Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-20-2000 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING April 20, 2000 Room 101, Room 101 at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Hearn; Mr. Aikens; Mr. Merritt; Mr. Lounds; Mr. Grande; Mr. Jones; Mr. McCurdy, Vice Chairman; Mr. Matthes, Chairman. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Trias; Excused. OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Mgr.; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner II; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Sheree Bell, Interim Administrative Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 7:05 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentation on what you can expect to transpire tonight. For those of you who have not been here before, we are an agency that makes recommendations to the County Board of Commissioners and that is the capacity that we act in. What we will do tonight is that we will be presented on each petition with a brief summary of the project by staff after which time the petitioner will come up and make his case for the requested petition and change. At any time this Board will stop and ask questions of the petitioners or staff. After that process is completed we will open the public hearing for people who wish to speak for or against the petition. The purpose behind this hearing to is to get the general public input. Please if you have something to say, come forward and say it. After everyone has gotten a chance to speak for or against the petition we will close the public hearing, staff will make a final recommendation to this Board, we will deliberate and we will make a decision on our recommendation, one way or another. The decision that is made is typically read from a scripted set of statements that are given to us. It may sound rehearsed but it really is not. There is one for and one against given to us in the package, so we may make the motion either one or the other so it is very clear in the records. Once again, I want to remind you that we only act as an advisory capacity the Board of County Commissioners and if you are not happy with the outcome of the hearing you always have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners on the petition in front of us that will be forwarded to them with a recommendation of either denial or approval. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting April 20, 2000Page 1 AGENDA ITEM 1: RZ-00-004, WAYNE SKINNER Mr. Flores presented the application of Mr. Wayne Skinner for a change in zoning from the AG-2.5 (Agricultural 1 du/2.5 acres) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District for 6.8 acres of property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Okeechobee Road and 11-Mile Road. Chairman Matthes Mr. Matthes asked the Board if there were any questions for staff. Hearing none, opened the public hearing. Chairman Matthes then asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. David Hart, Orange Avenue Extension, pastor of Orange Avenue Baptist Church, stated that the rezoning will effect their congregation. Indian River Baptist Association and two other churches (Sunrise Baptist Church and Orange Avenue Baptist Church) have agreed together to start a mission and have a church site on Okeechobee Road. When people come from Okeechobee to Ft. Pierce one of the first thing that they would see would be a steeple. There would be a place of worship at the entrance to Ft. Pierce. We are requesting approval of the rezoning from AG-2.5 to RF that we can proceed with this opportunity in the western portion of the county. Our congregation, with the help of sister churches, has raised approximately $80,000.00. The property will be sold for $100,000.00. The Florida Baptist Convention is considering a loan for the rest of the funds to purchase the property debt free. Upon receipt of the rezoning, we will begin to work with professionals to design and construct a facility on the site. Mr. Matthes asked if there were any other questions for the petitioner from the Board. The Board responded in the negative. Mr. Moore asked if the intention was to construct a church on the site. Mr. Hart responded in the affirmative. Mr. Moore asked for clarification on what Mr. Hart meant by a mission and what other auxiliary uses are being proposed. Mr. Hart stated that at this time the church status is a mission sponsored by two churches (Sunrise Baptist Church and Orange Avenue Baptist Church). They are currently meeting in the Holiday Inn Conference Room. They have not constituted as a church, so they are called a mission. It is not a rescue mission, a halfway house, a pregnancy center, and church school. They will be having church services and that is all that is being requested from this Board. Ms. Dreyer asked Mr. Hart about the size of congregation for the facility. Mr. Hart stated that currently there are 35 40 members. Mr. Hart further stated that on the 6.8 acres site, they will be proposing a facility, which will seat 150 200 members. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Hart to clarify that he was pastor at the Orange Avenue Baptist Church. Mr. Hart responded in the affirmative. Mr. Lounds further requested information on the number of congregational members at the Orange Avenue Baptist Church. Mr. Hart responded that they might have between 130 140 members attending on an average Sunday for their worship services. Mr. Lounds asked what the acreage is for the existing facility. Mr. Hart stated it is five acres. The congregation has recently purchased an additional five acres north of the existing facility to enlarge the proposed facility. Mr. Matthes asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board on this item. Hearing none, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Flores presented the staff recommendation for approval of this petition. Mr. Matthes asked Mr. Flores to clarify that this was the same property that was previously reviewed by the Board for a different use. Mr. Flores responded that this was correct. Previously the applicant requested that the Board change the zoning to CN (Commercial Neighborhood). Mr. Matthes stated that under the staff comments, it indicates that if this was passed that the permitted uses under the RF would be allowed with any accessory uses being allowed. The one thing that made me think is that any use under the Conditional Uses, could only be allowed if the applicant receives approval from the Board of County Commissioners. Does this mean that a Conditional Use would bypass this Board? Mr. Flores stated that this Board would review any requests for a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Dreyer requested that staff explain what the prospects of utilities reaching this site in the future. Mr. Flores stated he was not sure when water and sewer lines would reach this area. P & Z Meeting April 20, 2000Page 2 Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the standards as set forth in Section 11.06.03, St Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Wayne Skinner for a change in zoning from AG-2.5 (Agricultural 1 du/2.5 acres) to RF (Religious Facility) for the purposes stated by the people attending this meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously and forwarded to the County Commissioners for approval. P & Z Meeting April 20, 2000Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: CU-00-003, BETTY WARREN Staff Planner, Cyndi Snay stated agenda item agenda item 2 is the petition of Betty Warren for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a residential home within 1,000 feet of another such facility for property located at 100 Essex Drive, which is approximately 400 feet south of the intersection of Essex Drive and Juanita Avenue. The property is zoned RS-4 (Residential, Single-family 4 du/acre). Commissioner Mattes requested that the petitioner come forward and address the Board. Ms. Betty Warren stated she was here to request approval for a Conditional Use to allow for the placement of a residential home within 1,000 feet of another facility. Chairman Mr. Matthes asked the Board if they had any questions for Ms. Warren. Hearing none, Matthes opened the public hearing. Mr. Matthes asked if there was anyone who would like to speak either for or against the petition to please come to the podium. understand concurrency as it applies, and that it occurred to her that this was a good time to ask what a Mr. Kelly stated that are two levels of concurrency documents. The affidavit goes with rezonings and thing it a building permit or any actual permit to do anything. At that time, the applicant signs an affidavit, that they understand that there is a need for concurrency. As they come in for a site plan or building permit, at that time, we actually do the measurements and calculations to verify that the concurrency is there. A conditional use approval on the other hand, is an approval for an immediate action, so the applicant needs to take care of concurrency at this time and the other concurrency document is required. It is really a matter of whether or not the action is a final approval or is it a preliminary staff approval. Ms. Wells asked in this parti a Certificate of Capacity certifies that capacity is available for the project. Mr. Matthes asked if there was anyone else who wished to address the Board on this item. Hearing none, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Ms. Snay presented the staff recommendation by stating that there are three existing residential facilities within 1,000 feet of the proposed site. Two facilities are located on the same property and are within 150 feet and one within 1,000 feet of the subject property. All three of these facilities concentrate on Adult Care. The proposed petition is consistent with the standards of review as set forth in Section 11.07.03 of the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that this petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Hearn asked staff whether this facility would be the fourth in this area. Staff responded in the affirmative. Mr. Hearn asked at what point staff would consider not recommending approval. Ms. Snay stated that at the point when we start getting complaints and that there is a major impact in the that there were no complaints in the area for any of these facilities. In addition, the Fire Department was contacted. The Fire Department stated that there is nothing on record since 1991. HRS, Family and Child Services, they license the facility and have not received any complaints. Mr. Hearn asked if there had been any parking problems or impacts on the neighborhoods. Ms. Snay stated that at this time there has been no complaints on any of the facilities. Ms. Dreyer requested that Staff explain why six residents was the maximum number, is this by state law. P & Z Meeting April 20, 2000Page 4 e a community home with 6 14 residents. Ms. Dreyer requested that staff clarify that the number of residents could be increased within a family residential home. Ms. Snay responded in the affirmative. Mr. Moore asked Mr. Lancaster if in a residential area, if the residents are noticed other than in a publication. Mr. Lancaster stated that every property owner within 500 feet get notification. Mr. Matthes asked if the notification was certified or just through the regular mail system. Ms. Snay responded through the mail system. within 500 feet. Mr. Lancaster stated that the facility was not notified within the 500 feet. The Planning Department has a criteria for 500 feet. If in the future, the Board would like for staff to increase the notification, they would be able to accommodate the Board. neighborhood and not to avoid competition with other residential homes and she does not see the need to notify a competing business in the area. If you are going to extend it to 1,000 feet, lets extend it to everyone within 1,000 feet. look at this as competing business. The 1,000 feet is in place for not so much competing business. I think what they are trying to do is not create an enclave of these types of facilities. I think it would be a good idea if all of these types of facilities be notified so that they can make determinations whether we are getting too dense in this type of facility in that area. This way the viewpoints of the owners can be offered. Mr. Lancaster updated the Board on the 1,000 feet. The State has stated that a county cannot totally ban group homes unless they are closer than 1,000 feet. The County has taken it a step further but stated that if you want to have a facility within 1,000 feet, an additional review is required. Mr. Matthes asked if there were questions of the staff. Mr. Matthes stated he would entertain a motion. Mr. McCurdy stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the standards as set forth in Section 11.07.03, St Lucie County Land Development Code, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the application of Betty Warren for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a family residential home within 1,000 feet within 1,000 feet of another residential home in the RS-4 (Residential, Single-family 4 du/acre) Zoning District because it is a good use of the home and it is well accepted by the neighborhood. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. At this time, the Planning and Zoning Commission closed and reopened as the Local Planning Agency. P & Z Meeting April 20, 2000Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 3: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STUDY GROUP Mr. Kelly presented a background stating that the Comprehensive Plan Study Group has created an overall goal and preamble for the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that it does not fit into any element or required by State. Ms. Betty Lou Wells stated that the study group decided to determine what they liked about the county and what they would like to see continue to exist in the county. The grouped brainstormed and determined what they liked about living in this county. The results of this brainstorm session resulted in the preamble. The study group came up with the main topics of values, attributes and characteristics some of which are seeable, hearable and touchable and some are sociological aspects of the county. The study group attempted to develop this preamble and to attempt to have it mean something and have some influence in the working and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Matthes asked if there were any questions for Ms. Wells. ributes and characteristics, Item 12, I would like to see deleted. The first problem is that it is the number of municipalities is not a finite number, during the life of Comprehensive Plan more and more communities may incorporate. The second and more important it appears that we are attempting to create stereotypes relating to the existing municipalities. I am not sure that I would like to have a plan that indicates that the City of Port St. Lucie for example is in the process of creation of an identity. If we speak with the people of Port St. Lucie they do have an identity and a feeling of their community. I think that Item 12 has a potential for creating em with deleting this item. Ms. Wells responded in the negative. She further stated that the reason it was put in there is that we thought it was rather nice to have three municipalities rather than a large number of municipalities found in other counties. Mr. Matthes stated that he shared the same concerns as Mr. Grande. Mr. Lounds stated that he also shared the same concerns about stereotyping in community in a county plan. On Page 2, Exhibit A, Item 7, you do not mention The University of Florida Research Facility nor adopted these two facilities need to be emphasized as well as the others that are there. The other thing I would like to ma 2, Numbers A and B, requiring a super majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners for any rezoning except for a Planned Unit Development. I think that this is important enough that if it is going to be addressed, it should be addressed as a separate issue and not part of a preamble. This concept will be changing the voting structure of the Board of County Commissioners. Ms. Wells stated that the Study Group was planning to recommend that the Super Majority Vote be made part of the Future Land Use Element. This was not to be part of the preamble, but was to be assist the Commissioners understand what we consider the important elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lounds asked if the Study Group was requesting that the Board not approve anything past Number 17. Ms. Wells responded in the affirmative. Mr. Lancaster stated that tonight was to be an informational presentation to the Board to only consider. Therefore, no advertising was done. Tonight your action should be to consider it and if you form a consensus to convey that to Staff. If you wanted to consider it as an action taken by this Board to be formally transmitted to the Board, the item will have to be advertised and be brought back before the Board. Mr. Matthes stated he understood this. some things that you might want to look at under Number 10, Page 3, no mention of the amphitheater and facilities associated with it, the Civic Center and what it does for the cultural and recreational opportunities for St. Lucie County. In addition, I would like to suggest that at the end of some of these points you have an open end so that as things increase they can be added to it at will. Ms. Wells stated that Policy 3 allows for a yearly review in order to determine if the vision is reasonably the same and if it is not then the vision should be modified. Ms. Dreyer indicated that she felt the ideas behind the preamble are very good. They reflect the sort of things that we all want to see within the County. Policy 2, Page 3, which requires a reference to the P & Z Meeting April 20, 2000Page 6 overall Goal and Preamble by the County Boards. It should be rephrased, a legal perspective, if invalidated. The Policy should state that it take into consideration the preamble, by doing such there will be a less likelihood of challenging a project based on this policy. he overall goal and preamble in the recommendation document of the approval document, that you have an invalid action. being offered by FAU and UF is really an understatement, the County actually has campuses and facilities here and not access to courses could be through the internet and online. Mr. Kelly stated it should be simply be a list of all universities within the county. Ms. Dreyer agreed with this. be introduced to this Board. Mr. Kelly responded that Ms. Wells had requested that he transmit the preamble and goal to the Planning and Zoning Board and he transmitted the entire package. What should have been transmitted to the Board was only the preamble and goal. In addition, all of the information found in the packet has been forwarded to the County Commission. favor of it. Ms. Wells stated that Ms. Dreyer is correct in that the Board did turn down the super majority vote issue. The Study Group plans to bring the issue back to the Board of County Commissioners during the Public Hearing Process. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly to explain what the preamble and goal was in relation to the Comprehensive Plan: was it just an add on and not mandatory. Mr. Kelly stated it was not mandatory. Ms. Wells stated that the preamble and goal has been approved in concept by the Department of Community Affairs. Mr. Kelly stated that the Study Group has recommended that the preamble be located in the front of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff does not have a problem with the preamble being used as a lead into the Comprehensive Plan document. Mr. Kelly stated that he has a problem with tying plans for development or redevelopment through the Board of Adjustment, Planning and Zoning Commission, etc. and then tying them back to issues that are not directly related to those types of development. There is a problem with making a connection between visioning and implementing a vision into the Comprehensive Plan document. Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative and in fact it may be simply what we do. Yet, there is still a problem with ensuring that every petition is consistent with the preamble, especially those items that are subjective. Mr. Grande recommended that the Study Group take the comments that were given the evening and modifying the preamble and goals including all exhibits. Then bring it back to the Board after advertising. Mr. Matthes stated he would like to take this a step forward. He stated that there were a few things that were bothering him. The first is that througho his opinion this is not a vision, it is something that the Study Group desires and thinks is good and right. For it to truly be a vision of the citizens of St. Lucie County, more involvement from the County as a whole in putting it together. Every citizen within the community should be given the opportunity to be an active participant in formulating that preamble. Mr. Matthes stated he does not want to be speaking for every resident with the County. P & Z Meeting April 20, 2000Page 7 Mr. Grande stated he understood that if the Board is hesitant to put a stamp of approval on a visioning statement, then he questions that the process, scheduling and advertising a public hearing, having the Board do a review and pass on a recommendation to the County Commission and having the County Commission advertise a public hearing, take public comment, and then approve, this is virtually what this Board does with regards it to its everyday actions. The process in place is probably the right process for gathering the public input required to get the eventual approval by the County Commission on what may that has occurred. The study group is the right place for a genesis for an updated vision statement and the beginning of the visioning process. Yet, I would not recommend things like county charettes or public meetings of that nature as they would be counter productive. IF you go through the advertising process, explaining what is coming in front of each of the Boards, and invite the interested parties to participate and provide comments at that point of time, as we do with everything else, we will get those comments. Mr. Matthes stated that in theory he agreed with Mr. Grande, that the public notification process is the right way to go, but if you take a look at the last page of what we were not suppose to be given, I believe it addresses the way we notify the public when we have public involvement. In here it is saying we probably should do a better job of seeking public participation. The point I am trying to make is that our standard notification process does not reach out to every person. There may be people out there with good points that need to made attention to. Ms. Dreyer stated that in her opinion that what is being presented is a statement of about the general things that we all love about St. Lucie County and what we want to see continue. I am not certain that I would see it as a visioning statement. I would think a visioning statement might be far more detailed and comprehensive. I envision a much greater task for us to complete a visioning process to hold charettes and meetings within various neighborhoods throughout the county in order to solicit input all the concerns of the citizens rather than those who can conveniently come to the Administration Building. Ms. Wells agreed with Ms. Dreyer. Mr. Kelly recommended that the Board look at the preamble as a preamble and not as a visioning process. Mr. Hearn recommended that staff meet with the Study Group to iron out the issues with the Preamble and Goal. Mr. Lancaster stated that if the Board is going to take any action on what was presented to this Board. Mr. Matthes asked if Ms. Wells needed the Boards approval on the preamble and goal. Ms. Wells responded in the negative. Mr. Matthes asked the pleasure of Board with regard to the issue. Mr. Grande stated he would like to see it advertised and the Board officially take action on the issue. The Planning and Zoning Commission directed staff to advertise the preamble and goal for the next public hearing. Mr. Moore went on record as to the Board not endorsing all of the exhibits that were presented to the Board. The Board is only looking at the Goal and Preamble. Mr. Lancaster stated that nothing should be able to be passed to the Board until the issue is properly advertised and noticed. Mr. Matthes asked the Board if there was any other business to be discussed. No further business. Next scheduled meeting will be May 18, 2000. ADJOURNMENT - Motion to adjourn by Mr. Lounds, seconded by Mr. Hearn. P & Z Meeting April 20, 2000Page 8