Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03-21-2002 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING March 21, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. McCurdy, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Trias, Mr. Jones, Mr. Akins, Mr. Matthes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Merritt and Mr. Hearn (Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting March 21, 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 advised that on Agenda Item # 2, File No. RZ-02-003, he had a conflict of interest and therefore would recuse himself from that item. meeting. 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. No other announcements or comments. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: January 17, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Lounds moved for approval. Motion seconded by Jones. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: BAKUL PATEL - FILE NO. RZ-02-003: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 2 was the application of Bakul Patel, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District for property located on the southwest corner of South Kings Highway and Research Center Road. The subject property is designated with an RU (Residential, Urban) Land Use and under the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan the RU Land Use will allow a maximum density not to exceed five (5) dwelling units per acre. Therefor Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is surrounded to the north, south and west by AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) and RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family - 2 du/acre) Zoning and Industrial Light to the east. The proposed RM-5 Zoning District would be considered an appropriate transitional zoning from the Industrial Light zoning to the east and the existing Kings Highway, as well as future expansion of Kings Highway and to the west with the more rural properties. The proposed additional density is not expected to create any significant additional demands on the public facilities in the area. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Chairman McCurdy asked the petitioner to come forward and state their name and address. Harold Melville, Attorney at 2940 S. 25th Street in Fort Pierce stated that he represented the petitioner. He continued that this parcel is approximately 25 acres that used to be an old citrus grove that is no longer economically viable. The property is just west of Kings Highway and immediately south of Research Center Road. Current zoning is AR-1 and they requested a rezoning to RM-5 sin comments that it is a good transitional zoning because to the east is the Light Industrial zoning and a citrus packinghouse directly across Kings Highway from the subject property. He continued that he felt the Kings Highway corridor is going to building up very rapidly with industrial and commercial uses on the east side of the highway. He again stated that this is a good transitional zoning because it maintains the residential character of the property and is a transition between for the more intense commercial and industrial uses in the east and the agricultural/residential uses to the west. He advised that as per the Staff report their request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code with no adverse effects on the natural environment. Mr. Trias asked if there was a site-plan or illustration available to show the type of project proposed. Mr. Melville held up a board with a graphic of the proposed project, which will consist of ninety-eight (98) dwelling units (approximately 3.94 du/acre). The project will be 1,500 square feet under air and each unit will be individually owned and not rental units. He continued that these would be fee-simple ownership with each unit anticipated to sell in the range of $90,000 to $115,000. Mr. Trias asked if the association would own the common areas. Mr. including the lake areas. Mr. Grande stated that this would be a 400% increase in density and questioned why the applicant requested RM-5 Zoning as opposed to submitting a PUD (Planned Unit Development) request. rocess and a tremendous risk and gamble. The applicant chose the straight zoning request to propose something that would be allowable P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 4 under the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grande stated that they chose to save money in the initial application fee but his concern is that the applicant is not tied into the plan that they have shown this evening since this is not a PUD request. He continued that this project would be backing up to one unit per acre properties and stated that he felt the applicant was hesitant to commit to a design, plan or site plan at this time. Mr. Melville stated that a PUD would initially cost about $25,000 to $30,000 in the county. He also advised that the land to the west also carries a RU Land Use Designation and will not remain in their current AG-1 Zoning. He stated that he felt the area would be developing very rapidly and due to the type of area would not be developed as single family homes. He continued that this type of project and zoning would be appropriate for the area. Mr. Grande stated that the character of the area has not yet been defined and if we allow this type of project, it will set a tone in the area. He continued that the proposed project would be a good way to develop the property as a transition zone to the properties to the west. However, on the other hand, he stated he was hesitant to allow such a change on twenty-five (25) acres of property without the applicant being tied to a specific site plan as they would with a PUD request. He also stated that the exp with the current project if rezoned. He again advised that he is hesitant to vote for something where the applicant is not tied to a specific site plan since such a large density increase would impact the surrounding lands. Mr. Melville agreed that the applicant probably would spend the same amount of the money in the long run but the problem is that with a PUD you spend that money right up front before the Board of County Commissioners ever hears it. He continued that most applicants who look at he did not feel that type of imposition was appropriate. Under the existing laws this is an allowable zoning category and a very appropriate zoning category in this land use designation. He continued that what the applicant is proposing for layout and density is the only real practical use for that land. Mr. Grande stated that he d job is to see to the orderly and logical development of the land. He continued that he felt that a PUD request would give the Commission all of the necessary assurances to forward a recommendation of approval. Mr. Melville stated that if that were the case, then there would be no need for an RM-5 zoning category. The purpose of a PUD is to allow for creative type of layouts or structures that would not fall within a standard zoning category and not to enforce a particular type of design on someone asking for a zoning change. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to reserve his questions for Mr. Melville until after the Public portion of the hearing has been closed. Mr. Trias asked Staff what would be anticipated as a reasonable scenario for development of this area. Mr. Kelly stated that there is light industrial along Kings Highway and a multi-family environment as a transition to some lower density single-family homes farther to the west would be appropriate especially with the University and Research Center in the area. Mr. Melville stated that Staff made their recommendation based on the zoning category from a land use concept and feel this is an appropriate zoning change request. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 5 Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande stated that he did anticipate that there would not be any public response regarding this petition since most of the area is undeveloped. He continued that he was hesitant to vote for this request since the owner is reluctant to commit to a specific site plan since they did not come in under a PUD request. Mr. Lounds asked where the utilities for this property would come from. Mr. Melville explained that he believed that since they may be adjacent to the city, their utilities would be provided by the City of Fort Pierce. Mr. Lounds continued that he feels this is a good plan, but a bad location for it since it is on King's Highway. He also stated that area has more industrial in place and will most likely proceed that way. He stated that he didn't believe it was transitional between light industrial and research at all. Mr. Melville stated that he felt this was the best use for the property considering the circumstances and the area land use. Mr. Lounds disagreed. Mr. Trias stated that this is the only type and best type of development, realistically, that is going to be in the area but the county may want to consider looking at the future development of the area. Mr. Jones stated that there may be a better use for the property, but the applicant's request does meet all the requirements of law and doesn't see any reason to turn down this request. Mr. Grande stated it would not be accurate to assume that just because Staff has not said it doesn't, this meets every requirement of law. He continued that Section 11.06 of the Land Development Code states that the job of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to make interpretations to see if it is the right plan for the area and how it will impact the neighbors. Mr. Lounds stated that he respected Mr. Trias' opinion, since he has a background as a community planner, but he feels this, as well as, the duplexes behind the packing plant will be misplaced in the area as it develops. He also continued that he felt the entire area of Kings Highway is a growing concern of how the County is planning to develop it and needs to be discussed further. Mr. Trias stated that in ten years they might not be happy with the way the area is being residentially developed especially since the secondary streets in the area are almost non-existent and that this may want to be something that needs to be reviewed. Mr. Jones stated he too shared the concerns of the other Commission members about the future development of the area. He continued that in the long run, this type of development probably won't be appropriate for the area, but he doesn't feel that is relevant now, the future land use is. Mr. Kelly stated that he just wanted it to be clear that the plan shown is not binding. If the property is rezoned and another developer wants to design or develop something else that falls within the RM-5 zoning he may. Mr. Lounds questioned if the developer decides to make the units rentals rather than owned, he may? Mr. Kelly confirmed that is correct. Mr. Melville stated that usually a PUD or PNRD is requested when someone wants to do something different than the definition of a specified zoning category, which is not the case here. He also stated he did not feel it was appropriate to suggest that the applicant should have requested a PUD rather than a zoning change because what they are planning does fall within the definitions of the RM-5 zoning code. Mr. Jones asked if the applicant or Mr. Melville discussed a change in land use when they met with Staff. Mr. Melville explained that they did not discuss that. Mr. Grande stated that he felt that this 25-acre property could end up becoming the anchor and the future development of the area will be determined by tonight's decision of the Commission. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Melville if the client would have been willing to commit to their plan under a PUD. Mr. Melville stated that the client is willing to commit to the plan under the RM-5 zoning. He continued that the client would not want to have to invest more time and money to come back before the Commission again as a PUD. Mr. Grande stated again that he would feel more comfortable if this was a PUD request where the applicant is required to commit to a specific site plan and since this is not that type of request he is hesitant due to the size of the parcel and the density increase. Mr. Grande 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 deny the application of Bakul Patel, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Multiple-Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District because it is inconsistent with Section H of 11.06.03 which calls for an orderly and logical development plan. Motion seconded by Mr. Lounds. Upon a roll call vote the motion failed with a vote of 2-4 (Mr. Trias, Mr. Akins, Mr. Jones and Mr. McCurdy voting against). Mr. Jones 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 Bakul Patel, for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RM-5 (Residential, Family- Family - 5 du/acre) Zoning District because it is an allowed use in the current land use designation. Motion seconded by Mr. Akins. Upon a roll call vote the motion was approved with a vote of 4-2 (Mr. Lounds and Mr. Grande voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Jones stated that he would suggest that the landowner consider the long-term value of the property in another land use. Mr. Akins stated that he supported the motion for approval but he does agree with Mr. Lounds, Mr. Grande and Mr. Trias that may want to consider beginning a discussion to resolve the hodgepodge that is occurring in the County. He continued that he felt this needed to be done soon because Kings Highway is growing and will not remain Agricultural. Mr. Trias stated that the best way for these issues to be reviewed is to address the County Commission with them. Mr. Kelly stated that it seemed to him that the consensus is that the Commission members would like Staff and the County Commission to review that area specifically. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Kelly if Staff needed a formal request from the Commission for the Kings Highway Corridor, from Okeechobee Road north to Indrio Road issues to be addressed. Mr. Kelly confirmed that it would be best to be formally addressed in the meeting minutes for further review by the County Commission. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Lounds made a motion to address the issues regarding land use in areas surrounding and along Kings Highway Corridor and possibly the support roads (Rock Road, Graham Road, Picos Road) all the way to Indrio Road. He continued that the pattern from Indrio Road to U.S. 1 is pretty well set from that area on, but from Indrio to Okeechobee Road needs to be studied by Staff (with the City in mind). Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a vote, the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 6-0. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 8 AGENDA ITEM 3: CHARLES D. VELIE - FILE NO. RZ-02-004 Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 3 was the application of Charles Velie, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the RF (Religious, Facilities) Zoning District for property located at 180 North Header Canal Road. Since 1947, the property has been utilized as a church. At the time when the County underwent the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and Rezoning, the subject property became a nonconforming use on record that was grandfathered in. At this point, the applicant submitted a building permit to enlarge the church and was advised they could not expand on an existing nonconforming use. The applicant was then referred to the Planning Department. At that time, they had requested Institutional Zoning, but Staff recommended that the property be rezoned to RF (Religious Facilities) to be more appropriate to the area. 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, which is more in keeping with the surrounding areas, eliminating the nonconforming use issue and would not impact future expansion of the church. Mr. Tom Velie stated that he is co-owner with Mr. Charles Velie and also the Pastor of the existing church. He continued that his father pastored that church in 1979 and he has been co- pastoring since 1984. He stated that their current auditorium is 44x39 feet and they had hoped to add onto it to allow for a higher occupancy. Mr. Lounds asked how many acres or how large of an expansion are they looking at. Mr. Velie stated they anticipated doubling the size of the auditorium and then expand the size of the pulpit area to allow for extra seating in case needed. The current standard capacity is acceptable, but if they have a revival or a homecoming or holiday, it is packed to the walls. Mr. Lounds asked if they owned the entire parcel surrounding the church's area. Mr. Velie explained they only own a little more than 3/4 of an acre of the property. He continued that Bob Grant and Mr. Eplin own the land north of their property and they have signed statements that they have no problem with the rezoning. This has been a church since 1947; they have a tax-exempt status and recognition from the state and have been there the entire time. Mr. Kelly explained that only the crosshatched area on the maps belongs to the Velie's. Chairman Matthes opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman Matthes closed the Public Hearing. 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 11.06.03, 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 Charles Velie, for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the RF (Religious Facilities) Zoning District because that has been the use since the mid to late 40's. It seems to be a good use and the church seems to be prospering. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 9 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 of approval. Mr. Lounds stated that the Velie's might want to research the history of the property to see if the Historical Society may be able to assist them in recognizing the fact that was a trading post at one point in time. P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 10 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Mr. Lounds asked Staff if they understood that how the Commission Members unanimously felt about King's Highway. Mr. Kelly advised that he was aware. Next scheduled meeting will be April 18, 2002. Mr. McCurdy advised that he would not be able to attend that meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn made by Mr. Lounds and seconded by Mr. McCurdy. Meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman . P & Z Meeting March 21, 2002 Page 11