Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-17-2002 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING January 17, 2002 rd Commission Chambers, 3 Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Merritt, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Hearn, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Akins, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Grande (Absent With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Katherine Mackenzie-Smith, Asst. Co. Attorney; Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 1 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 Chairman Matthes gave a brief presentatio 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. Mr. Merritt questioned if there would be a vote for annual reorganization. Mr. Murphy explained that it is time to do that and it will be Agenda Item #1. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 2 Election of CHAIRMAN & VICE-CHAIRMAN: Mr. Lounds made a motion to retain the current officers. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to retain the current officers for Chairman and Vice Chairman. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 1: December 20, 2001 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Akins made a motion for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0). P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 2:CALVARY ASSEMBLY OF GOD File No. RZ-02-001: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Calvary Assembly of God of Port St. Lucie, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development Hidden Hammock) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District for 32.75 acres of property located on the north side of Dyer Road, approximately 400 feet east of south U.S. Highway No. 1. On September 26, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners granted approval for Hidden Hammock, a 74-lot residential subdivision. On November 20, 1990 a one-year extension was granted. Subsequent to these approvals, no construction commenced on the subject property and the site plan expired. In order for any development on the property to take place, a change in zoning to another zoning district designation is required. Staff has reviewed this petition and determined that it conforms to the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman Matthes asked if the petitioner was present. Mr. Bart Cook, Land Planner, Landscape Architect stated he was the agent for the petitioner, Calvary Assembly of God. He continued that he is there to answer any questions. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Tom Mason with South Florida Towing stated that his property is located across the street from the subject property. He questioned what type of establishment is going to be placed on the property. Chairman Matthes explained that this is a hearing on the rezoning and that the petitioner will have to submit a site plan at a later date to be approved. Mr. Flores confirmed that is correct and that the more, they are required to go through the site plan process. Mr. Flores advised that the rezoning is done first and then that gives the petitioner permission to submit a site plan approval for a religious facility. He further stated that the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning only allows churches, synagogues, temples and similar uses. Mr. Mason questioned if the church would be allowed to have a school. Mr. Flores stated that is a conditional use and they would have to come back before the Commission and Board to get approval for that type of use. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt questioned if the County had considered churches when planning future land uses. Mr. Murphy stated that since 1984, the County restricted churches to the I (Institutional) Zoning District and around 1990 the RF (Religious Facility) Zoning category was added. RF and I Zoning Districts are not pre- church, or church facility should be placed in each individual neighborhood. Mr. Merritt stated that all other zoning categories are predetermined and questioned why these are not included. 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 11.06.03, 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 Calvary Assembly of God of Port St. Lucie, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the PUD (Planned Unit Development Hidden Hammock) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District, because it seems like it fits well in the neighborhood and there are no P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 5 objections from the surrounding neighbors. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. 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 January 17, 2002 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE NO. 02-002 Future Land Use Change: Mr. Murphy explained Agenda Items # 3 & 4 were presented to the Commission at the December 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Meeting and were continued until this meeting to allow for further review by the petitioners and Staff. He continued that the petitioner has requested that both Agenda Items be continued once again to the April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 3 & 4 both be continued until April 18 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. He explained that each hearing would need to be reopened and continued individually. Chairman Matthes asked if there was anyone there to speak regarding these petitions (other than the petitioner). Chairman Matthes stated that Staff might want to consider re-advertising these items so that the public will be aware of when the items will be reheard since this is second continuation. Mr. Merritt questioned if this was at the request of the petitioner. Mr. Murphy explained that was correct. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to continue this Ordinance until April 18, 2002. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 4: ORDINANCE 02-003 Extension of the Urban Service Boundary: Mr. Murphy explained Agenda Items # 3 & 4 were presented to the Commission at the December 20, 2001 Planning and Zoning Meeting and were continued until this meeting to allow for further review by the petitioners and Staff. He continued that the petitioner has requested that both Agenda Items be continued once again to the April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning meeting. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 3 & 4 both be continued until April 18 at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. He explained that each hearing would need to be reopened and continued individually. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the April 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) to continue this Ordinance until April 18, 2002. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 5: ORDINANCE 02-001 Amending Section 7.09.00, Landscaping and Screening Mr. Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director, stated that Agenda Item # 5 was to consider Draft Ordinance 02-001 amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by amending Section 7.09.03(e)(2)(f) Landscaping and Screening, to add Cattley Guava, Common Guava, Loquat, Surinam Cherry and Rose Apple to the list of trees and plants that shall not be planted in St. Lucie County. The County has been requested by the Indian River Citrus League to add these listed plants to th The reason cited for this request is the fact the listed trees are considered to be host plants for the Caribbean Fruit Fly, which poses a significant threat to the local areas citrus crops. He continued that Indian River County, to the north, has enacted a similar restriction and that Martin County has also been approached regarding the same issue. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation that Draft Ordinance 02-001, propose to amend Section 7.09.03(e)(2)(f) of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, Landscaping and Screening, to add Cattley Guava, Common Guava, Loquat, Surinam Cherry and Rose Apple to the list of trees and plants that shall not be planted in St. Lucie County, be approved. Mr. Merritt questioned who determined that Guava is exotic. Mr. Murphy explained that the list of plants provided were considered to be host plants for pests that pose a threat to the local citrus crops. Mr. them in to restrict them. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds stated that he feels there is some validity to the request because of the threat posed by the Caribbean Fruit Fly but he stated that groves are already governed by from a grove. He also stated that there are others in the County that are not within a certain radius of a grove and therefore not affected by these rules and should have the right to grow these items if they choose. Some of the plants in the original section are exotics and have a tendency to overrun planted areas, such as Australian Pine and Brazilian Pepper. should be compared to these types of items and that this item is being motivated by one particular organization and they have other existing options available to assist them. He stated that there are plenty of other ways for the groves to be certified fly free and it is not for all citrus, only for the fresh fruit business being exported to Japan. Mr. Merritt questioned if anyone knows what the distance requirement is for a guava tree to a grove. At this point, several members of the audience wished to speak. Chairman Matthes reopened the Public Hearing. Mr. Ray Chandler stated he works in the citrus industry and says that the distance requirements vary depending on the season. He continued that Guava is a major problem with the Caribbean Fruit Fly and it costs groves a great expense to trap them so that they can be certified as fly free. He also stated that the citrus industry is hurting, but they do a lot of exporting to Japan. A lot of the money made here in St. Lucie County comes from the groves and the packing facilities in the area. The more money that they have to spend on preparation for export means less revenue to spend in St. Lucie County. Chairman P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 9 Matthes asked Mr. Chandler if he understands that this ordinance will prohibit everyone in St. Lucie County from planting these items, not just those within regulated areas from groves. Mr. Chandler stated that being in the citrus business he feels that it would be better if no one planted them. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Chandler if he felt the primary problem with Guavas was from native or ones that individual people have planted. Mr. Chandler stated that both of them are problems. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Chandler when the fly free time was. Mr. Chandler stated that it starts when they begin shipping into Japan and continues until all packing is finished. Mr. Lounds asked when Guavas bloom and Mr. Chandler stated he was not sure. Mr. Lounds continued that when Guavas are in bloom there are no grapefruit and the fruit is the host of the tree. He stated that there is a trapping program in Florida and there are no Mediterranean or Caribbean Fruit Flies in Florida. Mr. Chandler stated that he feels that is incorrect because they have been trapping Mediterranean Flies over the years. He continued that flies have the ability to fly a long distance and could pose a great risk. Mr. Merritt questioned the existing program used by the citrus industry to eliminate the problem. Mr. Chandler stated that there is a program supplied by the County but most grove owners take care of it themselves. Mr. Lounds stated that there is the need for the citrus trees/plants outside of a three mile radius of a grove would be a threat. Mr. Trias questioned if this ordinance would apply to the city and Chairman Matthes stated he did not believe so. Mr. Jim Andrews, Vero Beach Citrus stated that he has been in the citrus industry for 22 years. He continued that he feels the flies are a major problem to their business. He also said that for four months during the summer they spend approximately seven to ten hours a day locating host plants. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Lounds asked if the ordinance would require Countywide removal of these trees/plants as well as no new ones being planted. Mr. Murphy explained that this ordinance would only apply from the approval date forward. He continued that the County does not have a program to go out and eradicate existing exotics. Mr. McCurdy moved to recommend approval of Ordinance 02-001. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Mr. Lounds asked Staff if this ordinance would have to have a decision tonight. Mr. Murphy explained he is not aware of any time restraints. Mr. Lounds asked if a continuation for further discussion could be done. Ms. Young stated that it would to go the Board with their vote but no recommendation. Mr. Merritt stated that he felt if this ordinance were apply to specific zoning districts instead of to the entire County it would have received more support. Upon a roll call vote the motion received a vote of 4-4 (with Mr. Jones, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Lounds and Mr. Matthes voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM 6:ORDINANCE 02-005 Creating Section 13.09.00, Property Maintenance Code: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director, advised that Agenda Item # 6 is to consider Draft Ordinance 02-005 (previously Ordinance 01-006) Amending the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by Creating Section 13.09.00, Existing Property Maintenance Code, to provide for adoption of Chapter 3, General Requirements, of The 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. As the Commission is aware, the County Commission has for the past several months been very interested in bringing forward regulations and standards that would compel property owners throughout the unincorporated area of the County to keep the buildings and structures on their property in good condition. Draft Ordinance 01-006 was significantly re-crafted and is now reflected within Ordinance 02- 005 to pattern itself after the 2000 International Property Maintenance Code. This is one of the series of standard building codes that exists throughout the Country. There are a number of subsections located in the Chapter that the County is not enforcing and applying because most them are already covered under existing regulations. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation that Draft Ordinance 02-005, which would propose to amend Chapter 13 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code by creating Section 13.09.00, Existing Property Maintenance Code, which will provide for the adoption of Chapter 3, General Requirements, of The 2000 International Property Maintenance Code, be approved. Mr. Hearn questioned the deleted sections and stated that the language used in the International Code would add to our existing codes as reinforcement, especially the sections that pertain to motor vehicles in residential areas. He also questioned why there was nothing in regards to unoccupied buildings in this draft. Mr. Jones stated that he felt there were numerous problems with this ordinance and would not be able to support it. He continued that he is not against the concept of maintaining property, but he felt there were problems with the specifics of it. He also stated that he felt this code is structured towards areas that are a more urban setting than our county is. He stated that Section 302.2, Grading and Drainage, with its current wording, sounds like it would require the draining of wetlands. Section 302.5, Rodent harborage, would affect any property with squirrels because they are considered to be rodents. He also stated that any type of agricultural property would have a problem getting rid of all of the mice and rats that may be living in their fields. He stated that he agrees that the section pertaining to motor vehicles should remain excluded because it could affect those who rebuild vehicles as a hobby. Section 303.2, Protective Treatment, regarding the peeling, flaking and chipped paint leaves too much up to judgment and could prove to be a hardship on people during certain periods of time. He continued that Section 303.7, Roofs and drainage, and Section 303.13.2, Openable windows, could become an issue if someone is reviewing every time there may be a small leak in a roof or a window that may not open easily and could also prove to be a hardship issue under certain circumstances. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Harry Lamb, 2328 Oak Drive, North Beach stated he felt that he was not given the materials needed to make proper comments when he has never seen the ordinance before tonight. Chairman Matthes explained that all items were advertised in local newspapers and the public had the right to come into the department at any time and get copies of the ordinances for their review. He also stated that the Staff, Commission and Board have been trying to get this type of ordinance passed for almost a year now and on numerous occasions citizens have attended and given their feedback after coming in and reviewing the ordinances. Mr. Bill Wilson stated that he just wanted to confirm that there is already an existing ordinance on record regarding weeds and rubbish and garbage since those sections are not being adopted from the International Code. The Staff confirmed that is correct. Ms. Lee Primerano, River Park Homeowners Association questioned if there is any assistance available for the elderly, physically and financially who are unable to comply with this ordinance. Ms. Young stated that there is a small program available through grant monies with a contract with Habitat for Humanity to allow for repairs affecting life safety in homes. their property. Ms. Young stated that Section 301.2 does state that the owner of the premises is responsible for the maintenance of the structures and exterior property; the occupant is only responsible for the dwelling unit that they occupy and control. Ms. Shirley Burlingham, North Beach Homeowners Association, stated that she feels the International Code is a good idea. She continued that there are some areas in the County that are in desperate need of this type of ordinance as soon as possible. Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones stated that he would be more supportive of this ordinance if it were to apply to rental properties and properties that are less than five acres on a countywide basis to alleviate any problems with the agricultural communities. He also stated that he felt his previous comments regarding grading and drainage and the other issues needed to be addressed but he would otherwise support this ordinance. Chairman Matthes stated he felt the grading and drainage section should just be removed completely. Mr. Lounds stated that this ordinance is needed to allow Code Enforcement the ability to address certain issues. He continued that if a property is not maintained and takes away from the surrounding property values then the property owner is in error but rentals should be addressed differently. He stated that he wants to make sure to address absentee owners to make sure they are providing the proper standards of living within rental properties. He also stated it would be best to make sure that if it is not in a lease between the renter and property owner regarding outside maintenance that the landowner is taking responsibility for their maintenance duties. Mr. Trias asked how this ordinance, if passed, would be enforced. Mr. Murphy stated that Code Enforcement usually responds on a complaint-by-complaint basis unless in key observance of a clear life safety or health safety issue. He continued that general practice is to make contact with the owners/occupants of the property and advise them of the problems and direct a corrective action. If they fail to comply with the directive appropriate enforcement proceedings are initiated. Mr. Merritt stated that he wanted to thank Staff for cleaning up the house in White City and the other one moved. Mr. Murphy stated he would relay the thanks to the proper people. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 12 Mr. Hearn stated that he would ask that the language from the original draft ordinance 01-006 Section 1- 16.1-9, Vacant buildings, given to the Commission in the May 17, 2001 packets be added to this structure, shall take such steps and perform such acts as may be required of him from time to time to insure that the building and its adjoining yards remain safe, secure, clean and sanitary, and do not present a hazard to adjoining property or to the public. All openings, including doors and windows, which are covered or closed for access shall be provided with painted exterior-grade plywood closures, matched in color to the building, unless the same are provided with awnings, storm panels, or other similar Chairman Matthes asked if he wanted this to replace section 301.3 or to add this language to it. Mr. Hearn stated he would like this in addition to what is currently written. Mr. McCurdy stated that he believed that they previously had a discussion regarding storm damage. Ms. Young stated that section continued that in order to add the language from the previous draft ordinance they would have to make a future amendment due to the specific wording of this ordinance and the International Code. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt the way the current section is worded could cause some interpretation issues. Mr. Akins placed regarding the amendment. Ms. Young confirmed that would be correct and the best way would be to approve the ordinance the way it is currently worded and request an amendment at a later date. Mr. Jones stated that he felt since this ordinance will affect every piece of property located in St. Lucie County the changes and amendments should be made prior to any recommendation from the Commission. Mr. Jones stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that no action be taken at this time regarding Ordinance 02-005 and it be rewritten to address the comments of the Commission then brought back before the Planning and Zoning Commission As Soon As Possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 8-0) and will be brought back before the Planning and Zoning Commission with revisions as soon as possible. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 13 AGENDA ITEM 7: ORDINANCE 02-009 Amending Section 8.00.03 Temporary Uses / Boats: Dennis Murphy, Assistant Community Development Director, stated Agenda Item # 7 was to consider Draft Ordinance 02-009, which would propose to amend Section 8.00.03 of the St. Lucie County Land Development Code, to permit the storage of one piece of recreational equipment in a front yard on a paved surface for properties located in the unincorporated areas of the County. As the Commission is aware, the Board of County Commissioners has for the past several months been interested in bringing forward regulations and standards that would permit a property owner to store one piece of recreational equipment, as defined in the code, in a front yard provided that the equipment was located on a paved surface. These regulations are intended to apply to those parts of the County that are not otherwise restricted by private deed restrictions or covenants. These regulations also establish a maximum number of three (3) pieces of recreational equipment, including the one (1) recreational vehicle allowed in the front yard, that may be stored on a parcel up to one acre in size. This limitation does not apply to recreational vehicles stored in enclosed structures. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission / Local Planning Agency forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation on Draft Ordinance 02-009, which will permit the storage of one piece of recreational equipment in a front yard on a paved surface for properties located in the unincorporated areas of the County. Mr. Hearn asked if the Board of County Commissioners are in favor of this ordinance. Mr. Murphy explained that the Board was interested in bringing this forward through the public hearing process and the Board has not given any indication, on way or the other, regarding this ordinance. Mr. Akins questioned if the implementation of this ordinance would affect any existing restrictions by homeowners associations. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that on page 5 of the draft ordinance it specifically points out that this would not affect any prior deed restrictions that are more restrictive. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Mr. David Tillman, 5407 Palm Drive, stated that he has lived here for almost 50 years and that this is the only area with the current restriction. He also stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Fort Pierce Sport Fishing Club. He continued that Martin and Indian River County, City of Fort Pierce and City of Port St. Lucie do not have the current type of restrictions there, only the unincorporated areas of St. Lucie County. He stated that having the equipment on paved surfaces is an asset because if there are any leaks or anything, they can be seen. If the equipment is on the grass, it is not easily seen. He stated that per the National Marine Industries Association, St. Lucie County, as of 1999, has 11,000 vessels registered and 85% of those are boats on trailers, which mean approximately 9,350 boats, are kept at home. He continued that not changing this ordinance would affect the dealers and manufacturers of the area. He also stated that the economic impact of the marine industry in the State of Florida is 14.1 billion dollars. He questioned why the County allows as many registered vehicles in their driveway as they want to but cannot put a boat in the driveway under the argument of child safety when boats are usually jacked up into the air to allow for drainage. He continued that having four (4) sport utility vehicles in his driveway that cannot be seen around is legal but a boat, on its trailer, which can be seen under is not allowed. Mr. Hearn asked how many of the boats that are on trailers are affected by the existing ordinance and cannot get them in the backyard. Mr. Tillman stated that he would guess approximately 1/3 of them may be affected. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 14 Mr. Bob Hancock, a St. Lucie County resident for almost seventeen (17) years read a paragraph from the are from Florida as listed by the International Game Fish Association. This is far greater than any other st state or country. Florida ranks first (1) for the number of people who fish in salt water 2,255,171. st This is more than double any other state in the United States. Florida ranks first (1) in the country for the number of days anglers spend fishing in salt water. 25,139,988, this too is more than double any other state in the U.S. Over three (3) times more non-residential angler trips were taken in Florida than any st other state 2.8 million. Florida ranks first (1) in the country in boating purchases, such as boats, 760 million, outboard motors 404,522,000, boat trailers 23,584,000 and miscellaneous marine accessories 221,479. Florida has over 2,100 ma Mr. Charlie Myers, 7104 Eden Road, Lakewood Park, said that he has been there since June 1974. He stated that he could not put a boat in his side yard because he has trees planted there and would be encroaching on his neighbors property. He continued that he has been having problems with the existing ordinance since 1998 and has been trying to change it. He stated that Dennis Bunt gave him a copy of 4,300 complaints that they received about Code Enforcement issues just in Lakewood Park in the past community. He stated that he felt this new ordinance would be a fair compromise for everyone. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Myers if he had a pad for his boat and Mr. Myers replied that he has a double wide concrete driveway. Mr. Brian Combs stated he lives on Atlantic Beach Boulevard, North Beach and previously lived in Lakewood Park for twenty years. He stated that boat owners pay more taxes than non-boat owners. They pay taxes on the boat purchase and registration, trailer purchase and registration, bait, tackle and gas. He continued that most homeowners do not have the ability to get their boat and trailer in the backyard. He also said that having a boat in the side or back yard, on the grass, kills it and with the swales, it is difficult to get a boat over those. He stated that he felt that the Homeowners Associations speak for themselves and not for the actual homeowners. He questioned the portion of the ordinance regarding more restrictive communities and Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that was in reference to deed-restrictions. He also stated that he has a six (6) inch thick, 75-foot concrete driveway that he is not currently allowed to place his boat upon. Mr. Keith Prosky, Lakewood Park resident, stated that it would not be possible for him to get a boat in his backyard like many others in the area. He also stated that he did not feel it was fair to tel put it in the front on the driveway. Ms. Lee Primerano, River Park Homeowners Association stated they were concerned about the number of total items would be allowed in the front yard. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that the term being used in the ordinance is recreational equipment and would allow one (1) on a paved surface, in the front yard along with the new restriction of a maximum of three (3) pieces of equipment on the property all together. Under the current ordinance, you may have as many as you want on the property in the back yard. Ms. Primerano also stated that she feels there may be a visibility issue (especially for home in River Park) for people backing out. She continued that having that much paved area in a front yard cuts down on the amount of water that can absorbed therefore increasing storm water run off. She also questioned if there is any way to keep people from parking their recreational equipment in their driveways and then parking their vehicles on the grass to avoid adding a secondary paved surface. Mr. Billy Brown of Indian River Estates stated that it is not possible for him to place his boat on the side or back of his home and if this ordinance were not approved, he would have to sell his boat. He stated P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 15 that with the oak trees in his yard and the size of his lot, he would not be able to place the boat on the side of his house without ending up o problems with keeping the boat on a paved surface in the front of his home. He stated that he feels having the boat shows his progress in life. Mr. Bill Wilson, a Port St. Lucie resident stated that the city does have specific ordinances governing recreational equipment. He continued that they must be parked in the driveway or ten (10) feet inside the rear yard. He questioned if this ordinance would include motor homes. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that it does. He stated that he feels parking these types of equipment in the front of the home does detract from the property values and that is why a lot of homeowners associations and condominium associations have banned this type of equipment all together. Chairman Matthes asked if his issue is with all be parked in the front yard. Chairman Matthes stated that he resides in the city of Port St. Lucie and they allow it. Mr. Wilson stated that the city states it has to be in the driveway or to the right hand side of the house. Chairman Matthes explained that this ordinance is suggesting they be parked on a paved surface, not in the grass of the front yard. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith did confirm that the intent of the ordinance is that the recreational equipment must be on a paved surface perpendicular to the roadway. Ms. Vickie Tillman stated that she and her husband Bud Tillman own St. Lucie Outboard Marine and have been in the county since 1956. She stated that she would like to see this ordinance be forwarded to the Commission with a recommendation of approval because they feel it will greatly affect their business because they sell trailerable boats up to thirty (30) feet. She also stated that there are two (2) major trailer companies in the area and they utilize their trailers and products greatly and this would affect all of them. Mr. McCurdy asked Ms. Tillman if a trailer would make a twenty-five (25) foot boat exceed the ordinance maximum of twenty-six (26) feet. Ms. Tillman stated that she believed a twenty-five (25) foot boat on a trailer would most likely measure thirty feet (30) in length. Chairman Matthes asked staff if creational equipment less than twenty- Mackenzie- terms on page three (3). Mr. Skip Lashon, Sales Director for Maverick Boat Company stated that marine manufacturing is also a large part of the community. He continued that his company builds about sixteen (16) different model boats, twenty-four (24) feet and under that are all trailerable. They employ one hundred seventy (170) people, maintain fifty-two (52) marine retailers around the country and their third largest dealer is located in Stuart and approximately 80% of the units he sells are to those in St. Lucie County. He stated that he feels this new ordinance is very important and can affect the sales of boats in the county. Ms. Nancy Spalding, Coral Cove Homeowners Association, stated that she would like to see the existing ordinance remain the same. She continued that the City of Ft. Pierce has done a great job keeping their communities looking great and feels this ordinance will not do that for their communities on North Beach. She also stated that she is concerned with the aesthetics of the community and she feels having recreational equipment in the front of the property will decrease property values. Chairman Matthes comparable to the new ordinance that has been presented here tonight. Mr. Jim Andrews, Lakewood Park resident stated he has a 24-½ foot boat and does not have the ability to place it on either side of his home. He said that he was concerned about the children that will be affected by this because the cost of docking a boat in a marina is quite high and the hours of operation can be -5 shift. If the boat were at your home, the time of night that you take it out would not be an issue. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Andrews if his boat was on a paved surface and P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 16 he stated that he has it on his concrete double driveway. Mr. McCurdy stated that he would not be in compliance with the ordinance due to the length of the boat and the trailer. Mr. Andrews confirmed that is correct. Mr. Ed Lewis, 3111 Sunrise Boulevard stated that his family has been living here for many generations and there are no vehicles as beautiful as a boat. He also stated that his sod is completely dead on the side of his house where he has had his sea craft parked and he feels the boat would look much better sitting in the front of the house instead of having dead grass. He continued that the grass in his backyard would never be able to support the weight of the boat, especially during the rainy season and would most likely end up stuck because of it. Mr. Bob Brian stated he has lived in Indian River Estates for twenty-seven (27) years and that having his boat on the side of his property tears up the grass and leaves ruts in the ground. He continued that he e length should be an issue. He suggested rewording it to the trailer tongue having to be back off the property line five feet instead of how long the boat is once it is on a trailer. Mr. Bob Bangert of Holiday Pines Homeowners Association stated that he has owned a boat himself for many years and is not against it, his concern is where the boat is stored. He advised that he would not consider most of St. Lucie County fishing communities and a large percentage of the boats manufactured in the county are actually shipped out of the county. He also stated that fishing tournaments do bring a lot continued that Commissioner Barnes requested the revision of the ordinance because the present ordinance puts too much of a load on Code Enforcement. He also stated that the Code Enforcement Board stated that they wanted to leave the existing ordinance the way that it is. He then showed some poster boards to the Co driveway. He asked if work trailers are included under this ordinance. Chairman Matthes stated that he He then stated that he feels if someone can afford a $33,000 boat, they should be able to afford $20 to $25 a month to store it instead of having it in their front yard. He questioned if there are any restrictions to moving vehicles onto the grass so they can put the equipment in the driveway. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that there are no ordinances right now that gave a photo to the Commission and Staff showing a large motor home in a driveway and stated there is no way to legally park items of this size in a fifty foot driveway if they have to be ten feet off the property line given the existing right-of-ways. He stated he is also concerned with the decreased visibility with an item of this size in the driveway and the ability to stop a motor vehicle fast enough to avoid hitting a child. Chairman Matthes stated that usually if a driver is obeying the speed limit in those residential communities who support this ordinance revision, except possibly St. Lucie Village. He continued that there may be a would represent over 10% of the total residents. The population of St. Lucie County, as of the last census was 192,695 and if approximately 9,000 of them own a boat, that is less than 10%. up the population owns a lot and he continued that this new ordinance actually addresses many of the issues shown in the photographs and they show there is a need for this. Mr. Akins also explained that this ordinance would not affect those in deed-restricted communities. Mr. Ray Shepard, 5200 Eagle Drive in Holiday Pines stated that he has lived in Fort Pierce for forty-five P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 17 years and stores his motor home for $35 a month. He stated that when they bought their property in Holiday Pines, they asked about overnight loading and unloading his motor home and they advised him there was no problem with that even though it is deed-restricted from keeping them there. He continued that there are people in the community who call Code Enforcement the minute he leaves to say he is in violation and he has been cited several times because of it. He stated loading and unloading a motor home does take some time and according to the County Commissioners, the minute the motor home is turned off, it is considered being stored, therefore making him in violation. He continued that his motor home is thirty-four feet long and would not allow him to store it in his driveway anyway under this ordinance, but he would like to see something specifying a time for overnight loading and unloading. Mr. Richard Crew, Indian River Estates, stated he has a fourteen-foot boat and was cited back in September for having it in his driveway. He continued that the reason for that is because he is handicapped and it is virtually impossible for him to try to work with it in the side yard when he takes it out everyday and wants the existing ordinance changed. Mr. Bill Adams of Holiday Pines stated that he searched for a deed-restricted community that controlled specific elements of the area. He questioned if this ordinance only applies to those parts of the county that are not otherwise restricted by private deed restrictions. Mr. Bobby Carton stated he lives at 5106 Palm Drive in Indian River Estates and that his homeowners association does not speak for him. He continued that he is in favor of the new ordinance and that those who are not and do not reside in deed-restricted communities should not have the right to restrict them. He stated that his would like to see a small revision that states the equipment must have current registrations in order to keep them in the front of the house. Mr. David Weeks stated that he lives on a corner lot and has no side yard to park his boat in. He also advised that the size of the lot and the trees do not enable him to put it in the backyard. He continued that he is in favor of this ordinance and stated that he felt there are many other aesthetic problem areas in the county that are more important for cleaning up the area than a boat in the front yard. He stated that he chose not to live in a deed- boat in his yard is his idea of the American dream. Mr. Robin Thorne stated he has owned a home in Lakewood Park for the last sixteen years and has a boat on a trailer in his doublewide driveway. He continued that there is no physical way for him to move the boat on the grass to the side of his home and if the ordinance remains the way it is, he would probably have to get rid of his boat so he is not in non-compliance. Mr. Ken Irish, 355 South Ocean Drive, stated that he feels the taxpayer should have the right to park their recreational equipment in their own yard on their property if they wish to. He continued that these types of equipment keep a lot of kids occupied in their free time, therefore keeping them away from drugs and other illegal activities. He also stated that if they chose to live in a deed-restricted community that restrictions on those outside of that deed-restricted community. He asked if this ordinance would apply to someone who owns over an acre of land. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that there is an exception to the ordinance that if you own more than an acre and keep the equipment at least one hundred feet (100) back from the street frontage, then you are in compliance. Seeing no one else, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. Mr. McCurdy asked Staff how the twenty-six foot (26) length was decided and what was the intent P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 18 behind that specific number. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that it was a compromise, originally when first drafted there was no length restriction, but there were some requests to add a length restriction so - ons were due to safety concerns and Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated it was safety, aesthetics and comparison to similar ordinances around the state. She also stated they added the minimum five foot (5) setback to allow for safety and sight. Mr. Merritt questioned what the restrictions are on the current ordinance. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated it does not allow any boat in the front yard; they must be in the side or back yard and does allow for as many as you want on the property. Mr. Jones stated that he felt it would be easier to enforce this new ordinance if the length specifications were regarding the actual boat length, not including the trailer and keep the setback the same. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith explained that Code Enforcement felt it was enforceable keeping the trailer and boat as one item in regards to the length restriction. Mr. McCurdy stated that the length, on a trailer, could vary tremendously depending on how the boat is placed. Mr. Lounds stated he felt it would be best to eliminate the length restriction and focus on the setback. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated that most self-propelled motor homes are over the twenty-six feet length. Mr. Lounds stated that someone made a comment about adding text regarding unregistered vehicles and he found that there is already a provision for that in the ordinance. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith verified that was correct and that there is also a provision in paragraph seven (7) stating they cannot be inoperable. Mr. Hearn questioned if the present code allows for any hardship relief. Ms. Mackenzie-Smith stated there is nothing in the existing code. Mr. Hearn asked if they might go to the Board of Adjustment for some help. Mr. Murphy explained that the Board of Adjustment is limited in its authority and granting waivers and relief are usually based on dimensional standards, not use standards. Mr. Hearn stated that if this ordinance were passed they would need to address Section 8.00.02, Dimension and Location Regulations of the Land Development code and change the language in Section A dealing with accessory structures and uses in the front yard. Mr. Murphy stated they would review it and see if it may cause conflict. Mr. Hearn stated that he felt this might be something that the Board of County Commissioners may want to leave up to the voters to decide. Mr. Akins questioned the enforceability by the Code Enforcement department and how they will handle these types of violations. Mr. Murphy explained that they usually handle violations on a complaint basis; if they receive one, they will take the appropriate measurements and verify if it exceeds the measurement restrictions or setback issues, then any appropriate violation notices would be issued, if necessary. Mr. Merritt questioned if page 4, Section F, number 2, regarding parking at least one hundred (100) feet from any public street would also apply to those living in Indian River Estates because the lots are only 85x100. Mr. Murphy explained that provision is in regards to lots over one (1) acre. Mr. Merritt stated that he felt it needed to be reworded to be clearer. Mr. Lounds stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, including staff comments, I hereby move that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners grant approval to Ordinance 02-009 with several provisions: drop length of the vehicle in lieu of either a five (5) or eight (8) foot setback and Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Mr. McCurdy stated that Section F, # 1, should have a provision added to allow a 24-hour period for loading and unloading purposes. Mr. Lounds stated he would not have a problem adding that to his P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 19 motion, however, he does not want it to offset any pre-existing deed-restrictions. He continued that he does agree there does need to be a provision to allow time (24 or 48 hours) for loading and unloading of any recreational equipment on a paved surface. He also stated that he felt the five (5) foot setback was too close to the street and he would be more comfortable with an eight (8) foot setback. Mr. Merritt stated that changing the setback to eight (8) feet would cause a hardship for those living in Indian River Estates and he would rather leave it at five (5) feet. Mr. Lounds stated he personally feels that five (5) feet is too close to the property line but would yield to the discussion of the Commission and Staff. Mr. Hearn stated that he agreed with Mr. Lounds and would rather have the eight (8) foot setback. Mr. Lounds stated that he would support the five (5) foot setback, but he just personally feels it would be a little better to have eight (8) feet. Mr. Jones stated that he does not agree with not allowing them to park on a non-paved surface for forty-eight (48) hours. Chairman Matthes stated he personally would not want them parking on the grass and would prefer it remain on a paved surface. Mr. Lounds restated his motion to read that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the St. Lucie County Board of County Commissioners that they grant approval to Draft Ordinance 02-009 with several amendments: 1.drop the length of the vehicle (referenced in paragraph F(1)) in lieu of maintaining a minimum five (5) foot setback, and; 2.add the word F(6) and F(7), and; 3.add a new section that would allow for a forty-eight (48) hour grace period for the purpose of maintaining, loading and unloading any recreational equipment as long as on a paved surface. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed with a vote of 7-1 (with Mr. Hearn voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation for approval. P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 20 Next scheduled meeting will February 21, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Hearn and seconded by Mr. Trias. Meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman . P & Z Meeting January 17, 2002 Page 21