 3,555 dwelling units, 2,338,600 square feet
43 of commercial space, 80,000 square feet of industrial space, and a public
44 school site. The combined parcels, totaling 735.472 acres more or less,
45 are currently zoned AG-2.5, AG-1, CG, PNRD and IX with a Future Land
46 Use designation of MXD and AG-2.5.
2
1
2 Mr. Satterlee explained that once the applicant received and reviewed the
3 staff report, the applicant decided to request that the item be continued in
4 order to address staff’s concerns which were quite extensive.
5
Ms. Morgan motioned that the item be continued to a date uncertain.
6
7
Mr. Lounds seconded.
8
9
10 Roll Call
11 Mr. Reynolds – yes
12 Mr. Lounds - yes
13 Ms. Hammer – yes
14 Mr. Beaty – yes
15 Vice Chairman Mundt – yes
16 Mr. Culverhouse – yes
17 Ms. Morgan – yes
18 Chairman Caron - yes
19
The motion carried unanimously.
20
21
A.Living Well Adult Family Care Center – CU 420081463
22
23 Petition of Living Well Adult Family Care Center to grant a conditional
24 use permit to allow the operation of a family residential home within a
25 1,000 feet radius of another such family residential home in the RS-4
26 (Residential, Single-Family – 4 du/ac) Zoning District.
27
28 Linda Pendarvis presented this item and displayed a powerpoint
29 presentation. Ms. Pendarvis explained that the applicant is applying for a
30 conditional use permit to allow for the operation of a family residential
31 home for adult clients at 2682 Mohawk Avenue. Mohawk Avenue is a 50-
32 foot dirt right-of-way owned and maintained by St. Lucie County. The
33 facility will be licensed by the Florida Department of Children and
34 Families.
35
36 Staff is recommending approval with two additional conditions of
37 approval: (i) to limit the number of clients living in the home to 5; and (ii)
38 no more than 3 cars to be parked in front of the home at any time and be
39 limited to the driveway.
40
41 Mr. Culverhouse pointed out that after doing some research there is no
42 such corporation and/or fictitious name of Living Well Adult Family Care
43 Center.
44
45 Ms. Jacqueline Rhaheed, (along with her husband, Inuka Rhaheed) the
46 applicant, addressed the Board and explained that when she came in to
3
1 apply for the conditional use permit, she was told that this part of the
2 process needed to be completed first. She was advised by staff not to
3 spend money forming a corporation until receiving approval of the
4 conditional use permit first.
5
6 Ms. Young explained that the application was completed by Ms. Rhaheed,
7 individually. The issue that the corporation does not yet exist is not
8 relevant at this time. Any needed changes to the resolution will be made
9 prior to the item going before the Board of County Commissioners.
10
11 Ms. Rhaheed gave a brief presentation to the Board explaining that she
12 and her husband own the home. Having six children, when the
13 opportunity presented itself to move to a larger home, they did so. Ms.
14 Rhaheed went on to explain that she did a lot of research on this type of
15 business and is fully aware of all the State regulations. Ms. Rhaheed went
16 on to explain that she is in agreement with the limit of 5 clients living in
17 the home. There will be a full-time staff person there at all times. The
18 staff persons will work in 3 shifts and will not be sleeping in the home.
19 There should be no devaluing of property values because the house will
20 look, from the outside, just like any other house in the neighborhood. Ms.
21 Rhaheed went on to say that she is trying to offer a home for adult persons
22 with disabilities the opportunity to live as independently as possible. She
23 will have control over the persons who are chosen to live in the home.
24 Ms. Rhaheed explained that the home is approximately 1500 square feet
25 with 4 bedrooms, 2 baths and a one-car garage.
26
27 Priscilla Jean-Louis, who is working with Ms. Rhaheed on this project,
28 spoke to the Board and briefly explained how clients will be chosen to live
29 in the home. Clients can come from the tri-county area (St. Lucie, Martin,
30 and Okeechobee Counties) and she also is suggesting that clients with
31 behavioral issues not be chosen. There will be no persons with criminal
32 backgrounds, drug addicts, etc.
33
34 Ms. Caron opened the public hearing and the following people spoke in
35 opposition (stating reasons such as devaluing of property values, concern
36 for the safety of the children in the neighborhood, who will really know
37 who the people are living in this home (especially since they can come
38 from out of the area) and that this is just not the right neighborhood): Paul
39 Shaw, Charles Smith, Ronnie Duncan, Johnnie Brown, Sharon Brown,
40 Cheryl Lindsey and Tracey Vanderpool.
41
42 The following people spoke in favor of the proposed project: Sabrina
43 Winn, Pamela Wingfield, Dan (his last name was not discernible) and
44 Perlie Durant.
45
46 No one else from the public spoke and the pubic hearing was closed.
4
1
2 Mr. and Mrs. Rhaheed addressed the Board again responding to some of
3 the concerns expressed this evening.
4
5 Mr. Schrader commented on the fact that if there was not another facility
6 like this within 1,000 feet of the subject address, this item would not be
7 coming before this Board.
8
9 Ms. Caron commented on the fact that no one really gets to choose their
10 neighbors.
11
Mr. Lounds motioned that this Board forward a recommendation that
12
the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the
13
application of Living Well Adult Family Care Center because placing
14
a second family care center in the area overrides the thought process
15
of placing more than one of these types of facilities within 1,000 feet of
16
one another and the County should look at placing family care centers
17
in more rural areas and the applicant should specify some way that
18
the clients will be retired individuals and not younger.
19
20
Ms. Hammer seconded.
21
22
23 Roll Call
24 Mr. Schrader – no (against the motion)
25 Mr. Reynolds – no (against the motion)
26 Ms. Morgan - yes
27 Mr. Culverhouse – yes
28 Mr. Beaty – yes
29 Vice Chairman Mundt – yes
30 Ms. Hammer - yes
31 Mr. Lounds - yes
32 Chairman Caron – yes
33
The motion carried 7-2 with Mr. Schrader and Mr. Reynolds against
34
the motion.
35
36
B.St. Lucie County Growth Management Department –
37
Ordinance No. 08-025
38
39 Petition of the Growth Management Department to amend the Land
40 Development Code by amending Table 7-10 lot size and dimensional
41 requirements chart to include note (l) to permit the construction of an
42 accessible handicap ramp to encroach up to 50% of the required yard
43 setback.
44
45 Ms. Linda Pendarvis presented this item explaining that a request came
46 from property owners within St. Lucie County who needed handicap
5
1 ramps within the required yard setback. Presently, there is nothing in the
2 County’s Land Development Code to allow this. Variance applications
3 heard before the Board of Zoning Adjustment is currently how the County
4 is handling such requests. Staff is recommending that this Board forward
5 a recommendation of approval to the Board of County Commissioners.
6
7 Ms. Hammer noted that on page 3 of staff’s memorandum (lines 27-29), it
8 discusses “proper documentation for a building permit application and a
9 Physician’s Certification of Disability.” Those are not mentioned,
10 however, in the draft ordinance. Staff responded that they will add that
11 language in paragraph (l) of the proposed Ordinance.
12
13 Mr. Lounds requested clarification that this will not allow more than a
14 50% encroachment of the required setback. Staff responded in agreement
15 and explained that an encroachment of more than 50% would require a
16 variance and be heard by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.
17
18 Ms. Hensley questioned if this provision is primarily for the property
19 owner or can it be used for frequent visitors to a home (and/or extended
20 family members). Ms. Young responded that it is not limited to just the
21 property owner, but all proper documentation will still be required.
22
23 Ms. Caron opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke and
24 the public hearing was closed.
25
Mr. Lounds motioned that this Board forward a recommendation that
26
the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve
27
Ordinance No. 08-025. Staff’s comments as well as Ms. Hensley’s
28
comments should be made available to the Board of County
29
Commissioners.
30
31
Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
32
33
34 Roll Call
35 Mr. Beaty – yes
36 Ms. Hammer – yes
37 Ms. Morgan – yes
38 Mr. Reynolds – yes
39 Mr. Schrader – yes
40 Mr. Culverhouse – yes
41 Mr. Lounds – yes
42 Vice Chairman Mundt – yes
43 Chairman Caron – yes
44
The motion carried unanimously.
45
46
6
C.St. Lucie County Attorney’s Office: Ordinance No. 08-012
1
2 Petition of St. Lucie County to adopt Ordinance No. 08-012 amending the
3 Land Development Code Emergency Services Communications, which
4 would provide for a regulation that buildings and structures support
5 adequate radio coverage for emergency services communications.
6
7 Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith presented this item explaining that this
8 item is intended to require new buildings and/or renovations of more than
9 50% of existing buildings have radio coverage for emergency personnel.
10 The owner of the building will be responsible for any costs. Ms.
11 Mackenzie-Smith also explained that this item came before this Board
12 prior to this date. Staff attempted to incorporate this Board’s suggestions
13 and/or comments into the version being discussed tonight. Staff is
14 recommending approval.
15
16 Mr. Tom Christopher, Office of Emergency Management, addressed the
17 Board and explained that inspections associated with this proposed
18 Ordinance will not be stand-alone inspections. The Fire District will be
19 making it part of their annual inspections.
20
21 Mr. Mundt suggested that “BDA” an acronym for “Bi-Directional
22 Amplifier” be spelled out in the Ordinance for clarity.
23
24 Deputy Chief Emerson, Fire Marshall for St. Lucie County, addressed the
25 Board explaining that there are no additional costs for annual inspections
26 (except where mandated by State statute). No additional costs will be
27 borne by the Fire District nor will additional personnel be required to carry
28 out the intention of this proposed Ordinance..
29
30 Mr. Culverhouse noted that on page 1 of the Ordinance it reads “An
31 Ordinance amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code …”
32 and on page 6, under paragraph entitled “Violation” it reads “It shall be a
33 violation of the St. Lucie County Code of Ordinance …” Mr. Culverhouse
34 requested that the correction be made prior to going before the Board of
35 County Commissioners.
36
37 Mr. Culverhouse commented that the paragraph entitled “Non
38 Compliance” does not address new construction and suggested that the
39 paragraph be changed to read: “The owner or owners of new buildings or
40 structures as defined in Section 7.10.25(B)(1) and the owner or owners of
41 existing buildings or structures as defined in Section 7.10.25(B)(2) shall
42 be subject to code enforcement procedures and fines. This shall not
43 preclude other penalties allowed by law.”
44
7
1 Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that the County will not issue a
2 Certificate of Occupancy for any new construction not in compliance. But
3 staff agreed to take a look at Mr. Culverhouse’s suggested changes.
4
5 Ms. Hammer, too, suggested that in the proposed Ordinance, “BDA” (Bi-
6 Directional Amplifier) be spelled out somewhere under Emergency
7 Services Communications in the proposed Ordinance.
8
9 Ms. Hammer also suggested adding the word “or” after the words “law
10 enforcement” at page 6 under the paragraph entitled “Violation”
th
11 (approximately the 5 line).
12
13 Mr. Culverhouse did not agree with adding the word “or.” He asked staff
14 to take a closer look at that because “or” can mean that all things listed are
15 not required.
16
17 Mr. Culverhouse suggested that page 4, paragraph B.2 be changed to read
18 as follows: “Any changes to the shell of an existing building or
19 renovation of 50% or more of the square footage of the interior of an
20 existing structure will require testing.”
21
22 Mr. Reynolds inquired if the language indicating that the testing would be
23 at the building owner’s expense was going to be removed. Ms.
24 Mackenzie-Smith explained that the Fire District would like that language
25 to remain in the event fees are imposed at a later date for such testing.
26
27 Ms. Caron opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke and
28 the public hearing was closed.
29
Ms. Hammer motioned that this Board forward a recommendation
30
that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve
31
proposed Ordinance No. 08-012 with the recommended language
32
changes to be at the discretion of Assistant County Attorney
33
Mackenzie-Smith.
34
35
Mr. Beaty seconded.
36
37
38 Roll Call
39 Mr. Schrader – yes
40 Mr. Reynolds – yes
41 Ms. Morgan - yes
42 Mr. Lounds – yes
43 Mr. Culverhouse – yes
44 Vice Chairman Mundt – yes with the caveat that the changes at the
45 discretion of Assistant County Attorney Mackenzie-Smith include
8
1 personnel from the Fire District and Emergency Management/Public
2 Safety.
3 Mr. Beaty - yes
4 Ms. Hammer – yes
5 Chairman Caron – yes
6
The motion carried unanimously.
7
8
9 The Board took a break at 8:33 p.m. and reconvened at 8:38 p.m.
10
D. Ruth Battle – CU 1120071371
11
12 Petition of Ruth Battle to grant a conditional use permit to allow the
13 operation of a drinking place (alcoholic beverages) free standing in the CG
14 (Commercial, General) Zoning District.
15
16 Kristin Tetsworth presented this item explaining that the subject property
17 is located at 6708 South US Highway 1 behind Zapata’s restaurant and is
18 to be known as The Heritage Nightclub.
19
20 Ms. Tetsworth explained that Section 7.10.11.B restricts the sale or
21 transfer of alcoholic beverages within 1,600 lineal feet of a religious
22 facility, school, public park or playground. Ms. Tetsworth displayed an
23 aerial photograph that shows the subject establishment is 1,839 feet from
24 the nearest religious facility.
25
26 In addition, County Code requires 24 parking spaces. The applicant
27 submitted a recorded Cross-Access Easement for the shared use of 15
28 additional parking spaces. Staff has verified that there is adequate parking
29 to be shared. Staff is recommending approval with the restriction that the
30 hours of operation be limited to 6pm until 2am.
31
32 Ms. Ruth Battle, applicant, addressed the Board briefly and requested their
33 approval.
34
35 Board members discussed the Conditional Use Response Form received
36 from Mr. Ibarra who claims to own a majority of the plaza. Staff advised
37 that they will verify the ownership question.
38
39 Staff explained that the Cross-Access Easement presented is assignable
40 and is irrevocable.
41
42 Ms. Caron opened the public hearing. No one from the public spoke and
43 the public hearing was closed.
44
Mr. Beaty motioned that this Board forward a recommendation that
45
the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve the
46
9
Conditional Use Permit of Ruth Battle because it fits with the existing
1
businesses in the area provided that the questions and issues raised
2
tonight be addressed prior to the Board of County Commissioners
3
meeting.
4
5
Mr. Reynolds seconded.
6
7
8 Ms. Hammer questioned the measurement as it relates to Section
9 7.10.11.B (the third paragraph) of the St. Lucie County Land Development
10 Code.
11
12 Ms. Tetsworth explained that the Zoning Department physically went out
13 and did the measurement so that it would be done correctly.
14
15 Ms. Hammer pointed out the discrepancy of how measurements are taken
16 between paragraphs 1 and 3 of the above-mentioned section of the Code.
17
18 Ms. Hammer also pointed out that the application requests that the hours
19 and days of operation be Thursday thru Sunday; however the resolution
20 only restricts the hours and does not mention the days of operation.
21
22 Staff will assure that the Ordinance is clear prior to going before the Board
23 of County Commissioners.
24
Mr. Beaty amended his motion to approve contingent that the subject
25
parcel is in excess of the 1,000 measurement (“as the crow flies”) as
26
rd
noted in 7.10.11.B (3paragraph).
27
28
Mr. Reynolds was in agreement.
29
30
31 Staff will verify the measurement, but measurements using a scale during
32 the meeting showed that the distance was in excess of 1,000 feet.
33
34 Roll Call
35 Mr. Schrader – yes
36 Ms. Morgan –yes
37 Mr. Lounds - yes
38 Ms. Hammer – no
39 Mr. Culverhouse – yes
40 Vice Chairman Mundt – yes
41 Mr. Reynolds – yes
42 Mr. Beaty – yes
43 Chairman Caron – yes
44
The motion carried 8-1 with Ms. Hammer dissenting.
45
46
10
III. OTHER BUSINESS
1
2 Ms. Hammer questioned if the September meeting will need to be changed since
3 budget hearings will be held that day. Mr. Satterlee advised that he has not
4 looked at that issue yet. Ms. Hammer notified staff that she would need to know
5 the date of the September meeting as soon as possible.
6
7 Mr. Mundt questioned the status of Chapters 10, 11 and 12. Mr. Satterlee
8 explained that staff is still working on those chapters. With new management in
9 the Growth Management Department, it is taking longer than expected. Staff
10 expects to bring the item back before this Board in September and/or October.
11
IV. ADJOURN
12
13 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
11