Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-15-2001 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING November 15, 2001 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Trias, Mr. Grande, Mr. Akins, Chairman Matthes MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Jones (excused) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner II; Mr. Dennis Grimm, Code Compliance Manager; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Matthes called to order the meeting of the St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Grande stated that he did have a conversation with one of the petitioners but they were not aware that he was a board member. He advised that he did not feel it necessary to recuse himself, but just wanted to disclose that information. Mr. Hearn stated that he had conversations with several members of the public regarding the petitions on Chairman Matthes disclosed that for File No. RZ-01-014 (Glassman Development Corp) and RZ-01-016 (Roger Medema) he would recuse himself due to conflict of interest. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 1 Chairman Matthes gave a br For those of you who have not been here before, The Planning and Zoning Commission is an agency that makes recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. The Staff will present a brief summary of the project and then make their recommendation. After which time, the Petitioner will be asked to come forward and state his/her case for the requested petition. At any time the Commission may stop and ask questions of the Petitioner or Staff. After that process is completed the Chairman will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak for or against the petition. The purpose behind this hearing is to get input from the general public. If anyone has something to say, please feel free to come forward and state it. After everyone has gotten a chance to speak the Chairman will then close the public hearing. The Commission will deliberate and then make a decision regarding their recommendation, one way or the other. The decision that is made is typically read from a scripted set of statements that are given to the Commission. It may sound rehearsed but it really is not. There is one motion for and one motion against in the package, so that the Commission can make a motion either one way or the other so it is very clear in the records. Once again, I want to remind you that the Planning and Zoning Commission only acts in an advisory capacity for the Board of County Commissioners. If you are not happy with the outcome of this hearing you will have the opportunity to speak at the public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Matthes requested that due to the large amount of public attending anyone wanting to speak please sign their name on the sheets. to speak regarding any of the petitions they are allowed. Chairman Matthes stated that he would like to move up Agenda Item # 4 to be the second item on the agenda. The Board unanimously agreed. Mr. Merritt made an announcement that he would like to have the attendance report reviewed and corrected because he felt he was not absent three times. He stated that he was about five minutes late to a meeting, but was not absent and would like the record corrected. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: September 20, 2001 MINUTES Mr. Lounds made a motion for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: Glassman Development Corporation - File No. RZ-01-014 Agenda Item # 4 John Carroll High School was heard prior to this petition. The minutes of this hearing are presented here for consistency with the published agenda. Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item #2 was the application of Glassman Development Corporation for a Change in Zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Silverlake) Zoning District for 185.91 acres of property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of the Turnpike Feeder Road and Spanish Lakes Country Club Village. The applicants are proposing a residential development with 799 units, consisting of 455 single- family units and maximum 344 multiple-family units. The Land Development Code requires that 35% of the site must consist of open space, a minimum of 15% of which must be native upland habitat preserved in its natural condition. The planned development maintains 37% of the projected area in total open space. Wetlands account for 5.75 acres, a lake accounts for 25.55 acres, and 23.41 acres of native upland habitat has been preserved. The remainder of the project of 114.83 acres consists of those areas designated for residential development. Mr. Kieran Kilday of Kilday and Associates advised they are the planners for this project. He showed the Commission an ariel photograph, which illustrated the planned development, Spanish Lakes and their entrance in correlation to the project, Lakewood Park Subdivision and Holiday Pines. He stated the property is currently undeveloped with the exception of the entrance to Spanish Lakes and a lake area in the middle of the site. He explained that the lake is zoned IX (Industrial, Extraction) and the majority of the property is zoned RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) and approximately 9.5 acres in the upper corner is zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood). He then showed the Master Plan to the Commission, which illustrated that the bulk of the project would be a single-family subdivision. He then advised the lake would be further excavated to provide more lake front lots around the lake, as well as the lake area on either side of the primary entrance to the property. The property will have two (2) entries. Primary entry will be from Indian Pines Boulevard and will consist of a landscaped median and a gate to provide restricted access primarily for residents only. The secondary entry will be opposite Suson Lane, which will also provide a gate to be used to allow for guest access. He advised that the remainder of the property would consist of multi-family units with a density of 14.4 units per acre. The commercial pod will be on one (1) acre and becomes part of the PUD. He further explained that they are seeking approval of the their preliminary PUD which would include each of the three phases, but that each phase would have to come back before the Board for final PUD approval. He then stated that the reason for the explanation is due to questions asked of him by the members of the public regarding how exactly the multi-family portion of the development will be laid out. He wanted everyone to understand that has not been finalized yet and once it is finalized it will have to come before the Board for a final PUD approval. After preliminary PUD approval, they will start Phase 1 of the project and their intent is to break ground towards the latter part of 2002. Mr. Grande asked Staff if the water and sewer provided by the county could handle the capacity of this project. Mr. Flores advised that they are in place at this time. Mr. Lounds asked that Staff explain in detail what PUD means. Mr. Kelly explained that PUD stands for Planned Unit Development and it is the residential category of Planned Development. He continued that P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 4 there are developments that don't fit completely within the guidelines of the Land Development Code (i.e.. zero lot-line development). It goes before the Commission for a preliminary approval and then before the Board for final approval. The Planning and Zoning Commission needs to determine if the project is consistent with the intended zoning of the area and if it fits in the area. The Board in the final PUD request usually addresses the site plan details. Mr. Lounds asked if a development is approved under preliminary PUD and the developer decides he wants to change directions of the plan, could he do that at-will? Mr. Kelly advised that he would not be able to do that without coming before the Commission and the Board for either another zoning change or for a different PUD. Only minor adjustments could be made to a plan without coming before the Commission and the Board. Mr. Grande asked Staff to verify that without the PUD, the developer with the current RM-5 zoning would be allowed more multiple-dwelling units than currently projected under the PUD. Mr. Kelly confirmed that would be correct. Under the current zoning the developer is permitted to put 5 multiple- family dwelling units per acre. Mr. Grande confirmed that the developer is leaving more than the required open space necessary under the current RM-5 zoning. Mr. Hearn asked what the depth of the lake currently is. Mr. Butch Terpening advised that the approximate dept is a maximum of twelve (12) to fifteen (15) feet in the center. Mr. Hearn asked if the lake would be fenced or have signs to address the depth. Mr. Terpening stated that they have designed the lake to be re-graded about twelve (12) feet from the waters edge beneath the water level to provide a safe landing point. Mr. Hearn asked if there are going to be turning lanes going into the development. Mr. Terpening advised that FDOT has approved full turn lanes on each of the project entrances. Mr. Hearn questioned what the impact on the existing public facilities would be once this project is completed. He continued that he feels it would have a major impact on the facilities, traffic, and schools in the area. Mr. Kelly explained that the demand on water and sewer would not be over and above what is available currently for that area. He also stated that the school impact fees should compensate for increased school He then advised the Commission that they do have the option to recommend approval, but with conditions on a PUD. Mr. Trias asked if a traffic study was done for this project. Mr. Kelly did confirm that was done and it is available for review. Mr. Terpening explained that a traffic model was done of proposed trips being generated by both the single-family component and the multi-family component. He also stated tha spaces between the proposed intersections to allow adequate construction of turn lanes. Mr. Hearn asked what the mitigation requirements are for the twenty-four (24) gopher tortoises that were improperly removed. Mr. Kelly advised that they are looking at a gopher tortoise relocation bank in the Bluefield area. Mr. Hearn asked if the developer received any fines or anything in regards to the improper removal. Mr. Kelly explained that the cost was that they have to pay for testing on the existing gopher tortoises in Bluefield and the ones they want to transfer. Mr. Bob Weigt of Weigt Environmental stated that they had received a permit from the State to relocate up to twenty-five (25) tortoises off the site. They excavated the burrows and removed eleven (11). Before the site is developed again, they will resurvey and can move out more if necessary to Bluefield. Mr. Grande questioned if the removal was permitted then why does it show in staff comments as improper removal. Mr. Weigt explained that the State did issue the permit and his staff did relocate them. A condition of the State permit requires that local permits are acquired as well but they have already removed the tortoises and there are no local permits from St. Lucie County. Mr. Kelly explained that Mr. Weigt did have the State permit and the Mr. Lo State allows you to apply for a take permit and not relocate the tortoises and just entomb them. If they are entombed, some will dig their way out and just move themselves to another area. He continued that the P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 5 developer requested that the tortoises be relocated off site instead of entombing them. Mr. Akins asked Mr. Kelly if there was any proposal for additional widening of those roads other than the turn lanes. Mr. Kelly advised that they would only be installing turn lanes. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. John Mahoney from Spanish Lakes Country Club Village stated with the current zoning, if this PUD is rejected, does the developer have the option to utilize the RM-5 zoning without a public hearing. Mr. Kelly advised that he does have the option to develop based on the RM-5 zoning and file a site plan, which would be reviewed by staff, and then the Board of County Commissioners would make final decision. There would be no sign or advertisement or anything of that nature for it, it would just be an item on the Commission agenda. Mr. Mahoney advised that he was told that the environmental impact study was done in 2000. Mr. Kelly explained that Mr. Weigt had previously stated that another study would be done prior to actual construction. Mr. Mahoney then questioned if any major changes to the PUD would have to come back before the Commission and Mr. Kelly confirmed that would be correct. He then asked if each phase of the project would begin after the prior is completed. Mr. Kilday stated it is a three- (3) phase project with the single-family portion being first, multi-family being second and if the commercial need were determined then that would be the last phase. However, each phase does not have to be fully completed before the next phase is started. Mr. Mahoney questioned if the multiple-family dwellings would be categorized as condos or apartments. Mr. Kilday advised that determination has not been made yet. Mr. Kelly then explained the difference between preliminary PUD and final PUD again. Mr. Mahoney stated that a major concern is the impact of the increased number of children. Mr. Kelly stated that the school impact fees that are paid by the developer are calculated to fund the increased number of children a place to go to school. Mr. Mahoney advised that the Spanish Lakes Country Club Village community is against any type of multiple-family units and is against this PUD request because they feel this development would change their style of life. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Mahoney how long he has lived in Spanish Lakes and Mr. Mahoney advised he has been in St. Lucie County for eight (8) years and in Spanish Lakes for five (5) years. Ms. Dorothy Davis, a resident of Spanish Lakes, stated that she had issues with the traffic survey because it was done in the spring and a lot of their residents are up north during that time. She also stated that the speed limit of fifty-five (55) miles per hour on that road is of concern with the increased number of families with children that this development will hold. She stated that the fact that there is no fence or buffer between this development and Spanish Lakes is an issue for them as well. She also said that the multiple-family units might be a problem because if they are too high, their residents will be looking down on their manufactured homes. She advised that in her opinion there would be no need for a convenience store in this development because there are already several of them in the area and if they Lounds asked Ms. Davis how long she has lived in Florida; she stated she has lived here since 1994. Mr. Frank Monte Leone, resident of Spanish Lakes Country Club, stated he has lived in that development for twelve (12) years. He stated that the reason he had bought in that area was because he was told it was zoned RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre). He advised that when they had discussions with Glassman about this project, they had originally said there would be three (3) entrances, but now they are stating there will only be two (2). He also said he was concerned with fire protection for the area. Station # 7 is an old pumper fire station and is the only unit within seven (7) miles and if their three (3) story multiple dwelling units their fire trucks cannot reach them. They do not have hook and ladder capabilities at that station and the nearest ladder station would be on Hutchinson Island with a minimum of a half- hour wait. He advised that he spoke with Captain Emerson at the fire station and was told that any P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 6 buildings three- (3) stories or higher are requ Mr. Robert Sak stated that if they have 900 units and there are 2.3 children per school you will have 2031 students, if there are 800 units and 2.3 children per family, you will have 1851 students and that would represent a need for three (3) schools at twenty-one (21) million dollars a piece. He continued that the upkeep of a school is 2.4 million dollars per year and based on the current tax base would only collect 1.6 million, so there will be almost a million dollar deficit per school. He advised that he moved from Boca into Holiday Pines about six (6) years ago because he was told that across the street was zoned for residential and they were tired of the traffic. He also stated that he feels this development will bury the school system. Mr. Merritt stated that the demographics show that there are 2.7 people per household in Lakewood Park, not 2.7 children per household. Mr. Cliff Norris stated he is a co-owner of property to the left bottom corner of the property and has been a resident of Florida for over thirty-years (30) and have owned their property on Feeder Road for a little more than nineteen (19) years. He advised that he has had rental apartments and can understand the concerns of the community regarding renters. He continued that he feels the Glassman Corporation is a fine firm and have been in business for a number of years in Florida and have done projects in South Florida, Martin County and now after many years they have decided to build a development on the property that they have paid taxes on. He also stated that he has dealt with Culpepper & Terpening and Mr. Terpening is a well-known Fort Pierce resident and the Kilday organization assisted him in the development of a neighborhood shopping center in West Palm Beach and they too are a fine firm. He advised that this is not a guarantee that all of their concerns will be solved, but since they are quality developers, engineers and land planners it should be of some comfort. He stated that he does not feel they are like some other out of state, fly by night companies and they are good people. Mr. Sam Brown questioned if the lake in the development is going to be used for recreational use. Mr. Kelly stated there is no indication on the site plan that the lake is going to be used for recreation. He then asked if the homes being built around the lake would have their rear to the lake. Mr. Kelly advised that is typically what is done and he believes that is the case here. Mr. Joseph Beaulier, of Spanish Lakes advised he is seventy-five (75) years old and has been here for almost eight (8) years and enjoys it. He stated he is concerned about this development affecting their lifestyle because they live in a quiet area. He also questioned the increase in congestion when it comes time to evacuate for a hurricane with nine hundred more units. He also stated that he feels adding turning lanes will cause them to loose their bicycle path. Ms. Janet Tarr from Holiday Pines asked what the square footage would be on these homes that are being placed on sixty-foot lots. Mr. Kelly advised that the County has no minimum requirements on square footage of a home and that typically developers determine that for final PUD. Ms. Tarr stated that she has been a resident of Florida for thirty-four years and when she lived in West Palm Beach there were some houses built on zero lot lines and her property values dropped dramatically. She continued that the people of Holiday Pines are very concerned about their property values declining. She advised that if there are seven hundred (700) new homes and approximately two (2) cars per home, which would mean 1400 additional cars adding to the traffic on Feeder Road. Mr. Kelly stated that the traffic studies that were done did not show a need for widening of Feeder Road to compensate for this new development. Mr. Hearn asked Mr. Kelly if he heard correctly that the County does not have a minimum size home that can be built. Mr. Kelly confirmed that is correct. Mr. Trias stated that the Southern Building Code has a minimum requirement but St. Lucie County does P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 7 Mr. Robert Clark, President of the Lakewood Park Property Owners Association. He stated his association represents over eight thousand (8,000) property owners in Lakewood Park. He continued that he feels that most of their questions would pertain to final PUD approval and most of their preliminary questions have been answered this evening. Mr. Bob Bangert stated he would like to thank all of the concerned members of the community for attending the meeting. He advised he has lived in Holiday Pines for twenty-six (26) years and wanted to make it known that when they were trying to get a traffic light it was not the State who helped them it was the County. He asked if this hearing was just to rezone the property. Chairman McCurdy explained the Commission only makes a recommendation to the Board and they have final decision. Mr. Kelly explained that tonight the Commission would make a recommendation on the rezoning and the preliminary PUD. He continued that each other hearing in final PUD phase would be heard only by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Bangert asked how far back the gate is off of the road for this development. Mr. Terpening stated it would be approximately five hundred (500) feet off of the road. Mr. Bangert advised that when he had a meeting with the developer they had stated to him the square footage of the homes would be 1600 feet and above. He continued that there are some items within the Comprehensive Plan he would like to see changed. He stated that our Plan only asks for a thirty-foot the fire station situation because of it only has one pumper fire truck and there is no hook and ladder station in the area. Mr. Bob Getty of Holiday Pines stated he has been a Florida resident for fifty-five years and would like to know why their portion of the county is considered to be less important that St. Lucie West. He continued that if the developer would eliminate the multi-family portion and replace it all with single- family residences that are 1600 square foot or larger they would be agreeable. Ms. Fern Grounds of Holiday Pines advised that she and her husband searched for an area here in Fort Pierce that was comparable to where they used to live in Ohio. They felt Holiday Pines was that area because it is a pleasant, quiet area and she stated if they add a convenience store it would cause trouble in the community. She continued that she is completely against the commercial pod that is being proposed. Mr. Frank Bazelli, a resident of Spanish Lakes Country Club Village stated he has lived there for the past 8 1/2 years and just had a question regarding the transportation impact portion of the staff memo. He that road by any unit of government. He continued that FDOT is requiring turning lanes at each of the entrances as part of the development. Mr. Michael J. Smith stated he has lived in Holiday Pines for almost nine years and has two major concerns about this project. One of the problems is EMS service and adding another 900 families will dramatically increase response time for ambulances. He questioned what type of environmental impact this development would cause on the area. He also stated that in his opinion adding this many families would definitely cause serious traffic problems on 713. Mr. Charles Brady, Holiday Pines resident stated that he owns two homes that run adjacent to Feeder Road and the noise pollution from that area is unbelievable with the current traffic. He advised that a new traffic study should be done when all of the residents are home. He said that many people are very afraid to turn onto Feeder Road from Holiday Pines because of the traffic and takes away from many of their lifestyles. He stated he is there to represent approximately thirty (30) households that run along Feeder P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 8 Road and they are all very concerned that adding this many units in the area will drastically increase the already existing noise pollution. Mr. Bill Van Wagner, a resident of Holiday Pines advised that he is unclear about the sewer usage for this proposed development. He stated that he has doubts that the existing facility could handle the load from this many units. He continued that he would like the Commission to set conditions on this approval that a study is done of the utilities and that these homes will not affect their lifestyle by overloading the sewage plant. Mr. Dick Fatima stated he has owned his home in Holiday Pines since 1982 and is concerned about if there will be enough fire hydrants in the area to protect the properties. He asked if there would be an increase in Law Enforcement to compensate for the increased number of people in the community. Mr. Jim Purcell an ex-firefighter who lives in Spanish Lakes stated that he has gone to the stations in the area and that Station # 7 is not your typical three-engine ladder station. He continued that Station # 7 is only a pumper station with one truck and the next nearest station is located at the airport, which is seven miles away. He stated he was told that the nearest ladder truck station is located on Hutchinson Island and that building multi-story buildings may be a risk with the existing fire station. A gentleman asked if any of the Commission members have been out to the site or are they just taking Mr. Gordon Chase stated he has lived in Holiday Pines for sixteen (16) years stated that he does not feel Glassman Corporation has provided enough answers to grant this PUD. He continued that he recommends this not be approved tonight and Glassman Corporation be require to resubmit this at a later date when they have all the answers. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Chair rezoning and preliminary PUD and that they are not making any recommendations regarding the final PUD project. He also continued that this will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners either way and that everyone is welcome to come to that hearing as well. Mr. Grande asked that Mr. Kelly explain to everyone the procedure on advertising and notification for the Board of County Commissioners hearing. Mr. Kelly stated that the notice requirements are the same as the requirements for the Planning Board of County Commissioners hearing is on December 4, 2001. He stated that there would be ads placed in the paper and a letter sent out to confirm the December 4, 2001, hearing. He advised that the Board is only going to make a decision on the rezoning and preliminary PUD, not the detailed final PUD. He continued that once it does come back for final PUD approval another new sign will be placed and new ads will be put in the newspaper and new letters will be sent to those within five hundred feet. Mr. Hearn asked Staff to explain what the responsibility of the developer will be regarding financial impact on the community. He stated he thought there was a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that requires a developer to pay for the impact that their development will have on the community. Mr. Kelly advised that he believes that would fall under the area of concurrency, which is intended to make sure a community insures the necessary services are in place at the time that they moved into the development. Those that are not in place are the responsibility of the developer to see to it that they are put in place. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly how old the Wynne Development at Spanish Lakes is. Mr. Kelly advised P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 9 that he believes it is in the range of twenty-one (21) years. Mr. Lounds then asked what the density of Spanish Lakes is and Mr. Kelly advised that it is approximately five (5) units per acre. Mr. Lounds stated that RM-5 is the current zoning and the developer is asking to rezone which will cause less units per acre. Mr. Kelly agreed. Mr. Lounds asked what the density of Lakewood Park is and Mr. Kelly advised it is mostly RS-3 and RS-4 (3 and 4 units per acre). Mr. Lounds also stated that he is a volunteer St. Lucie is plenty of wildlife still there. He continued that he feels a thirty-foot buffer is sufficient but the Commission has the right to ask for more density of the landscaping if they wish. He also stated that growth of the community is very important and the Glassman Corporation is helping with that. He advised that he feels Glassman has a concern for the community because they are opting for fewer units per acre than they are currently allowed without a Commission hearing. Mr. Akins stated that he lives in Holiday Pines and shares the pride of many of the residents. He stated that he travels Feeder Road every day and is familiar with the traffic patterns. He advised that he feels this is a quality development and thinks that the Staff in St. Lucie County goes above and beyond to ensure the quality of the developments that are being built. Mr. Grande stated that he too agrees with Mr. Lounds and just wanted to make sure everyone understands what the Commission is actually voting on. He continued by saying that the commercial zoning already exists and the remainder of the property is currently zoned RM-5 and the developer already has the right to develop at five (5) units per acre and that development could already be in the form of multiple dwelling units. This request, in his opinion, the developer is asking to construct fewer units than they are entitled to by requesting PUD. He feels that there would be a greater level of safeguard with the zoning change than is currently there under the RM-5 zoning. Mr. Hearn stated that this project is approximately 3 ½ miles from the neighborhood where he lives and he understands the concerns expressed by everyone regarding the type of apartments currently existing in the area. He continued that his main concern is the type of multiple-family units that will be in that development, but he is going to support this project. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review 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 Glassman Development Corporation for a Change in Zoning from the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 Du/Acre), IX (Industrial, Extraction), and CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Silverlake) Zoning District because I think it removes the higher density that can be placed on the property, it gives the public more opportunity to voice their concerns for any changes that are made, and it gives Staff and the public more rights to scrutinize what happens in the PUD rather than just a straight development. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM 3: Roger Medema - File No. RZ-01-016 Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Roger Medema for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development Palm Breezes Club) and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development Palm Breezes Club) Zoning District for 151.62 acres of property located generally on the north side of Orange Avenue, approximately 1,800 feet east of the Florida Turnpike. The developer of this project has submitted a petition for Preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan approval for 646 conventionally constructed units, 4 acres in reserve for Commercial, Neighborhood uses consistent with Section 7.01.02 of the Land Development Code. The subject property is currently vacant and has a fifty-foot (50) wide easement for the Florida Gas Transmission Company runs diagonally through the property. The proposed development utilizes essentially the same development pattern as a previously approved project for this site except that the developer has increased the amount of contiguous open space and changed the mobile homes to conventionally constructed single-family homes. The Land Development Code requires that 35% of the site must consist of open space, a minimum of 15% of which must be native upland habitat preserved in its natural condition. This planned development maintains 35.6% of the project area in total open space. Wetlands are 11.29 acres, lake area consists of 14.24 acres, and Native Upland Preserve is 21.52 acres. The remainder of the project consists of those areas designated for residential development. The developer has provided a Transportation Impact Report (TIR), which assessed the impacts of the development above Orange Avenue and the major intersection streets within the subject area. The TIR identified the need for the construction of two minor intersection improvements. One is at the intersection of South Jenkins Road and Orange Avenue and the other is at the intersection of North Rock Road and Orange Avenue. Staff has determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan are compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. The petition meets the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff, therefore, recommends that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval subject to four limiting conditions cited within the staff report. Chairman McCurdy asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Richard Ladyko stated he is with the firm of Culpepper and Terpening and represents the applicant. Mr. Lounds asked why there would be a need for improvements on Jenkins Road since it is so far from this development. Mr. Terpening stated that Mr. Murphy, Interim Community Development Director requested that intersection to be studied; the future impact of this development on that intersection would require some improvements. Mr. Trias questioned how changing the current AR-1 zoning to PUD is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly explained that the rezoning is actually already partially PUD and partially AR-1 and the majority of the project is a previously approved PUD, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Merritt asked Mr. Ladyko if there are any plans to bring Orange Avenue up to a standard two-lane highway. Mr. Ladyko stated that he was not aware of any currently pending with the County but Staff has asked for turning lanes to be constructed at the project entrance as well as the intersection improvements previously identified. The developer concurs with those recommendations. Mr. Merritt stated that Orange Avenue already has very narrow substandard lanes and this development will increase traffic on that road. Mr. Terpening stated that this project is paying in excess of $1 million dollars to the County in traffic impact fees and how the County elects to use those funds could affect that roadway. Mr. Hearn asked if any consideration regarding the convenience store was made so people would not have to go out onto a main corridor to get to it. Mr. Ladyko stated he believed that was the reason for the commercial component of the development at the project entrance, immediately off of Orange Avenue. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Kelly stated that the PUD allows for up to the 3% of the project land to be used for commercial purposes, for that very reason. Mr. Lounds asked where the Fort Pierce Utilities would tie into the development. Mr. Ladyko stated there is approximately a 2,000 linear foot extension of Fort Pierce Utilities water main from the Rock Road/Orange Avenue extension westerly to the project. He continued there is approximately 2,500 linear feet of force main extension from a lift station that exists on Rock Road in front of the stockade facility being extended southerly on Rock Road and then westerly again on Orange Avenue. There is approximately 5,500 linear feet of main extension associated with the project being done in conjunction with Fort Pierce Utilities. Mr. Lounds asked if that extension would also benefit anyone else who may develop in that area and Mr. Ladyko advised that is correct. Mr. Hearn stated that the area for the possible convenience store is not zoned commercial, so how can they propose that. Mr. Ladyko advised that there is a commercial component allowed up the PUD zoning and that portion is included in the PUD. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. why the developer is being required to make improvements at an intersection that is not really near the project location. He asked if it would be possible to have that money redirected to Orange Avenue rather than the intersection of Orange Avenue and Jenkins Road. Mr. Kelly advised that Staff would look into it with Mr. Murphy and see if that is a possibility or he could include it in his motion this evening. Mr. Lounds questioned if this project is outside of the Urban Service Area and Mr. Kelly stated it is not. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review 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 Roger Medema for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Palm Breezes Club) and AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 Du/Acre) Zoning Districts to the PUD (Planned Unit Development - Palm Breezes Club) Zoning District because I think it adds to the quality of development west of Kings Highway. I think that the development will give our residents a choice other than north or immediately south in St. Lucie County. I also want to add an amendment that the road improvements are made to Orange Avenue west of Kings Highway, between Kings Highway and the Turnpike overpass. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 6-1 (with Mr. Merritt voting against because he feels Orange Avenue is a substandard road) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 12 AGENDA ITEM 4: John Carroll High School - RZ-01-018 Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 4 was the petition of John Carroll High School for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single-Family - 3 du/acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District for a property located on the north side of Delaware Avenue, approximately 700 feet east of Hartman Road. The purpose of the rezoning is to join the subject property with the existing John Carroll property located to the north and west for Institutional uses compatible with John Carroll High School. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Harold Melville advised that he was the recommendations. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Staff recommended that the petition be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. Mr. Hearn asked if the change of zoning would permit the accessory uses on this particular property. Mr. Flores confirmed that it would. Mr. Merritt stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review 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 John Carroll High School for a Change in Zoning from the RS-3 (Residential, Single- Family - 3 Du/Acre) Zoning District to the I (Institutional) Zoning District because it fits in with the existing adjoining use. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM 5: Timothy Rose Car Wash - File No. CU-01-006 Staff Planner, Cyndi Snay stated that Agenda Item # 5 was the application of Timothy Rose, for a Conditional Use Permit and minor site plan to allow the construction of 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility, to be known as Rose Car Wash in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District. The subject property is located at 5321 Sunshine State Parkway/Turnpike Feeder Road. The subject property is surrounded to the north by Lakewood Park subdivision, farther northwest is Lakewood Park Methodist Church, and to the south is a vacant commercial site, the Bank of America Facility and Habits Bar andGrill. To the west is Lake James which is located in the Lakewood Park subdivision, and to the east is the Mobil Station and vacant commercial neighborhood parcels. The proposed facility has been designed to front on Turnpike Feeder Road and the applicant has indicated that a 15-foot wide landscape buffer with an 8-foot high opaque wood fence will buffer the property to the north and west. The proposed care wash facility is not expected to negatively impact the use of public facilities in the area and consists with the Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. The applicant will be, as a condition of approval, working with Staff to minimize the impact on the existing native vegetation, preserving any vegetation possible that is not in the way of construction. Therefore Staff is recommending approval of Mr. Akins asked if the Hess station that is located down the street included a car wash facility. Ms. Snay confirmed that it does have a single car wash. Mr. Randy Mosby, Mosby and Associates, stated that he was speaking on behalf of the petitioner to answer any questions and that the petitioner, Mr. Tim Rose was also available for questions. Mr. Hearn asked if this facility would be open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr. Mosby stated that the proposed hours are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., 7 days a week. Mr. Merritt asked if they have sewer service at the proposed site. Mr. Mosby stated they are proposing a completely recycled system that is containerized and is a packaged underground treatment system. He continued that there is sewer coming into the area and his client and adjacent property owners are looking into tying into it when available. He also stated that occasionally they will have the dirt and grime pumped out of the primary system, but that would be the extent of it. Mr. Hearn asked if the hours of operation would be a condition of the approval and Ms. Snay advised that on page six (6) of the staff report shows there is a condition of approval for hours of operation, which could not be changed without another public hearing. Mr. Lounds asked how the facility actually controls the times of operation. Mr. Mosby stated there would be a notice on the wall and the machines will be turned off at that time. Mr. Lounds asked if there are any types of vending machines on the property. Mr. Rose stated there would be no soda machines, but there will be a change machine and vending machines for car washing supplies that will be located behind a closed door that will be locked and secured at night when they close. Mr. Grande asked if this facility would normally not be staffed and Mr. Rose stated that was correct. Mr. Mosby stated that there are shielded lights at the back of the property for security reasons that shine away from the residents and towards the building. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Cliff Norris, a managing partner of a three-man partnership developing the first eight lots of the first have in mind for the area and just wanted to lend his support regarding this project. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 14 Mr. Bill Adams, a resident of Holiday Pines stated that the location of this project is right behind some of the homes in Holiday Pines. He advised that having a car wash is convenient but the location is not good because it is right across the street from a church. He continued that the amount of noise generated from Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande asked Staff if there were any correspondence from the representatives of Lakewood Park Methodist Church. Ms. Snay stated that Staff has not heard anything. Mr. McCurdy stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review 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 Timothy Rose for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self-service car wash facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District because it fronts on a very busy, heavily trafficked highway. Commercial usage of this type with limited hours seems to be a much better use than something such as a retail convenience store and I just think it would be a very good fit for the neighborhood. This is with the four conditions stated in the Staff report and the revised hours of operation till 10:00 p.m. Motion seconded by Mr. Trias Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 2-6 (Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Matthes voting for approval). Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, and the Standards of Review 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 deny the application of Timothy Rose for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,542 square foot self- service car wash facility in the CN (Commercial, Neighborhood) Zoning District because I believe it will have a severe impact on the surrounding residential neighborhoods and the church across the street. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 15 Chairman Matthes stated that he has seen many businesses in the CN Zoning District where the lights are lighted and open well past the time of this proposed project. Being able to limit this project since it is a Conditional Use allows us to make it easier or better on the surrounding residences as opposed to allowing something that could have more of an operation and would not be a conditional use, that would be allowed under a CN zoning. Mr. Hearn stated that he has never been in favor of car washes in residential neighborhoods. Mr. McCurdy stated that Kings Highway is a commercial thoroughfare, not a residential neighborhood on the frontage. He continued that he is aware there is residential behind it, but we need to expect and allow continued growth in the area. He stated that the CN zoning allows for a more wide variety of intensive uses and this would be a less intensive use on the site by controlling the hours of operation. He advised that in his opinion, this would be a good use of the site. Mr. Grande stated that he feels there are valid points on both sides, but he supports the motion for denial because it is immediately adjacent to a church property and we need to be extra sensitive about that. Mr. Hearn stated that he would be comfortable owning residential property adjacent to the permitted uses of CN zoning with the exception of a car wash because it does not compare with the types of businesses allowed under generated from a car wash use with loud radios at the car wash and the church being across the street. Mr. Grande stated he too agrees with Mr. Hearn and the permitted uses are a better use than this conditional use. Upon a roll call vote the motion was passed with a vote of 6-2 (Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Matthes voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for denial. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 16 AGENDA ITEM 6: Ordinance No. 01-003 - Building Codes Mr. Kelly advised that Agenda Item # 6 is an ordinance to adopt the Statewide Building Code as described in Chapter 553.70 Florida Statutes, and as published by the State of Florida, Department of Community Affairs and the Standard Unsafe Building Abatement Code. Mr. Kelly advised that after Hurricane Andrew an update of the building codes has been in process and these are to go into affect January 1, 2002. Mr. Kelly then stated that once we adopt the Building Code we are able to make changes in the way we administer the code through the administrative portion of the Code but no changes can be made to the Technical portions of it. Mr. Kelly then introduced Mr. Dennis Grimm, Code Compliance Manager to answer any further questions. Mr. Trias asked how this code affects historic buildings and properties and what is the process to handle these issues. Mr. Grimm stated that the Florida Statutes allow the County the ability to make changes to amend the administrative portion of the Code (Chapter 1) and that is the purpose of the ordinance tonight. The Florida Building Officials Associations put together the administrative section that was approved by the State to adopt. This section gives a little more power to local jurisdictions on administering the Code. Mr. Grimm further stated that the Building Code does have a section pertaining to historical structures. Mr. Trias stated that he would like to review the Code in regards to the historical buildings. Chairman McCurdy asked Mr. Trias if the City of Fort Pierce has a Code regarding historical buildings that could be forwarded to Mr. Grimm for comparison. Mr. Trias advised they do have one and would be more than willing to supply St. Lucie County with a copy of it. Mr. Grande asked if this ordinance is deleting all of Section 13.00.02 Coastal Construction Code. Mr. Grimm advised that is correct and these changes are mandated by the State and all jurisdictions must comply and adopt as of January 1, 2002. Mr. Grande questioned if we must adopt it exactly or do we have the option to make the code more stringent. Mr. Grimm advised that any changes to the Technical code must be approved by the State. Mr. Grande asked if we have a copy of the proposed State Code and Mr. Grimm advised he has a copy available for review in his office. Mr. Grimm continued that this Code is supplied by the State and St. Lucie County must adopt it and we cannot make changes to the Technical aspect of the Code. Mr. Hearn questioned if the Commission has any options regarding this Code. Chairman Matthes advised that the Commission has the right to make any recommendations they see fit to the Board for review. Ms. Young explained that the State is mandating that the County adopts the Technical aspects of the Code and the County has the option to change only the administrative portion of the Code. Mr. Hearn advised that he would like to know if the State revisions to Code are strengthening or weakening the Code that is currently in place. Mr. Grimm advised that he has reviewed both Codes and the new Florida Building Code is much more stringent than the current Code. He continued that the wind loads have changed from 110 miles per hour on the coastal areas to 140 miles per hour, all of Hutchinson Island from US 1 east is 140 miles per hour therefore making building more stringent and that the new Code is comparable and in some aspects better than the existing Code for the coastal zones. Mr. Grande questioned if the County has the ability to make the Coastal Code guidelines more stringent than the State Code requires since it is part of the Technical aspect of the Code. Mr. Trias advised that in his discussions with some of the members of the State Board he has found that the new Code is more stringent than the current Code used in St. Lucie County but is not as stringent as the Code that was being used by Dade and Broward County and feels this is a better Code but may need some work with regards to historic buildings. He continued that he questions how this new Code applies to existing buildings since most of these Codes are designed towards new construction. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Trias if in his technical opinion he felt this is a better Code than what we have had in the past. Mr. Trias confirmed that he did feel it is better but may need some additional work. Mr. Lounds asked if the County has the option to improve upon the State Building P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 17 Code. Mr. Grimm explained that at this point the State is mandating approval of what is currently written by January 1, 2002 with no amendments. The only portion that can be amended is the administrative section of the Code. If local jurisdictions ask for amendments to the Technical aspect of it, then it must be submitted to the State Board for their review before anything would go into affect. Mr. Lounds asked Staff if the Commission approves this ordinance now could we go back to the State later to go back and amend the administrative portions of the Code with regards to historical buildings. Mr. Grimm advised that the County could draft their own historical ordinance, which has nothing to do with the State Building Code because their Code provides for historical areas and leaves that up to the local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances to protect buildings and items such as that. Mr. Merritt stated that he would have appreciated if the Building Department had given the Commission a summary of this ordinance and what it meant. Mr. Hearn advised that he agreed with Mr. Merritt and changes in the Code. Mr. Lounds asked if Chairman Matthes would give his opinion regarding the changes since he has some background relevant to this. Chairman Matthes stated that he felt that Mr. Grimm was the expert on this and his opinion was that this Code is better than what is currently being utilized. Mr. Grande confirmed that the consensus was that this Code is better than the current Code with the exception of the historical building portion. He questioned if the County has the option of adopting n the standards that the State have chosen for us. Mr. Grimm advised that according to the Florida Building Code St. Lucie County is not in a high wind zone and therefore could not adopt their Code. Chairman Matthes asked if Section 104.4.6 - Public Right of Way covers all access (ex. roadway easements). Ms. Young advised that in her opinion this section did not pertain to easements, only to public right of way. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Shirley Burlingham from North Beach stated that she has concerns regarding the Coastal Construction Code. She stated that every time the Code is increased for mobile homes, the manufacturers have to adjust everything every time they made a home for out on the island. Her other concern was regarding homes that are built where portions of it are built from scratch and the rest of the home is manufactured as well as additions to existing homes. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 18 Mr. Hearn stated that he would like the legal staff to interpret Section 104.4.6 - Public Right of Way for the Commission. Ms. Young advised that she would like to review that section with Mr. Grimm and Mr. Murphy for more information before this ordinance would go to the Board. Mr. Hearn asked if Staff would deny a building permit based on this Section of the Code. Ms. Young stated that basically what the ordinance states is that nothing can be built that would affect the public right of way without the proper permit and that she would not read this section as pertaining to easements. Mr. Trias stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval of Ordinance 01-003 with the condition that the County explore the establishment of a historic building ordinance that deals with historic building issues. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 6-2 (Mr. McCurdy and Mr. Grande voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 19 AGENDA ITEM 7: Ordinance No. 01-006 - Property Maintenance Ms. Heather Young stated that Agenda Item # 7 was Ordinance No. 01-006 - Property Maintenance. She stated that the copy attached to the packets is a draft and her memo has some recommended revisions to that draft. She continued that Staff recommends that the definitions of occupant and person should exclude residential lessees. The purpose of this revision would be to place responsibility for residential property maintenance on the property owner or the manager of the property. In addition to that change, some revisions have been made as requested by members of the Commission during the May 17, 2001 public hearing. Section 1-16.1- Section 1-16.1- -16.1-12 added thirty day (30) period. It was also proposed during that previous public hearing that the application of the ordinance be limited to the urban service area. As an alternative, staff would suggest that the Commission consider excluding the AG-1, AG-2.5 and AG-5 zoning districts from the ordinance. Mr. Grande questioned why the owner should be responsible for conditions created by the lessee and tenant agreement. Mr. Lounds asked if vandalism by a lessee would be covered under the destruction of private property acts. Ms. Young stated it would be covered either by statutes or by the terms of the lease. Mr. Trias stated that he was under the impression that the property owner is responsible for the property and what the lessee does. Mr. Grande stated that he felt the landlord needs to have some recourse against a lessee who is in violation and that this ordinance would add additional responsibilities for a landlord. Ms. Young stated that any recourse a landlord would need would and should be contained within the lease agreement and does not need to be incorporated into this ordinance. Mr. McCurdy advised that he is a property owner and landlord and feels property maintenance is the responsibility of the landlord and is part of the cost of doing business. Mr. Merritt stated he was against this ordinance the first time it came up and is still against it until the County and City enforces the codes that they currently have on the books. His other concerns were with buildings that have not been torn down. Mr. Hearn advised that he agrees with Mr. Merritt except that he feels we do need this ordinance. He continued that he feels Code Enforcement is keeping property values in St. Lucie County low because they are not enforcing the existing codes. He also stated that under the Definitions section, letter O we need to give a better definition of waste, junk and debris. He was also ght (8) where it says sidewalks should be swept clean of dirt was a bit extreme. He then asked, under vacant buildings, who would determine what openings should be covered. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Shirley Burlingham, President of the North Beach Homeowners Association stated that her association is completely behind this ordinance. They have some problems with property in their area and this ordinance would help Code Enforcement take care of those issues. The only issue she saw was driveways and how to determine who are the responsible owners of it. She stated that there is a grant P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 20 currently before the State that the County has applied for to designate South A-1-A and North A-1-A as a scenic highway. Her concern is those properties that need to be cleaned up and feels this ordinance could do that. Ms. Arlene Goodman resides at 4412 Pressler Lane and stated she is both a homeowner and tenant. She stated that issues regarding lessees, in her opinion, could be handled within the lease. As a property owner she is concerned with Section 1-16.1- being enforced. She questioned why AR-1 through AG-5 are being excluded from this ordinance. There are some accessory buildings in these districts that are falling down and should be taken care of as well. Under Section 1.16.1- and how do you enforce that. She continued that under the Inspections section ANY duly authorized inspector from the Code Enforcement section should be authorized to make inspections to determine the condition of dwellings. What reasons are given for coming onto the property? She also stated that she felt the section regarding authorization of an inspector to search or inspect to the fullest extent allowed th ) amendment of the Constitution. landscaping issues and those businesses on US 1 that do not comply and how that would be enforced. She stated that several homeowners associations are being asked to maintain the County right-of- maintaining them. She asked how the County would address issues where Waste Management refuses to pick up yard waste? She was concerned with Section 1.16.1-13, Occupancy of Vacant Units. She asked if this meant that EVERY time a unit becomes vacated the County must inspect it before it can be occupied again? She questioned who the final judge on these decisions is. She feels that many of these issues can be addressed with the existing codes and that ordinance is extreme and is an invasion into the personal lif thout the consent of the property owner unless it is an emergency situation. The reason for adding this is because currently Code Enforcement officers do not go inside of a residence and this would allow them to do that, with the consent of the property owner or the proper authority. Mr. Akins advised that he disagrees with exception to the warrant requirement in regards to the war on drugs. He felt that this provision in the ordinance allows the officials the right to enter, if they see fit and there would be nothing a property owner could do about it. He continued that the language used in this ordinance would give officials in St. Lucie County that power. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Trias stated that he was under the impression that if there is a violation, it goes before the Code Enforcement Board and they would determine any enforcement. Ms. Young confirmed that is correct. Mr. Hearn stated that he feels this ordinance could have a profound impact on property values in St. Lucie our community to have pride in what our County has. He also stated that he was concerned with the Code P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 21 Enforcement department and there laid back approach to code enforcement and this ordinance would help to address many of those concerns. Mr. Grimm stated that he oversees the Code Enforcement division and they only have four and a half (4-½) officers and last year they handled over forty-five hundred (4,500) cases. He continued that his officers go out on every single call and do not back off. He also said that in response to those issues about burned out houses that need to be condemned and torn down, it takes months in this Counties processes to get that done. He stated that he wanted to assure the Commission that Code Enforcement is doing their job in their County. Mr. Trias advised that he feels the Enforcement officers. Mr. Merritt said he has concerns about adding another ordinance to the Code if the existing Code cannot be enforced. Mr. Hearn stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that Staff return Ordinance 01-006 to the Planning and Zoning Commission next month addressing the concerns that were raised here tonight. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels Ms. Goodman, Ms. Burlingham and Mr. Merritt have many valid points. He continued that he feels Code Enforcement waits for a complaint to come in before anything is done about code violations unless it is a glaring issue. Mr. Grimm advised that is not the process and when their department receives a call they canvas the entire area to see if there are any other code violations. Mr. Lounds stated that there are some areas of the County that this ordinance would be of great help but some provisions need to be reviewed and changed. Mr. Grande advised that he agreed with Mr. Hearn but there is too much ambiguity in the ordinance in the way it is currently written and would like to see it come back with revisions. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 5-3 (Mr. Merritt, Mr. Akins and Mr. MCurdy th voting against) and continued to the December 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Meeting. P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 22 Next scheduled meeting will be December 20, 2001. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Merritt and seconded by Mr. Lounds. Meeting was adjourned at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman . P & Z Meeting November 15, 2001 Page 23