HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-19-2009
St. Lucie County
1
Planning and Zoning Commission/Local Planning Agency
2
rd
Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex
3
November 19, 2009 Regular Meeting
4
6:00 p.m.
5
6
7
In the event of a conflict between the written minutes and the compact disc, the compact disc shall
8
control.
9
10
I. Call to Order
11
12
Chairman Mundt called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
13
14
A. Pledge of Allegiance
15
16
B. Roll Call
17
Craig Mundt ................................. Chairman
18
Tod Mowery……….arrived 7:35....Commission Member
19
Pamela Hammer….left 9:50 ......... Commission Member
20
Susan Caron………left 8:45 ........ Commission Member
21
Brad Culverhouse ........................ Commission Member
22
Edward Lounds ............................ Commission Member
23
Stephanie Morgan ....................... Commission Member
24
Kathryn Hensley .......................... Ex-Officio Member
25
26
Members Absent
27
Barry Schrader ............................. Vice Chair (excused)
28
Britt Reynolds .............................. Commission Member (excused)
29
30
Staff Present
31
Mark Satterlee ............................. Director, Growth Management
32
Robin Meyer……………………….Assistant Director, Growth Management
33
Heather Young ............................. Assistant County Attorney
34
Kara Wood ................................... Planning Manager, Growth
35
Management
36
Heather Lueke ............................. Assistant County Attorney
37
Linda Pendarvis ........................... Planner, Growth Management
38
Britton Wilson ............................... Sr. Planner, Growth Management
39
Dawn Milone ................................ Recording Secretary
40
41
C. Announcements
42
43
None.
44
45
D. Disclosures
46
47
1
Mr. Culverhouse stated he had a discussion with Commissioner Grande, this afternoon
1
regarding the agenda.
2
3
II. Minutes
4
Review the minutes from the October 15, 2009 regular meeting, for
5
approval.
6
7
Mrs. Hammer had one correction.
8
9
This correction was made.
10
11
Mrs. Hammer motioned to approve the minutes.
12
13
Ms. Caron seconded.
14
15
The motion carried unanimously.
16
17
III. Public Hearings
18
19
A. Ordinance No. 09-019 Establishing Zoning/Planning in Progress
20
Procedures
21
An ordinance establishing regulations setting forth the procedure for Zoning in
22
Progress and Planning in Progress and application of same; providing for
23
application of exemption for same; providing for a procedure to assert property
24
owner rights; providing for durations; and providing for an effective date.
25
26
Ms. Young, Assistant County Attorney stated that this item was heard on July 16, 2009,
27
the Commission and staff decided to take it back for review and attempt to clarify the
28
procedures in the ordinance. The purpose for this ordinance is to provide for a
29
temporary suspension of various development permit applications when the county is
30
considering proposed changes to the Land Development Code, Comprehensive Plan,
31
Zoning Atlas and Planning Analyses to establish a procedure so the county can have a
32
“status quo” in place while the above items are being reviewed if it appears that what is
33
being proposed would change the conditions of the development applications.
34
35
Ms. Young stated the revised ordinance was reformatted, mainly containing the same
36
text.
37
38
Ms. Young gave details of the timetable of this process to the Commission.
39
40
Mrs. Hammer asked Ms. Young to state which “Board” or “County” she is referring to in
41
the ordinance, doing this would alleviate confusion.
42
43
The Commission had concerns with some of the words in the ordinance. Ms. Young will
44
make this correction.
45
46
2
Mr. Culverhouse stated, why not just declare a moratorium.
1
2
Mr. Satterlee, Growth Management Director stated a moratorium is mainly used in
3
unusual circumstances and can last up to eighteen (18) months. The difference
4
between this ordinance and a moratorium is the ordinance would provide clarity,
5
process, timeline, requires the county to take certain action, and a report.
6
7
Mr. Satterlee feels this ordinance is a superior process as opposed to a moratorium.
8
9
Mr. Culverhouse disagreed.
10
11
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
12
13
Mr. Johnathan Ferguson, Land Use Attorney in St. Lucie County issued an apology to
14
staff, stating in July he stated that this was a lousy ordinance. He did not mean to imply
15
that. He feels the ordinance was poorly drafted.
16
17
Mr. Ferguson feels that this is a lousy policy. The language in the ordinance will shut
18
down most projects and the time limits are giving the Board of County Commissioners
19
carte blanch to continue for as long as they think they can get away with it and still pass
20
constitutional muster. He feels there is an internal inconsistency with the language.
21
22
Mr. Ferguson respectfully disagreed with Mr. Satterlee‘s comments above. He feels the
23
message this ordinance is telling the property owners’ and building community that
24
there is no certainty. You are always subject to being shut down upon the whim of the
25
Board if County Commissioners for no defined reasons other than a perceived problem,
26
which may or may not be a problem and the fact that you may end up with non-
27
conforming uses.
28
29
Mr. Ferguson stated moratoriums are extraordinary remedies to perceived major
30
problems. The County Commission should not have the ability to willy-nilly impose
31
moratoriums on individual projects, individual properties or individual areas of the
32
county. He feels it sends a terrible message and all things being equal will automatically
33
send any proposed development to either one of the cities. He stated again it is an
34
incredibly lousy policy, not sure, who is driving it or why it is needed. He does not
35
perceive the problems in the county. The one instance where there was perceived to be
36
a major problem for a large area of the north county, during the initial stages of the TVC
37
review the Board of County Commissioners adopted a moratorium through the normal
38
process.
39
40
Mr. Ferguson feels there is no need to adopt a policy like this. The county has the legal
41
ability to adopt moratoriums in the appropriate situations.
42
43
Ms. Young clarified that the intent was that no applications would be accepted after the
44
temporary suspension ordinance was adopted not the ZIP period.
45
46
3
Ms. Young stated that Mr. Satterlee and she would be happy to sit down with Mr.
1
Ferguson and go over some of the internal issues that may be needed to clarify in the
2
ordinance.
3
4
Mr. Lounds commented that he was not comfortable with the ordinance if it is designed
5
to limit and give broad breathing periods for movements west of the urban service area,
6
there is a need to talk about it some more, if it is not designed for that please convince
7
him otherwise.
8
9
Mr. Satterlee stated it was not designed for any one circumstance in mind. It was
10
designed to respond to circumstances that cannot be anticipated.
11
12
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
13
14
Mrs. Hammer motioned to recommend approval of Ordinance No. 09-019 and
15
forward to the Board of County Commissioners with the caveat that we ask that
16
some time be set aside for staff to meet with Mr. Ferguson to address his issues.
17
18
Ms. Caron seconded.
19
20
Roll Call
21
22
Ms. Morgan- no
23
Mr. Lounds- no
24
Mr. Culverhouse- no
25
Ms. Caron- yes
26
Mrs. Hammer- yes
27
Chairman Mundt- yes
28
29
Vote was three (3) for the motion, three (3) against, motion failed.
30
31
G. Village of Sunset Lakes: PTV 820094001
32
Petition of Sunset Lakes of St. Lucie, LLC for Preliminary Planned Town or Village
33
approval for a project known as Village of Sunset Lakes
34
35
Ms. Wood, Growth Management Planning Manager and Ramon Trias, Trias and
36
Associates, agent for the applicant gave a brief presentation.
37
38
Mr. Wyatt, Mr. Tedder, Mr. Crum and Mr. Hamilton spoke in opposition to the project.
39
40
Mr. Trias agreed to conduct a neighborhood meeting prior to February 18, 2010.
41
42
Mrs. Hammer motioned after considering the testimony presented during the
43
public hearing especially staff comments, I hereby move that the Local Planning
44
Agency continue the public hearing of the application for preliminary PTV site
45
plan approval for the development know as Villages of Sunset Lakes to resolve
46
4
outstanding issues on the site plan and allow further opportunity for a complete
1
staff review with a continuation to Thursday, February 18, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. or
2
soon thereafter as possible.
3
Ms. Caron seconded.
4
5
Roll Call
6
7
Mr. Culverhouse- yes
8
Mr. Lounds- yes
9
Ms. Morgan- yes
10
Ms. Caron- yes
11
Mrs. Hammer- yes
12
Chairman Mundt- yes
13
14
Motion passed unanimously.
15
16
B. Ordinance No. 09-009 – Historic Preservation: County Attorney
17
An ordinance revising the Historic Preservation Ordinance to bring it into
18
compliance with case law and Florida Certified Local Government requirements.
19
20
Ms. Lueke, Assistant County Attorney informed the Commission on August 2, 2005, the
21
Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 05-003, creating Chapter 1-
22
10.2 of the St. Lucie County Code and Compiled Laws, known as the “Historic
23
Preservation Ordinance.” Staff recommends making several changes to the Ordinance
24
to bring it into compliance with case law and with Florida Certified Local Government
25
requirements. By becoming a Certified Local Government, St. Lucie County would
26
become eligible for State and Federal grants related to historic preservation. The state
27
Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed the proposed ordinance and has stated that it
28
complies with the requirements for certification.
29
30
On May 26, 2009, August 25, 2009, September 22, 2009, and October 27, 2009, the
31
Historical Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance and unanimously voted to
32
forward it to the Planning and Zoning Commission with suggested revisions. Most of the
33
revisions were incorporated into the draft presented to the Planning and Zoning
34
Commission. A list of the revisions, which were not incorporated and a list of all staff
35
recommendations appears in the staff report. In advance of the meeting, Ms. Lueke
36
received comments from the Historical Commission Chair and will incorporate them
37
when this item goes before the Board of County Commissioners.
38
39
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended keeping St. Lucie County
40
Historical Commission as the name, changes in the ordinance and having at least six
41
(6) meetings per year.
42
43
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
44
45
Ms. Lucille Rights, Special Advisor to the St. Lucie County Historical Commission,
46
informed the Commission on the importance of the Florida Master Site File use as a
47
5
resource, attempt creation of a new board, stating the members should be local experts
1
and that the Historical Commission requests that the new Historic Preservation Board
2
retain the name “St. Lucie County Historical Commission”.
3
Ms. Rights prefer that the Board of County Commissioners make final decisions with
4
respect to Special Certificates of Appropriateness, rather than the Historic Commission.
5
The Historical Commission feels that the Board of County Commissioners would have
6
more authority to negotiate mitigation with property owners.
7
8
Ms. Rights suggests that the Ordinance give either the County or private citizens the
9
right to enter onto historically designated properties and stabilize them in cases of
10
extreme affirmative neglect. This suggestion stems from the Historical Commission’s
11
concerns regarding the Robinson House, which was designated by the Board of County
12
Commissioners but is in a state of severe disrepair and is in the process of being
13
foreclosed.
14
15
Ms. Rights recommend deleting the current exception to Certificates to Dig for
16
swimming pool excavation.
17
18
Ms. Rights recommend adding language, which would give the Historic Preservation
19
Officer emergency powers to stop activity on a property if previously undiscovered
20
archaeological material is found.
21
22
Ms. Rights suggested that the Ordinance require that the Historic Commission meet six
23
times a year, rather than four times a year.
24
25
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
26
27
Mr. Culverhouse agreed with all of Ms. Rights suggestions. He also recommended all
28
the present duties of the Historical Commission that are being amended out, be added
29
back in.
30
31
Chairman Mundt had a problem with some of the level of details Mr. Culverhouse
32
wanted. He stated, without seeing it written out, overlaying that with the proposed
33
ordinance gets into a level of detail that he thinks orally digesting it and trying to adapt it
34
into the ordinance is difficult.
35
36
Mr. Culverhouse stated he requested that his suggestion be in the package. He said
37
they were not included in the package.
38
39
Ms. Lueke and the Commission discussed the rights of an individual who are applying
40
for a permit for a house fifty years or older.
41
42
Ms. Lueke discussed the criteria for designation of a property.
43
44
Mr. Lounds motioned to recommended approval of the ordinance with the
45
suggestions and comments from the public, staff and the Planning and Zoning
46
Commission.
47
48
6
Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
1
2
Mr. Mundt did not like the portion of the ordinance asking for an alternate for each
3
member.
4
5
Ms. Lueke will take this out of the ordinance.
6
7
Certificate of appropriateness (4.11.09) was to be taken out of the ordinance and put in
8
as a discussion item for the Board of County Commissioners.
9
10
Roll Call
11
12
Mr. Mowery- yes
13
Ms. Morgan- yes
14
Mrs. Hammer- yes
15
Ms. Caron- yes
16
Mr. Culverhouse- yes
17
Mr. Lounds- yes
18
Chairman Mundt- yes
19
20
Motion passed unanimously.
21
22
C. Shinn Road 251 PUD: PUD 06-003
23
Petition of Stiles Development for Preliminary Planned Unit Development
24
approval and change in zoning from AG-5 to PUD for a project known as Shinn
25
Road 251 PUD.
26
27
Ms. Wood, Growth Management Planning Manager stated, the subject property is
28
located approximately three miles west of the Urban Service Area, north of the
29
intersection of Okeechobee Road and Shinn Road. The parcels have a Future Land
30
Use of Agricultural – 5, allowing a maximum density of 1 du/5 acres. The land use of all
31
adjacent properties is AG-5, with the exception of two small parcels with a Commercial
32
Future Land Use – one immediately to the south is 1.6 acres, and one to the southwest
33
is 0.85 acres. The zoning of the property and most adjacent properties is also AG-5,
34
with the same maximum density of 1 du/5 acres.
35
36
The property is currently vacant agricultural land, as is most of the surrounding property.
37
The only other active use is on the parcel to the southwest across Shinn Road which
38
has a convenience store. The other parcel with a Commercial Future Land Use is
39
vacant.
40
41
The Shinn Road 251 PUD site plan initially proposed 48 single family lots between 1
42
and 4 acres each and 6.95 acres of neighborhood commercial development. After re-
43
calculating the allowable density without the 20 acres along Okeechobee Road for
44
future development, the site plan has been revised to include only 46 lots.
45
46
7
Johnathan Ferguson, on behalf of the applicant stated, he agreed with staff with two
1
minor exceptions. Mr. Ferguson feels as a policy point it is not fair nor appropriate for an
2
individual developer or property owner to have to fund and construct the multi-use path
3
which is part of the County’s Green Way and Trails Plan. He feels this path leads to
4
nowhere. Mr. Ferguson wants this condition removed.
5
6
Mark Mathes, Lucido & Associates reminded the Commission that the applicant
7
dedicated the required right of way on Shinn Road to accommodate the path and the
8
necessary access improvements to access the site.
9
10
1) The other issue is related to the designation of open space, condition number
11
twenty-two (22) on the resolution which states The Final Planned Unit
12
;(
Development site plan shall depict the location of all portions of the open space as
13
depicted on the Preliminary Planned Unit Development plans. At the time of building
14
permit issuance for each lot, the location of the lot level open space may be modified
15
by the lot owner in accordance with procedures and limitations outlined in the Land
16
Development Code for Minor Adjustments. The maximum impervious area shall not
17
be exceeded and minimum open space requirements must be satisfied.)
18
.
19
20
Mr. Mathes requested homeowners’ as they come forward with building permits to be
21
able to adjust the dash line on the plans, as long as the area within the dash line does
22
not get smaller. He asked the Commission to consider recommending a variance to the
23
standard code to allow the adjustment of the lot level open space, subject to the
24
condition that cannot be less than what is shown on the preliminary plan. The final area
25
will be determined at the time of building permit.
26
27
Ms. Wood stated staff discussed this matter with the applicant a number of times. The
28
code requires that open space be depicted on the plan, the code is very specific about
29
any relocation of open space, which would require a Minor Adjustment (relocating more
30
than one hundred feet is a Major Adjustment). If the applicant were not including open
31
space within their lots, staff would not be in the position of having to find a way to
32
oversee how the open space would be insured.
33
34
Mr. Ferguson stated the only friendly disagreement he has with staff is, once the
35
buildable area are indentified, what is the process for tweaking that when someone
36
comes in to pull a building permit. He feels staff is requiring a minor amendment to the
37
PUD every time an individual lot owner comes in and wants to move their buildable. His
38
suggestion is because it is a PUD that as long as the building area does not increase in
39
size, it can be moved within the lot without having to go through a minor PUD
40
amendment.
41
42
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
43
44
No one spoke.
45
46
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
47
48
8
Mr. Lounds feels the conditions placed on this project are penalizing the development,
1
the first of its kind in the area with an AG PUD.
2
3
Mrs. Hammer suggested sidewalks on both sides of the development.
4
5
Mrs. Hammer stated restrictive easements be written into the agreement of sale so that
6
buyers knows what they are buying into and feels a CDD created (even if on paper only)
7
in the event someday the community has water and sewer.
8
9
Mrs. Hammer asked if open space on yards would be public open space.
10
Ms. Wood answered, no.
11
12
Mrs. Hammer would like " lot level open space” defined.
13
14
Mrs. Hammer would support the flexibility of being able to move around on the parcel,
15
but, it needs to be designated what part of that lot is going to be open space and can’t
16
be built on. Mrs. Hammer feels that once it gets to the Building Department, no one is
17
looking at the plan.
18
19
Mrs. Hammer questioned condition nine (9) b in the ordinance stating it made no sense
20
to her (9b states; The County has agreed to the following terms and conditions,
21
pertaining to the funding and construction of Greenways and Trails on the subject site: If
22
the County constructs public trails along the 10 foot easement, then the County shall
23
construct a fence along the north boundary line of the 10 foot easement so that public
24
access to the Project is restricted. The fence shall be a three board style horse fence or
25
similar, in keeping with the character of the Project. No barb wire or smooth wire fences
26
shall be allowed. The applicant shall have the right to provide access points through the
27
fence at the applicant’s sole discretion).
28
29
The Commission agreed that accommodations could be made, if the Board of
30
Commissioners agreed regarding open space on individual lots.
31
32
Mr. Mowery motioned after considering the testimony presented at the public
33
hearing including staff comments he hereby moved to recommend that the St.
34
Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application
35
for Preliminary Site Plan approval for the development known as Shinn Road 251
36
PUD because it conforms to the standard of review set forth in the St. Lucie
37
County Land Development Code subject to the conditions listed in draft
38
Resolution 09-214 along with the addition that came from staff tonight. Amend
39
condition twenty-two allowing for the adjustment as long as eighty percent (80 %)
40
of the open space is maintain for the preliminary plan and that condition fourteen
41
(14) is deleted removing the need for the twelve (12) foot wide multi use path.
42
43
Mr. Lounds seconded.
44
45
Mrs. Hammer asked the motion maker and second maker to add to the motion, to
46
included the requirement that any type of restrictions on a particular lot be given
47
to the prospective buyer at the agreement of sale (not at closing).
48
9
This was accepted.
1
2
Roll Call
3
4
Mr. Culverhouse- yes
5
Ms. Morgan- yes
6
Mrs. Hammer- yes
7
Mr. Lounds- yes
8
Mr. Mowery- yes
9
Chairman Mundt- yes
10
11
Ms. Caron left due to back surgery before the motion was made (8:45 p.m.)
12
13
Motion passed unanimously.
14
15
16
D. X-Treme Function Hall: CU 520093983
17
Petition of Majesty, LLC to grant a Conditional Use Permit to allow the on-premise
18
consumption of beer and wine as accessory to a social event function hall in the
19
CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District.
20
21
Mr. Meyer, Assistant Director Growth Management recommended the Commission go
22
forward with the petition of Majesty, LLC. He stated that staff is going to amend its
23
recommendation of approval in light on all the citizens that are here tonight. He stated
24
that staff had talked to the applicant about a neighborhood meeting and had declined.
25
Staff feels a neighborhood meeting needs to be held before a final recommendation is
26
made.
27
28
Mr. Meyer recommended this item be continued until such time a neighborhood meeting
29
is held.
30
31
Ms. Pendarvis, Growth Management Planner gave a presentation regarding this item.
32
33
Mr. Ernesto Velasco, Velcon Group, Inc. spoke on behalf of the applicant.
34
35
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
36
37
Mr. Harvey Sofen, Ms. Grace Landry, Mr. Jim Culver, Ms. Alena Woodruff and Mr. Ken
38
Lenhurt spoke in opposition to this item.
39
40
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
41
42
43
Mr. Mowery motioned to continue this item to a date certain of January 21, 2010 at
44
6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.
45
46
Mr. Culverhouse seconded.
47
10
1
Ms. Morgan stated the reason for the continuance was to allow the applicant to meet
2
with the residents to discuss what can and cannot be done on this property, in order for
3
the residents to fully understand the issues of this item.
4
5
Chairman Mundt informed the citizens that this building has met all requirements of
6
County Codes to be built without a public hearing. The only purpose of tonight’s public
7
hearing was to be able to sell their own beer and wine, noting if the Conditional Use
8
Permit is not granted by the county, outside purveyors would be able to serve alcoholic
9
beverages.
10
11
Roll Call
12
13
Mr. Lounds- yes
14
Ms. Morgan- yes
15
Mr. Culverhouse- yes
16
Mr. Mowery- yes
17
Chairman Mundt- yes
18
19
Motion passed unanimously.
20
21
Mrs. Hammer, felling ill left before the motion was made (9:50 p.m.)
22
23
24
E. Sands End Development, LLC: FLUMA 420093979
25
Petition of Sands End Development, LLC for a Small – Scale Amendment to the
26
Future Land Use Map for a 6.619 acre parcel of land on south Hutchinson Island
27
from COM (Commercial) to RM (Residential Medium – 9 du/acre).
28
29
Ms. Wilson, Growth Management Sr. Planner stated Item No. 3-E is a Small-scale
30
Comprehensive Plan Amendment known as “Sands End,” which is a proposed Future
31
Land Use Change from Commercial to Residential Medium at 9 dwellings units per acre
32
and Item No. 3-F is a concurrent rezoning petition from Commercial General to
33
Hutchinson Island Residential District. Ms. Wilson will present them together and the
34
Ordinance for the map amendment and the Resolution for the zoning change will be
35
voted on separately at the end.
36
37
Ms. Wilson continued the subject property is a 6.619 acre parcel of land located on
38
south Hutchinson Island south of the FPL Power Plant.It is on the East side of A1A and
39
is Ocean frontage. Directly to the south is the Normandy Beach access followed by the
40
Regency Island Dunes Condominium. The property to the north is a 5.8-acre parcel of
41
vacant residential land that Sands End Development owns. The final intent of the Sands
42
End property is to combine the two lots into a single 108 unit multi-family development.
43
44
The analysis staff conducted indicates that a RM Future Land Use designation is
45
consistent with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. The change in Future Land
46
Use from COM to RM represents an overall net decrease in anticipated impacts. The
47
11
requested change may however be contrary to Policy 1.2.2.1 which directs the
1
exploration of development patterns that would allow for employment and shopping
2
opportunities in close proximity to residential uses there by providing for shorter and
3
fewer automobile trips. Being that the subject property is surrounded by HIRD zoning,
4
the requested land use and zoning change is compatible with the surrounding
5
neighborhood.
6
7
When evaluating the appropriateness of a proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment
8
to a Comprehensive Plan, which is deemed already in compliance, Rule 9J-5 calls for
9
the demonstrated need of the proposed use over the designated planning period. The
10
applicant has provided a needs analysis not for the applicant’s proposed use of
11
Residential Medium but for the existing commercial designation. The analysis concludes
12
that sufficient commercial uses are already available to serve the existing and future
13
residents of South Hutchinson Island.
14
15
The County’s current housing situation clearly demonstrates that there is no need for
16
additional lands with a residential designation either on the mainland or on South
17
Hutchinson Island. The total current supply of potential residential units on South
18
Hutchinson Island is determined by selecting parcels designated by the property
19
appraiser as Vacant Residential and matching them with their Future Land Use
20
designation. There is a total maximum supply of approximately 2,300 dwelling units and
21
of these 2,300 units, 653 have already received varying degrees of review by Growth
22
Management and the Board of County Commissioners since 2002 with only one project
23
currently being complete. The statistics presented clearly demonstrate the lack of
24
demand in residential property on South Hutchinson Island.
25
26
The Sands End property represents one of the last remaining undeveloped
27
commercially designated lands on South Hutchinson Island within St. Lucie County and
28
is the only vacant commercial lot with ocean frontage. In 2007 the Board of County
29
Commissioners approved a similar petition to change the future land use and zoning on
30
South Hutchinson Island from commercial to residential. While deliberating the vote,
31
the Board made it clear that an approval would predominantly depend on the amount of
32
commercial lands remaining on South Hutchinson Island to supply future needs and the
33
Sands End property was identified as the only undeveloped commercial property large
34
enough to accommodate any substantial commercial demand over the next Twenty-five
35
25) year planning horizon.
36
37
Staff has identified both positive and negative aspects of the proposed land use change
38
and concurrent rezoning. However, on balance staff finds that the negatives outweigh
39
the positives and therefore recommends denial for the following reasons. The change
40
will exacerbate the over-allocation of residential, eliminate the last commercially
41
designated land needed to supply the demand of future residents over the next twenty-
42
five (25) years, continue to force residents into Martin County for goods and services
43
and increase vehicle miles traveled for those goods and services.
44
45
The proposed use would be a decrease in road and transportation impact.
46
47
12
Mr. Mowery asked, if staff encouraged the applicant to provide a corrected needs
1
analysis. Ms. Wilson answered staff did not.
2
3
Mr. Murphy stated he did not supply the county with a residential needs analysis
4
because he did not know he needed to until about a day or so ago. The commercial
5
needs analysis has shown that the existing commercial is more than antiquate to cover
6
the demands for the residents.
7
8
The applicant did not hold a neighborhood meeting. Staff did receive letters of approval
9
from the President, of the President’s Council of South Hutchinson Island and the
10
President of Regency Island Dunes and two letters in opposition.
11
12
Mr. Dennis Murphy, Culpepper & Terpening, Inc. stated he does not agree with the
13
conclusion of the staff report. He feels there are loose ends that he would like to get
14
together with staff on.
15
16
Mr. Murphy stated that this property was subject to litigation and settled between the
17
county and the property owners, resulting in the commercial designation applied to the
18
property. He also mentioned that the parcel to the north is a Historical Archeological
19
Site, not the petition property that we are discussing tonight.
20
21
Ms. Wilson stated, staff’s GIS map layers shows this site to be generally in the area to
22
include both the properties in question.
23
24
Mr. Murphy stated if this property were to be used for commercial, it would only yield a
25
ten percent (10%) usage of the property (because of the layout of the property).
26
27
Mr. Mowery felt that the applicant should have put more emphasis on proving to the
28
staff and Commission that there is a lack of need for commercial development.
29
30
Mr. Mowery was also concerned with the strong January, 2007 decision by the Board of
31
County Commissioners in support of maintaining commercial development on the
32
Island.
33
34
Chairman Mundt concurred with Mr. Mowery regarding the January, 2007 Board of
35
County Commissioners decision and staff’s report on the current housing situation.
36
37
Mr. Murphy stated a hotel is not economically viable on this parcel.
38
39
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
40
41
Ms. Pat Pacitti, President of the President’s Council of South Hutchinson Island and
42
property manager for Regency Island Dune spoke in favor of the project.
43
44
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
45
46
Mr. Mowery motioned after consideration of the testimony presented during the
47
public hearing including staff comments I hereby move that the Planning and
48
13
Zoning Commission of St. Lucie County recommend that the St. Lucie County
1
Board of County Commissioners approve the petition of Sands End Development,
2
LLC for a small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Map from COM
3
Commercial to RM- Residential Medium 9 dwelling units per acre due to the fact
4
that it is compliance with the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan, compatible
5
with the existing neighborhood and does not create additional impacts to the
6
existing infrastructure.
7
8
Ms. Morgan seconded.
9
10
Roll Call
11
12
Mr. Lounds- yes
13
Mr. Culverhouse- yes
14
Ms. Morgan- yes
15
Mr. Mowery- yes
16
Chairman Mundt- no
17
18
Motion passed 4-1 with Chairman Mundt dissenting
19
20
F. Sands End Development, LLC: RZ 620093986
21
Petition of Sands End Development, LLC to amend the Official Zoning Atlas for a
22
6.619 acre parcel of land on south Hutchinson Island from CG (Commercial
23
General) to the HIRD (Hutchinson Island Residential District) Zoning District
24
25
Chairman Mundt asked staff and the applicant if they would like to have a brief
26
discussion.
27
28
Ms. Wilson and Mr. Murphy stood by their prior comments stated in item III G.
29
30
Chairman Mundt opened the public hearing.
31
32
No one spoke.
33
34
Chairman Mundt closed the public hearing.
35
36
Mr. Culverhouse motioned after consideration of the testimony presented during
37
the public hearing, particularly that of Dennis Murphy, the former Director of
38
Community Development with the County including staff comments I hereby
39
move that the Planning and Zoning Commission of St. Lucie County recommend
40
that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners approve the petition of
41
Sands End Development, LLC for a petition to amend the Official Zoning Atlas
42
from CG- Commercial General to HIRD- Hutchinson Island Residential District
43
because I believe the residential uses to the north and south that it is a
44
compatible use with the surrounding residential uses and I believe a commercial
45
use on this property would not be economically feasible and there appears to be
46
based upon the testimony of the president of the Presidents Council and there
47
14
seems to be sufficient restaurants and commercial facilities and we need to use
1
those rather than building more to compete with and because it would have a
2
positive impact on the tax base of St. Lucie County and I believe it is consistent
3
with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
4
5
Ms. Morgan seconded.
6
7
Roll Call
8
9
Mr. Mowery- yes
10
Mr. Lounds- yes
11
Ms. Morgan- yes
12
Mr. Culverhouse- yes
13
Chairman Mundt- no
14
15
Motion passed 4-1 with Chairman Mundt dissenting
16
17
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
18
19
A. Growth Management Director Comments
20
None.
21
22
23
B. Other business at the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission
24
25
None.
26
27
V. Adjourned
28
29
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m
.
30
31
32
15