HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-15-2009
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 January 15, 2009 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 6:08 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 (Mr.Beaty arrived at 6:39 p.m.
22 Brad Culverhouse .................. Board Member
23 (Mr. Culverhouse left at 7:50 p.m.)
24 Pamela Hammer .................... Board Member
25 Edward Lounds ..................... Board Member
26 Stephanie Morgan…………...Board Member
27 Britt Reynolds ....................... Board Member
28 Barry Schrader ...................... Board Member
29 Kathryn Hensley ................... Ex-Officio
30
Members Absent
31
32 None
33
Others Present
34
35 Mark Satterlee ....................... Director, Growth Management Dept.
36 Robin Meyer ......................... Assistant Director, Growth Management Dept.
37 Heather Young ...................... Assistant County Attorney
38 Larry Szynkowski ................. Senior Planner
39 Jeffery Johnson……………...Senior Planner
40
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS
41
42 None.
43
D. DISCLOSURES
44
45 None.
46
E.Election of Officials
47
1
1 Mrs. Hammer nominated Mr. Mundt for Chairman of the Planning & Zoning
2 Commission.
3
4 Ms. Caron seconded.
5
6 Ms. Young read the ballots.
7
8 The motion carried unanimously.
9
10 Mr. Lounds nominated Mr. Schrader for Vice Chair of the Planning & Zoning
11 Commission.
12
13 Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
14
15 Mr. Mundt nominated Mrs. Hammer
16
17 Mrs. Hammer respectfully declined.
18
19 Ms. Young read the ballots.
20
21 The motion carried unanimously.
22
23
24
II. MINUTES
25
26
Review the minutes from the November 20, 2008 regular meeting, for
27
approval.
28
29
30 Mr. Lounds motioned approval of the minutes with corrections. (These
31 corrections have been made).
32
33 Mr. Culverhouse seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
34
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
35
36
St. Lucie County Attorney’s Office: Ordinance No. 09-001 (FKA
A
37 .
08- 034) – Amending Land Development Code to Regulate
38
Changeable Message Signs.
39
Petition of St. Lucie County to adopt Ordinance No. 09-001 (FKA 08-
40
034) which, if adopted, would define “changeable message signs” and
41
add changeable message signs to the list of prohibited signs. The
42
Ordinance proposes to prohibit changeable message signs because of
43
the negative effects (distractions) on the driving public.
44
45
2
1 Ms. Young explained that staff is proposing Ordinance No. 09-001 (FKA 08-034) which
2 would do two things. The first is to add to the definition section of the LDC a definition
3 of changeable message signs; second, add changeable message signs to the list of
4 prohibited signs under the sign chapter, (Chapter nine of the LDC). The Ordinance is
5 proposed to prohibit such signs because of the distraction they pose for motorists.
6
7 Ms.Young, Assistant County Attorney presented this item explaining, this item is the
8 continuation of the public hearing from the November 20, 2008 meeting. Ms. Young
9 answered several questions the Commission raised at the November 20, 2008 Planning &
10 Zoning Meeting.
11
12 Ms. Young addressed what the surrounding counties do regarding changeable message
13 signs. Changeable message signs are described as signs which change messages more
14 that once in a twenty four hour period, by electronic, mechanical or other means remotely
15 or automatically controlled.
16
17 This ordinance would change the list of prohibited signs by including signs emitting fire
18 or smoke.
19
20 Ms. Young did not find that any counties actually addressed this type of sign although a
21 number of the other counties have the same prohibition that St. Lucie County has on
22 animated signs.
23
24 She explained that this draft ordinance is based on one similar to one that was adopted
25 recently in Leon County.
26
27 She feels the county would be proactive in addressing this issue now.
28
29 Chairman Mundt asked the commission if there were any questions for staff.
30
31 The commission had a lengthy discussion. The questions asked were essentially the same
32 questions asked at the November 20, 2008 meeting.
33
34 Ms. Morgan requested a professional sign person be at the next meeting to answer the
35 commission’s questions.
36
37
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
38
39
40 No one from the public spoke.
41
Ms. Morgan motioned to continue the hearing on this item to a date certain March
42
19, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.
43
44
Mr. Schrader seconded.
45
46
3
1 Roll Call
2 Mr. Beaty – yes
3 Mr. Reynolds – yes
4 Mr. Lounds – yes
5 Ms. Hammer – no
6 Mr. Culverhouse – yes
7 Ms. Caron –yes
8 Vice Chair Schrader – yes
9 Ms. Morgan – yes
10 Chairman Mundt – yes
11
The motion passed 8-1 for the motion with Mrs. Hammer dissenting.
12
13
St. Lucie Self Storage, LLC PNRD 06-008
B.
14
Petition of St. Lucie Self Storage, LLC for Preliminary and Final
15
PNRD (Planned Non - Residential Development) Site Plan approval
16
for the project to be known as St. Lucie Business Park Storage
17
Planned Unit Development located in Lot #1 St. Lucie Business Park
18
on Business Park Drive, 610 feet West of US -1, and across US-1 from
19
Mediterranean Avenue in a PNRD Zoning District. Draft Resolution
20
No 09-008.
21
22
23 Mr. Szynkowski, Senior Plannerexplained that on December 14, 1988, Resolution
24 No.88-365 granted the existing St. Lucie Business Park PNRD Zoning District with a
25 conceptual site plan.
26
27 On December 14, 1988, Resolution No.88-365 granted the existing St. Lucie Business
28 Park PNRD Zoning District with a conceptual site plan. On November 17, 1989, a replat
29 was approved.
30
31 On November 17, 1989, a replat was approved with 13 lots including Lot #1.
32
33 On February 6, 1990, Resolution No. 90-27 granted a site plan for Lots #1- #4 and #11-
34 #13. That 1990 site plan approved four (4) buildings, on seven (7) lots within 8.99 acres,
35 including one (1) building that crossed over Lot #1 and Lot #2 combined, and is a 26,670
36 square-foot, one-story building with a shared driveway. Subsequently in 1999, a 10,000
37 square foot building was built on Lot #2, without reference to the underlying PNRD site
38 plan approval.
39 .
40 The project is proposing a new Preliminary/Final Site Plan approval for a PNRD
41 (Planned Non- Residential Development) Site Plan for the project to be known as St.
42 Lucie Business Park Storage Planned Unit Development for a six-story, 104,369 square-
43 foot, self-storage building. This would be built on lot one of St. Lucie Business Park on
44 1.42 acres, located 600 feet west of US 1 and across from Mediterranean Ave. on the east
45 side of US 1 and 19,206 square feet of pavement. The construction would consist of the
46 following:
4
st
1 The 1 floor would be 16,864 square feet self-storage, plus 932 square feet of office
th
2 space; Floors 2 thru 5 would be 17,796 square feet of self- storage; the 6 floor would be
3 15,389 square feet of self-storage; and a paved area would have 27 parking spaces and a
4 36-foot by 55-foot loading area for large vans.
5
6 Mr.Szynkowski informed the commission that there seems to be an inconsistency (which
7 staff cannot account for) in the 1989 replat and the site plan that was created in 1990. He
8 feels the reason for this is that there were two different Planning Agencies that were
9 private in nature that developed each of these projects.
10
11 On October 23, 2008, the agent for the applicant held a Neighborhood Meeting with the
12 residents of Spanish Lakes Riverfront Leasehold Estates PUD. Approximately 80
13 residents attended in addition to the underlying property owner. The applicant has tried
14 to work together with the neighbors to provide an acceptable landscape buffer,
15 lighting restrictions and hours of operation that are not objectionable. The agreed upon
16 hours of operation are 6 am to 10 pm. The landscape buffer was agreed to be a chain-link
17 fence with slats, and opaque landscape material planted on both sides of the fence. Staff
18 recommends an 8-foot high masonry wall or fence with a hedge on both sides and 60% of
19 the required landscape materials planted on the exterior of the wall, facing the residential
20 area.
21 It was also agreed that no outdoor storage of boats or RV vehicles would be allowed on
22 the west side of the building. The residents were in agreement that this use is low
23 intensity commercial without any windows or exterior lighting. Together with the
24 recommended accommodations, there were no further objections from the neighbors.
25
26 Mr. Szynkowski went on to explain the code calls for substantial conformity (which
27 there was none). This is the reason the applicant and agent elected to come back with a
28 new Preliminary and Final PNRD.
29
30 Staff is concerned about the height and floor area (bulk of the building) even with the
31 increased landscaping. The proposed increase in landscaping does meet and exceeds
32 code in the LDC landscaping per Section7.09.04.
33
34 Chairman Mundt asked the commission if there were any questions for staff.
35
36 The commission was concerned with light pollution, noise and that the fence should be
37 an eight foot masonry wall.
38
39 Mr. Szynkowski incorporated a Power Point Presentation in his address to the Planning
40 & Zoning Commission.
41
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
42
43
44 Noreen Dryer, with the Law firm of Ruden McClosky representing the applicant feels
45 this is a much better plan than originally approved. The use being proposed is of very low
46 impact and meets and exceeds all requirements of the county. She stated that there has
5
1 been much discussion with the owners, Property Owners Association and with neighbors
2 surrounding this proposed project. The concerns addressed were; outside storage of boats
3 and trailers in the back parking area, lighting, drainage and fencing.
4
5 All issues that were of concern have been met including the masonry wall that will be
6 built in lieu of a chained link or wood fence.
7 Norman Schulman, applicant, addressed the commission stating that parking would only
8 be in the designated parking area.
9
10 Freight elevators will be used in case any emergency does arise.
11
12 The sixth floor is smaller than the other floors due to the way the code is written and to
13 make a nice pitched roof on the building.
14
15 Randy Rodgers, with Frisicia Engineering addressed the commission in regards to how
16 the tractor trailers would pull into the building.
17
18 Mr. Rodgers explained the ninety degree angle is the easiest way for the tractor trailers to
19 enter the proposed project.
20
21 Mrs. Hammer suggested the applicant or agent look into the possibility of a new system
22 for irrigation. This system measures the moisture of the ground. The system detects if the
23 ground is wet enough then the sprinklers would not come on.
24
25 Mr. Lounds stated this system is called a tensiometer, which are available at irrigation
26 supply stores. Tensiometers can be set to trigger the irrigation system when the soil
27 moisture gets below a certain level to activate the system. It is the better way to control
28 irrigation watering because it is based on the true soil moisture and not the moisture in
29 the air as most of the old controllers do.
30
31 The applicant agreed to look into this state of the art process as a possible option.
32
33 Mrs. Hammer thanked staff for the great work in the preparation of the resolution (page
34 2, line 12, A), stating the information in this paragraph is the best addition she has seen in
35 all her years on the board.
36
37 She also thanked Frisicia Engineers stating, “this was one of the most complete and
38 correct plans that she has ever seen”.
39
40 Mr. Lounds, for the record, cautioned the applicant and agent about the five or six pine
41 trees that are staying on the property and being protected by barriers. He was concerned
42 about the sensitivity involved in manipulating around the pine trees.
43
44 Mr. Schulman stated he was very aware of this issue and all precautions will be taken.
45
46 Ms. Caron requested that Ms. Dryer submit to staff the information (conditions) she
47 compiled from the meetings with the Wynn Corporation and the owners, residents, and
6
1 neighbors in order for staff to get this information to the Board of County
2 Commissioners.
3
4 Mr. Beaty wanted to make sure the owners, residents and neighbors understood (and are
5 very clear) that a six story building is taller than the Lawnwood Regional Medical Center.
6
7 Ms. Dryer stated they do know that it is a six story building; she did not mention it would
8 be taller than the Lawnwood Regional Medical Center.
9
10 The building will have sprinklers and comply with the Fire Department and Sheriffs
11 Office concerns of Radio Amplifications (emergency responders being able to use their
12 communication radios inside the building).
13
14 The commission requested dumpster pick up during the day.
15
16 Mr. Schulman agreed.
17
18 Mr. Reynolds bought to the attention of staff that this project is located within Fire
19 Station #12 not Station #1.
20
21
Mr. Schrader motioned after considering the testimony presented during the
22
public hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth
23
in Section 11.02.05, St. Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move
24
that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County
25
Board of County Commissioners adopt a resolution granting approval of the
26
Preliminary/Final PNRD (Planned Non - Residential Development) site plan for
27
the project known as St. Lucie Business Park Storage PNRD located in lot #1 of the
28
PNRD (Planned Non - Residential Development) Zoning District, with the
29
mentioned conditions as agreed upon; a masonry eight foot fence along the western
30
side of the property, no outside storage, the additional landscaping as recommended
31
by staff, and hours of operation between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.. Because it is a low
32
impact development it does meet the need of the surrounding area and most
33
importantly it meets the concerns of the neighbors.
34
35
Mr. Reynolds seconded.
36
37
38 Roll Call
39 Ms. Caron – yes
40 Mr. Culverhouse – yes
41 Ms. Hammer – yes
42 Mr. Lounds – yes
43 Ms. Morgan - yes
44 Mr. Beaty – yes
45 Mr. Reynolds – yes
46 Vice Chair Schrader - yes
7
1 Chairman Mundt - yes
2
The motion carried unanimously
3
4 Mr. Culverhouse addressed Chairman Mundt stating; regrets and apologized that he had
5 to leave.
6
7
C. St Lucie County PNRD 1020081529
8
9
Petition of St. Lucie County to grant an amendment to change the
10
zoning from AR – 1 (Agricultural, Residential – 1 du/acre) to the
11
PNRD (Planned Non – Residential Development) Zoning District and
12
Preliminary and Final PNRD Site Plan Approval for the project to be
13
known as Treasure Coast Research and Education Park Core
14
Research Campus – Phase I. Draft Resolution No. 09-002
15
16
17 Mr. Satterlee, Director of Growth Management informed the Commission that this
18 petition is a preliminary step to help expedite the development of the plan when it begins.
19
20 Mr. Johnson, Senior Planner noted a couple of corrections in the item itself that will be
21 made before the item goes before the County Commission. On Page nine of the staff
22 report under number three there is an error that will be cleaned up. The site plan does not
23 incorporate the two existing institutional facilities and second, referring to the resolution
24 Condition of Approval # four that references a master association and restrictive
25 covenants will be removed. He stated that after discussions with our County Attorney’s
26 Office it was recommended that this condition was not needed.
27
28 Growth Management staff has been working very closely with the Treasure Coast
29 Education Research and Development Authority on this proposal. Early this week staff
30 made a presentation and the Authority supported the proposal with no requested changes.
31
32 The purpose of this land development petition by St. Lucie County accomplishes 2 main
33 objectives in order to aid the future development of the Research Park.
34
35 1. Establishes underlying regulations for the Park
36 2. Facilitates planned, orderly development along with an expedited review process
37
38 First, it changes the underlying zoning from AR-1, Agricultural Residential to PNRD,
39 Planned Non Residential in order to be consistent with the Research and Education Park
40 Overlay zoning requirements in our Land Development Code. The zoning overlay
41 requirements in our code have performance standards or regulations, and specify the
42 types of permitted uses that will assure superior and quality development of the Research
43 Park.
44
45 Second, the newly designated underlying PNRD zoning district will facilitate planned,
46 orderly development of the Park that is consistent with the framework and design
8
1 elements in the Treasure Coast Research Park Conceptual Master Plan, which will in turn
2 expedite the site plan review and approval process. Furthermore, the PNRD designation
3 allows for flexible and creative design approaches to development that are not normally
4 found under a straight zoning designation, which will encourage an environment of stable
5 character that is compatible with the surrounding land uses.
6
th
7 As you may be aware, back on August 12 of last year, the Board of County
8 Commissioners approved the Treasure Coast Research Park Conceptual Master Plan that
9 establishes the development framework for this park. This plan divided the 1, 650 acre
10 park into four (4) phases.
11
st
12 The zoning change and site plan represents the 1 phase consisting of approximately162
13 acres (highlighted in dark green) called the Core Research Campus, located at the SW
14 intersection of Picos Road and Kings Highway.
15
16 As mentioned, the property is currently zoned AR-1, Agricultural Residential, with a
17 future land use designation of SD or Special District. The current zoning and land use are
18 incompatible. The only underlying zoning district option available to implement the
19 Special District land use designation as per our overlay zoning district requirements in
20 the land development code is the proposed PNRD zoning district.
21
22 The proposed site plan before you this evening implements the overlay zone and PNRD
23 requirements in our code and is consistent with the Research Park Master Plan. The plan
24 creates a single lot for future development that is approximately 31 acres in size located
25 in the southeast corner of the campus that can accommodate up to 339,000 square feet of
26 uses.
27
28 Access to this lot will be provided by a new, four (4) lane divided main entry road from
29 Graham Road @Kings Highway and full utilities. Tract A, (approximately three [3] acres
30 in size) is located to the south of the main entrance and will provide for common storm
31 water retention, landscaping and signage for the park. The remaining +/-127 acres is
32 identified as “future development” that will transform and grow with the development of
33 the Park and will support approximately 1.8 million square feet of use.
34
35 A concurrency deferral affidavit for this site plan is requested .This will defer the
36 certificates of public facilities reservation until future site plans (with proposed uses and
37 buildings) are submitted to the County for site plan review and approval. At that time
38 these projects will be required to reserve capacity via concurrency evaluation pursuant to
39 our code requirements.
40
41 The review of site plans will be expedited through the County’s site plan review process
42 within ten (10) business days. It should be noted that these individual site plans will be
43 required to be consistent with the Treasure Coast Research Park Conceptual Master Plan
44 elements and concepts with a focus on building design, green building standards,
45 sustainability, storm water management and traffic and pedestrian circulation elements,
46 just to name a few.
9
1 When the individual site plans are submitted to the County, it is anticipated that staff
2 along with the applicant will be making a presentation before Treasure Coast Education
3 Research Development Authority for their blessing prior to Development Review
4 Committee certification and County Commission approval (this includes all plan
5 documents – the site plan, landscape plans, storm water retention plans, architectural
6 building design and signage review just to name a few).
7
8 Mr. Mundt asked the commission if there were any questions for staff.
9
10 Mrs. Hammer asked if this means it would never come to the Planning & Zoning Board.
11
12 Mr. Johnson stated that Mrs. Hammer was correct.
13
14 Ms. Caron questioned the annexation between the county and the city (Ft. Pierce) in
15 regards to this project.
16
17 Mr. Satterlee stated that the county and the city are in negotiations regarding annexations.
18
19 He also stated; that half this project is within the cities envisioned annexation territory.
20
21 Mr. Satterlee and Dan McIntyre, County Attorney will be attending the City of Ft. Pierce
22 Council Meeting on January 20, 2009, encouraging them to defer annexation of
23 properties until a broader agreement can be worked out.
24
25 Ms. Hensley stated that this site is all government owned property.
26
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
27
28
29 No one spoke.
30
Mr. Beaty motioned after considering the testimony presented during the public
31
hearing, including staff comments, and the standards of review as set forth in Sections
32
11.02.07 and 11.06.03, St. Lucie County land Development Code, I hereby move that
33
the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of
34
County Commissioners grant approval to the application of St. Lucie County, for an
35
amendment to the official zoning atlas to change the zoning from the AR-1,
36
Agricultural Residential (1 du/acre) Zoning District to the PNRD, Planned - Non
37
Residential Development Zoning District and Preliminary/Final PNRD site plan
38
approval for a project known as Treasure Coast Research & Education Park Core
39
Campus – Phase 1.
40
41
Mr. Lounds seconded.
42
43
44 Roll Call
45
46 Vice Chair Schrader - yes
47 Mr. Reynolds – yes
10
1 Ms. Morgan – yes
2 Ms. Hammer – yes
3 Ms. Caron – yes
4 Mr. Lounds – yes
5 Mr. Beaty – yes
6 Chairman Mundt - yes
7
8
D. Growth Management Department, Chapters 10, 11 & 12 of the St.
9
Lucie County Land Development Code.
10
11
12 Mr. Meyers and the Commission discussed how to achieve a final draft version of the
13 chapters for public distribution.
14
15 It was determined that Chapter 10 would be discussed first, Chapter 12 second and
16 Chapter 11 last.
17
18 The Planning & Zoning Workshop for Chapter 10 was tentatively scheduled for Monday,
19 February 2, 2009. Staff will e-mail the Planning & Zoning Commissioners a definite date.
20
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
21
22 Mr. Myers, as promised updated the commission on the status of the Mellon Patch
23 Inn.
24
V. ADJOURN
25
26 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
11