Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-16-2002 St. Lucie County Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes REGULAR MEETING May 16, 2002 Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, Roger Poitras Annex 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Grande, Mr. Lounds, Mr. Jones, Mr. Akins, Mr. Merritt, Mr. Hearn, Mr. McCurdy. MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. Matthes and Mr. Trias (Both Absent - With Notice) OTHERS PRESENT: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director; Mr. David Kelly, Planning Manager; Mr. Hank Flores, Planner III; Ms. Cyndi Snay, Planner III; Ms. Heather Young, Asst. Co. Attorney; Ms. Dawn Gilmore, Administrative Secretary. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 1 CALL TO ORDER Chairman McCurdy 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. Lounds stated that he had seen a news article covering a Board of County Commissioners meeting and their comments concerning the Property Maintenance ordinance that was previously handled by them. He stated that he felt there was possibly a misunderstanding by the Board regarding the information they had worked with. He also stated that he felt the Planning and Zoning Commission/LPA did an excellent job in what they were asked to do and was a little concerned as to why any Commissioner would question their ability to make decisions since they had reviewed and re-reviewed that ordinance for almost a year. He continued that they had been thorough many public hearings regarding that ordinance and handled it to the best of their ability. not sure they had ever thought about that. He stated that he felt himself and maybe some other they were stating that the Planning and Zoning Commission/LPA were not doing what they were asked to do. 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 May 16, 2002 Page 2 AGENDA ITEM 1: April 18, 2002 MEETING MINUTES: Mr. Lounds moved for approval. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0). P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 3 AGENDA ITEM 2: ORDINANCE NO. 02-002 Future Land Use Change: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were both the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. He stated that Staff had asked for additional information from the petitioner and were originally under the impression that they had used up one of their DCA cycles. He continued that they found out that EAR based amendments do not count towards the two cycles they are allowed to submit each year and therefore have time to allow the petitioner more time to compile additional information regarding their requests. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 2 & 3 both be continued until June 20 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 McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Akins stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the June 20, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as recommended. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) to continue this Ordinance until June 20, 2002. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 4 AGENDA ITEM 3: ORDINANCE 02-003 Extension of the Urban Service Boundary: Mr. Kelly explained Agenda Items # 2 & 3 were both the petitions of Lin Indrio, Inc. He stated that Staff had asked for additional information from the petitioner and were originally under the impression that they had used up one of their DCA cycles. He continued that they found out that EAR based amendments do not count towards the two cycles they are allowed to submit each year and therefore have time to allow the petitioner more time to compile additional information regarding their requests. Staff recommended that Agenda Items # 2 & 3 both be continued until June 20 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 McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the June 20, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as recommended. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 7-0) to continue this Ordinance until June 20, 2002. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 5 AGENDA ITEM 4: T&T LAND LTD. - FILE NO. PA-02-003: Mr. Jones stated that he would recuse himself from Agenda Items # 4 & 5. Mr. Kelly stated that Agenda Items # 4 & 5 are the application of T&T Land LTD. He continued th that the applicant had requested a continuance to the July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible to allow time for additional information. He stated that Item # 5 is a rezoning that relies upon the approval of Item # 4 and therefore could not be heard until the plan amendment request had been voted on and should also be continued. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande stated that this Ordinance should be continued to the July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as recommended. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0) to continue this Ordinance until July 18, 2002. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 6 AGENDA ITEM 5: T&T LAND, LTD. - FILE NO. RZ-02-007: Mr. Jones stated that he would recuse himself from Agenda Items # 4 & 5. Mr. Kelly stated that Agenda Items # 4 & 5 are the application of T&T Land LTD. He continued th that the applicant had requested a continuance to the July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible to allow time for additional information. He stated that Item # 5 is a rezoning that relies upon the approval of Item # 4 and therefore could not be heard until the plan amendment request had been voted on and should also be continued. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated that this petition should be continued to the July 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as recommended. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a vote the motion passed unanimously (with a vote of 6-0) to continue this petition until July 18, 2002. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 7 AGENDA ITEM 6: GLASSMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. - FILE NO. RZ-02-007: Hank Flores, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 6 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 Portofino Shores) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to be known as Portofino Shores PUD. He stated that the property was located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Turnpike Feeder Road and Spanish Lakes Country Club Boulevard (opposite Holiday Pines S/D). He continued that the applicant was proposing a residential development of 519 Single-Family Units and a one-acre commercial tract on 185.91 acres of land. He also stated that the project would be known as Portofino Shores - PUD. Mr. Flores stated that the Land Development Code requires 35% of the site to consist of open space, a minimum of 15% of which must be native upland habitat preserved in its natural condition. He also stated that the planned development maintains 37% (38.50 acres) of the project area in total open space. He continued that wetlands account for 6.16 acres; developed lakes account for 28.99 acres; 23.90 acres of native upland habitat has been preserved; and 9.45 acres of common area landscape has been provided. He also stated that the remainder of the project of 117.41 acres consists of those areas designated for residential development. Mr. Flores advised that on November 15, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a previous submittal of this plan known as Silver Lake PUD. He stated that plan consisted of 799 Total Units - 455 Single-Family Lots in Phase I, 344 Multiple-Family Units in Phase II, and one-acre of commercial use in Phase III. He also stated that the Board of County Commissioners directed the developer to resubmit their project with various revisions. He continued that the project was before the Planning & Zoning Commission as a part of that resubmission. He stated that the project was similar to, but less intense than, the project they had recommended for approval previously on November 15, 2001. Mr. Flores stated that Staff had determined that the proposed zoning designation and the Preliminary Planned Unit Development site plan were compatible with the existing and proposed uses in the area. He also stated that the petition met the standards of review as set forth in the Land Development Code and was not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, Staff recommended that they forward the petition to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Mr. Lindsay Walter, Kilday and Associates, stated that they were the land planners for the Glassman Company. He stated that he would like to highlight the revisions and amendments they had made to the original plans presented back in November. He showed a color graphic side-by- side comparison of the original plan and the current proposed plan. He also displayed an aerial photograph that showed Spanish Lakes to the north, Lakewood Park to the west, and Holiday Pines on the opposite side of Turnpike Feeder Road. He stated that the previous site plan was similar to the current proposed plan but that the primary difference is that the entire multiple- family section has been deleted and the new development is solely single-family units. He also stated that upland vegetation has been added in the previous multiple-family unit area due to information obtained from tree surveys. He continued that a connection to Turnpike Feeder Road had also been deleted and now there are only three access points to the development. He stated there would be one at the south end, one at the main entrance and one to the commercial piece. He also stated that the overall dwelling unit count was reduced by two hundred and eighty units. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 8 He stated that the density was reduced from 4.3 units per acre to 2.79. He continued that an access point to the commercial portion off of Spanish Lakes County Club Boulevard was also deleted. He stated that they have had numerous meetings with Staff and they also held neighborhood meetings with the residents of Spanish Lakes as well as other interested parties and everyone was fairly happy with the new plans. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bob Bangert from Holiday Pines questioned if the developer must come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission when they decide to develop the commercial portion of the property. Mr. Flores stated that was not correct and that their request this evening is for the residential portion, as well as the commercial portion. He stated that they would only have to go before the Board of County Commissioners for the final approval of the commercial area. Mr. Bangert stated that the original plan was asking for a convenience store with gas pumps and he questioned if they must come back before the Planning & Zoning Commission for that or not. Mr. Flores stated that the Commission would consider what possible uses there could be on that commercial site tonight along with the rest of the plan. Mr. Walter stated that they are asking the Planning and Zoning Commission for preliminary approval of the site plan. He stated that they have already submitted for final approval of the residential portion of the development but not for the commercial section because they do not have a user for that piece right now. Ms. Dorothy Davis, a resident of Spanish Lakes County Club Village stated that there were many residents present to give their support for this new proposal. She stated that their major concerns about the original project have been addressed and taken care of. She continued that they are a little concerned about a possible increase in traffic and also the speed limit on that road. She stated that they would like to see the County put in a blinking traffic light at the entrance of their development to help slow down some of the speeders on that road. She also stated that the new plan does include sidewalks and that helps the bikers and walkers along that area. She stated that they were delighted with the final plan especially because it allows for more open land. She continued that they had previously had busloads of residents come to the meeting and that there were quite a few residents with her who were in favor of the project. Mr. Hearn complimented the members of the public who participated in the process. He stated that he was excited to see a developer come together with the surrounding residents and come up with a revised plan that everyone can agree on. He continued that public input is very important to the process and he thanked the members of Spanish Lakes and the other surrounding property owners for taking their time to participate in the process. Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Grande asked Staff if the entire parcel is being submitted as a PUD and how the commercial section fits into a Planned Unit Development because he believed it should be a PNRD. Mr. Kelly stated that there is a provision within the PUD to allow for a limited amount of commercial property in the project and this project falls within those guidelines. Mr. Grande questioned if the PUD could be approved with the residential area planned out and the commercial portion not planned yet. Mr. Kelly stated that was allowed. He continued that preliminary approval of any planned development goes before the Planning & Zoning Commission for recommendation and then before the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that the final approval would only go before the Board. Mr. Grande confirmed that the Planning and Zoning Commission would not see the final submitted plan with the commercial portion laid out because it goes before the Board P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 9 only. Mr. Kelly stated that the applicant has stated they would be willing to bring their final plan back before the Planning and Zoning Commission to show the plans for the commercial portion. Mr. Hearn asked Staff to explain why the original plan that they recommended for approval was changed so much and is now back before them again. Mr. Kelly stated that Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the previous plan but when it went before the Board of County Commissioners there was a significant number of people who asked for a change and the developer agreed to make the changes. He continued that the process just improved the project. Mr. Grande stated that he did attend the Board of County Commissioners meeting and that it was his understanding that there was some confusion regarding the Industrial Extraction land being used in the density calculations. Mr. Kelly stated there was a lot of discussion regarding those issues but as far as he could see the previous calculations were correct. Mr. Akins questioned if the configuration of the entrance was Suson and Indian Pines Boulevard were going to require any changes to the Turnpike Feeder Road. Mr. Kelly questioned if he was asking about turn lanes and Mr. Akins confirmed that was correct. Mr. Kelly stated he believed that turn lanes already existed on that road but he would review the plan. Mr. Walter stated that he did confirm with the engineer that full turn lanes were going to be provided at those intersections. 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 Portofino Shores) Zoning District and for Preliminary Planned Unit Development Site Plan Approval for the residential project to the known as Portofino Shores PUD because it is an improved site from what was originally approved and well suits the neighborhoods. He the plan back and making sure full turn lanes be provided before going for final approval to the Board of County Commissioners should also be included in the motion. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 6-0 and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 10 AGENDA ITEM7: GULFSTEAM NATURAL GAS SYSTEM - FILE NO. CU-02-002: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Item # 7 was the application of Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and operation of a segment of the Gulfstream Natural Gas Pipeline to enter St. Lucie County. The subject property is primarily Utilities in zoning. She stated that the proposed pipeline is a 744- mile long interstate pipeline and would originate onshore in Mississippi and Alabama that would travel across the Gulf of Mexico and make landfall in Manatee County, Florida, extending across the state. She continued that the pipeline would enter St. Lucie County at the Martin/St. Lucie County jurisdictional line, travel north to the Midway Road/I-95 Corridor. She stated this is the first segment and once approved the applicant would submit a request for the second Conditional Use Permit for the next phase, which would go from St. Lucie County to Indian River County. She also stated that during the construction of the facility the applicant would be required to obtain all rights from each of the individual property owners in order to construct the pipeline across the properties. She continued that the pipeline would cross three roadways in St. Lucie County: Glades Cut-Off Road, Range Line Road and Commerce Center Drive. She stated that the applicant has already obtained the State and Federal permits for the proposed pipeline and that their request is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive plan. She also stated that it does meet the standards in the Land Development Florida stated he was the Director of Engineering and Construction for Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems. He stated that he had a large map to display and some aerial photography to the Commission and the public could review the entire project to understand that they had pamphlets, which give information regarding the company, the project and various other aspects regarding the entire project. He advised that this project extends crosses approximately fourteen miles of the county. He stated that the project was brought before several other counties within the State through the FEC and there was a lengthy permitting process through the Federal Government to prove there was a public need and necessity for the project. He also stated that they had to prove that the project was constructed in a manner that would minimize impacts to the environment. He stated the FEC issued a certificate of public need and necessity to the Gulf Stream Natural Gas System in February 2001. He continued that the certificate was amended in March 2002 to phase the project into two phases. He stated that the original application that was submitted was to begin construction in June 2001 and complete construction in June 2002. He continued that they elected to build the project in phases due to the size of the project and they will construct it over a two-year period. He also gave a copy of their amended certificate to each member of the Commission. stated that parallel to the FEC process the project participated in the team permitting process with the Florida DEP over the past two years. He stated that DEP did issue a permit to them through that process and was issued in March 2001, which included numerous mitigation sites that are currently nearing completion, the closest being in Lake Wales. He also stated that they are currently nearing completion of construction of Phase 1, which includes all of the facilities in Alabama, Mississippi, the portion that crosses the Gulf of Mexico, and the portion that is in Manatee, Hardee, Polk and Osceola Counties, Florida. He continued that the portion in Phase 2, which includes an extension out through Okeechobee County and into St. Lucie County, is currently scheduled to begin construction in February 2003. He stated they would construct from the west to the east and that the pipeline consists of approximately 14.4 miles of 24-inch P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 11 diameter pipeline and would, for the most part, be co-located with the FEC railroad and the FPL power line right-of-way. He also stated that there is a .35-mile portion, which would extend under I-95. He continued that there is a one main line valve setting and a meter station, which would measure the gas that is delivered to the proposed customers. He stated there are two railroad crossings, two county highway crossings, County Road 609 and 709, and one crossing of I-95. He also stated that there are three horizontal directional drills proposed, which is similar to installing a fiber optic where they drill under the driveway, which would be located at I-95, Rim Ditch and County Line Canal. He continued that 3.5 miles of the pipeline parallels the FEC -of-way. He stated that they are scheduled to begin construction in February 2003 with a completion date of June 2003. Mr. Lounds questioned if they would be going under the SFWM canals and not bridging over sked what the depth under the the canal. Mr. Merritt asked if the wetlands that would be affected would be bored under as well. Mr. ld not and that the wetlands that are crossed would be crossed using conventional pipeline construction techniques. He also stated they would strip off and store the topsoil and the ditch where the pipeline is located would be compacted, the topsoil would be placed back on top so that native base returns. He continued that the wetland would be allowed to re-vegetate back to its original condition. He stated that if it were a wooded wetland they would allow the ten-foot over the pipeline to revert back to an herbaceous wetland. He also stated that they would allow the trees to grow back to within twenty-feet in height and the reason for the ten foot section over the pipeline is because it is mandatory for ariel patrols that are conducted and also mandatory by the FDOT so that the corridor can be seen. Mr. Merritt asked figures were located in their submitted information and that it would be in an area that was already previously been impacted by the railroad as well as the power lines. Mr. Grande wanted to verify that the pipeline would be installed completely underground except estioned correct. Mr. Grande stated he would like those two items added as conditions of the Conditional problem, with the exception of the pipeline markers or protection test leads. Mr. Lounds confirmed that they would be following the already existing utility and railroad right- of-ated that was correct. Mr. Kelly showed the transparency, which illustrated the route of the pipeline. Mr. Kelly also stated that they were stating they would go under I-95 and they had the route turning left before I-95 and going north along the substat extends under I-95 is line 601, which extends to the meter and regulator station and is .35 or 1,800 foot of 24-inch pipeline and would lateral off of the main line. Mr. Kelly confirmed that the drawing fo Glades Cut-Off Road. Mr. Kelly pointed out to Mr. Grande that section 3.01.01(d) specifically explains the need for a conditional use permit. Mr. Murphy questioned if when you come up Glades Cut-Off Road the pipeline goes underneath I-95 and then moves left back towards the power station or if it would stop before I-95 and then make the left and follow the power line P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 12 corridor up and then terminate at the substation. Mr. Liam Grear stated that where the lateral line extends parallel to Glades-Cut-Off Road to the east side of I-95 where it would meet the meter station and tie into a proposed power plant. Mr. Hearn questioned if their decision tonight was to be based on if the petition meets the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code or is it a matter of if they want this in their communities or not. Mr. Kelly stated their major responsibility is to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Grande stated to Mr. Hearn that there is a list of criteria for decision making listed in the Land Development Code which are sufficiently broad and inclusive so that if they feel this is not the right project for the County, that is enough to base their decision on. Mr. Hearn questioned Staff if that was correct. Mr. Kelly stated this application would need to be considered just as any other conditional use application would be. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. 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 11.07.03, 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 grand approval to the application of Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a segment of a natural gas line from the St. Lucie/Martin County line north to the Midway Road/I-95 intersection in the U(Utilities) Zoning District because it is within the scope of the applicants request. Mr. Grande questioned if the motion could include as conditions that the pipeline will be installed completely underground except for the meter stations and valves and that there will be no above ground storage facilities, as agreed to already by the petitioner. Mr. Merritt asked the applicant if at some point in the meter station there would be a need to bring that gas to the surface or any he meter station the piping is brought above ground and there are electronics on the pipe and they do include a two hundred and fifty gallon tank in the event there is condensate in the pipe because it is designed to be dry and that would be covered under exception for those pertinences required by FDOT. 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 11.07.03, 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 grand approval to the application of Gulfstream Natural Gas Systems, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of a segment of a natural gas line from the St. Lucie/Martin County line north to the Midway Road/I-95 intersection in the U(Utilities) Zoning District with the following condition: The pipeline will be installed completely underground except for the meter stations and valves and any pertinence required by FDOT. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 13 Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 14 AGENDA ITEM 8: RAYMOND THOENNISSEN - FILE NO. RZ-02-010: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments stated that Agenda Item # 8 was the application of Raymond Thoennissen for a Change in Zoning from the AR-1 (Agricultural, Residential 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District for property located at 3250 North Kings Highway, which is designated as MXD Airport (COM/IND) on the Future Land Use map. She stated that the purpose of the requested change was to allow the expansion of the existing Airport Storage facility. She also stated that the area in question has been undergoing a change from agricultural land to the more intense commercial industrial land over the past few years. She continued that the subject property is divided by the existing Airport Storage facility to the west, Pippin Tractor to the south, and citrus groves to the north and east. She stated that .7.4 designates this area as MXD Airport Mixed Use Development Area and Figure 1-10D outlines the uses permitted as Commercial, Industrial, T/U, or P/F. This requested change in zoning is not expected to impact any of the public facilities in the area. She continued that the request is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan and meets the standards as set in the Land Development Code. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval of this request. Mr. Raymond Thoennissen, 5910 Silver Oak Drive, stated that this request is just an expansion of what they are currently doing. He stated that when they purchased the property the gentleman before them had it zoned so he could build a private residence on that portion but they would rather use it to expand their storage facility. Mr. Merritt asked who the previous owner of the property was. Mr. Thoennissen stated it was Adam Pippin. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Bob Bangert, Holiday Pines, questioned how close this property is to the new proposed alternate runway, which is supposed to be 2,500 feet above and west of the existing runway that may be established. Ms. Snay stated she would have to check into that for a definite answer. Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Hearn questioned if there were any home in the immediate area. Ms. Snay stated that currently it is primarily grove land with Pippin Tractor and the existing airport storage near there and a church further to the north but no homes within five hundred feet. Mr. Merritt asked if this property borders the airport property. Mr. Thoennissen stated that to the north of the property is a grove and as far as he knows the grove owner still has that property. He also stated that there is approximately 13 acres surrounding this property and Pippin Tractor owns it all as far as he knows. He stated that he believes there was a different grove, which is further north that was included in the expansion of the airport. Mr. Hearn asked Staff what kind of access this property has to Kings Highway. Ms. Snay stated that when it is developed it would be part of the existing access right off of Kings Highway next to Pippin Tractor. Mr. Hearn questioned how that access is provided. Ms. Snay stated it is part of the same parcel of land owned by the airport industrial park. Mr. Jones stated that after considering the testimony presented during the Public Hearing, P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 15 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 Raymond Thoennissen, for a Change in Zoning from the AR- 1 (Agricultural, Residential - 1 du/acre) Zoning District to the CG (Commercial, General) Zoning District, because it is an appropriate use for the site and is an appropriate change. Motion seconded by Mr. Grande. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 16 AGENDA ITEM 9: PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE, INC - FILE NO. RZ-02-011: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items # 9 and 10 would be presented together. She stated that Agenda Item # 9 was the application of Port St. Lucie Tractor Service, Inc., for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District and # 10 was for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an air curtain incinerator for the disposal of land clearing debris for approximately 9.9 acres of land. She stated the subject property is located north of Orange Avenue approximately 5 3/4 miles west of Minute Maid Road and one mile north of the entrance to Wynne Ranch. She continued that within the U (Utilities) Zoning District an air curtain incinerator is allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. She also stated the subject property is surrounded by AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) to the north, south, east, and west. She stated the current uses in the surrounding area are primarily of an agricultural nature. She advised that Table 1.5 of the Future Land Use Element indicates that the U (Utilities) Zoning District is an appropriate Zoning District for the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) land use designation. Ms. Snay stated that an air curtain incinerator as defined by Chapter 17.256, F.A.C., is a portable or stationary combustion devise that directs a plane of high velocity forced draft air through a manifold head into a pit with vertical walls in such a manner as to maintain a curtain of air over the surface of the pit and a re-circulating motion of air under the curtain. She continued that an air curtain incinerator is designed to destroy trees, brush and stumps in a safe controlled burning process. She stated that if the air curtain incinerator is operated correctly the increased combustion time and the turbulence of the air results in the complete combustion of the loaded land clearing debris with a significant reduction in emissions. She also stated that the air curtain incinerator is required to be permitted through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as well as St. Lucie County. She advised that the petitioner is seeking to operate the air curtain incinerator as an alternative to the open burning of debris resulting from the clearing of land. Staff has reviewed this petition and has found that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Code, therefore recommending approval of the Mr. Rick Farrell stated he was an attorney in St. Lucie County and would be speaking on behalf of the petitioner. He stated that the site is located wholly within Wynne Ranch, which is approximately 5,000 acres in the western part of the County. He also stated that the closest it comes to any property line is 1.400 feet and is completely surrounded by orange groves. He advised that the site is one mile north of Orange Avenue so it should not be visible from the roadway and would have negligible impacts on any surrounding property. He also stated that an air curtain incinerator burns vegetative material at between 2,000 and 2,800 degrees, which would essentially leave ash and is a desirable soil amendment that could be spread on the ground to improve soil. He continued that the site would limit its hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and are anticipating that approximately 15-18 loads would be delivered to the site during that time period, which averages less than two trucks per hour traveling on Orange Avenue to the site. He stated that there were some concerns that household refuse would be burned on the site. He advised that the only thing that would be burned would be debris from land clearing by Port St. Lucie Tractor Service. He also stated this would not be a wholesale operation where any company could bring their debris to be burned. Mr. Merritt questioned why they chose to go to the western boundary of the county when there are so many vacant groves that have been taken out of production that are closer to the need. Mr. Farrell stated that initially mostly Wynne Ranch would generate the vegetative material that P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 17 needs to be incinerated. He stated there is already an existing relationship between them and there is a necessity for this type of operation on that site. He continued that he felt it was a good location for this operation because it has no significant impact on any residential or highly trafficked area in that section of the county. He also stated there should be virtually no smoke and no odor generated from this project. Mr. Merritt stated that if they were just burning material on site, they would not have to be before the Planning and Zoning Commission they would just go to the forestry service and get a permit. Mr. Farrell stated that in order to do open air burning they would have to go get a burn permit for the day and operating an air curtain incinerator requires a specific permit from the state. He stated that this facility would be utilized for incineration of vegetative material generated not only from the Wynne Ranch, but also from some other areas where Port St. Lucie Tractor Service does land clearing. Mr. Grande stated that it appears that a similar facility was approved but is not adequately monitored or controlled by the County. He stated that it is a nuisance and a health hazard to the surrounding areas and wants to be sure that any future projects would be maintained and not end up in the same situation. Ms. Snay stated that they would have to have stricter conditions of approval. She also stated that she is aware that Code Enforcement and the Department of She stated that their violations stem from the pit not being the appropriate dimensions and they are stacking material over the manifold which causes the smoke to be more intense. Mr. Farrell stated there is no comparison between how his client operates a business and those who operate the business, which is in violation. He stated that his client has an outstanding reputation in the community and has been very active in the city of Port St. Lucie for more than twenty years. ability to monitor and control these types of operations. He advised that due to the previous problems he is not sure they should increase the number of facilities of this type until it has been demonstrated that the County can do a better job of controlling and maintaining these types of facilities. He stated that when an incinerator of this type is run correctly, it would be a benefit but when it is not, it is a major problem. Mr. Merritt questioned if the regulations they received with their information were County regulations. Mr. Kelly stated that they were State regulations. Mr. Merritt asked if the County has a set of rules regarding incinerator operation. Mr. Kelly stated that the County relies that they have placed items as conditions in the staff report, which are consistent with those rules. He advised that these were the same conditions as the other existing operation received and he stated that part of the problem is figuring out if there are technology issues or operator issues regarding that other company. He stated that the Commission has the option of requesting specific follow-up from the County within a particular amount of time as a condition of approval. Mr. Merritt stated that he is c regarding these issues. He also stated that he did vote to approve the previous request and is upset over the problems it has created and is concerned about approving another one. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed with Mr. Merritt and he feels he is not qualified to determine the risks of a they were qualified to establish the conditions should be hearing these types of petitions without some type of expert testimony from people like the Fire Depart and Solid Waste group. He continued that he is hesitant about this due to the P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 18 problems with the first project that they approved. He stated that this type of facility is a benefit g the operation of them. He advised that he would not want to move forward with this until the County could demonstrate that the existing facilities could be run correctly and be monitored properly. Mr. Akins stated he is concerned with the issues regarding if the existing operators are the problem or the technology is the issue. Mr. Kelly stated that those are the main issues and he believes that air curtain incinerators can operate as advertised but he is not an expert. Mr. Akins stated that he is not sure they are qualified to make that decision at this point because there is no expert testimony that it is an operator error not technology issues. Mr. Grande stated that he feels there are problems on both sides because if it is operator error than the County has not shown an ability to ensure proper operation. He stated there has been no testimony in this application technical problem and thinks the County needs to position their selves to make sure adequate inspection and control of these facilities. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt this application was being prejudged without hearing comments from the public or for the client to form a rebuttal. He advised that he is familiar with the current incinerator that is malfunctioning but would like the Commission to take a pause in their Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about the letter received from the concerns of the existing every issue is as big of an issue. He questioned what could be done with the debris if it is not burned. Mr. Farrell stated that it would need to go to the landfill or be burned in the open air with the smoke and smell. He also stated that there is a crisis looming in the landfill in St. Lucie County and this is an effort to have any materia disposed of by other means. Mr. Hearn asked if this type of material could be ground into mulch. or is illegally buried and causes problems. Mr. Hearn stated that he needs more information from experts regarding the operation of the incinerator before making a decision one way or the other. nt that St. Lucie County is facing a landfill crisis. He stated that over the past few years the remaining life of the landfill has been extended by the effective work of the departments in that area. He also stated that the County has developed a lot of expertise in handling this kind of waste. He advised that he has no negative assumptions regarding this particular petitioner or these types of facilities if they are on. Mr. Kelly stated that it is his understanding that the other incinerator in question is the subject of an active code enforcement case currently and have been monitored, so the ability is there. Mr. Farrell stated that approximately two weeks ago Mr. Wazny was at the site meeting with the operator to correct the problems so the County has been trying to correct any oversight and deficiencies. Mr. approved is not a reflection of the Building & Zoning Department. He stated he was mainly concerned with the historical concerns that the zoning laws are not enforced as strongly as they ject should be approved or denied solely on the basis of the control of the zoning department. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 19 Mr. Jim Alderman stated he is an adjoining property owner of Wynne Ranch and regrets having to state that he is in opposition of this petition because they are friends of theirs. He stated he does not know the petitioner, Mr. Revels, personally but is against the change in zoning. He advised that the Staff report concludes that the activities are acceptable within agricultural zoning and generally agrees with that. However, this particular petition and location is not in the best interest of the public and St. Lucie County. He stated that the public policy of St. Lucie County is to preserve the environment. He stated that from Rim Ditch out Orange Avenue to the county line is all zoned agricultural and that this change would be the first breach in that zoning. He advised that once one change is made, there could be many more to follow. He stated that the landowners protect the agriculture in this area as well as the current agricultural zoning. He continued that he did not feel this would be in the best interest of the County and would be contrary to the public policy of the County to breach this solid zoning. He stated that the Staff report shows that Orange Avenue has a two hundred foot right-of-way, which is true, but it is still only a two-lane road that is deteriorating and there are no foreseeable plans to widen or improve that stretch of road. He also stated that road is heavily used at this time by citrus trucks and general traffic but adding 18-20 huge dump trucks to that road would have a major impact and should be considered. He advised that the report shows that the debris would be collected from St. Lucie County and the surrounding area. He stated that he is aware that the immediate plan is to just service debris from the Wynne Ranch and St. Lucie County construction sites, but once the zoning change is granted there is nothing to stop people from the surrounding counties to send their debris to this incinerator in our county. He also stated that there have been references made that there are no residences adjacent to the site. He stated that there is nobody living right next to the ten acres but there are many residences within a few miles surrounding the property. He asked that this petition be denied because there are other areas of the county that he could go to that are already zoned appropriately and could be used. Ms. Cynthia Adams, 25305 Orange Avenue, Adams Ranch, stated that the Commission was given a copy of her letter with regards to the problems they have had. She stated that in reading the petition she saw they want to utilize the trench system, which is the same system that the present violating site is using. She advised that Norbert Ferman, who owns a manufacturing plant in Palm City for air curtain incinerators, stated that the trench system does not work well for land debris. She also stated that there might be other incinerators that are monitored more closely and are not a problem, but that is not the case with the one near their home. She stated that Leo he had one at the landfil consider putting it out there so it could be monitored more closely. She continued that there is nothing listed in the application or Staff report with regards to the requirements of DEP concerning smoke emissions having 5% opacity. She stated that she spoke with Mr. Wazny and he stated he was aware of those standards. She also stated that the forestry department is not giving permits for air curtain incinerators because there is a ban due to dry conditions. She advised that Mr. Cordeiro told her that none of the land debris goes into the landfill and this it is all chopped, mulched and sold and costs St. Lucie County $20 a ton to do it. She stated that she is sure Mr. Revels runs his business the best that he knows how, but she knows that his trucks debris in the trucks. She advised that the debris is falling out of his trucks and she feels that if she of the trucks on Orange Avenue would have an effect, especially with it not being repaired. Mr. Dick Wymer, 6675 Orange Avenue stated that approximately 4 miles down from him, Scott Ranch is putting all of the mulch on top of his range and when it rains it makes for top soil. He P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 20 questioned why there is a need to burn the debris when there are people in the area willing to use it as mulch. He stated that the adding more trucks to Orange Avenue would not work because the road will not hold up. He also stated that there is a two-foot drop off of that road, which could cause a major hazard and there have already been several deaths on that road. He continued that permits to dispose of their debris. He stated that he feels if it can be mulched and made in topsoil that should remove any need for it to be burned. Ms. Jean Alderman stated she lives on Orange Avenue about a half a mile into Okeechobee County and has rode behind the uncovered trucks and feels they are dangerous. She also stated she feels there is no need to add more trucks onto that dangerous road where they can fall off of the side. Mr. Paul Revels, owner of Port St. Lucie Tractor Service stated he has been clearing lots in St. Lucie County for twenty-one years. He advised that he agrees with the input of the public and that he runs his trucks to the best of his ability. He stated that he has spoken to the drivers with regards to covering their loads and also that the landfill does not want their debris. He continued that St. Lucie County has advised him that this request for an incinerator would be his best bet. operate the incinerator for five years because he is aware it is a nuisance to the community. He stated that he was currently using an incinerator on Midway Road and thought that if he moved what to approved, then his next step would be to grind it into mulch, but he would still have the same amount of trucks on the road. He advised that he was born and raised in St. Lucie County and wants to do what is right for the community. He also stated that he is aware of how dangerous rators of incinerators in the area to coordinate their efforts. Mr. Revels stated there is too much competition for that market and he has always worked for himself and would like to keep it that way. He also stated that he has worked with the City of Port St. Lucie for twenty years and they stipulation that you can only haul out to an area for six months at time without this conditional use permit. He stated he could go and burn the debris for six months and then leave and come county to go further west and that only his trucks are going out to Wynne Ranch. Mr. Merritt debris in Martin or Indian River County. Mr. Hearn asked if Mr. Revels would have any objections to some strict conditions of approval, which would include it being only his trucks, only land clearing debris and only for five years. Mr. Revels stated he would not have a problem with that at all and that is actually what is already requested in the conditional use request. Mr. Hearn stated that he is not in favor of making a decision yet because he does not have the expertise to make the informed decision and would rather postpone this petition until at least the June hearing to allow for expert testimony. He also stated that he would be in favor of seeing a demonstration of how an air curtain incinerator is supposed to work. Mr. Revels states that he has seen them work when they are used properly. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 21 Mr. Lounds asked if Mr. Revels is operating an air curtain incinerator currently. Mr. Revels stated that is correct and it is on Shinn Road just south of Midway Road. He stated the property belongs to Grades Brothers and he burns there for six months and then is off for six months. He also stated that he agrees with the public and their comments about the other facilities excess that he is not currently operating that incinerator on Shin Road because Mr. Wazny made him stop and he was told to move the operations further out of town so as to not bother anyone. Ms. Gloria Wymer stated she resides on Highway 68 and it is a peaceful, quiet, isolated country setting. She advised that she is living in the home of her dreams but it is a twenty-two mile drive on a very narrow road with a canal next to it. She stated that fuel, groceries, and newspapers are at least eight miles north of her. She also stated that she does not have pizza delivery or shopping centers where her home is located and that hospitals, police and schools are far away too. She continued that she chose this country life with a lot of inconveniences and if she wanted the city life with noise, pollution and convenience she would have reside on Indian River Drive where she owns real estate. She requested that pastures, farmland, and groves be kept agricultural because there are plenty of industrial zoned properties around for this petitioner to use. She also stated there are too many accidents with fatalities on that road already and the increased risk and traffic is not necessary. She advised that fire is a terror to agriculture and one error could wipe out miles or acres of land and destroy homes and livestock. She requested that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend denial of the petition. th Ms. Maria Pinitsy, 12399 NE 224 comments. She advised that she has been doing a lot of reading about these types of incinerators and she believes this site is too close to the main road. She stated that from the articles she has read from previous incinerators when the wind blows the smoke would come down into the roadway. She also stated that she is concerned about the increased traffic and the smoke coming down into that road would pose a much higher risk. She continued that she is concerned about who will be regulating and keeping track of this facility to be sure they are doing what they are supposed to. She also questioned what the company was planning to do after the five-year period that kind of time and money for only a five-year period. Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Merritt stated there was a development on Orange Avenue that he voted against because of width of lanes and the substandard conditions, so he could not approve this project, which would add more heavy traffic on that same road until the County widens and maintains the road. Mr. Grande stated that he feels there is no reason to doubt this operator but he did have an existing air curtain incinerator that was shut down by the County. He stated that he believes the applicant has attempted, in good faith, to move the operation further out west but from the public testimony, that is not a suitable area either. He also stated that there are many problems with the previously approved incinerator and would be more sympathetic if he felt there was a great need for another one. He continued that he felt that the Wynne Ranch would rather have the mulch if Mr. Lounds stated that the Commissioners have been shown the deterioration of Orange Avenue and that there are plans from the County to improve the road. He also stated that the traffic on P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 22 that road is horrible and does add to the problem. He continued that when an air curtain t is there. He stated that the key is proper operation and that he feels Mr. Revels is an honest, upstanding operator. He continued that there is the option of putting the debris and sewer sludge together and it is a great way to get rid of all of the waste. He stated that he is concerned about spot zoning and he feels putting utilities zoning in the middle of an agricultural area is an example of that. He advised that he believes the County is working on some issues to handle yard waste for the future of the landfill. He stated that if Mr. Revels agreed to work with the County he felt a lot of good could come of his operation of an incinerator. He also stated that he has mixed emotions about this request but he thinks Mr. Revels need is good but his main concern is the spot zoning issue. Mr. Jones questioned if there is an ability to but a sunset on this zoning change so that it would change back to its current zoning after a specified period of time. Mr. Kelly stated that he did not think there was a way to sunset zoning and the attorney agreed. 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 Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. for a Change in Zoning from the AG-5 (Agricultural - 1 du/5 acres) Zoning District to the U (Utilities) Zoning District because of the potential impact on the neighboring properties and the impact already experienced by prior facilities of the same type. Motion seconded by Mr. Merritt, with further discussion. Mr. Jones asked how many of these types of facilities already exist in the county that are operating under a permit or that operate on a six-month on six-month off basis. Mr. Kelly stated that he believes that only the one other facility that is in violation was previously approved under a conditional use permit. He stated any others that would operate on a six-month on and six- month off basis would not have come before them and he is not aware of them. He advised that he was only aware of the one other facility. Mr. Jones asked Mr. Revels if there were ever any complaints filed by neighbors or anyone regarding his previous incinerator facility. Mr. Revels said he was not aware of any and he has seen that the State and everyone else just pushes it into a pile and burns it. Mr. Jones questioned if that is what he would end up having to do if this conditional use permit was not approved and Mr. Revels advised that was correct. Mr. Revels stated that he believes that the Division of Forestry is aware o violation, was corrected but he had to do it. He stated that according to DEP regulations, he each six-month period. He also stated that he could even lease three or four different parcels on Wynne Ranch and do it there as well. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Grande and Mr. Merritt would consider tabling their motion and stated that he would not withdraw his second because of the major traffic issues on Orange Avenue. Mr. Grande stated that he too would not withdraw his motion because he feels that if there was a need shown for this as well as some more expert information the applicant could P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 23 resubmit an amended petition designed to convince the Commission to change their mind and come back at that time. Mr. Kelly stated that the petitioner could not come back on the same site for two years if denied. Mr. Jones stated that it was suggested that it might be more appropriate to have these operations on land that is already zoned for utilities. He questioned if there is any existing utilities zoning that is in a similarly relatively unpopulated area. Mr. Kelly stated there was not because utilities zoning is not pre-zoned. Mr. Jones stated that he concurred with Mr. Lounds statements and would not support the motion to deny but would rather table this until further information could be obtain. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt in fairness to the applicant, Commission members, County and citizens it would be best to find ways to make everything work together and find effective uses for land debris. He also stated that if this is denied we need to see if there is some other way to make this work for Mr. Revels. He continued that he feels everyone needs to work together with the land clearing industry and have everyone work together to make it productive. He also stated that he feels it would be best to have this continued and allow more time rather than deny it and stop Mr. Revels for two years. Mr. Merritt stated that he is not against the air curtain incinerator, but just feels it is the wrong location because of the traffic on Orange Avenue. He also stated that he believes there is a lot of other land in St. Lucie County where these operations could be put. Mr. Grande stated that he too felt it was the wrong time and place but not the wrong technology. He also stated that the two- year requirement is only for this one particular property and the petitioner could resubmit on another piece of property at any time. Mr. Revels stated that due to the comments of the public and the Commission members he would like to withdraw his applications to see if he could find a better location with more information. Mr. Kelly stated that since there is a motion and a second, they would need to be disposed of. He also stated that traditionally if an applicant withdraws their application before the public hearing it is usually allowed but if it occurred during or after the public hearing then the Commission would need to give their approval for the withdraw. Mr. Grande stated that he finds it very heartening to have a petitioner be so cooperative and would be willing to withdraw his motion to allow the petitioner to withdraw his application. He also stated that he would like to add a personal recommendation that Mr. Revels work with the surrounding property owners at any site to get their support and with improvements. Mr. Revels stated that is agreeable with him. Mr. Grande withdrew his motion for denial. Mr. Merritt stated that he still is very concerned about the traffic on Orange Avenue and that if this applicant were requesting this in any other area of the County, he would probably support it. He stated that he is sure that the technology is out there to do a better job than has been done. Chairman McCurdy stated that he too would support the technology and does thing it is probably in the wrong place because of the road and the distance from where the work is actually being done. He stated that a shorter haul would probably be more profitable if he could find the right spot. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 24 Mr. Lounds stated that he would move to accept Mr. Revels, Port St. Lucie Tractor Services, Inc. request to withdraw their petition for both the rezoning and conditional use permit. Motion seconded by Mr. Jones. Upon a roll call vote the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0). Mr. Hearn questioned if the petitioner would receive a refund since the application was withdrawn. Mr. Kelly stated that he is not entitled to a refund because there were monies spent on advertising, letters to adjoining property owners, signs, and other items. Mr. Hearn questioned that if the applicant resubmits, he would have to pay the fees again. Mr. Kelly stated that was correct. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 25 AGENDA ITEM 10: PORT ST. LUCIE TRACTOR SERVICE, INC. - FILE NO. CU-02- 005: Cyndi Snay, presenting Staff comments, stated that Agenda Items # 9 and 10 would be presented together. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 26 AGENDA ITEM 11: ORDINANCE 02-014 Amend Coastal Management Element of Comp Plan to Incorporate Port of Ft. Pierce Master Plan: Mr. David Kelly stated that Agenda Item # 11 was Ordinance No. 02-014 for an amendment to the Coastal Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan. He continued that the proposed amendment would fulfill State requirements and the St. Lucie County Coastal Management Goal 7.5 that directs the County to develop a new Master Plan for the Port of Fort Pierce. He also stated that the plan would be incorporated into the Coastal Management Element of the St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan as required by Section 163.3178, Florida Statutes since St. Lucie County is the local government entity responsible for the overall management of the Port of Fort Pierce. He also explained that the information provided to the Local Planning Agency was the Data and Analysis and the Goals, Objectives and Policies for the Plan and was generated following a February 19, 2002 joint workshop of the Board of County Commissioners and the Fort Pierce City Council. He stated that based on comments presented at that meeting, and the March 12, 2002 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, this final draft of the Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies is proposed for your consideration. Mr. Kelly explained that before any proposed amendment is transmitted to the Department of Community Affairs for approval, the Local Planning Agency and the Board of County al and local plans; that the adoption of the plan amendment will not adversely affect the public interest, health, safety, and general welfare; that the petition is consistent with the specific goals, objectives and policies governing the proposed amendmen have been met. Mr. Lounds asked Staff who wrote the Port Master Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that the author was the FAU/FIU Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt the information provided was not very clear or easy to read. Mr. Grande asked if only the Goals, Objectives and Policies were under review by them. Mr. Kelly stated that the review is of both sections, but as with the Comp Plan, the intention is to action would be to make a recommendation on the Goals, Objectives and Policies. Mr. Grande stated he was concerned about the information included in the Executive Summary from the the voting and modification process. Mr. Kelly stated that the LPA could make any recommendations they would like within the document but the ultimate goal was with regards to the Goals, Objectives and Policies. He also stated that the Executive Summary was there to give a brief synopsis of what the Plan included. Mr. Hearn stated that the document was the result of four meetings between both sides of the public perception of how they want the waterfront in Fort Pierce developed but it is ahead of the 1989 Port Master Plan. Mr. Hearn asked if the wording is the exact wording that the Board of County Commissioners approved. Mr. Kelly stated that was correct. Mr. Hearn stated that the community has an opportunity to bring a minimum of four hundred jobs to the waterfront with the mega yacht industry. He continued that the type of people that will attract will increase land values in the community and in his opinion, will be the biggest economic benefit the community has ever had. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 27 Mr. Merritt stated that Page 2 of the Staff report, under comments, says that the Data and Analysis section is provided as documentation to support the Port Master Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies and are not proposed for adoption and he requested clarification of that statement. Mr. Kelly stated that the Goals, Objectives and Policies are what are being proposed for adoption questioned who determines if the amendment furthers the public interest, health, safety and general welfare. Mr. Kelly stated that on this issue it would be the Local Planning Agency. Mr. Merritt then stated that on the same page, letter b was too vague. He also stated that he had a problem with putting all of the degradation of the Indian River Lagoon on the Port as stated on page 4, Policy 7.5.1.3. He continued that he did not care for the wording of that entire paragraph. that are not part of the Port Plan and are parts of existing parts of the Comprehensive Plan. He document to demonstrate that the Port Plan itself is consistent with the rest of the Comprehensive Plan. He also stated that those items have already been approved and adopted and are outside of the scope of this meeting. Mr. Merritt questioned who approved and adopted that information. Mr. Grande stated that he believed it came before them previously and that the information is really only included to demonstrate to the LPA that the information regarding Port Plan, which is Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kelly stated that was correct and they provided the information to demonstrate consistency with all of the previously approved State, Regional and Local Plans. Mr. Merritt stated that agreed with Mr. Lounds and felt the information was confusing. He also stated that he did not feel that he could make an informed decision tonight because of the way he felt the information was presented. Mr. Grande stated that the areas of the Port Plan are what they should be reviewing tonight. He continued that the Goals, Objectives, and Policies are in Part 2 of the Draft Port Plan and run from page 23 through page 44 and that is what they are being asked to review. Mr. Merritt stated again that he reviewed the information and really did not feel the information was clear. Mr. Hearn stated that this process has been ongoing for the last five to six years, at the minimum, and that he has been actively involved in it and can state, without reservation, that this plan is a compromise to what he believes the County should adopt. He also stated that he is willing to make the compromise because he believes the mega yacht industry has benefits for the are a benefit to the public or their safety. He stated that the plan has had thousands of hours of would hesitate to adopt this. Mr. Lounds stated that he would like to have more time to study the information to see if he can truly comprehend all of the information included in it. He continued that he has reviewed the information several times over the last week but felt that more time would help him understand it better and would allow him time to make comments and ask questions. Mr. Murphy stated that under the Comprehensive Plan statute requirements, deepwater ports are given great latitude in development of their Master Plans. He continued that the deepwater ports set what they want to do within the port environment. Most ports are operated by a government entity that controls all or most of the property within the port. He stated that the authority of the Board of County Commissioners manages the Port of Fort Pierce. He continued that their responsibility was to develop a policy plan for the operations of the Port. The implementation of the Plan, in terms of P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 28 land use control, is the responsibility of the City of Fort Pierce. He also stated that part of the port planning areas lies within the unincorporated area of St. Lucie County. That makes it Mr. Merritt questioned if the hours invested into the port plan were by paid county employees. Mr. Murphy stated that it was not only Staff, but also many hours of public input. He stated that once the Port Authority adopts a Master Plan for the Port, the controlling Comprehensive Plan must be amended to include that plan. He continued that the County provided the Master Plan for that the Local Planning Agency is being asked to determine if they feel that the Master Plan is consistent with the existing Goals, Objectives and Policies of the adopted St. Lucie County Comprehensive Plan. He stated the Staff analysis points out why they believe the Port Master Plan is consistent with those previously cited policies. He also stated that the LPA is being asked to forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the Port Master Plan meets that criterion. He continued that any questions or comments they have regarding the specifics of any part of the Port Master Plan will be provided to Staff, to allow them time to respond, or to the Board of County Commissioners to send to the Port Authority to address. Mr. Lounds stated that others have had the benefit of many years developing this and he has only had a week to review it. He stated that he would not be able to give an honest opinion, pro or con, regarding this without time to further review and come back with a list of questions. He continued that he would be able to compile that list between now and the next meeting. Mr. Hearn stated that he is concerned about delaying this issue this evening because there are three corporations looking to develop the area and would bring economic prosperity that will never been seen in any other way. He continued that they have been patient over the past year waiting for this process to happen and he feels there has been sufficient time and effort by the Commissioners has already approved this wording and been involved in the process over the past few years and he feels confident that this is as good a plan as they will be able to come up with. Mr. Grande stated that he agreed with Mr. Hearn and has been involved in the process. He also stated that he would like to stress the fact that the parallel process of selecting the developers is under way and the developers have already submitted their qualifications. He continued that the committee has already met and eliminated one of four bidders and the three remaining bidders are going to be asked to submit detailed proposals that conform to the port plan. He stated that he felt it is extremely important that the port plan be put in place as a sub element of the Coastal Element as quickly as possible. He also stated that if there would happen to be any mistakes in Chairman McCurdy questioned if the County owns the property. Mr. Murphy stated that the Board of County Commissioners would be asked to schedule additional presentations from the - responsive and there are three others that the evaluation committee and the Board of County Commissioners will review in a workshop environment. He also stated that the County does not own, other than the Harbor Point property, any property within the port area. He stated that they are looking into acquiring some property for port development. He continued that the Port Master Plan is more than the port activity area and includes issues regarding the jetties, beach re- nourishment issues and Taylor Creek restorations. He stated that those are ongoing projects and in order to secure State and Official assistance funding the port plan must be incorporated into the P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 29 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that those areas are included in the proposed plan and are shown on by the blue dotted line on the map provided in the LPA packets. He continued that if the LPA th feels they need additional time they could come back with their additional questions on May 30 th and then this could still be heard at the Board of County Commissioners Meeting on June 4. Mr. Merritt stated that he has been here for sixty-four years and has seen millions of dollars spent on port studies and that if the County attempted to obtain ownership of the property it would take probably two years to do if the owner is unwilling. He continued that he has not been party to the past port studies and feels that he is being asked to blindly forward something that he is not comfortable with. He stated that he felt the mega yacht corporations are aware that the County andowner and that is why they came to the County and asked them to buy it so they could make the deal with the County. He continued Mr. Hearn stated that he understood where Mr. Merritt was coming from but that their responsibility is to do the best they can with the information they are provided. He continued that the studies he referenced were on if cargo enterprises would be profitable in St. Lucie County and they all felt that it was inconclusive or non-profitable to the County. He also stated that he has participated heavily in the process of this plan and the public has been very involved. He continued that if the members of the LPA wanted more information they could appear at the Board of County Commissioners meeting as members of the public and voice their questions and concerns there. Mr. Murphy stated that the ports develop their master plans and then provide them to the respective unit of local government to be incorporated into their comprehensive plans. He stated Policies of the local Comprehensive Plan. He continued that if they find it is consistent or inconsistent with those, then they make their recommendation accordingly and it gets forwarded on to the Board of County Commissioners for further review. He also stated that if they have specific questions about the plan itself they need to be referred back to the port authority for addressing and clarification. He continued that County Staff does not have the authority to change anything in the Port Master Plan and the only one with the ability to do that is the port authority. He stated that the LPA should make a recommendation one way or the other but can add conditions or comments to the Board of County Commissioners to refer back to the port authority for review and refinement. Mr. Jones questioned that if the Board of County Commissioners refers it back to the port authority, would it be presented to the LPA for review again. Mr. Murphy advised that is correct. Mr. Merritt asked if a separate port authority would be established if the County acquires all of the port property. Mr. Murphy stated he does not have that information. Mr. Grande stated that he believes the structure of the port authority is mutually exclusive from the ownership of the property. He advised that there are four different methodologies for port authorities: elected, appointed, appointed locally, appointed by the Governor or having the Board of County depend on who owns the property and that the role of the plan is not dependant on who owns the property either. He stated that whomever controls the development of the property would have to comply with this master plan. Mr. Lounds questioned if that was correct. Mr. Murphy stated that the plan establishes the basic polici authority. He continued that the land use control, building, permitting and those types of issues, would be the regulatory responsibility of the appropriate permitting authority. Mr. Grande stated P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 30 that this plan would be complied with no matter who owns the property. Mr. Akins stated that he agrees with Mr. Merritt and that the port has been in flux for the forty years that he has been in St. Lucie County. He also stated that he agrees with Mr. Hearn too and that this probably the most dynamic opportunity that the port has had and he would be willing to take a chance on the proposal tonight and put it up for a vote and move on. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Ms. Shirley Burlingham of 5312 Loggerhead Place stated that she has been to every one of the meetings that the consultants had. She stated that there were people from all over the County who were very involved and concerned that attended those meetings. She continued that they went through it and there had been several very long evenings going over these issues. She stated that this is probably the best document that could be developed. She also stated that she felt they had taken everything into consideration and it was well publicized and had been a very long process. She stated that her recommendation would be to send it to the Board of the County Commissioners for review. Mr. Lounds asked Ms. Burlingham if the adoption of this plan would take the opportunity out of this plan for cargo shipments out of the port. Ms. Burlingham stated that she did not believe so and it only limits them to 28 feet in depth. Mr. Lounds stated that deepwater cargo would not be able to come here because of that restriction and this would only allow for light cargo. Ms. Burlingham stated that it does allow for cargo, scientific organizations and university sites too and this opens up many other areas as well. Mr. Hearn stated that the developers that want to come into the Fort Pierce waterfront and build that when Nancy Graham, a representative for the former owner of the port was here she was asked to follow a mixture of upscale development and cargo development on the same piece of upscale developers have walked away because of the cargo issue that was always there. He also stated that the community has made it known over the years that cargo development was not favorable because it is degrading to the environment and the adjacent waterways. He continued that the plan being presented is flexible enough to allow the existing cargo development to continue and also gives some protection to the mega yacht industry. He stated that there are people who have invested a lot of money in this community to live here, to work here, and to enjoy the Fort Pierce waterfront. Mr. Grande pointed out that Policy 1.2.3 on page twenty-four is intended to ensure that the existing citrus cargo facility is protected and the intention of the majority was that none of the existing facilities that are serving the citrus industry in the area would be adversely affected. Mr. Merritt stated that the mega yacht industry was not able to come to terms with Lloyd Bell because of money. He stated that he felt they went to the County so that they could make a better deal with the taxpayers subsidizing it. He stated that he would not blindly approve this. Mr. Lounds stated that his problem is not with the mega yachts because they bring class and stability to St. Lucie County. He continued that he has a problem with limiting the Port of Fort Pierce to the development of mega yachts. He stated that he felt the port could be designed to be mixed-use as was voted on by the citizens of St. Lucie County. He continued that everyone thinks of a giant steam ship coming in when they speak of cargo but that would not be able to happen due to the size. He stated that island transportation is a different class of freight. He also stated that the citrus industry is not a big user of the port today because most of the citrus shipped P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 31 out goes through the ports in Palm Beach and Melbourne. He stated that he feels the future of St. Lucie County is being based on a mega yacht deal and that he needs more information to show that the port can be utilized for a true mixed use as was voted on. Mr. Grande stated that the master plan is geared towards the marine industry and not to the exclusion of cargo but with the aim of co-existing with the existing facilities. He also stated that those developers who are capable of bringing mega yacht facilities would not co-exist with neighbors who negatively impact their facilities. He continued that they are saying they need enough room for their workspace and would like to have recreational areas too. He also stated that it is not one particular company, but the entire mega yacht industry that feels this way. He stated that he feels their request is reasonable and pointed out that they have tried to come to an agreement with the existing owner of the property to no avail. He continued that he feels this is a private owner who has worked against the goals of the County, as a whole. He stated that this private owner has stated that he would like to see a liquid natural gas facility and tank farms. He also stated that he did not feel these types of uses would be beneficial. He continued that private owne Seeing no one else, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. feel he has had enough time to review the information. He also stated that he would be willing to come back in two weeks after he has had additional time to review the document thoroughly. Mr. Merritt asked why it is so important to get a recommendation one-way or the other right away. Mr. Murphy stated that there are some other issues with regard to this issue that are being presented during the month of June and some other matters relative to permitting that require a transmittal action by the Board of County Commissioners in June to keep everything moving. Mr. Merritt questioned if there is a commitment in writing from the mega yacht industry with the County. Mr. Murphy stated that he has not seen one but does not know for sure that there is not one. Mr. Jones asked why the LPA has received this information with such a time constraint. Mr. Murphy stated that the Port Authority acted on this in April and this is the first meeting it could be brought too. He also stated that he realizes there are some time issues but there is are some funding deadlines and other schedule issues but if the LPA needs additional time, he understands. th He stated that if they would like to have a special meeting on May 30 to discuss this issue further after they have all had additional time to review the material, he would schedule it. Mr. Lounds asked Mr. Hearn if he would have any issues with them continuing this issue until the th 30 so they would have additional time to compile some questions and discuss this issue with some people for some information so they could be more productive. Mr. Hearn stated that it is not up to him to decide that and that he has been involved in this plan since day one and feels he is an expert on this issue, as well as Mr. Grande and other members of the community. He also stated that some people in the community want to see a large industrial cargo port in Fort Pierce, but he does not think that is what is best for the future of the County. He continued that this document should be sent to the Board of County Commissioners for their approval and doing so does not take away the right of future boards to make amendments to it. He stated that he is review. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 32 Mr. Hearn made a motion to forward Ordinance No. 02-014 to amend the Coastal Element of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Grande seconded the motion for further discussion. Mr. Grande stated that he felt there were two policies listed that he thought were redundant. Mr. Kelly stated that on page 27, Policy 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 appear to be very similar. He stated in the point it out. Mr. Grande stated that he would leave the motion and leave the wording the way that it is written thus far. Mr. Grande stated that he felt the motion should be made to include a change in wording for Policy 1.2.3 on page 24. He stated that he felt i Pierce shall continue to support limited cargo operations up to but not exceeding their existing affect the progress of this plan. Mr. Murphy stated it would not and would be a comment that is forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for their direction and review. that change would protect everything that is currently there now and the current owners of property that is being used for cargo facilities. This would allow them to extend to the extent that could within their current areas of operation. He continued that the current wording, as it is, is operations is. He stated that there should be a finite limitation and that should be what we have se. Mr. Lounds questioned if someone is currently operating a cargo area would be allowed to continue to operate and expand under this changed wording. Mr. Grande stated that is correct and they can expand to the extent that is physically possible in that area. Mr. Hearn stated that he would amend his motion to include the requested change in language. Mr. Hearn made an amended motion to forward Ordinance No. 02-014 to amend the Coastal Element of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate the Port of Fort Pierce Master Plan to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to change the wording cargo operations up to but not exceeding their existing level and it does meet the criteria listed below: 1. The plan is consistent with State, Regional and Local Plans. 2. The adoption of the plan amendment will not adversely affect the public interest, health, safety, and general welfare. 3. The petition is consistent with the specific Goals, Objectives and Policies governing the proposed plan amendment. 4. Mr. Grande seconded the amended motion. Mr. Jones stated that he is disappointed because he believes at least three people on the LPA P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 33 would like to have additional time to review the document and make comments that would not delay the process. He also stated that he got the impression that Mr. Hearn felt it would be best to have a u members have requested to have more time. He continued that he is in support of the project but would like the LPA to reconsider the motion and allow more time for review. Mr. Grande stated that he understands their point but this will go from them to the Board of County Commissioners for another public hearing. He continued that they have the same opportunity to speak and make their opinions felt at that Commission meeting as they have there. He also stated that he believes that at least he and Mr. Lounds have taken the opportunity to testify at the Commission meeting relating to items that have come before the LPA in the past. He stated that anyone who feels to spend the time between now and the Commission meeting to prepare their comments or their suggestions and bring them up at the Commission meeting. He also stated that he too had hoped that they would have a majority tonight to move this forward so as to not threaten the progress that is very important. Mr. Merritt stated that he felt Mr. Grande was missing the point and that asking for a delay may enable them to send a unanimous vote or if they send it forward tonight, it would be a fragmented vote. e group so as to tell the Board they are unanimous and putting this off for two weeks would not be the end of the world. He continued that this item has been reviewed thoroughly by the public and he apologized that each member of the LPA was not involved because he felt it was an enlightening process. Mr. Merritt stated that it would not have been possible for him to be that involved due to his workloads. Mr. Lounds stated that he felt Mr. Jones brought up some very good points and he feels that he needs the extra two weeks to get some opinions from other people or else he would have to vote against forwarding it tonight. He also stated that he is sure that Mr. Grande and he have come before the Board only as private citizens in the past. Mr. Merritt stated that he is not against or for cargo operations but he stated he was concerned about the time constraints. He also stated that he felt that the mega yacht industry would be requesting tax incentives to be subsidized by the taxpayer because they were not able to come to an agreement with Lloyd Bell. Mr. Hearn stated that the cargo industry, in his opinion, would ask for many more tax incentives than the mega yacht industry. Upon a roll call vote, the motion was approved with a vote of 5-2 (with Mr. Merritt and Mr. Lounds voting against) and forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 34 AGENDA ITEM 12: ORDINANCE 02-015 Amend Land Development Code (Architectural Standards & Non Conforming Lots: Mr. Dennis Murphy, Community Development Director stated that Agenda Item # 12 proposed deals with adjustments to the non-conforming lot restrictions affecting contiguous ownership. He continued that the County currently has a restriction that states if you have a non-conforming lot of record, if you have more than two or three parcels in a row, they are considered to be one parcel unless they are divided by a roadway or easement. He stated that they had recently been approached about a situation down in the south/central part of the County where an individual had three lots together, not separated by anything, and they sold parcels in a private transaction. Those individuals that bought the parcels tried to apply for a building permit and were told their parcel is considered to be part of the parent parcel and was never legally divided under the non- conforming statues. He then stated that Staff was asked by the Board of County Commissioners to bring forward a proposed amendment to address those types of matters. He also stated that this amendment would eliminate the contiguous lot prohibition. He continued that, if approved, a series of lots under common ownership, then it would revert back to the original legal description of the parcel. He stated that if you have five lots, under the current guideline, they would be considered one. He advised that under the proposed amendment it would be considered as five. Mr. Murphy stated that the second amendment is the establishment of Interim Community Architectural Standards that would apply to all areas of the unincorporated County as minimum criteria for all new construction or substantial expansion to existing building or structures or building in areas zoned CN (Commercial, Neighborhood), CO (Commercial, Office), CG (Commercial, General), I (Institutional), RF (Religious Facilities), PUD (Planned Unit Development), PNRD (Planned Non-residential Development) and PMUD (Planned Mixed Use Development). He continued that these design standards were not intended to stifle imagination nor curtail variety but rather they were for the purpose of promoting a more attractive and unified community appearance. He also stated that these interim design standards were patterned after the existing community architectural standards found in the City of Port St. Lucie and were intended to serve as a short-term regulation until a broader set of community design criteria was developed. Staff recommends that you forward draft Ordinance 02-015 to the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Hearn questioned if the Commission could recommend approval with additions to the colors listed on the color chart because he would be hesitant to have such a limit on the colors allowed. Mr. Murphy stated that would be fine. Mr. Hearn asked if they approve the change to non- conforming lots, would they still have to have the proper area for width, depth and road frontage. Mr. Murphy explained that would not be correct this change would make them completely build- able. Mr. Hearn stated he would like to have the ordinance modified to read that it must meet all of the other building criteria too. Mr. Grande stated that he is disappointed that these two items are presented together in one ordinance because they are two very different issues. He questioned if he understood what was presented about a buyer finding that he was unbuildable. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Mr. Grande he felt this would be a risky change because that was an issue where the proper P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 35 usually used for correcting self-inflicted problems but this was an issue that has been a problem for quite some time and this would be the best way to resolve those situations. He continued that the Commission is being asked to review a proposal, if approved, would resolve those types of issues. He also stated that the reason they were brought forward in one ordinance is to help suppress excess paperwork and processing time as well as to save money on advertising costs. He advised that when these types of items are brought before the Commission they do not require a straight approval or denial and can be amended or part approved and part denied. Mr. Grande stated that he did not think the changes to Section 10, non-conforming lots, were warranted and that he is sure Staff can find another way to resolve those situations. He also stated that the standards are a good idea but that on page 3, paragraph d, regarding screening vegetation should not be six feet at time of planting but should have to grow to that height within a certain period of time. Mr. Murphy stated that there are already minimum height restrictions for vegetation but that this particular section only applies to drive-throughs that shall not be located between a primary collector/arterial street and a building and that if they have no other option than they must provide a six-foot minimum vegetation screening. Mr. Grande stated that he feels time of planting. Mr. Lounds questioned if Mr. Grande is considering a large hedge area or screened area to hide ingress or something. Mr. Grande stated that was not correct and he was considering it was an area that would qualify for a requirement of six-feet but just not at the time planted. He continued that he feels the restriction should read that it would mature to six-feet within a reasonable specified amount of time. He stated that on page 4, section f, there was a reference to Chapter II.B, which should actually read III. B. Mr. Grande questioned why on page 5 there is a prohibited façade feature of reflective glass and way he was reading it, it sounded like no reflective glass could be used as a feature to a façade. He continued that he was concerned about interpretation of that because that could mean there could not be a window on the front side of a building that has reflective glass in it. Mr. Murphy stated that he would have to review how the City applies that portion of the code. He stated that there is a difference between glass being reflective for solar treated purposes and mirrored glass. He continued that he felt this was intended to restrict the use of mirrored glass and Mr. Grande stated that he disagreed and could be interpreted differently. Mr. Grande stated that on page 7 they are prohibiting brightly colored glazed tile as a roof B; number 6, on page 10, where it says signs should be kept below the top of roof. He asked if that meant the top of the roof or the bottom of the roof. Mr. Murphy stated that they wanted a roof line and did not want the sign above the top of the roof. Mr. Grande stated that on page 11, Section F, should have City Council replaced with Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Merritt stated that in all his years on the Commission he has never seen so many changes to the code as he has this past year and questioned where the requests are coming from. Mr. Murphy stated that these requests come from community interest and the interest of the County th interpreted. He stated that over on 25 street the medical center has a drive through for ambulatory pick-up and Mr. Murphy stated that would not be considered a drive through. Mr. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 36 cover a drive through pick up window. Mr. Merritt questioned if page 7, item E where it states Mr. Murphy confirmed that was correct. Mr. Lounds stated that under that same section and item that butler buildings cannot be used for anything other than warehouse use. He questioned those businesses that run their business out of lding in the commercial district unless it is for warehouse use only. Mr. Merritt stated that this could affect car dealers and Mr. Murphy stated that could happen. Mr. Lounds questioned if Edwards Road between US #1 and Oleander are commercial and Mr. Murphy stated he believed that area is industrial. Mr. Lounds asked if he wanted to go into a commercial area and put up a butler building for a repair shop, he would be denied. Mr. Murphy explained that was correct. Mr. ortable with that restriction. Mr. Lounds questioned if an example of a drive through pickup would be like what they have at Walgreens or Eckerds. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct but that most of them have their drive through on the side of the building and that the vegetative screening only applies if they have to have it on the front of a building. He continued that he tried to choose standards that have already been effectively implemented in other areas and the City of Port St. Lucie has used theirs for about five years. Mr. Lounds questioned if screening on the backsides of the buildings were a problem. Mr. Murphy stated they have other standards to address that, as does the County. Mr. Jones asked what the urgency of adopting an interim ordinance would be if they plan on creating a permanent ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that rather than have no standards at all until a finalized plan is ready; these were available in the interim. Mr. Jones stated that with regards to the non-conforming lots, he fears that passing that will cause more problems than it is correcting. Mr. Hearn asked if this new ordinance would eliminate manufactured commercial buildings. Mr. Murphy stated that would not happen because if they treat the facades in a way that meets the r. Murphy stated this is just an interim standard and could be changed at a later date. Mr. Hearn stated that he has been involved with non-conforming lot problems and if the language is changed to read; in any district principle permitted structures and customary accessory buildings may be erected on any single lot of record existing before July 1, 1984 provided that the lot meets the provisions of area, width, and frontage for the district in which the lot is located. Mr. Murphy stated that the only problem with his suggested wording would be the term frontage. Mr. Hearn stated that it already states that if the lot does not have any road frontage, as defined in Chapter 2, then proof of recorded legal ingress and egress acceptable to County Attorney must be furnished. Mr. Grande questioned if right now an old platted piece of land was subdivided and each of the subdivided lots conformed to the current requirements for building in that location and each had an accepted ingress and egress they could build on it. Mr. Murphy stated that if you have an non- conforming subdivision and have contiguous holding, you can only get one building permit on that contiguous holding unless it was separated by a recognized street or easement. Mr. Murphy stated that if it was re-subdivided and platted it would have to conform to all current standards but -subdivided. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 37 Mr. Merritt questioned if this problem was created by the 1984 ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that he does believe it was about then and this was correct that. Mr. Hearn stated that he agrees that a permit should not be issued on a lot that is not big enough or has the right width or frontage or dedicated easement without getting a variance as provided. He continued that he does have a problem with if you own two lots and sell one of them that are totally acceptable in size and it is not considered buildable. Mr. Lounds questioned if those issues would be corrected by passing this changed ordinance. Mr. Murphy stated that was correct. Mr. Lounds questioned if the issue is a lot that does not have frontage to drive to and this change would allow it to be built. Mr. existing that says that you cannot build on a lot if you meet the requirements of frontage. Mr. Hearn stated that such a lot must be in separate ownership and not contiguous to other lots in the same ownership because if they are and they are sold, that makes them unbuildable. Mr. Murphy stated that would be correct unless the sixty-foot right-of-way is a public right-of-way or a private roadway built to County specifications. Chairman McCurdy opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no one, Chairman McCurdy closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Jones made a motion to continue Ordinance 02-015 to the June 20, 2002 Planning and Zoning Meeting at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion seconded by Mr. Hearn. Upon a vote, the motion was unanimously approved (with a vote of 7-0) and would be continued to the June 20, 2002 meeting. P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 38 OTHER BUSINESS/DISCUSSION: Next scheduled meeting will be June 20, 2002. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Approved by: _____________________________ _______________________________ Dawn Gilmore, Secretary Stefan Matthes, Chairman P & Z Meeting May 16, 2002 Page 39