HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-20-2008
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 November 20, 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 6:03 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 (Mr. Culverhouse arrived at 7:18 p.m.)
23 Pamela Hammer....................Board Member
24 Edward Lounds.....................Board Member
25 Stephanie Morgan…………...Board Member
26 Britt Reynolds.......................Board Member
27 Barry Schrader......................Board Member
28
Members Absent
29
30 Kathryn Hensley...................Ex-Officio
31
Others Present
32
33 Mark Satterlee.......................Director, Growth Management Dept.
34 Robin Meyer.........................Assistant Director, Growth Management Dept.
35 Heather Young......................Assistant County Attorney
36 Aneela Ansar.........................Senior Planner
37
38
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS
39
40 None.
41
D. DISCLOSURES
42
43 None.
44
1
II. MINUTES
1
2 Review the minutes from the October 16, 2008 regular meeting, for approval.
3
Mrs. Hammer motioned approval of the minutes.
4
5
Ms. Morgan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
6
7
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8
9
APrayer Tower – RZ 220081430
10 .
Petition of Jimmie Nettles to grant approval for an amendment to the
11
Official Zoning Atlas to change the zoning from the RS – 4
12
(Residential, Single Family – 4 du/acre) Zoning District to the RF
13
(Religious Facility) Zoning District.
14
15
Ms. Aneela Ansar
16 presented this item and displayed a power point presentation. Ms.
17 Ansar advised the Commission that on September 20, 2007, the St. Lucie County
18 Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the petition to the Board of
19 County Commissioners for a change in zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single
20 Family – 4 du/ acre) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District.
21
22 During the meeting the Commissioners decided that this particular parcel was
23 inappropriate for the requested rezoning district due to the lack of infrastructure,
24 including access from un-paved roads, the lack of public water and sewer, and
25 insufficient lot size to accommodate landscaping and parking.
26
27 On November 20, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners withdrew the application
28 at the request of the applicant for a change in zoning from the RS-4 (Residential, Single
29 Family – 4 du/ acre) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning District.
30
31 On February 22, 2008, the applicant submitted a revised application that merged the
32 “Prayer Tower International” parcel with the adjacent property to the north increasing the
33 area of the proposed rezoning from 0.64 acres to 1.026 acres.
34
35 According to the applicant the purpose of the requested change in zoning is to allow a
36 church facility.The subject parcel is located on the east side of Iroquois Avenue
37 approximately 2170 feet south of St. Lucie Blvd., (at the terminus Iroquois Avenue)
38
Ms. Ansar
39 went on to say the 1.026 acres lot can accommodate the landscaping and
40 parking requirements and on April 21, 2008, adjacent properties to the east and south,
41 across Bryant Road were annexed into the City of Fort Pierce.
42
43 According to the applicant the city of Fort Pierce indicated that they have adequate
44 facilities to support the proposed project. The subject site will likely to be annexed into
45 the City of Fort Pierce as a result of their annexation policy.
46
2
1 On October 30, 2008, Growth Management and Engineering staff met with the applicant.
2 Staff recommended providing access from the project to 25th Street via Bryant Road. The
3 applicant showed his willingness to comply with the County Engineer's proposal
4 providing a 22' wide paved road with swales from the project to 25th Street via Bryant
5 Road to avoid any negative traffic impact on the residential neighborhood.
6
Ms. Ansar
7 concluded staff has reviewed this petition and determined that the request
8 conforms to the standards of review for a re-zoning as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the
9 St. Lucie County Land Development Code and the goals, objectives, and policies of the
10 St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
11
Ms. Caron
12 asked, (while waiting for the agents or applicants to approach the
13 microphone) if staff had any contact with the city of Fort Pierce regarding the annexation
14 of this property.
15
Ms. Ansar
16 answered no, stating this was the normal practice if they have property
17 adjacent to the subject parcel it will automatically get annexed into the city of Ft. Pierce.
18
Mr. Schrader
19 asked staff if there was any discussion making this project a Planned Non-
20 Residential Development (PNRD) as opposed to a straight Religious Re-Zoning.
21
Ms. Ansar
22 answered no.
23
Mr. Steve CooperMr. Paul Kuhn
24 , with Stephen Cooper P.E. & Associates and , with
25 Heritage Contracting Services as the agent for Prayer Tower, introduced themselves.
26
Mr. Cooper
27 shed light on the question of annexation by explaining that the Ft. Pierce
28 Utility Authority has the water and sewer down Bryant Road and when you connect to
29 their water and sewer you have to sign an annexation agreement.
30
Mrs. Hammer
31 wanted to know if the plans included having public water and public
Mr. Cooper
32 sewer. answered yes.
33
Mr. Kuhn
34 told the Commission that they have done their best to work with staff and
35 Pastor Jimmie Nettles was not able to be here tonight.He went on to say, the Engineering
36 Department came up with a plan to pave a portion of the road and bring in traffic straight
37 off 25th street, which already has a paved access.
38
Mr. Lounds Mrs. Hammer
39 and questioned the proposed paving of roads. The paving
40 would be to County standards, which would have to be approved by Florida Department
41 of Transportation (FDOT).
42
Mr. Mundt asked
43 if the agent has been in touch with Ft. Pierce Utility Authority
44 (FPUA). The answer was yes and the agent agreed to make that a condition of approval.
45
3
Mrs. Hamme
1 r questioned part of the first paragraph in Standards of Review, Item One,
2 which stated “Pursuant to Section 7.05.07 of the Land Development Code (LDC) The
3 road paving requirements apply to developments requiring site plan approval”. “It is
4 important to note that the proposed church building is approximately 4,000 square feet,
5 which will not require site plan approvaland road construction may never be required”.
6
Ms Caron
7 had concerns with this statement wondering why staff did not ask for a PNRD
8 which requires a site plan or can the Commission add this condition?
9
Mr. Meyer
10 stated that we can not condition a re-zoning. He also added that the statement
11 Mrs. Hammer referred to was not to be in the staff report and Public Works is adamant
12 about not permitting this project without the road being paved to their standards with
13 drainage. The answer to the PNRD question was that staff did not request a PNRD and
14 that in the future requesting a PNRD will be the norm.
15
Mr. Mundt
16 questioned if a six foot high fence was adequate.
17
Mr. Meye
18 r answered yes.
19
Mr. Beaty
20 asked if the project was annexed would the city provide both fresh water and
Mr. Cooper
21 sewer. answered yes, adding it would be connected via a privately
22 maintained lift station.
23
Ms. Caron opened the public hearing.
24
25
26 The following members of the public spoke in opposition (for reasons such as
27 clarification as to how many of the submitted in favor responses live within the five
28 hundred foot radius of notification, connection of unopened roads, drainage, the zoning
29 of the property as it is now (residential), paving of Bryant Road, sewer connection issues,
30 annexation, placement of the lift station, loud noise from the speakers on the outside of
31 the Pastor’s house and having a large structure obstructing views) Paul Schall, Carolyn
32 Bailey, Linda Davi and Ronald Duncan.
33
34 The following member of the public spoke in favor: Naoka Hies stated that Mr. Nettles is
35 her uncle, she is a member of his church and he does not have speakers connected to his
36 house and doubts if he would put speakers on the outside of the church.
37
No one else from the public spoke and the public hearing was closed.
38
39
Mrs. Hammer
40 expressed her concern to staff regarding the decision on staffs’ part to
41 change their recommendation of denial to approval the day before the plan is to be sent
42 out. Mrs. Hammer went on to say she would have preferred it if this project had not been
43 rushed. She questioned staff on the site plan not being in the Planning & Zoning Package,
44 if the applicants had submitted fees for a new application (Mr. Meyer answered, the
45 applicant would have had to pay the fees for a new application) Mrs. Hammer again
46 asked Mr. Meyer if the applicant paid for a fee for a new application.
4
Mr. Meyer
1 answered yes.
2
3 It was discussed that church parking is calculated not on the four thousand square foot
4 building but on the size of the sanctuary (two thousand six hundred and fifty square feet).
5
6 It was determined that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) withdrew the
7 application at the request of the applicant and the county does not have printed standards
8 for local streets whereas eleven foot travel lanes and the accompanying drainage is the
9 standard that is used for local streets.
10
11 It was also noted that staff did not receive any correspondence from the city of Ft. Pierce
12 on the topic of services being provided.
13
Mrs. Hammer
14 brought other errors regarding the staff report and Draft Resolution
15 Number 08-235 to the attention of staff.
16
Mr. Meyer
17 assured Mrs. Hammer these errors would be corrected.
18
Mrs. Hammer
19 told staff that she was upset with the quality and content of the report.
20
Mr. Lounds
21 feels the location of this project will not be able to sustain the additional
22 traffic and because of this is going to hamper not only the people living in this area but
23 restrict and hamper and put restraints on the church itself. Another concern was the
24 annexation issue.
25
Ms. Caron
26 asked staff the meaning of stabilized grass parking.
27
Mr. Meyer
28 replied it is essentially just grass parking. He went on to say because of the
29 infrequency of use it will (according to the County Engineer and our code) hold up to the
30 traffic. Anything more than a few trips a day, you would need to improve from grass
31 parking. (Meaning of Stabilized Grass Parking: Empty lot that has been graded, flattened,
32 smoothed, compressed, packed, has some drainage available, wheel stops and is parked
33 on infrequently).
34
Ms. Caron
35 reiterated the concern of the Commission regarding the staff’s report mention
36 of the project being annexed into the city of Ft. Pierce without any documentation.
37 Communication with the other municipalities is very important. Other concerns are the
38 inability of the Commission to view the project (site plan was not included in package)
39 because it was a straight re-zoning (carte blanche no site plan needed) and not a PNRD
40 also the submittal of traffic counts based on 2007(we are almost in 2009) stating that both
41 facilities have acceptable levels of service below the level of service D threshold.
42
Mr. Mundt
43 asked staff if parking on the grass is acceptable in this project why is the
44 Mellon Patch having a problem. Where is the consistency?
45
5
Mr. Meyer
1 explained the consistency by stating the Mellon Patch is a commercial
2 operation and that was the direction from the BOCC. He also mentioned the Mellon
3 Patch would be meeting with staff to discuss the parking situation. He offered to give the
4 Commission a report on the meeting with the Mellon Patch Inn.
5
Mr. Lounds motioned after considering the testimony presented during the
6
public hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review as set
7
forth in Section 11.06.03, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, hereby
8
move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St.
9
Lucie County Board of County Commissioners deny the application of
10
Prayer Tower International, for a change in zoning from the RS-4
11
(Residential, Single Family – 4 units per acre) Zoning District to the RF
12
(Religious Facilities) Zoning District, because it places a burden on the
13
quality of life that the people in the residential area are already having to
14
fight to maintain. The roads are inadequate, even if Bryant Road was to be
15
paved you would still have substandard roads with a lot of traffic to get to
16
that area and he thinks it is just not the place for forty or fifty additional
17
cars to be interfering with the quality of life with people in residential areas.
18
Plus the comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission (Board)
19
about the sewer question and such have you that come from the city.
20
21
Mrs. Hammer seconded
22
23
24 Roll Call
25 Mr. Schrader – yes
26 Mr. Beaty – yes
27 Mr. Reynolds – yes
28 Ms. Morgan – yes
29 Vice Chairman Mundt – yes
30 Ms. Hammer – yes
31 Mr. Lounds – yes
32 Chairman Caron –yes
33
The motion passed 8-0.
34
35
B. St. Lucie County Attorney’s Office: Ordinance No. 08-034
36
Petition of St. Lucie County to adopt Ordinance No. 08-034 which, if
37
adopted, would define “changeable message signs” and add
38
changeable message signs to the list of prohibited signs. The
39
Ordinance proposes to prohibit changeable message signs because of
40
the negative effects (distractions) on the driving public.
41
42
Ms. Heather Young
43 , Assistant County Attorney presented this item explaining that staff
44 is proposing Ordinance No. 08-034 which would do two things. The first is to add to the
45 definition section of signs (in LDC). Secondly add changeable message signs to the list of
6
1 prohibited signs under the sign chapter, (Chapter nine of the LDC). The Ordinance is
2 proposed to prohibit such signs because of the distraction they pose for motorists.
3
Mr. Satterlee
4 put into evidence the type of signage that Mr. McIntyre, the County
5 Attorney, was trying to address with this ordinance. The signs were principally large
6 billboard signs (large television screens type of signs), which are starting to pop up in
7 other counties. Esthetically, this is not the trend the County Attorney believed the county
8 desired.
9
Ms. Morgan
10 asked staff if anyone considered contacting the people (radio station, TV
11 stations etc.) who have or own billboards to see if they had any concerns or questions
12 about this ordinance.
13
Mr. Satterlee
14 informed the Commission that those are the people who are building the
15 signs. He went on to tell the Commission, the county is trying to be out front of that.
16
Ms. Morgan
17 expressed her concern in regards to the lack of notification to major sign
18 companies.
19
Mr. Schrader
20 echoed the same concerns as Ms. Morgan. Adding to his concerns was the
21 actuality that this ordinance could eliminate small business having signage on our county
22 roadways and if staff had any backup facts that these signs are distracting.
23
Mrs. Hammer
24 recommended the county take a position on political signs by setting up
25 standards (controls) in the county before the next election.
26
Ms. Caron
27 believes this ordinance as written limits businesses from advertising the
28 verbiage (as written) is concerning and are businesses going to be grandfathered. She
29 feels that the concept is good.
30
Mr. Culverhouse
31 wants a reference put in the ordinance of what type of signs are
32 exempt. He feels if government is allowed to use these types of signs, people have the
33 right to advertise (free speech).
34
Ms. Morgan
35 stated that we have these types of signs and wondered if they would have to
36 be taken down.
37
Mr. Satterlee
38 thinks they would be grandfathered or falls under the exemptions. He
39 stated that with the input received from the Board the ordinance language can be refined.
40
Mr. Reynolds
41 agreed with Mr. Schrader. He also feels the billboards are more attractive
42 than the traditional billboards we have now.
43
Mr. Beaty
44 reiterated the mind-set of Mr. Schrader and Mr. Reynolds. He also stated the
45 newer types of billboards are more hurricane resistant, can be repaired faster , changed
7
1 prior to fading and more economical for small business owners (paying a quarter or less
2 because they are not the sole advertisement on the board).
3
Mr. Mundt
4 taking a different approach stated; it would be wise to get ahead of signage
5 blight (with future growth) and the lighting effects the billboards may have on residential
6 neighborhoods that abut (or are near) commercial properties. He asked staff if any other
7 counties (around us or within the state) have implemented something along these lines.
8
Mr. Satterlee
9 responded, the County Attorney had contact with Leon County.
10 Appreciating the comments from the Board Mr. Satterlee was concerned about a Casino
11 or Adult Super Store buying a sign.
12
Mr. Mundt
13 agreed responding that once you approve the concept you have no control of
14 what goes up on that sign. He asked if this request came from a member of the Board.
15
Mr. Satterle
16 e thinks the County Attorney did this because of the contact he was having
17 with attorneys from other counties and the battles that they were undergoing (Leon
18 County, read something about St. Paul and around the country).
19
20 After further discussion it was agreed that the language would be refined and to continue
21 this item to the January 15, 2008 Planning and Zoning Meeting.
22
Ms. Morgan motioned to continue this item to the January 15, 2008 Planning &
23
Zoning Meeting at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter.
24
25
Mr. Schrader seconded.
26
27
28 Roll Call
29 Ms. Hammer – yes
30 Mr. Lounds – yes
31 Mr. Reynolds – yes
32 Mr. Beaty – yes
33 Mr. Culverhouse – yes
34 Vice Chairman Mundt – yes
35 Mr. Schrader – yes
36 Ms. Morgan – yes
37 Chairman Caron – yes
38
39
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
40
41 None.
42
V. ADJOURN
43
44 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned around 7:45 p.m.
8