HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-16-2009
1 St. Lucie County
2 Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
rd
3 Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
4 April 16, 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 6:07 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 ..................................... Commission Member
21 Brad Culverhouse............................. Commission Member
22 Pamela Hammer ............................... Commission Member
23 Edward Lounds ................................ Commission Member
24 Stephanie Morgan ............................ Commission Member
25 Britt Reynolds .................................. Commission Member
26 John O’Neill .................................... Commission Member
27 Kathryn Hensley .............................. Ex-Officio
28
Members Absent
29
30 None
31
Others Present
32
33 Mark Satterlee .................................. Director, Growth Management
34 Kristin Tetsworth ............................. Planning Manager, Growth Management
35 Kara Wood....................................... TVC Manager, Growth Management
36 Heather Young ................................. Assistant County Attorney
37 Heather Lueke .................................. Assistant County Attorney
38 Amy Mott ........................................ Environmental Regulation Manager
39 Michael Brillhart .............................. Growth Management, Capital Improvements
40 Manager
41 Jennifer Evans .................................. Environmental Planning Coordinator - TVC
42
C. Announcements
43
44 None.
45
D. Disclosures
46
47 None.
1
1
2
II. Minutes
3
Review the minutes from the March 19, 2009 regular meeting, for
4
approval.
5
6
Mrs. Hammer motioned to approve the minutes with minor corrections.
7
8
9 These corrections have been made.
10
Vice Chair Schrader Seconded.
11
12
The motion carried unanimously.
13
14
III.Public Hearings
15
16
Chairman Mundt changed the agenda items order due to the length of discussion.
17
Agenda Item B to A
18
Agenda Item C to B
19
Agenda Item A to C
20
21
B.St. Lucie County Attorney’s Office: Ordinance No. 09-001
22
(f/k/a Ordinance No. 08-034)
23
Petition of St. Lucie County to adopt Ordinance No. 09-001 which, if
24
adopted, would define “changeable message signs” and add changeable
25
message signs to the list of prohibited signs. The Ordinance proposes to
26
prohibit changeable message signs because of the negative effects
27
(distractions) on the driving public.
28
29
30
31 Ms. Young, Assistant County Attorney recommended to the Commission that the public hearing
32 on this item be continued. Ms. Young explained that the attorney’s office is continuing to review
33 this ordinance with the sign companies.
34
35 Ms. Young recommended that the Commission not proceed with the ordinance and hopefully the
36 ordinance will brought back at a later date.
37
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
38
39
40 Ray Murankus, St Lucie County Utilities, Project Manager explain that the Utilities Department
41 would like to include language which would allow the St. Lucie County Utilities, Public Works,
42 Road and Bridge and the Sheriffs Department to continue to use the variable message signs.
43
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
44
45
2
1
Mrs. Hammer motioned to cancel the public hearing.
2
Ms. Caron seconded.
3
4
The motion carried unanimously.
5
6
.
C St. Lucie County Attorney’s Office; Status Report on the Proposed
7
Impact Fee Methodology update
8
Petition of St. Lucie County to amend Chapter 1-16.6 “Public Buildings
9
Impact Fee”, Chapter 1-17 “Roads Impact Fee”, and Chapter 1-15 “Parks
10
Impact Fee” of the Code of St. Lucie County.
11
12
13 Mr. Satterlee, Growth Management Director explained to the Commission, that because of on
14 going changes to the Impact Fee Methodology Update he would like this item to be continued in
15 order for the public to have more time to review the information.
16
17 Mr. Culverhouse, Vice Chair Schrader and Ms. Morgan reiterated the need for the public to
18 have more time to review the code.
19
20 Mr. Brillhart, Growth Management, Capital Improvements Manager stated that the Impact Fee
21 Methodology Update has been available on Growth Managements web site since March 31, 2009
22 and staff is still in the process of reviewing the item.
23
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
24
25
26 No one spoke.
27
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
28
29
Mr. Culverhouse
30
motioned to continue this item to the Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
31
on June 18, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as possible.
32
33
Ms. Morgan seconded.
34
The motion carried unanimously.
35
36
Mr. Satterlee agreed that this item would be posted on Growth management’s web site by
37
June 1, 2009.
38
39
A.St. Lucie County Attorney’s Office: Ordinance No. 09-007
40
Petition of St. Lucie County to adopt Ordinance No. 09-007 amending the
41
Land Development Code Section 7.09.00, this section sets out general
42
landscaping requirements for residential and non-residential developments.
43
This section has been consistently interpreted by Staff to require street trees
44
in single-family subdivisions. Several scriveners’ errors and some confusing
45
3
language need to be corrected to clarify the intent of this section with regard
1
to single family subdivisions and street trees. This section also needs to
2
change the requirement from landscaping every 15 parking spaces, to
3
landscaping every 10 spaces, to match the previously – adopted parking
4
ordinance.
5
6
7 Ms. Lueke, Assistant County Attorney explained that this item is a continuance from the March
8 19, 2009 Planning & Zoning meeting. Ms. Lueke explained that this Commission had made
9 several suggestions for change which have to be incorporated into the ordinance. Ms. Lueke
10 stated
11 that Ms. Neil from the extension office did review the ordinance and her comment is
12 incorporated into the ordinance.
13
14 Ms. Lueke stated that Johnathan Ferguson, Attorney, with the Law Firm of Ruden McClosky
15 expressed concerns at the March 19, 2009 meeting. He was asked to review and comment on this
16 ordinance, to date he has not submitted any comments.
17
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
18
19
20 Johnathan Ferguson, Attorney, with the Law Firm of Ruden McClosky apologized to staff. He
21 stated that all his issues have been addressed.
22
23 Mr. Ferguson stated, after looking through the ordinance again he requested that staff address a
24 minor glitch before forwarding this item to the BOCC.
25
26 His recommendation is that chapter seven provisions (that are being amended) required that the
27 landscape plan be prepared, signed and sealed by a registered Florida Landscape Architect and
28 that a preliminary PUD application only requires conceptual landscape plans, they do not have to
29 be signed and sealed by a licensed Landscape Architect (the only time you need signed and
30 sealed landscape plans are for the final PUD application).
31
“This section
32 Dennis Murphy questioned the need for the sentence in the ordinance that reads
has been consistently interpreted by Staff to require street trees in single-family
33
subdivisions”.
34
35
36 Mr. Murphy feels that up until a year ago the application and code requirement for street trees
37 has not been in the code and he was wondering why the requirements are not included in non-
38 residential subdivisions (he feels this can be worked out as this ordinance proceeds down the
39 line).
40
41 Mr. Murphy’s bigger issues dealt with practical application and practical construction. He felt
42 looking at the documentation it has not been vetted through Engineering or the Utilities
43 Departments. He question how staff would deal with a subdivision that comes in on an existing
44 public right-of-way, no improvements required (simple division of property) is the applicant
45 required to landscape and irrigate the public right-of way and if so who would maintain this
46 right-of way. He stated these issues are not addressed in this ordinance and when these questions
4
1 need to be addressed they will cause greater levels of confusion and consternation as applicants
2 move down the development review process. He feels this issue is solvable, but needs to be
3 addressed.
4
5 Mr. Murphy does not feel this ordinance was passed out to the practioners for comment and
6 input. His last question was why Environmental Resources Department (ERD) determine
7 whether or not parking is adequate within a particular project. He feels this should be left as a
8 Growth Management function.
9
10 Mr. Murphy requested that the Planning & Zoning Commission send this ordinance back for a
11 redraft and additional input is considered from other departments and individuals.
12
13 Ms. Mott told the Commission she would review Mr. Murphy’s requests and answered the
14 questions she felt were addressed in this ordinance.
15
16 Ms. Lueke stated it did not occur to staff to ask practioners for comments. She stated that as far
17 as staff is concerned this portion of the ordinance is not new.
18
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
19
20
21 Mr. Lounds was concerned about the placement of foundation trees that are placed in right-of
22 ways of a development. Over time utilities would be affected by foundation tree placements in
23 the right-of way.
24
25 Mr. Culverhouse echoed Mr. Lounds concerns.
26
27 Mr.Satterlee stated that this issue should be considered as infrastructure, which over time would
28 have to be addressed.
29
30 Mr. Schrader suggested that “shade” (for the type of trees) be used throughout this ordinance.
31
32 Ms. Mott agreed.
33
Mrs. Hammer motioned to forward draft Ordinance 09-007 to the Board of County
34
Commissioners with included comments that were raised during the public hearing and by
35
the members of the Planning & Zoning Commission.
36
37
Mr. Reynolds seconded.
38
39
The motion carried unanimously.
40
41
42
.
DSunset Beach PUD: PUD 06-023
43
44
Petition of Sunset Beach Investments, LLC a Georgia Limited Liability
45
Company, requesting a Wavier from Comprehensive Plan Policies 8.1.14.2
46
5
and 8.1.14.5; and Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan approval
1
for the project to be known as Sunset Beach PUD.
2
Mr. Culverhouse disclosed that he received a phone call from a representative of the
3
applicant that lasted about three and one-half minutes.
4
5
6 Ms. Tetsworth, Growth Management Planning Manager explained to the commission that the
7 Petition of Sunset Beach Investments, LLC, a Georgia Limited Liability Company, a 44 unit
8 residential project on 29.15 acres of land located on the east side of State Road A-1A on South
9 Hutchinson Island.application was originally
The project history has been a long one. The
The project history has been a long one. The
10 submitted June 2, 2006, last DRC Meeting March 19, 2009 (staff only discussion), last DRC
11 Report Issued August 1, 2008, last ERD Report December 18, 2008, last Re-submittal of Site
12 Plans April 3, 2009.
13
14 Ms. Tetsworth stated this is a waiver from the Comprehensive Plan Policies 8.1.14.2 and
15 8.1.14.5 to allow the applicant to impact the wetlands. That typically only the BOCC authorizes
16 to grant this waiver (did not have to come before the Planning & Zoning Commission).
17 However, this is an integral part of how the site plan ended up the way that it is and could not
18 move forward with this project without the waiver and this is why we have to discuss it in this
19 manner.
20
21 Ms. Tetsworth explained this is a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan approval, an
22 Amendment to the Official Zoning Atlas to change the zoning from the HIRD- Hutchinson
23 Island Residential Zoning District to the PUD, Planned Unit Development Zoning District, that
24 will not be effective until such time as the property owner petitions for Final Planned Unit
25 Development Site Plan approval.
26
27 Ms. Tetsworth went on to explain in order for this application to be found in compliance with
28 the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code, certain waivers must be
29 granted by the Board of County Commissioners from the following provisions of the
30 Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.14.2 for 0.60 acres of direct impact in a Category One (1)
31 wetland to allow the construction of an access roadway, and 0.07 acres of direct impact to allow
32 for mosquito control improvements; and, Policy 8.1.14.5 to allow the encroachment on 1.2 acres
33 of the required 50 foot upland buffer between the wetland and the residential development
34 activity to allow construction of an access roadway, lift station and pool parking.
35
36 Ms. Tetsworth continued stating exemplary aspects of the project are, common open space
37 provided equals 36.4% of the gross acreage of the site, whereas the Code requires 35%,
38 additional areas of wetlands and stormwater detention equal 13.3 acres, or 45.6% of the site,
39 proposed density equals 1.5 du/ac., whereas the allowable density would be 4 units/ac.,
40 development areas will occupy only 18.18% of the site and are designed to limit the impacts on
41 the wetlands to the greatest extent possible, a focal point is provided in the cul-de-sac at the end
6
1 of Sea Pearl, the recreation area will include a swimming pool with restrooms for all residents to
2 use. Further exemplary aspects are detailed lighting plan illustrating bollard style lighting to
3 reduce negative glare impacts on wildlife with additional restrictions on all exterior lighting on
4 homes and signage, enhanced landscaping for the dune crossover to encourage connectivity to
5 the beach in one location, additional enhanced landscaping materials within the buffer will be
6 provided, a Area Management Plan is provided for the perpetual maintenance of all proposed
7 conservation areas, conservation easement is required for the Dune Preservation Zone, and
8 Wetland Areas, one credit from the Bear Point Mitigation Bank has already been reserved and
9 the site design allows for all of the proposed lots to abut the dune preservation zone and
10 ultimately face the Atlantic Ocean.
11
12 Jennifer Evans, Environmental Resources explained to the Commission the environmental
13 aspects of this project. This site is a category one (1) wetland due to the hydraulic connection it
14 has to the larger tidal wetland system of Hutchinson Island and the Indian River Lagoon. Per
15 Comprehensive Plan Policy 8.1.14.3 a category one wetland waiver that states preservation of
16 wetland precludes all reasonable economically viable use of the property and which applied
17 would result in a taking of the property and must be approved by the BOCC. Since the buildable
18 uplands on this site can only be accessed through the wetland if the impacts associated with the
19 access road it could be considered a taking.
20
21 Ms. Evans went on to explain the impacts. She also noted that the Home Owner’s Association
22 HOA) or Property Owners Association (POA) will maintain the areas and anywhere devoid of
23 vegetation they will be required to replant which is in their Area Management Plan.
24
25 Travis Walker, Weiss Handler spoke on behalf of the applicant.
26
27 Mrs. Hammer questioned the parking, the cookie cutter blocks of forty foot wide lots with 44 lots
28 jammed in and questioned the report submitted by Weiss Handler.
29
30 Mr. Walker stated through his work with staff the project has been greatly diminished in size and
31 impacts.
32
33 Cynthia Angelos stated that the report is old.
34
35 Mrs. Hammer questioned why they were getting old reports.
36
37 Ms. Tetsworth stated that some of the information that was received was submitted to the
38 commissioners as a courtesy because it was part of their original application back in 2006.
39
40 Chairman Mundt questioned if the City of Ft. Pierce has looked at this application.
7
1
2 Ms. Tetsworth stated yes and that they do have an approval for the water and waste water will be
3 supplied by Fort Pierce Utility Authority. St. Lucie County will supply the reclaimed water.
4
5 Chairman Mundt. wants to make sure staff put in as a condition of approval that the HOA or
6 POA is responsible for the Preserve Area Management Plan, that the Kimley-Horn traffic
7 information from 2006 be updated and find out if part of the stimulus package can be used in the
8 beach restoration.
9
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
10
11
12 Jeff Mitchell, Real Estate Agent and property owner on North Beach spoke in favor of the
13 project.
14
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
15
16
17 Mr. Lounds emphasized the need to the wetlands and dune lines.
18
19 Ms. Caron suggested alternative technologies such as green technologies.
20
21 Dune restoration will be done before the homes are built.
22
Ms. Morgan motioned that after considering the testimony presented during the public
23
hearing including staff comments the Local Planning Agency recommend that the St. Lucie
24
County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application for Preliminary
25
PUD Site Plan Approval for the development known as Sunset Beach subject to the
26
limiting conditions Ms. Morgan feels this project is a perfect fit and an asset to St. Lucie
27
County and commended the developer for all the hard work with working with staff and
28
staff with the developer.
29
30
Vice Chair Schrader seconded.
31
32
Roll Call
33
Mr. Culverhouse – yes
34
Mr. Lounds – yes
35
Mr. Reynolds – yes
36
Mr. O’Neil – yes
37
Ms. Hammer – no
38
Ms. Caron –yes
39
Vice Chair Schrader – yes
40
Ms. Morgan – yes
41
Chairman Mundt – yes
42
43
Motion passed 8-1 with Mrs. Hammer dissenting.
44
8
1
E. Shinn Road Equestrian Estates: PUD 06-002
2
3
Petition of Stiles Development for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site
4
Plan approval and change in zoning from AG – 5 to PUD for 106 single family
5
lots on approximately 532 aces, for a project known as Shinn Road Equestrian
6
Estates.
7
8
9 Ms. Wood, Growth Management, TVC Planning Manager explained Agenda Item 3E is an
10 Application for Preliminary PUD Site Plan Approval and Change in Zoning from AG-5 to PUD.
11 At this time, only the preliminary site plan is subject to review; the rezoning will take place only
12 upon approval of Final PUD.
13
14 The subject property is located approximately 1 ½ miles north of Okeechobee Road between
15 Shinn Road and Header Canal Road. The zoning of the property and all adjacent properties is
16 also AG-5, with the same maximum density of 1 du/5 acres. The exception is the Fire Station
17 which is zoned Institutional. The property is currently vacant agricultural land, as is most of the
18 surrounding property. Other uses include the Fire Station on the east end of the site, across Shinn
19 Road is a citrus packing plant, to the North of the proposed development is the Save the Chimps
20 sanctuary for rescued chimpanzees.
21
22 The Shinn Road Equestrian Estate site plan proposes 106 single family lots between 1 and 5
23 acres each. A total of 80% Open Space is provided, but only 35% of this is outside of private
24 yards.
25
26 Ms. Wood then compared other approved PUD’s with this application:
27
28 Shinn Lakes PUD approved November 20, 2007 has 75 lots on 382 acres a total of 72% open
29 space is provided. While this is below the 80% required by code, the organization and use of the
30 open space meets the intent of the code and Comp Plan, and none of the open space is included
31 in private yards.
32
33 Hunter’s Run PUD approved May 16, 2007 has 67 lots, 1.75-6.74 acres each, on 407 acres a total
34 of 80% Open Space is provided. While some of the open space is included in private yards, most
35 is common open space with uses consistent with the intent of the code and Comp Plan, such as
36 restored and d hammock.
37
38 Ms. Wood’s concerns are that there is no proposal for how this open space would be regulated or
39 maintained consistent with the stated purpose of open space in the Land Development Code.
40
9
1 Section 7.01.03.I.2.c of the Code outlines that “All areas to be dedicated for open space shall be
2 identified as part of the Preliminary Development Plan for the Planned Unit Development” and
3 the ways in which that open space must be dedicated, conveyed, restricted or maintained. None
4 of these parameters has been outlined by the applicant with this plan.
5
6 The proposed site plan is inconsistent with,AG-5 Land Use Category as described in the
7 Comprehensive Plan, Policy 1.1.2.2 regarding the concentration of development areas to
8 minimize infrastructure, Policy 1.1.2.3 regarding the provision of open space in non-agricultural
9 development, Policy 1.1.2.5 regarding the conversion of agricultural to non-agricultural uses,
10 Policy 1.1.2.6 regarding buffering between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, Section
11 7.01.01, Planned Unit Development Purpose, Section 7.01.03, Planned Unit Development,
12 Standards and Requirements open space standards, setbacks from agricultural land clustering of
13 development
14
15 In staff’s analysis, the proposed site plan does not cluster development and provide open space
16 consistent with the language and intent of the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.
17
18 Ms. Wood recommended the Board of County Commissioners deny the application for
19 Preliminary PUD Site Plan Approval and if a recommendation of approval is considered, 28 total
20 conditions have been included in the staff report that staff recommends including in a
21 development order.
22
23 Brian Nolan, Landscape Architect Planner, Lucido and Associates explained that the varying lot
24 sizes allow for paddock, barn and stable areas for residents that wish to have these facilities.
25 There will be approximately eight and one-half miles of equestrian horse trail, a total of one
26 hundred and six lots. Of that twenty seven are approximately one acre, fifty eight are
27 approximately two and one half acres and twenty one lots are approximately five acres that is a
28 total of three hundred and twelve lots. Mr. Nolan continued, explaining to the Commission what
29 other uses would be for the property.
30
31 Johnathan Ferguson, Attorney, with the Law Firm of Ruden McClosky talked about the open
32 space issue, which he feels has been contentious over the last few years in the county as to how
33 the open space is to be applied, specifically with agricultural PUD’s.
34
35 Mr. Ferguson suggested to staff in his comments and he quotes “that common open space will be
36 dedicated to Home Owners Association and a restrictive covenant will be placed on individual
37 lots suggesting a condition with language similar to the following (negotiable with staff) that
38 would be put on the plat and be part of covenants that would run with the land. The obstructed
39 area of each lot (open space is defined in the Land Development Code (LDC) as unobstructed
40 area, basically any area that is open to the sky). Mr. Ferguson stated there is no quality
10
1 component of the open space definition in the LDC, making it pervious (open or accessible to
2 reason, feeling, argument, etc.) it is considered open space”. With that he is proposing to say “the
3 obstructed area of each lot (that is non open space) shall not exceed the following for each lot
4 size”. He went on to state the subparts in his proposal. He thinks when built out this project
5 would probably exceed ninety percent open space. This was his response to staff which states
6 they did not provide a means of guaranteeing that the open space on individual lots would remain
7 (he begged to differ).
8
9 Mr. Ferguson discussed multi use paths and sidewalks within the urban service boundary, (this
10 project is not in the urban service boundary he thinks sidewalks are not required). He feels multi
11 use paths are not required for this project. He then cited Section 7.05.04 part A of the LDC. He
12 feels staff is not reading the cited section correctly. He also spoke about the Greenways and
13 Trails Plan.
14
15 Mr. Ferguson disagrees with staff on the issue of a multi use path (not legally required) along
16 Shinn Road. He feels it is impractical, overly expensive, does not make sense and even if it was
17 something they should do as a developer they would still disagree with staff.
18
19 Mr. Ferguson displayed a Greenways Path map explaining that staff is incorrect about their
20 assessment of the map (he objected to staffs assessment).
21
22 Mr. Ferguson stated his objections with the Environmental Resources Department (ERD) as
23 Canal 71 as being called Ten Mile Creek. He feels staff is using the extra protection built-in for
24 Ten Mile Creek when in his opinion staff should not focus their report on Ten Mile Creek. The
25 focus should be on Canal 71 that dumps into Ten Mile Creek.
26
27 Mr. Ferguson opposed the requirement that a berm be placed between the subject property and
28 the Chimpanzee . He discussed how twice a day the chimps apparently start howling and
29 screeching and that this noise could be heard for miles. Mr. Ferguson feels adding an additional
30 twelve foot berm on the subject’s side of the canal would not reduce the noise level of the
31 chimps, stating the further you are from the noise the less effect it has. The closest lot in the
32 project is thirteen hundred feet from the closest chimpanzee. This would have been addressed in
33 comments to staff but Mr. Ferguson stated it was not in any staff comments that he received.
34
35 He also disagreed with staff’s recommendation of denial and many of the conditions included in
36 the resolution feeling they are not merited by the Comp Plan or the LDC.
37
38 Mr. Ferguson in closing thinks the project’s site plan meets the intent of the Comp Plan and LDC
39 for an Agricultural Planned Unit Development and an Equestrian Community respectfully
40 requesting the Commission forward to the BOCC with a recommendation of approval.
11
1 Ms. Wood stated when Mr. Ferguson responded to all of staff’s comments in the latest DRC
2 letter he disagreed with all the recommended conditions of the resolution. He also refused the
3 request from the Chimp representatives that a declaration to be made in the HOA documents that
4 the chimp use exists and for the additional buffer. Ms. Wood stated that these requests were
5 refused as well (she received this information anecdotally: based on personal observation, case
6 study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal
7 evidence.).
8
9 The Commission had a lengthy discussion.
10
11 Issues raised were the request for an open space management plan, maintaining open space,
12 connection with areas, unobstructed open space required in Agricultural PUD’s, projects that
13 were approved regarding open space Agricultural PUD’s, intent of the language in the Comp
14 Plan and LDC on how the open space should be conveyed on the plan, dedicated, organized and
15 maintained. Also raised were common open space opposed to open space, the buffer between the
16 project and the Chimpanzee Preserve, sidewalk path ways on Shinn Road, Ten Mile Creek as
17 opposed to Canal 71(where does Ten Mile Creek start and end), utilizing Agricultural Property
18 without it becoming an Industrial Site, the need for Equestrian property in St. Lucie County, one
19 way in and one way out, Fire Department standard and rules (measurements), agreements and if
20 this project meets all the requirements in the Comp Plan and LDC.
21
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
22
23 No one spoke.
24
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
25
26
27 There was discussion among the Commission, including if any developments had been approved
28 with regards to the open space counting back yards in the last year and one half ( this being a
29 very big issue in the county). There have not been any.
30
31 Mr. Ferguson disagreed. (Hunters Run was approved in May, 2007)
32
33 There was opposition between the Commission Members.
34
35 The recommendation of denial by staff was of great concern to some Commission Members.
36
37 Other Commission Members thought this project would be a great addition in St. Lucie County.
38
39 Ms. Morgan reiterated to Mr. Ferguson “if anyone who plans on purchasing a home in this
40 development would be told about the chimpanzees, the noise, the screaming or whatever and
41 when you go out into an area like that you’re going to expect something like that and it’s buyer
42 beware”. Ms. Morgan then asked “did you not say something like that”.
43
12
1 Mr. Ferguson told Ms. Morgan she was correct. Mr. Ferguson replied, “that anyone buying in
2 that type of area in today’s environment, any seller would be crazy not to have full disclosure
3 (Ms. Morgan said “exactly”) of anything and everything that might occur in an Ag. Area so yes”.
4
5 Ms. Morgan repeated disclosure, disclosure, disclosure and stated she thinks that this is a
6 wonderful project.
7
8 Vice Chair Schrader stated his agreement with the last few comments. The fact that the applicant
9 is willing to give setbacks for the chimpanzees, and this is needed. He went on to say he has
10 heard the word intent about thirty times now based on the twenty eight rules. He also stated he
11 can not work off the intent he can only work off the policies that he is given and he thinks it does
12 match and he does want the covenant if Mr. Ferguson would allow. It would be something Vice
13 Chair Schrader would ask for to maintain the open space including the yards, but otherwise the
14 project is ideal, well suited and need in the area.
15
16 Chairman Mundt asked about the Ag. Land Committee.
17
18 Ms. Caron stated she was the Vice Chair of that committee (Ms. Caron stated at the June 18,
19 2009 Planning & Zoning Meeting “she was the vice chair of the TDR Committee not the Ag.
20 Committee) and the committee went back and forth month after month and the direction from
21 the BOCC actually was changing. Nothing has come to pass on the agreement and yes the
22 committee did make several recommendations to the BOCC which lays in the hands of the
23 BOCC.
24
25 Mr. Mundt then asked Heather Young, Assistant County Attorney if she had taken a look at the
26 staff report and has the County Attorney made a determination.
27
28 Ms. Young replied that they have reviewed the staff report but are not involved in the process of
29 drafting them. Ms. Young went on to say, when making your recommendations you need to
30 address whether or not you want to include all twenty eight conditions as part of that
31 recommendation.
32
33 Mrs. Hammer’s biggest concern was designating open space on private lots. She wanted to know
34 who is going to enforce it because the Home Owner’s Association (HOA) Board of Directors is
35 not going to go out and tell someone that they can’t do something on their lot and that it has to be
36 open space. It’s difficult enough when it is Upland Habitat and trying to make home owners
37 follow regulations. Prohibiting a private owner not caring if it is in the covenant or rules and sign
38 on the dotted line it is not going to happen and a HOA is not going to enforce it. This is why
39 Mrs. Hammer believes the intent was to create eighty percent open space thirty five percent of
40 that hunk of space would be common open space and the housing units would be on the rest of
41 the land so that it would be a contiguous area of open space.
42
43 Mr. Lounds asked if the Building Department reviewed plans for setbacks and such would that
44 not be a red light.
45
13
1 Mrs. Hammer replied that they would review it for the county setbacks on that lot they would not
2 review it for the HOA deed requirements.
3
4 Ms. Wood stated the Building Department would enforce the basic requirements of the code in
5 terms of set backs, lot coverage and maximum impervious area. She presumes the applicant (she
6 stated “reaching here”) does not specifically designate on the plan which areas are open space in
7 the lots so in that way a home owner could decide which areas are the built areas and which the
8 open space areas are.
9
10 Mr. Lounds and Mrs. Hammer discussed how the Building Department enforces basic
11 requirements of the county in zoning district not in a HOA.
12
13 Mrs. Hammer reiterated different set back requirements. Stating you need to open space; the
14 County Building Department is not going to look at the association’s rules and regulations. It
15 would not even matter if you had a strong HOA. At the Building Department applicants have to
16 sign a document that states they have approval of the HOA.The Building Department does not
17 check. Residents have signed that they have approval when they have never gone through the
18 Architectural Review Committees of the local HOA.
19
20 Mr. Ferguson respectfully disagreed with Mrs. Hammer’s opinion.
21
22 Mrs. Hammer stated this is the experience she has had.
23
24 Mr. Ferguson stated he hopes that the County Building Department is looking at restrictions on
25 the plats and not letting people build where they are not allowed. The restrictions on the plat are
26 the document the Building Department is supposed to look at and enforce. Mr. Ferguson
27 suggested the restrictions can be on the plat and in the covenants that would run with the land. In
28 this case the Building Department and HOA can enforce the open space requirements.
29
30 Mr. Mundt stated he did like the idea. The unfortunate dilemma he is faced with is staff
31 recommendation and the number of objections they have with the project. Without clarification
32 from the BOCC in making allowances, he feels bound by the code and the interpretation that
33 they have from both staff and the legal department.
34
There were two motions made:
35
36
Mr. Lounds motioned “that after considering the testimony presented during the public
37
hearing including staff comments I hereby move that the Local Planning Agency
38
recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to
39
the application for Preliminary PUD Site Plan Approval for the development known as
40
Shinn Road Equestrian Estates with the considerations and comments by staff in their
41
recommendation to deny as part of my motion, that the comments from the Planning &
42
Zoning Board be included in that motion, and the reason that I move for approval is that I
43
think that we need to move it on to the county, let the County Commissioners make those
44
decisions to resolve the issues that staff has to have and has had to deal with the rules
45
concerning a unit like this, and I might, did I confuse everybody? I think this is a very
46
14
unique rule, a very unique PUD, it’s outside the urban service area, it is designed for
1
equestrian use, it has positive merits, because of rules in our Comp Plan staff has to deny
2
some of those considerations, but I think we need to move it on to the county one way or
3
the other. I feel it is a good reason, I move to approve is that I think it is refreshing. I think
4
this period of time in St. Lucie County we need to have some newer development come
5
before us and I move to approve”.
6
7
Mr. Schrader stated, “let me just understand what I am seconding if I can. So what you’re
8
saying is we’re going to approve with the staff’s recommendations of denial and their
9
recommendations for the twenty eight changes or conditions. Is that correct”?
10
11
Mr. Lounds answered no. He replied, “my motion is that we recognize the fact that staff
12
has denied, that there is a great difference between some of the denials that they are asking
13
for because of the uniqueness of the development itself. That we are passing it on with
14
approval for clarification from the BOCC (period). If somebody wants to add something to
15
that to make it clearer.
16
17
Chairman Mundt stated “I would like to have a second then get into discussion if we may”.
18
19
Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
20
21
Chairman Mundt opened for discussion.
22
23
Mr. Culverhouse asked Mr. Lounds “if it was his understanding that you’re moving the
24
approval of the project (Mr. Lounds answered; correct) but your motion does not include
25
the limiting conditions by staff other than that the BOCC should consider them”.
26
27
Mr. Lounds answered; “correct an example of what I’m talking about is the sidewalk
28
pathway area along Shinn Road. To me that is ludicrous and I understand that staff has
29
got to say because of rules and regulations the paper says I gotta have it, somewhere along
30
the line we don’t need it. It’s that type of predicament that staff catches themselves in they
31
can not over ride what is in the documents that says they have to use these guidelines. But
32
every now and then a development like this comes before us that says we don’t need a path
33
along Shinn Road, if this was on Jenkins Road you bet, I’d be all for putting a path on
34
Jenkins Road put a fence on it so we can keep people off of it, keep the cars off the people.
35
But not on Shinn Road, not on Carlton Road, not on Sneed Road, not on Header Canal
36
Road you’re in a different world folks and there’s got to be some other considerations so
37
that these developments of this type can move on and get out in the community where these
38
developments for basically other land growing crops, citrus, tomatoes and such have you
39
can still be a semi type Agricultural Development. They aren’t calling this an Ag. PUD, but
40
clearly equestrian facilities is agriculture. And I’d rather see this then I would four houses
41
on one acre with five hundred houses in it. Now you know, Chairman I don’t know
42
whether I’ve further confused the issue or not but”.
43
44
Chairman Mundt stated “I think we better stop there Mr. Lounds before we get any
45
deeper”.
46
15
1
Ms. Wood stated “for my own clarification what I understood Mr. Lounds to say basically
2
is that the motion is to approve, recommend approval to the BOCC with the recommended
3
conditions that are in the staff report but also with careful consideration about which of
4
those conditions is really appropriate to this project”. “Is that essentially what you said?
5
(Mr. Lounds comment is inaudible). Ms. Wood answered alright great thank you”.
6
7
Chairman Mundt stated “thank you for the clarification”.
8
9
Mr. Culverhouse stated; “I don’t know if that’s what I understood. I understood the
10
motion was to (and he seconded) motion was to approve the application of Stiles
11
Development for a Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval without the twenty
12
eight conditions being part of the approval but with the request that the BOCC consider
13
the twenty eight recommendations (Mr. Lounds interjected “same type of thing Mr.
14
Culverhouse)”. Mr. Culverhouse replied “is that what you mean”. Mr. Lounds answered
15
“Yes we’re there”
16
17
Chairman Mundt asked “you want the twenty eight conditions considered, but not a part
18
of it”.
19
20
Mr. Culverhouse replied “but not a part of it.”
21
22
Mr. Mundt replied “is that clear everybody. The motion is to move it with approval to the
23
BOCC with the twenty eight items not as a part of it but to be considered. Is that it Mr.
24
Lounds”?
25
26
Mr. Lounds replied “that’s fine with me”.
27
28
Mr. Mundt asked “Madam Chair, Madam Chair, Madam Secretary would you please call
29
the roll”.
30
31
Roll Call
32
Ms. Morgan – yes ma’am (Secretary asked “yes to) Ms. Morgan replied “yes
33
to the motion”
34
Ms. Hammer – no
35
Mr. Reynolds – yes ma’am to approve
36
Ms. Caron –no ma’am
37
Mr. O’Neil – no ma’am
38
Mr. Lounds – yes ma’am
39
Mr. Culverhouse – yes ma’am
40
Vice Chair Schrader – no ma’am, “but for the, the only reason I’m no is
41
because this doesn’t address keeping the lots open, there was nothing in the motion that
42
required those lots be kept open, otherwise I would vote for it, but in this case no.
43
Mr. Mundt - no ma’am, Chairman Mundt I’m sorry
44
45
16
Chairman Mundt asked the recording secretary “you’re out of sequence, right”? Ms.
1
Milone, Recording Secretary) replied “am I, I don’t know, am I missing someone. I think I
2
got everyone. You’re last”. Mr. Mundt “replied “everybody voted”?
3
4
Mr. Mundt stated “you have five nays and four ayes”.
5
Ms. Milone asked Mr. Mundt “what are you, I’m sorry Mr. Mundt. He replied “nay”.
6
7
Ms. Milone replied “five nays and four ayes”.
8
9
Chairman Mundt repeated “five nays and four ayes, all right thank you”.
10
11
Mr. Culverhouse replied “Mr. Chairman”.
12
13
Chairman Mundt, “Mr. Culverhouse”.
14
15
Mr. Culverhouse stated “My understanding that Mr. Ferguson said they would agree to
16
something being placed so that the lots except for the building, except for the; would be
17
kept open and that they would be covenants with the land and also on the plat, so that
18
would seem to be a, a, or if I could ask Mr. Schrader what would”.
19
20
Mrs. Hammer interjected “the point of order is that we already had a vote , the application
21
was denied it would have to be someone on the prevailing side to bring something up again,
22
could we get on to the next step”.
23
24
Mr. Culverhouse stated “excuse me, excuse me ma’am and I think there was a
25
misunderstanding so I am asking that because my understanding that there was
26
restrictions”.
27
28
Mrs. Hammer asked Chairman Mundt “I’d like an opinion from you”.
29
30
Chairman Mundt replied “I agreed with Mrs. Hammer that a prevailing side vote would
31
have to bring the issue further”.
32
33
Mr. Culverhouse replied “then anyone who voted no could move to reconsider anybody can
34
second it, they don’t have to be on the prevailing side and then it can be amended to
35
include, it can be, an amendment can be done to include to address Mr. Schrader’s
36
concerns so that it would be...................
37
38
Chairman Mundt reiterated “that an individual from the prevailing side would have to
39
bring the issue back”.
40
17
1
Vice Chair Schrader stated “and I would like to bring that issue back up because I once
2
again will state that if it will include the fact that they make those covenants and the plat is
3
noted that I would support this motion and that’s the only reason I turned it down. My
4
understanding Mr. Chair was that while it was agreed to at no point on the twenty eight
5
recommendations or the first and second didn’t include that and that is important to me
6
that we maintain that open whether we call then yards or open space whatever you want to
7
call it. It is very important that we keep that open”.
8
9
Chairman Mundt asked if the “twenty eight recommendations as I understand it are not
10
included in the motion”.
11
12
Vice Chair Schrader stated “that is correct, what’s included, my understanding is that it’s
13
reviewed. That’s it”.
14
15
Chairman Mundt stated “they are to be considered”.
16
17
Vice Chair Schrader replied; “considered, correct, okay but in those twenty eight that are
18
going to be considered or were proposed to be considered it does not mention the fact that
19
Mr. Ferguson has agreed to keeping a percent of covered/uncovered ground”.
20
21
Ms. Wood asked “just to, I don’t know if this clarifies your issue but in my thought that
22
actually was covered in one of the conditions, in condition number fifteen, it says prior to
23
final PUD approval the site plan shall be amended to depict the location of all portions of
24
the eighty percent required open space and goes on to, you know, clarify how that should
25
be maintained. So that in my view that was taken care of, of that issue and that’s what staff
26
was requesting”.
27
28
Vice Chair Schrader stated “and okay maybe I misunderstood it because I highlighted that
29
but I’m not asking that the applicant identify where they are going to build stuff. I want to
30
maintain open space, so I misunderstood that to mean this is going to remain open this
31
portion of the yard and you put a map or a colored version up earlier that said this one
32
third will remain open. Well that one third maybe come a barn, what I’m is asking is of
33
that total property I think on the large lots it was seven percent has, is, I think I forgot how
34
it was obstructed or unobstructed was the words used, and that’s important to me that
35
percentage not the actual location that’s going to be obstructed versus unobstructed”.
36
37
Ms. Wood answered “okay”.
38
39
Mr. Lounds and Mrs. Hammer simultaneously replied “Mr. Chairman”
40
18
1
Chairman Mundt answered “Mr. Lounds”.
2
3
Mr. Lounds stated “go ahead Ms. Hammer (inaudible)”.
4
Ms. Hammer stated, “and my concern is I don’t believe I have ever seen an approval of an
5
application where the comments and recommendations from staff were not included and in
6
this case we have twenty eight recommendations and to just blow them off ......(someone
7
interrupted inaudible) That is very frightening. They’ve always, the motions have always
8
included staff recommendations and in this particular case it was saying just look at them.
9
It did not say included staff recommendations”.
10
11
Mr. Culverhouse stated “if Mr. Schrader’s comments were a motion for reconsideration I
12
second’.
13
14
Chairman Mundt stated “Mr. Schrader”.
15
16
Mr. Schrader answered “they were Mr. Chair”.
17
18
Mr. Mundt stated “alright you have the right to introduce another motion and seconded by
19
Mr. Culverhouse. Is there any discussion”?
20
21
Mr. Lounds replied, “Mr. Chairman”
22
23
Chairman Mundt answered “Yes Mr. Lounds”.
24
25
Mr. Lounds stated “Mr. Schrader would it , Mrs. Hammer, would it help if we include in
26
the motion staff’s recommendation of denial as part of the motion with comments from
27
staff and, I mean from the developer and the board or BOCC consideration of the motion.
28
Mrs. Hammer the reason that I’m, that state it that way, I think there are issues that
29
restrict the staff from being able to approve this because of the uniqueness of this type of
30
development and the restrictions that they are faced with in interpretation of the
31
regulations”.
32
33
Mrs. Hammer stated “I understand that”.
34
35
Mr. Lounds continued stating “and I think that sooner or later the county, BOCC have to
36
address that. I think they have to recognize the fact that there are going to be more
37
developments like this in the agricultural unicorporated area of St. Lucie County and that
38
we need to address those issues”.
39
40
19
Mrs. Hammer stated “and I understand that Mr. Lounds and I wish we could just forward
1
the application with no recommendation to the County Commissioners but what my
2
understanding whether it’s right or wrong is that it was eighty percent open space, thirty
3
five percent had to be common the other forty five percent could even be farmed area but it
4
did not come out of the private lots and to have it designated on the private lots I already
5
have experience with how that does not work so that’s why I object to the using of the
6
private lots for the............”.
7
8
Mr. Lounds asked “did we not do that though as a compromise to Hunters Run, from their
9
open space too”.
10
11
Mrs. Hammer answered “but not this much”.
12
13
Ms. Caron stated “I believed it was two or three percent”.
14
15
Mrs. Hammer stated “it was very minimal percent, not forty five percent, and we’re
16
looking at forty five percent being on individual lots”.
17
18
Ms. Caron stated “ it was a very, very low amount in fact it went back and forth for quite a
19
while and I believe it was certainly less than five percent, it was five percent or less and
20
that’s why the BOCC at that point, because everyone really worked towards it because this
21
is a good thing. I have horses I’m an Ag. Person but each individual application I think is
22
considered”.
23
24
Ms. Hammer asked “may I ask the attorney. Heather are we permitted to forward an
25
application without a recommendation or do we have to make a yes or no
26
recommendation”.
27
28
Ms. Young replied “it should be a recommendation and at this point you don’t have one
29
because the motion failed so you have not yet adopted a motion, one way or another
30
recommending approval or denial, so I think you do need to, someone needs to make a
31
motion whether its to approve, deny, approve with different conditions however you chose
32
“.
33
34
Chairman Mundt stated “I think there was a motion to approve by Mr. Schrader, seconded
35
by Mr. Culverhouse. Is that correct”?
36
37
Mr. Schrader stated “that is correct Mr. Chair”.
38
39
20
Ms. Young asked “for clarification is the motion to approve simply with the condition on
1
the designation of the open space. I think just for staff if you could restate that so we make
2
sure everyone has it.
3
4
Mr. Schrader replied “if you will, staff if you’ll take the old motion and include the fact
5
that it includes the percent of open space of and again we can go back to covenants or plats
6
but that that is included. That would be my motion”.
7
8
Chairman Mundt asked, “the forty five percent would come off the lots”.
9
10
Mr. Schrader stated ‘that is correct”.
11
12
Ms. Morgan stated “it would be noted on the plat”
13
14
Chairman Mundt answered “he understood. Alright, any other discussion?”
15
16
Chairman Mundt stated “we have a motion and a second and we’ll ask Madam Secretary
17
to please call the roll.
18
19
Roll Call
20
21
Ms. Morgan – yes ma’am
22
Mr. Lounds – yes ma’am to approve
23
Mr. Reynolds – yes ma’am to approve
24
Ms. Caron –no ma’am and I’m going to have to leave the meeting
25
Mr. O’Neil – no ma’am
26
Ms. Hammer – no ma’am
27
Mr. Culverhouse – yes ma’am to approve
28
Vice Chair Schrader – yes to approve
29
Chairman Mundt – no ma’am
30
31
Chairman Mundt stated, the motion passed 5-4
32
33
Ms. Caron, Mr. O’Neil, Mrs. Hammer and Chairman Mundt dissenting.
34
35
Ms. Caron left at 9:40 p.m. due to an emergency.
36
37
Sarah Smith, Growth Management Planning Technician listened to the
38
recording and attests that these are verbatim minutes from page 14 line 34
39
to page 21 line 20.
40
41
21
F. Growth Management Department: Ordinance No. 09-013
1
An Ordinance to amend the St. Lucie County Land Development Code (LDC)
2
By correcting inconsistencies, minor errors and omissions in the existing
3
version of the code.
4
5
6 Mr. Satterlee, Growth Management Director explained to the Commission that this is an effort
7 by staff to go through the existing LDC and identify what are non-substantive changes, that in no
8 way change the meaning, intent or purpose of the LDC. Simply correct error, misspelling,
9 incorrect titles, incorrect section numbers and thing of that nature. When do we get a Municode
10 Version, is it as correct as possible.
11 Chairman Mundt asked the commission if they had any questions for staff.
12
13 Ms. Hammer did have some corrections.
14
15 Chairman Mundt made his comments to staff on Wednesday.
16
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
17
18
19 No one spoke.
20
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
21
22
Mrs. Hammer moved to approve.
23
24
Vice Chair Schrader seconded.
25
26
27
The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Caron was not here for the vote.
28
G. Growth Management Department: Ordinance No. 09-012
29
An Ordinance amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by
30
accepting the draft Land Development Code as received from Municipal Code
31
Corporation (Municode).
32
33
34 Mr. Satterlee explained that this is the ordinance which would adopt to include the changes that
35 were made in Ordinance No. 09-013 and then officially adopt the Municode version of the LDC
36 as the official LDC of St. Lucie County.
37
38 Chairman Mundt asked the commission if they had any questions for staff.
39
40 Chairman Mundt added corrections.
41
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
42
43 No one spoke.
22
1
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
2
3
Mr. Culverhouse moved to approve.
4
5
Mr. Lounds seconded.
6
7
8
The motion carried unanimously. Ms. Caron was not here for the vote.
9
IV. Other Business
10
11 Mr. Satterlee explained to the Commission that staff plans to come to the BOCC with a
12 Comprehensive Western Land Study.
13
V. ADJOURNED
14
15
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
16
23