HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-19-2009
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 February 19, 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 minutes as part
8
of the record. In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall
9
control.
10
11
I. CALL TO ORDER
12
13 Chairman Mundt called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
14
A. Pledge of Allegiance
15
16
B. Roll Call
17
18 Craig Mundt .......................... Chairman
19 Barry Schrader ...................... Vice Chair
20 Susan Caron .......................... Board Member
21 Brad Culverhouse.................. Board Member
22 Pamela Hammer .................... Board Member
23 Edward Lounds ..................... Board Member
24 Britt Reynolds ....................... Board Member
25 John O’Neill………………...Board Member
26 Kathryn Hensley ................... Ex-Officio
27
Members Absent
28
29 Stephanie Morgan…………...Board Member - Excused
30
Others Present
31
32 Mark Satterlee ....................... Director, Growth Management
33 Robin Meyer ......................... Assistant Director, Growth Management
34 Heather Young ...................... Assistant County Attorney
35 Aneela Ansar ........................ Senior Planner
36 Kara Wood……………..........Planning Manager, TVC
37
C. ANNOUNCEMENTS
38
39 None.
40
D. DISCLOSURES
41
42 None.
43
II. MINUTES
44
45
Review the minutes from the January 15, 2009 regular meeting for
46
approval.
47
1
Mrs. Hammer motioned to approve the minutes with minimal corrections.
1
These corrections have been made.
2
3
Mr. Schrader Seconded.
4
5
The motion carried unanimously.
6
7
8
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9
10
ABaycreek Townhomes- RZ 112006515
.
11
Petition of Selvitz Road Properties LLC for an amendment to the
12
Official Zoning Atlas to change the zoning from the AR – 1
13
(Agricultural, Residential – 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM – 5
14
(Residential, Multiple Family – 5 du/acre) Zoning District.
15
16
Ms. Ansar, Sr. Planner explained that On October 23, 2006, the Growth Management
17
Department received two separate applications from the petitioner; one for a rezoning
18
from AR-1 to RM-5 and the other for a Major Site Plan with 71 town home units.
19
20
The applicant’s representative, Brad Currie, Land Design South informed the Growth
21
Management Department that his client is no longer pursuing the Major Site Plan due to
22
the financial situation of his client and requested to proceed only with the rezoning
23
application.
24
25
The subject parcel is located on the west side of Selvitz Road and east side of
26
Ralls Road, approximately 1,775 feet south of Edwards Road and consists of
27
approximately 14.2 acres.
28
29
According to the petition, the purpose of the rezoning is to provide a transition zone
30
between the industrial land to the south and single-family residences to the north, east
31
and west.
32
33
On January 23, 2009, staff met with the applicant’s representative, during the meeting
34
staff discussed the trends in development as determined by the County concerning
35
straight re-zonings without a site plan. The applicant stated he was unable to modify the
36
current application and convert it to a Planned Unit Development. Staff suggested
37
utilizing the existing site plan and modifying it to be a Preliminary PUD Site Plan. The
38
applicant stated he was unable to do so due to his financial situation.
39
40
Ms. Ansar stated the disadvantages of processing rezoning applications without a site
41
plan. She addressed the inability to enforce basic open space requirements, pedestrian
42
amenities, landscaped focal points, recreational and civic areas for public services, and
43
impose conditions of approval.
44
45
2
Ms. Ansar stated the applicant has failed to demonstrate a need for the additional
1
residential housing units pursuant to Section 11.06.03(D), Standard of Review (for re-
2
zoning).
3
Ms. Ansar went on to say, the applicant is proposing an increase in density by 400%
4
and that there is a likelihood of future annexation of this project into the City of Fort
5
Pierce.
6
Ms. Ansar feels the requested rezoning does not conform to the standards of review for
7
re-zoning as set forth in Section 11.06.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development
8
Code and that the requested rezoning is in conflict with the goals, objectives, and
9
policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
10
11
Ms. Ansar stated staff is recommending denial.
12
13
Mr. Culverhouse asked what goals, objectives and policies of the St. Lucie County
14
Comprehensive plan are not being met.
15
16
Ms. Ansar explained Policies 1.1.4.1 and 1.1.4.2 of the St. Lucie Comprehensive Plan
17
state all new development should be compatible with surrounding land uses, while still
18
keeping all development authorizations in line. This property proposal is not consistent
19
with the density of the surrounding area.
20
21
Ms. Ansar also stated that Future Land Use Policy 1.1.7.1 encourages PUD’s to have a
22
more creative way of development.
23
24
Ms. Ansar stated the applicant has refused to do so.
25
26
Mr. Culverhouse stated that those are the policies and then asked if she would specify
27
the goals, and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
28
29
Ms. Ansar stated the density is consistent with the proposed zoning district and the
30
Future Land Use designation.
31
32
Mr. Brad Currie, Land Design South spoke on behalf of the applicant.
33
34
Mr. Currie presented a power point presentation.
35
36
Mr. Currie stated the subject parcel is located on the west side of Selvitz Road and
37
south of Edwards. Ralls Road that runs along the northern property line is actually a
38
private road way (not a county owed right-of-way).
39
40
Mr. Currie stated the land use on the surrounding property should be discussed.
41
42
Mr. Currie went on to state; to the north is the city designation of RL, which allows up to
43
6 1/2 du/acre, to the south light industrial and to the north an approved PUD (Carriage
44
Point , one house built) with smaller single family lots.
45
46
3
Mr. Currie stated he does not believe that the PUD process is a necessary tool on this
1
piece of property.
2
3
He went on to state; when you’re in a transition area, which he feels this property is, our
4
existing zoning code handles this type of property.
5
6
Mr. Currie stated the high cost of a PUD application will be a difficulty to many in these
7
economic times, adding that the money associated with a PUD is mostly up front, the
8
inability of obtaining financing in these tough economic times and the additional cost of
9
a Final PUD in contrast to a straight re-zoning which is more economical.
10
11
Mr. Currie sited a short excerpt from the staff memo that reads; with the onslaught of
12
development applications that were submitted and approved by St. Lucie County over
13
the past three to four years, the resultant developments are largely poorly planned, and
14
represent sub-standard development patterns and techniques.
15
16
Mr. Currie stated that the above statement was not the result of straight re-zoning; this
17
was the result of approved PUD’s. He also feels there were not any approved straight
18
re-zonings in five years.
19
20
In summary, he believes the request does conform to the standards of re-zoning set
21
forth in the St. Lucie County Land Development Code.The application is not in conflict
22
with the goals, objectives and policies of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, not
23
in conflict with public interest because the proposed amendment will be a transition
24
zone between the single family low density area to the north and the light industrial zone
25
to the south and requests that the Planning & Zoning Commission move forward with a
26
recommendation to approve.
27
28
Mr. Currie added that he would have to come back for site plan approval and at that
29
time he will answer the questions regarding pedestrian access, recreation areas and
30
buffering.
31
32
Mr. Currie stated if staff and the commission is not going to follow the LDC and
33
everything in the county has to be a PUD (total of nine pages in LDC regarding PUD’s)
34
you can take this book and potentially throw it in the trash if the zoning code is not going
35
to be followed and everything has to be a PUD.
36
37
Chairman Mundt asked if the commission had any questions for Mr. Currie.
38
39
Chairman Mundt asked Mr. Currie if the property is going to be serviced by the Ft.
40
Pierce Utility Authority.
41
42
Mr. Currie answered yes, and when asked if he knew what that meant, he stated the
43
property would have to be annexed into the City of Fort Pierce.
44
45
4
Mr. Lounds was concerned about the emissions from the industrial sites around the
1
property (in that location since 1960 or longer), including the fertilizer plant, the
2
Dickerson Plant and the concrete plant. He feels there is not a large enough buffer
3
between the north and the industrial and that a mistake was made with the approval of
4
the development to the north of the property. He feels a lighter form of industrial would
5
be better suited for the property. He does not want to create a problem 2 or 3 years
6
from now for either the county or the city (because it was not thought about today).
7
8
Mr. Culverhouse concurred with Mr. Lounds.
9
10
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
11
12
No one from the public spoke.
13
14
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
15
16
Ms. Caron asked staff to explain the inconsistencies between staff objections and the
17
agent for the applicant.
18
19
Ms. Ansar stated the density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, however it is
20
not consistent with the density of the surrounding land uses and the height restrictions
21
required by the county and the city.
22
23
24
MR. LOUNDS MOTIONED: AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING
25
THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, AND THE STANDARDS OF
26
REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11.06.03, ST. LUCIE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
27
CODE, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND
28
THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY
29
APPLICATION OF “SELVITZ ROAD PROPERTIES LLC”, EMAD AOVIDA FOR AN
30
AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM THE
31
AR-1 (AGRICULTURE, RESIDENTIAL – 1 UNIT PER ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT TO THE
32
RM-5 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE FAMILY – 5 UNITS PER ACRE) ZONING DISTRICT,
33
BECAUSE HE DOES NOT BELIEVE THERE IS A PROPER BUFFER BETWEEN THE
34
INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR FORTY PLUS YEARS AND THE
35
RESIDENTIAL THAT IS NEXT TO IT AND ACROSS THE CREEK. HE IS NOT
36
COMFORTABLE PUTTING THAT MUCH MORE RESIDENTIAL TRAFFIC ONTO SELVITZ
5
1
ROAD AND GLADES CUT OFF AT THE TWO TIMES IT IS GOING TO BE VERY CRITICAL (
2
IN THE MORNING AND NOON TRAFFIC) AND ALSO THE FACT THAT STAFF HAS
3
RECOMMENDED DENIAL.
4
Mrs. Hammer seconded.
5
6
Chairman Mundt asked if there was any discussion.
7
8
Mrs. Hammer commented; she absolutely agrees with Mr. Lounds. Citing page 6 line
9
34- 45 she stated this was the first time ever that she has seen this type of statement
10
and thanked staff. The paragraph reads:
11
12
In an effort to enhance the quality of life for residents of St. Lucie County, the Growth
13
Management Department, together with support from the Board of County
14
Commissioners and Planning and Zoning Commissioners, has committed to performing
15
more rigorous reviews of the development applications. For a proposed development to
16
merely meet the minimum standards of review per the Land Development Code is not in
17
keeping with the long range Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
18
especially as they relate to DCA 9.J-5 Rules regarding urban sprawl and the cost of
19
providing services to those new residents. Moreover, just barely meeting the minimums
20
expressed in the Code is not up to the level of expectation of our long-range vision for
21
the future of this County. Approving the re-zoning to allow 71 additional units would
22
exceed the capacity of the surrounding public facilities without a means by which to
23
require fair share contributions or a public benefit to off-set the cost of these units.
24
25
However, Mr. Culverhouse raised his concerns and said that it is not fair having
26
standards in our LDC and Comp Plan that staff and the commission does not agree with
27
and if this is the case the County Commission should raise the standards so that
28
everyone knows what they have to meet in order to get an approval. He stated; it was
29
not fair to have the standard to be A and then say, since it is not C and only meets A
30
then we are going to recommend denial. He went on to say that this is not due process
31
of law and if it only meets the bare minimum then the bare minimum needs to be raised
32
up to the point were it satisfies what the county thinks it should be.
33
34
Mrs. Hammer recommended that we ask the commissioners to raise the standards of
35
review because the minimum standards are too low.
36
37
Mr. Satterlee asked that the motion be amended because there is technically no project
38
known as Baycreek Townhomes (the motion reflects the change).
39
40
Roll Call
41
6
Mr. O’Neill - Yes to deny
1
Mr. Reynolds – Yes to deny
2
Mr. Culverhouse – Yes to deny
3
Vice Chair Schrader – Yes to deny
4
Ms. Caron – Yes to deny
5
Mr. Lounds – Yes to deny
6
Ms. Hammer – Yes to deny
7
Chairman Mundt – Yes to deny
8
9
The motion carried unanimously
10
11
B. Provences DRC – DRC 06-01
12
Petition of Willow Lakes, LLC; Midway Properties, LLC; Red River,
13
LLC for a Development Order for the Provences Development of
14
Regional Impact Application for Development Approval.
15
16
Ms. Wood, Planning Manager TVC explained that the applicant sent a letter to Ms.
17
Wood on February 4, 2009 requesting a continuance of this public hearing.
18
19
Ms. Woods added that the applicant was notified a number of times beginning
20
September of 2008 that this public hearing would be scheduled and go before the
21
BOCC on a date certain of March 17, 2009.
22
23
Ms. Wood stated that the applicant has not paid the re-noticing costs as agreed at the
24
July, 2008 Planning & Zoning Meeting.
25
26
For the record neither the applicant or agent were present at this public hearing.
27
28
The commission and staff discussed whether or not to continue this public hearing.
29
30
In was agreed upon that the public hearing would take place.
31
32
Ms. Wood continued with her presentation, stating that this is an Application for
33
Development Approval for Provences Development of Regional Impact. The property is
34
located on the northwest quadrant of Midway Road and I-95, the property is mostly
35
within the St. Lucie County Urban Service Area, except for a small portion in the
36
northwest corner of the project. The Future Land Use of the property is the MXD
37
Midway/Glades Mixed Use Activity Area (702 acres) and AG-2.5 (39 acres).
38
39
Ms. Wood addressed the current zoning and the properties surrounding the proposed
40
project. The property is currently vacant agricultural land.
41
42
Ms. Wood stated that the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Assessment
43
Report issued in March 2007 reviews Provences DRI primarily in its consistency with
44
state statutes and SRPP.
45
46
7
Ms. Wood added that the review has primarily focused on consistency with the St.
1
Lucie County Comprehensive Plan; The Regional Planning Council Assessment Report
2
found the DRI to be inconsistent with the SRPP and 77 recommended conditions of
3
approval were included in the Report to bring the proposed project into compliance.
4
5
The Provences DRI development program includes, 575 Single-Family Units, 975
6
Townhome Units, 2,005 Multi-Family Units and 2,338,600 SF Non-residential
7
development.
8
9
Ms. Wood stated that the proposed Master Development Plan of Provences DRI is
10
inconsistent with 10 policies of Chapter 1, Future Land Use Element, and 16 policies in
11
Chapter 8, Conservation Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan.
12
13
Ms. Wood mentioned the placement of the school site, violation of wetland policies,
14
buffering and the transportation issues (one being Delaware Avenue and the historic
15
structures close to the street that would need to be demolished to make way for this
16
new 4-lane street section).
17
18
Staff recommends denial of this application.
19
20
Mr. Satterlee stated the traffic analysis submitted by the applicant technically is correct
21
however, the applicant has not included any financial feasibility of all the improvements
22
that have to be made throughout the road network.
23
24
After a discussion with the County Attorney, Mr. Culverhouse abstained from voting on
25
this issue because of a home he owns with his wife that would be affected by this
26
project. Mr. Culverhouse did not participate in the Commissions deliberations in
27
pertaining to this application.
28
29
For the record Ms. Young will e-mail Mr. Culverhouse the voting conflict form.
30
31
The Commission concerns are mitigation of wetlands, design of the project, number of
32
residential properties, traffic, and the fact that the applicant has not responded in writing
33
in over a year.
34
35
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
36
37
Suzanne Varn spoke in concern of the wetlands and her observation of a huge electrical
38
grid going through the property and how it fit into the design of the project.
39
40
Chairman Mundt, for the record again asked if the applicant or agent for the project was
41
here and if so would like to speak.
42
43
There was no one in the Chambers representing this project.
44
45
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
46
8
1
2
MS. CARON MOTIONED AFTER CONSIDERING THE TESTIMONY PRESENTED DURING
3
THE PUBLIC HEARING, INCLUDING STAFF COMMENTS, I HEREBY MOVE THAT THE
4
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY RECOMMEND THAT THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY BOARD OF
5
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DENY THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
6
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT KNOWN AS PROVENCES, BECAUSE
7
THE PROPOSED APPLICATION IS INCONSISTANT WITH THE POLICIES OF THE ST.
8
LUCIE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO POLICY
9
1.1.1.1., POLICY 1.1.2.1, POLICY 1.1.2.3, POLICY 1.1.2.5, POLICY 1.1.2.6, POLICY 1.1.11.1,
10
POLICY 1.1.11.3, POLICY 1.1.17.1, POLICY 1.1.17.2, POLICY 1.1.17.3 AND TWENTY
11
INCONSISTANT POLICIES IN CHAPTER EIGHT. AS WELL AS THE RECOMMENDATIONS
12
OF DENIAL FROM STAFF AND THE COMMENTS FROM THE TREASURE COAST
13
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL.
14
Mr. Reynolds seconded.
15
16
Roll Call
17
Mr. O’Neill – Yes to deny
18
Mr. Lounds – Yes to deny
19
Vice Chair Schrader – Yes to deny
20
Ms. Hammer – Yes to deny
21
Mr. Reynolds – Yes to deny
22
Ms.Caron – Yes to deny
23
Chairman Mundt – Yes to deny
24
25
The motion carried unanimously with Mr. Culverhouse abstaining.
26
27
Mr. Culverhouse did not participate in the Commissions deliberations pertaining to this
28
application.
29
30
31
Mr. Lounds suggested staff look into some of our mitigation rules for environmentally
32
sensitive lands in light of the hurricanes that the county has endured.
33
34
Mr. Lounds stated that the commission as a group asks staff to compile data as to what
35
the wetlands do for us , the advantage they bring to us long term (being many, many
36
9
years) and the disadvantage of mitigating those wetlands and some of the
1
environmental issues away.
2
3
He does not mean to imply that he wants to strengthen necessarily the rules that have
4
been applied with the environmental regulations, meaning we may need to be a little
5
more sensitive about approving and our approach as we have more development
6
coming to us and we are having less and less wetlands to give us benefits.
7
8
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
9
None.
10
11
V. ADJOURN
12
13
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned around 8:45
14
p.m
15 .
10